### (



## ANALYSIS FORBESTA VAILABLERETROFIT TECHNOLOGY

­ WAIVERREQUEST GP CONSUMERPRODUCTS LP MUSKOGEEMILL MARCH 2007GPMuskogee Mill BART Modeling Report March 27, 2007


### 1.0 INTRODUCTION
............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Overview ofthe Regional Haze BART Process............................................................... 1 

### 1.2. Organization ofthe Report
........................:...................................................................... 3 

### 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND EMISSION INVENTORy .............................................. 4 

### 3.0 CENRAP CONTRIBUTION TO CALPUFF MODELING
......................................... 7 

### 4.0 MODEL DISCUSSION
.................................................................................................... 7 

### 4.1 General Procedures ...................................................................................................... 7 

### 4.2 CALPUFF Configuration
............................................................................................. 8 5.0 RESULTS AND DETERMINATION OF IMPAIRMENT
........................................ 11 5.1 Impact Threshold
........................................................................................................ 11 

### 5.2 Presentation ofModeling Results.............................................................................. 11

P:\BARTexemption Protocol Muskogee.doc iiOPMuskogee Mill BART Modeling Report March 27, 2007 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview ofthe Regional HazeBARTProcess 

### Under regional haze regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued final guidelines dated July 6, 2005 for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations (70 FR 39104-39172). The regional haze rule includes a requirement for BART for certain large stationary sources, such as our pulp & 

### paper facility in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Sources are BART-eligible ifthey meet three criteria concerning (1) potential emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants, (2) 

### the date when the source was put in operation, and (3) whether theyfall within one ofthe source categories listed in the guidance. The guidance requires a BART engineering evaluation using five statutory factors for any BART-eligible source that can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to impairment ofvisibility in any Class I areas protected under the regional haze rule. (Note that, depending on the five factors, the evaluation may result in no controL) Air quality modeling is an important tool available to the States to determine whether a source can be reasonably expected to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. The process ofmaking aBART determination consists offour steps: 1) Identify whether a source is "BART-eligible"based on its source category, when it was put in service, and the magnitude ofits emissions ofone or more "visibilityimpairing" air pollutants. The BART guidelines list 26 source categories of stationary sources that are BART-eligible. Sources must have been put in service between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977. Finally, a source is eligible for BART if potential emissions of visibility-impairing air pollutants are greater than 250 tons per year. Qualifying pollutants include primary particulate matter (PMIO) and gaseous precursors to secondary fine particulate matter, such as S02 and NOx• 

### VISTAS has determined that neither ammonia nor volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shouldbe included as visibility-impairingpollutants for BART eligibility.

P;\BART exemption Protocol Muskogee.docOPMuskogee Mill BARTModeling Report March 27, 2007 2) Detennine whether a BART-eligible source can be excluded from BART controls by demonstrating that the source cannot bereasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impainnent in a Class I area. The preferred approach is an assessment with an air quality model such as CALPUFF orother appropriate model followed bycomparison ofthe estimated 24-hrvisibility impacts against a threshold above estimated natural conditions to be detennined by the States. The threshold to detennine whether a single source "causes" visibility impainnent is set at 1.0 deciview (dv) change from natural conditions over a 24-hour averaging period in the final BART rule (70 FR 39118). The guidance also states that the proposed threshold at which a source may "contribute" to visibility impainnent should not be higher than 0.5 dv although, depending on factors affecting a specific Class I area, it may be set lower than 0.5 dv. The test against the threshold is "driven" by the contribution level, since ifa source "causes", bydefinition it "contributes". 3) Detennine BART controls for the source by considering various control options and selecting the "best" alternative, taking into consideration: a) Any pollutioncontrol equipment in use at the source (which affects the availability ofoptions and their impacts), b) The costs ofcompliance withcontrol options, c) The remaining useful life ofthe facility, d) The.energy and non air-quality environmental impacts of compliance, and e) The degree ofimprovementin visibility that mayreasonablybe anticipated to resultfrom the use ofsuch technology.

If a source agrees to apply the most stringent controls available to BART-eligible units, the BART analysis is essentially complete and no further analysis is necessary (70 FR 39165).

P:\BARTexemption Protocol Muskogee.doc 2GPMuskogee Mill BARTModeling Report March 27, 2007 4) Incorporate the BART determination into the State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, which is due byDecember2007. Step 2 described above reflects 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y which states that, "You can usedispersion modeling to determine thatan individual source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause orcontribute to visibility impairment in a Class Iarea andthus is notsubject to BART." (70 FR 39162) This "individual source attribution approach" determines ifa BART-eligible source (i.e., collection ofeligible emission units at a source) is predicted to cause orcontribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. As inentioned above, a predicted impact of 1.0 dv change ormore is considered to "cause" visibility impairment, and a predicted impact of0.5 dv change ormore is consideredto "contribute". Any source determined to cause orcontributeto visibility impairment in any Class I area is subjectto BART and will also complete additional visibility impact analyses.

1.2. Organization ofthe Report

Section 2 presents facility-specific information. Section 3 presents the contributionby CENRAPfor the BART analyses. Section4 summarizes the modeling approach, and model configuration. Section 5 presents the criteria andprocessing ofmodel results to demonstrate what impairment, ifany, the facility is predicted to create inthe Class I areas.

P:\BART exemption Protocol Muskogee.doc 3GP Muskogee Mill BART Modeling Report March 27, 2007 

### 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND EMISSION INVENTORY
Thefacility is located in Muskogee, Oklahoma (Muskogee County). The Fort Howard Corporation began construction on the Mill in 1975. Georgia-Pacific (GP) acquired all ofthe stock ofFort James Corporation (including the FortHoward Corporation subsidiary) in November 2000. TheMuskogee Mill is a recycle deinking and bleaching paperMill classified under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2621. The Mill manufactures pulp from various grades ofwastepaper. The Mill then processesthe pulp through oneoffive paper machines to produce commercial andretail grades oftissue, toweling, and napkins. The Mill is also capable ofusing purchased virgin pulp in lieu ofsome or all ofthe wastepaper to make its products The facility is located in a moderately-developed area, and few light industrial areas near the Mill. The Mill is located along the Arkansas River nearChandlerRoad. The area surrounding the facility includes a creekfloodplain, and low-lying land. Figure 1depicts the location ofthe Mill and illustrates the adjacent terrain. The potentially BART-eligible emission units are summarized inTable 1. The two boilers exhaust through a common stack.

Table 1. Model Parameters for Potentially BART-Eligible Sources at GP Muskogee
Source Description Ht (m) East (km) North Diameter (m) Exit Velocity (m/sec) Exit Temp

( K) Boiler 1 and 2 Combined Stack 79.3 152.7 -469.211 3.05 13.2 410.93

The combustion sources currently operate with a variety offuels as statedbelow: • Package BoilerNo.1 conibusts only natural gas. • PowerBoilerNo.2 is permittedfor bituminous and sub-bituminous coal.

P:\BARTexemption Protocol Muskogee.doc 4GP Muskogee Mill BARTModeling Report March 27, 2007 

# Figure 1. Area Topographic Map for Muskogee, OK

Ol c: 

## € o z**~** I­ ::>

3952000

I I r 286000 287000 288000 289000 290000 291000 292000 293000 294000 295000 296000 297000 298000 299000 300000 UTM Easting (m)

P:\BART exemption Protocol Muskoge<:.doc 5GP Muskogee Mill BARTModeling Report March 27, 2007 The modeling analysis applied one change to the existing permitted operations. While Package Boiler No.1 is often used only as a stand-byboiler, the analysis assumed the boilerwould operate continuously with a new Low-NOx burner. The NOx emissionrate is limited to 0.1 IblMMBtu at a maximumfiring rate or 31 lbs NOx/hr.
The Mill reserves the right to shut down an emissionunit inlieu ofthe proposed emission controls. Forexample, as we await regulatory approval ofthe Oklahoma SIP or approval ofa determination, should shutting downPackage Boiler No. 1be preferred, we would remove all emissions from the unit and request a waiver without any further requirement on Boiler 2.
Table 2 presents the available fuel-specific speciationprofiles and worst case 24-hr actual emissions applying these assumptions.

Table 2. SummaryofModeled Emission Rates, GPMuskogee Model Source Parameter Package Boiler 1 Power Boiler 2
CALPUFF Input (lb/hr) 

### S02 0 288.0 

### S04 0 8.7 NOx 31 193 NH3 0 0.013 PMC 0 2.33 PMF 0 1.79 EC 0 0.08 SOA 0 2.16
The Class I Areas (where visibility is an air quality related value)within 300kilometers (km) ofthe Mill are:
• UpperBuffalo National Wilderness Area (NWA), 166 km northeast ofthe Mill; • Caney CreekNWA, 178 km east ofthe Mill; and

P:\BARTexemption Protocol Muskogee.doc 6GPMuskogee Mill BARTModeling Report March 27, 2007
• Hercules-Glades NWA, 233 km northeast ofthe Mill. • Wichita Mountains NWA nearly 300 km westofthe Mill 

### 3.0 CENRAP CONTRIBUTION TO CALPUFFMODELING For this application ofBART Modeling, CENRAP and ODEQ have the following data bases developed by TRC available:

• Compiled version ofthe CALPUFFmodeling system, provided directly from Kansas Department ofHealth and Environment ("VISTAS" version)

• 6-km CALMET outputfiles for 2001,2002, and 2003 produced as described in the CENRAP CommonProtocol.

• Background ozone files suitable for CALPUFF v.5.7.11. 

### 4.0 MODEL DISCUSSION 

### 4.1 General Procedures For sources subject to a full BART engineering analysis, GP is beginning with the most refined dataset available from CENRAP. The fine grid analyses will use both the highest impact value for the 24-hr average at each Class I area. The CENRAP Common Modeling Protocol consistently recommends conservative assumptions. Individual States ultimately have responsibility to determine which, ifany, BART controls are recommended in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The CENRAP protocol presents additionaldetailed information on the meteorological fields, and specific settings for CALPUFF and CALPOST. The analysis was performed in the following sequence for 2001, 2002 and 2003 individually: Step 1. Produce raw concentration files by executing CALPUFF for the two emission units individually with thefollowing 10 species: 

### 1. S02 2. S04

P:\BARTexemption Protocol Muskogee.doc 7OP Muskogee Mill BART Modeling Report March 27, 2007 

### 3. NOx 4. HN03 5. N03 

### 6. NH3 

### 7. PMC 8. PMF 9. EC 10. SOA Step 2. Execute CALPOSTfor each ofthe four Class I Areas with the total concentration file from Step 1. CALPOSTresult filenames use the "PS"prefix. Step 3. Import the CALPOST result file input the New IMPROVE Excel spreadsheet provided by VISTAS. Step 5 is only applied to CALPOST result sets showing a maximum value greater than 0.5 dv.



### 4.2 CALPUFF Configuration Source emissions should be defined using the maximum 24-hour actual emission rate during normal operation for the period 2001-2003. If maximum 24-hr actual emissions are not available, continuous emissions data, permit allowable emissions, potential emissions, and emissions factors from AP-42 source profiles may be used as available. Specific configuration settings presented in the CENRAP Common Modeling Protocol are listed below:

• Use default data provided by CENRAPfor background concentrations ofS04 and total N03(HN03

### +N03).

P:\BARTexemption Protocol Muskogee.doc 8GPMuskogee Mill BART Modeling Report March 27, 2007


### • Use hourly ozone data as the background ozone input as prepared by CENRAP. (Note that the format for the data is only compatible with CALPUF 5.7.l1a, not the "VISTAS" version ofCALPUFF)

• Use the Pasquill-Gifford dispersion method.

• In CALPOST, use Method 6 with monthly average RH for calculating extinction, as recommendedbythe EPA.

• Use EPA default calculations of light extinction under average background conditions. The major features and options of the meteorological and dispersion model are summarized and discussed in the CENRAP CommonModeling ProtocoL As also discussed in the CENRAP Common Modeling Protocol, CALPUFF is currently not recommended for addressing visibility impacts from VOC because its capability to simulate secondary organic aerosol formation from VOC emissions is not adequately tested, especially for anthropogenic emissions. (Separately, condensable organic carbon can be calculated from PMlO.) GP completed the analysis with the south domain 6-km meteorological datasets provided by CENRAP. Figure 2 presents the modeling domain, the Class I Area model receptors and Muskogee Mill.

P:\BART exemption Protocol Muskogee.doc 9GP Muskogee Mill BART Modeling Report March 27, 2007 CENRAP South 6 km Modeling Domain with GP Mill and Class I Areas Within 300 km

Hercules-Glades -200

GPMILL Upper Buffalo 

# .. 1

Wichita Mtns Caney Creek 

## E**~** -800 .c: 1::: o Z o o**-1000 ~** **~** -1200

- -1 -1400

­ Terrain (m) -1600 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 LCC East (km) 200 400 600 800 I 

## o 4500 3900 3700 3500 3300 3100 2900 2700 2500 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 500 300 100

P:\BART exemption Protocol Musk ogee.doc IOGPMuskogee Mill BARTModeling Report March 27, 2007 

### 5.0 RESULTS AND DETERMINATIONOFIMPAIRMENT 

### 5.1 Impact Threshold
The final BART guidance recommends a threshold value of 0.5 dv change from natural conditions to define whether a source "contributes" to visibility impairment(although states may set a lower threshold)
.. The 98th 

### percentile (8th 

### highest annual) 24-hr average. predicted impact at the Class I area, as calculated using CALPOST Method 6 (monthly average relative humidity values), is to be compared to this contribution threshold value. Forthis comparison, the predicted impact at the Class I area on any day is taken to be the highest 24-hr average impact at any receptor in the Class I area onthat day. (Note that the receptor where the highest impact occurs can change from day to day.) According to clarification ofthe BART guidance presented in the final CENRAP modeling protocol, for athree-year simulation the modeling values to be compared with the threshold are the greatest of the three maximum values over all three years. CALPUFF presents the visibilitychange in both a % 

### change and a dv change form. 

### 5.2 Presentation ofModeling Results Table 3 summarizes the CALPOST result for the highest predicted % 

### change for each year and each Class I Area. In addition to the highest change in deciview value on each day over all the receptors in a particular Class I area, the CALPOST summary table in Table 3 contains the coordinates of the receptor, receptor type (D indicates discrete receptors), the total haze level (background 

### + source, in dv), the background haze in deciviews, the change in haziness (delta dv), the humidity term applied to hygroscopic aerosols (F(RH)), and the contribution of each species to light extinction (in percent of the total source contribution) for S04, N03, organics, elemental carbon, coarse and fine particulate matter. As shown, the maximum predicted impact for all datasets is below the 0.5 dv criteria. The new IMPROVE equation was not applied to any model result.

P:\BARTexemption Protocol Muskogee.doc IIGPMuskogeeMill BART Modeling Report March 27,2007

Table 3. MaximumPredicted Visibility Impact for 2001-2003, GPMuskogee Mill Model Year Model Year I Area Julian Day Receptor# Delta dv 2001 286

18 0.33 2002 Caney Creek 309 52 0.47 60 67 0.49 2001 2002 2003 Hercules-Glades 348 309 61 161 161 147 0.37 0.35 0.24 Class I Area UEEer Buffalo Wichita Mountains Julian Day 348 302 314 309 302 314 Receptor# 175 239 239 288 289 282 Delta dv 0.37 0.36 0.31
. 0.11 0.47 0.34

P;\BART exemption Protocol Muskogee.doc 12