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 relation to 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 pollutant which 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 SO2 and 

NO, for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedback from the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management indicates that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and NO, for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling report 

focuses on performing the 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 identified as a BART-eligible source. The modeling procedures outlined in the source-specific BART 

modeling protocol for Plant Gorgas were used to determine whether the source is subject to BART 

requirements (exemption modeling). The modeling procedures 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 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 Environmental Management, which is in charge of the state's BART program, 

has determined that Unit 10 at Plant Gorgas is BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows 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 referenced VISTAS 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 SO2 and 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 SO2 control 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 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 consistent with 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 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 SO2 emissions 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 

bituminous coal the baseline H2S04 release rate is in the range of 0.4 to 0.7% of the SO2 emissions. 

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 SO2 emitted. 

Coarse filterable 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, 

consistent with the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes 

from the default values in sample input files presented 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 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, 

consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B 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 Iblhr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). For NO, and 

SO2 the values are directly from CEMS. Filterable PMlo emissions were calculated using the highest stack 

test over the 2003 to 2005 period and multiplying these values times the maximum 24-hour average heat input 

derived from CEMS. These values were then adjusted using AP-42 factors from Table 1 .l-6 that indicate that 

PMlo is 67% of total PM for a pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PMlo speciation was then performed as 

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 consistent set 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 2006 
Table 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 

Flue 

Diameter 

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, SO2 and NO, emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources assuming ADEM agrees with EPA's interpretation of the 

BART final rule. The emissions for SO2 and NO, are provided for 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 conversion factor from H2SO4 to SO4 is 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. 

PMlo H2S04 

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 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 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 

Highest of 

8Ih ~ighest 

delta-dv 

for the 3- 

years 

Distance 

from source 

to Class I 

area 

boundary 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98'h 

percentile with 

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 

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8' 

Highest 

delta-dv Class l area 

percentile with 

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 

21 5 

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 

31 0 

273 

230 

330 

251 

31 0 

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 

31 0 

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 

0.1 72 

0.172 

0.1 64 

0.1 62 

0.162 

0.1 60 

0.493 

0.328 

0.306 

0.253 

0.245 

0.240 

0.231 

0.225 

0.221 

0.21 5 

0.209 

0.208 

0.203 

0.188 

0.1 77 

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 

3.1 0 

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 

3.1 6 

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 

Rankinq 
- YEAR 

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 

31 0 

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 

3.1 7 

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 

21 0 

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 

21 3 

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 

0.1 51 

0.1 27 

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 Extinction by 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 

20 
- YEAR 

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 

21 8 

354 

197 

217 

132 

166 

2 1 

337 

21 0 

93 

330 

110 

278 

180 

21 1 

186 

129 

222 

167 

279 

120 

- REC 

3 

21 9 

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) 

0.1 57 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 

3 6 

0 

0 

0 

O 

200 ; 

i 

i 

5 

5 7613 

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 I e:.tcl.-t 

Use- def~ned 
I CALPUFF Model hprit GI oirp 2: Technical Options 

para mere^ Lornments lnput Used( Default 

MDlSP 

MT U R B\N' 

MDISP2 

MTAULV 

MTAUADV 

FdCTUfW 

MROUGH 

MPARTL 

MTI NV 

Iv%AU SS 

MCTADJ 

MCTSG 

MSLUG 

MTRAYS 

MTIP 

3 

7 

3 

3 

,a 

O 

I 

9 

O 

L 0 

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-ojecttou and Grid Control Parameters. 

I 

CSPEC 

SO2 

SO4 

NOX 

HY03 

NO3 

SOA 

PMF 

PIK 

EC 

Parameter 

PMAP 

FEAST 

FNORTH 

l UThlZN 

UTEvlHEM 

LATO 

RLONO 

XLATI 

XL.4T2 

Nlocleled 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

DATGM 

NX 

NY 

N Z 

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:: 

33 N 

L5 N 

N WS-83 

238 

25 T 

10 

O 11tp 11 t 

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 

I 

O 

Used ngh3 and uyh-2k 

Get-ug ~~tput 

CkL-ug o~tput uptiors 

Cehg output 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 Di y Depostion Parameters. 

Parameter 1 tnptrt Usedl Default I Comments 

0 RCUTR 3 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 

RY ITE2 

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 .i I~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 

5 8 

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 i 79: 

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 

l ARU 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 JJser Uefineq ]User Uet~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 

MN ITRATE 

NH3TYP 

ECKNH3 

Input Used 

'1 

2 

I 

F 

200 1 

1 

1 

1 

fi7 133 

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 1504 h33 and HY03;1 

1 

Use monthly a;e-age Sacky-ound ammonia 

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 

Ccmmen ts 

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-otip 2: 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 

R H hl AX '3 El 5 tFj 

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 9 5 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 

BEXTB K 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 

RHFAC 
CALPC)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 

THREW f 

THRESE3 

THRESH2L 

THRESHN 

WDAY 

NCOUKT 

LECHO 

-- LTlME 

LPEAK 

lECW 

LP-T 

LGRD 

MDVlS 

LDEBUG 

LVEXT t;R 

Default 

F 

i 

T 

T 

T 

T 

O 

T 

F 

3 

1,2 3,4 

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.3 ues 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 rr7e Ly 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 

modelers were 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 

exchanges were 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-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-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 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that 

"emits any air pollutant which 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 CAR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NO, for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedback from the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management indicates that CAR satisfies BART for SO2 and 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 procedures outlined in the sourcespecific BART modeling protocol for Plant Greene County were used to determine whether the source is 

subject to BART requirements (exemption modeling). The modeling procedures 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 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 referenced VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the source-specific 

BART modeling protocol. 

062506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol.doc August 2006 
082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling Protocol doc August 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 Greene 

County are discussed in this section. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has indicated 

that CAlR will satisfy BART for EGUs for SO2 and 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 SO2 control 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 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 consistent with 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 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 SO2 emissions 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 

bituminous coal the baseline H2S04 release rate is in the range of 0.4 to 0.7% of the SO2 emissions. 

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 SO2 emitted. 

Coarse filterable 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, 

consistent with the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes 

from the default values in sample input files presented 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 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 accurate wet and dry deposition velocity results and also more 

082506 GreeneCo 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, 

consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B 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 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 multiplying these 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 performed as 

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 2006 
Table 2-1 Plant Greene County modeling emission parameters 

Part

m m I m I m I mls I deg K I Ibslhr Ilbslhr I Ibslhr 1 Ibslhr I Ibslhr I Ibslhr I 

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Unit Basis) 

1 With Alabama being a CAlR affected state, SO2 and NO, emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources assuming ADEM 

interpretation of the BART final rule. The emissions for SO2 and NO, are provided for information purposes, and for reference in 

particle species such as H2SO4. 

2 Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PMlo and H2S04 and Organics are a part of Condensable PMlo. No

CALPUFF as SO4. The molecular weights of H2S04 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively; therefore the conversion factor from H

GEP stack height credit is 452 ft (1 37.8 m). 

.. 

082506 GreeneCo BART Modeling ProtocoLdoc 
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 

percentile with 

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 

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

sth 

Highest 

delta-dv 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 9sth 

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8Ih 

Highest 

delta-dv 

Highest of 

ath Highest 

delta-dv 

for the 3- 

years 

Class I area 

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 Years 
Ranked 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 

DVIB KG) 

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 

0.1 47 

0.1 39 

0.1 38 

0.1 25 

0.1 22 

0.1 19 

0.1 16 

0.1 04 

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 

0.1 75 

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 

9.1 4 

9.52 

8.66 

8.71 

9.72 

7.68 

9.07 

8.61 

8.62 

8.84 

8.1 4 

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 Change for 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 

31 4 

I63 

3 1 

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 

0.1 47' 

0.1 48 

0.1 39 

0.1 38- 

0.130 

0.129 

0.127 

0.123 

0.126 

0.125 

0.1 25, 

0.1 24 

0.1 22 

0.1 22 

% 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-specific source 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 Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART Baseline Case .............. 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-eligible source that 

"emits any air pollutant which 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 SO2 and 

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 

BART for SO2 and 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 identified as a BART-eligible source. The purpose of this document is to summarize the 

procedures by which a modeling analysis will be conducted for this source. The modeling procedures 

outlined will 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 consistent with 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-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant Miller relative to 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 

referenced VISTAS 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 describes the 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 including the modeling domain, 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 references section 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