Estimates of Sulfur Oxide Emissions from the
Electric Utility Industry. Volume I
Summary and Analysis
Illinois Univ., Urbana-Champaign
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Nov 82
PE83-130229
. c THUS
-------
PB83-13C229
EPA-600/7-82-061a
November 1982
ESTIMATES OF SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM
THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY
VOLUME I - SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
by
E.H. Pechan £. Associates, Inc.
Springfield, VA 22151
Subcontract Under
University of Illinois Prime Contract
CR809461-01
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the rcreru before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-82-061a
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ESTIMATES OF SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM THE ELECTRIC
UTILITY INDUSTRY: Volume I. Summary and Analysis
7. AUTHOBIS)
3. F
PB83
5. REPORT DATE -
November 1982
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.,
Springfield, VA 22151
for
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NC.
CR809461-01
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/00
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report was prepared as part of the Electric Utility Analysis Project, a research
project supported by the Environmental Protection Agency. The objective of the
report ic to provide detailed information on emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx) in the
atmosphere from electric generating plants over the period, 1976-iyoO. Annual
emissions estimates for all generating plants were calculated using fuel use, fuel
quality and plant configuration data from several sources. The analysis of yearly
emissions from 1976-1980 show a gradual reduction in emissions from the utility
industry of about 7.7 percent. The reductions are attributed to use of cleaner
coals and increased use of S02 scrubbers. Analysis also shows that a subset of
plants with high emissions account for a substantial share of industry capacity
and coal use. Approximately 10% of the plants produced roughly 85% of the SOX
emissions and account for 50% of total capacity.
Volume I presents a summary of fuel use and emissions information as we!3 as results
of analyses of the data. Volume II presents selected statistics for the 237 plants
which were the largest emitters of SOX during the 1976-1980 period.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI 1 lOld/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
133
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispagel
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Re». 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance
agreement number CR 809461-01 to the University of Illinois, it has been
subject to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been
approved for publication. The contents reflect the view and policies
of the Agency.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report was prepared as part of the Electric Utility Analysis
Project, a research project supported by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The objective of the report is to provide detailed information on emissions
of sulfur oxides (SOX) in the atmosphere from electric generation plants
over the period, 1976-1980. Annual emissions estimates for all generating
plants were calculated using fuel use, fuel quality and plant configuration
data from several sources.
The analysis of yearly emissions from 1976-1980 show a gradual reduction
in emissions from the utility industry of about 7.7 percent. The reductions
are attributed to use of cleaner coals and increased use of S02 scrubbers.
Analysis also shows that a subset of plants with high emissions account for
a substantial share of industry capacity and coal use. Approximately 10% of
the plants produced roughly 85% of the SO emissions and account for 50% of
total capacity.
Volume I presents a summary of fuel use and emissions information as
well as results of analyses of the data. Volume II presents selected statis-
tics for the 237 plants which were the largest emitters of SOX during the
1976-1980 period.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Tables iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. PURPOSE 1
B. BWJKGROUND 2
C. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 3
D. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 4
II. HUSSION ESTIMATION AND COMPARISON METHODOLOGY 15
A. DATA SOURCES 15
B. FACTORS INFLUENCING HUSSIONS 23
III. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS 25
A. STATE AND NATIONAL TRENDS 25
B. PLANT TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 28
C. COMPARISON V7ITH OTHER RESULTS 38
D. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 51
IV. DISTRIBUTION OF FUEL USE, GENERATION, AND EMISSIONS
IN 1980 65
APPENDICES
A. THE UTILITY FUEL QUALITY AND USE DATABASE A-l
B. AN EXAMPLE OF INFOFfIATION REPORTED IN THE DATABOOK A-9
C. SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM THE HIGHEST
EMITTING PLANTS A-13
D. DEFAULT FUEL SULFUR VALUES A-21
E. SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS OF ALL PLAOTS
EMITTIN3 OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR A-29
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Preceding page blank
-------
TABLES
limber.
I-l Summary of Changes in Utility 302 Emissions
from 1976 to 1980 ............................................ 4
1-2 National Utility 302 Emissions and Heat Value
of Fuels Used ................................................ 6
1-3 National Average Sulfur Content of Fuels Used
by the Utility Industry ......................... . ............ 7
1-4 Trends in Utility 302 Emissions 1976-1980 for the
15 Highest Emitting States (1980) and the Nation ............. 8
1-5 Shares of 1980 Emissions and Other Variables Attributed
to Large Plants .............................................. 9
1-6 Shares of 1980 Emissions and Other Variables Attributed
to Coal Plants ................................ - .............. 11
1-7 Summary Comparison of Utility 302 Emissions
from This Report v;ith Other Estimates ........................ 12
1-8 Summary of Sensitivity Analyses Related to Coal Sulfur
Ash Retention and Changes in Capacity Factors ........... ..... 13
1-9 Emissions from the 200 Highest 302 Emitting Plants
Under 1980 Conditions and If Capacity Utilization
Were Changed ................................................. 14
II-l Overview of Estimates and Sources Used ......................... 16
II-2 Number of Plants for Each Data File ............................ 17
II-3 Fuel Quantities for Which Required Form 423
Fuel Quality Data Were Unavailable. .... ...................... 19
II-4 Default Values Used in the Analysis ............................ 22
III-l Summary: National Trends ...................................... 26
III-2 Average Quality of Fuels Delivered
to Electric Utilities .......... . ............................. 27
vi
-------
III-3 Changes in State SC>2 Emissions from 1976 to 1980 29
III-4 State 902 Emission Trends from 1976-1980 31
III-5 1980 Summary Statistics for the 200 Highest
S02 Emitting Utility Plants 33
III-6 The 25 Highest S02 Emitting Plants in 1980
and Their 1976 Emission Rank 39
III-7 Reported Year of Record for HEDS Electric Utility
S02 Estimates 40
III-8 Summary Comparison of 1978 Utility Emissions Estimates
with NEDS Results 41
III-9 Comparison of Emissions for 1978 with NEDS
for the 25 Highest Emitters from HEDS 45
111-10 Summary Comparison of 1980 Utility Emissions Estimates
with AIRTEST Results 46
III-ll Comparison of Emissions from 1980 and AIRTEST
for the 25 Highest Emitters from AIRTEST 49
111-12 Comparison of Emissions from 1979 and 1979 Form 67
for the 25 Highest 302 Enutters Based on Form 67 50
111-13 Effects of Different Coal Sulfur Retention Assumptions
on 1980 SO2 Emissions 53
111-14 Shares of 1980 S02 Emissions from
the 200 Highest SO2 Emitting Plants by State 55
II1-15 Implications of a Range of Capacity Utilization
on S02 Emissions by State for the 200 Highest Emitters 58
111-16 Implications of Changes in Capacity Utilization
on S02 Emissions of Large SO2 Emitting Plants 60
111-17 Implications for State Coa] Use from a Range of Capacity
Utilization for the 200 Highest SC>2 Emitting Plants 61
IV-1 1980 SO2 Emission Rates by State for Various Fuels 66
IV-2 1980 Total Fossil Fuel Use by State for Electric Utilities 68
ry-3 1980 Generation Statistics by State 71
IV-4 Total Emissions from Plants Above a Specified
Pounds of S02 per 106 Btu Limit 73
vii
-------
IV-5 Percent of Total State Emissions Based on
the Total Emissions from Plants Above a Specified
Pounds of 902 Per 106 Btu Limit 75
IV-6 Incremental Emissions from Plants Above a Specified
Pounds of S02 per 1C6 Btu Limit 77
IV-7 Percent of Tctal State Emissions Based on the Incremental
Emissions from Plants Above a Specified
Pounds of SC>2 per 106 Btu Limit 79
A-l Infoimc.tion Included in the Database A-3
A-2 Data Elements Extracted from FPC Form 423 A-4
A-3 Data Elements Extracted from MRTEST A-5
A-4 Data Elements Extracted from Form 4 A-6
A-5 Data Elements Concerning S02 .Scrubbers A-6
A-6 Data Elements Extracted from Form 67 A-7
D-l Default Oil Sulfur Values Used in the Analysis A-23
D-2 Default Coal Sulfur Values Used in the Analysis (percent) A-25
D-3 Default Coal Sulfur Values Used in the Analysis
(Pounds of SO2 per 106 Btu) , A-27
viii
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide detailed and definitive informa-
tion on missions of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere from generating plants
operated by the electric utility industry over the period from 1976 through
1980. To provide the needed information, a detailed database at the indivi-
dual plant level of detail was used. Analyses based on this database are
presented here at the plant level. These analyses also are aggregated to
state or national totals.
The major products of this study are the database developed i:or this
report and the analyses pr >vided and presented here. In addition to sulfur
v
oxide emissions, the database contains power generation statistics and infor-
mation on quantity and quality of fuels used. Appendix A describes the con-
tents of this database.
This is Volume I of a two-volume report. In this volume, summary infor-
mation and analytical results are presented. The companion volume, Volume II,
is a data report that contains selected statistics for the 237 plants that
emitted the most sulfur oxides over the period 1976 through 1980. An example
of the information contained in Volume II is presented in Appendix B.
-------
B. BACKGROUND
Sulfur dioxide (S02) is one of the seven pollutants for which national
ambient air quality standards have been promulgated. These standards are
designed to limit ground level concentrations of 302- More recently, a number
of studies have linked emissions of sulfur oxides to elevated levels of acid
deposition, thus increasing the interest in understanding emission quantities
and distribution patterns of sulfur oxides. In the United States, the elec-
tric utility industry is responsible for approximately two-thirds of sulfur
oxide emissions.^
Two research needs have been identified in this connection. The first
concerns emissions from the electric utility industry of SC>2 and other possi-
ble precursors of acidic deposition. The second research need is to quantify
the effects on the industry of possible actions to alter emission quantities
and/or patterns. Thus, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
initiated the Electric Utility Analysis Project (EUAP). The EUA? is a
cooperative agreement between EPA and the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, with E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. (EHPA) as the principal sub-
contractor .
This is the first of a series of reports to be produced as part of the
EUAP. One major project activity is the development of a comprehensive Elec-
tric Utility Analysis Database. The information presented here is derived
Throughout this report, what we refer to as sulfur dioxide or SC>2 emissions
are actually total sulfur emissions expressed as 302- While the vast major-
ity of sulfur emitted to the atmosphere from utility plants is emitted as
S02f small amounts are emitted as sulfate (504) or other sulfur compounds.
The relative share of sulfur emitted as sulfate differs by source. Addi-
tional research is under way to better characterize these emissions.
-------
from the Utility Fuel Quality and Use Database, a major component of this data
system.
C. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The scope of our analysis essentially involved the performance of three
interrelated tasks, all directed tcv/ard the overall objective of providing
analyses with the most accurate inventory available of sulfur oxide emissions
from the electric utility industry in the United States.
The three tasks were:
1. Develop as accurate an estimate as possible of emissions from the
electric utility industry for the base year of .1980.
2. Conduct analyses of the emission estimates for the years 1976 through
1979 to permit further comparison with the 1980 data.
3. Compare the results from task 1 with other available estimates.
Included among these other estimates are (1) the "AIRTEST 80" esti-
mate developed by Teknekron Research, Inc., and modified by EHPA, (2)
estimates reported by the utilities themselves to the Department of
Energy, and (3) estimates maintained as part of the National Emis-
sions Data System (NEDS) by the Environmental Protection Agency. The
AIRTEST estimate generally has been considered to be the best avail-
able base case utility emissions estimate. It has been used as part
of the "unified inventory" developed by the U.S. and Canadian working
groups that, since August 1980, have been examining transboundary air
-------
pollution issues, including acid rain, under a Memorandum of Intent
between the two governments.
D. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In this section, a brief overview of the major results of our analysis is
presented. Section III contains a more detailed discussion.
1. The analyses of yearly S02 emissions from 1976 to 1980 show a gr&dual
reduction in emissions from the utility industry of about 7.7 percent
over the full period. As shown in Table 1-1, this reduction was due
both to reductions in the sulfur content of coals used by the indus-
try and to the increased use of flue gas desulfurization ("scrubber")
systems. These reductions amounted to 1.1 million tons from the
Table 1-1
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN UTILITY S02 EMISSIONS FROM 1976 TO 1980
(1000 tons)
1976 Emissions
Difference Due to Change in
Quantity of Fuel Used
Difference Due to Change in
Fuel Sulfur Content
Difference Due to
Increased S02 Scrubbing
1980 Emissions
Coal-Related
Emiss ions
17,065
Oil-Related
Emissions
1,755
929
-1,113
-1,013
15,868
-430
185
0
1,510
-------
levels that would have occurred had coal sulfur contents not changed
from 19~i6, and 1.0 million tons due to operation of more S02 scrubber
systems. Growth in quantities of coal use accounted for an increase
of 0.9 million tons, almost as much as either of the two decreasing
factors. Oil-related emissions showed a net decrease due to a signi-
ficant decline in oil use. The decline (430,000 tons) overshadowed
the increase (185,000 tons.) that occurred due to the use, on the
average, of higher sulfur oils. The increase in natural gas use by
the industry had no noticeable effect on S02 emissions, since natural
gas combustion produces almost no S02.
Another illustration of these trends is presented in Table 1-2, which
compares total utility fossil fuel use by fuel type and S02 emissions
from these fuels by totals and per million Btu heat input. Again,
the dominance of coal as a source of utility 902 emissions is
apparent. Average sulfur content of coal and oil used oy the indus-
try is presented in Table 1-3.
Almost all of the reductions indicated in Table 1-1 occurred in the
states with the highest S02 emissions. As Table 1-4 indicates,
essentially all of the net reduction for the nation occurred in the
15 states with the highest utility emissions in 1980. The set of
major 902 emitting states, however, remained fairly constant between
1976 and 1980. For example, 8 of the 10 highest emitting states in
1980 were also among the highest emitting states in 1976. Michigan
and Alabana, ranked ninth and tenth in 1976, were replaced by Georgia
and Florida in 1980. The set of states comprising the 15 highest
-------
Table 1-2
NATIONAL UTILITY SC>2 EMISSIONS AND HEAT VALUE OF FUELS USED
% Change
1976 198Q 1976-1980
Total 302 Emissions
(million tons) 18.8 17.4 -7.7
Total Heat Value Used
(quads) 16.3 18.8 15
Coal 9.7 12.2 26
Oil 3.4 2.6 -24
Gas 3.1 4.0 29
Net S02 Emissions As
Pounds/Million Btu
All Fuels 2.3 1.9 -17
Coal 3.5 2.6 -26
Oil 1.0 1.2 20
Gas <-01 <.01 0
-------
Table 1-3
NATIONAL AVERAGE SUIJETJR CONTENT OF FUELS USED
BY THE UTILITY INDUSTRY
Y£at
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Coal
Sulfur
(%)
2.12
2.01
1.86
1.80
1.68
Coal
S02 Content
(Ibs/MHBtu)
3.91
3.74
3.50
3.36
3.15
on
Sulfur
(%)
.96
.91
.96
1.02
1.04
emitting states did not change from 1976 to 1980. The share of total
emissions contributed by the 15 highest states declined slightly over
the period, falling from 86 percent in 1976 to 83 percent in 1980.
Table 1-4 also snows utility emissions for a 31-state eastern U.S.
region which includes all of the states east of the Mississippi River
plus the first tier of states west of the Mississippi (Minnesota,
Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana). This region, which has
been used in a variety of acid rain-related studies, accounted for 95
percent of national utility S02 emissions in 1976 and 92 percent in
1980.
2. A subset of plants with high emissions accounts for a substantial
share of industry capacity and coal use. To illustrate this, a sub-
set of plants was developed consisting of thn 200 highest S02 emit-
-------
Table 1-4
TRENDS IN UTILI1Y SO- EMISSIONS 197C-1980 FOR
THE 15 HIQ1EST EMITTING ^STATES (1980) AND THE NATION
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
1980
Ranfr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TOTAL
State.
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Missouri
Illinois
Kentucky
West Virginia
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida
Michigan
Alabama
Wisconsin
New York
North Carolina
OF 15 HIGHEST
1976
Rank
1
3
4
7
5
2
8
6
13
11
9
10
14
12
15
EASTERN U.S. TOTAL
NATIONAL TOTAL
1976
2,750
1,443
1,432
1,179
1,429
1,512
1,010
1,228
499
673
888
705
470
513
410
16,141
17,853
18,821
1977
2,686
1,458
1,381
1,202
1,367
1,357
1,001
1,258
581
658
905
735
515
549
427
16,080
17,945
19,071
Emissions
1978
2,463
1,351
1,323
1,014
1,293
1,210
896
1,033
616
595
807
531
472
520
396
14,520
16,472
17,593
1979
2,515
1,537
1,415
1,076
1,168
1,130
956
893
666
659
741
521
496
508
380
14,661
16,459
17,685
laaa
2,172
1,54C
1,466
1,141
1,126
1,008
944
934
737
726
565
543
486
480
435
14,303
16,068
17,379
-------
ting plants during 1980. As Table 1-5 shows, these plants, about 10
percent of plants included in the study,2 accounted for slightly less
than 50 percent of all generating capacity, cvf : 75 percent of all
coal used, and over 85 percent of all SC>2 emissions. The coal plants
constructed in the last three decades are generally more economically
efficient because of their larger size. These plants are used to
Table 1-5
SHARES OF 1980 EMISSIONS AND OTHER VARIABLES
ATTRIBUTED TO LARGE PLANTS
All 200 Highest
Plants S02 Emit-ting Plants
(N=1.878) (N=200)
Total SO2 Emissions
(thousand tons)
Total Generating
Capacity
(gigawatts)
Total Generation
(terawatt-hours)
Average Capacity Factor
Total Coal Used
(million tons)
Total Oil Used
(million barrels)
Total Gas Used
(billion cubic feet)
17,379
477
1,754
14,984
227
1,027
.42
569
420
3,682
U52
438
162
1,282
% of
Total in
200 Highest
86
48
59
77
39
35
All utility generating plants burning at least some coal, oil, or natural
gas during the 1976 to 1980 time frame.
-------
generate power a larger fraction of the time, and, without sulfur
emission controls, emit a relatively larger amount of 302 than com-
parable oil- and gas-fired plants.
Appendix C contains summary 902 estimates for the 200 higl2 emitting plants. The 24 per-
cent of plants burning at least some coal account for over half of
all generating capacity and over two-thirds of actual generation. Of
the 200 highest emitters, 183 use at least some coal.
4. In developing the information presented here, we conducted extensive
comparisons with other recent estimates of S02 emissions. Extensive
comparisons were made with EPA13 National Emissions Data System as
well as with the AIRTEST system recently used in the EPA-DOE Acid
Rain Mitigation Study. In addition, selected comparisons were made
with utility-reported data contained in the Department of Energy's
Form 67. Finally, we subjected our draft results to detailed review
by the utilities which own the major SO2 emitting plants. We com-
pared NEDS data with our 1978 estimates because the weighted average
year of record on the NEDS data type was closest to 1978. The
national differences are relatively small, but the state differences
are much larger. This may be due at least in part to different years
of record for IEDS data by state since the NEDS system is dependent
10
-------
Table 1-6
SHARES OF 1980 EMISSIONS AND OTHER VARIABLES
ATTRIBUTED TO COAL PLANTS
All Plants
(N=l,878)
17,379
477
1,754
.42
569
420
3,682
All Coal Plants
(N=457)
16,153
278
1,223
.50
569
70
239
Coal Plants
Among
200 Highest
Emitters
(1*=183)
14,355
209
959
.52
438
57
101
Percent of
200 Highest
Emitters
89
75
78
77
81
42
Total S02 Emissions
(thousand tons)
Total Generating Capacity
(gigawatts)
Total Generation
(terawatt hourt1)
Average Capacity Factor
Total Coal Used
(million tons)
Total Oil Used
(million barrels)
Total Gas Used
(billion cubic feet)
upon state data. AIRTEST data were compared with our 1980 figures.
Again, the relatively small national differences mask somewhat larger
state differences. A summary of the comparison of our estimates with
NEDS and AIRTEST is presented in Table 1-7. State- and plant-level
comparisons are presented later in this report.
5. We conducted sensitivity analyses on t^o key elements of our ana-
lyses, coal sulfur ash retention and capacity utilization of large
plants (see Table 1-8). These sensitivity analyses, intended to be
illustrative rather than comprehensive, show that operating practice
11
-------
Table I--7
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF UTILITY S02 EMISSIONS
FROM THIS REPOKT WITH OTHER ESTIMATES
1973
12S9- ME2SSE
National Emissions
(thousand tons)
Difference
(thousand tons)
Percent Difference
Maximum State Difference
(thousand tons)
Average Absolute
State Difference
(thousand tons)
Average Absolute Difference
(percent)
17,593 18,255 17,379 17,465
662
4
251.2
47.8
29.1
86
0.5
266.3
35.0
24.2
12
-------
Table 1-8
SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES RELATED TO
COAL SULFUR ASH RETENTION AND CHAICES IN CAPACITY FACTORS
Base Case
AP-42 Sulfur Retention
Low Capacity Utilization
of 200 Highest
Emitting Plants
(.40 maximum)
High Capacity Utilization
of 200 Highest
Emitting Plants
(.70 minimum)
1980 S02
Er.iissions
(1000 tens)
17,379
17,583
13,761
23,128
% of Base 1980
SOo Emissions
100
101
79
133
has a irajcr effect on anissions, while the range of conventional
assumptions concern Ing how much sulfur is retained in ash rather than
emitted up tho stac'c is relatively unimportant to overall emissions
estimates. The significance of capacity utilization of large plants
is further illustrated in Table 1-9. An increase in minimum capacity
utilization of the 200 highest emitting plants in 1980 from the
current average of .53 to a minimum of .70 could increase SO2 emis-
sions by approximately 5.7 million tons. On the other hand, a
decrease in capacity utilization (to a maximum of .40) in the same
plants could reduce SO2 emissions by about 3.6 million tons. Of
course, such changes would also affect quantities of fuels used (as
discussed later) as well as other aspects of utility operations.
