### VISIBILITY MODELING ANALYSIS

RAYONIER PERFORMANCEFIBERS, LLC JESUP, GEORGIA

SubmittedFor:

RAYONIER PERFORMANCEFIBERS, LLC 4470 Savannah Highway

Jesup, Georgia 31545

Submitted By:

WESTON SOLUTIONS,INC. 4917 Waters Edge, Suite Raleigh, North Carolina27606

August 2006

Work Order No. 05565.009.002

### TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 1

# . INTRODUCTION


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

# . MILL LOCATION


# .................................................................................. 2-1 SECTION 3


# . MODELINGAPPROACH


# ...................................................................3-1 3.1 Model Configuration And Settings



### .............................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Emissions

### And Stack Parameters



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



### .................................................................................................................... 3.3 Receptors 3-4 3.4 Background



### .................................................................................................................. 3.4 

### SECTION 

### 4

# . MODELING RESULTS


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

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2-1 Nearby Class 

### I Areas


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

LIST OF TABLES

APPENDICES Appendix A



### . Emission Rate and PMloSpeciation Calculations Appendix 

### B

. 

### NCASI SummaryPM Data for Kraft Mill Sources

. 

### July 2006 Appendix C



### . Model Output Summary

k:Irayonier 05565\009.0021report\rayonier bart modeling report.doc i

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51.302 requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) on stationary emission units constructed between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977 

### if they have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing pollutant. A Modeling Protocol was developed and conformed to comments from GA EPD and the Federal Land Managers having Class I 

### areas within 300 kilometers of the Rayonier Jesup Mill. The CALPUFF modeling results show the impact of all BART eligible emission units is less than 0.5 

### deciviews on all Class I 

### areas within 300 kilometers and thereby qualify these emission units for the Exemption for BART pursuant to Section40 CFR Part 51.303.

k:\rayonier 055651009.002\report\rayonier bart modeling report.doc ii

### SECTION 1. 

### INTRODUCTION Under the regional haze rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued final guidelines dated July 6, 2005 for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations. The regional haze rule includes a requirement for BART for certain large stationary sources. Sources are BART-eligible if they have potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of a visibility-impairing pollutant, were installed between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and fall within one ofthe 26 listed sourcecategorieslisted in 40 CFR Part 52.21.
A state may exempt facilities in 

### the State Implementation Plan from being subject to BART if those facility demonstrate insignificant impact on any Class I Federal area. Subsequent to a State Implementation Plan any facility subject to BART may apply for an exemption fi-om that requirement under 40 CFR Part 51.303, provided they can demonstrate that the existing stationary source does not by itself or in combination with other sources, emit air pollutants that will cause or contribute to a significant impairment of visibility in any of the mandatory Class I 

### Federal areas.
A BART engineering evaluation using five statutory factors - 

### 1) existing controls; 2) 

### cost; 3) energy and non-air environmental impacts; 4) remaining useful life of the source; 5) degree of visibility improvement expected from the application of controls - 

### is required for 

### any BARTeligible source that can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I 

### areas. States must develop their implementation plans by December 2007. States will first identify the facilities that will have to reduce emissions under BART and then set BART emissions limits for those facilities.
As part of this process, the Visible Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) members agreed to develop a common BART Modeling ~rotocol' for use by the states and facilities subject to BART. The VISTAS recommended process for evaluating the BART-eligible sources are: Identify the BART eligible sourcesbased on source category, when it was put in service, and the magnitude of emissions of one or more "visibility-impairing pollutants". Determine whether the BART eligible source can be excluded from BART controls by demonstrating that the source cannot be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class 

### I area. Determine BART controls for the source by considering various control options and selecting the "best" alternative. Incorporate the BART determination into the State ImplementationPlan (SIP). The Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC (Rayonier) Mill, a pulp and paper mill located in Jesup, Georgia has several BART eligible sources. Pulp and paper is listed as one of the 28 

### source categories in 40 CFR Part 52.21. The BART eligible sources at the Rayonier mill are the No. 5 Recovery Furnace, the No. 5 Smelt Dissolving Tank, wastewater treatment system, C-mill (digesters, brownstock washers and bleach plant), D-evaporators and the No. 3 Power Boiler. 

