EPA-450/3-75-004
FEBRUARY 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
ILLINOIS
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-004
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
ILLINOIS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Energy and Environmental Systems Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois 60439
(EPA-IAG-D5-0463)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 1975
-------
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
2.0 ILLINOIS STATE BIPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 11
2.1 Summary 11
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of Illinois 12
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current
State Implementation Plan 18
2.4 Special Considerations for the State of Illinois 19
3.0 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION ASSESSMENTS 21
3.1 General Methodology 21
3.2 Burlington-Keokuk Interstate AQCR (#65) . . . 23
3.3 East Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR ("66) 24
. 3.4 Metropolitan Chicago Interstate AQCR (#67) 24
3.5 Metropolitan Dubuque Interstate AQCR (#68) 25
3.6 Metropolitan Quad Cities Interstate AQCR (#69) ....... 25
3.7 Metropolitan St. Louis Interstate AQCR (#70) . . 26
3.8 North Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR (#71) ...... . . 26
3.9 Paducah-Cairo Interstate AQCR (#72) 26
3.10 Rockford-Janesville-Beloit Interstate AQCR (#73) 27
3.11 Southeast Illinois Intrastate AQCR (#74) . 27
3.12 West Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR (#75) 28
REFERENCES 29
APPENDIX A - State Implementation Plan Background 31
APPENDIX B - Regional Air Quality Assessment ~ 43
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessment .._...' 45
APPENDIX D - Industrial, Commercial,' Institutional "Point""
Source Assessment 51
APPENDIX E - Area Source Assessment . . . 55
APPENDIX F - Fuels Assessment ...... ~ ~T 57
-------
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMAHf
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 interfering with the attainment and
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NNAQS). 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 information
on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of ESECA is that
wherever possible SIP's be revised in the interest of conserving low sulfur
fuels or converting sources which burn oil or natural gas to coal. EPA's ob-
jective 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 alloca-
tions 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 parallel 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 with regulations or to revise the S02 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 SCU 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
or more stringent state air quality standards. Also, at that time an accept-
able 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 (AQCR) 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 clean fuels, for areas of the state where sources would
not otherwise contribute to NAAQS violations. For example, a control strategy
based on a particular region or source can result in a regulation requiring
1 percent sulfur oil to be burned statewide where the use of 3 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 deciding whether or not to revise portions of their State Imple-
mentation Plans. However, it is most important for those states which desire
to submit a revised plan to recognize the review's limitations. The findings
-------
of this report are by no means conclusive and are neither 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 ESECA requirements. The time and
resources which EPA has had to prepare the reports have not permitted the con-
sideration of growth, economics, and control strategy tradeoffs. Also, there
have been only limited dispersion modeling data available by which to address
individual point source emissions. 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 believes 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 deteriora-
tion, increased TSP, NO , and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and
X
other potential air pollution situations 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 (SC^) 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
SC>2 and TSP emission tolerances within each 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
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 combus-
tion sources (power plants, industrial sources, and area sources) has also been
carried out.
-------
The following are the principle findings for the State of Illinois. (Air
Quality Control Regions are displayed on Fig. 1-1.)
. The Illinois SIP was developed to meet the original federal secondary
annual NAAQS for both participates and SO?. Since the development of
the plan, the federal EPA has rescinded the annual and 24-hour second-
ary S02 standards. There are indications, however, that the stringency
of the regulations required to meet the present 24-hour SO? standard in
Illinois is the same as that required to meet the rescinded annual
standard and hence that the federal rescission should not affect the
stringency of the S02 emission regulations required in Illinois.
. The sufficiency of the Illinois regulations was demonstrated for each
AQCR for both particulates and SC^. Dispersion modeling was employed
in the Burlington-Keokuk (#65), Metropolitan Chicago (#67), and Metro-
politan St. Louis (#70) AQCRs; a modified rollback technique was employed
in the other eight Illinois regions.
. Illinois has not initiated any regulatory changes for SC>2 emissions as
permitted under EPA's Clean Fuels Policy but has preferred to rely on
variances for large combustion sources. The Illinois Pollution Control
Board held inquiry hearings on the desirability of changing S02 emission
regulations and has recommended some changes in the existing regulations.
. Within the framework of this limited analysis there appears little toler-
ance throughout the state for increased particulate emissions and hence
for relaxed particulate emission regulations. This is due to high TSP
readings (based on 1973 data) and several proposed Air Quality Mainten-
ance Area designations. In areas where there are indications of an
insufficient number of monitoring sites, there are either reported high
TSP levels or an insignificant clean fuels saving potential.
There are indications of a margin for increased SO? emissions in Metro-
politan Dubuque (#68), Metropolitan Quad Cities (#69), Paducah-Cairo
(#72), and Rockford-Janesville-Beloit (#73). In Burlington-Keokuk C#65) there
may also be a significant potential for clean fuel savings but, in
this case, the result must be qualified by the existence of proposed
S02 AQMAs is Peoria, Tazewell, and Wbodford counties. (In addition,
recent local air quality data shows violations of both short-term S02
NAAQS in Peoria, suggesting that a thorough study based on recent data
would be necessary before regulations could be relaxed.) In the other
four regions either the present regulations already allow the use of
high sulfur coal and there are only minimal savings to be realized from
changing regulations to permit the use of higher sulfur oils or consump-
tion is so low that only a minimal clean fuel saving could be realized
even with relaxed regulations.
. For Burlington-Keokuk outside the Peoria area where some source-specific re-
gulation relaxation might be possible, the major clean fuels conservation
would come from increased utilization of high sulfur coal. Some overall
-------
METROPOUTAi
DUBUQUE
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
ILLINOIS-
WISCONSIN)
METROPOLITAN
QUAD
CITIES
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
IOWA)
I. "
BURLINGTON
KEOKUK
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
ILLINOIS)
(#75)
ROCKFORD-
JANESVILLE-
BELOIT 0*73)
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
WISCONSIN)
WEST CENTRAL-
ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
CHICAGO
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
INDIANA)
NORTH
CENTRAL
ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE
EAST
CENTRAL
ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE
(#67)
(#66)
METROPOLITAN
ST. LOUIS
INTERSTATE
(ILLINOIS-
MISSOURI)
(#70)
SOUTHEAST
ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE
C#74)
PAOUCAH-
CAIRO
INTERSTATE
(KENTUCKY-
ILLINOIS)
C#72)
Figure
1-1. Illinois Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR)
-------
10
savings of low sulfur oils might also be realized particular/ if
higher sulfur oils are available for area sources. Should the
state decide to revise S02 emission regulations in this region,
EPA suggests that the impact of revision on the Iowa portion of the
region be thoroughly investigated.
The Metropolitan Chicago AQCR C#67) has been designated as a Priority
I region for NOx because of high NOx readings. Although NC^ is not
treated in depth in this review, any change in S02 or particulate
regulations which might be contemplated for this region must be con-
sidered in light of the impact on NOX emissions. There is little
possibility that NO^ emissions can be increased without hampering
NAAQS attainment and maintenance.
-------
11
2.0 ILLINOIS 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 or more stringent state
standards?
. Has the state not initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under
the Clean Fuels Policy?
. Are there no 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 (1973) air quality data, are there no_ reported violations
of NAAQS?
. Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
. Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources a relatively small portion of the regional total?
. Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation.revision?
. Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in
the region?
. Must the regulations be revised to accomplish significant
fuels switching?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when there
are affirmative responses to the above.
The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix A, is
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. An evaluation of regional air quality indicators is presented
-------
12
in Appendix B; power plants, industrial sources, and area sources are analyzed
in Appendices C, D, and E, respectively.
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 por-
tions of the report support this summary with explanations.
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of Illinois
2.2.1 Illinois Air Pollution Control Areas
The State of Illinois is divided into eleven Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCRs) as shown in Fig. 1-1. There are four intrastate and seven interstate
regions. Table A-l gives the pollutant priority classifications for each of
the eleven regions.
This table also shows population and population density to be largest in
three of the four metropolitan regions, Metropolitan Chicago (#67), Metropolitan
Quad Cities (#69), and Metropolitan St. Louis (#70), and in the Burlington-
Keokuk (#65) and Rockford-Janesville-Beloit (#73) regions. Based on present
.conditions and growth projections for the state, thirteen counties have been
proposed as Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs) for participates and twelve
for sulfur dioxide. These are indicated in Table A-l and Fig. A-l.
2.2.2 Illinois Ambient Air Quality Standards
As shown in Table A-2, all the federal primary and secondary National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulates, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen dioxide apply in Illinois. In addition Illinois has adopted annual
and 24-hour air quality goals for sulfur dioxide which are potentially more
stringent than the federal standard and has also adopted a one-hour goal. These
goals, however, are not enforcable standards and apply only in the Chicago and
St. Louis MMAs. In the analysis to follow, only attainment of the federal NAAQS
will be considered.
2.2.3 Illinois Air Quality Status
The current air quality status in Illinois is summarized in Table A-3 for
particulates and in Table A-4 for sulfur dioxide. All data came from the SAROAD
data bank as of June, 1974.
-------
Table 2-1. Stiite Implementation Plan Review Summary for Illinois
Turlington- Hast Central Metropolitan Metropolitan Metro|>ol itan
Keokuk" Illinois Chicago3 Uibui|uea Quad Cities"
STATI: AQCU ป<>S AQCK ซ(>(> AQCtt ป67 AQCR ป68 AQCK ป6'J
"iNiiicAnu:1;"
l)oc;s the Stale h.ive air <|iiality standards which arc inure
stringent than NAAIJSV
Ikies the State liave emission limiting regular ions for
control of:
1 . Power plants
2. Industrial sources
J. Area sources
Did the State use an example region a|i|iroacli fur demon-
strating the attaiiuiicnt of NAAQS or more stringent State
standards?
Mas the State not initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Policy?
Are there no projiosed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitor-
ing, sites within a region and in SAIiflAI)?
Is there an expected 1U75 attainment date for NAAIJS?
llascd on (197J) Air Quality Data, are there no reported
violations of NAAQS?
llased on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there indications
of a significant tolerance for increasing emissions?
Arc the emissions froi:i stationary fuel combustion sources
a relatively small portion of tlie regional total?
Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?
Is there a significant Clean l-iicls Saving |>oleiitial in
the region?
Must the regulations be revised to accomplish signifi-
cant fuel suitchini;?
llased on the above indicators, what is (he potential for
revising fuel combustion source emission limiting
regulations?
TSI' S02
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
l>
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
.__l>
No
TSI1 MV,
lixample
Region
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
NA
No '
No
Yes
.. d,e
>es
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
TSI' - Poor
SI), - Marginal
TSI' Sป2
Modified
Rollback
Yes
No
NA
NA
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
No
Yes
NA
NA
No
No
,\o
Yes
TSI' - I'oor
Si)2 - Poor
TSI' SO.,
lixample
Region
No
Yesc
Yes
No
No
Yes
NA
No
V C
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
NA
No
Yes
TSI1 - Poor
S(>2 - I'oor
TSI' S0?
fbdified
Rollback
No"
Yesc
Yes
No
No
Yes
NA
Yes
Yesc
Yes
Yesd
Yes
Yes
NA
No
Yes
TSI' - I'oor
SO, - Poor
T:;P .-ai2
Modified
Rollback
Yes
Yesc
Yes
No
No
Yes
NA
Yes
YesC
Yes
YesJ
Yes
Yes
NA
No
Yes
TSI' - Poor
SO - Marginal
-------
Table 2-1. State Implementation Plan Review Summary for Illinois (Contd.)
Metropolitan North Central Paducah-
St. Louis3 Illinois Cairo3
AQCR #70 AQCR ซ7l AQCR.ป72
Rockford-
Janesville-Beloit3
AQCR 073
Southeast
Illinois
AOCR 074
West Central
Illinois
AOCR #75
"INDICATORS"
lloes the Stale have ;iir t|uality standards which are more
stringent than NAAQS?
Does the State have emission limiting 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 or more stringent State
standards?
Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Policy?
Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
Arc there indications of a sufficient number of monitor-
ing sites within a region and in SAROAD?
Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there no reported
violations of NAAQS?
Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, arc there indications
of a significant tolerance for increasing emissions?
Are the emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources
- a relatively small portion of the regional total?
Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?
Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving potential in
the region?
t Must the regulations he revised to accomplish signifi-
c;mt fuel switching?
Based on the above indicators, what is the potential for
revising fuel combustion source emission limiting
regulations?
TSI1 S()
Ijcan
Keg.
No
Yesc
Yes
No
No
Yes
NA
pie
on
No
Yes
Yes
Noe
No6
No
NA
No
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
TSP SIV,
Modified
Rollback
Yes
No
Yes
NA
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
No
Yes
NA
NA
No
No
No
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
TSP S<>2
Modified
Rollback
Yes
Yesc
Yes
No
No
No
NA
Yes
YesC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No1
No
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
TSP S0?
Modified
Rollback
Yes
YesC
Yes
Yesd
No
No
NA
Yes
Yesc
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NA
No
Yes
TSP - Marginal
S02 - Marginal
TSI1 S<>2
Modified
Rollback
Yes
No
NA
NA
NA
No
NA
Yes
No
Yes
NA
. NA
No
Nog
No
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
TSP S02
Modified
Rollback
No
No
Yes
Yesd
Yes
No
NA
Yes
No
Yes
NA
NA
No
Nof
No
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
-------
Table 2-1. State Implanentation Plan Review Summary for Illinois (Contd.)
Footnotes
Interstate.
There is a proposed AQMA in the Iowa portion of the region.
Sliere are a sufficient number of sites but not all of them are reporting
an annual average.
annual data available.
eMore recent local data indicate that there are NAAQS violations in this region.
Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary air quality standard
may be exceeded even at SIP.
^Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour and annual primary air quality
standards may be exceeded even at SIP.
Approach used depended on AQCR.
-------
16
There is no particulate data for East Central Illinois (#66), North Central
Illinois (#71), and Southwest Illinois (#74) and no annual average data for Rock-
ford- Janesville-Beloit (#73) and West Central Illinois (#75) in SAROAD. The lat-
ter two regions are not reporting any violations of the 24-hour particulate NAAQS.
All the other regions for which both annual and 24-hour data exist are report-
ing violations of the NAAQS. Particulate AQMAs have been proposed in Burling-
ton- Keokuk (#65), Metropolitan Chicago (#67), Metropolitan Dubuque (#68), Metro-
politan St. Louis (#70), and West Central Illinois (#75). These proposals are
consistent with the measured air quality for the first three regions and for
West Central Illinois (#75) the problem could be anticipated on the basis of
projected growth or not apparent from the available data. Thus, with the pos-
sible exceptions of Rockford-Janesville-Beloit (#73) and West Central Illinois
(#75), the indications are that relaxation of particulate emission regulations
will not be possible without disrupting NAAQS attainment or maintenance (see
Table 2-1).
SC>2 air quality data is unavailable in the SAROAD data bank for East Central
Illinois C#66), North Central Illinois (#71), Southeast Illinois (#74); and West
Central Illinois (#75), Annual data is unavailable in SAROAD for Burlington-
Keokuk (#65), Metropolitan Dubuque (#68), and Metropolitan Quad Cities (#69).
The four regions having only short-term data do not show any NAAQS violations.
Of the three regions having more complete data only Metropolitan Chicago (#65)
is presently reporting violations of S02 ambient standards and is thus the only
region for which data exists that does not indicate some tolerance for increased
S02 emissions based on regional air quality. S02 AQMAs have been proposed for
Burlington-Keokuk (#65), Metropolitan Chicago (#67), and Metropolitan St. Louis
(#70). For the Chicago region the measured air quality is consistent within
this proposal and for the other two regions with incomplete data, the problem
could be anticipated on the basis of projected growth or not apparent from the
available data. (In Metropolitan St. Louis (#70), for example, some more recent
local data indicates that there are S0ฃ NAAQS violations in the region.) Based
on the available SAROAD data, all the regions for which data are available with
the exception of Metropolitan Chicago (#67) show a significant tolerance for
increasing S02 emissions (see Table 2-1).
-------
17
2.2.4 Illinois Emissions Summary
Emission sources and emission rates are tabulated in Tables A-5 to A-8.
In the eleven AQCR area, Illinois fuel combustion sources account for 30%
of the particulate emissions. In Metropolitan Chicago (#67) and West Central
Illinois (#75), Illinois fuel combustion sources contribute more than half of
the particulate emissions (see Table A-8). Illinois electricity generation
contributes substantially more particulate matter than either Illinois industrial/
commercial/institutional point sources or Illinois area sources in Burlington-
Keokuk (#65), Metropolitan St. Louis (#70), Paducah-Cairo (#72), and Southwest
Illinois (#74). Industrial/commercial/institutional point sources are the larg-
est Illinois contributors in West Central Illinois (#75). Area sources are pro-
portionally the largest Illinois particulate sources in Metropolitan Chicago
(#67), Metropolitan Dubuque (#68), Metropolitan Quad Cities (#69), and Rockford-
Janesville-Beloit (#73). Illinois industrial/commercial/institutional point
sources and Illinois area sources are roughly equivalent and are larger partic-
ulate sources than Illinois power generation in North Central Illinois (#71)
while all three types of sources emit about the same amount of particulate mat-
ter in East Central Illinois (#66). Only in West Central Illinois (#75) are there
indications of a significant capacity to absorb increased particulate emissions.