13
-------
Table 1-9
EMISSIONS FRCM IKE 200 HIGHEST S02 EMITTING PLANTS UNDER 1980 CONDITIONS
AND IF CAPACITY UTILIZATION WERE CHAICED
(Emissions in 1000 tons)
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Missouri
Illinois
Kentucky
West Virginia
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida
TOTAL OF 10
HIGHEST1 STATES
NATIONAL TOTAL
Emissions Under
19CO Operating
Conditions
2,100
1,400
1,400
1,000
900
900
900
900
700
^M
10,800
15,000
Potential Emissions of Potential Emissions of
Assuming Maximum 1980 Assuming Minimum 1980
40% Capacity Factor Actual 70% Capacity Factor Actua!
1,600 75 2,900 140
1,100
900
800
700
700
600
700
500
500
8,100
11,400
80
65
80
80
80
65
80
70
_S5_
75
75
2,000
1,700
1,500
1,300
1,300
1,100
1,400
900
1.000
15,100
20,700
140
120
150
145
145
120
155
130
JLSi
140
140
-------
SECTION II
EMISSION ESTIMATION AND COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
A. DATA SOURCES
A variety of data sources were employed in developing the database used
in this study. The major results are based on our own analyses of primary
data collected and automated by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Infor-
mation Administration. For purposes of comparison, however, we have also
included data developed by others.
Table II-l sunirarizes the data sources used. Appendix A discusses the
information selected from each of these files in detail. Our definition of
"plant" is identical to that used by the Department of Energy in the assign-
nient of the Office of Regulatory Information System (ORIS) plant codes. We
aggregated data from units at a single site even if these units are operated
by different utilities. In addition, facilities owned by an industrial user
and dedicated to producing electricity for industrial uses were excluded even
if they exist at a site that is also producing electricity for public distri-
bution. Our analyses included all fossil-fueled units, both steam and non-
steam. The data files were merged by plant to create a file containing a sin-
gle record for each plant with all data elements of interest.
Due primarily to different reporting requirements, the number of plants
included in each database varied considerably. Table II-2 shows the number of
15
-------
Table Il-l
OVERVIEW OF ESTIMATES AND SOURCES USED
Estimate
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
AIRTEST
1979 Form 67
Energy Information Administration
(FPC Form 4, FPC Form 423),
Environmental Protection Agency
(Utility POD* Survey)
Energy Information Administration
(FPC Form 4, FPC Forr 423),
Environmental Protection Agency
(Utility FGD Survey)
Energy Information Administration
(FPC Form 4, FPC Form 423),
Environmental Protection Agency
(Utility FGD Survey)
Energy Information Administration
(FPC Form 4, FPC Form 423),
Environmental Protection Agency
(Utility FGD Survey)
Energy Information Administration
(FPC Form 4, FPC Form 423),
Environmental Protection Agency
(Utility FGD Survey)
Teknekron Research Inc.
(AIRTEST model output i:or "Q79"),
EPA (Utility FGD Survey)
Energy Information Administration
(FPC Form 67) as collected by
E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.
* Flue gas desulfurization.
16
-------
Table II-2
NUMBER OF PLANTS FOR E£CH DATA FILE
Data File Number of Plants
Input Files
1976 Form 4 1,939
1977 Form 4 1,963
1978 Form 4 1,958
1979 Form 4 1,962
1980 Form 4 1,949
1976 Form 423 889
1977 Form 423 907
1978 Form 423 907
1979 Form 423 929
1980 Form 423 919
1979 Form 67 Subset 77
AIRTEST File 693
Scrubber File 49
Output File
Combined File 2,081
Final Master File 1,878
200 Highest File 237
plants in each of the input and output files. The highest number of plants
was reported in the Form 4 (generation and fuel consumption) file. Fewer
plants were reported in the Form 423 (fuel quality) files since detailed fuel
quality information must be supplied only for larger plants.
Data from the generation (Form 4) and fuel quality (Form 423) files
enable us to calculate SO2 emissions based on emission factors. These primary
data sources are monthly surveys whose results are published in various
reports by the Department of Energy. The information collected on these forms
is important to utilities, e.g., fuel quality limits are part of most utility
17
-------
fuel purchase contracts. In addition, DOE tries to ensure that the Form 4 and
Form 423 databases are both timely and accurate. The utilities thH.iselves are
also required to calculate their 302 emissions and report then on FPC Form 67.
Utility-calculated 902 emissions are not available from Form 67 after 1976 in
an automated form. As compared with Forms 4 and 423, Form 67 is not as accu-
rate a source of information. Since Form 67 is not currently used in any pub-
lications, completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of filing are not as care-
fully tracked by the sponsoring organization. In addition, utilities do not
generally use. Form 67 data. Therefore, they have much less incentive in
ensuring their accuracy. Because of the cost and difficulty of collecting
and, rrore importantly, validating Form 67 data, we limited our review to one
year (1979) and to a subset of plants consisting of 77 of the highest utility
S02 emitting plants in 1980 (2 of which did not file forms1-
The AIRTEST file contained 693 plants, including all but 4 of the 200
highest S02 emitting plants. The base file for the AIRTEST model, TEKUTIL,
does not cover smaller plants.
Finally, the scrubber file contained information on those plants that
were reported to have 902 scrubbers installed and operating by 1980.
Three output files were generated from the preceding input files. The
file that combined all of the data from the input files contained information
on 2,081 separate plants. Eliminating plants that had less than one ton per
year of 302 emissions (small and gas-fired plants) reduced the number of
plants to 1,878. Finally, we selected a subset of all plants included in the
18
-------
200 highest 302 emitting plants in any year analyzed. This file contained 237
plants.
Emissions were calculated using information on fuels used for generating
electricity (supplied by FPC Form 4) and percent sulfur in fuels (supplied by
FPC Fom 422). For those cases in which fuel quality data were not provided,
state average sulfur content values were utilized (see Appendix D). The quan-
tities of fuels for which sulfur contents were not repeated and which had to
be defaulted was snail over the entire study period (see Table II-3). Between
1 and 1.5 percent of coal use was not accounted for; the comparable figures
for oil were higher. To reduce these figures somewhat, a special search of
DOE records was made for coal plants consuming 100,000 tons psr year or more
and not reporting coal sulfur content and for oil plants consuming 100,000
barrels or more per year and not reporting oil sulfur content. This procedure
reduced the unavailability figures reported in Table 11-3 by about 50 percent.
Table II-3
FUEL QUANTITIES FOR WHICH
REQUIRED FOEM 423 FUEL QUALI1Y DATA WERE UMVAILABLE
1976 1977 1978
Coal (million tons) 6.87 6.72 6.49 6.70 6.24
Percent of Total 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1
OH (million barrels) 15.13 15.44 17.33 13.73 5.85
Percent of Total 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6 1.4
19
-------
The basic calculations for 302 emissions were relatively straightforward.
For coal, we multiplied the quantity of fuels used tines the percent sulfur
times two (one ton of sulfur burned will produce almost exactly two tons of
sulfur dioxide since the atomic weight of sulfur is almost exactly twice that
of oxygen, and SC>2 contains two oxygen atoms per sulfur atom). For coal-fired
plants, we assumed an 302 ash retention value of between 5 and 25 percent
based on quality of coal. For bituminous coals (as defined by heating value),
a 5 percent ash retention factor was used. Fifteen percent was assumed for
sub-bituminous coal, and 25 percent for lignite coal.
The 5 percent ash retention figure is recommended for use for bituminous
coals in the emissions factor listing produced by EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.* The same report (AP-42) utilizes a 6.3 percent ash
retention for lignite. The values we used are those adapted by the EPA-DOE
acid rain mitigation study. They are also in agreement with revised AP-42
emission factors, which are currently being reviewed. Use of the currently
released AP-42 factors would increase the national estimate by 0.2 million
tons, or about 1.2 percent.
For oil- and gas-fired plants, the AP-42 emission factors and calcula-
tions methods were employed.-
Emission reductions resulting from 302 scrubbing systems were also
accounted for. For each plant with 302 scrubbing, we estimated a total
equivalent net capacity of "302 free" generation based on the capacity
scrubbed, the date of commercial operation, and the 302 removal rate. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. Appendix C, AP-42, November 1978 revision.
20
-------
total uncontrolled S02 emissions for the plant were then adjusted to account
for removal of scrubbed S02- For example, assume a plant with the following
characteristics:
coal - bituminous
capacity - 350 megawatts
coal used - 830,000 tons
percent sulfur - 2.0 percent
scrubbed capacity - 100 megawatts
scrubber efficiency - 70 percent
On an annual basis, uncontrolled emissions are 33,200 tons 902:
830,000 x .02 x 2.0. [1]
The effect of ash retention of sulfur would reduce this to 31,540 tons:
33,200 x 0.95. [2]
The scrubber effect would be computed as 70 megawatts:
100 x 0.7. [3]
The final emissions would be 25,232 tons of S02:
(350-70)
350
x 31,540. [41
If the scrubber was first operated in August, the 70 megawatts figure
above would have been adjusted to five-twelfths of the value above, or 29.16.
The value of 29.16 would have replaced 70 in c
-------
A summary of default values used in the analysis is presented in Table
II-4.
A list of all plants that emitted at least 100 tons per year, categorized
by state, appears in Appendix E.
Table II-1
DEFAULT VALUES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
S02 Ash Retention in Coal
Eank
Bituminous
Sub-bituminous
Lignite
Heating Valuff; for Fuels
£uel
Coal*
Residual Oil*
Distillate Oil
Gas*
BtlnOb.
>10,000
7,500 - 10,000
<7,500
Btu/unit
10,645
146,260
150,000
1,034
Retention
5%
15%
25%
JJnit
Pound
Gallon
Gallon
Cubic Foot
Sulfur content of distillate oil: l.(
* Source: National average from Form 423 for 1978.
22
-------
B. FACTORS INFLUENCING EMISSIONS
As shown above, annual emissions are a function of fuel burned, of fuel
quality, and of any control applied to the fuel-based emissions. In our
analysis, the quantity of fuels cumed implicitly accounts for the capacity
utilization of the equipment.
We have assumed that the quality of the fuel burned on the average over a
year is equal to the quality of the fuel delivered to the plant during the
same year. This is not precisely true for coal plants since the majority of
such plants maintain a substantial stock of coal, with the result that coal
delivered in one year may be burned in another year. The size of the stocks
can vary substantially. In particular, plants increase their stocks if a coal
strike is anticipated. A prolonged strike will then result in a depletion of
stocks.
We have assumed that S02 scrubbers are operated continuously at the
removal rate for which they were designed and that they scrub the fraction of
total plant capacity designed for. Although these assumptions may not reflect
the range of possible operating procedures, more detailed information is not
readily available. In addition, because of the relatively low number of
scrubbed plants, changes in these assumptions would be unlikely to influence
our results significantly. Our analysis shows that in 1980 scrubbers reduced
overall emissions by less than 10 percent.
23
-------
SECTION III
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
A. STATE AND NATIONAL TRENDS
Over the five-year period from 1976 to 1980 covered in this report, 502
emissions from the utility industry decreased by about 7.7 percent from
almost 19 million tons to slightly under 17.5 million tons (see Table III-l).
At the same time, the total heat value of the fuels used increased by 15 per-
cent (Table 1-2). This reduction in 902 emissions while fuel use was increas-
ing is due both to the use of lower sulfur coals and to the operation of flue
gas desulfurization equipment.
./he decrease in emissions during this period was accomplished along with
a significant change in the mix of fuels and in electric generation. Table
III-l reports trends in capacity, fuel use, and emissions. The use of oil as
a fuel for the generation of electricity has declined drairatescally from 555
*-'«-», -
million barrels per year in 1976 to 421 million in 1980. The decline from
1978, the year before oil prices doubled, is even more dranatic 1978 oil
usage was nearly 640 million barrels.
Coal use in electricity generation has continued to climb, with an
increase of over 20 percent over the 1976 to 1980 period. Natural gas use
also increased almost 20 percent over the same period, with the largest
natural gas increase paralleling the decrease in oil use after 1978.
Preceding page blank 25
-------
Table III-l
SUMMARY: NATIONAL TRENDS
to
CTl
Generating Capacity (gigawatts)
Generation (terawatt-hours)
Coal Delivered (million tons)
Coal Used (million tons)
(quads)
Oil Used (million barrels)
(quads)
Gas Used (TCP)
(quads)
Total SC>2 (million tons)
Coal 302 (million tons)
Coal S02 as a Percent of Total
1976
414.4
1,558.5
455.5
448.4
9.7
554.8
3.4
3.08
3.1
18.82
17.07
90.7
1977
433.4
1,649.1
491.7
477.2
10.3
623.6
3.8
3.19
3.3
19.07
17.17
90.0
1978
448.2
1,646.4
477.1
481.6
10.3
635.8
3.9
3.19
3.3
17.59
15.60
88.7
1323.
464.1
1,708.4
557.1
527.3
11.3
573.2
3.2
3.49
3.6
17.68
15.92
90.0
1320.
476.7
1,754.3
594.3
569.4
12.2
420.5
2.6
3.68
4.0
17.38
15.87
91.3
% Change
1976-1980
15.0
12.6
30.5
27.0
25.8
-24.2
-23.5
19.5
29.0
-7.7
-7.0
-------
The percentage of total sulfur oxide emissions resulting from coal emis-
sions has remained relatively constant, about 90 percent of emissions from all
fuels. This has occurred despite the increase in the relative quantity of
coal used. There are two reasons: (1) the overall decline in sulfur content
of coals used and (2) the increase in the fraction of coal capacity equipped
with 902 scrubbers. With regard to coal sulfur content, the average percen-
tage of sulfur declined by 21 percent between 1976 and 1980 (see Table III-2).
During the same period, the average heating value of coals delivered to utili-
ties declined by slightly less than 2 percent. While the use of lower sulfur,
Table II1-2
AVERAGE QUALITY OF FUELS DELIVERED TO ELECTRIC UTILITIES
1976
10,846
2.12
12.89
1977
10,764
2.01
12.75
Year
1978
10,645
1.86
12.38
1979
10,688
1.80
11.70
1980
10,651
1.68
11.17
Coal
Heating Value (Btu/pound)
Sulfur Content (percent)
Ash Content (percent)
on
Heating Value (Btu/gallon) 145,975 145,919 146,270 147,090 147,378
Sulfur Content (percent) 0.96 0.91 0.96 1.02 1.04
Natural Gas
Heating Value 1,023 1,029 1,034 1,034 1,097
(Btu/cubic foot)
27
-------
lower heating value western coals increased over this period, the lower
decline in heating value as compared with sulfur content indicates that the
majority of the decrease in average coal sulfur content is not due to exten-
sive use of western coals. This same point was illustrated in Section I,
where almost all of th? decline in 302 emissions was shown to have occurred in
the eastern states.
Average oil sulfur content increased by about 8 percent during the
period. However, as indicated earlier, total oil-related 302 emissions
declined due to the greatly reduced use of this fuel.
Table III-3 shows the change in emissions from 1976 to 1980 on the state
level. Of the 51 states reported (including the District of Columbia), 27
showed an increase in 302 emissions while 22 showed a decline. Year-by-year
changes in 302 emissions by state are presented in Table III-4.
B. PLANT TRENDS AND ANALYSIS
In this section, the analytical results are displayed for selected sub-
sets of the major 302 emitting plants.
Summary statistics reflecting 1980 operating rates and fuel use for the
200 plants emitting the most 302 are presented in Table III-5. Of the 200
highest 302 emitting plants, only 17 bum no coal. The percentage of coal
sulfur reported ranges from 0.48 percent (Navajo) to 6.21 percent (Montrose).
Converted to emission rates in pounds per million Btu, the range is from 0.88
(Navajo) to 12.33 (Montrose), a 14-fold difference.
28
-------
Table II1-3
CHANGES IN STATE SCfy EMISSIONS FRCM 1976 TO 1980
(Emissions in 1000 Tens per Year)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Icv/a
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hanpshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Rank
1976
10
44
29
35
23
30
41
31
46
11
13
34
50
5
3
19
24
2
39
43
18
21
9
16
22
7
42
40
38
33
26
27
12
15
32
1
49
51
4
47
20
37
6
25
45
1976
Emissions
704.9
12.8
68.5
38.3
151.7
67.9
25.2
60.9
7.2
673.2
499.3
40.1
0.0
1,428.8
1,443.1
217.8
121.1
1,512.3
32.9
13.0
218.2
159.6
887.6
230.6
154.1
1,179.4
16.8
27.4
33.6
50.5
113.2
87.1
512.8
410.2
58.7
2,749.8
0.3
0.0
1,432.0
3.0
162.2
33.9
1,228.3
117.3
12.8
Rank
1980
12
46
27
41
31
32
39
34
48
10
9
36
51
5
2
18
23
6
42
45
19
17
11
21
24
4
43
35
37
30
26
28
14
15
29
1
38
49
3
47
20
40
8
16
44
1980
Bnissions
543.1
11.7
87.5
26.6
77.9
77.5
32.1
52.5
4.6
725.9
736.7
41.6
0.0
1,125.6
1,539.6
231.3
150.1
1,007.5
24.8
16.3
223.2
275.5
565.4
177.4
129.2
1,140.5
23.4
49.5
39.5
80.5
110.2
84.6
480.3
435.4
82.5
2,171.6
37.7
3.3
1,466.1
5.2
213.1
28.6
933.7
302.8
22.1
Chanae
-161.8
-1.1
19.0
-11.7
-73.8
9.6
6.8
-8.5
-2.6
52.6
237.6
1.5
0.0
-3C3.2
96.5
13.6
29.0
-504.7
-8.1
3.3
5.0
116.0
-322.3
-53.2
-24.9
-38.9
6.6
22.1
5.9
30.0
-3.0
-2.6
-32.4
25.2
23.8
-578.2
37.4
3.2
34.1
2.2
50.9
-5.3
-294.7
185.5
9.3
Percent
Change
-23
-8
28
-31
-49
14
27
-14
-36
8
48
4
0
-21
7
6
24
-33
-25
26
2
73
-36
-23
-16
-3
40
80
18
60
-3
-3
-6
6
41
-21
12,386
48,785
2
73
31
-16
-24
158
73
29
-------
Table II1-3 (Continued)
CHANGES IN STATE SO2 EMISSIONS FRCM 1976 TO 1980
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
Rank 1976 Rank 1980 Percent
.State. 1976 Emissions 1,980 Emissions Change Change
Vermont 48 0.4 50 0.5 0.1 35
Virginia 17 224.9 22 163.7 -61.2 -27
Washington 36 37.0 33 69.4 32.3 87
West Virginia 8 1,010.4 7 944.2 -66.2 -7
Wisconsin 14 469.7 13 485.7 16.0 3
Wyoming 28 80.9 25 120.9 40.0 49
NATIONAL TOTALS 18,821.4 17,378.5 -1,442.9 -7.7
30
-------
Table II1-4
STATE SO2 EMISSION TRfNDS FRfM 1976-1S80
(Emissions in 1000 Tens per Year)
.State 1976 1977 1228. 1222 1980
Alabama 704.9 735.3 530.6 521.3 543.1
Alaska 12.8 12.4 7.7 12.2 11.7
Arizona 68.5 7P.3 59.5 81.4 87.5
Arkansas 38.3 54.3 58.9 40.6 26.6
California 151.7 156.2 107.6 108.0 77.9
Colorado 67.9 78.5 76.6 77.4 77.5
Connecticut 25.2 23.5 26.0 27.6 32.1
Delaware 60.9 59.2 55.6 61.1 52.5
District of
Colunbia 7.2 12.6 10.4 6.7 4.6
Florida 673.2 657.8 595.1 658.7 725.9
Georgia 499.1 581.2 616.2 666.1 736.7
Hawaii 40.1 42.7 38.4 46.1 41.6
Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Illinois 1,428.8 1,367.0 1,292.9 1,167.7 1,125.6
Indiana 1,443.1 1,457.6 1,351.2 1,536.9 1,539.6
Iowa 217.8 236.0 263.7 230.8 231.3
Kansas 121.1 138.9 159.3 142.3 150.1
Kentucky 1,512.3 1,356.5 1,210.0 1,130.0 1,007.5
Lousiana 32.9 58.5 63.8 39.6 24.6
llaine 13.0 9.9 8.7 10.9 16.3
Maryland 218.2 198.0 220.5 205.2 223.2
Massachusetts 159.6 160.4 258.9 264.5 275.5
Michigan 887.6 905.1 806.9 741.0 565.4
Minnesota 230.6 230.5 190.3 163.6 177.4
Mississippi 154.1 198.0 208.7 166.1 129.2
Missouri 1,179.4 1,201.9 1,013.6 1,076.2 1,140.5
Montana 16.8 22.8 21.8 22.9 23.4
Nebraska 27.4 31.4 37.9 38.8 49.5
Nevada 33.6 35.6 38.6 47.0 39.5
New Hampshire 50.5 59.4 52.3 78.9 80.5
New Jersey 113.2 128.4 115.3 105.1 110.2
New Mexico 87.1 103.7 81.4 76.7 84.6
New York 512.8 548.0 520.0 508.1 480.3
North Carolina 410.2 427.2 396.4 379.5 435.4
North Dakota 58.7 65.2 71.6 82.3 82.5
Ohio 2,749.8 2,686.1 2,462.6 2,514.5 2,171.6
Oklahoma 0.3 3.1 13.0 19.5 37.7
Oregon 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 3.3
Pennsylvania 1,432.0 1,381.1 1,322.7 1,415.1 1,466.1
Rhode Island 3.0 3.6 3.4 2.8 5.2
South Carolina 162.2 194.4 192.9 191.1 213.1
South Dakota 33.9 30.2 32.4 27.8 28.6
Tennessee 1,228.3 1,257.6 1,033.1 893.3 933.7
Texas 117.3 143.3 179.8 221.7 302.8
Utah 12.8 32.2 29.9 30.4 22.1
31
-------
Table II1-4 (Continued)
STATE SO2 EMISSION TRENDS FRCM 1976-1980
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
£tat£ 1976 1977 1978 1979 1220.
Vermont 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5
Virginia 224.9 238.0 223.9 203.2 163.7
Washington 37.0 53.9 69.8 79.3 69.4
West Virginia 1,010.4 1,001.4 895.5 955.9 944.2
Wisconsin 469.7 514.7 471.7 496.3 485.7
Wyoming 80.9 97.7 95.7 111.1 12C.9
TOTALS 18,821,4 19,070.8 17,593.2 17,684.9 17,378.5
32
-------
TaWe II1-5
1980 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE
200 HIGHEST S02 EMITTING UflLITY PLANTS
t*>
GO
1980
S02
Bant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
PlfHit* r^ry*
Gavin
Cur.toerland
Paradise
Gibson Station
Clifty Creek
Baldwin
Bowen
Huskingun
Labadie
Monroe
Harrison
Wans Icy
Kincaid
Cone-Tuny h
Kyycr Creek
Coriccville
Madrid
Mitchell
Hat fie Id
Honer City
Gaston
Mcrtrone
Eaatlakc
Dig Bend
Kanmer
Keystone
Brunner Island
Coffeen
Gal la tin
Sanmis
John son vi lie
Cardinal
Colbert
Hill
Cayuga
Stuart
Men tour
Petersburg
Yates
Amos
Joppa
Sioux
Shawnee
Ft Martin
State
Ohio
Tennessee
Kentucky
Indiana
Indiana
Illinois
Georgia
Ohio
Missouri
Michigan
Uest Virgina
Georgia
Illlnoir,
IJmn::ylvania
Ohio
Ohio
Missouri
West Virginia
Pmnsylvania
Pennsylvania
Alabama
MiBtouri
Ohio
Florida
Iwst Virginia
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Toinessee
Ohio
Tennessee
Ohio
Ala tana
Missouri
Indiana
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Georgia
West Virginia
Illinois
Missouri
Kentucky
West Virginia
S02
Oni scions
(1COO torn)
376.4
356.8
342.7
305.6
2B8.2
259.3
248.1
244.0
237.2
233.9
215.0
209. 8
20 '..'
205.2
202.3
200.8
198.9
171.3
171.2
169.1
169.1
162.0
155.0
J53.2
149.1
142.3
139.0
137.3
137.1
137.0
135.3
126.0
125.9
121 .6
115.9
112.8
109.5
108.5
106.6
105.1
100.1
97.2
96.6
95.1
SO2 BiiicEion
Fdte
(Ite/HMBtu)
5.1
6.5
6.B
4.9
6.4
5.2
2.8
7.7
4.2
2.9
4.0
3.7
(>.',
3.H
C.2
5.2
5.6
4.0
4.1
3.2
2.S
11.7
4.9
4.C
6.7
2.7
3.0
6.9
4.5
2.5
3.7
3.0
3.7
8.5
4.1
1.8
2.3
2.9
3.1
1.2
3.3
4.5
2.2
3.0
Coal
Consur.cd
(1000 t99
>99
>99
>99
>»9
>99
>99
>S9
>99
>99
M<9
/(&
>!<9
>95
>99
>yj
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
-------
Table II1-5 (Continued)
1980 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE
200 HIGHEST S02 EMITTING UTILITY PLANTS
1980
902
£aak
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
63
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
32
83
84
85
86
87
88
jpiflnj- M^mp
Tanners Creek
Hill Creek
Itorgantown
llcunt Storm
Miami Fort
Avon Lake
Kingston
Belews Creek
Ghent
Marshall
Ilit'jer
Beckjord
Got gas 2 and 3
Brayton
Sevier
Four Corners
La Cygne
Northport
Crist
S. Oak Creek
Michigan City
Allen
Crystal River
Breed
Canal
Roxboro
Ashtatula
Colanan
Ccntralia
Mctiti cello
Widows Creek
Kaijfih Pivcr
Vtatcon
Dni^el!
Actxiry
Shawville
Culley
ttevajo
Martins Creek
Gallagher
Edrjcwater
ni<7 Sandy
Arclcte
Bruce Minefield
.State
Indiana
Koitucky
Maryland
West Virginia
Ohio
Ohio
Tennessee
North Carolina
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Ohio
Alabama
Massachusetts
Tennessee
Hew Itexico
Kansas
Hew York
Florida
Wicconain
Indiana
Tcnneoace
Florida
Indiana
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Ohio
Kentucky
VJashington
Texas
Ala bans
IrrJiaru
Miccilr.elppi
nlcbl'jtfi
Hioauri
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Arizona
Pennsylvania
Indiana
'lisconsin
Kentucky
Florida
Pcnncylvania
SQ2
Qnissions
(1000 tons)
94.9
94.1
92.0
91.7
S9.5
89.5
88.6
86.6
85.4
05.1
H4.7
81.4
84.3
83.2
81.4
80.7
76.0
77.6
76.3
75.7
75.4
73.9
72.6
71.0
70.6
70.5
68.5
68.3
68. 3
68.2
67.4
6f,.0
CS.9
(Sj.'i
65.0
64.7
61.7
63.3
60.3
59.5
58.0
07.9
07.0
M..6
S02 Dnission
Rate
(Ibs/HMBtu)
4.2
4.1
2.n
2.9
2.6
4.1
1.7
1.5
3.3
1.6
6.1
2.fi
2.4
2.1
3.2
1.1
2.5
2.2
3.6
4.7
4.7
3.7
3.1
6.6
2.3
1.2
5.6
4.0
1.7
1.1
1.7
3.9
J.6
'i.J
9.3
3.2
5.4
0.8
1.5
5.1
5.2
1.9
2.4
1.2
Coal
Consuned
(1000 tons)
1960
2090
2«0
2610
2850
1780
4480
4790
2250
4340
mo
y.ito
2920
670
2090
8020
3480
0
1590
1530
1470
16GO
1970
980
0
4870
970
1510
4950
10610
3310
1530
1350
)«0
660
1630
1080
6890
790
1050
1060
2530
0
3910
Coal
Sulfur
(%)
2.55
3,49
1.86
1.83
1.63
2.65
1.04
0.95
2.00
1.03
3.97
1.65
1.52
1,16
2.05
0.70
2.27
1VA
2.52
2.60
2.70
2.34
1.94
3.83
II/A
0.76
3.68
2.38
0.81
O.CO
1.63
2.27
2.57
l.tt?
5.18
2.03
3.11
0.48
2.10
2.97
2.89
1.20
HM
3.30
Coal
Share of
SQ2 (i)
>99
s99
>99
>99
>99
>99
x99
>99
>99
18
>99
>99
>99
0
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
0
>S9
>99
>99
>99
98
>99
/99
'/'it
,'l'i
;i99
>99
>99
52
>99
>99
>9rJ
0
Yi'i
-------
Table II1-5 (Continued)
1980 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR IKE
200 HIGHEST S02 EMITTING UTILITY PLANTS
U)
tn
1980
S02
Bank
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Plflpt-, ti(\F*>
Harllee Branch
Brown
Merrirack
Rcccton
Dunkirk
Rujh Island
Big Drown
Huntley
Chalk
Henderson II
Stout
Frank E. Ratts
Boilly
Cotib-Uanduoky
Mcrc'cloDia
Hammond
Port Washington
Cak Creek
Dallman
Hawthorne
St. Clair
Hoal
Barry
Smith
Martin Lake
Gannon
England
Wateree
Parish
Bull Run
Sporn
Pulliam
Sibley
Chcswick
Sun bury
Gerald Andrus
Jin Bridgcr
Hennepin
Salem Harbor
Allen
Genoa No. 3
Fort Myerj
J. T. Deely
Dickerson
State
Georgia
Kentucky
I tow Hampshire
How York
IJtv York
Miuiiouri
Texan
Hew York
Maryland
Kentucky
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Michigan
lUinoio
Georgia
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Illinois
Hissouri
Michigan
Iowa
Alabama
Kentucky
Texas
Florida
New Jersey
South Carolina
Texas
Tennessee
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Mississippi
Wyoming
Illinois
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Florida
Texas
Maryland!
S02
Emissions
(1000 tons)
55.1
53.2
52.3
52.3
r,2.(\
'A .')
!;] .3
50.6
50.4
50.2
50.1
49.8
413.9
41!. '
W.I
47.4
46.1
45.9
45.6
45.4
44.4
44.3
44.1
44.0
43.9
41.9
41.3
41.3
41.1
41.0
40.5
40.4
40.4
40.0
39.7
39.5
39.3
38.5
38.0
38.0
37.5
36.5
35.8
35.6
S02 Emission
Rate
(Ibs/MKBtu)
1.9
3.2
3.6
1.9
3.?
1.7
1.3
2.3
2.4
4.2
3.2
6.2
5.6
3.4
4.9
2.6
5.4
3.9
5.3
3.2
1.3
1.1
1.2
4.4
0.6
1.5
3.5
2.1
0.5
1.6
1.6
4.5
5.5
2.3
2.7
2.8
0.7
4.2
2.2
1.4
4.2
2.2
1.5
2.4
Coal
Consumed
(1000 tons)
2330
1340
1080
0
1270
2B50
5700
1740
1090
1040
1430
750
790
1140
850
1470
630
1010
810
1020
3160
4060
2760
900
11,090
1320
600
1560
5790
2310
2130
720
670
1380
1330
0
5650
820
0
2240
910
0
2920
1170
Cool
Sulfur
(%1
1.74
2.09
2.55
wr.
2. IS
0.%
0.60
1.53
1.78
2.53
1.84
3.51
3.?7
2.24
2.95
1.69
3.55
2.38
3.26
2.71
0.71
0.64
0.83
2.58
0.90
1.28
2.91
1.39
0.41
0.93
1.00
2.95
3.15
1.52
1.57
IVH
0.54
2.47
1J/A
0.89
2.41
U/A
0.72
1.58
Coal
Share of
SO; U)
>99
>99
>99
0
A'J
A'J
>yj
>99
7?.
>99
>99
>99
>9!)
>'J'J
>9'J
>95
>99
>59
>99
>99
96
>S9
>99
>99
99
76
80
>99
93
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
0
>99
>99
0
>99
>99
0
>99
>99
-------
Table III-5 (Continued)
1980 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE
200 HIGHEST S02 ElITTItC UTILITY PLW.TS
U)
1980
S02
Back.
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
14B
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Plant Mame
Cane Run
Columbia
King
Lcland Olds
Mohave
Shcrbume
County
Valley
Cliffside
Eddystone
Kapp
Armstrong
Portland
Karn-Weadock
llaughton
Uor.wel 1
I1cl»m(«jM
M
M
;&&
^99
,-99
>&9
v6&
86
>95
>99
>9&
65
>99
>')'!
<&
>99
0
87
0
>99
>99
0
>99
>99
99
2
0
0
98
>99
>99
>99
>99
97
>99
>99
0
>99
0
0
>99
>99
-------
Table III-5 (Continued)
1980 SUMMARY STATISTICS TOR TOE
200 HIGHEST £02 [MITTItC UTILITY PL/NTS
OJ
-J
1980
S02
Rank
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
1S8
199
200
Plant Name
Powerton
Sutherland
Mitchell
Miles
Pollin Schahfer
Seward
Toronto
Albany
Bar tow
Mercer
War rick
Clinch River
Alma-Hadgett
Sutton
Oswego
North Omaha
Rivcrbond
Ntv Cor;tlc
Bay Shore
Grand Tower
Burlington
Presque Isle
Trenton Channel
Weston
Georgetown
Stale
Illinois
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Ohio
New York
Florida
tlew Jersey
Indiana
VirginiT
Wisconsin
North Carolina
Hew York
Nebraska
North Carolina
Pcjinayivania
Ohio
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan
Wisconsin
South Carolina
SQ2
Emissions
(1000 tons)
24.8
24.7
24.6
24.5
24.4
24.4
24. C
23.7
23.5
23.4
23.3
23.2
23.1
22.8
22.6
22.6
22.1
22.]
22.0
22.0
21.9
21.4
21.3
21.0
21.0
S02 Emission
Rate
(lbs/MKBtu.1
0.9
6.9
2.5
4.0
1.1
3.6
4.8
2.2
2.P
1.6
5.7
1.2
2.2
1.6
1.1
1.7
1.9
J.9
1.1
4.t\
4.8
1.2
1.2
5.4
0.9
Coal
Censured
(1000 tons)
2750
340
700
500
1910
540
410
0
0
101C
370
1590
1190
1120
0
12t;0
940
930
1480
410
420
1630
1410
330
1810
Coal
Sulfur
U)
0.53
3.88
1.83
2.59
0.65
2.36
3.08
[I/A
ll/A
1.22
3.29
0.77
1.14
1.06
N/A
0.93
1.73
1.25
0.78
2.85
2.74
0.69
0.79
3.35
1.07
Coal
Share of
322-lii
>99
>99
>99
>99
97
>99
>S9
0
0
>99
>99
>99
>99
>29
0
>9&
>99
>'J'J
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
N/A - Hot applicable.
-------
A summary list of all plants included in the highest emitters in any of
the databases examined is presented as Appendix C. Over the set of all seven
emission estimates (1980, 1979, 1978, 1977, 1976, AIRTEST, and Form 67), the
set of highest emitters includes 237 separate plants.
Of the 25 highest emitting plants in 1980, 15 were also among the 25
highest in 1976, including 8 of the 10 highest (Table II1-6). Two plants
which greatly increased capacity during this period, Gibson arid Wansley, are
currently among the 25 highest emitting plants, but were not among the 50
highest emitters in 1976.
C. COMPARISON V7ITH OTHER RESULTS
As noted above, three additional emissions estimates were included in our
results: (1) the National Emissions Data System file provided by EPA's
National Air Data Branch ?nd analyzed by EHPA, (2) the 1980 AIRTEST dataset
provided by Teknekron Research, Inc. as corrected by EHPA, and (3) the Form 67
data collected by us for the 78 highest S02 emitting plants in the nation.
1. MES- The National Emissions Data System file contains information
on all sources of emissions for five of the criteria air pollutants,
including S02- The point source file contains over 290,000 separate
data records. For our comparative analysis, we selected the approxi-
mately 10,000 records that had both an eight-digit Source Classifica-
tion Code (SCO of 101XXXXX or 201XXXXX (electric utility fuel
combustion) and a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of
4911. While NEDS is a national database, the individual states pro-
vide the vast majority of the data, and thus the timeliness of
38
-------
Table II1-6
TOE 25 HIGHEST S02 EMITTING PLANTS
IN 1980 AND THEIR 1976 EMISSION RANK
Plant
Gavin
Cumberland
Paradise
Gibson Station
Clifty Creek
Baldwin
Bowen
Muskingum
Labadie
Monroe
Harrison
Wansley
Kincaid
Conemaugh
Kyger Creek
Conesville
Madrid
Mitchell
Hatfield
Honer City
Gaston
Montrose
Eastlake
Big Bend
Rammer
1980
Emissions
376.4
356.8
342.7
305.6
288.2
.3
.1
259.
248.
244.0
237.2
233.9
215.0
209.8
205.5
205.2
202.3
200.8
198.9
171.3
171.2
169
169
162.0
155.0
153.2
149.1
.1
.1
1980
.Bank.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1976
5
2
1
68
9
11
14
3
4
8
13
502
37
33
10
18
44
20
23
52
36
27
15
34
30
1576
Emissions
306.8
373.3
459.6
76.8
285.5
268.6
225.1
336.8
319.4
286.0
261.2
1.3
121.8
128.6
271.1
205.0
111
189
176
101
124.8
146.6
217.4
127.9
139.3
.5
.2
.3
.2
TOTALS
5,629.7
5,261.1
updates depends on the states. The NEDS file available to us had a
range of different years recorded for its electric utility estimates
(see Table III-7). About 10 percent of these estimates were for
1980, nearly one-quarter for 1978, and another one-quarter for 1979.
The remaining estimates were for 1977 or earlier. When figured as a
39
-------
Table II1-7
REPORTED YEAR OF RECORD FOR NEDS ELECTRIC UTILITY S02 ESTIMATES
Reported
Year of Percent of
Record Total
1969 <1
1970 1
1971 1
1972 2
1973 3
1974 2
1975 15
1976 6
1977 14
1978 24
1979 23
1980 9
Note: Excludes seven units with no year and one plant reporting 1927,
weighed average, based on weights of S02 anissions, the average year
of record was slightly later than mid-1977. For this reason, we
selected 1978 as the appropriate year for comparison with our statis-
tics.
Table III-8 compares our 1978 emissions estimates with a summary of
NEDS statistics. In general, the NEDS statistics are higher than our
1978 estimates; for the nation as a whole, they are 3.8 percent
higher. For 20 states, however, our estimates exceeded NEDS.
Differences between our figures and NEDS can be explained only by
examining the data at the plant level. We selected five states with
40
-------
Table III-8
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF 1978 UTILITY EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
WITH NEDS RESULTS
(Emissions in 1000 tons per year)
Stats
Alabana
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
1978
Emissions
530.6
7.7
59.5
58.9
107.6
76.6
26.0
55.6
10.4
595.1
616.2
38.4
0.0
1292.9
1351.1
263.7
159.3
1210.0
63.8
8.7
220.5
258.9
806.9
190.3
208.7
1013.6
21.8
37.9
38.6
52.3
115.3
81.4
520.0
396.4
71.6
2462.6
13.0
0.1
1322.7
3.4
192.9
32.4
1033.1
179.8
NEDS
flnissions
597.7
1.1
78.0
60.6
129.8
71.5
52.8
82.6
6.6
686.0
770.
40.
.6
.5
0.0
.7
.1
.3
.5
.3
.1
.0
.4
.2
.5
.5
1423.
1413.
248.
143.
1105.
67.6
12.9
229.0
138.
904.
180.
117.
1171.
22.
25.3
48.1
48.5
131.8
125.7
364.6
488.6
81.4
2324.8
0.2
0.1
1574.0
1.3
205.2
32.7
907.5
337.7
.9
.9
.4
Differpnce
67.1
-6.7
18.5
1.7
22.2
-5.1
26.8
27.0
-3.
90.
154.
2.1
0.0
130.9
61.9
-15.3
-15.7
-104.7
3.9
4.2
8.6
-120.8
97.
-9.
-91.6
157.9
0.7
-12.6
9.5
-3.8
16.
44.
-155.
92.
9.7
-137.8
-12.8
-0.1
251.2
-2.2
12.4
0.3
-125.6
158.0
.1
.9
.5
.2
.4
.2
Difference As
% of 1978
12.6
-86.4
31.2
2.8
20.6
-6.7
103.0
48.5
-37.0
15.3
25.1
5.5
1I/A
10.1
4.6
-5.8
-9.9
-8.7
6.1
48.0
3.9
-46.7
12.0
-5.2
-43.9
15.6
3.1
-33.3
24.7
-7.2
14.3
54.3
-29.9
23.2
13.6
-5.6
-98.3
-40.0
13.0
-63.5
6.4
1.0
-12.2
87.9
41
-------
Table II1-8 (Continued)
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF 1978 UTILITY EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
WITH NEDS RESULTS
(Emissions in 1000 tons per year)
1978 N2DS Difference As
State Emissions Emissions Difference % of 1978
Utah 29.9 41.3 11.4 38.1
Vermont 0.3 0.0 -0.3 -98.5
Virginia 223.9 212.0 -12.0 -5.3
Washington 69.8 16.9 -52.9 -75.8
West Virginia 895.5 943.8 48.4 5.4
Wisconsin 471.7 485.5 13.8 2.9
Wyoming 95.7 102.9 7.2 7.5
NATIONAL TOTALS 17,593.2 18,254.7 661.5 3.8
N/A - Not applicable.
42
-------
both large percentage and large absolute differences for a detailed
study. These states were Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsyl-
vania, and Texas.
For Georgia, the NEDS figure is substantially higher than our own.
