- Environmental Consultants



## MODELING PROTOC L FORANALYSES OF BESTAVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY

Prepared For: Interstate Paper, LLC 2366 lnterstate Paper Road

Riceboro, Georgia 31 323 

## Prepared By: 

## ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SPECIALISTS, INC. Atlanta, Georgia and ZEPHYR ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Columbia, Maryland

Engineering Manager EPS April 2006 

## Project Manager Zephyr

2250North Druid Hills Road Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30329 Phone (404) 315-9113 

### Fax (404) 3

### 15-8509 email: info(~envplaiming.com web page: www.envplanning.corn

### TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION



### ........................................................................................................... 

### - 1

### - 2.0 BACKGROUND



### ............................................................................................................ 

# - 2

### -

................................................................................................. 2.1 BART OVERVIEW 

### .-2

### - 2.2 INTERSTATE PAPER'S BART ELIGIBILITY



### ................................................................. 

### - 3

# - 2.2.1 Potentialemissions of visibility-impairing pollutants



### ................................. 

# - 3 

### - 2.2.2 Chronological determination



### ....................................................................

# - 4 

### -

............................................................................... 2.2.3 26 source categories 

### - 4 

### - 3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION



### ......................................................................................... 

### - 5 

### -

................................................................................................ 3.1 FACILITY LOCATION 

### - 5

# - 3.2 SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS FOR BART-ELIGIBLE EMISSION UNITS



### ..........................

### - 8

# -

.............................................................................. 3.3 CLASS IAREAS WITHIN 300 KM 

### - 9

# - 4.0 INPUT PROVIDED BYVISTAS



### ............................................................................ 

# - 11

### - 5.0 OVERVIEW OF CALPUFF MODELING SYSTEM



### ...................................................... 

### - 13

### - 5.1 CALMET



### ............................................................................................................

# - 13

### - 5.2 CALPUFF



### ..........................................................................................................

### - 13

### - 5.3 CALPOST



### .......................................................................................................... 

### - 13

### -

........................................................................................................ 5.4 POSTUTIL 

### .- 14

### - 6.0 PRESENTATION OF MODELING RESULTS



### .............................................................

# - 15

### - APPENDICES Appendix A 26 Listed Source Categories Appendix B February 18, 2005 Letter from EPD Appendix C Receptors

Interstate Paper, 

### LLC Riceboro, Georgia BART Modeling Protocol April 2006

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION
On February 18, 2005, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) notified lnterstate Paper LLC (Interstate Paper) that, after using the most recent Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) guidelines, two of its sources were BART-eligible. Specifically, the EPD cited a power boiler and a recovery boiler. Subsequently, on March 9, 2006, the EPD notified lnterstate Paper via an email that it was eligible for BART exemption modeling assistance from the Visibility Improvement State and TribalAssociation of the Southeast (VISTAS). Specifically,VISTAS will conduct initial modeling using CALPUFF to determine lnterstate Paper's contribution to visibility degradation at nearby Class Iareas; if lnterstate Paper's contribution is found to be less than 0.5 deciviews (dV) then it would be exemptfrom further BART requirements. On the other hand, if its contribution is found to be greater than 0.5 dV then it would have to either continue with an additional, more refined analysis, or proceed with a determinationof BARTfor itsfacility. Also in that March 9, 2006 email the EPD stipulated that if a source wishes to pursue the exemption modeling assistance offered by VISTAS it would need to submit a Modeling Protocol to the EPD by May 1, 2006. lnterstate Paper has retained Environmental Planning Specialists, Inc. (EPS) and Zephyr Environmental Corporation (Zephyr) to develop the Modeling Protocol. This document presents the Modeling Protocol, which was based upon guidance contained in VISTAS' "Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)" (December 22, 2005 and revised March 9, 2006), referred to as "VISTAS Guidance." Specifically, this Modeling Protocol presents a brief overview of BART, a description of lnterstate Paper's facility, what information will be provided by VISTAS, the modeling methodology, an overview of the modeling system, and a summary of the format of the results.