Almost half of the S02 emitted in the eleven AQCRs comes from Illinois fuel
combustion sources. A major portion of the Illinois S02 emissions comes from
electricity generation in all AQCRs except Metropolitan Dubuque (#68) where area
sources predominate, Metropolitan Quad Cities (#69) where industrial/commercial/
institutional point sources are most important, and North Central Illinois (#71)
and Southwest Illinois (#74) where both the latter two categories of sources
emit most of the Illinois SC^. Area sources are significant in East Central
Illinois C#66), Metropolitan Chicago (#67), and Rockford-Janesville-Beloit (#73)
while in East Central Illinois (#66) industrial/commercial/institutional point
sources are also important. For regions with available SC>2 air quality data,
only Metropolitan Chicago (#67) shows a lack of a significant ability to absorb
increased SC>2 emissions. Data is unavailable in SAROAD for four regions: East
Central Illinois (#66), North Central Illinois (#71), Southeast Illinois (#74),
and West Central Illinois (#75).
-------
18
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current State Implementation
Plan
2.3.1 General Information
Dispersion modeling was used in Burlington-Keokuk (#65), Metropolitan
Chicago (#67), and Metropolitan St. Louis (#70) to demonstrate the sufficiency
of the proposed regulations for attaining the annual S02 and participate NAAQS.
A strategy model which permitted "regulated emissions" calculated for various
types of proposed regulations to be used directly as input to an AQDM dispersion
model was used to evaluate the control strategies. In addition, growth projec-
tions were made for 1975 and 1980 and then used as input for the strategy model
in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the control strategies for maintain-
ing the standards. Modified rollback calculations were used on a region-by-
region basis in the remaining eight regions of the state to show that the stand-
ards would be attained.
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy
The control strategy for particulate emissions from fuel combustion sources
consists of enforcement of the applicable sections of Rule 202 for visual emis-
sions and Rule 203, Section 203(g) for mass emissions of Chapter 2: Air Pollu-
tion of the Rules and Regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
Rule 203 is summarized in Table A-9 and Fig. A-2. Certain changes were made
between the original proposal of the Implementation Plan and the adoption of
the present regulations, all of the changes allowing increased particulate
emissions. A more stringent emissions limit applies to most existing sources
in the Chicago Major Metropolitan Area, a portion of the Metropolitan Chicago
AQCR C#67)> than applies to small existing sources in other regions of the state.
Federal New Source Performance Standards have been adopted for all new fuel com-
bustion sources. The present strategies were designed to meet the secondary
particulate standards throughout Illinois. Existing regulations apply to small
commercial and residential sources, that is, to area sources. The analysis
indicated that attainment of the secondary standards in major metropolitan areas
required the control of such sources. Such control would have to come by switch-
ing from coal to oil or natural gas.
-------
19
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy
Rule 204(a)-(e) contains the S02 emissions limits whose enforcement consti-
tutes the control strategy for SC^ These limitations are summarized in Table
A-9. For existing sources, more strict regulations apply in the Chicago, St.
Louis (111.), and Peoria Major Metropolitan Areas than in other regions of the
state. These areas are portions of the Metropolitan Chicago (#67), Metropolitan
St. Louis (#70), and Burlington-Keokuk (#65) AQCRs, respectively. The federal
New Source Performance Standards apply for new sources with heat input greater
than 250 x 10s Btu/hr with a somewhat less stringent standard for new smaller
sources burning solid fuel. The SC>2 strategy was designed to meet the secondary
standards existing at the time of its development throughout the state for 1968
conditions. The growth analysis indicated that some secondary standard viola-
tions might occur in 1975 and 1980. Since the adoption of the present regula-
tions, the federal annual and 24-hour S02 secondary standards have been rescinded.
There were indications, however, that the regulations sufficient to attain the
old annual standard would also be required to ensure attainment of the present
24-hour S02 standard. Thus, the existing regulations should insure that exist-
ing NAAQS are met. Major shifts in fuel consumption to low sulfur oil and
natural gas will be necessary for small commercial and residential sources to
meet existing standards. The analysis indicated that such conversions were
necessary in major metropolitan areas to ensure attainment of the standards.
The Illinois regulation also has a provision, Rule 204(e), designed to ensure
that the 3-hour secondary NAAQS is not violated. This rule limits the total
amount of S02 that can be emitted in an area of radius one mile by all sources
owned and operated by a single person.
2.4 Special Considerations for the State of Illinois
2.4.1 Planned SIP Revisions
The Illinois Pollution Control Board held inquiry hearings on the desir-
ability of changing S02 emission regulations and has recommended some changes
in the existing regulations.
2.4.2 Fuels
Illinois is a heavy user and supplier of coal. About 85% of the statewide
heat input for power plants is derived from coal and only about 51 from oil.
-------
20
Illinois ranks fourth in total coal production and most of the coal mined is
of high O 2%) sulfur content. Most of the coal reserves are located in the
southern portion of the state and Illinois lies near other large coal reserves
in Indiana and western Kentucky. Thus, the major impact of regulation relaxa-
tion in Illinois would be to allow the use of high sulfur native coals.
2.4.3 Fuel Conversions
The Federal Energy Administration has identified the Ridgeland power plant
in Metropolitan Chicago (#67) and the Wood River power plant in Metropolitan St.
Louis (#70) as plants in Illinois having the potential to convert to burning
coal.
-------
21
3.0 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION ASSESSMENTS
3.1 General Methodology
The previous section having set the background for the State Implementation
Plan and evaluated the current air quality situation, this section will review
the available information for each AQCR to determine the feasibility of relax-
ing emission regulations in the interest of conserving clean fuels. Care must
be taken in interpreting the results of this analysis and the following caveats
must be kept in mind: (1) The analytical procedure is intended to provide a
first approximation to the evaluation of potential regulation changes (.e.g.,
rollback and single source modeling techniques were used). The state must
conduct a more detailed analysis of the situation to confirm or dispute any of
these findings prior to submitting any SIP revisions. (2) In many instances
the necessary data were unavailable or limited in scope. Where possible, best
engineering estimates were used to fill in the gaps. Where better information
is available, the state should use it in developing SIP revisions.
The analysis encompasses five distinct considerations for each AQCR. First,
the current air quality situation is assessed to determine if the indicators
point to the region's ability to tolerate an emission increase without violation
of any NAAQS. Most of the data necessary for this review have already been
presented in Section 2 and Tables B-l and B-2 summarize the information for
particulates and S02> respectively, in each AQCR. The assessment is made on the
basis of 7 criteria: (1) current air quality violations, (2) expected NAAQS
attainment dates, (3) Air Quality Maintenance Area designations, (4) total emis-
sions, (5) portion of emissions from the state's fuel combustion sources, (6)
regional emission reduction required (based on rollback calculations), and
(7) pollutant priority classification. Note that this evaluation is based
strictly on air quality considerations. Determinations of whether regulation
relaxation would, in fact, result in clean fuels savings will be made on a
source-by-source evaluation.
The second consideration for each AQCR is the power plant assessment and
this data is summarized in the tables in Appendix C. All existing and pro-
posed plants are reviewed to estimate the emission reductions to be achieved
by the imposition of existing regulations. The clean fuel requirement is deter-
mined at the same time. Where dispersion modeling data are available, the max-
imum allowable fuel sulfur content which would enable the plant to meet the NAAQS
-------
22
in its immediate vicinity is determined and the resulting emission reduction
(or increase) is calculated and compared to that produced by existing regula-
tions and to what the region requires. For the purposes of this report, the
SC>2 modeling data used1 assumes the power plant fuel use pattern in 1975 will
be the same as that existing in 1971 with the addition of fuel consumption for
new units coming on-line. The choice of 1971 as the baseline year is based on
the consideration that fuel switching to achieve SIP emission regulations did
not begin nationwide until 1972; therefore 1971 represents consumption patterns
which are not dictated by emission regulations but rather by the economics of
fuel availability. In terms of the maximum allowable fuel sulfur content
determined from the modeling, the 1971 fuel sulfur content is used as an upper
bound. For particulate emissions, plants currently below required SIP emission
levels are assumed to remain so. No particulate modeling results were avail-
able. Fuel use data2,3 and emission data1*,5 are drawn from both published and
unpublished sources.
