EPA-450/3-74-079
DECEMBER 1974
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
WEST VIRGINIA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-74-079
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
WEST VIRGINIA
AS REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
800 Foil-in Lane, SE, Vienna, Virginia 22180
(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
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
(SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW)
Table of Contents Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 5
2.1 Summary 5
2.2 Air Quality Setting - State of West Virginia 10
2.3 Background on the Development of West Virginia's
Current State Implementation Plan 12
2.4 Special Considerations 13
3.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENTS BASED ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEWS. . . 15
3.1 Air Quality Control Region #103, Huntington - Ashland -
Portsmouth - Ironton (Kentucky - Ohio) 16
3.2 Air Quality Control Region #113, Cumberland - Keyser (Maryland) .17
3.3 Air Quality Control Region #179, Parkersburg - Marietta (Ohio) . 18
3.4 Air Quality Control Region #181, Steubenville - Wierton -
Wheeling (Ohio) 18
3.5 Air Quality Control Region #231, Allegheny 20
3.6 Air Quality Control Region #232, Central West Virginia 21
3.7 Air Quality Control Region #233, Eastern Panhandle 22
3.8 Air Quality Control Region #234, Kanawha Valley 22
3.9 Air Quality Control Region #235, North Central West Virginia . . 23
3.10 Air Quality Control Region #236, Southern West Virginia .... 25
APPENDIX A - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
APPENDIX B - REGIONAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX C - POWER PLANT ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D - INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E - AREA FUEL USE
-------
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 Coordin-
ation 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 interfering 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 three months after they are submitted to EPA by the States.
The States may, as in the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate State Implementa-
tion Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require States to change any
existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with informa-
tion 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 maintain 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 parallels 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 SC^ 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.
-------
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 all 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 effect many State plans and in some instances conflict with cur-
rent 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 o_r 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 pol-
luted air quality control region (AQCR) 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 1 percent sulfur oil to be burned state-wide where
the use of 3 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 lim-
itations. 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 emis-
sions. 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 cur-
rently available to the Federal Government. However, EPA believes that the
States possess the best information for developing revised plans. 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. Therefore, those States desiring
to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in many instances, expand the
modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's findings. In developing a suit-
able 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 encour-
aged to consider the overall impact which the potential relaxation of overly
restrictive emissions regulations for combustion sources might have on their
future control programs. This may include air quality maintenance, prevention
of significant deterioration, increased TSP, NOX, and HC emissions which occur
in fuel switching, and other potential air pollution situations 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 particu-
late matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (802) emissions. This is because station-
ary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of S02 emissions and
are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of
the S02 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, industrial
sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E.
The State Implementation Plan for West Virginia has been reviewed
for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive fuel combustion limiting
regulations. The major findings of the review are:
FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES. THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS THAT
EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS ARE
OVER-RESTRICTIVE
FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE, THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS THAT EXISTING FUEL COM-
BUSTION SOURCE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS ARE OVER-RESTRICTIVE.
The supportive findings of the SIP review are as follows:
Like many other areas of the nation, high levels of total suspended
particulates were found in many of the AQCRs during 1973. Fuel com-
bustion sources contribute a majority of the particulate emissions,
therefore, a relaxation of existing particulate emission regulations
may adversely affect existing air quality.
In most areas within the state, power plants are contributing over
90% of the sulfur dioxide emissions and any relaxation of the S02
emission limits for these sources would have a significant adverse
effect on existing air quality. Additional air quality data for
sulfur dioxide are needed before any regulation relaxation is con-
sidered. Many of the AQCRs are classified priority III for this
pollutant and were not required to have air monitors during 1973.
Recent action by the State of West Virginia parallels the intention
of Section IV of ESECA. In an attempt to reduce the impact of fuel
shortages, and to conserve clean fuel, the state submitted a plan
revision which would relax the regulations to permit the maximum dis-
charge of sulfur dioxide to be 45,000 pounds per hour rather than
32,000 pounds per hour from all sources in a given facility. The
impact of this change in regulations affects only one large power plant.
-------
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 lim-
itations. 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 emis-
sions. 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 cur-
rently available to the Federal Government. However, EPA believes that the
States possess the best information for developing revised plans. 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. Therefore, those States desiring
to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in many instances, expand the
modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's findings. In developing a suit-
able 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 encour-
aged to consider the overall impact which the potential relaxation of overly
restrictive emissions regulations for combustion sources might have on their
future control programs. This may include air quality maintenance, prevention
of significant deterioration, increased TSP, NOX, and HC emissions which occur
in fuel switching, and other potential air pollution situations 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 particu-
late matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SC^) emissions. This is because station-
ary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of S02 emissions and
are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of
the S02 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, industrial
sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E.
The State Implementation Plan for West Virginia has been reviewed
for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive fuel combustion limiting
regulations. The major findings of the review are:
FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES, THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS THAT
EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS ARE
OVER-RESTRICTIVE
FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE, THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS THAT EXISTING FUEL COM-
BUSTION SOURCE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS ARE OVER-RESTRICTIVE.
The supportive findings of the SIP review are as follows:
Like many other areas of the nation, high levels of total suspended
particulates were found in many of the AQCRs during 1973. Fuel com-
bustion sources contribute a majority of the particulate emissions,
therefore, a relaxation of existing particulate emission regulations
may adversely affect existing air quality.
In most areas within the state, power plants are contributing over
90% of the sulfur dioxide emissions and any relaxation of the S02
emission limits for these sources would have a significant adverse
effect on existing air quality. Additional air quality data for
sulfur dioxide are needed before any regulation relaxation is con-
sidered. Many of the AQCRs are classified priority III for this
pollutant and were not required to have air monitors during 1973.
Recent action by the State of West Virginia parallels the intention
of Section IV of ESECA. In an attempt to reduce the impact of fuel
shortages, and to conserve clean fuel, the state submitted a plan
revision which would relax the regulations to permit the maximum dis-
charge of sulfur dioxide to be 45,000 pounds per hour rather than
32,000 pounds per hour from all sources in a given facility. The
impact of this change in regulations affects only one large power plant.
-------
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 lim-
itations. 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 emis-
sions. 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 cur-
rently available to the Federal Government. However, EPA believes that the
States possess the best information for developing revised plans. 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. Therefore, those States desiring
to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in many instances, expand the
modeling and monitoring data supporting EPA's findings. In developing a suit-
able 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 encour-
aged to consider the overall impact which the potential relaxation of overly
restrictive emissions regulations for combustion sources might have on their
future control programs. This may include air quality maintenance, prevention
of significant deterioration, increased TSP, NOX, and HC emissions which occur
in fuel switching, and other potential air pollution situations 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 particu-
late matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SC^) emissions. This is because station-
ary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of S02 emissions and
are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of
the S02 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 C 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, industrial
sources, and area sources) has been carried out in Appendix C, D, and E.
The State Implementation Plan for West Virginia has been reviewed
for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive fuel combustion limiting
regulations. The major findings of the review are:
FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES, THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS THAT
EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS ARE
OVER-RESTRICTIVE
FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE. THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS THAT EXISTING FUEL COM-
BUSTION SOURCE EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS ARE OVER-RESTRICTIVE.
The supportive findings of the SIP review are as follows:
Like many other areas of the nation, high levels of total suspended
particulates were found in many of the AQCRs during 1973. Fuel com-
bustion sources contribute a majority of the particulate emissions,
therefore, a relaxation of existing particulate emission regulations
may adversely affect existing air quality.
In most areas within the state, power plants are contributing over
90% of the sulfur dioxide emissions and any relaxation of the S02
emission limits for these sources would have a significant adverse
effect on existing air quality. Additional air quality data for
sulfur dioxide are needed before any regulation relaxation is con-
sidered. Many of the AQCRs are classified priority III for this
pollutant and were not required to have air monitors during 1973.
Recent action by the State of West Virginia parallels the intention
of Section IV of ESECA. In an attempt to reduce the impact of fuel
shortages, and to conserve clean fuel, the state submitted a plan
revision which would relax the regulations to permit the maximum dis-
charge of sulfur dioxide to be 45,000 pounds per hour rather than
32,000 pounds per hour from all sources in a given facility. The
impact of this change in regulations affects only one large power plant,
-------
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?
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 demonstrating the
attainment of NAAQS or more stringent State standards?
Has the State not initiated action to madify combustion source
emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under the Clean
Fuels Policy?
Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring sites
within a region?
Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported violations
of NAAQS?
Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications of a toler-
ance for increasing emissions?
t Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources pro-
portionally lower than those of other sources?
Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in the region?
Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources show a
potential for a regulation revision?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when there
are affirmative responses to 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, and area sources) has
been carried out in Appendices C, and E.
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 re-
maining portion of the report supports this summary with explanations.
Any AQCR which has an air quality violation is automatically given a
poor rating. On the other hand, a region with no air quality violations,
no AQMA designations, low to moderate emissions, along with a small percentage
of emissions from fuel combustion sources, would receive a good rating. Those
AQCR's that have varying indicators would need further evaluation and would
be given a marginal rating.
After a candidacy has been given to a region, a follow-up analysis
should be conducted depending on whether a region is a good, poor or marginal
candidate. A region that has been indicated to be a good candidate for regu-
lation revision should be examined in more detail by the state and the region
office of the EPA, including an examination of current air quality, emissions,
and fuel use data, which obviously the state has more familiarity with but
was not included in this report. A region with a marginal rating in most
cases has been given this rating because of insufficient air quality data
with which to determine the current air quality status. If the state feels
that clean fuels could be saved in a particular region, then an analysis of
air quality data that-may have become available since this report should be
examined. Special air monitoring studies may be conducted if the state feels
that this would be beneficial in light of a clean fuel savings potential. If
current fuel use does not indicate a potential then further study would not
-------
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?
Does the State have emission limitation regulations for control of
(1) power plants, (2) industrial sources, (3) area sources?
t Did the State use an example region approach for demonstrating 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 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 (1973) air quality data, are there no reported violations
of NAAQS?
Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications of a toler-
ance for increasing emissions?
Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources pro-
portionally lower than those of other sources?
Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in the region?
Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources show a
potential for a regulation revision?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when there
are affirmative responses to 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, and area sources) has
been carried out in Appendices C, and E.
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 re-
maining portion of the report supports this summary with explanations.
Any AQCR which has an air quality violation is automatically given a
poor rating. On the other hand, a region with no air quality violations,
no AQMA designations, low to moderate emissions, along with a small percentage
of emissions from fuel combustion sources, would receive a good rating. Those
AQCR's that have varying indicators would need further evaluation and would
be given a marginal rating.
After a candidacy has been given to a region, a follow-up analysis
should be conducted depending on whether a region is a good, poor or marginal
candidate. A region that has been indicated to be a good candidate for regu-
lation revision should be examined in more detail by the state and the region
office of the EPA, including an examination of current air quality, emissions,
and fuel use data, which obviously the state has more familiarity with but
was not included in this report. A region with a marginal rating in most
cases has been given this rating because of insufficient air quality data
with which to determine the current air quality status. If the state feels
that clean fuels could be saved in a particular region, then an analysis of
air quality data that-may have become available since this report should be
examined. Special air monitoring studies may be conducted if the state feels
that this would be beneficial in light of a clean fuel savings potential. If
current fuel use does not indicate a potential then further study would not
-------
be warranted. An AQCR that has been indicated to be a poor candidate would
not warrant further study unless the state feels that new information has
become available indicating that the poor rating is no longer valid.
-------
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLA,I REVIE.J
(SUMMARY)
Huntington Cumberland Parkersburg Steubenvi lie
Ashland fc»v5=r Marietta Wierton Allegheny Central W. Va.
State ',!. Va AQCR 103 AQCR 113 AQCR 179 AQCR 181 AQCR 231 AQCR 232
"Indicators" TSP SO? TSP SO? TSP SO? TSP SQ? TSP S02 TSP S0_2 TSP 50^
Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS? No Noa
Does the State have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
1 Power plants Yes Yes
2. Industrial sources Yes Yes
3. Area sources Yes Yes
Did the State use an example region approach
for demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or
more stringent State standards? Yes Yes
i Has the State not initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel ,
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy? Yes No
Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
t Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes e e e e
Is there an expected 1975 attainment data
for NAAQS? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(i Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there
no reported violations of HAAQS? No Yes No No No N.A. No No N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there
indicationsofatoleranceforincreasingemissions? No Yes No Yes No N.A. No No N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources proportionally lower than those
of other sources? No No No No No No No No No No No No
Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
sources show a potential for a regulation revision? N.A. No u.A. Yes N.A. No No Yes N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Based on the above indicators, what is thp notpn-
tial for revising fuel combustion source emission
-------
STEUBENVILLE-
WEIRTON-
WHEELING-.
PARKERSBURG- INTERSTATE
MARIETTA (OHIO-
INTERSTATE^ WEST VIRGINIA)
(WEST VIRGINIA^
OHIO)
HANCOCK
CUMBERLAND-
KEYSER
'INTERSTATE
(WEST VIRGINIA-
MARYLAND)
HUNTINGTON
ASH LAND-
PORTSMOU
IRONTON
INTERSTATE
(WEST VIRGINIA-
KENTUCKY-
OHIO)
SOUTHERN ,
WEST VIRGINIA
INTRASTATE
ALLEGHENY
INTRASTATE
CENTRAL
WEST VIRGINIA
INTRASTATE
EASTERN
PANHANDLE
INTRASTATE
Figure 2-1 WEST VIRGINIA AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING - STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
2.2.1 West Virginia Air Pollution Control Areas
The State of West Virginia has been divided into ten Air Quality
Control Regions (AQCR) as follows:
Huntington - Ashland - Portsmouth - Ironton Interstate (Kentucky, Ohio)
Cumberland - Keyser Interstate (Maryland)
Parkersburg - Marietta Interstate (Ohio)
Steubenville - Wierton - Wheeling Interstate (Ohio)
Allegheny Intrastate
Central West Virginia Intrastate
Eastern Panhandle Intrastate
Kanawha Valley Intrastate
North Central West Virginia Intrastate
Southern West Virginia Intrastate
These regions are also shown on Table A-l, along with the priority
classifications for total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide, and
an estimate of the 1975 population in each AQCR. There are no Air Quality
Maintenance Areas proposed at this time.
2.2.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards
West Virginia has established ambient air quality standards for sus-
pended particulates and sulfur dioxide. These standards which are shown in
Table A-2 are the same as the Federal standards, except that the state has
established secondary annual and 24-hour standards for sulfur dioxide.
2.2.3 West Virginia Air Quality Status
West Virginia Air Quality for 1973 is summarized in Table A-3 and
A-4 for suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide respectively. These data
are from the SAROAD data bank, July 28, 1974. It should be noted not all
of the air quality data collected by the state are necessarily in the data
bank.
Total suspended particulate data are available for seven of the ten
Air Quality Control Regions. There are no air monitoring data for the
Allegheny, Central West Virginia, and Eastern Panhandle regions. These
regions are all classified as priority III for particulates, and are not
10
-------
required to establish air monitors until two years after the State Imple-
mentation Plan is approved. The Southern West Virginia AQCR is also a
priority III region however air quality data for suspended particulates
are available. Table A-3 shows that of the seven regions monitoring par-
ti culates, five regions require a significant reduction in the 1973 levels
in order to attain air quality standards, while one region requires a
minimal reduction, and one region has a tolerance for an increase in am-
bient levels and still maintain standards. The highest concentration in
West Virginia for an annual geometric mean was 73 yg/m3, and for the maxi-
mum 24-hour average, 475 yg/m3, recorded in the Huntington - Ashland -
Portsmouth - Ironton region and the Steubenville - Wierton - Wheeling re-
gion respectively. Suspended particulate levels are generally consistent
with Priority classifications as the regions that are reporting air quality
violations have a Priority I classification.
Sulfur dioxide is monitored in four of the ten AQCR's, however there
are seven regions that are classified priority III for this pollutant, and
again, monitoring was not required in these regions during 1973. As indi-
cated in Table A-3, three regions; the Huntington - Ashland - Portsmouth -
Ironton, the Cumberland - Keyser, and the Kanawha Valley, have a tolerance
for an increase in 1973 ambient levels and still maintain standards. How-
ever, supplemental information as reviewed in Section 2.1 indicates that
these regions are only marginal candidates for regulation revision.
2.2.4 West Virginia Emissions Summary
A summary of total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide emissions
are presented in Table A-6 and A-7 respectively. These data are from the
1972 National Emissions Report, June 1974. It should be noted that there
are some deficiencies in the inventory, especially because it is outdated
for some of the regions. Much of the inventory was done before many sour-
ces installed control equipment, and some sources have come on line since
the inventory was completed.
II
-------
The majority of participate emissions occur in the interstate AQCR's
with the greatest amount of emissions in the Huntington - Ashland - Ports-
mouth - Ironton region. Sulfur dioxide emissions follow closely the
pattern of particulate emissions, in that the Interstate Regions have the
majority of emissions. The greatest amount of S02 emissions occurs in the
Steubenville - Wierton - Wheeling AQCR.
Table A-5 shows the number of power plants in each AQCR, and also
indicates that there are no major fuel combustion point sources of either
particulates or sulfur dioxide in the state. This information was also
taken from the National Emission Report, and has obvious deficiencies.
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the National
Emissions Data System Point Source listing although there are several
of these sources in the state.
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WEST VIRGINIA'S CURRENT STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2.3.1 Control Strategy for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides
The Kanawha Valley Intrastate and Steubenville - Wierton -
Wheeling Interstate Regions were designated as the example regions for
the development of the control strategies for particulate matter in all
Priority I regions (there are no Priority II regions) and for sulfur
oxides in Priority I and Priority II regions, respectively. These
regions were selected as example regions due to their high emissions,
poor air quality, and similarity to the other regions. West Virginia
shows attainment and maintenance of the national standards for particulate
matter and sulfur oxides through the use of a proportional model. Growth
factors, based on EPA data, and planned growth and economic projections
were applied to each category of emission sources to determine projected
emissions after application of the adopted emission limitations. Since
the projected emissions are less than that which will allow attainment
of the national standards in the example regions, the national standards
will be attained in all Priority I regions for particulate matter and in
all Priority I and Priority II regions for sulfur oxides, and since the
12
-------
capability of denying permits for the construction of new sources or the
modification of existing sources, the Federal Standards of Performance of
New Stationary Sources and the application of the statewide emission limi-
tations will prevent ambient pollution levels from exceeding secondary
standards for sulfur oxides and particulate matter in all regions, the
control strategies are recommended for approval.
2.4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
A revision to the West Virginia Implementation Plan was approved
on August 12, 1974. This revision relaxes the regulations to permit the
maximum discharge of sulfur dioxide to be 45,000 pounds per hour rather
than 32,000 pounds per hour from all sources in a given facility. The
impact of this change affects only one large power plant.
13
-------
14
-------
3.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENTS BASED ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEWS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the available information
for the State of West Virginia and determine the feasibility of revisions
to the SIP which would result in clean fuel conservation. The assessments
will be made by AQCR, addressing each type of fuel combustion source:
power plants, large industrial and commercial/institutional sources, and
area sources. The assessments must be made for each pollutant separately
and are made on the basis of seven criteria: (1) 1973 air quality vio-
lations; (2) expected NAAQS attainment dates; (3) proposed Air Quality
Maintenance Area (AQMA) designations; (4) total emissions; (5) portion
of emissions from West Virginia fuel combustion sources; (6) regional
tolerance for emissions increase; and (7) pollutant priority classifi-
cations. Tables B-l and B-2 tabulate these criteria for each AQCR for
TSP and S0?, respectively.
Table C-l shows the 1973 fuel use and sulfur content of the fuel
used by each plant. The sulfur content is an average for the year, as
variations of up to 20% are common. Also shown in this table is the pro-
jected fuel use for 1975 for each plant, and the sulfur content as re-
quired by the State Implementation Plan. Allowable sulfur content deter-
mined by modeling results are also shown. There are limitations in the
results obtained by modeling because often assumptions are made in the
input to the model, when actual data are not available. Modeling results
are presented here as another indicator in assessing the candidacy of a
region to revise emission regulations.
There is no assessment of Industrial, Commercial, or Institutional
point sources, nor is there an Appendix D in the report, as there were
no point sources other than power plants listed in the NEDS inventory.
The modeling analysis of the power plants were performed by the Walden
Research Division of Abcor Inc. A single-source and valley model, developed
by the Meteorology Laboratory, EPA, was used. The model employs a Gaussian
plume model and Briggs plume rise equation.
15
-------
3.1 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #103, HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND-PORTSMOUTH-
IRONTON (KENTUCKY, OHIO)
3.1.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
Ambient air levels of total suspended participates exceeded both the
annual and 24 hour secondary standards in the West Virginia portion of this
AQCR during 1973 (Table A-3). A significant reduction in these levels is
needed in order to meet air quality standards.
Sulfur dioxide levels were below ambient air quality standards (Table
A-4) and the data indicate that there is a tolerance for an increase in the
1973 levels, and still maintain air quality standards. All of the SO,, mon-
itoring sites are located outside of the West Virginia portion of this AQCR,
and of these stations, less than half had sufficient data with which to
calculate an annual arithmetic mean.
3.1.2 Power Plant Assessment
There is one power plant in the West Virginia portion of the AQCR,
the Sporn plant in Mason County. Modeling results indicate that with the
projected 1975 fuel use, the sulfur content can remain almost the same as
that used in 1973 (Table C-l), although the SIP allows a slight increase in
the content. This plant contributes 98% of the particulate and sulfur
dioxide emissions in the West Virginia portion of the AQCR.
3.1.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for the West Virginia portion of this AQCR.
3.1.4 Area Source Assessment
Total fuel use for area sources is presented in Table E-l. Area
source fuel combustion in the West Virginia portion of this AQCR makes up
less than one percent of the total particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions.
3.1.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Total fuel use by the region is presented in Appendix E.
16
-------
3.2 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #113, CUMBERLAND-KEYSER (MARYLAND)
3.2.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
Ambient air levels of suspended particulate matter exceeded both
the annual and 24-hour secondary standard during 1973 (Table A-3) in this
AQCR. However, all six of the monitoring stations for this pollutant are
located in the Maryland portion of the AQCR.
Sulfur dioxide levels were below the standard in this region, during
1973 and the data indicate a tolerance for an increase in the ambient levels,
(Table A-4). As with particulate monitoring, all of the S0? monitoring sites
are located in Maryland.
3.2.2 Power Plant Assessment
There is one power plant in the West Virginia portion of this AQCR,
the Mount Storm plant in Grant County. This plant accounts for over 99%
of the particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions in the West Virginia portion
of this AQCR. Modeling results show that in 1975 the sulfur content can
be increased slightly from that used in 1973, although the SIP requires a
slight reduction (Table C-l). This plant was involved in some controversy
during the late 1960's when the plant was thought to be damaging some
Christmas trees near the plant in Maryland. Virginia Electric and Power
Company made an out of court settlement for the damages. In light of this
situation, sulfur dioxide data need to be evaluated in more detail.
3.2.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for the West Virginia portion of this AQCR.
3.2.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion contributes less than one-half percent
of the particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions in the West Virginia portion
of this AQCR. Fuel use by area sources is presented in Table E-l.
3.2.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Total fuel use data by the region is presented in Appendix E.
17
-------
3.3 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #179, PARKERSBURG - MARIETTA (OHIO)
3.3.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
There were insufficient air monitoring data for suspended particulates
collected in this region to determine an annual geometric mean for 1973,
however, the second highest 24-hour value of 151 yg/m3 barely exceeded the
secondary standard of 150 yg/m3. A minimal reduction in the 1973 ambient
levels is required to achieve standards for this pollutant.
The air quality status of sulfur dioxide is difficult to assess
since there are no 1973 data available for either the 24-hour bubbler or
continuous monitor.
3.3.2 Power Plant Assessment
There is one power plant in the West Virginia portion of this AQCR,
the Willow Island plant in Pleasants County. This plant has been burning
high sulfur coal, 4.5% in 1972 and 3.72% in 1973. Modeling results show
that in 1975, the sulfur content will have to be reduced to 1.5% which is
also required by the SIP to maintain air quality standards in the vicinity
of the plant (Table C-l). This plant contributes approximately 91% of the
particulate emissions, and 98% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in the West
Virginia portion of this AQCR.
3.3.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the
NEDS inventory for the West Virginia portion of this AQCR.
3.3.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion contributes approximately 3% of the
particulate emissions and 1% of the sulfur dioxide emissions within the
West Virginia portion of this AQCR.
3.3.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use data by the region is presented in Appendix E.
3.4 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #181, STEUBENVILLE-WIERTON-WHEELING (OHIO)
18
-------
3.4.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
Ambient levels of total suspended participates in this AQCR exceeded
both the annual and 24-hour secondary standards in 1973. Of the thirty-six
monitoring stations in this region, sixteen stations exceeded the annual
standard, and twenty-six stations exceeded the 24-hour standard. There were
insufficient data in the West Virginia portion of the AQCR to calculate an
annual geometric mean, however, the secondary 24-hour standard was exceeded
at five of the twelve West Virginia monitoring sites. A significant reduction
in 1973 ambient levels is required at attain air quality standards in this
region (Table A-3).
Ambient levels of sulfur dioxide in this region exceeded both the
annual and 24-hour standard during 1973, and occurred in the Ohio portion of
the AQCR. A significant reduction in the 1973 ambient air levels, with a
corresponding reduction in S0? emissions is needed to meet air quality
standards. (Table A-4)
3.4.2 Power Plant Assessment
There were three power plants operating in the West Virginia portion
of this AQCR during 1973, all of which have been using high sulfur content
coal. (Table C-l). The Windsor plant in Brooke County burned 3.68%
sulfur coal in 1972 and 3.44% in 1973, and has since ceased operations.
There are two power plants in Marshall County, the Kammer and Mitchell Plants.
The Kammer plant which used 4.03% sulfur coal in 1973 can burn 4.0% coal in
1975 according to modeling results, whereas the SIP requires 1.7% to maintain
air quality standards in the vicinity of the plant. The Mitchell plant
burned 3.37% sulfur coal during 1973, which is slightly less than the 3.69%
allowed by modeling results, however, the SIP requires 1.6% sulfur coal at
this plant. Electricity generation accounts for 93% of the particulate emis-
sion, and 99% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in the West Virginia portion
of this AQCR.
3.4.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for the West Virginia portion of this AQCR.
19
-------
3.4.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for one percent of the particu-
late emissions and less than one percent of the sulfur dioxide emissions
in the West Virginia portion of this AQCR. Fuel use by area sources is
shown in Table E-l.
3.4.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use by the region is presented in Appendix E.
3.5 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #231, ALLEGHENY
3.5.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
There were no monitoring data for either suspended particulates or
sulfur dioxide in this AQCR for 1973. This is a priority III region for
both of these pollutants, and as previously mentioned, air monitors were
not required during 1973.
3.5.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are no power plants in this Air Quality Control Region.
3.5.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for this Air Quality Control Region.
3.5.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for approximately 74% of the
particulate emissions and 90% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in this region.
Total fuel use for area sources is shown in Table E-l. There are almost 100,000
tons of bituminous coal containing 2.0% sulfur and 10% ash being burned in
this region by residential sources only. Over 90% of the distillate oil
burned in this region is by residential sources and in most cases it is
impractical for these sources to switch t^ coal if they were allowed to
do so. A substantial percentage of natural gas used in this area is burned
by industrial and commercial sources thereby affording some possibility of
saving this fuel if fuel switching is allowed under revised regulations.
20
-------
3.5.5 Fuel Use Assessment
There are no fuels used by any source other than area sources in
this region.
3.6 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #232, CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA
3.6.1 Regional Air Quality
There were no air monitoring sites for either suspended particulates
or sulfur dioxide in this AQCR during 1973 as shown in Tables A-3 and A-4.
Again this is a priority III region for these pollutants, and air monitors
were not required during 1973.
3.6.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are no power plants in this Air Quality Control Region.
3.6.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for this Air Quality Control Region.
3.6.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion contributes 62% of the particulate emis-
sions, and 84% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in this region. Total fuel
use by area sources is shown in Tabel E-l. All of the coal used in this
region was by residential sources only. The predominant fuel used in this
region by industrial and commercial sources is natural gas as over 60% of
this fuel is consumed by these sources. If regulations are revised, allowing
a fuel switch, there is a possibility of saving a significant amount of
this fuel if changes in fuel burning equipment are economically feasible by
these sources. Approximately 55,000 barrels of distillate oil containing
0.3% sulfur are burned in this region, however it is impractical far these
sources to change to coal although a switch to higher sulfur coal may be
possible.
3.6.5 Fuel Use Assessment
There are no fuels used by any sources other than area sources in
this region.
21
-------
3.7 AFR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #233, EASTERN PANHANDLE
3.7.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
As with the previous two air quality control regions, there are no
monitoring sites for either suspended particulates or sulfur dioxide located
in this region. The region is classified priority III for these pollutants
and air monitors were not required during 1973.
3.7.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are no power plants in this Air Quality Control Region.
3.7.3 Industrial, Commercial. Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for this Air Quality Control Region.
3.7.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for 63% of the particulate emis-
sions and 86% of the S02 emissions in this region. Total fuel use by area
sources is shown in Table E-l. Residential sources account for all of the
bituminous coal and 94% of the distillate oil used in this region. A switch
from oil to coal by these sources is usually impractical becuase of economic
considerations, however, a higher sulfur content distillate oil could be used
if regulations were relaxed. Approximately 77% of the natural gas used
in this region is by industrial sources, thereby creating a potential for
saving this fuel if fuel switching was practical.
3.7.5 Fuel Use Assessment
There are no fuels used in the region by any sources other than
area sources.
3.8 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #234, KANAWHA VALLEY
3.8.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
Ambient levels of total suspended particulate exceeded both the
annual and 24-hour primary and secondary standard during 1973. The annual
standard was exceeded at two of the thirteen monitoring stations, and the
24-hour standard was exceeded at six stations (Table A-3). A significant
22
-------
reduction in the 1973 levels is needed to meet air quality standards.
Ambient air levels of sulfur dioxide were not in violation of the
24-hour standards during 1973 and the data shows that there is a tolerance
for a significant increase in ambient levels and still maintain air quality
standards (Table A-4). However, in the past, this region has had high
sulfur dioxide levels, and further analysis of sulfur dioxide data is
needed.
3.8.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are three power plants in this Air Quality Control Region, all
in Kanawha County. There are no modeling data availab le for these plants.
The Cabin Creek plant burned 1.14% sulfur coal in'1973 and is required to
reduce the sulfur content to 0.98% in 1975 by the SIP. The Kanawha River
plant which used 0.85% sulfur coal in 1973 requires 0.88% sulfur in 1975, and
the Amos plant which burned 1.13% sulfur coal in 1972, is required by the
SIP to reduce the sulfur content to 0.95% in 1975. These three power plants
contribute 222,000 tons (99%) of the sulfur dioxide emissions in this region.
3.8.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for this AQCR.
3.8.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for 10% of the particulate emis-
sions and 1% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in this region. There is a
substantial amount of natural gas used in this region and almost 60% of it
is used by industrial and commercial sources. Residential sources account
for all of the coal use, and approximately one third of the distillate oil
and natural gas use. Total fuel use by area sources are shown in Table E-l.
3.8.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use data are presented in Appendix E.
3.9 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #235, NORTH CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA
23
-------
3.9.1. Regional Air Quality Assessment
Ambient levels of parti oil ate matter met the 24-hour secondary
standard for particulate matter during 1973, however, there were insufficient
data to determine an annual mean. The second highest reading of 139 ug/m
for a 24-hour average permits an increase of 9% in the ambient levels and
still maintain air quality standards.
There are no sulfur dioxide air quality data available for this
AQCR, as air monitors were not required during 1973 since this is a priority
III region for sulfur dioxide.
3.9.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are three power plants in this AQCR whi'ch contribute 99% of
the particulate emissions, and 98% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in the
region. The Albright plant in Preston County burned 2.02% sulfur coal
during 1973, slightly higher than the 1.77% required by the SIP in 1975.
Modeling results indicate the allowable sulfur content to be 1.89% for
this plant. The Fort Martin plant burned 2.47% sulfur coal during 1973,
while the SIP requires 2.09% in 1975. This is a significant disparity
from the modeling anaysis which indicates that 3.09% sulfur will be
allowable. The Rivesville plant in Marion County must make a significant
reduction in sulfur content in order to comply with the SIP in 1975. This
plant burned 3.47% sulfur coal during 1973, while only 1.99% is allowed by
the SIP. Modeling analysis indicates a reduction to 2.09% is required, which
is still significant.
3.9.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for this AQCR.
3.9.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for 1% of the particulate emis-
sions and 2% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in this region.
3.9.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use by this region is presented in Appendix E.
24
-------
3.10 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION #236 - SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA
3.10.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
Total suspended participate levels exceeded the 24-hour secondary
standard during 1973. There were insufficient data available to determine
an annual mean for this region which is classified priority III for this
pollutant as well as for sulfur dioxide. There are no sulfur dioxide
data available for this region as air monitors were not required during
1973.
3.10.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are no power plants in this region.
3.10.3 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source Assessment
There are no major fuel combustion point sources listed in the NEDS
inventory for this region.
3.10.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion accounts for 67% of the particulate
emissions and 90% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in this region.
Residential sources account for all of the coal used in this region.
There is a considerable amount of natural gas used in this region by area
sources, however, it is usually impractical for these sources to switch
fuels, thereby affording little potential for conserving this fuel.
3.10.5 Fuel Use Assessment
Fuel use by the region is shown in Appendix E.
25
-------
26
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
-------
TABLE A-l. West Virginia Air Pollution Control Areas
Air Quality
Control Region
Huntington - Ashland - Portsmouth
Ironton (Ky. Ohio)
Cumberland - Keyser (Md.)
Parkersburg - Marietta (Ohio)
Steubenville - Wierton
Wheeling (Ohio)
Allegheny
Central West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
Federal
Number
103
Parti-,
culates
I
Priority
Classification
SOx*
III
NOX
III
Population
1975
(Millions)
0.63
113
179
181
231
232
233
234
235
236
I
I
I
III
III
III
I
I
III
I
II
I
III
III
III
III
ni
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
0.23
0.29
0.49
0.17
0.14
0.07
0.28
0.26
0.38
*Criteria Based on Maximum Measured (or Estimated) Pollution Concentration 1n Area
Priority
Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean
24-hour maximum
Particulate matter:
Annual geometric mean
24-hour maximum
I II
Greater than
100
455
95
325
From - To
60-100
260-455
60-95
150-325
III
Less than
60
260
60
260
'Federal Register, July, 1974 counties showing potential for NAAQS violations due to growth.
-------
Federal
State
TABLE A-2
WEST VIRGINIA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (ug/m3)
Total Suspended Particulate Sulfur Oxides Nitrogen Oxides
Annual 24-Hour Annual 24-Hour 3-Hour Annual
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
75
60
75
60
260a
150a
260a
150a
80
--
80
60
365*
365a
260a
1300a
1300a
100
100
100
a Not to be exceeded more than once per year
-------
TABLE A-3
WEST VIRGINIA AIR QUALITY STATUS, TSPa
TSP Concentration (ugm/np
Number of Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Quality
Control Region
Hunting ton- As hi and- Portsmouth
Cumberland-Keyser
Parkersburg-Mari etta
Steubenville-Wierton-Wheeling
Allegheny
Central West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
Highest
Reading 2nd Highest Reading
Reporting Annual
103°. d
113b,e
179b
181b'd
231
232
233
234
235
236
40
6
3
36
0
0
0
13
5
2
96
85
__
187
--
--
--
102
24-Hr
349
423
268
621
--
--
--
501
186
326
24 Hr
239
185
151
574
--
--
318
139
319
Primary
Annual
5
2
_
15
__
__
2
-
_
24-Hrc
0
0
0
11
__
__
__
2
0
1
Secondary
Annual % 24-Hrc
13 33 12
5 83 4
1
16 44 26
_-
2 15 6
0
2
/^Reduction Required
to
%
33
66
33
72
__
._
46
0
TOO
Meet Standards
+ 53
+ 44
+ 1
+ 80
...
+ 58
- 9
+ 58
a 1973 Air Quality in National Air Data Bank, July 28, 1974
b Interstate
c Violations based on more than one reading in excess of standard
d Highest and second highest reading recorded in Ohio portion of AQCR
e No monitoring stations in W. Va. portion of AQCR
^ Formula:
(2nd Highest 24 Hr - 24 Hr Secondary Standard) x 100, (Annual - Annual Secondary Standard) x TOO
2nd Highest 24-Hr - Background Annual - Background
Background: 28 yg/m^
-------
TABLE AV}
1.IFST VIRGINIA AIR QUALITY STATUS S0xa
SO,, Concentration
Number of Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Quality
Control Region
Huntington-Ashland-Portsmouth
Cumberland-Keyser
Parkersburg-Marietta
Steubenvi 1 1 e-Wi erton-Wheel i ng
Allegheny
Central West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
AQCR
No.
103b»d
113b>d
179b
T81b'e
231
232
233
234
235
236
No. Stations
24 Hr
17
6
0
16
0
0
0
8
0
0
Reporting
Cont.
1
2
0
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
Highest
Annual
28
28
106
--
--
399
--
Reading 2nd Highest Reading
24-Hr
429
562
432
---
---
228
-
---
24-Hr
178
101
403
---
149
-
-_-
Primary
Annual % 24-Hrc
0
0
0
0
0
0
Secondary
% 3-Hrc
0 0
0 0
25
I Reduction Required
to Meet Standards
- 105
- 186
+ 25
- 105
a 1973 Air Quality Data in National Air Data Bank, July 28, 1974
b Interstate
c Violations based on more than one reading in excess of standard
" No monitoring stations located in West Virginia
e Highest and second highest readings recorded in Ohio portion of AQCR
f Formula:
(2nd Highest 24 Hr - 24 Hr Secondary Standard) x 100, (Annual - Annual Secondary Standard) x
2nd Highest 24-Hr - Background Annual - Background
9 From Fiscal Year 1973 Annual Report , West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission
100
-------
TABLE A-5
WEST VIRGINIA FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE SUMMARY
Air Quality
Control Region
Huntington-Ashl an-J-Portsmouth
Cumber land- Key ser
Parkers burg-Marietta
Steubenville-Wierton-Wheeling
Allegheny
Central West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
103e
11 3e
179e
181e
231
232
233
234
235
236
Total
Power
Plants9
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
2
3
0
10
Other Fuel Combustion Area
Plant Sources ^ Sources
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
5
4
11
12
3
3
6
9
58
Total Emissions
(lO^Tons/Year)
c TSP SO,
167
95
92
123
2
1
1
10
47
3
541
400
159
482
737
5
3
1
225
242
9
2263
% Emissions from
West Virginia Fuel Combustion Sources
a - Plants in West Virginia
b - Plants other than power plants contributing 90% of SO, and particulate emissions.
c - West Virginia Counties
d - AQCR Total
e - Interstate
TSP
SO,
45
63
10
21
74
62
63
89
98
68
22
75
14
24
90
84
86
98
100
91
-------
TABLE A-6
WEST VIRGINIA EMISSIONS SUMMARY3, TSP
Air Quality
Control Region
Hunti ngton-Ashland-Ports mouth
Cumberland-Keyser
Parkersburg-Mari etta
S teubenvi 1 1 e-Wi erton-Wheel i ng
Allegheny
Central 'Jest Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
103b
113b
179b
181b
231
232
233
234
235
236
Total
(103 tons/yr)
167
95
92
123
2
1
1
10
47
3
Electricity Generation
(103 tons/yr)
99
60
71
83
0
0
0
8
45
0
%
59
63
77
67
0
0
0
80
94
0
Point Source Fuel
(103 tons/yr)
8
9
10
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
Combustion
%
5
9
11
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source Fuel Comt
(TO3 tons/yr)
8
2
5
11
1
1
0
1
1
2
sustion
I
5
2
5
9
50
100
0
10
2
67
Emissions in 1972 National Emissions Report, June 1974
Interstate
-------
TABLE A-7
WEST VIRGINIA EMISSIONS SUMMARY,
Air Quality
Control Reaion
Hun ting ton-Ash land-Portsmouth
Cumberl and-Keyser
Parkers burg-Marietta
Steubenvi 1 1 e-Wi erton-Wheel i ng
Al legneny
Central West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanswha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
103b
113b
179b
181b
231
232
233
234
235
236
1 U UU 1
(103 tons/yr)
400
159
482
737
5
3
1
225C
242
9
u i c <_ i- 1 i i- i uj uc MCI a L
(103 tons/yr)
365
131
313
695
0
0
0
222C
238
0
1 Ul 1
%
91
82
65
94
0
0
0
99
98
0
ruin i, ouurue ruei uuiiu
(103 tons/yr)
14
24
161
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
JUb I, 1 Ull
%
4
15
33
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mrea ouurv-e ruei Lull
(103 tons/yr)
9
3
6
20
4
2
1
2
4
8
UJUb L 1 UN
%
2
2
1
3
80
67
100
}
2
89
Emissions in 1972 National Emissions Report, June 1974
Interstate
Data supplied by EPA Reaion III
-------
Air Quality
Control Region
TABLE A-8
WEST VIRGINIA AQCR REQUIRED EMISSION REDUCTION'
Required Particulate Emission Reduction
tons/year
Huntington-Ashland-Portsmouth
Cumber! and-Keyser
Parkersburg-Marietta
Steubenville-Wierton-Wheeling
Allegheny
Central West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
103b
113b
179b
181b
231
232
233
234
235
236
+53
+44
+ 1
+80
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
+58
-10
+58
+89
+42
+ 9
+98
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
+5.8
-4.7
+1.7
Required SCL Emission Reduction
TO3 tons/year
-105
-186
N.D.
+ 25
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
-105
N.D.
N.D.
-420
-296
N.D.
+184
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
-236
N.D.
N.D.
Based on a proportional change of emissions to air quality (1973)
Interstate
N.D. - No Data
-------
TABLE A-9
SUMMARY OF FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION REGULATIONS
I. PARTICULATE MATTER (lbs/106BTU)
a. Electric power plants
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 0.05 not to exceed 1200 Ibs/Hr.
b. Industrial fuel fired furnaces, cyclone furnaces, gas-fired, and
liquid-fuel-fired units.
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 0.09 not to exceed 900 Ibs/Hr.
II. SULFUR OXIDES (lbs/106BTU)
A. West Virginia priority I and priority II regions
1. Electric power plants
a. By June 30, 1975
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 2.7
b. By June 30, 1978
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 2.0 not to exceed 45,000 Ibs/Hr
2. All other fuel combustion units
a. By June 30, 1975
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 3.1
b. By June 30, 1978
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 2.3 Not to exceed 8,000 Ibs/Hr.
B. Region IV, Kanawha Valley Air Quality Control Region - Effective
January 1, 1973
1. Electric power Plants
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 1.6 not to exceed 45,000 Ibs/Hr.
2. All other fuel combustion units
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 1.6 not to exceed 5,500 Ibs/Hr.
C. All other priority III Regions
1. Electric power plants and all other units
Total design heat input (106BTU/Hr) x 3.2
-------
APPENDIX B
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT
-------
TABLE B-l
REGIONAL INDICATORS FOR REVISION OF TSP REGULATIONS
Air Quality
Control Region
Hun ting ton- Ash land-Portsmouth
Cumberland-Keyser
Parkersburg- Marietta
Steubenvi 11 e-Wierton- Wheel ing
Al legheny
Central West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
103
113
179
181
231
232
233
234
235
236
Air
#
Stations
40
6
3
36
0
0
0
13
5
2
Quality
# Of Stations
In Violation
12
5
1
26
-
-
-
6
0
2
Expected
Attainment
Date3
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
b
b
b
6/75
6/75
b
TSP
Emissions
(103 Tons/Yr)
167
95
92
123
2
1
1
10
47
3
% Emissions
From W. Va.
Fuel Combustion
45
63
10
21
74
62
63
89
98
68
Emission Reduction
Req'd for NAAQS
(103 Tons/Yr)
+89
+42
+ 9
+98
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
+5.8
-4.7
+1 .7
TSP
Priority
I
I
I
I
III
III
III
I
I
III
a. Attainment date is for Primary Standard. Attainment date for Secondary Standard is 6/77.
b. Air Quality below standard at time of classification.
N.D. No data avail able.
-------
TABLE B-2
REGIONAL INDICATORS FOR REVISION OF S02 REGULATIONS
Air Quality
Control Region
Hun tington-Ash land-Ports mouth
Cumberland-Keyser
Parkersburg-Marietta
Steubenville-Wierton-Wheeling
Allegheny
Central West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Southern West Virginia
Air Quality Expected
# # Of Stations Attainment
Stations In Violation Date3
103
113
179
181
231
232
233
234
235
236
18 0
8 0
0
17 5
0
0
0
8 0
0 0
0 0
b
6/75
6/75
6/75
h
b
b
b
b
b
SOo % Emissions
Emissions From W. Va.
(IP3 Tons/Yr) Fuel Combustion
400
159
482
737
5
3
1
225
242
9
22
75
14
24
90
84
86
99
100
91
Emission Reduction
Req'd for NMQS
(10J Tons/Yr)
-420
-296
N.D.
+ 184
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
-236
N.D.
N.D.
so2
Priority
III
I
II
I
III
III
III
III
III
III
a. Attainment date is for Primary Standard. Attainment date for Secondary Standard is 6/78.
b. Air Quality levels below standard at time of classification.
N.D. No data available.
-------
APPENDIX C
POWER PLANT ASSESSMENT
-------
TABLE C-1
WEST VIRGINIA POWER PLANT ASSESSMENT*
Air Quality Control Region
Hunti ngton-Ashland-
Portsmouth-Ironton
Cumberland-Keyser
Parkersburg-Marietta
Steubenvi11e-Wi erton-Wheeli ng
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
Plant
Sporn
Mount Storm
Willow Island
Windsor
Kammer
Mitchell
Cabin Creek
Kanawha River
Amos
Albright
Fort Martin
Capacity (MW)
1973
1975
1105.59
1105.59
1695.47
1695.47
215.0
215.0
300.0
300.0
712.5
712.5
1632.6
1632.6
273.5
273.5
439.4
439.4
1632.6
2932.6
278.25
278.25
1152.0
1152.0
Fuel
Type
% Sulfur
Coal
1.34% S
Coal
1 .96% S
Coal
3.72% S
Coal
3.44% S
Coal
4.03% S
Coal
3.37% S
Coal
1.19% S
Coal
0.85% S
Coalc
1.13% S
Oilc
Coal
2.02% S
Coal
2.47% S
Use 1973
Annual
Quantityb
2341.61
2606.0
605.64
119.83
1510.79
3776.78
339.29
1134.09
3114.8
122.5
771.65
2680.8
Fuel Use
1975
Type
Quantity0
Coal
2805
Coal
4598
Coal
725
Coal
608
Coal
1511
Coal
3266
Coal
292
Coal
1320
Coal
993
Coal
2579
SIP
% S
1.77
1.6
1.47
1.53
1.6
1.53
0.98
0.88
0.95
1.77
2.09
Modeling
% S
1.4
2.3
1.5
4.0
3.69
1.89
3.09
-------
TABLE C-l (cant.)
Air Quality Control Region
North Central West Virginia
(cont.)
Capacity (MM)
Plant
Ri ves vi 1 1 e
1973
1975
174.75
174.75
Fuel Use 1973
Type Annual
% Sulfur Quantity15
Coal 475.0
3.47% S
Fuel Use
1975
Type
Quantity0
Coal
455
SIP Modeling
% S % S
1.99 2.09
Data from Federal Power Commission.
Coal is in 103 tons, oil is in 103 barrels.
c Fuel use is for 1972
-------
TABLE C-2
WEST VIRGINIA POWER PLANT EVALUATION SUMMARY
Coal quantity is in 10^ Tons/Yr.
TSP
Air Quality
Control Region
Huntington-Ashland-Ports mouth
Cumberland-Keyser
Parkersburg-Mari etta
Steubenville-Wierton- Wheel ing
Kanawha Valley
North Central West Virginia
103
113
179
181
234
235
1975 Fuel
- VI
0
0
0
0
1320
0
Required By Existing Regs.3 1975 Emission Reduction '975 Fuel Required By Modeling Emission 1
1-2% -2% (103 Tons/Yr) < 1% 1-2% > 2% Required (1(
2805
4598
725
5385
1535
6378
0
0
0
0
0
3034
64
47.5
206
390
6.6
143
0
0
0
0
No
0
2805
0
725
0
modeling results
993
0
4598
0
4777
available
8419
52
26
0.7
66
4.6
-4.5
-------
APPENDIX D
INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE ASSESSMENT
-------
APPENDIX E
AQCR FUEL USE
-------
TABLE E-l
FUEL USE SUMMARY
Coal (KT Tons)
Oil (KT Barrels)
Air Quality Control Region
Huntington-Ashland-Portsmouth
Ironton
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Cumber!and-Keyser
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Parkersburg-Marietta
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Steubenvilie-Weirton
Wheeling
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Gas (10P cu. ft.)
Anthracite
4
0
4
73
0
73
2
0
2
9
0
9
Bituminous
179
8327
8506
22
3443
3465
85
5354
5439
273
11970
12243
Residual
121
227
348
354
871
1225
46
0.6
46.6 '
55
42
97
Distillate
1389
560
1949
938
0.4
938.4
445
0.1
445.1
1141
2
1143
Natural
51320
7391
58711
10750
3452
14202
24680
664
25344
33080
3375
36455
Process
0
9900
9900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109865
109865
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
FUEL USE SUMMARY
Coal (ICT Tons)
Oil (TO" Barrels)
Gas (10° cu. ft.)
Air Quality Control Region
Allegheny
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Central West Virginia
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Eastern Panhandle
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Kanawha Valley
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
North Central West
Virginia
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Anthracite
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bituminous
100
0
100
54
0
54
20
0
20
35
1612
1647
81
0
81
Residual
48
0
48
37
0
37
21
0
2]
99
0
99
80
0
80
Distillate
365
0
365
85
0
85
330
0
330
117
0
117
140
0
140
Natural
9090
0
9090
11920
0
11920
4490
0
4490
29530
0
29530
23090
0
23090
Process
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Air Quality Control Region
Southern West Virginia
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
TABLE E-l (Continued)
FUEL USE SUMMARY
Coal (10 Tons)
Oil (10 Barrels)
Gas (10b cu. ft.)
Anthracite
0
0
0
Bituminous
197
0
197
Residual
109
0
109
Distillate
172
0
172
Natural
15000
0
15000
Process
0
0
0
a. Source: Stationary Source Fuel Summary Report, NEDS, October, 1974
------- |