[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6657-6659]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-30]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1091; FRL-8525-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Kentucky:
Tennessee Valley Authority Paradise Facility State Implementation Plan
Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a source specific State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on October 19, 2007, by
the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ). The purpose of the SIP
revision is to remove from the Kentucky State Implementation Plan a
previous source-specific revision approved by EPA on August 25, 1989,
and relating to the redistribution of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions from Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) Paradise Steam
Plant located in Muhlenburg County, Kentucky. This proposal includes
SO2 limits that are more stringent than the current SIP-
approved statewide SO2 limits for electric generating units
(EGUs). Consistent with Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR)
approved into the SIP, affected facilities located in Muhlenberg County
are subject to an SO2 emission limit of 3.1 pounds per
million British Thermal Units (lbs/mmBTU). The 3.1 lbs/mmBTU limit was
approved by EPA in June 24, 1983, as part of Kentucky's control
strategy for attaining and maintaining the primary and secondary
SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in
Muhlenberg County. This SIP revision proposes a limit of 1.2 lbs/mmBTU
for all three units with limited bypass emissions of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU for
scrubber maintenance on Unit 3.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 6, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number, ``EPA-
R04-OAR-2007-1091,'' by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: lesane.heidi@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1091,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ``EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-1091.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9074. Ms. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at
lesane.heidi@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
II. What is the Background for EPA's Proposed Action?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve a source-specific SIP revision
submitted by KDAQ on October 19, 2007. The purpose of the SIP revision
is to change and update the Kentucky SIP with regard to applicable
SO2 emissions limits for the TVA Paradise Plant located in
Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. The new proposed limits are 1.2 lbs/mmBTU
for all three units with limited bypass emissions of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU
during scrubber maintenance on Unit 3. A previous source-specific SIP
revision was approved by EPA on August 25, 1989 (54 FR 35326). The
proposed change is consistent with Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter
224.10-100, and associated KAR including 401 KAR 61:015, Appendix B.
These KAR, which are SIP-approved, allow for an SO2 emission
limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU at the TVA Paradise facility. The 3.1 lbs/mmBTU
limit described in 401 KAR 61:015 was approved by EPA on June 24, 1983
(48
[[Page 6658]]
FR 28988) as part of Kentucky's control strategy for attaining and
maintaining the primary SO2 NAAQS in Muhlenberg County. The
current source specific revision proposes SO2 limits for TVA
Paradise that are more stringent than those approved in August 25,
1989, however, 401 KAR 61:015 would be the backstop (i.e., emissions
could not exceed those allowed pursuant to 401 KAR 61:015).
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Action?
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants
considered to be harmful to public health and the environment. The CAA
established two types of NAAQS: Primary and secondary NAAQS. Primary
NAAQS are set in order to protect public health, including the health
of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
Secondary NAAQS are set in order to protect public welfare, including
protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops,
vegetation, and buildings. EPA has established primary and secondary
NAAQS for the criteria pollutant SO2. Muhlenberg County,
Kentucky, the location of the TVA Paradise facility, is currently
designated as attainment for the primary and secondary SO2
NAAQS, as well as all of the other NAAQS.
In 1978, EPA designated Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, as
nonattainment for primary and secondary SO2 NAAQS (43 FR
8962, March 3, 1978). In 1979 Kentucky submitted a SIP revision
including its SO2 control strategy, which provided for
attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. As part of that
submittal, the control strategy used dispersion modeling (mathematical
formulations to characterize the atmospheric processes that disperse a
pollutant emitted by a source) to show that more stringent SO2
emission limits at several sources, including the TVA Paradise
facility, would be adequate to insure attainment of both the primary
and secondary SO2 NAAQS.
Kentucky's 1979 SO2 control strategy SIP submittal
included state regulations establishing SO2 emissions limits
for steam generating plants in every county. Specifically, 401 KAR
61:015, sets the SO2 limit for each unit within a county
depending on the type of fuel used by the unit and the rated heat input
capacity for the specific unit. For facilities with a maximum rated
heat input capacity of 21,000 BTU or more, like the TVA Paradise
facility, the applicable SO2 limit, pursuant to 401 KAR
61:015, is 3.1 lbs/mmBTU on a 24-hour average. In addition to 401 KAR
61:015, the 1979 control strategy submittal also included a compliance
schedule for TVA Paradise to achieve the 3.1 lb/mmBTU limit at each
unit by September 1, 1982. Pursuant to the terms of a federal private
party consent decree (Tennessee Thoracic Society v. Freeman, Case No.
77-3286, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee)
negotiated in 1979 and signed in December 1980, the TVA Paradise
facility was allowed to meet a limit of 5.2 lbs/mmBTU limit at Unit 3
until December 1, 1983, at which time the facility was required to meet
the limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU, pursuant to 401 KAR 61.015.
On October 31, 1980, EPA took final action to approve Kentucky's
SO2 control strategy SIP, including approval of the 3.1 lb/
mmBTU SO2 limit established by 401 KAR 61:015 (45 FR 72153).
Subsequently, on June 24, 1983, EPA approved a request by Kentucky to
redesignate Muhlenberg County to attainment for the primary
SO2 NAAQS (48 FR 28988).
In 1987, TVA requested a redistribution of allowable SO2
emissions at the Paradise facility such that each of its three units
would have a specific limit that when considered together, would be
equivalent to 3.1 lbs/mmBTU averaged over a 24-hour period (as required
by the KAR). The TVA Paradise facility has two units (Units 1 and 2)
with an electric generating capacity of approximately 704 megawatts
(MW) each, and a third unit (Unit 3) with an electric generating
capacity of approximately 1150 MW. The 1987 submittal included an
equivalency demonstration that explained how the unit-specific limits
were equivalent to the KAR requirement of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU. As described
in the 1987 submittal, for Units 1 and 2, the SO2 the
emission limit would be 1.2 lbs/mmBTU, with a maximum heat input of
6,305 mmBTU/hour, and for Unit 3, the SO2 emission limit
would be 5.4 lbs/mmBTU, with a maximum heat input of 10,390 mmBTU/hour.
Kentucky's 1987 submittal also contained a final state operating permit
issued to TVA for the Paradise facility (permit number 0-87-012) which
included these new limits.
On August 25, 1989, EPA took final action to approve the source-
specific SIP revision for TVA Paradise into the Kentucky SIP (54 FR
35326). EPA's approval of that revision was based on EPA's finding that
the SO2 limits in addition to the heat input rates, made the
redistribution equivalent to the SIP-approved 3.1 lbs/mmBTU limit.
TVA's 1987 operating permit included the SO2 limits
described in the 1989 SIP revision. The actions summarized above,
including the 1989 final action and accompanying equivalency
determination are available in the Docket for the current proposed
action.
In 1998, EPA approved Kentucky's request to redesignate Muhlenberg
County as attainment for the secondary SO2 NAAQS (63 FR
44143, August 18, 1998). Dispersion modeling performed by EPA and
Kentucky demonstrated that the existing measures approved in the SIP
(including the TVA Paradise source-specific SO2 emissions
distribution) were adequate to protect the secondary SO2
NAAQS.
On October 19, 2007, Kentucky submitted to EPA a source-specific
SIP revision requesting that the 1989 source-specific redistribution of
SO2 emission limits for TVA Paradise be revised to account
for new control technology at the facility. Kentucky proposed that the
TVA Paradise facility be subject to specific limits discussed below
which are more stringent than the backstop of Kentucky's SIP-approved
KAR, requiring a 3.1 lbs/mmBTU. The rationale for the 1989
redistribution was the lack of control measures (a scrubber) on Unit 3.
TVA has now installed a wet scrubber on Unit 3, and as a result, the
1989 redistribution is no longer necessary for the facility to comply
with the SIP-approved 401 KAR 61:015. At this time, Units 1 and 2 are
equipped with Venturi-type limestone slurry flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) scrubbers, and Unit 3 is equipped with an electrostatic
precipitator and a wet limestone FGD scrubber. The facility is now able
to meet (and exceed) the requirements of 401 KAR 61:015 without a unit-
specific redistribution.
As described by Kentucky in the October 2007 SIP submittal, due to
the installation of control technology at the facility, it is now
possible for the Paradise facility to meet not only the current KAR,
but even further control the facility to meet a lower limit. Therefore,
Kentucky proposed that the facility continue to meet an SO2
emissions limit of 1.2 lbs/mmBTU for Units 1 and 2, and also meet a
limit of 1.2 lb/mmBTU on Unit 3 when the scrubber is operating. Because
Unit 3 has a ``single-module'' scrubber which cannot be operated during
maintenance events, Kentucky proposed that the facility meet the SIP-
approved KAR limit of 3.1 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average during the
limited times when the scrubber is bypassed for maintenance. Provisions
limiting the number of hours when the scrubber can be by-passed are
conditioned in the most recent title V operating permit issued on
November 1, 2007, and shall
[[Page 6659]]
not exceed 720 hours in any 12-month period. Kentucky's October 2007
source-specific SIP revision therefore proposes SO2 limits
for the Paradise facility that are more stringent than the SIP-approved
KAR. Kentucky's SIP submittal includes technical support information
comparing the limits required by KAR with the current proposed source-
specific revision. This information is available in the Docket for this
proposed action. The new limits will be included in a CAA title V
operating permit.
Consistent with Section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve
this revision to the Kentucky SIP. The revision would supersede the
1989 source-specific SIP revision for the TVA Paradise facility and
subject the facility to the specific SO2 emission limits
discussed above.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve a source-specific SIP revision
submitted by KDAQ in October 2007 regarding the SO2 emission
limits for the three units at the TVA Paradise Facility. This proposal
would supersede the 1989 source-specific SIP revision and subject TVA
Paradise to emission limits of 1.2 lbs/mmBTU at Units 1, 2, and 3,
except that Unit 3 may meet the limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU that is
established in 401 KAR 61:015 during the limited times when the Unit 3
scrubber is bypassed for maintenance. Now that TVA has installed the
control technology necessary to achieve the KAR limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU
at all three units of the Paradise facility, the previous
redistribution is no longer necessary. This proposed revision is
consistent with Section 110 of the CAA because it will continue to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely approves Kentucky law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under Kentucky law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by Kentucky law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a Kentucky rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
Commonwealth to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 24, 2008
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E8-2089 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P