EPA-450/3-75-042
APRIL 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
GEORGIA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-042
APRIL 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
GEORGIA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75042
GEORGIA
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
1421 Peachtree Street, 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
April 1975
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
GEORGIA
Required by the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1
2.0 GEORGIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 7
2.1 Summary . - 7
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of Georgia 11
2.2.1 Georgia Air Quality Control Regions 11
2.2.2 Georgia Ambient Air Quality Standards 11
2.2.3 Georgia Air Quality Status 11
2.2.4 Georgia 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
2.4 Special Considerations - State of Georgia 15
m
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
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) response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review each
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine if control regulations for
stationary fuel combustion can be revised without interfering with the
attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA advise the state as to whether
control regulations can be revised, ESECA provides that EPA must approve
or disapprove any revised regulations relating to fuel burning stationary
sources within three months after they are submitted to EPA by the states.
The states may, as under the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate State Implemen-
tation Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require states to change
any existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the state with
information on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of
ESECA is that SIPs, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of con-
serving low-sulfur fuels or converting to coal, sources which burn oil or
natural gas. EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore,
has been to try to determine if emissions from certain combustion sources
may be increased without interfering with the attainment and maintenance
of standards. If so, it may be possible through altered resource allocations
to effect significant "clean fuel savings" in a manner consistent with both
environmental and national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel the implementation of
EPA's policy on clean fuels. Under the Clean Fuels Policy, implementation
plans have been reviewed with a view to saving low sulfur fuels. Where the
primary sulfur dioxide air quality standards will not be exceeded, states
have been encouraged to either defer attainment of secondary standards or
1
-------
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 savings potentials. Several of these states have revised
or are currently in the process of revising their S02 regulations. These
states are generally in the eastern half of the United States. ESECA, how-
ever, requires the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations in
all 55 states and territories. In addition, the current reviews address
the attainment and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
The adoption of emission limitations which may, in some areas of the
states, be overly restrictive (or not restrictive enough) resulted largely
from the use of the "example region" approach along with analyses which
considered the "hot spots" of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) rather
than the entire region. This type of approach was offered in EPA guidelines
for plan development when states were preparing their original plans. Many
states, through concurrence with EPA, adopted the example region approach,
largely because of the short timetable dictated by the Clean Air Act. Also,
in most cases, the original SIPs were designed to attain and maintain the
original NAAQS, some of which have since been designated as "guides" only
or actually rescinded. However, many states adopted and retained the
original federal standards or, in a few cases, adopted more restrictive
state standards, and these served as the basis 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 Imple-
mentation Plans is a logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal (1972) of
the SIPs. At the time, SIPs were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the
attainment of the original NAAQS or the more stringent state air quality
standards. Also, at that time an acceptable method for formulating control
strategies was the use of an example region for demonstrating the attainment
of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a state to identify the most
polluted air quality control region and adopt control regulations which would
-------
be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an example region,
it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained in the other AQCRs of the state
if the control regulations were applied to similar sources. But use of an
example region can result in excessive controls, especially in the utiliza-
tion of clean fuels, for areas of the state where sources would not
otherwise contribute to NAAQS violations. For example, a control strategy
based on a particular region or source can result in a regulation requiring
one percent sulfur oil to be burned statewide, even though the use of three
percent sulfur coal would be adequate to attain NAAQS in some locations.
EPA anticipates that a number of states will use the review findings
to assist them in deciding whether or not to revise portions of their State
Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for such states to
recognize the limitations of the present review. The findings of this report
are by no means conclusive and are neither intended nor adequate to be the
sole basis for SIP revisions; they do, however, represent EPA's best judgment
and effort in complying with the ESECA requirements. The time and resources
which EPA has had to prepare the reports has not permitted the consideration
of growth, economics, and control strategy tradeoffs. Also, there has been
only limited dispersion modeling data available by which to address indivi-
dual point source emissions. Where the modeling data for specific sources
was found, however, it was used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based is the most
currently available to the federal government. However, EPA believes that
the states possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
states have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems
facing them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality. Therefore,
those states desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data used to support EPA's
findings. States are encouraged to consider the overall impact which the
potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations for com-
bustion 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
/\
other potential air pollution situations.
3
-------
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attain-
ment of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended
particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SCO emissions. This is
because stationary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source
of SOp emissions and are a major source of TSP emissions.
The Georgia SIP control strategy, includes regulations for SO^ and TSP
which consists of emission limitations based upon both source capacity/fuel
sulfur content (or equivalent emissions) and source stack height. Presently
these stack height regulations are under litigation in the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., vs. Environmental
Protection Agency, Case No. 72-2402). In response to the case EPA was re-
quired to analyze the effectiveness of the source capacity/fuel sulfur content
regulation in providing attainment of the NAAQS without considering the effect
of the stack height dependent regulation. The results of the analysis showed
that with the exception of SOg emissions from three power plants, the source
capacity/fuel sulfur content regulation was sufficient to provide attainment
of the NAAQS. If the Court rules in favor of EPA's analysis, the Georgia SIP
emission limitations will be approved in all cases except for three specific
power plants, where specific S02 emission limits will then be promulgated.
This report has attempted to analyze only the restrictiveness of the source
capacity/fuel sulfur content regulation on potential Clean Fuels savings.
The following are the principle findings for the State of Georgia (Air
Quality Control Regions are shown in Figure 1-1):
t Georgia's ambient air quality standards for TSP are
essentially identical to the federal secondary NAAQS,1
while the state S02 standards are more stringent than the
corresponding federal standards.
• The statewide regulations for TSP and SCL are based upon
the example region approach.
The only difference between the federal and state standards is
that Georgia does not permit any excesses of the 24-hour
standard, whereas the federal standard permits one excess per
year of the 24 hour standard.
-------
Within the framework of this limited analysis, there appears to
be little potential for revising participate emission limiting
regulations in all Georgia AQCR's, with the exception of the
Augusta-Aiken Interstate {#53} and the Northeast Georgia Intra-
state (#57). However, in the Augusta-Aiken Interstate (#53),
the reported TSP air quality values are only slightly below the
standards. Thus any relaxation of particulate emission limiting
regulations would only tend to aggravate the existing situation.
Due to the limited amount of air quality data available in the
Northeast Georgia Intrastate (#57), a more detailed analysis is
necessary to determine the potential for regulation revision.
Based on reported 1973 air quality data in Georgia, all regions
have the potential for relaxing SCL emission limiting regula-
tions. However, present regulations allow for the consumption of
up to 3% sulfur content fuel which is readily available. Thus
the necessity for regulation revision does not appear to exist,
as the present regulations do not require the use of cleaner,
low sulfur fuels. However, the three power plants
mentioned in the EPA report to the 5th Circuit Count of
Appeals (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. vs.
Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 72-2402) will
require less than 3% sulfur fuels in order to protect the
NAAQS as shown below:
Power Plant AQCR % Sulfur Required
Hammond Chattanooga Interstate (#55) 0.7
Atkinson Metropolitan Atlanta 0.9
Intrastate (#56)
Yates Metropolitan Atlanta 2.5
Intrastate (#56)
These limits will need to be promulgated upon the Court's
acceptance of the EPA's report.
-------
CHATTANOOGA
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
NORTHEAST
GEORGIA
IN
AUGUSTA- (#53)
AIKEN
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
SOUTH CAROLINA)
CENTRAL
GEORGIA (#54)
INTRASTATE
SAVANNAH-
BEAUFORT
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
SOUTH .CAROLINA)
(#58)
METROPOLITAN
ATLANTA
INTRASTATE
(#56)
COLUMBUS
PHENIX CITY
INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA-
ALABAMA)
(#2)
SOUTHWEST
GEORGIA
INTRASTATE
(#59)
JACKSONVILLE-
BRUNSWICK
INTERSTATE ("#491
(FLORIDA- •*
GEORGIA)
Figure 1-1. Georgia Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs)
-------
2.0 GEORGIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations will depend
on many factors. For example:
t Does the state have air quality standards which are more
stringent than NAAQS?
t 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?
t Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
• Based on (1973) air quality data, are there reported
violations of NAAQS?
t Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources a relatively small portion of the regional total?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?
• Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in
the region?
This SIP review has answered these questions based on an overall
evaluation of EPA's current information. Based on these answers, each AQCR has
been assessed as a good, marginal, or poor candidate for regulation relaxation.
Table 2-1 summarizes the conclusions of this State Implementation Plan Review
and gives the overall candidacy assessment for each AQCR.
Vor interstate AQCR's, the assessment is for the Georgia portion.
7
-------
The ratings which are shown in Table 2-1 were determined by assessing
the following criteria:
Good
1) Adequate number of
air monitoring
sites
2) No NAAQS violations
3) Attainment data of
1975 for NAAQS in
the SIP
4) No proposed AQMAs
5) Modeling results
show a potential
for regulation
revision
Poor
1) Violation of NAAQS
2) Attainment data for
NAAQS later than
1975
3) Proposed AQMA
4) Model results show
no potential for
regulation
revision
Marginal
1) No air quality data or
insufficient number of
monitoring sites
2) Inconsistent "indicators"
For an AQCR to be rated as a good candidate, all of the criteria listed
under "Good" would have to be satisfied. The overriding factor in rating an
AQCR as a poor candidate is a violation of either the primary or secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards during 1973. However, if any of the
other conditions listed under "Poor" exists, the AQCR would still receive that
rating. The predominant reason for a marginal rating is a lack of sufficient
air quality data. In Priority III regions, air monitoring was not required
during 1973; therefore there are little if any data with which to determine
the current air quality status. Marginal ratings are also given when there
are varying or inconsistent "indications".
-------
Table 2-1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW (SUMMARY)
COLUMBUS- JACKSONVILLE- CENTRAL METROPOLITAN NORTHEAST SAVANNAH- SOUTHWEST
PHENIX BRUNSWICK AUGUSTA-AIKEN GEORGIA CHATTANOOGA ATLANTA GEORGIA BEAUFORT GEORGIA
INTERSTATE INTERSTATE INTERSTATE INTRASTATE INTERSTATE INTRASTATE INTRASTATE IKTERSTATE INTRASTATE
STATE AQCR 12 AQCR 049 AQCR 153 AQCR 054 AQCR 055 —
"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 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?
t Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS?3
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
does air quality meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
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?
TSP
HO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
SO,,
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
TSP
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
N/A
POOR
S0?
NO
YES
1
YES
YES
YES
NDA
NO
GOOD
TSP
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
N/A
POOR
S0?
NO
YES
YES
NO4
NO4
NO
YES
NO
MARGI-
NAL
TSP
NO
YES
1
YES
YES
YES
NDA
N/A
POOR
S0?
NO
YES
1
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
GOOD
TSP
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
N/A
POOR
50?
NO
YES
1
YES
YES
NO
•YES
NO
GOOD
TSP
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
N/A
POOR
S0?
NO
YES
1
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
GOOD
TSP
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
N/A
POOR
S0?
NO
YES
1
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
POOR
TSP
NO
NO
1
YES
YES
YES
NDA
N/A
1ARGI-
NAL
so2
NO
NO
2
NDA
N/A
NO
YES
NO
MARGI-
NAL
TSP
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
N/A
POOR
so2
NO
YES
1
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
GOOD
TSP
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
N/A
POO)
so2
NO
YES
1
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
GOOD
-------
Table 2-1. STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW (SUMMARY)
(Continued)
Presently meeting standards
p
Attainment schedule indicates region is below standards; current
data is unavailable
Attainment dates soecified in Federal Register (May 31, 1972)
4
Violations in Florida portion of interstate AQCR.
NDA = No data available
N/A = Not applicable
10
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA
2.2.1 Georgia Air Quality Control Regions
The State of Georgia is divided into nine Air Quality Control Regions
as shown in Figure 1-1. There are four intrastate and five interstate •
regions of which only two, the Chattanooga Interstate (#55) and the Metro-
politan Atlanta Intrastate (#56), have a relatively large (greater than 75
people per square mile) population density. Based on present conditions and
growth projections for the state, no counties in Georgia are proposed as Air
Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs) for sulfur oxides. However, Catoosa and
Walker Counties in the Chattanooga Interstate AQCR (#55); Clayton, Cobb,
DeKalb and Fulton Counties in the Metropolitan Atlanta Intrastate AQCR (#56);
Chatham County in the Savannah-Beaufort Interstate AQCR (#58); and Dougherty
County in the Southwest Georgia Intrastate (#59); are Georgia counties which
have been proposed as AQMAs for particulate matter (Figure 2-1).
2.2.2 Georgia Ambient Air Quality Standards
The State of Georgia, except for one minor difference , has adopted the
federal secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for total suspended
particulates as its only standard for TSP. The State sulfur oxides standards
consist of an annual and 24-hour standard which are more stringent than the
corresponding federal standards, plus a one hour standard. The State does not
have an annual standard for nitrogen dioxide. Georgia air quality standards
are summarized in Table 2-2. This review considers only the attainment of
the federal NAAQS.
2.2.3 Georgia Air Quality Status
Based on data available in the SAROAD data banks as of June 1974, the
24-hour particulate NAAQS has been violated in all except two regions, these
being the Augusta-Aiken Interstate AQCR (#53) and the Northeast Georgia Intra-
state AQCR (#57). The annual particulate NAAQS has been exceeded in five
regions - Columbus-Phenix City Interstate (#2), Jacksonville-Brunswick Interstate
(#49), Central Georgia Intrastate (#54), Chattanooga Interstate (#55) and the
Metropolitan Atlanta Intrastate (#56). No annual data is available for the
The difference is that the 24-hour Georgia TSP standard cannot be exceeded
anytime, whereas the federal standard can be exceeded once a year.
11
-------
^ CHATTANOOGA
»?\S) CHATTANOOGA
LEGEND
® Places of 100,000 or more inhabitants
• Places of 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants
O Places of 25,000 to 50.000 inhabitants outside SMSA's
FLOfQ
»OMfO
0S
Standard Metropolitan
. _____ 3 Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
TSP DESIGNATION
WILKES \ LINCOLN
!' AIKEN
»*ALONC -^ WITS
WASHINGTON
COLUMBUS
% ^ KUSULL
COLUMHJ:
CNATTAMOOCMff
CANDLER I BULLOCK V ErflNGHAM
AVANNAH
w
cofrti U Mc
-------
Table 2-2. Georgia Ambient Air Quality Standards
4
All concentrations in ugms/nT
Federal Primary
Secondary
State
Total Suspended Particulate
Annual 24 -Hour
75(G) 260a
60 (G) 150a
60 (G) 150
Sulfur Oxides
Annual 24-Hour S'-Hour 1-Hour
80 (A) 365a
1300a
43 (A) 229 --- 715
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
100 (A)
100 (A)
—
LO
to be exceeded more than once per year.
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
-------
iortheast Georgia Intrastate AQCR (#57). Thus, with the possible exceptions
of the Augusta-Aiken Interstate (#53) and the Northeast Georgia Intrastate (#57)
regions, it appears that the relaxation of particulate emission regulations
would not be possible without disrupting NAAQS attainment or maintenance.
S02 air quality data is unavailable for the Northeast Georgia Intrastate
region (#57). In the remaining eight regions, only one, the Jacksonville-
Brunwick Interstate (#49) reports any violations of the S02 NAAQS. However,
these violations are in the Florida portion of this AQCR.
2.2.4 Georgia Emissions Summary
Georgia fuel combustion particulate emissions account for less than
half of the total particulate emissions in all AQCR's. Power plants are
the major fuel combustion particulate sources in the Central Georgia Intra-
state (#54), while industrial/commercial/institutional point sources predominate
in the Jacksonville-Brunswick Interstate (#49), Augusta-Aiken Interstate (#53),
Savannah-Beaufort Interstate (#58), Southwest Georgia Intrastate (#59) and the
Chattanooga Interstate (#55) regions.
Power plants contribute the largest fraction of sulfur dioxide emissions
in six AQCR's - the Jacksonville-Brunswick Interstate (#49), the Central Georgia
Intrastate (#54), the Chattanooga Interstate (#55), Metropolitan Atlanta Intra-
state (#56), Savannah-Beaufort Interstate (#58), and the Southwest Georgia
Intrastate (#59). Industrial/commercial/institutional point fuel combustion
sources are the major S02 emitters in the Augusta-Aiken Interstate (#53) region.
Area sources are significant in the Columbus-Phenix City Interstate (#2) and
the Northeast Georgia Intrastate (#57) AQCR's.
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2.3.1 General Information
The example region approach was used in developing the Georgia State
Implementation Plan, with the Metropolitan Atlanta (#56) and Savannah-Beaufort
(#58) AQCR's being selected. Both of these regions were used to develop
control strategies for particulate matter and S02> A dispersion model (the
Air Quality Display Model) was employed to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the strategies.
14
-------
2.3.2 Parti oil ate Control Strategy
The control strategy for particulate matter for fuel combustion
sources consists of enforcing Section 391-3-1-.02 of the Georgia Department
of Natural Resources rules. The strategy basically consists of two parts,
one for equipment in operation or under construction before January 1, 1972
and one for all equipment constructed after that date. Emission limits were
imposed based on a heat input and stack height basis. Table 2-3 summarizes
the regulations.
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy
The SCL control strategy involves imposing emission limits based on
the location (urban or rural), heat input (in terms of Btu's per hour), fuel
sulfur content and stack height(s) of a fuel burning installation.
2.4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - STATE OF GEORGIA
The Georgia SIP control strategy includes regulation for S02 and TSP
which consists of emission limitations based upon both source capacity/fuel
sulfur content (or equivalent emissions) and source stack height. Presently
these stack height regulations are under litigation in the 5th Circuit Court
of Appeals (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. vs. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Case No. 72-2402). In response to the case EPA was required to
analyze the effectiveness of the source capacity/fuel sulfur content regula-
tion in providing attainment of the NAAQS without considering the effect of
the stack height dependent regulation. The results of the analysis showed
that with the exception of S02 emissions from three power plants, the source
capacity/fuel sulfur content regulation was sufficient to provide attainment
of the NAAQS. If the Court rules in favor of EPA's analysis, the Georgia SIP
emission limitations will be approved in all cases except for three specific
power plants where specific S02 emission limits will then need to be
promulgated.
Hhese are Hammond in the Chattanooga Interstate AQCR (#55); Atkinson and Yates
in the Metropolitan Atlanta Intrastate AQCR (#56).
15
-------
Table 2-3 Georgia Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
Parti oil ate Matter
(1) No person shall cause, let, suffer, permit or allow the emission
of fly ash and/or other particulate matter from any fuel-burning
equipment in operation or under construction on or before
January 1, 1972; in amounts equal to or exceeding the following:
(i) for equipment less than 10 million Btu heat input per hour:
P = 0.7 pounds per million Btu heat input;
(ii) for equipment equal to or greater than 10 million Btu
heat input per hour; or equal to or less than 2,000
million Btu heat input per hour:
P = 0.7 f °'202 pounds per million Btu heat input;
R = heat input of fuel burning equipment in million
Btu per hour
(iii) equipment larger than 2,000 million Btu heat input per hour:
P = 0.24 pounds per million Btu heat input.
(2) No person shall cause, let, suffer, permit or allow the emission
of fly ash and/or other particulate matter from any fuel-burning
equipment constructed after January 1, 1972, in amounts equal to
or exceeding the following:
(i) for equipment less than 10 million Btu heat input per hour:
P = 0.5 pounds per million Btu heat input
(ii) for equipment equal to or greater than 10 million Btu
heat input per hour, or equal to or less than 250 million
Btu heat input per hour:
(\ n R
i n \ *
•K^-j pounds per million Btu heat input:
R = heat input of fuel burning equipment in million
Btu per hour
(iii) for equipment greater than 250 million Btu heat input per hour:
P = b.10 pounds per million Btu heat input
16
-------
Table 2-3 Georgia Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations (Cont'd)
(3) At any site from either fuel burning or manufacturing process
emission sources, located within one mile from the limits of
a city having a population of 50,000 or more, with the excep-
tion of asphaltic concrete hot mix plants, cupola furnaces for
metallurgical melting, and Kaolin and Fuller's earth processes,
no person shall cause, let, permit, suffer or allow the emission
of fly ash and/or other particulate matter equal to or
exceeding:
(i) for stack heights below 120 feet - P = 0.48 h
pounds per hour;
(ii) for stack heights below 120 feet but equal to or
h
s
,3
greater than 120 feet - P = 900 (37575-) pounds per hour;
(iii) for stack heights equal to or greater than 300 feet
h 2
- P = 900 (3Q-Q-) pounds per hour;
(iv) P = the maximum fly ash and/or other particulate emissions in
pounds per hour;
(v) h = the stack height in feet;
(vi) if several stacks are located at a given site, then the
stack height to be used in the above equations will be
the weighted average stack height given by:
h,A, + hJL + ' ' ' ' h, An
L. _ I 1 22 h n
s Atotal
where h, is the height of the first stack, A, is the fly
ash and/or particulate matter emission from the first stack,
\\2 is the height of the second stack, and so forth. A. . ,
is the total ash and particulate matter emissions at tne
site, in pounds per hour. No single stack may equal or
exceed the above allowed emissions calculated using its
own stack height.
17
-------
Table 2-3 Georgia Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations (Continued)
Sulfur Dioxide
(1) No person shall cause, let, suffer, permit or allow from any
source the emission of sulfur dioxide (S02) equal to or exceeding:
(i) for stack height(s) less than 300 feet -
S = 4,OOOF I OQQ 1 , in pounds per hour;
(ii) for stacks 300 feet or greater in height -
/ h \2
'S = 4,OOOF I 300 ) . in pounds per hour;
(iii) F = 0.8, when two or more fuel -burning sources each having
a heat input of more than 500 million Btu's per hour and
burning fuel containing more than 1% sulfur by weight
are located in an urban area;
(iv) F = 1, for other fuel -burning sources located in an urban
area, and for all other kinds of sources emitting sulfur
dioxide regardless of location;
(v) F = 2, for fuel -burning sources having a heat input less
than 10,000 million Btu's per hour, and located in a
rural area;
(vi) F = 3, for fuel burning sources having a heat input equal
to or greater than 10,000 Btu's per hour, and located in
a rural area.
(vii) For the purposes of this section, the term "urban" shall
mean any site located within or 5 miles from the limits
of a city having a population of 50,000 or more; the term
"rural" will apply to all other site locations.
(viii) h is the stack height in feet. If several stacks are
located at a given site, then the stack height to be used
above will be the weighted average stack height given by
h. -h!Sl +h2S2 + "-- + hnSn
Stotal
where h, is the height of the first stack, S, is the sulfur
dioxide emitted from the first stack, h« Is the height of the
18
-------
Table 2-3. Georgia Fuel Combustion Emissions Regulations (Continued)
second stack, and so forth. Stotal 1S the total
sulfur dioxide emission at the site. S is expressed
in pounds per hour sulfur dioxide from a stack. No
single stack may exceed the above allowed emission
calculated using its own actual height.
(2) New fuel-burning sources over 250 million Btu's of heat input per
hour, that are constructed or extensively modified after January 1, 1972,
may not emit sulfur dioxide equal to or exceeding:
(i) 0.8 Ibs of sulfur dioxide per million Btu's of heat
input when oil is fired,
(ii) 1.2 Ibs of sulfur dioxide per million Btu's of heat
input when coal is fired,
(iii) when different fuels are burned simultaneously in any
combination, the applicable standard, expressed as
pounds of sulfur dioxide per million Btu's of heat input,
shall be determined by proration. Compliance shall be
determined using the following formula:
Y (0.80) + Z (1.2)
x + y + 2
where x = percent of total heat input derived from gas;
y = percent of total heat input derived from oil;
2 = percent of total heat input derived from coal.
(3) In addition to the stipulations and limitations in paragraphs (1)
and (2) of this subsection, all fuel burning sources below 100
million Btu's of heat input per hour shall not burn fuel containing
more than 2.5 percent sulfur by weight. All fuel burning sources
having a heat input of 100 million Btu's per hour or greater shall
not burn a fuel containing more than 3 percent sulfur by weight.
(4) Notwithstanding the limitations of sulfur content of fuels stated
in paragraph (3) above, the director may allow sulfur content greater
than that allowed in paragraph (3) above, provided that the source
utilizes sulfur dioxide removal and the sulfur dioxide emission does
not exceed that allowed by paragraph (3) above, utilizing no sulfur
dioxide removal.
19
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-042
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
IMPLEMENTATION PILAN REVIEW FOR GEORGIA AS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT
6, P,EB.F0RMING 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 IV, Atlanta, Georgia,
and Arqonne National Laboratory, Argnnnp,
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. North Carolina ?7711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
16. 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. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
State Implementation Plans
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
22
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 O-73)
------- |