EPA-450/3-74-064
DECEMBER 1974
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
ALASKA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
ALASKA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
(Contract 68-02-1385)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1974
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 REVIEW OF THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND CURRENT AIR QUALITY 7
2.1 Air Quality Setting - State of Alaska 10
2.2 Background on the Development of the State Implementation
Plan 13
2.3 Special Considerations 13
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS 19
3.1 Assessment by Regional Air Duality Indicators 19
3.2 Assessment by Source Analysis of Power Plant/Industrial-
Commercial /Area Sources 20
4.0 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - State Implementation Plan Backpround A-l
APPENDIX B - Regional Air Quality Assessment Brl
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessment C-l
APPENDIX D - Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source
Assessment D-l
APPENDIX E - Area Source Assessment E-l
APPENDIX F - Other Analyses F-l
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
The enclosed report is the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency s
(EPA) response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review each
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be made to
control regulations for stationary fuel combustion sources without inter-
fering with the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA report to the
State on whether control regulations might be revised, ESECA provides that
EPA must approve or disapprove any revised regulations relating to fuel
burning stationary sources within three months after they are submitted to
EPA by the States. The States may, as in the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate
State Implementation Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require States
to change any existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with infor-
mation on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of ESECA
is that SIP's, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of conserving
low sulfur fuels or converting sources which burn oil or natural gas to coal.
EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore, has been to try
to establish if emissions from combustion sources may be increased. Where
an indication can be found that emissions from certain fuel burning sources
can be increased and still attain and maintain NAAQS, it may be plausible
that fuel resource allocations can be altered for "clean fuel savings" in a
manner consistent with both environmental and national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallels EPA's policy on clean
fuels. The Clean Fuels Policy has consisted of reviewing implementation plans
with regards to saving low sulfur fuels and, where the primary sulfur dioxide
air quality standards were not exceeded, to encourage States to either defer
compliance regulations or to revise the SO^ emission regulations. The States
have also been asked to discourage large scale shifts from coal to oil where
-------
this could be done without jeopardizing the attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS.
To date, EPA's fuels policy has addressed only those States with
the largest clean fuels saving potential. Several of these States have or
are currently in the process of revising SCL regulations. These States are
generally in the Eastern half of the United States. ESECA, however, extends
the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations to all 55 States and
territories. In addition, the current reviews address the attainment and
maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, three predominant reasons for the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation
Plans. These are: 1) the use of the example region approach in developing
State-wide air quality control strategies; 2) the existence of State Air
Quality Standards which are more stringent than NAAQS; and 3) the "hot
spots" in only part of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) which have been
used as the basis for controlling the entire region. Since each of these
situations affect many State plans and in some instances conflict with current
national energy concerns, a review of the State Implementation Plans is a
logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal of the SIP's conducted in 1972.
At that time SIP's were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the attainment
of NAAQS £r more stringent state air quality standards. Also, at that time
an acceptable method for formulating control strategies was the use of an
example region for demonstrating the attainment of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most
polluted air quality control region and adopt control regulations which
would be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an example
region, it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained in the other AQCR's of
the State if the control regulations were applied to similar sources. The
problem with the use of an example region is that it can result in excessive
controls, especially in the utilization of clonn fuels, for areas of the
State where sources would not otherwise contribute to NAAQS violations. For
instance, a control strategy based on a particular region or source can
-------
result in a regulation requiring one percent sulfur oil to be burned slate-
wide where the use of three percent sulfur coal would be adequate to attain
NAAQS in some locations.
EPA anticipates that a number of States will use the review findings
to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for those
States which desire to submit a revised plan to recognize the review's
limitations. Ihe findings of this report are by no means conclusive and
are.nett.he.r.Intended nor adequate to be the sole basis for SIP revisions;
they do, however, represent EPA's best judgment and effort in complying with
the JSECA requirements. The tirrte and resources which EPA has had to prepare
the reports has not permitted the consideration of growth, economics, and
control strategy tradeoffs. Also, there has been only limited dispersion
modeling data available by which to address individual point source emis-
sions. Where the modeling data for specific sources were found, however,
they were used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based is the most
currently available to the Federal Government. However, EPA belives that
the States possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
States have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems
facing them in the attainment and maintenance of quality air. Therefore,
those States desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's
findings. In developing a suitable plan, it is suggested that States
select control strategies which place emissions for fuel combustion sources
into perspective with all sources of emissions such as smelters or other
industrial processes. States are encouraged to consider the overall impact
which the potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations
for combustion sources might have on their future control programs. This
may include air quality maintenance, prevention of significant deterioration,
increased TSP, NO , and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and other
A *"*
potential air pollution problems such as sulfates.
-------
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the
attainment of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total
suspended particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SCO emissions.
This is because stationary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest
source of S02 emissions and are a major source of TSP emissions.
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis
of the SOg and TSP emission tolerances within eacn of the various AQCR's.
The regional emission tolerance estimate is, in many cases, EPA's only
measure of the "over-cleaning" accomplished by a SIP. The tolerance
assessments have been combined in Appendix B with other regional air quality
"indicators" in an attempt to provide an evaluation of a region's
candidacy for changing emission limitation regulations. In conjunction with
the regional analysis, a summary of the State's fuel combustion sources
(power plants, industrial sources, and area sources) has been carried out
in Appendix C, D, and E.
The State Implementation Plan Review has addressed the emissions
from fuel combustion sources in each of Alaska's four Air Quality Control
Regions (AQCR's). The major findings of the review are as follows:
• The review indicates that SO? emission regulations may be .
revised in all the AQCRs without .jeopardizing attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS. The review also indicates that
emissions from present fuel burning practices are in over-
compliance with S02 emission regulations in the Cook Inlet
and Northern Alaska AQCRs (due to the use of low sulfur
fuels), and that there is room to increase S02 emissions
significantly before violating the emission regulations
in these regions.
• Particulate emission regulations do not appear to
be overly restrictive in any of the four Alaska
.AQCRs. In each of the regions, fugitive dust, sus-
pended by traffic and other activities, is suspected
to be the major contributor to suspended particulate
matter in each of the AQCRs. In rural areas, where
fugitive dust does not pose as difficult a problem as in
the urban areas, it may be possible to revise particulate
-------
emission regulations from fuel-burning sources.
However, revisions of particulate regulations in
areas of worst air quality (urban areas) would only
aggravate the existing and projected air pollution
problems for particulates.
t Areas in which SOo or particulate emission regulations
may be revised without jeopardizing attainment of federal
air standards, are candidates for clean fuel savings. In
addition, there are regions where significant fuel savings
may be accomplished within the constraints of the regulation
emission limits, and without jeopardizing attainment of
federal air standards. The review analysis indicates
that SC>2 emissions may be increased significantly (to
obtain clean fuel savings) without violation of emission
regulations or interference with attainment of air quality
standards for 502 in the Cook Inlet and Northern Alaska
AQCRs. However, the analysis shows that while particulate
emissions may be significantly increased without violation
of combustion emission regulations in the Cook Inlet AQCR,
potential clean fuel savings programs which would cause
such an increase in particulate emissions would probably
be in conflict with attainment of federal air quality
standards in the urban areas of this region.
-------
e£
C
1/1
O
O)
o:
c;
O
CJ
OJ
13
CTI
-------
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations will
depend on many factors. For example:
• Does the State have air quality standards which are more
stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limitation regulations
for control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources,
(3) area sources?
• Did the State use an example region approach for demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS 0£ more stringent State
standards?
• Has the State initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Policy?
• Are there proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) air quality data, does air quality
o meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
• Based on the State Implementation Plan, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions in 1975?
t Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources less than those from all other sources?
• Must emission regulations be revised to accomplish
significant fuel switching?
• ,Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources indicate
there is a potential for a regulation revision?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering
these questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations is then
determined by a consideration of the air quality indications represented in
the responses to the above questions.
-------
Table 2-1. Alaska State Implementation Plan Review (Summary)
STATE
Cook In let
AOCR
Northern
Alaska Smith Contra 1 South l,v, tein
AOCR AQCR
"INDICATORS"
t Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
) . Power plants
2. Industrial sources
3. Area sources
• Did the State use an example region approach
for demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or
more stringent State standards?
• Has the State initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy?
» Are there proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas?
• Arc there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 19/5 attainment date
for NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
does air quality meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
are there indications of a tolerance for
increasing emissions?
* Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources lower than those of other
sources combined?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
• Must emission regulations be revised to accom-
plish significant fuel switching?
• Based on the above indicators, what is the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations7
• Is there a significant Clean Fuels Savina0
potential in the region?
TSP
No
Yes
Yes
No
Noa
No
Mo
sop
Yese
Yes
Yes
No
Noa
No
No
TSP
Ye>,
No
No
Nob
Yes
No
Poord
Nob
S0?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Good
Yes
TSP
Yes
No
No
Nob
Yesc
Yes
Poord
Nob
S0?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Good
Yes
rsp
No
No
No
Nob
Yes
Yes
Poord
Nob
SO,
No
Yes
N/Af
Yes
Yes
Yes
Good
Yes
TSP
Yes
No
No
Nob
Yes
Yes
Poor
Nob
so,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Good
Yes
a The state of Alaska developed a control plan for attainment of the federal air standards by addressing the specific
air pollution problems in each of the AQCRs separately.
b A "no" assessment in these instances does not rule out the possibility that significant particulate emission toler-
ance or clean fuel savings potential may exist in the region's rural areas, away from the urban areas possessing
worst air quality levels of suspended particulate matter.
c The "yes" assessment here was made on the basis that fugitive dust is suspected to be the major contributor to the
highest levels of suspended particulates measured in the Northern Alaska AQCR. (This portion of the particulate
inventory has not quantified and was not included in the emissions summary of Table A-8.)
d A "poor" assessment in these instances does not rule out possibility of potential for revising fuel combustion
source emission regulations in rural areas (see note b).
e Although the state has air quality standards for SO,, more stringent than NAAQS, the Implementation Plan of Alaska
addressed attainment of the federal standards, rather than those of the state.
f Data not available, however S02 readings are known to be very low in this region since there are no significant sources of S02
9 "Clean fuel savings" refers to the replacement of current fuel schedules with "dirtier" fuels. (Wherever emissions from fuel
burning sources can be increased without jeopardizing attainment of NAAQS, it may be plausible that fuel resource allocations
can be altered for "clean fuel savings.")
8
-------
The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and
Appendix A, was organized to provide the background and current
situation information for the State Implementation Plan. Section 3
and the remaining Appendices provide an AQCR analysis which helps
establish the overall potential for revising regulations. Emission
tolerance estimates have been combined in Appendix B with other regional
air quality "indicators" in an attempt to provide an evaluation of a
region's candidacy for revising emission limiting regulations. In con-
junction with the regional analysis, a characterization of the State's
fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial sources, and area
sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E.
Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions. Table 2-1 summarizes the State Implementation Plan
Review. The remaining portion of the report supports this summary with
explanations.
-------
2.1 AIR QUALITY SETTING - STATE OF ALASKA
The following discussion provides a characterization of the various
AQCRs in terms of air quality. It includes an examination of ambient air
standards, emission inventories, and air-monitoring networks.
2.1.1 Air Quality Control Regions
The State of Alaska has been divided into four federal air quality
control regions to provide a,basis for the adoption of regional air quality
standards and the implementation of these standards. The four regions and
their boundaries are shown in Figure A-l. These regions cover an area of
586,000 square miles (which is approximately 17 percent of the area of the
rest of the United States), in which only 302,400 people live (1970 census).
Because of Alaska's rather remote position relative to the rest of the
United States, no interstate air quality control problems are foreseen.
Although Alaska borders Canada for a considerable distance, no air quality
control problems are foreseen for some time because of the unpopulated
nature along the boundary.
The priority classification for each of the air quality control regions
for particulates, S09, and NO. is presented in Table A-2. The most pressing
C. X
air pollution problem in the State involves particulates. Two of the four
AQCRs, the Cook Inlet and Northern Alaska AQCRs, have been designated
Priority I for particulates. Only one AQCR, the South Eastern Region,
has been designated Priority I for sulfur oxides. Remaining classifications
are all Priority III. Table A-2 also shows that no sectors in the State of
Alaska have been designated as Air Quality Maintenance Areas.
2.1.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards
Ambient Air Standards for the State of Alaska are shown in
Table A-4. The State primary particulate standards are equivalent to the
federal secondary standards, but Alaska has adopted considerably more stringent
standards for SOp than the federal government.
10
-------
2.1.3 Air Quality Status
The 1973 air quality status for particulate levels in the various
AQCRs is given in Table A-5. Three of the four regions reported air
monitoring data. Table A-5 summarizes the worst cases of air quality for
participates in each of the regions in 1973 (or 1974, in the case of the
South Central AQCR). Violations of the federal air standards for sus-
pended particulates occurred in each of the AQCRs, and were more severe in
terms of the 24-hour basis. Based on proportional rollback criteria applied
to the air quality of Table A-5, particulate emissions must be reduced by
56 to 87% in the various AQCRs before air quality will attain the federal
air standards. Almost all of the AQCRs are subject to heavy particulate
loadings by traffic generated dust. This causes consistent high particulate
measurements in the downtown areas of Anchorage and Fairbanks, where the
worst air quality for particulates is measured. There was suspicion that
the worst particulate air quality reading obtained for an annual value in
the Northern Alaska AQCR in the Plan baseyear was not representative of
ambient particulate levels, since the sampler was located only five feet
above the street level in downtown Fairbanks. Current data show, however,
that more severe violations occur regularly for the 24 hour value, at many
different sampler locations, and at various different heights.
Air monitoring data for S02 within the Alaska AQCRs is very limited.
Three of the regions are reportedly well within ambient air standards for
S02. The measurements reported for the Northern Alaska Region, from a
single sampler located there, indicates very low values for SCS. It should
be noted however, that only eight valid values were reported from the station
throughout the year. Measurements of S02 from the single sampler in Cook
Inlet AQCR show SOp values there to be very low also. In the only other region
(South Eastern AQCR) reporting measured values of ambient S02, all readings
were well within the 24 hour standard (the data was not complete enough to
warrant reporting an annual mean). This would indicate that attainment of
federal air standards has been achieved in the South Eastern, Priority 1A, AQCR.
2.1.5 Emissions Summary
Table A-8 provides a summary of particulate emissions generated
throughout the various Alaska AQGRs. The vast majority of the
11
-------
identified man-made emission sources included in the emissions inventory
(excluding traffic generated dust) is located within the vicinity of
Fairbanks. It is estimated that 7,700 tons/year of man-made particulate
emissions are generated within the Northern .Alaska AQCR. Tlan^ade emission
sources in the South Central and Cook InletAAQCRs produce relatively negligible
particulate emission inventories as seen in Table A-8. Fugitive dust
arising from traffic and other activities is suspected to account for the
major portion of total suspended particulate matter. While the inventory
of Table A-8 does not include fugitive dust emissions, it does show clearly
the mix of fuel combustion emissions, and demonstrates the substantial role
of combustion emissions in the overall process-related emissions inventory.
Table A-7 lists the number of combustion emission sources in each of
the AQCRs. These are" the number of emission sources which have been in-
ventoried in the NEDS and/or the Federal Power Commission Data System. Only
12 power plants have been identifed as significant emission sources throughout
the State. (Half of these are in the South Eastern AQCR.) There are slightly
more industrial-commercial fuel combustion sources, and half of these are
located in the Cook Inlet AQCR (near Anchorage).
Table A-9 provided a summary of S02 emissions generated throughout the
various Alaska AQCRs. The inventory is not,believed to be very reliable as
was indicated by the conflicting values of S0£ emissions displayed in separate
NEDS publications. The role of fuel combustion in S02 emissions is seen to
change only slightly from region to region. Relatively little S02 is generated
from power plant activity. In most AQCRs, industrial/commercial combustion
sources account for the most substantial portion of the S02 emissions
inventory. The quantity of S02oemissions from industrial/commercial sources
varies sharply for one of the regions. In the Cook Inlet AQCR, relatively
minor industrial/commercial emission sources exist, accounting for only 1.4*
of the overall S02 inventory. The Impact of fuel revisions or relaxation of
combustion source emission regulations would have very minor effects on the
air quality in the Cook Inlet. However in the Northern Alaska, South Central,
and South Eastern AQCRs, a substantial portion (17 to 32%) of the S02 emissions
are generated from industrial sources, and it.is expectednhat air quality could
be affected by either a change in fuel burning schedules, or a relaxation in
regulations.
12
-------
2.2 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This section provides a characterization of the implementation control
strategies, a comparative evaluation of air quality/emissions relationships
assumed at the time of the strategy development and those which can be
assumed from more recent data, and an evaluation of the tolerance each of the
AQCRs possesses for increased emissions of particulates and S02.
2.2.1 Particulate Control Strategy
The State of Alaska developed a control plan for achievement of the
federal air standards for particulates by addressing the air pollution problems
in the Priority I AQCRs separately. Candidate control strategies were investi-
gated, but difficulties arose in developing emission inventories, and in
calculating emission reductions from the candiate strategies. These difficulties
stemmed from insufficient air quality data, and an incomplete quantification of
emission sources. As a result of these deficiencies, the EPA judged the Alaska
Plan to be inadequate for attainment of the secondary standards for particulates
(primary standards were considered attainable however, as shown in Table A-3).
The State was granted an extension to study the particulate matter problem
further, and to develop an appropriate control strategy.
Traffic generated dust is suspected to accoufit for the major portion
of suspended particulate matter in the Cook Inlet AQCR (in Anchorage), and
in the Northern Alaska AQCR (in Fairbanks). Similar problems with fugitive
dust appear in urban areas of the South Central and South Eastern AQCRs.
A large segment of the roads in these areas are unpaved. Paved roads are
very dusty, due to dust produced by vehicles on unpaved roads within the
central business district and the residential areas. The amouftt of dust
arising as suspended matter in the atmosphere from these activities is
unknown.
In the plan development, an area model estimation procedure was used
in an attempt to relate known emission rates to air quality. Air quality
estimates were calculated for the Anchorage Area (Cook Inlet AQCR) for known
source emitters. The caJculated air qualities resulting from the known tonage
13
-------
(2620 tons) of particulate emissions in the area were found to be several times
lower than measured values at sampling sites. The results implied that
sources other than known particulate emission sources in the inventory contri-
bute .greatly to the air quality problem in Anchorage. The sources of parti -
culates not included as known quantifiable emissions are traffic generated road
dust, and natural sources.
The proposed control strategy for both the Cook Inlet and Northern Alaska
AQCR consists of 1) application of reasonable control technology to existing
industrial sources, and 2) initiating a program to reduce traffic generated
dust and dust from other sources. An emphasis will be placed on identification
of the particulate origins, and to measure the irr.pact of the proposed candidate
control measures as they are implemented. These measures consist of 1) paving
roads, 2) oiling roads, 3) planting vegetation, 4) street cleaning. Evaluations
of the impact of each of these measures supported by air quality monitoring data,
will be conducted to define the particulate problem in the Cook Inlet and
Northern Alaska AQCRs. In the forrriuTation of the control strategy for the
South Eastern and South Central AQCRs, it was assumed that air quality
for particulates there was within the federal air standards, hence, no
control plan was proposed for these regions.
It should be immediately clear that the efforts of this review are
severely constrained by the interim status of the particulates control strategy
for the two Priority I regions. Until the proposed road dust control measures
can be evaluated and until the dust emissions may be measured and related to air
quality, it will not be possible to assess regional clean fuel savings or
emission regulation restrictiveness, except within the very loose context of
the uncertain status of the Plan.
Table A-10 summarizes pertinent data used in the development of
particulate control strategies for the various AQCRs. The worst air quality
14
-------
for 1973 was measured as a 24 hour average in al'i AQCRs. Since the
control strategies were formulated on the basis of the annual readings
rather than the worst violation values, it follows that the control
strategies are targeted for under-design.
2.2.2 SQ2 Control Strategy
The EPA assessment of the Alaska Control Strategy for SOp determined it
was adequate for achievement of the national secondary standards. Modeling
performed for the South Eastern AQCR indicates that secondary standards will
be met in that region, based on control of two sulfite pu'lp mills. One mill
is located in Sitka and the other in Ketchikan. These mills are approximately
180 miles apart and are not expected to cause any combined effect. Since
there is no air quality data presently avail able* emissions from the Ketchikan
mill were used to estimate the effect on air quality. Because this problem is
point source oriented, reductions were based on the more stringent 24-hour
standard. An emission factor of 30 pounds jjf sulfur dioxide per ton of pulp
produced (a figure supplied by the pulp mill), was used to determine emissions.
The estimated maximum 24-hour value indicated by a point source model is
310/jg/m3. By applying the State's regulation, which is equivalent to
reasonably available control technology (20 pounds of sulfur dioxide per ton
of pulp produced), a maximum 24-hour concentration of 240>ig/m3 is predicted.
This is sufficient to attain and maintain the national standards for sulfur
oxides in Ketchikan and Sitka, since emissions from the latter mill are
slightly lower.
The remaining regions in Alaska, the Cook Inlet, Northern Alaska, and
South Central AQCR, are cl_a_s_sified_Prlpriiy..ni for sulfur oxides.. It is
reported by the Plan that atmospheric levels of sulfur oxides in these
regions are well within air standards, and that air quality will be main-
tained by enforcement of regulations adopted under the Plan. Table A-ll
provides a summary of the overall control strategy and related data.
2.2.3 Emission Tolerance Evaluation
Table A-10 and A-ll provide an assessment of the tolerance which each
of the AQCRs possesses for increased emissions of particulates or S02- If
a region has a tolerance for more emissions, then this indicates 1) it is
15
-------
possible that fuel burning schedules may be revised so that clean fuel savings
may be accomplished, and 2) it is possible that fuel combustion emission regula-
tions may be (but not necessarily) relaxed. The methodology used in calculating
the emission tolerance is explained in detail in Tables A-10 and A-ll. There
are basically two ways in which the tolerance is derived: 1) by a comparison of
the allowable region wide emissions with the actual emissions forecast in 1975,
using the data from the Implementation Plan analysis, or 2) by a comparison of
allowable region wide emissions with the actual 1973 emissions as determined
using 1973 air quality/emissions data. The former method is chosen when the
Implementatioh Plan forecasts appear to be reconcilable with recent air
quality/emissions data. In this case, forecasts of the plan are considered
valid, and used to develop an emissions tolerance. If justified, this method
is preferable, since the emission tolerance developed in this way reflects the
full impact of the control strategies after their implementation is complete in
1975. The emission tolerance becomes a measure of the degree of "over-cleaning"
accomplished by the Blan, or in cases where the region was already within air
quality standards and did not require additional pollution controls, the
tolerance is an expression of the degree of degradation possible before
federal air quality standards are jeopardized. However, if irreconcialiabilities
exist from the comparison of Implementation Plan forecasts with more current air
quality and emissions data, it will be necessary to abort the first approach
discussed above, and determine the emission tolerance based on 1973 air quality
status in the region, beford any substantial controls have been implemented
from the control strategy.
Table A-10 provides a summary of the data used to generate a particulate
emission tolerance in each of the AQCRs. None of the regions possesses an
overall tolerance for increased emission of particulates. This is suspected
to be due mainly to substantial atmospheric loadings of fugitive dust,
arising mainly from urban traffic related activity. Although air monitoring
data is not available to provide a spatial characterization of the fugitive
dust problem, it is suspected that rural areas would be less subject to the
high levels of particulate loadings experienced in the urban centers. It is
possible therefore, that certain rural areas within a region may possess a
significant tolerance for increased particulateiieririssions.
16
-------
Table A-ll provides a summary of the data used to develop a SCL emission
tolerance in the various AQCRs. Substantial tolerances appear to exist in all
four regions. Data was unavailable to permit the quantification of the
tolerance in the South Central AQCR (although the relatively low SOp emis-
sions inventory there would appear to suggest substantial room for more
emissions). Because of very limited monitoring data available to characterize
S02 air quality in the Fairbanks area, no emissions tolerance was calculated
for the Northern Alaska AQCR.
2.2.5 Fuel Combustion Regulations Summary
Table A-12 provides a summary of the fuel combustion emission regulations
which have been adopted as the control strategy of the State Air Program
Implementation Plan. The regulations apply statewide. S02 emissions are
limited to 500 ppm from the stack of combustion units. Particulate stack
emissions are limited to .1 grain/SCF for coal combustion, and .05 grain/SCF
for oil and gas burning.
2.3 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides a brief narrative on special considerations which
may impact to some degree the final assessments to be developed in this report.
2.3.1 Planned Revisions to the Implementation Plan
The EPA granted ah extension to the State of Alaska to study the
particulates problem in the Cook Inlet and Northern Alaska AQCRs. The EPA
recognized the State Plan for particulates was adequate for the attainment of
the primary particulate standards, and expects the State to proceed with an
enforcement schedule to insure compliance from the applicable emission sources.
The State has submitted a study methodology to investigate the effects of
candidate measures to control traffic generated dust in Anchorage and Fairbanks,
and has scheduled an evaluation completion for the study by the end of 1974.
It is expected that the study will lead to a definition of the particulates
problem (origin and quantity), and a determination of appropriate control
measures which may be implemented to insure attainment of standards in the
two Priority I regions.
17
-------
2.3.2 Fuels and Fuel Conversions
As related in Section 3.0, fuel oils and coals used in the Cook Inlet
and Northern Alaska AQCRs contain very low sulfur content. This has resulted
in a substantial over-compliance with regard to S02 emission regulations in
these regions. Sulfur contents in the oil could be increased from a typical
.25% to .8%S while still complying with emission regulations. Similarly,
sulfur levels in the coal could be tolerated at far higher levels than that
presently used. While it is apparent that clean fuel savings potential in the
two regions appears feasible within compliance reouirements, there may be
some doubt as to whether the relatively large emissions increases would
jeopardize maintenance of SC^ air quality standards. Substantially more
data is required to illuminate this issue.
18
-------
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS
This section provides 1) an assessment of the feasibility for
accomplishing clean fuel savings in the various AQCRs, and 2) an assessment
of fuel combustion emission regulations to determine if they are overly
restrictive for the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
in the various AQCRs.
The first assessment is carried out with an evaluation of various
regional air quality indicators developed in Section 2 and compiled in
Appendix A. The regional air quality indicators considered are comprised
of criteria shown in Table B-l and B-2, and include 1) the breadth of air
quality violations, 2) expected attainment dates, 3) AQMA designations,
4) total regional emissions, 5) portion of emissions from fuel combustions, and
6) regional tolerance for emission increase. The emission tolerance possibly
provides the most important indicator, since, if it is known (either quanti-
tatively or qualitatively), it provides a measure of the over-cleanliness
of the region, now or projected, and indicates how much additional pollution
(from dirtier fuels) can be permitted.
The assessment of the restrictiveness of fuel combustion regulations was
performed with an evaluation of the impact of fuel burning operations on air
quality when those operations emit at a level equivalent to the ceiling limit
of the emission regulations. These emissions are calculated in Appendices C,
D, and E for power plants, industrial/commercial point sources, and area
sources, and then synthesized in the analysis of Appendix F.
The assessment of the various AQCRs is discussed below.
3.1 ASSESSMENT BY REGIONAL AIR QUALITY INDICATORS
Table B-l indicates that all four AQCRs can be considered as poor
candidates for clean fuel savings (or possibly regulation relaxation) when
they are constrained by attainment of the particulate standards alone. The
candidacy of these regions must depend largely on the adequacy of the new
control plan (being prepared by the State under an extension) to define and
19
-------
eliminate the substantial participate loading problem caused by natural sources
and primarily by traffic generated dust. If over-attainment can be demonstrated
with an effective dust control program, it is probable that emissions from the
fuel combustion source sector, which would comprise a rather small fraction
(probably less than 20%) of the overall inventory, once defined, could be
increased to accommodate clean fuel savings without jeopardizing attainment
of the air standards. Moreover, it would appear probable that rural areas
may be rated as good candidates for clean fuel savings provided they are
sufficiently removed from the impact of fugitive dust in urban areas.
However, within the present context of the State control plan, and with res-
pect to attainment of particulate air standards in the major urban areas of
the Cook Inlet, Northern Alaska, and South Eastern AQCRs, each of these
regions must be rated as poor candidates for clean fuel savings or regulation
relaxation.
Table B-2 shows that, unlike the assessment related to particulate
emissions, all of the AQCRs can be assigned as good candidates to accom-
plish clean fuel savings when they are constrained by attainment of the
802 air standards only. This evaluation results primarily from the fact that
the four candidates are presently demonstrating attainment with the standards
and it is probable that substantial SOp emission tole'rances could exist in
each of the regions.
3.2 ASSESSMENT BY SOURCE ANALYSIS OF POWER PLANTS/INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL/
AREA SOURCES
Power generation in Alaska is produced by either gas, oil, or coal-fired
combustion equipment. Fuel use and emission data for the major fuel burning
power plants in Alaska is shown in Table C-l. In general, coal burning plants
consume low sulfur coal (.22 - .26% suTfur) available in the area, and emit
S02 well within regulations. However, particulate emissions have yet to be
controlled sufficiently from these plants to meet the .1 gram/SCF emission
limitation. Table C-l includes a tabulation of SO^ and particulate emis-
sions presently emitting from the power plants, and a computation of the
emissions which are allowable at the emission regulation limits. It is
20
-------
apparent that almost all the plants are in substantial compliance with
SCL emission regulations. However, many of the plants are not presently
meeting the emission regulations for particulates.
Table D-l provides a summary of the major industrial/commercial fuel
combustion point sources in the various AQCRs. The number of these sources
which have been identified in the NEDS emission inventory is reported on
Table A-7. The fuel usage of industrial/commerical point sources closely
parallels that of the power plants. Gas and oil are used in the Cook Inlet
AQCR, whereas coal and oil are burned in the Northern Alaska AQCR, oil in
the South Central Region, and oil and wood in the South Eastern Region. As
might be expected, the Cook Inlet AQCR demonstrates the highest degree of
particulate and SOg control, achieved primarily as a result of its clean
fuels usage. The Northern Alaska AQCR experiences the most difficulty
achieving particulate emission regulations of all the regions, due to its
use of coal in the major boiler installations.
The significance of the area source depends greatly on the degree of
industrialization of the area (Tables A-8 and A-9). In more rural areas such
as the South Central and South Eastern AQCRs, area source fuel combustion
accounts for about 5% of the SCL emissions inventory, and less than 20% of
the particulate emissions (excluding fugitive dust). In more populated areas
such as Anchorage (South Central) and Fairbanks (Northern Alaska), area
sources account for up to 34% of the SCL emission inventory, and up to 36% of
the man-made particulate emissions. Area sources are comprised essentially
of residential space heating units which burn distillate fuel oils, except
in Anchorage where a large percentage of natural gas is used. These
residential units are exempt from emission control, and cannot in general
be practically converted to alternative fuel use. Therefore it does not
appear, for the most part, that substantial fuel savings can be accomplished
from the area source sector of the fuel consuming sources.
Tables F-l and F-2 synthesize the information of Appendix C and D
(power plants and industrial/commercial emission sources) to provide an
assessment of the restrict!'veness of emission regulations for fuel burning
21
-------
equipment. The assessment is carried out by evaluating the difference
between the projected fuel combustion emissions in 1975 and those emissions
which are emitted at the level of emission regulations. This difference
constitutes the additional emissions which would result if, after compliance
with regulations in 1975, all fuel burning sources were to alter fuels or
operations, causing emissions to rise up to the level of the regulations. It
is clear that if the additional emissions calculated are more than the emission
tolerance compiled for the region (Tables A-10 and A-ll), the emission regula-
tions are not overly restrictive, and they should not be relaxed.
In Table F-l it can be seen that particulate emission regulations are
not overly restrictive in any of the AQCRs with the possible exception of
rural areas, where it may be possible to revise regulations because air there
may be clear of the serious fugitive dust problems found in the urban
areas. Currently the State of Alaska is studying the emissions/air quality
relationships in the various AQCRs to determine the adequacy of proposed
particulate control strategies, and specifically, to define the problem of
particulate emissions arising from traffic generated dust. It is believed
that traffic generated particulate emissions comprise the major portion of
the particulate inventory being measured at the monitoring sites.
In Table F-2, it is demonstrated that it would probably be possible to
relax SCL emission regulations in all the AQCRs without interfering with
maintenance of the air quality standards. Relaxation of regulation
would have greatest impact on the Cook Inlet and Northern Alaska AQCRs.
Compliance emissions in 1975 for both these AQCRs are expected to be well
below that allowed by regulation limits. This high degree of compliance is
due to the use of very low sulfur fuels (oil and coal) available in this
region. If alternative, or higher sulfur fuels were substituted in fuel
burning equipment, such that emission regulation limits were approached, sub-
stantial S02 emission increases would result in both the Cook Inlet and
Northern Alaska AQCRs (see Table F-2). Air quality and S02 emissions data
in the areas of greatest sfy? emission density show that the emissions
tolerance is sufficient to permit these increases in S02 emissions without
22
-------
jeopardizing federal air quality standards. It also appears, based on the
analysis, that SCL emissions regulations could be relaxed to permit yet more
S02 emissions without jeopardizing NAAQS.
The Cook Inlet and Northern Alaska AQCRs are examples which
demonstrate the distinction between a region's potential for clean fuel
savings and the region's potential for regulation relaxation. Under the
circumstances relatdd here, both these AQCRs are good candidates for clean
fuel savings, as both now burn low sulfur fuels and would be able to use
far higher sulfur fuels (.9% sulfur) before violating emission regulations.
The analysis also suggests that further emission increases beyond the com-
pliance emission levels may be tolerated without violation of the air quality
standards, and hence the region's potential for regulation relaxation would
also be good.
In the South Central and South Eastern AQCRs, fuel usage practices yield
SOp combustion emissions which more closely approach the limits allowable by
S02 regulations (500 pptn stack concentration). When fuel usage practices are
revised to burn emissions of S02 at regulation limits, the resulting SOp emis-
sions inventory for these two AQCRs is substantially less than that in the
Cook Inlet or Northern Alaska Regions. It is estimated that such a fuel
revision would increase the SOp inventory in the South Central Region by 16%,
and that in the South Eastern by only 4%. In the South Eastern Region, where
an emission tolerance estimate has been quantified, it can be seen that the 4%
SOp emission increase would not jeopardize air quality standards, therefore
it appears that the S02 regulations can be relaxed greatly in this region.
In view of the relatively small inventory of SOp emissions in the South Central
Region, and the relatively small emissions increase expected if the projected
compliance cushion is erased, it is anticipated that S02 regulations could
probably be safely relaxed significantly iihtfchis region before affecting clean
air goals.
23
-------
APPENDIX A
Tables in this appendix summarize original and modified state imple-
mentation plan information, including original priority classifications,
attainment dates, ambient air quality standards, and fuel combustion
emission regulations. 1973 SAROAD data for S02 and TSP monitoring
stations are summarized for the various AQCRs in the State. NEDS emissions
data are tabulated for the various fuel burning categories in each of the
AQCRs.
Tables A-10 and A-ll show a comparison of emission inventories in the
original SIP and those from the NEDS. An emission tolerance which might be
allowed in the AQCR without violation of national secondary ambient air
quality standards, is calculated for SC^ and particulates. The intent of
this calculation is to indicate possible candidate regions for clean fuel
savings. The tolerance was based on either the degree of control expected
by the SIP or upon air quality/emission relationships which are calculated
from the more recent NEDS and SAROAD data. The value of the emission
tolerance provides an indication of the degree of potential an AQCR
possesses for clean fuel savings and regulation relaxation.
Methodology for Increased Emissions Tolerance
A tolerance for increased emissions was determined as follows. First,
an "allowable emissions" was calculated for each AQCR based on the current
NEDS data and the percent reduction (or increase) required to meet the
national secondary ambient air quality standards in that AQCR (worst case
from Tables A-5 and A-6). This (UUowa&Je" was then compared to that from
the SIP. If reasonable agreement occurred, then the "estimated emissions"
which would result after implementation of the SIP in that AQCR was used
to calculate an emissions tolerance. Thus, some credit could tje given to
an AQCR which might be restricting emissions more than required by ambient
air quality standards, In the event that no data existed or was available
In1972 National Emissions Report," EPA-450/2-74-012, June 1974,
A-l
-------
from the SIP for an AQCR, the current air quality was used to assign
emissions tolerance based on proportional rollioack or rollup. The current
air quality was also used to assign emissions tolerances when emissions data
from the SIP and the NEDS did not appear to be comparable (this is often the
case).
It is emphasized that emissions tolerance is based on region-wide
emission figures. It is evident that the calculation and use of this
tolerance is more appropriate for an urban AQCR with many closely spaced
emissions sources, than a largely rural AQCR with geographically dispursed
emissions.
A-2
-------
1/1
rO
eC
c
c
o
CD
CD
or
o
cr
o
o
rd
O"
s-
QJ
S_
3
CD
u cx
,5?
A-3
-------
03
o
Ol
T3
0)
O)
(O
o
4J
ro
o
I/I
CO
o
Q.
rO
A-4
-------
CO
CU
en
S-
re
re
E
O
re
cu cu
s- i.
et re
CT
00
re
c
o
cu
CM
i
0)
J2
re
c
o
o •£>
r>« ro
CTl r—
O.
o
Q.
C£
o
o-
d)
en
re
s-
o
o
c:
_Q re
•<- -5
re o
re
O)
ro
o
o
o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o
CM
CO
o
00
LO
CO
o o
CO O
^r co
CTl CT>
«^J- to
o
LT)
o
o
VD
LO
i— CM
00
CTl
"3
CO
re
o .—
O)
.— c
C S-
i—i CU
O S-
o o
o 2:
re
c
o
o
CO
E
S-
O)
CO
re
o
oo
A-5
-------
(/>
cu
-p
re
Q
4-*
E
CU
E
E
•r"
re
4J
^£
>^
-P
*r-
r—
CO
13
CX
S-
r^
^t
*
CO
^c
cu
1^
tO
re
i—
(/>
to CU
CU 4->
•o re
•r- Q
X
O 4J
E
E CU
CU E
CO E
O T-
s- re
4-* -4~*
• i— -4-J
z <
>,
s_
to re
OJ CU T3
ID 4-> E
•r- re o
X Q O
0 OJ
•r- 4-> 00
O E
cu
3 E >,
<4- T- i-
i— re re
3 4-> E
00 4-> •!-
< s-
Q.
^}
L.
E
cu re o
4-> Q 0
re cu
r— 4-> tO
3 E
O O)
•f~ E
4^ C ^"j
t- •!•• ^
re re re
Q. 4-> E
4J •<-
CO (tJ
O S- 3 3
O O O O
C_) Z 00 OO
.
in
-a
re
E
re
to
E
•r—
•£j
•^
>^
r-~
40
E
OJ
to
OJ
Q.
CU
S-
re
to
'qj
OJ
^~
>,
4->
•i«
r-^
re
3
CT
i_
•r-
re
"0
cu
S-
3
to
re
cu
2:
re
re
T3
o
u
OJ
to
OJ
^:
<[
o
•4~^
E
•r—
re
4->
re
s_
o
t(-
E
re
D-
re
i[
o
i —
re
4->
4->
3
to
i-
o
M-
E
O
to
c~
O)
4J
X
CU
E
re
-o
OJ
4->
E
re
s_
05
E
CU
cu
to •
re to
-E -a
s_
re re
^. -a
to E
re re
r— - 4-)
<: to
.a
cu
re
""~~ "O
3 OJ
0 E
•r— 3
4-> IS>
S- tO
re re
a.
t/)
cu re
c- 3
a>
to $_
(/> cu
OJ -E
-o
•i • •'•^
^J ->>
(0 +J
•1 —
o re
E 3
O"
•r- S-
re
CD
cu to
4-> OL
re o
s- o-
t/i
c
r— i_
0 OJ
S- 4J
4-> to
E re
o uj
CU 4J
.E 3
4-> O
OO
OJ
O S-
E O
•r-
to i —
re
cu s-
r— 4->
-Q E
re cu
i — O
re -E
re 3
o •
cu oo *~-^
^- c/o
re cu o*
-E «=C
t/l 4-> eC
cu z:
4-> S-
re cu cu
"O c~ c~
1 * ^ %
1 ^ <(
E CU E
OJ T-
E E -E
E -r- 4->
re E S
4-> OJ
4-> •— OJ
re .a .a
o
O S- O
•ZZ Q-4->
u
A-6
-------
c
(O
ro
3
o-
s_
5
QJ
ro
4->
oo
T3
C
fO
ro
s_
Ol
T3
Ol
01
J3
ro
CO
£
~^
to
D)
a.
c
•i —
o
rC
C
tt)
O
t:
0
o
,
i —
<^
£.
n
-r—
f
a.
CD
/I
s-
fO
Ol
i-
0)
Q.
0}
(J
f8
-C
-(->
s-
o
Ol
-o
OJ
o
X
O)
CLI
ITS
A-7
-------
ro
(/)
CO
i >
ro
'
~:
.£_
s_
fO
0-
J_
0
^~
3
ro
CO
•r—
ro
o-
^
'^L
^~
,,
O
>>
rO
E
ri
oo
UD
1
*^
CO
• _
ro
1—
CJ
in
c TD
O 4-> i.
r- CO ro
J CO ~O
__> y £;
3 ro
XI O +->
O) -P OO
Oi
•o ;-,
C CO S-
O 1- ro
i — 'I— "O
in 3 c
in cr o
I- CO ,
ro
-o
0
O
CO
00
—J
O
:c
i
^>
CM
_
ro
c
c
^
S-
ro
'^
O.
1
^j-
CM
,
to
3
c
c
CO
-C
CTl
»,—
31
•o
CM
S-
3
0
z
1
CM
ai
^
ro
CD
+j
t/5
CU
CT
1C
S-
a
i
^^
CVJ
i^
re
C
C
1/1
c:
O 0
•r- C
P T-
ro -t->
P S-
00 O
C
• a
oc
o
cr
^5 ^^ ^^ CTl ^~ «d~
i— r— X> O
CO «* r— r—
i— O T3 O
«i- r^ LO oo
CTl ^^ CT» t—
CD ro r— ro
r—
ro 4_>
CO c in
i— c cu as
C S- O LU
1-1 0)
O S- 3 3
o o o o
O Z OO 00
a:
CJ)
cr
rO
s-
E
CU
o •
-P CTl
o "~
oo s~
CD
,
E c—
3 3
rO ""O
4— E
0 O
i-
CO 4-
rO
O5
E E
CU T-;
00 S.
>> c.
OO CL
a>
(0 S-.
ro M
Q a>
•Ci
r^ r— •
ro rci
C >•
O
•r- E
-P -r-
rO
:^ c:
o
E -r-
"~ ns
ro +J
•P CT
rO
^3 C7)
E
-P S-
•r- C3
i— +->
(O T-
3 E
CT 0
E
S-
•^ "S
(O G
CO ~
cn (5
1 u'—
E
0 13
S- ID
4- '_
^3 i"0
CU i->
t— .a
•r- 0
Q.
E ^
O ro
0 S
rO
(D
E
4->
•P
£
•i —
4—
CD
_r"
4-)
S-
cu
-p
rO
OO
Cr
e^
<^C
"Z^
CU
r~
-P
4 —
O
CU
3
^~
rO
(D
-E
-P
"O
CU
CU
o
X
rO
P^
O
•i —
^>
^a
iod of standard
j_
cu
Q.
s_
S.'~~~
E
-P CHTD
•i- 3- S-
i— ro
rO Ln TD
3 i— E
Cjv^^ fO
-P
S- E CO
•r- O
rO T- 4-
-P 0
"O ro
CU S-
CU E
E 0 E
0 0
-P T-
C/) -Q -P
CU E ro
-E 3 S-
CD O -P
•i- J- E
-E CD CU
-iȣ O
•O O E
E ro O
CM J3 U
II II II
rO
-P
O
E
CO
•1 —
CD
CD
ro
S_
(D
rO
r— —
rO
3
E
E
cX
-a
•
CO
-a
S-
fO
-o
E
ro
•P
CO
>.
-P
•i —
t—
ro
3
CT
S-
•1—
ro
E
'^
•P
•i —
^
>j
r—
•P
E
CU
co
^
^
'r—
ro
3
cr
i.
•I —
^^
OJ
A-8
-------
ro
CM
O
to
S-
0
4-
to
3
4-*
to
4-^ _—
00 5
>> '•">
jj -M
.t- <0
Z- S_
ro £
o- ,
c
p
g
3
CO
,
VO
<
cu
.O
ro
t—
0 4->
•r- QJ
4-> QJ
o 2:
3
•o o
CU 4->
at
•o
C QJ
0 S-
•r— •!-
to u
to cr
.,- CU
E a:
LU
f
00
-a
C7> 4->
C CO
•r-
-o >>
OJ +->
OJ -r-
O i —
X to
UJ 3
o-
to
C€
>—
O 'r~
•r- <
+->
rd 4J
4-> C
CO CU
=n= .a
_-f-
^
4->
to
-a cu
C -C
CM CT)
•1 —
to
u
S-
fO
•o
c
ro
4->
to
£
to
-a
c
o
o
cu
to
s-
3
O
JZ
1
«*
CM
,
to
3
C
C
>. s-
s_
to
TD
C
o
u
cu
CO
o
^
S-
re
i
ro
1 1 1 1 4->
QJ
c:
1— 1
^^
>!
ta
E
S-
a.
u
— T—
—L,
\
Tj-
CM
r—
to
3
C
C
f-f
CJ,
k_j
O
O
O O 1 O QJ
JZ
4->
S_
O
O O 1 0
ft
&~
ai
cn >
c s-
•r- rn
T3 1
IO •*
Ol CM
cu
3
^J CTJ 1 1J~) O
CM r^ ~z
.
to
~o
s_
to
•o
c
rO
4->
00
&_
to
^
re
4-
CJ
"O
cu
M-
C
JC
+J
3
,
,__
QJ
to
•-» ic a: •«-
^o
E
CD
2;
I/I
C
O
41: 4->
tX3
4->
CO
cn
oo c:
C -r-
0 4->
•r- i-
-«=+-> O
to a.
4~> cu
co a:
C
CD
C
-a
to
cu
a:
< *
•r— '
to
CU
_e
CJ>
•i —
a:
s_
re
i
-d-
rxi
_ 0
to i— rv. -i-
CM i — i to cn
i — QJ
&-.
to
c-
rio
3
C
C
L.
1 1 1 1 O
M—
•o
cn-— aJ
c: •
•r- C
-(-> -i-
i- -(->
O c:
a. o
QJ C_)
o:^
+j
r
O
0
O O | O QJ
L-
1 i
*-N
!«/
£1
!^
QJ
S- r—
1C J3
1 -Q
'd- 3
CM CD
^-^
to
ro
3
i — i — 1 «3- to
4->
IO
-a
^O
jr
>>
4->
|H
to
3
CT
^_
ro
C
o
to
-t->
ro
-£Z
4-3
to
CU
+^
ro
(i
T3
^*
r-
^/
O
0
0
QJ
-C
4J
i.
O
4-
tO
4->
rO
Q
»d-
r^
CD
cu
c
^
• J
n
0
to
ro
g
CU
4->
to
>.
to
to
4-*
IO
^
C
•~
>)
4->
r-
ro
3
l<-
0
~o
o
•r—
i.
CU
Q.
cu
x:
+j
s_
£
CU
C7)
ro
j_
O
-C
(«
c
^-
c
o
•1—
4_>
rO
-(->
to
cn
c
S-
o
4->
c
E^
r^
Sen
QJi—
C
S-
ro O)
ja
E e
o cu
S-+J
4- CL
JS O" ty
10 -ooo
Q.5-^-
QJ
^
+J
^'
~
ro
•»!
~^
•J^
k— _i_
i— cn
to 3
+J O
JD i-
Of—
_i_
J_>
t
OJ
•1 —
-M
-*-J
1^
s~
•r™ •
4-
0)
JC
4J
i.
QJ
4J
lf-
tO
CO
cy
<
<
•z.
ni
UJ
.C
.1 \
c^_
O
QJ
-^
to
>
CU
J^
+J
T3
OJ
QJ
t_)
X
QJ
_c:
o
•r—
_c
2
to
cn
c:
-o
rO .
QJ-
i_ =
O
"O
QJ
to
ro
y-\
_i-J
-D
S-
to
-o
c
to
•*->
to
tf—
o
•a
o
s_
01
-D
&_
ro
"O
c
to
4-^
to
QJ
CL-C
+J
0 4-
M- 0
>, QJ
4-> 3
r— tO
ro
3
cr
i_
to
-i->
to
a>
j=
cn
-C
-o
c
CM
oil
et
CU
&~
QJ
JT
IS
_
O
o
X
fL
i
•*• 1
||
-Q
C
o
«r—
4->
ro
S-
4->
C
QJ
O
C
O
o
ai
-C
4->
II
t_>
•
to
-o
i-
ro
T3
IZ
ro
4->
to
>>
-M
*r~
*~
to
3
cr
j-
*"~
c~
-C
4_>
i —
S
>)
+J
cu
to
Qi
O
co
cu
c
t/i
(O
c
a>
O r—
c
cu
c
at
o
CO
IO
s §
0 C 0 M-
O
o
o
s_
o
o
to
o
CO
ro 3
-— O
CQ OO
A-9
-------
TJ
O)
4->
S-
o
Q.
0)
LU
<0
•o m
E QJ
to o
s-
•r- oo
en E
3 *r—
-o o
3
00
cu
o
O
oo
in
3
-Q
O
O
CU
3
cu
!Q
ns
O T-
o
S- i-
OJ 0)
-Q E
E E
3 O
Z O
CM
O
00
S- 0.
O)
-Q i.
E OJ
3 S
z: o
Q-
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
CO i —
IO
CO
QJ
o
o
o
—- o
r—
(O
in i—
r— S_
< -P
E
E O)
i_ C_5
O)
S_
o
o
oo
E
QJ
4->
in
(O
UJ
jr
4->
O
OO
"~ CD
Ife
in
cu-
3 O
O
in
CU
4-> o
c v
'o o
p t/1
4-) tn
to m
O
oo
s-
QJ •
ra oo
4->
O O)
4-> O
S-
OJ
c -a
a) s-
(/) O
0) '
S- 4*
CL c
0) to
s- o;
in oo
ro
A-10
-------
to
CO
CU
-*-*
rO
1
0
**~\
•V^
s_
ro
D-
^
ro
H
13
LO
CO
O
CO
CO
•r—
E
LU
C
o
•^
CO
3
_a
f
0
o
li
3
^j^
CO
\^
^^
CU
'
CO
CL
cu ••-
O 4->
S_ CO
_J 13
0 -0
o
rt J
^~
ec 'aj
^3
U-
o^
u
>s
^*^
t/)
c
o
"^O
o
1 —
C
O
cu -r~
^ U CO
r— f— ^~ 3
ro ro ^ -Q
£ 'u<" 0
+J S- , O
co cu -^
~& =-r" T
C O O CD
i [ f ^ f^_ 3
S-9
t-
^
CO
c
o
-4_J
ro
U.o
£.
o
-1—
^>)
ro
CD
C
OJ
0
>,
4J
•i—
O
c
0
CD
*?
S-
>•
C
o
it
0
LU '
"3 E C
+-> O O
O J- -r-
1 «»- 4->
M- CO 3
o c .a
+J -i— o
C CO CJ
CU CO
O -e- i —
J- E CU
0) LU 3
a. u_
J_
n (H3
r- Q)
rfl >-
O CO
o
*"
CO
o
r~
a:
o
^J
^i- r~,
^J- OO CM
r— l-~ OO CO
CM r-^ r— ^j-
f
tr< --^ ^-*
•—' O i—
ro C. C.
OO" CO r— C
ro ro S-
.— S- CD
+J ^t 4-^ +J
0) C co
r— C CU ro
C i- O LU
1-1 CU
-^ -C JC
J^ 4-? 4-> 4->
0 S- 3 3
O 0 O O
O Z CO
4_>
s-
o
Q.
0)
o;
CO
c
o
CO
CO
E
LU
r— "
ro
C
0
1 ^
ro
^
CM
cn
=
„
CO
Q
LU
E
O
s_
C|-
cu
(J
2
X
cu
CO
c
o
*r~
CO
CO
•r—
E
LU
ro
^3
d>
4-j
fO
i_
(D
c~
CL)
CD
U
c^
i[
ra
s_
-(-)
T3
c
ra
CO
0)
0
L-
3
O
CO
ro
S_
3
4->
ro
C
E
O
M-
co
c~
O
CO
CO
•1 —
at
cn
c
•o
o
X
0)
•s
,_"
c
0 •
co ro
CU ^
O CO
S- ro
3 r—
O et
CO
T3 •!-
cu
ro "(0
CU +J
s- c
ro
CO 4->
CO CO
CU JO
O 3
O co
a. cu
cu
-a o
3 +->
O T3
C 0)
•1- >
cu
CO •!—
c •—
O 0)
CO
CO J=
•i- •!->
E 0
CU JO
0)
CO •(->
CU co
t— T3
JO
A-.n
-------
(O
CM
O
CO
*
>)
S-
fO
CO
CO
O
•i—
CO
CO
UJ
a
O
•1—
4-*
CO
3
'r>
O
O
r—
0)
3
[_[_
•
C7>
1
<
0)
n*"
XI
3
1 1
X
i_
&
^^
to
C
£
r>
o
C
o
flj 'I—
"£
3 a
_j —
O J3
to e
o
4J CJ
c
•r- f—
O CU
D. 3
LL.
u
»«
^
>1
CO
c
0
4->
"O
O
i —
C
o
,|_>
03
i.
CU
c
CD
C3
>,
+J
O
•r-
S-
-i->
-
W>
C
o
I—
•n
o
c
E 0
°T;
i. *j
03 >-
i * '^^^
O CO
1— C
o
1 —
n
o
l~~
cc
(_3
o-
el'
IO CO LO ^J-
.* CO ^ W
00 ro o VO
*St 00 CM CM
I*J- O IO IT)
r- r~. o CM
i— ^- CO
1
CM
O VO 00 (7>
• • • •
r— r~ r—
CM O Ol O
.
^1- <£} r—
1
*£> <3- (ij
O ID o O
* * • •
r-*
o o o o
O CM U3 00
<*• ^J- •* ro
^f •=*• «d- CO
r— CT> •* LO
CT> • — ^ • — •
O f—
ro — — •
x— ^ \y
00 CO i — C
- — 03 03 S-
i — S_ +J
CD C CO
i— C Ol 03
C S- 0 LU
•• t— i CU
-C -C .C
-^ 4-* 4-* 4-*
O S- 3 3
O 0 O 0
O S CO OO
j
1
O
M-
^3
CD
>
•r-
t-
O)
"T~l
TJ
CU
t.
CO
CO
c
o
4J
&.
O
Q.
O
Q.
X
•r—
E
CO
_c
4J
•o
C
03
A
^^
C
(O
J3
03
4->
03
"O
CO
a
UJ r
^?" .
4->
£ i^
O O
S- 0.
M_ CO
a;
T3
CO CO
4-1 C
0 0
03 ••-
4- CO
4-> CO
X-i-
cu E
UJ
ai
CU 03
3 c
Q
CO 1—
£1 4->
O 03
•r- Z
CO
CO CM
•r— P^
E CT>
CO i—
CM"
O oo
co a
^;
03
4-> CU
o ^:
1- 4->
IO
A-12
-------
iculates
+->
(O
Q-
«i
0
C
<0
s_
Q)
"o
o
CO
CO
UJ
q-
o
c
E
CO
in
QJ
CO
O
o;
n
i —
ID
a
yT*.
c 1
E
•a i
>,«
i —
I"
+J
It)
|
2
2
nforma
T3
(B
0
T3
C
co
o
2
3
I
.
C
ill*
QJ 1-
-0 ,
£ "Z 0 1/1
0 0 f! -*J
o: •—
i- c: •--.
"~~ 5) ifi
£ ^ .—
-O CT -I-1
cc o: <;
c -4- *J r— TO
i/i I- i- E
OJ O1 *-
C T3 C
_j c E t-
1)0 1_
- -r- i- "0 C
fill
a: u
u c: -•- t-> •- QJ ---,
SS^ o 3 £ g
fl r- t- L^
E +-> o t- nro
ri (_>
l«lgls
3 - ^ QJ tU na
s^gs^
o -u c 3 i/i E
> 0) to <*-^S-
CC
o
£e
o o> •—
l£5 si t « „
ajwi>il/ia3 aj QJ QJ
conior-ccE E E
'
: ;: : :
s| si S| §|
IT TT -c j;
~— -^
ii.ib i i^jiy =|L '.
lliffiHfflHUil! :
•— CD
1 1
X> T3
iJD CD
r- L.I °
-Q C -Q C
LO C «a- c ro nj
•2. JS "^ £
+-> 0 S^
E 4-
-Q "T3 O i/i O i-
P- Ol -!-> 4- O 01 O
nj t. ^ 0 i- -COJ Q
+J > •- E 3t TJ LU
QJ ^- ^ ^ 4J QJ E
304JE U 34- O
n O <1J -t-1 QJQJ3 -IJ 3i- ID
^= 1- U 0 C C r-
-a-tJOr- C C i- r~
i~ 4- k. OJ O OJ >
T)-i->3 r-i/i 5Jt- in
•— i — i- c - O if ro
•OT3*-J-r~J3^-(O O-Q C
C4- 0 >, •- ^ O 0) i/l
^1 ^ «*- IV 0 - <0 S-— UJ
= cl">^ S1 S
g^S c^ «,-§.= S Sc
J3 I- J3 C O > in
£>0"C3^r^4-^'° "*"
ULn-CTJtn^-k- S^TD •—
i/i E3COO4- 4-
c: OJ 03 c 3 ' Q)
i-j-j.d'BajcTS-*a--c: s-
r- i — OJtoO ns-CO >,
S^o"0 2 QJ u S w u ^
a..— OJ a) eu ^- *J
crE i-ai'k.*-i-oa"
i- 0) k. r-cOJui4-i^n)t.
i--Co;-E:tU-C:r; OJO4->--
ct I— 5 1— CTt— TD a i t/i et
A-13
-------
o
c
TO
s-
Ol
CO
'i
a>
01
CO
in
OI
_a
TO
1^
oS
r- C
11
• — C
TO I-
I
C
C
4->
•M
1
t_
4-
E
O
Informa
T3
s
I
s
n
4-
E t
>, 0 - U
s- r- TO O"
3 E "5 O
_
-0 CU i/> >,
•- •— c -•*.
o 1 5 B
d; 01 i-
K I % i
"~~ 5> iro
a: i—
0 -0 E
•-a* 01
4-* 1- i- £
0 ^ O E
oi at +J
o; o; +->
4- >,%
|^"I^
O 4-> O f
E -to x TO f- ry
E o ^ E t/i t.
O c: E <
O TO UJ
"a "o a.
i in o- 01
r- OI S- T) C
£ £^ =
E
!a 3 »~ r-
,- r- i , w ^ 5" c >,
O) E -M +J '^- OJ ^^
siplK
0 0 E E -0
r^^tim^^
Cr i—
«t -D 0
(US- Q- • •
cu o f— ^-,
l"8^5
a:
i,
1
O
UJ
^
en
•sf
S
^
S
ai CM
*. i . = s
§ *f ^sl
*J O "~ +J r— TO 4^
^sIS^II
O.+J to ai 'r~ * •—
<£ 0- TO E Q.
1
•
^
s-e
o
co
0
m
E (- *->
>,S^5
>^4-^S
0-~ ^ C^ ^
OJ TO C T3 1- E
z; TO •- c: f-
SJ? E S " £
£ 4-J O CSJ Q> TO
*3 -S ° o-i 'o i-
E S 4-> TO
CT •- Ol OI r-
i— >>-C U TO
^ 0- > £• 1C ^
TD
Oi
C
-4-1
"O
c
»
o
a,?
~
E ^1
.- 01
E QJ
OJ E
'
"
S
IS
CT3 J-
t £«; S.
«~ X) ra
0 V> -r- E
•- (J 0
jc e ,S
^"S S i-
III lL
c o: 01 ai i
3
CO
2
S £
_Q .E
O
rocM
4-> 4-*
F r
•s
g
C 4- 5 C trt >,
O
,51 i:-sl:
> 1_ -M ° CTlS E
'r- f-E- OlltflU
* •— O O. >- I—
"i0 oc"3>-5E
~~ ~OcjQJ"OC
i o o
1 - 4J
A-14
-------
o
o
ro
C
O
ro
+J
00
S-
o
o
•r- O_
4-> t-i
(O OO
"3 T3
O) OJ
Qi O
4J O.
C. CL
ro
Q
Ol
U
C
ro
•r-
r—
Q.
E
O
CO
0)
-(->
ra
S-
co
r~—
o
S-
4->
c
0
i.
QJ
XI
E
^
O
• r—
4-*
ro
r—
3
cn
O)
>*
i-
o
CD
Q)
•4-3
ro
(_)
QJ
O
i-
3
O
00
QJ
rO
,, —
-o
OJ
>— H
Lj_
CJ
>- —
c:
• r—
ro
S-
CD
en
O
0
P
X!
0
If)
O
•
O
Li)
-o
o
o
3
r— "
OJ i—
3 ro
u_ o
o
~o
C CD
rO C QJ
•i— -l->
CO 4-> C CO
0) C S- ro
CO QJ 33
co E X)
Q) Q- i—
O -i— +-> ro
03 0 0_
S- CT C •!-
Q- LLJ O
CO -i-
i — CD QJ C
rO C O 3
•r- T- i- E
4-> i- O S-
CO 3 CO O
3 CQ
TD
C
QJ
ro
., —
•^3
QJ
E
>— «
b
co
~^
^
ro
s_
CD
!
O
CM
XI
O
CO
O
O
CO
01
C CO
QJ rO
E 3
O CL
4_) >r_ , — •
3 rO
S- CT CL
O Q) -i-
••- O
i- S- •,-
a. o c
tj ••*
cn E
c "a
•r- C i-
4-> ro O
ra
S- CM ,—
Q) l~-~ ro
CLCT* o
0 •— 0
CO "CD
Q) i— C
O -i—
i- >, C
3 i — S-
O 3 3
CO '-3 XJ
CM
QJ
•4_>
ro
• r-
"O
OJ
E
E
>-H
CO
•^^
c:
•i —
ro
S-
CD
ID
!
O
oo
XI
o
CO
0
.
o
LD
T3
O
O
3
O)
^
• 1 —
c
i-
3
XI
CO
ai
o
3
O
00
ro
QJ
4-J
ro
., —
-o
QJ
^
t— <
CM
0
co
E
a.
CL
0
cn
u
0
IT)
0
o
cn
CO
E:
o
cn
CO
E
a>
T3
c:
3
0
CL
E
O
i-
3
r— ~
3
CO
A-15
-------
APPENDIX B
The purpose of Appendix B is to provide an assessment of the feasibility
for accomplishing clean fuel savings and regulation relaxation. This assess-
ment is carried out with an evaluation of various regional air quality indi-
cators developed in Section 2 and compiled in Appendix A. The regional air
quality indicators considered are comprised of criteria shown in Table B-l
and B-2, and includel(l) the breadth of air quality violations, (2) expected
attainment dates for NAAQS, (3) AQMA designations, (4) total regional emissions,
(5) portion of emissions from fuel combustion sources, and (6) regional toler-
ance for emissions increase. When it is quantifiable and suitably applied,
the emission tolerance possibly provides the most important indicator, since
it provides a measure of the over-cleanliness of the region, now or projected,
and indicates how much additional pollution (such as from dirtier fuels) can
be permitted without resulting in violations of federal air standards.
B-l
-------
6
4->
fO
x
03
QJ
C£
C
O
4-J
03
3
cn
QJ
O£
CO
QJ
4-J
03
Z3
L)
4-J
t-
03
Q_
CO
cn
E
>
03
CO
'aJ
Ll_
E
03
QJ
t~~
(_>
t.
O
4—
4-*
C
QJ
E
CO
CO
QJ
(/)
CO
•^
>>
u
03
•a
I""
E
03
C_J
1
CQ
Q)
Q
03
h-
03
E
O E
•r- O
cn-i—
QJ 4->
CE: ra
3
( — ro
03 >
S- UJ
QJ
>
O
1/1 tl
§ >-
s- '« J2
°"°
E -1-1
<" Li-W)
u V-v
Em *-J
QJ
ra 4->
1- ra,
^ 3 <"
° u ™
•"5 fu
r^ 0
£.2
co i — O
E QJ -r-
O 13 4-J
••- U_ in
^« CO 13
CO E.O
ie§
LU 4- (_J
4J ,
a. o o r^ -^
•i— Cf Cfi in
" — CO ••— E E 4-J
0 E T- -r-
h— UJ OO
O
CO
c:
CO O
QJ -i-
•r- -C CC 4-)
4-> 4-> S 03
C -•- CT E
3 3
Q. 03 03
X 4-> Q
UJ 4-J
a:
CO
QJ co
•r- CE: s_ >. E
t. 4-> O 'r- 4-> O CO
QJ E crcc ••- -r- i>-
XI 3 < r— 4-> fjl
E O -C 03 ro i —
3 O E 4-J Z5 •—
^ .,- .-^ cy o c
4— 3 *i~ •>"
o >•
cc:
o
o*
<:
T3
QJ
03
-Q
•o
E
03
o
S-
o
o
Q_
E 1
r- E
03
^~> "*"*
i — CO
5 4-
co O
CO
0 4-J
Q. E
s-J
x5
CU Jj
-o1*
QJ
4-J .
"3 CO
U 03
££
.^ ^
r—
££
0 3
Z s_
•d-
co
••*
—
CNJ
cu
£=
O
ra
<3-
ro
CO
4->
CU
c
1 '
-^:
o
o
o
T3 T3
CU OJ
ro ra
T3 -O
•5 -5
C C
ro ro
U 0
S- s_
O O
O O
Q- 0-
t/1
ro
CU
i_
ro
C
ro
_O
!_
13
S_
rO
CU
C
c-
ro
4->
S-
CU
C
u
l/l
•I-
CO
-o
rO
-o
CO CO
LO *}-
CO OJ
r~ CO
r-^ i —
cu cu
c c
0 0
^ -^
ro _o
r>- CO
\ -^^
•— o
CT1 —*
-~* 0
ro — "
CO i —
ro ro
i — i_
•=t 4->
C
C CU
I- 0
01
-C J=
4-> +J
S- 3
0 0
:z co
-o 1
QJ
4-J
03
-a
T3
E
rO
O
^_
O
0
Q.
_
!
I
cr,
r^
ro
'
QJ
E
O
^~
_Q
o>
^J-
f ^
r-
d-
E
S-
QJ
4-J
CO
03
UJ
-E
4-J
^
O
CO
, —
CL
03
CL
O
oj
>
QJ
-o
O
4->
C
O
CO
E
OJ
4->
X
QJ
E
03
•o
QJ
E
03
S-
cn
QJ
OJ
_Q
l/l
03
-c:
03
-^
CO
ra
-<
-a
QJ
E
E
t~
QJ
4-J
QJ
~o
QJ
CU
JD
4-J
O
E
l/l
03
_E
T3
S-
03
"O
E
03
-4-J
10
S-
03
4-J
E
QJ
-Q
E
03
£>
03
-o
E
O
CJ
QJ
to
s_
O
4-
QJ 4->
4-> C
03 QJ
-a E
E
E 03
QJ 4-1
E 4-J
E 03
03 3
4-> 0
4-> -E
«=C CO
03
E 0
O
E
-o o
QJ •-—
CO 4-J
03 03
_Q • —
O
in -i—
03 >
3
E ••—
0
•r- QJ
CO S~
•i- 03
U
QJ in
-a 4->
c:
CO QJ
jz: QJ
1 — i-
13
CO
• 03
CO QJ
-0 E
03 S-
-a rj
E O
03 -C
4-J
C\J
E
•i — 4-J
-E ra
4-J SZ
•r- 4J
3
S
co O
03 -C
3 to
4-> -2
-•— 03
i — "O
03
13 QJ
CT.E
4-J
s_
••— S-
03 QJ
>
4-) QJ
rO 3
JZ O
4-J 31
m
CO CO
03 "O
-Q S-
03
QJ "O
g- j^
4-> 03
4-J
E in
o
S_
E *f-
O 03
cn QJ
QJ -E
S~ 4->
co cn
•r- E
-C -1-
4-J 4-J
QJ
S^ QJ
O E
4-
QJ
-o s-
QJ QJ
•r— 3
4—
•i— in
U 4-J
QJ E
r-i QJ
co F
QJ
CO S-
«3 3
3
03
>> QJ
cn E
QJ
4-J E
03 03
i- QJ
•*-> E co
CO T?
t — 03 03
o ^ -o
S^ E E
4-> E 03
C 10 4->
o in
U 4-1
0 S-
O 03 -t~
ZZ 4- ra
J3
(_>
4~
(+_
s_
E
03
CO
QJ
£_
^
O
in
ro
£~
3
4->
E
O
j_
4-
co
E
O
CO
CO
E
QJ
QJ
4->
ro
3
U
-M -0
i. 0)
CL4-
4- 4-J
O E
03
C 13
O CT
4-J C
^ Q)
.a QJ
-F- _O
4-> 4-J
E QJ
0 >,
O
4->
QJ O
-C E
1 —
QJ
>
• 03
>i-c:
E 4->
O ^
_Q
CO
QJ »
O i —
S- 03
3 ••—
0 4J
CO E
03
QJ 4->
"O co
03 _Q
E =3
CO
C
§QJ
^D
CO O
QJ -M
-a
Z3 4->
i — _E
u cn
E 13
•r- O
-cr
i — 4-J
03
4-> QJ
o i-
4-> 03
CO 4-J
E CO
O 13
'r- -a
CO
co "O
•i— QJ
E 4-»
QJ 03
S-
co a>
•r- E
^d cu
t— cn
O
c
03
QJ
(J
S-
o
4-
co
QJ
•4-J
03
-o
-a
E
03
U
~o
O
o
cn
QJ
-O
>!
ra
E
CO
C£L
O
cr
^
in "O
Z3 O
O O
•r- .c:
S- -r-
03 i —
> QJ
^:
OJ T-
-E p —
4->
CO
4- -^
O JE
CO
03 E
QJ S_
t. -^
03 4-
E
•— O
O3 O
s_
n o
S- 4->
4_J -Q
O3 QJ
~cr "o
4-J Q;
QJ
^ c
4->
•f— co
r • -i
X3 03
•r- 4->
CO O3
CO "O
o
°-$
4J .^_
CJ r—
E 03
•i— ^
4-j cr
in
•r- i_
~o ••-
ro
in
03
QJ E
S- O
QJ -,-
-C 4->
4_) .^
*O
4J "O
03
U QJ
QJ S-
S_
E
QJ O
-O T—
4->
TD 03
3 ^
o cn
-C QJ
CO S-
4-> i-
•— • O
•a
B-2
-------
c:
o
en
c
c
re
o
»/l
c
o
l/>
i/x
4->
re
3
re
>
UJ
jj
>^
^>^
t/i
c
o
4-»
n
o
c £•-
re LU -
t_
ClJ
-Q
E
D
u
cu
'o
t—
t/l
c
o
a? to
t/»
i
LiJ
C\*/)
o c a;
UO O O
-.- cr
r— t/l ef
re to
+-> -r- C
0 E —
1/1
CU
4J 4->
c ••-
^3 S
O
O
•o
OJ
4-»
u
QJ
O,
X
LU
in
OJ
>r- C£ i- >,
•M C_3 -r- -M
C cr^X •!-
Z3 Ct .—
o JT re
CJ) C 4-> ZJ
•r- -r- O"
M- 2
0
c\
o
UO
1-
o
«4-
cu
Z3
u_
E
o
L.
4-
CSI
r^.
o>
c
^f
cr
^C
4->
C
OJ
c
re
•M
-4_)
«t
Ul
C
O
4->
re
o
>•
(U
(/i <
re
(U
i_
u
c
£=
O
•M
t/1
3
JD
E
O
O
i-
>>
"^.
(/I
c
o
4-)
0
t/1
c
o
4->
re
c
en
+_>
re
Q
n
r**
CT*
c
*'~
a;
o
o-
<
OJ
4J
re
•a
-Q
c
,
un
C
o
4->
ro
O
X
^D
r-s.
J
o
o
^c
«*
a>
c
o
z
re
o
CO
— "
4->
QJ
^
-i£
O
O
O
OJ
4->
(O
-o
"D
c
rtJ
U
•o
o
0
o
*
01
C JD 1
3: «•"-•
0 -r- 3
coo
^ 01
c i- w
3 Q- «
a. aj
•U -O C -^
•f •*- c;
CO <0
O>4-> >,J3
•~^
ro
i/)
ro
'S.
C
^_
ID
4->
S_
O
OJ
4-J
ra
•o
T3
C
1O
0
-o
o
o
o
-o
0)
-t->
i
' —
o
*~^
OJ
m
"O
c
O
z:
o
u^
M-
^j-
*3-
ra
•a
>>
*->
re
13
CT
i^
•r—
re
CD
4-J
»tJ
-o
-o
c
(O
u
•o
o
o
cr>
i-
>,
t/i
c
s
ro
O
X
ro
O
CO
m
CO
LO
4->
in
re
UJ
-C
4->
3
O
to
^—^
£
3
cn
4-
cu
>
4->
re
>
i.
cu
(yi
c
o
u
O
S-
O
O)
B-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
This section provides a characterization of individual power plants by
AQCR. Current power plant information used to prepare Table C-l were obtained
from three main sources: (1) Federal Power Commission computerized listings
of power plants and their associated fuel use, (2) the National Coal Associa-
tion "Steam Tables" listing of power plants and fuel use in 1972, and (3)
emission data in the NEDS data bank as of 1974. 1973 fuel schedules were
extracted from the FPC (1 above) data, or when this was not available, 1972
fuel schedules were reported in Table C-l from values extracted from the
Steam Tables. Heat inputs were calculated based on the fuel heating values
obtained from either (1) or (3) above. The SCL and particulates emissions
reported in Table C-l correspond to the fuel schedules reported, and were
extracted from (1) or (3) above. When emissions and fuel schedule figures
were not available for the same year, emissions were scaled proportionately
to reflect the 1973 fuel schedule.
After the name of each plant is a listing of the fuels for which the plant
was designed (from source 2). For the purposes of this study, it is assumed
that when a plant is shown to have dual fuel capability, it is able to use
entirely one fuel or the other.
Also shown in Table C-l are the 1975 regulations which are currently
applicable to the given plant, taken from Table A-12.
It might be cautioned that AQCR total emissions calculated in the tables
of Appendix C (and also Appendix D) may not agree exactly with total emissions
represented in Appendix A (Tables A-8, A-9). This is a result of both differ-
ing fuel schedules in 1973 compared to previous years and the relative "complete-
ness" of the NEDS data bank.
C-l
-------
OJ
2
O
IX.
)_.
t:
i
CM
2
I
1
I
1
ro
i-
o
_(j ui
o
*~~
•'£ >i
"^
0 '
h-
CO
0
C?"^t
•r- .Q
-t-> r —
x i-
i-u >>
VI
c
o
"^
=>
h-
CQ
CIJ 0
O »—
< ^
"ifl
C
o
1 J°
! °
' C ,
uV
e
O
-t-5 ^c.
-M _J _1
it) Q, \-»
QJ c: co
0
10
QJ r— -r-
l/> rd -P
D 13 C
C nj
— c TJ
QJ -=C O"
j_
13
r- XT
D.
c:
oj cn
2: ra o>
CI OJ i —
'O M O)
O- i/) LL.
5
o
C.J
00 CO CO
00 O
oj LO ro o
r-. CM r-. r^
i — CM
CM •— r-
Or- 0
0 0
*
•3- ro r^
CO ^ O CM
r— ro CM r^
CT\ CTi Ol
«d- (JD cn cn
O~i i — "*D f^^
r- ro 0 LO
CM CM
•— CM r—
O O O
V O V
•K
r- co cn
• — LO tO
ro
cn «3- LO
to r^. cn
CM ^J"
^
LO CO O
ro LO r^
CM -=f CM
CO
(^ -— CM VI
C3 O CD O
O O QJ
QJ QJ 2
r- i— QJ O
^ ro cn ITS
co jz -C i- ro o.o9
— O O O i- -r-
ro ro -c: o u •»->
a: cn cn o _c -r- x:
o zi zi c (j c cn
O -c: -c
o o o o
cn r-^ n— o r^.
^ ^ ^
CO
1 — 1 —
ro cn o Ln
i — i — ro
ro CM
I"1-* O O (^O
*$• LO CM
CO r- CO
UD ' CM
CO ^ 1/1 :>,
cn Q> >~> QJ
&L fo r^ (/i ro QJ
o^*u ITS a, >ucn
err -r- a.-— -r- ro
QJ -4-> O 'r— QJ -|-> O
ro "D O -r- i — ~n (J c-
_b£ .— QJ C •<- •— QJU
V)O>— ZI4-> Oi— C
rooLu ^r> c3Lu<=c
«=c
Ul t/> i —
£ "c H ^5
cu ro ro i ~ o
x: .a ^3 c j»: (—
o ro ro zj o
s; LL, LI_ >~ :*£
CO
0
1 — 1 —
LO LO
cn
o
o
r>- r-*
r-.
cn
LO LO
(*-•« r^-
0
CM
O
U3 u3
ro CO
CM
5
CM
ro
CM
CO
o
0 0
*—*,
0 0
•— QJ
cr:
CD1 rtj
T3
i — O
fO ^i
s_
C r—
QJ ro
O +J
_>c o
-d TO 1 —
4-) -r-
0 O
C-2
-------
4->
C
o
c
o
t/)
E
LU
1
1
i
^
*~
CM
Lo
r
L
h
>n
'11 r —
.f ' 1 I
IIJ Jl
•v -'•-,
^ \
h-
ro
O
cn--.
X *•-
llJ >>
6
_,
cri
i-Q
OJ O
-O \
fxi (/i
0 r-
<: i_
o
-P
! =>
' 1 — •
na
o
1 -^ .a
LO
X S-
LU >>
(/)
c:
o
•W
t-
4-J u n
o c: en
o
-P
OJ r- -r~
U-, rj P
n ^3 C
d 03
— <~: 13
JJ -^X O"
±_
u
*4--
^,>"
dJ Ul
"3 r: to
*- rj ciJ
Q
fO M Ol
CL LO u_
0
CO CO CO CO CO CO
O O O 0 00
O CM O CO CM r**- *d"
<- r-, CO t-n ro CM o
ro
o o CM en o en
i— r— 0 0 r— 0
O O O O O O
LO en CM to *3~ ro en
CM
en en en en en en
LO en >~* co co I»D
co •— r-- ro o CM ro
ro
o en o o en •—
OJ r— OJ CM -— CM
O O O O O CD
o co oj ro co r- co
r- r— .— LO
^" oj en <— ^J~ r*--
• — i— • CM LD en r-.
i— OJ OJ t—
ro r^> r~ o en en
ro ^o 10 r^- o en
CO CO CO CO
&^ &* ** 3^ CO CO
o o o < — '&? >*
•— LO •— CM f— OJ •— O i— OJ r- OJ
OO OO OO OO OO OO
•—3 _c _e ^
•—2: en o en en s:
*~ ' S- -^ -r- J- C >, -r- S- >,
•— 3S- _ICU (OU-M _JCU CU-4J
Qi r- i. jQ+J 3: J^-i--f- 3 3-!-
O ID
C 1- CU r— CU ro O
s- 3 o. < ^ a: ^
cu
•p en en
t/l S- I, C C r-
CUl/)CUt/)3 -i- to -r- O
jccni_cnt.(o jz cu .c h-
•PCCUCCDCU O C O
o S-
-------
APPENDIX D
This section provides a characterization of individual industrial/
commercial/institutional fuel combustion emission sources. The data was
derived from a NEDS rank order emissions listing, and from emissions data
in the NEDS data bank as of June 1974.
D-l
-------
CO
VO
o
co
o
oococo
ooo
ro O0i —
O O O '— O
o o
ro
ro
+j
in
r-vOO
r— to •—
OJ
:c p
rcj 4-1
3 C
C TJ
COCMCO
CM r— ro
•p- on
o »*
o
• CM in
jr; c: co
o
4-> -
C Q» r--
<1j t**f (U
££if
CO
fy
O
[ a;
>-
I—
r:
o
"^
O
C) 0
o
_J_J
(O
S-
QJ
'c
-t-
C 0
GJ O
r— O
(J
CJ ^
OJ
(tJ
s-
0
CJ
c
D-2
-------
•M
'a i>
^ 0=1
03 C\J Sr*
O • O
O O r—
D-3
ft) •—
4J O
t/) O
-------
t-
(U
Q
. O)
1
i
o_
,i-
i 1
j i
'
C
c*
UJ
CM
£o
i
i
j--
«-D
0
d) r-
rU -Q
6
^ S~
"^ -C^
t~ "l
O :
03
O
01^
c: vi
•fj «—
t/i
X 5-
C
0
+J
ZD
h-
CQ
CU 0
"3 l/l
5 -Q
^
<£ S-
7o
O
-*->
h-
03
0
i —
i?^
•i— -Q
01
X S-
UJ >,
t/)
c
o
4J
t-
-U tl ~Z?
rd Q. t->
ClJ C CQ
1C >~
O Z3 C
C rO
r- C U
(U < O"
U.
S--
J
ZJ Ul
rtJ (/I --4;
p.
h-'
* vl
£ 0 -,-
fO C (/)
^ fO OJ
Q
C QJ < —
n3 M O*
Q- (/) Ll-
4_
C
^_
CO 00 CO CO
o o o o
^- i£) ID ID
U3 ^ LD CT> 10
•— ro CM CM o
r—
O O O ro
r— I— r— i •
o o o o
O co CM CO ro
•—
& a\ a> 01
ro CM Lf) oo CO
O CM r— CO O
CM "si" CO f> CO
tD CM CM CT>
CM O O CM
CO O U"> *d" CM
CO O VO C\J CM
iD ^- r- CO
LD ro LD co
• * •
«^- CT» r — co
Sen ro «*•
co <^ m
CM ^O ^' ^D
CO
v- CO O
I/) ro C O
(O H O 'O CO -^
^~ •!"• ^*> ID *O
< ^ ^ E 'r~
^ to ai H- ~o
r— Q -M -C O O
(O C C rO
.. o to t/i fa 1/1 -M
^ -r- -o -r- -a .* o
£ 4-> C 4J C 0) |—
3 5»r^ a; r^ -5
O i — (/) i — V) O
co
-------
'3
.$
3i
-U 3 3
« Q. u
i— O
•— Ln
CO i—
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
Table E-1 shows area source fuel use for the entire state of
Alaska. The approximate energy values are compared for each fuel along
with the percent of overall energy derived from each fuel. The bottom
row entitled "all fuels, all sources" may not match totals from
Appendices A, C, and D, exactly, since neither the NEDS or individual
appendix totals are all-inclusive. Also fuel schedules may change from
one year to the next.
E-1
-------
cu
to
co
3
U-
O)
o
s_
3
O
CO
(O
cu
CO
IO
+J
CO
"io
o
I
LlJ
>o ca
4-> cn
o o
I— i—
3
CO
CJ»
0
o
O (/I
3 C
o
1 —
CO
o
3
CO
cn
V} °
0 oo
1 1
CO
O
3
CO
•— cn
•r- o
O ,—
+-> 1—
to to
•r- £_£
Q
CO
O
3
CO
0 °o
IO
3 ^_
T3 ro
(/i
CO 00
3
CO
cn
CD
.
f—
01 C
o o
3 '
CO VO
to i^
UD CO
r-! o oo
CM 00
'
r—
(O
C
1 O
f^ *r~
(O r— r— +J
•r- OS IO 3
4-3 *^ *r- 4-)
C S. (J-i-
^) ^> ^. -[--^
"O
-------
APPENDIX F
Tables F-1 and F-2 illustrate the effect on emissions of particu-
lates and SOp when power plant and industrial fuel burning sources listed
in Appendices C and D are allowed to emit at the ceiling rate permitted by
emission regulations. It is assumed that heat input remains the same,
and existing regulations are applied to gross heat input for each AQCR.
It is emphasized that this table is hypothetical in that no fuel mix may
exist to allow all sources to emit exactly at regulation levels. The
calculations do give some insight into adequacy of existing regulations
for allowing air quality standards to be achieved if a fuel schedule
different from the one at present were in effect.
F-1
-------
to
o
s_
o
00
c
o
-»->
I/)
3
-i
o
o
O r—
r^ o ZJ
cr> CT
•— C QJ
QJ rt*
C JZ
•i— 3 4->
re
l/l O 4->
re cr-«-
QJ <£ E
1- LU
U C
c: i— i/i
••—
^3
C
0
ZJ
-i
O
CJ
QJ
LO
, —
M
QJ
OJ C.
> O
4-> t/l
CJ l/l
(— 'i— (J
4-> LlJ tO
l/> C
QJ C O
ce o 't-
O l/l i —
ZJ ZJ
c: e QJ
in
in 4-
QJ O
to
**•
to cr>
c: • —
o
r- C
IO -r-
•- a: >>
E CJ \
LU O* l/l
et c:
QJ O
4-> C 4-J
ZJ QJ O
0 00 r—
•i- re
4-J QJ
s_ s-
0- C
c
4- OQJ
o -<-
in >,
re E 4-)
-*J LU C
C QJ
Q) r- >
u re c:
fc. 4-> •-<
QJ O
Q- h-
S-
re
ct:
•i- >>
in E "-.
C ••— to
O -J C
-r- O
l/l C 4->
•i— -i— TO
E 4-> 0
LU re ' —
ZJ
QJ
QJ
O
CD QJ S-
C
c
s-
CO
QJ
Lu
•TO >)
£^
O- 1"- C
l/l •— 4->
C
O J—fl
-£ 00
E
LU
|
C
>>
O
4~>
O
^
0
Q,
4-1
Q.
OJ
U
X
cu
QJ
c
o
o
OJ
en
OJ
0
CTi
CO
QJ
_^
O
o
1
CL-
QJ
3
3 _
4->
X
QJ
4_)
O
CJ
4->
QJ
QJ
S-
Q
u-
fC
QJ
-
L
L
c
re
s;
re
re
*-
tz *"
^
•^
(/i
O
Q.
-C) -O JD
i/i to in
O • o • O •
CL to Q. to CL to
"3 to fO
4-J QJ 4-> QJ 4-J QJ
CL i- CL 1- CL t.
QJ re QJ ro 4-»
t- Zi ZJ
o o o
Z l/l CO
4->
QJ -^
O *~~
t— o
4_j
•• re
11
4-J
to ^
•^ °
"O J/l
113 £
'5 QJ
,s -^
0 +J
4- ro
JZ o
4-> S_
? cl
o
c "
re o
o (/1
o
X 4-J
"O 4-J
C IZ
QJ QJ
O-i —
CL re
C 13
•i- CT
r- QJ
ZJ • —
re ui
CTl
QJ r~
in
OJ
4- C
O CD
E C-T
ZJ in
in "3
QJ QJ
JZ t-
4-J QJ
3:
QJ
c:
O CJ
4-J •!--
4-J
QJ i—
1 g,
in QJ
in s--
ro
c:
S- r~
QJ Ul
3 t/l
LO E:
CTl
4-i
0 3
4-
Q)
in U
c c
O t)
to i —
10 CL
•r- E
E C)
QJ O
C H-
O O
ZJ O
E 0.
o t.
U QJ
3
a; JZ
ZJ CJ
4- -i-
JZ
TD 3
QJ
4-> in
U QJ
QJ (_
¥1
O- in
re
in
C
o
4->
re
'zi
o
re
o
QJ
i/l
QJ
4->
4-
QJ
in
i.
S_
ZJ
CL
QJ
4->
0
4-
•o
QJ
E
l/l
l/l
(D
JZ
4->
t-
CD
O
XI
C
re
o
x
-5
QJ
Q.
•=C
^
"O
QJ
re
CJ
i —
u
c
QJ
QJ
OJ
5
JZ
c
0
to
in
'i
QJ
QJ
QJ
h-
re
13 QJ
CD jz
QJ S- CD
s~ ro >r-
QJ JZ
4-) r—
re o 3
o ••- •—
•r- re
re ••— o
QJ C
CL QJ -O
O JZ QJ
4-J X
QJ 'oJ
T3 U S-
QJ IZ
t/i re QJ
ZJ S- JD
re QJ
O (— • >,
o re
in 4-> E
c
O c m
•i- O C .
in -i— O-^
CD CT £-
C QJ QJ .^
•r- JZ S-
tr4"" QJ w
3 in JZ "~
JZ1 XJ 4J .„
QJ ^
OJ O QJ °
ZJ X CJ !3
4- QJ C "J^
LO QJ S- 11
i^, in QJ 5,
CT» re i — > jj
i — QJ O c_
S- 4-> *"
C U jy
to QJ inu_
re JZ in T;
QJ 4-> -r~ °
O 4- QJ "£?
-r- QJ g
QJ • 4-> JJj
^^"S «
!Z «t U *°
i- QJ QJ ?j
E 0^°
*° "° O"
QJ QJ
CD O in 'O
~o 4J re w
QJ (J Q*
tn in c c
""" « '" 'i
in S- QJ »"
c CLJZ ^J
4J CZ XJ
i — ••— JZ £Z
ZJ 3 QJ
cnoi QJ
QJ CJ JZ!
s- o- •
*t QJ to
c > re
0 QJ -r- JZ
E QJ 4-» re
c: QJ QJ
sz re i- i —
OS- O
•r- OJ >)4-»
4-J i — i —
in O i- C
ZJ 4-> QJ O
-Q > •«-
E C O to
O O in
in 0 E
QJ (/) C QJ
JZ r-
4-1 E QJ O
M- = re
o c
QJ in QJ
in jz c jz
to 4-J O 3
QJ -i-
C JZ 4->
QJ 4-> ro -
-^ 5 ZJ QJ
o i/i QJ ro
-t- 4-> S- fc.
4-J £ QJ C
V) -r- JZ O
Q) ^- +J -^
S- 10
c 4-J m
QJ o re •*—
1— 4-> 4J QJ
o
c
QJ
T3 in
QJ
QJ re
QJ r-
-Q Z)
U
re 4J
JZ S-
re
c CL
ro
CL tz
QJ
o s-
C L-
n
QJ cj
CJ
C QJ
i- JZ
t/l 4->
• o
4J* ->,
ZI OJ
CT >
QJ
nj
QJ
4-J QJ
re 4~J
• — re
ZJ >
CJ ro
r- S-
4-> Cn
re re1
CL
o c:
4- O
QJ 'zi
E 0
CL 3
0
QJ £Z
> 0
QJ T~
ro
QJ en
4-J QJ
re s~
in o
• — sz
o o
4-> -M
sz re
O X
cj re
QJ 'QJ
JZ t-
•^ „
4- (A
O "O
t/l ft)
4-> C
re re
cz >>
o C
•r- re
tO TD
c c:
4-J O
S- c:
QJ QJ
S-=
re
= 4-J
x re
QJ
§£
CJ
Q/
c ro
QJ ZJ
QJ QJ
S- XI
CL re
QJ XI E
JZ QJ QJ
4-J 4-J . —
re JD
,5££
= in CL
XJ
F-2
-------
I/)
5
3
O
GO
O
U
CD
13
S-
O
co
c
O
+J
(O
CD
OJ
c
O
CM
O
CO
V)
4»
0)
CD
o:
0)
1/1
CSJ
I
X)
«B
c
Ol C
> o
4J (/,
(J i/>
•r- •(- O
iS«
oo c:
QJ C O
CCL O -r-
4- +-> «
O OO i —
3 ZJ
4-> -Q 01
c: E cu
QJ o a:
E cj
co
V. 4-
QJ O
oo
C
CO -i— M- O QJ
C £ 0-r-
O C T- to >»
•r- O —I CU in i-
LO -r- OVr- O
LO •*-> c ro E -t~>
•r- m O 4-> LU C
E 3 'r- El QJ
LU XI 4-* QJ t— >
E re O 03 C
in o • — i- +•> i— i
(^ LJ 3 OJ O
cn cr Q. j~
i— c eu
QJ C£
C -C
ro >>
QJ *¥ \
CO CJ 4-J V
ro O"'i- c
OK £ o
t. LU 4-»
(J C
c: ••— LO ro
•-i -P O
c
rD
-Q
C QJ
O -M
•r- ro
4J o:
LO 4->
3 03 -t-> 5-
-§„!-?
0 C r- 00
<_J O 1C
QJ oo O
Lu E 4-> O
LLJ ro i —
Lf) ,—
r-. 3
cn OT
r- QJ
o;
"0
cu
CJ 10
CD QJ S_
C TO >,
•r- O "\
d s- en oo
S~ Q- r^. sz
3 cn o
CO oo i — 4->
i — o s-ro
QJ r- 0 0
13 LO 4- i —
Lu LO
i
LU
CXL
CJ
cr
^
co
C
o
-I-J
m
O
X
o»
*~
&5
o
CM
f^.
0
o
LO
co"
-4-J
cu
c
KH
.^
o
o
CJ
•O
QJ
>
4J
U
J-
+J
00
CU
L-
>i
1_
QJ
>
O
QJ
0
d
+J *- .—
ot quantified due
imited data, Tole
robably substantia
^ •— o-
15S
1 —
CO
CO
LO
CM
^J-
m
CO
m
cn
ro
^L
(/I
03
<:
c
i_
QJ
4-J
S-
O
2:
s
+J
(J
s_
LO
g:
>>
T
(U
>
o
>!
XI
tl
XI
o
i.
Q_
fO
-t->
CM
O
CO CO
+J
i — tO
r- QJ -
E cn
OO 3 (/
>,
QJ C C
> o :
-t-> to -
03 ui
a) ^
o: QJ ->
&e
v£>
r-x
CO
'-O
1 —
r^.
cn
o
, —
ro
S-
^-j
c
QJ
O
+j
3
O
CO
QJ
>
4->
LJ
tl
-M
QJ
i~
>,
T
CU
>
0
.2 x 103 tons/yr
conservative)
• -—• •
*d-
ro
CM
r-
•*
CM
^3"
CM
CM
P
C
s_
QJ
^
LO
ro
LU
JZ
3
o
CO
fc
QJ ^1
-
ro o 3
O
£Z I/) i—
O x: OJ
-t-J x
>, ro
XI "<—
QJ QJ
-a u s-
cu c
L/1 03 QJ
ro QJ
U .— >}
o ro
00 4-> E
+•> QJ
'!~ CL
^ 0
Q cu
•« u
T3 s^
= 3
ro o
00
o
o
X -M
•a -^>
c ci
QJ QJ
d.!-^-
cx ra
<£ >
C ^J
-i- cr
OJ
T3
CU r—
•M QJ
03 >
r- Qj
XI
03 in
+-» r-x
cn
CU f—
to
O ro
x:
-M T3
OJ
4~ C
O Ol
E £
3 00
LO rtj
QJ OJ
x: ^
+•> QJ
S
O)
XI 00
E:
0 0 •
"O TO O
CU i— -i-
E =3 -t-*
3 ch ro
CO Qj r—
CO S~ 3
ro o
C i —
QJ O 03
*- -r- (J
QJ to
5 oo QJ
•<- co
LO E OJ
f^ QJ JZ
Ol 4->
-fj 4_
s- •,- o
o s
4- QJ
QJ co
LO U O
c c: o.
o ro s_
.,_ .,„. ^3
I/) Q.
— E QJ
E O ^
QJ O 4J
C 4- S~
O Q O
•i- 4-
4-> -M
LO =s -a
3 O QJ
X) E
E OJ 3
O S- oo
CJ GJ 00
5 ro
GJ -C in
3 o ro
CD -M
4-> CO 3
U QJ O
QJ U 1_
•r~) ^ d)
O 3
Q
XJ
£Z
CJ
X
"O
c:
g.
Q.
C
QJ
U
(J
C
OJ
QJ
XI
QJ
03
_e
CO
o
LO
E
QJ
CU
LO
QJ
C QJ QJ 3
•r- _C S- •—
iZ 4-> U
S- QJ C
13 00 -C -r-
QJ CO
'oj (J QJ
3 X CJ tO
4- QJ C C
LO QJ i- •<-
r- LO QJ 4-J
i — QJ O • —
S- 4-" 3
co cn
-.- C C QJ
r- O S-
CO QJ LO QJ
QJ 4-> •,- +J
S- E
(j 4- QJ 4-
c *-< o
•,- QJ
QJ • 4-> C
i — QJ LO
cn i QJ LO
c <: u cu
r- X CO
S- QJ QJ CO
E n3 O QJ
(J — - -r-
>! QJ QJ ro
X3 > O •*->
QJ QJ 03
cn o t/i 3
3 QJ
TO i- ro
QJ U
LO CO C "
03 QJ
00 S- QJ S-
C 0-.C -r-
O Q-4-> 00
»— ro QJ
4-J C "O
ro LO QJ
< — T~ x: c
3 ^ CU
cno; QJ
QJ CJ XJ
s-o- -
cC Qj oo
C > (C
o a* T- x:
r- x: -t->
00 4-> U QJ
CO ••— U
•r- = S- C
E cu 4-> ro
QJ O LO S-
C QJ QJ
C rt) S- ^
OS- O
>- QJ >, 4->
4-> i — i —
to 0 J- c
3 4J CU O
"E c o'oo
O O oo
^ o i
OJ LO C QJ
QJ 1- C
4- = ro
O C
QJ to QJ
co -M O 3
QJ •,-
C -C 4->
QJ 4-> ro
<- S 3 QJ
-,- 4-> S_ t.
+-> E QJ c
LO -i- -C O
^•^
C 4-> CO
QJ O 03 >i-
C
CJ1 -M
c ro
t/i QJ
O3 4J
o
C +->
TD
QJ
C CO
o •—
•r— QJ
-M S-
i — QJ "O
3 XJ S-
cn ro
cu ~o ~a
i- — C
3 ro
>> O +->
X3 i CO
QJ O -t-»
4-> CO -r-
4-> r-
•i- 4- ro
EO 3
cr
Q) LO
Q. OJ i-
C QJ
•r- I_ QJ
•— u x:
QJ -•-
(J 4-
i— O
CU 03
x: T- QJ
c: c
S 03 03
O 4-> £=
•— oo CU
CU XI 4J
X) 3 C
i — ro
QJ "— •
CMQJ -i-
O 3 F-J
CO 4- -r-
"D
C 13 (0
•r- 4- 0.
-M 3 QJ
E ^ ^
cu i- •*->
QJ 3
>,x: o
QJ 3
QJ O "O
a. QJ 4->
> ro
QJ -r- i-
^- 4-J QJ
c 'o
C QJ
O -t-5 QJ
ro -Q
S- 4- i —
Q- o
O QJ u
C 3 oo
O QJ
•r- QJ in
4-» x: ro
CO -M QJ
3 S-
-Q >, u
E xi c
O ^r—
4-J QJ
• — -i— CO
QJ E QJ
F-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before, completing)
|1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-74-064
3. RECIPIENT'S XCCESSIOWNO.
4.
TITLE
PLAN REVIEW FOR ALASKA AS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
5. REPORT DATE
December 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., Regional Office X, Seattle, Washington,
and TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, California
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1385
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974,
(ESECA) requires EPA to review each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine
if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion
sources without interferring with the attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards. This document, which is also required by Section
IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Air pollution
State implementation plans
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGE:;
55
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
F-4
------- |