&EPA
          United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
           Industrial Environmental Research
           Laboratory
           Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/7-78-212
November 1978
Impact of Point
Source Control
Strategies on NO2
Levels

Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report

-------
                  RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional  grouping  was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

    1. Environmental Health Effects Research

    2. Environmental Protection Technology

    3. Ecological Research

    4. Environmental Monitoring

    5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

    6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)

    7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

    8. "Special" Reports

    9. Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded  under the 17-agency Federal  Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects;  assessments of, and development of, control technologies  for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide'range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
                        EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, 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-600/7-78-212

                                            November 1978
Impact of  Point Source  Control
     Strategies on  NO2 Levels
                            by
               B. R. Eppright, E.P. Hamilton III, M.A. Haecker,
                     and Carl-Heinz Michelis

                       Radian Corporation
                    8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard
                      Austin, Texas 78766
                     Contract No. 68-02-2608
                         Task No. 14
                    Program Element No. 1NE624
                  EPA Project Officer: J. David Mobley

               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

-------
                            ABSTRACT
The report gives final results of a study of the effect of two point source
NOx control strategies in the Chicago Air Quality Control Region (AQCR):
combustion modification and flue gas treatment. The study involved the
dispersion modeling of essentially all point and area sources of NOx m tne
AQCR. Gaussian type dispersion models were used for nonreactive pollu-
tants. The model results were adjusted empirically for atmospheric conver-
sion of NO to NO2. Two averaging times were considered: annual, corres-
ponding to the present National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
NO2; and 1-hour, corresponding to the anticipated new short-term  NAAQS
for NC>2.  Results of the annual modeling indicate that large point sources
are not major contributors to annual average M>2 levels.  However, results
of the short-term modeling indicate  that large point sources can be impor-
tant contributors to 1-hour average N©2 levels under certain meteorological
conditions. Therefore, the control of large point source emissions can
result in significant improvements in short-term M>2  air quality.
                                 ii

-------
                         CONTENTS

Figures       	  v
Tables      	  vii

      I.  Conclusions	   1
    II.  Recommendations	   4
   III.  Introduction	   5
    IV.  Technical Discussion	   9
         Annual Average Impact	   9
         Basic Approach	   9
         Data Collection	   9
         Modeling Approach	   13
         Discussion of Results	   17
         Short-Term Impacts	   30
         Basic Approach	   30
         Data Collection and Presentation	   31
         Modeling Approach	   47
         Discussion of Results	   60

References	   75

Appendices
      A.  Selected Conversion Factors	   76
      B.  Area Source Gridding Procedure	   78
      C.  Area Source Emission Factors	   92
      D.  Estimation of N02/NOX Adjustment Factor	   100
      E.  "Hot-Spot" Analysis	   103
      F.  Testing of Commonwealth Edison Steam Units....   118
      G.  Combustion Turbine and Other Peaking Units
         in Chicago AQCR	   122


-------
CONTENTS--Continued


     Appendices (cont.)

        H.  Power Plant Emissions Characterization	  131

        I.  NIPSCO and NIGC Gas Sendout Data	  146

        J.  Worst-Case NO  Concentration Data  for 1975
            and 1985	*	  153
                              iv

-------
                            FIGURES


Number                                                    Page


  1       Chicago AQCR 	     15

  2       Chicago Wind Rose 	     19

  3       Location of Monitoring Points  Used
          for Model Calibration - Chicago 	     20

  4       Calibration Results  	     21

  5       Predicted N02 Concentration (yg/m3)
          Impact from Utility  and Industrial
          Boilers - Chicago 	     23

  6       Predicted N02 Concentration (yg/m3)
          Impact from Other Point Sources -
          Chicago 	     24

  7       Predicted N02 Concentration (yg/m3)
          Impact from Vehicular Area Sources -
          Chicago 	     25

  8       Predicted N02 Concentration (yg/m3)
          Impact from Other Area Sources -
          Chicago 	     26

  9       Predicted N02 Concentration (yg/m3)
          Impact from All Sources Including
          Background - Chicago  	     27

 10       Seasonal-Diurnal Variation in NOX
          and N02 for Plymouth Court Monitor-
          ing Station 	     32

 11       Seasonal-Diurnal Variation in NO  and
          N02 for West Polk Monitoring Station	     33

 12       Power Plants in Chicago AQCR 	     37

 13       Typical NIPSCO Hourly Gas Demand for
          July 1975, Week Day  	     41

 14       One-Hour Average N0x Concentrations
          (yg/m3) Power Plants - Summer Mid-
          Afternoon — Typical	     55

-------
FIGURES--Continued
Number                                                   Page

 15      One-Hour Average N0x Concentrations
         (yg/rn3) Large Point Sources - Summer
         Mid-Afternoon -- Typical	   56

 16      One-Hour Average NOX Concentrations
         (yg/m3) Power Plants and Large Point
         Sources - Summer Mid-Morning -- Typical	   62

 17      1975 Ambient N02 Concentrations in
         Vicinity of Power Plants without
         Interaction 	   64

 18      1985 Ambient N02 Concentrations
         in Vicinity of Power Plants without
         Interaction 	   65

 19      1975 and 1985 Ambient N02 Concen-
         trations in Vicinity of Power Plant
         Interaction Groups  	   66
                             vi

-------
                            TABLES
Number                                                     Page

  1       Summary of the Chicago AQCR N0x
          Emission Inventory .............................    17

  2       Chicago Point Source N0x Emission
          Summary ........................................    18

  3       Annual N02 Air Quality Predictions by
          Source Class for Chicago (yg/m3) ...............    28

  4       Predicted Annual Average N02 Concentration
          at Selected Points of Interest in Chicago
               3 ........................................    29
  5       CE Unit NOV Emissions ..........................    34
                    f\

  6       NIPSCO and Winnetka Power Plant NO., Emissions
          Data .............................. ............    36

  7       Non-Utility Power Plant N0x Emissions Data .....    36

  8       Number of Point Sources by Category ............    39

  9       Number of Point Sources in Operation for
          Study ..........................................    39

 10       Large Point Sources Studied ....................    40

 11       Vehicular Scale Factors and 1975 VMT by
          County .........................................    45

 12       Diurnal/ Seasonal Scale Factors for Non-
          Vehicular Sources ............................ . .    48

 13       Power Plant Interaction Groups .................    61

 14       Worst Case Groundlevel N02 Concentrations
          Produced by Individual Power Plants and
          Interactions Cases - 1975 ......................    67

-------
TABLE S—C on t inue d


Number                                                    Page

  15     Worst Case Groundlevel N02 Concentrations
         Produced by Individual Power Plants and
         Interaction Cases - 1985	   68

  16     Number of Plants Requiring NO  Controls
         to Meet Ambient Levels without Inter-
         action	   70

  17     Number of Plants Requiring NOX Controls
         to Meet Ambient Levels with Interaction	   70

  18     Cost of Large Point Source Controls
         Required to Meet Ambient Levels without
         Interactions in Millions of 1977 Dollars	   71

  19     Cost of Large Point Source Controls
         Required to Meet Ambient Levels with
         Interactions in Millions of Dollars	   71

  20     Estimated Maximum Emissions for Isolated
         Large Coal Plant	   72

  21     Expected Worst Case Groundlevel
         Concentrations from Isolated Large Coal
         Plant	   73
                            viii

-------
I.         CONCLUSIONS

          The contributions to ambient nitrogen dioxide (N02)
concentrations by distinct source classes in Chicago were
studied to assess the improvement in air quality which could
be expected if nitrogen oxides (N0x) emission controls were used
on major point sources (>100 million Btu* heat input).  A non-
reactive Gaussian dispersion model was used for both annual and
short-term (one hour) average predictions of N02-  The conclu-
sions given here are based on the assumption that a constant
N02/NOX ratio can be applied uniformly to the predicted impacts
of all sources.  Annual average predictions assume an N02/N0x
ratio of one-half.  Short-term predictions assume a ratio of
one-quarter to one-half, depending on season of the year and
hour of the day for worst case conditions.  Measured N02 levels
in Chicago were used to calibrate the annual average predictions,
but short-term predictions could not be calibrated due to the
lack of sufficient one hour average measurements.

          Annual Average

          While the major point sources account for nearly 40
percent of the total NOX emissions in Chicago, they account
for less than 10 percent of the ambient nitrogen dioxide (N02)
levels, on the average.  Considering major point source  'hot-
spots', (i.e., localized areas of the city where major point
source impact is  the greatest) modeling results indicate that
these sources account for 12 percent of a predicted N02 level
of about 60 yg/tn3 or, equivalently, less than eight percent of
the federal standard  (100 yg/m3).  Taking a  'worst-case'
approach and assuming that all NO  emissions from major point
                           — ••    /\
* Government policy is to stress the use of SI units in techni-
  cal reports.  However, for this report, commonly used units
  will be given.  Conversion factors are shown in Appendix A.

-------
sources are converted to N02 ,  it was found that the predicted
cumulative impact of all major point sources at locations of
maximum annual impact is still only 15 percent of the standard.

          It is concluded that total removal of large point
source N0x emissions would result in only a small improvement
in annual average N02 air quality.

          Short Term

          Individual large point sources may account for 60
percent of a predicted one hour N02 concentration of 1100 yg/m3
in industrial areas and 90 percent of a level of 800 yg/m3 in
non- industrial areas.  This demonstrates that controlling
large point sources may provide significant improvements in
short-term N02 air quality.  However, the degree of control
required is highly dependent on the short-term ambient N02
standard adopted by EPA.  The results summarized below show
the percentage of the 14 largest existing point sources which
would require controls for various standard levels if those
standards were currently in effect.
Ambient
Level                     Percentage of Plants Requiring
     3)          Combustion Modification     Flue Gas Treatment
 1000                      21                        0
  750                      64                        0
  500                      57                       29
  250                       7                       93

          The percentages listed above are based on individual
large point source impacts added to the impacts of other point
sources, vehicular sources, and non-vehicular area sources.
When large point sources are located near each other so that
their impacts interact, the degree of control required increases
significantly and more flue gas treatment is required.

-------
          Growth projections for NO  emissions to 1985 do not
                                   X
demonstrate the need for additional point source controls
above those shown above.  There are two reasons for this
unexpected result.  First, the highest predicted short-term
concentrations are dominated by large point sources to the
extent that changes in the impacts from other sources do not
make a large difference.  Secondly, the change in impact of
other sources by 1985 is small because increases in non-vehicu-
lar emissions are counterbalanced by the decrease in projected
vehicular emissions.

           It is concluded that control of large point source
 NOX emissions would result in a significant improvement in
 short-term N02 air quality.

-------
II.        RECOMMENDATIONS

          Further study of the application of NO  control
                                                X
technology to large point sources should be undertaken.  This
is particularly important in light of the fact that the promul-
gation of a short-term ambient N02 standard will be forth-
coming.  Also, this study has shown that large point sources
may dominate high short-term N02 levels, but these results
are based upon a non-reactive plume model.  More defensible
results could be obtained if a model capable of treating
reactive pollutants were employed.  This would remove the
necessity for the assumption of a fixed N02/NOX ratio in the
plume.  The first step in this direction should be the use of a
reactive plume model that simulates the conversion of NO to N02
in the plume.  This type of model can be executed relatively
inexpensively as compared to the costs associated with using a
large scale photochemical model, but still yield valuable
results that can be combined with the results of this study.
Then, the next step should be to apply a large scale photo-
chemical model to investigate the effect of alternative point
source N0x control strategies on not only N02 levels, but also
the levels of other reactive species such as ozone on an AQCR
basis.

         Another area that should continue to be studied is the
cost and performance characteristics of full-scale N0x flue gas
treatment (FGT) control devices.  Current uncertainty in this
area required simplifying assumptions to be made for this study
in determining the degree and extent of control required.

-------
III.     INTRODUCTION

         Nitrogen oxides (NO ) may be formed during combustion
                            X
of fossil fuels either by thermal fixation of atmospheric
nitrogen from combustion air (thermal NO ) or by conversion of
                                        X
fuel bound nitrogen to NO (fuel NO ).  The technques for con-
                                  X
trolling NOV emissions from stationary sources are combustion
           X
modification (CM) and flue gas treatment (FGT).   Combustion
modification reduces the amount of NO  formed while flue gas
                                     X
treatment removes the N0x from the stack gases after it has
been formed.

         This document reports the results of a two-phase study
                                  ^
to investigate these control strategies for the Chicago Air
Quality Control Region  (AQCR).  The first phase of the study
addresses the annual average ambient nitrogen dioxide (N02)
levels, and the second phase addresses short-term ambient N02
levels.

         Phase I

         The Chicago AQCR was  selected for use in this study
because it was one  of the five AQCR's in the nation that was
classified Priority I by EPA, with respect to N02.  A Priority I
classification indicated that  at  least one measurement of N02
in  the AQCR exceeded the annual average ambient standard.  Other
reasons for selecting the Chicago AQCR were that the National
Emissions Data System (NEDS) data base for Chicago was
reasonably complete, and that  familiarity with the area had
been gained through previous  studies.

         The original purpose  of  Phase I was  to determine the
effect on annual average ambient  NOX levels of applying NOX
control technology  to large point sources in  the AQCR.  The

-------
dispersion model to be used to relate NO  emissions to ambient
                                        X
concentrations was calibrated for Chicago.   Due to a lack of
ambient NOV measurements in the area, it was necessary to
          X
calibrate the model for N02.   Because of this, the purpose of
this study was changed to focus on the effects of NO  control
                                                    X
technology on ambient N02 levels.   This change greatly enhanced
the usefulness of the study since N02 is the pollutant for which
the ambient air standard is written.

          Phase II

          Near the end of the Phase I study it was learned that
the establishment of a short-term standard for N02 was being
seriously considered by Congress.   Therefore, Phase II was
undertaken to investigate the effect of CM and FGT control
strategies for large point sources on short-term ambient concen-
trations for present and future years.  This was done primarily
because it is known that large point  sources can have a high
impact on short-term NO  levels, even though they may have a
                       X
relatively low impact on annual average levels.

          Subsequent to the initiation of Phase II, Congress
passed the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act.  One of the
requirements of the 1977 Amendments is that EPA develop a short-
term N02 standard, if it is found that sufficient health effects
data exist upon which to base a standard.  EPA is currently in
the process of promulgating a short-term N02 standard.  As of
February, 1978, the levels being considered are 250, 500, 750,
and 1,000 ug/m3 based on a one-hour average.  This study
addresses these four levels.

          The short-term impact assessment is made using
Gaussian-type dispersion models.  A significant part of the
effort of this study was directed towards defining the short-
                                6

-------
term NOX emission rates that should be used in the model.  This
was done by adjusting the annual average emission rates in the
NEDS data base.  Adjustments are made for season of the year, day
of the week, time of day, etc.  The entire emissions inventory
for the Chicago AQCR, including vehicular and other area sources,
was modeled using this approach.

          The computer-predicted ambient NOX concentrations are
converted to ambient NOa concentrations by applying a ratio
of NO2 to NOX determined from measured air quality data in
Chicago.  This ratio is a function of season of the year and
time of day.  The accuracy of this approach is not known, since
several photochemical reactions are involved in the conversion
of NOX to N02.  However, detailed'modeling of the photochemistry
is beyond the scope of this study.  If future photochemical
modeling indicates that different N0z/N0x ratios should be used,
the results of this study can still be used by applying the new
ratios.

          The  assessment of future year impacts required the
estimation  of  growth in NOX emissions.  This was done for all
sources except power plants using the U. S. Department of
Commerce, Office of Business Economics and the U. S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service  (OBERS) projections
for the future.  The growth in power plant emissions is based on
actual projections from the electric utilities in the AQCR.

          It should be noted that this study focuses on the
issue of what  controls may be necessary to ensure point source
compliance with a short-term N02 standard.  To accomplish this
goal the scenarios selected for study were chosen to determine
the maximum air quality impact in the vicinity of large point
sources.  Other source types, such as vehicular sources, may
also cause short-term standard violations in areas where there

-------
is little or no impact from large point sources or during
meteorological conditions when point source impacts are minimal.
However, these cases are beyond the scope of this study and are
not addressed here.
                                8

-------
IV.       TECHNICAL DISCUSSION

          A.  Annual Average Impact

              1.  Basic Approach

          The purpose of Phase I was to calibrate a Gaussian
model for annual average N02 predictions for the Chicago AQCR and
to use the results to address the effectiveness of various point
source control strategies (CM or FGT),  should they be implemented.
Emission sources considered included large-point sources,  other
point sources, vehicular and other area sources.  Emissions,
meteorology and air quality monitoring data were obtained from
readily available sources.  Annual'NO 2 predictions were made
with an EPA model calibrated to NO2 measurements, using an
assumed N02/NOX ratio  (i.e., photochemistry was not modeled).
Point source  'hot-spots' were studied to assess the maximum im-
provement in  air quality which could be realized by controlling
point sources.

              2.  Data Collection

          This  section will  summarize the  data  collection
procedures  required in the  annual average  model calibration.
Air quality,  meteorological, point  source,  and  area  source
data collections will  be  addressed  separately.

              a.  Air  Quality Monitoring Data

          Actual N02 measurements at specific monitoring  sites
within Chicago  were required to  calibrate  model predictions  and
establish correlation  coefficients.  Historical monitoring  data
for Chicago was obtained  from the National Aerometric Data  Bank
(NADB), and this included all data  reported to  NADB  through

-------
the first two quarters of 1975.  Samples taken using the Jacobs-
Hochheiser method were not considered since that method has been
determined unacceptable by the EPA.  After studying the sampling
history of each site in terms of sampling frequency and consis-
tency of data, it was decided that measurements made during 1974
represented the best available data.

          NADB's air quality measurements for Chicago were
supplemented by data obtained from the Cook County Department
of Environmental Control and the city of Chicago Department of
Environmental Control.  These data, which were recorded in 1974,
are the result of comprehensive, high quality assurance monitor-
ing programs at the local level.

          Monitoring locations were plotted on Chicago AQCR maps
and analyzed with respect to suitability to the calibration
effort.  Sites located at or near the edge of the AQCR were
removed from consideration due to the likelihood of significant
impact from sources outside the AQCR at those sites.  Including
these sites in the calibration would have had an adverse effect
on the overall correlation since only sources within the AQCR
boundaries were modeled.

              b.  Meteorological Data

          The Climatological Dispersion Model  (COM) requires
annual average wind and  stability  conditions to be specified in
terms of a stability wind rose, a  trivariate frequency distribu-
tion of wind  speed, wind direction, and stability class.  The
"stability" of the atmosphere  refers to its ability to disperse
pollutants.  A "stability wind rose" shows the relationship
between stability and wind direction.  The Chicago wind rose for
this study was generated from  National Weather Service observa-
tions covering the 10-year period  from 1959 to 1968.  Other
                                10

-------
meteorological parameters required by the CDM are morning and
afternoon average mixing heights and average temperatures which
were taken from Holzworth.  Mixing height is the thickness of a
ground-based layer through which pollutant mixing and dispersion
occurs.

               c.  Point Sources

          Point source input parameters required by the CDM in-
clude stack height, stack diameter, stack gas exist velocity,
exit temperature, annual average pollutant emission rate, and
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.

          NOX emissions data for point sources in Chicago were
taken primarily from the NADB most current NEDS data base.  Com-
puterization at Radian facilitated the processing and editing of
the information so that sources with missing parameters could be
readily identified.  For major point sources, state and local
agencies were contacted to provide the missing data.  Missing
information for other point sources was estimated using national
average parameters for sources of  similar type, that is, having
the same source classification code (SCC).  National average
parameter values,  such as stack heights, temperature, and exit
velocity, were computer-generated  at Radian using magnetic tape
listings of the entire NEDS point  source data base.

          After point  source data  for  the AQCR had  been  edited
on an individual  source basis, summary printouts were compared
to 1974 summary reports from the Illinois state agency to verify
the overall agreement  of  the emission  inventories.  This effort
identified some discrepancies, primarily  in  the breakdown by  fuel
type of electric  utility  emissions, and these were  corrected
to reflect the state's 1974 inventory.
                               11

-------
               d.   Area Sources

          Area source emissions are specified to the CDM in
terms of a grid of squares where each square is assumed to have
uniform pollutant emissions over its area.  The way in which one
arrives at this kind of input description for an entire AQCR,
typically, is to gather area source emissions data at the
county level and then devise a technique for apportioning the
emissions throughout the grid of squares.  The apportionment
technique is described in Appendix B.  The collection of county
level emissions data will be addressed here.

          Area source printouts for each county in the Chicago
AQCR were obtained from NADB.  Since vehicular emissions were to
be apportioned separately from other area source emissions,
the total NOX emissions for each county had to be divided into
vehicular and non-vehicular emissions.  That information, however,
is not given explicitly in the area source printouts because
the data in each category is specified in .terms of quantity of
fuel burned, vehicle miles traveled, etc.  Therefore, emission
factors for each category were obtained from NADB and used to
separate emissions accordingly.  These emission factors are
presented in Appendix C.

          In Chicago, Radian was able to obtain vehicular emis-
sions data directly from the Chicago Area Transportation Study
(CATS).  The CATS data were broken down into over 1700 traffic
zones in an eight-county portion of the Chicago AQCR and pro-
vided estimates of nitric oxide (NO) emissions.  The CATS data,
being far superior to the county level data as far as apportion-
ment was concerned, were used for vehicular emissions in the
eight counties they covered (Cook, DuPage, Lake (Illinois),
McHenry, Kane, Will, Lake (Indiana), Porter).  NADB's data were
used for vehicular emissions in the remainder of the Chicago
AQCR as well as for non-vehicular emissions in the entire AQCR.
                                12

-------
              3.  Modeling Approach

              a.  Model Calibration

          The CDM was exercised with the point and area source
emissions inventories for the Chicago AQCR to make predictions
at selected monitoring points.  Before a linear fit could be
made for model predictions versus actual measurements, two items
had to be addressed:

          1)  N02/N0  adjustment factors, since the
                    X
              modeled emissions were in terms of N0x,  and

          2)  Background N02 concentrations, since the
              CDM predictions did not account for
              background.

          N02/N0x factors were sought for Chicago by studying
measurements taken at monitoring stations reporting both NO and
N02 concentrations.  Although a few such monitors were identified
in the Chicago region, there was not sufficient information to
arrive at any conclusions.  Radian, therefore, used 0.5 as an
approximation for large United States cities in general.  Documen-
tation of this factor is provided in Appendix D.

          It was also necessary to estimate a background N02 con-
centration  for Chicago,  since the CDM predictions did not in-
clude background.   (For  the purposes of the calibration effort,
background  was defined to be  the ambient concentration resulting
from any NOX source outside the AQCR boundaries as well as
natural sources within the AQCR.)  Historical measurements taken
by Radian in remote areas indicate levels between six and eight-
een yg/m3.  A background of ten yg/m3 was chosen for Chicago.
                                13

-------
          Actual calibration of the model was performed for
 Chicago in the following manner using NO 2 measurements and CDM
 predictions :

          1.   Multiply each model  prediction by 0.5 (for
              N02/N0  adjustment.
                    X

          2.   Subtract 10  yg/m3  from each  measured value
              (for  background) .

          3.   Perform least-squares fit to calculate s
              for the equation

                    y = sx

              using the set of  data points
                     (xt, yi), i = 1, 2, — -, N
              where
                    K^ = adjusted CDM prediction
                         at location of monitor i.
                    y. = adjusted measured value
                         at monitor i.
                    N  = number of monitors used for
                         calibration.

              b.   Annual Average Predictions

          Calibrated CDM predictions were made for  points within
the isopleth map  boundaries shown in Figure 1.  The prediction
at each point was divided into contributions from each of several
different source  classes.  For point sources, the set of field
                               14

-------
d


£  4700 •
s
c
   4680 -I
   4660 -I
   464O -
   4620 4
   4600 -
   4S80 -
   4560 •
   4S40 1
                                                 LAKE MICHIGAN
      360
               380
                       400
                               420
                                       440
                                               460
                                                       460      500

                                                         UTM EASTING
        — AQCR BOUNDARY


        E3 INCORPORATED AREA BOUNDARY


        	 1SOPL5TH MAP  BOUNDARY


        -- COUNTY BOUNDARIES
                    Figure  1.   Chicago AQCR
                                  15

-------
points or 'receptors' formed a grid within the isopleth map
boundary with a 2.5 Km spacing between points.  Area source cal-
culations were made using a 5.0 Km spacing.  A coarse resolution
was used for area sources for two reasons.  First, area sources
were apportioned to 5 x 5 Km squares.  Significant additional
information would not be expected from a receptor grid of finer
resolution than five Km.  Second, computer time required to
model a receptor grid with 2.5 Km spacing was prohibitive.


          N02 concentration isopleths were generated for each of
four main source categories, namely, large point sources, other
point sources, vehicular area sources, and other area sources.
'Large point sources' include all electric utility boilers aiid
industrial boilers greater than 100 million Btu/hr heat input
capacity.  'Other area sources' include non-vehicular mobile
sources (aircraft, railroads, and vessels) as well as stationary
area sources.  A composite isopleth map including contributions
from all source classes plus background was also generated.

              c.  'Hot-Spot' Analysis

          Specific locations in Chicago where the point source
impact was predicted to be the greatest were selected for
further analysis.   These point source 'hot-spots' indicated the
maximum improvement in air quality which can be expected on an
annual average basis by controlling point soucre NO  emissions.
                                                   Js
The improvement was quantified using the breakdown of predicted
contributions by source class which was provided by the cali-
brated model.

          Other specific locations of interest in the modeling
regime were those points which exhibited the maximum overall N02
predictions from all source classes.  These were locations
                               16

-------
where the air quality standard is most likely to be broken within
the Chicago AQCR.  Analyses at these critical points were also
performed to quantify the potential air quality improvement re-
sulting from point source NOX controls.

              4.  Discussion of Results

              a.  Emissions and Meteorology

          Table  1 presents a  summary of the emission inventory
 (1974) used for  Chicago.  Table  2  gives a more  detailed break-
 down  of point source emissions.  The sources  falling into the
 'other1 category in Table  2 were not modeled.   Note that Tables  1
 and 2 give emission rates  in  terms of  NOX.
  TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF THE CHICAGO AQCR NOV EMISSION INVENTORY
                                          /\
          SOURCE CATEGORY           NO.. EMISSIONS  (1974)
          ^^BV^^«BH^B^^M           ^^^^^y^*™^^"^"""^^^"™^^"™™*"*™"™^^^^"^^^^"••^^^^^"
                                          tons/year

         Large point sources              259,473  (39%)
         Other point sources               65,806  (10%)
         Vehicular area sources           224,295  (33%)
         Other area sources               124,248  (18%)
         TOTAL                            673,822
           Figure 2 presents the wind rose for Chicago which
 graphically depicts the meteorological wind data used in the
 CDM annual predictions.  The morning and afternoon mixing heights
 used for annual predictions were 475 m and 1175 m, respectively.
 The average temperature was assumed to be 51°F (11°C).
                                17

-------
     TABLE  2.  CHICAGO POINT SOURCE N0x EMISSION SUMMARY
 Class
Description
No. of  Emissions
Points   (T/YR)    Percent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12



Electric Utilities Coal
Electric Utilities Oil
Electric Utilities Gas
Indus Coal (>100 MMBTU)
Indus Oil (>100 MMBTU)
Indus Gas (>100 MMBTU)
Indus Coal (<100 MMBTU)
Indus Oil (<100 MMBTU)
Indus Gas (<100 MMBTU)
Commer/Inst Boilers
Industrial Processes
Solid Waste
Other
Total
Total Modeled
52
31
43
3
40
46
59
77
118
27
94
16
367
973
606
183947
23602
32080
5400
6712
7732
12900
3314
15899
1703
26682
1564
3744
325279
321435
56.55
7.26
9.86
1.66
2.06
2.38
3.97
1.02
4.89
0.52
8.20
0.48
1.15
100.00
98.85
              b.  Calibration Results

          Air quality measurements and monitor locations are
shown in Figure 3.   CDM predictions at these locations provided
the data necessary to calibrate the annual model.   Figure 4
shows the calibration data points and the least-squares line
(forced through the origin) which yields the calibration equa-
tion:
         y - 0.63 x + B
         where
         y = calibrated N02 predictions
         x = modeled N02 prediction  (=0.5 x NO )
                                              X
         B = background N02, assumed to be 10 yg/m3
                                               (1)
                               18

-------
                 WIND ROSE
N
    a so
6.03
                                            WIND SPEED
                                             (KNOTS)
            LT3
            > 6
            6-10
           10-16
           16-21
           OT 21
  ox     sx      we
                                   XCFU1S- Z47
 CHICAGO  (MIDWAY),  ILLINOIS  1959-1968
      Figure 2.   Chicago Wind  Rose
                    19

-------
4S80 •
                                                      56
                                                  22. 96
                                                  23. 49
                                                  24. 54
                                                  25. 55
                                                  26. 47
                                                  27. 45
                                                  23. 52
                             Recorded 1974 Annual  N'03 Averages
                                         (ug/a3)
                                             91   «ft    31  34
                                                      32! 68
                                                      33. 76
                                                      34. 41
                                                      35. 54
                                                      36. 55
                                                      37. 44
                                                      38. 47
                                                      39, 35
                                                      40. 23
4(20
»«00 •
Figure 3.
                  Location of Monitoring  Points  Used  for
                  Model  Calibration - Chicago
                               20

-------
M in
S •"
•3
u

9
              Chicago
                    75
100
125
                                     ISO
                 Predicted N02  (yg/m3)
* 10 yg/m3  subtracted
  from each measurement
  to account for back-
  ground .
      Figure 4.   Calibration Results
                      21

-------
               c.  Annual Average Concentrations

          Isopleths of predicted N02 concentration for each of
the major source categories (large point sources, other point
sources, vehicular area, other area) are presented in Figures
5 through 8.  These isopleths are concentration contours or
lines along which a pollutant's concentration is constant.
Figure 9 is the composite isopleth map presenting the predicted
impact from all sources including background.

          Table 3 gives the maximum and average contribution
from each source class modeled in Chicago.   'Average1 values in
Table 3 are averages for all receptor locations falling within
the isopleth map boundary shown in Figure 1.  The concentrations
in Table 3 are calibrated CDM predictions.  The estimated back
ground level is included for completeness.

               d.   'Hot-Spot* Analysis

           The results of the 'hot-spot' analysis are presented
in Table 4. The  breakdown  in  the  first  column  of Table  4  applies
to the locations of maximum large point source impact in the AQCR.
The second column applies to the location of maximum overall
prediction which is the location of maximum impact from area
sources.  The levels presented in Table 4 are averages for two
or three of the highest predictions for each type of location.
The general location of the predicted maximum point source
impact  (first column) is UTM (437,4633) shown in Figure 1.  The
general location of overall maximum impact  (second column) is
UTM (433,4638).  A point-by-point breakdown of this analysis
is presented in Appendix E.
                               22

-------
46SO
4800 •
           430
                                   4«O
                                               480
Figure 5.
Predicted NOa  Concentration (yg/m3) Impact from
Utility and  Industrial Boilers - Chicago
                             23

-------
                         ip
                        *•»«]
Figure 6.
Predicted N02 Concentration  (ug/m3)  Impact from
Other Point Sources - Chicago
                             24

-------
  4910
 it SO •
 *aoo •
            «JO
Figure 7.
Predicted N02  Concentration (yg/m3)  Impact  from
Vehicular Area Sources - Chicago
                              25

-------
•»480
i860
4840
4600 •
462(3 •	— -
           430
                                    480
                                                440
 Figure  8.
Predicted  N02  Concentration (yg/m3) Impact  from
Other Area Sources - Chicago
                              26

-------
4880
4840 •
4800
'830 •	;
            430
                        440
                                    480
 Figure 9.  Predicted N02  Concentration  (yg/m3) Impact from
            All Sources  Including Background - Chicago
                             27

-------
TABLE 3.  ANNUAL N02 AIR QUALITY PREDICTIONS BY
          SOURCE CLASS FOR CHICAGO (yg/m3)
Average
Class Description
Electric Utilities Coal
Electric Utilities Oil
Electric Utilities Gas
Industrial Coal (>100 MMBtu)
Industrial Oil (>10Q MMBtu)
Industrial Gas (>100 MMBtu)
Industrial Coal (<100 MMBtu)
Industrial Oil (<100 MMBtu)
Industrial Gas (<100 MMBtu)
Commercial/ Institutional Boiler
Industrial Processes
Solid Waste
Vehicular Area Sources
Other Area Sources
Background
Total
Maximum
4.7
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.1
2.5
3.0
3.5
2.0
0.3
5.5
0.6
44.0
33.2
-

(7c of Total
1.8
0.3
0.3
6.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.1
11.6
6.7
10.0
32.9
Average)
(5.6%)
(0.9%)
(1.071)
(0.4%)
(0.4%)
(0.5%)
(0.9%)
(0.4%)
(1.1%)
(0.1%)
(2.4%)
(0 . 2%)
(35.2%)
(20.4%)
(30.4%)

                      28

-------
TABLE 4.   PREDICTED ANNUAL AVERAGE N02 CONCENTRATION AT
          SELECTED POINTS OF INTEREST IN CHICAGO (yg/m3)
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Other Points
Vehicular
Other Area
Background
Total
Area Source
Point Source Maximum
Maximum Impact Impact /City Center
7.5 (127.) 5
2.5 ( 4%) 2
25 (427.) 42
15 (257,) 31
10 (177.) 10_
60 90
( 67.)
( 27.)
(477.)
(347.)
(117.)

                           29

-------
           B.   Short-Term Impacts

               1.   Basic Approach

           The purpose of Phase II was to estimate short-term
 (1-hour) N02  impacts in the Chicago AQCR and, again, to assess
 the improvement in air quality that could be realized by imple-
 menting N0x controls on point sources.  Scenarios representative
 of periods when high ambient NO  concentrations might occur were
                                X
 selected for study.   Annual average emissions data from Phase
 I were adjusted to account for diurnal and seasonal variations
 except in the case of Commonwealth Edison (CE) electric generat-
 ing stations which were determined from actual CE test data.
 Vehicular emissions data were adjusted for 1985 to reflect the
 most recently promulgated motor vehicles emission limitations.
 Actual fuel send-out data for Chicago was used to estimate
 short-term area source emissions from the annual area source
 emissions data.

           The short-term model used was developed by Radian and
employed accepted Gaussian modeling techniques.  Due to the lack
of sufficient continuous monitoring data (only two stations were
operational),  the short-term model could not be calibrated.
However, the data from the two continuous monitoring stations
were used to define N02/N0x ratios for the scenarios selected
for study.  The procedure used to define these ratios is dis-
cussed below in Section IV.B.3.C.  The impact of point source
controls on ambient NOa levels is addressed for both 1975 base-
line and 1985 growth projection cases.
                               30

-------
              2.   Data Collection and Presentation

              a.   Air Quality Monitoring Data

           Figures 10 and 11 show the diurnal variation of NO
and N02 levels for winter and summer seasons for 1975 at the
Plymouth Court (Camp) and West Polk (Med.  Center) monitoring
station, respectively.   This information was used to help
identify the scenarios of concern and also to establish N02/N0
                                                              X
ratios for each scenario.

              b.   Power  Plant Emissions

          Hourly power plant emissions were  evaluated in  detail for
1975 and 1985.  Both utility-owned and non-utility power  plants
were included.  For  the  "typical" case, unit emissions were
based upon electrical demand curves  as functions  of  time  of  day
and season of year.  For "worst  case" conditions, all units  were
assigned summer and winter  emissions corresponding to loads  of
90 percent and 95 percent,  respectively.  These  emissions
are applicable to both  1975 and  1985.

           Commonwealth Edison (CE), the largest electrical
utility in the Chicago AQCR, has performed NO  emissions  tests
                                             X
on some of its steam units.  Technical data  on these tests are
given in Appendix F.  Where available, CE test data were used
to estimate short-term emissions.  Emissions for those CE units
not tested were based upon EPA's AP-42 emission factors and
boiler operational data.  Table 5 gives unit NO  emissions for
                                               X
all CE fossil-fueled steam units in  the Chicago AQCR.  Emissions
shown in Table 5 are based upon one  of three different calcula-
tion methods given below.
                               31

-------
                            WINTER
                                                    NOX
                  8A
                              12N
                                           flP
                                                      12M
   0-
                            SUMMER
                                                    NO,
      12M
                              12N
                                           «P
                                                      12M
          PLYMOUTH COURT (CAMP STATION)  UTM« (450. 4630)
                                                       02-2306-1
Figure  10.   Seasonal-Diurnal Variation in  NOX and N02  for
             Plymouth Court Monitoring Station
                              32

-------
                            WINTER
                                            SP
                                                       12M
                             SUMMER
             WEST POLK (MED CENTER)
                         UTM - (445. 4635)
Figure  11.
Seasonal-Diurnal Variation in NOX and
N02 for West Polk Monitoring Station
                                                         02-2395-'
                              33

-------
                       Table  5.
CE  Unit  N0x  Emissions
                                                         Total HOx  Lb/ttr (Given as NOx0Hw>


Plant/Unit
Joliet



Waujcegan



Will
County


State
Line


Crawford


Fistc

Rldgeland



Calumet
Collins







5
6"
7
8
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
18
19
1
2
3
4
7
I
2
3
4
5

Exist
1985
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ho
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*


Fuel
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
ISWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
Gas
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
LSWC
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Gas
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil

Forn 67
(, AP42(fl)
40700107
79200360
52200660
52200660
22800115
30800121
24840326
27000355
44440188
44440184
22500299
40320598
31680208
22500150
25200225
68200389
8950104
18000239
26100358
48950173
25020374
13170173
13170173
11410173
11410173
4350107
38590520
38590520
38590503
38590503
38590503

Util.
Ratio
Util.H.K.,NOH.H.H.V. Test (*2)/
& AF42(f2)
2327085"^.
82680340^
44510581
44050575
20670122lf*
2199088"+
22420305
23900305
40240144^
47160167
19220217
41390455
22600171"!
21570140"""
28770238
736903181""

18100205
30480360
41350129U+
29230343
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
(13)
_

72480581
67630575
_
_
33460305
29060305
_
_
18880217
41090455
_
_
19530238


10820205
25920360
_
31630343

_
_
-
-
12660520
12660520
12240503
12240503
12240503
(13)
_

0.61
0.61
_
_
0.67
0.82
_
-
1.02
1.01
_
_
1.47


1.67
1.18
„
0.92

_
_
-
-
3.05**
3.05**
3.15**
3.15**
3.15**

Value
Used
2327
8268
7248
6763
2067
2199
35980328"T7
33910358°^
4024
4716
22770262"
4109
2260
2157
1953
7369
895
11710222
2592
4135
3163
1317
1317
1141
1141
435
1266
1266
1224
1224
1224
      curtailed during test due to mechanical failure or other problem - linear extrapolation used
  based on utility data.
 •HJses avg. coal H.H.V. from test on other units  in plant
 *Dld not exist in 1975
"(For. 67 6 AP42)/(I3)
 "Met capability provided by utility
LSWC - Low sulfur western .coal
Underlined values are basis for values used.

-------
          (1)  In plants where no testing was done, Federal
               Power Commission (FPC) Form 67 boiler data
               were used with AP-42 emission factors.

          (2)  For untested units in plants where testing
               was done, an average higher heating value
               (HHV) based on coal HHV from tests was used
               with AP-42 emission factors and unit heat
               rate data furnished by CE.

          (3)  For tested units, test results were used.

          Other utility-owned steam power plants in the Chicago
AQCR are Northern Indiana Public Service Company's (NIPSCO)
Mitchell and Bailly Stations and the Village of Winnetka's city-
owned station.  Emissions for their units are given in Table 6.
Non-utility steam power plants in Chicago include Bethlehem
Steel (5 units) and Texaco  (1 unit).  Emissions for these plants
are given in Table 7.  Emissions test and calculation data for
combustion turbine  (CT) and other peaking units are given in
Appendix G.

          Plant locations are given in Figure 12.  A more de-
tailed discussion of power plant emissions characterization in-
cluding demand curves and projected typical loadings for 1985
is given in Appendix H.

              c.  Other Point Source Emissions

          A number of other point sources were included in this
study.  Data concerning these sources were obtained from the
NEDS and Illinois EPA (ILLEPA) inventories.  All sources were
catalogued, coded, and expected hourly emissions were deter-
mined.  Several sources, including several NIKE bases, post
offices, etc., were omitted either as being inconsequential or

                              35

-------
      TABLE 6.  NIPSCO AND WINNETKA POWER PLANT NO., EMISSIONS DATA
Plant /Unit
Mitchell 4
5
6
11
Bailly 7
8
Winnetka*
1
2
Max MWe
138
138
138
115
194
422

25.5
25.5
Type
Dry Bottom
Dry Bottom
Dry Bottom
Dry Bottom
Cyclone
Cyclone

Stoker /gas
Stoker /gas
Max Hourly NOK (Ib/hr)
1004
1004
1004
882
4950
10,010

362
362
 *Winnetka boilers 2,  3,  & 4  are normally shut  down;  boiler  1 or 5  is usually
  run with the other on hot reserve status.
         TABLE 7.  NON-UTILITY POWER-PLANT NOX EMISSIONS DATA

Plant/Unit
Bethlehem Steel




Texaco


1
2
3
4
5
1

Probable Type
multi-fuel*
multi-fuel*
multi-fuel*
multi-fuel*
multi-fuel*
gas/oil
Expected Maximum
Hourly N0v (Ib/hr)
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
86
*Distillate oil, natural gas,  propane,  coke gas,  and blast  furnace  gas.
                                     36

-------
c
i
   4700 1
   46BO -
   4660 •
   46-10
   4620 •
   4600 •
   4530 n
   4560 ,
                                    ®/ CE Waukegan
                                   fcCHICAG
                              CE Grawfordci;::::/.
CE Electric'
                            CE Ridgeland,-:
                                     Calumet

                                    CE State Line

                      NIPSCO DH Mitchell^
                                      ;       .
                                      i CE Bloon
                                      1	1
       CE Ui.ll County
       o i
 CE ColJins1
    (1985)
[


[~-
KANKAKES


	 	 ^S


      3GO      330      400      -t20      440      460      -30      550
                                                         U7W EASTING
        — ACCR  BCUWDAHY

        E3 IKCOSPORATSO An = A BOUNDARY

        -- COUNTY  SCUNDARIES

        o Utility Fossil-fueled Steam Plant

        +  Utility  Combustion Turbine Plant

        A  Non-utilitv Fossil-fueled Steam  Plant
       Figure  12.   Power  Plants  in  Chicago AQCR
                                37

-------
because data were unavailable.  Point sources used in this study
are categorized in Table 8 and the number of sources actually in
operation for various scenarios is given in Table 9.  These
sources were further classified as large and small; expected
emissions from large sources by category are shown in Table 10.
It may be seen from this table that less than 15 percent of the
sources studied produced approximately 80 percent of the point
source emissions.

           Diurnal variations in point source emissions were
estimated based on:

           1.  Illinois EPA and NEDS operations data.

           2.  Knowledge of electric demand contributions
               by segment.

           3.  Knowledge of hourly gas sendout provided by
               gas companies, an example of which is shown
               in Figure 13.

           4.  Knowledge of industry process characteristics.

In many cases, large point source emissions were estimated to be
constant throughout the day.

           With regard to 1985 point source emissions, very
little data were available concerning growth in the Chicago AQCR;
the only published data immediately available concerned Lake and
Porter Counties, Indiana.2  Since these counties are part of the
Chicago metropolitan area, a general growth factor of 1.35,
based on average growth in these counties, was used to scale
point source emissions.  Because of the changeover in fuels,
and the increased emphasis on industrial energy conservation,
it is believed that this factor is reasonable.

                              38

-------
TABLE  8.   NUMBER OF POINT SOURCES  BY  CATEGORY
Metal Refining, Petro-
Source Smelting, etc. Chemical
ILLEPA Ambient* 0 0
NEDS Ambient* 0 0
ILLEPA Stack 4 33
NEDS Stack 55 130
Total Sources 59 163
*Exit temperature same as ambient.
Food
Fabrication Processing
0 0
0 0
16 8
59 24
75 32

Heating Other or
Institutional Only Unidentified
105
021
7 30 18
26 41 79
34 73 103

TABLE 9. NUMBER OF POINT SOURCES IN OPERATION FOR STUDY

Source Max. Possible Mid
ILLEPA Ambient 6 6
NEDS Ambient 3 1
ILLEPA Stack 116 86
NEDS Stack 414 372
Total Sources 539 465
Summer
PM Mid AM Early AM
6 6
1 0
86 75
372 295
465 376
Winter
Mid PM Mid AM Early AM
666
331
114 115 99
414 410 324
537 534 430

-------
                        TABLE 10.   LARGE  POINT  SOURCES STUDIED
Emissions by Source
	Type	

Hetal Refining,
Smelting, etc.
100-1000 Ib/hr

Petrochemical
100-1000 Ib/hr
1000-5000 Ib/hr
>5000 Ib/hr

Fabrication
100-1000 Ib/hr
1000-5000 Ib/hr

Food Processing
100-1000 Ib/hr
               Sunnier
                                                     Winter
  Mid PM
  Mid AM
  Early AM     Mid PM
10/2439*     10/2419
20/4050
0
1/7875
20/4050
1/5000
0
             9/2239
20/4050
0
0
             11/2573
20/4050
0
0
                                                     Mid AM
             11/2553
20/4050
0
0
1/120
1/120
1/120
1/120
1/120
                                                     Early AM
             10/2373
20/4050
0
0
4/547        1/200        0            4/547        1/200        0
10/24,080    10/24,080    10/24,080    10/24,080    10/24,080    10/24,080
1/120
Institutional
100-1000 Ib/hr
Heating Only
100-1000 Ib/hr
Other or Un-
identified
100-1000 Ib/hr

1/192

0


14/3845

1/192

0


14/3833

1/192

0


5/1574

1/192

4/883


14/3854

1/192

4/883


14/3842

1/192

2/281


5/1583
Total Emissions
for Above Sources
                        61/43,148     58/39,894    46/32.255    65/36,299    62/35,920    49/32,679
Total Emissions
for all Sources
465/51,042   465/47,853    376/38,660   537/45,519   534/45,088   430/40,173
Percentage of Total
for Above Sources
(per hour)              13.U/84.5Z   12.5Z/83.4Z  12.22/83.4Z  12.U/79.7Z  11.6Z/79.7Z   11.4Z/81.3Z
 *(No. of Sources) /(total Ib/hr N0y  emitted)
                                               40

-------
o
m
m
a
u_
o
5
                                               AVERAGE
                                               DEMAND
   12M
        Figure 13.  Typical NIPSCO Hourly Gas
                    Demand for July 1975, Week  Day
                         41

-------
               d.  Vehicular Sources

           This section describes the data and methods used to
estimate seasonal and diurnal NOV emissions for vehicular emis-
                                X
sions.  The basic data source was the Chicago Area Transportation
Study (CATS).   Data supplied by CATS were used to convert 1975
annual average emissions to hourly averages for morning and
afternoon periods in the summer and afternoon periods in the
winter.   In addition, a description of projection factors for
1985 emissions is presented.

          The first step was to determine the effect of tempera-
ture on annual average emissions.  CATS supplied estimates of
zonal N0x emissions for the "average" case (65°F) and the typi-
cal winter case  (24°F).  The average case emissions  (tons per
day) had been used to construct annual emissions for the annual
average modeling portion of this study (see Section  IV.A).  The
winter case emissions divided by the average case emissions
equal the temperature factor, approximately 1.17.  The temperature
dependence was determined by CATS using the parametric equations
in Supplement No. 5 to AP-42.  CATS is now in the process of up-
dating its emissions data to the more recent Supplement No. 8.
For the purposes of this study, the factor 1.17 was  applied for
all areas of the AQCR.

           The time-of-day emission level was estimated by using
diurnal traffic patterns for arterial streets and freeways as
supplied by CATS.  These data consisted of hour-by-hour percent-
ages of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for various areas in
the study area.  That is, these hourly factors, termed "trip
fractions" multiplied times daily emissions yield an estimate of
hourly emissions, with all other parameters assumed  constant.
Appplication of  these data to the NOX study involved the
following steps.
                              42

-------
          First, the hourly trip fractions for the hours 6-9 AM
and 3-6 PM were averaged arithmetically to obtain average morn-
ing and average afternoon hourly trip fractions.  This was done
to avoid overestimation of emissions due to peak hourly trip
fractions.

          Next a methodology was developed to transfer the CATS
hourly trip fractions to the annual average emissions as gridded
in 5 x 5 Km squares.  The CATS data were supplied in geographi-
cal "districts" and "rings".  Trip fractions in districts were
applicable to VMT on arterial streets; trip fractions in rings
were applicable to freeway travel.

          To preserve the spatial resolution of the CATS data,
the annual average NOV emissions in each 5 x 5 Km square were
                     X
adjusted by a factor which accounted for hourly trip fractions
on both arterial streets and freeways.  This factor, the emis-
sion scale factor (ESF), was determined as follows.

          The NO  emissions in each CATS zone and, therefore,
                X
in each 5 x 5 Km grid, account for travel on arterial streets
and freeways.   CATS could not readily provide the breakdown of
arterial versus freeway emission in each zone, but the VMT
magnitudes were available.  CATS also estimates unique average
arterial and freeway speeds for each zone.

          For this study the following speeds were chosen:  20
mph, arterial streets and 45 mph, freeways.  Assuming all other
parameters constant, average speed is the main difference
between the NO  emission factor for arterial and freeway travel.
                X
For the nationwide vehicle mix reported in AP-42, the ratio of
NOX emissions at 45 mph to NOX emissions at 20 mph is approxi-
mately 1.6.
                               43

-------
           Using the average hourly trip fractions, VMT, and
emission factor ratio described above, the morning and afternoon
ESF's were computed for each 5 x 5 Km grid.  For Cook County
each grid was analyzed individually, while for the remaining
counties an average ESF was applied to all grids within the
county.  The equation used to compute the ESF is shown below:

          ESF  (AM or PM) =

          (FWY VMT) (FWY HTF) (1.6) +  (ART VMT)  (HTF)
          (FWY VMT) (1.6) + (ART VMT)
where
          ESF = emission scale factor:  the NO  hourly emissions
                                              X
                (tons per hour) =  ESF X annual  average  emissions
                (tons per day)
          FWY VMT =
annual average daily vehicle miles traveled
on freeways
          FWY ART - annual average daily vehicle miles traveled
                    on arterial streets
          SWY HTF = hourly trip fraction for freeways, i.e., the
                    hourly freeway VMT divided by the daily VMT

          ART HTF = as above, for arterial streets.

          As mentioned, the above equation was applied at the
grid level for Cook County.  That is, a grid-specific AM and PM
emission scale factor was computed for all 5 x 5 Km grids in
Cook County.  In the other counties, the ESF was computed for
the county and applied to all grids within the county.  A
summary of these results is shown in Table 11.
                              44

-------
                      TABLE  11.  VEHICULAR SCALE  FACTORS AND  1975 VMT  BY  COUNTY
Ul
1975 Annual Average
Daily
VMT (1,000's)
County
Cook
DuPage
Grundy
Kane
KanKaKee
Kendall
Lake
McHenry
Will
Lake, IN
Porter, IN
FWY
21,515
2,210
ND
350.2
ND
ND
1,386
23.9
1,242
2,410
300
ART
52
9

3


6
1
3
5
1
,799
,424
ND
,134
ND
ND
,274
,504
,446
,668
,089
FWY
AM

.053

.045


.053
.045
.053
.053
.053
HTF
PM

.070

.072


.074
.072
.074
.070
.074
ART
AM

.042

.039


. 040
.035
.036
.036
.036
HTF
PM

.071

.070


.077
.067
.066
.069
.069
ESF
AM
GL
.046
.040*
.040
.040*
.040*
.043
.036
.042
.043
.041
PM
GL
.070
.071*
.071
.071*
.071*
.076
.068
.069
.070
.070
                ND = no  data
                GL = Averaging was performed at grid level
                *Assumed the  same as Kane County.

-------
          1985 Projections

          To estimate the impact of the most recent Clean Air Act
Amendments, 1985 projection factors for vehicular emissions were
computed for the three short-term study periods.  The 1985 pro-
jections take into account (1) the ratio of 1985 to 1975 vehicle
mix average emission factors, and (2) the ratio of 1985 and 1975
total vehicle miles for the study area.  Emission factors for
1985 were computed using the emission levels specified in the
1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.  These levels are 2.0 g/mi for new
light duty vehicles manufactured through 1980 and 1.0 g/mi for
those produced in subsequent years.   These projected new vehicle
emission factors were applied to the 1975 percent annual travel
by vehicle age supplied by CATS to obtain the composite emission
factor.  The revised computation methods in AP-42, Supplement
No. 8, were used.  The results are shown below:

                                                         Net
                  1985/1975  Ratio  of      1985/1975      Projection
 Summer Period     Emission  Factors   x Ratio  of VMT  =    Factor	
 Summer Afternoon        0.477             1.075         0.513
 Summer Morning           0.473             1.075         0.509
 Winter Morning           0.472             1.075         0.508

              e.   Non-Vehicular  Sources

           Non-vehicular  source  emission data were  obtained from
 the annual average case  which was previously discussed.  Each
 source was considered  to be a 5-by-5 kilometer square  with the
 emissions distributed  uniformly over the area.

           Diurnal and  seasonal variations were scaled  from gas
 sendout data furnished by NIPSCO  and Northern Illinois Gas Co.
 (NIGC).  These  data are  shown in  Appendix I;  a typical NIPSCO
 daily gas load  curve was previously shown in Figure 13.  From

                               46

-------
these data,  the scale factors in Table 12 were determined.
These factors are multiplied by the annual average emission rate
to produce a diurnally/seasonally scaled hourly rate.  These
scale factors were based on gas sendout and the NIPSCO load
curve and reflect the inclusion of the following groups of
purchasers:

             Residential

             Commercial

             20 percent of Industrial  (the other 80 percent is
             included in the point source inventory)

             Other

          It is believed that these factors are reasonable and
that they somewhat make up for any inaccuracies in the point
source (primarily industrial) data.  For 1985, the growth
factor of 1.35 was used as was the case for point sources.

               3.  Modeling Approach

               a.  Model Description

          The  short-term dispersion model used in this study
is capable of  predicting average  concentrations for  time
periods ranging from several minutes to several hours.  The
option exists  of subdividing a given averaging period into
smaller time intervals with  specified  plant emissions and
meteorological conditions which are assumed constant within that
time interval, but which can change from interval to interval.
The model solves the Gaussian dispersion equation for each of
                               47

-------
         TABLE 12.   DIURNAL/SEASONAL SCALE FACTORS FOR
                    NON-VEHICULAR SOURCES
LOCATION
SUMMER A.M.
SUMMER P.M.   WINTER A.M.
Lake County,
  Indiana
   0.83
    0.83
3.01
Porter County,
Indiana
All Illinois
0.
0.
78
60
0.65
0.50
2.48
3.07
Percent of Hourly
  Average
   150%
    125%
170%
*Based on NIPSCO Load Curve
 these intervals,  and computes  the  final  average  concentration
 as a weighted average of the contributions  from  the  individual
 time increments.

           The one-hour NO  predictions of this study were  com-
                          /\
 puted using the RAM3 formulation of the  Gaussian equation,  and
 the Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients  as  described  by
 Turner. **  The plume rise for neutral and unstable conditions
                               48

-------
was computed with the 1970 "X^" formula developed by Briggs in
1970.5  Area source analyses employed a two-dimensional numerical
integration scheme, and the same grid system that was used for
the annual modeling.

          The model input consists of two classes of data.  The
first describes the atmospheric conditions during which the
pollutant is being dispersed, while the second class deals with
emission rates and stack parameters.  The NO  emission rates for
                                            />
all of the sources have been scaled as described previously.

              b.  Meteorological Conditions

          The most important meteorological conditions for dis-
persion analysis are the wind speed, mixing depth, and stability
class.  The wind speed is required to compute the plume rise.
For a given stability class, the plume rise is inversely propor-
tional to the wind speed.  The mixing depth determines the volume
of air through which a plume is able to disperse.

          Stability classes characterize the ability of the
lower part of the atmosphere to disperse emission products.
Dispersion modeling employs six such classes, each of which has
a unique dispersion capability.  These classes have been
designated as A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively, and as  such,
represent a sequence of increasingly stable conditions.   In
general, as the  air becomes more stable, its capabilities  to mix
and disperse pollutants decreases.  During the night neutral or
stable conditions occur whereas during the day neutral or  un-
stable conditions occur.  The most unstable conditions occur in
mid-summer on clear days with light winds in the  early afternoon,
and the most stable conditions occur on clear nights with light
winds.
                               49

-------
          Large groundlevel N0x concentrations can be produced
by tall point sources during a set of meteorological circum-
stances known as limited mixing.  A ground based nighttime stable
layer traps an elevated plume and prevents it from either disper-
sing significantly or reaching the ground.  During the subsequent
decay of the stable layer by strong solar heating of the ground,
a rapid downward mixing of the trapped plume occurs resulting in
high groundlevel concentrations which may persist for an hour or
more.

          Maximum groundlevel concentrations of pollutants
emitted from tall stacks are also encountered during periods of
atmospheric instability.  The strong ground based turbulence
which is characteristic of unstable conditions facilitates a
rapid downward transport of the effluent before significant mix-
ing can occur.  In contrast, the largest impacts from groundlevel
sources, such as vehicles, and area sources occur when the
atmosphere is quite stable.  At such times the emissions from
low-level sources cannot effectively disperse, and are thus con-
strained to remain in a layer quite close to the ground.  Con-
sequently, the meteorological conditions that lead to maximum
impacts for tall stacks and ground-level emissions are not the
same..  The two sets of atmospheric conditions, in fact, represent
the opposite extremes of the stability class sequence.  There-
fore, it is not possible to maximize impacts from power plants
and area sources simultaneously.  It is important that this
restriction be noted, because the current study focuses primarily
on large-point sources and the meteorological conditions which
will maximize the impact of these point sources.

          Preliminary modeling indicated that the largest NOV
                             ^^                              X
concentrations can be expected during conditions of limited mix-
ing and stability classes B and C.
                                50

-------
              c.   Selection of Scenarios

          For the purposes of this study, NOV emission sources
                                            /\
have been classified as follows:

          1.   Power plants and affiliated combustion
              turbines

          2.   Large point sources

          3.   Vehicular area sources

          4.   All area sources.

The object of this investigation was the assessment of the im-
pact of hourly emissions.  Therefore, a realistic representation
of these sources which takes into account the diurnal variation
of their emissions was required.  Since it was impossible to
model every hourly case, a number of scenarios were developed to
represent the most likely situations under which high NOV and
                                                        X
NOa concentrations are possible.  Each scenario represents a
combination of time dependent emission rates, meteorological
conditions, and NOV to N02 conversion rate.
                  X
         Seven scenarios were intially identified as being
representative of periods when high ambient NOX and NOa concen-
trations can occur.  They were chosen to represent the greatest
diversity in NO  emission rates and meteorological conditions.
               X
They are:

          Summer  Mid-Morning Typical
          Summer  and Winter Mid-Afternoon Typical
          Summer  and Winter Mid-Morning Worst
          Summer  and Winter Mid-Afternoon Worst
                               51

-------
The "typical" scenarios are designed to maximize interactions
between all point sources, while the "worst" scenarios are de-
signed to maximize concentrations from large point sources.
Power plants and point sources were modeled for the typical
scenarios using the atmospheric conditions shown below:

                   Summer Mid-Morning Typical
          Stability class:   C       Temperature:  70°F
          Wind direction:    East    Wind speed:    9 K
          Mixing depth       650 m

                  Summer Mid-Afternoon Typical
          Stability class:   D       Temperature:  80°F
          Wind direction:    South-  Wind speed:   13.8 K
                             west
          Mixing depth:      1600 m

                  Winter  Mid-Afternoon  Typical
           Stability class:    D          Temperature:    30°F
           Wind direction:     West        Wind speed:     13.8  K
           Mixing depth:       650 m

 Based on the results  from this and some additional preliminary
 modeling for the worst case situations, the following three
 scenarios were selected as possessing  the greatest potential for
 high NO 2 concentrations,
                  mid-morning - worst:  This scenario is most
 likely to occur on a power system peak day when all steam units
 are running at 90 percent of capacity due to cooling system
 limitations.  In addition, point sources are beginning to peak.
 Vehicular emissions are moderately high, and area emissions are
 moderate.  Temperature is warm with limited mixing dispersion
 conditions and a high N02/NOV ratio of approximately one-half.
                             X

                               52

-------
          Summer mid-afternoon - worst:  This scenario
represents a summer power system peak which coincides with an
unstable or neutral meteorological condition and a traffic peak.
All steam generating units are at 90 percent capacity, point
sources are high, as are vehicular sources and area sources.
Temperature is hot with unstable conditions and a high N02/N0x
ratio of approximately one-half.

          Winter mid-morning - worst:  This scenario represents
a power system peak in the Chicago area most likely caused by
winter coal handling problems at the Kincaid and/or Powerton
Plants.  In general, the most likely causes of such a situation
are frozen coal piles and coal transportation problems not
uncommon to that area of the country.  Steam units are at 95
percent of capacity due to cooling system limitations.  In addi-
tion, point source emissions are high, area emissions are
higher than summer, and vehicular sources are moderate.  Temp-
erature is low with limited mixing dispersion conditons and a
low N02/NOX ratio of approximately one-fourth.

          N02/N0  ratios for these cases were determined from
                 ?s
data gathered at two continuous monitoring sites  in  the down-
town Chicago area.  Figures 10  and 11  in Section  III.B.2.,  show
the average diurnal variation of N02 and NOX for  summer and
winter based on measured data for 1975.  The N02/NOX  ratio  for
each scenario was determined by dividing the average  N02
measurement for  the appropriate time of day and season of year
 (e.g., mid-morning, summer) by  the corresponding  average NOX
measurement.  This was done twice for  each scenario  - once
using  the Plymouth  Court station data  and again using the West
Polk station data.  The two were compared for consistency and
averaged.  The resulting N02/NOX ratio was assumed to apply
to the plume environment to allow groundlevel N02 concentrations
to be  calculated from predicted NOX  concentrations.
                               53

-------
          The summer mid-afternoon and winter mid-afternoon -
typical scenarios were also included in the analysis to a
limited extent to show the effect of multiple point source
interactions on NO  levels.

               d.  Modeling Procedures

          Typical Case

          Of the scenarios classed as "typical", the summer
mid-afternoon was found to have the maximum potential for pro-
ducing point source interactions.  This is because the prevail-
ing south-westerly wind for this scenario parallels the direc-
tion of the Chicago barge canal, along whose banks are located
many of the local industries as well as the two Joliet power
plants.

          Conditions which characterize the summer mid-after-
noon scenario are the following:  the power system, while
peaking, is meeting a demand below the summer peak.  Point
sources are peaking, as are vehicular sources; area emissions
are moderate.  The N02/N0x ratio is one-half.  Detailed
atmospheric conditions for this scenario were described in the
previous section (IV.B.S.c.).

          Separate one-hour N0x concentration isopleths were
produced for the power plants and combustion turbines, and the
large point sources.  These are shown in Figures 14 and 15.
                              54

-------
  - *TOO •
  c
  c
  z
    *sao J
    4530 1
    4SSO .
    4S40 -
       360
             380
                    400
                          420
                                 440
                                       460
                                             460
                                                    500
                                            UTM EASTING
  	 AQCR BOUNDARY

  Eff*&1 INCORPORATED AREA BOUNDARY

  	COUNTY BOUNDARIES
                                   Isopleths at  5,  50,  100,
                                   200, 300, 400 yg/m§  worst
                                   concentration at (444,4634)
                                   461 yg/m3
Figure 14.  One-Hour Average NOX Concentrations  (yg/m3)
            Power  Plants - Summer Mid-Afternoon  -- Typical
                              55

-------
                                •/ CE UaukeoSn

DUPAGc |

   CE Craw/ord
 CE Ridgel/n
              CE Electric'
                Junction
                                5IPSCO DH Mitchc


                               L_
                   CE Will County
                   O !
               CE Collins
                 (1985) '

               GSUNCY         r
                     I       l
                     l
                     i	J


                            KANKAKSH
                   LAKE     PCRTE3
        050
                            420
                                   4*0
                                          460
                                                480
                                                       500
                                               UTM EASTING
    	AQCR BOUNDARY

   ^^INCORPORATED AREA BOUNDARY

    	 COUNTY BOUNDARIES
            Isopleths at 5,  50,  100,
            200,  yg/m3 worst concen-
            tration at (481,4615)  =
            290  ug/m3
     O  UTILITY FOSSIL-FUELED STEAM PLANT
     +  UTILITY COMBUSTION TURBINE PLANT
     A  NON-UTILITY FOSSIL-FUELED STEAM PLANT

Figure  15.   One-Hour Average N0x Concentrations  (yg/m3)  Large
             Point Sources - Summer Mid-Afternoon --  Typical
                               56

-------
          Worst Case Modeling

          Worst case modeling, as defined in the previous  sec-
tion (IV.B.3.C.),  is an attempt to maximize groundlevel concen-
trations of NO  from large point sources.  The NO  emission
              X                                  X
rates,  and the meteorological conditions which define the  three
worst case scenarios were also described.  In a more quantita-
tive fashion the meteorological conditions can be expressed as:

                Summer Mid-Afternoon - Unstable

          Stability class:   B         Temperature:    80°F
          Wind speed:  9 K             Mixing depth:  800  m

              Summer Mid-Morning - Limited Mixing

          Stability class:   C         Temperature:    70°F
          Wind speed:  5 K
          Mixing depth:  Nightime effective stack height,  300 m
                         or less.

               Winter Mid-Morning - Limited Mixing

          Stability  class:    C         Temperature:   20°F
          Wind speed:  5  K
          Mixing depth:   Nightime effective stack height, 300 m
                          or  less.

          Receptor Selection  and Modeling Methodology

          The object of  worst case modeling is  to compute the
maximum ground level NOX concentration produced by  large point
sources, which in the  current study,  are the power  plants.
If a power plant can be  treated as an isolated  point source,
                               57

-------
then the maximum impact occurs at a distance which is determined
essentially by the meteorological conditions.  Furthermore,  this
distance is independent of the wind direction, and for the three
worst case scenarios modeled it never exceeds four kilometers.

          However, power plants are normally surrounded by other
point and area sources, whose contribution at the point of maxi-
mum power plant impact must also be determined.  Since these
other sources are not uniformly distributed, their contribu-
tion to the NOX concentration will be different for each wind
direction.  The cost in computer time to determine which
particular wind direction produces the greatest contribution
from this non-power plant component, for each of the power plants
modeled, would be prohibitive.

          The following procedure was, therefore, adopted.  Four
separate modeling runs, with the wind blowing from the North,
South, East, and West, were made for the other point sources,
the vehicular area sources, and the other area sources.  For
each of the four runs a single receptor was placed at the down-
wind distance where the maximum power plant concentration is
found.   In this fashion the maximum power plant impact for each
of the four cardinal wind directions was determined.   While this
procedure does not provide the maximum concentration for every
wind direction,  it should, for the purposes of this study,
adequately reflect the variations in the ambient worst case NO
                                                              X
concentration that can be expected when the wind direction
changes.

          Modeling of Single Point Sources

          Using the 1975 emission rates, downwind one-hour N0x
concentration curves were generated for all power plants and any
associated combustion turbines for each of the three worst
case scenarios.   These curves, in turn, were used to determine
                               58

-------
the maximum power plant NO  concentration C    (yg/m3) and the
                          ^                UlclX
corresponding maximum impact distance R    (Km).   Then, in accor-
dance with the procedure previously outlined, the contribution
from the 537 point sources, the 640 vehicular area sources,
and the 640 other area sources were determined with the wind
blowing from the North, South, East, and West.

          The results are given in Appendix J.  Because
Combustion Turbines are not amenable to current control strategy,
their impacts have been tabulated separately.  Changing the NOV
                                                              X
concentration but keeping the same meteorological conditions will
change C    in the same ratio as the emissions, but will not
        IDclX.
affect Rftax-  This feature permits us to derive the impacts for
1985 by scaling the 1975 results in accordance with the pro-
jected mass emission rates for NOX.  The results for 1985 are
also contained in Appendix J .

          Interactions Between Point Sources

          A map of power plant locations in the AQCR is shown
in Figure 12.  Extensive preliminary modeling has shown that
under high loadings, significant plume interactions exist among
all the plants.  In particular, within the following groups
of plants, there are strong  interactions:

            . Bethlehem Steel, Bailly

            . Calumet, State Line, Mitchell

             • Ridgeland, Crawford, Fisk

             • Collins, Will  County, Joliet, Texaco
                                59

-------
In addition, modeling has shown that the last three groups inter-
act to some degree.

          Table 13 gives the UTM coordinates of each plant, and
of the point of highest concentration due to the interaction.
The contributions from all other upwind point and area sources
were also determined.  The results for 1975 and 1985 are shown
in Appendix J.   From the modeling results for single point sources
it was known that Summer Mid-Morning would give the worst con-
centration;  consequently, only that particular scenario was
studied.

              4.  Discussion of Results

              a.  Typical Case

          The aim of modeling the "typical" scenarios was to
determine the extent and the degree with which the point sources
of the Chicago AQCR interact.  Modeling results are presented
in the form of concentration isopleths where points of signifi-
cant impacts appear as "hot" spots.

          Figure 16 presents the modeling results for Summer
Mid-Morning.  A number of features are of interest.  First,
power plant and point source isopleths are spatially separated
and do not exhibit significant overlapping.  Power plant plume
interactions can and do occur.  The isopleths centered on the
570 yg/m3 "hot" spot are the result of an interaction between
the Bailly, Bethlehem, and Mitchell Power Plants.  It should
also be noted that the 50 yg/m3 isopleth extends 70 Km in the
downwind direction.

          In contrast, the isopleths for Summer Mid-Afternoon
exhibit so much overlapping that the results for the power
plants and point sources were presented separately in Figures 14
                               60

-------
           TABLE 13.   POWER PLANT INTERACTION GROUPS
Group I
          Bethlehem Steel
          Bailly
          Worst Interaction Point
       UTM
488.5    4609.1
495.6    4606.9
498.8    4605.9
Group II
          Calumet
          State Line
          Mitchell
          Worst Interaction Point
454.5
456.6
466.1
456.2
4618.0
4617.3
4609.6
4612.9
Group III
          Crawford
          Fisk
          Ridgeland
          Worst Interaction Point
440.1
445.7
434.8
448.8
4630.8
4633.3
4628.9
4634.7
Group IV
          Will County
          1/2 Way between Joliet 2 & 6 and
             Joliet 7 & 8
          Worst Interaction Point
400.5
4590.4
409.75   4590.95
414.7    4591.2
                               61

-------
I
I-
s
c

2
r
     47CO
              PO*S£*. 1*1. *»j:
                                   ®/ CE Waukegan
                             LAKE
     4660 •
     46-40 -
     4620
     4600 •
     4530
     4560 -i
     4540 .
       T
                       r •
                       I
                       t
                    i
              KANE   I
                    I
                          CE
                           DUPAGE
                               COOK    OVJinnetka LAX£ MICHIGAN
                                               Calumet
                                           .QN.CE State Line
                                           ::i.:.:.:--?-\_      Bethlehen Steel i
               KSNOALL
                     [  -JOO
                        'CE Joliet    1 CE Bloom    /.»
                          ©        .	.	j
                         County
             CE CollinsL^*        WILL         '  LAKE
                (1985)
-------
and 15, respectively.  Significant plume interactions occur for
both power plants and point sources along a 70 Km line from
Joliet to downtown Chicago.  They are responsible for producing
N0x concentrations as high as 500 yg/m3 in the downtown area and
over Lake Michigan Northeast of the Loop.

          The results for these two "typical" scenarios
succinctly illustrate the degree and extent to which point
sources may or may not interact, and the sensitivity of such
interactions to external conditions such as source spacings and
meteorological conditions.

          However, of primary importance is that for "typical"
conditions the maximum NOV concentrations are on the order of
                         X             ^
500-600 yg/m3.   These are significantly less than the maximum
impacts produced by power plants alone during "worst" case
conditions.  It is for this reason that the "typical" scenarios
were assigned a secondary role in this study, and why the major
emphasis was given to "worst" case modeling.

               b.  Evaluation of Worst-Case Results

          Worst-case modeling for power plants in the Chicago
AQCR yielded the results in Appendix J.  These results are
summarized in Figures 17 through 19; they reflect contributions
to ambient N0x concentration by source type.  Total one-hour
worst-case ambient N02 concentrations from these figures are
summarized in Tables 14 and 15; they reflect total N02 concen-
trations where the power plant contribution was of maximum
magnitude.  In all but one case (Winnetka - 1985), these
results also reflect the absolute maximum total concentrations
of NO2 found in the study and all occur during the Summer AM
Scenarios.  In the Winnetka - 1985 case, the Winter AM Scenario
gave the worst absolute maximum concentration, but the difference
                                63

-------
?t
.?
y
      1750
      1500
      1250
      1000
       750
       500
       250
                 1
                        2

                                                                                    m
                                                                                    •.«.*.
                          m
                                                                      10
                                                                             11
             12
           Plant Number  (see  Table 14)
13
15
                                                                                       KEY
    Figure  17.
                   1975 Ambient  NO2  Concentrations  in
                   Vicinity  of Power Plants  without
                   Interaction
Comb. Mud. Laval


Flu* Ga» T. Laval
 > Uncontrolled Power Plants



 Combustion Turbine*

 Other Point Sources


 Vehicular Area Sources

 Hon-Vehlcular Area Sources

-------
bO

3.
I
-I
i
d
V
       1750
       1500
       1250
       1000
        750
        500
        250
                    1234



             Plant Number  (sec Table 14)
            Figure 18.    1985  Ambient  N02  Concentrations

                            in Vicinity of Power  Plants

                            Without  Interaction
         1C)
11


KEY
Comb. Mod. Level



Flue Gas T. Level
13
14    15
     Uncontrolled Power Plants






     Combustion Turbines



     Other Point Sources



     Vehicular Area Sources



     Non-Vehicular Area Sources

-------
Ml
a
gg
r-i
gj
§
g
11

1
     1750
     1500
     1250
      1000
      750
      500
250
                             1975
                                                            1985
  Figure 19
                        II     III    IV               I      II


                          Interaction  Group Number  (see  Table  14)
                                                                           IV
                                                               Comb. Mod. Level


                                                               Flue Gas T. Level
           1975 and 1985 Ambient N02
           Concentrations  in Vicinity
           of  Power Plant  Interaction
           Groups
                                                                         KEY
-- J> Uncontrolled Power Plants




     Combustion Turbines


     Other Point Sources


     Vehicular Area Sources


     Non-Vehicular Area Sources

-------
 TABLE 14.
WORST  CASE GROUNDLEVEL N02 CONCENTRATIONS PRODUCED BY
INDIVIDUAL POWER PLANTS AND INTERACTIONS CASES  - 1975
CONCENTRATION
WITHOUT CONTROLS
PLANT (Ug/m3)
1. Joliet 2 & 6
2. Joliet 7
3. Will County
4 . Winnetka
5 . Waukegan
6. Collins*
7 . Texaco
8 . Bailly
9. Bethlehem Steel
10. Mitchell
11. Stateline
12 . Calumet
13 . Ridgeland
14 . Crawford
15. Fisk
GROUP I**
GROUP II
GROUP III
GROUP IV
649
668
801
313
974
	
886
892
1410
499
941
692
1021
624
1050
1278
1255
1595
1138
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
WITH CM WITH FGT COST
(yg/m3) COST-CM+ (ue/m3) FGT+
405
413
446
264
712
	
351
515
745
319
565
666
685
470
860
759
883
1325
632
$0.7M
$2.0M
$1.7M
$0.1M
$1.4M
	
$0.04M
$1.1M
$2.4M
$0.9M
$.15M
$0.2M
$1.2M
$1.2M
$0.8M
$3.4M
$2.6M
$3.2M
$4.5M
210
209
162
224
502
	
277
213
229
175
265
646
346
346
708
343
585
1110
338
$4-34M
$12-92M
$10-79M
$0.5-4M
$8-66M
	
$0.3-2M
$6-49M
$14-108M
$5-42M
$9-69M
$1-9M
$7-54M
$7-54M
$5-38M
$20-15 7M
$15-120M
$18-147M
$26-205M
*Did not exist in 1975.
+1977 Dollars
M-Million
**See Table 13 for the definition of these interaction groups,

-------
            TABLE 15.
WORST  CASE GROUNDLEVEL N02 CONCENTRATIONS PRODUCED BY
INDIVIDUAL POWER PLANTS AND INTERACTION CASES  - 1985
Oo
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
WITHOUT CONTROLS WITH CM WITH FGT COST
PLANT (ug/m3) (u*/m3) COST-CM+ (us/m3) FGT+
1. Joliet 2 & 6
2. Joliet 7
3. Will County
4 . Winnetka
5 . Waukegan
6. Collins
7 . Texaco
8. Bailly
9. Bethlehem Steel
10. Mitchell
11. State Line
12 . Calumet*
13. Ridgeland
14 . Crawford
15. Fisk
GROUP I**
GROUP II
GROUP III
GROUP IV
575
593
824
288
794
459
1108
849
1277
472
904
	
1113
484
766
1301
1172
1377
1099
331
338
469
239
532
236
1015
471
686
292
528
	
Ill
363
576
787
810
1120
593
$0.7M
$2.0M
$1.7M
$0.1M
$1.4M
$4.5M
$0.04M
$1.1M
$2.4M
$0.9M
$1.5M
	
$1.2M
$1.0M
$0.8M
$3.4M
$2.5M
$3.0M
$4.5M
136
134
185
199
322
57
941
169
214
148
225
	
508
266
424
371
520
915
189
$4-34M
$12-92M
$10-79M
$0.5-4M
$8-66M
$25-204M
$0.3-2M
$6-49M
$14-108M
$5-42M
$9-69M
	
$7-55M
$6-45M
$5-38M
$20-157M
$14-112M
$17-138M
$26-205M
             ^Retired
             +1977 Dollars
             M-Million
             **See Table 13 for the definition of these interaction groups.

-------
in values between the table and this case are probably not
measurable with instruments.  The tables also reflect costs
given by Aerothenn as $1.75/KWe for 50 percent NO  reduction
                                                 X
through retrofit combustion modification (CM) and by EPA as
$10-80/KWe ($30 avg.) for 90 percent NOX reduction achieved
through flue gas treatment  (FGT).  The following points must be
noted from these tables:

           1.  The effect of control technology is severely
               restricted by certain site-specific factors,
               such as proximity to large point sources,
               etc.  No single control technology applied
               uniformly achieves uniform results.

           2.  In some cases, controls must be applied to
               sources other than power plants to achieve
               significant reductions in ambient N02 concentra-
               tion.

          Thirteen power plants and large point sources were con-
sidered in this study.  Table 16 gives the number of plants which
require CM or FGT  controls  in order to meet various ambient N0x
levels, assuming no interaction among plants.  Table 17 gives the
number of plants requiring  controls assuming interactions.  The
results in Table 17 assume  that identical control technology is
applied to all plants in the same group in order to achieve the
required ambient reduction.  This assumption is conservative since
it does not take into account any attempt to investigate an
optimum strategy mix for an interaction group.  Such analysis was
beyond the scope of this project.

          Tables 18 and 19  provide cost estimates for the  con-
trols required to meet the  various ambient levels for the
independent and interaction cases, respectively.  The costs shown
                                69

-------
     TABLE 16.  NUMBER OF PLANTS REQUIRING NO  CONTROLS
                TO MEET AMBIENT LEVELS WITHOUT INTERACTION
Ambient
Levels
(Vg/m3)
1000
250
500
250
1975
CM FGT
3 0
9 0
8 4(1)*
1 13(5)
CM
3
5
5
5
1985
FGT
0
1(1)
3(1)
9(3)
*The number in  ( ) indicates the number of plants which are in
 areas where additional controls on other sources will be re-
 quired to meet ambient levels.


     TABLE 17.  NUMBER OF PLANTS REQUIRING NO  CONTROLS
                TO MEET AMBIENT LEVELS WITH INTERACTION
Ambient
Levels
(HK/m3)
1000
750
500
250
1975
CM FGT
8 2
7 6(3)*
1 12(3)
1 13(7)
CM
5
5
4
1
1985
FGT
3
6(4)
8(4)
12(6)
*The number in ( ) indicates the number of plants which are in
 areas where additional controls on other sources will be re-
 quired to meet ambient levels.

                              70

-------
      TABLE 18.   COST OF LARGE POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
                 REQUIRED TO MEET AMBIENT LEVELS WITHOUT
                 INTERACTIONS IN MILLIONS OF 1977 DOLLARS
Ambient
Level
(Ug/m3)
1000
750
500
250
1975
CM
$ 3.8
$10.34
$ 9.14
$ 0.1
FGT
NR
NR
$28-221*
$137.688*
1985
CM
$3.64
$7.9
$6.5
$8.1
FGT
NR
$ 0.3-2*
$21.3-65*
$65.3-511*
*Costs of additional controls on other sources not included
 but required to meet standard.

NR-Not Required.


  TABLE 19.  COST OF LARGE POINT SOURCE CONTROLS REQUIRED TO
             MEET AMBIENT  LEVELS WITH  INTERACTIONS  IN MILLIONS
             OF DOLLARS


Ambient
Level             1975                    1985
(yg/m3)       CM	FGT           CM	FGT


1000          $10.5     $18-147       $5.9       $17-138


 750          $ 7.5     $33-267*      $7.9       $31-250*


 500             NS     $79-629*      $4.5       $51-407*


 250             NS     $79-629*        NS       $77-612*


*Costs of additional controls on other sources not included
 but required to meet standard.

NS-Not sufficient; plants require FGT

                              71

-------
in Table 18 and 19 are very rough estimates based upon the "rule-
of-thumb" formulas from Aerotherm and EPA described previously
and can be expected to vary substantially in any practical con-
trol application.

               c.  Isolated Plant Siting

          In order to address the impact of the current trend
in power plant siting on projected N02 levels, the case of a
large isolated power plant was investigated.  Commonwealth
Edison's Powerton Station was used as a hypothetical example
of such a plant.

          CE's Powerton Station is a large  (1700 MWe) coal-
fired plant located near Pekin, Illinois, far from any large
urban complex.  Its location is more indicative of the siting
of new large power plants.  This plant contains two 850 MWe
cyclone units firing medium sulfur Illinois coal.  For this
example, cyclones and pulverized dry bottom boilers of identical
size were considered; emissions estimates based on FPC form 67
and AP-42 data for both cases are in Table 20.  For the three
scenarios modeled, concentrations of NOV and NO 2 in Table 21
                                       X
were found.

            TABLE 20.   ESTIMATED MAXIMUM EMISSIONS FOR
                        ISOLATED LARGE COAL PLANT

          Case                  Maximum N0,; Emission Rate
       Cyclone                        41,081 Ib/hr

       Dry Botton,
         Pulverized                   13,445 Ib/hr
                               72

-------
    TABLE 21.  EXPECTED WORST CASE  GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
               FROM ISOLATED LARGE COAL PLANT
Type
Cyclone


Dry Bottom,
Pulverized

Scenario
Summer AM
Summer PM
Winter AM
Summer AM
Summer PM
Winter PM
NOW (yg/m3)
523
2317
2317
171
758
758
N02 (yg/m3)
262
1159
579
86
379
190
          As can be seen from this table, the cyclone unit does
not comply with any of the four standards examined.  However,
combustion modification at a cost of $3 million would bring the
plant essentially into compliance with all standards except
250 yg/m3,  which would require flue gas treatment at costs
between $17 million and $136 million.  On the other hand, if a
dry bottom boiler were used, everything else being equal, the
unit would be in compliance with no controls for all standards
except 250 yg/m3, which requires combustion modification.  This
analysis indicates that flue gas treatment would be beneficial
probably on most cyclone units and on certain units in heavily
urbanized areas where need could be proven.  Otherwise, combus-
tion modification will allow compliance with most, if not all,
standards studied.  In light of the high costs associated with
flue gas treatment and the reductions achieved with the less
expensive combustion modification, it is expected that combustion
modification would have the most beneficial overall effect, with
flue gas treatment being applied only in a few cases.  However,
there are many uncertainties and limitations regarding both
                                73

-------
combustion modification and flue gas treatment technologies
which may become overriding considerations when determining a
control strategy.
                               74

-------
                           REFERENCES
1.   Holzworth,  George C. ,  Mixing Heights,  Wind Speeds .  and
        the Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the
        Contiguous United States , Research Triangle Park,  N. C. ,
        EPA Office of Air Programs, 1972.

2.   Bar tosh, C. P., et. al.,  Emissions Update and Projections
        for Indiana Air Quality Maintenance Areas Volume III
        Lake and Porter Counties , EPA Contract 68-02-1383,
3.  Hrenko, J. M. ,  and D. B. Turner, "An Efficient Gaussian
        Plume Multiple Source Algorithm," paper presented at
        the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
        Association (June 1975) .

4.  Turner, D. B. ,  "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,"
        NAPCA.  Cincinnati, Ohio (1969).
                                             >
5.  Briggs, G. A.,  "Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observa-
        tions , " paper presented at the 1970 International Air
        Pollution Conference of the International Union of Air
        Pollution Prevention Associates (December 1970) .
                                75

-------
        APPENDIX A
SELECTED CONVERSION FACTORS
            76

-------
                           APPENDIX A
                   SELECTED CONVERSION FACTORS
New Units
 Joules
Metric Tons/
   Year
  m/sec


  g/sec


   m3



  m/sec


kilometer


 g/joule


  kPa
Equal
 Old Units

Million BTU
  (MMBTU)
               Tons/Year
                 knots
                Ib/hour
              Thousand Cubic
               Feet (MCF)
                  mph.


                  mile


                Ib/MMBTU


                  psia
Multipled By
 1.054 x 109
                       0.907



                       0.514


                       0.125


                       28.3



                       0.447


                       1.609


                    4.304 x 10"7


                       0.143
                                77

-------
          APPENDIX B
AREA SOURCE GRIDDING PROCEDURE
              78

-------
I.         INTRODUCTION

          The purpose of this appendix is to describe the pro-
cedure employed for allocating area source air pollution emissions
to grids that form the input basis to air pollution dispersion
models.  The basic approach is to divide the total area being con-
sidered (whether it be a city, county, air quality control region,
or whatever) into subareas that can be used to partition the total
area emissions.  The idea is to account for the spatial distribu-
tion of area source emissions so that air pollution dispersion
models can make reasonable predictions of the distribution of
pollutant concentrations.
                               79

-------
II.       METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

          The steps to set up the input gridding procedure are
as follows:

          1.  Define the boundaries of the total area
              being considered.

          2.  Specify the apportionment parameter
              (e.g., population, miles of road, number
              of houses, etc.) to be used to distribute
              emissions throughout the total area.

          3.  Determine the subareas (e.g., census
              tracts, traffic zones, counties, etc.)
              for which measures of the apportionment
              parameter selected in Step 2 are known.
              The relative size of the individual sub-
              areas chosen will, in general, depend
              upon the resolution required in the air
              quality impact analysis.

          4.  Determine the total emissions to be
              distributed throughout the total area
              specified in Step 1.

          5.  Allocate to each subarea (from Step 3)
              the appropriate fraction of the total
              emissions (from Step 4) as determined
              by the apportionment parameter.

          6.  Define the input grid network for the
              dispersion model, and construct an overlay
                               80

-------
              from this grid which can be placed over
              a map of the subareas (from Step 3).

          When these six steps have been accomplished,  gridding
calculations can be performed which will assign a total pollutant
emission rate to each model input grid.
                               81

-------
III.      METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION

          The procedures and calculations involved in area source
gridding can best be described by means of an example.  We will
take a hypotehtical case and work through the entire procedure
from set-up to calculations.

          Our hypothetical problem is to apportion the mobile
hydrocarbon emissions of Noname County to area source emissions
grids which can be input to an air pollution dispersion model.
The steps outlined in Section II are performed as follows:

          1.  Define total area boundaries -

              Prepare Figure 1 which is a map of Noname County
              with appropriate Universal Transverse Mercater
              (UTM) coordinates included.

          2.  Specify apportionment parameter -

              We propose to use total vehicle miles travelled
              (VMT) to apportion mobile hydrocarbon emissions.
              That is, we think that the spatial distribution
              of VMT is a good approximation of the spatial
              distribution of mobile hydrocarbon emissions.

          3.  Define subareas -

              Since we have a VMT count for each traffic zone
              in Noname County, and since the traffic zones
              provide about the resolution we need, we will use
              the traffic zones indicated in Figure 2 as our
              subareas.
                               82

-------
  o


  r-\
  •f
  O
  -a-
|                         NOKAME COUNTY

o
2
  o
  o
   500        510          520         530         540         550

                           UTM (EASTING)


                     FIGURE 1.  COUNTY BOUNDARIES
                                83

-------
500
510
       .520
        UTM (EASTING)
FIGURE 2.  TRAFFIC ZONE MAP
                                               SAO
                                                550
                              84

-------
4.  Determine total emissions -

    We are told, let's say, that the total mobile
    hydrocarbon emission rate in Noname County is
    10,000 tons/year.

5.  Allocate emissions to subareas -

    Construct Table 1 which gives  the emissions
    assigned to each subarea based upon the
    apportionment parameter.  We are given the
    VKT counts in the second column.  The third
    column is the fraction of county total VMT's
    in each zone.  The fourth column entries are
    found by taking the fraction for each zone
    times the total county mobile hydrocarbon
    emis s ions.

    In some cases, Table 1 may not be the format
    to use for subarea emission calculations.
    There may be cases where the emission factor
    varies from subarea to subarea.  For example,
    if we wanted to account for a difference in
    vehicular speed, we might want to assign each
    traffic zone an average speed and incorporate
    this term into an emission factor.   The
    emission factor, when scaled to the right
    units, could then be multiplied by the VHT
    count in each zone to get hydrocarbon
    emissions directly.

    Regardless of the approach used, the end re-
    sult from Table 1 should be to assign specific
    pollutant emissions to each subarea.
                   85

-------
                              TABLE 1
                  SUBAREA EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Traffic        103           VMT            Hydrocarbon Emissions
  Zone         VMT         Fraction         	(tons/year)	

   A           500           .091                    910
   B           800           .145                   1450
   C           300           .055                    550
   D           700           .127                   1270
   E           900           .164                   1640
   F          1000           .182                   1820
   G           700           .127                   1270
   H           400           .073                    730
   I           200           .036                    360

TOTAL         5500          1.000                 10,000
                                86

-------
          6.   Define model input grid network -

              We construct the grid network in Figure 3
              which we  feel offers the desired resolution
              to the dispersion model.  Note that each
              grid is a square and that the width of the
              bigger squares is an integer multiple of
              the width of the smallest squares.  (These
              are necessary conditions for most dispersion
              models.)

          What is left  now is to assign an emission rate to each
grid in Figure 3 using the information obtained thus far.  This
will be done  by allocating the emissions of each subarea to the
grids that "cover11 that subarea based upon what portion of the
subarea is in each grid.

          For  example,  look at traffic zone "D" in Figure 3.
About 4/10 of D's area is covered by grid 8, about 1/10 by grid
19, and about 1/4 by each of grids 1 and 9.  For zone "I", about
5/6 is in grid 22 and  1/6 in grid 14.  For zone "E", about 3/10
is in each of grids 11 and 16, 2/10 in grid 10, and 1/10 in each
of grids  5 and 15.  That part of E in grid 20 can be disregarded.
Similar divisions can  be made for each of the remaining zones.
Usually,  these divisions can be made using best judgements and
"eyeball" approximations, as is being done here.  If a more exact
analysis  is required,  a planimeter can be used.  Regardless of
the method used, it is important that the subarea fractions
assigned  to grids sum  to one.

          The  division  process continues until all subareas (zones)
have been divided out  into the grids.  A table should be kept of
this work, and it should be structured as shown•in Table 2.  Note
that each grid and each subarea are accounted for in Table 2.
                              87

-------
         520         530
         UTM (EASTING)
540
550
FIGURE 3.   AREA SOURCE GRID OVERLAY
             88

-------
             TABLE 2
WORKING TABLE FOR GRIDDING PROCEDURES

Grid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
Emissions
Zones
A
L4/15







1/15













1
910
B C
1/4
1/4
1/6

1/4
1/12
















1
1450


1/9
3/10

1/9
3/10





1/15
1/9








1
550
D
1/4






4/10
1/4









1/10



1
1270
E




1/10

x


2/10
3/10



1/10
3/10






1
1640
F





1/2





4/10
1/10









1
1820
G







1/45
1/9





1/18



34/45
1/18


1
1270
H











1/40
1/40



1/16
1/16
1/10
3/20
3/8
2/10
1
730
I













1/6






5/6

1
360
                89

-------
Note also that the column  (subarea) fraction totals are all
equal to one.  If any  column does not sum to one, the total grid
network emissions will be  incorrect.  The subarea emissions
should be entered at the bottom of the table to facilitate the
calculations which follow.

         To  compute the emissions for an individual grid,
multiply the fraction in each zone column by the total zone
emissions at the bottom of the zone column.  Sum these products
to get the total grid emissions.   For example, from Table 2, we
compute the  emissions for grid 1 as follows:

         14/15 (910) + 1/4 (1450) + 1/4 (1270)  =  1529.3

A similar calculation is performed for each grid.

         Table 3 shows the final output from the procedure.
Included in Table 3 are the UTM coordinates of the southwest
corner of each square and the length of the square side.  This
information is required in the dispersion models.  Table 3,
then, will provide the person actually running the dispersion
model program with the grid inputs he needs in order to exercise
the model.

         Rounding errors abound in a procedure like the one
described here.  Small errors in the total allocated emissions
(±.1%)  can be expected and should not cause problems.   However,
one needs to be aware of the rounding problem and be prepared
to adjust some of the figures if greater accuracy is required.
                             90

-------
                             TABLE  3


EMISSION
GRIDDING
SRID UTM SIDE LENGTH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
X
500
520
530
540
520
530
540
500
510
520
525
530
535
540
520
525
530
535
500
520
530
520
Y
4130
4140
4140
4140
4130
4130
4130
4120
4120
4125
4125
4125
4125
4120
4120
4120
4120
4120
4100
4110
4100
4100
(meters)
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
10,000
20,000
10,000
RESULTS
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
(tons /year)
1529.3
362.5
302.8
165.0
526.5
1091.9
165.0
536.2
519.3
328.0
492.0
746.3
236.9
121.1
234.6
492.0
45.6
45.6
1159.6
180.1
573.8
146.0
Total
10000.1
                            91

-------
         APPENDIX C

AREA SOURCE EMISSION FACTORS
(Selected pages from Volumes
 II and IV of NADB's AEROS
 Manual)
              92

-------
Envi rorvr^ntal
P.roUy.tioM Anency
National /Hr
Data Bronch
Volume IV
AEROS Internal Operations
SECTION
CHAPTER
SUBJECT
SECTION1 CHAPTER' SUO-iL']
DATE PAGE
!
i
NEDS AREA SOURCE EMISSION CALCULATION PROCEDURES
     "The NEDS procedure for computer calculation of emissions that has
been used to date is quite simple for most source categories.  The
procedure is:

Emissions (tons/yr) = Source Category Activity Level x Multiplier x Emission Factor
                                              2005

The source category activity levels are the values given for each source
category or. the area source form.  For example to calculate partic'ulate
emissions for residential on-site incineration, if the value coded
on the area source fern is 2400.

Emissions (tons/yr) = 2400 x 10 x 30  = 360
                          2000

Sulfur and ash parameters for fuels are included in the emission factors
when appropriate.
     The calculation procedure for motor vehicles is more complex and
is described below.  Emission factors for use with each area source
category are also given in the following table.  These emission factors
are updated as new data becomes available.  The emission factors shown
are those .that are used for 1973 area source calculations.
                                         93

-------
Envi ronmsnt-il
Protection Arjency
National A>r
Data Branch
Volume IV
AEROS Internal Operations
SECTION
CHAPTER
SUBJECT
SECTION! CHAPTER Scii-lECI
1
DATE PAGE
                                  AREA SOURCE EMISSION FACTORS
CATEGORY

Anthractie Coal
   Residential
   Cci^nercial  &  Institutional
   Industrial
Bituminous Coal
   Residential
   Convnercial  &  Institutional
   Industrial
Histinats Oil
   Residential
 .  Cajjnercial  &  Institutional
   Industrial
 residual  Oil
   Residential
   Commercial  S  Institutional
   Industrial
 'atural Gas
   Residential
   Commercial  &  Institutional
   Industrial
riood
   All  Categories'
 •rocess 6as
   Industrial
On-Site Incineration
   Residential
   Commercial
   Industrial
"pen Burning
   Residential
   .Commercial
   Industrial
 vaporation
   Solvent
   Gasoline Marketing
MULTIPLIER
PART
SOX
NOX
KC
CO
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
TOO
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
1
100
10.000
2,OOOA
2.000A
20.000
5.800A
13.000A
10.000
15.000
15.000
23.000
23.000
23.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
25.00Q
20.000
32.000
8.000
8.000
16.000
16.000
16.000
0.000
0.000
36.800S
38,5005
38.500$
38.000$
38.000S
38.000S
144.000S
1A4.QOGS
144.000S
159.000S
159.000S
159.000S
0.600
0.600
0.600
1.500
2.000
0.500
2. 500
2.500
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
10.000
15.000
3.000
9.200
15.000
12.000
60.000
60.000
40.000
50.000
60. 000
80. 000
120.000
180.000
10.000
230.000
1.000
3.000
3.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
2.500
0.200
0.2DO
20.000
2.000
1.000
3. COO
3.000
3.000
3.000
3 r'riQ
a'.'ooo
8.000
8.000
3.000
20.000
30.000
90.000
5.000
5.000
30.0CO
30.000
30.000
2000.000
22.000
on rnn
~> W * -v w W
5. 000
2.0'JO
Q r, «. <- r>
S U . w- -
7.200
2.000
D . ' J w w
4. COO
4.000
4. 000
4. COO
4. GOO
' 2Q. 000
20. 000
17. COO
20.000
Meg.
270.000
11 . SCO
Ti . SCO
35.000
85.000
S5.00C
o.c::
0.000
                                              94

-------
Environmental
Protection Anency
National A?r
Data Branch
Volume IV
AEROS Internal Operations
SECTION
CHAPTER
SUBJECT
SECTION CHAPTER 3[&.\?-
DATE PAGE
jpavad Roads
leaved Airstrips
Instruction
Ssc. Wind Erosion
tod Tilling
feu Ir.'ildfires
inegsd Burning
i^icu'itural Burning
tost Control
itructurs Fires
Iff Highway
  Gasoline
  Diesel
Ml Locomotive
lircraft
  Hi! itary
  Civil
  Commercial
fessels
  Bituminous Coal
  Distillate Oil
  Residual
  Gasoline
Oil
1
1
1
1
1
quan.
quan.
quan.
days fir.
1
1
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
10
\
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.0
17.0
17.0
0.2
108.0
10.7
33.3
25.0
19.9
0.569
1.79
20.0
24.0
19.3
Meg.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Meg.
Neg..
Meg.
0.1
0.2
5.6
29.8
57.0
3. '8
0.113
2.56
50.0
30.0
286.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
20.0
20.0
43.0
28.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
140.0
60.0
100.0
22.0
244.0
122.0
369.0
370.0
9.56
0.514
25.2
3.0
224.0
41.8
27.4
344.0 3900.0
40.4 104.0
94.0 130.0
46.3 49.7
2.520 14.40
33.1 68.30
20.0 90.0
58.8 78,4
2.9 1.4
931,0 2960.0
Is Fuel ash content
!• Fuel sulfur  content
Ws Not available,  national level  emission factors not  appropriate
teg. = Emissions  are negligible,  but  not necessarily zero.

ill final products  should be divided  by 2000 (Ib/ton) to get emissions into  proper
fflnsistent units  of tons.
                                          95

-------
tnvi rcrvr.sntal
Protection Agency
National Air
Data Branch
Volume II
AEROS User's Manual
SECTION
CHAPTER
SUBJECT
SECTION CH.nDT~R SL'DJEC"
DATE PAGE
                              MOTOR  VEHICLE  EMISSION  CALCULATIONS
     The first step in estimating  motor vehicle emissions  is  to esbablish
the mileage ratios for the different classes  of vehicles:
     1)  Multiply gasoline fuel  for light vehicles times  1000 times  13.6  (mpg)
     2}  Multiply gasoline fuel  for heavy vehicles tines  1000 time 3.4  (tnpg)
     3)  Multiply diesel fuel  for  heavy vehicles times 1000 5.0  (mpg).
            Add the products - SUM of vehicle miles traveled. (M  )
            Obtain ratio of vehicle milt total for category of vehicle.
                 LD
                     *(2\ *
                      SUM
                 HOG
                R    = (3) =.	
                 HDD   SUM
     If any measured vehicle miles are filled in, proceed as follows:
    • Then multiply each ratio from above times each "Measured Vehicle Miles"
category, times appropriate emission factor, i.e.
     Limited Access Road - miles CM ) times 10,000 times R   times appropriate
                                   L                      LD
emission factor plus M  times 10,000 RLm. times appropriate emission factor
                      L               Hub
plus M  times 10,000 R    times appropriate emission factor.
      L               HDO
      1
  453.6  2000
            _times sum is the emissions for limited access roads in tons
                                   96

-------
Environmental
Protection Aaencv
National Air
Data Branch
Volume II
AEROS User's Manuel
SECTION
CHAPTER
SUBJECT
SECTION CHAPTER SUBJECT
DATE PAGE
     Suburban Roads - miles (M-)  times 10,000 R,D times appropriate  emission
factor plus MS titr.es 10,000 RHQG times appropriate emission factor.
      1	 x sum  is the emissions for suburban roads in tons	.
453.6 x 2000
     Urban Roads - miles  (tfu) times 10,000 RLD times appropriate emission
factor plus Mu times 10,000 times RHDQ times appropriate emission  factor.
      1
x sum is the emissions for urban  roads  in  tons
453.6 x 2000
      If no measured  vehicle  miles are filled in, proceed as follows:
          Sum  the  products  (1),  (2),  (3) as determined previously (above)
           to obtain total miles traveled (My).
         Determine the rural and urban mileage breakdown:
           P.. = Density  code divided by 10
                I.O-P
            R.-U
        To calculate emissions, multiply the vehicle mile ratio
*  R
                  HDG'
thfi
                                     traveled
                                                                      tne
          rural or urban factor (PR or Py) times the appropriate emission
          factor,  i.e.,

       9  is  used  if value  is  mission and  condition flagged.
                                  97

-------
Environmental
Protection Aaer.cy
National Air
Data Branch
Volume II
AEROS User's Manual
SECTION
CHAPTER
SUBJECT
SECTION CHAPTER SUBJECT
i
DATE PAGE
      Rural Roads - M—times R, n times PD times appropriate emission factor
                     |k        LU        K
plus My times RHQG times P^ times appropriate emission  factor  plus My  times

RHDD tines PR times appropriate emission factor.

      1        times sum is emissions from rural roads  in tons 	.
      Urban Roads - M_ times R,_ times P  times appropriate emission  factor

plus My times RHDG times Py times appropriate emission factor plus  My

times RHDQ times PM times appropriate emission factor.

	U	times sura is emissions from urban roads in tons	.
1453.6) (2000)

NOTE:  Using this second method Limited Acess and Suburban road emission
       will bs assumed zero . . .

       Add above sums for emission total for motor vehicles in tons.
                                 98

-------
Envi ronmcntal
Prctection Ancncy
National A'r
Data Branch
Volume IV
AEROS Internal Operations
SECTION
CHAPTER
SUBJECT
SECTION CHAPTER SUB.; EC f
DATE PAGE !
i
t
i
t
r
t
1
            FACTORS  FOR AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS FROM  MOBILE SOURCES - 1973
 1JEGORY
PART
SOX
NOX
 iited  Access Roads
  Light Duty - Gasoline
 •Heavy Duty - Gasoline
  Heavy Duty - Diesel
jral  Roads
  Light Duty
  Heavy Duty
  Heavy Duty

iburban  Roads
roan Roads
  Light Duty
  Heavy Duty
  Heavy Duty
HC
CO
0.54
0.95
2.0
O.T4
0.36
2.8
5.06
11.3
27.6
6.16
22.3
2.44
29.9
113.1
7.46
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
0.54
0.95
2.0
0.14
0.36
2.8
4.9
10.9
27.2
6.25
22.7
2.58
31.5
116.9
8.61
Light Duty -
Heavy Duty -
Heavy Duty -
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
0.54
0.95
2.0
0.14
0.36
2.8
4; 59
10.3
26.1
6.75
25.0
2.99
38.2
136.3
12.6
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
0.54
0.95
2.0
0.14
0.36
2.8
4.32
S.56
23.8
7.94
30.1
3.68
52.5
178.8
19.2
                                        99

-------
              APPENDIX D
ESTIMATION OF N02/NOX ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
                 100

-------
                           APPENDIX D

             ESTIMATION OF N02/NOV ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
                                 X
          Radian gathered continuous NO and N02 measurement data
for several major U.S. cities.  Table D-l summarizes the findings.
From this analysis Radian determined that 0.5 is a reasonable
approximation for an urban N02/N0  adjustment ratio for annual
                                 X
modeling purposes.  This effort was not intended to be an in-
depth investigation for all major U.S. cities, and no attempt was
made to account for differences between or within cities.  As
yet, the conversion of NO (emissions) to N02 in the urban environ-
ment is a poorly understood phenomenon.  A rough estimate for a
N0a/N0x factor was required by this project, however, due to the
lack of NOX monitoring data to use in model calibration.
                               101

-------
                           TABLE D-l
               N02/NOX RATIOS FOR VARIOUS CITIES
City
Baltimore1
Baton Rouge3
Chicago2
Ft. Worth3
Houston3
Lake Charles3
Los Angeles"
New York5

Years of
Data
'74- '75
'74- '76
'72-'73
'73-'75
'74- '76
'74-'76
'74
'73-'74

Number of
Monitoring
Years
4
4
2
6
20
4
14
3

Annual Average
(ppb)
NO NO 2 NOX
37 55 92
10 12 22
144 58 202
27 24 51
13 20 33
19 18 37
64 60 124
47 44 91
Average
N02/NOX
0.60
0.55
0.29
0.47
0.61
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.50
1 Taken from 1974 and 1975  Maryland Air Quality Report,  State o-f
 Maryland Environmental Health Administration.

2Taken from NADB quarterly summary report.

3Taken by Radian Corporation's continuous monitoring stations.

**Taken from Air Quality and Meteorology,  1974 Annual Report,
 County of Los Angeles, Air Pollution Control District.

5Taken from New York State Air Quality Report, Continuous
 Monitoring System,  June 1974, Semi-Annual Report.
                             102

-------
    APPENDIX E
"HOT-SPOT" ANALYSIS
      103

-------
                          APPENDIX E
                      "HOT-SPOT" ANALYSIS

          This Appendix presents the results  of the  analyses
at 13 selected points  of interest in Chicago.   The points
selected were the grid locations of maximum predicted impact
for individual source  classes.   The following pages  present
the results in tabular form.
                            104

-------
Field Poinc Ho.
UTM Coordinates
435
4634
Predicted concentrations in ug/m3

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal*
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources

Total
N0x

15.2
2.1
1.1
3.3
5.6
122.3

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor =0.5)

7.6
1.1
0.6
1.7
2.8
61.2
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor » 0.63)

4.8
0.7
0.4
1.1
1.8
38.6
10
57.4
50.4
                                                    A% = -12.2
*Class for which  this  field  point  is  a "hot-spot1
                             105

-------
Field Point No.
UTM Coordinates
439
4632
Predicted concentrations in yg/m3

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal*
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources

Total
N0x

14.1
1.9
0.9
3.2
6.4
134.6

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.5)

7.1
1.0
0.5
1.6
3.2
67.3
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.63)

4.4
0.6
0.3
1.0
2.0
42.4
10
60.7
54.4
                                                     A% = -10.4
*Class  for which  this"field  point  is  a "hot-spot"
                              106

-------
Field Poinc No.
UTM Coordinates
465
4617
Predicted concentrations in yg/m3
Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal*
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers*
Other Point Sources
Area Sources
Total
N0x

11.4
0.5
0.8
5.2
15.0
54.9
N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor =0.5)

5.7
.3
0.4
2.6
7.5
27.5
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.63)

3.6
0.2
0.3
1.6.
4.7
17.3
10
37.7
32.0
                                                    A% = -15.1
*Class for which  this  field point  is  a  "hot-spot"
                              107

-------
Field Point No.
HTM Coordinates    X
483
Y =   4615
Predicted concentrations  in ug/tn:

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil*
Utility - Gas*
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources

Total
N0x

6.0
6.5
6.8
1.9
6.4
23.4

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.5)

3.0
3.3
3.4
1.0
3.2
11.7
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0. 63)

1.9
2.0
2.1
0.6.
2.0
7.4
10
26.0
19.4
                                                    A% = -25.4
*Class for which  this  field point is a "hot-spot1
                               108

-------
Field Point No.     5
UTM Coordinaces
428
4637
Predicted concentrations in yg/m3

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers*
Other Point Sources
Area Sources

Total
N0x

6.0
0.7
0.7
12.8
5.8
120.5

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.5)

3.0
0.35
0.35
6.4
2.9
60.25
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0. 63)

1.9
0.2
0.2
4.0
1.8
38.0
10
56.1
49.8
                                                    A% = -11.2
*Class for which this-field point is a "hot-spot"
                               109

-------
.Field Point No.
UTM Coordinates
460
4611
Predicted concentrations in ug/ra3

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers*
Other Point Sources
Area Sources

Total
N0x

6.6
1.3
1.6
6.9
14.7
94.3

N02/NOX
Adjustment
(Factor * 0.5)

3.3
0.65
0.8
3.45
7.35
47.15
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.63)

2.1
0.4
0.5
2.2
4.6
29.7
10
49.5
44.3
                                                    A% = -10.5
*Class for which  this  field  point  is  a "hot-spot"
                             110

-------
Field Point No.
U7M Coordinates
442.5
                                     4640.0
Predicted concentrations in ug/m3

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources*

Total
N0x

9.9
1.2
1.6
1.8
4.4
216.6

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor =0.5)

4.95
0.6
0.8
0.9
2.2
108.3
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.63)

3.1
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.4
68.2
10
84.2
79.6
                                                    A% = -5.5
*Class for which  this  field point  is  a "hot-spot11
                              111

-------
Field Point No.    8
UTM Coordinates    X -  442.5   Y =  4637.5
Predicted concentrations in ug/m:

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources*

Total
N0x

10.8
1.3
1.6
2.0
4.7
229.3

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor » 0.5)

5.4
O.G5
0.8
1.0
2.35
114.65
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0. 63)

3.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.5
72.2
10
88.6
83.7
                                                    A% = -5.6
*Class for which this-field point is a "hot-spot1
                             112

-------
Field Point No.
UTM Coordinates
X =  442.5   Y =  4635.0
Predicted concentrations in ug/m:

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources'*'

Total
N0x

11.4
1.5
1.6
2.3
5.9
213.3

N02/N0x
Adj us tment
(Factor =0.5)

5.7
0.75
0.8
1.15
2.95
106.65
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.63)

3.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.9
67.2
10
84.4
79.1
                                                    A% = -6.3
*Class for which  this field point  is  a  "hot-spot1
                             113

-------
.Field Point  No.
 UTM  Coordinates
10
     442.5
Y =  4632.5
 Predicted  concentrations  in  ug/m3

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil
Utility - 'Gas
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources*

Total
N0x

10.2
1.2
1,6
2.6
5.2
197.1

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.5)

5.1
0.6
0.8
1.3
2.6
98.55
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.63)

3.2
0.4
0.5
O.S
1.6
62.1
10
78.6
73.7
                                                    A% = -6.2
 *Class  for which  this  field point is a "hot-spot"
                               114

-------
Field Point No.
11
UTM Coordinates
      447.5  Y =  4637.5
Predicted concentrations in ug/m3
    Contributing
    Source Class
     Total
      NO
   N02/N0x
  Adjustment
(Factor =0.5)
    Model
 Calibration
 Adjustment
(Factor = 0.63)
Large Point Sources
  Utility - Coal
  Utility - Oil
  Utility - "Gas
  Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources*
     10.4
      1.1.
      1.7
      1.7
      5.7
    229.4
       5.2
       0.55
       0.85
       0.85
       2.85
     114.7
     3.3
     0.3
     0.5
     0.5
     1.8
     72.3
                 Background
                 Total Predicted N02
                 Total Less Large Point Sources
*Class for which this field point is a "hot-spot"
                                   10
                                   88.7
                                   84.1
                                                   A% = -5.1
                             115

-------
Field Point No.   12
UTM Coordinates
X
447.5
4627.5
Predicted concentrations in ug/ra3

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil
Utility - .Gas
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources*

Total
N0x
*%

10.1
1.1
1.2
2.2
4.6
225.6

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor =0.5)

5.05
0.55
0.6
1.1
2.3
112.8
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0. 63)

3.2
0.3
0.4
0;7
1.4
71.1
10
87.1
82.5
                                                        -5.2
*Class for which this field point is a "hot-spot"
                              116

-------
Field Point No.   13
UTM Coordinates    X =  447.5   y =  4617.5
Predicted concentrations in yg/m:

Contributing
Source Class
Large Point Sources
Utility - Coal
Utility - Oil
Utility - Gas
Ind. Boilers
Other Point Sources
Area Sources*

Total
N0x
^ •'

9.4
0.8
0.7
1.9
5.6
182.2

N02/N0x
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.5)

4.7
0.4 '
0.35
0.95
2.8
91.1
Background
Total Predicted N02
Total Less Large Point Sources
Model
Calibration
Adjustment
(Factor = 0.63)

3.0
0.3
0.2
0.6
1.8
57.4
10
73.3
69.2
                                                   A% = -5.6
*Class for which this field point  is  a  "hot-spot"
                              117

-------
                APPENDIX F
TESTING OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON STEAM UNITS
                    118

-------
                         APPENDIX F
          TESTING OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON STEAM UNITS

          Commonwealth  Edison  (CE)  carried out a series of
NO  emissions tests  on  several  coal-fired steam units in
  X
1972 and 1973.  The  objectives  of the CE NOX test program
were to obtain NO  emission levels and all supporting data at:
                 s\

          1)  Full or maximum load, normal operating conditons;
          2)  Full or maximum load, normal operating conditions
              with reduced oxygen.

One test was  conducted by  the boiler manufacturer at each condition
on each boiler while firing coal.  The important test  conclusions
were:

          1)  NOX emission levels for all boilers tested,
              except Joliet #7,  at full or maximum  load under
              normal operating  conditions were below  the
              Federal  New  Source Standard for coal-fired
              boilers  of 0.7 LBS NOX/106 BTU-FIRED  or  approxi-
              mately 520 PPM,  dry basis adjusted to 3  percent
              oxygen.

          2)  NOx emission levels for all boiler? tested at
              full  or  maximum  load under normal operating
              conditions with  reduced oxygen were below the
              Federal  New  Source Standard for coal-fired
              boilers  of 0.7 LBS NOX/106 BTU-FIRED  or approxi-
              mately 520 PPM,  dry basis adjusted  to 3 percent
              oxygen.
                              119

-------
          All boilers tested were of the twin furnace design;
therefore, separate NOX and Oz samples were taken on each
furnace at the gas duct between the economizer outlet and
the air heater inlet.

         The NO* levels from both furnaces  x*ere expected
to be of the same magnitude due to duplicate design  and
similar operating conditions.   For this reason one of  the
furnaces was used as a primary test furnace with  8 to  12
sampling points and the other furnace used as a secondary
test furnace with 4 to 6 sampling points.   On most boilers
this arrangement was used, but in some cases, due to accessi-
bility and availability of inserts, this arrangement could
not be adhered to.

           The KOX emission levels were determined by the
phenol-disulfonic acid method as specified in ASTM Procedure
D-1603.   All NOX emission levels are reported in PPM/Vclume,
on a dry basis  adjusted to 3 percent oxygen and as equivalent
NOX  by weight in LBS/106  BTU-FIRED (Ib/MMBtu) .

           Coal  samples were taken on each test day and rhe
analyses  were performed in the boiler manufacturer's laboratory
using ASTM Procedure D-271.

           Station instrumentation was used to obtain unit
operating data.

           Test 2 data for operation with reduced  oxygen were not
used in  Radian's hourly NOX analysis of the Chicago AQCR.  Radian
obtained  unit heat rate data for generators tested at  test megawatt
output values from the Commonwealth Edison  dispatch  center.
                              120

-------
           In  addition,  Collins  Unit  3  has been  recently  tested
 in the  same fashion as  above  for  firing  oil.  The  emission  rate
 was  reported  as  0.22 Ib/MMBTU.  This value was  used as a basis
 for  scaling expected emissions  from  the  other new  Collins Units.

           As  may be seen  from Table  F-l, there  are, in many cases,
 significant differences between test results and calculated emis-
 sions derived from  AP-42  emission  factors.  Table  F-l presents
 a  statistical analysis of the differences between  NO  emissions
 derived  from  the CE test  program and those derived using AP-42
 emission factors for coal  units.   This difference  also exists
 for  Collins Unit 3;  AP-42  calculations would indicate that  the
 Collins  unit  tested was emitting the legal limit of 0.7  Ib/MMBTU,
 while in fact, the  unit was emitting only 0.22  Ib/MMBTU  while
 under test.   Because  this  study restricts itself to the  impact
 of individual units  on a  short-term basis,  test data were used
 where possible in the interest  of  accuracy.
           TABLE F-l.  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF UNIT TEST
                       DATA VS. AP-42 FOR CE COAL UNITS*

	   •          10 coal unit tested     9 dry bottom units tested
 Mean                 100.2%                  95.0%
 Std. Deviation        35.35%                 33.2%
 RanSe                106.0%                 106.0%
to
*Unit tests performed 1973 by outside consultant
 All on dry bottom boilers except State Line 3
                              121

-------
            APPENDIX G
COMBUSTION TURBINE AND OTHER PEAKING
        UNITS IN CHICAGO AQCR
                 122

-------
                          APPENDIX G
              COMBUSTION'TURBINE AND OTHER PEAKING
                      UNITS IN CHICAGO AQCR

          CE operates two 10 MWe diesel peaking units and
several diesel emergency power units at its nuclear plants;
tlieir emissions were ignored as being inconsequential.

          CE also operates a number of combustion turbine (CT)
peaking units which can contribute significantly to plant
emissions.  These units operate on the principle of a jet engine
with the turbine shaft connected to a generator; in most cases,
they are arranged in a tandem or multi-tandem configuration with
several prime movers driving a single generator.  To our knowl-
edge, CE does not use combined-cycle CT systems.  These CE
units are summarized in Table G-l.  An outside consultant has
performed emissions testing of some of these turbines; details
of this testing follow.  NIPSCO also operates three 17.4 MWe
CT's at Mitchell Power Plant and one 33.9 MWe CT at Bailly.
Mitchell CT's No. 9A, B, and C were modeled using the character-
istics of CE Crawford 31-1, 31-2, and 31-3 and Bailly 10 was
modeled using the characteristics of CE Fisk 31-1.  All replace-
ment turbines were of approximately equivalent size and age as
the NIPSCO units.  Basic assumptions were the same as for the
CE units.  All combustion turbines were then, represented as
follows:

          1.  Layout determined from site plans furnished by CE.

          2.  Nominal stack heights, flows, etc., determined
              from information furnished by CE.
                               123

-------
         TABLE G-l.
SUMMARY OF  CE COMBUSTION TURBINE
INSTALLATIONS IN CHICAGO AQCR
Expected Full Load

Plant/Unit
Calumet 31
32
33
34
Electric Junction
31
32
33
34
Joliet 31
32
Crawford
31
32
33
Bloom 33
34
Fisk 31
32
33
34
Waukegan
31
32
Lombard 31
32
33
Approx.
ISD
1969
1969
1969
1970

1970
1970
1970
1971
1969
1969

1968
1968
1968
1971
1971
1968
1968
1968
1968

1968
1968
1969
1969
1969

Mfr.
GE
GE
GE
GE

GE
GE
GE
GE
GE
GE

GE
GE
GE
GE
GE
P&W
P&W
P&W
P&W

P&W
P&W
P&W
P&W
P&W
No. of
Turbines
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
Max MWe
Output
73.7
73.7
73.7
76.0

76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
73.7
73.7

69.2
69.3
69.2
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0

76.0
76.0
44.3
44.3
44.3
NOX Output
1975
663.2
663.2
663.2
692.8

692.8
692.8
692.8
692.8
768.8
768.8

473.6
473.6
473.6
713.2
713.2
1080.0
1080.0
1080.0
1080.0

1380.0
1380.0
780.0
780.0
780.0
Clb/hr)
1985
337.6
337.6
337.6
347.2

347.2
347.2
347.2
347.2
330.8
330.8

298.0
298.0
298.0
338.0
338.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0

360.0
360.0
201.6
201.6
201.6
GE - General Electric
P&W - Pratt and Whitney
                                124

-------
          3.  Test data used where possible; otherwise, NO
                                                          J\
              emissions scaled based on tests of other units
              or same unit  (when insufficient data exists).
              Only No. 2 fuel oil was considered.

          4.  Test data shows units out of compliance with
              Illinois regulations; 1985 values are those with
              units in compliance.

          5.  Maximum power output is 100 percent of rated;
              block loading not required.

Because of the high exit temperatures and volumetric flow rates,
CT plumes interact with steam unit plumes in most cases.  This
was substatiated through modeling.

          An outside consultant has performed emissions testing
on some of Commonwealth Edison's combusion turbine (CT) peaking
units.  The turbines were selected as representative of the
variety in use in the system.  Testing was conducted from
January through May of 1974.

          Emissions of gaseous pollutants were measured in a
self-contained instrumentation van using continuous electronic
instrumentation.  Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO ) and carbon
                                            X
monoxide were measured in this manner.  Excess oxygen, which is
used in the data analysis, was also measured instrumentally.
Continuous gaseous emission measurements were made over the
turbine operating load range and for all available fuels.

          Nitrogen oxides were also measured by the wet chemical
PDS method at selected points for comparison with instrumental
results.
                               125

-------
          Total aldehydes were measured by the MBTH method
using a wet chemical absorption sampling train.

          Particulate emissions were measured using primarily
the Federal EPA sampling train.  This technique uses an out-of-
stack collection filter in a heated oven to avoid water con-
densation.  Particulate testing was also performed using the
ASME in-stack filter method.

          Sulfur oxide emissions levels were calculated from
individual fuel analyses taken at each site.

          The emission tests were conducted to assess compliance
with the Illinois State Pollution Control Board Air Pollution
Regulations for stationary sources.  These regulations are
summarized below:

          NOV — 0.3 Ib/MMBTU burning either oil or gas
            X
                 (existing)
          S0x — 0.3 Ib/MMBTU burning distillate fuel (effective
                 5/30/75)
          CO  — 200 ppm at 507° excess air (existing)
          Particulates — 0.1 Ib/MMBTU measured by ASME Method
                 (effective 5/30/75)
          Aldehydes — not regulated

          A tabular summary of the program results are presented
in Table G-2.  Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,
aldehydes, and particulates are summarized at base load for
each of the units and fuels tested.

          NOV emissions at the normal operating base load
            X
exceeded the regulation for all turbines tested.  The one
                               126

-------
TABLE G-2.
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM CE CT's TESTED
(FURNISHED BY CE)
Station
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Crawford
Lombard

Fisk


Calumet
Joliet
Bloom

Sabrooke
waukegan
•Unit
34-4
33-4
32-4
32-1

31-1


32-1
32-4
33-1

34-2
31-2
Fuel
«2 Oil
#2 Oil
«2 Oil-
Gas
#1 Oil
Gas
#1 Oil
#2 Oil
#2 Oil
#2 Oil
#2 Oil
#2 Oil
Gas
«2 Oil
81 Oil
Additive
None
None
CI2
None

None
1,'one
DGT-2
CI2
CI2
None
-
None
None
Mfg.
GE
GE
GE
PW

PW


GE
GE
GE

GE
PW
Model
5000 M
5000 LA
5000 L
CG4-FT4A-9

GG4A-4DF


5000 LA
5000 LA
5000 M

5000 LA/M
CG4-4LF
can Type
Sr.okeloss
Smokeless
Original
Smokeless

Smokeless


Original
Original
Smokeless

Smokeless
Smokeless
Atoraizatlon
Pressure
Air
Pressure
Pressure

Pressure


Pressure
Pressure
Pressure

Air
Pressure
Emissions at Base Load
ppro
CO 9 50%
Excess
Air
0
0
54
0
128
33C
145
,101
115
107
78
27
25
26
105
Average Ib/KBtu
KOx
as NO.
0.554
0.543
0.460
0.396
0.836
0.423
0.686
0.667
0.734
0.527
0.5S1
0.519
0.266
0.527
0.593
SOX
as SO,
(Calc.)
0.062
0.062
0.346
0.291
' -
0.065 4
0.122
0.192
0.164
0.196
0.247
-
0.331
0.040
Aldehydes as
Formaldehyde
7.2xl9~4
4.9xlO~4
30.3X10"4
-
.
-
-
-
Zl.Bxlo"4
-
57.8xlO~4
Particulates
EPA
Standard
0.0182
0.0340
0.0167
-
0.0152
0.0250
0.0206
-
0.0204
-
0.0155
ASME
0.0036
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0102
-
0.0114

-------
exception was a GE 5000 M at Bloom Station using a smokeless
can while burning natural gas.  On oil this turbine did exceed
the regulation.  On the average about a 50 percent reduction is
required to meet the regulation.  The Pratt-Whitney turbine N0x
emissions are generally higher than the various GE 5000 models.
NOV emissions in Ib/MMBTU decreased as load decreased.  Water
  X
injection is the only technique that will guarantee compliance.
Low NOV dry combustor cans are being developed.
      X

          Most NOV test data were taken using electronic
                 X
instrumentation.  PDS flask data were taken at selected points
to establish correspondence between the instrumental and wet
chemical (PDS) measurement methods.  Agreement between the two
was acceptable according to CE's consultant.

          Gas turbine emissions were measured for three fuels:
No. 1 fuel (turbine) oil, No. 2 fuel oil, and natural gas.  The
No. 2 fuel oil was tested with and without additives.  Two
different types of additives were used:  CI2 at 40, 50 and 75
ppm concentrations, and DGT2 at 168, 251 and 335 ppm concen-
trations .

          Samples of the oil were obtained during the tests at
each turbine test site and submitted for laboratory analysis.
A summary of the oil analysis results is shown in Table G-3.
along with typical values reported for these two fuels.  In
using these oil fuel analyses to reduce measured particulate
weights and gaseous emissions to Ib/MMBTU, an average analysis
was used for each of the types of oils.  For gas fuel, the test
data were reduced using a typical gas fuel analysis, as shown
in the Table.

          The fuel oil was analyzed by three companies; this
                               128

-------
                          TABLE G-3.
FUEL PROPERTIES AND COMPOSITION FOR TESTS
(FURNISHED BY CE)
Station
Electric Junction

Crawford
Lombard
risk
Calumet
Joliet
Bloom
Sabrooke
Waukegan



Turbine
Mo.
34-4
33-4
32-4
32-1
31-1
32-1
32-4
33-1
34-2
31-2
Fuel
Type
#2 Oil

#2 Oil
#2 Oil
#1 Oil
*2 Oil
*2 Oil
til Oil
#1 Oil
#2 Oil
#2 Oil
#2 Oil
#2 Oil
#1 Oil
#1 Oil
Additive
None

CI2
75 ppn
CI2
75 ppm
None
None
DGT2
335 ppm
None
None
CI2
40 ppm
CI2
50 ppm
None
None
None
None
TYPICAL #2 OIL
TYPICAL #1 OIL
TYPICAL NATURAL GAS
Carbon
% b.w.
80.29

87.13
86.95
85.60
86.52
86.54
85.79
85.53
86.71
86.62
87,05
86.81
86.08
85.95
87.2
86.1
73.9
Hydrogen
\ b.w.
12.82

12.36
12.67
13.77
13.25
13.06
14.12
14.40
12.80
12.66
12.58
12.65
13.98
13.90
12.5
13.8
23.0
Sulfur
I b.w.
0.06

0.34
0.21
0.29
0.12
0.19
0.076
0.056
0.16
0.19
0.24
0.32
0.044
0.037
0.3
0.1
Nil
Nitrogen
t b.w.
0.07

0.028
0.022
0.02
0.023
0.010
0.012
0.011
0.017
0.022
0.023
0.014
0.006
0.006
-
0.02
2.5
Ash % b.w.
0.01

0.011
0.0
0.006
0.012
0.011
0.004
0.009
<0.001
<0.001X
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Nil
Nil
Nil
Oxygen
% b.w.
by diff.
0.75

0.13
0.15
0.32
0.08
0.19
0"
0
0.31
0.51
0.11
0.21
0.11
O'.ll
Nil
Nil
0.6
Water
ppm
-

26.9
63.0
28.1
70.1
138.5
78
79
87
198
96.8
-
—
Nil
Nil
Nil
API
@ 60*P
34.3

35.6
34.7
42.4
37.4
35.4
50.2
51.4
35.1
34.7
34.6
33.9
46.4
45.7
32.0
42.0
-
HHV
Btu/lb
19,337

19,650
19,406
19,900
19,599
19,524
20,365
20,474
19,540
19,430
19,420
19,340
19,850
ly,C50
19,430
19,810
23,440
C/H
Ratio
6.731

7.049
6.863
6.226
6.530
6.626
6.076
5.940
6.774
6.842
6.920
6.862
6.157
6.187
6.976
6.239
3.213
Calc.
so,
Ib/flBtu
0.062

0.346
0.214
0.291
0.122
0.195
0.075
0.055
0.164
0.196
0.247
0.331
0.044
0.037
0.309
0.101
Nil
Ana-
lyzing
Lab
CTE

PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
KVB
KVB
KVB
KVB
KVB
KVB



to

-------
analysis was made according to the following specifications
and methods:

          Water - Karl-Fischer, ASTM D-1744
          Carbon - Pregl Method
          Hydrogen - Pregl Method
          Sulfur - ASTM D129
          Nitrogen - ASTM D3228 (Kjeldahl nitrogen)
          Ash - ASTM D482
          Oxygen - By difference
          Heating Value - ASTM D240-64
          API Gravity - ASTM D287-67
          Viscosity (@ 100°F) - ASTM D445

          The sulfur content and heating value of the fuel were
used to calculate sulfur oxide emissions as S02,  in Ib/MMBTU.

          The heating value determined by ASTM D240-64 is a
higher heating value; i.e., the water vapor formed is in liquid
form following combustion in the calorimeter.  This higher
heating value is in general use throughout the boiler industry.
The latent heat of moisture in the fuel must then be considered
as a stack loss in efficiency calculations.  All data were
reduced in terms of this higher heating value (HHV).
                               130

-------
             APPENDIX H
POWER PLANT EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION
                 131

-------
                           APPENDIX H
           POWER PLANT EMISSIONS  CHARACTERIZATION

          Utility-owned steam-electric power generating  plants
in the Chicago AQCR are operated by the Commonwealth  Edison
Company (CE),  Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO),
and the Village of Winnetka (Winnetka Muni) .  All of  these  steam
units are larger than 25 MWe capacity.  Non-utility power plants
are owned by Bethlehem Steel (Burns Harbor Works, Porter County,
Indiana), Texaco (Lockport Refinery, Will County, Illinois),  Corn
Products, and O'Hare International Airport (standby plant).  This
standby power plant at O'Hare International Airport and the coal-
fired cyclone unit operated by Corn Products (20 MWe) were  omitted
because the former is insignificant and there are no  data avail-
able on the latter.  The omission of these two units  does not
significantly affect the results of this study.

         All utility power plant emissions were evaluated for
1975 and expected emissions were evaluated for 1985.   Typical
electrical demand as a function of time of day for various  con-
sumer types are shown in Figure H-l.  These demands produce
curves, such as the Commonwealth Edison typical summer demand
curve shown in Figure H-2.  The shape of these curves and,  hence,
hourly demand on system generation, are functions of  sociological
conditions (such as income), weather, sports events,  television
programs, diversity of load makeup  (percent residential, in-
dustrial, and commercial customers), day of the week, etc., and
can vary significantly from day to  day and season to  season.
Load (or demand), in turn, affects  the utility's choice of units
online and their individual power settings.  Emissions, then,
are a direct function of system and unit loading.  Unit loadings
                               132

-------
   100-1
UJ
Q.

I-
Z
UJ

O
UJ
CO

u.
o
UJ
o
o:
LU
O.
    50 -
                   INDUSTRIAL
         \
          \
            RESIDENTIAL/

          \

\ 	 1
2M 6A

• l
12N 6P
V
1

2M
           TYPICAL ELECTRICAL DEMAND  BY  SEGMENT
                         Figure H-l


                             133

-------
       WEEK  OF 8-1-77  TO 8-5-77
 10000-|
  9000-
  8000-
  7000-
O
<
O 6000
H 5000
O
UJ
2
  4000-
  3000-


  2000


  1000
      12M
                                               TOTAL
                  9697
                                                  COAL
                         NUCLEAR
                                                  OIL
6A
12N
6P
                                                    12M
     COMMONWEALTH EDISON AVERAGE SYSTEM LOAD
                        Figure  H-2



                          134

-------
are generally influenced by the types and amounts of generation
available, reserve requirements, and the incremental heat rates
(or cost of the next megawatt to be added or removed) of the in-
dividual units.  All these factors must be taken into account
in some fashion in order to realistically evaluate impacts.

          N0x emissions from steam power plants are functions
of residence time, temperature, turbulence, and excess air in
the boiler.  In coal-fired plants, nitrogen content of the fuel
is also a factor.  In general, NO  emissions are not proportional
                                 /N
to fuel input, but instead follow a characteristic similar to
that shown in Figure H-3; also, there can be significant vari-
ation among even identical boilers.  Consequently, the use of
actual unit test data, if available, can provide a more realistic
assessment of boiler NOV emissions than any other method; test
                       X
results were used where possible in this study.

          Commonwealth Edison has performed NOX emissions tests
on some of its steam units.  They covered all coal units except
those employing cyclone furnaces (exempt under Illinois law).
Tests were run by an outside consultant using high sulfur coal.
CE has, in the meanwhile, switched to low sulfur coal, and it
is thus expected that these data may be conservative, since
firing is presently being done using less excess air than before.
Approximate data have also been obtained for nominal N0x output
from cyclone furnaces.  These data from cyclone units are based
on utility heat rate and fuel analysis data, and AP-42 emission
factors.  In addition, CE operates one oil-fired plant (Ridge-
land) and is presently adding another (Collins).  Collins Unit 3
has been tested and the results of the test have been incorpor-
ated in this study.  In computing expected NOX stack output  for
CE units, the following points were incorporated or noted:
                              135

-------
MAX

-------
         1.  FPC Form 67 and AP-42 emission factors used
             for the following units:

             Crawford 6/Gas           (104 MW-Retired Aug. 1976)
             Calumet 7/Gas            (107 Mw-Retired Sept. 1975)
             Ridgeland 1/Resid. Oil   (173 Mw)
             Ridgeland 2/Resid. Oil   (173 Mw)
             Ridgeland 3/Resid. Oil   (173 Mw)
             Ridgeland 4/Resid. Oil   (173 Mw)

             It is assumed that the Ridgeland units will
             continue to burn oil for two reasons:l
             a)  Ambient pollution levels tend to be greater
                 than maximum allowable for coal.
             b)  Proximity of stacks to end of northwest-
                 southeast runways at Midway Airport.

         2.  For untested units in plants where testing was
             done, an average higher heating value (HHV) based
             on coal HHV from tests was used.

         3.  Collins 3 test data were used as expected values
             for remainder of Collins units.

         4.  It should be noted that the following cyclone units
             in the Chicago AQCR are exempted from NOX standards
             by state law:
1 Radian Corporation, Assessment of the Air Quality Impact of
                                                    th
Converting Ridgeland Generating Station (Commonwealth Edison)
to Coal, Revised Final Report , Federal Energy Administration.
Office of Fuel Utilization, 31 July 1975.
                             137

-------
              Joliet 5,6               (85 MWe, 340 MWe)
              Will County 1,2          (114 MWe, 167 MWe)
              State Line 4             (318 MWe)
              Fisk 18                  (129 MWe)

          5.  Powerton (2-850 MWe each) and Kincaid (2-606 MWe
              each) are large cyclone base load units not in
              the Chicago AQCR.

          6.  Unit stack parameters were linearly extrapolated
              or interpolated from FPC Form 67 data when unit
              loadings were not 1007o of Form 67 value.

In addition, tests were performed on many CE combustion turbine
(CT) peaking units; data concerning these tests are in Appendix
C.

          For stations existing in 1975, stack data were deter-
mined from FPC Form 67 (and CE site plans, when necessary).  For
the Collins Station, which is only partially complete at the
present time, the following procedure was followed:

          1.  Stack locations were determined from site plan
              dated 2/1/76 (furnished by utility) and signed
              by H. D. Clemens,  P.E. (Illinois).

          2.  Stack gas exit temperature was the high value
              national average for SCC code 1-01-004-01.

          3.  Volumetric flow rate was scaled from data for
              Powerton stack.

-------
          Other steam power plants in the Chicago AQCR are  the
NIPSCO D. H. Mitchell and Bailly Plants,  and the Winnetka Munici-
pal Power Plant.  Emissions data for these plants were obtained
from AP-42, FPC Form 67, and utility-supplied data.   No emissions
test data were used for the steam boilers associated with these
plants.  As previously mentioned, the Corn Products  and O'Hare
Airport units were omitted.  The Bethlehem Steel and Texaco
Plant data were obtained from NEDS and an analysis determined
that these units probably operate at maximum power output 100
percent of the time.

          Because the CE generating units use once-through
cooling, water temperature plays a large part in determining
the maximum power output levels and, hence, the maximum feasible
emissions.  Data from CE indicates that during a summer peak
period when the emissions problem may be the worst,  the units
are capable of producing only 85-90 percent of rated power; for
a winter peak, the level is 95-96 percent of rated.   For this
study, values of 90 percent in the summer and 95 percent in the
winter were used.  These values were also applied to the NIPSCO
and Winnetka Plants.

          Diurnal variations in power plant emissions were
simulated by calculating unit loadings based on heat rate and
utility use (base load, peaking, etc.).  These data were obtained
from CE, NIPSCO, and the Village of Winnetka.  This  process
yielded results which were similar to those obtained by each
utility's economic dispatch process.  In addition, load forecasts
to 1986 were made for the CE and NIPSCO electric system, and
data from these were also used to determine loadings.  These
forecasts are shown in Tables H-l and H-2.  Unit retirement
and initial startup data were obtained from the utilities and
used in this forecast.
                              139

-------
                        TABLE  H-l.  CE LOAD FORECAST
Year/Season
1975 Summer
1975 Winter
1985 Summer
Time
Mid PM
Mid AM
Mid AM
Mid PM
Mid AM
Mid AM
Mid PM
Mid AM
Early AM
Expected
Demand
12,300 MWe
8,100 MWe
6,800 MWe
9,000 MWe
6,500 MWe
5,900 MWe
21,700 MWe
18,000 MWe
16,000 MWe
Comments
From utility data
Elect. World Dir. of Utilit
(8100 x 9/12.3 + 500)
(6500 x 9/12.3 + 1000)
Load forecast
ratio 1975 summer rounded
based on nuclear and base
1985 Winter
Mid PM
Mid AM
Early AM
16,000 MWe
14,000 MWe
13,000 MWe
steam

Load forecast
ratio 1975 winter rounded
based on maximum nuclear
capability
                      TABLE H-2.  NIPSCO LOAD FORECAST
            Year/Season
            1975 Summer
            1975 Winter
            1985 Summer
            1985 Winter
               Time

               Mid PM
               Mid AM
               Early AM

               Mid PM
               Mid AM
               Early AM

               Mid PM
               Mid AM
               Early AM

               Mid PM
               Mid AM
               Early AM
                Ejcpected Demand

                1800 MWe
                1970 MWe
                1550 MWe

                1675 MWe
                1600 MWe
                1500 MWe

                2925 MWe
                2850 MWe
                2700 MWe

                2675 MWe
                2600 MWe
                2500 MWe
                                     140

-------
           Typical generating unit loadings for 1975 and 1985 are
shown in Tables H-3 and H-4,  and equivalent NOV output for 1975,
                                              J\
in Table H-5.  These values can be compared to worst-case values
of 90 percent load in all units except CT's in the summer and
95 percent load in all units  except CT's in the winter (all CT's
at 100 percent).  In general, the closer the typical loads are to
the worst-case, the more likely that the worst-case can be
attained on a routine basis.

           In addition, Table H-6 details a comparison made
between cyclone and non-cyclone boiler emissions for 1975.  In
the typical and extreme cases, it can be seen that 22-26 percent
of the shaft megawatts generated are responsible for 44-50 percent
of the NOX emitted.  This would indicate that controls on cyclone
units alone might have a very significant effect on NOV emissions.
                                                      f\
This is important because one effect of the proposed NSPS for S02
might be  a  renewed  interest  in the burning of medium sulfur
Midwestern coals which can be burned more efficiently in cyclone
furnaces.
                               141

-------
TABLE fr-
1975 ESTIMATED .UNIT LOADINGS
Pi«t/rnit
iias —
Joli«t



•S*vuf,a



Will Conner



SOU LIU



Crnterd


Fl«k

Uit.Umd



CUmC
suclwu-
Puk*r>
HlUlMll



SaUlr

f«k«,


F - FMkla|


5
*
7
*
5
6
7
8
I
Z
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
7
S
ia
19
i
2
3
4
7

CI
4
5
6
11
7
3
CT
1
S


i«4
»
13
a
B
*
F
II
3
IF
IF
IP
IB
F
P
IP
II
IP
1?
n
IP
n
F
F
IP
T?
IP
I
P
I
I
I
IP
II
1
F
F
S

•(•»
35.
33
MO
581
575
122
3«
305
305
144
t**
217
455
171
no
23*
318
1M
205
J60
U9
343
17J
173
173
173
127
3«00
1W7
13*
Ul
136
115
19*
422
i&.l
25.5
i5.5


i KM
Mi P*
12.300 iftVi
75
90
90
90
75
75
90
90
90
90
90
90
75
73
90
90
90
90
90
75
90
75
75
90
. 90
90
100
SOX4100Z
90
90
90
90
90
90
1001
75
IS

«>M«r
Sid AH
a. loo ;«<•
15
50
90
90
15
13
30
50
25
25
25
50
15
15
25
50
25
25
75
15
25
15
15
25
25
25
83
0
90
90
90
90
90
90
100X
25
15


X Ifex
£«rl» AM

M14 PM
»l«*r
Mid AM
4,800 MW. 9.000 Mite »,5M »;,
15
15
90
90
15
15
15
25
15
15
15
25
15
13
15
25
15
15
25
15
25
15
15
15
25
15
33
0
90
90
90
90
90
90
0
15
"

0
50
95
95
0
0
75
75
0
0
0
75
0
0
0
75
0
0
75
0
7S
0
0
0
15
0
100
10M 100!
90
90
90
90
95
95
1001
50
15

0
15
95
95
0
. 0
15
15
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
15
0
0
15
0
15
0
0
0
15
a
83
0
90
90
90
75
95
95
0
:s
15


; »»
Eirlv ?<(
5.900 y,«
0
15
75
95
0
3
15
15
0
0
0
15
a
0
0
15
0
0
15
0
15
0
0
0
15
0
8}
0
90
90
90
75
95
95
0
15
15

I - IBUIM4UC*
1 - tan
S - Standby


















     142

-------
TABLE H-4.   1985 ESTIMATED UNIT  LOADINGS








?laot/fulc }t»x.
SS'Jtea
Joliet



Uauictgan




5
6
7
8
5
*
7
a
Will County I



2
3
4
State Lin* 1



Cravfocd

risk-

RldfClaad



ColHnt
Nuclear
P«akar»
MltchUl
aallly
Pcakiri
Ulnnctka
P -
B '
S -
2
J
*
7
9
18
19
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
5

CI
4
5
6
11
7
8
CT
1
5
Paaklng
lat*rMdlate
Bar*
Standby
sss.
p
13
B
B
p
P
IB
U
IP
IP
IP
IB
P
P
I?
13
IP
IB
P
IB
P
^
IP
IP
11
IS
rs
IB
IS
s
?
i
i
•i
IP
IB
B
P
P
S



KU«
85
340
531
$75
122
as
305
305
144
167
217
455
171
140
237
318
205
360
129
343
173
173
173
173
520
520
503
503
503
11,000
1697
138
138
138
115
194
422
86.1
25.5
25.5




; Max
Mid P«
Z1.700HW*
50
90
90
90
50
50
90
90
75
75
75
90
50
50
75
90
75
90
50
90
SO
50
75
75
75
90
90
90
90
100
sowioox
90
90
90
90
90
loot
75
15



SuBMr
I Max
Mid AM
18.000MM«
15
75
90
90
15
15
75
75
25
25
25
75
15
15
25
75
25
75
IS
75
1}
IS
zs
25
SO
75
75
75
75
100
0
90
90
90
90
90
90
1001
25
IS




: Max
Earlv AM
16T50(TMH«
15
50
90
90
15
15
50
50
15
15
15
50
15
15
15
50
15
50
IS
50
0
0
15
15
SO
50
SO
50
SO
90
0
90
90
90
90
90
90
0
15
15




I Max
Mid PX
16, 000 ^«
0
50
95
95
0
0
50
SO
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
50
0
50
0
SO
0
0
0
15
50
50
50
50
50
100
10181001
95
95
95
95
95
95
1001
50
15



Winter
I Max
Mid AM
U.OOQiMc
0
25
95
95
0
0
25
25
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
25
0
25
0
25
0
0
0
15
25
ZS
15
15
15
100
0
95
95
95
95
95
95
1001
25
15




X Max
Earlv PM
IJ.OOOMWe
0
15
75
75
0
0
15
15
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
15
0
25
0
15
0
0
0
15
15
15
15
15
15
90
0
95
95
95
95
95
95
0
15
15



                    143

-------
           TABLE H-5.   1975  ESTIMATED NO  FROM POWER PLANTS (Lb/Hr)
PT iVT /I"VTT
rldfUt L / i»»tx 1
UTILITY
Joliet



Waukegan



Vill Co'^ncy



State Line



Crawford


Fisk

Ridge land



Calumet
Mitchell



Bailly

Witmecka

C. E. Peakers
N1PSCO Peakers
Total Emissions
SOS-UTILITY
Bethlehea Steel




Texaco Lockporc
Total Emissions



5*
6*
7
8
5
6
7
8
1*
2*
3
4
1
2
3
4*
6
7
8
18*
19
1
2
3
4
7
4
5
6
11
7*
8*
1
5




1
1
3
4
5
1


Mid PM

1745
7447
6525
6085
1550
1650
3240
3050
3620
4245
2050
3700
1695
1620
1760
6630
805
1055
2330
3100
2845
990
990
1185
1185
390
905
905
905'
795
4455
9010
135
35
10.000
895
99,520

2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
86
10,221
SUMMER
Mp AM

420
4215
6525
6085
370
395
1835
1730
1125
1320
640
2095
405
385
545
3760
250
330
1945
745
885
235
235
370
370
120
905
905
905
795
4455
9010
50
35
0
895
55,290

2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
86
10,221

EARLY AM

420
1490
6525
6085
370
395
650
950
725
850
410
1150
405
385
350
2065
160
210
725
745
885
235
235
235
370
80
905
90S
905
795
4455
9010
35
35
0
0
44.150

2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
86
10,221

kit) PM

0
4215
6885
6425
0
0
2700
2545
0
0
0
3080
0
0
0
5525
0
0
1945
0
2370
0
0
0
235
0
905
905
905
795
4705
9510
95
35
2000
895 *•
56,675

2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
66
10,221
MISTER
MHI AM

0
1490
6885
6425
0
0
650
610
0
0
0
740
0
0
0
1325
0
0
465
0
570
0
0
0
235
0
905
905
905
660
4705
9510
50
35
0
895
37,965

2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
86
10,221

EARLY AM

0
1490
5435
5075
0
0
650
610
0
0
0
740
0
0
0
1325
0
0
465
0
570
0
0
0
235
0
905
905
905
660
4705
9510
35
35
0
0
34,255

2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
86
10.221
*Cyclone Furnace
                                        144

-------
   TABLE H-6.  COMPARISON OF CYCLONE AND NON-CYCLONE  FURNACES 1975 ESTIMATED
               ESTIMATED NOX EMISSIONS

Total Units Available
No. Cyclones Available
No. Cyclones On-Line
No. Cyclones Spinning
Reserve
Total Units On-Line
Total Units Spinning
Reserve
Cyclone Capacity
On-Line (MWe)
Cyclone Capacity
Spinning Reserve (MWe)
Total Capacity On-Line
(MWe)
Total Capacity
Spinning Reserve (MWe)
Total Shaft (MWe)
Cyclone Shaft MWe
Cyclone 2 of Total
Shaft MWe
Total Emissions from
Steam Boilers
Total Emissions from
Cyclones
Percentage of Total
Emissions from Cyclones
Cyclone 2 of Total
Shaft MWe
Cyclone % of Available
Capacity
Cyclone 2 of Available
Units

Mid PM
34
8
(23. 52)*
8
(23.5Z)
0
( 0.02)
33
(97.02)
1
( 3.02)
1799.0
(23.92)
0.0
( 0.02)
7499.5
(99.72)
25.5
( 0.32)
6463.2
1587.0
24.62
88,625
40,245
45.42
24.62
23.92
23.52
Summer
Mid AM
34
8
(23.52)
6
(17.62)
2
( 5.92)
25
(73.52)
9
(26.52)
1585
(21.12)
214
( 2.82)
6418.5
(85.32)
1106.5
(14.72)
3842.5
993.25
25.82
54,395
25,050
46.12
25.82
23.92
23.52

Early AM
34
8
(23.52)
3
( 8.82)
5
(14.72)
14
(41.22)
20
(58.82)
934
(12.42)
865
(11.52)
4566
(60.72)
2959
(39.32)
3029.2
763.65
25.22
44,150
19,760
44.82
25.22
23.92
23.52

Mid PM
18
4
(22.22)
4
(22.22)
0
( 0.02)
16
(88.92)
2
(11.12)
1274
(25.72)
0.0
( 0.02)
4752.5
(96.02)
198.5
( 4.02)
3936.5
993.7
25.22
53,780
23,955
44.52
25.22
25.72
22.22
Winter
Mid AM
18
4
(22.22)
2
(11.12)
2
(11.12)
9
(50.02)
9
(50.02)
616
(12.42)
658
(13.32)
2326.5
(47.02)
2624.5
(53.02)
2542.3
683.9
26.92
37,070
17,030
45.92
26.92
25.72
22.22

Early AM
18
4
(22.22)
2
(11.12)
2
(11.12)
8
(44.4%)
10
(55.62)
616
(12.42)
658
(13.32)
2301
(46.52)
2650
(53.52)
2308.55
683.9
29.62
34,255
17,030
49.72
29.62
25.72
22.22
*Perce"ntage of Total.
                                       145

-------
          APPENDIX I
NIPSCO AND NIGC GAS SENDOUT DATA
               146

-------
                          APPENDIX I
               NIPSCO AND NIGC GAS SENDOUT DATA

          The following data concerning gas sendout were ob-
tained from Mr. T. R. Howorth, NIPSCO ,  and Mr. Norbert Oliver,
NIGC.
                               147

-------
                          Monthly Gas Sendout
                               Year 1975
                   Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana


The tabulation that follows shows the sales (sendout) of natural gas in
Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana, by months for the year 1975, "based on
the operating records of Northern Indiana Public Service Company.  The
operating records do not segregate sales by counties, but instead show
sales by operating districts of the company.  In order to derive sales
"by counties, assumptions were made about the geographical distribution
of gas loads in each of the districts under consideration and gas send-
out was then assigned to the appropriate counties.

The distribution of sendout and the assumptions used to distribute
sendout were:

     1.  All of Hammond district load is in Lake County.

     2.  All of Gary district load is in Lake County.

     3.  Half of Hobart district residential and commercial
         load is in each of the two counties.

     k.  All of the Hobart district industrial and other load
         is in Porter  County, none in Lake County.

     5.  In Crown Point district, nine-tenths of the residential
         and commercial load and all of the industrial and other
         load is in Lake County.

     6.  In Valparaiso district, half of the residential, nine-
         tenths of the commercial and all of the industrial and
         other load is in Porter County.

     7.  In Michigan City district, half of the residential, two-
         tenths of the commercial, nine-tenths of the industrial
         and all of the other load is in Porter County.

The tabulation is a summation of the loads in the several districts
distributed as indicated above.

There is a gas load variation during each day that cannot be quantified
but which follows a characteristic pattern both winter and summer.  The
amplitude of the variation is not as great in the summer as in the winter,
however.

In the morning between 0500 and 0900 hours the load will usually rise to
a peak about 50$ higher than the daily average hourly load.  There is
another peak between 1600 and 2000 hours about 25$ higher than the daily
average hourly load.   The pattern is the same both winter and summer, but
because of space heating, the winter daily peaks are more pronounced,
perhaps by 10 to 20$.

There is also a difference between daily and weekend loads.  A typical
Saturday or Sunday load would be 10$ or so lower than a weekday load.
                                     148

-------
                                     Gas Sales (MCF @ 1000 Btu)

                                   Lake County             Porter County

January 1975
     Residential                   3,003,920                  668,700
     Commercial                    1,1*77,260                  2^5,110
     Industrial                    9,ll6,**OO                1,313,600
     Other                            12,700                    8,000
February 1975
      Residential                   3,292,190                  651,650
      Commercial                    1,103,^0                  215,660
      Industrial                    8,503,900                1,195,7**0
      Other                             36,300                    2,300
March 1975
      Residential                    3,037,030                  602,000
      Commercial                     1,015,830                  200,1*70
      Industrial                     8,1^3,100                1,035,130
      Other                             23,900                    2,900
April 1975
      Residential                    2,696,850                  539,^0
      Commercial                     1,297,790                  612,770
      Industrial                     8,363,700                1,083,160
      Other                             U9,000                    5,200
 May 1975
      Residential                    1,555,700                  305,900
      Commercial                       1*65,1*70                   92,230
      Industrial                     7,3^,500                1,151,220
      Other                             28,100                    2,200
 June 1975
      Residential                      790,510                  150,050
      Commercial                       255,200                   39,350
      Industrial                     7,925,^00                l,5&*,6t*0
      Other                             16,300                    1,500


July 1975
     Residential                      556, U6o                  110,1*50
     Commercial                       196,110                   27,700
     Industrial                     7,W*,200                1,1*03,500
     Other                             11,500                    1,000
                                   149

-------
                                  Lake County             Porter County

August 1975
     Residential                      518,510                   96,100
     Commercial                       179j600                   26,960
     Industrial                     8,213,100                1,U88,010
     Other                             11,500                      900
September 1975
     Residential                    1,017,880                  121,650
     Commercial                       205,7^0                   35,530
     Industrial                     8,920,500                l,7Ul,060
     Other                             12,300                    1,300
October 1975
     Residential                      972,teO                  200,900
     Commercial                       286,U60                   59,6UO
     Industrial                     8,9Uo,900                1,570,850
     Other                             18,600                    1,800
November  1975
      Residential                   1,330,370                  278,350
      Commercial                      *a4,350                   88,U90
      Industrial                    9,767,700                1,81*6,560
      Other                            2^,UOO                    1,000
 December  1975
      Residential                   2,61A,310                  5^6,050
      Commercial                      772,730                  171,890
      Industrial                   10,U89,200                1,916,190
      Other                            23,700                    1,700
 TRHrBMG
 10-19-77
                                     150

-------
            NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY

          Estimated Large-Volume Commercial
             and Industrial Gas Sendout
          Chicago Air Quality Control Region

            Mcf @ 1,000 Btu and 1^.65 Psia
1973                                      Sendout

Jan.                                     7,671,000

Feb.                                     7,61*5,000

Mar.                                     7,352,000

Apr.                                     6,903,000

May                                      6,955,000

June                                     6,637,000

July                                     6,992,000

Aug.                                     6,825,000

Sept.                                    6,995,000

Oct.                                     6,802,000

Nov.                                     7,275,000

Dec.                                     7,162,000

Total                                   85,2lU,OOP
                                                  10-17-77
                        151

-------
                                                                    NORTHERN ILLINOIS CAS COMPANY
   Day
January
February
March
                                                  April
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
,_u 18
Ui IS
to 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
29
30
31
1.878,227
1,732.964
1,760.347
1.732,730
1.546,029
1.613,268
1,416.954
1,522,478
1.490,075
1.542.234
2,381,778
2,430,429
2.418,868
2,113.190
1,959.058
2.071,315
1,789,622
1,643.565
2,041.432
2,072,143
1,741,275
1,936,192
1,771.970
1,520.386
1,849.155
1.823.418
1,681,926
1,4-34,827
1.738,028
1,807,257
1.652.260
1,598,708
1,632.218
1,689,085
1,563,212
1,739,568
2,304,786
2,065.265
2,288,798
2,469,843
2,078,641
1,856,256
2,107,936
2,049,916
1,782,864
1,574,151
1,644,537
1,674,031
1,793,223
1,835,435
1,557,456
1,324,614
1,473,609
1,643.119
1,759,835
1,824,274
1.913,707
1,563,075
1,800.766



1,860,891
1,851,487
1.880,235
1,750,273
1,596,889
1,610,764
1,676,473
1,740.513
1,620,996
1,717,952
1,626,988
1,853.817
1,823,280
1,589,123
1,283,010
1,400,911
1,156,959
1,089,796
1,108,172
997,700
931,811
1,078,207
1.046,138
1,708,259
1,873,786
1.759,338
1,711,752
1,498,867
1,718.533
1.691.326
1,269,432
1,631,543
1,828,096
1,737,836
1.491,374
1,429,916
1,438,195
1,406,521
1,529,717
1,505,740
1,370,377
1,310,855
1,189,807
1,065,128
1,273,473
1,035,844
1,014,056
728,263
910,762
1,158,525
1,198,737
1.213,592
880,268
849,082
1,140,882
987,861
945,239
1,188,432
989,079
683,613
814,061

                                                                  Estimated Total Dally Gas Sendout
                                                                  Chicago Air Quality Control Region
                                                                   Met @ 1,000 Btu and 14.65 Pata
                                                                             Year 1975
                                                      May
                                                                789,310
                                                                697,002
                                                                755,947
                                                                792,685
                                                                867,452

                                                                936,912
                                                                863,807
                                                                881,514
                                                                687,170
                                                                534,922

                                                                791,412
                                                                962,368
                                                                774,466
                                                                712,727
                                                                832,640

                                                                695,682
                                                                381,535
                                                                519,530
                                                                622,762
                                                                577,252

                                                                689,770
                                                                666,619
                                                                584,166
                                                                407,553
                                                                476,733

                                                                578,607
                                                                617,623
                                                                629,815
                                                                628,940
                                                                528,513
                                                                439.223
                                                      June
                                                                  590,431
                                                                  664,413
                                                                  585,471
                                                                  630,949
                                                                  584,007

                                                                  570,392
                                                                  389,697
                                                                  569,639
                                                                  614,638
                                                                  621,110

                                                                  643,676
                                                                  598,275
                                                                  508,142
                                                                  434,758
                                                                  579,307

                                                                  583,998
                                                                  690,253
                                                                  604,610
                                                                  563,008
                                                                  442,548

                                                                  396,810
                                                                  442,948
                                                                  454,924
                                                                  464,659
                                                                  345,493

                                                                  491,781
                                                                  432,017
                                                                  307,926
                                                                  460,078
                                                                  562,707
July
                                                                   619,127
                                                                   634,482
                                                                   484,685
                                                                   428,542
                                                                   406,906

                                                                   551,338
                                                                   561,199
                                                                   595,739
                                                                   489,735
                                                                   413,179

                                                                   388,529
                                                                   491,555
                                                                   446,487
                                                                   498,170
                                                                   522,875

                                                                   558,377
                                                                   508,601
                                                                   482,522
                                                                   438,441
                                                                   428,817

                                                                   540,250
                                                                   650,935
                                                                   570,921
                                                                   561,533
                                                                   520.293

                                                                   480,610
                                                                   660,373
                                                                   568,954
                                                                   617,097
                                                                   612.739
                                                                   576.536
                                                                August

                                                                 539,893
                                                                 428,265
                                                                 557,317
                                                                 614,711
                                                                 534,100

                                                                 563,941
                                                                 590,419
                                                                 417,510
                                                                 428,490
                                                                 462,594

                                                                 383,299
                                                                 662,984
                                                                 567,497
                                                                 486,606
                                                                 537,626

                                                                 429,740
                                                                 475,196
                                                                 585,851
                                                                 611,462
                                                                 649,313

                                                                 632,044
                                                                 544.746
                                                                 475,438
                                                                 559,291
                                                                 619,214

                                                                 620.269
                                                                 637,170
                                                                 616,286
                                                                 439,406
                                                                 385.125
                                                                 437.746
TOTAL    56.117,400   50.608.928   47.523,678   35,946.874   20.924.657   15.828.665   16.309.547   16.493.549
September
              October
                                                                                                      November
                                                                                                                                                         December
426,581
515.028
455.604
475.079
471.312
350,364
463,791
686.480
732,120
696,133
800,176
819,841
794,900
663,143
795,991
726,950
707,664
715,368
705,051
741,524
855.311
796,858
728,322
879.526
890,781
795.582
597,477
688,760
836,091
803.063

20.614.871
1.113,567
1.003.476
727,669
577.340
666,487
726,588
675.066
740,544
816.526
791,843
679,787
519,720
640.726
672,226
970,296
995,864
1,066,139
939,406
979,482
793,147
755,443
686,063
690,325
850.362
1.025,333
1.011,734
899,280
980.666
1.204,740
1,272,573
924,915
26.397,333
725.742
611,838
713,096
730.379
686.875
691.119
622,813
642.351
828.068
1,183,055
1.241.640
1.597,156
1,740.447
1.483.182
999,658
926,105
895,936
1,038,098
1,002,217
1,480,964
1,664.308
1,516,990
1,528,822
1,718,393
1.931.989
1,691,541
1,564,429
1.544.490
1,059.797
2.031.823

36.093,321
1.815,867
1,684.526
1.646.624
1.151.842
1.124.969
1.604.194
1,549,850
1.613,407
1.730,137
1.636.496
1.695.121
1.448,303
893,975
1,162,197
1,760,703
2,048,813
2,510,996
2.291.446
1.765.106
1.685.899
1,733.223
1.707,012
1.677.276
1.510.384
1,521.960
1,725,417
1,680,045
1.706.863
1,611.449
1.674.481
1,457,559
50.826.145
10-31-77

-------
                    APPENDIX J
WORST-CASE NOx CONCENTRATION DATA FOR 1975 and 1985
                        153

-------
                 POWER PLANT INTERACTION GROUPS
Group I
          Bethlehem Steel
          Bailly
          Worst Interaction Point
488.5
495.6
498.8
       UTM
4609.1
4606.9
4605.9
Group II
          Calumet
          State Line
          Mitchell
          Worst Interaction Point
454.5
456.6
466.1
456.2
4618.0
4617.3
4609.6
4612.9
Group III
          Crawford
          Fisk
          Ridgeland
          Worst Interaction Point
440.1
445.7
434.8
448.8
4630.8
4633.3
4628.9
4634.7
Group IV
          Will County
          1/2 Way between Joliet 2 & 6 and
             Joliet 7 & 8
          Worst Interaction Point
400.5

409.75
414.7
4590.4

4590.95
4591.2
                              154

-------
                          GROUND LEVEL
                          )N AT POWER PI
                  WORST-CASE POINT FOR GROUP I
N0x CONCENTRATION AT POWER PLANT INTERACTION
                                                Concentration
Study Conditions           Contributor             (ytg/m3)
Year:  1975
Summer AM                 Power Plants              2076
C-5; 70°F                     CT's                     0
Wind Dir = 287.2*      Other Point Sources            28
Mix Depth = 271M            Vehicles                 133
R max = 10.8KM            Non-Vehicles               318
N02/NOX = %                Total NOX                2555
                           Total N02                1278
                           GROUND LEVEL
                          )N AT POWER PI
                  WORST-CASE POINT FOR GROUP II
NOV CONCENTRATION AT POWER PLANT INTERACTION
  X
                                                Concentration
Study Conditions           Contributor              (yg/m3)
Year:  1975
Summer AM                 Power Plants              1487
C-5; 70°F                     CT's                   416
Wind Dir = 288.4°      Other Point Sources           109
Mix Depth = 259M            Vehicles                 161
R max = 5.4KM             Non-Vehicles               336
NO2/NOx = %                Total NOV                2509
      ^                            X
                           Total N02                1255
                              155

-------
                          GROUND LEVEL
                          )N AT POWER PI
                  WORST-CASE POINT FOR GROUP III
NOX CONCENTRATION AT POWER PLANT INTERACTION
                                                Concentration
Study Conditions           Contributor             (yg/m3)
Year:  1975
Summer AM                 Power Plants              1077
C-5; 70°F                     CT's                   910
Wind Dir = 246.0°      Other Point Sources           422
Mix Depth = 274 M           Vehicles                 281
R max = 9.5KM             Non-Vehicles               499
N02/NOV = %                Total NOV                3189
      X                            X
                           Total N02                1595
                          GROUND LEVEL
                          )N OF POWER PI
                  WORST-CASE POINT FOR GROUP IV
NOX CONCENTRATION OF POWER PLANT INTERACTION
                                                Concentration
Study Conditions           Contributor              (yg/m3)
Year:  1975
Summer AM                 Power Plants              2023
C-5; 70°F                     CT's                   177
Wind Dir = 266.7°      Other Point Sources            40
Mix Depth = 311M            Vehicles                   '>
R max = 13.7KM            Non-Vehicles                31
N02/N0  = %                Total NOV                2276
      "                            X
                           Total N02                1138
                              156

-------
                          GROUND LEVEL
                          )N AT POWER PI
                 WORST-CASE POINT FOR GROUP I
N0x CONCENTRATION AT POWER PLANT INTERACTION
                                                Concentration
Study Conditions          Contributor              (yg/m3)
Year:  1985
Summer AM                 Power Plants              2076
C-5; 70°F                     CT's                     0
Wind Dir = 287.2°      Other Point Sources            38
Mix Depth = 271M            Vehicles                  68
R max = 10.8KM            Non-Vehicles               429
N02/NOV = %                Total NOV                2611
      X                            X
                           Total N02                1301
                          GROUND LEVEL
                          )N AT POWER PI
                  WORST-CASE POINT FOR GROUP II
N0v CONCENTRATION AT POWER PLANT INTERACTION
  X
                                                Concentration
Study Conditions          Contributor              (yg/m3)
Year:  1985
Summer AM                 Power Plants              1448
C-5; 70°F                     CT's                   212
Wind Dir = 288.4°      Other Point Sources           147
Mix Depth = 259M            Vehicles                  82
R max = 5.4KM             Non-Vehicles               454
N02/NOV = %                Total NOV                2343
      X                            X
                           Total NO2
                              157

-------
                           GROUND LEVEL
               CONCENTRATION AT POWER PLANT INTERACTION
                  WORST-CASE POINT FOR GROUP III
                                                Concentration
Study Conditions           Contributor             (yg/m3)
Year:  1985
Summer AM                 Power Plants              1026
C-5; 70°F                     CT's                   340
Wind Dir = 246.0°    „  Other Point Sources           570
Mix Depth = 274M            Vehicles                 143
R max = 9.5KM             Non-Vehicles               674
N02/NOX = %                Total NOX                2753
                           Total NO2                1377
                           GROUND LEVEL
                           )N AT POWER PI
                  WORST-CASE POINT FOR GROUP IV
NOV CONCENTRATION AT POWER PLANT INTERACTION
  X
                                                Concentration
Study Conditions           Contributor            '(ug/m3)
Year:  1985
Summer AM                 Power Plants              2023
C-5; 70°F                     CT's                    76
Wind Dir = 266.7°      Other Point Sources            54
Mix Depth = 311M            Vehicles                   3
R max = 13.7KM            Non-Vehicles                42
N02/NOY = %                Total NOV                2198
      X                            X
                           Total N02                1099
                              158

-------
INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
       159

-------
 NO  Concentrations
   X
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Joliet 2 and 6
Year:  1975


Studv Conditions
                            Wind Direction



   Contributor      North     South     East      West
i
Summer PM i
B-9; 80°F
Mix Depth =800 m
max = 1 . / km

NO2/NO - i/Z




Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =312 m
R max =4.0 km
N02/N0x = 1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth =312 m
R max =4 .Q km
N02/N0x = 1/4

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
490
86
7
24
3
610
305
976
219
20
70
13
1298
649
1025
219
20
82
97
i
1443
361
490
86
4
3
2 !
i
490
86
3
4
1
585 534
293 292
976
219
5
4
4
1208
604
1025
219
5
5
976
219
4
10
6
1215
490
86
13
2
1
592
296
976
219
41
4
4
1244
608 622
1025
219
4
1025
219
i
44
12 ! 5
28 45 28
1461 (1305 1321
365
326
330
                                   160

-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:  1975
Study Conditions
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst  Case Point for Joliet  7
    Contributor
North
Wind Direction
 South     East
West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
max — 4i ,o Km
NO /NO » "1/9






Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =312 m
Rmav sA f\ Itfn

MOo /NO = 7/7
WU2/ "^y -W ^





Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth =312 m

NO* /NO - 1M






Power Plant
PT ' o
Ul S
n*-Vio-»- Pninf"
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NO
X
Total NO 2
Power Plant
TT ' 
-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:  1975
Study Conditions
(yg/m )  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Will County
                             Wind Hirection
    Contributor      North     South     East      West
Summer PM
B-9; 80°F
Mix Depth = 800 m
R max =1.6 km
wn /\in = 1/9
Ml/2 ' Nvl •"-/ ^




Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =282 m
R max =3 . 6 km
N02/N0x = 1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 282m
R max = 3 . 6 km
N02/N0x = 1/4
t
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
676
0
134
15
1
826
413
1419
0
135
41
6
1601
801
1498
0
148
48
676
i
0
128
4
1
676
0
129
5
1
809 811
I
405 406
1419
0
165
5
2
1591
796
1498
0
176
1419
0
138
12
4
1573
787
1498
0
149
676
0
167
2
0
845
423
1419
0
146
3
1
1569
785
1498
0
157
i
6 14 4
Non-Vehicles 43 14 29 10
Total NOX
Total N02
1737
434
1694 |L690 (1669
424 1 423 417
                                    162

-------
NO
Concentrations (yg/m3) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Texaco
                                             Wind Direction
                                              South     East      West
  Year:   1975
  Study Conditions
Contributor
North
Summer PM
B-9; 80 eF
Mix Depth =800 m
R max -0.2 km
wn /
-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:  1975
Study Conditions
(yg/m )  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Bailly
                             Wind Direction
    Contributor
North
South
East
                                                  West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
R max =2.5 km

NO 2 /NO - I/ 2.




Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth = 272 m
R max = 3.5km
N02/N0x =1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 272 m
R max = 3.5km
N02/N0 = 1/4
x

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total NO 2
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
300
10
0
3
0
313
157
1508
100
0
5
1
1614
807
1592
100
0
5
300
10
0
5
1
300
10
0
24
5
316 339
158 170
1508
1508
100 100
0 0
8
3
1619
810
1592
100
0
9
7
2
1617
809
1592
100
0
300
10
7
35
8
360
180
1508
100
i —
31
100
45
1784
892
1592
100
35
8 l 117
4 10 6 215
1701
425
1711
428
1706 2059
427 515
                                    164

-------
NOX Concentrations (yg/m ) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Bethlehem Steel
                                                Wind Direction
                       Contributor      North     South     East      West
Year:  1975
Study Conditions
1
Summer PM
B-9; 80°F
Mix Depth =800 m
R max = 1 . 4 km
Kt(-> /Mrt s 1/0
WU2/WU 4- 1 f-




Summer AM
C-5; 70 °F
Mix Depth =200 m
R max S2.5 km
N02/N(D = 1/2
s\

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth - 200™
R max = 2 .5*™
N02/N0 - 1/4

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non -Vehicles
Total N0y
Total N02
813
0
0
1
1
815
408
2623
0
0
2
5
2630
1315
2494
0
0
3
813
0
0
2
1
816
813
0
0
3
2
818
408 409
2623
0

5
4
2633
1317
2494
0
1
2623
0
813
0
12
31
9
865
433
2623
0
i
0 62
= i
1
7
2
2632
1316
2494
0
88 j
46
2819
1410
4819
0
0 66
5 8 ! 103
16 42 7 226
2513
628
2542
636
2509 2889
627
722
                                    165

-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:  1975
Study Conditions
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst  Case Point for Mitchell
                             Wind Direction
    Contributor      North     South     East     West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
max = -L . " Km
xrri /wn 2 1/9
£11*2 /INU = J./ i.





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =212 m

NO * /NO = 1/7
MU2/ "^J -»-/^





Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth - 212 ™
HulX / . / *t™
MO« /NO « 1 1 L






Power Plant
PT ' G

nt~h^^ Pninf1
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
n "s


Sources
Vehicles
Non -Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
f"P lc

rjt-Vi^'r Pn'fnf'
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
146



1
12
3
183
92
718
108


3
21
9
859
430
758
i n»
JLUO

3
24
30
923
231
146
O 1
21

0
8
3
178 i
89
718
108


0
20
13
859
430
758
i no.
L\J O

0
23
' 42
931
233
146



1
4
1
173
87
718
108


1 4
51
23
904
452
758
i nfl
JLUO

6
59
75
1006
252
i
146
O T
21

7
36
9
219
110
718
108


41
i
88
42
997
499
758
i OR
J.U O

42
103
227
; 1238
310
                                    166

-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:   1975
Study Conditions
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst  Case Point for State  Line
    Contributor
North
Wind Direction

 South     East
West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth « 800 m
max J. . o KID
NO, /wo. — 1/9
"'-'2 /WU Lie.





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =262 m
Rmflv »^ *5 Icm

NfU 'NO * 1/7






Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth -262 m

NO* /NO = 1M






Power Plant
f"T * <=
l»I S
At-Hor Pninh
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N<3
X
Total N02
Power Plant



Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
PT 'Q

A«-V|Ai* Pn-tnf-
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
515



0
19
1
535
268
1501
0


0
31
37
1569
785
1584



0
36
123
1243
436
515



4
29
15
563
282
1501
n


17
48
47
1613
807
1584



18
16
34
1652
413
1
i
1
515



0
16
9
540
270
1501



0
35
28
1564
782
1584



0
29
187
1800
450
515



4
47
15
581
291
1501


i
4
246
130
1881
941
i
1584



12
i
144
320
2060
515
                                    167

-------
NOX Concentrations (yg/m3) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Calumet
                                                Wind Direction
                       Contributor      North     South     East      West
Year:  19 75
Study Conditions
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m

N02/N0 = 1/2






Summer AM
C-5; 70 °F
Mix Depth = 182m
R max = 2 2 ^o

NOz/NO = 1/2






Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth =182 m
R max =2 2 km

N02/N0 =1/4






Power Plant
r"r i o
H S

ucner roinc
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total NO 2
Power Plant
rr ' £?
V»l S
.
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Son-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
("T ' (*
CT S

uctier roinc
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
i
33
1 AQ
J.4-3

0
19
11
212
106
103
110=;
JLJ.UJ

I
43
42
1294
647
109
1 1 f\ C
1105

1
50
316
1581
395
33
1 A Q
.LM-y

6
23
10
221
111
103
1 1 n^
J-1U_>

0
68
45
1321
661
109
i i /\ r
1105

42
119
420
1795
449
33
T /. Q
i^-y

0
14
9
205
103
103
1 1 rm
lllO

0
23
31
1262
631
109

1105

0
30
209
1453
363
1
33
T /. O
14-y

4
54
13
253
127
103
1 1 n^
11 UD

3
117
56
1384
692
109

1105

10
137
320 \
1681
420
                                   16-8

-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:  1975
Study Conditions
(Ug/m3)  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Rldgeland
                             Wind Direction
   Contributor
North     South     East
West
i
Sunnier PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
R max —1 • 5 k.m
NO /Mrt — 1/9
1 * [





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth = 182m

MO* /*IO = 1/7
X





Winter AM
C-3; 20°F
Mix Depth - 182 m
Rmav a? *7 tr-m
max ™ t. . z K-ia
NO- /NO « 1/i






Power Plant
PT ' e

H-t-Vi^T1 *Pninf~
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NO
Total N02
Power Plant
^1 a


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT'Q

Dt-hpr P^^^ni•
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
334



4
61
7
406
203
1343



26
166
34
1569
785
1418
o


27
193
255
1893
473
334



137
32
5
508
\
254
1343



604
72
22
2041
1021
1418
o
u

638
84
162
2302
i 576
i
i
i
334
n i
u 1

3
41
7
385
193
1343



22
107
32
1504
752
1418
n
V

26
125
241
1810
453
334



2
38
j
5
379
190
1343



6
99
19
1467
734
i
I
1418
o
V

\ 6
i 117
145
1686
422
                                   169

-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:  1975
Study Conditions
(pg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst  Case Point for Crawford
                             Wind Direction
    Contributor      North     South     East     West
Summer PM
B-9; 80°F
Mix Depth =* 800 m

Nn /MO SB 1/9
*





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =242 m
Rrnay SB *3 1 ICTTI

NOo /NO = 1/7






Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth *242 m
Rmav s*3 1 Irwi

N02/N0 = 1/4






Power Plant
PT'c


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
PT ' <5


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
PT ' e


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
185
Q -3
OJ

0
66
17
351
176
617
O OT
J J.L

1
185
72
1206
603
651
O OT
331

3
217
541
1743
436
)
185
o o
83

1
66
19
354
177
617



65
155
80
1248
624
651
m'


56
181
i
i 600
1819
455
i
185
i
83

5
49
7
329
165
617
o '3^
JJ1

22
130
32
1132
566
651



23
147
238
1390
348
185

83

2
68
14
352
176
617
Oil
J31

5
163
55
1171
586
i
651



5
' 191
411
I
1589
397 ''•
                                    170

-------
 NOX Concentrations
Year:  1975
Study Conditions
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst  Case Point  for Fisk
                           Wind Direction
   Contributor      North     South    East     West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
max =JL •** Km
NO /!tfO — 1/9






Summer AM
C-5; 708F
Mix Depth = 272 n
RTnav so o c 1cm

MOo /MO - 1/7






Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth =272m
Rtnair « ^ *> 1cm

NO., /NO - 1/&






Power Plant
PT1 c

Hf-hpt* Pnint"
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT^<^


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total NO 2
Power Plant
TT'c

nf-ViAT* Pn "i n t"
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
383
Of.
o^-

2
98
18
585
293
758
7Q 0
/7O

9
242
67
1874
937
797
TO O
79o

9
283
503
2390
593
383
RA
OH-

8
114
20
609
305
758
70 o
/yo

36
312
84
1988
994
797
TO O
79 o

39
366
;
627
2627
657
383
o/.
OH-

0
59
14
540
270
758
7QO
/y o

147
127
58
1888
944
797
"7O Q
/yo

133
148
433
2309
577
383
OA
OH

74
104
17
662
331
758
7QO
/y o

204
269
70
2099
1050
797
"7O Q
/yo

204
315
524
2638
660
                                    171

-------
NOX Concentrations
                   (Ug/m3)  at Power Plant Worst  Case Point for Winnetka
       19 75
i=ar:
Study  Conditions
                       Contributor
North
Wind Direction
 South     East
West
Summer ?M
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
R max -0.7 km
vtn /vrv 1/0
a\J2/ «w i-l i-



Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =122 m
R max =1.5 km
N02/N0x = 1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth =122 m
R max =1.5 km
N02/N0 = 1/4

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total NO 2
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total NO 2
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
i
89
0
0
i
15
2
106
53
197
0
0
27
7
231
116
208
0
0
32
89
0
26
79
12
89
0
0
7
1
89
0
1
30
5
206 ! 97 124
103 49
197
0
197
0
130 0
238 22
l
61 6
626
313
208
0
142
225
66
197
0
1
62
<
20
280
113 ! 140
208
0
208
0
\
0 1
1
279 25 73
53 • 461 44 151
293
73
1090
273
277 433
I
69 108
                                    172

-------
NOX Concentrations (yg/m3) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Waukegan
                                                 Wind Direction
                                        North     South     East      West
Year:  19 75
Study Conditions
Contributor
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth = 800 m
max = <£ • u km
\tr\ /\Tr* — i/o
NU2/NO — I/ 2.





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =282 m
R max "3.6 km
N02/N0x = 1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth «282 m
R max *3.6 km
N02/N0x = 1/4

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total NO 2
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
328
53
0
18
2
401
201
1048
474
0
35
10
1567
784
1106
474
0
40
Non-Vehicles 74
Total NOX
-Total N02
1694
424
328
53
51
1 '
i
328 328
53
2
67 0
8 1
507 384
254 192
1048
474
1048
474
193 9
188
44
1947
974
1106
474
135
23
5
1559
780
1106
474
10
53
0
18
2
401
201
1048
474
28
25 I
7
1582
791
j
1106
1 *
474
1 28
219 27 ' 29
326 35 54
2260
565
1652 i 1691
413 423
                                     173

-------
 NO  Concentrations  (yg/rn3) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Collins*
Year:   1975
Study  Conditions
Contributor
        Wind Direction

North     South     East     West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
R max —2.0 km
un AMn = 1/7
JNU2/«v I/ £





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =240 m
R max =3.0 ^m
N02/N0x =1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 240m
R max = 3 . 0 km
N02/N0 =1/4
^

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02





0






0









i



1



..... ^
000
i
i




I
I


0






0






o
1
1



1


! j
1
0

1
0

0 0


          *Plant not in  service  in 1975
                                   174

-------
 NO  Concentrations (yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst  Case Point for Joliet  2  &  6
Year:  1985
Study Conditions
Contributor
North
Wind Direction
 South     East
West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
Rmav — 1 7 ITTTI

NO. /NO = 1/7






Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =312 m
R ni3.x =B4 0 fon

MA, /NO = !/*>






Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth « 31 2m
R TH3X * IL nlcin

N09/N0 - 1/4






Power Plant
PT* ts
\*i S

Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NO
Total N02
Power Plant
f"T * c
L.1 S

ucner roint
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total NO 2
Power Plant

\*L S
Ot-Hpv* Pn^n^
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
490
•57
o /

9
12
4
552
276
976

93

27
36
18
1150
575
1025
n o
93

27
42
131
1318
330
490
^7
•j 1

6
2
3
538
269
976

93

7
2
5
1083
542
1025
rt O
93

7
3
38
1166
292
490
•07
o /

5
2
1
535
268
976

93

5
5
8
1087
544
1025
f\ 1
93

5
i
i
6
61
1190
298
490
07
j /

17
1
1
546
273
976

93

55
2
!
1
c
1131
566
I
1025
rv o
93

59
i
: 3
38
.1218
305
                                   175

-------
 NOX Concentrations
Year:  19 85
Study Conditions
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Joliet 7
                            Wind Direction
   Contributor      North     South     East      West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
Rwia-y — O £ ]f TTI

N02/N0 ~ 1/2
o





Summer AM
C-5; 70 °F
Mix Depth =312 m
R max =A n km

N02/N0 =1/2



"


Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 312 m
RfflAX — / r> km

N02/N0 = 1/4






Power Plant
PT ' o
L.1 S

Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NO
X
Total N02
Power Plant
PT ' c

.
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
PT 1 «»
LI S

ucner roinc
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
-
Total N0x .
Total N02
247
Q"7
J /

5
12
3
304
152
1020
Q O
y j

20
35
18
1186
593
1077

3

20
41
131
1362
341
247
O ~l
01

1
2
3
290
145
1020
O T
y j

3
5
8
1129
565
1077

3

3
5
55
1234
309
247
O "7
O/

1
3

289
145
1020
o ^
y j

4
6
8
1131
566
1077

93

4
7
65
1246
312
247
O "7
37

11
1
1
297
149
1020
O 1
y j

42
2
5 j
1162 |
581
1077

93
1
45
3
39 !
1257
314
                                   176

-------
NOX Concentrations (ug/m ) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Will County
                                                Wind Direction
                       Contributor      North     South     East      West
Year:  19 85
Study Conditions
1
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth » 800 m
R max =1.6 km
NO /NO — 1/9
Wv/2 ' "" •!•/ £





Summer AM
C-5; 708F
Mix Depth -282 m
Rm*&Y 3*5 £ Ifm

MOo /NO =1/7 1






Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth » 282m

N02/N0 - I/A






Power Plant
CT ! e

Ht-ViAi- Pn"fnt*
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
^1 g


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT ' c
Ul S
n^-ViOT* Pn'fnt'
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
676


i 01
181
8
1
433

1419


1 CO
lo/
21
8
1630
815
1498


*) Art
200
25
58
i
1781
445
i
i
1
676



233
2
i
1
456

I
1419


TOO
Z2 J
3
3
1648
824
1498


o o o
238
3
19
1758
440
676




3
i
1
427

1419


T OC.
loo
6
5
1616
808
1498




i 7
39
1745
436
676

0

226
1
0
452 i

1419


T C\ "7
197
2
i
1
1619
810
1498

i
i
212
2
14
j!726
432
                                    177

-------
NO  Concentrations
 /vn = 1/9
IN U 2 ' " U A / fc





Summer AM
C-5; 70 °F
Mix Depth - 55 m

MO * /xio — i / *>
WU2/ A*v -L/ *.





Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 55 m

NO- /NO — 1 I L






Power Plant
TTT Q

n^ViPT* Pninf*
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
^'a


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
n ' «

Of"H^i" Pninf"
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
310
n


821
12
4
1147
574
370

0

1786
34
18
2208
1104
382
n


1770
39
128
2319
580
310
i
n


821
6
4
1141
571 i
370

0

1805
6
9
2190
1095
382
0


1790
7
• 65
2244
561
310
n
u

822
8 !
4
1144
572
370

0

1805
24
16
2215
1108
382
0


1790
38
122
2322
581
310



821
3
1
1135
568
370

0

1789
6
5
2170
'1085
i
1
382
0 i

i
1775
7
45
|2209
j 552
                                   178

-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:  1985
Study Conditions
(yg/m )  at Power Plant Worst  Case Point  for  Bailly
                             Wind Direction
    Contributor      North     South     East     West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
Rmav as 0 ** Ifm

NO „ /NO » 1 / ?






Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth » 272m
R max * 3 5 ^m

N0t>/N0 = 1/2






Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth - 272m
RTTIA v * ^ R ItTH

NO, /NO = 1/4






Power Plant
CT ' es
\fi S

Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
^1 0
s

ucner roinc
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total NO 2
Power Plant
PT 1 o
\>L 3
n^'hAt* Pn^n^
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
300
q
•j

0
2
0
305
153
1508
o/,
JH-

0
3
1
1546
774
1592
o/
34

0
3
5
1634
409
300
q
o

0
3
1
307
154
1508
o/.
J'f

0
4
4
1550
776
1592
o/
34

0
5
14
1645
412
300
•3
J

0
12
7
322
161
1508
o/.
JM-

0
4
3
1549
775
L592
1 /
34

0
4
; 8
JL638
1410
300
q
J

10
18
11
342
171
1508
o/
34

42
51
61
1696
849
1592
f\ / •
34 ,

47
i <
60
290 1
2023
506 '
                                   179

-------
N0y Concentrations
Year:  19 85
Study Conditions
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Bethlehem Steel
                             Wind Direction
    Contributor      North     South     East     West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth = 800m
R max * 1.4km

NO 2 /NO = 1/2




Summer AM
C-5; 70 °F
Mix Depth = 200 m
R max = 2 . 5 km
N02/N0x =1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth - 200 m
R max = 2 . 5 km
N02/N0 = 1/4
f

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total NO 2
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
813
o
0
1
1
815
408
2363
0
0
1
7
2371
1186
2494
0
0
2
813
0
0
1
1
815
i
813
0
0
2
3
818
408 409
2363
0
1
3
5
2372
1186
2494
0
1
2363
0
0
4
3
2370
1185
i
2494
0
0
813
0
16
16
12
857
429
2363
0
84
.45
62
2554
1277
2494
0
i 89
3 4 53
22 57 9 305
2518
630
2555 J2507 J2941
639
627 735
                                     180

-------
NOX Concentrations

Year:   19 85
Study Conditions
  3) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Mitchell
                         Wind Direction
Contributor     North     South     East      West
Summer PM
B-9; 80°F
Mix Depth = 800 m
R max -1.9 km
Ktr\ /\tr> — i/o
INUj /iNU ~ LI i.





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth = 212m
R max = 2 . 7 km
N02/N0x = 1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth =212 m
R max =2.7 km
N02/N0x = 1/4

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NO
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
146
14
2
6
4
172
86
718
67
4
.11
12
812
406
758
67
4
12
Non-Vehicles 41
Total NOX
Total N02
882
221
146
14
0
4
4
146
14
1
2
1
146
14
10
18
12
168 177 200
84
718
67
89
718
67
i
0 ^ 6
10
18
813
407
758
67
0
12
26
31
848
424
i
758
67
8
30
• 57 ;101
894
1 224
964
241
100
718
67
56
45
57
943
472
i
758
67
57
53
i306
!L241
310
                                     181

-------
 NOX Concentrations
(Ug/m3)  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for State Line
Year:  19 85
Studv Conditions
   Contributor
North
Wind Direction
 South     East
                                                                     West
Summer PM
B-9; 80°F
Mix Depth = 800m
R max = 1.8km
N02/N0 - 1/2

Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth = 262 m
R max = 3 . 3 km
N02/N0x - 1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 262m
R max = 3.3km
N02/N0 =1/4

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NO
X
Total NO 2
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
515
0
0
10
1
526
263
1501
0
0
16
50
1567
784
1584
0
0
18
515
0
5
15
20
555
278
1501
0
515
0
o
8
515
0
5
24
12 20
535
268
1501
0
23 1 0
!
25
63
1612
806
1584
0
25
18
38
1557
779
1584
0
0
564
282
1501
0
5
125
i
176
1807
904
1584
I
0 |
16
i
8 I 15 ! 73
166 i 46 252 432
1768
442
1663
416
1851 2105
463
526
                                   182

-------
 NO  Concentrations
Year:   19  85
Study  Conditions
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Calumet*
                           Wind  Direction
  Contributor      North     South     East     West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth =800 m
max = J. . J K.m
MO /Mn = 1/9
^ X




Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth = 182m
R max - 2.2km
N02/N0x =1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 182 m
R max = 2 . 2 km
N02/N0x = 1/4

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total NO 2
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02





0






0








I i
i



J
0







0 0



1
i


0 0










0
I


1

1
; |
! ;

0
j
0

0 0
f


         *Plant Retired  Prior  to 1985
                                   183

-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:  1985
Study Conditions
(yg/m )  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Ridgeland
                             Wind Direction
   Contributor      North     South     East     West
Sunnier PM :
B-9; 80 °F
.
Mix Depth = 800 m
max -1.5 Km
vn /Mn — 1/7






Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth = 182 m
Rmav ~ O 9 Vm

MHn /XIO — 1/7
WU2/ ^'^y •*•,* ^





Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth =182 m
Rmav z9 9 Vm

NO« /NO - 1 /^
j





Power Plant
f"T' <5

Ot-Vipr Pninf
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
^'c


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT ' c

fif-ViAT Pnint*
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
334

i

5
31
9
379
190
1343



36
85
46
1510
755
1418

0

37
98
344
i
1897
474
334

0

185
i
16
7
542
271
1343



815
37
30
2225
1113
1418

0

861
43
219
i 2541
635
334 !

0

5
21
9
,
369
IRS
1343



29
55
43
1470
735
1418

0

34
64
325
1841
460
334

0

3
19
7
363
1 R9
i
1343



8
51
26
1428
714
1418

0

8
60
196
1682
421
                                    184

-------
NOX Concentrations
Year:   IS 35
Study Conditions
(pg/m3) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Crawford
                             Wind Direction
    Contributor      North     South     East     West
Suamer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth = 800m
max — 1 . o Km
\rr\ /vrri — I/O
N(J2 /WU — LI i.





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth = 242 m
max j • J. IMH
; ,
X





Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth =242 m
max = j . i. tcm
MH /vn i //.






Power Plant
r»r t o

Of-hPT* Pninf"
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
fT 's


Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
fT'<3

nt-Ti<*r Pm'nf-
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
146
50
-/ J


34
23
257
129
485
208


2
94
97
886
443
512
208


4
111
; 730
1565
391
l
146
s ^
j .j


34
26
260 !
i
130
485
208


88
79
108
968
484
512
208


75
92
810
1697
; 424
i
146
^ ^
j j


25
9
240
120
485
208


30
66
! 43
i
| 832
416
512
208


41
75
321
1157
289
146
c:o
J O


35
19
255
128
485
208


7
83
i
74
857
430
512
208


7
1 97
555
1379
t
345
                                    185

-------
NO  Concentrations
Year:  19 35
Study Conditions
(yg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Fisk
                             V,Tind Direction
    Contributor      North     South     East      West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth = 800m
max - -L-'Hcm

NUT/NO - i/ 2.
*• x





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth =272 m

vtr\ /XTr\ = I/O
NO2/«Ux = Lit.





Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 272 m
R max * 3 . 5 km
Md /vrn — l //,
NU2/ «U z •!•/ ^





Power Plant
PT'C

OrhpT Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total NO 2
Power Plant
^'c

nt-Hpi" Pninf~
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total NO 2
Power Plant
CT'<5

Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
383
?8


2
50
24
487
244
758
9AA
ZOO

12
123
90
1249
625
797
266


13
144
!
679
1899
475
i
i
383
28


10
58
27
506
253
758
9fiA
ZOO

48
159
113
1344
672
797
266


52
187
• 846
2148
537
i
i
383
28


0
30
19
460
230
758
?fifi
Z.UO
j
199
65
78
1366
683
t
i 797
266


180
i 75
585
1903
1 476
I
383
28


100
53 j
1
23
587 I
294 j
]
758
9fifi

1
275
137
95
1531
! 766
| 797
266


• 275
161
707
2206
562
                                     186

-------
NO  Concentrations
(|lg/m3)  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Winnetka
Year:  19 85
Study Conditions
   Contributor
North
Wind Direction
 South     East
West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth = 800 m
R max * 0 . 7 km
NO /WO 1/7
2 X





Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth - 122m
Rvn-a'v — 1 R ]fm
max 1 . _> KUI
. .
X





Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 122 m
R max = 1 . 5 km
wn /\in — i //.
WU2/JNU — -L/ 1 '





Power Plant
PT* «!

Orher Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT * «

nt-h
-------
 NOX Concentrations
Year:  19 85
Study Conditions
(yg/m )  at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Waukegan
                            Wind  Direction
  Contributor      North     South     East      West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth = 800 m
R max * 2 . 0 km
vr/i /"Mr* I/O
NU2/NU ~ I/t




Summer AM
C-5; 70°F
Mix Depth = 282m
R max = 3.6km
N02/N0x =1/2

Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth = 282 m
R max =3.6 km
N02/N0x = 1/4

Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles'
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
Power Plant
CT's
Other Point
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total N02
328
142
0
9
3
354
177
1048
124
0
328
*
142
68
34
11
455
228 i
1048
124
261
18 96
14
1204
602
1106
124
0
20
59
1588
794
1106
124
182
112
100 ; 440
1350
1964
338 491
328
142
3
0
1
346
173
1048
124
328
142
0
9
3
354
177
i
1048
124
12 38
! 12 13
i
i 7
1203
602
1106
124
7
1232
616
i
i
1106
124
!
13 ! 38
i 14 ' 15
47 73
|1304 1356
326 1 339
                                     188

-------
 NOX Concentrations (yg/m3) at Power Plant Worst Case Point for Collins
Year:   19 85
Study  Conditions
Contributor
North
Wind Direction
 South     East
West
Summer PM
B-9; 80 °F
Mix Depth » 800 m
max = z . u Km
urn /xrn » 1/9
NU2'"U A/*





Summer AH
C-5; 70 °F
Mix Depth = 240m

MfU /NO as 1/9
«U2 /*'>-' J-/ ^





Winter AM
C-5; 20°F
Mix Depth *240 m
max = j . u K.IU
NO /NO — i 1 L






Power Plant
PT* s

O*-h^T Prtint
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total N0x
Total N02
Power Plant
n ' «?

nf-Vie»T* Prtint"
Sources
Vehicles
Non-Vehicles
Total NOX
Total NOa
Power Plant
PT '
-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Please read InXructions on the reverse before completing)
 . REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/7-78-212
                           2.
                                                      3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 inpact of Point Source Control Strategies on
   NO2 Levels
             5. REPORT DATE
              November 1978
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 . AUTHOR(S)
B.R.Eppright, E.P.Hamilton HI, M.A.Haecker,  and
   Carl-Heinz Michelis
                                                      8, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas  78766
                                                      10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              1NE624
              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

              68-02-2608, Task 14
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                                             VERED
              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
               EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES JERL-RTP project officer is J. David Mobley, Mail Drop 61, 919/
541-2915.
is. ABSTRACT The report gives final results of a study of the effect of two point source
NOx control strategies in the Chicago Air Quality Control Region (AQCR): combustion
modification and flue gas treatment.  The study involved the dispersion modeling of
essentially all point and area sources of NOx in the AQCR.  Gaussian type dispersion
models were used for nonreactive pollutants. The model results were adjusted empir-
ically for atmospheric conversion of NO to NO2. Two averaging times were consider-
ed: annual,  corresponding to the present National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for NO2; and 1-hour, corresponding to the anticipated new short-term
NAAQS for NO2. Results of the annual modeling indicate that large point sources are
not major contributors to annual average NO2 levels.  However,  results of the short-
term modeling indicate that large point sources can be important contributors to
1-hour average NO2 levels under certain meteorological conditions. Therefore,  the
control of large point source emissions can result; in significant improvements  in
short-term NO2 air quality.
17.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
                 DESCRIPTORS
                                          b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                          c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Nitrogen Oxides
Combustion
Flue Gases
Dispersing
Mathematical Modeling
Normal Density Functions
  Air Pollution Control
  Stationary Sources
  Point Sources
  Combustion Modification
  Flue Gas Treatment
  Dispersion Modeling
  Gaussian Models
13B
07B
21B

07A,13H
12A
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

 Unlimited
  19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
  Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
   198
  20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
  Unclassified
                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
190

-------