EPA-450/3-75-031
March 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
SOUTH CAROLINA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-031
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
SOUTH CAROLINA
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
March 1975
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
SOUTH CAROLINA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
2.0 SOUTH CAROLINA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 5
2.1 Summary . 8
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of South Carolina . 9
2.2.1 South Carolina Air Quality Control Regions. . . 9
2.2.2 South Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards . 9
2.2.3 South Carolina Air Quality Status 9
2.2.4 South Carolina Emissions Summary ........ 14
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current
State Implementation Plan 14
2.3.1 General Information 14
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy 15
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy ........ 15
2.3.4 Power Plant Modeling 15
2.4 Special Considerations for the State of
South Carolina 18
2.4.1 Planned SIP Revisions 18
2.4.2 Fuels 18
2.4.3 Fuel Conversions 13
-------
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
SOUTH CAROLINA
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, ini-
tiate 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 bum oil or natural gas. EPA's
objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore, has been to try to deter-
mine 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 862 emission regulations. The states have also been asked to discourage
large-scale shifts from coal to oil where this could be done without jeopard-
izing 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 SC^ regulations. These states 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 attainment 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 develop-
ment 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. How-
ever, 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 ini-
tial 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 form-
ulating 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 utilization of clean fuels, for
areas of the state where sources would not otherwise contribute to NAAQS viola-
tions. 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 state-
wide, 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 recog-
nize 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, how-
ever, it was used in the analysis.
The data upon which the report's 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, pre-
vention of significant deterioration, increased TSP, NO , and HC emissions
X
which occur in fuel switching, and 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 (802) emissions. This is because stationary
fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of SC>2 emissions and
are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
The following are the principle findings for the State of South Carolina.
(Air Quality Control Regions are displayed on Fig. 1-1.)
. The state has recently revised its emission regulations for fuel
combustion sources. The new S02 regulations allow for an emission
limit based on local conditions rather than regionwide considerations
and in no case require the use of clean (< 1% sulfur) fuels.
. The state's ambient air quality standards are the same as the
federal NAAQS.
. Within the framework of this review there does not appear to
be any room for relaxing particulate regulations beyond their
present limits. High particulate readings are being recorded
throughout most of the state.
. No S02 violations of the NAAQS were reported in South Carolina
and there are indications that the state could tolerate higher
S02 emissions without ambient air quality problems.
The power plant modeling results indicate that some facilities
could use higher sulfur content fuel than is currently permitted;
however, there are no clean fuels savings that would result from
regulation revision. The sulfur content switch would be from the
2-3% sulfur range to the greater than 3% sulfur range and this is
not significant from the perspective of current clean fuels supply/
demand imbalances.
The state has a periodic regulation review procedure and a variance
procedure which could be used to adjust the regulations to any local
conditions affecting air quality and/or fuel availability. There is,
therefore, no reason for further regulation revision at this time.
Virtually all power plants, industrial/commercial/institutional
sources, and area sources had a fuel supply in 1971 (prior to SIP
regulations) which would be in compliance with current regulations.
The indication is, therefore, that this fuel is economically avail-
able to insure continued compliance.
-------
GREENVILLE-
SPARTANBURG
I0TRAST.ATE
METROPOLITAN
CHARLOTTE
INTERSTATE
(NORTH CAROLINA-
SOUTH CAROLINA)
' (#167)
CAMOEN-
SUMTER
INTRASTATE
"(#198)
FLORENCE
INTRASTATE
"#201)
COLUMBIA
INJRASTA
(#200
GREENWOO!
INTRASTATE
AUGUSTA-
AIKEN
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
SOUTH CAROLINA)
(#53)
GEORGETOWN
INTRASTATE
(#204)
SAVANNAH
BEAUFORT
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
SOUTH CAROLINA)
(#58)
CHARLESTON
INTRASTATE
(#199)
Figure 1-1. South Carolina Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs)
-------
2.0 SOUTH 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 demonstrating
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 fuel 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 evalua-
tion of EPA's current information. Based on these answers, each AQCR has been
assessed as a good, marginal, or poor candidate for regulation 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 fuels
savings potential, then the region is classified as a poor candidate for regula-
tion revision. If the air quality or the clean fuels savings evaluations are
inconclusive or show conflicting 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 South Carolina
2.2.1 South Carolina Air Quality Control Regions
The State of South Carolina is divided into ten Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCRs) as shown on Fig. 1-1. There are seven intrastate and three interstate
regions. The largest populations are in Metropolitan Charlotte (#167), Green-
ville- Spartanburg (#202), and Augusta-Aiken (#53) as shown on Table 2-2. Popu-
lation densities are also high in Charleston (#199) and Columbia (#200). Based
on present conditions and growth projections for the state, portions of three
counties in the state have been proposed as Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs)
for particulates. They are Charleston and Berkley Counties in the Charleston
AQCR (#199) and Greenville County in the Greenville-Spartanburg AQCR (#202).
2.2.2 South Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards
As shown on Table 2-3, South Carolina has adopted the federal secondary
annual NAAQS for particulates and a 24-hour standard slightly different than
the federal primary NAAQS. For SC^ and NC^, the state has adopted all the cur-
rent federal standards.
2.2.3 South Carolina Air Quality Status
Based on data in the Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD)
data bank as of June, 1974, every region in the state with the exception of
Augusta-Aiken (#53) and Greenwood (#203) is reporting particulate readings in
excess of the NAAQS. In August-Aiken the 24-hour secondary standard is very
close to a violation. Highest readings are being recorded in the Metropolitan
Charlotte (#167), Charleston (#199), and Greenville-Spartanburg (#202) regions.
-------
Table 2-1. State Implementation Plan Review Summary for South Carolina
State
Augusta-Aiken
AQCR #53
Savannah
AQCR i.Z8
Charlotte
AQCR #167
Camden-Sumter
AQCR #198
"INDtCATOItS"
Does the State liavo air quality standards which 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 any proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
Are tiiere 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 any reported
violations of NAAQS?
liuscd on (11)73.) Air Quality Data, are there indications
of a significant tolerance for jncrcasjnj; 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-
c;int fuel switching?
Based on the above indicators, what is the potential for
revising fuel combustion source emission limiting
regulations?
TSI' S02
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
TSI' S02
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
N.A.
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
TSI' S02
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
N.A.
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
TSI> S(>2
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
N.A.
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
N.A.
NO
NO
TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
'ISP S02
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
N.A.
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
N.A.
NO
NO
. TSP - Poor
S02 - Poor
i1
0
-------
Table 2-1. ' State Implementation Plan Review for South Carolina (Contd.)
Charleston
AQCR #199
Coluimia
AQCR .1200
Florence
AQCR ?201
Greenville-Spartanburg
AOCR *202
Greenwood
AQCR-S203
Georgetown
.AQCR" 5:04
"INDICATOKS"
Coos the State have air quality standards which arc more
stringent than N'AAQS?
Does the State have emission limiting regulations for
cor.trol of:
1. rower plants
2. Ir.Justrial sources
.^. Are.'i sr.ur.jcs
Ei.i th; State use ;u; example region approach for deinon-
str.":tir.j, the at£air.~.cnt of NAAQS or more stringent State
St:L-.J3rJ.S?
Has the State initiated action to modify combustion
sr.:rce enission regulations for fuel savings; i.e.,
,:-: tho Clean Fuels Policy?
JL;O :"--:-:": _.'' oroposad Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
» .-..-; t:.:-/e indications of a sulficient number of monitor-
i.-..; sites within a region?
I; there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
. F. -.: i ?n i ii'~5t .Air Duality Data, are there any reported
vi;'i_itirr.s of XA'.QS?
r,a;ij'or. i.la73) Air Quality Uata, arc there indications
cf 2 ;;p',ificar.t tolerance for increasing emissions?
Are tho emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources
a relatively snail jwrtion of the regional total?
Do r..'.!el;:;i; results for specific fuel combustion sources
shew a pcte.itial for a regulation revision?
Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving potential in
th; rc-iicn?
!last tl.e regulations be revised to accomplish signifi-
cr.r.t fuel switching?
Based on the above indicators, what is the potential for
revising fuel combustion source emission limiting
regulations?
isi1
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
N.A.
N
N
TSP -
so2 -
so2
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
0
0
Poor
Poor
TSI>
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
N.A.
N
N
TSP -
S02 -
so2
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
&
Poor
Poor
TS11
NO
YES
YES
YI:S
NO
YES
N.A.
X
N
TSP -
SQ2 -
so2
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
0
0
Poor
Poor
TSP
Example
YES
YES
YES
YES
N'C
NO
N.A.
N
^
ISP -
S02 -
so2
Region
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
'0
:0
Poor
Poor
TSP
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
N.A.
N
N
TSP -
SQ2 -
.SO,
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
j
3
Poor
Poor
TS!'
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
N.A.
>
N
TSP -
so2 -
S)2-
>:o
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
N'.A.
0
0
Poor
Poor
interstate
-------
Table 2-2. South Carolina Air Pollution Control Areas
Demographic Information
Air Quality
Control Region
Augusta-Aiken (Ga.)
Savannah-Beaufort (Ga. )
Metropolitan Charlotte (N.C.)
Car.den-Sumter
Charleston
Columbia
Florence
Greenvi 1 le- Spartanburg
Greenwood
Georgetown
Federal
Number
53
58
167
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
Population
1970
(Millions)
.52
.39
1.06
.16
.34
.37
.26
.66
.16
.14
Area
(Square
Miles)
9,134
6,735
5,962
2,461
2,618
2,796
3,515
3,912
2,963
2,901
Population
Per Square
Mile
57
62
178
64
129
133
75
168
54
48
Priority
Classification
Parti -
culates
I
I
I
II
I
II
III
I
III
II
sox
II
I
II
III
I
III
III
III
III
III
NOX
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
Proposed
AQMA Designations
TSP Counties ^x Counties
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2) Charleston13 , Berkleyb
(0)
(0)
(1) Greenville5
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
aAs of November 4, 1974.
Only a portion of the county is in the proposed AQMA.
-------
Table 2-3. South Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards
All concentrations in ygm/nT
Federal
State
Primary
Secondary
rotal Suspended
Annual
75 (G)
60 (G)
60 (G)
Particulate
24 -Hour
260a
150a
250
Sulfur Oxides
Annual 24-Hour 3-Hour
80 (A)
80 (A)
365a
1300a
365s 1300*
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
100 (A)
100 (A)
100 (A)
to be exceeded more than once per year.
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
-------
14
The 24-hour standard is presenting the greatest problem in all regions except
Camden-Sumter (#198), Columbia (#200), and Georgetown (#204) which are having
more difficulty with the annual standard. The indication is, therefore, that
there is little possibility for relaxing particulate emission regulations with-
out jeopardizing NAAQS attainment and maintenance.
No SC>2 violations were reported in any of the ten regions and no region is
close to a violation. This indicates that there is margin for absorbing
increased SC>2 emissions without NAAQS violations throughout the state limited,
of course, to constraints imposed by special local conditions. This is encour-
aging from the perspective of the state being able to effect a clean fuels sav-
ing by permitting higher sulfur fuels to be burned at certain facilities.
2.2.4 South Carolina Emissions Summary
In the ten AQGR area. South Carolina fuel combustion sources account for
about half of the SC^ emissions and less than 20% of the particulate emissions.
Of the three interstate regions, South Carolina sources contribute more than
half the emissions only in Augusta-Aiken (#53). In Savannah-Beaufort (#58)
and Metropolitan Charlotte (#167) South Carolina sources are responsible for
no more than 30% of the regional total of particulate and SO2 emissions.
Particulate emissions from South Carolina power plants, industrial/commer-
cial/institutional fuel combustion sources, and area sources are of the same
order of magnitude in all regions except Metropolitan Charlotte and Camden-
Sumter (#198) which have no power plants. In all other regions none of the
three source categories dominates the emission rate.
South Carolina power plants dominate the S02 emission rate in Savannah-
Beaufort (#58), Charleston (#199), Columbia (#200), and Georgetown (#204). In
Augusta-Aiken (#53) and Metropolitan Charlotte (#167) the industrial/commercial/
institutional sources dominate. Area source fuel combustion emissions of S02
are significant only in Greenville-Spartanburg (#202). In the remaining three
regions none of the source categories dominates.
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current State Implementation Plan
2.3.1 General Information
In January, 1972 the South Carolina Pollution Control Agency (PCA) submit-
ted to EPA an implementation plan for the control of particulates and 862 in
-------
15
accordance with Clean Mr Act requirements. In August, 1972 the plan was resub-
mitted after corrections were made for errors which appeared in the original
data base.
Since the August, 1972 submittal, the Pollution Control Agency determined
that the SCU regulations were, in some cases, overly restrictive. This was
based on more recent emission estimates compiled by the Department of Health
and Environmental Control and on a reevaluation of the lead oxide method of
measuring SC>2 concentrations as was used in the original plan submission. The
PCA, therefore, decided that a further revision in the regulations was warranted.
This revision was submitted to EPA in March, 1974.
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy
The particulate control strategy relied on the use of Greenville-Spartan-
burg as the example region. Calculations were performed using a proportional
reduction model and it was assumed that the strategies were not applied to area
sources. Evaluations of the regulations showed compliance with the NAAQS
throughout the state. The fuel combustion regulations are summarized on Table
2-4 and Fig. 2-1.
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy
The SCJ2 control strategy used the Metropolitan Charleston and Greenville-
Spartanburg areas as the example regions. Calculations were performed with
both the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) and with a 24-hour power plant model.
The regulations are summarized on Table 2-4.
As developed by the state, the regulations were designed to allow the
greatest flexibility in adjusting to clean fuels availability and changing air
quality. The designation of counties into each of the three categories is
reviewed at no longer than three year intervals. In addition, the variance
procedure allows the state the option of exempting specific facilities if
appropriate supporting documentation is available.
2.3.4 Power Plant Modeling
With the assistance of the EPA Region IV office, the state conducted dis-
persion modeling studies for most of its power plants to determine maximum
allowable emission rates. These were used to help classify some of the counties
-------
Table 2-4. South Carolina Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
Particulates Fuel burning operations in use or under construction before February 11, 1971 and fuel burning operations
constructed on or after February 11, 1971 shall use the appropriate portion of the graph on Fig. 2-1.
Category: Class I Counties Class II Counties Class III Counties
Heat Input: < 10 x 106 Btu/hr > 10 x 106 Btu/hr < 1000 x 106 Btu/hr > 1000 x 106 Btu/hr All Sources
Emission Limit: 3.5 lbs/106 Btu 2.3 lbs/106 Btu 3.5 lbs/106 Btu 2.3 lbs/106 Btu 3.5 lbs/106 Btu
Effective after Jan. 30, 1974 Class I Counties - Charleston
Class II Counties - Aiken, Anderson
Class III Counties - All others
This classification is subject to periodic review and revision.
Exceptions:
1) If it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the S.C. Borad of Health and Environmental Control that ambient air standards
will not be contravened by a source, alone or in combination with other sources, a greater allowance for SO, discharges will be
made on a case by case basis in accordance with usual variance procedures.
2) Residences or dwellings of four families or less are exempt.
-------
17
PARTICIPATE EMISSION, FUEL BURNING OPERATIONS
APPROXIMATE STEAM GENERATION, THOUSANDS OF POUNDS PER HOUR
5 10 50 100 500 1000
5000
o
_J
QC.
UJ
Q-
cn
o
o
co
co
Z
UJ
CO
o
1.3
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
3
1
J
KJMJMLfl
(PRIOR
\
4
. T '
TO FFB IL 1971
ON OR AFTER
.. _
1 Subston
J l?% cl
!1 Stock h
slock h
0 Subslon
qi potf r
FEB If,
BASIS
iQlly flat
heaf ifipu
fliqht is D
eight
tially no <
than 60
, ' i
( ' l
'. '. i
i ;
j. . i . .. [ _L.
r
\
1971 -^
tef ram
t up stack
lysicol
mission
microns
L . i_
J !
1 ill
r
\
1
STACK HEIGHT/
(FT I '
obovf q'dde
i i i
v-
\
\
V \
\ \
^150
100 »
jt V
r ^
T "\ H
% 300 \
\ %
225\ \
> . V ~~%
\ \ \
\ \
\_ %
\ \ 1
V \ \
\ \
\ ^
1 1 1
^800 ,
V
\
%
1
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
i i i i
10
9
8
7
6
5
05
10
50
100
500 1000
5000 10,000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT CAPACITY RATING
MILLION BTU PER HOUR INPUT
Fig. 2-1. South Carolina Particulate Emission Regulations
-------
18
in the control regulation strategy. Table 2-5 summarizes the modeling results
in terms of fuel sulfur content required. It is evident that the current regu-
lations do not require any low sulfur (< 1%) fuel at all. In some cases the
modeling indicates the possibility of allowing some shifts from a 2-3% sulfur
fuel to a greater than 3% sulfur fuel. This is almost insignificant in terms
of oil since a great deal of oil is less than 3% sulfur normally.
2.4 Special Considerations for the State of South Carolina
2.4.1 Planned SIP Revisions
South Carolina has just recently revised its SIP with respect to fuel
combustion sources and in conjunction with the EPA Clean Fuels Policy.
2.4.2 Fuels
South Carolina is not a heavily industrialized state and hence is not a
large consumer of fuels. In power plants coal is the dominant fuel accounting
for 84% of the heat input while oil and gas accounted for 5% and 11%,
respectively. Industrial/commercial/institutional sources rely more heavily
on oil and gas with the split being 36% coal, 37% oil, and 27% gas. For area
sources the fuel use is 2% coal, 51% oil, and 47% gas.
It is important to note also that virtually all power plants and industrial/
commercial/institutional plants were using a fuel in 1971 (i.e., prior to the
imposition of SIP regulations) that conforms to current regulations. The implica-
tion is that the necessary fuels are economically available to these facilities
to insure continued compliance.
2.4.3 Fuel Conversions
The Federal Energy Administration has not identified any power plants in
South Carolina as having oil or gas to coal conversion capability.
-------
Table 2-5. South Carolina Power Plant Evaluation Summary
53
58
167
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
State
AQCR
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Fuel Sulfur Content Required by
Existing Regulationsa
< 1* 1-2% 2-31 > 3%
314
78
684
549
No Power Plants
No Power Plants
644
255,438
1,179
1,636
313
1,517
922
21
448
3,439
549
1,236 3,817
255,516 7,141
Fuel Sulfur Content Required by
Modeling Results'3
< 1% 1-21 2-3% > 3%
314
78
684
549
644
255,438
408 771
1,636
313
1,517
922
44 404
NA
1,236 1,096 2,172
259,140
aFuel requirements based on 1971 fuel use pattern and added capacity. Coal quantity is 10 tons/yr,
oil quantity is 10^ gals/yr.
allowable I S determined from power plant modeling data in the S.C. SIP. N.B. With the
exception of 2 plants, all facilities had fuel available in 1971 which was well below current
SIP requirements.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-031
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION"NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR SOUTH CAROLINA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
5. REPORT DATE
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, 111.
1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
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, N.C. 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 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.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Air pollution
State Implementation Plans
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
19
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |