Environmental Protection Technology Series
AIR, WATER, AND SOLID RESIDUE
PRIORITIZATION MODELS FOR
CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION SOURCES
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
: 4; • Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-176
July 1976
AIR, WATER, AND SOLID RESIDUE
PRIORITIZATION MODELS FOR
CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION SOURCES
by
E.G. Eimutis, C.M. Moscowitz, J. L. Delaney,
R.P. Quill, and D. L. Zanders
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task 18
Program Element No. EHB525
EPA Project Officer: Ronald A. Venezia
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
PREFACE
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of EPA has the
responsibility for insuring that pollution control technology is availa-
ble for stationary sources. If control technology is unavailable, in-
adequate, uneconomical or socially unacceptable, then development of the
needed control techniques is conducted. IERL has the responsibility for
developing control technology for a large number (>500) of operations in
the chemical and related industries. As in any technical program the
.: vt-> S * ""!
first step is to identifyjthe unsolved problems.
/9 * «tta4
;n
Each of the industries is to be examined in detail to determine if there
is sufficient potential environmental risk to justify the development of
control technology. Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC) has contracted
with EPA (Contract 68-02-1874) to investigate the environmental impact
of various industries which represent sources of emissions in accordance
with EPA's responsibility. Dr. Robert C. Binning serves as Program
Manager in the program entitled, "Source Assessment." MRC has developed
a priority listing of the industries in each of four categories (com-
bustion, organic materials, inorganic materials, and open sources) based
on the environmental impact of air emissions. This listing serves as
one of several guides in the selection of those sources for which de-
tailed source assessments will be performed. Source assessment documents
are being produced by MRC and used by EPA to make decisions regarding
the need for developing additional control technology for each specific
source.
The work described in this report was performed in partial support of the
Source Assessment program. Mathematical models were developed to rela-
tively rank the environmental impact of air, water and solid residue
emissions. These models were applied to conventional stationary com-
bustion sources and the resulting relative ranking is intended to serve
as one of several guides in selecting specific sources for detailed
assessment.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Section Pac
I Introduction 1
II Summary 3
III Model Development and General Structure 7
A. Air Prioritization Model 7
1. Model Description 7
2. Location Sensitive Calculation 8
B. Water Prioritization Model 9
1. Mathematical Structure 9
2. Assumptions and Limitations 13
3. Sensitivity Analysis 15
C. Solids Prioritization Model 16
IV Prioritization of .Combustion Sources 23
A. Source Definition 23
B. Emission Points and Input Format 23
C. Data Acquisition 25
D. Data Quality 36
E. Relative Prioritization Listings for 37
Combustion Sources
V Appendix A - Sample Calculations 4^
VI References 53
111
-------
Number
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
FIGURES
Page
Air Relative Prioritization 4
Water Relative Prioritization 5
Sensitivity Analysis - Discharge 18
Concentration
Sensitivity Analysis - Ambient 19
Concentration
Sensitivity Analysis - Discharge Flow Rate 20
Sensitivity Analysis - River Flow Rate 21
Sample Air Prioritization Input Data Sheet 30
Sample Water Prioritization Input Data 33
Sheet - Direct Emissions
Sample Water Prioritization Input Data 34
Sheet - Solid Emissions to Air
TABLES
Number Page
1 Baseline Input Data Used in the Sensitivity 17
Analyses
2 Combustion System Classification Table 24
3 Selected Combustion Sources 25
4 Data Quality Definitions 37
5 Data Quality 38
A-l Sample Input Data 42
A-2 State Coal Consumption Data 43
A-3 State Ambient Concentrations 44
IV
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
This report includes a general description of air, water, and
solid residue prioritization models used for the relative
ranking of a selected set of combustion sources. Sensitivity
analyses show how the prioritization model responds to
changes in input. The models are applied to conventional
stationary combustion sources, and the resulting relative
prioritizations are presented. Computation of a relative
environmental impact factor for each emission source provides
the basis for each relative ranking.
No attempt, in any fashion, is made to relate industrial
emissions to their effect on public health. Based upon a set
of common assumptions, which are clearly identified, the model
provides a relative rank ordering (within the framework of
these assumptions) of stationary sources of air, water, and
solid residue emissions.
It must be understood that the prioritization models are at
best a "first-cut" attempt at the rank ordering of numerous
source types on the basis of the potential burden they place
on their environment. In the water model, for example,
the potential burden is expressed as a mass ratio of a dis-
charged material relative to a hazard potential factor which
in turn, for this particular case, is based on a drinking
water standard.
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY
Mathematical models were developed to relatively rank the en-
vironmental impact of water and solid residue emissions. An
air prioritization model, derived in an earlier effort,1 was
utilized in this study. The water model is similar to the
air model and is based on mass of emission, hazard potential
of the emission, ambient water loading, and population
density in the emission region. Solid emissions were divided
into an air emission (wind erosion) component and a water
emission (leaching) component, and these contributions were
incorporated into the air and water prioritization models.
The models were applied to 56 conventional stationary com-
bustion sources as defined by GCA Corporation.2 The GCA
report was the primary source of input data for the models.
The resulting relative rankings are presented in Figures 1
and 2.
E. C. Source Assessment: Prioritization of
Stationary Air Pollution Sources—Model Description.
Monsanto Research Corporation. Dayton. Report No. MRC-
DA-508. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-
76-032a. February 1976. 77 p.
2Surprenant, N., R. Hall, S. Stater, T. Suza, M. Sussman
and C. Young. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of
Conventional Stationary Combustion Sources, Vol. I. GCA
Corporation. EPA Contract 68-02-1316, Task 11. Bedford.
GCA-TR-75-26-G(l) (revised draft of final report).
Environmental Protection Agency. September 1975.
-------
RANK ID CODE SOURCE TYPE IMPACT FACTOR
1 4.1.12.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE 500,000,000
2 4.1.11.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COPIH BITUMINOUS 300,000.000
3 4.1.22.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB DIST OIL 200,OOOiOOO
4 4.1.30.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB GAS 100,000.000
5 1.1.11.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 30.000.000
6 3.1.21.0.2 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB RESID OIL OTHER 10.000.000
7 4.1.42.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB V.OOD 8.000.000
8 3.1.22.0.2 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB DIST OIL OTHER 7,000,000
9 2.1.21.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB RESID OIL OTHER 7,000,000
10 1.1.11.2.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 5,000,000
11 1.1.11.3.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS CYCLONE 5,000,000
12 1.3.22.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION INT COMB DIST OIL TURBINE it,000.000
13 2.1.11.1.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 3,000,000
14 2.1.30.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB GAS OTHER 3.000,000
15 2.4.30.0.0 INDUSTRIAL INT COMB GAS RECIP ENG 3,000,000
16 2.3.30.0.0 INDUSTRIAL INT COMB GAS TURBINE 3,000,000
17 1.4.22.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION INT COMB OIST OIL RECIP ENG 3,000,000
18 2.1.11.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 3,000,000
19 3.2.22.0.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INT COMB DIST OIL 2,000,000
20 2.4.22.0.0 INDUSTRIAL INT COMB OIST OIL RECIP ENG 2,000,000
21 3.1.30.0.2 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB GAS OTHER 2,000,000
22 2.1.22.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB DIST OIL OTHER 1,000,000
23 1.3.30.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION INT COMB GAS TURBINE 1,000,000
24 3.1.12.4.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 1,000,000
25 3.1.11.4.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 900,000
26 2.1.21.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB RESID OIL TANG FIRE 800,000
27 2.1.30.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB GAS TANG FIRE 800,000
28 2.1.11.2.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 700,000
29 2.3.22.0.0 INDUSTRIAL INT COMB OIST OIL TURBINE 400,000
*»• 30 1.4.30.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION INT COMB GAS RECIP ENG 400,000
31 1.1.11.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 400,000
32 3.2.30.0.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INT COMB GAS 400,000
33 4.1.13.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB LIGNITE 400,000
34 1.1.21.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB RESID OIL OTHER 400,000
35 2.1.40.0.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB REFUSE 400,000
ife 3.1.11.1.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 300,000
37 2.1.11.3.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS CYCLONE . 200,000
38 2.1.22.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB OIST OIL TANG FIRE 200,000
39 1.1.21.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB RESIO OIL TANG FIRE 200,000
40 1.1.12.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 100,000
41 2.1.12.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 100,000
42 3.1.21.0.1 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB RESID OIL TANG FIRE 100,000
43 3.1.30.0.1 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB GAS TANG FIRE 90,000
44 1.1.13.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE PULV DRY BOTM 90,000
45 3.1.22.0.1 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB DIST OIL TANG FIRE 80,000
46 1.1.12.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB ANTHRACITE PULV DRY BOTM 70,000
47 2.1.13.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB LIGNITE STOKER 60.000
46 1.1.30.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB GAS OTHER 30.000
49 1.1.13.2.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE PULV WET BOTM 20,000
