### ver Three Years)

I Extinction by Species
% PMF Rankinq 5.67

# BART Exemption Modeling Report:

Alabama Power Company Plant Gorgas

Prepared by:

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation
for Alabama Power Company

August 

# 2006

## 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 Days



### . For Each YearIEach Class I Area and for the Top 25 Days



### . Over Three Years



# ...................................................................A-1

082506 Gorgas BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

# List of 

# Tables

Table 2-1 Plant Gorgas modeling emission parameters



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

Table 3-1 

### Summary of Results

. 

### Plant Gorgas Refined BART Exemption Modeling



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



# List of 

# Figures

Figure 1-1 Location of PSD Class I

### Areas in relationto Plant Gorgas



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

082506 Gorgas BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

## 1.0 

## Introduction

1

## .I Objectives
The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that "emits any air pollutantwhich may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility" in any mandatory Class I

### federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requirements 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 Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2and 

### NO, for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedback from the Alabama Department of Environmental Managementindicates that CAIR satisfies BARTfor SO2and NO, 

### for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling report focuses on performingthe BART modeling analysis for particulate matter (PM) only.

Unit 10 at Plant Gorgas, located near Parrish, which is owned and operated by Alabama Power Company, has been identifiedas a BART-eligible source. The modeling procedures outlined in the source-specific BART modeling protocolfor Plant Gorgas were used to determine whether the source is subject to BART requirements (exemption modeling). The modeling procedures are consistentwith those outlined in the updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3 

### -July 18, 2006), available at htto://www.vistas-sesarm.ora/BART/BARTModelinaProtocol 

### rev3 18Ju12006.~df. The source-specific BART modeling protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling protocol.



### 1.2 

### Location of source vs. relevant Class I 

### Areas

The Alabama Department of EnvironmentalManagement, which is in charge of the state's BART program, has determined that Unit 10 at Plant Gorgas is BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1shows a plot of Plant Gorgas relative to nearby Class I

### Areas. There are two Class I 

### areas within 300 km of the plant: Sipsey (74.0 km) and Cohutta (270.3 km). The BART exemption modeling was conducted for these Class I 

### areas in accordance with the referencedVISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the sourcespecific BART modeling protocol.

082506 Gorgas BART Modeling Protocol.doc May 2006

## 2.0 

# Source description and emissions data

2.1 

### Unit-specific source data

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I

### areas within 300 km of Plant Gorgas are discussed in this section. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has indicated that CAlR will satisfy BART for EGUs for SO2and NO,. Therefore, this BART exemption modeling analysis focuses only

on PMlo. Since various components of PMlo emissions have different visibility extinction efficiencies,the PMlo 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-specificemissions and speciation factors and/or defaultvalues from AP-42. The PMlo emissions and speciation approach to be used for the modeling described in this protocol is indicated in the bullets below. Where default speciation values are used, the data represents a unit where current (baseline) emission controls include electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), but no post-combustion NO, or SO2control equipment exists.

Total PMlo is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions.

Baseline filterable PMlo emissions are based on the highest stack test for the most recent 3-year period (2003-2005). This stack test is combinedwith 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 PMlo has been subdivided by size category consistentwith 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 controls indicated above that 55.6% of filterable PMlo emissions is coarse (greater than 2.5 microns in size) and 44.4% is fine. Of the fine portion, 3.7% is elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil).

Condensable PMlo consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default assumed to be H2S04, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensablescould be present. The organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols.

Baseline H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistent with the method used by Alabama Power to derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2S04 emissions released from the stack are proportional to SO2emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the removal of H2S04by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). For eastern bituminous coal the baseline H2S04 release rate is in the range of 0.4 to 0.7% of the SO2emissions. Appendix A of the site-specific modeling protocol providesthe basis for the site-specificvalues used.

Baseline emissions of condensable organics (the remaining portion of condensable PMlo) are derived based on the supporting field observational information in Appendix B of the site-specific modeling protocol and is estimated as 0.32% of SO2emitted.
Coarsefilterable particles (between 2.5 and 10 microns in size) will be modeled with a geometric mass mean diameter of 5 microns, while fine filterable and all condensable particles will be modeled with a geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, consistentwith the CALPUFF default value for fine particles. The geometric standard deviationfor both fine and coarse particles will be set to 2 microns, consistentwith the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes from the default values in sample input files presentedon 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 coarse 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 certain components of PMlo as separate species and separate sizes, which will result in more accurate wet and dry deposition velocity results and also more

082506 Gorgas BART Modeling Protocol.doc 2-1 August 2006

### accurate effects on light scattering. As noted above, the particle size distribution information is provided in AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and will be used for the BART exemption modeling as well as the BART determination modeling, if needed.

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters used in the BART CALPUFF modeling, consistentwith the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B 

### for the baseline. All of the emissions in Table 2-1 were derivedfrom CEMS data for the 2003 to 2005 period and representthe maximum 24-hour average Iblhr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). For NO, and SO2the values are directly from CEMS. Filterable PMlo emissions were calculated using the highest stack test over the 2003 to 2005 period and multiplyingthese values times the maximum 24-hour average heat input derivedfrom CEMS. These values were then adjusted using AP-42 factors from Table 1

### .l-6that indicate that PMlo is 67% 

### of total PM for a pulverized coal unitwith an ESP. PMlo speciationwas then performedas indicated above such that total Filterable PMlo is made up of Coarse Soil plus total Fine PM and total Fine PM is made up of Fine Soil plus Elemental Carbon (EC). Since this unit includes an SCR, a consistentset of seasonal emissions data was developed representing periods with and without SCR operation. For these, the maximum 24-hour average rates were extracted from the seasonal (May 

### - September) and non-seasonal (October 

### - April) CEMS data.

082506 Gorgas BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006Table 2-1 Plant Gorgas modeling emission parameters



# I I I I Location UTM 

# 1 I (Zone 16 NAD-27) 

# 1

case 

# 1 1 7;:: 

# 1-1

Erit 

# 1 E: I I I I East 

# I North 

# I I FlueDiameter

m 

# I Baseline Data

## - Current Configuration (Unit Basis) I I I I I I I I I 1 I I mls 

# I deg K 

# I Ibdhr 

# I Ibdhr 

# I Ibslhr 

# I Ibslhr 

# I Ibdhr Ilbshr Ilbdhr Ilbdhr 

# I Ibdhr Ilbslhr Ilbdhr Gas Exit

Baseline 

# I NS 

# I Unit 

### 10 

# 1 481,400

# 1 3,722,600 

# 1 230.1 

# 1 84.73 

# 1 10.1 

# 1 20.6

# 1 419.3 

# 1 19226 

# 1 3688 

# 1 295.6

# 1 157.7

# 1 87.7 

# 1 70.0 

# 1 67.4

# 1 2.60

# 1 137.9

# 1 76.4

# 1 61.5 Baseline 

# I S 

# I Unit 

### 10 

# 1 481,400

# 1 3,722,600 

# 1 230.1 

# 1 84.73 

# 1 10.1 

# 1 20.6

# 1 419.3 

# 1 11509 

# 1 577 

# 1 306.9

# 1 187.6

# 1 104.3

# 1 83.3 

# 1 80.2 

# 1 3.10 

# 1 119.2

# 1 82.4

# 1 36.8 Baseline Data

## - Current Configuration (Stack Basis) 

## I Modeled 

## I Stack Gas Exit Temp.

Stack 

### I 

# I NS 

# I Unit 

### 10 

# 1 481,400

# 1 3,722,600 

# 1 230.1 

# 1 84.73 

# 1 10.1 

# 1 20.6

# 1 419.3 

# 1 19226 

# 1 3688 

# 1 295.6

# 1 157.7

# 1 87.7 

# 1 70.0

# 1 67.4

# 1 2.60 

# 1 137.9

# 1 76.4

# 1 61.5 Stack 

### 1 

### I S 

### I Unit 

### 10 

### 1 481.400

### 1 3.722.600 

### 1 230.1 

### 1 84.73 

## 1 10.1 

## 1 20.6

## 1 419.3 

## 1 11509 

## 1 577 

## 1 306.9

## 1 187.6

## 1 104.3

## 1 83.3

## 1 80.2

## 1 3.10

## 1 119.2

## 1 82.4

## 1 36.8 

# I stk~t~ 

# 1 Emissions1



### I m



### NS 

### = Non-Seasonal Rates (October 1 

### -April 30) S= Seasonal Rates (May 1 

### - September 30) SO2 Particle speciation2

/ 

## J 4 / 

## v

m 

### I rn 

### I m 

### I m 

### I mls 

### I dea K 

### I Ibdhr 

### 1 lbdhr 

### I Ibslhr 

### I Ibdhr 

### I Ibslhr Ilbshr hbslhr Ilbslhr 

### I Ibslhr hbslhr Ilbslhr

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to glsec Stack 

### 1 

# I NS 

# I Unit 

### 10 

# 1 481,400

# 1 3,722,600 

# 1 230.1 

# 1 84.73 

# 1 10.1 

# 1 20.6

# 1 419.3 Stack 

### 1 

### I S 

### I Unit 

### 10 

### 1 481.400

### 1 3.722.600 

### 1 230.1 

### 1 84.73 

## 1 10.1 

## 1 20.6 

## 1 419.3

1 

### With Alabama being a CAR affected state, SO2and NO, emissions are not BART-applicable for 

### EGU sources assuming ADEM agrees with EPA's interpretation of the

BART final rule. The emissions for SO2and NO, are providedfor information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such as H2S04.

Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PMlo and H2S04 and Organics are a part of Condensable PMlo. Note that H2S04 is input to CALPUFF as SO4. The molecular weights of H2S04 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively; therefore the conversionfactor from H2SO4 to SO4is 96/98. NOX Filt. PMlo

glsec 

### 2422 1450

Stack credit is equal to actual stack height since this stack is grandfathered under stack height regulations. H2S04 PMlo

082506 Gorgas BART Modeling Protocol.doc Jrganis L/ Coarse

Soil

g/sec



### 465 73

August 2006 Fine PY

glsec 

### 37.25 38.67 Fine Soil

glsec 

### 19.87 23.64 EC

glsec



### 13.14 

# pil:.

glsec



### 8.82

10.50 glsec 

# a

10.11 g/sec



### 0.39 glsec 

### 17.38 15.02 g/sec 

### 9.63

10.38 glsec 

### (?@

4.64

-

# 3.0 Modeling results

The exemption modeling results are provided in Table 3-1, and Appendix A lists delta-deciview results for the top 20 days for each year modeled and the top 25 

### days for the overall three years at each Class I 

### area. The table indicates that both the 8thhighest day's impacts for each year and the 22"d 

### highest day's impacts over all three years are below 0.5 

### delta-dv. These results demonstrate that Plant Gorgas PMlo emissions do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment. Therefore, the source is not subject to BART for PMlo, and no further BART analysis is required.

Electronic data related to this application are provided on the attached disk. They include all input (INP) and list 

### (LST) files.

082506 Gorgas BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

### Table 3-1 

### Summary of Results 

## - Plant Gorgas Refined BART 

### Exemption Modeling

22nd Highest delta-dv

over 3-

year period

delta-dv Highestof
8Ih ~ighest

delta-dv for the 3-

years Distance from source

to Class I

area boundary # of days and receptors beyond 98'h percentilewith

impact > 0.5

delta-dv 8Ih Highest
delta-dv # of days and 8' receptors Highest beyond 98'h delta-dv # of days and receptors beyond 98Ih percentilewith

impact > 0.5

delta-dv 8' Highest delta-dv Class larea percentilewith impact > 0.5

delta-dv

delta-dv
Sipsey, AL

Cohutta, GA

082506 Gorgas BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

# Appendix A

Delta-Deciview Values for the Top 20 

# Days 

# - for Each YearIEach Class I Area and for the Top 25 

# Days 

# - Over Three Years

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Sipsey (Top 20 

### Days for Each Year)

DAY 

## - 357 285 56 351 339 334 287 333 251 121 197 214 305 199 123 30 340 284 252 40

1 353 68 5 1 275 1 52 274 99 4 1 224 1 04 98 258 235 163 144 352 263 50 354

299 323 110 257 186 254 244 88 226 215 309 139 234 169 176 363 158 291 208 315 REC 

## - 224 31 1 225 312 240 236 223 364 230 273 240 256 240 273 230 226 31 1 256 31 1 347

22 1 31 1 273 310 273 230 330 251 310 31 1 230 230 31 1 230 240 273 224 328 230 254

364 320 22 1 240 222 240 31 1 328 229 221 224 310 256 364 228 31 1 327 325 256 273 DELTA DV 0.491 0.459 0.415 0.307 0.302 0.264 0.256 0.253 0.227 0.212 0.21 1 0.188 0.175 0.175 0.172 0.172 0.1 64 0.162 0.162 0.1 60

0.493 0.328 0.306 0.253 0.245 0.240 0.231 0.225 0.221 0.215 0.209 0.208 0.203 0.188 0.177 0.1 65 0.1 63 0.1 57 0.147 0.137

0.313 0.261 0.258 0.253 0.234 0.227 0.222 0.207 0.201 0.1 89 0.1 85 0.1 81 0.1 69 0.1 66 0.1 63 0.1 59 0.1 51 0.131 0.125 0.122 % of Modeled Extinction by Species

% PMC 2.64 3.06 3.29 3.1 8 3.03 2.99 2.89 3.44 3.31 3.15 2.56 3.32 2.79 2.46 3.00 3.04 3.21 2.52 2.91 3.10

3.20 2.96 3.56 3.65 2.84 3.53 3.40 3.32 3.20 3.20 3.37 3.12 3.38 2.83 3.39 3.52 3.04 3.03 2.37 2.77

3.29 3.17 3.54 3.02 3.35 3.15 3.18 3.83 3.03 3.16 2.82 2.73 2.74 3.41 3.25 3.08 3.56 2.66 2.87 2.77 % PMF 4.73 4.51 5.03 4.70 4.71 4.82 4.51 4.80 4.98 5.43 5.02 4.98 4.52 5.03 5.73 4.71 4.70 4.53 5.00 5.04

4.70 4.71 5.27 5.01 4.52 5.70 4.98 5.42 5.04 4.99 5.41 5.43 4.98 5.01 5.20 5.70 4.71 5.00 5.08 4.72

4.50 4.81 5.40 5.00 4.98 4.99 4.99 5.25 5.00 4.99 4.83 5.75 5.01 5.20 5.21 4.71 5.1 9 4.53 5.01 4.83 RankinqYEAR 

# - 2003 2001 2001 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2001 2001 2003 2003 2001 2001 2002 2003 2002 2002 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2003 2002 

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Sipsey (Top 25 

### Days Over Three Years)

DAY 

# - 1 357 285 56 353 299 351 68 339 334 323 110 287 333 5 1 257 275 152 186 274 251 254 99 244 41 REC 

# - 22 1 224 31 1 225 31 1 364 312 273 240 236 320 221 223 364 310 240 273 230 222 330 230 240 25 1 31 1 310 DELTA DV F/RHI 0.493 3.4 0.491 3.4 0.459 3.6 0.415 3.1 0.328 3.4 0.313 3.6 0.307 3.4 0.306 2.9 0.302 3.4 0.264 3.3 0.261 3.3 0.258 2.8 0.256 3.6 0.253 3.3 0.253 3.1 0.253 3.9 0.245 3.6 0.240 3.3 0.234 3.9 0.231 3.9 0.227 3.9 0.227 3.9 0.225 2.8 0.222 3.9 0.221 3.1 % of Modeled Extinction by Species

% PMC 3.20 2.64 3.06 3.29 2.96 3.29 3.18 3.56 3.03 2.99 3.17 3.54 2.89 3.44 3.65 3.02 2.84 3.53 3.35 3.40 3.31 3.15 3.32 3.18 3.20 % PMF 4.70 4.73 4.51 5.03 4.71 4.50 4.70 5.27 4.71 4.82 4.81 5.40 4.51 4.80 5.01 5.00 4.52 5.70 4.98 4.98 4.98 4.99 5.42 4.99 5.04 Rankinq

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Cohutta (Top 20 

### Days for Each Year)

DAY 

## - 342 354 132 166 278 186 222 139 232 52 76 39 8 131 38 244 21 1 99 148 16

209 112 11 337 210 330 110 180 21 1 279 123 147 181 208 109 179 10 6 334 192

218 197 217 2 1 93 129 167 120 204 52 327 335 191 190 6 213 5 1 92 152 189 REC 

## - 219 1 9 35 220 218 9 35 16 115 1 218 35 9 8 9 8 1 97 1 8

3 219 1 1 1 16 58 8 220 220 197 220 220 220 8 198 3 219 3 16

58 115 35 219 1 8 3 1 57 219 3 115 1 3 115 35 8 2 25 1 220 DELTA DV 0.132 0.106 0.100 0.099 0.081 0.075 0.073 0.063 0.060 0.055 0.052 0.045 0.038 0.037 0.037 0.036 0.035 0.032 0.031 0.031

0.1 57 0.151 0.127 0.094 0.094 0.092 0.091 0.079 0.076 0.068 0.066 0.065 0.056 0.054 0.053 0.050 0.041 0.040 0.037 0.037

0.118 0.105 0.103 0.095 0.093 0.074 0.069 0.068 0.062 0.061 0.059 0.057 0.056 0.054 0.053 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.038 0.037 % of Modeled Extinctionby Species

% PMC 3.04 2.32 3.95 2.53 1.83 3.21 1.76 3.78 1.48 2.17 3.1 1 3.54 3.02 2.97 1.19 3.26 2.86 1.28 3.18 3.18

2.83 3.49 2.75 2.74 2.37 2.71 3.97 2.82 2.37 2.87 1.27 3.17 1.80 2.02 3.20 2.01 3.01 3.49 1.94 2.07

3.17 2.14 3.03 2.75 2.43 4.18 2.41 3.09 2.77 3.84 2.95 3.23 1

### .oo 1.68 3.20 3.03 3.86 3.14 3.68 3.55 % PMF 4.61 4.64 5.54 5.13 4.38 4.88 4.76 5.55 4.77 5.09 5.16 5.02 4.82 5.60 5.14 4.68 4.90 5.53 5.59 4.81

4.90 5.41 4.83 4.62 4.93 4.72 5.38 5.12 4.93 4.33 5.70 5.59 5.17 4.94 5.42 5.16 4.82 4.79 4.76 4.94

4.69 4.94 4.70 4.83 5.47 5.53 5.14 5.43 4.91 5.00 4.71 4.70 5.00 4.96 4.81 4.89 5.00 5.43 5.56 4.87 Rankinq 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20YEAR 

# - 2002 2002 2001 2002 2003 2001 2003 2003 2001 200 1 2003 2002 2002 2003 2002 2002 2001 2002 2002 2001 2003 2001 2003 2002 2003 

### Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Cohutta (Top 25 

### Days Over Three Years)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species
DAY 

# - 209 112 342 11 218 354 197 217 132 166 2 1 337 210 93 330 110 278 180 21 1 186 129 222 167 279 120 REC 

# - 3 219 219 1 58 1 115 35 9 35 219 1 1 1 16 58 220 8 220 218 8 9 3 220 1 57 DELTA DV F(RH) 0.157 4.0 % PMC 2.83 3.49 3.04 2.75 3.17 2.32 2.14 3.03 3.95 2.53 2.75 2.74 2.37 2.43 2.71 3.97 1.83 2.82 2.37 3.21 4.18 1.76 2.41 2.87 3.09 % PMF 

# - 4.90 5.41 4.61 4.83 4.69 4.64 4.94 4.70 5.54 5.13 4.83 4.62 4.93 5.47 4.72 5.38 4.38 5.12 4.93 4.88 5.53 4.76 5.14 4.33 5.43 Rankinq

## Appendix A

Discussion of CALPUFF modelinq o~tions used for BART analvses

Various CALPUFF model options were spec~fied in an EPA memo issued by Dennis Atkinson and Tyler Fox of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; the memo was entitled "Dispersion Coefficients for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF", March 16, 2006. Of these various recommended settings, Southern Company, upon advice from ENSR, has used alternative settings for two specific options: CDlV and MPARTL. The values used by Southern Company and the reasons for these uses are provided below.

CDIV: This parameter affects the divergence criterion for dwldz across puffs used to initiate adjustment for horizontal convergence. The value specified in the IWAQM Phase 2 report (1

### 998) is 0.01 (llsec). Since the time that report was generated, this option in CALPUFF was changed by the model developer, Earth Tech, to 0.0 to improve the model performance in the year 2000. The use of the smaller value gives better protection against mass accumulation within convergence zones by compensating with ~ncreased sigma-z to account for vertical movement of the air. The model change actually requires two values for CDlV (values at partial and full adjustment), and the default value for each was accordingly changed to 0.0. This was confirmed by Joe Scire in an email to Bob Paine dated 12/22/06(a copy can be provided upon request). The old default value of 0.01 continues to be erroneously recommended by EPA, however, because the 1998 IWAQM guidance was never corrected, and EPA memos such as the Atkinson and Fox memo referenced above have not made the correction either. Some states, such as Minnesota (see http:l/~www.pca.state.mn.us/air/reuionalhaze.html) as well as Montana and other western states are using the current CDlV default values of 0.0, 0.0 in their BART analyses.

A number of CALPUFF input files provided on the TRC web site have 0.0, 0.0 as the selected CDlV values. Due to this reason and the updated default value specification for CDIV, Southern Company has elected to use the current default values of 0.0, 0.0.

MPARTL: This parameter affects the manner in which puffs interact with the mixing lid. A value of 0 means that the ISCST3 modeling approach is used; while a value of 1 means that the AERMOD approach is used. In the March 16,2006 Atkinson and Fox memo, other AERMODrelated options (some default, some not) that had been accepted before this time were removed from the approved list. The MPARTL option was apparently retained (possibly an EPA oversight)

as set to 1 in the memo, even though it is an AERMOD feature. A CALPUFF input file provided

on the official TRC web site for VISTAS BART modeling (as well as the approved general EPA version) has MPARTL set to 0, which would be consistent with the rest of the changes affecting AERMOD options, and which is the CALPUFF default. Consistent with the other changes removing AERMOD-related settings, Southern Company has opted to set MPARTL to zero, the CALPUFF default.

## CALPUFF Input Variables



# I CALPUFF Moclel Input Gro~lp 1: General Run Contrnl Pnramete~s



### Parameter LCFllES 

### N%lETDAT N

### PTDAT NARD.4T 

### Nt!DtCAT METRUN 

### ISYR 13MO 13DY 

### 13HR XBTZ IRLG



### MRESTART 

### NRESPD METFM 

### lv?PRFF?d 

### AVET 

### PGSIME Enput Used

F 

### 36 0 0 0 O 

### 200 ; i

i 

### 5 57613

2 24G

I



### ED E

### 12 

### Default



### I I:I 

### 0 0 

### 0 c:ornments Use- defined Use; deflned

Use- deflned also n~odelec 

### 2002 snc 

### 23C13 Use- deflned Usec

### defined. 

### 20152 al?d

### 2003 = 

### 2 User deflned Use- deflned Use- def~ned: 

### ?GO' S 2002 = 

### i?750,2003= 8736

0 0 1 

### I S

### 0 5 

### 0 Set n case of cornp~rter:soft;va-e Ie:.tcl.-t Use- def~ned

# I CALPUFF Model hprit 

### GIoirp 2: Technical Options

Lornments para mere^ lnput Used( 

### Default

MDlSP MTU

### RB\N' MDISP2 MTAULV MTAUADV FdCTUfW MROUGH MPARTL MTINV Iv%AU 

### SS MCTADJ MCTSG MSLUG MTRAYS
MTIP

3

7 3 

### 3 

## ,a O 

### I 

### 9 O 

### 0

L



### MPDF MSGTIBL fviBCON 

### MSOURCE 

### KFOG MREG 1 

### 3 C1 O

1



### 13 

### i3 0

I:I

### 0

I O 9 

### D 13 

### 0 12 1 

# - 3 0 

### 12 

### I
1



### 3 

# - j 

### 3 0 

### L7 I 0 1 ' 

### 0

No ct-ecks 

### made See Apperd~x 

### A for 

### d~scuss~on- - - - - - - -- 

### CALPUFF Model Inout GI oup 

### 3: Species List-Chemistry Options.



# I CALPUFF Model 

### Input Group 4: 

### Map PI-ojecttouand Grid Control Parameters. I



### CSPEC

SO2 

### SO4 NOX 

### HY03 NO3 

### SOA 

### PMF 

### PIK EC

Parameter 

### PMAP FEAST FNORTH 

### lUThlZN UTEvlHEM LATO 

### RLONO XLATI XL.4T2 Nlocleled

1 1 1 1 1 

### 1 1 1 1



### DATGM 

### NX NY 

## NZ D

### ~y Deposition



### I ([;AS) 

### 2 IPart~cle)



### 1 (GAS) I 

### ;GAS:( 

### 2 (Psrtlcle) 

### 2 (Partrclej 

### 2 (Part~cle) 

### 2 ;,Part~cle) 

### 2 (Part~cle) Emitted

1 1 1 0 

### I: 1 

### 1 1 

### 1

Enput Used LGC

Cl 

### 9 O V LON 97:: 

### 33N L5N NWS-83



### 238 25 T

10 

### O 11tp11t Group Number 0 O 

### 0 9 

### 3 0 

### 13 3 0

Default

UTM

0 

### 0

User Deticed Use- Defined User- Defined User Deficed C cmments

Ls6f Lefinec ,I- accc-dmce ;w!h VISTAS yuldance fur ESfds

Lczrnnients Pvlap tJrojectior Lsed

User Defi~?ed User Defined User Defiried 

### Cke- Defilled Use- Defir,ed User Defined

# I CALPCIFF Motlel Input G~otlp 

### 5: Chtput 

### Options 

# I



# I CALPUFF Input Group 

### 6:Sub-Grid 

### Scale Complex Terrain Inputs. 

# I IPRTU ITvlESG 

### LDEBUG IPFDEB 

### NPFDEE NN1 

### NN2

- - - - - - -- -- -- 

### CALPUFF Model Input Grot~p 

### 7: Dry Deposition Pal-ameters for Gases.

I Snecies 

### Ilnnut Usecll Default 

### I Lorn~i~e~ns J 

### 2
F



### 10 10 10 I 2 

### F I I 

### IO Used 

### ngh3and uyh-2k



### Get-ug ~~tput CkL-ugo~tput uptiors Cehgoutput optlol-s Cet:.ug o~tpclt apttons Lebuq 

### output rrut~o~-s

# I CALPWFF Model Input Group 8: 

### DI~ C)eposition Paramete~s for Par.ticles. 

# I

CALPUFF Model hput Group 

### 9: Miscellaneous 

### Diy Depostion Parameters.

Parameter 

## 1 tnptrt Usedl Default 

## I Comments RCUTR 30 

# 0 (RGR 10 

## 1 :0 

## 1



# I CALPUFF Mcrclel Input Gfoufr 11: Cheniistry Parameters. REACTR NlNT IVEG 

### 3 9

L

Parameters 

### MOZ ECK03

BCKNH3 RNlTE

### I RYITE2 RWITE3 MH232 ECKH202 BCKPf'vlF 3FRAC



# - ti-

%-* u 

### hii 

### -5 9 1

Enput Llsed

12*63 C

12*0

### 5

0 2 2 

### 2

1 12'1 Cj 12'1 0 15.G.15 0 2,O 

### 2,O Z 

### 43 3n2n71 1 2 

### .iI~I Default 1 

### 12'8L7 0

-,-.

