EPA-450/3-7 5-064
May 1975
SUMMARY REPORT
ON MODELING ANALYSIS
OF POWER PLANTS
FOR FUEL CONVERSION
L.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air ami Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-75-064
SUMMARY REPORT
ON MODELING ANALYSIS
OF POWER PLANTS
FOR FUEL CONVERSION
by
Dr. L. Morgenstern
Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc.
201 Vassar Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Contract No. 68-02-1377, Task 2
Program Element No. 2AC129/2AH136
EPA Project Officer: Connally Mears
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
May 1975
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or for a fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
the Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc. , Cambridge, Massachusetts
02139, in fulfillment of Contract No.68-02-1377, Task 2. The contents of
this report are reproduced herein as received from the Walden Research
Division of Abcor, Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA -450/3-75-064
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents a summary of the air quality modeling analysis
for the selected power plants. Selected units within specific plants were
considered candidates for fuel conversion from oil- to coal-firing as a
result of the oil shortage and energy crisis of 1973-1974. A study was
conducted to evaluate the impact these candidate conversions would have
on ambient sulfur dioxide and particulate concentrations. The study is
intended to add to the overall analysis of the individual plants being
conducted by EPA, but not by itself to define precise problems associ-
ated with the conversion or to develop exact solutions.
In considering whether conversions would allow attainment of primary
standards, no allowance was made for contributions from sources other than
power plants. Furthermore, no consideration was given to the provisions
of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA, 1974),
which requires other limiting conditions (e.g., Primary Stand-
ard Conditions.) Thus, a more complete analysis in terms of ESECA require-
ments might significantly alter the total amount of coal which could be
substituted.
A brief synopsis of the background for this study is presented in the
introduction to this report. This is followed by a description of the ana-
lysis procedure and a presentation of the summary results.
Of the 63 power plants modeled for 1972 base case operations, S02
emissions from approximately 7 plants resulted in concentrations which
exceeded the primary 24-hour SOp standard at nominal load, exclusive of
other background source contributions. Similarly, concentrations from
approximately 10 plants were predicted to exceed the standard by them-
selves under maximum load operation. Fuel switch strategies under both
nominal and maximum load operations indicated that emissions from approxi-
mately 16 of the candidate plants for conversion would alone produce 24-
hour S02 concentrations which exceed the primary standard. It should be
noted that possible conversion combinations were examined at 43 of the 63
m
-------
power plants and that the additional 20 power plants were included for
possible significant interaction.
Emissions from none of the plants produced concentrations which alone
exceeded the primary 24-hour particulate standard for 1972 operations
under either nominal or maximum load. Under fuel switch alternatives for
both nominal and maximum load operation, 7 of the plants considered for
conversion exceeded the primary 24-hour particulate standard by them-
selves. No annual standards were exceeded by any of the 63 plants alone.
The study is intended only to add to the overall analysis of the
specific plants being conducted by EPA. Decisions on final evaluations
based on the material presented in the separate reports pertaining to
specific plants should consider the data, assumptions, and procedures
used in this analysis, as well as a variety of important factors not
considered in this study.
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The summary results presented in this report for a modeling analysis
of power plants for fuel conversion are based on studies performed by EPA
and Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc. An earlier analysis of 8
AQCRs was conducted by the Monitoring and Data Analysis Division of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Waste
Management. This was followed by a similar analysis of 43 AQCRs conducted
by Walden, sponsored jointly by MDAD and by Strategies and Air Standards
Division, OAQPS, OAWM [1]. These earlier studies were performed with a
projected low-sulfur coal deficit in mind and did not address the pros-
pect of fuel conversions.
The EPA project officer for this latest analysis was C.E. Mears, and
the Walden project manager was P. Morgenstern, assisted by Dr. L. Morgen-
stern. The project was aided by the cooperation and assistance provided
by D.H. Barrett and R.F. Lee of MDAD and by J.L. McGinnity of SASD. The
technical staff at Walden who contributed significantly to this project
are: F. Banta, R. Buerschaper, P. Cole, L. Fereshetian, S. Goward, P.
Horowitz, B. Kemerer, G. MacWilliam, E. Rich, J. Sacco, and R. Stockdale.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. METHOD OF ANALYSIS 3
A. SOURCE INPUT DATA 3
B. METEOROLOGICAL DATA 4
C. SITE DATA 5
D. DISPERSION MODELING 6
E. MAXIMUM LOAD VERSUS NOMINAL LOAD OPERATIONS.. 8
F. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION CONTOUR MAPS 9
III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 10
IV. CONCLUSIONS 12
APPENDIX A - DESCRIPTION OF THE SINGLE SOURCE AND
VALLEY MODELS A-l
APPENDIX B - EXAMPLE TABLES B-l
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Title Page
Fig. 1 POWER PLANT ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 13
Fig. 2. MODELING ANALYSIS OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR S02 14
CONCENTRATIONS (yg/m3) EXAMPLE MAP
Table Title Page
1. LISTING OF AQCRs ANALYZED BY WALDEN 15
2. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS 16
3. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 29
REFERENCES 30
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This summary report covers an air quality modeling analysis of a
number of power plants which were considered candidates for fuel con-
version from oil- to coal-firing as a result of the oil shortage and
energy crisis of 1973-1974. The purpose of the study was to evaluate
the impact on ambient sulfur dioxide and particulate concentrations if
selected units within specific plants were converted to coal. The
study was intended to add to the overall analysis of the given plants
being conducted by EPA, but not by itself to define precise problems
or to develop exact solutions.
This report summarizes the results obtained from an analysis of
63 power plants located in the 17 eastern Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCRs) listed in Table 1. The study results are presented by the Group
numbers shown in Table 1. It should be noted that not all power plants
in each AQCR were considered in this analysis. The 63 power plants con-
sidered are listed by AQCR in Tables 2a-e and include those 43 examined
for possible conversion and those 20 included for possible interaction.
