EPA-450/3-75-023

February 1975
     IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
                  FOR
               MISSOURI
              AS REQUIRED
                   BY
           THE ENERGY SUPPLY
                  AND
   ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
      U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
                  IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW

                             FOR

                           MISSOURI

REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
              PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII
                      1735 Baltimore Avenue
                    Kansas City, Missouri  64108


              Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
                   (Contract 68-02-iD385)
            U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Office of Air and Waste Management
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
         Research Triangle Park, North Carolina   27711
                         February 1975

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                       Page
1.0  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	   !
2.0  MISSOURI SIP REVIEW	   6
     2.1  Summary  	   6
     2.2  Air Quality Setting in Missouri   	   7
          2.2.1  State Ambient Air Quality Standards 	   7
          2.2.2  Suspended Particulate Air Quality - 1973  	   7
          2.2.3  S02 Air Quality - 1973	10
     2.3  Missouri Emissions - 1972 NEDS Inventory	10
          2.3.1  Particulates	10
          2.3.2  S02	11
     2.4  Background on Missouri SIP	11
          2.4.1  Particulates	11
          2.4.2  S02   	11
          2.4.3  Oxidant and N02	11
3.0  AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEW AND CURRENT AIR QUALITY  .  .  12
     3.1  AQCR 070 - Metro St. Louis Interstate	12
          3.1.1  Candidacy Assessment for Fuel  Switch Potential  -  .  .  12
                 Particulates
          3.1.2  Candidacy Assessments for Fuel Switch Potential  - S02  13
          3.1.3  Emission Source Examination 	  13
          3.1.4  Regulation Examination - Particulates 	  14
          3.1.5  Regulation Examination - S02	14
                                     iii

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)                     Page
                                                 4
     3.2  AQCR 094 - Metro Kansas City Interstate	   15
          3.2.1  Candidacy Assessment for Fuel Switch Potential ....   15
          3.2.2  Emljssion. Source Examination	   16
          3.2.3  Regulation Examination - Particulates  	   16
          3.2.4  Regulation Examination - SOg	   16
     3.3  Outstate Missouri AQCR's 137, 138, and 139  	   17
          3.3.1  Candidacy Assessment - Particulates  	   17
          3.3.2  Candidacy Assessment - S02	   17
          3.3.3  Emission Source Examination  	   17
          3.3.4  Regulation Examination 	> 	   18
APPENDIX A - Background Information on SIP, Air Quality, Emissions  .   .   19
APPENDIX B - Candidacy Assessments for Relaxation of Regulations/Fuel
             Switch Potential	   34
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessments  	   37
APPENDIX D - Industrial Commercial Sources Assessment 	   47
APPENDIX E - Area Source Assessment	   52
APPENDIX F - Regulation Evaluation and Fuel Statistics  	   55

BIBLIOGRAPHY	   61
                                    iv

-------
                         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
S0? emission regulations.  The States have also been asked to discourage
large scale shifts from coal to oil  In cases where such shifts  are not
required for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

                                    1

-------
     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 SOp 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 aJM_ the National  Ambient Air Quality Standards.
     There are, in general, three predominant reasons  for  the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation
Plans.  These are 1)  The use of the example region approach in developing
State-wide air quality control strategies; 2)  the existence of State  Air
Quality Standards which are more stringent than NAAQS; and 3) the "hot spots"
in only part of an Air Quality Control  Region (AQCR) which have been used
as the basis for controlling the entire region.  Since each  of these situa-
tions affect many State plans and in some instances conflict with current
national energy concerns, a review of the State Implementation Plans is a
logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal of the SIP's  conducted in 1972.
At that time SIP's were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the attainment
of NAAQS or more stringent state air quality standards.  Also, at that time
an acceptable method for formulating control strategies was  the use of an
example region for demonstrating the  attainment of the standards.
     The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most
polluted air quality control region (AQCR) and adopt control regulations
which would be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region.   In using an
example region, it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained  in the other
AQCR's of the State if the control regulations were applied  to similar
sources.  The problem with the use of an example region is that it can re-
sult  in excessive controls, especially  in the  utilization of clean fuels,
for areas of the State where sources would not otherwise contribute to NAAQS
violations.  For instance, a control strategy based on a particular region or
source can  result in a regulation requiring 1 percent sulfur oil to be burned
state-wide  where the use of 3 percent sulfur  coal would be adequate to attain
NAAQS  in some locations.

-------
     EPA anticipates that a number of States will  use the review findings
to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans.  However, it is  most important for those
States which desire to submit a revised plan to recognize the review's
limitations. Jhe 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
                                              •V*
currently available to the Federal Government.  However, EPA believes that
the States  possess the best information for developing revised plans.  The
States have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems facing
them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards.  Therefore,
those States desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's
findings.   In developing a suitable plan,  it is suggested that States select
control  strategies which place emissions for fuel combustion sources into
perspective with all sources of emissions  such as smelters or other industrial
processes.  States are encouraged to consider the overall impact which the
potential  relaxation of  overly  restrictive emissions regulations for combus-
tion sources might have  on their future control programs.  This may include
air quality maintenance, prevention of significant deterioration, increased
TSP, NO  ,  and HC emissions which occur in  fuel switching, and other potential
        X
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  parti oil ate
matter  (TSP)  and sulfur  dioxide  (S02)  emissions.  This  is because stationary
fuel  combustion sources  constitute  the greatest source  of SO,, emission and are
a major source  of  TSP  emissions.

  * except data  currently being processed  by EPA
                                    3

-------
     Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of

the S02 and TSP emission tolerances within each of the various AQCR's.  The

regional emission tolerance estimate is, in many cases, EPA's only measure

of the "over-cleaning" accomplished by a SIP.  The tolerance assessments

have been combined in Appendix B with other regional  air quality "indicators"

in an attempt to provide an evaluation of a region's  candidacy for changing

emission limitation regulations.  In conjunction with the regional analysis,

a summary of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial
sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E.

     •  The State Implementation Plan for Missouri has been
        reviewed for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive
        fuel combustion emission limiting regulations.  The major
        findings of the review are:
             FOR PARTICULATES, THERE IS LITTLE INDICATION THAT
             EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCES
             ARE OVERLY-RESTRICTIVE.  FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE. THERE
             ARE INDICATIONS THAT EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS
             FOR VERY LARGE FUEL BURNING SOURCES MAY  BE
             OVERLY-RESTRICTIVE.
        The Kansas City and St. Louis Metropolitan areas were
        originally evaluated separately by the State  of Missouri.
        Kansas City was used as the example region for the three
        out-state Missouri AQCR's.  Missouri also has adopted
        ambient air quality standards different from  the Federal
        Standards.

     §  Suspended particulates appear to be a widespread problem
        in Missouri.  Metro St. Louis has recently been proposed
        a maintenance area for suspended particulates.  There are
        no indications that current fuel burning regulations are
        overly-restrictive in the Metropolitan areas  of Kansas
        City and St. Louis, or in outstate Missouri.   A limited
        amount of fuel switching could occur without  particulate
        regulation changes.  However, should all sources now burning
        natural gas, for example, switch to coal, more stringent
        emission limiting regulations would be necessary to meet
        TSP air quality standards.

     •  Missouri has direct fuel combustion regulations for SO,,
        only in the Metropolitan St. Louis Area.  Except in St.
        Louis, therefore, fuel switching is not hindered by SOp
        emissions regulations,  Current air quality sampling data
        for St. Louis indicate nigh isolated S02 concentrations in
        the Missouri portion of the metropolitan area.  However,
        sources of SO? other than power plants are in the immediate
        vicinity of these "hot spots."  Since these sources are
        presently meeting existing emission regulations, there are
        strong indications that regulations affecting these sources
        must be tightened.

-------
There are currently no indications that S02 emissions from
power plants in the Missouri portion of the St.  Louis area
are causing violations of S02 air quality standards.   In the
context of ESECA, these regulations may be revised.   With re-
gard to power plants, should the State of Missouri decide to
revise the current SOp emission limiting regulations, EPA
strongly suggests that the changes be closely coordinated
with the State of Illinois.

-------
                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?

     t  Does the State have emission limitation regulations for
        control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources,
        (3) area sources?

     •  Did the State use an example region approach for 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 proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?

     •  Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
        sites within a region?

     t  Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?

     •  Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported
        violations of NAAQS?

     •  Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications
        of a tolerance for increasing emissions?

     •  Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
        sources proportionally lower than those of other sources?

     •  Must emission regulations be revised to accomplish significant
        fuel switching?

     t  Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in the
        region?

     •  Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
        show a potential for a regulation revision?

     The following portion of this report is directed at answering these

questions.  An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when

there are affirmative responses to the above.

     The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix A,

was organized to provide the background and current situation information

                                    6

-------
for the State Implementation Plan.  Section 3 and the remaining Appendices
provide an AQCR analysis which helps establish the overall potential for
revising regulations.  Emission tolerance estimates have been combined in
Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators" in an attempt to
provide an evaluation of a region's candidacy for revising emission limiting
regulations.  In conjunction with the regional analysis, a characterization
of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial sources, and
area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E.  Finally, candi-
dates from Appendix B are examined in Appendix F for adequacy or over-
restrictiveness of emission regulations.
     Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions.  The following table summarizes the State Implementation Plan
Review.  The remaining portion of the report supports this summary with
explanations.
2.2  AIR QUALITY SETTING - MISSOURI
     Missouri has been divided into five (5) Air Quality Control Regions:
          (1)  AQCR 070 - Metro St. Louis Interstate
          (2)  AQCR 137 - Northern Missouri
          (3)  AQCR 138 - South Eastern Missouri
          (4)  AQCR 139 - South Western Missouri
          (5)  AQCR 094 - Metro Kansas City Interstate
2.2.1  State Ambient Air Quality Standards
     Missouri's AQCR's are shown geographically in Figure A-l.   Missouri has
adopted ambient air quality standards different .from the federal standards.
Table A-3 shows that State SOp standard for Missouri are somewhat more strict
than federal standards, although averaging time differences make comparison
uncertain.  For particulates, the State standards are identical  to federal
secondary standards, except for the less stringent standards set for
St. Louis.  (AQCR 070).
2.2.2  Suspended Particulate Air Quality - 1973
     Table A-4 summarizes Missouri SAROAD data for suspended particulates in
1973.  All five Missouri AQCR's appear to have adequate TSP monitoring.   Sus-
pended particulates seem to be a widespread problem throughout Missouri.  Less
                                     7

-------
                          Missouri  State  Implementation  Plan  Review
                                             (Summary)

"INDICATORS"
• Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
I. 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 proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region? (1)
* Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS?
t Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
does air quality meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
are there indications of a tolerance for
increasing emissions?
« Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources lower than those of other
sources?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
sources show a potential for a regulation revision?
• Must emission regulations be revised to accom-
plish significant fuel switching?
• Based on the above indicators, what is the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations?
• Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
(Metro (Metro (North (S.E. (S. W.
St. Louis)Kansas City) Missouri) Missouri) Missouri)
070 094 ' 137 138 139
STATE AOCR ' AQCR . AQCR AQCR AOCR
TSP




YES
YES


YES







so?




YES
YES


YES



< 	



TSP S02
NO
YES
YtS
YES


YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO MOD
NO
POOR

NO
YES
YES
YES


NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
ELING R
YES
MARGI-
. HAL2
NO
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO


NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
ESULTS
NO
POOR

YES
NO
"NO
NO

NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
AVAILAE
NO
N/A3
YES
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO

NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
LE FOR
YES
POOR

YES
NO
NO
NO
'
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
MISSOUI
NO
N/A3
YES
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO

NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
I SOURC
NO
POOR

YES
NO
NO
NO


NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
ES<-
NO
N/A3
YES
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO

NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
— »•
NO
POOR

YES
NO
NO
NO


NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
N/A3
YES
Only an .analysis tool «nd is not indicative of SIP Requirements.
See Section 3.1.5.
No applicable SO- regulation which could be revised
See Section 3.1.5
                                               8

-------
                                                                NORTHERN
                                                                MISSOURI
                                                                INTRASTATE  (137)
METROPOLITAN
KANSAS CITY
INTERSTATE
(KANSAS-
KISSOURI)  (094)
METROPOLITAN
   LOUIS
•INTERSTATE
 ILLINOIS
                                                                                            (070)
      SOUTHWEST
      MISSOURI
      INTRASTATE
         (139.)
            SOUTHEAST
            MISSOURI
            INTRASTATE
             (138)
                                    MISSOURI   AQCR's

-------
urbanized Northern and Southern Missouri mainly have problems relative to
the short term standard, while Metro Kansas City and Metro St.  Louis report
around half of stations violating the secondary annual  TSP standard in addi-
tion to many violations of the secondary 24 hour standard.  The AQCR's 137,
138 and 139 appear to have more localized TSP problems  than the Metropolitan
AQCR's 070 and 094.
2.2.3  S02 Air Quality - 1973
     The only 1973 violation of Federal ambient air quality standards
appeared in the St. Louis AQCR (Table A-5).  The first  page of  Table A-5 lists
SAROAD data for 1973.  Additional S02 air monitoring data for Metro St.  Louis
(AQCR 070) is shown on the second page of Table A-5. AQCR 070  seems to have
                                           o
annual average SOp levels at around 50 )jg/m  at several  locations.   Two sta-
tions in Missouri and two in Illinois appear to have SOp levels above
70 )jg/m3, with one St. Louis station indicating an annual average of
118 jjg/m3.
2.3  MISSOURI EMISSIONS - 1972 NEDS INVENTORY
     Although individual source emissions from more recent NEDS data was
available for this report, the tables in Appendix A and  the discussion below
refer to 1972 NEDS data.  This was mainly for convenience and simplicity.
Table C, D and E reflect more recent emissions information, however.
2.3.1  Particulates
     Fuel combustion accounts for about a third of reported particulate
emissions in Missouri (Table A-7).  Particulate emissions from  power p.lants
dominate the particulate inventory only in Kansas City  (094).  In St. Louis,
industrial and area source emissions are important contributors, while area
sources account for the largest fraction_of emissions in outstate Missouri
(AQCR 137, 138, and 139).  The 1972 NEDS particulate inventory  shows the
Illinois portion of St. Louis (AQCR 070) to contribute most of  the reported
emissions.  The NEDS indicates that Kansas and Missouri  sources contribute
about equally to particulate emissions in AQCR 094 (Metro Kansas City).
2.3.2  Sulfur Dioxide
     Table A-8 shows that reported S02 emissions originate largely from fuel
combustion in Missouri, and the largest fraction of S02  in the  fuel combustion
                                    10

-------
category is from power plants.  1972 reported S02 emissions originating in
the Illinois portion of AQCR 070 (St. Louis) are higher than those originating
in Missouri, especially from power plants.  In Metro Kansas City, S02 emissions
are largely from power plants; the Missouri portion of AQCR 138 has only one
power plant and no reported industrial S02 emissions (1972).
2.4  BACKGROUND ON MISSOURI SIP
     Table A-l lists the original priorities for S02 and particulates for
Missouri AQCR's.  Metro St. Louis (070), Metro Kansas City (094), and Northern
Missouri were Priority I for particulates.  All Missouri AQCR's but St. Louis
were Priority III for SOp, St. Louis being Priority I.
2.4.1   Particulates
     The Metro  Kansas Ctiy Interstate Region  (AQCR 094) was used as the
particulate example region for Missouri, except for St. Louis  (AQCR 070).
Particulate emissions regulations are not  the same for 094 and outstate
Missouri,  however (see Table A-ll).  An Air Quality Display type model was
used to demonstrate attainment of the secondary federal particulate standards
in both Kansas  City and in St. Louis.   In  addition to the regulations for
large particulate emission sources in St.  Louis (Table A-ll), the SIP indicated
that area  source particulate controls would be instituted.
2.4.2   S02

     S02 was  Priority I only in St.  Louis  and attainment of federal ambient air
quality standards was demonstrated using an AQDM type model. Both point and
area source S02 emission controls were  adopted (Table A-ll) for St. Louis.
     No S02 regulations were adopted for  Missouri's other AQGR's.  In the
SIP, Kansas City was used as an example region to show that source growth
would not  cause S02 problems, with clean fuels being an inherent assumption
in this projection.
2.4.3   Oxidant  and N02

     Both  Kansas City (094) and St.  Louis  had oxidant violations at the time
the SIP was written.  The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program was shown to
be adequate for attainment of the oxidant  standard without additional hydro-
carbon  controls.
     Althouth St. Louis was originally Priority I for N0p> AQCR 070 has since
     reel;
Missouri.                           11
been reclassified to Priority III, and no NO  controls have been instituted in
                                            A

-------
     3.0  AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEW AND CURRENT AIR QUALITY

     The purpose of this Section is to examine fuel switching in Missouri's
five AQCR's for over-restrictiveness of current emission regulations
for attaining and/or maintaining ambient air quality standards.  Tables A-9
and A-10 are an attempt to assign a regional emissions tolerance for Missouri
AQCR's.  Appendix B uses this "tolerance", along with such factors as the
breadth and depth of air quality violations and percent of emissions resulting
from fuel combustion to rate each AQCR as a "good", "marginal," or "poor"
candidate for fuel switching potential and regulation relaxation.
     Power plants, industrial sources, and area sources are investigated in
Appendices C, D, and E respectively for fuel use, emissions, and current
regulations.  Some calculations of emissions resulting from fuel switching
are included for power plants.  Appendix F is a rough emissions inventory
which could hypothetically result if all fuel burning sources emitted exactly
at regulation levels.  This inventory is the final test of current regulations
relative to air quality.
     Although each AQCR is treated separately in the appendices, Missouri's
outstate AQCR's are lumped together in this section because their situation
is similar and thus ftnal conclusions concerning regulations are similar.

3.1  AQCR 070 - METRO ST. LOUIS INTERSTATE
3.1.1  Candidacy Assessment for Fuel Switch Potential - Particulates
     AQCR 070 shows several violations of TSP standard both in Missouri and
.in Illinois.  Although 1972 NEDS data reported Illinois particulate emissions
to be much larger than those from Missouri, the sample air quality maintenance
                  (13)
plan for St. Louisv  ' shows expected 1975 particulate emissions to be of
similar magnitude between the two states (Table A-9).  AQCR 070 is assigned a
zero increased particulate emissions tolerance in Table A-9 since the data do
not indicate that emissions will be "over controlled" relative to
attainment of NAAQS.  Further, both Illinois and Missouri  counties have been
proposed as maintenance areas for TSP.  Thus AQCR 070 receives a poor candidacy
rating in Table B-l for particulate regulation revision and fuel switch potential

                                  12

-------
 3.1.2   Candidacy Assessment for Fuel Switch Potential - SOp
      In Table A-10,  the worst station S02 air quality reading in 1973 was
 applied to  the  1972  NEDS  inventory for AQCR 070, and the allowable emissions
 distributed between  Missouri and  Illinois in proportion to existing emissions.
 The NEDS  1972 inventory does not  appear comparable to the 1975 estimated from
 the sample  air  quality maintenance plan for St. Louis.  New power plant
 emissions may account for some of the difference of relative emission contri-
 butions from Illinois and Missouri.  It should be commented that S02 levels
 elsewhere in Metro St. Louis are  lower than the level used to calculate
 "allowable  emission" in Table A-10, and the 118 yg/m  annual average S02
 concentration represents  a "hot spot".  The approach in this report is a
 regional  one and the numbers merely reflect the data base; the regional
 assumption  about the air  quality  emissions relationship and the propor-
 tional  allocation of "allowable"  emissions between Missouri and Illinois.
     Although total  S02 emissions in AQCR 070 for 1975 appear lower than
 those  in  the 1972 NEDS, the tonnage is larger than the calculated "allowable"
 emissions.  It  is uncertain foow comparable the two emissions inventories
really are.   AQCR 070 is  assigned a  zero  tolerance  for increased  SOp
emissions, and rated as  a poor candidate  in  Table  B-2  for fuel  switch
potential  from an S02 standpoint.
 3.1.3   Emission Source Examination
     Missouri power  plants in AQCR 070 use predominately coal at present
 (Table  C-l).  The three large power plants (Sioux, Labadie, and Meramac) are
 using coal  of higher sulfur content than allowed by existing regulations
 (without stack  gas S02 removal).  Table C-2 indicates aggregated S02 emissions
 to be about twice the amount which existing regulations would allow,
 Particulates are generally controlled to below the amounts which regulations
 would allow.  Power  plant "fuel switching" possibilities in AQCR 070 are
 mainly  limited  to the use of higher sulfur coal.
     Industrial emission  sources  (Table D-l) in AQCR 070 (Missouri)  use coal
 for around  one  third of their .gross heat input.  Coal  currently used would have,
 if used alone, more sulfur than allowed by existing regulations.   Aggregated
 S02 emissions (Table D-2) are slightly below allowed emissions, however, so that
 individual  users may be able to increase coal  under existing regulations.
Aggregated  industrial particulate emissions  are indicated to be more  than the
                                    13

-------
amount regulations would allow.  Industrial fuel switching in St. Louis
would require lower sulfur coal than is currently used and more parti-
culate emission controls to meet existing regulations.
     Area sources in AQCR 070 (Table E-2) are subject to S02 and particulate
emission limitation by virtue of sulfur and ash requirements for coal used
(winter months only).  Coal in the NEDS inventory for St. Louis area sources
was reported higher in sulfur than regulations would allow.  Since only a
small portion of total heat input by area sources is supplied by coal, some
additional coal could in principle, be used, although the ability of many
small sources to convert to coal is not known.  It might be commented from
Table E-2 that increased SOg and particulate emissions would result from gas
and oil conversions to coal even under existing regulations.
3.1.4  Regulation Examination - Particulates
     Table F-l is a rough emissions inventory for the Missouri portion of
AQCR 070, showing present emissions and those which might result if all
sources were allowed to emit according to regulations.  Although the expected
degree of control for non-fuel particulate sources is not known, particulate
regulations do not appear over-restrictive in Missouri, regardless of the
manner in which "allowable" emissions are distributed between Missouri and
Illinois.  Considering that St. Louis has been propbsed as a maintenance
area for particulates and that no source growth was considered in Appendix F,
fuel burning particulate emission regulations should not be relaxed if air
quality is to be attained and maintained.
3.1.5  Regulation Examination - SOp
     Table F-2 evaluates the effect of regulation compliance on total S02
emissions from Missouri sources in AQCR 070.  The rough emissions analysis
indicates that existing fuel burning SOp regulations applied to existing
sources results in a Missouri SOp emissions total about equal to the
"allowable" emissions assigned to Missouri from Table A-10 (based on worst
case air quality in the region).  On a regional  basis, this suggests that
S02 regulations are not overly restrictive in St.  Louis.   Close agreement
of the "emissions at regulations" column (Table F-2) and the "estimated
allowable" column is not intended to imply any particular accuracy to
Table F-2.

-------
     However, modeling studies were conducted to predict the relationship
between power plant SC^ emissions and ambient air concentrations.  The
modeling results indicated that the S02 emissions from power plants located
in Missouri were not responsible for the reported ambient air quality viola-
tions in downtown St. Louis.  Local SOp emissions from smaller industrial
fuel combustion sources were apparently the cause of NAAQS violations.  Thus,
there is some tolerance for an increase in SO,, emissions from the existing
Missouri power plants in AQCR 070.  On the other hand, S02 emissions from
small fuel combustion sources in the area of the "hot spot" must be reduced
to attain the standards.

3.2  AQCR  094  - METRO  KANSAS  CITY  INTERSTATE
3.2.1   Candidacy Assessment for  Fuel  Switch Potential
     AQCR  094  shows  several violations of TSP standards, both in Kansas  and
in Missouri with the highest  concentrations being indicated  in Kansas  (Table
A-4).   Particulate emissions  are about evenly distributed  between  the  two
states  (Table  A-8),  although  a much smaller fraction  of total particulate
emissions  results from fuel combustion in Kansas than in Missouri.  The
original  Kansas and  Missouri  SIP's gave np_ indication that particulate
regulations would more than meet air  quality standards in AQCR 094.  There-
fore, Metro Kansas City  is rated as a bad  candidate for fuel switching and
regulation relaxation  from a  particulates standpoint.
     SOg  levels are  slightly  below ambient air quality standards in 094
(Metro  Kansas  City), with somewhat higher readings  in Kansas than  in
Missouri  (Table A-5).   As might  be expected, most of  the S02 results from
fuel combustion in 094,  expecially in Missouri (Table A-7).  The Missouri
contribution of total  S02 emissions is much higher  than that of Kansas.
AQCR 094  is assigned an  approximate 45,000 ton regionwide tolerance for
increased  S02  emissions, based on a 22% roll up of air quality levels to
standards.  Table A-10 distributes this tolerance between Missouri and Kansas,
in proportion  to existing emissions.  Table B-2  rates AQCR 094 as  a good
initial candidate for  fuel switching.
                                    15

-------
3.2.2  Emission Source Examination
     Coal is the dominant fuel for electric power generation in the Missouri
portion of AQCR 094 (Tables C-l and  C-2).  Power plants in the Kansas portion,
in contrast, use mostly natural gas.  According to NEDS information,
aggregated particulate emissions are larger than the amount allowed by
regulations in the Missouri portion of AQCR 094.  No direct sulfur regulation
applies to power plants (or other fuel burning sources).  The reported sulfur in
coal used by 094 power plants varies from 1.5 to 3.7%.
      No coal  is reportedly used by  major emission sources  in the Missouri
 portion of AQCR 094 (Table D-l).  Consequently, particulate emissions are
 generally  below regulations  (Table  D-2).
      Table E-l  shows  that Missouri  area  sources use only small  amounts of
 coal  compared to Kansas  area sources  in  AQCR 094.   Still,  coal  is a minor
 area  source fuel on a total  energy  basis in AQCR 094 (Table E-2).  Although
 a few area sources would  be  governed  by  particulate emission regulations in
 Kansas City,  many are too small  to  be covered.   The large  natural  gas use  at
 present, implies that, even  if emission  regulations.were.to.apply.to area  sources,
 total  S02  and particulate emission  increases would accompany almost any
 gas to coal  switching.  The  extent  to which fuel  conversions by industrial
 and area sources is feasible is unknown  at this time.
 3.2.3  Regulation Examination— Particulates
      Table F-l  shows  the  calculated particulate emissions  which might result
 if all sources  were to exactly meet existing fuel  burning  regulations.   In
 the Kansas portion of 094, total  particulate emissions  could increase without
 violation  of  existing regulations,  In Missouri,  total  particulate emissions
 would decrease  as power  plants meet the  regulations.   Note that uncontrolled
 non-fuel particulate  emissions dominate  the inventory in both Kansas and
 Missouri.   Despite either a)  the  degree  of control  one  might assume for non-
 fuel  sources,  or b) the manner in which  "allowable" emissions might be distributed
 between Kansas  and Missouri, fuel burning particulate emission  regulations
 could not  be  judged overly restrictive by the simple test  of Appendix F.
 3.2.4  Regulation Examination - S02
      No direct SOg emission  regulation applies  to fuel  burning  sources in
 the Missouri  portion  of  AQCR 094.  In Kansas (094), where  an S02 regulation
                                    16

-------
has been adopted, additional emissions could occur from fuel switching
within the Kansas regulation.  The emissions comparison in Table F-2 indi-
cates that additional SCL emissions might occur in the Missouri portion of
AQCR 094 without air quality violations.
3.3  OUTSTATE MISSOURI AQCRs 137, 138, and 139
3.3.1  Candidacy Assessment - Particulates
     Table A-4 indicates particulates to be a localized problem in out-
state Missouri.  Kansas City was considered the particulate example region
for Missouri (other than St. Louis), although current regulations are not
those which apply in Kansas City.  Since there is no indication of over-
control of particulates in outstate Missouri, either from the SIP or from
recent data, a zero increased particulate emissions tolerance is assigned
to outstate Missouri in Table A-9.  Table B-l rates the AQCRs 137, 138,
and 139 as poor candidates for the switch potential.
3.3.2  Candidacy Assessment - SO,,
     Scanty S02 monitoring data in outstate Missouri makes generalizations
difficult.  No SO- ambient air quality violations are reported.  As far as
fuel switching, no direct SO^ fuel burning emission regulations apply, so
that Table B-2 rates the outstate AQCRs as good potentials for fuel switching
from an S02 standpoint.
3.3.3  Emission Source Eacatnination
     Although coal currently dominates electric power production in outstate
Missouri, some additional coal might be substituted for natural gas (Table
C-l).  Many of the power plants have some particulate emission controls at
present, so that aggregated particulate emissions are not dramatically above
the allowed emissions (Table C-2).
     Industrial sources in AQCR 137 would appear to have some gas to coal
fuel switch potential (Table D-l).  Although existing particulate emissions
are not greatly above those allowed by regulations, further particulate
controls would be necessary to meet existing regulations if additional coal
was to be used by this industrial sector.  AQCR 139 has no reported
industrial coal use at present.
                                   17

-------
     Table E-l lists area source fuel use in outstate Missouri.   Natural
gas ts seen to dominate the total.  Little is known about the ability of
area sources to switch fuels, but particulate regulations generally apply
only to larger sources and hence may not be a major factor in fuel
conversions.
3.3.4  Regulation Evaluation
     Although regional aggregation of emissions has doubtful  meaning in
outstate Missouri, Table F-l indicates that emissions resulting  from all
sources just meeting the particulate regulations would exceed the tonnage
estimated from rollback (proportional to worst case air quality).  To the
extent that the regional approach is valid, there is no indication  of over-
restrictive particulate regulations in outstate Missouri.
     No direct SCL emission regulations apply to outstate Missouri, and
no regulation test was used in Table F-2 for outstate Missouri.
                                   18

-------
                               APPENDIX  A

     •  State implementation plan information
     •  Current air quality information
     •  Current emissions information
     Tables in this appendix summarize original  and modified state imple-
mentation plan information, including original  priority classifications,
attainment dates, ambient air quality standards, and fuel  combustion emis-
sion regulations.  SAROAD data for S09 and TSP monitoring  stations are shown
                                                    1
for AQCRs in the state.  NEDS emissions data by AQCR  are  tabulated and
broken down into fuel burning categories.
     Tables A-9 and A-10 show a comparison of emission inventories in the
original SIP and those from the NEDS.  An emission tolerance, or emission
tonnage which might be allowed in the AQCR and still not violate national
secondary ambient air quality standards, is shown for S0?  and particulates.
The intent of this calculation is to indicate possible candidate regions
for fuel switching.  Tolerance was based on either the degree of control
expected by the SIP or upon air quality/emission relationships which are
calculated from more recent data.  The value of the emission tolerance pro-
vides an indication of the degree of potential an AQCR possesses for fuel
revisions and regulation relaxation.
Methodology for  Increased  Emissions Tolerance
     A tolerance for increased emissions was determined as follows.  First,
an  ".allowable emissions" was calculated  for each AQCR based on the current
NEDS data and the percent  reduction  (or  increase) required to meet the
national secondary ambient air quality standards in that AQCR (worst case
from Tables A-4  and A-5).  This  "allowable" was then compared to that from
the SIP.   If  reasonable  agreement occurred, then the "estimated emissions"
which would result after implementation  of the SIP  in that AQCR was used
to  calculate  an  emissions  tolerance.  Thus, some credit could be given to
an  AQCR which might  be  restricting emissions more than requined by ambient
air quality standards.   For  instance, emission controls applied to AQCRs
 1(11972 National Emissions Report,"  EPA - 450/2-74-012,  June 1974,
                                 19

-------
other than the example region for the state may reduce emissions well below
"allowables."  In the event that no data existed or was available from the
SIP for an AQCR, the current air quality was used to assign emissions toler-
ance based on proportional  rollback or rollup.  Current air quality was also
the criteria, if emissions  data from SIP and NEDS did not appear to be com-
parable (this is often the  case).
     When no SIP emissions  data was available, and current air quality
levels were less than one half of the level represented by an ambient air
quality standard, no "rollup" emissions tolerance was calculated in Tables
A-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 r\o_ quantifiable emissions
tolerance, it was felt that no number at all would be preferable to a bad
or misleading number.
     It is emphasized that emissions tolerance is a region-wide calculation.
This tolerance obviously makes more sense in, say, an urban AQCR with many
closely spaced emissions sources than in a largely rural AQCR with geograph-
ically dispursed emissions.
     A word of caution regarding particulates  needs mentioning.  Emission
source estimates in the NEDS data bank  and  most  state  SIP's are for total
particulates.  Generally, the control  strategies  for  particulates are  aimed
at total particulates, while the high-volume  particulate  sampling (SAROAD data)
measures only the finer, suspended fraction.   A  given  level of total particulate
emissions control will therefore not translate into the  same level of  measured
ambient air quality.  Some  of the larger oarticulates  being controlled will
not remain susoended, and therefore would not  be  measured by the High-volume
technique.  Hence, particulate control  plans may  have  underestimated the amount
of control necessary to achieve ambient  air quality standards.
                                 20

-------
ro
                                                                                         NORTHERN
                                                                                    . ,   MISSOURI
                                                                                l"^C   'NTRASTATE (137)
                               METROPOLITAN
                               KANSAS CITY
                               INTERSTATE
                               (XANSAS-
                               KISSOURI)  (094)
                                    SOUTHWEST
                                    MISSOURI
                                    INTRASTATE
                                      (139J
              KETROPOLITAN
              ST. LOUIS
              INTERSTATE
              (ILLINOIS-
              MISSOURI)
  j  JM.OISO^  _o.| ^ ^
•o' J—^/ \*/A    /SOUTHEAST
 ' i      ;*° .j^^S^XH-'SOURI
              vsco^jC   |KTRASTATE
                          (138)
                                                               MISSOURI  AQCR's
                                                      Figure  A-l.   Missouri  AQCR's

-------
                                                     Table  A-1..   AQCR Priority Classification  and AQi-'Ac
ro
IV)
AQCR 1 Fed. #
Metro
St. Louis
Missouri
Illinois
N. Missouri
S.E.Missour
S.W.Missour
Metro Kansa;
City
Missouri
Kansas
i
070

137
138
139
094
1
b
Part.
1

1
II
III
I

a-
SOX
1

III
III
III
III

c
mx
in

in
in
in
in

Demographic Information
Peculation
1970

1,827,681
642-.450
647,653
451,147
797,565

953,923
460,258
Square
Miles

2713
3758
24182
14486
24502

3117
1094
Population
Density

674
•171
27
31
33

306
421
Proposed AQMA Designations01
TSP Counties
Yes
4e
3
None
None
None

None
None
SO Counties
A
No
0
3
None
None
None

None
None
i
0 'Counties
A
Yes
4
3
None
None
None
i
None I
None j
j
                                                 Criteria Based on Maximum Measured (or Estimated) Pollution Concentration in Area
Priority
aSulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean . .

bParticulate Matter:
Annual Geometric Mean . . .

cNitrogen dioxide
I
Greater than
100
455

95
325

110
II
From - To
60-100
260-455

60-95
150-325


III
Less than
60
260

.60
150

110
                                                  Federal Register, August,  1974 SMSA's showing potential  for NAAWS  violations due to growth

                                                 Includes  St. Louis City

-------
                                                Table A-2.   Attainment Dates
ro
OJ
AQCR #
070
i
137
138
139
094
AQCR Name
Metro St. Louis

N. Missouri
S. E. Missouri
S. W. Missouri
Metro Kansas City
Parti culates
Attainment Dates
Primary
7/75

7/75
7/75
a
7/75
Secondary
7/75

7/75
7/75
a
7/75
Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment Dates
Primary
7/75

a
a
a
a
Secondary
7/75

a
a
a
a
Nitrogen Oxides
Attainment Dates

a

a
a
a
a
           Already Below Federal Standards

-------
                   Table A-3.   Ambient Air Quality Standards - Missouri       (Expressed  as M g/rrr5)

Federal


State


Primary
Secondary
St. Louis
Kansas City
All Outstate
AQCRs
Total
Suspended Parti cul ate
Annual
75(G)
60(6)
75(6)
60
60
24-Hr.
260a
150a
200b
150
150
Sulfur Oxides
Annual
80:(A)

—
40(6)
40
i
24-Hr.
365a

—
200b
160ib
3-Hr.

3100a
1 Hour
i • i ^••^ i
933
667
Nit
Dio

IOC
IOC
—
—
                                                                                               100(A)
(A)   Arithmetic Mean
(6)   Geometric Mean

     Not to be exceeded more than once per year
     Not to be exceeded more than one  day  in  3  month  period

-------
                                           Table A-4. Missouri AQCR Air Quality Status (1973), TSP '
AQCR Name
Metro St. Louis
Missouri
Illinois

N. Missouri


S. E. Missouri
S. W. Missouri

Metro Kansas City
Missouri
Kansas


AQCR #
070



137


138
139

094




i
Stations
Reporting.

28
1
29
9


10
13


19
14
33

G*g/mJ)
TSP Concentration
Highest Reading
Annual

116
—

109


50
54


77e
128


24-Hr.
-•
484
202

323


878
312


440
479


2nd
• Highest
Reading
24-Hr

326
172

289


580
179


254
442


# Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality' Standards
Primary
Annual

6
-
6
1


0
_F


le
6
7

24-Hr.

1
0
1
1


2
0


0
4
4

Secondary
Annua'

14
—
H
1


0
0


le
7
8

%

50
--
50
11


0
0


__
50
—

24-Hr

10
1
11
2


3
3


12
9
21

%

36
--
36
18


33
23


63
64
63

%
Reduction
Required to
Meet Annual
Secondary
Standard

83a
	
83
59C
!
%
Reduction
Required to
Meet 2nd
24-Hr.
Standard

54d
13
54
48
i

0
of
i

74
16


e 41
85 66
85 66'
1
rv>
en
             Background Missouri 070 & 094 =48.5
Background Illinois 070
                                           = 40
             Background AQCR's 137,138,139 = 26
             No Background assumed on 24 hour levels
             Insufficient data for annual geometric mean in most Missouri States in AQCR 094
             Only one station unit sufficient data for geometric mean in AQCR 139
             In SAROAD Data Bank, June 1974
             2nd Highest 24 hour reading

-------
                                      Table A-5. Missouri AQCR Air Quality  Status  (1973),  S02
ro
cr>


AQCR Name



Metro St. Louis
Missouri
Illinois

N. Missouri
S. E. Missouri
'
S. W. Missouri
Metro Kansas City
Missouri
Kansas



AQCR #



070



137
138
139
094



#
Stations
Reporting
24-Hr.
(Bubbler)



4
0

0
0
4

5
7
12

x. . . a
Stations
Reporting
(Contin.)



8
4
12
0
5
0

2
4

SCL Concentration
M9/m
Highest Readina

Annual



49
--

--

—

N/A
28


1st
24-Hr.



487
—

—
217
26

251
326


2nd
24-Hr.



250
—

—

24

129
300

cf
# Stations Exceedino r ---!"cti~r
Ambient Air Quality St^ . Wf^ir~d'
P ri ma ry

Annual



0
-

-
-
0

0



24-Hr.



0
-

-
-
0

0


Secondary I0 --S'c

3_Hr Standard.



N/A -22
N/A
J
— —
-68
0

-45
-22
-22
     SAROAD Data Bank,  June 1974
     Based on  1st High  Reading

-------
                                Table A-5.  (Continued)  Missouri  AQCR Air Quality Status  (1973),  SO,
                                _ t .               ___...  _     i	L ______           _ _ ,-i ,--T._.-     _         /

                                        AQCR  070 S02 Levels St.  Louis Area 1973 (
                                                                                                     (1)
ro
MISSOURI SITES (AQCR 070) „ D^..^,_ .
MONITORING SITE
Linferry & Lindberg
Route 67 & 1-270
55 Hunter Avenue
St. Charles Rock Rd.
215 South 12th
305 Weidman Road
Chain of Rocks
Water Department
River Des Peres
1 Sulfer Avenue
Shreve & 1-70
8227 S. Broadway
ANN. ARITH. MEAN
50
50
45
45
77
35
52
48
55
118
MAX. 3 HR. AUG.
667
613
560
1253
667
773
—
___
—
N.A.
MAX. 24 HR. AV.
155
251
211
507
256
227
—
—
—
N.A.
To Annual STD




,




+ 32
ILLINOIS SITES (AQCR 070)
Granite City
Cahokia Downs
316 N. 8th-East
E.St. Louis Fed. Bldg.
Wood River
27
29
72
72
—
—
___
1867(373)*



720



•
                (1)  Source:  Region VII EPA

                   * 2nd highest  3  hour  reading

-------
                                     Table A-6.   Fuel Combustion Source  Summary
po
00
AQCR Name
Metro St. Louis
(Missouri Only)
North Missouri
South East Missouri
South West Missouri
Metro Kansas City
Missouri
Kansas
AQCR #
070
137
138
139
094

Power Plants
NEDS3
4
4
0
3
9
2
, FPCb
4
1
1
3
10
3
Other Fuel Combustion Point Sourc-'-
Particulate
10
15
1
3
15
3
so2
9
15
1
1
15
3
               a)   NEDS Data Bank, June 1974

               b)   Federal power commission listings  obtained  from EPA  data  bank

-------
                                             Table A-7. Missouri Emissions Summary,  Particulates
ro
VD
AQCR
070 (St. Louis)
Missouri
Illinois

137
138
139
094
Metro Kansas City
Missouri
Kansas

, Total
(10J Tons/Year

44
310
354
64
25.5
53.3


35.7
42.2
77.9
Percent
Fuel Combustion

57
22
32
66
39
40


55
15
34
Electricity Generation
(103 Tons/Year)

4.1 .
43.1
47.5
9.0
0
1.8


16.8
0.625
17.5
%

9.3
14
13.4
14
0
3.4


47
1.5
22:
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/Year)

5.5
12.2
17.2
4.7
0
.03


1.78
.054
1.8
%

13
3.9
5.0
7.0
.63
.06


5.0
.1
2.3
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/Year)

15.5
8.4
23.9
28.8
9.9
19.6


1.1
5.8
6.9
%

35
2.7
6.8
45
39
37


3.0
14
8.9

-------
                                          Table A-8. Missouri  Emissions Summary, SO-
CO
o
AQCR
070
Missouri
Illinois
137
138
139
094
Missouri
Kansas

^ Total
(10° Tons/Year

514
720
1234
298
40.3
242

176
28.4
204

Percent
Fuel Combustion

72
• 93
84
83
23
99

94
68
90

Electricity Generation
(103 Tons/Year)

333
607
940
201
0.06
224

156
10.3
166

%

65
84
76
67
.15
93

89
36
81

Point Source
Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/Year)

18
41
59
20
0
.05

9.1
0.40
9.5

%

3.5
5.6
4.7
6.7
0
0

5.1
1.4.
4.6

Area Source
Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/Year)

18.5
20.3
38.8
27.5
9.3
15.3

1.0
8.6
9.6

at
/o

3.5
2.7
3.2
9.2
>
23; j
)
i
6.3

0.6
3.0
4.7
-T mJ

-------
                                                       Table  A-9.Missouri Required  Emission Reductions - Particulates
co
                                                             SIP
AQCR
070
Missouri
Illinois
137
138
139
094
Missouri
Kansas
AQ
Measurement
Control
Value
Emissions
(103 Tons)
Allowable
Emissions
(103 Tons)
[Air Quality Display type model 1
used to show NAAQS attainment in
Saint Louis 1
AQDM type nodel used to show
NAAQS attainment in Kansas
City, AQCR 094, which serve
as example region for AQCR's
137, 138, 139
197 ;ug/m
[Annual
Geometric
Mean
(1) St. Louis
(2) Allowable
104
7.4
1975
Estimated
Emissions
' After Controls
(103 Tons)
36.8
52.7,
S57F1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A



Percent
Reduction NEQS (1972) Allowable Emission
Required ^.^0,,$ Emissions Tolerance
1973SAQ°Data ^ Tons) 0°3 Tons) (io3 Tons)
83 44 7.5
310 52.7,
T54~ . "SSTT — B~(2)
48 64 33 0 '*)
74 25.5 6.6 0 '4'
16 53 44 0 -
85 35.7 5.4 0 ^
42.2 6.3
7775" TT7T
sample Air Quality Maintenance Plan Interim Report, July 1974, Prepared for U.S. EPA.
emissions were proportioned between Missouri and Illinois according to existing emissions.
                                             1975 estimated emissions on an AQCR basis are above those allowed  according  to  1973  NED'S/SAROAD
                                             rollback.  The compatability of reference (1) emission  inventory and  NED'S  is not  known  but the
                                             indication is that no regional tolerance for additional  emissions  exists.

                                        (3)  No estimate of 1975 emission in Kansas City (AQCR 094)  was  available.   The  1973 NED'S  inventory
                                             is somewhat lower than the original  SIP inventory, suggesting  perhaps  some  progress  on controls.
                                             Based on 1973 data and the severity of paniculate violations  in Kansas City, zero emissions
                                             tolerance for particulates is assigned for AQCR 094.

                                        (4)  AQCR'S 137, 138, and 139 are assigned zero particulate  emission tolerance base  solely  on current
                                             air quality.

-------
                                                           Table A-10. Missouri Required  Emission Reductions-SOg
oo
ro
SIP


AQCR
070
Missouri
Illinois
137


138


139
094
Missouri
Kansas






AQ
Measurement
Control
Value


Emissions
(103 Tons)


Allowable
Emissions
(103 Tons)















Air Quality Display type
model used to show NAAHS
attainment in St. Louis.
Kansas City was example
region :for AQCR's 137,
138, 139. AQDM typt
model used to demonstrate
that S02 would not ex-
ceed standards in AQCR
094
100
(24
hw*
nr
max)
20
JAG
L ' _
119















435






1975
Estimated
Emissions
After Controls
(103 Tons)

f. 138
1027
N/A


N/A


N/A
N/A






Percent
Reduction
Required
Based On
1973 AQ Data
32
N/A
-68
N/A
-22

NEDS (1972)
Emissions. .
(103 Tons)
514
720
1234
298
40
242
176
28
204
Allowable
Emissions
(103 Tons)
363
509
872
N/A
68
N/A
215
34
249
Emission
Tolerance
(103 Tons)
O2
•JL
0
N/A<3>
28

-
6
39

                                    (1)   S02 data from "St. Louis Sample Air Quality Maintenance Plan" Interim report, July, 1974.
                                    (2)   Table A-6  (continued) shows additional S02 data for St. Louis other than SAROAD.  The  32
                                         is based on the highest station in Missouri.   The highest station in Illinois shows
                                         annual levels around four percent below standard.
                                    (3)   No S02 monitors in AQCR 137 according to SAROAD data.
                                    (4)   Very low S02 levels make rollup calculations unrealistic for AQCR 138.
                                    (5)   Rollup 1n AQCR 094 is proportional according to existing emissions in Kansas and Missouri.

-------
                                            Table A-ll   Fuel Combustion Regulations  - Missouri

070 m
St. Louisu;
(State
Regulations)
094 (iy
Kansas Cit/u
(State
Regulations)
(Also Indepen-
dence and
Springfield)
Missouri
(Other AQCRs)
Existing Sources
S02 Particulates
2.3 lbs/106- Btu
( 2000x10° Btu/hr)
Coal must be less
than 2.0% sulfur
for sources less
than 2000x1 O6
Btu/hr (Approx
3.3 Ibs/lQD Btu)
Based on ambient
air criteria, does
not relate direct-
ly to lbs/106 Btu
or perceat sulfur
in fuel (6) '
Ambient air /3\
criteria only * '
Heat Input Allowed(A)
(I) (106 (lbs/106
Bty/hr Btu) '
10 0.60
10,000 0.18
A = 0.89I"V174
6m (AI?
10° Btu/hr lbs/106Btu
10 0.60
10,000 0.12
- 233
A = 1.026 I •"J
Same as for Saint
Louis ;
New Sources
S02 Particulates
(2^
Power PI ants v '
Oil-0.8 Ibs S02/106
Btu
Coal -1.2 Ibs SOo/106
Btu
Other sources same
as existing
regulations
Same as Existing
except power
Plants
Same as existing
except power
plants
(2}
Power PI ants v; j
0.1 lbs/106 Btu
Other sources same
as existing
regulations
Same as Existing
except power
plants
!
1
i
I
Same as existing
except power
plants
CO
co
    (1)  Local regulations are slightly different, State regulations are used for purposes of this report.

    (2)  FED new sourcesperformance standards, 36 FED. Reg. 24867, Dec. 26, 1971.

    (3)  SO., concentration in ambient air not to exceed:
                                     3
                  Concentration (jjg/m )       Averaging Time
                      667 (0.25PPM)               1 hour
                      187 (0.07PPM)              24 hour

         Applies only beyond premises of emitter.
Maximum Allowable

Once in any 4 days
Once in any 90 days

-------
                               APPENDIX  B

     Tables B-l  and B-2 are the assessment of AQCRs which should,be examined
for the fuel switching impact on particulate and SCL 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 "good" or "marginal" here will  be examined in
later appendices where an attempt will be made to estimate the emissions
 \
resulting from an assumed fuel schedule different from the present, or the
emissions which might result if all fuel burning sources emitted up to
their "allowables."
     The criteria for candidates are (1) the severity and breadth of air
quality violations, (2) the tolerance for emissions increased in the AQCR,
(3) the fraction of total emissions resulting from fuel combustion, and
(4) AQMA designations.  It should be noted that an AQCR may not necessarily
need relaxation of regulations in order to accomplish fuel  switching.
Further, a good candidate in Tables B-l and B-2 may later show little
potential for fuel switching after individual sources are examined.  Finally
it is posssible that an AQCR may have air quality levels below standard at
present and may require more strict regulations than currently exist if all
fuel burning sources were converted to dirtier fuels, i.e., "average" emis-
sion rate now may be below "average" regulations.
                                   34

-------
                 Table B-1.   Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation  of Participates  Regulations/Fuel  Switch  Potential  -  Missouri
AQCR
070
Missouri
Illinois

137
138
139
094
Missouri
Illinois

Air Quality
ji
IT
on i tors


28
1
29
9
10
13

19
11
33
. 7?
Violations


10
1
11
2
3
3

12
_9
21
Expected
Attainment
Date


7/75

7/75
7/75
7/75

7/75

Total
Emissions
(103 tons)


44
310
354
64
26
53

36
42,
78
Any
Counties
AQMA
Designations?


Yes

No
NO
No

No

% Emission
from Fuel
Combustion .


57
'22.
32
66
39
40

55
15.
34
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(10° tons)


None

None
None
None

None

Overall
Regional
Evaluation


Poor

Poor
Poor
Poor
'
Poor

CO
en

-------
            Table  B-2.   Candidacy Assessment for Relaxation of S09 Regulations/Fuel  Switch Potential



AQCR

070

Missour
Illinoi



Missour
Illinoi

137
138

139
094
Missour
Kanse.s



Air Quality
#
Stations

SAROAD

12
P —
16

Others
10
; 4

0
5

4

i 7
li
18
#
Violations

SAROAD

0
0
0

Others
1
1

-
0

0

0
0
0


Expected
Attainment
Date



7/75







7/75
7/75

7/75

7/75


Any
Counties
Proposed
AQMA
Designations?



Ho







No
No

No

No




Total
Emissions
103 tons/yr








514
720
1234
298
40

242

176
28
204


% Emission
From Fuel
Combustion








72
93.
84
83
23

99

94
68
90
Tolerance
for
Emissions
Increase
(103 tons)








Overall
Regional
Evaluation






\
t


0

(a)
28

(a)

6
39.
45
-


Poor
-G'ood
Good

Good

Good


•CO
   (a)   Emission  Tolerance  is  not quantifiable  in AQCR's 137 and 139

-------
                                  APPENDIX C

     This section is a review of individual  power plants by AQCR.   The
intent is to illustrate:  (1) current SC^ and particulate emissions, (2)
fuel switching possibilities, and (3) allowed emissions for power plants
based on current regulations.  The total  AQCR emissions resulting from
possible fuel switches is then calculated.
     Current power plant information used to prepare Table C-l  were obtained
from three main sources:  (1) Federal Power Commission computerized list-
ings of power plants and their associated fuel use, (2) the National Coal As-
sociation "Steam Tables" listing of power plants and fuel use in 1972, and
(3) NEDS Emissions data.1  For those plants listed by the FPC (1 above),  the
1973 fuel schedule was assumed, otherwise, fuel use is for 1972.  Heat inputs
are those based on actual fuel values where known, and average values shown
in Table C-3 were used where not known.  S02 and particulates emissions are
those associated with the fuel use shown.  In the case of particulates,
emissions were calculated using NEDS emissions factors applied to the listed
fuel schedule (in both tonnage and lbs/10  Btu).  When a plant was not listed
in NEDS, AP 42 emission factors were used to estimate SOp and particulate
emissions (see Table C-3).
     Table(s) C-l also lists allowable emissions calculated by applying current
regulations to the given plant, taken from Table A-12.   (Particulate limits are
assumed to be based on the entire heat input of the plant.  Actual rules  may
be different when applied to each of several boilers in  a power plant or ap-
plied on the basis of design capacity rather than actual amount of fuel used.)
     Total fuels, emissions, and allowables are summed for each AQCR at the
bottom of Table(s) C-l and are shown again in Tables C-2 for comparison after
fuel switch.  Plants are switched entirely to coal where possible and to 2.0%
sulfur oil if a  plant cannot use coal.  The fuel switch  calculations are in-
tended to show the magnitude of emissions increase accompanying a fuel switch
without  additional controls.  The exact emissions would  depend upon actual
fuel mix, amount of sulfur in fuels, and  degree of emissions controls
accompanying  a fuel switch.
 ]NEDS  Data  Bank  1974
                                    37

-------
     It might be cautioned that AQCR total  emissions  calculated in the
tables of Appendix C (and also Appendix D)  may not agree exactly with total
emissions represented in Appendix A (Tables A-7, A-8).   This is a result of
both differing fuel schedules in 1973 compared to previous years and the
relative "completeness11 of the NEDS data bank.  Along the same line, AQCR
totals may contain a "mix" of 1972 and 1973 fuel schedules (and resulting
emissions).  The intent of the listings is  not great  precision, but rather
to show approximate status relative to regulations at present, and to show
results of fuel switching where possible.
     Table C-4 lists power plants under construction  or consideration for the
near to medium term  -future.  No evaluation  of these plants is attempted here
since Federal new source performance standards would  apply.  It is not the
purpose of this report to evaluate such standards.  Inclusion of new plants  is
for background information which might have a bearing on other decisions about
emission regulations in an AQCR.
                                      38

-------
Table C-l.   Missouri Power Plant Fuel Combustion Point Source Characterization


AQCR

70
















70



70







Plant Name

Union Electric
Sioux Station
1100 MW


Union Electric
Ashley Station
70 MW


Union Electric
Meramac Plant
923 MW




Union Electric
Labadie
2417 MW


Total



(1) Coal - 10? T
Fuel Use

Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Coal
2.78%S
12.9%A
Oil
0.3XS



Oil
2.002SS
Coal
1.47XS
11.7*A
Oil
1.0*5
Gas

Coal
3. 08*5
10. HA
Oil
0.3%S
Coal
Oil
Gas

ons
Annual ']
Quantity
1590


42

; •


26460

1624


252

109

4359

2184

7573000
28938
109


011 - 10^ Gallons
Gas - 106 Ft3
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr
4050


7
4057



424
424
4458


4

UA
44.74
11132

35
1TI67
19640
429
12.4
20081


Emissions
502 1 Particulates
Existing
tons/y
. 84605


,1




4108

46361


20

<1

256407

51

387373
4179
*1
391552


lbs/10
Btu
4.77


_.




2.21

2.37


1.14

—

5.26

0.33

4.50
2.22
—
4.45


Allowable | Existing | Allowable
tons/v
40795







4108

45011






112168






202082


lbs/10
Btu
2.3







2.3

2.3






2.3






2.3


tons/v
103


«1
103



106
106
2470


,1

<1
247C
1429

8.7

4002
115
«1
4117


bs/10? ibs/10(
Btu tons/gf_BJu
0.01 2472
I

	




0.06 636

0.13 4560


--.

—

0.03 9556

0.06

0.05
0.06
—
0.05 17224


0.24







0.36

0.24






0.20






0.20


                                      39

-------
Table C-l.  Missouri Power Plant Fuel  Combustion Point Source Characterization
AQCR
94
Plsnt flame
Sibley
519 MW
Missouri City
40MW
Ralph Green
50 MW
Pleasant Hill
«
94
94





94





St. Joseph L 8 P
Edmond Street
43 MW
St. Joseph L S P
Lake Roaed
151- MW

,
KCPL Hawthorne
910 MW

KCPL Grand Avenue
127 MW.


KCPL Northeast
133 MW

ndependence
Power S Light
115 MW

TOTALS


TOTAL
(1) Assumed
Fuol Use
Type
2 Sulfur
* Ash
Coal ^'
3.66%S
Oil
2.23JS
CoalO
3.66%S
10JA

Coal
Gas
Oil
1 . 5715
Gas
Coal
3.19XS
10. 0*A
Oil
Gas
Coal
1.6*5
9.7»A
Gas
Coal
3.72XS
10. 4«
Oil
0.3'.S
Gas
Oil
0.3*5
Gas
Coal
3.56%S
13.0*A
Oil
0.59SS
Gas
COAL
OIL
GAS


Annual
Quantity
897000
2310
14100

129
4771
3192
1718
108000
2730
11534
1290000
14245
172000
462
1197
241
1995
78500
205
4859
2559729
9140
40319


Heat
Input
ilG6 Btu/hr
2430
37
36

0.3
549
51
196
257
44.0
1317
3064
1626
487
7.4
136
3.9
228
• 197
3.2
555
6471
147
4607
11225

Emissions
S02
Existing | Allowable
tons/yr
63024
400
1004
.1
9
<'
389
< 1
6699
308
2
31566
4
12399
11
< 1
6
<]
5427
9
< 1
120128
1123
6
121257

lbs/10
Btu
5.92
2.47
6.37
...
0.02
...
1.74
5.95
1.60
i.Ol
2.35
<.01
5.81
0.34
--
0.35
...
6.29
0.64
...
4.24
1.74
< .01
2.47

_
No
!bs/10e
Btu
.9
No Reg
	





































Participates
Existing . Allowable
tons./"!
71760
9.2
1128

<1
14
12. (
a.;
5956
13.9
28
10028
107
24
bs/106 Ws/106
Btu tons/yr 8tu_
6.74 1704 0.16
0.06 65.9 1 0.43
7.15 232 j 0.27
|
553 I 0.26
.02 i
0.06 303 0.28
0.01 ]
1
5.29 '••
0.07 1268 ;0.18
..0.
0.75 2620 0.14
0.02
0.01
2 0.06 634 0.22
9.0 0.02 :
1
33
791
^ 1
2
89687
38.9
194
89920
0.06 313 0.28
0.03
1
0.92
i
0 747 ! 0.21
.01
1
3.2 .
0.06 .
0.01
1.83 8440 I 0.17
j
                                  40

-------
Table  C-1.   Missouri  Power Plant Fuel Combustion Source Characterization
!j Fuel Use
' j
AQCR j! Plant Name j Type
1 I Sulfur
l| % Ash
.1
137 :Jn1vers1ty of Coal
[Missouri Power
Mexico Gas
1 |;19 MW
Annual
Quantl ty
171,000
2039
i ;JFulton Coal j 21000
11.5 MW 1 3*S j
.; • 10»A !
'• i
• (1)
i .Hammbal I Coal
34 MW i 3%S
'• i I Gas
i .'Marshall ' Coal1"
: 130.5 MW I 9PIS
i IOTA
! ! i Gas
i 137 fchlllicothe j Coal
,Wunc1p1al Utility -3.7*5
•{150 MW 1 9.8M
I
9000
61
8000
913
. 38000
! '; i "' '
i [Central Electric • Coal : 69600
Power i 2.70IS |
,,59 MW j 10.7UA
i .Associated Elect. { Coal i 1339000
.'Corporation ' 4.32*5 '
.470 MW ; 14.2%A ',
'Missouri Power i Coal ! 8770
i-Llght 4.0*5 i
.Jefferson City 12.0*A j
: j Gas i 550
;• Columbia Water I '• Coal
•'Light , 3.6JS
•• ! 10.6*A
if. Gas
hameron ; Coal'"
0 MW 3JS
! i tolA
! South River Gas
.115 MW
il
' TOTALS COAL
•1 OIL
i I! GAS
| TOTAL
425,000 '
355
31000
86
2120370
0
4004
Heat
Input
[106 Btu/hr)
449
233
52.7
22.6
7.0
20.1
104
113
Emissions


SOj ("articulates
Existing
jlbs/lc
tons/yr Btu
— •* —
13000 6.61
j
273 1.18
Allowable j Existing
tops/yr



117 1 1.18
104 ; 1.18
2671 5.40

Allowable
ibs/M jibs/101! Jibs/10^
Btu Itons/^r, fltu 'tons/ytj fltu.





i
183 .' 3570 j 4.45 j |
1050
15
384
165
* 1
146
6.8
8.5
1580
. , . ., 	 1
3014 1112335 8.51 200,
i i
23.0
62.8
1116
42.6
77.8
9.8
5071
0
459
( 5530
667 6.62
29100 . 5.95
i
[
403 1.18
i
162240 7.30
0 i

i
.






162240j 6.70 ;
	 t . ! ! . _ . _
105
4
3510
567
£ 1
9447
0
25.8
9473
0.53
0.05
	
1.66
693
120
118
1.66 ! 56.7
1.65
0.01
0.08
338
217
1.97 329
0.15 3335
1.04
0.01
0.72
1.66

0.43
0.01
0.39
235
1462
i
|
164


7068
0.35
0.40
0.51 |
0.57
0.44
!
0.45
0.41
i
0.25 •
0.47 I
0.30
0.48
0.60

0.29
                 (1)  Coal - Tons
                 (2)  011 - 103 gallons
                 (3)  Gas - 106 ft3
                 (4)  Assumed for those plants not listed
1n NEDS, no partlculate control assumed.
                                                41

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                o>
                                                                                                                                                                                                n>
                                                                                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                                                                                 i
ro
-
AQCR
138 '
!
1
139
1
]
i
Plant Name
Federated
j Electric Corp.
Empire District
Electric Company
Springfield
Utilities
253 MM
KCPEL Montrose
Plant
213 MW
TOTAL
TOTAL
Fuel Use
Type
% Sulfur
% Ash
Coal
3.«S
10.0SA
Coal
5.233SS
27.33SA
Coal
3.45*S
13.62SA
Gas
Coal
COAL
GAS

Annual
Quantity
4,160,000
660,000
105,000
8588
1,697,000
2,462,000
8588

Heat
'Input
.(100 Btu/hr)
9498
1508
300
981
5036
6844
981
7825
i 	
i
Emissions
S02 Parti culates
Existing j Allowable j Existing j Allowable
jibs/106 W/IO5, 1bs/106 WlO^
tons/yr; Btu itons/yr Btu tons/yr Btu itons/yr. Btu j
283000
65570
8185
<1
200016
273771
O
273772
6.8
	
9.93
6.23
.01
9.07

8.0











4,170
361
1229
6.1
1319
2909
6.1
2915
0.10
... - —
0.05
0.94
^.01
0.06

0.09
1
i
8757 ;0.21
i
1
2094 j 0.29
1 J
1 i
i !
1512 '; 0.29
t
j
! i
:
5079 j 0.23 i
^ >
i
!
8685 i 0.25
                                                                                                                                                                                                VI
                                                                                                                                                                                                to
                                                                                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                                                                                c
                                                                                                                                                                                                -s
                                                                                                                                                                                                i
                                                                                                                                                                                                n>
                                                                                                                                                                                                ft)
                                                                                                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                                                                                                O

                                                                                                                                                                                                cr
                                                                                                                                                                                                c
                                                                                                                                                                                                to
                                                                                                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                                                                                                               o  »
                                                                                                                                                                                               oo
                                                                                                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                                                                                                               c.
                                                                                                                                                                                               -$
                                                                                                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                                                                                                               o>

                                                                                                                                                                                               O)
                                                                                                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                                                                                                               r+
                                                                                                                                                                                               n>
                                                                                                                                                                                               -5

                                                                                                                                                                                               N'
                                                                                                                                                                                               O)

-------
Table C-2.  AQCR  Emissions Comparison with Fuel  Switch (Power Plants Only)
                                AQCR _70
Fuel
Coal
on
Gas

Present Use „
Quantity 1 ' ) ,109 Btu
7573 172046
689 3758
109 109
175913
Gas 8 011 to Coal
Quantity 1Q9 Btu
7593 172502
625 3411
0 0
175913
Gas to Oil Only
Quantity 109 Btu









                              AQCR 94

soz
Particulate
Emissions (Tons /Y)
391552
4117
, Emissions (Tons/Y)
392193
4116
Emissions (Tons/Y)

Allowable
erosions (3)
202082
17224

so2
Partlculatf
Lbs/106 Btu
4.45
0.05
lbs/106 Btu
4.46
0.05


Lbs/106 Btu
2.3
0.2
Fuel
COAL
OIL
GAS

Present Use
Quantity 10s Btu
2559.7 56686
218 1288
40319 40357
98331
Gas & Oil to Coal
Quantity )Q9 Btu
4236 93810
1 36 806*
3712 3715*
98331
Gas to Oil Only
Quantity 109 Btu
2559.7 56686
3823 22592
19035 19053
98331






,S°2
Paniculate
Emissions (Tons /Y)
121257
89920
Emissions (Tons/Y)
199475
148462
Emissions (Tons/Y)
139825
90461
Al lowable
Emissions (3)
NO REG.
8440

so2
Particular
(1)
Lbs/106 BTU
2.47
1.83

4.06
3.20

2.84
1.84
Lbs/106 BTU
NO REG.
0.17
* No switching indicated because there are some plants with no coal burning capabilities.
Coal - 10, tons
011 - lOf BBLS
Gas - 10° ft3
                                   43

-------
Table C-2.   AQCR Emissions  Comparison with  Fuel  Switch (Power Plants Only)
                                AQCR 137
Fuel
COAL
GAS


so2
Paniculate

so2
Particular
Present Use
• Quantity ICr Btu
2120.4 44422
4004 4021

Emissions (Tons /Y)
162240
9473
Lbs/106 BTU
6.70
0.39
Gas & Oil to Coal
Quantity 1Q9 Btu
2210 46309
2126 2134
48443
Emissions (Tons/Y)
169132
9862

6.98
0.41



•V. ••..•-.Me
:.:-.;-:-..-o (3)
NO REG.
7068
Lbs/106 BTU
0.29
                                 AQCR 138
Fuel
COAL


so2
Participate

so2
Particular
Present Use
Quantity 10a Btu
4160 83202
83202
Emissions (Tons /Y)
283,000
4,170
Lbs/106 Btu
6.8
0.10
Gas & Oil to Coal
Quantity ,09 Btu


Emissions (Tons/Y)






..• I^-^MJ)
NO REG.
8757
Lbs/106 Btu
NO REG.
0.21
                                 AQCR 139
Fuel
COAL
GAS


SO,
Particulate

so2
Particular
Present Use
Quantity 109 Btu
2462 59953
8588 8594
68547
Emissions (Tons /Y)
273772
2915
Lbs/106 Btu
8.0
0.09
Gas 1 Oil to Coal
Quantity 1Q9 BUj
2815 68547
0 0
68547
Emissions (Tons/Y)
313013
3326

9.13
0.10


.•V,iv.::bie
i.J:*-;w (3)
NO REG.
8685
Lbs/106 Btu
NO REG.
0.25
                                     44

-------
                                 Table C-3.  AP-42 Power Generation Emission Factors






->
tn




Fuel
Coal(1)(Bit.)
General 7
Wetbottom ViO% A
Cyclone J
1% S
2% S
3% S
Oi1<2>.
0.5% S ' :
1.0% S
2.0% S
Gas<3>
(.3 Ibs S/
105 Ft3)
Parti culates
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10D Btu
160 7.4
130 7.0
20 0.9
Same Same
as as
Above Above
l.b/103 Gal
8 0.058
8 .058
8 .058
Lb/106Ft3
15 .015 ?
S02 6
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10° Btu



38 . K65
76 3.3
114 5.0
Lb/103 Gal
79 '0.56
157 1.12
314 2.24
Lb/106Ft3
0.57 .00057
Hydrocarbons/-
Lbs/Ton Lbs/10D Btu
0.3 0.013


0.3 0.013


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
. 105 0.75
105 0.75
105 0.75
Lb/106Ft3
600 0.60
(1)  Coal   23 x 10& Btu/Ton
(2)  Oil   140 x 103 Btu/Gal
(3)  Gas  1000 Btu/Ft3

-------
                                             Table  C-4. Missouri Proposed Power Plant Characterization


\QCR
138



070



139

"

Plant Name
New Madrid
#1
#2
(.600MW)
Rush Island
#1
#2
(55.5MW)
Southwest
(Springfield)
194MW

Fuel Use
Type Annual Heat
% Sulfur Quantity Input
% Ash 103 Tons (l06Btu/hr)
Coal 1942^ . 6000



Coal 1797^ 5550



Coal 628^ 1940'

LMlbblUNS
bU2 Particulates

Existing
tons/yr lbs/106Btu
Unknown



Unknown



Unknown


Estimated
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/10uBti
31500 1.2



29000 1.2



10200 1.2

I
Existing











Estimated
Allowable
tons/yr lbs/10°Btu
2630 0.10



2430 0.10



850 0.10

en
         *  '  Estimated from MW rating @ 85% capacity,  30% generating  efficiency,  and  23  X  106  Btu/Ton  for  coal

-------
                                   APPENDIX D

     The Tables D-l  in this appendix list individual  industrial/commercial/
institutional  sources of particulates and SC^ emissions which might show
fuel switching potential.   The sources are from a NEDS rank order emissions
listing.  Tables D-l  account for at least 95% of a total  emissions (both
fuel and non-fuel sources) in the AQCR, since not all industrial  sources
could be listed in this report.  It should be cautioned that the  percent
emissions accounted for is different than the "% of fuel  use accounted for."
It is possible that several potential fuel switch sources could be over-
looked by the cutoff point on the emissions (i.e., a reasonable sized
natural gas used may emit below our cutoff point in the NEDS rank order
list).
     Fuel switch emissions calculations were not made for industrial sources,
since no information was available for feasibility of any fuel switching.
Current fuels and emissions are listed along with the emissions which would
be allowed by existing regulations.
                                   47

-------
Table D-l.   Missouri  Industrial-Commercial  Fuel  Combustion  Point  Source
              Characterization
\l
AQCR. | Plant Name
ll
ii
70 I V. A. Hospital
i ii
j!
Fuel Use
Type
* Sulfur
I Ash
011
1.91S
Gas
Annual <"
Quantity
154
34
|| Chrysler Assembly Gas 800,
j :; Emerson Electric Gas
•L
1
i! Me Donald Douglas; Oil i 10
0.3*5 j
Gas i 766
i i
•! > *
1 . National Lead
' Titanium
i
70 j. Anheuser Busch
; ii
jj
QUAD Chassis
Side
Coal
1 3.3*S
| 9.6*A
Oil
1 0.7*S
Gas
Gas<*>
Coal
3.6*S
10.6JA
Oil
1 .90JS
Gas
Coal
2.92*S
10.2*A
Gas
_ Gas
j Mousanto
70 i Washington
University
ij
ll
|j P.P.G. Glass
j
t
jj U. S. Steel
| TOTAL
i
1 TOTAL
•
Coal
2.8*S
8.2JA
Gas
_
Coal
3.25*S
9.7JA
Gas
Coal
3.0*S
10.0*A
Gas
011
2.0*5
Gas
COAL
OIL
GAS
\ 99780
3081
1374
580
31230
93
2388
26050
996
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr
2.7
4.0
TJ
Emissions
S02
Existing
tons/yr
r=J£,
23
-1
jibs/10
LSSL.
1.94
91.3 '1 —
24.7
-1
...
0.16 -1 j —
91.8 «1
92.0
; j
251
53.5
165
33.1
503
78.4
1.49
-221
353
68.4
119
T87
1250 143
1
138760
486
7510
440
18.800
109
1216
642
322130
4554
10081

T
364
419
19.7
52.7
72.4
47.2
13.1
60.3
20.7
75.1
829
78.6
1141
6250
170
2)39
14
'1
1445
-1
-1
7378
-1
463
-1
1070
• 1
190
-1
18745
397
5.68
0.73
6.23
2.15
4.82
...
4.63
5.37
5.18
2.10
5.16
1.15
""" !
r^=
tons/vr
NO
NO
NO
NO
7263<2
5100(2
2703^
NO
6056
1046
867
NO

«ble
lbs/10*
Btu
!EG.
IEG.
Participates
Ext
tons/*
2
-1
7
Sting
lbs/10
Btu
0.17
Allowable
lbs/106
6
0.60
0. 02 ! 1.58 0.45
!EG. '1 ; — ; 54 .5
!EG.
3.3
3.3
3.3
REG.
3.3
3.3
3.3
EG.
3.3
2049 119142 2.13 (23035 •>•*.



-1
7
650
2
-1
-1
245
1
21
28
-1
12
4187
5
355
3
18.8
-1
14
6
8660
19
61
— • 161 0.46
0.02 |
1
0.59
0.01
0.71
0.15
0.02
456
519
0.35
i
0.37
0.09 128 0.41
— i
i
0.02 258 i 0.43
i
2.63
0.02
4.11
0.01
0.91
663
185
103
0.15; 181
0.02|
2139
0.06
0.02

0.36
0.48
0.50
0.16

8740 i 0.97 2820 ! 0.31



        (1) Coal - tons
          011 -  lOf gallons
          Gas -  106 ft3
        (2) Assumes all coal used.
        (*) Coke gas prod. 500 Btu/SCF
                                           48

-------
Table  D-l.  Missouri Industrial-Commercial  Fue1  Combustion Point  Source
             Characterization
. AQCR
94
i
94
i ;
|
j
! i
1
5
I
I
i
1
1
Plant Mane
AM Oil
!
American Paving
ARMCO Steel
Bench x Plant
AEC
KCPL
Richards Gebaur
AFB
CPC Internationa]
1
TOTALS
1
i
Fuel Use
Type •
*"Sul"fur.
t Ash \
Oil
2.49*5
Gas
Gas *
1.75*5
Gas *
Gas
011
1.5*S
Gas
011
2.0*S
Gas
Oil
2.49XS
Gas
Gas *
1.75*5
011
1.25SS
Gas
011
1.5*S
Gas
COAL j
OIL
GAS
Annual ' '
Quantity
52600
3004
1110
5449
102
'
1610
11
1360
2281
15300
876
325
1818
155
1050
2710
0
73859
16025
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
901
343
342
653
11.6
Emissions
SO 2 | Part1culates|
Existing i Allowable j Existing
tons/yr
3115
-1
279
'I
25.4 189
f
1.3 -1
lbs/10
Btu
0.79
0.19
I
1.70
23.3 214 2.10
1
260 i -1
262
105
100
30.1
17.7
1
18.1
309
0
1262
2133
TOTAL j j | 3395
3000
270
159
-1
2550
17
0
9235
566
2.61
0.62
1.21
32.3*
0.01
0
1.67
0.06
9801 i 0.66
j.
tons/y
NO R


lbi/106j dbs/106
Btu j-tons/yrl. Btu"
i
LG.
i
1
488
26
9
1
0.12
0.02
0.01
. Allowable
fibs/10*
tons/yr] Btu j
j
1002
1
-1 i 	
I
18




Nd


i
REG.
16
21
176
8
2
12
1
270
544
0
980 •
611
0.16
0.16
0.02
0.15
0.02
.00!
0.09
0.01
3.4
0.40
0.18
0.07
j 1591 0.11
1 !
— - 1
0.16
i
j
0.56
51.8 0.46
j i
i
311
473
0.27
0.24
I
93.3 j 0.40
374.2 j 0.26 j
i

2305
J 1

!
      1) Coal - tons
      2) Oil - 1000 gallons
      3) Gas - 10« ft3
     * Process Gas
                                      49

-------
Table D-l.  Missouri Industrial-Commercial Fuel Combustion Point Source
            Characteristization
1
i
AQCR 1 Plant Name
•i
137 ' Central Electric
!
1 !!
!i Hercules Inc.
i 1
[ TOTALS
i
1
1.
j TOTAL
i
138 Lapierre-Sawyer
'• '. AMAX Lead Co.
1
| TOTAL
139 i Springday Co.
!
{j Smith Flooring
i! Atlas Powder
:j Company
J
i.
1
1
I
t TOTAL
f
j
Fuel Use
Type
t Sulfur
1 Ash
Coal
2.70*5
10.7*A
Coal
1.7*S
7.1*A
Gas
COAL
OIL
GAS
i=--=~.~1-"~'
Coal
3*S*
10*A*
Annual
Quantity
(1)
188000
174900
24874
362900
0
24874
" =-=-—--
11,300
Coal 3000
1 .0*5 ; '
6.0SA j
COAL
Oil
2.3*5
Gas
Wood
Oil
0.4*5
Gas
Oil
0.1*5
Gas
OIL
GAS
11,600
250
363
1200 Ton
6
331C
60
192
316
3893
I TOTAL
Heat
Input
(106 Btu/hr)
494
459
2981
953
0
2981
3934
_= 	 ^_
28.4
7.88
36.3
4.3
41.4

0.10
387
0.99
21.9
5.4
453
458.4
Emissions
S02
Existing | Allowable
tons/yr
9640
4700
5640
14340
0
5640
lbs/10
Btu
4.46
2.34
0.43
3.44
o
0.43
19980 1.16
:
8
57
65
45
•1
-1
-1
• 1
-1
45
0.06
1.65
0.41
2.39
—


1.9
>
tons/yr

NO


Particulates
Existing
jlbs/106, jibs/10
• Btu [tontMi Btu
r~

(EG.

i
I
NO

...
REG.



t
— i
1
i
NO
45 j 0.02 ;!
REG.
402
1967
2367
2369
0
2367
4736
,55
"
155
3
3
16
27
• 1
2
3 !
48
51

1
II i i
0.19
0.98
0.18
0.57
0
0.18
0.27
1.25
Allowable
\ lbs/106
tons/yr'. ;Bt.uJ
741 0.35
1 i
3789 0.25 j
'
:
i
4530 0.26 |
; I.
70.7 ! 0.57
: !
1
..j ... j 0.71
1.25| 70.7 0.44 j
i i
0.16
0.02
—
0.02
0.02
0..13
0.02
88.5 0.53
;

486 0.36
59.0 0.59
1
i
0.03 634 0.32 j
	
;
• I
(1) Coal - tons
011 - 1000 gallons
Gas - 106 ft3
                                    50

-------
Table D-2.  Major Industrial Fuel and Emissions Summary _ Missouri
AOfR

70
94
137
138
139
STATE
F
Coal
Tons
322.1
0
362.9
11.6
0
707
uel Acounted
103 Gal.
Oil
108
1759
0
0
7.5
1875
For
106 ft3
Gas
10081
16025
24874
0
3893
54873
S
Existing
Emissions
(Tons)
19142
9801
19980
65
45

°2
Al lowed
Emissions
(Tons)
23035
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg

Pa
Existing
(Tons)
8740
1591
4736
155
51
»
1
!
                                                                           Particulates
                                                                                  Allowed
                                                                                    (Tons)
                                                                                 2820
                                                                                 2305
                                                                                 4530
                                                                                 70.7
                                                                                  634

-------
                                 APPENDIX E

     Table E-l shows area source fuel use for the State of Missouri  by AQCR.
The approximate energy values are compared for each fuel along with  the per-
cent of overall energy derived from each fuel.  Data are those in NEDS as of
November 1, 1974.  State area source totals are calculated and the percent of
energy derived from each fuel shown.
     Area source fuel use is then compared to total fuel use in Missouri.  The
bottom row entitled "all fuels, all sources" may not match totals from Appendices
A, C, and D exactly, since neither the NEDS or individual appendix totals are
all-inclusive.
     A Table E-2 shows area source fuel use and SOp and particulate  emissions
in St. Louis (AQCR 070).  Also indicated are S02 emissions when the  2% sulfur
in coal regulation is met.
                                      52

-------
                                       Table  E-l.   Missouri Area Source Fuel Use
en
GO
L_
AQCR

Missouri
070
Missouri
Illinois
TOTAL
094 \
Missouri j
| Kansas j
TOTAL
j Coal
j Tons



220820
139760
360580
i
i
2280
74470
76750
137 i 405310
t

138 ! 158530
139 !
i
AREA SOURCE

! AQCR TOTAL
102470
109 Btu



5079
3214
8293

52
1713
1765
9322

3646
2357

i
Oil
| 103 bbl



2519
2436
4955

453
283
736
1587

850
1654


i !
1,103,640
i
PERCENT
STATE TOTAL j


i (Missouri Only) jj 889,580


||
i
1
|
25,383 i 9782
!
5.1%

20,460








7044






lO9 Btu



14812
14324
29135

2664
1664
43.28
9332

4998
9726


Gas
103 ft3



113570
39440
153010

68500
40790
109290
54220

33130
73300

"

57519

11.5%

41419






422,950



354,530





TO9 Btu



113570
39440 '
153010

68500
40790
109290
54220

33130
73300



422,950

84.3%

345,530





s
i
Tote!
1012 Btu



i
!
190.4

71.2
44.2
115.4
72.9

41.8 |
85.4

i

501.6 !
1

100%
I

1

i
1
•


-------
                            Table E-2.  AQCR 070 Area Source Fuel Use - Missouri Portion  (St. Louis)
en

Current
Coal Used
2.8%S
(Coal AT
regulation
(2.0*5)
OIL
GAS
WOOD
TOTALS (Current)
FUEL
Amount
221
XI O6 tons
221X106tons
106X106gal
114X109Ft3
9800 Tons

109 BTU
5080
5080
14800
114000
113
133993
APPROXIMATE EMISSIONS
SOo
tons/Yr
12400
8860
7000
—
—
1980
Karticu lates
tons/Yr
18000
18000
500
850
N/A.
21180

-------
                                 APPENDIX F

     The Tables F-l and F-2 illustrates the effect on emissions of participates
and SCL when power plant and industrial fuel burning sources listed in Appendices
C and D are allowed to emit up to the amounts that existing regulations would
allow.  It is assumed that heat input remains the same, and existing regulations
are applied to gross heat input for each power plant and industrial source.  The
column in Table F-l labeled "Allowable Total Emissions" is the tonnage from
Tables A-9 and A-10 which the region can tolerate while still not violating
ambient air quality standards.  In Table F-2 (SCL Evaluation) the analogous column
indicates the ratior.of emissions resulting when all  sources are emitting at
regulations to emissions at present.
     Area fuel burning sources are assumed to remain unchanged, except in AQCR
070 since S02 and particulate regulations generally do not apply to these sources
outside St. Louis.  Non-fuel emission estimates from Tables A-7 and A-8 are
included in the balance.  Since the degree of control which will be achieved on
non-fuel particulate sources was not known for this report, the particulate totals
serve mainly to show magnitudes relative to tonnage allowed by air quality con-
siderations.  For SOp the non-fuel estimate would, in many AQCR's, remain about
the same due to lack of other SOp regulations (except for smelters).  Thus the S02
"ratio" is not too far from that which would be possible under existent regulations.
     A regional approach is implicitly assumed to have some validity in this
exercise, so that any conclusions from the numbers in Tables F-l and F-2 will
have to be temperated for AQCR's with widely dispersed emissions.
     Lastly, it is emphasized that these tables are hypothetical in that no fuel
mix may exist to allow all sources to emit exactly at regulation levels.  The
calculations do give some insight into adequacy of existing regulations for allowing
air quality standards to be achieved if a fuel schedule different from the one at
present were in effect.
     A Table F-3 is included in this appendix to summarize gross consumption and
production of fossil fuels in Missouri.
                                     55

-------
Table F-l.  Missouri Particulate Regulation Evaluation
i AQCR
i
70
(Missouri Only)
Power Plants.
Industry
Area Sources

Non-Fuel *
Total
I
137
1012 Btu
_.

176
17.9
190



-
. .
Current Emissions
Tons/yr

4117
8740
21180
34037
18300
52337

Regulations
lbs/106 Btu

.20-. 36
.35-. 60
N/A




Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's

17224
2820
21180*
41224
18300 Uncontrolled
59524

. Estimate Allowable
Emissions in AQCR
tons/yr j






Missouri - 7500
Total AQCR - 60,000
>
Power Plants 48.4 j 9473
Industry
Area Sources

Non-Fuel
34.5
73


!
i
i Total


138
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources




83.2
0.3
42
i " ~ ' i '
Non-Fuel
.
Total


4736
28800
43009
21800


64809

.25-. 57
.25-. 35

7068
4530
28800
i 40398





I

4170
155
9900

.21
.57-. 71

21800 Uncontrolled


62198



8757
71
9900
14225 _j j 18728
15600
29825
j 15600

34328

i
jj



"

33000
- ;
i






6600

-------
                                  Table  F-l.  Missouri Participate Reaulation Evaluation
en
—i
i j
AQCR TO12 Btu
i . ?
S
139
Power Plants 68. 5
Industry 4.0
i Ares Sources 85
—
i
i - - 	 i
(Ion-Fuel !
• Total
i
94 |
(Missouri Only) 1
Pov'er Plants 98.3
Industry 29.7
Araa Sources 71

!
;ior>-Fiiel i
Total
•j
09.4
(Kansas Only)
Fewer Plants 23.8
Industry 1.95
Area Seurces 44

/• ^;~-;- ;:•'''•

.
Total .
[ Current Emissions
Tons/yr
| • '
2915
51
19600
22566
32000
.
54566
89920
1591
1100

92bll
16100
108711
800
51
5800
6651
•scQnn
ooyuu i
B
24,551
\
t
i
| Regulations
j lbs/106 Btu
.23-. 29
.36-. 84
!
'

.14-. 43
.16-0.60
N.A




— 0.2
. 2-. 5
N/A




!
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
8685
634
19600
28919
32000
60919
8440
2305
1100

11855
16100 Uncontrolled
27955
•
2455
390
5800
8645
o cnnn
obyOO
i
44,545 !
.!
j Estimate Allcv/cib.Ta
Emissions in AQCR
tcns/yr
' !

•
:
44000
i
I
}
1
I
i
I
i
i
'
i
.5400 j
•
i
*
j
t
?.
1
1
^
i

6300

-------
                                    Table F-2.  Missouri  S02  Regulation Evaluation
en
oo
<•"" •—^JM.^
;
j
AQCR
70
(Missouri Only)
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources

Non-Fuel
Total Missouri
Total AQCR
137
Power Plants
Industry
| Area Sources

Non-Fuel
,
Total
i
138
Pov/er Plants
Industry
Area Sources
! i
f< on -Fuel
Total
	 — i
1012 Btu
176
17.9
190;

0

48.4
34.5
73



83.2
0.3
42



Current
Emissions
tons/year
391552
19142
19800
430494
144000
574494
162240
19980
27500
209720
50700
260420
, ,
283000
65
9300
292365
31000
323365
1 Reg's
lbs/106
Btu
2.3
3.3
3.3







'
..... .....



r 	 —
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
202082
12376
16000
230458
144000
364458
NO REG.

.


NO REG. '



Estimated Allcv/eble
Emissions for
AQCR
(Missouri Only)


363,000
872,000
N/A






68,000

Ratio of Em'ssions at
Regulations to Current
Emissions

j
;
1
0.63 |
i
I
i
j
*
j

?
(
j
I
i
. i
i

i
t
i

-------
Table F-2.  Missouri S02 Regulation Evaluation






en
vo







AQCR
139
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources

'ion-Fuel
, 	 -0_.
Total
94
Missouri Only
Power Plants
Industry
Art- a Sources
.

.
i;on -Fuel
Total
094
(Kansas Only)
Power Plants
Industry
Area Sources

N on -Fuel
Total
I
1012 Btu
68.5
4.0
85



98.3
29.7
71



23.8
1.95
44



Current
Emissions
• tons /year
273772
45
15300
289117
2400
291517
121257
9801
1000
132058
10600
142658
13578
384
8600
22562
9090
31*652
Reg's
lbs/106
Btu









3.0


I
1
Emissions
with All Sources
Emitting at Reg's
NO REG.




NO REG.



35648
3200
8600
47448
9090
56538 |
Estimated Allowable
Emissions for
AQCR
N/A







215,000



34000
' ' ' ' !
Ratio of Emissions at
Regulations to Current
Emissions
i
1



1
i

,
	
i
i
i
i
0.91

-------
                         Table F-3.  Missouri Fossil Fuel Summary
FUEL
  PRODUCTION
   CONSUMPTION
Coal
4.55 X 10U Tons
 15.24 X 10" Tons
Oil
0.06 X 10U BBL
109. 7 X 106 BBL
Gas
.009 X 109 Ft3
  433 X 109 Ft3

-------
                               BIBLIOGRAPHY
 (1)   "1972  National  Emissions  Report",  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
      Agency,  EPA-450/2  -  74  -  012.

 (2)   "Projections  of Economic  Activity  for Air Quality  Control  Regions",
      U.S. Department of Commerce,  Bureau  of  Economic  Analysis,  Prepared
      for U.S.  EPA, August 1973.

 (3)   "Monitoring and Air  Quality Trends Report, 1972",  U.  S.  EPA  -  450/1-
      73-004.

 (4)   "Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1072", 22nd Edition  National Coal
      Association.

 (5)   "Federal  Air  Quality Control  Regions" U.S. EPA,  Pub.  No. AP-102.

 (6)   "Assessment of  the Impact of  Air Quality Requirements on Coal  in
      1975,  1977 and  1980", U.S. Department of the  Interior, Bureau  of
      Mines, January  1974.

 (7)   "Fuel  and Energy Data", U.S.  Department of Interior Bureau of  Mines.
      Government Printing  Office, 1974,  0-550-211.

 (8)   "Compilation  of Air  Pollutant Emission  Factors,  2nd Edition",  U.S.
      EPA, Air Pollution Tech,  Pub.  AP-42, April 1973.

 (9)   SAROAD Data  Bank,  1973  Information.  U.S.  EPA.

(10)   Federal  Power Commission, U.S. Power Plant Statistics Stored in EPA Data
      Bank,  September 1974.

(11)   (a) "State of Missouri, Kansas City  and Out-state Air Quality Control
      Regions  Implementation  Plan."

      (b) "Implementation  Plan  for  the Missouri  Portion of the St.  Louis
      Interstate Air  Quality  Control Region."

(12)   Missouri  Air  Conservation Commission, Jefferson City, Missouri,
      (a) "Regulation S-X, Restriction of  Emission of Sulfur Compounds,"
      (b) "Regulation S-VI Maximum  Allowable  Emissions of Particulate Matter
      from Fuel Burning  Equipment Used for Indirect Heating," adopted
      February 24,  1971.

(13)   "St. Louis Sample  Air Quality  Maintenance  Plan Development," Interim
      Report,  July  1974, prepared for  U.S. EPA  under contract #68-02-1388.

(14)   Davis, D. D.  et al,  "Trace Gas Analysis of Power Plant Plumes via Air-
      craft  Measurement,"  Science,  Vol.  186,  No. 4165, p. 733-6, November 22,
      1974.
                                    61

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
     EPA-450/3-75-023
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S XCCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  IMPLEMENTATION PLAN  REVIEW FOR MISSOURI  AS  REQUIRED
 BY  THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION
 ACT.
             5. REPORT DATE
               February 1975
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
 Quality Planning and  Standards, Research TriangJe
 Park,  N.C., Regional  Office VII, 1735 Baltimore Ave.
 Kansas City, Mo and TRW,  Inc.  Redondo Bch,  Calif.
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                68-02-1385
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
 U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Air and Waste  Management
 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
 Research  Tn'annlp Park.  North r.arnlina ?7711
              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
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

   Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
  Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES

      61
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                Unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                             62

-------