A NATIONWIDE STUDY OF
CONTROL STRATEGIES TO ATTAIN
CURRENT AMBIENT TSP STANDARDS
Prepared for:
U^S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Prepared by:
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC.
1111 North 19th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
January 11, 1982
-------
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, in ful-
fillment of Contract Number 68-02-2836. The contents of this report are
reproduced herein as received from the contractor.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the
author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
This is a draft document. This report should not be quoted, cited, or
otherwise referenced in any way without permission of Energy and Environ-
mental Analysis, Inc.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Study Objectives 1-1
1.2 Current Ambient Standards and Air Quality Data 1-2
1.3 Control Strategies and Time Frame 1-2
2. METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Methodology Overview 2-3 '
2.3 Procedure for Adjusting Design Values for Growth. . . . 2-8
2.4 Procedure for Selecting Binding Standard for
Nonattaining Counties 2-11
2.5 Procedure for Computing Lowest Control Costs 2-13
3. EMISSION INVENTORY PREPARATION 3-1
3.1 Emission Files- 3-1
3.2 Point Source Inventory Preparation 3-1
3.3 Area Source Inventory Preparation 3-5
3.4. Point and Area Source Coverage 3-12
4. TSP DESIGN VALUES 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Data Sources 4-2
4.3 Details of the Selection Process 4-3
4.4 Assumptions and Data Constraints 4-5
4.5 Design Value Adjustments 4-8
4.6 Background Values 4-10
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Paee
5. PROBLEM CHARACTERIZATION FILE. ............... 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Data Sources. ..................... 5-1
5.3 File Structure. .............. 5-2
5.4 Types of Problem Counties ................ 5-3
6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS ....... 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Methodology ^ . ............ ........ 6-1
6.3 Major Assumptions K «-. ._*..?«,«..... ........ « 6-6
7. TREATMENT OF GROWTH AND RETIREMENT 7-1
7.1 Introduction. ...-..-.„.»......«.... . 7-1
7.2 Growth Sates. ..................'..< 7-1
7.3 Retirement Rates 7-2
704 BACT Controls- ...........<.,......< 7-2
80 EMISSION CONTROL OPTIONS AND COST FUNCTIONS. ........ 8-1
8.1 Source Coverage . . » «- . *. . ., « ...... 8-1
8-«2 General Procedures 8-3
8VT Types, of Control! EquipmehtFEvaTua'ted"". ......... 8-6
x
9. IMPACTS AIHJ-INTERIIISTATI^FOF-CIJPAENT'TSP' STANDARDS. . . . .9-1
9.-1- In-t-r-.od.uc.tiqn.-5.' . . ^ ^ «, » . 9-1
9o2 TSP Nationwide Results. ................ 9-4
9.3 Interpretation of Results 9-12
References
Appendix A Nationwide TSP Inventory .............. A-l
Appendix B Defaulting Procedures for Nationwide Particulate
Emission Inventory ................. B-l
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This study is part of a larger effort to assess the economic, environ-
mental, and energy impacts from attempts to meet current and alternative
standards for sulfur dioxide (S0~), total suspended particulates (TSP),
inhalable particulates (IP) (i.e., particulate diameters <_ 10 micro-
meters), and fine particulates (i.e., particulate diameters < 2.5 micro-
meters). The larger effort includes nationwide impact assessments of
alternative ambient standards and an air quality and control strategy
simulation of a case study in the Chicago, Illinois Air Quality Mainte-
nance Area (AQMA). This report describes the methodology, assumptions,
and results of a Nationwide TSP analysis as of August 1981 for the
current TSP National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Companion
documents address other elements of the total effort, including results
i "
for alternative IP/TSP ambient standards being evaluated after August
1981.
1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The ultimate goal of this portion of the overall study is to estimate
(a) the types of emission controls needed at each significant source of
particulate matter in the country to meet the current standards, and (b)
x
the nationwide economic, environmental, and energy impacts associated
with these controls. This is an ambitious goal, considering the number
(several hundred thousand) of particulate matter sources and the localized
(i.e., sourcerspecific) nature of particulate emissions-to-air quality
relationships which characterize many areas of the country. This study
represents the first test of a methodology developed to capture some
aspects of this localization while accommodating the data and resource
constraints of a nationwide study. As such, it is more limited in terms
of the number of standards assessed and the number of assumptions tested
than subsequent analyses will be.
1-1
-------
1.2 CURRENT AMBIENT STANDARDS AND AIR QUALITY DATA
The current NAAQS for total suspended particulates is shown in Table
1-1. The annual and 24-hour TSP ambient levels used to determine nation-
wide attainment status have been organized on a county-by-county basis.
For every U.S. county where valid monitoring or modeled data exist,
annual and 24-hour air quality design values have been selected to
*
represent current ambient levels. The design values are chosen primarily
from EPA's Storage and Retrival of Aerometric Data (SAROAD) system, or
from State Implementation Plans (SIP's) submitted to EPA. More detailed
information on the design values used in this study is found in Section 4.
1.3 CONTROL STRATEGIES AND TIME FRAME
s
The principle focus of this study is to identify control strategies to
achieve the current standards, and estimate the costs, energy use, and
solid waste associated with these strategies. TSP controls are associated
with equipment, unlike: SO", controls which can be effected by changing
fuel sulfur content. Therefore, where emission controls already are in
place, the analysis, assumes.they will remain, even in areas where no
ambient violations are occurring.
Baseline emissions and air quality data are consistent with conditions
in 1978.*" The control strategy analysis focuses on attainment of the
•^
current primary standard-icr 1982 and the current primary and secondary
standard is^
*Dates of air quality data, range- from. 19.75. to 1978 \ emissions data cover
the late 1960's to 1978. However, most areas are represented by data
reflective of the late 1570's.
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
(Mg/m3)
Averaging Time
Annual 24 hour
Primary 75 260
Secondary 601/ 150
Guideline only;'not considered a binding standard in this analysis
1-3
-------
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The methodology developed for estimating nationwide impacts focuses on
ambient air quality levels and the degree to which air quality must be
improved to attain the current TSP standards. In the majority of cases,
current particulate emissions from all sources within each county or
subcounty area are assumed, together with background* contributions, to
account for current air quality. However, where information is avail-
able on which sources or source types are responsible for current viola-
tions, only these sources are assumed to contribute to ambient levels.
Relationships between, emissions; and air~ quality are estimated by compar-
ing current air quality and, current emissions from either all or a
subset of the sources in the" area, weighted by effective stack height.
Required reductions in ambient levels (where future design values exceed
standards) then are txanslated into-^proportional reductions in weighted
emissions.
In essence, this is a linear rollback procedure modified to allow for
adjustment of individual^ source emissions-to--air quality ratios based on
relative stack height-. Point sxrorces with large effective stack heights
will- contribute-less^rtcr-anibicii:: l"evci"S"~at~ a monitor than either point
sources with lower stack aeigncs or area sources, other factors being
equal. This modification is s significant improvement over the assump-
tion that all sourceSr_contributc- equally per unit of emissions to the
air quality at a single monitor.
Information on sources responsible for nonattainment in a subset of
counties has been obtained from a review of revised SIP's submitted in
^Background in this study is that portion of local air quality contributed
by natural sources and sources outside the local area.
2-1
-------
1979 to EPA and from interviews with. EPA Regional Office personnel.
Thus, it has been possible to focus on those sources which are believed
to be largely responsible for ambient violations in these counties and
improve the quality of the analysis substantially. Unlike the nationwide
analysis for S0?, this methodology does not focus on existing SIP emission
regulations for various categories of sources and the extent to which
they could or need be changed to meet the current ambient standards.
Current SIP's could not be used since most violations of the current
standards are caused by sources not traditionally addressed in SIP's —
roads, materials handling operations, coal storage facilities, and other
"nontraditional fugitive sources." Thus, tightening emission limits on
currently regulated sources probably would be ineffective for meeting
the current standard and possibly for alternative standards as well.
Instead, the approach used in this study is as inclusive of different
source types as is feasible; indeed, "nontraditional fugitive sources"
often are highlighted in those counties for which information is available
on sources causing violations. In the remaining counties, all sources
in EPA's National Emission Data System (NEDS) are candidates for additional
control. The only limitation is the availability of realistic control
options or the feasibility of estimating control costs.
The population of counties addressed in this analysis are those where
air quality has been either monitored or modeled. A total of 1235
counties (including 28 subcounty areas) or about 39 percent of all
r
counties in the United States fall into this category. However, these
counties account for approximately 70 percent of all particulate emis-
sions in the country, as explained further in Section 3. Thus, most
counties with major emission sources are being analyzed.
The procedures for the nationwide analysis are presented in this section.
The basic analytical steps are first outlined in a simplified flow
2-2
-------
chart. Subsequent parts of the section elaborate on these basic steps.
The major data inputs noted in the general discussion will be described
in greater detail in later sections of the report.
2.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
Each phase of methodology is illustrated in Figure 2-1. To provide an
initial overview, each box in the flow chart is described briefly:
1. Particulate Point Source Emission Inventory: The major point
sources of particulate matter have been taken from the National
Emission Data System (NEDS). Sources which (a) are not in a
county for which air quality data (design values) are available,
' or (b) have current particulate emissions of less than 5 tons per
year (TPY), are screened from the emission inventory. After se-
lecting this subset, fugitive point source emissions from materials
handling and plant- paved/unpaved roadway activity are added for
coal-fired boilers and certain industrial process operations.
2. Particulate Area Source Emission Inventory; Total area source
emissions in each design value county have been taken from NEDS
area source subfile. This file includes residential, commercial,
and small industrial sources plus emissions from paved and unpaved
roads-and miscellaneous-sources (-e.g., agricultural tilling and
f orc&t-f i-rcs^)-.-
^
3. Growth/Retirement Kates and Mew Source Control Efficiencies:
Industrial growth and retirement rates and new source emission
control efficiencies are applied to current particulate point
source emissions, and population growth rates are applied to
current area source emissions to compute net growth in parti-
culate emissions. The net growth is used to adjust current
design values for growth.
2-3
-------
FIGURE 2-1
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
2
PARTICUL
SOURCE E
INVE*
i ^
S ^
3
GROHfTH & RETIREMENT
ADJUST DESIGN VALUES V uwiiiuii.crriuci.u«
FORGR
(1382, 198
.X"
NO^X^ *JT
~"^w DESIGN V
^S. STAN
T ^S^
ZERO CONTROL YES
COSTS ^
.X'HA
' ' .X'PROBLEM
< IN COUN
^SS^HARAC-
^s».^ •
HO
X
9 1
.^L
r\ COMPUTE AIR QUAD!
A EMISSIONS RELATIONS'
OWTH \
<, "W7) \ » ,,
DESIGN VALUE FILE
^^"^V. r— — — -i
URE ^X^ ^ CURRENT &
ALUE > .^^ ALTERNATIVE
3AROXX" STANDARDS
'
w^>^ 7
SOURCES^XVES \ SCREEN POINT SOURCES
FYBEEN^^ '\ IN PROBLEM COUNTIES
^ ,
PROBLEM CHARACTERIZATION
RLE
8 V
\COMPUTE PAVED/UNPAVED \
ROAD EMISSIONS \
r ir i
r
\
r
J[pS V^ POINT AND AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
to u T
EMISSION
CONTROL FILE
X COMPUTE LEAST COST ST
' ' *\ TO ATTAIN STANOAR
RATEGY\
DS \
12 T
COST. ENERGY USE AND SOLID
WASTE BY REGION BY 4-OIG1T SIC
21
--+
-------
4. County/Subcounty Design Value File: Current air quality (design
values) have been obtained for 1263 counties or subcounty areas.
These are based on observed or modeled ambient levels for annual
and 24-hour averaging times. The geometric mean value is used
for the annual standard.
5. Adjust Design Values for Growth: The design values for TSP are
adjusted to take into account growth in particulate emissions
from the base year (1978) through each year specified in the
analysis (1982, 1985, and 1987). A proportional change in ambient
air quality is assumed to occur with a change in total county-
wide particulate emissions. Thus, if particulate emissions rise
in a future year, the design values (annual and 24-hour) are
adjusted upward. Emission changes are caused by retirement of
existing sources and addition of new ones. New sources are
assumed to be. controlled at Best Available Control Technology
CBACT) levels.
6. Problem Characterization File: Information concerning the nature
of the sources~contributing to current air quality at the design
value monitor was available far 2-74 counties and subcounty areas
analyzed-..- This- information specifies which sources or types of
sources-contxzbtrte" sl'gnTl^cauTi-yreo^ 1Lne. monitor's air quality
level". In some cases ,_a.-_sp_es:.iJ.i.CL p.La«£. identification has been
mad®";" tfth'elri&fse^-e-geserrr!—source category (e.g., steel production,
grain storage) is-identified-along-wi-th an indication as to
whether the emissions originate from a stack, material stockpile,
or in-plant roads".
7. Screen Point Sources in "Problem" Counties: Where problem
characterizations are available, this information is used to
screen out point sources from EEA's point source inventory (i.e.,
2-5
-------
the processed NEDS point source file) those sources which do not
contribute to the current nonattainment problem. Only the county's
(or subcounty area's) point sources named in the problem charac-
terization file are retained for further analysis. If no point
sources are noted, then it is assumed that point sources are not
significant contributors to the design value.
8. Compute Area Source Paved/Unpaved Road Emissions in "Problem"
Counties: The problem characterization file also contains
information on contributions from area sources. Where paved and
unpaved road emissions are indicated as major problems, simple
equations are used to estimate the total emissions around the
design value monitor/receptor which affect air quality there.
Total miles of roadway available for control also are estimated.
Where other area sources are implicated, no emissions estimates
are made since these are assumed to be uncontrollable in this
analysis.
9. Compute Air Quality-to-Emissions Relationships: Based on the
modified linear rollback procedure, emissions from each point and
area source are related to air quality contribution at the design
3
value monitor. The resulting ambient level (jJg/m )-to-emission
(TPY) ratio is called a source-receptor coefficient. These are
used to relate the air quality reduction needed to meet a standard
^_jLn a violating county with the potential reduction in ambient
levels produced by additional emission controls at each point and
area source.
10. Emission Control File: Emission control options are listed by
Source Classification Code (SCC), EPA's point source coding
system in NEDS. Area source controls also are included for
municipal paved and unpaved roads. The control options for each
2-6
-------
SCC in the file include information on control efficiency and on
parameters for computing capital costs, operating and maintenance
costs, solid waste generation, and power use.
11. Compute Least Cost Strategy to Attain the Current Standards; For
each nonattaining county or subcounty, particulate sources are
analyzed for possible control options in the emission control file.
The least-cost options are selected. If the standard cannot be
attained with further controls on all applicable sources, the
control costs for achieving maximum reduction in ambient levels
are computed. A cost-effectiveness (CE) constraint is used to
ensure that the controls selected are justifiable from a cost
perspective.*
12. Outputs on Costs, Energy Use, and Waste for the Current Standard:
The results are aggregated on the regional level and for the
entire natioiu For each geographical area, the industrial impacts
are listed by 4-ttLgitu SIC.
A detailed discussion of the particulate emission inventories for both
point and area sources is presented in Section 3. The design value file
is described in Section 4,. and the. problem characterization file is
discussed in Sectioa 5-. Section"6~-covers the methodology for relating
emissions and-a-i-r— I-irCy-using"niovij:fie
-------
2.3 PROCEDURE FOR ADJUSTING DESIGN VALUES FOR GROWTH
The growth adjustment procedure assumes that any change in countyvide
emissions due to growth will produce proportional increases in aggregate
contributions of local sources to ambient air quality. Although perfect
linear relationships of this nature are not likely, this assumption is
convenient analytically. The procedure used here also assumes that all
growth in the county will affect the design value monitor. This is not
a realistic assumption given the source-specific nature of many TSP
problems. However, without knowing where new sources will locate and
which existing ones will retire, it is not possible to modify this
assumption intelligently. On the other hand, provisions have been made
to reduce or eliminate the impact of growth and retirement in the analysis
if this appears desirable in future runs of the model. Figure 2-2 shows
the individual steps in the procedure:
1. Aggregate Current Point Source County Emissions by SIC: Since
the growth and retirement rates are specified for individual
industrial groupings, current county emissions must be aggregated
similarly. A two-digit SIC organization is employed.
2. Compute Future Point Source County Emissions by SIC; Over time,
current sources retire and are replaced by new ones, In some
i cases, new source growth beyond simple replacement also may be
experienced. This step produces estimates of the net change in
emissions, taking into account typical differences in control
efficiency between existing and new sources:
Future County
Point Source = CCE.(1 - R.) + UCE. CO- + R. + G.) - 1)(1 - BACT.)
« . • 1 JL & 4» JL 1
Emissions.
i
where: CCE. = current county point source emissions in
1 SIC i
2-8
-------
FIGURE 2-2
FUTURE COUNTY EMISSIONS AND DESIGN
VALUE ADJUSTMENT FOR GROWTH
to
I
vO
•
iAH
r
nUUUCMIUCIUllAIIUI 1
fill 1
I
\cowuii r«vuu«f»«t>\
•uoctmtou \
1
(•niton
tUfttMiH ttll
\ coiruil u AII coil UMitciX
*\ IO«IIAU1IUI1UU)1 \
MEIIIODOlOGYOVCflVIEW
CUII, IMK< Wt MOlOlltl
Mill II MCIIW 11 1-OU! IK.
EEA POINT SOURCE
„ INVENTORY
BACT CONTROL
LEVELS
INDUSTRIAL RETIREMENT
GROWTH RATES
POPULATION
GROWTH RATES
BACKGROUND
- CONCENTRATION
AGGREGATE CURRENT COUNTY POINT
SOURCE EMISSIONS BY SIC
\
1
r
COMPUTE FUTURE COUNTY POINT
SOURCE EMISSIONS BY SIC
COMPUTE FUTURE AREA
SOURCE EMISSIONS
\
\
CALCULATE FUTURE/CURRENT
EMISSION RATIOS BY COUNTY
DESIGN VALUE
FILE
\
r
b& » \
FUTURE/CURRENT RATIOS
1982,198S & 1987
FUTURE DESIGN VALUES
-------
R. = retirement rate for SIC i
UCE. = uncontrolled emissions from current county
point sources in SIC i
G. = net growth rate in SIC i
BACT. = average new source control efficiency in SIC i
t = number of years between future and base year
Total countywide point source emissions are the sum across all
SIC's.
Compute Future Area Source Emissions: Total area source emis-
sions are expected to increase over time roughly at the population
growth rate in each area. The growth rates employed are taken
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' growth projections through
the year 2000 and are state-specific. Current area source emis-
sions are'takea from NEDS.
Future County
Area Source Emissions. = CCAE. (1 + PGR )
where: . CCAE. = current area source emissions in county j
t = number of years between future and base year
PGR = annual population growth rate in state s
s
4. Calculate Future/Current Emission Ratio by County and Adjust
Design Values: The ratio of future-to-current countywide emis-
sions then is assumed to equal the ratio of future to current air
quality, adjusting for background ambient levels:
DVf - B = Ef
DV - B E
c c
2-10
-------
Ef
DV, = =i (DV - B) + B
t c c
where: DV, = future design value
DV = current design value
B = background air quality
E, = future countywide emissions
E = current countywide emissions
2.4 PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING BINDING STANDARD FOR NONATTAINING COUNTIES
To determine which county/subcounty areas will be nonattaining for the
current TSP standards and the amount of air quality reduction needed to
meet them, the binding standard' (annual versus 24-hour) for any set first
must be determined. This is accomplished by comparing each annual and
24-hour standard-separately with the corresponding future design values
in each county. If the county violates only one of the standards, it is
designated aonattairmsent and additional particulate control strategies
are evaluated. If both, averaging, times are violated, then the most bind-
ing (i.e., the one requiring the greatest percent reduction in ambient
levels) is selected. Figure- 2=3-il-liis_t.£aJtes.. the specific procedure used
in choosing the binding standard. It includes the following steps:
1. Compare' De^xgZT'Values wi'crTcne Standard and Compute Margin: A
"margin," or the degree by which the standard is exceeded by the
corresponding future design value, is computed as follows:
DV. - S^
Margin.. = s 1. B *
i i
where: DV. = Future Design Value for averaging time i,
1 in 1982, 1985, or 1987
S. = Standard for i
i
B. = Background air quality for i
2-11
-------
FIGURE 2-3
SELECTION OF BINDING STANDARD FOR NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES
Mt raui UUKCI uasun
Yd
iinlwuawijM V
roiuuiiH \
I»U l«i 11/1 \ i
\ STANDARD
\
COMPARE DESIGN VALUES WITH
STANDARD AND COMPUTE MARGINS
\
\
SELECT MOST BINDING
STANDARD
\
COUNTIES IN NONATTAINMENT
AND BINDING STANDARD
BY COUNTY
-------
Where future air quality is better than the standard, the margin
will have a negative sign. If both margins are negative, then
neither standard is binding and the county is in attainment.
Select the Most Binding Standard: In every nonattaining county,
a single margin (i.e., i = annual or 24-hour) will be constrain-
ing. Where future air quality is worse than one or more of the
standards (DV > S), the margin is the percent emissions reduction
needed to attain the standard. (A minimum difference of 1.0
3
(Jg/m between the design value and the standard is set as a
constraint to avoid the estimation of trivial control strategies.)
Once the most binding standard has been selected, the previously computed
margin for that standard is used in determining the ambient air quality
reduction required.
•
2.5 PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING LOWEST CONTROL COSTS
This section focuses" oif the procedure, for estimating the minimum expen-
diture necessary within a nonattaining county to comply with the current
TSP standard. Cost Is optimized on a countywide basis. That is, the
3
cost effectiveness (in $_ per pg/in reduced) is estimated for either all
sources or~a- subset" o~f^ all sources "in the county (if problem sources
have been identified;}!, and! thafe combination of controls among these
sources, is selected- Hhich gixe's~ the^ls'-'esf ag-g-regate costs. The steps
in this procedur
earcscv;:
1. Comp_ute Individual Source Control-Cost: Point and area sources
can reduce emissions by applying additional controls specified on
aa SCC. basis, in. the emission control file. For each source there
are from one to five options. However, some of the options are
dominated in the sense that another option is both less expensive
and more effective. The realistic options then are arrayed by
increasing cost and emission reductions. This traces out a
control-cost curve for each source.
2-13
-------
FIGURE 2-4
LEAST CONTROL COST COMPUTATIONS
fO
Mf TIIOOOIOGV OVERVIEW
EMISSION CONTROL
FILE
\
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
CURRENT EMISSION AND
ATTAINMENT EMISSION
LEVELS
COMPUTE CONTROL-COST CURVES
FOR INDIVIDUAL SOURCES
\
\
COMPUTE COUNTY-WIDE
CONTROL-COST CURVES
\
\
COMPUTE COUNTY-WIDE
EMISSION CHANGE REQUIREMENTS
\
LEAST COST
SOLUTION
-------
2. Compute Countywide Control-Cost Curves; Once the control-cost
curves have been derived for each source within a plant, it is
possible to construct a countywide curve. The total cost of a
control employing one option on one source and another option on
a second source is the sum of the two separate costs; the total
emissions reduction is the sum of the individual reductions. In
theory, the cost analysis proceeds by combining the separate
source control-cost curves for each source into an overall curve
and selecting the combination of control options which provides
the required percent reduction in total county emissions equal to
the percent reduction in air quality needed to meet the standard.
The actual techniques used to select the least-cost combination
of sources and controls are similar to those used in the Chicago
case study. See Section 7 in the Chicago TSP Case Study Report
for a detailed description of these techniques (EEA, 1981).
However, each county analysis in the nationwide study is greatly
simplified by: the use of one rather than several hundred receptors.
2-15
-------
3. EMISSION INVENTORY PREPARATION
3.1 EMISSION TILES
Data on TSP emission sources are obtained from EPA's National Emissions
Data System (NEDS), maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. The NEDS subfile of point sources provides data on all
point sources evaluated in the TSP nationwide study. The NEDS area
source subfile also is used for the growth analysis in all counties and
as the basic emission file in those counties lacking problem source
characterization.
3.2 POINT SOURCE INVENTORY PREPARATION
The steps taken to prepare the TSP nationwide emission inventory are
illustrated in Figure 3-1. This procedure is designed to discard from
NEDS those records which are not useful in the analysis and default the
remaining records so that valid stack data and operating rates are
available. Because NEDS is an extremely large data system containing
approximately one quarter million point sources, unneeded source records
must be screened to obtain a feasible subset of the most significant TSP
emitters. Table 3-1 summarizes the quantitative effect of all screening
steps 1 Particulate emissions by SCC are presented in Appendix A.
Step 1 in Figure 3-1 in the inventory preparation involves removing
sources not located in one of the 1235 counties analyzed. A total of
51,377 sources (about 29 percent of the emissions from the sources with
usable records) are dropped.
The second step involves screening to eliminate sources with emissions
less than 5 TPY in design value counties. These constitute less than 3
percent of the emissions from sources with usable records, but stream-
line the analysis by eliminating over 182,000 sources.
3-1
-------
FIGURE 3-1
POINT SOURCE
EMISSION INVENTORY
PREPARATION
NEDS INVENTORY
h-V
SCREEN USEAOLE NEDS
FOR COUNTY
DEFAULT VALUES
\
V
SCREEN FOR SOURCES
EMITTING <5TPY
V.
DEFAULT FOR BAD
STACK DATA
\
\
DEFAULT FOR VALID
OPERATING PARAMETERS
\
\
ADD COAL FIRED BOILER
AND PROCESS FUGITIVES
\
\
EEA EMISSION INVENTORY
FOR NATIONWIDE STUDY
\
NOT IN A DESIGN
VALUE COUNTY
SOURCES
<5TPY
-------
TABLE 3-1
NATIONWIDE TSP POINT SOURCE INVENTORY:
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL EMISSION
TOTALS AFTER EACH INVENTORY SCREENING STEP
Total 1978 NEDS Point Source
Emission Inventory
Sources in Design Value Counties
Source >5 TPY in D.V. Countries
Fugitive Emissions added to
Industrial and Utility Coal-
Fired Boilers and Selected
Process Sources
Sources with Necessary Air
Quality Modeling Data
Sources with.Necessary Costing
Parameters , -•
Sources with SCC's on Control
Options File
Sources which Can be Addressed
in Control Strategy
Emission Total 'Number of
TPY Sources
268,633
217,256
34,582
5,475,800
5,475,800
5,214,600
3,550,000
3,550,0003/
42,442
42,442
39,051
20,066
20,066
I/
2/
Necessary air quality parameters include stack height, stack temperature,
and flow rate.
i
Necessary costing parameters include: for boilers, the heat input
(i.e., boiler design capacity) and the average operating rate; for
processes, the maximum operating rate and the average operating rate.
This figure represents approximately 50 percent of the total 1978
NEDS point source emissions (stack plus fugitive dust sources) and
65 percent of all sources in design value counties.
3-3
-------
la the third step, sources are screened to eliminate or improve records
where faulty stack data would have produced erroneous impact results.*
The inventory contains 34,582 source records when this screen is applied
All records are defaulted using the procedure described in Appendix B of
this report. For each stack variable (i.e., stack height, stack tempera-
ture, and flow rate), roughly 35 percent of the source records were
defaulted.
In step 4, the source records are checked for valid operating rate
information. Records for which no average or maximum operating rates
and unreasonable or no hours of operation are found are defaulted as
explained in Appendix B. These comprise about 2930 sources or about 8
percent of the sources remaining after step 2.
The final step (5) is- to add fugitive dust emissions at industrial and
utility coal-fired boilers and selected process sources. This is viewed
as one of the most important parts of the inventory preparation process
since nontraditional sources" are"reported by States to be major contri-
butors to current nonattainment problems. Fugitive dust emissions at
each facility are estimated by EEA for materials storage and handling
based on the total, annual coal.usage, in all the boilers or total output
at each facility* Emissions frozs plant-traffic (both paved and unpaved
road emissions) are keyed to boiler design rates- or plant capacity based
on a modeir plant: ccai~ccpu~Ttfc"ac~sri"s"s~lons are assumed to be uncontrolled.
Nearly 8000 sources"emitting 434,000 TPY'are added to the inventory.
Details of the assumptions, model plant characteristics, and emission
calculation procedures- are- contained in a companion report on control
costs and emission factors .(EEA,__1981).
*0f approximately 1200 total SCC's, stack parameter default values are
available for 520, with the exception of gas flow rate, where only
about 160 SCC's are covered. Defaults are set at the median of all NEDS
records for individual parameters, based on a previous statistical
analysis of NEDS.
3-4
-------
A total of 34,582 NEDS sources survive the above screening steps.
Although this represents only 13 percent of all TSP sources in NEDS, it
includes many large emitters. These sources emit 5.04 million tons per
year or about 70 percent of all TSP emitted from point sources in NEDS
in 1978. The remaining emissions are accounted for primarily by counties
without valid air quality data. The screened total is 70 percent of
emissons from all NEDS point sources with usable records. Table 3-2
presents the particulate emissions inventory disaggregated by major
4-digit SIC code. The largest source categories are utility powerplants
(4911), iron and steel (3312), cement (3241), mining operations (3295)
and paper mills (2621), which collectively make up 57 percent of the
total inventory.
Table 3-1 also shows that 3.55 million tons per year (50 percent of 1978
NEDS) can be addressed in the pollution control strategy for attaining
the TSP ambient standard. Emission sources emitting 1.93 million TPY
particulates are not included in the analysis for the following reasons.
e Sources missing necessary costing parameters account for 261
thousand TPY. Costing parameters include heat input rate and
operating rate for boilers, and maximum and average operating
rates for nonboilers.
• .Sources with SCC's which are undefinable according to NEDS emit
637 thousand TPY (i.e., SCC ends with "99" code).
• Another 1,028 thousand TPY originates from sources which are not
covered by hardware controls included in the control cost data
file. These sources are usually smaller emitters of PM and are
not traditionally controlled.
3.3 AREA SOURCE INVENTORY PREPARATION
Two different approaches were employed to generate area source emissions.
Aside from the growth analysis, the NEDS area source subfile was used
only for counties without problem characterizations. For these counties,
the procedure focused on distinguishing potentially controllable sources
(i.e., paved roads) from other categories. However, in counties with
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE PARTICULATE EMISSION INVENTORY
BY MAJOR 4-DIGIT SIC IN DESIGN VALUE COUNTIES
SIC
2040
2041
2048
2421
2611
2621
2819
2861
2869
2911
2951
3241
3251
3274
3281
3295
3312
3334
4221
4911
4953
•=— —
CATEGORY
Grain mill products
Flour and other grain products
Prepared feed for animals, not
classified elsewhere
Sawmills
Pulp mills
Paper mills
Inorganic chemicals
Gum and wood- chemicals^
Organic chemicals
Petroleum- refining
Paving mixtures, blocks
Hyraulic ceoent
Brick and clay tile
Lime
Cut stone
Ground minerals and earth
Iron and steel
FriaKtfy-«i"«=2«=F—
Farm products warehousing
Utility powerplants
Refuse- systems
All other SIC's
Total
Emissions
(TPY)
3360
31570
22350
40520
34280
206330
41060
20780
12890
93940
114250
415870
59110
52540
19100
145810
488450
41810
25360
1603650
142740
1426335
5042050
Percent of
Totala/
0.1%
0.6%
0.4%
0.8%
0-5%
4.1%-"
0.8%
0.4%
0.3%
1.9%
2.3%
8.2%
1.2%
1.0%
0.4%
2.9%
9.7%
0.8%
0.5%
31.9%
2.8%
28.4%
100%
a/
Total particulate emissions refers to all sources in design value coun-
ties with greater than 5 TPY emissions. This total equals 5,042,000 TPY,
as shown in Table 3-1.
3-6
-------
FIGURE 3-2
AREA SOURCE ROAD EMISSIONS INVENTORY
\.«IH>U»>«I V """•""""°"
miuuiii \ _________
IIM1 l« i«ll \ i
• i* I lOMIt/ltNCOMII
URBAN POPULATION.
POPULATION DENSITY
BY COUNTY
PAVED/UNPAVED
ROAD RATIO
BY STATE
PROBLEM CHARACTERIZATION FILE
HAVE
I ^ PROBLEM SOURCES
IN COUNTY BEEN
CHARACTERIZED
ROAD MILES/VHT
ARE
3 -^ AREA SOURCES
A"PROBLEM"
NEDS
URBAN & RURAL
VMT
PAVED/UNPAVEO
ROAD EMISSIONS
NOT COMPUTED
CALCULATE PAVED/UNPAVED
CALCULATE PAVED ROAD
MILES4 EMISSIONS USING NEDS
ROAD MILES (EMISSIONS
AREA SOURCE
ROAD EMISSION INVENTORY
-------
problem characterizations which also identified roads as problems,
roadway emissions are generated from estimates of road miles near the
design value monitors.
«
3.3.1 Counties With No Problem Characterizations
In counties which are not in the problem characterization file (Figure 3-2,
Step 1), the only area source category considered "controllable" is
paved roads reentrained road dust. Paved road dust emissions, however,
are not specified as such on the NEDS area source file; only total area
source emissions are given. Paved road dust emissions, therefore, have
to be estimated from other information in the file, i.e., annual vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) on urban and rural paved roads for each State and
county (Figure 3-2, Stept 2}. Paved road, dust emissions are calculated
by multiplying urban and rural VMT by the corresponding entrained road
dust emission factors, 4.50 and 0.90 g/VMT, respectively.* It is not
possible to estimate unpaved road emissions since factors were deemed
unreliable by EPA's National Aerometric Data Branch. Other area sources,
such. as homes, commercial/Institutional establishments, small industrial
plants and other nontraditionals such as construction site activities
are all deemed either uncontrollable or sources_for which controls are
too difficult to specify,
In addition to. total_psved."rcu- eziis 5 rcz^~tSe 'number- of miles of paved
roadway is needed^to~estia*atc^tli^cc^t™<£f~ Controlling this source. The
number of road p»ilesr in=j?aclv_coiif»ty " i v estimated by multiplying the
total VMT by Stated-specific Road Miles-to-VMT ratios. (These are shown
in Table 3-3), It is most unlikely, however, that all of these roads
would need to be- controlled in. any given: county, even if the county
could not meet the standard. Thus, an arbitrary fraction (one- third)
was chosen in conjunction with the EPA project office as the fraction of
total roads likely, on average, to need control.
*Letter from Charles 0. Mann, EPA/NADB, to Henry C. Thomas, EPA/SASD,
October 8, 1980.
3-8
-------
TABLE 3-3
RATIOS OF PAVED VMT-TO-ROADMILES BY STATES
10 VMT - Roadmile
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
Mississipi
Missouri
Ratio
3.44
2.78
3.35
2.21
9.21
2.28
9.89
8.07
32.23
7.36
4.3
12.17
.20
.67
4.94
1.74
1,27~
4.
1.
4.
09
4.11
37.66-
10.41
10.44
5.64
2.25
2.45^
2.95
State
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
Utah
Vermont,
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Ratio
0.90
1.29
1.15
4.22
15.64
.60
.92
.62
1.
6.
4.
0.49
6.48
2.45
1.77
6.31
10.44
.93
,71
.64
.17
.00
.69
6.15
3.51
.07
19
3.
0.
4,
4.
2,
2.
3.
3.
1.39
Source: U.S. DOT. 1978." Highway Statistics. Pages 48 and 130.
3-9
-------
3.3.2 Counties With Problem Characterizations
In characterized counties, when paved and unpaved roads are identified
as "problem sources" (Figure 3-2, Step 3), they are assumed to be the
only area sources affecting the design value monitor. Paved and unpaved
road emissions are estimated (Figure 3-2, Step 4) by first calculating
road density (i.e. road miles per square mile). These values are esti-
mated as a function of population density, according to the following
equation:
pn
R = 19.5 - 18.1 (0.78)r
P
where: PD = population density (thousands of persons per
square mile) of the nonattainment area.
Similarly, unpaved road miles per square mile (R ) are calculated as a
function of paved road density:
^
pn
RU = S(19.5 - 18.1 (0.738)™)
where: S = unpaved miles per paved mile (see Table 3-4 for
state-specific estimates of S)
The road density values are multiplied by the area around each monitor
to obtain total miles. These values then are multiplied by an emission
factor (tons/miles) to generate total TSP emissions (in tons per year)
from roads within one mile of the design value monitor:
Emissions , = 6x10* tons- 1.46x10 VMT/yr** ,_ 172 ., , „
Paved - (VMT) (Road Mile) (3'14 miles) Rp
^Emission factor from EPA's AP-42.
**This factor is based on personal communication with Ronald W.
Tweedie, Director, Data Services Bureau, New York State Department
of Transportation, October 12, 1979.
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-4
RATIOS OF UNPAVED-TO-PAVED ROAD MILES BY STATE
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
Ratio
0.518
2.306
0.497
1.690
0.511
2.671
0.057
0.078
0.004
0 . 484
0.710
0.005
2.211
0.620
0.499
2.224
3.355
0^587
0.542
0.301
146
280
882
036
1.426-
State
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
Utah - _ _
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Ratio
4.450
3.827
5.166
0.503
0.094
0.034
0.278
0.617
6.872
0.254
1.648
2.352
0.434
0.121
0.402
3.809
0.623
0.944
.331
.310
,333
1.111
0.977
0.409
2.470
2,
1.
0.
Source: U.S. DOT. 1978. Highway. Statistics.
3-11
-------
Emissions „„„, , = (1.49x!0"3 tons)** (7.3xlQ4 VMT/yr)* f ,2 ,
unpaved - ^^ - (Road Mile) (3'14 miles) Ru
The one-mile radius around each monitor is chosen as the maximum distance
from which roadway dust would impact a monitor. However, it is unlikely
that only the roads within a one-mile radius would be controlled in a
realistic SIP control strategy. Instead, it is assumed that one third
of the roads within the nonattainment area (county or subcounty) actu-
ally would be controlled. Although it is assumed that roads outside
the one-mile radius would not contribute to the ambient level at the
design value monitor, they would contribute to the cost of control and
might, in fact, contribute to high ambient levels if other monitors were
present. The total road miles in the area are calculated as follows:
Total Paved Road Miles = R ( P)
£lPD)
( P")
Total Unpaved Road Miles = RU = Tpgy
where: P = Population
R , R , PD = as defined before
P u
3.4 POINT AND AREA SOURCE COVERAGE
Table 3-5 presents estimated point and area source coverage of nationwide
and design value emissions. Area source coverage, because no screening
was done, is 100 percent of design value county emissions. Overall, for
point and area sources combined, coverage is 54 percent of total nation-
wide emissions and roughly 94 percent of total design value county emis-
sions. These values include the 434,000 TPY of fugitive dust emissions
that are added to the NEDS point source file to augment its coverage.
*This factor is based on personal communication with Ronald W.
Tweedie, Director, Data Services Bureau, New York State Department
of Transportation, October 12, 1979.
**The derivation of this emission factor is found in companion document,
"The SO./TSP Regulatory Analysis: Emission Factors and Control Cost
Methodology.," EEA, 1981.
3-12
-------
TABLE 3-5
COMBINED POINT AND AREA SOURCE COVERAGE OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
IN NATIONWIDE ANALYSIS
(TPY)
1978 Total NEpS Emission Inventory
Partlculate Fmissioas in Non-Design
Value Counties or less than 5 TPY
Emissions
Approximate E!mlssion» in Design Value
Counties, Including Add;2d Fugitive
Dust Emissions '
Partlculate Emissions frota NEDS
Evaluated in National Least-Coat
Control Analysis
% Coverage of Nationwide Emissions
% Coverage of Design Value County
Emissions
Point Sources Area Sources Total
7,163,000 45,731,600 52,894,700
2,121,600
, 5,475,800
i
1 3,550,200
50%
65%
20,556,700
25,174,900
25,174,900
55%
100%
22,678,300
30,650,700
28,725,100
54%
94%
-------
4. TSP DESIGN VALUES
.4.1 'INTRODUCTION
Design values are the ambient concentrations (one for each averaging
time) which best represent air quality in the base year (1978) in each
county or subcounty area. They equal one of the following values, in
order of priority:
• The air quality value used to develop control strategies in
the revised 1979 SIP
c The air quality value used to determine attainment status
• The highest monitor reading in the county in 1977 and 1978
(or, in the most recent years, back to 1975 if valid readings
are not available for 1977 and 1978).
i
Wherever possible, monitored or modeled design values used for control
strategy development are employed. These were judged most appropriate
for purposes of this study since the base years for most SIP revision
work are 1976 to 1978. Where these values are not available, design
values used for determining attainment status are employed. In many
,)
cases they agree with the preferred values (those used to develop control
strategies), but in others, they reflect air quality in earlier years
(1975 to 1977). Finally, if neither air quality value is available,
monitor readings are examined directly and one reading is selected to
represent countywide air quality.
In this analysis, design values are used to estimate the number of non-
attainment counties under current standards, as well as to develop and
estimate costs of control strategies. For comparison purposes, the
number of current nonattainment counties also is determined by totalling
the designations in the Federal Register. When design values are not
4-1
-------
consistent with the Federal Register designations, the design values are
adjusted, as discussed in Section 4.5.
The design value file is organized by State and county. Design values
are.assigned on the county level, except where more specific information
on problem sources with significant impacts on a violating monitor is
available. In these cases, subcounty areas could be defined.
Wherever possible, the design value file contains observed design values
for each averaging time (annual geometric means and second high 24-hour
values). Annual arithmetric mean values and 24-hour expected values
also are included in the data file for later use in the analysis of
alternative IP/TSP standards. The year and specific monitor (or modeled
receptor) are specified for each design, value and averaging time.
Attainment designations, as well as county-specific background values,
when they exist, also- are included in the file. In the majority of
cases, however, startewide background default values have to be used (see
Section 4.6).
4.2 DATA SOURCES
Guidance for the- sele5:tio|L_Q-f^
-------
Frequently, a design value for a nonattainment area is specified by the
SIP's or EPA Regional Offices for only one averaging time. In these
cases, SAROAD data for the identified monitor are assessed in an attempt
to provide the missing values. If the design value is based on modeling
results, missing values are not replaced.
'County-specific background values also are obtained from the SIP's and
EPA Regional Offices. Regionwide default background values are taken
from EPA National Aeroraetric Surveillance Network (NASN) sites for
1970-1973 (GCA, 1976). Default background values are discussed further
iin Section 4.6.
Expected values based on monitor records are supplied by EPA's Monitoring
Data and Analysis Division (MDAD). Twenty-four hour expected values are
calculated for all TSP monitors with sufficient data.
%
4.3 DETAILS OF THE SELECTION PROCESS
Where guidance is available for selecting observed design values, the
recommended design values are used directly; where observed design
values are selected from SAROAD, a fairly elaborate selection process is
followed. This process is outlined in Figure 4-1.
SAROAD monitoring data for the period 1975 to 1978 is obtained from
MDAD. The SAROAD data then are screened for valid monitor records
(Figure 4-1, Step 1). The criteria include:
. • Four valid quarters of data must be available to compute
annual averages (annual average = average of the four quarter
means).
• Each quarter must have more than five 24-hour readings as
recorded by TSP hi-vols.
4-3
-------
EPA REGIONAL
OFFICES
SCREEN FOR VALID OATA
IN EACH COUNTY
IS VAUO
OATA AVAILABLE
FOR COUNTY?
\2 CHOOSE HIGHEST \
COUNTY
IS COUNTY
VIOLATING TSP
STANDARD?
\ * PROVIDE DEFAULTS \
^^FORMISSIHg VALUES \
ADJUST DESIGN VALUES
3 REMOVE COUNTY
FROM NATIONWIDE
ANALYSIS
OAQPS/MDAO
DATA F1UES
TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
ATTAINMENT STATUS
ADO EXPECTED VALUES
FOR EACH COUNTY
DESIGN VALUE FILE
FOR 12S3 COUNTIES
AND SUBCOUNTY AREAS
FIGURE 4-1
PROCEDURE FOR TSP
DESIGN VALUE SELECTION
4-4
-------
• Two out of three months in each quarter must have at least one
reading.
• Second high short-term values are considered only at monitors
with valid annual averages.
• Twenty-four-hour values are based on nonoverlapping 24-hour
time increments.
Design values then are selected from among valid air quality values
attributable to monitors in the specified county. The highest values
among these monitors for 1977 and 1978 (or, if no monitor has valid
records for these years, for the two most recent years of valid data)
are designated as the design values (Figure 4-1, Step 2). Design values
for the annual averaging time are selected by this procedure, and the
24-hour values corresponding to the annual monitor and year are desig-
nated as the short-term design values.
Design values for "expected ambient levels are estimated by MDAD for the
24-hour averaging time. Expected second high levels are computed by
fitting annual records to exponential curves and then reading the expected
values from the curve. Expected values are computed for the monitors
used to specify observed design values.
4.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA CONSTRAINTS
A number of assumptions are made in the development of the design value
file. These are discussed below, together with constraints imposed by
data limitations.
4.4.1 Counties not Included in the Analysis
When valid design values cannot be obtained for an attainment county,
the county is eliminated from the analysis (Figure 4-1, Step 3). Counties
which are designated as "unclassifiable" in the Federal Register also
are not considered. Frequently, unclassifiable counties are designated
4-5
-------
as such because of problems with the monitored or modeled air quality
data. Altogether, these counties account for approximately 29 percent
of total nationwide TSP emissions in 1978 (see Table 3-1).
4.4.2 Nonattainment Counties with No Valid Data
Twenty-three nonattainment counties also have no valid design values.
In order to retain all current nonattainment counties in the analysis,
default design values, equal to on<
are assigned (Figure 4-1, Step 4).
default design values, equal to one |Jg/m above the standard violated,
4.4.3 Counties with More Than One Attainment/Nonattainment Designation
v
Sometimes counties have more than one nonattainment area. As discussed
previously, attempts are made to isolate the problem sources and assign
individual design values" to- eaxfaf sejfara'te area. This is not possible in
all cases, however, and where these counties are divided into areas each
%«
with the same type of nonattainment designation or with different desig-
nations (primary nonattainmenJt, secondary nonattainment, attainment, or
unclassified) , the conntywide design value is chosen to correspond to
the worst (highest) design value when. compared with the standard (i.e.,
greatest percent exceedance) .
4.4.4 Rural Fugitive Dust: .Cosin
Under EPA's Fugitive^DttsU ?6liey*~(FDF):7 a- county may have violations of
the TSP standard- an*t st-iJL_l..be_ cp.ssJLfecej!. in attainment if two conditions
are met: (1) lack of significant point sources and, (2) low urban
population in the vicinity of the violating monitor. Based on Regional
Office information, there were- 91 couauies which met these criteria.
These counties are excluded from the TSP analysis, but they easily could
be included in future analyses.
4-6
-------
Some counties in Region VI have problems with fugitive dust but do not
meet the FDP criteria. The Regional Office, however, designates some
days as official dust storm days, removes data for these day from their
monitoring records, and adjusts the annual geometric means and 24-hour
second maximums accordingly. The regional data with dust storm days re-
moved are used in this analysis.
4.4.5 Observed Versus Expected Values for Modeled Counties
No distinction between observed and expected design values is made for
design values based on modeling results. Since modeled air quality
typically is derived from distributions or expectations of meteorologic
and emission variables, they most closely approximate expected values'
computed from monitoring data. However, they also are the only estimate
of observed values where monitoring data are lacking. Thus, the only
option is to equate "observed" and expected design values.
4.4.6 Missing Observed Design Values
As already mentioned in Section 4.2, design values are not always avail-
able for both averaging times. Attempts are made to provide these
values with SAROAD data, but monitored 24-hour values and annual arith-
metic means still are unavailable in some counties.
i
A default value is calculated when no annual arithmetic mean (AAM) is
available but an annual geometric mean (AGM) is on the file. The rela-
tionship between AAM and AGM is:
AAM = 3.045 -i" (1.106 * AGM)
If 24-hour observed values are missing, they are derived using the
equation:
24-hour = -1.018 + (2.606 * AGM)
4-7
-------
Counties in which design values were modeled sometimes lack annual or
24-hour values for one averaging time. Substitute values are not esti-
mated for these counties/
A summary of the number of counties with missing observed design values,
before and after defaults, is presented in Table 4-1. Counties without
data for one averaging time could not be analyzed for that averaging
time, but it is assumed that the reported design value for the other
averaging time represents the greatest percent exceedance of the standard.
4.4.7 Missing Expected Design Values
Expected values also are unavailable, for some counties. As a surrogate
for missing 24-hour expected values, the observed value is used. Table
4-2 presents the number of counties and subcounty areas with values
missing for one averaging time, before and after surrogate values have
been applied. _ .
4.5 DESIGN VALUE ADJUSTMENTS
When the design value file was first compiled, it was noted that some of
the values were not consistent, with^the. attainment status as published
in the Federal Register, despite- an extensive effort to make them con-
sistent. This: cc^ld_bsgg:eiiT£.CLi-ral.va£ie.t.y" of reasons. First, different
monitors majr have been used in_,the dete_rjninati.on, of attainment status
than were used in-the-seiectioc-ef-s- design value. Second, the design
value may have-been"-bssc
-------
TABLE 4-1
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF COUNTIES AND SUBCOUNTY AREAS WITH MISSING
DESIGN VALUES WITH AND WITHOUT DEFAULTS ' APPLIED
Before Default Applied;
Monitored
Modeled
Total
ANNUAL
Geometric
Mean
0 ( 0%)
6
6 (Fl%)
Arithmetic
Mean
41 ( 3%)
85 ( 7%)
126 (10%)
24-Hr 2nd High
Observed
61 ( 5%)
67 ( 5%)
Expected
140 (11%)
61 ( 5%)
201 (16%)
i
VO
After Default Applied;
Monitored
Modeled
Total
0 (0%)
6
0 (0%)
6
0 (<0%)
61 (5%)
6T~(5%T"
6
61 (5%)
67 (5%)
I/
Defaults used for counties with monitored data:
1. If AAM missing, set equal to 3.045 + (1.106 * AGM)
2. If 24-hour observed value missing, set equal to -1.018 + (2.606 * AGM)
3. If 24-hour expected value missing, set equal to -17.06 + (3.920 * AGM)
-------
In order to resolve these anomalies, a decision has been made with the
EPA project officer to force consistency with the Federal Register
designations. .For attainment counties which had a design value violating
a standard, an alternate value less than or equal to the standard is
obtained from SAROAD whenever possible. This is done for 114 counties.
This still leaves a number of inconsistencies, however. The six possible
types of inconsistencies are resolved as detailed in Table 4-2. A tally
of the number of counties affected also is given in the table.
4.6 BACKGROUND VALUES
A background value is defined in this analysis as the value which repre-
sents the air quality contribution from natural sources and from man-made
sources not in the vicinity of the county or subcounty area. Background
values for approximately 95 counties are taken from the 1979 revised
SIP's and EPA Regional Office data. These values are specific to each
nonattainment area.
Default background values are~developed from GCA data, as previously
mentioned in Section 4,2. These data are from nonurban/rural monitoring
sites. Background default values are determined regionwide. Readings
from the above data source are averaged over individual EPA Regions, and
the average value is assigned to each State in the region. The only
exceptions" tct tiuTs~alTe~Hawaii and Alaska. The default value used for
Hawaii is no_t_ a.a,ay_er.a££-value,_hat- is- specific to Hawaii. The background
value for Alaska is estiniatcd""t"rCm~Rcgion X air quality monitoring data.
Table 4-3 lists the default values-for each State. Background values
are highest in the Northeast and Midwest„ ranging from 25 to 43 Mg/m .
Rocky Mountain, and Great Plains States exhibit the lowest background
3
values of 13 to 22 pg/m .: The_ regional differences are primarily due to
the extent of agricultural farming and the population densities, and
industrial activity in the Northeastern U.S. as compared to Western U.S.
rural areas.
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-2
RESOLUTION OF INCONSISTENCIES
Federal Register
Designation
Attainment
Attainment
Secondary
Nonattainment
Secondary
Nonattainment
Primary
Nonattainment
Primary
Nonattainment
Original
Design Value
Secondary
Violation
Primary
Violation
No
Violation
Primary
Violation
No
Violation
Secondary
Violation
No. of
New Counties
Design Value Affected
Secondary Standard 87
(an attainment value)
Secondary Standard 46
(an attainment value)
Secondary Standard 23
Plus One (a secondary
violation)
Primary Standard 29
(a secondary violation)
Primary Standard 87 (
Plus One (a primary
violation)
Primary Standard 26
Plus One (a primary
violation)
-------
TABLE 4-3
TSP BACKGROUND DEFAULT VALUES (pg/m
3)
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
Background
Default
33
22
27
33
27
13
25
33
33
33
33
12
2,7
43
43
22
22
33
33
25
33
25
43
43
33
22
I/
2/
State
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
Utah . „ . .
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Background
Default
13
22
27
25
33
33
33
33
13
43
33
27
33
25
33
13
33
33
13
25
33
27
33
43
13
I/
2/
Estimated from, air quality data from Region. X.
Value not average of Region-wide data •-- specific to State
SOURCES: Hidy, G.M., Mueller; P.K., Lavery, T.F. , (Environmental Research
and' Technology, Inc.) April, 1979. Some Results of the Regional
Experiment (sure-)^ and the-PEPE Experimental Design, prepared for
the EPA/PEPE Workshop, Raleigh - Durham, North Caroline,
March 25-26, 1979.
GCA Corporation. July 1976. "National Assessment of the Urban
Particulate Problem." Prepared for EPA. EPA 450/3-76-024.
4-12
-------
5. PROBLEM CHARACTERIZATION FILE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Due to the nationwide scope of this analysis and the large number of
sources which emit TSP, in most counties it is necessary to assume that
all TSP sources have an air quality impact on the design value monitor
(or receptor). However, where more detailed information on individual
nonattainment areas or specific monitoring sites is available, sources
which contribute significantly to nonattainment of the current standards
are identified. Only those sources which are singled out as problem
sources are candidates for con'trols in "characterized" counties.