At least part of this is due to the differing years of record in NEDS:
the four Georgia plants in NEDS with over 50,000 tons of SO, nave
years of record of 1977, 1977, 1979, and 1979, respectively. The
greatest differences, however, result from coal sulfur values, which
are much higher in NEDS for the Bcwen and Hammond plants.
In Massachusetts, our figures are higher than NEDS for each of the
major NEDS emitters. These differences are explained primarily by
the year of record in NEDS, the most xecent rerjorted year is 1975,
and at least one plant is reported as of 1969. Massachusetts' emis-
sions have been increasing steadily, due primarily to increases in
oil sulfur content. Our 1976 figure for Massachusetts is 159.6 kilo-
tons, much closer to the NEDS figure.
In New York, the major difference is the Northport plant, which we
could not locate on the NEDS file and which emitted 78,000 tons of
SO2 in 1978.
Our Pennsylvania NEDS file did not contain plant names, making
plant-by-plant comparisons infeasible.
The major difference in Texas was the Big Brown plant, whose NEDS
emissions were almost twice our figures. Since coal quantity and
43
-------
sulfur content were close, this difference must somehow depend on the
use of an erroneous emissions factor in NEDS.
A plant-level comparison for the top 25 emitters in NEDS is presented
in Table III-9. The development of such comparisons is complicated
by the plant name and identification scheme used in NEDS. For some
plants, only the name of the operating utility is provided; the plant
name must be determined from knowledge of the state and county loca-
tion of each plant. Plant identification codes provided in NEDS are
not related to the DOE code. Furthermore, they can (and often do)
change from one update cycle to another.
2. AIRTE.SJE. Table 1-7, presented in Section I, compared the AIRTEST
results with our 1980 estinates. On a national basis, the results
were almost identical. On a state basis, however, the average abso-
lute difference was over 24 percent.
Table 111-10 shows the comparison between AIRTEST and our 1980 esti-
mates by state. It is difficult to make direct comparisons to a
specific year of data because of the method used by AIRTEST in calcu-
lating emissions. Differences such as those in the states of Georgia
and Ohio most probably reflect the different assumptions concerning
capacity utilization and fuel quality. AIRTEST utilized 1976 genera-
tion to estimate capacity utilization, which was combined with 1979
fuel quality data from Form 423. Given changes from 1976 to 1980,
differences of several percentage points at the national level, and
even more at the state or plant level, would not be unexpected.
Thus, the results of our comparison are within the range of expected
44
-------
Table II1-9
COMPARISON OF MISSIONS FOR 1978 WITH NEDS FOR
THE 25 HIGHEST BUTTERS FROM NEDS
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
CO
Difference
Plant Name
Paradise
Muskingum
Monroe
Cumberland
Labadie
New Madrid
Gibson
Clifty Creek
Baldwin
Gavin
Bowen
Cones ville
Kyger Creek
Mitchell
Shawnee
Sammis
Hatfield
Eastlake
Homer City
Johnsonville
Big Bend
Wansley
Brunner Island
Joppa
Harrison
NEDS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NEDS
Bnissions
383.9
335.2
314.3
313.6
310.7
283.0
281.7
279.6
268.5
262.1
260.6
240.1
222.1
205.8
202.7
182.2
181.5
176.8
176.6
175.4
168.4
164.3
163.1
163.0
159.2
1978
Eauk.
1
3
4
2
7
20
14
6
8
5
12
13
9
16
21
17
35
18
24
11
44
28
27
45
15
1978
Emissions
425.5
312.9
281.3
316.2
251.8
164.4
190.7
259.1
249.3
277.3
206.7
194.9
225.3
187.3
156.9
185.7
118.3
179.4
146.8
209.3
107.2
140.2
141.9
105.8
189.5
NEDS
Year of
Record
1976
1978
1979
1978
1977
1976
1980
1980
1979
1978
1977
1978
1978
1979
1979
1978
1979
1978
1979
1978
1979
1979
1978
1979
1979
Difference
-41.6
22.3
33.0
-2.6
58.9
118.6
91.0
20.5
19.2
-15.2
53.9
45.2
-3.2
18.5
45.8
3.5
63.2
-2.6
29.8
-33.9
61.2
24.1
21.2
57.2
-30.3
As a
% of
1978
-9.8
7.1
11.7
-0.8
23.4
72.1
47.7
7.9
7.7
-5.5
26.1
23.2
-1.4
9.9
29.2
1.9
53.4
-1.4
20.3
-16.2
57.1
17.2
14.9
54.1
-16.0
-------
Table 111-10
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF 1980 UTILITY EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
WITH AIRTEST RESULTS
(Emissions in 1000 Tens per Year)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hanpshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
1980
Emissions
543.1
11.7
87.5
26.6
77.9
77.5
32.1
52.5
4.6
725.9
736.7
41.6
0.0
1,125.6
1,539.6
231.3
150.1
1,007.5
24.8
16.3
223.2
275.5
565.4
177.4
129.2
1,140.5
23.4
49.5
39.5
80.5
U0.2
84.6
480. 3
435.4
82.5
2,171.6
37.7
3.3
1,466.1
5.2
213.1
28.6
933.7
AIRTEST
Emissions
516.5
N/A
89.6
57.6
161.7
80.7
24.1
48.6
6.1
714.9
527.3
H/A
0.0
1,080.0
1,516.5
243.7
144.6
1,147.9
22.6
23.1
203.3
144.7
693.4
210.3
134.2
1,083.5
25.7
42.9
70.2
55.2
113.6
92.9
515.6
388.7
87.9
2,437.9
38.9
13.9
1,336.3
3.1
ISO. 2
24.4
960.5
Difference
-26.6
2.1
31.0
83.8
3.2
-8.0
-3.9
1.5
-11.0
-209.4
0.0
-45.6
23.1
12.4
-5.5
140.4
-2.2
6.8
-19.9
-130.8
128.0
32.9
5.0
-57.0
2.3
-6.6
30.7
-25.3
3.4
8.3
35.3
-46.7
5.4
266.3
1.2
10.6
-129.8
-2.1
-22.9
-4.2
26.8
Difference As
3__%. of I960
-4.9
2.4
116.9
107.6
4.2
-24.8
-7.4
32.8
-1.5
-28.4
0.0
-4.1
-1.5
5.3
-3.7
13.9
-9.0
41.6
-8.9
-47.5
22.6
18.6
3.9
-5.0
9.8
-13.3
77.9
-31.4
3.1
9.8
7.3
-10.7
6.5
12.3
3.2
327.7
-8.9
-40.4
-10.7
-14.6
2.9
46
-------
Table ni-10 (Ccntinued)
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF 1980 UTILITY EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
WITH AIRTEST RESULTS
(Emissions in 1000 Tens per Year)
1980 AIRTEST Difference As
State Emissions Emissions Difference 3 % of 1980
Texas 302.8 303.2 0.4 0.1
Utah 22.1 34.6 12.5 56.5
Vermont 0.5 0.0 0.5 100.0
Virginia 163.7 220.7 57.0 34.8
Washington 69.4 60.2 -9.2 -13.2
West Virginia 944.2 990.7 46.5 4.9
Wisconsin 485.7 498.8 13.1 2.7
Wyoming 120.9 83.8 -37.1 -30.7
NATIONAL TOTALS 17,378.5 17,464.8 86.3 0.5
N/A - Emissions from these states are not available from AIRTEST.
47
-------
differences. Plant-specific comparisons for the 25 highest plants in
AIKTEST are presented in Table III-ll. Major differences, such as
those for the Gibson Station, are primarily due to added capacity not
accounted for in AIRTEST.
3. Form 67. Another source of estimates is from Department of Energy
Form 67 data. The Form 67 data reflect the utilities' own estimates
of their 302 emissions.
To make the comparison, we nenually searched DOE files for the esti-
mates submitted by the highest emitters in 1980. This limited effort
resulted in a set of data consisting of 77 plants. After automating
these data, we compared the missions reported on Form 67 with our
data for 1979.
The results from the 25 highest Form 67 emitters are shown in Table
111-12. The ranks from ths two datasets correspond fairly well. For
example, the same set of plants are the 8 highest emitters on both
lists. Many high emitting plants, however, either do not file Form
67 or file it extremely late. High emitting plants not in DOE files
when we searched included the Madrid, Cardinal, and Hill plants.
An exception to the general agreement was the Morgantown plant, which
reported much higher 302 emissions on Form 67 than we had estimated.
Based on a careful review, we feel that the Morgantown Form 67 esti-
mate contains either a typographic or a mathemathical error. Other
differences are more difficult to diagnose.
48
-------
Table III-U
COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS ifROM 1980 AND AIRTEST
FOR TOE 25 HIGHEST S02 EMITTERS FROM AIRTEST
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
AIRTEST
Plant Name Rank
Paradise
Muskingum
Gavin
Cumberland
Clif ty Creek
Baldwin
Monroe
Labadie
Kyger Creek
Harrison
Johnsonville
Mitchell
Saminis
Hatfield
Eastlake
Bowen
Gibcon Station
Cones ville
Sliawnee
Brunner Island
Montrose
Madrid
Beck j or d
Coffeen
Hammer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AIRTEST
Emissions
461,
338.
327.9
326.5
325.5
261.5
247.3
245.4
242
237
207
206
203
191
190
187.7
173.9
167
161
153
152
143.9
141.1
137.6
136.5
.3
.1
.5
.1
1380
Rank
3
8
1
2
5
6
10
9
15
11
31
18
30
19
23
7
4
16
43
27
22
17
56
28
25
1980
Emissions
342.7
244.0
376.4
356.8
288.2
259.3
233.9
237.2
202.3
215.0
135.3
171.3
137.0
171.2
155.0
248.1
305.6
200.8
96
139
162
198
84
137
149.1
Difference
34.7
38.6
-12.9
-8.5
12.9
0.9
5.7
3.5
19
10
53
20
48.3
11.8
22.9
-24.4
-43.1
-1C .7
66.8
10.4
-6.1
-25.1
67.1
0.2
-8.4
TOTALS
5,571.6
5,247.4
6.2
-------
Table II1-12
COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS FROM 1979 AND 1979 FOFM 67
FOR THE 25 HIGHEST SC>2 EMITTERS BASED ON FOFM 67
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
Plant Name
Paradise
Gavin
Muskingum
Monroe
Cumberland
Baldwin
Clifty Creek
Gibson Station
Mitchell
Morgantown
Kyger Creek
Sammis
Hatfield
Homer City
Wansley
Johnsonville
Brunner Island
Eastlake
Montrose
Kammer
Harrison
Coffeen
Kincaid
Petersburg
Stuart
Form 67
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Form 67
Emissions
404
394
390
316
304.8
294.1
284.0
281.8
225.4
214.6
214.0
188.5
181.6
172.9
172.9
169.3
167.3
165.0
163.0
159.8
159.2
159.0
158.
143,
142.5
1979
.Bank.
l
3
2
5
4
8
6
7
12
56
10
16
14
20
17
18
23
24
27
25
21
29
26
36
30
1975
Emissions
410.6
354.5
375.0
292.3
316.6
284
290
289.0
206.0
80
227
177
184
159
176
173.4
157.3
151
145
150.8
159.2
139.5
150.3
116.2
.4
.7
.5
.7
.3
.4
.4
.0
.1
.1
137.4
Difference
-1.5
11.3
4.1
8.2
-3.7
3.4
-2.3
-2.5
9.4
166.6
-6.0
6.3
-1.5
8.5
-1.8
-2.4
6.4
9.2
12.3
6.0
0.0
14.0
5.6
23.4
3.7
TOTALS
5,627.4
5,304.7
6.1
Note: Madrid, with emissions of 180.8 kilotons and ranked number 16 and Cardinal, with
estimated emissions of 158.2 kilotons and ranked number 22 in our 1979 calculations, did
not have a Form 67 on file.
-------
As a further comparison, we performed a linear regression on the two
sets of estimates for the 77 plants (with a zero intercept). The
resulting r2 statistic was .957, showing excellent agreement. The
regression slope was 0.98.
This regression is statistically significant at the 0.0001 level. It
implies that the Form 67 estimates are consistently higher than our
estimates by about 2 percent. Assuming that the Form 67 data contain
no mathematical errors, these differences could be due to one or both
of two factors: (1) the difference between fuels reported as
received and those burned and (2) the sulfur retained in ash or oth-
erwise not actually emitted. We consider it unlikely that the
difference between the sulfur content of fuels received and those
burned could be more than a small fraction of a percent. This would
imply that the ash retention assumptions would account for most of
the difference. Our ash retention assumptions were discussed ear-
lier. The Form 67 instructions call for the calculation of fuel sul-
fur "minus sulfur content of product removed."! Many utilities, how-
ever, use a standard 5 percent ash retention value a figure that
agrees with our estimate for bituminous coal but that is lower than
the figure we used for sub-bituminous or lignite coals.
D. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
1. Ash retention figures. As indicated earlier, some fraction of the
sulfur present within coal is retained and captured along with the
1 U.S. Department of Energy, FPC Form 67, instructions for page 23.
51
-------
ash resulting from combustion rather than released as a gas. This
fraction is not captured by participate control systems. In our
basic analysis, we used the figures agreed to by EPA and DOE in the
Acid Rain Mitigation Study. These figures differ by rank of coal.
To test the sensitivity of our results to this assumption, we used
the estimates from the EPA report AP-42.
Table 111-13 presents a state-by-state comparison of 1980 £££ esti-
mates based on differing asli retention assumptions. These results
snow that most of the differences occur in the western states, the
predominant users of coals with low heating values.
2. Capacity utilization. An additional sensitivity analysis was con-
ducted to determine the extent to which changes in capacity utiliza-
tion of large 302 emitting plants might affect emissions of this pol-
lutant. As Table 111-14 shows, for many states, emissions from the
200 highest emitting plants account for the vast majority of emis-
sions from all plants.
The overall trend in 302 emissions has been a slight decline. However,
if capacity utilization changes, there is a potential for significant change
in emissions from the existing stock of plants. If higher sulfur fuels are
less costly, for exanple, utilities might wish to operate higher 302 emitting
plants. Capacity utilization could also be affected by utility efforts to
"flatten" the load duration curve by storage and load management measures,
thus reducing the fraction of electricity generated by high-cost peaking units
and increasing the utilization of coal-fired baseload plants. On the other
hand, continued declines in demand growth coupled with possible increases in
52
-------
Table II1-13
EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT COAL SULFUR RETENTION ASSUMPTIONS ON
1980 SO2 EMISSIONS
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
State.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nfcrf York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Base
Case
.1
.7
.5
.6
543.
11.
87.
26.
77.9
77.5
32.1
52.5
4.6
725.9
736.7
41.6
0.0
1125.6
1539.6
231.3
150.1
1007.5
24.8
16.3
223.
275.
565.
177.4
129.2
U40.
23.
49.
39.
80.
UO.
84.
480.
435.
82.
2171.
37.
.2
.5
.4
.5
.4
.5
.5
.5
.2
.6
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
3.3
1466.1
5.2
213.1
28.6
933.7
AP-42
Assumptions
543.1
11.7
88.2
27.8
77.9
80.0
32.1
52.5
4.6
725.9
736.7
41.6
0.0
1154.1
1540.7
242.8
160.6
1007,
16.
223.
275.
565.4
196.0
129.2
1156.2
26.1
51.6
.5
.5
.2
.4
.3
,4
.5
39.
80.
110.
94.
480.
435,
82.
2215.9
42.1
3.6
1467.7
5.2
213.1
28.8
933.7
% Increase
over Base
0.0
0.0
0.8
4.5
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
.1
.0
.0
0.
5.
7.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.0
1.4
11.5
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
11.7
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
55
-------
Table II1-13 (Continued)
EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT COAL SULFUR RETENTION ASSUMPHONS ON
1980 SQ2 EMISSIONS
(Emissions in 1000 Tens per Year)
Stats
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Base
Case
302.8
22.1
0.5
163.7
69.4
944.2
485.7
120.9
AP-42
Assumptions
318.3
22.1
0.5
163.7
77.4
944.2
497.2
134.7
% Increase
oypr Base
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
0.0
2.4
11.4
NATIONAL TOTALS
17,378.5
17,582.9
1.2
54
-------
Table II1-14
SHARES OF 1980 S02 EMISSIONS FRCM THE
200 HIG1EST S02 e-UTTItC PLANTS BY STATE
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
Emissions from
Emissions from 200 Highest As a
Emissions from 200 Highest Share of All
State All Plants Emitting Plants Plants (%)
Alabama 543 518 95
Alaska 12 0 0
Arizona 88 63 72
Arkansas 27 0 0
California 78 0 0
Colorado 77 0 0
Connecticut 32 0 0
Delaware 52 28 54
District of Columbia 500
Florida 726 582 80
Georgia 737 699 95
Hawaii 42 26 62
Idaho 000
Illinois 1,126 937 83
Indiana 1,540 1,445 94
Iowa 231 123 53
Kansas 150 103 69
Kentucky 1,008 928 92
Louisiana 25 0 0
Maine 16 0 0
Maryland 223 178 80
Massachusetts 276 217 79
Michigan 565 467 83
Minnesota 177 100 56
Mississippi 129 105 81
Missouri 1,141 1,049 92
Montana 23 0 0
Nebraska 49 23 47
Nevada 39 33 85
New Hampshire 80 52 65
New Jersey UO 65 59
New Mexico 85 81 95
New York 480 386 80
North Carolina 435 358 82
North Dakota 83 61 73
Ohio 2,172 2,073 95
Oklahoma 38 0 0
Oregon 300
Pennsylvania 1,466 1,365 93
Rhode Island 500
South Carolina 213 120 56
South Dakota 29 27 93
55
-------
Table 111-14 (Continued)
SHARES OF 1980 SC>2 EMISSIONS FROM THE
200 HIGHEST S02 EMITTING PLANTS BY STATE
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
Emissions from
Emissions from 200 Highest As a
Emissions from 200 Highest Share of All
State All Plants Emitting Plants plani-s (%)
Tennessee 934 914 98
Texas 303 240 79
Utah 22 0 0
Vermont 100
Virginia 164 111 68
Washington 69 68 99
West Virginia 944 893 95
Wisconsin 486 446 92
Wyoming 121 99 82
TOTALS 17,379 14,984 86
56
-------
peak-to-average demand ratios and baseload use of nuclear plants could result
in decreased capacity utilization of large coal-fired plants.
To examine the implications of changing capacity utilization patterns on
two variables of interest coal consumption and 302 emissions we simu-
lated two possible changes in capacity utilization of the 200 highest 302
emitting plants from their 1980 levels. We exanined the effects on coal use
and SC>2 of changes in the use of these 200 plants from a capacity utilization
of 40 percent to a capacity utilization of 70 percent (the actual use in 1980
was 53 percent). On a national basis and on a base of about 15 million tons,
the resulting change in 302 emissions would range from a reduction of 24 per-
centr or 3.6 million tons, to an increase of 38 percent, or 5.7 million tons
(see Table 111-15). Stites with no plants among the 200 highest show no
effect from this analysis while other states show substantial increases. The
highest increase on a percentage basis is in Virginia, which has an increase
of over 120 percent. The highest absolute increase, almost 800,000 tons,
occurs in Ohio.
Since 302 emissions limits are customarily computed on the basis of
modeling studies over 3- and 24-hour averaging times based on full load emis-
sions, S02 emission changes due to differing capacity factors are unlikely to
be constrained by current emission limits.
Implications of the changes for the 25 highest emitting plants are
presented in Table II1-16. Table II1-17 shows that a change in capacity util-
ization such as that analyzed above would also change utility coal use signif-
icantly. For the 200 plants examined, the range would amount to an annual
decrease of about 115 million tons of coal to an annual increase of almost 150
57
-------
Table II1-15
IMPLICATIONS OF A RANGE OF CAPACITY OTTLIZATIDN ON 9Q2 EMISSIONS
BY STATE FOR THE 200 HIGHEST EMITTERS
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
Maximum .40 Minimum .70
Capacity Factor Actual 1980 Data ranarMhv Factor
S02
Emissions
State
State (1000 tons) .Bank.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Couth Dakota
425
*
37
*
it
*
*
16
*
506
519
14
*
745
1,055
99
102
745
*
*
150
150
351
82
102
785
*
20
32
33
52
48
285
231
37
1,613
*
*
946
*
85
16
11
*
29
*
*
*
*
35
*
10
9
36
*
6
2
22
20
7
*
*
17
16
13
24
19
4
*
33
32
31
26
27.
