TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & CONSERVATION DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

MEMORANDUM DATE : Ju ly 16 , 2015 TO: USEPA Region 4 FROM: J eryl Stewart

- TAPCD SUBJECT: Update of Responses to Comments by USEPA Concerning Submitt ed SIP Revisions 

### Request to remove 1200 - 03 - 20 - .04(2) from the Tennessee SIP The only USEPA comment concerning the proposed removal of Division Rule 1200

- 03

- 20

- .04(2) from the current SIP was that Tennessee must address the applicability of Section 110(l) , Section 193 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which requires that an analysis to demonstrate compliance with Section 193 of the CAA will be necessary. A response was submitted as a part of the SIP package. To expand upon this the Division submit s as follows: The rationale behind the proposed rule revision is the fact that Division Rule 1200

- 03

- 20

- .04(2) is very old and requires the submittal of a quarterly report of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions for affected sources. The rule was adopted in 1979 wh en the only pollutants of concern were total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide and ambient air quality issues for those pollutants were generally attributable to excess source emissions. At that time there were no other periodic reporting requirem ents except for very large sources that were required to have continuous in

- stack monitoring systems. In the first sentence of the rule there is the requirement that all sources located in non

- attainment areas submit these reports. In the 1970’s the regu latory exemptions from the requirement to obtain a permit from this Division were much broader than at present. Changing conditions since 1979 have made the rule obsolete for the following reasons: 1. Subsequent to 1979 new regulations have been impleme nted that require the reporting of emissions and compliance requirements. Currently the Tennessee Title V program set forth in Division Rule 1200

- 03

- 9

- .02(11) specifies both the semi

- annual reporting requirement and the annual compliance certification req uirement for affected sources. The same rule requires the reporting of emissions from sources taking restrictions to remain below the applicability thresholds for Title V applicability. These are reported on an annual basis. In addition, the reporting r equirements of 40 CFR 63.10, which are applicable to all the source categories subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, utilize a semi

- annual reporting time period as the default value. Therefore, the quarterly reporting ti me frame required by Division Rule 1200

- 03

- 20

- .04(2) is not consistent with current time frames for the submittal of emissions reports. 2. The first sentence of the rule states that all sources located in non

- attainment areas submit these reports
. When this rule was written no consideration was given to the possibility of the many additional source categories that are currently regulated. In 1979, gasoline dispensing facilities, dry cleaners, and internal combustion engines in emergency service were unr egulated. Today existing reporting requirements as set forth in item 1 above will address any facility whose emissions could have any conceivable impact upon recognized ambient air quality standards. To require reporting from all minor sources, whose emi ssionswould have a negligible impact upon overall ambient air quality represents an unreasonable burden upon the sources and upon the Division to address the submitted data. 3. Subsequent to 1979 new regulations have been implemented that render t he reporting requirements of that Division Rule 1200

- 03

- 20

- .04(2) obsolete and redundant. The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to
- Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) contains requirements for (1) emergency notification in the event of an unplanned rele ase exceeding the reportable quantity of any designated chemical, (2) the submittal of hazardous chemical inventory information for facilities holding hazardous chemicals at an amount beyond specified thresholds, and (3) the requirement that manufacturing facilities that have specified chemicals beyond specified thresholds submit an annual toxic chemical release inventory. It should also be noted that the federal act addresses a significant number of sources whose normal air emissions are negligible and ar e not required to obtain an air emissions permit. There are two additional issues that support the removal of Rule 1200

- 03

- 20

- .04(2). They are as follows: First, the USEPA has recognized the obsolete nature of quarterly reporting in the Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction regulations promulgated in the Federal Register on February 12, 1999. That regulation allowed for the reporting of data from sources required to operate continuous in

- stack monitoring systems on a semi

- annual basis in lieu of the previously required quarterly basis so as to allow for consolidated reporting consistent with the reports discussed in Item 1 above. Without the deletion of Rule 1200

- 03

- 20

- .04(2) affected sources in Tennessee would not be able to avail themselves of this consolidated reporting requirement. I n addressing the requirements of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, The Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control declares that this proposed SIP revision will have no effect on any applicable requirement c oncerning attainment and reasonable further progress. . . or any other applicable requirement as it simply involves removing an obsolete and redundant reporting requirement from the SIP to avoid burdening sources with submitting duplicitous reports. In ad dressing the requirements of Section 193 of the Clean Air Act, The Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control declares that this proposed SIP revision is not a control requirement. While the original rule was in effect prior to November 15, 1990, the ori ginal rule only addresses the reporting of emissions and does not address any emissions reduction or emissions control requirements. Given that the original regulation has been superseded by newer, federally mandated, reporting requirements, deleting the original regulation will have no e ffect on the emissions of any air pollutant. In response to an information request from the USEPA Region 4 SIP group that acknowledged that while the newer regulations required periodic reports from both facilities subj ect to the Title V program and those facilities taking restrictions to remain below the applicability thres holds for Title V applicability , . The issue presented was the fact that removing this regulation from the Tennessee SIP would remove the requirement for “minor” sources could have an adverse impact upon ambient air quality. For operating permit purposes the Tennessee definition of “potential to emit” is identical to that found in 40 CFR 70. Facilities that restrain their “potential to emit” below the applicability thresholds for Title V applicability through the use of emissions control, hours restrictions, or other means are defined as “conditional major” facilities [synthetic minor] and have reporting requirements. In Tennessee “true minor” faci lities for purposes of operating permit permitting are defined as facilities whose potential emissions with no credit given for emission controls and assuming unlimited hours of operation are below the applicability thresholds for Title V applicability. T ennessee scrutinizes very closely all permit applicants claiming true minor status but with potential to emit levels very close to the Part 70 applicability thresholds. Here itshould be noted that for purposes of Part 70 rule applicability the threshold amounts of any substance designated as a “hazardous air pollutant” is ten tons for any single substance and twenty

- five tons for any combination of substances. For this reason facilities whose total emissions on the basis of annual tonnage are quite small may be classified as either a “major” source or a “conditional major” source. While Tennessee regulations do not generally require the submittal of periodic reports from “true minor” facilities, certain of these facilities are subject to federal regulati ons which do require such reporting. In addition, the provisions of 1200

- 03

- 1 8

- .02( 7 ) , which addresses facilities located in the ozone additional control areas, requires the submittal of annual reports of volatile organic compounds and/or nitrogen oxides from any facility located in the designated counties that have annual emissions of either pollutant of twenty five tons or more. More generally the provisions of 1200

- 03

- 10

- .02(1)(a) clearly state that “ t he Technical Secretary may require the owner or ope rator of any air contaminant source discharging air contaminants, at the expense of the owner or operator, to install, calibrate, operate, and maintain such monitoring equipment as the Technical Secretary shall prescribe; sample such emissions in accordanc e with methods as the Technical Secretary shall prescribe; establish and maintain such records; and make periodic emission reports
. While later sections of this regulation specifically address continuous in

- stack monitoring systems, the general language c ited above allows the Division to require the reporting of any emissions from a regulated facility. Thus, the Division has the ability to require reporting from any “true minor” facility whose emissions the Division considers could have any conceivable im pact upon recognized ambient air quality standards. In making this statement the Division must note that the requirement to keep records, contained in 1200

- 03

- 20

- .04( 1 ) remains unchanged and Division inspectors have the right to review those records anyti me that an issue is suspected. The Division would like to note that this action is consistent with a number of federal regulations addressing small (minor) facilities and set forth in 40 CFR 63 in that while the requirement exists to keep records, there i s no requirement to report. 

### Request to re vise 1200 - 03 - 10 - .02 in the Tennessee SIP The proposed revision to Division Rule 1200

- 03

- 10

- .02 is simply to allow facilities subject to the provisions of Title V (hence the reference to Division Rule 1200

- 03

- 9

- .02(11) which contains the Tennessee Title V regulations) to report data from continuous in

- stack monitoring systems with the Title V semi

- annual reports rather than quarterly as the current regulation requires. The rationale for this request is that t he quarterly timeframe was established in federal rules promulgated in the mid

- 1970’s, well before any Title V reporting requirements existed. The underlying federal rule upon which Division Rule 1200

- 03

- 10

- .02 is based in 40 CFR 51, Appendix P, Section 4 .1, which established the quarterly reporting time frame. This rule was last updated in 1986. The quarterly time frame for reporting excess emissions from continuous emission monitors required by the New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR 60) was set f orth in the original 40 CFR 60.7(c) promulgated in the 1970’s. In the 1990’s 40 CFR 60.7(c) was updated to allow for the reporting of this data on a semi

- annual basis to match the semi

- annual reporting requirements of Title V. N ote that Division Rule 120 0

- 03

- 10

- .02 does not apply to situations where a facility is required to conduct monitoring by federal regulations set forth in 40 CFR 60 or 40 CFR 63. It only applies to monitoring required by 40 CFR 51, Appendix P and other monitoring required by the s tate. T he USEPA has recognized the obsolete nature of quarterly reporting in the Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction regulations promulgated in the Federal Register on February 12, 1999. That regulation allowed for the reporting of data from so urces required to operate continuous in

- stack monitoring systems on a semi

- annual basis in lieu of the previously required quarterly basis so as to allow for consolidated reportingconsistent with the reports discussed in Item 1 above. Without the revisio n to Rule 1200

- 03

- 1 0

- .02 , affected sources in Tennessee would not be able to avail themselves of this consolidated reporting requirement. In addressing the requirements of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, The Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Contro l declares that this proposed SIP revision will have no affect on any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. . . or any other applicable requirement as it simply involves a revision of the time frame over which data i s reported to the Division. In addressing the requirements of Section 193 of the Clean Air Act, The Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control declares that this proposed SIP revision is not a control requirement. While the original rule was in effect p rior to November 15, 1990, the original rule only addresses the reporting of emissions and does not address any emissions reduction or emissions control requirements. Therefore, amending the original regulation will have no affect on the emissions of any air pollutant.