EPA-450/3-74-076
DECEMBER 1974
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
KANSAS
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-74-076
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
KANSAS
REQUIRED: BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
(Contract 68-02-1358)
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
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 5
2.1 Air Quality Setting - Kansas 8
2.2 Kansas Participate Emissions 9
2.3 Kansas S02 Emissions 9
2.4 Background on Kansas SIP 10
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEW AND CURRENT AIR QUALITY . 12
3.1 AQCR 094 - Metro Kansas City Interstate 12
i
3.2 Eastern Kansas AQCR's 095 (North East) and 098 (South
East) 14
3.3 AQCR 099 (South Central) 16
3.4 Western AQCR's 096, 097, and 100 17
3.5 Special Consideration - Fossil Fuels (Table F-3) 17
APPENDIX A - Background Information on SIP, Air Quality,
Emissions . . . 18
APPENDIX B - Candidacy Assessments for Relaxation of
Regulations/Fuel Switch Potential 32
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessments .35
APPENDIX D - Industrial Commercial Sources Assessment .... 53
APPENDIX E - Area Source Assessment 62
APPENDIX F - Regulation Evaluation and Fuel Statistics .... 64
in
-------
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 S(L 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 a_1J_ 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 concerns3 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-vrido where the use of 3 percent sulfur coal would be adequate to attain
NA';QS 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 (SCL) emissions. This is because stationary
fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of SO- 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 S02 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 Kansas State Implementation Plan has been reviewed for
the most frequent causes of over-restrictive emission limiting
regulations. The particulate and sulfur dioxide regulations
which now apply in Kansas do not appear overly restrictive Tn
the context of Section IV of ESECA.
• The State of Kansas used Metro Kansas City as the example region
to demonstrate attainment of particulate NAAQS, using an air
quality display model rather than linear rollback. Kansas has not
adopted air quality standards more strict than the federal
standards and has not designated any AQMA's to date. Current
monitoring data shows TSP to be a widespread problem throughout
Kansas, although fuel combustion is a minor contributor in many
areas. Current fuel use practices result in most sources
emitting well below particulate regulations at present, especially
in Central and Western Kansas. Clean fuel savings is thus possible
under existing regulations, with NAAQS being the limiting factor.
Thus, Kansas fuel burning particulate regulations should not be relaxed.
• S02 levels in Kansas were well below NAAQS when the Kansas SIP
was written. The plan demonstrated that source growth would
not cause NAAQS tb be violated in Kansas City and thus n£ SC^
regulation was established. Kansas has since adopted a state-
wide S02 regulation on large fuel burning sources. All sources
are in apparent compliance with this regulation, particularly in
Central and Western Kansas where natural gas is the predominant
fuel. Current S02 monitoring indicates very low SOp levels in
• outstate Kansas, with somewhat higher levels in Wicnita and
Kansas City. There is an indication that, at least in Kansas
City (AQCR 094), NAAQS for SC-2 may be violated if all fuel sources
were to emit exactly .at. the .Kansas..S02 regulation. In Kansas' other
AQCR's, NAAQS might not "be violated, if fuel switching were to occur.
Since some such fuel switching can.occur .without regulation change,
revision of the Kansas..$Q?:.emission-.regulation is not recommended.
-------
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
SUMMARY.
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations
will depend en nany factors. For example:- -
* Does the State have air quality standards v/hich are
more stringent than NAAQS?
* Does the State have emission limitation regulations
for control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources,
(3) area sources?
* Did the State use an example region approach for demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS or more stringent State
standards?
* Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Policy?
e
Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
* Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
sites within a region?
* Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
* Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported
violations of NAAQS?
* Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources proportionally lower than those of other sources?
0 Must emission regulations be revised to accomplish signifi-
cant fuel switching?
6 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 increases when
there are affirmative responses to the above.
-------
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. •
-------
KANSAS STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
(Metro (SUMMARY)
Kansas City) (N. East) (N. Central) (N. West) (S. East) (S. Central) (S. West)
094 095 096 097 098 099 100
STATE AQ8R AQSE AQCR AQCR AQCR AQCR AQCR
"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
2. 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 ther£ proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region? 0)
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
does air quality meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
are there Indications of a 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?
TSP S02
'No
Xes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
no
Yes
No
¥8
No
yes
No
no;
Yes
TSP S02
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Poor
Yes2)
TSP S02
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Margi-
nal
Yes
TSP S02
'Yes
No
No
Yes
model In
No
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
g resul
No
Margi-
nal
Yes
TSP S02
Yes
No
No
Yes
ts aval
No
Poor
No
''•-^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
lable f
No
Margi-
nal
Yes
TSP S02
Yes
No
No
Yes
>r Kans
No
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
is sour
No
Margi-
nal
Yes
TSP S02
Yes
No
No
.Yes
No
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Margi-
nal
Yes
TSP S02
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Margi-
nal
Yes
(1) An analysis tool oily and does not reflect SIP requirements.
'• Additional SO? emissions can occur in all Kansas AQCR's without violatingelther
NAAQS or existing regulations. Thus some clean fuels could in principle
be saved in Kansas via fuel switching within the existing legal framework.
-------
2.1 AIR QUALITY SETTING - KANSAS
Kansas has been divided into seven (7) Air Quality Control Regions:
1. AQCR 094 - Metro Kansas City Interstate
2. AQCR 095 - North East Kansas
3. AQCR 096 - North Central Kansas
4. AQCR 097 - North West Kansas
5. AQCR 098 - South East Kansas
6. AQCR 099 - South Central Kansas
7. AQCR 100 - South West Kansas
These AQCR's are shown in Figure A-l. Ambient air quality standards for
SO^ and TSP in Kansas are identical to federal standards and are shown in
Table A-3.
2.1.1 Suspended Particulates
Table A-4 summarizes Kansas TSP data from the SAROAD Data Bank for 1973.
TSP appears adequately monitored in Kansas with Metro Kansas City (AQCR 094)
and South Central Kansas (AQCR Q99) having the greatest number of monitors.
All AQCR's in Kansas experience some type of TSP problems, with Metro Kansas
City (094) and South Central (Wichita - AQCR 099) showing the highest annual
geometric means. AQCR's 096 (North Central), 097 (North West), 098 (South East),
and 100 (South West) show annual means below the primary particulate standard.
These same four AQCR's appear to have localized particulate problems rather than
regionwide problems. All AQCR's in Kansas show violations of the 24 hour
secondary standard and only AQCR 100 (South West) has no violations of the
\
primary 24 hour standard. As elsewhere in the western half of the United States,
fugitive dust probably contributes to short term particulate problems.
Table A-4 is intended to show both the intensity and breadth of TSP
problems in Kansas. Included are calculations of the percentage of stations
exceeding the standards as well as the percentage reduction required to meet
both the annual and short term standards at the worst station in each AQCR.
-------
2.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide
Table A-5 summarizes S02 monitoring data of Kansas AQCR's. The
number of monitors in each AQCR appears adequate relative to emission and
population densities. AQCR's 096, 097, 098, and 100 have levels of 10% to
25% of the federal standards (both annual and 24 hour). South Central (099)
and North East (095) have concentrations about 65% and 30% of the S02 standards
respectively. Metro Kansas City indicates S02 levels of around 80% of the
24 hour standard on the Kansas side, although the highest annual average in
Kansas City is only 35% of the annual standard.
The range of S02 concentrations seen in Kansas suggests relatively high
levels in localized spots. Also, concentrations are more likely to approach
the short term standard than the annual average,standard.
2.2 KANSAS PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Table A-8 lists particulate emissions in the 1972 NEDS Data Bank for
Kansas. All AQCR's show a minority of particulate emissions resulting from
fuel combustion. Even Metro Kansas City Interstate has only 15% of its
total particulate emissions from fuel combustion (Kansas side). Further,
only in North East (AQCR 095) and South East (098) does a large fraction of
the fuel emissions result from electric power generation. Area source fuel
combustion generally dominates the fuel combustion fraction of particulate
inventories in the largely rural Kansas AQCR's (094, 096, 097, 099, and 100).
2.3 KANSAS S02 EMISSIONS
Table A-7 summarizes 1972 NEDS data for S02 emissions. About 70% of S02
emissions result from fuel combustion in the Kansas side of AQCR 094 (Metro
Kansas City), although the largest fraction of total S02 in 094 originates in
Missouri. In AQCR 095 (North East Kansas) about 90% of S02 emissions result
from fuel combustion, primarily from electric power generation. AQCR's 096
to 10.0 show S02 emissions resulting from fuel combustion to be less than half
of the total, and only AQCR 098 (South East) has significant electric power
contributions. As was the case with particulates, area fuel use is the jnajor
contributor of S02 to the fuel portion of the inventory in all Kansas AQCR's.
-------
2.4 BACKGROUND ON KANSAS SIP
Kansas air quality data for 1969 and 1970 was used for SIP preparation.