A summary of the generating units which are candidates for conversion at
the plants is included in Tables 2a-e.
The procedure applied in the analysis examined two basic situations:
(1) 1972 operations and (2) with specified fuel substitutions for selected
units at certain plants. A single-source model was used to calculate both
annual and 24-hour SOo and particulate concentrations from each power
plant. Where interactions of concentration levels between adjacent power
plants are significant, supplementary modeling calculations were used to
account for the joint impact of two or more facilities. No contribution
of S02 or particulate was included for other types of sources in the area
of the power plants. These contributions could be very significant.
Any decisions based on the material presented in this report pertain-
ing to individual plants should fully consider the input data available
for the model, the assumptions on which the model is based, and the pro-
cedures followed in conducting the analysis. The final evaluation for a
1
-------
given plant should consider all relevant data on the plant and must recog-
nize the inherent limitations resulting from the data and procedures used
in this modeling effort. Other factors which should, if possible, be con-
sidered include contributions of other sources, projected growth for the
region, measured air quality data, known downwash or fumigation problems,
unique topographic features, nearby land use patterns and population dis-
tributions, more specific operational data for the plant, impact of units
new since 1972, meteorological studies specific for the area, and addi-
tional studies or findings by other investigators. Only a full considera-
tion of all these data will lead to a balanced and reasonable decision.
This study was performed prior to the enactment of the Energy Supply
and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). ESECA places a number
of environmental and other constraints on possible conversions. None of
these constraints was considered in this study. Definitive evaluations
required by ESECA could significantly alter the results obtained herein.
However, this study has served to demonstrate that selective conversions
to coal could be made, with appropriate environmental safeguards, and that
such conversions could have a significant impact on the oil shortage.
-------
II. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
An overview of the method of analysis is presented by the flow dia-
gram in Figure 1. This chart shows the relationship among three major
task elements and indicates further subtask components within each of
these.
A. SOURCE INPUT DATA
Source data required as input to the diffusion models include
SC>2 and particulate emission rate, stack height and diameter, stack gas exit
velocity, and stack gas temperature. Furthermore, the change in load de-
mand with time of year is also input to the models.
Annual reports to the Federal Power Commission on Steam-Electric
Plant Air and Water Control Data (FPC Form 67) provide the basic reference
for compilation of this source input data. Reports on operations for the
year 1972 were the most recent currently available, while complete design
information for individual boiler and stack units was reported in 1969, with
any modifications shown in subsequent reporting periods. A compilation of
the operations and design information was transcribed into computer format
for processing.
A number of plants analyzed currently utilize both oil and natural
gas as fuels. Modeling of these plants for 1972 operations under nominal
load was based on the reported annual consumption of these fuels. However,
analysis of maximum load operation was based on 100% utilization of fuel oil.
It should be emphasized that the modeling was based on only 1972
operations. The impact of any new units after 1972 was not included in this
analysis due to lack of sufficient data. Information on new units planned
through 1976 is included in the footnotes to Table 2a-e.
The modeling analysis for those plants with units considered
candidates for conversion to coal was based on switching both oil and
-------
natural gas consumption for those units. Wherever appropriate, collection
efficiencies from installed particulate collection equipment were applied
in calculating stack emissions.
Fuel quality parameters (percent sulfur and percent ash) for the
coal which the plant might be required to burn were estimated by EPA from
data on current and projected supplies. Walden estimated coal heat con-
tent based on an average of 12,500 BTU/pound. For existing pollution con-
trol devices within the plant, a control efficiency was provided by EPA
after considering design and test data, recent history of use, and estima-
tions from local agencies and the power companies. In so doing, it was
recognized that an electrostatic precipitator which has not been in use,
or which has been used in conjunction with an oil-fired boiler, will operate
at an efficiency significantly less than the design efficiency for an ex-
tended period of time.
The conversion of oil to coal annual fuel use was obtained either
by design or by BTU equivalent. If both the design firing rate for coal
and oil were available they were ratioed to the actual 1972 oil use. How-
ever, if the design firing rate of coal was not given, the fuel use was
converted on a BTU equivalent basis, with the assumed coal heating value
of 12,500 BTU/pound. Fuel conversion on a design basis was preferred be-:
cause the annual coal equivalent determined would not exceed that for which
the plant was designed, which it conceivably could if considered solely on
a BTU equivalent basis.
B. METEOROLOGICAL DATA
For an individual plant analysis, the meteorological data assembled
consist of (1) hourly surface weather observations in standard card image
format, and (2) twice daily mixing height tabulations. The year 1964 was
selected for the analysis because it is the only one which satisfies the
dual requirement of hourly surface data, and wind direction azimuth recorded
-------
to the nearest 10 degree sector.
The surface and upper air data are preprocessed by a computer pro-
gram. Among the different functions performed by this routine are:
• Screening of all data for completeness
• Determination of hourly stability classification
• Interpolation of twice daily mixing height data
to hourly values
The output of this preprocessing operation yields a set of meteorological data
for input to the modeling analysis.
C. SITE DATA
A principal site factor which can influence the impact on ground-level
concentrations from power plant operations is the topography of the surround-
ing terrain. Isolated elevated terrain features such as nearby hills or bluffs
can be severely impacted by plume transport along selected azimuth directions.
In other locations, the power plant may be located in a valley with elevated
terrain surrounding the plant site. Under certain conditions, lateral
plume dispersion may be restricted by the valley walls.
The location of the power plant relative to urban areas also can
influence the impact of plant operations on ambient concentration levels.
Consequently, specification of the urban/rural characterization of the plant
site location is an input parameter to the modeling analysis.
In order to assess both of these site factors, the plant location
was identified on appropriate scale topographic maps of the area. The UTM
coordinates of the plant location are used for this purpose. Significant
terrain features in the vicinity of this site were considered in the model-
ing analysis. For those plant sites where elevated terrain was present
in the vicinity, the modeling analysis considered this topographic
-------
factor by the application of a terrain adjustment procedure described in
Appendix A.
The topography at other plants also showed the surrounding ter-
rain at higher elevations than those of the plants. Moreover, the cal-
culated plume height from at least one stack at these plants was lower
than the surrounding terrain. The analysis considered this factor by the
application of a special model designed to evaluate ground-level concentra-
tions for the case of elevated receptor sites in valley locations (see
Appendix A). The scope of the analysis conducted with this model was
designed to determine representative maximum concentration levels. Be-
cause plume dispersion from power plants located in valley sites con-
stitutes a complex interaction of source factors, terrain factors, and
meteorological factors, a more exhaustive and detailed analysis of the
specific power plant sites is desirable prior to finalizing the evaluation
of these plants.
Because of extreme building heights in the Manhattan area, a
special building height adjustment was also used for some of the plants
in the New York City area. The effect of the skyscrapers considered
that the air intake ducts are located on every tenth floor. Based on
an average skyscraper height of 30 floors and ten feet per floor, the
special analysis was modeled with a 300-foot building height adjust-
ment.
The geographic proximity of several plant sites provided the
potential for significant interaction of ground-level concentrations to
occur. This factor was also considered during detailed analysis of
maximum concentration levels in the vicinity of these sites.
D. DISPERSION MODELING
The procedure for modeling analysis of power plant operations con-
sists of the application of a sequence of atmospheric diffusion models,
-------
as illustrated in Figure 1.
A single-source model was used to calculate both annual and 24-hour
maximum particulate and S02 concentrations from 48 power plants in this
study.
This model was developed recently by the Meteorology Laboratory
(NERC, RTP) of EPA. It employs a Gaussian plume formulation and Brigg's
plume rise equation and uses hourly observations of meteorological conditions.
A further description of the model is included in Appendix A. * As
applied herein, the model calculates estimated 24-hour average concentra-
tions at a preselected field of receptors for each day of the year.
The annual average concentration for each receptor is also calculated.
Where interactions between the power plants are significant, supplementary
calculations are made to account for this factor.
Some 35 of these 48 plants had surrounding terrain considered to have a
significant effect on predicted concentrations. A terrain model, described
in Appendix A, considered the difference between the plant elevation and
the elevation at each receptor for 31 plants in Groups I-IV. Plants treated
with this model in Groups I-IV only are designated by the letter "E" on
Tables 2a-d. The four plants in AQCR 42 which were treated with an average
terrain adjustment procedure are designated on Table 2e by the symbol"TA".
This average terrain adjustment procedure is also described in Appendix A.
Plants with no designation on this same table were treated with the flat
version of the single-source model.
The model used to estimate short-term concentrations for 15 plants
is one previously developed by EPA for application to sources located in
complex terrain. The general features of this model are also described
in Appendix A. Plants examined with this model are designated by the letter
"V" on Tables 2a-e.
*
A number of significant modifications were performed by Walden to in-
crease computation efficiency and application flexibility.
-------
Since only power plant operations were being modeled, it was not
possible to perform a detailed calibration of the model using measured
air quality data. The calculated values of concentration are considered
to be reasonable estimates of anticipated concentrations using best avail-
able modeling techniques and readily available data.
E. MAXIMUM LOAD VERSUS NOMINAL LOAD OPERATIONS
Emission data input to the single-source model is based on average
monthly operations for each month of the year. Of course, the level of
power plant operations varies from day to day; however, the FPC data are
only available on a monthly basis. A power plant could quite possibly
operate at near maximum rated capacity for 24 hours, especially in an in-
dustrialized region. Such operations would not be apparent from the month-
ly data. If these operations were coincident with the days of highest
predicted concentrations, the model's maximum predictions could be sig-;
nificantly low.
Therefore, the analysis investigated two situations, as follows:
Nominal Load Case - This presents maximum concentrations calculated
by the model based upon average monthly emission rates.
Maximum Load Case - This case was calculated assuming the plant to
be operating at 95% of rated capacity. Concentrations were predict-
ed for the 20 highest concentration days under nominal load. A 10%
safety factor was subsequently added to these predicted concentra-
tions because the maximum load case involves a greater plume rise,
and a somewhat higher concentration may therefore occur on a dif-
ferent day and at a different receptor.
Ground-level concentrations arising from nominal and maximum op-
erating loads can be expected to differ, due to the joint effect of changes
in emission rates, with corresponding changes in stack gas exit velocity
and temperature. The specific interaction of these factors can produce
higher concentrations under either nominal or maximum load conditions.
Modeling of both cases provides a reasonable estimate of the range of
8
-------
possible values and permits identification of the maximum concentration
case.
F. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION CONTOUR MAPS
The contour maps included in the four group reports [2] were pro-
duced with the SYMAP [3] line printer graphics program, which graphically
depicts spatially arranged quantitative information. An example contour
map which connects all points having the same numeric value is shown in
Figure 2. Isopleths are plotted by interpolation from the concentrations
at an average of seven receptors. Small digits appear at the receptor
locations and indicate the range of values at each receptor. The popula-
tion densities were calculated from the 1970 Census [4] and xeroxed onto
United Stated Geological Survey quadrangle maps which were microfilmed
and adjusted to proper scale.
It should be noted that all 24-hour values represent the worst day
for any particular receptor; the map does not represent any single day,
but rather is a composite of all worst days. Also, it should be noted
that these concentration contour maps were not available for the AQCR 42
study and will, therefore, not be found in that report.
