STEVEN L. BESHEAR GOVERNOR



### ENERGYAND ENVIRONMENT CABINET OFFICE OFTHE SECRETARY 500 MEROSTREET 12TM FLOOR,CAPITALPLAZATOWER FRANKFORT, KY 40601 TELEPHONE: 502-564-3350 FACSIMILE: 502-564-3354



### April 26, 2013 Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region4 SamNunnAtlantaFederal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 lBJNARDKPETERS SECRETARY



### RE: Section 110(a) Infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 S02 andN02NAAQS Dear Ms. Fleming: Enclosed for your considerationis the final revisionto Kentucky's State Implementation Plan (SIP) that documents the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements ofSection 11O(a) infrastructureprovisions addressing the National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) requirements for the 2010 SulfurDioxide and Nitrogen DioxideNAAQS. Under Sections IIO(a)(l) and (2), all states are required to submitplansto provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcementofany neworrevisedNAAQS. States are required to address basic program elements, including requirements for emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling, among otherthings. States are required to submit SIPs to EPA demonstratingthat these basicprogram elements have been addressed within 3 years ofthe promulgationofany new orrevised NAAQS. Subsections (A) through (M) ofSection 11O(a)(2), set forth the elementsthat a state'sprogrammust containinthe SIP. A public hearing to receive commentsonthis revision was scheduled for January 25, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. inthe Conference Room ofDivisionfor Air Quality, 200 Fair Oaks, 1st 

### Floor, Frankfort, Kentucky. No request for apublichearing was received, and the hearing was cancelled. Comments were received duringthe 30-day commentperiod. A copy ofthe public hearing notice andthe statementofconsideration are includedin this submittal.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/0Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming PageNo.2

Thelist ofSection 110(a)(2)NAAQS requirements and Kentucky'sprovisions are listed as anattachmentto this letter. Yourpromptattentiontothis letteris appreciated. Ifyouhave any questions orcommentsconcerningthis matter, please contactAndrea SmithattheDivision for Air Qualityat (502) 564-3999.

LKP.sw Enclosures cc: Beverly Banister/R. Scott Davis

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com Sincerelyyoms,

Leonard K. Peters Secretary

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

# Section llO(a) Infrastructure Requirements

Emissionlimits and other control measures: 

### Section 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe CAA requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules orcompliance and other related matters. Kentucky Authority: 

### • Kentucky Revised Statute Chapter 224 Section 10-100 (KRS 224.10-100) provides the Energy and Environment Cabinet the authority to administer all rules, regulations and orders promulgated under Chapter 224, and to provide for the prevention, abatement, and control ofall water, land, and air pollution. Chapter 50 GeneralAdministrativeProcedures. 

### • 401 KAR 50:010. Definitionsfor 401 K4R Chapter 50. 

### This administrative regulation defines the terms used in 401 KAR Chapter 50; • 401 KAR 50:012. General application. 

### This administrative regulation provides guidelines by which all administrative regulations of 401 KA.R 

### Chapters 50 to 65, are to be understood; • 401 KAR 50:015. Documents incorporated by reference. 

### This administrative regulation provides for the incorporation by reference of documents referred to within these administrative regulations; • 401 KAR 50:020. Air quality control regions. 

### This administrative regulation provides for the designation and classification ofair quality control regions; • 401 KAR 50:025. Classification ofcounties. 

### This administrative regulation provides for the classi±1cationofcounties with respectto various pollutants; • 401 KAR 50:040. Air quality models. 

### This administrative regulation specifies general provisions for the use ofair quality models; • 401 KAR 50:042. Good engineeringpractice stack height. 

### This administrative regulation defines good engineering practice stack height which shall be used in establishing emissions linlitations; • 401 KAR 50:045. Pnformance tests. 

### This administrative regulation establishes requirements for performancetests;

e 

### 401 KAR 

### 50:047. Testproceduresfor capture efficiency. 

### This administrative regulation provides capture efficiencytestprocedures for volatile organic compounds; • 401 KAR 50:050. Monitoring. 

### This administrative regulation establishes requirements for stack gas monitoring, ambient air monitoring, and recording and reporting requirements as relatedto monitoring data; • 401 KAR 50:055. General compliance requirements. 

### This administrative regulation establishes requirements for compliance during shutdo'hn and malfunctions; establishes requirements for demonstrating compliance with standards; establishes requirements for compliance when a source is relocated within the Commonwealth ofKentucky; and other general compliance requirements; • 401 KAR 50:060. Enforcement. 

### This administrative regulation provides for enforcement oftheterms and conditions ofpermits and compliance schedules;



### 1• 401 KAR 50:065. 

### Conformity ofgeneral federal actions. The federal regulation incorporated by reference in this administrative regulation provides for determining the conformity ofgeneral federal actions to the SIP. 40 CFR51.850 to 51.860 require thatthe applicable federal agencies implement the conformity determination in consultation with agencies ofthe Commonwealth ofKentucky; • 401 KAR 50:066. 

### Conformity oftransportation plans, programs, andprojects. This administrative regulation adopts the Federal Transportation Conformity Rules as codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 93 Subpart A and incorporates a guidance document that establishes criteria and procedures for the interagency consultation process used in demonstrating conformity offederal transportationplans to the Kentucky State ImplementationPlan. Chapter 51 

### Attainmentand.lvfaintenance o(theNationalAmbientAir QualityStandards • 401 KAR 51:001. 

### Definitionsfor 401 K4R Chapter 51. This administrative regulation· defines the terms used in 401 KAR Chapter 51. The definitions contained in this administrative regulation are neither more stringent nor otherwise different than the corresponding federal definitions; • 401 KAR 51:005. 

### Purpose and General Provisions. This administrative regulation establishes the general provisions as related to new sources with respect to the prevention ofsignificant deterioration ofair quality and construction of stationary sources impacting onnonattainment areas; • 401 K.AR 51:010. 

### Attainment Status Designations. This administrative regulation designates the status of all areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky with regard to attainment ofthe ambient air quality standards; • 401 KAR 51:017. 

### Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. This administrative regulation applies to the construction ofany new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment orunclassifiable; • 401 KAR 51:052. 

### Review ofnew sources in or impacTing upon nonattainment areas. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the construction or modification of stationary sources within, or impacting upon, areas where the national ambient air quality standards have notbeen attained; • 401 KAR 51:150. 

### NOx requirements for stationary internal combustion engines. Pursuant to the federal NOx SIP Call, this administrative regulation provides for the regional control of NOx emissions by establishing requirements for large stationary internal combustionengines; • 401 KAR 51:160. 

### NOx requirements for large utility and industrial boilers. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the control ofNOx emissions from large boilers and turbines used inpowerplants and other industrial applications, pursuant to the federal mandatepublished under the NOx SIP Call; • 401 KAR 51:170. 

### NOx requirementsfor cement kilns. This administrative regulation provides for the regional control ofNOx emissions from portland cement manufacturing plants pursuantto the federal mandate publishedunderthe NOx SIP Call; • 401 KAR 51:180. 

### NOx creditsfor early reduction and emergency. This administrative regulation provides for the distribution of NOx allowances from a compliance supplement pool allocated to Kentucky by the U.S. EPA for sources that reduce NOx emissions before the compliance deadline of the federal mandate published under the 2

### NOx SIP CalL It 

### also provides for se11ing aside unused credits to assist sources that are unable to meet the compliance deadline; • 401 KAR 51:190. 

### Banking and tradingNOx allowances. This administrative regulation incorporates by reference the federal regulation that establishes a program for banking and trading ofemission allowances to reduce NOx emissions under the federal NOx 

### SIP Call; • 401 KAR 51:195. 

### NOx opt-in provisions. The federal regulation incorporated by reference in this administrative regulation establishes provisions for individual sources to opt into the NOx Budget Trading Program; • 401 KAR 51:210. 

### CAIR NOx annual tradingprogram. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the control ofNOx emissions from large boilers and turbines used in power plants, pursuant to the federal mandate published under the Clean Air InterstateRule (CAIR), 40 C.F.R. 96.101 to 96.188; • 401 KAR 51:220. 

### CAIR NOx o:::one season trading program. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the control ofNOx emissions from large boilers and nrrbines used in powerplants and other industrial applications, pursuantto the federal mandate published under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 40 C.F.R. 96.301 to 96.388; • 401 KAR 51:230. 

### C4IR S02 

### tradingprogram. This administrative regulation establishes the provisions of the CAIR S02 

### Trading Program as codified at 40 C.F.R. 96.201 to 96.288 for applicable sources located in the Commomvealth ofKentucky. 

### Chapter 52 Permits, Registrations. andProhibitoryRules. • 401 KAR 52:001. 

### Definitionsfor 40I 

### K4R Chapter 52. This administrative regulation defines the tenns used in 401 KAR Chapter 52: • 401 KAR 52:020. 

### Title Vpermits. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for air contaminant sources located in Kentucky that are required to obtain a Title V permit; • 401 KAR 52:030. 

### Federally-enforceable permits for nonmajor sources. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for air contaminant sources located in Kentucky that accept emission limitations to avoid the New Source Review requirements under Title I ofthe Clean Air Act or the Operating Permit Program requirements under Title V ofthe CleanAirAct; • 401 KAR 52:040. 

### State-Origin Permits. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for minor sources whose permits are not required to be federally enforceable; • 401 KAR 52:050. 

### Permit applicationforms. This administrative regulation incorporates byreference the applicationforms used to pennit air contaminant sources in Kentucky; • 401 KAR 52:060. 

### Acid rain permits. Tr.Js administrative regulation incorporates by reference the federal acid rainprovisions as codified at 40 CFR Parts 72 to 78: • 401 KAR 52:070. 

### Registration ofdesignated sources. This administrative regulation establishes the procedure for the registration of designated air contaminant sources in Kentucky; • 401 KA.R 52:090. 

### Prohibitm:v rule for hot mix asphalt plants. This administrative regulation establishes production limits for hot mix asphalt plants, which keeps their

3

### emissionsbelowthe major source threshold and avoids the necessity ofhaving to obtain a Title V or conditional majorpemut; • 401 KAR 52:100. 

### Public, affected state and US. EPA review. This administrative regulation establishes the procedures used by the cabinet to provide for the review of federally-enforceable permits bythe public, affected states, and the U.S. EPA; • 401 KAR 53:005. 

### Generalprovisions. This administrative regulation is to provide for the establishment ofgeneral provisions, definitions and time schedules as they pertain to this chapter; • 401 KAR 53:010. 

### Ambient air quality standards. This administrative regulation is to fix ambient air quality standards necessary for the protection ofthe public health, the general welfare, andthe property andpeople in this Commonwealth. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: 

### Section 11O(a)(2)(B) ofthe CAi\ requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation ofambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and presentation ofthese data available to EPA upon request. As of the date of this infrastructure submittal the development of the N02 

### monitoring network is ongoing; therefore Kentucky's N02 

### monitoring strategy will be established per the requirements set forth in the 2012 and any subsequent Annual Monitoring Network plan relevant to the development of the Commonwealth's N02 

### monitoring network. Kentucky submits an annual ambient monitoring network plan to EPA for approval, which also includes the Louisville-Jefferson County local monitoring program. The Commonwealth's approved monitoring networkplan canbe accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700. Kentucky Authority: 

### • KRS 224.10-100 (22) requires the installation, maintenance, and use of equipment, devices, or test and methodologies to monitor the nature and amount of any substance emitted into the ambient air and to providethe informationto the cabinet; • 401 KAR 50:050. 

### Monitoring. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for stack gas monitoring, ambient air monitoring, and recording and reporting requirements as related to monitoring data; • 40f KAR 51:017. 

### Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. This administrative regulation applies to the construction ofany new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment orunclassifiable; • 401 KAR 51:052. 

### Review ofnew sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the construction or modification of stationary sources within, or impacting upon, areas where the national ambient air quality standards have notbeen attained; • 401 KAR 53:005. 

### Generalprovisions. This administrative regulation is to provide for the establishment ofgeneral provisions, definitions and time schedules as they pertain to this chapter; • 401 KAR 53:010. 

### Ambient Air Quality Standards. This administrative regulation establishes ambient air quality standardsnecessary for the protection ofthe public health, welfare, andproperty.

4Program for enforcement of control measures: 

### Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires States to include a program that provides for enforcement ofall SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and nonattainmentnew source review (NSR) requirements. Kentucky Authority: 

### • 401 L'\R 50:060. 

### Enforcement. This administrative regulation provides for enforcement ofthe terms and conditions ofpermits and compliance schedules; • 401 Kr'\R 

### 51 :017. 

### Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration ofAir Quality. This administrative regulation applies to the construction ofany new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment orunclassifiable; • 401 KAR 51:052. 

### Review ofnew sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the construction or modiflcation of stationary sources within, or impacting upon, areas where the national ambient air quality standards have not been attained; • 401 L\R 51 :00L 51:017 and 51 :052. These regulations were amended to adopt federal K'.risions to the lists ofmajor sources relating to PSD. NSR and Title V applicability, removed the existing requirements for clean units and pollution control projects, and added nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone fonnation. These amendments becan1e effective in Kentucky on February 5, 2010, were submittedto EPA onFebruary 22, 2010, and were officially approved to the SIP 

### in 75 FR 55988, on September 15, 2010; • 401 KAR 51:001 and 52:001. These regulations were amended to include federal definition changes signiflcant to Kentucky's pennitting by establishing thresholds for the regulation and permitting of greenhouse gas emissions. These amendments became effective in Kentucky on January 3, 2011, were submitted to EPA on December 13, :2010 and were officially approved to the SIP in 75 FR 81868, December 29,2010:

e 

### 401 KAR 51:001, 51 :017 and 51 :052. These regulations were amended to adopt revisions to the NSR/PSD programs consistent with the PM2.5 

### Nr-\AQS implementation. The Division filed the proposed administrative regulation amendments with the Legislative

, Research Commission June 14, 2012 and EPA on June 19, 2012. The regulations

became effective 

### in Kentucky on December 7, 2012. On January 31,2013, the Division submitted the amended, effective regulations to EPA for inclusion into the Kentucky SIP. Interstate transport: 

### Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA

.. requires SIPs to include provisions probjbiting any source of other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NA."'A.QS in another State. States are required to submit 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i) plans to demonstrate compliance with these provisions. At this time, in light of the EME Homer City opinion 

### (EME Homer City 

### Generation, L.P. 

### v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, D.C. Circuit 2012) the U.S. EPA is not treating the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from K\YDAQ as a required SIP submission. The next step requires the U.S. EPA to identify ewjssions in a state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance ofthe NAAQS in another state, deemedthe good neighbor obligation.



### 5Kentucky Authority: • Finding regarding section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i) promulgated submitted on 12/10/07 for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM25 National AmbientAir Quality Standards; • Kentucky submitted the 110(a)(l) plan on 12/7/07 for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM25 NAAQS; • Kentucky's regulations in response to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) were approved 10/4/07 (72 FR56623); • The Final Regional Haze SIP was submitted to U.S. EPA on 6/25/08, and EPApublished a limited approval and limited disapproval onMarch 30, 2012 effective April 30, 2012; • The Final 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties, Kentucky, was submittedto U.S. EPA on 12/07/07; • The Final PM2.s Attainment Demonstration for Jefferson, Bullitt, Boone, Campbell, Kenton, Boyd, and a portion of Lawrence counties, Kentucky, was submitted to U.S. EPA on 12/03/08; • 401 KAR 51:010. 

### Attainment Status Designations. This administrative regulation designates the status of all areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky with regard to attainment ofthe ambient air quality standards; • 401 KAR 51:017. 

### Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. This administrative regulation applies to the construction of any new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment orunclassifiable; • Regulation 401 KAR 51:052. 

### Review of new sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas, Section 1 applies to a new major stationary source or project that is a major modification at an existing major source and locates in or impacts upon an area designated nonauainmentunder42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(i); • 401 KAR 52:100. 

### Public. affected state, and US. EPA review Section 6 requires that publicnotice to permit actions shall be providedto affected states. • 401 KAR 51 :001, 51:017 and 51:052. These regulations were amended to adopt federal revisions to the lists of major sources relating to PSD, NSR and Title V applicability, removed the existing requirements for clean units and pollution control projects, and added nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone formation. These amendments became effective inKentucky on February 5, 2010, were submitted to EPA on February 22,2010, and were officially approvedto the SIP in75 FR 55988, on September 15, 2010; • 401**~1\R** 51:001 and 52:001. These regulations were amended to include federal definition changes significant to Kentucky's permitting by establishing thresholds for the regulation and permitting of greenhouse gas emissions. These amendments became effective in Kentucky on January 3, 2011, were submitted to EPA onDecember 13, 2010 and were officially approvedto the SIP in 7 5 FR 81868, December29, 2010; • 401 KAR 51:001, 51 :017 and 51 :052. These regulations were amended to adoptrevisions to the NSR/PSD programs consistent with the PM2.5 NAAQS implementation. The Division filed the proposed administrative regulation amendments with the Legislative Research Commission June 14, 2012 and EPA on June 19, 2012. The regulations became effective inKentucky on December 7, 2012. The regulations became effective in Kentucky on December 7, 2012. On January 31, 2013, the Division submitted the amended, effective regulations to EPA for inclusioninto the Kentucky SIP.

6Adequate resources: 

### Section 11O(a)(2)(E) ofthe CAA requires states to provide for adequate personnel, funding and legal authority under State lawto carry out its SIP and related issues, and thatthe state complies withthe requirements state boards under section 7428, State Boards. Kentucky Authority: 

### • KRS 224.10-100. Powers andDuties ofthe Cabinet, provides for authority under State law to carry out its SIP andrelated issues; • KRS 224.10-100. Powers and Duties ofthe Cabinet, Section (11) provides for the authority to accept, receive, and administer grants or other funds or gifts from public and private agencies including the federal government for the purpose ofcarrying out any of the functions ofthe cabinet; • KRS 224.10-020, Departments within the cabinet**~** 

### Offices and divisions within the departments**~** 

### Appointments, describes who is authorized in the Commonwealth to approve i\irpermitsand enforcementorders and appeals thereof; • 401 KAR 

### 50:038. Air Emissions Fee. This administrative regulation provides for the assessment offees necessaryto fund the state Title V permitprogram; • KRS 11A.020. Public servantprohibitedfrom certain conduct---Exception---Disclosure of personal orprivate interest, requires adequate disclosure ofany potential con11icts of interest;

., KRS 11A.030 Considerations in determination to abstainfrom action on official decision**~**

### Advisory opinion, proscribes guidelines for determining whether to abstain from actio'1 on an official decisionbecause ofapossible conflict ofinterest; • KRS 11A.040Actsprohibited forpublic servant or**officer~**

### Exception. Stationary source monitoring system: 

### Section 11O(a)(2)(F) of the CAA requires States to establish a systemto monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submitperiodic emissions reports. Kentucky Authority: 

### • Chapter 50 GeneralAdministrativeProcedures; • 401 KAR 50:050**~Monitoring,** 

### Section 1 Monitoring Records and Reporting establishes the requirements for the installation, use, and maintenance of stack gas and ambient air monitoring equipment; • 401 KAR 50:055 General Compliance Requirements, Section 1 Ewission During Shut Down Malfunction. Emergency power: 

### Section 11O(a)(2)(G) ofthe**C~;\** 

### requires States to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingencyplans to implementthe emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. Kentucky Authority: 

### • Chapter 55 EmergencvEpisodes. • 401 Ki\R 

### 55:005. Significant Harm Criteria, Section 1 Purpose defines those levels of pollutant concentration which must be prevented in orderto avoid significant harm to the health ofpersons;

7• 401 KAR 55:010. 

### Episodic Criteria. The administrative regulation defines those levels ofpollutant concentrations whichjustify the proclamation of an air pollution alert, air pollutionwarning, an airpollutionemergency; • 401 KAR 55:015. 

