EPA-450/3-75-009
FEBRUARY 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
SOUTH 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
January 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 6
2.1 Summary 6
2.2 Air Quality Setting - State of South Dakota 7
2.3 Background of the Development of the Current State
Implementation Plan 9
2.4 Special Considerations - South Dakota 10
3.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENT BASED ON SIP REVIEWS 12
3.1 Regional Air Quality Assessments 12
3.2 Power PI ant Assessments 12
3.3 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Source
Assessments 13
3.4 Area Source Assessment 13
3.5 Impact of Fuel Switching 13
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX A 15
APPENDIX B 29
APPENDIX C 32
APPENDIX D 39
APPENDIX E 42
APPENDIX F 43
111
-------
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
SOp 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 tne 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 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 all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, three predominant reasons for the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation
Plans. These are 1) The use of the example region approach in develom'nq
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 (AOCR) which have been used
as the basis for controlling the entire region. Since each of these situa-
tions effect many State plans and in some instances conflict with current
national energy concerns, a review of the State Implementation Plans is a
logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal of the SIP's conducted in 1972.
At that time SIP's were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the attainment .
of NAAQS or more stringent state air quality standards. Also1; 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 wasaassumed 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 examnle 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 horned
state-wide where the use of 3 percent sulfur coal would be adquate to attain
NAAQS in some locations.
-------
EPA anticipates that a number of States will use the review findinqs
to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise nortions 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 nroblems 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 notential
/\
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 S02 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 South Dakota Implementation Plan has been reviewed
for the most frequent causes of over-restrictive emissions
limiting regulations. A control strategy was not re-
quired for S02- A state-wide rather than example region
approach was used in developing the control strategy for
TSP. South Dakota has more stringent air quality stands
ards than the NAAQS; however, there are no indications
that current regulations are overly restrictive in the
context of Section IV of ESECA.
* There are indications of TSP problems in three of South
Dakota's four AQCR's. A small percent of the TSP emis-
sions come from fuel combustion. The majority come from
agriculturally related processes (grain elevators, etc.).
An increase >tn TSP emissions would make attainment of
NAAQS more difficult. Therefores the stationary source
fuel combustion parttculate emission regulation is not a
good candidate for major revision in South Dakota.
• Data available for this reprot show S02 levels below the
NAAQS in South Dakota; however, S02 emissions from most
major fuel combustion sources are also well below regula-
tion allowables. Significant 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 re-
sult of sources emitting up to regulation limits should
be evaluated before further relaxation of the present
S02 emission regulation is considered.
-------
Campbell i HcPherson
;Codington r"
. Clark . .
i i neuel
Buffalo .jerauld !Sanborni Miner i Lake ..Moody
Minnehaha
pavisofi
i |McCook i
iHans
i Aurora
Douglas
Washabaugh Mel1ette
harles Mix'' ' ^>
jYankton;
6on Homme i
Black Hills-Rapid City
Air Quality Control Region
Region 205
Metropolitan Sioux Falls
Air Quality Control Region
intrastate (Iowa) Region 087
Air Quality Control Region
Region 206
South Dakota
Intrastate
Figure 1. South Dakota Air Quality Control Regions
Metropolitan Sioux City
Air Quality Control Region
(Iowa-Neb.) Region 086
-------
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 np_ 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 signifi-
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 potential in the
region?
-------
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 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 SOUTH DAKOTA
The state of South Dakota was divided into four air quality control
regions - AQCR. They are as follows:
86 Metro Sioux City interstate air quality control region
87 Metro Sioux Falls interstate air quality contrdl region
205 Black Hills - Rapid City intrastate air quality control region
206 So&th Dakota intrastate air quality control region.
See Figure A-l.
A summary of the Federal and South Dakota air quality standards for
tfte pollutants under study is presented in Table A^-3. The South Dakota
standards for particulates are the Federal secondary standards. The South
Dakota air quality standards for SOp are more stringent than the Federal
S0£ standard. South Dakota has adopted the national NOp standards; in
addition, a 24-hour NO standard has been added.
-------
SOUTH 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?
• 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?
• 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?
9 Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources lower than those of other
sources?
t 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?
• Based on the above indicators, what is the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations?
State
TSP SO?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
• Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
Sioux
City
TSP SO?
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
N/A
No
Yes
N/A
Yes
i.
o
a
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
No
S
•*—
o>
p
No
Sioux
Falls
TSP
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
N/A
Yes
i_
o
R
S02
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N/A
No
-o
o
o
o
No
Black Hills
Rapid City
TSP SO?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
N/A
Yes
1_
O
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
No
1
o
No
South
Dakota
TSP S02
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
(nargina
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
No
N/A
No
margina
No
-------
The South Dakota monitoring network for suspended particulate matter
consists of nine stations. There are no monitoring sites in the South
Dakota portion of the Metro Sioux City air quality control region. In
the remaining three AOCR's, there are four stations in the South Dakota
portion of Metro Sioux Falls air quality control region, three stations
in the Black Hills - Rapid City AQCR, and two stations in the South
Dakota AQCR. Ambient monitoring of SO,, is limited within the state of
South Dakota. According to the most recent SAROAD data in the National
Data Bank, South Dakota has three monitoring sites in the state. The
Metro Sioux City AQCR, Metro Sioux Falls AQCR, and Black Hills - Rapid
City AQCR each have one monitoring site, while the South Dakota AOCR
currently has no monitoring sites in operation.
Summaries for South Dakota air quality status in 1973 are presented
in Table A-4 for parti cul ates and A-5 for SO,,. The number of stations ex-
ceeding standards are presented by air quality control regions (AQCR).
The highest particulate readings in the state are in the Black Hills -
Rapid City AQCR. All of the South Dakota AQCR's violated state standards
for particulate in 1973. Based on existing monitoring, South Dakota met
all standards for S02 in 1973.
South Dakota has one priority II AQCR for TSP. That is the Metro
Sioux Falls interstate AQCR (87). The remainder of the state is classified
priority III for all pollutants. At the time of submission of the South
Dakota State Implementation Plan, the State was able to demonstrate
attainment of the secondary standards by 1975. The technical support doc-
umentation to aid in the designation of Air Quality Maintenance Areas
indicates that a portion of the Sioux Falls AQCR may not attain the state
particulate standards in 1975 as was previously projected in the SIP. A
revision of the State Implementation Plan is currently being considered.
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. Demonstration of the attainment of the
particulate standards was necessary only for the Metro Sioux Falls AQCR
which was classified priority II. The control strategies and regulations
-------
as submitted by the state were adequate to attain the national standards
for particulate matter in the Sioux Falls AQCR. State-wide annlication
of the control strategies and regulations in the State Imnlementation
Plan were designed to prevent further deterioration of air quality in the
remainder of the state of South Dakota.
The state regulation for the control of narticulate matter from fuel
combustion sources limits particulate emissions to 0.30 pounds per million
Btu of heat input. This regulation applies to new, existing, and modified
sources. The state regulation for the control S0« from fuel combustion
sources limits S0? emissions to 3.0 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million
Btu of heat input. This regulation is applicable to new, existing, and
modified sources in the state of South Dakota. NOp emissions from fuel
combustion sources are divided between gas-rfired and oil-fired equipment.
N0? emissions from gas-fired equipment shall not exceed 0.2 pounds per
million Btu of heat input, while NOp emissions from oil-fired equipment
shall not exceed 0.3 pounds per million Btu of heat input. These regu-
lations are applicable to new, existing, or modified sources in the state
of South Dakota. Per the June 8, 1973 Federal Register, South Dakota has
the option to relax or rescind the NO regulations for all priority III
AQCR's.
2.4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - SOUTH DAKOTA
Minnehaha County within the Sioux Falls AQCR has been proposed for
designation as an Air Quality Maintenance Area. It is anticipated that
special requirements for this area will be developed by this state and
submitted to EPA as a modification to the State Implementation Plan.
South Dakota State Legislature exempted the Mobridge Power Plant
from compliance with the particulate emission regulations in the State
Implementation Plan, EPA has two high-volume samplers for particulate
matter in operation in the area to determine if ambient standards are
being violated. If ambient staadards are being violated, EPA will take
enforcement action; if not, the SIP will be revised.
ENERGY SUPPLY POTENTIAL
South Dakota has vast deposits of lignite. Lignite is a low grade
brownish-black coal that has high sulfur and ash characteristics. Long
-------
term projections for energy development in the State of South Dakota
include the construction of coal gasification plants using the available
lignite as the fuel source.
11
-------
3.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENT BASED ON SIP REVIEWS
3.1 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENTS
Tables A-7 and A-8 present the emission summaries for South Dakota.
They indicate a small fraction (10%) of total suspended particulates come
from fuel combustion sources. The majority of particulate emissions come
from agriculturally related sources. Fuel combustion sources are the
major contributors to total SO^ emissions on a state-wide basis (approxi-
mately 62%).
Tables A-9 and A-10 present the results of estimating what the South
Dakota emissions would be on a region wide basis. The largest drawback
for using the approach lies in the large geographical dispersion of the
emission sources in the South 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. There is no indication from available
data that regulations are too stringent for suspended narticulate emissions;
however, air quality data indicates a tolerance for increased SO. emissions.
3.2 POHER PLANT ASSESSMENTS
At the present time, there are nine power plant sites in the state of
South Dakota. Two of the power plants use internal combustion reciprocating
engines or turbines for power generation. The remaining seven power plants
are candidates for additional analysis. A distribution of power nlants by
AQCR can be found in Table A-^6
Two power plants in the state of South Dakota are 100% coal-fired,
the first is the Ben French Power Plant in the Black Hills - Rapid City
AQCR. The other is the Modridge Power Plant located in the South Dakota
AQCR. The Pathfinder Power Plant located in the Sioux Falls AQCR is an
oil- or gas-fired power plant, with the remaining power plants in the state
of South Dakota being coal-fired with a combination of oil or gas as com-
bustion fuel. Table C~l presents relevant data on all oower nlants nre-
sently in operation in South Dakota. All power plants are in compliance
12
-------
schedules to meet emission regulations, with the excention of the Mobridge
Power Plant that has been previously identified as having a legislative
exemption.
Table C-2 lists the only known projected power plant (1974 through
1985). This is a coal-fired power plant that is scheduled to go on line
in late 1975.
3.3 INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE ASSESSMENTS
All major stationary fuel combustion sources in the state of South
Dakota were reviewed (15). Two of those sources presently use 100% coal,
one of those sources uses 100% wood, The remaining stationary sources use
a combination of oil, gas or coal,
3.4 AREA SOURCE ASSESSMENT
The State of South Dakota was found to have no area sources which
could be evaluated within the context of Section 4 of ESECA.
3.5 IMPACT OF FUEL SWITCHING
An analysis of fuel combustion sources was made to determine the
feasibility of conversion,of coal or oil and its resulting impacts on
emissions and regulations. The percentage of coal or oil utilized was
estimated by translating all fuel used into total annual heat input and
directly proportioning 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 combustion sources were estimated and comnared
to current emissions. Table F-l identifies tfie emissions resulting from
a fuel switch for power plants with a dual fuel capability. Table F~2
identifies the emissions resulting from a fuel switch for major industrial
sources with a dual fuel capability.
Tables F-l and F-2 illustrate the total present and potential emissions
based on fuel conversion to 100% coal or oil with present control equipment.
All coal-natural gas fired power plants would not meet current particulate
and S02 emission regulations without additional controls if a switch to
burning only coal 1s made. The Pathfinder Power Plant 1n the Sioux Falls
AQCR could switch from a combination of gas and oil fuel mixture to 100%
oil without violating any emission regulations.
13
-------
All the major industrial sources with a dual fuel capability could
switch to 100% oil utilization and meet SOo emission standards. It should
be noted that South Dakota does not have particulate emission regulations
for oil or natural gas burning installations. In general, the analysis
indicated that for total suspended particulates, increases in projected
emissions with fuel conversion from power plants would be significant.
Attainment of ambient air quality standards for particulate will continue
to be a probi$m for South Dakota.
14
-------
APPENDIX A
0 State implementation plan information
0 Current air quality information
0 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
1
for AQCRs in the state. NEDS emissions data by AOCR are tabulated and
broken down into fuel burning categories.
Tables A-9 and A-10 show a comparison of emission inventories in the
original SIP and those from the NEDS. An emission tolerance, or emission
tonnage which might be allowed in the AQCR and still not violate national
secondary ambient air quality standards, is shown for SCL and particulates.
The intent of this calculation is to indicate possible candidate regions
for fuel switching. Tolerance was based on either the degree of control
expected by the SIP or upon air quality/emission relationships which are
calculated from more recent data. The value of the emission tolerance pro-
vides an indication of the degree of potential an AOCR 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 comoared 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
1M1972 National Emissions Report," EPA - 450/2-74-012, June 1974.
-------
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 duality
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 AQCRs with ng_ quantifiable emissions
tolerance, it was felt that no number at all would be nreferable 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 AnCR with many
closely spaced emissions sources than in a largely rural AOCR with qeogranh-
ically dispursed emissions.
16
-------
Table A-l. South Dakota AQCR Priority Classification and AQMAs
AQCR
Metro Sioux
City6
South Dakota
portion
Metro Sioux
Falls6
Soutn Dakota
portion
Lilack Hills -
Rapid City
South Dakota
Fed. I Part? S0^b NOVC
086
087
205
206
III
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
Demographic Information
Population Square Population
1970 Miles Density
178150
9463
261510
124086
113850
666257
3207
452
5740
2576
12594
75955
bij.u
21.3
45.6
48.2
9.04
8.8
AQMA Designations
... TSP Counties S0y Counties NOX Counties
none
(1) Minnehaha
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Criteria based on Maximum Measured (or Estimated) Pollution Concentration in Area
Priority
aParticulate matter:
Annual geometric mean. ..
24-hour maximum
6
Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean..
24-hour maximum
cNitrogen dioxide
I
Greater than
95
325
100
45b
110
!
• II
From - To
60 - 90
150 - 325
60 - 100
260 - 455
III
Less than
60
150
60
260
no
Federal Register, August 1974, SMSA's showing potential for'NAAQS violations
due to growth
6 Interstate
-------
00
Buffalo i jerauld iSanborni Miner ; Lake \ Moody
Brule I Pavisofi
i SMcCook i
;Hans
Black Hills-Rapid City
Air Quality Control Region
Region 205
South Dakota
Intrastate
Air Quality Control Region
Region 206
Metropolitan Sioux Falls
Air Quality Control Region
(Iowa) Region 087
Figure A-l. South Dakota Air Quality Control Regions
Metropolitan Sioux City
Air Quality Control Region
(Iowa-Neb.) Region 086
-------
Table A-2. South Dakota Attainment Dates
AQCR #
086
087
205
206
Name
Metro Sioux City
Metro Sioux Falls
Black Hills - Rapid City
South Dakota
Particulates
Attainment Dates
Primary
a
a
a
a
Secondary
a
7/75
a
a
Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment Dates
Primary Secondary
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Nitrogen Oxides
Attainment Dates
a
a
a
a
aAmbient air quality below NAAQS when SIP was submitted.
-------
Table A-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards South Dakota
Expressed as yg/nf
Federal Primary
(Nov. 1972)
Secondary
State
Total Suspended Parti cul ate
Annual
75(G)
60(6)
60(6)
24 hr.
260a
i
150a
150a
Sulfur Oxides
Annual
80(A)
—
60(A)
24 hr.
365a
—
260a
3 hr.
—
1300a
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Annual 24 hr.
100(A)
100(A)
100(A) 250a
1
Federal regulations apply
(G) Geometric mean
(A) Arithmetic mean
aNot to be exceeded more than once per year
-------
Table A-4. South Dakota AQCR Air Quality Status (1973), TSPa
AQCR Name
Metro Siouxb
City
South Dakota
portion
Metro Sioux
Falls
South Dakota
portion
Black Hills -
Rapid City
South Dakota
#
Stations
AQCR # Reporting
086 2
0
087 5
4
205 3
206 2
(^9/m3)
TSP Concentration
2nd
Highest
Highest Reading Reading
Annual 24^Hr 24-Hr
90 496 219
-_
75 370 179
75 370 179
129 542 376
56 155 153
if Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary Secondary
Annual 24-Hrc Annual % 24-Hrc %
1 1 1 50 2 100
-
1 2 1 20 3 60
1 2 1 25 2 5'0
1 1 2 67 2 67
00 0 0 1 50
%
Reduction Standard
Required or: Which
to Meet Reductior
Standards Is Eased
31
--
16
16
60
2
24-hr
Secondary
Standard
>
N>
1973 air quality in National Air Data Bank as of July 28, 1974
Interstate
cviolations based on more than one reading in excess_of standards
Formula: 2nd highest 24-hr --secondary 24-hr standard x 100
2nd highest 24-hr
-------
Table A-5. South Dakota AQCR Air Quality Status, 1973 S02
AQCR Name
Metro Sioux Cityb
South Dakota
portion
Metro Sioux Falls'3
South Dakota
portion
Black Hills - Rapid
City
South Dakota
AQCR #
086
087
205
206
Stations #
Reporting Stations
24-Hr Reporting
(Bubbler) (Contin.)
1 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
S02 Concentration
2nd
Highest
Highest Reading Reading
Annual 24-Hr 24-Hr
NDA 2 2
NDA 2 2
NDA 10 10
NDA 0 0
if Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Stds.
Primary Secondary
Annual 24-Hr1- . 3-Hr
00 0
00 0
00 0 .
00 0
of
J
Reduction0
Required
To Meet
Standards
presently
meets
standards
presently
meets
standards
presently
meets
standards
0
Standard
on Which %
Reduction
Is Based
ro
ro
1973 air quality in National Air Data Bank as of July 28, 1974
Interstate
"Violations based on more than one reading in excess of standards
Formula: 2nd highest 24-hr -- Primary 24-hr standard x lon
2nd highest 24-hr
-------
Table A-6. South Dakota Fuel Combustion Source Summaryc
AQCR
Metro Sioux City
Metro Sioux Falls
Black Hills —
Rapid City
South Dakota
AQCR #
086
087
205
206
South Dakota Power Plants
NEDSb FPCC
0
2
2
5
0
2
1
0
Other Fuel Combustion Point Sources
Parti culate S02
0
3
2
5
0
3
3
5
Only sources in South Dakota are included
AH sources from National Emission Data Bank listing as of
November 1, 1974
"Federal Power Commission information for 1973 of major power
plants
-------
Table A-7. South Dakota Emissions Summary, S0? (103 tons/year)
AQCR
Metro Sioux City3
South Dakota portion
Metro Sioux Falls3
South Dakota Portion
Black Hills — Rapid
City
South Dakota
AQ£R''#
086
087 ••
205
206
Total
T6$ tons/
Year
14.7
.1
4.2
4.0
6.4
, 8.5
Percent
Fuel Combustion
95
46
81
90
32
80
Electricity Generation,
103 Jons/Year % ;
13.2 89.8
0 0
2.3 54.8
.2.3 56.4
1.3 20.3
0.76 8.9
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
103 Tong/Year %
0.07 0.50
0 0
0.34 8.1
0.66 16.6
0.44 6.9
0.84 10.0
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
i,103 Tpns/Year ~^~
— - - _
0.70 4.8
.05 46
0.78 18.6
0.67 16.7
0.30 4.7
5.2 61.2
IV)
Interstate emissions based on total of all counties in all states.
-------
Table A-8. South Dakota Emissions Summary, Parti culates (103 tons/year)
AQCR
Metro Sioux City3 086
South Dakota portion
Metro Sioux Falls a 087
South Dakota portion
Black Hills - Rapid 205
City
South Dakota 206
Total.
lO^Tons/Year
7.2
.55
7.5
7.2
15.8
26.0
Percent
Fuel Combustion
7
.4.5
21
10
18
7
Electricity Generation
103 Tons/Year r %
0.15
0
0.46
0.46
2.2
0.47
2.1
0
6.1
6.3
13.9
1.8
Point Source
Feel Combustion
1QJ Tons/ Year?' %
0.01
0
0.90
.11
0.40
0.05
.14
0
12.0
1.5
2.5
0.19
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
103 Tons/Year >>
0.37
.03
0.22
.18
0.18
1.2
5.1
4.5
2.9
2,5
1.1
4.6
ro
Interstate emissions based on total of all counties in all states
-------
Table A-9. South Dakota Required Emission Reductions, Particulates
1973 Data
ro
01
AQ
%a Emissions
AQCR Meas. Red. (IP3 tons)
Sioux
Cityb c - .60
086
Sioux
Fallsb 64 8.7 9.7
087
Black
Hills - 18 increase 23.4
Rapid City
205
South
Dakota c - 23.9
206
1975
Estimated
Allowable Emissions
Emissions After Controls
M03 tons) (103 tons)
9.6d 2.1
5452
Background of 18 ng/rn^ used in SIP, repeated for continuity
South Dakota portion of interstate
AQ
Meas.
90
75
129
NEDS
Emissions
dO3 tons)
21 0.55
25 7.2
49 15.8
56 + 50 26.0
Allowable
Emissions
(IP3 tons)
0.44
5.4
8.1
52.0
Emission
Tolerance
(IP3 tons)
26.0
c.
No data available
Not calculated in SIP, presented for comparison
-------
Table A-10. South Dakota Required Emission Reductions, S02
SIP
1973 Data
no
AQCR
Sioux
036
Sioux
087
Black
Rapid
205
South
206
AQ
Measurement
Control Emissions
Value (103 tons)
City3 b .17
Falls3 b 4.05
Hills 6 2.7
City
Dakota b 7.3
1975
Estimated
Allowable Emissions
Emissions After Controls
(103 tons) (103 tons)
c
c
243 c
c
Reduction
Required
Based On
1973 AQ Data
increase
increase
increase
ND
NEDS
Emissions
(103 tons)
.1
4.0
6.4
8.5
Allowable
Emissions
(103 tons)
1.82
72.6
22.7
NC
Emission
Tolerance
(103 tons)
1.72
68.6
16.3
--
South Dakota portion of interstate
No data available
cControls not required per SIP
-------
Table A-ll. South Dakota Fuel Combustion Regulations
(applicable to new existing or modified sources)
Particulate
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Shall not exceed 0.30 pounds
per million Btu of heat input
Shall not exceed 3.0 pounds of
sulfur dioxide per million Btu
of heat input
ro
oo
Gas-fired equipment:
Shall not exceed 0.2 pounds
per million Btu of heat input
Oil-fired equipment:
Shall not exceed 0.3 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 narticulate and SO-? 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 AOCR,'
(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 accomnlish fuel switching.
Further, a good candidate in Tables B-l and B*-2 may .liter 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 ftf all
fuel burning sources were converted to dirtier fuels, i.e., "average" emis-
sion rate now may be below "average" regulations.
-------
OJ'
Table B-l. Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of TSP Regulations
\ '
.
Air Quality
# #
AQCR Monitors Violations
?
Sioux City^ 2
086
. .
i
Sioux Fallsb 5
087
t
(1
1
; Black Hills 3
! Rapid City
1 205
South Dakota 2
1 - 206
•J
2 . ••
3
2
1
Expected
Attainment
Date
(a)
* (7/75)
• (a) '
'. . (a)
Any
Counties
AQMA
Designations?
0
1
0
0
% Emission
from Fuel
Combustion
4.5
10
18
7
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(103 tons)
0
0
•
0 .
26.0
Overall
Regional
Evaluation
•~
none
none
none .
medium
aAir quality below standards
Interstate - South Dakota portion only
-------
Table B-2. Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of S02 Regulations
Air Quality
# #
AQCR Monitors Violations
«i$fb '
086
Sioux h 1
Falls
087
Black Hills 1
Rapid City
205
South Dakota 0
206
0
0
0
0
Expected
Attainment
Date
;. (a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
Any
Counties
AQMA
Designations?
0
0
0
0
% Emission
from Fuel
Combustion
46
90
32
80
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(10 tons)
1.72
68.6
22.7
NCC
Overall
Regional
Evaluation
medi urn
high
high
—
Air quality below standards
^Interstate - South Dakota portion only
"Not calculatable
-------
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 switchffis:on an individual plant basis.
The total AQCR emissions resulting from such switches is then calculated.
Current power plant information used to prepare Table C-l were obtained
from three main sources: (1) Federal Power Commission computerized list-
ings of power plants and their associated fuel use, (2) the National Coal
Association "Steam Tables" listing of power plants and fuel use in 1972,
and (3) NEDS Emission 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-4 were used where not known. SOp and particuJates
emissions are those associated with the fuel use shown. In the case of
participates,, emissions were calculated using NEDS emissions factors applied
to the listed fue-T schedule (in both tonnage and lbs/10 Btii). When a nlant
was not listed in NEDS, AP 42 emission factors were used to estimate SOp
and TSP emissions (see Table C-4).
Data Bank 1974
-------
Table C-1A. South Dakota Power Plant Evaluation
Plant/
Fuel Design/a .
AQCR/ Number/ County Capacity
Sioux Falls Lawrence #1
087 C/G
Minnehaha 48 MW
Lawrence #2
•
Lawrence #3
"Sioux Falls Pathfinder #1
08? 0/G
Minnehaha 75 MW
Pathfinder #2
Pathfinder #3
Fuel Emissions Tons/yr
Type
Coal
2.1%S
9.2%A
§as
Coal
2.1%S
9.2%A
Gas
Coal
2. US
9.2%A •
Gas
Oil
0.2%
- 0%A
Oil
. 0.2%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
0.2%S
0%A
Gas
Amount
103 ton/yr
14.5
331 MCF
14i5
331 MCF.
23.4
536 MCF
3500000gal
333 MCF
3500000gal
333 MCF
3500000gal
333 MCF ;
Heat
Input
105 BUT H
21
1005
21
1005
21
1005
143/lOOOgal
'
1006
143/lOOOgal
1006 .,
143/lOOOgal
1006
S02
Exist Allow
578 v
V
1
<1 I
1
578 I n, u
\ .9170D
<1 (
I
936 1
1
<1 / '
55 \ . •
|
<1 1 .
55 I
I
11 400^
i 11 T«/w
<1
55
<1
TSP
Exist Allow
80 V
V
1
<1 1
I
52 \ rt._b
> 917
<1 f
\
275 1 '
|
<1 /
14
2
14
c
• 2
14
2
jjpuel Design C=Coa-l; G=Gas; 0=0il
_Emissions are for total plant
^outh Dakota does not have emission limits for liquid and gas fuel burning
installations.
-------
Table C-1B. South Dakota Power Plant Evaluation
AQCR/ Number/ County
Black Hills-Rapid .
City
205
Pennington
Black Hills-Rapid
City
205
Lawrence •
If! •• .
South Dakota
206
Wai worth
Plant/
Fuel Design/3
Capacity
Ben French
C/O/G
22 MW
Kirk #1
C
.31.5
•
Kirk #2
Kirk #3
Kirk #4
Mobridge #1
C
8.5 MW
Mobridge #2
Fuel
Heat
Amount Input
Type 103 ton/yr 10b Btu H
Coal
0.37%S
5.2%A
Coal
0.37%s
5.2%A
Coal
0,37%S
5.2%A
Coal
0.37%S
5.2%A
Coal
0.37%S
5.2%A
Coal
1.14%S
7.UA
Coal
• 1.14XS
7.1%A
87;2
5.67
9.95
12.3
67.0
12.5
12.5
16
16
16
16
16
12
12
Emissions Tons/yr
S02
Exist Allow
613
40
70
87
471
271
271
3560
\
8
I
j
j
(
\ 6550b
/
'
1050b
TSP
Exist Allow
^ 1
725
74
129
160
1080
1-85
185
356
\
\
1
1
-I
1
1
\ 655b
I
1
/
!• •
105b
•
!*Fuel Design C=Coal; G=Gas; 0=0il
Emissions fine for total plant
-------
Table C-1C. . South Dakota Power Plant Evaluation
Plant/
Fuel Design/3
AQCR/ Number/ County Capacity
South Dakota Aberdeen #1
206 C/G
Brown .12.5
Aberdeen #2
.
•
Aberdeen #3
Aberdeen #4
reciprocating
internal com-
bustion
South Dakota Mitchell #1
206 C/G
Davidson 12.5
Mitchell #2
Mitchell #3
Mitchell #4
Fuel
Amount
Type 103 ton/yr
Coal
0.43%s
4.9%A
Gas
Coal
0.43%S
4.9%A
Gas.
Coal
0.43%S
4.9%A .
Gas
Diesel Oil
0.5%S
0%A
Coal
0.43%S
4.9%A
Gas
Coal
0.43%S
4.9%A
Gas
Gas
.61
21 MCF
3.86
149 MCF
3,86
1.49 MCF
7000gal
2.34
16 MCF
8.38
199 MCF
199 MCF
Heat
Input
106 Btu H
19
1000
19
1000
19
1000
.140/1 000 gal
19
998
19
' 998
998
Emissions Tons/yr
S02
Exist Allow
5
<-|
32
<"•
32
<1
<1
19
--
70
—
—
•
i
(
/ 3530b
/
. —
!
3290b
TSP
Exist Allow
1
<-1
3
<]
3
<1
<1
29
••
<1
24
<">
<1
\
• \
>350b
\
1
. * '
376b
'Fuel Design C=Coal; G=Gas; 0=0il
'Emissions for total plant
-------
Table C-1D. South Dakota Power Plant Evaluation
AQCR/Number/County
South Dakota
206
Beadle
^ ; : '• ."-••--*
South Dakota
, 206
Yankton
Plant/
Fuel Design/3 .
Capacity
Huron
Turbine
YanRton #1
reciprocating
internal com-
bustion
•
Yankton #2
reciprocating
internal com-
buston
Yankton #3
reciprocating
internal com-
bustion
Yankton #5
reciprocating
internal com-
bustion
Fuel
Type
Oil
0.5%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
0.5%S
0%A
Gas
Otl
0.5%S
0%A
Oil
0.5%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
o.5*s
0°M
'
• Gas
Amount
103 ton/yr
997000gal
168MCF
32000gal
16 MCF
4000gal
66000gal
4 MCF
211000gal
47 MCF
Heat
Input
105 Btu H
140/lOOOgal.
1050
140/lOOOgal
1050
140/1 000 gal
1 40/1 000 gaT
1050
140/lOOOgal
1050
Emissions Tons/yr
S02
fm
Exist Allow
7
-
<1
-
<1
<1
-
3
-
473
_
-
_
-
-
-
TSP
Exist Allow
8
-
<1
-
<1
<1
-
• 1
-
- b
^
-
_
-
_
-
co
aFuel Design C=Coal; G=Gas; 0=0il
South Dakota does not have emission-limits for liquid and gas fuel burning
installations.
-------
Table C-2. Power Plant Projected Development
AQCR
South Dakota
206
Grant
Owner
Otter Tail Power
Company
Plant
Big Stone #la'b
MW
430
Estimated Emissions NSPS
ISP.
Tons/Year
1522
co
2
Tons/Year
18283
NO
'X
Tons/Year
10664
aCoal fired power plant
bScheduled to go on-line in 1975
-------
Table C-3. AP-42 Power Generation Emission Factors
Fuel
.CoalO)(B1't.)
General
. Uetbottom 10% A
Cyclone
1% S-
2% S
3% S
i Oil^.
0.5% S
' 1.0% S
2.0% S
(.3 Ibs S/
106 Ft3) •
Parti culates
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu
160 7.4
130 • 7.0
20 0.9
Same Same
as as
Above Above
Lb/103 Gal .
8 0.058
8 .058
8 .058
Lb/106Ft3
15 .015
S°2 6
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10b Btu
38 L.65
76 3.3
114 5.0
Lb/103 Gal
79 0.56
157 1.12
314. '2.24
Lb/106ft3
0.57 .00057
Hydrocarbons,.
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu
0.3 0.013
:
0.3 0.13
Lb/103 Gal
' 2 .014
2 .014
2 ,014
Lb/106Ft3
1 -001
NOX (as N02)
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu
18 0.78
30 • 1.3
55 2.4 .
Same Same
as as
Above Above
Lb/103 Gal
105V 0.75
105 JO. 75
105 . 0.75
Lb/106Ft3
600 0.60
DO
(1) Coal 23 x 10° 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 SO^ 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 tliiis 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 emitbbelow our cuttoff point in the NEDS rank order
list).
-------
Table 0-1A. Major Industrial FUG! Combustion Sources with Multi-Fuel Capability
AQCR
Sioux Falls
087
Black Hills-Rapid
Ci ty
. 205
South Dakota
206
County
Minnehaha
Minnehaha
Minnehaha
Custer
Fall River
Fall River
Beadle
Brookings
Source
3
86
88
1
1
87
86
86
Boiler-Capacity
TO6 BTU/Hr
120
450
NAb
NAb
90.
30
92
NAb
' : I
Fuel Type
Oil
0.5%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
1.0%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
1 . 7%S
Gas
Wood
Coal
LOSS
Coal
6.64%S
4.9%A
Oil
0.88%S
0%A
Gas
Coal
2-.9%S
• 6.8%A
Gas
Annual Amount
8940000gal
45 MCF
365000gal
932 MCF
2390000gal
631 MCF
3900 tons
20000 ton's
4940 tons
675000 gal
180 MCF
11500 tons
142 MCF
. Emissions
TSP Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.3
67
<1
3
9
28
6
3
296
48
8
2
33
<-|
c
c
c
c
c
c
_
118
39
c
c
_
-
S02 Tons/Year
Exist. Allow.
317
<1
26
<1
319
<1
54
380
60
48
<]
632
<1
472Qa
5900a '
__a
0
1180
393
1210a
_
-
Emissions for total plant
Information not available
"South Dakota does not have emission limits for liquid gas fuel burning installations.
-------
Table D-1B. Major Industrial Fuel Combustion Sources with Multi-Fuel Capability
AQCR
South Dakota
206
County
Brookings
Clay
Devel
Spink
Yankton
Source
87
86
#1
86
#2
86
•#3
72
86
86
Boiler Capacity
106 BTU/Hr
66
50
56
,56
54
34
19'6
Fuel Type
Oil
3.0%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
0.7%S
'. 0%A
Gas
Oil
0.7%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
0.7%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
0.7%S
0%A
Gas
Oil
1.035S
0%A
'Gas
' Oil
0%S
0%A
Gas
.
Annual Amount
250000gal
30 MCF
369000gal
22 MCF
4.14000gal
25 MCF
417000gal
25 MCF
1210000gal
1 MCF
507000gal
54 MCF
llOOOgal
385 MCF
. Emissions
TSP Tons/Year SO^ Ton/Year
Exist. Allow. Exost. Allow.
3
^1
3
<1
• 3
<1
3
<1
9
<1
4
<1
<1
3
b
b
^
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
•b
b
•"b
b
59
<1
18
<1
21
<1
21
<1
60
36
<1
<1
86 5a
655a
734a
734a
.-a
445a
2570a
Emissions for total plant
3South Dakota does not have emission limits for liquid gas fuel burning installations.
-------
APPENDIX E
The state of South Dakota was found to have no area sources which could
be evaluated within the context of Section 4 of ESECA.
42
-------
APPENDIX F
Tables F-l and F-2 in this appendix list individual power plants
and industrial/commercial/institutional sources capable 616 fuel
conversion.
43
-------
Table F-i. Emissions Resulting from Fuel Switch for Power Plants with Dual Fuel Capability
AQCR Source
Sioux Lawrence
Falls
087
.Pathfinder
South Aberdeen
Dakota
206 Mitchell0
Units 1
2
3
4
Present
Emissions3
TSP S02
407
48
7
53
2092
165
69
89
%
Coal
0.09
-
0.05
0.04b
100
0.08
%
Gas
99.91 .
40
99.95
99.96
100
99.92
100
%
Oil
-
60
-
-
% Full Oil/
Coal Utilization
111111 (c)
167 (o)
200000 (c)
(125000) (c)
Emissions after Fuel Switch
TSP
Emission Allow
Tons/Year
452222b
80
14000b
87519
917
-
353
376
S02 u
Emission Allo^r
. Tons/Year
2324442b
276
1 38000b
30024
9170
11400
3530
3290
Evaluation: Only the Pathfinder Power Plant is a viable candidate for fuel switching.
The plant currently uses both oil and natural gas for power generation, and
has the design capacity to switch to all oil combustion.
The remaining plants would emit exorbitant levels of both TSP and S02, many
times over the allowable levels for each facility as specified by South Dakota
State Regulations.
.Based" on total emissions from power plant
Plant capable of full switch, assumes same type of
%its 2, 4 all gas, Unit 1 'all coal. Unit 3 coal a
coal
Available for fuel switching
and gas - candidate for switching
(c) = Coal
(o) = Oil
-------
Table F-2. Emissions Resulting from Fuel Switch for Major Industrial Sources with Dual Fuel Capability
AQCR Source
Sioux
Falls
087
South
Dakota
206
Minnehaha
#3
Minnehaha
#86
Minnehaha
#88
Beadle
#86
Brookings
#86
Brookings
#87
Clay
#86
Devel
#72
Yank ton #8
Present
Emissionsa
TSP S02
67
12
34
10
33
3
9
9
<1
5 3
317
26
319
48
632
59
60
60
36
<1
%
Coal
-
-
-
-
NCb
~
-
-
-
%
Gas
3.5
94.8
64.9
63.5
NCb
44
30.3
0.6
43
99.6
%
Oil
96.5
5.2
35.1
36.5
-
56
69.7
99.4
57
0.4
% Full Oil/
Coal Utilization
103 (o)
1923 (o)
285 (o)
273 (o)
NCb
179 (o)
143 (o)
101 (o)
175 (o)
25000° (o)
Emissions after Fuel Switch
TSP
Emission Allow
Tons/Ypar
69
231
97
27
NCb
5.4
13
9.1.
1
750
d
d
d
d
-
d
d
d
d
S02 b
Emission Allow
Tons/vpar
326
500
909
131
NCb
106
86
60.4
63
75
4720
5900
-
1210
-
865
734
-
445
2570
-p.
01
Evaluation: Based on available data, existing S02 emission regulations are adequate, and would allow fuel
switching.
?Based on total emissions from plant
itot calculatable.
"Design rate unknown - plant may not be fully able to switch . ,_
tfSouth Dakota does not have emission limits for liquid and gas fuel burning installations.
-------
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.
46
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-009
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR SOUTH DAKOTA AS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
3. RECIPIENT'S \CCESSION"NO.
5. REPORT DATE
January 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. 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
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1385
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
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
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
J52L
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |