EPA-450/3-75-006
FEBRUARY 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
GUAM
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-006
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
GUAM
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
TOO California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
(Contract 68-02-1385)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 1975
-------
TERRITORY OF GUAM
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
(SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW)
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 REVIEW OF THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND CURRENT AIR QUALITY . . 5
2.1 Summary 5
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the Territory of Guam 8
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current State
Implementation Plan 8
2.4 Special Considerations for the Territory of Guam 9
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS 10
4.0 TECHNICAL APPENDICES 11
APPENDIX A - State Implementation Plan Background 11
APPENDIX B - Regional Air Quality Analysis 25
APPENDIX C - Power Plant Assessment 28
APPENDIX D - Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Source
Assessment 31
APPENDIX E - Area Source Assessment 32
BIBLIOGRAPHY 33
1 i 1
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed report is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review
each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be
made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion sources
without 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 regu-
lations relating to fuel combustion 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 Implementation Plan
revisions; ESECA does not, however, require States to change any
existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with
information on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of
ESECA is that SIP's, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of
conserving low sulfur fuels or converting sources which burn oil or
natural gas to coal. EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews,
therefore, has been to try to establish if emissions from combustion
sources may be increased. Where an indication can be found that
emissions from certain fuel burning sources can be increased and still
attain and maintain NAAQS, it may be plausible that fuel resource
allocations can be altered for "cle"an fuel savings" in a manner con-
sistent 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 imple-
mentation 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
S07 emission regulations. The States have also been asked to discourage
large scale shifts from coal to oil where this could be done without
jeopardizing the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
1
-------
To date, EPA's fuel 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 SCL 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 affect many State plans and in some instances conflict
with current national energy concerns, a review of the State Implementa-
tion 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 attain-
ment of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most
polluted air quality control region (AQCR) and adopt control regulations
which would be adequate to attain the NAAQS in the 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 similiar
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
limitations. The findings of this report are by no means conclusive and
are neither intended or adequate to be the sole basis for SIP revisions;
they do, however, represent EPA's best judgement 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 dis-
persion modeling data available by which to address individual point source
emissions. Where the modeling data for specific sources were found,
however, they were used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based is the most
currently available to the Federal Government. However, EPA believes that
the States possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
States have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems
facing them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards.
Therefore, those States desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify
and, in many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data support-
ing EPA's findings. In developing a suitable plan, it is suggested that
States select control strategies which place emissions from fuel
combustion sources into perspective with all sources of emissions such
as smelters or other industrial processes. States are encouraged to
consider the overall impact which the potential relaxation of overly
restrictive emission regulations for combustion sources might have on
their future control programs. This may include air quality main-
tenance* prevention of significant deterioration , increased TSP, f!0x
and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and other potential
air pollution problems such as sulfates.
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attain-
ment of all the fiAAOS, 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, in many areas, a
major source of SCL and 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 limiting 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 Territory of Guam Implementation Plan has been reviewed for the
most frequent causes of over-restrictive emission limiting regulations.
The findings are as follows:
• There is no indication that current regulations are overly
restrictive in the context of Section IV of ESECA.
• The Example Region approach was not used in developing control
strategies for TSP and SO,,.
• There are indications that the NAAQS for both TSP and SCL are
being violated.
-------
2.0 GUAM STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations will
depend on many factors. For example:
9 Does the State have air quality standards which are more
stringent than NAAQS?
e Does the State have emission limitation regulations for control
of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources, (3) area sources?
o Did the State use an example region approach for demonstrating
the attainment of NAAQS jor more stringent State standards?
e Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion source
emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels
Policy?
o Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
o Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring sites
within a region?
o Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
o Based on reported (1973) air quality data, does air quality
meet NAAQS?
o Based on reported (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increased emissions?
o Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources
proportionally lower than those of all other sources?
o Is there a significant clean fuels saving potential in the
region?
e Must emission regulations be revised to accomplish significant
switching?
e 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,
industrial sources and area sources) has been carried out in Appendices
C, D 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 remaining portion of the report supports this summary
with explanations.
-------
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
(SUMMARY)
STATE
"INDICATORS"
• Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
1 . Power plants
2. Industrial sources
3. Area sources
• Did the State use an example region approach
for demonstrating the attainment of fiAAQS or
more stringent State standards?
t 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?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
does air quality meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
are there indications of a tolerance for
increasing emissions?
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources lower than those of other
sources?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
sources show a potential for a regulation revision?
• Must emission regulations be revised to accom-
plish significant fuel switching?
• Based on the above indicators, what is the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations?
• Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
TSP S02
Mo
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
No
No
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
Poor
No
Yes a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
No
No
No
No
N/A
Poor
No
3 The Territory's SO- standards are identical to the former
secondary NAAQS for SO,,.
7
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING - TERRITORY OF GUAM
The Territory of Guam, consisting of a small tropical island in the Pacific
Ocean, is contained within one Air Quality Control Region (#246). Presently, the
Territory is classified Priority II for sulfur oxides and Priority III for all
other pollutants , but these priorities will be changed to IA for TSP and SOp.
There are no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area designations for any pollutant.
The ambient air quality standards for the Territory are presented in
Table A-3.
From the most currently available air quality data (.1973), it appears that
TSP and S0~ concentrations have exceeded the national standards. Sources of
particulate emissions include fugitive dust, process losses and incineration,
while electric power generating facilities are the major source of SOp emissions.
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The original Guam SIP was based on estimated air quality data using the
Miller and Holzworth Area Model. Actual data obtained since the adoption of
the original SIP indicates that this SIP would be inadequate to attain and
maintain national ambient air quality standards. As a result, the SIP is
currently being revised to take into account this air quality data.
2.3.1 Particulate Control Strategy
The original (and official) control strategy is comprised of the following
control measures:
(1) Process weight table.
(2) Fugitive dust control.
(3) Ban on open burning.
(4) Incineration limitation of 0.20 lbs/100 Ibs of refuse as charged.
The revised SIP contains more stringent controls on fugitive dust than the
original.
2.3.2 Sulfur Oxide Control Strategy
The original (and official) control strategy is comprised of an emission
limitation of 1.94 Ibs SOp/raillion Btu heat input to the installation. The
revised strategy is comprised of an emission limitation of 0.80 Ibs SOp/million
8
-------
Btu heat input to the installation. EPA is in the process of preparing a
Federal Register notice to approve this portion of the revised SIP.
EPA is also in the process of evaluating alternatives which could be
used to meet the 0.80 Ibs emission limitation and those measures which could
be used on an interim basis to meet the ambient standards.
2.4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - TERRITORY OF GUAM
The only problem with the SIP is with its implementation, because the low
sulfur fuel which would be required to meet the S02 emission limitation without
additional controls is not available.
-------
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS
Power Plant Analysis
Table C-l estimates the effect when all power plants which burn residual
oil conform to SCL emission limitations specified in the SIP. Because the power
plants currently burn only oil and do not have the capability of using coal
without extensive modification, no analysis was made of the consequences of
switching to coal.
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment
The Territory of Guam was found to have no industrial, commercial and
institutional sources which could be evaluated in the context of Section 4 of
ESECA.
Area Source Assessment
The Territory of Guam was found to have no area sources which could be
evaluated in the context of Section 4 of ESECA.
10
-------
APPENDIX A
t State implementation plan information
0 Current air quality information
• Current emission information
Tables in this appendix summarize original and modified state imple-
mentation plan information, including original priority classifications,
attainment dates, ambient air quality standards and fuel combustion
emission regulations. Air quality data for SO^ and TSP monitoring stations
are shown for AQCR's in the state. Emission data are tabulated and are broken
down into fuel burning categories.
Tables A-9 and A-10 show a comparison of emission inventories in the
original SIP and those from more current data. An emission tolerance, or
emission tonnage which might be allowed in the AQCR and still not violate
national secondary ambient air quality standards, is shown for SCL and
particulates. Tolerance was based on either the degree of control expected by
the SIP or upon air quality/emission relationships which are calculated from
more recent data. The value of the emission tolerance provides an indication
of the degree of potential an AQCR possesses for fuel revisions and regulation
relaxation.
Methodology for Increased Emissions Tolerance
A tolerance for increased emissions was determined as follows. First,
an "allowable emissions" was calculated for each AQCR based on the current
emissions data and the percent reduction (or increase) required to meet the
national secondary ambient air quality standards in that AQCR (worst case
from Tables A-4 and A-5). This "allowable" was then compared to that from
the SIP. If reasonable agreement occurred, then the "estimated emissions"
which would result after implementation of the SIP in that AQCR was used to
calculate an emissions tolerance. Thus, some credit could be given to an
AQCR which might be restricting emissions more than required by ambient
air quality standards. For instance, emission controls applied to AQCR's
11
-------
for the state may reduce emissions well below the allowables. In the event
that no data existed or was available from the SIP for an AQCR, the current
air quality was used to assign emission tolerances based on proportional
rollback or rollup. Current air quality was also the criteria, if emissions
data from SIP and current emissions data did not appear to be comparable
(this was often the case).
When no SIP emissions data was available and current air quality levels
were less than one half of the level represented by an ambient air quality
standard, no "rollup" emission tolerance was calculated in Tables A-9 and
A-10. This arbitrary cutoff point was chosen so as not to distort the emission
tolerance for an area. At low levels of a pollutant, the relationship between
emissions and air quality is probably not linear. Although this cutoff may
leavy some AQCR's with no quantifiable emissions tolerance, it was felt that
no number at all would be preferable to a bad or misleading number.
It is emphasized that emission tolerance is a region-wide calculation.
This tolerance obviously makes more sense in, say, an urban AQCR with many
closely spaced emission sources than in a largely rural AQCR with
geographically dispersed emissions.
Low concentrations of pollutants probably indicate a lov/ density of sources
and that the air quality monitors are not located near the sources. Thus
changes in emissions from the sources will not result in a linear change in
air quality readings.
12
-------
Table A-l Territory of Guam Air Pollution Control Areas
AQCR
Guam
Federal
Number
246
Priority
Classification a
Part. SOV NOV
* X
II III III
Demographic Information
Population Square Population
1970 Miles Density
84,996 209 406.7
Proposed AQMA Designations
TSP SOX NOX
Counties Counties Counties
(0) (0) (0)
Criteria based on maximum measured (or estimated) pollution concentration (in pg/m ) in area
Priority
Sulfur oxide
Annual arithmetic mean
24- hour maximum
Particulate matter
Annual Geometric mean
24-hour maximum
Nitrogen dioxide
I
Greater than
100
455
95
325
110
II
From- to
60-100
260-455
60-95
150-325
III
Less than
60
260
60
150
110
b Federal Register, August 1974, SMSA's showing potential for NAAQS violations due to growth
-------
Philippine Sea
^ E
Agat Bay
Umatac Bay
Figure A-l Territory of Guam
Cocos Island
-------
Table A-2 Attainment Dates
AQCR #
246
AQCR Name
Guam
Participates
Attainment Dates
Primary
a
Secondary
a
Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment Dates
Primary
7/75
Secondary
7/77
Nitrogen Oxides
Attainment Dates
a
Ambient air quality was estimated to be below NAAOS at the time the SIP was written
-------
Table A-3 Territory of Guam Ambient Air Quality Standards
All concentrations in pg/m
Federal
Territory
Primary
Secondary
Total .
Suspended Particulate
Annual
75 (G)
60 (G)
60 (G)
24-Hr.
260a
150a
150a
Sulfur Oxides
Annual
80 (A)
—
60 (A)
24-Hr.
365a
—
260a
3-Hr.
1300a
1300a
Nitrogen
Dioxide
100 (A)
100 (A)
100 (A)
Not to be exceeded more than once a year
The Territory also has an 8 hour TSP standard of 360 jjg/m3
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
o
Note: The federal secondary TSP standard of 60 jjg/m is only a guideline standard.
-------
Table A-4 Territory of Guam AQCR Air Quality Status, TSP
AQCR Name
Guam
AQCR #
246
# of
Stations
Reporting
3d
TSP Concentration
(ug/m3)
Highest Reading
Annual
172.2
24-Hr.
628
2nd
Highest
Reading
24-Hr.
423
# of Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary
Annual
N/A
24-Hr^
N/A
Secondary
Annual
N/A
%
N/A
24-Hr^
N/A
%
VA
%
Reduction
Required
to Meet
Standard
SB' °
1973 air quality data from Territory of Guam Environmental Protection Agency
Violations based on more than one excess of the standard
Calculated from: Highest Annual Reading - Annual Secondary Standard
Highest Annual Reading - Background
NOTE : Annual background taken from the SIP and equals 40 jig/m
3.
Permanent stations
N/A = Not available
-------
Table A-5 Territory of Guam AQCR Air Quality Status, SCL
AQCR Name
Guam
AQCR #
246
# of
Stations
Reporting
24-Hr.
(Bubbler)
3d
# of
Stations
Reporting
(Contin.)
0
o
S02 Concentration (pg/m )
Highest Reading
Annual
56.2
24-Hr.
3497
2nd
Highest
Reading
24-Hr.
3000
# of Stations Exceeding
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary
Annual
N/A
24-Hr?
N/A
Secondary
3-Hr.b
N/A
%
Reduction
Required
to Meet
Standard
88 C
00
1973 air quality data from Territory of Guam Environmental Protection Agency
Violations based on more than one excess of the standard
Calculated from : 2nd Highest 24 hour Reading - 24 Hour Standard
2nd Highest 24 hour Reading
Permanent stations
N/A = Not available
-------
Table A-6 Territory of Guam Fuel Combustion Source Summary
AQCR
Guam
Power Plants
48
Other Fuel
Combustion Point Sources
8
Total Fuel
Combustion Emissions
(103 tons/yr)
Particulate
2.656
so2
30.578
Includes only those which burn residual oil and are currently on line
-------
Table A-7 Territory of Guam Emission Summary, Particulates
AQCR
Guam
Total
(103 tons/yr)
2.656
Electrical
Generation
103 tons/yr
0.478
%
18
Industrial ,
Institutional ,
Commercial
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
103 tons/yr
0
%
0
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
103 tons/yr
0.077
%
3
Other Sources of
Particulate Emissions
103 tons/yr
2.101
%
79
ro
1973 emissions from the Territory of Guam Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table A-8 Territory of Guam Emission Summary,
AQCR
Guam
Total
O
(lO01 tons/yr)
30.578
Electrical
Generation
0
10 tons/yr
29.6
%
96.8
Industrial ,
Institutional ,
Commercial
Point Source
Fuel Combustion
0
10 tons/yr
0
%
0
Area Source
Fuel Combustion
•\
10 tons/yr
0.337
%
1.1
Other Sources
of SOo Emissions
•5 " <-
10 tons/yr
0.641
%
2.1
IXi
1973 emissions from the Territory of Guam Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table A-9 Territory of Guam Required Emission Reductions, Particulates
From SIP r ln_. „ ^
From 1973 Data
AQCR
Guam
X'
AQ
Measurement
Control Value
(pg/nr)
46.9 a
Emissions
(tons/yr )
2,035
Allowable
Emissions
(tdns/yr )
3,864
" ~^x
1975
Estimated
Emissions
After Controls
(tons/yr)
2,429
_— —
01
10
Reduction
Required
Based
on 1973
AQ Data
85
••I
1973
Emissions
( tons )
2656
mi*
Allowable
Emissions
( tons )
398
_____
Emission
Tolerance
(tons/yr)
-2258
IN3
ro
Annual Geometric Mean (estimated)
-------
Table A-10 Territory of Guam Required Emission Reductions, S02
From SIP From 1973 Data
AQCR
Guam
AQ
Measurement
Control Value
(ug/m3)
59.3 a
Emissions
(tons/yr)
21,701
Allowable
Emissions
(tons/yr)
29,276
1975
Estimated
Emissions
After Controls
(tons/yr)
29,260
%
Reduction
Required
Based
on 1973
AQ Data
88
1973
Emissions
(tons)
30,578
Allowable
Emissions
(tons)
3P69
Emission
Tolerance
(tons/yr)
/?fi,9P9
ro
to
Annual Arithmetic Mean (estimated)
-------
Table A-ll Territory of Guam Fuel Combustion Regulations
SCk : 0.80 Ibs./ million Btu of heat input to the installation
Particulates : None
ro
.£=>
-------
APPENDIX 8
Tables B-1 and B-2 are the assessment of AQCR's which should be
examined for the fuel switching impact in particulate and SO- emissions.
They also provide an identification for those AQCR's which show little
potential for fuel revision or regulation relaxation if ambient air
standards are to be attained.
The criteria for candidates are (1) the severity and breadth of air
quality violations, (2) the tolerance for emissions increases in the AQCR,
(3) the fraction of total emissions resulting from fuel combustion and (4)
AQMA designations. It should be noted that an AQCR may not necessarily
need relaxation of regulations in order to accomplish fuel switching.
Further, a good candidate in Tables B-1 and B-2 may later show little
potential for fuel switching after individual sources are examined.
Finally, it is possible that an AQCR may have air quality levels below
standards at present and may require more strict regulations than currently
exist if all fuel burning sources were converted to dirtier fuels, i.e.,
"average" emission rates now may be below "average" regulations.
25
-------
Table B-l Territory of Guam Candidacy Assessment for Revision of Particulate Regulations
AQCR
Guam
# of
Monitors
3b
# of Monitors
with Violations
3
Expected
Attainment
Date
a
Counties with
Proposed AQMA
Designations?
No
1973
Total
Emissions
(tons)
2656
%
Emissions
from Fuel
Combustion
21
Emissions
Tolerance
(tons/yr)
^2258
Overall
Region-wide
Evaluation
Poor Candidate
3 Ambient air quality was estimated to be below NAAQS at the time the SIP was submitted
Permanent stations
-------
Table B-2 Territory of Guam Candidacy Assessment for Revision of S02 Regulations
AQCR
Guam
# of
Monitors
3b
# of Monitors
with Violations
c
Expected
Attainment
Date
7/75
Counties with
Proposed AQMA
Designation?
No
1973
Total
Emissions
(tons)
30,578
%
Emissions
from Fuel
Combustion
97.9
Emissions
Tolerance
(tons/yr)
-26,909
Overall
Region-wide
Evaluation
Poor Candidate
ro
a Ambient air quality was estimated to be below NAAQS at the time the SIP was submitted
Permanent stations
No violations were recorded at permanent stations; however, temporary stations have
shown violations.
-------
APPENDIX C
This section is a review of the individual power plants by AQCR. The
intent is to illustrate fuel switching possibilities and SOp emissions
which may result from these plants after fuel switching.
28
-------
Table C-l Territory of Guam Power Plant Analysis
AQCR
Guam
Plant
Capacity
Piti
68 MM
Tanguisson
53 MM
Inductance
Pov;er
Barge
28 MM
Cabras
Unit #1
66 MW
Cabras
Unit n
66 MM
Fuel Use b
Type
% S
% A
Oil
3.1% S
Oil
3.1% S
Oil
3.1% S
Oil
3.1% S
Oil
Annual
Quantity
18,466
32,180
16,654
Heat Input
(106 Btu/hr)
832
552
286
Emissions
tons/yr
so2
11,795
7,097
4,053
Particulate
193
128
66
lbs/106 Btu
so2
3.24
2.94
3.24
Particulate
0.053
0.053
0.053
1975
Emission
Limit
so2
(lb/106Btu)
0.80
0.80
0.80
Emissions Resulting,
After Fuel Switch a
(tons/yr)
so2
2912
1931
1001
On line : August 18, 1974
Scheduled on line : May 1, 1975
-------
Table C-l Territory of Guam Power Plant Analysis (continued)
a Includes only steam electric plants using residual oil.
1972 data from NEDS; oil use in terms of 10 gallons; heat content assumed to be 150,400 Btu per gallon;
total number of hours of operation per year assumed to be 8760 for all plants.
c SIP specified an emission limit for S02 only.
d Calculated from; 0-8Q 1fa /1Q6 Bt
— ' —=^ ? x S09 emissions (tons/yr)
S02 emissions (lbs/10DBtu) *
CO
o
-------
APPENDIX D
The Territory of Guam was found to have no industrial, institutional
or commercial sources which could be analyzed within the context of Section
4 of ESECA.
31
-------
APPENDIX E
The Territory of Guam was found to have no area sources which could
be analyzed within the context of Section 4 of ESECA.
32
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) "1972 National Emissions Report", U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-450/2-74-012.
(2) "Federal Air Quality Control Regions", U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Publication No. AP-102.
(3) "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, 2nd Edition", U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Technical Publication
AP-42, April 1973.
(4) SAROAD Data Bank, 1973 Information, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
(5) "Implementation Plan for Compliance with the Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Territory of Guam", January 25, 1972.
33
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-006
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION"NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR GUAM AS 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., Regional Office IX, 100 California St.
San Francisco, Calif, and TRW, Inc. Redondo Bch, Calif
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1385
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
(ESECA) requires EPA to review each State Implementation Plan (SIP)
if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel
sources without interferring with the attainment and maintenance of
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.
Act of 1974,
to determine
combustion
the national
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Croup
Air pollution
State Implementation Plans
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
33
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
34
------- |