### Episode Declaration. This administrative regulation provides for the curtailment or reduction ofprocesses or operations which emit an air contaminant or an air contaminant precursor whose criteriahas been reached and are located in the affected areas for which an episode level has been declared; • All of Kentucky is considered a Priority III Auea, and therefore no emergency episode plan for PM2.5 is required; • An emergency episode was already included for the 1-hour ozone standard and would suffice for the 8-hour ozone standard. Future SIP revisions: Section 11O(a)(2)(H) ofthe C£\A requires States to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods·for attaining the NAA.QS, or inresponse to an EPAfinding that the SIP is substantially inadequate. Kentucky Authority: • Chapter 53 

### AmbientAir Quality. • 401 KAR53:005. 

### GeneralProvisions; • 401 KAR 53:010.

### AmbientAir Quality Standards. This administrative regulation is to fix ambient air quality standards necessary for the protection ofthe public health, the general welfare, and theproperty andpeople inthis Commonwealth; • 401 KAR 51:010. 

### Attainment Status Designations. This administrative regulation contains provisions for the cabinet to review applicable data and submit to U.S. EPA revisions to the attainment-nonattainment listpursuantto 42 U.S.C. 7407. Consultation with government officials: Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires States to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying outNAAQS implementationrequirements pursuantto CAA Section 121 relating to consultation. Kentucky Authority: • 401 KAR 50:055. 

### General compliance requirements. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for compliance during shutdown and malfunctions; establishes requirements for demonstrating compliance with standards; establishes requirements for compliance when a source is relocated within the Commonwealth ofKentucky; and other general compliance requirements; • 401 KAR 50:060. 

### Enforcement. This administrative regulation provides for enforcement ofthe terms and conditions ofpermits and compliance schedules; • 401 KAR 50:065. 

### Conformity ofgeneral federal actions. The federal regulation incorporated by reference in this administrative regulation provides for detem1ining the conformity of general federal actions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 40 CFR 51.850 to 51.860 require that the applicable federal agencies implement the conformity determination in consultation with agencies ofthe Commonwealth ofKentucky; • 401 KAR 50:060. 

### Enforcement. This administrative regulationprovides for enforcement ofthe terms and conditions ofpermits and compliance schedules;



### 8

### • 401 KAR 50:066. 

### Conformity ofTransportation Plans, Programs, and Projects. This administrative regulation establishes criteria and procedures for the interagency consultation process used in demonstrating conformity offederal**transpor'~ation** 

### plans to the SIP; • 401 KAR 51:017. 

### Prevenrion of Significant Deterioration ofAir Quality. This administrative regulation applies to the construction ofany new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment orunclassifiable; • 401 Kr'\R 51:052. 

### Review ofnew sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the construction or modification of stationary sources within, or impacting upon, areas where the national ambient air quality standards have notbeen attained; • 401 KAR 

### 51 :001, 51 :017 and 51:052. These regulations were amended to adopt federal revisions to the lists ofmajor sources relating to PSD, NSR and Title V applicability. removed the existing requirements for clean units and pollution control projects, and added nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone formation. These amendments beca.rne effective in Kentucky on February 5, 2010, were submittedto EPA on February22, 2010, and were officially approved to the SIP in 75 FR55988, on September 15,2010: • 401 

### KAI.Z 51:001 and 52:001. These regulations were amended to include federal definition changes significant to 

### Kentucky's permitting by establishing thresholds for the regulation and pennitting of greenhouse gas emissions. These amendments became effective in Kentucky on January 3, 2011, were submitted to EPA on December 13, 2010 and were officially approved to the SIP in 75 FR 81868, December 29, 2010; • 401 KAR 51:001, 51:017 and 51:052. These regulations were amended to adoptrevisions to the NSR/PSD programs consistent with the PM2.5 

### NAAQS implementation. The Division filed the proposed administrative regulation amendments with the Legjslative Research Commission June 14, 2012 and EPA on June 19, 2012. The regulations became effective in Kentucky on December 7, 2012. The regulations became effective in Kentucky on December 7, 2012. On January 31, 2013, the Division submitted the amended, effective regulations to EPA for inclusion into the Kentucky SIP. Public notification: 

### Section 110(a)(2)(J) ofthe CAA fmiher requires States to notify the public ifNJ\.A

..QS are exceeded in an area and to**eiL.~ance** 

### public awareness ofmeasure that can be taken to preventexceedances. Kentucky Authority:



### • 401 KAR 51:001. 

### DefiniTionsfor 401 KAR Chapter 51. This administratiw regulation defines the terms used in 401 KA..R Chapter 51. The definitions contained in this administrative regulation are neither more stringent nor otherwise different than the corresponding federal definitions; • 401 KAR 51:005. 

### Purpose and General Provisions. This administrative regulation establishes the general provisions as related to new sources with respect to the prevention ofsignificant deterioration ofair quality and construction of stationary sources impacting onnonattainment areas;



### 9

### • 401 KAR 51:010. 

### Attainment Status Designations. This administrative regulation designates the status of all areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky with regard to attainment ofthe ambient air quality standards; • 401 KAR 51:017. 

### Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. This administrative regulation applies to the construction ofany new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment orunclassifiable; • 401 KAR 

### 51:052. 

### Review ofnew sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the construction or modification of stationary sources within, or impacting upon, areas where the national ambient air quality standards have not been attained; • 401 KAR 

### 51:150. 

### NOx requirements for stationary internal combustion engines. Pursuant to the federal NOx SIP Call, this administrative regulation provides for the regional control of NOx emissions by establishing requirements for large stationary internal combustion engines; • 401 KAR 

### 51:160. 

### NOx requirements for large utility and industrial boilers. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the control ofNOx emissions from large boilers and turbines used in power plants and other industrial applications, pursuant to the federal mandatepublished under the NOx SIP Call; • 401 

### KA.R 51:170. 

### NOx requirementsfor cement kilns. This administrative regulation provides for the regional control ofNOx emissions from portland cement manufacturing plants pursuantto the federal mandatepublishedunderthe NOx SIP Call; • 401 KAR 

### 51:180. 

### NOx creditsfor early reduction and emergency. This administrative regulation provides for the distribution of NOx allowances from a compliance supplement pool allocated to Kentucky by the U.S. EPA for sources that reduce NOx emissions before the compliance deadline of the federal mandate published under the NOx SIP Call. It 

### also provides for setting aside unused credits to assist sources that are unable to meet the compliance deadline; • 401 KAR 

### 51:190. 

### Banking and tradingNOx allowances. This administrative regulation incorporates by reference the federal regulation that establishes a program for banking and trading ofemission allowances to reduce NOx emissions under the federal NOx SIP Call;**~** 

### • 401 KAR 

### 51:195. 

### NOx opt-in provisions. The federal regulation incorporated by reference in this administrative regulation establishes provisions for individual sources to opt into the NOx Budget Trading Program; • 401 KAR 51:210. 

### CAIR NOx annual tradingprogram. Tills administrative regulation establishes requirements for the control ofNOx emissions from large boilers and turbines used in power plants, pursuant to the federal mandate published under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 40 C.F.R. 96.101 to 96.188; • 401 

### KAR 51:220. 

### CAIR NOx ozone season trading program. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the control ofNOx emissions from large boilers and turbines used inpowerplants and other industrial applications, pursuantto the federal mandate published under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 40 C.P.R. 

### 96.301 to 96.388;

10o 401 

### KA.R 51:230. C:-1JR S01 tradingprogram. This administrative regulation establishes the provisions of the CAIR S02 Trading Program as codified at 40 C.F.R. 96.201 to 96.288 for applicable sources located in the Commonwealth ofKentucky; • 401 KAR 52:100. Public, Affected State, and 

### US. EPA Review. This administrative regulation establishes the procedures used by the cabinet to provide for the review of federally-enforceable pem1its by the public, affected states, and the U.S. EPA. PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAt-\ also requires States to meet applicable requirements ofPart Crelated to PSD and visibilityprotection. Kentucky Authority:

• 401 KAR 51:005. Purpose and General Provisions. This administrative regulation establishes the general provisions as related to new sources with respect to the prevention ofsignificant deterioration ofair quality and construction ofstationary sources impacting onnonattainment areas; • 401 KAR 51:010. Attainment Status Designations. This administrative regulation designates the status of all areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky with regard to attairh"'llent ofthe ambient air quality standards;**~** 401 KAR 51:017. Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. This administrative regulation applies to the construction ofany new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as at1ainment or unclassifiable;

& 401 KAR 51:052. Review ofne>vv sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the construction or modification of stationary sources within, or impacting upon, areas where the national ambient air quality standards have not been attained; • 401 Klill. 63:005. Open Burning. This administrative regulation establishes requirements for the control ofopen burning; • 401 

### KA.R 63:010. Fugitive Emissions. This administrative regulation provides for the control offugitive emissions. • 401 KAR 5l:OOL 51:017 and 51:052. These regulations were amended to adopt federal revisions to the lists ofmajor sources relating to PSD, NSR and Title V applicability, removed the existing requirements for clean units and pollution control projects, and added nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone formation. These amendments became effective in Kentucky on February 5, 2010, were submitted to EPA on February 22,2010, and were officially approved to the SIP in 75 FR 55988, on September 15,2010: • 401 

### KA.R 51:001 and 52:001. These regulations were amended to include federal definition changes significant to Kentucky's permitting by establishing thresholds for the regulation and pem1itting of greenhouse gas emissions. These amendments became effective in Kentucky on January 3, 2011, were submitted to EPA onDecember 13, 2010 and were officially approved to the SIP in 7 5 FR 81868, December 29, 2010; • 401 KAR 51:001, 51 :017 and 51 :052. These regulations were amended to adoptrevisions to the NSR/PSD programs consistent with the PM25 NAAQS implementation. The Division filed the proposed administrative regulation amendments with the Legislative Research Commission June 14, 2012 and EPA on June 19, 2012. The regulations 

### 11

### became effective in Kentucky on December 7, 2012. On January 31, 2013, the Division submittedthe amended, effective regulations to EPA for inclusion into the Kentucky SIP. Air quality modeling/data: 

### Section 11O(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission ofsuch data to EPA can be made. Kentucky Authority: 

### • 401 KAR 

### 50:040. 

### Air Quality Models. This administrative regulation specifies general provisions for the use ofair quality models; • 401 KAR 

### 50:050. 

### Monitoring. Permitting fees: 

### Section 11

### 0(a)(2)(L) ofthe**C~~** 

### requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the costs of reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing aperrnit. Kentucky Authority: 

### • 401 

### KA.R 50:038. 

### Air Emissions Fee. This administrative regulation provides for the assessment offees necessary to fund the state permitprogram. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: 

### Section II

### O(a)C2)(M) of the CA.A 

### requires States to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivision affected by the SIP. KentuckyAuthority: 

### • 401 KAR 

### 50:066. 

### Conformity oftransportation plans, programs, andprojects. This administrative regulation adopts the Federal Transportation Conformity Rules as codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 93 

### Subpart A and incorporates a guidance document that establishes criteria and procedures for the interagency consultation process used in 

### demonstrating conformity offederal transportationplans to the Kentucky State ImplementationPlan; • 401 KAR 

### 52:100. 

### Public, Affected State, and US 

### EPA Review. This administrative regulation establishes the procedures used by the cabinet to provide for the review of federally-enforceable permits by the public, affected states, and the U.S. EPA; • KRS Chapter 77. 

### Air Pollution Control, provides for the creation of each county to development an airpollution control district.

12STATEMENT OF CONSIDERL\TION RELATING TO INFAASTRUCTURE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Sl:JBMITTAL THAT DOCUMENTS THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION llO(a) INFAASTRUCTURE PROVISIONS ADDRESSING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 2010 SUI_,FUR DIOXIDE AND NITROGEN DIOXIDE NATIONALAMBINET AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Amended After Comments 

# Energy and Environment Cabinet Department for Environmental Protection Division for Air Quality A public comment period was opento receive comments on the State ImplementationPlan (SIP) revision to document the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements of Section 110(a) inirastructure provisions addressing the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (N/\AQS) requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (S02) 

### and nitrogen dioxide (N02). 

### No request for a public hearing was receivedtherefore apreviously scheduledhearing was cancelled. The following individuals from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC) drafted responses to comments received during the public reviewperiod: Chris Ewing, Envin)nmental Technologist III, Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KYDAQ) Susan Weaver, Internal PolicyAnalyst IIL Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KYDAQJ Response to comments for an Infrastructure SIP submittal to address CAA section 110 requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. 1. Comment: 

### With regard to 110(a)(2)(B), it is suggestedthat Kentucky DAQ reference the recent monitoring network plan that was submitted to the EPA for approval including a discussion ofthe Commonwealth's ability to specifically monitor N02 

### and SO:> The EPA also suggests that the Commonwealth include the following statement regarding the state's N02 

### monitoring strategy: As of the date of tllis infrastructure submittal the development of the N02 

### monitoring network is ongoing; therefore Kentucky's N02 

### monitoring strategy 

### v-rill be established per the requirements set forth in the 2012 and any subsequent Annual Monitoring Network plan relevant to the development of the Commonwealth'sN02

### monitoring network. 

### R. ScottDavis. US EPA Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The development of the N02 

### ambient monitoring network is ongoing. KYDAQ's current monitoring strategy is detailed annually in Kentucky's Network Description and Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan submitted each year to U.S. EPA for approval and available to the public 1on our webpage. The report details the Commonwealth's ability to specifically monitor N02 and S02. The SIP submittal has included this language and referenced KYDAQ's recentmonitoring networkplan. 2. Comment: For 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

- The EPA suggests that the Commonwealth reference the D.C. Circuit Court's recent opinion in

### EMEHomer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which concluded that a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission cannot be considered a "required" SIP submission until EPA has defmed a state's obligations pursuantto that section. See EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 32 ("A SIP logically cannot be deemed to lack a 'required submission' or deemed to be deficient for failure to meet the good neighbor obligation before EPA quantifies the good neighbor obligation"), therefore citing to Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet this requirement may not be appropriate either). Please also see EPA's January 15, 2013 (78 FR 2882) rulemaking. R. 

### Scott

### Davis, U.S 

### EPA Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment and has included the recommended language. 

### 3. Comment: For 11O(a)(2)(C),(D)(i) and (J), it is suggested that the Commonwealth remain consistent when addressing the prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) and visibility compliance for elements 11O(a)(2)(C), 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J). Please include documentation ofrelevant regulations, statues and statements. R. 

### Scott

### Davis. U.S 

### EPA Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment and has added language for consistency. 4. Comment: With regard to 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (related to PSD), it is suggested that Kentucky DAQ provide information on how the PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 New Source Review (NSR) 

### PM2.s Rule and the 2010 PM2 .5 Increments-SILs and SMC rule are being addressed by the Commonwealth. As it relates to visibility, it is also suggested that the Kentucky DAQ insert a reference to the Commonwealth's regional haze program and how it relates to the visibility requirements be included in both elements 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J). 

### R. Scott 

### Davis, U.S 

### EPA Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment and has included the recommended language. 5. Comment: The Infrastructure SIP must include enforceable one-hour S02 em1sswn limitations, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. 

### Maggie Wendler, on behalf of Sierra Club

2Response: 

### The Cabinet does not agree with this comment. Enforceable one-hour emission limitations, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance are not the purview of the infrastructure SIP, and instead are established by the Permit Review Branchwithin the permitprogram. 6. Comment: 

### Kentucky must include the newNAAQS in its SIP. Maggie Wendler, on behalf of Sierra Club Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The SIP is the required vehicle for implementingprograms to comply with the requirements regarding the newNAAQS. 7. Comment: 

### Kentucky must include enforceable one-hour S02 

### emission limits, for plants currently allowed to violate the NAAQS including the Big Sandy Plant, the Cane Run Generating Station, the Cooper Power Station, the Dale Power Station, the Green River Generating Station, the HL. Spurlock Generating Station, the Mill Creek Generating Station, the Robert Reid Power Station, the Shawnee Fossil Plant, and the Tyrone Generating Station. Maggie Wendler, on behalf of Sierra Club Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges does not agree with this comment. Enforceable one-hour S02 

### source emission limitations, as well as schedules and timetables for source compliance are not the purview ofthe infrastructure SIP, and instead are established by the Permit.ReviewBranch withinthe permitprogram. 8. Comment: 

### Sierra Club's modeling is appropriate to use for evaluating the adequacy of Infrastructure SIPs. Afaggie Wendler, on behalf of Sierra Club Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The U.S. EPA has not published a final strategy for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS regarding S02 

### modeling requirements for S02 

### nonattainment areas. SulfuT dioxide modeling and related specific-source issues will be addressed in future public comment periods specific to submittals for 

## so2 nonattainment area. The Section 110(a) infrastructure SIP for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS addresses ambient monitoring in attainment areas, rather than modeling in nonattainment areas. 9. Comment: 

### The Infrastructure SIP must include provisions to ensure S02 

### emissions will not cause or significantly contribute to non-attainment or interfere with maintenance of the S02 

### NAAQS in another state.**~Maggie** Wendler, on behalf of Sierra Club Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. At this time, in light ofthe EME Homer City opinion (EMEHomer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 

### 696 F.3d 7, D.C. Circuit 2012) the U.S. EPA is not treating the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Kl:'DAQ as a required SIP submission. The next step requires the U.S. EPA to identify emissions in a state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with

3maintenance ofthe NAAQS in another state, deemed the good neighbor obligation. The EMEHomer City opinion provides that EPA does not have the authority to promulgate a FIP to address the requirement of section 110(a)(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has identified emissions in a state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance ofthe NAAQS in another state and given the state an opportunity to submit a SIP to address those emissions. 10. Comment: Kentucky mustmake clearhow its current regulations comply with 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(f)(iii). "Maggie Wendler, on behalf of Sierra Club Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. Annually. the state produces two comprehensive, quality-assured, and EPA-approved, agency reports detailing the design ofthe ambient monitoring network and the ambient data collected by that network. A public comment period is provided regarding the draft network design. These completed reports are available online at http://air.ky.gov/Pages/DivisionReports.aspx or from the Regional Offices across the state. Additionally, the state provides a toll-free number (1- 800-AIR INKY) to check the daily Air Quality Index (AQI). AQI is a reporting tool that converts the pollutant concentrations measured in a community's air to a simple number on a scale of0 to 500. Intervals onthe AQI scale are related to the potential health effects ofthe daily measured concentrations offive major pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. The AQI is available online at http://air.kv.gov/Pages/AirQualityindexMonitoring.aspx. In some areas, the local newspaper chooses to include the AQI with the daily weather forecasts and pollen concentrations. Sources emissions are available at the Regional Office in their area, as well as online from the EPA website www.epa.zov/myenv/MvAir. 11. Comment: Hi, my name is Angela. I'm from Louisville, Kentucky, that's where my family is from and I'm a little concerned about my families health keeping in mind that the sulfur dioxide concentrations in areas where power plants that exceed standards for safety and it can even cause heart attacks and my dad is already a heartpatient and so I'm concerned about what that means for my family, you know, is something completely beyond his control going to make him sick again. And I hope that, I hope that maybe more attention could be broughtto this issue and that, and that, you know, safe air, would be something attainable for evetybody, not just people directly near power plants. Thanks AngelaRowe, Louisville, Kentucky Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 12. Comment: Hi, my name is Ashley Mathis, I'm originally from Richmond. My mom, she travels up to Lexington and Ijust wanted to let everyone know, that I'm concerned withthe air quality and all the excess air pollutionin Madison County and Fayette. AshleyMathis, Richmond, KY Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment.



### 413. Comment: My name is Emma Crump, I'm seventeen years old and I live in Berea, Kentucky. One ofthe areas affected by too much sulfur dioxide. Ihave asthma and have played soccerthe past thirteen years ofmy life. Both are affected by the polluted air and I hope the state of Kentucky can help clean the air for not only the asthmatics and athletes, but for all the otherpeople ofKentucky as well. 

### Emma Crump, Berea, KY Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 14. Comment: Hi, I'm Ethan Hamblin, and I live in Madison County here (pointing to a map) and one ofthe things I'm truly concerned as a student in this county is air quality ru"'ld ifI'm not able to breath and the air around me is going to cause me to have asthma and lung problems, not only nowbut in the future then I think that is a serious issue that we need to consider. Also notjust for myselfbut for my friends and neighbors who live around me and students that go to school here. It is an extreme problem, we need to address it and I send a wakeup call to you EPA and Kentucky legislature make this one of yourpriorities. 

### Ethan Hamblin, Afadison County. KY

,Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this com.rnent. 15. Comment: Hi, I'm George Oberst and I live in Berea, Kentucky, southern Madison County, and our area is effect by pollution from the Dale power station, Dale power station, Madison county, and Berea. (pointing at a map) I'm an avid road biker; I ride between 3,000 and 5,000 miles generally every year. So, I'm breathing a whole lot ofair and I would really like it, if the air I breathe in my road biking activities were not polluted by sulfur dioxide as it is now. So, I would really love it. ifthe state ofKentucky, would do all they could to reduce airpollution from coal fired powerplants. 

### George Oberst, Berea, KY Response: The Cabinet aclct1owledges this comment. 16. Comment: My name is Greg Capillo, I live in Lexington, Kentucky, right here on this map (pointing to map) where you can see, I'm pretty close to where the, or right in the middle where the Dale power plant is exceeding its emissions standards. That's really disconcerting for me, especially because I'm asthmatic, so are two of my room.rnates. and we'rejust hanging out right here breathing in all this nasty stuff, its especially super disconcerting because, youknow, I ride my bike all aroundhere, too. Especially out down by the river because it's beautiful, but it's really disconcerting that I'mtaking extra big lungful's of air that's, you know, chuck full of all this bad stuff and it would be really, really excellent, ifthe state would do something about that and follow the law and protect us the way they're supposed to, but I'm pretty use to them not by now, so I really hope they surprise me. 

### Greg Capillo. Lexington, KY



### 5Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 17. Comment: 

### Hello, myname is Joseph Fairclough and I am from Madison County and I'm a little concerned about the air quality in the area for, for my friends, for elderly folks, and people who have breathing issues. I was hoping we could do something about this area and help clean it up. Joseph Fairclough, Madison County, KY Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 18. Comment: 

### My name is Kaitlyn Thomas and I live in the Shivley area of Louisville, Kentucky and I can tell the air quality is different when I go out of my house in the morning time since I was a little kid and I can definitely tell that there are cleaner areas around Louisville and it is concerning to me, you know, that we have some farmland around that area and my family lives in that area and it's a big concern to me, so I ask that you please take responsibility for tllis andjust change the air quality for the area for everyone around there. Kaitlyn Thomas, Louisville, KY(Shively area) Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 19. Comment: 

### Hi, my name in Lincoln Satterthwaite and I live in Berea, Kentucky, just south ofthe Dale Power Station and I'm sixteenyears old and I'm an avidrunner. I'm on the cross country and trackteam. As you might imagine, I run quite a lot, up to forty-five miles per week and I breathe a lot ofair, willch is directly affected by tills power station. I've run all over the state and Irun in places like Lexington, which is directly affected by three power plants; Louisville, directly affected by at least three, if not more; and Maysville, willch happens to be less than two miles from a major power plant and these power plants emit sulfur dioxide and I don't like how much they're emitting. So, the state of Kentucky, if you would, please do anyihing you can to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide in my air. Lincoln Satterwaite, Berea. KY Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges tills comment. 20. Comment: 

### Hello, my name is Olivia Spooner; I live in Berea, Kentucky; right abouthere (pointing to map) as you can see we have air quality problems here. I personally have asthma and I have to be very conscientious, to keep my inhaler around and take care of my health. I would really appreciate it if the state would also help me look after my health. Olivia Spooner, Berea, KY Response: 

### The Cabinet acknowledges tills comment. 21. Comment: 

### Hello, my name is Paige Mackey and I'm from Lexington, Kentucky. I wanted to talk to you because I'm concerned for my health as well as my closest family and friend's health. I was raised by my great aunt who has terrible heart conditions, I

6have another great aunt that has COPD, one ofmy close neighbors from the area,justhad lung cancer and she had to have one ofher lungs removed, so now she is not only elderly, but only bas one lung. So, I'mvery concerned. I, please, please address this issue. I pray thatthe state willjusthelp. Thankyou. Paige lvfackey, Lexington, 

### KY Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 22. Comment: My name is Pat Banks, I'm an artist and a Kentucky River Keeper and rm looking at this map, mapping out the sulfur dioxide. emissions from the Dale Power Plant, which is right in ourpractical back yard. We live in northern Madison County,just downwind from the pO\ver plant. We're up on a ridge, the river valley ridge, and there are times during the year that, we can see things coming from tbe stacks, so ifs pretty amazing and I'mreally concerned that we lived there overthirty years, we built ourhome there, we raised our children there. and I'm very concerned about this evidence that our health is under threat and that's affecting everything, everything in the area. So, I urge the state to please, putpeople before profit. PatBanks, Northern }vfadison County, KY Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 23. Comment: Hi, I'm Patty Boyce and I live in Madison County and Ijustlike to say 

### a fev'; words about my concerns about the air quality here, I'm much concerned about the sulfur dioxide emissions from coal buming and how that affects my health and my husband's health. We both have heart conditions and we're much concerned and vvould appreciate your consideration ofthis. Patty

### Bo)'Ce, Madison 

### County, KY Resp>mse: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment.

7Chris Ewing

# SIERRA CLUB

fOUNDED 18 '11

EnvironmentalTechnologist III Evaluation Section Division of Air Quality 200 FairOaks Lane Frankf ort, Kentucky 40601 christian.ewing@ky.gov

January 25, 2013

VLA ELECTRONIC MAIL A

. ND

### U.S. MAIL Re: Comments Concerning Kentucky's Section llO(a) Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittalfor 2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS Dear

### Mr. Ewing: On behalf

### ofthe Sierra Club and its thousands ofmembers who are adversely impacted by Kentucky sources ofsulfur dioxide ("S02" ) pollution, we submit the following comments on Kentucky's proposed inf rastructure provisions addressing the requirements f orthe 2010 Sulfur Dioxide andNitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"), required by Section 11 O(a)(l) and (2) ofthe federal Clean Air Act ("FCAA" or "Act"). 42 U

.S C. § 7410(a)(l), (2). As Kentucky's Division ofAir Quality CKDAQ'') has recognized, the new one-hour S02 standard is necessary to protect publichealth from the serious threats posed by short-term exposure to sulfur compounds, including decreased lung function, increases inrespiratory symptoms such as chest tightness, wheezing, and shortness ofbreath, and other serious indicators ofrespiratory illness, especiallyin asthmatics, children, and the elderly. See Primwy National AmbientAir Quality Standard forSuljurDioxide; FinalRule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,550 (June 20, 2010) (hereinafter "Final S02 Rule"); KDAQ, Fiscal Year 2012AnnualReport 87 (2012) (hereinafter "2012 Annual Report"), available at http://air.ky.gov/Division%20Reports/DAQ%202012%20Annual%20Report.pdf The health data relied upon byEPA in promulgating the new standard overwhelminglyindicated t hat Page 1 of14increased asthma attacks and hospital visits are attributable to short-tenn concentrations ofsulfur compounds in the air. Due to these and other serious impainnents caused by short-tenn S02 exposure, Kentuckymustproperly implement the one-hour S02 NAAQS to protect its people.s health, as well as the health ofpeople in neighboring states. I. THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIP MUST INCLUDE ENFORCEABLE ONEHOUR S02 EMISSION LIMITATIONS, AS WELL AS SCHEDULES AND TIMETABLES FOR COMPLIANCE, TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT OF THE NAAQS. Althoug.h the 2010 NAAQS represent a new and tighter standard for ambient S02, KDAQ does notpropose any changes to current regulations to address the new standard. KDAQ fails to impose additional restrictions on S02 sources to maintain the NAAQS. Section 11O(a)(l) ofthe Act, 42 U.S.C. §741O(a)(l), provides that each state shall "adopt and submit to the Administrator

... a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of' the NAAQS. Section 11O(a)(2)(A) requires that theseplans, known as "Intrastructure SIPs'", ''includeenforceable emission limitations

... as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements" ofthe Clean Air Act including the requirement to maintain the NAAQS. In addition, Section 110(a)(2)(H)(ii), 42 U.S.C. §741 0(a)(2)(H)(ii), mandates that Infrastructure SIPsprovide means for revision ifthe EPA finds on the basis ofinfonnationavailable that the plan is substantiallyinadequate to attain the NAAQS. A. Kentudy must include the newNAAQS in its SIP The 2010 S02NAAQS imposed a new one-hour standard at a level of 196 micrograms per cubic meter ("flg/m3") or 75 parts per billion ("ppb") which is met when the 3-year average ofthe 99th percentile ofthe annual distribution ofdailymaximum one-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. 40 C.F.R. §50.17(a)-(b). Despite these newNAAQS, Kentucky's regulations do not reflect the new standards for eitherpollutant. S02 limits instead remain at levels set in 1971 of0.03 parts per million ("ppm'') on an annual basis and 0.14 ppm on a24-hour average. 401 KY. ADMIN. REGS. 53:010, Appendix A (2013). Theseregulations not reflect the 2010 one-hour standard. 1 KDAQ must revise the ambient air quality standards to reflect the 2010NAAQS.

1 Similarly, N02 limits remain unchanged from 1971 levels at 0.05 ppm on an annual basis. Page 2 of14B. Kentucky must include enforceable one-hourS02 emission limits,for plants currently allowedto violate theNAAQS including the BigSandy Plant, the Cane Run GeneratingStation, the CooperPowerStation, the Dale PowerStation, the Green River Generating Starion, the HL. Spurlock Generating Station, the Mill Creek GeneratingStation, the RobertReidPowerStation, the Shawnee Fossil Plant, andrhe Tyrone GeneratingStation. KDAQ also fails to include adequate enforceable emission limitations, timetables and schedules for compliance for S02 sources that are causing violations ofthe 2010 S02 NAAQS. Specifically, the Big SandyPlant, the Cane Run Generating Station, the CooperPower Station, the Dale Power Station, the Green River Generating Station, the H.L. Spurlock Generating Station, the Mill Creek Generating Station, the Robert Reid Power Statio!\ the Shawnee Fossil Plant, and the Tyrone Generating Station all lack SIP emission limits which preventviolations of the 2010 S02 NAAQS. In order to comply with Section 110(a)(2)(A), the Kentucky SIP must be amended to ensure these sources will not cause violations ofthe 2010 S02 NAAQS. Consistent with EPA's long held position that modeling should be the primarymethod to deter::11ine NAAQS violations for S02, the Sierra Club has modeled some ofthe largest S02 emitters in Kentucky (and indeed the nation). In an effort to ascertain whether theseplants cause exceedances ofthe new one-hour S02 standard, expert modeler Steven Klafka conducted conservative airdispersion modeling of

## so2 emissions from the following facilities:
(1) (2) (i**~)** (4) (5) 

### (6) (7) (8) (9) ( l0) Big SandyPlant, located in Lawrence County; Cane Run Generating Station, located in Jefferson County; Cooper Power Station, located in Pulaski County; Dale Power Station, located in Clark County; Green River Generating Station, located in Muhlenberg County: H.L. Spurlock Generating Station, located in Mason County; Mill Creek Generating Station, located in Jefferson County: Robert Reid Power Station, located in Henderson County; Shawnee Fossil Plant, located in McCracken County; and Tyrone Generating Station, located in Woodford County. See Steven Klafka, Sierra Club Evaluation ofCompliance with one-hourSCh NAAQS.for Big Sandy Plant. Cane Run Generating Station, the CooperPovc·er Station, the Dale PowerStation, the Green River GeneratingStation, the H.L Spurlock GeneratingStation, the lvfil! Creek GeneratingStarion, the RobertReidPower Station, Tyrone Generating Station, (February l0, 20 12) (hereinafter the "Kentucky Plants Modeling Report"), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, Steven Klafka, Shavvnee FossilPlant Paducah, Kentudy Sierra ClubEvaluation ofCompliance with ]- hourS02NAAQS, (April 8, 20 12) (hereinafter the ·'ShawneeModeling Report"), attached hereto as Exhibit

## 2?

2 The supporting files to these modeling reports have been provided electronically and are available at https://wv.'W.box.com/s/l66heucggpuwnl!5sutj and https://www.box.com/s!l66heucggpuwnll5sutj; the files have also been mailed to KDAQ on a CD. Page 3 of14The modeling ofthese facilities demonstrates that S02 emissions from each plant allowed under the existing SIP cause ambient impacts that exceed the new one-hour S02 NAAQS. Kentucky Plants Modeling Report at 5; Shawnee Modeling Report at 4. These exceedances are occurringin counties which Kentuckyhas not proposed to be designated as nonattainment; instead, Kentuckyhas onlyrecommended that thatpartofone ofthe impacted counties (Jefferson) be designated as nonattainment, while the rest ofthe state shouldbe designated as in attainment. See 2012 Annual Report at 46. Mr. Klafka prepared an air dispersion modeling analysis for each ofthe plants identified aboveto comparemodeled ambient air concentrations and the one-hour S02NAAQS. The modeling reports employed EPA'sAERMOD program to measure each plant's allowable (based on heat inputs and sulfur dioxide emission factor in pounds per million Btu) and actual (based on maximum hourly emissions obtained from EPA's Clean Air Markets Data and Maps database) emissions to determine whether the plant is violatingthe one-hour S02 NAAQS. Themodeling protocol employed is consistent with the EPA's March 2011 guidance for implementing the onehour S02 NAAQS and used the mostrecentversion ofAERMOD available at the time of publishing. 3 Where any assumptions had to bemade in the running ofthe models, Mr. Klafka employed conservative inputs which favor the prediction oflower impacts from the plants so that the results understate the plant's S02 emission impacts. The reports detail these conservative assumptions. Theresults ofthese analyses show that these facilities have emission limits which allow violations ofthe one-hour S02NAAQS in counties where these facilities are located, as well as some ofthe surrounding counties, and in several instances across state borders. The findings from the modelingreports are summarized in the table below.

### r

# I l 

### - 

## ! l 

## I Total I 

### I

I 

### I l Impact Power Emission 1 Facility Facility 

### SOz Counties KDAQ Impact**NAA~S** Recommended Plant Rates (J.Iglm3) Impactplus 

### Impacted Designation Background (f.lglm) 

# I (J.Ig/m3) I 

## I I Lawrence,

# 1-~~:~~,~~ 767.1 

### I 832.5 196.2 Boyd, Carter, 

## I 

# I Big Sandy Elliott, Attainment Plant 

# r=' Morgan, 

## I Maximum 264.1 329.5 

## I 196.2 Johnson, i Martin** Partial

Allowable 5,198.2 5,263.6 196.2 CaneRun I Jefferson, 

### I nonattainment Generating 1 1 I 

## I Bullitt** I inJefferson Station 

### I Maximum / 5,376.4 

## I 5,441.8 196.2 

## I 

# I only

3 The Kentucky Plants Modeling Report used AERlv10D version 11353 while the ShawneeModeling Report used AERMOD version 12060. Page 4 of14 I 

## I I
\ 

### I I 

### I


# I I I 

# I I

I

# I Allowable 10,098.91 I0,164.3 196.2

. Pulaski, Wayne, Laurel, 

# I

Cooper 

# L

___ i I Power [

- 

### r-----r--------1---l McCreary, Clinton, Russell, Casey, · Station 

# I

/ 1

# ~v1aximum I 9,513.4 

# I I

# --+~---

1 

## I I 9,578.8

8,300.9 8,366.3 196.2 Lincoln, Rockcastle, Whitley** ---r-----r----C--la-r-"--k,---+1

- 

## i Fayette, 196.2 Jessamine,

1 / Woodford, Scott, Mercer, i 

### I Allowable I 

# I I

I

# .~----+--~:------~- 1

. I 

## I Garrard,

I 

### I Boyle, Lincoln, II Madison,

Estill, / Powell, 1 Montgomery, ) Bath, I Bourbon, Rockcastle, / 

## I I 

## I DalePower / 

# I Station 

# IMaxinnun 

# I

I 8,447.9 8,513.3 196.2 Attainment

Attainment



### I 

## I 

# I I**~ ~**  . I 

## I

I

## I l=wable-t-
1 / -1-,0-76-.-3-f[--1 ,-1-4-1.--7-l-- 196.2 

## I Jackson, Lee I Muhlenberg,

### ~~- ----

## ~

I I

# ~:~:~ I 

## I 

# l

Station j axJmum / 889.5 954.9 196.2 

# I Generating 

## I M . 

### I Ohio, , McLean, / Daviess, Hopkins, Christian, 

## I 

## I 

## I 

# !,·-----+-----+--- -r----t----Todd, Logan Mason, Allowable 1,270.2 1,335.6 1 196.2 1 1 L · 1 1 

## l I ew1s, H.L. J 

## I 

# --r----l Bracken,

# ~~ Spurlock 1 

# I I 1 Robertson, Generating 

## I"Maximum 407.7 

# I 473.1

## ~· Fleming, 

# I Station 

### I

1 · II 196.2 Bath, 

## I ! Nicholas, /

I 

# I I Harrison**

1 1 Mill Creek 

# IAllowable 829.6 895.0 ( 196.2 Jefferson, Generating 1 1 I Bullitt,

Station. I Maximum !' 1,168.3 1 / 1,233.7 

### i 196.2 Hardin,

1 1

. Meade** Page 5 of14 I Attainment 1 

## I I 

### I

## ~I 

## I Attainment

_

## I

Partial nonattainment

in Jefferson only 

### I 

## i I

• ! I

### I 

## I 

# II

# I Robert 

# r Allowable 

# I I 533.4 598.8

I Reid Power 1 I Station Maxirnu...TU 1 387.3 i 452.7 I

# ~ I I

( I**"~** Shawnee [Allowable

# j-:;~ 7 I

, Maximum 171.2 j 236.6 

## I 196.2
196.2

! I 196.2 196.2 Henderson, Daviess, Webster, McLean McCracken,

Ballard** Fossll Plant 

## I 11

# *

1 

## r--- I 

### --+-

• 1 Woodford, I Fayette, Allowable 116,568.8

11 . 16,634.2 196.2 Anderson,

,

1 ; ----r---

_

# --~**F~'~:~~:.n,**



# r- I Bourbon, Tyrone 

## I

. Jessamine, Generating

Station I i Madison, Attainment

I 

# L Attammcnt 

## I I

Attainment


## I 1 I' Garrard, Maximum

1 1 12,790.6 12,856.0 196.2 Mercer, I I 

## w

# ;;~~~~~:"· I 

# I 

# j l --------'---------'---

___..J...__Shelby, Henry, Harrison**·...,---~ Theseplants also causecross-state impacts, causing S02 NAA.QS violations in neighboring states; this is discussed further below. Based on the modeling, to achieve and maintain the NAAQS, KDAQ must promulgate enforceable one-hour averagingtime emission limits into its SIP which are no less stringent than the following limits: 4
I 

# L Plant

1 Big Sandy Plant i I 

## ICane Run Generating

Station Maximum Total Required Total Facility Emission Facility Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Reduction(%)** T----~--~--r-----------~~---1** 10,666.6 82.9%

179.6 97.5%**~------------------T---------**

1 Cooper Power Station 135.5 98.7%

4 Given how conservative the modeling inputs were, these proposed limits are likely not be stringent enough. KDAQ must evaluate the sources' emissions causing violations ofthe**NA..~'\QS** and impose limits that will reduce emissions to a pointwhere the sources are not causing or contributing to violations. For example, KDAQ needs to conduct a good engineering practices analysis ofShawnee Fossil Plant's stack and take that into consideration when settmg the emission limit for Shawnee. Page 6 of14 l[ 

# I

'



# j**,--~~~~--~-~~** 

## !Dale Power Stat•on 

### I SS.S 98.4% 

### I 

# r- 

# I**--~** 1Green River Generating 1,241.9 87.8% 

## I IStation

1 

# r-- il I H.L. Spurlock 4,448.6 / 89.7%

## ~enerating Station

## -~-r-~----~~---'-----------__j 

# I IMill Creek Generating

Station

1 1 Robert Reid Power

Statwn 

## I 2,913.5

1.063.5 

## I 

## I 84.2%)

75.5%

### -~---~~-~~---~ 

# _J !Shawnee Fossil Plant

. 11,233.5 / 55.0<;1 o 

## i I I I 

## _j r----- ,__ IT)Tone Generating I! I'

- __________ J_

____ l_3_9

____

# ~____

# 9_9_.2_-~_o__j I Station I L__ These emissionlimits must apply at all times includingduring startup, shutdown and malfunction. The SIP must also require that compliance with these emission limits bebased on continuous emission monitoring systems ("CEMS") that must be operated at all times the units are combusting fuel includingduring startup, shutdown andmalfunction. A CEMS that complied with the New Source Perfom1ance Standard ("NSPS") requirements would not be adequatebecausethe NAAQS applies at all time whereas the NSPS requirements do not require that the CEMS operate at all times. C. Sierra Club's modeling is appropriate to use for evaluating the adaquency of Infrastructure SIPs As outlinedby EPA in the Final S02 Rule, air dispersion modeling is thebest method for evaluating the short-term impacts oflarge sources ofS02and EPA has historicallyused air dispersion modeling for attaimnent designations and SIP revisions. A state agency may not ignore infom1ation put in front ofthem. See generallyA1otor Vehicle lvfjrs. Ass 'n v. Stare Farm l'dut. AutoIns. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious for agency to ignore important aspect ofan issue); Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339,346 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Therefore, even though EPAhas stated that states no longerhaveto submitmodeling to show attainment ofthe standard in unclassifiable areas, see e.g. EPA Letterto States Re S02NAAQS Implementation (April 12, 2012) (hereinafter ''EPA Letterto States"), available at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/epa-missouri-so2.pdf, this does not applyto citizen groups such as the SierraClub. Here, the Sierra Club has provided the State with modeling Page 7 of 14demonstratingthat existing regulations allow for violation ofthe NAAQS in areas that are currently designated attainment and have notbeenrecommended for nonattainment status. EPA clearly continues to considermodeling a valid tool in this context, as in the April 12, 2012 letter, EPA goes on to say: "Ifyour state has begun modeling, however, and wishes to continue that work, we will be glad to work with you." EPA Letter to States at 2. EPA does not need to issue arulemaking to use modeling to advance the initial implementation ofthe S02 NAAQS. As an initial matter, Appendix Wand EPA guidance documents explain the AERclv10D modeling methodologyrequired to determine source specific compliance with the S02NAAQS. With AERMOD, EPA and/or the states can evaluate a specific sources' compliance with the S02 NAAQS, taking into account thebackground design values in the relevant areas and then determine the percent reduction in S02 emissions required to ensure that the NAAQS are not violated on an individual, source by sourcebasis. This is the same approach taken by the Sierra Club's modeler in the attached reports. KDAQ has longbeen on notice that EPA considers modeling data an important source of information for achieving and maintainingthe NAAQS. EPA has historically used modeling in determining attainment for the S02 standard. See e.g., U.S. EPA, Implementation of the J-Hour S01K4AQSDraft Tf11itc Paper forDiscussion at 3, ftnt. 1, (hereinafter "EPAWhite Paper"), available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20120522whitepaper.pdf: see also Respondent's Opposition to Motion ofthe State ofNorthDakotafor a Stay ofEPA's 1-Hour S02 Ambient Standard Rule at 3, National Environmental DevelopmentAssociation's CleanAir Project v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) (No. 10-1252), attached hereto as Exhibit 3 ("the Agency has historically relied on modeling to make designations for sulfur dioxide"). For example, in EPA's 1994 S02 Guideline Document, EPA noted that "for S02 attainment demonstrations, monitoring data alone will generally not be adequate," and that"[a]ttainment determinations for 

## so2 will generallynot rely on ambient monitoring data alone, but instead will be supported by an acceptablemodeling analysis which quantifies that the SIP strategy is sound and that enforceable emission limits are responsible tor attainment." U.S. EPA, 1994 S02 Guideline Document, available athttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/so2 _guide_092109.pdf, at 2-1; see als') id. at 2-5 ("For S02 attaimnent demonstrations, monitoring data alone will generally notbe adequate.'} The 1994 Guidance goes on to note that monitoring alone is likely to be inadequate: "[f]or S02, dispersion modelingwill generallybe necessary to evaluate comprehensivelya source's impacts and to determine the areas ofexpectedhigh concentrations based upon current conditions." !d. at 2-3. EPA·s acceptance ofmodeling for making attainment designations stretches back decades, and is equally applicable to determining the adequacyofan infrastructure SIP. In 1983, OAQPS issued a Section 107 Designation Policy Summary. See Sheldon Meyers Memorandum reSection 107 Designation Policy Summary (April2L 1983) (hereinafter the "Meyers Memorandum.'), attached hereto as Exhibit 4. OAQPS explained that '·air quality modeling emissions data[] should be used to determine ifthe monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air qualityin the area." Id. at 1. Ofcourse, ifthere is no monitoring data for an area, it does not accurately characterize the worst case air quality in an area. EPA acknowledged that some nonattainment designations were "based solely on modeling[.]" !d. at

Page 8 of142. In fact, reliance on modeling for nonattainment designations stretches back to the Carter Administration. In 1978, EPA designated Laurel, Montananonattainment "'due to measured and modeled violations ofthe primary S02 standard." Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 43 Fed. Reg. 8,962 (Mar. 3, 1978)).As such, EPA's tinal2010 S02 N1-\AQS rule simply continues and builds upon EPA's historical practice ofusing modeling to determine attainment and nonattainment status for 

### so2**NA~QS.** In doing so, EPA properly recognized the "strong source-oriented nature ofS02 ambientimpacts," 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,370, and concluded that the appropriate methodology for purposes ofdetermining compliance, attainment, and nonattainmentwith thenew NAAQS is modeling. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,551 (describing dispersion modeling as "the most technically appropriate, efficient and readily available method for assessing short-term ambient S02 concentrations in areas with large point sources.''). Accordingly, in promulgating the new S02 NA'\QS, EPA explained that, for the one-hour standard. "it is more appropriate and efficient to principally use modeling to assess compliance for medium to larger sources ...." Jd. at 35,570. Similarly, EPA later explained in the white paperthat using modelingto determine attainment for the

### so2 standard "could better address several potentially problematic issues than would the narrowermonitoring-focused approach discussed in the proposal for the S02NAr\QS, including the unique source-specific impacts of

## so2 emissions and the special challenges

## so2 emissions have historicallypresented in terms ofmonitoring short-term S02levels for comparison with the NAAQS in many situations (75 FR 35550)." EPA White Paper at 3-4. EPA's use ofmodeling has moreover been upheld by the courts. For example, in Montana Sulphur, Montana Sulphurchallenged a SIP Call, a SIP disapproval and a FIP I promulgation because they were all premised a modeling analysis which showed the Billings/Laurel, Montana area was in nonattainment for S02. 666 F.3d at 1184. The Comi rejected Montana Sulphur's argument and held that EPA'sreliance on modeling was not arbitrary and capricious or othenviseunlawful. Id. at 1185: see also Sierra Club v. Castle, 657 F.2d 298, 332 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("Realistically, computermodeling is auseful and often essential tool for performingthe Herculeanlabors Congress imposed on EPA in the Clean Air Act"); RepublicSteel Corp. v. Castle, 621 F.2d 797, 805 (6th Cir. 1980) (approving use of modeling to predict future violations and incorporating "worst-case" assumptions regarding weather and full-capacity operations ofpollutant sources). EPA uses modelingbecause EPA is well aware that modeling produces reliable results. For example, John C. Y1mont was the Region 9 Regional Meteorologistin 1990. Declaration of John C. Yimont at 1, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. In 1990, Mr. Yimont stated underoath: EPA does recognize the usefulness ofambient measurements for information on background concentrations, provided reliable monitoring techniques are available. EPA does not recommend, however, that ambient measurements be used as the sole basis of setting emission limitations or determining the ambient concentrations resulting from emissions from an industrial source. These should bebased on an appropriate modeling analvsis.

Page 9 of14!d. at 11 (emphasis added). Similarly, Roger Brode is currently a physical scientistin EPA's Air Quality Modeling Group. Declaration ofRoger W. Brode at 1, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. He co-chairs the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) and the AERMOD ImplementationWorkgroup. !d. at 2. Mr. Brodehas stated under oath that AERJVfOD is "readilycapable ofaccuratelypredictingwhether therevised primary S02 NAAQS is attained and whether individual sources cause or contributeto aviolation ofthe S02 NAAQS." !d. Mr. Brodehas explained: As part of the basis for EPA adopting the AERMOD model as the preferred model for nearfield applications in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51, the performance ofthe AERMOD model was extensively evaluated based on a total of 17 field study data bases (AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results. EPA-454/R-03-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park (2003), portions ofwhich are attached to this affidavit) ("EPA 2003"). The scope ofthe model evaluations conducted tor AERMOD far exceeds the scope of evaluations conducted on any other model that has been adopted in Appendix W to Part 51. These evaluations demonstrate the overall good performance ofthe AERMOD model based on technically sound model evaluation procedures, and also illustrate the significant advancement in the science of dispersion modeling represented by the AERMOD model as compared to other models that have been used in the past. In particular. adoption ofthe AERMOD model has significantly reduced the potential for overestimation ofambient impacts from elevated sources in complex terrain compared to othermodels. Jd. at 3-4 (emphasis added). EPA's practice in a number ofother contexts also demonstrates that modeling is a technically superior approach for ascertaining impacts onNAAQS, and the history ofEPA's preference for modelingto evaluate compliancerather than monitoring. For example, all N02, PM25, and S02 NAAQS and Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration ("PSD") increment compliance verification analyses are performed with air dispersion modeling, such as running AERMOD in amanner consistent with the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 C.P.R. §52.21 (1)(1). Indeed, in orderto ensure consistency in how air impacts are determined, both existing sources arid newlypermitted sources shouldbe assessed using the same methods. AERMOD modelingperforms particularly well in evaluating emission sources with one or a handful oflarge emission points. The stacks are well-characterized in terms oflocation, dimensions and exhaust parameters, and have high release heights. In addition, the plants discussed abovehave S02 continuous emission monitoring system ("CEMS") data. AERMOD accurately models medium-to-large S02sources-even with conditions oflow wind speed, the use ofoff-site meteorological data, and variable weather conditions. For example, AERMOD has been tested and performs very well during conditions oflowwind speeds:

Page 10 of14AERMOD's evaluation analyses included· a number of site-specific meteorological data sets that incorporate low wind speed conditions. For example, the Tracy evaluation included meteorological data with wind speeds as low as 0.39 meter/second (rn/s); the Westvaco evaluation included wind speeds as low as 0.31 m/s; the Kincaid S02 evaluation included wind speeds as low as 0.37 m/s; and the Lovett evaluation included wind speeds as low as 0.30 m/s. Concerns

... regarding AERMOD's ability to model low wind speed conditions seem to neglect the data used in actual AERMOD evaluations. Comments ofCamille Sears, attached hereto as Exhibit 7 (citing AERMOD evaluations and modeled meteorological data available athttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/scrarn/dispersion_prefrec.htrn). EPA has noted as much for years: "[a]mbient monitoring data and air qualitymodeling data for a particular area can sometimes appear to conflict. This is primarily due to the fact-that modeling results maypredict maximum S02concentrations at receptors where no monitors are located." US. EPA, 1994 S02 Guideline Document at 2-6. In sum, neither the SIP norpermitted emission limits for individualplants currently ensure that counties in Kentuckywill achieve and maintain the new one-hourS02 NAAQS. To satisfy the Act'sobligations, KDAQ mustinclude adequate emissions limits in the SIP, with onehour averaging periods. EPA has acknowledged that, for the one-hour SO:: NA.A.QS, modelingis the most accurate means ofdetermining attainment with the NAAQS. 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,551, 35,570. Accordingly, KDAQ should include source-specific S02 emissionlimits inthe SIP that, when modeled, show no exceedances ofthe NAAQS. Under their current limits, at least ten sources are allowed to cause violations ofthe NAAQS. The Sierra Club has suggested potential limits for these sources that are likely even more lenient that needed to ensure compliancewith the NAAQS. II. THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIP MUST INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO ENSURE S02 EMISSIONS WILL NOT CAUSE OR SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO NONATTAINMENT OR INTERFEREWITH MAINTENANCE OF THE S02NAAQS IN ANOTHER STATE. In addition to causing violations ofthe one-hour S02 NAAQS in various counties within Kentucky, several ofthe plants modeledbythe Sierra Club are also causing cross-state violations ofthe NAAQS. KDAQ must address these individual sources, and any others suspected of causing cross-state impacts within its infrastructure SIP revisions in orderto complywith the Act. Under Section 110(a)(2)(D), a SIP must contain "adequate provisions (i) prohibiting

... any source ... from emitting any airpollutant in amounts which will--{I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, orinterfere with maintenanceby, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard

...." 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Kentucky's infrastructure SIP, as proposed, fails to address any cross-state impacts that are due to sources within the state. KDAQ must therefore amend the SIP to comply with 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The following Kentuckyplants are causing violations ofthe one-hour S02NAAQS in other states and therefore "significantly" contributing to nonattainment in these states: Page 11 of14r-[

### K_~Y_P_L_Al..,-N_T _______ ---+I_IMPACTED STATE i 

## I ! Big Sandy Plant West Virginia ------(**-----~** 

### --- ------i

1 Cane Run Generatmg Stat1on JJndiana 1 

### !**Coo~r** PowerStation I Tennessee

I H.L. Spurlock Generating I' Ohio 

## I

Station**'---------'-----------·--------~ M~ll**  Creek Generating Sta!ion 1 Indiana**~** Shawnee Fossil Plant 

### __j Illinois 

### ___j See Kentucky Modeling Report at Appendix A, B, C, F, and G; Shawnee Modeling Report at 11. Based on these modelingresults, finding exceedances ofthe NAAQS that cross state lines, not only are Kentucky sources interfering with the maintenance ofthe one-hour S02NAAQS, they are causing direct violations ofthe NAAQS and creating areas ofnonattainment. Kentucky's SIP fails to address these cross-state impacts, however, and thus stands in violation ofSection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Just as EPA has historicaliy used air dispersionmodeling in attainment designations and SIP revisions, so has the agency relied on modelingto assess cross-state impacts under the Act's Good Neighborprovision, that is Section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(l). In both the CleanAirInterstate Rule ("·CAIR'') and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ("CSAPR"), as well as the 2003 NO,SIP Call, EPA has used modeling to determine pollutants' cross-state impacts. Although CAIR and CSAPR have subsequentlybeen struck down bythe D.C. Circuit, the court never questionedthe agency's use ofmodeling to assess cross-state impacts. See generally North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (finding the emission limits and trading program ofCAIR arbitrary and unlawful due to EPA's failure to properly measure each state's "significant contribution," EPA's failure to ensure that downwind states do not "interfere with maintenance" ofupvv·ind states with respectto any NAAQS, EPA's failure to impose consistent deadlines, EPA's arbitrary budgets, and EPA's termination ofthe Acid Rain program); ElvfEHomer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir 2012) (vacatingthe rulebecause it required upwind states to reduce emissions by more than their own significant contributions to downwind states' nonattainment and did not allow states to implementreductions through SlPsbeforeissuing Federal Implementation Plans). In contrast to the court's problems with CAJR and CSAPR, in this situation, the Sierra Club's air dispersion modeling identifies a single upwind sourcethat is causing a violation in a single downwind state. As such, the Sierra Club's modeling reports demonstrate not only clear cross-state impacts, butin fact, actual violations ofthe one-hour S02NAAQS in five different states which are beingcausedbyindividual sources in Kentucky. As such, KDAQ must address these impacts with proper emission limitations in its SIP which address these plants and ensure that they do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance ofthe 2\/i\AQS in any downwind state.

5 Although the plume map found in Appendix C to the Kentucky Plants Modeling Report shows only a portion of the Cooper Power Station'splume, Mr. Klafka has confirmed that N.AAQS violations from the CooperPower Station do in fact cross the state-line into Tennessee. An air dispersion map confirming this can be provided to KDAQ upon request. Page 12 

### of14IlL KENTUCKY MUST MAKE CLEAR HOW [TS CURRENTREGULATIONS COMPLY WITH42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F)(iii). Section 11O(a)(2)(F)(iii) ofthe Act, 42 U.S.C. §741O(a)(2)(F)(iii), provides that SIPs must require a correlation ofreports by state agencies on the nature and amounts ofemissions and emission-related data and any emission limitations or standards established under the Clean Air Act. Thesereports mustbe available at reasonable times for public inspection. !d. \Vhile KDAQ attempts to address 42 U.S.C. §741O(a)(2)(F)(ii), KDAQ does not even attempt to address 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F)(iii). KDAQ must add provisionsto its SIP to address 42 U.S.C. § 741 O(a)(2)(F)(iii). IV. CONCLUSION The Kentucky SIP is currently inadequateto achieve and maintain compliance\Vith tbe one-hour S02 and N02 NAAQS, as described above. KDAQ must adopt new provisions into the SfP to protect the public health and comply vvith the Act's requirements. We would be happy to provide anyother informationthat might assist KDAQ in evaluating the impacts ofthese sources and developing a SIP in full compliance with the Act.
Respectfully submitted,

Maggie Wendler Law Office ofMaggie Wendler 1843 Toyon Way Vienna, VA 22182 (703) 772-1433 mwendler.esq@gmail.com On behalfofSierra Club Kristin Henry StaffAttorney SierraClub 85 Second Street San Francisco, CA 941 05-3441 (415) 977-5716 kristin.henry@sierraclub.org Robert Ukeiley Law Office ofRobert Ukeiley 507 Center Street Page 13 of 14Berea, KY 40403 (859 986-5402 rukeiley@igc.org OnbehalfofSierra Club

Page 14of14KENTUCKY DIVISION FORAIR QUALITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISE KENTUCKY'S STATE IMPLEMENTATION**PLA,~** The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet will conduct a public hearing on January 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. (local time) in the Conference Room ofthe Division for Air Quality, 200 Fair Oaks, 1'' Floor, Frankfort, Kentucky. This hearing is being held to receive comments on a proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to address Clean AirAct (CAA) Section ll0requirements. This hearing is open to the public and all interested persons will be given the opportunity to present testimony. The hearing will be held, ifrequested, at the date, time and place given above. It is not necessary that the hearing be held or attended in order for persons to comment on the proposed submittal to EPA. To assure that all comments are accurately recorded, the Division requests that oral comments presented at the hearing also be provided in written form, ifpossible. To be considered part ofthe hearing record, comments must be received by the close of the hearing. Comments should be sent to the contact person. Ifno request for a public hearing is received, the hearing will be cancelled, and notice ofthe cancellation will be posted at the website listed below. Request for a public hearing must be received no laterthan January 18, 2013, while all comments must be submitted no later than January 25. 2013. The full text ofthe proposed SIP revision is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). Requests for copies should be directed to the contact person. In addition. an electronic version can be downloaded from the Division for Air Quality's website at: http://air.h.v.gov/Pages/PublicNoticesandHearings.aspx. The hearing facility is accessible to people with disabilities. An interpreter or other auxiliary aid or service will be provided upon request. Please direct these requests to the contact person. CONTACT PERSOK Chris Ewing, Environmental Technologist III, Evaluation Section, Division for Air Qualit'j, 200 Fair Oaks Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. Phone (502) 564-3999; Fax (502) 564-4666; E-mail christian.ewing@ky.gov. The Cabinet does not discriminate on the basis ofrace, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disabilir; and provides, upon request, reasonable accommodation including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford an individual with a disabilir; an equal opportunityto participate in all services, programs, and activities.