## ' "Protocol for the Application ofthe CALPUFF Modeling for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)", Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast,July 18,2006.
k:\rayonier 05565\009.002\report\rayonier barf modeling report.doc 

### 1-1

### However, only the No. 5 

### Recovery Furnace, the No. 5 

### Smelt Tank and the No. 3 

### Power Boiler emit visibility impairing pollutants and were the only sources considered in the modeling analysis presented in this report. This report presents the approach and results of the Class 

### I area visibility modeling analysis for Rayonier.

k:\rayonier 05565\009.002\reporf\rayonier barf modeling reporf.doc 

### 1-2

### SECTION 2. 

### MILL LOCATION 

### The Rayonier mill is located northeast of downtown Jesup, Georgia in Wayne County at approximate Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates 420,019 meters Easting and 3,502,929 meters Northing, NAD83, Zone 17. Modeling for BART-eligible sources must be evaluated for Class 

### I areas located within 300 

### km of the facility. Figure 2-1 shows the nearby Class 

### I areas. Table 2-1 lists the Class 

### I areas within 300 

### krn of the Jesup mill. The distances given in Table 2-1 are the approximate distance from the mill to the nearest boundary of each Class 

### I area.

Table 2-1 

### Class I Areas Within 300 

### Kilometers

k:\rayonier 05565\009.002\report\ruyonier burl modeling report.doc 

### 2- 1

### SECTION 3. 

### MODELING APPROACH 

### According to 40 CFR Part 5

### 1,Appendix Y, 

### dispersionmodeling can be used to determine that an individual BART-eligible source can reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area and thus not be subject to BART control requirements. A BART-eligible source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview (dv) change or more at a Class I area is considered to "cause" visibility impairment. A BART-eligible source that is responsible for a 0.5 dv change or more at a Class 1 area is considered to "contribute" to visibility impairment in a Class I area. Sources determined to cause or contributeto visibility impairment in a Class 

### I area are subjectto BART control requirements.
Since the distance to each of these Class I 

### areas shown in Figure 2-1 is greater than 50 km, the use of CALPUFF (Version 5.574) to determine visibility impacts is acceptable. The CALMETICALPUFF (as provided by VISTAS) modeling system was used to evaluate the impacts fiom the Rayonier BART eligible sources on the four Class 1 areas shown in Figure 2-1 and listed in Table 2-1. The analysis followed guidance provided in the VISTAS protocol guidance document dated July 18,2006. Features of the CALPUFF modeling system include: A Gaussian puff dispersion formulation: Plumes are treated as a series of Gaussian puffs that move and disperse according to local meteorological conditions that vary in time and space. Three-dimensional meteorology: Wind and other meteorological variables are allowed to vary three-dimensionally. Aerosol chemistry: Secondary aerosol formation is treated according to a first-order mechanism that depends on the time of day, relativehumidity, meteorology, background ozoneconcentration, and background ammonia concentration. Post-processing by CALPOST (Version 5.6393) specifically to assess regional haze: Visibility is characterized using extinction coefficients that vary with the concentrations of the aerosol species present, extinction characteristics of each aerosol species, and relativehumidity. Based on the VISTAS guidance, if the BART eligiblepotential emissions of SO2in tons per year (Q, 

### based on the actual emissions for 2002) divided by the distance to each Class 

### I boundary (d, in kilometers) is greater than 10, the source is subject to BART and no further exemption modeling will be performed by VISTAS. The facility either can proceed with using CALPUFF to evaluate BART control options or the facility can conduct its own modeling to determine impacts on the nearby Class I areas. If Qld is less than 10,then VISTAS will conduct further modeling ofthe facility.
For Rayonier the 2002 actual emissions of SOzfrom the BART-eligible sources is 1,715 tons per year (based on information received from EPD). Table 3-1 shows the calculation for the four Class I areas located within 300 km of Rayonier. Since Qld exceeds 10 for one of the Class 1 areas, all four Class 1 areas were evaluated.

k:\rayonier 05565\009.002\report\rayonier bar?modeling report,doc 

### 3-1Table 3-1



### To hrther determine if a BART-eligible source is subject to BART, a two tier approach is recommended by VISTAS. The first step is to model the facility (sources)with CALPUFFusing a 12-km grid CALMET file (this is available from Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)). If the facility modeling shows twenty-four hour impacts less than 0.5 dv, then no further modeling is required. If the facility modeling impacts are greater than 0.5 dv, then further modeling can be conducted using a more refined 4 km CALMET input file. If the impacts using the 4 

### Ism CALMET input file are less than 0.5 dv, then the source is exempted from fkther BART evaluation. If the impacts exceed 0.5 dv, then the Rayonier sources are required to implementBART.
For the 12-km initial modeling exemption test, the highest single 24-hour average value across the receptors in the Class I area are compared to the threshold value of 0.5 dv. The 12-km modeling results can be used to focus finer grid modeling on only those Class I areas where impacts greater than 0.5 dv are projected in the 12-kmmodeling. If required,the 4 km analyses uses either the 8th

### highest day in each year or the 22ndhighest day in the 3-year period, whicheveris more conservative,for comparison to the exemptionthreshold.
3.1 Model ConfigurationAnd Settings


