Appendix 9.8 

BART Exemption modeling – 

• Monarch Cement 

• Kansas City BPU – Quindaro 

• Kansas City BPU – Nearman 

• Westar Energy – Hutchinson 

• Westar Energy – Lawrence 
 	 	 
	

   

 
  


 
 
 

   


   

 
  

   

  
 

   

  
 

 
  


 
  



   


   


 
  


   

   

   

   

   

   

   



   

   



   

  
 

   

 
  

   


   


   


   





   


   



   


 
  


 
  


   


   

   

   

   


  
 

   


   

   

   

   

   


   


  
 



 
  



   


   


  	 !"##
 	 	 
	



   


   


   


 
  


   

   


   



   


   

   


   

   

   


   


   


   

   

   



   

   


  
 

   

   

   


   

   

   

   


   

 
  


   

   

   

   

  
 

   

   

   


   

   


   

   

   

   

  
 

   

   

   


   

   


   

   

   

   

  	 !"##
 	 	 
	

   

   

   

   


   

   


   

 
  

 
  

   

   

   

   

  
 


   

   


 
  

   


   

   

   


   


   


   



   


   



   


   


  
 


   


 
  

   

   


 
  


   

   


   

   

   

   

   


   


   


   



   


   



   


   


   


   


   

   

   

   

 
 	 !"##
 	 	 
	


   

   


   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   


   

   


   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   


   

 
  


   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  
 


   


   


   


   

   

   

   

   

   

  
 


   


   



   

   

   

   


   

 
  

   

   


   

   


   

   


  	 !"##
 	 	 
	

   

   

   

   

   

   


   

 
  


   

   

   

   

   


   


 
  


   



   


   



   



   


   


   


   

   

   

   


   

   


   

   

   


   

   


   


   


   



   


   



   


   


   


   


   

   

   

   


   


   


   

  
 

   

 
  

   

   

 
 	 !"##
 	 	 
	

   

   


   

   


   


   

   

   

   

   

   

   


   

   


   

  
 

  
 

   

   

   

   

   



  
 

   



   

   

   

   

   



   


   



   



   


   



 
  



   


   


   


   


   


   


   



   


   



   



   



   



   


   


   


  
 


   



   


 
  

  	 !"##
 	 	 
	



   



   


 
  


   


   



   



  
 



   




  
 



   




   




  
 



   



   



   


 
  


   


   



   


  
 



   


   


   


   


   



   



   



   




 
  



   




   



   



   



   



   


   


   


 
  



   


  
 





  	 !"##
    	








	



   

     

   ! 

   

   !

    

    

!   !

   !

   

   

   

   !

   

   

   

 !  

!   

   

    

   !

   

   

   

   !

   

   

!   

   

 !  

 !   

 !   

 !   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

  ! 

  ! 

  ! 

  ! 

  ! 

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

    

    

    

   !

   

   

   



 !"#

$

%&

"
#$%% &
'() *(#
+



,-

    	










 !"#

$

%&

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!!   

!   

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

 !   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

"
#$%% &
'() *(#
+



,-

    	










 !"#

$

%&

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!!   

!   

    

    

    

    

    

    

"
#$%% &
'() *(#
+



,-

    	










 !"#

$

%&

    

    

 !   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

"
#$%% &
'() *(#
+



,-

    	










 !"#

$

%&

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!   

!!   

!   

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

 !   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

"
#$%% &
'() *(#
+



,-

    	










 !"#

$

%&

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

!   

   

   

   

   

   

   

"
#$%% &
'() *(#
+



,-



	
	






	
	





 
!
"!# 

  	
	

	

		

 

 

  

 

 

! !

 !

 

 

 

 !

 !

 

 

 

! 

 !

 

 

  

  

  

  

  

  

!  

  

  

  

 

 

 !

 

 

  

! 

 

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  !

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

  

  

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! !

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  

  

!  

  

!  

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 !

 !

 !

 !

 !

 !

 !

! !

 !

  !

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

!  

!  

!  

!  

!  

!  

!!  

!  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

!  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

! 

 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	 ") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 ! 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 ! 

  

  

  

  

  

  

"#	$#%& '(	!") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




  

  

  

 ! 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 ! 

  

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 ! 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 ! 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 ! 

  

 ! 

 ! 

 ! 

 ! 

 ! 

 ! 

 ! 

 ! 

 !! 

 ! 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

! 

 

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

  

  

  

"#	$#%& '(	 ") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

!  

!  

!  

!  

! 

!  

!  

!  

! ! 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




!  

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

!! 

!! 

!! 

!! 

!! 

!! 

!! 

!! 

!!! 

!! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	!") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

 ! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-



	
	






	
	




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

 

 

 

"#	$#%& '(	") *"#+

,-

BART Modeling Report 

Kansas City Board of Public Utilities 

Nearman and Quindaro Facilities 

Prepared by:

Black & Veatch 

September 2006
Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................1-1 

1.1 Objectives ..........................................................................................................................1-1 

1.2 Source Impact Evaluation and Criteria..............................................................................1-1 

2.0 Source Description.................................................................................................................2-1 

2.1 Location of Sources vs. Relevant Class I Areas ................................................................2-1 

2.2 Unit Specific Source Data..................................................................................................2-4 

2.2.1 SO2 and NOx Emissions............................................................................................. 2-4 

2.2.2 PM10 Emissions.......................................................................................................... 2-4 

2.3 Model Versions..................................................................................................................2-7 

2.4 Modeling Domain ..............................................................................................................2-7 

3.0 Geophysical and Meteorological Data...................................................................................3-1 

3.1 Mesoscale Model Data.......................................................................................................3-1 

3.2 Surface Data Station and Processing .................................................................................3-2 

3.3 Precipitation Data Stations and Processing........................................................................3-2 

3.4 Geophysical Data Processing (Terrain and Land Use)...................................................... 3-2 

3.5 CALMET Variables........................................................................................................... 3-2 

4.0 Air Quality Modeling Methodology ......................................................................................4-1 

4.1 CALPUFF Domain and Variables..................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 Receptors............................................................................................................................4-2 

4.3 Downwash..........................................................................................................................4-2 

4.4 Ozone Concentrations........................................................................................................ 4-2 

4.5 CALPOST and POSTUTIL ...............................................................................................4-2 

4.5.1 Light Extinction ......................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.5.2 Natural Background...................................................................................................4-3 

4.5.3 Ammonia Concentrations ..........................................................................................4-3 

5.0 CALPUFF, CALPOST and POSTUTIL Results...................................................................5-1 

Tables 

Table 2-1 KDHE Initial CALPUFF Modeling Results ..................................................................... 2-2 

Table 2-2 CALPUFF Modeling Parameters ......................................................................................2-5 

Table 2-3 CALPUFF Modeling Emissions........................................................................................2-5 

Table 2-4 Model Versions .................................................................................................................2-8 

Table 4-1 Monthly Relative Humidity Factors..................................................................................4-4 

Table 4-2 Average Annual Natural Background Levels....................................................................4-4 

Table 5-1 Nearman Modeling Results on Caney Creek Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22nd High)...5-2 

Table 5-2 Nearman Modeling Results on Caney Creek Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) .......... 5-2 

Table 5-3 Nearman Modeling Results on Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High).......................................................................................................................5-3 

Table 5-4 Nearman Modeling Results on Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) ....5-3 

Table 5-5 Nearman Modeling Results on Mingo Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22nd High)............. 5-4 

Table 5-6 Nearman Modeling Results on Mingo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) ....................5-4 

Table 5-7 Nearman Modeling Results on Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22nd High) 5-5 

Table 5-8 Nearman Modeling Results on Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High)........ 5-5 

Table 5-9 Nearman Modeling Results on Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area....................................

2001-2003 (22nd High).......................................................................................................................5-6 

Table 5-10 Nearman Modeling Results on Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area 
by Year (8th High)..............................................................................................................................5-6 

Table 5-11 Quindaro Modeling Results on Caney Creek Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22nd High) 5-7 

Table 5-12 Quindaro Modeling Results on Caney Creek Wilderness Area by Year (8th High)........ 5-7 

Table 5-13 Quindaro Modeling Results on Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High).......................................................................................................................5-8 

Table 5-14 Quindaro Modeling Results on Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area by Year (8th High)..5-8 

Table 5-15 Quindaro Modeling Results on Mingo Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22nd High)........... 5-9 

Table 5-16 Quindaro Modeling Results onMingo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High)...................5-9 

Table 5-17 Quindaro Modeling Results on Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High).....................................................................................................................5-10 

Table 5-18 Quindaro Modeling Results on Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) ...5-10 

Table 5-19 Quindaro Modeling Results on Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High).....................................................................................................................5-11 

Table 5-20 Quindaro Modeling Results on Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area 

by Year (8th High)............................................................................................................................5-11 

Figures 

Figure 2-1 BPU Facilities with respect to the Class I areas..............................................................2-3 

Figure 2-2 Speciation of PM10 Emissions......................................................................................... 2-6 

Figure 2-3 Class I Modeling Domain ...............................................................................................2-9 

Figure 3-1 Surface Stations............................................................................................................... 3-3 

Figure 3-2 Precipitation Stations ......................................................................................................3-4 

Figure 3-3 Terrain Elevation Plot .....................................................................................................3-5 

Figure 3-4 Land Use Plot..................................................................................................................3-6 

Appendices 

Appendix A CALMET Control File Inputs 

Appendix B CALPUFF Control File Inputs 

Appendix C POSTUTIL Control File Inputs 

Appendix D CALPOST Control File Inputs 

Appendix E National Park Service Particle Speciation Spreadsheets 

Appendix F National Park Service Receptors 

Appendix G CALMET Code Changes 

Appendix H Modeling Files 

 
 1-1 7/17/2009 

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Objectives

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). Sources are BART-eligible if they meet three criteria including potential emissions 

of at least 250 tons per year of a visibility-impairing pollutant, were put in place between August 7,

1962 and August 7, 1977, and fall within one of the 26 listed source categories in the guidance. A 

BART engineering evaluation using five statutory factors --1) existing controls; 2) cost; 3) energy 

and non-air environmental impacts; 4) remaining useful life of the source; 5) degree of visibility 

improvement expected from the application of controls --is required for any BART-eligible source 

that can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in any of the 156 

federal parks and wilderness (Class I) areas protected under the regional haze rule. 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. 

According to 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y, States have the option to “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 to BART.” Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment (KDHE) has chosen to exercise the “individual source attribution 

approach” option. In that approach, a BART-eligible source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview 

(dv) change or more is considered to “cause” visibility impairment. A BART-eligible source that is 

responsible for a 0.5 dv change or more is considered to “contribute” to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area. Any BART eligible source determined to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area is subject to BART and must undergo a BART determination analysis. 

The air dispersion modeling analyses presented in this report were conducted in accordance with the 

KDHE Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine Sources Subject 

to BART in the State of Kansas dated March 30, 2006 and the CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines

dated December 15, 2005, and the modeling methodology proposed in the BART Modeling 

Protocol, submitted to KDHE September 1, 2006. 

1.2 Source Impact Evaluation and Criteria 

Modeling is performed on a “BART-eligible” source to determine if the source is “subject-toBART”. For sources that are determined to be subject to BART, a second application of modeling is 

performed to quantify the visibility benefits from the BART control options. In all cases, the 

CALPUFF modeling system was used with three years (2001-2003) of meteorological data as 

recommended by the BART Modeling Protocol. 

As stated in the BART Modeling Protocol, emissions of NOx, SO2, and particulate matter up to 10 

!m in size (PM10) emissions were included in the refined BART exemption modeling. The model 

calculated the number of days that all BART-eligible sources at a single facility contribute to a deltadeciview (! dv) greater than or equal to 0.5 dv (contribution threshold) for each year. If the daily 

98th percentile (22nd highest value for all years combined) is greater than this contribution threshold, 
 1-2 7/17/2009 

then the sources are considered “subject-to-BART” and must proceed with the BART determination 

analysis. 
 2-1 7/17/2009 

2.0 Source Description 

The Nearman facility is located in Kansas City, Kansas within Wyandotte County. It has one unit that is 

BART eligible, Unit 1, which began commercial operation in 1981 and is rated at 235 MW. This unit is 

a wall-fired, dry bottom pulverized coal unit equipped with an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) for 

particulate control. 

The Quindaro facility is located in Kansas City, Kansas within Wyandotte County. It has two units that 

are BART eligible, Units 1 and 2. Unit 1 is rated at 73 MW with commercial operation beginning in 

1966. This unit is a cyclone furnace crushed coal unit equipped with an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) 

for particulate control. Unit 2 is rated at 135 MW with commercial operation beginning in 1971. This

unit is a wall-fired, dry bottom pulverized coal unit equipped with an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) for 

particulate control. 

The stack parameters used by KDHE for each unit in the initial modeling were used for the refined 

analyses described herein. 

2.1 Location of Sources vs. Relevant Class I Areas 

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

potential Kansas BART sources are the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma and Hercules-Glades 

Wilderness Area in Missouri. KDHE performed initial screening modeling for the BPU sources for nine 

Class I areas located throughout the Central Regional Air Planning (CENRAP) Association area. The 

results of this modeling are shown in Table 2-1 and indicate that refined exemption modeling must be 

undertaken for the BPU facilities. Based on correspondence with KDHE staff, it was agreed to model a 

subset of these areas for the refined exemption modeling. As such, and in order to keep the size of the 

refined modeling domain manageable, visibility impacts in five of the nine Class I areas was determined. 

The Class I areas include the Hercules-Glades, Mingo, Upper Buffalo, Caney Creek, and Wichita 

Mountains Wilderness Areas. Figure 2-1 provides the locations of these Class I areas with respect to the 

BPU facilities. 

These five were chosen because they each had more than ten days above the 0.5 !dv threshold over the 

3-year modeling period of 2001-2003 as shown in Table 2-1 (Note: the Mingo and Wichita Mountain 

Wilderness Areas did not have more than ten days above the threshold for the Quindaro sources; 

however, they were included since they had more than ten days above the threshold for the Nearman 

source). The remaining four Class I areas each had significantly less than ten exceedance days above the 

threshold, with the greatest number of days above the threshold being only three and in some cases zero. 

Furthermore, it is reasonably assumed that if results at these Class I areas, with their higher number of 

days above the threshold, demonstrate the facilities are not subject to BART, the Class I areas in 

Colorado and South Dakota would also demonstrate compliance. Given those areas’ large distance from 

the facilities (greater than 600 km) and the fact they are in the opposite direction of the general west-toeast wind flow throughout the Midwest, this assumption is reasonable. This approach is meant to be 

consistent with the previously referenced July 6, 2005 Federal Register notice which dictates that “a 
 2-2 7/17/2009 

Table 2-1 

KDHE Initial CALPUFF Modeling Results 

(Number of Days Above 0.5 Deciview Contribution Threshold) a

Class I Area b

Source Badlands 

Caney 

Creekb

Great 

Sand 

Dunes 

Hercules

Gladesb Mingob

Rocky 

Mountain 

Upper

Buffalob

Wichita 

Mountainb

Wind 

Cave 

BPU – Nearman 

BPU – Quindaro 

3 

0 

23 

13 

3 

1 

30 

18 

16 

6 

1 

1 

21 

13 

15 

9 

2 

0 

a Out of a modeled three year period. 

b Those Class I areas in bold were evaluated further for both facilities in the refined BART 

exemption modeling. 
 2-3 7/17/2009 

Nearman

Quindaro

Mingo

Wilderness Area

Hercules-Glades

Wilderness Area

Upper Buffalo

Wilderness Area

Caney Creek

Wilderness Area

Wichita Mountains

Wilderness Area

Figure 2-1 

BPU Facilities with respect to the Class I areas 
 2-4 7/17/2009 

common sense approach should be taken, particularly where an analysis may add a significant resource 

burden.” 

2.2 Unit Specific Source Data 

Table 2-2 provides the stack parameters and Table 2-3 provides emissions data that were used in the 

modeling. 

2.2.1 SO2 and NOx Emissions

As requested by KDHE, the SO2 and NOx emissions included in the analyses were the maximum 24-hour 

actual emission rate of normal operations (excluding periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction) from 

the highest emitting day of the period 2002-2004. As such, Black & Veatch determined these emissions 

from CEMS data provided by BPU for each unit for that period. The maximum 24-hour actual emissions 

of NOx and SO2 did not occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction and were thus used in 

the modeling analysis. 

2.2.2 PM10 Emissions 

The PM10 emissions were speciated into appropriate filterable and condensable particulate matter 

categories: elemental carbon (soot), “soil” (fine PM <= 2.5 μm diameter), coarse particulate matter (2.5-

10 μm diameter), inorganics, and organics for modeling purposes. The aforementioned speciated 

categories are illustrated in Figure 2-2. The appropriate source-specific particulate matter speciation 

spreadsheets provided by the National Park Service (NPS) and available on their web site 

(http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ect/index.cfm) were used to calculate the PM10 speciation 

emissions. For Nearman Unit 1 and Quindaro Unit 2, the NPS spreadsheet that represents a dry bottom 

PC boiler controlled by an ESP was used. For Quindaro Unit 1, the NPS spreadsheet that represents a 

cyclone furnace controlled by an ESP was used. The PM10 emissions and speciation methodology used 

for the BART modeling is described below. The NPS spreadsheets used are provided in Appendix E. 

" Filterable PM10 emissions in tons per year were obtained from the 2002, 2003, and 2004 Kansas 

Annual Emission Inventory (AEI) forms for each source as reported to KDHE. Total heat input 

per year, per unit was obtained from CEMS data. Together, these two pieces of information (total 

annual filterable PM10 emissions and total annual heat input on a per unit, per year basis) were 

used to derive emission factors for PM10 in lb/mmBtu. These emission factors were then applied 

back to the hourly heat input values obtained from the CEMS data to derive hourly filterable 

PM10 emissions. Then, just as with NOx and SO2, the maximum 24-hour emission rate over the 

three year period for each unit was selected and used in the NPS speciation spreadsheets. 

" Filterable PM10 emissions derived above were subdivided by size category using the appropriate 

NPS speciation spreadsheets. This is illustrated in Figure 2-2 as Elemental Carbon (EC) 0-0.625 

!m diameter, Fine PM <= 2.5#!m diameter, and Course PM 2.5-10 !m diameter. 

" Condensable PM10 was subdivided into inorganic and organic compounds using the NPS 

speciation spreadsheets. The inorganic portion is by default assumed to be H2SO4 and was 

modeled as SO4. The organic portion was modeled as secondary organic aerosols (SOA). 
 2-5 7/17/2009 

Table 2-2 

CALPUFF Modeling Parameters 

Stack 

Locationa

Unit 

LCC 

East 

(km) 

LCC 

North 

(km) 

Stack 

Heightb

(m) 

Base 

Elevationb

(m) 

Stack 

Diameterb

(m) 

Stack 

Exit 

Velocityb

(m/s) 

Stack 

Exit 

Temperatureb

(K) 

Nearman -13.381 266.079 121.92 227.10 7.10 13.41 424.80 

Quindaro 1 -7.846 265.177 106.68 225.64 4.05 25.30 436.48 

Quindaro 2 -7.846 265.177 106.68 225.64 3.78 11.89 436.71 

a

 Stack Coordinates in Lambert format included in the CALPUFF modeling. 

b

 Stack parameters from KDHE modeling files. 

Table 2-3 

CALPUFF Modeling Emissions 

Primary Particle Speciation*

Unit 

NOx

Emissions 

(g/s) 

SO2

Emissions 

(g/s) 

PM10 

Emissions 

(g/s) 

EC 

(g/s) 

Fine 

PM 

(g/s) 

Course 

PM 

(g/s) 

H2SO4

(g/s) 

SOA 

(g/s)) 

Nearman 486.26 542.99 2.44 0.04 1.02 1.39 0.78 0.20 

Quindaro 1 134.20 112.48 0.11 0.002 0.06 0.05 1.68 0.42 

Quindaro 2 56.35 196.18 0.91 0.01 0.38 0.51 0.34 0.09

*

 Primary particulate speciated into the following categories using the NPS Speciation Spreadsheet: 

Elemental Carbon (EC), Fine PM, Course PM, Condensable Inorganic PM (SO4), and Condensable 

Organic PM (SOA). 
 2-6 7/17/2009 

Figure 2-2 

Speciation of PM10 Emissions 
 2-7 7/17/2009 

" All particulate modeling was performed using 1 gram per second nominal emission rates in 

CALPUFF for the specific size ranges presented in the NPS speciation spreadsheets (i.e., PM8.0, 

PM4.25, PM1.88, PM1.25, PM0.813, and PM0.625). These modeled species were grouped in 

POSTUTIL as to represent the appropriate visibility pollutants (e.g., PMcourse = PM8.0 + PM4.25

and PMfine = PM1.88 + PM1.25 + PM0.813 + PM0.625) and were scaled with the emission rates derived 

from the NPS spreadsheets. EC and SOA was derived from the PM1.88 species and scaled with 

the emission rates derived from the NPS spreadsheets. 

2.3 Model Versions 

The versions of the CALPUFF modeling system programs that were used for the modeling are listed in 

Table 2-4. Due to known bugs in the regulatory version of CALPUFF, it was proposed that the latest 

Version 6 CALPUFF modeling system available for download on the SRC website (www.scr.com) be 

used for these modeling analyses. Another reason for the use of Version 6 of the CALPUFF modeling 

system over the regulatory version is that it contains the appropriate sized array for the number of z data 

levels used in this analysis (i.e., the regulatory version is limited to 32 z levels and does not allow the 34 

z levels found in the MM5 data to be processed in CALMET). 

It should be noted, however, and KDHE was aware of the issue, that the MM5 data files obtained from 

CENRAP via KDHE have an erroneous header line of “3D.DAT”. This header line is an indicator to the 

CALMET program that the MM5 data is in 3D format and is to be read in as such. Conversations with 

Dennis McNally of Alpine Geophysics, the creator of the MM5 data for CENRAP, revealed that the data 

is standard MM5 data and not 3D data as the header line indicates. Since the data is not 3D data (and

CALMET attempted to read the data as such because of the header line), the CALMET program crashed. 

Black & Veatch developed a work-around, by commenting out the portion of the CALMET Fortran code 

that attempted to read the data as 3D data, thereby forcing CALMET to read the MM5 data in standard 

format. With this change, CALMET executed on the CENRAP MM5 data to completion. The updated 

code and program executable were shared with KDHE in an email to Andy Hawkins on August 24, 2006 

and will be included in the CD/DVD in Appendix H (forthcoming). The CALMET code change is 

included in Appendix G. 

2.4 Modeling Domain 

The modeling domain was sufficiently large to include the BPU BART-eligible sources, as well as the 

receptors at the relevant Class I areas with at least 50-km buffer in each direction. The map projection 

was the Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC) and the coordinate system was North America Datum 1927 

(NAD 27). The modeling domain is shown in Figure 2-3. A grid resolution of 4-km was used in the 

refined modeling. 

The origin coordinates of the domain is Latitude 36.758 N, Longitude 94.557 W and was assigned as the 

0, 0 reference point of the domain. The southwest corner of the modeling domain is latitude 33.755 N,

Longitude 99.339 W, which translates to -443.23 km (X) and -322.16 (Y) in LCC coordinates. The 

domain measured 892 km in the east-west (X) direction by 752 km in the north-south (Y) direction. At a 

refined grid spacing of 4-km, the number of X grid cells was 223 and the number of the Y grid cells was 

188. 
 2-8 7/17/2009 

Table 2-4 

Model Versions 

KDHE Suggested BPU Analyses Program 

Version Level Version Level 

SMERGE 5.56 050324 

PMERGE 5.31 030528 

TERREL 3.311 030709 3.681 060202 

CTGCOMP 2.42 030709 2.22 030528 

CTGPROG 2.42 030709 2.66 060202 

MAKEGEO 2.22 030709 2.26 041230 

CALMET 5.53a 040716 6.211 060414 

CALPUFF 5.753 051130 6.112 060412 

POSTUTIL 1.4 040818 1.52 060412 

CALPOST 5.6392 051130 6.131 060410 

CALSUM 1.33 051122 
 2-9 7/17/2009 

Modeling Domain

Nearman

Quindaro

Southwest Corner: 33.755 N, 99.339 W

Projection Origin: 36.758 N, 94.557 W

Matching Parallels: 35 N, 38 N

Grid Spacing: 4 km

No. X grid cells: 223

No. Y grid cells: 188

Modeling Domain

LCC: -443.22742 E, -322.15648 N 0 250 km 500 km

Scale:

Figure 2-3 

Class I Modeling Domain
 3-1 7/17/2009 

3.0 Geophysical and Meteorological Data 

CENRAP contracted Alpine Geophysics to produce CALPUFF-ready, CALMET meteorological 

data files for use in the initial screening analysis. The development of the initial CALMET 

meteorological fields from mesoscale meteorological-generation 5 (MM5) data were conducted in 

No-Observations (“No-Obs”) mode. The MM5 data already reflect assimilation of observational data 

and are likely to adequately characterize regional wind patterns that are consistent with the 6-km 

grid scale. Blending of MM5 data with local observations (which are mainly at the surface) could 

lead to wind structures that may not be realistic under some conditions and may result in poorer 

characterization of the regional winds. Thus, the effort required to prepare observational data sets for 

CALMET for the large initial domain involved considerable effort that may not have provided 

corresponding improvement of the wind field. 

Grid resolution better than 6-km is needed for a finer-grid CALPUFF assessment of visibility 

impacts in most cases. For the finer resolution modeling presented in this report, available surface 

and precipitation observations were used in addition to MM5 prognostic meteorological model 

outputs to produce refined CALMET meteorological data files at a 4-km resolution. 

3.1 Mesoscale Model Data 

Pennsylvania State University in conjunction with the National Center for Atmospheric Research 

(NCAR) Assessment Laboratory have developed mesoscale meteorological data sets of prognostic 

wind fields, or “guess” fields, for the United States. The hourly meteorological variables used to 

create these data sets (wind, temperature, dew point depression, and geopotential height for eight 

standard levels and up to 15 significant levels) are extensive and are used to initialize the modeling

domain with meteorological data. The following MM5 data provided by KDHE were used: 

" 2001 MM5 data set at 12 km resolution developed for EPA by Alpine Geophysics (McNally 

and Tesche, 2002; McNally 2003); 

" 2002 MM5 data set at 36 km resolution developed for CENRAP by Iowa DNR 

(Johnson, 2003a,b), 

" 2003 MM5 data set at 36 km resolution developed for the Midwest RPO (Baker, 

2005; Baker et al., 2004; Kembell-Cook et al., 2005) 

The MM5 data sets, used to simulate atmospheric variables within the modeling domain in 

CALMET, although advanced, lack the fine detail of specific temporal and spatial meteorological 

variables and geophysical data. These variables were processed into the appropriate format and 

introduced into the CALMET model through the utilization of additional data files obtained from 

numerous sources. These ancillary data files are described in more detail in the following sections. 
 3-2 7/17/2009 

3.2 Surface Data Station and Processing 

The surface station data for the CALPUFF analysis consisted of data from 37 National Weather 

Service (NWS) stations or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Service stations within the 

CALMET domain. Figure 3-1 provides an illustration of the location of the surface stations used. A 

listing of the surface stations is provided in Appendix A (Table A-2). The surface station parameters

include wind speed, wind direction, cloud ceiling height, opaque cloud cover, dry bulb temperature, 

relative humidity, station pressure, and a precipitation code that is based on current weather 

conditions. The data was processed with the CALMET preprocessor utility program, SMERGE, to 

create one surface file for each year modeled. 

3.3 Precipitation Data Stations and Processing 

Precipitation data was processed from a network of hourly precipitation data files collected from 197 

primary and secondary NWS precipitation recording stations within the CALMET domain. Figure 

3-2 provides an illustration of the location of the precipitation stations used. A listing of the 

precipitation stations is provided in Appendix A (Table A-3). The data was processed with the 

CALMET preprocessor utility programs PXTRACT and PMERGE to create one precipitation file 

for each year modeled. 

3.4 Geophysical Data Processing (Terrain and Land Use) 

Terrain elevations for each grid cell of the modeling domain were obtained from 1-degree digital 

elevation model (DEM) files available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). 

Figure 3-3 depicts the terrain elevations in the domain and Table A-4 in Appendix A lists the DEM 

files used. The DEM data were extracted for the modeling domain grid using the CALMET 

preprocessor program TERREL. 

Land use data, based on annual averaged values, was also obtained from the USGS. Figure 3-4 

shows the land use of the domain and Table A-5 in Appendix A lists the land use files used. Land 

use values for the domain grid were extracted with the preprocessor programs CTGCOMP and 

CTGPROC. Other parameters processed for the modeling domain include surface roughness, 

surface albedo, Bowen ratio, soil heat flux, and leaf index field. Once preprocessed, all of the land

use parameters were combined with the terrain information in a processor called MAKEGEO. This 

processor produced one GEO.DAT file for input to CALMET. 

3.5 CALMET Variables 

The selection of the specific variables used in CALMET is provided in Appendix A. 
 3-3 7/17/2009 

LRF

JBR

HOT

PBF

BPK

FYV

UIN

MCI

ICT CNK

GBD

P28

MHK

EMP

TOP

CNK

SLN

HLC

CGI

JLN

STL

SGF

COU

FAM

IRK

VIH

CDJ

SZL

STJ

BIE

FNB

HBR

1FO

OKC

PNC

TUL

MLC

Modeling Domain

Nearman

Quindaro

Southwest Corner: 33.755 N, 99.339 W

Projection Origin: 36.758 N, 94.557 W

Matching Parallels: 35 N, 38 N

Grid Spacing: 4 km

No. X grid cells: 223

No. Y grid cells: 188

Modeling Domain

LCC: -443.22742 E, -322.15648 N

Figure 3-1 

Surface Stations
 3-4 7/17/2009 

Modeling Domain

Nearman

Quindaro

Southwest Corner: 33.755 N, 99.339 W

Projection Origin: 36.758 N, 94.557 W

Matching Parallels: 35 N, 38 N

Grid Spacing: 4 km

No. X grid cells: 223

No. Y grid cells: 188

Modeling Domain

LCC: -443.22742 E, -322.15648 N

Figure 3-2 

Precipitation Stations 
 3-5 7/17/2009 

Figure 3-3 

Terrain Elevation Plot 

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

X LCC (km)

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

Y LCC (km)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

Quindaro

Nearman

Wichita Mountains

Wilderness Area

Upper Buffalo

Wilderness Area

Mingo 

Wilderness Area Hercules-Glades 

Wilderness Area

Caney Creek

Wilderness Area

Meters from 

MSL
 3-6 7/17/2009 

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

X LCC (km)

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

Y LCC (km)

Wichita Mountains

Wilderness Area

Caney Creek

Wilderness Area

Upper Buffalo

Wilderness Area

Hercules-Glades

Wilderness Area

Mingo 

Wilderness Area

Quindaro

Nearman

10 to 17 Urban

20 to 24 Agricultural

30 to 33 Rangeland

40 to 43 Forest Land

50 to 55 Water

Land Use Categories:

Figure 3-4 

Land Use Plot 
 4-1 7/17/2009 

4.0 Air Quality Modeling Methodology 

The CALPUFF modeling system (Scire et al., 2000a, b) is recommended as the preferred modeling 

approach for use in BART analyses. CALPUFF and its meteorological model, CALMET, are 

designed to handle the complexities posed by complex terrain, large source-receptor distances, 

chemical transformation and deposition, and other issues related to Class I visibility impacts. The 

CALPUFF modeling system has been adopted by the EPA as a Guideline Model for source-receptor 

distances greater than 50 km, and for use on a case-by-case basis in complex flow situations for 

shorter distances (68 FR 18440-18482). CALPUFF is recommended for Class I impact assessments 

by the Federal Land Managers Workgroup (FLAG 2000) and the Interagency Workgroup on Air 

Quality Modeling (IWAQM) (EPA 1998). The final BART guidance recommends CALPUFF as 

“the best modeling application available for predicting a singe source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment” (70 FR 39122). 

CALPUFF is a non-steady-state, Lagrangian, puff transport and dispersion model that advects 

Gaussian puffs of multiple pollutants from modeled sources. CALPUFF’s algorithms have been 

designed to be applicable on spatial scales from a few tens of meters to hundreds of kilometers from 

a source. It includes algorithms for near-field effects such as building downwash, stack tip 

downwash and transitional plume rise as well as processes important in the far-field such as 

chemical transformation, wet deposition, and dry deposition. CALPUFF contains an option to allow 

puff splitting in the horizontal and vertical directions, which extends the distance range of the model. 

The primary outputs from CALPUFF are hourly concentrations and hourly deposition fluxes 

evaluated at user-specified receptor locations. 

A set of postprocessing programs associated with CALPUFF computes visibility effects and allows 

cumulative source impacts to be assessed, including potential non-linear effects of ammonia 

limitation on nitrate formation. The CALPOST postprocessor contains several options for computing 

change in extinction and deciviews for visibility assessments. The POSTUTIL postprocessor 

includes options for summing contributions of individual sources or groups of sources to assess 

cumulative impacts. POSTUTIL also contains CALPUFF’s nitric acid-nitrate chemical equilibrium 

module, which allows the cumulative effects of ammonia consumption by background sources to be 

assessed in the postprocessor. In addition, the combination of CALPUFF and POSTUTIL allows the 

effects of source emissions of ammonia to be incrementally added to background ammonia levels 

when determining nitrate formation. 

4.1 CALPUFF Domain and Variables 

The CALPUFF computational domain was the same as that used in CALMET. The selection of the 

specific variables used in CALPUFF is provided in Appendix B. 
 4-2 7/17/2009 

4.2 Receptors

The CALPUFF analyses used an array of discrete receptors with receptor elevations for the Class I 

areas, which were created and distributed by the NPS. Specifically, the array consists of receptors 

spaced to cover the extent of the Class I areas. Receptor elevations are included in the same NPSprovided receptor files. Appendix F provides illustrations of the receptors to be used in the 

modeling analysis for each Class I area. 

4.3 Downwash

Because the modeling conducted for BART is concerned with long-range transport, not localized 

impacts, data about building heights and widths that are used to calculate building downwash was 

not included in the modeling analyses. Stack tip downwash is a phenomenon different from building 

induced downwash and is additionally a regulatory default option (i.e., in order to turn stack tip 

downwash off, the user must also change the variable to skip regulatory checks of the model). As 

such, stack tip downwash was used for this analysis. 

This same methodology (no building induced downwash, but perform stack tip downwash) was used 

by CENRAP and documented the CENRAP modeling guidelines. Additionally, the CALPUFF 

modeling files provided by KDHE utilized the stack tip downwash option. 

4.4 Ozone Concentrations 

Background ozone concentrations are important for the photochemical conversion of SO2 and NOx

to sulfates (SO4) and nitrates (NO3), respectively. CALPUFF allows the use of a single background 

ozone value, monthly background ozone values, or spatial, hourly ozone data from one or more 

ozone monitoring stations (the preferred method) to represent the background ozone concentrations 

within the domain. 

The hourly ozone concentrations files that were used by KDHE in the initial screening analysis were 

used for the refined BART evaluation. These hourly ozone data files were obtained directly from 

KDHE. In addition to the hourly ozone data, the same monthly average background ozone value of 

40 ppb as used by KDHE in the initial modeling was used in this refined modeling for times when 

hourly ozone data are not available. 

4.5 CALPOST and POSTUTIL 

The two main postprocessors of interest for BART applications are the CALPOST and POSTUTIL 

programs. CALPOST is used to process the CALPUFF outputs by producing tabulations 

summarizing the results of the simulations, identifying, for example, the highest and second-highest 

hourly-average concentrations at each receptor. When performing visibility-related modeling, 

CALPOST uses concentrations from CALPUFF to compute light extinction and related measures of 

visibility (haze index in deciviews), reporting these for a 24-hour averaging time. 

The POSTUTIL processor is a program that has several functions, including creating cumulative 

impacts of multiple sources from different simulations via summation, computing the difference 

between two sets of predicted impacts (useful for evaluating the benefits of BART controls), and 
 4-3 7/17/2009 

evaluating the equilibrium relationship between nitric acid and nitrate aerosols via a chemistry 

module. The later function allows the potential non-linear effects of ammonia scavenging by sulfate 

and nitrate sources to be evaluated in the formation of nitrate from an individual source. 

In its simplest form, CALPUFF makes the full ambient ammonia concentration available to each 

puff without regard for any scavenging by other puffs. POSTUTIL corrects for such scavenging 

when the puffs generated by the CALPUFF model overlap, as could be the case for a single source 

when the wind speed is low, or when nitrate formation is to be attributed to each of several sources 

that are in a cluster and whose plumes overlap. The selections of the specific variables used in 

POSTUTIL and CALPOST are provided in Appendices C and D, respectively. 

4.5.1 Light Extinction 

Light extinction must be computed in order to calculate visibility. CALPOST has seven methods for 

computing light extinction. This BART refined analysis used Method 6, which computes extinction 

from speciated particulate matter with monthly Class I area-specific relative humidity adjustment 

factors. Relative humidity is an important factor in determining light extinction (and therefore 

visibility) because sulfate and nitrate aerosols, which absorb moisture from the air, have greater 

extinction efficiencies with greater relative humidity. This BART analysis applied relative humidity 

correction factors [f(RH)s], obtained from the Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA, 2003), to sulfate and nitrate concentrations outputs from 

CALPUFF. The f(RH) values for the Class I areas that were assessed are provided in Table 4-1. The 

default Rayleigh scatter value (bray) of 10 Mm-1 was also used. The light extinction equation is 

provided below. 

bext = 3 * f(RH) * [(NH4)2SO4] + 3* f(RH) * [NH4NO3] + 4*[OC] + 1* [PMf] 

+ 0.6*[PMc] + 10* [EC] + bray 

4.5.2 Natural Background 

The EPA’s default average annual aerosol concentrations for the eastern and western halves of the 

U.S., included in Table 2-1 of EPA’s Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 

Regional Haze Program, was used to determine the natural background at each of the Class I areas. 

The location of the Class I area determined which average annual aerosol concentration was used. 

The values are provide in Table 4-2 

4.5.3 Ammonia Concentrations 

Ambient concentrations of nitrate (NO3) are limited by the availability of ammonia, which is 

preferentially scavenged by sulfates (SO4). Due to this preferential reaction between ammonia and 

sulfates, a lower ammonia concentration would tend to decrease particle nitrate concentrations prior 

to affecting particle sulfate concentrations. 

In CALPUFF, a continuous emissions plume is represented by a series of puffs. The model allows 

the full amount of the background ammonia concentrations to be available to each emissions puff to 
 4-4 7/17/2009 

form nitrate, which tends to overestimate nitrate formation. To compensate, the POSTUTIL utility 

program can be used to repartition HNO3 and NO3. However, the refined modeling was performed 

using the same fixed background ammonia level of 3 ppb that was used for the initial screening 

analysis performed by KDHE. 

Table 4-1 

Monthly Relative Humidity Factors 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4-2 

Average Annual Natural Background Levels 

Average Annual Natural Background 

(!g/m3 Component ) 

Easta Westb 

Ammonium Sulfate 0.23 0.12 

Ammonium Nitrate 0.10 0.10 

Organic Carbon Mass 1.40 0.47 

Elemental Carbon 0.02 0.02 

Soil 0.50 0.50 

Coarse Mass 3.0 3.0 

a

 Includes Caney Creek, Hercules-Glades, Mingo, and Upper 

Buffalo Class I areas. 

b

 Includes Wichita Mountains Class I area. 
 5-1 7/17/2009 

5.0 CALPUFF, CALPOST and POSTUTIL Results 

Based on the air dispersion modeling methodology outlined in the previous sections, the refined 

CALPUFF modeling was performed for the BART eligible units on a facility basis and the modeled 

22nd highest 24-hour impact in a 3 year period was compared to the recommended 0.5 deciview (dv) 

value. A CD/DVD of all input (other than MM5 data) and output files and data in electronic format 

for the CALMET, CALPUFF, CALPOST and POSTUTIL runs will be provided in Appendix H 

under separate submittal to be forthcoming. 

Tables 5-1 through 5-20 present the 98th percentile results of the BART modeling for both the 

Nearman and Quindaro facilities for each Class I area evaluated. Each of the following pages in the 

remainder of this section (one page for each facility and Class I area combination) presents a series 

of two tables. The first table presents the top 22 model-predicted impacts over the entire three-year 

period modeled. The second table, provided at the request of KDHE, presents the top 8 modelpredicted impacts for each individual year modeled.

As indicated in the following tables, the Quindaro facility is below 0.5 dv at all Class I areas 

evaluated. The Nearman facility is below 0.5 dv at three of the five Class I areas evaluated and is 

only slightly above this value at the two closest areas: Hercules-Glades and Upper Buffalo. Of the 

1,093 days (i.e., 24-hour averaging periods) modeled, only 7 days total, beyond the 22nd highest 

impacts at each Class I area, are slightly above 0.5 dv. Given the magnitude of these results, BPU 

requests that both the Nearman and Quindaro facilities be found not subject to the BART provisions 

of the Regional Haze Rule.
 5-2 7/17/2009 

Table 5-1 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Caney Creek Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.004 

0.851 

0.822 

0.801 

0.735 

0.732 

0.579 

0.575 

0.534 

0.511 

0.503 

0.472 

0.438 

0.414 

0.407 

0.406 

0.398 

0.388 

0.386 

0.379 

0.373 

0.344 

Table 5-2 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Caney Creek Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.851 

0.822 

0.735 

0.732 

0.575 

0.503 

0.406 

0.398 

1.004 

0.801 

0.534 

0.472 

0.438 

0.414 

0.379 

0.344 

0.579 

0.511 

0.407 

0.388 

0.373 

0.314 

0.232 

0.222 
 5-3 7/17/2009 

Table 5-3 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.951 

1.455 

0.978 

0.886 

0.791 

0.779 

0.764 

0.763 

0.758 

0.745 

0.741 

0.737 

0.644 

0.641 

0.625 

0.610 

0.586 

0.584 

0.581 

0.575 

0.572 

0.572 

Table 5-4 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

1.951 

1.455 

0.791 

0.779 

0.741 

0.737 

0.644 

0.586 

0.978 

0.886 

0.758 

0.745 

0.625 

0.610 

0.575 

0.572 

0.764 

0.763 

0.641 

0.581 

0.572 

0.568 

0.501 

0.469 
 5-4 7/17/2009 

Table 5-5 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Mingo Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.439 

1.209 

0.652 

0.563 

0.541 

0.520 

0.510 

0.501 

0.489 

0.456 

0.375 

0.366 

0.353 

0.346 

0.346 

0.345 

0.334 

0.310 

0.290 

0.289 

0.289 

0.288 

Table 5-6 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Mingo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.563 

0.520 

0.510 

0.366 

0.353 

0.346 

0.310 

0.289 

1.439 

0.652 

0.541 

0.489 

0.346 

0.334 

0.290 

0.280 

1.209 

0.501 

0.456 

0.375 

0.345 

0.289 

0.288 

0.243 
 5-5 7/17/2009 

Table 5-7 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.863 

1.438 

1.201 

1.047 

0.940 

0.881 

0.826 

0.711 

0.685 

0.635 

0.630 

0.617 

0.615 

0.585 

0.581 

0.576 

0.571 

0.570 

0.551 

0.547 

0.525 

0.504 

Table 5-8 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

1.863 

1.438 

1.201 

0.685 

0.630 

0.617 

0.581 

0.576 

1.047 

0.881 

0.826 

0.635 

0.615 

0.585 

0.551 

0.504 

0.940 

0.711 

0.525 

0.499 

0.484 

0.471 

0.444 

0.384 
 5-6 7/17/2009 

Table 5-9 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.699 

0.968 

0.836 

0.728 

0.564 

0.558 

0.544 

0.478 

0.429 

0.417 

0.386 

0.361 

0.337 

0.336 

0.326 

0.324 

0.319 

0.299 

0.259 

0.258 

0.242 

0.221 

Table 5-10 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.968 

0.728 

0.544 

0.319 

0.299 

0.258 

0.220 

0.218 

0.564 

0.429 

0.386 

0.361 

0.336 

0.209 

0.198 

0.196 

1.699 

0.836 

0.558 

0.478 

0.417 

0.337 

0.326 

0.324 
 5-7 7/17/2009 

Table 5-11 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Caney Creek Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

0.456 

0.441 

0.438 

0.369 

0.342 

0.327 

0.308 

0.286 

0.270 

0.262 

0.234 

0.232 

0.222 

0.215 

0.207 

0.201 

0.189 

0.186 

0.178 

0.178 

0.175 

0.171 

Table 5-12 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Caney Creek Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.441 

0.438 

0.342 

0.270 

0.222 

0.215 

0.201 

0.175 

0.456 

0.369 

0.308 

0.286 

0.262 

0.234 

0.186 

0.178 

0.327 

0.232 

0.207 

0.189 

0.168 

0.140 

0.125 

0.123 
 5-8 7/17/2009 

Table 5-13 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

0.951 

0.673 

0.512 

0.461 

0.445 

0.430 

0.423 

0.389 

0.388 

0.363 

0.355 

0.350 

0.346 

0.338 

0.336 

0.324 

0.318 

0.317 

0.295 

0.292 

0.283 

0.282 

Table 5-14 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.951 

0.673 

0.461 

0.389 

0.388 

0.350 

0.336 

0.324 

0.512 

0.445 

0.430 

0.363 

0.355 

0.338 

0.317 

0.295 

0.423 

0.346 

0.318 

0.292 

0.262 

0.250 

0.242 

0.227 
 5-9 7/17/2009 

Table 5-15 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Mingo Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

0.853 

0.573 

0.391 

0.364 

0.321 

0.263 

0.252 

0.245 

0.231 

0.230 

0.216 

0.214 

0.210 

0.208 

0.191 

0.155 

0.149 

0.145 

0.143 

0.140 

0.140 

0.134 

Table 5-16 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Mingo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.245 

0.230 

0.210 

0.208 

0.155 

0.145 

0.140 

0.119 

0.853 

0.391 

0.321 

0.263 

0.214 

0.191 

0.143 

0.140 

0.573 

0.364 

0.252 

0.231 

0.216 

0.149 

0.118 

0.103 
 5-10 7/17/2009 

Table 5-17 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

0.811 

0.776 

0.547 

0.540 

0.447 

0.428 

0.426 

0.368 

0.366 

0.352 

0.292 

0.289 

0.287 

0.282 

0.278 

0.269 

0.266 

0.265 

0.260 

0.254 

0.252 

0.252 

Table 5-18 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.811 

0.547 

0.540 

0.447 

0.287 

0.282 

0.278 

0.266 

0.426 

0.368 

0.366 

0.352 

0.292 

0.289 

0.269 

0.265 

0.776 

0.428 

0.252 

0.252 

0.209 

0.198 

0.164 

0.156 
 5-11 7/17/2009 

Table 5-19 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

0.910 

0.526 

0.429 

0.373 

0.280 

0.264 

0.261 

0.241 

0.194 

0.191 

0.186 

0.185 

0.171 

0.169 

0.164 

0.149 

0.146 

0.135 

0.121 

0.121 

0.117 

0.113 

Table 5-20 

Quindaro Modeling Results on 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.526 

0.373 

0.264 

0.186 

0.171 

0.121 

0.113 

0.110 

0.261 

0.191 

0.185 

0.169 

0.164 

0.110 

0.104 

0.095 

0.910 

0.429 

0.280 

0.241 

0.194 

0.149 

0.146 

0.135 
 A-1 7/17/2009 

Appendix A-CALMET Control File Inputs & Meteorological data 

Variable Description BPU Value Agreement 

with Default 

Comments

INPUT GROUP 0: Input and Output 

NUSTA Number of Upper air 

stations 

0 n/a Not using Upper air station 

observations 

NOWSTA Number of over water met 

stations 

0 n/a Not using over water met stations 

INPUT GROUP 1: General Run Control Parameters

IBYR Starting year of the 

CALPUFF run 

2001 n/a 2002 and 2003 are the other years 

modeled 

IBMO Starting month 1 n/a 

IBDY Starting day 1 n/a 

IBHR Starting hour 1 n/a 

IEYR Ending year 2001 

IEMO Ending month 2 n/a CALMET run in monthly 

increments 

IEDY Ending day 1 n/a 

IEHR Ending hour 1 n/a 

ABTZ Base time zone 6.0 n/a Central Standard Time 

IRTYPE Run Length 1 Y Must be 1 to run CALPUFF 

LCALGRD Compute variables used by 

both CALGRID and 

CALPUFF 

T Y Compute all fields required by 

CALPUFF 

ITEST Stop run after SETUP to do 

input QA 

2 Y 

INPUT GROUP 2: Map Projection and Grid Control Parameters

PMAP Map Projection LCC UTM 

FEAST False Easting at the 

projection origin 

0.00 Y 

FNORTH False Northing at the 

projection origin 

0.00 Y 

IUTMZN UTM zone n/a n/a 

UTMHEM Hemisphere for UTM 

projection 

n/a n/a 

RLATO 

Latitude (dec. degrees) of 

projection origin 36.758 N n/a 

RLONO Longitude (dec. degrees) of 

projection origin 

94.557 W n/a 

XLAT1 Matching parallel(s) of 

latitude projection 

35 N n/a 

XLAT2 Matching parallel(s) of 

latitude projection 

38 N n/a 

DATUM Datum region for output 

coordinates 

NAS-C n/a 

NX Number of X grid cells in 

meteorological grid 

223 n/a 

NY Number of Y grid cells in 

meteorological grid 

188 n/a 

DGRIDKM Grid spacing, km 4 n/a Refined grid spacing

XORIGKM Ref. Coordinate of SW 

corner of grid cell (1,1) 

-443.227 n/a 
 A-2 7/17/2009 

Variable Description BPU Value Agreement 

with Default 

Comments

YORIGKM Ref. Coordinate of SW 

corner of grid cell (1,1) 

-322.156 n/a 

NZ No. of vertical layers 10 n/a 

ZFACE Cell face heights in 

arbitrary vertical grid, m 

0,20,40, 

80,160,320, 

640,1200,2000, 

3000,4000 

n/a 

INPUT GROUP 3: Output Options

LSAVE Disk output option T Y 

IFORMO Type of unformatted output 

type 

1 Y 

LPRINT Print met fields F Y 

IPRINF Print intervals 1 Y 

IUVOUT(NZ) Specify layers of u,v wind 

components to print 

NZ*0 Y 

IWOUT(NZ) Specify layers of w wind 

components to print 

NZ*0 Y 

ITOUT(NZ) Specify layers of 3-D 

temperature field to print 

NZ*0 Y 

LDB Print input met data and 

variables 

F Y 

NN1 First time step for debug 

data to be printed 

1 Y 

NN2 Last time step for debug 

data to be printed 

1 Y 

IOUTD Control 1variable for 

writing test/debug wind 

fields 

0 Y 

NZPRN2 Number of levels starting at 

surface to print 

1 Y 

IPR0 Print interpolated wind 

components 

0 Y

IPR1 Print terrain adjusted 

surface wind components 

0 Y

IPR2 Print initial divergence 

fields 

0 Y

IPR3 Print final wind speed and 

direction 

0 Y

IPR4 Print final divergence fields 0 Y

IPR5 Print winds after kinematic 

effects 

0 Y

IPR6 Print winds after Froude 

number adjustment 

0 Y

IPR7 Print winds after slope 

flows are added 

0 Y

IPR8 Print final field components 0 Y

INPUT GROUP 4: Meteorological Data Options

NOOBS 1= Use of surface and 

precipitation (no upper air 

observations); use MM5 for 

1 N 1= Use of surface and precipitation 

(no upper air observations); use 

MM5 for upper air data 
 A-3 7/17/2009 

Variable Description BPU Value Agreement 

with Default 

Comments

upper air data 

NSSTA Number of meteorological 

surface stations 

37 n/a 

NPSTA Number of precipitation 

stations 

197 n/a 

ICLOUD Gridded cloud fields 0 N 

IFORMS Formatted surface 

meteorological data file 

2 Y 

IFORMP Formatted surface 

precipitation data file 

2 Y 

IFORMC Formatted cloud data file 2 Y No additional cloud data used in 

the model. 

INPUT GROUP 5: Windfield Options and Parameters

IWFCOD Model selection variable 1 Y 

IFRADJ Compute Froude number 

adjustment factor 

1 Y 

IKINE Compute kinematic effects 1 N Modeling did compute kinematic 

effects 

IOBR Use O’Brien (1970) 

vertical velocity adjustment 

0 Y 

ISLOPE Compute slope flow effects 1 Y 

IEXTRP Extrapolate surface wind 

obs to upper level 

-4 Y 

ICALM Extrapolate surface winds 

if calm 

0 Y 

BIAS Layer dependent biases 

weighting aloft 

measurements 

NZ*0 Y 

RMIN2 Minimum vertical 

extrapolation distance 

4 Y 

IPROG Use gridded prognostic 

wind field model output 

fields as input to the 

diagnostic wind field model 

14 N Use winds from MM5.DAT file as 

initial guess field 

ISTEPPG MM5 output timestep 1 Y 

LVARY Use varying radius of 

influence 

F Y 

RMAX1 Maximum radius of 

influence over land in sfc 

layer 

100 n/a 

RMAX2 Maximum radius of 

influence over land aloft 

300 n/a 

RMAX3 Maximum radius of 

influence over water 

500 n/a 

RMIN Minimum radius of 

influence used anywhere 

0.1 Y 

TERRAD Terrain feature radius of 

influence 

10 n/a 

R1 Weighting of first guess 

surface field 

40 n/a 

R2 Weighting of first guess 

aloft field 

100 n/a 

These values are typical of the 

Midwest where terrain 

influences/changes are not 

expected to be significant. 

RPROG MM4 windfield weighting 

parameter 

0 n/a Not used since IPROG is not equal 

to 1. 
 A-4 7/17/2009 

Variable Description BPU Value Agreement 

with Default 

Comments

DIVLIM Minimum divergence 

criterion 

5.E-6 Y 

NITER Number of divergences 

minimization iterations 

50 Y 

NSMMTH Number of passes through 

smoothing filter in each 

layer of CALMET 

2,4,4,4,4, 

4,4,4,4,4 

Y 

NINTR2 Maximum number of 

stations use din each layer 

for the interpretation of 

data to a grid point 

99 Y 

CRITFN Critical Froude number 1.0 Y 

ALPHA Kinematic effects 

parameter 

0.1 Y 

FEXTR2 Scaling factor for 

extrapolating sfc winds 

aloft 

NZ*0 Y 

NBAR Number of terrain barriers 0 Y 

IDIOTP1 Surface temperature 

computation switch 

0 Y 

ISURFT Number of sfc met station 

to use for temp calcs 

22 n/a Set to the KCI surface station 

number. (724460) 

IDIOPT2 Domain average lapse rate 

switch 

0 Y 

IUPT Upper air station to use for 

lapse rate calculation 

0 n/a Not used since no upper air stations 

used in the modeling. 

ZUPT Depth through wish lapse 

rate is calculated 

200 Y 

IDIOPT3 Domain averaged wind 

components 

0 Y 

IUPWIND Number of aloft stations to 

use for wind calc 

-1 Y 

ZUPWIND Bottom and top of layer 

through which the domain 

scale winds are computed 

1, 1000 Y 

IDIOPT4 Observed surface wind 

component switch 

0 Y 

IDIOPT5 Observed aloft wind 

component switch 

0 Y 

LLBREZE Use lake breeze model F Y 

NBOX Number of lake breeze 

regions 

n/a n/a 

NLB Number of stations in the 

region 

 n/a n/a 

METBXID 

(NLB) 

Stations ID’s in the region n/a n/a 

Input Group 6 

CONSTB Neutral stability mixing 

height coefficient 

1.41 Y 

CONSTE Convective stability mixing 

height coefficient 

0.15 Y 

CONSTN Stable stability maxing 

height coefficient 

2400 Y 
 A-5 7/17/2009 

Variable Description BPU Value Agreement 

with Default 

Comments

CONSTW Overwater mixing height 

coefficient 

0.16 Y 

FCORIOL Absolute vale of Coriolis 

parameter 

1 E-4 Y 

IAVEZI Conduct spatial averaging 1 Y 

MNMDAV Maximum search radius in 

averaging process 

1 Y 

HAFANG Half angle of upwind 

looking cone for averaging 

30 Y 

ILEVZI Layers of wind use in 

upwind averaging 

1 Y 

DPTMIN Minimum potential 

temperature lapse rate in 

the stable layer above the 

current convective mixing 

height 

0.001 Y 

DZZI Depth of layer above 

current convective mixing 

height through which lapse 

rate is computed 

200 Y 

ZIMIN Minimum overland mixing 

height 

50 Y 

ZIMAX Maximum overland mixing 

height 

3000 Y 

ZIMINW Minimum overwater 

mixing height 

50 Y 

ZIMAXW Maximum overwater 

mixing height 

3000 Y 

ITPROG 3D temperature from 

observations or from MM5 

1 N Use Surface stations (no upper air 

observations). Use MM5 for upper 

air data. 

IRAD Type of interpolation 1 Y 

TRADKM Temperature interpolation 

radius of influence 

36 N Use KDHE/CENRAP value. 

NUMTS Maximum number of 

station for temperature 

interpolation 

5 Y 

IAVET Spatially average 

temperatures 

1 Y 

TGDEFB Temperature gradient 

below mixing height over 

water 

-0.0098 Y 

TGDEFA Temperature gradient 

above mixing height over 

water 

-0.0045 Y 

JWAT1 Beginning land use 

categories over water 

999 n/a Disabled 

JWAT2 Ending land use categories 

for water 

999 n/a Disabled 

NFLAGP Precipitation interpolation 

flag 

2 Y 

SIGMAP Radius of influence for 

precipitation interpolation 

100 Y 
 A-6 7/17/2009 

Variable Description BPU Value Agreement 

with Default 

Comments

CUTP Minimum precipitation rate 

cutoff (mm/hr) 

0.01 Y 
 A-7 7/17/2009 

Table A-2 

Surface Stations(a)

Lambert Coordinates(b)

Station Name State Station 

Symbol

WMO 

Station 

Number X (km) Y (km) 

Anemometer 

Height 

(m) 

Surface Stations

Little Rock 

Jonesboro 

Hot Springs 

Pine Bluff 

Baxter 

Fayetteville 

Quincy 

Kansas City 

Wichita 

Chanute 

Great Bend 

Medicine Lodge 

Manhattan 

Emporia 

Topeka 

Concordia 

Salina 

Hill City 

Cape Girardeau 

Joplin 

St. Louis 

Springfield 

Columbia 

Farmington 

Kirksville 

Vichy/Rolla 

Chillicothe 

Whiteman 

St. Joseph 

Beatrice 

Falls City 

Hobart 

Ardmore 

Oklahoma City 

Ponca City 

Tulsa 

McAlester 

AR 

AR 

AR 

AR 

AR 

AR 

IL 

KS 

KS 

KS 

KS 

KS 

KS 

KS 

KS 

KS 

KS 

KS 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

NE 

NE 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

LRF 

JBR 

HOT 

PBF 

BPK 

FYV 

UIN 

MCI 

ICT 

CNK 

GBD 

P28 

MHK 

EMP 

TOP 

CNK 

SLN 

HLC 

CGI 

JLN 

STL 

SGF 

COU 

FAM 

IRK 

VIH 

CDJ 

SZL 

STJ 

BIE 

FNB 

HBR 

1FO 

OKC 

PNC 

TUL 

MLC 

723405 

723407 

723415 

723417 

723439 

723445 

724396 

724460 

724500 

724507 

724517 

724520 

724555 

724556 

724560 

724580 

724586 

724655 

723489 

723495 

724340 

724400 

724450 

724454 

724455 

724456 

724464 

724467 

724490 

725515 

725533 

723525 

723529 

723530 

723546 

723560 

723566 

219.93455 

352.83938 

133.87753 

242.30134 

187.21509 

34.88345 

287.33008 

-14.07279 

-253.47016 

-81.4212 

-376.96508 

-353.93499 

-182.82723 

-141.93171 

-92.92109 

-266.0986 

-270.43964 

-454.53465 

442.25809 

5.06233 

364.02908 

104.42294 

203.04051 

366.11669 

171.4102 

244.34347 

83.76224 

87.61207 

-29.42714 

-186.78676 

-89.10754 

-410.01857 

-236.45891 

-276.41855 

-227.05795 

-118.94489 

-111.78596

-201.13628

-95.78153 

-251.68949 

-283.79712 

-41.01201 

-84.01216 

357.2104 

282.18782 

102.74862 

101.57744 

185.10608 

65.24987 

265.29369 

175.6397 

257.14018 

314.23136 

233.22453 

303.51113 

63.81684 

43.49001 

228.99337 

53.00248 

231.31708 

120.18716 

372.89348 

155.7771 

340.39673 

218.2058 

334.46549 

395.48065 

369.36562 

-185.44413 

-286.1749 

-148.48818 

-0.10833 

-61.08069 

-205.39372 

10.06 

10.06 

7.92 

7.92 

10.06 c

10.06 

10.06 

10.00 

10.06 

10.06 

10.67 

10.00 

10.06 

10.06 

10.00 

10.00 

10.06 

10.06 

10.06 c

10.06 

10.00 

10.00 

10.00 

10.06 c

10.06 

10.06 

10.06 c

6.40 

10.06 

9.14 

10.06 

10.06 

7.01 

7.92 

10.06 

10.00 

10.06 

(a)All Stations used in 2001, 2002, and 2003 in the analysis. 

(b) All coordinates are in Lambert (km) based on the Lat/Lon origin of 36.758°, -94.557° and the parallels 35°N and 

38°N. 

(c) Anemometer height not given and assumed a height of 10.06 m.
 A-8 7/17/2009 

 

Table A-3 

Hourly Precipitation Stations (a)

Lambert Coordinates(b)

Station ID State 

Station 

Number X (km) Y (km) 

030064 

030130 

030220 

030326 

030458 

030530 

030764 

030832 

030842 

030900 

030936 

031020 

031457 

031632 

031952 

032148 

032356 

032444 

032489 

032574 

032794 

032978 

033132 

034756 

034988 

035110 

035112 

035200 

035228 

035320 

035602 

035754 

035908 

036393 

036920 

038052 

110330 

110510 

111290 

113666 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

30064 

30130 

30220 

30326 

30458 

30530 

30764 

30832 

30842 

30900 

30936 

31020 

31457 

31632 

31952 

32148 

32356 

32444 

32489 

32574 

32794 

32978 

33132 

34756 

34988 

35110 

35112 

35200 

35228 

35320 

35602 

35754 

35908 

36393 

36920 

38052 

110330 

110510 

111290 

113666 

313.541 

156.988 

138.236 

287.687 

249.518 

242.685 

125.034 

59.088 

188.702 

97.227 

307.970 

177.535 

104.583 

355.935 

17.034 

280.025 

69.365 

35.139 

192.434 

17.681 

166.068 

231.894 

274.041 

28.228 

88.992 

77.536 

65.284 

127.651 

206.718 

210.135 

118.603 

233.942 

109.308 

71.406 

288.560 

342.096 

307.815 

410.743 

451.971 

375.320 

-90.135 

-216.231 

-288.986 

-157.620 

-99.299 

-184.508 

-241.863 

-183.193 

-113.097 

-201.375 

-202.658 

-41.802 

-135.282 

-30.186 

-294.823 

-314.365 

-37.585 

-72.919 

-219.597 

-158.045 

-83.449 

-134.185 

-49.268 

-242.332 

-245.504 

-288.983 

-313.468 

-199.045 

-53.944 

-210.778 

-88.387 

-277.854 

-327.744 

-104.125 

-249.477 

-160.196 

392.204 

205.585 

220.029 

295.378 
 A-9 7/17/2009 

Table A-3 

Hourly Precipitation Stations (a)

Lambert Coordinates(b)

Station ID State 

Station 

Number X (km) Y (km) 

114442 

114629 

115334 

115413 

115841 

115983 

116837 

117077 

118179 

140326 

140637 

140957 

141233 

141351 

141404 

141612 

141740 

141767 

141867 

142582 

142686 

142938 

143248 

143366 

143527 

143686 

143954 

143984 

143997 

144104 

144178 

144341 

145039 

145210 

145306 

146374 

147551 

147756 

148167 

148250 

148293 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Kansas 

114442 

114629 

115334 

115413 

115841 

115983 

116837 

117077 

118179 

140326 

140637 

140957 

141233 

141351 

141404 

141612 

141740 

141767 

141867 

142582 

142686 

142938 

143248 

143366 

143527 

143686 

143954 

143984 

143997 

144104 

144178 

144341 

145039 

145210 

145306 

146374 

147551 

147756 

148167 

148250 

148293 

372.539 

404.657 

353.939 

414.111 

439.121 

457.208 

322.384 

267.905 

417.482 

-326.196 

-174.534 

-29.345 

-272.007 

-182.576 

-40.966 

-67.353 

-26.512 

-266.165 

-171.387 

-60.662 

-134.117 

-384.281 

-167.464 

-263.292 

-414.776 

-29.211 

-101.250 

-76.316 

-325.664 

-104.440 

-296.383 

-349.343 

-220.194 

-99.734 

-202.705 

-408.516 

-270.382 

-9.651 

-93.692 

-45.525 

-37.008 

338.951 

145.736 

423.482 

392.674 

306.637 

123.408 

324.265 

353.867 

353.284 

134.600 

101.377 

256.119 

34.895 

145.611 

161.900 

241.713 

44.886 

314.388 

214.533 

91.725 

99.687 

218.535 

68.216 

138.579 

243.402 

211.876 

53.704 

129.615 

328.719 

166.209 

210.521 

35.820 

182.567 

193.910 

259.611 

341.117 

224.549 

227.563 

257.025 

340.993 

120.998 
 A-10 7/17/2009 

Table A-3 

Hourly Precipitation Stations (a)

Lambert Coordinates(b)

Station ID State 

Station 

Number X (km) Y (km) 

148830 

148946 

220237 

221314 

221707 

222773 

223650 

224173 

227820 

229079 

230022 

230088 

230204 

231283 

231383 

231600 

231640 

231674 

231711 

231791 

232302 

232331 

232809 

233079 

233219 

233369 

233999 

234358 

234387 

234544 

234825 

234919 

235027 

235050 

235130 

235207 

235298 

235307 

235562 

235594 

235671 

Kansas 

Kansas 

Mississippi

Mississippi

Mississippi

Mississippi

Mississippi

Mississippi

Mississippi

Mississippi

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

148830 

148946 

220237 

221314 

221707 

222773 

223650 

224173 

227820 

229079 

230022 

230088 

230204 

231283 

231383 

231600 

231640 

231674 

231711 

231791 

232302 

232331 

232809 

233079 

233219 

233369 

233999 

234358 

234387 

234544 

234825 

234919 

235027 

235050 

235130 

235207 

235298 

235307 

235562 

235594 

235671 

-253.728 

-340.904 

404.945 

481.912 

367.851 

427.996 

443.751 

468.602 

485.022 

461.971 

413.221 

276.430 

46.493 

335.215 

62.484 

250.615 

314.790 

334.988 

73.277 

203.194 

207.395 

-4.626 

365.245 

228.115 

-3.214 

12.844 

399.464 

-13.881 

18.959 

169.346 

164.336 

236.207 

53.447 

176.009 

227.740 

408.949 

116.161 

145.937 

271.927 

64.884 

182.853 

103.157 

252.104 

-213.475 

-307.737 

-276.151 

-279.009 

-317.129 

-202.881 

-279.780 

-251.377 

47.397 

48.265 

158.321 

255.919 

-9.227 

310.999 

296.384 

47.706 

182.442 

230.981 

4.912 

191.253 

122.803 

236.191 

268.412 

414.102 

-69.150 

282.095 

288.957 

384.377 

104.442 

91.643 

70.223 

334.126 

416.952 

-7.815 

263.017 

65.602 

267.108 

50.792 

297.308 
 A-11 7/17/2009 

Table A-3 

Hourly Precipitation Stations (a)

Lambert Coordinates(b)

Station ID State 

Station 

Number X (km) Y (km) 

235834 

235987 

236012 

236563 

236777 

236826 

237130 

237300 

237455 

237506 

237656 

237967 

237976 

238003 

238043 

238051 

238082 

238252 

238466 

238524 

238620 

238700 

238712 

238746 

238880 

250435 

250622 

252225 

252433 

253595 

253737 

340179 

340215 

340292 

341437 

341544 

341684 

341750 

342334 

342654 

343281 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nebraska 

Nebraska 

Nebraska 

Nebraska 

Nebraska 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

235834 

235987 

236012 

236563 

236777 

236826 

237130 

237300 

237455 

237506 

237656 

237967 

237976 

238003 

238043 

238051 

238082 

238252 

238466 

238524 

238620 

238700 

238712 

238746 

238880 

250435 

250622 

252225 

252433 

253595 

253737 

340179 

340215 

340292 

341437 

341544 

341684 

341750 

342334 

342654 

343281 

203.658 

16.166 

156.083 

36.717 

109.053 

325.110 

48.915 

277.738 

363.703 

266.595 

-4.107 

1.909 

103.547 

1.047 

279.810 

228.399 

69.155 

111.765 

101.375 

13.473 

225.627 

380.504 

65.709 

312.578 

243.022 

-101.237 

-186.739 

-102.394 

-127.126 

-397.612 

-258.708 

-438.209 

-325.751 

-237.267 

-152.487 

-20.111 

-210.451 

-306.449 

-386.595 

-312.180 

-353.404 

46.222 

120.007 

252.250 

363.806 

127.970 

131.936 

405.027 

192.416 

229.257 

101.331 

9.406 

25.060 

54.071 

384.393 

143.027 

359.971 

104.428 

-17.110 

167.066 

243.489 

163.214 

27.308 

225.132 

203.855 

1.715 

401.891 

395.480 

373.568 

365.045 

379.516 

382.626 

-229.596 

-50.218 

-283.779 

-278.949 

-276.413 

-114.848 

-184.117 

-114.640 

-246.609 

-176.771 
 A-12 7/17/2009 

Table A-3 

Hourly Precipitation Stations (a)

Lambert Coordinates(b)

Station ID State 

Station 

Number X (km) Y (km) 

343497 

343740 

344052 

344202 

344865 

344975 

345589 

345664 

346130 

346485 

346620 

346638 

346661 

346859 

346935 

346944 

347196 

347309 

347705 

347739 

348497 

348501 

348708 

348992 

349023 

349404 

349629 

349724 

349748 

402680 

405720 

405954 

406358 

408065 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Tennessee 

Tennessee 

Tennessee 

Tennessee 

Tennessee 

343497 

343740 

344052 

344202 

344865 

344975 

345589 

345664 

346130 

346485 

346620 

346638 

346661 

346859 

346935 

346944 

347196 

347309 

347705 

347739 

348497 

348501 

348708 

348992 

349023 

349404 

349629 

349724 

349748 

402680 

405720 

405954 

406358 

408065 

-340.924 

-319.185 

-255.949 

-413.685 

-200.535 

-79.714 

-275.219 

-112.090 

-65.707 

-96.160 

-309.897 

-158.240 

-276.414 

-247.906 

-160.233 

-202.624 

-227.048 

-68.212 

-212.857 

-41.345 

-50.931 

-228.403 

-396.435 

-119.647 

-67.257 

-386.895 

-380.897 

-13.419 

-193.067 

466.119 

456.091 

416.901 

430.564 

470.634 

-118.829 

4.176 

-237.592 

-182.434 

-302.939 

-163.216 

-63.072 

-207.362 

-115.263 

-6.821 

-109.997 

-145.507 

-147.533 

-211.861 

-8.640 

-37.336 

0.261 

-50.536 

-232.353 

-65.496 

-167.128 

-68.070 

-70.492 

-61.256 

-236.296 

-16.485 

-216.368 

-201.471 

-177.139 

-67.302 

-138.739 

-178.333 

-133.864 

-21.018 

(a)All Stations used in 2001, 2002, and 2003. 

(b) All coordinates are in Lambert Coordinates (km) Using Lat/Lon Origin of 36.758°, 

-94.557° with parallels 35°N and 38°N. 
 A-13 7/17/2009 

Table A-4: USGS Terrain Data Used in Analysis 

Ardmore-E Little Rock-E 

Ardmore-W Little Rock-W 

Belleville-W Manhattan-E 

Beloit-E Manhattan-W 

Beloit-W McAlester-E 

Blytheville-W McAlester-W 

Burlington-E Memphis-E 

Burlington-W Memphis-W 

Centerville-E Moberly-E 

Centerville-W Moberly-W 

Clinton-E Nebraska City-E 

Clinton-W Nebraska City-W 

Decatur-W Oklahoma City-E 

Dyersburg-W Oklahoma City-W 

El Dorado-E Paducah-W 

El Dorado-W Peoria-W 

Enid-E Poplar Buff-E 

Enid-W Poplar Buff-W 

Fort Smith-E Pratt-E 

Fort Smith-W Pratt-W 

Grand Island-E Quincy-E 

Grand Island-W Quincy-W 

Great Bend-E Rolla-E 

Great Bend-W Rolla-W 

Greenwood-E Russellville-E 

Greenwood-W Russellville-W 

Harrison-E Saint Louis-E 

Harrison-W Saint Louis-W 

Helena-E Sherman-E 

Helena-W Sherman-W 

Hutchinson-E Springfield-E 

Hutchinson-W Springfield-W 

Jefferson City-E Texarkana-E 

Jefferson City-W Texarkana-W 

Joplin-E Tulsa-E 

Joplin-W Tulsa-W 

Kansas City-E Tupelo-W 

Kansas City-W Wichita-E 

Lawrence-E Wichita-W 

Lawrence-W Wichita Falls-E 

Lawton-E Wichita Falls-W 

Lawton-W West Point-W 

Lincoln-E Woodward-E 

Lincoln-W Woodward-W 
 A-14 7/17/2009 

Table A-5: USGS Land Use Data Used in Analysis 

 1:250,000 scale data 1:100,000 scale data 

Ardmore Antlers 

Belleville Conway 

Beloit Dequeen 

Blytheville Fly Gap Mountain 

Burlington McAlester 

Centerville Mena 

Clinton Mountain View 

Decatur Russellville 

Dyersburg 

El Dorado 

Enid 

Fort Smith 

Grand Island 

Great Bend 

Greenwood 

Harrison 

Helena 

Hutchinson 

Jefferson City 

Joplin 

Kansas City 

Lawrence 

Lawton 

Lincoln 

Little Rock 

Manhattan 

 Memphis 

Moberly 

 Nebraska City 

 Oklahoma City 

 Paducah 

 Peoria 

 Poplar Buff 

 Pratt 

 Quincy 

 Rolla 

 Saint Louis 

 Sherman 

 Springfield 

 Texarkana 

 Tulsa 

 Tupelo 

 Wichita 

 Wichita Falls 

 West Point 

 Woodward 
 B-1 7/17/2009 

Appendix B-CALPUFF Control File Inputs

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

INPUT GROUP 1: General run control parameters 

METRUN Control parameter for running 

all periods in met. File (0=no; 

1=yes) 

0 Y 

IBYR Starting year of the CALPUFF 

run 

2001 n/a 2002 and 2003 are the other years 

modeled 

IBMO Starting month 1 n/a 

IBDY Starting day 1 n/a 

IBHR Starting hour 1 n/a 

IEYR Ending year 2002 n/a 

IEMO Ending month 1 n/a 

IEDY Ending day 1 n/a 

IEHR Ending hour 1 n/a 

XBTZ Base time zone 6.0 n/a Central Standard Time 

IRLG Length of the run (hours) 8736 n/a 2001 couldn’t use 2002s MM5 data 

files because of the different 

resolution 36 km vs. 12 km), therefore 

the CALMET run stopped 6 hours 

short of a full year. Since visibility is 

a 24-hour concern, the CALPUFF was 

stopped one full day short of a year. 

2002=8760hrs. 

 

2003=8736hrs because the MM5 data 

had only 12 hrs on 12/31. Since 

visibility is a 24-hour concern, the 

CALPUFF was stopped one full day 

short of a year. 

NSPEC Total number of species 

modeled 

11 5 

NSE Number of species emitted 9 3 

METFM Meteorological data format 1 Y CALMET unformatted file 

AVET Averaging time (minutes) 60.0 Y 

PGTIME Averaging time (minutes) for PG 

- $y

60.0 Y 

INPUT GROUP 2: Technical options 

MGAUSS Control variable determining the 

vertical distribution used in the 

near field 

1 Y Gaussian 

MCTADJ Terrain adjustment method 3 Y Partial plume path adjustment 

MCTSG CALPUFF sub-grid scale 

complex terrain module (CTSG) 

flag 

0 Y CTSG not modeled 

MSLUG Near-field puffs are modeled as 

elongated “slugs”? 

0 Y No 

MTRANS Transitional plume rise 

modeled? 

1 Y Transitional plume rise computed 

MTIP Stack tip downwash modeled? 1 Y Yes 
 B-2 7/17/2009 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

MBDW Method used to simulate 

building downwash? 

1 Y ISC. However, building downwash 

not used. 

MSHEAR Vertical wind shear above stack 

top modeled in plume rise? 

0 Y No 

MSPLIT Puff splitting allowed? 1 N KDHE has indicated the allowance of 

puff splitting. 

MCHEM Chemical mechanism flag 1 Y Transformation rates computed 

internally (MESOPUFF II scheme) 

MAQCHEM Aqueous phase transformation 

flag 

0 Y Aqueous phase not modeled 

MWET Wet removal modeled? 1 Y Yes 

MDRY Dry deposition modeled? 1 Y Yes 

MDISP Method used to compute 

dispersion coefficients 

3 Y PG dispersion coefficients in RURAL 

& MP coefficients in urban areas 

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

measurements used? 

- - Not used since MDISP = 3. 

MDISP2 Backup method used to compute 

dispersion when measured 

turbulence data are missing 

- - Not used since MDISP = 3. 

MROUGH PG sigma-y,z adj. for 

roughness? 

0 Y No 

MPARTL Partial plume penetration of 

elevated inversion? 

1 Y Yes 

MTINV Strength of temperature 

inversion 

0 Y No 

MPDF PDF used for dispersion under 

convective conditions? 

0 Y No 

MSGTIBL Sub-Grid TIBL module used for 

shoreline? 

0 Y No 

MBCON Boundary conditions 

(concentration) modeled? 

0 Y No 

MFOG Configure for FOG model 

output 

0 Y No 

MREG TEST options specified to see if 

they conform to regulatory 

values? 

1 Y Checks made 

INPUT GROUP 3: Species list 

CSPEC Species modeled SO2 

SO4 

NOX 

HNO3 

NO3 

PM8.00 

PM4.25 

PM1.88 

PM1.25 

PM0.813 

PM0.625 

n/a Modeled: All 

Emitted: SO2, NOx, SO4, PM8P00, 

PM4P25, PM1P88, PM1P25, 

PM0P813, PM0P625 

Dry deposited: SO2(gas), 

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

NO3(particle), PM8P00(particle), 

PM4P25(particle), PM1P88(particle), 

PM1P25(particle), 

PM0P813(particle), 

PM0P625 (particle) 

(all but NOx are wet deposited also) 

These particulate sizes are based on 

the NPS spreadsheet speciations. 
 B-3 7/17/2009 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

INPUT GROUP 4: Map projection and grid control parameters 

PMAP Map projection LCC N Lambert conformal conic 

FEAST False Easting 0.0 Y 

FNORT False Northing 0.0 Y 

RLATO Latitude 36.758N n/a 

RLONG Longitude 94.557W n/a 

XLAT1 

XLAT2 

Matching parallel(s) of latitude 

for projection 

35N 

38N 

n/a 

n/a 

DATUM Datum region for the coordinates NAS-C N 

NX 

NY 

NZ 

Meteorological grid: 

No. X grid cells in 

meteorological grid 

No. Y grid cells in 

meteorological grid 

No. vertical layers in 

meteorological grid 

223 

188 

10 

n/a 

DGRIDKM Grid spacing (km) 4 n/a 

ZFACE Cell face heights (m) 0, 20, 

40,80, 

160, 320, 

640,1200, 

2000, 

3000, 

4000 

n/a 

XORIGKM 

YORIGKM 

Reference coordinates of SW 

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

-443.2274 

-322.1564 

n/a 

IBCOMP 

JBCOMP 

IECOMP 

JECOMP 

Computational grid:

X index of LL corner 

Y index of LL corner 

X index of UR corner 

Y index of UR corner 

1 

1 

223 

188 

n/a 

LSAMP 

IBSAMP 

JBSAMP 

IESAMP 

JESAMP 

MESHDN 

Logical flag indicating if gridded 

receptors are used 

X index of LL corner 

Y index of LL corner 

X index of UR corner 

Y index of UR corner 

Nesting factor of the sampling 

grid 

F 

1 

- 

Y 

Receptors are only in the Class I areas 

assessed 

INPUT GROUP 5: Output options 

SPECIES Species (or group) list for output 

options 

1 n/a Concentrations saved for 

SO2, SO4, NOx, HNO3, NO3, 

PM8.00 PM4.25, PM1.88, PM1.25, 

PM0.813, PM0.625 

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

NHILL Number of terrain features 0 Y 

NCTREC Number of special complex 

terrain receptors 

0 Y 

MHILL Terrain and CTSG receptor data 

for CTSG hills input in CTDM 

format? 

0 n/a None input. 
 B-4 7/17/2009 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

XHILL2M Factor to convert horizontal 

dimensions to meters 

1 Y 

ZHILL2M Factor to convert vertical 

dimensions to meters 

1 Y 

XCTDMKM X-origin of CTDM system 

relative to CALPUFF coordinate 

system, in Km 

0 n/a 

YCTDMKM Y-origin of CTDM system 

relative to CALPUFF coordinate 

system, in Km 

0 n/a 

INPUT GROUP 7: Chemical parameters for dry deposition of gases 

SPECIES 

DIFFUSVTY 

ALPHA STR 

REACTVTY 

MESO RES 

HENRYS C 

Chemical parameters for dry 

deposition of gases 

- Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

SO2; NOx; HNO3 

0.1509 0.1656 0.1628 

1000 1 1 

8 8 18 

0 5 0 

0.04 3.5 8.0*E-8 

INPUT GROUP 8: Size parameters for dry deposition of particles 

SPECIES 

GEO. MASS 

MEAN DIA. 

GEO.STAND 

DEV. 

Single species: mean and 

standard deviation used to 

compute deposition velocity for 

NINT size-ranges; averaged to 

obtain mean deposition velocity. 

Grouped species: size 

distribution specified, standard 

deviation as “0”. Model uses 

deposition velocity for stated 

mean diameter. 

- n/a Species Diameter Std Dev. 

SO4 0.48 2 

NO3 0.48 2 

PM8.00 8.00 0 

PM4.25 4.25 0 

PM1.88 1.88 0 

PM1.25 1.25 0 

PM0.813 0.813 0 

PM0.625 0.625 0 

When modeling known diameters, use 

a standard deviation of zero. 

INPUT GROUP 9: Miscellaneous dry deposition parameters 

RCUTR Reference cuticle resistance 30 Y 

RGR Reference ground resistance 10 Y 

REACTR Reference pollutant reactivity 8 Y 

NINT Number of particle-size intervals 

to evaluate effective particle 

deposition velocity 

9 Y 

IVEG Vegetation state in unirrigated 

areas 

1 Y 

INPUT GROUP 10: Wet deposition parameters 

POLL 

LIQ PRECIP 

FRZ PRECIP 

Scavenging coefficients - Y 

Y 

Y 

Poll Liq Frz 

SO2 3E-5 0 

SO4 1E-4 3E-5 

NOx 0 0 

HNO3 6E-5 0 

NO3 1E-4 3E-5 

PM8.00 1E-4 3E-5 

PM4.25 1E-4 3E-5 

PM1.88 1E-4 3E-5 

PM1.25 1E-4 3E-5 

PM0.813 1E-4 3E-5 

PM0.625 1E-4 3E-5 
 B-5 7/17/2009 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

INPUT GROUP 11: Chemistry parameters 

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

OZONE.DAT data file 

BCKO3 Monthly ozone concentrations 12*40 N 

BCKNH3 Monthly ammonia 

concentrations 

12*3 N 

RNITE1 Nighttime SO2 loss rate 0.2 Y 

RNITE2 Nighttime NOx loss rate 2.0 Y 

RNITE3 Nighttime HNO3 formation rate 2.0 Y 

MH2O2 H2O2 data input option - - MQACHEM = 0; not used 

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

BCKPMF 

OFRAC 

VCNX 

Secondary Organic Aerosol 

options 

- - MCHEM = 1; thus, not used 

INPUT GROUP 12: Misc. Dispersion and computational parameters 

SYTDEP Horizontal size of puff beyond 

which time-dependent dispersion 

equations (Heffter) are used. 

550 Y 

MHFTSZ Switch for using Heffter 

equation for sigma z as above 

0 Y 

JSUP Stability class used to determine 

plume growth rates for puffs 

above boundary layer 

5 Y 

CONK1 Vertical dispersion constant for 

stable conditions 

0.01 Y 

CONK2 Vertical dispersion constant for 

neutral/unstable conditions 

0.1 Y 

TBD Factor determining transitionpoint from Schulman-Scire to 

Huber-Snyder building 

downwash scheme 

0.5 Y No building downwash used 

IURB1 

IURB2 

Range of land use categories for 

which urban dispersion is 

assumed 

10 

19 

Y 

Y 

METFM=1; not used 

ILANDUIN Land use category for modeling 

domain 

- - METFM=1; not used 

ZOIN Roughness length (m) for 

modeling domain 

- - METFM=1; not used 

XLAIIN Leaf area index for modeling 

domain 

- - METFM=1; not used 

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

XLATIN Latitude (degrees) for met 

location 

- - METFM=1; not used 

XLONIN Longitude (degrees) for met 

location 

- - METFM=1; not used 

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

ISIGMAV Form of lateral turbulence data 

in PROFILE.DAT 

1 Y Read sigma-v 

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

XMXLEN Maximum length of a slug 1 Y 

XSAMLEN Maximum travel distance of a 

puff/slug during one sampling 

step 

1 Y 
 B-6 7/17/2009 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

MXNEW Maximum number of slugs/puffs 

released from one source during 

one time step 

99 Y 

MXSAM Maximum number of sampling 

steps for one puff/slug during 

one time step 

99 Y 

NCOUNT Number of iterations used when 

computing the transport wind for 

a sampling step that includes 

gradual rise 

2 Y 

SYMIN Minimum sigma y for a new 

puff/slug 

1 Y 

SZMIN Minimum sigma z for a new 

puff/slug 

1 Y 

SVMIN 

SWMIN 

Default minimum turbulence 

velocities sigma-v and sigma-w 

for each stability class 

- Y A B C D E F 

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

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

CDIV Divergence criterion for dw/dz 

across puff used to initiate 

adjustment for horizontal 

convergence 

0, 0 Y 

WSCALM Minimum wind speed allowed 

for non-calm conditions. Used as 

minimum speed returned when 

using power-law extrapolation 

toward surface 

0.5 Y 

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

XMINZI Minimum mixing height (m) 20 N 

WSCAT 

Default wind speed classes - Y 1 2 3 4 5 

1.54 3.09 5.14 8.23 10.80 

PLXO 

Default wind speed profile 

power-law exponents for 

stabilities 1-6 

- Y 

ISC 

RURAL 

A B C D E F 

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

PTGO Default potential temperature 

gradient for stable classes E, F 

(deg K/m) 

- Y 0.020; 0.035 

PPC Default plume path coefficients 

for each stability class 

- Y A B C D E F 

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

SL2PF Slug-to-puff transitions criterion 

factor equal to sigma-y/length of 

slug 

10 Y 

NSPLIT Number of puffs that result 

every time a puff is split 

3 Y 

IRESPLIT Time of day when split puffs are 

eligible to be split once again; 

this is typically set once per day, 

around sunset before nocturnal 

shear develops 

- N Hour 18 = 1 

This value was used in the KDHE 

initial modeling. 

ZISPLIT Split is allowed only if last 

hour’s mixing height (m) 

exceeds a minimum value 

100 Y 

ROLDMAX Split is allowed only if ratio of 

last hour’s mixing ht to the 

maximum mixing ht experienced 

by the puff is less than a 

0.25 Y 
 B-7 7/17/2009 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

maximum value 

NSPLITH Number of puffs that result 

every time a puff is split 

5 Y 

SYSPLITH Minimum sigma-y of puff before 

it may be split 

1 Y 

SHSPLITH Minimum puff elongation rate 

due to wind shear, before it may 

be split 

2 Y 

CNSPLITH Minimum concentration of each 

species in puff before it may be 

split 

1E-7 Y 

EPSSLUG Fractional convergence criterion 

for numerical SLUG sampling 

integration 

1E-4 Y 

EPSAREA Fractional convergence criterion 

for numerical AREA source 

integration 

1E-6 Y 

DSRISE Trajectory step-length (m) used 

for numerical rise integration 

1 Y 

HTMINBC Minimum height (m) to which 

BC puffs are mixed as they are 

emitted. Actual height is reset to 

the current mixing height at the 

release point if greater than this 

minimum 

500 Y 

RSAMPBC Search radius (in BC segment 

lengths) about a receptor for 

sampling nearest BC puff. BC 

puffs are emitted with a spacing 

of one segment length, so the 

search radius should be greater 

than 1 

10 Y 

MDEPBC Near-surface depletion 

adjustment to concentration 

profile used when sampling BC 

puffs? 

1 Y Adjust concentration for depletion 

INPUT GROUP 13: Point source parameters 

NPT1 Number of point sources with 

parameters 

- n/a See Appendix B 

IPTU Units used for point source 

emissions 

1 Y 

NSPT1 Number of source-species 

combinations with variable 

emissions scaling factors 

0 Y 

NPT2 Number of point sources with 

variable emission parameters 

provided in external file 

0 n/a 

INPUT GROUP 14: Area source parameters – Not used 

INPUT GROUP 15: Line source parameters – Not used 

INPUT GROUP 16: Volume source parameters – Not used

INPUT GROUP 17: Non-gridded (discrete) receptor information 
 B-8 7/17/2009 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

NREC Number of non-gridded 

receptors 

338 n/a 80 Caney Creek 

80 Hercules-Glades 

47 Mingo 

72 Upper Buffalo 

59 Wichita Mountains 
 C-1 7/17/2009 

Appendix C – POSTUTIL Control File Inputs 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

INPUT GROUP 1: General run control parameters 

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

ISMO Starting month 1 n/a 

IDY Starting day 1 n/a 

ISHR Starting hour 1 n/a 

NPER Number of periods to process 8736 n/a 2002=8760 hrs, 

2003=8736hrs only 12 hrs on 

12/31 

NSPECINP Number of species to process from 

CALPUFF runs 

11 n/a See list below 

NSPECOUT Number of species to write to output file 9 n/a See list below 

NSPECCMP Number of species to compute from those 

modeled 

4 n/a 

MDUPLCT Stop run if duplicate species names found? 0 Y 

NSCALED Number of CALPUFF data files that will be 

scaled 

0 Y 

MNITRATE Re-compute the HNO3/NO3 partition for 

concentrations? 

0 N Not used. 

BCKNH3 Default ammonia concentrations used for 

HNO3/NO3 partition 

- N 12*3 

INPUT GROUP 2: Species processing information 

ASPECI NSPECINP species will be processed - n/a SO2 

SO4 

NOX 

HNO3 

NO3 

PM8.00 

PM4.25 

PM1.88 

PM1.25 

PM0.813 

PM0.625 

ASPECO NSPECOUT species will be written - n/a SO2 

SO4 

NOX 

HNO3 

NO3 

PMC 

PMF (or SOIL) 

EC 

SOA 
 D-1 7/17/2009 

Appendix D – CALPOST Control File Inputs

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

INPUT GROUP 1: General run control parameters 

METRUN Option to run all periods found in met files 0 Y Run period explicitly defined 

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

ISMO Starting month 1 n/a 

IDY Starting day 1 n/a 

ISHR Starting hour 1 n/a 

NHRS Number of hours to process 8736 n/a 2002=8760hrs, 2003=8736hrs 

only 12 hrs on 12/31 

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

ASPEC Species to process VISIB n/a Visibility processing 

ILAYER Layer/deposition code 1 Y CALPUFF concentrations 

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

LBACK Add hourly background 

concentrations/fluxes? 

F Y 

MSOURCE Option to process source contributions 0 Y 

LG 

LD 

Gridded receptors processed? 

Discrete receptors processed? 

F 

T 

Y 

N 

Discrete receptors located 

only in the Class I areas 

assessed and are from NPS. 

LCT CTSG Complex terrain receptors processed? F Y 

LDRING Report results by DISCRETE receptor 

RING? 

F Y 

NDRECP Flag for all receptors after the last one 

assigned is set to “0” 

-1 Y As appropriate for Class I area 

being analyzed 

IBGRID 

JBGRID 

IEGRID 

JEGRID 

Range of gridded receptors -1 

-1 

-1 

-1 

Y When LG = T 

Entire grid processed if all =-1 

NGONOFF Number of gridded receptor rows provided 

to identify specific gridded receptors to 

process 

0 Y 

BTZONE Base time zone for the CALPUFF 

simulation 

6 n/a 

MFRH Particle growth curve f(RH) for hygroscopic 

species 

2 Y FLAG (2000) f(RH) 

tabulation. Note: not used for 

Method 6. 

RHMAX Maximum relative humidity (%) used in 

particle growth curve 

- N Not used for Method 6. 

LVSO4 

LVNO3 

LVOC 

LVPMC 

LVPMF 

LVEC 

Modeled species to be included in 

computing light extinction 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

LVBK Include BACKGROUND when ranking for 

TOP-N, TOP-50, and exceedence tables? 

T Y 

SPECPMC 

SPECPMF 

Species name used for particulates in 

MODEL.DAT file 

PMC 

SOIL 

Y 

Y 

PMF = SOIL 

EEPMC 

EEPMF 

Modeled particulate species 0.6 

1.0 

Y 

Y 
 D-2 7/17/2009 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

EEPMCBK Background particulate species 0.6 Y 

EESO4 

EENO3 

EEOC 

EESOIL 

EEEC 

Other species 3.0 

3.0 

4.0 

1.0 

10 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

LAVER Background extinction computation F Y 

MVISBK Method used for background light extinction 6 N Compute extinction from 

speciated PM measurements. 

FLAG RH adjustment factor 

applied to observed and 

modeled sulfate and nitrate 

RHFAC Extinction coefficients for hygroscopic 

species (modeled and background). 

Monthly RH adjustment factors 

- n/a See Table 4-1 in this 

document 

BKSO4 

BKNO3 

BKPMC 

BKOC 

BKSOIL 

BKEC 

Monthly concentrations of ammonium 

sulfate, ammonium nitrate, coarse 

particulates, organic carbon, soil and 

elemental carbon to compute background 

extinction coefficients 

- n/a See Table 4-2 in this 

document 

BEXTRAY Extinction due to Rayleigh scattering 

(1/Mm) 

10 Y 

IPRTU Units for all output 1 Y grams/cubic meter 

L24HR Averaging time reported T n/a 

LTOPN Visibility: Top “N” table for each averaging

time selected. 

F Y 

NTOP Number of ‘Top-N’ values at each receptor 

selected (NTOP must be <=4) 

4 Y 

MDVIS Output file with visibility change at each 

receptor? 

0 Y Create file of DAILY (24 

hour) delta-deciview. Grid 

model run. 
E-1 7/17/2009 

Appendix E - National Park Service Particle Speciation Spreadsheets 

NearmanControlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using only ESP for Emissions controlassumes heating value of 8027.38 Btu/lb and a sulfur content of 0.37 % and an ash content of 5.17 % and f(RH) = 1

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 0.0244 0.0174 0.0097 0.6 0.0077 0.0074 1 0.00029 10 0.007 0.006 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.001 SOA 4

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Values from Table 1.1-6.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 0.392 0.279 0.155 0.6 0.124 0.119 1 0.0046 10 0.112 0.090 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.022 SOA 4

Controlled PM10 Emissions

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 100% 71.3% 39.6% 0.6 31.7% 30.5% 1 1.2% 10 28.7% 23.0% SO4 3*f(RH) 5.7% SOA 4

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 27.2 19.4 10.8 0.6 8.6 8.3 1 0.3 10 7.8 6.2 SO4 3 1.6 SOA 4

Weighted Extinction 6.5 8.3 3.2 18.7 6.2

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.6 0.03 0.03 1 0.0012 10 0.03 0.02 SO4 3 0.01 SOA 4

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon.”)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 100% 71.3% 55.6% 0.6 44.4% 42.8% 1 1.6% 10 28.7% 80.0% SO4 3 20.0% SOA 4

(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.

96.3% 1 3.7% 10

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 27.2 19.39 10.8 0.6 8.6 8.3 1 0.3 10 7.8 6.2 SO4 3 1.6 SOA 4

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.6 0.03 0.03 1 0.0012 10 0.03 0.02 SO4 3 0.01 SOA 4

Coarse 39.6% Coarse 10.8

Fine Soil 30.5% Fine Soil 8.3Fine EC 1.2% Fine EC 0.3CPM IOR 23.0% CPM IOR 6.2CPM OR 5.7% CPM OR 1.6

100.0% 27.2
E-2 7/17/2009 

NearmanPC with ESPfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputs filterable emission rate in lb/hr)

Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle Emissions

Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range in Size Range

(um) ESP (%) (um) (lb/hr)

10 67% 100% 10-6 4.9

6 50% 75% 6-2.5 6.1

2.5 29% 43% 2.5-1.25 3.5

1.25 17% 25% 1.25-1.0 0.9

1 14% 21% 1.0-625 0.6

0.625 12% 18% 0.625-0 3.5

CALPUFF

Particle Particle Fraction Emissions Extinction Emissions

Size Size Range of PM10 in Size Range Coef. in Size Range

(um) (um) (%) (lb/hr) (g/sec)

8 10-6 25% 4.9 0.6 0.62

4.25 6-2.5 31% 6.1 0.6 0.77 57% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.25 18% 3.5 1 0.44 43% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.25 1.25-1 4% 0.9 1 0.11

0.813 1.6-25 3% 0.6 1 0.070.625 0.625-0 18% 3.5 1 0.40

100% 19.4 10 0.04 3.7% of Fine Soil

2.45
E-3 7/17/2009 

Quindaro Stack 1Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-8Cyclone Furnace ESP for Emissions controlassumes heating value of 8748.69 Btu/lb and a sulfur content of 0.38 % and an ash content of 5.47 % and f(RH) = 1

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

Cyclone 0.0714 0.0034 0.0016 0.6 0.0019 0.0018 1 0.00007 10 0.068 0.054 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.014 SOA 4

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Values from Table 1.1-8.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.

Cyclone 1.250 0.060 0.027 0.6 0.033 0.032 1 0.0012 10 1.190 0.952 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.238 SOA 4

Controlled PM10 Emissions

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.

Cyclone 100% 4.8% 2.2% 0.6 2.6% 2.5% 1 0.1% 10 95.2% 76.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 19.0% SOA 4

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse #### Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.

Cyclone 17.5 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 1 0.02 10 16.6 13.3 SO4 3 3.3 SOA 4

Weighted Extinction 0.2 0.4 0.2 39.9 13.3

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

Cyclone 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.00 1 0.0001 10 0.10 0.08 SO4 3 0.02 SOA 4

Filterable PM10 emissions:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon.”)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.

Cyclone 100% 4.8% 45.5% 0.6 54.5% 52.5% 1 2.0% 10 95.2% 80.0% SO4 3 20.0% SOA 4

(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.

96.3% 1 3.7% 10

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.

Cyclone 17.5 0.84 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 1 0.0 10 16.6 13.3 SO4 3 3.3 SOA 4

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

Cyclone 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.00 1 0.0001 10 0.10 0.08 SO4 3 0.02 SOA 4

Coarse 2.2% Coarse 0.4

Fine Soil 2.5% Fine Soil 0.4

Fine EC 0.1% Fine EC 0.0CPM IOR 76.1% CPM IOR 13.3CPM OR 19.0% CPM OR 3.3

100.0% 17.5
E-4 7/17/2009 

Quindaro Stack 1Cyclone Furnace with ESPfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-8(User inputs filterable emission rate in lb/hr)

Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle Emissions

Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range in Size Range

(um) ESP (%) (um) (lb/hr)

10 68% 100% 10-6 0.1

6 56% 82% 6-2.5 0.2

2.5 36% 53% 2.5-1.25 0.2

1.25 22% 32% 1.25-1.0 0.1

1 17% 25% 1.0-625 0.2

0.625 0% 0.625-0 0.0

CALPUFF

Particle Particle Fraction Emissions Extinction Emissions

Size Size Range of PM10 in Size Range Coef. in Size Range

(um) (um) (%) (lb/hr) (g/sec)

8 10-6 18% 0.1 0.6 0.02

4.25 6-2.5 29% 0.2 0.6 0.03 47% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.25 21% 0.2 1 0.02 53% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.25 1.25-1 7% 0.1 1 0.01

0.813 1.6-25 25% 0.2 1 0.030.625 0.625-0 0.0% 0.000 1 -0.002

100% 0.8 10 0.002 3.7% of Fine Soil

0.11
E-5 7/17/2009 

Quindaro Stack 2Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using only ESP for Emissions controlassumes heating value of 8748.69 Btu/lb and a sulfur content of 0.38 % and an ash content of 5.47 % and f(RH) = 1

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 0.0249 0.0169 0.0094 0.6 0.0075 0.0072 1 0.00028 10 0.008 0.006 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.002 SOA 4

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Values from Table 1.1-6.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 0.435 0.295 0.164 0.6 0.131 0.126 1 0.0049 10 0.140 0.112 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.028 SOA 4

Controlled PM10 Emissions

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 100% 67.8% 37.7% 0.6 30.2% 29.0% 1 1.1% 10 32.2% 25.7% SO4 3*f(RH) 6.4% SOA 4

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 10.6 7.2 4.0 0.6 3.2 3.1 1 0.1 10 3.4 2.7 SO4 3 0.7 SOA 4

Weighted Extinction 2.4 3.1 1.2 8.2 2.7

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.6 0.03 0.03 1 0.0011 10 0.03 0.03 SO4 3 0.01 SOA 4

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon.”)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 100% 67.8% 55.6% 0.6 44.4% 42.8% 1 1.6% 10 32.2% 80.0% SO4 3 20.0% SOA 4

(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.

96.3% 1 3.7% 10

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 10.6 7.19 4.0 0.6 3.2 3.1 1 0.1 10 3.4 2.7 SO4 3 0.7 SOA 4

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Particle 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.

PC-DB 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.6 0.03 0.03 1 0.0011 10 0.03 0.03 SO4 3 0.01 SOA 4

Coarse 37.7% Coarse 4.0

Fine Soil 29.0% Fine Soil 3.1

Fine EC 1.1% Fine EC 0.1CPM IOR 25.7% CPM IOR 2.7CPM OR 6.4% CPM OR 0.7

100.0% 10.6
E-6 7/17/2009 

Quindaro Stack 2PC with ESPfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputs filterable emission rate in lb/hr)

Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle Emissions

Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range in Size Range

(um) ESP (%) (um) (lb/hr)

10 67% 100% 10-6 1.8

6 50% 75% 6-2.5 2.3

2.5 29% 43% 2.5-1.25 1.3

1.25 17% 25% 1.25-1.0 0.3

1 14% 21% 1.0-625 0.2

0.625 12% 18% 0.625-0 1.3

CALPUFF

Particle Particle Fraction Emissions Extinction Emissions

Size Size Range of PM10 in Size Range Coef. in Size Range

(um) (um) (%) (lb/hr) (g/sec)

8 10-6 25% 1.8 0.6 0.23

4.25 6-2.5 31% 2.3 0.6 0.28 57% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.25 18% 1.3 1 0.16 43% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.25 1.25-1 4% 0.3 1 0.04

0.813 1.6-25 3% 0.2 1 0.030.625 0.625-0 18% 1.3 1 0.15

100% 7.2 10 0.01 3.7% of Fine Soil

0.91
 F-1 7/17/2009 

Appendix F - National Park Service Receptors 
 F-2 7/17/2009 
 F-3 7/17/2009 
 F-4 7/17/2009 
 F-5 7/17/2009 
 G-1 7/17/2009 

Appendix G - CALMET Code Changes 

c --- MM5.DAT file number 

 nfm3d=1 

c --- Read first two records to determine file format

c --- iMM53d = 0 for MM5.DAT file structure 

c --- iMM53d = 1 for 3D.DAT file structure prior to Version 2.0 

c --- iMM53d = 2 for 3D.DAT file structure, Version 2.0 or later 

 read(io20,'(a)')buff1 

 read(io20,'(a)')buff2 

cc --- Step (1): Check for "3D.DAT" or "MM53D.DAT" on second c --- record of 

file (indication of old 3D.DAT file structure c --- prior to Version 2.0) 

 read(buff2,'(a12)')cset3d 

C if(cset3d.eq.'3D.DAT'.or.cset3d.eq.'MM53D.DAT')then 

C imm53d=1 

C else 

c

c --- Step (2) check for new standard 3D.DAT file structure

c --- with dataset name, version and comments on first record 

C if(buff1(1:6).eq.'3D.DAT')then 

C

C imm53d=2 

C else 

c

c --- Structure does not fit 3D.DAT conventions -- assume 

c --- file is in MM5.DAT format 

 imm53d=0 

C endif 

C endif 

KDHE is aware of the issue that the MM5 data files obtained from CENRAP via KDHE have an 

erroneous header line of “3D.DAT”. This header line is an indicator to the CALMET program that 

the MM5 data is in 3D format and is to be read in as such. Conversations with Dennis McNally of 

Alpine Geophysics, the creator of the MM5 data for CENRAP, revealed that the data is standard 

MM5 data and not 3D data as the header line indicates. Since the data is not 3D data (and CALMET 

attempted to read the data as such because of the header line), the CALMET program crashed. 

Black & Veatch developed a work-around, by commenting out the portion of the CALMET Fortran 

code that attempted to read the data as 3D data, thereby forcing CALMET to read the MM5 data in 

standard format. With this change, CALMET executed on the CENRAP MM5 data to completion. 

The updated code (provided above as highlighted text) and program executable were shared with 

KDHE in an email to Andy Hawkins on August 24, 2006 and is included in the CD/DVD as part of 

the final report. 
 H-1 7/17/2009 

Appendix H – Modeling Files 
December 19, 2007 

Andy Hawkins 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Bureau of Air and Radiation 

1000 SW Jackson Street 

Topeka, Kansas 66612-1366 

RE: Revised BART Exemption Modeling Results for Nearman Due to CEMs 

Malfunction Reporting 

Dear Andy: 

Based on conversations with Tom Gross on December 4 and 13, 2007, it is our 

understanding that CEMs malfunction events are included in the realm of emissions that 

may be excluded (namely emissions associated with startup, shutdown, and malfunction) 

from the 24-hour emission rates used in the subject-to-BART visibility impact modeling. 

To that end, we have re-evaluated our highest daily emissions of NOx and SO2 for the 

BART time period of 2001 through 2003, excluding periods of CEMs malfunction, and 

have determined that the Nearman subject-to-BART modeling was based on 

unrepresentative CEMs malfunction substitute emissions data that over estimated the 

modeled visibility impairment results. 

As the following analysis demonstrates, the Nearman facility is below 0.5 dv at all 

Class I areas evaluated and is, therefore, not subject to the BART provisions of the 

Regional Haze Rule.

Determination of Emissions

Using the reporting capabilities in Nearman’s CEM DAHS, an “Analyzer Downtime” 

report was created, showing the times and dates of CEM malfunctions during the first 

quarter of 2002 (see Attachment 1). If a day experienced a CEMs malfunction, it was 

removed from the analysis and the next highest day was evaluated until no such 

malfunction occurred as to warrant that day’s removal from the analysis. This procedure 

is illustrated in the following two tables. The bolded days in each table are those first 

days where no malfunction occurred and as such their emissions were used in the 

modeling.
Highest Daily NOx Emissions for 2001 through 2003 

Year Month Day 

Ranked NOx

Emissions 

(tons)

CEMs

Malfunction? Reason for the Malfunction

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2004

1

2

2

1

2

3

1

3

1

1

2

1

3

8

22

21

7

23

7

4

12

9

5

28

3

17

46.31

44.37

41.50

36.69

34.57

30.77

28.63

27.78

24.18

20.19

18.88

18.01

17.95

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

Y

Bad Photomultiplier Tube 

Wet Instrument Air 

Wet Instrument Air 

Bad Photomultiplier Tube 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Highest Daily SO2 Emissions for 2001 through 2003 

Year Month Day 

Ranked SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

CEMs

Malfunction? Reason for the Malfunction

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003

2004

2004

2004

2003

2004

2003

2004

2

2

2

3

4

3

2

3

5

3

5

3

21

22

23

7

28

17

23

13

19

15

21

14

51.71

48.72

47.23

41.07

35.56

34.23

34.18

34.14

34.01

33.99

33.87

33.81

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

Wet Instrument Air 

Wet Instrument Air 

Wet Instrument Air 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

After further investigation of the malfunctions, BPU discovered that the NOx analyzer 

malfunctions on January 7 and 8, 2002 were a result of the analyzer’s photomultiplier 

tube malfunctioning. This was reported in BPU’s quarterly Emissions Summary Report 

to KDHE dated April 25, 2002 (see Attachment 2). This was not a spare parts item that 

BPU had readily available, and as a result, the part took a couple of days to order and 

replace. The malfunctions on the remaining dates (February 21, 22, and 23, 2002) were 

due to wet instrument air entering the CEM system. This was also reported in BPU’s 
quarterly Emissions Summary Report dated April 25, 2002 (Attachment 2). According to 

supplemental information provided in the report, the tubing took several days to dry out 

and be fixed, and as a result, the NOx and SO2 analyzers were both unable to capture 

accurate and representative data during those days. 

Modeling

Using the approved air dispersion modeling methodology outlined in the September 2006 

BART Modeling Report, Kansas City Board of Public Utilities, Nearman and Quindaro 

Facilities, revised emissions rates for NOx and SO2, as discussed above, were input to the 

model to determine the applicability of the BART program to the Nearman facility. The 

following tables from that report show the revised input values and the resulting model 

output for Nearman. 

As indicated in the following results tables, the Nearman facility is below 0.5 dv at all 

Class I areas evaluated. As such, BPU requests that the Nearman facility be found not

subject to the BART provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Finally, submitted with this 

analysis, is a CD-ROM containing the appropriate modeling input and output files for 

your records. 

If you have any questions, please call me at (913) 573-9728. KCBPU appreciates your 

assistance in this matter and looks forward to your approval of this revised analysis. 

Sincerely,

Leah Bennett 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

BPU Air Quality Program 

cc: Darrell Dorsey, John Fuentez
Table 2-3 

CALPUFF Modeling Emissions 

Primary Particle Speciation*

Unit

NOx

Emissions 

(g/s)

SO2

Emissions 

(g/s)

PM10

Emissions 

(g/s)

EC

(g/s)

Fine

PM

(g/s)

Course

PM

(g/s)

H2SO4

(g/s)

SOA

(g/s))

Nearman 323.13 431.22 2.44 0.04 1.02 1.39 0.78 0.20 

Quindaro 1 134.20 112.48 0.11 0.002 0.06 0.05 1.68 0.42 

Quindaro 2 56.35 196.18 0.91 0.01 0.38 0.51 0.34 0.09

*

 Primary particulate speciated into the following categories using the NPS Speciation Spreadsheet: 

Elemental Carbon (EC), Fine PM, Course PM, Condensable Inorganic PM (SO4), and Condensable 

Organic PM (SOA). 
Table 5-1 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Caney Creek Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

0.711

0.617

0.601

0.567

0.522

0.521

0.430

0.410

0.400

0.375

0.369

0.350

0.315

0.309

0.296

0.288

0.284

0.280

0.273

0.271

0.262

0.242

Table 5-2 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Caney Creek Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.617

0.601

0.522

0.521

0.400

0.350

0.309

0.288

0.711

0.567

0.410

0.369

0.315

0.296

0.280

0.262

0.430

0.375

0.284

0.273

0.271

0.242

0.174

0.166
Table 5-3 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.468

1.037

0.715

0.635

0.570

0.563

0.562

0.558

0.546

0.530

0.520

0.510

0.496

0.473

0.454

0.450

0.432

0.430

0.417

0.411

0.406

0.401

Table 5-4 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

1.468

1.037

0.570

0.562

0.520

0.510

0.496

0.450

0.715

0.635

0.558

0.546

0.454

0.432

0.430

0.411

0.563

0.530

0.473

0.417

0.406

0.401

0.373

0.335
Table 5-5 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Mingo Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.059

0.906

0.462

0.401

0.393

0.370

0.364

0.361

0.340

0.321

0.288

0.266

0.258

0.256

0.252

0.245

0.243

0.218

0.217

0.215

0.214

0.209

Table 5-6 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Mingo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.401

0.370

0.361

0.288

0.252

0.243

0.218

0.214

1.059

0.462

0.393

0.340

0.258

0.245

0.209

0.200

0.906

0.364

0.321

0.266

0.256

0.217

0.215

0.172
Table 5-7 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.431

1.042

0.907

0.765

0.665

0.640

0.611

0.525

0.480

0.476

0.456

0.448

0.445

0.435

0.412

0.408

0.387

0.385

0.373

0.355

0.354

0.326

Table 5-8 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

1.431

1.042

0.907

0.480

0.476

0.456

0.435

0.408

0.765

0.640

0.611

0.448

0.445

0.412

0.387

0.355

0.665

0.525

0.385

0.373

0.354

0.326

0.325

0.281
Table 5-9 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area

2001-2003 (22nd High) 

Delta Deciview Ranks 1-22 

1.292

0.715

0.634

0.527

0.411

0.404

0.402

0.362

0.326

0.313

0.281

0.263

0.249

0.245

0.242

0.234

0.231

0.228

0.184

0.170

0.162

0.156

Table 5-10 

Nearman Modeling Results on 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area by Year (8th High) 

2001 2002 2003 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

Delta Deciview 

Ranks 1-8 

0.715

0.527

0.402

0.249

0.234

0.184

0.170

0.162

0.411

0.313

0.281

0.263

0.245

0.156

0.151

0.143

1.292

0.634

0.404

0.362

0.326

0.242

0.231

0.228
Attachment 1 

Analyzer Downtime Report 

First Quarter of 2002 

Attachment 2 

Emissions Summary Report for Nearman Creek Power Station 

First Quarter of 2002