EPA-450/3-74-073
DECEMBER 1974
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
AMERICAN SAMOA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-74-073
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
AMERICAN SAMOA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
(Contract 68-02-1385)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1974
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
(SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW)
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 REVIEW OF THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5
2.1 Summary 5
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the Territory of American Samoa • • • 8
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current State
Implementation Plan 8
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS 9
3.1 Power Plant Analysis. 10
3.2 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment ... 10
3.3 Area Source Assessment 10
3.4 Fuel Assessment 10
4.0 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - State Implementation Plan Background 11
APPENDIX B - Regional Air Quality Assessment 21
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessment 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY 25
iii
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed report is the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review each
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be made to
control regulations for stationary fuel combustion sources without inter-
fering with the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA report to
the State on whether control regulations might be revised, ESECA provides
that EPA must approve or disapprove any revised regulations relating to
fuel burning stationary sources within thpee months after they are submitted
to EPA by the States. The States may, as in the Clean Air Act of 1970,
initiate State Implementation Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however,
require States to change any existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with
information on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of
ESECA is that SIP's, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of
conserving low sulfur fuels or converting sources which burn oil or
natural gas to coal. EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews,
therefore, has been to try to establish if emissions from combustion
sources may be increased. Where an indication can be found that emissions
from certain fuel burning sources can be increased and still attain and main-
tain NAAQS, it may be plausible that fuel resource allocations can be altered
for "clean fuel savings" in a manner consistent with both environmental and
national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel EPA's policy on clean
fuels. The Clean Fuels Policy has consisted of reviewing implementation plans
with regards to saving low sulfur fuels and, where the primary sulfur dioxide
air quality standards were not exceeded, to encourage States to either defer
compliance regulations or to revise the S02 emission regulations. The States
have also been asked to discourage large scale shifts from coal to oil where
this could be done without jeopardizing the attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.
1
-------
To date, EPA's fuels policy has addressed only those States with
the largest clean fuels saving potential. Several of these States have or
are currently in the process of revising S02 regulations. These States are
generally in the Eastern half of the United States. ESECA, however, extends
the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations to all 55 States
and territories. In addition, the current reviews address the attainment
and maintenance of a]J[ the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, three predominant reasons for the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation Plans.
These are: 1) the use of the example region approach in developing state-
wide air quality control strategies; 2) the existence of State air quality
standards which are more stringent than NAAQS; and 3) the "hot spots" in
only part of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) which have been used as
the basis for controlling the entire region. Since each of these situations
affect many State plans and in some instances conflict with current national
energy concerns, a review of the State Implementation Plans is a logical
follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal of the SIP's conducted in 1972. At that
time SIP's were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the attainment of NAAQS
ojr more stringent State air quality standards. Also, at that time an
acceptable method for formulating control strategies was the use of an example
region for demonstrating the attainment of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most polluted
air quality control region and adopt control regulations which would be adequate
to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an example region, it was assumed
that NAAQS would be attained in the other AQCR's of the State if the control
regulations were applied to similar sources. The problem with the use of an
example region is that it can result in excessive controls, especially in the
utilization of clean fuels, for areas of the State where sources would not
otherwise contribute to NAAQS violations. For instance, a control strategy
based on a particular region or source can result in a regulation requiring
one percent sulfur oil to be burned statewide where the use of three percent
sulfur coal would be adequate to attain NAAQS in some locations.
-------
EPA anticipates that a number of States will use the review findings
to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for those
States which desire to submit a revised plan to recognize the review's
limitations. The findings of this report are by no means conclusive and
are neither intended nor adequate to^ be the sole basis for SIP revisions;
they do, however, represent EPA's best judgment and effort in complying
with the ESECA requirements. The time and resources which EPA has had to
prepare the reports has not permitted the consideration of growth, economics,
and control strategy tradeoffs. Also, there has been only limited dispersion
modeling data available by which to address individual point source emissions.
Where the modeling data for specific sources were found, however, they were
used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based is the most
currently available to the Federal Government. However, EPA believes that
the States possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
States have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems facing
them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality.standards. Therefore,
those States desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify ands in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's
findings. In developing a suitable plan it is suggested that States select
control strategies which place emissions for fuel combustion sources into
perspective with all sources of emissions such as smelters or other industrial
processes. States are encouraged to consider the overall impact which the
potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations for com-
bustion sources might have on their future control programs. This may Include
air quality maintenance, prevention of significant deterioration, increased
TSP, NO , and HC emissions which occur 1n fuel switching, and other potential
}\
air pollution problems such as sulfates .
-------
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the
attainment of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total
suspended particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SCL) emissions.
This is because stationary fuel combustion sources constitute the
greatest source of SOp emissions and are a major source of TSP emissions.
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis
of the SOp and TSP emission tolerances within each of the various AQCR's.
The regional emission tolerance estimate is, in many cases, EPA's only
measure of the "over-cleaning" accomplished by a SIP. The tolerance
assessments have been combined in Appendix B with other regional air
quality "indicators" in an attempt to provide an evaluation of a region's
candidacy for changing emission limitation regulations. In conjunction
with the regional analysis, a summary of the State's fuel combustion sources
(power plants) has been carried out in Appendix C.
The American Samoa State Implementation Plan has been reviewed for the
most frequent causes of over-restrictive emission limiting regulations.
The finding are as follows:
• There is no indication that current regulations are overly
restrictive in the context of Section IV of ESECA.
• The Example Region approach was not used in developing
control strategies for TSP and S(L.
• The Territory's ambient air quality standards are identical
to the secondary NAAQS.
• Despite the fact that no air quality monitoring data for S02
and TSP are available, there are no obvious indications of
NAAQS violations because of the limited number of stationary
point fuel combustion sources.
-------
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations
will depend on many factors. For example:
• Does the State have air quality standards which are
more stringent than NAAQS?
o Does the State have emission limitation regulations
for control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources,
(3) area sources?
• Did the State use an example region approach for demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS or more stringent State
standards?
• Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Policy?
• Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenace Areas?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
sites within a region?
o Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) air quality data, does air quality
meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) air quality data, are there
indications of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources proportionally lower than those of all other
sources?
• Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in
the region?
• Must emission regulations be revised to accomplish \
significant fuel switching?
e Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?
The following pprtion of this repprt is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when
there are affirmative responses tp the above.
-------
The initial part of the SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix A,
was organized to provide the background and current situation information
for the State Implementation Plan Section 3 and the remaining Appendices
provide an AQCR analysis which helps establish the overall potential for
revising regulations. Emission tolerance estimates have been combined in
Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators" in an attempt to
provide an evaluation of a region's candidacy for revising emission
limiting regulations. In conjunction with the regional analysis, a
characterization of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants)
has been carried out in Appendix C.
Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions. The following table summarizes the State Implementation Plan
Review. The remaining portion of the report supports this summary with
explanations.
-------
STATE HfLEKNTATION PLAN KVIEU
(SUMNARY)
Ttrritory of
taerlctn
Sam
"INDICATORS"
• Goes the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
1. Power plants
2. Industrial sources
3. Area sources
• Did the State use an example region approach
for demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or
rare stringent State standards?
• Has t!-.e State not initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy?
• *.re there n£ proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas?
t Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data.
dees air quality raet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
are there indications of a tolerance for
increasing emissions?
t Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
cortustlon sources lower than those of other •
sources?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
sources show a potential for a regulation revision?
• Must emission regulations be revised to accom-
plish significant fuel switching?
• Based on the above Indicators „ what 1s the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations?
« Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
TSP S02
No
Yes
Yes
Y^
No
Yes
No
No
1
N/A
N/A
Yes2
N/A
N/A
Poor
N/A
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
1
N/A
N/A
No2
N/A
N/A
oor
N/A
N/A = not available
1 = s«!b1(i!fit air quality levels were estimated
t® (b£-fcs3w MMQS at the tints the S!P was
wri tten.
2 = based on 1970 emission data obtained from
the SIP.
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING - TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
The Territory of American Samoa, consisting of a group of fourteen
volcanic tropical islands in the South Pacific Ocean, is contained within
one Air Quality Control Region (#245). Presently, the Territory is
classified Priority III for all pollutants. There is no proposed Air
Quality Maintenance Area designation for any pollutant.
The ambient air quality standards for the Territory are identical to
the federal secondary standards and are presented in Table A-4.
No measured air quality data is presently available for the Territory.
A Hi-Vol particulate monitor has been installed recently and a SOp
bubbler monitor will be added by the end of 1974.
The most currently available and detailed emission inventory is for
the year 1970 (Tables A-6 and A-7). There are only four point sources in
the Territory - one power plant, two fish canneries (Starkist and Van Camps)
and one asphalt batching plant (Barber-Green Hot Mix Plant).
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Because no measured air quality data was available at the time the SIP
was written, an estimate of the air quality was made by utilizing the Miller-
Holzworth area model. This method indicated that sulfur dioxide and
particulate concentrations were well below the federal secondary standards.
Projection of emissions to the year 1975 showed that the atr quality in that
year would still remain below the federal secondary standards (Table B-l).
Despite these optimistic conclusions, a control strategy was promulgated to
prevent excessive degradation of the air quality. Included in the regulations
is a "non-degredation" policy.
"No degredation of the quality of the ambient air shall be permitted
in areas in which the concentrations of identified pollutants are
lower than the numerical standards established by these regulations
unless it has been adequately demonstrated to the Chariman of the
8
-------
Environmental Quality Commission that a degradation of the
air quality in an area is justified as a result of necessary
social or economic development and that such lowering of air
quality will not seriously interfere with or become
injurious to any assigned use made thereof."
2.3.1 Particulate Control Strategy
This portion of the strategy is directed towards visible emission
restrictions, release of fugitive dust, control of incineration and
fuel burning equipment. As for fuel combustion, an emission limitation
of 0.3 Ibs particulate matter/million Btu heat input was imposed.
2.3.2 Sulfur Oxide Control Strategy
The only regulation under this strategy is aimed at fuel combustion
sources and consists of a 3.5% sulfur (by weight) limit on any fuel sold
or burned in the Territory.
-------
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS
3.1 BOWER PLANT ANALYSIS
Table C-l estimates the effect of assuming that the power plant uses
the maximum permissible sulfur content fuel (3.5% sulfur). Because the
power plant currently burns oil and does not have the capability of using
coal without extensive modifications, no analysis was carried out on the
effects of switching to coal.
3.2 INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE ASSESSMENT
No assessment was carried out for the two industrial point sources
(fish canneries) because of two factors: (1) the 1975 SO^ emissions from
these sources already assumes that 3.5% sulfur content fuel is used and
(2) the boilers of these canneries do not have the capability of burning
coal without extensive modifications.
3.3 AREA SOURCE ASSESSMENT
The Territory of American Samoa was found to have no area sources
which could be evaluated in the context of Section 4 of ESECA.
3.4 FUEL ASSESSMENT
3.4.1 Energy Supply Potential
The Territory of American Samoa has no natural sources of fossil
fuel.
10
-------
APPENDIX A
• State implementation plan information
Tables in this appendix summarize original state implementation plan
information, including priority classifications, attainment dates, ambient
air quality standards, and fuel combustion emission regulations.
An emission tolerance, or emission tonnage which might be allowed in
the AQCR and still not violate national secondary ambient air quality
standards, is shown for S02 and particulates in Table A-9. The value of
the emission tolerance provides an indication of the degree of potential
an AQCR possesses for fuel revisions and regulation relaxation.
It is emphasized that emissions tolerance is a region-wide calculation.
This tolerance obviously makes more sense in, say, an urban AQCR with many
closely spaced emissions sources than in a largely rural AQCR with
geographically dispursed emissions.
11-
-------
Table A-l. American Samoa Air Pollution Control Regions
Air Quality
Control Region
American Samoa
Federal
Number
245
Priority Classification3
Parti culates
III
SOX
III
NOX
III
Proposed AQMA Designations^
TSP Counties
(0)
S0y Counties
(0)
rv>
Criteria based on maximum measured (or estimated) pollution concentration ()jg/m ) in area.
Priority
Sulfur oxide
Annual arithemetic mean
24 hour maximum
Parti cul ate matter
Annual geometric mean
24 hour maximum
Nitrogen Dioxide
I
Greater than
100
455
95
325
110
II
From- to
60-100
260-455
60-90
150-325
III
Less than
60
260
60
150
110
bFederal Register, August 1974, SMSA's showing potential for NAAQS violations due to growth
-------
Table A-2. American Samoa AQCR Population and Area Data
Area 1970 Population Density
AQCR County (Square Miles) Population (per Square Mile)
American
Samoa - 76 27,159 357.4
-------
Table A-3. Attainment Dates
AQCR Name
Particulate
Attainment Dates
Primary Secondary
Sulfur Oxides
Attainment Dates
Primary Secondary
Nitrogen Oxides
Attainment Dates
245
American Samoa
Air quality levels presently below standards.
-------
Table A-4. American Samoa Ambient Air Quality Standards
All Concentrations in ;ug/nr
Federal
State
Primary
Secondary
Total Suspended
Parti cul ate
Annual
75 (G)
60 (G)
60 (G)
24 Hour
260a
150a
150a
Sulfur Oxides
Annual
80 (A)
-
-
24 Hour
365a
-
-
3 Hour
-
1300a
1300a
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
100 (A)
100 (A)
100 (A)
aNot to be exceeded more than once a year.
(A) Arithmetic mean.
(G) Geometric mean.
-------
Table A-5. American Samoa Fuel Combustion Source Summary
AQCR American Samoa Power Plants Other Fuel Combustion Point Sources5
American
Samoa 1 2
aAll fuel combustion point sources in American Samoa included.
-------
Table A-6. American Samoa Emission Summary, Participates3
Total
AQCR (Tons/Yeai
Industrial, Institu-
tional, Commercial
Point Source
Electrical Generation Fuel Combustion
Tons/Year % Tons/Year %
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
Tons/Year %
Other Sources of
Part.Emissions
Tons/Year %
American
Samoa 175
22.5
13
14.4
8.2
138.1 78.8
a
1970 data from SIP.
-------
00
Table A-7. American Samoa Emission Summary, SOp3
Industrial, Institu-
tional, Commercial
Point Source Area Source Other Sources of
Total Electrical Generation Fuel Combustion Fuel Combustion S02 Emissions
AQCR (Tons/Year) Tons/Year _%_ Tons/Year % Tons/Year _%_ Tons/Year %
American
Samoa 510 167 33 333 65 00 10 2
a!970 data from SIP.
-------
Table A-8. American Samoa Fuel Combustion Regulations
Particulates: 0.3 lbs/106 Btu heat input.
Sulfur oxides: Limit of 3.5% sulfur (by weight) in any fuel burned.
-------
ro
o
Table A-9. American Samoa Required Emission Reductions
Air Quality which SIP
Was3Based ona 3
TSP (|ig/m ) SC>2 (pg/m ]
AQCR Annual Annual
1970
1975
Estimated
Estimated
1975
% Tolerance for
i y i \j i L» d u i HIO i#cu \ j t *j i /a luiciuiiwc i v i
Emissions Air QualitybEmissions Emission Increase
% Rollback Required (Tons/Year) (>ig/m3) (Tons/Yr) in 1975a
Part.
SO
Part. SO? TSP SO? Part. SO
Part. SO
245
44.6
13.3
-335
-500
157 510 45.8 22.6 220 868
244 254
"Estimated
bFrom SIP
cCalculated from proportional rollback (background particulate concentration assumed to be 40 pg/itr*, same as
in 1970)
-------
ro
APPENDIX B
Table B-l. Territory of American Samoa Candidacy Assessment for Revision of Participate Regulations
Counties
with
Expected Proposed 1970 Total % Emission
# of i of Monitors Attainment AQMA Emissions from Fuel
AQCR Monitors with Violations Date Designations? (Tons/Year) Combustion
Tolerance for .
Emission Increase
(Tons/Year)
Overal1
Regionwide
Evaluation
American
Samoa 0
No
175
21.2
273
Poor
Candidate
a...
Air quality levels estimated to be below standards.
'increase from projected 1975 emission levels.
-------
ro
ro
Table B-2. Territory of American Samoa Candidacy Assessment for Revision of SO^ Regulations
S02 Air Quality Violations Expected
# of # of Monitors Attainment
AQCR Monitors with Violations Date
Counties
with
Proposed 1970 Total % Emission
AQMA Emissions from Fuel
Designations? (Tons/Year) Combustion
Tolerance for Overall
Emission Increase" Regionwide
(Tons/Year) Evaluation
American
Samoa 0
No
510
98
1337
Poor Candidate
Air quality levels estimated to be below standards
Increase from projected 1975 emission levels.
-------
APPENDIX C
This section is a review of individual power plants by AQCR. The
intent is to illustrate fuel switching possibilities and SOg emissions
resulting from these switches on an individual plant basis.
23
-------
Table C-l. American Samoa Power Plant Analysis
ro
AQCR
Emissions (1970)a
so2
Fuel Characteristics (1970)a Part.
Plant Type % S Heat Input NOX
Capacity % A Annual Quantity (10° Btu/Hr) Tons/Yr Lbs/106 Btu
1975
Emission Limit
Part. SO?
American
Samoa
Govt. of Oil 2.993 x 10° Gal. 52
Samoa 0.7 % S
Power
Plant
167
23
43
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.1 lb/ 3.5 % S
10°Btu
SIP Projected
Emissions (1975)a
S02
Fuel Characteristics (1975)a
Type % S Heat Input Part.
% A Annual Quantity (10° Btu/Hr) Tons/Yr Lbs/106 Btu
Oil
7.02 x 10° Gal.
122
388
53
0.7
0.1
1975 Emissions
if 3.5% Fuel is Used
(Tons/Yr)
SO?
1940
Data from SIP.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) "1972 National Emissions Report," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-450/2-74-012.
(2) "Projections of Economic Activity for Air Quality Control Regions,"
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Prepared
for U.S. EPA, August 1973.
(3) "Monitoring and Air Quality Trends Report, 1972," U.S. EPA - 450/1-
73-004.
(4) "Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1072," 22nd Edition National Coal
Association.
(5) "Federal Air Quality Control Regions," U.S. EPA, Pub. No. AP102.
(6) "Assessment of the Impact of Air Quality Requirements on Coal in
1975, 1977 and 1980," U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, January 1974.
(7) "Fuel and Energy Data," U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Mines.
Government Printing Office, 1974, 0-550-211.
(8) "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd Edition," U.S.
EPA, Air Pollution Tech., Pub. AP-42, April 1973.
(9) SAROAD Data Bank, 1973 Information, U.S. EPA.
(10) Federal Power Commission, U.S. Power Plant Statistics Stored in EPA
Data Bank, September 1974.
(11) "Territory of American Samoa.Air Pollution Control Implementation
Plan," January 27, 1972.
25
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-74-073
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S \CCESSIOf*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR AMERICAN SAMOA AS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
5. REPORT DATE
December 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., Regional Office IX, San Francisco,
California, and TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, California
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1385
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974,
(ESECA) requires EPA to review each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine
if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion
sources without interferring with the attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards. This document, which is also required by Section
IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Air pollution
State implementation plans
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
29
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified .
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
26
------- |