EPA-450/3-75-062
June 1975
SUMMARY REPORT
ON MODELING ANALYSIS
OF SELECTED POWER PLANTS
IN 128 AQCRs FOR EVALUATION
OF IMPACT ON AMBIENT
SO2 CONCENTRATIONS,
VOLUME I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Wash' Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-75-062
SUMMARY REPORT
ON MODELING ANALYSIS
OF SELECTED POWER PLANTS
IN 128 AQCRs FOR EVALUATION
OF IMPACT ON AMBIENT
SO2 CONCENTRATIONS,
VOLUME I
by
Dr. L. Morgenstern
Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc.
201 Vassar Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Contract No. 68-02-1484
Program Element No. 2AC129
EPA Project Officer: Connally Mears
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
June 1975
Fr™:-:y Of
C'—S q r .
L, j - J^f^ff. -
" *. 4 L-L .^ j t_ j y
.7^t;Q 27711
-------
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
the Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc. , Cambridge, Massachusetts
02139, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1484. The contents of this report
are reproduced herein as received from the 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-450/3-75-062
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents a summary of a series of 128 reports covering
modeling analyses of 401 power plants distributed throughout 128 AQCRs
in 44 states. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the impact on
ambient S02 concentrations of power plant operations. This study pro-
vides a base for further analysis if decisions must be made regarding
possible compliance extensions or fuel use options for power plants.
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.
Volume I of this report covers the analysis of 195 power plants in
60 AQCRs by Wai den Research Division of Abcor, Inc. Of these 195 power
plants modeled for 1972 operations, S02 emissions from approximately 20
resulted in concentrations which, by themselves, exceeded the primary
24-hour S02 standard.
Volume II of this report covers the analysis of 206 power plants in
68 AQCRs by GEOMET, Inc. Of these 206 power plants modeled for 1972
operations, S02 emissions from approximately 54 resulted in contributions
which, by themselves, exceeded the primary 24-hour S02 standard.
Emissions from none of the plants for which an annual SOo prediction
was obtained exceeded the primary annual S02 standard. Since for about
68 plants located in areas of high terrain, the model used estimated
short-term concentrations only, no annual concentrations were predicted
for those plants.
This study is intended only to add to the overall analyses of the
power plant industry being conducted both by governmental agencies and
by private industry. Decisions on final evaluations based on the mate-
rial presented in this report pertaining to specific plants should con-
sider the input data available for the model, the assumptions on which
the model is based, the procedures followed in conducting the analysis,
as well as several other factors not addressed herein.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The EPA Project Officer for the work reported in Volume I of this
study was C. E. Hears, and the Wai den Project Manager was Dr. L. Morgen-
stern. The project was aided by the cooperation and assistance provided
by D. H. Barrett, R. F. Lee, and A. G. Larson of Monitoring and Data
Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office
of Air and Waste Management, EPA. The technical staff at Walden who .
contributed significantly to this project are: R. Buerschaper, T.
Curtin, D. Dorman, L. Fereshetian, B. Kemerer, K. Kennedy, Dr. S. Khanna,
J. Sacco, M. Shah, and A. Zakak. Publication of all reports was under
the direction of 0. Read.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
I Introduction 1
II Method of Analysis 3
A. Source Input Data 3
B. Meteorological Data 5
C. Site Data 6
D. Dispersion Modeling 6
E. Maximum Load vs. Nominal Load Operation 8
III Discussion of Results 10
IV Appropriate Uses of Dispersion Modeling Results 15
References 60
Appendix A - Description of Previous Power A-l
Plant Modeling Studies
- Plants Modeled by SRAB A-l
- Plants Modeled by Wai den Research A-2
BOA 69-02-0049, Tasks 8 & 11 A-2
BOA 68-02-1377, Task 2 A-3
- References A-4
Appendix B - Description of the Models B-l
- Description of the Single Source B-l
Model (CRSMOD)
- Description of the Single Source B-l
Terrain Adjustment Model (CRSTER)
- Description of the Valley Model B-2
Appendix C - Forms of Tables Used in Individual C-l
AQCR Reports
-------
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Title Page
Figure 1 Power Plant Modeling Procedure 4
Table 1 Listing of References for Modeling Analyses 16
Table 2 Power Plant Summary for 128 AQCRs 24
Table 3 Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use in: 25
3a - California 25
3b - Delaware 29
3c - Florida 30
3d - Illinois 33
3e - Indiana 34
3f - Maine 35
3g - Maryland 36
3h - Massachusetts 37
3i - Michigan 38
3j - Minnesota 39
3k - New Hampshire 40
31 - New Jersey 41
3m - New York 42
3n - North Carolina 44
3o - Ohio 45
3p - Pennsylvania 46
3q - South Carolina 47
3r - Texas 48
3s - Vermont 56
3t - Virginia 57
3u - West Virginia 58
3v - Wisconsin 59
VI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Recent developments in the energy field have necessitated review of
state implementation plan requirements in the light of known or predicted
shortages of oil and/or gas. In addition, the Energy Supply and Environ-
mental Coordination Act (June, 1975) requires certain analyses pertaining
to power plant fuel use and the resultant impact on air quality. As a
result, short-term modifications to plan requirements may be necessary to
accommodate to the types and grades of fuel available; also, longer-term
modifications may involve substitution of fuel types (e.g., coal for oil)
or use of fuels with a higher sulfur content at selected power plants.
In all cases, the modifications made should attempt to minimize the ad-
verse impact on air quality and should assure the maintenance of primary
air quality standards.
As the principal single user of fossil fuels, power plants offer the
most expeditious means for accommodating to available fuels with minimum
impact upon air quality. Thus, a systematic method to evaluate the air
quality impact associated with various changes in fuels used by large
*
power plants is required. Two previous studies performed by and for EPA
have evaluated probable air quality impact for about 270 power plants
throughout portions of the United States which were considered primary
candidates for fuel substitutions and associated plan modifications. Ap-
pendix A should be reviewed at this point to obtain an understanding of
these previous studies. The purpose of the present study is to estimate
the probable impact on annual and 24-hour S0? concentrations for 1972 opera-
tions at the remaining large power plants in the nation. Volume I of this
report outlines the analyses by Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc., of
195 power plants in 60 AQCRs. Volume II outlines the analyses by GEOMET,
Inc., covering 206 power plants in 68 AQCRs.
Although results have been reported for individual power plants, it
is essential to understand the assumptions upon which the study was based
and the limitations that must be adhered to when using modeling results
* See list of references.
-------
for a particular power plant to assist in choosing a desirable course
of action. Any decisions based on material presented in this report per-
taining to individual plants should carefully and completely take into
account the quality of input data available for the model, the assump-
tions on which the model is based, and the procedures followed in con-
ducting the analysis.
The final evaluation for a given plant should consider all relevant
data on the plant and should recognize the inherent limitations result-
ing from the data and procedures used in this modeling effort. Other
factors which should be considered include: the impact of other sources
in the area, projected growth in the region, measured air quality data,
known or suspected downdraft or fumigation problems, unique nearby ter-
rain features, nearby land use patterns and population distributions,
more specific operational data for the plant, impact of units new since
1972, specific meteorological studies for the area, and additional stu-
dies or findings by other investigators. Only a full consideration of
all these data will lead to a balanced and reasonable decision.
-------
II. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
An overview of the method of analysis is presented by the flow dia-
gram in Figure 1. This chart shows the relationship among the three
major task elements and indicates further subtask components within each
of these. Similar techniques and procedures were used both by GEOMET,
Inc., and by Walden Research in their respective analyses of selected
power plants.
A. SOURCE INPUT DATA
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 1972 operations. Adequate design and operating data for new
units or new plants to be installed beyond 1972 were not generally avail-
able. However, the impact of such new units or new plants should be
evaluated before any final action is taken on any specific plant.
Use of the FPC data base limits consideration to plants with a
generating capacity of 25 megawatts (MW) or more 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 power 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.
Source data required as input to the diffusion models include
S02 emission rate, stack height, stack gas exit velocity, and stack gas
temperature. Furthermore, the change in load demand with time of year
is also input to "the models.
-------
Preparation of
Input Data
Source Data
FPC Form
67, 1969-
1972
-~S02 Emissions
-Stack Height
—Stack Diamete
—Stack Tempera
ture
'Gas Exit Velo
'Variationc1ty
[Meteorological Data
Surface Station Data
Upper Air Station Data
Preprocessing - JMHPT
Site Data
Terrain Factors
Urban/Rural Factors
UTM Coordinates
Dispersion Modeling
I Nominal Load
Flat Terrain
Model CRS1G
Terrain Adjust-
ment Model
CRS2G
1
1
1
I*
1
Valley Model
Maximum Load
Flat Terrain
Model CRS1G
Terrain Adjust-
ment Model
CRS2G
Valley Model
AQCR Summary Reports
anH Rasir Data
AQCR Summary Reports
-Maximum 24-Hour Con-
centrations (Nominal
and Maximum Loads)
— Maximum Annual Con-
centration
'S02 Emissions (Q)
Tuel-Type
i— Amount
I— Percent Sulfur
—Stack Heights
—Boiler Capacity and
Stack Characteristic
""Ratio of Max- Con. t
Emissions
Summary Report
J
[Basic Input/Output Data|
Figure 1. Power Plant Modeling Procedures
-------
The plant variation factors (refer to Appendix C) are a measure
of the relative rate of emission for the entire plant for each month.
Variations in total emission rate for the plant are influenced both by
changes in power demand and by changes in the type of fuel being burned.
The plant monthly variation factors are applied by the single source
model to the emissions from each stack during the analysis for the days
of each respective month. For plants analyzed with the valley model,
the highest monthly variation factor during the year was used to obtain
the modeled value.*
Several power plant units indicated the use of natural gas as a
secondary fuel. However, where combustion of this natural gas in the
quantities reported constituted negligible contributions to SOg emis*
sions, it was not included in the analysis.
In the Walden analysis, in general, emissions from secondary
fuels were included in the overall emission rate if they contributed more
than 1% of the total emissions from that unit. The monthly variations of
these fuels were incorporated into the total plant variation if the emis-
sions were greater than 10% of the total. In the GEOMET analysis, emis-
sions from secondary fuels were included when these fuels amounted to 5%
or more of total heat input during at least one month of the year. In
both cases, monthly variations were determined on the basis of monthly
emissions from each fuel calculated from fuel use and annual average
sulfur content.
B. METEOROLOGICAL DATA
For an individual plant analysis, the meteorological data assem-
bled consist of (1) hourly surface weather observations in standard card
image format and (2) twice daily mixing height tabulations. The year
1964 was selected for the analysis because it is the only one which sa-
tisfies the dual'requirement of hourly surface data and wind direction
azimuth recorded to the nearest 10-degree sector.
* A discussion of the diffusion models applied to different plants begins on
page 6.
5
-------
The surface and upper air data are preprocessed by a computer
program. Among the different functions performed by this routine are:
. Screening of all data for completeness
. Determination of hourly stability classification
. Interpolation of twice daily mixing height data
to hourly values
The output of this preprocessing operation yields a set of meteorological
data for input to the modeling analysis.
For plants analyzed with the VALLEY model, no measured mete-
orological data were used in the calculations. The calculations for
these plants were made for the least favorable conditions likely to
occur, which include a stable atmosphere and a wind speed of 2.5 m/sec
(see Appendix B).
C. SITE DATA
A principal site factor which can influence the impact on ground-
level concentrations from power plant operations is the topography of the
surrounding terrain. Isolated elevated terrain features such as nearby
hills or bluffs can be severely impacted by plume transport along selec-
ted azimuth directions. In other locations, the power plant may be
located in a valley with elevated terrain surrounding the plant site.
Under certain conditions, lateral plume dispersion may be restricted by
the valley walls.
The location of the power plant relative to urban areas also can
influence the impact of plant operations on ambient concentration levels.
Consequently, specification of the urban/rural characterization of the
plant site location is an input parameter to the modeling analysis.
D. DISPERSION MODELING
For plants located in relatively flat terrain, a single source
model was used to estimate both annual and 24-hour maximum SOp concentrations
-------
from each power plant, based on 1972 operations. This model was de-
veloped by the Meteorology Laboratory (NERC, RTF) of EPA. It employs
a Gaussian plume formulation and Briggs's plume rise equation* and uses
hourly observations of meteorological conditions. Meteorological data
were obtained from National Climatic Center records for the station
judged most representative of conditions at each individual plant. A
further description of the model is included in Appendix B. As applied
herein, the model basically estimates 1-hour average S02 concentrations
at a preselected field of receptors for each hour of the year from each
power plant. The annual average concentration and the 24-hour average
concentration (for each day) for each receptor are then calculated.
Where interactions between power plants were significant, supplementary
calculations were made to account for the impact of two or more facilities,
Where the topography showed surrounding terrain at significantly
higher elevations than those of the plants, the modeling analysis con-
sidered this topographic factor by the application of a terrain adjust-
ment procedure described in Appendix B.
In some cases, the topography at certain plant sites was above
the calculated plume height for at least one stack at the plant. The ana-
lysis procedure considered this factor by the application of a special
model designed to estimate maximum ground-level concentrations for ele-
vated receptor sites in valley locations (EPA "valley model"). The gener-
al 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 24-hour concentration levels. Because
plume dispersion from power plants located in valley sites constitutes
a complex interaction of source factors, terrain factors, and meteoro-
logical factors, a more detailed and exhaustive analysis of the specific
power plant site is desirable prior to formulating any action on such a
plant.
* See list of references.
-------
Since only power plant operations were being modeled, and no
other sources were considered, it was not possible to calibrate the
model using measured air quality data. The calculated concentrations
are considered to be reasonable estimates of ambient concentrations for
the conditions simulated.
Modeling of power plant operations was conducted to determine
air quality impact for 1972 operations. In many cases, the impact on
air quality after a proposed conversion of a power plant (or part of a
plant) to other fuels will be desired. The relationship between emis-
sions and ambient air concentrations is dependent on source factors,
meteorological factors, and local terrain effects. A change in plant
operating conditions and emissions does not necessarily imply a directly
proportional change in ambient concentrations. Therefore, additional
detailed analysis must be undertaken if an estimate of the impact of
the plant at different operating conditions is desired.
E. 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 24 hours in
many areas of the country. If such operations were coincident with the
days of highest predicted concentrations, the model's maximum predic-
tions 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 selected
8
-------
days of highest concentration found by using the monthly average emis-
sion 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.
For the same meteorological conditions, ground-level concentra-
tions arising from nominal and maximum operating 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. In
addition, "worst case meteorological conditions" often vary with plant
operating conditions. The specific interaction of these factors can
produce higher concentrations under either nominal or maximum load con-
ditions. Modeling of both cases provides a reasonable estimate of the
range of possible values and permits identification of the maximum con-
centration case.
-------
III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This is the culmination of a series of three power plant modeling
studies performed by and for EPA. As a result of the current and two
previous studies, modeling analyses have been carried out for every power
plant which reported to the Federal Power Commission in 1972. The spe-
cific number of power plants which have been modeled for each AQCR in the
nation and the report which identifies them are listed in Table 1. Of
the total of 670 plants, this volume deals with results obtained for 195
plants in 60 AQCRs which were modeled by Walden Research Division of
Abcor, Inc. Another 206 plants modeled in the current study by GEOMET,
Incorporated, are treated in Volume II. The remaining 269 plants were
modeled in two previous studies, as shown in Table 1.
AQCRs listed in Table 1 under the column labelled "51 AQCR Report"
were modeled in initial studies by EPA and Walden Research to determine
the impact of compliance extensions at 206 power plants in 51 AQCRs.
The 63 power plants in 17 AQCRs which are listed under the column labelled
"63 Coal Conversion Plant Report" were subsequently examined for possible
fuel conversion from oil to coal. Only plants identified at that time as
candidates for coal conversion and neighboring interacting plants were
considered in that study. Brief descriptions of these previous studies
are given in Appendix A. Plants in AQCRs examined in the current study
are listed under the column labelled "128 AQCR Study, Volume (I or II)."
When combined, the results of the three studies provide an overview
of the impact of power plant operations on air quality. The results ob-
tained for the power plants in each AQCR have been presented in separate
reports, one for each AQCR. An individual AQCR report may be ordered from
the Air Pollution Technical Information Center by specifying the exact
title, AQCR name and number, and APTIC number associated with the report
(see References). The format of these reports and a discussion of their
content and interpretation is presented later in this section.
Table 2 lists the total number of plants modeled in each volume of
10
-------
the current study and indicates how many of these plants, by themselves,
were found to exceed the 24-hour standard for S02 under either nominal
or maximum load conditions. These findings were based on an analysis of
1972 operations and do not account for pollutant concentrations from any
source other than the individual power plant in question. It should be
noted that these numbers do not include results previously obtained for
many large coal- and oil-fired plants. The 20 plants modeled by Waiden
which, by themselves, exceeded the standard represented 10 percent of the
total plants analyzed in the Walden phase of the study. For the total
current study, some 18 percent of the 401 power plants produced concen-
trations which alone exceeded the 24-hour S02 standard. It should be
emphasized that if the contribution from all other sources were con-
sidered, both the number and the percentage of plants exceeding the
standard would increase considerably.
The fuel used during 1972 by each power plant modeled in the Walden
analysis is summarized by state in Tables 3a-3v. One table for each state
identifies the AQCRs; the plant names; the counties and power companies to
which they belong; their 1972 megawatt capacities; the amounts of coal,
oil, and gas consumed during nominal 1972 operations; the sulfur content
of each fuel; and the model used in examining each plant.
The fuel listed for some plants is flagged as an estimate. For these
plants, the actual fuel use was adjusted to represent an amount consistent
with more normal operations than occurred during 1972. There are several
reasons for including such an estimate. If the plant was down for abnor-
mal maintenance, the fuel which would have been consumed during the down
period was estimated and added to the 1972 fuel consumption reported to
the Federal Power Commission (FPC Form 67). If boilers which operated
part of the year were retired from further use, an appropriate adjustment
was made to the actual fuel consumption to reflect a normal mode of opera-
tion without the .retired boilers. Also, if the fuel consumption reflected
the operations of one or more new boilers for part of the year, an adjustment
11
-------
was made to include the fuel which would be consumed if the boilers were
operated for the full year. In a few cases, the estimated fuel was based
on 1973 fuel consumption, if this information was available when the
plant was analyzed and if 1973 were judged to be more representative
of normal plant operations than 1972.
The separate AQCR reports present more specific information on the
operations and estimates of the air quality impact of each power plant.
In addition to the information presented here in Tables 3a through 3v, the
AQCR reports provide: estimates of the highest 24-hour and annual SOg
concentrations resulting from operations at each plant, the fuel use and
S02 emission rates associated with these highest concentrations, and the
ratio of concentration to emission rate for the plant as a whole (the
X/Q ratio). 'Specific information on stack parameters used in the model-
ing analysis is also included in an appendix to each report. All the
AQCR reports for the current study are in the same format and include
this information in the table formats shown in Appendix C of this report.
The maximum ground-level S02 concentrations presented for each plant
in the AQCR reports show estimates of which plants, considering only the
plant's emissions, exceed or approach the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. It should be emphasized that these results include only con-
sideration of power plant emissions. A complete analysis would also have
to give consideration to emissions from other sources. However, where
two or three power plants in rural areas are close enough to produce
interacting effects, estimates were made of the maximum SCL concentra-
tions due to the overlapping of the plumes.