The third consideration for each AQCR is the assessment of large industrial/
commercial/institutional point sources and the summary data is presented in
Appendix D. The procedure is effectively equivalent to that carried out for
power plants in that resulting emission reductions achieved through the applica-
tion of existing regulations are determined along with clean fuel requirements.
Emission and fuel use data were drawn from the National Emission Data System
(NEDS) file.5 No individual source modeling data were available.
The fourth consideration is area source assessments. The fuel use patterns,
emission reductions, and clean fuel requirements determined by existing regula-
tions is computed for these sources using NEDS data.5 The results are summarized
in Appendix E.
The fifth consideration is a synthesis of the first four in that the emis-
sion reductions that are imposed on all sources in the region are totaled and
compared to required reductions. Fuel use requirements are also aggregated for
the region. Summary tables are in Appendix F.
At this point, an overall assessment of the potential for regulation revi-
sion and resulting clean fuel savings can be made. The findings for each AQCR
have been summarized on Table 2-1 and in Section 1. An AQCR is determined to
be a good candidate for emission limit regulation revision if the air quality
indicators show that the region has a tolerance to absorb increased emissions
and if the source-by-source evaluations show that significant clean fuels
-------
23
savings could be effected by such, revision. If the air quality situation is
such that no emission increase could be tolerated and/or if the source evalua-
tions show little or no clean fuels savings potential, then the region is clas-
sified as a poor candidate for regulation revision. If the air quality or the
clean fuels savings evaluations are inconclusive or show conflicting informa-
tion, then the region is assessed as a marginal candidate for regulation revi-
sion. A much more detailed analysis must be carried out by the state to resolve
the situation.
3.2 Burlington-Keokuk Interstate AQCR (#65)
This region is a poor candidate for particulate emission regulation relax-
ation. Even with the small number of existing monitoring sites there are indica-
tions of existing particulate air quality problems necessitating an overall
reduction in particulate emissions (see Tables A-3, A-8, and 2-1). There are
also proposed particulate AQMAs in the region indicating expected problems with
attaining or maintaining acceptable air quality (see Tables A-l, B-l, and 2-1).
Given the poor existing air quality and noting that Illinois fuel combustion
sources emit a significant fraction of the particulate matter in the AQCR, there
is little chance of relaxing particulate emission regulations.
The region is a marginal candidate for S02 emission regulation relaxation.
Even though the existing air quality data in the SARQAD data bank indicates
that a substantial capacity to absorb increased 862 emissions exists, it must
be noted that data in SARQAD are available from only a limited number of sites
and that no annual average data are available (see Tables A-4 and 2-1). The
proposal of AQMAs in the region indicates potential 862 air quality maintenance
problems. Since Illinois combustion sources contribute a substantial fraction
of the S02 emitted in the region (see Tables A-5 and 2-1), any regulation relax-
ation would have a significant impact on air quality. Modeling results indicate
a potential for some relaxation of regulations for major power plants in the
area Csee Tables C-l and 2-1) and there is thus a clean fuels saving potential.
However, recent local air quality data show NAAQS violations in this region
and recent modeling results, unavailable for this analysis, indicate that regu-
lation relaxation might not be possible. It would thus be desirable to clarify
the situation by further study, modeling, and the use of more recent air qual-
ity data to determine whether regulations could, in fact, be relaxed for these
-------
24
specific sources without creating air quality problems. (Tables have been
footnoted to show where more recent data or modeling results would change
entries and, since modeling results were available, Table 2-1 reflects conclus-
ions based on the data directly available.) If source-specific regulation
relaxation were feasible, some clean fuels savings could also be realized for
industrial/commercial/institutional point sources for which present regulations
require low sulfur fuels and an emissions reduction from current rates (see
Table D-2).
3.3 East Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR (#66)
This region is a poor candidate for both SCU and particulate regulation
relaxations. There is no particulate air quality data (see Tables A-3 and 2-1)
and only one site reporting SC^ data with no annual or 24-hour averages avail-
able (see Table A-4 and 2-1). The region is a poor candidate for SC>2 regula-
relaxation, since both power plants and industrial/commercial/institutional
point sources can use high sulfur (> 21) coal even under current regulations
(see Tables C-2 and D-2). Modeling results for the power plants indicate no
expected air quality problems near power plants with, present fuel sulfur con-
tent. Some savings in clean fuels might be realized for area sources by shift-
ing to higher sulfur oil if such oil is available or to coal if coal burning
capability exists but investigation of this possibility would require further
study, since present fuel sulfur content figures were not available for area
sources. Area source fuel use figures are given in Table E-l.
3.4 Metropolitan Chicago Interstate AQCR (#67)
This region is a poor candidate for both particulate and SCU emission re-
gulation relaxation. There are indications of widespread poor particulate air
quality (see Tables A-3 and 2-1). Rollback indicates that a significant reduc-
tion in current particulate emissions is necessary (see Tables A-8 and 2-1).
Even though I llinois fuel combustion sources emit a relatively small portion
of the region's total particulates (see Tables B-l and 2-1) the large reduction
required makes any relaxation of the particulate emission regulation unlikely.
The situation is similar for SC>2 with data indicating poor air quality and
thus no ability to absorb increased SC>2 emissions. There are no indications
of where, if anywhere, local relaxations might be possible. However, given the
-------
25
significant portion of total AQCR SOz emissions that come from Illinois fuel
combustion sources, it is unlikely that any regulation relaxation can take
place.
3.5 Metropolitan Dubuque Interstate AQCR (#68)
Metropolitan Dubuque is a poor candidate for particulate regulation relax-
ation. Based on regional air quality data there are high particulate levels
and rollback indicates that a significant reduction in emissions is needed to
attain acceptable air quality. Although there are no proposed AQMAs in the
Illinois portion of the region, one has been proposed in Iowa showing exist-
ing or expected air quality problems in the region. There are no significant
fuel combustion point sources in the Illinois portion of Metropolitan Dubuque
(see Table A-5) indicating that there would be little to be gained by regula-
tion relaxation.
This region is also a poor candidate for relaxation of S02 emission regu-
lations. There are indications of a significant capacity to absorb increased
emissions but no annual average data are available. There are also no signifi-
cant point sources in the Illinois portion of the region. In any case, present
regulations already allow the combustion of high sulfur coal in the Illinois
portion of this region. Area sources are the largest Illinois sources in this
region and since fuel sulfur contents for these sources were unavailable, assess-
ment of the potential for utilizing higher sulfur fuels requires further study.
3.6 Metropolitan Quad Cities Interstate AQCR (#69)
Based on a sufficient number of monitoring sites, there are indications
of high particulate levels and hence no tolerance for increased emissions.
The region is thus a poor candidate for relaxing particulate regulations.
Despite the indications from air quality that there is a significant
ability to absorb increased SO? emissions, the region is only a marginal can-
didate for S02 emission regulation relaxation. Present regulations already
allow the utilization of high sulfur coal but do require low sulfur oil. Il-
linois point sources do not use much oil and hence the clean fuels savings
potential is minimal. Area sources account for a larger portion of the SC>2
emissions than do point sources but the potential of savings from regulation
-------
26
relaxation for these sources would require further study, since percent sulfur
figures for area sources were not available.
3.7 Metropolitan St. Louis Interstate AQCR (#70)
Air quality data indicate widespread high participate levels making this
region a poor candidate for particulate emission regulation relaxation. The
proposal of AQMAs indicating expected difficulties with maintaining acceptable
particulate air quality reinforces this assessment.
The region is also a poor candidate for SOo emission regulation relaxation.
Air quality data indicate high SO2 levels. (This statement relies on data more
recent than that available when the original analysis was made. Tables have
been footnoted to show where the more recent data would change entries and
Table 2-1 reflects conclusions based on this more recent data.) There are
also SC>2 air quality problems or expected maintenance problems indicated by the
proposal of AQM\s. Since a significant portion of the AQCR's emissions come
from Illinois fuel combustion sources, the regulations cannot be relaxed in
view; of the poor air quality.
3.8 North Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR (#71)
Neither particulate nor SC^ air quality data are available for this region
which is thus a poor candidate for the relaxation of emission regulations for
both pollutants. If particulate data available at a later date indicates
acceptable air quality a revision of this assessment for particulates may be
possible.
The present regulations allow the burning of high sulfur coal but do re-
quire low sulfur oil. Since oil is a minor fuel even when area sources are
included, the region would remain a poor candidate for SO? emission regulation
relaxation even if further air quality data were to indicate a significant cap-
acity to absorb increased SC>2 emissions.