### The 12-km CALPUFF visibility modeling was conducted using the settings specified in Section 4 of the VISTAS protocol document (Revision 3 - 

### July 18, 2006). CALPUFF control file settings were as follows: Map Projection: Lambert Conic Conformal Datum: NWS-84 Projection Origin:40°N, 97"W 

### Matching Parallels: 33"N, 45"N False X,Y at Projection Origin: X=O.O, Y=O.O Grid Origin:

### X = 

### 137.973km, Y = 

### 1625.974

### km Number of grid cells: NX = 

### 160, NY = 

### 172,grid spacing: 12

### km Number ofvertical layers: 10 Cell face heights (m): 0,20,40, 80, 160, 320,640, 1200,2000,3000,4000 Base time zone : 

### 5 Chemical transformation: MesopuffI1 TransitionalPlume Rise Modeled Partial Plume Penetration Modeled Plume Element Modeled as Puff

k: Irayonier055651009.002lreportlrayonier barf modelingreport.doc 

### 3-2

### Used Pasquill-Gifford Dispersion Coefficients
The CALPOST control file settings were as follows: Visibility Method 6 Species considered in visibility analysis: SO4,NO3,Elemental Carbon (EC), Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA), soil, coarsePM Single average natural background concentrationthat represents the haze index, based upon 20% best natural conditions days (See Section 3-4) f(RH) curve: FLAG (2000) FLAG (2000) Method: Bext change =

### 24 hr 

### ave. source Bext I24hr 

### ave. background Bext Extinction efficiencies (1/Mm per Clg/m3): Ammonium Sulfate :

### 3 Ammonium Nitrate: 3 

### Organic Carbon: 4 Soil: 1 Elemental Carbon: 10 

### PM Coarse: 0.6 PM fine: 1
3.2 Emissions And Stack Parameters


### The maximum 24-hour actual emissions of SO2,H2SO4, NOx,and PMlowere modeled. PMlo emissions were broken down further into the appropriate filterable and condensableportions and further into elemental carbon (soot), soil, coarseparticulate and organics. The emission rate and PMlospeciationcalculations areprovided in Appendix A.
Table 3-2 shows the stack parameters to be used for the BART-eligible Rayonier sources. All Class I 

### areas are greater than 50-km from the Jesup facility, therefore building downwash was not considered.

Table 3-2

C-mill, and ~-kva~oLtors and were not be included in the BART modeling analysis. b A new scrubber has recently been installed on the No. 3 Boiler. The modeling was conducted based on the configuration of the stack when it was originally installed. To represent normal operation, the No. 3 Boiler was modeled firing on approximately 66% wood and 34% oil.

k:\rayonier 05565\009.002\reporr\rayonier burl modeling report.doc 3

### -33.3 Receptors 

### Receptor location and elevation information for each of the four Class I areas modeled were obtained from the Federal Land Manager (FLM) website: 

### http://www2.nature.nps,~ov/air/Maps/Receptors/index.cfm.
3.4 

### Background 

### Background information for ammonia was set to 0.5 part per billion (ppb) for each Class 

### I area modeled. The hourly ozone data files used in the 12-km modeling were extracted from the VISTAS standard ozone datasets using the SUBDOMN utility supplied in the CALPUFF PROfessional System Beta 5.0.306. The extraction domain was set as follows: 

### * Extraction Range X(km) Easting : 

### Xrnin = 

### 668.0, Xmax = 

### 1768.0 Y(km) Northing: Ymin = 

### - 1 1 64.0, Ymax =

### 264.0 The CALPOST monthly background concentrations of soil (BKSOIL) are shown in Table 3-3. The following outlines the method used in the calculation of BKSOIL for each Class I 

### area modeled. The total background light extinction (bback) for hygroscopic and non-hygroscopic particulates was calculated using the Haze Index (HI) given inAppendix B of the Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (2003). 

### Table 3-4 shows the Haze Index (HI) for each Class I area modeled. The bback for the best days in 

### each Class I 

### area was calculated using the following equation:

Where HI is expressed in units of deciviews (dv).
Thetotal bback is the sum of the Rayleigh scatteringcoefficient (bray) and the extinction of all particulatesin the background (bsoil).
back =

### bray f

### bsoi~
Where bray = 

### 10~m-' andbsoil = 

### Csoil. BKSOIL, with Csoil = 

### 1.O. Unity monthly f(RH) values wereused as input to the CALPOST control file, as recommended for this option in the VISTAS protocol document.

Table 3-3

k:\rayonier 05565\009.002\report\rayonier bart modeling report.doc 

### 3-4

### Table 3-4

k:\rayonier 05565\0OY.O02\reporf\rayonier barf modeling reporr.doc 

### 3-5

### SECTION 4. 

### MODELINGRESULTS The 12-km screening visibility modeling results is presented in Table 4-1. 

### As shown in Table 4- 1,

### the maximum 24-hr 

### change in deciview (dv) for each Class 

### I area is less than 0.5 

### dv, therefore the BART eligible sources at the Rayonier Jesup facility are not subject to additional BART evaluation.



### Table 4-1

k: \rayonier 05565\009.002ireporl\rayonier bart modeling report.doc 4-1

### APPENDIX A
Emission Rate and 

### PMloSpeciation Calculations

### RAYONIER PERFORMANCEFIBERS, LLC JESUP MILL SO2, NO, and PMloEMISSION 

### RATE CALCULATIONS
No. 

### 5 Recovery Furnace 

### Typical operation of the No. 5 

### Recovery Furnace is firing with Black Liquor solids (BLS), with a very small amount of oil being fired simultaneously to keep a constant flame. Stack Test data was available to determine the emission factor (EF) during typical operation for PMloand NO,. The ratio of the total heating value of the annual usage of oil to BLS in the No. 5 

### Recovery Furnace was used to calculatethe emissions of S02. The percentage of oil fired compared to BLS during the year was only 0.26%, therefore the emissions of SO2from the No. 5 

### Recovery furnace was based upon firing only BLS



### . No. 

### 5 Smelt Dissolving Tank


### PMloemissions from the No. 5 

### Smelt Dissolving Tank arebased upon stack test results. No otherpollutants of concern are emitted.
No. 3 

### Power Boiler 

### Typical operation of the No. 3 Power Boiler uses a combination of wood and oil. Stack test data was available to determine the EF during typical operation for PMloand NO,. Theratio of the total heating value of the annual usage of wood to oil in the No. 3 

### Power Boiler was used to calculate the emissions of SO2. The percentage of wood fired compared to oil during the year was 65.6%, 

### therefore the emissions of SO2from the No. 3 

### Power Boiler was based upon firing 65.6% 

### wood and 34.4% oil.

The stack parameters and modeled emission rates are shown in Tables 1and 2.

## BART Emission Calculations

RFOl 

### - No. 5 

### Recovery Furnace

Given: Worst CasePM-10 emissionfrom firing Black Liquor solids (BLS) Highest Stack Test ('03, '04) PM =0.582 lbltonsblack liquor solids (TBLS) AP-42 Table 10.2-3, 1/95,PM-10 fraction = 74.8% of PM Potential processing rate 626,754TBLSIyr Potential operating schedule 8,760hrlyr
Conversions: 1 lb/hr = 0.126 gmlsec

Calculations:
0.5821bsPM 626,754TBLS lton PM 

### - 10(tonslyr) = 

### X-- 7423 - 136TPY TBLS Yr 2,0001bs 100

136tons 

### 1 yr 2,0001bs = l. hr PM -lO(lb/hr)= 

### X yr 8,760hv ton
31.11bs 0.126gms 1sec = .92gms PM 

### - 10(gmslsec) = 

### X hr llb 1 hr

### RFOl 

## - No.5 Recovery Furnace



### Given: Worst case emissions from firing BLS Stack Test ofNo.6 

### RF (1990) PM = 

### 1.05IbITBLS Potential processing rate 626,754 TBLSIyr Potential operating schedule 8,760 hrlyr
Conversions: 1 lbkr = 

### 0.126 gm/sec

Calculations:
1.O5lbs NOx 626,754TBLS lton NOx (tonslyr)= =

### 329TPY TBLS Yr 2,OOOlbs
329 tons lyr 2,0001bs NOx (lbh)= 

### X =

### 75.11blhr Yr: 

### 8,760hr ton
75.11bs 0.126grns1 sec NOx (grnslsec) = 

### X =

### 9.47gms 1 sec hr llbIhr

### RFOl 

## - No.5 Recovery Furnace



### Given:Normal operating conditions

### - firing BLS Emission Factor = 

### 0.64 lb SO2 / 

### TBLS BLS Fuel heating value 6,000 Btu/lb Potential BLS firing rate 71.5 Tonsh Potential operating schedule 8,760hdyr


### Conversions: 1 1bh.r =

### 0.126 gmlsec

Calculations:
71.5Ton BLS 6,000Btu 2,0001b =858mmBtu 

### hr Boiler Input Rating = 

### X hr 

### 1b ton
0'64 71'5TBLS =

### 45.81bI

### hr SO2(lbh)= 

# - TBLS 

### hr
45.76 lbsSO2 8,760hr lton SO2(tonslyr)= 

### X = 

### 201TPY hr 

### yr 2,0001bs
45.76 lbs 0.126gmslsec SO2(gms/sec)= 

### X =

### 5.77gms / 

### sec hr 

### Ilb l

### hr

### RF02 

## - NOS Smelt Dissolving 

### Tank



### Given: Worst case emissions from processing BLS 2004 

### Compliance StackTest 0.062 

### lbs PM-lO/TBLS Potentialprocessing rate 626,754 

### TBLSIyr Potential operatingschedule 8,760 

### hrlyr
Conversions: 1 1bIh.r= 0.126 

### gmlsec

Calculations:
0.056 

### 1bs 626,754TBLS lton 

### PM 

### -10 

### (tonslyr)= =17.5TPY 

### TBLS Yr 2,000Zbs
17.5tons 1 yr 2,0001bs 

### PM 

### - 10 

### (lblhr)= 

### X =4.0Zb 

### 1 hr Yr 8,760hr ton
4.0 

### lbs 0.126gms 

### 1 sec PM 

### - 10 

### (gmslsec)= 

### - X = O.5Ogms 

### 1 sec hr llb/

### hr

### PB03

## - No.3 Power Boiler

Given: Stack test Resultsused as normal operation StackTest (2004) PM = 0.097 lb/mrnBtu AP-42 Table 1.6-1,PM-10 fraction = (0.06510.066 ratio of PMl0to PM) Boiler Input Rating 485 

### rnmBtu/hr Potential processing rate 4,248,600mrnBtulyr Potential operating schedule 8,760hrlyr
Conversions: 1lblhr = 0.126 grnlsec

Calculations:
0.0971bsPM 4,248,600MMBtu lton 0.065lb PM 

### - 10 = 203T,Y PM 

## - 10(tonslyr) = 

### X mrnBtu Yr 2,0001bs 0.066 lb PM
203tons 

### 1 yr 2,00016s =

### 46.41b, hr PM-lO(lb/hr)= 

### X Yr 8,760hr ton
46.4 lbs 0.126gms1sec 

### PM 

### - 1 0(gmshec) = 

### X = 5.84gmslsec hr llb 1 hr

### PB03 

### - No.3 Power Boiler

Given: Normal emissionsbased on stack test results Emission Factor =0.13 IbImmBtu Boiler Input Rating 485 

### rnrnBtuh Potential operating schedule 8,760

### hrlyr
Conversions: 1 lbh =0.126 gmlsec

Calculations:
0.13 lbs 

### NOx 485MMBtu 8,760hr lton NOx (tonslyr) = 

### X = 276TPY 

### rnmBtu hr yr 2,0001bs
276 tons lyr 2,0001bs NOx (lblhr) = 

### X = 63.1Zblhr 

### Yr 8,760hr ton
63.11bs 0.126gmslsec NOx (gmslsec) = 

### X =7.94gms 1 sec 

### hr llb1 hrPB03 

## - No.3 Power Boiler



### Given: Normal firing scenario 

### - fuel oil 34.4% 

### 1wood waste 65.6% AP-42 

### Table 1.3-1,

### Fuel Oil Emission Factor = 157s lb11000 

### gal Fuel Oil 

### Emission Factor = 157 

### x 1.4 = 220 

### lb SO;! / 1000 

### gal AP-42 

### Table 1.6-2,

### Wood Emission Factor = 0.025 

### lb/mrnBtu Fuel Normal Sulfur Content 1.4% 

### Boiler Input Rating 485 

### rnrnBtu/hr Fuel heating value 151,000 

### Btdgal Potential firingrate 3,212 

### GPH Potential operating schedule 8,760

### hrlyr
Conversions: 1 

### lbh =0.126 

### gm/sec

Calculations:
220 

### 1bsSO2 3.212kGal 34.4% 8,760hr lton SO2 

### - oil (tonslyr)= 

### X 

### X- =1,063TPY 

### k 

### Gal hr 100% yr 2,OOOZbs

0.025

### lbsSO2 485MMBtu 65.6% 8,760hr lton SO2 

### - wood (tonslyr)= 

### X- X = 34.9TPY 

### mmBtu hr 100% yr 2,0001bs

SO2 

### - total (tonslyr)=1,063 

## +34.9 = 1,098TPY

SO2 

### (lbh)= ,0g8

### tons 'yr 

# x 2,0001bs =250.61b

### / hr 

### X Yr 8,760hr ton
250.6 

### lbs 0.126gms

### lsec SO2 

### (grnslsec) = 

### X = 3

### 1.58gmslsec 

### hr llb

### 1 hr

### PMloSPECIATION
The 

### PMlo speciation used in 

### the POSTUTIL control files are summarized in Table 3. 

### The supportingcalculations follow.The speciationof PMlO into filterable and condensable was based upon the results presented in Table 2 of the NCASI study of PM speciation: "Summary PM data for Kraft Mill Sources - July 2006 with Appendices"