# - Id C 3 2 

### 2 1 1 1 C 15 0 5,O 3.0 

### 2.O 2 

### 0 ?p21:1?n 

### 58 Cornments

Background ammcnls c@ncer-trntrct~~ 

### ip~h) 3s 

### agreed LI~O~ L; '.!IS-AS states

-. - - - -- - -

# I IZALPUFF Mcdel ll~pcrt Groul, 12: D~spars~on:' Colnputatienat Parameters

IRE WLIT i79: ZIS"L'T -0: RCLCMPh
NSPL-Tr s'fSCLIT+ SHSPZITH CXSPLIT; 1 OOf-ZT -1 O ?T 5 :he over walsr sczing-; nct prestr! I- :nf ea~iiei ,;ersion pf CALPLIF' 0.5

# I CALPUFF Mctdel Input GI-oup 13: Point 

### Source Parariiete~s. 

# I

L Parameter 

## I [nput Usedl 

### Default 

## 1 Lommerits

NPTl 

### I 2 

### I IL!sev defined. set to nun: b~- of 

### stacks

CALPUFF Model lt~put Grotap 14: Afea SCJLLIC~ Parameters. NPTl 

### SRCNAf'd X

Parameter Ellput Used Default Lornments 

### NAR t (3 

### Not used 

### lARU I 

### Not used NSAR 

### l 

### Not used

CALPUFF Model 

### Input Grotrp 15: Line Source Pnl-aniete~s.

O



# IFPRIMEL INO~ used



### CALPUFF Moclel 

### fnput Group 16: Volurne Source Parameters. 13 See Table .i- 

### I of the 

### BART Model~ry Report for 

### swrcespmfrc parmete~s 

### arid enwon rates



# I CALPLIFF 

### Moclel Input 

### Group 17: Discrete Receptor Information 

# I Parameter 

### N\!L; I\!LU 

### NSVL I NVI 7

Parameter 

## 1 lnput Usedl Default 

## I Lornments

,- C1 JJserUefineq 

### ]UserUet~red Input 

### r~secl 3



### 13
11 Default



### 1 13 Lorn~nerits 

### Not csd 

### Nut used 

### Not wed 

### Nat used

## POSTUTIL Input Variables



# I POShUTIL Processor Input GY oi~p 

### 1. Genenat Rurl Control Paramete~s 

# I

POSTUTIL Processor Inprit Gsoup 2: Species Processing lnfor~notion Paramete~s NFILES 

### METFM N

### MET LCFILES ISYR ISM0 ISDY ISHR NPER NSPECIMP NSPECOUT NSPECCMP MDUPLCT NSCALEC

MNITRATE NH3TYP



### ECKNH3 Input Used '1 

### 2 I F 200 

### 1

1 1 1 

### fi7133



### 9 5 

### 0 

### i! 0



### 1

3

12'3 

### 5

Parameter ASPECI ASPECI ASPECI ASPECI Default 1 

### 0 O T



### 0 O



### 0

-g99

Input Used SO:! 

### 534 YOX 

### HN33 [,olnnients



### 2-D f"es ~th elfher 

### Eli Temp or Rho3 n ex11 Mult~ple tnput met files fort re pe-lob Fllensn-ies

### no: set ?g Ic\*::er case Lls~ de'lned User deked User de'lned LJsw debed USEI-deilned User deked USH deked 13s~ de'lned

For mmlor,13! np'tltlg computes ti-e pa-tition 

### for the TOTAconcentrat~on fields 

### 1504h33 and HY03;1 

### Use monthly a;e-age Sacky-ound ammonia 

# 1
gu dwce

CEefault [mnments ?, n, c .+PC es 3-2 ptocessed

## CALPOST Input Variables



# I CALPC~ST P~ocesso~ Input GI CJll(1 1: General Run Contlol Parameters 

# I

Ccmments

humbe1 of ~er~ods tc 

### ~;wcess

Process species for a$ 511: it),

Dlscrete 

### receptors pm;: dec nti the +;ehte

/;'1t8:;~1<.t2 EI~~:C rip.?QOI~ LIS~C Pal-amete~s ISYR 

### ISM3 lSDY ISHR MHRS 

### NREP ASPEC 

### SLAYER A 

### 6 LSACK MSOURCE LG



### LD LCT LDRING 

### NDRECP EGRlD &GRID IESRID JEGRlD 

### NGOAOFF Input IJsed 

### 200 1



### 1 1 1 8760



### 1 

## \n.w@
1 0 0 

### F C F

T 

### F F E1gcl- 7 -1 -1 

### -1



### - 1 0 Default



### 13 3 F 3 F



### F F F



### - 1

- 1

- 1

- 1

- 

### 1 3

# I CALPOST Processct~ Input GI-otip2:Species Processing Infarrnotiun

I 

### Palameter Input 

### Used Default Comments 

### hl?I? H 3 

### 2 EPA (?i)'331 fiRb '( f3b~~htl0~ 35 sp~clfled 5;/ \/:STI?S 

### RHhlAX 

### '3El 

### 5tFj LVS 

### 04 T T LVW3 T T LVOC T T 

### L~AC T 

### T 

### LVPMF T T 

### LVEC T T 

### Li3K T T 

### SPECPMC P

### 16 C: 

### P:v1 

### C SPECPMF PWF 

### PMF 

### EEPMC 

### 95 0 6 

### EEPMF 1 

### EEPMC3K 3 

### 6 fi G 

### EESO4 3 3 

### EEN03 3 

### 3 EEOC 4 

### 4 

### EESOIL 1 

### EEEC 113 1 

### L7 LAVER F F M'LJISEr(. E 

### 2 As specif~ed 

### ty '/GT/S 

### BEXTBK 12 

### RHFRAC 

### 13 .h:A usec method 

### 6 for V'~!ISBK
Depend on Spec fled ~n Tab e A-3 

### f-on. Guiciai;~~. f2: EsP::;at!rig 

### RHFACCALPC)ST P~ocessoi lripirt Group 3 Oiltpt~t Options

Pa~arneter LDOC

IPRTU L'I HR L3H

### R L2JHR LRIJNL 

### hka% LT5C LTOPN NTOP 

### JTOP LEXCD

THREWf THRESE3 

### THRESH2L THRESHN WDAY NCOUKT LECHO LTlME



## -- LPEAK 

### lECW LP-T LGRD MDVlS LDEBUG LVEXTt;R Default F

i T T 

### T T O T 

### F 3 

### 1,23,4 

### F

- 

### 1

- 1



### - 1

- 

### 1 3

I=


### - b



### 36E*0

F 

## -

r 0



### - 

# - F Input lJsetl 

### F

3 

### F F T 

### F C 

### F 

### F 1 

### 1 F

1 CiOE+OI



### - 1

-

### 1

- 1 

### 0 1 

### F F F 3%-O 

### F 

### F G 

### F
F

- Ccrmrnents

?.nts ~.sed for cancwtart~cl- and 661:03?1c.r

- ug!ni*'3

, 

### ~g:nl~*2:'s h~t repot.tr~-ig -hr ;rmVa~es hot rreport~~-.g 5-hr ziwrages

hot rreportr~~g R~1i--et~gth svetsyss

Top 

### 50 table far each aLderciglng t~me rot se ected

Kumber of -3p 'b.3ues st each receptor select-ec Spec f~c vr.k 3f Tap va ~es -ported

Identrfj: the thresholr! '~r 

### 1 ho~r a~erx1t~.g t rr7eLy 3~~1gn1nj

2 nor-negatr~e .slue

## General Quality Assurance Procedures

Chapter 6 of the Final VISTAS Modeling Protocol discusses Quality Assurance (QA). The purpose of the QA program is to establish procedures for ensuring that products produced by the application of the modeling techniques for BART studies satisfy the regulatory objectives of the BART program.

The air quality modeling staff at Southern Company Services is managing andlor conducting the BART Exemption Modeling application for this plant owned by Alabama Power Company. They made sure that all recommended methods specified in the Final VISTAS Modeling Protocol were followed and that the modeling

was carefully and professionally conducted. Initially, the Company retained the services of ENSRIAECOM to supplement the training received as part of VISTAS training courses. Additionally, ENSRIAECOM experts

were given source data for one of Southern Company's BART eligible sources, and they performed a complete analysis following the VISTAS common protocol. During this process, the lead Southern Company modelerswere taught each technical step.

ENSRIAECOM was used as a third-party review for the CALPUFF analyses. ENSR has conducted numerous CALPUFF analyses, and uses CALDESK animation software as well as Lakes Environmental CALVIEW

somare with base maps to visualize the sources, receptors, and meteorology. ENSRIAECOM also uses the CALPUFF QA output files in conjunction with ArcMap GIs soilware to plot the locations of the sources and receptors as CALPUFF interprets them from the input data. The output files from CALPUFF and CALPOST

are typically reviewed independently by ENSRIAECOM staff to assure accuracy and compliance with approved regulatory procedures.

For the exemption modeling, Southern Company's BART modelers made sure that all checks were made manually/visually as well as by using UkaEdit-32, a file comparing software. Additionally, these datasets were randomly checked by another Southern Company modeler. During the modeling process, periodic progress meetings were conducted with the project management team members, and phone calls and e-mail exchangeswere made with the CALPUFF modeling experts at ENSRIAECOM to resolve issues as they

arose.

The VISTAS Modeling Protocol states, "To the extent that modeling applications are using predefined CALMET files and CALPUFF templates, the quality assurance will be straightfotward. More detailed steps are needed for the setup of modeling files for source-specific applications of subregional domains finer than 4 km." For this application, the 4-km grid-spaced CALMET files for sub-domain 4 developed by VISTAS and the CALPUFF templates were used. Southern Company BART modelers used the test met file to "benchmark" the use of the CALMET files on their computers as indicated on page 

### 59 of the VISTAS common protocol. For this BART exemption modeling application, documents were developed and will be submitted that contained

source data required by the CALPUFF modeling system (CALPUFF, CALPOST and POSTUTIL).

# BART Exemption Modeling Report:

Alabama Power Company Plant Greene County

Prepared by:

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation for Alabama Power Company

August 

# 2006

## 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-specificsource data 2-1

3.0 Modeling results



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

Appendix A Delta-Deciview Values for The Top 20 

### Days



### . For Each YearIEach Class I Area and for the Top 25 

### Days



## . Over Three Years



# ................................................................. A-I

082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

# List 

# of Tables

Table 2-1 

### Plant Greene County modeling emission parameters



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

Table 3-1 Summary of Results

. 

### Plant Greene County Refined BART Exemption Modeling



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



# List 

# of Figures

........................................ Figure 1-1 

### Location of 

### PSD Class I Areas in relation to Plant Greene County 1-2

082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

## 1.0 

# Introduction

1.1 

### Objectives

The Regional Haze Rule requires BestAvailable RetrofitTechnology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that "emits any air pollutantwhich may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility" in any mandatory Class I

### federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of exempting a BART-eligiblesource from the BART requirements 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 Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2and NO, for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedbackfrom the Alabama Department of Environmental Management indicates that CAR satisfies BARTfor SO2and NO, for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling report focuses on performing the BART modeling analysis for particulate matter (PM) only.

Units 1 and 2 at Plant Greene County, located near Demopolis, which are operated by Alabama Power Company, have been identified as a BART-eligible source. The modeling proceduresoutlined in the sourcespecific BART modeling protocolfor Plant Greene County were used to determine whether the source is subject to BART requirements (exemption modeling). The modeling proceduresare consistentwith those outlined in the updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December22, 2005, revision 3 -July 18,2006), available at httw://www.vistassesarm.ora/BART/BARTModelinaProtocol rev3 18Ju12006.~df. The source-specific BART modeling protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling protocol.



### 1.2 

### Location of source vs. relevant Class I 

### Areas

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management, which is in charge of the state's BART program, has determined that Units 1 and 2 at Plant Greene County are BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant Greene County relative to nearby Class I

### Areas. There is one Class I 

### area within 300 km of the plant: Sipsey (190.4 km). The BART exemption modeling was conducted for these Class I

### areas in accordance with the referencedVISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the proceduresdescribed in the source-specific BART modeling protocol.

062506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol doc August 2006

## 2.0 

## Source description and emissions data

2.1 

### Unit-specificsource data

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I

### areas within 300 km of Plant Greene County are discussed in this section. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has indicated that CAlR will satisfy BART for EGUs for SO2and NO,. Therefore, this BART exemption modeling analysis focuses only on PMlo. Since various components of PMlo emissions have different visibility extinction efficiencies, the PMlo 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 speciation factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PMlo emissions and speciation approach to be used for the modeling described in this protocol is indicated in the bullets below. Where default speciation values are used, the data represents a unit where current (baseline) emission controls include electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), but no post-combustion NO, or SO2control equipment exists.

Total PMlo is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions.

Baseline filterable PMlo emissions are based on the highest stack test for the most recent 3-year period (2003-2005). This stack test is combined with the highest24 hour heat inputvalue for this periodfrom CEMS data to calculate the "maximum 24-hour average emission rate" as required by the VISTAS protocol.

Filterable PMlo has been subdivided by size category consistentwith 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 controls indicated above that 55.6% of filterable PMlo emissions is coarse (greater than 2.5 microns in size) and 44.4% is fine. Of the fine portion, 3.7% is elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil).
Condensable PMlo consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default assumed to be H2S04, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols.

Baseline H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistentwith the method used by Alabama Power to derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2S04 emissions released from the stack are proportional to SO2emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the removal of H2S04 by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). For eastern bituminouscoal the baseline H2S04 release rate is in the range of 0.4 to 0.7% of the SO2emissions. Appendix A of the site-specific modeling protocol provides the basis for the site-specific values used.

Baseline emissions of condensable organics (the remaining portion of condensable PMlo) are derived based on the supporting field observational information in Appendix B 

### of the site-specific modeling protocol and is estimated as 0.32% of SO2emitted.
Coarsefilterable particles (between 2.5 and 10 microns in size) will be modeled with a geometric mass mean diameter of 5 microns, while fine filterable and all condensable particles will be modeled with a geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, consistent with the CALPUFF default value for fine particles. The geometric standard deviation for both fine and coarse particles will be set to 2 

### microns, consistentwith the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes from the default values in sample input files presentedon 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 coarse 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 certain components of PMl0 as separate species and separate sizes, which will result in more accuratewet and dry deposition velocity results and also more

082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol.doc 2-1 August 2006

### accurate effects on light scattering. As notedabove, the particle size distribution information is provided in AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and will be used for the BART exemption modeling as well as the BART determination modeling, if needed.

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters used in the BART CALPUFF modeling, consistentwith the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B

### for the baseline. All of the emissions in Table 2-1 were derivedfrom CEMS data for the 2003 to 2005 period and represent the maximum 24-hour average Iblhr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). For 

### NO, and SO, 

### the values are directly from CEMS. Filterable PM,, emissions were calculated using the highest stack test over the 2003 to 2005 period and multiplyingthese values times the maximum 24-hour average heat input derived from CEMS. These values were then adjusted using AP-42 factors from Table 1.1-6 that indicate that PM,, is 67% 

### of total PM for a pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PMlo speciation was then performedas indicated above such that total Filterable PM10 is made up of Coarse Soil plus total Fine PM and total Fine PM is made up of Fine Soil plus Elemental Carbon (EC).

082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006Table2-1PlantGreene Countymodeling emissionparametersParticle speciation2mmImImImlsIdegKIIbslhrIlbslhrIIbslhr1IbslhrIIbslhrIIbslhrIIbslhrIlbslhrlIbslhrIlbslhrlIbslhrBaseline Data-Current Configuration(UnitBasis)1WithAlabama beingaCAlRaffectedstate,SO2andNO,emissionsarenotBART-applicableforEGUsourcesassumingADEMagreeswithEPA'sinterpretationofthe BARTfinalrule.Theemissions forSO2andNO,areprovidedfor information purposes,andfor referencein thecomputationofcertainparticle species suchasH2SO4.2Elementalcarbon(EC)andFinePMare apartofFilterablePMloandH2S04andOrganicsareapartofCondensablePMlo.NotethatH2S04isinputtoCALPUFFasSO4.Themolecular weightsofH2S04andSO4are 98 and 96respectively;therefore theconversion factorfromH2S04toSO4is96/98.GEPstack height credit is452ft(137.8m)...082506GreeneCoBARTModelingProtocoLdocAugust2006

# 3.0 Modeling results

The exemption modeling results are provided in Table 3-1, 

### and Appendix A lists delta-deciview results for the top 20 

### days for each year modeled and the top 25 

### days for the overall three years at each Class I

### area. The table indicates that both the 8th 

### highest day's impacts for each year and the 

### 22"d highest day's impacts over all three years are below 0.5 

### delta-dv. These results demonstrate that Plant Greene County PMlo emissions do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment. Therefore, the source is not subject to BART for PM,,, and no further BART analysis is required.

Electronic data related to this application are provided on the attached disk. They include all input (INP) and list (LST) files.

082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

### Table 3-1 

### Summary of Results

## - Plant Greene County Refined BART 

### Exemption Modeling

2003

# of days and

receptors Highest delta-dv percentilewith

impact > 0.5 22nd Highest
delta-dv

over 3-

year period

delta-dv Distance from source

to Class I

area boundary # of days and receptors beyond 9sth percentilewith

impact > 0.5

delta-dv 

### sth Highest
delta-dv # of days and receptors beyond 9sth percentilewith

impact> 0.5

delta-dv 8Ih Highest
delta-dv Highestof 

### athHighest

delta-dv for the 3-

years Class Iarea

delta-dv Days 

# 1 Rec delta-dv Days 

# 1

Rec 

# 1

delta-dv delta-dv
Sipsey, AL

082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol.doc August ZOO6

# Appendix A

Delta-Deciview Values for the Top 20 

# Days 

# - for Each YearIEach Class I Area and for the Top 25 

# Days 

# - Over Three YearsRanked Daily Visibility Change for Sipsey (Top 20 Days for Each Year)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species
DAY 

## - 324 209 163 279 297 114 331 262 97 341 7 1 111 113 93 1 02 27 286 112 332 182

57 133 32 75 93 314 3 1 79 207 115 263 67 313 84 137 lo6 229 6 293 74

99 243 46 72 351 122 11 1 245 52 343 320 326 291 304 121 5 1 270 139 331 REC 

## - 53 53 53 53 53 144 lo8 53 35 53 144 35 53 53 36 20 lo8 53 35 53

53 127 lo8 4 lo8 35 5 91 36 10 144 lo8 lo8 91 108 89 lo8 53 lo8 lo8

10 4 35 53 8 lo8 53 lo8 53 10 144 53 53 53 53 144 53 36 108 DVIBKG) 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552

7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552

7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 7.552 DELTA DV 0.1 81 0.1 55 0.147 0.1 39 0.1 38 0.1 25 0.1 22 0.1 19 0.1 16 0.104 0.097 0.095 0.093 0.092 0.084 0.083 0.082 0.076 0.075 0.074

0.259 0.209 0.1 95 0.1 69 0.1 67 0.1 50 0.1 46 0.1 29 0.1 25 0.124 0.122 0.120 0.1 I8 0.1 10 0.097 0.097 0.090 0.089 0.086 0.082

0.1 95 0.1 86 0.175 0.1 30 0.127 0.127 0.125 0.1 22 0.1 20 0.1 17 0.1 05 0.094 0.093 0.090 0.089 0.089 0.085 0.076 0.074 0.069 % PMC 5.73 4.06 5.1 8 5.01 3.65 6.1 1 5.48 3.65 4.09 5.70 5.99 5.13 6.50 5.78 3.29 4.86 4.38 4.56 4.47 5.29

5.1 1 4.93 4.23 4.46 5.45 4.36 4.36 3.74 2.93 5.87 5.03 5.31 3.23 2.87 3.75 6.08 5.42 5.30 3.51 4.92

5.36 4.07 4.66 5.00 3.61 5.07 5.24 5.68 5.31 4.25 6.05 3.66 5.69 5.50 6.1 7 6.07 4.98 3.70 4.40 2.14 % PMF 8.65 7.82 8.02 8.20 8.32 9.63 8.67 7.85 9.84 8.48 9.42 9.73 9.59 9.67 9.92 8.55 8.25 9.79 8.77 8.02

9.09 8.73 8.61 9.58 9.70 8.78 8.60 9.65 7.91 9.66 7.74 9.49 8.88 9.74 8.83 9.64 7.70 8.51 8.33 9.53

9.71 7.81 9.14 9.52 8.66 8.71 9.72 7.68 9.07 8.61 8.62 8.84 8.14 8.1 6 9.63 9.00 7.74 8.84 8.77 7.97 Rankinq 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

### Ranked Daily Visibility Changefor Sipsey (Top 25 

### Days Over Three Years)

% of Modeled Extinction by Species
YEAR 

# - 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2001 2003 2002 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2001 2003 2002 2003 2003 2001 2002 2003 2002 2001 2002 DAY 

## - 57 133 32 99 243 324 46 75 93 209 314 I63 31 279 297 72 79 351 122 114 207 111 115 331 263 REC 

# - 53 127 108 10 4 53 35 4 108 53 35 53 5 53 53 53 91 8 108 144 36 53 10 108 144 DELTA DV 0.259 0.209. 0.1 95



## . 0.1 95. 0.1 86. 0.1 81; 0.1 75 0.1 6% 0.1 67- 0.1 55. 0.1 50 0.147' 0.148 0.139 0.1 38- 0.130 0.129 0.127 0.123 0.126 0.125 0.1 25, 0.1 24 0.1 22 0.122 % PMC 5.1 1 4.93 4.23 5.36 4.07 5.73 4.66 4.46 5.45 4.06 4.36 5.18 4.36 5.01 3.65 5.00 3.74 3.61 5.07 6.1 

### I 2.93 5.24 5.87 5.48 5.03 % PMF 9.09 8.73 8.61 9.71 7.81 8.65 9.1 4 9.58 9.70 7.82 8.78 8.02 8.60 8.20 8.32 9.52 9.65 8.66 8.71 9.63 7.91 9.72 9.66 8.67 7.74 Rankinq-- - 

### Page 1

### of 1



### Steele, C. 

### Mark

From: Graham, Amy [AGraham@adem.state.al.us]


### Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:15 PM

To: Steele, C. Mark

Cc

### : Martin, Tim Subject: EPA Region 

### 4 Comments on Gaston, Barry, Gorgas, Miller, and Greene County

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red

Mark,

I've been asked to forward the following comments, which were submitted to us by EPA. If possible, please submit a response to

us by January 12'~. You may email your response instead of sending a hard copy, unless your response would include information best presented in hard copy. Also, if you email your response, and it includes any addendurns to your previous BART submittals, please attach them in a separate document so that we may print them and add them.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Tim Martin.

Thanks,



### Amy Graham Industrial Minerals Energy Branch Air Division (334) 271-7867



### Alabama 

### Power Cornpay -Plans Gaston,Barry, Gorgas, Miller and Greene Coun&

1. 

### The modeling reports did not address the majority of the assumptions and inputs used in the modeling. This is normally a part of the documentation for a modeling submittal. Please add a table that shows options used in the modeling.

2. 

### There was no discussion of quality assurance and quality control procedures that was used in the modeling.

Tim Martin Air PoNution Meteorologist ADEM 334-270-5672

## Steele, C. 

### Mark

From: Sent: 

### To : Subject: 

### Steele, C. Mark Wednesday, January 10,2007 1 

### O:O9 AM AGraham@adem.state.al.us; Schilson, David

, 

### BART Comment Response

Attachments: 

### EPA Region 4 

### Comments on Gaston, Barry, Gorgas, Miller, and Greene County; Regional Haze Regulations Letter.pdf; caipuff-input-tables.pdf; 

### 010707 QA Proceedures APC Sources.pdf

On January 5,2007, we 

### received EPA comments regarding Alabama Power's BART submittal. Please find attached our 

# 1 response to these comments. Our response is being transmitted both electronically and hard copy via mail. Please

I 

### contact me if you have any questions.

EPA Reg~on 4 Regional Haze calpuff-input-table 010707 QA 'omments on Gasto., Regulations Lett



## ... s,pdf (238



### ... oceedures APC Sour

C. 

### Mark Steele Alabama Power Company Environmental Affairs 8-257-41 79 

### Internal 205-257-4179 

### External cmsteele@southernco.com

# BART Modeling Protocol:

Alabama Power Company Plant Miller

Prepared by:

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation
for Alabama Power Company

August 2006

# Contents

1.0 Introduction



# ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1



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



### ................................................................................. 1.2 Location of source vs



### . relevant Class I

### Areas 1-1



### .................................................................................................. 1.3 Organization of protocol document 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data



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



### 2.1 Unit-specificsource data



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

3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model



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



### 3.1 General modeling procedures:



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

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia)



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

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) 

### at Class I

### Areas



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



# ............................................................................................................. 4.0 Air quality modeling procedures 4-1



### 4.1 Model selection and features



### .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors



### ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling



### ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations



### ................................................................................. 4-2



# ............................................................................................................ 5.0 Presentation of modeling results 5-1

Appendix A Basisfor Source-SpecificSulfuric Acid Emissionsfor BART BaselineCase



## ..............A-1

Appendix 6 

### Estimated Emissions of Primary Total Carbon and Primary Sulfate From Coal-Fired Power Plants



## ...................................................................................................... B-1

082506 Miller BART Modeling Protocol.doc August PO06

# List of Tables

Table 2-1 Plant Miller modeling emission parameters



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



# List of Figures

......................................................... Figure 1-1 Location of 

### PSD Class I

### Areas in relation to Plant Miller 1-2

082506 Miller BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

## 1 .O 

# Introduction

1.1 

### Objectives
The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligiblesource that "emits any air pollutantwhich may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairmentof visibility" in any mandatory Class I

### federal area. Pursuantto federal regulations, states have the option of exempting a BART-eligiblesource from the BART requirements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating that the source cannot reasonably be anticipatedto cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class 

### I

area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2and NO, for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedback from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) and the Jefferson County Department of Health (JCDH) indicates that CAR satisfies BARTfor SO2and NO, for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling protocol focuses on performing the BART modeling analysis for particulate matter (PM) only.

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 

### at Plant Miller, located near Quinton, which are operated by Alabama Power Company, have been identifiedas a BART-eligiblesource. The purpose of this document is to summarize the proceduresby which a modeling analysis will be conducted for this source. The modeling procedures outlinedwill be used to determine whether the source is subject to BART requirements (exemption modeling). If it is determined that the source is subject to BART, this protocol will be updated (e.g., adding data to Table 2- 1) and then the procedures below will be used to evaluate the visibility improvement factor in the BART determination step (determination modeling). The modeling procedures are consistentwith those outlined in the updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3 -July 18, 2006), available at htt~://ww.vistas-sesarm.orq/BART/BARTModelinqProtocol rev3 18Ju12006.pdf. This source-specific BART modeling protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling protocol.



### 1.2 

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

ADEM and JCDH, which are in charge of Jefferson County's BART program, have determined that Units 1,2, 3, and 4 

### at Plant Miller are BART-eligiblefor PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant Miller relativeto nearby Class I

### Areas. There are two Class I 

### areas within 300 km of the plant: Sipsey (79.2 km) and Cohutta (260.0 km). The BART exemption modeling will be conducted for these Class I 

### areas in accordance with the referencedVISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in this source-specific BART modeling protocol. If necessary, visibility improvement modeling for the BART determination step will be performed for this Class I

### area if the exemption modeling shows a greater than 0.5 deciview impact.



### 1.3 

### Organization of protocol document

Section 2 of this protocol describesthe source emissions that will be used as input to the BART exemption modeling and, if necessary, the BART determination modeling. Section 3 describes the input data to be used for the modeling includingthe modelingdomain, terrain and land use, and meteorological data. Section 4 

### describes the air quality modeling procedures and Section 5 discusses the presentation of modeling results. Since all of the references cited are also included in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (Section 7.), no additional referencessection is included in this document. Appendices A and B provide additional information on the baseline source emissions.

082506 Miller BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006

### Figure 1-1 

### Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Miller

Miller 1, 2, 3, & 4 I

I

I I

082506 Miller BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006