Table A-9 lists the maximum particulate level reported in the SIP for each
AQCR. Notice that only AQCR 098 (South East) did not exceed the annual
secondary particulate standard at that time. S02 levels (1970 and 1971)
found in the Kansas SIP are shown in Table A-10 (only AQCR's 094, 095, and
099 had monitoring data). SO, levels even in Metro Kansas City were well
3
below ambient S02 standards. Oxidant levels (about 200/yg/m , 1 hour
average) in AQCR 094 and 099 were above the ambient air quality standards
(160 g/m^, 1 hour average) during 1971. N02 levels were below the federal
standard in 1970 and 1971 in Kansas. Based on the above levels the
priorities for AQCR's listed in Table A-l were assigned.
2.4.1 Particulates
The Kansas SIP used AQCR 094 (Metro Kansas City) as the example region
for particulates. Emission estimates from both point and area sources, and
expected reductions under plan implementation were developed for AQCR 094.
Rather than rollback of total emissions proportional to air quality, the
Kansas City region was shown to meet ambient air standards using a diffusion
model. It was expected that implementation of the example region particulate
control regulations elsewhere in the state would be adequate to attain air
quality standards. Existing particulate fuel burning regulations are shown
in Table A-ll.
2.4.2 Sulfur Dioxide
Although Kansas S02 levels were (and still are) below standards, the
Kansas State Board of Health adopted S02 regulations. Fuel burning sources
are limited to 3 Ibs S02/106 Btu heat input. This regulation applies to all
sources that would increase their S02 emissions by a factor of 2 or more from
their.base year (.1971). Most new S02 emission sources were assumed to be
controlled by Federal New Source Performance Standards (Table A-ll). Estimated
total S02 emissions in 1970 (from the SIP) are shown in Table A-10 for
AQCR 094.
10
-------
2.4.3 Oxidant
The Kansas SIP calculated a 31% hydrocarbon emission reduction in
South Central (099) and a 24% reduction in Metro Kansas City (094) by 1975
as a result of the federal motor vehicle control program. These reductions
were deemed sufficient to attain ambient air quality standards. No additional
hydrocarbon controls were seen necessary, although some regulations on petroleum
storage, etc. were imposed. The total hydrocarbon emission inventories in 1970
from the SIP were: 094 (Kansas City) - 180 x 103 tons, 099 (South Central) -
72 x 103 tons.
2.4.4 NOV
X
Although N02 levels were below ambient air quality standards in 1970 in
Kansas, NOV regulations have been imposed on fuel burning sources (Table A-ll)
X
in Kansas.
11
-------
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEW AND CURRENT AIR QUALITY
The purpose of this section is to examine fuel switching in each of
Kansas' seven AQCR's and the adequacy or over-restrictiveness of current
regulations for attaining and/or maintaining ambient air quality standards.
Tables A-9 and A-10 are an attempt to assign a regional emissions tolerance
for Kansas AQCR's. Appendix B uses this "tolerance," along with such factors
as the breadth and depth of air quality violations and percent of emissions
resulting from fuel combustion to rate each AQCR as a "good," "marginal," or
"bad".candidate for fuel switching potential :and regulation relaxation.
Power plants, industrial sources, and area sources are investigated in
Appendices C, D, and E respectively for fuel use, emissions, and current
regulations. Some calculations of emissions resulting from fuel switching
are included for power plants. Appendix F is a rough emissions inventory
which could hypothetically result if all fuel burning sources emitted exactly
at regulation levels. This inventory is the final test of current regulations
relative to air quality.
Although each AQCR is treated separately in the appendices, some AQCR's
are lumped together in this section because their situation is similar and
thus final conclusions concerning regulations are similar.
3.1 AQCR 094 - METRO KANSAS CITY INTERSTATE
3.1.1 Candjdacy Assessment for Fuel Switch Potential
AQCR 094 shows several violations of TSP standards, both in Kansas and
in Missouri with the highest concentrations being indicated in Kansas (Table A-4).
Particulate emissions are about evenly distributed between the two states
(Table A-8), although a much smaller fraction of total emissions results from
fuel combustion in Kansas than in Missouri. The original Kansas SIP gave no
indication that particulate regulations would more than meet air quality
standards in AQCR 094. Therefore, Metro Kansas City is rated as a bad
candidate for fuel switching and regulation relaxation from a particulates
standpoint.
S02 levels are slightly below ambient air quality standards in 094 (Metro
Kansas City), with somewhat higher readings in Kansas than in Missouri (Table A-5),
12
-------
As might be expected, most of the SCL results from fuel combustion in 094,
especially in Missouri (Table A-7). The Missouri contribution to total SOp
emissions is much higher than that of Kansas. AQCR 094 is assigned a
45000 ton regionwide tolerance for increased SO,, emissions, based on a 22%
rollup of air quality levels to standards. Table A-10 distributes this
tolerance between Missouri and Kansas, in proportion to existing emissions.
Table B-2 rates AQCR 094 as a good initial candidate for fuel switching and
regulation relaxation relative to S.Op.
3.1.2 Emission Source Examination
The three large power plants in the Kansas portion of AQCR 094 all use
some coal at present (Table C-l). SOp emissions from these plants are only
about 30% of those allowed under existing regulations. Likewise, particulate
emissions are well below existing regulations, reflecting the natural gas con-
tribution to the fuel mix. Industrial sources listed in the NEDS data bank show
no coal use by this sector at present. A comparison of existing and allowable
emissions for industrial sources (Table D-l) reveals that considerably
increased emissions of both SOp and particulates could occur under existing
regulations.
A small amount of coal is currently used by area sources in AQCR 094,
but large scale fuel switching is probably not practical for many of non-coal
users.(Table E-l). Further, existing regulations would exempt many of the
smaller sources from controls (mainly due to size). A similar situation exists
for other Kansas AQCR's and thus no further evaluation of area source fuel
switching in Kansas will be pursued, since regulation changes would not be
required to accomplish fuel switching. Table E-l shows that 42% of total
energy use in Kansas is by area sources.
3.1.3 Regulation Examination
The analysis in Table F-l for AQCR 094 suggests that existing regulations
on fuel burning sources alone could .create more particulate emissions than would
be required to meet the NAAQS. Of course, the emission tolerance from Table A-8
could be redistributed to allow more emissions in Kansas and less in Missouri,
but very strict controls on non-fuel emissions would still be required if
particulate standards are to be attained in AQCR 094. Therefore no particulate
regulation relaxation is justified in 094.
13
-------
Table F-2 for AQCR 094 shows that S02 emissions from fuel burning
sources could more than double under the existing SCL regulations. This
increase alone would exceed the Kansas "allowed emissions" in Tables A-9 and
F-2. A large portion of the S02 emissions in AQCR 094 do originate in
Missouri however, and controls in Missouri could allow additional emissions in
Kansas. From a strictly "Kansas" standpoint, however, fuel S02 regulations in
094 may not be strict enough for major fuel changes, since:CD no regulations on
S02 emissions from non-fuel sources in Kansas are in effect (except smelters),
and (2) total S02 emissions would be considerably more than allowable if all
sources emitted at regulation levels and area source fuel conversions could
occur without regulation change, increasing S02 (and particulate) emissions.
It is therefore concluded than no room for S02 regulation relaxation exists
in the Kansas portion of AQCR 094.
3.2 EASTERN KANSAS AQCR's 095 (NORTH EAST) AND 098 (SOUTH EAST)
3.2.1 Candidacy Assessment
Table A-4 shows the two eastern AQCR's to have violations of both annual
and 24 hour particulate standards. Both AQCR's would require approximately
46% reduction of emissions in order to meet the 24 hour secondary standard.
AQCR 095 (North East) is further from the annual standard (72%) than 098 5
(South East) with 19%. Reported emissions in Table B-l are relatively high
in these twoMQCR's, although fuel combustion contributes only a small fraction
of the total emissions. AQCR's 095 and 098 are rated as bad candidates for fuel
switch'potential land particulate regulation relaxation in Table B-l.
S02 levels in the two eastern AQCR's, and the rest of Kansas as well, are
below standards at present. In Table B-2 therefore, all Kansas AQCR's
(including AQCR 094) are rated as good candidates for fuel switch examination
from an S02 standpoint. An emission tolerance (Table A-10) was not assigned,
since it was felt that such a calculated rollup of emissions was unrealistic
in Kansas.
3.2.2 Emission Source Examination
AQCR's 095 and 098 both have coal burning power plants (Table c-1).
Particulate emissions from these plants are somewhat below regulations at
present. S02 emissions are quite a bit below regulations in AQCR 098 because
gas makes up the bulk of fuel used tn power plants and in AQCR 095 because of
both gas use and S02 controls at the.Lawrence,,Kansas, plant.
14
-------
Industrial sources in 095 use no coal according to the NEDS data
(Table D-l) and both S(L and particulate emissions are well below what
regulations would allow. In 098, coal use by industrial sources causes
particulate regulations to be exceeded (Table D-2). Fuel switching abilities
of individual sources is not known for either AQCR 095 or 098„ and therefore
only a comparison of existing and allowed emissions is shown in Appendix D.
Area sources consume large quantities of coal in AQCR's 095 and 098
(Table E-l). Regulations do not apply to most small fuel users so that fuel
conversions are probably limited by other considerations.
3.2.3 Regulation Evaluation
AQCR's 095 and 098 are dominated by non fuel particulate emissions
(Table F-l). Some additional particulate emissions from fuel burning sources
could occur under existing regulations in 095, while in 098 sources are very
nearly emitting at average regulations. Large reductions from non-fuel
emitters are required to reach "allowed emissions," regardless of fuel burning
emissions. It is concluded that no room for particulate regulation
relaxation exists in AQCR's 095 and 098.
Table F-2 evaluates current SOp emissions relative to the existing r
regulations. Since "allowable" emissions based on current air quality could
not be realistically calculated for AQCR's 095 and 098, a "rollup" ratio was
calculated instead. It can be seen that five times more S02 emissions in
AQCR 095 and 1.6 times more emissions in 098 could occur under existing
regulations.
To the extent that a regional approach is valid, AQCR 095 can probably
not tolerate more SOg emissions than current regulations wouJd already allow.
Therefore, rio SOp regulation relaxation is recommended in 095. AQCR 098 is
more of an SOp fuel regulation relaxation prospect, depending on non-fuel S02
controls. 098 may be considered for S02 regulation relaxation, although
vastly increased coal use could occur in power plants without regulation
changes.
15
-------
3.3 AOCR 099 (SOUTH CENTRAL)
3.3.1 Candidacy Assessment
Suspended participate violations (Table A-4) of both annual and short
term standards are widespread in AQCR 099. Although most of the emissions
are non-fuel related, this AQCR is rated a bad candidate for particulate
regulation relaxation for fuel switching purposes (Table B-l).
S02 levels are about 60% below standards at the 2nd highest station
in AQCR 099 (the 2nd highest value at the highest station was not available),
suggesting about 19000 tons allowable regionwide emissions in Table A-10.
AQCR 099 is rated a good candidate for fuel switch investigation relative
to S02.
3.2.2 Emission Source Evaluation
Power plants (Table C-l) use no, coal at present in AQCR 099 and
very little oil. The large natural gas use allows S02 and particulate
emissions to be well below regulations (Table C-2). Industrial sources
likewise use mostly gas and their emissions are low relative to S02 and
particulate regulations.
3.3.3 Regulation Evaluation
Table F-l shows that non-fuel sources dominate the particulate emissions
total in 099, and that fuel particulate emissions could increase considerably
without regulation changes. More over, particulate emissions from all fuel
sources burning at regulations alone would exceed the regional requirement for
air quality. Particulate regulations should not be relaxed in AQCR 099.
S02 regulations (Table F-2) applied to all fuel sources results in
drastically increased regional emissions. The allowed 19000 tons
estimated from air quality (Table A-10) is exceeded by a factor of five. It
is recommended that S02 regulations not be relaxed in AQCR 099.
16
-------
3.4 WESTERN AQCR's 096, 097 ,„ and 100
3.4.1 Candidacy Assessment
Particulate violations are generally of short term nature and are
somewhat localized in AQCR's 096, 097, 100 (Table A-4). The percent of
participate emissions from fuel combustion is low in these AQCR's. In
Table B-l, then, AQCR's 096, 097, and 100 are rated as marginal candidates
for regulation examination and fuel switching.
S02 levels are very low in the western AQCR's and AQCR's 096, 097, and
100 are rated as good candidates for regulation examination (Table B-2). A
quantitative estimate of allowed SO^ emissions is not possible, however.
3.4.2 Emission Source Examination
Natural gas is the major fuel for both industry and power plants in
western Kansas (Table C-l and D-l). SOp and particulate emissions are
therefore low relative to regulations (C-2 and D-2). No coal is known to be
used by either category of fuel user.
3.4.3 Regulation Examination
Particulate emissions from fuel sources can substantially increase in
western Kansas without regulation changes (Table F-l). Relaxation of
regulations on fuel burners could be considered vf non-fuel sources are
more strictly controlled.
S02 emissions could increase more than 10 times in western Kansas without
violation of existing regulations. Although regional SOp allowed emissions
were not calculated (and might have little meaning in any case for such widely
dispersed emissions), it would seem unlikely that local violations would not
occur somewhere if S02 emissions increase by such a magnitude. It is
recommended that S02 regulations not be relaxed in western Kansas.
3.5 SPECIAL CONSIDERATION - FOSSIL FUELS (TABLE F-3)
Kansas has large reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Currently Kansas
produces more of all three fuels than is consumed internally. It would seem
that fuel switching would not be constrained by reserves or production from a
purely Kansas viewpoint. Much of Kansas coal does tend to be high in sulfur,
however.
17
-------
APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SIP, AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS
e State implementation plan information
• Current air quality information
e 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 S0~ and TSP monitoring stations are shown
*- I
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 no+ violate inational
secondary ambient air quality standards, is shown for S02 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 degree of 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 (worst 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, emission controls applied to AQCR's
lM1972 National Emissions Report," EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974.
- 19 ' -,
-------
other than the example region 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
relationship between emissions and air quality is probably not well defined.
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.
20
-------
ro
NORTHWEST
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
NORTH CENTRAL
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
NORTHEAST
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
SOUTHWEST
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
CHUH
• Hf nMAM
*».,.<(
..„„.
j
L
-wo* i'
,
i
I
i
i
• •!•
<••
I
t
i(X
*(f)LK
tlliWOPTM
«lCt
* *
•1*0
• IHK.M41
"
|
S
t •
^
>*MA
~
*HM
•nO^ON
"""
MOO*
Ct
thi.«i
-
'
Ui
/j
•f
/
»%o«.
->0fc
jy
-i
/
j
•0.
/
V
U (!•>(«..
tt'-.
•1C
tn*
"*^
3
^
w
c.
• t
^
••
f™*
lit
t
«»«J
«iC
~,C
-J-.SC
^^«v
1*
1*UOV
19
»
. JT ""'*
hr
i
_ i
b — i"
SMitWMI
os»u
eo»»i»
*>t4C*t
i-t
• — -.
,
«
1 1
\
i
•-iO1
(Xllil.
C(*
10
jy
•.to*
•w
v
>• y
;
-1
-i
1
''
to*
\
HO
V" K,
1* li
(I1
X A.
V
^thi
JO*".M»"
•^••MIBMl
'
».•*••
< ••>•' O*O
METROPOLITAN
KANSAS CITY
INTERSTATE
(KANSAS
'MISSOURI)
094
SOUTH CENTRAL
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
SOUTHEAST
KANSAS
INTRASTATE
figure A-l. Kansas AQCR's
-------
Table A-l. Kansas AQCHPriority Classification and AQMAs
AQCR
Metro Kansas
City
Interstate
Northeast
North Central
Northwest
Southeast
South Central
Southwest
\
Fed. 1
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
Priorities
Part.3
I
I
I
I
III
I
I
V
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
NOXC
III
HI
III
III
III
III
III
Demographic Information.
Population
1970
Kansas
450,258
Missouri
953,923
371 ,227
267,137
162,642
263,679
570,018
154,110
square
Miles
1094
3117
8656
11632
19773
10336
9955
20378
population
Density
411
306
43
23
8
26
57
7.6
AQMA Designations
TSP Counties
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
SOX Counties
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOX Counties
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
ro
ro
Criteria Based en KaxlBM featured (or EitlMted) Pollution Concentration In Area
•Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithoctle nan ..
^articulate natter:
Annual oeonetrlc Bean ...
24-hour iaxlaum
'Nitrogen, dioxide
I
Greater than
too
455
95
325
110
Fro» - To
60-100
260-455
60- 95
150-325
Lest than
60
*fin
60
ISO
110
Federal Register. August. 1974 SXSA's showing potential for FIAAWS violations due to jroirth
-------
Table A-2. Kansas Attainment Dates
AQCR 1
094
095
096
097
098
099
ioo
Name
Metro Kansas City Interstate
Northeast
North Central
Northwest
Southeast
South Central
Southwest
Parti culates
Attainment Dates
Primary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
Secondary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment Dates
PrTmary
4
a
a
a
a
a
a
Secondary
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Nitrogen Oxides
Attainment Dates
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
ro
CO
a) Already below standards.
-------
Table A-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards - Kansas
(Expressed as;ug/m )
Federal Primary
. Secondary
Total Suspended Participate
Annual
75 (6)
60 (G)
24 hr.
260a
150a
Sulfur Oxides
ArinuaT
80 (A)
24 hr.
365a
3 hr.
1300a
Nitrogen
Dioxide
100 (A)
100 (A)
State Same as Federal
ro
a) Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
A) = Annual arithmetic mean.
G) = Annual geometric mean.
-------
--U* Table A-4. Kansas; AQCR Air Quality Status (1973), TSR-;
5
U}CR Name
Metro K.C. Interstat«
Kansas AJ.-=
4 . ."" ^ . . „
Missouri
Northeast
North Central
Northwest
Southeast
South Central
Southwest
AQCR $
-- - - *
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
#
Stations
Reporting
14
J9_
33
10
6
5
6
15
5
( g/m3)
TSP Concentration
2nd
Highest
Highest Reading Reading
Annual 24-Hr Z4-Hr
128 479 442
?P 440 254
91 277 276
70 682 501
66 345 294
67 382 279
105 365 340
.71 303 243
# Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary - Secondary tf
Annual 24-Hr6 Annual % 24-Hr* %
64 7 50 9 64
P 0 P -_ 12 _63
.7 4 8 - 21 63
11 3 33 3 33
01 1 17 1 \7
01 1 20 2 40
01 1 17 4 67
11 4 27 5 33
00 1 20 1 20
Reduction
Required
to Meet
Annual
StandardsS
I
7P
sP
sP
19®
8
-------
Table A-5. Kansas S02 A1r Quality Status1
AQCR Name
Metro K.C. Kansas
Missouri
Northeast
North Central
Northwest
Southeast
South Central
Southwest
AQCR 1
094
. 095
096
097
098
099
100
#
Stations
Reporting
24-Hr
(Bubbler)
7
5
TI
10
3
4
3
3
2
. 1
Stations
Reporti ng
(Contin.)
" 4
2
~6~
1
1
1
-
3
-
. •*•*.
:~ "C/ig/niS")'
2nd
Highest
Highest Reading Reading
Annual 24-Hr 24-Hr
28 32fr 300 '
N/A 251 ' • N/A
TB' 320" 300"
20 249 77
9 64 43
15 80 60
91 63 56
27 290 228
13 68 68
i Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Stds.
Primary . Secondary
Annual 24-Hr- 3-Hr
00 a
0 0 -
00
00
00
00
0 0
i
Reducti on
Required
to Meet
Annual
Standards
•• a
a
a
a
8
a
a
%
Required
to Meet •
24 Hour
Standard
-22
a
a
a
a
a
-60
a
ro
1
SAROAD data bank, June 1974.
aAlready below standards.
-------
Table A-6. Kansas Fuel Combustion Source Summary0
AQCR
Metro K.C.
Missouri
Northeast
North Central
Northwest '
Southeast
South Central
Southwest
AQCR i
094
095
096
097 .
098
099
100
Kansas Power Plants
NEDSb FPCC
2 3
9 10
3 2
5 2
9 2
6 3
9 5
4 3
Other Fuel Combustion Point Sources
Parti cul ate S0£
3 3
15 15
6 6
4 3 ;
4 2
10 6
14 8
5 0
ro
"Kansas sources, only.
bNEDS data bank, June 1974.
cln EPA data bank, September 1974,
FPC stands for Federal Power Commission.
-------
Table A-7. Kansas Emissions ^Summary, S0|
AQCR Name
Metro Kansas Ci t.
Kansas
Missouri
Total
Northeast
North Central
Northwest
Southeast
South Qentral
Southwest
, Total
AQCR 1 10JTons/.Year
'094 ...
28.4
176
204
095 14.4
096 4.2
097 ' 2.3
098 32.9
099 11.9
100 1.8
Percent
Fuel Combustion
68
. 94
90
89
38
43
25
42
47
Electricity Generation
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
Area Source
„ Fuel Combustion
TO*Tons/Year % logons/Year % lOTons/Year %
,10.3 36
156 89
166 81
10 69
0.18 4.3
.06 2.6
3.8 11.6
0.32 2.7
.03 1.7
0.4 1.4
9.1 5.1
9.5 4.6
.28 1.9
.03 • 0.71
.06 2.6
.80 2.4
.52 4.4
0 0
8.6 3.0
1.0 0.6
9.6 4.7
2.6 18
1.4 33
0787 38
3.5 11
4.1 35
0.82 47
ro
oo
*1972 National Emissions Report EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974.
-------
Table A-8. Kansas Emissions Summary, Participates8
AQCR Name
Metro Kansas C
Kansas
Missouri
Total
Northeast
North Central
Northwest
Southeast
South Central
Southwest
AQCR J ••
ity 094
095
096
097
098
099
100 .
.Total
'l(r Tons/Year
42.2
35.7
77.9
44.3
23.4
13.4
184
40.1
37.1
Percent
Fuel Combustion
15
55
33.7
7.8
4.0
. : 5.1"
2.8
8.0
1.7
Electricity Generation
Point Source
Fuel .Combustion
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
logons/Year % iQ^Tons/Year % ^Tons/Year %
0.625 1.5
16.86 47
17.5 22
2.2 5.0
.05 0.2
'.77 1.3
3.3 1.8
0.54 1.3
0.10 0.3
.054 0.1
1.78 5.0
1.8 2.3
.12 .3
.18 .8
.04 .3?
0.70 .4
0.19 .5
.03 .1
5.8 14
1.1 3.0
6.9 8.9
1.1 2.5
0.70 3.0
0.47 3.5
1.1 0.6
2.5 6.2
0.50 1.4
ro
*1972 National Emissions Report, EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974.
-------
Table A-9. Kansas Required Emission Reductions - Particulates
SIP
1973 Data
CO
O
AQ
Measurement
«. Control,
AQCR :, Value ^/M-*)
094 (KC)
Total
(KC+Mo.)
095 (NE)
096(NC)
097(NW)
098 (SE)
099 (SC)
100(SW)
197(AGMP
150
99
124
60
184
107
Emissions
(103 tons)
104
N/A
N/A
N/A
NKA
N/A
N/A
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
7.4«.
-
-
-
-.
-
-
1975.
Estimated
Emissions
After Controls
(103 tons)
AQDfP
used
'
-
-
-
-
Percent
Reduction
Required
Based On
1973 AQ Data
85 Kansas
Missou
72
70
49
46
80
35
NEDS
Emissions
dO3 tons)
42.2
i 35.7
"TO ,
44
23
13
184
40
37
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
6.3
5.4
TT7
12.2
6.9
6.6
100
8
24
Emission
Tolerance
(IP3 tons)
£>
,€>•
^articulate example region for Kansas was AQCR 094. Strategy development based upon AQDM. Allowable emissions in this
table for 094 is based on proportional rollback with 48 jjg/irr background.
\GPl = annual geometric mean.
Current NEDS total emissions are less than SIP total emissions suggesting progress on controls. Calculated "allowable"
emissions are comparable between NEDS and SIP. No information is availeble to suggest emissions will be less than
'allowable" after plan is implemented so that zero tolerance is assignee! to AQCR 094.
.ack of SIP information dictates that all Kansas AQCRs be assigned zero tolerance for particulate emissions based
on current air quality.
-------
Table A-10. Kansas Required Emission Reductions - S02
SIP
1973 Data
CO
AQCR :,
094 (KC)
095 (NE)
096(NC)
097(NW)
098(SE)
099(SC)
100 (sw;
AQ
Measurement
Control -
Value. (ug/M3)
100 (24
Hr Ma^
20 (AAMP
19 (24 Hr
Wax)
^
-
-
17 (24 Hr
Max)
Emissions
(103 tons)
119
™
—
_
"
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
435'
197J
Estimated
Emissions
After Controls
(103 tons)
(AQDM~I
used J
•
Percent
Reduction
Required
Based On
1973 AO Data
Kansas
_2p Missour
0
0
0
0
-60
0
NEDS
Emissions
(103 tons)
, 1.8
1 m
14.4 •
4.2
2.3
329
11.9
1.8
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
2T§
759"
a
a
a
a
19.0
a
Emission
Tolerance
(IP3 tons)
6
39
b
b
b
7.14
b
= annual arithmetic mean.
Allowable emissions are not known for these AQCRs, since proportion "rollup" from current air quality results in
unrealistically high emissions allowed.
Increased emissions can be allowed in these AQCRs but exact amount cannot be quantified with data available for
this report.
cThis is a regionwide emission tolerance for increased emissions base on proportional rollup to air quality standard.
Allowed emissions are distributed to each state in the AQCR proportional to existing emissions.
-------
Table A-11. Kansas Fuel Combustion Regulations
(Effective January 1, 1974)
oo
ro
. Parti culates
so2
80X
Existing Sources
Heat Input
106BTU/hr(I)
10
10,000
A = 1.026 I'-233
Allowable
Emlsslons(A)
lb/100 BTU
0.60
0.12
3.0: Ibs S02/106 BTU
Gas i 011
(>250 x 106 BTU/hr)
Coal
(>250 x 106 BTU/hr)
0.3 Ib N02/106 BTU
0.9 Ib N02/106 BTU
New Sources
2
Power Plants
0,1 lbs/106 BTU
Other sources same as existing Kansas
regulations.
0.8 Ibs S02/106 BTU - oil2
1.2 Ibs S02/106 BTU - coal
2
Power Plants ,
Gas = 0.2' Ibs N02/100 BTU
Oil = 0.3' Ibs N02/106 BTU
Coal - 0.7 lbs;N02/106 BTU
Having heat input greater than:
1 (A) Coal-350 x 103 BTU/hour
(B) Heavy oil-350 x 103 BTU/hour
(C) Light oll-l x 106. BTU/hour
(0) Gas-100 x 106 BTU/hour
2 Federal new source performance standards, 36 Fed. Reg. 24876, Dec. 26, 1971.
-------
APPENDIX B
CANDIDACY ASSESSMENTS FOR RELAXATION OF REGULATIONS/FUEL SWITCH POTENTIAL
Tables B-l and B-2 are the assessment of AQCRs which should be examined
for the fuel switching impact on particulate and SOp 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:(l) 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-l 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.
33
-------
B- 1 Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of Participate Regulations/Fuel Switch Potential
AqcR
)94
Cans as
Missouri
• -,
095(NE)
096(NC)
097 (NW)
098(SE)
099 (SC)
100(SW)
Air Quality
# Monitors
jr Showing
14 9 -
19 12
33 2T
10 3
6 1
5 2
6 4
15 .5
5 . 1
Expected
Attainment
Date
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
Total
Emissions
(103 tons)
42
36
7E
44
23
13
184
40
37
r.
Any
Counties
AQMA
Designations?
Mo
No
No
No
No
No
No
% Emission
from Fuel
Combustion
15
55-
3T
8
4
5
3
8
2
Tolerance
•fn y
Emissions
Increase
(10J tons)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Overall
Regional
Evaluation
Poor Candidate
Poor Candidate
Marginal candidate
Marginal candidate
Poor Candidate >
Poor Candidate
Marginal candidate
CO
-------
B-2. Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of S02 Regulations
094
Kansas
Missouri
095 (NE)
096(NC)
097(NH)
098(SE)
099(SC)
100
Air Quality
# Monitors
ff Showing
n o
i? 0
T8
IT 0
4 0
5 0
3 0 '
6 Q
2? 0
Expected
Attainment
Date.
a
a .
a
a
a
a
a
Total
Emissions
(103 tons)
28
176
20T
14. ft
4.2
2.3
,32.9
11.9
1.8
Any
Counties
AQMA
Designations?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
% Emission
from Fuel
Combustion
68
94
90
89
38
43
25
42
47
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(10J tons)
6
39
45
b
b
b
b
7.14
b
Overall
Regional
Evaluation
Good candidate
G6dd candidate
Good candidate
Good candidate
Good candidate
Good candidate
Good candidate
co
en
-------
APPENDIX C
POWER PLANT ASSESSMENTS
This section is a review of individual power plants by AQCR. The
intent is to illustrate: (1) current SOg and particulate emissions, (2)
fuel switching possibilities, and (3) allowed emissions for power plants
based on current regulations. The total AQCR emissions resulting from
possible fuel 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 As-
sociation "Steam Tables" listing of power plants and fuel use in 1972, and
(3) NEDS Emissions data.1 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. SOg 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 SO^ and particulate
emissions (see Table C-3).
Table(s) C-l also lists allowable emissions calculated by applying current
regulations 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 ap-
plied on the basis of design capacity rather than actual amount of fuel used.)
Total fuels, emissions, and allowables are summed for each AQCR at the
bottom of Table(s) C-l,and are shown again in Tables C-2 for comparison after
fuel switch. Plants are switched entirely to coal where possible,and to 2.0%
sulfur oil if a plant cannot use coal. The fuel switch calculations are in-
tended 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 accompany-
ing a fuel switch.
]NEDS Data Bank 1974
37
-------
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. Along the same line, AQCR
totals may contain a "mix" of 1972 and 1973 fuel schedules (and resulting
emissions). The intent of the listings is not great precision, but rather
to show approximate status relative to regulations at present, and to show
results of fuel switching where possible.
Table C-4 lists power plants under construction or consideration for the
near to medium term fiiture. No evaluation of these plants is attempted here
since Federal new source performance standards would apply. It is not the
purpose of this report to evaluate such standards. Inclusion of new plants is
for background information which might have a bearing on other decisions about
emission regulations in an AQCR.
38
-------
Table C-l. Kansas Power Plant Characterization - AQCR 094
AQCR
094
-
094
^970
Plant Name
Kaw
151 MW
Quindaro #2
Quindaro #3
TOTALS
103 tons; (
controls for
Fuel Use
Type (CS Heat
% Sulfur AnnuaH7 Input
{ Ash Quantity (106Btu/hr)
Coal 72.1 -199
3.85
12. 8A
Gas 7092 808
Coal 13.8 37.5
Gas 2774 316
757
Coal 187 487
2. OS
11. 5A
Gas 7615 868
T35T
Coal 273 724
Gas 17481 1992
27T7
il - 103 BBL; Gas - 106 ft3
parti culates applied to 1973
Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
5323 1.21
965 0.62
7290 1.23
13578
fuel schedule
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
13230 3.0
4638 3.0
17780 3.0
35648 3.0
Parti culates
Existing
tons/yr lbs/10 Btu
347
53
4W .09
2&
21
47 .03
30(P
57
357 .06
800
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/10 Btu
926 0.21
401 0.26
1128 0.19
2455
^ame degree of control assiiw*. as Guindaro #2
CO
-------
Table C-l. Kansas Power Plant Characterization - AQCR 095
AQCR
095
095
Plant Name
Lawrence
613 MW
Tecumseh
346 MW
Municipal
Power Plant
(Brown Co.)
TOTALS
^0, control 985%
Fuel Use
Type , Heat
% Sulfur Annual' Input
% Ash Quantity (106Btu/hr)
Coal 172 477
3.9S
12. 8A
Oil 287 192
2. IS
Gas 24415 2787
Coal 142 397
3.9S
12. 9A
Oil 70 47
1.9S
Gas 8321 949
T39T
.Oil 5.2 3.5
l.OS
Gas 7300 830
S3T
Coal 314 874
Oil 363 242
Gas 40036 4556
§61?
Emissions
SO?
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
203(F 0.99
29
-------
Table C-l. Kansas Power Plant Characterization - AQCR 096
AQCR
096
096
Plant Name
Abiline
34 MW
McPherson 1
26 MW
McPherson 2
32 MW
Clay Center
12.5 MW
TOTALS '
Fuel Use
Type , ' Heat
% Sulfur Annual1 Input
Z Ash Quantity (106Btu/hr)
Oil 21 . 14-
1.9S
Gas 1707 195
259"
Oil 0 0
Gas 249 29
29"
Oil 8 5.4
2. OS
Gas 1819 207
717
Oil 1 0.7
2. OS
Gas 485 55.3
56
Oil 3Q 20
Gas 4270 486
Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
127 0.14
T27
0
"ff
53 .06
5J
7 .03
—
187
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
2746 3.0
381 3.0
2786 3.0
736 3.0
6649 3.0
Parti culates
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
4 .019
13
T7
.02
2
T
1 .02
14
TT
0.17 .02
4
4
38
Allowable
tons/yr Ibs/lCTBtu
265 0.29
60 0.47
270 0.29
98 0.40
693
-------
Table C-l. Kansas Power Plant Characterization - AQCR 097
AQCR
097
097
Plant Name
Mullergren
119 MW
Ross Bch 1
13 MW
Hays
19 MW
Colby
12 MW
TOTALS
Fuel Use
Type .. Heat
% Sulfur Annual Input
% Ash Quantity (106Btu/hr)
Oil 34 23
1.4S
Gas 6571 749
772
Oil 17 12
2. OS
Gas 3146 359
ITT
Oil —
Gas 1259 144
TO"
Oil 7 5
2. OS
Gas 1034 118
T2I
Oil 58 40
Gas 12010 1370
Emissions
SO?
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
158 .05
112 .07
"
46 .09
316
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
10145 3.0
4875 3.0
1892 3.0
1616
18530
Parti culates
Existing
tons/yr 'Ibs/lCTBtu
6 .02
49
55
3 .02
24
27
.01
9
"9
1 .02
8
T
100
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/10°Btu
750 0.22
422 0.26
201 .32
178 .33
1551
-------
Table C-1. Kansas Power Plant Characterization - AQCR 098
AQCR
098
Plant Name
Riverton
155 MW
Neosho
113 MW
Coffeville
40 MW
Chanute
19 MW
lola
14MW
Fuel Use
Type 1 Heat
% Sulfur Annual1 ^put
% Ash Quantity (106Btu/hr)
Coal 39 _ 112
3.8S
11. 6A
Oi 1 39 26
2.2S
Gas 5246 598
736
Coal 1.0 2.6
2.6S
11. 2A
Oil 104 70
2S
Gas 4494 512
58T
Oil 9 6
2. OS (est)
Gas 1611 184
T90"
Oil 6 4
2. OS
Gas 850 97
ToT
Oil
Gas -180 21 •
7T
Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
2904 0.99
282
3ll6
50
703
"753
59 ?31
59
40 .09
W
— ••
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
9672 3.0
7687 3.0
2497 3.0
1330 3.0
275 3.0
Particulates
Existing
tons/yr 1bs/106Btu
1100
6.6
39
TW .36
80
17
34
T3T .05
2 .02
12
IT
1 .02
6
~J
.01
1
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/10°Btu
709 .22
589 .23
250 .30
154 .35
46 .50
CO
098 TOTALS
Coal
Oil
Gas
. 40
158
12381
115
106
1412
4038
21462
1299
1748
-------
AQCR
099
Plant Name
Evans
539 MW
GUI
348 MW
Ripley
87 MW
Hutchlnson
257 MW
Winfield
45 MW
s
Wellington
14 MW
Fuel Use
Type , "eat
% Sulfur Annual1 Input
X Ash Quantity <106Btu/hr)
Oil 4.6 - 3
1.2S
Gas 27394 3123
3T26"
Oil 97 65
1.1S
Gas 14913 1700
T7BT
Oil 5.0 3.4
2.0 (est)
Gas 3807 ' 434
417
Oil 91 61
1.7S
Gas 16149 1841
TW
Gas 1117 127
Oil 0 0
Gas 760 87
8T
Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
17 .001
T7
350 .20
350"
33 .08
499 .06
_« __
—
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
41000 3.0
23192 3.0
5742 3.0
24992 3.0
1670 3.0
1143 3.0
Parti culates
Existing ,
tons/yr lbs/10 Btu
1 .02
205
2G6V
16 .02
117
T3J
8 .02
28
35-
15 .02
121
73S
8 .01
-8~
.01
6
6"
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
2190 .16
1391 .18
479 .25
1500 .18
.83 .33
137 .36
099 TOTALS
Oil
Gas
198
64140
132
7312
899
97739
515
5880
-------
Table C-l. Kansas Power Plant Characterization - AQCR 100
AQCR
100
100
Plant Name
Cimarron
50 MW
Judson
Large
180 MW
Garden City
27 MW
Pratt
28 MW
Larned
1.3 MW
TOTALS
Fuel Use '
Type . Heat
% Sulfur Annual1 Input
* Ash Quantity (106Btu/hr)
Gas 3485 397
Oil 130 87
0.77S
Gas 6591 751
836~
Oil
2.0
Gas 1135 129
T29~
Oil 1 0.7
2. OS
Gas 614 70
7T
Oil 0.5 0.3
2. OS
Gas 480 55
/...... ' 55"
Oil 131 88
Gas 12305 1402
Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
—
326 .09
7 .02
3 .01
336
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
5217 3.0
11011 3.0
1695 3.0
933 3.0
723 3.0
19579
Particulates
Existing
tons/yr Ibs/KTBtu
26 .01
26
21 .02
49
70-
.01
.02
5
¥
.08 .02
4
T
113
Allowable .
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
415 .25
771 .21
186 .33
118 .38
96 . .40
1586
-------
C-2 Kansas
, AQCR 094 Fuel Switch Evaluation (Rower Plants)
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
Emissions
sb2
Parti culates
(1) fCoal - 1
> V
Present Use
Quantity^ho9 BTU/Y
273 6340
0 0
17481 17481
23821
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
13578 1.14
800 .067
) tons
\3 BBl
)6 ft3
Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity 109 BTU/y
1026 23820
0 0
0 0
23820
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
56680 4.76
2892 0.24.
• #
Gas to oil (2-.3K S) only
Quahtity 109 BTU/y
.
•
AI lowaoie
Emissions
Under Existing
Regulations
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
35648 3.0
2455 0.21
-------
C-2 Kansas
, AQCR 095 Fuel Switch Evaluation(Power Plants)
Fuel
al
1
5
Emissions
s62
rtitulates
Present Use
Quantity 109 BTU/y
314 7660
364 2120
40035 40036
49816
Tnn<:/y IbS/lQ6 BtU
13456 0.54
2886 0.12
Gas & Oil } to coal
Quantity 109 BTU/y
1830 42500
1250 7500
\ 0 0
49816
•
Tons/y Jb«/m6 Rtu
61270 2.46
9790 0.39-
Gas to oil only
Quantity 109 BTU/y
Allowable
Emissions
Under Existing
Regulations
Tnnc/« 1 he/in" Rtn
74674 3.0
4197 0.17
Oil
Gas
-------
C-2 Kansas . AQCR 096 Fuel Switch Evaluation (Power Plants)
Fuel
Coal
on
Gas
. Emissions
so2 '
Parti cul ates
Present Use
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
30 175
4270 4270
4445
Tons/y Lbs/106 Bti
187 .084
38 * .017
Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
- '
4445
..
.
Gas to oil only
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
762 4445
0 0
4445
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
4978 2.2
• 129 .058
Allowable
Emissions
Under Existing
Regulations
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
6650 3.0
693 0.31
00
-------
C-2 Kansas , AQCR 097 Fuel Switch Evaluation (Power Plants)
Fuel
Cdal
Oil
Gas
Emissions
l
so2
Particulates
Present Use
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
58 338
12010 12010
12350
Tons/v Lbs/106 Btu
316 .05
100 ' .016
. Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
-
• :
".
-
J4.
Gas to oil (2.0% S) only
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
2120 12350 •
o; o
12350
Tons/v Lbs/106 Btu-
14019 2.3
363 .06
Allowable
Emissions
Under Existing
Regulations
Tons/v Lbs/lQ6 Btu
18530 3.0
1551 0.24
-------
C-2 Kansas
, AQCR 098 Fuel Switch Evaluation (Power Plants)
Fuel
Coal
Oil '
Gas
Emissions
so2 '
Parti culates
Present Use
Quantity 109 BTU/y
40 1008
158 928
12381 12381
14317
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
4038 0.56
1298 - .18
•
Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity 109 BTU/y
500 11589
15 88
2640 2640
14317
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
30,450 4.25
25,000 3.5
?*-
Gas to oil only
Quantity 109 BTU/y
-
Allowable
Emissions
Under Existing
Regulations
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
21462 3.0
1748 .24-
-------
C-2 Kansas , AQCR 099 Fuel Switch Evaluation (power Plants)
Fuel
:oal
Ml
Jas
Emissions
X
sb2
"ticulates
Present Use
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
198 1156
644140 64140
65294
Fons/y Lbs/106 Btu
899 .027
5t5 .016
Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity 109 BTU/y
-
-
( *
•
Gas to oil only
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
11184 65294-
0 =0
RC7Q/1
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
73,770 2.3
1,910 .058
Allowable
Emissions
Under Existing
Regulations
Tons/y Lbs/106Btu
97,740 3.0
5,880 .18
-------
C-2 Kansas , AQCR TOO Fuel Switch Evaluation (Power Plants)
ro
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
Emissions
\
sb2
Parti culates
Present Use
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
131 771
12305 12305
13076
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
336 .05
113 .017
Gas & Oil} to coal
Quantity 109 BTU/y
-
•
-. ~
-
'' '
Gas to oil only
Quantity 109 BTU/y
0 0
2222 13076
0 • 0
13076
Tons/y lbs/106 Btu
15,070 2.30
390 .06
Allowable
Emissions
Under Existing
Regulations
Tons/y Lbs/106 Btu
19,600 3.0
1,586 %23
-------
Table C-3. AP-42 Power Generation Emission Factors
en
oo
Fuel
CoalWfeit.)
General
Wetbottom 10% A
Cyclone
1% S
2% S
3% S
011<2> .
0.5% S
1.0% S
2.0% S
Gas'3)
(.3 Ibs S/
fi -3
105 Ft3)
Hart
Lbs/Ton
160
130
20
Same
as
Above
1 culates
Lbs/10° Bti
7.4
7.0
0.9
Same
as
Above
Lb/103 Gal
8
8
8
Lb/106Ft3
15
0.058
.058
.058
.015
S0£
j Lbs/Ton L
38
76
114
Lb/103 Gal
79
157
314
Lb/106Ft3
bs/106 Btu
K65
3.3
5.0
Hydrocarbons/.
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu
0.3
.
0.3
0.013
0.-OT3
Lb/103 Gal
0.56
1.12
2.24
2
2
2
Lb/106Ft3
0.57 .00057 i
.014
.014
.014
.001
NO*
Lbs/Ton
18
30
55
' Same
as
Above
(as N02]
Lhs/"ifl6 Rtn
UU3/ 1 V O LU
0.78
1.3
2.4
Same
as
Above
Lb/103 Gal
105
105
105
Lb/106Ft3
600
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.60
(1) Coal 23 x 106 Btu/Ton
(2) Oil 140 x 103 Btu/Gal
(3) Gas 1000 Btu/Ft3
-------
Table C-4. Kansas New and Proposed Power Plant2
AQCR
098
sched
sched
095
sched
Plant Name
Lacygne #1
840 MW
(1973)
#2
630 MW
(1977)
Kansas Power
& Light
(Topeka)
700 MW
(1978)
'
Fuel Use
Type , Heat
I Sulfur Annual1 InP"t
t Ash Quantity (106Btu/hr)
Coal 2200® 6027
4.1
19. 7A
Coal 1700^
3W
Coal 2350^
-
-
Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
17lfl>
NA
NA
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
31680 1.2
NA
1.2
Parti cu ates
Existing
tons/yr lbs/10 Btu
2820
NA
NA
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
2640® 0.1
NA
0.1
^Approximate coal usage at start up ."Assessment of the Impact of Air Quality Requirements on Coal in 1975, 1977, 1980,"
U.S. Bureau of Mines, January 1974. Emissions are from NEDS.
"tPA data bank listings, Sept. 1974
-------
APPENDIX D
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL SOURCES ASSESSMENT
The Tables D-l in this appendix list individual industrial/commercial/
institutional sources of particulates and S02 emissions which might show
fuel switching potential. The sources are from a NEDS rank order emissions
listing. Tables D-l account for at least 95% of a total emissions (both
fuel and non-fuel sources) in the AQCR, since not all industrial 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).
Fuel switch emissions calculations were not made for industrial sources,
since no information was available for feasibility of any fuel switching.
Current fuels and emissions are listed along with the emissions which would
be allowed by existing regulations.
55
-------
Table 0-1. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization £ansas
'. " ' 1
AQCR
094
094
.
094
_
Totals
Plant Name
GM Assembly
Direct Fuel
Combustion
Delco-Remy
j
Mftnnl ii
UUUl !•» CO%/A>y
[ * zooo
••
It
1
l
Fuel Use
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Oil^
Gas'2'
Oil
1.82 S
Gas
Oil*
2.42
Gas
Oil
1.52 S
Gas
Oil
Gas
Annual (1]
Quantity
9174
840
225
576
585
705
2560
183
3370
1464
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
147
95.9
3.6
65.8
~59~
9.3
80.5
40.9
20.9
~go
53.9
167
Emissions
SO?
Existing | Allowable
tons/yr
32
"37
111
TTT
241
24T
384
lbs/10*
Btu
0.08
0.28
0.89
1
tons/yr
907
1189
812
3201
lbs/10*
Btu
3.0
3.0
3.0
Particulates
Existing
tof)
(l)|Coal - tons
[Oil - 10^ gallons
Gas - 106 ft3
(2) Inprocess fuel use
-------
Table 0-1. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization Kansas
AQCR
095
095
095
095
Totals
Plant Name
Atchison, Topeka,
Santa Fe
Mode C. Day
Co-op Farm
Chemical
Midwest Solvents
Oil
Gas
Fuel Use
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Oil
0.5X S
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas<2>
Oil
1.65XS
Gas
Annual
Quantity
560
858
3500
1600
315
735
1638
1295
7596
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
8.9
97.9
1U6~
400
183
36.0
11.7
187
231—
20.7
867
Emissions
S02 | Particulates
Existing | Allowable | Existing
tons/yr
22
1
132
65
~6T
??n
!bs/10<
Btu
0.05
<.01
0.16
0.06
tons/vf
1390
5256
2405
3090
i?i an
lbs/10f
Btu
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
tons/vf
6
8
W~
32
18
114
9
15
T38"
•
202
lbs/10C
Wu
0.03
0.02 _,
0.02
0.13
Allov/able
tons/y
163
438
240:
298
11,19
lbs/10f
Btu
0.35
0.25
0.30
0.29
i
(2) Inprocess Fuel Use
-------
Table D-l. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization
Kansas
AQCR
096
096
096"
•Totals
Plant Name
"0002"
Supersweet Feeds
Northern Gas
Products
-
Gas
Fuel Use
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Gas
Gas
Gas
Annual
Quantity
5250
5080
9793
20123
Keat
Inout
(106 Btu/hr)
599
580
1118
9707
Emissions
S02
Existing | Allowable
tons/yr
2
2
0
a.
lbs/10*
Btu
<.01
<.01
tons^yr
7870
7620
14690
10180
fbs/10*
Btu
3.0
3.0
3.0
Particulates
Existing 1 Allowable
tons/vr
47
46
70
163
lbs/10e
Btu
0.02
0.02
0.01
fcbs/10*
tons/^r! Btu
603
584
979
12166 i
0.23
0.23
0.20
i
i
op
-------
Table D-l. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization -
AQCR
097
097
097
Totals
Plant Name
Sherman Co.
CRA
Centr. Tel. and
Utilities
:
Oil
Gas
Fuel Use
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash .
Oil
1.0%S
Gas
Gas
Oil
0.18%
Gas
Annual
Quantity
345
948
1400
• 4
2320
349
4668
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
5.5
108
160
0.06
265
265—
5. ft
533
Emissions
S02 | Parti culates
Existing j Allowable | Existing j Allowable
tons/yr
27
—
-
77
lbs/10<
Btu
0.05
tons/vr
1498
2100
3480
7080
lbs/10f
Btu
3.0
3.0
3.0
tons/vr
3 .
9
T2~
11
17
35
lbs/10*
Btu
0.02
0.02
0.01
Lons/yr
170
217
324
!bs/106
5tu_.
0.34
0.31
0.28
i
71?
10
-------
Table D-l. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization
AQCR
098
098
098
- Total s
Plant Name
Gulf Oil Chem.
Gulf Oil Corp.
Kansas Army
Ammo. Plant
Coal
nil
Gas
Fuel Use .
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Coal
3.5XS
12. OS A
Gas
Coal
3.1XS
1.2XA
Gas
Coal
3.27%S
9.0% A
Oil
2.0XS
Annual
Quantity
4560
931
2000
938
1980
1112
R54n
1112
1869
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
12.0
106
178
5.3
107
TF2 —
5.2
17.8
23 .D
77 a.
17 fl
213
Emissions
S02 | Particulates
Existing | Allowable | Existing J Allowable
tons/yr
303
_
118
_
123
227
3lO~
77T
lbs/10*
Btu
0.59
0.24
3.5
i
tons/vr
1541
1471
300
3312
lbs/10e
Btu
3.0
3.0
3.0
tans /XT
465
8
47T
146
/»
8
T54"
23
34
~57
fiftd
lbs/10f
Btu
0.92
0.31
0.57
tons/^i
175
s
168
49
•?Q9
lbs/10*
_ltiL_
0.34
0.34
0.49
•
Ot
G3
-------
Table D-l. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization KaPsas
AQCR
099
099
099
totals
Plant Name
Sedgwick Co.
Sedgwick Co.
Skelly Oil
Fuel Use
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Oil
2.0XS
Gas
Oil
l.XS
Gas
Oil
0.702S
Gas
nn
Gas
Annual
Quantity
1102
833
4644
507
3390
2690
9136
4030
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
17.6
95.1
112.7
74.2
57.9
132.1
54.2
307
3TTT2"
Idfi
460
Emissions
S02 | Particulates
Existing
tons/yiq
125
181
168
«*
47*
lbs/10*
Btu
0.25
0.31
0.11
Allowable | Existing j Allowable
tons/yr
1500
1752
4582
7834
lbs/10e
Btu
3.0
3.0
3.0
tons/vr
10
13~
40
4
44
25
24
W
106
lbs/10£
Btu
0.03
0.08
0.03
tons/y
168
190
411
769
lbs/106
&ta_.
0.34
0.33
0.26
-------
Table D-1. Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization - Kansas
AQCR
100
100
100
!
_
Totals
Plant Name
Farmland Ind.
Inc.
Colomeian Carbon
Cent. Telephone
and Utilities
(
i
•
Fuel Use .
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Gas
Gas
Oil
l.OXS
Gas
Oil
Gas'
Annual
Quantity
990
900
319
6230
31
-------
Table D-2. Major Industrial Fuel and Emissions Summary for Kansas
AQCR
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
Stlte Totals*
Fuel Acounted For •
Coal
Tons
0
0
0
0
8540
0
0
8540 '
103 Gal.
Oil
3370
1295
0
349
1112
9136
319
15587
106 ft3
Gas
1464
7596
20123
4668
1869
4030
8120
47870
so2
Existing
Emissions
(Tons)
384
220
4
27
771
474
27
Al 1 owed
Emissions
(Tons)
3200
12140
30000
7080
3312
Z834
12245
Particulates
Existing
(Tons)
...51
202
163
35
684
106
65
Allowed
(Tons)
390
1140
2166
712
392
769
1016
en
CO
Only major emission sources are accounted for in totals.
-------
APPENDIX E
AREA SOURCE ASSESSMENT
Table E-l shows area source fuel use for the State of Kansas by AQCR.
The approximate energy values are compared for each fuel along with tbe
percent of overall energy derived from each fuel. Data are those in NEDS
as of November 1, 1974. State area source totals are calculated and the
percent of energy derived from each fuel shown.
Area source fuel use is then compared to total fuel use in Kansas. 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.
65
-------
Table E-l. Area Source Fuel Use
Kansas
en
AQCR
094
(Kan + Missouri)
. 095
096
097
098
099
100
1
Area Source Total
Percent
Coal
Tons
76750
20680
11430
7270
34060
22500
5450
78140
109 Btu
1765
476
263
167
783
518
140
4112
(l.tt)
Oil
103 bbl
737
421
239
155
245
666
206
2669
109 Btu
4334
2475
1405
911
1441
3920
1210
15696
Gas
1C3 ft3
109290
46730
39970
28720
39100
93620
29370
386810
(3.9*) j
109 Btu
. 109290
46730
39970
28720
39100
93630
29370
38681.0
(95. OX)
Total
1012 Btu
115.4
49.7
41.6 '
t
29.8
41.3
98.1
30.7
i
I
407 i
100% j
State Total (all fuels, all sources) 996 x 10"B1^
1) NEDS data bank, Nov. 1, 1974.
Notes- 42X of fuel use 1n Kansas 1s by area sources.
-------
APPENDIX F
REGULATION EVALUATION AND FUEL STATISTICS
The Tables F-l and F-2 illustrate the effect on emissions of particu-
lates and S02 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 power plant
and industrial source. The column in Table F-l labeled "Allowable Total Emis-
sions" is the tonnage from Tables A-9 and A-10 which the region can tolerate
while still not violating ambient air quality standards. In Table F-2 (SOp
Evaluation) the analogous column indicates the ratio of emissions resulting
when all sources are emitting at regulations to emissions at present.
Area fuel burning sources are assumed to remain unchanged, since SOp
and particulate regulations generally do not apply to these sources. Non-
fuel emission estimates from Tables A-7 and A-8 are included in the balance.
Since the degree of control which will be achieved on non-fuel particulate
sources was not known for this report, the particulate totals serve mainly
to show magnitudes relative to tonnage allowed by air quality considerations.
For SOp the non-fuel estimate would, in many AQCR's, remain about the same
due to lack of other SO- regulations (except oil smelters). Thus,the S02
"roll up ratio" is not too far from that which would be possible under exist-
ing regulations.
A regional approach is implicitly assumed to have some validity in this
exercise, so that any conclusions from the numbers in Tables F-l and F-2
will have to be temperated for AQCR's with widely dispersed emissions.
Lastly, it is emphasized that these tables are hypothetical in that no
fuel mix may exist to allow all sources to emit exactly at regulation levels.
The calculations do give some insight into adequacy of existing regulations for
allowing air quality standards to be achieved if a fuel schedule different from
the one at present were in effect.
A Table F-3 is included in this appendix to summarize gross consumption and
production of fossil fuels in Kansas.
67
-------
Table F-l. Particulate Regulation Evaluation - Kansas
,00
AQCR
094 (Kansas only
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
095
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
096
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
1012 Btu
23.8
1.95
44.2
0
141.15
49.8
7.78
49.7
0
107.28
4.45
20.1
41.7
0
66.25
Current Emissions
Tons/yr
800
51
5800
6651
35900 J
42,551
2886
202
1100
4188
40800
44,988
38
163
700
901
22500
23,401
Regulations
lbs/106 Btu
~0.2
.2 - .5
__,
«0.2
.2 - .5
~0.3
.2 - .5
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
2455
390
5800
8645
39S900
44,545
4200
1140
1*00
6440
40800
47,240
693
2166
700
3559
22500
26.059
Estimate Allowable
Emissions in AQCR
tons/yr
6300
i
12,200 !
!
6,900
-------
Table F-l. Particulate Regulation Evaluation - Kansas (Continued)
AQCR
097
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
098
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
099
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
tfon-Fuel
'
Total
i
1012 Btu
12.3
4.7
29.8
0
46.8
14.3
2.22
41.3
0
57.8
65.3
5.35
98.1
0
168.75
Current Emissions
Tons/yr
•100
35
470
605
12700
;13i305
1300
684
1100
3084
179,000
182,084
515
106
2500
3121
' 36,900
40,021
Regulations
lbs/106 Btu
.24
.2 - .5
/v.24
.2 - .5
.2
.2 - .5
•" - --:
Emissions
with Al 1 Sources
Emitting at Reg's
1550
712
"470
2732
12700
,115,432
1750
392
1100
2242
179.000
182,242
5880 .
769
2500
9149
36.900
46,049
Estimate Allowable
Emissions in AQCR
tons/yr
i
6,600
100,000 ]
(
1
i
I
(
i
•;
•
i
8,000
-------
Table F-l. Participate Regulation Evaluation - Kansas (Continued)
AQCR
100
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
j Total
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
N'on-Fuel
Total
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Hon-Fual
Total
1012 Btu
13.1
8.17
30.7
0
51.97
Current Emissions
Tons/yr
113
65
500
678
36,500
37.178
Regulations
lbs/106 Btu
.23
.2 - .5
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
1590
1016
500
31flfi
36,500
39,606
Estimate Allowable
Emissions in AQC?>
tons/, r
.
24.000
!
-------
Table F-2. SCL Regulation "Evaluation - Kansas
AQCR
094
(Kansas Only)
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
I:,-/- -Fuel
Total
i
i
095
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
flon-Fuel
Total
096
Power Plants
Ir.dustry
Area Scurcc-s
Non-Fuel
Total
1012 Btu
23.8
1.95
44. 2 ^
0
141.15
49.8
7.78
49.7
0
107.28
4.45
20.1
41.7
0
66.25
Current
Emissions
tons/year
13578
384
8600
22562
9090
31,652
13456
220
2600
16276
1580
17,856
187
4
1400
' 1591
2600
4,191
Reg'i
lbs/106
Btu
3.0
3.0
3.0
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
35648
3200
8600
47448
9090
56,538
74674
12140
2600
89414
1580
90,994
6650
30000
1400
38050
2600
40,650
Estteted Allrwable
Emissions fo.
AQCR
Kansas Only
34,000
Ratio of Ec.fssions at
Regulat ons to Current
Emissions
+ 1.78
f
N/A
N/A
+ 5.10
+ 9.7
-------
Table F-2. SO, Regulation"Evaluation - Kansas (Continued)
AQCR
097
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
098
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
fl on -Fuel
TctaT
099
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
i
1012 Btu
112S3
4.7
29.8
0
46.8
14.3
2.22
41.3
0
57.82
65.3
5.35
98.1
0
168.75
Current
Emissions
tons/year
316
27
870
1213
1310
2523
4038
771
3500
8309
24675
32,984
899
474
4100
5473
• 6900
12,3731
Reg's
lbs/106
Btu
3.0
3.0
3.0
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
18530
7080
870
26480
1310
27790
21462
3312
3500
28274
24675
52.949
97740
7834
4100
109674
6900
116,574
Estimated Allowable
Emissions for
AQCR
N/A
N/A
19.000
Ratio of Emissions at
Regulations tc Current
Emissions
* 11.0 i
1
+ 1.6
t
•'
1
+ 9.4
-------
Table F-2. S02 Regulation"Evaluation - Kansas (Continued)
ACCR
100
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sourcas
•:';ri-Fu9l
".otal
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
Non-Fuel
Total
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources
lien-Fuel
Total
1012 Btu
13.1
8.17
30.7
0
51.97
Current
Emissions
tons/year
336
27
820
1183
950
2*133
Reg's
lbs/106
Etu
3.0
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
19600
12245
820
32665
950
33,615
Estimated Allc- ^Lle
Emissions for
AQCR
N/A
Ratio . f Env.'ssions at
Regulations to Current
Emissions
I
i
> IS~.8
(
i
I
1
I
-------
Table F-3. Kansas Fossil Fuel Summary*(1972)
-si
Coal
103 tons
011
106 bbl
Gas
109 ft3
Production
1227
104
889
Consumption
495
56
633
All oil and gas values are from "Fuel and Energy Data: U.S. by States and Regions," 1972
(U. S. Bureau of Mines). Coal consumption figure obtained from "Assessment of Impact of
A1r Quality Requirements on Coal 1n 1975, 1977, and 1980," (U. S. Bureau of Mines).
-------
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 Commission, U.S. Power Plant Statistics Stored in EPA
Data Bank, September 1974.
(11) "State of Kansas Implementation Plan for the Attainment and
Maintenance of National Air Quality Standards," Kansas State
Department of Health, January 1972.
(12) "Air Pollution Emission Control Regulations," State of Kansas,
January 1, 1974.
75
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-74-076
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S \CCESSIOf*NO.
4.
PLAN REVIEW FOR KANSAS AS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
5. REPORT DATE
December 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
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
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADD.RESS.
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 interfering with the attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards. This document, which is also required by Section
IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution
State implementation plans
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
76
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
7.6
7*,
------- |