EPA-450/3-75-008
FEBRUARY 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
NORTH DAKOTA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
NORTH DAKOTA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
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
February 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, REVIEW FINDINGS 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 6
2.1 Summary 6
2.2 Air Quality Setting - State of North Dakota 7
2.3 Background of the Development of the Current State
Implementation Plan 8
2.4 Special Considerations - North Dakota 10
3.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENT BASED ON SIP REVIEW 11
3.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment 11
3.2 Power PI ant Assessments 11
3.3 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment . 12
3.4 Area Source Assessment 12
3.5 Impact of Fuel Switching 12
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX A 14
APPENDIX B 28
APPENDIX C 31
APPENDIX D 38
APPENDIX E 47
APPENDIX F 48
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......... 52
-------
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 oolicy 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
S02 emission regulations. The States have also been asked to discourage
large scale shifts from coal to oil where this could be done without
jeopardizing the attainment and maintenance of the NAAOS.
-------
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 SC^ 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^lf 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.
A'f 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 disnersion
modeling data available by which to address individual point source emissions.
Mhere 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
/\
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 (S02) emissions. This is because stationary
fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of S0? emissions and are
a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
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 North Dakota Implementation Plan has been reviewed
for the most frequent causes for over-restrictive
emissions limiting regulations. A state-wide rather
than example region approach was used in developing
control strategies for both TSP and $63; however North
Dakota does have more stringent air quality Standards
than the NAAQ.S. This review found no indications that
current regulations are overly restrictive in the context
of Section IV of ESECA.
There are indications of TSP attainment problems in
both North Dakota AQCR's. It is postulated that a sub-
stantial portion of state TSP emissions come from
agriculturally related processes which are not defined
in the inventory at this time. An increase in TSP
emissions would make attainment of NAAQS more difficult.
Therefore, the stationary source fuel combustion parti=
culate emission regulation is not a good candidate for
revision in North Dakota.
t Data available for this report show SC^ levels below
the NAAQS in North Dakota; however, SOg emissions from
most major fuel combustion sources are also well below
regulation allowables. Significant levels of fuel
switching could occur within the limits of the present
emission regulations. In this context, the present
regulation does not appear overly restrictive. The impact
on air quality as a result of sources emitting up to
regulating limits should be evaluated before further
relaxation of the present SOg emission regulations is
considered.
-------
Divide j Burke ^tenvlljle Bott1neau JRolettej
i f-; "I
i , , *^^ , Pierce
'l '1 >"
! ! Ward ! HcHenry
f
r L i - _._?°wnerL
.* * * " i i
1 Cavalier [Pembina
': }
i
Williams
i
Walsh
; Mountral1 ;
Ramsey ^_.
McKenzle
wara nciienry
\ S
/' ! i
L A. " "] '
- " \ McLean r
!""'v -.-"'. icu«_
\ } ^«°""U-'sLuoni SS N
! l ' "
.i,j We11s r::._ Grl99* Tr.i
Dunn
L Mercer » r
! , ~-~''*-t
| ! Oliver T
! '. >
Foster
.^ .§
.'B1ll1ng6
I i
IdenS r-: -^ l. ( Burlelghs
|K1dder i
Cass
'-, Stutsman S Barnes
Stark
I
Morton
!
r - - - ' ~
Slope
Bowman
,_._..,
;
i
y
j
j
netting
L.
Adams
,
erj
i.
1
l
j__
1
i
Grant i.
.y
\.
-,.'""
/
Sioux
1 "
i
/
, -\
'f Emmons
<
i.
j
i
i
_\_
\
Logan
Mclntosh
j
i
i
i
i
LaMoure | Ransom |
-V >>
; !
Dickey j Sargent !
I
Region No. 172, North Dakota Intrastate A1r Quality Control Region (Remaining Area)
Region No. 130, Metropolitan
Fargo-Moorhead Interstate
Air Quality Control Region
Figure 1. North Dakota A1r Quality Control Regions
-------
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?
* Does the SIP have emission limiting regulations for control
of existing (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources, and (3)
area sources.?
Did the State use an example region approach for demonstrating
the attainment of NAAQS or more stringent State standards?
* Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion
sources emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under
the Clean Fuels Policy?
* 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 reported (1973) Air Quality Data, does air quality
meet NAAQS?
* Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data, are there indica-
tions 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 accomplish signfi-
cant 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 ootential in the
region?
-------
The following portion of this report is directed to 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 Annendix 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 limit-
ing regulations. In conjunction with the regional analysis, a characteri-
zation of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial
sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, E.
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
explanations.
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING - STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
The state of North Dakota was divided into two air quality control
regions - AQCR. They are as follows:
130 Fargo - Moorhead interstate air quality control region
172 North Dakota intrastate air quality control reqion
See Figure A-l.
A summary of the Federal and North Dakota air quality standards for
the pollutants under study is presented in the Table A-3. North Dakota
has adopted the Federal secondary standards for total suspended oarticulate
as a state standard. North Dakota has adopted a series of ambient air
-------
NORTH DAKOTA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
"INDICATIONS"
Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
Does the SIP have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of existing:
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 not initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy?
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?
t 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 com-
bustion sources show a potential for a regu-
lation revision?
Must emission regulations be revised to accom-
plish significant fuel switching?
t Based on the above indicators, what is the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations?
State
TSP S02
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No No
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Fargo -
Moorhead AQCR
TSP S02
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
N/A
Yes
i_
Yes
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
No
N/A
No
a
o
8.
North
Dakota AQCR
TSP S02
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
N/A
Yes
!_
O
O
Q.
No
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
No
N/A
No
«
c
r-
O>
1_
S
Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region? No .
8
-------
quality standards for oxides of sulfur. Standards exist in North Dakota
for sulfur dioxide, suspended sulfates, sulfuric acid mist and sulfur
trioxide. North Dakota has adopted the national standards for nitrogen
dioxide for average annual levels; in addition, a standard for a 1-hour
period of time has been added.
North Dakota has an extensive monitoring network for susoended part-
iculate matter based on the density of population in the state. The net-
work consists of sixteen stations located throughout the state. Three of
the stations are located in the North Dakota portion of the Fargo - Moorhead
interstate AQCR, which is one county.
Summaries of North Dakota air quality status in 1973 are presented in
Table A-4 for p'articulate and A-5 for SCL. The number of stations exceed-
ing standards are presented by air quality control regions (AQCR). The
highest particulate readings in the state are in the North Dakota AQCR.
Both AQCR's violated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for both
annual average and 24-hour levels.
Both North Dakota AQCR's are classified priority II for TSP. The
state is classified priority III for the remainder of the pollutants.
At the time of submission of the North Dakota State Implementation Plan,
the State was able to demonstrate attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards by 1975.
2.3 BACKGROUND OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The State Implementation Plan control strategies and regulations were
based on a state-wide approach, demonstrating attainment of particulate
and sulfur oxide standards in both AQCR's.
The state regulation for the control of particulate matter includes a
schedule of emissions from fuel combustion sources based on total heat inout
"in million Btu's. These regulations apply to new or modified sources. Sources
existing at the time of submission of the State Implementation Plan are
limited to 0.80 pounds per million Btu of heat input for particulate emissions.
Fuel combustion regulations for sulfur oxide emissions are limited to 3.0
pounds per million Btu of heat input for existing, new, or modified sources.
North Dakota does not have regulations controlling N0_ fuel combustion
emissions.
-------
2.4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - NORTH DAKOTA
Portions of both AQCR's in North Dakota have been proposed as designated
air quality maintenance areas (Table A-l). It is anticipated that special
requirements for these areas will be developed by the state and submitted
to EPA as modifications to the Implementation Plan. Virtually all major
present and planned fuel combustion sources are located in the counties
where portions of AQCR's are proposed as designated AQMA's. The North Dakota
portion of the Fargo - Moorhead interstate AQCR (Cass county) has been de-
signated as a AQMA for TSP, S02> and N02- The latter AOMA designation has
been made because of the potential for natural resource development. The
state of North Dakota believes that this area has a potential to exceed
one or more of the natural ambient air quality standards in the 10 year
period between 1975 and 1985.
ENERGY SUPPLY POTENTIAL
Vast lignite coal resources lie in 23 counties in the western nortion
of North Dakota. The preliminary development in the short term is slated
for Mclean, Mercer and Oliver counties. The total lignite coal reserve is
estimated to be 351 billion tons. Of this amount, 32 billion tons are
considered potentially strippable and 15 billion tons lie in beds 5 feet
or more in thickness, 100 feet or less below the surface. Abundant North
Dakota water resources enhance the potential for development of the lignite
coal reserve. In addition to conventional fossil fuel oower plants, recent
developmental work in the area of liquification and gasification of lignite
- - - -.
and.other coals has stimulated developmental planning in the three county
area. Several corporations have announced plans for large scale lignite
coal development and coal gasification and liquification plants to be sited
in southwestern North Dakota. As plans for this coal development become
more definite, North Dakota expects that it will be necessary to propose
additional counties for designation as AOMA's in the future.
10
-------
3.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENT BASED ON SIP REVIEW
3.1 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENTS
Tables A-7 and A-8 present the emission summaries for North Dakota.
According to National Emissions Data System (NEDS), for the North Dakota
AQCR, 63% of participate emissions come from fuel combustion sources,
while in the North Dakota portion of the Fargo - Moorhead AQCR only 16%
of particulate emissions come from fuel combustion sources. It is postu-
lated that fugitive dust from natural and agricultural related activites
is a substantial portion of measured TSP levels. Fugitive dust is not
accounted for in the emission inventories at present. Fuel combustion
sources are the major contributors for total SOp emissions on a state-wide
basis (90%).
Table A-9 and A-10 present the results of estimating what the North
Dakota emissions would be on a region wide basis. The largest drawback
for using this approach lies in the large geographical dispersion of
emission sources in the North Dakota AQCR's. The analysis is intended to
give an "indication" of potential areas for relaxation.
Tables B-l and B-2 summarize the-general data for each pollutant by
AQCR that must be considered when estimating the potential for regulation
relaxation. The analysis was performed to determine if there were any
obvious combustion source candidates. Based on numerous violations of NAAQS,
there is no indication that the regulations are too stringent for total
suspended particulate emissions; however SO^ air quality data indicates a
potential "tolerance" for emission increase. Individual source assessments
are required to determine if the regulations are over restrictive.
3.2 POWER PLANT ASSESSMENTS
At the present time there are thirteen power plant sites in the State.
All of the power plants are located in the North Dakota AQCR (172).
Ten of the power plants in North Dakota are 100% coal-fired. The
Jamestown Power Plant has two units; one unit is 100% coal-fired, the
other unit is 100% oil-fired. The Williston Power Plant is 100% natural
gas-fired. The Young-Center Power Plant is the only plant in North Dakota
11
-------
that has a multi-fuel capability. Table C-l presents relevant data on
all power plants presently in operation in North Dakota. It was generally
found that plants were emitting well under regulations for SOg and were
at or over regulations for particualtes. All plants are on compliance
schedules to meet emission regulations.
Table C-2 lists all known projected power plants (1975-1985). These
are large coal-fired installations. Both of these plants are to be located
adjacent to the coal source.
3,3 INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE ASSESSMENT
All major stationary fuel combustion sources in the State of North
Dakota were reviewed (Table D-l). Emission/regulation statas was similar
to power plants for TSP and S02, over for TSP and under for SCL. In the
Fargo - Moorhead AQCR (130) there are three major industrial fuel combustion
sources. Each of them uses a single fuel source and are not capable of fuel
conversion. In the North Dakota AQCR (172), nine sources in the state are
capable of fuel conversion and additional analysis ha's been performed.
(See 3.5 and Appendix F)
3.4 AREA SOURCE ASSESSMENT
The State of North Dakota was found to have no area sources which could
be evaluated within the context of Section IV of ESECA.
3.5 IMPACT OF FUEL SWITCHING
An analysis of fuel combustion sources was made to determine the feas-
ibility of conversion to coal or oil and its resulting impacts on emissions
and regulations. The candidate sources for fuel switching identified in
Appendix C and D were evaluated to determine the potential for relaxation
of regulations. The percentage of coal utilized was estiamted by trans-
lating all fuel used into total annual heat input and directly proportion-
ing on the basis of the percent of annual heat input contributed by each
fuel type. The emissions resulting from conversion to coal or oil at these
candidate combustion sources were estimated and compared to current emissions
(Table F-l and F-2).
12
-------
Table F-l presents the Young-Center power plant existing and potential
emissions based on 100% coal utilization with present equipment. The
power plant would'not meet present particulate emissions regulations with-
out additional controls. Based on current emissions and existing ambient
air quality, the Young-Center Power Plant would not be a good candidate for
full conversion to coal.
Table F-2 presents the emissions resulting from a fuel switch for
major industrial sources with a dual fuel capability. All of the candidate
industrial sources use a combination of oil and natural gas for fuel. Con-
sequently, the conversions were made to 100% oil utilization. The calcula-
tions assume present control equipment.
The power plant analysis indicated that for total susnended particulates,
the increase in projected emissions with fuel conversion will be signifi^
cant. Ambient air quality standards will probably not be met. Consequently,
further relaxation of TSP regulations should not take place. The industrial
source analysis indicated switching to 100% oil utilization would not adversely
affect air quality. Emissions after conversion would still not exceed
allowable emissions for the individual sources.
13
-------
APPENDIX A
State implementation plan information
Current air quality information
* 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
^ 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 not violate national
secondary ambient air quality standards, is shown for SC>2 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 AOCR based on the current
NEDS data and the present 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 were 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 AQCRs
In1972 National Emissions Report," EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974.
14
-------
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 roll up. 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-9 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 linear.
Although this cutoff may leave some AOCRs with no_ quantifiable emissions
tolerance, it was felt that no number at all would be preferable to a bad
of misleading number.
It is emphasized that emissions tolerance is a region-wide calculation.
This tolerance obviously makes more sense in, say, an urban AOCR with many
closely spaced emissions sources than in a largely rural AQCR with geograph-
ically dispursed emissions.
15
-------
Table A-l. North Dakota AQCR Priority Classification and AQMAs
AQCR
Metro Fargo
Moorhead e
North Dakotc
portion
North Dakotc
Fed. 1
130
t
172
Priority Classification
Part.3
II
II
SOX b
III
III
NOX c
III
III
Demographic Information
Population
1970
120,261
73,653
544,139
Square
Miles
2,794
1,749
67,530
Population
Density
43.0
42.1
8.06
Proposed AQMA Designations
TSP
Counties
(1) Cass
(3) McLean,
Mercer,
Oliver
S0x
Counties
None
(3)McLean,
Mercer,
Oliver
N0x
Counties
None
(3)McLean,
Mercer,
Oliver
0>
Criteria Based on Maximum Measured (or Estimated) Pollution Concentration in Area
Priority
aParticulate matter
Annual geometric mean ..
24-hour maximum
Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean .
24-hour maximum
^Nitrogen dioxide
I
Greater than
95
325
100
455
110
II
From - To
60 - 90
150 - 325
60 - 100
260 - 455
III
Less than
60
150
60
260
100
Federal Register, August 1974, SMSA's showing potential for NAAQS violations due
to growth.
'Interstate
-------
Divide
Williams
~-X.~'"~"
V"'
' McKenzle
f
i
|
.1.
1 i
.'Billings
1 i
i 1 * *
oldens r
Mleyj |
i i
1 !
I Burke .Jten
«. J !..
' > i
t_ .. . . ;
1 i ~
;Mountra1l ;
\
t \
...-J " »
r~-v_
Dunn [ Her
!
1
!
,-._.-..l,
Stark !
!-
._._._._. I,
5
"*We R ttl u JRolettej | Caval1er (v*^
i Bottineau i. '.. «-. i
. ( JTowneH
] "!"P'ferce'-*3_ i
'| "I f Ramsey
j McHenry i ' l
i
Walsh
i
'» Benson
..' ; Grand
iNelsoni Forks
i !
McLean r
"
i i Eddy
Wells » ;Gri J
i
i Foster
'jSheHda, ......
'..fiercer V... f' f1 j '; '-
i r"b?iver\J |K1dderi
-i.Burlelghs \ Stutsman S Barnes
\ JTralll 1 Region No. 130, Metropolitan
iSteelei. \ Fargo-Moorhead Interstate
A1r Quality Control Region
Cass
Morton
Slope iHettlnger' Qrant [ _
Bowman
Adams
Sioux
r~JT~ti""T^ J*:±IK
5f«ns Tt;7nt^ht"07;key [ .,., i
Sargent
i
Region No. 172, North Dakota Intrastate A1r Quality Control Region (Remaining Area)
Figure A-l. North Dakota Air Quality Control Regions
-------
Table A<-?. North. Dakota _Atta1nmentJ)ates
AQCR# Name __^..
1
130 Metro Fargo - Moorhead
172 North Dakota
Parti culates
Attainment Dates
Primary Secondary
2/75
2/75
2/75
2/75
Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment Dates
Primary Secondary
a
a
a
a
1 Nitrogen Oxides
I Attainment Dates
a
a
00
a Ambient air quality was below NAAQS when SIP was submitted
-------
Table A-3. North Dakota Ambient Air Quality Standards
Expressed as .ug/nr
Federal Primary
(rtov. 1972)
Secondary
State
Total Suspended Parti cul ate
Annual 24 hr.
7b(G)
60(G)
60(G)
260a
150a
15Qa
Sulfur Oxides
Annual 24 hr. 3 hr. 1 hr.
80(A) 365a
1300a
Sulfur dioxide
60(A) 260a 71ba
Suspended Sul fates
4(A) 12C
Sulfurlc acid mist, Sulfur
trloxiae
4(A) 12C -- 30C
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Annual 1 hr.
100(A)
100(A)
100(A)
200b
Federal Regulations apply
(G) Geometric mean
(A) Arithmetic mean
a
.dot to be exceeded more than once per year
Not to be exceeded over 1 percent of the time in any three month period
Not to be exceeded over 1 percent of the time
-------
Table A-4. North Dakota AQCR Air Quality Status (1973), TSPa
'; AQCR Name <
* .
Fargo-Moorheadb
North Dakota
portion
North Dakota
AQCR 8
130
172
Stations
Reporting
7
. 3
13
TSP Concentration
2nd
Highest
Highest Reading Reading
Annual 24-Hr 24-Hr
81 503 337
81 488 377
120 1153 587
,..._
# Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary Secondary
Annual 24-Hr Annual % 24-Hrc %
1 7 2 29 7 100
13 1 33 3 100
1 6 2 15 . 10 77
Reduction
Required
to Meet
Standards
55
55
74
Standard
on Which
Reduction
j Is Based
24-hour
Secondary
Standard
*1973 air quality data in National Air Data Bank as of June 7, 1974
DInterstate
^Violations based on more than one reading in excess of standards
^Formula: 2nd highest 24-hr - secondard 24-hr standard X 100
2nd highest 24-hr
-------
Table A-5. North Dakota AQCR Air Quality Status (1973). S02a
AQCR Name
Fargo-Moorheadb
North Dakota
portion .
North Dakota
AQCR #
130
172
Stations
Reporting
24-Hr
(Bubbler)
2
0
NS
I
Stations
Reporting
(Contin.)
NS
0
NS
S0» Concentration
2nd
Highest
Hiqhest Reading Reading
Annual 24-Hr 24-Hr
NDA 68 23
- - -
US . NS NS
I Stations Exceeding :
Ambient Air Quality Stds.,
Primary Secondary
Annual 24-Hr«- 3-Hr
00 0
- - -.
NS NS NS
Reduction0
Requi red
. To Meet
Standards
meets
standards
meets
standards
Standard
on Which %
i Reduction
ils Based
ro
?1973 air quality data 1n National Air Data Bank as of June 7j 1974
Interstate
S/iolations based on more than one reading in excess of standards
Tormula: 2nd highest 24-hr - primary 24-hr standard v inn
2nd highest 24-hr
-------
Table A-6. North Dakota Fuel Combustion Source Summary*
AQCR
Fargo-Moorhead
North Dakota
* : i
AQCR i
130
172
North Dakota
NEDSb
0
13
Power Plants
FPCC
0
5
Other Fuel Combustion Point Sources
Parti cul ate S02
3
11
2
12
ro
ro
j*0nly sources in North Dakota are included
All sources from National Emission Data Bank listing
cFederal Power commission information for 1973 for major powe/r plants
-------
Table A-7. North Dakota Emissions Summary. SOg (103 tons/year)
AQCR
Fargo-Moorhead3
(130)
North Dakota
portion
North Dakota
(172)
, ToUl
(104 Tons/Year
6.5
2.3
83.7
Percent
Fuel Combustion
93
89
91
Electricity Generation
(103 Tons/Year)
0.46
0
56.9
%
7.1
0
68
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/Year)
1.4
1.4
9.5
%
21.5
60.9
11.4
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/Year)
4.2
0.65
9.5
%
54.6
28.3
11.4
Interstate emissions based on total of all counties 1n all states.
-------
Table A-8. North Dakota Emissions Summary. Participates (10 tons/year)
AQCR
Fargo-Moorhead a
(130)
North Dakota
portion
North Dakota
(172)
, Tottl
[10J Tons/Year
20.7
14.1
72.6
Percent
Fuel Combustion
32
16
63
Electricity Generation
(Ifl3 Tons/Year)
0.05
0
37.4
. 1
%
0.02
0
51.5
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/Year)
5.1
1.5
2.3
%
2.5
11
3.2
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/Year)
1.4
.75
5.7
%
'ores
;0.05
7.9
Interstate emissions based on total of all counties In all states.
-------
Table A-9. North Dakota Required Emission Reductions, Participates
SIP
1973 Data
Af)
ta Emissions
AOCR fleas. Red. (103 tons)
Fargo- 71 21.2 18.7
toorhead
130.
North 79 '31.7 9.8
Dakota
172
Allowable
Emissions
MO3 tons)
14.7
6.7
1975
Estimated
Emissions
After Controls
(103 tons)
1.69
3.5
AQ
Meas.
81
120
NEDS
£a Emissions
Red. (103 tons)
33 14.1
59 72.6
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
9.3
29.8
Emission
Tolerance
(103 tons)
0
0
Background 1s 19 )ig/m
North Dakota portion of Interstate.
-------
Table A-10. North Dakota Required Emission Reduction, S02
ro
1
i
' i AQ
'Measurement
1 I Control Emissions
AQCR 1 I Value (103 tons)
Far
-------
-ll North Dakota Fuel Combustion Regulations
Existing Sources
New Sources
lbs/hr/10° Btu
Participate
Shall not exceed 0.80 pounds
per million Btu of heat Input
Fuel Input 106 Btu/hr
10 or less
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
0.600
0.443
0.328
0.242
0.180
Sulfur Dioxide
Shall not exceed 3.0 pounds
per million Btu of heat Input
Shall not exceed 3.0 pounds
per million Btu of heat Input
-------
APPENDIX B
Tables B-l and B-2 are the assessment of AQCRs which should be examined
for the fuel switching impact on particulate and SOg emissions. They also
provides 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 "high" or "medium" 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-l and B-2 may later show little
potential for fuel switching after individual sources are examined. Finally
it is possible 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.
28
-------
Table B-l. Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of TSP Regulations
Air Quality
* *
AQCR Monitors Violations
Fargo 3 . 3 .
Moorhead
130
North 13 10
Dakota
172
Expected
Attainment
Date
2/75
2/75
Any
Counties
AQttA
Designations?
1
3
1
i Total
Emissions
103 tons/vt^
1
1,4.1
j
72.6
% Emission
from Fuel
Combustion
16
63
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(103 tons)
0
0
Overall
Regional
Evaluation
poor
poor
-------
! Table B-2. Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of S02 Regulations
Air Quality
'u $
AQCR Monitors Violations
Fargo 0
Moorhead
130
North a
Dakota
172
Expected
. Attainment
Date
b
b
Any '
Counties
-AQMA
Designations?
none
3
Total
Emissions
103 tons/yr :
-i - i- >-^
2.3
83.7
% Emissions
..from Fuel
' Combustion
89
91
Tolerance -
for
Emissions
Increase
, (103 tons)
1
1.9
._
Overall
Regional
Evaluation
!
good
-
aNo air quality data available
bAir quality presently below standards
-------
APPENDIX C
This section is a review of individual power plants by AOCR. The
intent is to illustrate fuel switching possibilities and particulate and
SOp 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 oower plants and fuel use in 1972,
and (3) NEDS Emissions data. For those plants listed by the FPC (1 above),
the 1973 fuel schedule v/as 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-4 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). Hhen a plant
was not listed in NEDS, AP 42 emission factors were used to estimate S^L
and TSP emissions (see Table C<4).
]NEDS Data Bank 1974
31
-------
I Table C-1A. North Dakota Power Plant Evaluation
Plant/
Design3/
AQCR/Number/County Capacity
North 172 Barnes Valley City #2
Dakota C
5.0 MW
Valley City #3
North 172 Grand Forks Wood #2
Dakota C
2115 MW
Wood #3
North 172 McHenry Neal #1
Dakota C
38.5 MW
Neal #2
North 172 Mercer Leland Olds
Dakota C
215.7 MW
Fuel
Type
Coal
0.62S
6.62SA
Coal
0.6%S
6.6%A
Coal
0.35%S
6.0%A
Coal
0.35SS
6.0%A
Coal
0.20«S
6.0%A
Coal
0.2%S
6. QUA
Coal
0.55%S
7.2%A
Amount
103ton/yr
6.58
3.51
.45
3.2
110
94.1
1,320
Heat
Input
106Btu H
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Emissions Tons/yr
S02
Exist Allow
104
40
3
5
439
376
14,500
192
74
15
120
3,160
3,060
27,900
TSP
Exist Allow
368
151
18
30
933
800
5,530
51
20
2
16
403
391
2,470
*Fuel Design C=Coal; 0=0il; G=Gas
-------
Table C-1B. North Dakota Power Plant Evaluation
Plant/
Design3/
AQCR/Number/County Capacity
North 172 Mercer Beulah 11
Dakota C
13.5
Beulah 12
1 Beulah #3
' Beulah #4
i
Beulah #5
North 172 Mercer Stanton
Dakota C
172.0 MM
North 172 Morton Heskett 11
Dakota C(G)
100.0 MW
Heskett 02
Fuel Emissions Tons/yr
Type
Coal
0.623SS
7.4%A
Coal
0.622SS
7.4ZA
Coal
0.62XS
7.45SA
Coal
0.62ZS
7.42SA
Coal
0.62XS
7.4%A
Coal
0.80*5
7.6ZA
Coal
0.71ZS
6.62A
Coal
Amount
103ton/yr
11.3
11.3
12.9
32.6
32.6
862
155
411
Heat SO
Input
106BtU H Exist Allow
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
140
140
160
404
404
5,600
2,340
4,020
379
379
433
1,090
1,090
20,700
3,840
9,620
TSP
Exist Allow
146
146
211
833
833
7,260
2,020
3,370
58
58
80
654
654
2,090
487
1,080
'Fuel Design C=Coa1; 0=011; 6=Gas
-------
Table C-1C. North Dakota Power Plant Evaluation
Plant/
Fuel Design3/
AQCR/Number/County Capacity
North 172 Oliver Young-Center
Dakota C/0
234.6
North 172 Ramsey Devils Lake #1
Dakota C
12.5
Devils Lake #2
North 172 Richland Kldder #2
Dakota C
20.5
Kidder #3
Kldder #4
North 172 Stutsman Jamestown #1
Dakota C/0
7.5
Jamestown #2
Fuel
Type
Coal
0.7%S
8.0%A
Oil
n.in,*,
Coal
0.482SS
6.8%A
Coal
0.482SS
6.8%A
Coal
1.032S
6.83SA
Coal
1.03«S
6. 8% A
Coal
1 .0323
6.8%A
Coal
0.853SS
6.m
Oil
0.503SS
Amount
103ton/yr
1,620:
794,000gal
16.2
54
1.05
18.2
12.2
58.9
41 .OOOgal
Heat
Input
106Btu H
13
140/1 OOOgal
13
13
14
14
14
14
140/1 OOOgal
Emissions Tons/yr
S02
Exist Allow
16,000
13
117
522
21
355
239
500
1
30,200
435
2,230
19
381
256
2,210
32
TSP
Exist Allow
9,000
2
111
192
47
987
663
565
<1
2^930
64
306
6
101
68
303
5
-------
Table C-1D. North Dakota Power Plant Evaluation (Continued)
AQCR/Nunfoer/County
North 172 Ward
Dakota
North 172 Williams
Dakota
Plant/
Design8/
Capacity
Bison 11
C
10.0
Bison 12
Uilllston 11
G
2.0'
Wllliston 12
Fuel
Type
Coal
0.60*5
I0.2XA
Coal
0.60XS
10.2%A
Gas
Gas
Amount
lO^ton/yr
20.4
20.4
3.970 MCF
3,970 MCF
Heat
Input
106 BtUH
15
15
1040/MCF
1040/MCF
Emissions Tons/yr
S02
Exist A11ow
245
245
1
1
561
561
3
3
TSP
Exist Allow
1,670
1,670
1
1,
82
82
30
30
Fuel Design C=Coal; 0=011; G=Gas
NEDS data as of November 1974.
-------
Table C-2 Power Plant Projected Development
AQCR
North Dakota
172
Mercer
North Dakota
172
Oliver
. Owner
'
Basin Elec.
Minnekota
Power Coop.
Plant
a,b
Lei and Olds
#2
a,c
Milton Young
MW
460
400
Estimated Emissions NSPS
TSP
; Tons/Year
1 ,628
1,416
: S02
Tons/ Year
19,559
17,008
NOX
Tons/Year
11,408
9,920
co >
?Coal-fired power plant
Scheduled to go on-line in 1975.
Scheduled to go on-line in 1977.
-------
Table C-3. AP-42 Power Generation Emission Factors
Fuel
Coal(1* (Bit.)
General
Wet bottom 102 A
Cyclone
12 S
n s
0.5% S
l.OZ S
2.0% S
Gas<3>
(.3 Ibs S/
106 Ft3 )
Participates
Lbs/Ton Lbs/106 Btu
160 7.4
130 7.0
20 0.9
Same Same
as as
Above Above
LbVIO3 Gal
8 0.058
8 .058
8 .058
Lb/106 Ft3
15 .015
Lbs/Ton Lbs/106 Btu
38 1.65
76 3.3
114 5.0
Lb/103 Gal
79 0.56
157 1.12
314 2.24
Lb/106 Ft3
0.57 .00057
Hydrocarbons
tbs/Ton Lbs/106 Btu
0.3 0.013
0.3 0.13
Lb/103 Gal
2 .014
2 .014
2 .014
Lb/106 Ft3
1 .001
NOX (as N02)
Lbs/Ton Lbs/106
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/106 Ft3
600 0.60
(1) Coal 23 x 10b Btu/Ton
(2) Oil 140 x 103 Btu/Gal
(3) Gas 1000 Btu/Ft3
-------
APPENDIX D
The Tables D-l in this appendix list individual industrial/commercial/
institutional sources of particulates and S09 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).
38
-------
Table D-1A. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources*
u>
AQCR
Fargo
Moor head
130
North Dakota
172
County
Cass
Cass
Cass
Barnes
Bottineau
Source
5
#1
5
»2
5
«3
5
#4
6
11
4
11
4
»2
.101
11
101
#2
101
»3
101
#4
Boiler Capacity
106 Btu/Hr
35
35
23
93
45
b
30
24
8
8
6
4
Fuel Type
Coal
0.92%S
7.0%A
Coal
0.92*5
7,n*A
Coal
0.92*5
7.0ZA
Coal
0.92ZS
7.05SA
Gas
an
1.0%S
Coal
0.51%S
5.6ZA
Coal
o.srn
5.6%A
Oil
3.75SS
311
0.7X5
)il
).7%S
~oa1
J.4ZS
5.0M
Annual Amount
6.130 tons
9,190 tons
2.020 tons
16,300 tons
1,370 MCF
345.000pal
2,350 tons
1.7 tons
(standby)
SO.OOOgal
SO.OOOgal
SO.OOOgal
338 tons
Emissions
TSP Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.
279
418
92
743
12
4
100
--
<1
<1
<1
15
39
58
12
91
548
20
13
--
14
14
12
.2
S02 Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.
113
169
37
300
<1
27
24
--
2
2
2
3
229
115
20
609
2,060
77
49
-- .
70
70
57
8
Rational Emissions Data System printout as ofMiovember i "low
"Information not available '"vemoer i, 1974
-------
Table D-1B. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources3 (Continued)
, ,
AQCR
North Dakota
172
County
Burleigh
Grand Forks
Morton
Source
1
3
#1
3
n
3
#3
3
#4
3
#5
3
' #6
3
#1
. 3
#2
3 .
#3
Boiler Canacity
106 Etu/Hr
50
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
172
213 '
1 .'
222
Fuel Type
Gas
b
Coal
Coal
Oil
-%S
Gas
Coal'
0.49%S
6.0%A
Oil
Gas
Oil
1.76%S
process
gas
9.18JSS
OiJ
1 . 76%S
process
gas
0.772SS
Oil
1 .763SS
process
gas
0.77%s
Annual Amount
229 MCF
stand by
1 ,440 tons
140,000 tons
400,000gal
1 MCF
14,000 tons
b
b
5,740,000gal
923 MCF
9,600,000gal
731 MCF
10,300,000gal
776 MCF
Emissions
TSP Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.
3
-
56
546
1
1
546
b
b
43
7
72
5
77
6
120
-- '
8
78
C
C
78
b
b
603
352
373
SO- Tons/Year
Exfst. Allow.
1
-
14
137
C
C
137
b
b
717
4,020
1,200
267
1,290
284
448
30
294
C
C
294
b
b
2,260
1,320
1,400
-------
Table D-1C. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources3 (Continued)
AQCR
North Dakota
172
County
Morton
-
Source
3
#10
3
411
Boiler Capacity
106 Btu/Hr
56
31
Fuel Type
Gas
Gas
Annual Amount
297 MCF
164 MCF
Emissions
TSP Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.
3
1
195
106
S02 Tons/Year
ExTst. Allow.
<1
<1
730
399
[National Emissions Data System printout as of November 1, 1974
Information not available
C0ata not calculatable
-------
Table D-1D. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources3 (Continued)
AQCR
North Dakota
172
County
Morton .
Pembina
Ramsey
Richland
Source
3
#12
3
#13
3
#1
3
#2
101
#1
101
#2
101
#3
101
#1
101
#2
101
#3
Bo1ler,Capac1ty
106 Btu/Hr
42
37
392
21
7
7
13
i
b /
i
1
b
b i
Fuel Type
process
gas
0.66%S
Oil
0.10%S
Gas
Coal
0.52S
7.82SA
Coal
0.5%s
7.8XA
Coal
0.6%S
6.6%A
Coal
0.6%$
6.6%A
Coal .
0.6%S
6.6SA
Coal
l/.'l 2%S
6.6XA
Coal
1.12*5
6.6%A- - -
Oil
2.0*5
Annual Amount
373 MCF
113,000gal
190 MCF
90,000 tons
1 ,000 tons
441 tons
806 tons
1,260 tons
1,500 tons
1,500 tons
184,000gal
. Emissions
TSP Tons/Year
Exi.st. Allow.3
3
<1
2
1,350
51
3
11
8
64
64
2
147
130
246
12
3
5
7
9
9
0
SO? Tons/Year
Exist. Allow?
<1
<1
<1 .
552
10
3
9
14
32
32
29
552
487
1,990
64
16
23
36
34
34
42
J=.
ro
-------
Table D-1E. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources3 (Continued)
AQCR
North Dakota
172
County
Rlchland
Rolette
Source
101
#4
2
11
2
12
Boiler-Capacity
10° Btu/Hr
b
25
25
Fuel Type
Oil
2.0ZS
Gas
Coal
0.80XS
7.0XA
Coal
0.8OTS
7.0%K
Annual Amount
184,000gal
23 MCF
6,230 tons
b
. Emissions
"TSP Tons/Year
Exist. Allow*.
2
<1
394
b
0
58
b
$02 Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.6
29
<1
100
b
64
328
b
^National Emissions Data System printout as of November 1, 1974
Information not available
-------
Table D-1F. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources3 (Continued)
AQCR
North Dakota
172
.
,i
County
Stark
Stutsman
Towner
Ward
Source
1
#1
1
#2
5
#1
5
#2
5
#3
5
#4
4
4
#1
4
#2
4
#3
4
#4
Boiler Capacity
106 Btu/Hr
39
39
26
b
b
b
45
7
7
b
29
Fuel Type
Coal
1.2%S
12. OM
Coal
1 .20%S
12.0%A
Oil
2.0%S
O.UA
Gas
Coal
0.67%S
5.9%A
Coal
0.67%S
5.9%A
Coal .
0.67%S
5.9%A
Oil
b
b
b
Coal
0.83%S
6.7XA
Annual Amount
21,100 tons
21,100 tons
124,000gal
3 MCF
288 tons
4,800 tons
6,170 tons
961 .OOOgal
'b
b
b
b
Emissions
TSP Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.?
289
289
1
<1
2
184
237
11
b
b
b
b
71
71
20
2
27
35
58
b
b
b
b
S02 Tons/Year
Exist. AllovR.
173
173
19
<1
4
64
83
75
b
b
b
b
423
423
111 '
6
101
130
218
b
b
b
b
-------
Table 0-1G. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources* (Continued)
AQCR
North Dakota
172
County
Ward
Ward
Source
6
#1
6
»2
103
Boiler Capacity
106 Btu/Hr
178
60
22
Fuel Type
Gas
Gas
Coal
0.5%S
7.52SA
Annual Amount
b
b
4,350 tons
Emissions
TSP Tons/Year
Exist. Allow?
b
b
212
549
43
24
SO? Tons/Year
Exist. Allowb1
b
b
41 .
4,010
270
91
*
^National Emissions Data System printout as of November 1. 1974
Infcrmatlon not available
-------
Table D-1H. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources3 (Continued)
AQCR
North Dakota
172
County
Williams
Williams
Source
4
#3
4
#4
76
n
Boiler Capacity
10° Btu/Hr
100
b
44
Fuel Type
Gas
Gas
Oil
process
gas
Annual Amount
690 MCF
690 MCF
b
b
Emissions
TSP Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.3
6
6
b
b
350
350
b
b
SO? Tons/Year..
Exfst. Allow-
<1
<1
b
b
1,310
1,310
b
b
en
"^National Emissions Data System printout as of November 1, 1974
"Information not available
-------
APPENDIX E
The state of North Dakota found to have no area sources which could
be evaluated within the context of Section 4 of ESECA.
47
-------
APPENDIX F
Tables F-l and F-2 in this appendix lists individual power plants and
industrial/commercial/institutional sources capable of fuel conversion.
48
-------
Table F-l. Emissions Resulting from Fuel Switch for Power Plants with Dual Fuel Capability
AQCR
North
Dakota
172
Source
Young-
Center
Present
Emissions9
TSP S02
9,002 16,310
%
Coal
99.5
%
Gas
_
%
011
0.5
% Full on/
Coal Utilization
100. 5(c)
Emissions after Fuel Switch
TSP
Emission Allow
9,045
2.930
S02
Emission Allow
16,080
30,200
IO
Evaluation: The Young-Center Power Plant 1s the only dua,l fuel power plant In North Dakota.
The North Dakota AQCR (172) currently violates participate air quality standards
and could not support an Increase in partlculate emissions. Based on current
emissions, the Young-Center Power Plant would not be a good candidate for full
conversion to coal.
aBased on total emissions from power plant
(c) = Coal
-------
Table F-2A. Emissions Resulting from Fuel Switch for Major Industrial Sources with Dual Fuel Capability
AQCR
North
Dakota
172
Source
Grand Forks
3
#4
3'
#6 .
Morton .
3
3
n
3
#3
3
113
Richland
101
#4.
Stutsman
5
#1
Present
Emissions3
TSP S02
1 . b
b b
50 4737
77 1 ,467
83 1 ,574
2 1
2 29
1 19
Coal
-
-
.
'.
_
-
Gas
15
b
53
35
65
96
45
14
Oil
85
b
47
65
35
4
55
86
% Full Oil/
Coal Utilization
118 (o)
__
212 (o)
154 (o)
286 (o)
2,500 (o)
182 (o)
'116 (o)
Emissions after Fuel Switch
TSP
Emission Allow
tons/Year
1
b
91
111
220
50
1
3.6
1
b
b
603
352
373
130
0
20
S02 u
Emission Allow0
Tons/Year
b
b
1,520
1,848
3,689
25
35
22
b
b
22,260
1,320
1,400
437
64
111
(o) = Oil
-------
Table F-2B. , Emissions Resulting from Fuel Switch for Major Industrial Sources with Dual Fuel Capability
(Continued)
AQCR
North
Dakota
172
Source
Williams
76
#2
Present
Emissions9
TSP S02
b ' b
%
Coal
b
%
Gas
b
X
Oil
b
' X Full 011/
Coal Utilization
b
Emissions after Fuel Switch
TSP
Emission Allow
Tons/Year
b
b
S02
Emission Allow
Tons/Year
b
b
Evaluation: All the Industrial plants In North Dakota with dual fuel capability could switch to
oil for combustion, without adversely affecting air quality. One plant, an oil
refinery in Morton County, uses process gas for combustion and may prefer to continue
internally-generated fuel. The remainingjplants are candidates for fuel ^witching.
Emissions for single source identified
''Information not available
-------
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.
52
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Ptetue read ftuoveriota on the reverse befon completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-008
3. RECIPIENT'S VCCESSIOMNO.
REVIEW FOR NORTH DAKOTA AS
REQUIRED 8Y THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
9. REPORT OATS
February 1975
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOS
7. AUTHOFKSI
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. ORGANIZATION NAME A(iO ADDRESS -. - ..
. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., Regional Office VIII, Denver, Colorado,
and TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, California.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
68-02-1385
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPH OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
18. 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
1f 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, 1s EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution
State Implementation plans
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
21. NO. OP PAGES
54
20. SECURITY CLASS (TMl pa ft I
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1
53
------- |