EPA-450/3-75-019
FEBRUARY 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
PENNSYLVANIA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA 450/3-75-019
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
PENNSYLVANIA
AS REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
800 Foil in Lane, SE, Vienna, Virginia 22180
(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
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
(SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW)
Table of Contents Pac
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 7
2.1 Summary 7
2.2 Air Quality Setting - State of Pennsylvania 12
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current
State Implementation Plan 14
2.4 Current Status of Pennsylvania's State
Implementation Plan 18
3.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENTS BASED ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN REVIEW 19
3.1 Air Quality Control Region #45, Metropolitan
Philadelphia (Delaware, New Jersey) 20
3.2 Air Quality Control Region #151, Northeast
Pennsylvania - Upper Delaware Valley (New Jersey). ... 22
3.3 Air Quality Control Region #178, Northwest
Pennsylvania - Youngstown (Ohio) 23
3.4 Air Quality Control Region #195, Central
Pennsylvania 26
3.5 Air Quality Control Region #196, South
Central Pennsylvania 28
3.6 Air Quality Control Region #197, Southwest
Pennsylvania 30
APPENDIX A - State Implementation Plan Background 33
APPENDIX B - Regional Assessment 43
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessment 45
APPENDIX D - Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment'49
APPENDIX E - Area Source Fuel Use 55
APPENDIX F - AQCR Fuel Use ~57
iii
-------
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 required 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 parallels 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 of to revise
the SOp emiss.ion 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 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 S02 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 attain-
ment and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, four predominant reasons for the existence
of overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation
Plans. These are (1) the state's prerogative to surpass NAAQS; (2) the
use of the example region approach in developing State-wide air quality con-
trol strategies; (3) the existence of state air quality standards which are
more stringent than NAAQS; and (4) 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 situations effect many State plans
and in some instances conflict with current national energy concerns, a re-
view of the State Implementation Plans is a logical follow-up to EPA's ini-
tial appraisal of the SIP's conducted in 1972. At that time SIP's were approved
by EPA if they demonstrated the attainment of NAAQS or. more stringent state air
quality standards. Also, at that time an acceptable method for formulating
control strategies was the use of an example region for demonstrating the
attainment of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most pol-
luted 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 AOCR'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 result in controls
which are more stringent than needed to attain NAAQS, especially in the util-
ization of clean fuels, for areas of the State where sources would not other-
wise contribute to MAAQS violations. For instance, a control strategy based
on a particular region or source can result in a regulation requiring 1 per-
cent sulfur oil to be burned state-wide where the use of 3 percent sulfur
coal would be adequate to attain MAAQS in some locations.
-------
EPA anticipates that a number of States will use the review find-
ings to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise
portions of their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most
important for those States which desire to submit a revised plan to
recognize the review's limitations. The findings of this report are
by no means conclusive and are neither intended nor adequate to be the.
sole basis for SIP revisions; they do, however, represent EPA's best
judgment and effort in complying with the ESECA requirements. The
time and resources which EPA has had to prepare the reports has not
permitted the consideration of growth, economics, and control strategy
tradeoffs. Also, there has been only limited dispersion modeling data
available by which to address individual point source emissions. Where
the modeling data for specific sources were found, however, they were
used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based are 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. 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 pro-
cesses. States are encouraged to consider the overall impact which
the potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations
for combustion 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
X
fuel switching, and other potential air pollution situations such as
sulfates.
-------
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attain-
ment of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended
particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SOp) 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 States'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 States's fuel combustion
sources (power plants, industrial sources, and area sources) has been
carried out in Appendices C, D, and E.
The State Implementation Plan for Pennsylvania has been reviewed
for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive fuel combustion emission
limiting regulations. The major findings of the review are:
FOR BOTH PARTICULATES AMD SULFUR DIOXIDE. THERE IS LITTLE
INDICATION THAT EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION...
REGULATIONS ARE OVER-RESTRICTIVE.
The supportive findings of the SIP review are as follows:
Like many other areas of the nation, high levels of total sus-
pended particulates are currently being found throughout the state
of Pennsylvania. National ambient air quality standards for par-
ticulates were exceeded in each of the six Air Quality Control
Regions during 1973.
Ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide were exceeded in
the Metropolitan Philadelphia, Northwest Pennsylvania, and the
Southwest Pennsylvania Air Quality Control Regions.
There are insufficient air monitoring data in the Central Pennsylvania
Air Quality Control Region for sulfur dioxide. This is a Priority III
region for this pollutant, and air monitors were not required during
1973.
-------
Recent action by the State parallels the intentions of Section IV
of ESECA. In an attempt to reduce the impact of fuel shortages
and to conserve clean fuels, a plan revision was submitted by the
State which would postpone the date of sulfur in fuel content for
the City of Philadelphia until March 31, 1975. The decrease, from
0.5% to 0.3% was scheduled for October 1, 1973.
-------
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations
will depend on many factors.
Does the State have air quality standards which are
more stringent than NAAQS?
Does the State have emission limitation regulations
for control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources,
(3) area sources?
t Did the State use an example region approach for demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS or_ more stringent State
standards?
Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Policy?
Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
t Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
sites within a region?
Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS in the
State Implementation Plan?
Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported
violations of NAAQS?
Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
9 Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources proportionally lower than those of other sources?
Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when
there are affirmative responses to the above.
-------
The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix A,
was organized to provide the background and current situation information
for the State Implementation Plan. Section 3 and the remaining Appendices
provide an AQCR analysis which helps establish the overall potential for
revising regulations.
Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been rated as either a good, poor or marginal candidate for revising
emission limiting regulations. These ratings which are shown in Table 2-1
were determined by assessing the following criteria:
Good
1) Adequate number
of air monitoring
sites
2) No NAAQS violations
3) Attainment date of
1975 for NAAQS in
the SIP
4) No proposed AQMAs
5) Modeling results
show a potential
for regulation
revision
Poor
1) Violation of NAAQS
2) Attainment date for
NAAQS later than
1975
3) Proposed AQMA
4) Modeling results
show no potential
for regulation
revision
Marginal
1) No air quality data
or insufficient number
of monitoring sites
2) Inconsistent
"indicators"
For an AQCR to be rated as a good candidate, all of the criteria listed
under "Good" would have to be satisfied. The overriding factor in rating an
AQCR as a poor candidate is a violation of either the primary or secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards during 1973. However, if any of the
other conditions listed under "Poor" exists, the AQCR would still receive
that rating. The predominant reason for a marginal rating is a lack of suf-
ficient air quality data. In Priority III regions, air monitoring was not
required during 1973, therefore, there may be'no data with which to determine
the current air quality status. Marginal ratings are also given when there
are varying or inconsistent "indicators".
After a candidacy has been given to a region, a follow-up analysis
should be conducted depending on the rating given to a region. A region
-------
that has been indicated to be a good candidate for regulation revision should
be examined in more detail by the state and the Regional office of the EPA
including an examination of current air quality, emissions, and fuel use
data, with which the state has more familiarity. If the state feels that
clean fuels could be saved in a region rated marginal then an analysis of
air quality data that may have become available since this report should be
examined. If current data do not indicate a potential for regulation revi-
sion then further study would not be warranted. An AQCR that has been indi-
cated to be a poor candidate would not warrant further study unless the state
feels that new information has become available indicating that the poor
rating is no longer valid.
-------
TABLE 2-1
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
(SUMMARY)
Pennsylvania
"Indicators" TSP
SO;
Metro poll tan
Philadelphia
AQCR 45
TSP S02
Northeast
Penn. Upper
Delaware Valley
AQCR 151
TSP S02
Northwest
Penn. Youngs town
AQCR 178
TSP S02
Central
Pennsylvania
AQCR 195
TSP SO?
South
Central
Pennsylvania
AQCR 196
TSP SO?
Southwest
Pennsylvania
AQCR 197
TSP 502
Does the State have air quality
standards which are more stringent
than NAAQS? No
Does the State have emission limiting
regulations for control of:
I. Power plants Yes
2. Industrial sources Yes
3. Area sources Yes
Did the State use an example region
approach for demonstrating the attain-
ment of HAAQS or more stringent State
standards? Yes
t Has the State not initiated action
to modify combustion source emission
regulations for fuel savings; I.e..
under the Clean Fuels Policy? Yes
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 MAAQS in the State Implementation Plan?'
Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are
there no reported violations of HAAQS?
Based on (1973) Air Oualitv Data, are
there indications of a tolerance for
increasing emissions?
Are the total emissions from stationary
fuel combustion sources proportionally
lower than those of other sources?
Do modeling results for specific fuel
combustion sources show a potential for a
regulation revision?
Based on the above indicators, v/hat is
the potential for revising fuel combus-
tion source emission limiting regulations?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes"
No"
No No No
Yes Yes Yes
No No Yes
No No No
No No No
No Ito No
rio Ho H.A.c
Poor Poor Poor
Yes
No No
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes No No
Yes No No
No No No
Poor Poor Poor
No Yes No
Yes
Yes Yes Yes No
Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No
Yes Yes
No No
No Yes No Yes No No
Ho Yes No Yes No No
No No No No No No
Poor Poor Poor Marginal Poor Poor
a Modified example region approch used for some regions.
Proposed relaxation of fuel oil sulfur content in City of Philadelphia.
c Modeling results not available.
Modeling results indicate only one power plant may use higher sulfur content coal in 1975.
Priority II! region not required to have air monitors until two years after final approval of '.IP.
Includes attainment date for either primary or secondary standard.
-------
NORTHWEST
PENNSYLVANIA-
YOUNGSTOWN
INTERSTATE
(PENNSYLVANIA-
OHIO)
NORTHEAST
PENNSYLVANIA-
UPPER
DELAWARE
VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(NEW JERSEY-
PENNSYLVANIA)
SOUTHWEST
PENNSYLVANIA
INTRASTATE
CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA
INTRASTATE
SOUTH CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA
INTRASTATE
' METROPOLITAN
PHILADELPHIA
INTERSTATE
(DELAWARE-
NEW JERSEY-
PENNSYLVANIA)
Figure 2-1 PENNSYLVANIA AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING - STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
2.2.1 Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Areas
Pennsylvania has been divided into six Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCR) as listed:
Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate (Delaware, New Jersey)
0 Northeast Pennsylvania - Upper Delaware Valley Interstate
(New Jersey)
Northwest Pennsylvania - Youngstown Interstate (Ohio)
Central Pennsylvania Intrastate
South Central Pennsylvania Intrastate
Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate
These AQCR's are also shown in Figure .2-1 and Table A-l in the
Appendix. Also on Table A-l are the priority classifications for total
suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide, the projected 1975 population
in each AQCR, and the counties that have been proposed as Air Quality
Maintenance Areas.
2.2.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pennsylvania has adopted the Federal ambient air quality standards
for total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide as shown on Table A-2.
The state has also adopted air quality standards for sulfates which are
shown on this table.
2.2.3 Pennsylvania Air Quality Status
Ambient air quality data for 1973 are summarized in Tables A-3
and A-4 for suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide respectively. These
data are from the SAROAD data bank as of July 1974. It should be noted
that not all of the data that have been collected by the state are
necessarily in the data bank.
12
-------
Total suspended particulate levels exceeded the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards in each of the six Air Quality Control Regions
during 1973. Significant reductions in the 1973 levels are needed in
order for. the regions to attain air quality standards (Table A-3).
Violations of the standards were most widespread in the Southwest
Pennsylvania region, where the 24-hour secondary standard was exceeded
at several monitoring sites.
Sulfur dioxide levels exceeded ambient air quality standards in
three Air Quality Control Regions during 1973 as shown in Table A-4.
The annual standard of 80 yg/iu was not exceeded in the state but was
equalled in the Metropolitan Philadelphia AQCR. Sulfur dioxide air
quality data are not available for all of the regions. The Central
Pennsylvania region is classified Priority III for S02 and air monitors
in this region were not required during 1973. As mentioned previously,
the state in most likelihood has current air quality data which were
not included in the SAROAD data bank, with which to make an assessment
of the air quality status with regard to sulfur dioxide.
2.2.4 Pennsylvania Emissions Summary
A summary of particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions are
presented in Tables A-6 and A-7 respectively. These data are from the
1972 National Emissions Report, June 1974. There are some limitations
in using these data which should be noted. The emission inventory for
the major fuel combustion sources was conducted before many of the
sources installed emission control equipment, and some sources that
were operating at the time of the inventory are no longer in operation.
A number of sources have come on-line since the inventory was completed,
therefore, emissions data for these sources are not incuded in the
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) and are not part of this report.
The majority of particulate emissions are from area source fuel
combustion in all but one AQCR, whereas sulfur dioxide emissions are
primarily from point source fuel combustion, primarily power plants.
13
-------
Table A-5 shows the number of power plants in each Air Quality
Control Region and the number of major fuel combustion point sources that
together with the power plants contribute a significant amount of the
particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions. Again this information was
taken from NEDS, and it is understood that some sources may not be
included in this listing. The table also shows that a majority of the
emissions are from Pennsylvania fuel combustion sources; therefore, any
relaxation of the regulations may have a significant impact on existing
air quality.
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA'S CURRENT STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2.3.1 Control Strategy For Particulate Matter And Sulfur Oxides
The basis for recommending approval of the control strategies
for attaining the national primary standards for particulate matter
and sulfur oxides in the Pennsylvania portion of the Metropolitan
Philadelphia Interstate Region was a modeling analysis prepared by
EPA using the Implementation Planning Program (IPP). This analysis in-
cluded (1) an extensive update of the emissions inventories that had
been included in the "Existing Sulfur Oxides and Particulate Matter
Plans" submitted by Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey under the 1967
Clean Air Act and evaluated under the provisions of Section 16 (Savings
Provision) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1970; (2) a careful cali-
bration of air quality data and predicted concentrations; and (3) the
application of the emission limitations submitted with the final plans.
This analysis supported the information presented in the plan that the
primary standards for both pollutants will be attained, but that an
extension is necessary to develop plans to attain the secondary standards.
The emissions data, in the IPP format, and the results of the diffusion
analysis are on file with EPA.
14
-------
The basis for recommending approval of the primary sulfur oxides
control strategy for the Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate Region was
a/diffusion modeling analysis performed by Allegheny County. This
modeling was found acceptable following its evaluation by IBM, under
contract, and EPA's Air Quality Management Branch. This analysis used
the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) to model three "hot spots" in
Allegheny County and demonstrated that the primary standards for sulfur
oxides would be attained around these "hot spots," arid thus the primary
standards should be attained throughout the Region.
The particulate matter rollback calculations for the Southwest
Pennsylvania Region indicated that the primary standards will be attain-
ed. These calculations assumed no fugitive dust from the coking process
since these emissions are not allowed under Section 123.1 of Title 25.
However, the plan also contains a rollback calculation which shows the
effect of allowing the emissions from coking. The primary standard will
be marginally attained in this case.
In the control strategy evaluation for particulate matter and sulfur
oxides for the Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate Region, it is unclear,
for those areas subject to the State's control regulations, how multiple
sources connected to a common flue are handled. Since both the particu-
late matter and sulfur oxides emission-limiting regulations have a sliding
scale of allowable emissions, grouping sources connected to a common stack
would allow much less emissions than computing the allowable emissions for
each source and summing the total emissions. Neither the control strategy
evaluation nor the State's emission-limiting regulations specify how such
units are handled. However, regardless of the interpretation, the rollback
demonstrations do indicate attainment of the primary standards. It also
should be noted that the Allegheny County regulations which apply to the
majority of the sources in the Region specify that multiple sources connec-
ted to a single stack shall be considered as one source, which is the most
stringent interpretation.
15
-------
The Appendix D inventory for participate matter and sulfur oxides
emissions in the Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate Region was omitted from
the final submission of the plan. This information was- included in the
preliminary submission, and the rollback calculation was updated for the
final submission, but the detailed summary was not updated.
For the Pennsylvania portion of the Metropolitan Philadelphia
Interstate Region and the Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate Region, an
18-month extension of the deadline for submittal of the secondary sulfur
oxides and particulate matter strategies has been granted. It is strongly
recommended that, as part of the secondary strategies, the emission inven-
tories should be carefully updated and correlated with validated air quality
data. It is entirely possible that point sources which will be controlled
were missed or included in the area sources, and thus the percent reduction
realized may be greater than the reduction calculated. In any event, the
secondary strategies should be developed on an updated data base to prevent
the inclusion of any erroneous information which may be in the present data
base.
To demonstrate attainment of the particulate matter national stan-
dards in the South Central Pennsylvania and Central Pennsylvania Intrastate
Regions and the Pennsylvania portions of the Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper
Delaware Valley and Northwest Pennsylvania-Youngstown Interstate Regions, a
modified example region approach was used. This approach used the three
contiguous State-designated air basins - Allegheny County, Monongahela
Valley and Beaver Valley - and the Metropolitan Philadelphia, Air Basin as
the example evaluation areas. The percentage reduction in particulate
matter emissions obtained in these areas was applied to the appropriate
State-designated air bas.ins located in the Federally-designated air
quality control regions.
16
-------
The percentage reduction in participate matter emissions obtained in
the "Composite Air Basin" (Allegheny County, Beaver Valley, and Monongahela
Valley Air Basins) was applied to the Johnstown Air Basin, the Erie Air
Basin the .the Reading Air Basin, which have the highest particulate matter
concentrations in their respective Regions. Since the Harrisburg Air Basin
more closely resembles the Metropolitan Philadelphia Air Basin with regard
to the ratio of point to area source emissions, the percentage reduction in
particulate matter obtained in the Philadelphia Air Basin was applied to
the Harrisburg Air Basin. In all cases, the predicted air quality for 1975
was at or below the secondary particulate matter standards and, thus, the
strategy is recommended for approval for these Regions.
The sulfur oxides control strategy for the Pennsylvania portions of
the Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware Valley and Northwest Pennsylvania-
Youngstown Interstate Regions, and the Central Pennsylvania and South Cen-
tral Pennsylvania Intrastate Regions was also based on a modified example
regio/i concept. The Reading Air Basin served as the example region for
the air basins in these Regions, and the Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate
Region minus the "composite Air Basin" served as the example region for the
non-air basin areas. The Reading Air Basin will attain the secondary sulfur
oxides standards and, thus, all the air basins which have better air qual-
ity should attain the national standards. The Southwest Pennsylvania
Intrastate Region, minus the "Composite Air Basin," achieved a 19 percent
reduction in emissions, and therefore, even the non-urban areas should
achieve an improvement in air quality. Therefore, the strategy to attain
the secondary sulfur oxides standards in these Regions is recommended for
approval.
In all areas where the air quality is presently below the secon-
dary standards, the plan provides for maintaining the secondary stan-
dards. This will be accomplished by: (1) enforcement of state and/or
Federal new source performance standards; (2) Pennsylvania's control of
construction and modifications of sources; and (3) the provisions of
Section 141.1 of Title 25, which allows the Department of Environmental
Resources to impose more stringent standards for any source or class of
sources, if such action is necessary to maintain a national standard.
17
-------
2.4 CURRENT STATUS OF PENNSYLVANIA'S STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
On April 15, 1974, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted to
the Regional Administrator a proposed amendment to the City of Philadel-
phia portion of the approved Pennsylvania Implementation Plan for the
attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.
The proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Implementation Plan
was publicly advertised and a hearing was held on September 5, 1973 in
accordance with the Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal
of State Implementation Plans.
The major provision of the proposal would postpone until March 31,
1975, a decrease in sulfur in fuel oils limits from 0.5 percent to 0.3
percent. This decrease had been scheduled for October 1, 1973. There
is also a provision for allowing non-commercial fuel users to average
stack emissions throughout a facility if it can be shown that air
quality will not be adversely affected.
18
-------
3.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENTS BASED ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the available information
for the State of Pennsylvania and determine the feasibility of revisions to
the SIP which would result in clean fuel conservation. The assessments will
be made by AQCR, addressing each type of fuel combustion source: power plants,
large industrial and commercial/institutional sources, and area sources.
The assessments must be made for each pollutant separately and are made on
the basis of seven criteria: (1) 1973 air quality violations; (2) ex-
pected NAAQS attainment dates; (3) proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area
(AQMA) designations; (4) total emissions; (5) portion of emissions from
Pennsylvania fuel combustion sources; (6) regional tolerance for emissions
increase; and (7) pollutant priority classifications. Tables B-l and
B-2 tabulate these criteria for each AQCR for TSP and S02, respectively.
As mentioned previously, regional air quality data for 1973 are
presented in Tables A-3 and A-4 for total suspended particulates and
sulfur dioxide respectively.
Table C-l shows the 1973 fuel use and sulfur content of the fuel
for each power plant. The sulfur content is an average content for the
year, as variations of up to 20% are common. This information is from the
Federal Power Commission and was used in place of the NEDS data since it
is more current. Also shown in this table is the projected fuel use for
1975 for each plant, and the sulfur content of the fuel as required by
the State Implementation Plan. Allowable sulfur content determined by
modeling results are also shown. There are limitations to be considered
in using modeling results, because often assumptions are made in the
input to the model, when actual data are not available. Modeling results
The modeling analysis of the power plants was performed by the Wai-
den Research Division of Abcor, Inc. A single-source and valley model,
developed by the Meteorology Laboratory, EPA, was used. The model employs
a Gaussian plume model and Briggs plume rise equation. Comments on the use
of the model are included in Appendix C.
19
-------
are presented here as another indicator in assessing the candidacy of a re-
gion to revise emission regulations.
Appendix D shows the major industrial fuel combustion sources which
were significant emitters of particulates and sulfur dioxide when the
emissions inventory was conducted^
3.1 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #45, METROPOLITAN PHILADELPHIA
(DELAWARE, NEW JERSEY)
3.1.1 Regional Assessment
This AQCR exceeded both the annual and 24-hour secondary standards
for total suspended particulates during 1973. The maximum annual average
of 87 pg/m and the second highest 24-hour average of 387 pg/m were
recorded in Philadelphia, while the highest 24-hour average was recorded
in the Delaware portion of the AQCR. Thirteen of the monitoring stations
were in violation of the 24-hour secondary standard, (Table A-3), and a
significant reduction in the 1973 ambient levels is required for this
region to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulates.
This region is classified Priority I for particulate and has five counties
that have been proposed as Air Quality Maintenance Areas. An 18-month
extension has b,een granted for the attainment of the secondary standard.
There is virtually no potential in this region for relaxing particulate
emission limits.
Sulfur dioxide levels are slightly exceeding standards in this AQCR
which is classified Priority I for this pollutant. There are also five
counties proposed as AQMA's. The highest annual average recorded was
3
80 pg/m which occurred in the New Jersey portion of the AQCR, while
3
the highest 24-hour average in 1973 of 416 pg/m occurred in Pennsylvania
(Table A-4). An 18-month extension has been granted for the attainment
of the standard for S02. There is little potential for relaxing SOp
emission limits in this region.
20
-------
3.1.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are eight power plants in the Pennsylvania portion of this
Air Quality Control Region. These plants contributed 9,000 tons (1%) of
the particulate emission, and 207,000 tons (38%) of the sulfur dioxide
emissions. During 1973 two plants, Cromby and Eddystone, burned both
coal and oil, while the remainder burned only oil (Table C-l). The fuel
oil used by these plants had an average sulfur content of less than
0.5%. Since total suspended particulate levels were exceeded in this
region it is unlikely that these plants could switch to coal without
adversely affecting existing air quality. Switching to a higher sulfur
content of fuel is also unlikely since sulfur dioxide levels also
exceeded standards.
3.1.3 Industrial. Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
Besides power plants, there are three major sources of particulate
matter emissions, and five major sources of sulfur dioxide emissions in
the Pennsylvania portion of this Air Quality Control Region which are
listed in Table D-l. Point source fuel combustion from Pennsylvania
accounts for 117,000 tons per year (12%) of particulate emissions, and
126,000 tons per year (23%) of sulfur dioxide emissions within the state.
Since air quality standards are exceeded in this region for both pollu-
tants, there is little potential for clean fuel savings from either a
switch from oil to coal, or from a low sulfur to high sulfur content fuel.
3.1.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel use is shown in Table E-l. Fuel combustion from
area sources accounts for 184,000 tons per year (19%) of particulate
emissions, and 174,000 tons per year (32%) of sulfur dioxide emission in
the state. It is assumed that large-scale conversions from gas or oil
to coal is impractical for most small residential, commercial, institu-
tional and industrial facilities. A switch to a higher sulfur content
coal may adversely affect existing S02 levels.
21
-------
3.1.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use data by source are shown in Appendix F.
3.2 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #151, NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA - UPPER
DELAWARE VALLEY (NEW JERSEY) .
3.2.1 Regional Assessment
This Air Quality Control Region has a Priority I classification
for total suspended particulates and has five counties proposed as Air
Quality Maintenance Areas for this pollutant. Ambient levels of sus-
pended particulates exceeded both the annual and 24-hour secondary
standards during 1973. Of the 32 monitoring stations in this region,
3 stations exceeded the annual secondary standard, and 7 stations ex-
ceeded the 24-hour secondary standard. A significant reduction in
the 1973 levels is needed to achieve National Ambient Air Quality
Standards in this region, and is rated a poor candidate for revising
particulate emission limits.
Ambient air levels of sulfur dioxide did not exceed either the
annual or the 24-hour standard in this AQCR during 1973 which is classified
Priority II for this pollutant and has no proposed AQMA designations for
3
S09. The highest annual arithmetic average in this region was 30 ug/m ,
3
while the maximum 24-hour average was 223 pg/m , both well below the
standards. This region has a tolerance for an increase in ambient levels
while still maintaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards based on
1973 data.
3.2.2 Power Plant Assessment
Electricity generation contributed 14,000 tons per year (6%) of the
particulate emissions, and 156,000 tons per year (57%) of the sulfur
dioxide emissions in the Pennsylvania portion of this AQCR. There are
four power plants operating in this region, with the largest, the
22
-------
Portland plant, burning both coal and oil during 1973. The fuel sulfur
content during 1973 shows a tolerance for an increase in the content
while still meeting the SIP requirements. However, more recent data
supplied by the EPA Region III office shows that in January and February
1974, the average sulfur content increased over that required by the
SIP at all but one plant.
3.2.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
Besides power plants, there are two major sources of particulate
emissions and one source of sulfur dioxide emissions in the Pennsylvania
portion of the AQCR, which are listed in Table D-l. Point source fuel
combustion contributes 8,000 tons (4%) of particulate emissions and
17,000 tons (6%) of SO^ emissions in Pennsylvania. Current fuel use
for these sources is not known.
3.2.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion contributes 106,000 tons per year
(48%) of particulate emissions, and 10,000 tons per year (34%) of sulfur
dioxide emissions in the Pennsylvania Portion of the Air Quality Control
Region. Area source fuel use is shown in Table E-l. Fuel switching
from oil or gas to coal is unlikely because of existing levels of par-
ticulate matter, and also because small residential, commercial and
industrial sources usually do not have the particulate emission controls
necessary for the amount of reduction needed in this region.
3.2.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use data by source are shown in Appendix F.
3.3 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #178, NORTHWEST PENNSYLVANIA - YOUNGSTOWN
(OHIO)
23
-------
3.3.1 Regional Assessment
Ambient levels of total suspended particulates exceeded both the
annual and 24-hour secondary standards in this AQCR during 1973. This
region is classified Priority I for suspended particulates, and has two
counties proposed as Air Quality Maintenance areas. The maximum annual
average in this region was 92 pg/m , and was recorded in Erie County.
The highest 24-hour average of 695 yg/m and second highest 24-hour
average of 561 ug/m were both recorded in Lawrence County. Five of
the ten monitoring stations in this region violated the 24-hour se-
condary standard. A significant reduction in the 1973 levels is required
for this region to achieve National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
particulates and is rated a poor candidate for revision of particulate
emission limits. .
Sulfur dioxide air monitoring data are somewhat spurious in this
region. There are four 24-hour bubblers, only one of which is in
Pennsylvania, and it was the only one that had sufficient data to calcu-
late an annual arithmetic average. The highest 24-hour reading of 378
yg/m was recorded in the Ohio portion of the AQCR and this value was
used to determine the amount of reduction that is needed in the 1973
levels in order to attain air quality standards. This AQCR has a
Priority II classification for sulfur dioxide, and has one county that
has been proposed as'an Air Quality Maintenance Area. This region should
be examined in more detail with respect to air monitoring data for sulfur
dioxide.
3.3.2 Power Plant Assessment
Electric power generation contributes 14,000 tons per year (11%)
of the particulate emissions, and 173,000 tons per year (58%) of the
sulfur dioxide emissions in the Pennsylvania portion of the Air Quality
Control Region. Table C-l lists the four power plants that are projected
to be operating in this region in 1975 and their estimated fuel use.
24
-------
All of the plants are presently buring coal, and are projecting coal use
in 1975. The average sulfur content of the fuel used by these plants
during 1973 indicates that two of the plants have a tolerance for an
increase in fuel sulfur content and still meet SIP requirements, while
the other two plants must decrease the sulfur content. The most signifi-.
cant reduction is required at the New Castle plant in Lawrence County
which during 1973 burned 3.26% sulfur coal and must reduce this to
0.32% in 1975. Modeling results indicate a reduction to 0.39% is needed.
As more air quality data for sulfur dioxide become available for
this region, a better assessment of the air quality may be made, and a
revision to the existing regulations should not be considered until
such time.
3.3.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are a number of point sources in the Pennsylvania portion
of this AQCR contributing a significant amount of particulate and
sulfur dioxide emissions which are listed in Table D-l. Of the total
emissions in the State, point sources contribute 21,000 tons per year
(16%) of the particulate emissions, and 68,000 tons per year (23%) of
the sulfur dioxide emissions. As with power plants, there is little
potential for revising emission limits for these sources unless there is
a more extensive study of existing air quality levels for sulfur dioxide,
indicating that regulations may be relaxed.
3.3.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for 52,000 tons per year (39%)
of particulate emissions, and 49,000 tons per year (17%) of sulfur dioxide
emissions in the Pennsylvania portion of the AQCR. Fuel use by area
sources is shown in Table E-l. Because suspended particulate levels may
be exceeded, there is little potential for present facilities using gas or
oil to switch to coal.
3.3.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use data by source are shown in Appendix F.
25
-------
3.4 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #195, CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
3.4.1 Regional Assessment
This AQCR is classified Priority I for total suspended particulates
and has one county that has been proposed as an Air Quality Maintenance
Area. Ambient levels of suspended particulates exceeded both the annual
and 24-hour secondary standards during 1973. The maximum annual geometric
3 3
mean was 107 yg/m , and the maximum 24-hour average was 411 yg/m . The
annual standard was exceeded at two of the nine monitoring stations,
while the 24-hour secondary standard was exceeded at three of the stations.
A significant reduction of the 1973 levels is required to bring this
region into compliance with the standards, and is rated as a poor
candidate for revising particulate emission limits.
Sulfur dioxide levels are difficult to assess in this region
because there is only one monitoring station and it had only three valid
values in 1973. The highest 24-hour average in this region was 41 yg/m
and the second highest was 11 yg/m . There are no proposed AQMA
designations in this region, which has a Priority III classification for
S02Ğ Until more air quality data are available for this region, con-
sideration should not be given to relaxing the S02 emission limits.
It should be noted that in Priority III regions, air monitoring was not
required during 1973.
3.4.2 Power Plant Assessment
Electric power generation contributes- 90,000 tons per year (44%)
of the particulate emissions, and 167,000 tons per year (67%) of the
sulfur dioxide emissions in this region. Table C-l lists the four
power plants that are projected to be operating in this region in 1975,
and their estimated fuel use. During 1973, these plants burned coal
with a. sulfur content lower than that required by the SIP, although the
difference is slight. Modeling results are generally in agreement with
26
-------
the SIP requirements except for the Saxton plant in Bedford County.
The SIP requires 2.35% sulfur coal in 1975 whereas modeling results
indicate that only 1.89% will be allowable. In assessing the power
plants in this region, it should be noted that except for the Sunbury
plant, these plants are small and have a fairly low-projected fuel use
in 1975. For instance, the Saxton plant will only burn 66,000 tons of
coal; therefore if more recent air quality data indicate that sulfur diox-
ide emission limits may be relaxed, there will only be a minimal amount
of clean fuel savings derived by the three plants.
3.4.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
Point source fuel combustion contributes a small percentage of
the particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions in this AQCR. Approxi-
mately 16,000 tons per year (8%) of the particulate emissions, and
28,000 tons per year (11%) of the sulfur dioxide emissions are from these
sources. The major fuel combustion point sources are listed in Table D-l.
All of the major point sources in this region used coal, therefore,
none could benefit if a change in the emission regulations allowed a
fuel switch. These sources could achieve a clean fuel savings by
switching to. a higher sulfur content coal if air quality data indicate
that sulfur dioxide levels within the region could be maintained within
standards.
3.4.4 Area-Source.Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for 50,000 tons per year
(25%) of particulate emissions, and 65,000 tons per year (12%) of sulfur
dioxide emissions in this region. Area source fuel use is shown in
Table E-l. There is a considerable amount of oil and natural gas used
in this region; however, there is little potential for these sources
to switch to coal because of suspended particulate levels. Also it is
usually impractical for small sources to switch fuels because of the
cost involved. If SO^ emission limits were to be relaxed, fuel savings
27
-------
could be achieved by switching to higher sulfur coal and oil. The
present sulfur content of the-fuels used in this region is not known.
3.4.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use data by source are shown in Appendix F.
3.5 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #196, SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
3.5.1 Regional Assessment
This region is classified Priority I for suspended particulates,
and has four counties proposed as Air Quality Maintenance Areas.
Ambient air levels of suspended particulates exceeded both the
annual geometric mean and 24-hour secondary standards during 1973.
The annual standard was exceeded at two of the monitoring stations,
while the 24-hour standard was exceeded at seven of the monitoring sites.
The highest annual geometric mean in the region was 88 yg/m , while
the highest and second highest 24-hour readings were 366 yg/m , and
243 yg/m respectively (Table A-3). There is virtually no potential
in this region for relaxing particulate emission limits, without adversely
affecting existing air quality.
Sulfur dioxide monitoring data is not very comprehensive in this
AQCR. There are three 24-hour bubbler stations in the region, however,
neither had sufficient data to determine an annual average. A maximum
of twenty valid values were collected at one of the stations, thirteen
valid values at another station, and only one valid value at the third
station. The highest 24-hour reading was 93 yg/m , and the second
highest was 61 yg/m . This region is classified Priority II for sulfur
dioxide and has no proposed AQMA designations for this pollutant.
As with the previous AQCR that was discussed, more extensive air monitor-
ing data should be available before relaxation of SO^ emission regulations
is considered.
28
-------
3.5.2 Power Plant Assessment
Electricity generation accounts for 21,000 tons per pear (20%)
of the participate emissions, and 416,000 tons per year (74%) of sulfur
dioxide emissions in this region. Table C-l lists the three power plants
that are projected to be operating in this region in 1975, and their
estimated fuel use. All of these plants will be burning coal, although
in 1973, one of these burned coal and oil. Modeling results indicate
that two of these plants may use a higher sulfur content of coal than
that used during 1973. The Holtwood plant in Lancaster County is
the exception. This plant, which is the smallest in the region, used
1.23% sulfur coal in 1973. The SIP requires 0.97% sulfur and modeling
results indicate that 0.7% sulfur coal will be needed to maintain air
quality standards in the vicinity of this plant. There is a potential
in this AQCR for clean fuel savings, although slight, if further air
monitoring data indicate that SO^ emission limits may be revised.
3.5.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
Point source fuel combustion from sources other than power plants
contributes a small percentage of the emissions in this region. Approx-
imately 16,000 tons per year (8%) of the particulate emissions, and
23,000 tons per year (4%) of the SOp emissions are from these sources.
Table D-l lists the major sources of these pollutants in this region.
3.5.4 Area Source Assessment
Area Source fuel combustion contributes 58,000 tons per year
(43%) of the particulate emissions, and 65,000 tons per year (12%) of
the sulfur dioxide emissions in this region. Area source fuel use is
shown in Table E-l. As in the other regions, a switch from either gas
or oil to coal is unlikely because of existing ambient air levels of
particulate matter. An increase in the sulfur content of the fuels used
may be possible if more air quality data for sulfur dioxide became
available indicating that S02 emission limits may be relaxed.
29
-------
3.5.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use data by source are shown in Appendix F.
3.6 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #197, SOUTHWEST PENNSYLVANIA
3.6.1 Regional Assessment
Ambient air levels of suspended particulate matter exceeded both
the annual and 24-hour secondary standard during 1973. This region has
a Priority I classification for total suspended particulates and has
five counties that have been proposed as Air Quality Maintenance Areas.
The highest annual geometric mean in this AQCR was 101 yg/m while the
3
highest and second highest 24-hour averages recorded were 621 yg/m and
3
443 yg/m respectively. The annual standard was exceeded at only one of
the 34 monitoring stations in the region; however, the 24-hour secondary
standard was exceeded at 24 stations (Table A-3). A significant reduction
in the 1973 levels is required for this region to achieve National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards. An 18-month extension has been granted
for attainment of the secondary standard for suspended particulates.
This region is classified Priority I for sulfur dioxide also,
and again there are five counties with proposed AQMA designations. Am-
bient levels of S02 exceeded the 24-hour standard; however, there were
insufficient air monitoring data to determine an annual arithmetic
average. There are three 24-hour bubbler stations and seven continuous
monitoring stations in this region, and the highest 24-hour reading of
3
965 yg/m was recorded by continuous monitoring.
There is virtually no potential in this region for relaxing either
the particulate or sulfur dioxide emission limits in light of the 1973
air quality.
3.6.2 Power Plant Assessment
The generation of electricity accounts for 93,000 tons (30%) of
the particulate emissions, and 950,000 tons (74%) of the sulfur dioxide
emissions in this region. Table C-l lists the power plants that are
30
-------
projected to be operating in the region in 1975 and their estimated fuel
use. There are modeling data available for most of these plants, and
they show good agreement with the SIP requirements for the allowable
sulfur content of the fuels used. Many of the plants will require a
significant reduction in the coal sulfur content in order to meet the
SIP requirements. The Cheswick plant in Allegheny County burned
2.03% sulfur coal in T973 and will be required to reduce this to 0.33
by 1975. The Elrama plant in Washington County burned 2.7% sulfur coal
in 1973; however, modeling results indicate that 0.6% sulfur will be
required, while the SIP allows only 0.3%. Similar reductions are required
at the Phillips and Springdale plants in Allegheny County, the Homer
City and Seward plants in Indiana County, the Keystone plant in Armstrong
County, and the Mitchell plant in Washington County. Several plants may
increase the sulfur content according to modeling results and in some
cases by SIP requirements also. The Conemaugh plant in Indiana County
which is the largest plant in the region burned 2.23% sulfur coal in
1973, and is allowed 2.28% by the SIP and 2.39% by modeling results.
The Hatfield plant in Green County, another large plant, burned 2.49%
sulfur coal in 1973, which is what is required under the SIP; however,
modeling results indicate that 3.0% is allowable and still maintain am-
bient air quality standards in the vicinity of the plant.
3.6.3 Industrial, Commercial. Institutional Source Assessment
Point source fuel combustion other than power plants contributed
36,000 tons per year (12%) of the particulate emissions, and 115,000 tons
per year (9%) of the sulfur dioxide emissions in this region. Table 0-1
lists the major sources of these pollutants. All of these sources are
burning coal, in most cases of a high sulfur content. There is a con-
siderable amount of oil and natural gas used by industrial point sources,
as shown in Appendix F.
31
-------
3.6.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for 129,000 tons per year
(42%) of the particulate emission and 125,000 tons per year (10%) of the
sulfur dioxide emission in this region. A considerable amount of natural
gas is used by area sources (Appendix F); however, there is little po-
tential for switching to coal by these sources because of suspended
particulate levels. In most cases it is impractical for residential
sources to switch fuels, because of the costs involved.
3.6.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use data by source are shown in Appendix F.
32
-------
Air Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil.
(Dela. N.J.)
Northeast Penn.-
Upper Delaware Valley (N.J.)
Northwest Penn.-
Youngstown, Ohio
Central Penn.
South Central Penn.
u> Southwest Penn.
197
APPENDIX A STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
TABLE A-l. Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Areas
Federal
Number
45
151
178
195
196
iii vi i vjr
Classification
"Tarti-
culates
I
I
I
1
I
a
S0x N0x
I
II
II
III
11
III
III
III
III
HI
Population
1975
(Millions)
6.07
2.09
1.68
1.09
1.35
I III
2.99
Proposed
AQHA Designations''
TSP Counties
Bucks. Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery, Philadelphia
Lehigh, Northampton, Berks,
Lackawanna, Luzerne
Erie, Lawrence
Cambria
Cumberland, Dauphin, Lancaster,
York
Allegheny, Beaver, Fayette
Washington, Westmoreland
SO
x Counties
Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery, Philadelphia
Lawrence
Allegheny, Beaver, Fayette,
Washington, Westmoreland
aCriteria Based on Maximum Measured (or Estimated) Pollution Concentration in Area
Priority
Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean
24-hour maximum
Particulate matter:
Annual Geometric mean
24-hour maximum
I II III
Greater than
(Mg/m3)
100
455
95
325
From - To
(ug/m3)
60 - 100
260 - 455
60 - 95
150 - 325
Less than
(ng/m3)
60
260
60
150
bFederal Register, August, 1974, SMSA's showing potential for NAAQS violations due to growth.
-------
Federal
State
Jan. 27, 1972
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
75(6)
60(G)
76(6)
60(G)
260a
150a
260a
150a
80(A)
___
80(A)
365a
~
365a
_-
_-_-
1300a
13003
(G) Geometric Mean
(A) Arithmetic Mean
a not to be exceeded more than once per year
TABLE A-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (ug/m3)
PENNSYLVANIA
Total Suspended Participate Sulfur Oxides Sulfates (As
Annual 24-Hour Annual 24-Hour 3-Hour 30 Days 24-Hrs
10 30
-------
TABLE A-3
PENNSYLVANIA AIR QUALITY STATUS, TSPa
TSP Concentration (\igm/\a*)
Number of Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil.
Northeast Penn.
Northwest Penn.
Central Penn.
01 South Central Penn.
Southwest Penn.
No. Stations m9hest
Reporting Annual
45b
I51b
178b
195
196
197
60
32
10
9
22
34
87
107
92
107
88
214
Reading 2nd Highest Reading Primary
24-Hr
558
274
695
411
366
621
24-Hr
387
219
561
322
243
455
Annual
1
3
1
2
1
1
24-Hrc
3
1
2
1
0
8
Annual
2
3
1
2
2
1
Secondary
%
3
9
10
22
9
3
24-Hrc
13
7
5
3
7
24
to Meet Standards'1
%
22
22
50
33
32
71
+ 67
+ 38
+ 78
+ 65
+ 53
+ 86
0 1973 air quality in National Air Data Bank, July 28, 1974
Interstate
c Violations based on more than one reading in excess of standard
Formula:
[2nd Highest 24 llr - 24 Mr Secondary Standard\
x 100
(Annual - Annual Secondary Standard \ ,nn
Annual - Background) x I0°
2nd Highest 24-Hr - BackgroundJ
Background Levels: 44.5 M
-------
TABLE A-4
PENNSYLVANIA AIR QUALITY STATUS S0xa
SO? Concentration (ugm/m^)
Number of Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Highest Reading 2nd Highest Reading Primary
Air Quality
Control Rcq-ion
Metropolitan Phil.
Northeast Penn.
Northwest Penn.
Central Penn.
South Central Penn.
Southwest Penn.
45ğ
151b
178b
195
196
197
No. Stations
24 Hr
11
3
4
1
3
3
Reporting
Cont.
23
1
1
0
0
7
Annual 24-Hr
80d 416d
30f 223f
18f 378d
41
93
965d
24-Hr
41 6e
119f
378e
11
61
965e
Annual
0
0
0
-
-
_
24-Hrc
0
0
1
0
0
2
Secondary
3-Hrc
0
0
0
0
0
1
% Reduction Required
to Meet Standards
+ 14
-167
+ 4
-321 89
-498
+ 62
Interstate
c ,,.-
1973 air quality data in National Air Data Bank, July 28, 1974
Violation based on 2nd highest reading at any station
Continuous monitor
e Highest value used since 2nd highest value is not available for continuous monitoring data
24-hour bubbler
9 Only 3 valid values at this station during 1973 - not considered to be indicative of required reduction
Formula:
/2nd Highest 24-Hr - 24-Hr Standard) lnn (Annual - Annual Standard]
V2nd Highest 24-Hr7 x luu> V Annual I
x 100
-------
TABLE A-5
PENNSYLVANIA FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE SUMMARY
Air Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil.
Northeast Penn.
Northwest Penn.
Central Penn.
South Central Penn.
Southwest Penn.
45e
151e
178e
195
196
197
Power
Plants3
8
5
4
4
3
13
Other Fuel
Point
TSP
3
2
5
4
3
8
Combustion*1
Sources
S02
5
1
4
3
2
2
Area
Sources0
5
15
14
16
8
9
Total En
(103 To
TSP
1050
231
321
200
158
305
)1ss1onsd
ins/Year)
S02
862
307
534
249
559
1283
% Emissions Fr<
Penn. Fuel Combustion
TSP SOj
30
56
27
77
70
85
59
89
54
99
90
93
a - Pennsylvania power plants only
b - Pennsylvania plants, along with power plants which contribute 902 of emissions within the state
c - Pennsylvania counties
d - Total for AQCR
e - Interstate
-------
TABLE A-6
PENNSYLVANIA EMISSIONS SUMMARY3, TSP
Air Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil.
Northeast Penn.
Northwest Penn.
Central Penn.
South Central Penn.
Southwest Penn.
45 Penn.
Other
Total
151 Penn.
Other
Total
178 Penn.
Other
Total
195
196
197
Total
Total
(1Q3 tons/yr)
977
73
1050
221
10
231
132
189
321
203
158
305
2268
Electricity Generation
% (103 tons/yr) %
43
4
47
10
0
10
6
8
14
9
7
13
100
9
4
13
14
3
17
14
11
25
90
31
93
269
1
5
1
6
3
7
11
6
8
44
20
30
12
Point Source Fuel Combustion
(1Q3 tons/yr) %
Area Source Fuel Combustion
(1Q3 tons/yr) %_
117
3
120
8
0
8
21
60
fll
16
12
36
273
12
4
11
4
0
3
16
32
25
8
12.
12
184
12
196
106
4
110
52
36
88
50
68
129
641
19
16
19
48
40
47
39
19
27
25
43
42_
28
Emissions in 1972 National Emissions Report, EPA, June 1974
-------
TABLE A-7
PENNSYLVANIA EMISSIONS SUMMARY.3 S02
A1r Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil.
Northeast Penn.
Northwest Penn.
Central Penn.
South Central Penn.
Southwest Penn.
45 Penn
Other
Total
151 Penn
Other
Total
178 Penn
Other
Total
195
196
197
Total
Total
(103 tons/yr)
548
314
862
292
15
307
296
238
534
249
559
1283
3794
Electricity Generation
%
14
8
22
8
0
8
8
6
14
7
15
34
100
(IP3 tons/yr)
207
124
331
156
11
167
173
110
283
167
416
950
2314
%
38
39
38
53
73
54
58
46
53
67
74
74
61
Point Source Fuel Combustion
(103 tons/yr)
126
15
141
17
1
18
68
87
155
28
23
115
480
%
23
5
16
6
7
6
23
37
29
11
4
9
13
Area Source Fuel
(103 tons/yr)
174
19
193
100
2
102
49
26
75
52
65
125
622
Contiustion
%
32
6
22
34
13
33
17
11
14
21
12
10
16
Emissions in 1972 National Emissions Report, EPA, June 1974
-------
TABLE A-8
PENNSYLVANIA AQCR REQUIRED EMISSION REDUCTION*
Air Quality
Control Region
Required Particulate Emission Reduction
103 tons/year
Metropolitan Phil .
Northeast Penn.
Northwest Penn.
Central Penn.
South Central Penn.
Southwest Penn.
45b
151b
178b
195
196
197
+67
+38
+78
+65
+53
+86
+704
+188
+250
+132
+ 84
+262
Required S02 Emission Reduction
% TO3 tons/year
+14 +121
-167 -513
+ 4 +21
-498
+ 62
-2783
+795
Based on a proportional change of emissions to air quality (1973)
Interstate
-------
TABLE A-9 SUMMARY OF PENNSYLVANIA EMISSION
REGULATIONS FROM FUEL COMBUSTION
PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS
A. State Regulations
1) 0.4 Ibs/million BTU heat input when 50 > heat input > 2.5
2) 3.6 E-°*56
E = heat input (TO6 BTU's/hr) when 600 > E £ 50
3) 0.1 Ibs/million BTU heat input when heat input >_ 600
B) City of Philadelphia
1) Units constructed or installed prior to adoption of regulations:
Emissions not to exceed 0.2 lb/1000 Ibs of stack gas
2) Units constructed or installed after adoption of regulations:
Emissions not to exceed 0.1 lb/1000 Ibs of stack gas
Above rates to be calculated by adjustment to 12/Ğ C0£ by volume
C) Allegheny County
1) 0.4 Ibs/million BTU heat input when 50 > heat input > 0.2
2) 3.6 E'°-56
E = heat input (106 BTU's/Hr) when 850 > E >, 50
3) 0.08 Ibs/million BTU heat input when heat input >_ 850
II. SULFUR OXIDES
A) State Regulations (excluding air basins in Section B below)
1) 3 Ibs/million BTU heat input when 50 > heat input > 2.5
2) 5.1 r°'lk
E = heat input (106 BTU/Hr) when 2,000 > heat input > 50
3) 1.8 Ibs/million BTU heat input when heat input >_ 2000
B) State Regulations Applying to Allegheny County, Beaver Valley,
Monongahela Valley and The Southeast Pennsylvania Air Basiris
1) 1 Ib/million BTU heat input when 50 > heat input > 2.5
41
-------
2) 1.7E-0'11*
E = heat input (TO6 BTU/Hr) when 2,000 > heat input > 50
3) 0.6 Ib/million BID heat input when heat input ^ 2,000
C) City of Philadelphia
1) Sulfur content of commercial fuel not to exceed the following
percentages by weight.
Effective 10-1-73
Grades of Commercial Fuel Oil Effective 10-1-72 (Proposed 3-31-75)
No. 2 and lighter 0.3% 0.2%
No. 4 0.4% 0.3%
No. 5, No. 6 0.5% 0.3%
and heavier
The provisions of (a) above shall not apply if S02 emissions can
be controlled to the following levels:
Permissible S02 Emissions
(Ibs S02/million BTU heat input)
Effective 10-1-73
Grades of Commercial Fuel Oil Effective 10-1-72 (proposed 10-1-75)
No. 4 0.42 Ibs. 0.3 Ibs.
No. 5, 6, & 0.52 Ibs. 0.3 Ibs.
heavier
D) Allegheny County
1) 1.0 Ib/million BTU heat input when 50 > heat input > 0.2
2) 1.7 E-°'11+
E = heat input (106 BTU/Hr) when 2,000 > heat input £ 50
3) 0.6 Ib/million BTU heat input when heat input >_ 2,000
E) Non-Air Basins
1) 4.0 Ib/million BTU heat input
42
-------
APPENDIX B
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE B^l
CANDIDACY ASSESSMENT FOR RELAXATION OF TSP REGULATIONS
A1r Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil.
Northeast Perm.
Northwest Penn.
Central Penn.
South Central Penn.
Southwest Penn.
Air Quality Expected
t t of Stations Attainment
Stations in Violation Date
45
151
178
195
196
197
60
32
10
9
22
34
13
7
5
3
7
24
. 7/75a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75a
TSP
Emissions
(103 Tons/Yr.)
1050
231
321
203
158
305
% Emissions
From Penn.
Fuel Combustion
30
56
27
77
70
85
Emission Reduction
Required For NAAQS
(103 Tons/Yr)
+704
+201
+250
+132
+84
+220
TSP
Priori t;
I
I
I
I
I
I
18 month extension granted for secondary standard
-------
TABLE B-2
CANDIDACY ASSESSMENT FOR RELAXATION OF S02 REGULATIONS
Air Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil .
Northeast Penn.
Northwest Penn.
Central Penn.
South Central Penn.
Southwest Penn.
Air Quality Expected
# # of Stations Attainment
Stations in Violation Date
45
151
178
195
196
197
34
4
5
1
3
10
0
0
1
0
0
2
- 7/75a
7/75b
c
c
7/75
7/75a
S02
Emissions
(103 Tons/Yr.)
862
307
534
249
559
1283
% Emissions
From Penn.
Fuel Combustion
59
89
54
99
90
93
Emission Reduction S02
Required For NAAQS Priority
(103 Tons/Yr)
+121
-513
+21
-
-2783
+795
I
II
II
III
II
III
a 18 month extension granted for secondary standard
b
Attainment date for secondary standard, existing levels below primary standard
c Existing levels below secondary standard
-------
APPENDIX C POWER PLANT ASSESSMENT
TABLE C-l
PENNSYLVANIA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Air Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil. 45
Northeast Penn. 151
Northwest Penn. 178
Central Penn. 195
Plant
Barbadoesc
Chester0
Cromby
Eddys tone
Delaware
Ri chmond
Schuylklll
Southwark
Eyler
Portland
Titus
Martins Creek
Stan ton
Front Street
Shawvllle
Harren
New Castle
Saxton
VMIliamsburg
Sunbury
Milesburg
1975 Capacity
155
256
417.5
1507. la
439.25
476.5
325.4
345
84
426.69
225
146
146
118.79
640
84.59
425.79
40.89
39
409.77
46
Estimated
Type
Oil
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
011
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
Coal
' Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
1975 Fuel Use
Quantity3
1119C
1524C
447
111
1700
3032C
3000°
4772
4656
707
1035
608
808
8911
449d
335
1704
303
1014
66
12029C
1294
159
SIP Regulations
% S
0.4
1.13
0.4
0.4
0.32
1.24
2.5
1.1
2.6
0.4
1.0
1.5
2.6
2.5
0.4
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.3
Allowable6
% S
2.5
1.1
2.6
3.9
2.6
2.5
0.4
1.9
2.5
2.3
-------
TABLE C-l (cent.)
Air Quality
Control Reqion Plant
South Central Penn. 196 Crawford
Brunner Island
Holtwood
Southwest Penn. 197 Colfax
Cheswick
Elrama
Phillips
Reed
Homer City
Keystone
Seward
Conemaugh
Armstrong
Mitchell
Springdale
Hatfield
1975 Capacity
MW
116.69
1558.72
75
262.5
565
510
411
180
1320
1684
268.19
2324
326.39
448. 69
416
1728
Estimated
Type
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
1975 Fuel Use
Quantity3
108
3354
443
702C
1264
1396
1125
62C
12270
1836
3332
648
3773
960
1046
646
3507
SIP Regulations
% S
1.4
2.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.5
0.4
0.5
2.6
Allowable5
% S
1.4
2.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.3
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.5
0.5
0.5
3.0
a - Coal quantity is in 103 tons/yr, oil quantity is in 103 bbls/yr. Source: FPC printout and Maiden modeling report.
b - Modeling results
c - FPC printout shows no fuel use for 1975. Data shown is for 1973.
d - 1970 fuel use.
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX C
USE AND LIMITATIONS OF MODELING ANALYSIS DATA3
1. The data inputs for the modeling have been extracted from the
appropriate FPC Form 67 and the most representative meteorological data
available. However, to calculate the occurrence of the highest 24-hour
concentration, assumptions as to the daily emission rate are necessary.
The results of the modeling exercise provide a range of the most probable
maximum concentration.
2. It should be recognized that time and data constraints are such
that the model predictions are useful but not omniscient. There are no
data available, in general, to "validate" the model. Therefore, all rele-
vant data, including hard data on actual daily plant operations, should
be obtained, reviewed, and evaluated. In this way, the modeling results
can be used as a logical part of the entire decision-making framework, not
as an arbitrary, dogmatic absolute "answer", divorced from the real situation
involved. In some cases it will be necessary to adjust the model's predic-
tions based upon more complete and detailed information on a particular
plant's operations.
3. Results of these evaluations are not intended to be used in any
legal actions, including both public hearing and court proceedings. The
very nature of atmospheric dispersion modeling is such that results are not
suitable to legally prove (or disprove) a particular modeling result. The
assumptions and judgments necessarily involved in modeling tend to mitigate
against proof in a legal sense.
4. The best use of the data is in negotiations with states or sources
in trying to establish a rational course of action to be followed with reason-
able assurance that the air quality impact will be as indicated by the model.
a Extracted from comments by the Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, OAQPS
47
-------
APPENDIX 0
Air.Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Phil. 45
Northeast Penn.
151
INDUSTRIAL. COMMERCIAL. INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE ASSESSMENT
TABLE D-l '
INDUSTRIAL. COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE ASSESSMENT3
Source
Rohm & Haas
Scott Paper
Fi restone
Westinghouse
Downington Paper
Cheney State College
Bethlehem Steel
3 Boilers each &
12 Doilers each @
Boiler Capacity
100 BTU/Hr
680
490
290
432
546
275
28
300
36
100
60
Fuel
Type
Coal
2% S
92 A
Oil
2.2% S
Oil
2.4* S
Oil
l.ft% S
Oil
2% S
Oil
2.4% S
Coal
0.65% S
14% A
Oil
OX S
Oil
0.6% S
Oil
0.6%
Coal
0.92% S
12.3% A
Amount
1.820
602
324
514
438
331
11,000
407
410
129
62,490
Emissions
TSP
106,000
39
156
87
212
8
1,000
123
0
0
3,187
(Tons/Yeai
S02
69 ,200
4,370
2,560
3.060
2,890
2.610
36
839
846
972
969
-------
TABLE D-l (cont.) Page 2
Air Quality Boiler Capacity
Control Region Source 106 BTU/Hr
Northeast Penn. 151 Commercial Solvents 51
(cont.)
66
2 Boilers each @ 76
Northwest Penn. 178 Penntech Papers
5 Boilers each @ 134
70
Hammermill Paper 491
134
Sharon Steel
4 Boilers each @ 40
14
FMC Corp.
4 Boilers each @ 172
Fuel
Type
Coal
0.98% S
19% A
Coal
0.95% S
19% A
Oil
1.2% S
Coal
2.25% S
10.5% S
Coal
2.25% S
10.5% S
Coal
3% S
12% A
Coal
3% S
12.4% A
Coal
3% S
10% A
Coal
3% S
11% A
Coal
2% S
13% A
Amountb
11,900
20,000
161
205,500
21 ,400
147,000
32,700
87,600
13,100
201 ,600
Emissions (Tons/Year
TSP S02
227 222
380 . 361
78 638
290 8,800
58 916
1,720 8,370
516 1,860
2,192 5,000
361 749
3,340 7,640
-------
TABLE D-l (cont.) Page 3
Air Quality Boiler Capacity
Control Region Source 106 BTU/Hr
Northwest Penn. 178 Pennzoil
(cont-) 3 Boilers each 6 48
2 Boilers each & 45
General Electric 416
260
219
165
150
Quaker State
4 Boilers each 0 91
101
Koppers Co.
4 Boilers each @ 29
Central Penn. 195 llanniennill
4 Boilers each @ 109
177
142
Fuel
Type
Coal
5.5% S
14.22 A
Coal
5.5% S
14. 2% A
Coal
4% S
13.5% A
Same
Same
Same
Same
Coal
1.16% S
11.2% A
Same
Coal
4% S
13% A
Coal
1.91% S
17.7% A
Same
Same
Amount*1
37,200
35.600
77,600
49 ,900
38,800
33,300
27,700
124,900
28,500
16,000
259,400
61.100
49,000
Emissions (1
TSP
159
50
136
876
681
225
486
5,723
325
1.768
1,818
461
42
Fons/Yeai
S02
4,110
3,920
5,900
3.790
2.950
2,530
2,110
2,750
633
1,216
9.410
2,220
1.780
-------
TABLE D-1 (cont.) Page 4
Air Quality
Control Region Source
Central Penn. 195 Westvaco Corp.
(cont-) 2 Boilers each @
Combined Paper
National Gypsum
Standard Steel
2 Boilers each &
South Central Penn. 196 P. H. Glatfelder
Hershey Foods
5 Boilers each @
Armstrong .Cork
Boiler Capacity
106 BTU/llr
110
285
60
26
146
15
357
277
257
140
155
152
t Fuel
Type
Coal
2% S
10% A
Same
Coal
1.5% S
8% A
Same
Coal
1.16% S
0.1% A
Coal
2.5% S
13% A
Coal
3.5% S
8% A
Same
Same
Same
Coal
2.25% S
11.8% A
Coal
2.5% S
1.1% A
Amount*3
52,600
87,600
29,700
9,900
7,150
10,100
64,700
146,000
61 ,700
38,200
74,480
1,950
Emissions (
TSP
4,460
5,690
283
313
82
654
1,170
109
533
462
7,480
22
Tons/Yeai
S02
1,998
3,330
846
282
651
958
4,300
533
556
2,580
3,183
359
-------
TABLE D-l (cont.) Page 5
Air Quality
Control Region Source
South Central Penn. 196 Armstrong Cork
(cont.)
Shlppensburg State College
Southwest Penn. 197 U.S. Steel
2 Boilers each @
Sinclair Koppers
4 Boilers each @
Marquette Cement
Jones & Laughlln
Union Carbide
Uitco Chemical
2 Boilers each 0
Boiler Capacity
106 BTU/llr
43
99
682
481
206
470
300
96
660
168
124
Fuel
Type
Oil
0.1* S
Coal
0.52 S
14% A
Coal
4. 34* S
9.52 A
Coal
1.622 S
6.7 % A
Same
Coal
3.12% S
16.92 A
Coal
32 S
112 A
Same
Coal
1.82 S
9.32 A
Coal
2.752 S
142 A
Coal
2.52 S
92 A
Amount''
78
13,100
228,000
298,000
61 ,300
363,200
84,000
12,600
105,000
61 ,300
61 .300
Emissions (
TSP
37
125
368
632
144
732
6,010
901
8,310
1,350
2.921
Tons/Yeai
S02
958
1,200
18.800
9,160
1.890
21.550
4,790
718
3,600
3,200
2.910
-------
TABLE D-l (cont.) Page 6
Air Quality
Control Region
Southwest Penn. 197
(cont.)
Source
Neville Chemical
Western Electric
Boilt
10'
ğr Capacity
> BTU/Hr
44
~
Fi
Type
Coal
2% S
9% A
Coal
1.75% S
13.U A
Amount^1
23,300
18,200
Emissions (Tons/Year)
JSP S02
1,360
2,020
886
604
a - Data are taken from the NEDS Inventory. Fuel use and emissions are for 1970.
b - Fuel amounts: Coal is in Tons/Year, oil is in 103 BBLS/Yr.
-------
en
tn
APPENDIX E AREA SOURCE FUEL USE
TABLE E-l
AREA SOURCE FUEL USE SUMMARY3
CoaKlO3 Tons) Oil (IP3 BBLS)
Natural Gas
AQCR
Metropolitan Phil.
Residential
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
Northeast Penn.
Residential
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
Northwest Penn.
Residential
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
Central Penn.
Residential
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
South Central Penn.
Residential
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
Anthracite
234.8
2.7
3.5
241.0
623.3
623.3
5.3
5.3
675.1
675.1
269.0
269.0
Bituminous
230.5
19.5
250.0
1496.8
41.4
1538.2
244.1
1141.5
97.9
1483.5
668.5
23.4
691.9
953.1
28.8
981.9
Residual
3861
4687
8548
2086
2149
4235
973
1148
2121
908
1227
2135
1293
1502
2795
Distillate
20332
637
8566
29535
7354
98
2517
9969
1751
199
2059
4009
3169
1121
4290
5957
1377
7334
(106 cu. ft.)
131880
94790
37000
263670
24790
44250
20530
89570
62620
29310
13770
105700
12600
19510
10090
42200
15630
27780
14420
57830
-------
TABLE E-l (cont.)
AQCR
Southwest Penn.
Residential
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
a Source: Stationary Source Fuel Summary Report, NEDS, Nov. 1974
Coal(l
Anthracite
0.8
0.8
O3 Tons)
Bituminous
481.2
1783.0
65.3
2329.5
Oil(l
Residual
2420
2423
5843
O3 BBLS)
Distillate
1897
3124
5021
Natural Gas
(106 cu. ft.)
122500
51980
33150
207630
en
0>
-------
APPENDIX F AQCR FUEL USE
TABLE F-l
FUEL USE SUMMARY3
Coal (IP3 Tons)
Air Quality Control Region
Metropolitan Philadelphia
Point Sources
Area Sources
Total
Northeast Penn.-Upper
Delaware Valley
Point Sources
Area Sources
Total
Northwest Penn.-Youngstown
Point Sources
Area Sources
Total
Central Penn.
Point Sources
Area Sources
Total
South Central Penn.
Point Sources
Area Sources
Total
Southwest Penn.
Point Sources
Area Sources
Anthracite Bituminous
Oil (1Q3 Barrels)
Residual
Distillate
Total
1180.3
623.3
1803.6
72.9
5.3
78.2
90.8
675.1
765.9
628
269
897
0
0.8
0.8
3494.0
1538.2
5032.2
6736.0
1483.5
8219.5
3042.1
691.9
3734.0
10832
982
11814
28489
2329
30818
1740
4235
5975
355
2121
2476
207
2135
2342
2073
2795
4868
703
5843
6546
2388
9969
12357
208
4009
4217
275
4290
4565
534
7334
7868
1508
5021
6529
Gas (IP6 cu. ft.)
Natural Process
140.2
241.0
381.2
5369.9
250.0
5619.9
58902.6
8548.0
67450.6
3317.3
29535.0
32852.3
263.7
47.4
311.1
13.1
0
13.1
10179
89570
99749
96322
105700
202022
9511
42200
51711
57830
1544
59374
31134
207630
238764
58022
0
58022
207539
0
207539
0
0
0
0
0
0
51486
0
51486
Source: Stationary Source Fuel Summary Report, NEDS, Nov. 1974
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read lawuctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-450/3-75-019
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR PENNSYLVANI
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONM
COORDINATION ACT
7. AUTHOR(S)
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
A PS "February 1975
pM-rni 6- PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
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 n. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Park, N.C. , Regional Office III, Philadelphia, fio n? noc-
Pa., and TRW, Inc., Vienna, Virginia OB-IM-IJBS
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standar
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 277
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
ds .
n
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
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution
State Implementation Plans
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/ 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 58
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
58
------- |