Interstate Paper, 

### LLC BART Modeling Protocol Riceboro, Georgia -1- April 2006

### 2.0 BACKGROU
The following sections present background information for this Modeling Protocol including an overview of BART requirements and details pertaining to lnterstate Paper's BART eligibility determination. 

### 2.1 BART OVERVIEW Published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Regional Haze regulations were establishedto assist in reaching the goal of preventing "...any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class Iareas which impairment results from manmade air pollution" as stipulated by Section 169A of the Clean Air Act. In particular, the Regional Haze Rule mandated that States establish goals and develop strategiesto improve visibility in all 156 Class Iareas throughoutthe country. State, local, and tribal agencies throughout the southeastern United States formed VISTAS to address regional haze and visibility issues throughout its region, which includes Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. VISTAS recognizes that air quality issues that affect Class I areas are regional in nature, and are best addressed by cooperation between stakeholders. However, it is important to notethat VISTAS does not set binding policyfor the regulatory agencies within its boundaries (such as the EPD), but rather it provides information and assistanceto those agencies. One of the key components of EPA's visibility regulations is Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). A source is subject to BART (BART-eligible) if it meetsthe following three criteria: 1) It has emissions of at least 250 tpy of a visibility-impairing pollutant (defined by VISTAS as particulate matter less than ten microns (PMlo), sulfur dioxide (SO2),and oxides of nitrogen (NO,). VISTAS has determined that volatile organic compounds (VOC's), ammonia (NH3),and particulate matter (PM) are not visibility-impairing pollutants; 2) It began operation betweenAugust 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977; and 3) It is one of the 26 listed source categories listed in the BART Regional Haze regulations (seeAppendix A). If a source meets all three of these criteria, then it has to proceed with a BART determination. Like Best Available Control Technology (BACT), BART is an emissions limitation-not a particular control technology.

Interstate Paper, LLC BART Modeling Protocol Riceboro, Georgia -2- April 2006The process of determining a source's BART emissions limitation consists of three sequential steps: I) Determine whether or not a BART-eligible source can be excluded from BART controls by demonstrating the source cannot reasonably be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. This is typically accomplishedthrough the use of an air quality dispersion model such as CALPUFF. 2) If the BART-eligible source cannot be excluded based on dispersion modeling, determine the BART controls by considering various control options and selecting the most appropriate option based on a variety of criteria. 3) Incorporate the BART determination into the applicable State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, due by December2007. 

### 2.2 INTERSTATE 

### PAPER'S BART ELIGIBIL~TY On February 18, 2005, the EPD sent lnterstate Paper a letter addressing BART eligibility for emission units at its facility. Attached to this letter was a spreadsheet addressing four sources: a lime kiln, a power boiler, a recovery boiler, and a bubbling fluidized bed boiler. This letter and the attachment are providedfor reference in Appendix B. The following sections present the step-by-step analysis (referredto in Section 2.1) to determine whether or not each emission unit is BART-eligible. 

### 2.2.1 Potentialemissions 

### of visibility-impairing pollutants The first step is to assess the potential annual emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. A summary of this assessment, taken from the February 18, 2005 letter from EPD to Interstate Paper, is given below. Table 2-1 Potential emissionsof visibility-impairing pollutants

Emission Unit NO, PMIO 

### Son Lime Kiln 149 128 9 Power Boiler 409 0* 300 

# I * Data from EPD not included in the February 18, 2006 letter and attachments (Appendix B) 

# 1

lnterstate Paper, LLC

Riceboro, Georgia BART Modeling Protocol April 2006 Recovery Boiler Bubbling Fluidized Bed Boiler 350 250 0* 39 2 250Because the lime kiln does not have the potential to emit more than 250 tpy of any visibilityimpairing pollutant, it is not BART-eligible. However, the power boiler, recovery boiler, and bubbling fluidized bed boiler have the potentialto emit more than 250 tpy of a visibility-impairing pollutant. These units meet the 250 tons-per-year potential emission criterion, and their assessment is continued in the next step. 

### 2.2.2 Chronological determination Both the power boiler and recovery boiler were place in operation in 1968 (between August 7, 1962and August 7, 1977). These units meetthe chronologicalcriterionfor BART eligibility. The bubbling fluidized bed boiler was installed in 2002 (after August 7, 1977). This unit does not meet the chronological criterion, and is not BART-eligible. 

### 2.2.3 

### 26 source categories lnterstate Paper is a kraft pulp mill, one of the 26 named source categories listed in the Regional Haze regulations (seeAppendix A). lnterstate Paper meets this criterion. In summary, considering the three steps above, the two emission units at lnterstate Paper that are subject to BART are the power boiler and the recovery boiler.

lnterstate Paper, LLC Riceboro, Georgia BART Modeling Protocol April 2006

### 3.0 

## FACILITY DESCRIPTION
lnterstate Paper, 

### LLC operates a kraft pulp mill that produces unbleached linerboard used in corrugated containers. Pine wood chips are purchased from outside sources and stored in a chip pile. The chips are reclaimedfrom the chip pile and charged to one of five batch digesters where they are cooked in white liquor (sodium hydroxidelsodium sulfide solution). When the cooking process is completed, the digester is opened and the contents are "blown" into a blow tank. The pulp is then refined, screened and washed in the three brownstock washers to remove the excess spent cooking liquor (black liquor). The black liquor is collected and processed in the recovery area. The washed pulp, referred to as stock, is removed from the washers, sent throughthe deckerfor thickening and stored in high-density stock tanks. The stock from the tanks is mixed with internally recycled pulp and certain additives to be processed on the paper machine. The paper machine forms the pulp into a continuous web (sheet),which is drained, pressed, dried andwound into large rolls of finished linerboard. The black liquor from the brownstock washers is reprocessed into white liquor for reuse by means of the chemical recovery cycle. The black liquor is concentrated to 45-55 percent solids in multiple effect evaporators then to 68 percent solids in the concentrator. The black liquor is then fired in the recovery boiler where organics are combusted in a reducing atmosphere, producing steam and generating molten sodium carbonate and sodium sulfides. The molten salts, called smelt, flow to the smelt dissolving tank in which weak wash from the causticizing area is mixed to create an intermediate stream called green liquor. The green liquor is processed in the causticizing area, where it is converted into white liquor by slaking with lime (calciumoxide) for reuse in the pulpdigesting process. Additional process steam is provided by a bubbling fluidized bed multi-fuel (primarily wood waste) boiler rated at 300 MMBtuIhr. A power boiler (stand-by use only) that has a maximum heat input rating of 400 MMBTUIhr and fires natural gas and No. 

### 6 fuel oil also generates steam.

lnterstate Paper is located in Riceboro,Georgia. Situated insoutheastern Georgia,the facility is just to the west of 1-95, approximately 17 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean and roughly 30 miles southwest of Savannah. The local region is depicted in Figure3-1.

Interstate Paper, LLC Riceboro, Georgia 

### - BART Modeling Protocol April 2006

### s a more localized vie of 

### the Interstate Paperfacility.

Interstate Paper, 

### LLC BART Modeling Protocol Riceboro, Georgia -6- April 2006Interstate Paper, 

### LLC Riceboro, Georgia Figure 3-2 Local TopographicMap

BART Modeling Protocol April 2006

## 3.2 SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS FOR 

### BART-ELIGIBLE MISSION 

## UNITS As described above, there are two emission units at lnterstate Paper that are BART-eligible:the power boilerand the recovery boiler. The location of these sources is shown in Figure 

### 3-3.

Figure3-3 PlotPlan For the purposes of dispersion modeling, the source characteristics, along with emission rates to be modeled, are presented inTables 

### 3-1and 

### 3-2, respectively. Table 3-1 Source characteristics for modeling

lnterstate Paper, LLC Riceboro, Georgia Emission Unit Power Boiler Recovery

Boiler

BART Modeling Protocol April 2006 UTM Location(m) Base Elevation (m) 

### 50.90 50.90 East 

### 523043 523043 North 

### 3478725 3478725 Stack Height

(m) 

### 46.02 46.02 Exit Velocity

@Is) 

### 14.93 13.72 Diameter (m) 

### 1.98 2.74 Exit Temperature (K) 

### 486.48 357.64Table 3-2 Emission ratesfor modeling

Emission Unit

Power boiler emission rates were determined using actual No. 

### 6 fuel oil usage and sulfur content for the period 2002 through 2004 (maximum values occurred in March 2003) and US. EPA, AP-42 emissions factors. Recovery boiler emission rates were determined using stack test data and AP-42 emission factors as follows: Power Boiler Recovery Boiler

Particulate mattertest results dated October 18, 2005 Sulfur dioxide test results dated April 25, 1996 and actual black liquor solids (BLS) production rateof 32.11tonslhr (maximumvalue occurred in February2002)
a Nitrogen oxide emission factor of 2 Iblair-dried ton pulp (ADTP), February 2002 black liquor solids (BLS) production rate of 32.11 tonslhr, and a conversion factor of 2,I82 Ib BLSIADTP. Maximum 24-hr emissions (gls)

There are four Class I areas within 300 km of lnterstate Paper. Inthe order of closest to most distant from lnterstate Paper, they are the Wolf Island Wilderness within the Wolf Island NationalWildlife Refuge (NWR) in Georgia, the Okefenokee Wilderness within the Okefenokee NWR in Georgia, the Cape Romain Wilderness within the Cape Romain NWR in South Carolina, and the St. Marks Wilderness within the St. Marks NWR in Florida. i 2.1 3.2

lnterstate Paper, LLC Riceboro, Georgia NOx PMIO

BART Modeling Protocol April 2006 Son 49 0.11 7.8 7.4The location of lnterstate Paper relativeto each of these Class I areas is depicted in Figure 3-4.

Figure3-4 Distances from lnterstate Paper to nearby Class IAreas Note that the next two closest Class I areas are more than 300 km from lnterstate Paper; the Bradwell Bay Wilderness is 334 km away, and the Chassahowitzka Wilderness within the ChassahowitzkaNWR is 343 km away. In accordance with the VISTAS Guidance, the receptors to be modeled were taken from the National Park Service (found at 

### htt~:llwww2.nature.n~s.nov/air/maos/Rece~torslindex.cfm). The specific receptors for the Wolf Island Wilderness, the Okefenokee Wilderness, the Cape RomainWilderness, and the St. Marks Wilderness are presented inAppendix C.

lnterstate Paper, 

### LLC Riceboro, Georgia BART Modeling Protocol April 2006

### 4.0 

### INPUT PROVIDED 

### BYVISTAS
In addition to the information presented in this Modeling Protocol specific to lnterstate Paper and the two closest Class Iareas, VISTAS will provide two specific itemsfor this analysis: VISTAS-specific version of CALPUFF; and, CALMET meteorologicaldata. Earth Tech, the authors of CALPUFF, has developed a version of CALPUFF specific to VISTAS: Version 5.754. This version can be downloaded at the following website: 

### htt~://www.src.com/verio/download/downIoad.htm#VISTAS VERSION VISTAS will also provide meteorologicaldata for this analysis. Specifically, it will provide 12-km CALMET output files for 2001, 2002, and 2003. The 12-km modeling domain is presented in Figure4-1.

Figure 4-1 VISTAS 12-km CALMETModeling Domain
Interstate Paper, LLC Riceboro, Georgia BART Modeling Protocol April 2006These files were developed from MM5 databases developed by EPA for 2001, VISTAS for 2002, and Midwest RPOfor 2003. Details relatedto the derivation of the meteorologicaldataset are provided in Section 4.3.2 of the VISTAS Guidance. Finally, VISTAS will provide a CALPUFF model configuration file to replicate CALPUFF modeling done for VISTAS using 12-km CALMET data, includingthefollowing:

e Ozone data usedto run CALPUFF,
e Ammonia data usedto run CALPUFF and to partition NO3in POSTUTIL,
e Background concentrationfiles for use in POSTUTIL, and
e All other setup files used inVISTAS 12-km CALPUFF run.

Interstate Paper, LLC BART Modeling Protocol Riceboro, Georgia -12- April 2006

### 5.0 OVERVIEW OF CALPUFF MODELING SYSTEM
VISTAS has selected the CALPUFF modeling system because CALPUFF, along with its meteorological model CALMET is designed to properly account for complex terrain (i.e., terrain above stack top), large pollutant transport distances, chemical transformation and deposition, and other issues relatedto Class Ivisibility assessments. Brief descriptions of the three main components of the CALPUFF modeling system (CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST) are provided below. For more detailed information,see Section 3 of the VISTAS Guidance. 

### 5.1 CALMET CALMET isthe diagnostic meteorological model in the CALPUFF modeling system. It produces three-dimensional wind and temperature fields along with two-dimensional fields of mixing heights,surface characteristics, and other variables. For more details concerning CALMET, see the flow diagram presented in Figure 1-2 of "A User's Guidefor the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5)," EarthTech, January 2000.

?\ 

## 1 5.2 CALPUFF Unlike dispersion models such as ISC3 or AERMOD, CALPUFF is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff transport and dispersion model. CALPUFF is the standard accepted model for long-range transport (i.e., beyond 100 km), and has been adopted by EPA as a Guideline Model (68 FR 18440-18482). Moreover, it has been recommendedfor Class I impact assessments by the Federal Land Manger's Workgroup (FLAG) and the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM). Specifically, CALPUFF is a dispersion model that simulates releases from sources as "puffs." The puffs are transported based upon the meteorological data fields created by CALMET. The main output files from CALPUFF are hourly 

### concentration/depositionfluxes for the specified receptors; these files are then processed using CALPOST. For more details concerning CALPUFF, see the flow diagram presented in Figure 1-3 of "A User'sGuidefor the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5)'" Earth Tech, January 2000. 

## 5.3 CALPOST CALPOST isthe program that post-processes the output files from CALPUFF accordingto user specifications. In the context of visibility modeling, CALPOST computes extinction coefficients and other measuresof visibility, for the user-specified averaging times and locations. Interstate Paper, LLC Riceboro, Georgia BART Modeling Protocol April 2006For more details concerning CALPOST, see the flow diagram presented in Figure 1-4 of "A User's Guidefor the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 

### 5)," EarthTech, January 

### 2000. 

### 5.4 

### POSTUTIL POSTUTIL is another postprocessor that sums the contributions of individual sources or groups to determine total impacts. It can be used to determine the difference between two sets of predicted impacts, a procedure useful in evaluatingthe effectiveness of BART controls (beyond the scope of this modeling). For more details concerning POSTUTIL, see Section 3.1.3 of the VISTAS Guidance.

Interstate Paper, LLC Riceboro, Georgia BART Modeling Protocol April 2006

### 6.0 

### PRESENTATIONOF MODELING RESULTS
Inaccordance with the VISTAS Guidance, the results of this analysis will containthefollowing: Map of source location and Class 

### I areas within 300 km of lnterstate Paper (see Figure 3-4 of this Modeling Protocol) including Wolf Island, Okefenokee, Cape Romain, and St. Marks; Table with impacts at thefour Class Iareas within 300 km of lnterstate Paper; e Discussion of number of Class Iareas with visibility impairment from lnterstate Paper on 98'h percentile days in each year greater than 0.5 dv (total visibility impairment minus impairment on 20% best days for natural background visibility equals delta-dv, the visibility impact attributedto lnterstate Paper); and
0 For the Class I area with the maximum impact, discussion of number of days below the 98thpercentile that lnterstate Paper's impact exceeds 0.5 dv, the number of receptors in the Class Iarea where the impact exceeds 0.5 dv, and the maximum impact. A sample table for the resultsfrom this modeling is presented below. Table 6-1

Class I

Area Wolf Island Okefenokee Cape Romain St. Marks Sample table of modeling results

Distance (km)from

mill to Class I

area boundary 41 lo3 207
295 area for 2001 area for 2002 area for 2003



# I I I I I I I 

# I

The VISTAS Guidance (see Summary/Recommendations/lIICALPUFF Applicationfor BART, p. S-5) recommendsthe following procedure be followedfor using these results: 1) Compare the highest single 24-hr value across all receptors in the Class Iarea against the threshold of 0.5 dv; if all predictedvalues are below 0.5 dv the source is not subject to BART. 2) If there are 24-hr values greater than 0.5 dv, the source may proceed with finer grid modeling (using a 4-km meteorological grid), or may accept that it is subject to BART and proceed directly with determining BART controls.

lnterstate Paper, LLC Riceboro, Georgia BART Modeling Protocol April 2006

### APPENDIX B February 18,2005 

### LETTER FROM EPD

# . a-as-oC 

## Georra[iaDe~artment of 

## Natural

# Resources

. 

### Environmental Protection

### Dhrblon Air Pratcsctlon

### Branch

onpiweCOPfdCtEfiaabeth at(464) 363-7103 

### orvia at

### APPENDIX C WOLF ISLAND, OKEFENOKEE, CAPE ROMAIN,AND ST. MARKS RECEPTORS FROM NWS SITE

### Wolf lslandWildernesswithin Wolf lsland NWR Wolf lslandWilderness within Wolf lsland NWR FW Wilderness BoundarySource: NPS ARDfiles adjusted wilderness boundaries fmm htlp://\iwvw.nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.Mml FWS NWR BoundarySource:

http:f~ww.fws.govldata~4gi~boundary.hbTII September 12,21103

## Wolf Island Receptors (taken from
Longitude Latitude Elev (degs) (degs) (m ) -81.304167 31.304167 1

### Okefenokee Wildernesswithin Okefenokee NWR QkefenokeeWildernesswithin Okefwokee NW 500 Receptors M Wilderness BoundarySource: t-itlp:fEwww .nationalaUas.gwfaUasftp.Mrnl NVS NWR BoundarySource:

m[P:/Ewww .AN~.g~fdat;llr4gis/bmnday~Mml September 12,2003 

### ++++ 

### +*++* +++++++$+++ 

### +++++*++++++++ *++++++++*++**++ +++++++9*++9+++++*



### .....................

......................

...................... +++a+++++++*+++++++**+*+ 

### ++++++ ++*++++++++++ 

### ++++++++++++ 

### ++$+++++++*++ +++++++++++++ +++*++++9++++9 

### +++++++*++++++ +++*+++++++++*++ 

### +++++++++*+++++ *+++++++++++*++ ++++++++*+*+++++ ++++++++++++++ 

### ++++++++++*+* *++++++++++++++ +++*+*+

### Okefenokee 

## Receptors (taken from h~~://www2.nature.n~s.aov/air/ma~s/Receptors/index.cfm) Longitude Latitude Elev

(degs) (degs) (m) -82.19583333 30.5625 36 -82.17916667 30.5625 36 -82.37916667 30.5791 6667 27 -82.3625 30.5791 6667 27

## 11 Lonaitude 

## I Latitude 

## I Elev (degs) (degs) (m) -82.29583333 30.61 25 36 -82.27916667 30.6125 36 -82.2625 30.6125 36

### 11 Lonaitude 

### I Latitude 

### I Elev degs (degs) (m ) 

# 1 (-82.!125 30.69583333 36

## 11 Longitude 

# I Latitude 

## I Elev 

## 11 (degs) -82.39583333 -82.3791 6667 (degs) 30.74583333 30.74583333 (m ) 36 36Longitude Latitude Elev (degs) (degs) (m )

# 11 Longitude 

## I Latitude 

## I Elev (degs) (degs) (m ) -82.34583333 30.8291 6667 36 -82.32916667 30.82916667 36Longitude Latitude Elev (degs) (degs) (m)

-82.4625 30.92916667 35 -82.44583333 30.9291 6667 30 -82.42916667 30.9291 6667 36 -82.41 25 30.92916667 36Longitude Latitude Elev (degs) (degs) (m) -82.32916667 30.9625 36 -82.3125 30.9625 36 -82.29583333 30.9625 36 -82.2791 6667 30.9625 36

### Cape RomainWilderness within Cape Romain NWR

Cape Rornain W~lderness within Cape Romain NWR 164 Receptors FWSWilderness Boundary Source

NPS ARD files adjusted wilderness boundarm from http/hw.nationalatlas gw/atlasftp.html FWSNWR Boundary Source

http://www.fvvs.gov/datalr4g1s/boundary html September l5,2OO3

## Cape Romain Receptors (taken 

### fromLongitude 

### I Latitude 

### I Elev 

### 11 (digs)

-79.4875 (degs) 33.0041 6667 (m' 1

# ILongitude Latitude Elev (degs) (degs) (m ) -79.47083333 33.0375 1

## 11 Longitude 

### I Latitude 

## I Elev 

# 1 digs (degs) 

# 1 ( -79.:875 33.0625

### St. 

## Marks Wildernesswithin St. 

## Marks NWR
St MarksWilderness MnthlnSt MarksNWR 101 Receptors FWSWdderness Boundary Source

NPS ARD files adlusted Ulderness boundalres from http Ilwwwnatlonalatlas govlatlasftp htm I FWS NWR BoundarySource

http ttwwfwsgovtdatatrrlgislboundary html Septem ber 15,2003

### St. Marks Receptors (taken from http://www2.nature.nps.~ov/air/maps/Receptors/index.cfm) Longitude Latitude -84.45416667 29.97916667 -84.4375 29.97916667Longitude Latitude Elev (degs) (degs) (m) -84.09583333 30.10416667 1 -84.0875 30.1041 6667 1 -84.07916667 30.10416667 1

### 11 Longitude 

## I Latitude 

### I Elev (degs) -84.19583333 -84.1 875 (degs) 30.1291 6667 30.12916667 ( 

### m) 1 2Environmental Consultants

April 28, 2006
Pete Countney Data and Modeling UnitIPlanning and Support Program Air Protection Branch Georgia Environmental Protection Division 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 Atlanta, Georgia 30354 Re: 

### BARTModeling Protocol lnterstate Paper, LLC 2366 lnterstate Paper Road Riceboro, 

### GA 31323 Dear Mr. Courtney: On behalf of lnterstate Paper, LLC, enclosed please find one copy of the Modeling Protocol for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the referenced facility. The protocol is submitted in response to EPD's electronic mail dated March 

### 9, 2006. EPD notified lnterstate Paper that it was eligible for BART exemption modeling assistance from the Visibility Improvement State and TribalAssociation of the Southeast (VISTAS). The protocol presents a brief overview of BART, a description of lnterstate Paper'sfacility, what informationwill be provided by VISTAS,the modeling methodology, an overview of the modeling system, and a summary of the format of the results. Ifyou have any questions, please call. Sincerely,

~bndal 

### M. Reynolds, 

### p.6 Engineering Manager



### 2250 North Druid Hills Road Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30329 a 

### Phone (404) 

### 315-9113 * 

### Fax (404) 315-8509 email: info@envplanning.com* 

### web page: www.envplanning.com