EPA-450/3-75-053-b
July 1975
NATIONAL SUMMARY
OF
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEWS
(SECTION 4 ESECA)
VOLUME II
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-053-b
NATIONAL SUMMARY OF
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEWS
(SECTION 4 ESECA)
VOLUME II
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
Prepared by:
Energy and Environmental Systems Division
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
July 1975
-------
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 FINDINGS 3
2.1 PARTICULATE REGULATIONS 4
2.2 S02 REGULATIONS 4
3.0 REVIEW METHODOLOGY 6
3.1 AIR QUALITY SETTING 6
3.2 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SIP 7
3.3 SPECIAL PROBLEMS 7
3.4 STATE AND AQCR ASSESSMENTS 7
4.0 TECHNICAL DATA AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 11
TAB A AIR QUALITY SETTING 13
TAB B STATE REGULATIONS 71
TAB C ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 129
BIBLIOGRAPHY . 160
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
A-l Air Quality Control Regions 15
A-2 Background Data on Air Quality Control Regions 27
A-3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 39
A-4 Stringency of State Air Quality Standards Compared to NAAQS
and States Using the "Example Region Approach" 41
A-5 Applicable State Ambient Air Quality Standards 47
A-6 State Air Quality Status, a National Summary of AQCRs
Showing Violations of NAAQS . 51
A-7 Air Quality Status . 55
A-8 Particulate and SOz Emissions Summary 67
B-l Summary of State Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations .... 73
B-2 Particulate Emission Regulations for Fuel Combustion Sources . . 89
B-3 SOz Emission Regulations for Fuel Combustion Sources .... 99
B-4 Approximate Fuel Sulfur Content Allowed by Emission Regulations . 119
C-l State Implementation Plan Review Summary 131
C-2 Air Quality Control Region Summary 137
LIST OF FIGURE
No. Title Page
A-l Air Quality Control Region Locations 25
IV
-------
NATIONAL SUMMARY OF
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEWS
CSECTION 4 ESECA)
VOLUME II
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Technical Support Document and the accompanying
Synopsis is to summarize the reviews of the State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
required by Section 4 of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (ESECA). Volume I, the Synopsis, capsulized the findings of the
55 state and territory SIP reviews. This report presents in more detail the
objectives, approach, research data, and results of the SIP review study.
As required by law, findings of individual SIP reviews have been
reported to each state and territory. The main objective of the reports has
been to stimulate further analysis aimed at changing regulations that generate
unnecessary demands for clean fuels. In the introduction to each of the ESECA
reports, the states have been informed that EPA's reviews of the SIPs have
been directed at providing indications of unnecessarily restrictive control
regulations. The time and resources available to prepare the SIP reviews did
not permit the consideration of growth, economics, and control strategy trade-
offs. For those states that wish to use the reports as a basis for deciding
to submit a plan revision, EPA has indicated the necessity of verifying and
expanding the monitoring, modeling, and other data supporting the reviews and
has suggested that states consider issues (such as air quality maintenance,
nondegradation, and increased TSP and HC emissions) that might occur in fuel
switching. The findings of the ESECA reviews 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.
In many respects, the ESECA reviews have paralleled EPA's Clean Fuels
work, which has focused on sulfur dioxide (802) regulations. Clean Fuels
efforts consisted of reviewing SIPs and encouraging states to defer compliance
with stringent S02 emission limits for coal-fired power plants, where this
could be done without hampering NAAQS attainment. Also, states were asked
to discourage large-scale shifts from coal to oil or gas where possible. The
Clean Fuels Policy addressed states with the largest clean fuels savings poten-
tial, and several of these states (generally in the Eastern half of the nation)
have initiated or completed S02 regulation revisions.
ESECA reviews supplemented the Clean Fuels Policy by analyzing unnec-
essarily restrictive regulations in every state and territory. Furthermore,
the reviews addressed the attainment and maintenance of all primary and secon-
dary NAAQS affected by emissions from industrial and commercial point and area
sources in addition to power plants. Since stationary fuel combustion instal-
lations constitute the greatest source of SOz emissions and are a major source
-------
of total suspended particulate matters (TSP), the analysis in each review
focused mainly on TSP and SOa emissions. Hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide
(CO) regulations were not addressed in the reviews because they do not -- with
regard to stationary fuel combustion sources -- play a major role in the attain-
ment and maintenance of NAAQS or pose a problem with respect to fuel use. Also,
only a limited analysis was conducted on the attainment and maintenance of the
annual NC>2 standard. Selected reviews for NQz were dictated by a limited and
incomplete data base, indications that violations are currently confined to
only a few metropolitan centers and an understanding that NQx emission control
regulations are not generally a fuel-use constraint. In addition, in 1973,
EPA relaxed the N02 classification of 43 Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR)
to Priority III and at that time indicated that most NOX emission limiting
regulations could be rescinded or modified.
In each state, every AQCR was individually evaluated as to the strin-
gency of applicable fuel combustion regulations. Using the most current data
available, evaluation parameters were arranged in a summary matrix for every
AQCR in the state. From evaluation parameters or indicators, a determination
was made as to the potential for regulation revision in each AQCR. These
determinations were presented with other findings and supporting data in the
SIP review report. Essentially all data presented in individual state reports
have been synthesized in this document and in the Synopsis, with the exception
of individual source and fuel assessments. These individual assessments con-
sist of power plant, industrial/commercial/institutional point source and
area source statistics on a source-by-source basis, and present fuel use and
emissions data. These data have been omitted from this report because of
their volume and their availability from a variety of other sources. If in-
formation pertaining to such data is required, the reader is referred to
individual state reports.
In addition to the presentation of data appearing in individual state
studies, this report presents special tables to enable the reader to more
easily compare evaluation parameters between AQCRs and states. For example,
state S02 regulations have been translated into a common format enabling easy
comparison. It should be noted that developing such a format sacrifices
accuracy and detail as it enhances comparability. Additionally, it should
be emphasized that all data presented in this volume were the best available
at the time of each state review. The character of this type of information
is dynamic in nature; thus all work presented is dated material and must be
treated as such. As more complete and revised information becomes available,
it can be factored into the analysis presented in this National Summary to
validate and update the findings. Properly used, this Data Support Document
can provide a. reference for easy comparison of standards, regulations, air
quality, and emissions on an AQCR or, state-by-state basis. It also provides
the synthesis and summary findings presented in the Synopsis.
-------
2.0 FINDINGS
Review of the state regulations showed a wide variation in the types
of regulations, degree of stringency, and in the methods used to apply con-
trols to stationary fuel combustion sources. Variations also existed in the
approach and methodology used to demonstrate attainment of NAAQS. For exam-
ple, in 29 states, the example region approach was used to develop SOa regu-
lations. In 35 states, the ambient SOa standards are more stringent than
NAAQS in all or part of the state. In many cases, state standards have not
been updated, and the more stringent standard in 17 of the 35 states results
from the state maintaining the original, federal secondary annual standard
and 24-hour guide that have since been rescinded by EPA.
In conducting the ESECA reviews, and in prior Clean Fuels Policy
work, EPA has recognized four primary reasons for the existence of unneces-
sarily restrictive regulations:
1. The state's prerogative to adopt emission limits
more stringent than those required to achieve the
NAAQS.
2. The adoption of state ambient air quality standards
that are more stringent than the NAAQS.
3. The use of the example region approach to develop
statewide regulations.
4. The large, isolated sources in an AQCR, which have
been used as the basis for controlling the entire
region.
In the first two instances, states were exercising options that were
available to them and were within the guidelines of the Clean Air Act. The
implementation plans were required to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS and
any additional controls, either in the form of stricter emission limits or
stricter ambient air quality standards, could be developed at the discretion
of the state. In several cases, state ambient air quality standards were
adopted based on federal guidelines issued at the time of plan development.
Some of these guidelines (e.g., the annual and 24-hour secondary standards
for S02) have since been rescinded by the EPA, but not all states have revised
the corresponding state standards. In the last two instances of overly
restrictive regulation development, many states conducted analyses on only
a portion of the state to set emission limits. It was assumed that the NAAQS
would be attained in other parts of the state if the same control regulations
were applied to similar sources. This approach was considered acceptable by
EPA due to the short time scale mandated under the Clean Air Act. The problem
with this method is that it can result in controls that are more stringent than
necessary to attain,NAAQS in areas of the state that would not be expected to
experience standard violations.
For the purpose of analysis, each state was reviewed by AQCR. Where
individual source data were available, they were used to enhance the AQCR
assessments. The review findings can be subdivided into a discussion of par-
ticulate and SOa regulations. The determination of potentially overly restrictive
-------
regulations is based on two general issues: (1) the ability of an area
under study to accept additional emissions if combustion regulations were
revised, and [2) the determination that relaxing the combustion regulation
would actually conserve clean fuels.
2.1 PARTICULATE REGULATIONS
In general, the reviews found little indication that particulate
emission limiting regulations are overly restrictive. In many areas of the
country, natural background levels of participates coupled with human activi-
ties such as agriculture and construction are challenging the effort to meet
the NAAQS. Since fuel combustion sources are responsible for a large portion
(between 30% and 50%) of the national particulate load, relaxing particulate
regulations in most areas of the country would only tend to aggravate the
existing problem. Of the 247 AQCRs evaluated for TSP, 30 were found to be
good candidates for revising regulations; 5, marginal candidates; and the
remaining 212, poor candidates.
The analysis conducted for particulate regulations addressed monitor-
ing data, NAAQS attainment dates, proposed air quality maintenance areas, and
modeling results. From that analysis only Delaware and American Samoa dis-
played indications for tolerating an increase in particulate emissions. How-
ever, even in these locations there were estimated to be no clean fuels savings
associated with a regulation change. In all other states and territories, few
AQCRs showed any potential for absorbing emission increases without jeopardiz-
ing NAAQS attainment and maintenance. In most of the reviews, data were not
adequate to determine if local conditions in portions of an AQCR would possibly
warrant a TSP regulation revision; nevertheless, it was clear that states
wishing to change particulate regulations must do so with extreme caution
and only after significant additional study.
2.2 S02 REGULATIONS
With regard to S02 regulations, 50 out of 55 states and territories
show an air quality potential that might permit an increase in SO 2 emissions.
Thirty of the 50 either have regulations that are permitting the maximum fuel
sulfur content based on local constraints determined from modeling and monitor-
ing results or have regulations that permit higher fuel sulfur content than
that currently being used. In these states, regulation revision is unneces-
sary since clean fuels savings is not dependent on regulation revision. Of the
remaining states, unavailability of data precluded analysis of 3 states; 17
states showed that regulation revision could encourage a significant fuel
savings.
The Clean Fuels Policy has gone a long way to address the 17 states
indicated as potential candidates for regulation revision. More than half
the states in Eastern and Midwestern portions of the country have already
initiated or completed plan revisions. Only 4 states -- New Jersey, Virginia,
North Carolina, and Minnesota -- indicate: (1) a good potential for absorbing
increased SQ2 emissions, (2) regulation revision would conserve clean fuels,
and (3) have not yet initiated SIP review action.
-------
The states just listed can be subdivided into two general fuel-use
categories. New Jersey is primarily an oil-burning state, while Virginia,
North Carolina, and Minnesota burn a preponderance of coal. Sunmaries of
the findings for the identified states above and each of the other states
studied appear in the Synopsis.
Air quality conditions that would allow an increase in S02 emissions
are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for regulation revision to
be effective and meaningful. Another major consideration is if regulation
revision will encourage clean fuels savings. States with sulfur content regu-
lations of 3% S with utilities burning 2% S coal will not conserve clean fuels
via regulation revision.
The limitations of the regionwide evaluation must also be kept in
mind. Data available on local conditions within an AQCR were confined pri-
marily to power plant modeling results, which were incomplete, at best. Where
available, modeling results were used to refine AQCR assessments, which par-
tially helped, but did not completely satisfy the need for detailed localized
analyses to verify the general conclusions. In a similar vein, the five
states and territories that show only limited potential for absorbing S02
emission increases are not precluded from conducting further studies to
determine if the evaluation is accurate and if there are, in fact, local areas
that could tolerate higher emission levels.
Determination of whether the clean fuels savings potential is mini-
mal or significant was made relative to the state's own fuel consumption
pattern and not to the national pattern. Minimal savings are indicated only
if small shifts in fuel sulfur content are possible within the constraints of
local air quality conditions and/or if the current fuel-use pattern is such
that only small amounts of clean fuels are being required by regulations.
Significant clean fuels saving potential is indicated when a sizeable portion
of the state's clean fuels consumption could be conserved by the use of other
fuels.
-------
3.0 REVIEW METHODOLOGY
In carrying out the mandate of ESECA, Section 4, a standard approach
to the SIP review for each state was adopted. Care was taken to insure that
the individual reviews reflected national policy, EPA Regional Office activi-
ties, state and local control agency actions, and ongoing enforcement proce-
dures. The review methodology focused on 3 areas: (1) the air quality setting
for the state, (2) the background and status of the SIP development, and (3)
special problems and considerations for the state. Analyses of these three
areas were combined into an assessment of each AQCR in the state to determine
its candidacy for regulation revision.
3.1 AIR QUALITY SETTING
The air quality status for each AQCR in the state was determined
primarily from data contained in the Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data
CSAROAD) file maintained by EPA. Information on the number of monitoring sta-
tions reporting, number of stations in excess of NAAQS, and the reported con-
centration levels was available. The latest SAROAD data available were for
1973. In some cases, more recent data from local sources were utilized where
they indicated a different air quality picture.
Proposed designations of Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMA) were
determined from conversations with Regional Offices. These designations were
used to indicate areas that might be expected to experience future air quality
problems resulting from growth and development.
Fuel combustion source emission data were obtained from the National
Emissions Data System (NEDS) file to determine the extent to which these
sources contribute to a region's total emission load. Included were electri-
city generation, industrial/commercial/institutional facilities, and area
sources.
The combination of the current air quality data and emission data for
each AQCR led to an evaluation of whether or not the region could tolerate an
increase in emissions without violation of any NAAQS. The technique of pro-
portional rollback calculations was used since it provided a simple, first-
order approximation of what emission increase was tolerable. The technique
(used in the development of many SIPs) has many limitations and is not now
considered adequate for the development of emission control strategies in
light of the ready availability of more accurate dispersion models. Its use
here was dictated by limited resources and is to be treated as only one of
several indicators of air quality conditions.Where dispersion modeling data
for specific sources were available, it was used as an alternate indicator.
In general, this was limited to calculations performed for power plants.
The state ambient air quality standards were obtained from the cur-
rent SIP. Since the enforcement of a standard more stringent than the NAAQS
would require more stringent emission controls, states with such a standard
were identified as having some possibility for air quality standard revision.
-------
3.2 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SIP
Through discussions with the Regional Office and review of the SIP
itself, the background of the plan development was determined. Of special
interest was the identification of areas where the example region approach
was used to promulgate regulations imposed on the entire state. This approach
was more likely to result in overly restrictive regulations in a portion of
the state or in a portion of an AQCR than the use of source-specific regula-
tions .
Also of interest was the status of the current implementation plan.
Under EPA's Clean Fuels Policy or in some cases, adjudicatory proceedings, the
original plan submissions were revised to eliminate regulations found to be
excessively stringent in the light of more recent modeling and monitoring
data. Those states that had completed -- or at least initiated -- action to
revise regulations that would result in clean fuels conservation were identified.
In reviewing the SIPs, it was determined that some states did not
regulate fuel combustion sources or regulated only sources above a specified
size limit.
3.3 SPECIAL PROBLEMS
An identification of special problems for the state or for an AQCR
was included in the review for each state. The most frequently occurring
included enforcement actions that were underway, fuel supply situations,
and potential oil-to-coal conversions of power plants.
3.4 STATE AND AQCR ASSESSMENTS
Analyses of the above information were synthesized into an assessment
of each AQCR's and each state's potential for regulation revision. The basis
for the assessment was an evaluation of the following issues. For the state:
Does the state have air quality standards that
are more stringent than NAAQS?
Does the state have emission limitation regulations
for control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial
sources, (3) area sources?
Did the state use an example region approach for
demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or_ more
stringent state standards?
Has the state initiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings, i.e.,
under the Clean Fuels Policy?
For each AQCR, the following were used:
Are there any proposed AQMAs?
-------
Are there indications of a sufficient number of
monitoring sites within a region?
Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
Are there reported violations of NAAQS?
Are there indications of a significant tolerance for
increasing emissions?
Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combus-
tion sources a small portion of the 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?
The assessments were directed at answering these questions and were
used as "indicators" of whether there is a potential for relaxing regulations.
AQCRs were classified as good, marginal, or poor candidates for regulation
revisions based on the following criteria:
Good
1) Adequate number of
air monitoring sites
2) No NAAQS violations
3) Attainment date of
1975 for NAAQS in
the SIP
4) No proposed AQMAs
5) Modeling results
show a potential
for regulation
revision
Poor
1) Violations of NAAQS
2) Attainment date for
NAAQS later than 1975
3) Proposed AQMA
4) Modeling results show
no potential for regu-
lation revision
Marginal
1) No air quality data
or insufficient num-
ber of monitoring
sites
2) Inconsistent "indica-
tors"
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 NAAQS during 1973. However, if any of the other conditions listed
under "Poor" exists, the AQCR would still receive that rating. The predomi-
nant reason for a marginal rating is a lack of sufficient air quality data.
In Priority III regions, air monitoring was not required during 1973; there-
fore , there may be no data with which to determine the current air quality
status. Marginal ratings are also given when there are varying or inconsis-
tent "indicators." A tabulation of the "indicator assessment" by AQCR appears
in Table C-2.
-------
In some areas, sufficient data were available to determine if regula-
tion revision might result in significant clean fuels savings. This information
was used to further modify the AQCR assessments. Lack of clean fuels savings
potential was interpreted as an indication that regulation revision, while
possible from an air quality standpoint, was not necessary since little was
to be gained. The combination of significant clean fuels savings potential
with air quality indications of possible regulation revision was a reinforced
indicator of "good" candidate status.
It is important to note that the SIP reviews have been conducted on
an AQCR basis. While subdivision of the U.S. into 247 regions represents a
high degree of resolution, air quality and source emissions are often highly
localized. In such cases, policies and regulations based on an entire AQCR
analysis may not be representative of certain local conditions. Only state
and local control agency staff would be in a position to identify these cir-
cumstances .
To summarize and place into perspective the review methodology and
approach used to determine study findings, the following standard algorithm
was applied to each state and AQCR.
For each AQCR:
1. Review 1973 air quality data.
2. Determine adequacy of monitoring sites.
3. Check proposed attainment dates.
4. Check for presence of an AQMA in the region.
5. Assess individual source emissions.
6. Assess AQCR emissions.
7. Review any previous modeling results.
8. Assess fuel savings potential.
9. Evaluate special considerations.
10. Evaluate AQCR regarding overall candidacy for
regulation revision.
For each state:
1. Review state air quality standards.
2. Determine methodology and approach used to
demonstrate attainment of NAAQS.
3. Review state fuel combustion regulations.
4. Summarize state's ability to accept increased
emissions from AQCR analysis.
-------
10
5. Evaluate state's total emissions load.
6. Determine the relevance of regulation revision with
respect to encouraging clean fuel savings.
7. Aggregate AQCR evaluation criteria.
8. Identify special state problems affecting
regulation revision.
9. Determine candidate states for regulation revision.
10. Examine the current status of SIP review action.
The results of each examination and evaluation just listed were tabu-
lated and appear in Section 4 of this report. The synthesis and summary
findings have been presented in Volume I, the Synopsis.
-------
11
.4.0 TECHNICAL DATA AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
Technical data and evaluation criteria presented in this Technical
Support Document have been subdivided into three sections. Tab A presents
data relating to emissions and air quality, Tab B compares regulations govern-
ing the use of combustion fuels, and Tab C synthesizes the indicators that
were used to determine the SIP review findings.
Tab A introduces the 247 AQCRs and 55 states and territories reviewed
in the study. General information is presented regarding attainment dates,
population, and priority classification of each AQCR. State air quality
standards are compared with national standards, and those with more stringent
standards and/or using the example region approach to develop statewide
regulations are identified. It is recognized that adoption of more stringent
air quality standards and use of the example region approach has contributed
to development of potentially over-restrictive regulations. The remainder of
Tab A focuses on air quality and emissions data.
Tab B focuses on fuel combustion regulations. Regulations have
been presented in a variety of ways to illustrate issues not easily identifed
by looking at individual combustion regulations. The first three tables in
Tab B summarize the regulations and regulation types that exist nation-
wide. States with no regulations or fuel-specific regulations are identified.
Table B-4 has been constructed to allow easy comparison of state sulfur limi-
tations for various power plants.
Tab C presents the evaluation criteria used to determine SIP review
findings. This section is divided into statewide evaluation parameters (Table
C-l) and AQCR specific parameters or indicators (Table C-2). Results of the
tabulation and synthesis of these tables provide a basis for the findings
presented in Volume I, the Synopsis.
-------
12
-------
13
TAB A
AIR QUALITY SETTING
Table A-l. Air Quality Control Regions
Figure A-l. Air Quality Control Region Locations
Table A-2. Background Data on Air Quality Control Regions
Table A-3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Table A-4. Stringency of State Air Quality Standards Compared to NAAQS and
States Using the "Example Region Approach"
Table A-5. Applicable State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Table A-6. State Air Quality Status, A National Summary of AQCRs Showing
Violations of NAAQS
Table A-7. Air Quality Status
Table A-8. Particulate and SC>2 Emissions Summary
-------
14
-------
15
Table A-l. Air Quality Control Regions
This table gives the names and corresponding numbers of the 247 Air
Quality Control Regions CAQCR) arranged by EPA region and by state within each
region. Interstate AQCRs are listed under each state of which they are a part
and the other states comprising parts of the interstate regions are noted in
parentheses.
In summarizing the data on the following tables, each AQCR is refer-
enced by its number rather than its name in the interest of conserving space.
-------
16
Table A-l. Air Quality Control Regions
EPA AQCR
Region State No.
I Connecticut 41
42
43
44
Maine 107
108
109
110
111
Massachusetts 42
117
118
119
120
121
New Hampshire 107
121
149
Rhode Island 120
Vermont 159
221
AQCR Name
Eastern Connecticut
Hartford - New Haven - Springfield (MA)
New Jersey - New York - Connecticut
(NJ, NY)
Northwest Connecticut
Androscoggin Valley (NH)
Aroostook
Down East
Metropolitan Portland
Northwest Maine
Hartford - New Haven - Springfield (CT)
Berkshire
Central Massachusetts
Metropolitan Boston
Metropolitan Providence (RI)
Merrimack Valley - Southern New Hampshire
(NH)
Androscoggin Valley (ME)
Merrimack Valley - Southern New Hampshire
(MA)
Central New Hampshire
Metropolitan Providence (MA)
Champlain Valley (NY)
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
43 New Jersey - New York - Connecticut
(NY, CT)
45 Metropolitan Philadelphia (DE, PA)
150 New Jersey
151 Northeast Pennsylvania - Upper Delaware
Valley (PA)
43 New Jersey - New York - Connecticut
(NY, CT)
158 Central New York
159 Champlain Valley (VT)
160 Genessee - Finger Lakes
161 Hudson Valley
162 Niagara Frontier
163 Southern Tier East
164 Southern Tier West
Puerto Rico
244
Puerto Rico
-------
17
Table A-l. (Contd.)
EPA
Region State
II Virgin Islands
AQCR
No.
247
AQCR Name
U.S. Virgin Islands
(Contd)
III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
45 Metropolitan Philadelphia (NJ, PA)
46 Southern Delaware
47 National Capital (MD, VA)
47 National Capital (DC, VA)
112 Central Maryland
113 Cumberland - Keyser (WV)
114 Eastern Shore
115 Metropolitan Baltimore
116 Southern Maryland
45 Metropolitan Philadelphia (DE, NJ)
151 Northeast Pennsylvania - Upper Delaware
Valley (NJ)
178 Northwest Pennsylvania - Youngstown (OH)
195 Central Pennsylvania
196 South Central Pennsylvania
197 Southwest Pennsylvania
47 National Capital (DC, MD)
207 Eastern Tennessee - Southwestern Virginia
CTN)
222 Central Virginia
223 Hampton Roads
224 Northeastern Virginia
225 State Capital
226 Valley of Virginia
103 Huntington - Ashland - Portsmouth -
Ironton (KY, OH)
113 Cumberland - Keyser (MD)
179 Parkersburg - Marietta (OH)
181 Steubenville - Weirton - Wheeling (OH)
231 Allegheny
232 Central West Virginia
233 Eastern Panhandle
234 Kanawha Valley
235 North Central West Virginia
236 Southern West Virginia
IV Alabama
1 Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers
2 Columbus - Phenix City (GA)
3 East Alabama
4 Metropolitan Birmingham
-------
18
Table A-l. (Contd.)
EPA
Region State
AQCR
No.
AQCR Name
IV Alabama (Contd)
(Contd)
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
6
7
48
49
50
51
52
2
49
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
72
77
78
79
101
102
103
104
105
18
134
135
136
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
Mobile - Pensacola - Panama City -
Southern Mississippi (FL, MS)
Southeast Alabama
Tennessee River Valley - Cumberland
Mts. (TN)
Mobile - Pensacola - Panama City -
Southern Mississippi (AL, MS)
Central Florida
Jacksonville - Brunswick (GA)
Southeast Florida
Southwest Florida
West Central Florida
Columbus - Phenix City (AL)
Jacksonville - Brunswick (FL)
Augusta - Aiken (SC)
Central Georgia
Chattanooga (TN)
Metropolitan Atlanta
Northeast Georgia
Savannah - Beaufort (SC)
Southwest Georgia
Paducah - Cairo (IL)
Evansville - Owensboro - Henderson (IN)
Louisville (IN)
Metropolitan Cincinnati (IN, OH)
Appalachian
Bluegrass
Huntington - Ashland - Portsmouth -
Ironton (OH, W)
North Central Kentucky
South Central Kentucky-
Mobile - Pensacola - Panama City -
Southern Mississippi (AL, FL)
Metropolitan Memphis (AR, TN)
Mississippi Delta
Northeast Mississippi
Northern Piedmont
Eastern Mountain
Eastern Piedmont
Metropolitan Charlotte
Northern Coastal Plain
Sandhills
Southern Coastal Plain
Western Mountain
(SC)
-------
19
Table A-l. (Contd.)
EPA
Region
State
AQCR
No.
AQCR Name
IV South Carolina
(Contd)
53 Augusta - Aiken (GA)
58 Savannah - Beaufort (GA)
167 Metropolitan Charlotte (NC)
198 Camden - Sumter
199 Charleston
200 Columbia
201 Florence
202 Greenville - Spartanburg
203 Greenwood
204 Georgetown
Tennessee 7
18
55
207
208
209
V Illinois 65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Indiana 67
76
77
79
80
81
82
83
84
Michigan 82
122
123
124
125
126
Tennessee River Valley - Cumberland Mts.
(AL)
Metropolitan Memphis (AR, MS)
Chattanooga (GA)
Eastern Tennessee - Southwestern Virginia
(VA)
Middle Tennessee
Western Tennessee
Burlington - Keokuk (IA)
East Central Illinois
Metropolitan Chicago (IN)
Metropolitan Dubuque (IA, WI)
Metropolitan Quad Cities (IA)
Metropolitan St. Louis (MO)
North Central Illinois
Paducah - Cairo (KY)
Rockford - Janesville - Beloit (WI)
Southeast Illinois
West Central Illinois
Metropolitan Chicago (IL)
East Central Indiana
Evansville - Cwensboro - Henderson (KY)
Metropolitan Cincinnati (KY, OH)
Metropolitan Indianapolis
Northeast Indiana
South Bend - Elkhart - Ben ton Harbor (MI)
Southern Indiana
Wabash Valley
South Bend - Elkhart - Benton Harbor (IN)
Central Michigan
Metropolitan Detroit - Port Huron
Metropolitan Toledo (OH)
South Central Michigan
Upper Michigan
-------
20
Table A-l. (Contd.)
EPA
Region State
V Minnesota
(Contd)
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
AQCR
No.
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
79
103
124
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
68
73
128
129
237
238
239
240
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
AQCR Name
Central Minnesota
Southeast Minnesota - La Crosse (WI)
Duluth - Superior (WI)
Metropolitan Fargo - Moorhead (ND)
Minneapolis - St. Paul
Northwest Minnesota
Southwest Minnesota
Metropolitan Cincinnati (IN, KY)
Huntington - Ashland - Portsmouth -
Ironton (KY, WV)
Metropolitan Toledo (MI)
Dayton
Greater Metropolitan Cleveland
Mansfield - Marion
Metropolitan Columbus
Northwest Ohio
Northwest Pennsylvania - Youngstown (PA)
Parkersburg - Marietta (WV)
Sandusky
Steubenville - Weirton - Wheeling (WV)
Wilmington - Chillicothe - Logan
Zanesville - Cambridge
Metropolitan Dubuque (IL, IA)
Rockford - Janesville - Beloit (IL)
Southeast Minnesota - La Crosse (MN)
Duluth - Superior (MN)
Lake Michigan
North Central Wisconsin
Southeastern Wisconsin
Southern Wisconsin
Central Arkansas
Metropolitan Fort Smith (OK)
Metropolitan Memphis (MS, TN)
Monroe - El Dorado (LA)
Northeast Arkansas
Northwest Arkansas
Shreveport - Texarkana - Tyler (LA, OK,
TX)
Louisiana
19 Monroe - El Dorado (AR)
22 Shreveport - Texarkana - Tyler (AR, OK,
TX)
106 Southern Louisiana - Southeast Texas (TX)
-------
21
Table A-1. (Contd.)
EPA
Region State
VI New Mexico
(Contd)
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
r
AQCR
No.
12
14
152
153
154
155
156
157
17
22
184
185
186
187
188
189
22
106
153
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
65
68
69
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
AQCR Name
Arizona - New Mexico Southern Border
(AZ)
Four Corners (AZ, CO, UT)
Albuquerque - Mid Rio Grande
El Paso - Las Cruces - Alamogordo (TX)
Northeastern Plains
Pecos - Permian Basin
Southwestern Mountains - Augustine Plains
Upper Rio Grande Valley
Metropolitan Fort Smith (AR)
Shreveport - Texarkana - Tyler (AR, LA,
TX)
Central Oklahoma
North Central Oklahoma
Northeastern Oklahoma
Northwestern Oklahoma
Southeastern Oklahoma
Southwestern Oklahoma
Shreveport - Texarkana - Tyler (AR, LA
OK)
Southern Louisiana - Southeast Texas
(LA)
El Paso - Las Cruces - Alamagordo (NM)
Abilene - Wichita Falls
Amarillo - Lubbock
Austin - Waco
Brownsville - Laredo
Corpus Christi - Victoria
Metropolitan Dallas - Fort Worth
Metropolitan Houston - Galveston
Metropolitan San Antonio
Midland - Odessa - San Angelo
Burlington - Keokuk (IL)
Metropolitan Dubuque (IL, WI)
Metropolitan Quad Cities (IL)
Metropolitan Omaha - Council Bluffs (NB)
Metropolitan Sioux City (NB, SD)
Metropolitan Sioux Falls (SD)
Northeast Iowa
North Central Iowa
Northwest Iowa
Southeast Iowa
South Central Iowa
Southwest Iowa
-------
22
Table A-l. (Contd.)
EPA AQCR
Region State No.
VII Kansas 94
(Contd) 95
96
97
98
99
100
Missouri 70
94
137
138
139
Nebraska 85
86
145
146
VIII Colorado 14
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Montana 140
141
142
143
144
North Dakota 130
172
South Dakota 86
87
205
206
Utah 14
219
220
Wyoming 241
242
243
AQCR Name
Metropolitan Kansas City (MO)
Northeast Kansas
North Central Kansas
Northwest Kansas
Southeast Kansas
South Central Kansas
Southwest Kansas
Metropolitan St. Louis (IL)
Metropolitan Kansas City (KS)
Northern Missouri
Southeast Missouri
Southwest Missouri
Metropolitan Omaha - Council Bluffs (IA)
Metropolitan Sioux City (IA, SD)
Lincoln - Beatrice - Fairbury
Nebraska
Four Corners (AZ, NM, UT)
Comanche
Grand Mesa
Metropolitan Denver
Pawnee
San Isabel
San Luis
Yampa
Billings
Great Falls
Helena
Miles City
Missoula
Metropolitan Fargo - Moorhead (MN)
North Dakota
Metropolitan Sioux City (I A, NB)
Metropolitan Sioux Falls (IA)
Black Hills - Rapid City
South Dakota
Four Corners (AZ, CO, NM)
Utah
Wasatch Front
Casper
Metropolitan Cheyenne
Wyoming
-------
23
Table A-l. (Contd.)
EPA
Region State
IX American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
AQCR
No.
245
12
13
14
15
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
246
60
13
147
148
8
9
10
11
61
62
63
64
190
191
192
193
194
62
193
227
228
229
230
AQCR Name
American Samoa
Arizona - New Mexico Southern Border
Clark - Mohave - Yuma (NV)
Four Corners (CO, NM, UT)
Phoenix - Tucson
Great Basin Valley
Metropolitan Los Angeles
North Central Coast
North Coast
Northeast Plateau
Sacramento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco Bay Area
San Joaquin Valley
South Central Coast
Southeast Desert
Guam
Hawaii
Clark - Mohave - Yuma (AZ)
Nevada
Northwest Nevada
Cook Inlet
Northern Alaska
South Central Alaska
Southeastern Alaska
Eastern Idaho
Eastern Washington - Northern Idaho
Idaho
Metropolitan Boise
Central Oregon
Eastern Oregon
Northwest Oregon
Portland (WA)
Southwest Oregon
Eastern Washington - Northern Idaho
Portland (OR)
Northern Washington
Olympic - Northwest Washington
Puget Sound
South Central Washington
(NM)
(WA)
(ID)
-------
24
-------
25
Figure A-l. Air Quality Control Region Locations
This figure shows the location of the 247 Air Quality Control Regions.
-------
Figure A-l. Air Quality Control Region Locations
-------
27
Table A-2. Background Data on Air Quality Control Regions
Table A-2 gives background data for each Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR). AQCRs are listed by EPA region and by state within each region. In-
terstate regions are noted and included under each state of which they are a
part. The information presented includes the 1970 population of the AQCR; the
priority classification for TSP, S02, and N02; and the date by which each re-
gion is expected to attain the NAAQS for TSP and S02. For interstate AQCRs,
the population figures are for the entire region. Priority classifications
and attainment dates are those current as of July 1974. Regions where stan-
dards are apparently being attained are noted.
The table shows that the population in different AQCRs varies widely
from over 17 million to under 0.1 million with most regions having less than
3 million inhabitants. Almost half of the AQCRs have been classified as Pri-
ority I for TSP, while less than 20% are Priority I for S02. All, except 5,
AQCRs are Priority III with respect to N02. The 5 regions that are Priority I
for N02 include the cities of Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Chicago, Baltimore,
and New York. Most states are scheduled to attain primary TSP and S02 stan-
dards by mid-1975, although a number of regions have compliance extensions
beyond July 1975 for TSP, S02, or both.
-------
Table A-2. Background Data on Air Quality Control Regions
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP'
as of July 1974
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION I
Connecticut
41
42b
43b
44
Maine
107b
108
109
110
111
Massachusetts
42b
117
118
119h
120b
121b
New Hampshire
107b
121b
149
Rhode Island
120b
Vermont
159b
221
REGION II
New Jersey
43b
4<>
150,
151
1970 Population
(Millions)
.42
2.32 '
17.47
14
.34
.09
.19
.33
.08
2.32
.15
.64
3.72
1.50
.63
.34
.63
.07
1.50
.58
.24
17.47
5.64
.57
1.99
1974 Priority Classification
TSP
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
' 2
2
1
1
3
1
S02
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1A
2
N02
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
Particulates
Primary
a
5/75
5/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
5/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
Secondary
6/75
5/75
5/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
1/77
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
5/75
7/75
7/75
1/77
1/77
a
7/75
Sulfur
Primary
a
6/75
6/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
3/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
Dioxide
Secondary
a
6/75
6/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
1/77
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
3/75
7/75
7/75
1/77
1/77
7/75
a
Is)
oo
-------
Table A-2. (Contd.)
1974 Priority Classification
. Control Region
REGION II (Contd.)
New York
43b
158,
15913
160
161
162
163
164
Puerto Rico
244
Virgin Islands
247
REGION III
Delaware
45b
46
Dist. of Columbia
47b
Maryland
47b
112,
113
114
115
116
Pennsylvania
45b
151b
178b
195
196
197
1970 Population
(Millions)
17.47
1.21
.58
1.11
1.58
1.35
.50
.57
2.8
.06
5.64
.16
2.86
2.86
.09
.21
.21
2.08
.12
5.64
1.99
1.60
1.03
1.26
2.88
TSP
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1A
1A
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
S02
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1A
1A
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
1
N02
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
7/77
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/77
7/75
a
4/75
1/75
1/72
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
Secondary
1/77
1/77
a
7/75
7/75
1/77
7/75
7/75
4/75
1/75
1/74
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
1/77
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
1/77
Primary
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/77
a
a
4/75
1/75
1/72
a
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
Secondary
1/77
a
a
7/75
7/75
1/77
a
7/75
4/75
1/75
1/74
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
1/77
7/75
a
a
7/75
1/77
ts)
-------
Table A-2. (Contd.)
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION III (Contd.)
Virginia
47b
207b
222
223
224
225
226
West Virginia
103?
113ฐ
179ฐ
181b
231
232
233
234
235
236
REGION IV
Alabama
lb
2
/L
5
6,
7ฐ
Florida
5b
48h
49"
50
51
52
1970 Population
(Millions)
2.86
1.51
.54
1.09
.39
.71
.64
.60
.21
.29
.47
.16
.14
.07
.26
.25
.39
.21
.72
.40
1.05
2.12
.24
,97
2.12
.93
1.33
2.44
.35
1.50
1974 Priority Classification
TSP
1
1
1
1
1A
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
S02
1
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
2
3
3
1
N02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
a
a
a
6/75
6/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
Secondary
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
6/75
7/75
- 6/75
6/77
6/77
6/77
6/77
a
a
a
6/77
6/77
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
Primary
6/72
6/72
a
6/72
a
a
a
a
6/75
6/75
6/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
a
a
7/75
Secondary
6/72
6/72
a
6/72
a
a
a
a
6/78
6/78
6/78
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/7S
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
-------
Table A-2. (Contd.)
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION IV (Contd.)
Georgia
2b
49b
53b
SS3
56
57,
58b
59
Kentucky
?2b
7^
78^
79^
101
102,
10?
104
105
Mississippi
5b
18b
134
135
North Carolina
136
165
166,
16713
168
169
170
171
1970 Population
(Mil lions)
.72
1.33
.52
.51
.69
1.72
.41
.39
.46
.41
.51
.83
1.66
.43
.46
.60
.27
.33
2.12
.81
.34
.64
.98
.53
.92
1.06
.28
.58
.58
.34
1974 Priority Classification
TSP
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
S02
3
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
N02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
4/75
4/75
4/75
4/75
4/75
a
4/75
a
a
6/75
6/75
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
Secondary
7/7S
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
4/75
4/75
4/75
4/75
4/75
4/75
4/75
4/75
a
6/75
6/75
a
6/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
Primary
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
a
7/77
1978
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
6/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
Secondary
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/78
4/78
7/77
1978
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
6/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
-------
Table A-2. (Contd.)
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION IV (Contd.)
South Carolina
53?
5fl
O V
167b
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
Tennessee
7b
18ฐ
55ฐ
207b
208
209
REGION V
Illinois
65b
66b
67b
68b
69b
70b
71b
72b
73ฐ
74
75
1970 Population
(Millions)
.52
.40
1.06
.16
.34
.37
.26
.66
.16
.14
.97
.81
.69
1.51
1.06
.47
.64
.64
7.78
.20
.57
2.48
.21
.41
.57
.46
.64
1974 Priority Classification
TSP
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
3
2
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
S02
2
1
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
1
1A
2
3
2
1A
N02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
Secondary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
Primary
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
Secondary
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/77
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
ISJ
-------
Table A-2. (Contd.)
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION V (Contd.)
Indiana
67b
77ฐ
78b,
79ฐ
80
82b
83
84
Michigan
82b
122
1245
125
126
Minnesota
127,
128^
U9?
130b
131
132
133
Ohio
79b
10$
12?
173
174
175
176
177,
178^
17913
180,
181b
182
183
1970 Population
(Millions)
7
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
.78
.55
.51
.83
.66
.11
.49
.83
.55
.81
.83
.22
.33
.70
.41
.56
.25
.11
.49
.12
.88
.40
,30
.66
.60
.70
.06
.38
.49
.18
.59
.60
.29
.29
.47
.22
.28
1974 Priority Classification
TSP
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1A
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
2
S02
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
1A
1A
1
1A
3
1
1
2
3
3
1A
2
3
1
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
2
N02
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
Secondary
1/77
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
1/77
7/75
7/75
7/75
1/77
7/75
7/75
1/77
7/75
7/75
Primary
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
Secondary
1/77
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
8/76
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
. 7/75
7/75
7/78
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
'a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
OJ
-------
Table A-2. (Contd.)
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION V (Contd.)
Wisconsin
68,b
73b,
128^
129
237
238
239
240
REGION VI
Arkansas
16
17b
18ฐ
19ฐ
20
2k
22b
Louisiana
19b
22b
106b
New Mexico
12,b
1?
152,
153
154
155
156
157
1970 Population
(Millions)
.20
.57
1.11
.49
.92
.33
1.76
.58
.72
.33
.81
.45
.48
.20
1.31
.45
1.31
3.37
.13
.36
.33
.51
.06
.20
.05
.11
1974 Priority Classification
TSP
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
1A
1A
1
1
3
3
3
3
S02
3
3
1A
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1A
1A
3
1
3
3
3
3
N02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
a
a
Secondary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/77
a
a
a
a
Primary
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/77
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
Secondary
a
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
1/77
7/77
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
-------
Table A-2. CContd.)
1974 Priority Classification
Control Region
REGION VI (Contd.)
Oklahoma
17b
22b
184
185
186
187
188
189
Texas
22bb
15?
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
REGION VII
Iowa
65^
*t
^
Sf3
88
89
90
91
92
93
1970 Population
(Millions)
.33
1.31
.78
.17
.77
.12
.31
.28
1.31
3.37
.51
.50
.66
1.01
.44
.55
2.65
2.32
1.13
.42
.64
.20
.57
.54
.18
.14
.49
.30
.17
.23
.67
.23
TSP
2
2
1
3
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1A
3
3
1
3
S02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
N02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
Secondary
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
Primary
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Secondary
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
CM
Ol
-------
Table A-2. (Contd.)
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION VII (Contd.)
Kansas
94b
95
96
97
98
. 99
100
Missouri
A
94ฐ
137
138
139
iNebraska
85*
86b
145
146
REGION VIII
Colorado
14b
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Montana
140
141
142
143
144
1970 Population
(Millions)
1.40
.37
.27
.16
.26
.57
.15
2.47
1.41
.65
.45
.80
.54
.18
.21
.29
.41
.07
.13
1.24
.24
.42
.04
.02
.14
.14
.17
.09
.16
1974 Priority Classification
TSP
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
3
1A
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
1A
3
1
S02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
1A
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1A
1A
3
3
N02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Participates
Primary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
Secondary
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/7S
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
1/77
1/77
1/77
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
Sulfur
Primary
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/77
a
a
Dioxide
Secondary
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
1/77
a
a
-------
Table A-2. (Contd.)
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION VIII (Contd.)
North Dakota
130b
172
South Dakota
86b
87b
205
206
Utah
14b
219
220
Wyoming
241
242
243
REGION IX
American Samoa
245
Arizona
12b
13k
if
15
California
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1970 Population
(Millions)
.19
.54
.19
.39
.11
.67
.42
.16
.39
.09
.10
.15
.03
.13
.36
.36
1.43
.02
9.99
.39
.19
.06
1.22
1.36
4.64
1.69
.37
.08
1974 Priority Classification
TSP
2
2
3
2
3
3
1A
3
1
2
2
3
3
1A
1
1A
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
1
S02
3
3
3
3
3
3
1A
3
1
3
3
3
3
1A
1
1A
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
N02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
2/75
2/75
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/77
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
a
7/75
Secondary
2/75
2/75
a
7/75
a
a
7/75
a
7/77
9/76
1/74
5/76
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/77
a
1/77
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
1/7S
Primary
a
a
a
a
a
a
3/76
a
7/77
a
a
a
a
7/77
7/75
7/77
7/77
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Secondary
a
a
a
a
a
a
3/76
a
1/77
a
a
a
a
7/77
7/75
7/77
7/77
a
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-------
Table A-2. CCฐntd.)
1974 Priority Classification
Air Quality
Control Region
REGION IX (Contd. 5
Guam
246
Hawaii
60
Nevada
13b
147
148
REGION X
Alaska
8
9
10
11
Idaho
61.
62b
63
64
Oregon
190
191
192,
19 3b
194
Washington
62b
193b
227
228
229
230
1970 Population
(Millions)
.09
.77
.36
.06
.15
.15
.07
.04
.04
.20
.53
.22
.17
.14
.13
.07
1.74
.27
.53
1.74
.11
.38
1.94
.32
TSP
2
2
1
1A
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
S02
3
3
1A
1A
3
3
3
3
1
1A
1A
3
3
3
3
3
1A
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
N02
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attainment Dates Specified by the SIP
as of July 1974
Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
7/75
a
5/75
a
5/75
5/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
12/73
7/75
Secondary
a
7/75
7/75
7/77
7/77
1/77
1/77
a
a
1/77
1/77
1/77
1/77
5/75
5/75
a
5/75
5/75
7/75
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
7/75
Primary
7/75
a
7/75
7/75
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/77
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
a
1/75
a
Secondary
7/77
a
7/75
1/77
a
a
a
a
7/75
7/75
1/77
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
7/75
a
7/75
1/75
a
oo
^The SIP analysis indicates that air quality standards have already been attained.
Interstate.
-------
39
Table A-3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are listed on this
table for the six criteria pollutants. The primary standards were set to pro-
tect human health; the secondary standards were set to protect against adverse
welfare effects.
Except for particulates and S02, the primary and secondary standards
are equivalent.
-------
40
Table A-3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Particulates
S02
CO
N02
Photochemical
Oxidants
Hydrocarbons
Averaging Time
Annual (G)
24-Houra
Annual (A)
24-Houra
3-Houra
8-Houra
l-Houra
Annual (A)
l-Houra
3-Houra
C6 to 9 a.m.)
Primary Standards
75 yg/m3
260 yg/m3
80 yg/m3
365 yg/m3
-
10 mg/m3
40 mg/m3
100 ug/m3
160 yg/m3
160 yg/m3
Secondary Standards
60 yg/m3
150 yg/m3
-
-
1300 yg/m3
10 mg/m3
40 mg/m3
100 yg/m3
160 yg/m3
160 yg/m3
to be exceeded more than once a year.
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
-------
41
Table A-4. Stringency oฃ State Air Quality Standards
Compared to NAAQS and States Using the "Example Region Approach"
The adoption of state ambient air quality standards more stringent
than the NAAQS and the use of the "example region approach" have been identi-
fied as two possible causes for overly restrictive fuel combustion emission
regulations. In both cases, the states were exercising options available to
them under the Clean Air Act and approved by EPA. Table A-4 summarizes the
states that have more stringent standards and that used the example region
approach to develop their regulations.
For the purpose of this analysis, state air quality standards were
assumed to be more stringent if the state uses averaging times other than those
specified in the NAAQS and/or if, for the same averaging times, the state stan-
dards require a lower concentration or allow fewer times when the specified
concentration may be exceeded. In some cases, states have been rated as
having more stringent S02 standards since the state has retained the original
federal secondary annual standard and 24-hour guide, which have since been
rescinded by EPA; these cases are footnoted appropriately. If the state did
not adopt ambient standards, then the NAAQS apply, and the state is rated as
having equivalent standards.
Thirteen states have particulate standards more stringent than NAAQS
in all or a portion of the state, while 35 have more stringent 862 standards.
Of this 35, 20 still retain the old federal secondary annual standard and/or
24-hour guide. Only North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Hawaii
have NOa standards more stringent than NAAQS.
Thirty-six states used the example region approach to develop their
TSP and/or S02 regulations. In several states, power plants were modeled in-
dividually for later SIP revisions.
-------
Table A-4. Stringency of State Air Quality Standards Compared to
NAAQS and States Using "Example Region Approach"
State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
State Air
Standards
lent to
TSP S02
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
State
Quality
Equiva-
NAAQS
N02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ambient Air Quality Standards
State Air Quality Standards
More Stringent than NAAQSa
In a Portion Throughout
of the State the State
TSP S02 N02 TSP S02 N02
xf
X X
Xb
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
xb
..... . . . . . J\. . .
Example Region
Approach Used to
Develop Regulations
TSP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Os)
-------
Table A-4. (Contd.)
State
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
State Air Qu
Standards Eq
lent to NA
TSP S02
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
State Ambient Air Quality Standards
State Air Quality Standards
More Stringent than NAAQSa
uiva- In a Portion Throughout
AQS of the State the State I
N02 TSP S02 N02 TSP S02 N02
XX Xb
X X
XY
j"i
r\
Y Y
A A
X c
X XC
X
XyD
-"
X
X X
X"V"
ซr
XYU
A
X
Y A'
X X )?
X
X
Example Region
Approach Used to
Develop Regulations
TSP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S02
X
X
X
X
X
X
d
e
X
X
X
X
X
f
X
-fa-
t/a
-------
Table A-4. CContd.)
State
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX
Amer. Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
State Air Qu
Standards Eq
lent to NA
TSP S02
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
State Ambient Air Quality Standards
State Air Quality Standards
More Stringent than NAAQSa
10 1 I -f V
uiva- In a Portion Throughout
AQS of the State the State I
N02 TSP S02 N02 TSP S02 N02
X
X
X X
X
Jv A -As
"r\
^rL* "XT
"i-\
A X
A A
X
X X
I x $>
XXX
X X XC
Example Region
Approach Used to
Develop Regulations
TSP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
S02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
-------
Table A-4. CContd.)
State
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
State
State Air Quality
Standards Equiva-
lent to NAAQS
TSP S02 N02
X X
XXX
X X
X X
Ambient Air Quality Standards
State Air Quality Standards
More Stringent than NAAQSa
In a Portion Throughout
of the State the State
TSP S02 NOZ TSP S02 N02
Xb
xb
X
Example Region
Approach Used to
Develop Regulations
TSP S02
X X
standards were rated more stringent than NAAQS if, for the same averaging times, the state standards
required either a lesser average value or fewer periods above a specified concentration or if the state
had standards for averaging times other than those used in the NAAQS. States with either no standards or
less stringent standards were rated as having standards equivalent to NAAQS, since in these cases the
NAAQS would apply.
State retains 24-hr and annual S02 standards equivalent to original S02 secondary NAAQS and guide which have
been rescinded at the federal level.
cState retains annual S02 standards equivalent to original S02 secondary NAAQS which has been rescinded at
the federal level.
Sample region approach used for original SIP; power plants modeled for SIP revision.
A .
Approach used depended on AQCR.
No S02 strategy required in SIP.
en
-------
46
-------
47
Table A-5. Applicable State Ambient Air Quality Standards
The actual values of state ambient air quality standards for TSP, SOa,
and NOz are given in this table. Comparison may be made with the NAAQS given
in Table A-3; stringencies relative to the NAAQS are given in Table A-4. For
states that did not adopt both primary and secondary standards, the entries
are made in the "Primary" column if the state standards are less stringent
than or equal to the corresponding NAAQS. If a state has adopted either no
standards or standards less stringent than NAAQS, the federal standards will
apply.
Only five states show regional variation in their ambient standards.
Almost one-quarter of the states have standards specifying average times dif-
ferent from those used in the NAAQS. Standards for TSP and S02 have been
adopted by almost all states and over a quarter have not adopted N02 standards.
Greater variation exists between S02 standards for various states than between
TSP standards. The tabulated values show that most states adopted ambient air
quality standards either equivalent to or very close to the federal ambient
standards in effect at the time of adoption.
-------
Table A-5. Applicable State Ambient Air Quality Standardsl
(All concentrations in vig/ra3)
Total Suspended Particulates
Primary
State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Islandf
Vermont
REGION II
New Jersey
New Yorkf >g
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III
Delaware^
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida ,- ,
t ,1
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina"1
Annual
75
-
75
-
-
75
7ฐH
85^
100?
II?1
-
-
70
75
75
75
75
75
75
-
75
-
-
24-Hourd
260
-
260
-
_
-
260
250e
250e
250e '
250e
-
-
200
-
160
160
260
260
260
260
_
-
-
260
-
--
Secondary
. ,b
Annual
60
50
-
60
50
45
60
451
551
65*
751
60
60
60
-
60
65
60
60
60
60
60
50
60
60
60
60
24-Hourd
150
100
-
150
130
125
150
_
_
-
150
150
150
-
140
140
150
150
150
150
150
180e
150
150
150e
150
Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
Annual0
80
-
80
-
-
-
80
80
.
80
80
70b
80
75
79
80
80
80
80
.
_
-
80
-
-
24-Hourd
365
>
365
-
-
-
365
365.
260^
365
365
26QJ
340
285
262
365
365
365
365
.
-
-
365
-
-
Annual0
60
57
-
60
57
57
-
_
_
-
-
-
60
-
57
39
-
80
60
_
60
8.6
43
60
60
60
Secondary
24-Hourd
260
230e
-
260
286
150
-
_
_
-
-
150
-
225
131
-
365
260
.
260
28.66
229e
-
260
260
3-Hourd
1300
1150e
-
1300
_
-
1300
_
_
-
1300
1300
1300
-
_
-
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
-
1300
1300
1300
Nitrogen Dioxide
Primary Secondary
Annual0 Annual0
-
100 100
-
100
_
-
100 100
100
-
100
100
_
-
_
-
100
100 100
-
100 100
100
-
100
100
100
00
-------
Table A-5. (Contd.)
(All concentrations
Total Suspended Particulates
Primary
State Annual
REGION IV (Contd.)
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri -I,
f,l
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado*7 7
1
Montana
North Dakotaf>m
South Dakota"1
Utah
Wyoming
-
75
_
75
75
75
-
75
75
75
-
75
75
75
75
75
_
-
75
_
-
75
-
-
90
-
24-Hourd
-
260
_
260
260
260
-
260
260
260
-
260
260
260
260
200n
_
-
260
_
-
200ฐ
.
-
200ฐ
-
Secondary
Annual
60
60
_
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
_
60
60
60
7ฐr
45C
_
60
60
-
60
24-Hourd
250e
150
-
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150e
150
150
150
ISO
^
150e
ISO6
150
200e
150e
_
ISO
150
-
150
in ug/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
Annual
80
80
-
80
80
60
-
80
80
80
-
80
80
80
80
_
_
-
80
_
-
-
-
-
80
-
24-Hourd
365
365
-
365
365
260
-
365
365
365
-
365
364
365
365
_
_
365
_
-
-
-
-
365
-
Annual
- .
60
-
60
-
60
60
60
-
60
60
-
-
-
-
40b
40
-
60'
25
60
60
60
-
60
Secondary
24-Hourd
-
364
-
260
-
260
260J
260
-
260
260
-
-
-
.
200n
160n
-
300
150
260ฐ
260
260
-
260
3-Hourd
1300
1300
-
-
1300
655
13006
1300
1300
1300
-
13006
1300
1300
1300
-
_
-
1300
-
-
-
-
1300
1300
Nitrogen Dioxide
Primary
Annual
100
100
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
_
_
100
-
-
-
100
100
100
100
Secondary
Annual
-
100
-
100
100
100
-
100
100
100
-
100
100
100
100
-
_
100
-
-
-
-
100
-
10
-------
Table A-5. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in yg/m3)
Total Suspended Particulates
Primary Secondary
State
REGION IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Annual 24-Hour Annual
60
60
60
60
55
60
60
75 260 60
60
60
24-Hourd
150
ISO6
100
150
100e
150e
150
150
150
ISO?
Sulfur Dioxide
Primary
Amualc 24 -Hour Annual0
.
SO
_
60
20
60
60
80 365
60
S3
Secondary
24-Hourd
-
260e
260e
260
80e
260e
260
-
260
266
3-Hourd
1300
1300e
13006
1300
4006
13006
1300
1300
1300
-
Nitrogen Dioxide
Primary Secondary
Annualc Annual0
100
100
-
100
70
100
100
-
-
100 100
For states that did not adopt both primary and secondary standards, the entries are made in the "Primary" column if state standards are less stringent
than or equivalent to the corresponding primary NAAQS.
Geometric mean.
cArithmetic mean.
Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
eNot to be exceeded.
State also has SOj standards for other averaging times.
^New York's TSP standards are based on four land-use categories. S02 standards apply statewide.
^ot to be exceeded by more than 16% of the 24-hour values in any 12 months.
JN'ot to be exceeded by more than 50% of the 24-hour values in any 12 months.
JNot to be exceeded more than H of the time.
k
State also has TSP standards for other averaging times.
Apply in part of state only.
mState also has N02 standards for other averaging times.
nNot to be exceeded more than one day in any three-month period.
Not to be exceeded more than 1% of time between April 1 and October 31 or more than S% of the time between November 1 and March 31.
pEast of the Cascade Mountain Crest the standard can exceed 150 if the background TSP level exceeds 30.
on
O
-------
51
Table A-6. State Air Quality Status, a National Summary
of AQCRs Showing Violations of NMQS
Table A-6 gives the number of AQCRs in each state showing compliance
with or violations of the primary and secondary NAAQS for TSP and S02. For
each state, the total number of AQCRs within or containing part of that state
is given. For both TSP and SOa, the number of these regions with violations
and without violations of the primary and secondary standards is given. The
number of regions having no data is also shown. An interstate AQCR was counted
in the total for a particular state even if the recorded violations occurred
in that portion of the region external to the state being considered. Deter-
minations of violations were generally based on data in SAROAD as of mid-1974,
although if more recent or more extensive data were available and indicated
violations, the table entry reflects this situation. For those categories of
standards to which two different averaging times apply, like the annual and
24-hour primary TSP standards, and for which data was available for only one
of these averaging times, the presence or absence of violations was based on
the available data. Also, a violation was counted for either.one or both of
the averaging times. Actual concentrations and cases where no data were avail-
able are given on Table A-7.
The data indicate that TSP is a much more widespread problem than
SOa. In every EPA region, the number of AQCRs showing TSP violations exceeds
the number without violations, while the majority of regions are meeting the
primary SOa standards. Over half of the AQCRs lack data to determine compli-
ance with the 3-hour secondary SOa standard.
-------
Table A-6. State Air Quality Status, a National Summary of AQCRs Showing Violations of NAAQS
TSP
Primary
States
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
TOTAL
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
REGION III
Delaware
INUJIlDCi
of
AQCRs
4
5
6
3
1
2
21
4
8
1
1
14
2
Dist. of Columbia 1
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
TOTAL
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
TOTAL
6
6
7
10
32
7
6
9
9
4
8
10
6
59
With
Violations
2
1
4
1
1
1
10
3
7
1
0
11
1
1
4
6
6
5
23
5
4
4
6
2
6
7
5
39
Without
Violations
2
2
2
2
0
1
9
1
1
0
1
3
1
0
2
0
1
2
6
2
2
5
3
2
2
3
1
20
No
Data
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Secondary
With
Violations
3
1
5
2
1
2
14
4
8
1
1
14
1
1
5
6
7
6
26
6
4
7
9
2
8
8
6
50
Without
Violations
1
2
1
1
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
3
1
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
9
No
Data
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S02
Primary
With
Violations
2
1
2
0
1
1
7
1
3
0
0
4
1
1
0
3
1
1
7
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
7
Without
Violations
2
2
4
2
0
1
11
2
5
1
1
9
1
0
6
3
6
3
19
3
5
7
7
2
8
10
4
46
No
Data
0
2
0
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
6
Secondary
With
Violations
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
Without
Violations
0
0
0
2
0
2
4
3
6
0
0
9
1
0
2
3
1
2
9
3
3
4
4
0
0
8
3
25
No
Data
3
5
6
1
1
0
16
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
5
8
20
4
3
5
3
4
8
2
3
32
cn
ISJ
-------
Table A-6. (Contd.)
TSP
Primary
States
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
TOTAL
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
TOTAL
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
TOTAL
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
TOTAL
Number
of
AQCRs
11
10
6
7
14
8
56
7
3
8
8
12
38
12
7
5
4
28
8
5
2
4
3
3
25
With
Violations
4
5
5
S
10
4
33
4
2
5
7
12
30
8
6
4
4
22
6
3
2
3
2
1
17
Without
Violations
4
5
1
2
1
4
17
3
1
3
1
0
8
4
1
1
0
6
2
2
0
1
0
2
7
No
Data
3
0
0
0
3
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Secondary
With
Violations
6
9
5
6
10
7
43
6
3
6
8
12
35
11
7
5
4
27
8
5
2
4
2
3
24
Without
Violations
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
0
2
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Data
S
0
0
0
3
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
S02
Primary
With
Violations
3
1
3
1
3
1
12
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
3
Without
Violations
4
9
3
6
7
7
36
7
3
6
8
11
35
11
7
3
4
25
1
0
1
3
1
3
9
No
Data
4
0
0
0
4
0
8
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
2
0
3
6
4
1
1
1
0
13
Secondary
With
Violations
2
0
1
1
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Without
Violations
2
4
3
2
7
4
22
1
1
2
0
5
9
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
5
No
Data
7
' 6
'2
4
7
4
30
6
2
5
8
7
28
12
7
5
4
28
6
3
2
4
1
3
19
en
-------
Table A-6. (Contd.)
TSP
Primary
States
REGION IX
American Samoa
Ari zona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
TOTAL
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
of
AQCRs
1
4
11
1
1
3
21
4
4
5
6
19
313
With
Violations
0
4
0
1
1
3
9
4
4
0
3
11
205
Without
Violations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
84
No
Data
1
o
11
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
24
Secondary
With
Violations
0
4
0
1
1
3
9
4
4
3
6
17
259
Without
Violations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
28
No
Data
1
0
11
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
26
S02
Primary
With
Violations
0
2
0
1
0
1
4
0
1
0
2
3
48
Without
Violations
0
2
0
0
1
1
4
3
0
5
4
12
206
No
Data
1
0
11
0
0
1
13
1
3
0
0
4
59
Secondary
With
Violations
0
2
0
1
0
1
4
0
1
0
1
2
20
Without
Violations
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
3
87
No
Data
1
1
11
0
1
2
16
4
3
5
2
14
206
Cn
-------
55
Table A-7.' Air Quality Status
For each Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), the actual measured
concentrations of TSP and SC>2 are given on Table A-7. Interstate AQCRs are
listed under each state of which they are a part and the states are grouped
under the appropriate EPA region. The values listed include the annual aver-
age, the highest 24-hour, and the second highest 24-hour, so that the measured
air quality may be compared with the NAAQS. Most of the data come from SAROAD
as of mid-1974. In some cases, these data have been supplemented by more
recent data from local sources. The "Controlling Standard," annual or 24-hour,
is given for each pollutant. This identifies the standard that appears to be
presenting the most difficulty with attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. If
the standards are being exceeded for only one averaging time or if data are
only available for one averaging time, this time determines the controlling
standard.
The number of AQCRs exceeding NAAQS in each state is summarized on
Table A-6. This table gives additional insight by showing which of the two
averaging times is controlling. For both TSP and SOa, the 24-hour standard
is controlling much more frequently than is the annual standard.
-------
Table A-7. Air Quality Status
(All concentrations in ug/m3)
Highest
Reading
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION I
Connecticut
41
42b
_K
43ฐ
44
Maine
107b
108
109
110
111
Massachusetts
42b
117
118
119,
12Qb
12 lb
New Hampshire
107b
12lb
149
Rhode Island
120b
Vermont
159b
221
REGION II
New Jersey
43b
45b
150
151b
Annual
N/A
117a
ft
125a
N/A
83a
N/A
N/A
43
N/A
117
55
69
92a
86a
60a
83a
60a
N/A
86
102
50
125
87
47
232
24 -Hour
270
443 '
489
165
291a
N/A
150
185
N/A
420
190
348
423
543
209a
291a
209a
162
543
262a
202
489a
558a
250
806
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
156
396
424a
124
231a
N/A
138
99
N/A
396
147
303
301
206a
197a
231a
19 7a
110
206
211a
165
307a
387a
153
549a
Highest
Reading
Con t TO 1 1 in j?
Standard
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24 -Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
8
32a
86a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
85
N/A
32
24
46
100a
51
N/A
51
N/A
100
35a
37
86a
80
19
30
24 -Hour
45
992
1381
37
173
N/A
82
391
N/A
992
235
319
214a
620
248
173
248
N/A
620
461
117
1381a
416
74
223
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24-Hour
30
992,
93a
30
66
N/A
74
96
N/A
992C
99
178
180
183
141
66
141
N/A
464
453
107
93
206a
74C
119
Controlling
Standard
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
in
-------
Table A-7. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in yg/m3)
Highest
Reading
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION II (Contd.)
New York
43b
158
159b
160
161
162
163
164
Puerto Rico
244
Virgin Islands
247
REGION III
Delaware
4S&
46
Dist. of Columbia
47b
Maryland
47b
112
113b
114
115
116
Pennsylvania
45"
ISlb
178b
195
196
197
Annual
125a
118a
102
85
111
123
58
94
138
N/A
137
47
85
85a
85
85
60
132
38
87
107
92
107
88
214
24 -Hour
489
414
262
450
581
558
220
342
222
316
558
158
668a
668a
210
423
207
415
120
558
274
695
411
366
621
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
462
378
211
171
389
385
159
243
210
240
383
158
351a
3513
197
185
206
403
102
387
219
561
322
243
455
Highest
Reading
Cont ro 1 1 inc
Standard
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
115
40
35
48
64
96
45
56
19
10
80a
M/A
12
63a
18
29
19
51
11
80
30
18
N/A
N/A
N/A
24-Hour
1381a
84
461
262
223
1729
154
320
61
73
416a
86
351
3513
144
562
73
295
66
416
223
378
41
93
965
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
93a
70
453
128
134
335
65
71
55
62
416C
18
322
322a
79
104
66
224
41
416C
H9C
378
11
61
965
Controllinfi
Standard
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
On
-------
Table A-7. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in yg/m3)
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION III (Contd.)
Virginia
47b
207b
222
223
224
225
226
West Virginia
103b
113b
179b
181b
231
232
233
234
235
236
REGION IV
Alabama
1,
2b
3
4,
?
6,
?
Florida
5b
48
49b
SO
51
52
Highest
Reading
Annual
77
93
150
102
45
82
95
96a
85
N/A
187
N/A
N/A
N/A
102
N/A
N/A
48
70
109
160
142
89
100
142
N/A
75
N/A
N/A
N/A
24-Hour
668
52 8a'
824
490
187
291
636
349a
423
268
621
N/A
N/A
N/A
501
186
326
168
244
356
776
1405
208
1830
1405
138
1645
347
138
950
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24-Hour
351
433a
548
352
157
271
550
239a
185
151
574
N/A
N/A
N/A
318
139
319
141
227
313
673
1386
192
1450
998
78
1525
262
83
321
Controlling
Standard
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
N/A
N/A
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24 -Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Highest
Reading
Annual
34a
13
8
34
N/A
61
15
28
28
N/A
106
N/A
N/A
N/A
39
N/A
N/A
N/A
8
N/A
31
8
N/A
N/A
8
N/A
13
6
N/A
22
24-Hour
351*
808a
60
290
52
500
172
429
562
N/A
432
N/A
N/A
N/A
228
N/A
N/A
N/A
26
N/A
584
480
N/A
218
480
100
1304
299
2
125
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
322a
581a
34
193
49
196
103
178
101
N/A
403
N/A
N/A
N/A
149
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
N/A
149
48QC
N/A
52
33
7
636
157
2
71
Controlling
Standard
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
N/A
Annual
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Ol
oo
-------
Table A-7. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in yg/m3)
Highest
Reading
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION IV (Contd.)
Georgia
2b
49b
S3b
54
55b
56
57,
58b
59
Kentucky
72b
77b
78b
79b
101
102
10 3b
104
105
Mississippi
5b
18b
134
135
North Carolina
136
165
166
167b
168
169
170
171
Annual
70
75
59
69
87
65
N/A
33
58
75
144
162
166
74
83
96
51
N/A
142
93
N/A
N/A
84
N/A
82
63
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24-Hour
244
1645
181
205
302
756
84
364
305
303
398
514
450
168
158
349
159
221
1405
451
176
202
335
527
315
646
321
264
754
884
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
227
1525
148
201
250
611
71
283
211
220
270
437
351
152
138
239
117
163
1386
289
ISO
137
258
330
303
645
229
250
395
738
Controlling
Standard
24 -Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Both
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Highest
Reading
Annual
8
13
19
8
15
26
N/A
4
6
19
39
61
55
9
15
28
5
9
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
N/A
17
13
7
. N/A
N/A
N/A
24 -Hour
26
1304
307
23
44
151
N/A
439
34
274
267
419
203
137
96
429
63
125
480
290
N/A
13
82
47
110
323
14
124
65
35
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
19
636
94
18
28
146
N/A
67
23
74
205
211
141
45
59
178
33
121
480ฐ
76
N/A
2
59
40
81
121
10
53
64
19
Controlling
Standard
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
in
to
-------
Table A-7. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in yg/m3)
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION IV (Contd.)
South Carolina
53J?
58ฐ
167ฐ
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
Tennessee
7ฐ
18ฐ
55ฐ
20 7b
208
209
REGION V
Illinois
65ฐ
66u
67ฐ
68ฐ
69b
70b
71
72ฐ
73b
74
75
Highest
Reading
Annual
59
33
63
61
133
76
76
83
51
91
100
93
87
28
70
N/A
40
N/A
164
31
100
116
N/A
75
N/A
N/A
N/A
24 -Hour
181
364'
646
332
986
650
239
575
145
287
1830
451
302
528
300
194
648
N/A
888
215
292
484
N/A
303
190
N/A
126
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
148
283
645
137
486
170
237
522
120
259
1450
289
250
433
288
164
405
N/A
611
206
246
326
N/A
220
141
N/A
98
Controlling
Standard
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
% Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
N/A
Annual
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
Highest
Reading
Annual
19
4
13
7
5
9
3
18
6
6
N/A
N/A
15
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
147
N/A
N/A
49
N/A
19
14
N/A
N/A
24 -Hour
307
439
323
57
146
171
26
90
49
125
218
290
44
809
60
N/A
162
N/A
583
40
31
487
N/A
274
140
N/A
N/A
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
94
67
121
34
59
52
7
88
35
34
52
76
28
581
39
N/A
66
N/A
275
27
2
87
N/A
74
79
N/A
N/A
Controlling
Standard
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
N/A
24-Hr
N/A
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
N/A
Annual
24-Hr
N/A
N/A
-------
Table A-7. CContd.)
(All concentrations in yg/m3)
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION V (Contd.)
Indiana
670
76
77b
78b
79b
80
81
82b
83
84
Michigan
82ฐ
122
123
124b
125
126
Minnesota
127
12 8b
129b
130b
131
132
133
Ohio
79b
10 3b
124b
173
174
175
176
177,
178b
179b
180,
181b
182
183
Highest
Reading
Annual 24 -Hour
164
70
144
162
166
70
N/A
89
45
67
89
137
176
77
58
888
165
398
514
450
284
141
244
189
285
244
783
492
427
191
60 1408
59
77
81
81
103
88
58
166
96
77
98
177
51
53
N/A
92
N/A
N/A
187
N/A
N/A
221
342
522
503
280
618
318
450
349
427
367
610
296
326
N/A
695
124
953
621
N/A
N/A
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
611
136
270
437
351
253
129
206
182
130
206
743
400
203
136
386
142
228
283
337
260
265
237
351
239
203
352
531
262
321
N/A
561
115
753
574
N/A
N/A
Controlling
Standard
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
24 -Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
N/A
Highest
Reading
Annual 24 -Hour
147
N/A
39
61
55
48
N/A
14
N/A
N/A
14
583
96
267
419
203
225
32
382
125
170
382
22 1148
82
41
82
19
5
32
22
N/A
71
N/A
N/A
55
28
41
117
77
24
N/A
N/A
18
N/A
N/A
106
N/A
N/A
410
224
756
122
146
610
107
68
985
23
20
203
429
224
991
414
103
99
131
378
N/A
N/A
432
N/A
N/A
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
275
86
205
211
141
133
23
259
78
110
259
1148=
147
82
756C
64
73
151
49
23
985C
23C
20C
141
178
82
789
215
93
43
120
378C
N/A
N/A
403
N/A
N/A
Controlling
Standard
Annual
24-Hr
24 -Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24 -Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
N/A
Annual
N/A
N/A
-------
Table A-7. (Gontd.)
(All concentrations in pg/m3)
Highest
Reading
Air Quality Control Regions
..REGION V (Contd.)
Wisconsin
68b
73b
128b
129"
237
238
239
240
REGION VI
Arkansas
16
17ฐ
18h
19b
20
21
22
J Louisiana
19b
22b
106b
New Mexico
12h
14b
152
153b
154
155
156
157
Oklahoma
17b
22b
184
185
186
187
188
189
Annual
31
N/A
77
81
64
28
81
47
74
83
93
63
102
57
81
63
81
138
72
65
95
190
N/A
N/A
32
43
83
81
114
65
89
87
71
88
24 -Hour
215 .
190
342
522
192
656
359
138
620
608
451
254
924
497
580
254
580
747
523
430a
362
907a
179
282
185
337
608
580
1367
154
630
315
368
1333
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
206
141
228
283
159
633
297
129
166
213
289
200
603
149
168
217
168
505
395
375a
314
713a
170
102
114
278
213
168
1301
119
335
295
300
277
Highest
Reading
Standard
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
N/A
14
32
22
26
N/A
53
41
N/A
6
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
7
3
7
16
137
N/A
N/A
62
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
7
5
N/A
41
N/A
15
8
24-Hour
40
140
610
107
274
47
272
432
246
62
349
61
83
180
25
61
25
205
3510
N/A
16
390
18
5
N/A
2
61
25
9
396
123
5
128
104
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
27
79
151
49
269
45
S3
204
122
25
76
60
61
20
13
60
13
63
1394
N/A
9
285
7
2
N/A
2
60
13
8
249
73
2
67
39
Control 1 iiiE
Standard
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
ISi
-------
Table A-7. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in ug/m3)
Highest
Reading
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION VI (Contd.)
Texas
22b
106b
153ฐ
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
REGION VII
Iowa
65
68ฐ
69b
85ฐ
86b
87b
88
89
90
91
92
93
Kansas
94b
95
96
97
98
99
100
Annual
81
138
190
98
79
87
114
93
104
118
94
67
40
31
100
12 7a
90a
75a
123
118
62
40
82
72
128
91
70
66
67
105
71
24 -Hour
580
747
907
285
349
386
1302
472
542
1447
287
392
648
215
292
432a
496a
443
520
882
251
296
972
480
479
277
682
345
382
365
303
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24-Hour
168
505
713
200
289
175
424
462
276
1107
230
314
405
206
246
316a
219a
188
403
502
180
144
464
194
442
276
501
294
279
340
243
Highest
Reading
Standard
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24 -Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
7
16
62
3
3
3
N/A
7
7
36
3
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
28
20
. 9
15
9
27
13
24 -Hour
25
205
390
11
22
9
N/A
270
30
281
10
54
162
40
31
31a
2
2
136
109
2
N/A
148
134
326
249
64
80
63
290
68
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
13
35
285
10
12
9
N/A
242
11
191
9
'12
66
27
2
2
2
79
83
2
N/A
105
94
300
77
43
60
56
228
68
Contro 1 1 ins
Standard
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24- Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
-------
Table A-7. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in ug/m3)
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION VII (.Contd.)
Missouri
70ฐ
94b
137
138
139
Nebraska
85b
86b
145
146
REGION VIII
Colorado
14b
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Montana
140
141
142
143
144
North Dakota
1300
172
South Dakota
86b
87b
205
206
Highest
Reading
Annual
116a
128a
109
50
54
127a
90a
61
102
65
66
93
129
113
109
71
108
78
18
73
87
118
81
120
90
75
129
56
24 -Hour
484.
479
323
878
312
432
496
495
411
430
217
339
930
415
469
227
469
180
204
200
394
592
503
1153
496
370
542
155
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
326
442a
289
580
179
316
219
432
356
374
197
291
587
413
371
187
348
158
150
195
357
512
337
587
219
179
376
153
Controlling
Standard
Annual
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
Annual
24 -Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Highest
Reading
Annual
49a
28a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24-Hour
487a
326a
N/A
217
26
31
2a
111
10
79
N/A
N/A
308
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
882
13
N/A
68
N/A
2
2
10
N/A
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24-Hour .
250a
300
N/A
217C
24
27,
2a
16
10
28
N/A
N/A
53
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
565
IS*
N/A
23
N/A
2
2
10
N/A
Controlling
Standard
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
N/A
24-Hr
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
N/A
ON
-------
Table A-7. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in yg/m3)
Air Quality Control Regions
REGION VIII (Contd.)
Utah
14b
219
220
Wyoming
241
242
243
REGION IX
American Samoa
245
Arizona
1?
13h
14b
IS
California
24
25
26
27
28
29.
30
31
32
33
Guam
246
Hawaii
60
Highest
Reading
Annual
65
N/A
89
68
74
118
N/A
72a
177a
65a
215
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
172
80
24-Hour
430
N/A
390
221
196
321
N/A
523a
1101
430
1005
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
628
329
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
374
N/A
330
192
155
277
N/A
395a
792a
375
777
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
423
326
Controlling
Standard
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
24-Hr
Highest
Reading
Annual
2
N/A
128
8
6
7
N/A
137a
3
2
219
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
56
6
24 -Hour
79
N/A
N/A
16
22
12
N/A
3510
10,
79a
2373
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3497
51
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
28
N/A
3072
14
11
10
N/A
2335
2
9
2319
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3000
38
Controlling
Standard
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
Annual
N/A
24-Hr
Annual
Annual
24-Hr
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
Cn
-------
Table A-7. (Contd.)
(All concentrations in ug/m3)
Highest
Reading
Air Quality Control Regions
-REGION IX (Contd.)
Nevada
13&
147
148
REGION X
Alaska
8
9
10
11
Idaho
61h
62b
63
64
Oregon
190
191
192
19 3b
194
Washington
62b
193b
277
228
229
230
Annual
177
87
98
90
64
N/A
58
85
140
N/A
126
N/A
N/A
N/A
66
6
140a
66
56
63
111
73
24-Hour
1101a
365
563
1393
404
208
367
656
558
508
452
295
243
100
265
154
638
265a
315
235 '
463
496
TSP
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
792
327
305
1094
377
195
318
452
497
390
363
205
202
96
205
145
497a
205
163
185
329
462
Highest
Reading
Con troll in E
Standard
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
3a
257
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
40
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
40
N/A
N/A
N/A
90
N/A
24 -Hour
10a
2758
N/A
25
11
N/A
167
N/A
1498
N/A
N/A
73
13
13
235
13
1498a
235a
135
234
182
95
S02
2nd Highest
Reading
24 -Hour
2a
2515
N/A
24
9
N/A
76
N/A
1248
N/A
N/A
13
13
13
234
13
12483
115a
115
120
73
90
Controlling
Standard
Annual
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
24 -Hr
N/A
24-Hr
N/A
24-Hr
N/A
N/A
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
24-Hr
Annual
24-Hr
tabulated value was recorded in that portion of the AQCR in another state.
Interstate
'"Highest reading used to calculate reduction, since second highest reading was not available.
ON
-------
67
Table A-8. Particulate and S02 Emissions Summary
Table A-8 gives the total emissions of TSP and S02 for each state.
The values are based on data in the National Emission Data System (NEDS) as
of mid-1974. The percentages of these emissions from electricity generation,
from industrial/commercial/institutional point sources, and from area sources
are given along with the total percentage of the emissions from all combustion
sources.
The table shows that combustion sources account for over half of the
S02 emissions in over half of the states and for over half the particulate
emissions in only about one-quarter of the states. The West-South Central
states show a lesser percentage of S02 coming from combustion sources than
is typical of most other states. Heavily industrialized states in the Middle
Atlantic and East-North Central areas tend to have the largest emissions of
both particulates and S02.
-------
Table A-8. Particulate and S02 Emissions Summary
TSP
1 Contribution from
State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total
Emissions
(103 tpy)
44
54
105
16
14
19
1524
663
80
8
41
7
72
1996
526
691
1299
250
446
601
186
529
220
452
1260
824
778
294
1957
454
Elec.
Gen.
19
1
18
5
3
6
1
13
3
2
3
36
22
13
18
29
46
123ฐ
27
1
27
12
37
20
31
16
15
18
37
ICI
Point
Sourcesa
. 8
16
13
9
8
7
1
13
30
12
12
18
7
11
18
32
3
12
6
3
11
8
9
16
8
24
38
13
15
12
Area
Sources
39
9
30
18
33
17
1
18
1
<1
31
22
29
30
6
2
2
1
4
7
2
9
10
4
14
13
11
22
21
32
Total Fuel
Combustion
66
26
61
32
44
30
3
44
34
14
46
76
58
54
42
63
51
33
23
37
14
44
31
57
42
68
65
50
54
81
Total
Emissions
CIO3 tpy)
185
160
696
95
73
27
1834
1782
171
11
231
41
376
3227
493
1806
973
989
521
1328
56
522
273
1301
2252
2260
1617
431
3490
786
S02
1 Contribution from
Elec.
Gen.
48
23
45
55
33
3
15
48
51
10
33
49
67
64
59
76
70
79
71
90
9
66
52
80
68
64
64
48
58
65
ICI
Point
Sources
17
48
13
23
24
20
2
17
9
55
8
18
10
12
25
14
12
7
12
13
20
24
7
11
22
22
23
20
12
Area
Sources
31
19
40
20
41
71
5
30
9
<1
3
30
10
18
10
2
4
2
s
6
6
12
3
16
7
8
20
11
16
Total Fuel
Combustion
96
90
98
98
98
94
22
95
69
65
44
97
87
94
94
92
86
88
88
98
28
92
88
90
95
93
94
91
89
93
o\
oo
-------
Table A-8. (Contd.)
TSP
\ Contribution from
State
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawai i
Nevada
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total
Emissions
(10 3 tpy)
152
419
113
103
606
238
385
223
105
222
301
87
50
79
83
.2
80
1109
3
68
104
16
61
187
189
Elec.
Gen.
1
- 1
19
3
4
19
2
14
14
9
1
43
6
7
46
13
9
1
18
2
8
30
0
1
6
ICI
Point
Sources3
11
7 -
<1
1
2
2
<1
5
5
3
1
4
1
9
1
8
<1
3
0
15
* <1
11
23
13
13
Area
Sources
3
2
2
4
2
3
3
34
3
7
1
7
3
28
2
0
3
2
3
1
1
21
5
4
3
Total Fuel
Combustion
15
10
21
8
8
24
5
53
22
19
3
54
10
44
49
21
12
6
21
18
9
62
28
18
22
Total
Emissions
(103 tpy)
44
183
489
144
830
284
96
1270
64
54
961
86
19
168
77
.5
1851
434
31
51
336
21
60
41
358
S02
% Contribution from
Elec.
Gen.
39
6
22
<1
6
65
26
72
63
38
1
66
23
7
52
33
<1
14
97
53
16
8
0
1
16
ICI
Point
Sources
6
8
2
3
2
17
2
4
5
4
<1
13
10
5
5
65
. <1
2
0
28
<1
25
6
14
10
Area
Sources
4
3
<1
4
2
6
23
6
11
18
1
12
33
7
9
0
<1
32
1
3
1
9
12
39
5
Total Fuel
Combustion
49
17
24
7
10
88
51
82
79
60
2
91
66
19
66
98
<1
48
98
84
17
42
18
54
31
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Point Sources.
-------
70
-------
71
TAB B
STATE REGULATIONS
Table B-l. Summary of State Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
Table B-2. Particulate Emission Regulations for Fuel Combustion Sources
Table B-3. S02 Emission Regulations for Fuel Combustion Sources
Table B-4. Approximate Fuel Sulfur Content Allowed by Emission Regulations
-------
72
-------
73
Table B-l. Summary of State Fuel Combustion
Emission Regulations
Table B-l categorizes state emission regulations for particulate
matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide (SOa). For each pollutant, the column 'Type
of Regulation" gives the form of control specified in the SIP. For example,
a regulation for particulate emissions might be expressed in terms of allow-
able pounds of particulate per million Btu of heat input. In this case, the
table entry would be "lb/l(r Btu." Combustion sources have been divided into
three categories on the basis of heat input: small (< 10 x 106 Btu/hr),
medium (10 - 250 x 106 Btu/hr), and large (> 250 x 106 Btu/hr). For each
source size category, an entry describes what portion of the state's combus-
tion sources in that size category are covered by the regulation. These entries
must be interpreted in terms of the notes under "Applicability," which give
either the geographical or source type limitations appropriate to the regula-
tion. For example, if a regulation applies to all oil-fired combustion sources
independent of heat input, "All" would be entered under each category for
"Affected Sources" and a note indicating that only oil-fired sources were
covered would be included. The actual emissions limits are given on Table
B-2 for particulate matter and Table B-3 for S02.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this table. Almost all states
have regulations for both particulates and S02. Most states regulate particu-
late emissions on the basis of allowable pounds of particulate per million Btu
of heat input. Some form of an allowable loading regulation is used by several
states, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Other types of regulations for
particulate emissions are used by only a few states or are used in addition to
the more common types of standards. Most states, even outside the heavily in-
dustrialized regions, regulate all large and medium combustion sources. Many
states do not regulate particulate emissions from some small sources, usually
residential units and small apartment buildings.
Sulfur dioxide emissions are generally limited either by a regulation
limiting the pounds of sulfur or sulfur dioxide allowed per million Btu or by
limiting the percentage of sulfur that the fuel can contain. Regulations spe-
cifying maximum ground level concentrations resulting from emissions are used
in the West South-Central states. Many states have several forms of regula-
tions, each applying to different fuels or types of sources or applying con-
currently, in which case the most stringent limit applies. As was the case
for particulates, most states regulate all SOa emissions except those from
some small sources.
-------
Table B-l. Summary of State Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
Affected Sources
(106 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Emission
PM
S02
PM
S02
PM
S02
Type of
Regulation
lb/106 Btu
IS
lb/106 Btu
IS
lb/106 Btu
lb S/
10 6 Btu
Large
0250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
Medium
(10-250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
Small
(<10)
All
All
Some
All
Some
All
Applicability
Statewide.
Statewide .
Statewide .
More stringent limit in Metro-
politan Portland AQCR #110.
More stringent limit in criti-
cal areas of concern.
'Outside Berkshire AQCR #117
More stringent limit in core
cities of Metropolitan Boston.
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
PM
S02
S02
PM
S02
S02
lb/106 Btu
lb S/
106 Btu
IS
lb/106 Btu
%S
lb S/
106 Btu
All
All
All
All
Some
New
All
All
All
All
Some
New
All
All
All
Some
Some
New
Statewide.
Statewide for qoal.
Oil. Less stringent limit in
Androscoggin Valley AQCR #107.
Statewide .
Statewide.
Statewide for coal.
-------
Table B-l. CContd.)
Affected Sources
CIO6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION I (Contd.)
Vermont
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Emission
EM
S02
EM
S02
S02
S02
EM
S02
S02
PM
S02
EM
S02.
Type of
Regulation
lb/106 Btu
.%S.
lb/106 Btu
%S
Ib S02/
106 Btu
ppm
lb/106 Btu
%S
Ib S/
106 Btu
lb/106 Btu
%S
lb/106 Btu
%S
Large
C>250)
All
All
All
All
Some
None
All
All
All
Some
All
All
All
Medium
C10-250)
All
All
All
All
Some
Some
All
All
All
Some
All
All
All
Small
C<10)
All
All
All
All
None
Some
Some
All
All
Some
All
All
All
Applicability
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide.
Varies with AQCR.
Statewide .
Noncommercial units
Statewide .
Oil-fired sources.
location.
Coal -fired sources.
location.
Statewide for solid
, statewide.
Varies with
Varies with
fuel.
More stringent limit in criti-
cal areas.
Statewide.
Statewide.
en
-------
Table B-l. (Contd.)
Affected Sources
(10 6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION III
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
Emission
PM
SO*
PM
S02
PM
PM
PM
Type of
Regulation
lb/106 Btu
%S
lb/106 Btu
%S
loading
Smoke
spot
lb/106 Btu
Large
(>250)
All
Some
All
All
Some
Some
Existing
Medium
(10-250)
All
Some
All
All
Some
Some
Existing
Small
(<10)
Some
Some
All
All
Some
Some
Existing
Applicability
Statewide .
Varies with county.
Statewide .
Statewide .
Varies with AQCR.
Varies with AQCR.
Outside Metropolitan Baltimore
Pennsylvania
S02
PM
PM
S02
S02
%S
(#115) and National Capital
(#47) AQCRs.
All Some Some Statewide.
lb/10 Btu All
lb/1000 Ib
Ib S02/
106 Btu
%S
All
All
All
All Some Outside Philadelphia AQCR #45.
More stringent limit for some
sources in Allegheny County
(AQCR #197).
All All In Philadelphia.
All Some Varies with location.
All All In Philadelphia AQCR #45 if
specified lb/106 Btu is exceeded.
-------
Table B-l. CContd.)
Affected Sources
(10 6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION III (Contd.)
Virginia
West Virginia
REGION IV
Alabama
Type of
Emission Regulation
FM lb/106 Btu
S02 Ib S02/
106 Btu
FM lb/106 Btu
PM maximum
Ib/hr
S02 Ib S02/
106 Btu
S02 maximum
Ib/hr
FM lb/106 Btu
S02 Ib S02/
106 Btu
S02 Ground
level
conceft-
tration
Large
(>250)
All
All
All
Some
All
Some
All
All
Some
Medium Small
(10-250) (<10)
All All
All All
Some Some
None None
All All
None None
All All
All All
None None
Applicability
More stringent limit for some
sources in National Capitol
AQCR #47.
More stringent limit in National
Captial AQCR #47 or if required
to meet air standards.
Statewide. Varies with unit type.
Statewide .
Varies with AQCR.
Varies with AQCR.
Varies with county.
Varies with county.
Statewide.
-------
Table B-l. (Contd.)
Affected Sources
(10 6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State Emission
REGION IV (Contd.)
Florida PM
PM
S02
S02
Georgia PM
PM
S02
SO
2
S02
Kentucky PM
S02
S02
Type of
Regulation
Available
technology
lb/106 Btu
Available
technology
lb6S02/
10 Btu
lb/106 Btu
Ib/hr
Ib S02/hr
Ib S02/
io6: Btu
%S
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
IO6 Btu
Maximum
tpd
Large
(>250)
None
All
None
All
All
Some
All
New
All
All
All
Some
Medium
(10-250)
All
None
All
None
All
Some
All
None
All
All
All
Some
Small
(<10)
All
None
All
None
All
Some
All
None
All
All
All
Some
Applicability
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide.
Statewide .
Statewide .
Near cities.
Varies with location.
Statewide .
Statewide.
Varies with AQCR.
Varies with AQCR.
Statewide for new sources or
sources near new sources.
oo
-------
Table B-l. (Contd.)
Affected Sources
(10 6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION IV (Contd.)
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Emission
FM
S02
S02
FM
S02
FM
S02
FM
SO 2.
FM
S02
Type of
Regulation
6
lb/10 Btu
Ib S02/
10 6 Btu
Maximum
total emis-
sion
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
lb/106 Btu
Ib SOa /
106Btu
6
lb/10 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
Large
C>250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Medium
(10-250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Small
C<10)
All
All
All
All
All
Some
Some
All
All
All
All
Applicability
Statewide .
Statewide.
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide .
Varies with county.
Statewide .
Varies with county.
More stringent limit for some
sources in Chicago Major Metro-
politan Area.
Varies with location.
-------
Table B-l. (Contd.)
Affected Sources
(10 6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
Type of
State Emission Regulation
REGION V (Contd.)
Indiana FM Ground
level
concen^
tration
PM lb/106 Btu
S02 Ground
level
concen-
tration
SQ2 lb S02/
106 Btu
Michigan PM Ib/lOOO -lb
S02 %S (equiv-
alent ppm
and lb S02/
106 Btu)
Minnesota PM lb/106 Btu
S02 lb S02/
106 Btu
S02 IS
Large
(>250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Medium
(10-250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Some
Small
(<10)
Some
Some
Some
Some
All
Some
All
All
Some
Applicability
Outside Chicago and Indianapolis
AQCRs.
Varies with AQCR.
Statewide.
Statewide .
More stringent limit for some
sources in Wayne County (AQCR
#123) .
More stringent limits in Wayne
County (AQCR #123). Residential
units outside Wayne County not
regulated.
Varies with location.
Statewide .
More stringent limit in Minne-
oo
o
apolis-St. Paul AQCR #131.
-------
Table B-l. (Contd.)
Affected Sources
(10 6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION V (Contd.)
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Emission
m
S02
FM
S02
S02
FM
PM
S02
Type of
Regulation
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
10 6 Btu
lb/106 Btu
IS
-
Ground
level
concen-
tration
Ib/hr
Ground
level
concen-
tration
Large
(>250)
All
All
All
All
All
Existing
New
All
Medium
(10-250)
All
All
All
All
All
Existing
New
All
Small
(<10)
All
All
All
All
All
Existing
Some
All
Applicability
Varies with AQCR priority.
Varies with county.
Varies with location.
Standby fuel only.
No limit if air standards are
met.
Statewide.
Statewide.
Statewide.
oo
-------
Table B-l. CContd.)
Affected Sources
(10 6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State Emission
REGION VI (Contd.)
Louisiana EM
S02
S02
New Mexico EM
S02
Oklahoma EM
S02
S02
Texas EM
EM
Type of
Regulation
lb/106 Btu
Ground
level
concen-
tration
ppm
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
lb/106 Btu
Ground
level
concen-
tration
Ib S02/
106 Btu
lb/106 Btu
Ib/hr
Large
(>250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
Existing
New
All
All
Medium
(10-250)
All
All
All
Some
Some
All
Existing
New
Some
All
Small
All
All
All
Some
Some
All
Existing
New
None
All
Applicability
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide.
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide.
Statewide .
Statewide for coal-fired steam
generators .
Statewide except for coal -fired
steam generators.
oo
tsj
-------
Table B-l. CContd.)
Affected Sources
(10 6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION vi (Contd.)
Texas (Contd.)
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Type of
Emission Regulation
PM Ground
level
concen-
tration
S02 Ib S02/
10 6 Btu
so Proven
technology
S02 ppm
S02 Ground
level
concen-
tration
PM lb/106 Btu
S02 Ib S02/
10 6 Btu
PM lb/106 Btu
S02 Ib S02/
10 6 Btu
Large
(>250)
All
Some
Some
Some
All
All
All
Some
Some
Medium
(10-250)
All
Some
Some
Some
All
All
None
Some
Some
Small
All
Some
Some
Some
All
All
None
Some
Some
Applicability
Statewide except for coal -fired
steam generators.
Statewide.
Statewide .
Statewide.
Varies with county.
Varies with location.
Statewide.
Statewide.
Statewide.
oo
-------
Table B-l. CContd.)
Affected Sources
CIO6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION VII (Contd.)
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
Emission
m
S02
S02
S02
m
S02
m
S02
m
S02
FM
S02
Type of
Regulation
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
%S
Ground
level
concen-
tration
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
10* Btu
lb/106 Btu
ppm
lb/106 Btu
Ib S/
105 Btu
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
Large
0250)
All
Some
Some
All
All
All
All
New
All
All
All
All
Medium
(10-250)
All
None
All
All
Some
Some
All
New
All
All
All
All
Small
(<10)
All
None
All
All
Some
Some
All
New
All
All
All
All
Applicability
Varies with location.
Metropolitan St. Louis AQCR #70.
Coal in Metropolitan St. Louis
AQCR #70.
Outside AQCR #70.
Statewide .
Statewide.
Statewide.
Statewide.
Statewide.
Statewide.
Statewide.
Statewide.
oo
-------
Table B-l. CContd.)
Affected Sources
CIO6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION VIII (Contd.)
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Emission
m
S02
m
PM
S02
S02
PM
S02
PM
S02
EM
S02
EM
S02
Type of
Regulation
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
lb/106 Btu
% control
%S
% control
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
lb/106 Btu
IS
lb/106 Btu
Ib S02/
106 Btu
_
-
Large
0250)
All
All
All
All
Existing
Most
All
All
All
All
All
All
-
-
Medium
C10-250)
All
All
All
All
Existing
Some
Some
None
All
All
All
All
_
-
Small
(<10)
All
All
All
All
Existing
None
Some
None
All
All
All
Some
-
t-
Applicability
Statewide .
Statewide.
In Wasatch Front AQCR #220.
Outside AQCR #220.
Statewide .
New sources. Regulated if poten-
tial S02 emissions > 500 tpy.
Statewide .
Statewide.
Statewide.
Statewide .
Statewide.
Statewide.
No data available.
No data available.
00
Cn
-------
Table B-l. (Contd.)
Affected Sources
CIO6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State
REGION IX (Contd.)
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Emission
PM
S02
PM
S02
PM
PM
S02
S02
S02
PM
S02
PM
S02
Type of
Regulation
Ib S02/
106 Btu
-
%S
lb/106 Btu
loading
Ib S02/
106 Btu
%S
ppm
loading
ppm
lb/106 Btu
%S
Large
(>250)
None
All
None
All
All
All
All
Some
All
All
All
All
All
Medium
(10-250)
None
All
Some
All
All
All
Some
Some
All
All
All
All
All
Small
C<10)
None
All
Some
Some
All
All
Some
Some
All
All
All
All
All
Applicability
No regulation.
Statewide.
Statewide. A limit applies to
bagasse-fired sources only.
Statewide.
Outside Washoe County (North-
west Nevada AQCR #148) .
Washoe County only.
Varies with location.
In Washoe County and Clark County
(Clark-Mohave-Yuma AQCR #13) . .
Washoe County only.
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide .
Statewide .
oo
-------
Table B-l. CContd.)
Affected Sources
CIO6 Btu/hr Heat Input)
State Emission
REGION X (Contd.)
Oregon FM
S02
S02
Washington PM
PM
S02
S02
S02
S02
Type of
Regulation
loading
%S
ppm
loading
Maxirnurn
Ib/hr
%S
Ib S02/
106 Btu
ppm
Ground
level
concen-
tration
Large
0250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Medium
(10-250)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Small
(<10)
Some
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Applicability
Varies with county.
Outside Portland AQCR #193.
In Portland AQCR.
Varies with AQCR.
Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho AQCR #62.
D-oil sources in Puget Sound
AQCR #229.
Northern Washington AQCR #227.
Varies with AQCR. Does not ap-
ply in AQCR #227 or to D-oil
sources in AQCR #229.
Olympic-Northwest Washington
AQCR #228.
oo
-------
88
-------
89
Table B-2. Particulate Emission Regulations for
Fuel Combustion Sources
State particulate emission regulations are compared in Table B-2 on
the basis of allowable pounds of particulates per million Btu of heat input.
Allowable emissions are listed for sources of 10, 100, 250, and 1000 million
Btu per hour. The relative stringency of the regulations for a given source
size can be assessed by comparing the values listed in the appropriate column.
If the values, in a row apply to a specific category of sources within a state
such as new sources, coal-burning sources, or sources within a specific area,
that category is specified under "Notes." If a geographic limitation to an
area smaller than an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) applies, the AQCR in
which such area is located is noted by number in parentheses. Most loading
standards have not been converted into equivalent lb/106 Btu, but the range
of such standards has been listed under "Notes." Standards like maximum
ground level concentration standards, for which no direct conversion to
lb/106 Btu can be made, are also noted.
Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) have been promulgated
for most combustion sources with more than 250 x 106 Btu/hr of heat input.
Entries in the 1000 column are footnoted if the state standards would be super-
seded by the NSPS. If the state has adopted standards equivalent to or more
stringent than NSPS, no footnote is included. The comparison is based on a
single combustion unit firing a single fuel and exhausted by a single stack.
Comparison of the values in the table shows that most states regulate
larger sources more stringently than smaller sources and that many regulate
new sources more stringently than existing sources. (The definition of new
and existing varies from state to state.) The Federal NSPS would supersede
the existing state standards for at least some new sources in over half the
states. Regional variation in emission limits occurs in many states, par-
ticularly in the East North-Central and Pacific Coast areas. Although emis-
sion limits can vary by more than a factor of ten between states for the same
size and type of source, limits for similar sources tend to vary at most by a
factor of four to five.
-------
90
Table B-2. Particulate Emission Regulations
for Fuel Combustion Sources
Allowable Emissions (Ib PM/106 Btu)
State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Heat
10
.20
.10
.60
.15
.12
.10
.60
.60
.20
.50
.60
.10
.60
.60
.60
.30
.60
Input
100
.20
.10
.34^
.15
.12
.10
.41
.35
.20
.27
.15
.10
.60
.60
.37
.30
.35
(10 6 Btu/hr)
250
.20
.10
.30
.15
.12
.10
.35
.28
.20
.11
.10
.10
.60
.37
.30
.30
.28
1000
.20
.10
.30a
.15
.12
.05
.28
.10
.10
.10b
.10
.10
-
"
.22
.30a
.21b
Note
Existing sources.
New sources.
Sources < 3 not regulated.
Existing sources.
Existing sources in critical
areas of concern.
New sources. Sources < 3
not regulated.
Existing sources.
New sources.
Sources < 1 not regulated.
New Sources > 1000 limited
to .02.
*
Oil-fired sources and new
coal-fired sources > 250.
Coal in existing spreader
stokers <_ 300.
Coal in existing sources
<_ 300 other than spreader
stokers.
Coal in new sources <_ 250
and existing sources > 300.
Sources < 1 not regulated.
Solid fuel. No coal present]
burned.
No coal presently burned.
-------
91
Table B-2. (Contd.)
Particulates
Allowable Emissions (lb PM/106 Btu)
Heat Input CIO6 Btu/hr)
State
10
100
250
1000
Notes
REGION III
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
.30
.10
.60
Pennsylvania
.40
.40
Virginia
West Virginia
.40
.30
.05
.09
.30
,06
.33
.27
.27
.29
.29
.05
.09
.30
.05
.27
.16
.16
,23
.23
.05
.09
.30C
.03
,19
.08L
,17L
.if
.05
.09
Sources < 1 not regulated.
Various loading standards
from .01-.03 gr/scf apply
depending on location,
date of construction, and
size of source. The Shell
Bacarach Smoke Spot test
is also specified either
in addition to or in lieu
of the loading standard.
Existing sources outside
Metropolitan Baltimore
(#115) and National Capital
(#47) AQCRs.
Outside Allegheny County
(AQCR #197). Sources < 2.5
not regulated. ~~
In Allegheny County. Sources
ฃ 0.2 not regulated.
City of Philadelphia (AQCR
#45). Loading standards
of 0.2 (0.1) lb/1000 lb
stack gas (12% C02) for
existing (new) sources.
Outside National Capital
AQCR #47.
In National Capital AQCR #47.
Electric power plants.
Emissions not to exceed
1200 Ib/hr.
Industrial and cyclone
furnaces. Gas-fired and
oil-fired units. Emissions
not to exceed 900 Ib/hr.
-------
92
Table B-2. (Contd.)
Particulates
Allowable Emissions
Heat Input (10
State
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
10
.50
.80
-
.70
.50
.80
.75
.56
.56
.60
.60
.60
(Ib PM/106
6 Btu/hr)
100 250
.18
.21
-
.44
.16
.48
.44
.33
.33
.41
.33
.60
12
12
-
37
10
40
35
26
26
33
24
60
1000
.12a
.12
.10
.28
.10
.29
.23
.16
.10
.27a
.18b
.25
Btu)
Notes
Existing sources in Class I
counties and all new sources
Existing sources in Class II
counties .
Latest reasonably avail-
able technology required
for sources ฃ 250.
Existing sources.
New sources.
Maximum Ib/hr limits
dependent on stack heights
also apply to sources and
sets of sources within one
mile of a city with popu-
lation ^50,000.
Existing sources in Pri-
ority III AQGRs.
Existing sources in Pri-
ority II AQCRs.
Existing sources in Pri-
ority I AQCRs.
New sources statewide.
New sources with 100 -ft
Tennessee
,60
.60
,33
.26
,17 .10
,18
.10
stack. Less stringent
limits apply for existing
sources < 30 and for all
sources > 330 having
stacks higher than 100 ft.
Existing sources. Some
sources < 4000 may have
different allowable emis-
sions until July 1, 1975.
New sources.
-------
93
Table B-2. (Contd.)
Parti dilates
Allowable Emissions (Ib PM/106 Btu)
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr)
State
10
100
250
1000
Notes
REGION V
Illinois
.10 .10 .10 .10
Indiana
1.00 .20 .10 .10
.20 .20 .20 .20
.80 .80 .80 .80
.60
.60
.60
.10
.60
.60
.42
.42
,36
,36
Michigan
.29
.10
a
New sources stateside.
Existing sources using
liquid fuel statewide
and solid fuel in un-
controlled sources in
Chicago Major Metropoli-
tan Area.
Uncontrolled, existing
sources using solid fuel
outside Chicago area.
Maximum limit for con-
trolled sources using
solid fuel. Statewide.
Existing sources outside
Chicago and Indianapolis
AQCRs. Smaller rate applies
if necessary to meet speci-
fied maximum ground level
concentration.
New sources outside Chi-
cago and Indianapolis
AQCRs. Smaller rate
applies if necessary to
meet specified maximum
ground level concentration.
Existing sources in Metro-
politan Chicago (#67) and
Metropolitan Indianapolis
(#80) AQCRs.
New sources in Metropoli-
tan Chicago (#67) and Metro-
politan Indianapolis (#80)
AQCRs.
Various loading standards
exist ranging between .65
and .15 lb/1000 Ib exhaust
gas. More stringent limits
apply in Wayne County (AQCR
#123). The commission assigns
limits for large sources
outside Wayne County.
-------
94
Table B-2. (Contd.)
Particulates
Allowable Emissions (Ib PM/106 Btu)
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr)
State
10
100
250 1000
Notes
REGION V (Contd.)
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
.60 .60 .60 .60 Existing sources and all
sources outside Minnea-
polis -St. Paul AQCR #131.
.40 .40 .40 \ .40a New sources and all sources
in AQCR #131. More strin-
gent limits can apply to
sources with short stacks.
.40 .20 .15 .10 Priority I AQCRs.
.60 .30 .23 .15a Priority II and III AQCRs.
.15 .15 .15 .10 New or modified sources
outside Southeast Wiscon-
sin AQCR #239.
.10 .10 .10 .10 New or modified sources
in AQCR #239. No coal
burning allowed.
.15 .15 .15 .15 Existing sources in AQCR
#239. No coal burning
allowed in sources <_ 250.
.30 .30 .30 .30 Existing sources in Brown,
Ontagamie, and Winnebago
Counties (AQCR #237). Max-
imum limit. More stringent
limits can apply depending
on stack height.
.60 .60 .60 .60 Existing sources in remain-
der of state. Maximum limit.
More stringent limits can
apply depending on stack
height.
REGION VI
Arkansas
Various ground level con-
centration limits apply to
existing sources. For new
sources, a Ib/hr limit that
varies with potential (un-
controlled) emissions applies.
-------
95
Table B-2. (Contd.)
Particulates
Allowable Emissions (Ib FM/106 Btu)
State
REGION VI (Contd.)
Louisiana
New Mexico
Heat
10
.60
.05
.02
Input
100
.60
.05
.02
(10 6
250
.60
.05
.02
Btu/hr)
1000
.60a
.05
.02
.005 .005
Oklahoma
Texas
.60
.30
.33
.30
.26
.30
.18a
.30a
Notes
No coal presently
burned.
Coal.
Coal. Applies to Fines
< 2 y.
Oil. Sources < 114
not regulated.
Coal-fired steam gener-
ating sources.
Various Ib/hr limits
that vary with effluent
flofor rates for sources
other than coal-fired
steam generators. More
stringent limits can apply
for short effective stack
heights.
Various maximum ground
level concentration limits
also apply to sources or
groups of sources other
than coal-fired steam gener-
actors.
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
,80 .80 .80 .80 Existing sources outside
standard Metropolitan Sta-
tistical Areas.
.60 .60 .60 .60a Existing sources in Stan-
dard Metropolitan Statisti-
cal Areas and all new
sources.
.60 .35 .28 .21a Coal and R-oil <_ 350, D-oil
<_ 1, and gas <_ 100 not
regulated.
-------
96
Table B-2. (Contd.)
Particulates
Allowable Emissions (Ib PM/106 Btu)
State
REGION VII (Contd.)
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX
American Samoa
Arizona
Heat
10
.60
.60
.60
.27
.60
.60
.80
.60
.30
.60
-
.60
.10
.30
,60
Input
100
.35
.40
.35
.15
.40
.35
.80
.44
.30
.42
-
.40
.10
.30
.35
(10 6
Btu/hr)
250 1000
.28
.34
.28
.12
.34
.26
.80
.39
.30
.36
-
.36
.10
.30
,28
.21a
.27a
.20a
.10b
.28
.20a
.80
.33a
.30a
.29a
-
.29
.10
.30a
.21a
Notes
Metropolitan Kansas
City AQCR #94, Spring-
field, and Independence.
Other areas of state.
Gas-fired < 100, oil-fired
ฃ 7.5, ancTcoal-fired
< 0.6 not regulated.
Existing sources.
New sources.
Existing sources.
New sources.
In Wasatch Front Range
AQCR #220.
85% control of potential
emissions required out-
side Wasatch Front Range
AQCR #220.
Existing sources.
New power plants and
industrial sources.
No coal presently burned.
California
Guam
No data available.
No particulate emissions
regulations. No coal
presently burned.
-------
97
Table B-2. (Contd.)
Particulates
Allowable Emissions (Ib PM/106 Btu)
Heat Input Q-06 Btu/hr)
State
10
100
250
1000
Notes
REGION IX (Contd.)
Hawaii
Nevada
.60
,36
.28
,21C
a
A limit of 0.4 lb/100 Ib
bagasse burned applies.
No limit for fossil fuel
fired units.
Outside Washoe County
(Northwest Nevada AQCR
#148).
In Washoe County a limit
of .15 gr/scf (121 C02)
applies.
REGION X
Alaska
.05 gr/scf for gas and
oil in new sources.
.10 gr/scf for gas and
oil in existing sources
and coal in all sources.
Idaho
Oregon
.60
.33
.26
.20C
.20-.10 gr/scf
sources and .10
for new sources
amas, Columbi a,
and Washington
(Portland AQCR
.20 gr/scf for
sources and .10
for new sources
der of state.
for exi.sing
-.05 gr/scf
in Clack-
Multn.omah,
Counties
#193).
existing
gr/scf
in remain-
Washington
.20-.05 gr/scf depending
on age of source and AQCR.
40 Ib/hr limit also applies
in Eastern Washington-
Northern Idaho AQCR #62.
federal New Source Performance Standards would apply to new sources
> 250x106 Btu/hr.
Federal New Source Performance Standards would apply to some new sources
> 250x106 Btu/hr.
-------
98
-------
99
Table B-3. SOa Emission Regulations for
Fuel Combustion Sources
This table compares the regulations specifying either allowable sui-
fur dioxide emissions for sources with heat inputs of 10, 100, 250, and 1000
million Btu per hour or allowable percentages of sulfur in various fuels.
The relative stringency of the regulations can be assessed by comparing the
values in a given column. Comparison of % S with Ib SOa/lO6 Btu regulations
can be made from the entries on Table B-4. The types of sources, fuels, or
areas to which the regulations apply are described under "Notes." If a regu-
lation applies to an area smaller than an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR),
the AQCR in which the area is located is identified by number in parenthesis.
If the information was available to convert regulations expressed in other
terms to Ib SOa/lO6 Btu, the conversion was made and the results entered on
the table with values specified in the regulation noted on the same line.
Regulations, such as maximum ground level concentration limits, which cannot
be converted to Ib S02/106 Btu or % S, are listed under "Notes."
Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) have been promulgated
for SOz emissions for most fuel combustion sources with more than 250 x 106
Btu/hr of heat input. If state emissions standards would be superseded by the
NSPS for some or all large sources, the entry in either the 1000 column or the
appropriate % S columns is footnoted. If state regulations are equivalent to
or more stringent than NSPS, no footnote is included. For regulations speci-
fying % S, the comparison with NSPS is made using statewide average heating
values for the appropriate fuel as burned by power plants in 1972. In all
cases, a single combustion unit firing a single fuel and exhausted by a single
stack is assumed.
The table clearly shows the complexity of existing SOa emission regu-
lations. Most states have several different regulations that apply to specific
fuels, source categories, or areas. Limits vary by more than a factor of ten
for similar sources between states and many states have chosen limits so low
as to preclude coal burning. In most states, most new sources would have to
meet Federal NSPS rather than less stringent state standards.
-------
Table B-3. SOa Emission Regulations for Fuel Combustion Sources
State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(lb S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
Heat Input CIO6 Btu/hr) %S
10 100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
2.5a - 2.5a 2.5a
1.5a - 1.5a 1.5a
.34 .34 .34 .34
1.1 1.1 1.1 l.lb
.56 .56 .56 .56
2.2a 2.2a
5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0a
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0a
Notes
Outside Metropolitan Portland
AQCR #110.
In Metropolitan Portland AQCR.
D-oil.
R-oil and coal. Sources < 3 can-
not use R-oil.
R-oil and coal in core cities
of Metropolitan Boston AQCR
#119. Sources < 6 cannot use
R-oil.
In Berkshire AQCR #117.
Coal in existing sources:
maximum.
Coal in existing sources:
3-mo. average.
Coal in new sources: maximum.
Coal in new sources: 3 -mo.
o
o
0.4
1.0'
1.5
a
average.
Outside Androscoggin Valley
AQCR #107.
-------
Table B-3. CContd.)
S02
State
REGION I (Contd.
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu)
Heat Input (10 6 Btu/hr)
10 100 250 1000
)
(Contd.)
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Regulations Specifying %S
%S
D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
2.2a
i.oa i.oa i.oa -
1.0a 1.0a 1.0a 1.0a
Notes
In Androscoggin AQCR #107.
6
Lb/10 Btu for coal.
Revision to allow 1.51 S
fuel (2.5% S in certain cases)
is pending.
REGION II
New Jersey
.30 .30
.30 .30
0.2
0.3
0.3 0.2 New Jersey - New York - Connec-
ticut (#43) and Metropolitan
Philadelphia (#45) AQCRs. Lower
limit'applies.
0.5 0.7 New Jersey (#150) and Northeast
Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware
Valley (#151) AQCRs. Lower
limit applies.
Also 310 ppm for noncommercial.
units.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S.
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) %S
State
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION II (Contd.)
New York
Puerto Rico
.40 .40 .40 .40 0.2 0.3 0.3
.40 .40 .40 .40 .37 .37 .37
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0a 1.0a 1.0a
3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4a 2.2a 2.2a 2.2a
3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8a 2.0a 2.0a 2.0a
1.2 .75b .75b .
1.0a 1.0a 1.0a
0.5 0.5 0.5
1.0ฃ
0.5
New York City (AQCR #43).
Lb/106 Btu for coal only.
Nassau, Rockland, and West-
chester Counties (AQCR #43).
Lb/106 Btu for coal only.
Five specified towns in Suffolk S
County (AQCR #43). Lb/106 Btu M
for coal only.
Niagara Frontier AQCR #162.
Lb/106 Btu for coal only.
Outside areas specified above.
Lb/106 Btu for coal only.
Certain new sources > 250 out-
side New York City, Nassau,
Rockland, and WestChester Counties.
Lb/106 Btu for coal only.
Outside critical areas.
In critical areas.
No coal presently burned.
Virgin Islands
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5 No coal presently burned.
-------
Table B-3. CContd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying IS
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) %S
State
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
0.3
0.5
0.3
3.0 2.7 2.4 1.9'
1.0 .89 .78 .65
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0*
.30 .30 .30 .30 0.2
1.0
a
1.0'
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
1.0'
0.5
0.5 1.0
D-oil statewide. Other fuels
regulated in New Castle County
only.
1.0% S prior to July 1, 1975.
Desulfurization to equivalent }
S02 emission is allowed for I
higher IS fuels.
1% S R-oil until July 1, 1975.
No limit for coal in sources
< 100 outside Metropolitan
Baltimore (#115) and National
Capital (#47) AQCRs.
In air basins. Sources ฃ 2.5
not regulated.
In specified air basins and
Allegheny County (AQCR #197).
Sources ฃ 2.5 (ฃ0.2 in Allegheny
County) not regulated.
Outside air basins.
Commercial oil in City of Phil-
adelphia (AQCR #45). IS does not
apply for R-oil and blends if
lb/106 Btu limit is met.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying IS
Heat Input (10e Btu/hr) %S
State
10 100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION III (Contd.)
Virginia
West Virginia
2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64'
1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06L
2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1e
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6C
3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2'
a
Can be 1.58 or 1.06 if necessary
to meet air quality standards.
In National Capital AQCR #45.
Can be 0.55 if necessary to
meet air quality standards.
Electric power plants in- Priori ty
-I and II AQCRs. Limit of 2.0 by
mid-1978.
Other sources in Priority I and
II AQCRs. Limit of 2.3 by mid-
1978.
Kanawha Valley AQCR #234. Not
to exceed 45,000 Ib/hr for elec-
tric power plants or 5,500 Ib/hr
for other sources.
Priority III AQCRs.
REGION IV
Alabama
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8e
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0e
Priority I AQCRs and Jefferson
County.
Priority II and III AQCRs.
Sources > 1,500 must also demon-
strate that air quality standards
will be met and that air quality
will not be degraded.
-------
Table B-3. CContd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) %S
State
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION IV (Contd.)
Florida
Georgia
1.1
1.5
.80
1.2
.80
1.2
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
Oil in existing sources.
Coal in existing sources.
Oil in new sources.
Coal in new sources.
Latest reasonably available
technology required for sources
< 250.
Existing sources and new sources
ฃ 250. Limits vary with source
size, location, and stack
height;
Oil in new sources.
Coal in new sources.
Maximum limit for all sources
< 100.
Maximum limit for all sources
> 100.
o
en
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
State
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib SOa/lO6 Btu) Regulations Specifying IS
Heat Input CIO6 Btu/hr) %S
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION IV (Contd.)
Kentucky
4.0 1.7 1.2 1.2
4.0 2.7 2.3 2.0
4.0 3.8 3.7 3.5
2.5 1.1 .80 .80
2.5 1.8 1.6 1.5
2.5 2.2 2.1 2.0
Coal. Existing sources in
priority I AQCRs and new sources
statewide.
Coal. Existing sources in
Priority II AQCRs.
Coal. Existing sources in
Priority III AQCRs.
Oil. Existing sources in
Priority I AQCRs and new
sources statewide.
Oil. Existing sources in
Priority II AQCRs.
Oil. Existing sources in
priority III AQCRs.
A maximum emission limit of 500
tpd applies to new sources and
an aggregate limit of 750 tpd
applies to all sources > 100 tpy
within 10 miles of a new source.
M
O
-------
Table B-3. CContd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
State
REGION IV fContd.l
Mississippi
Heat
10
2.4
4.8
Input
100
2.4
4.8
(10 6
250
4.8
Btu/hr) %S
1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
4.8a
Notes
Modified sources <
Unmodified sources
all sources > 250.
A maximum emission
250.
< 250 and
limit
equal to the emission of the
same source during calendar
1970 also applies.
North Carolina
South Carolina
2.3
1.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.3
1.6
2.3
3.5
3.5
2.3
1.6
2.3
3.5
3.5
2.3
1.6a
2.3a
2.3a
3.5a
Existing sources.
New sources.
Class I counties.
Class II counties.
Class III counties.
Residential units exempt.
Variances can be granted.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
Clb S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying
Heat Input CIO6 Btu/hr) %S
State
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION IV (Contd.)
Tennessee
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Existing sources and new sources
ฃ 250 in Class I Counties.
Existing sources and new sources
ฃ 250 in Class II Counties.
Existing sources and new sources
REGION V
Illinois
.80
1.2
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
ฃ 250 in Class III Counties.
Oil in new sources > 250.
Coal in new sources > 250.
Coal in existing sources in
o
CO
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
1.0
1.0
.30
1.8
1.0
1.0
.30
1.8
1.0
1.0
.30
1,8
1.0
.80
.30
1.2
Chicago, St. Louis, and Peoria
Major Metropolitan Areas.
Coal in existing sources outside
these areas.
R-oil in existing sources.
R-oil in new sources.
D-oil.
Coal in new sources.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
Clb S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
Heat Input (10& Btu/hr) %S
State
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION V (Contd.)
Indiana
Michigan
6.0 3.6 2.6 I.T
1.5C
1.0'
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.5a 1.5a
1.0a 1.0a
0.7 0.7
0.7 0.7
0.7 0.7
1.5C
1.0ฃ
1.0
0.3
0.5
a
Smaller limit applies if nec-
essary to meet specified ground
level concentration.
Sources <_ 500 outside Wayne
County (AQCR #123). Does not
apply to residential units.
Sources > 500 outside Wayne
County (ACQR #123).
Under a delayed compliance pro-
vision, Michigan has permitted
many sources to use fuels
exceeding these limits until
January 1, 1980 where no air
standards are being violated.
Electric power plants- and
steam generation in Wayne
County. Pulverized coal.
Residential/commercial space
and water heating in Wayne
County.
Other uses and other then pul-
verized coal in electric power
and steam generation plants in
Wayne County.
-------
Table B-3. CContd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying IS
Heat Input 0-06 Btu/hr) IS
State
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION V (Contd.)
Minnesota
Ohio
1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75a 2.0a
1.5ฐ
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0L
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.0
3.2 3.2 3.2 1.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0
4.8 4.8 4.8 1.0
2.0'
1.56
2.0* 2.0*
1.5* 1.5C
IS applies if lb/106: Btu limit
is not met. Sources ฃ 250 in
Minneapolis-St.Paul AQCR #131
and > 250 outside AQCR #131.
Sources > 250 in AQCR #131.
All sources in specified
counties.
Existing sources in specified
counties.
Existing sources in specified
counties.
Existing sources in specified
counties.
Existing sources in specified
counties.
Existing sources > 250 have
limits of 3.2 and 1.6 until
July 17, 1975 in specified
AQCRs.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
State
REGION V (Contd.)
Ohio (Contd.)
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(lb S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
Heat Input (10 6 Btu/hr) %S
10 100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0b
3.2 1.0 1.0 1.0b
4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0b
4.8 1.0 1.0 1.0b
0.7 - 1.0a 1.5a
_a
5.2 5.2 5.2 -a
3.1 3.1 3.1 -a
Notes
New sources in specified
counties .
New sources in specified
counties .
New sources in specified
counties .
New sources in specified
counties .
IS for standby fuel. No limits
for normal fuels if air stand-
ards are not violated.
A ground level concentration
limit of .20 ppm S02, 30 min-
ute average, applies.
Coal. 2,000 ppm limit.
Oil. 2,000 ppm limit.
Lower limit can apply if air
standards are violated. No
coal presently burned.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib SOa/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) %S
State
10 100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION VI (Contd.)
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
1.0
.34 .34 .34 .34
1.0 1.0*
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0'
.30 .30 .30 .30
.20 .20 .20 .20
.30 .30 .30 .30C
.68 .68 .68 .68
tx>
Coal in existing sources.
Coal in new sources.
Oil. Sources < 114 not reg-
ulated.
Existing sources. Various
maximum ambient concentra-
tion limits.
Coal in new sources.
Oil in new sources. 80 until
July 1, 1975.
Gas in new sources.
Coal-fired steam generators.
These sources must also use new
proven technology to remove SOg.
Oil-fired steam generators limited
to 400 ppm S02. More stringent
limits can apply for short
effective stack heights.
Maximum ground level concentra-
tion limits must be met by any
source or group of sources. More
stringent limits apply in Gal-
veston, Harris, Jefferson, and
Orange Counties.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) IS
State
REGION VII
Iowa
10 100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
5.0a
Notes
Coal. Sources < 250 not reg-
1.5ฃ
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0'
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3ฐ
a
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5C
ulated.
Oil. Sources <_ 250 not reg-
ulated.
Coal and R-oil <_ 350, D-oil
<_ 1, and gas <_ 100 not regulated.
2.0a Metropolitan St. Louis AQCR
#70. %S coal for sources
< 2,000.
Outside AQCR #70 maximum
ambient concentration limits
must be met.
Gas fired <_ 100, oil-fired
ฃ 7.5, and coal-fired f. 0.6
not regulated.
REGION VIII
Colorado
Regulations for existing sources
withdrawn pending revision. New
sources emitting more than 5 tpd
cannot exceed 150 ppm. New sources
controyled to emit less than
5 tpd cannot emit more than 500 ppm.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
State
REGION VIII (Contd.)
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(lb S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) %S
10 100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal Notes
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0a
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0a
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0a
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 Existing sources.
Wyoming
.80
1.2
.20
80% control required of new
sources with potential SOa
emissions >^ 500 tpy.
Oil in new power plants and
industrial sources.
Coal in existing sources.
Coal in new power plants and
industrial sources. Sources
< 250 not regulated.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
State
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(lb S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) %S
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
3.5a 3.5a 3.5a
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.80 .80 .80 .80
.80 .80 .80 .80
2.0 2.0 2.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
No coal presently burned.
Existing sources allowed by
permit to use high S(>_0.9I)
oil.
Existing sources. Coal and low
S oil.
New sources.
No data available.
No coal presently burned.
Fuel oil.
Power and steam sources > 250.
No coal presently burned.
tn
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(Ib S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) IS
State
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION IX (Contd.)
Nevada
.70 .70 .70 .40
.15 .15 .15 .15 1.0 1.0 1.0
.105 .105 1.0 1.0 1.0
Outside Clark and Washoe Counties.
In Clark County (Clark-Mahave-
Yuma AQCR #13).
1.0 In Washoe County (Northwest
Nevada AQCR #148). IS for
sources < 250.
A limit of 0.21 S02 by volume
also applies in Washoe County.
o\
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho 0.3
0.5
Oregon 0.3
500 ppm S02 limit.
1.75 1.0 #1 D-oil.
#2 D-oil.
1.75 1.0 #1 D-oil Outside
Portland
0.5
2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6ฃ
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6C
AQCR #193.
#2 D-oil. Outside AQCR #193.
Coal. 1,000 ppm S02 limit in
AQCR #193.
Oil. 1,000 ppm S02 limit in
AQCR #193.
-------
Table B-3. (Contd.)
S02
State
Regulations Specifying
Allowable Emissions
(lb S02/106 Btu) Regulations Specifying %S
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr) %S
10
100 250 1000 D-Oil Blends R-Oil Coal
Notes
REGION X (Contd.)
Washington
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5C
3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9C
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3C
2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6C
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6C
0.3
0.5
Northern Washington AQCR #227.
11 oil in Puget Sound AQCR #229.
#2 oil in AQCR #229.
1,500 ppm limit. Coal in Port-
land AQCR #193 and Olympic-
Northwest Washington AQCR #228.
1,500 ppm limit. Oil in AQCR
#193 and AQCR #228. Ground
level concentration limit also
applies in AQCR #228.
1,000 ppm limit. Coal except
as noted above.
1,000 ppm limit. Oil except
as noted above.
federal New Source Performance Standards would apply to new sources > 250 x 106 Btu/hr.
'Federal New Source Performance Standards would apply to some new sources > 250 x 106 Btu/hr.
-------
118
-------
119
Table B-4. _ Approximate Fuel Sulfur Content Allowed by
Emission Regulations
Table B-4 gives the approximate maximum percent of sulfur allowed
in coal and oil by state emission regulations. The % S is given for both new
and existing sources with heat inputs of 10, 100, 250, and 1000 Btu per hour.
Further specifications of fuel type, category of sources covered, and regional
applicability are given under "Notes." For regulations not specifying a % S
directly, standard EPA emission factors and state or regional heating values
for the appropriate fuel as fired at power plants in 1972 were used to convert
to equivalent % S. In two or three cases, it was necessary to use national
average heating values. For new sources, a comparison with Federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) is made in the 1000 column. If the NSPS would
apply to some or all new sources, a footnote is indicated in this column.
The comparison is made for a single combustion unit firing only the type of
fuel indicated and exhausted by a single stack. Regulations that cannot be
directly converted into an allowable % S are entered as " - " and noted. The
relative stringency of regulations can be assessed by comparing the % S re-
quirements within the various columns.
The percent sulfur requirements show that several states in the South-
west and the heavily industrialized regions have effectively banned coal burn-
ing in at least some critical areas. Sulfur requirements for coal vary from
less than 0.1% S to about 3.31 S for medium-sized sources in states having
specific emission limits. Several states require only that either air quality
standards or various ground level concentration limits not be violated.
Limits for oil range from under 0.2% S to over 4.4% S. Most states differ-
entiate between various grades of oil allowing higher sulfur contents in
residual than in distillate oils. Federal NSPS would apply to some or all
large new sources in most states.
-------
Table B-4. Approximate Fuel Sulfur Content Allowed by Emission Regulations
State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II
New Jersey
Heat Input CIO6
Coal 4 S
New Sources Existing Sources
Btu/hr)
Oil
New Sources
10. 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 10
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0
2.5 2.5 2.5 a '2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2
1.5 1.5 1.5 a 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0
0
2.2 2.2 2.2 a 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2
2.1 2.1 2.1 a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1
1.4 1.4 1.4 a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2
0
1
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1
1.0 1.0 1.0 a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - 0
0
a
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0
0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.5
.3
.2
.5
.2
.4
.0
.0
.0
.2
.3
.3
.5
100
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
2.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5
5
S
0
5
3
2
5
2
4
0
0
0
2
3
3
5
250 1000
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
.5 0.5
.5 a
.5 a
.0 a
.5 0.5
.3 0.3
.2 a
.5 a
.2 a
.4 0.4
.0 a
.0 a
.0 a
.2 0.2
.3 0.3
.3 0.3
.5 0.3
4 S
Existing Sources
10
0.5
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.3
2.2
1.5
2.2
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
100
0.5
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.3
2.2
1.5
2.2
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
250
0.5
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.3
2.2
1.5
2.2
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
1000
0.5
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.3
2.2
1.5
2.2
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
Notes
Outside Metropolitan Port-
land AQCR fllO.
In Metropolitan Portland
AQCR #110.
R-oil. Sources < 3 can-
not use R-oil.
R-oil. In core cities of
Metropolitan Boston AQCR
#119. Sources < 6 cannot
use R-oil.
D-oil.
R-oil. In Berkshire AQCR
#117.
Maximum for coal. R-oil
outside Androscoggin
Valley AQCR #107.
3-month average for coal.
R-oil in AQCR #107.
D-oil.
Blended oil.
Revision to allow 1.54 S
(2.54 S in certain cases)
is pending.
D-oil.
R-oil.
New Jersey-New .York- Con-
necticut (*43) and Metro-
politan Philadelphia AQCRs.
D-oil.
R-oil. 0.34 S for single
t>0
O
units > 200.
-------
Table B-4. (Contd.)
Coal
New Sources
State 10 100 250 1000
REGION II (Contd.)
New Jersey (Contd.)
- - - -
New York 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
2.2 2.2 2.2 0.8
2.4 2.4 2.4 0.8
Puerto Rico 1.0 1.0 1.0 a
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Virgin Islands 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
REGION III
Delaware 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0a
Heat Input (10s Btu/hr)
* S Oil % S
Existing Sources New Sources Existing Sources
10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 Notes
New Jersey (0150) and
Northeast Pennsylvania-
Upper Delaware Valley
(#151) AQCRs.
---- ____ ____ 310 ppm S0j limit for
noncommercial sources.
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 R-oil. New York City
(AQCR ป 43)
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 D-oil. New York City.
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 .37 .37 .37 .37 .37 .37 .37 .37 Nassau, Rockland, and
Westchester Counties
(AQCR #43) .
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 .75 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Five specified towns
in Suffolk County
(AQCR #43) .
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 .75 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Niagara County AQCR
#162.
2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 .75 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Outside areas speci-
fied above.
- - - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Outside critical areas.
. - - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 In critical areas.
No coal presently burned.
- - - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 No coal presently burned.
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 New Castle County only.
Dist. of Columbia 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
R-oil.
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 D-oil. Statewide.
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Desulfurization to
equivalent SOa emission
is allowed for higher $ S
fuels.
tsJ
-------
Table B-4. (Contd.)
State
REGION III (Contd.)
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr)
Coal % S Oil !
New Sources Existing Sources New Sources
10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000
1.0 1.0 1.0 l.O3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
1.9 1.7 1.5 a 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.2 2.7 2.4 2.2 a
0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
2.5 2.5 2.5 a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 a
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
1.7 1.7 1.7 a 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 a
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 a
1.7 1.7 1.7 a 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 a
1.9 1.9 1.9 a 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 a
1.0 1.0 1.0 a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 a
2.0 2.0 2.0 a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 a
I S
Existing Sources
10 100 250 1000 Notes
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 R-oil. No limit for coal
in sources < 100 outside
Metropolitan Baltimore
(#115) and National Capi-
tal (#47) AQCRs.
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 D-oil.
2.7 2.4 2.2 1.7 In air basins.
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 In specified air basins
and Allegheny County
(AQCR #197).
3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Outside air basins.
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 D-oil in Philadelphia
(AQCR #45) .
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 R-oil and blends in
Philadelphia.
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Can be 1.0 or 0.7% S
coal and 1.5 or 1.0* S
oil if necessary to
meet air quality stan-
dards.
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 National Capital AQCR
#45. Can be 0.4* S
coal and 0.5% S oil if
necessary to meet air
quality standards.
2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Electric power plants in
Priority I and II AQCRs.
1.2% S coal and 1.8% S
oil by mid-1978.
2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Other sources in Prior-
ity I and II AQCRs. 1.4%
S coal and 2.0% S oil by
mid-1978.
2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Priority III AQCRs.
t-0
tsJ
-------
Table B-4. (Contd.)
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr)
State
Coal I S
Oil
New Sources
Existing Sources
New Sources
Existing Sources
10
100 250 1000
10
100 250 1000
10
100 250 1000
10
100 250 1000
Notes
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
1.1 1.1 1.1 a
2.4 2.4 2.4 a
0.7
2.5 3.0 3.0 0.7
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
0.9
2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
1.5 1.5 1.5 a
3.3 3.3 3.3 a
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.5
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
3.0
0.
0.
0.
3.
.7 0.7
7 0.7
,7 0.7
,0 a
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.5
3.0
1.
1.
2.
1.
3.
,0
5
,2
.5
,0
0.7
1.3
2.1
3.0
0.7
1.1
2.0
3.0
2.
2.
2.
2.
4.
,1
.1
1
,2
.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.2
4.4
2.5 3.0 3.0 0.
0.7 0.7
0.7 0.7
0.7 0.7
4.4
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Priority I AQCRs and
Jefferson County.
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 Priority II and III AQCRs.
Sources > 1,500 must also
show that air quality
standards will be met and
that air quality will not
be degraded.
1.0
2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
4.4
0.9
1.5
1.8
2.2
4.4
0.7
1.3
1.7
4.4
Latest reasonably avail-
able technology required
for sources < 250.
Lower % S could be
required to meet maximum
Ib/hr limit, depending
on source size, location,
and stack height.
Priority I AQCRs.
Priority II AQCRs.
Priority III AQCRs.
Lower $ S may be
required to meet maximum
emission limits.
- Modified sources < 250.
a Unmodified sources < 250
and all sources > 250.
Lower % S may be required
to meet maximum emission
limits.
0.7
1.2
1.7
1.0 1.0
2.2 1.5
2.2 2.2
2.2 2.2
1.0
1.5
2.2
2.2
a
a
a
a
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.5 1.5
2.2 2.2
2.2 2.2
1.5
1.5
2.2
1.5
3.3
3.3
3.3
1.5 1.5
2.1 2.1
3.3 3.3
3.3 3.3
a
a
a
a
2.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
2.2
2.1
3.3
3.3
2.2 2.2
2.1 2.1 Class I counties.
3.3 2.1 Class II counties.
3.3 3.3 Class III counties.
-------
Table B-4. (Contd.)
Coal !
New Sources
State
REGION IV (Contd.)
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
10 100
0.9 0.9
1.7 1.7
2.3 2.3
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
3.4 2.1
1.5 1.5
250 1000
0.9 0.7
1.7 0.7
2.3 0.7
1.0 0.7
1.0 0.7
1.5 a
1.5 a
l, S
Existing
10 100
0.9 0.9
2.3 2.3
3.3 3.3
1.0 1.0
3.4 2.1
1.5 1.5
Heat
Input
Sources
250
0.9
2.3
3.3
1.0
1.5
1.5
1000
0.9
2.3
3.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
CIO6 Btu/hr)
Oil ';
'i S
New Sources
10 100
1.4 1.4
2.7 2.7
3.6 3.6
1.0 1.0
0.3 0.3
5.4 3.2
1.5 1.5
250 1000
1.4 0.7
2.7 0.7
3.6 0.7
1.0 0.8
0.3 0.3
2.3 a
1.5 a
10
1.
2.
3.
1.
0.
5.
1.
Existing
100
4 1.4
7 2.7
6 3.6
0 1.0
3 0.3
4 3.2
5 1.5
Sources
250
1.4
2.7
3.6
1.0
0.3
2.3
1.5
1000
1.4
2.7
3.6
1.0
0.3
1.5
1.0
Notes
Class I counties.
Class II counties.
Class III counties.
R-oil statewide. Coal out
side Chicago, St. Louis,
Peoria. Major Metropolitan
Areas.
D-oil statewide. Coal in
Chicago, St. Louis, Peoria
areas.
Outside Wayne County
Minnesota
1.0 1.0 1.0 a
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5" 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5*
2.0"
2.0
2.0"
(AQCR #123). Does not
apply to residential units.
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 D-oil and pulverized coal
in electric and steam
plants in Wayne County.
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 R-oil and blends and
residential/commercial
heating in Wayne County.
Other coal uses in Wayne
County.
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Sources in Minneapolis-
St. Paul AQCR #131.
2.0 Sources outside AQCR #131.
$ S regulation does not
apply if emissions are
less than 1.75 Ib S02/106
Btu (equivalent to 0.9% S
coal or 1.6% S oil).
to
-------
Table B-4. (Contd.)
State
REGION V (Contd.)
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Heat Input CIO6 Btu/hr)
Coal % S Oil % S
New Sources Existing Sources New Sources Existing Sources
10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 Notes
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 a 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 In specified counties.
1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.5 0.9 0.9 a 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.9 In specified counties.
1.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.6 2.9 0.9 0.9 a 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.9 In specified counties.
2.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.6 3.7 0.9 0.9 a 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.9 In specified counties.
In specified AQCRs, 1.8% S
coal and 2.91 S oil or
1.0% S coal and 1.5% S oil
is allowed for existing
facilities > 250 until
July 1, 1975.
1.5 1.5 1.5 a 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 R-oil. Standby fuel only.
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 D-oil. Standby fuel only.
No limits for normal fuels
if air standards are not
violated.
_ _ _ a ____ _ _ _ a ____A ground level concentra-
tion limit applies.
2929293 - 2.9 2.9 2.9 a 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2,000 ppm limit. Sources
must also meet maximum
ambient concentration
limit. No coal presently
burned .
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - - 0.5 - - 0.9 a '- - 0.9 0.9
13 _ _ ._ _ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - 0.81 S oil for new sources
l.i l.J l.J d until Jnlv 1 1975. Exist-
ts)
en
ing sources regulated by
various maximum ambient
concentration.
-------
Table B-4. (Gontd.)
State
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr)
Coal I S
Oil * S
New Sources
Existing Sources
New Sources
Existing Sources
10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000
Notes
REGION VI (Contd.)
Texas
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Coal-fired steam generators.
New proven technology must
also be used to remove SOz.
0.6 Oil-fired steam generators
limited to 400 ppm with
more stringent limits for
short effective stacks.
Maximum ground level con-
centration limits also
apply.
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
---a - - - 2.7 ---a ---1.3
---a - - - 1.9 ---a ---2.8 R-oil.
2.8 2.8 2.8 a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 D-oil.
2.0 2.0 2.0 a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 a 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Metropolitan St. Louis
Nebraska
1.5 1.5 1.5 a
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 a
AQCR ป70. 1.3* S coal
required for sources
> 2,000.
- Outside AQCR #70, maxi-
mum ambient limits must
be met.
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
REGION VIII
Colorado
- - Regulations for existing
sources withdrawn pend-
ing revision. New sources
regulated at 150 or 500
ppm depending on emissions.
-------
Table B-4. (Contd.)
Coal
New Sources
State 10 100 250 1000
REGION VIII (Contd.)
Montana 0.8 0.8 0.8 a
North Dakota 1.1 1.1 1.1 a
South Dakota 1.3 1.3 1.3 a
Utah a
Wyoming 0.1
REGION IX
American Samoa 3.5 3.5 3.5 a
Arizona 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
California
Guam 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Hawaii a
Nevada 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2
.08 .08 .08 .08
1.0 1.0 .06 .06
Heat Input (106 Btu/hr)
\ S Oil % S
Existing Sources New Sources Existing
10 100 250 1000 10 100, 250 1000 10 100
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 a 1.9 1.9
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 a 2.7 2.7
1.3 1.3 .1.3 1.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 a 2.9 2.9
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 a 1.5 1.5
0.5 - - - 0.7 -
- 0.5 - - -
- 3.5 3.5 3.5 a 3.5 3.5
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9
2.0 2.0
____ ____ __
- 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
- 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 2.0 2.0
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.7
.08 .08 .08 .08 .14 .14 .14 .14 . .14 .14
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0 .06 .06 1.0 1.0 .09 .09 1.0 1.0
Sources
250 1000
1.9 1.9
2.7 2.7
2.9 2.9
1.5 1.5
-
" "
3.5 3.5
0.9 0.9
2.0 2.0
-
0.8 0.8-
2.0 0.5
0.7 0.4
.14 .14
1.0 1.0
.09 .09
Notes
New sources with potential
emissions > 500 tpy must
control 80l.
Power plants and indus-
trial sources.
Other existing sources.
No coal presently burned.
Sources allowed by permit
to use high S (> 0.91) oil.
No data available.
No coal presently burned.
No coal presently burned.
Outside Clark and Washoe
Counties .
In Clark County (Clark -
Mohave-Yuma AQCR #13) .
In Clark County. Limit on
commercial oil.
In Washoe County (North-
ts>
west Nevada AQCR #148).
A 0.2% S02 emission limit
also applies.
-------
Table B-4. (Contd.)
Heat Input CIO6 Btu/hr)
Coal % S
New Sources Existing Sources
State 10 100 250 1000 10 100 250 1000 10
REGION X
Alaska - - - a ____ _
Idaho 1.0 1.0 1.0 a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.75
0.3
0.5
Oregon 1.0 1.0 1.0 a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.75
0.3
0.5
Washington 0.9 0.9 0.9 a 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6
0.3
0.5
2.2 2.2 2.2 a 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
1.4 1.4 1.4 a 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Oil % S
New Sources
100
-
1.75
0.3
0.5
1.75
0.3
0.5
1.6
0.3
0.5
2.2
1.4
250 1000
a
1.75 a
0.3 0.3
0.5 0.5
1.75 a
0.3 0.3
0.5 0.5
1.6 a
0.3 0.3
0.5 0.5
2.2 a
1/1 n
.4 a
Existing Sources
10 100 250 1000 Notes
- - - - 500 ppm SOZ limit.
1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 R-oil.
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 01 oil.
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 #2 oil.
1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 R-oil. Outside Portland
AQCR #193.
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 #1 oil. Outside AQCR #193
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 12 oil. Outside AQCR #193
limit in Portland AQCR
#193.
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Northern Washington AQCR
#227.
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 #1 oil in Puget Sound
AQCR #229.
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 #2 oil in AQCR #229.
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1,500 ppm limit in Port-
land AQCR #193 and
Olympic-Northwest Wash-
ington AQCR #228.
except as noted above.
Ground level concentra-
tion limits also apply
in AQCR #228.
NJ
00
aFederal New Source Performance Standards would apply to all or some sources > 250 x 106 Btu/hr.
-------
129
TAB C
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Table C-l. State Implementation Plan Review Summary
Table C-2. Air Quality Control Region Summary
-------
130
-------
131
Table C-l. State Implementation Plan Review Summary
The State Implementation Plan Review is summarized in question, and:
answer form in this table. Each state is listed under the appropriate. EPA.
region, and the questions are answered for both TSP and SOa, except for the
last question, whose answers are based on information presented in Sections
1 and 2 of this volume. In the first column, state air quality standards are
compared with NAAQS; a "yes" entry indicates that the state has standards
more stringent than NAAQS as shown on Table A-4. The second through fourth
columns tell whether state emissions regulations apply to power plants,
industrial/commercial/institutional point sources, and area sources, respec-
tively. "Yes" indicates that the source category is covered by the regula-
tions. These three columns summarize the applicability of information in
Tables B-l, B-2, and B-3. States using the example region approach for regu-
lation development are shown by a "yes" entry in the fifth column and have
also been indicated on Table A-4. A "yes" in the last column means that the
state has not taken any action to modify emission regulations for fuel com-
bustion sources.
-------
Table C-l. State Implementation Plan Review Summary
State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
TSP
SO*
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Are State Air
Quality Standards
More Stringent
than NMQS?
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yesa
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yesa
Do Emission Limiting Regulations
Exist for the Control of
Power
Plants?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Industrial
Sources?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Area
Sources?
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Was the Example
Region Approach Used
to Demonstrate the
Attainment of Air
Quality Standards?
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yesb
yes
no
yes
yes
Has there been no State Action
to Modify Combustion Source
Emission Regulations under
the Clean Fuels Policy?
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
NJ
-------
Table C-l. (Contd.)
State
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Are State Air
Quality Standards
More Stringent
than NAAQS?
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
no
no
yes
yes1-
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yesa
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Do Emission Limiting Regulations
Exist for the Control of
Power
Plants?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Industrial
Sources?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Area
Sources?
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Was the Example
Region Approach Used
to Demonstrate the
Attainment of Air
Quality Standards?
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes''
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yesb
yesD
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Has there been no State Action
to Modify Combustion Source
Emission Regulations under
the Clean Fuels Policy?
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
nod
yes
yes
-------
Table C-l. (Contd.)
State
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Are State Air
Quality Standards
More Stringent
than NAAQS?
TSP
SO*
TSP
SOz
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP '
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
no
no
noa
yesa
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
Do Emission Limiting Regulations
Exist for the Control of
Power
Plants?
yes
yes
yes
yese
yes
yes
yes
yese
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Industrial
Sources?
yes
yes
yes
yese
yes
yes
yes
yese
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Area
Sources?
N/A
yes
yes.
yese
no
no
yese
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
Was the Example
Region Approach Used
to Demonstrate the
Attainment of Air
Quality Standards?
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
Has there been no State Action
to Modify Combustion Source
Emission Regulations under
the Clean Fuels Policy?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
-------
Table C-l. (Contd.)
State
REGION IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Are State Air
Quality Standards
MDre Stringent
than NAAQS?
no
no
no
yes
N/A
N/A
noa
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes3
noa
yesa
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
. Do Emission Limiting Regulations
Exist for the Control of
Power
Plants?
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Industrial
Sources?
yes
yes
yes
yes^
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Area
Sources?
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
Was the Example
Region Approach Used
to Demonstrate the
Attainment of Air
Quality Standards?
no
no
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
Has there been no State Action
to Modify Combustion Source
Emission Regulations under
the Clean Fuels Policy?
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
^tate retains annual and/or 24-hr standards equivalent to original secondary S02 NAAQS that have been rescinded at the federal level.
Modified example region approach used for at least a portion of the state.
cln a portion of the state.
^Regulations being rewritten by EPA Region V office and will reflect Clean Fuels Policy.
eProperty line ambient concentration regulation, not a direct limit on emissions.
cn
-------
136
-------
137
Table C-2. Air Quality Control Region Review Summary
Table C-2 summarizes the evaluations of each AQCR as presented in
the individual state reports. The states are listed under the EPA region to
which they belong, and interstate AQCRs are repeated for each state of which
they are a part. The questions for each state are answered separately for
TSP and S02. In the first column, an AQCR for which there are no proposed
Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs) is indicated by a "yes." AQCRs with a
"no" entry are those where there are indications of expected problems in main-
taining acceptable air quality. A "yes" in the next column shows that there
appears to be enough monitors in the region to give a reasonable picture of
the region's air quality. In the third column, a "yes" indicates that NAAQS
are either expected to be attained in the region by 1975 or that they are
already being attained as shown on Table A-2. If the air quality in that
portion of an AQCR within the listed state is meeting the NAAQS, a "yes"
has been entered in the fourth column. Interstate regions with NAAQS viola-
tions in a portion of the region in another state are footnoted. This infor-
mation has been summarized on a statewide basis on Table A-6.. In AQCRs where
NAAQS are being met, the next column tells whether air quality is sufficiently
below the standards to indicate a significant regional tolerance for increased
emissions without causing standard violations. The information on Table A-8
has been summarized next. If fuel combustion sources account for only a small
fraction of the total emissions in an AQCR, a 'yes" has been entered in the
sixth column. Where available, the results of modeling calculations for spe-
cific power plants are given in the seventh column, A "yes" here shows that
the modeling indicated that some power plants could use higher sulfur fuels
than allowed was under regulations in effect when the modeling was done. If
it would be necessary to revise regulations to accomplish fuel switching, a
"yes" has been entered in column eight. The next column has only one entry
for each state. For states using a large amount of clean fuels, a "yes"
has been entered to indicate that a potential exists in those states for
clean fuels savings. An overall assessment of each AQCR for regulation re-
vision as given in the individual state reports and considering all the other
indicators in the table as well as the statewide indicators on Table C-l is
presented in the last column. An AQCR is rated "good" if air quality indica-
tors show a tolerance to absorb increased emissions and source-by-source
evaluations show a significant clean fuels savings potential, "poor" if air
quality indicators show little or no tolerance for increased emissions and/or
source-by-source evaluations indicate little or no clean fuels savings poten-
tial and "marginal" if air quality and clean fuels evaluations are inconclu-
sive or conflicting.
-------
Table C-2. Air Quality Control Region Review Summary
AQCR
REGION I
Connecticut
41
42a
43a
44
Maine
107a
108
109
110
111
Massachusetts
42a
117
118
119
120a
121a
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP .
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yesc
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected Does Air
1975 Attain- Quality
ment Date Meet
for NMQS? NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
b
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
no
N/A
N/A
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yesb
yes"
yesb
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
N/A
N/A
no
yes
yes
no
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Must
Regulations Is there
be Revised Clean Fuels
to Accomplish Saving
Fuel Switching? Potential?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
. no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
poor
good
marg.
marg.
marg.
good
good
poor
marg.
marg.
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
good
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
O4
00
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION I (Contd.;
New Hampshire
107a
121a
149
Rhode Island
120a
Vermont
159a
221
REGION II
New Jersey
43a
45a
150
151a
New York
43a
158
159a
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AOMAs?
)
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
- Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
. nฐ b
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes-
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations Is there
be Revised Clean Fuels
to Accomplish Saving
Fuel Switching? Potential?
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
good
poor
good
good
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
good
marg.
marg.
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
poor
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION II (Contd.)
New York (Contd.
160
161
162
163
164
Puerto Rico
244
Virgin Islands
247
REGION III
Delaware
45a
46
)
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
yes
no
no
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A
no
no
yes
N/A
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
. yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
Dist. of Columbia
47a
Maryland
47a
112
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AOMAs?
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
Does Air
- Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
Must
Regulations Is there
be Revised Clean Fuels
to Accomplish Saving
Fuel Switching? Potential?
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
REGION III (Contd.)
Maryland (Contd.)
113a
114
115
116
Pennsylvania
45a
151a
178a
195
196
197
Virginia
47a
207a
222
223
224
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
SO 2
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no.
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no ,
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
N/A
N/A
no
yes
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
no
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
poor
marg.
poor
good
poor
poor
good
good
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
good
poor
marg.
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION III (Contd.
Virginia (Contd.
225
226
West Virginia
103a
113a
179a
181a
231
232
233
234
235
236
REGION IV
Alabama
1
2a
)
)
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
yes
ves
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
yes
yes
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
no
no
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
marg.
marg.
marg.
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
good
marg.
poor
good
N)
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION IV (Contd.)
Alabama (Contd.)
3
4
5a
6
7a
Florida
5a
48
49a
50
51
52
Georgia
2a
49a
53a
54
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
N/A
no
yes
no
no
no
N/A
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yesb
yesb
yes
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
N/A
no
yes
no
no
no
N/A
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no.
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion.
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A'
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
good
good
good
poor
poor
poor
good
good
good
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
marg.
poor
good
poor
good
O4
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION IV (Contd,
Georgia (Contd.
55a
56
57
58a
59
Kentucky
72a
77a
78a
79a
101
102
103a
104
105
.)
0
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes'
yesc
no
no
yesc
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A,
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
yes
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
no ,
yesb
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
yes
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A
no
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
good
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
poor
good
poor
good
N/A
marg.
N/A
marg.
N/A
poor
N/A
good
N/A
marg.
N/A
good
N/A
good
N/A
good
N/A
marg.
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION IV (Contd/
Mississippi
Sa
18a
134
135
North Carolina
136
165
166
167a
168
169
170
171
South Carolina
53a
58a
167a
198
1
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
SOz
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AOMAs?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
no
no
yes
yes
N/A
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
no
no
yes
no
N/A
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
.Revision?
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
en
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION IV (Contd.
South Carolina
199
200
201
202
203
204
Tennessee
7a
18a
S5a
207a
208
209
REGION V
Illinois
65a
66
67a
0
(Contd.
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
.)
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
no
no
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
no
no
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
-------
Table C-2. CContd.)
AQCR
REGION V (Contd.)
Illinois (Contd.
68a
69a
70a
71
72a
73a
74
75
Indiana
67a
76
77a
78a
79a
80
81
82a
,)
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
ACMAs?
yesc
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yesc
yes
yesb
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
N/A
N/A
no
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
N/A
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
no
N/A'
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential ?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
raarg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
good
poor
good
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION V (Contd
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AOMAs?
)
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
Is there an
Expected Does Air
1975 Attain- Quality
ment Date Meet
for NAAQS? NAAQS?
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
Must
Regulations Is there
be Revised Clean Fuels
to Accomplish Saving
Fuel Switching? Potential?
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
Indiana (Contd.)
83
84
Michigan
82a
122
123
124a
125
126
Minnesota
127
128a
129a
130a
131
132
133
TSP
S02
TSP
SOa
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
yes
yes
yes
yes
.yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yesc
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
poor
good
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
oo
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION V (Contd.)
Ohio
79a
103a
124a
173
174
175
176
177
178a
179a
180
181a
182
183
Wisconsin
68a
73a
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
SOz
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
SOz
TSP
S02
TSP
SOz
TSP
SOz
TSP
SOz
TSP
SOz
TSP
SOz
TSP
SOz
TSP
SOz
TSP
SOz
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yesc
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
N/A
yes
no
no
yes
N/A
no
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
N/A
yes
no
no
yes
N/A
no
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
good
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
good
marg.
good
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
poor
poor
poor
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION V (Contd.)
Wisconsin (Contd,
128a
129a
237
238
239
240
REGION VI
Arkansas
16
17a
18a
19a
20
21
22a
0
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP.
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
yes
yes
yesc
yes
no
yes
'yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
. yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
good
N/A
poor
N/A
on
O
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION VI (Contd.)
Louisiana
19a
22a
106a
New Mexico
12a
14a
152
153a
154
155
156
157
Oklahoma
17a
22a
184
185
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
, yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yesb
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
good
good
good
good
poor
good
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
-------
Table C-2. (Gontd.)
AQCR
REGION VI (Contd.)
Oklahoma (Contd.
186
187
188
189
Texas
22a
106a
153a
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
marg.
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
to
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION VII
Iowa
65a
68a
69a
85a
86a
87a
88
89
90
91
92
93
Kansas
94a
95
96
97
98
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
SO 2
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
yes
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
tn
CM
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
REGION VII (Contd.)
Kansas (Contd.)
99
100
Missouri
70a
94a
137
138
139
Nebraska
8Sa
86a
145
146
REGION VIII
Colorado
14a
34
35
36
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
' yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
" no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A
poor
N/A-
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
marg.
d
poor
d
poor
d
poor
d
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
Must
Regulations Is there
be Revised Clean Fuels
to Accomplish Saving
Fuel Switching? Potential?
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
REGION VIII (Contd.)
Colorado (Contd.)
37
38
39
40
Montana
140
141
142
143
144
North Dakota
130a
172
South Dakota
86a
87a
205
206
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
poor
d
poor
d
poor
d
poor
' d
poor
marg.
marg.
good
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
marg.
poor
good
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
good
poor
good
marg.
marg.
on
On
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION VIII (.Contd
Utah
14a
219
220
Wyoming
241
242
243
REGION IX
American Samoa
245
Arizona
12a
13a
14a
15
California
23
24
25
26
0
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
SO 2
TSP
S02
TSP.
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
N/A
N/A
no
yes
no
N/A
yes
N/A
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
poor
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
marg.
cn
o\
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
. for MAAQS?
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
REGION IX (Contd.)
California
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Guam
246
Hawaii
60
Nevada
13a
147
148
REGION X
Alaska
8
9
(Contd.)
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no.
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
no
yes
yes .
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
N/A
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
no
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
no
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
no
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
no
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
yes
yes
yes
marg.
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
marg.
marg.
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
marg.
poor
poor
poor
marg.
poor
good
poor
good
Oi
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION X (Contd.)
Alaska (Contd.)
10
11
Idaho
61
62a
63
64
Oregon
190
191
192
193a
194
Washington
62a
193a
227
ISP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
. yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
no
N/A
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
no
yes
no
yes
no
N/A
no
no
no
N/A
no
N/A
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
nn
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
poor
good
poor
good
marg.
marg.
marg.
marg.
marg.
good
poor
good
good
good
marg.
good
good
poor
marg.
marg.
marg.
good
marg.
good
marg.
marg.
good
good
cn
oo
-------
Table C-2. (Contd.)
AQCR
REGION X (Contd.)
Is there an
Absence of
Proposed
AQMAs?
Are there
Sufficient
Monitoring
Sites?
Is there an
Expected
1975 Attain-
ment Date
for NAAQS?
Does Air
Quality
Meet
NAAQS?
Is there a
Significant
Tolerance
for
Increased
Emissions?
Are Fuel
Combustion
Emissions
a Small
Portion of
Total?
Does
Modeling
Show
Potential
for
Regulation
Revision?
Must
Regulations
be Revised
to Accomplish
Fuel Switching?
Is there
Clean Fuels
Saving
Potential?
Candidacy
Assessment
for Regulation
Revision?
Washington (Contd.)
228
229
230
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
marg.
good
poor
marg.
poor
good
Interstate.
There are violations in that portion of the AQCR in another state.
cThere are proposed AQMAs in that portion of the AQCR in another state.
^tate S02 regulations have been withdrawn from SIP pending revision.
cn
-------
160
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Modeling Analysis of Power Plants for Compliance Extensions in 51 Air
Quality Control Regions. Report prepared under Contract No. 68-02-0049
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Walden Research Division
of Abcor, Inc. Cambridge, Mass. Dec. 17, 1973.
2. Steam Electric Plant Factors. National Coal Association. Washington,
D.C. Jan. 1974.
3. Power Plant Data File. Unpublished. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
4. Power Plant SOz Emission Estimates. Unpublished data. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
5. National Emissions Data Systems Data Bank. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
6. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Publication No. AP-42.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jan. 1972.
7. Federal Air Quality Control Regions. Publication No. AP-102. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Jan. 1972.
8. 1972 National Emissions Report. Report No. EPA 450/2-74-012. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. June 1974.
9. Stationary Source Fuel Summary Report. National Emission Data System.
Environmental Protection Agency. Sept. 23, 1974.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2. .....
EPA-450/3-75-053-b
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
NATIONAL SUMMARY OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEWS
(Section 4 ESECA) , VOLUME II, TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMEI
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC, and Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air ง
Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
5. REPORT DATE
Julv 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
IT
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Section 4 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. Although not required by ESECA, this document is a national summary of
each state and territory SIP review. This document is intended by EPA to answer a
number of anticipated questions arising from the review of the SIPs.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b. I DENTI FIERS/OP
Air Pollution
State Implementation Plans
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLA
Unclassifi
Release Unlimited 20. SECURITY CLA
Unclassifi
EN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
SS (This Report) 21 . NO. OF PAGES
.ed 167
SS (This page) 22 . P R 1 C E
.ed
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price. /
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
------- |