"Uncharacterized" counties were subject to controls on every TSP source
within the county.
r^ • '
5.2 DATA SOURCES
o _*____^____^_
Information on sources having a significant impact on nonattainment
design value monitors was obtained from the 1979 revised State Imple-
mentation Plans (SIP's). When this information was not available from
the SIP, or the revised SIP had not yet been submitted, EPA Regional
Office personnel were consulted. All ten Regional Offices were visited
in this effort. In some cases, these discussions resulted in a very
subjective, and sometimes very general, assessment of the problem sources
based on the best judgement of the Regional staff. In others, first-hand
observations led to a very objective and specific assessment. In all, a
total of 246 counties are characterized, or 62 percent of the current
nonattainment counties.
5-1
-------
5.3 FILE STRUCTURE
The degree of specificity of control strategies varies a great deal from
one nonattainment area to another. For point sources, there are essen-
tially five levels of detail encountered: control strategies for (a) a
particular plant, (b) a generic type of source (e.g., stack or plant
road fugitives) from a specific plant, (c) general industrial categories
(e.g., iron and steel plants), (d) a generic type of source in a general
industrial category (e.g., stack emissions from iron and steel plants),
and (e) a generic type of source with no reference to a particular
industrial category (e.g., industrial process fugitives).
Area source problems also vary in specificity. For example, paved roads
may- have been indicated, but there may or may not have been any additional
information as to which roads or how many miles of roads required control.
Most characterizations are general. Almost all area source problems are
nontraditional in oatxare, i.e., paved and unpaved roads, construction,
or agricultural tilling, as opposed to traditional, i.e., space heating
or municipal
The variation in the specificity of control strategies requires a problem
characterization file format which, retains as much detail as possible,
without becoming- too- cumbersome , Problem sources are specified by State
and county, and.,— where specif -f.c design values, can_be associated with
specific probTeia~suurcc&^^i"tliiBna~"cuiaityv b~y~ sub county area.
Point source emissions are categorized by generic type: stack emissions,
unvented fugitive- process emissions, fugitives from storage piles and
materials handling operations, and fugitives from plant roads. NEDS
point source identification numbers are specified when individual sources
are pinpointed as problem sources. Otherwise, general industrial cate-
gories are indicated by a code. The industrial categories included in
the file are utility and industrial fuel combustion, iron and steel,
5-2
-------
primary smelting, secondary smelting and other metal processing, mineral
processing, grain, and chemicals. A general category also is included
for all other industrial categories, and for point source problems which
are not industry-specific (e.g., industrial process fugitives from all
industrial categories).
Area sources included in the file are space heating, solid waste/incin-
eration, paved road re-entrainment, unpaved road and lot re-entrainment,
construction, and agricultural tilling. The only area sources for which
emission factors and control costs are developed, however, are paved and
unpaved roads. For these two categories, additional information necessary
for estimating emissions (i.e., population and population density) also
is included in the file.
L
Table 5-1 presents a matrix of the problem source categories and the
corresponding codes which are used in the actual data file.
•
5.4 TYPES OF PROBLEM COUNTIES
There are three types of characterized counties: counties with only
area source problems (71 counties), counties with only point source
problems (36 counties), and counties with both point and area source
problems (139 counties). As discussed in the previous section and
illustrated in Table 5-1, source problem characterizations vary in
degree of specificity. Only 68 counties have individual plants specified,
and some of these counties have general industrial categories specified
in addition to the specific plants. The remainder of the counties with
point source problems have a variety of combinations of industrial
categories and emission types (e.g., stack or plant road fugitives)
which have been identified as problem sources.
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-1
PROBLEM SOURCE CODES USED IN PROBLEM CHARACTERIZATION FILE
POINT SOURCES
Type of Emissions
Stack
Unvented Fugitive
Process
fugitive, Materials
*- Handling
Fugitive, Plant Roads
Fuel Combustion
Specific
Plant Utility Industrial
!
XXX
NC NC
s.
Metal Processing
Steel
^
X
NC
Primary
Smelting
(
-
NC
Mineral
Other Processing Grain Chemicals
XX X
NC NC -
General
X
NC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Traditional
AREA SOURCES
Space Heating
Solid Waste/Incineration
NC
Nontraditional
Paved Road Reentrainment
Unpaved Road and Lot Reentrainment
Construction
Agricultural Tilling
X
X
NC
NC
X means that category was identified as a problem source in at Jeasl one county.
- means that category was not identified as a problem source !,i the 246 counties on file.
NC means that^tategory was not controllable for purposes of tffcs analysis.
-------
6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The nationwide scope of this analysis dictates that a fairly simplistic
methodology be employed to establish air quality-to-emissions relation-
ships. The large number (several tens of thousands) of potential sources
rules out an individual dispersion modeling analysis for each source.
Instead, a modified form of simple areawide (county or subcounty) linear
rollback or proportional modeling is employed. The modeling procedure
I
assumes that all or a subset of sources in a county contribute to local
ambient concentrations (i.e., the design value minus background) at some
specified point (i.e., monitor or receptor location) in direct proportion
to their emissions and inversely with their effective stack height.
u
n
6.2 METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed in this phase of the analysis is shown schemat-
ically in figure 6-1. In general, the counties for which the design
value exceeds some specified air quality standard are stratified into
two groups, as discussed in Section 2. The first group consists of
those counties for which no specific source or source category has been
identified as contributing to current attainment problems. Relationships
between air quality and emissions in these counties is analyzed using a
modified form of proportional modeling; total countywide point (including
/
fugitives) and area source emissions are included.
The second group of counties are those for which specific sources or
source categories have been singled out as contributing significantly to
nonattainment of current standards. Information on the identity of
these sources or source categories is contained in the Problem Charac-
terization File. Only these NEDS sources are included in the analysis.
6-1
-------
FIGURE 6-1
PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING
AIR QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS
\MMlt HttU VM» lV !
fMueia \
"""*""• ...V-p
CtMUtMtWJU*! I
MO ttll*H* I
caifttt. irnau^ii I
i»uii»' 1 \owni u*u oil iiuittA
JMfMU fltl I **\ I«AII««IIMM«M \
~
•tlHUXUOCI OVUMU
VES
\
HAVE
PROBLEM SOURCES
BEEN CHARACTERIZED
IN COUNTY?
SCREEN POIHT SOURCES
WfHO(U.EH COUNTIES
V
NEDS POINT
SOURCE INVENTORY
PROBLEM
CHARACTERIZATION
\
V
COMPUTE EFFECTIVE
STACK HEIGHTS
COMPUTE PAVED/UNPAVEO
ROAD EMISSIONS
\
\
\
2 1
COMPUTE AIR QUALITY-
EMISSIONS RELATIONSHIPS
\ \
NO
COMPUTE EFFECTIVE
SUCK HEIGHTS
\
NEOS POINT
SOURCE INVENTORY
COMPUTE AIR QUALITY-
EMISSIONS RELATIONSHIPS
DESIGN VALUES
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
SOURCE-RECEPTOR COEFFICIENTS
-------
If fugitive dust from unpaved roads and re-entrainment from paved roads
are listed as problems in these counties, then the entire NEDS area
source emissions are replaced by special emissions estimates from roadways
within a one-mile radius around the nonattaining monitor or receptor.
For these point and area sources, the modified version of proportional
modeling again is used to approximate the air quality impact of emissions
from each identified source.
6.2.1 Detailed Analytical Procedure—Uncharacterized County
The first step in the procedure (step 1, Figure 6-1), once it is estab-
lished that a county does not have a problem characterization, is to
access the NEDS point and area source subfiles for the county, and
compute, for each point or area source category, an effective stack
height and the corresponding stack weighting factor. The effective
stack height is the physical height of the stack plus the height to
which the plume will rise above the stack because of buoyancy.
The stack height weighting factor is defined by:
w. = (H./lOm)"1
11
where H. is ifhe effective stack height in meters for source "i" and 10m
is an arbitrary normalizing constant. In other words, sources with
stack heights greater than 10m have lower values for w than those with
—\
10m stacks, and those with shorter stacks have higher values. Area
sources are assumed to have a "plume" height of 10m.
This expression, derived from the traditional Gaussian plume equation,
corresponds to the ratio for maximum concentrations for stack heights of
H compared with those for 10m under neutral (C) stability.* This weighting
*This relationship is actually dependent on both atmospheric stability
and distance from the stack. For C stability, however, it is relatively
unvariable. For varous combinations of stability and distance, the
exponent of the ratio ranges from about -0.4 to -1.8. (Cramer, 1980)
6-3
-------
procedure differs somewhat from that used in traditional expressions
(deNevers and Morris, 1975). First, it does not include any representa-
tion of source location. Instead, it assumes that each source is located
at a distance from the design value monitor which produces maximum
impact. Information on source location was not available for area
sources, and incorporating this into the analysis for point sources
would have been too resource-consumptive. Second, the traditional
approach develops weighting factors from algebraic or integral forms of
the basic Gaussian plume equation.* Although our stack height factor is
derived in a similar manner, the treatment is not as rigorous mathematically.
However, our approach is well suited for the magnitude of the effort
involved in a nationwide analysis. On the other hand, the weight for
each individual poirft source is estimated in our procedure, whereas,
traditionally, weighting is applied to broad categories of sources.
The area source emissions are comprised of NEDS area source emissions
disaggregated into categories of paved road emissions and other area
10m
10m
source emissions. However, the sasse. weighting factor (i.e., -r-pr— or 1.0)
was applied to all area source categories.
Given the appropriate design value and background estimate for a specific
county, that portion of the existing air quality (design value) due to
each point, source;: aig^ ar:e:a~ goTir.ce:. category can be- determined from the
following equation (Stec 2s_in Figure 6-l)j-
q.w.
x = - (BV - B), i = 1, ..., n
*That is, regionwide average effects of stack height and distance are
derived by integrating the Gaussian equation after differentiation
with respect to the appropriate variables.
6-4
-------
where n = the number of point sources
x. = the air quality contribution of point source i or area
source category i at the design value monitor in
3
q. = the emission rate of source i in TPY for the year of
(Interest
DV = the most binding design value for the county of the
3
year of interest in |J8/m
o
B = the background estimate for the county in |Jg/m
w. = the stack height weighting factor
Q_ = the total emissions in TPY of the county and is defined
by:
Note: Area sources are split into two categories, a and q :
q = the paved road emissons in the county for the year of
interest, and
q = the remainder of the area sources in the county for the
3
year of interest
3
Therefore, the source-receptor coefficient in pg/m per TPY for each
source and source type becomes
6-5
-------
Note that these source receptor coefficients differ from those that
would result from simple linear rollback only by the weighting factor
w. . And for area sources, since the reference height is set equal to
the assumed area source emission "plume" height (10m) , the weighting
factor is 1.0. These coefficients are used in the least cost model to
establish the least cost strategy for attaining the current standards.
6.2.2 Detailed Analytical Procedures — Problem Characterization County
Recall that there are two major differences in the treatment of counties
with problem characterizations. First, NEDS is screened for only those
point sources identified as significant contributors. Secondly, for
counties with fugitive area source (paved and unpaved municipal road)
problems, NEDS area source emissions are replaced with emissions from
paved and unpaved roads estimated independently. Hence, the key differ-
ence in the analysis of_ these. counties is that a subset of the county
sources is used. Otiiejrwise, these counties are analyzed using the
procedures outlined in the previous section.
6.3 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
Many assumptions have to be made^ of course",, to reduce the complexity of
this analysis to tractable. I eye 1.5... These are enumerated here to suggest
the biases that have been introduced into the study. The interpretation
of results in Section 9 will discuss the implications of these assumptions
The most significant assumptions, are as follows:
a The entire ambient TSP concentration above the background
estimate could be accounted for by all NEDS sources in the
counties without problem charcterization or by just the sources
identified as contributing to existing violations (counties
with problem characterizations) .
6-6
-------
• All sources in the county or subcounty area impact the design
value monitor regardless of their specific location.
• The stack height weighting function captures the average
effect of plume height under average meteorological conditions.
• All area sources have an effective emission "plume" height of
10m.
6-7
-------
7. TREATMENT OF GROWTH AND RETIREMENT
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The treatment of growth in emission sources is outlined in Section 2.3.
The stock of sources in any county in the base year will change over
time due to the retirement of old plants and the addition of new ones.
c
This process may decrease or increase aggregate emissions depending on
the relative magnitude of retirement versus growth and the typical
emission control levels of old versus new plants: as old plants are
replaced by newer, better controlled ones, emissions shrink; as new
plants are added beyond simple replacement, total emissions rise.
(
Three separate data files were prepared for the growth analysis: annual
*
growth rates by State and by two-digit Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) grouping; annual xetirement rates by two-digit SIC grouping; and
Best Available Control technology (BACT) emission control efficiencies
by two°digit SIC grouping. Annual._population growth rates also are
obtained for each State to be. used as default industrial growth rates
where SlC-specific-rates were-aot-avatlable. The preparation of each of
these files-is. discusscdzbci;r^-._
7 .2 GROWTH- PATES-.
Average annual compound growth rates' are derived from 1975 to 1995
projections of value added and population prepared by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, U.S. Department" of Commerce. These projections are
State-specific and- SI.C--spe.G-if-ic.- for some industrial categories at the
four-digit level. The State specificity is maintained, but for ease of
data processing, and given the uncertainties surrounding the impact of
growth on air quality (see Section 2.3), industrial growth rates are
7-1
-------
aggregated to the two-digit SIC level. The population and industrial
growth rates for each State and two-digit SIC are available under separate
cover due to the size of the file.
7.3 RETIREMENT RATES
Estimates of annual industrial retirement rates by two-digit SIC are
calculated from basic retirement data developed by Data Resources, Inc.
in support of EEA's ISTUM model. Table 7-1 displays the base data from
which the annual retirement rates are calculated. The table shows the
cumulative fraction of total annual retirement for each SIC accounted
for by plant investment initiated in each preceeding five-year period.
For example, plants five years old or less account for 2.4 percent of
all retirement in SIC 20, while plants 35 years old or less account for
97 percent of all retirement. Likewise, all plants in SIC 24 are expected
to retire within 25 years of construction.*
^
These retirement distributions are used to estimate annual average
compound retirement rates in each SIC. The resulting estimates appear
in Table 7-2.
7.4 BACT CONTROLS
The emission controls required of new sources will vary by (a) the size
of the new facility and (b) its location. Most major new sources will
fall under New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) requirements. In
addition., most of those locating in attainment areas must meet Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) criteria while those in nonattainment
areas will need more stringent Lowest Achieveable Emission Rate (LAER)
controls.
*Strictly speaking, these rates refer to total plant investment (equip-
ment plus buildings). Thus, various pieces of equipment could be retired
rather than entire plants.
7-2
-------
TABLE 7-1
CUMULATIVE FRACTION OF RETIREMENT BY AGE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT
FOR TWO-DIGIT SIC GROUPINGS
AGE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT (YEARS)
SIC
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
1-5
.024
.014
.000
.066
.059
.035
.073
.031
.032
.067
.076
.014
.029
.037
.013
.033
.042
.000
.030
.028-
6-10
.080
.044
.013
.147
.261
.083
.105
.100
.130
.110
.150
.058
.090
.093
.028
.079
.093
.000
.107
.-104
11-15
.203
.087
.060
.242
.647
.186
.161
.282
.328
_.150
.238
.146
.224
.242
.081
.173"
.22*.
.009
.301
.284
16-20
.426
.160
.171
.307
.932
.391
.326
.566
.577
.361
.295
.303
.447
.494
.167
.369-
.4/4
. 22'CT
.573-
.534
21-25
.691
.265
.340
.407
1.00
.623
.541
.827
.852
.621
.412
.517
.701
.763
.265
.609^
-739
.457
.817
.828
26-30
.885
.411
.554
.600
—
.833
.826
.964
1.000
.824
.625
.734
.909
.935
.405
.833
.923
.854
1.000
.998
31-35
.970
.612
.756
.800
--
.999
.999
.999
—
.999
.860
.898
1.000
1.000
.577
1.000
1.000
1.000
—
--
36-40
.996
.866
.906
.999
—
--
--
—
--
--
1.000
.999
—
—
.831
—
—
—
—
--
41-45
1.00
.966
.999
1.000
—
--
'--
--
—
--
—
__
-.
= _
1.000
--
—
—
--
--
SOURCE: DRI, lac.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-2
INDUSTRIAL RETIREMENT RATES
Average Annual
SIC,, Retirement Rates
01 .0426
07 .0426
08 .0426
09 .0426
10 .0426
11 .0426
12 .0426
13 .0426
14 .0426
15 .0426
16 .0426
17 .0426
20 .0456
21 .0335 N
22 .0320
23 .0318
24 .0637
25 .0368
,26 .0413
27 .0492
28 .0507
29 ' .0448
30 .0297
31 .0409
32 .0493
33 .0497
34 .0323
35 .0410
36 .0461
37 .0409
38 .0483
39 .0441
40 .0426
41 .0426
42 .0426
43 .0426
44 .0426
45 .0426
46 .0426
47 .0426
48 .0426
49 .0426
91 .0426
92 .0426
93 .0426
100 .0426
7-4
-------
Average two-digit SIC Best Available Control Technology (BACT) control
levels were estimated to approximate the requirements the typical new
source may face. These clearly are approximations but probably are
sufficient for purposes of this study.
Various NSPS and BACT clearing house documents were consulted as part of
the estimation, procedure. This review indicated that all SIC's except
SIC 33 (primary iron and steel) would be required to use fabric filters
with efficiencies of 99 percent. BACT control of 98 percent is used for
SIC 33.
7-5
-------
8. EMISSION CONTROL OPTIONS AND COST FUNCTIONS
Nationwide control strategies designed to meet the current TSP standards
are based on the control options available to each source which contrib-
utes to any violating receptor. The selection of a least cost strategy
must take into account the emission reduction (and through air quality
modeling, the reduction in ambient contributions) achieved by each
option, and the cost of applying those options. Consequently, various
controls were identified for each major source category of particulate
emissions. Information on the capital and operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs and on the control efficiencies (percent removal capacity)
then was collected for each control option. Additional information on
j
energy used and solid waste generated by the controls also was collected.
What follows is an overview of the methodology and data sources employed
in the investigation and a summary of the control options and source
categories covered. A more detailed description appears in SQ^/TSP
£>
Regulatory Analysis: Emission Factors and Control Cost Methodology,
EEA, Inc., October 1981. Standard literature sources were reviewed
and supplemented by phone communication with researchers, and, in a
few cases, equipment vendors and users.
8.1 SOURCE COVERAGE
Since the emission control data base was designed for nationwide analysis,
wide coverage of emission sources was desired. Both stack and fugitive
emissions from point sources and re-entrained dust from area (roadway)
sources were covered. Table 8-1 summarizes the major source categories
for which control data were assembled.
8-1
-------
TABLE 8-1
SOURCE CATEGORIES FOR WHICH DATA
ON PARTICIPATE CONTROLS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED
Point Sources Source Categories
Stack Utility Coal-Fired Boilers
Industrial Coal-Fired and Oil-
Fired Boilers
Iron and Steel Processes:
Coke Ovens
Open Hearth Furnace
^- Basic Oxygen Furnace
Electric Arc Furnace
Blast Furnace
. Sintering and scarfing
Iron Foundries
, Stone Processing (crushing)
Grain Milling
Asphaltic Concrete Driers
Lime Cement Kilns
Mineral Wool Cupola
Phosphate Rock Crusher and Dryer
Soap Dryer
Fugitive Dust. Paved Roads
Unpaved Roads
Material Storage Piles
Materials Handling and Transfer
Area Sourc.e.s___ Paved Roads
Unpaved Roads
8-2
-------
8.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES
The choice of a control technique for a given source type requires a
mixture of engineering and economic judgements -- judgements that must
be made case-by-case. In order to develop generic cost and emission
reduction equations, it is necessary to consolidate many factors into a
few key variables, and to assume average or typical operating conditions.
8.2.1 Costs
Total capital costs were estimated as the sum of the costs of equipment,
taxes and freight, installation, engineering, and contingencies. Operating
and maintenance costs include labor, parts, materials, utilities, and
disposal of waste.
Air flow is by far the most common and influential variable in the
development of both capital and operating costs. Air flow usually is
stated in cubic feet per minute, (either actual [acfm] or standard
[scfm], which is standardized to ambient temperature and pressure).
"Cfm" represents the quantity of exhaust which must be handled by the
abatement equipment. The volume of exhaust gas normally varies directly
with the level of production (i.e., capacity); in most cost equations,
production or capacity serves as its proxy. Moreover, production/
capacity is a more readily available data item in most emission inven-
tories. Therefore, relating airflow to production preserves the cost-
source size relationship while allowing for wide applicability of the
cost equation.
By plotting literature estimates of control equipment costs against
source size, non-linear functions of the following form were specified:
Y = aXb
where: Y = cost in dollars per year per unit source size
X = source size (e.g., MMBtu/hr or tons of coal burned/yr)
a,b = empirical constants
A
8-3
-------
In most cases, capital costs are a function of source capacity such as
boiler design rate (MMBtu/hr), since control equipment size is a func-
tion of source size. O&M costs typically are a function of source pro-
duction or operating rate (e.g., tons of coal burned/yr). In some
cases, such as industrial coal-fired boilers, O&M costs are a function
of both capacity and operating rate.
The Mb" constant reflects the degree to which the relationship is non-
linear, that is, the magnitude of economies of scale. For capital
expenses, the function often is far from linear (i.e., b < 1.0) due to
materials savings in building large pieces of equipment; for O&M costs,
near linearity (i.e., b— 1.0) is typical since the cost of running
pieces of control equipment is determined by the total volume of exhaust
gas processed.
Since "Y" in the above equation gives unit costs (e.g., dollars/yr per
MMBtu/hr), total capital or O&M costs are calculated as Y times X.
The increase in costs due to difficulties in retrofitting control equip-
ment to existing applica±.ions__v3.ries_widely among sources. While this
variation is not accounted for. easily, some escalation in cost should be
specified.
All capital costs for polluciocf couLroTrequipment thus incorporate a 50
percent retrofit penalt7_._
The least cost model assumes that technology selections are based on
annualized cost. The fFjc-cSeOf value of the cost of each technology
selection also is reported. To calculate either of these from capital
and annual O&M costs, it is necessary to know the expected remaining
life of the control equipment. It is assumed that all control equipment
will have a lifetime of 15 years. No cost of replacement equipment is
included in the present value calculation if the plant survives past 15
years.
8-4
-------
A capital recovery factor of .132 was used in the aonualized cost calcu-
lation. A real discount rate of 10 percent was used in the present
value calculation. ^
A cost-effectiveness (C.E.) constraint was used to screen source-specific
control options which exhibit high annualized costs per ton of additional
emission reduction. The C.E. constraint prevents use of unrealistic
control measures which result in either (1) very high control costs with
small decreases in emissions or (2) application of additional control
equipment which likely would duplicate the controls already installed on
the emission. The C.E. ratio was set at $8,000/ton of emission reduction.
Any additional control device with a C.E. value greater than $8,000/ton
was not used in the least cost control strategy. In practical terms,
the C.E. ratio generally would prevent the use of new controls on already
well-controlled sources with 95 percent plus control efficiencies.
8.2.2 Energy Use and' Solid Waste (Ash)
Energy use (for energy-intensive controls) and solid waste generation
are functions of both total exhaust gas processed and control efficiency.
In general, the greater the flow rate and the greater the control effi-
ciency, the greater the energy use and ash generation. Individual
energy penalty equations were specified for different types of control
devices (i.e., fabric filter and ESP) and different types of sources
(i.e., pulverized and stoker coal-fired boilers, electric arc furnaces,
lime calciners, etc.).
8.2.3 Control Efficiency
Ranges of TSP control efficiencies were obtained directly from the
literature. Efficiencies varied by specific application. Thus, the
application of control options used in strategy development was specific
to each source category (SCC).
8-5
-------
8.3 TYPES OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT EVALUATED
Table 8-2 lists the principal types of control equipment for which
estimates of costs, energy use, and solid waste were made. Ranges of
TSP control efficiencies are shown if applicable. These controls cover
the vast majority of particulate control applications.
8-6
-------
TABLE 8-2
PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT EVALUATED
Controls Control Efficiency
(Percent
TSP
Reduction)
Stack Sources:
Fabric Filters 99 - 99.7
Electrostatic Precipitators 99 - 99.7
Venturic Scrubbers 99.1
Mechanical Collector (multiclone) 90 - 95
Fugitive Sources:
Roadway Flushing 35 .. ,
Road surfacing with chip seals 45, 80.,
Road surfacing with asphalt 55, 95
Chemical Suppressants & Stabilizers 90
The lower efficiency applies to road dust control in industrial plants,
where dust loadings usually are much higher on paved roads. The higher
efficiency applies to municipal paved road controls.
8-7
-------
9. IMPACTS AND INTERPRETATION OF CURRENT TSP STANDARDS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the cost and emission impacts of the TSP Nationwide
study results as of August 1981. The impacts include cost estimates of
additional TSP control requirements and the effect on TSP emission loadings.
The impacts reflect environmental costs in relation to current controls.
Estimates of current county attainment status for the current standards
also are provided. Other reports address results for alternative IP/TSP
ambient standards being evaluated since the above date.
The analysis is intended to provide an assessment of probable impacts for
the current TSP primary and secondary standards. The following discussion
is divided into two pacts-. The first part presents the cost and TSP emis-
sion impacts for tfc» current" TSP standard. The second part discusses how
key aspects of the methodology and major assumptions may affect the results.
Table 9-1 contains the current TSP ambient air quality standards being
evaluated. The design values for each county/subcounty can be compared to
these standards to determine their attainment status. Table 9-2 presents
the results of this comparison for the current. TSP standards as of January
1980. The first two rows of figures^show the number of nonattainment
counties whetr no~defauit~va~lueS~for~nilssing design values were applied.
The data show that 244 counties are in violation of the current primary TSP
ambient standards,, and 325 counties are violating the current secondary
standard. A total of 376 counties are not meeting either the current
primary or secondary TSP standa,r.ds,.._ Table 9-2 also presents the attainment
status using defaults for missing design values as indicated in the table.
9-1
-------
TABLE 9-1
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
(pg/m )
Averaging Time
Type Annual 24 hour
Primary 75 260
Secondary 60a/ 150
a/
Guideline only; not considered a binding standard in this analysis.
9-2
-------
TABLE 9-2
NUMBER OF NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES FOR
TSP CURRENT STANDARDS
AS OF JANUARY 1980a/
Primary
No defaults .excludes RFD
counties
No default:.includes RFD
counties
Default applied; excludes
RFD counties
Default applied; includes
RFD counties
Annual
239
281
239
281
24-Hour
106
128
120
142
Any
Primary
244
295
244
295
Secondary
Any
235
397
376
448
376
452
381
457
Figures shown represent current nonattainment status as of January, 1980
b/
c/
d/
Assumed Rural Fugitive-Bust policy in effect; RFD counties were excluded
from the count.
Assumed Rural Fugitive Dust Policy not in effect; RFD counties were
counted as nonattainment when violations occurred.
Default used:
If 24-hour observed =0, 24-hour = -1.018 + (2.606 * AGM)
9-3
-------
9.2 TSP NATIONWIDE RESULTS
9.2.1 Nonattainment Status
Table 9-3 displays the results of the nationwide analysis in terms of
future attainment status for each county or subcounty area analyzed in 1982
and 1985. The air quality values used to determine nonattainment status
reflect future ambient levels based on the growth technique discussed in
Section 2.2. A total of 122 areas could not attain both the annual and
24-hour current primary standard in 1982 even after all possible controls
were applied. __ In most cases, the binding standard was the annual average.
Two hundred fifty-one counties or subcounty areas were unable to meet the
current primary standards in 1982 without additional controls. The increased
stringency of the short-term secondary standard also is reflected in the
number of nonattaining areas. The primary and secondary standards together
account for 289 violations even after additional controls have been applied.
•*
Of the county and subcounty areas which are still in nonattainment after
additional control for the secondary standard, 17 areas exhibit conditions
where
e No controllable sources are in the screened NEDS inventory
o
• Current emissions from controllable sources are less than
five TPY or are controlled well enough that additional controls
are not cost-effective {see Section 8.2.1 for discussion of
cost effectiveness constraint).
9.2.2 National and Regional Cost Impacts
A summary of the TSP nationwide results for the entire U.S. is presented in
. Table 9-4. The capital cost for compliance with the current primary stan-
dard in 1982 is estimated to be $1,616 million (in 1980 dollars). The
marginal operating and maintenance charges for control equipment are $175
million per year. Annualizing the capital cost and adding it to the oper-
ating and maintenance cost results in a total annualized cost of $394
million per year. This pollution control expenditure causes a TSP emission
reduction of 667 thousand tons per year (TPY).
9-4
-------
TABLE 9-3
FUTURE NONATTAINMENT STATUS BEFORE AND AFTER ADDITIONAL
EMISSION CONTROL FOR COUNTY AND SUBCOUNTY AREAS
Averaging Time
a/
TSP Primary Standard (1982)
Before control
After control
Annual
229
109
24-Hour
22
13
Total
b/
251
122
TSP Primary and Secondary
Standard (1985)
Before control
After control
94
' 57
408
232
502
289
a/
b/
Number of violations "is based on averaging time for each nonattaining
county or subcounty which is most binding in 1982 and 1985 (i.e. , ex-
hibits the greatest degree of nonattainment).
All 91 rural fugitive dust counties are.considered in attainment of
the current TSP ambient standard even though these counties may have
violations of the standard. See.. Section 4.4.4 for discussion of EPA's
Fugitive Dust Policy.
9-5
-------
TABLE 9-4
TSP NATIONWIDE ANALYSIS IMPACT SUMMARY
a/
Standard
Capital cost (10 $)
Annual O&M cost (10 $)b/
Net present value (10 $)
Annualized cost (106 $)C/
Change in 1978 NEDS total current
particulate emissions:
(103 TPY)
% reduction
TSP Current Primary
TSP Current Primary and Secondary
1982 1985
1
2
rent
,615
175
,959
393
667
1
.9
.3
.1
.9
.4
.4
3,340
301
5,529
741
.0
.9
.2
.8
1,042.9
2
,1
a/
b/
c/
Cost figures are in 1980 dollarsc
O&M cost estimates are marginal costs above those incurred to
operate existing pollution control equipment.
Annualized costs are based on a 10 percent discount rate and 15
year life for the new pollution control equipment.
9-6
-------
Capital costs for the current TSP primary and secondary standards in 1985
are $3,340 million. Marginal operating and maintenance charges amount to
$301.9 million. The particulate emissions reduction for this standard is
1,043 thousand TPY at an annualized cost of $742 million.
Tables 9-5 and 9-6 summarize the results by industry (SIC category) for the
current primary standard and the current primary and secondary standards.
The industries chosen, represent the SIC categories with the largest annu-
alized cost impacts for the current standards. The annualized cost impact
for area sources (paved and unpaved roads) also is included in the tables.
These industrial categories, plus area source municipal paved and unpaved
roads, account for approximately 80 percent of the national annualized
control costs for the current'(base case) standard.
Electric utilities and iron and steel mills represent the largest share of
additional industrial costs. Together, these two industries account for
$241 million or 31 percent of the nationwide annualized cost. In addition,
the capital costs^ represent- 4& percent of the nationwide capital require-
ments for additional pollution control equipment. Municipal roadway con-
trols also account for a significant portion of the annualized costs —
roughly $251 million per-year-. Roadway controls are utilized frequently as
a cost-effective control strategy in many nonattainment areas. Most of the
other industries:-listed: in- Table;9-^±ttC"jir" much smaller annualized cost
impacts of $10-2tt million-per year. The industries which fall in this
range include oil anrd~ g&^-exJ^rlfciFion-j .grain mills, paper mills, petroleum
refining, paving blocks-,- and cement manufacturing.
Tables 9-7 and 9-8 present nationwide results by EPA region for the TSP
current primary and TSP primary and secondary standards, respectively. In
Table 9-8, it can be observed that the northeastern U.S. (Regions 1 and 2)
and the western U.S. (Regions 8, 9, and 10) account for only $700 million
or 34 percent of the annualized control costs. Region 5 (Midwest) incurs
the largest portion of the costs, $1,168 million (i.e., 35 percent).
9-7
-------
TABLE 9-5
NATIONWIDE INDUSTRY AND MUNICIPAL COST IMPACTS
FOR TSP CURRENT PRIMARY STANDARD3'
SIC
1311
2041/
2042
2951
3241
3295
3312
3321
4911
5153
Subtot
Total
Industry
Crude oil and natural
gas extraction
Grain mill products
Paving mixtures and
blocks
Hydraulic cement
Nonmetallic mineral
mining and crushing
Blast furnaces and
steel mills
Gray iron foundries
Utility powerplants
Grain elevators
Other SIC's
:al
Municipal road controls
do3 $)
Capital
Cost
59,580
111,370
30,230
41,820
23,440
134,260
37,090
416,090
36,010
487,050
1,376,940
238,920
1,615,860
O&M
Cost
7,600
400
6,870
2,480
2,300
8,400
240
6,910
1,140
17,070
53,410
121,930
175,340
Net Present
Value
117,351
114,430
87,530
60,680
41,220
198,150
38,930
508,680
44,680
581,490
1,793,140'
1,166,000
2,959,140
Annual! zed
Cost
15,460
15,100
10,180
8,000
5,390
25,500
5,140
67,120
5,890
84,610
240;530
153,430
393,870
/
Cost figures are expressed in 1980 10 dollars.
9-8
-------
TABLE 9-6
NATIONWIDE INDUSTRY AND MUNICIPAL COST IMPACTS,
FOR TSP CURRENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STANDARD3'
SIC
1311
2041/
2042
2621
2911
2951
3241
3295
3312
3321
4911
5153
Industry
Crude oil and natural
gas extraction
Grain mill products
Paper mills
Petroleum refining
Paving mixtures and
blocks
Hydraulic cement
Nonmetallic mineral
mining and crushing
Blast furnaces and
steel mills
Gray iron foundries
Utility powerplants
Grain elevators
Other SIC's
Subtotal
Total
Municipal road controls
(103 $)
Capital
Cost
59,580
133,350
62,410
65,390
60,300
77,250
36,260
356,830
49,315
1,24_0:,J40
58,630
755,280
2,955,330
384,640
3,339,970
O&M
Cost
7,600
700
3,300
2,670
9,952
3,430
4,730
17,410
290
13,390
1,840
35.410
100,720
201,200
301,920
Net Present
Value
117,351
138,660
" 87,490
85,700
136,280
103,310
72,240
489,570
51,530
1,343,620
72,650
985,880
3,714,230
1,914,970
5,629,200
Annualized
Cost
15,460
18,290
11,540
11,300
17,960
13,650
9,520
64,520
6,800
177,150
9,580
134,070
489,840
251,970
741,810
a/ 3
Cost figures are expressed in 1980 10 dollars.
9-9
-------
TABLE 9-7
NATIONWIDE COST IMPACTS FOR THE TSP .
CURRENT PRIMARY STANDARD BY EPA REGION3'
EPA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Region
Northeast
New York /New Jersey
Mid -Atlantic
South Atlantic
Midwest
Southwest
Central
North Central
West
Northwest
TOTAL
CIO3
Capital
Cost
45,070
29,780
33,080
302,850
300,830
78,940
398,620
100,600
289,920
46,120
1,615,860
$)
O&M
Cost
7,120
1,360
4,290
22,860
25,000
17,540
21,210
8,380
53,320
15,260
175,340
Net Present
Value
99,200
40,090
65,760
476,600
491,030
212,360
559,920
164,300
687,590
162,210
2,959,140
Annual! zed
Cost
13,070
5,290
8,670
62,830
64,690
' 27,940
73,830
21,640
90,600
21,350
393,870
/ *^
Cost figures are expressed in 1980 10 dollars.
9-10
-------
TABLE 9-8
NATIONWIDE COST IMPACTS FOR THE TSP .
CURRENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STANDARD BY EPA REGION3'
EPA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Region
Northeast
New York /New Jersey
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Midwest
Southwest
Central
North Central
West
Northwest
TOTAL
uo3
Capital
Cost
56,040
78,920
154,330
560,550
1,168,670
265,050
490,066
193,140
310,413
62,780
3,339,970
$)
O&M
Cost
9,700
6,810
12,710
38,540
65,160
29,180
25,540
19,560
71,430
34,300
30U930
Net Present
Value
129,830
130,600
251,110
853,430
1,664,430
486,830
684,274
341,950
-"853,740
240,110
5,629,200
Annual! zed
Cost
17,100
17,210
33,100
112,490
219,414
64,130
90,222
45,040
- 112,470
31,600
741,800
a' Cost f-iguEes. ara expires ssd in_lSSj3L_10_'dollars.
9-11
-------
The costs in the Midwest, together with those ($1,150 million) in the South
Atlantic and Central Regions (Regions 4 and 7) account for most of the U.S.'
total.
Table 9-9 presents the major cost-impacted industries and shows the re-
duction in particulate emissions and energy penalties which take place with
additional control. The highest emission reductions occur in the indus-
tries with the greatest portion of the control costs, i.e., utility power-
plants and iron and steel mills. The overall decrease in the current level
of emissions for these two industries is approximately 14 percent. Their
control equipment energy penalties also are relatively large, accounting
for 353 thousand kilowatt hours per year (47 percent) of the national
total.
9.3 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
I
Fran the preceding discussion of the methodology, the quality of the input
data, and the numerous analytical assumptions, it is obvious that caution
must be exercised when drawing conclusions from the results. This section
addresses several types of interpretive limitations. The comments focus on
the general direction of potential biases introduced by methodological
assumptions and data constraints rather than on their quantitative effects.
9.3.1 Assumptions About Air Quality-Emissions Relationships
As described in Section 6, the magnitude of the data bases used in this
project required that very straightforward analytical procedures be employed.
Therefore, two basic, simplifying assumptions were made:
« Air quality contributions (either annual or 24-hour) were
linearly proportional to annual emissions and, relatively
speaking, inversely proportional to the typical effective
stack height.
• Air quality in an area (county or subcounty) can be described
by one monitor or receptor. (In other words, all sources
contribute to ambient levels at the design value monitor/
receptor regardless of location.)
9-12
-------
TABLE 9-9
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND ENERGY PENALTY IMPACTS
BY INDUSTRY FOR CURRENT TSP
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STANDARD
SIC Industry
1311 Crude oil and natural
gas extraction
2041/ Grain mill products
2042
2621 Paper mills
2911 Petroleum refining
2951 Paving mixtures and
blocks
3241 Hydraulic cement
3295 Nonmetallic mineral
mining and crushing
3312 Blast furnaces and
steel mills
3321 Gray iron foundries
4911 Utility powerplants
5153 Grain elevators
Other S.IC's
Subtotal
Municipal road controls
Total
Decrease in
Particulate
Emissions
(TPY)
4,070
16,240
67,800
% Reduction in
Emissions from
from 1978
Current Levels
N.A.
8.5
13.5
Energy
Penalties of
Additional
Control
Equipment
(10 kW/yr)
17,460
10,970
9,290
2,460
16,940
36,630
22,180
3.2
1.8
10.6
7,4
10.7
12,640
12,990
5,930
27,150
27,250
200,580
2,780
294,290.
17,730
171,970..
662T386-
379,810
9.7
14.2
N.A.
N.A.
9.3
N.A.
7,010
153,860
32,550
183,080
691,474
61,746
1,042,190
753,220
9-13
-------
To judge the seriousness of these limitations, we can compare them with
specifications for detailed dispersion models. These include source loca-
tion, monitor/receptor location, source emission characteristics (emissions
and data needed to calculate effective stack height), and meteorologic
conditions. Moreover, ambient levels for short averaging times frequently
are estimated using data on time variations in meteorologic conditions and,
less frequently, emissions.
In general, our assumptions capture the effects of emission level and
effective stack height, although the inconsistent time basis between emis-
sions and air quality for 24-hour design values may present a problem. On
the other hand, the variation in distance between sources and monitors/
receptors is ignored, for the most part. Instead, all sources of similar
effective stack height are assumed to be equally effective in contributing
to ambient levels. (The only exceptions are road emissions in counties
with re-entrained road dust problems, where roads more than one mile from
•3
the monitor are assumed to be noncontributing). This is a serious limita-
tion where large areas (i.e., entire counties) are assessed, less so for
small geographic units. Meteorological variability is incorporated in-
directly, at best. Only to the extent that the stack height weighting
procedure employs an atmospheric stability assumption does meteorology
enter explicitly. To some extent, meteorologic variability averaged over
an entire year is implicit in the design value. Finally, the use of a
single monitor/receptor is related closely to the distance issue — important
for large counties, less so for small ones or subcounty areas. It also is
related to the geographic extent of high ambient levels. Where a county is
characterized by multiple hot spots or uniform regionwide levels, a single
monitor probably is adequate.
In sum, the assumptions for the county air quality impacts of particulate
emissions include:
• All sources impact the county's design value regardless of
location or distance from the monitor/receptor
9-14
-------
• Since no data in non-problem characterized counties exist on
which sources impact the monitor/receptor, sources near the
D.V. site have their source contribution generally understated
by the county level modeling and sources far from the D.V. site
will exhibit an ambient impact even though they may in actuality
be too distant from the monitor/receptor to be included as an
impacting emission source.
• Part of the impact at the monitor/receptor may originate from
sources located in an adjacent county. These sources would not
be represented in the solution due to the complexity of accounting
for ambient contributions from sources in bordering counties.
Without knowing considerably more about the distribution of sources and air
quality in our population of counties, it is difficult to determine for
sure the nature of the bias introduced by these assumptions. Past compari-
sons of control strategies based on linear rollback with those employing
more sophisticated models have shown no clear trend. In some cases, linear
rollback required greater emission control while in others it produced less
stringent results. A comparison of the Chicago case study results with
those from the Nadosaride. analysis may be revealing.
9.3.2 Growth Methodology
The growth and retirement methodology attempts to simulate how the changes
In economic activity may affect air quality trends in the regions under
consideration. Seyeralr. key assumptions are incorporated in this methodo-
logical- ap.proach j eac*r s±5>«!i-fip? th« analysis and some may bias the results.
Each assump.tlon."ls^dl_scusscd bslc^?:
'tsai d e pr c j e ct cd SIC. &r.cRt.h—£.a.te_s are reasonable proxy
values for county indus£rlal_.jgr_owtj): rates; Whereas the
variations (in the rate of growth of a particular industry)
within a state may not be as great as the variations between
states, it is unlikely that a single growth rate will hold
for every county in any given state.
New sources will be controlled to BACT levels and a single
BACT level will be applied to every new source in each SIC;
This assumption was made for analytical convenience, and in
fact does not reflect EPA's current policy. Likewise, the
national retirement rates for individual industries are not
9-15
-------
necessarily applicable to specific industries in each county.
However, in the absence of specific information on the type
of new sources within each SIC grouping, no other assumption
was deemed feasible.
• Area source emission will increase at the same rate as the
population growth rate for the state: This assumption clearly
has little empirical support and should be viewed as intro-
ducing a worst case bias into the control cost calculations.
A more sophisticated analysis would take into account relation-
ships between rates of growth in population and VMT, changes
in fuel use patterns for area combustion sources, and other
factors which would affect growth in area source emissions.
a Air quality will deteriorate (improve) in direct proportion
to the increase (decrease) in countyvide emissions (after
adjusting for background): This assumption suffers from the
limitations of the assumed air quality-emissions relationship
discussed above. In addition, it does not incorporate the
emissions weighting procedure and is thus even more approxi-
mate than the methodology for selecting control strategies.
, Weighting source contributions was ignored at this point in
the methodology primarily because of the large number of
sources and,the cost of performing a modified linear roll-
forward procedure. Again, it is difficult to judge the
direction of bias which may result from these assumptions.
Growth impacts could be under- or overstated for any given
county; for the nation as a whole, it is not possible to
reach any conclusions at this time.
9.3.3 Source Emission Inventory
The fact that a significant portion of point source emission inventory
(about 39 percent of the point source emissions in the counties with design
values) was not addressed in the control cost strategy would tend to bias
the results towards understating total control costs in attempts to attain
the TSP current standard. However, if the sources eliminated were those
not contributing to nonattainment as indicated by the problem characteriza-
tions (or would have been so labeled were there characterizations for all
counties), then the emissions screening procedure actually would improve
the realism of the analysis. At this point, however, we have no reason to
believe that only the important sources were retained. To gain a better
understanding of the degree of potential problem source elimination, the
9-16
-------
list of point sources retained by the screening procedure in each county
with a problem characterization should be compared with those point sources
identified as key contributors.
9.3.4 Least Cost Attainment Strategy
A fundamental assumption which underlies the entire analysis is that states
will use cost as a criterion in setting emission limits on individual
sources. This is not typical of current SIP's and may not be of future
ones. Thus, the attainment costs for the current standards estimated here
are likely to be lower than those imposed by actual SIP's. On the other
hand, at least some of the increased costs would generate benefits for the
states in the form of air quality margins available for accommodating
growth.
i
Some costs, however, would not reflect the application of controls beyond
those actually needed to meet the standard and thus used to create growth
margins. These costs gejrhaps could be attributable to administrative
convenience or the lite- But,-for this- analysis, the basic assumption is
that any increase above the least cost would generate benefits and thus can
be ignored.
9-17
-------
REFERENCES
de Nevers, N. (University of Utah) and Morris, J.R. (U.S. EPA). 1975.
"Rollback Modeling: Basic and Modified," Journal of Air Pollution
Control Association (25)9.
Energy and Environmental Analysis. April 1981. SO^/TSP Regulatory
Analysis; Emission Factors and Control Cost Methodology.
GCA Corporation. July 1976. "National Assessment of the Urban Particulate
Problem." Prepared for U.S. EPA. EPA 450/3-76-024.
U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration)
Highway Statistics 1978.
9-18
-------
APPEDIX A
NATIONWIDE TSP INVENTORY: SCREENING RESULTS FOR
CURRENT CONTROLLED EMISSIONS BY STANDARD CLASSIFICATION CODE
-------
TABLE A-l
NATIONWIDE TSP INVENTORY SCREENING RESULTS
FOR CURRENT CONTROLLED EMISSIONS BY
STANDARD CLASSIFICATION CODE (SCC)
COST TNG
sc:
11100101
1 01*0102
I 1!10201
1*100203
11100200
I n00305
i H10301
! 110010?
;
67*7. a
'157i>?.7
12*22.5
32555.9
O.n
fl.O
6952.7
0.1
0.1
!*.2
»0,1
312.?
1.0
)9.6
3761.1
0
1
i to
57
•5
10
3
18
5
a
0
30
622
I
e
0
1 I
30
35
227
72
16
71
311
0
2
0
0
0
10
1
0
0
a
2
5«3
0
1
9
3
32
?6
i
0
a
1134.7
'3.7
10&5711.3
1262,0
UOfll.S
f «<»l ,3
2132.0
0.0
3072.6
105573.2
19.0
2'6.0
0.0
659,1
6767.8
<»5762.7
12622.5
32555.9
OcO
330.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6952.7
".0
0.0
0.0
0.0
t'.7
t1627%.1
0.0
520,0
312.2
I2P5.1
1666.2
90.2
1.0
269.6
3760.1
u
1
t 10
57
S5
10
3
l«
5
a
0
20
*»22
i
6
0
11
oa
25
227
72
162
16
71 ,
311
0
2
0
0
0
10
I
e
o
o
2
0
1
o
3
32
26
i
n
a
313*. 7
93,7
15eSt2«3
1 0650A7 ,6
6o*£2,3
7i9<»3,7
I2b2,i
325,0
tunijl ,5
isal ,1
2io2,o
1,0
307?, it
10252'. 0
19.3
236,0
s.n
65^.1
*«7el,4
1975«2.3
670!, o
35371 ,2
I2si5,9
'020,9
3906,2
tO*9«, $
32553,9
1,0
33*. 7
3,0
3,0
0,0
6952,7
9,0
1,0
1,0
3. A
l',7
t1607S,-t
30*a«,o
S,0
08«,?
520,0
3l>.2
2255,1
166*. 2
91,2
1.0
2»',6
3791,1
0
1
no
633
57
95
to
3
13
5
1!
0
20
616
1
6
0
1 1
oa
261
23
223
71
162
16
65
311
0
2
0
0
0
to
t
0
0
0
2
3«6
1975
0
1
S
3
12
26
1
0
U
13"*
3138,7
«3,7
!56«12,3
0650«7 .0
660*3.3
7J992,;
1262,3
o25,3
tao •>'
. v ~
\ s
9?
51 :
a
i
A
5
C
: o
i
«
A
,1
o
e
0,0
52U.O
3 '. 2, 2
223S.1
'0.2
0,0
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l (Cont'd)
NATIONWIDE TSP INVENTORY SCREENING RESULTS
FOR CURRENT CONTROLLED EMISSIONS BY
STANDARD CLASSIFICATION CODE (SCC)
JCC
t1300002
31! 00901
31101*01
30200501
30200502
30200501
30200SOO
30300S01
3«30060t
31300602
30300600
30300605
S<5300<»05
30100901
30300902
30300903
30300900
30301-102
30301005
30303002
30303005
30000101
30000103
30000201
30000202
$0000205
30000301
30000002
31000001
30000701
30000702
30000701
30500102
30500501
315«0502
30500503
31500500
31500*05
[3 TPV
1106.0
6597.«
216*5.4
a*7?)7
33251*
ft)o
35J02!s
27050,5
7J2.0
a3?)9
. 1
1159.2
7)o
afl07
2*7
10
317
• a
us
78
0
12
2
S
72
21
70
70-
10
9
a
15
t«
0
0
22
1*3
13
2*5
22
e.
2-
16
tOt 3.
12
15
1
I
1
22
TPT
3306.0
597,9
90,0
21151.8
8572,7
3325.6
o.o
11361.3
35202.5
110,8
295.1
506B5.1
19035.6
32507.1
3.835.0
27850.5
2=1015.tt
080
565.7
732.0
0)0
U37..9
5197.5
1131.6
1 »•! 3% a •
?0»O.S
230,6
2ia.r
135S.2
7.0
00,7
?eoo.l
267
3
137
22a
00
203
o
12
12
39
72
73
2!
70
20
60
78
30
9
0
15
la
0
22
16J
13
28
rr
13
?65
22
60
rots
12
3
1
t
2?
COSTING
E-JS T?Y
33o6,o
t, COSTING
EHIS
90,0
^ '/ f V
?1293,J
20«25,7
3311,6
191 I 9,7
0.0
11361,3
10oo2,5
295J1
0035.0
O37l9,i
19035,6
50625,1
2P56.0
J'35,0
26750,5
10565,0
2302,7
732,-1
5.0
0,0
1133,6
1756.4
8199.3
3703.5
909,3
U-13,5
l<>83«9
93,6
96019,7
167,6
7,0
267
31
3
33«
215
"3
113
77
203
0
12
9
2
5
30
72
63
20
70
?0
59
30
6
0
15
0
0
20
155
13
16
10
13
251
22
16
61
e
2
la
12
15
3
1
1
22
3306.0
6000,9
90,0
21293,3
0557,4
3237,0
3311.6
19119,7
0.0
113M.3
30002,5
lto.8
295.1
0035,0
OP719.1
19035.a
50625,1
2056.0
1835,0
26750,5
20565,0
2302.7
1169,9
0,0
S65.T
732.0
0.0
0,0
823,9
1133.6
3007)7
* » f* n ^
•199.3
3700,5
900,3
1303,5
A j> A V dL
207,S
210,7
1353,2
167,6
7.0
30,7
267
31
3
330
215
63
113
77
?03
0
12
9
2
72
63
20
5^
62
0
15
6
0
20
155
13
16
10
13
251
22
13
61
z
10
990
1?
15
3
t
t
22
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l (Cont'd)
NATIOWVIDE TSP INVENTORY SCREENING RESULTS
FOR CURRENT CONTROLLED EMISSIONS BY
STANDARD CLASSIFICATION CODE (SCC)
»!«» 0'IAI.ITV
»cc
39500*02
315*0603
30510701
30500703
30500705
39501101
31501501
30501502
:s TPY
08307.0
H327S.3
V15M60?
3"511603
ttl7.i
.«>
oat1°,2
075)1
3950^06
20
06
?2
02
00
«5
?5
12
35
20
06
20
13
12061
3a5«2
17156,9
113275.3
63UB7.5
5500.1
0868.9
817,0
3267.8
6S7.9
0090.3
5M19.2
11090,2
30«03.6
5«717.8
61&07.7
313«5flo.7
50tt2009,5
20
27
o?
22
61
oo
as
63
15
25
12
as
36
20
56
96
29
13
23
25
06*
589
085
12061
22121
30582
13 TPV MJMB£Q
08277,0 ,j7
-- - - - )9
.7
113160,3
63«2I,5
C A • ^ •
5739,0
29C00.5
68255,3
8045.6
55aO,l
3265,0
657,9
3890,3
06293,0
062.0
075,1
11000,2
21tl5l2
1665093,0"
0781607,fl
27
07
20
a
00
no
63
15
103
20
11
38
36
19
51
79
20
13
2*
25
055
572
255
079
12206
113166,3
63«2l,S
7982,8
20000,5
68255,i
31191
lO I r03ITMT,
£MJS TPY NU"o5«?
a*277.9 U7
«961.7 1"
?7
U7
20
SO
e
eo
3°
to
63
15
193
20
it
38
36
19
S!
79
20
13
25
flS5
572
?55
079
12206
18985
0761667,1} 31191
5500.1
0007,6
0251,9
006,4
31*0,8
3295,6
657,9
3800,3
962.0
a75.l
^ * " ^ ^ •
21H5.2
30006,u
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
DEFAULTING PROCEDURES FOR NATIONWIDE PARTICULATE EMISSION
INVENTORY
-------
APPENDIX B
Defaulting Procedures for Particulate Emission
Inventory in the Nationwide TSP Analysis
To improve the coverage and reasonableness of the information on each
source's stack parameters, operating hours, and production rates, a
defaulting routine was conducted on the particulate emission inventory
for the Nationwide TSP Analysis. The basic approach was to test if a
variable was within predetermined validity ranges and if not, to default
the variables with a more reasonable value. The procedure was as follows:
1. Stack Parameters: Defaulting for stack parameters is done only
if the plume height for the source is missing. When the plume is zero,
then a check on the value for the stack height, stack diameter, stack
gas temperature and stack gas velocity is conducted. The ranges used
are shown in Table B-l. The SCC-specific defaults are listed in Table
B-2. If the parameter was not in the valid range, it was defaulted to
its SCC-specific value in Table B-2.* If the source's SCC was not found
in Table B-2, the standard default presented in Table B-l was used as an
alternative.
The stack gas velocity is not found on the emission inventory as originally
received from IEPA. Thus, the velocity is computed using the equation
V = (4)*(GF)
00*(D)
where V = gas velocity (in ft/min)
GF = gas flow rate (in ACFM)
n = 3.14
2
D = stack diameter (in ft )
*The SCC specific defaults represent statistical averages derived from
the NEDS file on a SCC-by-SCC basis.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
DEFAULTING RANGES FOR NATIONWIDE PARTICULATE EMISSION
INVENTORY SOURCE PARAMETERS
Variable
Stack height
Stack diameter
Stack gas temperature
Stack velocity
Hours of operation.
Valid Range
1500 ft > h > 15 ft.
30 ft > d > 1 ft.
«—
t
2000°F
72°F
8000 ft/min > v >_ 600
ft/mia
52 < weeks/yr < 0
7 < days/weeks <_ 0
24 < hrs/day < 0
Default Value
SCC specific, or 100 ft
SCC specific, or 4.5 ft
SCC specific, or 350°F
1330 ft/min
weeks/yr = 50
days/week = 6
hours/day = 12
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2
DEFAULTING VALUES BY SCC FOR STACK PARAMETERS
SCC
iniooioi
10100)02
10100100
I 01 00201
10100/02
I010U2Q1
10100200
10100305
10100206
I oin<>207
101 00200
10100209
1010021 1
10100212
101 00299
10100*01
10100 JO?
10100105
10100 106
10100109
101 00 it 1
1 0 1 0 0 '< U 1
1 01 00002
1010000 J
IOIOO*iOI
10100502
I0100SG)
I0100MH
10100602
1010060)
10100/01
10100702
1010070)
loioonot
101 00001
10100102
IOI0090S
10101201
1010 1 501
lOtO'**)1??
I 0 1 <»9'79tt
101(> *)•*•»•»
102001 01
10200 10 3
1020010"
10?OOI OS
102001 06
10200 107
10200 l'»9
10200201
10200202
I02on?0 1
1 0 2 0 0 7 0 «
I020020S
1020020*.
I0200?0 1
I020020«
Stack
Height
(feet)
171 .000
170.000
too. ooo
250.000
250.000
317.000
ISO. 000
I3o.ooo
I7S.QOO
ISO. 000
9o.noo
160. (ion
60.000
304.000
2 Ml. 000
265.000
16S.OOO
92.000
111 .000
AS. 000
77.000
198.004
10-7.000
75.000
160.000
41.000
3S.OOO
U.fl.OOO
62.000
2S.OOO
167.000
inn. ooo
12.000
350.000
120.000
SO. 000
So. ooo
19B.OOO
252.000
So. ooo
OS. 000
6S.OOO
S9.noo
ss.ooo
1 17.000
ISO. 000
70.000
So.ooo
1 0 . 0 fl .1
I2S.OOO
1 Ah. 000
176.000
12S.OOO
1 50.000
iSn. oon
1 Jo .ouo
ISO. 000
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
A. 000
17.000
3.000
13.500
Id. 000
13.000
A. 000
8.500
7.000
A. 000
5.000
7.BOO
tt.OOO
(A. 000
12.000
17.000
7.500
•6.000
a. ooo
6.000
5.000
tl.400
6.000
7.000
11.000
S.OOO
J.700
10. 900
"S.OOO
2.000
11.000
1.700
0.251
20.000
fl.OOO
5.300
3.300
to. ooo
a. soo
10.000
7.000
5.900
6.000
O.?5l
7. SOO
S.OOO
3.000
3.000
2.100
7.500
9.600
9.flOO
7.000
5.900
7.100
5. SOO
7.100
Stack
Temp .
(°F)
356.000
375.000
in2.ooo
320.000
300.000
315.000
355.000
312.000
(100,000
350.000
500.000
i|75.0UO
475.000
•269.000
327.000
310.000
328.000
330.000
375.000
331 .000
aSo.ooo
325.000
iso .000
310.000
316.000
SiS.ouO
400. OVO
317.000
QOO.OOO
350.000
310.000
325.000
o.o
335.000
000.000
015,000
aSo.ooo
353.000
250.000
300.000
320.000
S7S.OOO
275 .000
172.000
350.000
uSO.OOO
150.000
«25.ono
BO .000
375.000
350.000
100.000
uoo.oon
030.000
/too.ooo
!<>o.ooo
100.000
SCC
10200200
10200210
1020021 1
10200212
1020021 3
10200^1 q
1 0200299
10200302
102001Q6
10200109
1020031 1
1020031"
10200001
10200002
10200003
10200501
10200502
10200S03
10200601
1 0200602
10200603
10200701
10200702
10200703
I020070H
10200705
10200707
1 020070A
1 02007<)997
i O29'''>
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
DEFAULTING VALUES BY SCC FOR STACK PARAMETERS
SCC
10300207
1030020A
10300209
1030021 1
t 0300212
10300213
10300210
10300299
10300307
1030030A
10300309
10300001
10300002
10300403
10300501
10300502
10300503
10300601
10300602
10300603
10300703
10300901
10300902
10300903
10301002
10301003
10301 302
10301303
10306603
I03-J9799
10399997
10399998
10399999
10500105
10500104
10500202
10500205
10500206
20100101
20100102
20100201
20100202
20100301
20100302
20100401
20100501
20100601
20100602
20199997
2019909H
20200101
20200102
2. vvw~
300.000
6-5 0 ,.000-
7 o a^-noA-
906.000
795.000
0,0
200,000
600.000
600.004
ASO.OOO
iSo. ooo
600.000
700.000
100.000
500.000
0.0
SCC
20200601
20200*01
20200602
20299997
202"»999«
20J99999
20300101
20399<>97
2039999ft
20400101
20400201
20499997
2049999ft
30100101
30100199
30100201
30100202
30100301
30100302
30100303
30100399
30100401
39100499
30100501
3010050?
30100503
30100504
30100505
30100599
30100601
30100603
30100604
30100699
30100701
30100799
30100*01
IffSOOA02
30100A03
yoioo*99
JQ'I 00901
JS-t S99«. 0
30100999
30101001
30101002
30101003
301 OIOO'I
30101005
30101099
30101 101
30101102
30101 199
30101201
30101203
30101299
3010130!
30101302
30101 303
Stack
Height
(feet)
52.000
15.000
IA.OOO
16.000
13.077
22.000
7.000
14.000
S.500
25.171
0.0
15.000
0.0
62.000
49.000
43.000
32.000
40.000
16.000
30.000
30.000
59,000
25.000
14.000
45.000
85.000
50.000
73.000
3*. 000
UC84A
12.000
30.000
IS. 000
25.000
40.000
«c500
46C000
fi.OOO
4A.OOO
30.000
25.000
40.000
2A.OOO
60.000
JOC000
60.000
2.SOO
35.000
60.000
46.000
l«, 000
32.000
30,000
60.000
5S.OOO
70.000
•45.000
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
6.000
6.000
1 .500
2.000
6.000
t .100
1.500
2.AOO
0.25)
11.700
0.251
0.251
0.251
3.000
1.000
5.400
0.251
2.000
o.o
o.o
t.soo
2.500
1.700
s.ooo
3.300
3.0*00
2.AOO
S.SOO
'l .BOO
1.900
0.0
0,251
2.000
2.000
1.700
0.251
1.300
0.251
2.500
3.300
1.500
1.500
1.900
1.200
3.600
1,000
0.0
2.000
o.o
1.000
1.000
o.o
K700
1.000
J.SOO
3.000
1 .000
Stack
Temp.
( F)
300,000
660.000
600, 000
700.000
200 , 000
90 , 000
700 .000
350.000
0.0
300 .000
5 , ooo
120 .000
700,000
105.000
24A.OOQ
200.000
140.000
300 .000
146.000
77.000
140.000
129,000
244 ,000
450,000
(550.000
400,000
400,000
SOS. 000
2HO.OOO
300 .000
2.660
105.000
100.000
77.000
70,000
120.000
70.000
0.0
77,000
ISO. 000
70.000
75.000
95.000
212.000
es.ooo
173.000
300.000
100.000
100. 000
85 . 000
70.000
60. 000
190.000
85.000
VO.OOO
470.000
200.000
B-4
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
DEFAULTING VALUES BY SCC FOR STACK PARAMETERS
SCC
30101304
30IOI30S
30101 306
30I0130A
30101399
30101401
3010l«02
30101499
30101501
30101502
30101503
30101505
30(0(599
30(0(601
30101602
3010(699
30101701
30101799
30101*01
30101A02
3010IA05
30101«99
30(01903
3010200 (
30102003
30(02005
30102099
30102102
30102199
30102201
30(0230(
30(02304
30102306
30102308
30(02310
30102312
301023(4
30I0231A
30102390
30102401
3010210?
3010240)
30102405
30102006
30 102') 10
30102412
3010241Q
30(02199
30(0250!
30(02505
30102510
30102599
30102601
30102602
30Hl2frO«
30102620
30102699
Stack
Height
(feet)
59.000
53.000
50.000
70.000
60.00IT
2*. 939
15.000
OH. 000
6.750
20.000
24.000
42.000
40.000
100.000
100.000
78.000
6A.OOO
30.000
40.000
30.000
30.000
3o.ooo
40.000
20.000
6.667
(9.000
(9.000
50.000
95.000
70.000
80.000
200.000
95.000
(00.000
(00.000
(75.000
(50.000
70.000
122.000
50.000
75.000
66.000
65.000
53.000
30.000
71 .000
70.000
50.000
40.000
10.000
70.000
30.000
39.000
0.0
30.000
35.000
2A.OOO
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
2.5oo
2.200
2.<»oo
2.500
3.500
2.000
3.200
2.900
0.251
(.600
2.000
1 .500
2,000
3.000
2,500
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.200
1.700
4.500
1.700
5.000
(.000
0.251
2.400
1 .700
.1.700
2.700
4.000
3.000
• .000
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
3.700
S.ooo
1.300
2.000
2.900
1 .AOO
2.600
1.700
3.600
0.251
2.000
3.900
0.0
2.000
0.0
2.500
0.0
4.000
2. 100
2.ooo
Stack
Temp.
( F)
240.000
400.000
350.000
I 10,000
400,000
77.000
(65,000
85.000
77.000
100.000
(40.000
125.000
77.000
(00.000
95.000
103.000
130.000
140.000
(00.000
(00.000
(30.000
78.000
(40.000
(00.000
* o.o
77.000
77.000
90.000
(44.000
(20.000
(60.000
(90.000
(60.000
(60.000
(65.000
(60.000
(S00000
(60 .000
(60.000
200.000
200.000
(30.000
50.000
90.000
85.000
(90.000
600.000
(35.000
80.000
150.000
1 10.000
70.000
(06.00Q
0.0
(20.000
77.000
80.000
SCC
30102701
3010270?
3010270)
30102704
301 02705
30102706
30102901
30102A02
30(02001
30(0290?
30103001
3010300?
30103099
30103101
30103199
30103201
3010320?
30103203
30103299
30103394
30103401
30103501
30103599
30(03601
30103701
30(03702
30104001
3010" 101
30(04(90
30105001
30109099
30109101
301 10001
301 1 1001
301 1110?
301 11103
301 1 ( 194
30190099
30 t 9999''
30200001
30200101
30200199
3020020 1
30?00?0?
3«?00?03
30?00?99
30200301
30200101
30200402
30200403
30200404
30200499
30?00501
30200SO?
30200505
30200500
302005T9
Stack
Height
(Feet)
60.000
100.000
50.000
33.333
27.000
80.000
50.000
60,000
66.000
93.000
70.000
74 .000
20.194
64.000
60.000
100.000
151 .000
150.000
(00,000
34.000
40.000
R9.000
75.000
UA.OOO
SO. 000
55.000
50.000
62.000
96,000
16.000
50.000
53.000
35.000
50.000
9.000
2o.ooo
30.000
Ofl .000
40 .000
0.0
35.rtoo
IA,?08
45.000
40.000
35.000
53.000
70.000
7.292
7.65«
7.330
0.0
7.397
19.070
35.00H
2fl . ooft
31 .'143
2.000
Stack
Diam-
* eter
(feet)
1.700
6.000
3.000
0.0
2.100
3.500
2. ooo
2.500
4.000
•S'.OOO
3.800
3.000
2.800
.700
,800
.900
.800
.700
.Soo
.700
,700
2.700
2'.800
4.500
2.000
2.000
4.000
0.0
e.ooo
2.000
1.300
2.000
3.000
2.000
1.500
2.500
2.ooo
(.500
2.000
0.251
3.700
2. SOO
1.300
2.200
2. 100
2.000
3.200
2.000
2.000
.900
0.0
2.400
Z.ooo
2.000
2.200
2.600
1 . 100
Stack
Temp .
( F)
230.000
(3o.ooo
1 45.000
0.0
(22.000
140,000
126,000
(00,000
96,000
1 (7,000
(32.000
125.000
77*. 000
(20.000
149.000
800.000
900.000
1000.000
700.000
77.000
97,000
160.000
(34.000
(90.000
145.000
161 .000
120.000
165,000
124,000
75.000
325.000
100.000
100.000
90.000
70,000
84, 000
80.000
600.000
90.000
77,000
250.000
77.000
AOO.OUO
600.000
1 10.000
77.000
(45.000
70.000
70 .000
70.000
77 ,000
70.000
70.000
70,000
70,000
100.000
70.000
B-5
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
DEFAULTING VALUES BY SCC FOR STACK PARAMETERS
SCC
30200600
30200601
30200602
30200603
30200AOO
30200699
30200701
30200702
30200703
30200700
30200705
30200706
30200730
30200799
30200AOI
30200*03
30200Q90
30200A99
30200901
30200902
30200903
3020099A
30200999
30201001
30201002
30201003
30201001
30201099
30201201
30201202
30201203
30201299
30201301
30201001
30201501
30201S99
30201601
30201699
30201720
30201799
5020I«99
30203001
30203099
30299990
30299998
30299999
30300001
30300101
30300102
303<>OI03
30300100
30300105
30300199
30300201
30300301
30300302
30300303
Stack
Height
(feet)
O.I)
1.208
5.137
2.201
3.530
29.537
20.209
35^000
2S.Q62
1.725
20.390
39.570
52.051
30,013
9.0S5
o.o
50.000
21.969
59.000
00.000
52.000
13.553
39.000
50.000
09.000
1 .005
foO.OOO
SO. 000
fl.OOO
36. 000
30.000
20.000
30.000
on.ooe
os.ooo-
50.000-
55.000
55.000
32.000
17.72B
90.000
05.000
35.000
16.000
31.000
20.000
16.000
50.000
07.000
70.000
50.000
150.000
60.000
101 .000
200.000
95.729
32.260
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
o.?5i
2.000
2.000
1.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
1 .900
i.soo
1 .000
1.600
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
0.251
0.251
2.500
1.000
3.000
5.100
0.251
t.aoe '
to700
2.600
0.251
» .000
.1.700
0.0
3.900
3.300
ft. 300
2.000
2.58S
2-, 505
a.a«s
0.000
1.700-
3.900
2.100
1.200
3.100
3.000
1.5*0
2.000
2.000
2.009
fl.flOO
7.000
5.500
2.200
6.000
2.900
2.000
o.ooo
A. 600
1 1 .000
Stack
Temp.
(°F)
o.o
70.000
70.000
77.000
77.000
77.000
77.000
77.000
70.000
77.000
70.000
76.000
70.000
77.000
70.000
o.o
77.000
77.000
70.000
193.000
325.000
50.004
7fr.OOO
7T.OOO
i«s.aoo
77.000
7o^ao«
70.000
70.000
210.000
230.000
250.000
tto.ooo
104. coa
• 125.000
lSe.
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
DEFAULTING VALUES BY SCC FOR STACK PARAMETERS
SCC
T0~3 01505
30303099
30399999
30400101
30400102
30000103
30400104
300001 10
300001 1 1
30000120
30400150
30000199
30400201
30400202
30400203
30400204
30000205
30400P06
30000299
30400301
30400302
30400303
30400304
30400305
30400330
30000340
30000350
30400399
30400001
3000000?
30400403
30000404
3010040*
30400199
30400501
30400502
30400503
30400599
304Q0601
30000699
30000701
30000702
300Q0703
30400704
30«00705
30000706
30000710
300Q0715
30A00799
30000001
30000flO?
}oono«oi
30UOOflO«
30UOOA05
5Q000406
50000flO«
50400«99
Stack
Height
(feet)
n.o
45.000
S«.ooo
32.ooo
25.000
05.000
40.000
40.000
24.000
125.000
35.000
35.000
17.000
a.ooo
35.000
30.000
25.000
30.000
20.000
46.000
30.000
18. ROT
35.ooo
50.000
oa.ooo
24.000
33eC90
3?. 000
35.000
45.000
M.OOO
3.750
35.000
30.000
2t .000
6.500
30.000
30.000
7.000
24.000
24.000
72.000
100.000
60.000
22.636
20.000
10.000
24.000
40.000
39.000
14.000
15.000
76,000
25.000
125.000
9.000
20.000
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
nTTU
1.600
2.400
2.700
2.800
3.500
3.300
3.500
4.500
a.OOO
2.000
2.000
2.600
3.000
2.400
3.000
2.300
3.500
3.100
4.000
3.000
4.000
1.509
4.000
3.300
2.200
3.000
.2.500
2.ooo
3.000
2.900
0.251
1.500
1.300 -
2.000
I .000
3.000
2.500
2.500
4.000
3.000
3.000
5.000
4.AOO
4.000
2.300
0.0
2.000
2.600
3.200
2.«00
2.000
4.000
2.000
6.500
1 .500
3.500
Stack
Temp.
rn
u.o
100.000
90.000
350.000
280.000
650,000
342.000
77.000
77.000
too.ooo
155.000
100.000
100.000
250.000
200.000
105.000
400.000
250.000
80.000
400.000
600.000
135.000
too.ooo
500.000
72,000
70.000
70.000
120.000
132.000
180.000
165.000
0.0
77.000
too.ooo
90.000
125.000
74.000
80,000
80,000
101 .000
ISO. 000
000.000
1200.000
550.000
100.000
74.000
200.000
70.000
150.000
200.000
2750.000
200.000
310.000
160.000
005.000
flOO.OOO
I95.000
SCC
3040090 1
30400999
30401001
50001099
50001 199
30002001
30402002
S040200S
30402004
30402099
3o«o5oo»
30199999
30500001
30500101
30^00102
3050010J
30500104
30500199
30500201
30500202
30500203
30500206
30500299
30500301
30500302
3050030J
30500304
30500305
3050030*
30500399
30500001
30500002
3050040J
30500499
30500501
30500502
30500503
30500501
30500505
5050050''
30500S99
30500601
30500602
30500603
30500601
30500605
50500699
30500701
30500702
3050070S
50500704
30500705
50500799
30500801
50500«02
30500605
305001199
Stack
Height
(feet)
33.000
49.000
35.000
2«.000
20.000
56.000
7fl.ooo
2« ,000
30.000
35.000
27.000
30.000
15.000
30.000
30.000
16.667
40.000
25.000
30.000
20.000
0.0
0.0
2o.ooo
15.000
<>.2«5
«.3«7
27.000
2o.ooo
23.000
20.000
39.000
00.000
47.000
3A.OOO
20.000
20 .000
So.ooo
2«.flOO
21 .250
22.000
16.000
100.000
00. 000
70.000
90.000
12S. 000
40.000
«7 .000
0 '4 . 0 0 0
150.000
95.000
IflO.OOO
50.000
30.000
32.000
00.000
30 .000
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
2.600
3.000
5.000
2.300
1.300
2.500
1 .700
1 .600
3.000
2.200
2.000
2.000
0.0
2.500
3.000
2.000
3.200
2.500
4.000
4.000
0.251
0.251
4.000
2.600
2.700
2.SOO
3.000
3.000
'5.000
2.900
3.500
2.200
a. ooo
2.000
3.000
1.400
3.500
1.QOO
2.500
2.000
2.500
9.000
2.300
9.600
10.000
10.500
2.000
7.900
2.300
9.200
10.000
12.000
3.000
2.900
2.000
1 .400
2.000
Stack
Temp.
rn
025.000
70.000
700.000
120.000
50,000
350.000
70.000
70.000
320.000
120.000
77.000
80.000
0.0
494,000
122.000
336.000
132.000
125.000
165.000
140.000
77.900
0,0
I i5.ooo
150.000
77,000
77.000
400.000
375.000
400.000
77.000
300,000
221 .000
100.000
86.000
150.000
70.000
500.000
400,000
70.000
70.000
70.000
475.000
150.000
350,000
400.000
060.000
1 15,000
330.000
100.000
000. 000
444.000
365.000
(50.000
160.000
100.000
70.000
77.000
3-7
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
DEFAULTING VALUES BY SCC FOR STACK PARAMETERS
SCC
30500901
30500003
10500999
10501001
30501002
30501003
10501099
30501 tot
30501 120
1050! 121
30501 19*
30501 199
10501201
30501202
30501203
30501204
30501205
30501299
30501101
J050I199
30501401
3050iaio
3050191 |
30501012
30501199
30501501
30501502
30501501
3050150«
30501599
30501601
30501602
30501603
30501604
30501699
30501701
30501703
30501701
30501705
30501799
30SOIA01
30501899
30501901
10501902
10501901
10501900
30501999
30502001
1050200?
30502001
30S02004
3050200S
30502006
30502007
30S0200A
30502009
30502099
Stack
Height
(feet)
32.000
30.000
30.000
(to. ooo
60.000
eo.ooo
4.622
10^271
it .nso
25*000
0.0
«.9Sfi
60.000
52.000
SO. 000
eft. ooo
28.000
32.000
12.000
50.000
SO. 000
3«».000
20.ooo
too. ooo
00.000
57.000
40.000
75.000
56.000
82.000
19.37S
13.080
60.000
70.000
35.000
"2.000
32.000
30.000
36.667
25.000
30.000
3o.ooo
50.000
7t .000
SI .000
o.o
Sfl.OOO
2.609
3.210
3.361
3.47«
5.621
9.oflO
O.&OA
10.625
2.I8A
19.702
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
l.noo
4.000
3.500
6.800
5.500
a. 500
3.SOO
1.600
1.500
t.OOO
1802.000
1.600
3.000
2.700
4.000
4.900
2.000
2.«00
2.300
3.000
a. aoo
2^500
1.700 -
4.000
2.700
2.700
1.200
3.000
1.500
1.700
2.SOO
2.000
4.500
5. 500
2.200
3.009
3.385--
2.600
2.SOO
2.000
2". 80?
2.500
4.500
1.600
s.ooo
0.0
1.700
2.500
2.600
2.300
2.500
2.400
1 .800
2.500
2.000
9.073
2.600
Stack
Temp.
(3F)
126.000
165.000
127.000
130.000
1(9.000
S20.000
77.000
TT.OOO
70.000
77.000
77.000
70,000
600.000
725C000
120.000
146.000
234.800
ISO. 000
375^.000
125.000
6SO.OOO
77-. 000
TO.,800
.ooo
180.000
tsa.aoo
tJ3f«;»00
250.000
77.000
toe. ooo
ro.ooo
70.000
599,000
-J2*,«00
so.oec;.
\oo-0on.
» >^»— M4»4»-
I £-* *-V V M
3e0.flj£»0
130.000
8-
30600A01
inttOOAOo
30600A05
3060090)
30600999
30601001
30601 101
10601 199
3060120)
Stack
Height
(feet)
34.619
0..0
46.000
75.000
0.0
56.000
3.161
15.000
I6«2«5
50.000
84.000
2.000
0.0
0.0
36.J.67
0.0
13.000
16.000
14.917
63.000
0.0
9.176
l."57
27.750
60.000
0.0
•25.000
24,000
44.000
50,000
91 .000
25.000
100.000
6A.OOO
100.000
36.000
42.000
160.000
250.000
«.(I75
12. «ll
2.«*S
1.161
0.0
15.781
2,.«2«
3.126
1.116
0. 101
2.«22
«.«67
50,000
90 . 000
8S.OOO
50.000
62.500
25.000
Stack
Diam-
eter
(foetj
2.000
10.039
2.500
2.000
0.0
2.000
2.000
0.0
2.500
2.500
2.100
2.000
0.0
0.0
1807. 868
0.251
o.25i
i.soo
2.500
2.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
i.SOO
3. BOO
0.0
I.SOO
q.aoo
4.000
4 .000
3.000
2.100
5.500
4.500
5.200
a. 500
3.000
5.700
3.500
4,500
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
o.o
lfl.000
a. 700
0.0
8.195
1 .000
3.300
2.ooo
I.SOO
3.600
4.000
0.0
2.000
Stack
Temp.
(°F)
77.000
200.000
200.000
200.000
o.o
220.000
77.000
o.o
77.000
so. ooo
138.000
77.000
0.0
77,000
300.000
77.000
77.000
77.000
77.000 '
70.000
77.000
77.000
77.000
77,000
70.000
0.0
150,000
70.000
77.000
77.000
70.000
77.000
730.000
710.000
675.000
680.000
850.000
650.000
900.000
200.000
120.000
70.000
77.000
0.251
iSO.ooo
70.000
77 .000
77.000
77.000
77.000
77.000
AOO. 000
1000.000
800 . 000
450.000
o.o
200.000
B-8
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
DEFAULTING VALUES BY SCC FOR STACK PARAMETERS
SCC
30601 301
3069999B
30699999
30700101
30700102
30700103
30700100
30700105
30700(06
30700107
307001 Ofl
30700109
30700199
30700201
30700202
30700^03
30700204
3070020S
30700206
30700399
30700001
30700002
30700499
30700501
30700599
30700601
30700701
30700702
30700799
30700399
30700999
30701099
30702099
30799999
30900101
30900102
30900199
30900201
30900299
30900501
30900507
30900599
30900601
30900699
30901099
30902099
30903001
3090300?
30903003
30903000
30903005
30903009
309Q3099
30949999
32049999
33000101
33000102
Stack
Height
(feet)
75.000
07.000
53.071
50.000
33.«46
rs.ooo
185. BOO
125.000
75.000
74.000
69.000
PO. 000
65.000
170.000
96.000
120.000
133.000
50.000
150.000
S5.000
3A.OOO
32.ooo
10.000
It .000
31.333
30.000
30.000
IS.ooo
39.000
20.915
15.000
3.286
35.000
, 30.000
in. ooo
' 35.000
0.000
30.000
0.0
35.000
52.000
00.000
00.000
50.000
25.000
33.000
30.000
30.000
33.000
2«.ooo
10.000
33.000
30.000
25.000
20.000
35.000
29.000
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
4.500
3. 300
3.000
3.500
3.500
3.500
8.500
3.500
4.500
3.000
4.000
6.500
3.500
4.000
1 .700
S.OOO
5.000
10.039
S.ooo
3.SOO
3.000
3.000
3.300
2.200
3.300
2.300
2.100
.2.500
3.200
3.000
1.000
0.251
3.000
2.700
2.500
1.100
2.000
7.600
o.o
4.000
4.200
1.500
6.000
4.000
2.300
1.500
3. 100
3.200
3.200
2.000
3.100
3.700
2.700
2.000
2.000
3.000
1.300
Stack
Temp .
rn
600.000
212.000
300.000
200.000
97,000
200.000
295.000
170.000
160.000
200.000
180.000
270.000
100.000
200.000
70.000
212.000
170,000
135.000
160,000
107.000
100.000
79.000
7T.OOO
70.000
00.000
144.000
300.000
70.000
77.000
70.000
•70.000
70.000
72.000
77.000
77.000
77.000
77.000
100.000
77.000
200.000
75.000
300.000
ISO. 000
450.000
75.000
07.000
70.000
70.000
70.000
70.000
75.000
70.000
70.000
77.000
77,000
85.000
195,000
SCC
33000199
33000P02
33000201
33000349
33000399
33999999
39000099
39000199
39000301
39000202
34Q00303
39000205
3-7000506
34000207
39000208
39000294
39000001
39000002
3400000)
39000300
39000005
3900000*
34000007
3400040*
34000009
3900001 i
390000 Jo
39000031
3<»0»OOJ?
39000052
3*000044
39000501
3*>OOOS02
39000503
39000500
39000505
39000506
39000507
3*»0no50fl
39000504
3900051 1
39000530
39000531
39000532
39000S52
34000S99
39000601
3900060?
3900060 J
39000600
39000605
3*000606
39000607
3900060*
39000609
3'000610
3900061 1
Stack
Height
(feet)
2*. ooo
25.000
90.000
30.000
3*. ooo
26.000
25.000
86.000
125.000
215.000
AO.OOO
60.000
30.000
an. ooo
73.000
66.000
3o.ooo
100.000
75.000
65.000
125.000
22.000
75,000
125.000
0.0
5ft, ooo
2B.31B
9.H33
6A.OOO
225.000
79.000
30.000
00.000
at .000
S2.ooo
35.000
30.000
66.000
7/1.000
30.000
3S.ooo
21 .700
00.000
60.000
251 .000
35,000
30.000
US. 000
75.000
52.000
45.000
2*. ooo
66.000
9
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
DEFAULTING VALUES BY SCC FOR STACK PARAMETERS
SCC
10000&JO
31000611
390006*2
39000650
39000631
39000652
3*000699
39000701
39000702
39000799
39Q00901
39000*99
39000950
39000999
3900 J099
39009999
39099997
39099998
39099999
39999990
Stack
Height
(feet)
SO, 552
10.000
75.000
$0.000
10.667
200.000
38.000
taa.ooo
150.000
tan. ooo
00.000
49.000
80.000
15.000
2S.OOO
90.000
30.000
270a«t
26.000
35.000
Stack
Diam-
eter
(feet)
3.700
3.000
3.500
5.700
3.500
9.000
2.600
7.000
fe. 200
7.000
1 .900
«.300
3.SOO
4.000
3.000
21.600
S.OOO
3.000
3,000
t.ooo
Stack
Temp .
(°F)
120.000
200.000
101,000
300.000
320.000
325.000
250.000
525.000
1200.000
600.000
313.000
350.000
300.000
250,000
200.000
150.000
700.000
250.000
1 40 ..000
79,000
B-10
-------
If the flow rate for a given source is not present, the flow rate defaults
by SCC shown in Table B-3 are used in computing the stack gas velocity.
If no match can be made with the source's SCC then the standard default
of 1330 ft/min. for the gas velocity is used.
2. Operating Hours: The operating hours data for each source were
checked to determine if the weeks/year, days/week, and hours/day were
invalid, less than zero, or unreadable. If not, the annual operating
parameters were defaulted as shown in Table B-l.
3. Production Rates; The average and maximum operating rates were
defaulted as illustrated in Figures B-l (for boiler SCC's) and B-2 (for
nonboiler SCC's). Essentially, if either the average or maximum operating
rate is missing, then it could be derived assuming an 85 percent annual
capacity utilization factor. If both operating rates are missing, then
no defaulting is possible, and the source then does not possess the
necessary control cost parameters. No independent SCC-specific or
standard default values are available for these two variables.
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-5
FLOW RATE DEFAULTS BY STANDARD
CLASSIFICATION COOH
sec
10100101
10100102
10100104
10100201
0100202
01 00203
01 00200
0100205
01002Gb
0100207
1010020ft
101 00209
1010021 I
tOt 00212
ioioo;>99
lOtOOSOl
10100X02
10100X01
101 00106
1010030"?
10100X1 1
10100401
10100002
1010040 1
10100501
10100502
10IOOS03
101 00601
10100602
10100603
10100701
10100702
101 OOAO 1
10100901
10100902
10100403
101 01201
10101301
101 99997
10199998
10199999
10200101
102001 0*
10200100
1020010-5
1 02001 Oh
10200107
10200149
10«»00201
10200202
I020020X
1 0?00?04
1020020S
|0200^0h
I02002U7
10200203
10200209
FLOW RATE
(ACFM)
tuoooo.
9<»h67 ,
16564.
23AOOO.
3596KO.
422000.
65600.
93250.
42180.
27700.
30000.
5i7«io.
5000.
9401 1 a.
230000.
656000.
290000.
926000.
69000.
06000.
37200.
1 78500.
2ftOOO.
12500.
272000,
3705A.
19083.
163000.
280M.
2i->63.
|969<>50
28200^
1230000.
"75572.
aiaSOo
26440.
112200.
245014.
89500,,
40400-
1 330UO.
27143.
6300.
2218K.
3*58*.
5516.
2000.
a4oo.
132468.
I02SOO.
12SOOO.
65000.
2774«.
265HO .
'129 JO.
36000 .
2U600 .
sec
10200210
10200211
10200212
10200213
10200214
10200299
10200302
10200306
1020031 I
10200401
10200402
10200403
10200501
10200502
10200503
10200601
10200602
10200603
10200701
10200702
10200703
10200704
10200705
10200707
10200708
KJ200799
10200802
W20080S
10200901
10200902
V 0-20090 3
10201002
£0401003:
10201 101
10201 102
10201103
20100101
20100102
2ft 1 0020 S
20100301
20100302
20100001
2010060?
M^t fitf-t-
20200102
20200201
2-0200202
20200301
20200001
2020050V
20200601
20200801
20"200'«0~2
20299997
FLOW RATE
(ACFM)
52500.
10000.
27900,
5870.
5881.
25000.
191000.
54600.
13320.
62600.
11822.
2160.
67200.
10550,
155U
60300.
12920.
2392.
S9685.
30000.
21400.
87272.
33590.
75398.
35000.
129100.
12966.
8000.
S3084.
19400.
9320.
10984.
oooo.-
43295.
03590,
06200,
427000.
2100.
«53075.
21222.
1I9QOOO.
1015500.
16805.
- v^v*) —
** '^ 0 CO
m 1 1 T
39900.
3916»
3000.
12738.
953354.
350000.
25730.
61 1.
400.
sec
20299998
202"9999
30100101
30100199
30100201
30100202
30100301
30100399
30100401
30100499
30100501
30100502
30100503
30100500
30100505
30100599
30100601
30100604
30100699
30100701
30100799
30100802
30100099
30100901
30100910
30100999
30100001
30100002
30100003
30100099
30100(01
30:00102
30100199
30100201
30100203
50100299
30100301
30100302
30100303
30100305
30100306
30100308
30100399
30600101
30600102
30600103
30600104
39001099
FLOW RATE
(ACFM)
5000.
2634.
2543.
1439.
6635.
3191.
08000.
995.
14230.
3222.
50520.
132000.
19665,
14024.
21234.
5706.
750.
31800.
5600.
8700.
120.
1200.
3900.
25000.
2000.
35BO.
3000.
240.
35000.
3300,
500.
79.
40.
720.
5000.
224.
18300.
14800.
2000.
19700.
57000.
22000.
25321.
24648,
12420.
21308.
17000.
12840C
B-12
-------
FIGURE B-l
Dollar Heat Input and Operating Rate Defaulting Procedure
Is
HI>SCC Limit
OK
OR * 11C >]?
Is
Yea
OR
Missing ?
NO
III - OR * HC * 1.18
1 > Yfia
/
jlnfl ' ?
7m m * °'05
°R HC
i
Yea
HI - OR * I1C * 1.18
Yes
Write out
record to
separate file
but keep In
Inventory
OR
HI
HC
Max.OR
0.85
1.18
Average Operating Rate
Heat Input
*
Heat Content
Maximum Operating Rate
Assumed Capacity Utilization
1/0.85
-------
Missing I
\x
F1GURO B-2
Non-boiler Operating Rate Defaulting Procedure
Max. OR - OR * 1.18
NO
OR - Hox, OR * 0.83
, OR - OR * 1.18
Write out
record to
separate file
but keep In
Inventory
OR «- Average Operating Rate
Max. OR ° Maximum Operating Rate
0.85 - Assumed Capacity Utilization
1.18 - 1/0.85
------- |