14
15
30
1
*
*
3
*
23
34
S02
Emissions
(1000 tons)
518
*
63
*
*
*
*
28
*
582
699
26
*
937
1,445
123
103
S28
*
*
178
217
467
100
105
1,049
*
23
33
52
65
81
386
358
61
2,073
*
*
1,365
ft
120
27
State
Rank
11
*
29
*
*
*
*
33
*
10
9
35
*
5
2
19
23
6
it
*
18
17
12
24
22
4
*
36
32
31
28
26
14
15
30
1
*
*
3
ft
20
34
S02
Emissions
(1000 tons)
744
*
66
*
*
*
*
28
*
970
928
26
*
1,331
1,998
172
191
1,315
*
*
291
262
620
144
205
1,453
*
34
56
58
92
85
514
410
65
2,891
*
it
1,709
152
28
State
Rank
11
*
29
*
*
*
*
34
*
9
10
36
*
6
2
22
21
7
it
*
16
17
13
24
20
4
*
33
32
31
26
27
14
15
30
1
*
ft
3
23
35
58
-------
State
Table 111-15 (Continued)
IMPLICATIONS OF A RANGE OF CAPACITY UTILIZATION ON SO2
BY STATE FOR THE 200 HIGffiST EMITTERS
(Emissions in 1000 Tons per Year)
Maximum .40
Capacity Factor
S02
Emissions
(100Q tons)
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
746
149
*
102
45
603
377
64
11,366
State
Rank
5
18
*
*
21
28
8
12
25
Actual 19,80 Haha
S02
Emissions
(1000 tons)
914
240
*
*
111
68
893
446
99
State
Rank
7
16
*
*
21
27
8
13
25
EMISSIONS
Minimum .70
Capacity Factor
S02
Emissions State
(1000 tons) Rank
14,984
1,428
260
*
*
252
78
1,061
696
114
20,733
5
18
*
*
19
28
8
12
25
* Indicates states that do not contain plants in the 200 highest emitters.
59
-------
Table II1-16
IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGES IN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ON
S02 EMISSIONS OF LARGE S02 EMITTING PLANTC
Plant Name
Gavin
Cumberland
Paradise
Gibson Station
Clifty Creek
Baldwin
Bowen
Muskingum
Labadie
Monroe
Harrison
Wansley
Kincaid
Conemaugh
Kyger Creek
Conesville
Madrid
Mitchell
Hatfield
Homer City
Gaston
Mcntrose
Eastlake
Big Bend
Kammer
1980
S02
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1980
Capacity
Utilization
.64
.48
.45
.53
.81
.61
.57
.47
.51
.56
.61
.68
.49
.64
.71
.36
.67
.59
.54
.59
.67
.51
.56
.49
.70
S02 Emissions Cnder
Alternative Capacity
Utilization Assumptions*
(1000 tonsJ
Actual
12SQ
234.3
299.0
305.6
231.2
142.7
168.7
174.5
206.0
185.6
165.8
141.3
123.0
166.5
128.8
114.7
200.8
119.5
116.5
125.7
115.6
100.2
127.7
111.3
125.3
85.6
376.4
356.8
342.7
305.6
288.2
259.3
248.1
244.0
237.2
233.9
215.0
209.8
205.5
205.2
202.3
200.8
198.9
171.3
171.2
169.1
169.1
162.0
155.0
153.2
149.1
High
410.1
523.3
534.8
404.5
288.2
295.2
305.4
360.6
324.8
290.
247.
215.
291.
225.4
202.3
387.4
209.1
203.8
219.9
202.2
175.4
223.4
194.9
219.3
149.8
.2
.3
.2
.3
TOTALS
4,015.9 5,629.7 7,103.8
*Low is based on a maximum of .40 capacity utilization, actual is based on
calculated 1980 capacity utilization, and high is based on a minimum of .70
capacity utilization.
60
-------
Table II1-17
IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE COAL USE FROM A RANGE OF CAPACITY UTILIZATION
FOR THE 200 HIGHEST SO2 EMITTING PLANS
200 HTKHRST SO. EMITTING PLAOTS
All Plants
1980 Coal Use
State (1000 tons)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
19,550
273
10,916
1,774
0
10,124
0
1,036
0
8,785
21,191
0
0
34,611
33,664
10,745
10,034
24,383
0
0
5,908
676
22,150
12,610
3,072
23,188
3,352
4,702
4,064
1,080
2,545
11,406
6,446
23,920
10,664
48,537
5,752
485
42,529
0
7,927
2,683
1980 Coal Use
(1000 tons)
17,807
0
6,894
0
0
0
0
942
0
7,703
19,832
0
0
21,895
29,372
5,419
3,899
21,217
0
0
4,809
676
16,780
9,155
1,349
19,695
0
1,279
3,170
1,080
1,602
8,016
5,065
19,979
6,961
45,089
0
0
37,936
0
5,0%
2,470
High Capacity
Factor
1980 Coal Use
(1COO tons)
25,908
0
7,145
0
0
0
0
942
0
11,868
27,062
0
0
33,959
42,766
7,593
6,932
29,595
0
0
7,578
801
23,439
12,272
2,886
28,385
0
1,941
5,326
1,204
2,432
8,403
5,847
22,595
7,387
61,886
0
0
48,435
0
6,073
2,560
Percent
of 1980
Actual Cse
145
N/A
104
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
K/A
154
136
N/A
N/A
155
146
140
178
139
N/A
N/A
158
118
140
134
214
144
N/A
152
168
111
152
105
115
113
106
137
N/A
N/A
128
N/A
119
104
Low Capacity
Factor
1980 Coal Use
(1000 tons)
14,786
0
4,083
0
0
0
0
533
0
6,546
15,065
0
0
18,225
22,162
4,339
3,844
16,568
0
0
3,972
458
13,156
7,012
1,349
15,154
0
1,109
3,043
688
1,390
4,802
3,213
12,696
4,189
34,671
0
0
26,666
0
3,329
1,463
Percent
of 1980
83
N/A
59
N/A
N/A
K/A
K/A
57
K/A
85
76
K/A
K/A
83
75
80
99
78
K/A
N/A
83
68
78
77
100
77
N/A
87
96
64
87
60
63
64
60
77
K/A
K/A
70
K/A
65
59
61
-------
Table II1-17 (Continued)
IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE GOAL USE FROM A RANGE OF CAPACITY UTILIZATION
FOR THE 200 HIGHEST SOj EMITTING PLANTS
200
so miTroc PLANTS,
State
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
All Plants
1980 Coal Use
(1000tons)
High Capacity Lew Capacity
Factor Percent Factor Percent
1980 Coal Use 1980 Coal Use of 1960 1930 Coal Use of 1980
(1000 tons) (1000 tons) Art-iial DSP (1000 tons) An-iial HS
21,679
45,351
4,695
9
5,560
4,950
28,499
13,231
14.452
21,218
36,116
0
0
2,725
4,950
24,537
12,214
11.300
31,206
39,046
0
0
4,922
5,669
29,077
18,111
13.302
147
108
N/A
N/A
181
115
119
148
US.
16,233
22,312
0
0
2,097
3,240
16,501
9,880
7.483
77
62
N/A
WA
77
65
67
81
£6.
TOTAL
569,410
438,250
584,553
133
322,256
74
N/A - Not applicable.
62
-------
million tons. The heating value of this large potential increase in coal use
is somewhat greater than all the oil used by the industry in 1980.
63
-------
SECTION IV
DISTRIBUTION OF FUEL USE, GENERATION, AND EMISSIONS IN 1980
In this section we present a variety of information related to SO2 emis-
sions, fossil fuel use, and total generation by state. The purpose is to pro-
vide insights into the geographical distribution of the various variables con-
sidered. This information is useful in identifying which states might be
affected with regard to 902 ernissi°ns by various acid deposition control
strategies that have been proposed. However, the determination of who would
pay for emission reductions is far more complicated in that it involves insti-
tutional rather than technological considerations. Further complications are
created in that some states such as V;est Virginia are significant exporters of
electricity. Thus, strategies intended to reduce S02 emissions from West Vir-
ginia plants would likely affect electricity buyers in states such as Pennsyl-
vania.
Table IV-1 shows average S02 emissions rates by fuel for each state and
over all fuels. The average figures over all fuel uses show a wide variation,
ranging from a low of 0 pounds per million Btu in Idaho to a high of 4.5
pounds per million Btu in Missouri. These differences are primarily due to
the mix of fuels used. States such as Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas use sig-
nificant quantities of natural gas, which is almost sulfur free, while other
states are heavy users of coal. Fuel use distribution by state is presented
in Table IV-2.
Preceding page blank es
-------
Table IV-1
1980 S02 EMISSION RATES BY STATE FOR VARIOUS FUELS
(Pounds per 106 Btu)
All
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District
of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
2.3
3.0
0.7
0.7
N/A
0.7
N/A
2.4
N/A
3.5
2.9
N/A
N/A
3.1
4.2
2.3
1.6
3.6
N/A
N/A
2.5
1.6
2.0
1.6
2.3
4.6
0.8
1.1
0.7
3.6
2.4
0.8
2.8
1.5
1.2
3.9
0.7
0.7
2.8
£11
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.5
0.4
0.9
0.5
1.1
1.0
1.6
1.9
1.2
1.1
O.S
1.1
0.8
1.8
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.8
0.8
1.5
2.7
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.8
2.1
0.7
0.7
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.7
2.9
1.2
0.0
2.7
4.2
2.2
1.0
3.6
0.1
1.4
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.3
4.5
0.7
1.0
0.6
2.9
0.9
0.6
1.4
1.5
1.2
3.8
0.2
0.7
2.5
66
-------
Table IV-1 (Continued)
1980 S02 EMISSION RATES BY STATE FOR VARIOUS FUELS
(Pounds per 106 Btu)
State.
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
Coal
N/A
2.0
1.7
3.7
0.9
0.4
3.0
1.4
1.7
2.7
3.6
Oil
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.1
1.2
fias
N/A
N/A
All
Fossil
1.0
1.9
1.7
3.7
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.7
3.4
2.6
1.2
1.9
67
-------
Table IV-2
1980 TOTAL FOSSIL FUEL USE BY STATE FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES
State
Coal
(million tons)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District
of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hanpshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
19.6
.3
10.9
1.8
0.0
10.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
8.8
21.2
0.0
0.0
34.6
33.7
10.7
10.0
24.4
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.7
22.2
12.6
3.1
23.2
3.4
4.7
4.1
1.1
2.5
11.4
6.4
23.9
10.7
48.5
5.8
0.5
42.5
Oil
(million barrels)
0.2
.4
1.2
3.1
62.7
.2
21.4
5.8
1.5
70.0
.7
10.2
0.0
12.8
0.0
.1
.5
0.0
7.1
3.6
8.1
45.7
9.6
.4
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
2.4
4.3
12.9
0.2
63.9
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
17.2
Gas
(BCF)
.7
.9
1.4
28.8
49.
58.
518.8
31.9
0.0
7.0
0.0
166.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
19.2
1.9
6.8
100.9
1.9
425.0
0.0
5.2
5.1
26.4
8.1
95.1
15.3
4.2
11.9
27.5
0.0
79.5
56.3
124.4
1.7
0.0
4.9
329.9
0.3
2.9
68
-------
Table IV-2 (Ccntinued)
1980 TOTAL FOSSIL FUEL USE BY STATE FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES
State.
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
NATIONAL
TOTALS
Coal
(million tans)
0.0
7.9
2.7
21.7
45.4
4.9
0.0
5.6
5.0
28.5
13.2
569.4
Oil
(million barrels)
1.6
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.0
14.6
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
391.4
Gas
(BCF)
1.7
5.4
0.3
1.1
1,430.0
5.1
0.2
2.3
0.9
0.1
13.7
3,681.6
69
-------
Consideration of other forms of electricity generation can show the
extent to which each state depends upon fossil-fueled power. Some states,
such as Idaho and Vermont, are much less dependent upon fossil fuel than is
the nation as a whole. Generation types by state appear in Table IV-3.
The relative quantities of emissions produced at various emissions rates
are illustrated in Table IV-4. In carrying out the analysis summarized on
this table, each plant was categorized by its average emission rate in pounds
of 302 ^)er roiHi00 Btu' th6 total emissions from the plant were allocated to
all applicable categories below that rate. As expected, there is a high
correlation between the states with high total emissions and those with a high
rate of significant emissions. As shown in the table, eight states have some
plants emitting at rates in excess of six pounds par million Btu. All of
these states but Iowa are major emitters.
The same statistics expressed as a percentage of total emissions are
presented in Table IV-5. This table reveals that while Ohio has the greatest
quantity of emissions at a high rate, other states, such as Tennessee, Ken-
tucky, and Missouri, have higher shares in the highest emissions rate
categories.
Tables IV-6 and IV-7 are similar to the preceding two tables except that
they report emissions in terms of the incremental share above the specified
level rather than in terms of total emissions.
70
-------
Table IV-3
1980 GENERATION STATISTICS BY STATE
(Ter awatt-hDu rs)
State
Alabana
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District
of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Fossil
45.4
2.6
27.0
10.2
89.6
21.2
12.6
6.7
0.7
79.0
50.5
6.5
0.0
75.7
70.1
18.3
25.1
54.2
45.8
2.1
20.0
31.6
57.9
21.0
18.5
48.4
5.5
9.3
11.7
5.1
22.1
24.6
63.2
60.8
11.8
108.1
43.3
0.8
109.7
Hydro-
Eleciir ic
9.4
0.5
10.0
1.7
42.2
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
4.5
0.0
9.5
0.1
0.5
0.9
0.0
2.9
0.0
1.4
1.3
1.1
2.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
10.0
1.3
2.4
0.9
0.3
0.1
28.4
5.5
2.5
0.0
1.6
30.2
2.2
Nuclear
23.5
0.0
0.0
7.8
5.0
0.7
11.8
0.0
0.0
16.7
8.4
0.0
0.0
27.7
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
10.9
3.2
15.9
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
0.0
0.0
7.7
0.0
19.3
5.8
0.0
2.1
0.0
5.4
12.4
:mtai
78.3
3.1
37.0
19.7
136.8
23.9
24.7
6.7
0.7
95.9
63.4
6.5
9.5
103.5
70.6
21.8
25.1
57.1
45.8
7.9
32.2
35.9
75.8
31.6
18.5
49.0
15.5
16.4
14.1
6.0
30.1
24.7
110.9
72.1
14.3
110.3
44.9
36.4
124.3
Fossil As a
j^of Total
58
84
73
52
65
89
51
100
100
82
80
100
0.0
73
99
84
100
95
100
27
62
88
76
66
100
99
35
57
83
85
73
>99
57
84
83
98
96
2
88
71
-------
Table IV-3 (Continued)
1980 GENERATION STATISTICS BY STATE
(Terawatt-hours)
Rhode Islana
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
NATIONAL
TOTALS
Kydro-
Fossil Electric Nuclear
1.0
21.5
2.8
51.0
201.9
11.3
0.0
21.9
7.3
70.4
26.0
22*fi
0.0
3.8
5.8
9.6
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.1
83.0
0.4
1.9
JLJ.
0.0
17.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.0
11.5
2.0
0.0
9.9
JLQ
Fossil As a
Total $ of Total
1.0
42.7
8.6
61.1
202.9
12.1
3.7
34.5
92.3
70.8
37.8
21.9
100
50
33
83
>99
93
0
63
8
99
69
55.
1,754.4
286.5
251.6 2,292.5
77
72
-------
Table IV-4
TOTftL EMISSIONS FRCM PLANTS ABOVE A SPECIFIED POUNDS OF S02 PER 106 BTU LIMIT
State
0.0
6.0
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District
of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
543
12
88
27
78
77
32
52
5
726
737
42
0
1,126
1,540
231
150
1,008
25
16
223
276
565
177
129
1,141
23
49
39
80
110
85
480
435
82
2,172
38
3
1,466
540
12
75
17
6
70
13
52
5
710
737
42
,0
1,118
1,540
231
131
1,008
12
16
223
275
565
177
125
1,140
23
49
39
80
98
81
447
435
78
2,171
24
3
1,462
540
12
0
5
1
2
0
37
0
649
736
34
0
976
1,525
218
126
1,008
0
16
219
254
523
143
109
1,128
8
28
0
80
72
81
431
435
78
2,153
0
0
1,441
530
9
0
5
0
2
0
37
0
602
736
31
0
950
1,500
172
126
1,008
0
16
200
227
456
142
108
1,127
8
28
0
80
69
0
407
365
49
2,119
0
0
1,437
486
9
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
564
724
29
0
935
1,500
163
126
1,002
0
4
200
227
365
102
108
1,121
0
23
0
80
69
0
401
212
40
2,117
0
0
1,378
418
9
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
439
658
0
0
935
1,482
163
126
915
0
4
184
215
364
99
108
1,039
0
0
0
80
46
0
344
0
0
2,004
0
0
1,249
323
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
311
658
0
0
918
1,480
161
119
764
0
0
92
0
352
78
106
1,039
0
0
0
52
41
0
167
0
0
2,004
0
0
1,082
126
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
311
348
0
0
918
1,371
149
41
/53
0
0
0
0
114
8
66
1,039
0
0
0
52
41
0
138
0
0
1,555
0
0
832
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
163
0
0
0
800
1,222
106
0
613
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,550
0
0
171
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
664
613
75
0
343
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
638
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,235
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
343
413
25
0
343
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
550
0
0
0
-------
Table IV-4 (Continued)
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM PLANTS ABOVE A SPECIFIED POUNDS OF S02 PER 106 BTU LIMIT
State 0.0 0.5 1.0 1,2. 1*£ 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 5^0.
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
5
213
29
934
303
22
1
164
69
944
486
121
5
213
29
934
259
9
1
164
69
937
486
121
0
192
28
934
155
0
1
164
69
937
483
77
0
190
27
934
87
0
0
113
69
926
448
32
0
190
27
934
0
0
0
60
69
804
448
32
0
176
0
804
0
0
0
0
0
756
446
0
0
38
0
804
0
0
0
0
0
748
423
0
0
0
0
804
0
0
0
0
0
630
420
0
0
0
0
494
0
0
0
0
0
535
362
0
0
0
0
357
0
0
0
0
0
149
176
0
0
0
0
357
0
0
0
0
0
149
o
0
TOTALS 17,379 17,055 16,106 15,371 14,582 13,091 11,769 9,718 7,009 4,249 2,538
-------
state
Table IV-5
PERCENT OF TOTAL CTATE EMISSIONS BASED ON THE 6
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM PLANTS ABOVE A SPECIFIED POUNDS OF S02 PER 10 BTU LIMIT
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District
of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10 n
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
85
63
8
90
42
100
100
98
100
100
45
99
100
100
87
100
50
100
100
100
100
100
96
100
100
98
99
100
89
96
93
300
95
100
63
100
100
99
100
0
19
1
2
1
71
0
89
100
82
45
87
99
94
84
100
0
100
98
92
93
81
84
99
32
57
0
100
65
%
90
100
95
99
0
0
98
98
74
0
18
0
2
0
71
0
83
100
75
0
84
97
74
84
100
0
99
90
82
81
80
84
99
32
57
0
100
63
0
85
84
59
98
0
0
98
89
74
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
78
98
69
0
83
97
70
84
59
0
24
90
82
65
58
84
98
0
46
0
100
63
0
84
49
49
97
0
0
94
77
74
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
61
89
0
0
83
96
70
84
91
0
24
8?
";,
64
56
84
91
0
0
0
100
42
0
72
0
0
92
0
0
85
59
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
89
0
0
82
%
69
79
76
0
0
41
0
62
44
82
91
0
0
0
65
37
0
35
c
6
92
0
0
74
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
47
0
0
82
89
64
27
/5
0
0
0
0
20
5
51
91
0
0
0
65
37
0
29
0
0
72
0
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
71
73
46
0
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
40
32
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
27
11
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
-------
Table IV-5 (Continued)
PERCENT OF TOTAL STATE EMISSIONS BASED ON THE ,
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM PLANTS ABOVE A SPECIFIED POUNDS OF SCfc PER 10° BTU LIMIT
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wcot Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
86
39
100
100
100
99
100
100
2
90
93
100
51
0
100
100
100
99
100
63
0
89
94
100
29
0
73
69
100
98
92
27
0
89
94
100
0
0
0
36
100
Ifi
92
27
0
82
0
86
0
0
0
0
0
bO
92
0
0
18
0
86
0
0
0
0
0
79
U7
0
0
0
0
86
0
0
0
0
0
67
86
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
0
57
75
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
16
36
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
TOTALS 100 98 93 88 84 75 68 56 40 24 15
-------
Table IV-6
6
INCREMENTAL EMISSIONS FROM PLANTS ABOVE A SPECIFIED POUNDS OF S02 PER 10 BTU LIMIT
State
o.o
LJL
1*2
2*5.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District
of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Kaine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Now Hanpanire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
OhiD
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
543
12
88
27
78
77
32
52
5
726
737
42
0
1,126
1,540
231
150
1,008
25
16
223
276
565
177
129
1,141
23
49
39
80
110
85
480
435
82
2,172
38
3
1,466
425
9
30
7
1
23
0
35
2
526
608
24
0
923
1,356
179
105
867
5
11
172
197
415
120
98
1,014
9
26
16
66
66
46
343
287
49
1,890
4
1
1,179
310
6
0
1
0
1
0
19
0
365
480
13
0
754
1,177
134
80
726
0
5
121
120
269
74
75
893
2
11
0
52
41
11
244
139
19
1,610
0
0
907
266
5
0
1
0
0
0
16
0
316
429
9
0
712
1,108
119
71
670
0
3
102
99
221
60
68
846
1
7
0
47
35
0
210
82
11
1,503
0
0
800
209
4
0
0
C
0
0
11
0
247
353
4
0
656
1,010
108
57
58t
0
1
77
66
178
44
58
776
0
3
0
33
27
0
161
18
2
1,350
0
0
655
130
3
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
163
233
0
0
563
8^3
00
34
453
0
1
41
16
115
25
41
671
0
0
0
24
18
0
85
0
0
1,105
0
0
441
62
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
113
127
0
0
472
696
72
13
359
0
0
10
0
55
9
25
579
0
0
0
16
12
0
39
0
0
880
0
0
253
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
42
0
0
383
544
54
7
278
0
0
0
0
7
1
11
487
0
0
0
9
6
0
14
0
0
704
0
0
115
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
230
285
27
0
151
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
314
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
422
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
98
105
8
0
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
205
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
26
3
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
-------
-fable IV-6 (Continued)
INCREMENTAL EMISSIONS FRM PLANTS ABOVE A SPECIFIED POUNDS OP S02 PER 106 BTU LIMIT
State 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.2 .Ui 2*0. 2Ji 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Rhode island 53000000000
South Carolina 213 159 106 89 64 25
-o
a
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
29
934
303
22
1
164
69
944
486
121
20
807
117
3
0
104
49
771
417
58
12
681
29
0
0
45
29
605
349
13
8
630
11
0
0
25
20
540
324
7
4
554
0
0
0
6
8
470
293
1
0
457
0
0
0
0
0
368
242
0
0
370
0
0
0
0
0
273
194
0
0
284
0
0
0
0
0
183
148
0
0
153
0
0
0
0
0
64
62
0
0
84
0
0
0
0
0
38
9
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
TOTALS 17,379 13,642 10,527 9,472 8,100 6,203 4,634 3,374 1733 814 353
-------
Table IV-7
PERCENT OF TOTftL STATE EMISSIONS BASED ON THE ,
INCREMENTAL EMISSIONS FROM PLANTS ABOVE A SPECIFIED POUNDS OF SO2 PER 10
State
o.o
2*0.
vo
Alabama
Alaska
Arizoiia
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District
of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
.few York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
78
76
34
25
1
30
1
66
43
73
83
58
24
82
88
77
70
C6
21
65
77
72
73
67
76
89
37
53
40
83
60
54
71
66
59
B7
11
31
80
57
51
0
5
0
1
0
37
0
50
65
31
3
67
76
58
53
72
0
29
54
44
48
42
58
78
11
21
0
65
37
13
51
32
24
74
0
0
62
49
44
0
2
0
0
0
30
0
44
58
22
0
63
72
51
47
66
0
15
46
36
39
34
53
74
6
14
0
58
32
0
44
19
13
69
0
0
55
38
37
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
34
48
9
0
58
66
47
38
58
0
9
35
24
31
25
45
68
0
5
0
48
24
0
34
4
3
62
0
0
45
24
25
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
23
32
0
0
50
55
39
23
45
0
4
18
6
20
14
32
59
0
0
0
30
17
0
18
0
0
51
0
0
30
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
17
0
0
42
45
31
8
36
0
0
4
0
10
5
19
51
0
0
0
20
11
0
8
0
0
41
0
0
17
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
6
0
0
34
35
24
5
28
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
43
0
0
0
11
6
0
3
0
0
32
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
20
19
12
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
7
4
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-------
Table IV-7 (Continued)
PERCENT OF TOTAL STATE HUSSIONS BASED ON THE ,
INCREMENTAL EMISSIONS FROM PLANTS ABOVE A SPECIFIED POUNDS OF SCfe PER 10 BTU LIMIT
State 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 Z.5 3.Q 4.0 5.0 6.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
9 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 2
2 0
0 0
8
TOTALS 100 79 61 55 47 36 27 19 10 5 2
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
75
70
86
39
12
59
64
71
82
86
48
0
50
40
73
10
0
17
27
41
64
72
11
0
42
29
67
4
0
5
15
29
57
67
6
0
30
13
59
0
0
0
4
12
50
60
1
0
12
0
49
0
0
0
0
0
39
50
0
0
2
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
29
40
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
19
31
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
7
13
0
-------
APPENDIX A
THE UTILITY FUEL QUALITY AND USE DATABASE
The analyses presented in the body of this report were based on a
detailed plant-specific database developed for EPA by EHPA and installed on
EPA's IBM 370/168 computer in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. This
database has been organized using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS), a
software package that provides for simplified database storage and analysis.
The SAS database was developed in steps. First, each of 13 separate
micro-databases (see Table A-l) was sorted and extracted from each of the
files according to the file type. Tables A-2 through A-6 identify the data
elements selected for each of the files used.
A-l
-------
Table A-l
INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE
Description
1976 Utility Fuel Delivery Data
(FPC Form 423)
1977 Utility Fuel Delivery Data
(FPC Form 423)
1978 Utility Fuel Delivery Data
(FPC Form 423)
1979 Utility Fuel Delivery Data
(FPC Form 423)
1980 Utility Fuel Delivery Data
(FPC Form 423)
"AIRTESTn Model Plant Inventory
with Emissions
1976 Electric Generation and
Fuel Use Data (FPC Form 4)
1977 Electric Generation and
Fuel Use Data (FPC Form 4)
1978 Electric Generation and
Fuel Use Data (FPC Form 4)
1979 Electric Generation and
Fuel Use Data (FPC Form 4)
1980 Electric Generation and
Fuel Use Data (FPC Form 4)
S02 Scrubber Data
1979 Utility S02 Emissions
Source
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Teknekron Research, Inc.
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Pedco*
Department of Energy
Note: These data were transcribed from Form 67 and automated by EHPA.
* EPA Utility FGD Survey, data automated by EHPA.
Preceding page blank
A-3
-------
Table A-2
DATA ELEMENTS EXTRACTED FRCM FPC FOFM 423
ORES* Respondent Code
ORIS Plant Code
Year of Data
PIPS State Code for Plant
Coal Data
.. Coal Delivered (1,000 tons)
.. Coal Heating Value (Btu per pound)
.. Coal Sulfur Content (percent by weight)
.. Coal Ash Content (percent by weight)
.. Coal Cost (cents/HMBtu)
Oil Data
Oil Delivered (1,000 barrels)
Oil Heating Value (Btu per gallon)
Oil Sulfur Content (percent by weight)
Oil Ash Content (percent by weight)
Oil Cost (cents/MMBtu)
Gas Data
.. Gas Delivered (1,000 MCF)
.. Gas Heating Value (Btu per cubic foot)
.. Gas Cost (cents/MMBtu)
* Office of Regulatory Information Systems
A-4
-------
Table A-3
DATA ELEMENTS EXTRACTED FRGM AIRTEST
State Two-Character Code
FIPS State Code
Plant Nane Abbreviation
FIPS County Code
Form 67 Utility Code
Form 67 Plant Code
Total Plant Capacity (MW)
Total Plant SC>2 Emissions (1,000 tons)
Coal Data
.. Sulfur Content (percent by weight)
.. Ash Content (percent by weight)
.. Heating Value (Btu per pound)
.. Heat Rate (Btu per Kwh)
.. Coal Capacity Factor (fraction)
.. Coal Capacity (MW)
.. Coal 302 Emissions (1,000 tons)
Oil Data
Sulfur Content (percent by weight)
Ash Content (percent by weight)
Heating Value (Btu per gallon)
Heat Rate (Btu per Kwh)
Oil Capacity Factor (fraction)
Oil Capacity (MW)
Oil S02 .Emissions (1,000 tons)
Gas Data
.. Heating Value (Bioi per CF)
.. Heat Rate (Btu por Kwh)
.. Gas Capacity Factor (fraction)
.. Gas Capacity (MW)
.. Gas 302 Emissions (1,000 tons)
A-5
-------
Table A--4
DATA ELEMENTS EXTRACTED FROM FORM 4
ORIS Respondent Code
ORIS Plant Code
FIPS State Code
Average Plant Capacity (MW)
Generation from Coal (Mwhr)
Generation from Residual Oil (Mwhr)
Generation from Gas (Mwhr)
Generation from Distillate Oil (Mwhr)
Coal Burned (1,000 tons)
Residual Oil Burned (1,000 bbls)
Gas Burned (1,000 MCF)
Distillate Oil Burned (1,000 bbls)
Table A-5
DATA ELEMENTS CONCERNING S02 SCRUBBERS
ORIS Respondent Code
ORIS Plant Code
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1970 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1971 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1972 (MH)
Equivalent Full ScruDber Capacity in 1973 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1974 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1975 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1976 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1977 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1978 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1979 (MW)
Equivalent Full Scrubber Capacity in 1980 (MW)
A-6
-------
Table A-6
DATA ELEMENTS EXTRACTED FRCM FOFM 67
ORIS Plant Code
Estimated SC>2 Emissions (1,000 tons)
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B
AN EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION REPORTED IN THE DATA300K
Preceding page blank
A-9
-------
DATA FOR THE 200 LARGEST S02 EMITTERS (1976-1980)
PLANT: GAVIN
1980 so2 RANK i
STATE: OHIO
ORIS CODE 54028 810£
1976
1977
1978
1979
1960
S02 EMISSIONS:
TOTAL (1000 TONS)
COAL (1000 TONS)
OIL (1000 TONS)
GAS (1000 TONS)
SCRUBBER OPERATING?
S02 REM. (1000 TUNS)
S02 EMISSIONS RANK
FUEL USED:
COAL (1000 TUNS)
OIL (1000 faBLS)
GAS (1000 NCF)
306.8
306.8
o.o
0.0
NO
0.0
5
7426.4
30.4
0.0
FUEL HEAT VALUE (10**12 bTU):
COAL 147.5
OIL 0.2
GAS
TOTAL
GENERATION (TKHRS)
HEAT RATE (BTU/KWHR)
TOTAL CAPACITY (MW)
CAPACITY FACTOR
FUEL QUALITY:
COAL SULFUR (X)
COAL HEAT (BTU/LB)
COAL ASH (X)
OIL SULFUR (%)
147.7
15.2
9730
2600.0
0.66
2.43
9931
15.15
0.38
248.2
248.1
0.1
0.0
NO
0.0
9
7562.2
31.1
0.0
142.2
0.2
V
142.4
14.4
9930
2600.0
0.63
1.93
9405
13.29
0.59
277.3
277.0
0.3
0.0
NO
0.0
5
8147.3
159.3
0.0
149.0
1.0
150.0
1'4.7
lOlbO
2600.0
0.65
2.00
9146
12.73
0.57
354.5
354.4
0.1
0.0
NO
0.0
3
8206.4
37.5
0.0
152.1
0.2
152.4
15.2
10000
2600.0
0.67
2.54
9268
15.26
0.86
376.4
376.3
0.1
0.0
NO
0.0
1
7766.9
42.1
0.0
146.1
0.3
146.4
14.7
9970
2600.0
0.64
2.B5
9406
16.16
0.54
A-10
-------
APPENDIX C
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FRCM THE HIGHEST EMITTING PLANTS
Column Heading
OBS NAJEC
RANK80
TTS0280
RANK79
TTS0279
RA1JKF67
TS02F67
RANKAT
TOTSOX
RANK78
TTS0278
, RANK77
TTS0277
RAHK76
TTS0276
Definition
Plant Nane
1980 Data Rank
1980 Data S02 Emissions
1979 Data Rank
1979 Data S02 Emissions
Form 67 Rank
Form 67 S02 Emissions
AIRTEST Rank
AIRTEST S02 Emissions
1978 Rank
1978 S02 Emissions
1977 Rank
1977 S02 Emissions
1976 Rank
1976 S02 Emissions
A-11
-------
NArtEC
tMSSIONS FROK. THE LARGEST SU2 tMITTIKb PLANTS
OATA ARE FUR YEiRi 1976 TMPOlil>H 1930
ALSO INCLUDED APE AIRIEST ANP, FCKMo? (1979) DATA
NANrBO TTS0280 KANK79 TTS0279 RANKF67 T5CJ2F67 bAM'AT TUTSDX RANK7B TTSU276 HANK77 TTS0277 RANK76 TTSU276
GAVIN
CUMBERLAND
PARAUISt
GIHSON S1ATIUN
CLIFTY CREEK
BALDKIN
BOWEN
hUSMNGUM
LABADIF
MONROE
HAHRISON
HANSLtf
MNCAI3
CONEHAUGH
nrGEf* CREEK
CONLSVILLt
nAJHID
MITCHELL
hATFIELD
HOMER CITY
GASTON
MONTKUSE
EA5TLAKE
BIG UtNO
KAMMER
KtYSlONE
UhUNNtR ISLAND
CUFFEEK
(ALLATIN
SAMMIS
JOHNSUNVILLE
CARDINAL
CULKErtT
HILL
CAYl.GA
STUART
MONTOUH
HEttKSBUH;
YATES
AMUS
JOPPA
SIOUX
SHANNEE
KT rURTIN
TANNERS CREEK
MILL CREEK
MOKbANFOWN
MOUNT SfOhM
MIAMI FOKT
AVUrt LAKF
KINbSTON
BtLE«s CKEEK
GI'ENt
hAhihALL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
2d
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3C
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
376.4
356.8
342.7
305.6
280.2
259.3
24o.l
244.0
237.2
233.9
215.0
209.8
205.5
205.2
202.3
200.8
196.9
171.3
171.2
169.1
169.1
162.0
155.0
153.2
149.1
142.3
139.0
137.3
137.1
137.0
135.3
126.0
125.9
121.6
115.9
112. »
109.5
lOb.S
106.6
105.1
100.1
97. 2
9b,6
95.1
94.9
94. 1
92.0
VI. 7
H9.S
89.5
88.6
86. t
85.4
85.1
3
48
65
47
30
39
/
44
34
46
76
41
58
21
24
6b
70
59
249.2
338.5
364.4
89.1
287.7
237. a
?41 .«
326.9
286.9
330.9
216.4
61.5
182.3
144.3
253.9
230.0
155.9
103.6
143.6
100.,:
148.8
154.7
1V2.4
13*. 5
142.2
123.3
165.1
US. 2
1B0.7
222.0
234. C
107.6
232.0
106.6
112.3
159.7
U'4,0
108.5
84.1
110.3
146.6
124.0
282.6
117.6
139. S
111.1
70.6
121.3
VI. 9
1B2.3
178.4
83.9
79.9
91.2
5
2
1
68
9
11
14
3
4
I
13
502
37
i3
10
18
44
20
^3
52
36
27
15
34
30
25
24
2V
45
12
17
vB
16
50
63
22
35
42
69
46
28
40
6
59
32
43
71
41
75
26
21
57
56
70
306.8
373.3
4GV.6
76.6
285.5
268.6
^25.1
336.6
319.4
286. 0
261.2
1.3
121. .
12S.6
271.1
205.0
111.5
1IW.2
176.3
101 .2
124.8
116.0
217.4
127. V
139.3
154.3
US.l
140.2
110.0
262.1
211.2
11V.I
211.8
H'5.0
84.9
17V.6
127.0
114.5
7o.7
10V.7
143.0
116.3
296.9
94.0
132. B
112.3
75.4
115.2
73.6
150. t
1B7.1
95.9
95.6
76.1
-------
NAMtC
F.MISSinMS FROM THE LARlitST SU2 EMITTING PLANTS
DATA ARE FOM YEAKS IT/6 THPOUtH I960
ALSO INCLUDED A(.l
4b.5
64.0
75.2
36.6
51.0
41.0
37.5
4?. 6
28.5
5«
3<
6S
7,
6C
6
71
5'
51
51
He
7(
3i
5'
4<
5(
1!
7<
6;
61
6(
6(
S<
ti
?;
6-
eo.9
122.4
59.5
42.7
64.8
69. U
37. U
no.u
7B.4
7i!5
67.7
5ft. 1
126.7
l 7^.0
,
) 6d,Q
85. 7
1 Bb.i
,
23.8
.
66.3
6b.9
64.0
72.7
i 80.0
I *0.9
31.0
o3.4
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
?3
66
1M2
68
61
61
46
45
58
60
65
86
63
157
72
93
74
B7
4?
2<<
52
6"»
70
69
7b
S'l
11U
101
39
U'2
85
143
237
99
92
IfD
91
9o
106
105
109
111
.
115
117
62
67
ISO
126
13u
125
136
94
85.3
141.1
74.4
31.1
7J.S
HI. 3
63.6
89.1
IU.6
B^.5
bi.tS
76.7
59.5
7B.3
30.6
71.7
55.5
bd.l
60.0
09.2
13C.9
87.6
73.2
72.4
57. >8.0
62.1
11 .5
SO. 5
10U.J
4V. 5
60.9
33.2
16.3
51.5
=6.1
37.3
56.4
52.;
47.5
48.0
46.0
15.1
,
43.8
42. 8
79.6
73.8
31.7
37.6
36.7
38.0
34.1.
54.2
53
3h
60
50
83
7b
^9
(.3
65
7l
ion
51
89
66
73
115
54
76
74
104
46
79
66
66
96
85
69
109
91
67
U3
9c!
222
23b
07
B2
143
75
102
98
10«
UO
113
68
116
13v>
90
52
171
144
119
181
15«
167
t9.4
116.5
64.6
91.7
63.?
60.5
ec.e
Ifi.H
78.1
73.4
52.8
91. S
58.2
78.0
70.7
'43.6
88. *
66.8
6V. 6
51.0
104.2
66.1
60.7
76,9
55.4
60. 6
76.0
46.3
57.9
77. S
40.2
57.6
17.4
16.1
59.4
63.2
32.3
67.7
52.1
54.0
49.6
41.3
44. B
59.?
43.2
i7.6
58.0
V0.5
26.2
32.0
42.3
24.6
29.3
27.6
55
36
84
148
56
74
77
64
60
67
76
42
t>2
72
11?
96
62
79
102
101
19
54
66
73
110
13
6«
92
90
57
127
100
138
294
b5
105
128
95
105
51
120
10B
141
91
94
156
87
63
133
137
119
153
161
144
94.1
137.4
65.5
33.5
91.6
74.6
7U.4
64.5
69.6
63.9
69.9
m.o
66. fc
/ i 4
37.2
55.9
67.2
69.1
53.9
54.0
186.8
95.7
64.6
75.5
51.5
66. 1
83.2
60.0
el. 2
92.8
42.6
54.4
37.4
lu.2
65.4
5i.7
42.5
55.9
53.4
102.7
45.2
52.4
35. '1
6C.5
57.9
38.5
63.5
81.6
4U.O
37.7
46.4
31.1
2d.7
35.4
64
40
72
152
M
83
139
65
5o
62
7S
39
95
66
155
7(J
7V
67
132
91
19
6u
90
64
9H
6c
67
102
121
51
111
97
11V
-------
NAKEC
EMISSIONS FHUM THE LARGEST SCIJ EMITTING PLANTS
DAT* AHt FOP YK»BS 1V76 TMhOUr.H 1980
AL5U INCLUDED ADF AIRU3T AND KJRM67 (1979) DATA
HANK80 TTS026ll HANH79 TTS0279 (UNKF67 TS02F67 RANK.»T TOTSOX KANK78 TTSU278 KANH77 TTS0277 HANK76 TTS.0276
ST CLAIK
NEAL
HAKRY
SMITH
MARTIN LAKE
GANNON
ENGLAND
hATEREE
RAKISH
BULL RUN
SCORN
PULL1AM
SIbLEY
CHESHIO
SUNbUHY
GERALD ANDRUS
JIM BRIObER
HENNtPIN
SALEM HARBOR
ALLEN
GENOA NO. 3
KlRT MYERS
J T DEELY
CICKERSON
CANf RUN
COLUMBIA
KING
LELAND OLD*
MUHAVE
ShERbURNL COUdTY
VALLEY
CL1FFSIDE
EDDISTONE
KAPP
ARMSTRONG
PORTLAND
INARN-HEAbGCK
NAUGMTON
60SHELL
MCDONOUGH
POSTUN
CAPE CANAVERAL
CHESTERFIELD
SANFURD
NELSON OEWEY
CANAUYS
MANATEE
MEKAMEC
MILLIKEN
JULIET
POSSUM POINT
NOKTHS1DE
YORKTOHN
INDIAN RIVEN
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
136
139
140
141
142
14J
144
145
146
147
146
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
1S7
156
159
160
161
162
«ii.4
44.3
44.1
44.0
43.9
41.9
41.3
41.3
41.1
41.0
40.5
40.4
40.4
40.0
39.7
39. S
39.3
38.5
36.0
38.0
37. 5
36.5
35.8
35.6
35. 6
35.0
34.7
34.3
33.1
32.8
32. 6
32.5
32.4
32.3
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.1
32.0
31.7
31.5
31.3
31.2
31.1
30.7
30.7
29.8
29.3
28,9
28.6
26.6
28.6
2S.3
26.0
96
144
105
91
130
120
115
122
201
Ii9
135
95
100
108
114
126
119
129
125
133
104
152
204
106
117
148
153
159
116
162
145
142
99
183
124
160
65
184
176
141
149
137
133
IPO
121
199
140
15't
174
156
127
176
116
157
51.9
33.4
46.7
54.7
37.1
42.9
44.4
41.2
20.6
35.3
36.1
52.6
50.3
45.9
44.5
39.9
42.9
37.'
40.1
35. 4
48.8
31.4
20.1
21.9
43.5
3?.l
il.i
?b.4
43.6
27.7
?.8
34.3
50.5
24.0
40.9
28.3
74.3
23.9
25.0
34.7
32.0
35.8
36.4
24.9
42.3
21.2
35.0
30.7
25.5
29.0
37.7
25.3
43.3
28.9
73
30.0
90
100
104
95
77
145
I 16
127
179
113
131
117
79
120
121
1 19
129
142
122
13<:
103
<;9o
200
181
86
139
140
172
b3
97
13b
124
54
166
144
141
78
210
112
,
153
186
90
19(J
123
282
255
114
176
170
133
187
1J7
174
51.7
50.6
48. "4
55.6
66.2
33.0
43.7
37.6
25 .4
44.3
36.6
46.6
64.1
40.4
39.9
41.5
36.7
33.4
39.6
36.6
4D.7
10.6
21.9
25.3
60.2
; 4 .2
3 \ f »
26..
62.2
52.1
34.2
39.0
65.9
26.7
33.1
33.5
64.8
19.7
44.9
.
31.0
2 4. '4
56.5
22.5
39.7
12.0
14.5
44.2
25.5
26.4
35.8
24.4
34..!
25. t
105
138
139
94
166
124
112
lift
371
1 14
140
107
64
110
97
93
128
126
148
132
117
223
252
131
6!
17<;
168
149
14S
15u
103
141
101
151
157
125
64
187
153
147
197
200
122
182
146
226
162
134
156
159
121
161
111
180
51.0
34.3
33.5
55.9
27.6
40.1
45.1
42.4
5.2
44.0
33.2
48.5
62.6
46.2
54.5
57.1
36.1
3f.5
30.8
{6.1
42.5
17.2
14.2
37.5
63.6
2o.2
27. S
30. «
31.8
30.7
51.1
32.8
52.3
30.5
29.4
39.6
78.4
23.7
30.1
31.2
21.3
20.9
40.4
24.5
31.7
16.9
29.0
35.3
29.4
29.2
40.6
29.0
45.3
24.6
53
176
106
75
211
152
107
126
904
69
146
112
98
122
00
104
113
124
164
125
llfl
149
415
130
43
194
99
160
151
155
129
131
114
177
117
135
61
203
!59
142
166
165
121
224
123
252
250
93
154
162
134
157
109
179
96.4
26.4
53.1
70.6
20.3
31.4
52.9
42.9
0.0
80.6
34.5
50.2
54.4
44.5
66. 9
53.7
49.6
43.5
28.0
43.4
46.6
32.9
3.4
41.7
lid. 7
?2.o
54.4
26.0
32.0
3!.0
42.0
41.4
49.5
26.3
47.9
39.4
67.4
?1.6
29.6
35.5
27.6
26.0
44.6
16. 1
44.4
14.9
14.0
56.1
31.1
25.3
39.6
30.0
51.7
26.0
49
163
10V
76
.
1?5
115
1*1
948
07
137
114
89
105
61
117
129
112
123
lla
116
239
m
124
31
19u
66
179
154
216
161
12o
fft
172
13S
1 U3
74
21 1
1*5
130
144
244
104
203
122
256
432
55
160
147
127
170
149
159
106.4
29.3
46.3
72.4
(
39.3
43.1
J5.0
0.0
10P.S
36.1
*3.7
60.9
50.5
69.2
42.7
37."
43.9
40.6
42.5
42.8
14.7
^
40.2
134. A
22.1
64.5
£6.0
31.5
17.3
29.9
39.3
63.6
26.9
36.3
34.1
74. 4
16.6
26.3
37.4
3=4.1
13.8
51.0
20. q
40.8
12.9
?.6
96!*
29.9
33.5
38.1
27.8
33.4
29.9
-------
NAMEC
rMlSSIONS FROM THE L»RSfST 502 EMITTING PLANTS
DATA A«E FOR YEAhS 1"76 THRCUbM 1980
Alan INCLUDED A»»E AIKUST AND FUKK67 (1*79) DATA
RANH80 TTSC260 RANK79 TTS0279 RANKF67 Ti02Fo7 RANKA1 T01SOX KANH78 TTS0278 KANK77 TTSt/277
TTSII276
>
I
l/i
ROCHESTER 7
GKEENE
JOHNSTON
VtKMILION
JEFFEPIES
Bib STbNE
YCUNt.
KAhE
ALBKIGHT
PORT JEFFtHSON
MYSTIC
UUINOARO
CRtFMUGb
PUrtEHTUN
SUTHEHL'ND
MITCf.tLL
NILES
hULLIN SCHAHFEK
SEHAKU
TORONTO
ALBANY
BAhTOH
MEROE*
HAKKICK
CLINCH RIVEK
ALMA-HAOGETT
SUTTUI.
03*t(,U
NORTH OMAHA
RIVtNSENO
NEW CASTLE
bAY SHljRt
GRAND TOMEH
6URLINGTO*
PRESUUE ISLE
TRENTON CHANNEL
KESTON
GEOhGETONN
HUDSON
PRITCHARO
JAMES HIVE*
HILL COUNTY
NATTS BAR
RIVER ROUGE
COOPER
PORT EVEPGLADES
ASnEVILLE
COLLINS
HIGH BRIDGE
RIVERSIDE
HAGNER
MAPIUN
HUTSONVILLE
RIVERSIDE
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
176
179
ISO
181
182
1S3
H1U
IMS
186
1B7
168
189
19C
191
192
1V3
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
204
205
207
209
210
211
214
215
219
2?0
221
222
224
22o
230
231
27.7
27.6
27.3
27.3
27.2
26.6
2o.4
25.9
25.7
25.6
25.6
25.4
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.0
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.0
23.7
23.5
23.4
23.3
23.2
23.1
22.-)
22.6
22.6
22.1
22.1
22.0
22.0
21.9
21.4
21.3
21.0
21.0
20.1
19.9
19.7
19.6
19.6
19.3
18.8
16.0
17.7
17.7
17.2
17.2
17.1
16.9
16.1
15.9
179
170
163
164
206
173
150
147
171
155
200
186
198
110
181
151
143
229
175
146
195
182
202
192
167
194
245
80
22'4
230
161
167
177
190
212
172
169
197
214
203
222
20S
250
193
191
168
215
225
276
218
208
165
254
165
25.0
26.0
27.5
27.2
19.1
25.6
32.0
32.5
25.9
30.2
21.0
23.6
21.3
45.9
24.7
31.8
34.1
16.6
25.4
32.7
21.9
24.1
20.2
22.2
23.4
22.0
14.4
63.7
16.8
lo.3
27.8
2fc.2
25.1
22.7
16.2
25.7
22.6
21.4
16.0
20.2
17.1
19.9
13.3
22.1
22.6
26.0
17.6
16.7
11.9
17.4
18.9
26.5
13.8
23.7
177
\hl
195
164
2C4
191
151
B
175
151
221
312
25o
82
155
165
14H
159
188
164
169
117
H9
190
171
178
232
100
.
317
161
158
14o
1V4
£11
149
202
13S
183
2?<:
165
201
18u
2o5
193
134
211
110
227
284
216
160
2>)o
162
25.5
27.0
23.1
2fc.5
20.7
23. b
31.0
t
25.5
31.3
16.3
5.2
14.3
63.2
11.11
21.0
32.4
29.7
2u.2
26.0
26.5
32.5
22.2
23.9
26. i
25.4
16.7
46.7
.
9.0
29.1
30. 3
32.5
23.2
19.2
31.8
21.5
35.4
?1.7
1S.1
26.3
21.9
25.4
11.0
23.3
35.4
19.6
45.6
17.6
11.7
19.1
29.6
11.6
28.9
175
137
174
191
23*
1S4
164
172
Ic9
142
190
210
211
10
165
2BS
127
212
185
I7u
179
18o
204
184
173
163
217
95
186
229
106
77
193
201
129
135
22o
177
208
235
292
214
189
205
192
195
199
279
227
209
194
152
249
1VO
25.9
3".«
26.0
22.6
15.7
29.6
20.4
26.2
27.3
32.4
21.4
Itf.S
18.8
221.4
-------
NAHEC
EMISSIONS FRUH THE LARGEST S02 EMITTING PLANTS
DATA AWE FOP YE»RS 1976 THROUGH I960
ALSO INCLUDED ARE AIRTESI AND FORM*.? (1979) DATA
PANK80 TTS0260 RANH79 TTS0279 RASKF67 TSG2F67 HANKAT TOTSOX KANK78 T1SU278 RANK77 TTS0277 RANK76 TTS0276
tDxARDS
LAKEROAD
KiLLiAMS
CDGthATEn
PORT HENTNOrtTH
PUKTSMOUTM
SLACK JOG
JEFFREY ENERGY CN
TURKEY POINT
KEADUCK-SANDUSKr
OES MOINES
GREtN hlVfcR
tCKERT
LAKE SHOKF
HEH10N
PITTSbURG
MOSS LANDING
ERICKSOS
ACf-t
KILSON
b*S JUAN
239
213
246
255
?62
267
268
271
274
276
278
?t>8
300
311
340
346
361
378
366
397
423
14.6
11.0
13.6
12.7
12.2
12.0
11.9
11.7
11.6
11.5
11.4
11.0
9.7
8.8
7.0
6.3
5.6
4.7
4.4
3.9
3.0
212
166
168
209
261
210
252
37J
220
169
291
272
294
285
69
270
296
217
231
136
467
15.0
26.5
22.9
16.9
12.9
16.5
13.8
5.0
17.3
26.0
10.4
12.0
10.2
11.1
57.9
12.2
10.2
17.5
16.1
36.1
l.e
213
236
166
207
173
156
197
184
196
1V2
219
221
ill
297
137
182
189
226
212
SSI
305
19.3
le.3
2fl.o
20.?
26.1
io.e
22.8
20. 7
?3.1
23.5
1S.O
13.0
7.7
10.6
2.5
21.6
21.?
17.2
19.3
0.0
9.9
1J6
207
133
183
160
155
210
376
250
176
261
241
242
270
72
?44
290
2S6
19e
99
251
30.5
19.2
35.6
21.5
29. 1
29.6
16.9
5.1
11.5
25.9
13.2
15.5
15.5
11.2
70. P
15.1
9.9
13.7
21.1
53.5
11.0
115
187
160
19S
174
Ittl
190
269
172
205
211
212
111
234
227
235
196
169
131
167
49. C
23.9
20.9
22.5
26.5
25.4
23.3
.
13.0
26.8
21.2
15.7
20.2
50.7
lo.S
17.7
16.4
22.4
27.1
40, 0
27.2
101
270
lott
189
180
14b
Io6
.
221
158
193
1*5
19«
100
,
2!4
268
188
200
191
236
54.6
11.6
26.6
2%. 5
25. fl
13.7
27.9
.
16.6
30.5
22.3
24.4
21 .3
55.3
,
15.1
11.7
23.7
21.0
22.9
14.9
-------
APPENDIX D
DEFAULT FUEL SULFUR VALUES
A-17
-------
Table D-l
DEFAULT OIL SULFUR VALUES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
(Percent)
1977 1978 1979 1980
Alabama 0.46 0.51 0.57 0.36 0.36
Alaska 0.96 0.91 0.96 1.02 1.04
Arizona 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.75 0.78
Arkansas 1.33 1.18 1.16 1.25 1.39
California 0.46 0.37 0.32 0.33 0.33
Colorado 0.63 0.67 0.50 0.49 0.54
Connecticut 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.44 0.44
Delaware 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.01 1.01
District
of Columbia 0.93 1.00 0.81 0.86 0.87
Florida 1.44 1.50 1.27 1.42 1.49
Georgia 1.20 1.26 1.62 2.13 1.77
Hawaii 1.22 1.25 1.08 1.29 1.12
Idaho 0.96 0.20 0.30 0.22 1.04
Illinois 0.52 0.55 0.53 0.60 0.66
Indiana 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.32 0.30
Iowa 0.34 0.36 0.29 0.06 0.21
Kansas 1.07 0.92 0.99 1.27 0.50
Kentucky 0.43 0.31 0.24 0.39 0.36
Louisiana 0.75 0.77 0.76 0.79 0.84
Maine 2.05 2.23 1.48 1.42 1.34
Maryland 1.28 1.29 1.27 1.29 1.27
Massachusetts 1.02 1.02 1.57 1.70 1.68
Michigan 0.71 0.74 0.70 0.66 0.67
Minnesota 1.49 1.26 1.29 1.36 1.03
Mississippi 2.14 2.19 2.12 2.49 2.61
Missouri 0.85 0.76 0.70 0.87 0.61
Montana 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.01 0.08
Nebraska 0.76 0.86 0.98 0.95 0.84
Nevada 0.75 0.70 0.68 0.63 0.73
New Hampshire 1.83 1.79 1.71 1.82 1.93
New Jersey 0.37 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.46
New Mexico 0.43 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.39
New York 1.06 1.12 1.11 1.28 1.26
North Carolina 0.20 0.22 0.65 0.23 0.23
North Dakota 0.34 0.41 0.23 0.25 0.22
Ohio 0.38 0.59 0.57 0.86 0.54
Oklahoma 0.70 0.55 0.35 0.76 0.18
Oregon 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.27
Pennsylvania 0.43 0.49 0.54 0.66 0.65
Rhode Island 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.90 0.93
South Carolina 2.04 1.56 1.69 1.93 1.85
South Dakota 0.80 0.58 0.65 0.54 0.35
Tennessee 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.57 0.54
A-1S
-------
Table D-l (Continued)
DEFAULT OIL SULFUR VALUES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
(Percent)
State. 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Texas 0.49 0.44 0.50 0.59 0.51
Utah 0.34 0.38 0.30 0.36 0.35
Vermont 0.11 0.29 0.96 0.32 0.40
Virginia 1.54 1.52 1.57 1.43 1.31
Washington 0.20 0.02 0.03 1.63 1.63
West Virginia 0.10 0.23 0.30 0.38 0.29
Wisconsin 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.48 0.43
Wyoming 0.16 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30
A-19
-------
Table D-2
DEFAULT COAL SULFUR VALUES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
(Percent)
Stat-p 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
2.14
2.12
0.48
2.12
2.12
0.49
2.12
2.07
2.12
2.SO
1.72
2.12
2.12
2.39
2.66
1.73
3.19
3.22
2.12
2.12
1.50
2.12
2.19
1.36
1.92
3.26
0.73
0.63
0.42
2.22
1.61
0.67
1.90
1.03
0.60
2.96
0.39
2.12
2.20
2.12
1.26
0.82
2.82
0.58
2.00
2.01
0.44
2.01
2.01
0.49
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.38
1.69
2.01
2.01
2.20
2.62
1.59
2.38
2.91
2.01
2.01
1.51
2.01
2.14
1.21
2.21
3.09
0.73
0.66
0.44
2.33
1.74
0.70
1.81
1.06
0.59
2.88
0.36
2.01
2.18
2.01
1.33
0.77
3.06
0.57
1.86
1.86
0.41
0.36
1.86
0.46
1.86
1.80
1.86
1.95
1.73
1.86
1.86
2.08
2.59
1.60
1.47
2.63
1.86
1.86
1.51
1.86
1.89
1.06
1.91
2.68
0.73
0.72
0.56
2.18
1.67
0.70
1.73
1.08
0.61
2.73
0.36
1.86
2.12
1.86
1.32
0.75
2.45
0.60
1.68
1.80
0.43
0.34
1.80
0 44
1.80
1.85
1.80
1.99
1.77
1.80
1.80
1.96
2.72
1.36
1.39
2.73
1.80
1.80
1.44
2.63
1.65
1.02
1.60
2.67
0.71
0.58
0.65
2.57
1.71
0.73
1.83
0.94
0.63
2.65
0.38
0.53
2.09
1.80
1.31
0.67
2.27
0.61
1.59
1.68
0.47
0.38
1.68
0.44
1.68
1.64
1.68
2.16
1.82
1.68
1.68
1.88
2.63
1.18
1.35
2.43
0.44
1.68
1.63
1.16
1.32
1.05
1.65
2.66
0.76
0.57
0.55
2.55
1.64
0.73
1.85
0.96
0.65
2.49
0.38
0.35
2.12
1.68
1.41
0.69
2.23
0.58
A-20
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
DEFAULT COAL SULFUR VALUES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
(Percent)
State 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Utah 0.52 0.68 0.55 0.50 0.50
Vermont 2.12 1.53 1.86 1.54 1.68
Virginia 0.85 0.97 0.97 0.87 0.88
Washington 0.53 0.59 0.97 0.87 0.81
West Virginia 1.92 1.94 1.88 1.93 1.81
Wisconsin 2.29 2.39 2.32 2.24 2.06
Wyoming 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.51 0.57
A-21
-------
Table D-3
DEFAULT COAL SULFUR VAIJES USEDfiIN THE ANALYSIS
(Pounds of S02 pec 10 Btu)
Stat-p 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Alabama 3.70 3.46 3.15 2.83 2.65
Alaska 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
Arizona 0.91 0.82 0.76 0.81 0.89
Arkansas 3.91 3.74 0.86 0.81 0.89
California 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
Colorado 1.01 0.96 0.91 0.87 0.89
Connecticut 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
Delaware 3.31 3.31 2.90 2.98 2.63
District of
Columbia 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
Florida 4.29 4.11 3.31 3.35 3,65
Georgia 2.89 2.85 2.92 2.99 3.06
Hawaii 3.SI 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
Idaho 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
Illinois 4.66 4.26 4.04 3.80 3.66
Indiana 4.95 4.89 4.86 5.02 4.86
Iowa 3.41 3.18 3.25 2.87 2.53
Kansas 6.26 4.94 3.21 2.98 2.93
Kentucky 5.89 5.29 4.78 4.86 4.24
Louisiana 3.91 3.74 3,50 3.36 1.10
Maine 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
Maryland 2.45 2.47 2.48 2.35 2.64
Massachusetts 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.90 1.73
Michigan 3.70 3.63 3.27 2.79 2.19
Minnesota 3.03 2.73 2.40 2.29 2.37
Mississippi 3.30 3.81 3.20 2.74 2.75
Missouri 6.00 5.65 4.98 4.96 4.99
Montana 1.75 1.73 1.71 1.66 1.79
Nebraska 1.21 1.23 1.40 1.21 1.21
Nevada 0.76 0.80 1.01 1.18 0.99
New Hampshire 3.30 3.49 3.35 3.83 3.80
New Jersey 2.47 2.67 2.55 2.63 2.51
New Mexico 1.49 1.56 1.55 1.64 1.64
New York 3.10 2.99 2.87 2.99 3.00
North Carolina 1.70 1.77 1.79 1.54 1.56
North Dakota 1.83 1.78 1.83 1.87 1.96
Ohio 5.39 5.28 5.01 4.76 4.35
Oklahoma 0.94 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.88
Oregon 3.91 3.74 3.50 1.06 0.85
Pennsylvania 3.66 3.64 3.53 3.47 3.51
Rhode Island 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
South Carolina 2.07 2.23 2.18 2.13 2.27
South Dakota 2.57 2.45 2.40 2.11 2.20
Tennessee 5.03 5.52 4.33 3.95 3.84
A-22
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
DEFAULT COAL SULFUR VALUES USED,- IN THE ANALYSIS
(Pounds of S02 per 10
1976 1977 1978 1979 19 $0
Texas 1.76 1.62 1.70 1.69 1.57
Utah 0.91 1.16 0.94 0.86 0.87
Vermont 3.91 2.38 3.50 2.38 3.15
Virginia 1.39 1.59 1.59 1.4C 1.41
Washington 1.31 1.46 2.40 2.15 2.00
West Virginia 3.27 3.33 3.20 3.23 2.98
Wisconsin 4.29 4.52 4.41 4.28 4.00
Wyoming 1.22 1.19 1.16 1.17 1.30
UNITED STATES 3.91 3.74 3.50 3.36 3.15
A-23
-------
APPENDIX E
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS OF ALL PLANTS EMITTING
OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
Preceding page blank
A-2S
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
1980 S02 EMISSIONS IN 10QO TONS PER YEAR
PLANT IPBO soa
BARRY 4
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
i960 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
...... STATEsARKANSAS
PLANT i960 S02
BAILEY 1.1
BLYTHEVILLE (GTJ 0.4
COUCH 0.3
FLINT CREEK 7.9
LAKE CATHERINE 2.1
LYNCH o.2
MCCLELLAN ?.«
MOSES 1.9
RITCHIE 7.2
WHITEBLUFF 2.7
STATE=CALIFORNJA
PLANT I960 S02
ALAMITOS 7.1
AVON o.l
BROADWAY 0.1
CONTRA CCSTA 4.8
COOL WATER 5.1
EL CENTRO 0.5
EL SEGUNDO 2.8
ENCINA 9.5
ETIKANDA 2.8
GLENDALE 0.2
HARBOR 0.2
HAYNES «.5
HUMBOLDT BAY 1.0
HUNTERS POINT 1.3
HUNTINGTON BEACH 1.8
KERN 1.6
LONG BEACH 0,4
MAGNOLIA 0.3
MAGNOLIA-OLIVE 0.6
MANDALAY 2.2
MARTINEZ 0.9
MORRO BAY 4.8
MOSS LANDING 5.6
N ISLAND (GT) 0.1
OAKLAND 0.5
ORHONO BEACH 6*5
PITTSBURG 6.3
POTRERO 1.1
REDONDO 0.6
SCATTFR^OOD 0.5
SOUTH 3AY 2.9
VALLEY 0.8
A-27
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
1980 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
= COLORADO --
PLANT I960 S02
ALAMOSA (GTS) 0.2
ARAPHOE 8,8
BULLOCK 0 3
CAMEO 1.8
CHEROKEE n.
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
1980 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
....... STATE=FLORlDA .......
PLANT 19BO S02
ANCLOTE 57.0
AVON PARK 2.5
BARTOH 23.5
8AYBORO (GT) 0.9
BIG BEND 153.2
CAPE CANAVERAL 31.3
CRIST 76.3
CRYSTAL RIVER 72.6
DEBARY 0.7
DEERHAVEN 1.3
FORT MYERS 36.5
G M IVEY 0.2
GANNON 41.9
HIGGINS 7.4
HOOKERS POINT 2.6
HOPKINS 5.6
INDIAN RIVER 12.3
INTERCESSION (GT) 2.2
JR KELLY 0.2
KENNEDY s.e
KEY WEST 1.3
LARSEN MEM 0.9
LAUDEHDALE 3.b
MANATEE 29.8
MARATHON 0.1
MARTIN 0.7
NORTHSIDE 28.6
PLANT 3-MCINTOSH «.3
PORT EVERGLADES 18.6
PUROOM 2.0
PUTNAM 2.9
RIVIERA 6.0
SANFORD 31.1
SCHOLTZ 9.4
SMITH 19.2
SOUTH3IDE 7.8
STOCK ISLAND 3.5
SUWANNEE 1.9
TOM G SMITH 0.6
TURKEY POINT 11.6
TURNER 6.2
VERO BEACH 1.0
A-29
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
1*80 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS P£R YEAR
...--. 3TATE=GEORGIA
PLANT 198Q S02
ARKWRIGHT n.7
BOWEN 248.1
CRISP o.2
EFFINGHAM ?.7
HAMMOND 47.4
HARLLEE BRANCH 55.1
MCDONOUGH 31.7
MCMANUS 0.4
MITCHELL 10. 4
PORT WENTWORTH la.2
VOGTLE (GT) 0.3
WANSLEY 209.8
YATES 106.6
--- STATEsHAWAlI .--
PLANT mo so?
HILL 2.7
HONOLULU 1.0
KAHE ?5.9
KAHULUI ?.?
MAALAEA 1.2
MOLOKAI o.2
PORT ALLEN 1.4
SHIPMAN 0.3
WAIAU 6.6
...... STATE=ILLINOIS .
PLANT i960 S02
BALDWIN 259.3
BLOOM (GT) 0.2
CALUMET (GT) 0.2
COFFEEN 137.3
COLLINS 17.7
CRAWFORD 11.7
DALLMAN 45.6
DUCK CREEK 14.5
EDWARDS 14.6
ELEC JUNCTION(GT) 0.2
FISK 7.5
GRAND TOWER 22.0
HAVANA 7.4
HENNEPIN 36.5
HUTSONVILLE 16.1
JOLIET 28.6
JOPPA 100.1
KINCAID 205.5
LAKESIDE 11.8
A-30
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
198Q S02 EMISSIONS IN 1COO TONS PER YEAR
STATE=ILLINDIS
PLANT 1930
MARION 16.9
MERfc'DOSIA 48.1
MT CARMEL Q.t,
NEWTON 7.0
PEARL (GTS) 4.5
POWERTON 24.8
RIDGELAND 10.4
S MAIN ST l.a
SABROOKE 0.3
VERMILION 27.3
WALLACE 1.3
WAUKEtAN 13. U
WILL COUNTY 19.6
WOOD RIVFR 10.6
STATEsINDlANA
PLANT
A 8 BRU*N
13AILLY
BREED
CAYUGA
CLIFTY CREEK
CRAWFORDSVILLE
CULLEY
EOWARDSPORT
FRANK E RATTS
GALLAGHER
GIBSON STATION
JASPER
LOGANSPORT
MICHIGAN CITY
MITCHELL
NOBI.ESVILLE
PERRY
PERRY W
PERU
PETERSBURG
PRITCHARO
ROLLJN SCHAHFER
STATE LINE
STOUT
TANNERS CREEK
WABASH RIVER
WARRICK
WHITEWATER
,6
,7
,5
S02
5.7
a P. 9
71.0
115.9
283.2
3,
63,
to.
49.8
59.5
305.6
2.2
1.8
75.4
18.3
5.1
3.5
0,
3,
108,
19.9
24.4
9.3
50,
94,
66.0
23.3
10. 0
,6
,9
,5
,1
,9
A-31
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
I960 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAK
........ STATE=IOWA -..----«
PLANT i960 so2
AMES 3.9
300NE 0.3
BURLINGTON 21.9
CEDAR FALLS 0.8
CENT HEAT 1,3
COUNCIL BLUFFS 13.2
OES MOINE.S H.a
DUBUQUE 8.2
FAIR 5.5
HUMBOLDT 0.4
KAPP 3?.3
LANSING 8.9
MAYNARD 0.3
MUSCATINE 15.2
NEAL «u.3
PELLA 3.9
POWER PLT l.a
PRAIRE CREEK 1-4 n.U
RIVERSIDE 1<5.9
SUTHERLAND 24.7
WISDOM 2.1
6TH ST 3.5
....... STATEsKANSAS
PLANT mo soa
EVANS 0.1
GILL 0.2
HUTCHINSON 0.7
JEFFREY ENERGY CN 11.7
KAW 15.1
LA CYGNE 78.0
LAWRENCE 5.8
MULLERGREN 0.1
OUINDARO 25.4
RIVERTON 7.1
TECUMSEH /*.9
.... STATEsKENTUCKY
PLANT 1980 S02
BIG SANDY 57.9
BROWN 53.?
CANE RUN 35.6
COLEMAN 68.3
COOPER 18.8
DALE 5.3
GHENT flS. 4
GREEN RIVER 11.0
A-32
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PE.R YEAR
1980 302 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
. STATE=K£NTUCKY --
PLANT I960 S02
HENDERSON 2.0
HENDERSON II 50.?
MILL CREEK 94.1
PADDYS RU* 1.0
PARADISE 3«?.7
PINEVILLE 0.5
R D GREEN 13.5
REID 12.3
SHAWNEE 96^6
SMITH 44.0
SPURLOCK 14,2
TYRONE 1.1
PLANT i960 S02
LITTLE GYPSY 1.2
MICHOUD 2.0
NELSON 0.8
NINE MILE 3.5
PATERSON 0.4
RODEMACHER 0.6
WATERFORD 12.4
WILLOK GLEN 3.7
- STATEsMAlNE
PLANT i960 802
CARIBOU o.i
GRAHAM 1.3
MASON 2.6
WYMAN 12.1
STATEsMARYLAND -«
PLANT I960 S02
CHALK 50.4
CRANE 10.3
DICKERSON 35.6
EASTON (1C) 0.3
GOULD S- 1.4
MORGANTONN 92.0
PERRYMAN (GT) 0.5
RIVERSIDE 2.6
SMITH 6^1
VIENNA 5,6
WAGNER 17.1
A-33
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
1980 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
- STATE=MARYLAND -
PLANT I960 SO?
WESTPORT 1.2
- STATEsMASSACHUSETTS --
PLANT I960 S02
BLACKSTONE o.i
BRAYTON 83.2
CANAL 70.6
CANNON n.5
CLEARY 3.2
GLOUCESTER (1C) 0.1
KENDALL SQUARE 0.3
MOUNT TQM n.O
MYSTIC 25.6
NANTUCKET Q.3
NEW BOSTON ?0.2
POTTER o.fc
SALEM HARBOR 38.0
SOMERSET l?.l
WEST SPRlNfiFIELD q.l
...... 5TATE=MICKIGAN «--.
PLANT i960 so2
ADVANCE «,0
BAYSIDE 0.5
CAMPBELL 65.5
CITY ISLAND 1.7
COBB-SANOU3KY SG «8.5
COLDWATEK 0.6
CONNERS CREEK 5.3
DELRAY 0.4
ECKERT 9.7
ERICKSON a.7
ESCANABA 1.8
GLADSTONE 0.1
GREENWOOD 6.3
HARBOR BEACH 2.1
HILLSDALt 0.1
J H WARDEN 1.8
JAMES DE YOUNG 3.9
KARN-WEADOCK 32.2
MARYSVILLE 3.5
MISTERSKY 1.9
MONROE 233.<»
MORROW o.i
OTTAWA o.5
PENNSALT o.3
PLANT NO.65 0.9
A-34
-------
ALL PLANTS FMITTJNG OVER 100 TONS PLR YEAR
i960 SO? EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS HER YEAR
.... STATEPMICHIGAN .----
PLANT i960 so2
PORT HURON 0.1
PRESOUE ISLE 21.4
RIVER ROUGE 19.3
SHIRAS 2.8
ST CLAIR 44.4
TRENTON CHANNEL 21.3
WEADOCK-SANDUSKY n.s
HHITING 12.5
NYANDOTTE 0.7
...... STATESMINNESOTA
PLANT 1980 302
AURORA-SYL LASKIN 3.5
BLACK DOG H.9
BOSWELL 32.0
DOWNTOHN-4TH AVE 0.6
ELK RIVE* 0.3
FAIRMONT 0.7
FOX LAKE 0.8
HIBBARO 1.6
HIBBING 2.2
HIGH BRIOGE 17.2
HOOT LAKE 6.6
KING 34.7
MINN VALLEY 0.8
MOORHEAD 0.7
NEW ULM 1.6
ORTONVILlE 1.9
RED KING 0.3
RIVERSIDE J7.2
SHERBURNE COUNTY 32.8
SILVER LAKE 7.2
SLEEPY EYE 0,2
VIRGINIA 0.9
WILLMAR 0.9
WILMARTH 0.5
..... STATFsMISSISsiPPl
PLANT 1980 S02
DELTA 0.6
EATON 0.3
GERALD ANDRUS 39.5
HENDERSON STA 2.4
JACKSON CT-DANIEL 9.5
R D MORROW 6.1
WATSON 65.9
WILSON 3.9
A-35
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TUNS PEK
i960 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAH
PLANT
WRIGHT
I960 SO?
0.8
PLANT
ASRURY
ASHLEY
BLUE VALLEY
CHAMOIS
CHILLICOTHE
COLEMAN
COLUMBIA
GRAND AVfc
GREENWOOD ENERGY
HAWTHORN^
HILL
IATAK
JAMES PIVFR
LABADIE
LAKEROAD
MADRID
MARSHALL
MERAMEC
MONTROSE
NORTHEAST
RUSH ISLAND
SIBLEY
SIOUX
SOUTHWEST
I960 302
65.0
0.2
17.8
10.3
0.9
0.8
6.0
2.4
0.2
45.4
1?1.6
12.0
19.7
237.2
14.0
198.9
0.2
29.3
162.0
0.3
51.9
40.4
97.2
6.5
. STATEsMONTANA
PLANT i960 so2
COLSTRIP NO.l 13.4
CORETTE 7.5
LEWIS-CLARK 3.5
...... STATEsNEBRASKA
PLANT I960 802
BURDICK 0.2
CANADAY 0.3
GERALD GENTLEMAN 9.1
KRAMER 1.8
NEBRASKA CITY B.6
NORTH DENVER 0.1
NORTH OMAHA 22.6
A-36
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
1980 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PtR YEAR
STATE=NE9RASKA -
PLANT I960 S02
SHELDON 5.«
WRIGHT J.3
...... STATE=NEVADA
PLANT i960 S02
FORT CHUPCHILL 3.5
GARDNER 0.3
MOHAVE 33.1
TRACY 2.5
--« STATEsNEW HAMPSHIRE ---
PLANT 1930 S02
DANIEL ST 0.?
MANCHESTER 0.3
MERRIXACK 52.3
NEWINGTON STATION 20.2
SCHILLER 7.5
..... STATEsNEW JERSEY ------
PLANT 198*. S02
BERGEN 1.0
BURLINGTON 2.1
CAROLL CORNR CGT) 0.3
CEDAR STA (GT) 0.5
DEEPWATER 3.0
ENGLAND 41.3
ESSEX 0.8
GILBERT 1.8
GLEN GARDNER (GT) 0.5
H M DOWN 4.6
HUDSON 20.1
KEARNY 3.0
LINDEN 2.9
MERCER 23.a
MICKELTON (GT) 0.3
MIDDLE STA (GT) o.a
MISSOURI AVENUE 0.3
SAYREVILLE 1.7
SEWAREN 2.3
WERNER 1.0
A-37
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
19*0 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
MEXICO
PLANT
FOUR CORNERS
LOROSbURG
RATON
KIO GKANDF
SAN JUAN
i960 S02
80,
0,
0,
0,
3.0
STATE=NEW YORK
PLANT
ALBANY
ARTHUR KILL
ASTORIA
ASTORIA 6
BARRETT
BOWLINE
DANSKAMMtP
DUNKIRK
EAST RIVER
GLFNWOOD
GOUDEY
GCWANIJS (GT)
GREENIDGE
HICKLING
HOL6ROOK (GT)
HUN7LEY
JENNISON
LOVETT
MILUIKEN
NARROWS BAY (GT)
NORTHPORT
OSWEGO
PORT JF.FFERSON
RAVENSWOUD
ROCHESTER 3
ROCHESTER 7
ROCKVILLE C
ROSETON
SAMUEL A CARLSON
WATERSIDE
59TH ST
74TH ST
1980 302
23.7
8.«
3.3
3.8
0.6
P.I
7.5
52.0
1.4
0.6
14.0
0.5
24.9
5.4
0.6
50.6
5.1
0.6
28.9
0.1
77.6
22.6
25.6
11.2
12.1
27.7
0.1
52.3
7.1
1.3
0.6
0.5
A-38
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
i960 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
STATE = NORTH CAROLINA --
PLANT 19£0 S02
ALLEN
ASHEVILLE
BELEWS CREEK
BUCK
CAPE FEAR
CHAPEL HILL
CLIFF3IDE
DAN RIVER
KITTY HAWK (GT)
LEE
MARSHALL
RIVERBENO
ROXBORO
SUTTUN
WEATHERSPOON
38.0
17.7
e«..6
13.2
i3.3
1.0
3P.5
Q.5
0
17
05
1
2
1
2?.l
5.6
PLA^T
bEULAH
COAL CREEK
HESKETT
LELAHD OLDS
STANTON
WH J NEAL
H DAKOTA -- - -.
1980 S02
o.«
4.4
S.9
3^.3
8.^
2.7
YOUNG 26. a
PLANT l96?»f°2-4 *
ACME
ASHTABULA
AVON LAKE
BAY SHORE
BECKJORD
BURGER
CARDINAL
CONESVlLLE
DOVER
E PALESTINE
EASTLAKE
enrc w A T P* D
t Uljt n A ' CK
GAVIN
GORGE STEArt
HAMILTON
HUTCHINGS
KYGER CREEK
LAKE SHORE
MAD RIVER
4.4
68.5
89.5
22.0
84. 4
84.7
126.0
200.8
2.2
0.1
155.0
1 9 7
\f . '
376.4
11.8
2.7
7.8
202.3
B.8
1.6
A-39
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
i960 802 EMISSIONS IN 10oO TONS PER YEAR
...... STATEaOHIO
PLANT 19«0 S02
MIAMI FORT 89.5
MUSKINGUM 244.0
NILES 24.5
NORMAL* 0.1
PAINESVILLE 4.3
PICWAY 19.0
PIQUA 4.4
POSTON 31.5
SAHNIS 137.0
SHELBY 2.3
ST MARYS 1.5
STUART 112.8
TAIT 6.0
TORONTO 24.0
VINE STREET 7.7
W LCRAlN (GT) 0.8
hALNUT (GT) 0.1
.... STATE=GKL*HOHA ---
PLANT 1960 S02
MUSK06EE 15./4
NORTHEASTERN 13.P
SOONER 8.3
STATEsOREGnN -.
PLANT 1930 sos
BEAVEK (GT) 0.2
3.0
STATEsPENNSYLVANjA --
PLANT I9»?o so2
ARMSTRONG 32.2
BRUCE MANSFIELD 56.6
BRUNNER ISLAND 139.0
BRUNOT IS (GT) 1.0
CHESTER 0.3
CHESWICK 40.0
CONEMAUGH 205.2
CROMBY 14.2
CROYOON (GT) 1,4
DELAWARE 1.6
EDDYSTONE 32.4
ELRAMA 11.1
FRONT ST 10.6
A-40
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
1980 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
.- STATE=PENNSYLVANIA
PLANT i960 $02
HATFIELO 171.2
HOLTWOOD 10.5
HOMER CITY 169.1
HUNLOCK CREEK 3.8
HUNTERSTC'WN (GT) 0.1
KEYSTONE 1«2.3
MARTINS CREEK 60.3
MITCHELL 24.6
MONTOUR 109.5
MOSER (GT) 0.1
NEW CASTLE 22.1
PEACHBOTTOM o.i
PHILLIPS 8.1
PORTLAND 32.2
RICHMOND 1.6
SCHUYLKILL 1.3
SEWARD 24.«
SHAKVILLE 64.7
-SOUTHWARK 1,2
SPRINGDALE 0.1
ST COLLEGE 0.2
SUNBURY 39.7
TITUS 17.0
WARREN 11.6
WILLIAMSBURG a.9
STATE=RHODE ISLAND
PLANT i960 302
MANCHESTER ST 2.1
SOUTH ST 3.0
... STATEsSOUTH CAROLINA
PLANT I960 S02
CANADY3 30.7
DARLINGTON (GT) ).«
GEORGETOWN 21.0
GRAINGER 11,1
HAGOOD 0.2
HILTON HE\D (GT) 0.1
JEFFERIES 27.^
LEF 1«.7
MCMEEKIM 19.6
ROBINSON 12.2
URGUHART 19.3
HATEREE ai.3
WILLIAMS 13.6
A-41
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
i960 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
STATEsSOUTH DAKOTA
PLANT 1980 S02
BEN FRENCH o.7
BIG STONE 26.8
KIRK ltl
STATEsTENNEsSEE
PLANT I960 S02
ALLEN 73.9
DULL RUN 41.0
CUMBERLAND 356.8
GALLATlN 137.1
JOHK'SONVILLE 135.3
KINGSTON 88.6
SEVIER 81.4
WATTS bAR 19.6
.... . STATE=TEXAS -.-
PLANT 1980 S02
BIG BROWN 51.3
CEDAR BAYOU O.b
COLETO CREEK 4.2
GREEN BAYOU 0.5
HARRINGTON 20.9
J T DF.ELY 35.8
MARTIN L*KE 43.9
MONTICELLO 68.2
NEWMAN 0.2
PARISH 41.1
ROBINSON 0.2
S SEYMOUR-FAYETTF {8.5
WELSH STATION 16.2
WHARTON 0.2
...... STATE=UTAH
PLANT 1980 S02
CARBON 3.7
EMERY-HUNTER 0,7
6ADS3Y 4.1
HALE O.q
HUNTINGTON 12.7
A-4 2
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAH
1980 S02 EMISSIONS IN 1000 TONS PER YEAR
. STATEsVr.RMQNT .
PLANT 1980 S02
MOHAN 0.4
...... STATE=VIRGINIA
PLANT i960 soa
BAYVIEW V 0.1
8REMO BLUFF 10.6
CHESTERFIELD 31.3
CLINCH RIVER 23.2
GLEN LYN 11.3
LOHMOOR (GT) 0.3
NNSY 1.1
NORFOLK N B l.a
NORTHERN NECK(GT) 0.2
PORTSMOUTH 12.0
POSSUM POINT 2«.6
POTOMAC RIVER is.i
YORKTOWN 28.3
STATErWASHINGTON
PLANT 1930 soa
CENTRALIA 66.3
SHUFFLETON 1.1
STATEsWEST VIRGINIA
PLANT I960 302
ALBRIGHT 2^.7
AMOS 105.1
FT MARTIN 95.1
HARRISON 2l"5.0
KAMMER U9.1
KANAWHA RIVER 16.8
MITCHELL 171.3
MOUNT STORM 91.7
MOUNTAINEER 11.a
PLEASANTS 7.1
RIVESVlLLE 7.8
SPORN 40.5
WILLOW ISLAND 7.7
A-43
-------
ALL PLANTS EMITTING OVER 100 TONS PER YEAR
S02 EMISSIONS IN 10QO TONS PER YEAR
STATE=NISCONSIN
PLANT i9eo so2
ALMA-MADGETT 23.1
BAY FRONT 3.3
BLACKHAKK !.e
BLOUMT 7.9
CHARTER st 0.2
COLUMBIA 35.0
EDGEHATER 58.0
GENOA NO. 3 37.5
GERMANTOWN 0.6
MANITOWOC i.o
KENASHA 1,1
NELSON DEwEY 30.7
OAK CREEK 45.9
PLEASANT PRAIRIE 2.2
PORT WASHINGTON 46.1
PULLIAM 40. «
RICHLND CTR 0.9
ROCK RIVER 13.6
S OAK CREEK 75.7
STONEMAN 4.5
VALLEY 32.8
KESTON 21.0
WHEATON CGT) 0.1
KILDWOOD i.e
WINSLOW o.a
..... STATEs^YOMlNG
PLANT i960 802
JIM BRlDGER 39.5
JOHNSTON 27.3
LARAMIE RIVER 3.2
NAUGHTON 32.1
NEIL SIMPSON l.'O
OSAGE 1,6
WYODAK 16.3
A-44
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
------- |