EPA-450/3-75-030
March 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
NORTH CAROLINA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
V-450/3-75-030
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
NORTH CAROLINA
REQUIRED BY HIE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY TIE 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
March 1975
-------
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
SECTION IV STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
Table of Contents
Pago
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
2.0 NORTH CAROLINA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 10
2.1 Summary 10
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of North Carolina 11
2.2.1 North Carolina Air Quality Control Regions 11
2.2.2 North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards 15
2.2.3 North Carolina Air Quality Status 15
2.2.4 North Carolina Emissions Summary 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 18
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy 18
2.4 Special Considerations for the State of North Carolina .... 18
2.4.1 Planned SIP Revisions 18
2.4.2 Fuels 21
2.4.3 Fuel Conversions 21
-------
-------
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
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 Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) to determine if control regulations for stationary fuel
combustion can be revised without interfering with the attainment and main-
tenance 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 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
SIPs, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of conserving 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 with-
out 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 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, this activity has involved only those states with the largest
clean fuels saving potentials. Several of these states have revised or are
currently in the process of revising their S0? regulations. These states
i*
are generally in the eastern half of the United States. ESECA, however,
requires the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations in all 55
states and territories. In addition, the current reviews address the attain-
ment and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The adoption of emission limitations which may, in some areas of the
state, 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 Implementation 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 pol-
luted 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
utilization 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
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 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 report's findings are based is that 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, NO and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and
X*
other potential air pollution situations.
-------
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attainment
of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended
particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SO,) emissions. This is
because stationary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source
of SO- emissions and are a major source of TSP emissions.
The following are the principle findings for the State of North Carolina.
(Air Quality Control Regions are displayed on Figure 1-1.)
. The state has adopted ambient standards for TSP and S02 which
are equivalent to the original federal Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Two of these standards for S02
are no longer in effect at the federal level but still exist
as state standards. Attainment of these state standards would
require stricter emission controls than would attainment of
the present federal NAAQS only.
. The state used the example region approach to develop both SO-
and particulate emission regulations. This approach was
supplemented by rollback calculations at three locations where
particularly high TSP levels were reported.
. Within the framework of this limited review, there appears to
be little possibility for particulate emission regulation
relaxation. High particulate levels are being measured through-
out most of the state.
. North Carolina's SO- emission regulation allows fuel switching
and the simultaneous use of high and low sulfur fuels to meet
the SO- emission limit. A reduced emission limit is scheduled
to be met in 1980.
. No SO- NAAQS violations were reported in North Carolina and
there are indications of a significant state-wide capacity to
absorb increased S02 emissions.
. Significant clean fuels savings could be realized in all AQCRs
if regulations were relaxed and if higher sulfur fuels were
available.
. Given the last three conclusions, the state of North Carolina
could consider relaxation of its S02 emission regulations.
However, even under the present regulations, many sources could
utilize higher sulfur fuels than they presently burn. Thus,
the potential for clean fuel savings exists for some sources
even within the present regulation. An overall move to higher
sulfur fuel use would require regulation revision. The present
lack of data indicates that a substantial modeling effort would
be required to indicate to what extent? if any, relaxation could
be allowed.
-------
WESTERN
MOUNTAIN
INTRASTATE
(#171)
(#165)
EASTERN
MOUNTAIN
INTRASTATE
(#136)
NORTHERN
PIEDMONT
INTRASTATE
(#166)
EASTERN
PIEDMONT
INTRASTATE
(#168)
NORTHERN
COASTAL
PLAIN
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
CHARLOTTE
INTERSTATE
(NORTH CAROLINA-
SOUTH. QAROLINA)
SANDHILLS
INTRASTATE
(#169)
SOUTHERN
COASTAL
PLAIN
INTRASTATE
(#170)
Figure 1-1. North Carolina Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs)
-------
10
The generally poor particulate air quality suggests that
allowing fuel switching from oil to coal would require
careful consideration of the local and potential regional
impact of any proposed switch.
Present North Carolina regulations generally require coal
with less than 2% sulfur and oil with 2-3% sulfur at plants
burning a single type of fuel. (About 1% sulfur coal and
1.51 sulfur oil by 1980.) A significant amount of coal and
oil is used in the state. The major effect of regulation
relaxation would be to allow the utilization of both higher
sulfur coals and oils.
2.0 NORTH CAROLINA 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?
-------
11
. 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?
. Mist 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 regula-
tion relaxation. An AQCR is assessed as a good candidate if the air
quality indicators show that the region has a tolerance to absorb increased
emissions and if the source-by-source evaluations show that significant
clean fuels savings could be effected by such revision. If the air quality
situation is such that no emission increase could be tolerated and/or
if the source evaluations show little or no clean fuel savings potential, then
the region is classified as a poor candidate for regulation revision. If
the air quality or clean fuels evaluations are inconclusive or show conflict-
ing information, then the region is assessed as a marginal candidate for
regulation revision and a more detailed analysis is needed to resolve the
situation. Table 2-1 summarizes the conclusions of this State Implementation
Plan Review and gives the overall candidacy assessment for each AQCR.
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of North Carolina
2.2.1 North Carolina Air Quality Control Regions
The state of North Carolina is divided into eight Air Quality Control
Regions as shown on Figure 1-1. There are seven intrastate regions and one
interstate region. The Northern Piedmont Intrastate AQCR (#136) and the
Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate AQCR (#167) have significantly higher
population densities than the other regions in the state. Based on present
conditions and growth projections for the state, Guildford and Forsyth
Counties in Northern Piedmont (#136) and Mecklenburg County in Metropolitan
Charlotte (#167) have been proposed as Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs)
for particulates as shown on Figure 2-1.
-------
Table 2-1. State Implementation Plan Review Stmmary for North Carolina
State
Northern Piedmont
AQCU# 136
Eastern Mountain
AOCR# 165
Eastern Piedmont
AQCRJL166
Metropolitan
Charlotte3
AQCR* 167
"iNitrcATous"
• Does the State have air quality standards which are more
stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limiting 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 monitor-
ing 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, arc there indications
of a significant tolerance for increasing emissions?
• Are the 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 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 combustion source emission limiting
regulations?
TSI1 S02
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NA
TSP S02
b
Yes
Yesc
Yes
Y-s
No
No
NA
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Marginal
TSP Sf>2
No
Yesc
Yes
Yesd
'No
No
NA
No
Yesc
Yes
Nod
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Marginal
TSP S02
No
Yesc
Yes
Yes
No
No
NA
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Marginal
. TSP SO,
Example
Region
Yes
Y*,c
Yes
Yes
No
No
NA
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
TSP - Poor
SC>2 - Marginal
-------
Table 2-1. State Implementation Plan Review Summary for North Carolina (Contd.)
Northern Coastal
Plain
AQCM 168
Sandhills
AQCRff 169
Southern Coastal
Plain
AQCR0 170
Western Mountain
AQCRff 171
"INWCATOkS"
• Docs the State have- air ijuaJity standards wliicli arc more
stringent than NAAQS?
• Docs the State have emission limiting 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?
• Arc there indications of a sufficient number of monitor-
ing 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?
• Hasixl on (I'J73J Air Quality Data, arc there indications
of a significant tolerance for increasing emissions?
• Arc the 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 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 combustion source emission limiting
regulations?
•rsi1 so2
No
Yesc
Yes
Yesd
No
Yes
NA
"' No
Yes
Yes
•No
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
TSP - Poor
SCL - Marginal
TSI' SO,
z
No
Yesc
Yes
Yesd
No
Yes
NA
No
Yesc
Yes
Nod
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Marginal
TSI' S<>2
No
Yesc
Yes
Yesd
'No
Yes
NA
No
Yesc
Yes
Nod
Yes
Nc
NA
Yes
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Marginal
TSP S02
b
No
Yesc
Yes
Yesd
No
No
NA
No
Yesc
Yes
Nod
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
TSP - Poor
S02 - Marginal
Interstate.
Example region modeling supplemented by rollback at high TSP stations in this region.
GThere is a sufficient number of sites but not all of them are reporting an annual average.
ito annual data.
-------
•OCKINGHAII I CASWELL | KKOK
WINSTON-SAL
EM-HIGH! POINT
ps^w'rsv/'j/.jii
|»AO«II, &'9«"H'
r./^.;?5« Rtswsef is
pwa(s*c*6 n.M.Js 7 /
kx(»l//J9r) fcs. f::
g. MNDOLPHM CHATHAM RALEIGH
?! '•;£ /.-:•
w5rsoNV^"KNw»f
A. " "" ' I ourLi
FAYETTEVILLE / O«SLO» -\ \-
-. / CAMP miUNe^ K"
KOIESON P iLAOtN
KNOCK
. . ILMINGTON
COLUMBUS ^ ^ —** '
WILMING
LEGEND
® Places of 100.000 or more inhabitants
• Places of 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants
D Central cities of SMSA's with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants
O Places of 25,000 to 50,000 inhabitants outside SMSA's
Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
TSP DESIGNATION
SCALE
O IO 2O 3O
) SO MILES
Figure 2-1. Proposed North Carolina Air Duality Maintenance Areas
(AQMAs)
-------
15
2.2.2 North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards
All the federal primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for participates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide apply in
North Carolina. In addition, the state retains annual and 24-hour sulfur
dioxide standards equivalent to federal secondary standards which have been
rescinded by EPA. These state S02 standards are more stringent than the
present federal primary standards. North Carolina also has a 24-hour nitrogen
dioxide standard which can be more stringent than the federal standard.
North Carolina air quality standards are summarized on Table 2-2. This review
considers only the attainment of the federal NAAQS.
2.2.3 North Carolina Air Quality Status
Based on data in the SAROAD data banks as of June, 1974, both the annual
and 24-hour particulate NAAQS were being violated in the Northern Piedmont
(#136), Eastern Piedmont (#166), and Metrpolitan Charlotte (#167) AQCRs.
Annual average data is unavailable for Eastern Mountain (#165), Northern
Coastal Plain (#168), Sandhills (#169) , Southern Coastal Plain (#170) and
Western Mountain (#171). Each of these six regions, however, was recording
violations of the short-term particulate standards. Since all regions are
significantly above the NAAQS, there are regional indications that overall
relaxation of particulate regulations would not be possible without disrupting
NAAQS attainment or maintenance.
No SCL NAAQS violations were reported in any of North Carolina's eight
AQCRs. However, no annual average data were available from the Eastern
Mountain (#165), Sandhills (#169), Southern Coastal Plain (#170), and
Western Mountain (#171) regions. There are thus indications based on regional
air quality that a significant tolerance for increased SCL emissions exists
throughout North Carolina.
2.2.4 North Carolina Emissions Summary
In the eight AQCR region, emissions from North Carolina fuel combustion
account for about half of the total particulate and almost 901 of the total
S02 emissions. There are no power plants in the Northern Coastal Plain AQCR
(#168).
-------
Table 2-2. North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards
All concentrations in
Federal
State
Primary
Secondary
!
Total Suspended
Annual
75(G)
60 (G)
60 (G)
Particulate
24 -Hour
260a
150a
150a
Sulfur Oxides
Annual 24 -Hour 3 -Hour
80 (A) 365a
— —
60(A)b 260a'b
—
1300a
1300a
Nitrogen
Annual
100 (A)
100 (A)
100 (A)
Dioxide
24 -Hour
—
—
250a
Ttot to be exceeded more than once per year.
was adopted based on original EPA policy which was rescinded July, 1973.
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
-------
17
The largest fraction of particulate emissions from fuel burning in
North Carolina comes from electricity generation in the Eastern Piedmont
(#166), Metropolitan Charlotte (#167), and Southern Coastal Plain (#170)
AQCRs. Industrial/commercial/institutional point sources contribute the
largest fraction in the Northern Coastal Plain (#168) and Western Mountain
(#171) regions while area sources are the largest contributors in Northern
Piedmont (#136) and Sandhills (#169). In the Eastern Mountain (#165) region,
both electricity generation and area sources emit large portions of the
particulates from fuel combustion.
The largest fraction of the SCL emissions from fuel combustion in North
Lt
Carolina comes from electricity generation in the Northern Piedmont (#136),
Eastern Mountain (#165), Eastern Piedmont (#166) , and Metropolitan
Charlotte (#167) AQCRs and from industrial/commercial/institutional point
sources in the Northern Coastal Plain (#168) and Western Mountain (#171)
AQCRs. Electricity generation, industrial/commercial/institutional point
sources, and area sources each contribute about the same fraction of
SCL emissions from fuel combustion in the Sandhills (#169) region. In
the Southern Coastal Plain (#170) region, both electricity generation
and industrial/commercial/institutional point sources emit about the same
amount of SCL and substantially more than area sources.
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 North Carolina State
Implementation Plan. Metropolitan Charlotte AQCR (#167) was designated as
the example region. The Air Quality Display Model was used to demonstrate
the sufficiency of the regulations to meet the SCL and particulate annual
secondary NAAQS. (At that time, the annual and 24-hour secondary NAAQS for S02
were still in effect at the federal level.) At one or more sites in the
Northern Piedmont (#136) and Western Mountain (#171) AQCRs, particulate
concentrations higher than those in Metropolitan Charlotte (#167) were recorded.
Rollback calculations were used at these sites to demonstrate the sufficiency
of the proposed regulations. Considerations of expected growth over a five
-------
18
year period in Nfetropolitan Charlotte indicated that the standards woul be
maintained. The sufficiency of the regulations for attainment and maintenance
for the 24-hour participate and S09 and the 3-hour SCL standards was not
& L
demonstrated.
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy
The control strategy for particulate emissions from fuel combustion
sources consists of enforcement of Section II, Regulation No. 2 for visible
emissions and Section IV, §1.10 for particulate matter emissions from fuel
burning sources of the Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution of
the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources. These regulations were
designed to meet the annual secondary NAAQS throughout North Carolina.
They apply to area sources as well as point sources. Pertinent portions
of these regulations are summarized on Table 2-3 and Figure 2-2.
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy
Section IV, §2.40 of the Regulations Governing the Control of Air
Pollution contains the emissions limits whose enforcement consitutes the
S02 control strategy. These limitations are summarized on Table 2-3.
All sources, including area sources, are subject to regulations, designed
to ensure attainment of the old annual secondary NAAQS for S09 throughout
£
the state. (These standards have been rescinded at the federal level but
remain state standards.) For sources existing on July 1, 1971, a more
restrictive standard, equivalent to the standard for new sources, applies
after July 1, 1980 than applies between 1971 and 1980. The regulation
allows the mixed firing of high and low sulfur fuels to meet the emission
limit.
2.4 Special Considerations for the State of North Carolina
2.4.1 Planned SIP Revisions
North Carolina is not presently considering changings its State
Implementation Plan with respect to fuel combustion sources.
-------
Table 2-3. North Carolina Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
Existing
New
Visible
No emission shall be darker than Ringelmann #2
or equivalent spacity for more than 5 min. in
any one hour or for more than 20 min. in any
24-hour period.
On July 1, 1976, the standard for new sources
shall apply.
No emission shall be darker than Ringelmann #
or equivalent opacity for more than 5 min. in
any one hour or for more than 20 min. in any
24-hour period.
Maximum Allowable
j Emission of
Heat Input Particulate Matter
(106 Btu/hr) (lb-hr/106 Btu)
Particulate
Matter0
Up to and
including
10
100
1,000
> 10,000
0.60
0.33
0.18
0.10
Same as existing units,
Between the values listed see Figure A-l.
SO,
2.3 Ib SCL/106 Btu input per hour6
Existing sources must meet the new source
standard by July 1, 1980 unless a source
demonstrates that ambient air quality stan-
dards in its vicinity will not be contravened.
1.6 Ib S02/106 Btu input per hour
Constructed after July 1, 1975.
Exceptions exist during startups using approved procedures or where uncombined water vapor is the only reason
for failure to comply.
""Applies to fuels such as coal, coke, lignite and fuel oil, but not wood or refuse. Separate emission limits
apply for wood and refuse.
'Total heat input of all fuel burning units in a plant is used to determine maximum allowable emission.
Q
Lower limit could apply if violations of ambient air quality standards due to a specific source were demonstrated.
-------
CO
D
o
to
-Q
CO
CO
TEE
i.o
3 OJ
o
ts)
O
10
100
1000
10,000
100,000
HEAT INPUT (10 BTU/hr)
Figure 2-2. Allowab~9 Particulate Emissions from Fuel Combustion Sources in North Carolina
-------
21
2.4.2 Fuels
Compared to large industrialized states, North Carolina is not a large
fuel user. Coal is the primary fuel in power plants. Several power plants,
including the large new Belews Creek units, are coal-fired and state-wide
about 60% of the heat input for industrial/coiranercial/institutional point
sources comes from oil and about one-third from coal. For area sources,
over half the heat input comes from gas and about 40% from oil.
2.4.3 Fuel Conversions
The Federal Energy Adminstration has identified the Sutton power plant
in the Southern Coastal Plain (#17) AQCR as having the potential to shift
from oil tocoal. Due to the indicated poor particulate air quality, such
a change would require careful investigation of the possible effects on
attaining and maintaining the particulate NAAQS.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
read lmuui:tto>i<; on the reverse hi. ion- c
tmgf
1. PEPOHT NO.
EPA-45Q/3~75-03Q
iTLE AN6 SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR NORTH CAROLINA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI^NO.
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTriOfllS)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS^
1C. 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, Til.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
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. N.C. 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 interfering 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.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution
State Implementation Plans
b.lDENTIFIERS OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI I loki Group
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS ( This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
21
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pjgf)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |