# 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 SO 2 

### and NO x 

### Emissions............................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.2 PM 10 

### 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 Wildernes s Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

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

### High) .......... 5-2 Table 5-3 Nearman Modeling Results on Hercules-Glades Wil derness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

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

### High) ....5-3 Table 5-5 Nearman Modeling Results on Mingo Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

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

### High) ....................5-4 Table 5-7 Nearman Modeling Results on Upper Buffalo Wilde rness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

### High) 5-5 Table 5-8 Nearman Modeling Results on Upper Buffalo Wilde rness Area by Year (8 th 

### High)........ 5-5 Table 5-9 Nearman Modeling Results on Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area.................................... 2001-2003 (22 nd 

### High).......................................................................................................................5-6 Table 5-10 Nearman Modeling Results on Wichita Mountains Wi lderness Area

### by Year (8 th 

### High)..............................................................................................................................5-6

Table 5-11 Quindaro Modeling Results on Caney Creek W ilderness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

### High) 5-7 Table 5-12 Quindaro Modeling Results on Caney Creek W ilderness Area by Year (8 th 

### High)........ 5-7 Table 5-13 Quindaro Modeling Results on Hercules-Gl ades Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

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

### High)..5-8 Table 5-15 Quindaro Modeling Results on Mingo Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

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

### High)...................5-9 Table 5-17 Quindaro Modeling Results on Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

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

### High) ...5-10 Table 5-19 Quindaro Modeling Results on Wichita Mou ntains Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

### High).....................................................................................................................5-11 Table 5-20 Quindaro Modeling Results on Wichita Mou ntains Wilderness Area by Year (8 th 

### High)............................................................................................................................5-11

Figures Figure 2-1 BPU Facilities with respect to the Clas s I areas.......................................... ....................2-3 Figure 2-2 Speciation of PM 10 

### 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 Spr eadsheets 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 Re trofit Technology (BART) determinations (70 FR 39104-39172). Sources are BART-eligible if they mee t three criteria including potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of a visibility-impai ring 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 use ful life of the source; 5) degree of visibility improvement expected from the application of contro ls --is required for any BART-eligible source that can be reasonably expected to cause or contrib ute to impairment of visibility in any of the 156 federal parks and wilderness (Class I) areas protec ted under the regional haze rule. Air quality modeling is an important tool available to the Stat es to determine whether a source can be reasonably expected to contribute to visibility imp airment in a Class I area.

According to 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y, States hav e the option to “ use dispersion modeling to determine that an individual source cannot reasonab ly 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 exercis e the “individual source attribution approach” option. In that approach, a BART-eligible source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciv iew (dv) change or more is considered to “cause” visibi lity 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 t o cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area is subject to BART and must underg o a BART determination analysis.

The air dispersion modeling analyses presented in t his 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 methodolo gy 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 t o determine if the source is “subject-toBART”. For sources that are determined to be subjec t 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 NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and particulate matter up to 10

! m in size (PM 10 

### ) emissions were included in the refined BART exemp tion modeling. The model calculated the number of days that all BART-eligibl e sources at a single facility contribute to a delt adeciview ( ! dv) greater than or equal to 0.5 dv (contribution threshold) for each year. If the daily 98th percentile (22 nd 

### highest value for all years combined) is greater t han this contribution threshold,

### 1-2 7/17/2009

then the sources are considered “subject-to-BART” a nd must proceed with the BART determination analysis.

### 2-1 7/17/2009 

# 2.0 Source Description

The Nearman facility is located in Kansas City, Kan sas within Wyandotte County. It has one unit that is BART eligible, Unit 1, which began commercial opera tion in 1981 and is rated at 235 MW. This unit is a wall-fired, dry bottom pulverized coal unit equipped with an Electrostatic Preci pitator (ESP) for particulate control.

The Quindaro facility is located in Kansas City, Ka nsas within Wyandotte County. It has two units tha t 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 u nit equipped with an Electrostatic Precipitator (ES P) 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 un it 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 locate d in the state of Kansas. The closest Class I areas to potential Kansas BART sources are the Wichita Mount ains in Oklahoma and Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area in Missouri. KDHE performed initia l screening modeling for the BPU sources for nine Class I areas located throughout the Central Region al 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 corres pondence with KDHE staff, it was agreed to model a subset of these areas for the refined exemption mode ling. As such, and in order to keep the size of the refined modeling domain manageable, visibility impa cts in five of the nine Class I areas was determined. The Class I areas include the Hercules-Glades, Ming o, Upper Buffalo, Caney Creek, and Wichita Mountains Wilderness Areas. Figure 2-1 provides th e locations of these Class I areas with respect to the BPU facilities.

These five were chosen because they each had more t han ten days above the 0.5 ! dv threshold over the 3-year modeling period of 2001-2003 as shown in Tab le 2-1 (Note: the Mingo and Wichita Mountain Wilderness Areas did not have more than ten days abo ve the threshold for the Quindaro sources; however, they were included since they had more tha n ten days above the threshold for the Nearman source). The remaining four Class I areas each had significa ntly less than ten exceedance days above the threshold, with the greatest number of days above the thres hold being only three and in some cases zero.

Furthermore, it is reasonably assumed that if result s at these Class I areas, with their higher number of days above the threshold, demonstrate the facilitie s are not subject to BART, the Class I areas in Colorado and South Dakota would also demonstrate co mpliance. Given those areas’ large distance from the facilities (greater than 600 km) and the fact they are in the opposite direction of the ge neral west-toeast wind flow throughout the Midwest, this assumpt ion is reasonable. This approach is meant to be consistent with the previously referenced July 6, 2005 Fed eral 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 Thres hold) a

Class I Area b

Source Badlands Caney Creek b Great

Sand Dunes Hercules

Glades b Mingo b Rocky

Mountain Upper

Buffalo b Wichita

Mountain b 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 fa cilities 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 provi des emissions data that were used in the modeling.



## 2.2.1 SO 2 

## and NO x 

## Emissions

As requested by KDHE, the SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emissions included in the analyses were the maximum 24- hour actual emission rate of normal operations (excluding periods of startup, shutdow n, and malfunction) from the highest emitting day of the period 2002-2004. As such, Bl ack & Veatch determined these emissions from CEMS data provided by BPU for each unit for th at period. The maximum 24-hour actual emissions of NO x 

### and SO 2 

### did not occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction and were thus used in the modeling analysis.



## 2.2.2 PM 10 

## Emissions

The PM 10 

### emissions were speciated into appropriate filterab le and condensable particulate matter categories: elemental carbon (soot), “soil” (fine P M <= 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 app ropriate source-specific particulate matter speciat ion spreadsheets provided by the National Park Service (NPS) and available on their web site (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ect/index.c fm) were used to calculate the PM 10 

### 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 Quind aro Unit 1, the NPS spreadsheet that represents a cyclone furnace controlled by an ESP was used. The PM 10 

### emissions and speciation methodology used for the BART modeling is described below. The NPS spreadsheets used are provided in Appendix E.

" Filterable PM 10 

### emissions in tons per year were obtained from the 2002, 2003, and 2004 Kansas Annual Emission Inventory (AEI) forms for each sour ce as reported to KDHE. Total heat input per year, per unit was obtained from CEMS data. Tog ether, these two pieces of information (total annual filterable PM 10 

### emissions and total annual heat input on a per uni t, per year basis) were used to derive emission factors for PM 10 

### in lb/mmBtu. These emission factors were then app lied back to the hourly heat input values obtained from the CEMS data to derive hourly filterable PM 10 

### emissions. Then, just as with NO x 

### and SO 2 

### , the maximum 24-hour emission rate over the three year period for each unit was selected and used in t he NPS speciation spreadsheets.

" Filterable PM 10 

### emissions derived above were subdivided by size ca tegory 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 PM 10 

### was subdivided into inorganic and organic compound s using the NPS speciation spreadsheets. The inorganic portion is by default assumed to be H 2 

### SO 4 

### and was modeled as SO 4 

### . The organic portion was modeled as secondary org anic aerosols (SOA).

### 2-5 7/17/2009 Table 2-2 CALPUFF Modeling Parameters

Stack

Location a



### Unit LCC

East (km) LCC

North (km) Stack Height

b 

### (m) Base

Elevation b 

### (m) Stack

Diameter

b 

### (m) Stack

Exit Velocity

b 

### (m/s) Stack

Exit Temperature b 

### (K)

Nearman -13.381 266.079 121.92 227.10 7.10 13.41 42 4.80 Quindaro 1 -7.846 265.177 106.68 225.64 4.05 25.30 4 36.48 Quindaro 2 -7.846 265.177 106.68 225.64 3.78 11.89 4 36.71

a 

### Stack Coordinates in Lambert format included in the CAL PUFF modeling.

b 

### Stack parameters from KDHE modeling files.

Table 2-3 CALPUFF Modeling Emissions

Primary Particle Speciation *



### Unit NO x



### Emissions (g/s) SO 2



### Emissions (g/s) PM 10



### Emissions (g/s) EC

(g/s) Fine

PM (g/s) Course

PM (g/s) H 2 

### SO 4



### (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 ca tegories using the NPS Speciation Spreadsheet: Elemental Carbon (EC), Fine PM, Course PM, Condensa ble Inorganic PM (SO 4 

### ), and Condensable Organic PM (SOA).

### 2-6 7/17/2009 Figure 2-2 Speciation of PM 10 

### 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 t he NPS speciation spreadsheets (i.e., PM 8.0 

### , PM 4.25 

### , PM 1.88 

### , PM 1.25 

### , PM 0.813 

### , and PM 0.625 

### ). These modeled species were grouped in POSTUTIL as to represent the appropriate visibility pollutants (e.g., PM course 

### = PM 8.0 

### + PM 4.25 

### and PM fine 

### = PM 1.88 

### + PM 1.25 

### + PM 0.813 

### + PM 0.625 

### ) and were scaled with the emission rates derived from the NPS spreadsheets. EC and SOA was derived from the PM 1.88 

### species and scaled with the emission rates derived from the NPS spreadsheets.



## 2.3 Model Versions

The versions of the CALPUFF modeling system program s that were used for the modeling are listed in Table 2-4. Due to known bugs in the regulatory ver sion of CALPUFF, it was proposed that the latest Version 6 CALPUFF modeling system available for down load on the SRC website (www.scr.com) be used for these modeling analyses. Another reason f or the use of Version 6 of the CALPUFF modeling system over the regulatory version is that it conta ins 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 allo w 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 “3 D.DAT”. This header line is an indicator to the CALMET program that the MM5 data is in 3D format an d 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 o f the header line), the CALMET program crashed. Black & Veatch developed a work-around, by commenti ng 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 C ENRAP 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 (f orthcoming). The CALMET code change is included in Appendix G.



## 2.4 Modeling Domain

The modeling domain was sufficiently large to inclu de the BPU BART-eligible sources, as well as the receptors at the relevant Class I areas with at lea st 50-km buffer in each direction. The map project ion was the Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC) and the coord inate 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) directi on 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 wa s 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 me teorological 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 refl ect assimilation of observational data and are likely to adequately characterize regional w ind patterns that are consistent with the 6-km grid scale. Blending of MM5 data with local observa tions (which are mainly at the surface) could lead to wind structures that may not be realistic u nder some conditions and may result in poorer characterization of the regional winds. Thus, the e ffort required to prepare observational data sets f or 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 fi ner-grid CALPUFF assessment of visibility impacts in most cases. For the finer resolution mod eling presented in this report, available surface and precipitation observations were used in additio n to MM5 prognostic meteorological model outputs to produce refined CALMET meteorological data file s at a 4-km resolution.



## 3.1 Mesoscale Model Data

Pennsylvania State University in conjunction with the Nati onal 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 poin t depression, and geopotential height for eight standard levels and up to 15 significant levels) ar e 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 Alpi ne Geophysics (McNally and Tesche, 2002; McNally 2003);

" 2002 MM5 data set at 36 km resolution developed for CENRAP by I owa 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 specifi c temporal and spatial meteorological variables and geophysical data. These variables were pr ocessed into the appropriate format and introduced into the CALMET model through the utilization o f additional data files obtained from numerous sources. These ancillary data files are descr ibed 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 c onsisted of data from 37 National Weather Service (NWS) stations or Federal Aviation Administ ration (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 Appe ndix 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 precipit ation 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 s tations 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 (T able A-3). The data was processed with the CALMET preprocessor utility programs PXTRACT and PM ERGE to create one precipitation file for each year modeled.



## 3.4 Geophysical Data Processing (Terrain and Land Us e)

Terrain elevations for each grid cell of the modeli ng domain were obtained from 1-degree digital elevation model (DEM) files available from the Unit ed States Geological Survey (USGS). Figure 3-3 depicts the terrain elevations in the do main and Table A-4 in Appendix A lists the DEM files used. The DEM data were extracted for the mo deling 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 A ppendix 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 modeli ng domain include surface roughness, surface albedo, Bowen ratio, soil heat flux, and le af index field. Once preprocessed, all of the land use parameters were combined with the terrain infor mation in a processor called MAKEGEO. This processor produced one GEO.DAT file for input to CA LMET.



## 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 comple x terrain, large source-receptor distances, chemical transformation and deposition, and other is sues 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 r ecommended 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 predic ting 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 effe cts such as building downwash, stack tip downwash and transitional plume rise as well as pro cesses important in the far-field such as chemical transformation, wet deposition, and dry de position. CALPUFF contains an option to allow puff splitting in the horizontal and vertical direc tions, which extends the distance range of the mode l. 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 CA LPUFF computes visibility effects and allows cumulative source impacts to be assessed, including potential non-linear effects of ammonia limitation on nitrate formation. The CALPOST postpr ocessor contains several options for computing change in extinction and deciviews for visibility a ssessments. The POSTUTIL postprocessor includes options for summing contributions of indiv idual 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 ammo nia consumption by background sources to be assessed in the postprocessor. In addition, the comb ination of CALPUFF and POSTUTIL allows the effects of source emissions of ammonia to be increm entally added to background ammonia levels when determining nitrate formation.



## 4.1 CALPUFF Domain and Variables

The CALPUFF computational domain was the same as th at used in CALMET. The selection of the specific variables used in CALPUFF is provided in Appen dix B.

### 4-2 7/17/2009



## 4.2 Receptors

The CALPUFF analyses used an array of discrete rece ptors with receptor elevations for the Class I areas, which were created and distributed by the NP S. Specifically, the array consists of receptors spaced to cover the extent of the Class I areas. R eceptor elevations are included in the same NPSprovided receptor files. Appendix F provides illus trations 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 concerne d with long-range transport, not localized impacts, data about building heights and widths tha t are used to calculate building downwash was not included in the modeling analyses. Stack tip d ownwash is a phenomenon different from building induced downwash and is additionally a regulatory d efault option (i.e., in order to turn stack tip downwash off, the user must also change the variabl e to skip regulatory checks of the model). As such, stack tip downwash was used for this analysis

. This same methodology (no building induced downwash, bu t perform stack tip downwash) was used by CENRAP and documented the CENRAP modeling guideli nes. Additionally, the CALPUFF modeling files provided by KDHE utilized the stack tip downwash option.



## 4.4 Ozone Concentrations

Background ozone concentrations are important for t he photochemical conversion of SO 2 

### and NO x 

### to sulfates (SO 4 

### ) and nitrates (NO 3 

### ), respectively. CALPUFF allows the use of a single background ozone value, monthly background ozone values, or sp atial, 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 screen ing 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 sa me 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 ap plications are the CALPOST and POSTUTIL programs. CALPOST is used to process the CALPUFF outputs by producing tabulations summarizing the results of the simulations, identif ying, for example, the highest and second-highest hourly-average concentrations at each receptor. Whe n performing visibility-related modeling, CALPOST uses concentrations from CALPUFF to compute light extinction and related measures of visibility (haze index in deciviews), reporting the se for a 24-hour averaging time.

The POSTUTIL processor is a program that has severa l functions, including creating cumulative impacts of multiple sources from different simulatio ns via summation, computing the difference between two sets of predicted impacts (useful for e valuating the benefits of BART controls), and

### 4-3 7/17/2009

evaluating the equilibrium relationship between nit ric 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 formatio n of nitrate from an individual source.

In its simplest form, CALPUFF makes the full ambien t ammonia concentration available to each puff without regard for any scavenging by other puf fs. POSTUTIL corrects for such scavenging when the puffs generated by the CALPUFF model overlap, as could be the case for a single so urce when the wind speed is low, or when nitrate formati on is to be attributed to each of several sources that are in a cluster and whose plumes overlap. Th e 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. CALPOS T has seven methods for computing light extinction. This BART refined analy sis used Method 6, which computes extinction from speciated particulate matter with monthly Clas s I area-specific relative humidity adjustment factors. Relative humidity is an important factor i n determining light extinction (and therefore visibility) because sulfate and nitrate aerosols, w hich absorb moisture from the air, have greater extinction efficiencies with greater relative humid ity. This BART analysis applied relative humidity correction factors [f(RH)s], obtained from the Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditio ns under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA, 2003), to sulfate and nitrate concentrations outputs from CALPUFF. The f(RH) values for the Class I areas tha t were assessed are provided in Table 4-1. The default Rayleigh scatter value (b ray 

### ) of 10 Mm -1 

### was also used. The light extinction equation is provided below.

b ext 

### = 3 * f(RH) * [(NH 4 

### ) 2 

### SO 4 

### ] + 3* f(RH) * [NH 4 

### NO 3 

### ] + 4*[OC] + 1* [PM f 

### ] + 0.6*[PM c 

### ] + 10* [EC] + b ray



## 4.5.2 Natural Background

The EPA’s default average annual aerosol concentrati ons for the eastern and western halves of the U.S., included in Table 2-1 of EPA’s Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditio ns Under Regional Haze Program

, was used to determine the natural background at ea ch of the Class I areas. The location of the Class I area determined which a verage annual aerosol concentration was used. The values are provide in Table 4-2



## 4.5.3 Ammonia Concentrations

Ambient concentrations of nitrate (NO 3 

### ) are limited by the availability of ammonia, which is preferentially scavenged by sulfates (SO 4 

### ). Due to this preferential reaction between ammoni a 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 represe nted by a series of puffs. The model allows the full amount of the background ammonia concentra tions to be available to each emissions puff to

### 4-4 7/17/2009

form nitrate, which tends to overestimate nitrate f ormation. To compensate, the POSTUTIL utility program can be used to repartition HNO 3 

### and NO 3 

### . 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 Oc t 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/m 3 

### ) Component

East a 

### West b



### 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 out lined in the previous sections, the refined CALPUFF modeling was performed for the BART eligibl e units on a facility basis and the modeled 22 nd 

### 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 d ata 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 98 th 

### percentile results of the BART modeling for both t he Nearman and Quindaro facilities for each Class I ar ea evaluated. Each of the following pages in the remainder of this section (one page for each facili ty and Class I area combination) presents a series of two tables. The first table presents the top 22 model-predicted impacts o ver 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 a reas: Hercules-Glades and Upper Buffalo. Of the 1,093 days (i.e., 24-hour averaging periods) modeled, on ly 7 days total, beyond the 22 nd 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 Para meters 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 co mpute 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 an alysis. (b) All coordinates are in Lambert (km) based on the La t/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) Usi ng 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 unforma tted 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 indicat ed the allowance of puff splitting. MCHEM Chemical mechanism flag 1 Y Transformation ra tes computed internally (MESOPUFF II scheme) MAQCHEM Aqueous phase transformation

flag 0 Y Aqueous phase not modeled

MWET Wet removal modeled? 1 Y Yes MDRY Dry deposition modeled? 1 Y Yes MDISP Method used to compute

dispersion coefficients 3 Y PG dispersion coefficients in RURAL & MP coefficients in urban areas MTURBVW Sigma-v/sigma-theta, sigma-w

measurements used? - - 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 para meters 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 depositi on of gases

SPECIES DIFFUSVTY ALPHA STR REACTVTY MESO RES HENRYS C Chemical parameters for dry

deposition of gases - Y Y Y Y Y Y SO2; NOx; HNO3 0.1509 0.1656 0.1628 1000 1 1 8 8 18 0 5 0 0.04 3.5 8.0*E-8 INPUT GROUP 8: Size parameters for dry deposition o f particles

SPECIES GEO. MASS MEAN DIA. 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 paramet ers

RCUTR Reference cuticle resistance 30 Y RGR Reference ground resistance 10 Y REACTR Reference pollutant reactivity 8 Y NINT Number of particle-size intervals

to evaluate effective particle deposition velocity 9 Y

IVEG Vegetation state in unirrigated

areas 1 Y

INPUT GROUP 10: Wet deposition parameters

POLL LIQ PRECIP FRZ PRECIP Scavenging coefficients - Y Y Y 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 c onc. 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 u sed 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 interfa ce 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 inf ormation

### 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 mode led ISMO Starting month 1 n/a IDY Starting day 1 n/a ISHR Starting hour 1 n/a NPER Number of periods to process 8736 n/a 2002=876 0 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 mode led ISMO Starting month 1 n/a IDY Starting day 1 n/a ISHR Starting hour 1 n/a NHRS Number of hours to process 8736 n/a 2002=8760h rs, 2003=8736hrs only 12 hrs on 12/31 NREP Process every hour of data? 1 Y Every hour pro cessed ASPEC Species to process VISIB n/a Visibility proce ssing ILAYER Layer/deposition code 1 Y CALPUFF concentrat ions A, B Scaling factors X(new) = X(old) *A + B 0, 0 Y LBACK Add hourly background

concentrations/fluxes? F Y

MSOURCE Option to process source contributions 0 Y LG LD Gridded receptors processed?

Discrete receptors processed? F T 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-17/17/2009Appendix E - National Park Service Particle Speciation SpreadsheetsNearmanControlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5& 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using only ESP for Emissions control**assumes 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l b/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type E** **xt.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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Co ef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/to** **n) 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **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% SO** **4 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (l b/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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l b/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Typ** **e 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 Inv** **entories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Car bon.”)** **Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil E xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part** **icle 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (l b/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 E xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part** **icle Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l** **b/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Typ e 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 8.3 Fine EC 1.2%** **Fine EC 0.3 CPM IOR 23.0%** **CPM IOR 6.2 CPM OR 5.7%** **CPM OR 1.6 100.0%** **27.2**E-27/17/2009**Nearman**PC with ESPfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6**(User inputs**filterable**emission rate in lb/hr) Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle Emis** **sions Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range in Size Ran** **ge (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 Emissi ons** **Size Size Range of PM10 in Size Range Coef. in Size Rang e** **(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 micron 1.88 2.5-1.25 18% 3.5 1 0.44 43% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron** 1.25**1.25-1 4% 0.9 1 0.11 0.813 1.6-25 3% 0.6 1 0.07** 0.625**0.625-0 18% 3.5 1 0.40 100% 19.4 10 0.04 3.7% of Fine Soil** **2.45**E-37/17/2009Quindaro Stack 1Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5& 1.1-8Cyclone Furnace ESP for Emissions control**assumes 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l b/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type E** **xt.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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Co ef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/to** **n) 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (l b/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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l b/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Typ** **e 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 Inv** **entories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Car bon.”)** **Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil E xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part** **icle 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (l b/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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l b/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Typ** **e 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 F** **ine Soil 2.5% Fine Soil 0.4** **Fine EC 0.1% Fine EC 0.0** **CPM IOR 76.1% CPM IOR 13.3** **CPM OR 19.0% CPM OR 3.3** **100.0% 17.5** E-47/17/2009Quindaro 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 Em** **issions Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range in Size Ran** **ge (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 Emissi ons** **Size Size Range of PM10 in Size Range Coef. in Size Rang e** **(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 micron 1.88 2.5-1.25 21% 0.2 1 0.02 53% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron** 1.25**1.25-1 7% 0.1 1 0.01 0.813 1.6-25 25% 0.2 1 0.03** 0.625**0.625-0 0.0% 0.000 1 -0.002 100% 0.8 10 0.002 3.7% of Fine Soil** **0.11**E-57/17/2009Quindaro Stack 2Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5& 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using only ESP for Emissions control**assumes 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l b/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type E** **xt.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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Co ef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/to** **n) 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **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% SO** **4 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (l b/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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l b/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Typ** **e 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 Inv** **entories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Car bon.”)** **Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil E xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part** **icle 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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (l b/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 E** **xt. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR Part icle** **Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (l b/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Typ** **e 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 F** **ine Soil 29.0% Fine Soil 3.1** **Fine EC 1.1% Fine EC 0.1** **CPM IOR 25.7% CPM IOR 2.7** **CPM OR 6.4% CPM OR 0.7** **100.0% 10.6** E-67/17/2009Quindaro 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 Em** **issions Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range in Size Ran** **ge (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 Emissi ons** **Size Size Range of PM10 in Size Range Coef. in Size Rang e** **(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 micron 1.88 2.5-1.25 18% 1.3 1 0.16 43% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron** 1.25**1.25-1 4% 0.3 1 0.04 0.813 1.6-25 3% 0.2 1 0.03** 0.625**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 for mat 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, Versi on 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.DA T')then C imm53d=1 C else

