### SIP Submittal Documents Tennessee Comprehensive Rules and Regulations 1200

- 0 3

- 18

- .24

Attachment Description

Attachment 1 Final Rule 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24

Attachment 2 Final Rule 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 (redline/strikeout version)

Attachment 3 Board Order 1 5

- 008

Attachment 4 Technical Support Document for the Removal of Stage II Vapor

Recovery Requirements in Middle Tennessee

Attachment 5 Clean Air Act §110(l) Demonstration for Changes to Tennessee’s

Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements

Attachment 6 Notice of Rule making Hearing

, 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24

Attachment 7 Public Depository Transmittal I nformation

Attachment 8 Affected State Notification

Attachment 9 Public Hearing Information

Attachment 10 Response to Written CommentsSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 1 Department of State

Division of Publications

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 8th Floor Snodgrass/TN Tower Nashville, TN 37243

Phone: 615

- 741

- 2650

Email: publications.information@tn.gov For Department of State Use Only

Sequence Number:

Rule ID(s):

File Date :

Effective Date:



# Rulemaking Hearing Rule(s) Filing Form

Rulemaking Hearing Rules are rules filed after and as a result of a rulemaking hearing ( T enn. Code Ann. § 4

- 5

- 205 ).

Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4

- 5

- 229, a ny new fee or fee increase promulg ated by state agency rule shall take effect on July 1, following

the ex piration of the ninety (90) day period as provided in § 4

- 5

- 207

. This section shall not apply to rules that implement new fees or fee increases that are promulgated as emergency rules p ursuant to § 4

- 5

- 208(a) and to subsequent rules that make permanent such emergency rules, as amended during the rulemaking process . In addition, t his section shall not apply to state agencies that did not, during the preceding two (2) fiscal years, collect fees in an amount sufficient to pay the cost of operating the board, commission or entity in accordance with § 4

- 29

- 121(b)

.

Agency/Board/Commission: Environment and Conservation

Division: Air Pollution Control

Contact Person: Travis Blake

Address: Wil liam R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 15th Floor Nashville, TN Zip: 37243

Phone: (615) 532

- 0617

Email: travis.blake@tn.gov

Revision Type (check all that apply):

X Amendment

New Repe al

Rule(s) Revised ( A LL chapters and rules contained in filing must be listed here . If needed, copy and paste

additional tables to accommodate multiple chapters . Please enter only ONE Rule Number/Rule Title per row)

Chapter Number Chapter Title

1200

- 0 3

- 18 Volatile Organic Compounds

Rule Number Rule Title

1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

– Stage I and Stage II Vapor RecoverySS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 2 (Place substance of rules and other info here. Statutory authority must be given for each rule change. For

in formation on formatting rules go to http://state.tn.us/sos/rules/1360/1360.htm )

Chapter 1200

- 03

- 18 Volatile Organic Compounds

Amendment

The Table of Contents for Chapter 1200

- 03

- 18 Volatile Org anic Compounds is amended by changing the title of

Rule 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 from “ Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

- Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery ” to “ Gaso line Dispensing Facilities.”

Authority: T.C.A. §§ 68

- 201

- 101 et seq. and 4

- 5

- 201 et seq.

Rule 1200

- 03

- 18

-

. 24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

- Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery is amended by deleting it in its entirety and substituting instead the following:

1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

- Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery

(1) Appl icability and exemptions

(a) Applicability of this rule is as follows:

1. This rule applies to any of the following in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, M ontgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson County:

(i) To any gasoline dispensing facility and the appurtenant equipment necessary to the gasoline dispensing facili ty; and

(ii) To any gasoline tank truck that transfers gasoline to storage vessels at such

facilities.

2. Any gasoline dispensing facility located in one of the counties specified in Part (1)(a)1 of this rule that exceeds the applicability threshold s pecified in Parts (1)(b)2 or (1)(b)3 of this rule shall be subject to all of the respective provisions of this rule for facilities exceeding the applicability threshold and shall remain subject to these provisions even if its throughput later falls below the threshold. The owner or operator shall inform the Technical Secretary within 30 days following the exceedance, as specified in Part (5)(a)3

of this rule.

(b) Exemptions from this rule are as follows:

1. With respect to requirements concerning tran sfers from gasoline tank trucks to gasoline storage vessels at gasoline dispensing facilities, the following are subject only to Part (3)(a)1 of this rule:

(i) Any transfer made to a gasoline dispensing facility storage tank that is equipped

with a floa ting roof or an approved equivalent, this approval being a revision to the State Implementation Plan;

(ii) Any stationary gasoline storage container with a capacity that is less than 2,080 liters (L) (550 gallons [gal]) that is used exclusively for the fueling of implements of husbandry;

(iii) Any stationary storage tank with a capacity of less than 7,600 L (2,000 gal) that was constructed prior to January 1, 1979; andSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 3 (iv) Any stationary storage tank with a capacity of less than 950 L (250 gal) th at was constructed after December 31, 1978.

2. Any gasoline dispensing facility which dispenses less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month is subject only to the provisions of Parts (3)(a)1 and (5)(b)2 of this rule.

3. The requirements of Subpara graph (3)(c) of this rule do not apply to any gasoline dispensing facility which satisfies any of the following:

(i) Is in a county other than Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, or Wilson County;

(ii) Dispenses less than 10,000 gallons of gaso line per month;

(iii) Dispenses less than 50,000 gallons of gasoline per month and is owned by an independent small business marketer of gasoline; or

(iv) Dispenses gasoline for only fueling aircraft, marine vessels, or, at an automobile or light

- dut y truck assembly plant, motor vehicles that are fitted with an onboard vapor recovery system.

4. The requirements of this rule do not apply to any storage tank and associated equipment used solely for the storage and dispensing of E

- 85.

(2) For the p urpose of this rule, the following definitions apply:

(a) “Independent small business marketer of gasoline” means a person engaged in the marketing of gasoline who would be required to pay for procurement and installation of vapor recovery equipment, unl ess such person satisfies either of the following:

1. With respect to refining:

(i) Is a refiner; or

(ii) Controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, a refiner; or

(iii) Is otherwise directly or indirectly affiliated with a refin er or with a person who controls, is controlled by, or is under a common control with a refiner (unless the sole affiliation referred to herein is by means of a supply contract or an agreement or contract to use a trademark, trade name, service mark, or ot her identifying symbol or name owned by such refiner or any such person); or

2. Receives less than 50 percent of his annual income from refining or marketing of gasoline.

For the purpose of this definition, the term “refiner” shall not include any ref iner whose total refinery capacity (including the refinery capacity of any person who controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, such refiner) does not exceed 65,000 barrels per day. For purposes of this definition, “control” of a corpora tion means ownership of more than 50 percent of its stock. Verification of satisfaction of criteria specified in this definition shall be by notarized certification to the Technical Secretary, unless additional verification is requested by the Technical Se cretary, in which case this additional verification shall be furnished to the Technical Secretary immediately.

(b) “Vacuum assist system” means the gasoline vapor recovery system that employs a vacuum generating device to effect transfer of gasoline vap or displaced in fueling a vehicle tank to a gasoline storage tank, vapor storage tank, or vapor processing unit.

(c) “Motor vehicle” means any self

- propelled vehicle used to carry people or property on a street or highway.SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 4 (d) “Storage tank or storag e vessel” means any stationary tank, reservoir or container used for the storage of a volatile organic liquid.

(e) “Volatile organic liquid” means any substance which is liquid at storage conditions and which contains volatile organic compounds.

(3) Standards as follow apply:

(a) Standards (Stage I Vapor Recovery) for Gasoline Storage Vessels

- The owner or operator of each gasoline dispensing facility subject to this rule shall comply with the following requirements:

1. All gasoline storage vess els at gasoline dispensing facilities shall be loaded by submerged fill;

2. All vapor lines on the storage vessel shall be equipped with closures that automatically seal upon disconnect;

3. All gasoline storage vessels at gasoline dispensing faciliti es shall be served by a vapor recovery system approved by the Technical Secretary, or of a type certified by the California Air Resources Board, and designed, installed, and maintained to recover gasoline vapors displaced during transfer of gasoline from a tank truck to a storage tank;

Stage I gasoline vapor recovery systems used for this purpose shall be properly certified under the CARB enhanced vapor recovery (EVR) certification procedures effective on or after April 1, 2001, or shall be listed under t he following pre

- EVR CARB Executive Orders; mixing of components certified under separate CARB certification procedures will

not be allowed.

Number (Pre EVR) Vapor Recovery Certification Phase I (Stage I) Executive Orders Description Date

G

- 70

- 97

- A St age I Vapor Recovery Systems for Underground Gasoline Tanks at Service

Stations 12/9/85

G

- 70

- 102

- A Certification of a Phase I Vapor Recovery System for Aboveground Storage Tanks with less than 40,000 Gallons Capacity for Gasoline or

Gasoline/Methanol B lended Fuels 5/25/93

4. If a gauging well separate from the fill tube is used for manual measurement, it shall be provided with a submerged drop tube that extends to within 150 mm (5.9 in) of the gasoline storage vessel bottom; and

5. Liquid fill c onnections for all systems shall be equipped with vapor

- tight caps.

(b) Standards (Stage I Vapor Recovery) for Gasoline Transfers from Tank Trucks to Storage Vessels

- The owner or operator of a gasoline tank truck shall not unload gasoline to a gasolin e storage vessel subject to vapor

- tightness requirements during unloading unless the following conditions

are met:

1. All hoses, adaptors, and couplers in the vapor balance system are properly connected;

2. All vapor return hoses, couplers, and adapt ers used in the gasoline delivery are vapor

tight;

3. All vapor return equipment is compatible with the vapor balance equipment installed on the gasoline dispensing facility storage vessel;

4. All hatches on the gasoline tank truck are kept closed an d securely fastened; andSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 5 5. The filling of storage vessels at gasoline dispensing facilities is limited to unloading by

vapor

- tight gasoline tank trucks.

(c) Standards (Stage II Vapor Recovery) for Gasoline Storage Vessels and Dispensing Equipment

- The owner or operator of each gasoline dispensing facility subject to this rule shall comply with the following requirements:

1. All gasoline dispensing shall be by equipment served by a vapor recovery system approved by the Technical Secretary, certif ied by the California Air Resources Board, and designed, installed, operated, and maintained to recover gasoline vapors displaced during dispensing to motor vehicle fuel tanks, and accessible for inspection and testing;

2. The vapor recovery system shall include for any dispenser and system the following:

(i) Vapor

- tight coaxial hose to conduct vapors captured during dispensing, except on new vehicle fueling lines at motor vehicle assembly plants where vapor

- tight dual hose on vacuum assist systems may be employed in lieu of vapor

- tight coaxial hose;

(ii) For balance systems:

(I) Installation of piping between the dispenser and the vapor collection tank which precludes liquid blockage in the piping; and

(II) No device which inhibits immediate te sting for dynamic backpressure;

(iii) For vacuum assist systems, sufficient vacuum to prevent escape of gasoline vapors during dispensing;

(iv) Vapor

- tight piping, fittings, caps, couplers, and adapters; and

(v) Maintenance of vapor tightness thro ughout the vapor recovery system, except during facility storage tank loading, gauging, and sampling and during maintenance and testing necessitating disruption in the integrity of the system.

3. Use of any aftermarket or rebuilt parts is restricted to parts approved by the California Air

Resources Board.

4. Gasoline shall not be dispensed from a dispensing unit served by or permitted to be served by a component which does not satisfy the following:

(i) Each component required for operation of the system is in place and, to the extent it can be confirmed by sensory inspection, is unimpaired and operational;

(ii) Each nozzle boot is not torn in either of the following manners:

(I) Triangular

- shaped or similar tear 1/2 inch or more to a side, or hole 1/2 inch or more in length; or

(II) Slit 1 inch or more in length.

(iii) Each faceplate or flexible cone is not damaged in the following manner:

(I) For balance nozzles and nozzles for aspirator and eductor assist type systems, damage such that the capability to achieve a seal with a fillpipe

interface is diminished for an accumulated total of 1/4 of the circumference of the faceplate; orSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 6 (II) For nozzles for vacuum assist systems, more than 1/4 of the flexible cone is missing;

(iv) Ea ch nozzle shutoff mechanism is operational;

(v) Each vacuum producing unit is operational;

(vi) Each vapor processing unit is operational;

(vii) Each fitting, cap, coupler, and adapter is vapor

- tight; and

(viii) Each pressure/vacuum relief valv e, vapor check valve, and dry break is operational.

5. The owner or operator shall conspicuously display fueling instructions and information in the gasoline dispensing area. These instructions and this information shall describe to customers clearly the proper procedure to be used for fueling vehicles from the dispenser. These instructions and this information shall include instruction about the proper method of reporting system defects first to facility management, and, then if

defects are not corrected , to the Technical Secretary. The notice of the method of reporting to the Technical Secretary shall be displayed no earlier than 3 months after and no later than 6 months after the display of the other instructions and information listed

above.

(4) Tes t methods as follow apply:

(a) Unless otherwise specified in this rule, the test method found in Rule .85 of this chapter to determine compliance with the vapor

- tight requirements of Paragraph (3) of this rule for lines, piping, caps, couplers, adapters , and fittings;

(b) The test methods found in Appendix J, Technical Guidance

- Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Volume II, EPA

- 450/3

- 91

- 022b (November 1991), to determine com pliance with applicable requirements specified in Subparagraph (3)(c) of this rule; and/or

(c) Other methods necessary for demonstration of compliance approved by the Technical Secretary

and the EPA.

(5) Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting requ irements

(a) Notification requirements apply as follows:

1. Initial Compliance Certifications

- The owner or operator of any facility containing sources subject to this rule shall comply with the requirements in Paragraph 1200

- 03

- 18

- .04(1) of

this ch apter, except that for gasoline dispensing facilities in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Tipton, Unicoi,

Unio n, and Washington Counties that are existing sources on December 29, 2004, the initial compliance certifications shall be submitted by May 1, 2006, instead of the date specified in Paragraph 1200

- 03

- 18

- .04(1).

2. Testing Notification

- The owner or oper ator of any facility containing sources subject to this rule shall provide the Technical Secretary written notice of any compliance demonstration testing. This notice shall be provided to the Technical Secretary such that the Technical Secretary is informe d of the proposed testing at least 14 days before the proposed date of testing, thereby providing the Technical Secretary opportunity to observe the testing.

3. Threshold exceedance notificationSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 7 (i) The owner or operator of any gasoline dispensing fa cility that, for the first time dispenses 10,000 gallons of gasoline or more in any calendar month and is no longer subject only to the provisions of Parts (3)(a)1 and (5)(b)2 of this rule, shall inform the Technical Secretary within 30 days.

(ii) The o wner or operator of any gasoline dispensing facility that, for the first time dispenses 50,000 gallons of gasoline or more in any calendar month and is no longer exempt from the requirements of Subparagraph (3)(c) of this rule, shall

inform the Technical S ecretary within 30 days.

(b) Recordkeeping requirements apply as follows:

1. Each owner or operator subject to provisions of this rule shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of this rule. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter,

these records will be maintained for a minimum of 3 years and shall be made available to the Technical Secretary upon request.

2. If any exemption based upon the quantity of gasoline dispensed is claimed for a facility subject to this rule, the owner or oper ator of the facility shall maintain records showing the quantity of gasoline dispensed each month at the facility.

3. Required permits and required logs of maintenance shall be kept at the facility for which the permits are issued and the logs created.

(c) Reporting requirements apply as follows:

1. Excess Emissions Report

- The owner or operator of any facility containing sources subject to this rule shall comply with the requirements in Paragraph 1200

- 03

- 18

- .04(2) of this chapter.

(6) Complian ce Demonstration Testing

- The owner or operator of any facility containing sources subject to the provisions of Subparagraph (3)(c) of this rule shall:

(a) No later than the applicable date specified in Paragraph (7) of this rule, demonstrate complianc e (for the complete system) with the provisions of Subparagraph (3)(c) of this rule, according to the applicable test methods specified in Paragraph (4) of this rule;

(b) Within 30 days following the occurrence of an incident which could reasonably be e xpected to have adversely affected the performance of the system, such as excavation near system piping or following replacement of the system, perform applicable testing to demonstrate compliance is maintained; and

(c) Within 5 years following any comp liance demonstration for the complete system, demonstrate the system maintains compliance.

(7) Initial Compliance Dates

(a) For facilities subject to Subparagraph 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(3)(c) of this rule, and owned by an independent small business marketer of gasoline:

1. No less than one

- third of these facilities shall have achieved compliance by June 21,
1994;

2. No less than two

- thirds of these facilities shall have achieved compliance by June 21,
1995;

3. All facilities shall have achieved compl iance by June 21, 1996; andSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 8 4. By June 21, 1994, the independent small business marketer shall designate in writing to the Technical Secretary which facilities will achieve compliance by the respective dates of Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this subparagraph.

(b) For facilities subject to Subparagraph 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(3)(c) of this rule, and not owned by an independent small business marketer of gasoline:

1. For which construction commenced after November 15, 1990, compliance shall be achieved by December 21, 1993;

2. Which dispense at least 100,000 gallons of gasoline per month, based on average monthly sales for the 2

- year period before June 21, 1993, and for which construction commenced before November 15, 1990, compliance shall be achieved by June 21, 1 994,

and

3. Not accounted for in Parts 1 and 2 of this subparagraph, compliance shall be achieved by June 21, 1995.

(c) Gasoline dispensing facilities in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Kno x, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Sevier, Sullivan, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, and Washington Counties that are existing sources on December 29, 2004 shall have achieved compliance by May 1, 2006.

( 1) The provisions of 40 CFR 63 Subpar t CCCCCC (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities) are hereby adopted by reference as published in the July 1, 2014 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), except as provided in subparagraphs (a) through (c) of this paragraph.

(a) Any reference contained in 40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCCC to the :

1. Administrator shall instead be a reference to the Technical Secretary ;

2. A pplicable EPA regional office for the State of Tennessee sh all instead be a reference to

the EPA Region IV office ; and

3. D elegated State authority shall instead be a reference to the Technical Secretary

.

( b ) If your gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) has a monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of

gas oline, and is located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson Counties

, you must also comply with the requirements in 40 CFR § 63.11117(b) and (c).

( c ) If your GDF has a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons of gasoline or more and is located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson Counties, you must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR § 63.11118.

(d) For any GDF claiming an exemption from s ubparagraph (b) or (c) of this paragraph based on monthly throughput, if the GDF exceeds the applicability thresholds specified in s ubparagraph (b) or (c) of this pa ragraph , it shall be subject to the requirements of s ubparagraph (b) or (c) of this paragraph even if its throughput later falls below the threshold. The owner or operator shall inform the Technical Secretary within 30 days following the exceedance.

(2) Stage II vapor recovery requirements for GDF in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson

c ounties.

(a) This paragraph applies only to GDF located in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, andSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 9 Wilson c ounties

(b) Any GDF with an existing Stage II vapor recovery system shall decommission and remove the system no later than three years after the effective date of this rule and no GDF shall install a Stage II vapor recovery system on or after such date

.

( c ) On and after the effective date of this rule , no GDF shall be required to install a Stage II vapor recovery system and a GDF may decommission and remove the GDF’s existing Stage II vapor
recovery system

.

(d) Any GDF that decommissions and removes a Stage II vapor recovery system shall conduct the decommissioning and removal in accordance with Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) guidance, “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Fueling Sites, PEI/RP300

- 09” for removal, notification, and ce rtification.

( e ) Any GDF that has a Stage II vapor recovery system must comply with all applicable provisions of subparagraph ( f ) of this paragraph until the system is decommissioned and removed

.

( f ) Stage II vapor recovery.

1. Definitions.

(i) “Va cuum assist system” means the gasoline vapor recovery system that employs a vacuum generating device to effect transfer of gasoline vapor displaced in fueling a vehicle tank to a gasoline storage tank, vapor storage tank, or vapor processing unit.

(ii) “ Motor vehicle” means any self

- propelled vehicle used to carry people or property on a street or highway.

(iii) “Stage II vapor recovery system” means a system to recover gasoline vapors displaced during dispensing to motor vehicle fuel tanks.

(i v ) “Stor age tank or storage vessel” means any stationary tank, reservoir or container used for the storage of a volatile organic liquid.

( v) “Volatile organic liquid” means any substance which is liquid at storage conditions and which contains volatile organic c ompounds.

2. The owner or operator of each GDF subject to this subparagraph shall comply with the following requirements:

(i) The Stage II vapor recovery system must be approved by the Technical Secretary ; certified by the California Air Resources Boar d ; designed, installed, operated, and maintained to recover gasoline vapors displaced during dispens ing to motor vehicle fuel tanks; and access ible for inspection and testing.

(ii) The Stage II vapor recovery system shall include for any dispenser and sys tem the following:

(I) Vapor

- tight coaxial hose to conduct vapors captured during dispensing, except on new vehicle fueling lines at motor vehicle assembly plants where vapor

- tight dual hose on vacuum assist systems may be employed in lieu of vapor

- tight coaxial hose;

(II) For balance systems:

I. Installation of piping between the dispenser and the vapor collection tank which precludes liquid blockage in the piping; andSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 10 II. No device which inhibits immediate testing for dynamic backpressure;

(III) For vacuum assist systems, sufficient vacuum to prevent escape of gasoline vapors during dispensing;

(IV) Vapor

- tight piping, fittings, caps, couplers, and adapters; and

(V) Maintenance of vapor tightness throughout the vapor recovery system, except d uring facility storage tank loading, gauging, and sampling and during maintenance and testing necessitating disruption in the integrity of the system.

(iii) Use of any aftermarket or rebuilt parts is restricted to parts approved by the

California Air Res ources Board.

(iv) Gasoline shall not be dispensed from a dispensing unit served by or permitted to be served by a component which does not satisfy the following:

(I) Each component required for operation of the system is in place and, to

the extent it can be confirmed by sensory inspection, is unimpaired and operational;

(II) Each nozzle boot is not torn in either of the following manners:

I. Triangular

- shaped or similar tear 1/2 inch or more to a side, or hole 1/2 inch or more in length; or

II. Slit 1 inch or more in length.

(III) Each faceplate or flexible cone is not damaged in the following manner:

I. For balance nozzles and nozzles for aspirator and eductor assist type systems, damage such that the capability to achieve a seal

with a fi llpipe interface is diminished for an accumulated total of 1/4 of the circumference of the faceplate; or

II. For nozzles for vacuum assist systems, more than 1/4 of the flexible cone is missing;

(IV) Each nozzle shutoff mechanism is operational;

(V) Each vacuum producing unit is operational;

(VI) Each vapor processing unit is operational;

(VII) Each fitting, cap, coupler, and adapter is vapor

- tight; and

(VIII) Each pressure/vacuum relief valve, vapor check valve, and dry break is operational.

( v) The owner or operator shall conspicuously display fueling instructions and information in the gasoline dispensing area. These instructions and this information shall describe to customers clearly the proper procedure to be used for fueling vehicles fro m the dispenser. These instructions and this information shall include instruction about the proper method of reporting system defects first to facility management, and, then if defects are not corrected, to the Technical Secretary. The notice of the metho d of reporting to the Technical Secretary shall be displayed no earlier than 3 months after and no later than 6 months after the display of the other instructions and information listed above.SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 11 3. Test methods as follow apply:

(i) The test methods found in Appendix J, Technical Guidance

- Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Volume II, EPA

- 450/3

- 91

- 022b (November 1991), to determine compliance with applicable requirements specifie d in part (2)(f)2 of this rule; or

(ii) Other methods necessary for demonstration of compliance approved by the Technical Secretary and the EPA.

4. Notification requirements

– Each owner or operator of any facility containing sources subject to this su bparagraph shall provide the Technical Secretary written notice of any compliance demonstration testing. This notice shall be provided to the Technical Secretary such that the Technical Secretary is informed of the proposed testing at least 14 days before the proposed date of testing, thereby providing the Technical Secretary opportunity to observe the testing.

5. Recordkeeping requirements

-- Each owner or operator of any facility containing sources subject to this subparagraph shall , except as provided otherwise in this chapter, maintain required permits and required logs of maintenance at the facility for which the permits are issued and the logs created for a minimum of 3 years . Such records shall be made available to the Technical Secretary upon req uest.

6. Excess Emissions Report

- The owner or operator of any facility containing sources subject to this subparagraph shall comply with the requirements in p aragraph (2) of Rule

1200

- 03

- 18

- .04.

7. Compliance Demonstration Testing

- The owner or oper ator of any facility containing sources subject to the provisions of this subparagraph shall:

(i) Within 30 days following the occurrence of an incident which could reasonably be expected to have adversely affected the performance of the system, such as excavation near system piping or following replacement of the system, perform applicable testing to demonstrate compliance is maintained; and

(ii) Within 5 years following any compliance demonstration for the complete system, demonstrate the system maint ains compliance.

Authority: T.C.A. §§ 68

- 201

- 101 et seq. and 4

- 5

- 201 et seq.SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 12 * If a roll

- call vote was necessary, the vote by the Agency on these rulemaking hearing rules was as follows:

Board Member Aye No Abstain Absent Signature (if required)

Dr. John Benitez Licensed Physician with experience in health effects of air pollutants

Karen Cisler

Environmental Interests

Dr. Wayne T. Davis
Conservation Interests

Stephen Gossett Working for Industry with technical experience

Dr. Shawn A. Hawkins Working in field related to Agriculture or

Conservation

Richard Holland Working for Industry with technical experience

L. Shawn Lindsey Working in Municipal Government

Dr. Tricia Metts Involved with Institution of Hig her Learning on air pollution evaluation and control

Chris Moore Working in management in Private Manufacturing

John Roberts Small Generator of Air Pollution representing

Automotive Interests

Amy Spann Registered Professional Engineer

Michelle Walker Commissioner's Designee, Dept. of Environment
and Conservation

Larry Waters County Mayor

Jimmy West Commissioner's Designee, Dept. of Economic and Community Development

I certify that this is an accurate and com plete copy of rulemaking hearing rules, lawfully promulgated and adopted by the Air Pollution Control Board on 11/12/2015 , and is in compliance with the provisions of T

. C

. A

. § 4

- 5

- 222.

I further certify the following:SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 13 Notice of Rulemaking Hearing fil ed with the Department of State on: 07/02/15

Rulemaking Hearing(s) Conducted on: (add more dates). 08/31/15

Date:

Signature:

Name of Officer: Barry R. Stephens, P.E.

Title of Officer: Technical Secretary

Subscribed and sworn to before me on :

N otary Public Signature:

My commission expires on:

All rulemaking hearing rules provided for herein have been examined by the Attorney General and Reporter of the State of Tennessee and are approved as to legality pursuant to the provisions of the Adm inistrative Procedures Act, Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 5.

______________________________ Herbert H. Slatery III Attorney General and Reporter

______________________________ Date

Department of State Use Only

Filed with the D epartment of State on:

Effective on:

______________________________ Tre Hargett Secretary of StateSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 14 Public Hearing Comments

One copy of a document containing responses to comments made at the public hearing must accompany the filing pursuant to T.C.A . § 4

- 5

- 222. Agencies shall include only their responses to public hearing comments,

which can be summarized. No letters of inquiry from parties questioning the rule will be accepted. When no comments are received at the public hearing, the agency need o nly draft a memorandum stating such and include it with the Rulemaking Hearing Rule filing. Minutes of the meeting will not be accepted. Transcripts are not acceptable.

Comment: A commente r was concerned about the proposed compliance period beginning Janu ary 1, 2016

and the unlikelihood of the amendment become effective on or before that date.

Response: The Board agree s with the concerns of the commenter and has removed the specific date to begin the three year compliance period and replaced it with the p hrase “on the effective date of

the rule. ”

Comment: A commenter asked if the amendment will subject any new locations to Stage I requirements.

Response: This amendment will not subject any new counties or locations to Stage I vapor recovery requirements. Currently, gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sull ivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson Counties with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more are required to comply with Tennessee’s Stage I vapor recovery requirements. GDF located in these counties will remain subj ect to the Federal equivalent of Stage I vapor recovery (40 CFR §63.11118) if their monthly throughput is 10,000 gallons or more. The lower applicability in these counties is necessary to comply with the anti

- backsliding requirements of § 110(l) of the Cl ean Air Act. However, the lower threshold does not affect any facilities that were not already subject to the existing State requirement.

For all other counties in Tennessee, 40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCCC subjects GDF to the requirements of 40 CFR §63.11118 at a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons or more. This applicability will not change.

Comment: As a part of the new rules requiring upgraded equipment or decommissioning of equipment, a commenter asked if there will be any permitting or fees associated with decommissioning of Stage II va por recovery.

Response: There will be no permitting or fees associated with decommissioning of Stage II systems.

Comment: In regards to subparagraph (1)(b) of Rule 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24, a commenter asked if th ere is a

curren t requirement in the Tennessee ru le for length of submerged fill. Does the department have an estimate of number of older stations that will not meet the new requirements and will it require new submerged fill? Does the department have a cost estimate for new submerged fill, including all installation costs?

Response: Currently, Rule 1 200

- 03

- 18

- .24(3)(a)1 requires that gasoline dispensing facilities located in the

listed counties 1 and with less than 10,000 gallons/month of throughput shall load gasoline storage vessels by submerged fill and defines “submerged fill” as the method of filling a delivery vessel or storage vessel where product enters within 5.9 inches of the bottom of the vessel. Bottom filling of delivery and storage vessels is included in th is definition.

The proposed rule would require gasoline dispensing facilities that are located in the listed counties and have less than 10,000 gallons/month of throughput to comply with 40 CFR § 63.11117(b) and (c). 40 CFR § 63.11117(b) requires facilit ies to load gasoline into storage tanks

1 Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sull ivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson CountySS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 15 utilizing submerged filling, as measured from the point in the opening of the submerged fill pipe that is the greatest distance from the bottom of the storage tank.

• Submerged fill pipes installed on or before Novemb er 9, 2006, must be no more than 12

inches from the bottom of the tank.

• Submerged fill pipes installed after November 9, 2006, must be no more than 6 inches from

the bottom of the tank.

• Submerged fill pipes not meeting the specifications above are allowe d if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the liquid level in the tank is always above the entire opening of the fill pipe. Documentation providing such demonstration must be made available for inspection by the Administrator's delegated representati ve during the course of a site visit.

The existing State requirement for submerged fill (5.9 inches from the bottom of the tank) is slightly more stringent than the Federal requirement (6 inches from the bottom of the tank), so

there should be no addition al costs associated to facilities complying with Rule 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(3)(a)1.

Comment: In regards to subparagraph (1)(c) of Rule 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24, a commenters asked w hat the current requirement is for stations with a monthly throughput of 10,000 or more

. Does the department have an estimate of how many stations do not meet the proposed standard and what the cost per station upgrade will be?

Response: Stations located in the listed counties ( see footnote 1) with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or m ore are required to comply with Tennessee’s Stage I vapor recovery requirements, and we do not expect facilities to need upgrades if they are in compliance with the existing State requirement.

Comment: Regarding Stage II, a commenter asked if the state will allow partial decommissioning. For instance, allowing certain parts such as existing hoses, nozzles, breakaway valves and swivels (hanging hardware) and vapor pumps to be left in place.

Response: The Board is not proposing to allow partial decommi ssioning. GDFs would be required to decommission and remove the Stage II vapor recovery system in accordance with Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) guidance, “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Fuelin g Sites, PEI/RP300

- 09” for removal, notification, and certification. In general, the PEI guidance allows piping to be abandoned in place but requires replacement of hanging hardware.

Comment: As part of the new rules requiring upgraded equipment or dec ommissioning of equipment, a commenter asked if there will b e a permit process involved which will be established l ater by the Technical Secretary.

Response: There will not be a permit process for upgrading/decommissioning of equipment.

Comment: As par t of the new rules requiring upgraded equipment or decommissioning of equipment, a commenter asked if there will be any fees associated or anticipated.

Response: There will not be any fees associated with upgrading/decommissioning of equipment.

Comment : A commenter asked to be provided with a chart of differences between this proposed rule and the rules of the counties that have their own programs

, i.e.

, Davidson, Hamilton, Knox and Shelby.

Response: A copy of Tennessee’s “ 110(l) ” demonstration was pro vided to the commenter as requested

. The Department is r equired to submit the “ 110(l) ” demonstration to EPA to show that the revised State requirements are at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. The “ 110(l) ” demonstration includes a comparis on of State and Federal requirements.SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 1 6 Knox and Shelby Counties have directly adopted the State regulation, and there is no difference between those two counties and the existing State requirements. Davidson County has some requirements for GDFs that ar e more stringent. Hamilton County’s rules are worded differently, and a direct comparison is more difficult.

Comment: A commenter was concerned about the cost to businesses

.

Response: A n estimated cost to business es has been prepared . Over time, the cost of decommissioning an existing Stage II system (varies, but up to $10,000) is offset by reduced maintenance and testing costs (~$3,000 per year).

Stage II Vapor Recovery Decommissioning Cost Estimates April 24, 2015

Activity Estimated Cost Source

Estimated decommissioning cost for one single

- hose dispenser ~$800 TDEC estimate based on Wisconsin vendor pricing (January 2013)

Estimated decommissioning cost

for one multi

- hose dispenser (3 hoses) ~$1,300 TDEC estimate based on Wisconsin vendor pricing (January 2013)

Estimated decommissioning cost for a facility with six multi

- hose dispensers (3 hoses each) ~$5,500 TDEC estimate based on Wisconsin vendor pricing (January 2013)

Decommissioning cost estimated by Georgia EPD $1,500

- $2,500 Georgia EPD

Decommissioning cost for example site with 6 single

- hose, multiproduct dispensers with vacuum assist system and four tanks: 2 manifolded regular unleaded, 1 premium, and 1

diesel $4,600 ($1,132 labor, $468 testing, $3,000 new hardware) Georgia Tank and Env ironmental
Contractors Association

Estimated decommissioning cost for one single

- hose dispenser ~$600 TN Fuel and Convenience Store Association, Tri

- Star Energy

Estimated decommissioning cost

for one multi

- hose dispenser ~$1,650 TN Fuel and Convenience Store Association, Tri

- Star Energy

Estimated decommissioning cost for a facility with six multi

- hose dispensers ~$10,000 TN Fuel and Convenience Store Association, Tri

- Star Energy

Range of decommissioning costs: One single

- hose dispenser: $600

- $800

One multi

- hose dispenser: $1,300

- $1,650

Six multi

- hose dispensers: $4,600

- $10,000SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 17 Cost Estimates for Retaining Stage II Vapor Recovery April 24, 2015

Activity Estimated Cost Source

Cost of installing Stage II vapor recovery equipment at new GDFs ( includes USTs, associated piping, pumps and ancillary equipment) $20,000 to $60,000 EPA 2

Cost of installing Stage II vapor recovery equipment at new GDFs (includes USTs, associated piping, pumps and ancillary equipment) $25,000 Georgia EPD 3

Annual cost to maintain existing Stage II systems (average size GDF) $3,000 per year EPA

Maintenance and testing of Stage II systems ~$3,000 Annually Georgia EPD stakeholder meeting, April 2013

Cost of additional Stage II dispensers at an existing facility ~$3,200 G eorgia EPD stakeholder meeting, April 2013

Cost Stage II systems at a new facility ~$32,000 Georgia EPD stakeholder meeting, April 2013

2 U. S. EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable

Measures . August 7, 2012.

3 Georgia Departme nt of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch, Draft Revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan for the Removal of Georgia Rule 391

- 3

- 1

- .02(zz) Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

– Stage II . September 25, 2014.SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 18 Regulatory Flexibility Addendum

Pursuant to T.C.A. § § 4

- 5

- 401 through 4

- 5

- 404 , prior to initiating the rule makin g process as described in T.C.A. § 4

- 5

- 202(a)(3) and T.C.A. § 4

- 5

- 202(a), all agencies shall conduct a review of whether a proposed rule or rule

affects small businesses.

(1) The type or types of small business and an identification and estimate of the n umber of small businesses subject to the proposed rule that would bear the cost of, or directly benefit from the proposed rule.

The small businesses that would be affected by the proposed rule are primarily gasoline distributors and

convenience store owne rs. Other types include auto dealerships, contractors, farms, hospitals, and truck/transportation businesses. The approximate number of small businesses that are affected by the changes to Stage II rules and potentially subject to decommissioning is 310. T he approximate number of all businesses subject to the Stage II rules and potentially subject to decommissioning is 555. Facilities subject to Stage I rules and should already be in compliance are as follows: 2384 small businesses and

3223 total businesses (does not include government entities).

(2) The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other administrative costs required for compliance with the proposed rule, including the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record

.

The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and administrative costs required for compliance with Stage II decommissioning would be minimal. Potential costs could be associated with notification of decommissioning prior to decommissioning and submission of certification of decommissioning. The submission of certification of decommissioning may require the signature or copy of the decommissioning report by the professional that completes the decommissioning according to the Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) guidance, “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Fueling Sites, PEI/RP300

- 09”. Reporting, recordkeeping, and other administrative costs for compliance with Stage I requirements are more substantial, though most facilities have automatic recordkeeping tools that can be used to collect the necessary information. Facilities should already be in compliance with Stage I requirements and there should be no additional costs to

businesses.

(3) A statement of the p robable effect on impacted small businesses and consumers.

Probable effect on impacted small businesses and consumers is some downtime as the decommissioning process is conducted. The decommissioning process is not expected to be a lengthy procedure excep t in the event of a large number of dispensers needing to be decommissioned. Downtime is likely to be measured in hours or a few days at most. There would be an up

- front cost to impacted businesses to conduct the decommissioning that would be offset by def erred maintenance costs to maintain the Stage II system. Facilities subject to only Stage I should already be in compliance and there should be no further impact to them

.

(4) A description of any less burdensome, less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose and objectives of the proposed rule that may exist, and to what extent the alternative means might be less burdensome to small business.

By EPA and PEI guidance, this method is the accepted method for decommissioning Stage II systems. There are no known less burdensome, less intrusive, or less costly alternative methods.

(5) A comparison of the proposed rule with any federal or state counterparts.

The changes proposed will match the State rule with the Federal rule. Stage II requirements are not part of the Federal rule and so changes in that portion to decommission Stage II are to properly discontinue Stage II system usage.

(6) Analysis of the effect of the possible exemption of small businesses from all or any part of t he requirements contained in the proposed rule.

No exemptions are proposed for small businesses from Stage II decommissioning. A time line of 3 years to achieve compliance is given and the cost savings to businesses in deferred maintenance once Stage II

i s decommissioned will offset the up

- front costs to decommission Stage II systems.SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 19 Impact on Local Governments

Pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 4

- 5

- 220 and 4

- 5

- 228 “any rule proposed to be promulgated shall state in a simple declarative sentence, without additional comments on the merits of the policy of the rules or regulation, whether the rule or regulation may have a projected impact on local governments.” (See Public Chapter Number 1070 (http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc1070.pdf) of the 2010 Session of the General Assembly)

The Department believes that proposed amendments will have a projected financial impact on local governments

.SS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 20 Additional Information Required by Joint Government Operations Committee

All agencies, upon filing a rule, must also subm it the following pursuant to T

. C

. A . § 4

- 5

- 226(i)(1).

(A) A brief summary of the rule and a description of all relevant changes in previous regulations effectuated by such rule;

The amended rule allows gasoline dispensing facilities in Davidson, Rutherford, S umner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties to remove Stage II vapor recovery systems beginning on the effective date of the rule. The amended rule requires the removal of all existing Stage II vapor recovery systems no later than three years after

the effecti ve date of the rule. The amended rule also updates Tennessee’s Stage I vapor recovery requirements by adopting the equivalent Federal regulations by reference.

(B) A citation to and brief description of any federal law or regulation or any state law or regu lation mandating promulgation of such rule or establishing guidelines relevant thereto;

No Federal or State law mandates either change (Stage I or Stage II). In a 2012 Federal Register notice (77 FR 28772), the U.S. EPA determined that onboard vapor reco very technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet for purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions. Based on this determination, the Clean Air Act allows States to remove Stage II requirements if certain criteria are met. This rulemaking is being adopted under the authority of T.C.A. §§ 68

- 201

- 101 et seq.

(C) Identification of persons, organizations, corporations or governmental entities most directly affected by this rule, and whether those persons, organizations, corporat ions or governmental entities urge adoption or rejection of this rule;

This amendment affects gasoline dispensing facilities in Tennessee.

(D) Identification of any opinions of the attorney general and reporter or any judicial ruling that directly relates to the rule;

The Air Pollution Control Board is not aware of any opinions that directly relate to the rulemaking.

(E) An estimate of the probable increase or decrease in state and local government revenues and expenditures, if any, resulting from the promu lgation of this rule, and assumptions and reasoning upon which the estimate is based. An agency shall not state that the fiscal impact is minimal if the fiscal impact is more than two percent (2%) of the agency's annual budget or five hundred thousand doll ars ($500,000), whichever is less;

No change in state and local government revenues and expenditures is expected to result from this amendment.

(F) Identification of the appropriate agency representative or representatives, possessing substantial knowledg e and understanding of the rule;

Travis Blake
Division of Air Pollution Control William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 15th Floor Nashville, Tennessee 37243 travis.blake@tn.gov

(G) Identi fication of the appropriate agency representative or representatives who will explain the rule at a scheduled meeting of the committees;

Emily Urban
Assistant General Counsel

Office of General Counsel

(H) Office address

, telephone number

, and email addre ss of the agency representative or representatives who will explain the rule at a scheduled meeting of the committees; andSS

- 7039 ( November 2014 ) RDA 1693 21 Office of General Counsel Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower

312 Rosa L. Pa rks Avenue, 2nd Floor Nashville, Tennessee 37243 (615) 532

- 8685 Emily.Urban@tn.gov

(I) Any additional information relevant to the rule proposed for continuation that the committee requests.

The Tennessee Air Pol lution Control Board is not aware of any requests

.

### 1 

# Technical Support Document for the Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements in

Middle Tennessee

I. Background and Purpose

Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) rule 1200

- 0 3

- 18

- .24

, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery regulates the emissions of V olatile O rganic C ompounds (VOCs) from the petroleum product storage and distribution network. This rule was submitted to EPA on July 6, 1993 and approved by EPA on February 9, 1995. Revisions to this rule were approved by EPA on April 14, 1997, and August 26, 2005.

TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 includes requirements for control of VOC emissions from mot or vehicle refueling in the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area (Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties) using Stage II vapor recovery systems. Stage II systems capture displaced vapors from vehicle

fuel tanks during refueling and return the vapors to the underground storage tanks at the gasoline dispensing facility. The Stage II requirements were promulgated in the late 1980s and were incorporated

into Tennessee ’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as part of the control strategies for the o ne

- hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 1



### . Tennessee is proposing to remove the Stage II vapor recovery requirements from TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 2



### .

Onboard R efueling V apor R ecover y (ORVR) is an alternative method of controlling the vapor displaced during motor vehicle refueling. The displaced vapors are captured before they exit the vehicle fill pipe

and are stored in activated carbon canisters onboard the vehicle. When the vehicle’s engine is started, the vapors are purged from the activa ted carbon into the engine where they are burned as fuel. EPA adopted ORVR requirements in 1994 pursuant to CAA § 202(a)(6) 3 

### . ORVR has been phased in for new passenger vehicles beginning with model year 1998, and since 2001 for light

- duty trucks and most heavy

- duty gasoline

- powered vehicles. ORVR equipment has been installed on nearly all (~99%) new gasoline

powered light

- duty vehicles, light

- duty trucks and heavy

- duty vehicles since 2006 4

, 5



### .

Stage II and ORVR systems each use a vacuum system to draw captured VOC back to the underground storage tanks and the motor vehicle, respectively. When both Stage II and ORVR are in use during fueling, the two vacuum systems compete against each other 6 

### , and the efficiency of both systems is

1 CAA §182(b)(3) requires each State with Moderate ozone nonattainment areas to submit SIP revisions requiring owners or of operators certain gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery of emissions from the fueling of moto r vehicles.

2 Tennessee is also proposing to revise the Stage I vapor recovery requirements in TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 . Changes to Stage I requirements are addressed in a separate document.

3 Within 1 year after November 15, 1990, the Administrator shall, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportati on regarding the safety of

vehicle

- based (“onboard”) systems for the control of vehicle refueling emissions, promulgate standards under this section requiring t hat new light

- duty vehicles manufactured beginning in the fourth model year after the model year in which the standards are promulgated and thereafter shall be equipped with such systems. The standards required under this paragraph shall apply to a percentage of each manufact urer’s fleet of new light

- duty vehicles beginning with the fourth model year after the model year in which the standards are promulgated...

4 Guidance on Removing State II Gasoline Vapor control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measur es

. USEPA. EPA

- 457/B

- 142

- 001. August 7, 2012.

5 Currently, mor e than 75% of gasoline refueling nationwide occurs with ORVR

- equipped vehicles.

6 Essentially, the ORVR and Stage II systems are pulling the gasoline vapors in opposite directions.

### 2 reduced. Congress rec ognized that ORVR and Stage II were redundant technologies and provided EPA the authority to allow states to remove Stage II from SIPs after EPA finds that ORVR is “in widespread

use.” 7



### On May 9, 2012, the Administrator signed a notice of final rulemaki ng determining that onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are in widespread nationwide use for control of gasoline emissions during refueling of vehicles at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) 8 

### . EPA’s determination

allows States to remove Stag e II requirement s from their SIPs if States demonstrate that use of ORVR controls in lieu of Stage II will not adversely affect air quality and satisfies all CAA requirements for

removal of control measures from a SIP

.

In the 5

- county Middle Tennessee a rea
, historical fleet data indicates that about 85% of the fleet will be equipped with ORVR in 2016

. Tennessee ’s analysis

, performed in accordance with EPA’s guidance,

demonstrates that continuation of Stage II will become a dis

- benefit to the area after 2016 , and Stage II

systems should be decommissioned to minimize emissions from refueling . This approach will maintain

the overall downward trend in VOC emission as older vehicles l eave the fleet.

II. Anti

- Backsliding Requirements

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA ) prohibits revision of a SIP that would interfere with attainment

or maintenance of a NAAQS, reasonable further progress toward attainment of a NAAQS, or any oth er applicable requirement of the CAA. Since Stage II controls are part of Tennessee’s SIP, the requirements

of CAA § 110(l) must be satisfied before removing Stage II controls in the Middle Tennessee area.

This Technical Support Document (TSD) serves as t he analysis of the emissions impact of eliminating Stage II requirements from the 5

- county Middle Tennessee area. The TSD demonstrates the removal of Stage II controls will not adversely affect the air quality in the Middle Tennessee area and satisfies all CAA requirements for removal of control measures from a SIP. In fact, this document demonstrates that

VOC emissions will increase due to the wider use of ORVR if Stage II controls are not decommissioned.

III. Demonstration

A. EPA Guidance

On August 7, 2012, EPA released guidance for S tates that wish to remove Stage II requirements from

their SIP titled Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures 9



### . EPA’s guid ance presents the methodology and information needed for an emissions analysis related to phasing out an existing Stage II program. To comply with CAA § 110(l), the guidance recommends computing the incremental emission control from Stage II installations as ORVR technology is phased into the motor vehicle fleet. The guidance also presents a method to quantify the impact on area

- wide VOC emissions inventory from incremental emissions that result from the removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems.

7 CAA §202(a )(6) states that the requirements of §182(b)(3) for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas shall not apply after promulgation of ORVR standards, and the Administrator may revise or waive Stage II requirements for Serious, Severe, or Extreme ozone nonattainme nt areas after the

Administrator determines that onboard emiss ions control systems are in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet.

8 77 FR 28772

9 Unless specifically noted otherwise, all references herein to EPA guidance reference the August 7, 2012 document.

### 3 B. Input Parameters for the Equations in EPA’s Guidance Document

The equations in the EPA guidance require area

- specific values for the penetration of ORVR in the motor

vehicle fleet and in

- use efficiencies of ORVR and Stage II systems

. Other factors include t he proportion of gasoline dispensed by facilities equipped with Stage II controls

, the projected gasoline consumption for

the area , the time periods of interest

, and the uncontrolled displacement refueling emission factor.

The values of the individual p arameters for the M iddle Tennessee area are:

1. Penetration of ORVR in the Motor Vehicle Fleet, VMT ORVR 

### and Q ORVR



### Q ORVR 

### represents the proportion of annual gallons of highway motor gasoline dispensed to ORVR

equipped vehicles. Table A

- 1 of the EPA guidance ( Appendix A ) shows nationwide values for the percentage of ORVR

- equipped vehicles, the percentage of vehicle miles traveled by ORVR

- equipped vehicles, and the percentage of gasoline dispensed into ORVR

- equipped vehicles. As stated in section

3.3.3 of the EPA guidance, the nationwide values in Table A

- 1 may be adjusted to obtain area

- specific values by comparing the area

- specific fleet age to the national fleet age.

An area

- specific vehicle age and fleet composition was developed for the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee

area as follows:

1. T he I/M program testing numbers for calendar years 200 7

- 2012 were obtained (Appendix B,

Table B

- 1)

.

2. T he composition o f the vehicle fleet (by passenger cars, passenger trucks, and light commercial vehicles) for Nashville/Davidson County in calendar year 2011 was obtained (Appendix B, Table

B

- 2). This was the best fleet composition data available, and it was assumed that this would be representative of the 5

- county fleet composition over the time period of the cal culations

.

3. T he percentages of each vehicle category required to undergo I/M testing were estimated (Appendix B, Table B

- 3). Past analysis of Davidson County’s I/M program, which requires testing of all gasoline

- powered cars and trucks up to 10,500 lb GVWR, has shown these percentages to be reasonable.

4. The 1994 ORVR phase

- in rule 10 

### set minimum percentages of new vehicles to be equipped with

ORVR between 1998 and 2006 ( Appendix B, Table B

- 4 ) . For this analysis , “light duty trucks”

were assumed to be equivalent to passenger trucks and “medium duty trucks” were assumed to be equivale nt to light commercial trucks.

5. T he data above were used to calculate the total fleet population and the fraction of vehicles equipped with ORVR. The total number of vehicles tested by model year (Table B

- 1) was multiplied by the percentages in Table B

- 2 to get the number of passenger cars, passenger trucks, and light commercial truck s in the fleet. These numbers of vehicles were then adjusted by the percentages undergoing I/M testing from Table B

- 3 to get estimates of the total vehicle populations by model year (Appendix B, Tables B

- 5, B

- 6, and B

- 7).

10 59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994

### 4 6. Finally, using the ORVR phase

- i n percentages from Table B

- 4, the total population of ORVR

equipped vehicles and the ORVR percentage of the gasoline

- powered fleet for calendar years

200 7

- 2012 were calculated (Appendix B, Table B

- 8).

Table B

- 8 shows that the calculated ORVR percentages for the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area are very close to the values from the EPA guidance. The se calculated percentages were used for calendar years

200 7

- 2012. A regression equation was developed using the 200 7

- 2012 values , assuming a n endpoint of 92 perce nt for calendar year 2020 11 

### , and t he regression equation was used to calcul ate values for 2013

- 2019.

2. In

- use control efficiency of ORVR, η ORVR



### η ORVR 

### represents the in

- use control efficiency of ORVR systems. Section 3.3.3 of the EPA guidance

recommends using 98% for this control efficiency.

3. In

- use control efficiency of Stage II vapor recovery systems, η iuSII



### η iuSII 

### represents the in

- use control efficiency of Stage II vapor recovery systems. Section 3.3.3 of the EPA guidance recommends using a value consistent with field test data and advises against relying on prior EPA guidance, new system certification efficiency, or state regulation claims regarding efficiency. Since Tennessee’s inspection of Stage II

- equipped installations does not include calcul ation of in

- use efficiency, other test data must be used to establish the control efficiency.

The EPA guidance states that “typical” values of η iuSII 

### are 0.60

- 0.75. T he San Diego Air Pollution

Control District ’s Performance of Balance Vapor Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities 12


### studied balance vapor recovery systems in four air districts in California and used field tests and engineering calculations to estimate the in

- use efficiency. This report concluded that “American vacuum

assist an d balance vapor recovery systems averaged about 75% overall, with balance systems having the worst performance with efficiencies ranging from 63 to 68%.” The majority of the Stage II vapor recovery systems in the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area are of the v acuum assist type and have a required testing once every 5 years. From discussions with EPA, the lower value was suggested to be used to give an in

- use control efficiency of 60 % ( η iuSII 

### = 0. 60).

4. Compatibility factor of vacuum

- assisted Stage II vapor recovery systems with onboard ORVR systems, CF i



### This is an increase in UST vent pipe emissions over the normal breathing/emptying loss emissions. The

c ompatibility factor may be calculated using either the VMT fraction of ORVR

- equipped vehicles or the fraction of gasoline dispensed to ORVR

- equipped vehicles 13 

### :

Equation 1

Equation 2

For completeness , the compatibility factor was calculated using both VMT ORVRi 

### and Q ORVRi 

### (Appendix C). The calculations produce nearly identical results , with the second approach producing fractionally

11 i. e., the same endpoint assumed in Table A

- 1 of the EPA guidance.

12 Released May 2000.

13 These equations were obtained from pages 11 and 12 of the EPA guidance.

### 5 lower values

. To be more conservative, the CF used in these calculations was calculated with Equation 2 ( using Q ORVRi 

### )

.

5 . Proportion of gasoline throughpu t covered by Stage II vapor recovery systems, Q SII 

### and by Stage II vapor recovery systems with vacuum assist, Q SIIva



### Q SII 

### represents the proportion of gasoline throughput dispensed by gasoline distribution facilities with Stage II vapor recovery systems , and Q SIIva 

### represents the proportion of gasoline throughput dispensed by

facilities with vacuum

- assisted Stage II vapor recovery systems

.

The total gasoline throughput for the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area was determined from 2011 annual throughput rep orts for Davidson County and from maximum permitted throughputs for the remaining 4

counties. The fraction s of gasoline dispensed from stations equipped with Stage II and with vacuum

assisted Stage II were calculated from the throughputs (Appendix D ).

6

. Projected gasoline consumption for the area and time periods of interest, GC i



### GC i 

### represents the gasoline consumption for the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area for the time periods

used in this demonstration

. The actual reported/permitted gasoline throughputs were used for 2011 , and gasoline consumption for the remaining years ( 2010 through 2020 ) were calculated from the nationwide fuel usage 14 

### and a calculated growth factor (Appendix E , Table E

- 1). The growth factor was applied to the 2011 consumption to calculate the annual fuel usages. To estimates the 5

- month ozone season fuel consumption, the annual numbers were multiplied by 5 /12 (Appendix E , Table E

- 2).

7 . Uncontrolled Displacement Refueling Emission Fac tor, EF

EF represents the uncontrolled displacement refueling emission factor. This emission factor depends on

the Reid V apor P ressure (RVP) of the fuel, the dispensed fuel temperature, and the difference between the tank fuel temperature and the dispensed fuel temperature. The 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area uses gasoline which meet s the RVP requirements in Appendix F of this docu ment

. The RVP for motor vehicle gasoline sold in the 5

- county Middle Tennessee area is restricted to a maximum of 9.0 psi for the month of May and 7.8 psi for the months of June through September. Thus, the average RVP is 8.04 psi for the

5

- month ozone sea son (M ay

- Septem ber)

.

T d 

### is the dispensed fuel temperature and is presented in Table A

- 2 of the EPA g uidance ( Appendix G )

. The mean temperature for the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area (Region 2 from EPA’s table) is 81° F annually and 86 ° F for the 5

- month ozone season

.

∆ T is the difference between the tank fuel temperature and the dispensed fuel temperature and is found in

Table A

- 3 of the EPA guidance ( Appendix H )

. For the annual average, the temperature difference is 4.0

°F. For the 5

- month ozone season (May

- September), the temperature difference is 7.5 ° F. EF is calculated

from the above parameters using the equation from section 3.5.1 of the EPA guidance ( Equation 3 ) :

EF ( grams⁄gallon ) = e [

- 1.2798

- 0.0049( ∆ T)+0.0203(Td)+0.1315(RVP)] 

### Equation 3

Using the above values for RVP, Td, and ΔT, the uncontrolled displacement refueling emission factor,
EF, for the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area is 4.4216 grams of VOC per gallon of fuel dispensed for the

5

- month ozone season

.

14 AEO 2013, Early Release: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2013ER&subject=0

- AEO2013ER&table=11

- AEO2013ER®ion=0

- 0&cases=full2012

- d020112c,early2013

- d102312a

### 6 C . Section 110(l) Demonstratio n

This section demonstrates, pursuant to CAA § 110(l), that the requested SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Federal Act.

§ 110(l) requirements may be met by calculating the incremental emission control 15 

### from Stage II systems as ORVR technology is phased in and demonstrating that any incremental emissions from the removal of Stage II systems will not interfere with attainment

, maintenance , or progress toward attainment of any air quality standard. Section 3.3.1 of the EPA guidance recommends calculating the incremental emission control for Stage II systems using the following equation:

Increment i 

### = (Q SII 

### )(1

- Q ORVRi 

### )( η iuSII 

### )

- (Q SI Iva 

### )(CF i 

### ) Equation 4

Where:

- Increment i 

### is the incremental emission control for Stage II systems for year I ;

- Q SII 

### is the fraction of gasoline throughput covered by Stage I I vapor recovery systems;

- Q ORVRi 

### is the fraction of annual gallons of highway motor gasoline dispensed to ORVR

- equipped vehicles for year I ;

- η iuSII 

### is the in

- use Stage II control efficiency;

- Q SIIva 

### is the fraction of gasoline throughput covered by traditional vacuum assist Stage II vapor recovery systems; and

- CF i 

### is the compatibility factor for the increase in underground storage tank emissions over the normal breathing/emptying loss emissions when using vacuum assist Stage II vapor recovery systems for year i.

Table 1 show s the Incremen t for 2010 through 2020 calculated using Equation 4 :

Table 1: Incremental Emissions Control for Stage II

In

- use Stage II Efficiency ( η iuSII 

### ) = 0.60

End of: Q SII 

### Q ORVR 

### η iuSII 

### Q SIIva 

### CF Increment

2010 0.963 0.715 0. 6 0 0.9465 0.0555 0. 1123

2011 0.963 0.749 0. 6 0 0.9465 0.0582 0. 0899

2012 0.963 0. 790 0. 6 0 0.9465 0. 0614 0. 0635

2013 0.963 0. 824 0. 6 0 0.9465 0. 0640 0. 0414

2014 0.963 0. 851 0. 6 0 0.9465 0. 0661 0. 0237

2015 0.963 0. 874 0. 6 0 0.9465 0. 0679 0. 0086

2016 0.963 0. 894 0. 6 0 0.9465 0. 0695

- 0.0046

2017 0.963 0. 910 0. 6 0 0.9465 0. 0707

- 0. 0152

2018 0.963 0. 925 0. 6 0 0.9465 0. 0718

- 0. 0245

2019 0.963 0. 936 0. 6 0 0.9465 0. 0727

- 0. 0317

2020 0.963 0.942 0. 6 0 0.9465 0.0732

- 0. 0361

15 The i ncremental emission control , or increment , is the amount of emission control that is gained from Stage II controls as ORVR technology is phased in. If the increment is a positive value , then there is a net emissions decrease resulting from Stage II controls. If the increment is a negative value , then the number of vehicles with ORVR is high enough that the competition between ORVR and Stage II controls results in a net

emission increas e

.

### 7 The increment shows that the additional emissions control for Stage II over ORVR diminishes over time as ORVR becomes more prevalent in the motor vehicle fleet. In 2016 the increment becomes negative, which indicates that incompatibility between Stage II and ORVR will increase VOC emissions. Thus, in

2016 , Stage II controls can be removed without causing any increase in refueling VOC emissions.

T he increase or decrease in VOC emissions resulting from Stage II controls may be calculated using the equation presented in section 3.5 of the EPA guidance:

Tons i 

### = (Increment i 

### )(GC i 

### )(EF) Equation 5

Where:

- Tons i 

### is the overall effect of removing Stage II (tons) for year I ;

- Increment i 

### is the incremental emissions gain from removal of Stage II systems for year I ;

- GC i 

### is the projected gasoline consumption (gallons) for year I ; and

- EF is the uncontrolled displacement refueling emission factor (grams/gallon).

Table 2 show s the calculated tons of VOC emissions for the 5

- month ozone season u sing Equation 5

. The overall increment identifies the annual area

- wide emission control gain from Stage II installations at GDFs as ORVR technology phases in. Thus, it also indicates the e mission reduction potential loss (in

year l ) from removing Stage II.

Table 2 : 5

- County Middle Tennessee Incremental VOC Emissions per Ozone Season

End of: Increment ( from Table 1 ) GC Mid

- TN

5

- Month (gallons) EF (grams/gallon) VOC Emissions

Reduction from Stage II

Controls ( tons/year ) ** VOC Emissions

Reduction from Stage II

Controls (avg. tons/day)

2010 0.1123 391,033,68 5

4.4216 510.60 1.40

2011 0.0899 380,159,556 397.39 1.09

2012 0.0635 381,899,417 281.97 0.77

2013 0.0414 391,468,651 188.45 0.52

2014 0.0237 389,293,825 107.28 0.29

2015 0.0086 386,249,069 38.62 0.11

2016

- 0.0046 383,204,313

- 20.50

- 0.06

2017

- 0.0152 380,159,556

- 67.19

- 0.18

2018

- 0.0245 374,939,974

- 106.81

- 0.29

2019

- 0.0317 372,330,183

- 137.24

- 0.38

2020

- 0.0361 368,850,462

- 154.83

- 0.42

**Calculated with Equation 5



### Table 2 shows that removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems in the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area starting in 201 6 will result in a VOC emissions decrease

, with emission reduction benefits increasing over time. Conversely, if Stage II requirements are kept in place, an increase in VOC emissions will occur beyond 2015, and it will become detrimental to air quality in the 5

- county Middle Tennessee area to keep Stage II systems in operation.

### 8 D. Other Criteria Pollutants

The affected sources covered by Tennessee’s Stage II vapor recovery requirements are sources of volatile organic compounds. Other criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitro gen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead) are not emitted by gasoline dispensing facilities and will not be affected by removal of Stage II controls

.

IV . Decommissioning Schedule and Procedures

The proposed revisions to TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 proposed the following schedule for GDF located in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson counties:

(a) Any GDF with an existing Stage II vapor recovery system shall decommission and remove the system no later than January 1, 2019 and no GDF shall install a Stage II vapor recovery system

on or after such date.

(b) On and after January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2018, no GDF shall be required to install a Stage II vapor recovery system and a GDF may decommission and remove the GDF’s existing Stage II vapor recovery system.

(c) Any GDF that decommissions and removes a Stage II vapor recovery system shall conduct the decommissioning and removal in accordance with Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) guidance,

“Recommended Practices for Installation a nd Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Fueling Sites, PEI/RP300

- 09” for removal, notification, and certification.

Because the final rule will not be State

- effective on January 1, 2016, Tennessee has amended the final

version to allow decommissi oning to begin on the effective date of the rule, which should be in the first quarter of 2016. Affected facilities will be required to complete the decommissioning process no later than three years after the effective date of the rule. Tennessee is plan ning another rulemaking action to add specific dates, once the effective dates of the final rule are known.

V. Request for SIP Revision

Tennessee requests that EPA approve a SIP revision removing the Stage II vapor recovery requirements (TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) from Tennessee’s SIP. Tennessee requests this change because the preceding

calculations demonstrate that VOC emissions will increase after 2015 if affected sources are required to continue the operation of existing Stage II systems or to install new systems.

V I . Conclusion.

T his document demonstrates that penetration of ORVR systems in the motor vehicle fleet will continue to

increase , but ORVR systems will eventu ally conflict with existing Stage II vapor recovery systems

. Section III of this document demonstrates that no VOC emissions increases would result from Stage II

removal

, and there would be no impact on the maintenance of the 5

- county M iddle Tennessee area in attainment with the ozone NAAQS.

The requested SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS, reasonable further progress toward attainment of a NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air

Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA are satisfied for all year s analyzed in the

demonstration.

### 9 

# APPENDIX A

Table A

- 1

– Projected Penetration of ORVR in the National Gasoline Fueled Vehicle Fleet by Year, Based on MOVES 2010(a)

1 2 3 4

End of Calendar

Year Vehicle Population Percentage VMT Percentage Gasoline Dispensed Percentage

2006 42.6% 51.2% 49.2%

2007 48.4% 57.3% 55.5%

2008 53.3% 62.3% 60.5%

2009 57.7% 66.8% 64.8%

2010 62.4% 71.6% 69.5%

2011 67.1% 76.0% 73.9%

2012 71.4% 80.0% 77.7%

2013 75.3% 83.4% 81.0%

2014 78.7% 86.3% 84.0%

2015 81.8% 88.8% 86.5%

2016 84.5% 90.9% 88.6%

2017 86.8% 92.5% 90.3%

2018 88.8% 93.9% 91.9%

2019 90.5% 95.0% 93.2%

2020 92.0% 95.9% 94.3%

See EPA Memorandum “Updated data for ORVR Widespread Use Assessment” February 29, 2012, in docket (number

EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1076) addressing details on values in this table and providing more calendar years.

Note: In this table, the columns have the follow ing meaning. 1. Calendar year that corresponds to the percentages in the row associated with the year. 2. Percentage of the gasoline

- powered highway vehicle fleet that have ORVR. 3. Percentage of gasoline

- fueled vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicles equipped with ORVR. 4. Amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR

- equipped vehicles as a percentage of all gasoline dispensed to highway motor

vehicles.

### 10 

# APPENDIX B

Table B

- 1: Davidson County I/M Program Testing Numbers 2007

- 2012

Model Year Number of Vehicles Tested

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1975 171 135 126 103 77 71

1976 279 218 212 184 156 150

1977 419 333 307 254 220 196

1978 561 443 413 359 298 261

1979 650 559 496 416 343 293

1980 299 302 243 237 196 180

1981 416 345 311 267 226 200

1982 583 465 422 349 300 258

1983 931 772 659 539 490 425

1984 1,568 1,388 1170 996 810 675

1985 2,166 1,799 1538 1,273 1,128 989

1986 2,916 2,376 2083 1,845 1,531 1,290

1987 3,526 2,886 2435 2,092 1,738 1,475

1988 4,963 4,042 3375 2,852 2,380 2,044

1989 6,259 5,204 4332 3,604 3,068 2,606

1990 7,302 5,951 5076 4,277 3,527 2,951

1991 9,303 7,744 6447 5,375 4,471 3,810

1992 12,026 10,226 8631 7,408 6,180 5,197

1993 16,066 13,590 11567 9,819 8,239 7,157

1994 20,256 17,692 15398 13,475 11,631 10,071

1995 25,888 22,607 20023 17,545 15,279 13,353

1996 24,085 21,497 18911 16,837 14,634 13,028

1997 30,449 27,368 24712 22,287 20,003 17,880

1998 34,029 30,988 27885 25,453 23,056 20,952

1999 38,094 35,985 33119 30,366 27,868 25,746

2000 41,084 39,311 36853 34,441 31,851 30,198

2001 37,977 37,143 35137 33,350 31,197 29,594

2002 38,435 37,893 36733 35,507 34,016 32,632

2003 38,188 37,661 36780 36,124 35,285 34,409

2004 36,438 39,088 38221 38,008 37,598 37,295

2005 37,274 38,761 38000 38,230 38,401 38,638

2006 31,625 34,238 36249 36,858 37,166 37,890

2007 12,715 31,765 33493 38,011 37,992 38,848

2008 308 10,016 27098 31,004 34,409 34,689

2009 5 260 6501 19,117 20,060 23,106

2010 0 0 241 7,573 22,595 26,058

2011 0 0 0 259 7,609 25,826

2012 0 0 0 0 245 9,412

2013 0 0 0 0 0 284

Total 517,254 521,051 515,197 516,694 516,273 530,137

### 11 Table B

- 2: Davidson County 2011 Fleet Composition

Vehicle Classification Number Percentage
Passenger Car 285,845 55.37%
Passenger Truck 178,052 34.49%
Light Commercial Truck 52,376 10.15%

Total: 516,273 100.00%

Table B

- 3 : Davidson County I/M Testing Percentages

Vehicle Classification Percentage
Passenger Car 100%
Passenger Truck 98%
Light Commercial Truck 75%

Table B

- 4: ORVR Phase

- in Percentages by Model Year (59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994)

Vehicle Classification Minimum ORVR Percentage

40% 80% 100%
Passenger Car 1998 1999 2000
Light

- Duty Trucks* 2001 2002 2003

Medium

- Duty Trucks** 2004 2005 2006

For comparison of Tables B

- 3 and B

- 4, a ssume that: Light

- Duty Trucks = Passenger Trucks and Medium

- Duty Trucks = Light Commercial Trucks

### 12 Table B

- 5: Total Davidson County Passenger Cars, 2007

- 2012

MY* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1975 95 75 70 57 43 39

1976 154 121 117 102 86 83

1977 232 184 170 141 122 109

1978 311 245 229 199 165 145

1979 360 310 275 230 190 162

1980 166 167 135 131 109 100

1981 230 191 172 148 125 111

1982 323 257 234 193 166 143

1983 515 427 365 298 271 235

1984 868 768 648 551 448 374

1985 1,199 996 852 705 625 548

1986 1,615 1,316 1,153 1,022 848 714

1987 1,952 1,598 1,348 1,158 962 817

1988 2,748 2,238 1,869 1,579 1,318 1,132

1989 3,465 2,881 2,398 1,995 1,699 1,443

1990 4,043 3,295 2,810 2,368 1,953 1,634

1991 5,151 4,288 3,570 2,976 2,475 2,109

1992 6,658 5,662 4,779 4,102 3,422 2,877

1993 8,895 7,524 6,404 5,436 4,562 3,963

1994 11,215 9,796 8,525 7,461 6,440 5,576

1995 14,333 12,517 11,086 9,714 8,460 7,393

1996 13,335 11,902 10,470 9,322 8,102 7,213

1997 16,859 15,153 13,682 12,340 11,075 9,900

1998 18,841 17,157 15,439 14,093 12,765 11,600

1999 21,092 19,924 18,337 16,813 15,430 14,255

2000 22,747 21,765 20,404 19,069 17,635 16,720

2001 21,027 20,565 19,454 18,465 17,273 16,385

2002 21,280 20,980 20,338 19,659 18,834 18,067

2003 21,144 20,852 20,364 20,001 19,536 19,051

2004 20,175 21,642 21,162 21,044 20,817 20,649

2005 20,638 21,461 21,039 21,167 21,261 21,393

2006 17,510 18,957 20,070 20,407 20,578 20,979

2007 7,040 17,587 18,544 21,046 21,035 21,509

2008 171 5,546 15,003 17,166 19,051 19,206

2009 3 144 3,599 10,585 11,107 12,793

2010 0 0 133 4,193 12,510 14,428

2011 0 0 0 143 4,213 14,299

2012 0 0 0 0 136 5,211

2013 0 0 0 0 0 157

Total 286,388 288,490 285,249 286,078 285,845 293,521

### 13 Table B

- 6: Total Davidson County Passenger Trucks, 2007

- 2012

MY* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1975 60 48 44 36 27 25

1976 98 77 75 65 55 53

1977 147 117 108 89 77 69

1978 197 156 145 126 105 92

1979 229 197 175 146 121 103

1980 105 106 86 83 69 63

1981 146 121 109 94 80 70

1982 205 164 149 123 106 91

1983 328 272 232 190 172 150

1984 552 488 412 351 285 238

1985 762 633 541 448 397 348

1986 1,026 836 733 649 539 454

1987 1,241 1,016 857 736 612 519

1988 1,747 1,422 1,188 1,004 838 719

1989 2,203 1,831 1,525 1,268 1,080 917

1990 2,570 2,094 1,786 1,505 1,241 1,039

1991 3,274 2,725 2,269 1,892 1,573 1,341

1992 4,232 3,599 3,037 2,607 2,175 1,829

1993 5,654 4,783 4,071 3,455 2,899 2,519

1994 7,128 6,226 5,419 4,742 4,093 3,544

1995 9,110 7,956 7,046 6,174 5,377 4,699

1996 8,476 7,565 6,655 5,925 5,150 4,585

1997 10,716 9,631 8,697 7,843 7,039 6,292

1998 11,975 10,905 9,813 8,957 8,114 7,373

1999 13,406 12,664 11,655 10,686 9,807 9,060

2000 14,458 13,834 12,969 12,120 11,209 10,627

2001 13,365 13,071 12,365 11,736 10,979 10,415

2002 13,526 13,335 12,927 12,496 11,971 11,484

2003 13,439 13,254 12,944 12,713 12,417 12,109

2004 12,823 13,756 13,451 13,376 13,231 13,125

2005 13,117 13,641 13,373 13,454 13,514 13,597

2006 11,129 12,049 12,757 12,971 13,079 13,334

2007 4,475 11,179 11,787 13,377 13,370 13,671

2008 108 3,525 9,536 10,911 12,109 12,208

2009 2 91 2,288 6,728 7,059 8,131

2010 0 0 85 2,665 7,952 9,170

2011 0 0 0 91 2,678 9,089

2012 0 0 0 0 86 3,312

2013 0 0 0 0 0 100

Total 182,031 183,367 181,307 181,834 181,685 186,564

Table B

- 7: Total Davidson County Lt. Commercial Trucks, 2007

- 2012

### 14 MY* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1975 23 18 17 14 10 10

1976 38 29 29 25 21 20

1977 57 45 42 34 30 27

1978 76 60 56 49 40 35

1979 88 76 67 56 46 40

1980 40 41 33 32 27 24

1981 56 47 42 36 31 27

1982 79 63 57 47 41 35

1983 126 104 89 73 66 57

1984 212 188 158 135 110 91

1985 293 243 208 172 153 134

1986 394 321 282 250 207 174

1987 477 390 329 283 235 200

1988 671 547 457 386 322 276

1989 847 704 586 488 415 353

1990 988 805 687 579 477 399

1991 1,258 1,048 872 727 605 515

1992 1,627 1,383 1,167 1,002 836 703

1993 2,173 1,838 1,565 1,328 1,114 968

1994 2,740 2,393 2,083 1,823 1,573 1,362

1995 3,502 3,058 2,708 2,373 2,067 1,806

1996 3,258 2,908 2,558 2,278 1,980 1,762

1997 4,119 3,702 3,343 3,015 2,706 2,419

1998 4,603 4,192 3,772 3,443 3,119 2,834

1999 5,153 4,868 4,480 4,108 3,770 3,483

2000 5,557 5,318 4,985 4,659 4,308 4,085

2001 5,137 5,024 4,753 4,511 4,220 4,003

2002 5,199 5,126 4,969 4,803 4,601 4,414

2003 5,166 5,094 4,975 4,886 4,773 4,654

2004 4,929 5,287 5,170 5,141 5,086 5,045

2005 5,042 5,243 5,140 5,171 5,194 5,226

2006 4,278 4,631 4,903 4,986 5,027 5,125

2007 1,720 4,297 4,531 5,142 5,139 5,255

2008 42 1,355 3,665 4,194 4,654 4,692

2009 1 35 879 2,586 2,713 3,125

2010 0 0 33 1,024 3,056 3,525

2011 0 0 0 35 1,029 3,493

2012 0 0 0 0 33 1,273

2013 0 38

Total 69,968 70,481 69,689 69,892 69,835 71,710

Table B

- 8: ORVR Percentages for 2007

- 2020

### 15 Year ORVR %* VMT % / Veh Pop

% VMT % VMT ORVR 

### Q ORVR


### 2007 49.2 1.18 58.2 0.582 0.572

2008 54.9 1.17 64.2 0.642 0.631

200 9 59.2 1.16 68.6 0.686 0.674

2010 63.4 1.15 72.7 0.727 0.715

2011 67.3 1.13 76.2 0.762 0.749

2012 71. 7 1.12 80.4 0. 804 0.7 90

2013 75. 7 1.11 83. 8 0.83 8 0.8 24

2014 7 9.0 1.10 86. 6 0.86 6 0.8 51

2015 81. 9 1.09 88. 9 0.88 9 0.87 4

2016 84. 6 1.08 9 1.0 0.9 10 0.89 4

2017 86. 9 1.07 92. 7 0.92 7 0.9 10

2018 8 9.0 1.06 9 4.1 0.9 41 0.92 5

2019 90. 7 1.05 95. 2 0.95 2 0.93 6

2020 92.0 1.04 95.9 0.959 0.942
* ORVR Percentages for 2007

- 2012 were calculated from actual ORVR values for the 5

- county middle

Tennessee area.

The ORVR Percentage for 2020 is the value from the EPA Guidance

For 2013 through 2019, the ORVR% was calculated using a regression equation:

ORVR% = (

- 0. 154 )x 2 + ( 623

. 437 )x

– 630,869 , where x is equal to the year


### VMT% / Veh . Pop % was calculated by dividing the values in Table A

- 1, Column 3 of the EPA Guidance by

the values in Table A

- 1, Column 2

These ratios were used to calculate VMT %, VMT ORVR 

### , and Q ORVR 

### , using the equations from Table 2 of the

EPA

Guidance

### 16 APPENDIX C

Table C

- 1
Calculation of Compatibility Factor

Year CF 1st Way 

### CF 2nd Way



### 2007 0.0445 0.0445

2008 0.0491 0.0490

2009 0.0524 0.0524

2010 0.0556 0.0555

2011 0.0583 0.0582

2012 0. 0614 0. 0614

2013 0. 0641 0. 0640

2014 0. 0662 0. 0661

2015 0. 0680 0.067 9

2016 0.069 6 0.069 5

2017 0.070 8 0.070 7

2018 0.071 9 0.071 8

2019 0.072 8 0.072 7

2020 0.0733 0.0732

### 17 APPENDIX D

Total St age I and Stage II Vacuum

- Assisted Gasoline Throughputs, 2011

Rutherford Sumner Williamson Wilson Total (4 County) Total Yearly (4 County) Davidson (yearly) Combined

Number of Facilities (have facility ID) 147 97 84 70 398 379 777

Number with Stage II 117 63 63 55 298 335 633

Number with known type of Stage II 87 40 37 39 203 335 538

Number with Stage II Vacuum Assist 84 40 36 36 196 328 524

Throughput 18,566,563 11,382,633 12,027,256 8,236,708 50,213,160 602,557,920 309,825,015 912,382,935

Throughput with Stage II 17,619,129 10,765,633 11,179,144 7,919,802 47,483,708 569,804,496 308,778,947 878,583,443

% Throughput with Stage II 94.90% 94.58% 92.95% 96.15% 94.56% 94.56% 99.66% 96.30%

Throughput with Stage I only 947,434 617,000 848,112 316,906 2,729,452 32,753,424 1,046,068 33,799,492

% Throughput Stage I only 5.10% 5.42% 7.05% 3.85% 5.44% 5.44% 0.34% 3.70%

Throughput of known type of Stage II 11,119,002 7,333,280 7,060,539 4,939,230 30,452,051 365,424,612 308,778,947 674,203,559

Throughput with known Stage II Vacuum Assist 10,793,496 7,333,280 7,038,201 4,643,885 29,808,862 357,706,344 305,828,272 663,534,616

% of Throughput known to be Stage II Vacuum Assist 97.07% 100.00% 99.68% 94.02% 97.89% 97.89% 99.04% 98.42%

Throughput of Stage II Vacuum Assist 17,103,333 10,765,633 11,143,776 7,446,231 46,480,787 557,769,445 305,828,272 863,597,717

% of Throughput with Stage II Vacuum Assist 92.12% 94.58% 92.65% 90.40% 92.57% 92.57% 98.71% 94.65%

% Stage I facilities 20.41% 35.05% 25.00% 21.43% 25.13% 11.61% 18.53%

### 18 APPENDIX E

Table E

- 1: Calculation of Growth Factor in Gasoline Usage

Year MMbbl/day Growth Factor

2010 8.99

-- 2011 8.74

- 0.027808676

2012 8.78 0.004576659

2013 9.00 0.025056948

2014 8.95

- 0.005555556

2015 8.88

- 0.007821229

2016 8.81

- 0.007882883

2017 8.74

- 0.007945516

2018 8.62

- 0.013729977

2019 8.56

- 0.006960557

2020 8.48

- 0.009345794
* Source of usage: AEO 2012, Early Release

– Data for Motor Gasoline



### Table E

- 2: Growth Factor Adjustments to 2011 5

- County Middle TN Gasoline Consumption

Usage (gallons)

Year Annual 5

- month O 3 

### Season

2010 938,480,845 391,033,685

2011* 912,382,935 380,159,556

2012 916,558,601 381,899,417

2013 939,524,761 391,468,650

2014 934,305,179 389,293,824

2015 926,997,765 386,249,069

2016 919,690,350 383,204,313

2017 912,382,935 380,159,556

2018 899,855,938 374,939,974

2019 893,592,440 372,330,183

2020 885,241,109 368,850,462
* 2011 usage is based on actual reported/permitted throughputs. Other years are calculated from the growth factor

### 19 APPENDIX F

Gasoline RVP Requirements for the 5

- County Middle Tennessee Area

Month RVP January, December 15.0 February, March, April, October, November 13.5 May 9.0 June, July, August, September 7.8

APPENDIX G



### Table A

- 2

- Monthly Average Dispensed Liquid Temperature Dispensed liquid temperature (°F)

Summer Winter Annual

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (Apr

- Sep) (Oct

- Mar) Average

National Average 51 54 54 58 69 76 82 81 76 70 62 54 74 58 66

Region 1 43 45 48 53 66 74 78 78 72 66 59 46 70 51 61

Region 2 69 74 73 80 84 87 90 91 78 85 83 73 85 76 81

Region 3 54 57 61 67 76 82 83 84 79 76 67 54 79 62 70

Region 4 50 51 41 47 63 74 88 85 83 75 63 52 74 56 65

Region 5 54 NA NA NA 72 77 83 83 79 74 67 58 79 63 72

Region 6 NA 48 49 53 59 63 NA 73 71 60 49 42 64 50 57

Regional Boundaries Region 1: ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD,VA,WV,DC, KY, OH, IN, IL, MI, WI Region 2: NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, AR, LA, TN Region 3: OK, TX, NM, AZ Region 4: MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, NE, KS, MT, WY, CO Region 5: CA, NV, UT Region 6: WA, OR, ID Source: McNally Michael and Dickerman J.C., "Summary and Analysis of Data from Gasoline Temperature Survey," conducted by API, Radian Corporation, May, 1976.

### 20 APPENDIX H



### Table A

- 3

- Seasonal Variation In Temperature Difference Between Vehicle Fuel Tank and Dispensed Fuel Temperature Difference

Average

Annual Summer (Apr

– Sep) Winter (Oct

– Mar) 5

- Month

Ozone Season

(May

– Sep) 2

- Month Ozone

Season (Jul

– Aug)

National Average 4.4 8.8

- 0.8 9.44 9.9

Region 1 5.7 10.7

- 0.3 11.5 12.5 Region 2 4.0 6.8 0.9 7.5 8.2 Region 3 3.7 7.6

- 0.4 7.1 7.0 Region 4 5.5 11.7

- 2.4 12.1 13.3 Region 5 0.1 3.9

- 4.4 5.1 3.2 Region 6 Use Region 4 data

Regional Boundaries Region 1: ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD,VA,WV,DC, KY, OH, IN, IL, MI, WI Region 2: NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, AR, LA, TN Region 3: OK, TX, NM, AZ Region 4: MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, NE, KS, MT, WY, CO Region 5: CA, NV, UT Region 6: WA, OR, ID

Source: Rothman, Dale and Johnson, Robert, Technical Report, “Refueling Emissions from
Uncontrolled Vehicles,” EPA.OMS, EPA

- AA

- SDSB

- 85

- 6. June 1985.

### 1 

# Clean Air Act §110(l) Demonstration for Changes to

Tennessee’s Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements

I. Background and Purpose

Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) rule 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery regulates the emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from the petroleum product storage and distribution network. This rule was submitted to EPA on July 6, 1993 and approved by EPA on February 9, 1995. Revisions to this rule were approved by EPA on April 14, 1997, and August 26, 2005.

TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24 includes requirements for control of VOC emissions from filling of certain gasoline storage tanks in several Tennessee counti es using Stage I vapor recovery systems. EPA promulgated similar requirements for Stage I vapor recovery as 40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCCC 1 

### . To eliminate the overlap of State and Federal requirements, Tennessee proposes to adopt 40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCCC by ref erence and remove the Stage I SIP requirements of TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24.

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA ) prohibits revision of a SIP that would interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS, reasonable further progress toward attainment of a NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Since Stage I controls are part of Tennessee’s SIP, the requirements

of CAA § 110(l) must be satisfied before changing the existing Stage I requirements

.

This document demonstrates that Tennessee’s proposed changes comply with the requirements of CAA §110(l), as follows :

1. Tennessee proposes to lower the applicability thresholds for certain sources subject to Federal Stage I requirements. Tennessee’s revi sed State requirements will be as stringent as or more stringent than the comparable Federal requirements.

2. T his document includes a comparison that demonstrates the equivalence of State and Federal Stage I requirements.

II. Applicability of Tenness ee’s Stage I R equirements and Federal Requirements

Tennessee’s Stage I Vapor Recovery requirements apply as shown in Table 1

. Within the listed counties, Tennessee’s Stage I requirements apply to smaller facilities (based on monthly gasoline throughput ) than the equivalent Federal requirements (Table 2) and are therefore more stringent than the Federal requirements. As a result Tennessee must: (1) demonstrate that adoption of the less stringent requirements will comply with CAA §110(l); or (2) adopt St ate requirements that implement the Federal rules at a lower applicability threshold. Tennessee has elected to adopt State requirements that implement the Federal rules at a lower applicability threshold.

1 73 FR 1945, Jan. 10, 2008

### 2 Table 1: Applicability of State Stage I Requirements

Stage I applies in the Following

Counties Stage I applies to: Exceptions

Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, and Wilson A ny gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) and the appurtenant equipment necessary to the gasoline dispensing facility; and to any gasoline tank truck that transfers gasoline to storage

vessels at such facilities

. The following are subject only to 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(3)(a)1 (gasoline storage vessels shall be loaded by submerged fill):

1. Any transfer made to a GDF storage tank equipped with a floating roof or an approved equivalent (SIP revision required)

2. Any stationary gasoline storage container with a capacity th at is less than 2,080 L (550 gal) used exclusively for the fueling of implements of husbandry;

3. Any stationary storage tank with a capacity of less than 7,600 L (2,000 gal) constructed prior to January 1, 1979; and

4. Any stationary storage tank with a capacity of less than 950 L 250 gal constructed after December 31, 1978.

Any GDF that dispenses less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month is subject only to the following:

1. 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(3)(a)1 (gasoline storage vessels shall be loaded by submerge d fill); and

2. 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(5)(b)2 (i f any exemption based upon the quantity of gasoline dispensed is claimed, the owner or operator shall maintain records showing the quantity of gasoline dispensed each month ).

### 3 Table 2: Federal Requirements for GDF (40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCCC)

Affected Source Requirement General Description of Requirement 2



### Any GDF with a monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline C omply with
§63.11116. Do not allow gasoline to be handled in a manner that would result in vapor releases to the atmosphere for extended periods of time. Measures to be taken include, but are not limited to: (1) Minimize gasoline spills; (2) Clean up spills as expeditiously as practicable; (3) Cover all open gasoline containers and all gasoline storage tank

fill

- pipes with a gasketed seal when not in use; and (4) Minimize gasoline sent to open waste collection systems that collect and transport gasoline to reclamation and

recyc ling devices, such as oil/water separators.

Any GDF with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons of gasoline or more C omply with
§63.1111 7

. Comply with §63.11116 . Only load gasoline into storage tanks by utilizing submerged filling.

Any GDF with a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons of gasoline or more C omply with
§63.1111 8

. Comply with §63.11116 and §63.1111 7. Comply with management practices in Table 1 of Subpart CCCCCC or

o perate a vapor balance system that meets the requirements of either §63.11118 (b)(2)(i)(A) or (B).

§63.11118 contains the equivalent of Tennessee’s Stage I vapor recovery requirements.

Because the State requirement applies at a lower threshold (10,000 gallons per month), Tennessee proposes the following changes in appl icability for all GDF located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton,

Unicoi , Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson Counties :

• A GDF with a monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR §§ 63.11116 and 63.11117(b) and (c).

• A GDF with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallo ns of gasoline or more must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR § 63.11118.

I II. Equivalence of Tennessee’s Stage I R equirements and Federal Requirements

Table 2 demonstrates the equivalence of State and Federal requirements.

2 A more detailed analysis of Federal requirements is included in Section III.

### 4 Table 2: Comparison of Tennessee Stage I and Federal Requirements

State Rule (1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) State Requirement Equivalent

Federal Rule Requirement Comments

(1)(a)1. This rule applies to any of the following in
Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood,
Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford,
Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson County:

(i) To any gasoline dispen sing facility and the appurtenant equipment necessary to the gasoline dispensing facility; and

(ii) To any gasoline tank truck that transfers gasoline to storage vessels at such facilities. See below See below The Federal rule applies

Statewide

. State

- specific language applies to the

counties indicated in this

table.

(1)(a)2. Any gasoline dispensing facility located in one of the counties specified in Part (1)(a)1 of this rule that exceeds the applicability threshold specified in

Parts (1)(b)2 or (1)(b)3 of this rule shall be subject to all of the respective provisions of this rule for facilities exceeding the applicability threshold and

shall remain subject to these provisions even if its throughput later falls below the threshold. The

owner or o perator shall inform the Technical Secretary within 30 days following the exceedance, as specified in Part (5)(a)3 of this rule. See note See note The existing State rule is more stringent than the
Federal rule, because certain requirements (e.g., submerged fill and Stage I vapor recovery) apply at a

lower threshold within the listed counties. Proposed

revisions to 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(1) will maintain the stringency of the State rule.

(1)(b)1. With respect to requirements concerning transfers from gaso line tank trucks to gasoline storage vessels at gasoline dispensing facilities, the following are subject only to Part (3)(a)1 of this

rule: See below See below

### 5 Table 2: Comparison of Tennessee Stage I and Federal Requirements

State Rule (1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) State Requirement Equivalent

Federal Rule Requirement Comments

(1)(b)1(i) Any transfer made to a gasoline dispensing facility storage tank that is equipped with a floating roof or an approved equivalent, this approval being a revision to the State Implementation Plan; §63.11118(c)(3) The emission sources listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section are not required to comply with the contr ol requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, but must comply with the requirements in §63.11117. (3) Gasoline storage tanks equipped with floating roofs, or the equivalent

. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

(1)(b)1(ii) Any stationary gasoline storage container with a capacity that is less than 2,080 liters (550 gallons ) that is used exclusively for the fueling of implements of husbandry; §63.11117 (c) Gasoline storage tanks with a capacity of less than 250 gallons are not required to comply with the submerged fill requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, but must comply only with all of the requirements in §63.11116. The F ederal rule is more stringent (g asoline storage

tanks < 250 exempt from the Federal submerged fil l requirement per
§63.11117 (c)).

(1)(b)1(iii) Any stationary storage tank with a capacity of less than 7,600 L (2,000 gal) that was constructed prior to January 1, 1979; and §63.11117 (c) Gasoline storage tanks with a capacity of less than 250 gallons are not required to comply with the submerged fill requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, but must comply only with all of the requirements in §63.11116. The Federal rule is more stringent (g asoline storage

tanks < 250 exempt from the Federal submerged fill requirement per
§63.11117 (c)).

(1)(b)1(iv) Any stationary storage tank with a capacity of less than 950 L (250 gal) that was constructed after
December 31, 1978. §63.11117 (c) Gasoline storage tanks with a capacity of less than 250 gallons are not re quired to comply with the submerged fill requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, but must comply only with all of the requirements in §63.11116. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

### 6 Table 2: Comparison of Tennessee Stage I and Federal Requirements

State Rule (1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) State Requirement Equivalent

Federal Rule Requirement Comments

(1)(b)2. Any gasoline dispensing facility which dispenses less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month is subject only to the provisions of Parts (3)(a)1 and (5)(b)2 of this rule. §63.1111 1(e) An affected source shall, upon request by
the Administrator, demonstrate that their monthly throughput is less than the 10,000

- gallon or the 100,000

- gallon threshold level, as applicable. For new or reconstructed affected sources, as specified in §63.11112(b) and (c), recordkeeping to document monthly throughput must begin upon startup of the affected sourc e. For existing sources, as specified in §63.11112(d), recordkeeping to document monthly throughput must begin on January 10, 2008. For existing sources that are subject to this subpart only because they load gasoline into fuel tanks other than

those in mo tor vehicles, as defined in §63.11132, recordkeeping to document monthly throughput must begin on January 24, 2011. Records required under this paragraph shall be kept for a period of 5

years. The existing State rule is more stringent than the

Federal rule , because certain requirements (e.g., submerged fill and Stage I vapor recovery) apply at a

lower threshold within the listed counties. Proposed

revisions to 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(1) will maintain the stringency of the State rule.

(1)(b)2. Any gasoline dispensi ng facility which dispenses less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month is subject only to the provisions of Parts (3)(a)1 and (5)(b)2 of this rule. See comment See comment The existing State rule is more stringent than the
Federal rule, because certain requirements (e.g., submerged fill and Stage I vapor recovery) apply at a

lower threshold within the listed counties. Proposed

revisions to 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(1)(d) and (e) will maintain the stringency of

the State rule.

### 7 Table 2: Comparison of Tennessee Stage I and Federal Requirements

State Rule (1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) State Requirement Equivalent

Federal Rule Requirement Comments

( 3 ) (a) Standards (Stage I Vapor Recovery) for Gasoline Storage Vessels

- The owner or operator of each gasoline dispensing facility subject to this rule shall comply with the following requirements: See below See below

(3)(a)1. All gasoline storage vessels at gasoline dispensing

facili ties shall be loaded by submerged fill; §63.11117 (b) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must only load gasoline into storage tanks at your facility by utilizing submerged filling, as defined in §63.11132, and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

(3)(a)2. All vapor lines on the storage vessel shall be equipped with closures that automatically seal upon

disconnect

. §63.11118(b),

Table 1 to Subpart

CCCCCC All vapor connections and lines on the storage tank shall be equipped with closures that seal upon disconnect. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

### 8 Table 2: Comparison of Tennessee Stage I and Federal Requirements

State Rule (1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) State Requirement Equivalent

Federal Rule Requirement Comments

(3)(a)3. All gasoline storage vessels at gasoline dispensing

fa cilities shall be served by a vapor recovery system approved by the Technical Secretary, or of a

type certified by the California Air Resources Board, and designed, installed, and maintained to recover gasoline vapors displaced during transfer of gasoline from a tank truck to a storage tank;

Stage I gasoline vapor recovery systems used for this purpose shall be properly certified under the CARB enhanced vapor recovery (EVR)

certification procedures effective on or after April
1, 2001, or shall be listed un der the following pre

EVR CARB Executive Orders; mixing of components certified under separate CARB certification procedures will not be allowed. §63.11118(b),

Table 1 to Subpart

CCCCCC

§63.11120 Comply with the requirements in Table 1 of Subpart CCCCCC or operate a vapor balance systems that achieves 90% reduction, uses management practices at least as stringent as Table 1 of Subpart

CCCCCC.

Each owner or operato r, at the time of

installation and every 3 years thereafter,

must demonstrate complia nce with the leak rate and cracking pressure requirements, specified in item 1(g) of Table 1 and must demonstrate compliance with the static pressure performance requirement specified in item 1(h) of Table 1 by conducting a static pressure test.

Each owne r or operator choosing to use a vapor balance system other than that

described in Table 1 must demonstrate to the Administrator or delegated authority the equivalency of their vapor balance system to

that described in Table 1

. The Federal rule is more

stri ngent than the existing

State rule.

### 9 Table 2: Comparison of Tennessee Stage I and Federal Requirements

State Rule (1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) State Requirement Equivalent

Federal Rule Requirement Comments

(3)(a)4. If a gauging well separate from the fill tube is used
for manual measurement, it shall be provided with a submerged drop tube that extends to within 150 mm (5.9 in) of the gasoline storage vessel bottom;

and §63.11118(b),

Table 1 to Subpart

CCCCCC If a gauge well separate from the fill tube is used, it shall be provided with a submerged drop tube that extends the same distance from the bottom of the storage tank as specified in §63.11117(b). The Federal rule i s as stringent as the existing

State rule.

§63.11117(b) requires submerged fill pipes

installed on or before
November 9, 2006, to be no

more than 12 inches from

the bottom of the tank. Submerged fill pipes
installed after November 9,
2006, must be no mor e than

6 inches from the bottom of

the tank. Submerged fill pipes not meeting the se specifications are allowed if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the liquid level in the tank is always above the entire opening of the fill pipe. Documentation

pr oviding such

demonstration must be made available for inspection by

the Administrator's delegated representative during the course of a site

visit.

(3)(a)5. Liquid fill connections for all systems shall be equipped with vapor

- tight caps. §63.11118(b),

Tab le 1 to Subpart

CCCCCC Liquid fill connections for all systems shall be equipped with vapor

- tight caps. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

### 10 Table 2: Comparison of Tennessee Stage I and Federal Requirements

State Rule (1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) State Requirement Equivalent

Federal Rule Requirement Comments

3(b) Standards (Stage I Vapor Recovery) for Gasoline

Transfers from Tank Trucks to Storage Vessels

- The owner or operator of a gasoline tank truck shall

not unload gasoline to a gasoline storage vessel subject to vapor

- tightness requirements during unloading unless the following conditions are met: See below See below

3(b)1. All hoses, adapt ors, and couplers in the vapor balance system are properly connected; §63.11118(d),

Table 2 to Subpart

CCCCCC If you own or operate a gasoline cargo tank

t hen you must n ot unload gasoline into a storage tank at a GDF subject to the control requirements in this subpart unless the following conditions are met: All hoses in the vapor balance system are properly

connected. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

3(b)2. All vapor return hoses, couplers, and adapters used in the gasoline delivery are vapor

- tight; §63.11118(d),

Table 2 to Subpart

CCCCCC If you own or operate a gasoline cargo tank

t hen you must n ot unload gasoline into a storage tank at a GDF subject to the control requirements in this subpart unless the following conditions are met: All vapor return hoses, couplers, and adapters used in the gasoline delivery are vapor

- tight

. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

3(b)3. All vapor return equipment is compatible with the vapor balance equipment installed on the gasoline dispensing facility storage vessel; §63.11118(d),

Table 2 to Subpart

CCCCCC If you own or operate a gasoline cargo tank

t hen you must n ot unload gasoline into a storage tank at a GDF subject to the control requirements in this subpart unle ss the following conditions are met: All vapor return hoses, couplers, and adapters used in the gasoline delivery are vapor

- tight. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

3(b)4. All hatches on the gasoline tank truck are kept

closed and securely fastened; and §63.11118(d),

Table 2 to Subpart

CCCCCC If you own or operate a gasoline cargo tank

t hen you must n ot unload gasoline into a storage tank at a GDF subject to the control requirements in this subpart unless the following condition s are met: All hatches on the tank truck are closed and securely fastened. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

### 11 Table 2: Comparison of Tennessee Stage I and Federal Requirements

State Rule (1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) State Requirement Equivalent

Federal Rule Requirement Comments

3(b)5. The filling of storage vessels at gasoline dispensing

facilities is limited to unloading by vapor

- tight gasoline tank trucks. §63.11118(d),

Table 2 to Subpart

CCCCCC The filling of storage tanks at GDF shall be limited to unloading from vapor

- tight gasoline cargo tanks. Documentation that the cargo tank has met the specifications of

EPA Method 27 shall be carried with the cargo tank, as specified in §63.11125(c). The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.

(4)(a) and (c) Test methods as follow apply: Unless otherwise specified in this rule, the test method found in Rule .85 of this chapter to determine compliance with the vapor

- tight requirements of Paragraph (3) of this rule for lines, piping, caps, couplers, adapters, and fittings; or other methods necessary for demonstration of compliance approved by the Technical Secretary and the EPA. §63. 11120 Each owner or operato r, at the time of

installation and every 3 years thereafter,

must demonstrate compliance with the leak rate and cracking pressure requirements, specified in item 1(g) of Table 1 and must demonstrate compliance with the static

pre ssure performance requirement specified in item 1(h) of Table 1 by conducting a static pressure test.

Each owner or operator choosing to use a vapor balance system other than that

described in Table 1 must demonstrate to the Administrator or delegated aut hority the equivalency of their vapor balance system to

that described in Table 1

. The Federal rule is more stringent than the existing

State rule.

(5) Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting requireme nts : submit initial compliance
certifications, test ing notification, threshold

exceedance notification. Maintain records documenting exemption from State Stage I requirements. Submit excess emissions reports. §63.11118,
§63.11124 through
§63.11126 H ave records available within 24 hours of a

request to document gasoline throughput. Comply with Federal notification requirements. Maintain records of all tests performed under §63.11120(a) and (b), keep records of vapor tightness tests, keep records of malfunctions. Submit reports of volumetric efficiency test results and malfunction reports. The Federal rule is as stringent as the existing

State rule.



### V. Request for SIP Revision

### 12 Tennessee requests that EPA approve a SIP revision to replace Tennessee’s State

- specific Stage I vapor recovery requirements (TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24) with the equivalent Federal requirements

. Tennessee is proposing to adopt State

- specific applicability requirements as need to assure no change in Stage I applicability for the counties covered by the SIP (Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Wa shington,
Williamson, and Wilson). Approval of the SIP revision will not adversely affect air quality for any criteria pollutant and satisfies all CAA requirements

for removal of control measures.1 

### Travis Blake

From: Travis Blake

Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:20 PM

To: TDEC Webteam Subject: Public Hearing Notice for SIP Revision

Attachments: 2015-0707 Stage II Public Hearing Notice.docx; 2015-0702 Stage II SIP Technical Support Document.pdf; 2015-0702 CAA 110(l) De monstration for Stage I changes.pdf; 1200-03-18-24 amendment redline 07-02-2015.pdf



### Please place the attached docume nts on the TDEC PPO web page

( http://www.tn.gov/environment/topic/ppo-air ).

1. Public hearing notice (2015-0707 Stag e II Public Hearing Notice.docx)

2. Revision to TAPCR 1200-03-18-.24 (1200-03-18 -24 amendment redline 07-02-2015);

3. Stage II SIP Technical Support Document (2015-0702 Stage II SIP Technical Support Document)

4. Clean Air Act §110(l) demonstration for Ch anges to Tennessee’s Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements (2015-0702 CAA 110(l) Demo nstration for Stage I changes.pdf)

Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks.

Travis J. Blake | TDEC Environmental Consultant 3

Division of Air Pollution Control William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 15 th 

### Floor

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Nashville, TN 37243
p. (615) 532-0617 travis.blake@tn.gov
tn.gov/env ironment1 

### Travis Blake

From: Travis Blake

Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:21 PM

To: Don Davis; Amanda L. Davis; Jeff Cales; Martie Carpenter; Carol M. Williams; Bill McCabe; Brad Garrett; bob.rogers@shelbycountytn.gov Subject: Public Depository Documents for Tennessee SIP Revision - Stage I and Stage II Vapor
Recovery

Attachments: 2015-0707 Stage II Public Hearing Notice.pdf ; 2015-0702 Stage II SIP Technical Support Document.pdf; 2015-0702 CAA 110(l) Demonst ration for Stage I changes.pdf; 1200-03-18-24 amendment redline 07-02-2015.pdf



### Please place the attached files (print or maintain an electronic copy) until September 1, 2015, for the public depository. You shou ld have four documents:

1. Amendment to TAPCR 1200-03-18-.24;

2. Stage II Technical Support Document;

3. CAA §110(l) demonstration for Stage I changes; and

4. Public hearing notice.

Please respond to confirm receipt of all four documents. Thanks.

Travis J. Blake | TDEC Environmental Consultant 3

Division of Air Pollution Control William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 15 th 

### Floor

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Nashville, TN 37243
p. (615) 532-0617 travis.blake@tn.gov
tn.gov/env ironment1 

### Travis Blake

From: Travis Blake

Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:23 PM

To: Lakeman, Sean (Lakeman.Sean@ epa.gov); Bradley, Twunjala (Bradley.Twunjala@epa.gov); 'CH@adem.sta te.al.us'; 'davisa@adeq.state.ar.us'; 'james.boylan@dnr.state.ga.us'; 'bob.bernoteit@illinois.gov'; 'lesliem.poff@ky.gov'; 'kyra.moore@dnr.mo.gov'; 'dallas_baker@deq.state.ms.us'; 'sheila.holman@ncdenr.gov'; 'reecemc@dhec.s c.gov'; 'michael.dowd@deq.virginia.gov'; 'laura.m.crowder@wv.gov'; lali ddington@aqm.co.knox.tn.us; bob.rogers@shelbycountytn.gov; 'Finke, John (Health)' (John.Finke@nashville.gov); Colby_Bob@chattanooga.gov; forrpark@nc-cherokee.com

Cc: James Johnston; Paul LaRock; Lacey Hardin; Donovan Grimwood Subject: Public Hearing Notice for Tennessee SIP Revi sion - Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery

Attachments: 1200-03-18-24 amendment redline 07-02-2015.pdf; 2015-0702 CAA 110(l) Demonstration for Stage I changes.pdf ; 2015-0702 Stage II SIP Technical Support Document.pdf

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

There will be a public hearing before the Technical Secretary of the Tennessee Air Pollution C ontrol Board to consider the

p romulgation of amendments to the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations and the State Implementation Plan pursuant to
Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 68-201 -105. The comments received at this hear ing will be presented to the Tennessee Ai r Pollution Control Board for their consideration in regards to th e proposed regulatory amendments. The hearing will be conducted in the manner prescribed by the Uniform Administrative Procedures Ac t, T.C.A. §§ 4-5-201 et seq. and will take place in the 15 th Floo r Conference Room A, William R. Snodgr ass Tennessee Tower, located at 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue , Nashville, Tennessee 37243 a t 9:30 a.m. on August 31, 2015. Written comment s will be included in the hearing records if received by the close of business on August 31, 2015, at the office of the Technical Secretary, Te nnessee Air Pollution Control Board, William R. Snodgrass Tennesse e Tower, located at 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15 th Floor , Nashville, Tennessee 37243. Additionally, comments may be submitted via attachments through electronic mail until the close of business on August 31, 2015. Comments may be submitted via e-mail to Air.Pollution.Control@tn.gov

.

Any individuals with disabilities who wish to participate in these proceedings or to review these filings should contact the Te nnessee Department of Environment and Conservation to discuss any auxiliary aids or services needed to facilitate such participation. S uch initial contact may be in person, by writing, telephone, or other means, and should be made no less than 10 days prior to Augus t 31, 2015, or the date such party intends to review such filings, to allow time to provide such aid or service. Contact the Tennesse e Department of Environment and Conservation ADA Coordinator, W illiam R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 2nd Floor, Nashville, TN 37243, (866) 253- 5827. Hearing impaired callers may use th e Tennessee Relay Service, (800) 848-0298.

If you have any questions about the origination of these rule changes, you may contact Travis Blake at (615) 532-0617. For comp lete copies of the text of the notice, please contact Travis Blake, Department of Environment and Conservation, William R. Snodgrass
Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15 th Floor, Nashville, TN 37243.

Rule 1200-03-18-24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities – Stage I and Stag e II Vapor Recovery is proposed to be amended. This amendment proposes to adopt the Federal requirements for gasolin e dispensing facilities (40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCCC) by reference and remove most State-specific language for Stage I vapor recove ry. However, any gasoline dispensing facility with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more of gasoline that is located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Faye tte, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson Counties, will be subject to expanded requirements under Subpart CCCCCC. GDF s located in Davidson, Hamilton, Knox, or Sh elby Counties are also subject to their local air pollution control program rules if they are more stringent than the proposed rule.2 The amended rule will also allow existing gasoline dispensing facilities in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilso n Counties to remove Stage II vapor recovery systems beginning January 1, 2016, and will require the removal of all existing Stag e II vapor recovery systems no later than January 1, 2019.

Interested parties may submit comments on any provision of the proposed rule. Public comments are specifically solicited on th e following provisions:

Paragraph (1)(b) of the proposed rule requires any new or existing GDF with a monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline and is located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or W ilson Counties to comply with the requirements in 40 CF R §63.11117(b) and (c) (submerged fill requirements for gasoline storage tanks). The Division requests comment on whethe r the submerged fill requirements shoul d apply Statewide for new facilities.

Revisions considered at this hearing may be adopted by the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board under T.C.A. 68-201-105, the B oar d general authority to promulgate rules. Materials concerning the proposed actions will be available for public inspection durin g normal working hours starting on July 15, 2015, at the following locations:

Division of Air Pollution Control William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15 th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243 Division of Air Pollution Control

Jackson Environm ental Field Office 1625 Hollywood Drive
Jackson, TN 38305

Division of Air Pollution Control Chattanooga Environmental Field Office 1301 Riverfront Parkway, Suite #206 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Division of Air Pollution Control Johnson City Environmental Field Office

2305 Silverdale Road Johnson City, TN 37601

Division of Air Pollution Control

Columbia Environmental Field Office 1421 Hampshire Pike
Columbia, TN 38401 Division of Air Pollution Control

Knoxville Environmental Field Office

3711 Middlebrook Pike
Knoxville, TN 37921

Division of Air Pollution Control

Cookeville Environm ental Field Office

1221 South Willow Avenue
Cookeville, TN 38506 Air Pollution Control Program Shelby County Health Department

814 Jefferson Avenue Memphis, TN 38105

All persons interested in the air quality of the State of Tenne ssee are urged to attend and will be afforded the opportunity to presen t testimony to the hearing officer regarding the proposed revisions to the State Implementation Plan. Any person desiring to pres ent length y comments should be prepared at the hearing to offer a written statement to be incorporated into the record. Written statements not presente d at the hearings will only be considered part of the records if received by 4:30 PM on August 31, 2 015, at the office of the Technical Secretary, Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15 th Floor,
Nashville, TN 37243.1 

### Travis Blake

From: Travis Blake

Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:48 AM

To: 'Bloomberg, David E.' Subject: FW: Public Hearing Notice for Tennessee SI P Revision - Stage I and Stage II Vapor
Recovery

Attachments: 1200-03-18-24 amendment redline 07-02-2015.pdf; 2015-0702 CAA 110(l) Demonstration for Stage I changes.pdf ; 2015-0702 Stage II SIP Technical Support Document.pdf



### David,

A public notice is attached for a revision to Tenness ee’s SIP. The original was sent to Bob Bernoteit yesterday.

Travis J. Blake | TDEC Environmental Consultant 3

Division of Air Pollution Control William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 15 th 

### Floor

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Nashville, TN 37243
p. (615) 532-0617 travis.blake@tn.gov
tn.gov/env ironment

From: Travis Blake

Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:23 PM

To: Lakeman, Sean (Lakeman.Sean@epa.gov); Bradley, Twunjala (Bradley.Twunjala@epa.gov); 'CH@adem.state.al.us'; 'davisa@adeq.state.ar.us'; 'james.boy lan@dnr.state.ga.us'; 'bob.bernoteit @illinois.gov'; 'lesliem.poff@ky.gov'; 'kyra.moore@dnr.mo.gov'; 'dallas_bake r@deq.state.ms.us'; 'sheila.holman@ncdenr.gov'; 'reecemc@dhec.sc.gov'; 'michael.dowd@deq.virginia.gov'; 'laura.m.crowd er@wv.gov'; laliddington@aqm.co.knox.tn.us; bob.rogers@shelbycountytn.go v; 'Finke, John (Health)' (John.Finke@na shville.gov); Colby_Bob@chattanooga.gov; forrpark@nc-cherokee.com

Cc: James Johnston; Paul LaRock; Lacey Hardin; Donovan Grimwood Subject: Public Hearing Notice for Tennessee SIP Re vision - Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

There will be a public hearing before the Technical Secretary of the Tennessee Air Pollution C ontrol Board to consider the

p romulgation of amendments to the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations and the State Implementation Plan pursuant to
Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 68-201 -105. The comments received at this hear ing will be presented to the Tennessee Ai r Pollution Control Board for their consideration in regards to th e proposed regulatory amendments. The hearing will be conducted in the manner prescribed by the Uniform Administrative Procedures Ac t, T.C.A. §§ 4-5-201 et seq. and will take place in the 15 th Floo r2 Conference Room A, William R. Snodgr ass Tennessee Tower, located at 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue , Nashville, Tennessee 37243 a t 9:30 a.m. on August 31, 2015. Written comment s will be included in the hearing records if received by the close of business on August 31, 2015, at the office of the Technical Secretary, Te nnessee Air Pollution Control Board, William R. Snodgrass Tennesse e Tower, located at 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15 th Floor , Nashville, Tennessee 37243. Additionally, comments may be submitted via attachments through electronic mail until the close of business on August 31, 2015. Comments may be submitted via e-mail to Air.Pollution.Control@tn.gov

.

Any individuals with disabilities who wish to participate in these proceedings or to review these filings should contact the Te nnessee Department of Environment and Conservation to discuss any auxiliary aids or services needed to facilitate such participation. S uch initial contact may be in person, by writing, telephone, or other means, and should be made no less than 10 days prior to Augus t 31, 2015, or the date such party intends to review such filings, to allow time to provide such aid or service. Contact the Tennesse e Department of Environment and Conservation ADA Coordinator, W illiam R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 2nd Floor, Nashville, TN 37243, (866) 253- 5827. Hearing impaired callers may use th e Tennessee Relay Service, (800) 848-0298.

If you have any questions about the origination of these rule changes, you may contact Travis Blake at (615) 532-0617. For comp lete copies of the text of the notice, please contact Travis Blake, Department of Environment and Conservation, William R. Snodgrass
Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15 th Floor, Nashville, TN 37243.

Rule 1200-03-18-24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities – Stage I and Stag e II Vapor Recovery is proposed to be amended. This amendment proposes to adopt the Federal requirements for gasolin e dispensing facilities (40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCCC) by reference and remove most State-specific language for Stage I vapor recove ry. However, any gasoline dispensing facility with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more of gasoline that is located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Faye tte, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson Counties, will be subject to expanded requirements under Subpart CCCCCC. GDF s located in Davidson, Hamilton, Knox, or Sh elby Counties are also subject to their local air pollution control program rules if they are more stringent than the proposed rule.

The amended rule will also allow existing gasoline dispensing facilities in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilso n Counties to remove Stage II vapor recovery systems beginning January 1, 2016, and will require the removal of all existing Stag e II vapor recovery systems no later than January 1, 2019.

Interested parties may submit comments on any provision of the proposed rule. Public comments are specifically solicited on th e following provisions:

Paragraph (1)(b) of the proposed rule requires any new or existing GDF with a monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline and is located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or W ilson Counties to comply with the requirements in 40 CF R §63.11117(b) and (c) (submerged fill requirements for gasoline storage tanks). The Division requests comment on whethe r the submerged fill requirements shoul d apply Statewide for new facilities.

Revisions considered at this hearing may be adopted by the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board under T.C.A. 68-201-105, the B oar d general authority to promulgate rules. Materials concerning the proposed actions will be available for public inspection durin g normal working hours starting on July 15, 2015, at the following locations:

Division of Air Pollution Control William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15 th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243 Division of Air Pollution Control

Jackson Environm ental Field Office 1625 Hollywood Drive
Jackson, TN 38305

Division of Air Pollution Control Chattanooga Environmental Field Office 1301 Riverfront Parkway, Suite #206 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Division of Air Pollution Control Johnson City Environmental Field Office

2305 Silverdale Road Johnson City, TN 37601

Division of Air Pollution Control

Columbia Environmental Field Office 1421 Hampshire Pike
Columbia, TN 38401 Division of Air Pollution Control

Knoxville Environmental Field Office

3711 Middlebrook Pike
Knoxville, TN 379213 Division of Air Pollution Control

Cookeville Environm ental Field Office

1221 South Willow Avenue
Cookeville, TN 38506 Air Pollution Control Program Shelby County Health Department

814 Jefferson Avenue Memphis, TN 38105

All persons interested in the air quality of the State of Tenne ssee are urged to attend and will be afforded the opportunity to presen t testimony to the hearing officer regarding the proposed revisions to the State Implementation Plan. Any person desiring to pres ent length y comments should be prepared at the hearing to offer a written statement to be incorporated into the record. Written statements not presente d at the hearings will only be considered part of the records if received by 4:30 PM on August 31, 2 015, at the office of the Technical Secretary, Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15 th Floor,
Nashville, TN 37243.

### Public Hearing

Division of Air Pollution Control William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 15 th 

### Floor Nashville, Tennessee 37243



### 9:30 AM. August 31 , 2015

Hearing Officer: Mr. Malcolm Butler APC

Division of Air Polluti on Control Representatives: Ms. Linda Bilbrey APC (Recording Secretary)

Mr. Travis Blake APC

Mr. James Johnston APC

Ms. Karen Cisler APC Board member

Other Divisions: Resources Management Bureau M r. Donovan Grimwood SBEAP

Public Ms. Emily LeRoy TN Fuel & C Store Assoc.



## Comment Summary

This public hearing has been called to consider Rule 1200

- 03

- 18

- 24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

– Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery

.

Commenter : Mr. Travis Blake APC

Comment: As proposed, the amended rule would allow existing gasoline dispensing facilities in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties to remove Stage II vapor recovery systems beginning January 1, 2016, and wou ld require the removal of all existing Stage II vapor recovery systems no later than January 1, 2019.

Considering that the rule needs to go through several additional steps before it becomes State effective, including approval by the Air Pollution Contro l Board, review by the Attorney General’s office, and review by the Secretary of State, we do not believe that the final rule will become effective by January 1, 2016. We also believe that if the dates from the proposed rule remain unchanged, the final ru le would allow somewhat less than three years to complete the removal of existing Stage II systems in the affected counties.

The Division of Air Pollution Control has discussed this issue with TDEC’s Office of General Counsel, and we

believe that the ci rcumstances warrant a change in the effective dates listed in the proposed rule. Therefore, the effective dates listed in paragraph (2) of the proposed rule

– the starting and ending dates for Stage II removal

– will be delayed by an appropriate amount in the final rule. This change will serve two purposes. First, the change will assure that the starting date for Stage II removal does not occur prior to the effective date of the rule. Second, the change will assure that affected facilities are allowed t he full three

- year period to remove existing Stage II systems. The final rule may include specific dates, or the start and end dates may be based on the effective date of the rule. If we do not include specific dates in this rulemaking, we will do a late r rulemaking to add specific dates to the rule.

Response: The final rule will be amended as indicated above.

### Commenter : Ms. Emily LeRoy TN Fuel & C Store Assoc.

Comment: Will this rule subject any new locations to Stage I requirements?

Response: This rule will not subject any new counties or locations to Stage I vapor recovery requirements. Currently, gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jeffer son, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington,
Williamson, or Wilson Count ies with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more are required to comply

with Tennessee’s Stage I vapor recovery requirements

. GDF located in these counties will remain subject to the Federal equivalent of Stage I vapor recovery (40 CFR §63.11118 ) if their monthly throughput is 10,000 gallons

or more

. The lower applicability in t hese counties is necessary to comply with the anti

- backsliding requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act. However, the lower threshold does not affect any facilities that were not already subject to the existing State requirement.

For all oth er counties in Tennessee, 40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCCC subjects GDF to the requirements of 40 CFR
§63.11118 at a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons or more. This applicability will not change.

Comment: As part of the new rules requiring upgraded equipment or decommissioning of equipment, will

there be a ny permit ting or fees associated with decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery?

Response: There will be no permit ting or fees associated with decommissioning of Stage II systems

.

Phc 50 .doc

## Response to Written Questions from the
Tennessee Fuel and Convenience Store Association (TFCA)
August 18, 2015

1. Regarding 1 (b): is there a current requirement in the Tennessee rule for length of submerged fill? Does the department have an estimate of number of older stations that will not meet the new requirements and will require new submerged fill? Does the department have a cost estimate for new submerged fill, including all installation costs?

The current rule states (TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(3)(a)1) that gasoline dispensing facilities located in the

listed counties 1 and with less than 10,000 gallons/month of throughput shall load gasoline storage vessels by submerged fill and defines “submerged fill” as the method of filling a delivery vessel or storage vessel where product enters within 5.9 inches of the bottom of the vessel. Bottom filling of delivery and storage vessels is included in this definition.

The proposed rule would require gasoline dispensing facilities that are located in the listed counties and have less than 10,000 gallons/month of throughput to comply with 40 CFR §63.11117(b) and (c). §63.11117(b) requires facilities to load gasoline into storage tanks utilizing submerged filling, as measured from the point in the open ing of the submerged fill pipe that is the greatest distance from the bottom of the storage tank.

• Submerged fill pipes installed on or before November 9, 2006, must be no more than 12

inches from the bottom of the tank.

• Submerged fill pipes installed aft er November 9, 2006, must be no more than 6 inches from

the bottom of the tank.

• Submerged fill pipes not meeting the specifications of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section are allowed if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the liquid level i n the tank is always above the entire opening of the fill pipe. Documentation providing such demonstration must be made available for inspection by the Administrator's delegated representative during the course of a site visit.

The existing State requirem ent for submerged fill (5.9 inches from the bottom of the tank) is slightly more stringent than the Federal requirement (6 inches from the bottom of the tank) , so there should be no additional costs associated to facilities complying with TAPCR 1200

- 03

- 18

- .24(3)(a)1.

2. Regarding 1 (c): What is the current requirement for stations with a monthly throughput of 10,000

or more? Does the department have an estimate of how many stations do not meet the proposed standard and what the cost per station upgr ade will be?

1 Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson CountyStations located in the listed counties (footnote 1) with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more are required to comply with Tennessee’s Stage I vapor recovery requirements , and we do not expect facilities to need upgrades if they are in compliance with the existing State requirement

.

3. Regarding Stage II: will the state allow partial decommissioning? For instance, allowing certain parts such as existing hoses, nozzles, breakaway valves and swivels (hanging hardware) and vapor pumps to be left in place.

We are not proposing to allow partial decommissioning. GDF s would be required to decommission

and remove the Stage II vapor recovery system in accordance with Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) guidance, “Recommended P ractices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Fueling Sites, PEI/RP300

- 09” for removal, notification, and certification (see attachment) . In general, the PEI guidance allows piping to be abandoned in place but requires replace ment of hanging hardware.

4. As part of the new rules requiring upgraded equipment or decommissioning of equipment, will there be a permit process involved which will be established later by the Technical Secretary?

There will not be a permit proces s for upgrading/decommissioning of equipment.

5. As part of the new rules requiring upgraded equipment or decommissioning of equipment, will there be any fees associated or anticipated?

There will not be any fees associated with upgrading/decommissi oning of equipment.

6. Please provide a chart of differences between this proposed rule and the rules of the counties that have their own programs. i.e. Davidson, Hamilton, Knox and Shelby.

A copy of Tennessee’s 110(l) demonstration is attached. We are required to submit the 110(l) demonstration to EPA to show that the revised State requirements are at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. The 110(l) demonstration includes a comp arison of State and Federal
requirements.

Knox and Shelby C ount ies have directly adopted the State regulation , and there is no difference

between those two counties and the existing State requirements

. Davidson County has some
requirements for GDFs tha t are more stringent

. Hamilton County’s rules are worded differently, and a direct comparison is more difficult. These rules are available at the following links : Davidson County rules Section 7

- 13, page 17 and Hamilton County rules Rule 25

- 10, page 272.

7. As part of the rule making process, is there a requirement to do a cost to business assessment?

A cost to business assessment is not necessarily required, but we prepared a cost assessment as part of this rulemaking (see below). Over time, the cost of decommissioning an existing Stage II

system (varies, but up to $10,000) is offset by reduced maintenance and testing costs (~$3,000 per
year).

# Stage II Vapor Recovery Decommissioning Cost Estimates
April 24, 2015

Activity Estimated Cost Source

Estimated decommissioning cost
for one single

- hose dispenser ~$800 TDEC estimate based on
Wisconsin vendor pricing (January 2013)

Estimated decommissioning cost

for one multi

- hose dispenser (3
hoses) ~$1,300 TDEC estimate based on
Wisconsin vendor pricing (January 2013)

Estimated decommissioning cost
for a facility with six multi

- hose dispensers (3 hoses each) ~$5,500 TDEC estimate based on
Wisconsin vendor pricing ( January 2013)

Decommissioning cost estimated
by Georgia EPD $1,500

- $2,500 Georgia EPD

Decommissioning cost for
example site with 6 single

- hose,
multiproduct dispensers with
vacuum assist system and four
tanks: 2 manifolded regular
unleaded, 1 premium, and 1

diesel $4,600 ($1,132 labor, $468 testing, $3,000 new hardware) Georgia Tank and Environmental

Contractors Association

Estimated decommissioning cost
for one single

- hose dispenser ~$600 TN Fuel and Convenience Store

Association, Tri

- Star Energy

Estimated decommissioning cost

for one multi

- hose dispenser ~$1,650 TN Fuel and Convenience Store

Association, Tri

- Star Energy

Estimated decommissioning cost
for a facility with six multi

- hose
dispensers ~$10,000 TN Fuel and Convenience Store

Associatio n, Tri

- Star Energy

Range of decommissioning costs:
One single

- hose dispenser: $600

- $800

One multi

- hose dispenser: $1,300

- $1,650

Six multi

- hose dispensers: $4,600

- $10,000

# Cost Estimates for Retaining Stage II Vapor Recovery
April 24, 2015

Activity Estimated Cost Source

Cost of installing Stage II vapor

recovery equipment at new GDFs (includes USTs, associated
piping, pumps and ancillary equipment) $20,000 to $60,000 EPA 2



### Cost of installing Stage II vapor

recovery equipment at new

GDFs (includes USTs, associated
piping, pumps and ancillary equipment) $25,000 Georgia EPD 3



### Annual cost to maintain existing Stage II systems (average size
GDF) $3,000 per year EPA

Maintenance and testing of

Stage II systems ~$3,000 Annually Georgia EPD stake holder
meeting, April 2013

Cost of additional Stage II
dispensers at an existing facility ~$3,200 Georgia EPD stakeholder
meeting, April 2013

Cost Stage II systems at a new facility ~$32,000 Georgia EPD stakeholder
meeting, April 2013

2 U. S. EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures . August 7, 2012.

3 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch, Draft Revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan for the Removal of Georgia Rule 391

- 3

- 1

- .02(zz) Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

– Stage II

. Septe mber 25, 2014.