### Appendix 

### L.2: Georgia Pacific Corporation

# - Monticello Appendix L.2 

### contents: L.2.1 

### Appendix summary L.2.2 

### BART information request letter L.2.3 

### BART eligibility letter L.2.4 

### Modeling protocol L.2.5 

### BART applicability analysis report L.2.6 

### BART exemption letter

### Appendix L.2.1

Georgia Pacific 

### - Monticello (1500-00007) BART Process Summary As a kraft pulp mill, Georgia Pacific 

### - Monticello (GP) meets the initial BART eligibility requirement of source category code. GP 

### - Monticello is 209 

### krn from Breton National Wildlife Refuge, a Class I 

### area, and has a possible visibility impact. Therefore, on February 28,2002, Mississippi Department ofEnvironmental Quality (MDEQ) sent them a letter requesting information to determine BART eligibility. Based on the information received from GP 

### - Monticello, several units were deemed BART eligible because they met the following criteria: operating or under construction between Aug.7, 1962 to Aug.7, 1977 having potential emissions that exceed the limit of 250 tons per year for SO?,NO,, orPM10.

The following are the BART-eligible point sources for GP

## - Monticello.

As a 

### result, GP 

### - Monticello was required to perform CALPUFF modeling on these units. Using the old IMPROVE equation, the modeling analysis demonstrated a 9gth percentile 24-hour average visibility impact of0.33 dv for Breton. The threshold contribution for BART subjectivity is 0.5 dv; therefore, GP 

### - Monticello is not BART subject. Existing Control Equip. Electrostatic Precipitator Electrostatic Precipitator Low NO, Burners Flue Gas Recirculation Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber



### . Emission Unit Recovery Boiler 1 Recovery Boiler 2 Combination Boiler Power Boiler Smelt Tank 1 Smelt Tank 2 Lime Kiln Heat Duty (MMBtulhr) 861 861 117 776 Maximum Emission Rates (tons per year)

Totals. PMfo 874 874 404 17 51 51 141

, 2412 SO2 1789 1789 56 2 57 57 182 3932 NOx 877 877 804 578 II 11 419

, 3577

# - Appendix 

### L.2.2

STATE 

### OF MISSISSIPPI DAVID RONALD MUSOROVIE. GOVERNOR 

### MISSISSIPPI 

### DEPARTMENT OF

### ENVIRONMENTAL 

### QUALI~ CHARLESH. (311SOUI. EXKVTM DIRKTOR


### February28,2002 

# COPY

Mr. 

### Tim Jones GeorgiaPacificCorporation 

## P.O. Box 

### 608 Monticello,MS 39654 Re: 

## BART InformationRequest 

### DearMr. Jones: 

### In July 1999, The EnvironmentalProtection Agency 

## (EPA)issuedregional haze regulations to improve visual 

### airquality, orvisibility,in specifiednationalph and wildemtss ateas 

### across the 

### country. These regulations

### require statesto 

### establishgods for

### improvingvisibilityin 

### thestareas and to submitstateimplementation plans (SIPS) that contain enfmccablemeasures

### and control strategiesfor reducing visibility-impairing pollution. Onecomponent of

### theseregulationsisto reduce emissions

### hm certain, existing,

### I emission units by installing thebest availableemission mntrols. Thisrequirement, known 

### as theBest Available Retrofit Technology 

## (BART) requirement, applies to mission units that:



### were builtbetween August 7,1962 and August 7,1977;
0 

### have tbepotential to emit250tons per year 

### ormore ofammonia, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter lessthat 10

### microns (PMlo), 

### sulfur dioxide, orvolatile organic 

### compounds,either individuallyor

### in combinationwith otbcr suchunits; and D 

### fall intoone of26 

### listed somecategories, including steam electric plants and industrial 

### boilers, 

### and large industrial plants such 

### aspulp mills, refineries, and smelters. See 

### attachedlist. The final implementation plan should

### be submittedto EPA by December31,2008, and must contain, amongotherthings, 

### the emission limits and camplianceschedules 

### foreach 

### BART subject source. The first step in thispmessisto identifyall BART subject SOUTCes. Mississippi and other southeastern states and tribes have formed aRegional Planning Organization,known 

### as VISTAS, to work on the regional haze issue 

### and therequired

### implementation

### plans. It isourgoal tohave 

### all 

## BART subjectfailities and the specific emission

### units at

### the facilities identified by 

### June 2002. An initial filereview indicates that your 

### facility ispotentially subject to the

### BART requirementbecawit fallsinto one ofthe 

### 26 sourcecategories, was

### built priorto August 7,1977, 

### and

### haspotential ~nissions greater

### than 25

### 0tons 

### peryear for atleast one ofthe visibility-impairing pollutants. However, the information listedbelow is

### needed to make a determination. The initial startupdate for facility. Theinitial startup 

### datefor individual emission units. 

### The dates

### of any modification orreconstniction forindividual units.
a 

### The

## BART sourcecategoryofthe emission

### units. A list 

### ofemission units

### obtained 

### from ourfilesis enclosed. 

### Please enter

### the dates of initial start-up 

### and any modification orrcconstnrction, review and make any corrections to the listed source category, and review and

### make any comtionsto thepotential 

### emissions. This informationis also availablein excel spreadsheetfonnatwhich can be 

### wmpletcd and submitted electronically. Please respondby April 

### 19,2002. Ifthis information is notreceived, the facility and all 

### emission

### units at the facility

### will be considdsubject to the

## BARTrcquircments. However, the final dctenninationswill not

### be made until 

### the 

### SIPdevelopment process. 

### Thank you 

### foryourhelp 

### withthisprojcct. If

### you have any questions,please contactme at (601)%1-S 176orDeborahBoltwart at (601)961-5768,If you

### would likethe 

### electronic copy ofthe emissionunit 

### list, please send an e-mail to 

### deborehrehboltw~dq.state.ms.us and 

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



## Lkc;;()LElliottBickerstaff, 

### P.E. Chief,

### Air 

### SupportBranch

### Appendix L.2.3

STATE 

### OF MISSlSSlPPl DAVlDRONALDMUSGROM. GOVERNOR MISS~SSIPPI 

### DEPARTMENT OF

### ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAlurS H.CHISOLM, DIRECTOR



### October 

### 8,2002 Mr. Tim Jones Georgia Pacific Corporation 

### 604 Sandifer Highway Monticello, MS 39654 

### Re: BART Information 

### Response GeorgiaPacific Corporation, 

### Monticello 

### Lawrence County, Mississippi 

### Dear Mr. Jones: This letter is to acknowledgereceipt of your 

### responseto our 

### Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) letter dated February 

### 28,UMe. After reviewing 

### theinformation you submitted, it appears

### your facility is BART eligiblefor 

### the following

### reasons: 1. 

### The 

### facility 

### meets thecategory requirement for 

### kraftpulp mills. 2. 

### All units 

### began 

### operationduring 

### the August 7, 1962to August 7, 1977

### date range. 3. The

### emissions from 

### these 

### units exceed 

### the 

### 250 tons peryear 

### limit. On May 24,2002, 

### the 

## D.C. circuitcourt vacated 

### the BART provisions of the 

### Regional Haze 

### Rule (RHR). At issue is 

### the method 

### of determining 

### the cost 

### and benefits

### of installing BART at 

### aparticular source. 

### The 

### RHR requiresthis detenninetion 

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

### argued that 

### the Clam

### Air Act requires this determinationto 

### be 

### made on a 

### source by 

### source basis. 

### In 

### a 2-1 decision, 

### a three-judge panel 

### agreed with the 

### petitioners and 

### vacated 

### the BART provisions, requiring EPA to 

### revise 

### theBART requirements to 

### incorporate 

### a source

### by 

### source approach. EPA has filed a petition 

### seeking rehearing of

### the case 

### by the

## MI court. Depending on the 

### outcome of 

### the appealsprocess, this ding

### may affect what 

### controls a BART applicable source will be required to 

### install, but 

### the ruling did 

### not address and 

### therefore will not 

### impact 

### themethods in determining 

### theBART applicable

### mtuces. We plan to proceed with identifying

### the specific emission 

### units at 

### the facility that 

### are subject 

### to this requirement. Please note that 

### a BART applicable souroeis one 

### that will be 

### considered for retrofit bxhnologysontrols. It does not 

### necessarily 

### mean 

### that

### Appendix 

### L.2.3



### additional

### controlswill 

### be required 

### for the 

### source. 

### Thosedefednations

## will be 

### made over the next 

### several years during 

### the Regional 

## Hazeplanning 

### and our State 

### Implementation Plandevelopmentprocess. Attached 

### are the 

### BART 

### requirement text 

### and the applicabledefinitions 

### fromthe 

### Code of 

### Federal Regulations. 

### Ifyou 

### have questions orcorrnnents 

### regarding 

### the 

## BART requirementsorthis 

### designation, please contact

### me at (601) %1-5176 

### or 

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

### Sincerely,

Chief, 

### Air Support hAppendix L.2.4

August 3 1,2006 Deborah Boleware Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Office of Pollution Control Air Division P. 

### 0.Box 10385 Jackson, MS.39289-0385
Re: Protocol for Best Available Retrofit Technology Exemption Modeling: Monticello Mill
Georgia-Pacific Corporation (GP) is pleased to submit this Protocol for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering air modeling for our pulp and paper facility in Monticello, Mississippi. BART is required for any eligible source that "emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment ofvisibility" in any mandatory Class 

### I federal area. 40 CFR Part 5 

### 1Appendix 

### Y states, "Youcan use dispersion modeling to determine that an individual source cannotreasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class

### I area and thus is not subject to 

### BART." The enclosed protocol describes our proposal for this dispersion modeling. Shouldthe facility not qualify for the exemption level,the protocol describes the additional post-processing steps for quantifying the visibility improvementto engineering control scenarios with a VISTASsponsored refined dataset. The analyses will be completed by Georgia-Pacific. While many of the components of a protocol for this analysis are thoroughly documented in the VISTAS common protocol, this document provides source-specific information.
We look forward to addressing any questions or concerns you have with this protocol. Please contact me at (404) 652-4293; FAX (404) 654-4706; miaguila~ipapac.com. Sincerely,

Mark J. Aguilar P.E. Senior Environmental Engineer Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Cc: Tim Jones, Monticello

### MillMonticelloMill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 31. 2006 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION


## ............................................................................................................1



## ............................................................... 1.1. Overview of the Regional Haze BART Process 1 

### 1.2. Organization of the Protocol


## ............................................................................................. 2



## ....................................................................................................... SITE DESCRIPTION 3 

### VISTAS CONTRIBUTION TO CALPUFF MODELING


## ...........................................7 MODEL DISCUSSION


## ..................................................................................................7



## .................................................................................................. Exemption Procedures 7 CALPUFF Configuration


## ............................................................................................. 8 

### RESULTS AND DETERMINATION OF IMPAIRMENT


## .......................................... 9



## .......................................................................................................... Impact Threshold 9



## ................................................................................ Presentation ofModeling Results 9 

### QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN


## .................................................................................. 12

P:\Air & Walrr\Air3. RARmMantieelloiBART Exrmptmn Protocol Monlledlo doc iMonticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 31,2006


### 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

### 1.1. Overview of the Regional Haze BART Process Under regional haze regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued final guidelines dated July 6, 2005 for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations (70 FR 39 104-39172). The regional haze rule includes a requirement for BART for certain large stationary sources, such as our pulp & paper facility in Monticello, MS. Sources are BARTeligible if they meet three criteria on potential emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants, the date when the source was put in place and fall within one of the source categories listed in the guidance. The guidance requires a BART engineering evaluation using five statutory factors for any BART-eligible source that can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in any Class 

### I areas protected under the regional haze rule. (Note that, depending on the five factors, the evaluation may result in no control.) Air quality modeling is an important tool available to the States to determine whether a source can be reasonably expected to contribute to visibility impairmentin a Class I area. The process of establishingBART determination consists of four steps: I) Identify whether a source is "BART-eligible" based on its source category, when it was put in service, and the magnitude of its emissions ofone or more "visibility-impairing" air pollutants. The BART guidelines list 26 source categories of stationary sources that are BART-eligible. Sources must have been put in service between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977 in order to be BART-eligible. Finally, a source is eligible for BART if potential emissions ofvisibility-impairing air pollutants are greater than 250 tons per year. Qualifying pollutants include primary particulate matter (PMlo)and gaseous precursors to secondary fine particulate matter, such as SO2 and NO,. VISTAS has determined that neither ammonia nor volatile organic compounds (VOCs) should be included as visibilityimpairingpollutants for BART eligibility. 

### 2) Determine whether a BART-eligible source can be excluded from BART controls by demonstrating that the source cannot be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class 

### I area. The preferred approach is an assessment with an air quality model such as CALPUFF or other appropriate model followed by comparison of the estimated 24-hr visibility impacts against a threshold above estimated natural conditions to be determined by the ~tates.1 The threshold to determine whether a single source "causes" visibility impairment is set at 1.0 deciview (dv) change from natural conditions over a 24-hour averaging period in the final BART rule (70 FR 391 18). The guidance also states that the proposed threshold at which a source may "contribute" to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 dv although, depending on factors affecting a specific Class I area, it may be set lower than 0.5 dv. The test against the

Guidance to determine the level ofthe natural conditionsbaseline for BART modeling purposes is still under

development by VlSTAS members states and EPA Region 1V.

P bUr Br Wnter\A~r\BARnMontlcello\BART E\rmpt~on Protocol Monticello.doc 1Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 3 1,2006 threshold is "driven" by the contribution level, since if a source "causes", by definition it "contributes". 3) Determine BART controls for the source by considering various control options and selecting the "best" alternative, taking into consideration: a) Any pollution control equipmentin use at the source (which affects the availability of options and their impacts), b) The costs ofcompliancewith control options, c) The remaining useful life of the facility, d) The energy and non air-quality environmentalimpacts ofcompliance, and e) The degree of improvement in visibility that may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
Note that if a source agreesto apply the most stringent controls available to BART-eligible units, the BART analysis is essentially complete and no further analysis is necessary (70 FR 39165). 

### 4) Incorporate the BART determination into the State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, which is due by December 2007. Step 2 described above reflects 40 CFR Part 5

### 1Appendix 

### Y which states that, "You can use dispersion modeling todetermine that an individual source cannotreasonably be anticipated to cause orcontribute to visibility impairment in a Class

### I areaand thus is notsubject to

### BART." (70 FR 39162) This "individual source attribution approach" determines if a BART-eligible source (i.e., collection ofeligible emission units at a source) is predicted to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class

### I area. As mentioned above, a predicted impact of 

### I .O dv change or more is considered to "cause" visibility impairment, and a predicted impact of 0.5 dv change or more is considered to "contribute". Any source determined to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area is subject to BART. 

### 1.2. 

### Organization of the Protocol
Section 2 presents facility-specific information. Section 3 presents the contribution by VISTAS for the BART exemption analyses. Section 4 summarizes the exemption process, modeling approach, and model configuration. Section 5 presents the criteria and processing ofmodel results to demonstrate what impairment, if any, the facility is predicted to create in the Class 

### I areas. Section 6 presents the Quality Assurance Plan. The exemption modeling iscompleted in two phases: screening and refined. The sections below also identify how values in model input, exemption criteria, and model approach are different in these two phases.

P i&r & Wrner'AlriBAR~MontlcelldBARTE~em~llon Protocol Montmllodoc 2Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 31,2006


### 2.0 

### SITE DESCRIPTION
The Mill is located approximately 5 miles north ofthe town ofMonticello, in Lincoln County. The 

### UTM coordinate for the project area is 776.9 

### E, 3502.7 N kilometers (km), Zone 15. The area surrounding the Mill is largely rural or undeveloped and generally flat in all directions. Figure 1presents an aerial map ofthe Monticello Mill vicinity. The facility manufactures corrugated containerboard.
The Mill construction began in 1966and most existing emission units ofPM10, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides were constructed and began operations in the 1962-1977 window for BART eligibility. An exception 

### is the thermal oxidizer installed after 1980. Table 1presents the source parameters for point sources and reflects recent dispersion modeling reviewed by MDEQ for air permit applications. Table 2 presents emission rate information reflecting permit conditions.
Table 1. SourceModeling Parameters. GP MonticelloMill Stack Parameters Source Location StackExit Stack Exit Stack Model UTM StackHeight Temp Velocity Diameter

ID Description East (m) North (m) (fi) (m) K F (fils) (ds) (ft) (m) RE31 UT-1 Recovery Boiler 1 776961 3502671 232 70.71 435.9 325.0 55.57 16.94 8.0 2.44 RB2 UT-I Recovery Boiler 1 776953 3502664 233 71.02 435.9 325.0 43.91 13.38 9.0 2.74 RE33 UT-2 Recovery Boiler 2 776945 3502656 233 71.02 435.9 325.0 43.91 13.38 9.0 2.74 RE34 UT-2 Recovery Boiler 2 776937 3502649 232 70.71 435.9 325.0 55.57 16.94 8.0 2.44 UT3 UT-3 Comb. Boiler 776881 3502758 213 64.92 438.7 330.0 50.19 15.30 11.0 3.35 UT4 UT-4 Power Boiler 776880 3502735 232 70.71 435.9 325.0 82.32 25.09 8.0 2.44 UT5 UT-5 Smelt Tank 1 776891 3502709 233 71.02 349.0 168.5 24 7.32 4.0 1.22 UT6 UT-6 SmeltTank2 776868 3502688 233 71.02 349.0 168.5 24 7.32 4.0 1.22 CRI CR-1 Lime Kiln 777020 3502615 95 28.96 352.0 174.0 24.01 7.32 8.0 2.44

~~~~~ - Notes: 1. GPproposes to exclude fugitive-only and woodyard chip/bark/wood transfer cyclones from the BART modeling inventory. Combined, these sources described in the air permit collectively emit a maximum of 3.8 Ibslhr ofPM. 2. Recovery Boilers 1and 

### 2 are modeled with 2 stacks each. SmeltTanks 1and 2 have two identical stacks each, and are modeled with one representative stack for each tank.

P iA!r &Waler\A~r\BARnMonoceIIoiBART E\empllon ProtocolMontdlo doc 3Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 3 1,2006

Figure 1. Aerial Photo Of Vicinity of GP Monticello Mill

UTM East [m) NAD27 Zone 15

P \Ar 8: W~er\Alr\BARnMontlcello~BART E\ern~son Protocol Montlcello doe 4Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 3 1,2006

Table 2. Maximum 24-hour Permitted Emissions, Monticello Mill BART Point Sources. Existing Maximum Emission Rates (Ibslhr) Control Source Equipment SO2 H2S04 NOx PM

### 10 Speciated? RBI ESP 204.2 1.55 100.1 35.9 Yes ESP ESP ESP LNB LNBIFGR Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator; LNB =Low NOx Burners; FGR = Flue Gas Recirculation Notes: 

### 1. Permit does not limit H2S04 emissions. 2. Permit contains multiple limits, most restrictive PM 10 limit for RB 1 -RB4 is 0.44 grldscf 08%. 3. UT5 reflects emissions of both UT5L and UT5R Speciated emissions will be developed using industry-estimated guidance by National Council for Air & Stream Improvement. Figure 2 presents a regional map showing the Monticello Mill and all PSD Class I Areas within 300 

### km. Breton NWR is located approximately 202 km from the Mill. The next nearest PSD Class 

### I area is over 385 km from the Mill. Only Breton NWR will be evaluated in the impact analyses.

P\kr&Waler\Atr\BARnMont~celldsART E~ernpflon Prolocal Manlmllo doc 5Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 3 1,2006



### Figure 2. GP Monticello Mill Location and PSD 

### Class I Areas Within 300 km

-GP Monticello Mill

i~reton NWR

UTM East 

### (m) NAD27 Zone 15

P \Air 8: Wnler\AiriBAR~anIicello!BART Enemphon ProtocolMan~icello.doc 6Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 31,2006



### 3.0 VISTAS CONTRIBUTION TO CALPUFF MODELING For this application of BART Exemption Modeling, VISTAS is providing the technical data through its contractor, Earth Tech. VISTAS will provide updates and supporting information concerning the VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol on the VISTAS website. In addition, VISTAS will make publicly available the following data bases developed by Earth Tech: VISTAS version ofthe CALPUFF modeling system, maintained on the Earth Tech website. And will not be updated further unless errors are found in the code. 12-km CALMET output files for 200 1,2002,and 2003 produced as described in previous sections. Further detail on model configuration and settings will be provided with the output files and will be made available on the CALPUFF website. CALMET will include a software modificationto allow the meteorological data inputs into CALMET to be used to generate finer grid CALMET files without having to go back to the original MM5 output files Five 4-km CALMET subdomains for 2001,2002, and 2003, produced as described in previous sections. Further detail on model configuration and settings will be provided with the output files and will be made available on the website. File with CALPUFF model configuration and settings sufficient to replicate CALPUFF modeling done for VISTAS using 12

### km CALMET, including

o Ozone data used to run CALPUFF

o Ammonia data used to run CALPUFF and to partition NO3in POSTUTIL.

o Background concentrations files for use in POSTUTIL

o All other set up files used in VISTAS 12-kmCALPUFF run 

### 4.0 MODEL DISCUSSION 4.1 Exemption Procedures For determining if a BART-eligible source is subject to a full BART engineering analysis, GP is proposing a single refined-level approach. For all visibility modeling use CALPUFF with 4-km grid CALMET.

P \kr& WSer\A~rlBARnMont~cello\BART Exsrnplmn Prolocol Monncellodoc 7Monticello Mill BARTExemption Modeling Protocol August 3 1,2006 

### For finer grid (4 

### km or less) analyses, use the 98th percentile impact value for the 24-hr average. Use either the 8th highest day in each year or the 22nd highest day in the 3-year period, whichever is more conservative, for comparison to the exemption threshold. The analysis uses the same model assumptions for pre-BART visibility impact and for BART control options modeling: establish baseline visibility from the pre-BART run; change one control at a time; and evaluate the change in visibility impact, i.e. the delta-deciview. Note that "no control'' may constitute BART. The VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol consistently recommends conservative assumptions. Individual States ultimately have responsibility to determine which, if any, BART controls are recommended in their State Implementation Plans (SIPS). The VISTAS protocol presents additional detailed information on the meteorological fields, and specific settings for CALPUFF and CALPOST (see section 4.33 ofthe VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol). 

### 4.2 CALPUFF Configuration
Source emissions should be defined using the maximum 24-hour actual emission rate during normal operation for the most recent 3 or 

### 5 years. If maximum 24-hr actual emissions are not available, continuous emissions data, permit allowable emissions, potential emissions, and emissions factors from AP-42 source profiles may be used as available. Specific configuration settings presented in the VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol are listed below:

Use a default value for NH3 provided by VISTAS. Use ozone data from non-urban monitors as the background ozone input (VISTAS Standard ozone files). Use the Pasquill-Gifford dispersion method In CALPOST, use Method 

### 6 with monthly average 

### RH for calculating extinction, as recommendedby the EPA. Use EPA default calculations of light extinction under current and natural background conditions. The major features and options of the meteorological and dispersion model are summarized and discussed in the VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol. As also discussed in the VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol, CALPUFF is currently not recommended for addressing visibility impacts from VOC because its capability to simulate secondary organic aerosol formation from VOC 

### emissions is not adequately tested, especially for anthropogenic emissions. (Separately, condensable organic carbon can be calculated from PM10.)Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 3 1,2006 EPA has given states the option to address ammonia (NH3) emissions from BART-eligible sources. VISTAS has also contracted with Georgia Tech to perform emissions sensitivities using CMAQ v 4.4 with a refined SOA module and the Jun-Jul and Nov-Dec periods in 2002. At the time of this protocol, MDEQ is not requesting the objective treatment of ammonia emissions from the source. 

### 5.0 RESULTS AND DETERMINATION OF IMPAIRMENT 

### 5.1 Impact Threshold
The final BART guidance recommends that the threshold value to define whether a source "contributes" to visibility impairment is 0.5 dv change from natural conditions (although states may set a lower threshold). The 9sthpercentile (sthhighest annual) 24-hr average predicted impact at the Class I area, as calculated using CALPOST Method 

### 6 (monthly average relative humidity values), is to be comparedto this contribution threshold value. For this comparison, the predicted impact at the Class I area on any day is taken to be the highest 24-hr average impact at any receptor in the Class I area on that day. (Note that the receptor where the highest impact occurs can change from day to day.) According to clarification of.the BART guidance received from EPA, for a three-year simulation the modeling values to be compared with the threshold are the greatest of the three annual 

## sth highest values or the 22"* highest value over all three years combined, whichever is greater. 

### 5.2 Presentation of Modeling Results The CALPOST processing computes the daily maximum change in deciviews. A sample of the summary table produced by CALPOST is shown in Table 4. For evaluating compliance with the VISTAS screening threshold, the 98% change in extinction value, located at the bottom of the CALPOST list file is comparedto the threshold value (e.g., 0.5 dv). For example, in the sample shown in Table 3, the summary at the bottom shows that the highest visibility impact is 1.219 dv, with 

### 9 days over the year showing values greater than 0.5 dv. Therefore this source would not pass the initial analysis, and finer grid modeling would be required. In addition to the highest change in deciview value on each day over all the receptors in a particular Class I area, the CALPOST summary table in Table 3 contains the coordinates of the receptor, receptor type (D indicates discrete receptors), the total haze level (background

## + source, in dv), the background haze in deciviews, the change in haziness (delta dv), the humidity term applied to hygroscopic aerosols 

### (F(RH)), and the contribution of each speciesto light extinction (in percent of the total source contribution) for S04, N03, organics, elemental carbon, coarse and fine particulate matter. Ifthe maximum predicted impact is above 0.5 dv, then these results will also be presented: Number ofreceptors within a single Class 

### I area with impact > 0.5 dv Number ofdays at all receptors in the Class 

### I area with impact >0.5 dv

P \Air & Water\A~r\BARnManlleelldsART Exemption Protacol Manldludoc 9Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 31,2006 

### Number of Class 

### I areas with impacts >

### 0.5 dv Section 4 

### ofthe VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol present sample tables for these results.Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 3 1,2006 Table 3. Example ofCALPOST Output, Showing Maximum Daily Impacts ofSource and Locations ofThose Impacts.

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDINATES (km) TYPE DV(Tota1) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %-SO4 %No3 %-OC %-EC %-PMC %-PMF 2001 2 0 3 20.540 79.782 D 5.397 5.358 0.039 4.314 44.33 47.22 3.07 1.07 0.00 4.30 2001 3 0 9 31.680 79.822 D 4.566 4.421 0.145 1.767 40.75 33.89 9.19 3.24 0.00 12.94 2001 4 0 1 24.723 77.951 D 4.540 4.540 0.000 2.076 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2001 5 0 77 30.228 94.571 D 4.950 4.939 0.011 3.144 43.13 44.74 4.64 1.45 0.00 6.05 2001 6 0 1 24.723 77.951 D 5.181 5.166 0.015 3.772 38.58 56.05 1.90 0.70 0.00 2.76 2001 7 0 3 20.540 79.782 D 6.366 5.745 0.620 5.439 44.98 44.99 3.69 1.26 0.00 5.08

--- Number Of days with Delta-Deciview => 0.50: 9
--- Number of days with Delta-Deciview -> 1.00: 2
--- Largest Delta-Deciview = 1.219Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Protocol August 31,2006



### 6.0 

### QUALITYASSURANCE PLAN Air quality modeling covered under this protocol is an important tool for use in determining whether a BART-eligible source can be reasonable expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class 

### I area. and therefore whether this source should be subject to BART controls, and if so, to determine the relative benefits of various BART controls. The purpose of the quality assurance (QA) program is to establish procedures for ensuring that products produced by the application of the modeling techniques for BART studies satisfy the regulatory objectives of the BART program. Section 

### 6 of the VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol presents additional detailed information on the QA plan.

P \Au & WatdAzr\B4RnMon!!ceIIo\BART E\empuon Protocol Monllcella doc 12

### Appendix L.2.5 Georgia-Pacific LLC 133 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30303 (404)652-4000 www.gp.com 

### September 7,2007 Ms. Deborah Boleware Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Office of Pollution Control, Air Division P. 0.Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289-0385
Re: Georgia-Pacific Monticello, LLC -

### Monticello, Mississippi Mill BestAvailable Retrofit Technology Applicability Analysis
Dear Ms. Boleware: Georgia-Pacific Monticello, LLC (GP) ispleased to submit this Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Applicability Analysis Report for our pulp and paper mill in Monticello, Mississippi. BART is required for any eligible source that "emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility" in any mandatory Class I federal area. EPA's guidelines for assessing applicability of BART (40 CFR Part 5 1,Appendix 

### Y) statethat a BART-eligible source "can use dispersion modeling to determine that an individual source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class

### I area and thus is not subject toBART."
The enclosed report describes our BART applicability modeling analyses, which demonstrate that the modeled visibility impacts are below the applicability criteria. These results indicate that GP's Monticello Mill is exempt from BART requirements because visibility-affecting emissions from BART-eligible emission units neither cause nor contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area. While many of the components of a protocol for this analysis are thoroughly documented in the VISTAS common protocol, this document also provides source-specific information used to conduct our analyses. We look forward to addressing any questions or concerns you have about this report. Please contact me at (404) 652-4293; FAX (404) 654-4706; minguilaQ gapac.com. Sincerely,

Mark J. 

### Aguilar P.E. Senior Environmental Consultant Georgia-Pacific LLC

cc: 

### TimJones, Georgia-Pacific Monticello, 

### LLC

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION



### ............................................................................................................2 1.1. Overview of the RegionalHaze BART Process



### .............................................................. 2 1.2. Organizationof the Report



### ............................................................................................... 3 

### 2.0 SITEDESCRIPTION



### .......................................................................................................4 

### 3.0 VISTAS CONTRIBUTION TO CALPUFF MODELING



### ........................................... 8 

### 4.0 MODEL DISCUSSION



### .................................................................................................... 8 

### 4.1 Exemption Procedures



### .............................................................................................. 8 

### 4.2 CALPUFF Configuration



### ............................................................................................. 9 

### 5.0 RESULTS AND DETERMINATIONOF IMPAIRMENT



### ........................................ 1 1 

### 5.1 Impact Threshold



### ........................................................................................................1 1



### .............................................................................. 5.2 PresentationofModeling Results 11

P \Air &Water\A~BAR~Monlii.clIo\CALPUFRGP Monticello MS BART Appllwh~ltty Analys~s Report (2007.09.07 . Uplate).doc iGeorgia-Pacific - Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7,2007 

## 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

### 1.1. Overview of the Regional Haze BART Process Under regional haze regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued final guidelines dated July 6, 2005 for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations (70 FR 39104-39172). The regional haze rule includes a requirement for BART for certain large stationary sources, such as Georgia-Pacific's pulp & 

### paper facility in Monticello, Mississippi. Sources are BART-eligible if they meet three criteria on potential emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. the date when the source was put in place, and fall within one of the major source categories listed in the guidance. The guidance requires a BART engineering evaluation using five statutory factors for any BART-eligible source that can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in any Class 

### I areas protected under the regional haze rule. (Note that, depending on the five factors, the evaluation may result in no control.) Air quality modeling is an important tool available to the States to determine whether a source can be reasonably expected to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class 

### I area. Theprocess of establishing BART determination consists of four steps: 1)Identify whether a source is "BART-eligible" based on its source category, when it was put in service, and the magnitude of its emissions of one or more "visibilityimpairing" air pollutants. The BART guidelines list 26 source categories of stationary sources that are BART-eligible. Sources must have been put in service between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977 in order to be BART-eligible. Finally, a source is eligible for BART if potential emissions of visibility-impairing air pollutants are greater than 250 tons per year. Qualifying pollutants include primary particulate matter (PMlo) and gaseous precursors to secondary fine particulate matter, such as SO2 and NO,. VISTAS has determined that neither ammonia nor volatile organic compounds (VOCs) should be included as visibilityimpairing pollutants for BART eligibility. 2) Determine whether a BART-eligble source can be excluded from BART controls by demonstrating that the sourcecannot be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

### area. The preferred approach is an assessment with an air quality model such as CALPUFFor other appropriate model followed by comparison of the estimated 24-hr visibility impacts against a threshold above estimated natural conditions to be determined by the ~tates.~ The threshold to determine whether a single source "causes" visibility impairment is set at 1.0deciview (dv) change from natural conditions over a 24-hour averaging period in the final BART rule (70FR 391 18). 

### The guidance also states that the proposed threshold at which a source may "contribute" to visibility impairment should not be

Guidance to determine the level of the natural conditions baseline for BART modeling purposes is still

under development by VISTAS members states and EPA Region IV.

P:iAr & Water\AoiBARTiMonticcIbiCALPUFF!GP Monlacllo MS BART Appliwhslily Annlysis Repn(2007-09-07. Update) doc 2Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September7,2007 higher than 0.5 dv although, depending on factors affecting a specific Class 

### I area, it may be set lower than 0.5 dv. The test against the threshold is "driven" by the contribution level, since if a source "causes", by definitionit "contributes". 3) Determine BART controls for the source by considering various control options and selectingthe "best" alternative,taking into consideration: a) Any pollution control equipmentin use at the source (which affects the availabilityof options and their impacts), b) The costs of compliance with control options, c) The remaining useful life of the facility, d) The energy and non air-quality environmentalimpacts of compliance, and e) The degree of improvementin visibility that may reasonablybe anticipatedto result from the use of such technology. Note that if a source agrees to apply the most stringent controls available to BARTeligible units, the BART analysis 

### is essentially complete and no further analysis is necessary (70 

### FR 39165). 

### 4) Incorporate the BART determination into the State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, which is due by December 2007. Step 2 described above reflects40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 

### Y which statesthat, 

### "Youcan use dispersion modeling to determine that an individual source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a ClassI area and thus is not subject toBART." (70FR 39162) This "individual source attribution approach determinesif a BART-eligible source 

### (i.e.,collection of eligible emission units at a source)is predicted to cause or contributeto visibility impairment in a Class 

### I area. As mentioned above, apredicted impact of 1 .O dv change or more is considered to "cause" visibility impairment, and a predicted impact of 0.5 dv change or more is considered to "contribute". Any sourcedetermined to cause or contributeto visibility impairment in any Class 

### I area is subject to BART. 

### 1.2. 

### Organizationofthe Report
Section 2 presents facility-specificinformation. Section 3 presents the contributionby VISTAS for the BART exemption analyses. Section 4 summarizes the exemption process, modeling approach, and model configuration. Section 5 presents the criteria and processing of model results to demonstratewhat impairment, if any,the facility is estimated to create in the Class 

### I areas. The exemptionmodeling is completed in two phases: screeningand refined. The sections below also identify how values in model input, exemption criteria, and model approach are different in these two phases.

- P \Au & Wole~lr\BAR~MnntceIlo\CALPUFnGP Montlcello MS BART Appll~abht~ Analyans Replrl(2007-IW-07. Upda~e) doe 3Georgia-Pacific - Monticello MiIl'BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7,2007


### 2.0 

### SITE DESCRIPTION
The Mill is located approximately 5 miles north of the town of Monticello, in Lawrence County. The UTM coordinate for the project area is 776.9 

### E, 3502.7 N kilometers 

### (km), Zone 15. The area surrounding the Mill is largely rural or undeveloped and generally flat in all directions. Figure 1presents an aerial map of the Monticello Mill vicinity. The facility manufactures corrugated containerboard.
The Mill construction began in 1966 and most existing emission units of PMlo, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides were constructed and began operations in the 1962to 1977 window for BART eligibility. An exception is the thermal oxidizer installed after 1980. Table 1presents the source parameters for point sources and reflects recent dispersion modeling reviewed by MDEQ for air permit applications. Table 2 presents emission rate information reflecting permit conditions. Table 1. Source Modeling Parameters, GPMonticelloMill Stack Parameters Source Location Stack Stack Exit Stack Exit Stack Model LCC (km) Height Temp Velocity Diameter

ID Description East North (ft) (m) 

### (K) (OF) (ftls) (mls) (ft) (m) RB1 UT-1 Recovery Boiler 1 656.2265 -903.199 232 70.71 435.9 325.0 55.57 16.94 8.0 2.44 RB2 UT-1 Recovery Boiler 2 656.2189 -903.206 233 71.02 435.9 325.0 55.57 13.38 8.0 2.74 RB3 UT-2 Recovery Boiler 1 656.21 1 -903.214 233 71.02 435.9 325.0 55.57 13.38 8.0 2.74

UT3 UT-3 Comb. Boiler 656.142 -903.115 213 64.92 438.7 330.0 50.19 15.30 11.0 3.35 UT4 UT-4 Power Boiler 656.1424 -903.138 232 70.71 435.9 325.0 82.32 25.09 8.0 2.44 UT5 UT-5 SmeltTank 1 656.1547 -903.164 233 71.02 349.0 168.5 24 7.32 4.0 1.22 UT6 UT-6 SmeltTank 2 656.1328 -903.186 233 71.02 349.0 168.5 24 7.32 4.0 1.22

Notes: 1. As discussed with MDEQ, GPexcluded fugitive-only and woodyard chip/bark/wood transfer cyclones from the BART modeling inventory. Combined, these sources described in the air permit collectively emit a maximum of 3.8 lbslhr of PM. 2. Recovery Boilers 1and 2 aremodeled with 2 stacks each. Smelt Tanks 1 and 2 have two identical stacks each, and'are modeled with one representative stack for each tank.

P:M& & W~~~~\A~\BAR~M~~~ICCIIO\CALPUF~CP Monhicella MS BART Applicnhlltty Analysts Repon (2007-09-07,Update) doc 4Georgia-Pacific - Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7,2007

Figure 1. Aerial Photo Of Vicinity of GP Monticello Mill

ijoo 776'000 77Sjoo 777000 777500 77aooo UTM East (rn) NA027 Zone 15

P-\AN &Waar\Anr\BARnMont~uellD\CALPuFnGP Monucellu MS BARTAppl~cability Analysis Repln (2007-09-07, Updale) doc 5Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7,2007


### Table 2. 

### Maximum 24-hour Permitted Emissions, MonticelloMill BART EmissionUnits Emissions Existing MaximumEmission Rates (lbhr) Unit

RB 1 

### RB2 RB3 RB4 UT3 (CB) UT4 (PB) UT5 (e) UT6 LK 

### Control Equipment SOz HzSOdb) NO, PMlo Speciated? ESP ESP ESP ESP LNB FGR Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber 204.2 2.55 204.2 2.55 204.2 2.55 204.2 2.55 12.8(a) 0.6

0.46 0.0

13 0 13 0 41.6 2.5 97.24(d) Yes 97.24(d) Yes 97.24(d) Yes 97.24(d) Yes

91.7 Yes 

### 3.8 Yes 11.6 No 11.6 No 29.8 Yes
ESP =

### Electrostatic Precipitator; LNB =Low NOx Burners; FGR =Flue Gas Recirculation CB = Combination Boiler; PB =

### Power Boiler Emission rates are permit limits except where noted.
Notes: (a) SOremission rates reflect 2005 source testing. UT3 no longer has the capability of burning residual oil, the emission rate of 12.8 lbshrreflect the highest emission rate of fuels in actual use. (b) Permit does not limit H2SO4 emissions. (c) Stack test for actual NOx emissions report values of approximately 0.15-0.18 lbsA4MBtu. he analysis applied the AP-42 emission factor of 0.2 1bslMMBtuto compute a worst-case value of 183.5lbsh. (d) Permit contains multiple limits, most restrictive PMlo limit for RBI-RB4is 0.044 grldscf @8% which is less than the modeled emission rate. (e) UT5 reflects emissions of both UTSL and UTSR 

### Speciated emissions were developedusing industry-estimated guidanceby National Council for Air & 

### Stream Improvement. Figure 2 presents a regional map showing the Monticello Mill and all PSD Class I Areas within 300 

### km. Breton 

### NWR is located approximately 202 

### km from the Mill. The next nearest PSD Class 

### I area is over 385

### km from the Mill. Only Breton NWR was evaluated in the impact analyses.

P:Ms&W~IerMlr\BAR'I\Monlicello\CALPUFF\GP Moniicrlla MS BART Applicability AdyslsRrporl(2007-09-07. Updaleldoc 6Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7, 2007



### Figure2. 

### GP Monticello Mill Location and PSD Class I Areas Within 

### 300 km

-~GP Monticello Mill

+Breton NWR

I I I I I 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 UTM East (m) NAD27Zone 15

P \Ax & Waler\Au\BAR~Manr~ceUo\CALPUFRGP Monttcellu MS BART Appl~cahd!lyAnrlyau Repan(2W7-09-Ui UpdaLe) doc 7Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September7,2007



### 3.0 VISTAS CONTRIBUTION TO CALPUFFMODELING For this application of BART Exemption Modeling, VISTAS is providing the technical data through the support of a Technical Contractor. VISTAS provided updates and supporting information concerning the 

### VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol on the VISTAS website. In addition, VISTAS made the following data bases developed by VISTAS Technical Contractor publicly available: VISTAS version of the CALPUFFmodeling system, maintained on the Earth VISTAS Technical Contractor website, Regional 12-km CALMET output files for 2001, 2002, and 2003 for screening analyses. Five subregional 4-km CALMET output files for 2001,2002, and 2003 for refined analyses. File with CALPUFF model configuration and settings sufficient to replicate CALPUFFmodeling done for VISTAS using 12km CALMET, including

o Ozone data used to run CALPUFF

o Ammonia data used to run CALPUFF and to partition NO3in POSTUTIL.

o Background concentrations files for use in POSTUTIL

o All other set up files used in VISTAS 12-kmCALPUFFrun 

### 4.0 MODEL DISCUSSION 4.1 Exemption Procedures For determining if a BART-eligible source is subject to a full BART engineering analysis, GP utilized a single refined-level approach. For all visibility modeling, CALPUFF was used with 4-km grid CALMET. For finer grid (4 km or less) analyses, the 98thpercentile impact value for the 24-hour average is used, represented as either the 8th-highest day in each year or the 22nd-highest day in the 3-year period, whichever is more conservative, for comparison to the exemption threshold. The analysis uses the same model assumptions for pre-BART visibility impact and for BART control options modeling: establish baseline visibility from the pre-BART run; change one control at a time; and evaluate the change in visibility impact, i.e. the deltadeciview. Note that "no control" may constitute BART.

P:\Air & Walrr\A"WARnMunrlcrllo\CALPUFhGP Monlicrlla MS BART Appl~cahdry Analysis Reporl(2007-09-CV. Up&~e).duc 8Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7,2007 The VtSTAS BART Modeling Protocol consistently recommends conservative assumptions. Individual States ultimately have responsibility to determine which, if any, BART controls are recommended in their State Implementation Plans (SIPS). The VISTAS protocol presents additional detailed information on the meteorological fields, and specific settings for CALPUFF and CALPOST (see section 4.33 of the VtSTAS BART Modeling Protocol). 

### 4.2 CALPUFF Configuration
Source emissions should be defined using the maximum 24-hour actual emission rate during normal operation for the most recent 3 or 

### 5 years. If maximum 24-hour actual emissions are not available, continuous emissions data, permit allowable emissions, potential emissions, and emissions factors from AP-42 source profiles may be used as available. Specific configuration settings presented in the VISTAS Common Modeling Protocol are listed below: Use default data provided by VISTAS for background concentrations of SO4and total NO3 (HN03

## +NO3). Use hourly ozone data as the background ozone input as prepared by VISTAS. Use the Pasquill-Gifford dispersion method. In CALPOST, use Method 

### 6 with monthly average RH for calculating extinction, as recommended by the EPA. Use EPA default calculations of light extinction under average background conditions. The major features and options of the meteorological and dispersion model are summarized and discussed in the VISTASBART Modeling Protocol. As also discussed in the VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol, CALPUFF is currently not recommended for addressing visibility impacts from VOC because its capability to simulate secondary organic aerosol formation from VOC emissions is not adequately tested, especially for anthropogenic emissions. (Separately, condensable organic carbon can be calculated from PMlo.) Georgia-Pacific completed the refined analysis with the Domain #1 4-krn meteorological datasets provided by VISTAS. Figure 3 presents the modeling domain, the Class I Area model receptors and Monticello Mill.

P:Mr &W~~~~MI~\BAR~M~~~~~~II~\CALPUF~GP Monticrllo MS BARTApplicdbhty Analysis Repn(2007-09-07, Updace).dnc 9Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7,2007

LCC Origin: 40N, 97W Figure 3. Modeling Domain for Monticello Mill BART Exem~tion An

500 600 700 800 900 LCC East (km) False Easting: 0 False Northing:0 Datum: NWS-84

Terra~n (rn)

- P Mu SrW~~~~\A~~\BAR~M~~~I~~~~O\CALPUFRGP MonocelloMS BART Appl~~h~lny Andys~s Rcpn(2007-09-07,Updale) doc 10Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7, 2007



### 5.0 

### RESULTS AND DETERMINATIONOF IMPAIRMENT 5.1 

### Impact Threshold The final BART guidance recommends a threshold value of 

### 0.5 dv change from natural conditions to define whether a source "contributes" to visibility impairment (although states may set a lower threshold). The 98th percentile (8th-highestannual) 24-hour average predicted impact at the Class I area, as calculated using CALPOST Method 6 (monthly average relative humidity values), is to be compared to this contribution threshold value. For this comparison, the predicted impact at the Class 

### I area on any day is taken to be the highest 24-hour average impact at any receptor in the Class 

### I area on that day. (Note that the receptor where the highest impact occurs can change from day to day.) According to clarification of the BART guidance received from EPA, for a threeyear simulation the modeling values to be compared with the threshold are the greatest of the three annual 8'-highest values or the 22"*-highest value over all three years combined, whichever is greater. CALPUFF presents the visibility change in both a percent change and a "delta-dv" form. 

### 5.2 Presentation ofModeling Results Table 

### 3 summarizes the CALPOST result for the 98th percentile predicted visibility change (dv) for each year at Breton. In addition to the highest change in deciview value on each day over all the receptors in a particular Class I area, the CALPOST summary table in the CALPOST list files contain the coordinates of the receptor, receptor type 

### (D indicates discrete receptors), the total haze level (background 

## + source, in dv), the background haze in deciviews, the change in haziness (delta dv), the humidity term applied to hygroscopic aerosols (KRH)), and the contribution of each species to light extinction (in percent of the total source contribution) for SO4,NOs, organics, elemental carbon, coarse and fine particulate matter. As shown, the 98th-percentile predicted impact for each meteorological data year is below the 

### 0.5 dv change criteria. This result confirms GP's determination that the Monticello Mill is not subject to BART because it does not contribute to visibility impairment at Breton.

P \As & W~L~AALC~BAR~M~~~~~~IO\CALPUFF\GP Monticrllo MS BARTAppllcab~hty Analysis Repun (2007-09-07,UpdaLe).doc 1 1Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7,2007



### Table 3. Maximum Estimated Visibility Impacts at Breton for 2001-2003 

### attributable to Georgia-Pacific's MonticelloMill using the defaultIMPROVE light extinction algorithm Delta deciview 2001 2002 2003 

### 1" High 

### 0.803 0.770 0.688 2nd High 

### 0.429 0.528 0.655 31dHigh 

### 0.386 0.358 0.507 4th High 

### 0.373 0.342 0.388 5thHigh 

### 0.363 0.341 0.376 6th High 

### 0.357 0.339 0.364 7th High 

### 0.354 0.300 0.312 

## sth High (9sth 

### percentile) 0.329 0.284 0.300

Since the inception of the BART implementation process, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) workgroup has proposed a more robust equation for calculating background visibility, as described in a report entitled "Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data" 

### (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/Publications/GrayLi~gray~literature.htm.) The updated algorithm, which has been approved by the IMPROVE Steering Committee and is currently undergoing peer review, provides a more refined calculation by including visibility impairment due to the following processes: Visibility impairment due to different sizes of sulfates, nitrates, and organic carbon Visibility impairment due to sea salt particles Distinct water growth curves (i.e.,fiRH)) for small sulfates and nitrates, large sulfates and nitrates, and sea salt Elevation-dependent (hence Class I area dependent) Rayleigh scattering coefficient Visibility impairment due to gaseous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) The revised IMPROVE light extinction algorithm takes the following form:

P.Mr4 Waar\Air\BARnMonLice1Io\CALPUFhGP Montlcellu MS BART Apphcabrlity Aualysis Repon (2037-09-CI7,Upda~e).doc 12Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September7,2007 For the purposes of calculating current, future, and natural background visibility at Class I areas as part of its reasonable progress analyses, VISTAS intends to present regional air quality modeling results using both the default and the newly revised IMPROVE light extinction formula. Values for the parameters listed above specific to the natural background conditions at the Class 

### I areas considered in this analysis are provided on an annual average basis in the U.S. EPA's 

### Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule. To facilitate the use of the revised IMPROVE algorithm for assessing BART applicability, the VISTAS Technical Advisor developed and distributed a spreadsheet processing tool to implement the revised IMPROVE light extinction algorithm, designated as the CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor Version 2 (December 

### 9, 2006). This processor calculates the reconstructed light extinction using the revised IMPROVE algorithm and output from the current version of the CALPOST postprocessor. To implement the CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor, three additional data points are required: background concentration of gaseous NO2, Rayleigh scattering parameter corrected for site-specific elevation, and an estimate of the average background sea salt aerosol concentration. The following specific inputs to the tool were used to estimate visibility impacts at Breton: Elevation-dependent Rayleigh scattering coefficient of 

### I I ~m-' as tabulated in the VISTAS spreadsheet Conservative representation of background sea salt concentration as 0 pg/m3 to represent an unknown quantity 24-hour average NO2concentration at each receptor attributable to BARTeligible sources at Georgia-Pacific's Monticello Mill as calculated by additional CALPOST analyses Although other anthropogenic (stationary and mobile) sources contribute to background levels of NO2 at Class I areas, for the purposes of this analysis, the background NO2 concentration is assumed to be attributable only to BART-eligible sources at GeorgiaPacific's Monticello Mill. The 24-hour average NO2 concentration for each day and receptor was calculated by separate CALPOST processing analyses, and converted from units of pg/m3 (default model output) to parts per billion as required by the tool. The NO2 concentration entered into the CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for each 24-hour average visibility impacts corresponds to the specific day and receptor at which the modeled visibility impact occurs. The N02/NOx ratio was conservatively entered as 1.0 in the CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor. Copies of the CALPOST-IMPROVE spreadsheets used in this analysis are included on the electronic media enclosed with this report. Table 4 summarizes the estimated impacts attributable to Georgia-Pacific's Monticello Mill as calculated using the revised IMPROVE light extinction algorithm.

P.\Aa &Waler\AHBARnMontiaello\CALPUFnGPMonticelk, MS BART Applicabilily Analysis Repon (2007-09-07.Updnte1.d~ I3Georgia-Pacific -Monticello Mill BART Exemption Modeling Report September 7,2007



### Table 

### 4. Maximum Estimated Visibility Impacts at Breton for 

### 2001-2003 attributable to Georgia-Pacific's Monticello Mill using the revised IMPROVE light

- 

### extinction algorithm Delta deciview 

### 2001 2002 2003 lqt High 

### 0.679 0.680 0.616 2nd 

# HG~ 0.379 0.437 0.573 3'd High 

### 0.333 0.308 0.425 4IhHigh 

### 0.312 0.291 0.325 5th High 

### 0.311 0.292 0.318 fjth High 

### 0.302 0.292 0.307 7'hHigh 

### 0.293 0.260 0.268 gth High 

### (9gth percentile) 

### 0.290 0.239 0.266

The results of the visibility analysis using the CALPOST-IMPROVEprocessor and revised IMPROVE light extinction algorithm affirm Georgia-Pacific's conclusion that the MonticelloMill is exempt from BART because the BART-eligibleemission units at the mill neither cause nor contribute to visibilityimpairment at any Class 

### I area.

P.\Ak & WalerVlirWARnhtonLiceIIo\CALPUFnGP Mnticello MS BART Appiicabrlity Analysis Repon (2007-09-07,U+te).doc 14

### Appendix 

### L.2.6



### STATE

### OF MISSISSIPPI tturrBAulom

ChmNOR MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT

### OF ENVIRONMENTAL

### QUMSrY 'IhnnD.Ptam,EwamnDmJcluR

October 2,2007 Tim Jones Georgia Pacific Corporation 604N.A. Sandifer Highway Monticello, MS 39654 Subject: Exemption fiomBest AvailableRetrofitTechnology (BART) DeterminationRequirements Monticello, (1500)077-00007 Lawrence, Mississippi Dear

### Mr. Jones: Due tothe Georgia Pacific 

### -Monticello facility being BART eligible,you were required to perform and submit exemption modeling analysis for your eligible units. We havereceived the exemption modeling performed by Mark Aguilar ofyour company. The modeling finds a visibility impact of0.33 deciviews (dv) which isbelow the 0.5 dv subjectivity threshold. Based onthese results, we areproposingthat 

### the BART eligible units be exempt from further determination requirements. Mississippi Department ofEnvironmental Quality (MDEQ) will include documentation ofthe proposed exemptions in our Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal. The SIPis reviewed and commented on by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and otherparties with Georgia Pacific 

## - Monticello's exemption contingent on EPA's approval. Ifyou have any questions regarding thismatter, please feel free to contact Elliott Bickerstaff (601 -96 1-5176)or Deborah Boleware (601 -961 -5768) ofmy staff. Sincerely.

Maya ~az 

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

OFFICEOF POLLLJTIONCONTROL POS~O- Box 10385 JMXSON, Mlssm39U190385 TU (601) %1-5171 Fa (601) 3-12 -dsq-~#