BART Refinements 110507b.doc 1 of 13 

PNM San Juan Generating Station 

Refined BART Visibility Results 

November 5, 2007 

Introduction 

PNM submitted its BART engineering and modeling application dated June 6, 

2007 for San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Units 1-4. The conclusion of this study 

was that the SCR and SNCR/SCR Hybrid systems minimally impact visibility 

improvements and would require significant capital expenditure and modifications that 

will impact many areas of the plant including boiler draft systems, air heater 

performance, SO3 emissions, and ash handling. Therefore, LNB, OFA and NN were 

recommended as BART for NOx control on the SJGS units. Since the submittal of the 

BART report, PNM has investigated additional refinements to the BART CALPUFF air 

dispersion modeling analyses. These refinements include nitrate repartitioning and more 

realistic ammonia background concentrations. These two refinements are described in 

more detail below. 

Nitrate Repartitioning 

The first refinement for the SJGS BART visibility analyses was to better account 

for the amount of particulate nitrate (NO3) by limiting the available ammonia when 

individual unit puffs overlap. The original visibility modeling did not incorporate 

repartitioning of available ammonia (MNITRATE = 0). However, the refinements did 

not allow each overlapping puff(s) to use the full ammonia background value but instead 

only a portion of the ammonia available (MNITRATE = 1). This concept is reflected in 

Section 3.1.2.6 of the WRAP protocol. 

Ammonia Background Concentration 

As described in Section 8.1 of the BART application, the air dispersion modeling 

analyses presented were conducted in accordance with the CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol 

for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States

dated August 15, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the WRAP Protocol). Specifically, the 

SJGS BART modeling was performed using the same high fixed background ammonia 

level of 1 ppb that was used for the initial modeling performed by WRAP RMC. 

However, there is limited real-time or historic ambient concentration information for 

ammonia within the modeling domain and at the individual Class I areas from sources 

such as CASNET which could be used to verify whether the assumed 1 ppb ammonia 

background concentration is representative. In fact colder temperatures and limited 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 2 of 13 

agriculture activity, among other variables, could limit the amount of ammonia present in 

the ambient atmosphere and that which would be available to chemically react to form 

sulfates and nitrates to reduce visibility. Section 3.1.2.6 of WRAP protocol indicates that 

the 1 ppb value would be initially used and the issue revisited at a later time: 

Thus, based on the fact that western Class I areas tend to be either more arid or 

forest land than grassland we proposed to initially use a 1 ppb background 

ammonia value for the CALPUFF runs. We will then revisit the background 

ammonia values for the Class I areas for the post processing step and provide the 

CALPUFF output to the States so they can investigate alternative background 

ammonia values if desired.

No additional information from the WRAP regarding refined ammonia 

background concentrations was available. Therefore, an investigation was completed to 

locate more realistic ammonia background values. The Sithe Global Power, LLC’s 

Desert Rock Energy Facility and the Toquop Energy Project visibility analyses located in 

the southwestern U.S. used variable monthly background ammonia concentrations. 

Based on this information, refinements to SJGS’s BART modeling reflected these 

previously used values which have been included in Table 1 for reference. 

 

Table 1 

Variable Monthly Ammonia 

Background Concentration 

Month 

Background 

Ammonia 

Concentration 

(ppb) 

January 0.2 

February 0.2 

March 0.2 

April 0.5 

May 0.5 

June 1.0 

July 1.0 

August 1.0 

September 1.0 

October 0.5 

November 0.5 

December 0.5 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 3 of 13 

Visibility Summary 

Based on the aforementioned refinements in background ammonia concentrations 

and nitrate repartitioning revised CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed. It is 

important to note that all other modeling options as described in the BART application 

were unchanged. The results of the refined visibility modeling, assuming the same 

control technology is installed on all four units, are illustrated in Tables 2 and 5. These 

tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any 

of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. The results of this 

analysis, using the aforementioned refinements, indicates a decrease in visibility impact 

at each of the 16 Class I areas from those visibility impacts indicated in the BART 

application document. Of particular interest, the visibility impacts at Mesa Verde 

represent the maximum visibility impact at any of the Class I areas. However, these 

impacts also decrease from those impacts previously reported. For the two control 

scenarios, the visibility impacts are greater than the baseline’s visibility impact. Thus, 

there is no visibility improvement realized. 

 The maximum visibility (deciview) improvement seen at any of the 16 Class I 

areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Table 6 for each scenario. 

The expected degree of visibility improvement for each control scenario for each unit 

analyzed was determined by the difference in the maximum visibility improvement for 

each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas. Again, it is important to note that the 

control technology associated with the consent decree formulated the SJGS's baseline 

case for the purposes of this analysis. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness for the 

potential BART control technologies from the BART application were used to for the 

determination of the visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/deciview ($/dv). 

Three major scenarios are shown in the visibility improvement cost effectiveness 

summary in Table 6: 

1.0 Pre-consent decree to consent decree. 

2.0 Consent decree to additional NOx control technology alternatives scenario. 

3.0 Pre-consent decree to additional NOx control technology alternatives 

scenario. 

These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the two 

control scenarios range from 0.01 dv to 0.38 dv of expected visibility improvement above 

the consent decree technology baseline case. The results indicate that adding additional 

NOx control technology beyond the consent decree does not yield a significant visibility 

improvement (> 0.5 dv) at any Class I area. 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 4 of 13 

Based on the visibility improvement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated 

in the impact analysis stage of the BART application document, the cost-effectiveness for 

visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determined 

for SJGS. The costs for installation of SCRs for all four units is $256 million/dv while 

the costs to install a hybrid system is $587 million/dv. These minimal visibility 

improvements do not merit the large capital expenditure required to install SCR or 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid. In addition to the prohibitive cost associated with SCR and 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid, there are other important reasons that LNB, OFA and NN should be 

considered BART for the SJGS units. First, the LNB, OFA and NN systems being 

installed to meet the consent decree are state-of-the-art combustion controls. State-ofthe-art combustion controls comprising of LNB, OFA and NN technologies were used to 

form the basis for the BART presumptive limits for NOx in the BART guidelines. 

Second, installation of SCR or SNCR/SCR Hybrid uses ammonia to reduce NOx

emissions. Specifically, in a SCR system, ammonia is injected into the flue gas stream 

just upstream of a catalytic reactor. The ammonia molecules in the presence of the 

catalyst dissociate NOx into nitrogen and water. Any unreacted ammonia passes through 

the reactor and out the stack as ammonia emissions or ammonia slip. This additional 

ammonia would then be available to add to the ammonia background concentration, 

chemically react to form nitrates and sulfates and potentially further increase the visibility 

impacts at the Class I areas. The additional ammonia slip was not considered in this 

analysis. Finally, the visibility results imply that visibility impacts are influenced more 

by the SJGS’s sulfur emissions (SO2 and additional SO3 from the NOx control devices) 

than by the reduction of NOx. However, sulfur emissions are not subject to BART 

requirements because New Mexico participates in the WRAP emissions trading program. 

Therefore, LNB, OFA and NN should be considered BART for NOx control on the SJGS 

units. 

A summary of the 98th percentile visibility impact for the four modeled 

technology scenarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, SCR, and 

hybrid scenarios) and include the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold and 

the contribution of each pollutant associated with the 98th percentile visibility impact for 

each class I area has been included as Attachment 1. 

Conclusion

As previously noted in the BART analysis, the recommended BART control for 

SJGS is LNB, OFA, and a NN for NOx control and PJFF for PM control. 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 5 of 13 

Table 2 

Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results 

New Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 

Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 

Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 

Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 

Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 

Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 

Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 

La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 

Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 

Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 

Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 

Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 

San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 

West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 

Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 

Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 

Overall 1.53 4.85 

 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 6 of 13 

Table 3 

Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results 

New Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile for Each Year (dv) 

 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 

Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 

Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 

Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 

Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 

Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 

Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 

La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 

Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 

Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 

Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 

Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 

San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 

West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 

Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 

Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 

Overall 1.24 3.80 

 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 7 of 13 

Table 4 

SCR Visibility Modeling Results 

New Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.72 1.41 1.48 1.54 1.72 

Bandelier 0.94 1.30 1.23 1.16 1.30 

Black Canyon 0.82 0.83 0.92 0.85 0.92 

Canyonlands 2.38 1.73 1.92 2.01 2.38 

Capitol Reef 1.43 0.76 0.98 1.06 1.43 

Grand Canyon 0.73 0.60 0.56 0.63 0.73 

Great Sand Dunes 0.58 0.55 0.47 0.53 0.58 

La Garita 0.62 0.70 0.67 0.66 0.70 

Maroon Bells 0.42 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.42 

Mesa Verde 5.34 5.32 6.00 5.55 6.00 

Pecos 0.85 0.99 0.92 0.92 0.99 

Petrified Forest 0.73 0.53 0.55 0.61 0.73 

San Pedro 1.73 2.05 1.83 1.87 2.05 

West Elk 0.64 0.66 0.62 0.64 0.66 

Weminuche 1.14 1.61 1.45 1.40 1.61 

Wheeler Peak 0.69 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.69 

Overall 1.28 6.00 

 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 8 of 13 

Table 5 

Hybrid Visibility Modeling Results 

New Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.75 1.59 1.61 1.65 1.75 

Bandelier 1.03 1.52 1.27 1.27 1.52 

Black Canyon 0.91 1.03 1.06 1.00 1.06 

Canyonlands 2.41 1.72 1.89 2.01 2.41 

Capitol Reef 1.67 0.74 1.13 1.18 1.67 

Grand Canyon 0.87 0.71 0.64 0.74 0.87 

Great Sand Dunes 0.72 0.72 0.58 0.67 0.72 

La Garita 0.79 0.85 0.82 0.82 0.85 

Maroon Bells 0.53 0.55 0.45 0.51 0.55 

Mesa Verde 5.17 5.07 5.55 5.26 5.55 

Pecos 0.93 1.01 1.00 0.98 1.01 

Petrified Forest 0.79 0.56 0.58 0.64 0.79 

San Pedro 1.69 2.14 1.81 1.88 2.14 

West Elk 0.72 0.80 0.74 0.75 0.80 

Weminuche 1.17 1.72 1.34 1.41 1.72 

Wheeler Peak 0.81 0.77 0.84 0.81 0.84 

Overall 1.35 5.55 

 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 9 of 13 

Table 6

Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)

New Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

 Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement 

(98th Percentile, see Note 1) Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area) (see Note 

Class 1 Area

Pre-Consent 

Decree Consent Decree SCR Hybrid

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

Consent Decree

Consent Decree 

to SCR

Consent Decree 

to Hybrid

Pre-Consent 

Decree to SCR

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

Hybrid

Pre-Consent 

Decree to Consent 

Decree

Consent Decree to 

SCR

Consent Decr

Hybrid

Arches 1.92 1.69 1.72 1.75 0.23 NI NI 0.20 0.17 224,751,092 NA NA Bandelier 1.86 1.56 1.30 1.52 0.31 0.26 0.04 0.57 0.35 167,648,208 374,488,462 2,136,717,9Black Canyon 1.40 1.15 0.92 1.06 0.26 0.23 0.09 0.49 0.34 201,835,294 421,502,165 957,839,0Canyonlands 2.59 2.26 2.38 2.41 0.33 NI NI 0.21 0.17 158,363,077 NA NA Capitol Reef 1.97 1.81 1.43 1.67 0.16 0.38 0.14 0.54 0.30 319,677,019 256,228,947 586,845,0Grand Canyon 1.14 0.97 0.73 0.87 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.41 0.27 304,544,379 409,105,042 816,980,3Great Sand Dunes 1.00 0.71 0.58 0.72 0.29 0.13 NI 0.42 0.28 179,331,010 726,619,403 NA La Garita 1.30 0.94 0.70 0.85 0.36 0.24 0.09 0.60 0.45 142,966,667 402,342,975 905,782,6Maroon Bells 0.78 0.56 0.42 0.55 0.22 0.14 0.01 0.36 0.23 236,091,743 705,557,971 9,259,111,Mesa Verde 4.85 3.80 6.00 5.55 1.06 NI NI NI NI 48,692,526 NA NA Pecos 1.40 1.09 0.99 1.01 0.31 0.11 0.08 0.41 0.39 168,196,078 901,546,296 1,004,000,0Petrified Forest 1.13 0.82 0.73 0.79 0.31 0.08 0.03 0.40 0.34 165,491,961 1,159,130,952 3,205,076,9San Pedro 2.37 2.01 2.05 2.14 0.36 NI NI 0.32 0.24 142,966,667 NA NA West Elk 1.15 0.91 0.66 0.80 0.24 0.26 0.11 0.49 0.35 216,252,101 381,831,373 737,451,3Weminuche 1.85 1.48 1.61 1.72 0.37 NI NI 0.24 0.14 138,727,763 NA NA Wheeler Peak 1.05 0.89 0.69 0.84 0.16 0.20 0.05 0.36 0.21 323,698,113 477,289,216 1,543,185,

Notes:

1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data taken from Tables 1-4 for each Class I Area.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):

Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree $51,468Consent Decree to SCR $97,367Consent Decree to Hybrid $83,332Pre-Consent Decree to SCR $148,835Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid $134,800
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 10 of 13 

Attachment 1 
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 11 of 13 

PNM SJGS BART Modeling

New NH3 Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

2001

Pre-Consent Decree (4)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100

BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100

BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100

CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100

CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100

GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100

GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100

LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100

MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100

MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100

PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100

PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100

SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100

WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100

WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100

WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree (3)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100

BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100

BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100

CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100

CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100

GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100

GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100

LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100

MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100

MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100

PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100

PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100

SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100

WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100

WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100

WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

SCR (2)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 50 1.72 94.35 0.92 2.11 0.54 0.37 1.71 100

BAND 48 0.94 85.85 8.21 2.65 0.68 0.56 2.06 100

BLCA 23 0.82 81.07 12.87 2.66 0.68 0.67 2.05 100

CANY 77 2.38 89.46 5.07 2.40 0.61 0.58 1.87 100

CARE 27 1.43 90.43 3.73 2.54 0.65 0.66 1.99 100

GRCA 11 0.73 85.62 9.25 2.24 0.57 0.54 1.77 100

GRSA 10 0.58 93.53 2.68 1.67 0.43 0.41 1.29 100

LAGA 13 0.62 94.70 0.31 2.25 0.57 0.42 1.75 100

MABE 5 0.42 94.65 1.90 1.53 0.39 0.33 1.20 100

MEVE 174 5.34 93.13 1.46 2.33 0.60 0.68 1.80 100

PECO 30 0.85 88.59 7.59 1.71 0.44 0.35 1.33 100

PEFO 13 0.73 92.85 1.81 2.34 0.60 0.58 1.81 100

SAPE 93 1.73 89.63 1.59 3.83 0.98 1.02 2.95 100

WEEL 14 0.64 91.43 4.42 1.84 0.47 0.37 1.46 100

WEMI 44 1.14 83.29 13.93 1.24 0.32 0.24 0.99 100

WHPE 19 0.69 79.78 16.37 1.73 0.44 0.33 1.34 100

Hybrid (1)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 54 1.75 86.81 7.39 2.56 0.65 0.58 2.01 100

BAND 51 1.03 72.28 22.33 2.41 0.61 0.50 1.87 100

BLCA 25 0.91 66.97 27.65 2.36 0.60 0.60 1.82 100

CANY 79 2.41 84.50 10.46 2.19 0.56 0.58 1.71 100

CARE 29 1.67 54.89 43.68 0.63 0.16 0.12 0.52 100

GRCA 11 0.87 60.05 37.58 1.05 0.27 0.22 0.84 100

GRSA 14 0.72 73.17 20.08 3.08 0.79 0.51 2.38 100

LAGA 16 0.79 46.38 50.73 1.26 0.32 0.33 0.97 100

MABE 9 0.53 62.93 33.71 1.52 0.39 0.27 1.19 100

MEVE 174 5.17 90.57 3.81 2.43 0.62 0.70 1.88 100

PECO 37 0.93 77.26 19.26 1.55 0.40 0.32 1.21 100

PEFO 14 0.79 51.23 46.41 1.02 0.26 0.29 0.79 100

SAPE 102 1.69 88.26 6.70 2.18 0.56 0.63 1.68 100

WEEL 19 0.72 55.94 42.36 0.77 0.20 0.13 0.61 100

WEMI 52 1.17 56.13 39.71 1.82 0.46 0.47 1.41 100

WHPE 23 0.81 81.91 13.74 1.94 0.49 0.41 1.51 100
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 12 of 13 

PNM SJGS BART Modeling

New NH3 Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

2002

Pre-Consent Decree (4)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100

BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100

BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100

CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100

CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100

GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100

GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100

LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100

MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100

MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100

PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100

PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100

SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100

WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100

WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100

WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree (3)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100

BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100

BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100

CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100

CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100

GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100

GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100

LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100

MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100

MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100

PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100

PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100

SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100

WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100

WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100

WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

SCR (2)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 37 1.41 86.10 10.46 1.51 0.39 0.36 1.20 100

BAND 58 1.30 81.38 16.06 1.14 0.29 0.23 0.90 100

BLCA 26 0.83 76.99 18.90 1.81 0.46 0.39 1.44 100

CANY 59 1.73 91.73 1.93 2.72 0.69 0.83 2.09 100

CARE 13 0.76 95.94 0.19 1.73 0.44 0.35 1.36 100

GRCA 11 0.60 80.95 16.20 1.26 0.32 0.24 1.03 100

GRSA 9 0.55 71.96 25.33 1.21 0.31 0.22 0.97 100

LAGA 24 0.70 94.09 2.99 1.32 0.34 0.23 1.04 100

MABE 4 0.42 81.39 13.63 2.25 0.57 0.39 1.77 100

MEVE 187 5.32 92.89 0.87 2.67 0.68 0.83 2.06 100

PECO 33 0.99 85.79 9.66 2.10 0.54 0.29 1.63 100

PEFO 8 0.53 96.11 0.51 1.51 0.39 0.27 1.21 100

SAPE 102 2.05 85.01 8.65 2.76 0.70 0.74 2.14 100

WEEL 18 0.66 75.86 18.85 2.30 0.59 0.63 1.77 100

WEMI 77 1.61 85.59 11.64 1.23 0.31 0.25 0.98 100

WHPE 15 0.65 93.52 2.29 1.87 0.48 0.37 1.47 100

Hybrid (1)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 37 1.59 68.58 27.60 1.67 0.43 0.41 1.31 100

BAND 65 1.52 65.99 30.36 1.61 0.41 0.36 1.27 100

BLCA 32 1.03 56.84 39.89 1.44 0.37 0.31 1.15 100

CANY 58 1.72 77.17 19.27 1.57 0.40 0.35 1.24 100

CARE 16 0.74 95.41 0.62 1.77 0.45 0.35 1.39 100

GRCA 11 0.71 62.84 34.03 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.06 100

GRSA 13 0.72 92.69 4.29 1.37 0.35 0.22 1.08 100

LAGA 34 0.85 53.84 44.21 0.87 0.22 0.18 0.69 100

MABE 9 0.55 90.36 6.66 1.32 0.34 0.30 1.03 100

MEVE 188 5.07 90.60 2.77 2.84 0.72 0.88 2.19 100

PECO 43 1.01 90.35 4.34 2.43 0.62 0.37 1.90 100

PEFO 10 0.56 51.18 46.06 1.23 0.31 0.20 1.01 100

SAPE 111 2.14 75.45 21.93 1.16 0.30 0.25 0.92 100

WEEL 27 0.80 51.82 44.69 1.52 0.39 0.41 1.18 100

WEMI 89 1.72 61.84 35.59 1.14 0.29 0.24 0.91 100

WHPE 19 0.77 75.30 20.88 1.75 0.45 0.23 1.39 100
BART Refinements 110507b.doc 13 of 13 

PNM SJGS BART Modeling

New NH3 Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

2003

Pre-Consent Decree (4)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100

BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100

BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100

CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100

CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100

GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100

GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100

LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100

MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100

MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100

PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100

PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100

SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100

WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100

WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100

WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree (3)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100

BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100

BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100

CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100

CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100

GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100

GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100

LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100

MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100

MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100

PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100

PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100

SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100

WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100

WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100

WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

SCR (2)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 33 1.48 82.68 10.62 2.89 0.74 0.84 2.23 100

BAND 54 1.23 90.04 4.35 2.54 0.65 0.43 1.98 100

BLCA 16 0.92 86.11 9.21 2.04 0.52 0.53 1.60 100

CANY 51 1.92 93.39 1.65 2.13 0.54 0.65 1.64 100

CARE 22 0.98 81.69 13.72 1.99 0.51 0.54 1.54 100

GRCA 9 0.56 93.81 1.80 1.93 0.49 0.43 1.54 100

GRSA 6 0.47 86.63 9.72 1.63 0.42 0.34 1.27 100

LAGA 17 0.67 73.76 20.28 2.75 0.70 0.25 2.25 100

MABE 3 0.34 79.31 17.67 1.32 0.34 0.32 1.04 100

MEVE 169 6.00 88.68 0.13 4.74 1.21 1.60 3.64 100

PECO 43 0.92 94.42 2.24 1.47 0.38 0.34 1.15 100

PEFO 11 0.55 92.48 3.80 1.66 0.42 0.29 1.34 100

SAPE 102 1.83 94.34 1.46 1.85 0.47 0.44 1.44 100

WEEL 11 0.62 77.34 17.32 2.34 0.60 0.59 1.82 100

WEMI 64 1.45 89.59 2.31 3.46 0.88 1.09 2.66 100

WHPE 18 0.66 83.73 13.71 1.16 0.30 0.18 0.92 100

Hybrid (1)

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 33 1.61 90.58 4.37 2.23 0.57 0.44 1.81 100

BAND 61 1.27 81.94 12.64 2.46 0.63 0.42 1.91 100

BLCA 18 1.06 85.53 9.51 2.15 0.55 0.59 1.68 100

CANY 54 1.89 90.28 4.66 2.17 0.55 0.66 1.67 100

CARE 22 1.13 66.11 29.95 1.71 0.44 0.47 1.33 100

GRCA 9 0.64 72.51 24.95 1.12 0.29 0.23 0.90 100

GRSA 12 0.58 56.57 40.05 1.52 0.39 0.10 1.37 100

LAGA 23 0.82 70.71 26.11 1.40 0.36 0.32 1.09 100

MABE 6 0.45 56.85 40.90 0.99 0.25 0.24 0.77 100

MEVE 172 5.55 87.05 0.55 5.25 1.34 1.77 4.04 100

PECO 48 1.00 76.28 20.18 1.61 0.41 0.25 1.27 100

PEFO 10 0.58 85.18 11.26 1.59 0.41 0.28 1.28 100

SAPE 103 1.81 91.07 4.68 1.87 0.48 0.45 1.45 100

WEEL 18 0.74 62.54 33.72 1.63 0.42 0.40 1.29 100

WEMI 69 1.34 80.10 10.76 3.91 1.00 1.14 3.10 100

WHPE 25 0.84 78.02 17.94 1.85 0.47 0.25 1.46 100