EPA-450/3-75-041
APRIL 1974
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
TENNESSEE
AS REQUIRED
BY
hi i!-: . • ': : si -i a -
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-041
APRIL 1974
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
TENNESSEE
AS REQUIRED
BY
THE ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EPA-450/3-75-041
TENNESSEE
ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
SECTION IV - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING TASK FORCE:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
1421 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Energy and Environmental Systems Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois 60439
(EPA-IAG-D5-0463)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 1975
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
TENNESSEE
Required by the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 TENNESSEE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW 6
2.1 Summary 6
2.2 Air Quality Setting for the State of Tennessee 10
2.2.1 Tennessee Air Quality Control Regions 10
2.2.2 Tennessee Ambient Air Quality Standards 10
2.2.3 Tennessee Air Quality Status. 10
2.2.4 Tennessee Emissions Summary 13
2.3 Background on the Development of the Current
State Implementation Plan 13
2.3.1 General Information 13
2.3.2 Particulate Control Strategy 14
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy 14
m
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
FOR
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed report is the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) response to Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Section IV requires EPA to review each
State Implememtation Plan (SIP) to determine if control regulations for
stationary fuel combustion can be revised without interfering with the
attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). In addition to requiring that EPA advise the state as to whether
control regulations can be revised, ESECA provides that EPA must approve
or disapprove any revised regulations relating to fuel burning stationary
sources within three months after they are submitted to EPA by the states.
The states may, as under the Clean Air Act of 1970, initiate State Implemen-
tation Plan revisions; ESECA does not, however, require states to change
any existing plan.
Congress has intended that this report provide the state with
information on excessively restrictive control regulations. The intent of
ESECA is that SIPs, wherever possible, be revised in the interest of con-
serving low-sulfur fuels or converting to coal, sources which burn oil or
natural gas. EPA's objective in carrying out the SIP reviews, therefore,
has been to try to determine if emissions from certain combustion sources
may be increased without interfering with the attainment and maintenance
of standards. If so, it may be possible through altered resource allocations
to effect significant "clean fuel savings" in a manner consistent with both
environmental and national energy needs.
In many respects, the ESECA SIP reviews parallel the implementation
of EPA's policy on clean fuels. Under the Clean Fuels Policy, implementation
plans have been reviewed with a view to saving low sulfur fuels. Where the
primary sulfur dioxide air quality standards will not be exceeded, states
have been encouraged to either defer attainment of secondary standards or
to revise the S0£ emission regulations. The states have also been asked to
discourage large-scale shifts from coal to oil where this could be done
without jeopardizing the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
1
-------
To date, this activity has involved only those states with the
largest clean fuels savings potentials. Several of these states have revised
or are currently in the process of revising their S02 regulations. These
states are generally in the eastern half of the United States. ESECA, how-
ever, requires the analysis of potentially over-restrictive regulations in
all 55 states and territories. In addition, the current reviews address
the attainment and maintenance of all the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
The adoption of emission limitations which may, in some areas of the
states, be overly restrictive (or not restrictive enough) resulted largely
from the use of the "example region" approach along with analyses which
considered the "hot spots" of an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) rather
than the entire region. This type of approach was offered in EPA guidelines
for plan development when states were preparing their original plans. Many
states, through concurrence with EPA, adopted the example region approach,
largely because of the short timetable dictated by the Clean Air Act. Also,
in most cases, the original SIPs were designed to attain and maintain the
original NAAQS, some of which have since been designated as "guides" only
or actually rescinded. However, many states adopted and retained the
original federal standards or, in a few cases, adopted more restrictive
state standards, and these served as the basis on which their SIPs were
approved. As a result, the requirements of many state plans conflict with
legitimate national energy concerns, and thus a review of the State Imple-
mentation Plans is a logical follow-up to EPA's initial appraisal (1972) of
the SIPs. At the time, SIPs were approved by EPA if they demonstrated the
attainment of the original NAAQS or the more stringent state air quality
standards. Also, at that time an acceptable method for formulating control
strategies was the use of an example region for demonstrating the attainment
of the standards.
The example region concept permitted a state to identify the most
polluted air quality control region and adopt control regulations which would
be adequate to attain the NAAQS in that region. In using an example region,
it was assumed that NAAQS would be attained in the other AQCRs of the state
if the control regulations were applied to similar sources. But use of an
example region can result in excessive controls, especially in the utiliza-
tion of clean fuels, for areas of the state where sources would not
2
-------
otherwise contribute to NAAQS violations. For example, a control strategy
based on a particular region or source can result in a regulation requiring
one percent sulfur oil to be burned statewide, even though the use of three
percent sulfur coal would be adequate to attain NAAQS in some locations.
EPA anticipates that a number of states will use the review
findings to assist them in deciding whether or not to revise portions of
their State Implementation Plans. However, it is most important for such
states to recognize the limitations of the present review. The findings of
this report are by no means conclusive and are neither intended nor adequate
to be the sole basis for SIP revisions; they do, however, represent EPA's
best judgment and effort in complying with the ESECA requirements. The time
and resources which EPA has had to prepare the reports has not permitted
the consideration of growth, economics, and control strategy tradeoffs. Also,,
there has been only limited dispersion modeling data available by which to
address individual point source emissions. Where the modeling data for
specific sources was found, however, it was used in the analysis.
The data upon which the reports' findings are based is the most
currently available to the federal government. However, EPA believes that
the states possess the best information for developing revised plans. The
states have the most up-to-date air quality and emissions data, a better
feel for growth, and the fullest understanding for the complex problems
facing them in the attainment and maintenance of air quality. Therefore,
those states desiring to revise a plan are encouraged to verify and, in
many instances, expand the modeling and monitoring data used to support
EPA's findings. States are encouraged to consider the overall impact which
the potential relaxation of overly restrictive emissions regulations for
combustion sources might have on their future control programs. This may
include air quality maintenance, prevention of significant deterioration,
increased TSP, NOX, and HC emissions which occur in fuel switching, and
other potential air pollution situations.
Although the enclosed analysis has attempted to address the attain-
ment of all the NAAQS, most of the review has focused on total suspended
particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SOg) emissions. This is
because stationary fuel combustion sources constitute the greatest source
of SO emissions and are a major source of TSP emissions.
-------
The following are the principle findings for the State of Tennessee
(Air Quality Control Regions are displayed in Figure 1-1):
• The State has adopted the federal National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for particulate matter and SCL. In addition, the
State has retained the former federal secondary annual S02
standard and has a secondary 24-hour S02 standard which is
slightly more stringent than the federal primary S02 standard.
• The original particulate and sulfur dioxide emission limitations
were developed under the example region concept. In November of
1973 the sulfur dioxide fuel combustion regulations were revised,
based upon individual analyses for each major power generating
facility. EPA approved this revised regulation as a plan revision
in August of 1974 except for the Kingston Steam Plant, located
in Roane County and the Johnsonville Steam Plant, located in
Humphreys County where the original emission limit remains in
effect.
• Within the framework of this limited analysis, there appears
little margin for relaxing particulate fuel combustion emission
regulations in any of the Tennessee AQCR's, as all AQCR's in
the State report violations of the particulate NAAQS.
t Based on modeling results and reported air quality violations,
no potential exists for S02 regulation relaxation in the
Tennessee portion of the Eastern Tennessee-Southwestern
Virginia Interstate (#207) AQCR. In the Middle Tennessee
Interstate (#208), modeling results for major fuel combus-
tion sources indicate a potential for regulation relaxation in
all areas except in the vicinity of the Johnsonville Steam
Plant in Humphreys County. Based on reported air quality data,
the potential for regulation revision exists in the Metropolitan
Memphis Interstate (#18), Tennessee Valley-Cumberland Mountains
Interstate (#7), Chattanooga Interstate (#55) and the Western
Tennessee Intrastate (#209). However, since only limited model-
ing data is currently available for these regions, a detailed
analysis is necessary to determine the degree of relaxation and
its consequences in Clean Fuels Savings.
4
-------
WESTERH
TENNESSEE
INTRASTATE
\ (#209)
TENNESSEE RIVER VALLEY
CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS
INTERSTATE (ALABAMA-TENNESSEE)
(#18)
CHATTANOOGA INTERSTATE
(GEORGIA- TENNESSEE)
(#55)
(#207)
Figure 1-1. Tennessee Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs)
-------
2.0 TENNESSEE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW
2.1 SUMMARY
A revision of fuel combustion source emissions regulations will depend
on many factors. For example:
• Does the state have air quality standards which are more
stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the state have emission limitation regulations for
control of (1) power plants, (2) industrial sources, (3)
area sources?
• Did the state use an example region approach for demon-
strating the attainment of NAAQS ojr more stringent state
standards?
• Has the state inditiated action to modify combustion
source emission regulations for fuel savings; i.e., under
the Clean Fuels Policy?
• Are there proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number of monitoring
sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date for NAAQS?
• Based on (1973) air quality data, are there reported
violations of NAAQS?
t Based on (1973) air quality data, are there indications
of a tolerance for increasing emissions?
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
sources a relatively small portion of the regional total?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion sources
show a potential for a regulation revision?
t Is there a significant clean fuels savings potential in
the region?
This SIP review has answered these questions based on an overall
evaluation of EPA's current information. Based on these answers, each AQCR has
been assessed as good, marginal, or poor candidate for regulation relaxation.
Table 2-1 summarizes the conclusions of this State Implementation Plan Review
and gives the overall candidacy assessment for each AQCR.
-------
The ratings which are shown in Table 2-1 were determined by assessing
the following criteria:
Good
1) Adequate number of
air monitoring
sites
2) No NAAQS violations
3) Attainment data of
1975 for NAAQS in
the SIP
4) No proposed AQMAs
5) Modeling results
show a potential
for regulation
revision
Poor
Marginal
1) Violation of NAAQS 1) No air quality data or
2) Attainment data for insufficient number of
NAAQS later than monitoring sites
1975 2) Inconsistent "indicators"
3) Proposed AQMA
4) Model results show
no potential for
regulation
revision
For an AQCR to be rated as a good candidate, all of the criteria listed
under "Good" would have to be satisfied. The overriding factor in rating an
AQCR as a poor candidate is a violation of either the primary or secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards during 1973. However, if any of the
other conditions listed under "Poor" exists, the AQCR would still receive that
rating. The predominant reason for a marginal rating is a lack of sufficient
air quality data. In Priority III regions, air monitoring was not required
during 1973; therefore there are little if any data with which to determine
the current air quality status. Marginal ratings are also given when there
are varying or inconsistent "indications".
-------
Table 2-1. State Implementation Plan Review (Summary)
TENNESSEE
RIVER VALLEY
-CUMBERLAND METROPOLITAN
EASTERN
TENNESSEE
-SOUTHWESTERN MIDDLE
WESTERN
"INDICATORS"
• Does the State have air quality standards
which are more stringent than NAAQS?
• Does the State have emission limiting regu-
lations for control of:
1. Power plants
2. Industrial sources
3. Area sources
• Did the State use an example region approach
for demonstrating the attainment of NAAQS or
more stringent State standards?
• Has the State initiated action to modify
combustion source emission regulations for fuel
savings; i.e., under the Clean Fuels Policy?
• Are there proposed Air Quality Maintenance
Areas?
• Are there indications of a sufficient number
of monitoring sites within a region?
• Is there an expected 1975 attainment date
for NAAQS? 5
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
does air quality meet NAAQS?
• Based on reported (1973) Air Quality Data,
are there indications of a tolerance for
increasing emissions?
• Are the total emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources lower than those of other
sources?
• Do modeling results for specific fuel combustion
sources show a potential for a regulation revision?
• Based on the above indicators, what is the
potential for revising fuel combustion source
emission limiting regulations?
• Is there a significant Clean Fuels Saving
potential in the region?
MOUNTAINS MEMPHIS CHATTANOOGA VIRGINIA TENNESSEE T^.c^lr
INTERSTATE INTERSTATE INTERSTATE INTERSTATE INTRASTATE INTRASTATE
STATE AQCR # 7 AQCR # 18 AQCR # 55 AQCR # 207 AQCR # 208 AQCR # 209
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES1
YES
YES
YES
4
YES
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NDA
Poor
N/A
NO
YES
2
YES
YES
NO
NDA
Good
NDA
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
Poor
N/A
NO
YES
2
YES
YES
NO
YES
Good
NDA
TSP S02
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
Poor
N/A
NO
YES
2
YES
YES
NO
NDA
Good
NDA
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NDA
Poor
N/A
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO •
HO
Poor
NO
TSP S02
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NDA
Poor
N/A
NO
YES
2
YES
YES
NO
YES
Good
YES
TSP S02
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NDA
Poor
N/A
NO
NDA
3
NDA
N/A
NO
NDA
Margi-
lal
NDA
CO
-------
Table 2-1. State Implementation Plan Review (Summary) (Continued)
The State has secondary annual and 24-hour standards which are more stringent than the
federal primary standards.
2
Presently meeting standards
2
Attainment schedule indicates region is below standards; current data is unavailable
4
The revised control strategy considered modeling for individual power plants
Based on approved attainment dates in the Federal Register (May 31, 1972)
NDA = No data available
10 N/A = Not available
-------
2.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
2.2.1 Tennessee Air Quality Control Regions
The State of Tennessee is divided into six Air Quality Control Regions
as shown in Figure 1-1. There are four interstate and two intrastate
regions. Only two regions -- the Tennessee River Valley-Cumberland Mountains
Interstate (#7) and the Western Tennessee Intrastate (#209) -- have a rela-
tively small population density (less than 75 people per square mile).
Based on present conditions and growth projections for the state, two
counties in Tennessee -- Davidson County in the Middle Tennessee Intrastate
(#208) and Hamilton County in the Chattanooga Interstate (#55) -- have
been designated as proposed Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs) for
particulate matter. No Tennessee counties have been proposed as AQMAs
for sulfur dioxide.
2.2.2 Tennessee Ambient Air Quality Standards
All the federal primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulates, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide
apply in Tennessee. In addition the state has an annual sulfur dioxide
standard equivalent to the old federal annual secondary sulfur dioxide
standard which has been rescinded by EPA. Tennessee also has a secondary
24 hr S02 standard of 364 ;jg/M . These state S02 standards are more
stringent than the present federal primary standards. Tennessee air
quality standards are summarized in Table 2-2. This review considers
only the attainment of the federal NAAQS.
2.2.3 Tennessee Air Quality Status
Based on data in the SAROAD data banks as of June, 1974, both the
annual and 24 hour particulate NAAQS are being violated in all regions
except for the Eastern Tennessee - Southwestern Virginia Interstate (#207)
and the Western Tennessee Intrastate (#209). In these two AQCR's, the
24 hour NAAQS is being violated.
S02 air quality data is unavailable for the Western Tennessee Intra-
state (#209) and no annual data is available for the Tennessee River Valley-
Cumberland Mountains Interstate (#7), Metropolitan Memphis Interstate (#18)
10
-------
NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON
CHATTANOOGA
SCALE
O 1O 20 3O 40 SO MILES
I • I I I I -I
LEGEND
DESIGNATION ® Places of lOO.OOO or more inhabitants
O Places of 25,000 to 50,000 inhabitants outside SMSA's
Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
Figure 2-1. Proposed Tennessee Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs)
-------
Table 2-2. Tennessee Ambient Air Quality Standards
All Concentrations in yg/nT
Federal
State
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Total Suspended
Annual
75 (G)
60 (G)
75 (G)
60 (G)
Particulate
24 -Hour
260a
150a
260a
15 Oa
Sulfur Oxides
Annual 24 -Hour 3 -Hour
80 (A) 365a
1300a
80 (A) 365a
60 (A)b 364a 1300a
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
100 (A)
100 (A)
100 (A)
100 (A)
to be exceeded more than once per year.
Was adopted based on original EPA policy which was rescinded July, 1973
(A) Arithmetic mean
(G) Geometric mean
-------
and the Eastern Tennessee - Southwestern Virginia Interstate (#207). The
only reported violation of any standard occurred in the Eastern Tennessee-
Southwestern Virginia Interstate (#207), where the 24 hour S02 NAAQS
is exceeded.
2.2.4 Tennessee Emissions Summary
Tennessee fuel combustion sources account for less than 50% of the
total particulate emissions in all AQCR's except for the Middle Tennessee
Intrastate (#208). The largest fraction of particulate emissions from
fuel burning in Tennessee comes from industrial/commercial/institutional
point sources in the Chattanooga Interstate (#55) and the Eastern Tennessee-
Southwestern Virginia Interstate (#207), area sources in the Tennessee
River Valley - Cumberland Mountains Interstate (#7), Metropolitan Memphis
Interstate (#18) and the Western Tennessee Intrastate (#209) and power
plants in the Middle Tennessee Intrastate (#208).
In all AQCR's in which there are Tennessee power plants, these sources
contribute over 50% of the total S02 emissions. For regions without power
plants, the largest fraction of Tennessee fuel combustion S02 emissions
emanate from area sources in the Tennessee River Valley - Cumberland
Mountains Interstate (#7) and the Western Tennessee Intrastate (#209) and
industrial/commercial/institutional point sources in the Chattanooga
Interstate (#55).
2.3 BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ,
2.3.1 General Information
The example region approach was used to develop the original Tennessee
State Implementation Plan. The Eastern Tennessee - Southwestern Virginia
Interstate (#207) was selected as the example region for both suspended
particulates and sulfur dioxide. The control stragegy for particulates
was tested with the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) and the proportional
model. The AQDM was utilized in Knoxville and Nashville while the pro-
portional model was applied in Memphis and Chattanooga. As for sulfur
dioxide, the AQDM and/or the proportional model were applied, depending
on the individual counties within the example region. The S02 control strategy
was revised in November of 1973, with the revision based on the AQDM, pro-
portional modeling and the analysis of individual power plants.
13
-------
2.3.2 Particulate Control Stragegy
The control stragegy for participate emissions from fuel combustion
sources consists of enforcing Section 2 of Chapter VI of the Tennessee
Air Pollution Control Regulation. The regulations are designed to meet
the annual secondary NAAQS throughout Tennessee and consist of two sections-
one for existing and one for new sources. The pertinent portions of the
regulations are summarized in Table 2-3 and Figure 2-2.
2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide Control Straqeqy
The original control strategy for SOp fuel combustion emissions was
amended by the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board in November of 1973.
The revised strategy assigns each county in the state a classification of
either Class I, Class II or Class III based on the following criteria:
Class I Class II Class III
Greater than From-to Less than
Annual arithmetic mean Cug/M3) 100 60-100 60
24 hour maximum (.ug/M3) 455 260-455 260
3 hour maximum (xig/M ) 1300
A 3
Any concentration above 1300 pg/M
Emmision standards for each class of counties are as follows:
Class IA 1.6 lb/106Btu
Class I 1.6 lb/106 Btu
Class II 3.0 lb/106 Btu
Class III 4.0 lb/106 Btu
The classification system placed Polk County in Class IA; Maury, Roane and
Sullivan Counties in Class I; Humphreys County in Class II; and all other
counties in Class III. Control strategy testing was performed for each Class
IA, I and II county, as well as for each individual power plant. EPA approved
this revision except for boilers and furnaces with a maximum rated heat input
exceeding 1000 million Btu per hour and located in Roane and Humphreys Counties,
where the old regulation of 1.2 Ib S02 /106 Btu heat input still aoolies.
Table 2-3 presents the relevant portions of the regulations.
14
-------
Table 2-3. Tennessee Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
Parti oil ate Matter
A. Choice of Standards - Existing Fuel Burning Equipment
The owner or operator of existing fuel burning equipment may
elect to be regulated by emission limits established by either
Subsection 1 or 2 of this section unless otherwise indicated.
After July 1, 1975, all existing fuel burning installations
shall be required to comply with the emission regulations as
given in Subsection 2. The owner or operator of a facility
in existence on or before the effective date of this regulation
must designate, in writing, to the Technical Secretary, not
later than July 1, 1972, which Subsection is selected. In the
event the owner or operator makes no selection within the pre-
scribed time period, Subsection 2 will be applicable.
1. Diffusion Equation
For existing installations up to and including 4000 million
Btu per hour total plant heat input, the maximum allowable
particulate emission shall be as determined by the following
equation, provided, however, that no emission in excess of
six tenths (0.6) pounds per million Btu shall be permitted
from any installation. Such limit shall be achieved by
August 9, 1973.
n _ 20650 a h
gO-75
in which D is the maximum allowable particulate emission
in pounds per million Btu heat input, h is the stack height
in feet, a is a diminsion'less factor of 0.67 for stacks
of 200 feet height and less, and 0.80 for stacks in excess
of 200 feet, and Q is the combined heat input in Btu per hour
to the entire fuel burning installation.
15
-------
Table 2-3. Tennessee Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
(Continued)
When more than one stack of the same height serves a given
installation, the allowable emission limit as determined
by the above equation shall be further reduced by dividing
the emission limit so obtained by n^-25, where n is the
number of stacks of equal height. Stacks varying in height
may be construed as being of equal height provided a weighted
average stack height is used in computing the allowable
emission limit.'
2. Heat Input
The maximum allowable particulate emission limits as given
in this Subsection are based upon the total plant rate of
input to one or more stacks.
For existing installations up to and including 4000 million
Btu per hour total plant heat input, the maximum allowable
particulate emission shall be determined from Figure 2-2,
existing curve, shall be achieved by August 9, 1973.
Emission limits for all existing fuel burning installations
in excess of 4000 million Btu per hour will be determined
by Figure 2-2, existing particulate curve, up to 10,000 million
Btu per hour heat input. Emission limits from existing
installations in excess of 10,000 million Btu per hour will
be determined from Figure 2-2. This allowable emission
standard must be attained on or before July 1, 1975.
B. New Fuel Burning Equipment
For fuel burning installations constructed after the effective
date of this regulation, the maximum allowable particulate emission
shall be determined from Figure 2-2, new particulate curve, based
upon the total plant rate of heat input to one or more stacks.
This allowable emission standard must be attained at the time such
fuel burning installation begins operation.
Sulfur Dioxide
A. On or after July 1, 1975, the owner or operator of an air contaminant
source located in a Class I County shall not cause, suffer, allow
or permit the emission from that source of sulfur oxides (calculated
as sulfur dioxide) in excess of 1.6 pounds per million Btu heat
input, maximum 2 hour average.
B. On or after July 1, 1975, the owner or operator of an air contaminant
source located in a Class II County shall not cause, suffer, allow
or permit the emission from that source of sulfur oxides (calculated
16
-------
Table 2-3. Tennessee Fuel Combustion Emission Regulations
(Continued)
as sulfur dioxide) in excess of 3.0 pounds per million Btu
heat input maximum 2 hour average.
C. On or after July 1, 1975, the owner or operator of an air contaminant
source located in a Class II I County shall not cause, suffer, allow
or permit the emission from that source of sulfur oxides (calculated
as sulfur dioxide) in excess of 4.0 pounds per million Btu heat
input, maximum 2 hour average.
D. After January 1, 1973, fuel burning installations with a rated
capacity of 250 million Btu per hour or less heat input, constructed
after April 3, 1972, shall not cause, suffer, allow or permit the
emission of sulfur oxides (calculated as sulfur dioxide) in excess
of those limits specified in A), B) and C) above.
E. After January 1, 1973, the owner or operator of an air contaminant
source with more than 250 million Btu per hour heat input, constructed
after April 3, 1972, shall not cause, suffer, allow or permit the
emission from that source of sulfur oxides (calculated as sulfur
dioxide) in excess of the following:
a. 0.08 Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour average,
when liquid fossil is burned.
b. 1.2 Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour average,
when solid fossil fuel is burned.
c. Where different fossil fuels are burned simultaneously in
any combination, the applicable standard shall be determined
by proration. Compliance shall be determined by using the
following formula:
Y(0.80) + 1(1.2)
X + Y + Z
where: X = % of total heat input derived from gaseous
fossil fuel
Y = % of total heat input derived from liquid
fossil fuel
Z = % of total heat input derived from solid
fossil fuel
17
-------
o.
(0
I
CO
vo
o
I/)
o
to
1
0)
2
(O
100 250
1000
10,000
Heat Input in 106 Btu/hr
Figure 2-2 Maximum Allowable Partlculate Emission
Standards for Fuel Burning Installations
18
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-041
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLBN REVIEW FOR TENNESSEE AS
REQUIRED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONATION ACT
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AU
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park.N.C., Regional Office IV, Atlanta, Georgia, and
Aroonne National Laboratory, Argnnnp, THinnis
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
.Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina ?7711
6. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
6. ABSTRACT
Section IV of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974,
(ESECA) requires EPA to review each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine
if revisions can be made to control regulations for stationary fuel combustion
sources without interfering with the attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards. This document, which is also required by Section
IV of ESECA, is EPA's report to the State indicating where regulations might be
revised.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
State Implementation Plans
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
21
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tills pagef
Unclassi
22. PRICE
IPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |