EPA-450/3-75-005
FEBRUARY 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
MISSISSIPPI
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-005
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
MISSISSIPPI
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
1421 Peachtree St., NE
. Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Energy and Environmental Systems Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois 60439
(EPA-IAG-D5-0463)
U-. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 1975
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
MISSISSIPPI
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
2.0 MISSISSIPPI STATE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 10
2.1 Summary 10
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of Mississippi .... 12
2.2.1 Mississippi Air Quality Control Regions 12
2.2.2 Mississippi Ambient Air Quality Standards .... 12
2.2.3 Mississippi Air Quality Status 12
2.2.4 Mississippi Emissions Summary 15
2.2.5 Power Plant Modeling 15
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current
State Implementation Plan 17
2.3.1 General Information 17
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy 17
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy 17
2.4 Special Considerations for the State of Mississippi ... 20
2.4.1 Planned SIP Revisions 20
2.4.2 Fuels 20
2.4.3 Potential Fuel Conversions 20
-------
5
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed report is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA) . Section IV requires EPA to review each
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine if control regulations for
stationary fuel combustion can be revised without interfering with the
attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA advise the state as to whether
control regulations can 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 under the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate State Implemen-
tation 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 SIPs, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of con-
serving low-sulfur fuels or converting to coal, sources which burn oil or
natural gas. EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore,
has been to try to determine if emissions from certain combustion sources
may be increased without interfering with the attainment and maintenance
of standards. If so, it may be possible through altered resource allocations
to effect significant "clean fuel savings" in a manner consistent with both
environmental and national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel the implementation
of EPA's policy on clean fuels. Under the Clean Fuels Policy, implementation
plans have been reviewed with a view to saving low sulfur fuels. Where the
primary sulfur dioxide air quality standards will not be exceeded, states
have been encouraged to either defer attainment of secondary standards or
to revise the SO- 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.
-------
6
To date, this activity has involved only those states with the
largest clean fuels savings potentials. Several of these states have revised
or are currently in the process of revising their SCU regulations. These
states are generally in the eastern half of the United States. ESECA, how-
ever, requires the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations in
all 55 states and territories. In addition, the current reviews address
the attainment and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
The adoption of emission limitations which may, in some areas of the
states, be overly restrictive (or not restrictive enough) resulted largely
from the use of the "example region" approach along with analyses which
considered the "hot spots" of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) rather
than the entire region. This type of approach was offered in EPA guidelines
for plan development when states were preparing their original plans. Many
states, through concurrence with EPA, adopted the example region approach,
largely because of the short timetable dictated by the Clean Air Act. Also,
in most cases, the original SIPs were designed to attain and maintain the
original NAAQS, some of which have since been designated as "guides" only
or actually rescinded. However, many states adopted and retained the
original federal standards or, in a few cases, adopted more restrictive
state standards, and these served as the bases on which their SIPs were
approved. As a result, the requirements of many state plans conflict with
legitimate national energy concerns, and thus a review of the State Implemen-
tation Plans is a logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal (1972) of the
SIPs. At the time, SIPs were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the
attainment of the original NAAQS or the more stringent state air quality
standards. Also, at that time an acceptable method for formulating control
strategies was the use of an example region for demonstrating the attainment
of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a state to identify the most
polluted air quality control region and adopt control regulations which would
be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an example region,
it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained in the other AQCRs of the state
if the control regulations were applied to similar sources. But use of an
example region can result in excessive controls, especially in the utiliza-
tion of clean fuels, for areas of the state where sources would not
-------
otherwise contribute to NAAQS violations. For example, a control strategy
based on a particular region or source can result in a regulation requiring
1 percent sulfur oil to be burned statewide, even though 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 deciding whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for such
states to recognize the limitations of the present review. The findings of
this report are by no means conclusive and are neither intended nor adequate
to be the sole basis for SIP revisions; they do, however, represent EPA's
best judgment and effort in complying with the ESECA requirements. The time
and resources which EPA has had to prepare the reports has not permitted
the consideration of growth, economics, and control strategy tradeoffs. Also,
there has been only limited dispersion modeling data available by which to
address individual point source emissions. Where the modeling data for
specific sources was found, however, it was used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based is the most
currently available to the federal government. However, EPA believes that
the states possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
states have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems
facing them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality. Therefore,
those states desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data used to support
EPA's findings. States are encouraged 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.
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attain-
ment of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended
particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions. This is
because stationary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source
of S09 emissions and are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
The following are the principle findings for the State of Mississippi.
(Air Quality Control Regions are displayed on Figure 1-1.)
. The state has adopted the secondary federal National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for particulates and the original federal
secondary standards for S02. EPA has rescinded the annual and
24-hr secondary S02 standards, but equivalent standards are still
applicable in Mississippi, making the state's S02 standards more
stringent than the federal NAAQS. Attainment of the state S02
standards would require stricter emission controls than would
attainment of the federal NAAQS only.
. The statewide regulations for particulates and S02 are based on
the example region approach. Mississippi has not initiated any
changes in its S02 regulations under EPA's Clean Fuels
Policy.
. Within the framework of this limited analysis there appears
to be little margin for relaxed particulate emission regulations.
Each region is either experiencing high particulate levels or
has little clean fuels savings that would result from regulation
revision.
. For S02 there- are indications of a significant tolerance for
increased S02 emissions in the Metropolitan Memphis AQCR (#18),
the Mississippi Delta AQCR (#134), and the Northeast Mississippi
AQCR (#135) but no annual average air quality data were available.
In the Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi AQCR
(#5) there are indications that no overall increase in SOz emis-
sions is tolerable.
. The present Mississippi regulations allow the firing of high sulfur
coal and oil (more than three percent sulfur). Hence, even in
those regions where there are indications that increased SOa emis-
sions might be tolerable, the utilization of high sulfur fuels and
the consequent saving of clean fuels would not require a revision
in the regulations.
. There may be specific sources in Mississippi precluded from using
high sulfur fuel by that provision of the regulation which places
a ceiling on total sulfur emissions in any year equal to that emit-
ted by the source in 1970. However, the Air and Water Pollution
Control Commission can grant a variance from this provision and
thus need not keep any source restricted to low sulfur fuels.
-------
METROPOLITAN
MEMPHIS
INTERSTATE
(ARKANSAS-
MISSISSIPPI-
TENNESSEE)
(#18)
MISSISSIPPI
DELTA
INTRASTATE
(#134)
MOBILE-
PENSACOLA-
PANAMA CITY
SOUTHERN
MISSISSIPPI
INTERSTATE
(ALABAMA-
FLORIDA-
MISSISSIPPI)
(#5)
NORTHEAST
MISSISSIPPI
INTRASTATE
(#135)
Figure 1-1. Mississippi Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR)
-------
10
2 .0 MISSISSIPPI 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 demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS or more stringent state
standards?
. Has the state initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under
the Clean Fuels Policy?
. Are there 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 reported
violations of NAAQS?
. Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
. Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources a relatively small portion of the regional total?
. 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?
. Must the regulations be revised to accomplish significant
fuels switching?
This SIP review has answered these questions based on an overall
evaluation of EPA's current information. Based on these answers, each AQCR has
been assessed as a good, marginal, or poor candidate for regulation relaxation.
Table 2-1 summarizes the conclusions of this State Implementation Plan Review
and gives the overall candidacy assessment for each AQCR.
-------
Table 2-1. State Implementation Plan Review for Mississippi
State
Nbbile-Pensacola-
Panama City-
Southern
Mississippi
AQCR #S
Metropolitan
Memphis
AQCR #18
Mississippi Delta
AQCR #134
Mississippi
AQCR #135
"INIIICATllliS"
MJOS the Slate have air quality standards which arc more
stringent than NAAQS?
Docs the State have omission limiting regulations for
control of:
1. Power plants
2. Industrial sources
3. Area sources
I/id the State use an example region approach for demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS or more stringent State
standards?
Ihs the State initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
i.'-nlcr the Clc.-Ji l-'uuls Policy?
* Are there proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
« Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitor-
ing sites within a region?
Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
Based en (1973) Air Quality Data, are there reported
i-iclations of NAAQS?
iia.scd on [!'J7.7.J Air Quality Uata, arc there indications
o." a significant tolerance Cor i^croasinji cmiss.ioris?
Arc the emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources
a relatively small portion of the regional total?
r/> modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
5i.ow a potential for a regulation revision?
« IN there a significant Clean Fuels Saving potential in
the region?
Must the regulations be revised to accomplish signifi-
cant fuel switching?
Based on the above indicators, what is the potential for
revising fuel combusr. ion source emission limiting
regulations?
TSi' S02
NO .
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
'I'SI' S02
Example
Region
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
MA '
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
rsr :u2
\0
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NA
-
NO
YES
YES
N0b
YES
YES
NA
NO
NO
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
TSI1 S(>2
NO
YES
YES
N0b
NO
YES
NA
NO
NO
YESC
NA
NA
YES
NA
NO
NO
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
TS1> .SO^
NO
YES
YES
\'0b
YES
YES
NA
' .vo
xo
YES
N0b
YES
NO
NA
NO
NO
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
Interstate
Tto annual data '"
Attainment schedule indicates region is below standards;
current data is unavailable
-------
12
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of Mississippi
2.2.1 Mississippi Air Quality Control Regions
The State of Mississippi is divided into four Air Quality Control
Regions as shown in Figure 1-1 and Table 2-2. There are two intrastate and
two interstate regions. Only the Metropolitan Memphis Interstate AQCR (#18)
has a relatively large (greater than 75 people per square mile) population
density. Based on present conditions and growth projections for the state,
no counties in Mississippi have been proposed as Air Quality Maintenance
Areas (ACMAs) for either particulates or sulfur dioxide.
2.2.2 Mississippi Anfcierit Air Quality Standards
All the federal primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide apply
in Mississippi. In addition the state retains annual and 24-hour sulfur
dioxide standards equivalent to old federal secondary sulfur dioxide standards
which have been rescinded by EPA. These state sulfur dioxide standards are
more stringent than present federal primary standards. Mississippi air quality
standards are summarized in Table 2-3. This review considers only the attain-
ment of the federal NAAQS.
2.2.3 Mississippi Air Quality Status
Based on data in the SAROAD data banks as of June, 1974, both the
annual and 24-hour particulate NAAQS are being violated in Mobile-Pensacola-
Panama City-Southern Mississippi (#5) and Metropolitan Memphis (#18) AQCRs.
Annual average data is unavailable for the Mississippi Delta (#134) and North-
east Mississippi (#135) AQCRs. No 24-hour violations have been reported in
these latter two regions but the Mississippi Delta is just meeting the standards.
Thus, with the possible exception of Northeast Mississippi (#135) the indications
are that relaxation of particulate regulations would not be possible without
disrupting NAAQS attainment or maintenance.
S02 air quality data was unavailable from the Mississippi Delta AQCR
(#134) and no annual data was available from Metropolitan Memphis (#18) or from
Northeast Mississippi (#135). For the latter two regions, there were indications
that S02 emission regulations could be relaxed without jeopardizing attainment
-------
Table 2-2. Mississippi Air Pollution Control Areas
, Proposed
Demographic Information. Priority Classification AQMA Designations*
!f Population
1970 Area Density
, . . ±yiv ;v.ca jjtuiaj.1./
Air Qp^lity Federal Population (thousand (people per Particulates S02 N02 TSP Counties S02 Counties
Control fcegiori . Number pillions) sqvjnile) sq. mile )
^iti^Pensacola- S 2.1 33.6 63 I I III (0)
Mississippi ' ' . .--..-. -.._'
l^trWp^iitaii Id 0.8 1.8 439 I III III (0)
(A^Ki4""tenn.)
Mississippi 134 0.3 7.2 47 III III III (0)
Delta ' . . .
Northeast 135 0.6 17.3 37 II III III (0)
Mississippi
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
a
'As of Novenber 26, 1974
-------
Table 2-3. Mississippi Ambient Air Quality Standards
All concentrations in Mgm/m3
State Prinmry
and
Federal Secondary
State
Total Suspended Paniculate
Annual 24-Hr
. 7S(G) 260a .
60 (G) ISO*
, 60 (G) 150 :
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual 24-Hr 3-Hr
80 (A)
60(A)b
365a
1300a
260a»b 1300a
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
100 (A)
100 (A)
.100 (A)
*Not to be exceeded more than once a year,
adopted based on original EPA policy which was rescinded July, 1973.
. 1 * -
(A) Arithmetic mean. ,./>' ^
(G) Geometric mean. 7 . v ,- . ^
-------
15
and maintenance of the NAAQS. In the Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern
Mississippi AQCR (#5), one station was apparently violating the 24-hour S02
NAAQS and hence there is little tolerance for increased S02 emissions in
that region.
2.2.4 Mississippi Emissions Sunmary
In the four AQCR area, Mississippi fuel combustion sources account
for less than 10% of the total particulate and S02 emissions. There are no
power plants in the Mississippi portion of the Metropolitan Memphis AQCR (#18)
nor in the Northeast Mississippi AQCR (#135). No significant industrial/
commercial/institutional point sources are located in the Mississippi portion
of the Metropolitan Memphis AQCR (#18) nor in the Mississippi Delta AQCR
(#134).
The largest fraction of particulate emissions from fuel burning in
Mississippi comes from industrial/commercial/institutional point sources in
the Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi AQCR (#5) and from area
sources in the Metropolitan Memphis AQCR (#18). Industrial/commercial/
institutional point sources and area sources emit about the same fraction of
particulates from fuel combustion in both the Mississippi Delta AQCR (#134)
and the Northeast Mississippi Delta AQCR (#135).
The largest fraction of S02 emissions from fuel combustion in Mississippi
comes from industrial/commercial/institutional point sources in,the Mobile-
Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi AQCR C#5) -where emissions from -
electricity generation are also significant. Area sources contribute the
largest fraction of S02 emissions from Mississippi fuel combustion in Metro-
politan Memphis (#18) and Northeast Mississippi (#135) and electricity genera-
tion the largest fraction in Mississippi Delta (#134).
2.2.5 Power Plant Modeling
A summary of the limited modeling data available for Mississippi is
shown on Table 2-4. It is evident that existing regulations are already
allowing high sulfur fuel to be used where it is available and there is no
indication of any clean fuels saving to be gained by regulation revision.
-------
Table 2-4. Mississippi Power Plant Evaluation Summary
, on '
}2
AQCR
5°
18C
134
" 135
Mississippi
Total
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
NO PLANTS
Coal
Oil
Gas ';;'. " ', . .
NO PLANtS
- > \ ,
i ;.
Coal
Oil
Gas
1975 Fuel Required
by SIP Regulations
< 1% ' 1-2*
1
24,312, 1,001 5
89*785 >v ';-'..- .
2-3% >3%
^943
,796 6,851
. ^ : . . , ..,.. ^ /..._. . . , v.
.". ;
,34,593. . .',-. .-..- ,...-. .-. .-.".'.
6 -'..';
336 38,405
. ' t . _'
24,312 ^^1,001 ; ;6
. - vi24»378-- ;- '.,. ;''-;.
,949 '
,132 45,256
1975 Fuel Required by
Modified Regulations^
1% 1-2% 2-3% : >3%
24,3126
1,943
1,001 , 5,796 6,851
. .
No
modeling results available.
24,312f
89,785
l,943f e
1,001^ 5,796f 6,851f
requirements based on 1971 fuel lose patterns nt 1975 consunption rates plus any new units, if 1971 fuel
use data were unavailable, 1972 data were used. Maximum % S is 1971 % S unless regulations require a lower
% S. All plants fdt which actual 4 S data^rere available were already meeting SIP requirements. Coal in
103 tons/yr, oil in 103 gal/yr, gas in 10s ft3/yr.
Maximum allowable % S is 1971 % S unless modeling results indicate a lower value. All plants for which actual
% S data were available were already meeting SIP requirements. Data from Modeling Analysis of Power Plants
for Compliance Extensions in 51 Air Quality, Control Regions« Walden Research Division of Alcor, Inc.,
December 17, 1973.
Interstate.
Includes LP gas and propane gas at Eaton plant.
Modeling estimates made for coal only at Jack Watson plant. This figure assumes no change in % S oil from
1971 figure.
Although modeling results are incomplete, these data give some indication of minimum clean fuels savings.
-------
17
2.3 Background on the Development of the
Current State Implementation Plan
2.3.1 General Information
The example region approach was used to develop the Mississippi State
Implementation Plan. The proportional rollback model including background
was used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed particulate regula-
tions in the Jackson City, Gulfport-Biloxi, and Nfoss Point-Pascagoula areas of
the MDbile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi AQCR (#5). Growth
projections were made through the 1975 attainment date and attainment of the
secondary annual particulate NAAQS was demonstrated. However, the attainment
of the 24-hour particulate standards was not addressed in the plan.
A dispersion model was used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed S02 regulations. For fuel combustion sources, the most critical test
was deemed to be the Jack Watson power plant in the Gulfport-Biloxi area.
Taking a proposed new unit into account, the model predicted that all ambient
standards would be met including the old federal annual and 24-hour secondary
standards still applicable under state regulations.
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy
The control strategy for particulate emissions for fuel combustion
sources consists of enforcement of Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4 of Regulation
APC6-1, amended, of the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Com-
mission. The first two subsections deal with smoke and Section 4 limits mass
emission rates and grain loadings. These standards were designed to meet
the annual secondary NAAQS throughout Mississippi. They apply to area sources
as well as large point sources. The pertinent portions of these regulations
are summarized in Table 2-5 and Figure 2-1.
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy
Section 4.1 of Regulation APCS-l contains the S02 emissions limits
whose enforcement constitutes the S02 control strategy. These limitations
are summarized in Table 2-5. All sources, including area sources, are subject
to the regulations which were designed to ensure attainment of all NAAQS for
S02 throughout the state. In demonstrating the effectiveness of the regula-
tions only the limit on mass emission rates was considered, not the possibly more
restrictive yearly total emissions limitation.
-------
Table 2-5. Mississippi Fuel "'Combustion Bnission Regulations
so.
Existing Sources'
>1 250 x 106 Btu/hr
< 250 x 1QQ Btu/hr
<:;2$0 k 106 Btu/hr
4.8 lbs/100 Btu
2.4 bs/lQO Btu
All sources are limited in any calendar year to the same
or less emissions than the same Source emitted in
calendar 1970.b-
New Sources
250 x 10° Btu/hr
Same as for existing
facilities.
> 250 x 10° Btu/hr8
.8 lbs/10° Btu for
liquid fuel
1.2 lbs/106 Btu for
solid fuel
Particulates
.Opacity of Ringelmann #2: greater opacity illoweJ for
start-up for 15 minutes in any one hour with 3 startups
per stack per day or for emergencies or breakdowns with
no time limit; #3 permitted during soot-blowing provided
that aggregate time of such emissions in any 24-hour
period does not exceed 10 minutes per 109 Btu gross heat-
ing value of fuel burned in any One hour.
Limit determined by Fig. .2-1.
Opacity of 20%; 40%
allowed for 2 minutes
in any one hour.
Same as for existing
facilities.
0.1 lbs/10° Btu
aThe Federal New Source Performance Standards apply in this case and these limits are not specifically included
in the Mississippi regulation.
3the Commission can grant a variance from this limiting condition.
-------
f
GO
o
1,00
0,90
0,80
OJO
0,60
0,50
u,
en
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0.10
I I I
I I I I I I in
I
I I I I I I 11
I I I I I 11
Mil
Mil
1 I I I I
ml
10
!0q IOQQ
TOTAL INPUT (I06 BTU/Hr)
Figure 2-1. Maximum Permissible Emission of Fly Ash and Other Participate
Matter froti Fuel Burning Installations, in Mississippi.
10,000
i >-
v U
I I I I MM
100,000
-------
20
2.4 Special Considerations for the State of Mississippi
2.4.1 Planned SIP Revisions
Mississippi is not presently considering changing its State Implemen-
tation Plan with respect to fuel combustion sources.
2.4.2 Fuels
Mississippi consumes very little coal. The Jack Watson power plant is
the only major coal-fired power plant in the state. Almost 75% of the heat
input for utility electric power is produced from oil and gas and over two-
thirds is produced from gas. Industrial/commercial/institutional point
sources and area sources are almost exclusively users of oil and gas.
2.4.3 Potential Fuel Conversions
The Federal Energy Administration has not identified any power
plants in Mississippi as having the potential to convert from burning gas
or oil to burning oil.
-------
21
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-005
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR MISSISSIPPI
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
5. REPORT DATE
February 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., Region IV Office, Atlanta, Ga., and
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-IAG-D5-0463
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974,
(ESECA) requires EPA to review each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine
if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion
sources without interferring with the attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards. This document, which is also required by Section
IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
State Implementation Plans
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |