[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6657-6659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2089]


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

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. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected].
    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 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 
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The 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 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 
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 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 
[email protected].

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