50 1.1.13-.3.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE CYCLONE 20,000
51 1.1.13.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE STOKER 20,000
52 1.1.30.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB GAS TANG FISE 20,000
53 3.1.11.2.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 10,000
54 1.1.22.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB DIST OIL OTHER 3<000
55 1.1.22.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB OIST OIL TANG FIRE 1,000
56 1.1.40.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENfRATIOK EXT CO«D REFUSE 80
Figure 1. Air relative prioritization
-------
Rank ID code Source type Impact factor x 103
1 1.1.11.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 1.000.000
2 2.1.30.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB GAS OTHER „ 600,000
3 1.1.21.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB RESIO OIL OTHER 600.000
1 1.1.21.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB RESIP OIL TANS FIRE i»00.000
5 1.1.11.2.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM "400,000
6 1.1.11.3.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS CYCLONE 100,000
7 1.1.30.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB GAS nTHER 300.000
8 2.1.21.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB RESID OIL OTHER 90,000
9 2.1.11.1.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 90,000
10 1.1.30.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB GAS TANG FIRE 80,000
11 2.1.11.1.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 70,000
12 2.1.30.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB GAS TANG FIRE 70,000
13 1.1.11.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 20,000
It 2.1.21.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB RESID OIL TANG FIRE 20.000
15 2.1.11.2.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 20,000
16 2.1.22.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB OIST OIL OTHER 10,000
17 1.1.22.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB OIST OIL OTHER 10,000
18 1.1.22.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB DlST OIL TANG FIRE 7,000
19 2.1.10.0.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB REFUSE 6,000
20 2.1.11.3.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS CYCLONE 5,000
21 2.1.22.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB DIST OIL TANG FIRE 3,000
22 1.1.13.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE PULV DRY BOTM 3,000
23 2.1.12.1.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 2,000
21 1.1.11.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS 2,000
25 2.1.13.1.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB LIGNITE STOKER 600
26 1.1.12.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE . 800
27 3.1.12.1.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 700
26 1.1.13.2.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE PULV WET BOTM 600
29 1.1.13.3.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE CYCLONE 600
iO 1.1.12.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 500
31 3.1.11.1.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 500
32 1.1.13.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE STOKER 100
i3 1.1.12.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB ANTHRACITE PULV DRY BOTM 300
31 3.1.11.1.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 100
S5 1.1.10.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB REFUSE 5
36 3.1.11.2.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 3
i7 1.1.13.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COPiB LIGNITE 1
AB 1.1.12.0.0 RES1UENTIAL EXT COMB WOOO 1
Figure 2. Water relative prioritization
-------
SECTION III
MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND GENERAL STRUCTURE
A. AIR PRIORITIZATION MODEL
1. Model Description
The mathematical model (Equation 1) used to rank the air
impacts of the combustion sources is a modified version of the
location sensitive source prioritization model.1
K
x
"""Ax ~ -^
1/2
'
where T = impact factor, persons/km2
Ax
K = number of sources emitting materials associated
x with source type x
N = number of materials emitted by each source
P. = population.density in the region associated
-1 with the j— source, persons/km2
X•. = calculated maximum ground level concentration
^ of the i— material emitted by the j— source,
g/m3
F. = environmental hazard potential factor of the
i— material, g/m3
-------
. th
x'.. = ambient concentration of the i—material in
the region associated with the j— source
S. = corresponding standard for the i— material
1 (used only for criteria emissions, otherwise
set equal to one)
Changes in the modified program include:
Reading emission rates directly from raw data in tons/yr.
(The original source prioritization data contained
emission factors having units of pounds of material
emitted per ton of fuel consumed.)
Adding the solids contribution from raw materials and
waste piles.
The solids contribution was treated as another emitted
material with an emission height of 10 ft and a representative
composite TLV.
2. Location Sensitive Calculation
The fuel consumption data were published on a state basis.
State emission rates were calculated by apportioning the total
U.S. emission rate by fraction of state fuel consumption.
= Kf (ERi) (SCj)/(TC) (2)
where Q.. = emission rate, g/s
K
f = conversion factor, tons/yr to g/s
3Section II.C.2.d. Open Sources Calculations in Reference 1,
-------
ER. = U.S. total emission rate of i— material,
1 tons/yr
SC. = state fuel consumption, tons/yr
TC = U.S. total consumption, tons/yr
The impact factor I is then calculated by summing over
/V/v
K states.
X
B. WATER PRIORITIZATION MODEL
As in the air prioritization model, the purpose of the
water model is to rank order, i.e., prioritize the source
types in terms of the burden that the sources place on
the environment. The structure of the water model is
similar to that of the air model1 with one exception: the
source severity is a ratio of masses rather than concentra-
tions. In the air prioritization model, it was convenient
to treat the severity as a ratio of concentrations because
the atmosphere can be considered an infinite volume
receiving body. In the water model, the receiving body
will often be a stream, river, or lake, of finite volume.
1. Mathematical Structure
The water model may accomodate either or both of two
types of contributions: (1) direct discharge or leaching
of raw materials into a receiving body; and (2) waste
storage piles.
-------
For a given emitted species by a specific point source, an
effluent mass load is defined initially for only the water
portion, X:
X = VDCDt (3)
where V = discharge rate, m3/s
C_. = discharge concentration, g/m3
i>
t = 3.1471 x 107 s/yr
X = yearly water effluent mass loading/ g/yr
An effluent mass load is then defined, for the leachable solid
portion, Y:
Y = SGf!f2 (4)
where Y = mass loading of leachable solid residuals, g/yr
SG = solid waste generation rate, g/yr
and fi and f? are defined as follows:
fi = aepR (5)
where R = annual rainfall, m
a and 8 = dimensionless constants (intended to maintain total
solids under 50 g/1)a
Above 50 g/1, the resulting solution would not flow
readily.3 Assuming a maximum annual rainfall of 1.7 m,
a = 1.723 x 10-1*, 0 = 1.48.
3Personal communication. G. Nelson. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, lERL-Cincinnati.
10
-------
f2 = [1 - (H20)F][ip] (6)
where (H20)F = fraction of water in solid wastes
ip = fraction of constituent on a dry basis
A potentially hazardous mass load in a given river is then
defined as
Z = VRDt (7)
where Z = potentially hazardous mass loading, g/yr
D = drinking water standard, g/m3
V_ = river flow rate, m3/s
Ix
t = time of duration (3.1471 x 1Q7 s/yr)
A total relative effluent mass loading factor, A, is then
defined as
A =
where X, Y, and Z are defined by Equations 3, 4, and 7,
respectively
The weighting factor, W, can be defined as
Wi
W = -- (9)
where Wx = VRCAt
and C = an ambient concentration, g/m3
£\
11
-------
The weighting factor is the ratio of ambient mass relative
to a potentially hazardous mass. If we use the same
reference time period (e.g., 1 yr), then:
(10)
The following restriction is imposed on the weighting factor,
W:
C,
W =
IT if CA > D
1.0 if C < D
(ID
The two factors A and W are combined into the quantity
designated M as follows:
M = A2W
(12)
By summing over i = 1,2,
. N emissions and j = 1,2,
K point sources,
J\.
water as follows:
the impact factor, I^ry, is defined for
K
X
i = T P
wx ^ 3
N
E M..
1/2
(
(13)
The full detailed form of the impact factor model for source
type X emitting species i=l,2, . . .,Nby point sources
j = 1,2, . . ., KX is:
See Reference 1 for mathematical rationale,
12
-------
K
X
I
wx
N
i=l
1/2
(14)
where I = total water impact factor for source type X,
persons/km2
K = number of sources emitting materials associated
with source type X
P. = population density in the region associated
-1 with the jth source, persons/km2
N = number of materials emitted by source type X
i L 4- V^
V = discharge flow rate of i— species by the j—
ij source, m3/s
Cn = discharge concentration of the i— species by
ij the jill point source, g/m3
t = 3.1471 x 107 s/yr
S_ = leachable solid waste generation by the >—
j point source, g/yr
• r.^
f: . = fraction of solid waste to water by the j—
J point source
2 . . = fraction of the i—- material in the j— source
V-3 = river flow rate at the j— source, m3/s
£\ •
D. = drinking water standard for the i— emission,
g/m3
A.. = ambient level of the i— emission at the j—
1-1 point source, g/m3
2. Assumptions and Limitations
The structure of the water model produced impact factors
with a range of several orders of magnitude. This has proved
useful in meeting the initial objective - the generation of
13
-------
a relative rank ordering of combustion source types on the
basis of potential water pollution severity.
The extent to which this rank ordered (i.e.f prioritized) list
of source types can be used is limited by two factors: the
structural validity (appropriateness) of the model, and the
accuracy of the input data. Addressing the latter point,
the input data were provided by another contractor (GCA) and
thus the estimation of accuracy beyond that discussed in
Section IV.D, Data Quality, with the exception of certain
obvious discrepancies noted by the researchers, was outside
the scope of this project. Concerning the validity or
appropriateness of the water prioritization model, objections
to the structure of the model can be answered by one of
three observations.
In some cases, gathering information of a more detailed
nature would not affect the ranking sufficiently to warrant
the time and expense. Examples of this include gathering
detailed rainfall statistics for various regions, detailed
river flow rates, or river ambient concentrations for
various species. All of these parameters affect the ranking
very little. Sensitivity analyses are informative in this
respect.
The second observation regarding the structure of the water
prioritization model is that many effects were not con-
sidered because of the three-month time constraint on this
project. Included in this category are synergism, BOD, COD,
receptor mix (i.e., types of aquatic or marine life affected),
conservative vs. nonconservative substances (i.e., decay
rates), water hardness, sedimentation rates, river
bottom exchange kinetics, ion exchange, gas exchange, and
chemical reactivity. Also in this category are various
14
-------
possible configurations: presence or absence of a diffuser,
discharge configurations (i.e., single or multiple-point
discharges).
The third observation regarding the structure of the water
prioritization model is concerned with those effects which
are not well understood. The selection of an appropriate
standard, drinking water standards or LC5Q for fish, is an
example. Discharges or solid residuals containing biological
activity and leaching dynamics are additional examples.
Thus, it must be understood that the prioritization model is
at best a "first-cut" attempt at the rank ordering of
numerous source types on the basis of the potential burden
they place on their environment. In this model, the potential
burden is expressed as a mass ratio of a discharged material
relative to a hazard potential factor which in turn is based
on a drinking water standard.
3. Sensitivity Analysis
The prioritization model was computerized on the APL/370
time-sharing system. A sample source type was defined to
emit three materials in 50 states:
Emitted material Drinking water standards3
Arsenic 1 x 10-lf g/1
Cadmium 1 x 10~5 g/1
Chromium 5 x 10~5 g/1
15
-------
A simulated data set for discharge concentrations (C ),
ambient concentrations (CA), discharge flow rates (V ), and
river flow rates (V ), is given in Table 1. Discharge and
K.
ambient concentrations are listed for arsenic (As), cadmium
(Cd), and chromium (Cr). The sensitivity analyses are pre-
sented in Figures 3-6.
The sensitivity analyses were conducted by first sampling a
baseline value (value of 1.0 on the abscissa). Then the
variable of interest was increased or decreased by succeeding
orders of magnitude. Thus an impact factor computed for a
given model with CD set at 0.1 means that every CD (3 x 50)
in the simulated data set was reduced by 0.1, etc.
C. SOLIDS PRIORITIZATION MODEL
As described in the previous sections, the environmental
impact of solid emissions was separated into air and water
contributions and incorporated into the air and water models.
The air contribution from raw materials and waste piles was
treated as another air emission having a representative
composite TLV with a stack height of 10 feet. The water
contribution was determined using annual rainfall data and
dry composition of the solid.
16
-------
Table 1. BASELINE INPUT DATA USED IN THE SENSITIVTY ANALYSES
cn, g/l
As
4.690F~2
1 .550F~2
3.500F~3
9.560F~2
8.910/7~2
1.610F~2
1 .320F~2
4.000F~4
7.110E~2
1.820F.~2
6.530F.~2
3. 870£~2
1.490E~2
5.910/7~2
1. 500£~2
1.430E~2
4.900S'~2
1.270F~2
6. 300/7~2
6.230F~2
4.770F~2
3.000/7~3
1.430/7~2
1 . 330ff~2
1 .640E~2
2.540F~2
4.560/7~2
8.100ff~2
2.170F~2
2.510E~2
5.070/7~2
7.570ff~2
6. 3 4 Off" 2
6.900F~2
9.550/7~2
5.380F~2
4.150/7~2
4.410F~2
7.160E~2
7.420/7~2
5.260/7~2
7.140F~2
6. 830F 2
8.670F~2
1.410/7~2
2.170F~2
5. 160ff~2
4.690F~2
2.130/7~2
6.310£~2
Cd
2. 880F~2
5.730F~2
5.350/7~2
7.490/7~2
6.260/7~2
2.140F~2
9. 200£~3
4.150F~2
9.380ff~2
3.190E~2
1.520ff~2
3.890ff"2
5.880ff~2
9.560S'"2
9.840ff~2
5.660F~2
4.650ff~2
2.010E'~2
1.280B~2
8.040F~2
3.900ff~2
9.020ff~2
9.480P~2
8. 860P~2
7. 2 OOP" 3
1.360K~2
3.510F~2
9. 320E~2
6. 8bOP~2
8.610P~2
6.010F~2
4.630F~2
4.i*OOF~2
7. 030i?~2
8.520F~2
5.1502~2
5. 780F~2
7.310F~2
8.010ff~2
2.100iF~3
4.640£'"2
4.900E'~2
2.010P~2
8.910ff~2
4.510fl~2
4.470P~2
8.820P~2
8.070ff"2
l.OOOK"!
6.170ff~2
Cr
1. 800K"2"
8.030F"2
4.99077*2
5.. 560£~2
8.430P~2
7.150F"2
2.760ff~2
2. 800ff"3
2.410P~2
8.880S'~2
6.820B~2
5.010F~2
8.460E~2
5.570F~2
4.100P"2
2. 5 3 Off ~2
9.620B~2
3.200P~2
6.520K~2
2.490B"2
2.050£~2
4. 280B~2
4.110F"2
9.400F~3
3.660ff~2
P. 840ff"2
4. 530F~2
6.520£~2
9.100f~2
4.720P~2
8.180ff"2
9.520ff~2
8. 250£~2
9. 880ff~2
2. 910F~2
1. 050P"2
8. 770F"2
8. 700E~2
7.070F~2
8. 870F~2
6. 700£~3
6.690E~2
9.170J'~2
5.450ff"2
9.900E'~2
3.170S'"2
4.410ff~2
3.660F~2
1. 550F~2
2. OOOP~4
AS
'i.'iooff~5
3.260E~4
6.840K~4
7.120^"4
9.100ff"5
2.220ff~4
3.950F~4
3.960K"4
2.920K~4
4.290ff~4
2.200K"5
2.520£T~4
4.050K"4
8.310K~4
2.650ff~4
2.280?~4
7.970£~4
6.730K~4
6.030K"4
7. 030E~4
5.310K~4
3.370ff~4
1.710E~H
8.160F~4
3.230F~4
3.180E'"4
4.370£'~4
4.000K~4
3.940ff"4
3.770ff"4
6.800£~4
7. 240P~4
9.410P"4
5.220K~4
6.100£"4
6.740/?~4
5.280P~4
2. 820F~4
9. 190K~4
2.550ff"4
4.620P~4
1.700E~4
4.430£~4
9.920ff~4
7.570P~4
5.010ff"4
9.050ff~4
4. 430F~4
5.240ff~4
3.960ff~4
CA, g/l
Cd
7.760P~4
4. 240F~4I
2.140fl~4
8.310F~4
7.670P~4
2.220F"4
9.530K~4
2.770P~4
7. 800B~4
2.900E"4
2.000F~4
8.220E~4
6.060P~4
1.670K"4
2.420K~4
6.390F~4
7.000E~4
6.380P~4
2.350F~4
1.270B~4
5.590F"4
7.060E~4
4. 910E'~4
5.620ff"4
1.440B~4
5. 930£~4
2.670ff~4
4.530F"4
2. 870F~4
2.620F~4
5.190ff~4
9.460ff~4
3.290F~4
6.650tf~4
9. 870F~4
3.510F~4
8.310ff"4
6.470£'~4
2.740F~4
8.460ff~4
8. 190ff~"4
7. 100£'~4
5. 870£'~4
6.990F~4
1 . 800E~4
9.000P~5
7. 860F~4
1. 700i?~5
7.700F~5
2.240ff~4
VD'
Cr ft3/sec
7. 310P~4
-6. 860ff~4
8.390P~4
1 . 040iF~4
6.340P~4
9.100ff~5
9.490E~4
6.960K~4
7. 870£~4
2.030F~4
9. 840ff~4
1.460F~4
1. 860E~4
9. R90F~4
1.110P~4
7. OOOE~4
7.560i?~4
6.600ff~5
3.260F~4
7.650E~4
5.930P~4
1 .520P~4
8.620E~4
7.420P~4
5. 340S~4
5. 230F~4
3. 770ff~4
4. 820ff~4
8. 800£~5
6.760F~4
7. 320P~4
4.670E'~4
4. 660E~4
4. 080ff~4
1.590ff"4
5.470F~4
2.500ff~5
5. 510P~4
9. 710F~4
6.980F~4
3.200B~5
7.110£'~4
7.550E~4
2.870/T4
1 .SOOff'B
1.720P~4
7.500P~4
5. 890F~4
5.490F~4
3.920P~4
1 . 284/74
6. 901F4
4.228/74
4. 895F4
2.071F4
5.235F.3
6.210/74
6.214F4
8. 512/74
3.552/74
4. 775E4
7.579F4
4.112/73
5. 812F3
4.867/74
6.140F.4
1.693F3
3.551F4
7.016/73
3. 857F4
6. 281F4
5 .403/74
8 . 474F4
7. 716F4
. 4. 842F4
' 9. 277F3
5. 985F4
3. 844/74
6.411F4
8.293F4
6.960/74
2.462F4
5.272K3
6. 725F4
3.054F4
5.794F4
6 . 90SF4
9.019F4
3.388F4
2.323/74
8.943/74
6.604K4
6. 8 8 OF 4
5 . 964/74
7. 542F3
5.785E4
8.062F4
2. 554/74
4. 028/74
6.999F4
V
ft3/sec
2. 919F5
1.503P5
1.722F5
2. 2 2 OR1 5
1.082P5
2. 970P5
5.396P5
5. 464P5
4. 573F4
5.437775
3. 077P5
3.146F5
1 . 982/75
5.921/75
3. 014/75
. 1.670F5
• 6.353F4
5 .692/75
5. 351/74
3. 054F5
2. 366/75
1 . 735F5
5 . 492F5
3. 226F5
2. 840P5
5.652/75
3.955/74
4.593P5
4.644F5
t . 9R4/75
8. 397/74
1 . 936F4
4. 162/75
5.223F5
3. 814F5
4 . 444F5
4.380F5
5 .997F5
5. 343F5
1 .476F5
1 .907F5
2.171F5
3 .128F5
3.588F5
5 . 091F5
2 . 53IF5
5. 065F5
1 .689/5
2. 551F5
3.270/J5
17
-------
10C
10'
10C
wx
104
10-
o>
to
ro
DQ
I I I I I I i
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
CD
1.0
10
Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis - discharge concentration
18
-------
10"3
10C
10'
wx
10C
105
10"
o
o>
l/l
TCI
GO
0. 1 1.0
10
100
CA
1000 10,000
Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis - ambient concentration
19
-------
10*
107
10C
10-
'wx
10-
OJ
00
on
11 I i I I I i I | | | I
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10
Vn
Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis - discharge flow rate
20
-------
10'
10*
10'
10C
wx
105
Iff
Cd
oo
ro
QQ
I I I I
0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000
V
R
Figure 6. Sensitivity analysis - river flow rate
21
-------
SECTION IV
PRIORITIZATION OF COMBUSTION SOURCES
A relative ranking of the environmental impact of con-
ventional stationary combustion sources was generated on a
multi-media basis. Air, water, and solid residue emissions
from 56 sources were used to establish two prioritization
lists, one based on air emissions and one based on water
emissions with the solid residue impact divided into air and
water components.
A. SOURCE DEFINITION
The 56 source definitions were extracted from a GCA Cor-
poration report.2 This document also served as the primary
source of emission data. GCA's classification system is
presented in Table 2 and the resulting sources are defined
in Table 3.
B. EMISSION POINTS AND INPUT FORMAT
Air prioritization was based on stack emission estimates and
and fugitive emission estimates from fuel storage and
handling, and from ash disposal. Emission estimates were
extracted from GCA's report for some or all of 36 emission
23
-------
Table 2. COMBUSTION SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION TABLE2
Row
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Column 1
Function
All
Electric
generations:
utilities
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Mixed function
Column 2
Combustion
All
External
Internal:
all
Internal
gas turbine
Internal
recipro.
Column 3
Fuel
(2-digit designation)
00 All
10 Coal :
total
11 Coal:
bituminous
12 Coal:
anthracite
13 Coal:
lignite
20 Petroleum:
total
21 Oil:
residual
22 Oil:
distillate
23 Oil: crude
24 kerosene
25 ' diesel
26 gasoline
30 Gas: total
31 natural
32 process
33 LPG
40 Refuse: All
41 bagasse
42 wood/bark
43 other
Column 4
Furnace type
All
Pulverized:
dry bottom
Pulverized:
wet bottom
Cyclone
Stoker :
all
Stoker:
overfeed
Stoker :
spreader
Stoker:
underfeed
Column b
Firing
All
Tangential
All other than
tangential
Front or back
Opposed
Vertical
24
-------
Table 3. SELECTED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS2
System
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Classification
code
1.0.00.0.0
1.1.00.0.0
1.1.10.0.0
1.1.11.0.0
1.1.11.1.0
1.1.11.2.0
1.1.11.3.0
1.1.11.4.0
1.1.12.0.0
1.1.12.1.0
1.1.12.4.0
1.1.13.0.0
1.1.13.1.0
1.1.13.2.0
1.1.13.3.0
1.1.13.4.0
1.1.20.0.0
1.1.21.0.0
1.1.21.0.1
1.1.21.0.2
1.1.22.0.0
1.1.22.0.1
1.1.22.0.2
1.1.30.0.0
1.1.30.0.1
1.1.30.0.2
1.1.40.0.0
Combustion system
Electric generation
External combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
Cyclone
All stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized dry
All stokers
Lignite
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
Cyclone
All stokers
Petroleum
Residual oil
Tangential firing
All other
Distillate oil
Tangential firing
All other
Gas
Tangential firing
All other
Refuse
25
-------
Table 3 (continued). SELECTED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS'
System
No.
Classification
code
Combustion system
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1.2.00.0.0
1.2.20.0.0
1.2.30.0.0
1.3.00.0.0
1.3.20.0.0
1.3.21.0.0
•1.3.22.0.0
1.3.30.0.0
1.4.00.0.0
1.4.20.0.0
1.4.22.0.0
1.4.30.0.0
2.0.00.0.0
2.1.00.0.0
2.1.10.0.0
2.1.11.0.0
2.1.11.1.0
2.1.11.2.0
2.1.11.3.0
2.1.11.4.0
2.1.12.0.0
2.1.12.4.0
2.1.13.0.0
2.1.13.6.0
2.1.20.0.0
2.1.21.0.0
2.1.21.0.1
2.1.21.0.2
Internal combustion
Petroleum
Gas
Internal combustion/gas
turbine
Petroleum
Residual oil
Distillate oil
Gas
Internal combustion/recipro-
cating engine
Petroleum
Distillate oil
Gas
Industrial
External combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
Cyclone
All stokers
Anthracite
All stokers
Lignite
Spreader stokers
Petroleum
Residual oil
Tangential firing
All other
26
-------
Table 3 (continued). SELECTED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS2
System
No.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Classification
code
2.1.22.0.0
2.1.22.0.1
2.1.22.0.2
2.1.30.0.0
2.1.30.0.1
2.1.30.0.2
2.1.40.0.0
2.2.00.0.0
2.2.20.0.0
2.2.30.0.0
2.3.00.0.0
2.3.20.0.0
2.3.21.0.0
2.3.22.0.0
2.3.30.0.0
2.4.00.0.0
2.4.20.0.0
2.4.22.0.0
2.4.30.0.0
3.0.00.0.0
3.1.00.0.0
3.1.10.0.0
3.1.11.0.0
3.1.11.1.0
3.1.11.2.0
3.1.11.4.0
3.1.12.0.0
Combustion system
Distillate oil
Tangential firing
All other
Gas
Tangential firing
All other
Waste
Internal combustion
Petroleum
Gas
Internal combustion gas
turbine
Petroleum
Residual oil
Distillate oil
Gas
Internal combustion/recipro
eating engine
Petroleum
Distillate oil
Gas
Commercial generation
External combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
All stokers
Anthracite
27
-------
Table 3 (continued). SELECTED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS2
System
No.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Classification
code
3.1.12.4.0
3.1.13.0.0
3.1.13.4.0
3.1.20.0.0
3.1.21.0.0
3.1.31.0.1
3.1.21.0.2
3.1.22.0.0
3.1.22.0.1
3.1.22.0.2
3.1.30.0.0
3.1.30.0.1
3.1.30.0.2
3.1.40.0.0
3.2.00.0.0
3.2.20.0.0
3.2.30.0.0
4.0.00.0.0
4.1.00.0.0
4.1.10.0.0
4.1.11.0.0
4.1.12.0.0
4.1.13.0.0.
4.1.20.0.0
4.1.22.0.0
4.1.30.0.0
4.1.42.0.0
Combustion system
All stokers
Lignite
All stokers
Petroleum
Residual oil
Tangential firing
All other
Distillate oil
Tangential firing
All other
Gas
Tangential firing
All other
Refuse
Internal combustion
Petroleum
Gas
Residential
External combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum
Distillate oil
Gas
Wood
28
-------
species depending on the quality of emission characterization
for each source type. The 36 species are identified in
Figure 7, which is a sample copy of the air prioritization
input data sheets. The air input data forms, designed for
an earlier prioritization effort, were adapted for applica-
tion to this task. Required input to the air prioritization
model includes: fuel consumption plus appropriate emission
factors or emission rates, frequency of operation, threshold
limit values (TLV) for each species, average emission height,
and statewise geographical distribution of sources. Other
information on the input sheets relate to source identifica-
tion or generalization in order that the forms may be used
later for source types other than combustion.
Points of water emissions from stationary combustion sources
are, in general, more numerous than those for air. Water
emission sources include cooling system wastewater, equipment
cleaning wastewater, boiler blowdbwn, boiler feedwater treat-
ment waste, ash pond overflow, runoff from landfilled ash,
and runoff from coal storage piles. Characterization of
water emissions is not as thorough as air characterization
with only a maximum of 13 species being quantified for each
source. Selection of species to be used for prioritization
purposes was based on three criteria. The following param-
eters were required for each species: an emission factor
and discharge rate or emission rate, ambient water quality
data, and a drinking water quality standard. Thirteen species
meet this criteria and are listed in Figure 8.
Figures 8 and 9 are samples of the water prioritization input
data sheets. Separate forms are required for direct water
emissions (Figure 8) and for water emissions from solid
residue (Figure 9) due to the input requirements of the water
29
-------
LOCATION SENSITIVE PRIORITIZATION DATA
CATEGORY
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SCC
TOTAL PRODUCTION
FREQUENCY OF OPERATION
NUMBER OF PLANTS/SITES
NUMBER OF MATERIALS EMITTED
(TONS/YEAR)
(% OF YEAR)
MATERIAL EMITTED
Particulate
SOX
NOX
HC
CO
BSD
PPOM
BaP
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Bi
B
Br
Cd
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
F
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ha
Mo
TLV
(gm/m3)
2.0 x 10~3
2.0 x 10-3
1.0 x 10-6
0.5 x 10-3
0.5 x 10~3
0.5 x 10-3
0.002 x 10~3
LO.O x 10-3
10.0 x 10~3
0.7 x ID"3
0.05 x ID"3
3.0 x 10-3
0.1 x 10-3
0.1 x 10-3
0.2 x ID"3
2.0 x 10~3
1.0 x 10-3
0.15 x 1C-3
5.0 x 10-3
0.01 x 10-3
5.0 x 10-3
EMISSION
RATE
(tons/yr)
AVG
EMISSION
HEIGHT (ft)
• .
REFERENCE
Figure 7. Sample air prioritization input data sheet
30
-------
LOCATION SENSITIVE PRIORITIZATION DATA
CATEGORY
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SCC
TOTAL PRODUCTION
FREQUENCY OF OPERATION
NUMBER OF PLANTS/SITES
NUMBER OF MATERIALS EMITTED
(TONS/YEAR)
(% OF YEAR)
MATERIAL EMITTED
Ni
Se
Te
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Zr
TLV
(gm/m3)
1.0 x 1CT3
0.2 x 10~3
0.1 x ID"3
0.1 x 10-3
0.1 x ID"3
10.0 x 10-3
• 0.2 x ID"3
0.5 x 10~3
5.0 x ID"3
5.0 x 1C-3
EMISSION
RATE
(tons/yr)
AVG
EMISSION
HEIGHT (ft)
REFERENCE
Figure 7 (Continued).
Sample air prioritization input
data sheet
31
-------
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
AVERAGE PLANT SIZE
NUMBER OF STATES
(TONS/YR)
STATE
CODE
(XX)
STATE PRODUCTION
(tons/year)
NUMBER
OF
PLANTS
REFERENCE
Figure 7 (Continued).
Sample air prioritization input
data sheet
32
-------
WATER PRIORITIZATION DATA
WATER EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTION
Category
Source Description
SCC
Total Production (Fuel Consumption)
(Units/Year)
Frequency
Number of Plants/Sites
Number of Emitted Species
Material
Total Dissolved Solids
As
Cd
Cl
Cu
Cr
F
Fe
Hg
Mn
NO 3
Pb
SO ^
CD
(mg/1)
VD
(1/min)
D
(mg/1)
500
0.05
0.01
250
1.0
0.05
1.4-2.4
0.3
0.002
0.05
10
0.05
250
Remarks
Use 2.0
Figure 8. Sample water prioritization input data sheet
direct emissions
33
-------
SOLID EMISSIONS TO WATER
Source Description
Area of Pile
Waste Generation Rate
(Units/Year)
Fraction of Water in Waste
Material
Fraction on
Dry Basis
D
(mg/1)
Remarks
Figure 9. Sample water prioritization input data sheet
solid emissions to water
34
-------
prioritization model. For direct water emissions, the
required input information includes discharge concentration
and discharge rate or emission rate, ambient water quality
data, drinking water quality standard, and statewise distri-
bution of sources. For water emissions from solid waste
sources, the waste generation rate, water content of the
waste, waste composition on a dry basis, ambient water
quality data, drinking water quality standard, and state-
wise distribution of sources are required. For both types
of water emissions, ambient water quality statistics on
a statewise basis have been programmed into the model. The
distribution of sources by state that was used for air
prioritization was also applied to water prioritization.
Direct water emissions were divided into two categories due
to a difference in effluent characterization. In our data
sources, the composition of ash pond overflow was presented
as the difference between discharge concentration and ambient
concentration while the other direct emission points were
characterized by effluent concentrations including ambient
contribution. For consistency, ambient concentrations were
added to the ash pond overflow yielding a prioritization
that includes an impact contribution due to ambient discharge
concentrations.
C. DATA ACQUISITION
GCA's report2 was the primary source of input data for the
prioritization models. Required information was either
extracted directly from the report or the information from
the report was manipulated into a useable format. For
example, statewise distributions for individual sources
were obtained by deaggregating state fuel consumptions
assuming that the source's fraction of national fuel con-
sumption applied to each state.
35
-------
Air emission species, rates of emission, frequency of
emission, and statewise distribution of emissions were
extracted from GCA's report. Average heights of emission
were estimated using Federal Power Commission (FPC) and
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) data bases. Input
for the water model was extracted from GCA's report except
for ambient water quality data. Sampling data from the
U.S. Geological Survey was utilized for ambient water
characterization.
Extensive deaggregation of GCA data was required to obtain
input for the specific sources as defined by GCA. Deaggre-
gation was generally accomplished by using fuel consumption
data. Where available, more appropriate deaggregation data
was utilized, e.g., solid waste generation rate or water
effluent rate.
In cases of uncertainty concerning required input from the
report, original data sources, alternative information
sources if available, and finally GCA were consulted to
resolve recognized inconsistencies.
D. DATA QUALITY
Data quality parameters were presented in the GCA report to
characterize the data. Since these data were used as input
to the prioritization models, as a best case the same reser-
vations concerning quality must apply to the prioritization
lists. Definitions of data quality are presented in
Table 4 with the resulting data characterization in Table 5.
It should be noted that less than 15% of the data quality
entries have an error <10%, while 45% have an error >_100%.
In addition to having a minimum of 100% error, the validity
of these data are described as questionable.
36
-------
Table 4. DATA QUALITY DEFINITIONS 2
Data
quality
factor
Definition
B
NA
Very good - highest confidence. Error probably
<_ 10%. Data well accepted and verified.
Good - reputable and accepted. Error probably
£25%.
Fair - error probably £50%. Validity may be un-
certain due to method of combining or applying
data.
Poor - low confidence in data. Error probably
100%. Validity questionable.
Very poor - validity of data unknown. Error
probably within or around an order of magnitude,
Not applicable.
E.
RELATIVE PRIORITIZATION LISTINGS FOR COMBUSTION SOURCES
Relative rankings of 56 combustion sources having air
emissions and 38 sources having water emissions were pre-
sented earlier in Figures 1 and 2, and are repeated on
pages 39 and 40 for reader convenience.
37
-------
Table 5. DATA QUALITY'
Fuel and boiler data
Fuel consumption
Combustion unit population
Combustion unit characteristics
Control devices
Emissions data
Stack emissions
Particulates
Fine particulates
SO
NOX
HCX
CO
PPOM-
Trace elements
Ash handling
Air emissions
Pond discharge
Amount composition
Solid waste
Amount
Composition, major elements
Composition, trace elements
Cooling systems
Water discharge
Volume
Composition
Thermal
Air emissions
Other waste water sources
Boiler water treament
Volume
Composition
Boiler blowdown
Volume
Composition
Equipment cleaning
Volume
Composition
Fuel handling
Air emissions
Coal pile drainage
Volume
Composition
Utilities
A
A
A
A
B
D
A
B
D
B
E
E
E
C
E
A
A
E
A
C
A
C
D
C
E
D
D
C
E
C
C
Industrial
B
D
E
C
C
D
A
B
D .
C
E
E
E
D
E
B
A
E
E
C
E
NA
E
D
E
E
D
C
E
C
C
Commercial/
institutional
B
D
B
NA
D
D
A
C
D
C
E
E
NA
NA
NA
B
B
E
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E
C
C
Residential
B
D
B
NA
C
C
A
C
D
C
E
E
NA
NA
NA
E
B
E
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
38
-------
RANK ID CODE SOURCE TYPE IMPACT FACTOR
1 4.1.12.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE 500.000,000
2 4.1.11.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS 300,000.000
3 4.1.22.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB DIST OIL 200.000.000
4 4.1.30.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB GAS 100,000.000
5 1.1.11.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 30.000.000
6 3.1.21.0.2 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB RESID OIL OTHER 10.000.000
7 4.1.42.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB WOOD 8.000.000
8 3.1.22.0.2 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB DIST OIL OTHER 7.000.000
9 2.1.21.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB RESID OIL OTHER 7.000.000
10 1.1.11.2.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 5.000.000
11 1.1.11.3.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS CYCLONE 5,000.000
12 1.3.22.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION INT COMB DIST OIL TURBINE 4,000.000
13 2.1.11.1.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 3.000.000
14 2.1.30.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB GAS OTHER 3.000.000
15 2.4.30.0.0 INDUSTRIAL INT COMB GAS RECIP ENG 3,000.000
16 2.3.30.0.0 INDUSTRIAL INT COMB GAS TURBINE 3.000.000
17 1.4.22.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION INT COMB OIST OIL RECIP ENG 3.000.000
18 2.1.11.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 3.000.000
19 3.2.22.0.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INT COMB OIST OIL 2.000,000
20 2.4.22.0.0 INDUSTRIAL INT COMB OIST OIL RECIP ENG 2.000.000
21 3.1.30.0.2 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB GAS OTHER 2.000.000
22 2.1.22.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB DIST OIL OTHER 1,000.000
23 1.3.30,0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION INT COMB GAS TURBINE 1,000.000
24 3.1.12.4.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 1.000.000
25 3.1.11.4.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 900.000
26 2.1.21.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB RESID OIL TANG FIRE 800.000
27 2.1.30.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB GAS TANG FIRE 800.000
28 2.1.11.2.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 700.000
29 2.3.22.0.0 INDUSTRIAL INT COMB OIST OIL TURBINE 400,000
30 1.4.30.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION INT COMB GAS RECIP ENG 400,000
31 1.1.11.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER <»00,000
32 3.2.30.0.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INT COMB GAS 400,000
33 4.1.13.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB LIGNITE 400,000
34 1.1.21.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB RESID OIL OTHER 400.000
i5 2.1.40.0.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB REFUSE 400.000
46 3.1.11.1.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 300.000
37 2.1.11.3.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS CYCLONE 200.000
38 2.1.22.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB DIST OIL TANG FIRE 200.000
39 1.1.21.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB RESID OIL TANG FIRE 200.000
40 1.1.12.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 100.000
41 2.1.12.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 100.000
42 3.1.21.0.1 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB RESIO OIL TANG FIRE 100,000
43 3.1.30.0.1 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB GAS TANG FIRE 90,000
44 1.1.13.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE PULV DRY BOTH 90.000
45 3.1.22.0.1 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB DIST OIL TANG FIRE 80,000
46 1.1.12.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB ANTHRACITE PULV DRY BOTM 70,000
47 2.1.13.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB LIGNITE STOKER 60,000
48 1.1.30.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB GAS OTHER 30.000
49 1.1.13.2.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE PULV WET BOTM 20,000
50 1.1.13-.3.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE CYCLONE 20.000
51 1.1.15.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE STOKER 20,000
52 1.1.30.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB GAS TANG FI<*E 20,000
53 3.1.11.2.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 10,000
54 1.1.22.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB OIST OIL OTHER 3>000
55 1.1.22.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB DIST OIL TANG FIRE 1.000
56 1.1.40.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB REFUSE 80
Figure 1. Air relative prioritization
-------
Rank ID code Source type Impact factor x ID3
1 1.1.11.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTH 1.000,000
2 2.1.30.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB GAS OTHER 600(000
3 1.1.21.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT CGKB RESID OIL OTHER 600.000
t 1.1.21.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB RESID OIL TANG FIRE 400,000
5 1.1.11.2.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTH 400.000
6 1.1.11.3.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS CYCLONE ' 400,000
7 1.1.30.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB GAS OTHER 300.000
6 2.1.21.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB KESID OIL OTHER 90.000
t 2.1.11.1.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTM 90«000
10 1.1.30.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB GAS TANG FIRE 80,000
11 2.1.11.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 70,000
12 2.1.30.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB GAS TANG FIRE 70.000
13 1.1.11.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 20,000
It 2.1.21.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB RESID OIL TANG FIRE 20.000
15 2.1.11.2.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 20,000
16 2.1.22.0.2 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB OIST OIL OTHER 10,000
17 1.1.22.0.2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB OIST OIL OTHER 10,000
18 1.1.22.0.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB DlST OIL TANG FIRE 7,000
19 2.1.HO.0.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB KEFUSE 6,000
20 2.1.11.3.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS CYCLONE 5,000
21 2.1.22.0.1 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB DIST OIL TANG FIRE 3,000
22 1.1.13.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE PULV DRY BOTM 3.000
Zi 2.1.12.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 2,000
24 4.1.11.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS ' 2,000
25 2.1.13.4.0 INDUSTRIAL EXT COMB LIGNITE STOKER 800
2fc 4.1.12.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE 800
27 3.1.12.4.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 700
26 1.1.13.2.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE PULV WET BOTM 600
29 1.1.13.3.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE CYCLONE 600
30 1.1.12.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB ANTHRACITE STOKER 500
il 3.1.11.4.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS STOKER 500
32 1.1.13.4.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB LIGNITE STOKER 400
i3 1.1.12.1.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB ANTHRACITE PULV DRY BOTM 300
31 3.1.11.1.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTH 100
J5 1.1.40.0.0 ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB REFUSE 5
Jb 3.).11.2.0 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV WET BOTM 3
37 4.1.13.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COtfB LIGNITE 1
iB 4.1.42.0.0 RESIDENTIAL EXT COMB taOOU 1
Figure 2. Water relative prioritization
-------
SECTION V
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Table A-l lists the data that had been compiled for elec-
tricity generation, external combustion, bituminous coal,
pulverized dry bottom. The mass of each effluent material
shown is the total amount for the U.S. However, coal con-
sumption data are available on a state-by-state basis as
shown in Table A-2. Hence, the effluent mass can be appor-
tioned over the states based on a fraction of the coal con-
sumed. Table A-3 is a summary of annual average ambient
concentrations of selected species, turbidity, river flow
rates and rainfall.4
1. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
For total dissolved solids, TDS, a direct water discharge
and an overflow from the ash pond exist. The amount of TDS
in the total effluent discharge in the U.S. is 0.2168 x 106
tons/yr as shown in Table A-l. The ash pond discharge,
however, takes into account only the contribution from the
ash pond, i.e., the ambient TDS mass has been subtracted.
Since the model described is this report treats total
effluent mass, a correction is made for the ambient TDS.
From Table A-3, the ambient TDS in Alabama (state 1) is
^Personal communication. J. F. Ficke, U.S. Geological
Survey.
41
-------
Table A-l. SAMPLE INPUT DATA
ELECTRICITY GENERATION EXT COMB BITUMINOUS PULV DRY BOTH 1
IDC 1.1.11.1.0 DATA QUALITY TYPE OF CALC 2 CATEGORY 1
TOTAL CONSUMPTION (T/YR)
NO OF POLLUTANTS
FRACTION OF WATER IN WASTE
WASTE GEN RATE (T/YR)
WATER DISCHG 10**6 GAL/YR
0.2755181E+09
13
0.0000
0.2878'»20E + 09
0.1274200E+05
ASH PD DISCS 10*»6 GAL/TR 0.218HOOOE+06
MATERIAL EFFLUENT DISCHG (T/YR)
1
2
3
H
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
15
TDS
AS
CD
CL
CU
CR
F
FE
HG
MN
N03
PB
sot
0.216BOOOE+06
O.OOOOOOOE+OO
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.7t70000E+05
O.ltSOOOOE+Ot
0.9700000E+03
0.2500000E+01*
0,7700000^ + 01*
O.OOOOOOCE-fOO
0."mOOOOOE+02
0.3tOOOOOE+02
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.85"*OOOOE+05
ASH POND DISCHG (T/YR) FRACT DRY BASIS
0.5B27180E+06
O.OOOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.5007700E+05
0.1820000E+03
0.9100000E+02
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.2730000E+03
O.OOOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOOE+00
O.llStOOOE+Ot
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.1820990E+06
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.262300CE-03
0.216»OOOE-05
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.76t9999E-0<*
0.87<»2999E-0<»
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.2623000E-01
0.1093000E-06
0.28i»2000E-03
O.OOOOOOOE+00
0.ta09000E-0<»
O.OOOOOOOE+00
-------
Table A-2. STATE COAL CONSUMPTION DATA
State
code
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
State name
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska.
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
State
consumption ,
T/yr
0.1338500E+08
0.3210000E+06
0.3350000E+06
0.3124000E+07
0.2100000E+05
0.6710000E+06
0.4738000E+07
0.7743000E+07
0.2332000E+08
0.1930400E+08
0.2057000E+07
0.7450000E+06
0.1593300E+08
0.2794000E+07
0.9000000E+04
0.1418100E+08
0.4987000E+07
0.8540000E+06
0.1110400E+08
0.4230000E+06
0.9610000E+06
0.2756000E+07
0.7450000E+06
0.1698000E+07
0.5361000E+07
0.4133000E+07
0.1419700E+08
0.3112400E+08
0.1000000E+04
0.2687500E+08
0.3937000E+07
0.2570000E+06
0.1493400E+08
0.1948000E+07
0.7020000E+07
0.2500000E+05
0.3567000E+07
0.2224000E+07
0.1655600E+07
0.7210000E+07
0.3940000E+07
43
-------
Table A-3. STATE AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS
TDS,
State g/m3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
It
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
J9
40
11
<*2
03
It
"45
46
U7
"*ft
49
SO
73.0
183.0
1321.0
159.5
1055.7
838.0
70.0
0.0
180.0
62. t '
223.0
151.0
248.0
330.0
"•91.0
748.0
116.0
111.0
10.0
165.0
61.0
187. t
3l9.0
140.0
308.0
342.0
0.0
146.0
0.0
99.0
264.0
241.0
73.0
780.0
540.0
906.0
48.o
172.0
0.0
64.0
391.0
209.0
373.0
699,0
0.0
92.0
85,8
145,0
421,0
204.0
As,
ug/m3
0.0005
O.OOCb
( .0069
0.0012
0.0047
0.0025
0.0010
0.0000
0.0020
0.0030
0.0005
U.0045
0.0010
0.0030
0.0075
0.0045
0.0015
0.0025
0.0005
0.0005
0.0010
0.0032
0.0022
0.0038
0.0018
0.0102
'0.0035
0.0090
0.0000
0.0010
0.0020
0.0012
0.0035
0.0035
0.0025
0.0026
0.0025
0.0010
0.0000
0.0025
0.0145
0.0050
0.0030
G.OObS
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0016
(.'.0010
0.0065
0.0040
Cd,
yg/m3
0.0010
0.0215
U.0005
0.0010
0.0007
0.0007
0.0020
0.0000
0.0015
0.0025
0.0005
0.0015
0.0020
0.0000
0.0030
0.0020
0.0020
0.0016
0.0000
0.0000
0.0010
0.0009
0.0007
0.0023
0.0008
0.0015
0.0005
0.0015
0.0000
0.0005
0.0002
0.0056
0.0020
0.0018
0.0007
0.0010
0.0010
0.0042
0.0000
0.0020
0.0000
0.0005
0.0003
n.ooiB
0.0000
0.0035
0.0-014
0.0035
0. 0015
0.000?
Cl,
mg/m3
4.8
2.?
401.5
5.4
321.9
46.0
9.2
0.0
44.7
5.0
55.0
7.4
16.0
20.0
10.0
181.0
6.0
20.1
2.6
12.5
13.0
14.0
12.0
14.0
13.?
10.5
19.0
19.0
0.0
a. 9
6.7
27.8
8.8
42.3
82.3
275.0
3.6
38.2
0.0
6.9
7.4
12.0
63.0
131.0
0.0
7.6
3.0
17.0
43.0
b.4
Cu,
yg/m3
0.0070
0.0065
0.0075
0.0135
O.OIOJ
0.0060
0.0050
0.0000
0.0041
0.0055
0.0060
0.0100
0.0080
0.0050
0.0060
0.0072
0.0108
0.0070
o.ooso
0.0000
0.0150
0.0036
0.0108
0.0045
0.0055
0.0065
0.0210
0.0035
0.0000
0.0100
0.0032
0.0050
0.0050
0.0125
0.0162
0.0062
0.0088
0.0050
0,0000
0.0042
0.0150
0.0125
0.0052
0.0126
0.0000
0.0030
0.0096
0.0200
0.0050
0.0025
Cr,
mg/m3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0042
0.0000
o.oouo
0.0000
0.0006
0.0005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000
0.0015
0.0075
0.0005
0.0005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0050
O.OOU2
0.0100
0.0018
0.0033
O.OOUO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0050
0.0150
0.0025
0.0010
0.0025
0.0107
0.0000
0.0075
0.0025
0.0000
O.OOU2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0050
C.0017
0.0000
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0015
o.&ooo
F,
mg/m3
0.2000
0.2000
0.9100
0.3000
0.4200
0.5700
0.2000
0.0000
0.5300
0.1000
0.2000
0.4500
0.2700
0.3000
0.5000
0.5300
0.2100
0.2&00
0.3000
0.2000
0.3000
0.3000
0.2700
0.2300
0.3300
0.7200
0.4700
0.1800
0.0000
0.2000
0.5100
0.5600
0.2000
0.3900
0.4700
0.5500
0.2000
0.1700
0.0000
0.1500
0.7300
0.4700
0.2400
0.4000
0.0000
0.1000
0.2000
0.1BOO
0.4000
0.5000
V'e,
ug/m3
0.1050
0.2100
0.2875
0.4175
0.2508
0.2450
0.2550
O.OOnfl
0'.195C
0.1450
0.0550
0.0600
0.3950
0.0000
o.oson
0.0600
0.0517
0.1090
0.1200
0.0550
0.1600
0.0325
O.iieO
0.4520
1.0570
0.0475
0.0400
0.2450
0.0000
0.0750
0.0750
0.1000
0.4050
0.0725
0.0383
0.0600
0.1650
0.1880
o.nooo
0.0625
0.0900
0.9650
0.0630
0.0&50
0.0000
0.1050
0.0460
0.06SO
0.0300
0.0450
Hg,
ug/m-1
0.0002
0.0001
O.OOUO
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0005
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
0.0006
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
0.0006
0.0003
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
o.oooi
0.0000
0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0011
0.0000
0.0005
0.0005
0.0000
Mn,
yg/m3
0.0085
0.7250
0.&450
0.0150
0.0502
0.0213
0.0800
o.oooo
0.0105
0.0085
0.0900
0.2080
0.0788
0.0330
0.2500
0.0300
0.0110
0.0443
0.0350
0.0050
0.0600
0.0188
0.0220
0.0440
0.0750
0.0275
0.0065
0.0150
0.0000
0.0200
0.0258
0.0412
0.2020
0.0150
0.2680
0.0185
0.0325
0.4750
0.0000
0.0168
0.0100
0.0140
0.0700
0.0250
0.0000
0.0035
0.0120
0.0650
0.0235
0.0100
NO3,
mg/m
0.4100
6.4000
2.7000
0.3900
0.5200
0.9800
0.4000
0.0000
0.3600
0.3400
0.9400
0.7000
1.8500
1.5000
0.0900
0.9500
0.4700
0.3800
0.0400
0.8500
0.3800
0.2900
0.3800
0.7000
2.1200
0.1700
1.6000
O.OOOO
O-.OOOO
0.9200
0.1600
0.4500
0.5200
0.4400
2.8000
0.3400
0.1400
0.9600
0.0000
0.1200
1.0000
1.4000
0.4700
0.9700
0.0000
0.2200
0.2800
0.6700
1.2000
0.0200
Pb,
ug/m3
0.0065
0.0115
0.0022
0.0030
0.0052
0.0022
0.0015
0.0000
0.0030
0.0025
0.0025
0.0085
0.0038
0.0130
0.0100
0.0072
0.0030
0.0049
0.0085
0.0040
0.0035
0.0056
0.0050
0.0152
0.0042
0.002S
0.0040
0.0040
o.oooo
0.0025
0.0005
0.0020
0.0080
0.0020
0.0033
0.0042
0.0055
0.0012
0.0000
0.0072
0.0025
0.0035
0.0017
0.0065
0.0000
0.0050
0.0049
0.0050
0.0110
0.0085
SOI, .
mg/m-3
6.8
2.0
Ji9.r
14.5
239.9
3S5.0
11.0
0.0
36.7
5.0
3.2
25.0
56.0
56.0
207.0
146.0
19.3
23.4
8.4
41.0
8.3
20.0
53.0
25.0
65.0
121.0
185.0
21.0
0.0
23.0
79.0
33.2
9.9
346.0
100.0
196,0
7.9
346.0
0.0
8.0
103.0
49.0
69.0
187.0
0.0
12.0
11.0
3B.O
43.0
40.0
Flow
rate,
m3/s
957.11
46.44
156.06
138.12
291.78
45.48
552. IP
8.95
196.63
351.13
8.95
363.59
3989.87
413.4}
836.31
77.19
1503.63
252.02
566.34
224.98
272.98
1793.60
147.53
13520.52
1198.66
113.66
70.79
34.58
8.95
951.45
29.48
3173.77
137.05
20.22
215.21
233.90
1815.12
1257.27
8.95
227.39
11.30
23361.52
181.14
96.50
8.95
203.03
8495.10
441.75
29.73
244. 3fa
Tur-
bidity
38.0
33.0
1«5.0
97.5
33.8
?3.n
2.4
0.0
7.6
15.0
35.0
9.1
76.0
69.0
15.0
70.0
40.0
75.0
30.0
24.0
3.0
5.7
39.0
63.5
144.0
125.0
43.0
10. 0
0.0
3.9
68.0
21.9
17.5
1150.0
51.0
40.0
6.6
18.7
o.n
7.7
6463. 0
117.0
52.0
75.0
0.0
18.0
19. n
21.0
20.0
11.0
Rain-
fall,
m
1.495
1.389
0.179
1.232
0.426
0.394
1.169
1.022
1.306
1.228
0.582
0.292
0.875
0.984
0.845
0.722
1.095
1.442
1.036
1.028
i.oao
0.796
0.659
1.257
0.912
0.289
0.767
0.219
0.919
1.07&
0.246
0.952
1.091
0.410
0.953
0.797
0.955
0.985
1.027
1.324
0.464
1.168
0.932
0.365
0.827
1.135
0.714
0.976
0.752
0.383
-------
noted to be 73 g/m3. The total U.S. ash pond discharge
volume is 0.2184 x 1012 gal/yr from Table A-l. Conversion
of ambient TDS into tons/yr is determined from:
0.2184 x 1012 gal m3 73 g Ib ton
yr 264.2 gal x ~nF~ x 453.6 g x 2000 Ib
= 6.652 x IP1* tons , ,.
yr
This ambient TDS value is then added to the TDS mass of the
ash pond discharge, 0.5827 x 106 tons/year, shown in
Table A-l, to obtain the total TDS ash pond discharge mass:
Total TDS ash pond discharge mass = (6.652 x 10l*) + fO .5827 x 106)
6.49 x 105 tons
yr
(A-2)
From Table A-2, the coal consumption for Alabama is shown to
be 0.13385 x 108 tons/year. From Table A-l, the total annual
coal consumption for the U.S. is 0.276 x 109 tons/yr. Hence,
the fraction of total coal consumed for Alabama is:
0 1339 x 108
Fraction of coal consumed for Alabama =
0.2761 x 109 (A-3)
= 0.0485
An effluent mass loading, X, for only the water portion due
to TDS is calculated as:
X = 0.0485 (0.2168 x 106 + 6.49 x 105) tons/yr
= 4.2 x 101* tons/yr or 0.121 x 104 g/s (A-4)
45
-------
TDS does not enter into the solid waste calculation. Hazard
potential, Z, is then calculated for this material from:
Z = VDD (A-5)
K
where Z = hazard potential
V = river discharge rate, m3/s
I\
D = drinking water standard for TDS, g/m3
From Table A-3, the average river flow rate, V_., for Alabama
t\
is 957.11 m3/s. The drinking water standard for TDS is
500 g/m3. Hence, substitution into Equation A-5 yields:
Z = 957.11 ™- x 500 £3- = 4.79 x 105 g/s
A relative mass loading factor, A, is» defined as:
X 0.121 x 10" _
Z 4.79 x 105
x
3
1U
As in the air model, weighting factor is defined as the
ratio of an ambient concentration relative to the standard:
C
W = ^ (A-7)
where W = ambient weighting factor
C = ambient concentration for TDS in Alabama, g/m3 j
D = drinking water standard, g/m3
From Table A-3, for Alabama the average TDS is 73 g/m3; thus,
substitution into Equation A-7 yields:
«-r-5BH£ -0.146
As in the air model, weighting factors less than one will
not be used. Hence, W is set equal to one for such values.
This condition is stated mathematically as follows:
46
-------
w =
c. c
—— i f —2. •> i n
D it D >_ i.o
c
1.0 if ^ 1.0
(A-8)
The first term, T^, (for TDS in Alabama) is defined as
follows:
TH = A2W = (2.53 x 10~3)2(1.0) = 6.4 x 10~6 (A-9)
2. ARSENIC
The procedure for calculating the term, due to arsenic (As)
in Alabama consists of first defining the relative mass
loading term A as:
A =
where X - effluent mass loading for only the direct water
discharge
Y = effluent mass loading due to solid residual
leaching
and Z = hazard potential mass
Even though in Table A-3 the ash pond discharge for arsenic
is zero, the ambient level average for Alabama is included as
follows:
Alabama ash pond discharge = (0.2184 x 1012) (0.0485) (A-ll)
= 1.059 x 1010 gal/yr
47
-------
C , the ambient arsenic concentration in Alabama, is
f\
5 x I0~k g/m3 from Table A-3. Hence, the effluent mass
loading for only the direct water discharge, X, is
determined from:
v = 1.059 x IQiO gal m3 5 x 10"** g Ib ton
yr 264.2 gal x iPx 453.6 g X 2000 Ib
0.022 tons - __ .-_i. ,
= yj or 6.35 x 10 4 g/s (A-12)
The effluent mass loading due to solid residual leaching,
Y, is defined as:
Y = SGfif2 (A-13)
where S., = solid waste generation rate, tons/yr
(j
f2 = [1 - (H20)f][if] (A-14)
(H20) ,; = fraction of water in solid residual
i.p = fraction of constituent on a dry basis
fl = «eeR (A-15)
fi = fraction of solid residual leached by
rainfall
R = annual rainfall, m
a and 8 = dimensionless Constants that keep total
solids under 50 g/1
a = 1.723 x 10-*
6 = 1.48
From Table A-l, the solid waste generation rate, the
fraction of arsenic on a dry basis, and the fraction of water
in the solid residual are respectively:
48
-------
SQ (total U.S.) = 0.288 x 109 tons/yr
if = 0.262 x 10~3
= 0.0
From Table A-3, for state 1 (Alabama) , the rainfall is
1.495 m. As before, the solid residual generation rate in
Alabama is computed by applying the coal consumption for
that state to the total U.S. solid waste generation rate:
S^ (Alabama) = S., (total U.S.) • 0.0485 (A-16)
(j (j
= 1.4 x 10 7 tons/yr
As shown earlier,
f2 = [1 - (H20)f] [if] (A-14)
Substitution yields:
f2 = (1 - 0.0) (0.262 x 10~3) = 0.262 x 10~3
The fraction of solid residual leached by rainfall, flf is
BR
computed from fj = ae , which is Equation A-15, shown
earlier. Using the rainfall (R) as 1.495 m from Table A-3
and values for a and B listed earlier:
f =
= (1.723 x 10-U) e d- 48) (1. 495) = ^ x 1Q.3
The effluent mass loading due to solid residual leaching,
Y, was defined earlier as:
Y = Srfif2 (A-13)
49
-------
Substituting from above yields:
Y = (1.4 x 107)(1.58 x 10~3) (0.262 x 10~3)
= 5.8 tons/yr or 0.17 g/s
The hazard potential mass, Z, is calculated as'before:
Z = VRD (A-5)
The drinking water standard, D, for arsenic is 0.05 g/m3
and the river discharge rate is 957.11 m3/s.
Hence, Z = (957.11 m3/s) (0.05 g/m3) = 47.»9 g/s
The relative mass loading factor, A, was defined as:
A = ^4-^ (A
h
Since X = 6.35 x lO"1* g/s, Y = 0.17 g/s and Z = 47.9 g/s,
. 6.35 x 10-^ + 0.17 _ cc .n_3
A = v_ = 3.56 x 10 6
From Table A-3, the ambient level of arsenic in Alabama
is noted to be 5 x lO"4 g/m3. The weighting factor, W, is
then:
W = ^ (A-7)
= 5 x IP-" _
0.05 U'0i
50
-------
Since W <_ 1.0, let W = 1.0. The second term T21, (arsenic
in Alabama) is then:
T2i = A2W = (3.56 x 10~3)2(1.0) = 1.27 x 10~5 (A-17)
3. OTHER DISCHARGED MATERIALS
Calculations similar to those described above are then
carried out for the remaining discharges in Alabama.
4. IMPACT FACTOR CONTRIBUTION FROM ALABAMA
After the last term for sulfates, Tj3 j, has~been calculated,
all the terms, are summed, their square root is obtained
and multiplied by the population density, P, in Alabama to
yield Alabama's contribution to the overall impact factor
for this source type:
=P ,i 2
W1 ^Alabama
5. OVERALL IMPACT FACTOR FOR SOURCE TYPE
The entire procedure described above is then repeated for
each remaining state in an analogous fashion to yield simi-
lar state contributions to the overall impact factors
designated IT7 .... Ir7 . The overall impact factor for the
W2 W5g
generation of electricity by the external combustion of dry
pulverized bituminous coal is expressed as:
1=1 + I + I (A-19)
W \NI W2 W5 o
51
-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
1. Eimutis, E. C. Source Assessment: Prioritization of
Stationary Air Pollution Sources—Model Description.
Monsanto Research Corporation. Dayton. Report No.
MRC-DA-508. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/2-76-032a. February 1976. 77 p.
2. Surprenant, N., R. Hall, S. staler, T. Suza, M. Sussman
and C. Young. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of
Conventional Stationary Combustion Sources, Vol. I.
GCA Corporation. EPA Contract 68-02-1316, Task 11.
Bedford. GCA-TR-75-26-G(1) (revised draft of final
report). Environmental Protection Agency.
September 1975.
3. Personal communication. G. Nelson, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, lERL-Cincinnati.
4. Personal communication. J. F. Ficke, U. S. Geological
Survey.
53
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before eoipplcting)
i REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-176
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Air, Water, and Solid Residue Prioritization Models
for Conventional Combustion Sources
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
July 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
E.C.Eimutis, C. M. Moscowitz, J. L.Delaney,
R.P.Quill, and D. L. Zanders
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
MRC-DA-546
9. PERFORMING OR9ANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHB525
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1404, Task 18
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 7/75-4/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESproject officer for this repOrt is R.A. Venezia, mail drop 62,
919/549-8411, Ext 2547.
16. ABSTRACT
The report describes mathematical models that were developed to rela-
tively rank the environmental impact of water and solid residue emissions. The
water model, similar to an air prioritization model developed in an earlier study,
is based on mass of emission, hazard potential of the emission, ambient water
loading, and polulation density in the emission region. Solid emissions were
divided into air and water emission components and these contributions were
incorporated into air and water prioritization models. The report gives the
relative ranking resulting from the application of the models to 56 conventional
stationary combustion sources.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Pollution
Combustion
Environmental
Biology
Ranking
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Residues
Mathematical
Models
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Environmental Impact
Solid Residue
Prioritization
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
2 IB
06F 12A
12 B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tllis Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
58
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage}
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
54
------- |