3.9 Paducah-Cairo Interstate AQCR (#72)
Paducah-Cairo is a poor candidate for the relaxation of particulate emis-
sion regulations. There are indications that an overall reduction in particu-
late emissions is necessary to obtain satisfactory air quality and since fuel
combustion sources contribute a significant fraction of total emissions from
Illinois sources, no general relaxation seems possible.
-------
27
Even though, the regional air quality data and rollback calculations indi-
cate that there is a substantial capacity to absorb increased SC^ emissions,
the modeling results indicate that there may be some short-term SC>2 problems
in the vicinity of the Joppa power plant which accounts for most of the SC>2
emissions in the Illinois portion of the AQCR. Since present regulations already
allow the use of high sulfur coal, this region is a poor candidate for regulation
relaxation at least until the potential problem indicated by the modeling is
thoroughly investigated. Also, since oil consumption even including area sources
is small in this region, the potential for clean fuel savings is minimal and
the region is a poor candidate for S0ฃ emission regulation relaxation.
3.10 Rockford-Janesville-Beloit Interstate AQCR (#75)
Although there are no reported high particulate levels the indications are
that a significant ability to absorb increased particulate emissions does not
exist. There is also a lack of annual average data and any regulation relaxa-
tion would have a substantial impact upon air quality, since Illinois fuel com-
bustion sources emit a relatively large portion of the particulates in the AQCR.
Given the indicated small potential for oil or gas to coal conversions, the
region is at best a marginal candidate for particulate emission regulation
relaxation.
The situation for S02 regulation relaxation is the same except that the
regional analysis indicates a significant tolerance for increased S0ฃ emissions.
With the overall low fuel consumption by point sources the region is a marginal
candidate for regulation relaxation. Area sources do use a substantial amount
of oil. Since percent sulfur in fuel use figures were not available for these
sources, it was impossible to determine if they represent a significant clean
fuel saving potential. More study is needed to make this determination.
3.11 Southeast Illinois Intrastate AQCR
This region is a poor candidate for particulate regulation relaxation.
There is no air quality data and thus no indication of either the existence or
absence of high particulate levels. Without such data regulations could not
be relaxed.
There. are also no indications that SC^ emission regulations can be relaxed
thus making the region a poor candidate for such relaxation. Insufficient air
-------
28
quality data exists to determine whether high SO? levels exist. Since existing
regulations already allow the use of high sulfur coal, there is little to be
gained by relaxing these regulations, there are indications from the modeling
results of potentially high SO? levels in the vicinity of the Grand Tower power
plant. Some savings of low sulfur oil might be possible for industrial/commer-
cial/institutional sources in this region but these would be minimal.
3.12 West Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR (#75)
There are indications of a significant tolerance for increased particulate
emissions but no annual average data exists. Since fuel combustion sources con-
tribute a significant portion of the particulate emissions, regulation relaxa-
tion would have a substantial impact on air quality and a more complete picture
is necessary before relaxation could be recommended. The existence of a pro-
posed TSP AQMA. indicates potential problems with maintaining particulate air
quality. These indications make the region a poor candidate for particulate
emission regulation relaxation.
There is insufficient data to evaluate existing SCU air quality. Modeling
results, however, indicate potential high levels in the vicinity of power
plants. In any case, present regulations allow the use of high sulfur coal
and there is no point in relaxing them. Point sources use little oil but some
small savings of low sulfur oil might be realized for area sources. The later
possibility would require further study, since sulfur in fuel figures were not
available for these sources. In general, the lack of air quality data, the
indications from modeling, and the present possibility of using high sulfur
coal make this region a poor candidate for SC^ emission regulation relaxation.
-------
29
REFERENCES
1. Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions in 51 Air
Quality Control Regions, report prepared under Contract No. 68-02-0049
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,-Walden Research Division
of Abcor, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., December 17, 1973.
2. Steam Electric Plant Factors, 1973, National Coal Association, Washington,
D.C., January 1974.
3. Power plant data file, unpublished, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C..
4. Power plant S02 emission estimates, unpublished data, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
5. National Emissions Data Systems data bank, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
6. Federal Energy Administration unpublished data.
-------
APPENDIX A. STATE IMPlJjMBTl'ATION PIAN BACKGROUND
Demographic luFonnation
Table A-l. Illinois Air Pollution Control Areas
b
Priority Classification
Proposed
AQMA Designations"
Air Quality
Control Region
liurl ington - Keokuk
(Iowa)
liast Central Illinois
Metropolitan Chicago
(I.uJ.)
Metropolitan Duhuque
(Iowa, WLs.)
Metropolitan Quad Cities
(Iowa)
Metropolitan St. Louis
(Mo.)
North Central Illinois
Paducah-Cairo
(Ken.)
Kockford-Janesville-
lieloit (WLs.)
Southeast Illinois
West Central Illinois
Federal
Number
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
1970
Population
(Mi lions)
0.6
0.6
7.8
0.2
0.6
2.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
Area
Population
Density
/thousand \ /people per\
\sq. mile ) \sq. mile J
7.0
10.4
6.1
3.8
4.9
6.5
3.6
8.0
3.5
9.3
9.0
90
64
1,278
54
115
383
60
51
163
49
68
Participates
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
S02
1
2
1
3
3
1
1A
2
3
2
1A
N02
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
TSP Counties
(3) Peoria, Woodford,
Tazewell
(0)
(6) Cook, DuPage,
Lake, Mdlenry, Will,
Kane
(0)
(0)
(3) Madison, Monroe,
St. Clair
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1) Macon
S0~ Counties
(3) Peoria, Woodford,
Tazewell
(0)
(6) Cook, DuPage.
Lake, Mdlenry, Will,
Kane
(0)
(0)
' OJ
M
(3) Madison, Monroe,
St. Clair
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
As of November 14, 1974.
J40 CI-U 52, SiJipart 0, ง 52.721
-------
32
TON HfIGH IS
DAVENPORT-ROCK ISUND-MOLINE
WMITtSlOf
A SCOTT"*, SPRINGFIELD
LEGEND
ฎ Places of 100,000 or more inhabitants
Places of 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants
Q Central cities of SMSA's with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants
O Places of 25.000 to 50,000 inhabitants outside SMSA's
Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
TSP DESIGNATION
S02 DESIGNATION
Figure A-1. Illinois Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA.) Designations
-------
Table A-2. Illinois Ambient Air Quality Standards
Federal
State0
(Goals)
Primary
Secondary
Chicago and
St. Louis
(111.)
MMs
Total Suspended
Annual
75 (G)
60 (G)
All concentrations in ngm/m
Particulate
24-Hr
260a
150a
Annual
80 (A)
40 (G)
3
Sulfur
24 -Hr
365a
265b
450a
Dioxide
3-Hr 1-Hr
1300a
1120a
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
100 (A)
100 (A)
~
Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Not to be exceeded more than 1% of the days in a year.
c
These are air quality goals, not enforcable standards.
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
-------
TABLE A-3. Illinois AQCR Air Quality Status, TSPa
TSP Concentration (pgm/m3)
Number of Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
No. Stations
Anrn Reporting
No. 24-Hr
65b 3
66 0
67b 93
68b 6
69b 6
70b 29
71 0
72b 19
73b 4
74 0
75 1
Annual
1
0
59
1
2
18
0
12
0
0
0
Highest
Annual
40
...
164
31
100
116
...
75
---
---
---
Reading
24-Hr
648
---
888
215
292
484
---
303
190
---
126
a!973 air quality data in National Air Data
Interstate.
''Violations
Formula :
based on 2nd
("And
highest
Highest
reading at
2nd Highest Reading ,..
24-Hr Annual
405 0
..-
611 34
206 0
246 . 1
326 6
...
220 0
141
.-.
98
Bank as of June 7, 1974.
any station.
24-Hr - 24-Hr Secondary Standard \ ,
1 Reduction Required Controlling
nary Secondary to Meet Standards Standard
24-Hrc Annual 24-Hrc
103
---
15 50 55
002
014
1 12 8
...
0 4 7
0 --- 0
...
0 --- 0
/Annual - Annual Secondary Standard
+ 69
...
+ 80
+ 33
+ 67
+ 74
...
+ 50
. 9
---
- 87
\ x 100
24 Hr
...
24 Hr
24 Hr
Annual
Annual
---
Annual
24 Hr
---
24 Hr
Annual - Background
Illinois particulate background concentration:
AQCR 65, 66, 67, 68, and 75: 38 ygm/m3
AQCR 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74: 40 ugm/ra3
-------
Table A-4. ILLINOIS AQCR AIR QUALITY STATUS,
SO? Concentration
Nunber of Stations Exceeding I Reduction Required Controlling
Ambient Air Quality Standards to Meet Standards Standard
No. Stations Reporting
AQCR
No. Annual 24-llr Cont.
6Sb 0 22
Highest Reading 2nd
Annual 24-llr
162
Highest Reading Primary Secondary
24-Hr Annual 24-Hrc 3-llrc
66 -- O6 --e -453 24-llr
66 0 0 1 ....
67b 52 76 24
68b 0 30
69b 0 1 0
70b 5 5 12
147 583
40
31
49 487
275 31 0 +46 Annual
27 -- 0 -- -1,252 24-Hr
2 -- 0 -- -18,150 24-Hr
87 Oe Oe Oe -63e Annual0
71 o 00
72b 12 19 2
73b 1 21
19 274
14 140
74 00 0 -321 Annual
79 00-- -362 24-Hr
74 0 0 1 --
75 0 0 3 --
1973 air quality
Interstate.
""Violations based
Formula:
i-
data in National Aeronietric Data JJank
on 2nd highest
(2nd Hi finest
I 2nd
reading at any station.
24-llr - 24-Hr StandardN
Highest 24-llr J
as of June 7, 1974.
.. TAA /Annual - Annual Standard} lnn
K 100' \^ Annual ) x 10ฐ
More recent local air quality indicates tliat there are S02 NAAQS violations in this region.
-------
Table A-5. Illinois Fuel Combustion Source Summary
Total Emissions^
Emissions from Illinois
AQCR
No.
65e
66
67e
68e
69e
70e
71
72e
73e
74
75.
Total
Power
Plants3
5
2
8
0
1
6
3
1
2
5
5
38
Other Fuel Combustion
Point Sources
4
3
14
0
5
4
3
1
0
4
3
41
Area
Sources c
10
15
9
1
5
7
6
6
5
21
17
102
l^J-U UUUS/ )
Participates
204
101
633
22
52
355
42
175
33
47
79
1,774
'Cell )
S02
258
75
1,152
58
122
1,234
27
985
69
52
345
4,378
rUC-L tAJHUJUS ULU11 i
Particulates
68
22
24
1
17
18
16
30
43
46
52
30
suun-es
S02
97
97
42
1
25
54
68
18
52
90
99
49
Illinois fossil-fuel-fired plants.
Illinois plants contributing 90% of the S02 emissions or more than 1,000 tons/yr of S02-
Illinois counties.
dAQCR totals.
eInterstate.
-------
AQCR
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
TOTAL
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Total
(103 tons/yr)
166.5
38.0
204.5
101.0
407.8
255.2
663.0
1.1
20.7
21.9
18.6
33.0
51.6
310.2
44.4
354.7
42.0
65.2
110.0
175.2
21.2
11.5
32.7
47.0
79.4
1,773.9
i
9
2
12
6
23
14
37
<1
1
1
1
2
3
17
3
20
2
4
6
.10
1
!_
2
3
4
100
TABLE A-6. ILLINOIS 0
Electricity Generation
(103 tons/yr) 4
117.1
0.0
117.1
5.8
6.4
7.5
13.9
0.0
11.4
11.4
2.3
9.0
11.3
43.2
4.1
47.2
0.2
51.3
49.1
100.4
4.6
2.0
6.6
10.3
7.4
331.6
70
0
57
6
2
3
2
0
55
52
12
27
22
14
9
13
1
79
45
57
22
17
20'
22
9
19
HSSIONS SUMMARY3, TSP
Indus tri al/Ccnmie rci al/
Institutional Point Source
(103 tons/yr) t
13.6
1.0
14.5
9.6
29.8
94.6
124.5
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.9
3.4
12.2
5.5
17.7
3.2
0.1
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.7
1.1
5.8
26.1
207.9
8
3
7
9
7
37
19
0
6
S
8
6
7
4
12
S
8
<1
1
<1
2
6
3
12
33
12
Area Source
(103 tons/yr)
7.8
.3
8.1
7.0
120.2
14.6
134.9
0.2
1.1
1.3
5.1
0.6
S.7
8.4
15.6
24.0
3.4
0.8
4.8
5.6
9.1
7.4
16.5
5.7
7.4
219.5
t
5
1
4
7
29
6
20
19
5
6
28
2
11
3
35
7
8
1
4
3
43
64
51
12
9
12
Emissions in National 1-.missions Data System data bank as of June 1974.
-------
TABLE A-7. ILLINOIS EMISSION SUMMARY* SO
AQCR
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
Illinois
Other
Total
, Total
(10 tons/yr)
250.7
7.0
257.7
75.1
530.2
622.2
1,152.4
0.8
57. 2
58.0
32.3
89.4
121.8
719.9
514.5
1,234.4
26.8
181.5
803.8
985.3
37.4
31.7
69.1
52.0
345.3
4,377.9
%
6
<1
6
2
12
14
26
<1
1
1
1
2_
3
16
12
28
1
4
18
23
1
1
2
1
8
100
Electricity Generation
(10-5 tons/yr) 4
204.4
0.0
204.4
26.7
192.2
279.2
471.4
0.0
51.0
51.0
8.2
70.2
78.4
606.8
332.5
939.4
tt
3.5
174.9
785.2
960.1
19.0
22.3
41.4
9.2
290.9
3,076.3
82
0
79
36
36
45
41
0
89
88
25
78
64
84
65
76
13
96
98
97
51
70
60
18
84
70
Industrial/Commercial/
Institutional Point Source
(103 tons/yr) 4
29.3
5.6
34.9
28.0
63.3
192,7
256.0
0.0
2.9
2.9
13.2
16.9
30.0
41.7
18.0
59.7
6.5
3.6
5.7
9.4
1.8
3.4
5.2
20.9
34.8
488.5
12
81
14
37
12
31
22
0
5
5
41
19
25
6
3
5
24
2
1
1
5
11
8
40
10
11
Area Source
(10 tons/yr)
15.3
0.8
16.1
18.4
225.2
19.6
244.8
0.8
2.2
3.0
9.4
1,4
10.8
20.4
18.5
38.9
8.2
2.6
9.6
12.2
15.1
5.6
20.8
16.9
17.6
407.7
1
6
12
6
25
42
3
21
93
4
5
29
2
9
3
4
3
31
1
1
1
40
18
30
33
5
9
0-1
oo
aEmissions in National Emission Data System data bank as of June 1974.
-------
Table A-8. Illinois Required Emission Reductiona
AQCR
65d
66
67d
68d
69d
70d
71
72d
73d
74
75
Required
%
+69
+80
+33
+67
+74
...
+50
-9b
-87b
Particulate Emission Reduction
10 3 tons /year
+141.1
+530.4
+7.2
+34.4
+262.5
...
+87.6
-2.9
-81.3
Required S02
%
-453b
+46
-l,252b'C
-18,150b'c
-63
...
-321b
-362
Emission Reduction
10 3 tons /year
-1,167.4
+530
-726.2
-2,210.7
-777.7
...
-3,162.8
-250.1
Based on a proportional change of emissions to air quality.
Based on second highest 24-hour reading; no annual average data available.
Exceptionally large negative numbers indicate current air quality is very good. In this range,
the proportional calculations do not give a veiy good picture of allowable emission increases.
They are included here only as general indicators.
to
Interstate.
-------
TABLE A-9. Illinois Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
Existing Sources
Newa
S02
1.8 lbs/10 Btu for solid fuel,
1 hour average, in Chicago,
St. Louis (111.), and Peoria NMAs
6.0 lbs/106 Btu for solid fuel,
1 hour average, outside Chicago,
St. Louis (111.), and Peoria NMAsC
1.0 lbs/106 Btu for residual fuel
oil, 1 hour average
0.3 lbs/106 Btu for distillate
fuel oil, 1 hour average
< 250 x 10ฐ Btu/hr
1.8 Ibs 106 Btu for solid
fuel, 1 hour average
1.0 lbs/10 Btu for residual
fuel oil, 1 hour average
0.3 lbs/106 Btu for distillate
fuel oil, 1 hour average
> 2 50 x 10ฐ Btu/hr
1.2 lbs/106 Btu for solid
fuel, 1 hour average
0.8 lbs/10 Btu for residual
fuel oil, 1 hour average
0.3 lbs/106 Btu for distillate
fuel oil, 1 hour average
Particulate
Matter
Controlled
Up to 0.2 lbs/106 Btu for solid
fuel, 1 hour average} depending
or
Uncontrolled
0.1 lbs/106 Btu for solid fuel
in Chicago NMA
As in Figure A-2 outside
Chicago NMA
0.1 lbs/10 Btu for liquid fuel, 1 hour average
0.1 lbs/10 Btu for solid fuel, 1 hour average
0.1 lbs/10 Btu for liquid fuel, 1 hour average
-p-
o
For units firing more than one type of fuel, the total allowable emissions are the sum of those that would be allowed if each fuel were fired separately.
There is also a maximum emission rate limitation for all sources within a radius of one mile owned or operated by the same person which limitation
depends on individual stack heights and relative emissions. The lesser of the emission rates imposed by this limitation or the 'tabulated regulation applies.
cThe regulation includes a provision for requiring a limit of 1.8 lbs/10 Btu in any NMA outside of Chicago, St. Ix>uis (111.) and Peoria where an S02 annual
average > 60 (jgm/m3 exists and pursuant to an order of the Board. No such orders have been issued.
Includes all sources with control equipment emitting 0.2 or more lbs/106 Btu of actual heat input.
-------
10.0
i i iiiiiir iir
CO
2:
o
.
CO LU
LU ID
I h-
CD O
IS
d S
<^u>
O
1,0
0,1
i mil
10
I i l i i
I i i i i i ii I i i i ill
j i
100 1,000
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT (I06 BTU/Hr)
nl
i i i i i i 11
10,000
100,000
Figure A-2. Allowable Particulate Emissions from
Sources outside Chicago NWA
-------
APPENDIX B
Regional Air Quality Assessment
Tublu II-1. Illinois AIJCR Candidacy Assessment for ('articulate Regulation Relaxation
AQCIt Stations
with ('articulate
Air Quality
Violations
liurlington-
Keokuka 65 3
Hast Central
Illinois 66
Meiiopolitan
Chicago3 67 59
Metropolitan
Uihu|uca 68 2
Metropolitan
Quad Cities" 61) 4
Metropolitan
St. Louisa 70 19
North Central
Illinois 71
I'aducah-
Cairu3 72 7
(lock t'onl- Janes -
ville--Ueloita 73 vl>
Southeast
Illinois 74
West Central
Illinois 75 0>>
Expected
Attainment
Date
7/75
7/7S
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
c
c
Counties with
Proposed
('articulate Af]MA
Designations
3
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
Total Participate
tiiiissions
(105 tons/yr)
205
101
663
22
52
355
42
175
33
47
79
t remissions
from Illinois l:uel
Caiibustion
68
22
24
1
17
18
16
30
43
46
52
Emission Reduction
Required for NAAQS Paniculate
(10s tons/yr) Priority
+141 1
3
+530 1
+ 7 1
+34 1 oi
+ 262 1
2
+88 1
-3 2
3
-81 1
Interstate
No uiumal data-
1^11
l ly moduli; :>ranJards.
-------
Table B-2. Illinois AQCR Candidacy Assessment for S02 Regulation Relaxation
AQCR
Burlington-Keokuk3
East Central
Illinois
Metropolitan
Chicago3
Metropolitan
Dubuque3
Metropolitan Quad
Cities3
Metropolitan
St. Louis3
North Central
Illinois
Paducah- Cairo3
Rockford-Janesville-
Beloit3
Soutlieast Illinois
West Central
Illinois
Stations with
SC>2 Air Quality
Violations
65 Ob'd
66
67 4
68 Ob
69 Ob
70 Od
71
72 0
73 0
74
75
Expected
Attainment
Date
c
7/75
7/75
c
c
c
7/75
c
c
7/75
7/75
Counties with
Proposed
S02 AQMA
Designations
3
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
Total S02
Emissions
(103 tons/yr)
258
75
1152
58
122
1234
27
985
69
52
345
$ Emissions
from Illinois Fuel
Combustion
97
97
42
1
25
54
68
18
52
90
99
Emission Reduction
Required for NAAQS S02
(103 tons/yr) Priority
-1,167 1
2
+530 1
-726 3
-2,211 3
-777d 1
1A
-3,163 2
-250 3
2
1A
Interstate
NO annual data.
Presently meeting standards.
TOre recent local air quality data indicates that there are S02 NAAQS violations in this region.
-------
45
APPENDIX C
Power Plant Assessment
Table C-l. Illinois Power Plant Assessment
AQCR
65d
66
67d
Plant
Edwards
Wallace
Powerton
ฃ
Havana
Vermill ion
Abbott
Calumet
Crawford
Fisk
Joliet
Ridgeland
Waukegan
Will County
Winnetka
1975
Capacity
(Mw)
725.0
325.0
2933.8
230.0
182.3
30.0
107.0
701.5
546.6
1787.4
690.0
932.8
1268.9
25.5
Estimated 1975
Riei
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Gas
Coal
Gas
Coal
Gas
Coal
Gas
Coal
Oil
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Gas
Fuel Use
Quantity
2,193
108
559
40
4,780
6,261
647
472
139
486
13
145
2,803
120
5,357
673
. 20,197
632
11,143
3,230
11,667
11
258,636
1,926
7,866
3,079
15
725
\ S Under
SIP .
Regulations
0.8
0.10
1.0
0.10
-
0.7
0.50.
3.2
0.10
2.9
0.10
2.6
0.15
0.98
-
0.98
-
0.98
-
0.98
-
0.98
0.76
0.98
0.95
0.98
0.98
-
% S Allowed
^c
Modelc
2.51
-
3.01
-
-
3.31
-
3.31
~
2.9
-
2.6
_
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
.
-
-------
46
Table C-l. Illinois Power Plant Assessment (Cqntd.J
AQCR Plant
1975
Capacity
(Mv)
Estimated 1975
Fuel Use
Fuel
Quantity
1 S Under % S Allowed
SIP b by
Regulations Model
68d NO PLANTS
69d Moline
70d Baldwin
Wood River
Cahokia
Venice #1
Venice #2
Highland
71 Dixon
Hennepin
Peru
72d Joppa
73d Sabrooke
Rochelle
74 Grand Tower
Hutsonville
Marion
99.1
1846.1
650.1
300.0
55.0
500.0
12.5
119.0
306.3
15.3
1100.3
146.4
12.7
179.6
210.0
99.0
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
Oil
Oil
Gas
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Gas
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil'
Coal
Oil
17
336
4,148
3,430
155
1,407
265
9,470
204
23,419
987
19
753
8,513
36
292
2,033
367
10,567
41
3,107
245
4,508
44
509
109
433
252
277
42
1.73
0.40
3.3
0.10
2.82
0.10
0.98
0.95
0.10
0.98
0.98
2.8 2.8
3.1 3.1
3.3
2.7 2.7S
1.69
3.3
2.3 2.3g'h
0.43
2.3 2.3
0.26
3.3
0.95
-------
47 '
Table C-l. Illinois Power Plant Assessment (Contd.)
AQCR
74
(Con'd.)
75
1975
Capacity
Plant O&O
Fairfield
Mt. Carmel
Coffeen
Meredosia
Kincaid
Lakeside
Dallman
12.5
20.5
1005.5
554.4
1319.4
146.0
160.0
J-O U JJUd I.CV1 4.J / J
Fuel Use
Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Quantitya
36
45
2,815
133
692
533
2,999
248
760
501
84
1 S Under
SIP ,
Regulations
3.3
3.3
3.1
0.46
3.5
0.41
3.1
3.3
0.60
3.3
0.95
% S Allowed
by c
Model
.
3.SS
-
3.52
-
3.1ง
3.3'g
3>3g
*
Coal quantity is 10 tons/yr., oil quantity is 10 gal/yr., gas quantity is
106 ฃt3/yr. Estimates are based on 1971 fuel use patterns plus planned
additions. If 1971 fuel use data were unavailable, 1972 data were used.
The maximum allowable I S is assumed to be the 1971 \ S unless the regulations
require a lower % S.
'"The maximum allowable % S is assumed to be the 1971 \ S unless modeling results
show a lower % S is allowable.
Interstate
eThis plant is projected to show a significant switch from oil to coal by 1975.
These figures are based on an expected re introduction of coal as a fuel by 1975.
"Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary air quality standard
may be exceeded even at SIP.
Modeling calculations indicate that the annual primary air quality standard may
be exceeded even at SIP.
xMDre recent modeling and local air quality data indicate that this might be an
overestimate and that the present regulations might have to be met.
-------
Table C-2. Illinois Power Plant Evaluation Summary
AQCR
65e
66
67e
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Gas
68e NO PUNTS
69ฐ
Coal
Oil
Gas
70 Coal
Oil
Gas
71
Coal
Gas
72e Coal
736 Coal
Gas
74
75
Illinois
Total
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Gas
so2
1975 Fuel Required 1975
by SIP Regulations3 Emission
Reduction
< n 1-2* > 21 (tons/yr)
8,454 559 472
934
4,959
63,717
631
2,816
-5,311
9,686
258,636
56,955
162,389
17
336
4,148
-659
993 4,837
24,826
18,002
-12,853
700
12,600
1,261
3,107
-6,286
245 44
4,508
-2,058
1,300
403
-2,389
7,255
1,510
-36,301
19,133 821 18,346
289,461
101,172
161,510
1975 Fuel Required by 1975
Modified Regulations Modified Emission
Reduction
< 1% 1-2% > 2\ (tons/yr)
9,485n
934
4,959
-162,034
631
2,816
-5,311
No modeling results available.
No modeling results available.
No modeling results available.
6591
12,600
1,263
-6, 286^
No modeling results available.
403 . . ,
1,694.1. M
7,2S5J
1,510 ,
-36,301J
22,079
5,663
17,559
-206,975
Particulates
1975 Emissions
Reduction by
SIP Regulations
(tons/yr)
105,301
5,258f
10,5318
2,235
36,634h
0
48,087
--
21,769
773m
230,588
-------
Table C-2. Illinois Power Plant Evaluation Summary (Contd.)
al;uel requirements based on 1971 fuel use patterns at 1975 consumption rates plus any new units. If 1971 fuel use data were unavailable, 1972
data were used. Coal in 103 tons/yr, oil in 103 gal/yr, gas in 106 ft3/yr. Maximum 4 S is 1971 4 S unless regulations require a lower 4 S.
Emission reduction from current emission rates. If actual 4 S was unknown, state-wide averages were used.
cMaximum allowable 4 S is 1971 4 S unless modeling indicates a lower value. Modeling did not treat oil. Oil and gas figures are those
required by SIP regulations.
Emission reduction from current emission rates. Plants already below SIP requirements are assumed to remain so. No reduction listed if
emissions are available from less than 2/3 of the 1975 capacity.
el
Based on one of two plants having 864 of 1975 capacity.
^Emissions available for only 854 of 1975 capacity.
Emissions available for about 834 of 1975 capacity.
'Modeling results for 974 of 1975 capacity.
*Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary air quality standard may be exceeded even at SIP.
Modeling calculations indicate that the annual primary air quality standard may be exceeded even at SIP.
Modeling results available for only 754 of 1975 capacity.
"'Emissions available for 954 of 1975 capacity.
Mare recent modeling and local air quality data indicate that the regulation modification shown here might not be possible.
-------
Industrial, Commercial,
51
APPENDIX D
Institutional
Point Source
Table D-l. Illinois Indus trial/Commercial/ Institutional
AQCR Plant3-
65e CPC International
Caterpillar Tractor
Walker $ Son
Celotex Corporation
66 U.S. Industrial Chemical
University of Illinois
Central Soya
6 7e Wyman- Gordon
Clark Oil
Nforris Paper Mills
CPC International
Blocks on Works
Amoco Chemical
American Potash ง Chemical
Uniroyal
Union Oil
Argonne National Laboratory
Caterpillar Tractor
Container Corp. of America
GM- Electromotive Division
Manteno State Hospital
Fuelb
Coal
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Gas
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Oil
Coal
Coal
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
Coal
Oil
Oil
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
Coal
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption0-
114
121
761
106
38
191
420
4,020
159
28
61
3,110
6,230
55
360
1,080
88
33,700
2,220
29
85
1,457
6,030
48
49
2,500
46
138
61
Assessment
Source Assessment
SIP
Regulations
\ Sd
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
3.3
3.3
3.3
0.98
0.95
0.95
3.3
0.98
0.98
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.98
-------
52
Table D-l. Illinois Indus trial/Commercial/ Institutional Source Assessment (Contd.)
AQCR Planta
Fuelb
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption0
SIP
Regulations
a cd
6 o
68e No sources
69ฉ International Harvester
John Deere-Nbline
Rock Island Arsenal
John Deere- E. Moline
John Deere- Plow Works
70e Alton Box Board
Laclede Steel
Nfonsanto
Shell Oil
71 Ottowa Silica
Dixon Street School
National Biscuit
72e Missouri Portland Cement
Coal
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Oil*
Gas
Coal
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
Oil*
Oil
Gas
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
32
28
396
50
12
50
1,608
24
940
192
2,229
845
< 1
37,300
168
132
1,400
70,488
3,288
56
37
13
1,990
480
87
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
0.28
3.3
0.98
0.95
0.98
0.95
0.98
0.28
0.95
3.3
3.3
3.3
0.95
3.3
73e No sources
74 Southern Illinois Power
Maran Oil
Old Ben Coal
Texaco
Coal
Oil
Gas
Coal
Oil
100
72,440
10,001
24
12,572
3.3
0.95
3.3
0.95
-------
53
Table D-l. Illinois Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment (Contd.)
AQCR
75
Plant3"
Staley Manufacturing
Packaging Corporation
Caterpillar Tractor
Fuel5
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Gas
Estimated
Fuel
. Consumption0
404
221
73
66
121 .
SIP
Regulations
% Sd
3.3
3.3
3.3
alllinois plants contributing 90% of the AQCR's S02 or emitting more than
1,000 tons/yr of 503.
Does not include plant or process gas. Oil is residual unless otherwise
specified.
cCoal in 103 tons/yr, oil in 103 gal/yr, gas in 106 ft3/yr.
Assuming state-wide average heating values for fuels.
Interstate.
Distillate oil.
-------
54
Table D-2. Illinois Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Source Evaluation Summary
AQCR
6Se
66
67e
68e
69e
70e
71
72e
73e
74
75
Illinois
Total
Fuela
coal
gas
coal
gas
coal
oil
gas
Required by
11
379'
952
4,020
965
53,027
3,300
Fuel ,
Existing Regulations
1-2% . 21
607
55
S,02
Emission Reduction
(tons/yr)
11,923
-11,507
10,971
3,765
No sources
coal,
oild
gas
coal
oil,
oild
gas
coal
oil
gas
coal
50
2,944
324
110,017
1,400
4,301
1,990
480
146
106
87
- 1,953
1
14,401
8,718
- 46
- 1,547
102
--2,152
No sources
coal
oil
gas
coal
gas
coal
oil*
oild
gas
85,012
10,001
342
1,668
250,046
1,450
26,340
124
543
1,668
- 570
1,002
- 4,143
28,965
aOil is residual unless otherwise specified.
Does not include plant or process gas. Coal in 10 tons/yr; oil in 10 gal/yr;
gas in 10ฐ ft 3/yr.
""Emission reduction from current rates.
TJistillate oil.
Interstate.
-------
APPENDIX E
Area Source Assessment
Table E-l. Illinois Area Source Fuel Use
AQCR
65a
66
67a
68a
69a
70a
71
72a
73a
74
75
Total
Coal
(10 3 tons/yr)
113
117
1,412
23
68
361
54
159
186
127
115
2,735
Distillate Oil
(103 gals/yr)
47,850
87,180
1,274,170
40,860
45,350
162,280
42,810
32,810
114,180
30,840
60,710
1,939,040
Residual Oil
(103 gals/yr)
24,880
37,900
468,050
1,630
20,640
45,830
13,400
7,070
19,560
26,590
39,830
705,380
Natural Gas
(106 ftVyr)
61,240
39,370
650,710
8,890
43,240
153,010
14,410
19,600
44,730
68,890
41,360
1,145,450
en
Cn
Interstate - Fuel use figure is for entire AQCR.
-------
57
APPENDIX F. FUELS ASSESSED
Table F-l. Illinois dean Fuels Analysis Summary
Existing Regulations dean Fuel Requirements3 Modified Regulations Clean Fuel Requirements'3
AQCR
SSC.k
66
67ซ
63C
69=
70=
71
72C
73C
74
73
State
Total
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Mo sources
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
< 1* S 1-24 S < 1% S 1-24 S
8,833 539
934 934
2,316 d
10,651
311,663 e
17 ฃ
386 f
1,317
135,243 e
1,990 d
g
245 f
85,415 h
1,510 i
20,801 821 934^
540,957
aFrom power plant and industrial/commercial/institutional point sources. Includes only that required and not
entire fuel consumption. Coal in 10^ tons/yr, oil in 10^ gal/yr.
Based on modeling results. No modeling results available for industrial/commercial/institutional point sources.
Includes only that required and not entire consumption.
clnterstate.
-------
58 .
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
\. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/5-75-004
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR ILLINOIS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
a. 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 V, Chicago, Illinois,
and Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
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
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 interfering 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. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
State Implementation Plans
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY ClASSJThispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |