EPA-450/3-75-044
APRIL 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
NEW YORK
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTA] COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-044
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
NEW YORK
AS REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
800 Follin Lane, SE, Vienna, Virginia 22180
(Contract 68-02-1385)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 1975
-------
NEW YORK
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
(SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW)
Table of Contents Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 5
2.1 Summary 5
2.2 Air Quality Setting — State of New York 6
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current
State Implementation Plan 9
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS 11
3.1 Central New York Intrastate AQCR 158 11
3.2 Champlain Valley Interstate AQCR 159 12
3.3 Genesee-Finger Lakes Intrastate AQCR 160 13
3.4 Hudson Valley Intrastate AQCR 161 14
3.5 New Jersey - New York - Connecticut Interstate AQCR 43 .. 15
3.6 Niagara Frontier Intrastate AQCR 162 16
3.7 Southern Tier East Intrastate AQCR 163 17
3.8 Southern Tier West Intrastate AQCR 164 18
APPENDIX A - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
APPENDIX B - REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
APPENDIX C - POWER PLANT SUMMARY
APPENDIX D - POINT SOURCE SUMMARY
APPENDIX E - AREA SOURCE SUMMARY
-------
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 Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be made to control regula-
tions 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 Implementa-
tion Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require States to change any
existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with informa-
tion 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 consistent 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 implementation
plans with regards to saving low sulfur fuels and, where the primary sulfur
dioxide air quality standards were not exceeded, to encourage States to
either defer compliance regulations or to revise the SOp emission regulations.
The States have also been asked to discourage large scale shifts from coal to
oil where this could be done without jeopardizing the attainment and mainte-
nance of the NAAQS.
-------
To date, EPA.'s fuels policy has addressed only those States with the
largest clean fuels saving potential. Several of these States have or are
currently in the process of revising SCL regulations. These States are
generally in the Eastern half of the United States. ESECA, however, extends
the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations to all 55 States
and territories. In addition, the current reviews address the attainment
and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, three predominant reasons for the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation Plans.
These are (1) The use of the example region approach in developing State-wide
air quality control strategies; (2) the existence of State Air Quality Stan-
datds 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 situations affect many
State plans and in some instances conflict with current national energy con-
cerns, 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 demon-
strating the attainment of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most pollu-
ted 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 result 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 limi-
tations. The findings of this report are by no means conclusive and are
neither intended nor adequate to be the sole basis for SIP revisions; they
do, however, represent EPA's best judgment and effort in complying with the
ESECA requirements. The time and resources which EPA has had to prepare the
reports has not permitted the consideration of growth, economics, and control
strategy tradeoffs. Also, there have been only limited dispersion modeling
data available by which to address individual point source emissions. Where
the modeling data for specific sources were found, however, they were used in
the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based are the most current-
ly available to the Federal Government. However, EPA believes that the States
possess the best information for developing revised plans. The States have
the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better feel for growth,
and the fullest understanding for the complex problems facing them in the
attainment and maintenance of air quality. Therefore, those States desiring
to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in many instances, expand the
modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's findings. In developing a suit-
able 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 encour-
aged to consider the overall impact which the potential relaxation of overly
restrictive emissions regulations for combustion sources might have on their
future control programs. This may include air quality maintenance, preven-
tion of significant deterioration, increased TSP, NQ , and HC emissions which
/\
occur in fuel switching, and other potential air pollution situations such as
sulfates.
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address.the attainment
of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended particulate
matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SCL) emissions. This is because stationary
fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of S02 emissions and
are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of the
S02 and TSP emission tolerance 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 Section 2 and 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 region-
al analysis, a summary of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants,
industrial sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendices C,
D, and E.
The State Implementation Plan for the State of New York has been reviewed
for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive fuel combustion emission
limiting regulations. The major findings of the review are:
FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES. THERE ARE NO AQCR'S WHICH INDICATE
A GOOD OR MARGINAL POTENTIAL FOR REVISING FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EMIS-
SIONS LIMITING REGULATIONS.
FOR SO?, THERE ARE TWO AQCR'S WHICH INDICATE A GOOD POTENTIAL FOR
REVISING FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS. THESE
ARE CENTRAL NEW YORK AND SOUTHERN TIER EAST. TOO AQCR'S INDICATE A
MARGINAL POTENTIAL FOR REVISION OF S02 EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS.
THEY ARE GENESEE-FINGER LAKES AND SOUTHERN TIER WEST AQCR'S.
The supportive findings of the SIP review are as follows:
In all regions which indicated a poor potential for regulation revision,.
the predominant reason was violation of the NAAQS in 1973. In the case
of SO^, air quality levels were below standards in several AQCR's, in-
dicating some tolerance for an increase in emissions. However, emissions
from fuel combustion sources contribute a large percentage of the total
emissions in these regions, and an increase in emissions may have an
adverse impact on aiEquality.
New York data for the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) are in
the process of being compiled. Therefore, the findings of this review
as regarding emissions of particulates and SO? are based entirely on the
emission inventory data contained in the New York SIP. These data
reflect 1970 conditions.
-------
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations will de-
pend on many factors. For example:
• Does the State have air quality standards which are more strin-
gent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limitation regulations for control
of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources, (3) area sources?
• Did the State use an example region approach for demonstrating
the attainment of NAAQS or more stringent State standards?
• Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion source
emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under the Clean
Fuels Policy?
• Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring sites
within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
• Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported viola-
tions of NAAQS?
• Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications of a tol-
erance for increasing emissions?
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources
proportionally lower than those of other sources?
t Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in the region?
t Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources show a
potential for a regulation revision?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when
there are affirmative responses to the above.
The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix A,
was organized to provide the background and current situation information
for the State Implementation Plan. Section 3 and the remaining Appendices
-------
provide an AQCR analysis which helps establish the overall potential for
revising regulations. Emission tolerance estimates have been combined in
Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators" in an attempt to
provide an evaluation of a region's candidacy for revising emission limit-
ing regulations. In conjunction with the regional analysis, a characteri-
zation of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, other point
sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendices C, D, and E.
Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions. Table 2-1 summarizes the State Implementation Plan Review. The
remaining portion of the report supports this summary with explanations.
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING - - STATE OF NEW YORK
The state of New York is divided into eight AQCR's. These are AQCR
158, Central New York Intrastate; AQCR 159, Champlain Valley Interstate
(Vermont); AQCR 160, Genesee-Finger Lakes Intrastate; AQCR 161, Hudson Valley
Intrastate; AQCR 43, New Jersey - New York - Connecticut Interstate; AQCR
196, Niagara Frontier Intrastate; AQCR 163, Southern Tier East Intrastate;
and AQCR 164, Southern Tier West Intrastate. The New York portion of the
Champlain Valley AQCR'is the same region as that referred to in the New York
SIP as the Northern AQCR, while the New York portion of the New Jersey - New
York - Connecticut AQCR is the same as the Metropolitan AQCR. Figure 2-1
shows the geographical boundaries of, and the counties included in, each
region.
Tables A-l, A-2, and A-3 are a summary description of the State air
quality setting. Table A-l shows each region's priority classifications
for TSP, S02> and N02; population of the region; and counties which have
been proposed as part of an Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA). Table A-2
lists the projected date by which each region will attain the applicable air
quality standards. A summary of the Federal and State Air Quality Standards
follows in Table A-3.
-------
TABLE 2-1
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
(SUMMARY)
New York
"Indicators" TSP SO?
Central
New York
AQCR 158
TSP SO?
- Champlain
Valley
AQCR 159
TSP SO?
Genesee-
Finger Lakes
AQCR 160
TSP S07
Hudson
Valley
AQCR 161
TSP S02
New Jersey, .
New York,
Connecticut
AQCR 43
TSP S02
Niagara
Frontier
AQCR 162
TSP S02
Southern Tier
East
AQCR 163
TSP SO?
Southern Tier
West
AQCR 164
TSP S02
• Does the State have air quality standards which
are more stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limiting 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 strin-
gent State standards?
• Has the State not initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy?
• Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas?
* Are there indications of a sufficient number of
monitoring sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for
NAAQS?
* Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there no
reported violations of NAAQS?
t Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there
indications of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
t Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources proportionally lower than those of
other sources?
• Do modeling results for fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?^
t Must emission limiting regulations be revised to
accommodate significant fuel switching?*3
• Based on the above indicators, what is the poten-
tial for revising fuel combustion source emission
limiting regulations?
• Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
N.A.
link
Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Unk
Good
Unk
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
N.A.
Unk
Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N.A:
Unk
Poorc
Unk
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
N.A.
Unk
Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Unk
Marg .
Unk
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Unk
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Unk
Poor
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No ,
Yes
• Unk
Poor
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Unk
Poor
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
N.A.
Unk
Poor
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Unk
Poor
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
N.A.
Unk
Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Unk
Good
Unk
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
N.A.
Unk
Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Unk
Marg.
Unk
a Modeling results available only for power plants. In all regions except 161 and 43, only SOj was modeled. N.A. - no modeling results available.
No data available on individual fuel combustion sources. Therefore, answers to this question are unknown.
c Air quality, violation occurred in Vermont in 1974. ...
-------
CENTRAL
NEW YORK
INTRAST
GENESEE-
FINGER
LAKES
INTRASTATE
CHAMPLAIN
•VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(VERMONT-
NEW YORK)
NIAGARA
FRONTIER
INTRASTATE
SOUTHERN
TIER WEST
INTRASTATE
NEW JERSEY-
NEW YORK-
CONNECTICUT
ATE
SOUTHERN
TIER EAST
INTRASTATE
Figure 2-1 New York Air Quality Control Regions
-------
A summary of the New York air quality status is presented in Tables
A-4 and A-5. Data included in these tables were extracted from the Storage
and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD) system of the National Air Data
Bank. The most current air quality data available are for 1973.
Table A-6 gives a brief summary of New York fuel combustion sources,
followed by Tables A-7 and A-8 which display similar data, but in a much
more detailed form. EPA and the State of New York are presently in the pro-
cess of compiling an accurate emission inventory for submission to the Na-
tional Emissions Data System (NEDS). Because a certain amount of emission
data were required for this review, and since NEDS data were not available,
the emission inventory from the SIP for New York was used. These data are
representative of 1970 conditions, and no attempt was made to project them
to a more current date. This point should be kept in mind when reviewing
data in Tables A-6, A-7, and A-8; B-l and B-2; D-l and D-2; and E-l and E-2.
Summaries of the New York regulations for the control of particulate
and SOp emissions from fuel combustion sources are presented in Table A-9
and Figure A-l. With the unavailability of any detailed source data for any
individual plants, it is impossible to assess quantitatively either the
impact of strict compliance with the regulations, or the effect of regulation
revision.
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
On January 31, 1972 and May 19, 1972 the State of New York submitted
their Air Quality Implementation Plan as required by EPA. On May 31, 1972,
and September 22, 1972 the Administrator of the EPA granted 18-month exten-
sions for submission of plans to attain the secondary particulate standards
for the New York portion of the New Jersey - New York - Connecticut AQCR,
the Niagara Frontier AQCR, and the Central New York AQCR. He also granted
18-month extensions for submission of plans to attain secondary S0£ standards
for the New York portion of the New Jersey - New York - Connecticut AQCR, and
the Niagara Frontier AQCR. EPA eliminated the need for the S02 plans by
-------
revoking the 24-hour and annual average secondary S02 standards. The re-
quired particu'late plans were submitted on July 31, 1973, and were disap-
proved because they did not demonstrate the attainment of the, secondary
particulate control regulations for the three affected regions.
10
-------
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the available information
for the State of New York and determine the feasibility of revisions to the
SIP which would result in clean fuel conservation. The assessments will be
made by AQCR addressing each type of fuel combustion source: power plants,
other point sources, and area sources. The criteria used to make the assess-
ments are listed and tabulated in Section 2.1 and Table 2-1 of this report.
Tables B-l and B-2 present a quantitative display of some of the criteria in
Table 2-1.
The source type groups are evaluated separately using such variables
for criteria as modeling results, emissions data from the SIP and air quality
data.
3.1 CENTRAL NEW YORK INTRASTATE AQCR 158
3.1.1 Regional Assessment
The Central New York AQCR was determined to have a poor potential for
particulate regulation revision, and a good potential for S02 regulation re-
vision. The indicators are summarized below:
• Particulates - A proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area, numerous
violations of the air quality standards in 1973, no tolerance for
emission increase, and a high percentage of the total emissions
contributed by fuel combustion sources.
• Sulfur Dioxide - All indicators considered indicate a good potential
except the high percentage of the total emissions contributed by
fuel combustion sources.
Tables B-l and B-2 list the indicators by AQCR for particulates and S02
respectively.
3.1.2 Power Plant Assessment
There is one power plant in the Central New York AQCR. Available
source data are presented in Table C-l. This plant was the subject of a
recent modeling effort by Wai den Research Division of Abcor, Inc. The re-
sults are presented in Table C-4, and indicate that the plant has not con-
tributed sufficient S0£ to violate the ambient air standards, based on its
II
-------
1972 operations. No modeling of particulates was accomplished, nor was
any evaluation made of the effects of alternate fuels.
3.1.3 Point Source Assessment
Available data on point sources is found in Tables D-1 and D-2, and
is limited to data published in the New York SIP. No modeling of point
sources has been accomplished, therefore an assessment of their impact on
air quality cannot be made.
3.1.4 Area Source Assessment
Tables E-l and E-2 present the available area source data. Insuf-
ficient data are available to evaluate the impact of area sources on air
quality.
3.2 CHAMPLAIN VALLEY INTERSTATE AQCR 159
3.2.1 Regional Assessment
The regional evaluation of the regulation revision potential in the
Champlain Valley AQCR resulted in ratings of poor for particulates and SOg.
The indicators are as follows:
• Particulates - reported violations of the particulate air quality
standards in 1973, and no tolerance for emission increase.
• Sulfur Dioxide - all indicators examined suggested a good potential
except for a 1974 air quality violation in the Vermont portion of
the AQCR.
Tables B-l and B-2 list these indicators by AQCR for particulates and S02
respectively.
3.2.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are no power plants in the New York portion of the Champlain
Valley AQCR.
3.2.3 Point Source Assessment
Tables D-1 and D-2 show the available point source data from the SIP.
12
-------
No point source modeling results are available, and therefore no assessment
can be made of the point source effect on air quality.
3.2.4 Area Source Assessment
Tables E-l and E-2 show the area source data obtained from the SIP.
No evaluation can be made of the impact of these sources on regional air
quality.
3.3 GENESEE-FINGER LAKES INTRASTATE AQCR 160
3.3.1 Regional Assessment
The regional evaluation of the Genesee-Finger Lakes AQCR resulted in
a poor potential for particulate regulation revision and a marginal potential
for revision of S02 regulations. The pertinent indicators are as follows:
• Particulates - proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area designations,
violations of the particulate air quality standards in 1973, and
no tolerance for emission increase.
• Sulfur Dioxide -all indicators point to a good potential for re-
vision of SO;? regulations except for the high percentage of total
emissions which are contributed by combustion sources. The poten-
tial was rated as marginal, because it was felt that the good air
quality was due to a previous power plant fuel switch from coal
to oil, and any conversion back to coal, would result in air quality
standard violations.
The indicators for particulates and S02 are presented by AQCR in
Tables B-l and B-2 respectively.
3.3.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are three power plants in the Genesee-Finger Lakes AQCR. All
available source data are presented in Table C-l, and modeling results are
presented in Table C-4. The modeling results indicate that none of the three
plants contributed enough S02 in 1972 to cause violations of the S02 air qua-
lity standard by themselves. No particulate modeling results are available,
nor are there any evaluations of the impact on air quality of fuel conversions.
J3
-------
3.3.3 Point Source Assessment
Available point source information is presented in Tables D-l and
D-2. No point source modeling results are available with which to assess
the impact on air quality from sources of this category.
3.3.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion data are presented in Tables E-I and
E-2. The limited nature of the available area source data makes it impos-
sible to assess the impact on air quality.
3.4 HUDSON VALLEY INTRASTATE AQCR 161
3.4.1 Regional Assessment
Evaluation of the Hudson Valley AQCR indicated the region has a poor
potential for particulate regulation revision and a poor potential for S02
revision. The indicators are listed below:
• Particulates - proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area designations,
reported violations of particulate air quality standards in 1973,
no. tolerance for emission increase, and modeling results showing
power plants to be violating air quality standards with currently
used fuels.
• Sulfur Dioxide - proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area designations,
modeling results showing that fuel conversions will cause power
plants to violate S02 air quality standards, and fuel combustion
sources contributing a high percentage of the total SO? emissions.
In addition, the tolerance for emission increase is relatively small,
All indicators for both particulates and S02 are presented in Tables B-I
and B-2 respectively.
3.4.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are three power plants in the Hudson Valley AQCR. Two of these
(Albany, and Danskammer) were modeled by Walden, and the results are listed
in Table C-3. To summarize the results, they indicate that a fuel conversion
at either plant would be detrimental, and would produce air quality levels
which exceed both the particulate and the S0£ ambient air quality standards.
No modeling results are available for the third plant.
14
-------
3.4.3 Point Source Assessment
No modeling results are available for point sources in this region
and therefore it is impossible to evaluate their impact on air quality.
Point source data from the SIP are presented in Tables D-1 and D-2.
3.4.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source data from the SIP are presented in Tables E-I and E-2.
No evaluation can be made based on the limited data available.
3.5 NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK - CONNECTICUT INTERSTATE AQCR 43
3.5.1 Regional Assessment
Both the particulate and S02 regulation revision potentials were con-
sidered to be poor for the New York portion of this region. Pertinent indi-
cators are listed below:
• Particulates - proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas, a 1977
date for attaining the particulate air quality standards, 1973
air quality data showing violations of the particulate standards,
no tolerance for emission increase, and a high ratio of fuel com-
bustion emissions to total emissions.
• Sulfur Dioxide - proposed air quality maintenance areas, 1973 air
quality data showing violations of the SO? standards (some of the
violations were during the first four months of 1973 when the State
granted SO^ variances due to fuel shortages), no tolerance for
emission increase, and a high ratio of fuel combustion emissions
to total emissions.
The indicators are listed in Tables B-l and B-2 for particulate and
S02 respectively.
3.5.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are 17 power plants in the New York portion of the region. They
were all modeled by Wai den in one of two groups. The first group includes
the 74th Street, Waterside, Arthur Kill, Astoria, Ravenswood, Barrett, Far
Rockaway, Port Jefferson, Bowline, and Lovett plants. The results of the
modeling of these ten plants are presented in Table C-3, and for seven of
the ten plants include expected maximum concentrations following a fuel con-
version. Both particulates and S02 were modeled for these ten plants.
15
-------
The other seven plants were modeled later and include the 59th Street,
East River, Indian Point, Hell Gate, Hudson Avenue, Glenwood and Northwood
plants. These results are for SC>2 only, 1972 operations only (no fuel con-
version), and are presented in Table C-4.
A summary of the modeling results indicate that two of the plants
(Bowline and Lovett) violate the particulate standards based on 1972 opera-
tions, and none violate the S02 standard. After a fuel conversion (fuel
data are in Table C-2), of thosei modeled, three plants (Astoria, Port Jeffer-
son, and Lovett) can be expected to violate the particulate standards, and
one (Lovett) can be expected to violate the SC>2 standards.
One thing must be kept in mind when evaluating these modeling results.
The listed concentrations include the contribution from only the applicable
power plant. They do not include the contribution from other nearby sources.
In some cases the results do consider the contribution from other power
plants, and are footnoted as such in the tables.
3.5.3 Point Source Assessment
Available point source data are shown in Tables D-l and D-2. These
data are taken from the New York SIP, and with no point source modeling re-
sults are inadequate to assess the point source impact on air quality.
3.5.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source data from the New York SIP are presented in Tables E-l
and E-2. There are insufficient data available with which to make an assess-
ment of the area source impact on air quality.
3.6 NIAGARA FRONTIER INTRASTATE AQCR 162
3.6.1 Regional Assessment
The regulation revision potentials in the Niagara Frontier AQCR were
rated as poor for both particulates and S02- The indicators on which these
ratings were based are listed below:
16
-------
• Particulates - proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas, 1977 ex-
pected data of attainment for participate air quality standards,
reported, violations of 'air quality standards in 1973, and no
tolerance for particulate emission increase.
• Sulfur Dioxide - proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas, 1977 ex-
pected date of attainment for SC>2 air quality standards, reported
violations of air quality standards in 1973, and no tolerance for
S02 emission increase.
Tables B-1 and B-2 list the indicators for particulate and S02
respectively.
3.6.2 Power Plant Assessment
There is only one power plant in the Niagara Frontier AQCR. Its
source data are shown in Table C-l. 1972 operations at this plant were
modeled by Wai den, and the estimated maximum ground level concentrations of
SC>2 are presented in Table C-4. The results indicate that this plant alone
did not contribute a sufficient amount of S02 to violate the ambient air
quality standards.
3.6.3 Point Source Assessment
No assessment of point source impact on air quality can be made due
to the lack of modeling data for this class of sources. Available point
source data from the SIP are presented in Tables D-l and D-2.
3.6.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source data from the SIP are presented in Tables E-l and E-2.
No further evaluation of area sources is possible without additional data.
3.7 SOUTHERN TIER EAST INTRASTATE AQCR 163
3.7.1 Regional Assessment
The regulation revision potentials in the Southern Tier East AQCR
are poor for particulate and good for S02- The pertinent indicators are
listed below:
17
-------
• Particu'lates - proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas, 1973 air
quality data indicating violations of the air quality standards,
no tolerance for emission increase, and fuel combustion sources
contribute a large portion of the total emissions. It is felt
however that because of the very rural nature of the AQCR, any
air quality problems are localized* and should be evaluated on
a case by case basis.
• Sulfur Dioxide - all indicators point to a good rating except the
high contribution by fuel combustion sources, and some power plant
modeling results which indicate they cannot change fuel types.
Tables B-l and B-2 list the parti oil ate and S02 indicators respectively by
AQCR.
3,7.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are two power plants in this region, as listed in Table C-l
with their source data. Both plants were modeled by Wai den, and based on
their 1972 operations, they both emit sufficient quantities of SO;? to vio-
late the ambient air quality standards. The modeling results are presented
in Table C-4.
3.7.3 Point Source Assessment
The available point source data from the SIP are presented in
Tables D-l and D-2. No assessment of the impact of point sources can be
made due to the lack of point source modeling data.
3.7.4 Area Source Assessment
The only available data on area sources was taken from the SIP and
appear in Tables E-l and E-2. These data are insufficient for an assessment
of the area source impact on air quality.
3.8 SOUTHERN TIER WEST INTRASTATE AQCR 164
3.8.1 Regional Assessment
The Southern Tier West AQCR was determined to have a poor potential
for particulate regulation revision and a marginal potential for S02 revision.
18
-------
The indicators are summarized below:
§ Particulates - proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas, 1973 vio-
lations of air quality standards, no tolerance for emission increase,
and a high ratio of fuel combustion emissions to total emissions.
t Sulfur Dioxide - high ratio of fuel combustion emissions to total
emissions, and modeling results indicating that fuel conversion
by power plants is not feasible.
Tables B-1 and B-2 list the indicators by AQCR for particulates and S02
respectively.
3.8.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are four power plants in the region. 1972 operations at three
of these were modeled by Walden, and the results indicate that all three
were exceeding the S02 standard in 1972. No particulate modeling or fuel
switching results are available.
3.8.3 Point Source Assessment
Point source data from the New York SIP appear in Tables D-l and D-2.
Since no point source modeling results are available, no assessment can be
made of the point source impact on air quality.
3.8.4 Area Source Assessment
Tables E-l and E-2 show the area source data from the SIP. No further
analysis can be performed for area sources without additional data.
-------
20
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
-------
TABLE A-1 NEW YORK AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AREAS
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connect!cut"
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
a Classification based
Bureau of Economic Analysis, August 1973.
Less than the entire county designated.
Interstate Region.
nvjun r nun u.y
Classificationa
AQCR No. TSP SO? NOX
158 I II III
159 II II III
160 II II III
161 I II III
AQCR
Population
(millions)
1.3
0.6
1.2
1.7
Proposed AQMA Designations
TSP Counties
SO? Counties
Herkimer0, Oneida0, No
Dnondaga
No
Nd
Livingston0, Ontario0, No
Monroe, Wayne0
Albany0, Montgomery0, Albany0, Montgomery0,
Rensselearc, Saratoga0, Rensselear0, Saratoga0,
Schenectady0, Dutchess0, Schenectady0
Orange, Putnam, Ulster0
43 III
18.7
Bronx, Kings, New York, Bronx, Kings, New York,
Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Queens, Richmond, Nassau,
162 I I III
163 II II III
164 11 U UI
on maximum measured (or estimated) pollution
1.4
0.5
0.6
concentration
Priroity I
Greater than
Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean
24-hour maximum
Particulate matter:
Annual geometric mean
24-hour maximum
ctions from: Projections of Economic Activity
100
455
95
325
Rockland, Suffolk,
Westchester
Erie, Niagara
Broome0, Tioga0
Rockland, Suffolk,
Westchester
Erie, Niagara
No
Chautauqua0, Chemung0, No
Steuben0
in the area:
ii in
From - To Less than
60-100 60
260-455 260
60-95 60
150-325 150
for Air Quality Control Regions, prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce
-------
TABLE A-2 ATTAINMENT DATES
AQCR
TSP Attainment SC>2 Attainment
Dates Dates
:R NO.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
Primary
7/75
b
7/75
7/75
Till
7/77
7/75
b
Secondary
a
b
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
b
b
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/77
b
b
Central New York
Champlain Valley
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York
Connecticut
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
18-month extension granted.
Air quality levels were below standards when attainment dates were established.
-------
TABLE A-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (ug/m3)
Federal
Primary
Secondary
New York
TSP
Level a
—
I
II
III
IV
Annual
75b
60b
45e/70f
55e/85f
65e/100£
75e/110f
24 hr
260C
150C
250
250
250
250
Annual
80'
24 hr
365C
SO?
80d 2609/365n
3 hr
1300C
1 hr
650V1300J
NO?
Annual
100d
100d
100d
Levels (applicable to New York TSP standards only), based on land use:
Level I - predominantly used for timber agricultural crops, dairy farming or recreation.
Habitation and industry sparse.
Level II - predominantly single and two family residences, small farms, and limited commercial
services and industrial development.
Level III - densely populated, primarily commercial office buildings, department stores, and
light industries in small and medium metropolitan complexes, or suburban areas of
limited commercial and industrial development near large metropolitan complexes.
Level IV - densely populated, primarily commercial office buildings, department stores and
industries in large metropolitan complexes or areas of heavy industry.
Annual geometric mean.
Maximum concentration not to be exceeded more than once a year.
Annual arithmetic mean.
Value not to be exceeded by more than 50 percent of the 24-hour average concentrations during any
12 consecutive months.
Footnotes continued on following page
-------
TABLE A-3 footnotes continued
Value not to be exceeded by more than 16 percent of the 24-hour average concentrations during any
12 consecutive months.
9 Value not to be exceeded by more than one percent of the 24-hour average concentrations during any
12 consecutive months.
24-hour average concentration not to be exceeded.
1 Value not to be exceeded by more than one percent of the one-hour average concentrations during any
12 consecutive months.
J One-hour average concentration not to be exceeded.
-------
TABLE A-4 NEW YORT'AQCR^AIR QUALITY STATUS (1973), .
TSP Concentration (ug/m3)
No. Stations Violating Federal
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champlain Va11eyd
Genesee- Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut"
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR
No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
No.
Stations
Reporting
47
18
28
40
166
47
14
19
Highest
Annual
118
102e
85
111
125f
123
58
94
Reading
24-hour
414
262
450
581
489
558
220
342
2nd
Highest
Reading
24-hour
378
211
171
389
462
385
159
243
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary
Annual
6
1
2
6
12
12
0
2
24-hr°
3
0
0
4
13
3
0
0
Annual
11
2
3
16
36
29
0
5
Secondary
%
23.4
11,1
10.7
40.0
21.7
61.7
0
26.3
24-hrb
12
2
2
12
46
24
1
5
%
25.5
11.1
7.1
30.0
27.7
51.1
. 7.1
26.3
Reduction
Required
to meet
Standards0
69.9
58.3
50.0
67.5
72.2
75.9
7.0
53.1
Standard
on Which
Reduction
Is Based
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-hour
Annual
Annual
24-hour
Annual
1973 air quality data in National Air Data Bank as of July 28, 1974.
Violations based on second highest reading at any station.
Formula: (2nd Highest 24-hr -24-hr Secondary Standard)
[2nd Highest 24-hr - Background)
whichever is more stringent.
Background levels used:
x 100
or
AQCR
Background (pg/m3)
158
159 NY
159 VT
160
161
43 NY
43 NJ
43 CONN.
162
163
164
35
30
30
35
35
35
35
35
40
30
30
Interstate Region
e Reading occurred in Vermont. Highest New York reading 56 vg/m3.
Reading occurred in New Jersey. Highest New York reading 101
(Highest Annual - Annual Secondary Standard)
(Highest Annual - Background)
x 100
-------
TABLE A-5 NEW YORK AQCR AIR QUALITY STATUS (1973), S02
No. Stations Violating
No. Stations
Reporting
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champlain Valleyd'f
Genesee- Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut^
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR
No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
24-hr
Bubbler
7
2
15
10
47
24
1
2
Con tin.
5
3
1
4
71
8
1
0
SO? Concentration (ug/nr)
Highest Reading
Annual 24-hrb
40
35
48
64
115
96
45
56
84
461
262
223
13819
1729
154
320
2nd Highest
Reading
24- hr
70
453e
128
134
93h
335
65
71
reaerai HINDI en t HIT
Quality Standards
Primary
Annual
0
0
0
0
11
2
0
0
24-hourb
0
1
0
0
101
0
0
0
Secondary
3-hour
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
*
Reduction
Required
to meet
Standards0
-100.0
j
- 66.7
- 25.0
+ 30.4
+ 16.7
.- 77.8
- 42.9
Standard
on Which
Reduction
is Based
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
1973 air quality data in National Air Data Bank as of July 28, 1974.
Violations based on second highest reading at any station.
Formula:
(2nd Highest 24-hr - 24-hr Standard) 1nn
2nd Highest 24-hr x luu
or
(Highest Annual - Annual Standard)
x 100
Highest Annual
whichever is more stringent.
Interstate region.
This reading occurred in the Vermont portion of the AQCR (1974 data).
All noted values occurred in New York.
Reading occurred in Connecticut. Highest New York reading 930 yg/m3.
Reading occurred in New Jersey. Highest New York reading 86 yg/m'3. Second highest values not reported in New York City.
National Air Data Bank contains number of violations of 24-hour standard, but actual concentrations are not listed.
Based on 1973 data. However there was a violation of the NAAQS in Vermont in 1974.
-------
TABLE A-6 NEW YORK FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE SUMMARY
% AQCR Emissions From
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champlain Valley0
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,0
Connecticut
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
No. of
Power
Plants9
1
0
3
3
17
1
2
4
No. of
Area
Sources
9
7
9
13
9
2
6
7
iuuai nyoi\ LIIII ss i uiis~
(tons/yr)
Part.
30,955
60,142
44,461
57,872
292,396
124,617
18,400
34,548
SO?
106,985
40,183
148,622
147,509
1,015,983
168,874
38,640
114,698
ll . 1 . 1 UC 1 OUIIIUU3 I. I UN
Sources
Part.
53.5
7.1
49.5
44.7
33.5
35.4
63.5
62.2
SO?
97.2
65.5
95.3
97.0
61.4
85.5
98.1
98.9
New York power plants only.
New York emission data from New York State and City Implementation Plans (1970 data).
Connecticut data from NEDS.
c Interstate region.
Vermont, New Jersey, and
-------
TABLE A-7 NEW YORK EMISSIONS SUMMARY3, PARTICULATES
AQCR Name AQCR No.
Central New York 158
Champlain Valley 159
New York Portion
Vermont Portion
Genesee-Finger Lakes 160
Hudson Valley 161
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut 43
New York Portion
New Jersey Portion
Connecticut Portion
Niagara Frontier 162
Southern Tier East 163
Southern Tier West 164
Total
(Tons/yr)
30,955
60,142
53,698
6,444
44,461
57,872
292,396
177,392
102,784
12,220
124,617
18,400
34,548
Percent
Fuel
Combustion"
54.0
10.9
8.0
35.2
49.7
44.8
47.7
"55.2
30.7
81.5
35.4
63.5
62.2
Electricity Generation
Point Sources
(Tons/yr)
2,401
1,147
0
1,147
10,340
12,272
29,556
16,189
8,185
5,182
9,578
6,727
12,216
%b
7.7
1.9
0.0
17.8
23.3
21.2
10.1
9.1
8.0
42.4
7.7
36.6
35.4
Other Point Source
Fuel Combustion
(Tons/yr)
9,479
2,196
1,885
311
5,039
6,315
29,431
20,203
9,032
196
31,198
1 ,083
1,997
%b
30.6
3.7
3.5
4.8
11.3
10.9
10.1
11.4
8.8
1.6
25.0
5.9
5.8
Av*P3 ^ni I^PP
Mi CQ OU U I V*C
• Fuel Combustion
(Tons/yr)
4,859
3,225
2,414
811
6,729
7,363
80,514
61,607
14,323
4,584
3,392
3,868
7,334
%b
15.7
5.4
4.5
12.6
15.1
12.7
27,5
34.7
13.9
37.5,
2-7
21.0
2-.lv. 2,
a New York emission data from New York State and City Implementation Plans (1970 data). Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut data from NEDS.
Percentage of total emissions.
-------
TABLE A-8 NEW YORK EMISSIONS SUMMARY , S02
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champlain Valley
New York Portion
Vermont Portion
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut
New York Portion
New Jersey Portion
Connecticut Portion
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
Total
(Tons/yr)
106,985
40,183
31,551
8,632
148,622
147,509
1,015,983
640,402
317,693
57,888
168,874
38,640
114,698
Percent
Fuel
Combustion13
97.2
93.9
94.2
92.9
98.1
97.0
92.9
97.5
82.6
97.5
85.5
98.1
98.9
c. iev.1,1 i i-i uy uenei aiiun
Point Sources
(Tons/yr)
41 ,287
698
0
698
75,239
78,540
474,080
278,888
154,682
40,510
66,053
21,712
91,914
%b
38.6
1.7
0.0
8.1
50.6
53.2
46.7
43.5
48.7
70.0
39.1
56.2
80.1
VINCI ruiiib ouur we
Fuel Combustion
(Tons/yr)
39,601
21,146
19,382
1,764
50,770
27,987
77,660
32,443
44,577
640
67,510
4,345
5,617
%b
37.0
52.6
61.4
20.4
34.2
19.0
7.6
5.1
14.0
1.1
40.0
11.2
4.9
ni ca JULII we
Fuel Combustion
(Tons/yr)
23,048
15,906
10,345
5,561
19,757
36,605
391 ,630
313,022
63,314
15,294
10,741
1 1 ,842
15,913
%b
21.5
39,6
32.8
64.4
13.3
24.8
38.5
48.9
19.9
26.4
6.4
30.6
13.9
3 New York emission data from New York State and City Implementation Plans (1970 data). Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut data from NEDS.
Percentage of total emissions.
-------
TABLE A-9 NEW YORK MAXIMUM SULFUR CONTENT LIMITATIONS
Oil Solid Fuel
(percent (Pounds of
Sulfur by Sulfur per
weight) IP6 BTU)
New York City:
Bronx County
Kings County 0.30 0.2
New York County 0.20a
Queens County
Richmond County
Nassau County
Rockland County 0.37 0.20
Westchester County
Towns of:
Babylon
Brookhaven
Huntington 1.0b 0,6b
Islip
Smi thtown
(in Suffolk County)
Erie County 2.2b'c 1.4b
Niagara County
Remainder of State 2.0b 1.9b
a Distillate
Maximum sulfur content 0.75 percent sulfur by weight
for oil, and 0.6 pounds sulfur per million BTU for coal
in sources meeting the following criteria:
• Rated capacity greater than 250 million BTU per hour, and
t Application for a permit to construct received by the
Department or an application for a certificate of environ-
mental compatibility and public need received by the Public
Service Commission after March 15, 1973, and
• Installation is not located in New York City, Nassau,
Rockland or Westchester County.
c Decreases to 1.1% effective October 1, 1975.
-------
NEW YORK STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE PARTICULATE
LIMITATION REGULATIONS
Two hour average particulate emission shall not exceed 0.10 pounds per
million BTU heat input from:
a) Any oil fired stationary combustion installation, or
b) any coal fired stationary combustion installations of more than
250 million BTU per hour total heat input for which an application
for a Permit to Construct is submitted subsequent to August 12, 1972.
Installations with a total heat input equal to or less than 300 million
BTU per hour and in operation prior to June 1, 1972 are limited to the
following allowable emission rates:
a) Spreader stokers - 0.60 pounds per million BTU input
b) Other than spreader stokers - maximum emission rate as shown on
the following graph:
3.
100 200 300
Total Heat Input
(106 BTU/hr)
All other sources are limited to the maximum emission rate as shown on
the graph of Figure A-l except sources smaller than one million BTU per
hour which are exempt from the regulation.
-------
FIGURE A-l NEW YORK FUEL COMBUSTION MAXIMUM PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
2 34557891 2 34567891 2 34567691 2 34567891
3 4567891
D
EH
O
,-1
I
0)
4J
C
O
-H
CO
CO
•rl
E
W
•a
§
I ; : ; • •; i -1 ;
L, ;.: :- •_! -.a'd^r J_.Ld
" 1 '....i'.':. . i T|-- .H l^
10 100
Total Heat Input (106 BTU/hr)
1000
10,000
-------
APPENDIX B
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
-------
TABLE B-l REGIONAL INDICATORS FOR REVISION OF PARTICIPATE REGULATIONS
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champlain Valleyd
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New Xork,
Connect!" cutd
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
No. of
Reporting
47
18
28
40
166
47
14
19
Stations
Violating
Standards9
14
3
3
19
58
32
1
6
Expected
Attainment
Date
e
f
7/75
7/75
e
e
7/75
7/75
Total
Emissions
(T/yr)b
30,955
53,698
44,461
57,872
177,392
124,6,17
18,400
34,548
% Emissions
from N.Y. Fuel
Combustion
54.0
8.0
49.7
44.8
55.2
35.4
63.5
62.4
Proposed
AQMA
Designations
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Tolerance
for Emission
Increase (T/yr)c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d 1973 SAROAD System data.
° For interstate regions this value is the contribution from sources in the New York portion only.
0 Based on percent reduction required to meet standards from Table A-4 applied against total emissions.
Interstate region.
e 18-month extension granted for submission of plan.
Air quality levels were below standards when attainment dates were established.
-------
TABLE B-2
REGIONAL INDICATORS FOR REVISION OF S02 REGULATIONS
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champlain Valleyd
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut"
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
No. of Stations
Violating
Reporting Standards3
12
5
16
14
118
32
2
2
0
1
0
1
12
2
0
0
Expected
Attainment
Date
e
e
7/75
7/75
f
f
e
7/75
Total
Emissions
(T/yr)b
106,985
31,551
148,622
147,509
640,402
168,874
38,640
114,698
% Emission
from N.Y. Fuel
Combustion
97.2
94.2
98.1
97.0
97,5
85.5
98.1
98.9
Proposed
AQMA
Designations
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
Tolerance
for Emission
Increase (T/yr)c
106,985
9
99,131
36,877
0
0
30,062
49,205
1973 SAROAD System data.
For interstate regions this value is the contribution from sources in the New York portion only.
c Based on percent reduction required to meet standards from Table A-5 applied against total emissions.
Interstate region.
e Air quality levels were below standards when attainment dates were established.
18-month extension granted for submission of plan.
9 Based on 1973 data. However there was a violation of the NAAQS in Vermont in 1974.
-------
APPENDIX C
POWER PLANT SUMMARY
-------
TABLE C-1 POWER PLANT ASSESSMENT FOR NEW YORK
AQCR Name
Central New York
Genes ee- Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut
AQCR No. Plant Ownership and (Name)
158 Niagara Mohawk Power (Oswego)
160 N.Y. State Elec. & Gas (Greenidge)
Rochester Gas & Elec. (Rochester 3)
Rochester Gas & Elec. (Rochester 7)
161 Niagara Mohawk Power (Albany)
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. (Danskammer)
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. (Roseton 1 & 2)e
43 Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (59th St.)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (74th St.)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (East River)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (Waterside)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (Indian Point)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (Arthur Kill)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (Astoria)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. Ravenswood)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (Hell Gate)
Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (Hudson Ave.)
Long Island Lighting (Barrett)
Long Island Lighting (Glenwood)
Long Island Lighting (Far Rockaway)
Long Island Lighting (Northport)
Long Island Lighting (Port Jefferson)
Orange and Kockland Util. (Bowline Pt.)n
Orange and Rockland Util. (Lovett)
1975
Capaci tya
MW
l,192d
160
196
253
400
537
1,242
185
209
776
672
275
912
2,3519
1,828
311
715
375
380
114
1,161
467
1 .2421
495
Fuel
Type
Oil
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil .
Oil
Gas
Oil
Gas
Oilf
Oil
Coal
Oil
Gas
Oil
Gas
Oil
Gas
Oil
Oil
Gas
Oil
Gas
Oil
Gas
Oil
Oil
Oil
Gas
Oil
Gas
Est.
1975
Quantity"
3,571
480
208
998
559
4,197
5,172
16,757
1,433
982
2,063
17,664
2,494
9,008
651
5,605
6
19,791
4,176
12,904
5,104
3,445
3,156
3,398
3,402
1,059
2,684
1,078
927
515
8,365
4,405
10,186
85
3.363J
9,657
% Sc
By Regulation
2.00
2.18
2.45
2.00
2.44
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.37
0.30
0.21
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.37
0.37
0.30
2.0
2.0
0.37
0.37
Niagara Frontier
162
Niagara Mohawk Power (Huntley)
828
Coal
1,380
2.15
-------
TABLE C-l
AQCR Name
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
163
164
Plant Ownership and Name
N.Y. State Elec. and Gas (Goudey)
N.Y. State Elec. and Gas (Jennison)
N.Y. State Elec. and Gas (Hickling)
N.Y. State Elec. and Gas (Milliken)
Niagara Mohawk Power (Dunkirk)
City of Jamestown (S.A. Carlson)
1975
Capaci tya
MW
146
60
70
270
628
81
Fuel
Type
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Est.
1975
Quantity"
315
169
291
660
1,286
115
% Sc
By Regulation
2.19
1.98
2.05
2.19
2.41
2.37
Source: Steam Electric Plant Factors, 1973 Edition, National Coal Association, Washington, D.C., January 1974.
Coal in 10^ tons, Oil in 10^ bbl., Gas in 10^ cu. ft. If no projected change in generating capacity between 1972 and 1975, then 1972 consumption
from the above reference assumed for 1975. Changes in fuel consumption due to increased generating capacity calculated using 8.5 x IQlO BTU/yr
input per megawatt (assumes 35% overall plant energy conversion efficiency) and 150 x 103 BTU per gallon of oil, and 1000 BTU per cubic foot of gas.
Percent sulfur allowed for coal calculated from regulation (1b/lO^ BTU) using heat content of coal as listed in above reference.
Includes an 816 megawatt addition in 1974.
e New plant in 1973.
Also designed for nuclear power generation.
^ Includes an 800 megawatt addition in 1975.
Plant jointly owned by Consolidated Edison (2/3), and Orange and Rockland Utilities (1/3).
1 Includes a 621 megawatt addition in 1974.
J Also burned 1,329 barrels of light oil.
-------
TABLE C-2
POWER PLANT DATA USED FOR MODELING BY WALDEN
Oil Use
Coal Use
AQCR Name
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut
AQCR No. Plant/Conversion
161 Albany
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1-4
Danskammer
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1-4
43 74th Street
1972 Operations
Waterside
1972 Operations
Arthur Kill
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 30
Astoria
1972 Operations
Switch Units 10, 20, 30, 40, 50
Ravenswood
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 30N, 30S
Barrett
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 10
(10Jgal/yr)
176,274
217,098
41,244
104,748
260,274
133,980
377,874
541,968
269,220
142,884
72,576
(%)
2.4
1.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.9
Amount Sulfur Amount3 Sulfur Ash
i^M^l/iiutX f o/ \ 11 f\ wT / \ / v> ^ /o/\ /o/\
(t\j i/yr;
1036
1236
710
2117
1551
350
3.0 15
3.0 15
3.0 15
2.5 10
3.0 15
2.5 15
-------
TABLE C-2
(cont)
AQCR Name
AQCR No.
PI ant/Conversion
Oil Use
Coal Use
Amount Sulfur Amount Sulfur Ash
(103gal/yr) (%) (lO^T/yr) (%) (%)
New Jersey, New York,
43
Far Rockaway
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 40
Port Jefferson
1972 Operations
Switch Units 30, 40
Bowline
1972 Operations
Lovett
1972 Operations
Switch Units 4,5
39,018
185,010
27,426
84,504
141,246
22,008
0.5
2.4
2.4
0.4
0.7
0.7
209
782
3.0 15
3.0 15
664
3.1 15
a Estimated by Wai den on the basis of equivalent BTU heating value.
-------
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY Of POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
Maximum 24-hr Concentration
(ug/m3)
Part. SOo
Max. Annual
Conc.(yg/m3)
AQCR Name AQCR No. Plant/Conversion
Hudson Valley 161 Albany0
1972 Operations
Switch Units 1-4
Danskammer0
"1972 Operations
Switch Units 1-4
New Jersey, New York, 43 74th Street
Connecticut 1972 Operations
Waterside
1972 Operations
Arthur Kill
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 30
Astoriad
1972 Operations
Switch Units 10, 20, 30, 40
Ravenswood
1972 Operations
Switch Units SON, 30S
Nominal
Load3
303
494
784
2117
4
9
15
82
43
408
18
73
Max..
Load0
366
597
910
2445
5
28
17
109
60
499
29
99
Nominal
Load3
6
771
26
472
< 1
< 1
2
9
5
22
2
3
uMax7
Loadb
8
932
30
545
< 1
3
2
12
8
26
3
4
Part.
-
-
-
-
2
1
< 1
< 1
3
34
< 1
10
SO,
— i
-
-
-
-
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
3
< 1
1
-------
TABLE C-3
(cont)
AQCR Name
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut
AQCR No.
43
Maximum 24-hr Concentration
(yg/m3)
Part. S00
PI ant/ Conversion
Barrett6
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 10
Far Rockaway6
1972 Operations
Switch Unit 40
Port Jefferson
1972 Operations
Switch Units 30, 40
Nominal
Loada
33
89
12
69
124
171
Max.
Load0
49
127
21
79
129
176
Nominal
Loada
2
42
1
31
3
49
"Max,
Load0
3
60
1
35
3
49
Max. Annua^
Conc.(vig/m ',
Part. S00
3
8
1
6
8
n
... £_.
< 1
4
< 1
3
< 1
3
Bowli ne
c,f
1972 Operations
Lovettc>f
1972 Operations
Switch Units 4, 5
670 953
91
129
860 1454 62 104
5824 5981 1247 1230
-------
TABLE C-3
FOOTNOTES
a Nominal Load Case - This presents maximum concentrations calculated by the model
based upon average monthly emission rates.
b Maximum Load Case - This case was calculated assuming the plant to be operating
at 95% of rated capacity. Since the maximum load case also involves a greater
plume rise, a somewhat higher concentration may actually occur on a different
day than that found by using the average monthly emission rates. This contin-
gency was examined by considering in detail the 20 highest concentration days.
a 10% safety factor was added to the computed concentration.
c This plant is located in severely restricting valley terrain. The assumptions
made in the special model used for this plant are such that an appreciably lower
degree of confidence must be assigned to these results.
d Concentrations include the influence of interactions between the 74th Street,
Astoria, VJaterside, Ravenswood, and Bergen (N. 0.) plants.
e Concentrations include the influence of interactions between the Barrett and Far
Rockaway plants.
f Concentrations include the influence of interactions between the Bowline and
Lovett plants.
-------
TABLE C-4 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM GROUND LEVfL CONCENTRATION OF S02a
AQCR Name AQCR No.
Central New York 158
Genesee-Finger Lakes 160
New Jersey, New York, 43
Connecticut
Niagara Frontier 162
Southern Tier East 163
Southern Tier West 164
Plant
Oswego
Greenidge
Rochester 3
Rochester 7
59th Streetf
East Riverf'9
Indian Point01
Hell Gatef'h
Hudson Ave.f>1
GlenwoodJ
Northportk
Huntley
Gouden
Jennison
Hicklingd
Millikend
Dunki rkd
1972 Coal Use
Amount Sulfur
(103T/.yr) (%)
467 2.0
566 2.0
1,437 1.9
319 2.3
170 1.0
331 1.6
743 2.1
1,256 2.6
1972 Oil
Amount
(103Gal/yr)
133,103
2,341
79,242e
562
60,215
86,663
29,723
144,698
146,836
126,861
424,284
503
«
660
Use
Sulfur
2.4
0.2
1.9
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.9
2.4
0.2
0.6
.24-hour
Nominal
Loadb
135
285
77
84
27
8
43
39
17
210
98
95
395
430
2,310
1,120
485
Maximum
Loadc
155
345
100
115
33
16
57
57
34
315
120
110
355
695
2,500
1,040
520
Annual
9
—
5
6
1
1
—
3
1
17
6
6
—
~
__
--
—
See Footnotes On Following Page
-------
TABLE C-4 Footnotes
a Based on 1972 operations.
Nominal Load Case - This presents maximum concentrations calculated by the model based on average monthly emission
rates.
c Maximum Load Case - This case was calculated assuming the plant to be operating at 95 percent of rated capacity
during selected days of highest concentration found by using the monthly average emission rates. Since the maximum
load case involves a greater plume rise, a somewhat higher concentration may actually occur on a different day.
To allow for this contingency, a ten percent safety factor was added to the computed concentration.
This plant is located in severely restrictive valley terrain. The assumptions made in the special model used for
this plant are such that an appreciably lower degree of confidence must be assigned to these results.
e All units converted from coal to oil firing in 1973. Coal consumption for 1972 was converted to oil on a BTU-equi-
valent basis to model this plant.
Results do not consider the possible interactions between the 59th Street, East River, Hell Gate, and Hudson Avenue
plants.
9 East River Plant also burned 17,719 x 105 cubic feet of gas in 1972.
h Hell Gate Plant also burned 3,156 x 106 cubic feet of gas in 1972.
1 Hudson Avenue Plant also burned 1,154 x 10^ cubic feet of gas in 1972.
J Glenwood Plant also burned 1,062 x 106 cubic feet of gas in 1972.
k
Diffusion model used does not adequately treat meteorological factors associated with an air/water interface.
Therefore, less reliability can be attached to the results predicted for the Northport Plant.
-------
APPENDIX D
POINT SOURCE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE 0-1 POINT SOURCE3 SUMMARY FOR NEW YORK, PART1CULATE5
Coal Combustion
Oil Combustion
Gas Combustion
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champ lain Valley
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164 •
Emissions
(T/yr)
8743
1517
4758
5475
15743d
29451
890
1932
% of
N.Y. Total0
92.2
80.5
94.4
86.7
77.9
94.4
82.2
96.7
Emissions
(T/yr)
625
368
232
7B6
4460
1705
185
13
% of
N.Y. Total0
6.6
19.5
4.6
12.4
22.1
5.5
17.0
0.7
Emissions
(T/yr)
111
0
49
54
0
42
8
52
% of
N.Y. Total0
1.2
0.0
1.0
0.9
0.0)
0.1
0.7'
2.65
Does not include power plants.
Data from New York State and City Implementation Plans (1970 data).
Total non-power plant fuel combustion emissions.
This is 1970 data. Coal combustion has been reduced to near zero in New York City.
-------
TABLE D-2 POINT SOURCE3 SUMMARY FOR NEW YORK,
Coal Combustion
Oil Combustion
Gas Combustion
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champ! ain Val ley
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
Emissions
(T/yr)
29,690
11,229
46,555
14,955
8,611d
31,250
1,296
4,966
% of
N.Y. Total
75.0
57.9
91.7
53.4
26.5
46.3
29.4
88.4
Emissions
(T/yr)
9,911
8,153
4,214
13,030
23,832
36,260
3,047
617
% of
N.Y. Total0
25.0
42.1
8.3
46.6
73.5
53.7
70.6
11.0
Emissions
(T/yr)
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
34
% of
N.Y. Total0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
Does not include power plants.
Data from New York State and City Implementation Plans (1970 data).
c Total non-power plant fuel combustion emissions.
This is 1970 data. Coal combustion has been reduced to near zero in New York City.
-------
APPENDIX E
AREA SOURCE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE E-l AREA SOURCE SUMMARY FOR NEW YORK, PARTICULATE*
Coal Combustion
Oil Combustion
Gas Combustion
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champ la in Valley
Gehesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164 .
Emissions
(T/yr)
2500
1311
4682
4291
4128°
1660
3234
6286
%. of .
N.Y. Total0
51.5
54.3
69.6
58.3
6.7
48.9
83.6
85.7
Emissions
(T/yr)
1980
1096
1 755
2891
54912
1479
581
906
% of .
N.Y. Total0
40.7
45.4
26.1
39.3
89.1
43.6
15.0
12.4
Emissions
(T/yr)
379
7
292
181
2567
253
53
142
% of .
N.Y. Total0
7.8
0.3
4.3
2.5
4.2
7.5
1.4
1.9
a Data from New York State and City Implementation Plans(1970 data).
Total area source fuel combustion emissions.
c This is 1970 data. Coal combustion has been reduced to near zero in New York City.
-------
TABLE E-2 AREA SOURCE SUMMARY FOR NEW YORK, S02*
Coal Combustion
Oil Combustion
Gas Combustion
AQCR Name
Central New York
Champlain Valley
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
AQCR No.
158
159
160
161
43
162
163
164
Emissions
(T/yr)
4289
2250
4303
10050
9I60C
2116
3897
8632
% of .
N.Y. Total0
18.6
21.7
21.8
27.5
2.9
19.7
32.9
54.2
Emissions
(T/yr)
18,749
8,095
15,445
26,548
303,778
8,611
7,941
7^277
% of ,
N.Y. Total0
81.3
78.3
72.5
72.5
97.0
80.2
67.1
45.7
Emissions
(T/yr)
10
0
9
7
84
14
4
4
% of ,
N.Y. Total1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
3 Data from New York State and City Implementation Plans (1970 data).
Total area source fuel combustion emissions.
This is 1970 data. Coal combustion has been reduced to near zero in New York City.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
i. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-044
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW YORK AS REQUIRED
BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION
ACT
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., Regional Office II, New York, N.Y., and
TRW, INC., Vienna, Virginia
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974,
(ESECA) requires EPA to review each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine
if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion
sources without interfering with the attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards. This document, which is also required by Section
IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution
State Implementation Plans
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
55
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |