EPA-450/3-7 5-063
June 1975
SUMMARY REPORT
ON MODELING ANALYSIS
OF SELECTED POWER PLANTS
IN 128 AQCRs FOR EVALUATION
OF IMPACT ON AMBIENT SO2
CONCENTRATIONS,
VOLUME II
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-75-063
SUMMARY REPORT
ON MODELING ANALYSIS
OF SELECTED POWER PLANTS
IN 128 AQCRs FOR EVALUATION
OF IMPACT ON AMBIENT SO2
CONCENTRATIONS,
VOLUME II
by
Mr. R. C. Koch
GEOMET, Inc.
15 Firstfield Road
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760
Contract No. 68-02-1483
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
-------
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
GEOMET, Inc. , Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760, in fulfillment of Contract
No.68-02-1483. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received
from GEOMET, 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-450/3-75-063
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents a summary of a series of 128 reports covering model-
ing analyses of 401 power'plants distributed throughout 128 AQCRs in 44 states.
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the impact on ambient S0£ concentra-
tions 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.
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 analy^
sis procedure and a presentation of the summary results.
Volume I of this report covers the analysis of 195 power plants in 60
AQCRs by Walden Research Division of Abcor, Inc. Of these 195 power plants
modeled for 1972 operations, SO? 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, Incorporated. Of these 206 power plants modeled for 1972 opera-
tions, S02 emissions from approximately 54 resulted in concentrations which,
by themselves, exceeded the primary 24-hour S02 standard.
Emissions from none of the plants for which an annual S02 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 concen-
trations 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 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.
-n-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work reported 1n.Volume II of this study was greatly aided by the
technical direction of the EPA Project Officer, C.E. Hears, and the coopera-
tion and assistance provided by D.H. Barrett, R.F. Lee, and A.G. Larson, all
members of the Monitoring and Data Analysis Division of the Office of A1r
Quality Planning and Standards, Office of A1r and Waste Management, EPA.
The GEOMET Principal Investigator was R.C. Koch. Members of the GEOMET
staff who made significant technical contributions to the project Include:
E.R. Sawdey, P.H. Hwang, O.H. Beard, D.J. Pelton, C.A. Allen, and
D,0. Moschandreas.
-111-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. METHOD OF ANALYSIS 2
A. Source Input Data 2
B. Meteorological Data 4
C. Site Data 4
D. Dispersion Modeling 5
E. Maximum Load Versus Nominal Load Operations 6
III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 7
IV. APPROPRIATE USES OF DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS 10
REFERENCES 47
APPENDIX A - A Brief Description of Previous Power
Plant Modeling Studies
APPENDIX B - Description of the Models
APPENDIC C - Forms of Tables Used in Individual AQCR
Reports
-iv-
-------
INDEX OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Listing of References for Modeling Analyses 11
2 Power Plant Summary for 128 AQCRs 16
3a Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Alabama 17
3b Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Arizona 18
3c Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Arkansas 19
3d Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Colorado 20
3e Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Illinois 21
3f Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Indiana 22
3g Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Iowa 23
3h Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Kansas 24
3i Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Kentucky 25
3j Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Louisiana 26
3k Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Michigan 28
31 Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Minnesota 29
3m Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Mississippi 30
3n Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Missouri 31
3o Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Montana 33
3p Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Nebraska 34
3q Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Nevada 35
3r Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in New Mexico 36
3s Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in North Dakota 37
3t Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Oklahoma 38
3u Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Oregon 39
3v Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in South Dakota 40
(Continued)
-v-
-------
INDEX OF- TABLES (Concluded)
Table . Page
3w Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Tennessee 41
3x Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Texas 42
3y Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Utah 43
3z Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Washington 44
3aa Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Wisconsin 45
3bb Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Wyoming 46
-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 Environmental Coor-
dination Act (June 1974) requires certain analyses relating 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 alterations in fuel
types and usage patterns may be required. These 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 adverse 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 proba-
ble 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. Appendix 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 S02
concentrations for 1972 operations at the remaining large power plants in the
Nation. Volume I of this report outlines the analyses by Walden Research of
195 power plants in 60 AQCRs. Volume II outlines the analyses by GEOMET,
Incorporated, 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 for a particu-
lar power plant to assist in choosing a desirable course of action. Any
decisions based on material presented in this report pertaining to individual
plants should carefully and fully take into account the quality of input data
available for the model, the assumptions on which the model is based, and the
procedures followed in conducting the analysis.
The final evaluation for a given plant should consider all relevant data
on the plant and should recognize the inherent limitations resulting 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 for the region, 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 operational data for the
plant, impact of units new since 1972, specific meteorological studies for
the area, and additional studies or findings by other investigators. Only a
full consideration of all these data will lead to a balanced and reasonable
decision.
* See list of references.
-1-
-------
II. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
An overview of the method of analysis is presented by the flow diagram in
Figure 1. This chart shows the relationship among the three major task ele-
ments and indicates further subtask components within each of these. Similar
techniques and procedures were used both by GEOMET, Incorporated and by Walden
Research, Inc. 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 obtained for 1972 opera-
tions. Adequate design and operating data for new units or new plants to be
installed beyond 1972 were not generally available. 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 sys-
tem 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 regard-
less 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 emis-
sion 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.
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 indicate the use of natural gas as a secondary
fuel. However, where combustion of this natural gas in the quantities
reported constituted negligible contributions to S02 emissions, 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 percent
of the total emissions for that unit. The monthly variations of these fuels
* A discussion of the diffusion models applied to different plants is given on page 5.
-------
Preparation of input Data I
I
co
i
Source Data
FPC Form 67
1969-72
-SC>2 Emissions
-Stack Height
-Stack Diameter
-Stack Cas Temper-
ture
-Stack Cas Exit Velocity
-Monthly Emission
Variation Facton
Meteorological Data
Surface Station Data
Upper Air Station Data
Preprocessing - JMHPT*
Site Data
Terrain Elevations
Urban/Rural Factor
UTM Coordinates
* A cronym for a computer program.
Dispersion Modeling
t
\
\
BraDhic^v J
alyrfs/
/
jf
I
r
Nominal Load
Flat Terrain
Model CRS1C*
Terrain Adjust-
ment Model
CRS2C*
-
1
r
,
Maximum Load
Flat Terrain
Model CRS1C*
\
Terrain Adjust-
ment Model
CRS2C*
~\
J
f Interaction
j Analysis
AQCR Summary Reports 6 Basic Data
AQCR Summary Reports
Maximum 24-hr. Concentrations
(Nominal C Maximum Loads)
Maximum Annual Concentration
> SC* Emissions
Fuel [~
Type
Amount
H Sulfur
- Suck Heights
- Boiler Capacity and Stack
Characteristics
- Ratio of Maximum Conc«ntr*>
tions to Emissions
Basic Input/Output Data
Figure 1. Power Plant Modeling Analysis
-------
were Incorporated into the total plant variation if the emissions were greater
than 10 percent of the total. In the 6EOMET analyses, emissions from secondary
fuels were included when those fuels amounted to 5 percent or more of total
heat input during at least one month of the year. In both cases, monthly vari-
ations were determined on'the basis of monthly emissions from each fuel calcu-
lated from fuel use and annual average sulfur content.
B. METEOROLOGICAL DATA
For an individual plant analysis, the meteorological data assembled con-
sist 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 satisfies the dual requirement
of hourly surface data, and wind direction azimuth recorded to the nearest
10 degree sector.
The surface and upper air data are preprocessed by a computer program
(JMHPT). Among the different functions performed by this routine are:
t Screening of all data for completeness
Determination of hourly stability classification
t 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 meteorological
data were used in the calculations. The calculations for these plants were
made for a representative unfavorable condition which is likely to occur,
i.e., 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 surround-
ing terrain. Isolated elevated terrain features such as nearby hills or
bluffs can be severely impacted by plume transport along selected 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.
-4-
-------
D. DISPERSION MODELING
For plants located in relatively flat terrain, a single source model was
used to estimate both annual and 24-hour maximum $62 concentrations from each
power plant9 based on 1972 operations. This model was developed by the
Meteorology Laboratory (NERC, RTF) of EPA. It employs a Gaussian plume for-
mulation and Briggs1 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 con-
ditions 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 significants
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 considered this
topographic factor by the application of a terrain adjustment procedure
described in Appendix B.
In some cases, the topography at certain plant sites was above the cal-
culated plume height for at least one stack at the plant. The analysis pro-
cedure considered this factor by the application of a special model designed
to estimate maximum around-level concentrations for elevated receptor sites
in valley locations [EPA "valley model"). The general features of this model
are also described in Appendix B. The scope of the analysis conducted with
this special model was designed only to determine representative maximum
24-hour concentration levels. Because plume dispersion from power plants
located in valley sites constitutes a complex interaction of source factors,
terrain factors, and meteorological factors, a more detailed and exhaustive
analysis of the specific power plant site is desirable prior to formulating
any action on such a plant.
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 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 neces-
sarily imply a directly proportional change in ambient concentrations. There-
fore, additional detailed analysis must be undertaken if an estimate of the
impact of the plant at different operating conditions is desired.
* See list of references.
-5-
-------
E. MAXIMUM LOAD VERSUS NOMINAL LOAD OPERATIONS
Emission data Input to the single-source model 1s 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 maxi-
mum rated capacity for 24 hours in many areas of the country. If such opera-
tions were coincident with the days of highest predicted concentrations, the
model's maximum predictions could be significantly low.
Therefore, modeling results are presented 1n this report for two situ-
ations, 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 days
of highest concentration found by using the monthly average emission
rates. Since the maximum load case Involves a greater plume rise,
a somewhat higher concentration may actually occur on a different
day. To allow for this contingency, a 10 percent safety factor was
added to the computed concentration.
For the same meteorological conditions, ground-level concentrations
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 conditions. Modeling of both cases pro-
vides a reasonable estimate of the range of possible values and permits iden-
tification of the maximum concentration case.
-6-
-------
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 specific number of power plants
which have been modeled for each AQCR in the Nation and the report which iden-
tifies them are listed in Table 1. Of the total of 670 plants, this volume
deals with results obtained for 206 plants in 68 AQCRs which were modeled by
GEOMET, Incorporated. Another 195 plants modeled in the current study by
Walden Research are treated in Volume I. 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 AQCR's. 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 conver-
sion 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 obtained 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 the
current study and indicates how many of these plants by themselves were found
to exceed the 24-hour standard for SO? 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 54 plants modeled by GEOMET which by themselves exceeded the
standard represented 26 percent of the total plants analyzed in the GEOMET
phase of the study. For the total current study, some 18 percent of the 401
power plants produced concentrations which alone exceeded the 24-hour S02
standard. It should be emphasized that if the contribution from all other
sources were considered, both the number and percentage of plants exceeding
the standard would increase considerably.
The fuel used during 1972 by each power plant modeled in the GEOMET
analysis is summarized by state in Tables 3a through 3bb. One table for each
-7-
-------
state identifies the plant name; the county and AQCR in which it is located;
its 1972 megawatt capacity; the amount of coal, oil, and gas consumed during
nominal 1972 operations; the sulfur content of each fuel; and the model used
.in examining the 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 abnormal
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 operation without the
retired boilers. Also, if the fuel consumption reflected the operation of one
or more new boilers for part of the year, an adjustment 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 opera-
tions and estimates of the air quality impact of each power plant. In addi-
tion to the information presented here in Table 3, the AQCR reports provide:
estimates of the highest 24-hour and annual SOg concentrations resulting from
operations at each plant, the fuel use and SO? 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 param-
eters used in the modeling 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 consideration 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 S02 concentrations due to the overlapping of the plumes.
New fossil-fueled power plants and expansions of existing plants planned
for operation 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 discussions serve to identify areas
where the reported air quality estimates are likely to be affected by new
operations. Additional modeling analysis should be required in these areas
before making decisions about the impact of changes in current power plant
operations on air quality levels.
-8-
-------
The AQCR reports also identify plants which are located in urban environ-
ments. The air quality estimates for these plants may be subject to signifi-
cant 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 SO? in a densely populated urban area would involve more complex
procedures and greater resources than were available for this study. There-
fore, 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 S02 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 SO? emission rate of any fuel burned in significant quantity in that
boiler during 1972.
The ratios of concentration to emissions (x/Q) are reported for each plant
in each AQCR report for the maximum concentration day (under nominal and maxi-
mum load conditions) and for the maximum annual concentration under nominal
load conditions. The ratios for annual concentrations are much lower than for
24-hour concentrations primarily because the S02 is dispersed over a wider
area as a result of day-to-day variations in wind direction and other meteoro-
logical parameters. Variations in these ratios from plant to plant are influ-
enced 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 analysis 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.
-9-
-------
IV. APPROPRIATE USES OF DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS
Under contract to EPA, Maiden Research and GEOMET, Incorporated 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 19712. 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 on 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 effec-
tively in a number of energy-environmental policy deliberations, among them:
the Clean Fuels Policy, SOX scrubber hearings, proposed oil-to-coal conversions,
actions required under the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act,
tall stack policy, supplementary control system evaluation, the Ohio SOX hear-
ing, and testimony on options for S02 control before congressional committees.
-10-
-------
Table 1. Listing of References for Modeling Analyses
AQCR
NumberC5)
003
004
005
007
012
013
014
015
016
018
019
020
021
022
024
025
026
029
030
031
032
033
035
036
AQCR Name (States)
East Alabama (Alabama)
Metropolitan Birmingham (Alabama)
Mobile -P ens aco la -Panama City (Alabama/
Florida/Mississippi)
Tennessee River Valley (Alabama/Tennessee)
Arizona-New Mexico Southern Border (Arizona/
New Mexico)
Clark -Mohave (Arizona/Nevada)
Four Corners (Arizona/Colorado/New Mexico/
Utah)
Phoenix -Tucson (Arizona)
Central Arkansas (Arkansas)
Metropolitan Memphis (Arkansas/Mississippi/
Tennessee)
Monroe-El Dorado (Arkansas/Louisiana)
Northeast Arkansas (Arkansas)
Northwest Arkansas (Arkansas)
Shreveport-Texarkana -Tyler (Arkansas/
Louisiana/Oklahoma/Texas)
Metropolitan Los Angeles (California)
North Central Coast (California)
Northeast Plateau (California)
San Diego (California)
San Francisco Bay Area (California)
San Joaquin Valley (California)
South Central Coast (California)
Southeast Desert (California)
Grand Mesa (Colorado)
Metropolitan Denver (Colorado)
(6)
Report Reference(s) for Each AQCRV
51
AQCR
Report1 '
3
12
2
63 Coal-
Conversion
Plant
Report*2'
128 AQCR Study
Volume P '
.
16
1
1
4
7
1
1
2
Volume H(4)
1
1
5
2
8
2
1
3
3
1
9
2
4
(Continued)
"Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions in 51 Air Quality Control
Regions, " Walden Research (Contract 68-02-0049), December 17, 1973, EPA Report Number EPA-450/3-75-060.
(2)
"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.
(3) ,
(4)
(5)
(6)
Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Selected Power Plants in 128 AQCRs for Evaluation of Impact on
Ambient SO2 Concentrations, Volume I, " Walden Research (Contract 68-02-1484), June 1975, EPA
Report Number 450/3-75-062.
Summarized in this volume.
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 contiguous 48 states have not been modeled.
The number of plants in each AQCR examined in the respective effort is noted.
-11-
-------
Table 1. Listing of References for Modeling Analyses (Continued)
AQCR
Number
038
040
041
042
043
045
046
047
048
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
058
059
065
066
067
068
069
070
071
072
073
074
075
077
078
079
080
082
083
084
AQCR Name (State)
San Isabel (Colorado)
Yampa (Colorado)
Eastern Connecticut (Connecticut)
Hartford -New Haven -Springfield (Connecticut/
Massachusetts)
New Jersey - New York-Connecticut (New Jersey/
New York/Connecticut)
Metropolitan Philadelphia (Pennsylvania/New
Jersey/Delaware)
Southern Delaware (Delaware)
National Capital (Washington, D. C. /Virginia/
Maryland)
Central Florida (Florida)
Jacksonville - Brunswick (Florida/Georgia)
Southeast Florida (Florida)
Southwest Florida (Florida)
West Central Florida (Florida)
Augusta-Aiken (Georgia/South Carolina)
Central Georgia (Georgia)
Chattanooga (Georgia/Tennessee)
Metropolitan Atlanta (Georgia)
Savannah -Beaufort (Georgia/South Carolina)
Southwest Georgia (Georgia)
Burlington - Keokuk (Illinois/Iowa)
East Central Illinois (Illinois)
Metropolitan Chicago (Illinois/Indiana)
Metropolitan Dubuque (Illinois/Iowa/Wisconsin)
Metropolitan Quad Cities (Illinois/Iowa)
Metropolitan St. Louis (Illinois/Missouri)
North Central Illinois (Illinois)
Paducah-Cairo (Illinois/Kentucky)
Rockford-Janesville-Beloit (Illinois/Wisconsin)
Southeast Illinois (Illinois)
West Central Illinois (Illinois/Indiana)
Evansville (Indiana/Kentucky)
Louisville (Indiana/ Kentucky)
Metropolitan Cincinnati (Indiana/Kentucky/
Ohio)
Metropolitan Indianapolis (Indiana)
South Bend-Elkhart-Benton Harbor (Indiana/
Michigan)
Southern Indiana (Indiana)
Wabash Valley (Indiana)
Report Reference^) for Each AQCR
51
AQCR
Report
9
1
2
2
3
4
1
5
2
2
4
2
6
7
4
5
4
2
1
5
63 Coal-
Conversion
Plant
Report
1
8
16
13
6
1
128 AQCR Study
Volume I
14
2
5
7
2
8
1
2
1
Volume II
4
1
11
3
3
9
3
(Continued)
-12-
-------
Table 1. Listing of References for Modeling Analyses (Continued)
AQCR
Number
085
086
087
088
092
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103
105
106
107
109
110
113
114
115
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
132
AQCR Name (State)
Metropolitan Omaha-Council Bluffs (Iowa/
Nebraska)
Metropolitan Sioux City (Iowa/Nebraska/
South Dakota)
Metropolitan Sioux Falls (Iowa/ South Dakota)
Northeast Iowa (Iowa)
South Central Iowa (Iowa)
Metropolitan Kansas City (Kansas/Missouri)
Northeast Kansas (Kansas)
North Central Kansas (Kansas)
Northwest Kansas (Kansas)
Southeast Kansas (Kansas)
South Central Kansas (Kansas)
Southwest Kansas (Kansas)
Appalachian (Kentucky)
Bluegrass-Lexington (Kentucky)
Huntington^Ashland -Portsmouth-fronton
(Kentucky /Ohio/West Virginia)
South Central Kentucky (Kentucky)
Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas (Louisiana/
Texas)
Androscoggin Valley (Maine/New Hampshire)
Down East (Maine)
Metropolitan Portland (Maine)
Cumberland-Keyser (West Virginia/Maryland)
Eastern Shore (Maryland)
Metropolitan Baltimore (Maryland)
Southern Maryland (Maryland)
Metropolitan Boston (Massachusetts)
Metropolitan Providence (Massachusetts/Rhode
Island)
Merrimack Valley -Southern New Hampshire
(Massachusetts/New Hampshire)
Central Michigan (Michigan)
Metropolitan Detroit- Port Huron (Michigan)
Metropolitan Toledo (Michigan/Ohio)
South Central Michigan (Michigan)
Upper Michigan (Michigan)
Central Minnesota (Minnesota)
Southeast Minnesota-La Crosse (Minnesota/
Wisconsin)
Duluth-Superior (Minnesota/Wisconsin)
Minneapolis-Saint Paul (Minnesota)
Northwest Minnesota (Minnesota)
Report References) for Each AQCR
51
AQCR
Report
3
5
2
5
4
5
6
3
4
63 Coal-
Conversion
Plant
Report
1
1
1
1
5
1
128 AQCR Study
Volume I
1
1
5
5
3
1
1
1
Volume II
4
2
2
5
4
12
2
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
19
9
1
1
1
(Continued)
-13-
-------
Table 1. Listing of References for Modeling Analyses (Continued)
AQCR
Number
133
134
136
137
13S
139
140
143
145
146
148
150
151
152
153
155
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
183
AQCR Name (State)
Southwest Minnesota (Minnesota)
Mississippi Delta (Mississippi)
Northern Piedmont (North Carolina)
Northern Missouri (Missouri)
Southeast Missouri (Missouri)
Southwest Missouri (Missouri)
Billings (Montana)
Miles City (Montana)
Lincoln-Beatrice-Fairbury (Nebraska)
Nebraska (Nebraska)
Northwest Nevada (Nevada)
New Jersey (New Jersey)
Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware Valley
(Pennsylvania/New Jersey)
Albuquerque -Mid Rio Grande (New Mexico)
El Paso -Las Cruces-Alamogordo (New Mexico/
Texas)
Pecos-Permian Basin (New Mexico)
Central New York (New York)
Champlain Valley (Vermont/New York)
Genesse-Finger Lakes (New York)
Hudson Valley (New York)
Niagara Frontier (New York)
Southern Tier East (New York)
Southern Tier West (New York)
Eastern Mountain (North Carolina)
Eastern Piedmont (North Carolina)
Metropolitan Charlotte (North Carolina)
Sandhills (North Carolina)
South Coastal Plain (North Carolina)
Western Mountain (North Carolina)
North Dakota (North Dakota)
Dayton (Ohio)
Greater Metropolitan Cleveland (Ohio)
Mansfield-Marion (Ohio)
Metropolitan Columbus (Ohio)
Northwest Ohio (Ohio)
Northwest Pennsylvania-Youngstown
(Pennsylvania/Ohio)
Parkersburs! -Marietta (West Virginia/Ohio)
Sandusky (Ohio)
Steubenville -Weirton-Wheeling (Ohio/West
Virginia)
Zanesville -Cambridge (Ohio)
Report Reference(s) for Each AQCR
51
AQCR
Report
6
3
4
7
1
1
6
3
7
2
63 Coal-
Conversion
Plant
Report
2
2
1
128 AQCR Study
Volume I
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Volume n
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
4
(Continued)
-14-
-------
Table 1. Listing of References for Modeling Analyses (Continued)
AQCR
Number
184
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
219
220
222
223
224
225
226
229
234
235
237
238
239
AQCR Name (State)
Central Oklahoma (Oklahoma)
North Central Oklahoma (Oklahoma)
Northeastern Oklahoma (Oklahoma)
Northwestern Oklahoma (Oklahoma)
Southeastern Oklahoma (Oklahoma)
Southwestern Oklahoma (Oklahoma)
Portland (Oregon/Washington)
Central Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)
South Central Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)
Southwest Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)
Charleston (South Carolina)
Columbia (South Carolina)
Florence (South Carolina)
Greenville -Spartanburg (South Carolina)
Greenwood (South Carolina)
Georgetown (South Carolina)
East Tennessee-Southwestern Virginia
(Tennessee/ Virginia)
Middle Tennessee (Tennessee)
Abilene -Wichita Falls (Texas)
Amarillo-Lubbock (Texas)
Austin-Waco (Texas)
Brownsville -Laredo. (Texas)
Corpus Christi- Victoria (Texas)
Metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth (Texas)
Metropolitan Houston -Galveston (Texas)
Metropolitan San Antonio (Texas)
Midland -Odessa-San Angelo (Texas)
Utah (Utah)
Wasatch Front (Utah)
Central Virginia (Virginia)
Hampton Roads (Virginia)
Northeastern Virginia (Virginia)
State Capital (Virginia)
Valley of Virginia (Virginia)
Puget Sound (Washington)
Kanawha Valley (West Virginia)
North Central West Virginia (West Virginia)
Lake Michigan (Wisconsin)
North Central Wisconsin (Wisconsin)
Southeast Wisconsin-La Crosse (Wisconsin)
Report Reference(s) for Each AQCR
51
AQCR
Report
4
3
12
3
5
3
2
4
5
63 Coal-
Conversion
Plant
Report
1
2
128 AQCR Study
Volume I
2
1
1
1
1
' 5
9
7
4
3
15
"10
6
5
1
1
2
3
2
Volume II
3
1
4
1
3
2
''3
1
3
1
2
1
(Continued)
-15-
-------
Table 1. List of References for Modeling Analyses (Concluded)
AQCR
Number
240
241
243
AQCR Name (State)
Southern Wisconsin (Wisconsin)
Casper (Wyoming)
Wyoming (Wyoming)
Total Number of Plants Analyzed
GRAND TOTAL = 670 Power Plants
Report References) for Each AQCR
51
AQCR
Report
206
63 Coal-
Conversion
Plant
Report
63
128 AQCR Study
Volume I
195
Volume II
1
1
1
206
Table 2. Power Plant Summary for 128 AQCRs
Contractor
Walden (Volume I)
GEOMET (Volume II)
TOTAL
Total Plants
195
206
401
Plants Which, by Themselves, Exceed the 24-Hour SO2 Standard*
1972 Operations, Nominal or Maximum Load
20
54 .
74
* This is not representative of all the power plants in the U. S. since many large coal- and oil-fired plants were
modeled previously and are not included here.
-16-
-------
Table 3a. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Alabama*
AQCR0
003
Plant Name/Company
Gadsden (V)**/Alabama
Power Company
County
Etowa
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
138
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
364
% S
1.1
Oil
103 gal
168
%S
0.5t
Natural Gas
106 ft3
509
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-17-
-------
Table 3b. Summary of 1972 Power Plant-Fuel Use for Plants in Arizona*
AQCR0
012
013
014
015
015
015
015
015
015
015
015
Plant Name /Company
Apache (E)**/Arizona Elec-
tric Power Cooperation
Yucca (E)/Arizona Public
Service Company
Cholla (V)/Arizona Public
Service Company
Agua Fria II (E)/ Salt River
Project, Agricultural
Improvement Power
District
Crosscut (V)/Salt River
Project, Agricultural
Improvement Power
District
Demoss Petrie (E)/Tucson
Gas & Electric Company
Irvington (E)/ Tucson Gas
G Electric Company
Kyrene (V)/Salt River
Project
Ocotillo (EJ/Arizona Public
Service Company
Phoenix (E)/Arizona Public
Service Company
Saguaro (E)/Arizona Public
Service Company
County
Cochise
Yuma
Navajo
Maricopa
Marl co pa
Pima
Pima
Maricopa
Maricopa
Maricopa
Pima
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
105
87
114
390
30
105
505
108
227
116
250
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
418t
-
% S
0.4
Oil
103 gal
15966
49
1529
19299
2331
4582
714
4712
%S
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.4
i
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.7
Natural Gas
106 ft3
5530
2880
26
18860
139
3166
19572
3165
11726
1279
7712
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for interstate
A OCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state,
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-18-
-------
Table 3c. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Arkansas*
AOCR#
016
016
019
020
020
020
021
022
Plant Name/Company
Lynch/ Arkansas Power and
Light Company
Lake Catherine (V)**/
Arkansas Power and Light
Company
McClellan (E)/Arkansas
Electric Coop Corpora-
tion
Bailey /Arkansas Electric
Coop Corporation
Moses (E)/Arkansas Power
and Light Company
Ritchie (E)/Arkansas
Power and Light Com-
pany
Fitzhugh (V)/Arkansas
Electric Coop Corpor-
ation
Couch (E)/Arkansas Power
and Light Company
County
Pulaski
Hot Springs
Ouachita
Woodruff
St. Francis
Phillips
Franklin
Lafayette
Plant
Capac
ity
MW
260
756
134
120
138
904
60
187
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
%S
Oil
103 gal
3906
46714
3880
15204
25037
85676
6380
5586
%S
0.8
0.8
0.4
1.8
0.8
0.8
1.1
o.st
Natural Gas
106 ft3
6880
21059
3355 1
3674
26302
1495
5523
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-19-
-------
Table 3d. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Colorado*
AQCR0
035
035
036
036
036
036
038
038
038
038
040
Plant Name/Company
Cameo /Public Service Com-
pany of Colorado
Nucla (V)** /Colorado-UTE
Electric Association, Inc.
Arapahoe (E)/Public Service
Company of Colorado
Cherokee (E)/Public Service
Company of Colorado
Valmont (E)/Public Service
Company of Colorado
Zuni (E)/Public Service
Company of Colorado
Pueblo (E)/Central Tele-
phone and Utility Corp.
Clark (E)/Central Tele-
phone and Utility Corp.
Birdsall (E)/Colorado
Springs Power and Light
Department
Drake (E)/Colorado Springs
Power and Light Depart-
ment
Hayden (V)/Colorado-UTE
Electric Association, Inc.
County
Mesa
Montrose
Denver
Adams
Boulder
Denver
Pueblo
Fremont
El Paso
El Paso
Routt
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
75
35
250
801
282
115
32
44
62
150
163
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
126
79
372
1644
422
82
119
575
%S
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.1
0.4
Oil
103 gal
17553
509
357
40
% S
1.2
0.3
0.6
0.2
Natural Gas
106ft3
78
9164
20900
7765
7607
301 it
2501
2953
6870
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-20-
-------
Table 3e. Summary of 1972 Power Plant.Fuel Use for Plants in Illinois*
AQCR0
067
067
067
067
067
067
067
067
069
070
070
070
070
070
073
Plant Name/Company
Crawford/Commonwealth
Edison Power Company
Fisk/Commonwealth Edison
Power Company
Ridgeland/Commonwealth
Edison Power Company
Winnetka/ Village of
Winnetka
W aukegan/Commonwealth
Edison Power Company
Joilet /Commonwealth
Edison Power Company
Will County /Commonwealth
Edison Power Company
Calumet/Commonwealth
Edison Power Company
Mo line (E)**/lowa-Illinois
Gas and Electric Company
Baldwin (E)/Illinois Power
Company
Cahokia (E)/Union Electric
Company
Wood River (E)/Illinois
Power Company
Venice-I (E)/Illinois Power
Company
Venice-II (E)/Illinois Power
Company
Sabrooke (E)/Commonwealth
Edison Company
County
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Lake
Will
Will
Cook
Rock
Island
Randolph
St. Clair
Madison
Madison
Madison
Winnebago
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
702
547
690
26
933
1787
1269
107
99
623
300
650
55
474
146
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
935
743
20
2127
3534
2528
5.7
2185
222
1359
872
311
% S
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.8
3.0
1.3
1.8
4.1
3.3
3.0
2.8
1.1
Oil
103 gal
234398
1264
6334
6820
94
37258
558
987
41538
% S
0.8
0.5
1
0.5
0.4
0. 3t
2.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Natural Gas
106 ft3
19538
7534
20
378
938
4297
5386
3290
2529
19
1352t
842
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addidtion, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state. '
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-21-
-------
Table 3f. Summary of 1972 Power Plant.Fuel Use for Plants in Indiana*
AQCR#
067
067
067
Plant Name/Company
Mitchell**/Northern Indiana
Public Service Company
State Line/Commonwealth
Edison Power Company
Bailly /Northern Indiana
Public Service Company
County
Lake
Lake
Porter
Plan*
Capac-
ity
MW
529
972
616
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
1437
2203
1186
% S
3.2
1.6
3.8
Oil
103 gal
%S
Natural Gas
106ft3
797.
5278
670
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
-22-
-------
Table 3g. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Iowa*
AQCR#
068
069
069
085
086
086
088
088
088
088
088
092
092
092
092
Plant Name/Company
Dubuque (V)**/Interstate
Power Company
M. L. Kapp (E)/Interstate
Power Company
Riverside (E)/Iowa-Illinois
Gas and Electric Company
Council Bluffs/Iowa Power
and Light Company
Big Sioux (E)/Iowa Public
Service Company
George Neal/Iowa Public
Service Company
Lansing (V)/Interstate Power
Company
6th Street Station (E)/Iowa
Electric Light and Power
Company
Prairie Creek (1, 2, 3) (E)/
Central Iowa Power Coop
Prairie Creek (4) (E)/Iowa
Electric Light and Power
Company
Maynard (E)/Iowa Public
Service Company
Des Moines (2) (E)/Iowa
Power and Light Company
Sutherland (E)/Iowa Electric
Light and Power Company
Bridgeport (E)/Iowa Southern
Utility Company
Boone (E)/Iowa Electric
Light and Power Company
County
Clinton
Clinton
Scott
Pattawat-
tamie
Woodbury
Woodbury
Allamakee
Li Tin
Linn
Linn
Blackhawk
Polk
Marshall
Monroe
Boone
Plant
Capac
ity
MW
91
237
222
131
40
496
64
92
96
149
100
325
157
71
34
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
121
575
501
282
922 1
154
260
176
321
83
524
199
200
19
% S
3.2
3.1
2.6
1.0
0.6
3.0
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.4
4.1
2.8
3.7
4.3
Oil
103 gal
647
265
67
190
432
2986
% S
0.5
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.4
Natural Gas
106ft3
2118
372
6210
2814
616
5740
728
1709
530 -
2740
10737
7523
1543
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated. «o
-------
Table 3h. Summary of 1972 Fewer Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Kansas*
AQCR#
094
094
094
095
095
096
097
098
098
099
099
099
099
100
100
Plant Name/Company
Quindaro (2) (V)** /Kansas
City Board of Public Util-
ities
Quindaro (3) (V)/Kansas City
Board of Public Utilities
Kaw (E)/Kansas City Board
of Public Utilities
Lawrence (E)/The Kansas
City Power and Light
Company
Lawrence (E)/The Kansas
City Power and Light
Company
Abilene (E)/The Kansas City
Power and Light Company
Mullergren (E)/Central Tele-
phone and Utility Corp.
Neosho (E)/Kansas Gas and
Electric Company
Riverton (E)/Empire Dist.
Electric Company
Evans/Kansas Gas and
Electric Company
Gill/Kansas Gas and Elec-
tric Company
Hutchinson (E)/Kansas
Power and Light Company
Ripley (E) /Kansas Gas and
Electric Company
Cimarron River (E)/Central
Telephone and Utilities
Corporation
Large (E)/Central Tele-
phone and Utilities Corp.
County
Wyandotte
Wyandotte
Wyandotte
Douglas
Douglas
Dickinson
Barton
Labette
Cherokee
Sedgwick
Sedgwick
Reno
Sedgwick
Seward
Ford
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
94
239
161
346
613
34
119
114
155
540
348
257
87
65
180
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
21
109
64
72
113
2
37
.
% S
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8t
3.8
Oil
103 gal
99
206
1092
1003
962
3234
589
1567
% S
1.5
1.5
i
1
1.5
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.7
0.4
Natural Gas
106 ft3
2861
1671
6207
16555
23316
1294
6559t
4186
8812.
28192
18065
15520
7198
3663
7073
* Other plants in each AOCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AOCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-24-
-------
Table 3i. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Kentucky*
AQCR#
101
105
Plant Name/Company
Pineville (V)**/Kentucky
Utility Company
Cooper (V)/East Kentucky
Rural Electric Coop.
County
Bell
Pulaski
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
38
354
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
68
824
% S
1.6
2.2
Oil
103 gal
O.lt
%S
O.lt
Natural Gas
106 ft3
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AOCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other,
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t For ignition only.
-25-
-------
Table 3j. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Louisiana*
AQCR#
019
019
022
022
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
Plant Name/Company
Monroe (E)**/City of Monroe
Power Company
Sterlington/Louisiana Power
and Light Company
Lie her man (E)/Southwestern
Electric Power Company
Arsenal Hill (E)/South-
western Electric Power
Company
Big Cajun (l)/Cajun Elecr
trie Power Coop
Coughlin (E)/Central Louis-
iana Electric Company
Teche/Centfal Louisiana
Electric Company
Bonin/City of Lafayette
Utility System
Rodemacher/City of Lafay-
ette Utility System
Minicipal/City of Morgan
City
Nelson/Gulf States Utility
Company
Willow Glen/Gulf States
Utility Company
Louisiana (l)/Gulf States
Utility Company
Louisiana (2)/Gulf States
Utility Company
County
Ouachita
Ouachita
Caddo
Caddo
Point
Coupee
Evangeline
St. Mary
Lafayette
Lafayette
St. Mary
Calcasieu
Iberville
E. Baton
Rouge
E. Baton
Rouge
Plant
Capac-
Ity
MW
166
352
277
170
230
483
428
143
43
33
982
994
253
175
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
%S
Oil
103 gal
420
6030
1089
544
10299
3523
% S
0.8f
'0.2
0.7t
0.7t
0.2
0.3
Natural Gas
106 ft3
5668
20088
9916
4042
9334
17641
17237
4602
931
1754
30504
48391
40257
14216
(Continued)
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-26-
-------
Table 3j. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Louisiana* (Concluded)
AQCR#
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
Plant Name/Company
Little Gypsy/ Louisiana
Power & Light Company
Nine Mile/ Louisiana
Power & Light Company
Paterson/New Orleans
Public Service, Inc.
Michoud/New Orleans
Public Service, Inc.
Market Street/New Orleans
Public Service, Inc.
Houma/City of Houma
A lexandria( 2 )/ A lexandria
Electric Light & Water-
works
County
St. Charles
Jefferson
Orleans
Orleans
Orleans
Terrebonne
Rapides
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
1251
1134
218
959
96
38
98
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
%S
Oil
103 gal
3161
9352
4584
906
% S
0.3t
1
1.2
0.1
Natural Gas
106 ft3
63497
66736
12560
38446
3368
1246
3868
t Estimated.
-27-
-------
Table 3k. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Michigan*
AQCR#
123
123
123
123
123
123
123
123
123
,
126
Plant Name/Company
Delray**/The Detroit Edison
Company
Conners Creek/The Detroit
Edison Company
Mistersky/City of Detroit
Public Lighting Commis-
sion
Trenton Channel/The Detroit
Edison Company
Marysville/The Detroit
Edison Company
Pennsalt/The Detroit Edison
Company
River Rouge/The Detroit
Edison Company
St. Clair/The Detroit Edison
Company
Wyandotte N. /The Detroit
Edison Company
Presque Isle (E)/Upper Pen-
insula Generating Com-
pany
County
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
St. Clair
Wayne
Wayne
St. Clair
Wayne
Marquette
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
375
540
174
1076
230
37
933
1905
54
175
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
816
347
2118
531
151
1764
4508
284
511
%'S
2.2
1.5
2.3
2.5
1.2
3.2
3.0
0.8
1.0
Oil
103 gal
141775
24104
11913
2397 1
41081
34143
6407
% S
1.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.1
2.1
0.3
Natural Gas
106 ft3
11619
11359t
16300
103t
9902
167
1731
-
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-28-
-------
Table 31. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Minnesota*
AQCR0
127
132
133
Plant Name/Company
Elk River (E)**/United Power
Association
Hoot Lake (E)/Otter Tail
Power Company
Minnesota Valley (E)/North-
ern States Power Company
County
Sherburne
Otter Tall
Chippewa
riant
Capac-
ity
MW
46
137
46
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
19
696
82t
%S
2.7
0.9
1.8
Oil
103 gal
5540
«S
0.5
i
Natural Gas
106 ft3
393
515
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-29-
-------
Table 3m. Summary of 1972 Power Plant .Fuel Use for Plants in Mississippi*
AQCR0
134
Plant Name/Company
Delta**/Mississippi Power
and Light Company
County
Bolivar
Plant
Zapac-
ity
MW
221
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
% S
Oil
103 gal
23630
% S
2.7
Natural Gas
106 ft3
7523
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) Indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
-30-
-------
Table 3n. Summary of 1972 Power Plant fuel Use for Plants in Missouri*
AQCR*
070
070
070
070
094
094
094
094
094
094'
094
094
Plant Name/Company
Ashley (E)**/Union Electric
Company
Labadie (E)/Union Electric
Company
Meramec (E)/Union Electric
Company
Sioux (E)/Union Electric
Company
Sibley (E) /Missouri Public
Service Company
Green (E)/Missouri Public
Service Company
Grand Avenue (E)/Kansas
City Power and Light
Company
Hawthorne (E I/Kansas City
Power and Light Company
Northeast (E)/Kansas City
Power and Light Company
Missouri City (E)/N. W.
Electric Power Coop
Blue Valley (E)/City Power
and Light Company
Independence, Mo.
Edrnond (E)/St. Joseph
Light and Power Com-
pany
County
City of
St. Louis
Franklin
St. Louis
St. Charles
Jackson
Cass
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Clay
Jackson
Buchanan
Plant
Capac.
ity
MW
70
2286
923
1100
518
50
127
908
233
40
115
42
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
5310
2182
1704
891
5
135
1144
31
27
%S
3.1
2.0
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.5
1.7
3.8
3.4
Oil
103 gal
34373
740S
512
273
2806
6342
71
1418
%S
2.2f
0.3tt
0.3
I
0.6
0.6
1.8
0.5
2.3
Natural Gas
106 ft3
149
1773
1450
15479
2198
4888
1881
(Continued)
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
ft 1973 data.
-31-
-------
Table 3n. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Missouri* (Concluded)
AQCR#
094
137
138
139
139
139
Plant Name /Company
Lakeroad(E)/St. Joseph
light & Power Company
Hill/Associated Electric
Coop, Inc.
City of New Madrid (E)/
Associated Electric
Coop, Inc.
Asbury (E)/ Empire Dist.
Electric Co.
James River (E)/City
Utility of Springfield
Montrose (E)/Kansas City
Power & Light Company
County
Buchanan
Randolph
New
Madrid
Jasper
Greene
Henry.
riant
Capac-
ity
MW
150
470
650
213
257
563
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
76
1539
317
654
74
1849
% S
3.6
4.2
4.0
4.8
4.1
5.3
Oil
103 gal
903
286
% S
2.2
1
0.6
Natural Gas
106 ft3
11786
9498
-32-
-------
Table 3o. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Montana*
AQCR#
140
140
143
Plant Name /Company
Bird (V)**/The Montana
Power Co.
Corette (V)/The Montana
Power Co.
Lewis & Clark (E)/Montana-
Dakota Util. Co.
County
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Richland
Plant
Capac
ity
MW
69
173
50
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
449
320
% S
0.6
0.6
Oil
103 gal
588
% S
1.8
Natural Gas
106 ft3
84
519
141
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
-33-
-------
Table 3p. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Nebraska*
AQCR#
085
085
085
145
145
146
146
Plant Name/Company
Kramer (E)**/Nebraska
Public Power District
Jones St. (E)/Omaha Public
Power District
North Omaha (E)/Omaha
Public Power District
Lincoln (E)/Nebraska
Public Power District
Sheldon (E)/Nebraska
Public Power District
Bluffs (V)/Nebraska
Public Power District
C.W. Burdick Station (E)/
City of Grand Island
Water & Light Dept.
County
Sarpy
Douglas
Douglas
Lancaster
Lancaster
Scotts-
bluff
Hall
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
114
165
645
32
229
42
93
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
146
16
743
15
252
% S
3.0
2.8
2.1
4.3
3.9
Oil
103 gal
4512
0.4
1121
%S
0.1
j
2.0
0.9
Natural Gas
106 ft3
1841
922 1
16574
594
6990
2928
2457
* Other plants in each AOCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model,. (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-34-
-------
Table 3q. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Nevada*
AQCR*
013
013
013
013
148
148
Plant Name/Company
Mphave (V)**/S. California
Edison
Reid Gardner (E)/Nevada
Power Co.
Clark (E)/Nevada Power Co.
Sunrise (E)/Nevada Power
Co.
Fort Churchill (V)/Sierra
Pacific Power Co.
Tracy (V)/Sierra Pacific
Power Co.
County
Clark
Clark
Clark
Clark
Lyon
Storey
D1 ..
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
1520
227
190
82
220
133
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
2906
645
% S
0.4
0.5
Oil
103 gal
323
1958
583
1886
500
% S
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
Natural Gas
106 ft3
8460
9810
5170
12428
2621
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AOCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
-35-
-------
Table 3r. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in New Mexico*
AQCR0
014
152
152
152
153
155
155
155
Plant Name/Company
Four Cornere (V)**/Arizona
Public Service Co.
Person (V)/Public Service
Co. of N. Mexico
Prager (V)/Public Service
Co. of N. Mexico
Reeves (V)/Public Service
Co. ofN. Mexico
Rio Grande (V)/E1 Paso
Electric Co.
Carlsbad (E)/ Southwestern
Public Service
Cunningham (E)/South-
western Public Service
Roswell (E)/Southwestern
.Public Service
County
San Juan
Bernalilla
Bernalilla
Bernalilla
Dona Ana
Eddy
Lea
C haves
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
2270
125
35
175
402
44
265
24
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
6893
% S
0.7
Oil
103 gal
3776
7035
5015
819
. 496
%S
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
Natural Gas
106 ft3
1871
4427
25
11176
9981
1880
14572
1151
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
-36-
-------
Table 3s. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in North Dakota*
AOCR0
172
172
172
172
Plant Name/Company
Heskett (E)** /Montana-
Dakota Utility Company
Young (E)/Minnkota Power
Coop, Inc.
Leland Olds (E)/Basin Elec-
tric Power Coop, Inc.
Stanton (E)/United Power
Association
County
Morton
Oliver
Mercer
Mercer
Capac-
ity
MW
100
256
216
172
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
569
1612
1407
862
% S
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
Oil
103 gal
739
101ft
378tt
% S
0.3
o.st
0.5
Natural Gas
106 ft3
* Other plants in each AOCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
tt Ignition only.
-37-
-------
Table 3t. Summary of 1972 Power Plant fuel Use for Plants in Oklahoma*
AQCR#
184
184
184
185
186
186
186
186
187
18S
188
188
189
189
Plant Name /Company
Bell Isle (E)**/Oklahoma Gas
and Electric Company
Horseshoe Lake (E)/Oklahoma
Gas and Electric Company
Mustang (E)/Oklahoma Gas
and Electric Company
Osage (E)/Oklahoma Gas
and Electric Company
Tulsa (E)/Public Service
Company of Oklahoma
Riverbank (E)/Oklahoma
Gas and Electric Company
Northeastern (E)/Public
Service Company of
Oklahoma
Chouteau (E)/Grand River
River Dam Authority
Mooreland (E)/Western
Farmers Electric Coop
Seminole /Oklahoma Gas
and Electric Company
Weleetka (V)/Public Service
Company of Oklahoma
Arbuckle (E)/Oklahoma Gas
and Electric Company
Anadarko (E)/Western
Farmers Power Coop
Southwestern (E)/Public Ser-
vice Company of Okla-
horn a
County
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Canadian
Kay
Tulsa
Muskogee
Rogers
Mayes
Woodward
Seminole
Okfuskee
Murray
Cadoo
Cadoo
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
55
916
509
40
482
196
642
56
191
567
83
74
85
483
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
% S
Oil
103 gal
2190
567
%S
0.7
0.7t
Natural Gas
106 ft3
994
45766
31161
1444
33081
11830
39159
7202
10252
26158
1952
3187
4441
28470
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AOCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-38-
-------
Table 3u. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Oregon*
AQCR0
193
Plant Name/Company
Lincoln (V)**/Pacific Power
and Light Company
County
Multnomah
Plant
Capac
ity
MW
36
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
% S
Oil
103 gal
4402
% S
0.2
Natural Gas
106 ft3
1259
* Other plants in each AQCR amy have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
-39-
-------
Table 3v. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in South Dakota*
AQCR0
087
087
Plant Name/Company
Pathfinder (E)**/Northern
States Power Co.
Lawrence (E)/Northern
States Power Co.
County
Minnehaha
Minnehaha
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Plant
2a.pa.o-
ity
MW
75
48
Coal
103 tons
53
%S
2.1
Oil
103 gal
10460
10
%S
0.2
0.2t
Natural Gas
106 ft3
1020
1214
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-40-
-------
Table 3w. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Tennessee*
AQCR*
018
Plant Name /Company
Allen (E)**/TVA Tennessee
Valley Authority
County
Shelby
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
990
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
1375
% S
3.3
Oil
103 gal
70
% S
0.3
Natural Gas
106 ft3
15331
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
-41-
-------
Table 3x. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Texas*
AQCR#
022
022
022
022
022
022
106
106
153
Plant Name/Company
Wilkes (E)**/Southwestern
Electric Power Company
Knox Lee (E)/Southwestern
Electric Power Company
Lone Star (E)/Southwestern
Electric Power Company
River Crest/Texas Power
and Light Company
Stryker (E)/Texas Power
and Light Company
Trinidad (E)/Texas Power
and Light Company
Neches/Gulf States Util-
ity Company
Sabine/Gulf States Util-
ity Company
Newman (V)/E1 Paso
Electric Company
County
Marion
Gregg
Morris
Red River
Cherokee
Henderson
Jefferson
Orange
El Paso
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
882
186
50
112
703
412
452
952
266
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
% S
Oil
103 gal
2166
2492
% S
0.7
0.7
Natural Gas
106 ft3
56319
14072
3495
1117
28439
12745
25256
49621
14935 t
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for
interstate AOCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other
state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using
CRSTER model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-42-
-------
Table 3y, Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Utah*
AQCR*
219
220
220
220
Plant Name/Company
Carbon (V)**/Utah Power &
Light Co.
Gadsby (V)/Utah Power &
Light Co.
Hale (V)/Utah Power &
Light Co.
Jordan (V)/Utah Power &
Light Co.
County
Carbon
Salt Lake
Utah
Salt Lake
Plant
Capac-
ity
MW
166
252
59
25
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
387
142
18
% S
0.5
0.5
0.5
Oil
103 gal
144
52416
52
%S
0.6t
0.9
1.1
Natural Gas
106 ft3
2804
597
2
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-43-
-------
Table 3z. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Washington*
AO.CR*
229
193
193
Plant Name/Company
Shuffleton(V)**/Puget Sound
Power G Light Co.
Longview (V)/Cowlitz County
Pub. Util. Dist. #1
Centralia (E)/Pacific Power
G Light Co.
County
King
Cowlitz
Lewis
Capac-
ity
MW
86
27
1330
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
28t
3741
% S
0.5
Oil
103 gal
2263
191
3734
% S
1.3
0.5
0.3
Natural Gas
106 ft3
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
T Wood waste - units are 103 x 200 fir; SO2 emissions are calculated for an emission factor of 1. 5 Ib. SO2 per
ton of fuel; actual fuel weight is 2.75 tons per fuel unit.
-44-
-------
Table 3aa. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Wisconsin*
AQCR0
068
068
073
073
237
237
238
240
Plant Name/Company
Stoneman (V)**/Dairyland
Power Coop. .
Nelson Dewey (E)/Wisconsin
Power & Light Co.
Rock River (E)/Wisconsin
Power & Light Co.
Blackhawk (E)/ Wisconsin
Power & Light Co.
J.P. Pulliam/Wisconsin
Public Service Corp.
Edgewater (E)/ Wisconsin
Power & Light Co.
Western (V)/Wisconsin
Public Service Co.
Blount (E)/Madison Gas &
Electric Co.
County
Grant
Grant
Rock
Rock
Brown
Sheboygan
Marathon
Dane
Plant
Capac
ity
MW
52
227
150
50
392
477
135
196
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
117
638
389
8
. 1071
1297
282
253
% S
3.7
3.5
2.9
3.0
2.5
2.5
3.2
2.6
Oil
103 gal
95
710
21
168
%S
0.3t
0.3
0.3
0.3
Natural Gas
106 ft3
2868
328
2188
4426
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Estimated.
-45-
-------
Table 3bb. Summary of 1972 Power Plant Fuel Use for Plants in Wyoming*
AOCR#
241
243
Plant Name/Company
Johnston (V)**/Pacific
Power G Light Co.
Naughton (V)/Utah Power &
Light Co.
County
Converse
Lincoln
Capac-
ity
MW
758
707
1972 Annual Fuel Use
Coal
103 tons
2822
2308f
% S
0.6
0.6
Oil
103 gal
520tt
% S
0.3
Natural Gas
106 ft3
42
* Other plants in each AQCR may have been modeled previously; please refer to Table 1. In addition, for inter-
state AQCRs, other plants located in the same AQCR but in another state are listed with the other state.
** (V) indicates that plant was modeled using VALLEY model, (E) indicates that plant was modeled using CRSTER
model, no letter indicates plant was modeled with CRSMOD model.
t Ignition only.
ft Estimated.
-46-
-------
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 Exten-
sions in 51 Air Quality Control Regions," Walden Research (Contract No.
68-02-0049), December 17, 1973, EPA Report Number EPA-450/3-75-060; avail-
able from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Street,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161.
6. "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Fuel Conversion,"
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 I," Walden
Research (Contract No. 68-02-1484), June 1975, EPA Report Number EPA-450/3-
75-062; available from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port
Royal Street, Springfield, Virginia, 22161.
8. "Modeling of the Impact of Power Plants on Ambient S02 Concentrations in
(Name) AQCR (No.)," GEOMET, Incorporated (Contract No. 68-02-1483). Sixty-
eight separate reports, dated between Fall 1974 and Spring 1975, are avail-
able from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711. The
APTIC number associated with each AQCR report is shown below:
AQCR#
3
12
13
14
15
AQCR Name
East Alabama
Arizona-New Mexico Southern Border
Clark- Mohave
Four Corners
Phoenix- Tucson
APTIC #
75513
75514
75515
75516
75517
(Continued)
-47-
-------
AQCR#
16
18
19
20
21
22
35
36
38
40
67
68
69
70
73
85
86
87
88
92
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
105
106
123
126
127
132
133
134
137
138
139
140
143
145
146
148
152
153
155
AQCR Name
Central Arkansas
Metropolitan Memphis
Monroe- El Dorado
NE Arkansas
NW Arkansas
Shrevepbrt- Texarkana- Tyler
Grand Mesa
Metropolitan Denver
San Isabel
Yampa
Metropolitan Chicago
Metropolitan Dubuque
Metropolitan Quad Cities
Metropolitan St. Louis
Rockford-Janesville-Beloit
Metropolitan Omaha- Council Bluffs
Metropolitan Sioux City
Metropolitan Sioux Falls
NE Iowa
S. Central Iowa
Metropolitan Kansas City
NE Kansas
N. Central Kansas
NW Kansas
SE Kansas
South Central Kansas
SW Kansas
Appalachian
S. Central Kentucky
South Louisiana-SE Texas
Metropolitan Detroit- Port Huron
Upper Michigan
Central Minnesota
NW Minnesota
SW Minnesota
Mississippi Delta
North Missouri
SE Missouri
SW Missouri
Billings
Miles City
Lincoln-Beatrice-Fairbury
Nebraska
NW Nevada
Albuquerque-Mid Rio Grande
El Paso- Los Cruces-Alamogardo
Pecos-Permian Basin
APTIC#
75518
75519
75520
75521
75522
75523
75524
75525
75526
75527
75528
75529
75530
75531
75532
75533
75534
75535
75536
75537
75538
75539
75540
75541
75542
75543
75544
75545
75546
75547
75548
75549
75550
75551
75552
75553
75554
75555
75556
75557
75558
75559
75560
75561
75562
75563
75564
-48-
-------
AOCR#
172
184
185
186
187
188
189
193
219
220
229
237
238
240
241
243
AQCR Name
North Dakota
Central Oklahoma
North Central Oklahoma
NE Oklahoma
NW Oklahoma
SE Oklahoma
SW Oklahoma
Portland
Utah
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
Lake Michigan
N. Central Wisconsin
South Wisconsin
Casper
Wyoming
APTIC #
75565
75566
75567
75568
75569
75570
75571
75572
75573
75574
75575
75576
75577
75578
75579
75580
-49-
-------
APPENDICES
-------
Appendix A
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS
POWER PLANT MODELING STUDIES
-------
Appendix A
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS
POWER PLANT MODELING STUDIES
The work summarized in Volumes I and II of this report is a continuation
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 Walden Research, Inc. With
completion of the effort reported herein, all fossil fuel-fired 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 different
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 operation and surroundings should be evaluated
in reaching any final conclusions. This supplementary data should include:
the impact of other sources in the area, measured air quality data, known or
suspected downdraft or fumigation problems, unique nearby terrain features,
nearby land use patterns and population distributions, more specific operational
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 find-
ings 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)* were modeled to define
an acceptable strategy for dealing with the projected deficit of low sulfur
coal arising from full application of SIPs as originally promulgated. That
study, which considered all 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
* "Fuel Distribution Study for the Indianapolis, Southern Indiana, and Wabash Valley AQCRs," EPA draft report,
March 1973. Also see Addendum to the draft report, dated April 12, 1973. APTIC Report # 75403;
available from Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
A-l
-------
is the limiting value. Subsequently, SRAB modeled power plants in an additional
five midwest AQCRs* to define the amount of low sulfur coal demand reduction
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 Maiden (BOA 68-02-0049. 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 were taken
from FPC Form 67 for 1971; projections to 1975 were made based upon best avail-
able information from FPC and other sources. Variance status was determined
by a comparison of predicted air quality with a criteria value of 290 yg/m3.
S02 concentrations at or below this value were considered acceptable to achieve
primary standards (allowing up to 75 yg/m3 for the concurrent contribution of all
other sources). Air quality impact at SIP conditions was also calculated. Results
of the study were presented in individual AQCR summary reports.
Walden issued a report** 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 application of variances, while
still achieving primary S02 air quality standards.
Plants Modeled by Walden (BOA 68-02-1377, Task 2)
As a result of the oil shortage during the winter of 1973-1974 and sub-
sequent legislation, a number of plants have been and are being considered for
converting certain units from oil to coal firing. The purpose of this modeling
study was to define the air quality impact of possible fuel switches. Both
S02 and particulate concentrations were evaluated. Modeling was conducted for
two situations: (1) 1972 operations, and (2) with certain units switched to
* "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.
** "Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions in 51 Air Quality Control
Regions," Walden Research (Contract 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.
A-2
-------
coal. A comparison of the two situations shows the change in maximum concentra-
tions associated with switching fuels. Time and data constraints made it
impossible to project operations beyond 1972. Isopleth maps of concentration
superimposed 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
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* summarizing
this study in May 1975.
* "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; available from National Technical Informa-
tion Services, 5285 Port Royal Street, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
A-3
-------
Appendix B
DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS
-------
Appendix B
DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE SINGLE SOURCE MODEL (CRSMOD)
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" significantly between the source
and the receptors because of the short travel time involved. Also, decay
depends on a number of meteorological variables and might well be insignificant
when the meteorological conditions occur which lead to highest SOg 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 available on magnetic
tape only for every third hour.
Mixing height data were obtained from the twice-a-day upper air observa-
tions made at the most representative upper air station. Hourly mixing heights
were estimated by the model using an objective interpolation scheme.
II. 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 analysis used a
terrain adjustment procedure which considered the difference between the plant
elevation and the elevation at each receptor. Ground elevations on 10 degree
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 concentrations.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE VALLEY MODEL
The model used to estimate short-term concentrations for plants located
in severe terrain is one developed previously by EPA for application to sources
* Turner, D.B. , "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, " U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, PHS Publication No. 999-AP-25 (Rev. 1970).
B-l
-------
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 per-
sistence of meteorological conditions for 6 hours out of the 24 hours. During
this period, the wind direction azimuth 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, Incorporated.
B-2
-------
Appendix C
FORMS OF TABLES USED IN INDIVIDUAL AQCR REPORTS
-------
Table 3. Maximum Ground Level Concentrations of SO2a
Plant
Maximum 24-Hr. Concentration
Nominal Load
Maximum Load
Maximum Annual Concentration
(jUg/m3)
Estimated maximum concentrations based upon 1972 operations.
Based on operation at 95% of rated capacity and the addition of a 10% safety factor to the computed concentration.
C-1
-------
Table 4.
Emissions and Basis for Maximum Concentration Day
Plant
Principal
Fuels
%
Sulfur
Nominal Load Case
Amount
Fuel3
SO 2 Emissions
Tons/Day
Maximum Load Case
Amount
Fuel3
SO_ Emissions
Tons/Day
Coal, 103 tons/day; Oil, 103 gals/dayj Gas, 106 CF/day.
C-2
-------
Table 5. x/Q Relationships for Plants
Maximum Concentration Day
Plant
Nominal Load
Maximum Load
Maximum Annual Concentration
C-3
-------
, Appendix B. Source Input Data
Plant
(Company)
Stack
No.
Rated
Capacity
(l()6Btu/hr)
Stack
Height
(tn)
Diam.
(m)
Nominal Load Operations
Stack Exit
Velocity
(m/sec)
Temp.
(OK)
S02
Emissions3
(g/sec )
Plant
Variation
Factors0
Maximum Load Operations
Stack Exit
Velocity
(m/sec)
Temp.
(°K)
SO2
Emissions15
(g/sec)
a. Based on annual average operations.
b. Based on plant operating at 95% of capacity.
c. The underlined value corresponds to the month of the maximum concentration day. The factors are listed
chronologically, starting with January.
C-4
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-063
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Summary Report on Modeling Analysis of Selected Power
Plants in 128 AQCRs for Evaluation of Impact on
Ambient S02 Concentrations,'Volume II
5. REPORT DATE
June 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Mr. R. C.
Koch
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GEOMET Report Number EF-486
9. PERFORMING ORG'\NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GEOMET, Inc.
15 Firstfield Road
Gaithersburg, Md. 20760
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2AC129
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1483
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
rk, N. C. 27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
r.9S9arch irlangls Park, IN. (
15. SUPP~LEMENTARY"N'6TES
See also report of same title, Volume I, by Walden Research, report number EPA-
450/3-75-062
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.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
power plant modeling
power plant variances
dispersion modeling
S02 impact of power plants
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
under 200
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
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, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approvcl, 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. PERFpRMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidiscrplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignnient(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price. /
19.8,20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number 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.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
------- |