EPA-450/3-75-050
APRIL 1975
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
RHODE ISLAND
AS REQUIRED
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTA1 COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-050
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
RHODE ISLAND
AS REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
800 Foil in Lane, SE, Vienna, Virginia 22180
(Contract 68-02-1385)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 1975
-------
RHODE ISLAND
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
(SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW)
Table of Contents Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 5
2.1 Summary 5
2.2 Air Quality Setting -- State of Rhode Island 9
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current
State Implementation Plan 10
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEW
3.1 Metropolitan Providence Interstate Air Quality
Control Region 13
APPENDIX A - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
APPENDIX B - REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
APPENDIX C - POWER PLANT SUMMARY
APPENDIX D - INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE SUMMARY
APPENDIX E - FUEL USE SUMMARY
-------
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 Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) to determine if revisions can be made to control regula-
tions for stationary fuel combustion sources without interfering with the
attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA report to the State on whether
control regulations might be revised, ESECA provides that EPA must approve
or disapprove any revised regulations relating to fuel burning stationary
sources within three months after they are submitted to EPA by the States.
The States may, as in the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate State Implementa-
tion Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require States to change any
existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the State with informa-
tion on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of ESECA
is that SIP's, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of conserving
low sulfur fuels or converting sources which burn oil or natural gas to coal.
EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore, has been to try
to establish if emissions from combustion sources may be increased. Where
an indication can be found that emissions from certain fuel burning sources
can be increased and still attain and maintain NAAQS, it may be plausible
that fuel resource allocations can be altered for "clean fuel savings" in
a manner consistent with both environmental and national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel EPA's policy on clean
fuels. The Clean Fuels Policy has consisted of reviewing implementation
plans with regards to saving low sulfur fuels and, where the primary sulfur
dioxide air quality standards were not exceeded, to encourage States to
either defer compliance regulations or to revise the SOp 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, EPA's fuels policy has addressed only those States with the
largest clean fuels saving potential. Several of these States have or are
currently in the process of revising SCL regulations. These States are
generally in the Eastern, half of the United States. ESECA, however, extends
the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations to all 55 States
and territories. In addition, the current reviews address the attainment
and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
There are, in general, three predominant reasons for the existence of
overly restrictive emission limitations within the State Implementation
Plans. These are (1) The use of the example region approach in developing
State-wide air quality control strategies; (2) the existence of State Air
Quality Standards which are more stringent than NAAQS; and (3) the "hot
spots" in only part of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) which have been
used as the basis for controlling the entire region. Since each of these
situations affect many State plans and in some instances conflict with
current national energy concerns, a review of the State Implementation Plans
is a logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal of the SIP's conducted in
1972. At that time SIP's were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the
attainment of NAAQS or_ more stringent state air quality standards. Also,
at that time an acceptable method for formulating control strategies was
the use of an example region for demonstrating the attainment of the
standards.
The example region concept permitted a State to identify the most
polluted air quality control region (AQCR) and adopt control regulations
which would be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an
example region, it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained in the other
AQCR's of the State if the control regulations were applied to similar
sources. The problem with the use of an example region is that it can
result in excessive controls, especially in the utilization of clean fuels,
for areas of the State where sources would not otherwise contribute to
NAAQS violations. For instance, a control strategy based on a particular
region or source can result in a regulation requiring 1 percent sulfur
oil to be burned state-wide where the use of 3 percent sulfur coal would
be adequate to attain NAAQS in some locations.
-------
EPA anticipates that a number of States will use the review findings
to assist them in making the decision whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for those
States which desire to submit a revised plan to recognize the review's limi-
tations. 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 pre-
pare the reports has not permitted the consideration of growth, economics,
and control strategy tradeoffs. Also, there have been only limited disper-
sion modeling data available by which to address individual point source
emissions. Where the modeling data for specific sources were found, how-
ever, they were used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based are 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 supporting EPA's
findings. In developing a suitable plan, it is suggested that States select
control strategies which place emissions for fuel combustion sources into
perspective with all sources of emissions such as smelters or other indus-
trial processes. 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, NOX and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and other
potential air pollution situations such as sulfates.
Although th.e enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attainment
of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended particu-
late matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SCL) emissions. This is because sta-
tionary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source of SCL emissions
and are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
Part of each State's review was organized to provide an analysis of
the S02 and TSP emission tolerances within each of the various AQCR's. The
regional emission tolerance estimate is, in many cases, EPA's only measure
of the "over-cleaning" accomplished by a SIP. The tolerance assessments
have been combined in Section 2 and Appendix B with other regional air
quality "indicators" in an attempt to provide an evaluation of a region's
candidacy for changing emission limitation regulations. In conjunction
with the regional analysis, a summary of the State's fuel combustion sources
(power plants, industrial sources, and area sources) has been carried out
in Appendices C, D and E.
The State of Rhode Island's State Implementation Plan has been reviewed
for the most prevalent causes of over-restrictive fuel combustion and emis-
sion limiting regulations. The major findings of the review are:
FOR BOTH TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES AND SULFUR DIOXIDE, THERE
IS LITTLE POTENTIAL FOR REVISING FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE EMISSION
LIMITING REGULATIONS.
The supportive findings of the SIP review are as follows:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for both suspended particulates
and sulfur dioxide were exceeded in Rhode Island during 1973.
Metropolitan Providence has been proposed as an Air Quality Maintenance
Area for particuI ate matter and sulfur dioxide.
-------
2.0 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?
0 Did the State use an example region approach for demonstrating the
attainment of NAAQS p_r_ more stringent State standards.
Has the State not initiated action to modify combustion source
emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels
Policy?
0 Are there no proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
0 Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring sites
within a region?
0 Is there an expected 1975 attainment data for NAAQS?
0 Based on (1973) air quality data, are there no reported violations
of NAAQS?
0 Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications of a toler-
ance for increasing emissions?
0 Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources
proportionally lower than those of other sources?
0 Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in the region?
0 Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources show a
potential for a regulation revision?
The following portion of this report is directed at answering these
questions. An AQCR's potential for revising regulations increases when
there are affirmative responses to the above.
The initial part of the.SIP review report, Section 2 and Appendix A,
was organized to provide the background and current situation information
for the State Implementation Plan. Section 3 and the remaining Appendices
-------
provide an AQCR analysis which helps establish the overall potential for
revising regulations. Emission tolerance estimates have been combined in
Appendix B with other regional air quality "indicators" in an attempt to
provide an evaluation of a region's candidacy for revising emission limiting
regulations. In conjunction with the regional analysis, a characterization
of the State's fuel combustion sources (power plants, industrial sources,
and area sources) has been carried out in Appendices C, D, E.
Based on an overall evaluation of EPA's current information, AQCR's
have been classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions. Table 2-1 summarizes the State Implementation Plan Review.
The remaining portion of the report supports this summary with explanations.
-------
TABLE 2-1
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
(SUMMARY)
Metropolitan
STATE Providence
"INDICATORS" TSP S02 TSP S02
Does the State have air quality stan-
dards which are more stringent than NAAQS? Yes Yes
Does the State have emission limiting
regulations for control of;
1. Power plants
2. Industrial sources Yes Yes
3. Area sources
Did the State use an example region
approach for demonstrating the attainment of No No
NAAQS or more stringent State standards?
Has the State not initiated action to
modify combustion source emission regulations Yes Yes
for fuel savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels
Policy?
Are there np_ proposed Air Quality
Maintenance Areas? No No
Are there indications of a sufficient
number of monitoring sites within a region? Yes Yes
Is there an expected 1975 attainment
date for NAAQS? Yes Yes
Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are
there no reported violations of NAAQS? No No
Based on (1973) Air Quality Data, are
there indications of a tolerance for increasing
emissions? No No
Are the total emissions from stationary
fuel combustion sources proportionally lower
than those of other sources? Yes No
Do modeling results for specific fuel
combustion sources show a potential for a regu- No No
lation revision?
Is there a significant Clean Fuels
Saving potential in the region? No
Based on the above indicators, what is
the potential for revising fuel combustion source Poor Poor
emission limiting regulations?
-------
METROPOLITAN
PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
(MASSACHUSETTS-
RHODE ISLAND)
FIGURE 2-1 RHODE ISLAND PORTION OF THE METROPOLITAN PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING - STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
2.2.1 Air Quality Control Region
The State of Rhode Is.land is a part of the Metropolitan Providence
Air Quality Control Region, which also includes a part of Massachusetts.
The pollutant priority classifications, an estimate of the '1975 population
and the proposed Air Quality Maintenance Area designations for this region
are shown in Table A-l.
2.2.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards
The State of Rhode Island has adopted ambient air quality standards
for both total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide. These standards
which are shown in Table A-2, are more stringent than the Federal standards
for both of these pollutants.
2.2.3 Air Quality Status
Air monitoring data are summarized in Tables A-4 and A-5 for sus-
pended particulates and sulfur dioxide respectively. These data are from
the SAROAD data bank as of July, 1974.
Federal ambient air quality standards were exceeded for both sus-
pended particulates and sulfur dioxide during 1973 in the Rhode Island por-
tion of the AQCR. The primary annual standard for both of these pollutants
were exceeded, indicating that there have been sustained periods of high
particulate and S02 levels. The Federal 24-hour standard for sulfur
dioxide was exceeded as was the secondary standard for suspended par-
ticulates.
2.2.4 Emissions Summary
A summary of particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions is presented
in Tables A-7 and A-8 respectively. These data are from the "1972 National
Emissions Report" June, 1974 which utilizes information in the National
Emissions Data System (NEDS).
Fuel combustion sources in Rhode Island account for approximately
one-fourth of the region's particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions. With-
in Rhode Island power plants contribute only a small percentage of the
particulate emissions, and about one-third of the sulfur dioxide emissions.
A significant percentage of the emissions come from area source fuel com-
bustion also.
-------
Table A-6 is a summary of fuel combustion sources showing the number
of power plants and the number of significant point sources.
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2.3.1 Control Strategy: Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides
(A) Particulate matter
Rhode Island used the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) to demonstrate
attainment of the national standards for particulate matter for the State.
Realizing that approximately 50 percent of the particulate matter emisssions
in Rhode Island came from refuse disposal and process losses, the State
adopted an incinerator emission limiting regulation and a process weight
limitation. The State also adopted a regulation which prohibited open
burning on premises operated as a public or semi-public refuse disposal
facility, at other central refuse disposal sites or in connection with any
salvage, industrial, commercial, or institutional operation. The State
indicated that a ban on all open burning was required to attain the national
standards for particulate matter; therefore, they included the effect of
such a limitation in their modeling effort, although they did not have a
limitation of this type adopted or proposed. To determine whether Rhode
Island needed a ban on all open burning to attain the national standards for
particulate matter, the AQDM was rerun by EPA, excluding the effect of a
ban on all open burning. The results of this new modeling clearly indi-
cated that a limitation banning all open burning was not needed in the State
of Rhode Island. Therefore, the control strategy presented in Rhode
Island's plan without the ban on all open burning was recommended for ap-
proval. Rhode Island assumed that no significant population or industrial
growth would occur which would effect greater emissions in the future.
(B) Sulfur oxides
An investigation of the input to the AQDM used by Rhode Island to
estimate ambient air quality levels revealed various errors. EPA reran
the model with the following changes which corrected the errors that
significantly affected the calculated air quality concentrations. A new
10
-------
regression curve for sulfur dioxide was employed, and was justified by the
fact that previously a bad data point was used in determining the regression
line. This bad point was disregarded and a new regresssion curve was calcu-
lated. Also, all the air quality data used to determine the regression line
were representative of 0°C. These data were converted to standard conditions
(25°C) to be consistent with the national standards. These new values also
were used to calculate the new regression curve. The other major change
was to distinguish between single stack sources and multiple stack sources.
In the State modeling effort, all multiple stack sources were assumed to
have only one stack with the stack parameters (exit gas velocity, exit gas
temperature, stack diameter and stack height) of the actual stacks being
averaged to develop stack parameters for the assumed stack.
The overall effect of the above-mentioned changes was to reduce the
highest estimated concentration, after application of the State's emission
limitations, to below the national standards. On the basis of the AODM
modeling effort performed by EPA and the low population and industrial
growth, the control strategy presented in Rhode Island's implementation
plan was recommended for approval.
11
-------
12
-------
3.0 AQCR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON SIP REVIEW
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the available information
for the State of Rhode Island and determine the feasibility of revisions
to the SIP which would result in clean fuel conservation. The assessments
will be made by addressing each type of fuel combustion source: power
plants, large industrial and commercial/institutional sources, and area
sources. The assessments must be made for each pollutant separately and
are made on the basis of seven criteria: (1) 1973 air quality violations;
(2) expected NAAQS attainment dates; (3) proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Area (AQMA) designations; (4) total emissions; (5) portion of emissions from
Rhode Island fuel combustion sources; (6) regional tolerance for emissions
increase; and (7) pollutant priority classifications. Tables B-l and B-2
tabulate these criteria for the AQCR for TSP and S02> respectively.
An AQCR is rated as a good, marginal, or poor candidate for regula-
tion relaxation based on the evaluation of all the presented information.
Using available data, any AQCR which displays a 1973 air quality violation
would probably be given a poor ranking. Conversely, a region with no vio-
lations, no proposed AQMA designations, low to moderate emissions, a positive
emission tolerance, and/or a small fraction of emissions from fuel combustion
sources would receive a good ranking. A region with varying indicators or
incomplete or missing data would be evaluated separately and grouped in the
appropriate class, most likely a marginal ranking.
3.1 METROPOLITAN PROVIDENCE INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION (#120)
3.1.1 Regional Air Quality Assessment
During 1973, ambient levels of total suspended particulates exceeded
the Federal primary annual standard, and the secondary 24-hour standard in
the Rhode Island portion of this region. (Table A-4)
Sulfur dioxide levels exceeded the Federal primary annual stan-
dard at one of the thirty-two SOp monitoring sites. The 24-hour stan-
dard was also exceeded at one site (Table A-5).
The Metropolitan Providence area including the cities listed in
Table A-l has been proposed as an Air Quality Maintenance Area for both
13
-------
suspended participates and sulfur dioxide.
This region has been rated a poor candidate for revising emission
limits for either particulates or sulfur dioxide.
3.1.2 Power Plant Assessment
There are four Rhode Island steam electric power generating stations
in this region,.all of which were oil fired during 1973. The fuel sulfur
content at these plants was slightly under the limits of the current regula-
tions (Table C-'l). Therefore, without switching to coal, these plants could
not use a higher sulfur content fuel unless existing regulations were re--
vised. However, a relaxation of the regulations is precluded by the fact
that sulfur dioxide standards were violated in this region during 1973. It
should be noted that two units at the South Street station were converted
to coal during the winter (1973-1974) shortage of fuel oil.
There are some modeling results available for the South Street plant,
as shown in Table C-2. With a switch to 2.0% sulfur coal, the plant under
maximum load, would contribute considerably to the existing ambient S02
levels. Suspended particulate levels would also be significantly impacted
indicating that a long term conversion to coal would not.be feasible.
3.1.3 Industrial, and Commercial/Institutional Source Assessment
There are several particulate and sulfur dioxide emission sources
in this region which are listed in Tables D-1 and D-2. These sources con-
tribute a small percentage of the region's total particulate and S02 emis-
sions. All of these sources are oil fired, representing a potential clean
fuel savings although a switch to coal or higher sulfur content oil is pre-
cluded by the air quality violations in this region during 1973.
3.1.4 Area Source Assessment
Area source fuel combustion contributes approximately eighteen per-
cent of the region's particulate emissions and twelve percent of the S02 emis-
sions. Area sources account for most of the distillate oil and natural gas
use in this region (Table E-l). However, there is little potential for these
14
-------
sources to switch fuels because of the economic considerations in changing
fuel burning equipment.
3.1.5 Fuel Use Summary
Fuel use data for Rhode Island are presented in Appendix E.
15
-------
16
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKGROUND
-------
TABLE A-]
RHODE ISLAND AIR POLLUTANT PRIORITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Air Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Providence
(Mass.)
Federal
Number
120
Priority Classification*
TSP SOX
I I
(Millions)
1.6
Designations Fc
TSP And S02b
The cities of East Providence, Providence
Central Falls, Pawtucket, Cranston,
and Warwick; the town of North
Providence
Criteria based on maximum measured (or estimated) pollution concentration in area:
Priority
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean
24-hour maximum
Particulate matter:
Annual geometric mean
24 -hour maximum
I
Greater than
(yg/m3 )
100
455
95
325
II
From - To
(yg/m3)
60-100
260-455
60-95
150-325
III
Less than
(pg/m3)
60
260
60
150
Federal Register, July, 1974 counties showing potential for NAAQS violations due to growth,
-------
TABLE A-2
RHODE ISLAND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
All Concentrations in
Total Suspended Participate _ Sulfur Oxides _ Nitrogen Dioxide
Federal
(Nov. 1972)
Rhode Island
Primary
Secondary
1973 Goal
1975 Goal
Annual
75(6)
60 (G)
60(G)b
50(G)b
24-Hour
260a
150a
168a'b
130a»b
Annual
80{A)
72(G)b
57(G)b
24-Hour
365a
3S8a-»b
286a»b
3-Hour
1300a
1-Hour
858a»b
687a>b
Annual
100(A)
100(A)
None
None
Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Standard conditions for measurements are established at 25DC, 1 atm pressure
(A) Arithmetic Mean
(G) Geometric Mean
-------
TABl,E A-3
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT DATES
METROPOLITAN PROVIDENCE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
5/75 5/75 3/75 3/75
-------
TABLE A-4
RHODE ISLAND AIR QUALITY STATUS (1973), TSPa
TSP Concentration (ug/m3)
# Stations Exceeding
Air Quality
Control Region
Metropolitan Providence
a!973 air quality in Nati
Interstate.
GViolations based on more
Formula:
(2nd Highest
I 2nd
#
Stations
Reporting
33
onal Air Data
than one reac
24 Hr - 24 Hr
Highest 24-Hr
Highest Reading
Annual 24-Hr
2nd
Highest
Reading
24-Hr
86 543 206
Bank, July 28, 1974.
ling in excess of standard
Secondary Standard J lrir, [ Annual
- Background 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary Secondary
Annual 24-Hr Annual % 24-Hr %
1 0 2639
- Annual Secondary Standard] ,nr)
Annual - Background / x luu
Reduction
Required
to Meet ,
Standards
+ 45
Standard
on Which %
Reduction
Is Based
Annual
Background: 28yg/m3
-------
TABLE A-5
RHODE ISLAND AI-R QUALITY STATUS (1973), SO*
Air Quality
Control Region
Stations
Reporting
(24-Hr
Bubbler)
Metropolitan Providence 28
a!973 air quality data in National Air
Interstate.
cViolation based on 2nd highest reading
Formula: /
(2nd Highest 24-Hr - 24-Hr
#
Stations
Reporting
(Contin.)
4
Data Bank, July
at any station
Standard)
t- n -iLULiuiii uAueeuiiiy
2nd Ambient Air Quality Stds.
Highest
Highest Reading Reading Primary Secondary
Annual 24-Hr 24-Hr Annual 24-Hr 3-Hr
100 620 464e 1 1 -
28, 1574.
inn (Annual - Annual Standard] , 00
Reduction
Required
To Meet
Standards
+21
Standard
on Which %
Reduction
Is Based
24- Hour
2nd Highest 24-Hr
AnnuaT
"Data provided by State.
-------
TABLE A-6
RHODE ISLAND FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCE SUMMARY
Other Fuel Combustion Total Emissions . % Emissions From Rhode Island
Control Region
Metropolitan Providence
AQCR No.
120e
Plants9
4
TSP
119
SO?
30*
Sources
c
TSP
36.6
SQ2
241.3
TSP
24
SO?
29
a Rhode Island power plants only
Rhode Island industrial and commercial/institutional sources in addition to power plants
0 Entire State of Rhode Island
d AQCR total
e Interstate region
All significant point sources, when combined with power plants, contribute more than 90% of the total S02 emissions from fuel combustion
point sources
9 All significant point sources, when combined with power plants, contribute more than 70% of the total TSP emissions from fuel combustion
point sources
-------
TABLE A-7
RHODE ISLAND PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY3
Total
Air Quality Control Region (TO3 Tons/yr) %
Metropolitan Providence
Rhode Island Portion
Mass. Portion
Electricity Generation Point Source Fuel Combustion Area Source Fuel Combustion
(1Q-3 Tons/yr) % (ID3 Tons/yr) % (10J Tons/yr) *
14.4
12.2
54
46
0.5
2.5
3
20
1.2
0.8
8
7
4.8
3.8
33
31
Total
26.6
100
3.0
11
2.0
8.6
32
Source: 1972 National Emissions Report, EPA, June 1974.