Table2. Recovery Furnace Data Summary Kraft Non-DCE Recovery Furnace Measurement No. of Range Mean '~ean Parameter Method Sources (IbltonBLS) Percent of PM

PM PMl0 PM2.5 CPM Organic CPM Inorganic CPM EPA Method 5 20 0.02 

### - 3.50 0.65 Dilution Tunnel 10 67.8' Dilution Tunnel 10 51

### .o' EPA Method 202 7 0.04 - 0.18 0.09 3 16S2 3 83S2 Sulfate CPM 1 34.9

'~ilterable PMlO and PM2.5 values expressedas percent of filterablePM values. 2~ean values were determinedby applying the mean percent of PM to mean value for PM.

No condensable data was available for PM10, therefore it was assumed that the filterable and condensable breakdown of PMlO was the same as that shown for PM in Table 2.

PM filterable % 0.65/(0.65 

### +0.09) =87.8% PM condensabIe % 0.09/(0.65 +0.09) = 12.2%
Sulfate Ohof Inorganic Condensable Directly from table. =34.5% Inorganic Condensable 

### - SO4 83.5%

## - 34.5% ~49.0% Organic Condensable Directly from table. 46.5%

Cumulative mass fraction from AP42 TabIe 10.2-3, Recovery Boiler non-DCE with ESP.

No information available on elemental carbon emissions from Recovery furnace burning BLS. Elemental carbon breakdown based upon FLM recommendation of 7.4% ofjust the PM056 size for Utility Residual Oil Boiler with ESP.

K:Wayonier 05565\009.002\Report\Recovery Furnace 5 PM Speciation.xIs,Calcu~ationsPM800 6.00

### - 10.00 3.9% 0.1331 coarse (10%) PM425 2.50-6.00 6.1% 0.211' PM 187 1.25-2.50 21.4% 0.736: PM112 1.00-1.25 11.9% 0.4091 fine (90%) I'M081 0.625-1.OO 17.1% 0.589( PM056 0.50-0.625 39.6% 1.362

total 100% 3.44

Ext. coefficient Organic No. 5 Recovery Furnace Firing BLS

Assume 

# 1

Assume1 elemental inorganicis carbon is filterable condensable H2SO4 HZS04 condensable total

% 87.84% 12.16% 34.5% 49.00% 16.5% (gls) 3.919 3.44 0.48 0. 164 0.234 0.079

FILTERABLE CONDENSABLE I , 

# I I condensable split Inorganic condensable-

coarse 92.6% of only 7.4% of only filterable PM056 fine PM056 fine organic inorganic inorganic filterable filterable 

### &so4 condensable condensable Diameter (g/s> (ds) (ds) Ws) (g/s) (ds) (PI -

2.996 0.1008 0.164 0.0786 0.234 0.345 SOIL EC HzS04 SOA SOIL PMC

1 10 3*f(RH) 4 1 0.6

K:\Rayonier 05565\009.002\Report\Recovery Furnace 5 PM Speciation.xls,RECV5 (g per S)No. 5 Recovery Furnace Firing BLS condensable split Inorganic

Icondensable- ,Organic

% (Ibhr)

Diameter (W)



### I I total 100%

### 1 27.3
I I I FILTERABLE 

## 1 CONDENSABLE
I I I I finefilterable I I total

31.10

I %( (Iblhr

coarse (I0%)

fine (90%)

Ext. coefficient Assume Assume inorganicis elemental filterable

87.84% 27.32

pM800 PM425 PM 187 PM112

PM056

K:\Rayonier 05565\009.002\Report\Recovery Furnace 5 PM Speciation.xls,RECVS(Ib per hr) condensable H2S04 H2SO.l condensable

12.16% 34.5% 49.00% 16.5%

3.78 1.305 1.853 0.624

I

6.00 - 10.00 2.50-6.00 1.25-2.50 1.00-1.25 0.625-1 .OO 0.50-0.625 3.9% 1.059 6.1% 1.6801 21.4% 5.843 11.9% 3.250 17.1% 4.674 39.6% 10.810Recovery Boiler non-DCE wlESP from AP-42 Table 10.2-3 (User in~uts filterable emission rate in Iblhr)

K:\Rayonier 05565\009.002\Report\Recovery Furnace 5 PM Speciation.xls,PMSizeThe speciation of PMlO into filterable and condensablewas based upon the results presented in Table I ofthe NCASI study of PM speciation: "SummaryPM data for Kraft Mill Sources - July 2006 with Appendices"

Table 1. SmeltTank Data Summary

Parameter Measurement No. of Range Mean '~ean Method Sources (lblton BLS) Percent of PM

PM PMl0
PM2.5 CPM Organic CPM Inorganic CPM EPA Method 5 42 0.03 - 0.64 0.148 Dilution Tunnel 7 81.9' Dilution Tunnel 7 72.6' EPA Method 202 8 0.002 - 0.015 0.0074 6 27.g2 6 72.22 Sulfate CPM 3 26.82

1 Filterable PMlO and PM2.5values expressed as percent of filterable PM values. 2 Mean values were determinedby applying the mean percent of PM to mean value for PM.

No breakdown of filterable and condensable was available for PM10, therefore it was assumed that the filterable and condensable breakdown of PMlO was the same as that shown for PM in Table 1.

PMfilterable % 0.148/(0.148 

### + 0.0074) = 95.2% PM condensable % 0.0074/(0.148 

### + 0.0074) =4.8%
Sulfate % of Inorganic Condensable Directly from table. =26.8% Inorganic Condensable 

### - SO4 72.2% 

## - 26.8% =45.4% Organic Condensable Directly from table. =27.8%

Cumulative mass fraction from AP42 Table 10.2-6, Smelter Uncontrolled.

No information available on elemental carbon emissions, based nominal 3.5% of fine filterabletobe elemental carbon, upon FLM recommendation for lime kilns.K:\Rayonier 05565\009.002Vieport\Smelter5 PM Speciation.xls,SMELTS(g per s) 

## ----- Organic condensable

27.8% 0.007

0.0064 H2so4

- - 3*f(RH) total

Ext. coefficient condensable

4.76% No. 5 Smelt Dissolving Tank condensable split

0.48 100% - - H2S04
26.8% 0.006

CONDENSABLE FILTERABLE

0.0067 SOA

4 filterable

95.24% % Inorganic condensable- H2S04
45.40% 0.01 1

fine filterable

0.0109 SOIL

1 0.0841 PMC

0.6 total

Diamete (pm)
6.00 - 10.0 2.50-6.00 1.25-2.50 1.OO- 1.25 0.625-1.OO 0.50-0.625 coarse filterable inorganic (ds)
0.0081 0.0759 Assume inorganic (96.5% of fke filterable) (ds)

0.1335 0.0393 0.0759 0.1335 inorganic condensable



### (ds)

0.0054 0.0054 H~s~~ Ws) filterable (ds)

0.0081 0.0759 0.1383 0.0407 0.0786 0.1383 Assume elemental carbon (3.5% of fine filterable) Ws)

0.0048 0.0014 0.0028 0.0048

0.3821 SOIL

1 organic condensable

Ws)

0.0033 0.0033 %
1.7% 15.8% 28.8%

8.5% 16.4% 28.8%
0.0139 EC

10 Diameter (pm)
6.00 - 10.00 2.50-6.00 I .25-2.50 1.00-1.25 0.625-1.OO 0.50-0.625 -

coarse (18%)

fine (82%) PM800 PM425 PM187 PM112 PM08 1 PM056lo. 5 Smelt Dissolving Tank

total 

# 1filterable Icondensable I I

Diameter 

# 1

PM800 6.00 - 10.00 1.7% coarse (18%) PM425 2.50-6.00 15.8% PM187 1.25-2.50 28.8% PMI 12 1.00-1.25 8.5% fine (82%) PM081 0.625-1.OO 16.4% PM056 0.50-0.625 28.8% I I I total 100% I I I

Ext. coefficient condensable split Inorganic condensable- Organic



# I I ~ssumel elementall 

# I I I 1 coarse inorganic carbon (3.5% filterable (96.5% of fme of fine organic inorganic filterable inorganic filterable) filterable) &So4 condensable condensable Diamete (Iblhr) (lblhr) (lblhr) (lbw (IbW (Ib/hr) (Ibh) (W

K:\Rayonier 05565\009.002~epo~\Smelter 5 PM Speciation.xls,SMaTS (lb per hr)Smelter Uncontrolled from AP-42 Table 10.2-6

K:Viayonier OS565\009.002\Report\Smelter5PM Speciation.xls,PM SizeK:\Rayonier OS565\009.002Vieport\powerboiler3 Wood-Oil Fired.xls,POWIU bark-oil - - rBarkIOil Fired Boiler (66% wood with 34% oil) condensable split

- condensable

28.67%

--- - 1.68 H7S04
47.3%

0.79 filterable

71.3% 4.17 % (gls) condensable

### - H2S04
52.7% 0.88

fine

inorganic (96.3% of filterable) (g/s>

0.2576 0.0795 2.8972 0.1833
3.4176 SOIL

1 total

5.846

filterable Ws)
0.28 

# ----------y- 0.35 0.26 0.081 3.01 0.20

4.17 FILTERABLE

%

6.7% 8.3% 6.2% 1.9% 72.1% 4.7%

100% filterable elemental carbon (3.7% of filterable) Ws)

- 0.0023 0.0012 0.1101 0.0140

0.1275

EC

10 

### &so4 Ws>

0.7927 Hzso4
3*f(RH) coarse filterable inorganic (ds)
0.2795 0.3453

0.6248 PMC

0.6 Diameter (pm)
6.00- 10.00 2.50-6.00 1.25-2.50 1.00-1 .25 0.625-1 .OO 0.50-0.625 coarse (1 5%)

fine (85%)

total

Ext. coefficient inorganic condensable tds>

SOIL

1 CONDENSABLE

organic condensable Ws)

0.4419 0.4419
0.8837 SO A

4 PM800 PM425 PM187 PM112 PM081 PM056 Diameter (pm>
6.00 

### - 10.00 2.50-6.00 1.25-2.50 1.00-1.25 0.625-1 .OO 0.50-0.62515'6 06-9E OV9P (nl/ql> KS'OZ %S'6L YoWood-Fired Boilerwlscrubber from AP-42 Table 1.6-5

CALPUFF

K:Rayonier 05565\009.002Report\powerboiler3 Wood-Oil Fired.xls,PM Size woodOil-Fired Boiler wlscrubber condensable split

condensable total filterable condensable H2S04 

### - H2SO4

% 55.4% 44.6% 85.0% 15.0% (lblhr) 46.40 25.72 20.68 17.58 3.10

I I I I I I I FILTERABLE fine filterable
elemental
coarse inorganic carbon filterable (92.9% (7.1% Diameter filterable inorganic of filterable) of filterable) (pm) % (lbb) (IbW (Ibn-4 (IbW

otal 100% 25.72 14.5855 10.8040 0.3270 PMC SOIL EC

I I I I I I I I :xt. coefficient

## I 0.6

## 1 I 

## I 101

K:Wayonier 05565\009.002\Report\powerboiler3 Wood-Oil Fired.xls,POWR3(Ib per hr) oil I I CONDENSABLE

I I I

organic inorganic 

# h

H2S04condensable condensable Diamete (IbW (lblhr) (Ibh)

17.5810 3.1025 HzSO4 SOA SOILResidual Oil-fired Utility Boilerw Scrubber from AP-42 Table 1.34 (User in~uts filterable emission rate in Iblhr)

CALPUFF

2.07

### APPENDIX C


### Model Output SummaryWolf Island Model Output Summary

YEAR 2001 2001 2001 200 1 2001 200l 2001 2001 2001 200l 2001 2001 2001 2001 200l 2001 2001 2001 2002 200I ZOO l 2001
2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2W2 2002 2W2 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 ...
DAY 312 120 316 66 202 353 53 262 I76 5 263 336 138 17 269 26 234 361 1 144 82 22
294 356 64 329 4 219 340 53 14 350 290 36 16 29 48 45 326 5 35 1 310 28 1 87
327 34 5 104 173 59 49 26 76 40 336 7 340 32 349 365 I5 50 18 90 39 44 Ranked Daily

RECEPTOR 18 I 29 18 29 24 3 30 8 30 29 29 I I8 I 29 1 29 I 4 30 I
29 27 4 30 30 1 29 3 5 I 18 I I I 30 30 I 1 18 29 24 8 1
18 29 8 8 8 29 29 24 24 8 4 29 I 29 I I 2 30 I I 30 Vis~bil~ty Change ---
COORDINATESflun) TYPE DV(Tota1) DVIBKCI DELTA 3.965 %of Modeled Exttnet~on by Spccla F(RHI %-SO4 % NO3 %PC %-EC % PMC %-PMF 6 74 165Okefenokee Model Output Summary

YEAR 2001 200I 2WI 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2001 2001

2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 ...
DAY 44 177 36 297 315 29 117 321 274 203 302 23 4 294 272 322 45 303 172 I 310 271
331 141 261 337 308 54 28 324 289 286 343 126 342 I40 325 301 17 307 56 172 35 333
32 293 83 361 313 273 275 307 319 256 314 255 259 292 60 4 1 347 276 253 340 284 342 Ranked Dally

HR RECEPTOR 552 V~atb~ltty Change ---
COORDINATES (lun) TYPE DV(Tola1) DV(BKG) DELTA %of Modeled Exlmcttonby SpeclesCape Romain Model Output Summary

YEAR 2001 200l 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 Ranked Dady

HR RECEPTOR Vis~bhty Changc
COORDINATES (km) ...
TYPE DV(Total) DV(6KG) DELTA %of Modclcd Extinctionby Species