SMEPA

– R D 

# 1

- HOUR SO 2 

# NAAQS DESIGNATION

MODELING REPORT

South Mississippi Electric Power Association >

R D Morrow , Sr. Generating Plant, Lamar County, MS

Prepared By:

TRINITY CONSULTANTS

One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1830

Metairie, Louisiana

- 70001

(504) 828

- 5845

August 2015

151902.0007



## Environmental so lutions delivered uncommonly wellSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants i 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

- 1

2. INTRODUCTION 2

- 1

3. 1

- HOUR SO 2 DESINGATION MODELING PROCEDURES 3

- 1

3.1. Model Selection

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3

- 1

3.2. Meteorological Site Selection and Representativeness

................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 1

3.3. AERMET preprocessing

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3

- 7

3.3.1. Surface Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 7

3.3.2. Upper Air Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3

- 7

3.3.3. Land Use Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 7

3.3.4. AERMET Processing Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 8

3.4. Coordinate System

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 3

- 8

3.5. Receptor Locations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 3

- 9

3.6. Terrain Elevations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 3

- 9

3.7. Building Influences

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 9

3.8. Urban/Rural Determination

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 3

- 10

3.9. SMEPA Source Identification and Characterization

................................ ................................ ................... 3

- 10

3.10. Emissions Inventories for Nearby Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ . 3

- 10

3.11. Model Input

– Source Parameters

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 11

3.12. Background Concentration

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 12

3.12.1. Comparison of Near

- by Emissions Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 12

3.12.2. Comparison of Surface Characteristics and Land Use Types

................................ ................................ .......... 3

- 12

4. 1

- HOUR SO 2 DESIGNATION MODELING RES ULTS 4

- 1

4.1. Modeling Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4

- 1

5. ELE CTRONIC FILES 5

- 1

APPENDIX A: MODELING PROTOCOL A

APPENDIX B: MS AERMO D READY MET FILES

- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTA TION B

APPENDIX C: RAIN CII CARBON HOURLY EMISSI ONS CALCULATIONS C

APPENDIX D: AERSURFA CE OUTPUT D

APPENDIX E: SO 2 MONITOR VALUES REPOR T ESMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants ii 

## L IST OF FIGURES

Figure 3

- 1. Terrain Map around the Bobby L Chain Municipal Airport Station within Approximately 3 Km

Radius 3

- 3

Figure 3

- 2. Terrain Features around the Morrow Plant within Approximately 3 Km Radius 3

- 4

Figure 3

- 3. Land Use within 1 Km and 3 Km Radius around the Meteorological Station 3

- 5

Figure 3

- 4. Land Use within 1 Km and 3 Km Radius around the Morrow Plant 3

- 6

Figure 3

- 5. Land Use within 1 Km and 3 Km Radius around the Jackson Monitoring Station (Site ID:

280490020) 3

- 14

Figure 4

- 1. Contour Plot Showing the Concentration Gradient 4

- 1SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants iii 

## LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

- 1. SO 2 Designation Modeling Results 1

- 1

Table 3

- 1. Comparison of Surface Characteristics Values between Meteorological Station and Morrow Plant 3

- 2

Table 3

- 2. AERSURFACE Input Parameters 3

- 8

Table 3

- 3. GEP Stack Height Analysis 3

- 9

Table 3

- 4. SMEPA Source Identification and Location 3

- 10

Table 3

- 5. Nearby SO 2 Source Analysis 3

- 11

Table 3

- 6. Source Parameters for SO 2 Designation Modeling 3

- 11

Table 3

- 7. Surface Characteristics Analysis of Jackson Monitoring Station and the Morrow Plant 3

- 13

Table 4

- 1. 4 th

- Highest Averaged Modeled Concentration based on Actual Emission Rates (2012

- 2014) 4

- 2

Table 5

- 1. AERMOD Input and Output File Descriptions for the Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Analysis 5

- 2

Table 5

- 2. Meteorological Files Used for the Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Analysis 5

- 2

Table 5

- 3. Other Associated F iles 5

- 2SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 1

- 1 

## 1. E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

The South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) owns and operates the R D Morrow , Sr. Generating

Plant (Morrow Plant ). SMEPA conducted sulfur dioxide (S O 2 ) de signation m odeling to determine whether t he

ar ea around the Morrow Plant should be designated as attainment or no n

- attainment

. SMEPA has submitted a

SO 2 designation modeling protocol (See Appendix A) to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ) i n June 2015 and was also approved by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (U. S. EPA) via

conference call on July 09, 2015. SMEPA conducted the SO 2 designation modeling using the U.S. EPA’s preferred

air dispersion model for near

- field regulatory applications, the American Meteorological Society/Environmental

Protection A gency Regulatory Model (AERMOD). SMEPA used the following dispersion modeling methodology

to determine the designation status of the area around the Morrow Plant :

Used the most recent three (3) years of act ual emissions (2012, 2013, and 2014);

Used three (3) years of meteorological data (2012, 2013, and 2014);

Used actua l stack heights rather than limiting model stack heights to GEP height ; and

Included near

- by sources from the regional inventories provided by the MDEQ

.

SMEPA conducted the dispersion modeling in accordance with the modeling protocol approved by the U.S. EPA.

Table 1

- 1 shows the dispersion modeling results and indicat es the area around the Morrow Plant should be

classified as “attainment ” a nd SMEPA is not caus ing or contributing to any violation s of the 1

- hour SO 2

N ational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

. Detailed modeling procedure and analysis are discussed in the

following sections.

Table 1

- 1 . SO 2 Designation Modeling Results

Years 2012 2013 2014

4 th Maximum Modeled Concentration a

,  g/m 3 125.11 123.02 131.42

Design Value Concentration b

,  g/m 3 115.17 123.02 95.89

4 th Highest Averaged Concentration (2012

- 2014) c

,  g/m 3 (ppb) 111.36 (42.50)

Background Concentration 1

,  g/m 3 (ppb) 36.65 (13.99)

NAAQS + Background,  g/m 3 (ppb) 148.01 (56.49)

NAAQS 2

,  g/m 3 (ppb) 196.34 (75.00)

NAAQS Exceedance (Yes/No) No

a The maximum modeled concentration represents the 4 th highest maximum concentration predicted for 2012, 2013, and 2014.

b Design value concentration is the modeled concentration in a receptor that yielded the design value of the NAAQS (average of

4 th highest concentration for three years)

c 4 th highest ave raged concentration is the design value of the NAAQS (average of design value concentrations of three years)

1 The background concentration was provided by the MDEQ obtained from the air monitoring station (Site ID: 280490020) at

Jackson, MS

2 SO 2 NAAQS of 75 ppb or 0.075 ppm was obtained from http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html . In accordance with the Primary

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2010

- 06

- 22/html/2010

- 13947.htm )

final rule, Table B

- 1 footnote, ppm was converted to  g/m 3 by multiplying by M/0.02447, where M is the molecular weight (64.06

lb/lbmol).SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 2

- 1 

## 2. INTRODUCTION

The Morrow Plant is located in Lamar County, Mississippi , which is currently classified as attainment for all

criteria pollutants 3

. The Plant is currently operating under the Title V Permit No. 1440

- 00021

, issued by the

MDEQ.

On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA revised the primary NAAQS for SO 2 by establishing a 1

- hour standard at a level of

75 parts per billion (ppb) 4 , which i s equivalent to 196 .34  g/m 3

. The form of the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS standard is

a 3

- year average of the 99 th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1

- hour average

concentrations.

Following the U.S

. EPA’s May 2014 publication of the proposed Data Requirements Rule, the U.S. EPA was sued

for “ failing to undertake a certain nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401

- 7671q,

and that such alleged failure is actionable under section 304(a)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2) ”. The lawsuit

resulted in a Consent Decree that was entered on March 2, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of California 5 . As a result of the Consent Decree, an additional design ation phase was added to the two

designation phases that were already included in the U.S. EPA’s May 2014 proposed Data Requirements Rule.

The additional phase affects areas with stationary sources that meet specific emission criteria laid out in the

Cons ent Decree. The U.S. EPA released a memorandum on March 20, 2015 (referred to herein as the 2015 SO 2 Area Designation Guidance) to the Regional Directors clarifying the path forward for states with sources affected

by the decree

. 6

The Consent Decree requi res the U.S. EPA to complete a round of SO 2 designations for the areas affected by the

Consent Decree by July 2, 2016. The U.S. EPA is expected to release a final version of the Data Requirements

Rule around September 2015. It is expected that the Data R equirements Rule will address all three remaining

phases of the designation process.

The Morrow Plant meets the emission criteria laid out in the consent decree. The U.S. EPA has listed the Morrow

Plant as a source exceeding the established threshold with a ctual annual emissions of 3,948 TPY and emission

rate of 0.63 lbs/MMBTU based on 2012 emissions data

. 7 Thus, the U.S. EPA is required to designate the area

surrounding the M orrow Plant by July 2, 2016. Because the Consent Decree does not provide sufficient time to

commission representative ambient air monitors, SMEPA has decided to utilize an air dispersion model ing

analysis to determine attainment status. Therefore, in accordance wit h the EPA’s May 2014 proposed Data

Requirements Rule 8 , an SO 2 designation for the area surrounding the Morrow Plant will be based on the

predictions of the air dispersion model ing analysis presented in this modeling report . The U.S. EPA published a

draft Technical Assistance Document (TAD) in December 2013 describing the approach that should be

considered when conducting dispersion modeling in support of a 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS designation 9 (referred to

herein as the 2013 SO 2 NAAQS Modeling TAD). To determine the attainment status, Trinity Consultants

3 http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html

4 http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

. Final rule signed June 2, 2010

5 http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/201503FinalCourtOrder.pdf

6 http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20150320SO2designations.pdf

7 http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/designations/pdfs/sourceareas.pdf

8 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0711

- 0001

9 http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/SO2ModelingTAD.pdfSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 2

- 2 (Trinity) conducted the dispersion modeling on behalf of SMEPA to predict the SO 2 concentrations in the area

surrounding the Morrow Plant and the results are attached to thi s report. This modeling report includes the

following:

1

- Hour SO 2 Designation Modeling Procedure

1

- Hour SO 2 Designation Modeling Results

Electronic Files

Appendix A

– Modeling Protocol

Appendix B

– MDEQ Met Data Guidance

Appendix C

– Rain C II Carbon Hourly Emissions Calculations

Appendix D

– AE RSURFACE Output

Appendix E

– SO 2 Monitor Values ReportSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 1 

## 3. 1

- HOUR SO 2 

## DESINGATION MODELING PROCEDURES

3.1. MODEL SELECTION

Trinity perform ed 1

- hour SO 2 modeling using EPA’s preferred AERMOD Version 14134 using input files

developed using Trinity’ s BREEZE Software. AERMOD is a steady

- state Gaussian dispersion model based on

planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and

elevated sources, and bo th simple and complex terrain 10

.



### 3.2. METE OROLOGICAL SI TE SELECTION AND REP RESENTATIVENESS

SMEPA used the meteorological data collected at the B obby L Chain Municipal Airport S tation (WBAN: 13833 ).

SMEPA believes that the meteorological data collected at this site is representative for the Morrow Plant based

o n the proximity, surface characteristics, and land use types. The Bobby L Chain Municipal Airport Station is

approximately 9 miles from the center of the Morrow Plant

. Terrain between the project site and the

meteorological statio n is generally flat and there are no complex or elevated terrain features. A visual inspection

of the te rrain map indicated that the terrain features are similar for the meteorological station and the Morrow

Plant . The terrain maps are shown in Figure 3

- 1 and Figure 3

- 2. Also , the surface characteristic comparison was

conducted between the meteorological station and the Morrow Plant

. Table 3

- 1 shows the surface

characteristics (i.e., albedo, Bowen

- ratio, and sur face roughness) values of the meteorological station and the

Morrow Plant

. In accordance with U.S. EPA guidance, these values were determined using the latest version of

the U.S. EPA AERSURFACE tool (version 13016) with a 1 km radius used to define surfac e roughness

. 11 Please

refer Appendix D for AERSURFACE output. The albedo and Bowen

- ratio values were similar for both the

meteorological station and the Morrow Plant

. As a typical case, t he difference in the surface roughness values

between the meteorolo gical station and the Morrow Plant is due the difference in the land use types. The

meteorological station has varying land use types for each sector whereas the Morrow Plant has same land use

type for each sector

, mostly of mixed forest . The land use types around the meteorological station and the

Morrow Plant within a 3

- Km radius shown in Figure 3

- 3 and Figure 3

- 4

. The surface characteristics used to

process the meteorological data may result in a more conservative concentrations as a result of the smaller

roughness lengths. The smaller roughness length in the pre

- processed data would result in less turbulent

conditions. The less turbulent condition would not facilitate good dispersion, thus resulting in higher impacts.

Based on the proximity, top og raphy, and surface characteristics analysis, SMEPA concludes that meteorological

data collected at this meteorological station (KHBG) would be representative of the meteorological conditions at

the Morrow Plant

.

10 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. “AERSURFACE User’s Guide.” EPA

- 454/B

- 08

- 001, Revised 01/16/2013. Available

Online: http ://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aersurface_userguide.pdfSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 2 Table 3

- 1 . Comparison of Surface Characteristics Values between Meteorological Station and Morrow

Plant

Month Sector Surface Characteristics Analysis

Albedo Bowen

- Ratio Surface Roughness

Met

Station Morrow

Plant Met

Station Morrow

Plant Met

Station Morrow

Plant

1 1 0.15 0.14 0.63 0.79 0.037 0.309

2 1 0.15 0.14 0.63 0.79 0.037 0.309

3 1 0.14 0.14 0.48 0.6 0 0.051 0.37 0

4 1 0.14 0.14 0.48 0.6 0 0.051 0.37 0

5 1 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.068 0.46 0

6 1 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.068 0.46 0

7 1 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.068 0.46 0

8 1 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.068 0.46 0

9 1 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.068 0.46 0

10 1 0.15 0.15 0.63 0.79 0.058 0.455

11 1 0.15 0.15 0.63 0.79 0.058 0.455

12 1 0.15 0.14 0.63 0.79 0.037 0.309SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 3 Figure 3

- 1

. Terrain Map around the Bobby L Ch ain Municipal Airport Station within A pproximately 3 Km

RadiusSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 4 Figure 3

- 2

. Terrain Features around the Morrow Plant within A pproximately 3 K m RadiusSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 5

Figure 3

- 3

. Land Use within 1 Km and 3 K m Radius around the Meteorological StationSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 6

Figure 3

- 4 . Land Use within 1 Km and 3 K m Radius around the Morrow PlantSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 7 

### 3.3. AERMET P REPROCESSING

AERMOD

- ready meteorological data was prepared u sing V ersion N o. 14134 of the U.S. EPA’s AERMET

meteorological processing utility

. The met data was generated in accordance with the MS AERMOD Ready Met

Files

– Supporting Documentation, July 01, 2014 as attached in Appendix B

.



### 3.3.1. Surface Data

Raw hourly surface meteorological data were obtained from the U.S. National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) for

Bobby L Chain Municipal Airport Station (KHBG, WMO ID: 724560) in the standard ISHD format. This data was

supplemented with TD

- 6405 (so

- called “1

- minute”) wind data from KHBG. The 1

- minute wind data was

processed using the latest version of the U.S. EPA AERMINUTE pre

- processing tool (version 14337). The quality

of the 1

- minute data was verified by comparison to the hourly ISHD data from KHBG.



### 3.3.2. Upp er Air Data

In addition to surface meteorological data, AERMET requires the use of data from a sunrise

- time upper air

sounding to estimate daytime mixing heights. Upper air data from the nearest U.S. National Weather Service

(NWS) upper

- air balloon statio n, located in Jackson, Mississippi (WBAN: 03940), was obtained from the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in FSL format. AERMOD

- ready meteorological data was

prepared using V ersion N o. 14134 of the U.S. EPA’s AERMET me teorological pro cessing utility . The met data

was generated in accordance with the MS AERMOD Ready Met Files

– Supporting Documentation as attached in

Appendix B

.



### 3.3.3. Land Use Data

Parameters derived from the analysis of land

- use data (surface roughness, Bowen ratio, and alb edo) are also

required by AERMET. In accordance with U.S. EPA guidance, these values will be determined using the latest

version of the U.S. EPA AERSURFACE tool (version 13016). 12 The AERSUFACE settings that were used for

processing are summarized in Tabl e 3

- 2 below. The met station coordinates were determined by visually

identifying the met station using Google Earth. NLCD 1992 (CONUS) Land Cover data used in AERSURFACE

processing was obtained from the Multi

- Resolution Land Use Consortium (MRLC).

U.S . EPA guidance dictates that on at least an annual basis, precipitation at a surface site should be classified as

wet, dry, or average in comparison to the 30

- year climatological record at the site. This determination is used to

adjust the Bowen ratio est imated by AERSURFACE. To make the determination, annual precipitation in each

modeled year (2012 to 201 4) was compared to the 1981 to 2010 climatological record for K HBG

. 13 The 30 th and

70 th percentile values of the annual precipitation distribution from 1981 to 2010 were calculated. Per U.S. EPA

guidance, each modeled year was classified for AERSUFACE processing as “wet” if its annual precipitation was

higher than the 70 th percentile value, “dry” if its annual precipitation was lower than the 30 th percentile value,

and “average” if it was between the 30 th and 70 th percentile values. The values that were used in this case are

summarized in Table 3

- 1. The values are based on the MS AERMOD Re ady Met Files

– Supporting

Documentation attached as Appendix B

.

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. “AERSURFACE User’s Guide.” EPA

- 454/B

- 08

- 001, Revised 01/16/2013. Available

Online: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aersurface_userguide.pdf

13 National Climactic Data Center. 2010 Local Climatological Data (LCD).SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 8 Table 3

- 2 . AERSURFACE Input Parameters

AERSURFACE Parameter Value

Met Station Latitude 31.269483

Met Station Longitude

- 89.256108

Datum NAD 1983

Radius for surface roughness (km) 1.0

Vary by Sector? Yes

Number of Sectors 12

Temporal Resolution Monthly

Continuous Winter Snow Cover? No

Station Located at Airport? Yes

Arid Region? No

Surface Moisture Classification Average



### 3.3.4. AERMET Processing Options

Standard AERMET processing options were used

. 14

, 15 The options elected included :

MODIFY keyword for upper air data

THRESH_1MIN 0.5 keyword to provide a lower bound of 0.5 m/s for 1

- minute wind data

AUDIT keywords to provide additional QA/QC and diagnostic information

ASOS1MIN keyword to incorporate 1

- minute wind data

NWS_HGT WIND 10 keyword to designate the anemometer height as 10 meters

METHOD WIND_DIR RANDOM keyword to correct for any wind direction rounding in the raw ISHD data

METHO D REFLEVEL SUBNWS keyword to allow use of airport surface station data

Default substitution options for clou d cover and temperature data was not overridden

Default ASOS_ADJ option for correction of truncated wind speeds w as not overridden

ADJ_U* beta optio n was not used



### 3.4. COORDINATE SYSTEM

In all modeling input and output files, the locations of emission sources, structures, and receptors were

represented in Zone 1 6 of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system using datum World

Geodetic System (WGS) 1984, which is comparable to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83). The Morrow

Plant is approximately centered at UTM, Zone 1 6 , coordinates 272,009 meters East and 3,456,266 meters north

. The base elevation of the facility is approximately 79 mete rs above mean sea level.

14 Fox, Tyler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. “Use of ASOS Meteorological Data in AERMOD Dispersion

Modeling.” Available Online: http://www .epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20130308_Met_Data_Clarification.pdf

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “User’s Guide for the AERMOD Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET)”.

EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 002, November 2004).SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 9 

### 3.5. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

The dispersion modeling used a combination of a Cartesian grid system centered on the Morrow Plant and

discrete receptor points along the facility’s fence line. Receptors were placed at 25

- meter intervals along the

fence line, 100

- meter intervals out to a distance of 2.5 kilometers (km) and at 500

- meter intervals out to 10 km

.



### 3.6. TERRAIN ELEVATIONS

The terrain elevation for each receptor, building, and emission source was determined using USGS 1/3

- arc

second Nationa l Elevation Data (NED). The NED, obtained from the USGS, has terrain elevations at 10

- meter

intervals. Using the AERMOD terrain processor, AERMAP (version 11103), the terrain height for each receptor,

building, and emission source included in the model w as determined by assigning the interpolated height from

the digital terrain elevations surrounding each source.

In addition, AERMAP was used to compute the hill height scales for each receptor. AERMAP searches all NED

points for the terrain height and lo cation that has the greatest influence on each receptor to determine the hill

height scale for that receptor. AERMOD then uses the hill height scale in order to select the correct critical

dividing streamline and concentration algorithm for each receptor.



### 3.7. BUILDING INFLUENCES

The U.S. EPA’s Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) with Plume Ri se Model Enhancements (PRIME) (V ersion

04274), was used to account for Morrow Plant building downwash influences in the model. The purpose of a

building downwash analys is is to determine if the plume discharged from a stack will become caught in the

turbulent wake of a building (or other structure), resulting in downwash of the plume. The downwash of the

plume can result in elevated ground‐level concentrations of SO 2

. SMEPA did not include any buildings from

nearby sources in the model. For both the scenarios, actual height was lower than the GEP stack height. Table

3

- 3 shows the GEP Stack height analysis for both modeling scenarios. T he actual stack heights modeled are less

than the GEP Stack height, which satisfies the GEP requirement of 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W.

Table 3

- 3

. GEP Stack Height Analysis

Stack Name Actual Stack

Height, m GEP Stack

Height , m 16 Complies GEP

Requirements

Unit 1

– AA

- 001 123.50 1 44.17 Yes

Unit 2

– AA

- 002 123.50 144.51 Yes

RainCII 34.7 5 65 Yes

16 GEP Stack height was calc ulated using Equation 1 from Technical Support Document for Determination of Good

Engineering Practice Stack Height, pg. 2SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 10 

### 3.8. URBAN/R URAL D ETERMINATION

SMEPA used the Auer Method to determine the urban or rural classification. Accordingly, the following

procedure was used by SMEPA to determine the classification:

The land use types within a 3 Km radius from the center of the Morrow Plant w ere analyzed;

In accordance with Appendix W Guideline on Air Quality Models , i f the land use types I1, I2, C1, R2, and

R3 account for 50 percent or more of the total area analyzed, urban dispersion coefficients should be

used.

Based on the visual inspection of the land use types shown in Figure 3

- 4, approximately 65% of the area

rep resents mixed forest (Deciduous and Evergreen) and approximately 20% of the are a represents

Pasture /Hay

. Hence, SMEPA used the default “rural” AERMOD option s for this modeling.



### 3.9. SMEPA SOURCE I DENTIFICATION AND C HARACTERI Z ATION

There are two boilers at the Morrow Plant were analyzed in this dispersion modeling . The stacks for the boilers

were modeled as point sources. Table 3

- 4 below summarize s the stack parameters used for the dispersion

modeling

. Trinity used the hourly data collected by the Continuous Em ission Monitoring System (CEMS) for

2012, 2013, and 2014. The CEMS data was provided by SMEPA. AERMOD has several options for emissions to

temporally vary within a model simulation. CEMS data w ere incorporated in the dispersion modeling using the

hou rly varying emissions options (AERMOD keyword: HOUREMIS) to represent the variability in emissions

accurately. In addition, SMEPA incorporated varying hourly temperature and air flow rate data corresponding to

the hourly emission s data

. For any missing hourly emission data, the maximum of the previous hourly emission

data and the next hourly emission data was used to be conservative. If more than one hourly data were missing,

the ma ximum daily hourly data of that particular data was used

. Please see attached modeling CD for the Hourly

Emission Rates File and supporting CEMS data.

Please note that although there are additional sources of SO 2 emissions (all Compression Ignition Emergency

Engines) in operation at the M o rrow Plant , the 2013 SO 2 NAAQS Modeling TAD , Section 5.4, states that sources

such as emergency engines/fire water pumps do not need to be modeled because they are intermittent

, are not

in continuous operation , and would have negligible contribution to the annual distribution of the daily

maximum 1

- hour SO 2 concentration . SMEPA believes that emissions from the emergency equipment fit these

criteria; therefore, they have not been included in this analysis.

Table 3

- 4 . SMEPA Source Identification and Location

Emission

Point UTM East

(m)* UTM North

(m)* Stack

Height

(ft.) Stack

Diameter

(ft.) Exit

Velocity

(ft./s) Exit

Temperature

(F) Emission

Rate

(lb/hr)

AA

- 001 271955.1 3456195 405.2 16.7 CEMS CEMS CEMS

AA

- 002 271962.1 3456195 405.2 16.7 CEMS CEMS CEMS

*UTM Zone 16, NAD 83



### 3.10. EMISSION S INVENTOR IES FOR NEARBY SOURC ES

Other sources of SO 2 emissions in the area surrounding the Morrow Plant were included in the model. SMEPA

request ed the emission s inventory from the MDEQ. Based on the emissions inventory data provided by theSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 11 MDEQ, SMEPA performed the analysis seen in Table 3

- 5 and described below to deter mine which nearby

sources to include. In accordance with the modeling protocol, SMEPA has excluded all the near

- by SO 2 s ources

with emissions less than 10 tpy.

Table 3

- 5

. Nearby SO 2 Source Analysis

Source Distance

from

SMEPA

(km) Plant

- Wide Actual SO 2

Emissions, tpy Selected for SO 2 Designation

Modeling?

(Yes/No) Reason

2012 2013 2014

Rain CII Carbon,

LLC 3.85 717.22 718.3 498.63 Yes N/A

Leaf River

Cellulose, LLC 33.42 62.65 65.38 Not

Available No Emissions are small

relative to distance

from SMEPA

SMEPA did not include the SO 2 emissions from the Leaf River Cellulose, LLC facility based on the relative

emission rate for the facility compared with the distance from the Morrow Plant . For the worst

- case emissions

year, the ratio is 1.95 (65.38 TPY/33.42 km), which indicates that t he source is relatively small and distant from

the Morrow Plant and can be represented through use of a background concentration rather than explicitly

modeled. SMEPA included SO 2 emissions from the Rain CII Carbon, LLC facility due to its close proximity to

SMEPA in conjunction with their annual SO 2 emissions.



### 3.11. MODEL INPUT

– SOURCE PARAMETERS

Table 3

- 6 shows the emission sources included in this SO 2 designation modeling. For this mode ling, SMEPA

included the following sources :

Unit 1

– No. 1 Coal/Fuel Oi l Fired Boiler ;

Unit 2

– No. 2 Coal/Fuel Oil Fired Boiler ; and

RainCII

– Rain CII Carbon Facility (Source parameters are provided by the MDEQ)

Table 3

- 6

. Source Parameters for SO 2 Designation Modeling

Emission

Point UTM East

(m)* UTM North

(m)* Stack

Height (ft.) Stack

Diameter

(ft.) Exit

Velocity

(ft./s) Exit

Temperature

(F) Emission

Rate

(lb/hr)

AA

- 001 271955.1 3456195 405.2 16.7 CEMS CEMS CEMS

AA

- 002 271962.1 3456195 405.2 16.7 CEMS CEMS CEMS

RainCII 272373.5 3452147 114 8.60 16.9 405 See

Appendix C

*UTM Zone 16, NAD 83SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 12 

### 3.12. BACKGROUND CONCENTRA TION

SMEPA opted to choose a “regional monitor” for the purpose of defining a background concentration since there

are no SO 2 monitoring stations located at the Morrow Plant

. Based on MDEQ’s recommendation, SMEPA selects

the Jackson Monitor ing Station (Hinds County) to obtain the background SO 2 concentration. In addition, SMEPA

performed a qualitative analysis to c ompare the Jackson Monitor s ite with the Mo rrow Plant site based on near

by emission sources, surface characteristics , and land use types. Based on the comparison, SMEPA believes that

the Jackson Monitor ing Station (Site ID: 280490020) is representative of the Morrow Plant

.



### 3.12.1. Comparison of Near

- by Emissions Sources

The only facility with significant SO 2 emissio ns in the vicinity (i.e., within 50 Km) of the Jackson Monitor ing

Station is the Thomasville Gas Plant with 4,506 tpy i n 2014 and the next largest would be Nucor Steel with 11

tpy in 2014. 17 T his represents a simil ar or possibly conservative distribution of sources impacting the monitor

to those in the vicinity of the Morrow Plant but not explicitly modeled

. The only facility with significant SO 2

emissions (i.e., greater than 10 tpy) within 50 Km of the Morrow Plant site , but not explicitly modeled is the Leaf

River Cellulose facility with 48.55 tpy for 2014

. Therefore, the use of the Jackson Monitor to represent SO 2

concentrations from sources in the vicin ity of the Morrow Plant, but not explicitly modeled in this analysis

should be conservative.



### 3.12.2. Comparison of Surface Characteristics and Land Use Types

SMEPA evaluated the surface characteristics values (i.e., albedo, Bowen

- ratio and surface roughness) of th e

Morrow Plant and the Jackson Monitor ing Station . Based on the AERSURFACE analysis, the surface

characteristics values were similar for the Jackson Monitoring Station and the Morrow Plant. Table 3

- 7 shows

the comparison of surface characteristics values of Jackson monitoring station and the Morrow Plant. Please see

Appendix C for AERSURFACE output

.

Figure 3

- 5 shows the land use types around the Jackson Monitoring S tation. Unlike the area around the Morrow

Plant , the area around the Jackson Monitoring station is mostly of low density residential, high density

residential

, and Commercial /Industrial/Transportation classification. Hence, area around the Jackson

monitoring station can be considered as “urban”

. The monitoring station would be expected to be impacted by

larger sources of SO 2 emissions, either nearby or more distant as discussed in Section 3.12.1, and by smaller,

more local sources. SMEPA believes the SO 2 background concentra tion obtained from the Jac kson M onitoring

S tation would be conservative sinc e the Morrow Plant is located in “rural” setting with less more local sources

expected to be impacting the SMEPA Plant area as this area is more rural than the monitoring station

.

Based on the analysis of the near

- by emission sources, surface charact eristics values, and land use types, SMEPA

concluded to use the background concentration obtained from the Jackson M onitoring S tation consistent with

the recommendation of MDEQ

.

17 2014 SO 2 emissions were provided by MDEQ via e

- mail dated July 10, 2015.SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 13 Table 3

- 7 . Surface Characteristics Analysis of Jackson Monitoring Station and the Morrow Plant

Month Sector Surface Characteristics Analysis

Albedo Bowen

- Ratio Surface Roughness

Monitoring

Station Morrow

Plant Monitoring

Station Morrow

Plant Monitoring

Station Morrow

Plant

1 1 0.17 0.14 0.81 0.79 0.337 0.309

2 1 0.17 0.14 0.81 0.79 0.337 0.309

3 1 0.16 0.14 0.65 0.6 0 0.386 0.37 0

4 1 0.16 0.14 0.65 0.6 0 0.386 0.37 0

5 1 0.16 0.15 0.63 0.34 0.405 0.46 0

6 1 0.16 0.15 0.63 0.34 0.405 0.46 0

7 1 0.16 0.15 0.63 0.34 0.405 0.46 0

8 1 0.16 0.15 0.63 0.34 0.405 0.46 0

9 1 0.16 0.15 0.63 0.34 0.405 0.46 0

10 1 0.16 0.15 0.81 0.79 0.389 0.455

11 1 0.16 0.15 0.81 0.79 0.389 0.455

12 1 0.17 0.14 0.81 0.79 0.337 0.309

Based on the most rece nt data from the Jackson monitoring station , MDEQ has recommended an SO 2 background concentration of 14 ppb, or 36.65 μg/m 3

. The 2014 SO 2 Monitor Values Report for the Jackson

monitoring station is attached as Appendix E. SMEPA has used the 14 ppb value as the background

concentration in this analysis.SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 3

- 14 Figure 3

- 5 . Land Use within 1 Km and 3 Km Radius around th e Jackson Monitoring Station

( Site ID: 280490020)SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 4

- 1 

## 4. 1

- HOUR SO 2 

## DESIGNATION MODELING RESULTS

4.1. MODELING RESULTS

SMEPA m odeled UNIT 1 (AA

- 001) and UNIT 2 (AA

- 002) using the actual CEMS data (2012

- 2014) as hourly

emission input to the AERMOD model . The Rain CII facility (Table 3

- 6 ) was also included as a point source in the

model. Since the actual emission rates were used for the model , three separate models for 2012

– 2014 were

created to accurately model the yearly changes in SO 2 emissions at the Rain CII facility. Once run sep arately, the

modeled results for all three years were averaged together on a receptor

- by

- receptor basis to maintain

consistency with the form of the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. Figure 4

- 1 below shows the resulting concentration

contours after the three years were a veraged.

Figure 4

- 1 . Contour Plot S howing the Concentration GradientSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 4

- 2 Table 4

- 1 below shows the receptor with th e 4 th highest predicted concentration compared to the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS averaged for three years (2012 to 2014).

Table 4

- 1 . 4 th

- Highest Averaged Modeled Concentration based on Actual Emission Rates (2012

- 2014)

UTM

East , m UTM

North , m Modeled

Concentration,

μg/m 3 (ppb) Background

Concentration

, μg/m 3 (ppb) Modeled

Concentration

+ Background

, μg/m 3 (ppb) 1

- SO 2

NAAQS

, μg/m 3 (ppb) Pass

NAAQS?

(Yes/No)

272,900 3,456,400 111.36 (42.50) 36.65 (13.99) 148.04 (56.49) 196.34 (75) Yes

As seen in Table 4

- 1 , modeled concentrations from actual emissions (along with the background concentration)

are well below the NAAQS standard. Since the modeled concentration based on the actual emission rates

from SMEPA and the nearby Rain CII facility are in compliance with the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS , SMEPA has

demonstrated that the area around the Morrow Plant , including Lamar County, is attainment and should

be designated as “attainment”.SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 5

- 1 

## 5. ELECTRONIC FILES

All of the air quality dispersion modeling analysis electronic data files used to generate the results presented in

this report are provided in the attached CD. These electronic data files include the following:

> All AERMOD input, output, and plot data files;

> Meteorological files;

> All downwash input and output files;

> Boundary line files;

> AERSURFACE files and NLCD92 map;

> CEMS raw data ;

> Hourly input files ; and

> Electronic version of the modeling report

The following tables summarize the electronic files included in the attached CD.SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 5

- 2

Table 5

- 1

. AERMOD Input and Output File Descriptions for the Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Analysis

Pollutant and Averaging

Periods File Name Associated

Files File Description Receptor

Grid Emission Sources

SO 2 ( 1

- hr ) SO2SIP2C12H .zip

SO2SIP2C13H.zip

SO2SIP2C14H.zip Input

file(*.ami)

Output file,

(*.aml)

Plot file

(*.plt) SO 2 Designation Modeling All AA

- 001, AA

- 002, and

Rain CII

Table 5

- 2

. Meteorological Files Used for the Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Analysis

Level Meteorological File Name Year

Surface KHBG (WBAN:13833) 2012

- 2014

Profile/Upper

Air Upper Air (WBAN:03940) 2012

- 2014

Table 5

- 3 . Other Associated Files

File Name Description

Bpip output file Downwash file

BND.bln Property line file

Aersurface AERSURFACE inputs and output

SMEPA Modeling Report (082015 ).pdf Modeling report

HERF

- 2012, HERF

- 2013, and HERF

- 2014 Hourly Emission Rate Files

CEMS Data CEMS Raw Data from SMEPASMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 

## APPENDIX A: MODELING PROTOCOLSMEPA

– R D 

# AIR DISPERSION MODEL ING PROTOCOL

South Mississippi Electric Power Association > R D Morrow Plant, Lamar County, MS

1

- Hour SO 2 

## NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Prepared By:

TRINITY CONSULTANTS

One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1830

Metairie, Louisiana

- 70001

(504) 828

- 5845

June 2, 2015

151902.0007



## Environmental so lutions delivered uncommonly wellSMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants i 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

- 1

2. 1

- HOUR SO 2 DESINGATION MODELING PROCEDURES 2

- 1

2.1. Model Selection

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 2

- 1

2.2. M eteorological data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2

- 1

2.2.1. Surface Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2

- 1

2.2.2. Upper Air Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2

- 1

2.2.3. Land Use Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2

- 1

2.2.4. AERMET Processing Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 2

- 5

2.3. Coordinate System

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 2

- 5

2.4. Receptor Locations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 2

- 5

2.5. Terrain Elevations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 5

2.6. Building Influences

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 6

2.7. SMEPA Emission Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2

- 6

2.8. Emissions Inventories for Nearby Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2

- 7

2.9. Source Contributions and SMEPA Boiler Refinements

................................ ................................ ............... 2

- 7

2.10. Background Concentration

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 2

- 7

APPENDIX A: MDEQ MET DATA GUIDANCE DOCUME NT ASMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants ii 

## L IST OF FIGURES

Figure 2

- 1. Land

- use Around the KHBG Met Station (10

- KM Radius) 2

- 3

Figure 2

- 2. Land

- use Around the Morrow Plant (10

- KM Radius) 2

- 4SMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants iii 

## LIST OF TABLES

Table 2

- 1. AERSURFACE Input Parameters 2

- 2

Table 2

- 2. SMEPA Model Inputs

– Scenario 1 2

- 6

Table 2

- 3. SMEPA Model Inputs

– Scenario 2 2

- 6

Table 2

- 4. Nearby Sources Model Inputs 2

- 7SMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 1

- 1 

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) owns and operate s the R D Morrow E lectric P ower

G enerating P lant (Morrow Plant) located in Lamar County, Mississippi . The plant is currently operating under

the Title V Permit No. 1440

- 00021 issued by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

On June 2, 2010, U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency ( U.S. EPA ) revised the primary National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) by establishing a 1

- hour standard at a level of 75 parts per

billion (ppb) 1 , which is equivalent to 196  g/m 3

. The form of the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS standard is a 3

- year

average of the 99 th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1

- hour average concentrations.

Following the U.S

. EPA’s May 2014 publication of the proposed Data Requirements Rule, the U.S. EPA was sued

for “ failing to undertake a certain nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401

- 7671q,

and that such alleged failure is actionable under section 304(a)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2) ”. The lawsuit

resulted in a Consent Decre e that was entered on March 2, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of California 2 . As a result of the Consent Decree, an additional designation phase was added to the two

designation phases that were already included in the U.S. EPA’ s May 2014 proposed Data Requirements Rule.

The additional phase affects areas with stationary sources that meet specific emission criteria laid out in the

Consent Decree. The U.S. EPA released a memorandum on March 20, 2015 (referred to herein as the 20 15 SO 2 Area Designation Guidance) to the Regional Directors clarifying the path forward for states with sources affected

by the decree

. 3

The Consent Decree requires the U.S. EPA to complete a round of SO 2 designations for the areas affected by the

Consent Decree by July 2, 2016. The U.S. EPA is expected to release a final version of the Data Requirements

Rule around September 2015. It is expected that the Data Requirements Rule will address all three remaining

phases of the designation process.

The Morrow p lant meets the emission criteria laid out in the consent decree. The U.S. EPA has listed the Morrow

plant as a source exceeding the established threshold with an annual emissions of 3,948 TPY and emission rate

of 0.63 lbs/MMBTU based on 2012 emissions da ta

. 4 Thus, the U.S. EPA is required to designate the area

surrounding the morrow plant by July 2, 2016. Because the Consent Decree does not provide sufficient time to

commission representative ambient air monitors, SMEPA has decided to utilize an air dispersion model ing to

determine attainment status. Therefore, in accordance with the EPA’s May 2014 proposed Data Requirements

Rule 5 , an SO 2 designation for the area surrounding the Morrow plant will be based on the predictions of an air

dispersi on model. The U.S. EPA published a draft Technical Assistance Document (TAD) in December 2013

describing the approach that should be considered when conducting dispersion modeling in support of a 1

- hour

1 http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria .html

. Final rule signed June 2, 2010

2 http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/201503FinalCourtOrder.pdf

3 http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20150320SO2designations.pdf

4 http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/designations/pdfs/sourceareas.pdf

5 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0711

- 0001SMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 1

- 2 SO 2 NAAQS designation 6 (referred to herein as the 20 13 SO 2 NAAQS Modeling TAD). To determine the

attainment status, SMEPA will use following air dispersion modeling scenarios:

SCENARIO 1 :

 Use the allowable SO 2 emission limit of 1.2 lb /MMBTU ;

 Use three (3) years of meteorological data (2012, 2013, and 2014) ;

 Use actual stack heights for designation . If the actual height of a stack is greater than the Good

Engineering Practice (GEP) Stack height, GEP stack height will be used for modeling ; and

 Include near

- by sources from the regional inventories provided by the M ississippi Department of

Environmental Quality

.

S CENARIO 2:

 Use the most recent three (3) years of actual emissions (2012, 2013, and 2014);

 Use of three (3) years of meteorological d ata ( 2012, 2013, and 2014);

 Use actual stack heights for designation. If the actual height of a stack is greater than the Good

Engineering Practice (GEP) Stack height, GEP stack height will be used for modeling ; and

 Include near

- by sources from the regional inventories prov ided by the Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality

.

For sources with SO 2 Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS), the CEMS data will be u sed in Scenario 2

to characterize emissions. Trinity is planning to conduct the dispersion modeling on behalf o f SMEPA to predict

the SO 2 concentrations in the area surrounding the Morrow plant

. The modeling will be performed in

accordance with the 2013 SO 2 NAAQS Modeling TAD. The remainder of this protocol summarizes modeling

procedures that will be use d in the modeling described above.

6 http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/SO2ModelingTAD.pdfSMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 2

- 1 

## 2. 1

- HOUR SO 2 

## DESINGATION MODELING PROCEDURES

2.1. MODEL SELECTION

Trinity will perform 1

- hour SO 2 modeling using EPA’s preferred AERMOD Version 14134 using input files

developed using Trinity’ s BREEZE Software. AERMOD is a steady

- state Gaussian dispersion model based on

planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and

elevated sources, and bo th simple and complex terrain 7

.



### 2.2. METEOROLOGICAL DAT A

SMEPA proposes to use the meteorological data collected at the B obby L Chain Municipal Airport S tation

(WBAN: 13833 ), which is approximately 9 miles from the center of the facil ity . A determination of whether the

meteorological data from the met station were appropriate for use in SMEPA ’s modeling analyses was

considered by determining whether the data were representative of the site where the Morrow plant is located.

The close proximity of the met station with respect to the plant (less than 9 miles distance), in addition to the

similarity in the climatology and topography

, support that the meteorological conditions at the airport are

representative of the me teorological conditi ons at the Morrow plant.

AERMOD

- ready meteorological data will be prepared using the latest version of the U.S. EPA’s AERMET

meteorological processing utility (version 14134) . The met data will be generated in accordance with the Met

support data do cument as attached in Appendix A



### 2.2.1. Surface Data

Raw hourly surface meteorological data will be obtained from the U.S. National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) for

Bobby L Chain Municipal Airport Station (K HB G , WMO ID: 724560) in the standard ISHD format. This data will

be supplemented with TD

- 6405 (so

- called “1

- minute”) wind data from K HBG . The 1

- minute wind data will be

processed using the latest version of the U.S. EPA AERMINUTE pre

- processing tool (version 14337). The quality

of the 1

- minute data will be verified by comparison to the hourly ISHD data from K HBG

.



### 2.2.2. Upper Air Data

In addition to surface meteorological data, AERMET requires the use of data from a sunrise

- time upper air

sounding to estimate daytime mixing heights. Upper air data from the nearest U.S. National Weather Service

(NWS) upper

- a ir balloon station, located in Jackson, M ississippi (WBAN: 03940) , will be obtained from the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in FSL format.



### 2.2.3. Land Use Analysis

Parameters derived from the ana lysis of land

- use data (surface roughness, Bowen ratio, and albedo) are also

required by AERMET. In accordance with U.S. EPA guidance, these values will be determined using the latest

version of the U.S. EPA AERSURFACE tool (version 13016). 8 The AERSUFACE settings that will be used for

processing are summarized in Table 1 below. The met station coordinates were determined by visually

7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. “AERSURFACE User’s Guide.” EPA

- 454/B

- 08

- 001, Revised 01/16/2013. Available

Online: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermo d/aersurface_userguide.pdfSMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 2

- 2 identifying the met station using Google Earth. NLCD 1992 (CONUS) Land Cover data used in AERSURFACE

proces sing was obtained from the Multi

- Resolution Land Use Consortium (MRLC).

U.S. EPA guidance dictates that on at least an annual basis, precipitation at a surface site should be classified as

wet, dry, or average in comparison to the 30

- year climatological record at the site. This determination is used to

adjust the Bowen ratio estimated by AERSURFACE. To make the determination, annual precipitation in each

modeled year (2012 to 201 4) will be compared to the 1981 to 2010 climatological record for K HBG

. 9 The 30 th

and 70 th percentile values of the annual precipitation distribution from 1981 to 2010 will be calculated. Per U.S.

EPA guidance, each modeled year will be classified for AERSUFACE processing as “wet” if its annual

precipitation was higher than th e 70 th percentile value, “dry” if its annual precipitation was lower than the 30 th

percentile value, and “average” if it was between the 30 th and 70 th percentile values. The values to be used in

this case are summarized in Table 2

- 1. The values are based on the guidance document attached as Appendix A.

Table 2

- 1 . AERSURFACE Input Parameters

AERSURFACE Parameter Value

Met Station Latitude 31.269483

Met Station Longitude

- 89.256108

Datum NAD 1983

Radius for surface roughness (km) 1.0

Vary by Sector? Yes

Number of Sectors 12

Temporal Resolution Monthly

Continuous Winter Snow Cover? No

Station Located at Airport? Yes

Arid Region? No

Surface Moisture Classification Average

9 National Climactic Data Center. 2010 Local Climatological Data (LCD).SMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 2

- 3

Figure 2

- 1

. Land

- u se A round the KHBG Met Station (10

- KM Radius)SMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 2

- 4

Figure 2

- 2 . Land

- use A round the Morrow Plant (10

- KM Radius)SMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 2

- 5 

### 2.2.4. AERMET Processing Options

Standard AERMET processing options will be used

. 10

, 11 The options elected will include:

MODIFY keyword for upper air data

THRESH_1MIN 0.5 keyword to provide a lower bound of 0.5 m/s for 1

- minute wind data

AUDIT keywords to provide additional QA/QC and diag nostic information

ASOS1MIN keyword to incorporate 1

- minute wind data

NWS_HGT WIND 10 keyword to designate the anemometer height as 10 meters

METHOD WIND_DIR RANDOM keyword to correct for any wind direction rounding in the raw ISHD data

METHOD REFLEVEL SUB NWS keyword to allow use of airport surface station data

Default substitution options for clou d cover and temperature data will not be overridden

Default ASOS_ADJ option for correction of truncated wind speeds w ill not be overridden

ADJ_U* beta option w ill not be used



### 2.3. COORDINATE SYSTEM

In all modeling input and output files, the locations of emission sources, structures, and receptors will be

represented in Zone 1 6 of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system using datum World

Geodetic Syste m (WGS) 1984, which is comparable to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83)

. The Morrow

plant is approximately centered at UTM, Zone 1 6 , coordinates 272,009 meters East and 3,456,266 meters North.

The base elevation of the facility is approximately 79 met ers above mean sea level.



### 2.4. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

The dispersion modeling will use a combination of a Cartesian grid system centered on the Morrow plant and

discrete receptor points along the facility’s fence line. Receptors will be placed at 25

- meter interva ls along the

fence line, 100

- meter intervals out to a distance of 2.5 kilometers (km) and at 500

- meter intervals out to either

10 km or further if need to encompass areas modeling above the 1

- hour SO 2 Significant Impact Level (SIL) of 7.5

 g/m 3 or if a significant concentration gradient is found at or near the edge of the initially defined receptor grid

. Based on the 2013 SO 2 NAAQS Modeling TAD and the 2015 SO 2 Area Designation Guidance, the receptor grid

will be adjusted to include only those locatio ns where it is feasible to place a monitor

.



### 2.5. TERRAIN ELEVATIONS

The terrain elevation for each receptor, building, and emission source will be determined using USGS 1/3 arc

second National Elevation Data (NED). The NED , obtained from the USGS, has terrain elevations at 10

- meter

intervals. Using the AERMOD terrain processor, AERMAP (version 11103), the terrain height for each receptor,

building, and emission source included in the model will be determined by assigning the interpolated height

from the digita l terrain elevations surrounding each source.

In addition, AERMAP will be used to compute the hill height scales for each receptor. AERMAP searches all NED

points for the terrain height and location that has the greatest influence on each receptor to det ermine the hill

10 Fox, Tyler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. “Use of ASOS Meteorological Data in AERMOD Dispersion

Modeling.” Available Online: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20130308_Met_Data_Clarification.pdf

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “User’s Guide for the AERMOD Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET)”.

EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 002, November 2004).SMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 2

- 6 height scale for that receptor. AERMOD then uses the hill height scale in order to select the correct critical

dividing streamline and concentration algorithm for each receptor.



### 2.6. BUILDING INFLUENCES

The U.S. EPA’s Building Profile Input Pro gram (BPIP) with Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) (version

04274), will be used to account for Morrow plant building downwash influences in the model. The purpose of a

building downwash analysis is to determine if the plume disc harged from a stack wi ll become caught in the

turbulent wake of a building (or other structure), resulting in downwash of the plume. The downwash of the

plume can result in elevated ground‐level concentrations of SO 2

. At this time, SMEPA is not planning to include

any buildin gs from nearby sources in the model.



### 2.7. SMEPA EMISSION SOURCES

There are two boilers at the Morrow plant that will be included in the modeling. The stacks for the boilers will

be modeled as point sources. Table 2

- 2 below summarizes the existing stack parameters for both boilers for

Scenario 1. Table 2

- 3 below summarized the stack parameters for Scenario 2 . If Scenario 1 does not show

concentrations below the NAAQS threshold, Scenario 2 will be completed by using CEMS data . The existing

stack parameters will be modeled in the initial modeling conducted in accordance with the 2013 SO 2 M odeling

TAD.

Table 2

- 2

. SMEPA Model Inputs

– Scenario 1

Emission

Point UTM East

(m)* UTM North

(m)* Stack

Height

(ft.) Stack

Diameter

(ft.) Exit

Velocity

(ft./s) Exit

Temperature

(F) Emission

Rate

(lb/hr)

AA

- 001 271925.3 3456230.6 405.2 16.7 51.2 180 3210

AA

- 002 271975.6 3456229.4 405.2 16.7 55.3 180 3210

*UTM Zone 1 6 , NAD 83

Table 2

- 3

. SMEPA Model Inputs

– Scenario 2

Emission

Point UTM East

(m)* UTM North

(m)* Stack

Height

(ft.) Stack

Diameter

(ft.) Exit

Velocity

(ft./s) Exit

Temperature

(F) Emission

Rate

(lb/hr)

AA

- 001 271925.3 3456230.6 405.2 16.7 CEMS CEMS CEMS

AA

- 002 271975.6 3456229.4 405.2 16.7 CEMS CEMS CEMS

*UTM Zone 16, NAD 83SMEPA

– R D Morro w Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Protocol

Trinity Consultants 2

- 7



### 2.8. EMISSION S INVENTOR IES FOR NEARBY SOURCES

Other sources of SO 2 emissions in the area surrounding the Morrow plant will be included in the model. SMEPA

will request for the emission s inventory from the MDEQ. Based on the emissions inventory data provided by the

MDEQ, SMEPA will inc orporate nearby potential sources in the model for SO 2 designation.

Table 2

- 4

. Nearby Sources

Source Distance

from

SMEPA

(km) UTM

East

(m)* UTM

North

(m)* Stack

Height

(ft.) Stack

Diameter

(ft.) Exit

Velocity

(ft./s) Exit

Temperature

(F) Plant

wide

Emissions

( tpy )

Rain CII Carbon

, LLC 3.85 272603 3451824 114 .0 8.7 16.9 405 746.14

Leaf River

Cellulose, LLC 33.42 304943 3457831 20 .0 1.5 15 .0 250 33.42

Transcontinental

Gas Pipeline Co. 42.15 270855 3497683 13 .0 2 .0 112 .0 750 42.13

*UTM Zone 16, NAD 83



### 2.9. SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND SMEPA BOILER REFINEMENTS

Trinity will run the model using the “MAXDCONT” option. The use of MAXDCONT necessitate the model to

generate output that allows both the cumulative concentrations as well as individual contributions from SMEPA

and nearby sources to be analyzed. If initial modeling shows concentrations above the 1

- hours SO 2 NAAQS,

additional modeling of various compliance scenarios speci fic to the Morrow plant sources will be conducted.

Steps that will be considered in the modeling scenarios are as follows:

1. Initially, the output from the MAXDCONT processing will be filtere d to show each event where the

combined impact from both the Morrow plant and nearby sources is over the NAAQS.

2. Each event found to be over the NAAQS will then be will be analyzed further to determine the impacts

attributable to the Morrow plant and the im pacts attributable to nearby sources

. 3. If SMEPA is found to individually model over the NAAQS, the plant will focus on a strategy to reduce its

own impact below the NAAQS. The plant does not intend to “do more than their share” to reduce SO 2

concentratio ns in the area surrounding SM EP A

.



### 2.10. BACKGROUND CONCENTRA TION

SMEPA will work with MDEQ to develop a 1

- hour SO 2 background concentration that is representative of the

background c oncentration in the vicinity of the Morrow plant. SMEPA will incorporate the agreed upon

background concentration in the model.SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 

## APPENDIX B: MS AERMOD READY MET FILE S

- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTA TION

### 1**MS AERMOD Ready Met Files** Supporting Documentation, July 1, 2014Mississippi Department of Environmental Qualitywww.deq.state.ms.usBruce Ferguson

### 2



# MS AERMOD Ready **Met Files**

Supporting Documentation

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has posted preprocessed

meteorological files for use with the US EPA regulatory model AERMOD on the MDEQ

website. The posting of these files in no way dictat es their use nor supplants the use of

professional judgment in determining whether the files are appropriate for any

particular application. This report documents the development of the preprocessed

files.

Integrated surface data was obtained from NCDC in DS3505 format

(ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa). Radiosonde observations were obtained from

the NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde Database (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/raobs/). When

available, 1

- minute ASOS wind data was included in the processing of the met data

th rough the use of AERMINUTE

– Version 11325. One

- minute data was obtained

through the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

( ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/asos

- onemin/ ).

When applying the AERME T meteorological processor to prepare the meteorological

data for the AERMOD model, the user must determine appropriate values for three

surface characteristics: surface roughness length {zo}, albedo {r}, and Bowen ratio {Bo}.

AERSURFACE (dated 13016), a t ool that processes land cover data to determine these

surface characteristics for use in AERMET, was used in the processing of the posted met

files.

**Aersurface Monthly Seasonal Designations**

Winter with continuous snow on the ground does not occur in Mississippi; therefore this

seasonal designation was not used in the AERSURFACE input files. The AERMET user’s

guide defines spring as the 1

- 2 months after the last killing frost. Freeze/Frost

occurrence data was used to determine the beginning of spring using the 50 percent

probability date for 28 o 

### F. Likewise, the fall 50 percent probability date for 28 o 

### F was

used to determine the late autumn after frost and harvest seasonal designation. These

dates are were determined from Frost/Freeze Data 1971

- 2000 (CLIM20

- 01), NCDC and

indicate the date on which there is a 50% probability that a freeze date may be later in

### 3

the spring or earlier in the fall. Dates for the stations within a climate division were

averaged.

Months that fall between the fall and spring d ates (rounded to beginning or end of

month, whichever was closer) were considered to be “Late autumn after frost and

harvest.”

Midsummer with lush vegetation was assumed to be months with a monthly normal

temperature above 70 o 

### F. Monthly normal temperatures were taken from

“Climatography of the US No. 85, Divisional Normals and Standard Deviations of

Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1971

- 2000”.

Spring months were considered to be those between the determined Late Autumn

months and the Midsummer months. Autumn months were considered to be those

between the determined Midsummer months and the Late Autumn months. Seasonal

designations used are listed in Table 2

.

**Surface Moisture**

Surface Moisture was determined using US Climate Normals. Table 3 lists the

precipitation normal and standard deviation for the Mississippi Divisions. Surface

moisture was considered to be average if the rainfall was within one standard deviation

of the ave rages presented in Table 3 . Surface moisture was considered to be dry if the

precipitation was more than one standard deviation below the normal and wet if the

precip itation was more than one standard deviation above the normal. Table 4 through

Table 11 summarize the precipitation for the years 2006 through 201 3 . Dry months are

highlighted in orange and wet months are highlighted in blue. The surface moisture

designation for the aersurface f ile was determined by the most months with the same

determination of average, dry or wet. The moisture designation used in aersurface is

indicated outside each division row. The surface moisture was determined to be average

for all time periods with the ex ception of 2007 for the Northeast Division and 2011 for

the Coastal Division, which were determined to be dry. The Coastal Division

determination was used in the processing of the Mobile station, although this station is

not located in the Mississippi Coas tal Division.

**AERSURFACE Inputs**

Locations of the monitoring stations included in the aersurface files were checked by

reviewing aerial photography in Google Earth and Bing Bird’s Eye View. The locations

were also cross referenced to the “ASOS Tropical Cycl one Wind Exposure

### 4

Documentation Project.” No attempts were made to correct aersurface runs for

changes in land use after the 1992 determination.

The AERSURFACE inputs were selected to be consistent with the “AERMOD

Implementation Guide.” Twelve sectors w ere used for the determination and the

surface parameters were selected as described above. The standard AERSURFACE input

file used was as follows:

[NLCD 1992File] ** Land use data file

[ AERSURFACE .out] ** Output file with sfc values for AERMET Stage 3

L ATLON ** Coordinate type (UTM, LATLON)

[surface station lat] ** Latitude [obtained from Table 1 ]

[surface station long] ** Longitude [obtained from Table 1 ]

NAD83 ** Datum

1.0 ** Study radius for surface roughness (km)

Y ** Vary by sector? (Y/N)

12 ** Number of sectors

M ** Temporal resolution (A=A NNUAL, M=MONTHLY, S=SEASONAL)

N ** Continuous snow cover at least one month? (Y/N)

Y ** Reassign months to seasons? (Y/N)

[ Table 2 ] ** Late autumn after frost and harvest, or winter with no snow

[ Table 2 ] ** Transitional spring (partial green coverage, short annuals)

[ Table 2 ] ** Midsummer with lush vegetation

[ Table 2 ] ** Autumn with unhar vested cropland

Y ** Airport? (Y/N)

N ** Arid region? (Y/N)

[varied with rainfall] ** Surface Moisture (A=Average, W=Wet, D=Dry)



### AERMET 14134 **Inputs**

Integrated surface data in DS3505 format was obtained from NCDC for each station.

Upper air data was downloaded in FSL format from the NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde

Database . Observations obtained from Slidell, LA were used for the Mobile station and

stations locat ed in the Coastal Division. Observations obtained from Jackson, MS were

used for all other divisions.

When available, ASOS 1

- minute data was incorporated using AERMINUTE version

11325. The threshold wind speed was set at 0.5 m/s in Stage 3 when ASOS 1

- min ute

data was used. The SUBNWS parameter was also used with ASOS 1

- minute data to

replace wind data from the standard NWS format. The SUB_CC and SUB_TT parameters

were indicated in the stage 3 input files. The AERMET user’s guide indicates that these

are d efault parameters unless the application involves both NWS and ONSITE surface

data.

Example input files for the Jackson, MS station are presented below.

### 5

Stage 1

JOB

REPORT KJAN_09.RP1

MESSAGES KJAN_09.MG1

UPPERAIR

DATA "C: \ meterological Data \ Mississippi \ Jackson.fsl" FSL

EXTRACT KJAN_09.UAX

QAOUT KJAN_09.UQA

XDATES 2009/01/01 TO 2009/12/31

** Station: JACKSON/THOMPSON FIELD, MS

LOCATION 3940 32.320N 90.070W 6

AUDIT UADD UADS UAHT UALR UAPR UASS UATD UATT UAWD UAWS

SURFACE

** Location of the Surface Data File

** C: \ meterological Data \ Mississippi \ KJAN \ 722350

- 03940

- 2009 \ 722350

- 03940

- 2009

DATA 722350

- 03940

- 2009 \ 722350

- 03940

- 2009 ISHD

EXTRA CT KJAN_09.SAX

QAOUT KJAN_09.SQA

XDATES 2009/01/01 TO 2009/12/31

** Station: JACKSON/THOMPSON FIELD, MS

LOCATION 3940 32.320N 90.078W 6 89.00

AUDIT ACHT ALC1 ALC2 ALC3 ALC4 ALC5 ALC6 ASKY CLHT DPTP HZVS PRCP PRES

AUDIT PWTH PWVC RHUM SLVP TMPD TMPW TSKC WDIR WSPD



### Stage 2

JOB

REPORT KJAN_09.RP2

MESSAGES KJAN_09.MG2

UPPERAIR

QAOUT KJAN_09.UQA

SURFACE

QAOUT KJAN_09.SQA

### 6

** Location of the Hourly Wind Data File

** C: \ meterological Data \ Mississippi \ KJAN \ KJAN_09_AERMIN \ AERMINUTE_hour.dat

ASOS1MIN KJAN_09_AERMIN \ AERMINUTE_hour.dat

MERGE

OUTPUT KJAN_09.MRG

XDATES 2009/01/01 TO 2009/12/31



### Stage 3

JOB

REPORT KJAN_09.RP3

MESSAGES KJAN_09.MG3

METPREP

DATA KJAN_09.MRG

MODEL AERMOD

OUTPUT aermet.sfc

PROFILE aermet.pfl

XDATES 2009/01/01 TO 2009/12/31

METHOD REFLEVEL SUBNWS

METHOD WIND_DIR RANDOM

METHOD CCVR SUB_CC

METHOD TEMP SUB_TT

THRESH_1MIN 0.50

NWS_HGT WIND 10.00

** Primary Surface Characteristics

** Location of the AERSURFACE Output File

** C: \ meterological Data \ Mississippi \ KJAN \ KJAN_09_AERSURF1 \ AERSURFACE.OUT

AERSURF KJ AN_09_AERSURF1 \ AERSURFACE.OUT



### Data Completeness

The process met files were used in test runs with AERMOD version 14134. The files

were run by quarter and the percentage of missing hours noted from the AERMOD

output file. Table 12 summarizes the results of the completeness check. Additional years

of met data were processed for each site until five years of complete data, by quarter,

were obtained. For the majority of the sites, the five years of data is by calendar year.

For some sites, four consecutive quarters of complete data were available across

calendar years. The data was grouped by quarters for these sites and the naming

### 7

convention for the processed data indic ates that the data is across multiple calendar

years.

**Combining Met Files**

All of the met data was processed by calendar year. For cases where four consecutive

complete quarters by c alendar year were not available, the data was combined using a

text editor from the previously processed data. For the calendar year 2010, the stations

KGLH, KGPT, KGWO and KHBG had changes in the USAF number. For these stations, the

surface data was contained in two separate files for the 2010 calendar year. The

location was identical in each of the two files for each station. The partial years for

these stations were processed separately and combined after processing to obtain a

complete calendar year.

Processed met files that contain quarters from separate calendar years ca n be identified

in the naming convention of the files. For example, the file KGTR_06_07.sfc contains on

full year of data from both calendar years 2006 and 2007. For stations which had

separate NCDC files for the same calendar year, the file name contains a “c” at the end

to indicate that these files were combined after processing individual surface files. For

example, KGWO_10c.SFC is a combination of the individual ISHD files “ 722359

- 13978

-

2010 ” and “ 747580

- 13978

- 2010 ”.

### 8

Table 1

– Station List

City Station Name WBANINTCALL

Latitude LongitudeAerminuteAvailableAnemometerHeight(m)

GREENVILLE MID DELTA REGIONAL AIRPORT 13939 KGLH 33.477228

- 90.984658 No 10

GREENWOOD GREENWOOD

- LEFLORE AIRPORT 13978 KGWO 33.496194

- 90.089419 Yes 10

GULFPORT GULFPORT

- BILOXI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 93874 KGPT 30.412000

- 89.081000 Yes 10

HATTIESBURG BOBBY L CHAIN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 13833 KHBG 31.269483

- 89.256108 Yes 10

JACKSON HAWKINS FIELD AIRPORT 13927 KHKS 32.337572

- 90.221397 Yes 10

JACKSON JACKSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 3940 KJAN 32.319836

- 90.077756 Yes 10

M c COMB MC COMB/PIKE COUNTY/JOHN E LEWIS FIELD AIRPORT 93919 KMCB 31.182278

- 90.472025 Yes 10

MERIDIAN KEY FIELD AIRPORT 13865 KMEI 32.334861

- 88.750728 Yes 10

PASCAGOULA TRENT LOTT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 53858 KPQL 30.463058

- 88.531556 Yes 7.92

TALLULAH/VICKSBURG VICKSBURG/TALLULAH REGIONAL AIRPORT 3996 KTVR 32.348000

- 91.030000 Yes 10

TUPELO TUPELO REGIONAL AIRPORT 93862 KTUP 34.262131

- 88.771161 Yes 10

COLUMBUS GOLDEN TRIANGLE RGNL 53893 KGTR 33.456278

- 88.592656 No 10

COLUMBUS COLUMBUS AFB 1382 5 KCMB 33.652258

- 88.457136 No 10

NATCHEZ NATCHEZ/HARDY(AWOS) 3961 KHEZ 31.615919

- 91.297267 No 10

HATTIESBURG HATTIESBURG LAUREL 53808 KPIB 31.465756

- 89.333464 No 10

METCALFE TUNICA MUNI 23903 KUTA 34.676575

- 90.343956 No 10

MEMPHIS MEMPHIS INTL ARPT 13893 KMEM 35.036472

- 89.971861 Yes 10

MOBILE MOBILE/BATES FIELD 13894 KMOB 30.688222

- 88.245969 Yes 10

### 9

Table 2

- A ERSURFACE Monthly Designations

Station Months Normal

above 70 o F Spring 50%

Probability

@ 28 o F. Fall 50%

Probability

@ 28 o F Late

Autumn

Months Transitional

Spring

Months Midsummer

Months Autumn

Months

MS

- 01 Upper Delta May

- Sep 3

- Mar 21

- Nov 12, 1, 2 3,4 5,6,7,8,9 10,11

MS

- 02 North Central June

- Sep 20

- Mar 9

- Nov 11,12,

1, 2,3 4,5 6,7,8,9 10

MS

- 03 Northeast June

- Sep 19

- Mar 12

- Nov 11,12,

1, 2,3 4,5 6,7,8,9 10

MS

- 04 Lower Delta May

- Sep 23

- Feb 26

- Nov 12, 1, 2 3,4 5,6,7,8,9 10,11

MS

- 05 Central May

- Sep 11

- Mar 15

- Nov 12, 1,2 3,4 5,6,7,8,9 10,11

MS

- 06 East Central May

- Sep 10

- Mar 15

- Nov 12, 1,2 3,4 5,6,7,8,9 10,11

MS

- 07 Southwest May

- Sep 25

- Feb 26

- Nov 12, 1, 2 3,4 5,6,7,8,9 10,11

MS

- 08 South Central May

- Sep 27

- Feb 25

- Nov 12, 1, 2 3,4 5,6,7,8,9 10, 11

MS

- 09 Southeast May

- Sep 2

- Mar 24

- Nov 12, 1, 2, 3,4 5,6,7,8,9 10,11

MS

- 10 Coastal May

- Sep 12

- Feb 16

- Dec 1 2,3,4 5,6,7,8,9 10,11,12

### 10

Table 3

- Divisional Normals and Standard Deviations of Precipitation (inches)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

MS

- 01 Upper Delta AVERAGE 4.94 4.53 5.71 5.49 5.46 4.97 4.07 2.59 3.03 3.25 5.48 5.58 55.1

71

- 00 STD DEV 2.72 2.64 2.57 3.19 2.65 2.29 2.07 1.54 1.7 2.17 2.75 3.59 10.01

MS

- 02 North Central AVERAGE 5.13 4.48 5.86 5.45 5.5 4.85 4.28 3.26 3.56 3.45 5.34 5.81 56.97

71

- 00 STD DEV 2.6 2.34 2.75 3.05 2.71 2.58 2.1 1.64 1.86 1.97 2.62 3.51 9.58

MS

- 03 Northeast AVERAGE 5.28 4.73 6.32 5.32 5.82 4.52 4.25 3.22 3.92 3.44 5.43 6.17 58.42

71

- 00 STD DEV 2.93 2.23 3.18 2.87 3.55 2.33 1.82 1.65 2.29 1.83 2.47 3.88 10.38

MS

- 04 Lower Delta AVERAGE 5.67 4.71 6.16 5.67 5.59 4.32 4.36 2.71 3.07 3.7 5.3 5.91 57.17

71

- 00 STD DEV 3.16 2.27 2.8 3.54 2.83 2 2.2 1.7 1.26 2.59 2.59 3.82 10.23

MS

- 05 Central AVERAGE 5.92 4.95 6.32 5.83 5.21 3.97 4.57 3.4 3.45 3.56 5.3 5.79 58.27

71

- 00 STD DEV 3.11 2.31 2.71 3.7 2.82 1.8 1.93 1.52 1.48 2.42 2.38 3.05 9.76

MS

- 06 East Central AVERAGE 5.92 4.97 6.26 5.65 5.13 4.34 4.5 3.32 3.61 3.4 5.08 5.34 57.52

71

- 00 STD DEV 2.78 2.35 3.1 3.48 2.91 2.14 2.08 1.52 2.07 2.18 2.26 2.77 11.21

MS

- 07 Southwest AVERAGE 6.41 5.21 6.51 6 5.44 4.67 4.54 4.02 3.81 3.62 5.13 6.01 61.37

71

- 00 STD DEV 3.34 2.68 2.61 3.85 2.79 2.25 1.66 1.85 1.64 2.62 2.39 2.79 8.95

MS

- 08 South Central AVERAGE 6.53 5.33 6.51 5.88 5.62 4.62 5.26 4.49 4.08 3.52 4.96 5.67 62.47

71

- 00 STD DEV 2.85 2.78 2.68 3.81 2.96 2.31 2.05 2.18 2.04 2.39 2.13 2.76 9.36

MS

- 09 Southeast AVERAGE 6.39 5 6.56 5.38 4.9 4.06 5.42 3.88 4.07 3.28 5.01 5.14 59.09

71

- 00 STD DEV 2.78 2.35 2.66 2.94 2.73 1.63 2.09 1.66 2.41 2.35 2.28 2.31 8.88

MS

- 10 Coastal AVERAGE 6.33 5.55 6.52 5.14 5.74 4.94 6.86 5.69 5.71 3.18 5.04 4.98 65.68

71

- 00 STD DEV 3.96 3.08 2.48 3.56 3.6 2.17 2.87 2.55 4.35 2.42 2.78 1.82 11.48



### Excerpted from: CLIMATOGRAPHY OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 85

### 11

Table 4

- - CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY MISSISSIPPI 2006 TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL (INCHES)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

MS

- 01 Upper Delta Precip. 10.55 4.59 3.97 4.96 5.36 3.49 3.87 4.48 4.14 7.13 55.87 2.41 0.92 A

2006 Depart. 5.61 0.06

- 1.74

- 0.53

- 0.1

- 2.56

- 3.15 0.9 0.84 1.23

- 1.34 1.55 0.77

MS

- 02 North Central Precip. 8.56 4.81 3.94 4.39 4.69 2.74 1.7 3.81 5.27 4.22 3.97 5.7 53.8 A

2006 Depart. 3.43 0.33

- 1.92

- 1.06

- 0.81

- 2.11

- 2.58 0.55 1.71 0.77

- 1.37

- 0.11

- 3.17

MS

- 03 Northeast Precip. 7.65 4.5 3.3 4.89 4.55 2.09 5.95 5.32 4.28 4.87 51.07 1.7 1.97 A

2006 Depart. 2.37

- 0.23

- 3.02

- 0.43

- 1.27

- 2.82

- 2.28

- 1.13 2.03 1.88

- 1.15

- 1.3

- 7.35

MS

- 04 Lower Delta Precip. 6.69 7.16 5.22 3.75 3.1 2.43 3.58 9.46 2.67 6.58 54.07 2.19 1.24 A

2006 Depart. 1.02 2.45

- 0.94

- 1.92

- 2.49

- 2.13

- 3.12

- 0.28 0.51 5.76

- 2.63 0.67

- 3.1

MS

- 05 Central Precip. 6.98 8.61 4.48 2.35 2.75 2.51 4.42 9.57 2.76 5.51 54.5 2.02 2.54 A

2006 Depart. 1.06 3.66

- 1.84

- 3.48

- 2.46

- 1.95

- 2.03

- 0.89 0.97 6.01

- 2.54

- 0.28

- 3.77

MS

- 06 East Central Precip. 6.62 8.02 4.46 3.03 3.98 1.16 2.88 2.57 4.28 8.91 3.89 5.28 55.08 A

2006 Depart. 0.7 3.05

- 1.8

- 2.62

- 1.15

- 3.18

- 1.62

- 0.75 0.67 5.51

- 1.19

- 0.06

- 2.44

MS

- 07 Southwest Precip. 5.25 6.9 4.24 3.42 3.94 1.38 5.21 3.97 1.97 9.04 2.5 5.85 53.67 A

2006 Depart.

- 1.16 1.69

- 2.27

- 2.58

- 1.5

- 3.29 0.67

- 0.05

- 1.84 5.42

- 2.63

- 0.16

- 7.7

MS

- 08 South Central Precip. 5.47 5.88 3.67 3.4 3.56 1.22 4.9 5.34 3.68 8.93 4.28 6.49 56.82 A

2006 Depart.

- 1.06 0.55

- 2.84

- 2.48

- 2.06

- 3.4

- 0.36 0.85

- 0.4 5.41

- 0.68 0.82

- 5.65

MS

- 09 Southeast Precip. 4.18 6.47 3.54 2.89 5.02 1.78 5.06 4.5 2.7 5.29 4.27 6.56 52.26 A

2006 Depart.

- 2.21 1.47

- 3.02

- 2.49 0.12

- 2.28

- 0.36 0.62

- 1.37 2.01

- 0.74 1.42

- 6.83

MS

- 10 Coastal Precip. 2.84 3.18 0.41 4.21 4.74 6.48 5.08 4.95 5.7 7.4 48.77 1.55 2.23 A

2006 Depart.

- 3.49

- 2.37

- 6.11

- 0.93

- 4.19

- 2.71

- 2.12 0.79

- 0.63 1.77 0.66 2.42

- 16.91

### 12

Table 5

- - CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY MISSISSIPPI 2007 TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL (INCHES)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

MS

- 01 Upper Delta Precip. 5.77 2.11 0.86 3.88 3 3.4 7.48 0.71 2.7 5.08 2.09 4.44 41.52 A

2007 Depart. 0.83

- 2.42

- 4.85

- 1.61

- 2.46

- 1.57 3.41

- 1.88

- 0.33 1.83

- 3.39

- 1.14

- 13.58

MS

- 02 North Central Precip. 4.81 2.38 0.82 3.46 2.31 4.08 6.12 1.17 2.73 6.62 2.23 4.79 41.52 A

2007 Depart.

- 0.32

- 2.1

- 5.04

- 1.99

- 3.19

- 0.77 1.84

- 2.09

- 0.83 3.17

- 3.11

- 1.02

- 15.45

MS

- 03 Northeast Precip. 4.76 2.63 1.51 2.74 6.1 1.38 3.32 7.4 2.9 4.45 41.18 2.38 1.61 D

2007 Depart.

- 0.52

- 2.35

- 4.71

- 2.69

- 4.31

- 1.78 1.85

- 1.84

- 0.6 3.96

- 2.53

- 1.72

- 17.24

MS

- 04 Lower Delta Precip. 4.81 3.5 2.92 3.39 7.89 1.61 4.94 4.33 2.37 3.38 42.01 2.29 0.58 A

2007 Depart.

- 0.86

- 2.42

- 5.58

- 2.17

- 2.67

- 0.93 3.53

- 1.1 1.87 0.63

- 2.93

- 2.53

- 15.16

MS

- 05 Central Precip. 4.98 2.59 2.72 2.86 7.16 1.4 4.86 3.06 1.89 3.21 37.97 2.46 0.78 A

2007 Depart.

- 0.94

- 2.49

- 5.54

- 3.24

- 2.49

- 1.11 2.59

- 2 1.41

- 0.5

- 3.41

- 2.58

- 20.3

MS

- 06 East Central Precip. 4.02 2.87 0.69 2.69 1.2 2.56 5.56 2.28 3.62 4.3 2.23 2.59 34.61 A

2007 Depart.

- 1.9

- 2.1

- 5.57

- 2.96

- 3.93

- 1.78 1.06

- 1.04 0.01 0.9

- 2.85

- 2.75

- 22.91

MS

- 07 Southwest Precip. 6.42 2.54 0.83 3.4 2.5 2.97 8.52 2.27 5.28 2.54 2.81 4.34 44.42 A

2007 Depart. 0.01

- 2.67

- 5.68

- 2.6

- 2.94

- 1.7 3.98

- 1.75 1.47

- 1.08

- 2.32

- 1.67

- 16.95

MS

- 08 South Central Precip. 4.91 4.52 2.61 3.65 9.1 3.62 3.18 3.58 2.12 4.89 45.23 2.25 0.8 A

2007 Depart.

- 1.62

- 3.08

- 5.71

- 1.36

- 3.01

- 0.97 3.84

- 0.87

- 0.9 0.06

- 2.84

- 0.78

- 17.24

MS

- 09 Southeast Precip. 4.14 5.28 2.53 4.23 7.25 3.02 3.26 4.3 1.46 4.07 42.73 2.64 0.55 A

2007 Depart.

- 2.25

- 2.36

- 6.01

- 0.1

- 2.37 0.17 1.83

- 0.86

- 0.81 1.02

- 3.55

- 1.07

- 16.36

MS

- 10 Coastal Precip. 4.14 2.5 1.51 4.95 4.3 4.5 8.47 5.13 3.5 8.87 2.15 6.54 56.56 A

2007 Depart.

- 2.19

- 3.05

- 5.01

- 0.19

- 1.44

- 0.44 1.61

- 0.56

- 2.21 5.69

- 2.89 1.56

- 9.12

### 13

Table 6

- CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY MISSISSIPPI 2008 TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL (INCHES)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

MS

- 01 Upper Delta Precip. 2.72 4.49 5.3 8.45 8.16 7.33 3.86 3.64 2.29 7.71 56.83 1.38 1.5 

### A

2008 Depart.

- 2.22

- 0.04

- 0.41 2.96 2.7

- 3.59

- 2.57 4.74 0.83 0.39

- 3.19 2.13 1.73

MS

- 02 North Central Precip. 3.13 3.61 7.91 7.19 7.97 2.59 2.19 6.26 3.23 4.72 2.69 9.04 60.53 

### A

2008 Depart.

- 2

- 0.87 2.05 1.74 2.47

- 2.26

- 2.09 3

- 0.33 1.27

- 2.65 3.23 3.56

MS

- 03 Northeast Precip. 2.11 4.21 4.91 6.31 8.09 1.11 2.61 7.46 3.24 4.76 3.13 10.34 58.28 

### A

2008 Depart.

- 3.17

- 0.52

- 1.41 0.99 2.27

- 3.41

- 1.64 4.24

- 0.68 1.32

- 2.3 4.17

- 0.14

MS

- 04 Lower Delta Precip. 2.92 5.43 3.28 7.41 7.14 0.85 2.25 1.86 2.62 9.71 59.94 8.47 8 

### A

2008 Depart.

- 2.75 0.72

- 2.88 1.74 1.55

- 3.47

- 2.11 5.76 4.93

- 1.84

- 2.68 3.8 2.77

MS

- 05 Central Precip. 2.95 6.43 3.3 6.67 7.03 1.58 3.28 2.2 2.82 10.47 61.51 9.28 5.5 

### A

2008 Depart.

- 2.97 1.48

- 3.02 0.84 1.82

- 2.39

- 1.29 5.88 2.05

- 1.36

- 2.48 4.68 3.24

MS

- 06 East Central Precip. 3.59 7.08 3.72 5.67 4.79 1.44 3 8.97 3.94 2.89 2.4 10.15 57.64 

### A

2008 Depart.

- 2.33 2.11

- 2.54 0.02

- 0.34

- 2.9

- 1.5 5.65 0.33

- 0.51

- 2.68 4.81 0.12

MS

- 07 Southwest Precip. 4.44 6.56 3.74 3.77 4.95 2.61 1.87 1.78 5.12 8.08 64.76 11.58 10.26 

### A

2008 Depart.

- 1.97 1.35

- 2.77

- 2.23

- 0.49

- 2.06

- 2.67 7.56 6.45

- 1.84

- 0.01 2.07 3.39

MS

- 08 South Central Precip. 6.29 5.46 4.17 3.94 4.67 3.26 2.3 1.63 4.88 6.71 58.92 7.6 8.01 

### A

2008 Depart.

- 0.24 0.13

- 2.34

- 1.94

- 0.95

- 1.36

- 2.96 3.11 3.93

- 1.89

- 0.08 1.04

- 3.55

MS

- 09 Southeast Precip. 6.44 6.13 3.31 4.09 5.05 3.3 3.65 8.43 6.06 1.73 4.47 6.19 58.85 

### A

2008 Depart. 0.05 1.13

- 3.25

- 1.29 0.15

- 0.76

- 1.77 4.55 1.99

- 1.55

- 0.54 1.05

- 0.24

MS

- 10 Coastal Precip. 7.06 4.95 3.37 6.44 5.46 5.93 3.6 8.65 7.38 1.35 59 2.16 2.65 

### A

2008 Depart. 0.73

- 0.6

- 3.15 1.3

- 0.28 0.99

- 3.26 2.96 1.67

- 1.83

- 2.88

- 2.33

- 6.68

### 14

Table 7

- CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY MISSISSIPPI 2009 TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL (INCHES)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

MS

- 01 Upper Delta Precip. 2.61 3.51 6.48 4.19 11.83 2.91 8.96 1.17 2.57 6.68 70.33 8.6 10.82 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 2.33

- 1.02 0.77

- 1.3 6.37

- 2.06 4.89

- 1.42 5.57 7.57

- 2.91 1.1 15.23

MS

- 02 North Central Precip. 2.63 3.85 5.37 4.01 10.19 3.18 10.92 2.01 2.36 6.17 67.54 7.17 9.68 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 2.5

- 0.63

- 0.49

- 1.44 4.69

- 1.67 6.64

- 1.25 3.61 6.23

- 2.98 0.36 10.57

MS

- 03 Northeast Precip. 3.19 3.51 5.86 2.82 8.4 2.21 6.89 3.98 2.32 5.11 65.33 10.49 10.55 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 2.09

- 1.22

- 0.46

- 2.5 2.58

- 2.31 2.64 0.76 6.57 7.11

- 3.11

- 1.06 6.91

MS

- 04 Lower Delta Precip. 3.87 1.81 6.95 2.67 11.34 0.55 10.28 3.27 1.79 5.08 69.96 7.41 14.94 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 1.8

- 2.9 0.79

- 3 5.75

- 3.77 5.92 0.56 4.34 11.24

- 3.51

- 0.83 12.79

MS

- 05 Central Precip. 5.02 3.3 8.31 2.09 10.81 1.2 9.43 2.85 1.53 6.22 70.54 7.84 11.94 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 0.9

- 1.65 1.99

- 3.74 5.6

- 2.77 4.86

- 0.55 4.39 8.38

- 3.77 0.43 12.27

MS

- 06 East Central Precip. 5.8 5.7 8.09 3.39 8.79 2.86 6.17 4.65 1.74 6.3 75.62 11.74 10.39 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 0.12 0.73 1.83

- 2.26 3.66

- 1.48 1.67 1.33 8.13 6.99

- 3.34 0.96 18.1

MS

- 07 Southwest Precip. 3.5 3.58 9.83 4.09 4.65 0.57 6.67 3.59 0.97 8.63 62.88 5.48 11.32 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 2.91

- 1.63 3.32

- 1.91

- 0.79

- 4.1 2.13

- 0.43 1.67 7.7

- 4.16 2.62 1.51

MS

- 08 South Central Precip. 3.83 3.65 11.37 3.84 6.98 0.63 4.39 3.76 1.46 12.54 67.14 7.34 7.35 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 2.7

- 1.68 4.86

- 2.04 1.36

- 3.99

- 0.87

- 0.73 3.26 3.83

- 3.5 6.87 4.67

MS

- 09 Southeast Precip. 3.73 3.08 10.74 5.12 9.88 1.49 3.4 3.82 7.89 5.09 2.49 14.5 71.23 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 2.66

- 1.92 4.18

- 0.26 4.98

- 2.57

- 2.02

- 0.06 3.82 1.81

- 2.52 9.36 12.14

MS

- 10 Coastal Precip. 1.84 3.23 10.89 2 4.19 1.32 5.64 5.66 6.39 6.59 2.89 16.62 67.26 

### A

2009 Depart.

- 4.49

- 2.32 4.37

- 3.14

- 1.55

- 3.62

- 1.22

- 0.03 0.68 3.41

- 2.15 11.64 1.58

### 15

Table 8

- CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY MISSISSIPPI 2010 TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL (INCHES)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

MS

- 01 Upper Delta Precip. 6.33 3.49 2.31 3.68 5.49 1.61 2.6 2.16 1.72 2.31 6.03 1.24 38.97 

### A

2010 Depart. 1.39

- 1.04

- 3.4

- 1.81 0.03

- 3.36

- 1.47

- 0.43

- 1.31

- 0.94 0.55

- 4.34

- 16.13

MS

- 02 North Central Precip. 5.07 3.4 4.04 3.87 8.51 2.38 4.95 2.49 0.69 2.02 6.62 1.59 45.63 

### A

2010 Depart.

- 0.06

- 1.08

- 1.82

- 1.58 3.01

- 2.47 0.67

- 0.77

- 2.87

- 1.43 1.28

- 4.22

- 11.34

MS

- 03 Northeast Precip. 5.44 3.45 4.2 2.5 10.42 3.08 6 2.66 1.64 2.3 5.78 2.17 49.64 

### A

2010 Depart. 0.16

- 1.28

- 2.12

- 2.82 4.6

- 1.44 1.75

- 0.56

- 2.28

- 1.14 0.35

- 4

- 8.78

MS

- 04 Lower Delta Precip. 6.25 2.92 3.01 2.85 4.2 1.3 3.35 1.68 1.07 1.55 5.31 1.13 34.62 

### A

2010 Depart. 0.58

- 1.79

- 3.15

- 2.82

- 1.39

- 3.02

- 1.01

- 1.03

- 2

- 2.15 0.01

- 4.78

- 22.55

MS

- 05 Central Precip. 5.22 3.58 4.44 3.51 6.03 3 3.98 4.44 0.56 1.92 6.11 1.58 44.37 

### A

2010 Depart.

- 0.7

- 1.37

- 1.88

- 2.32 0.82

- 0.97

- 0.59 1.04

- 2.89

- 1.64 0.81

- 4.21

- 13.9

MS

- 06 East Central Precip. 5.86 3.61 4.56 3.49 5.91 3.21 2.81 3.58 0.82 2.4 7.24 1.09 44.58 

### A

2010 Depart.

- 0.06

- 1.36

- 1.7

- 2.16 0.78

- 1.13

- 1.69 0.26

- 2.79

- 1 2.16

- 4.25

- 12.94

MS

- 07 Southwest Precip. 4.98 5.37 4.05 1.15 3.78 3.1 4.58 6.55 0.6 1.95 6.3 2.04 44.45 

### A

2010 Depart.

- 1.43 0.16

- 2.46

- 4.85

- 1.66

- 1.57 0.04 2.53

- 3.21

- 1.67 1.17

- 3.97

- 16.92

MS

- 08 South Central Precip. 4.04 5.78 3.34 2.64 5.11 3.17 6.09 8.66 0.19 1.22 5.77 1.77 47.78 

### A

2010 Depart.

- 2.49 0.45

- 3.17

- 3.24

- 0.51

- 1.45 0.83 4.17

- 3.89

- 2.3 0.81

- 3.9

- 14.69

MS

- 09 Southeast Precip. 4.18 6.34 4.19 3.43 5.41 3.21 3.88 6.13 0.24 1.06 4.56 1.34 43.97 

### A

2010 Depart.

- 2.21 1.34

- 2.37

- 1.95 0.51

- 0.85

- 1.54 2.25

- 3.83

- 2.22

- 0.45

- 3.8

- 15.12

MS

- 10 Coastal Precip. 4.1 5.7 6.37 8.08 5.46 11.45 1.71 1.44 3.68 1.51 54.53 3.75 1.28 

### A

2010 Depart.

- 2.23 0.15

- 2.77

- 3.86 0.63 3.14

- 1.4 5.76

- 4

- 1.74

- 1.36

- 3.47

- 11.15

### 16

Table 9

- CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY MISSISSIPPI 2011 TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL (INCHES)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

MS

- 01 Upper Delta Precip. 2.61 2.45 3.36 11.92 2.38 4.19 2.81 3.51 4.02 3.2 6.06 7.39 53.9 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 2.33

- 2.08

- 2.35 6.43

- 3.08

- 0.78

- 1.26 0.92 0.99

- 0.05 0.58 1.81

- 1.2

MS

- 02 North Central Precip. 2.83 2.87 5.1 12.42 3.7 3.4 3.09 2.76 4.97 2.22 5.55 6.87 55.78 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 2.3

- 1.61

- 0.76 6.97

- 1.8

- 1.45

- 1.19

- 0.5 1.41

- 1.23 0.21 1.06

- 1.19

MS

- 03 Northeast Precip. 3.79 3.23 7.26 10.7 4.11 4.74 1.55 3.44 7.79 1.34 5.23 6.09 59.27 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 1.49

- 1.5 0.94 5.38

- 1.71 0.22

- 2.7 0.22 3.87

- 2.1

- 0.2

- 0.08 0.85

MS

- 04 Lower Delta Precip. 4.55 2.4 3.69 6.52 3.83 1.9 4.79 1.24 4.39 8.29 45.11 2.04 1.47 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 1.12

- 2.31

- 2.47 0.85

- 3.55

- 2.85

- 0.53

- 0.81 1.72

- 2.46

- 0.91 2.38

- 12.06

MS

- 05 Central Precip. 5.62 2.12 6.16 6.92 1.81 2.88 7.91 1.66 9.89 1.03 3.81 6.29 56.1 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 0.3

- 2.83

- 0.16 1.09

- 3.4

- 1.09 3.34

- 1.74 6.44

- 2.53

- 1.49 0.5

- 2.17

MS

- 06 East Central Precip. 5.69 2.31 6.62 10.04 2.46 3.55 4.02 1.9 8.9 0.96 3.18 6.09 55.72 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 0.23

- 2.66 0.36 4.39

- 2.67

- 0.79

- 0.48

- 1.42 5.29

- 2.44

- 1.9 0.75

- 1.8

MS

- 07 Southwest Precip. 5.58 2.35 7.54 3.89 1.13 2.64 5.76 1.16 7.15 0.63 4.99 7.61 50.43 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 0.83

- 2.86 1.03

- 2.11

- 4.31

- 2.03 1.22

- 2.86 3.34

- 2.99

- 0.14 1.6

- 10.94

MS

- 08 South Central Precip. 4.21 2.97 8.85 2.57 1.05 3.81 6.56 1.75 10.44 0.4 3.54 5.17 51.32 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 2.32

- 2.36 2.34

- 3.31

- 4.57

- 0.81 1.3

- 2.74 6.36

- 3.12

- 1.42

- 0.5

- 11.15

MS

- 09 Southeast Precip. 4.27 3.49 11.05 3.65 1.17 3.12 8.43 2.62 9.63 0.55 2.84 5.48 56.3 

### A

2011 Depart.

- 2.12

- 1.51 4.49

- 1.73

- 3.73

- 0.94 3.01

- 1.26 5.56

- 2.73

- 2.17 0.34

- 2.79

MS

- 10 Coastal Precip. 3.49 2.7 4.94 3.58 11.58 2.55 13.91 0.69 1.55 0.25 2.14 1.19 48.57 

### D

2011 Depart.

- 2.84

- 2.85

- 1.58

- 4.45

- 4.19

- 1.36 4.72

- 3.14 8.2

- 2.93

- 2.9

- 3.79

- 17.11

### 17

Table 10

- CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY MISSISSIPPI 201 2 TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL (INCHES)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

UPPER DELTA 01 

### Precip. 3.05 3.09 5.13 2.99 1.94 3.37 2.54 2.09 5.09 5.29 2.18 5.32 42.08 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 1.89

- 1.44

- 0.58

- 2.5

- 3.52

- 1.6

- 1.53

- 0.5 2.06 2.04

- 3.3

- 0.26

- 13.02

NORTH CENTRAL 02 

### Precip. 3.35 3.07 5.09 2.52 2.19 2.39 4.32 3.03 4.09 5.89 1.83 6.38 44.15 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 1.78

- 1.41

- 0.77

- 2.93

- 3.31

- 2.46 0.04

- 0.23 0.53 2.44

- 3.51 0.57

- 12.82

NORTHEAST 03 

### Precip. 5.17 4.03 6.26 2.42 2.97 2.57 5.75 3.49 5.27 4.59 1.13 7.14 50.79 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 0.11

- 0.7

- 0.06

- 2.9

- 2.85

- 1.95 1.5 0.27 1.35 1.15

- 4.3 0.97

- 7.63

LOWER DELTA 04 

### Precip. 2.49 4.93 6.26 4.04 2.76 5.21 4.95 5.33 4.49 5.5 2.49 7.04 55.49 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 3.18 0.22 0.1

- 1.63

- 2.83 0.89 0.59 2.62 1.42 1.8

- 2.81 1.13

- 1.68

CENTRAL 05 

### Precip. 3.39 6.61 6.73 3.93 4.22 4.19 6.51 6.35 3.14 3.5 2.93 8.16 59.66 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 2.53 1.66 0.41

- 1.9

- 0.99 0.22 1.94 2.95

- 0.31

- 0.06

- 2.37 2.37 1.39

EAST CENTRAL 06 

### Precip. 3.82 3.96 6.69 2.32 4.43 2.56 7.55 6.93 4.38 3.76 2.53 7.34 56.27 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 2.1

- 1.01 0.43

- 3.33

- 0.7

- 1.78 3.05 3.61 0.77 0.36

- 2.55 2

- 1.25

SOUTHWEST 07 

### Precip. 5.07 8.77 5.76 4.74 3.73 2.61 9.85 10.35 4.67 1.67 2.58 8.84 68.64 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 1.34 3.56

- 0.75

- 1.26

- 1.71

- 2.06 5.31 6.33 0.86

- 1.95

- 2.55 2.83 7.27

SOUTH CENTRAL 08 

### Precip. 6.51 7.64 7.69 4.36 2.09 2.42 7.7 14.15 4.09 1.66 2.76 8.56 69.63 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 0.02 2.31 1.18

- 1.52

- 3.53

- 2.2 2.44 9.66 0.01

- 1.86

- 2.2 2.89 7.16

SOUTHEAST 09 

### Precip. 6 7.24 8.79 2.65 4.11 4.14 9.38 13.63 3.81 2.48 2.01 8.24 72.48 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 0.39 2.24 2.23

- 2.73

- 0.79 0.08 3.96 9.75

- 0.26

- 0.8

- 3 3.1 13.39

COASTAL 10 

### Precip. 2.41 6.02 8.68 4.9 3.09 7.19 9.34 19.87 6.22 1.85 1.51 2.3 73.38 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 3.92 0.47 2.16

- 0.24

- 2.65 2.25 2.48 14.18 0.51

- 1.33

- 3.53

- 2.68 7.7

### 18

Table 11

- CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY MISSISSIPPI 201 3 TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL (INCHES)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

UPPER DELTA 01 

### Precip. 10.23 3.78 4.68 7.77 8.99 2.17 2.58 2.71 6.7 4.92 5.48 5.25 65.26 A

2012 

### Depart. 5.29

- 0.75

- 1.03 2.28 3.53

- 2.8

- 1.49 0.12 3.67 1.67 0

- 0.33 10.16

NORTH CENTRAL 02 

### Precip. 9.27 4.01 5.09 7.09 8.62 3.31 3.59 1.91 4.99 3.11 5.38 5.52 61.89 A

2012 

### Depart. 4.14

- 0.47

- 0.77 1.64 3.12

- 1.54

- 0.69

- 1.35 1.43

- 0.34 0.04

- 0.29 4.92

NORTHEAST 03 

### Precip. 9.17 3.72 5.26 5.55 6.02 3.42 2.95 2.57 4.14 1.41 4.51 6.04 54.76 A

2012 

### Depart. 3.89

- 1.01

- 1.06 0.23 0.2

- 1.1

- 1.3

- 0.65 0.22

- 2.03

- 0.92

- 0.13

- 3.66

LOWER DELTA 04 

### Precip. 10.79 5.85 4.82 6.48 5.07 3.91 2.2 1.17 5.1 7.59 5.79 4.49 63.26 A

2012 

### Depart. 5.12 1.14

- 1.34 0.81

- 0.52

- 0.41

- 2.16

- 1.54 2.03 3.89 0.49

- 1.42 6.09

CENTRAL 05 

### Precip. 8.8 6.91 5.41 5.78 6.12 4.3 2.63 2.33 7.27 1.91 5.92 5.12 62.5 A

2012 

### Depart. 2.88 1.96

- 0.91

- 0.05 0.91 0.33

- 1.94

- 1.07 3.82

- 1.65 0.62

- 0.67 4.23

EAST CENTRAL 06 

### Precip. 8.33 5.76 5.6 6.62 4.6 3.58 4.82 3.04 4.86 1.08 4.62 5.91 58.82 A

2012 

### Depart. 2.41 0.79

- 0.66 0.97

- 0.53

- 0.76 0.32

- 0.28 1.25

- 2.32

- 0.46 0.57 1.3

SOUTHWEST 07 

### Precip. 12.08 9.34 3.27 6.16 5.97 4.54 4.34 2.23 5.87 2.67 6.39 4.59 67.45 A

2012 

### Depart. 5.67 4.13

- 3.24 0.16 0.53

- 0.13

- 0.2

- 1.79 2.06

- 0.95 1.26

- 1.42 6.08

SOUTH CENTRAL 08 

### Precip. 8.36 10.1 2.56 7.01 5.29 5.04 4.94 3.84 6.28 1.39 4.85 5.78 65.44 A

2012 

### Depart. 1.83 4.77

- 3.95 1.13

- 0.33 0.42

- 0.32

- 0.65 2.2

- 2.13

- 0.11 0.11 2.97

SOUTHEAST 09 

### Precip. 8.33 9.72 3 6.99 6.43 6.23 5.89 4.61 4.04 2.03 5.25 6.23 68.75 A

2012 

### Depart. 1.94 4.72

- 3.56 1.61 1.53 2.17 0.47 0.73

- 0.03

- 1.25 0.24 1.09 9.66

COASTAL 10 

### Precip. 3.8 9.99 0.79 8.57 6.73 4.49 10.42 8.32 3.01 2.25 3.39 6.48 68.24 A

2012 

### Depart.

- 2.53 4.44

- 5.73 3.43 0.99

- 0.45 3.56 2.63

- 2.7

- 0.93

- 1.65 1.5 2.56

### 19

Table 12

- Data Completeness by Quarter

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

KGLH 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.7 2.7 0.8 0.0 4.7 1.9 0.3 0.2 8.3 2.9 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.7

KGPT 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.6 1.3 3.3 0.5 2.2 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.3 8.5 0.5 0.3 0.3

KGTR 2.2 12.3 4.0 4.8 4.7 6.4 15.4 13.2 10.4 6.7 8.1 4.9 10.2 13.1 7.4 6.0 3.2 6.7 5.0 6.3 5.4 6.1 9.9 6.7 2.7 4.2 5.2 4.3 4.4 4.7 8.5 3.0

KGWO 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.7 2.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 2.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.1 3.1 5.0 2.7

KHBG 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.6 0.6 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.1 1.2 0.1 2.0

KHEZ 5.3 2.0 0.3 6.9 1.6 0.6 6.0 8.8 4.1 0.6 12.0 1.2 1.5 3.1 0.1 0.8 0.0 1.1 1.0 3.6 3.2 2.8 11.5 2.7 0.1 5.9 1.5 10.0 1.3 14.6 2.8 0.3

KHKS 0.7 1.8 1.1 0.4 0.1 2.9 1.8 0.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.7

KJAN 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 1.8 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.4

KMCB 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.2 2.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 7.7 5.6 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 2.7 0.2 0.3

KMEI 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.4

KMEM 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.4

KMOB 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 2.7 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4

KPIB 13.8 8.9 5.2 4.0 4.4 1.1 3.2 1.6 4.4 3.0 0.1 7.8 8.0 1.3 18.4 0.6 0.1 13.9 18.7 5.4 0.6 5.9 0.6 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 34.2

KPQL 2.7 2.0 2.5 0.6 3.9 1.4 1.5 0.5 1.1 4.0 6.2 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3

KTUP 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.3 3.1 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.8

KTVR 0.4 1.5 5.3 1.7 1.7 2.8 0.6 1.3 0.0 2.5 2.1 0.9 0.4 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.4 4.4 9.5 4.9

KUTA 4.3 0.7 3.0 1.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.9 2.2 2.7 1.8 3.9 24.4 3.2 0.7 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.2 0.5 2.0 1.4 0.8

KCMB 9.2 5.9 4.4 4.8 4.5 5.9 7.8 2.8 4.8 6.1 3.9 6.3 3.2 7.5 5.1 3.2 4.7 6.4 8.2 4.5 2013 2008 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 

## APPENDIX C: RAIN CII CARBON HOUR LY EMISSIONS C ALCULATIONSParameters 2012 2013 2014Stack	Feed	Rate1,	tph12 12 12SO2Emission	rate1,	lbs/hr241 241 330PM	Emission	rate2,	lbs/ton20.08 20.08 27.5Green	Coke	Handled1,	tons/yr38,237 35,041 36,255Hours	of	Operation1,	hrs5,952 5,961 6,646Annual	Emission3,	tpy384 352 499Hourly	Emission	Rate4,	lbs/hr129.02 118.06 150.06References:1.	Data	obtained	from	the	stack	test	report	provided	by	the	Mississippi	Department	of	Environmental	Quality2.	PM	emission	rate	was	estimated	using	the	following	equation:241	tph12	lbs/hr3.	Annual	emissions	are	estimated	usingthe	followingequation:1	ton 38237	tons 20.08	lbs 1	ton2,000	lbs yr ton 2,000	lbs4.	Hourly	Emission	Rate	was	estimated	using	the	following	equation:2,000	lbs 384	tpyton 5952	hrsRainIICarbonPurvisCokePlantEmissionRatesforSO2DesignationModelingStack	Feed	Rate,	tphSO2Emission	rate,	lbs/hrPM	Emission	Rate,	lbs/ton==20.08lbs/ton==384tpyAnnual	Emissions,	tpy=Hourly	Emission	Rate,	lb/hr=Annual	Emissions,	tpyHours	of	Operation,	hrsyrGreen	Coke	Handled,	tons PM	Emission	Rate,	lbston== =129.02lbs/hrSMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 

## APPENDIX D: AERSURFACE O UTPUTJackson-A 7/30/2015

** Generated by AERSURFACE, dated 13016

** Generated from "missi.tif"

** Center Latitude (decimal degrees): 32.329111

** Center Longitude (decimal degrees): -90.182722

** Datum: NAD83

** Study radius (km) for surface roughness: 1.0

** Airport? N, Continuous snow cover? N

** Surface moisture? Average, Arid region? N

** Month/Season assignments? User-specified

** Late autumn after frost and harvest, or winter with no snow: 12,1,2

** Winter with continuous snow on the ground: 0

** Transitional spring (partial green coverage, short annuals): 3,4

** Midsummer with lush vegetation: 5,6,7,8,9

** Autumn with unharvested cropland: 10,11

FREQ_SECT MONTHLY 1

SECTOR 1 0 360

** Month Sect Alb Bo Zo

SITE_CHAR 1 1 0.17 0.81 0.337

SITE_CHAR 2 1 0.17 0.81 0.337

SITE_CHAR 3 1 0.16 0.65 0.386

SITE_CHAR 4 1 0.16 0.65 0.386

SITE_CHAR 5 1 0.16 0.63 0.405

SITE_CHAR 6 1 0.16 0.63 0.405

SITE_CHAR 7 1 0.16 0.63 0.405

SITE_CHAR 8 1 0.16 0.63 0.405

SITE_CHAR 9 1 0.16 0.63 0.405

SITE_CHAR 10 1 0.16 0.81 0.389

SITE_CHAR 11 1 0.16 0.81 0.389

SITE_CHAR 12 1 0.17 0.81 0.337

1KHBG-New 7/29/2015

** Generated by AERSURFACE, dated 13016

** Generated from "missi.tif"

** Center Latitude (decimal degrees): 31.269483

** Center Longitude (decimal degrees): -89.256108

** Datum: NAD83

** Study radius (km) for surface roughness: 1.0

** Airport? Y, Continuous snow cover? N

** Surface moisture? Average, Arid region? N

** Month/Season assignments? User-specified

** Late autumn after frost and harvest, or winter with no snow: 12,1,2

** Winter with continuous snow on the ground: 0

** Transitional spring (partial green coverage, short annuals): 3,4

** Midsummer with lush vegetation: 5,6,7,8,9

** Autumn with unharvested cropland: 10,11

FREQ_SECT MONTHLY 1

SECTOR 1 0 360

** Month Sect Alb Bo Zo

SITE_CHAR 1 1 0.15 0.63 0.037

SITE_CHAR 2 1 0.15 0.63 0.037

SITE_CHAR 3 1 0.14 0.48 0.051

SITE_CHAR 4 1 0.14 0.48 0.051

SITE_CHAR 5 1 0.15 0.34 0.068

SITE_CHAR 6 1 0.15 0.34 0.068

SITE_CHAR 7 1 0.15 0.34 0.068

SITE_CHAR 8 1 0.15 0.34 0.068

SITE_CHAR 9 1 0.15 0.34 0.068

SITE_CHAR 10 1 0.15 0.63 0.058

SITE_CHAR 11 1 0.15 0.63 0.058

SITE_CHAR 12 1 0.15 0.63 0.037

1Morrow_New 7/29/2015

** Generated by AERSURFACE, dated 13016

** Generated from "missi.tif"

** Center Latitude (decimal degrees): 31.218315

** Center Longitude (decimal degrees): -89.393335

** Datum: NAD83

** Study radius (km) for surface roughness: 1.0

** Airport? N, Continuous snow cover? N

** Surface moisture? Average, Arid region? N

** Month/Season assignments? User-specified

** Late autumn after frost and harvest, or winter with no snow: 12,1,2

** Winter with continuous snow on the ground: 0

** Transitional spring (partial green coverage, short annuals): 3,4

** Midsummer with lush vegetation: 5,6,7,8,9

** Autumn with unharvested cropland: 10,11

FREQ_SECT MONTHLY 1

SECTOR 1 0 360

** Month Sect Alb Bo Zo

SITE_CHAR 1 1 0.14 0.79 0.309

SITE_CHAR 2 1 0.14 0.79 0.309

SITE_CHAR 3 1 0.14 0.60 0.370

SITE_CHAR 4 1 0.14 0.60 0.370

SITE_CHAR 5 1 0.15 0.34 0.460

SITE_CHAR 6 1 0.15 0.34 0.460

SITE_CHAR 7 1 0.15 0.34 0.460

SITE_CHAR 8 1 0.15 0.34 0.460

SITE_CHAR 9 1 0.15 0.34 0.460

SITE_CHAR 10 1 0.15 0.79 0.455

SITE_CHAR 11 1 0.15 0.79 0.455

SITE_CHAR 12 1 0.14 0.79 0.309

1SMEPA

– R D Morrow Plant | 1

– Hour SO 2 NAAQS Designation Modeling Report

Trinity Consultants 

## APPENDIX E: SO 2 

## MONITOR VALUES R EPORTPage 1 of 2 Generated: July 30, 2015 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level

summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative

of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However,

some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and

tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems.

<http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon 

### Monitor Values Report

Geographic Area: Hinds County, MS

Pollutant: SO2

Year: 2014

Exceptional Events: Included (if any)

Page 1 of 2 Generated: July 30, 2015 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level

summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative

of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However,

some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and

tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems.

<http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon 

### Monitor Values Report

Geographic Area: Hinds County, MS

Pollutant: SO2

Year: 2014

Exceptional Events: Included (if any)

Duration Description=1 HOUR

Duration

Description Obs First

Max Second

Max 99th

Percentile Actual

Exc Exc

Events Monitor

Number Site ID Address City County State EPA

Region

1 HOUR 8161 39 18 14 0 None 1 280490020 232 East Woodrow Wilson Drive Jackson Hinds MS 04Page 2 of 2 Generated: July 30, 2015 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level

summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative

of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However,

some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and

tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems.

<http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon 

### Monitor Values Report

Geographic Area: Hinds County, MS

Pollutant: SO2

Year: 2014

Exceptional Events: Included (if any)

Page 2 of 2 Generated: July 30, 2015 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level

summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative

of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However,

some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and

tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems.

<http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon 

### Monitor Values Report

Geographic Area: Hinds County, MS

Pollutant: SO2

Year: 2014

Exceptional Events: Included (if any)

Duration Description=24-HR BLK AVG

Duration

Description Obs First

Max Second

Max 99th

Percentile Actual

Exc Exc

Events Monitor

Number Site ID Address City County State EPA

Region

24-HR BLK AVG 355 4 3 3 0 None 1 280490020 232 East Woodrow Wilson Drive Jackson Hinds MS 04