Excludes emissions from electricity generation.
-------
TABLE A-8
RHODE ISLAND SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY3
Metropolitan Providence
Rhode Island Portion
Mass. Portion
Total
.Total
5 Tons/yr) %
72.5 30
168.8 70
Electricity Generation
(103 Tons/yr) %
23.6
129.2
33
77
Point Source Fuel Combustion
(103 Tons/yr) %
17.5 24
4.4 3
Area Source Fuel Cot
(10J Tons/yr)
29.4
33 .6
nbustii
%
41
20
241,3
100
152.8
63
21.9
63.0
-26
Source: 1972 National Emissions Report, EPA, June 1974.
^Excludes emissions from electricity generation.
-------
TABLE A-9
RHODE ISLAND PARTICULATE EMISSION
REGULATION FOR FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT
Heat Input3' Maximum Allowable0
Greater than 1, but
less than 250 0.20
Greater than 250 0.10
a - Heat input is the aggregate heat content
of all fuels whpse product of combustion
pass through a single stack or stacks.
b - 106 BTU/hour
c - lbs/106 BTU of heat input
TABLE A-10
RHODE ISLAND SULFUR CONTENT
OF FUELS REGULATION
Existing Proposed
1.0a 0.55b'c
a - Sulfur content - Percent
by weight.
b - Maximum allowable, lb/10
BTU heat release potential.
c - Coal use only, fuel oil would
remain same as existing regu-
lation.
-------
APPENDIX B
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
-------
TABLE B-l
REGIONAL INDICATORS FOR REVISION OF TSP REGULATIONS
No. of Stations
AQCR Name AQCR No. Reporting.
Violating
Standards
Expected
Attainment
Date
Any
Proposed
AQMA
-Designations?
To.tal
Emissions
(10J Tons/Year)
% Emission
From R. I. Fuel
Combustion
Percent
Tolerance
For
Emissions
Increase
Metropolitan Providence 120
33
5/75
Yes"
36.6
24
-45
Interstate regkm.
bRefer to Table A-l.
-------
TABLE B-2
REGIONAL INDICATORS FOR REVISION -Of S02 REGULATIONS
AQCR Name
AQCR No.
No. of Stations
Violating
Reporting Standards
Expected
Attainment
Date
Any
Proposed
AQMA
Designations?
Total
Emissions
(10J Tons/Year)
% Emission
From R.I. Fuel
Combustion
Percent
Tolerance
For
Emissions
Increase
Metropolitan Providence
120°
32
3/75
YesL
241.3
29
- 20
Interstate region.
DRefer to Table A-l.
-------
APPENDIX C
POWER PLANT SUMMARY
-------
Plant Name
1975
Capacity (MW)
TABL£ C-l
RHODE ISLAND POWER PLANTS
1973 Fuel Use9
Type %S. Quantity
% Sulfur
by Regulation
Boiler also
Designed for Coal?
Manchester Street
Narragansett Elec. Co.
South Street
Narragansett Elec. Co.
W. Howard Street
Newport Elec. Co.
Pawtucket
BlacKstone Valley Elec.
148.0
145.9
10.5
33.5
Oil
Oil
Oil
Natural
Gas
0.93
0.95
NA
NA
-
1191
1195
120C
2.5d
21
1.0
1,0
1.0
1.0
Yes
Yes
No
No
Data from Federal Power Commission.
h T fi
Oil quantity is in 10J barrels, natural gas is in 10 cubic feet.
C1972 Fuel Use Data, Source: Steam Electric Plant Factors, 1973. National Coal Association
dFY 1973 Fuel use.
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY OF POWER PLANT MODELING RESULTS*
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (yg/m3)
SO,
Particulates
Maximum Annual
Plant
South Street
1972 Operations'3
Switch Units0
Nominal
Load
62
97
L-
Maximum
Load
135
219
Nominal
Load
4
26
Maximum
Load
7
39
Concentration (y
S00 Particul
il
7 <1
8 1
g/m3)
ates
(121/122)
Source: Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Fuel Conversion (Group IV),
Wai den Research, Sept. 12, 1974
D0.9% sulfur oil
:Switch to 2.0% coal
-------
APPENDIX D
INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE D-l
RHODE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANT TSP SOURCES
Boiler
Design
County Name
Newport U.S. Navy Base0
Providence Corning Glass
Atlantic Tubing & Rubber
Grinnell Corp.
Naragansett Brewing
Bird & Son
Washburn Wire
Brown University
Uni royal, Inc.
Washington U.S. Navy Air Station
Fuel
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
NG
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
NG
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
NG
Oil
Oil
Oil
Capacity(a)T
75(3)
125
63
100(2)
94
52
35
d
130
13
150
100
d
125
50
100
125
d
150
81(4)
4066
Quanti
2713
1590
804
3880
4800
4150
3045
577
3000
1460
955
3770
480
5490
1620
5100
2325
10
3840
7880
1640
Univ. of Rhode Island
Oil
158
2850
a - Number of boilers.
3 /
b - Oil in 10 gallons, natural gas in 10 cubic feet, NEDS data,
c - Includes four plant ID'S at same UTM coordinates.
d - 'Secondary fuel.
e - Space heaters.
f - TO6 BTU/hr.
-------
TABLE D-2
RHODE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANT S02 SOURCES
Boiler
Design
County
Bristol
Kent
Newport
Providence
Name
Kaiser Aluminum
American Hoechst
Arkwright Interlacken
Pawtucket Val Dying
Leasona
Leviton Mfg.
U.S. Navy Base0
Corning Glass
Atlantic Tubing & Rubber
Grinnel'l Corp.
Narragansett Brewing
Bird & Son
Mobil Oil Co.
Washburn Wire
Stamina Mills
American Ins. Wire
Memorial Hospital
Teknor Apex
Brown University
Fuel
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oi 1
Oi 1
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
N.G.
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
N.G.
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
N.G.
Capacity (a)
108
18(2)
26
38
96
72
24
38
75(3)
125
63
100(2)
94
52
35
d
130
13
150
100
d
125
50
21(5)
100
17
36
28
30
125
d
Quan ti ty
2040
898
1130
190
1040
1120
770
901
2713
1590
804
3880
4800
4150
3045
577
3000
1460
955
3770
480
5490
1620
6400
5100
801
912
712
1200
2325
10
Narragansett Improvement Oil
151
900
-------
TABLE D-2 (cont.)
Boiler
Des i gn
County
Providence
(cont.)
Washington
Name
R. I. Hospital
Uni royal , Inc.
Enterprise Dye
Davol Rubber
Bradford Dyeing
U. S. Navy Air Station
University of Rhode
Island
Point Judith By-Prpducts
Kenyon Piece Dyeworks
Fuel
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Capacity (a)
178
150
37
13
28
338
81(4)
4066
158
25
13
25
Quantity
1500
3840
835
800
400
6100
7880
1640
2850
914
457
914
Number of boilers
b Oil in 103 gallons, natural gas in 106 cubic feet, NEDS data.
c Includes four plant ID's at same VMT coordinates
Secondary fuel for above boiler(s)
e 347 space heaters
f 106 BTU/Hr
-------
APPENDIX E
FUEL USE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE E-l
FUEL USE SUMMARY*
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total
Coal (TO3 Tons)
Oil (103 Gallons)
Gas (IP6 Cu. Ft.)
Anthraci te
3.8
0
3.8
Bituminous
7.4
2.7
10.1
Residual
214.7
229.5
444.2
Distillate
348.6
1.8
350.4
Natural
22,010
5,666
27,676
Process
0
0
0
a - Source: Stationary Source Fuel Summary Report, NEDS, November 1974. Data are for Rhode
Island portion of AQCR only.
-------
TECHNICAL HEPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. .
EPA-450/3-75-050
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW FOR RHODE ISLAND AS
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., Regional Office I, Boston Mass.,
and TRW, Inc., Vienna, Virginia
11. 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, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
FINAL
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 deter-
mine if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel com-
bustion sources without interferring with the attainment and maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards. This document, which is also required by
Section IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might
be revised
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution
State Implementation Plans
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
40
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |