[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44434-44436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22340]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6147-4]


Kammer Power Plant; West Virginia; Stack Height Infeasibility 
Analysis

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice is to announce that EPA has informed the State of 
West Virginia that it does not accept the ``Kammer Plant Infeasibility 
Analysis'' dated January 5, 1995, as supplemented on April 28, 1995, as 
revised on February 8, 1996, and as clarified on June 29, 1998. EPA is 
publishing this notice to inform all interested parties that it 
disagrees with the State of West Virginia's decision to accept the 
``Kammer Plant Infeasibility Analysis'' prepared by the Ohio Power 
Company (OPC). EPA has determined that OPC has failed to demonstrate 
that it is not feasible to meet an emission limit equivalent to the new 
source performance standard (NSPS) applicable to electric utility steam 
generating units. The NSPS limit is presumed to be met in order to seek 
credit for having a tall stack. The credit for stack height in excess 
of good engineering practice (GEP) sought by OPC for the Kammer Plant 
in Moundsville, West Virginia, cannot be granted. This notice further 
informs all interested parties that any revision(s) to the West 
Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to EPA based upon 
technical analyses which rely upon acceptance of this ``Kammer Plant 
Infeasibilty Analysis'' will not meet the Clean Air Act's criteria for 
approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, 
Air Programs, Mailcode 3AP20, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 at (215) 
814-2104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Kammer Plant is a 630 MW, coal-fired 
power plant constructed in Marshall County, West Virginia in 1959. The 
Kammer Plant is owned and operated by Ohio Power Company (OPC), a 
subsidiary of American Electric Power (AEP). Kammer operates three 
coal-fired boilers and was built specifically to provide power to the 
Ormet Corporation aluminum production facility in nearby Hannibal, 
Ohio. High sulfur coal is currently delivered by barge from the nearby 
Shoemaker Mine of Consolidation Coal Company.
    In 1994, EPA began development of an enforcement case against OPC 
for the Kammer Plant's failure to comply with the applicable sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) emission limit in the West Virginia State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). On May 21, 1996, EPA and OPC entered into a 
modified partial consent decree which provided that a comprehensive 
SO2 SIP revision be developed for the Marshall County Area 
by November 1998. As part of that SIP development effort, West Virginia 
must address the stack height provisions of the Clean Air Act as they 
apply to the Kammer Plant.
    In the mid-1970s, OPC replaced two 600-foot stacks at the Kammer 
Plant with a single, 900-foot stack. According to EPA's stack height 
regulations, the 900-foot stack exceeds good engineering practice (GEP) 
design specifications. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, EPA developed 
stack height regulations to limit the common practice of using tall 
smokestacks to abate localized pollution problems without decreasing 
net emissions. According to the stack height rules OPC has two options 
with regard to this issue: (1) Accept the ``grandfathered'' creditable 
stack height of 600-feet for the Kammer Plant or (2) attempt to receive 
credit for some or all of the existing stack height above 600-feet. 
Determination of the creditable stack height is necessary for use as 
input into air quality dispersion modeling that will support the SIP 
revision establishing the allowable emission limits for the affected 
sources, including the Kammer Plant. OPC has chosen to seek credit for 
that portion of the stack that exceeds GEP in order to justify the 
approval of a higher allowable emission rate at the Kammer Plant.
    In order to obtain such credit, Ohio Power must satisfy the 
requirements of the federal and state stack height regulations that 
allow a source to rebut the presumptive new source performance 
standards (NSPS) emission limit when seeking credit for stack height 
above that height provided by the good engineering practice (GEP) 
formulae. Such a rebuttal is commonly termed an ``infeasibility 
analysis'' because the affected company presents operational and 
economic information to justify its contention that it is unable to 
meet the present industry standard for new sources (the NSPS) and that 
the emission limit is therefore ``infeasible'' for its source.
    On May 30, 1995, West Virginia submitted to EPA the ``Kammer Plant 
Infeasibility Analysis'' dated January 5, 1995, and supplemented on 
April 28, 1995, as prepared by OPC. West Virginia's submittal also 
included its decision to approve the analysis. On September 13 and 
October 20, 1995, EPA provided extensive and significant comments to 
West Virginia and OPC regarding the ``Kammer Plant Infeasibility 
Analysis.'' EPA suggested in its comments that OPC overstated the 
regional economic impacts that would occur if OPC pursued emission 
reductions at the Kammer Plant and that it erroneously presented 
economic forecasts of the costs of certain control options. On June 28, 
1996, West Virginia officially forwarded to EPA the ``Kammer Plant 
Infeasibility Analysis--Revision 1, February 8, 1996,'' as prepared by 
OPC, again along with the State's decision to approve the analysis.
    The original ``Kammer Plant Infeasibility Analysis'' and the 
revised analysis state that any alternative other than the status quo 
at the facility would be catastrophic to the regional economy and the 
viability of Ormet and the Shoemaker coal mines. EPA's review of the 
original and revised analyses indicate that West Virginia had not 
adequately supported this position. On October 17, 1997, EPA informed 
West Virginia that the June 28, 1996 Infeasibility Analysis--Revision 1 
was inadequate and would not be approved as part of, or as the basis 
of, any SIP revision for Kammer. EPA based this decision on the fact 
that in September 1996 AEP and Ormet entered into a new electric supply 
contract whereby the Kammer Plant will supply Ormet's needs only until 
the end of 1999. After 1999, Kammer will market its electricity

[[Page 44435]]

to other customers. The Infeasibility Analysis--Revision 1 does not 
reflect these future operating conditions at Kammer.
    On November 20, 1997, West Virginia stated to EPA that their 
approval of the infeasibility analysis was based upon the potential 
closure of the Shoemaker Mine, and the resultant loss of jobs to the 
local economy, as the probable result of any decision to require 
controls at the Kammer Plant. On January 20, 1998, West Virginia 
submitted AEP's Economic Analysis of Kammer Plant SO2 
Control Options to EPA. On February 6, 1998, EPA met with West 
Virginia, AEP, and other interested parties to present comments on the 
Economic Analysis of Kammer Plant SO2 Control Options. The 
EPA found that AEP had incorrectly specified the base case for the 
analysis and had equated feasibility with least cost. The EPA concluded 
that both the scrubbing and alternative fuel options were feasible.
    On June 29, 1998, West Virginia forwarded to EPA, along with its 
endorsement, a ``Response to Comments by USEPA on Economic Analysis of 
Kammer Plant SO2 Control Options,'' prepared by AEP and 
dated June 4, 1998. In their response, AEP revised the base costs as 
suggested by EPA. AEP emphasized that the most cost effective option 
for the Kammer Plant is to continue to use the coal from the Shoemaker 
Mine. AEP also stated that the incremental cost of electricity (c.o.e.) 
is a better indicator of the Kammer Plant's ability to remain 
profitable because the EPA metric of dollars per ton removed is not 
representative.
    AEP further pointed out that there would be no net change of total 
emissions of SO2 loaded to the atmosphere because of the 
provisions of the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air 
Act. AEP stated that the Kammer Plant would receive an allotment of 
23,775 tons (of SO2 emissions) under Phase II of the Acid 
Rain Program. AEP argued that if Kammer had to purchase allowances to 
equal the actual emissions in the future, those emissions would have to 
be reduced somewhere else. Or, conversely, if Kammer did not need to 
purchase the allowances the emissions would occur somewhere else.
    AEP also provide a table of control options and the associated 
cost, reproduced in the table, below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Incremental 
                                                                                                    (marginal)  
                                                     Levelized       Levelized    Average annual     levelized  
                     Option                           annual      annual cost of   SO2 reduction  annual per ton
                                                    incremental       removal       (tons/year)     cost of SO2 
                                                  C.O.E. ($1998)      ($1998)                       removal ($/ 
                                                                                                       ton)     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoemaker Coal (Base Case)......................              $0              $0               0              $0
Switch to 2.5 lb Coal in 2000...................         726,000      15,402,000          58,209             264
Switch to 2.5 lb Coal in 1998...................       3,179,000      20,593,000          71,144             401
Switch to 1.2 lb Coal...........................      16,635,000      41,124,000         100,046             710
Wet Lime Scrubber...............................      15,115,000      44,587,000         120,407             487
Limestone Scrubber..............................      13,877,000      43,391,000         120,577             461
Ammonia Scrubber................................      12,805,000      42,320,000         120,577             440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another point that AEP felt should be considered was the length of 
time to engineer, design, and install a scrubber, estimated to be three 
years. With a potential retirement date of 2008 there would be only 
eight years for capital recovery. AEP expressed concern about 
controlling costs in view of the possible requirement to install 
controls for nitrogen oxides.
    In addition AEP indicated that scrubber technology cannot be 
considered an option because it cannot assure air quality compliance 
under all operating conditions. Because, AEP argued, scrubber systems 
are subject to start-ups, shutdowns, upsets, and malfunction there will 
be times when the ambient air quality standards could be violated.
    Although West Virginia and AEP believe that the cost of electricity 
should be considered in evaluating infeasibility, by tradition and rule 
the EPA has relied upon an incremental cost of dollars per ton of 
pollutant reduced for evaluating alternative controls. The preamble to 
the stack height regulations states that EPA will use the use of Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for determining that the 
presumptive new source performance standard (NSPS) limitation cannot 
feasibly be met by an individual facility. The BART guidelines 
specifically identify dollars per ton removed as the metric to be used.
    The levelized annual per ton cost of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) removal estimates provided by AEP indicate that any of 
the scrubbing options are feasible. The BART guidelines identify cost 
effectiveness as the relevant factors to consider in determining 
whether specified controls are economically and technically feasible, 
not what is the least cost option. Furthermore, as was stated at the 
February 6, 1998, meeting, costs in excess of $1,000 per ton, sometimes 
substantially higher, have been determined to be reasonable. A decision 
to install a scrubber would allow the continued use of coal from the 
Shoemaker Mine and would ensure the preservation of the coal miners' 
jobs.
    As stated previously, AEP also pointed out that the total loading 
of sulfur would remain the same in that the allowances, under Title IV 
of the Clean Air Act, will be used somewhere, if not at Kammer. 
However, once again, the relevant inquiry according to the BART 
guidelines is to examine the technical and economic feasibility of 
controls at a particular facility. The concern here is with the 
feasibility of Kammer's meeting the emission rate equivalent to the 
presumptive NSPS. Furthermore, this analysis is ostensibly being 
performed to support a relaxation of the allowable SO2 
emission rate of the West Virginia SIP under Title I of the Clean Air 
Act. Finally the likelihood of the allowances being used more 
efficiently elsewhere should be noted. In terms of megawatts per ton of 
SO2 the Kammer plant is, by far, the least efficient plant 
in all of the states which comprise EPA Region III's jurisdiction and 
one of the least efficient in the country. To illustrate the 
ineffeciency of the Kammer Plant, EPA has tabulated, in decreasing 
order of efficiency, the Phase I utilities in Region III. In the table 
below, are the rated capacity, the 1996 SO2 emissions 
reported by the Acid Rain Program, the megawatts of electricity per 
ton, and the inverse (or tons per megawatt).

[[Page 44436]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      EPA Region III--Phase I Utility Plans                                     
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Rated       1996 SO2     Generation efficiency 
                         Plant name                            capacity     emissions  -------------------------
                                                                 (mw)         (tons)      (mw/ton)      ton/mw  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kammer.....................................................        712.5       119,369      0.00597          168
Armstrong..................................................        326.4        32,150      0.01015           98
Hatfields Ferry............................................       1728.        153,413      0.01126           89
Shawville..................................................        625.         53,945      0.01159           86
Martins Creek 1&2..........................................        312.5        24,601      0.01270           79
CP Crane 1&2...............................................        399.84       28,744      0.01391           72
Cheswick...................................................        565.25       39,980      0.01414           71
Albright...................................................        140.25        9,246      0.01517           66
Mount Storm................................................       1662.48      107,211      0.01551           64
Fort Martin................................................       1152.         71,152      0.01619           62
Portland...................................................        426.7        25,783      0.01655           60
Morgantown.................................................       1252.         72,778      0.01720           58
Chalk Point................................................        728.         37,211      0.01956           51
Sunbury....................................................        621.         20,450      0.03037           33
Mitchell...................................................       1632.6        53,152      0.03072           33
Brunner Island.............................................       1558.73       47,771      0.03263           31
Conemaugh..................................................       1872.         40,182      0.04659           21
Harrison...................................................       2052.         16,469      0.12460           08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two responses to AEP's concern that there are potentially 
only eight years for capital recovery of the cost of a scrubber. First, 
AEP could have elected to install a scrubber in 1987 when the final 
stack height rules were promulgated. In that case the time for capital 
recovery would more than double. Secondly, there is no assurance that 
the Kammer plant will in fact be retired in 2008.
    The additional contention by AEP that scrubber technology cannot be 
considered because it cannot assure air quality compliance under all 
operating conditions has no validity. Many of the state and federal air 
pollution control requirements involve devices which can, and do, 
shutdown or malfunction and require maintenance. These instances do 
have the potential to result in air quality violations. Nevertheless 
these devices are relied upon to protect air quality. To accept AEP's 
argument in this regard would undermine almost all air pollution 
control programs.
    At the time of the Congressional deliberation on the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, it was suggested that the stack height provisions 
would no longer be necessary because the acid rain control provisions 
would serve to reduce SO2 emissions. The Congress rejected 
this notion and reaffirmed that constant emission controls were to be 
required versus using dispersion from tall stacks to achieve and 
maintain the ambient air quality goals and standards under Title I of 
the Act.
    Therefore, the State of West Virginia has been informed by EPA that 
it cannot approve the analysis which seeks to demonstrate the 
infeasibility of Kammer's meeting the emission rate equivalent to the 
new source performance standard. The SIP development project for 
Marshall County should go forward with the Kammer plant modeled at the 
grandfathered stack height of 600 feet.

    Dated: August 11, 1998.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 98-22340 Filed 8-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P