EPA-450/3-74-068
DECEMBER 1974
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
NEBRASKA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-74-064
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
NEBRASKA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reaion VII
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
(Contract 68-02-1385)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1974
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 SIP REVIEW 6
2.1 Summary 6
2.2 Nebraska Air Quality Setting .7
2.3 Current Nebraska Emissions 11
2.4 State Implementation Plan Review 12
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS FOR FUEL SWITCHING & REL6ULATION RELAXATION . 14
3.1 Metro Omaha (AQCR 085) 14
3.2 Lincoln - Beatrice - Fairbury (AQCR 145) 18
3.3 Intrastate Nebraska (AQCR 146) 20
3.4 Metro Sioux City (AQCR 086) 22
4.0 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Background Information on SIP, Air Quality,
Emissions 23
APPENDIX B - Candidacy Assessments for Relation of Regulation/
Fuel Switch Potential 37
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessments . 40
APPENDIX D - Industrial Commercial Sources Assessment .... 51
APPENDIX E - Area Source Assessment . . . 59
APPENDIX F - Regulation Evaluation and Fuel Statistics .... 61
BIBLIOGRAPHY '. : '. . 64
m
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed report is the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) response to Section IV of the'Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review
each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be
made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion sources
without interfering with the attainment and maintenance of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition to requiring that
EPA report to the State on whether control regulations might be revised,
ESECA provides that EPA must approve or disapprove any revised regulations
relating to fuel burning stationary sources within three months after.
they are submitted to EPA by the States. The States may, as in the
Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate State Implementation Plan revisions;
ESECA does not, however, require States to change any existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with infor-
mation on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of
ESECA is that SIP's, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of
conserving low sulfur fuels or converting sources which burn oil or
natural gas to coal. EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews,
therefore, has been to try to establish if emissions from combustion
sources may be increased. Where an indication can be found that
emissions from certain fuel burning sources can be increased and still
attain and maintain NAAQS, it may be plausible that fuel resource
allocations can be altered for "clean fuel savings" in a manner con-
sistent with both environmental and national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel EPA's policy on
clean fuels. The Clean Fuels Policy has consisted of reviewing imple-
mentation .plans with regards to saving low sulfur fuels and, where the
primary sulfur dioxide air quality standards were not exceeded, to
encourage States to either defer compliance regulations or to revise the
SO- emission regulations. The States have also been asked to discourage
large scale shifts from coal to oil in cases where such shifts are not
required for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
-------
To date, EPA's fuels policy has addressed only those States with the
largest clean fuels saving potential. Several of these States have or are
currently in the process of revising SCL regulations. These States are
generally in the Eastern half of the United States. ESECA, however, extends
the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations to all 55 States
and territories. In addition, the current reviews address the attainment
and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, three predominant reasons for the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation
Plans. These are 1) The use of the example region approach in developing
State-wide air quality control strategies; 2) the existence of State Air
Quality Standards which are more stringent than NAAQS; and 3) the "hot spots"
in only part of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) which have been used
as the basis for controlling the entire region. Since each of these situa-
tions affect many State plans and in some instances conflict with current
national energy concerns, a review of the State Implementation Plans is a
logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal of the SIP's conducted in 1972.
At that time SIP's were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the attainment
of NAAQS or. more stringent state air quality standards. Also, at that time
an acceptable method for formulating control strategies was the use of an
example region for demonstrating the attainment of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most
polluted air quality control region (AQCR) and adopt control regulations
which would be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an
example region, it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained in the other
AQCR's of the State if the control regulations were applied to similar
sources. The problem with the use of an example region is that it can re-
sult in excessive controls, especially in the utilization of clean fuels,
for areas of the State where sources would not otherwise contribute to NAAQS
violations. For instance, a control strategy based on a particular region or
source can result in a regulation requiring 1 percent sulfur oil to be burned
state-wide where the use of 3 percent sulfur coal would be adequate to attain
NAAQS in some locations.
-------
EPA anticipates that a number of States will use the review findings
to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for those
States which desire to submit a revised plan to recognize the review's
limitations. The findings of this report are by no means conclusive and
are neither intended nor adequate to be the sole basis for SIP revisions;
they do, however> represent EPA's best judgment and effort in complying
with the ESECA requirements. The time and resources which EPA has had to
prepare the reports, has not permitted the consideration of growth, economics,
and control strategy tradeoffs. Also, there has been only limited dispersion
modeling data available by which to address individual point source emissions.
Where the modeling data for specific sources were found, however, they were
used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based is the most
*
currently available-to the Federal Government. However, EPA believes that
the States possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
States have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems facing
them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. Therefore,
those States desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's
findings. In developing a suitable plan, it is suggested that States select
control strategies which place emissions for fuel combustion sources into
perspective with all sources of emissions such as smelters or other industrial
processes; States are encouraged to consider the overall impact which the
potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations for combus-
tion sources might have on their future control programs. This may include
air quality maintenance, prevention of significant deterioration, increased
TSP, NO , and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and other potential
A
air pollution problems such as sulfates .
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attainment of
all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended particulate
matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SO-) emissions. This is because stationary
fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of SOp emissions and are
a major source of TSP emissions.
* Other than data currently being processed by EPA.
3
-------
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of
the SCL and TSP emission tolerances within each of the various AQCR's. The
regional emission tolerance estimate is, in many cases, EPA's only measure
of the "over-cleaning" accomplished by a SIP. The tolerance assessments
have been combined in Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators"
in an attempt to provide an evaluation of a region's candidacy for changing
emission limitation regulations. In conjunction with the regional analysis,
a summary of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial
sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E.
-------
FINDINGS
The Nebraska State Implementation Plan has been reviewed for the
most frequent causes of overly restrictive emission regulations.
Nebraska used the example region approach in developing control strategies
for both TSP and S02 and there are indications that the existing S02
regulation may be more restrictive than required to meet NAAQS. There
are no indications that current particulate emission regulations are
overly restrictive in the context of Section IV of ESECA. In any case,
current Nebraska regulations are not apparently the roadblock to the use
of fuels which will cause higher levels of particulates and SCL to be
emitted. Substantial fuel switching could occur without violating either
particulate or SOp emission regulations. The acheivement of NAAQS may
be the limiting factor.
i Total suspended particulate concentraions exceed the NAAQS at many
monitoring stations in Nebraska. Particulate emission regulations which
were in effect only in the Omaha and Lincoln regions are now applied state-
wide. Although much of the TSP problem may be attributable to wind blown
fugitive dust, any increase in man made emissions will generally aggravate
the situation. Since many sources in Nebraska are currently emitting
below what regulations would allow, no relaxation of the particulate
emission regulations is recommended if NAAQS is to be attained.
Data available for this report show S02 levels to be below the NAAQS
in Nebraska. Furthermore, Nebraska has no proposed Air Quality Main-
tenance Areas for SCL. Although Nebraska has recently adopted a
statewide SOg emission regulation, only a few sources are affected because
of current fuel combustion practices. At present, the S02 emission regu-
lations may be more restrictive than air Quality would dictate in many
parts of the state. However, considerable SOp emission increases could
occur via fuel switching within the limits of the present regulations.
In this context, the present regulation does not appear overly-restrictive.
-------
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY.------
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations
will depend on many factors. For example:- -
Does the State have air quality standards which are
more stringent than NAAQS?
e Does the State have emission limitation regulations
for control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources,
(3) area sources?
* Did the State use an example region approach for demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS or_ more stringent State
standards?
* Has the State initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Policy?
* Are there proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
sites within a region?
* Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
* Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported
violations of NAAQS?
* Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources proportionally lower than those of other sources?
Must emission regulations be revised to accomplish signifi-
cant fuel switching?
0 Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in
the region?
Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations is then
determined by a consideration of the ansv.'ers to the above questions.
-------
The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix
A, was organized to provide the background and current situation information
for the State Implementation Plan. Section 3 and the remaining Appendices
provide an AQCR analysis which helps establish the overall potential for
revising regulations. Emission tolerance estimates have been combined in
Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators" in an attempt to provide
an evaluation of a region's candidacy for revising emission limiting regula-
tions. In conjunction with the regional analysis, a characterization of the
State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial sources, and area
sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, E. Finally, candidates from
Appendix B are examined in Appendix F for adequacy or overrestrictiveness of
emission regulations.
Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions. The following table summarizes the State Implementation Plan
Review. The remaining portion of the report.support this summary with explana-
tions.
2.2 Nebraska Air Quality Setting
The state of Nebraska is divided into four Air Quality Control Regions:
1. AQCR 085 - Metro Omaha-Council Bluffs Interstate
2- AQCR 086 - Metro Siou City Interstate
3. AQCR 145 - Lincoln-Beatrice-Fairbury
4. AQCR 146 - Intrastate Nebraska
The boundaries of Nebraska's AQCR's are shown in Figure A-l. Ambient
Air Quality Standards for S02 and TSP in Nebraska are identical to federal
standards and are shown in Table A-3.
-------
NEBRASKA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PUN REVIEW
(SUMMARY)
"INDICATORS"
Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
Does the State, have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
1 . Power plants
Z. Industrial sources
3. Area sources
Did the State use an example region approach
for demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or
more stringent State standards?
t Has the State initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy?
* Are there proposed Air Puality Maintenance
Areas?
Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region? (1)
Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS?
Based on reported (1973) A1r Quality Data,
does air quality meet NAAQS?
Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
are there indications of « tolerance for
increasing emissions?
Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources lower than those of other
sources?
Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
sources show a potential for a regulation revision?
Must emission regulations be revised to accom-
plish significant fuel switching?
Based on the above indicators, what is the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations?
Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
STATE
TSP
No
Yes
Yes
i<0
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
none
No
S°2
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No mod
No
Y£>
(Metro
Omaha) (Sioux City) (Lincoln) (Outstate)
AQCR 085 AQCR 086 AQCR US AOCR 146
TSP S0?
No
Yes
No
II.
No
>ling r
No
Poor
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
"suits
No
X
Yes
TSP S0?
No
No
No
Ho'
Yes
aval lab
No
Poor
No
No
Yes
. Yes
No
le for
No
/
^
No
1 TSP S02
Mo
Yes
No
Mo
Yes
sources
No
Poor
Ho
No
Yes
Yes
No
in Neb
No
/
**>
Yes
TSP S02
No
Yes
No
lit
Yes
raska
No
Poor
[10
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
/
Yes
^'flnly an analysis tool is not Indicative of SIP requirements.
(2)Many Nebraska S02 sources could. 1n principle, increase emissions without violation of either
NAAQS or existing S02 regulations. Thus some dirtier fuels might be used, resulting in clean
fuel savings.
-------
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX CITY
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-.
NEBRASKA-
SOUTH DAKOTA)
NEBRASKA
INTRASTATE
146
OHAHA-
COiJNCIL BLUFFS
INTERSTATE ' 085
LINCOLN-
BEATRICE-
FAIKBURY
INTRASTATE
Figure A-l. Nebraska AQCRs
-------
2.2.1 Air Quality Monitoring in Nebraska
Suspended particulates are monitored at several stations in each AQCR.
Of the four AQCR's, only AQCR 086 (Sious City Interstate) appears to have
limited TSP data (see Table A-4). S02 on the other hand is monitored only
by S02 24-hour bubbler samplers (operated about once every 2 weeks) in
Nebraska AQCR's (see Table A-5). AQCR 085 (Omaha-Council Bluffs) has 3 such
S03 monitors, while AQCR 145 (Lincoln-Beatrice-Fiarbury) and AQCR 146 (Intra-
state Nebraska) have 2 monitors each. AQCR 086 (Sioux City) has only one S02
monitor, and this is located in Iowa.
2.2.2 Suspended Particulates
Table A-4 indicates TSP to be a widespread problem in Nebraska. AQCR 085
(Metro Omaha) shows several violations of both the annual and 24-hour TSP
standards, both in Nebraska and in Iowa. AQCR 145 (Lincoln-Beatrice-Fairbury)
shows several violations of the short term TSP standard, especially in Lancaster
County. Annual geometric means in Lincoln city are currently just slightly
above or below the secondary standard. AQCR 086 (Metro Sioux City) shows the
Nebraska portion to have a problem with the short term standard. The outstate
Nebraska AQCR (146) has problems with both annual and short term standards
at several monitoring stations. All stations but one (in Cass County) however,
show an annual geometric mean less than the primary standard. Widespread
short term violations may reflect fugitive dust contributions in AQCR 146.
Table A-4 is intended to show both the intensity and breadth of the TSP
problem in Nebraska. Included are calculations of the percent reduction required
to meet both the annual and short term standard at the worst station in each
AQCR.
10
-------
2.2.3 Sulfur Dioxide
Table A-5 is a sketch of the SCL data for Nebraska. The small number
of samplers and measurements makes spacial distribution of SCL difficult to
assess. It appears that, at least in the vicinity of the S02 monitors, S02
levels are only 10 to 30% of the ambient air quality standards. This may m
merely reflect, however, that monitors are not source-oriented. The scanty
SOp data does suggest that S02 emissions can probably be increased and still
not show violation of ambient air quality standards.
2.3 Current Nebraska Emissions
2.3.1 Nebraska Emissions Summary - S02
Tables A-6, A-7, and A-10 summarize S02 emissions in Nebraska's four
AQCR's. Except in outstate Nebraska (£146), the majority of S02 results from
fuel combustion, as might be expected, and the major contributors to fuel com-
bustion are power plants. Industrial sources are minor S02 contributors
throughout Nebraska. The exact emissions breakdown is tabulated in A-7.
Note that in outstate AQCR (#146) area sources predominate. Table A-10 shows
the estimated total S02 emissions in the original SIP for Metro Omaha (§085)
to be 61,000 tons per year, a higher figure than the 1972 NEDS estimate
(45,000 tons/year). The NEDS figure may simply be less complete than the
SIP figure, since no S02 emission controls were in effect in either inventory.
AQCR 086, the Sioux City Interstate, has few S02 emissions originating in
Nebraska, and no power plants exist in the Nebraska side of AQCR 086.
2.3.2 Nebraska Emissions Summary - Particulates
Tables A-6, A-8, and A-10 summarize particulate emissions in Nebreska's
four AQCRs. Only in the Metro Omaha area (#085) does a large fraction of
total particulate emissions result from fuel combustion. In both Omaha (#085)
11
-------
and Lincoln (#145), however, power plants are the largest participate sources
within the fuel combustion category. As was mentioned in connection with SCL
emissions, there are no Nebraska power plants in AQCR 086 (Sioux City) and
few other particulate emissions from the Nebraska side. Outstate Nebraska
(#146) has a large particulate emission inventory, but sources are generally
widely dispersed. Only about 10% of emissions are fuel related in AQCR 146,
and a very small portion of this can be attributed to electric power produc-
tion. Table A-9 allows a comparison of particulate emissions inventories
based on original SIP and NEDS data, at least for the Omaha and Lincoln AQCR's.
2.4 Review of Nebraska State Implementation Plan
2.4.1 Background on SIP - Participates
The SIP control strategies and regulations used for AQCR 085 (Metro Omaha)
as the example region for the state. The original priority classifications
for TSP fend S02) are shown in Table A-l. Particulate emission regulations
were applied to the AQCR 085 (Metro Omaha) and Lancaster County of AQCR 145
(Lincoln). The proposed (and existing) fuel burning emission regulations are
shown in Table A-ll. Although the plan contained no emission limitations
applicable in the two regions classified priority III for particulates (Metro
Sioux City-086 and Intrastate-146). Nebraska has since adopted particulate
regulations statewide.
EPA disapproved the portion of the SIP pertaining to AQCR 145 (Lincoln)
and required regulations in Jefferson, Gage, and Thayer Counties in addition
to Lancaster County of AQCR 145. The emissions inventory (by EPA) for AQCR
145 is shown in Table A-9 along with that by the state for AQCR 085 (Metro
Omaha). EPA also prepared regulations covering review of sources in AQCR's
086 (Metro Sioux City) and 146 (Intrastate) which the state exempted (this
includes sources subject to federal new source performance standards ((40 CFR
12
-------
Part 60))). Federal indirect source review regulations will be rescinded
when the state approves its own regulations.
2.4.2 Background on SIP - S02
Original SO^ priority classification for Nebraska AQCR's were III for
AQCR's 086 (Metro Sioux City), 145 (Lincoln), and 146 (Intrastate) and II
for AQCR 085 (Metro Omaha) (see TAble A-l). The latter priority was based
on expected $02 concentration resulting from modeling rather than actual
measured air quality data. Consequently, no S02 emission limitations were
applied in the original Nebraska SIP. The federal New Source Performance
Standards and review procedures were assumed to be adequate to prevent source
growth which might interfere with maintenance of the secondary standards in
all regions of the state. The SIP emission inventory and 1975 projections
for AQCR 085 (Metro Omaha) are shown in Figure A-10.
2.4.3 Background on SIP - N02
Since AQCR 085 (Metro Omaha) was priority I for NOp in the original SIP,
HO2 regulations were proposed (in addition to the Federal Motor Vehicle Con-
trol Program) for oil and gas fired boilers, and for nitric acid and ferti-
lizer manufacturing. Reelassification of 085 to priority III in 1973 allowed
Nebraska to withdraw the N02 regulations on fuel burning sources. No regu-
lations currently exist for NOV emissions from fuel burning sources and no
A
further discussion of NO emissions is pursued in this report.
J\
2.4.4 Background on SIP - Oxidant
Nebraska had maximum oxidant concentrations just below the standard
(160 ug/m ) in 1970. The original SIP assumed that motor vehicle hydro-
carbon emissions would provide sufficient controls to meet the standard.
13
-------
2.4.5 Current Regulations
Regulations adopted by the state as part of the Nebraska Environmental
Protection Act (effective February 26, 1974) are essentially those of the
original SIP, with the addition of an SCL limit of 2.5 lbs/10 Btu heat input
on fuel burning equipment. Particulate regulations apply statewide. Table
A-12 summarizes the regulations as of February 26, 1974.
2.4.6 Special Considerations
Table F-3 shows approximate state totals for fossil fuel production and
consumption in Nebraska for 1972. Nebraska produces only a small fraction
of itsenergy. No coal was produced within the state in 1972 and Nebraska has
essentially no coal reserves. Thus, almost any type of fuel switch contem-
plated for Nebraska will involve fuels from other states.
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTSFOR FUEL SWITCHING AND REGULATION RELAXATION
Each AQCR in Nebraska is evaluated separately in this section for its
tolerance for increased emissions of SO- and particulates. Power plants,
industrial/commercial sources, and area sources are then considered for their
impact of fuel switching on emissions and air quality. Finally, an evaluation
of existing regulations is made.
3.1 Metro Omaha (AQCR 085)
3.1.1 Particulates
Tables A-4 and A-9 indicate that particulates are a widespread problem
relative to both short term and annual standards in AQCR 085 (Metro Omaha),
requiring around 50% reduction of emissions based on current air quality.
The "allowable" emissions based on the original SIP are similar to the "allow-
able" particulate emissions from rollback of NEDS emissions proportional to air
quality (Table A-9). The NEDS data bank indicates about 18,000 tons of parti-
culates currently emitted annually compared to about 25,000 tons estimated in
the original SIP, suggesting perhaps some progress in control. Based on
14
-------
these numbers, Omaha is assigned zero tolerance for increased participate
emissions, since there is no indication from data here that emissions will
be reduced to levels below that required to attain air quality.
Table B-l shows that no AQMA designation has been made for AQCR 086.
Also indicated in Table B-l is a high percentage of particulate emissions
resulting from fuel combustion. Metro Omaha is therefore classified as a
poor candidate for increased particulate emissions and particulate regulation
relaxation.
3.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide
As Table A-10 shows, Omaha (AQCR 085) can tolerate increased emissions of
SOp. Insufficient data is available to determine the regionwide "allowable"
for S02 regulation relaxation and fuel switch potential.
3.1.3 Power Plants
Table C-l lists the four Nebraska power plants in the Metro Omaha AQCR
085, along with current fuel usage and emissions. Notice that all plants
but the small South Omaha plant are currently using some coal and that all
plants are currently emitting below S02 regulations. The middle column in
Table C-2 for AQCR 085 shows the emissions which would result if the Kramer,
Jones St., and N. Omaha plants were converted entirely to coal (having the
percent sulfur listed in Table C-l) and also if the South Omaha plant converted
entirely to 2% sulfur oil. No additional emissions controls were assumed.
S02 emissions are seen to increase fourfold while particulate emissions would
double over current emissions .following the fuel switch. It might be commented
that the Kramer plant dominates the particulate total both before and after
the fuel switch, due to the lack of emission controls (at the time of the
NEDS emission estimate). An additional calculation was made in Table C-2,
showing the emissions resulting from conversion of all natural gas use to 2.Q%
sulfur oil in the Nebraska power plants of AQCR 085.
15
-------
From the tabulation in C-2, conversion of all power plants to coal
would result in almost five times more particulate emissions than allowable
(Table A-9). Of course, some additional controls on particulates would
probably occur along with any fuel conversion. The intent here is to show
the degree of control that would be necessary to reach air quality standards
if the assumed fuel schedule became reality. Allowable SCL emissions are not
known with any certainty, so that only the magnitude of emissions increase
with fuel switching in power plants can be demonstrated by the calculations
in Table C-2.
3.1.4 Industrial Sources
Some Nebraska industrial sources which might be fuel siwtch candidates
are listed in Table D-l for the Omaha AQCR. Notice that no coal was used by
industry at the time the NEDS inventory was assembled. The only calculation
for industrial sources in AQCR 085 was a fuel switch from natural gas to 2.0%
sulfur oil. Table D-2 summarizes AQCR total SO^ and particulate emissions
accompanying this fuel switch.
3.1.5 Area Sources
Area sources account for about 2/3 of the fuel used in Nebraska (Table
E-l). Although individual AQCR breakdowns were not available, a few generaliza-
tions can be made: (1) most sources are small and hence not subject to emis-
sion controls in Nebraska, (2) a large amount of natural gas is currently
used, (3) most of the sources could not easily change to coal, (4) because of
clean fuel use by area sources in Nebraska, only a small percentage of the
total emissions results from these sources (except in AQCR 146-Intrastate).
Area sources are not examined further in this report since regulation changes
would generally not be needed to accomplish fuel switching, even if such
switching were deemed feasible or desirable.
16
-------
3.1.6 Regulation Evaluations - Particulates
Since the fuel switch calculation in Table C-l for AQCR 085 does not
relate directly to regulation relaxation, Table F-l was included. Here, all
fuel users are emitting exactly at SCL and particulate regulations. The
uncontrolled non-fuel sources are also included and the total resulting emis-
sions may be compared to the "allowable" emissions for the AQCR. It can be
seen that, on an AQCR basis, considerable control of non-fuel sources in
Metro Omaha would be necessary to reduce the 9438 tons in this scenario to
the 8500 "allowed" tons (see Table F-l for AQCR 085). Thus existing fuel
source particulate regulations show no room for relaxation in AQCR 085.
3.1.7 Regulation Evaluations - S02
The judgement about regulations for S02 in Metro Omaha is more subjective
than for particulates. Tables C-2 and D-2 for Metro Omaha (085) indicate a
fourfold emissions increase from power plants and more than tenfold increase
from industrial sources under the assumed fuel conversions. Power plants are
a more important consideration since they represent the larger fuel and S02
emissions potential. Table F-2 illustrates that SOp emissions would almost
double over those at present in Metro Omaha when existing regulations are
exactly met. Despite the low S02 concentrations reported in the Omaha AQCR,
it seems reasonable that a doubling of the regionwide S02 emissions will more
than double ambient air concentrations in local spots. The S02 regulations
can likely, however, be relaxed without exceeding ambient standards. The
amount of relaxation would have to rely on source-specific information (i.e.,
modeling) and the extent of total fuel conversions expected in the entire
region.
17
-------
3.1.8 Special Considerations - Oxidant
2
Recent violations (1972) of the 160 ug/m federal oxidant standard in
Omaha suggested that a sheck of the possible hydrocarbon increases .which might
occur in AQCR 085 if gas use were replaced by coal in power plants. Applying
the emissions factors in Table C-3 for hydrocarbons from power plants to the
fuel use scenarios in Table C-2 indicates that about 100 tons of additional
hydrocarbons would result from the coal switch. The original SIP hydrocarbon
inventory for 1970 showed some 66,000 tons, and this was projected to decrease
to about 45,000 tons by 1975. The magnitude of these numbers dwarfs any in-
crease in hydrocarbon emissions resulting from power plant fuel switching.
It appears that coal use in power plants would not significantly affect
oxidant levels in Omaha, via hydrocarbon emissions.
3.1.9 Special Consideration - Iowa Emissions Regulations
About 20% of S02 emissions and 10% of particulate emissions in AQCR 085
originate in Iowa. Ambient air levels for SO- and TSP are slightly lower in
Iowa than in Nebreska. This report considers only Nebraska sources and regu-
lations, and the rought regulation examinations in Appendix F ignores Iowa
sources. "Allowable" emissions in Appendix F are proportioned according to
existing emissions in Nebraska and Iowa.
The dominance of Nebraska emissions to the AQCR 085 totals for SO^ and
TSP results in essentially the same conclusions about Nebraska regulations
whether Iowa aggregated emissions are considered or not. The effect of
Nebraska emissions on Iowa regulations in AQCR 085 is addressed in the Iowa
SIP review.
3.2 AQCR 145 (Lincoln-Beatrice-Fairbury)
3.2.1 Particulates
Table A-9 summarizes SIP and NEDS emissions data for AQCR 145. Since
the two emissions data sources do not appear comparable, the emissions
18
-------
tolerance in AQCR 145 was based solely upon current air quality. Particulate
air quality violations occur mainly in Lancaster County and are relative to
the short term standards. Other counties in AQCR 145 might be better candidates
than Lancaster County for additional emissions. On an AQCR basis, however,
no additional particulate emissions can be allowed.
In contrast to the Omaha AQCR (085), only a small percent (17%) of the
total particulate emissions result from fuel combustion in AQCR 145. Based
on the short term and local nature of particulate air quality violations, and
the small percentage of emissions resulting from fuel combustion, AQCR 145 is
rated as a marginal candidate for fuel switch potential and regulation relaxa-
tion in Table 8-1.
3.2.2 Sulfur Dioxide
The low SOp levels (Table A-5) in AQCR 145 make the region a good candidate
for increased S02 emissions and possible fuel switching in Table B-2. As with
other regions in Nebraska, it is not possible to quantify allowable S0? emis-
sions.
3.2.3 Power Plants
Of the five power plants listed in Table C-l for AQCR 145, two currently
use coal for part of their heat input. Note that all plants are currently
emitting below the 2.5 lbs/10 Btu SOp regulation. Conversion of all plants
in AQCR 145 to coal and 2.0% sulfur oil (where a coal switch is not possible)
results in about 3% times more SO^ emission than at present (Table C-2), while
uncontrolled particulate emissions would more than double.
3.2.4 Industrial Sources
Table D-l for the Lincoln region (AQCR 145) shows that major fuel burning
emission sources use no coal at present. The emissions resulting from a switch
of these sources to 2.0% sulfur fuel oil are shown in Table D-2. Particulate
emissions are seen to almost double while S02 emissions would nearly triple.
19
-------
These increases are not as significant as those from power plants upon fuel
switching.
3.2.5 Regulation Evaluation - Participates
Tables F-l and F-2 calculate emissions resulting when all sources in
AQCR 145 emit according to state regulations. For particulates, the adequacy
of existing fuel burning regulations is seen to be less important than non-
fuel regulations as far as achieving "allowable" emissions. Fuel emission
regulations could be modified in AQCR 145 if due consideration were given to
controls of non-fuel sources.
3.2.6 Regulation Evaluation - S02
SCL regulations applied to all sources in AQCR 145 show an increase of
approximately 40% over existing emissions. AQCR 145 could likely tolerate
this increase without violating the ambient SCL standards.
3.3 AQCR 146 (Intrastate)
3.3.1 Particulates
Table A-4 indicates widespread violations of both short term and annual
particulate standards in Intrastate Nebraska. Of course, emissions listed in
Tables A-6 and A-8 for particulates are also dispersed over a large area. No
SIP emissions data was available for 146 in Table A-10, so that a zero parti -
culate emission tolerance is assigned to the region as a whole based solely
upon current air quality. Despite the low percentage of emissions resulting
from fuel combustion (Table B-l) in AQCR 146, this AQCR must be called a
poor candidate for fuel switch potential and relaxation of regulations from
a particulates standpoint.
3.3.2 Sulfur Dioxide
As elsewhere in Nebraska, SCL levels in AQCR 146 are very low, although
monitoring is scanty. Like particulate emissions, SOp emissions are widely
separated in AQCR 146, although a larger fraction of the total emissions of
20
-------
SCL result from fuel combustion than is the case with particulates. "Allowable"
emissions are not quantifiable from current air quality data (Table A-10),
and would probably have little meaning in any case for such a large region with
dispersed sources. AQCR 146 is rated as a good candidate for fuel switching
and regulation relaxation relative to sulfur dioxide.
3.3.3 Power Plants
Most of the power plants shown in Table C-3 for AQCR 146 are small and
are not currently using coal. Only the two plants in Freemont use coal for
part of their fuel. Since power plants in AQCR 146 are widely spaced, it has
little meaning to sum up emissions for the entire region, either for the current
fuel schedule, or an assumed switch. For consistency, however, the AQCR
totals are shown in TAble C-2. Either coal or oil switching from natural gas
would drastically increase local SCL emissions over those at present. Controls
for particulates would need to accompany the coal switch in Freemont if air
quality is not to be violated.
3.3.4 Industrial Sources
As with power plants, industrial sources are widely spaced in AQCR 146.
Only tow industrial sources currently use coal so that the fuel switch calcu-
lation in Table D-l is based upon replacing gas with 2.0% sulfur oil. The
regional totals are shown in Table D-2, although this probably has little
meaning. Local emissions will increase if fuel switching occurs.
3.3.5 Regulation Evaluation - Particulates
The calculations in Table F-l reinforce the conclusion that area sources
dominate the particulate emission inventory in AQCR 146. Aggregated emis-
sions indicate power plants are emitting below "average" regulations at
present for particulates while industrial sources are above "average" regula-
tions. The major conclusion to be drawn from Table F-l regarding particulates
21
-------
is that all fuel burning sources would not dramatically affect the inventory,
even when emitting up to regulations. This does not, however, suggest that
any relaxation should occur in current particulate fuel burning regulations.
Unless specific local information exists to the contrary, AQCR 146 should not
relax particulate regulations if air quality is to be attained.
3.3.6 Regulation Evaluation - SCL
Table F-2 shows S0? emissions to be well below "average" regulations
currently. Much more high sulfur fuels could be used in the region as a whole
without disobeying existing regulations. The widely spaced nature of SCL
sources in AQCR 146 may also mean that existing regulations could be relaxed
and still maintain air quality below standards.
3.3.7 Special Considerations - Proposed Power Plants (AQCR 146)
Table C-4 shows the information available at this time about emissions
projected from the proposed Gentleman Power Plant at Sutherland, Nebraska
(scheduled for operation in 1977). Federal New Source Performance Standards
prevail for such a plant, requiring about 75% control of SOp for the coal
expected to be burned. Particulates will apparently be well controlled. No
monitoring information or air quality modeling is available for the proposed
.site. The data in C-4 is provided for background purposes only.
3.4 AQCR 086 (Metro Sioux City)
Tables A-7 and A-8 show few emissions of either particulates or SOp in
this AQCR originating in Nebraska. Further, little fuel is used in the Nebraska
portion of 086, and no power plants are located there. The marginal air quality
relative to particulate standards makes the Nebraska portion of 086 a poor can-
didate for fuel switching or clean fuel savings. Detailed analysis of the Iowa
portion of AQCR 086 will appear in the Iowa state report.
22
-------
APPENDIX A
State implementation plan information
Current air quality information
t Current emissions information
Tables in this appendix summarize original and modified state imple-
mentation plan information, including original priority classifications,
attainment dates, ambient air quality standards, and fuel combustion emis-
sion regulations. SAROAD data for SCL and TSP monitoring stations are shown
c ]
for AQCRs in the state. NEDS emissions data by AQCR are tabulated and
broken down into fuel burning categories.
Tables A-9 and A-10 show a comparison of emission inventories in the
original SIP and those from the NEDS. An emission tolerance, or emission
tonnage which might be allowed in the AQCR and still not violate .national
secondary ambient air quality standards, is shown for SCL and particulates.
The intent of this calculation is to indicate possible candidate regions
for fuel switching. Tolerance was based on either the degree of control
expected by the SIP or upon air quality/emission relationships which are
calculated from more recent data. The value of the emission tolerance pro-
vides an indication of the potential an AQCR possesses for fuel revisions
and regulation relaxation.
Methodology for Increased Emissions Tolerance
A tolerance for increased emissions was determined as follows. First,
an ".allowable emissions" was calculated for each AQCR based on the current
NEDS data and the percent reduction (or increase) required to meet the
national secondary ambient air quality standards in that AQCR (v/orst case
from Tables A-4 and A-5). This "allowable" was then compared to that from
the SIP. If reasonable agreement occurred, then the "estimated emissions"
which would result after implementation of the SIP in that AQCR was used
to calculate an emissions tolerance. Thus, some credit could be given to
an AQCR which might be restricting emissions more than required by ambient
air quality standards. For instance, emis.'non controls applied to AQCRs
In1972 National Emissions Report," EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974.
23
-------
other than the example reqion for the state may reduce emissions well below
"allowables." In the event that no data existed or was available from the
SIP for an AQCR, the current air quality was used to assign emissions toler-
ance based on proportional rollback or rollup. Current air quality was also
the criteria, if emissions data from SIP and NEDS did not appear to be com-
parable (this is often the case).
When no SIP emissions data was available, and current air quality
levels were less than one half of the level represented by an ambient air
Quality standard, no "rollup" emissions tolerance was calculated in Tables
A-10 and A-10. This arbitrary cutoff point was chosen so as not to distort
the emissions tolerance for an area. At low levels of a pollutant, the re-
lationship between emissions and air quality is probably not linear. Although
this cutoff may leave some AQCRs with np_ quantifiable emissions tolerance, it
was felt that no number at all would be preferable to a bad or misleading
number.
It is emphasized that emissions tolerance is a region-wide calculation.
This tolerance obviously makes more sense in, say, an urban AQCR with many
closely spaced emissions sources than in a largely rural AQCR with geograph-
ically dispursed emissions.
A word of caution regarding particulates needs mentioning. Emission
source estimates in the NEDS data bank and most state SIP's are for total
particulates. Generally, the control strategies for particulates are aimed
at total particulates, while the high-volume particulate sampling (SAROAD data)
measures only the finer, suspended fraction. A given level of total particulate
emissions control will therefore not translate into the same level of measured
ambient air quality. Some of the larger oarttculates being controlled will
not remain suspended, and therefore would not be measured by the High-volume
technique. Hence, particulate control plans may have underestimated the amount
of control necessary to achieve ambient air quality standards.
24
-------
ro
en
METROPOLITAN
SIOUX CITY 086
INTERSTATE
(IOWA-
NEBRASKA-
SOUTH DAKOTA)
NEBRASKA
IHTRASTATE
146
OMAHA-
COiJNCIL BLUFFS
INTERSTATE
085
LINCOLN-
BEATRICE-
FAIIiUURY
IIITRASTATE 1 45
Figure A-l. Nebraska AQCRs
-------
Table A-l. AQCR Priority Classification and-AQMAs
ro
AQCR
Metro Omaha
Neb
Fed. il
085
Iowa 1
Metro Souixjj 086
City |
Neb. jj
Iowa |
S. Dakota |
ii
it
Lincoln fl 145
Intrastate | 146
Part.
I
III
n
in
sox
ii
in
in
in
NOX
III
III
III
III
Demographic Information
Population
1970
456,000
87,000
543,000
13,000
155,000
9,600
178,000
212,000
285,000
Square
Miles
574
963
1540
255
2500
452
3200
2860
30,600
Population
Density
800
90
352
51
62
21
56
74
9
AQMA Designations
! i
TSP CountiesSOx CountiesNOx Counties
none
One
None
None
None
1
None {
i
i
i
i
None i
i
i
1
None i
I
None
, . , , , . ... i. ..
Criteria Based on Maximum Measured (or Estimated) Pollution Concentration In Area
Priority
idSulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean . .
bParticulate matter:
Annual geometric mean . . .
CN) iro^cn dioxi'le
I
Greater than
100
455
95
325
110
11
From - To
60-100
260-455
60-95
150-325
III
less than
60
60
150
110
Federal Register, August, 1974 SHSA's showing potential for NAAHS violations due to growth
-------
Table A-2. Nebraska Attainment Dates
AQCR # Name
085
086
145
146
Metro Omaha - Council Bluffs
Interstate
Metro Sioux City
Interstate
Lincoln-Beatrice-Fairbury
Outstate Nebraska
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment Dates Attainment Dates
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
7/75
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Nitrogen Oxides
Attainment Dates
a
a
a
a
(a)
Already below Federal standards.
-------
Table A-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards - Nebraska
ro
CD
(Expressed as
Federal
State
Total Suspended
Annual
Primary 75 (G)
Secondary 60(G)
All Stds.
Particulate Sulfur Oxides
24 hr. Annual 24 hr. 3 hr. 1 hr.
260 a 60(A) 365 3
a a
150 - - 1300
are same as federal
Nitrogen
Dioxide
100(A)
100(A)
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
a Not to be exceeded more than once per year
-------
Table A-4. NEBRASKA AQCR Air Quality Status (1973), TSP
AQCR Name
AQCR
(
-------
Table A-6.
Nebraska Fuel Combustion Source Summary
AQCR
AQCR 1
Nebraska Power Plants
FPCC
Other Fuel Combustion Point Sources
Particulate S02
Metro Omaha
Council Bluffs
Metro
Sioux City
Lincoln - Beatrics
Fairbury
Outstate
085
086
145
146
4 3
0 0
5 3
.
6 7
12
3
5
16
22
1 ;
10
11
CO
o
a Nebraska only
b NEDS July 1974
c Existing or projected plants existing in data bank (EPA)
-------
Table A-5. Nebraska AQCR Air Quality Status (1973), S02
S02 Concentration
Stations ff Highest Reading
Reporting Stations
24-Hr Reporting 1st
AQCR Name ' AQCR # (Dubbler) (Contin.) Annual 24-Hr
Metro
Omaha-Council
Bluffs Interstate
Nebraska
Iowa
Metro Sioux City
Interstate
Nebraska
Iowa
Lincoln-Beatrice
Fairbury
Outstate
085 0
2 31
1 - 29
086 0
0
1 - 2
145 2 0 111
145 2 0 10
T Reduction
# Stations Exceeding Required
Ambient Air Quality Stds. To Meet
2nd Primary Secondary Primary 24 hr
24-Hr Annual 24-Hrb 3-Hr Standard
27-0
2 0
0
2 0
16 - °
10-0
*\ 1Q71 Air finality Data TSAROAn^ as nf June 7. 1Q74
0
0
0
0
0
0
b) Highest reading used when second high was unavailable
-------
Table A-7. Nebraska Emissions Summary, SCL
(a)
Total Percent
AQCR (103 Tons/Year ) Fuel Combustion (
085
Nebraska
Iowa
Total
086
Nebraska
Iowa
145
146
37.3
8.0
45.3
0.09
14.64
14.7
16.0
10.5
77
92
80
50
95
95 '
96
58
Point Source Area Source
Electricity Generation Fuel Combstion Fuel Combustion
103 Tons/Year) % (l
26.2
7.13
33.3 73.5
0
13.2
13.2 89
13.7 86
0.19 1.8
O^Tons/Year ) % noj Tons/Year ) %
0.66
.001
0.66 1.5
0
.08
.08 0.5
0.79 4.9
1.5 14
1.93
0.30
2.2 4.9
.045
.065
0.70 4.8
0.81 5.1
4.4 42
CO
(a) 1972 National Emissions Report, EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974
-------
Table A-8. Nebraska Emissions Summary, Participates
. . Point Source Area Source
Total Percent
AQCR (103 Tons/Year ) Fuel Combustion
085
Nebraska
Iowa
Total
086
Nebraska
Iowa
Total
145
146
15.8
2.34
18.1
.06
6.58
6.6
14.5
74.3
81
32
74
26
7.6
8
17
9.3
Electricity Generation Fuel Combstion Fuel Combustion
Ho3 Tons/Year) % HO3 Tons/Year ) % Tons//ear Z
12.0 0
0.54 0
12.5 69
0
0.15
0.15 2.1
2.0 14
0.57 0.8
0.14 0
.03 0
0.16 0.72
0
0.013
.013 0.14
.08 0.6
4.6 6.2
0.65 0
0.17 0
0.82 4.5
0.016
0.335
.35 5.1
0.38 2.6
1.7 2.3
CO
CO
(a) 1972 National Emissions Renort, EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974
-------
Table A-9. Nebraska Required Emission Reductions - PARTICULATES
SIP
1973 Data
CO
AQ
Measurement
AQCR
085 (Neb
and Iowa)
086
Neb
Iowa
145
146
Control
Value
139 pg/m3
(AGM)
N/A
77 Lig/m-'
N/A
Emissions
(103 tons)
25.2
N/A
4.16
N/A
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
8.31
2.91
1975
Estimated
Emissions
After Controls
(103 tons)
8.01
2.89
Percent
Reduction
Required
Based On
1973 AQ Data
53
21
33
65
58
NEDS
Emissions
(IP3 tons)
18
.06
6.58
6.6
14.5
74.3
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
8.5
(entire AQCR
4.4
5.07
31
Emission
Tolerance
(103 tons)
Oa
b
0
Oc
Ob
a AQCR 085 was the approved example region for the state. Allowable emissions for SIP and those calculated from current
air quality are comparable. Since 1972 NEDS emissions are less than origional SIP inventory, it is assumed that controls
are being applied. Therefore there is no indication that overkill will result after SIP is implemented.
b No SIP emissions information was available for this analysis. Tolerance is based on current air quality.
c "SIP" emissions are those estimated by EPA for AQCR 145 (Implementation Plan Evaluation Report). Current NEDS emissions
are higher than EPA 1970 estimates, suggesting non-comparable data bases. Since current air quality suggests problems
still exist and EPA emission estimates for 1975 show little overkill, it is assumed that no particulate emission
tolerance will exist.
-------
Table A-10. Nebraska Required Emission Reductions - SCL
SIP
1973 Data
AQCR .
005
086
145
146
AQ
Measurement
Control
Value
18 ^g/m3
(AGM)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Emissions
(IP3 tons)
61.1
Allowable
Emissions
(1Q3 tons)
197_
Estimated
Emissions
After Control:
(IP3 tons)
68
Percent
Reduction
Required
Based On
1973 AQ Data
none
none
none
none
NEDS
Emissions
(IP3 tons)
45.3
14.7
16.0
10.5
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
Emission
Tolerance
(IP3 tons)
see a
All air quality readings well below standards. This may merely reflect, however, that S02 monitors are not source oriented.
No regional omission tolerance is calculated by proportional "roll up" since unrealistic numbers would result. It can only
be said at this point that some increase in S02 emissions could be tolerated.
-------
CO
01
Particulates
SOo
NOo
Federal hew source
Dec. 23, 1971
Table A-ll.
Existing Sources
Nebraska Fuel Combustion Regulations
(2)
Input (106 BTU/hr)
(I)
10
Emission
Limit (A)
lbs/106 BTU
0.60
3800 0.15
A = 1.026 I -°-2333
2.5 Ibs S02
106 BTU
No regulations on
fuel burning equipment
performance stds., 36 Fed. Reg. 24876
New Sources
power plants only
Oollb
106 BTU
0.8 Ibs S02 (liquid fuels)
106 BTU
1.2 Ibs S02 (solid fuels)
106 BTU
federal standards apply
(2) Having heat input greater than: (a) 0.6 x 10JJ BTU/HR - coal
(a) 0.6 x 10° BTU/HR - coal
(b) 7.5 x 10° BTU/HR - oil
(c) 100 x 10b BTU/HR - gas
-------
APPENDIX B
Tables B-1 and B-2 are the assessment of AQCRs which should be examined
for the fuel switching impact on particulate and SCL emissions. They also
provide an identification of those AQCRs which show little potential for
fuel revision or regulation relaxation if ambient air standards are to be
attained.
Those AQCRs designated "good" or "marginal" here will be examined in
later appendices where an attempt will be made to estimate the emissions
resulting from an assumed fuel schedule different from the present, or the
emissions which might result if all fuel burning sources emitted up to
their "allowables."
The criteria for candidates are (1) the severity and breadth of air
quality violations, (2) the tolerance for emissions increased in the AQCR,
(3) the fraction of total emissions resulting from fuel combustion, and
(4) AQMA designations. It should be noted that an AQCR may not necessarily
need relaxation of regulations in order to accomplish fuel switching.
Further, a good candidate in Tables B-1 and B-2 may later show little
potential for fuel switching after individual sources are examined. Finally
it is posssible that an AQCR may have air quality levels below standard at
present and may require more strict regulations than currently exist if all
fuel burning sources were converted to dirtier fuels, i.e., "average" emis-
sion rate now may be below "average" regulations.
37
-------
Table B-l. Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of Participate
Regulations/Fuel Switch Potential
AQCR
Air Quality
Expected
# # Sta.Showing Attainment
Monitors Violations Date
Any
Counties
AQMA
Designations?
Total
(a)
Emissions
tons/year)
% Emission
from Fuel
Combustion
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
Is Region
A Candidate
for
(1Q3 tons) Relaxation?
085
Nebr
Iowa
086
Hebr
Iowa
145
146
12 6
3 3
1 1
1 1
13 3
18 7
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
No
No
No
No
15.8
2.34
.06
6.58
6.6
14.5
74.3
81
32.
74
26
8
8
17
9
0
0
0
0
Bad
Candidate
Bad
Candidate
Marginal
Candidate
Bad
Candidate
CO
00
(a) "1972 National Emissions Report" EPA 450/2-74-012, June 1974
-------
Table B-2. Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of S0~ Regulations/Fuel Switch Potential
AQCR
085
Nebr
Iowa
086
Nebr
Iowa
145
146
Air Quality
t t Sta. Showing
Monitors Violations
2 0
1 0
3 0
0 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
Tolerance
A"V T . , for Is Region
Expected Counties '°ral(c) % Emission Emissions A Candidate
Attainment AQMA Emissions' from Fuel Increase for
Date Designations? (10 tons/year) Combustion (103 tons) Relaxation?
a
a
a
a
No
No
No
No
37.3
8.0
45.3
0.09
14.64
14.7
16.0
10.5
77
50
95
95
96
58
b
b
b
b
Good
Candidate
Good
Candidate
Good
Candidate
Good
Candidate
OJ
a already below A.Q. Standards
b insufficient data to assign a quantitative estimate to tolerance
(c) "1972 National Emissions Report" EPA -450/2-74-012, June 1974
-------
APPENDIX C
This section is a review of individual power plants by AQCR. The
intent is to illustrate fuel switching possibilities and particulate and
SCL emissions resulting from these switches on an individual plant basis.
The total AQCR emissions resulting from such switches is then calculated.
Current power plant information used to prepare Table C-l were obtained
from three main sources: (1) Federal Power Commission computerized list-
ings of power plants and their associated fuel use, (2) the National Coal
Association "Steam Tables" listing of power plants and fuel use in 1972,
and (3) NEDS Emissions data. For those plants listed by the FPC (1 above),.
the 1973 fuel schedule was assumed, otherwise, fuel use is for 1972. Heat
inputs are those based on actual fuel values where known, and average
values shown in Table C-3 were used where not known. S02 and particulates
emissions are those associated with the fuel use shown. In the case of
particulates, emissions were calculated using NEDS emissions factors applied
to the listed fuel schedule (in both tonnage and lbs/10 Btu). When a plant
was not listed in NEDS, AP»42 emission factors were used to estimate S0~
and particulate emissions (see Table C^3].
After the name of each plant is a listing of the fuels for which the
plant was designed (from source 2). For the purposes here, it is assumed
that when a plant is shown to have dual fuel capability, it is able to use
entirely one fuel or the other. A fuel switch calculation is then made,
assuming all natural gas use is replaced by either oil or coal depending
on assumed plant capabilities. Further, oil use is replaced by coal where
possible. The % sulfur in fuel (coal or oil) assumed when fuels are switched
is indicated in Table C-l. In the case of coal this was the maximum % S
which the plant had.used in the last four years. (In the case of oil 2% S
was assumed.) A plant was then assumed to have the same emission controls
as was in effect when the NEDS emissions were assembled. The resulting
emissions which would then accompany such fuel switches are tabulated in
both tonnage and lbs/10 Btu.
NEDS Data Bank 1974
40
-------
Also shown is the 1975 regulations which are currently applicable to
the given plant, taken from Table A-12. (Particulate limits are assumed
to be based on the entire heat input of the plant. Actual rules may be
different when applied to each of several boilers in a power plant or
applied on the basis of design capacity rather than actual amount of fuel
used.)
The fuel switch calculations are intended to show the magnitude of
emissions increase accompanying a fuel switch without additional controls.
The exact emissions would depend upon actual fuel mix, amount of sulfur in
fuels, and degree of emissions controls (particulates). The calculations
were made as described above because Nebraska AQCRs have an uncertain toler-
ance for increased SO^ emissions and essentially no tolerance for particulates
emissions increase. Hence, the calculation seems illustrative in showing
"worst case sulfur in fuel situation" and the consequent effect on SCL and
particulates emission.
Table C-2 summarizes the total uncontrolled emissions resulting from
fuel switches by AQCR. Also shown are approximate quantities of fuels
needed to accomplish such switches.
It might be cautioned that AQCR total emissions calculated in the
tables of Appendix C (and also Appendix D) may not agree exactly with total
emissions represented in Appendix A (Tables A-7, A-8). This is a result of
both differing fuel schedules in 1973 compared to previous years and the
relative "completeness" of the NEDS data bank.
41
-------
Table C-l. Nebraska Power Plant Assessment - Metro Omaha AQCR
AQCR
085
085
085
085
Plant
Capacity
Kramer
114 MU
Jones St
165 MW
\
No. Omaha
645 MW
So. Omaha
20 MW
s-
o
l»-
o
o>
01
'(
Ui
01
Q
C
G
C
0
G
C
G
0
G
Fuel Use
*
Type (i ) Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
% Ash Quantity (106BTU/hr)
Coal 180 462
1.9S
11. 2A
Gas 2269 259
"722~
Coal 7.0 18.9
2.7S
9.0A
Oil 141 94.5
0.1S
Gas 1659 189
302
Coal 891 2239
1.43S
9.0A
Gas 17006 1939
4178
Oil 31 21
2. OS
Gas 609 69
90
Emissions
S02
TSP
(tons/yr) (lbs/106BTU)
6654 2.1
17100 5.4
368 0.3
535 0.4
46
24
24737 1.35
1400 0.07
204 0.5
5 0.01
-a
l/>
=C
l/l
-------
Table C-l Nebraska Power Plant Assessment - Lincoln-Beatrice-Fairbury AQCR
AQCR
145
Plant
Capacity
Sheldon
229 MW
K Street
Lincoln
30 MW
J\J II ri
. .
\
U.of Neb
(includes
agri.)
Fairbury
21 MW
Schuyler
9 MW
o
'1
-o
C
en
to
a
C
0
G
C
0
G
0
G
0
G
Fuel Use
Type Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
% Ash Quantity (106BTU/hr)
Coal 237 632
2.86S
13. 1A
Gas 7567 863
1495"
Coal 15.9 39.6
1.47S
12. 4A
Oil 10.78 7.2
0.1S
Gas 717.4 81.8
128.6
Oil 81 54
2.0
Gas 1034 117
T7T
Oil 8 5.3
Gas 380 43.3
48
Oil 5 3.4
Gas 304 34
37
Emissions
SOo
£.
TSP
(tons/yr) (lbs/106BTU)
13160 2.00
776 0.12
454 0.81
1580 2.8
4
540 0.72
20 0.02
52 0.24
2 0.02
33 0.20
1 0.20
-O
-------
Table C-l.
Nebraska Power Plant Assessment - Interstate AQCR
AQCR
146
Plant
Capacity
Lexington
(Canaday)
109 MW
Freemont
(L.D.
Wright)
41 MW
Freemont
21 MW
Grand Is.
(C.W.
Burdick)
92 M1J
Hasting
54 MW
0
T3
-------
Table C-l. Nebraska Power Plant Assessment - Intrastate - AQCR
AQCR
14G
-
Plant
Capacity
Alliance
16.5
Bluffs
(Scotts-
bluff)
42 MW
bgallala
^
t
9 MW
i-
o
V-
t3
QJ
C
cn
r-
in
OJ
o
c
G
0
G
0
G
Fuel Use
%
Type Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
% Ash Quantity (lO^BTU/hr)
Gas 545 62
62
Oil 5.4 3.6
0.55
Gas 3003 342
346
Oil 1 0.7
25
Gas 677 76
77
Emissions
S02
TSP
(tor.s/yr) (lbs/106BTU)
0 .0
4 ,01
0
1 .02
24
7 .02
5
o
01
e
n
in
i/>
-------
(2\
C-2 AQCR 085 Emissions Comparison with Fuel Switch
(Power Plants Only)
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
Total
S02
Particulate
so2
Particulates
Present Use
Quantity 1 109 BTU/y
1078 24800
172 1011
21543 21543
47354
Emisssions (tons/y)
31963
i 19&16
lbs/106 BtU
1.35
0.84
Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity 1 109 BTU/y
2056 47290
132 776
0 0
47354
Emissions (tons/y)
124000
37900
1bs/106BTU
. 5.2
1.6
Gas to oil only (2.0% S),
Quantity 1 109 BTU/y
1078 24800
3760 22554
0 0
47354
Emissions ,( tons/y)
56,552
20,400
-
lbs/106 BTU
2.3
0.86
Regional
Allowable
Emissions (3)
N/A
8500
Regulations
lbs/10b BTU
2.5
(.15 - .36)
(1) coal 103 tons gas 106ft3 oil 103 BbL
(2) No additional controls over present are assumed
(3) From Tables A-9 & A-10
-------
C-2 AQCR 146 Emissions Comparison with Fuel Switch
(2)
Fuel
coal
oil
gas
Total
so2
Particulate:
so2
Particulates
Present Use
Quantity! 109 BTU/y
253 5819
105 617
10002 10002
16478
Emissions (tons/y)
14239
2379
lbs/106 BTU
1.7
0.29
Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity 1 109 BTU/y
612 14060
383 2254
0 0
16434
Emissions (tons/y)
49270
7043
lbs/106 BTU
5.9
0.85
Gas to oil only (2.0% S)
Quantity 1 109 BTU/y
253 5819
1808 106.17
0 0
164500
Emissions (tons/y)
25535
2650
lbs/106BTU
3.1
0.32
Regional
Emissions
N/A
5000
lbs/106BTU
2.5
(.19 - .44)
(l)coal 103 tons yas 106ft3 oil 103
(2) No additional controls from present are assumed
(3) From T^hles A-9 & A-10
-------
C-2 AQCR 146 Emissions. Comparison with Fuel Switch
(2).
Fuel
coal
oil
gas
Total
SO;
Participates
so2
Particulates
Present Use
Quantity ! 109 BTU/y
| , , ,,__L. ^ . _ .
36 628
52.4 308
16114 16114
17250
Emissions (tons/y)
498
839
lbs/106BTU
.06
.09
Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity ] 109 BTU/y
174 4012
2213 13010
0 0
17250
Emissions (tons/y)
21800
2350
ibs/ioVu
2.5
0.27
Gas to oil only (2.0%
Quantity 1 109 BTU/y
36 828
2797 16422
0 0
17250
Emissions (tons/y)
18617
1180
lbs/106 BID
2.2
0.14
S)
Regional
Allowable
Total
Emissions
N/A
31000
lbs/106BTU
2.5
(.22 - .44)
1) coal 10 tons - gas 106ft - oil 10 BBL
2) No additional controls assumed
(3) From Tab les A-9 & A-10
-------
Table C-3 AP-42 Power Generation Emission Factors
Participates S02 fi Hydrocarbons, NOX (as N02)
Fuel Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu Lbs/Ton Lbs/106 Btu
CoalO)(B1t j
General "}
WetbottonA 10% A
Cyclone J
1% s
2% S
3% S
Oil'2>
0.5% S
1.02 S
2.0% S
Gas<3>
(.3 Ibs S/
106 Ft3)
160 7.4
130 7.0
20 0.9
Same Same
as as
Above Above
Lb/103 Gal
8 0.058
8 .058
8 .058
Lb/106Ft3
15 .015
38 K65
76 3.3
114 5.0
Lb/103 Gal
79 0.56
157 1.12
314 2.24
Lb/106Ft3
0.57 .00057
0.3 0.013
0.3 0.013
Lb/103 Gal
2 .014
2 .014
2 .014
Lb/106Ft3
1 .001
18 0.78
30 1.3
55 2.4
Same Same
as as
Above Above
Lb/103 Gal
105 0.75
105 0.75
105 0.75
Lb/106Ft3
600 0.60
ID
(1) Coal 23 x 106 Btu/Ton
(2) Oil 140 x 103 Btu/Gal
(3) Gas 1000 Btu/Ft3
-------
Table C-4. Nebraska Proposed Power Plant
in
O
i AQCR
146
i
Plant
Capaci ty
Gentleman
(Sutherland
600MW
i
^
\]Q3 tons,
2Without SO
3At 99.8% e
j_
o
o
c
en
t/j
0)
o
Coa
)
assu
i CO
ffic
Fuel Use
Type i Heat
1975 Emission
Emissions Limit
. so2 so2
% Sulfur Annual , Input TSP .TSP.
% Ash .Quantity (10bBTU/hr)! (tons/yr) (lbs/106 BTU)- (lbs/106BTU)
1. Coal 2044 5367
3.0% S
7.7% A
med 23 x 106 BTU/ ton
ntrols, estimated form AP42
iency, NEDS projection
117, 5402 5.0 1.2
2683 o.Oll 0.1
J
/
o
E
CO
1 r
i
Fuel Switch
i
Resulting Emissions
so2
TSP
(tons/yr) (lbs/10bBTU) .
none
-------
APPENDIX D
The Tables D-l in this appendix list individual industrial/commercial/
institutional sources of particulates and SCL emissions which might show
fuel switching potential. The sources are from a NEDS rank order emissions
listing. At the top of Tables D-l is the percent of total emissions (both
fuel and non-fuel sources) accounted for in the AQCR, since not all sources
could be listed in this report. It should be cautioned that the percent
emissions accounted for is different than the "% of fuel use accounted for."
It is possible that several potential fuel switch sources could be over-
looked by the cutoff point on the emissions (i.e., a reasonable sized
natural gas used may emit below our cutoff point in the NEDS rank order
list).
A fuel switch emissions calculation is then made similar to that per-
formed for power plants. No information was available for feasibility of
any fuel switching. It was assumed that only those sources now using some
coal had a potential for complete coal conversion. All other sources were
switched to oil (2% S) for purposes of emission calculations.
51
-------
Table D-l. Nebraska Industrial Fuel Switch Assessment
(Metro Umaha AQCR)
99.4% Particulates
99.7% S02
AQCR
Ob5
*
065
Industry
Allied
Energy
Systems
" |
.ueder *
Construct!'
Jilson
Foods
Jestern
Electric
i.
o
IJ-
o
0)
c
Dl
t/l
01
O
n
Fuel Use
«
Type (1) Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
55 Ash Quantity (106BTU/hr)
Oil 300 5
2
Gas 3000 342
347
Oil 174 2.8
0.7
Gas 1212 138
141
Gas 2320 264
Oil 956 8
2
Gas 397 45_
53
Oil 1020 16
2
Gas 444 15
67
Emissions
so2
TSP
(tons/yr) (lbs/106BTU
46 .03
2 .003
27
9 .01
2 .003
n
i
21 .02
150 . 0.3
6 " .02
4
156 .46
12 .17
4
a
o
E
3
c/>
-------
Table D-l. Nebraska Industrial Fuel Switch Assessment
(Metro Omaha AQCR)
99.4% Particulates
99.7% S02
AQCR
085
085
Industry
Union
Pacific
Creighton
Hospital
Doctors
Hospital
Veterans
Hospital
t_
o
M-
a
0)
c:
i/i
a)
a
Fuel Use
Type (l) Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
% Ash Quantity (lO^BTU/hr)
Oil 1095 . 18
2
Gas 165 19
37
Oil 221 3.5
2
Gas 142 16.0
20.0
Oil 182 2.9
2
Gas 9 1
3.0
Oil 150 2.4
2
Gas 1 .1
2.5
TOTALS Oil 4098 65
Gas 7695 877
942
Emissions
S02
TSP
(tons/yr) (lbs/106BTU)
171 1.1
12 .07
1
34 0.4
3 .03
9 0.7
1 0.1
24 2.2
2 .15
S02 602
Part. 108
OJ
3
I/I
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Fuel Switch
1975
Emission Resulting Resulting
Limit Emissions Emissions
(lbs/106BTU) (tons/yr) Ibs/BTU
S02 S02 S02
TSP TSP TSP
2.5 363
0.44 18
2.5 194
0.5 17
2.5 29
0.6 1
2.5 24
0.6 1
S02 9153
Part. 352
(1) oil - 1000 gals
gas - I06ft3
-------
en
Table D-l. Nebraska Industrial Fuel Switch Assessment
(Sioux City Interstate AQCR)
AQCR
086
Industry
Iowa Beef
Processors
o
-o
O)
c
at
t/i
01
a
Fuel Use
Type (1) Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
% Ash . Quantity (106BTU/hr)
Oil 670 10.7
Gas 541 §1
72
Emissions
S02
TSP
(tons/yr) (lbs/106BTU)
33 0.10
0.03
OJ
U)
a:
s<
2.0
Fuel Switch
1975
Emission Resulting Resulting
Limit Emissions Emissions
(lbs/106BTU) (tons/yr) Ibs/BTU
S02 S02 S02
TSP TSP TSP
2.5 706
(1) oil - locals
gas - 10bft3
-------
Table 0-1. Nebraska Industrial Fuel Switch Assessment
(Lincoln AQCR)
99.6% Participates
99.6% S02
AQCR
145
t
145
-
Industry
Lincoln
Regional
Center
Lincoln
General
Hospital
Goodyear
Tire
..
'
Nebraska
Wesleyan V
o
M-
o
c
(71
i/l
01
Cl
Fuel Use
*
Type (1 ) Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
% Ash Quantity (106BTU/hr)
Oil 200 3il
2
Gas 662 .75
78
Oil 3500 56
2
Gas 8 _1_
57
Oil 716 2.8
2
Gas 460 52^
55
Oil .53 2.4
2
Gas 44 5.0
7.4
TOTAL Oil 4569 64
Gas 1174 133
197
Emissions
S02
TSP
(tons/yr) (lbs/106BTU)
34
10
556 2.3
40 0.16
112
12
22
1
724
63
o
£
3
I/I
2.0
2.0
2O
2,0
Fuel Switch
1975
Emission . Resulting Resulting
Limit Emissions Emissions
(lbs/106BTU) (tons/yr) Ibs/BTU
S02 S02 S02
TSP TSP TSP
765
37
2.5 559
.4 42
540
26
73
4
S02 1937
Part. 109
on
in
(1) oil - 10^'gals
gas
- 106
ftj
-------
Table D-l. Nebraska Industrial Fuel Switch Assessment
(Intrastate AQCR)
99.4% TSP
95.8% S02
AQCR
146
-
Industry-
Great West
Sugar
(Bluffs)
Nutone
Inc.
(Neman Co
Farmland
Industrie;
(Adams)
G.W. Sugar
(Morril Cc
%
,
CRA Inc.
(Bluffs)
Iowa Beef
(Cuming C(
!_
0
M-
o
0)
tz
o>
r-
in
OJ
o
ern
unty
I
Fuel Use
%
Type (1) Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
% Ash Quantity (106BTU/hr)
coal 68 179
0.5
9
gas 9360 1067
oil 60 1
0.7S
gas 1250 143
144
coal 333 87
0.5S
9,0ft
oil 2066 32
gas 474 54_
86
oil 465 7.4
0.7
Gas . 125 1£
41
Emissions
S02
TSP
(tons/yr) (lbs/106BTU)
1000 1.3
2400 3.1
3
84
3 (S0?)
o
f"
E
3
t/>
«t
V>
VI
2 0
2.0
Fuel Switch
1975
Emission Resulting Resulting
Limit Emissions Emissions
(lbs/106BTU) (tons/yr) Ibs/BTU
S02 S02 S02
TSP TSP TSP
2.5 1000
0.31 2400
10468
508
1418
? n 68
11 (TSP)
317 0.8
1940 5.1
98
18
. .
23
4 .
.0
? n
2.0
2.5 317
0.36 1940
843
41
206
10
en
en
(1) coal - lO^tons
oil - lO^gals
gas - 10°ft3
-------
Table D-l. Nebraska Industrial Fuel Switch Assessment
AQCR
146
146
-
Industry
Dana
College
(Washing to
5-
O
a
-------
TABLE D-2. NEBRASKA INDUSTRIAL SOURCE FUEL SUMMARY
WITH PRESENT FUELS EMISSIONS
AQCR
ORB
086
145
146
STATE
TOTALS
COAL
103tons
0
0
0
101
101
OIL
103bbl.
98
16
109
67
290
GAS
106ft3
7696
541
1174
11302
20710
so2
ton/y
602
33
724
1455
2814
PART.
ton/y
108
10
63
4460
4641
WITH FUEL SWITCH EMISSIONS
COAL
103ton
0
0
0
101
101
OIL
103bbl.
1414
107
335
1978
3834
GAS
106ft3
0
0
0
0
0
S0?
ton/y
9153
706
1937
14389
26185
PART.
ton/y
352
34
109
4679
5174
en
00
-------
APPENDIX E
Table B-l shows area source fuel use for the entire state of Nebraska.
The approximate energy values are compared for each fuel along with the per-
cent of overall energy derived from each fuel. A breakdown by AQCR was not
available at the time of preparation of this report (data are those in NEDS
data bank, September 7, 1974). Area source fuel use is then compared to
total fuel use in Nebraska. The bottom row entitled "all fuels, all sources"
may not match totals from Appendices A, C, and D exactly, since neither the
NEDS or individual appendix totals are all-inclusive. Also fuel schedules
may change from one year to the next.
59
-------
TABLE Erl. TOTAL STATE AREA SOURCE FUEL USE
(1)
Source
(Area Only)
Residential
Industrial
Commercial/
Institution
Total (area
sources)
* By Fuel
Total (all
fuels, all
sources)
% By Fuel
Coal
103tons 109BTU
19250 443
0 0
10 0
19250 443
0.25%
1105775 25432
9.7%
Resid. Oil
103qals. 109BTU
. _
5530 774
4550 637
10080 1411
0.81*
24009 3361
1.3*
Dist. Oil
103gals. 109BTU
51540 7216
12480 1747
62640 8770
126660 17732
10.2*
130896 18325
7.0*
Gas
106ft3 109BTU
61370 61370
39100 39100
54040 54040
154510 154510
88.7%
213775 213775
81.9%
Wood
103tons 109BTU
12.1 145
0 0
0 0
12.1 145
0.8%
0 0
Total
109BTU
69,174
41,621
63,447
174,241*
260,893*
cr>
o
* Note that 66.8% of total fuel use is by area sources in Nebraska
(1) NEDS data bank, Sept. 1974
-------
APPENDIX F
The Tables F-l and F-2 illustrate the effect on emissions of particu-
lates and SCL when power plant and industrial fuel burning sources listed
in Appendices C and D are allowed to emit up to the amounts that existing
regulations would allow. It is assumed that heat input remains the same,
and existing regulations are applied to gross heat input for each AQCR.
Non-fuel emission estimates for particulates for 1972 are included along
with a column for "allowable total emissions." It is emphasized that this
table is hypothetical in that no fuel mix may exist to allow all sources
to emit exactly at regulation levels. The calculations do give some in-
sight into adequacy of existing regulations for allowing air quality stan-
dards to be achieved if a fuel schedule different from the one at present
were in effect. Table F-3 is a Nebraska fuel summary.
-------
TABLE F-l. NEBRASKA PARTICULATE REGULATION EXAMINATION
ro
AQCR
1012BTU/y
085 (Nebraska only)
Power Plants
Industry
Area Fuel
Non-Fuel Estimate
Total Estimate
086
145
Power Plants
Industry
Area Fuel
Non-Fuel Estimate
Total
146
Power Plants
Industry
Area Fuel
Non-Fuel
Total
47.3
8.25
0
Current
Emissions
tons/.v
19800
108
650
3000
23558
Emissions
Requlations
lbs/106BTU
0.15 - 0.36
0.30
No reg. assumed
Undetermined
Emissions With
All Fuel Sources
Emitting At
Regulations
39401
12382
650
3000 uncontrolled
8828
No power plants and few other emissions originating in Nebraska
16'. 5
1.73
0
17.25
14.02
0
2380
63
380
12000
14823
840
4460
1700
66000
73000
0.19 - 0.44
0.4
No reg. assumed
Undetermined
0.22 - 0.4
0.3
No reg. assumed
Undetermined
18171
3452
380
12000 uncontrolled
V,
14542
25141
21022
1700
66000 uncontrolled
73320
Estimated Allowable
Emissions for AQCR
tons/y
(Nebraska only)
7420
5000
31000
Applicable regulation based on gross heat to each plant was used to calculate individual allowed eipi.ssi.ons. The
tonaqe was summed for entire AQCR.
o
Approximate particulate regulation applied to gross heat input to all industrial sources in Table D.
-------
TABLE F-2. NEBRASKA S02 REGULATION EXAMINATION
AQCR 1012BTU/y
085
Power Plants 47.3
Industry 8.25
Area Sources (est.)
Non-Fuel Estimate 0
TOTAL
086 No significant
145
Power Plants 16.5
Industry 1.73
Area Sourdes (est.)
Non-Fuel Estimate
TOTAL
146
Power Plants 17.25
Industry 14.02
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
TOTAL
Current SO-
Emissions
tons/y
32000
602
1930
8560
43092
sources in Nebraska
14240
724
810
640
16410
498
1460
4400
4410
10770
Regulations
lb/10 BTU
2.5
2.5
-
2.5
2.5
-
2.5
2.5
Emission When
All Fuel Sources
Emit at Regulations
59125
10313
8560 uncontrolled
77998
20625
2163
640 uncontrolled
23428
21563
17525
4410 uncontrolled
43498
a\
CO
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) "1972 National Emissions Report", U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-450/2 - 74 - 012.
(2) "Projections of Economic Activity for Air Quality Control Regions",
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Prepared
for U.S. EPA, August 1973.
(3) "Monitoring and Air Quality Trends Report, 1972", U. S. EPA - 450/1-
73-004.
(4) "Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1072", 22nd Edition National Coal
Association.
(5) "Federal Air Quality Control Regions" U.S. EPA, Pub. No. AP-102.
(6) "Assessment of the Impact of Air Quality Requirements on Coal in
1975, 1977 and 1980", U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, January 1974.
(7) "Fuel and Energy Data", U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Mines.
Government Printing Office, 1974, 0-550-211.
(8) "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd Edition", U.S.
EPA, Air Pollution Tech, Pub. AP-42, April 1973.
(9) SAROAD Data Bank, 1973 Information. U.S. EPA.
(10) Federal Power Comission, U.S. Power Plant Statistics Stored in EPA Data
Bank, September 1974.
(11) NEDS Data Bank, Information as of September 1974, U.S. EPA.
(12) "Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nebraska"
(13) "Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations" State of Nebraska Department
of Environmental Control, Effective February 26, 1974.
64
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Ins&uctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-74-068
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S \CCESSIOf*-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR NEBRASKA AS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AMD ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
5. REPORT DATE
December 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., Regional Office VII, Kansas City, Missouri,
and TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, California
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1385
. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
12 SPO(V__
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974,
(ESECA) requires EPA to review each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine
if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion
sources without interferring with the attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards. This document, which is also required by Section
IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution
State implementation plans
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/'
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
64
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
65
------- |