# BART Exemption Modeling

of Sources in Georgia

January 2007

Prepared For:

VISTAS 526 Forest Parkway, Suite F Forest Park, GA 30297

Submitted By:
TRC Environmental Corporation 650 Suffolk Street, Wannalancit Mills Lowell, MA 01854

# i



# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1

2. SOURCE PARAMETERS 2-1

3. GEOPHYSICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3-1

3.1 Modeling Domain, Terrain, and Class I Areas 3-1 3.2 Land Use 3-3 3.3 Meteorological Data Base 3-6 3.4 Air Quality Monitoring Data 3-6

4. RESULTS 4-1

5. REFERENCES 5-1



# LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2-1a. Brunswick Mill: Source Parameters and Emissions 2-3

Table 2-1b. Brunswick Mill: Particle Speciation 2-3

Table 2-2a. Tronox: Source Parameters and Emissions 2-4

Table 2-2b. Tronox: Particle Speciation 2-4

Table 2-3a. Augusta Plant: Point Source Parameters and Emission s 2-5

Table 2-3b. Augusta Plant: Particel Speciation 2-5

Table 2-4a. PCA Valdosta Mill: Source Parameters and Emissions 2-6

Table 2-4b. PCA Valdosta Mill: Particle Speciation 2-6

Table 2-5a. Interstate Paper, LLC: Source Parameters and Emissi ons 2-7

Table 2-5b. Interstate Paper, LLC: Particle Speciation 2-7

Table 2-6a. DSM Chemicals North: Source Parameters and Emission s 2-8

Table 2-6b. DSM Chemicals North: Particle Speciation 2-8

Table 2-7a. Chemical Products Corporation: Source Parameters an d Emissions ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT

Table 4-1a. Summary of Visibility Results for Brunswick Mill – Refined Run (4-km grid) 4-3

# ii



# Table 4-1b. Visibility Results – 8 Highest Values for Brunswick Mill – Refined Run (4-km grid) 4-3

Table 4-2. Summary of Visibility Results for Tronox – Screenin g Run (12-km grid) 4-4

Table 4-3. Summary of Visibility Results for Augusta Plant – S creening Run (12-km grid) 4-4

Table 4-4a. Summary of Visibility Results for Pca Valdosta Mill - Screening Run

(12-km grid) 4-5

Table 4-4b. Summary of Visibility Results for PCA Valdosta Mill - Refined Run (4-km grid) 4-5

Table 4-4c. Visibility Results – 8 Highest Values For PCA Valdo sta Mill - Refined Run

(4-km grid) 4-5

Table 4-5a. Summary of Visibility Results for Interstate Paper, LLC – Refined Run

(4-km grid) 4-6

Table 4-5b. Visibility Results – 8 Highest Values For Interstat e Paper, LLC – Refined Run

(4-km grid) 4-6

Table 4-6. Summary of Visibility Results for DSM Chemicals Nor th – Screening Run

(12-km grid) 4-7

Table 4-7. Monthly F(RH) Values Based on the Centroid of the A rea, for Visibility

Method 6 Applications 4-7



# LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 3-1. Terrain elevations for the CALMET 12-km regional do main. The CALPUFF

computational subdomains, the Class I areas and the locations of Georgia facilities are also shown. 3-2
Figure 3-2. Terrain elevations for the CALMET/CALPUFF Domain 4. The Class I areas and

the sites of Georgia facilities are also shown. 3-4
Figure 3-3. Land use for the CALMET/CALPUFF Domain 4. The Class I areas and the sites

for the Georgia facilities are also shown 3-5
Figure 3-4. Plot of MM5 grid and surface, precipitation, buoy, and upper air stations for the

CALMET/CALPUFF Subregional Domain 4 3-7
Figure 3-5. Plot of ozone stations used for the CALPUFF simulat ions. The Class I areas and

the sites of the Georgia facilities are also shown. 3-8

# Introduction 1-1



# 1. INTRODUCTION

TRC Environmental Corporation, on behalf of VISTAS has been retained to conduct Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) exemption mode ling for a number of facilities in the southeastern United States. This report documents t he results of the modeling simulations conducted in accordance with the VISTAS BART Protoc ol Revision 3.2 dated August 31, 2006 (VISTAS, 2006) for emissions from seven BART-eligib le facilities in Georgia.

The VISTAS BART protocol is based on the use of the CALMET and CALPUFF models (Scire et al., 2000a, 2000b). The modeling approach uses 1 2-km VISTAS regional CALMET meteorological datasets for facilities located more than 50-km from the closest Class I area for screening simulations of predicted impacts. The hig hest impact during the three year simulation period is compared to a 0.5 deciview threshold. Acc ording to the VISTAS protocol, sources with impacts less than this threshold are not subject to BART control. For sources failing the screen by a small margin, or those located within 50 km of th e closest Class I area, TRC performed modeling using the refined 4-km subregional CALMET Domain 4 datasets. The impacts on the 98 th 

# percentile day (i.e., 8 th 

# highest within a year) predicted by the refined si mulations were compared to the 0.5 deciview threshold. Facilities with a maximum 98 th 

# percentile impact below 0.5 deciview were determined to be exempt from BART controls

The modeling uses the VISTAS version of the CALPUFF modeling system (CALMET Version 5.723 and CALPUFF Version 5.754) available from the TRC Atmospheric Studies Group web site ( http://www.src.com ).

# Source Parameters 2-1



# 2. SOURCE PARAMETERS

VISTAS BART exemption modeling was performed for se ven facilities in Georgia. These sources are: (1) Brunswick Mill, (2) Tronox, (3) Au gusta Plant, (4) PCA Valdosta Mill, (5) Interstate Paper, LLC, (6) DSM Chemicals North, and (7) Chemical Products Corp. Five of these facilities were modeled using the screening 12-km r egional VISTAS CALMET domain with CALPUFF computational subdomains as shown in Figure 3-1. Two facilities (Brunswick Mill and Interstate Paper, LLC) were modeled using the 4 -km subregional Domain 4 since their distance to the closest Class I Area (Wolf Island) is less than 50 km. PCA Valdosta Mill facility was first modeled using the 12-km domain as a scree ning run, and then using the 4-km domain as a refined run. Locations of the seven Georgia facil ities are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-3.

Source parameters and emissions rates as provided b y the State of Georgia for each of the facilities used in the CALPUFF simulations are show n in Tables 2-1a through 2-7a. Tables 2-1b through 2-7b show the particle speciation used in t he CALPUFF simulations. In the tables, the column heading PM 10 

# includes all PM mass (condensable plus filterable) emitted as particulate matter less than 10 micrometers ( μ m) in diameter. The emissions labeled as PM 2.5 

# are a subset of the PM 10 

# composed of particles less than 2.5 μ m in diameter. All condensable emissions are assumed to be in the PM 2.5 

# size range. The PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# categories include H 2 

# SO 4 

# emissions, which in the model are treated as primary sulfate ( SO 4 

# ). The emissions of H 2 

# SO 4 

# are adjusted by the ratio of molecular weights (96/98) to obtain th e emissions as SO 4 

# which is entered into the model.

The PM 10 

# size distribution was represented in the modeling as six explicit size ranges. The particle sizes modeled were as 8.0 μ m diameter size particles (PM800) reflecting the si ze bin 6-10 μ m, 4.25 μ m diameter particles (PM425) for the size bin 2.5-6 μ m, 1.875 μ m particles (PM187) for the size bin 1.25-2.5 μ m, 1.125 μ m particles (PM112) for the size bin 1.00-1.25 μ m, 0.8125 μ m particles (PM081) for the size bin 0.625-1.00 μ m, and 0.5625 μ m (PM056) for the size range 0.500-0.625 μ m. PM056 was also used for all particles less than 0.5 μ m diameter. Emissions of particulate matter in the 2.5-10 μ m diameter size range define “coarse particulate matter”. Fine particles (soil) were defined using t he particle size categories of PM187, PM112, PM081, and PM056 which is particulate matter with a size of 2.5 μ m diameters or less. For sources with no speciation (emissions given as PM 10 

# only) it was conservatively assumed that all the particulate emissions were condensable which ha ve higher extinction efficiency than either soil or coarse particulate matter. Condensable emis sions were assumed to be evenly distributed across the smallest two size categories modeled (i. e. 50 percent in PM081 and 50 percent in PM056).

For the Brunswick Mill facility, Tables 2-1a and 2- 1b show source parameters, emissions and particle speciation data extracted from the “BART E xemption Protocol Brunswick.doc” document, Tables 1 and 2. For three of the four sta cks, PM distribution was provided. For one of the stacks (MG04A), the PM distribution was not pro vided, so PM 10 

# emissions were equally divided between the two size categories of OC for m odeling purposes.

# Source Parameters 2-2



# For the Tronox facility, Tables 2-2a and 2-2b show source parameters, emissions and particle speciation data obtained from the “Tronox Emission data.pdf” document. For one of the stacks (1024), PM 10 

# emissions were equally divided between the two siz e categories of OC for modeling purposes. All PM emissions from the second stack (1 356) compose of H 2 

# SO 4 

# emissions.

For the Augusta Plant, Table 2-3a show source param eters and emissions obtained from the “Prayon BART Modeling Protocolrev.doc”, Table 2-1. The PM speciation was not provided. Therefore, All PM 10 

# emissions were equally divided between the two siz e categories of OC (Table 2-3b).

For the PCA Valdosta Mill, Tables 2-4a and 2-4b sho w source parameters, emissions and particle speciation data obtained from the “PCA Table 3_1 Em ission Rates.pdf” document. The PM distribution for all four stacks was extracted from the information provided in this document.

For the Interstate Paper, LLC, Table 2-5a show sour ce parameters and emissions obtained from the “EPD BART Emissions.xls” file. The PM speciatio n was not provided. Therefore, All PM 10 

# emissions were equally divided between the two size categories of OC (Table 2-5b).

For DSM Chemicals North, Table 2-6a show source par ameters and emissions obtained from the “DSM Chemicals Emissions Stack Data revisedp2.xls” document. The PM speciation was not provided. Therefore, All PM 10 

# emissions were equally divided between the two siz e categories of OC (Table 2-6b).

For Chemical Products Corp, Table 2-7a show source parameters and emissions obtained from the “CPCBART VISTAS modeling emissionsa.xls” file.Source Parameters2-3Table 2-1a. Brunswick Mill: Source Parameters and Emissions1Lambert ConformalCoordinatesStackID #LCC East LCC NorthStackHeightBaseElevationDiameterGas ExitVelocityStackGasExitTemp.SO2EmissionsH2SO4Emissions2NOxEmissionsPM10Emissions3PM2.5EmissionsNH3Emissionskm km m m m m/s K g/s g/s g/s g/s g/s g/sR401A 1470.759 -853.324 82.90 1.50 3.95 8.20 474.003.8800 0.2204 10.4000 2.6100 1.6000 -R402A 1470.762 -853.334 82.90 1.50 3.95 8.20 474.003.8800 0.2204 10.4000 2.6100 1.6000 -MG04A 1470.876 -853.572 19.80 1.50 3.66 14.33 339.00 - - - 0.1110 0.1110 -R403A 1470.757 -853.315 80.50 1.50 1.04 18.60 350.00 0.1600 - 0.3500 2.1000 1.9000 -Table 2-1b. Brunswick Mill: Particle Speciation1Particle speciation CondensableFilterableStackID #condensablePM10filterablePM10organiccondensable (OC)inorganiccondensableH2SO4COARSE Soil Elemental Carbon (EC)0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μmM4=0.48SD4=2.0μm6-10μm2.5-6μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm% % g/sg/sg/sg/sg/s g/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sR401A 12.0 88.0 0.0441 0.0441 - - 0.2204 0.38820.62150.5138 0.1398 0.2581 0.3269 0.0197 0.0054 0.0099 0.0126R402A 12.0 88.0 0.0441 0.0441 - - 0.2204 0.38820.62150.5138 0.1398 0.2581 0.3269 0.0197 0.0054 0.0099 0.0126MG04A 100.0 0.00.0555 0.0555- - - - - - - - - - - - -R403A 16.0 84.0 0.1680 0.1680 - - - 0.07690.12310.6251 0.1699 0.3139 0.3977 0.0240 0.0065 0.0121 0.01531Emission and speciation data extracted and obtainedfrom Tables 1 and 2 of the “BART Exemption Protocol Brunswick.doc” document.2H2SO4emissions are entered in CALPUFF as SO4i.e., weighted by ratio of molecular weights (96/98).3PM10emission rate includes filterable and condensableemissions. The condensable component includes H2SO4emissions.4M and SD stand for Geometric Mass Mean Diameter andGeometric Standard Deviation. These are the parameters used to calculate the (SO4) particle size distribution in CALPUFF.Source Parameters2-4Table 2-2a. Tronox: Source Parameters and Emissions1Lambert ConformalCoordinatesStackID #LCC East LCC NorthStackHeightBaseElevationDiameterGas ExitVelocityStackGasExitTemp.SO2EmissionsH2SO4Emissions2NOxEmissionsPM10Emissions3PM2.5EmissionsNH3Emissionskm km m m m m/s K g/s g/s g/s g/s g/s g/s1024 1499.340 -745.631 18.29 3.00 0.30 7.62 297.04- - - 0.1200 0.1200 -1356 1499.580 -745.337 45.72 3.00 1.68 9.45 350.3718.9000 0.7100 0.8200 0.7100 0.7100 -Table 2-2b. Tronox: Particle Speciation1Particle speciation CondensableFilterableStackID #condensablePM10filterablePM10organiccondensable (OC)inorganiccondensableH2SO4COARSE Soil Elemental Carbon (EC)0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μmM4=0.48SD4=2.0μm6-10μm2.5-6μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm% % g/sg/sg/sg/sg/s g/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/s1024 100.0 0.00.0600 0.0600- - - - - - - - - - - - -1356 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1Emission data extracted from “Tronox Emission data.pdf” document. The PM speciation was not provided by the state. All PM10- H2SO4emissions were equally divided betweenthe two size categories of OC. This is a conservative approach since organic condensables have an extinction efficiency of 4 m2/g.2H2SO4emissions are entered in CALPUFF as SO4i.e., weighted by ratio of molecular weights (96/98).3PM10emission rate includes filterable and condensableemissions. The condensable component includes H2SO4emissions.4M and SD stand for Geometric Mass Mean Diameter andGeometric Standard Deviation. These are the parameters used to calculate the (SO4) particle size distribution in CALPUFF.Source Parameters2-5Table 2-3a. Augusta Plant: Point Source Parametersand Emissions1Lambert ConformalCoordinatesStackID #LCC East LCC NorthStackHeightBaseElevationDiameterGas ExitVelocityStackGasExitTemp.SO2EmissionsH2SO4Emissions2NOxEmissionsPM10Emissions3PM2.5EmissionsNH3Emissionskm km m m m m/s K g/s g/s g/s g/s g/s g/sS201 1386.472 -617.364 2.44 61.87 0.81 4.57 353.15- - - 1.2600 1.2600 -S304 1386.472 -617.364 5.49 71.02 0.25 16.00 366.48- - 0.0315 0.0378 0.0378 -S306 1386.472 -617.364 6.86 71.02 0.25 16.00 310.93- - - 0.0365 0.0365 -S305 1386.472 -617.364 6.63 71.02 0.36 18.90 405.37- - 0.0328 0.0643 0.0643 -S307 1386.472 -617.364 6.86 71.02 0.25 16.00 298.15- - - 0.0365 0.0365 -Table 2-3b. Augusta Plant: Particle Speciation1Particle speciation CondensableFilterableStackID #condensablePM10filterablePM10organiccondensable (OC)inorganiccondensableH2SO4COARSE Soil Elemental Carbon (EC)0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μmM4=0.48SD4=2.0μm6-10μm2.5-6μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm% % g/sg/sg/sg/sg/s g/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sS201 100.0 0.00.6300 0.6300- - - - - - - - - - - - -S304 100.0 0.00.0189 0.0189- - - - - - - - - - - - -S306 100.0 0.00.0183 0.0183- - - - - - - - - - - - -S305 100.0 0.00.0321 0.0321- - - - - - - - - - - - -S307 100.0 0.00.0183 0.0183- - - - - - - - - - - - -1Emission data extracted from Table 2-1 the “PrayonBART Modeling Protocolrev.doc” document. The PM speciation was not provided by the state. All PM10- H2SO4emissionswere equally divided between the two size categories of OC. This is a conservative approach since organic condensables have an extinction efficiency of 4m2/g.2H2SO4emissions are entered in CALPUFF as SO4i.e., weighted by ratio of molecular weights (96/98).3PM10emission rate includes filterable and condensableemissions. The condensable component includes H2SO4emissions.4M and SD stand for Geometric Mass Mean Diameter andGeometric Standard Deviation. These are the parameters used to calculate the (SO4) particle size distribution in CALPUFF.Source Parameters2-6Table 2-4a. PCA Valdosta Mill: Source Parameters and Emissions1Lambert ConformalCoordinatesStackID #LCC East LCC NorthStackHeightBaseElevationDiameterGas ExitVelocityStackGasExitTemp.SO2EmissionsH2SO4Emissions2NOxEmissionsPM10Emissions3PM2.5EmissionsNH3Emissionskm km m m m m/s K g/s g/s g/s g/s g/s g/sCSS 1310.712 -933.115 61.26 61.00 3.05 14.10 338.0012.4500 - 11.3500 5.7700 5.7700 -3RFS 1310.769 -933.133 55.17 61.00 2.13 20.71 395.00 14.2600 - 5.1100 2.1760 1.9400 -3SDTS 1310.776 -933.163 33.53 61.00 1.22 9.31 328.00 0.0600 - - 0.2200 0.2200 -SLAKER1310.877 -933.186 27.43 61.00 0.61 7.34 311.00 - -- 0.1540 0.1510 -Table 2-4b. PCA Valdosta Mill: Particle Speciation1Particle speciation CondensableFilterableStackID #condensablePM10filterablePM10organiccondensable (OC)inorganiccondensableH2SO4COARSE Soil Elemental Carbon (EC)0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μmM4=0.48SD4=2.0μm6-10μm2.5-6μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm% % g/sg/sg/sg/sg/s g/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sCSS 16.1 83.9 0.4656 0.4656 - - - - - 1.8209 0.49500.9142 1.1582 0.1867 0.0508 0.0937 0.11883RFS 59.1 40.9 0.6432 0.6432 - - - 0.0907 0.14450.2675 0.0727 0.1343 0.1701 0.0042 0.0011 0.0021 0.00263SDTS 0.0 100.0 - - - - - - - 0.0913 0.0248 0.04580.0581 - - - -SLAKER0.0 100.0 - - - - - 0.0012 0.00180.0626 0.0170 0.0314 0.0398 - - - -1Emission and speciation data extracted and obtainedfrom “PCA Table 3_1 Emission Rates.pdf” document.2H2SO4emissions are entered in CALPUFF as SO4i.e., weighted by ratio of molecular weights (96/98).3PM10emission rate includes filterable and condensableemissions. The condensable component includes H2SO4emissions.4M and SD stand for Geometric Mass Mean Diameter andGeometric Standard Deviation. These are the parameters used to calculate the (SO4) particle size distribution in CALPUFF.Source Parameters2-7Table 2-5a. Interstate Paper, LLC: Source Parameters and Emissions1Lambert ConformalCoordinatesStackID #LCC East LCC NorthStackHeightBaseElevationDiameterGas ExitVelocityStackGasExitTemp.SO2EmissionsH2SO4Emissions2NOxEmissionsPM10Emissions3PM2.5EmissionsNH3Emissionskm km m m m m/s K g/s g/s g/s g/s g/s g/sLK 1470.714 -788.897 15.24 3.60 1.52 4.96 342.09 0.1600 - 2.2000 0.7400 0.7200 -RB 1470.714 -789.026 46.04 4.20 2.74 13.73 353.37 0.1200 - 8.8000 5.5000 5.4000 -Table 2-5b. Interstate Paper, LLC: Particle Speciation1Particle speciation CondensableFilterableStackID #condensablePM10filterablePM10organiccondensable (OC)inorganiccondensableH2SO4COARSE Soil Elemental Carbon (EC)0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μmM4=0.48SD4=2.0μm6-10μm2.5-6μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm% % g/sg/sg/sg/sg/s g/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sLK 100.0 0.00.3700 0.3700- - - - - - - - - - - - -RB 100.0 0.02.7500 2.7500- - - - - - - - - - - - -1Stack parameters and emission data obtained from “EPD BART Emissions.xls” file. The PM speciation wasnot provided by the state. All PM10- H2SO4emissions were equally dividedbetween the two size categories of OC. This is a conservative approach since organic condensables havean extinction efficiency of 4 m2/g.2H2SO4emissions are entered in CALPUFF as SO4i.e., weighted by ratio of molecular weights (96/98).3PM10emission rate includes filterable and condensableemissions. The condensable component includes H2SO4emissions.4M and SD stand for Geometric Mass Mean Diameter andGeometric Standard Deviation. These are the parameters used to calculate the (SO4) particle size distribution in CALPUFF.Source Parameters2-8Table 2-6a. DSM Chemicals North: Source Parametersand Emissions1Lambert ConformalCoordinatesStackID #LCC East LCC NorthStackHeightBaseElevationDiameterGas ExitVelocityStackGasExitTemp.SO2EmissionsH2SO4Emissions2NOxEmissionsPM10Emissions3PM2.5EmissionsNH3Emissionskm km m m m m/s K g/s g/s g/s g/s g/s g/sS014 1390.356 -611.414 67.06 40.31 3.58 15.15 422.04 27.8241 - 11.0933 2.4169 0.6272 -S020 1390.356 -611.414 24.38 38.10 1.37 15.09 449.82 - - 2.6581 - - -Table 2-6b. DSM Chemicals North: Particle Speciation1Particle speciation CondensableFilterableStackID #condensablePM10filterablePM10organiccondensable (OC)inorganiccondensableH2SO4COARSE Soil Elemental Carbon (EC)0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μmM4=0.48SD4=2.0μm6-10μm2.5-6μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm1.25-2.5μm1.0-1.25μm0.625-1.0μm0.5-0.625μm% % g/sg/sg/sg/sg/s g/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sg/sS014 100.0 0.01.2084 1.2084- - - - - - - - - - - - -S020 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1Emission data extracted from the “DSM Chemicals Emissions Stack Data revisedp2.xls” document. The PMspeciation was not provided by the state. All PM10- H2SO4emissions wereequally divided between the two size categories ofOC. This is a conservative approach since organic condensables have an extinction efficiency of 4 m2/g.2H2SO4emissions are entered in CALPUFF as SO4i.e., weighted by ratio of molecular weights (96/98).3PM10emission rate includes filterable and condensableemissions. The condensable component includes H2SO4emissions.4M and SD stand for Geometric Mass Mean Diameter andGeometric Standard Deviation. These are the parameters used to calculate the (SO4) particle size distribution in CALPUFF.Source Parameters2-9

# Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-1



# 3. GEOPHYSICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA

3.1 Modeling Domain, Terrain, and Class I Areas

Gridded terrain elevations for the 12-km regional V ISTAS modeling domain are derived from GTOPO30, a global digital elevation model (DEM) wit h a horizontal grid spacing of 30 arc seconds (approximately 1 kilometer). GTOPO30 is a g lobal data set covering the full extent of latitude from 90 degrees south to 90 degrees north, and the full extent of longitude from 180 degrees west to 180 degrees east, developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The horizontal grid spacing is 30-arc seconds, resultin g in a DEM having dimensions of 21,600 rows and 43,200 columns. The horizontal coordinate syste m is decimal degrees of latitude and longitude referenced to WGS84. The vertical units r epresent elevation in meters above mean sea level. GTOPO30 has been divided into 33 smaller pie ces, or tiles. Two of these tiles cover regional VISTAS domain: W100N40 and W100N90.

Gridded terrain elevations for the 4-km modeling VI STAS Domain 4 are derived from 3 arc-second DEMs produced by the USGS. Data are pr ovided in files covering 1-degree by 1-degree blocks of latitude and longitude. The 1-de gree DEMs are produced by the Defense Mapping Agency using cartographic and photographic sources. USGS 1:250,000 scale topographic maps are the primary source of 1-degree DEMs. One-degree DEM data consists of an array of 1201 by 1201 elevations referenced on t he geographic (latitude/ longitude) coordinate system of the World Geodetic System 1972 Datum. Ele vations are in meters relative to mean sea level, and the spacing of the elevations along each profile is 3 arc-seconds, which corresponds to a spacing of approximately 90 meters.

The VISTAS CALMET 12-km regional domain was used in CALPUFF modeling and BART visibility analysis for the following facilities: T ronox, Augusta Plant, PCA Valdosta Mill, DSM Chemicals North, and Chemical Products Corp. The CA LPUFF computational subdomain was chosen to cover all Class I areas that fall into th e 300 km circle around the GA sources, as well as a 50 km buffer zone from these Class I areas and Ge orgia facilities. The subdomain extends at least 50 km from the Class I areas and all of the f acilities in order to provide an adequate buffer zone at the boundaries, and to allow the effects of flow curvature and possible small-scale recirculation to be evaluated.

Figure 3-1 shows contours of the terrain averaged t o 12 km grid cells on the VISTAS 12-km regional domain. Blue rectangle depicts the area of the CALPUFF computational subdomain covering 720 km by 948 km or 60x79 grid cells. This subdomain was used for modeling Tronox, Augusta Plant, PCA Valdosta Mill, DSM Chemicals Nor th facilities. Class I areas included in this computational subdomain and analysis are: Cape Roma in, Chassahowitzka, Cohutta, Great Smoky Mountains, Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock, Linville G orge, Okefenokee, Shining Rock, St. Marks, and Wolf Island. For the Chemical Products C orp, Sipsey is an additional Class I area that is located within the 300 km from the facility. For this facility, computational domain was

# Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-2 

# 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 LCC East (km) -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400LCCNorth(km)



# LCC Origin: 40.0 N, 97.0 W Standard Parallels: 33.0 N, 45.0 N Datum: NWS-84



# Elevation (meters)

GA AL TN

SC NC VA

FL KY

Cape Romain

Chassahowitzka Cohutta Great Smoky Mountains
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Linville Gorge

Okefenokee Shining Rock

Sipsey

St Marks Wolf Island



# -25 0.1 50 100 150 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

GA facility CALPUFF computational domain



# Figure 3-1. Terrain elevations for the CALMET 12-km Regional Domain. The CALPUFF computational subdomains, the Class I areas and the locations of Georgia facilities are also shown.

# Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-3



# extended to the west as shown by the purple line in Figure 3-1. This computational domain covers 888 km by 948 km or 74x79 grid cells. A Lambert Con formal Projection is used with an origin of 40.0N, 97.0W and standard parallels at 33N and 45N. The datum used is NWS-84.

The subregional VISTAS 4-km CALMET Domain 4 was use d in CALPUFF modeling and BART visibility analysis for Brunswick Mill, Inters tate Paper, LLC and PCA Valdosta Mill sources. VISTAS Domain 4 was designed for the refin ed modeling of the Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama sources. It covers entire stat es of Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama, all Class I areas that are within 300 km from any o f the sources in GA, SC and AL, as well as a 50 km buffer zone from these Class I areas and GA, SC and AL facilities. Domain 4 covers an area of 992 km by 1028 km. The CALMET simulations u se a resolution of 4 km in the horizontal resulting in 248x257 grid cells. Figure 3-2 shows t errain contours for Domain 4 averaged to 4 km grid cells, seven Georgia sources modeled, and Clas s I areas within the Domain 4. The CALPUFF computational domain is the same as the CAL MET Domain 4.



# 3.2 Land Use

The USGS Land Use data within the CALMET regional a nd subregional domains have been used to produce a gridded field of dominant land use cat egories. The land use data were obtained in Composite Theme Grid format (CTG) from the USGS, wi th a resolution of 200 m. For the portions of the domains where CTG data were missing , North America USGS land use/land cover data have been used. The North America land cover d ata base is one portion of a global land cover characteristics data base that was developed on a continent-by-continent basis with 1-km nominal spatial resolution.

Land use data were processed to produce a 12 km and a 4 km resolution gridded field of fractional land use categories for the regional dom ain and the subregional Domain 4, respectively. The 37 USGS land use categories were then mapped in to 14 CALMET land use categories. Surface properties such as albedo, Bowen ratio, rou ghness length, and leaf area index were computed proportionally to the fractional land use. The USGS land use categories and their associated geophysical parameters are described in Scire et al. (2000a). Figure 3-3 shows the dominant land use categories for each 4-km CALMET g rid cell in modeling Domain 4.

# Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-4



# 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 LCC East (km) -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200LCCNorth(km)



# 1 2 3

4 5 6 7

LCC Origin: 40.0 N, 97.0 W Standard Parallels: 33.0 N, 45.0 N Datum: NWS-84



# Elevation (meters)

FL GA TN

SC NC VA

KY

AL MS

Chassahowitzka St Marks Okefenokee Wolf Island Cape Romain Sipsey Cohutta

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrok Great Smoky Mountains Shining Rock Linville Gorge



# -25 0.1 50 100 150 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400



# Figure 3-2. Terrain elevations for the CALMET/CALPU FF Domain 4. The Class I areas and the sites

of Georgia facilities are also shown.

# Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-5 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 LCC East (km) -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200LCCNorth(km)



# 1 2 3

4 5 6 7

LCC Origin: 40.0 N, 97.0 W Standard Parallels: 33.0 N, 45.0 N Datum: NWS-84 FL GA TN

SC NC VA

KY

AL MS

Chassahowitzka St Marks Okefenokee Wolf Island Cape Romain Sipsey Cohutta

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrok Great Smoky Mountains Shining Rock Linville Gorge



# 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Urban/ built-up land Agricultural land Rangeland Forest land Water Wetland Barren land Tundra Snow / Ice



# Figure 3-3. Land Use for the CALMET/ CALPUFF Domain 4. The Class I areas and the sites for the

Georgia facilities are also shown.

# Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-6



# 3.3 Meteorological Data Base

The meteorological data used include the three dime nsional gridded model output from the Fifth Generation Penn State/NCAR MM5 (Grell 1995) provide d by VISTAS. VISTAS has assembled three years of MM5 meteorological data for the regi onal CALPUFF modeling. These MM5 datasets have been developed by EPA for 2001, VISTA S for 2002 and Midwest Regional Planning Organization (RPO) for 2003. The MM5 gridd ed data set consists of hourly values of wind speed, wind direction, temperature and pressur e on a grid covering the VISTAS regional 12-km CALMET domain and VISTAS subregional 4-km CAL MET Domain 4. The MM5 data was run at a horizontal spatial resolution of 12 km for 2001 and 2002 and 36-km for 2003.

For the regional 12-km domain, CALMET runs have bee n made in the no-observational mode. For the subregional 4-km Domain 4, available surfac e, upper air and precipitation stations were also included in the CALMET simulations along with the gridded MM5 data. Figure 3-4 shows a plot of the MM5 grid along with the surface, precip itation, buoys and upper air stations used in the CALMET simulations for Domain 4.


# 3.4 Air Quality Monitoring Data

CALPUFF uses hourly ozone concentration measurement s in the chemical transformation rates (SO 2 

# to SO 4 

# , NO x 

# to HNO 3 

# /NO 3 

# ). The ambient ozone measurements are used in deter mining SO 2 

# loss rates due to chemical transformation to sulfat e and in determining NO x 

# loss rates to nitrate. Ambient ozone monitoring data from the U.S. EPA AIR S and CASTNET networks were used to develop the hourly ozone monitoring data file (OZON E.DAT). Figure 3-5 provides a plot of available ozone monitoring stations that were used for the CALPUFF modeling.

For the base case simulations, a constant ammonia c oncentration of 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) was assumed as recommended by the Interagency Workg roup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM, 1998) for forested Class I areas. In this a pplication of the model, the Ammonia Limiting Method (ALM) was not used.

# Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-7

700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 LCC East (km) -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200LCCNorth(km)

722014

722017 722018

722040

722045 722046

722050 722053 722055 722056

722057 722060

722065 722066

722067 722068

722069 722070 722080

722085

722090

722110 722119 722120

722123

722130 722134

722135
722136 722137

722140

722146 722150 722154

722156

722160

722166 722170 722175 722176 722180

722181

722185

722190 722195 722196

722197

722200 722210 722212

722213 722215

722220 722223 722224
722225 722226

722230 722235

722245 722246 722250 722255

722260 722265

722267

722268

722269 722270

722275 722276 722279

722280

722284 722285

722286 722287

722300

722320 722340

722345

722347 722348 723030

723034 723035

723048 723055 723060

723066 723068

723100 723104 723105 723106 723108 723109

723110

723115 723116 723117

723118 723119

723120

723124 723125 723140 723143

723144 723145 723146

723147 723148

723150 723165 723170 723174 723177 723180

723183 723193

723194

723200 723230 723235 723240 723246

723260 723265 723270 723273

723306

723307 723320 723346 724008
724056

724058 724106 724107 724113
724116

724117 724118 724125 724236

724237 724238

724243

724350 745985

746710 746716

746720

746930 746935 746936

746939

747685 747686 747688
747750 747760

747770 747804

747810 747900 747910 747915

747930 747946

747950

994010 994230

994380

994410

994420

994440

722014 722040

722045 722046

722050 722053 722055 722056

722057 722060

722065 722066

722067 722068

722069 722070 722080

722085

722090

722110 722119 722120

722123

722130 722135
722136 722137

722140

722146 722154

722156

722160

722166 722170 722175 722176 722180

722181

722185

722190 722195 722196

722197

722200 722210 722212

722213 722215

722223 722224
722225 722226

722230 722235

722245 722246 722250 722255

722260 722265

722267

722268

722269 722270

722275 722276 722279

722280

722284 722285

722286 722287

722300

722320 722340

722345

722347 722348 723030

723034 723035 723055 723060

723066 723068

723100 723104 723105 723106 723108 723109

723110

723115 723116 723117

723118 723119

723120

723124 723125 723140 723143

723144 723145 723146

723147 723148

723150 723165 723170 723174 723177

723183 723193

723194

723200 723230 723235 723240 723246

723260 723265 723270 723273

723306

723307 723320 723346 724008
724056

724058 724106 724107 724113
724116

724117 724118 724125 724236

724237 724238

724243

724350 745985

746710 746716

746930 746935 746936

746939

747685 747686 747688
747750 747760

747770 747804

747810 747900 747910 747915

747930 747946

747950

994010 994230

994360 994410

994420

722011 722012

722014

722021 722040

722045 722046

722050 722053 722055 722056

722057 722060

722065 722066

722067 722068

722069 722070 722080

722085

722090

722110 722119 722120

722123

722130 722134

722135
722136 722137

722140

722146 722150 722154

722156

722160

722166 722170 722175 722176 722180

722181

722185

722190 722195 722196

722197

722200 722210 722212

722213 722215

722223 722224
722225 722226

722230 722235

722240 722245 722246 722250 722255

722260 722265

722267

722268

722269 722270

722275 722276 722279

722280

722284 722285

722286 722287

722300

722320 722340

722345

722347 722348 723030

723034 723035 723055 723060

723066 723068

723100 723104 723105 723106 723108 723109

723110

723115 723116 723117

723118 723119

723120

723124 723125 723140 723143

723144 723145 723146

723147 723148

723150 723156 723165 723170 723174

723177 723180

723183 723193

723194

723200 723230 723235 723240 723246

723260 723265 723270 723273

723306

723307 723320 723346 724008
724056

724058 724106 724107 724113
724116

724117 724118 724125 724236

724237 724238

724243

724350 744652

745985

746710 746716

746930 746935 746936

746939
746940

747685 747686 747688
747750 747760

747770 747804 747805 747806 747807 747808 747809

747810 747812 747900 747910 747915

747930 747946

747950

994010 994230

994360 994410

994420

994640 994650 

# 72206 72208

72214 72215

72230 72317

72327

74794 41004

41008

42007

42036 42039 42040 41009 41012

LCC Origin: 40.0 N, 97.0 W Standard Parallels: 33.0 N, 45.0 N Datum: NWS-84



# Elevation (meters)

FL GA TN

SC NC VA

KY

AL MS



# -25 0.1 50 100 150 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

MM5 grid point Upper Air data

Surface Met data Precipitation data Buoy data



# Figure 3-4. Plot of MM5 grid and surface, precipita tion, buoy, and upper air stations for the

CALMET/CALPUFF Subregional Domain 4.

# Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-8

700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 LCC East (km) -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200LCCNorth(km)



# 1 2 3

4 5 6 7

LCC Origin: 40.0 N, 97.0 W Standard Parallels: 33.0 N, 45.0 N Datum: NWS-84



# Elevation (meters)

FL GA TN

SC NC VA

KY

AL MS

Chassahowitzka St Marks Okefenokee Wolf Island Cape Romain Sipsey Cohutta

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrok Great Smoky Mountains Shining Rock Linville Gorge



# -25 0.1 50 100 150 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

GA facility

Ozone data



# Figure 3-5. Plot of ozone stations used for the CAL PUFF simulations. The Class I areas and the sites

of the Georgia facilities are also shown.

# Results 4

- 1



# 4. RESULTS

The results of the CALMET and CALPUFF modeling for seven BART-eligible facilities in Georgia are presented in this section. The simulati ons were conducted over the three year period of 2001-2003. Modeling was conducted using the VIST AS 12-km or 4-km gridded CALMET meteorological data files. The POSTUTIL program was used to scale and sum the various CALPUFF concentration files to obtain total concent rations. Emission rates of SO 2 

# , SO 4 

# , and NO X 

# were input directly to the CALPUFF model while the six particulate species defining specific size categories were modeled as a unit emi ssion rate (1 g/s) and then scaled source by source using the POSTUTIL program. CALPOST Method 6 was used to compute the extinction change in deciviews (dv) consistent with the proced ures outlined in the VISTAS modeling protocol using the IMPROVE method (CSU, 1996) as re commended by FLAG (2000).

Table 4-8 provides the monthly f(RH) values based o n the centroid of the Class I area as required for the application of Method 6. The last column in Tables 4-1 through 4-7 provides the annual average background b ext



# values for each Class I area included in the analy sis. For each Class I area, the Rayleigh scattering coefficient of 10 Mm -1 

# was subtracted from the annual average background b ext



# and resulting values were entered in CALPOST as BK SOIL.

Tables 4-1 through 4-7 summarize the maximum predic ted extinction changes for 2001, 2002, and 2003 for the Class I areas situated within a 30 0 km radius of each of the seven facilities. The highest values of the extinction change along with number of exceedances of the 0.5 dv threshold value are presented in the tables. For screening si mulations using the 12-km CALMET meteorological grid, the highest predicted change i n extinction is compared to the 0.5 dv threshold. According to the VISTAS protocol, screen ing simulation results below 0.5 dv for all three years indicates that facility is not subject to BART controls. For facilities failing the screen
, or those located relatively close to one or more Cl ass I areas (usually within 50 km) the state has recommended immediately using the more refined 4-km CALMET meteorological grid. In the refined simulations, the 98 th 

# percentile value of prediction change in extinctio n (i.e., the 8 th 

# highest day) is compared to the 0.5 dv threshold. I f the highest 98 th 

# percentile value during the three year simulation period is below the 0.5 dv th reshold, the source is considered not subject to BART controls.

Tables 4-1a and 4-1b show results for Brunswick Mil l. This facility was modeled on the VISTAS 4-km CALMET Domain 4 refined grid. Table 4-1a show that in the Cape Romain, Chassahowitzka and St. Marks Class I areas, maximum predicted extinction change is below the 0.5 dv threshold value for all three years. Maximum predicted extinction change exceeds 0.5 dv in Okefenokee in 2003 and in Wolf Island in 2001 an d 2003. However, the 98 th 

# percentile value, or the 8 th 

# highest predicted extinction change for these Clas s I areas do not exceed the 0.5 dv threshold value as shown in Tables 4-1a and 4-1b.

# Results 4

- 2



# Tables 4-2, 4-3 and 4-6 show that for facilities Tr onox, Augusta and DSM Chemicals North, modeled with 12-km CALMET domain, the maximum predi cted extinction change for each of the Class I area are all below the 0.5 dv threshold value.

PCA Valdosta Mill was first modeled with 12-km doma in. Visibility analyses showed that predicted maximum extinction changes in Chassahowit zka, Okefenokee, Wolf Island were below 0.5 dv for all three years Table 4-4a. In St. Marks , 0.5 dv was predicted to exceed 0.5 dv only once in 2003. As a refinement to this analysis, PCA Valdosta Mill sources were remodeled using the finer grid of 4 km (Table 4-4b). The maximum pr edicted extinction change in St. Marks in 2003 dropped from 0.551 dv to 0.510 dv. Table 4-4c shows eight highest values of extinction change for all three years for St. Marks.

Tables 4-5a and 4-5b show results for Interstate Pa per, LCC. This is another facility, like Brunswick Mill that was modeled on the 4-km CALMET Domain 4 due to its proximity to the Wolf Island Class I area (less than 50 km). Table 4 -5a show that in Cape Romain, Okefenokee and St. Marks Class I areas, maximum predicted exti nction change is below the 0.5 dv threshold value for all three years. Maximum predicted extinc tion change exceeds 0.5 dv in Wolf Island with more than eight exceedances of the threshold v alue (Table 4-5b).

# Results 4

- 3



# Table 4-1a. Summary of Visibility Results for Bruns wick Mill – Refined Run (4-km grid)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Annual average background b ext 

# Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 d v) (Mm -1 

# ) Cape Romain 0.046 (0 0) 0.064 (0 0) 0.092 (0 0) 21.22 Chassahowitzka 0.040 (0 0) 0.081 (0 0) 0.076 (0 0) 21.46 Okefenokee 0.387 (0 0) 0.257 (0 0) 0.503 (1 0) 21.41 St Marks 0.061 (0 0) 0.095 (0 0) 0.055 (0 0 ) 21.54
Wolf Island 0.644 (1 0) 0.431 (0 0) 0.674 (7 0) 21.33



# Table 4-1b. Visibility Results – 8 Highest Values f or Brunswick Mill – Refined Run (4-km grid)

2001 2002 2003 Change in Deciview (dv) Day Change in Deciview (dv) Day Change in Deciview (dv) Day Rank

Okefenokee 

# 0.387

0.320 0.304 0.266 0.264 0.249 0.249 0.244 Dec 11

Nov 19 Feb 13 Dec 12 Nov 3 Mar 28 Mar 11 Nov 22 0.257

0.249 0.247 0.245 0.244 0.234 0.232 0.226 Jan 26

Dec 8 Feb 3 Feb 19 Mar 7 Dec 17 Jan 27 Feb 15 0.503

0.400 0.333 0.303 0.289 0.288 0.285 0.282 Dec 28

Jan 31 Dec 22 Dec 13 Feb 20 Nov 8 Jan 16 Dec 27 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Wolf Island 

# 0.644

0.408 0.405 0.376 0.348 0.334 0.318 0.309 Aug 29

Aug 19 Sep 19 Feb 15 Feb 6 Aug 12 Mar 2 Nov 26 0.431

0.421 0.42 0.402 0.402 0.371 0.340 0.338 Jun 1

Jul 4 Jul 24 Aug 23 Jan 17 Aug 21 Jan 5 Oct 20 0.674

0.616 0.577 0.537 0.535 0.520 0.506 0.447 Oct 24

Jul 16 Aug 5 Feb 14 Aug 19 May 16 Jul 12 Jan 20 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

# Results 4

- 4



# Table 4-2. Summary of Visibility Results for Tronox – Screening Run (12-km grid)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Annual average background b ext 

# Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 d v) (Mm -1 

# ) Cape Romain 0.165 (0 0) 0.196 (0 0) 0.134 (0 0) 21.22 Okefenokee 0.113 (0 0) 0.140 (0 0) 0.213 (0 0) 21.41 Wolf Island 0.315 (0 0) 0.304 (0 0) 0.246 (0 0) 21.33



# Table 4-3. Summary of Visibility Results for August a Plant – Screening Run (12-km grid)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Annual average background b ext 

# Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 d v) (Mm -1 

# ) Cape Romain 0.009 (0 0) 0.012 (0 0) 0.009 (0 0) 21.22 Cohutta 0.002 (0 0) 0.003 (0 0) 0.004 (0 0) 21.39 Great Smokey Mt. 0.002 (0 0) 0.002 (0 0) 0.0 02 (0 0) 21.39 Joyce Kilmer 0.002 (0 0) 0.002 (0 0) 0.002 ( 0 0) 21.40 Linville Gorge 0.008 (0 0) 0.003 (0 0) 0.005 (0 0) 21.36 Okefenokee 0.005 (0 0) 0.006 (0 0) 0.007 (0 0) 21.41 Shining Rock 0.004 (0 0) 0.003 (0 0) 0.003 ( 0 0) 21.40 Wolf Island 0.014 (0 0) 0.005 (0 0) 0.005 (0 0) 21.33

# Results 4

- 5



# Table 4-4a. Summary of Visibility Results for PCA V aldosta Mill - Screening Run (12-km grid)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Annual average background b ext 

# Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 d v) (Mm -1 

# ) Chassahowitzka 0.108 (0 0) 0.197 (0 0) 0.095 (0 0) 21.46 Okefenokee 0.349 (0 0) 0.268 (0 0) 0.345 (0 0) 21.41 St Marks 0.307 (0 0) 0.356 (0 0) 0.551 (1 0) 21.54 Wolf Island 0.181 (0 0) 0.136 (0 0) 0.096 (0 0) 21.33



# Table 4-4b. Summary of Visibility Results for PCA V aldosta Mill - Refined Run (4-km grid)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Annual average background b ext 

# Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 d v) (Mm -1 

# ) Chassahowitzka 0.113 (0 0) 0.138 (0 0) 0.104 (0 0) 21.46 Okefenokee 0.300 (0 0) 0.359 (0 0) 0.330 (0 0) 21.41 St Marks 0.321 (0 0) 0.424 (0 0) 0.510 (1 0) 21.54 Wolf Island 0.169 (0 0) 0.188 (0 0) 0.160 (0 0) 21.33



# Table 4-4c. Visibility Results – 8 Highest Values f or PCA Valdosta Mill - Refined Run (4-km grid)

2001 2002 2003 Change in Deciview (dv) Day Change in Deciview (dv) Day Change in Deciview (dv) Day Rank

St. Marks 

# 0.321

0.304 0.262 0.202 0.202 0.188 0.184 0.174 Nov 10

Dec 11 Sep 5 Oct 30 Oct 20 Sep 10 Feb 4 Sep 6 0.424

0.352 0.336 0.291 0.284 0.271 0.206 0.190 Oct 26

Oct 12 Nov 24 Jan 27 Sep 18 Dec 7 Nov 20 Dec 12 0.510

0.227 0.216 0.215 0.189 0.178 0.172 0.171 Jan 25

May 24 Feb 9 Jan 26 Dec 26 Nov 25 Oct 20 Nov 21 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

# Results 4

- 6



# Table 4-5a. Summary of Visibility Results for Inter state Paper, LLC – Refined Run (4-km grid)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Annual average background b ext 

# Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 d v) (Mm -1 

# ) Cape Romain 0.069 (0 0) 0.106 (0 0) 0.048 (0 0) 21.22 Okefenokee 0.236 (0 0) 0.187 (0 0) 0.337 (0 0) 21.41 St Marks 0.034 (0 0) 0.041 (0 0) 0.045 (0 0 ) 21.54
Wolf Island 0.718 (1 0) 0.502 (1 0) 0.416 (0 0) 21.33



# Table 4-5b. Visibility Results – 8 Highest Values f or Interstate Paper, LLC – Refined Run (4-km grid)

2001 2002 2003 Change in Deciview (dv) Day Change in Deciview (dv) Day Change in Deciview (dv) Day Rank

Wolf Island 

# 0.718

0.371 0.345 0.312 0.310 0.282 0.231 0.216 Jan 15

Sep 17 Jan 10 Feb 6 Dec 21 Jan 21 Dec 30 Jan 2 0.502

0.420 0.357 0.337 0.311 0.286 0.273 0.241 Dec 27

Nov 26 Nov 1 Jan 16 Nov 19 Dec 26 Oct 26 Jan 28 0.416

0.335 0.268 0.265 0.257 0.255 0.250 0.189 Dec 8

Oct 15 Sep 7 Nov 30 Sep 8 Jan 7 Jan 5 Feb 9 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

# Results 4

- 7



# Table 4-6. Summary of Visibility Results for DSM Ch emicals North – Screening Run (12-km

grid)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Annual average background b ext 

# Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 d v) (Mm -1 

# ) Cape Romain 0.107 (0 0) 0.096 (0 0) 0.094 (0 0) 21.22 Cohutta 0.064 (0 0) 0.053 (0 0) 0.112 (0 0) 21.39 Great Smokey Mt. 0.045 (0 0) 0.053 (0 0) 0.0 72 (0 0) 21.39 Joyce Kilmer 0.050 (0 0) 0.051 (0 0) 0.072 ( 0 0) 21.40 Linville Gorge 0.093 (0 0) 0.048 (0 0) 0.063 (0 0) 21.36 Okefenokee 0.088 (0 0) 0.131 (0 0) 0.063 (0 0) 21.41 Shining Rock 0.049 (0 0) 0.042 (0 0) 0.069 ( 0 0) 21.40 Wolf Island 0.102 (0 0) 0.085 (0 0) 0.114 (0 0) 21.33



# Table 4-7. Monthly f(RH) Values Based on the Centro id of the Area, for Visibility Method 6

Applications

Class I area Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oc t Nov Dec Cape Romain 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.7 3.6 4.1 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.2 Chassahowitzka 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.9 Cohutta 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 3.5 Great Smoky Mountains 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.7 3.2 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.2 3.8 3.3 3.4 Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.3 3.5 Linville Gorge 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.1 4.5 4.4 3.7 3.2 3.4 Okefenokee 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.6 Shining Rock 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.7 3.4 3.9 4.1 4.5 4.4 3. 8 3.3 3.4 Sipsey 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.4 St. Marks 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.2 3.8 3 .7 3.8 Wolf Island 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.5

Source: Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditio ns Under the Regional Haze Rule (2003), Appendix A, Table A-3

# References 5

- 1



# 5. REFERENCES

CSU, 1996: IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Prote cted Environments). Spatial and Seasonal patterns and Long Term Variability of the Composition of the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network. ISSN: 0737-5352-32.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998: Intera gency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM), Phase 2 Report: Summary Report an d Recommendation for Modeling Long Range Transport and Impacts on Region al Visibility. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454/R-98-019.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003: Guidan ce for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Program. U.S. EP A, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-03-005.

FLAG, 2000: Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Rela ted Values Workgroup (FLAG). Phase I report.

Grell, G.A., J.Dudhia, and D.R. Stauffer, 1995: “A Description of the Fifth Generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5)”, NCAR TN-398-STR, NCAR Technical Note.

Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino, 2 000a: A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Con cord, MA. Available from http://www.src.com

. Scire, J.S., F.R. Robe, M.E. Fernau, and R.J. Yamar tino, 2000b: A User’s Guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5). Earth Tech , Inc., Concord, MA. Available from http://www.src.com

. VISTAS, 2006: Protocol for the Application of the C ALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). Revision 3.2, August 2006. Available from http://www.vistas-sesarm.org

.