# BART Exemption Modeling Report:

Georgia Power Company Plant Mitchell

Prepared by:

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation for Georgia Power Company

September 2006September 2006 

### i 091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.doc 

# Contents

1.0 Introduction...................................

................................................... ................................................... ...... 1-1

1.1 Objectives .........................................

................................................... ............................................ 1-1

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas ......

................................................... ....................... 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data ..........

................................................... .................................. 2-1

2.1 Unit-specific source data..........................

................................................... .................................... 2-1

3.0 Modeling results...............................

................................................... ................................................... .. 3-1

Appendix A Delta-Deciview Values for The Top 20 Day s – For Each Year/Each Class I Area and for the Top 25 Days – Over Three Years......

................................................... ............A-1September 2006 

### ii 091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.doc 

# List of Tables

Table 2-1 Plant Mitchell modeling emission parameters........

................................................... .............. 2-3

Table 3-1 Summary of Results – Plant Mitchell Refi ned BART Exemption Modeling........................ ... 3-1



# List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Location of PSD Class I Areas in relation to Plant Mitchell........................................... .......... 1-2September 2006 1-1 091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.doc 

# 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Objectives

The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retr ofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that ‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be a nticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the o ption of exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requ irements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states s ubject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determin e that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO 2 

### and NO x 

### for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedback fr om the Georgia Environmental Protection Division indicates that CAIR satisfies BART for SO 2 

### and NO x 

### for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling report focuses on performing the BART modeling analysis for particula te matter (PM) only.

Unit 3 at Plant Mitchell, located near Albany, whic h is owned and operated by Georgia Power Company, h as been identified as a BART-eligible source. The mod eling procedures outlined in the source-specific BA RT modeling protocol for Plant Mitchell were used to d etermine whether the source is subject to BART requirements (exemption modeling). The modeling pr ocedures are consistent with those outlined in the updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3 – July 18, 2006), available at http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/BART/BARTModelingProto col_rev3_18Jul2006.pdf . This source-specific BART modeling protocol references r elevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling protocol.



## 1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division, whic h is in charge of the state’s BART program, has determined that Unit 3 at Plant Mitchell is BART-el igible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant Mi tchell relative to nearby Class I Areas. There are three Class I areas within 300 km of the plant: Okefenoke e (163.4 km), Saint Marks (141.7 km), and Wolf Island (265.4 km). The BART exemption modeling was conducted fo r these Class I areas in accordance with the referenc ed VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the source-specific BART mo deling protocol.September 2006 1-2 091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.doc 

### Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant MitchellSeptember 2006 2-1 091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.doc 

# 2.0 Source description and emissions data

2.1 Unit-specific source data

The emissions data used to assess the visibility im pacts at the Class I areas within 300 km of Plant M itchell are discussed in this section. The Georgia Environ mental Protection Division has indicated that CAIR will satisfy BART for EGUs for SO 2 

### and NO x 

### . Therefore, this BART exemption modeling analysis focuses only on PM 10 

### . Since various components of PM 10 

### emissions have different visibility extinction eff iciencies, the PM 10 

### emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS common protocol Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.2). The VISTAS protocol (Section 5) allows for the use of source-specific emissions and speciatio n factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM 10 

### emissions and speciation approach that were used f or the modeling is indicated below. Where default speciat ion values are used, the data represents a unit whe re current (baseline) emission controls include electr ostatic precipitators (ESPs), but no post-combustio n NO x 

### or SO 2 

### control equipment exists.

• Total PM 10 

### is comprised of filterable and condensable emissio ns.

• Baseline filterable PM 10 

### emissions are based on the highest stack test for t he most recent 3-year period (2003-2005). This stack test is combined wi th the highest 24 hour heat input value for this period from CEMS data to calculate the “maximum 24 hour average emission rate” as required by the VISTAS protocol.

• Filterable PM 10 

### has been subdivided by size category consistent wi th the default approach from AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and as noted on pages 43 and 44 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The AP-42 Table 1-1.6 specifies for the emission contro ls indicated above that 55.6% of filterable PM 10 

### emissions is coarse (greater than 2.5 microns in si ze) and 44.4% is fine. Of the fine portion, 3.7% i s elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fin e particulates (soil).

• Condensable PM 10 

### consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default assumed to be H 2 

### SO 4 

### , although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols.

• Baseline H 2 

### SO 4 

### emissions are calculated consistent with the metho d used by Georgia Power to derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach as sumes that the H 2 

### SO 4 

### emissions released from the stack are proportional to SO 2 

### emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the removal of H 2 

### SO 4 

### by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater) . For eastern bituminous coal the baseline H 2 

### SO 4 

### release rate is in the range of 0.3 to 0.8% of the SO 2 

### emissions. Appendix A of the site-specific modeling protocol provides the basis for the site-specific values used.

• Baseline emissions of condensable organics (the rem aining portion of condensable PM 10 

### ) are derived based on the supporting field observational informa tion in Appendix B of the site-specific modeling protocol and is estimated as 0.32% of SO 2 

### emitted.

• Coarse filterable particles (between 2.5 and 10 mic rons in size) will be modeled with a geometric mass mean diameter of 5 microns, while fine filterable a nd all condensable particles will be modeled with a geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, consi stent with the CALPUFF default value for fine particles. The geometric standard deviation for bo th fine and coarse particles will be set to 2 micro ns, consistent with the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes from the default values in sample input files prese nted on the TRC web site. There is no default value presented for the coarse particles on the TRC web site. However, since 5 is the geometric mass mean diameter of 2.5 and 10 (the bounds of coa rse particle sizes), it is a reasonable estimate for the geometric mass mean diameter for that class of particles.

In practice, CALPUFF allows for the user to input c ertain components of PM 10 

### as separate species and separate sizes, which will result in more accurate wet and dry deposition velocity results and also mo reSeptember 2006 2-2 091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.doc 

### accurate effects on light scattering. As noted abo ve, the particle size distribution information is p rovided in AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and will be used for the BART ex emption modeling.

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emissi on parameters used in the BART CALPUFF modeling, consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B of the site-specific modelin g protocol for the baseline. All of the emissions in Table 2-1 were derived from CEMS data for the 2003 to 2005 period and represent the maximum 24-hour average lb /hr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). For NO x 

### and SO 2 

### the values are directly from CEMS. Filterable PM 10 

### emissions were calculated using the highest stack test over the 20 03 to 2005 period and multiplying these values time s the maximum 24-hour average heat input derived from CEM S. These values were then adjusted using AP-42 factors from Table 1.1-6 that indicate that PM 10 

### is 67% of total PM for a pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PM 10 

### speciation was then performed as indicated above su ch that total Filterable PM 10 

### is made up of Coarse Soil plus total Fine PM and total Fine PM is made up of Fine Soil plus Elemental Carbon (EC).September 20062-3091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.docTable 2-1 Plant Mitchell modeling emission parametersLocation UTM(Zone 17 NAD-83)Emissions1Particle Speciation2CaseSource/ UnitUTMEastUTMNorthActualStack HtBaseElev.FlueDiameterGasExitVel.StackGasExitTemp.SO2NOXPM10Filt.PM10CoarseSoilFinePMFineSoilECCond.PM10H2SO4Organicm m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hrBaseline Data - Current Configuration (Unit Basis)Baseline Unit 3 772,550 3,482,419 152.4 53.0 6.4 9.2 421.9 4408.41 1032.50 63.77 36.69 20.4016.29 15.690.60 27.08 12.97 14.11Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Stack Basis)ModeledStk Ht3Baselinem m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hrStack 1 Unit 3 772,550 3,482,419 105.2 53.0 6.4 9.2421.9 4408.41 1032.50 63.77 36.69 20.4016.29 15.690.60 27.08 12.97 14.11Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/secg/secg/secg/sec g/sec g/secStack 1 Unit 3 772,550 3,482,419 105.2 53.0 6.4 9.2421.9 555.46 130.09 8.03 4.62 2.57 2.05 1.98 0.083.41 1.63 1.781SO2and NOxemissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sourcesin CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation of the BART final rule. Theemissions for SO2and NOxare provided for information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such as H2SO4.2Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10and H2SO4and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that H2SO4is input to CALPUFF asSO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4and SO4are 98 and 96 respectively, therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4to SO4is 96/98.3Stack credit is equal to GEP. GEP of 345 ft (105.2 m) is less than actual height therefore GEP height is used for modeling.September 2006 3-1 091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.doc 

# 3.0 Modeling results

The exemption modeling results are provided in Tabl e 3-1, and Appendix A lists delta-deciview results for the top 20 days for each year modeled and the top 25 da ys for the overall three years at each Class I area . The table indicates that both the 8 th 

### highest day’s impacts for each year and the 22 nd 

### highest day’s impacts over all three years are below 0.5 delta-dv. These results demonstrate that Plant Mitchell’s PM 10 

### emissions do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment. Ther efore, the source is not subject to BART for PM 10 

### , and no further BART analysis is required.

Electronic data related to this application are pro vided on the attached disk. They include all input (INP) and list (LST) files.September 2006 3-1 091506 Mitchell BART Modeling Report.doc 

### Table 3-1 Summary of Results – Plant Mitchell Refin ed BART Exemption Modeling

2001 2002 2003

Class I area Distance

from source

to Class I

area boundary # of days and

receptors beyond 98 th

percentile with impact > 0.5

delta-dv 8 th

Highest

delta-dv # of days and

receptors beyond 98 th

percentile with impact > 0.5

delta-dv 8 th

Highest

delta-dv # of days and

receptors beyond 98 th

percentile with impact > 0.5

delta-dv 8 th

Highest

delta-dv Highest of

8 th Highest

delta-dv

for the 3-

years 22 nd

Highest

delta-dv

over 3-

year period

km Days Rec delta-dv Days Rec delta-dv Days Rec de lta-dv delta-dv delta-dv

Okefenokee 163.4 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.04 0.04 0.03

Wolf Island 265.4 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.01

Saint Marks 141.7 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.05 0 0 0.04 0.05 0.04

# Appendix A

Delta-Deciview Values for the Top 20 Days – for Eac h Year/Each Class I Area and for the Top 25 Days – Over Three Y ears

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Okefenokee (Top 20 Days for Each Year)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking 2001 221 387 7.645 7.608 0.037 4.1 71.35 0.00 18.77 2.11 2.54 5.22 1 2001 192 494 7.645 7.608 0.037 3.7 69.58 0.00 20.29 2.28 2.21 5.64 2 2001 65 139 7.644 7.608 0.036 3.1 66.85 0.00 23.26 2.61 0.80 6.47 3 2001 151 280 7.642 7.608 0.034 3.6 68.57 0.00 20.55 2.31 2.86 5.71 4 2001 313 499 7.639 7.608 0.031 3.5 68.54 0.00 21.13 2.37 2.07 5.88 5 2001 234 51 7.638 7.608 0.030 4.1 71.38 0.00 18.78 2.11 2.50 5.22 6 2001 5 17 7.636 7.608 0.028 3.5 68.10 0.00 20.99 2. 36 2.71 5.84 7 2001 336 275 7.635 7.608 0.027 3.6 69.03 0.00 20.69 2.32 2.20 5.75 8 2001 137 494 7.635 7.608 0.027 3.6 68.95 0.00 20.66 2.32 2.31 5.75 9 2001 361 500 7.634 7.608 0.026 3.6 69.32 0.00 20.77 2.33 1.79 5.78 10 2001 190 299 7.634 7.608 0.026 3.7 69.85 0.00 20.37 2.29 1.83 5.66 11 2001 187 499 7.634 7.608 0.026 3.7 69.54 0.00 20.27 2.28 2.27 5.64 12 2001 61 17 7.634 7.608 0.026 3.1 65.33 0.00 22.73 2 .55 3.05 6.32 13 2001 8 189 7.634 7.608 0.026 3.5 68.20 0.00 21.02 2 .36 2.56 5.85 14 2001 202 406 7.633 7.608 0.025 3.7 68.89 0.00 20.09 2.26 3.17 5.59 15 2001 133 254 7.633 7.608 0.025 3.6 69.04 0.00 20.69 2.32 2.18 5.75 16 2001 7 371 7.633 7.608 0.025 3.5 68.84 0.00 21.22 2 .38 1.66 5.90 17 2001 337 1 7.632 7.608 0.024 3.6 69.17 0.00 20.73 2 .33 2.00 5.76 18 2001 92 104 7.632 7.608 0.024 3.0 64.52 0.00 23.20 2.61 3.22 6.45 19 2001 189 299 7.632 7.608 0.023 3.7 69.32 0.00 20.21 2.27 2.56 5.62 20

2002 351 17 7.699 7.608 0.091 3.6 69.22 0.00 20.74 2.33 1.94 5.77 1 2002 364 393 7.667 7.608 0.059 3.6 68.77 0.00 20.61 2.32 2.57 5.73 2 2002 346 254 7.656 7.608 0.048 3.6 68.75 0.00 20.60 2.31 2.60 5.73 3 2002 19 464 7.652 7.608 0.044 3.5 68.54 0.00 21.13 2.37 2.07 5.88 4 2002 327 17 7.645 7.608 0.037 3.5 68.16 0.00 21.01 2.36 2.62 5.84 5 2002 338 16 7.643 7.608 0.035 3.6 69.04 0.00 20.69 2.32 2.18 5.75 6 2002 214 357 7.643 7.608 0.035 4.1 71.85 0.00 18.90 2.12 1.86 5.26 7 2002 202 500 7.643 7.608 0.035 3.7 69.56 0.00 20.28 2.28 2.23 5.64 8 2002 48 139 7.642 7.608 0.034 3.2 66.34 0.00 22.36 2.51 2.56 6.22 9 2002 182 393 7.641 7.608 0.033 3.7 69.38 0.00 20.23 2.27 2.48 5.63 10 2002 322 348 7.638 7.608 0.030 3.5 69.12 0.00 21.30 2.39 1.25 5.92 11 2002 8 299 7.638 7.608 0.030 3.5 68.34 0.00 21.06 2 .37 2.36 5.86 12 2002 219 393 7.636 7.608 0.028 4.1 71.23 0.00 18.74 2.11 2.70 5.21 13 2002 355 478 7.634 7.608 0.026 3.6 69.60 0.00 20.86 2.34 1.40 5.80 14 2002 349 254 7.634 7.608 0.026 3.6 69.65 0.00 20.87 2.35 1.33 5.80 15 2002 237 499 7.635 7.608 0.026 4.1 71.44 0.00 18.80 2.11 2.43 5.23 16 2002 255 499 7.633 7.608 0.025 4.0 71.20 0.00 19.20 2.16 2.10 5.34 17 2002 347 254 7.632 7.608 0.024 3.6 68.32 0.00 20.47 2.30 3.21 5.69 18 2002 74 86 7.633 7.608 0.024 3.1 64.98 0.00 22.61 2 .54 3.58 6.29 19 2002 304 299 7.630 7.608 0.022 3.8 70.82 0.00 20.11 2.26 1.21 5.59 20

2003 50 51 7.658 7.608 0.050 3.2 67.07 0.00 22.61 2 .54 1.49 6.29 1 2003 9 433 7.657 7.608 0.049 3.5 68.27 0.00 21.04 2 .36 2.47 5.85 2 2003 353 68 7.655 7.608 0.047 3.6 68.54 0.00 20.54 2.31 2.90 5.71 3 2003 191 500 7.654 7.608 0.046 3.7 69.14 0.00 20.16 2.26 2.83 5.61 4 2003 27 254 7.653 7.608 0.045 3.5 69.20 0.00 21.33 2.40 1.14 5.93 5 2003 210 434 7.652 7.608 0.044 3.7 69.14 0.00 20.16 2.27 2.82 5.61 6 2003 352 17 7.646 7.608 0.038 3.6 69.52 0.00 20.83 2.34 1.51 5.79 7 2003 49 254 7.646 7.608 0.038 3.2 66.74 0.00 22.50 2.53 1.98 6.26 8 2003 4 254 7.640 7.608 0.032 3.5 69.04 0.00 21.28 2 .39 1.38 5.92 9 2003 83 393 7.638 7.608 0.030 3.1 66.35 0.00 23.09 2.59 1.54 6.42 10 2003 173 433 7.636 7.608 0.028 3.7 69.57 0.00 20.28 2.28 2.23 5.64 11 2003 123 448 7.636 7.608 0.028 3.6 69.03 0.00 20.68 2.32 2.20 5.75 12 2003 103 324 7.636 7.608 0.028 3.0 64.71 0.00 23.27 2.61 2.94 6.47 13 2003 44 347 7.636 7.608 0.028 3.2 67.00 0.00 22.59 2.54 1.59 6.28 14 2003 102 371 7.633 7.608 0.025 3.0 64.92 0.00 23.34 2.62 2.62 6.49 15 2003 298 227 7.631 7.608 0.023 3.8 69.72 0.00 19.79 2.22 2.75 5.50 16 2003 336 51 7.630 7.608 0.022 3.6 68.47 0.00 20.52 2.31 3.00 5.71 17 2003 272 433 7.629 7.608 0.021 4.0 70.33 0.00 18.97 2.13 3.29 5.27 18 2003 354 17 7.627 7.608 0.019 3.6 69.03 0.00 20.69 2.32 2.20 5.75 19 2003 150 209 7.627 7.608 0.019 3.6 68.19 0.00 20.43 2.30 3.40 5.68 20

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Okefenokee (Top 25 Days Over Three Years)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking 2002 351 17 7.699 7.608 0.091 3.6 69.22 0.00 20.74 2.33 1.94 5.77 1 2002 364 393 7.667 7.608 0.059 3.6 68.77 0.00 20.61 2.32 2.57 5.73 2 2003 50 51 7.658 7.608 0.050 3.2 67.07 0.00 22.61 2 .54 1.49 6.29 3 2003 9 433 7.657 7.608 0.049 3.5 68.27 0.00 21.04 2 .36 2.47 5.85 4 2002 346 254 7.656 7.608 0.048 3.6 68.75 0.00 20.60 2.31 2.60 5.73 5 2003 353 68 7.655 7.608 0.047 3.6 68.54 0.00 20.54 2.31 2.90 5.71 6 2003 191 500 7.654 7.608 0.046 3.7 69.14 0.00 20.16 2.26 2.83 5.61 7 2003 27 254 7.653 7.608 0.045 3.5 69.20 0.00 21.33 2.40 1.14 5.93 8 2002 19 464 7.652 7.608 0.044 3.5 68.54 0.00 21.13 2.37 2.07 5.88 9 2003 210 434 7.652 7.608 0.044 3.7 69.14 0.00 20.16 2.27 2.82 5.61 10 2003 352 17 7.646 7.608 0.038 3.6 69.52 0.00 20.83 2.34 1.51 5.79 11 2003 49 254 7.646 7.608 0.038 3.2 66.74 0.00 22.50 2.53 1.98 6.26 12 2001 221 387 7.645 7.608 0.037 4.1 71.35 0.00 18.77 2.11 2.54 5.22 13 2001 192 494 7.645 7.608 0.037 3.7 69.58 0.00 20.29 2.28 2.21 5.64 14 2002 327 17 7.645 7.608 0.037 3.5 68.16 0.00 21.01 2.36 2.62 5.84 15 2001 65 139 7.644 7.608 0.036 3.1 66.85 0.00 23.26 2.61 0.80 6.47 16 2002 338 16 7.643 7.608 0.035 3.6 69.04 0.00 20.69 2.32 2.18 5.75 17 2002 214 357 7.643 7.608 0.035 4.1 71.85 0.00 18.90 2.12 1.86 5.26 18 2002 202 500 7.643 7.608 0.035 3.7 69.56 0.00 20.28 2.28 2.23 5.64 19 2001 151 280 7.642 7.608 0.034 3.6 68.57 0.00 20.55 2.31 2.86 5.71 20 2002 48 139 7.642 7.608 0.034 3.2 66.34 0.00 22.36 2.51 2.56 6.22 21 2002 182 393 7.641 7.608 0.033 3.7 69.38 0.00 20.23 2.27 2.48 5.63 22 2003 4 254 7.640 7.608 0.032 3.5 69.04 0.00 21.28 2 .39 1.38 5.92 23 2001 313 499 7.639 7.608 0.031 3.5 68.54 0.00 21.13 2.37 2.07 5.88 24 2001 234 51 7.638 7.608 0.030 4.1 71.38 0.00 18.78 2.11 2.50 5.22 25

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Wolf Island (Top 20 Days for Each Year)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking 2001 222 501 7.62 7.58 0.04 4.1 71.77 0 18.88 2.12 1.96 5.25 1 2001 240 524 7.61 7.58 0.03 4.1 71.44 0 18.8 2.11 2 .42 5.23 2 2001 313 524 7.605 7.58 0.025 3.5 68.52 0 21.12 2.3 7 2.12 5.87 3 2001 37 501 7.6 7.58 0.02 3.1 65.24 0 22.7 2.55 3.2 6.31 4 2001 195 501 7.598 7.58 0.018 3.7 69.14 0 20.16 2.2 6 2.82 5.61 5 2001 223 530 7.597 7.58 0.017 4.1 71.89 0 18.92 2.1 3 1.8 5.26 6 2001 325 524 7.596 7.58 0.016 3.5 67.89 0 20.93 2.3 5 3.01 5.82 7 2001 221 501 7.596 7.58 0.016 4.1 71.94 0 18.93 2.1 3 1.73 5.26 8 2001 242 530 7.595 7.58 0.015 4.1 71.62 0 18.84 2.1 2 2.17 5.24 9 2001 194 530 7.595 7.58 0.015 3.7 69.43 0 20.24 2.2 7 2.42 5.63 10 2001 193 530 7.594 7.58 0.014 3.7 70.1 0 20.44 2.3 1.48 5.68 11 2001 188 530 7.593 7.58 0.013 3.7 69.49 0 20.26 2.2 8 2.32 5.63 12 2001 187 501 7.593 7.58 0.013 3.7 69.88 0 20.38 2.2 9 1.77 5.67 13 2001 364 501 7.592 7.58 0.012 3.5 68.65 0 21.16 2.3 8 1.92 5.88 14 2001 336 524 7.592 7.58 0.012 3.5 68.75 0 21.19 2.3 8 1.77 5.89 15 2001 137 502 7.592 7.58 0.012 3.3 66.42 0 21.71 2.4 4 3.39 6.04 16 2001 265 501 7.591 7.58 0.011 4 71.33 0 19.24 2.16 1.91 5.35 17 2001 139 530 7.591 7.58 0.011 3.3 67.71 0 22.13 2.4 9 1.51 6.16 18 2001 53 518 7.591 7.58 0.011 3.1 66.11 0 23.01 2.58 1.9 6.4 19 2001 161 501 7.59 7.58 0.01 3.7 69.42 0 20.24 2.27 2.44 5.63 20

2002 202 501 7.604 7.58 0.024 3.7 69.87 0 20.37 2.2 9 1.8 5.67 1 2002 255 529 7.601 7.58 0.021 4 71.18 0 19.2 2.16 2 .12 5.34 2 2002 19 501 7.601 7.58 0.021 3.4 68.33 0 21.68 2.44 1.53 6.03 3 2002 232 530 7.6 7.58 0.02 4.1 71.83 0 18.9 2.12 1. 89 5.26 4 2002 279 524 7.596 7.58 0.016 3.7 69.58 0 20.29 2.2 8 2.2 5.64 5 2002 213 529 7.595 7.58 0.015 3.7 69.42 0 20.24 2.2 7 2.43 5.63 6 2002 231 524 7.594 7.58 0.014 4.1 71.56 0 18.83 2.1 2 2.26 5.24 7 2002 365 501 7.592 7.58 0.012 3.5 69.12 0 21.3 2.39 1.25 5.92 8 2002 237 501 7.592 7.58 0.012 4.1 71.65 0 18.85 2.1 2 2.11 5.24 9 2002 212 530 7.592 7.58 0.012 3.7 69.75 0 20.34 2.2 8 1.97 5.66 10 2002 112 529 7.592 7.58 0.012 3 65.17 0 23.43 2.63 2.25 6.52 11 2002 197 530 7.591 7.58 0.011 3.7 70.07 0 20.43 2.3 1.52 5.68 12 2002 179 501 7.591 7.58 0.011 3.7 69.68 0 20.32 2.2 8 2.05 5.65 13 2002 10 529 7.59 7.58 0.011 3.4 67.59 0 21.44 2.41 2.59 5.96 14 2002 338 501 7.59 7.58 0.01 3.5 67.89 0 20.93 2.35 2.99 5.82 15 2002 113 530 7.59 7.58 0.01 3 65.47 0 23.54 2.65 1. 78 6.55 16 2002 20 524 7.59 7.58 0.01 3.4 68.69 0 21.8 2.45 1. 01 6.06 17 2002 358 524 7.589 7.58 0.009 3.5 68.68 0 21.17 2.3 8 1.87 5.89 18 2002 238 530 7.589 7.58 0.009 4.1 71.99 0 18.94 2.1 3 1.66 5.27 19 2002 364 501 7.588 7.58 0.008 3.5 69.31 0 21.36 2.4 0.99 5.94 20

2003 20 502 7.608 7.58 0.028 3.4 67.14 0 21.3 2.39 3.23 5.92 1 2003 298 530 7.605 7.58 0.025 3.7 69.4 0 20.23 2.27 2.47 5.63 2 2003 211 530 7.601 7.58 0.021 3.7 69.38 0 20.23 2.2 7 2.5 5.63 3 2003 10 502 7.597 7.58 0.017 3.4 68.11 0 21.61 2.43 1.84 6.01 4 2003 191 501 7.596 7.58 0.016 3.7 69.71 0 20.33 2.2 8 2.02 5.65 5 2003 199 501 7.594 7.58 0.014 3.7 70.04 0 20.42 2.2 9 1.56 5.68 6 2003 192 530 7.594 7.58 0.014 3.7 69.28 0 20.2 2.27 2.63 5.62 7 2003 19 518 7.592 7.58 0.012 3.4 68.48 0 21.73 2.44 1.31 6.04 8 2003 202 530 7.591 7.58 0.011 3.7 69.52 0 20.27 2.2 8 2.3 5.64 9 2003 295 530 7.59 7.58 0.01 3.7 70.36 0 20.51 2.3 1 .12 5.7 10 2003 161 502 7.59 7.58 0.01 3.7 70.03 0 20.42 2.29 1.58 5.68 11 2003 27 518 7.59 7.58 0.01 3.4 68.45 0 21.72 2.44 1 .37 6.04 12 2003 210 501 7.589 7.58 0.009 3.7 70.01 0 20.41 2.2 9 1.58 5.68 13 2003 123 501 7.589 7.58 0.009 3.3 67.63 0 22.11 2.4 8 1.61 6.15 14 2003 101 518 7.589 7.58 0.009 3 66.27 0 23.83 2.68 0.58 6.63 15 2003 33 524 7.589 7.58 0.009 3.1 65.5 0 22.79 2.56 2.81 6.34 16 2003 34 501 7.587 7.58 0.007 3.1 66.09 0 23 2.58 1. 93 6.4 17 2003 218 530 7.586 7.58 0.006 4.1 71.83 0 18.9 2.12 1.88 5.26 18 2003 153 501 7.586 7.58 0.006 3.7 69.75 0 20.34 2.2 9 1.97 5.66 19 2003 44 501 7.586 7.58 0.006 3.1 65.83 0 22.91 2.57 2.31 6.37 20

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Wolf Island (Top 25 Days Over Three Years)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking 2001 222 501 7.620 7.580 0.040 4.1 71.77 0.00 18.88 2.12 1.96 5.25 1 2001 240 524 7.610 7.580 0.030 4.1 71.44 0.00 18.80 2.11 2.42 5.23 2 2003 20 502 7.608 7.580 0.028 3.4 67.14 0.00 21.30 2.39 3.23 5.92 3 2001 313 524 7.605 7.580 0.025 3.5 68.52 0.00 21.12 2.37 2.12 5.87 4 2003 298 530 7.605 7.580 0.025 3.7 69.40 0.00 20.23 2.27 2.47 5.63 5 2002 202 501 7.604 7.580 0.024 3.7 69.87 0.00 20.37 2.29 1.80 5.67 6 2002 255 529 7.601 7.580 0.021 4.0 71.18 0.00 19.20 2.16 2.12 5.34 7 2002 19 501 7.601 7.580 0.021 3.4 68.33 0.00 21.68 2.44 1.53 6.03 8 2003 211 530 7.601 7.580 0.021 3.7 69.38 0.00 20.23 2.27 2.50 5.63 9 2001 37 501 7.600 7.580 0.020 3.1 65.24 0.00 22.70 2.55 3.20 6.31 10 2002 232 530 7.600 7.580 0.020 4.1 71.83 0.00 18.90 2.12 1.89 5.26 11 2001 195 501 7.598 7.580 0.018 3.7 69.14 0.00 20.16 2.26 2.82 5.61 12 2001 223 530 7.597 7.580 0.017 4.1 71.89 0.00 18.92 2.13 1.80 5.26 13 2003 10 502 7.597 7.580 0.017 3.4 68.11 0.00 21.61 2.43 1.84 6.01 14 2001 325 524 7.596 7.580 0.016 3.5 67.89 0.00 20.93 2.35 3.01 5.82 15 2001 221 501 7.596 7.580 0.016 4.1 71.94 0.00 18.93 2.13 1.73 5.26 16 2002 279 524 7.596 7.580 0.016 3.7 69.58 0.00 20.29 2.28 2.20 5.64 17 2003 191 501 7.596 7.580 0.016 3.7 69.71 0.00 20.33 2.28 2.02 5.65 18 2001 242 530 7.595 7.580 0.015 4.1 71.62 0.00 18.84 2.12 2.17 5.24 19 2001 194 530 7.595 7.580 0.015 3.7 69.43 0.00 20.24 2.27 2.42 5.63 20 2002 213 529 7.595 7.580 0.015 3.7 69.42 0.00 20.24 2.27 2.43 5.63 21 2001 193 530 7.594 7.580 0.014 3.7 70.10 0.00 20.44 2.30 1.48 5.68 22 2002 231 524 7.594 7.580 0.014 4.1 71.56 0.00 18.83 2.12 2.26 5.24 23 2003 199 501 7.594 7.580 0.014 3.7 70.04 0.00 20.42 2.29 1.56 5.68 24 2003 192 530 7.594 7.580 0.014 3.7 69.28 0.00 20.20 2.27 2.63 5.62 25

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Saint Marks (Top 20 Days for Each Year)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking 2001 23 629 7.73 7.669 0.062 3.7 69.55 0 20.28 2.28 2.25 5.64 1 2001 270 531 7.723 7.669 0.055 4.2 71.61 0 18.39 2. 07 2.82 5.12 2 2001 17 541 7.718 7.669 0.049 3.7 69.25 0 20.19 2.2 7 2.67 5.62 3 2001 3 537 7.712 7.669 0.044 3.7 70.13 0 20.45 2.3 1.43 5.69 4 2001 337 628 7.707 7.669 0.039 3.8 70.33 0 19.97 2. 24 1.9 5.55 5 2001 24 532 7.708 7.669 0.039 3.7 68.85 0 20.07 2.2 6 3.24 5.58 6 2001 109 619 7.705 7.669 0.037 3.4 68.31 0 21.67 2. 44 1.55 6.03 7 2001 300 628 7.705 7.669 0.036 3.8 70.45 0 20 2.25 1.75 5.56 8 2001 22 628 7.704 7.669 0.036 3.7 69.95 0 20.39 2.2 9 1.69 5.67 9 2001 49 596 7.703 7.669 0.034 3.4 68.13 0 21.62 2.4 3 1.81 6.01 10 2001 269 628 7.7 7.669 0.032 4.2 71.85 0 18.46 2.07 2.48 5.13 11 2001 276 629 7.7 7.669 0.031 3.8 69.34 0 19.69 2.21 3.29 5.47 12 2001 68 546 7.7 7.669 0.031 3.4 66.81 0 21.2 2.38 3 .72 5.89 13 2001 291 629 7.699 7.669 0.03 3.8 70.11 0 19.9 2.24 2.22 5.53 14 2001 144 573 7.698 7.669 0.03 3.5 68.34 0 21.06 2.3 7 2.38 5.86 15 2001 360 542 7.697 7.669 0.028 3.8 69.53 0 19.74 2. 22 3.02 5.49 16 2001 4 541 7.697 7.669 0.028 3.7 69.22 0 20.18 2.27 2.72 5.61 17 2001 176 550 7.695 7.669 0.026 4 70.41 0 18.99 2.13 3.19 5.28 18 2001 35 626 7.694 7.669 0.026 3.4 67.53 0 21.43 2.4 1 2.68 5.96 19 2001 344 541 7.693 7.669 0.024 3.8 70.03 0 19.88 2. 23 2.33 5.53 20

2002 331 542 7.754 7.669 0.085 3.7 68.99 0 20.11 2. 26 3.05 5.59 1 2002 2 592 7.74 7.669 0.072 3.7 69.37 0 20.23 2.27 2.5 5.62 2 2002 305 629 7.728 7.669 0.06 3.8 70.12 0 19.91 2.2 4 2.21 5.54 3 2002 328 628 7.727 7.669 0.058 3.7 69.28 0 20.2 2.2 7 2.63 5.62 4 2002 341 628 7.725 7.669 0.056 3.8 69.97 0 19.87 2. 23 2.4 5.52 5 2002 34 629 7.724 7.669 0.056 3.4 68.11 0 21.61 2.4 3 1.84 6.01 6 2002 307 537 7.717 7.669 0.049 3.7 69.72 0 20.33 2. 28 2.01 5.65 7 2002 201 541 7.718 7.669 0.049 4.1 70.83 0 18.64 2. 09 3.26 5.18 8 2002 169 629 7.717 7.669 0.048 4 70.72 0 19.07 2.14 2.76 5.3 9 2002 362 546 7.715 7.669 0.047 3.8 69.49 0 19.73 2. 22 3.07 5.49 10 2002 45 628 7.711 7.669 0.042 3.4 67.13 0 21.3 2.39 3.25 5.92 11 2002 44 546 7.71 7.669 0.042 3.4 67.52 0 21.42 2.41 2.7 5.96 12 2002 336 628 7.706 7.669 0.037 3.8 70.09 0 19.9 2.2 4 2.24 5.53 13 2002 200 614 7.704 7.669 0.035 4.1 70.95 0 18.67 2. 1 3.1 5.19 14 2002 70 631 7.702 7.669 0.033 3.4 68.1 0 21.61 2.43 1.85 6.01 15 2002 96 546 7.7 7.669 0.031 3.4 67.17 0 21.31 2.39 3.2 5.93 16 2002 312 628 7.697 7.669 0.028 3.7 69.16 0 20.16 2. 27 2.8 5.61 17 2002 281 631 7.696 7.669 0.028 3.8 70.33 0 19.97 2. 24 1.9 5.55 18 2002 334 631 7.696 7.669 0.027 3.7 68.8 0 20.06 2.2 5 3.31 5.58 19 2002 352 628 7.695 7.669 0.026 3.8 69.8 0 19.82 2.2 3 2.65 5.51 20

2003 343 619 7.746 7.669 0.078 3.8 69.75 0 19.8 2.2 2 2.72 5.51 1 2003 360 541 7.74 7.669 0.071 3.8 70.18 0 19.92 2.2 4 2.12 5.54 2 2003 83 537 7.729 7.669 0.06 3.4 66.9 0 21.23 2.38 3.59 5.9 3 2003 16 593 7.728 7.669 0.059 3.7 69.6 0 20.29 2.28 2.19 5.64 4 2003 8 629 7.718 7.669 0.05 3.7 68.88 0 20.08 2.26 3.2 5.58 5 2003 342 532 7.712 7.669 0.044 3.8 69.72 0 19.79 2. 22 2.76 5.5 6 2003 149 626 7.71 7.669 0.042 3.5 67.58 0 20.83 2.3 4 3.46 5.79 7 2003 313 537 7.709 7.669 0.04 3.7 69.55 0 20.28 2.2 8 2.26 5.64 8 2003 12 593 7.709 7.669 0.04 3.7 69.08 0 20.14 2.26 2.92 5.6 9 2003 325 619 7.708 7.669 0.039 3.7 69.52 0 20.27 2. 28 2.29 5.64 10 2003 43 542 7.708 7.669 0.039 3.4 66.98 0 21.25 2.3 9 3.47 5.91 11 2003 25 631 7.707 7.669 0.039 3.7 70.01 0 20.41 2.2 9 1.61 5.68 12 2003 350 628 7.702 7.669 0.034 3.8 69.92 0 19.85 2. 23 2.48 5.52 13 2003 289 628 7.702 7.669 0.034 3.8 70.37 0 19.98 2. 24 1.85 5.56 14 2003 37 540 7.702 7.669 0.033 3.4 67.93 0 21.55 2.4 2 2.1 5.99 15 2003 312 628 7.701 7.669 0.032 3.7 69.1 0 20.15 2.2 6 2.89 5.6 16 2003 252 631 7.701 7.669 0.032 4.2 72.04 0 18.5 2.0 8 2.24 5.15 17 2003 28 629 7.699 7.669 0.031 3.7 69.73 0 20.33 2.2 8 2 5.65 18 2003 276 537 7.699 7.669 0.03 3.8 70.49 0 20.01 2.2 5 1.69 5.56 19 2003 251 537 7.698 7.669 0.03 4.2 73.03 0 18.76 2.1 1 0.89 5.22 20

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Saint Marks (Top 25 Days Over Three Years)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking 2002 331 542 7.754 7.669 0.085 3.7 68.99 0.00 20.11 2.26 3.05 5.59 1 2003 343 619 7.746 7.669 0.078 3.8 69.75 0.00 19.80 2.22 2.72 5.51 2 2002 2 592 7.740 7.669 0.072 3.7 69.37 0.00 20.23 2 .27 2.50 5.62 3 2003 360 541 7.740 7.669 0.071 3.8 70.18 0.00 19.92 2.24 2.12 5.54 4 2001 23 629 7.730 7.669 0.062 3.7 69.55 0.00 20.28 2.28 2.25 5.64 5 2002 305 629 7.728 7.669 0.060 3.8 70.12 0.00 19.91 2.24 2.21 5.54 6 2003 83 537 7.729 7.669 0.060 3.4 66.90 0.00 21.23 2.38 3.59 5.90 7 2003 16 593 7.728 7.669 0.059 3.7 69.60 0.00 20.29 2.28 2.19 5.64 8 2002 328 628 7.727 7.669 0.058 3.7 69.28 0.00 20.20 2.27 2.63 5.62 9 2002 341 628 7.725 7.669 0.056 3.8 69.97 0.00 19.87 2.23 2.40 5.52 10 2002 34 629 7.724 7.669 0.056 3.4 68.11 0.00 21.61 2.43 1.84 6.01 11 2001 270 531 7.723 7.669 0.055 4.2 71.61 0.00 18.39 2.07 2.82 5.12 12 2003 8 629 7.718 7.669 0.050 3.7 68.88 0.00 20.08 2 .26 3.20 5.58 13 2001 17 541 7.718 7.669 0.049 3.7 69.25 0.00 20.19 2.27 2.67 5.62 14 2002 307 537 7.717 7.669 0.049 3.7 69.72 0.00 20.33 2.28 2.01 5.65 15 2002 201 541 7.718 7.669 0.049 4.1 70.83 0.00 18.64 2.09 3.26 5.18 16 2002 169 629 7.717 7.669 0.048 4.0 70.72 0.00 19.07 2.14 2.76 5.30 17 2002 362 546 7.715 7.669 0.047 3.8 69.49 0.00 19.73 2.22 3.07 5.49 18 2001 3 537 7.712 7.669 0.044 3.7 70.13 0.00 20.45 2 .30 1.43 5.69 19 2003 342 532 7.712 7.669 0.044 3.8 69.72 0.00 19.79 2.22 2.76 5.50 20 2002 45 628 7.711 7.669 0.042 3.4 67.13 0.00 21.30 2.39 3.25 5.92 21 2002 44 546 7.710 7.669 0.042 3.4 67.52 0.00 21.42 2.41 2.70 5.96 22 2003 149 626 7.710 7.669 0.042 3.5 67.58 0.00 20.83 2.34 3.46 5.79 23 2003 313 537 7.709 7.669 0.040 3.7 69.55 0.00 20.28 2.28 2.26 5.64 24 2003 12 593 7.709 7.669 0.040 3.7 69.08 0.00 20.14 2.26 2.92 5.60 25