### Appendix 

### L.3: Greenwood Utilities 

## - Henderson 

### AppendixL.3 

### contents: L.3.1 

### Appendix summary L.3.2 

### BART information request letter L.3.3 

### BART eligibility letter L.3.4 

### BART modeling report L.3.5 

### BART exemption letter

### Appendix L.3.1

Greenwood Utilities - 

### Henderson Station (1560-00048) BART Process Summary As a fossil fuel fired steam electric plant, Greenwood Utilities meets the initial BART eligibility requirement of source category code. The Henderson station is 281 

### km from Sipsey Wilderness Area, a Class I area, and has a possible visibility impact. Therefore, on February 28, 2002, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) sent them a letter requesting information to determine BART eligibility. Based on the information received from Greenwood Utilities, one unit was deemed BART eligible because it met the following criteria: operating or under construction between Aug.7, 1962to Aug.7, 1977 having potential emissions that exceed the limit of 250 tons per year for SO?,NO,, or PM 1 0. The following is the BART-eligible point source for Greenwood. 260MMBtuhr Boiler (AA-003) o 

### natural gas, no.6 fuel oil, coal o 

### installed in 1967 o 

### potential SO2emissions of 2030 tons per year o 

### potential NO, emissions of 260 tons per year o 

### potential PMlO emissions of 254 tons per year o 

### currently particulate emissions are controlled by a cyclone As a result, Greenwood Utilities was required to perform CALPUFF modeling on this unit. Using the old IMPROVE equation, the modeling analysis demonstrated a 9sth percentile 24-hour average visibility impact of 0.22 dv for Breton. The threshold contribution for BART subjectivity is 0.5 dv; therefore, Greenwood Utilities -

### Henderson Station is not BART subject.

### Appendix L.3.2

STATE 

### OF MISSISSIPPI DAVIDRONALD MUSCiROM.- 

### MISSISSIPPI 

### DEPARTMENT OF

### ENVIRONMENTAL 

### QUALITY QuwsH. CHISOLM, EXECUTIVE DIRRJIOR


### February 

### 28,2002 

### Mr. T. 

## M. Flanagan GreenwoodUtilities

# -Henderson 

## P.O.Box 

### 866 

### Greenwood,MS 38930 

# COPY

Re: BART Information Request 

## Dear Mr. Flanagan: 

## InJuly 1999,TheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA) issued ~gional haze regulations to improve visual air

### quality, or visibility,in specified national parks and wilderness areas 

### acrossthe 

### country. These regulations require statesto

### establish goals for 

### improvingvisibility 

### in these areas 

### and to submit stateimplementation plans (SIPS) that contain enforceablemeasures and control strategies forreducing visibility-impairing pollution. One component ofthese regulations istoreduce emissions 

### hm certain, existing, large emission

### units by 

### installingthebest available emission controls. Thisrequirement, known 

### as the Best Available Retrofit Technology 

## (BART) requirement, appliesto emissionunitsthat:
wm built between August 7,1962 and August 7,1977; have thepotential to emit 250

### tons

### per year or more ofammonia, 

### nitrogenoxides, particulatematter lessthat 10

### microns (PMlo), suMbrdioxide, or volatileorganic compounds, eitherindividuallyor

### in combination with other such

### units; and faH into one of26 listed 

### source categories, includingsteam electricplants and industrialboilers, and large industrialplants such 

### aspulp mills, 

### nfincrits, and smeltas. See 

### attached list. 

### Thc final implementationplan should be 

### submittedto 

## EPA by 

### December 3 1,2008, and must contain, among other things, 

### the emissionlimits and compliance schedulesforeach BART subject source. The 

### first step

### in thisprocess isto identify all BART subject soufcts. Mississippi and other southeastern states and tribes have formed aRegional Planning Organization,known asVISTAS, to work on 

### the regional haze issue and therequired

### implementationplans. It 

## is ourgoal to have all BART subjectfacilities

### and the specific emission units 

### at the facilitiesidentifiedby 

### June 2002. 

### An initial file

### review indicatesthat your facilityispotentially subjectto 

### the BART requirementbecause it falls

### into one ofthe 26 sourcecategories, was built prior to August 

### 7, 1977, and 

### haspotential emissions greaterthan 

### 250 tons

### per year for at least oneof

### the visibility-impairing pollutants. However, the information listedbelow is needed to 

### make a determination. The initial 

### startupdate for facility. The initial 

### starnrp date forindividual emission units. 

### The dates of anymodification orreconstruction for individual units. 

### The BART sourcecategoryofthe emission units. 

### A 

### list ofemission units

### obtained 

### hm our 

### files is enclosed. Pkase enter 

### thc dates of initial start-up and anymodification orreconslmction, review 

### and make anycorrections to the listed sourcecategory, and 

### review and make anyconcctionsto the potential emissions. This informationis also available

### inexcel 

### spreadshtctformat which can

### be completed and submitted electronically. Please qmndby April 19,2002. If

### this information isnot received, the fwility and all emission units

### atthe facilitywill be considered subjectto the BART requirements. 

### However, 

### the final damnhationswill not be made until 

### the 

## SIP developmentprocess. 

## Thankyou foryour help witb this project. Ifyou 

### have any questions, please contact

### me at 

### (601)961-5176 or

### DeborahBoleware at (601)961-5768, If you 

### would 

### likethe electronic copy ofthe &ion unit list, please send 

### an e-mail to 

### deborahrahbolcwara@dtq.state-ms.us and 

### elliott-bick-q.state.ms.us. 

# c&ae;S-.--w-p Elliott Bickerstaff, 

## P.E. Chief, Air 

### SupportBranch

### Appendix L.3.3

STATE

### OF MISSISSIPPI DAVIDRONALDMVSGRM.GOMRNDR 

### MISSISSIPPIDEPARTMENT OF

### ENVIRONMENTAL QuALIIY CHARLESH. CHISOLM. U(ECVMDl

### September 

### 9,2002 

### Mr. William 

### J. Gamd Greenwood Utilities 

# - Henderson 

## P.O.Box 

### 866 Greenwood, MS 

### 38930 Re: BART Information Response Greenwood Utilities, Henderson Leflorc County, Mississippi 

## Dear Mr. 

## Gammill: This letter 

### is to acknowledge receipt of your April 19, 

### 2002 response to our Best 

### Available Retrofit Technology (BART) information request. After 

### reviewing the 

### information you submitted, it appearsyour facility is BART eligiblefor the following reasons: 1. 

### Unit AA-003falls into the category for fossil fuel-fired stcamekctricplants (250

### MMBTU heat input 

### per hour). 2. This unit began operation during the August 7, 1%2 

### to August 7, 1977date range. 3. 

### The emissions from this unit exceed the 

### 250 tons 

### per 

## year limit. On 

### May 24, 2002, 

### the 

## D.C.circuit court vacated the BART provisions of the Regional 

## Haze Rule (RHR). At issue 

## is the metbod of determining the 

### cost 

## and bentfits 

### of installing BART at a particular source. 

### The RHR requires this determination to be 

### made on a group or collenivebasis; however, it

### was argued 

### that the Ckan Air Act 

### requires this determinationto be 

### made on a sourceby sourcebasis. 

### In a 

### 2-1 decision, 

### a three-judgepanel agreed with the petitioners 

## and vacated the 

### BART provisions, requiring 

### EPA to revise the BARTrequirementsto incorporate a sourceby soum approach. 

## EPA has filed apetition seeking 

### rebearing of the

## case by the full court. 

### Depending 

### on the outcome ofthe appeals process, this rulingmay affect what controls a BART applicablesource will 

## be required to install, but the 

### ruling did not addrcss and 

### therefore will not impact the methods in determining theBART applicabksources. We have identifiedemissionunit AA-003at the facility to be 

### subjcctto this rcquiremmt. Pleasenote tbat 

## a BART applicable 

## source is one that will be 

### considered for retrofit

### Appendix L.3.3 

## technology controls. It 

## does not 

## necessarily 

## meanthat additionalcontrolswill be 

## required for the 

## source. Those determinations will be 

### made 

## over the next 

## several

## years during the 

## Regional 

## Hazeplanning and 

## our State Implementation Plan develapmcnt process. Attached 

## are the 

## BART requirement text 

### and 

## the applicabledefinitionsfrom 

## the 

## Code ofFederal 

## Regulations. Ifyou 

## have questionsor commcnb regarding tbe 

### BART 

## requirementsor 

## this designation,please contactme at 

### (601) 

### 961-5176

## or Deborah 

## Boleware

## at (601) 961-5768, 

## Sincerely,

Chief, Air 

### Support

### Appendix L.3.4



# BART Exemption Modeling of Sources in Mississippi

January 

### 2007

Prepared For: VISTAS 526 Forest Parkway, Suite F Forest Park, GA 30297

Submitted By: 

### TRC Environmental Corporation Wannalancit Mills 650 Suffolk Street, Suite 200 Lowell, MA 0 1854

## TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. 

### INTRODUCTION 2. 

### SOURCE PARAMETERS 3. 

### GEOPHYSICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3.1 Modeling Domain, Terrain, and Class I Areas 3.2 Land Use 3.3 Meteorological Data Base 3.4 Air Quality Monitoring Data 4. 

### RESULTS 5. 

### REFERENCES



## LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2-la. International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill: Source Parameters and Emissions 2-2 Table 2-1b. International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill: Particle Speciation 2-2 Table 2-2a. Greenwood Utilities, Henderson: Source Parameters and Emissions 2-3 Table 2-2b. Greenwood Utilities, Henderson: Particle Speciation 2-3 Table 4-1. Summary of Visibility Results for International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill 4-2 Table 4-2. Summary of Visibility Results for Greenwood Utilities, Henderson 4-2 Table 4-3. Monthly f(RH) Values Based on the Centroid of the Area, for Visibility Method 6 Applications

### LIST OF 

### FIGURES Page Figure 3-1. Terrain elevations for the CALMET 12-km regional domain. CALPUFF computational subdomain, the Class I areas and the locations ofthe Mississippi facilities are also shown. 3-2 Figure 3-2. Terrain elevations for the CALPUFF computational subdomain. The Class I areas and the sites ofthe Mississippi facilities are also shown. 3-3 Figure 3-3. Land Use for the CALPUFF computational subdomain. The Class I areas and the sites ofthe Mississippi facilities are also shown. 3-5 Figure 3-4. Plot of ozone stations used for the CALPUFF simulations. The Class I areas and the sites ofthe Mississippi facilities are also shown. 3-6

iri

## 1. 

## INTRODUCTION
TRC Environmental Corporation, on behalf of VISTAS has been retained to conduct Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) exemption modeling for a number of facilities in the southeastern United States. This report documents the results of the modeling simulations conducted in accordance with the VISTAS BART Protocol Revision 3.2 dated August 3 1, 2006 (VISTAS, 2006) for emissions from two BART-eligible facilities in Mississippi. The VISTAS BART protocol is based on the use of the CALMET and CALPUFF models (Scire et al., 2000a, 2000b). The modeling approach uses 12-km VISTAS regional CALMET meteorological datasets for facilities located more than 50-km from the closest Class I area for screening simulations of predicted impacts. The highest impact during the three year simulation period is compared to a 0.5 deciview threshold. According to the VISTAS protocol, sources with impacts less than this threshold are not subject to BART control. The modeling uses the VISTAS version of the CALPUFF modeling system (CALMET Version 5.723 and CALPUFF Version 5.754) available from the TRC Atmospheric Studies Group web site (http:/lwww.src.corn).

### 2. SOURCE PARAMETERS VISTAS BART exemption modeling was performed for two facilities in Mississippi. These sources are: (1) International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill and (2) Greenwood Utilities, Henderson. These two facilities were modeled using the screening 12-km regional VISTAS CALMET domain with CALPUFF computational subdomain as shown in Figure 3-1. Locations of the Mississippi sources are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-3. Source parameters and emissions rates as provided by the State of Mississippi for two facilities used in the CALPUFF simulations are shown in Tables 2-la through 2-2a. Tables 2-1b through 2-2b show the particle speciation used in the CALPUFF simulations. In the tables, the column heading PMlo includes all PM mass (condensable plus filterable) emitted as particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (ym) in diameter. The emissions labeled as PMz5are a subset of the PMlo composed of particles less than 2.5 ym in diameter. All condensable emissions are assumed to be in the PMz,5 size range. The PMIoand PM2.5categories include emissions, which in the model are treated as primary sulfate (S04). The emissions of H2S04 are adjusted by the ratio of molecular weights (96198)to obtain the emissions as SO4 which is entered into the model. The PMlosize distribution was represented in the modeling as six explicit size ranges. The partide sizes modeled were as 8.0 ym diameter size particles (PM800) reflecting the size bin 6-10 pm, 4.25 pm diameter particles (PM425) for the size bin 2.5-6 pm, 1.875 pm particles (PM 187) for the size bin 1.25-2.5 pm, 1.125 pm particles (PMI 12) for the size bin 1.00-1.25 pm, 0.8 125pm particles (PM081) for the size bin 0.625-1.OO pm, and 0.5625 pm (PM056) for the size range 0.500-0.625 pm. PM056 was also used for all particles less than 0.5 pm diameter. Emissions of particulate matter in the 2.5-10 pm diameter size range define "coarse particulate matter". Fine particles (soil) were defined using the particle size categories of PM187, PMI 12, PM081, and PM056 which is particulate matter with a size of 2.5 ym diameters or less. For sources with no speciation (emissions given as PMloonly) it was conservatively assumed that all the particulate emissions were condensable which have higher extinction efficiency than either soil or coarse particulate matter. Condensable emissions were assumed to be evenly distributed across the smallest two size categories modeled (i.e. 50 percent in PM081 and 50 percent in PM056).

Sotrrce Parameters 2-1

### z-z slalaurmad Jarnos



### sP s13 sP 

### sP s10 sfi SF ~1% SF md md md md lud mrl md md mli SZYO 0'1 ST1 S'Z SZYO 0.1 SZ'I F'Z 9-S'Z -S'O -SZYO -0'1 -ST1 -S'O -SZ9'0 -0'1 -ST1Table 2-2a. Greenwood Utilities. Henderson: Source Parameters and ~missions'

Table 2-2b. Greenwood Utilities. Henderson: Particle ~~eciation'

ftYPk Particle speciation Condensable Filterable NO, Emissions gls 7.483 1 Stack ID #

002

Emissions obtained the "BART-template-Greenwood Utilities-Henderson.xls"document. The PM speciationpartially provided -only condensables were speciated. Remaining PMI 0 was subsequently speciated into filterables for the modeling purposes. H2S04 emissions are entered in CALPUFF as SO.,i.e., weighted by ratio ofmolecular weights (96198). PM,, emission rate includes filterable and condensable emissions. The condensable component includes H2S0, emissions. M and SD stand for Geometric Mass Mean Diameter and Geometric Standard Deviation. These are the parameters used to calculate the (SO,) particle size distribution in CALPUFF. NH3 Emissions gls PMIO ~missions~ gls 7.2967



### ----.. ID #

002

Source Parameters 2-3 PM2.s Emissions gls 5.9209 Lambert Conformal Coordinates

condensable PMIo

Yo 55.5 Stack Height

m 53.04 LCC East km 628.382 LCC North km -694.365

filterable

PMlo

Yo 44.5 Base Elevation

m 51.51 ~i~~~t~~

m 2.74

organic condensable (OC) 0.625-

1.0 pm gls 1.0485 GasExit Velocity

mls 4.57

0.5- 0.625 pm gls 1.0485 inorganic condensable H2S04 ~~=0.48 SD4=2.0

pm g/s 0.625 -1.0 pm gls 0.2621 Stack Gas Exit Temp.

K 424.82

0.5- 0.625 pm g/s 0.2621 , So2 Emissions g/s 58.3897 H2S04 ~missions~ gls 1.4307

1.4307 10.5289 0.8469 COARSE 6-10 pm gls 0.7468 2,5-6 pm g/s Soil

0.0287 1.25- 2.5 pm g/s 0.2031 Elemental Carbon (EC) 1.25- 2.5 pm .ds 0.0078 1.0- 1.25 pm g/s 0.3750 0.4750 1.0- 1.25 pm 0.0144 0.625-

1.0 pm gls 0.0182 0.5- 0.625 pm gls 0.625- 1.0 pm g/s 0.5- 0.625 pm g/s

## 3. 

## GEOPHYSICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3.1 

### Modeling Domain, Terrain, and Class 

### I Areas Gridded terrain elevations for the 12-km regional VISTAS modeling domain are derived from GTOP030, a global digital elevation model (DEM) with a horizontal grid spacing of 30 arc seconds (approximately 1 kilometer). GTOPO3O is a global data set covering the full extent of latitude from 90 degrees south to 90 degrees north, and the full extent of longitude from 180 degrees west to 180 degrees east, developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The horizontal grid spacing is 30-arc seconds, resulting in a DEM having dimensions of 2 1,600 rows and 43,200 columns. The horizontal coordinate system is decimal degrees of latitude and longitude referenced to WGS84. The vertical units represent elevation in meters above mean sea level. GTOP030 has been divided into 33 smaller pieces, or tiles. Two of these tiles cover regional VISTAS domain: W1OON4O and W 1 OON9O. The VISTAS CALMET 12-km regional domain was used in CALPUFF modeling and BART visibility analysis for two facilities in Mississippi. The CALPUFF computational subdomain was chosen to cover all Class I areas that are within 300 

### km from the MS sources, as well as a 50 km buffer zone from these Class I areas and the Mississippi facilities. The subdomain extends at least 50 km from the Class I areas and all ofthe facilities in order to provide an adequate buffer zone at the boundaries. and to allow the effects of flow curvature and possible small-scale recirculation to be evaluated. Figure 3-1 shows contours of the terrain averaged to 12 km grid cells on the VISTAS 12-km regional domain. Blue rectangle depicts the area of the CALPUFF computational subdomain covering 468 km by 732 km or 39x61 grid cells. A Lambert Conformal Projection is used with an origin of 4O.ON, 97.OW and standard parallels at 33N and 45N. The datum used is NWS-84. The Class I areas covered by the computational subdomain and that were included in the BART visibility analysis are Sipsey and Breton Island (Figure 3-2). 

### 3.2 

### Land Use The USGS Land Use data within the CALMETregional and subregional domains have been used to produce a gridded field of dominant land use categories. The land use data were obtained in Composite Theme Grid format (CTG) from the USGS, with a resolution of 200 m. For the portions ofthe domains where CTG data were missing, North America USGS land uselland cover data have been used. The North America land cover data base is one portion of a global land cover characteristics data base that was developed on a continent-by-continent basis with I -km nominal spatial resolution. Land use data were processed to produce a 12 km resolution gridded field of fractional land use categories for the regional domain. The 37 USGS land use categories were then mapped into 14 CALMET land use categories. Surface properties such as albedo, Bowen ratio, roughness

Geophysical andMe/eorological Data 3-1Elevation (meters)

CALPUFF 

## / 

# I computatatlonaldomaln

LCC Or~g~n 40 0 N, 97 0 W Standard Parallels 33 0 N, 45 0 N Datum NWS-84 LCC East (km)

Figure 3-1. Terrain elevations forthe CALMET 

### 12-kmregional domain. CALPUFF computational subdomain, the Class 1areas and the locations ofthe Mississippi facilities are also shown.

Geophysical and Meteorological Data 3-2500 600 700 800 900 LCC East (km) Figure 

### 3-2. Terrain elevations for the CALPUFF computational subdomain. The Class 

### I areas and the sites ofthe Mississippi facilities are also shown. Elevation (meters)

-k MS facility

LCC Origin: 40.0 N, 97.0W Standard Parallels: 33.0N, 45.0 N Datum: NWS-84

Crophvsrcal and Me~eorological Data 3-3length, and leaf area index were computed proportionally to the fractional land use. The USGS land use categories and their associated geophysical parameters are described in Scire et al. (2000a). Figure 

### 3-3 shows the dominant land use categories for each CALMET grid cell in the modeling subdomain. 

### 3.3 Meteorological Data Base The meteorological data used include the three dimensional gridded model output from the Fifth Generation Penn StateINCAR MM5 (Grell 1995) provided by VISTAS. VISTAS has assembled three years of MM5 meteorological data for the regional CALPUFF modeling. These MM5 datasets have been developed by EPA for 2001, VISTAS for 2002 and Midwest Regional Planning Organization (RPO) for 2003. The MM5 gridded data set consists of hourly values of wind speed, wind direction, temperature and pressure on a grid covering the VISTAS regional 12-km CALMET domain. The MM5 data was run at a horizontal spatial resolution of 12-km for years 2001 and 2002 and 36-km for year 2003. For the VISTAS regional 12-km domain, CALMET runs have been made in the no-observational mode. 

### 3.4 

### Air Quality Monitoring Data CALPUFF uses hourly ozone concentration measurements in the chemical transformation rates (SO2to SO4,NO, to HN03/NO?).The ambient ozone measurements are used in determining SO2 loss rates due to chemical transformation to sulfate and in determining NO, loss rates to nitrate. Ambient ozone monitoring data from the U.S. EPA AIRS and CASTNET networks were used to develop the hourly ozone monitoring data file (0ZONE.DAT). Figure 3-4 provides a plot of available ozone monitoring stations that were used for the CALPUFF modeling. For the base case simulations, a constant ammonia concentration of 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) was assumed as recommended by the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM, 1998) for forested Class 

### I areas. In this application of the model, the Ammonia Limiting Method (ALM) was not used.

tieophysrcal and MeteorologrcalData 3-JSnow 1Ice

Tundra

Barren land

Wetland

Water

Forest land
Rangeland
Agricultural land Urban/ built-up land



## + MS facility
LCC Origin: 40.0 N. ' Standard Parallels: 33 Datum: NWS-84 500 600 700 800 960 LCC East (krn)
Figure 3-3. Land Use for the CALPUFF computational subdomain. The Class 

### I areas and the sites of the Mississippi facilities are also shown. 

## .

Geophysrcaland Meteorological Data 3-5Elevation (meters)

CALPUFF 

# 1 romputat~onal domam .* MS facility
Ozonedata

LCC Origin. 40.0 N, 97.0 W Standard Parallels. 33.0N, 45.0 N Datum: NWS-84 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 LCC East (km)

Figure 3-4. Plot of ozone stations used for the CALPUFF simulations. The Class I areas and the sites of the Mississippi facilities are also shown.

### 4. 

## RESULTS
The results of the CALMET and CALPUFF modeling for two BART-eligible facilities in Mississippi are presented in this section. The simulations were conducted over the three year period of 2001-2003. Modeling was conducted using the VISTAS 12-km gridded CALMET meteorological data files. The POSTUTIL program was used to scale and sum the various CALPUFF concentration files to obtain total concentrations. Emission rates of SOz, SO4,and NO, were input directly to the CALPUFF model while the six particulate species defining specific size categories were modeled as a unit emission rate (1 gls) and then scaled source by source using the POSTUTIL program. CALPOST Method 6 was used to compute the extinction change in deciviews (dv) consistent with the procedures outlined in the VISTAS modeling protocol using the IMPROVE method (CSU, 1996)as recommended by FLAG (2000). Table 4-3 provides the monthly f(RH) values based on the centroid of the Class 1area as required for the application of Method 6. The last column in Tables 4-1 through 4-2 provides the annual average background be, values for each Class I area included in the analysis. For each Class 1 area, the Rayleigh scattering coefficient of 10 ~m-' was subtracted from the annual average background be,, and resulting values were entered in CALPOST as BKSOIL. Tables 4- 1 through 4-2 summarize the maximum predicted extinction changes for 2001, 2002, and 2003 for the Class 1Areas situated within a 300 km radius of the two modeled sources. The highest values ofthe extinction change along with number of exceedances of the 0.5 dv threshold value are presented in these tables. For screening simulations using the 12-km CALMET meteorological grid, the highest predicted change in extinction is compared to the 0.5 dv threshold. According to the VISTAS protocol, screening simulation results below 0.5 dv for all three years indicates that facility is not subject to BART controls. For facilities failing the screen, or those located relatively close to one or more Class 1 areas (usually within 50 km) the state has recommended immediately using the more refined 4-km CALMET meteorological grid. In the refined simulations, the 98th percentile value of prediction change in extinction (i.e., the 8th highest day) is compared to the 0.5 dv threshold. If the highest 98th percentile value during the three year simulation period is below the 0.5 dv threshold, the source is considered not subject to BART controls. Visibility results in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show that the maximum predicted extinction change for each of the Class I areas are all below the 0.5 dv threshold value for both modeled facilities. Breton Island is within 300 km from the International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill. Maximum predicted extinction change due to the BART emissions from this facility is 0.3 15 dv in 2001. The Class I area that is less than 300 

### km away from the Greenwood Utilities, Henderson is Sipsey. Maximum predicted extinction change due to the BART emissions from this facility is 0.216 dv, also in 2001.Table 4-1. Summary ofVisibility Results for International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill
Annual Class I Area 2001 

# 1 2002 

# 1 2003 average background

Table 4-2. Summarv ofVisibilitv Results for Greenwood Utilities. Henderson Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 dv)

Class I Area (~m-I)

Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >I dv)

0.216 (0 0) 

### ( 0.198 (0 0) 

## 1 0.122 (0 0) Annual Breton

average background be,, 0.3I5 (0. 0) 

## 1 0.205 (0,O) 

## 1 0.222 (0,O) 

## I 21.57

Table 4-3. Monthly f(RH) Values Based on the Centroid ofthe Area, for Visibility Method 6 ADDlications Class 1area Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Breton 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 Sipsey 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.4 Source: Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (2003); Appendix A, Table A-3

Results 4-2

### 5. 

## REFERENCES CSU, 1996: IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Environments). Spatial and Seasonal patterns and Long Term Variability of the Composition of the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network. ISSN: 0737-5352-32. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998: Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM), Phase 2 Report: Summary Report and Recommendation for Modeling Long Range Transport and Impacts on Regional Visibility. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454lR-98-0 19. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003: Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Program. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-03-005. FLAG, 2000: Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). Phase 

### I report. Grell, G.A., J.Dudhia, and D.R. Stauffer, 1995: "A Description of the Fifth Generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MMj)", NCAR TN-398-STR, NCAR Technical Note. Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino, 2000a: A User's Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA. Available from littp:i~~vwu~.src.c01n. Scire, J.S., F.R. Robe, M.E. Femau, and R.J. Yamartino, 2000b: A User's Guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA. Available from htt~:ii\vww.src.com. VISTAS, 2006: Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). Revision 3.2, August 2006. Available from ht.t.p:iiwww.vistas-sesar1n.org.

References 5- 1

### Appendix 

### L.3.5



## STATEOF MISSISSIPPI Hum&urnn

Covamm 

### MISSiSSIPPl DEPARTMENT

### OF ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY

. - mD.F-Exllamnm



### October 2,2007 Dudley McBee Greenwood Utilities

# - Henderson P.O. 

### BOX 866 Greenwood, MS 

### 38935 Subject: Exemption fiom BestAvailable RetrofitTechnology (BART) Determination Requirements Henderson, (1560)083-00048 

### Leflore, Mississippi Dear 

### Mr. McBee: Due to the Greenwood Utilities

## - Henderson facility being BART eligible, you were requiredto perform and submit exemption modeling analysis for your eligible units. We have received the exemption modelingperformed by TRC Environmental Corporation. The modeling finds a visibility impact of0.22 deciviews (dv) which is below the 0.5 dv subjectivity threshold. Based on these results, we are proposing that the BART eligible units be exempt from further determination requirements. Mississippi Departmentof Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will include documentation of the proposed exemptions in our Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal. The 

### SPis reviewed and commented on by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other parties with Greenwood Utilities

## - Henderson's exemption contingent on EPA's approval. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Elliott Bickerstaff (601-961-5176)or Deborah Boleware (601-96 1-5768)of my 

### staff. Sincerely,
Maya ~aof/P.~.. BCEE