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 ------- |