c c --- Step (2) check for new standard 3D.DAT fil e 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 conventio ns -- 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 lin e 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 CENR AP, 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 CA LMET attempted to read the data as such because of the header li ne), the CALMET program crashed. Black & Veatch developed a work-around, by commenting out th e portion of the CALMET Fortran code that attempted to read the data as 3D data, thereby for cing 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 inclu ded 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 Nea rman 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 s tartup, 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 NO x 

### and SO 2 

### for the BART time period of 2001 through 2003, excluding pe riods of CEMs malfunction, and have determined that the Nearman subject-to-BART modeling was based on unrepresentative CEMs malfunction substitute emissi ons 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 subje ct to the BART provisions of the Regional Haze Rule.

Determination of Emissions Using the reporting capabilities in Nearman’s CEM D AHS, 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 exper ienced a CEMs malfunction, it was removed from the analysis and the next highest day w as evaluated until no such malfunction occurred as to warrant that day’s remov al from the analysis. This procedure is illustrated in the following two tables. The bol ded days in each table are those first days where no malfunction occurred and as such thei r emissions were used in the modeling.

### Highest Daily NO x 

### Emissions for 2001 through 2003

Year Month Day Ranked NO x



### 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 SO 2 

### Emissions for 2001 through 2003

Year Month Day Ranked SO 2



### 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, BP U discovered that the NO x 

### analyzer malfunctions on January 7 and 8, 2002 were a result of the analyzer’s photomultiplier tube malfunctioning. This was reported in BPU’s qu arterly Emissions Summary Report to KDHE dated April 25, 2002 (see Attachment 2). T his 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, th e tubing took several days to dry out and be fixed, and as a result, the NO x 

### and SO 2 

### analyzers were both unable to capture accurate and representative data during those days.

Modeling Using the approved air dispersion modeling methodol ogy outlined in the September 2006 BART Modeling Report, Kansas City Board of Public U tilities, Nearman and Quindaro Facilities , revised emissions rates for NO x 

### and SO 2 

### , as discussed above, were input to the model to determine the applicability of the BART pr ogram 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 Nea rman 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 mo deling 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 ap proval 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 NO x



### Emissions (g/s) SO 2



### Emissions (g/s) PM 10



### Emissions (g/s) EC

(g/s) Fine

PM (g/s) Course

PM (g/s) H 2 

### SO 4



### (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 cat egories using the NPS Speciation Spreadsheet: Elemental Carbon (EC), Fine PM, Course PM, Condensa ble Inorganic PM (SO 4 

### ), and Condensable Organic PM (SOA).

### Table 5-1 Nearman Modeling Results on Caney Creek Wilderness Area 2001-2003 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 (22 nd 

### 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 (8 th 

### 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 St ation

First Quarter of 2002