EPA-450/3-75-060
December 1973
SUMMARY REPORT
ON MODELING ANALYSIS
OF POWER PLANTS
FOR COMPLIANCE EXTENSIONS
IN 51 AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-7 5-060
SUMMARY REPORT
ON MODELING ANALYSIS
OF POWER PLANTS
FOR COMPLIANCE EXTENSIONS
| IN 51 AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
by
Paul Morgenstern
Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc.
201 Vassar Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Contract No. 68-02-0049
Tasks 8 and 11
Program Element No. 2AC129
EPA Project Officer: Dave Barrett
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1973
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air
Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
02139, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-0049. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from Walden Research Division
of Abcor, Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-060
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents a summary from a series of individual reports
covering modeling analysis of power plants in a number of critical AQCRs.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether and to what extent
variances could be granted for certain plants to relieve the aggregate
low-sulfur coal deficit problem projected for 1975. The variances, if
granted, would allow an extension of time to meet regulatory requirements
of State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
A brief synopsis of the background for this study is presented in
the introduction to this report. This is followed by a description of
the analysis procedure, and a presentation of the summary results.
The total aggregate annual coal consumption by the 206 power plants
included in the study is 290 million tons. The analysis indicated that
the allowable sulfur content of approximately 145 million tons can be
affected by the application of variances. The major changes projected
are a net decrease of 137 million tons of low-sulfur coal (less than 1.0%
sulfur), and a net increase of 109 million tons with sulfur content greater
than 2.0%. More detailed summaries are provided by AQCR, by state, and
by individual power plant.
This study was intended only to demonstrate the general feasibility
of reducing the low-sulfur coal deficit by compliance extensions. Any
decisions based on material presented in this report pertaining to
individual plants should carefully and fully take into account the quality
of input data available for the model, the assumptions on which the model
is based, and the procedures followed in preparing the analysis.
This study was undertaken prior to the overall oil shortage and energy
crisis arising in the fall of 1973. It does not address that situation,
but rather was formulated and carried out with only the projected 1975
low-sulfur coal deficit in mind.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The summary results presented in this report for 51 Air Quality
Control Regions are based on studies performed by EPA and Walden Research.
The earlier analysis of 8 AQCRs was conducted by the Monitoring and Data
Analysis Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Office of Air and Water Programs. This was followed by a similar analysis
of 43 AQCRs conducted by Walden, sponsored jointly by MDAD, Strategies
and Air Standards Division, OAQPS, OAWP.
The EPA project officer was D.H. Barrett, and the Walden project
manager was P. Morgenstern. The project was aided by the cooperation and
assistance provided by R.F. Lee, C.E. Mears, and J.S. Davis of MDAD and
by J.L. McGinnity of SASD. The technical staff at Walden who contributed
significantly to this project are: F. Banta, K.M. Chng, R.C. Furman,
C.M. Klima, L.N. Morgenstern, M.C. Shah, R.E. Stockdale, and A.I. Zakak.
Publication of all reports was under the direction of C.O. McLatchy.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title - Page
I INTRODUCTION.... 1
11 PROCEDURE OF ANALYSIS 4
A. Source Data Base 4
B. Diffusion Modeling 4
C. Maximum Load Versus Nominal Load Operations 7
D. Regulations Applied and Strategies Simulated 8
E. Special Analysis Factors 8
III DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 11
A. Coal 11
B. Residual Oil 12
C. Individual Power Plant Summaries 12
IV CONCLUSIONS 13
REFERENCES 44
APPENDIX A - STATE SUMMARIES OF POWER PLANT MODELING
RESULTS A-l
APPENDIX B - DESCRIPTION OF THE SINGLE SOURCE AND
VALLEY MODELS B-l
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
la Listing of AQCRs Analyzed by EPA 14
Ib Listing of AQCRs Analyzed by Walden 15
2 Distribution of Power Plants by State 17
3 Net Changes in Coal Demand by Application of Power
Plant Variances in 51 AQCRs 18
4a Summary of Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution for
51 AQCRs 21
4b Power Plant Summary for 51 AQCRs 21
5a Alabama Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 22
5b Alabama Power Plant Summary 22
6a Florida Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 23
6b Florida Power Plant Summary 23
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Title Page
7a Georgia Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 24
7b Georgia Power Plant Summary 24
8a Illinois Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 25
8b Illinois Power Plant Summary 25
9a Indiana Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 26
9b Indiana Power Plant Summary 26
lOa Iowa Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 27
lOb Iowa Power Plant Summary 27
lla Kentucky Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 28
lib Kentucky Power Plant Summary 28
12a Maryland Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 29
12b Maryland Power Plant Summary 29
13a Michigan Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 30
13b Michigan Power Plant Summary 30
14a Minnesota Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 31
14b Minnesota Power Plant Summary 31
15a Mississippi Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 32
15b Mississippi Power Plant Summary 32
16a New Jersey Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 33
16b New Jersey Power Plant Summary 33
17a North Carolina Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution ... 34
17b North Carolina Power Plant Summary 34
18a Ohio Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 35
18b Ohio Power Plant Summary 35
19a Pennsylvania Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 36
19b Pennsylvania Power Plant Summary 36
20a South Carolina Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution ... 37
20b South Carolina Power Plant Summary 37
21a Tennessee Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 38
21b Tennessee Power Plant Summary 38
22a Virginia Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution 39
22b Virginia Power Plant Summary 39
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
23a
23b
24a
24b
25
26
A-l
A- 2
A^3
A- 4
A- 5
A- 6
A- 7
A- 8
A- 9
A-10
A- 11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
Title
West Virginia Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution
West Virginia Power Plant Summary
Wisconsin Power Plant Coal Sulfur Distribution
Wisconsi
Summary
by AQCR
Summary
by State
S umma ry
S umma ry
Summary
Summary
S umma ry
Summary
Summary
Summary
Summary
Summary
Summary
Summary
Summary
Carolina
Summary
Summary
Summary
Carolina
Summary
Summary
Summary
Virginia
S umma ry
n Power Plant Summary
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Residual
Residual
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
Modeling
Mode ling
Model
Model
Model
ing
ing
ing
Modeling
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
Oil Sul
Oil Sul
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
fur Distribution
fur Distribution
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
I owa
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi ...
New Jersey ....
North
Ohi o
Pennsylvania . .
South
Tennessee
Virginia
West
Wisconsin
Page
40
40
41
41
42
43
A-l
A-2
A- 3
A- 4
A-6
A- 7
A-8
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-19
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
vn
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Recent studies on the aggregate impact of State Implementation Plans
(SIPs), conducted by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
have indicated a nationwide potential low-sulfur coal supply deficit in
1975. The deficit arises from extremely low-sulfur SIP requirements .
all of which cannot be met by available coal and gas cleaning technology
within the time required. After making reasonable allowances for added
low-sulfur coal availability, limited fuel switching, and use of available
stack gas cleaning, a net deficit of about 100 million tons/year still
remains for 1975. This deficit is concentrated and most acute in twelve
states with high coal consumption rates; a number of other states are
involved to a lesser extent.
Although the principal deficit fuel is coal, oil could also be
affected to some degree. Considerable supplies of low-sulfur oil can
be made available; however, there is some possibility of localized,
limited shortages due to the overall dimension of the energy problem.
One means to alleviate the low-sulfur coal deficit would be to
grant variances for selected sources within certain areas of the states
involved. Such variances would allow a specified amount of additional
time, as shown to be required, for these sources to meet SIP regulatory
requirements. Also, variances would only be considered where it could
be demonstrated that at least primary air quality standards would be
maintained during the period of variance.
An early extensive modeling study of all SOp emission sources in
three Indiana AQCRs showed that most of the large power plants could be
temporarily allowed to burn coal at their 1970 sulfur levels without
exceeding the annual or 24-hour primary air quality standards [1]. The
remaining plants could be required to reduce sulfur content about 13 to
47% to attain the primary standard; this reduction would be much less
stringent than the applicable SIP requirements. That study covered all
-------
sources of S0? and concluded that power plants are the best source type
to consider for possible variances. It was also established that in
considering such sources for time-limited variances it is absolutely
essential to consider the 24-hour standard since in most cases this
is the governing value.
Based upon the results of the Indiana study, it was decided to per-
form similar modeling analysis for five Priority I, IA, and II AQCRs
located in the coal-intensive states [2]. These five Regions along with
the three earlier ones are listed in Table la. Subsequent to both of
these EPA studies, an extensive modeling analysis project was conducted
by Walden for an additional 24 AQCRs to determine the degree to which
variances might be granted to power plants as one possible element in
the solution to the overall coal deficit problem. Table Ib shows a
listing of the AQCRs which were analyzed in this project. The results
from the analysis of each AQCR were detailed in separate reports [3-26]
and were summarized in a final report [48].
In the most recent analyses, the scope was extended to include:
some Priority III AQCRs in the coal-intensive states, other states less
severely involved in the coal-deficit problem, and a number of AQCRs
with oil-fired power plants. This study considered 19 additional AQCRs
not previously modeled. These are also listed in Table Ib and the re-
sults are detailed in separate reports [29-47].
Using simulation modeling, air quality impact is determined for two
basis situations: (1) With SIP regulatory requirements and, (2) with
a full variance from SIP requirements for coal-fired boilers. For those
plants which would probably exceed the 24-hour primary standard, supple-
mental calculations are made for a limited variance case. This shows
the required reduction in coal sulfur content in order not to exceed the
24-hour standard. In both the full and limited variance cases, any oil
burning units are assumed to still have to meet SIP requirements.
-------
It is emphasized that the primary reason for modeling oil-fired
power plants is to evaluate possible interactions with emissions of
coal-fired plants. This study is not intended to provide a basis for
general variances to be granted for oil-fired units since there is no
general projected deficit of low-sulfur oil for 1975.
These modeling studies were intended only to indicate the general
feasibility of reducing the low-sulfur coal deficit by compliance exten-
sions. The study was not designed nor the individual analyses performed
to indicate precise problems or absolute solutions for specific plants.
The final evaluation for a given plant must take into account all relevant
data on the plant site and plant operations, and must recognize the inherent
limitations resulting from the data and procedures used in this modeling
effort.
This study was undertaken prior to the overall oil shortage and energy
crisis arising in the fall of 1973. It does not address that situation,
but rather was formulated and carried out with only the projected 1975
low-sulfur coal deficit in mind.
-------
II. PKOCEDURE OF ANALYSIS
A. SOURCE DATA BASE
Data for the large power plants in the AQCRs studied were taken
directly from the Federal Power Commission (FPC Form 67) and converted
to the computer format required by the model. Base year data were ob-
tained for 1971 operations, the latest year for which FPC Form 67 was
available. For purposes of this study, these data were also used for
1975, since generally this is the target year for attainment of at least
primary air quality standards. Data on increased demand for new units or
new plants to be installed through 1975 were taken from "Steam Electric
Plant Factors 1972 " [27], and from information available through the
Federal Power Commission.
Use of the FPC dat.a__b.ase limits consideration to plants with a gen-
erating capacity of 25 megawatts (MW) or more and which are part of a
public utility system having a total capacity of 150 MW or more, since
these are the only plants which have to file FPC Form 67. For certain
AQCRs, the FPC requires that all plants with a station capacity of 25 MW
or more must be reported regardless of total system capacity. In general,
this data base limitation is reasonable since plants smaller than 25 MW
would have rated capacities no larger than many industrial boilers.
B. DIFFUSION MODELING
A single-source model was used to calculate both annual and
24-hour maximum S02 concentrations from each power plant. This model
was developed recently by the Meteorology Laboratory (NERC, RTP) of
EPA. It employs a Gaussian plume model and Brigg's plume rise equation,
and uses hourly observations of meteorological conditions. A further
description of the model is included in Appendix B. As applied herein,
the model calculates estimated 24-hour average concentrations at a pre-
selected field of receptors for each day of the year from each power plant.
-------
The annual average value for each receptor is also calculated. Where
interactions between power plants are significant, supplementary cal-
culations are made to account for the impact of two or more facilities.
Since only power plant operations were being modeled, it was not
possible, in general, to calibrate the model using measured air quality
data. The calculated values of concentration are considered to be rea-
sonable estimates of anticipated concentrations using best available
modeling techniques.
Modeling of power plant operations was conducted to determine
air quality impact for two basic situations: (1) With full SIP regu-
latory requirements and, (2) with a full variance from SIP requirements
for coal-fired boilers. For the full variance case, it was assumed that
the power plants would continue burning coal with the same sulfur content
as in the base year (1971); however, any oil burned was assumed to still
have to meet SIP requirements. Both annual and 24-hour air quality impact
were evaluated as discussed below.
1. Annual Basis
The maximum annual concentration from all power plants in a
given AQCR was determined based on application of full SIP regulations
and with a full variance. The difference (full variance minus full SIP)
is the projected increase over SIP air quality resulting from variances
to coal-fired power plants. SIP air quality was assumed based upon attain-
ment data of approved implementation plans.
For most states, SIP air quality was assumed to be 60 yg/m
(annual maximum) in 1975, since implementation plans call for attainment
of secondary standards by that time. In this case, if the difference
between full variance and full SIP does not exceed 20 yg/m , it is assumed
o
that the annual primary standard (80 yg/m ) will not be exceeded during
the period of variance. However, for some states SIP air quality was
-------
assumed to be 80 yg/m in 1975, since the implementation plan only calls
for achieving primary standards by that time. Therefore, the increase in
862 concentration arising from granting variances would result in the
annual primary standard apparently being exceeded and this situation was
reported as such.
2. 24-Hour Basis
For each power plant, the point source model was used to
determine the maximum 24-hour concentration based on full SIP regulations
and full variance. Significant interactions between plants are accounted
for externally.
The calculated maximum 24-hour concentration was compared to
a criteria value of 290 yg/m . This value was derived by using the 24-hour
3 3
primary standard (365 yg/m ) and allowing 75 yg/m for the concurrent con-
tribution from other sources. This leaves 290 yg/m (365 - 75 = 290) as
the maximum 24-hour concentration which can be tolerated from power plant
operations without endangering the 24-hour primary standard. The value
3
of 75 yg/m is a conservative estimate of the possible contribution from
all other sources. It is three times greater than the highest contribution
from other sources to 24-hr concentrations found in the modeling analysis
of three Indiana AQCRs, where all sources were considered.
If the results for a power plant indicated a 24-hour concentra-
tion greater than 290 yg/m at full variance, supplemental calculations were
made to determine what percent reduction in coal sulfur content would be
required to bring the 24-hour maximum value to just equal 290 yg/m . The
required coal sulfur content for a limited variance was then also reported.
For plants which have both coal and residual oil burning units, the limited
variance case was calculated by assuming that the residual oil would have
to meet SIP requirements while the coal sulfur content would have to
3
be reduced to a degree such that the criteria value (290 yg/m ) would not
be exceeded.
-------
C. MAXIMUM LOAD VERSUS NOMINAL LOAD OPERATIONS
Emission data input to the single-source model is based on
average monthly operations for each month of the year. Of course, the
level of power plant operations varies from day to day; however, the
FPC data are only available on a monthly basis. A power plant could
quite possibly operate at near maximum rated capacity for twenty-four
hours, especially in an industrialized region. Such operations would
not be apparent from the monthly data. If these operations were coinci-
dent with the days of highest predicted concentrations, the model's maxi-
mum predictions could be significantly low.
Therefore, modeling results are presented in this report for two
situations, as follows:
Nominal Load Case - This presents maximum concentrations calculated
by the model based on average monthly emission rates.
Maximum Load Case - This case was calculated assuming the plant
to be operating at 95 percent of rated capacity during the day of predicted
maximum 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.
Ground-level concentrations arising from nominal and maximum operat-
ing loads can be expected to differ, due to the joint effect of changes in
emission rates, with corresponding changes in stack gas exit velocity and
temperature. The specific interaction of these factors can produce higher
concentrations under either nominal or maximum load conditions. Modeling
of both cases provides a reasonable estimate of the range of possible values
and permits identification of the maximum concentration case. The summary
results presented in this report are based upon the maximum ground-level
concentration case.
-------
D. REGULATIONS APPLIED AND STRATEGIES SIMULATED
Standards for emission of SOo from fuel combustion sources were
taken from the appropriate state or local SIP regulations. These regu-
lations were applied to determine the emission rates with full SIP require-
ments. As previously mentioned, 1971 levels of percent sulfur in coal
were used for the full variance case; however, any residual oil burned
was still assumed to have to meet SIP requirements.
The full SIP requirements and full variance situations were the
two basic strategies simulated. The limited variance case was only cal-
culated where required, as discussed previously. Results are presented
and discussed in terms of: plants evaluated; fuel use totals and re-
quired percent sulfur of coal at SIP, full variance, and (if applicable)
limited variance.
E. SPECIAL ANALYSIS FACTORS
1. Geographic Factors
The 206 power plants included in the analysis of the 51 AQCRs
modeled in this study are distributed throughout 20 states as shown in
Table 2.
Preliminary analysis of the modeling results for a number of
AQCRs indicated that the separation distance between some plants permitted
interaction of ground-level concentrations. This factor was subsequently
considered during the detailed analysis of maximum concentration levels
in the vicinity of these plant sites.
The topography represented within the 20 states analyzed
varied from extremely flat areas in the plains states to very mountainous
terrain in the Southern Appalachians. Where the topography showed sur-
rounding terrain at higher elevations than those of the plants, the model-
ing analysis considered this topographic factor by the application of a
ground-plane displacement procedure described in Appendix B.
-------
In higher relief areas, the area! topography at certain
plant sites was above the calculated plume height for at least one
stack at each of these plants. The analysis procedure considered this
factor by the application of a special model designed to evaluate ground-
level concentrations for the case of elevated receptor sites in valley
locations. The general features of this model are also described in
Appendix B.
The scope of the analysis conducted with this special model
was designed only to determine representative maximum concentration levels.
Because plume dispersion from power plants located in valley sites consti-
tutes a complex interaction of source factors, terrain factors, and meteo-
rological factors, a more detailed and exhaustive analysis of the specific
power plant site is desirable prior to finalizing the evaluation on the
applicable variance status.
2. Meteorological Factors
Surface meteorological data and upper air sounding data used
as input to the models were selected from available sources on the basis
of representativeness for application to the individual power plant.
For power plants where the calculated plume height was lower
than the surrounding terrain, stability class "E" (stable) associated with
a wind speed of 2.5 m/sec was selected as the representative worst-case
condition. Climatological atlas information was used to specify average
surface temperature and pressure for the modeling input.
3. Source Factors
The analyses of these AQCRs included consideration of the
impact from the addition of new units at existing plants, and several
new power plants. For the purpose of evaluating the variance status for
new plants, the programmed sulfur content fuel was applied.
-------
A number of power plant units indicate natural gas and
distillate fuel oil consumption. However, combustion of these fuels
in the quantities reported constitutes negligible contributions to S02
emissions and was not included in the analysis.
Twenty-five power plants indicated residual fuel oil con-
sumption. Although combustion of this fuel in the quantities reported
generally constitutes a small contribution to S02 emissions, it was
included in the analysis. Any plants burning residual oil are assumed
to have to meet SIP requirements.
The evaluation of the Portland Plant (AQCR #151 NE Penn.-
Upper Delaware Valley) included consideration of the new Cat-Ox scrubber
system with a 90 percent efficiency rating. .
The evaluation of the Bruce-Mansfield Plant (AQCR #197,
S.W. Penn.) also included consideration of an S02 scrubber system with
a design efficiency of 92 percent.
The analysis of the Widows Creek Plant (AQCR #7, Tenn. River
Valley) included consideration of an S02 scrubbing system on unit #8 with
an assumed efficiency of 80 percent.
10
-------
III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. COAL
A summary of the results derived from the analysis of 51 AQCRs
is given in Table 3. These data show the total coal demand and net change
in coal demand within selected percent sulfur class intervals. A minus
sign indicates a net decrease in coal demand; a plus sign indicates a net
increase in coal demand.
The total annual coal consumption by power plants in the regions
analyzed is 290 million tons. Under SIP conditions, 176 million tons of
this demand is projected for low-sulfur coal (less than 1.0 percent sulfur).
After application of the allowable variance status, a net decrease in demand
for about 137 million tons of low-sulfur coal can be affected. The com-
pensating effects of the variances are a net increase of 36 million tons
of 1.0-1.5 percent sulfur coal, a net decrease of 8 million tons of 1.5-2.0
percent sulfur coal, and a net increase of 109 million tons of greater than
2.0 percent sulfur coal.
A summary of the projected coal percent sulfur distribution is
shown in Table 4a. These data indicate an overall weighted coal sulfur
of 1.2 percent under full SIP regulations, compared to 2.1 percent sulfur
with the applicable variance. Moreover, Table 4b shows that a full variance
is possible at 62 plants, while a limited variance is possible at 39 plants.
The modeling results also indicate that no variance is appropriate at 80
plants. As previously stated, the 25 residual oil-fired plants were not
considered for variance.
. Tables 5 through 24 provide similar summary projections on a state
by state basis. These data indicate that the greatest shift in the average
coal percent sulfur demand is projected for Indiana, Florida, and Tennessee.
The aggregate consumption for these states is 48 million tons, and the shift
is from an aggregate average of less than 1.0 percent sulfur to greater than
2.0 percent sulfur.
11
-------
A shift of 75 million tons from an aggregate average of less
than 1.0 percent sulfur coal to greater than 1.0 percent sulfur coal (but
less than 2.0 percent) is shown for Alabama and Ohio. A shift of 99 million
tons from an aggregate average of less than 2.0 percent sulfur coal (but
greater than 1.0 percent) to greater than 2.0 percent sulfur coal is shown
for Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. A shift of 26
million tons for greater than 1.0 percent but less than 2.0 percent is
shown for Georgia and Minnesota. A shift of 23 million tons from an ag-
gregate average of greater than 2.0 percent to greater than 3.0 percent
is indicated for Illinois and Iowa. Finally, no change in the percent
sulfur for 19 million tons is indicated for Maryland, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin.
B. RESIDUAL OIL
A summary of power plant residual oil sulfur distribution is
given by AQCR in Table 25 and by state in Table 26. Because variances are
not applicable for oil-fired plants, any plants burning oil are assumed to
have to meet SIP requirements.
C. INDIVIDUAL POWER PLANT SUMMARIES
A detailed tabulation of the variance status derived for each
of the power plants analyzed is given by state in Appendix A. Also, the
specific version of the model used is indicated in parentheses after the
plant name. The following designations are used:
no notation - flat terrain; no adjustments to basic model
(E) - Elevated terrain; ground-plane displacement procedure
used with basic model (see Appendix B)
(V) - Valley terrain with plume(s) confined to the valley; special
model for sources in complex terrain used (see Appendix B)
All the models are subject to numerous assumptions which limit
their predictive accuracy for specific applications. In general, greater
confidence can be placed in the basic flat terrain model than in the ele-
vate!' terrain model. An appreciably lower degree of confidence must be
assiti/ied to the valley terrain model results.
12
-------
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of 206 power plants in 51 AQCR's and 20 states
indicates the following broad conclusions:
- Attainment of primary S0£ air quality standards for the coal-
fired plants will not be jeopardized from the application of
full variance status to 62 plants and limited variance status
to an additional 39 plants. No variance is appropriate for
the remaining 80 plants.
- No variance is applicable for the remaining 25 residual oil-
fired plants. Any plants burning oil are assumed to have to
meet SIP requirements.
- The projected annual reduction in low-sulfur coal demand (less
than 1.0 percent sulfur) is approximately 137 million tons.
- The projected shift in the average coal sulfur distribution is
from 1:2 percent under SIP status to 2.1 percent under the
applicable variance status.
- The power plant variance strategy appears to offer a viable
approach toward ameliorating the low-sulfur coal deficit problem
without jeopardizing attainment of primary air quality standards.
13
-------
TABLE la
LISTING OF AQCRs ANALYZED BY EPA
Name/Number
1. N. Central Illinois - #71
2. W. Central Illinois - #75
3. Louisville - #78
4. Metropolitan Dayton - #173
5. N.W. Ohio - #177
6. Metropolitan Indianapolis - #80
7. S. Indiana - #83
8. Wabash Valley - #84
14
-------
Table Ib
LISTING OF AQCRs ANALYZED BY WALDEN
Name/Number
1. S.W. Pennsylvania (Penn.) - #197
2. Mid Tennessee (Tenn.) - #208
3. Steubenville (Ohio - W. Va.) - #181
4. E. Tennessee - S.W. Virginia (Tenn. - Va.) - #207
5. Tennessee River Valley (Ala. - Tenn.) - #7
6. Metro. Cleveland (Ohio) - #174
7. Metro. Cincinnati (Ohio - Ky. - Ind.) - #79
8. Parkersburg (Ohio - W. Va.) - #179
9. Zanesville (Ohio) - #183
10. Evansville (Ind. - Ky.) - #77
11. South Bend (Ind. - Mich.) - #82
12. Metro. Toledo (Ohio - Mich.) - #124
13. N.W. Pennsylvania (Ohio - Penn.) - #178
14. Cumberland - Keyser (W. Va. - Md.) - #113
15. Burlington - Keokuk (111. - Iowa) - #65
16. Minneapolis - St. Paul (Minn.) - #131
17. Paducah - Cairo (111. - Ky.) - #72
18. S. Central Michigan (Mich.) - #125
19. S. Central Penn. (Penn.) - #196
20. S.E. Minn. - LaCross (Minn. - Wise.) - #128
21. Duluth - Superior (Minn. - Wise.) - #129
22. E. Central Illinois (111.) - #66
23. S.E. Illinois (111.) - #74
24. S.E. Wisconsin (Wise.) - #239
(Continued next page)
15
-------
TABLE Ib (Cont.)
LISTING OF AQCRs ANALYZED BY WALDEN
Name/Number
25. Huntington - Ashland-Portsmouth-Ironton
(W. Va. - Ohio - Ky.) - #103
26. Metro. Columbus (Ohio) - #176
27. Metro. Birmingham (Alabama) - #4
28. Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Miss.
(Fla., Miss., Ala.) - #5
29. Central Georgia (Georgia) - #54
30. Chattanooga (Georgia) - #55
31. Jacksonville - Brunswick (Florida) - #49
32. Savannah - Beaufort (Georgia - South Carolina) - #58
33. Metro. Atlanta (Georgia) - #56
34. Southwest Georgia (Georgia) - #59
35. Metro. Charlotte (North Carolina) - #167
36. Augusta - Aiken (South Carolina) - #53
37. Charleston (South Carolina) - #199
38. Central Pennsylvania (Penn.) - #195
39. N.E. Penn. - Upper Delaware Valley (Penn. - N.J.) - #151
40. Bluegrass (Lexington) (Kentucky) - #102
41. North Central West Virginia (West Virginia) - #235
42. Central Michigan (Michigan) - #122
43. Hampton Roads (Norfolk) (Virginia) - #223
16
-------
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF POWER PLANTS BY STATE
State
Al abama
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Jersey
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total
Oil-Fired
Plants
0
8
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
25
Coal -Fired
Plants
7
3
8
16
18
1
15
1
12
10
1
0
3
32
26
3
7
1
9
8
181
Total Number
of Plants
7
11
12
16
18
1
15
1
12
10
7
1
3
32
27
5
7
4
9
8
206
17
-------
CO
TABLE 3
NET CHANGES IN COAL DEMAND BY APPLICATION OF POWER PLANT VARIANCES IN 51 AQCRs
Priority
I
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
IA
II
IA
I
II
I
I
I
II
II
II
IA
II
II
II
II
I A
(a) A mi
coal
AQCR
#197 S.W. Pennsylvania
#208 Mid. Tennessee
#181 Steubenville
#207 E. Tenn.-S.W. Va.
#7 Tenn. River Valley
#174 Metro. Cleveland
#79 Metro. Cincinnati
#179 Parkersburg
#183 Zanesville
#77 Evansville
#82 South Bend
#124 Metro. Toledo
#178 N.W. Pennsylvania
#113 Cumber! and-Keyser
#65 Burlington-Keokuk
#131 Minneapolis-St. Paul
#72 Paducah-Cairo
#125 S. Central Michigan
#196 S. Central Penn.
#128 S.E. Minn. -LaCrosse
#129 Duluth-Superior
#66 E. Central Illinois
#74 S.E. Illinois
#239 S.E. Wisconsin
#71 N. Central Illinois
nus sign indicates a net decrease
demand.
Coal
Sul
1.0< 1
-2,600
-9,759
-4,350
-2,257
-2,726
-8,590
-3,822
-4,828
-4,671
-7,096
-2,444
-1,936
-1,604
-8,454
-.--
0
0
0
in coal demand;
Demand - 103
fur Content
.0-1.5< 1
Ğ_ _
+3,882
+2,257
+1,521
+3,822
+4,828
+ 958
-1,378
+1,817
--
___
- 559
-6,751
0
0
a plus sign
tons/yr(a)
Class - %
.5-2.0<
mr ğ _
-4,777
+2,726
+2,013
-9,060
- 335
-4,598
---
-1,337
-1,704
indicates
^2.0
+2,600
+9,759
+5,245
+7,069
+3,713
+6,461
627
+10,996
+1 ,939
+4,598
+9,013
+1,337
+6,751
+1 ,704
0
0
0
0
0
0
a net i
Total
Demand
20,404
12,371
13,669
9,697
6,604
8,590
8,978
5,553
4,671
8,474
2,444
10,996
4,990
4,869
9,982
3,365
14,685
1,762
3,905
1,390
2,571
631
942
6,010
772
ncrease in
(Continued next page)
-------
TABLE 3 (Cont.)
NET CHANGES IN COAL DEMAND BY APPLICATION OF POWER PLANT VARIANCES IN 51 AQCRs
Priority
IA
I
II
I
I
IA
I
III
III
II
I
I
II
II
I
I
II
II
II
I
III
(a) A minus
in coal
AQCR
#75 W. Central Illinois
#78 Louisville
#173 Metro. Dayton
#177 N.W. Ohio
#80 Metro. Indianapolis
#82 S. Indiana
#84 Wabash Valley
#103 Huntington-Ashland-
Portsmouth- Iron ton
#176 Metro. Columbus
#4 Metro. Birmingham
#5 Mobile-Pensacola-
Panama City-S. Miss.
#54 Central Georgia
#55 Chattanooga
#49 Jacksonville-Brunswick
#58 Savannah-Beaufort
#56 Metro. Atlanta
#59 Southwest Georgia
#167 Metro. Charlotte
#53 Augusta-Aiken
#199 Charleston
#195 Central Penn.
sign indicates a net decrease
demand.
Coal
Sul
1.0< 1
...
-6,333
-2,006
- 58
-3,110
-3,904
-5,991
-16,532
-303
-10,772
-5,041
...
-11,840
0
_
-525
...
in coal demand;
Demand - 103
fur Content
.0-1.5< 1
...
+2,036
+ 996
+13,410
+9,492
-218
"" *
a plus sign
tons/yr(a)
Class - %
.5-2.0<
...
+1,010
+1 ,931
+2,755
+1 ,280
+218
+525
V Ğ
indicates
^2.0
0
+4,297
+ 58
+1,179
+3,904
+3,236
+3,122
+303
+5,041
+11,840
"~
Total
Demand
7,255
6,333
2,105
58
3,110
3,904
5,991
21 ,828
303
10,772
7,202
3,622
11,840
0
684
4,359
525
5,711
314
644
5,913
a net increase
(Continued next page)
-------
ro
o
TABLE 3 (Cont.)
NET CHANGES IN COAL DEMAND BY APPLICATION OF POWER PLANT VARIANCES IN 51 AQCRs
Priority
II
III
III
III
II
AQCR
#151 N.E. Penn. -Upper Delaware
Valley
#102 Bluegrass (Lexington)
#235 N. Central W. Virginia
#122 Central Michigan
#223 Hampton Roads
Total Net Change
Total SIP Demand
Total Variance Demand
Net Change - Priority I &
I A AQCRs
Net Change - Priority II AQCRs
Net Change - Priority III AQCRs
Total Net Change
(a) A minus sign indicates a net decrease
in coal demand.
Coal
Sul
1.0< 1
-5,851
0
-137,403
175,867
38,464
-62,465
-52,252
-22,686
Demand - 103
fur Content
.0-1.5< 1
+36,113
31,142
67,255
+11,694
+11,009
+13,410
-137,403 +36,113
in coal demand; a plus si
tons/yr(a
Class - %
.5-2.0<
+1,549
-7,804
24,925
17,121
-12,142
+2,789
+1 ,549
)
^2.0
+4,302
+109,094
58,097
167,191
+62,913
+38,454
+7,727
-7,804 +109,094
gn indicates a net
Total
Demand
2,451
1,519
9,412
5,851
0
290,031
290,031
140,615
104,590
44,826
290,031
increase
-------
TABLE 4a
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION FOR 51 AQCRs
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP
Regulations
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg XS
9,639
166,228
175,867
31,142
24,925
56,067
47,221
10,876
58,097
290,031
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.6
1.3
2.3
3.2
2.5
1.2
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg XS
4,597
35,547
40,144
67,255
17,121
84,376
87,684
74,959
2,868
165,511
290,031
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.6
1.3
2.5
3.3
4.3
2.9
2.1
TABLE 4b
POWER PLANT SUMMARY FOR 51 AQCRs
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 62 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 39 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 80 Plants
Totals = 181 Plants
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
106,532
81 ,442
102,057
290,031
Coal
At SIP
1.1
0.7
1.6
1.2
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
2.6
1.9
1.6
2.1
21
-------
TABLE 5a
ALABAMA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP With Applicable
Regulations Variance
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
19,635 0.7 3,878
19,635 0.7 3,878
9,492
4,006
13,498
2,259
2,259
19,635 0.7 19,635
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.8
1.4
2.6
2.6
1.4
TABLE 5b
ALABAMA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 5 Plants
Plants Where limited Variance
Is Possible = i Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 1 Plants
1975 Coal Use
1 ,000 Tons/Yr
13,031
2,726
3,878
Coal
At SIP
0.7
0.7
0.7
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
. 1.5
1.7
0.7
Total- = 7 Plants
19,635
0.7
1.4
22
-------
TABLE 6a
FLORIDA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Full SIP
Regulations
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
With Applicable
Variance
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
2,782 0.9
2,782 0.9
218 1.0
218 1.7
218 1.0 218 1.7
2,782 3.0
2,782 3.0
3,000 0.9 3,000 2.9
TABLE 6b
FLORIDA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 3 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = o Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = o Plants
Totals = 3 Plants
3,000
0.9
2.9
3,000
0.9
2.9
-------
TABLE 7a -
GEORGIA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP
Regulations
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
1,164
1 3 ,880
15,044
3,622
3,622
1 ,680
1 ,680
20,346
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.2
2.2
2.2
1.0
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
1,164
3,195
4,359
3,622
525
4,147
. 11,840
11,840
20,346
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.7
1.2
2.5
2.5
1.9
TABLE 7b
GEORGIA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 1 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 1 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 6 Plants
Tote Is = 8 Plants
1975 Coal Use
1 ,000 Tons/Yr
525
10,160
9,661
20,346
Coal
At SIP
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.0
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
1.7
2.5
1.1
1.9
24
-------
TABLE 8a
ILLINOIS POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class - %
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP
Regulations
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
8,454
8,454
559
559
4,972
8,207
13,179
22,192
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
2.6
3.2
3.0
2.1
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg
7,165 2.
15,027 3.
22,192 3.
22,192 3.
%S
6
3
0
0
TABLE 8b
ILLINOIS POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 3 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 1 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 12 Plants
Totals = 16 Plants
1975 Coal Use
1 ,000 Tons/Yr
3,224
6,261
12,707
22,192
Coal
At SIP
1.2
0.7
3.0
2.1
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
2.7
3.4
3.0
3.0
25
-------
TABLE 9a
INDIANA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Full SIP
Regulations
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0< 25,047 0.7
Sub- total 25,047 0.7
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total 25,047 0.7
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
1,972
1,972
1,817
6,699
8,516
4,671
9,888
14,559
25,047
0.8
0.8
1.4
1.6
1.6
2.5
3.3
3.0
2.4
TABLE 9b
INDIANA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 12 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 6 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = o Plants
1975 Coal Use
1 ,000 Tons/Yr
16,802
8,245
Coal
At SIP
0.7
0.7
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
2.7
1.7
Totals = 18 Plants 25,047 0.7 2.4
26
-------
TABLE lOa
IOWA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Full SIP
Regulations
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
With Applicable
Variance
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
497 2.7
497 3.0
497 2.7 497 3.0
497 2.7 497 3.0
TABLE lOb
IOWA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 1 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 0 Plants
Totals
Plants
497
497
2.7
3.0
2.7
3.0
27
-------
TABLE lla
KENTUCKY POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP
Regulations
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg XS
7,507
7,507
15,600
15,600
1,124
1,124
24,231
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.1
2.2
2.2
1.1
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg XS
242
242
10,969
10,969
10,493
2,259
268
13,020
24,231
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
2.6
3.5
4.1
3.1
2.0
TABLE lib
KENTUCKY POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where
Is Possible
Plants Where
Is Possible
Plants Where
Is Appropri
Full Variance
= 5 Plants
Limited Variance
= 6 Plants
No Variance
ate = 4 Plants
4
12
7
,105
,413
,713
1
1
1
.2
.0
.1
2
2
1
.2
.5
.1
Totals = 15 Plants
24,231
1.1
2.0
28
-------
TABLE 12a
MARYLAND POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Full SIP
Regulations
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5< 271 1.0
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total 271 1.0
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total 271 1.0
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
271 1.0
271 1.0
271 1.0
TABLE 12b
MARYLAND POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = o Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = \ Plants
Totals = 1 Plants
271
271
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
29
-------
TABLE 13a
MICHIGAN POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4,0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP With Applicable
Regulations Variance
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
5,851 0.9
5,851 0.9
58 1.0 58
10,764 1.5 1,549
10,822 1.5 1,607
5,649
9,417
15,066
16,673 1.3 16,673
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.3
3.1
2.8
2.7
TABLE 13b
MICHIGAN POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 6 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 5 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 1 Plants
Totals = 12 Plants
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
10,866
5,749
58
16,673
Coal
At SIP
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.3
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.7
30
-------
TABLE 14a
MINNESOTA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP
Regulations
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg XS
2,278
2,278
1,305
2,353
3,658
72
72
6,008
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.4
2.0
2.0
1.2
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg XS
2,278
2,278
1,305
1,016
2,321
72
1,337
1,409
6,008
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.4
2.0
3.1
3.0
1.6
TABLE 14b
MINNESOTA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 2 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = o Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 8 Plants
Totals = 10 Plants
1,355
1.5
3.1
4,653
6,008
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.6
31
-------
TABLE 15a
MISSISSIPPI POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Applicable
Variance
With Full SIP
Regulations
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
1,943 2.4 1,943 2.4
1,943 2.4 1,943 2.4
1,943 2.4 1,943 2.4
TABLE 15b
MISSISSIPPI POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 1 Plants
Totals = 1 Plants
1,943
1,943
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
32
-------
TABLE 16a
NEW JERSEY POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Applicable
Variance
With Full SIP
Regulations
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg XS 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg XS
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
ğ
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
0
TABLE 16b
NEW JERSEY POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = Plants
Totals = 0 Plants
33
-------
TABLE 17a
NORTH CAROLINA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class - %
With Full SIP
Regulations
1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
With Applicable
Variance
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
1,051 0.9 1,051 0.9
1,051 0.9 1,051 0.9
4,660 1.1 4,660 1.1
4,660 1.1 4,660 1.1
.
5,711 1.1 5,711 1.1
TABLE I7a
NORTH CAROLINA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 3 Plants
Totals = 3 Plants
5,711
5,711
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
34
-------
TABLE 18a
OHIO POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP With Applicable
Regulations Variance
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
55,063 0.6 7,825
55,063 0.6 7,825
27,955
1,010
28,965
13,532
4,741
18,273
55,063 0.6 55,063
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.6
1.2
2.4
3.2
2.6
1.6
TABLE 18b
OHIO POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible =13 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 15 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 4 Plants
Totals = 32 Plants
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
16,233
31,189
7,641
55,063
Coal
At SIP
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
1.6
1.8
0.6
1.6
35
-------
TABLE 19a
PENNSYLVANIA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP
Regulations
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
8,475
1,089
9,564
716
401
1,117
25,378
25,378
36,059
0.4
0.6
0.4
1.2
1.6
1.3
2.4
2.4
1.9
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
3,433
3,531
6,964
716
66
782
21,871
3,842
2,600
28,313
36,059
0.4
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.9
1.2
2.5
3.1
4.3
2.7
2.3
TABLE 19b
PENNSYLVANIA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 4 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 2 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 20 Plants
Totals = 26 Plants
1975 Coal Use
1 ,000 Tons/Yr
9,796
2,442
23,821
36,059
Coal
At SIP
.2.0
0.3
2.0
1.9
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
3.3
0.7
2.0
2.3
36
-------
TABLE 20a
SOUTH CAROLINA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Full SIP With Applicable
Regulations Variance
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
1,328 1.2. 1,328 1.2
314 1.5. 314 1.5
1,642 1.3 1,642 1.3
1,642 1.3 1,642 1.3
TABLE 20b
SOUTH CAROLINA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
1975 Coal Use Coal Percent Sulfur
Situation 1,000 Tons/Yr At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 3 Plants 1,642 1.3 1.3
Totals = 3 Plants 1,642 1.3 1.3
37
-------
TABLE 21 a
TENNESSEE POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class -
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1.5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP With Applicable
Regulations Variance
% 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
20,150 0.7 8,134
20,150 0.7 8,134
2,257
2,257
9,759
9,759
20,150 0.7 20,150
0.7
0.7
1.4
1.4
3.6
3.6
2.2
TABLE 21b
TENNESSEE POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 2 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 2 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 3 Plants
Totals = 7 Plants
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
9,759
2,257
8,134
20,150
Coal
At SIP
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Percent Sulfur
At Variance
3.6
1.2
0.7
2.2
38
-------
TABLE 22 a
VIRGINIA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Full SIP
Regulations
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0< 1,918 0.7
Sub-total 1,918 0.7
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total 1,918 0.7
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
1,918 0.7
1,918 0.7
1,918 0.7
TABLE 22b
VIRGINIA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 1 Plants
Totals = 1 Plants
1,918
1,918
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
-------
TABLE 23a
WEST VIRGINIA POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
Sulfur Content Class - %
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.0-1,5<
1.5-2.0<
Sub-total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
With Full SIP
Regulations
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
2,805
11,093
13,898
8,419
8,419
22,317
1.4
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.0
1.8
With Applicable
Variance
1 ,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
2,805
1,718
4,523
5,053
12,741
17,794
22,317
1.4
1.7
1.5
2.3
3.3
3.0
2.7
TABLE 23b
WEST VIRGINIA POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 5 Plants 17,339
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 4 Plants 4,978
Totals = 9 Plants 22,317
1.8
1.6
1.8
3.1
1.6
2.7
40
-------
TABLE 24a
WISCONSIN POWER PLANT COAL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION
With Full SIP
Regulations
Sulfur Content Class - % 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S 1,000 Tons/Yr Avg %S
With Applicable
Variance
0.0-0.5<
0.5-1.0<
Sub-total
1.5-2.0<
Sub- total
2.0-3.0<
3.0-4.0<
4.0-6.0<
Sub-Total
Total
1,523
1,523
3,136
2,669
5,805
7,328
0.6
0.6
2.1
3.2
2.6
2.2
1,523
1,523
3,136
2,669
5,805
7,328
0.6
0.6
2.1
3.2
2.6
2.2
TABLE 24b
WISCONSIN POWER PLANT SUMMARY
Situation
1975 Coal Use
1,000 Tons/Yr
Coal Percent Sulfur
At SIP At Variance
Plants Where Full Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where Limited Variance
Is Possible = 0 Plants
Plants Where No Variance
Is Appropriate = 8 Plants
Totals = 8 Plants
7,328
7,328
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
41
-------
TABLE 25
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT RESIDUAL OIL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION BY AQCR*
Priority
II
II
I
I
III
II
I
*Variances
meet SIP
AQCR
#151 NE. Penn. -Upper
Delaware Valley
#223 Hampton Roads
#199 Charleston
#5 Mobile-Pensacola-
Panama City-S. Mississippi
#122 Central Michigan
#49 Jacksonville-
Brunswick
#58 Savannah-Beaufort
Total SIP Demand
Total Priority I&IA AQCRs
Total Priority II AQCRs
Total Priority III AQCRs
are not applicable for oil-fi
requirements.
SIP Oil Demand - 103 gals/yr
Sulfur Content Class - %
0.5< 0.5-1.0< 1.0-1.5< 1.5-2.0< >2.0
487,956
13,696
17,543
14,341
.. _ _
533,536
17,543
501 ,652
14,341
red plants
2,741
612,948
71,736
687,425
74,477
612,948
. Any pi
573,195
22
1
166,992 48
63,613
803,800 71
63,613 23
740,187 48
ants burning
,814
,001
,104
,919
,815
,104
oil
203,994
232,624
12,647
5,926
455,191
251,197
203,994
are assumed
Total
Demand
487,956
790,885
255,438
33,932
14,341
828,044
141,275
2,551,871
430,645
2,106,885
14,341
to have to
-------
TABLE 26
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT RESIDUAL OIL SULFUR DISTRIBUTION BY STATE*
State
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
Mississippi
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Virginia
Total SIP Demand
0.5<
14,341
17,543
84,000
403,956
13,696
533,536
SIP Oil
Sulfur
0.5-1.0<
612,948
71,736
i
2,741
687,425
Demand -103 Gals/Yr
Content Class - %
1.0-1.5< 1.5-2.0<
166,992
63,613 48,104
1,001
___
22,814
573,195
803,800 71,919
>2.0
5,926
12,647
232,624
203,994
455,191
Total
Demand
779,940
189,379
14,341
33,932
84,000
403,956
255,438
790,885
2,551,871
*Variances are not applicable for oil-fired plants. Any plants burning oil are assumed to have to
meet SIP requirements.
-------
REFERENCES*
1. "Fuel Distribution Study for the Indianapolis, Southern Indiana,
and Wabash Valley AQCRs," EPA draft report, March 1973, & addendum
dated April 12, 1973. (AQCRs 80, 83, 84, APTIC 75403)
2. "Fuel Distribution Study for 5 Mid-West AQCRs," EPA draft report,
revised May 1973. (AQCRs 71, 75, 78, 173, 177, APTIC 75404)
3. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Southwest Pennsylvania AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, August 21, 1973. (AQCR 197, APTIC 75441)
4. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions - Mid
Tennessee AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for EPA,
June 27, 1973. (AQCR 208, APTIC 75444)
5. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Steubenville AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for EPA,
July 31, 1973. (AQCR 181, APTIC 75437)
6. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
E. Tennessee - S.W. Virginia AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden
Research for EPA, June 8, 1973. (AQCR 207, APTIC 75443)
7. "Model ing Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Tennessee River Valley AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, July 22, 1973. (AQCR 7, APTIC 75407)
8. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Metropolitan Cleveland AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, July 27, 1973. (AQGR 174, APTIC 75433)
9. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Metropolitan Cincinnati AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, July 21, 1973. (AQCR 79, APTIC 75420)
10. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Parkersburg AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for EPA,
August 1, 1973. (AQCR 179, APTIC 75436)
11. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Zanesville AQCR," draft-report prepared by Walden Research for EPA,
June 28, 1973. (AQCR 183, APTIC 75438)
12. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Evansville AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for EPA,
June 18, 1973. (AQCR 77, APTIC 75419)
*<;Jith the exception of references #27 and #28, the following reports
may be obtained from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. The APTIC number for each report is noted in
parentheses.
44
-------
13. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions - South
Bend AQCR," draft report prepared by Wai den Research for EPA,
May 1, 1973. (AQCR 82, APTIC.75421)
14. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Metropolitan Toledo AQCR," draft report prepared by Wai den Research
for EPA, August 1, 1973. (AQCR 124, APTIC 75426)
15. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions - N.W.
Pennsylvania AQCR," draft report prepared by Wai den Research for
EPA, August 3, 1973. (AQCR 178, APTIC 75435)
16. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Cumberland - Keyser AQCR," draft report prepared by Wai den Research
for EPA, August 10, 1973. (AQCR 113, APTIC 75424)
17. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Burlington - Keokuk AQCR," draft report prepared by Wai den Research
for EPA, July 9, 1973. (AQCR 65, APTIC 75415)
18. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Minneapolis - St. Paul AQCR," draft report prepared by Wai den Research
for EPA, July 26, 1973. (AQCR 131, APTIC 75430)
19. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Paducah - Cairo AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for
EPA, June 15, 1973. (AQCR 72, APTIC 75417)
20. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
S. Central Michigan AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, August 7, 1973. (AQCR 125, APTIC 75427)
21. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
S. Central Pennsylvania AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, August 21, 1973. (AQCR 196, APTIC 75440)
22. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
S.E. Minnesota - LaCrosse AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden
Research for EPA, July 21, 1973. (AQCR 128, APTIC 75428)
23. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Duluth - Superior AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, August 6;, 1973. (AQCR 129, APTIC 75429)
24. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
E. Central Illinois AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, July 28, 1973. (AQCR 66, APTIC 75416)
25. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
S.E. Illinois AQCR," draft report prepared "by Walden Research for
EPA, July 9, 1973. (AQCR 74, APTIC 75418)
45
-------
26. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
S.E. Wisconsin AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for
EPA, August 21, 1973. (AQCR 239, APTIC 75447)
27. Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1972 Edition, National Coal Association,
Washington, D.C. (1973).
28. Turner, D.B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," U.S.
Dept. of H.E.W., PHS Pub. No. 992-AP-26 (Rev. 1970).
29. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Huntington-Ashland-Portsmouth-Ironton AQCR," draft report prepared
by Walden Research for EPA, September 25, 1973. (AQCR 103, APTIC 75423)
30. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Metropolitan Columbus AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, August 21, 1973. (AQCR 176, APTIC 75434)
31. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Metropolitan Birmingham AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden
Research for EPA. September 11, 1973. (AQCR 4, APTIC 75405)
32. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions - Mobile-
Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi AQCR," draft report pre-
pared by Walden Research for EPA, November 5, 1973. (AQCR 5", APTIC 75406)
33. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions - Central
Georgia AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for EPA,
September 11, 1973. (AQCR 54, APTIC 75410)
34. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Chattanooga AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for
EPA, September 25, 1973. (AQCR 55, APTIC 75411)
35. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Jacksonville-Brunswick AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, October 11, 1973. (AQCR 49, APTIC 75408)
36. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Savannah-Beaufort AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, October 8, 1973. (AQCR 58, APTIC 75413)
37. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Metropolitan Atlanta AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, September 20, 1973. (AQCR 56, APTIC 75412)
38. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Southwest Georgia AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, September 14, 1973. (AQCR 59, APTIC 75414)
46
-------
39. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Metropolitan Charlotte AQCR," draft report prepared by Walderi
Research for EPA, October 8, 1973. (AQCR 167, APTIC 75432)
40. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Augusta-Aiken AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, September 18, 1973. (AQCR 53, APTIC 75409)
41. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Charleston AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research for
EPA, October 10, 1973. (AQCR 199, APTIC 75442)
42. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Central Pennsylvania AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, October 2, 1973. (AQCR 195, APTIC 75439)
43. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
NE. Penn.-Upper Delaware Valley AQCR," draft report prepared by
Walden Research for EPA, October 29, 1973. (AQCR 151, APTIC 75431)
44. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Bluegrass (Lexington) AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden
Research for EPA, September 14, 1973. (AQCR 102, APTIC 75422)
45. "Modeling. Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
N. Central W. Virginia AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden
Research for EPA, September 13, 1973. (AQCR 235, APTIC 75446)
46. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Central Michigan AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, October 31, 1973. (AQCR 122, APTIC 75425)
47. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions -
Hampton Roads (Norfolk) AQCR," draft report prepared by Walden
Research for EPA, October 18, 1973. (AQCR 223, APTIC 75445)
48. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Estensions in 32
Air Quality Control Regions," final report prepared by Walden Research
for EPA, September 26, 1973. (Unpublished since entire report
material is included in current report.)
47
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE SUMMARIES OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
TABLE A-l
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
ALABAMA
AQCR
§7 Tennessee River
Valley
#4 Metropolitan
Birmingham
#5 Mobile-Pensacola-
Panama City-S.
Plant
Colbert
Widows /, %
Creek (V)(DJ
Gaston (V)
Green County (E)
Gorgas (E)
Barry
Chickasaw
County
Colbert
Jackson
Shelby
Greene
Walker
Buck
Mobile
1975 Coal Use
103 Tons/Yr
2,726
3,878
5,701
1,280
3,791
2,138
121
, At SIP
%S
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
Status %3 103 Gal/Yr %S
Limited
sip(a)
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
1.7
0.7
1.1
1.9
1.4
2.6
2.7
(a) Modeling calculations indicate that tne 24-hour air quality standard will be exceeded even at SIP.
(b) V indicates use of the special "valley" model for sources in complex terrain; E indicates ground displacement
procedure used with the basic model; no notation is shown for cases where the basic flat terrain model was
used.
-------
no
TABLE A-2
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
FLORIDA
#49
#5
(a)
AQCR
Jacksonvi He-
Brunswick
Mobile-Pensacol
Panama City-S.
Mississippi
Variances are
requirements.
Plant
Palatka (E)
Suwannee
Kennedy
Southside
Northside
Hopkins
Purdom
Deerhaveri
a- Crist
Lansing-Smith
Scholz
not applicable for
1
County
Putnam
Suwannee
Duval
Duval
Duval
Leon
Wakulla
Alachua
Escambia
Bay
Jackson
oil-fired plants
975 Coal Use,
TO3 Tons/Yr
.
-
2,011
771
218
. Any plants
At SIP At Variance
%S Status %S
'
.
0.9 Full
0.9 Full
1.0 Full
burning oil are
3.0
3.1
1.7
assumed
1975 Oil Use,
103 Gal/Yr
38,766
42,168
79,548
130,158
443,058
252
6,258
39,732
to have to meet
At SIP
%S
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.1
1.1
0.7
SIP
(a)
-------
TABLE A-3
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
GEORGIA
#55
#54
#58
#56
#49
#59
(a)
(b)
(c)
AQCR
Chattanooga
Central
Georgia
Savannah-
Beaufort
Metro. Atlanta
Jacksonville-
Brunswick
SW Georgia
The 1971 coal
sulfur content
Plant
Hammond (V)^
Bo wen (E)
Arkwright (E
Harlee
Branch (E)(
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP(
County 103 Tons/Yr %S Status %S 103 Gal/Yr %S
a,b)
a)
Port Wentworth
Riverside
Effingham
Atkinson (E)
McDonough(E)
Yates (E)
McManus
Mitchell (E)
percent sulfur
(b)
(b)
Floyd
Bar tow
Bibb
Putnam
Chatham
Chatham
Effingham
Cobb
Cobb
Coweta
Glynn
Dougherty
content is below SIP
1,680
10,160
196
3,426
143
1,164
3,052
525
regulation
2
0
1
1
-
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
.2
,8
.2
.2
--
__
.7
.4
.8
--
.7
SIP^
Limi
SIP
/
SIP^
SIP
SIP
SIP
Full
a) 2
ted 2
1
\
a) 1
-
-
-
0
0
0
-
1
requirements; therefore
.2
= 5
.2
.2
63,613
5,926
71,736
.7
.4
.8
48,104
.7
, 1971 coal percent
__ _
_
1.1
2.4
0.8
.. . _
1.5
was used and reported as SIP.
Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary air
Variances are
not appl i cable
for
oil-fired plants.
qual ity
standard
Any plants burning
may be
exceeded even at SIP
.
oil are assumed to have to meet
SIP requirements.
-------
TABLE A-4
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
ILLINOIS
#65
#72
#66
#74
#71
(a)
(b)
(c)
AQCR
Burlington-
l/p A|/ 1 1 \f
JxCUMJ K
Paducah-Cairo
East Central
Illinois
SE Illinois
North Central
Illinois
Plant
Edwards (E)
Wallace
Powerton
Havana
Joppa
Vermilion
Abbott
Grand Towe'r(E)
Hutsonville
Dixon
Hennepin
1971 coal percent sulfur content
content was
Model ing cal
Calculations
used and reported as
County
Peoria
Tazewel 1
Tazewel 1
Mason
Massac
Vermilion
Champaign
Jackson
Crawford
Lee
Putnam
is below SIP
SIP.
1975 Coal Use, At SIP
103 Tons/Yr XS
2,193
559
6,261
472
3,107
486
145
509
433
292
480
regulation
0
1
0
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
.8
.0
.7
.2
.7
.9
.6
.3
3
-8(a
.l(a
requirements;
culations indicate that the 24-hour primary air quality
indicate that annual
primary standard may be
exceeded
At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
Status XS 103 Gal/Yr XS
Ful
Ful
1
1
Li mi
Ful
SIP
SIP
.SIP
SIP
SIP
)SIP
^SIP
1
ted
(a)
(
(
(
(
(
(
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
therefore
standard
even
at
may
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
.5
.0
.4
.3
.7(b)
.9
.6
o(b,c)
O Ğ __
.3
.8
.1
, 1971 coal percent sulfur
be
exceeded even at SIP.
SIP. *
(Continued next page)
-------
TABLE A-4 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
ILLINOIS
AQCR
#75
West Central
Illinois
(a)
1971
coal percent
content was used
(b)
Model
Plant
Coffeen
Dallman
Kincaid
Lakeside
Meredosia
County
Montgomery
Sangamon
Christian
Sangamon
Morgan
sulfur content is below SIP
and reported
ing calculations indicate
as SIP.
1975 Coal Use, At SIP
103 Tons/Yr XS
2,815
501
2,999
248
692
3
3
3
3
3
.1
.3
.1
.3
.5
regulation requirements;
that the 24-hour primary air
quality
At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
Status XS 103 Gal/Yr XS
SIP
SIP
SIP
SIP
SIP
therefore ,
standard may
3
2
3
3
3
.1
.3
.1
.3
.5
(b )
(b )
(b)
(b)
(b)
, 1971 coal percent sulfur
be
exceeded even at SIP.
-------
J>
TABLE A-5
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
INDIANA
AQCR
#78 Louisville
#80 Indianapolis
#83 Southern Indiana
#84 Wabash Valley
#82 South Bend
#79 Metropolitan
Cincinnati
#77 Evansville
Plant -
Gallagher
Noblesville
Perry
Pritchard
Stout
Clifty Creek
Breed
Cayuga
Dresser
Edwardsport
Wabash River
Michigan City
Twin Branch
Tanners Creek(E)
Petersburg
(Frank Ratts)(E)
Petersburg (E)
Culley
Gibson (E)
County
Floyd
Hamilton
Marion
Morgan
Marion
Jefferson
Sullivan
Vermilion
Vigo
Knox
Vigo
La Porte
St. Joseph
Dearborn
Pike
Pike
Warrick
Gibson
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use
103 Tons/Yr %S Status %S 103 Gal/Yr
1,679
115
289
775
1,931
3,904
979
1,866
391
420
2,335
1,817
627
1,972
719
2,019
1,196
2,013
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Full
Full
Full
Full
Limited
Full
Full
Full
Limited
Limited
Limited
Full
Full
Limited
Full
Full
Limited
Full
3.3
2.9
3.2
2.4
1.8
3.1
3.8
2.3
3.4
1.9
1.5
1.4
3.2
0.8
2.9 -,
3.4
2.6
1.5
, At SIP
XS
_ _ _
-!--
.
_ V
-------
TABLE A-6
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
IOWA
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
AQCR Plant County 103 Tons/Yr XS Status XS 103 Gal/Yr XS
#65 Burlington-Keokuk Burlington (E) Des Moines 497 2.7 Full 3.0
-------
I
CO
TABLE A-7
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
KENTUCKY
#72
#77
#79
#78
(a)
(b)
AQCR
Paducah-Cairo
Evansville
Metropolitan
Cincinnati
Louisville
Modeling cal
Calculations
Plant
Green River
Paradise (E)
Shawnee
Coleman (E)
Reid
Smith (E)
Owensboro
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
County 103 Tons/Yr %S Status %S 103 Gal/Yr %S
Muhlenburg
Muhlenburg
McCracken
Hancock
Henderson
Daviess
Daviess
6
4
1
1
Ghent (E) ' : Carroll 1
Cane Run Jefferson 2
Mill Creek Jefferson 2
Paddy's Run Jefferson
culations indicate that the 24-hour primary
indicate that annual
primary standard
may
. _i _ . . _i
657
,094
,827
,008
268
,149
102
,462
,036
,391
227
air
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.8
.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
quality
be exceeded
Li mi
Limi
SIP
Limi
Full
Full
Full
ted
ted
ted
Full
Limited^0
Limited^0
Limited^0
standard may
even at
j_ j _ j e
SIP.
2
.2
1
3
4
3
3
1
>2
>2
be
Ai
.7
.7
j(a>b) _._
.7
i
I
.3
.2
.0
.3
.7 --- .
.1
exceeded even at SIP.
r quality in Kentucky
(c)
portion of AQCR #72 is presently below primary standards; attainment date for secondary standard is
July 1978.
Calculations indicate that annual primary standard may be exceeded with variances as shown. Kentucky's
attainment date for both .primary and secondary standards in AQCR #78 is 1977.
(Continued next page)
-------
TABLE A-7 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
KENTUCKY
AQCR
Ashland-
Portsmouth-
Ironton
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
Plant
County
10° Tons/Yr
%S
Status
%S 10J Gal/Yr
%S
#102 Bluegrass
(Lexington)
#103 Huntington-
Tyrone (V)(a'b)
Brown (E)
Dale (V) (d'b'
Big Sandy(E)^
Woodford
Mercer
Clark
Lawrence
153
1,124
242
2,491
1.0
2.2
0.9
1.1
SIp(b)
Full
SIP(b)
SIP^
1.0
2.3
0.9
1.1
_ -
_ _ Ğ
_-_
(a) Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary air quality standard may be exceeded even at SIP.
(b) The 1971 coal percent sulfur content is below SIP requirements; therefore, the 1971 percent sulfur was
used and reported as SIP.
-------
TABLE A-8
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
MARYLAND
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
AQCR Plant County 103 Tons/Yr %S Status %S 103 Gal/Yr ZS
#113 Cumberland-Keyser Smith (E) Washington 271 1.0 Slp'a^ 1.0
(a) 1971 coal percent sulfur content is exactly at SIP requirements.
-------
TABLE A-9
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
MICHIGAN
#124
#125
#122
(a)
AQCR
Metropolitan
To 1 o f\ r\
1 U 1 cUU
South Central
Michigan
Central
mr* h "i n D KI
cm gcin
Estimated 1971
Plant
Whiting
Monroe
Elm Street
Eckert
Ottawa
Erickson
Harbor Beach
Weadock
Saginaw
Karn(u)
Campbell (E)
Cobb
County
Monroe
Monroe
Calhoun
Ingham
Ingham
Ingham
Huron
Bay
Saginaw
Bay
Ottawa
Muskegon
coal percent sulfur is below
content was used and reported as
(b)
The projected
oil percent sulfur
oil percent sulfur was used and
(c)
Variances are
requirements.
not appl icable for
SIP.
1975 Coal Use, At
103 Tons/Yr
984
8,076
58
671
102
665
266
1,452
97
1,427
1,341
1,534
SIP regulation
content will be below SIP
reported as
oil-fired
SIP.
plants . Any pi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
SIP
%S
.5
.5
.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP(
Status %S 103 Gal/Yr %S
Full
Full
SIP^
Limi
Full
a)
ted
Limited
Full
Limi
Full
Limi
Full
Limi
ted
ted
ted
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
requirements; therefore,
regulation
ants burning
requirements
9
.7
.0
.0
.1
c
J
.8
.6
.5
.5
.1 14,341
.4
.1
the 1971 coal
therfore, the
oil are assumed to have to
.... _
_ _ _
0<2(b)
sulfur
projected
meet SIP
-------
TABLE A-10
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
MINNESOTA
#129
#128
#131
(a)
AQCR
Duluth-Superior
SE
La
Minnesota-
Crosse
Minneapolis-
St
. Paul
Plant
Aurora (E)
Clay Boswell (E)
Hibbard (V)
Fox Lake
Wilmarth (E)
Winona
Riverside (E)
Black Dog '(E)
High Bridge (E)
King (E)
1971 coal percent sulfur content
and reported as
(b)
Modeling calcul
SIP.
County
St. Louis
Itasca
St. Louis
Martin
Blue Earth
Winona
Hennepin
Dakota
Ramsey
Washington
was below SIP
ations indicate that the 24-hour
1975 Coal Use, At SIP
103 Tons/Yr %S
351
1,927
293
18
26
28
1,012
554
462
1,337
requirements
primary air
0
0
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
.9
.9
.4
.0
.0
.0
.2
.5
.5
.5
; therefore,
quality
At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
Status %S 103 Gal/Yr %S
sip
sip
SIP
Ful
SIP
SIP
SIP
SIP
SIP
Ful
(a)
(a)
(a)
1
(a)
1
1971 coal
standard may
0
0
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
g(b)
q ___
/ ^ * . .
<4(b)
.1
0^)
.0(b)
2
-------
I
OJ
TABLE A-n
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
MISSISSIPPI
AQCR
#5 Mobile-Pensacola-
Panama City-S.
Mississippi
Plant :
Wilson^
Natchez (E)^3'
/ \
Brown ^ '
Eaton(a)
Watson^b^
Sweatt (V)(a)
Moselle^
County
Warren
Adam
Hinds
Forrest
Harrison
Lauderdale
Jones
1975 Coal Use,
103 Tons/Yr
...
.
...
1,943
_ ~
At SIP
%S
...
2.4
At Variance 1975 Oil Use,
Status %S 103 Gal/Yr
17,543
1,001
5,796
3,232
cip(b) 0 ,,
J*l £Ğ" iğ iğ ^
3,619
2,741
At SIP1
%S
0.2(a)
1 6^a^
/ a \
2.8(a)
3.^1
. _
3.7
0.7
(a) The 1971 oil percent sulfur content is below SIP requirements; therefore, the 1971 oil percent sulfur was
used and reported as SIP.
(b) The 1971 coal percent sulfur content is below SIP requirements; therefore, the 1971 coal percent sulfur
was used and reported as SIP.
(c) Variances are not applicable for oil-fired plants. Any plants burning oil are assumed to have to meet SIP
requirements.
-------
:>
_j
-Pğ
TABLE A-12
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
NEW JERSEY
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
AQCR Plant County 103 Tons/Yr XS Status XS 103 Gal/Yr XS
#151 NE Penn.- Upper Gilbert (V) Hunterdon --- --- 84,000 0.3
Delaware Valley
(a) Variances are not applicable for oil-fired plants. Any plants burning oil are assumed to have to meet
SIP requirements.
-------
I
in
TABLE A-13
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
NORTH CAROLINA
#167
AQCR
Metropolitan
Charlotte
Plant
Allen (E)(a'b)
Riverbend(a'b)
Buck
County
Gas ton
Gaston
Rowan
1975
103
3
1
1
Coal Use,
Tons/Yr
,268
,392
,051
At SIP
1
1
0
%S
.1
.1
.9
At Variance 1975 Oil Use,
Status
sip(a)
sip(a)
SIPU)
1
1
0
%S 103 Gal/Yr
.1.
.1
.9
At SIP
%S
.._
_. -
(a) The 1971 coal percent sulfur content is below SIP regulation requirements; therefore, 1971 coal percent
sulfur content was used and reported as SIP.
(b) Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary air quality standard may be exceeded even at SIP.
-------
TABLE A-14
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
OHIO
AQCR
#178 NW
Pennsylvania
#174 Metropolitan
Cleveland
#181 Steubenville
Plant
Niles
Ashtabula
Avon Lake
Lake Shore
East Lake
Cleveland
Municipal
Edgewater
Gorge (E)
Painsville
Cardinal (E)
Burger (V)^b^
Toronto (E)
Sammis (E)
Tidd (V)
County
Trumbull
Ashtabula
Lorain
Cuyahoga
Lake
Cuyahoga
Lorain
Summit
i
Lake j
Jefferson
Belmont
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
1975 Coal Use, At SIP
103 Tons/Yr %S
634
970
2,899
/ 1 ,290
/ 3,523
/
231
339
238
70
^ 2,584
\ 1,380
/ 468
3,882
, 578
\
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
At Vari
Status
Full
Limited
Full
Limited
Limited
Limited
Full
Limited
Full
sip(a)
sip(a)
Full
Limited
slp(a)
ance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
%S 103 Gal/Yr %S
2.8
3.0
2.6
1.2
2.1
1.1
2.9
2.6
2.5
0.6
0.6
2.4
1.1
0.6
-__
m ğ V.
__Ğ.
_ _ _
(a) Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hou; \;r quality standard may be exceeded even at SIP.
(b) Subsequent to the modeling of this plant, it ha:
in 1975. Any additional analysis based on this
case, and results would differ significantly.
ew
learned that a 1000 ft. stack will be built
stack would show the plant to be a non-valley
(Continued next page)
-------
TABLE A-14 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
OHIO
AQCR
#173 Dayton
#177 Northwest Ohio
#124 Metropolitan
Toledo
#179 Parkersburg
#183 Zanesville
#79 Metropolitan
Cincinnati
Plant
Hutchings
Mad River
Piqua
Tait
Woodcock
Acme
Bay Shore
Poston (E)'
Muskingum (E)
Philo (E)
Conesville (E)
Municipal
Light (E)
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
County 103 Tons/Yr %S Status *S 103 Gal/Yr %S
Montgomery
Clark
Miami
Montgomery 1 ,
Allen
Lucas
Lucas " 1 ,
Athens
Morgan 4,
Muskingum
Coshocton 3,
Butler
Miami Fort (E) Hamilton 2,
Beckjord (E) Clermont 3,
(a) Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary
(b) Calculations indi
ca.te that annual
primary standard may
897
99
99
010
58
383
553
635
193
958
713
85
360
099
ai
be
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
r quality
Full
Full
Limited
Full
Full
Full
Full
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Full
Limited
SIP(a)
standard may
1.2
1.4
0.9
1.6
3.0
2.6
2.1
1.3
14
1.1
3.2
0.8
1.4
( D )
(J Ğ D _b .. ~
be exceeded even at SIP.
exceeded even at SIP.
(Continued next page)
-------
TABLE A-14 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
OHIO
#176
#103
AQCR
Metro. Columbus
Huntington-
Ashland-
Portsmouth-
Ironton
Plant
Picway
Kyger
Stuart
Gavin
Creek (E)
(E)
(E)
1975 Coal Use,
County 103 Tons/Yr
Pickaway
Gall i a
Adams
Gallia
303
3,122
5,672
7,738
At
0
0
0
0
SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
XS Status XS 103 Gal/Yr XS
.6
.6
.6
.6
Li mi
Li mi
Li mi
Full
ted
ted
ted
2
2
1
1
.5
.3
.4
.0
I
00
-------
TABLE A-15
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
PENNSYLVANIA
E>
I
#197
(a)
(D)
AQCR Plant
SW Cheswick (E)
Pennsylvania E]rama (y)
Phillips (V)
Armstrong (V)
Hatfield (E)
Mitchell (V)
Springdale (V)
Conemaugh -(E)
Keystone (E)
Seward (V)
Homer City (E)
Bruce-
Mansfield (E)
1975 Coal Use, At SIP
County 103 Tons/Yr %S
Allegheny
Washington
Allegheny
Armstrong
Greene
Washington
Allegheny
Indiana
Armstrong
Indiana
Indiana
Beaver
1971 coal percent sulfur content is below SIP regul
was used and reported as SIP.
Modeling calculations indicate
1,264
1,396
1 ,125
959
3,507
1,046
646
2,045
3,332
648
1,836
0.4
0.3
0.3
2.5
2.6
0.4
0.5
2.4
2.2
2.6
2.1
2,600 0.4
ation requirements;
that the 24-hour primary air
At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
Status %S 103 Gal/Yr %S
SIP
Limited
SIP
SIP
Full
Limited
.SIP
SIP
sip(a)
SIP
srp(a)
Full
therefore
quality standard may
0.6
0.3yb/
2.5
-------
TABLE A-15 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
PENNSYLVANIA
ro
o
#178
#196
#195
#151
(a)
AQCR
NW
Pennsylvania
S. Central
Pennsylvania
Central
Pennsylvania
NE Penn.-
Upper Delaware
The 1971 coal
Plant
Front Street
Shawville (V)
Warren (V)
New Castle (V)
Crawford (E)
Brunner
Island (E)
Holtwood (E)
Saxton (V)' '
Sunbury (V)*
f
Milesburg (Vr
Montour (E)* '
Eyler (V)
Titus (V)(b)
Portland (V)^b
Martin's /.ğ
Creek (\l)(t>)
1975 Coal Use,
County 103 Tons/Yr
Erie
Clearfield -
Warren
Lawrence
Dauphin
York
Lancaster
Bedford
Snyder
b) Centre
Montour
Berks
Berks
' Northampton
Northampton
percent sulfur content was below SIP
335
1,704
303
1,044
108
3,354
443
66
1,294
159
4,394
608
1,035
808
requirements
At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
XS Status XS 103 Gal/Yr %S
1.5
2.6
2.5
0.4
1.4
2.6
0.7
1.9
2.5
2.3
2.4
1.1
2.5
2.6
Full 3.9
SIP 2.6(b)
SIP 2.5(b)
SIP 0.4^b)
SIP 1.4^
Full 2.8
sip(a) 0>7(b)
SIP(a,b) K9
SIP^ 2.5
SIP^ 2.3
SIP(M) 2.4
SIP(b) 1.1
SIP(b) 2.5
/L \
SIP10' 2.6
; therefore, 1971 coal sul
Ğ _ ~ -
_ __ _.Ğ w
_ ğ_
_-_ ___
_ _ _ _ _ _
29,694 0.4
__ _ _Ğ
374,262 0.4
fur content was
used and reported as SIP.
(b)
(c)
Modeling calculations indicate
Variances are
that the 24-hour ai
not applicable for oil-fired plants.
r quality standard may
Any plants
burning oi
be exceeded even
1 are assumed to
at SIP.
have to meet
SIP requirements.
(d)
The 1971 coal
percent sulfur is
not significantly
different from SIP.
-------
I
ro
TABLE A-16
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
SOUTH CAROLINA
#53
#58
#199
AQCR
Augusta-Aiken
Savannah-
Beaufort
Charleston
Plant
Urquhart (E)
Canadys
Williams
Hagood
Jefferies^ '
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
County 103 Tons/Yr %S Status %S 103 Gal/Yr %S
Aiken
Colleton
Charleston
Charleston
Berkeley
314
684
644
1.5 SIP^ 1.5
1.2 SIP-b- 1.2
225,866 2.2
6,758 2.2
1.1 SIP*5) 1.1 22,814 1.9
(c)
(a) Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary air quality standard may be exceeded even at SIP.
(b) The 1971 coal percent sulfur content is below SIP regulation requirements; therefore, the 1971 coal percent
sulfur-was used and reported as SIP.
(c) Variances are not applicable for oil-fired plants. Any plants burning oil are assumed to have to meet
SIP requirements.
-------
TABLE A-17
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
TENNESSEE
ro
rv>
#208
#207
(a)
(b)
AQCR
Mid. Tennessee
E. Tennessee-
SW Virginia
Modeling calcul
Plant
Gallatin (E)
Johnsoriville (E)
Cumberland (E)
Bull Run (V)
John Sevier (V)
Kingston (V)
Watts Bar (V)
1975 Coal Use, At SIP
County 103 Tons/Yr %S
Sumner
Humphreys
Stewart
Anderson
Hawkins
Roane
Rhea
2,
2,
7,
2,
1,
3,
ations indicate that. the 24-hour primary
Not significantly different from
SIP and reported
611
612
148
185
587
935
72
air
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
quality
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
Status XS 103 Gal/Yr XS
Full
slp(b)
Full
Limited
SIP(a)
SIP(a)
Limited
standard may
3
0
3
1
0
0
1
be
.4
.7
.7
.4
.7
.7
.4
exceeded even
ğ
__ _
at SIP.
as SIP.
-------
TABLE A-13
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
VIRGINIA
'(c)
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
AQCR
Plant
County
10° Tons/Yr
%S
Status
%S 10° Gal/Yr
%S
o
o
#207 E. Tennessee-
SW Virginia Clinch River (V) Russell
#223 Hampton Roads Portsmouth^ '
Reeves
Yorktown (E)
(b)
f*l* s\ f* ^ r\ n -* \f S\
uiicsapcaitc
Norfolk
York
1,918
0.7 SIP
(a)
0.7
203,994
13,696 0.2
573,195
1.1
(b)
(b)
(a) 1971 Coal percent sulfur content was below SIP requirements; therefore, 1971 coal sulfur content was used
and reported as SIP.
(b) The 1971 oil percent sulfur, content is below SIP regulation requirements; therefore, the 1971 oil percent
sulfur was used and reported as SIP.
(c) Variances are not applicable for oil-fired plants. Any plants burning oil are assumed to have to meet
SIP requirements.
-------
TABLE A-19
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
WEST VIRGINIA
ro
#181
#179
#113
#235
#103
(a)
(b)
AQCR
Steubenville
Parkersburg
Cumberland-
Key ser
N. Central
W. Virginia
Huntington-
Ashland-
Portsmouth-
Ironton
Model ing cal
Plant
Kammer (E)
Mitchell (E)
Willow
Island (V)
Mt. Storm
Rivesville (V)^a
Fort Martin (E)
Albright (V)^
Harrison (E)
Sporn (E)(b)
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use,
County 103 Tons/Yr %$ Status %S 103 Gal/Yr
Marshall
Marshall
Pleasants
Grant
'Marion
Monongalia
Preston
Harrison
Mason
culations indicate that the 24-hour ai
The 1971 coal percent sulfur content is below SIP
was used and
reported as SIP.
1,511
3,266
725
4,598
455
2,579
993
5,385
2,805
r quality
regulation
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
.7
.6
.5
.6
.1
.1
.9
.0
.4
standard
requi
Ful
Ful
SIP
Ful
SIP
Ful
SIP
Ful
SIP
1
1
(a)
\° /
1
1
1
(b)
4
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
.0
.7
.5
.3
.1
.1
.9
.0
.4
At SIP
%S
_
will be exceeded even at SIP.
rements;
therefore
, the 1971 sulfur
content
-------
TABLE A-20
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS
WISCONSIN
ro
in
1975 Coal Use, At SIP At Variance 1975 Oil Use, At SIP
AQCR
Plant
County
10° Tons/Yr
Status
%S 10° Gal/Yr
%S
#128 SE Minnesota-
La Crosse
#239 SE Wisconsin
Alma (E)
Genoa (E)
French Island
North Oak
Creek (E)
Port
Washington (E)
South Oak
Creek (E)'
Valley (E)
Columbia (E)
Buffalo
Vernor.
La Crosse
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Columbia
562
723
33
830
682
2,306
669
1,523
3.1
3.7
3.1
2.1
3.0
2.1
3.1
0.6
sip(a)
sip(a)
slp(a)
i , \
SIP(a)
/a \
SIPU;
/a ^
SIPU)
sip(a)
sip(c)
3.1.
3,7
3.1
2.1(
3.0
, >
2.r '
3.1
0.6
~ _ Ğ
-__
(a) State of Wisconsin regulations do not specify a coal percent sulfur limitation for existing plants; there-
fore, 1971 coal sulfur content was used and reported as SIP.
(b) Modeling calculations indicate that the 24-hour primary air quality standard may be exceeded even at SIP.
(c) New plant with programmed coal percent sulfur less than SIP requirements; therefore, programmed coal
percent sulfur used and reported as SIP.
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF THE SINGLE SOURCE AND VALLEY MODELS
The model used to estimate the short-term concentrations is one
developed by the Meteorology Laboratory, EPA. This model is designed
to estimate concentrations due to sources at a single location for
averaging times of 1 hour, 24 hours and 1 year, with emphasis on the
24-hour value.
The model is a Gaussian plume model using diffusion coefficients
based on Turner [28]. Concentrations are estimated for each hour of
the year based on the wind direction (in increments of ten degrees),
wind speed, mixing height and Pasquill stability class. For the 1- and
24-hour values, it is assumed that the pollutant does not "decay" signi-
ficantly between the source and the receptors because of the short travel
time involved. Also, decay depends on a number of meteorological vari-
ables and might well be insignificant when the meteorological conditions
occur which lead to highest S02 concentrations.
Meteorological data for 1964 were used. The reasons for this choice
are: (a) Data from earlier years did not have sufficient resolution in
the wind direction, and (2) data from subsequent years are readily avail-
able on magnetic tape only for every third hour.
Mixing height data were obtained from the twice-a-day upper air
observations made at the nearest upper air station. Hourly mixing heights
were estimated by the model using an objective interpolation scheme.
To simulate the effect of elevated terrain in the vicinity of certain
plant sites, a ground-plane displacement procedure was used in the model-
ing analysis. This procedure consists of adjusting (decreasing) the
effective height of the plant stacks by an amount equal to the differ-
ence in elevation between the plant site and the average surrounding
terrain. This "reduced" stack height is input to the diffusion model
described above.
The model used to estimate short-term concentrations in valley
B-l
-------
terrain is one developed previously by EPA for application to sources
located in complex terrain. Elevations of the receptor sites are derived
from contours on U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps of the area. The model cal-
culates a daily average concentration at these receptor locations based
on a 10 meter nearest-approach point of the plume, and an assumed per-
sistence of meteorological conditions for 6 hours out of the 24 hours.
During this period, the wind direction azimuth is considered to be con-
fined to a 22.5 degree sector. In the current application, receptor
sites were selected along the azimuth which is normal to the valley axis
to identify the maximum concentration.
B-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-060
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants
for Compliance Extensions in 51 Air Quality Control
Regions
5. REPORT DATE
December 1973
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
P. Morgenstern
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Maiden Research Division of Abcor, Inc.
201 Vassar Street
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2AC 129
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0049 Tasks 8 and 11
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA
OAWM
OAQPS, MDAD,
Research Triangle Park. N. C. 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents a summary of the modeling analysis of power plants in a
number of critical AQCR's. The purpose of this study is to determine whether and to
what extent variances could be granted for certain plants to relieve the aggregate
low-sulfur coal deficit problem projected for 1975. The variances, if granted, would
allow an extension of time to meet regulatory requirements of State Implementation
Plans (SIPs).
The total aggregate annual coal consumption by the 206 power plants included
in the study is 290 million tons. The analysis indicated that the allowable sulfur
content of approximately 145 million tons can be affected by the application of
variances. The major changes projected are a net decrease of 137 million tons of low-
sulfur coal (less than 1.0% sulfur), and a net increase of 109 million tons with
sulfur content greater than 2.0%.,
This study was intended only to demonstrate the general feasibility of
reducing the low-sulfur coal deficit by compliance extensions and is not based on
sufficient analysis to allow the formulation of decisions regarding individual
power plants.
This study was undertaken prior to the overall oil shortage and energy crisis
arising in the fall of 1973 and does not address that situation.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
power plant modeling
power plant variances
low-sulfur coal deficit
dispersion modeling
SO, impact of power plants
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
83
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
B-3.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report n mber as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less} factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. 8.20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number c f pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by tr National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reversr
------- |