-------
III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A summary of the 1972 power plant operations evaluated is presented
in Tables 2a-e. Conversions were examined for 14 power plants in
Group I; for 9 power plants in Group II; for 9 po./er plants in Group
III; for 7 power plants in Group IV; and for 4 power plants in AQCR 42,
as shown in Tables 2a-e.
It should be emphasized that these results include only considera-
tion of power plant emissions. A complete analysis would also have to
give consideration to other factors, which include contributions of other
sources, projected growth for the region, measured air quality data,
known downwash or fumigation problems, unique topographic features, near-
by land use patterns and population distributions, more specific opera-
tional data for the plant, impact of units new since 1972, meteorological
studies specific for the area, and additional studies or findings by
other investigators.
It was estimated that, for 1972 operations, the primary 24-hour S02
standard was exceeded under nominal load operation by 7 plants and under
maximum load operation by 10 plants. None of the plants exceeded the
24-hour particulate standard under 1972 operation. Of the 43 plants
analyzed for conversion, 16 were calculated to exceed the 24-hour S02
standard under both nominal and maximum load operations. Seven of the
43 plants were estimated to exceed the 24-hour particulate standard
under both nominal and maximum load operations. None of the plants
was calculated to exceed the annual standards under either 1972 fuel
use or fuel conversion strategies.
The total 1972 fuel use for the 63 plants examined is summarized
in Table 3. Also shown is the potential reduction in fuel oil and natural
gas annual consumption under fuel conversion options for the 26 plants
where rvo standards under any load case were exceeded. Projected annual
coal use at these plants would be about 19 million tons, while potential
oil savings would be about 3 billion gallons per year, and potential
natural gas savings about 5 billion cubic feet per year.
in
-------
The power plants analyzed by application of the complex terrain
model are reported only on the basis of predicted maximum 24-hour con-
centration. Short-period concentration levels are far more critical to
maintaining ambient air quality standards than long-term average con-
centration levels in these situations.
Information on plant fuel use and operating parameters was in-
cluded in the separate reports prepared during the study [2,5], along
with the estimates of individual plant impact on air quality and inter-
actions between plants. An outline of the tables included in these
separate reports is included here in Appendix B. The five individual
reports may be obtained from the Air Pollution Technical Information
Center (MD #18), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
11
-------
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of the impact of S02 and participate concentrations from
the 63 power plants in the 17 eastern AQCRs concerned indicated the follow-
ing broad conclusions:
• New coal use at the 26 (of 43) power plants considered for possible
conversion where no standards were exceeded is approximately 19
million tons.
• Potential annual fuel oil savings at these plants would be approx-
imately 3 billion gallons.
• Annual natural gas savings would be approximately 5 billion cubic
feet.
The analysis has indicated that the partial conversion of selected
east coast power plants would appear to offer a feasible alternative for
partially alleviating the oil shortage of the east coast area. Further
studies are required to determine appropriate environmental safeguards as
required by ESECA.
12
-------
Preparation of
Input Oats
| Source Data |
FPC'Fbrn 67 -SO? Emissions
1969-72 _part MMlmt
- Stack Height
- Stack Diameter
. Stack
Tecoerature
' Gas Exit Velo-
I city
|_ Variation
1 Far tnr«
I Meteorological Data |
Surface Station Data
Upper Air Station Data
Preprocessing - JNHPT
Site Data
Terrain Factors
Urban/Rural Factors
UTM Coordinates
01spers1o.i Modeling
|.oad
Kaxlmun Load
Flat Terrain
Model C551G
Terrain Adjust-
rient Hoijel
CRS2G
1
1,
1
I
1
1'
1
|
Flat Terrain
Model CRS1G
Terrain Adjust-
ment Model
CRS2G
Valley I'odel
i |
I"
Valley Model
Summary Reports 1 Basic DaM
AQCR Suirmary Reports
_p.ax1mjm 24-hr. Concentration!
"(Nominal S Maximum Loads)
-ttaxlmrai Annual Concentration
-Fuel (1972 Operations)
Type
Amount
Percent Sulfur
-Fuel (Coal Conversion)
Type
Ar»ount
Percent Sulfur
Percent Ash
Scrubber Efficiency.
—Concentration/Population Raps
Sumary Report
Basic Input/Output Data
:•
Figure
Power Plant Analysis Procedure
-------
Population per square mile
Receptor points
indicated by
small digits
•f
/
4,001 - 6,000
6,001 - 8,000
8,001 - 10,000
1 km.
Figure 2. Modeling Analysis of Maximum 24-hour S02 Concentrations (yg/m.)
For C ^Examp^^J, v Plant Under 1972 Operations - Nominal Load
14
-------
TABLE 1
LISTING OF AQCRs ANALYZED BY WALDEN*
AQCR Name
Number
Group Number
New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 43
New Jersey 150
Hudson Valley 161
Metropolitan Philadelphia
45
II
National Capital
West Central Florida
Eastern Shore
Southern Maryland
Southern Central Plaim
State Capital
Hampton Roads
47
52
114
116
170
225
223
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
New Hampshire-Maine
Metropolitan Boston
Metropolitan Providence
Merrimack Valley-Southern
New Hampshire
Eastern Connecticut
Hartford-New Hampshire-
Springfield
107
119
120
121
41
42
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
AQCR 42 report
* Not all power plants in each AQCR were analyzed. See Table 2 for those in-
cluded herein. Other plants are being examined in a subsequent modeling
effort by Wai den for EPA.
15
-------
TABLE 2 a
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP I
AQCR Company/Plant*
*
43 United Illuminating Company^
Bridgeport Harbor "E"
1972 Operations ..
Steel Point "E"
1972 Operations
Oranqe & Rocklapd Utilities, Inc.
^ ' Lovett "V"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 4,5
Bowline "V"
1972 Operations***
Long Island Lighting Company
Barrett
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 10
Far Rockaway
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 40
City/State
Bridgeport, Ct.
Bridgeport, Ct.
Tomkins Cove/NY
Haverstraw/NY
Island Park/NY
Far Rockaway/NY
Oil Use
Amount (**)Sulfur
(103bbl) (2)
6,603
1,556
3,363
524
2,012
3.399
1,728
929
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.5
Coal Use Control
Amount(**) Sulfur Ash Efficiency
(103 ton) (Z) (Z) ' (Z)
664 3.1 .15 90
350 2.5 15 80
209 3.0 15 80
"E" indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, 1f any) 1n those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
This does not Include consideration of a new 621 MW unit projected for 1974 and a new 600 MW unit projected for
-------
' TABLE 2 a
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP I
(continued)
AQCR Company/Plant* City/State
1
43 Long Island Lighting Company
Port Jefferson "E" Port Jefferson/NY
Oil Use
AinqunK**) Sulfur
(103 bbl) (X)
Coal Use
Amqunt(**) Sulfur
(103 ton) (%)
Control
Ash Efficiency
W ' W
1972 Operations
Switch Units 30,40
Public Service Electric & Gas Company
Bergen
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2
Jersey Central Pov>.er & Light
~Sayreville "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 7,8
Herner "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 4
Sayreville/NJ
Sayreville/NJ
South Amboy/NJ
Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.
RavenswoojTQueens/NY
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 30N, 30S
4,405 2.4
653
4,297 0.3
782
1,253
3.0
2.0
3,381
862
1,012
313
12,904
6,410
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
649
163
1,551
1.5
3.0
3.0
15
15
15
10
15
85
90
none
85
99
"E" indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned In 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat Input.
-------
TABLE 2a
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP I
(continued)
AQCR Company/Plant*
i?
43 Consolidated Edison of New York,
Astoria
City/State
Inc.
Queens/NY
1972 Operations***.
Switch Units 10,20,30,40,50
74th Street Manhattan/NY
1972 Operations
Waterside
1972 Operations
-• Arthur Kill
Manhattan/NY
Staten Island/NY
00 1972 Operations
Switch Unit 30
Connecticut Light & Power Company
Norwalk Harbor "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2
150 Atlantic City Electric Company
England
1972 Operations****
Switch Units 1,2
Missouri Ave.
1972 Operations
Norwalk/Ct.
Beesley Point/NJ
Atlantic C1ty/NJ
* "E" indicates terrain model; ''V" indicates valley model; no no
'** Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations Or fuel switch
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent
*** This does not include consideration of new 800 MM unit projecte
**** This does not include consideration of a new 160 MW unit projec
Oil
Amount (
(10J bbl
Use Coal Use
**£ulfur Ampunt(**) Sulfur
) (%) (103 ton) (Z)
8,997 0.4
2,177 2.5
_S82 0.3
2,494 0.5
6,197 0.4
3,190 0.4 710 3.0
3^073 0.8
717 2.5
2,835 0.8
661 2.8
147 0.6
tation Indicates flat model.
indicated. For plants with units designated
resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
heat input.
?d for 1974.
:ted for 1974.
Control
Ash Efficiency
(2) W
10 97
15 95
15 95
10 85
5.6 86
-------
TABLE 2 a
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP I
(continued)
AQCR Company/ PI ant*
#
Oil Use
City/State Amount (**)Sul fur
(103 bbl) (%)
Coal Use
Amqunt(**) Sulfur
(103 ton) (%)
Ash
(*)
Control
Efficiency
(*)
161 Niagara Mohawk Power Company
Albany "V"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2,3,4 .
Albany/ NY
4,197
2.4
1,036 3.0 15
30
V£>
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.
Danskammer "V" Roseton/NY
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2,3,4
5,169
1.5
1,236 3.0 15
90
"E" Indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
-------
TABLE 2 b
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP II
AQCR Company/Plant *
t
45 Delmarva Power & Light Company
Edge Moor "V"
1972 Operations***
Switch Units 1,2,3,4
Delaware City "E"
1972 Operations
Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
Burlington "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Stacks 5,6,7
ro Mercer "E"
u 1972 Operations
Atlantic City Electric Company
Deepwater
1972 Operations****
Switch Units 1,8
Philadelphia Electric Company
Barbadoes "E"
1972 Operations*****
Switch Units 31,41
Cromby "V"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2
Oil Use
City/ State
Edge Moor/Delaware
Delaware City/Delaware
Burlington/NJ
Trenton/NJ
Pennsgrove/NJ
Norristown/Penn
Cromby/Penn
Ahiountl ;
(103 bbl)
3,421
1,282
4,426
174
4,073
2,779
1,406
2
2,895
Sulfur
W
0.7
3.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
Coal
Amount(**)
(103 ton)
Use
Sulfur
(%)
766 2.5
355****** 6.8
1,085 210
936 1.4
420 3.0
389 2.5
363 2.5
1,047 2.3
Ash
(*)
12
0.3
15
11
15
10
9.1
10
Control
Efficiency
(2)
65,63,57,95
75,75,59
85,90
99
90,85
94
90
90
****
"E" indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
This does not include consideration of a new 378 MW unit projected for 1973. Includes 1,263 x 10° cu.ft. natural gas.
Includes 2,835 x 106 cu.ft. natural gas.
***** Includes 1,803 x 10 cu.ft. natural gas.
****** Petroleum coke.
-------
TABLE 2 b
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP II
(continued)
AQCR Company/Plant*
#
45 Philadelphia Electric Company
Chester "V"
1972 Operations****
Switch Units 18,20
Eddys tone "V"
1972 Operations***
Schuylkill "E"
1972 Operations
ro
-* Southwark "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 11,12,21,22
Delaware "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 71,81
Richmond "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 63,64
City/State
Chester/Penn
Eddystone/Penn
Philadelphia/Penn
Philadelphia/Penn
Philadelphia/Penn
Philadelphia/Penn
Oil Use
AniQunt(**) Sulfur
(103 bbl) ($)
1,311
56
4,257
4,678
. ^.
2,939
49
4,775
2,283
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Coal Use
Aniount(**) Sulfur
(103 ton) (2)
374 3.0
1,478 2.0
1,214 3.0
687 3.0
650 3.0
Control
Ash Efficiency
(«) (*)
10 80
8.4 98,99
10 40, 25, 35,45"
10 95
10 75
* "E" Indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
** Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
*** This does not include consideration of a new 400 MW unit projected for 1974 and another 400 MW unit projected for 1975.
**** Includes 794 x 106 cu.ft. natural gas.
-------
TABLE 2c
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP III
AQCR Company/ PI ant* City/State
t
47 Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Possum Point*** "E" Dumfries/Virginia
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1-4
225 Chesterfield "E" Chester/Virginia
1972 Operations
Switch Units 5,6
Switch Units 3,4,5,6
12th Street "E" Richmond/Virginia
1972 Operations
1 223 Yorktown "E" **** Yorktown/Virglnia
1972 Operations
Switch Stack 1
47 Potomac Electric Power Company
Potomac River "E" Alexandria/Virginia
1972 Operations
Buzzard Point "E" Washington/D.C.
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1-6
Oil Use
Aniqunt(**) Sulfur
(103 bbl) (%)
5,048 2.3
13,508 2.3
4,892 2.3
2,006 2.3
246 0.2
37 0.1
1,069 0.9
Coal
Amount(**)
(103 ton)
1,162
2,037
2,723
814
832
967
260
Use
Sulfur
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
0.9
3.0
Ash
13
15
15
6.1
15
9.3
15
Control
Efficiency
W
80
90
90
98,84
98,85
98,98,95,98,98
99
"E" indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
This does not include consideration of a new 845 MW unit projected for 1976.
Includes 523 x 106 cu.ft. natural gas.
-------
TABLE 2c
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POUER PLANT OPERATIONS
ro
co
GROUP III
(continued)
AQCR Company/Plant* City/State
t
47 Potomac Electric Power Company
Benning "V" Washington/D.C.
1972 Operations
Chalk Point*** "E" Aquasco/Maryland
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2
Dickerson "V" Dickerson/Maryland
1972 Operations****
116 Morgantown "E" Newburg/Maryland
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2
Delmarva Power & Light Company of Md.
114 Vienna Vienna/Maryland
1972 Operations
Switch Units 5,6,7
Carolina Power and Light Company
170 Sutton "E" ***** New Hanover/N.C.
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2,3
Oil Use Coal
Ai!!qunt(**)Sulfur Amount(**)
(103 bbl) (2) (103 ton)
3,556 0.9 176
1,297
1 ,297
1 ,290
7,636 1.9 614
2,441
1,591 0.2
1,006 0.2 111
3,458 2.1 172
971
Use
Sulfur
(*)
0.8
1.7
2.3
1.8
2.1
3.0
3.0
1.1
2.5
Ash
(*)
9.1
112.4
15
13
14.2
15
15
12.7
15
Control
Efficiency
(S)
0,93,93,96,
98.4,0,0
99.6,98.6
95
97.5
99,99.
90
0
80
80,98
* "E" indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
** Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
*** This does not include consideration of a new 630 MW unit projected for 1974.
**** This does not include consideration of a new 850 MW unit projected for 1974, and a new 850 MW unit projected for 1977.
***** Includes 1,199 x 10b cu.ft. natural gas.
-------
TABLE 2 c
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP III
(continued)
AQCR
Company/Plant*
City/State
Oil Use
Coal Use
Amount ("Sulfur
(103 bbl) (%)
Control
Amount(**) Sulfur A~sF Efficiency
(103 ton) (%) (%) (%)
52 Florida Power Company
Crystal River
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2
Citrus/Florida
7,900
2.3
2,072
4.0
11
0,90
ro
"E" indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
-------
ro
en
TABLE 2 d
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP IV
AQCR Company/Plant* City/State
i?
107 Central Maine Power Company
Mason "E" W1scasset/Ma1ne
1972 Operations
Switch Units 3,4
119 New England Power Company
Salem Harbor "E" Salem/Massachusetts
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1 ,2,3
120 Narragansett Electric Company
South Street "E" Providence/R. I.
1972 Operations
Switch Stack 12
New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co.
Cannon Street "E" New Bedford/Massachusetts
1972 Operations
Narragansett Electric Company
Manchester Street "E" Providence/R. I.
]972 Operations
New England Power Company
Brayton Point Station "E" Somerset/Massachusetts
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 3
Switch Unit 3
Switch Units 1,2,3
Oil
Use
Air,Qunt(*«; Sulfur
(103 bbl) (%)
1.763
819
7,987
4,694
1,351
293
954
1,108
10,890
5,093
5,093
2.1
2.1
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
Coal
Amount(**)
(103 ton)
202
757
260
1,431
1,431
2,688
Use
Sulfur Ash
(*) W
2.5 15
2.5 15
2.0 20
1.5 15
2.5 15
2.5 15
Control
Efficiency
80
95
90
98
98
98
"E" Indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with umts designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
-------
TABLE 2d
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
GROUP IV
(continued)
AQCR Company/Plant*
1' •
120 Montaup Electric Company
Somerset Station "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 7,8
121 Public Service Company of New
Hampshire
Schiller "E"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 4,5
ro
°* 41 Connecticut Light & Power Company
Montville "V"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2,5
Oil
City/State Amount (
(103 bbl
Somerset/Massachusetts
3,359
1,493
Portsmouth/N.H.
1,709
616
Uncasvi lie/Conn
4,548
2,964
Use
**)Sulfur
) (%)
0.7
0.7
1.9
1.9
0.9
0.9
Coal
Amqunt(**)
(103 ton)
463
283
380
Use
Sulfur
(X)
2.5
2.5
3.0
Control
Ash Efficiency
(%) ' (Z)
15 85
15 90
15 80
"E" indicates terrain model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
-------
PO
TABLE 2e
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
AQCR # 42
AQCR Company/ PI ant*
#
42 Hartford Electric Light Company
South Meadow "TA"
1972 Operations
Holyoke Water Power Company
Riverside "V"
1972 Operations
United Aluminating Company
Eng1ish"TA"
i 1972 Operations
City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Dept.
Holyoke "V"
1972 Operations
Connecticut Light & Power Company
Devon "TA"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 7,8
Hartford Electric & Light Company
Middletown "V"
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2
Holyoke Water Power Company
Mt. Tom "V"
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 1
City/State
Hartford/Conn
Holyoke/Massachusetts
New Haven/Conn
Holyoke/Massachusetts
Mil ford/Conn
Middletown/Conn
Holyoke/Massachusetts
Oil
Use
Amount^**) Sulfur
(103 bbl) (%)
1,934
347
1,456
381
4,252
2,637
4.159
2,229
1,481
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
Coal Use Control
Amount(**) Sulfur Ash Efficiency
(103 ton) (%) (%) (%)
500 2.5 15 90
469 2.5 15 • 90
365 2.5 15 85
"TA" indicates terrain adjustment model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
-------
TABLE 2e
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
AQCR # 42
(continued)
AQCR
Company/PI ant *
City/State
Oil Use
Coal Use
Amount
(103 bbl)
**)Sulfur
(*)
Aniqunt(**)
(103 ton)
Sulfur
W
Ash
Control
Efficiency
42 Western Mass. Electric Company
West Springfield "TA^
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1,2,3
Switch Unit 3
West Springfield/Mass
1,711
884
1.0
1.0
557
360
2.5
2.5
15
15
90
95
ro
oo
"TA" indicates terrain adjustment model; "V" indicates valley model; no notation indicates flat model.
Total plant fuel use for either 1972 operations or fuel switch indicated. For plants with units designated
as convertible, coal use includes any burned in 1972 plus that resulting from conversion of 1972 oil (and
natural gas, if any) in those units on the basis of equivalent heat input.
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1972 Power Plant Operations
No. of Plants Annual Amount Annual Amount Annual Amount
Analyzed Coal (103 tons) Fuel Oil Natural Gas
(1Q3 gals) (106 ft.3)
63 8,609 8,684 14,694
Potential Reduction
Under
Potential Number
Plants Converted
43
in Fuel Oil and Natural Gas
Fuel Conversion Options
Plants Not
Exceeding SOo
Standards
27
Consumption
Plants Not
Exceeding
Particulate
Standards
36*
New Coal Use Where No
Standards Are Exceeded**
(103 tons)
19,095
Potential
Annual Oil
Sayings
(106 gals)
3,191
Potential
Natural Gas
Savings
(106 ft. 3)
5,351
* Includes 26 of the 27 plants which do not exceed the S02 standard
** This occurs for 26 of the convertible power plants
29
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance
Extensions in 51 Air Quality Control Regions," Walden Research (Con-
tract 68-02-0049), December 17, 1973, EPA Report Number EPA-450/3-
75-060; available from National Technical Information Services, 5285
Port Royal Street, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
2. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Fuel Conversion," Group I,
APTIC #75448; Group II, APTIC #75449; Group III, APTIC #75450; Group
IV, APTIC #75451; Walden Research, revised April 1975; available from
National Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
3. Originally developed at the Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphics,
SYMAP is best documented in the SYMAP User's Reference Manual, Report
No. 71-1, Department of Architecture, University of Illinois at Chicago
Circle, Chicago, Illinois.
4. Characteristics of the Population, Volume I, Part A, Section 1,
Table 31, "Land Area and Population of Places of 2,500 or More for
the United States and Puerto Rico."
5. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Fuel Conversion: Hartford-
New Haven-Springfield AQCR #42," June 11, 1974, APTIC #75452.
6. Steam Factors, 1972 Edition, National Coal Association, Washington, D.C.
7. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Second Edition, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, PHS Pub. No. AP-42,
April 1973.
8. Turner, D.B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, PHS Pub. No. 992-AP-25,
Revised 1970.
9. Briggs, G.A., Plume Rise, U.S. AEC Critical Review Series TID-25075,
National Technical Information Services, Springfield, Virginia, 1969.
10. Briggs, G.A., "Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observations," Pro-
ceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress, edited by
H.M. Englund and W.T. Berry, Academic Press, New York, 1971, pp. 1029-1032.
11. Briggs, G.A., "Discussion on Chimney Plumes in Neutral and Stable Sur-
roundings," Atmospheric Environment, 6^, July 1972, pp. 507=510.
30
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS
DESCRIPTION OF THE SINGLE SOURCE MODEL (CRS MOD)
The model used to estimate ambient concentrations for 48 of the plants,
is one developed by the Meteorology Laboratory, EPA. This model is designed
to estimate concentrations due to sources at a single location for averaging
times of 1 hour, 24-hours, and 1 year, with emphasis on the 24-hour value.
This model is a Gaussian plume model using diffusion coefficients based
on Turner (1970).* Concentrations are estimated for each hour of the year,
based on the wind direction (in increments of 10 degrees), wind speed, mix-
ing height, and Pasquill stability class. For the 1- and 24-hour values,
it is assumed that the pollutant does not "decay" significantly between the
source and the receptors because of the short travel time involved. Also,
decay depends on a number of meteorological variables and might well be in-
significant when the meteorological conditions occur which lead to highest
S02 concentration.
Meteorological data for 1964 were used. The reasons for this choice are:
(1) data from earlier years did not have sufficient resolution in the wind
direction; and (2) data from subsequent years are readily available on magne-
tic tape only for every third hour.
Mixing height data were obtained from the twice-a-day upper air ob-
servations made at the most representative upper air station. Hourly mixing
heights were estimated by the model using an objective interpolation scheme.
Turner, D.B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," U.S. Dept
of H.E.W., PHS Publication No. 999-AP-25 (Rev. 1970).
A-l
-------
The meteorological data selected as representative for the power
plants in these regions were shown as in the table below:
Plant Name Surface Wind and Mixing Height Data
Stability Data
Example Plant A Bridgeport JFK Airport
Example Plant B JFK Airport JFK Airport
To simulate the effect of elevated terrain in the vicinity of four
plant sites in AQCR 42, a ground-plane displacement procedure was used in
the modeling analysis. This procedure consists of adjusting (decreasing)
the effective height of the plant stacks by an amount equal to the dif-
ference in elevation between the plant site and the average surrounding
terrain. This "reduced" stack height is input to the diffusion model
described above.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SINGLE SOURCE TERRAIN ADJUSTMENT MODEL.,(CRS TER)
To simulate the effect of elevated terrain in the vicinity of 31 of
these 48 plants with terrain judged to have significant effect, the model-
ing analysis used a terrain adjustment procedure which considered the dif-
ference between the plant elevation and the elevation at each receptor.
Ground elevations on 30° radials as well as points of maximum elevation
were determined from U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. The diffusion model then
used the difference between the plant elevation and the receptor elevation
to modify the effective stack height and thereby adjust the predicted con-
centrations.
DESCRIPTION OF THE VALLEY MODEL
The model used to estimate short-term concentrations for 15 additional
plants in severe terrain is one developed previously by EPA for application
to sources located in complex terrain (valley model). Elevations of the
A-2
-------
receptor sites are derived from contours on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle
maps of the area. The model calculates a daily average concentration
at these receptor locations based on a 10 meter nearest-approach point
of the plume and an assumed persistence of meteorological conditions
for 6 hours out of the 24 hours. During this period, the wind direction
azimuth is considered to be confined to a 22.5 degree sector. This
model assumes a stability class "E" (stable) condition and a wind speed
of 2.5 m/sec.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE TABLES
The following tables are illustrative of
the manner in which data are reported in
the individual reports.
-------
TABLE 1
LISTING OF POWER PLANTS EVALUATED
AQCR Plant City/State
B-l
-------
TABLE 2
POWER PLANT CONVERTIBLE UNITS ANALYZED
Estimated
Unit % Sulfur % Ash Particulate Control Annual Coal Use*
Plant . No. Coal Coal Efficiency 103 Tons
Additional coal use, over and above any 1972 usage, in designated units,
assuming conversion of 1972 oil (and natural gas, if any) in those units
on the basis of equivalent heat input.
B-2
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
011 Use Coal Use Control
AmountSulfur Amount(a)SulfurAsh Efficiency
Plant/Conversion (103 bbl) (%) (103 ton) (%) (35) (%)
CD
I
co
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) Maximum Annual
S02 Partial fates Concentrations (yg/m3)
NominalMaximum NominalMaximum SOlParticipates
Plant/Conversion Load Load Load Load
DO
I
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT INTERACTION CONTRIBUTIONS
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (yg/m3) Maximum Annual
$02 Particulates Concentration (yg/m3)
Nominal Maximum Nominal Maximum
Plant/Conversion Load Load Load Load S02 Particulates
CO
en
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF MODELING INPUT DATA
Fuel Use Per year*5 Emission Rates9 (Tons/Day) '
Rated Stack (Coal « 103 tons S02 Particulates
Plant Stack Capacity Height Res. 011 • 103 gal. Percent MaximumNominal Maximum Nominal
(Company) Number (106 Btu/hr.) (m) Nat. Gas «= 106 ft.3) Sulfur Load Load Load Load
oo
i
a. For the day for which calculated air quality 1s shown 1n Table 4.
b. Based on 1972 operations.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
fefi?-PW§-75-064
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for
Fuel Conversion
5. REPORT DATE
Mav 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Dr. L. Morgenstern
504
9. PERFORMING ORG \NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc.
201 Vassar Street
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2AC129/2AH136
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1377 Task 2
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Dffice 9f Air Quality Planning and Standards
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
I, M f
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
m ant
Park.,
15. SUPPLEMENTARY-NOTES
no
•
This report summarizes an air quality modeling analysis of a number of
selected power plants. Selected units within specific plants were considered
candidates for fuel conversion from oil to coal firing as a result of the oil shortage
and energy crisis of 1973-1974. Tne purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact
these candidate conversions would have on ambient sulfur dioxide and particulate
concentrations.
In considering whether conversions would allow attainment of primary standards,
allowance was made for contributions from sources other than power plants. Further-
more, no consideration was given to the provisions of the Energy Supply and Environ-
mental Coordination Act (ESECA, 1974), which requires other limiting conditions (e.g
rimary Standard Conditions). Thus, a more complete analysis in terms of ESECA
requirements might significantly alter the total amount of coal which could be
substituted.
The study is intended to add to the overall analysis of the individual plants
being conducted by EPA, but not by itself to define precise problems or to develop
exact solutions. Decisions on final evaluations based on the material presented in
five separate reports pertaining to specific plants should consider the data,
assumptions, and procedures used in this analysis, as well as a variety of important
factors not considered in this study.
the
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
power plant modeling
power plant variances
03 impact of power plants
)articulate impact of power plants
coal-conversion of power plants
dispersion modeling
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
under POP
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approvcl, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price. /
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
------- |