EPA-450/3-75-043
APRIL 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
ALABAMA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-043
APRIL 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
ALABAMA
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-043
ALABAMA
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
ALABAMA
Required by the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . 2
2.0 ALABAMA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 8
2.1 Summary 8
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of Alabama 12
2.2.1 Alabama Air Quality Control Regions 12
2.2.2 Alabama Ambient Air Quality Standards 12
2.2.3 Alabama Air Quality Status 12
2.2.4 Alabama Emissions Summary 15
2.2.5 Power Plant Modeling 15
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current
State Implementation Plan 15
2.3.1 Genera] Information 15
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy . 16
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy 16
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
THE STATE OF ALABAMA
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed report is the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review each
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine if control regulations for
stationary fuel combustion can be revised without interfering with the
• *.*
attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA advise the state as to whether
control regulations can be revised, ESECA provides that EPA must approve
or disapprove any revised regulations relating to fuel burning stationary
sources within three months after they are submitted to EPA by the states.
The states may, as under the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate State Implemen-
tation Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require states to change
any existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the state with
information on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of
ESECA is that SIPs, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of con-
serving low-sulfur fuels or converting to coal, sources which burn oil or
natural gas. EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore,
has been to try to determine if emissions from certain combustion sources
may be increased without interfering with the attainment and maintenance
of standards. If so, it may be possible through altered resource allocations
to effect significant "clean fuel savings" in a manner consistent with both
environmental and national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel the implementation
of EPA's policy on clean fuels. Under the Clean Fuels Policy, implementation
plans have been reviewed with a view to saving low sulfur fuels. Where the
primary sulfur dioxide air quality standards will not be exceeded, states
have been encouraged to either defer attainment of secondary standards or
to revise the 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 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 reports1 findings are based is the most
currently available to the federal government. However, EPA believes that
the states possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
states have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems
facing them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality. Therefore,
those states desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data used to support
EPA's findings. States are encouraged to consider the overall impact which
the potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations for
combustion sources might have on their future control programs. This may
include air quality maintenance, prevention of significant deterioration,
increased TSP, NOV, and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and
A
other potential air pollution situations.
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attain-
ment of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended
particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SC^) emissions. This is
because stationary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source
of SOp emissions and are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
The following are the principle findings for the State of Alabama
(Air Quality Control Regions are displayed in Figure 1-1):
t The State of Alabama has adopted the Federal primary and
secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
• The original particulate and sulfur dioxide emission limi-
tations were developed under the example region concept. In
October of 1973 the sulfur dioxide fuel combustion regulations
were revised, based upon individual analyses for each major
power generating facility. EPA approved this revised regulation
as a plan revision in August of 1974 for all areas of the
State except for the Widows Creek Power Plant where the original
emission limit remained in effect. This regulation revision
allowed for considerable clean fuels savings.
• Based on reported air quality data, there appears little
margin for relaxing particulate emission limiting regulations
as violations of the particulate NAAQS have been reported in
all regions except for the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers Intra-
state AQCR (#1). In that region, the reported 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.
t Based upon modeling results and reported air quality violations,
no potential exists for SOp regulation relaxation in the Alabama
portion of the Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi
Interstate AQCR (#5). Only in certain portions of the Tennessee
River Valley-Cumberland Mountains Interstate AQCR (#7), do
modeling results indicate a potential for S02 regulation
regulation revision; however, in this AQCR, numerous air quality
violations have been recorded. Therefore, careful consideration
should be given to the impact of a S0« regulation revision on the
regional air quality. In the Columbus-Phoenix City Interstate
AQCR (#2), potential fuel savings are minimal from regulation
-------
relaxation since no significant fuel combustion sources are
located in the Alabama portion of this region. In the
remaining four AQCR's, Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers (#1),
East Alabama (#3), Metropolitan Birmingham (#4) and the South-
east Alabama (#6), the current sulfur contents of the fuels
consumed by major sources in the region are well below the
levels required by the existing regulation and therefore the
necessity of a regulation relaxation does not appear to exist.
Therefore, considering the available modeling and air quality
data, there is only a limited potential for Clean Fuels Savings
in the State of Alabama.
-------
METROPOLITAN
BIRMINGHAM
INTRASTATE
(#4)
ALABAMA
AND
TOMBIGBEE
RIVERS
INTRASTATE
TENNESSEE RIVER VALLEY (ALABAMA)
CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS (TENNESSEE)
INTERSTATE
(#1)
EAST
ALABAMA
INTRASTATE
(#3)
COLUMBUS (GEORGIA)
PHENIX CITY (ALABAMA)
INTERSTATE
(#2)
SOUTHEAST
ALABAMA
INTRASTATE
(#6)
MOBILE (ALABAMA) • PENSACOLA • PANAMA CITY
(FLORIDA) • SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI INTERSTATE
(#5)
Figure 1-1. Alabama Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs)
-------
2.0 ALABAMA 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 £r 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?
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?
• Must the regulations be revised to accomplish significant
fuels switching?
This SIP review has answered these questions based on an overall
evaluation of EPA's current information. Based on these answers, each AQCR has
been assessed as a good, marginal, or poor candidate for regulation relaxation.
8
-------
Table 2-1 summarizes the conclusions of this State Implementation Plan Review
and gives the overall candidacy assessment for each AQCR.
The ratings which are shown in Table 2-1 were determined by assessing
the following criteria:
Good Poor Marginal
1) Adequate number of 1) Violation of NAAQS 1) No air quality data or
air monitoring 2) Attainment data for insufficient number of
sites NAAQS later than monitoring sites
2) No NAAQS violations 1975 2) Inconsistent "indicators"
3) Attainment data of 3) Proposed AQMA
1975 for NAAQS in 4) Model results show
the SIP no potential for
4) No proposed AQMAs regulation
5) Modeling results revision
show a potential
for regulation
revision
For an AQCR to be rated as a good candidate, all of the criteria listed
under "Good" would have to be satisifed. The overriding factor in rating an
AQCR as a poor candidate is a violation of either the primary or secondary
National Ambient Air Qaality 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)
"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?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
does air quality meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
are there indications of a tolerance for
increasing emissions?
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources lower than those of other
sources?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
sources show a potential for a regulation revision?
* Must emission regulations be revised to accom-
plish significant fuel switching?
• Based on the above indicators, what is the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations?
• Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
HOBILE-
PENSACOLA- TENNESSEE
ALABAMA AND PANAMA CITY- RIVER VALLEY-
TOMBIGBEE COLUMBUS- EAST METROPOLITAN SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST CUMBERLAND
RIVERS PHENIX CITY ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA MOUNTAINS
INTRASTATE INTERSTATE INTRASTATE INTRASTATE INTERSTATE INTRASTATE INTERSTATE
STATE AQCR #1 AQCR #2 AQCR 13 AQCR 14 AQCR #5 AQGR 16 AOCR 17
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES1
TSP
NO
YES
2
YES
YES
YES
N/A
N/A
GOOD
N/A
so?
NO
NO
3
NDA
N/A
NO
N/A
N/A
MARGI-
NAL
N/A
TSP
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
N/A
N/A
POOR
8/A
S0?
NO
YES
2
YES
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
GOOD
N/A
TSP S02
XES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
N/A
N/A
POOR
N/A
NO
NO
3
NDA
N/A
NO
YES
N/A
MARGI-
NAL
N/A
TSP S02
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
N/A
N/A
POOR
N/A
NO
YES
2
YES
YES
NO
YES
N/A
MARGI-
NAL
NO
TSP S02
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
N/A
N/A
POOR
N/A
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
N/A
POOR
NO
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
N/A
N/A
POOR
N/A
NO
NO
3
NDA
N/A
YES
/I/A
N/A
MARGI-
NAL
N/A
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
POOR
N/A
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
N/A
MARGI-
NAL
MARGI-
NAL
-------
Table 2-1. State Implementation Plan Review (Continued)
FOOTNOTES:
The State submitted (in October 1973) and EPA approved (in August 1974) a SIP revision
pursuant to the Clean Fuels Policy.
2
Presently meeting standards.
Attainment schedule indicates region is below standard; corrent data is unavailable.
NDA = No data available.
N/A = Not applicable
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA
2.2.1 Alabama Air Quality Control Regions
The State of Alabama is divided into seven Air Quality Control Regions
as shown in Figure 1-1. There are three interstate ajid four intrastate
regions. Only the Metropolitan Birmingham Intrastate AQCR (#4) has a
relatively large (greater than 75 people per square mile) population density.
Based on present conditions and growth projections for the state, four counties
in Alabama have been proposed as Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMA's)
for total suspended particulates (Figure 2-1). These are Etowah County in the
East Alabama Intrastate AQCR (#3), Jefferson and Walker Counties in the Metro-
politan Birmingham Intrastate AQCR (#4) and Mobile County in the Mobile-
Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi Interstate AQCR (#5). No
Alabama counties have been proposed as AQMA's for SOp.
2.2.2 Alabama Ambient Air Quality Standards
All the federal primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulates, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide apply
in Alabama (Table 2-2).
2.2.3 Alabama Air Quality Status
Based on data in the SAROAD data banks as of June, 1974, both the
annual and 24 hour particulate secondary standards are being violated in
all the Alabama AQCR's except for the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers Intra-
state AQCR (#1). Thus, with the possible exception of the Alabama and
Tombigbee Rivers Intrastate AQCR (#1), the indications are that relaxation
of particulate regulations would not be possible without disrupting NAAQS
attainment or maintenance.
SOp air quality data was unavailable for the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers
Intrastate AQCR (#1), the East Alabama Intrastate AQCR (#3) and Southeast
Alabama Intrastate AQCR (#6). In the AQCR's for which data was available,
only the Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi Interstate AQCR
(#5) and the Tennessee River Valley-Cumberland Mountains Interstate AQCR
(#7) reported any violations of the S02 NAAQS.
12
-------
«»»"" MONTGOMERY
[TSP DESIGNATION
Figure 2-1. Proposed
LEGEND
® "aces of 100,000 or more inhabitants
• Places of 50,000 to 100,000 inh.brtants
O Races of 25,000 to 50,000 ^habitants outs.de SMSA's
Standard Metropolitan
Stattstical Areas (SMSA's)
Areas (AQMAs)
13
-------
Table 2-2. Alabama Ambient Air Quality Standards
<
All concentrations in ygm/nf
Federal
and
State
Primary
Secondary
Total Suspended Particulate
Annual 24 -Hour
75 (G) 260a
60 (G) 150a
Sulfur Oxides
Annual 2 4 -Hour 3 -Hour
80 (A) 365a
1300a
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
100 (A)
100 (A)
to be exceeded more than once per year.
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
-------
2.2.4 Alabama Emissions Summary
Alabama fuel combustion sources account for more than half of the total
particulate emissions in the Alabama portion of only two AQCR's: the Mobile-
Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi Interstate AQCR (#5) and the
Tennessee River Valley-Cumberland Mountains Interstate AQCR (#7). In
the remaining five AQCR's, the major fuel combustion particulate sources are
industrial/commercial/institutional point sources in the Alabama and
Tombigbee Rivers Intrastate AQCR (#1), power plants in the Metropolitan
Birmingham Intrastate AQCR (#4) and area sources in the Southeast Alabama
Intrastate (#6), the Columbus-Phenix City Interstate (#2) and the East
Alabama Intrastate (#3).
As for SOp emissions, power plants alone contribute over 2/3 of the
total SO^ emissions in the Alabama portion of the Mobile-Pensacola-Panama
City-Southern Mississippi Interstate AQCR (#5) and the Tennessee Valley-
Cumberland Mountains Interstate AQCR (#7). In the Alabama and Tombigbee River
Intrastate AQCR (#1) and the East Alabama Intrastate AQCR (#3), industrial/
commercial/institutional point sources are the major fuel combustion S02
contributors. Power plants and area source S02 emissions account for almost
one half of the total S02 emissions in the Metropolitan Birmingham AQCR (#4)
and the Southeast Alabama Intrastate AQCR (#6), respectively.
2.2.5 Power Plant Modeling
The limited modeling data available indicate that there is a slight
potential for clean fuels savings if regulations are to be revised.
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 Alabama State
Implementation Plan, with the Metropolitan Birmingham Intrastate AQCR (#4)
being the example region for particulates. The S02 control strategy (revised
in October of 1973) was based on an analysis of each of the major utility
generating facilities in the State.
15
-------
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy
The control strategy for participate emissions from fuel combustion
sources consists of enforcement of Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of the Alabama Air
Pollution Control Rules and Regulations (see Table 2-3). To provide a basis
for the degree of control to be applied, the concept of Class 1 and Class 2
counties was developed, with less stringent controls required for Class 2
counties. A Class 2 county is defined as one in which a) more than 50 percent
of the county population resided in a non-urban place, as defined by the U. S.
Department of Commerce Census Bureau of 1970 and b) no secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard is exceeded based on 1971 air quality measure-
ments. A Class 1 county is one in which either the aforementioned conditions
a) or b) or both are not met.
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy
Section 5.1 of Chapter 5 of the Alabama Air Pollution Control Rules
and Regulations constitute the S0~ fuel combustion control strategy (Table 2-3),
In the original SIP, the strategy was similar to the one for particulate
matter - i.e., the state was divided into Class 1 and Class 2 counties, with
Class 1 counties permitted up to 1.2 Ib S0?/10 Btu heat input and Class 2
Ft
counties permitted up to 1.5 Ib S02/10 Btu heat input. However, pursuant
to EPA's Clean Fuels Policy, Alabama submitted a plan revision in October
1973 changing the county classification system and the associated emission
limits. The new regulations gave counties the same S02 priority classifi-
cation (as defined in the SIP) as the AQCR in which they were located. Thus
the new regulations were: a) for Priority I counties and Jefferson County, a
limit of 1.8 Ibs SO.,/10 Btu heat input was imposed and b) for Priority II
6
and III counties a limit of 4.0 Ibs S02/10 Btu heat input was imposed. In
August, 1974, EPA approved the revisions, with the exception of the Widows
Creek Power Plant in the Tennessee River Valley-Cumberland Mountains
Interstate AQCR (#7) where a limit of 1.2 Ib S02/106 Btu heat input was
imposed.
Alabama, on March 25, 1975, again revised its SO,, regulations, which
would allow even greater flexibility in setting appropriate emission limita-
tions.
16
-------
Table 2-3. Alabama Fuel Combustion Regulations
Particulate Matter
1) Class 1 Counties: No person shall cause or permit the emission of
particulate matter from fuel-burning equipment in a Class 1 County in
excess of the amount shown below:
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) Allowable Emissions (lbs/106 Btu)
1 0.5
10 0.5
20 0.37
40 0.27
60 0.23
80 0.20
100 0.18
150 0.15
200 0.13
250 0.12
1,000,000 0.12
Interpolation for heat input values between 10 million Btu/and
250 million Btu/hr shall be accomplished by the use of the equation:
E=1.38H-°'44
where E = Emissions in Ibs/million Btu
H = Heat input in millions of Btu/hr.
2) Class 2 Counties: No person shall cause or permit the emission of
particulate matter from fuel burning equipment in a Class 2 County in
excess of the amount shown below:
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) Allowable Emissions (lbs/106 Btu)
1 0.8
10 0.8
20 0.53
40 0.35
60 0.28
80 0.24
100 0.21
150 0.16
200 0.14
250 0.12
1,000,00Q 0.12
17
-------
Table 2-3. Alabama Fuel Combustion Regulations (Continued)
Interpolation for heat input values between 10 million Btu/hr and
250 million Btu/hr shall be accomplished by the use of the equation:
E = 3.109 H~°'589
where E = Emissions in Ibs/million Btu
H = Heat input in millions of Btu/hr
3) For purpos'es of this part, the total heat input from all similar fuel
combustion units which discharge particulate matter through a common
stack at a plant or premises shall be used for determining the maximum
allowable emissions of particulate matter.
4) New fuel-burning sources emitting particulate matter shall be subject to
the rules and regulations for Class 1 Counties, regardless of their
location.
Sulfur Dioxide
1) Priority Classification I Regions and Jefferson County - No person shall
cause or permit the operation of a fuel burning installation in a Sulfur
Dioxide Priority Classification I Air Quality Control Region or in
Jefferson County in such a manner that sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur
dioxide, are emitted in excess of 1.8 pounds/million Btu heat input.
2) Priority Classification II and III Regions - No person shall cause or
permit the operation of a fuel burning installation in a Sulfur Dioxide
Priority Classification II or III Air Quality Control Region in such a
manner that sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide, are emitted in
excess of 4.0 pounds/million Btu heat input.
3) In addition to the requirements enumerated above, every owner or
operator of a fuel burning installation having a total rated capacity
greater than 1500 million Btu/hour shall:
a) Demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the
sulfur oxides emitted, either alone or in contribution to
other sources, will not interfere with attainment and main-
tenance of any primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard.
18
-------
Table 2-3. Alabama Fuel Combustion Regulations (Continued)
b) Demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Director,
that in meeting the emission limitations enumerated
above, the installation will not increase emissions to
the extent resulting air quality concentrations will
be greater than:
(i) Those concentrations (either measured or
calculated) which existed in 1970: or
(ii) Those concentrations (either measured or
calculated) which existed during the first
year of operation of any installation which
began operation after January 1, 1970.
c) Upon the direction of the Director, install and maintain
air quality sensors to monitor attainment and maintenance
of ambient air quality standards in the areas influenced
by the emissions from such installation. Results of such
monitoring shall be provided to the Director in a
manner and form as he shall direct.
4) For purposes of this regulation, the total heat input from all similar
fuel combustion units at a plant, premises or installation shall be used
for determining the maximum allowable emission of sulfur dioxide that
passes through a stack or stacks.
5) All calculations performed pursuant to demonstrations required by 3)
shall assume that the fuel burning installation is operating at or above
the maximum capacity which such installation is capable of being
operated.
19
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(1'lcasc read /uOfiictions on the reverse before ci>ni/
------- |