VISIBILITY MODELING ANALYSIS 

RAYONIER PERFORMANCE FIBERS, LLC 

JESUP, GEORGIA 

Submitted For: 

RAYONIER PERFORMANCE FIBERS, LLC 

4470 Savannah Highway 

Jesup, Georgia 31545 

Submitted By: 

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. 

4917 Waters Edge, Suite 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 

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 . MODELING APPROACH ................................................................... 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 PMlo Speciation Calculations 

Appendix B . NCASI Summary PM 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 Section 40 CFR Part 5 1.303. 

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 of the 26 listed source categories listed 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 sources based 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 Implementation Plan (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 of the 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, dispersion modeling 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 contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area 

are subject to 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, relative humidity, meteorology, background 

ozone concentration, 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 

relative humidity. 

Based on the VISTAS guidance, if the BART eligible potential emissions of SO2 in 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 of the facility. 

For Rayonier the 2002 actual emissions of SOz from 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 

3-1 
Table 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 CALPUFF using 

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 

implement BART. 

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-km modeling. If required, the 4 km analyses 

uses either the 8th highest day in each year or the 22nd highest day in the 3-year period, 

whichever is more conservative, for comparison to the exemption threshold. 

3.1 Model Configuration And 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 = 137.973 km, Y = 1625.974 km 

Number of grid cells: NX = 160, NY = 172, grid spacing: 12 km 

Number of vertical layers: 10 

Cell face heights (m): 0,20,40, 80, 160, 320,640, 1200,2000,3000,4000 

Base time zone : 5 

Chemical transformation: Mesopuff I1 

Transitional Plume Rise Modeled 

Partial Plume Penetration Modeled 

Plume Element Modeled as Puff 

k: Irayonier 055651009.002lreportlrayonier barf modeling report.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, coarse PM 

Single average natural background concentration that 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 I24 hr 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 PMlo were modeled. PMlo 

emissions were broken down further into the appropriate filterable and condensable portions and 

further into elemental carbon (soot), soil, coarse particulate and organics. The emission rate and 

PMlo speciation calculations are provided 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 -3 
3.3 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 in Appendix 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). 

The total bback is the sum of the Rayleigh scattering coefficient (bray) and the extinction of all 

particulates in the background (bsoil). 

back = bray f bsoi~ 

Where bray = 10 ~m-' and bsoil = Csoil. BKSOIL, with Csoil = 1 .O. 

Unity monthly f(RH) values were used 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. MODELING RESULTS 

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 PMlo Speciation Calculations 
RAYONIER PERFORMANCE FIBERS, LLC 

JESUP MILL 

SO2, NO, and PMlo EMISSION 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 PMlo and 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 calculate the emissions of 

S02. The percentage of oil fired compared to BLS during the year was only 0.26%, 

therefore the emissions of SO2 from the No. 5 Recovery furnace was based upon firing 

only BLS . 

No. 5 Smelt Dissolving Tank 

PMlo emissions from the No. 5 Smelt Dissolving Tank are based upon stack test results. 

No other pollutants 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 PMlo and NO,. 

The ratio 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 SO2 from 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 1 and 2. 

BART Emission Calculations 

RFOl - No. 5 Recovery Furnace 

Given: Worst Case PM-10 emission from firing Black Liquor solids (BLS) 

Highest Stack Test ('03, '04) PM = 0.582 lbltons black liquor solids (TBLS) 

AP-42 Table 10.2-3, 1/95, PM-10 fraction = 74.8% of PM 

Potential processing rate 626,754 TBLSIyr 

Potential operating schedule 8,760 hrlyr 

Conversions: 1 lb/hr = 0.126 gmlsec 

Calculations: 

0.5821bs PM 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 

3 1.1 1bs 0.126gms 1 sec = .92gms PM - 10 (gmslsec) = X 

hr llb 1 hr 
RFOl - No.5 Recovery Furnace 

Given: Worst case emissions from firing BLS 

Stack Test of No.6 RF (1990) PM = 1.05 IbITBLS 

Potential processing rate 626,754 TBLSIyr 

Potential operating schedule 8,760 hrlyr 

Conversions: 1 lbkr = 0.126 gm/sec 

Calculations: 

1 .O5 lbs NOx 626,754TBLS lton NOx (tonslyr) = = 329TPY 

TBLS Yr 2,OOOlbs 

329 tons lyr 2,0001bs NOx (lbh) = X = 75.11bl hr 

Yr: 8,760hr ton 

75.1 1bs 0.126grns 1 sec NOx (grnslsec) = X = 9.47gms 1 sec 

hr llb I hr 
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 8,760 hdyr 

Conversions: 1 1bh.r = 0.126 gmlsec 

Calculations: 

71.5 Ton 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 lbs SO2 8,760hr lton SO2 (tonslyr) = X = 201TPY 

hr yr 2,0001bs 

45.76 lbs 0.126gmsl sec 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 Stack Test 0.062 lbs PM-lO/TBLS 

Potential processing rate 626,754 TBLSIyr 

Potential operating schedule 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 Results used as normal operation 

Stack Test (2004) PM = 0.097 lb/mrnBtu 

AP-42 Table 1.6-1, PM-10 fraction = (0.06510.066 ratio of PMl0 to PM) 

Boiler Input Rating 485 rnmBtu/hr 

Potential processing rate 4,248,600 mrnBtulyr 

Potential operating schedule 8,760 hrlyr 

Conversions: 1 lblhr = 0.126 grnlsec 

Calculations: 

0.0971bs PM 4,248,600MMBtu lton 0.065 lb 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 0.126gms 1 sec PM - 1 0 (gmshec) = X = 5.84gmslsec hr llb 1 hr 
PB03 - No.3 Power Boiler 

Given: Normal emissions based 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 = 63.1Zbl hr 

Yr 8,760hr ton 

63.1 1bs 0.126gmslsec NOx (gmslsec) = X = 7.94gms 1 sec 

hr llb 1 hr 
PB03 - No.3 Power Boiler 

Given: Normal firing scenario - fuel oil 34.4% 1 wood 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 1 5 1,000 Btdgal 

Potential firing rate 3,212 GPH 

Potential operating schedule 8,760 hrlyr 

Conversions: 1 lbh = 0.126 gm/sec 

Calculations: 

220 1bs SO2 3.21 2kGal 34.4% 8,760hr lton SO2 - oil (tonslyr) = X X- = 1,063TPY k Gal hr 100% yr 2,OOOZbs 

0.025 lbs SO2 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 
PMlo SPECIATION 

The PMlo speciation used in the POSTUTIL control files are summarized in Table 3. 

The supporting calculations follow. 

The speciation of 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" 

Table 2. Recovery Furnace Data Summary 

Kraft Non-DCE Recovery Furnace 

Measurement No. of Range Mean '~ean 

Parameter Method Sources (Iblton BLS) 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 5 1 .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 expressed as percent of filterable PM values. 

2~ean values were determined by 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 Oh of 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% of just the PM056 size for Utility Residual Oil Boiler with ESP. 

K:Wayonier 05565\009.002\Report\Recovery Furnace 5 PM Speciation.xIs,Calcu~ations 
PM800 6.00 - 10.00 3.9% 0.1331 coarse (1 0%) 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 

total filterable condensable H2SO4 HZS04 condensable 

% 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 

PMC SOIL EC HzS04 SOA SOIL 

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 

I condensable - ,Organic 

% 

(I bhr) 

Diameter 

(W) 

I I 

total 100% 1 27.3 I I I 

FILTERABLE 1 CONDENSABLE 

I I I I fine filterable 

I I 

total 

31.10 

I 

% ( (Iblhr 

coarse (I 0%) 

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% 10.810 
Recovery 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,PM Size 
The speciation of PMlO into filterable and condensable was based upon the results presented in Table I 

of the NCASI study of PM speciation: 

"Summary PM data for Kraft Mill Sources - July 2006 with Appendices" 

Table 1. Smelt Tank 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 8 1 .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 PM2.5 values expressed as percent of filterable PM values. 

2 Mean values were determined by 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. 

PM filterable % 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 filterable to be elemental carbon, upon FLM recommendation for lime kilns. 
K:\Rayonier 05565\009.002Vieport\Smelter 5 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 

100% 0.48 

- - 

H2S04 

26.8% 

0.006 

FILTERABLE CONDENSABLE 

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 (1 8%) 

fine (82%) 

PM800 

PM425 

PM187 

PM112 

PM08 1 

PM056 
lo. 5 Smelt Dissolving Tank 

total 1 filterable Icondensable 

I I 

1 

Diameter 

PM800 6.00 - 10.00 1.7% 

coarse (1 8%) 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\Smelter 5 PM Speciation.xls,PM Size 
K:\Rayonier OS565\009.002Vieport\powerboiler3 Wood-Oil Fired.xls,POWIU bark-oil 

- - 

r 

BarkIOil 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) 

----------y- 0.28 

0.35 

0.26 

0.08 1 

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 

0.50-0.625 

15'6 06-9E OV9P (nl/ql> 

KS'OZ %S'6L Yo 
Wood-Fired Boiler wlscrubber 

from AP-42 Table 1.6-5 

CALPUFF 

K:Rayonier 05565\009.002Report\powerboiler3 Wood-Oil Fired.xls,PM Size wood 

Oil-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 h organic inorganic 

H2S04 condensable condensable Diamete 

(IbW (lblhr) (Ibh) 

17.5810 3.1025 

HzSO4 SOA SOIL 
Residual Oil-fired Utility Boiler w Scrubber 

from AP-42 Table 1.34 

(User in~uts filterable emission rate in Iblhr) 

CALPUFF 

2.07 
APPENDIX C 

Model Output Summary 
Wolf Island Model Output Summary 

YEAR 

2001 

2001 

2001 

200 1 

2001 

200 l 

2001 

2001 

2001 

200 l 

2001 

2001 

2001 

2001 

200 l 

2001 

2001 

2001 

2002 

200 I 

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 --- 

COORDINATES flun) TYPE DV(Tota1) DVIBKCI DELTA 

3.965 

%of Modeled Exttnet~on by Spccla 

F(RHI %-SO4 % NO3 %PC %-EC % PMC %-PMF 

6 74 165 
Okefenokee Model Output Summary 

YEAR 

2001 

200 I 

2WI 

2001 

200 1 

2001 

2001 

2001 

2001 

2001 

2001 

2001 

200 1 

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 

32 1 

274 

203 

302 

23 

4 

294 

272 

322 

45 

303 

172 

I 

310 

27 1 

33 1 

141 

26 1 

337 

308 

54 

28 

324 

289 

286 

343 

126 

342 

I40 

325 

30 1 

17 

307 

56 

172 

35 

333 

32 

293 

83 

36 1 

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 Exlmctton by Specles 
Cape Romain Model Output Summary 

YEAR 

2001 

200 l 

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 Extinction by Species