EPA-450/3-75-001
JANUARY 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
VIRGIN ISLANDS
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-001
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
VIRGIN ISLANDS
AS REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
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
January 1975
-------
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
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 CURRENT AIR QUALITY STATUS OF VIRGIN ISLANDS 8
2.2.1 Definition of Air Quality Control Regions 8
2.2.2 Air Quality Standards 8
2.2.3 Air Quality Monitoring 8
2.2.4 Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide and Particulates 8
2.2.5 Particulate and S02 Regulations 9
2.2.6 Control Strategy Assessments 9
2.3 GENERAL REVIEW OF THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 9
2.3.1 Background To The Development Of The
Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategies . . 10
3.0 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION ASSESSMENTS 11
3.1 FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EVALUATION 11
3.1.1 Power Plant Evaluation 11
3.1.2 Significant Industrial Point Source Evaluation. ... 11
3.1.3 Area Source Evaluation 12
3.1.4 Fuel Analysis 12
3.2 VIRGIN ISLANDS AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION 12
3.2.1 Regional Assessment 12
3.2.2 Power Plant Assessment 13
3.2.3 Other Major Combustion Sources Assessment 13
3.2.4 Area Source Assessment 13
3.2.5 Fuel Assessment 14
4.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
APPENDIX B - REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
APPENDIX C - POWER PLANT SUMMARY
APPENDIX D - INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE SUMMARY
APPENDIX E - AREA SOURCE SUMMARY
APPENDIX F - FUEL USE SUMMARY
-------
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 Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be made to control regula-
tions 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 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 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 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.
-------
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 current national energy con-
cerns, 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 or 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 re-
gulation 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 limi-
tations. 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, how-
ever, 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 avail-
able 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 are 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. 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 en-
couraged 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 ($02) emissions. This is because sta-
tionary 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 Appendices C, D, and E.
The U.S. Virgin Islands State Implementation Plan has been reviewed
for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive fuel combustion and emis-
sion limiting regulations. The major findings of the review are:
FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE. THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF SOME POTENTIAL FOR
RELAXING EXISTING EMISSION LIMITING REGULATIONS.
FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES, THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS
OF ANY POTENTIAL FOR REVISING FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EMISSION
LIMITING REGULATIONS.
The supportive findings of the SIP review are as follows:
Recent revision of the Virgin Islands sulfur in fuel regulations has
been withdrawn, however, the Virgin Islands are in the process of
developing a regulation which will be compatible with the intention
of Section IV of ESECA.
Fuel combustion sources emit approximately 13 percent of all total
suspended particulate emissions in the Virgin Islands. With air
quality standards being exceeded in 1973, relaxation of existing
fuel combustion emission limiting regulations would tend to further
increase emissions and aggravate the existing air quality levels.
-------
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 modify combustion source emis-
sion 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?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources show a
potential for a regulation revision?
• Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in the region?
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.
-------
TABLE 2-1
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
(SUMMARY)
"Indicators"
U.S.
Virgin Islands
• Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS? No No
• Does the State have emission limiting regulations
for control of:
1. Power plants Yes Yes
2. Industrial sources Yes Yes
3. Area sources Yes Yes
t Did the State use an example region approach for
demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or more stringent
State standards? No No
• Has the State not initiated action to modify com-
bustion source emission regulations for fuel savings;
i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy? Yes No
t Are there jio proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas? Yes Yes
• Are there indications of a sufficient number of
monitoring sites within a region? No No
e Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS? Yes Yes
• Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there no
reported violations of NAAQS? No Yes
• Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are there indica-
tions of a tolerance for increasing emissions? No No
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel com-
bustion sources proportionally lower than those of other
sources? Yes No
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
sources show a potential for a regulation revision? N/A N/A
• Must emission limiting regulations be revised to
accommodate significant fuel switching? Yes Yes
t Based on the above indicators, what is the poten-
tial for revising fuel combustion source emission limiting
regulations? Poor Marg.
• Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving potential
in the region? Yes
-------
ATLANTIC OCEAN
CARIBBEAN SEA
U. S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
miles
Figure 2-1 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION IN U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
-------
2.2 CURRENT AIR QUALITY STATUS OF U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
2.2.1 Definition of Air Quality Control Regions
The entire U.S. Virgin Islands comprise one Air Quality Control
Region (No. 247). As illustrated in Figure 2-1, it includes the islands
of St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix, and the islands surrounding each. Other
information pertaining to the AQCR is presented in the Appendix. The pri-
ority classification for TSP, S02 and NOX are given in Table A-l. These
data are discussed in more detail in Section 3.0.
2.2.2 Air Quality Standards
The Federal ambient air quality standards and the U.S. Virgin Islands
standards are identical for TSP, S02, and NOX as given in Table A-2.
2.2.3 Air Quality Monitoring
1973 air quality data, the most currently available for the U.S. Virgin
Islands for TSP and S02 are given in Tables A-3 and A-4, respectively. In
brief these data indicate the following:
• As of 1973, the U.S. Virgin Islands had three monitoring stations
reporting for particulates, one violation of the secondary air
quality standards, a Priority 1A classification for parti culates
and required approximately a 42 percent reduction in particulate
emissions to attain the secondary standard.
• As of 1973, the U.S. Virgin Islands had two 24-hr Bubbler monitor-
ing stations and no continuous monitoring stations for S02- No
violations were reported; however, the AQCR has a Priority 1A
classification for S02.
• The air quality monitoring network for both TSP and $02 is inade-
quate according to population and AQCR Priority classification
criteria.
2.2.4 Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide and Particulates
The contribution of fuel combustion sources in the U.S. Virgin Islands
to the total emissions in the AQCR are summarized in Table A-5 for both par-
ticulates and sulfur dioxide. Tables A-6 and A-7 provide a categorization
in terms of combustion source type, for example, electricity generation, in-
dustrial-commercial-institutional, and area sources. The tables tend to indica-
-------
• Fuel combustion sources account for approximately 69 percent of
the AQCR S02 emissions and 13 percent of the particulate emissions.
• Fuel combustion sources other than electricity generation contri-
bute approximately 11 percent of the total AQCR particulate emis-
sions.
• Industrial sources are the major source of S02 emissions contri-
buting approximately 55 percent of the total AQCR S02 emissions.
2.2.5 Particulate and S0£ Regulations
Virgin Islands regulations for control of particulates and S02 from
fuel-burning sources are based on a particulate emission limitation and fuel
sulfur content regulations summarized in Table A-8. The regulations are dis-
cussed in more detail in Section 2.3.
2.2.6 Control Strategy Assessments
Tables A-9 and A-10, the control strategy assessments for particulates
and S02» respectively, were developed primarily as inputs to the assessments
of Appendix B, which are discussed in Section 3.0. Basically, the tables
represent attempts to examine the following:
(1) Are the allowable emissions projections made in the original
SIP in reasonable agreement with such estimates based on more
recent data?
(2) Does a tolerance for an emission increase exist within the AQCR?
Table A-9 indicates that there is no tolerance for an increase in particu-
late emissions using current data and Table A-10 indicates the same status
for S02- The detailed assessment of an AQCR's potential for revising com-
bustion regulations which considers many other factors are presented in
Section 3.0.
2.3 GENERAL REVIEW OF THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
There are three possible reasons for the existence of overly restrictive
emission limitations in a control strategy.
• "the example region" - as noted in the executive summary, the regu-
lations for one AQCR can be utilized for another AQCR, where a less
restrictive strategy would be adequate.
-------
0 "conservative ambient standards" - ambient standards which are low
than the NAAQS can be promulgated.
t "hot spots" - an inordinately high pollutant level in part of an
AQCR can be used as the basis for a regionwide emission rollbacK
via the proportional approach.
The U.S. Virgin Islands Implementation Plan utilizes neither the example
region approach, since there is only one AQCR, nor conservative ambient
standards, since they have adopted the national standards.
2.3.1 Background To The Development Of The Particulate And Sulfur Dioxide
Control Strategies
The Virgin Islands SIP contains control strategies and regulations
which are adequate to attain the national standards for particulate matter
and S02 on all three islands. The Islands' review procedure for new sources
and modifications was deficient and the EPA, on October 28, 1972, promulgated
a regulation to correct this deficiency.
The Islands' regulations for the control of particulate matter include
opacity limitations (Ringelmann No. 2), fuel burning limitations (0.6 Ibs/
10^ BTU for small sources to 0.09 lbs/10^ BTU for large sources), incinerator
restrictions (0.2 gr/scf), industrial process limitations (~99+% control),
and fugitive dust restrictions.
Emissions of S02 are controlled through controlling the emissions of
hydrogen sulfide (0.03 ppm by volume) and through sulfur in fuel limitations
(0.5% as of April 1, 1974).
10
-------
3.0 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION ASSESSMENTS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the available information
for the U.S. Virgin Islands and determine the feasibility of revisions to
the SIP which would result in clean fuel conservation. The assessment will
be made for the AQCR by 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 six criteria: (1) 1973 air quality violations; (2) expected NAAQS
attainment dates; (3) proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) designa-
tions; (4) total emissions; (5) regional tolerance for emissions increase;
and (6) pollutant priority classifications. Tables B-l and B-2 tabulate
these criteria for each AQCR for TSP and S02, respectively.
The Virgin Islands are rated as either a good, marginal, or poor candi-
date for regulation relaxation based on the evaluation of all the presented
information. Using available data, an AQCR which displays a 1973 air quality
violation would probably be given a poor ranking. Conversely, a region with
no violations, no proposed AQMA designations, low to moderate emissions and
a positive emission tolerance would receive a good ranking. If there are
varying indicators or incomplete or missing data, the region would most
likely receive a marginal ranking.
3.1 FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EVALUATION
3.1.1 Power Plant Evaluation
The evaluation of power plants was based upon an estimate of the emis-
sion reductions resulting from the compliance of these power plants with the
existing Virgin Islands emission regulations for fuel combustion. Since no
modeling data was available, the analysis was necessarily restricted to this
one method. Table C-l contains power plant capacity and fuel use for the
two plants located within the Virgin Islands.
3.1.2 Significant Industrial Point Source Evaluation
The evaluation of significant industrial point sources was similar
to that carried out for power plants. Since no modeling data were available
n
-------
for both TSP and S02, the analysis was restricted to an estimate of the emis-
sion reductions resulting from the compliance of these sources with the existing
Virgin Islands emission regulations for fuel combustion. A summary of these
results are shown in Table D-l.
3.1.3 Area Source Evaluation
Area source emissions data were available for the AQCR from the National
Emissions Data System (NEDS) summary report. In addition, the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards has county summaries. Table E-l indicates the
types of fuel burned by fuel combustion area sources, the sulfur content and
emissions.
3.1.4 Fuel Analysis
Table F-1 indicates the distribution of fuel use among sources in the
Virgin Islands.
3.2 VIRGIN ISLANDS AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
3.2.1 Regional Assessment (Appendix B)
The regional evaluation of the AQCR indicates that little potential
exists for increasing particulate emissions, however, further study is needed
before consideration should be given to relaxing S02 emission limits. The
indicators may be summarized as follows:
• Particulates - air quality violation, 1A priority classification
and a zero tolerance for emission increase.
• Sulfur Dioxide - no reported air quality violations, 1A priority
classification and a negative tolerance for emission increase.
However, the 1A classifications which reflect emissions from a single point
source within an AQCR should be noted, especially for TSP for which there
are little air quality data. Analysis of other factors to be considered in
assessing a region's candidacy for emission regulations revision are carried
out in the following sections.
12
-------
3.2.2 Power Plant Assessments (Appendix C)
As indicated in Table C-1, there are only two power plants in the
Virgin Islands AQCR with a total capacity of 88.5 MW plus four gas turbines
as of July 1974. Between June, 1973 and June, 1974 residual oil total fuel
consumption was 37.8 million gallons. Distillate fuel oil consumption for
the same period was 5.04 million gallons.
As of 1973, power plants accounted for 2 percent and 10 percent of
the total AQCR particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions, respectively. No
modeling results were available for power plants, and therefore no statement
can be made concerning the maximum sulfur content which would be acceptable
without exceeding the standards.
3.2.3 Other Major Combustion Source Assessment (Appendix D)
There are two significant particulate sources, and one S02 source in
this category. They contribute 11 percent of the particulate emissions, and
55 percent of the S02 emissions. As shown in Table D-l, existing regulations
would allow for some increase in particulate emissions, but a very large de-
crease in S02 emissions. Again, as in power plants, no modeling results are
available for sources of this type, and therefore no statement can be made
concerning the maximum sulfur content which would be acceptable without
exceeding the standards.
3.2.4 Area Source Assessment (Appendix E)
Area fuel combustion sources contribute less than one percent of the
total AQCR emissions of both particulate and S02- As indicated in Table E-l,
distillate oil is the only fuel used by area fuel combustion sources. The
sulfur content of the distillate oil burned by these sources is 0.5 percent.
The existing regulations permits only the use of fuels with a 0.5 percent
sulfur content, thus any increase in emissions resulting from growth in the
AQCR would be insignificant.
13
-------
3.2.5 Fuel Assessment (Appendix F)
The purpose of this section is to examine the potential for clean
fuel savings based on the analyses in sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 and actual
fuel consumption in the AQCR. Table F-l summarizes fuel use in the AQCR.
It indicates that residual and distillate oil, natural gas and bagasse are
the major fuels burned on the island. The conversion of oil-burning plants
to coal might well be ruled out on the basis of the TSP levels in the Virgin
Islands and the fact that no coal is burned on the island anyway. This is
also true of bagasse, a solid residue remaining after sugar cane has been
crushed, which is burned by a few point sources. Conversion to bagasse would
probably be ruled out also because of the TSP levels and the heating efficiency
of bagasse which is considerably less than oil.
In the Virgin Islands, the potential for clean fuel savings is the
saving of low sulfur oil. The absence of modeling results tends to make the
evaluation process meaningless in terms of what limits should be placed on
sulfur in fuels that would not cause emissions to exceed the NAAQS. However,
any revision to the existing Virgin Islands sulfur in fuel regulations will
cause som,e increase in S02 emissions which must be monitored to insure attain-
ment and maintenance of NAAQS.
14
-------
4.0 REFERENCES
1. "1972 National Emissions Report," Report No. EPA - 450/2-74-012,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1974.
2. "Steam - Electric Plant Factors/1972," 23rd edition, National
Coal Association, 1973.
3. Electrical Worlo^ Directory of Electric Utilities, 81st edition,
McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, N. Y., 1972.
4. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,: Publication
No. AP-42, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1974.
5. "Federal Air Quality Control Regions," Publication No. AP-102,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1972.
6. SAROAD (Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data) computer
printouts for 1973.
7. "Stationary Source Fuel Summary Report," National Emissions Data
System, Environmental Protection Agency, 23 September 1974.
8. "Air Quality Data - 1972 Annual Statistics," Publication No.
EPA - 450, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974.
15
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
-------
TABLE A-l U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AREA
Priority
Air Quality
Control Region
S. Virgin Islands
Federal
Number
247
Parti -
culates
IA
SOX NOX
IA III
1970
(thousand)
63
Square
Miles
132
Density
(Pop./sq.mi . )
447
AQMA Designations
TSP Counties
Not
SO*.
R e q u
Counties
i r e d
Priority
Sulfur oxide:
Annual arithmetic mean
24-hour maximum
Parti cu,l ate matter
Annual geometric mean
24-hour maximum
I
Greater than
100
455
95
325
II
F'rom - To
60-100
260-455
60-95
150-325
III
Less than
60
260
60
150
Criteria based on measured or estimated air quality levels reflecting emissions predominately from a single point source.
-------
TABLE A-2 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
All concentrations in ygm/m
Total Suspended Participate Sulfur Oxides Nitrogen Dioxide
Federal
(Nov. 1972)
U.S. Virgin Islands
Primary
Secondary
Annual
75(G)
60(G)
60(G)
24- Hour
260a
150a
150a
Annual
80(A)
80(A)
24-Hour
365a
365a
3-Hour
1300a
1300a
Annual
100(A)
100(A)
100(A)
aNot to be exceeded more than once per year.
(A) Arithmetic Mean
(G) Geometric Mean
-------
TABLE A-3 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS AQCR AIR QUALITY STATUS (1973), TSPa
(ug/m3)
TSP Concentration
AQCR #
2nd
# Highest
Stations Highest Reading Reading
Reporting Annual 24-Hr 24-Hr Background
247 2d NA 316 240 24
a!973 air quality data in National Air Data Bank as of June 7, 1974.
Violations based on 2nd highest reading at any station
cFormula:
(2nd Highest 24-hr - 24-hr Secondary Standard) x 100
or:
2nd Highest 24-hr - Background
(Annual - Annual Secondary Standard) x 100
# Stations Violating Federal Reduction
Ambient Air Quality Standards Required
Primary Secondary to Meet
Annual 24-Hrb Annual % 24-Hrb % Standards1-
NA 0 NA 0 1 50 +42
Standard
on Which
Reduction
Is Based
24-hour
Annual - Background
whichever is most stringent.
dMonitorinq stations at Charlotte Amalie
NA - Not available
-------
TABLE A-4 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS AQCR AIR QUALITY STATUS (1973), S02a
S02 Concentration
(ug/m3)
AQCR #
247
#
Stations
Reporting
24-Hr
(Bubbler)
3d
#
Stations
Reporting
(Contin. )
0
Highest
Annual
10
Reading
2T^Rr
73
2nd
Highest
Reading
24-Hr
62
# Stations Violating
Ambient Air Quality Stds.
Primary
Annual
0
24-Hru
0
Secondary
3-Hr
0
%
Reduction
Required
To Meet
Standards0
-100
Standard
on Which %
Reduction
Is Based
Annual
1973 air quality data in National Air Data Bank as of July 29, 1974
Violations based on 2nd highest reading at any station.
cFormula:
(2nd Highest 24-hr - 24-hr Standard) x 100
2nd highest 24-hr
or: (Annual - Annual Standard) x 100
Annual
whichever is most stringent.
Monitoring stations at Charotte Amalie, Christiansted and St. Croix County
-------
TABLE A-5 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE SUMMARY
Other Fuel Combustion Total Emissions % Emissions From
Power Point Sourcesa (103 tons/year)b Fuel Combustion Sources
AQCR No. Plants TS£ SQ_2 TSP_ Sp_2 TSP S02
247 2 21 7.6 11.0 9 69
a - All significant point sources, when combined with power plants, contribute at least 90% of
the total emissions from fuel combustion point sources
b - AQCR total, 1972 National Emissions Report
-------
TABLE A-6 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS EMISSIONS SUMMARY-PARTICULATES
Industrial, Commercial,
Institutional Combustion Area Source
AQCR
2^7
nuori j u LCU
(tons/yr.)
7,631
(tons/yr.)
120
%a
2
(tons/yr. )
945
o/a
7o
11
(tons/yr. )
1
%a
-------
TABLE A-7 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS EMISSIONS SUMMARY-SULFUR DIOXIDE
AQCR Total
Industrial, Commercial,
Institutional Combustion Area Source
Electricity Generation Point Sources Fuel Combustion
AQCR (tons/yr.) (tons/yr.) %a (tons/yr.) %a (tons/yr.) %a
247 11,004 1,153 10 6,045 55 4 <1
aPercentaae of total emissions
-------
TABLE A-8
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS PARTICIPATE EMISSION
REGULATION FOR FUEL COMBUSTION
Heat Inputa'b
<10
100
1,000
^10,000
Maximum Allowable0
0.60
0.352
0.207
0.090A
a - Heat input is the aggregate heat content
of all fuels whose product of combustion
pass through a single stack or stacks.
b - 106 BTU/hour
c - lbs/106 BTU of heat input
-------
TABLE A-9 CONTROL STRATEGY ASSESSMENT - PARTICULATES
State Implementation Plan Requirements
Requirements Based on 1973 Data
AQCR
247
Baseline
Air Quality
(yg/m3)
99C
Baseline
Emissions
(Tons/Yr.)
8,856
Allowable
Emissions
(Tons/Yr.)
2,174
Predicted
1975 Emissions
(Tons/Yr.)
2,174
1973
Air Quality
(yq/m3)
d
NEDS
Emissions3
(Tons/Yr.)
7,631
Allowable
Emissions
(Tons/Yr.)
...d
Tolerance for
Emission Increaseb
(Tons/Yr.)
0
a - From NEDS Summary Document June 1974.
b - Difference between 1973 based allowable and predicted 1975 emissions
c - Annual average
d - Annual averaqe for 1973 not available.
-------
TABLE A-10 CONTROL STRATEGY ASSESSMENT - S02
State Implementation Plan Requirements
Requirements Based on 1973 Data
AQCR
247
Baseline
Air Quality
(yg/m3)
106C
Baseline
Emissions
(Tons/Yr.)
19,505
Allowable
Emissions
(Tons/Yr.)
3,509
Predicted
1975 Emissions
(Tons/Yr.)
3,509
1973
Air Quality
(yg/m3)
10
NEDS
Emissions3
(Tons/Yr.)
11,004
Allowable
Emissions
(Tons/Yr.)
___d
Tolerance for
Emission Increase
(Tons/Yr.)
-7,495
a - From NEDS Summary Document June 1974.
b - 1973 and SIP data do not compare reasonably. Tolerance for Emission Increase was calculated as the difference bet.
SIP Allowable Emissions - 1973 NEDS Emission = -7,495 tons which represents a reduction of 7,495 tons.
c - Baseline Air Quality of 106 yg/m3 on which the SIP for S02 is based was converted from 0.4ppm.
d - The low monitored 1973 Air Quality does not indicate an emission reduction due to a possible malfunction in the
monitoring equipment, therefore allowable emissions for 1973 were not calculated.
-------
APPENDIX B
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
-------
B-l REGIONAL INDICATORS - PARTICIPATES
AQCR
247
No. of
Monitors
2
Sites with
A.Q. Violations
1
Priority
Classification
IA
cA^iei-Leu
Attainment Date
for Stds.
1/75
Kroposea
AQMA
Designations
None
Total
(1Q3 Ton/Yr)
7.6
% From
Fuel Combustion
14
Tolerance for
Emission Increase
(1Q3 Ton/Yr)
-------
B-2 REGIONAL INDICATORS - S02
Al> Qua1ity Expected Proposed Emissions Tolerance for
No. of Sites with Priority Attainment Date AQMA Total % from Emission Increase
AQCR Monitors A.Q. Violations Classification for Stds. Designations (IP3 Ton/Yr) Fuel Combustion (1Q3 Ton/Yr)
247 1 0 IA 1/75 None 11.0 65 -7.5
-------
APPENDIX C
POWER PLANT SUMMARY
-------
TABLE C-1 POWER PLANT ASSESSMENT FOR U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
AQCR
247
Plant
V.I. Water & Power
Authority
(St. Thomas)
V.I. Water & Power
Authority
(St. Croix)
Capacity Fue1 Use ,
(Mw) Type Quantity (103/Gals.)
60.5
28.0
Oil
23,580
Oil 19,260
Total 42,840a
Fuel Sulfur
Regulation
0.5%
0.5%
Includes total of residual oil and distillate oil used between June, 1973 and June, 1974.
Residual oil consumption totaled 37.8 million gallons, distillate oil totaled 5.04 million
gallons. Fuel consumption by plant was estimated based on ratio of firing rates; St. Thomas-
4278 gals/hr, St. Croix - 3385 gals/hr.
-------
APPENDIX D
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE D-l U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS SIGNIFICANT SOURCES'
AQCR Name
U.S. Virgin Islands
NEDS
TSP Emissions
(T/Yr)
909b
NEDS
SO? Emissions
(T/Yr)
5880C
Reductions Under
Existing Regulations(T/Yr)
TSP SO?
-405
+1594
% NEDS TSP
Emissions From Coal
0
a - See Table A-5
b - Harvey Alumina V.I. Inc. and Hess Oil V.I. Corp. on St. Croix
c - Harvey Alumina V.I. Inc., St. Croix only
-------
APPENDIX E
AREA SOURCE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE E-1 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FUEL COMBUSTION AREA SOURCES'
Fuel Burned
Emissions (tons/yr)
n^ur\
AQCR Name No.
Virgin Islands 247
Type
Oil:
Distillate
Residual
Gas:
Natural
Amount^
90
0
0
% S
0.5
2.0
—
% S Regulation
0.5
0.5
Parti cul ate
1
0
SO?
4
0
a - NEDS data
b - Coal in tons/yr; oil in 1000 gals.; gas in MCF; wood in tons.
-------
APPENDIX F
FUEL USE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE F-l
STATIONARY SOURCE FUEL USE SUMMARY
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Residual Oil (1Q3 Gals.) Distillate Oil (TO3 Gals.) Natural Gas (1Q3 cu.ft.) Bagasse (tons)
Area Sources
Residential
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
Point Sources
External Comb.
Elec. Gen.
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
Internal Comb.
Elec. Gen.
Industrial
Comm/Inst.
Total
GRAND TOTAL
29210
36400
65610
100
100
65610
1358
284
1642
6400
26938
33338
35080
5203
5203
22
22
5225
18572
18572
------- |