New fossil-fueled power plants and expansions of existing plants
planned for operations prior to the end of 1977 are described in each
AQCR report. A brief discussion is included of the expanded plant output
capacity, the type of fuels to be burned (if known), and a qualitative
estimate of the impact of the expanded plant on air quality. These dis-
cussions serve to identify areas where the reported air quality estimates
12
-------
are likely to be affected by new operations. Additional modeling ana-
lyses should be required in these areas before making decisions about
the impact of changes in current power plant operations on air quality
levels.
The AQCR reports also identify plants which are located in urban
environments. The air quality estimates for these plants may be subject
to significant additional contributions from the many sources of S02 in
an urban area, including other power plants and other major sources of
S02. To evaluate the interaction of concentrations from more than three
plants and from the many sources of SOg in a densely populated urban area
would involve more complex procedures and greater resources than were
available for this study. Therefore, an interaction analysis was not
performed for these plants. Before any course of action for these plants
is chosen, a more detailed and exhaustive analysis of all sources in the
vicinity should be performed.
The basis for the maximum concentration day is reported for each
plant in each AQCR studied in terms of the principal fuels used, the
sulfur content of each, the amount of each fuel consumed, and the amount
of SOp emitted. These are reported both for the nominal load case and
the maximum load case. A comparison of these data will indicate how
near the nominal load case is to the maximum load case in terms of types
and amounts of fuel consumed. Where more than one fuel is consumed at
a plant, the maximum load case is based on the assumption that each
boiler is burning the fuel which results in the highest SOo emission
rate of any fuel burned in significant quantity in that boiler during
1972.
The ratios of concentrations to emissions (x/Q) are reported for
each plant in each AQCR report for the maximum concentration day (under
nominal and maximum load conditions) and for the maximum annual concen-
tration under nominal load conditions. The ratios for annual concentrations
13
-------
are much lower than for 24-hour concentrations primarily because the SC^
is dispersed over a wider area as a result of day-to-day variations in
wind direction and other meteorological parameters. Variations in these
ratios from plant to plant are influenced primarily by differences in
surrounding terrain and stack characteristics. Elevated terrain and
low stacks both generally result in higher concentrations from a' plant
and therefore increase the x/Q ratio. It should be noted that the x/Q
ratios generally cannot be used to estimate the impact of changes in
plant operating conditions. This is because the relationship between
emissions and ambient air concentrations is dependent on source factors,
meteorological factors, and local terrain effects. A change in plant
operating conditions and emissions does not necessarily imply a directly
proportional change in ambient concentrations. Detailed additional ana-
lysis must be undertaken to estimate the impact of different operating
conditions, whether that involves a change in the fuel type in part or
all of the plant, increased or decreased plant capacity, altered operating
levels, new stacks, new stack-to-boiler combinations, or other significant
changes.
14
-------
IV. APPROPRIATE USES OF DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS
Under contract to EPA, Walden Research and GEOMET, Inc., have com-
pleted a series of dispersion model studies of power plants. These include
virtually all the nation's major fossil-fuel power plants which reported to
the Federal Power Commission in 1972. Limitations of these studies have
been discussed in some detail elsewhere in this report and in the individual
AQCR reports. It must be emphasized that results of these studies should
not be taken in isolation as providing a definitive "answer" regarding the
air quality impact of particular plants. This caution is necessary due to
the nature of various assumptions and judgmental factors inherent in a
broad study which does not evaluate individual plants in great detail.
However, even with these limitations, the dispersion model studies
are of value for use in generalized analyses which assess the overall effect
of some plan of action of the power plant industry. The dispersion model
studies have already been used in this way for analyses related to national
policy proposals affecting a large number of power plants. These analyses
have been used effectively in a number of energy-environmental policy
deliberations; among them are: the Clean Fuels Policy, SO scrubber hear-
X
ings, proposed oil-to-coal conversions, actions required under the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination Act, tall stack policy, supplementary
control system evaluation, the Ohio SOY hearing, and testimony on options
/\
for S02 control before congressional committees.
15
-------
TABLE 1
LISTING OF REFERENCES FOR MODELING ANALYSES
AQCR
No.2
AQCR Name (States)
Report References for Each AQCR1
63 Coal-
51 AQCR Conversion 128 AQCR Study
Report3 Plant Volume Is Volume II6
Report"
003 East Alabama (Alabama)
004 Metropolitan Birmingham (Ala.)
005 Mobile-Pensacola-Panama
City-Southern Mississippi
(Alabama-Florida-Mississippi)
007 Tennessee River Valley-Cumber-
land Mountains (Ala., Tenn.)
012 Arizona-New Mexico Southern
Border (Arizona, New Mexico)
013 Clark-Mohave (Arizona, Nevada)
014 Four Corners (Arizona, Colo-
rado, New Mexico, Utah)
015 Phoenix-Tucson (Arizona)
016 Central Arkansas (Arkansas)
018 Metropolitan Memphis (Arkan-
sas, Mississippi, Tennessee)
019 Monroe-El Dorado (Arkansas,
Louisiana)
020 Northeast Arkansas (Arkansas)
021 Northwest Arkansas (Arkansas)
022 Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler
(Arkansas, Louisiana, Okla-
homa, Texas)
024 Metropolitan Los Angeles (Cali-
fornia)
1
3
12
16
5
2
8
2
1
3
1
9
1. The number of plants in each AQCR examined in the respective effort is noted.
2. For AQCRs not listed, no analysis has been performed because no power plants
in the AQCR reported to FPC in 1972. In addition, plants outside the con-
tiguous 48 states have not been modeled.
3. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Exten-
sions in 51 Air Quality Control Regions," Walden Research (Contract 68-02-
0049), December 17, 1973, EPA Report Number EPA-450/3-75-060.
4. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Fuel Conversion,"
Walden Research (Contract 68-02-1377), May 1975, EPA Report Number EPA-450/3-
75-064.
5. Summarized in this volume.
6. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Selected Power Plants in 128 AQCRs
for Evaluation of Impact on Ambient S02 Concentrations, Volume II," GEOMET,
Inc. (Contract No. 68-02-1483), June 1975, EPA Report Number EPA-450/3-75-063.
16
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
LISTING OF REFERENCES FOR MODELING ANALYSES
AQCR
No.2
025
026
029
030
031
032
033
035
036
038
040
041
042
043
045
Report References
63 Coal-
51 AQCR Conversion
. AQCR Name (States) Report3 Plant
Report*
North Central Coast (California)
Northeast Plateau (California)
San Diego (California)
San Fra.ncisco Bay Area (California)
San Joaquin Valley (California)
South Central Coast (California)
Southeast Desert (California)
Grand Mesa (Colorado)
Metropolitan Denver (Colorado)
San Isabel (Colorado) .
Yampa (Colorado)
Eastern Connecticut (Conn.) 1
Hartford-New Haven-Springfield 8
(Connecticut, Massachusetts)
New Jersey-New York-Connecti- 16
cut (N.J., N.Y., Conn.)
Metropolitan Philadelphia 13
for Each AQCR1
128 AQCR Study
Volume Is Volume II6
1
1
4
7
1
1
2
2
4
4
1
14
(Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Delaware)
046 Southern Delaware (Delaware)
047 National Capital (Washington,
D.C., Virginia, Maryland)
048 Central Florida (Florida)
049 Jacksonville-Brunswick (Flo- 9
rida, Georgia)
050 Southeast Florida (Florida)
051 Southwest Florida (Florida)
052 West Central Florida (Florida)
053 Augusta-Aiken (Ga., S. Carolina) 1
054 Central Georgia' (Georgia) 2
055 Chattanooga (Georgia, Tennessee) 2
056 Metropolitan Atlanta (Georgia) 3
058 Savannah-Beaufort (Georgia, 4
South Carolina)
059 Southwest Georgia (Georgia) 1
065 Burlington-Keokuk (Illinois, 5
Iowa)
°66 East Central Illinois (Illinois) 2
7
2
8
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
LISTING OF REFERENCES FOR MODELING ANALYSES
AQCR
No.2
AQCR Name (States)
Report References for Each AQCR1
63 Coal-
51 AQCR Conversion 128 AQCR Study
Report3 Plant Volume Is Volume II6
Report"
067
068
069
070
Metropolitan Chicago (Illi-
nois, Indiana)
Metropolitan Dubuque (Illi-
nois, Iowa, Wisconsin)
Metropolitan Quad Cities
(Illinois, Iowa)
Metropolitan St. Louis
11
3
3
9
(Illinois, Missouri)
071 North Central Illinois (111.) 2
072 Paducah-Cairo (Illinois, 4
Kentucky)
073 Rockford-Janesville-Beloit
(Illinois, Wisconsin)
074 Southeast Illinois (Illinois) 2
075 West Central Illinois (IIli- 6
nois)
077 Evansville-Owensboro-Henderson 7
(Indiana, Kentucky)
078 Louisville (Indiana, Kentucky) 4
079 Metropolitan Cincinnati (Ohio, 5
Indiana, Kentucky)
080 Metropolitan Indianapolis (Ind.) 4
082 South Bend-Elkhart-Benton 2
Harbor (Indiana, Michigan)
083 Southern Indiana (Indiana) 1
084 Wabash Valley (Indiana) 5
085 Metropolitan Omaha-Council
Bluffs (Iowa, Nebraska)
086 Metropolitan Sioux City (Iowa,
Nebraska-, South Dakota)
087 Metropolitan Sioux Falls (Iowa,
South Dakota)
038 Northeast Iowa (Iowa)
4
2
2
5
18
-------
TABLE 1(continued)
LISTING OF REFERENCES FOR MODELING ANALYSES
AQCR
No.2
AQCR Name (States)
Report References for Each AQCR1
63 Coal-
51 AQCR Conversion 128 AQCR Study
Report3 Plant Volume Is Volume II6
Report"
092 South Central Iowa (Iowa)
094 Metropolitan Kansas City
(Kansas, Missouri)
095 Northeast Kansas (Kansas)
096 North Central Kansas (Kansas)
097 Northwest Kansas (Kansas)
098 Southeast Kansas (Kansas)
099 South Central Kansas (Kansas)
100 Southwest Kansas (Kansas)
101 Appalachian (Kentucky)
102 Bluegrass (Kentucky) 3
103 Huntington-Ashland-Portsmouth- 5
Irontown (Ken. Ohio, W. Va.)
105 South Central Kentucky (Ken.)
106 Southern Louisiana-Southeast
Texas (Louisiana, Texas)
107 Androscoggin Valley (Maine, N.H.)
109 Down East (Maine)
110 Metropolitan Portland (Maine)
113 Cumber!and-Keyser (Maryland, 2
West Virginia)
114 Eastern Shore (Maryland)
115 Metropolitan Baltimore (Maryland)
116 Southern Maryland (Maryland)
119 Metropolitan Boston (Massachusetts)
120 Metropolitan Providence (Massa-
chusetts, Rhode Island)
121 Merrimack Valley-Southern New
Hampshire (Mass., N. Hampshire)
122 Central Michigan (Michigan) 5
123 Metropolitan Detroit-Port
Huron (Michigan)
1
1
5
5
3
4
12
2
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
19
1Q
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
LISTING OF REFERENCES FOR MODELING ANALYSES
AQCR
No.2
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
132
133
134
136
137
138
139
140
143
145
146
148
150
151
152
153
155
Report References
63 Coal-
51 AQCR Conversion
AQCR Name (States) Report3 Plant
Report1*
Metropolitan Toledo (Michi- 4
gan, Ohio)
South Central Michigan (Mich.) 5
Upper Michigan (Michigan)
Central Michigan (Michigan)
Southeast Minnesota-La Crosse 6
(Minnesota, Wisconsin)
Duluth-Superior (Minnesota , Wise. ) 3
Minneapolis-Saint Paul (Minn.) 4
Northwest Minnesota (Minnesota)
Southwest Minnesota (Minnesota)
Mississippi Delta (Mississippi)
Northern Piedmont (N. Carolina)
Northern Missouri (Missouri)
Southeast Missouri (Missouri)
Southwest Missouri (Missouri)
Billings (Montana)
Miles City (Montana)
Li ncol n-Beatrice-Fai rbury
(Nebraska)
Nebraska (Nebraska)
Northwest Nevada (Nevada)
New Jersey (New Jersey) 2
Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Del a- 6
ware Valley (New Jersey, Penna.)
Albuquerque-Mid Rio Grande (New
Mexico)
El Paso-Las Cruces-Alamogordo
(New Mexico, Texas)
Pecos- Permian Basin (New Mexico)
for Each AQCR1
128 AQCR Study
Volume I5 Volume II6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
20
-------
TABLE 1(continued)
LISTING OF REFERENCES FOR MODELING ANALYSES
AQCR
No.2
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
183
134
Report References
63 Coal-
51 AQCR Conversion
AQCR Name (States) Report3 Plant
Report"
Central New York (New York)
Champlain Valley (New York,
Vermont)
Genesee-Finger Lakes (N.'Y.)
Hudson Valley (New York) 2
Niagara Frontier (New York)
Southern Tier East (New York)
Southern T'ier West (New York)
Eastern Mountain (N. Carolina)
Eastern Piedmont (N. Carolina)
Metropolitan Charlotte (North 3
Carolina, South Carolina)
Sandhills (North Carolina)
Southern Coastal Plain (N.C.) 1
Western Mountain (North Carolina)
North Dakota (North Dakota)
Dayton (Ohio) 4
Greater Metropolitan Cleveland 7
(Ohio)
Mansfield-Marion (Ohio)
Metropolitan Columbus (Ohio) 1
Northwest Ohio (Ohio) 1
Northwest Pennsylvania-Youngs- 6
town (Ohio, Pennsylvania)
Parkersburg-Marietta (Ohio, 3
West Virginia)
Sandusky (Ohio)
Steubenville-Weirton-Wheeling 7
(Ohio, West Virginia)
Zanes vine-Cambridge (Ohio) 2
Central Oklahoma (Oklahoma)
for Each AQCR1
128 AQCR Study
Volume I5 Volume II6
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
21
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
LISTING OF REFERENCES FOR MODELING ANALYSES
AQCR
No.2
185
186
187
188
189
193
195
196
197
199
200
201
202
203
204
207
208
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
Report References
63 Coal-
51 AQCR Conversion
AQCR Name (States) Report3 Plant
Report"
North Central Oklahoma (Okla.)
Northeastern Oklahoma (Okla.)
Northwestern Oklahoma (Okla.)
Southeastern Oklahoma (Okla.)
Southwestern Oklahoma (Okla.)
Portland (Oregon, Washington)
Central Pennsylvania (Penna.) 4
South Central Pennsylvania 3
(Pennsylvania)
Southwest Pennsylvania (Penna.) 12
Charleston (South Carolina) 3
Columbia (South Carolina)
Florence (South Carolina)
Greenville-Spartanburg (S.C.)
Greenwood (South Carolina)
Georgetown (South Carolina)
Eastern Tennessee-Southwestern 5
Virginia (Tennessee, Virginia)
Middle Tennessee (Tennessee) 3
Abilene-Wi chita Falls (Texas)
Amarillo-Lubbock (Texas)
Austin-Waco (Texas)
Brownsville-Laredo (Texas)
Corpus Christi-Victoria (Texas)
Metropolitan Dallas -Fort Worth
(Texas)
Metropolitan Houston-Gal veston
(Texas)
Metropolitan San Antonio (Texas)
Midland-Odessa-San Angelo (Texas)
for Each AQCR1
128 AQCR Study
Volume I5 Volume II6
1
4
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
5
9
7
4
3
15
10
6
5
22
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
LISTING OF REFERENCES FOR MODELING ANALYSES
AQCR
No.2
219
220
222
223
224
225
226
229
234
235
237
238
239
240
241
243
Report References
63 Coal-
51 AQCR Conversion
AQCR Name (States) Report3 Plant
Report"
Utah (Utah)
Wasatcn Front (Utah)
Central Virginia (Virginia)
Hampton Roads (Virginia) 2 1
Northeastern Virginia (Va.)
State Capital (Virginia) 2
Valley of Virginia (Virginia)
Puget Sound (Washington)
Kanawha Valley (West Virginia)
North Central West Virginia 4
(West Virginia)
Lake Michigan (Wisconsin)
North Central Wisconsin (Wise.)
Southeastern Wisconsin (Wise.) 5
Southern Wisconsin (Wisconsin)
Casper (Wyoming)
Wyoming (Wyoming)
for Each AQCR1
128 AQCR Study
Volume Is Volume II6
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
Total Number of Plants Analyzed 206
GRAND TOTAL
63 195
670 Power Plants
206
23
-------
TABLE 2
POWER PLANT SUMMARY FOR 128 AQCRS
Contractor Total Plants Which, by Themselves, Exceed the
Plants 24-Hour S02 Standard 1972 Operations,
Nominal or Maximum Load*
Wai den
(Volume I)
GEOMET
(Volume II)
Total
195
206
401
20
54
74
* This is not representative of all the power plants in the United States,
since many large coal- and oil-fired plants were modeled previously and
are not included here.
24
-------
TABLE 3-a
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN CALIFORNIA
AQCR #
1
Plant Name2
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
CoaV Fuel Oil
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S
Natural. Gas
106 Ft3
IV)
en
24 Burbank (E)
Glendale (E)
Harbor (V)
Haynes (E)
Scattergood (E)
Valley (V)
Glenarm (E)
Broadway (E)
Alamitos (E)
Los Angeles/Burbank Public 187
Service Department
Los Angeles/City of Glendale 187
Los Angeles/L.A. Department 389
of Water and Power
Los Angeles/L.A. Department 1,606
of Water and Power
Los Angeles/L.A. Department 326
of Water and Power
Los Angeles/L.A. Department 546
of Water and Power
Los Angeles/Pasadena Water/ 40
Power Department
Los Angeles/Pasadena 171
Water/Power Department
Los Angeles/Southern Cali- 1,982
fornia Edison Company
28,925 0.2 3,524
18,354 0.4 2,808
25,452 0.4 9,290
292,824 0.4 51,348
33,138 0.4 10,504
34,818 0.5 19,612
449 0.3
545
28,260 0.3 2,729
266,154 0.4 42,124
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
ro
CTi
TABLE 3-a (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN CALIFORNIA
AQCR tf1 Plant Name2
County/Power Company MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S
Natural Gas
106 Ft3
24 Fl Seaundn if] Ins Anapl p<;/Snnthprn f.ali- 1 D?n 9QQ £/in n K 1/1 710
Etiwanda (V)
Huntington Beach (E)
Mandalay (E)
Redondo (E)
San Bernardino (E)
Ormond Beach (E)
25 Moss Landing (E)
26 Humboldt Bay (E)
fornia Edison Company
San Bernard!no/Southern Cali- 911
fornia Edison Company
Orange/Southern California 870
Edison Company
Ventura/Southern California 435
Edison Company
Los Angeles/Southern Cali- 1,579
fornia Edison Company
San Bernardino/Southern Cali- 131
fornia Edison Company
Ventura/Southern California 806
Edison Company
Monterey/Pacific Gas and 2,175
Electric
Humboldt/Pacific Gas and 102
Electric
146,664 0.4 24,973
139,356 0.4 22,770
32,285 0.5 12,675
111,531 0.3 57,715
6,837 0.2
1,077 1.1
5,098
102,396 0.4 17,987
41,664 0.4 88,002
3,143
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-a (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN CALIFORNIA
AQCR
Plant Name'
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S
Natural Gas
106 Ft3
ro
-•j
29 Encina (E)
Silver Gate (E)
South Bay (E)
Station B (E)
30 Avon (V)
Contra Costa (E)
Hunters Point (E)
Martinez (V)
Oleum (V)
San Diego/San Diego Gas and 331
Electric Company
San Diego/San Diego Gas and 247
Electric Company
San Diego/San Diego Gas and 714
Electric Company
San Diego/San Diego Gas and 96
Electric Company
Contra Costa/Pacific Gas and 40
Electric Company
Contra Costa/Pacific Gas and 1,276
Electric Company
73,248 0.2 7,221
18,148 0.4 5,738
116,046 0.4 23,572
4,536 0.4 2,199
5,263 1.8 4,464
38,795
San Francisco/Pacific Gas
and Electric Company
Contra Costa/Pacific Gas
and Electric Company
Contra Costa/Pacific Gas
and Electric Company
372
40
80
15,110 0.5
4,935 0.4 16,696
12,626 1.8 4,340
1,428 1.8 4,697
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state In which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-a (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN CALIFORNIA
AQCR #
1
Plant Name
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
ro
30 Pittsburg (V)
Potrero (V)
31 Kern (E)
oo 32 Morro Bay (V)
33 El Centre
Cool Water (V)
Contra Costa/Pacific Gas and 2,029
Electric Company
San Francisco/Pacific Gas and 318
Electric Company
Kern/Pacific Gas and Electric 100
Company
San Luis Obispo/Pacific Gas 1,056
and Electric Company
Imperial/Imperial Irrigation 189
District
San Bernard!no/Southern Cali- 146
form'a Edison Company
24,190 0.5 . 55,541
3,885 0.4 14,202
139
19,764 0.4 48,812
6,602 1.4 5,264
1,373 0.5 9,688
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No' notation indicates flat model.
-------
ro
TABLE 3-b
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN DELAWARE
AQCR
Plant Name
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals
S 106 Ft3
46 McKee Run (E)
Indian River (E)
Kent/City of Dover 38
Sussex/Delmarva Power and 340
Light Company
78 2.7 567 0.9
873 1.6 1,596 ' 0.3
184
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
CO
o
TABLE 3-c
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN FLORIDA
1 ?
AQCR # Plant Name^
48 Cape Kennedy
Sanford New (E)
Turner (E)
Indian River
Lake Highland
50 Cutler
Lauderdale
Port Everglades
Miami
1972 Annual Fuel Use
County/Power Company MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
orevara/ r i on aa rower ana OUD
Light Company
vo i usi a/r i oriaa rower ana oyo
Light Company
vo i us ia/ r i on aa rower c.\jc.
Corporation
Pi-«-iwTvrl /Ovl -i niHrt 1 !+• -i 1-1 +\r ?^O
brevaro/ ur i anuo uti i ity coy
Commission
r\v\nnr\ /flv»l •a nrln lltiln+'i/ Ofi
urange/ UP i anao uuii ity yo
Commission
Dade/Florida Power and 346
Light Company
tsrowara/ r i on aa rower ana j\c.
Light Company
RiT»«ia v*H /FT t\v\ H a Pnufav AnH 1 ?^^
Diuwuru/r IUF iua ruwui anu i , cou
Light Company
Dade/Florida Power and 46
Light Company
one ACA
IOC ftC/l
Of) 0/1/1
07 cn/i
6Qt;i
36,372
CO OC/I
OCC f|0fi
6,300
1.4
1.4
2.2
1.7
1.6
1.0
1.6
1.1
1.0
16,560
200
8,337
8,638
2,929
17,258
10,413
26,805
2,177
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-c (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN FLORIDA
AQCR #
1
Plant Name'
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
CO
50 Turkey Point
Riviera
Lake Worth
51 Fort Myers
Avon Park (E)
Dade/Florida Power and Light 804
Company
Palm Beach/Florida Power and 740
Light Company
Palm Beach/Lake Worth 59
Utilities Authority
Lee/Florida Power and Light 559
Company
Highlands/Florida Power Cor- 61
poration
193,872 1.3 12,152
174,481 1.0 14,153
601 2.1
12,222 2.1
2,460
196,854 1.2
1,540
^f 1— 4 1 I^J 1 1 *9 \ L- /
Bartow (E)
Bayboro (E)
Higgins (E)
k.v>v,//i i vi ivju i wrtt. i v*u i y\J i u L> I \Jt I
Pi nel las/Florida Power Cor-
poration
Pi nel las/Florida Power Cor-
poration
Pinellas/Florida Power Cor-
poration
JT
494
51
138
1 1 ,/ ID
179,130
22,050
r-j "n?n
o/ ,U/o
C.£.
2.2
2.2
2.2
i ,yoj
2,947
739
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-c (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN FLORIDA
AQCR
52
#] Plant Name2
Lake Parker-Plant
No. 3 (E)
Hookers Point
Big Bend (E)
Rannnn
County/Power Company
Polk/Lakeland Department of
Electricity and Water
Hillsborough/Tampa Electric
Company
Hillsborough/Tampa Electric
Company
Hi 1 1 <:hnrnunh/Tamna Flprtrir
1972 Annual Fuel Use
MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
??n ... .. /LA 99A 9 1 0 f\r?f\
c.£-\j • "- • tOjtt'f c. . \ O,UcD
9-30 ._ ... Q1 O9O 9 C
COJ ~' •- y I jO^O C . D
/1/lfi qpc 07
HtU 9O9 O. /
1 97H 9/191 07
CO
ro
Company
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-d
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN ILLINOIS
OJ
CO
1 1972 Annual Fuel Use
AQCR # Plant Name? County/Power Company MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
65 Keystone (E) Peoria/Central Illinois Light 39 2,892
Company
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
CO
TABLE 3-e
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN INDIANA
1 2
AQCR # Plant Name
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S
Natural Gas
106 Ft3
77 Ohio River (E)
Warrick (E)
Vanderburgh/Southern Indiana 122
Gas and Electric Company
Warrick/Southern Indiana Gas 732
and Electric Company
2,384
3.5
10,832 0.1
3,947
Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
"V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
GO
en
TABLE 3- f
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN MAINE
AQCR #
1
Plant Name2
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
109 Graham (V)
110 Wyman (E)
Penobscot/Bangor Hydro-Elec- 57
trie Company
Cumberland/Central Maine Power 214
Company
25,400 2.0
115,038 2.2
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
CO
en
TABLE 3-g
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN MARYLAND
1 2
AQCR # Plant Name
115 Crane (E)
Gould Street (E)
Riverside (E)
Wagner (E)
Wpstnnrt (P\
County/Power Company
Baltimore/Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company
Anne Arundel/Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company
Baltimore/Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company
City of Baltimore/Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company
P.itv nf Ral timnre/Ral timnrp
MW
400
174
334
980
IQd
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S
. . 177 ^99
fin AAO
i 1 o 1 07
328,915
fin R^O
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
n Q
Natural Gas
106 Ft3
Gas and Electric Company
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
GO
TABLE 3-h
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN MASSACHUSETTS
AQCR # Plant Name2
119 Edgar (V) '
L Street (E)
Mystic (E)
New Boston (E)
Kendall Square (E)
120 Canal (E)
Cleary (E)
Taunton (E)
County/Power Company
Norfolk/Boston Edison Company
Suffolk/Boston Edison Company
Middlesex/Boston Edison Com-
pany
Suffolk/Boston Edison Company
Middlesex/Cambridge Electric
Light Company
Barnstable/Canal Electric
Company
Bristol /Taunton Municipal
Lighting Plant
Bristol /Taunton Municioal
MW
261
115
618
760
67
543
28
38
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
QC pec
TO non
ioe coq
1 -7U ,O£0
ooi ore
26,040
oeo 00,1
13,205
Ifi ?Qft
n o
O/i
.f
Or
n c
0.5 1,647
OQ
. y
0.9
n Q
Lighting Plant
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" Indicates terrain model. No notation Indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-i
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN MICHIGAN
1 2 1972 Annual Fuel Use
AQCR # Plant Name County/Power Company MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
125 Morrow (E) Kalamazoo/Consumers Power 186 37,459 1.0 4,461
Company
OJ
CO
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
CO
TABLE 3-j
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN MINNESOTA
11972 Annual Fuel Use~~
AQCR # Plant Name2 County/Power Company MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
131 Southeast (E) Hennepin/Northern States Power 30 1,819 0.5 285
Company
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state In which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-k
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
! 1972 Annual Fuel Use
AQCR # Plant Name County/Power Company MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural. Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
121 Merrimack (V) Merrimack/Public Service Com- 459 1,224 2.4
pany of New Hampshire
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" Indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN NEW JERSEY
1
AQCR #
Plant Name
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S
Natural Gas
106 Ft3
43 Essex (E)
Hudson (E)
Kearny A (E)
Kearny B (E)
Linden
Marion (E)
Sewaren (E)
Essex/Public Service Elec-
tric/Gas Company
Hudson/Public Service Elec-
tric/Gas Company
Hudson/Public Service Elec-
tric/Gas Company
Hudson/Public Service Elec-
tric/Gas Company
Union/Public Service
trie/Gas Company
Hudson/Public Service Elec-
tric/Gas Company
Middlesex/Public Service
Electric/Gas Company
1,115
613
125
776
0.:
1.2 139,885 0.3 12,446
19,517 0.3
115,412 0.:
,659 0.6
),887 0.:
287,713 0.4 1,575
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-m
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN NEW YORK
AQCR
Plant Name
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
ro
43 59th Street
Hell Gate
East River
Hudson Avenue
Glenwood (E)
Northport (E)
Indian Point (V)
158 Oswego (E)
160 Greenidge (V)
New York/Consolidated Edison
Company (N.Y.)
185
Bronx/Consolidated Edison Com- 511
pany (N.Y.)
New York/Consolidated Edison 605
Company (N.Y.)
Kings/Consolidated Edison 765
Company (N.Y.)
Nassau/Long Island Lighting 380
Company
Suffolk/Long Island Lighting 1,161
Company
Westchester/Consolidated Edi- 275
son Company (N.Y.)
Oswego/Niagara Mohawk Power 376
Corporation
Yates/New York State Elec- 160
trie/Gas Corporation
60,215 0.4
467
144,698 0.4 3,156
86,663 0.3 17,719
146,836 0.3 1,154
126,861 0.9 1,062
424,284 2.4
29,723 0.3
133,103 2.4
2.0
2,341 0.2
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
-pi
CO
TABLE 3-m (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN NEW YORK
AQCR #] Plant Name2
160 Rochester 3 (E)
Rochester 7 (E)
162 Huntley (E)
163 Goudey (V)
Jennison (V)
164 Hickling (V)
Milliken (V)
Dunkirk (V)
County/Power Company
Monroe/Rochester Gas/Elec-
tric Corporation
Monroe/Rochester Gas/Elec-
tric Corporation
Erie/Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation
Broome/N.Y. State Electric/
Gas Corporation
Chenango/N.Y. State Elec-
tric/Gas Corporation
Steuben/N.Y. State Elec-
tric/Gas Corporation
Tompkins/N.Y. State Elec-
tric/Gas Corporation
Chatauqaa/Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation
MW
196
253
828
104
60
70
270
628
1972 Annual Fuel Use
CoaV Fuel Oil Natural. Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
7H 9/L9 1 Q
— — /:7)£H£ 1 . y
Rfifi 9 n Rfi? n A
JOO C. ,\J 3Oc. U • H
1 d?7 1 Q —
I > to/ 1 . y •• •• i ,.— . ...
319 2.3 503 0.2
i?n in ...
I / u 1 . U -..-....
001 -1 C
JO \ 1 . D . "~
743 2.1 660 0.6
1 ?Rfi ? fi
1 ) &.3U C. . D ...
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-n
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN NORTH CAROLINA
1 2
AQCR # Plant Name
136 Dan River (E)
165 Cliffside (E)
Marshall (V)
166 Cape Fear (E)
Roxboro (E)
169 Weatherspoon
170 Lee (E)
171 Asheville (V)
1972 Annual Fuel Use
County/Power Company MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
Rockingham/Duke Power Company 290 869 0.9
Rutherford /Duke Pnwpr fomnanv 781 ? ^71 i /i P7"3 n 7
i-\u ui iwi i \st \j/ LfuiNC i v^vvci v win po I ijr / tj 1 £.,£./! 1 • " O/O U • O ^^~^~^
Catawba/Duke Power Company 2,000 5,284 1.0 13,816 0.3
Chatham/Carolina Power and 391 846 1.4 388 0.1
Light Company
Person/Carolina Power and 1,068 2,631 1.4 977 0.1
Light Company
Robeson/Carol ina Power and 166 231 10 2 921
Light Company
Wavne/Carol i na Powpr and 1 iaht 10? R7A 1 1 7nn
riUJMIxi/l^Wlwlllltl IWTVCI UIIU L-l^lll* ^wt- O/H I.I ^^^^^ ^~~^^ / UU
Company
Buncombe/Carolina Power and 414 978 1.4
Light Company
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-o
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN OHIO
-P.
tn
AQCR i
79
175
176
180
1 2
9 Plant Name
West End (V)
Shelby (E)
Columbus (E)
Norwalk Steam (E)
County/Power Company
Hamilton/Cincinnati Gas and
Electric Company
Richl and/Shelby Municipal
Light and Power Company
Franklin/ City of Columbus
Huron/Ohio Edison Comnanv
MW
219
26
46
31
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S
29 1.3 341 0.2
3Q 9 fi
Natural Gas
106 Ft3
5,470
21
1,691
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" Indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-p
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN PENNSYLVANIA
, 1972 Annual Fuel Use
AQCR # Plant Name2 County/Power Company MW Coal' Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
151 Hunlock Creek (V) Luzerne/UGI Corporation/Luzerne 89 353 0.7 2,096 0.1
Electric Division
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-q
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN SOUTH CAROLINA
AQCR #
200
201
202
203
?na
1 2
Plant Name
Wateree (EJ
McMeekin (E)
Robinson (E)
Lee (E)
Greenwood (E)
firai nnpr
County/Power Company
Richl and/ South Carolina Elec-
tric and Gas Company
Lexington/South Carolina Elec-
tric and Gas Company
Darlington/ Carolina Power and
Light Company
Anderson/Duke Power Company
Greenwood/ Duke Power Company
Hnrrv/^nnth Tarnlina Pnhlir
MW
722
250
207
345
36
ifii
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
1,484 1.4 3,108 0.2
553 1.5 ' 3,239
333 1.0 991
1,04-7 1.1 1,325
8 one n "5 1 fiA9
, oUO U . o 1 , Utc
/I1C 11
Service
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
00
TABLE
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN TEXAS
AQCR tf1 Plant Name2
210 Graham (E) •
Morgan Creek (E)
Abilene (E)
Lake Pauline (E)
Paint Creek (E)
211 Holly Avenue
Plant No. 2
Jones
Nichols (E)
County/Power Company
Young/Texas Electric Service
Company
Mitchell /Texas Electric Ser-
vice Company
Taylor/West Texas Utilities
Company
Hardeman/West Texas Utilities
Company
Haskell/West Texas Utilities
Company
Lubbock/Lubbock Power and
Light Company
Lubbock/Lubbock Power and
Light Company
Lubbock/ Southwestern Public
Service Company
Potter/Southwestern Public
Service Company
MW
635
846
26
45
242
50
81
248
475
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
/IQI n 7 IA om
*fyi U./ o4,£UI
1 ^fif? n O FiA f\f\~J
l ,tOo U.o 04, UU/
^fii n F; 01
JO 1 U.O Ol
OOC Of • O 1 01
0£O U.O £, 1 0 1
t^fio n i o orn
00^ U. 1 u,^OU
2A~IC
t't/o
4O.KO
,uoy
10 poc
10 ,OtO
1Q Ql O
y ,y i o
,. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model..
-------
TABLE 3-r (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN TEXAS
AQCR tf1 Plant Name2
211 Plant X (E)-
Riverview (E)
Denver City
East Plant
Moore
212 Big Brown (E)
Holly Street (E)
Seaholm (E)
Decker Creek (E)
County/Power Company
Lamb/Southwestern Public Ser--
vice Company
Hutchinson/Southwestern Pub-
1 ic Service Company
Yoakum/Southwestern Public
Service Company
Potter/Southwestern Public
Service Company
Moore/Southwestern Public
Service Company
Freestone/Texas Utilities 1
Service
Travis/Austin Electric
Department
Travis/Austin Electric
Department
Travis/Austin Electric
Department
MW
434
35
80
71
68
,187
416
125
321
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural. Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
2,583 0.7 21,967
2OCQ
jOOi;
fi 7-5C
... „ , ... — O , / OD
349 0.7 4,304
? m o
*j 9 y i y
4,731 0.6 1,027
o noc T (\ 10 qon
0 , yc-Q I . u I J tyy(J
557 1.0 5,547
*. 1 1 79/1
1 1 , / L.H
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" Indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-r (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN TEXAS
AQCR #
1
Plant Name'
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
10° Tons
S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
en
o
212 Gideon (E) '
Lake Creek (E)
Tradinghouse (E)
213 Bates (E)
La Palma
Laredo (E)
Victoria
214 Joslin
Nueces Bay
Bastrop/Lower Colorado River 623
Authori ty
McLennan/Texas Power and Light 316
1,380
McLennan/Texas Power and
Light
Hidalgo/Central Power and
Light Company
Cameron/Central Power and
Light Company
189
209
Webb/Central Power and Light 72
Company
Victoria/Central Power and 554
• Light Company
Calnoun/Central Power and 261
Light Company
Nueces/Central Power and Light 566
Company
7,182 0.9 30,058
1,091 ' 0.7 19,113
750 0.7 61,018
55 0.7
4 0.7
9,976
5 0.7 10,796
4,444
18 0.7 23,745
2,503 0.7 13,076
2,516 0.7 26,355
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-r (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN TEXAS
AQCR #
1
Plant Name
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
214 Hill
215 North Texas (E)
Miller (V)
Denton (E)
Dallas (E)
Mountain Creek
North Lake (E)
Parkdale (E)
Lake Hubbard (E)
Nueces/Central Power and Light 574
Company
Parker/Brazos Electric Power 75
Cooperative, Inc.
Palo Pinto/Brazos Electric 188
Power Cooperative, Inc.
Denton/City of Denton Utilities 1!
Dallas/Dallas Power and Light
Company
Dallas/Dallas Power and Light 990
Company
Dallas/Dallas Power and Light' 709
Company
Dallas/Dallas Power and Light 341
Company
Dallas/Dallas Power and Light 397
Company
35 0.7
1,433 0.8
0.8
2,306 0.7
23,466
3,133
7,
1,575 0.8 4,
2,003 0.7 5,
5,550 0.9 34,
5,449 0.8 29,075
7,602
2,394 0.3 15,193
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
?. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
on
ro
TABLE 3-r (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN TEXAS
AQCR #} Plant Name2
215 Newman (E)
Olinger (E)
Handley (E)
North Main (E)
Eagle Mountain (E)
Collin (E)
Valley (E)
216 Lewis Creek (E)
Clarke
County/Power Company
Dallas/Garland Municipal Power
and Light Company
Dallas/Garland Municipal Power
and Light Company
Tarrant/Texas Electric Ser-
vice Company
Tarrant/Texas Electric Ser-
vice Company
Tarrant/Texas Electric Ser-
vice Company
Coll in/Texas Power and Light
Company
Fannin/Texas Power and Light 1
Company
Montgomery/Gulf States Uti-
lities Company
Harris/Houston Lighting and
Power Company
1972 Annual Fuel Use
MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural. Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
07
1 00
| fjy
COO
01
O 1
7("lfi
/ uo —
1 KC
17C
R/L?
9i n
1 c/17
OOfi
oyo
9QA
£\fH
fl?n
1 Ififi
1 , 1 DO
1 ?f!A
°, Rfil
oi
£. 1
fiR
Do
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.2
1.8
2,238
7,135
19,084
4,059
23,158
7,110
33,400
28,676
2,289
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
en
CO
TABLE 3-r (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN TEXAS
AQCR # ] Plant Name2
216 Deepwater
Greens Bayou
Robinson
Bertron
Wharton
Parish
Webster
Cedar Bayou
217 Braunig (E)
1. Other plants in each
County/Power Company
Harris/Houston Lighting and
Power Company
Harris/Houston Lighting and
Power Company
Galveston/Houston Lighting
and Power Company
Harris/Houston Lighting and
Power Company
Harris/Houston Lighting and
Power Company
Fort Bend/Houston Lighting
and Power Company
Harris/Houston Lighting and
Power Company
Chambers/Houston Lighting
and Power Company
Bexar/San Antonio Public
Service Board
MW
335
375
1,550
826
323
1,255
614
1,530
894
AQCR may have been modeled previously;
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
. . 7F( 1 Q.
/ O 1 . y
, . CO 1 Q
DO i . y
. . . fifiA 1 7
Oof 1 . /
1 QK 9 1
i yo c . i
1 no i c
\ yo 1 .0
... RH i o
ou I .0
3,841 0.3
refer to Table 1. In addition, plants
15,807
6,138
90,375
46,247
16,454
66,370
26,813
93,334
30,306
in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-r (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN TEXAS
AQCR # Plant Name2
217 Mission Road (E)
Tuttle (E)
Leon Creek (E)
Sommers (E)
Comal (V)
218 Permian Basin
San Angelo (E)
Oak Creek (E)
Concho (E)
County/Power Company
Bexar/San Antonio Public Ser-
vice Board
Bexar/San Antonio Public Ser-
vice Board
Bexar/San Antonio Public Ser-
vice Board
Bexar/San Antonio Public Ser-
vice Board
Comal /Lower Colorado River
Authority
Ward/Texas Electric Service
Company
Tom Green/West Texas Uti-
lities Company
Coke/West Texas Utilities
Company
Tom Green/West Texas Uti-
lities Company
MW
114
494
189
446
60
165
101
82
53
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S
77 0.5
7C1? 0 7
— / uo u . /
in ri7fl n °
1 U ,U/o U . L
21 (\(\ 9 n
, 1 DO C. . U
°i /i n i
c. 1 'f U.I
197 0.4
A A c n n
Natural Gas
106 Ft3
3,462
13,479
3,764
11,421
4,017
10,302
4,348
4,153
248
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-r (continued)
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN TEXAS
tn
en
-, 2 1972 Annual Fuel Use
AQCR # Plant Name County/Power Company MW CoaV Fuel Oil Natural. Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
218 Rio Pecos (E) Crockett/West Texas Utilities 137 10,772
Company
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates fUt model.
-------
TABLE: 3-s
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
• IN VERMONT
CJl
! 2 "^2 Annual Fuel Use
AQCR # Plant Name County/Power Company MW Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
159 Moran (V) Chittendon/Burlington Electric 30 33 1.0 592
Light Department
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2 "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-t
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN VIRGINIA
AQCR
222
224
226
1 2
# Plant Name
Brantly
Bremo Bl
Riverton
Glen Lyn
(E)'
uff (E)
(E)
(V)
County /Power
Pi ttsylvani a/City
Fluvanna/Virginia
Power Company
Company
of Danville
Electric
Warren/Potomac Edison Company
Niles/ Appalachian
Power
MW
29
254
35
403
1972
Coal
103 Tons %
36
536
45
• 846
0.
1.
1.
1.
Annual
S 103
9
0
2
0 2
Fuel Use
Fuel Oil
Gals % S
41
,831
0.3
0.3
Natural Gas
106 Ft3
1,671
en
Company
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
2. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-u
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
•IN BEST VIRGINIA
AQCR #
Plant Name 2
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural. Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
234 Kanawha River (V)
Amos (E)
Cabin Creek (V)
Kanawha/Appalachian Power
Company
439
Kanawha/Appalachian Power 1,633
Company
Kanawha/Appalachian Power
Company
221
1,230 0.9
97
4,144 1.1 5,145
355 1.3
41
en
00
* Sulfur content (distillate oil) was not estimated because the emissions were negligible compared to those of the
coal burned.
1. Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state 1n which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
?.. "V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
-------
TABLE 3-v
SUMMARY OF 1972 POWER PLANT FUEL USE FOR PLANTS
IN WISCONSIN
AQCR #
1
Plant Name
County/Power Company
MW
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal Fuel Oil Natural Gas
103 Tons % S 103 Gals % S 106 Ft3
239 Commerce (E)
Lakeside (E)
Milwaukee/Wisconsin Electric 35
Power Company
Milwaukee/Wisconsin Electric 310
Power Company
2,258 0.3 1,840
15,995 0.5 8,221
Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; refer to Table 1. In addition, plants in inter-
state AQCRs are listed under the state in which they are located, so that plants in the same AQCR may appear
on different tables.
V" indicates valley model. "E" indicates terrain model. No notation indicates flat model.
HUH
-------
REFERENCES
1. Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1972/1973/1974 Editions, National Coal
Association, Washington, D.C. (1973)(1974)(1975).
2. Turner, D.B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, PHS Publication No.
992-AP-26 (Rev. 1970).
3. Briggs, G.A., "Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observations," In:
Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress. Academic
Press, New York, N.Y., pp. 1029-1032 (1971).
4. Briggs, G.A., "Discussions - Chimney Plumes in Neutral and Stable Sur-
roundings," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 6, pp. 507-510 (1972).
5. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance
Extensions in 51 Air Quality Control Regions," Wai den Research (Con-
tract No. 68-02-0049), December 17, 1973, EPA Report Number EPA-450/3-
75-060; available from National Technical Information Services,
5285 Port Royal Street, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
6. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Fuel Conver-
sion," Walden Research (Contract No. 68-02-1377), May 1975, EPA Report
Number EPA 450/3-75-064; available from National Technical Information
Services, 5285 Port Royal Street, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
7. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Selected Power Plants in 128
AQCRs for Evaluation of Impact on Ambient S0? Concentrations, Volume
II," GEOMET, Inc. (Contract No. 68-02-1483), June 1975, EPA Report
Number EPA-450/3-75-063; available from National Technical Information
Services, 5285 Port Royal Street, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
8. "Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Evaluation of Impact on Ambient
S0? Concentrations, (Name) AQCR (No.)," Walden Research (Contract No.
68-02-1484). Sixty separate reports, dated between Fall 1974 and
Spring 1975, are available from the Air Pollution Technical Informa-
tion Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. The APTIC number associated with each AQCR
report is shown below:
AQCR # AQCR Name APTIC #
24
25
26
Metropolitan Los Angeles
North Central Coast
Northeast Plateau
75453
75454
75455
60
-------
AQCR #
29
30
31
32
33
43
46
48
50
51
52
65
77
79
109
110
115
119
120
121
125
131
136
151
158
159
160
162
163
164
165
166
169
170
171
175
176
180
200
201
202
203
204
210
AQCR Name
San Diego
San Francisco Bay Area
San Joaquin Valley
South Central Coast
Southeast Desert
New York - New Jersey - Connecticut
Southern Delaware
Central Florida
Southeast Florida
Southwest Florida
West Central Florida
Burlington - Keokuk
Evansville - Owensboro - Henderson
Metropolitan Cincinnati
Down East
Metropolitan Portland
Metropolitan Baltimore
Metropolitan Boston
Metropolitan Providence
Merrimack Valley - Southern New Hampshire
South Central Michigan
Minneapolis - Saint Paul
Northern Piedmont
Northeast Pennsylvania - Upper Delaware Valley
Central New York
Champ! ain Valley
Genessee - Finger Lakes
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier East
Southern Tier West
Eastern Mountain
Eastern Piedmont
Sandhills
Southern Coastal Plain
Western Mountain
Mansfield - Marion
Metropolitan Columbus
Sandusky
Columbia
Florence
Greenville - Spartanburg
Greenwood
Georgetown
Abilene - Wichita Falls
APTIC #
75456
75457
75458
75459
75460
75461
75462
75463
75464
75465
75466
75467
75468
75469
75470
75471
75472
75473
75474
75475
75476
75477
75478
75479
75480
75481
75482
75483
75484
75485
75486
75487
75488
75489
75490
75491
75492
75493
75494
75495
75496
75497
75498
75499
61
-------
AQCR # AQCR Name APTIC #
211 Amarillo - Lubbock 75500
212 Austin - Waco 75501
213 Brownsville - Laredo 75502
214 Corpus Christi - Victoria 75503
215 Metropolitan Dallas - Fort Worth 75504
216 Metropolitan Houston - Galveston 75505
217 Metropolitan San Antonio 75506
218 Midland - Odessa - San Angelo 75507
222 Central Virginia 75508
224 Northeastern Virginia 75509
226 Valley of Virginia 75510
234 Kanawha Valley 75511
239 Southeastern Wisconsin 75512
62
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS POWER PLANT MODELING STUDIES
The work summarized in Volumes I and II of this report is a continu-
ation of power plant modeling efforts underway since late in 1972. For
convenience, this appendix briefly describes earlier efforts performed
either by the Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD, OAQPS, EPA, or by
Wai den Research. With completion of the effort reported herein, all
fossil-fueled power plants reporting to FPC in 1972 have now been modeled.
A listing of AQCRs modeled in each effort is given in Table 1 of this
report.
The various modeling studies have been performed for slightly dif-
ferent purposes and on somewhat different data bases. Therefore, the
following paragraphs give a brief summary of the basis for the previous
studies. The most important point to be borne in mind is that these
studies should not be taken in isolation as providing a definitive
"answer" for a specific plant. All available data on the plant's opera-
tion and surroundings should be evaluated in reaching any final conclu-
sions. These supplementary data should include: the impact of other
sources in the area, measured air quality data, known or suspected down-
draft or fumigation problems, unique nearby terrain features, nearby
land use patterns and population distributions, more specific opera-
tional data for the plant, impact of units new since the base year of
the study, specific meteorological studies for the area, and additional
studies and findings by other investigations. Only a full consideration
of all these data will lead to a balanced and reasonable decision.
Plants Modeled by SRAB
SRAB has modeled power plants in a total of eight AQCRs. The first
three (Indianapolis, Southern Indiana, and Wabash Valley) [A-l] were
modeled to define an acceptable strategy for dealing with the projected
deficit of low-sulfur coal arising from full application of SIPs as
A-l
-------
originally promulgated. That study, which considered alj_ sources of S02,
concluded that: (1) power plant variances (or plan revisions) offered the
best strategy for reducing the low-sulfur coal deficit while maintaining
at least primary S02 air quality standards; and (2) in considering power
plants for variances (or plan revisions), it is absolutely essential to
consider the 24-hour standard, since in most cases, this is the limiting
value. Subsequently, SRAB modeled power plants in an additional five
midwest AQCRs [A-2] to define the amount of low-sulfur coal demand reduc-
tion which might be obtained by variances to coal-fired power plants.
Both of the SRAB studies used FPC data for the power plants and included
best available projections to 1975.
Plants Modeled by Waiden Research (BOA 69-02-0049, Tasks 8 and 11)
These modeling studies covered 180 power plants in 43 coal-intensive
AQCRs. The purpose of the studies was to determine the amount of low-
sulfur coal demand reduction which might be obtained from variances (or
plan revisions) for coal-fired power plants. Basic information on power
plant operations was taken from FPC Form 67 for 1971; projections to 1975
were made, based upon best available information from the FPC and other
sources. Variance status was determined by a comparison of predicted air
quality with a criterion value of 290 yg/m . SCL concentrations at or
below this value were considered acceptable to achieve primary standards
(allowing up to 75 yg/m for the concurrent contributions of all other sources)
Air quality impact of SIP conditions was also calculated. Results of the
studies were presented in individual AQCR summary reports.
Hal den issued a report [A-3] which summarized the results of their
modeling studies under Tasks 8 and 11 as well as the previous modeling
conducted by SRAB. This report summarizes results from modeling 206 power
plants in 51 AQCRs. The report showed that low-sulfur (less than 1%) coal
demand could be reduced by about 137 million tons/year by selective appli-
cation of variances, while still achieving primary S02 air quality standards.
A-2
-------
Plants Modeled by Maiden Research (BOA 68-02-1377. Task 2)
As a result of the oil shortage during the winter of 1973-1974 and
subsequent legislation, a number of plants have been and are being con-
sidered for converting certain units from oil- to coal-firing. The pur-
pose of this modeling study was to define the air quality impact of pos-
sible fuel switches. Both S02 and particulate concentrations were
evaluated. Modeling was conducted for two situations: (1) 1972 opera-
tions and (2) with certain units switched to coal. A comparison of the
two situations shows the change in maximum concentrations associated
with switching fuels. Time and data constraints made it impossible to
project operations beyond 1972. Isopleth maps of concentration super-
imposed on population density maps were also prepared. Results of the
study are presented in four "Group" reports (Group I-IV) and a report
on AQCR #42. It is important to note that only those plants proposed
for fuel conversion and those other plants which might have significant
interaction were modeled, not all plants in the AQCR, as in the previous
studies. Sixty-three plants located in 17 AQCRs were modeled in this
study. Walden published a report [A-4] summarizing this study in May
1975.
A-3
-------
REFERENCES - Appendix A
A-l. "Fuel Distribution Study for the Indianapolis, Southern Indiana, and
Wabash Valley AQCRs," EPA Draft Report, March 1973. Also see adden-
dum to the draft report, dated April 12, 1973. APTIC Report #75403
available from Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
A-2. "Fuel Distribution Study for Five Midwest AQCRs," EPA Draft Report,
revised May 1973. APTIC Report #75404.available from Air Pollution
Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
A-3. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance
Extensions in 51 Air Quality Control Regions," Walden Research Divi-
sion of Abcor,.Inc. (Contract 68-02-0049), December 17, 1973; EPA
Report #EPA-450/3-75-060, available from National Technical Infor-
mation Services, 5285 Port Royal Street, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
A-4. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Fuel Conver-
sion," Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc. (Contract 68-02-1377),
May 1975; EPA Report #EPA-450/3-75-064, available from National Tech-
nical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Street, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS
Description of the Single Source Model (CRS MOD )
The model used to estimate ambient concentrations for plants located
where terrain was judged not to have a significant effect 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.
This model is a Gaussian plume model using diffusion coefficients
based on Turner (1970).* Concentrations are estimated for each hour of
the year, based on the wind direction (in increments of 10 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" signifi-
cantly 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 SOo concentrations.
Meteorological data for 1964 were used. The reasons for this choice
are: (1) 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 obser-
vations made at the most representative upper air station. Hourly mixing
heights were estimated by the model using an objective interpolation scheme,
Description of the Single Source Terrain Adjustment Model (CRSTER)
To simulate the effect of elevated terrain in the vicinity of plants
where terrain was judged to have a significant effect, the modeling analy-
sis used a terrain adjustment procedure which considered the difference
* Turner, D.B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," U.S. Dept.
of H.E.W., PHS Publication No. 999-AP-25 (Rev. 1970).
B-l
-------
between the plant elevation and the elevation at each receptor. Ground
elevations on 10° radials as well as points of maximum elevation were
determined from U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. The diffusion model then used
the difference between the plant elevation and the receptor elevation to
modify the effective stack height and thereby adjust the predicted con-
centrations.
Description of the Valley Model
The model used to estimate short-term concentrations for plants lo-
cated in severe terrain is one developed previously by EPA for applica-
tion to sources located in complex terrain (valley model). Elevations
of the receptor sites are derived from contours on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle
maps of the area. The model calculates a daily average concentration at
these receptor locations based on a 10 meter nearest-approach point of
the plume and an assumed persistence of meteorological conditions for 6
hours out of the 24 hours. During this period, the wind direction azi-
muth is considered to be confined to a 22.5 degree sector. This model
assumes a stability class "E" (stable) and a wind speed of 2.5 m/sec.
More detailed descriptions of the three models are given in the AQCR
reports written by GEOMET, Inc.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
FORMS OF TABLES USED IN INDIVIDUAL AQCR REPORTS
-------
Table 3,
Maximum Ground Level Concentrations of
Maximum 24-Hr. Concentration
X2 v P9/niJ T Maximum Annual Concentration
Plant Nominal Load Maximum Load" ' x Annual, ug/m*
a.
Estimated maximum concentrations based upon 1972 operations.
b. Based on operation at 95% of rated capacity and the addition of a 10% safety factor to the computed
concentration.
-------
Table 4.
S02 Emissions and Basis Maximum Concentration Day.
Nominal Load Case k __ Maximum Load Case
Principal % Amount SO? "Emissions 'Amount S02 Emissions
Plant Fuels Sulfur Fuela Tons/Day Fuela Tons/Day
o
I
I\5
coal, 103 tons/day; oil, 103 gals/day; gas, TO6 CF/day.
-------
Table i.
Relationships for Plants
Maximum Concentration Day
" Maximum Annual Concentration
X
Q ' gin/ sec ' % ng/m*
Plant Nominal Load Maximum Load Q ' gm/sec
D
UO
-------
APPENDIX B
Source Input Data
AQCR f
t Nominal Load Operations Maximum Load Operations
Stack *"Ttack Exit S02 Plant ;.\ Stack Exit" "~~
Plant Stack Rated Capacity He1qh~t DiamT VclbcfUytemp. Emissions8 Variation" Velocity Temp.' Emissions0
(Company) No. (106 Dtu/hr) (m) (m) (m/sec) (°K) (gm/scc) Factors* (m/scc) (°K) (gm/scc)
a. Based on annual average operations.
b. Based on plant operating at 957! of capacity.
c. The underlined value corresponds to the month of the maximum concentration day. The factors are listed chronologically, starting with January.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 EW4W3-75-062 |2'
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Selected Power
Plants in 128 AQCRs for Evaluation of Impact on
Ambient SO? Concentrations, Volume I
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
June 1975
7. AUTHOR(S)
Dr. L. Morgenstern
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
606
9. PERFORMING ORG MMIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc.
201 Vassar Street
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2AC129
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1484
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Tyiannlp Park'. N. P.. ?7711
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
See also report of same title, Volume II, by GEOMET, Inc.
report number EPA-450/3-75-063
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents a summary of a series of 128 reports covering modeling
analyses of 401 power plants distributed throughout 128 AQCRs in 44 states. The
purpose of the study is to evaluate the impact on ambient S02 concentrations of power
plant operations. This study provides a base for further analysis if decisions must
be made regarding possible compliance extensions or fuel use options for power plants
Volume I of this report covers the analysis of 195 power plants in 60 AQCRs
by Walden Research Div. of Abcor, Inc. Volume II of this report covers the analysis
of 206 power plants in 68 AQCRs by GEOMET, Inc.
This study is intended only to add to the overall analyses of the power plant
industry being conducted both by governmental agencies and private industry.
Decisions on final evaluations based on the material presented in this report
pertaining to specific plants should consider the input data available for the model,
the assumptions on which the model is based, the procedures followed in conducting
the analysis, as well as several other factors not addressed herein.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
power plant modeling
power plant variances
dispersion modeling
S02 impact of power plants
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report I
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
under 200
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number 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, tf 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-^., 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 NpTES
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 COS ATI 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. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
i"PA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
------- |