STEVEN L. BESHEAR 

GOVERNOR 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

500 MERO STREET 

12 TM FLOOR, CAPITAL PLAZA TOWER 

FRANKFORT, KY 40601 

TELEPHONE: 502-564-3350 

FACSIMILE: 502-564-3354 

April 26, 2013 

Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

lBJNARD K PETERS 

SECRETARY 

RE: Section 110(a) Infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 S02 and N02 NAAQS 

Dear Ms. Fleming: 

Enclosed for your consideration is the final revision to Kentucky's State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) that documents the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements of Section 11 O(a) 

infrastructure provisions addressing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS. 

Under Sections IIO(a)(l) and (2), all states are required to submit plans to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of any new or revised NAAQS. States are 

required to address basic program elements, including requirements for emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling, among other things. States are required to submit SIPs to EPA 

demonstrating that these basic program elements have been addressed within 3 years of the 

promulgation of any new or revised NAAQS. Subsections (A) through (M) of Section 11 O(a)(2), 

set forth the elements that a state's program must contain in the SIP. 

A public hearing to receive comments on this revision was scheduled for January 25, 

2013, at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room ofDivision for Air Quality, 200 Fair Oaks, 1st 

Floor, Frankfort, Kentucky. No request for a public hearing was received, and the hearing was 

cancelled. Comments were received during the 30-day comment period. A copy of the public 

hearing notice and the statement of consideration are included in this submittal. 

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

Page No.2 

The list of Section 110(a)(2) NAAQS requirements and Kentucky's provisions are listed 

as an attachment to this letter. Your prompt attention to this letter is appreciated. If you have 

any questions or comments concerning this matter, please contact Andrea Smith at the Division 

for Air Quality at (502) 564-3999. 

LKP.sw 

Enclosures 

cc: Beverly Banister/R. Scott Davis 

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com 

Sincerely yoms, 

Leonard K. Peters 

Secretary 

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D 
Section llO(a) Infrastructure Requirements 

Emission limits 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 

or compliance and other related matters. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• Kentucky Revised Statute Chapter 224 Section 10-100 (KRS 224.10-1 00) 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 of all water, land, and air pollution. 

Chapter 50 General Administrative Procedures. 

• 401 KAR 50:010. Definitions for 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 of air quality control regions; 

• 401 KAR 50:025. Classification of counties. This administrative regulation provides for 

the classi±1cation of counties with respect to various pollutants; 

• 401 KAR 50:040. Air quality models. This administrative regulation specifies general 

provisions for the use of air quality models; 

• 401 KAR 50:042. Good engineering practice 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 performance tests; 

e 401 KAR 50:047. Test procedures for capture efficiency. This administrative regulation 

provides capture efficiency test procedures 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 

related to 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 of Kentucky; and other 

general compliance requirements; 

• 401 KAR 50:060. Enforcement. This administrative regulation provides for enforcement 

ofthe terms and conditions of permits and compliance schedules; 

1 
• 401 KAR 50:065. Conformity of general federal actions. The federal regulation 

incorporated by reference in this administrative regulation provides for determining the 

conformity of general federal actions to the SIP. 40 CFR 51.850 to 51.860 require that the 

applicable federal agencies implement the conformity determination in consultation with 

agencies of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; 

• 401 KAR 50:066. Conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects. 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 of federal transportation plans to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan. 

Chapter 51 Attainment and .lvfaintenance o(the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

• 401 KAR 51:001. Definitions for 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 

of significant deterioration of air quality and construction of stationary sources impacting 

on nonattainment 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 of the 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 

or unclassifiable; 

• 401 KAR 51:052. Review of new 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 mandate published under the NOx SIP Call; 

• 401 KAR 51:170. NOx requirements for cement kilns. This administrative regulation 

provides for the regional control of NOx emissions from portland cement manufacturing 

plants pursuant to the federal mandate published under the NOx SIP Call; 

• 401 KAR 51:180. NOx credits for 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 trading NOx allowances. This administrative regulation 

incorporates by reference the federal regulation that establishes a program for banking 

and trading of emission 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 trading program. 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 

Interstate Rule (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 of NOx emissions from large boilers 

and nrrbines used in power plants and other industrial applications, pursuant to 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 trading program. 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 of Kentucky. 

Chapter 52 Permits, Registrations. and Prohibitory Rules. 

• 401 KAR 52:001. Definitions for 40 I 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 of the Clean Air Act or the Operating Permit Program requirements under 

Title V of the Clean Air Act; 

• 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 application forms. This administrative regulation incorporates 

by reference the application forms 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 rain provisions as codified at 40 CFR Parts 72 to 78: 

• 401 KAR 52:070. Registration of designated 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 
emissions below the major source threshold and avoids the necessity of having to obtain a 

Title V or conditional major pemut; 

• 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; 

• 401 KAR 53:005. General provisions. This administrative regulation is to provide for the 

establishment of general 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 of the public health, the general 

welfare, and the property and people in this Commonwealth. 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 11 O(a)(2)(B) of the CAi\ requires SIPs 

to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, 

collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and presentation of these 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 network plan can be 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 provide the information to 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 of any new major stationary source 

or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment 

or unclassifiable; 

• 401 KAR 51:052. Review of new 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 53:005. General provisions. This administrative regulation is to provide for the 

establishment of general 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 standards necessary for the protection of the public health, 

welfare, and property. 

4 
Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires 

States to include a program that provides for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation 

of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review (NSR) requirements. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• 401 L'\R 50:060. Enforcement. This administrative regulation provides for enforcement 

of the terms and conditions of permits and compliance schedules; 

• 401 Kr'\R 51 :01 7. 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 

or unclassifiable; 

• 401 KAR 51:052. Review of new 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 :00 L 51:017 and 51 :052. These regulations were amended to adopt federal 

K'.risions 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 fonnation. These amendments becan1e 

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, 201 0; 

• 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 

of the NAAQS in another state, deemed the good neighbor obligation. 

5 
Kentucky Authority: 

• Finding regarding section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i) promulgated submitted on 12/10/07 for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM25 National Ambient Air 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 FR 56623); 

• The Final Regional Haze SIP was submitted to U.S. EPA on 6/25/08, and EPA published 

a limited approval and limited disapproval on March 30, 2012 effective April 30, 20 12; 

• The Final 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton 

counties, Kentucky, was submitted to 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 of the 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 

or unclassifiable; 

• 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 nonauainment under 42 U.S.C. 7407( d)(1 )(A)(i); 

• 401 KAR 52:100. Public. affected state, and US. EPA review Section 6 requires that 

public notice to permit actions shall be provided to 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 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 ~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 on December 13, 2010 

and were officially approved to the SIP in 7 5 FR 81868, December 29, 201 0; 

• 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 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 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. 

6 
Adequate resources: Section 11 O(a)(2)(E) of the CAA requires states to provide for adequate 

personnel, funding and legal authority under State law to carry out its SIP and related issues, and 

thatthe state complies with the requirements state boards under section 7428, State Boards. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• KRS 224.10-100. Powers and Duties of the Cabinet, provides for authority under State 

law to carry out its SIP and related issues; 

• KRS 224.10-100. Powers and Duties of the 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 of carrying out any of 

the functions of the 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\ir permits and enforcement orders and appeals thereof; 

• 401 KAR 50:038. Air Emissions Fee. This administrative regulation provides for the 

assessment of fees necessary to fund the state Title V permit program; 

• KRS 11A.020. Public servant prohibited from certain conduct---Exception---Disclosure 

of personal or private interest, requires adequate disclosure of any potential con11icts of 

interest; 

., KRS 11A.030 Considerations in determination to abstain from action on official decision 

~ Advisory opinion, proscribes guidelines for determining whether to abstain from actio'1 

on an official decision because of a possible conflict of interest; 

• KRS 11A.040 Acts prohibited for public servant or officer~ Exception. 

Stationary source monitoring system: Section 11 O(a)(2)(F) of the CAA requires States to 

establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit periodic emissions 

reports. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• Chapter 50 General Administrative Procedures; 

• 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 11 O(a)(2)(G) of the C~;\ requires States to provide for authority to 

address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including 

contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• Chapter 55 Emergencv Episodes. 

• 401 Ki\R 55:005. Significant Harm Criteria, Section 1 Purpose defines those levels of 

pollutant concentration which must be prevented in order to avoid significant harm to the 

health of persons; 

7 
• 401 KAR 55:010. Episodic Criteria. The administrative regulation defines those levels 

of pollutant concentrations which justify the proclamation of an air pollution alert, air 

pollution warning, an air pollution emergency; 

• 401 KAR 55:015. Episode Declaration. This administrative regulation provides for the 

curtailment or reduction of processes or operations which emit an air contaminant or an 

air contaminant precursor whose criteria has 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 11 O(a)(2)(H) of the 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 in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• Chapter 53 Ambient Air Quality. 

• 401 KAR 53:005. General Provisions; 

• 401 KAR 53:010. Ambient Air Quality Standards. This administrative regulation is to fix 

ambient air quality standards necessary for the protection of the public health, the general 

welfare, and the property and people in this 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 list pursuant to 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 

out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to 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 of Kentucky; and other 

general compliance requirements; 

• 401 KAR 50:060. Enforcement. This administrative regulation provides for enforcement 

of the terms and conditions of permits and compliance schedules; 

• 401 KAR 50:065. Conformity of general 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 of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; 

• 401 KAR 50:060. Enforcement. This administrative regulation provides for enforcement 

of the terms and conditions of permits and compliance schedules; 

8 
• 401 KAR 50:066. Conformity of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects. This 

administrative regulation establishes criteria and procedures for the interagency 

consultation process used in demonstrating conformity of federal transpor'~ation plans to 

the SIP; 

• 401 KAR 51:017. Prevenrion 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 

or unclassifiable; 

• 401 Kr'\R 51:052. Review of new 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 :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 beca.rne 

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 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 adopt revisions 

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 11 0( a)(2)(J) of the CAA fmiher requires States to notify the public 

ifNJ\.A .. QS are exceeded in an area and to eiL.~ance public awareness of measure that can be taken 

to prevent exceedances. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• 401 KAR 51:001. DefiniTions for 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 

of significant deterioration of air quality and construction of stationary sources impacting 

on nonattainment 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 of the 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 

or unclassifiable; 

• 401 KAR 51:052. Review of new 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 mandate published under the NOx SIP Call; 

• 401 KA.R 51:170. NOx requirements for cement kilns. This administrative regulation 

provides for the regional control of NOx emissions from portland cement manufacturing 

plants pursuant to the federal mandate published under the NOx SIP Call; 

• 401 KAR 51:180. NOx credits for 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 trading NOx allowances. This administrative regulation 

incorporates by reference the federal regulation that establishes a program for banking 

and trading of emission 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 trading program. 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 of NOx emissions from large boilers 

and turbines used in power plants and other industrial applications, pursuant to the federal 

mandate published under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 40 C.P.R. 96.301 to 

96.388; 

10 
o 401 KA.R 51:230. C:-1JR S01 trading program. 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 of Kentucky; 

• 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 11 0( a)(2)(J) of the CAt-\ also requires States to meet 

applicable requirements of Part C related to PSD and visibility protection. 

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 

of significant deterioration of air quality and construction of stationary sources impacting 

on nonattainment 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 of the 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 at1ainment 

or unclassifiable; 

& 401 KAR 51:052. Review of ne>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 of open burning; 

• 401 KA.R 63:010. Fugitive Emissions. This administrative regulation provides for the 

control of fugitive emissions. 

• 401 KAR 5l:OOL 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 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 on December 13, 2010 

and were officially approved to the SIP in 7 5 FR 81868, December 29, 201 0; 

• 401 KAR 51:001, 51 :017 and 51 :052. These regulations were amended to adopt revisions 

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 

submitted the amended, effective regulations to EPA for inclusion into the Kentucky SIP. 

Air quality modeling/data: Section 11 O(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 of such data to EPA can be made. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• 401 KAR 50:040. Air Quality Models. This administrative regulation specifies general 

provisions for the use of air quality models; 

• 401 KAR 50:050. Monitoring. 

Permitting fees: Section 11 0( a)(2)(L) of the C~~ requires SIPs to require each major stationary 

source to pay permitting fees to cover the costs of reviewing, approving, implementing, and 

enforcing a perrnit. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• 401 KA.R 50:038. Air Emissions Fee. This administrative regulation provides for the 

assessment of fees necessary to fund the state permit program. 

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. 

Kentucky Authority: 

• 401 KAR 50:066. Conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects. 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 of federal transportation plans to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan; 

• 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 air pollution control district. 

12 
STATEMENT 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 

NATIONAL AMBINET AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

Amended After Comments 

Energy and Environment Cabinet 

Department for Environmental Protection 

Division for Air Quality 

A public comment period was open to receive comments on the State Implementation Plan (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 

received therefore a previously scheduled hearing was cancelled. 

The following individuals from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC) drafted 

responses to comments received during the public review period: 

Chris Ewing, Envin)nmental Technologist III, Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KYDAQ) 

Susan Weaver, Internal Policy Analyst 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 suggested that Kentucky DAQ reference the 

recent monitoring network plan that was submitted to the EPA for approval including a 

discussion of the 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's N02 monitoring network. 

R. Scott Davis. 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 

1 
on 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 

recent monitoring network plan. 

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 EME Homer 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 pursuant to 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 11 O(a)(2)(C),(D)(i) and (J), it is suggested that the Commonwealth 

remain consistent when addressing the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility compliance for elements 11 O(a)(2)(C), 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J). Please 

include documentation of relevant 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 11 O(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 

2 
Response: 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 

Branch within the permit program. 

6. Comment: Kentucky must include the new NAAQS in its SIP. 

Maggie Wendler, on behalf of Sierra Club 

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The SIP is the required vehicle for 

implementing programs to comply with the requirements regarding the new NAAQS. 

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 of the infrastructure SIP, and instead are established by 

the Permit .Review Branch within the permit program. 

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 11 0( 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 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 

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 

3 
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, deemed the good neighbor obligation. The 

EME Homer 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 of the NAAQS in another state and given the state an opportunity to submit 

a SIP to address those emissions. 

10. Comment: Kentucky must make clear how 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 

of the 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 of 0 to 500. Intervals on the AQI scale are related to the potential health effects 

of the daily measured concentrations of five 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 heart patient 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 brought to this issue and that, and that, you know, safe air, would 

be something attainable for evetybody, not just people directly near power plants. 

Thanks 

Angela Rowe, 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 I just wanted to let everyone know, that I'm concerned 

with the air quality and all the excess air pollution in Madison County and Fayette. 

Ashley Mathis, Richmond, KY 

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 

4 
13. Comment: My name is Emma Crump, I'm seventeen years old and I live in Berea, 

Kentucky. One of the areas affected by too much sulfur dioxide. I have asthma and have 

played soccer the past thirteen years of my 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 other people of Kentucky 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 of the things I'm truly concerned as a student in this county is air quality 

ru"'ld if I'm not able to breath and the air around me is going to cause me to have asthma 

and lung problems, not only now but in the future then I think that is a serious issue that 

we need to consider. Also not just for myself but 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 

your priorities. 

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 of air 

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. if the state of Kentucky, 

would do all they could to reduce air pollution from coal fired power plants. 

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're just hanging out right here breathing in all this nasty stuff, its especially super 

disconcerting because, you know, I ride my bike all around here, too. Especially out 

down by the river because it's beautiful, but it's really disconcerting that I'm taking extra 

big lungful's of air that's, you know, chuck full of all this bad stuff and it would be 

really, really excellent, if the 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 

5 
Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 

17. Comment: Hello, my name 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 and just 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 of the Dale Power Station and I'm sixteen years old and I'm an avidrunner. I'm on 

the cross country and track team. As you might imagine, I run quite a lot, up to forty-five 

miles per week and I breathe a lot of air, willch is directly affected by tills power station. 

I've run all over the state and I run 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 about here 

(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 

6 
have another great aunt that has COPD, one of my close neighbors from the area, just had 

lung cancer and she had to have one of her lungs removed, so now she is not only elderly, 

but only bas one lung. So, I'm very concerned. I, please, please address this issue. I pray 

that the state will just help. Thank you. 

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 our practical 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 if s pretty 

amazing and I'm really concerned that we lived there over thirty years, we built our home 

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, put people before profit. 

Pat Banks, Northern }vfadison County, KY 

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 

23. Comment: Hi, I'm Patty Boyce and I live in Madison County and I just like 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 of this. 

Patty Bo)'Ce, Madison County, KY 

Resp>mse: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 

7 
Chris Ewing 

SIERRA 

CLUB 

fOUNDED 18 '11 

Environmental Technologist III 

Evaluation Section 

Division of Air Quality 

200 Fair Oaks Lane 

Frankfort, 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) Submittal for 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

Dear Mr. Ewing: 

On behalf of the Sierra Club and its thousands of members who are adversely impacted 

by Kentucky sources of sulfur dioxide ("S02" ) pollution, we submit the followin g comments on 

Kentucky's proposed infrastructure provisions addressing the requirements for the 2010 Sulfur 

Di oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"), required by 

Section 11 O(a)(l) and (2) of the federal Clean Air Act ("FCAA" or "Act"). 42 U.S C. 

§ 7410(a)(l), (2). 

As Kentucky's Division of Air Quality C KDAQ'') has recognized, the new one-hour S02 

standard is necessary to protect public health from the serious threats posed by short-term 

exposure to sulfur compounds, including decreased lung fun ction, increases in respiratory 

symptoms such as chest tightness, wheezing, and shortness of breath, and other serious indi cators 

of respiratory illness, especially in asthmatics, children, and the elderly. See Primwy National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard fo r Suljur Dioxide; Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,550 (June 

20, 201 0) (herei nafter "Final S02 Rule"); KDAQ, Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report 87 (2012) 

(hereinafter "20 12 Annual Report"), available at 

http://air.ky.gov/Division%20Reports/DAQ%2020 12%20Annual%20Report.pdf The health 

data reli ed upon by EPA in promulgating the new standard overwhelmingly indicated that 

Page 1 of 14 
increased asthma attacks and hospital visits are attributable to short-tenn concentrations of sulfur 

compounds in the air. Due to these and other serious impainnents caused by short-tenn S02 

exposure, Kentucky must properly implement the one-hour S02 NAAQS to protect its people. s 

health, as well as the health of people 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 not propose any changes to current regulations to address the new standard. KDAQ 

fails to impose additional restrictions on S02 sources to maintain the NAAQS. Section 11 O(a)(l) 

of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 741 O(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 11 O(a)(2)(A) requires that these plans, known as "Intrastructure SIPs'", 

''include enforceable emission limitations ... as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements" of the 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 SIPs provide means for revision if the 

EPA finds on the basis ofinfonnation available that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain 

the NAAQS. 

A. Kentudy must include the new NAAQS in its SIP 

The 2010 S02 NAAQS 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 

of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum one-hour average 

concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. 40 C.F.R. § 50.17(a)-(b). 

Despite these new NAAQS, Kentucky's regulations do not reflect the new standards for 

either pollutant. S02 limits instead remain at levels set in 1 971 of 0.03 parts per million ("ppm'') 

on an annual basis and 0.14 ppm on a 24-hour average. 401 KY. ADMIN. REGS. 53:010, 

Appendix A (20 13 ). These regulations not reflect the 201 0 one-hour standard. 1 

KDAQ must revise the ambient air quality standards to reflect the 2010 NAAQS. 

1 Similarly, N02 limits remain unchanged from 1971 levels at 0.05 ppm on an annual basis. 

Page 2 of14 
B. 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 Starion, the HL. 

Spurlock Generating Station, the Mill Creek Generating Station, the 

Robert Reid Power Station, the Shawnee Fossil Plant, and rhe Tyrone 

Generating Station. 

KDAQ also fails to include adequate enforceable emission limitations, timetables and 

schedules for compliance for S02 sources that are causing violations of the 2010 S02 N AA QS. 

Specifically, the Big Sandy Plant, the Cane Run Generating Station, the Cooper Power 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 prevent violations 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 of the 2010 S02 NAAQS. 

Consistent with EPA's long held position that modeling should be the primary method to 

deter::11ine NAAQS violations for S02, the Sierra Club has modeled some of the largest S02 

emitters in Kentucky (and indeed the nation). In an effort to ascertain whether these plants cause 

exceedances of the new one-hour S02 standard, expert modeler Steven Klafka conducted 

conservative air dispersion modeling of so2 emissions from the following facilities: 

(1) 

(2) 

(i 

~) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

( l 0) 

Big Sandy Plant, 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 of Compliance with one-hour SCh NAA QS.for Big 

Sandy Plant. Cane Run Generating Station, the Cooper Povc·er Station, the Dale Power Station, 

the Green River Generating Station, the H.L Spurlock Generating Station, the lvfil! Creek 

Generating Starion, the Robert Reid Power Station, Tyrone Generating Station, (February l 0, 

20 12) (hereinafter the "Kentucky Plants Modeling Report"), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, Steven 

Klafka, Shavvnee Fossil Plant Paducah, Kentudy Sierra Club Evaluation of Compliance with ]-

hour S02 NAAQS, (April 8, 20 12) (hereinafter the ·'Shawnee Modeling 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!l66heucggpuwn ll5sutj; the files have 

also been mailed to KDAQ on a CD. 

Page 3 of 14 
The modeling of these 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 

occurring in counties which Kentucky has not proposed to be designated as nonattainment; 

instead, Kentucky has only recommended that that part of one of the impacted counties 

(Jefferson) be designated as nonattainment, while the rest of the state should be designated as in 

attainment. See 2012 Annual Report at 46. 

Mr. Klafka prepared an air dispersion modeling analysis for each of the plants identified 

above to compare modeled ambient air concentrations and the one-hour S02 NAAQS. The 

modeling reports employed EPA's AERMOD 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 violating the one-hour S02 NAAQS. The modeling 

protocol employed is consistent with the EPA's March 2011 guidance for implementing the onehour S02 NAAQS and used the most recent version of AERMOD available at the time of 

publishing. 3 Where any assumptions had to be made in the running ofthe models, Mr. Klafka 

employed conservative inputs which favor the prediction of lower impacts from the plants so that 

the results understate the plant's S02 emission impacts. The reports detail these conservative 

assumptions. 

The results of these analyses show that these facilities have emission limits which allow 

violations of the one-hour S02 NAAQS in counties where these facilities are located, as well as 

some of the surrounding counties, and in several instances across state borders. The findings 

from the modeling reports are summarized in the table below. 

rI 

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

) Impact plus Impacted Designation Background (f.lglm) 

(J.Ig/m3) I 

I I I Lawrence, 

1-~~:~~,~~ 767.1 I 832.5 196.2 Boyd, Carter, 

Big Sandy I I Elliott, Attainment Plant r=' Morgan, 

I Maximum 264.1 329.5 I 196.2 Johnson, 

i Martin** 

Partial Cane Run Allowable 5,198.2 5,263.6 196.2 I 

Jefferson, I nonattainment Generating 1 1 

I 

I Bullitt** I 

in Jefferson 

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 Shawnee Modeling Report used 

AERMOD version 12060. 

Page 4 of 14 

I 

I 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I 
I Allowable 10,098.91 I 0,164.3 196.2 . 

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, 

Rock castle, 

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 Dale Power / 

I Station I Maxinnun 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-,0-7 6-.-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 I Allowable 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 of 14 

I Attainment 1 

I 

I 

I 

~ 

I 

I 

Attainment _ I 

Partial 

nonattainment 

in Jefferson 

only 

I 

i 

I 

• 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 
I 

I Robert r Allowable I I 

533.4 598.8 

I Reid Power 1 

I Station Maxirnu...TU 1 387.3 i 

I 452.7 

~ 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 I w ;;~~~~~:"· 

I j

l --------'---------'--- ___ ..J...__Shelby, Henry, 

Harrison ·...,---~ 

**These plants also cause cross-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 averaging time emission limits into its SIP which are no less stringent than 

the following limits: 4 

I L Plant 

1 Big Sandy Plant 

i 

I 

I 

Cane 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 of the NA..~'\QS and impose limits that will reduce 

emissions to a point where the sources are not causing or contributing to violations. For example, KDAQ needs to 

conduct a good engineering practices analysis of Shawnee 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 --~ 

1 Green River Generating 1,241.9 87.8% I 

I Station 

1 r-- il 

I H.L. Spurlock 4,448.6 / 89.7% 

~enerating Station -~-r-~----~~---'-----------__j 

I

I Mill 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<;1o i 

I I I _j r----- ,__ 

I T)Tone Generating I! I' 

-

__________ J_ ____ l_3_9 ____ ~ ____ 9_9_.2_-~_o__j I Station 

I 

L__ 

These emission limits must apply at all times including during startup, shutdown and 

malfunction. The SIP must also require that compliance with these emission limits be based on 

continuous emission monitoring systems ("CEMS") that must be operated at all times the units 

are combusting fuel including during startup, shutdown and malfunction. A CEMS that 

complied with the New Source Perfom1ance Standard ("NSPS") requirements would not be 

adequate because the 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 outlined by EPA in the Final S02 Rule, air dispersion modeling is the best method for 

evaluating the short-term impacts of large sources of S02 and EPA has historically used air 

dispersion modeling for attaimnent designations and SIP revisions. A state agency may not 

ignore infom1ation put in front of them. See generally A1otor Vehicle lvfjrs. Ass 'n v. Stare Farm 

l'dut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious for agency to ignore 

important aspect of an issue); Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339,346 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

Therefore, even though EPA has stated that states no longer have to submit modeling to show 

attainment of the standard in unclassifiable areas, see e.g. EPA Letter to States Re S02 NAAQS 

Implementation (April 12, 2012) (hereinafter ''EPA Letter to States"), available at 

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/epa-missouri-so2.pdf, this does not apply to citizen 

groups such as the Sierra Club. Here, the Sierra Club has provided the State with modeling 

Page 7 of 14 
demonstrating that existing regulations allow for violation of the NAAQS in areas that are 

currently designated attainment and have not been recommended for nonattainment status. EPA 

clearly continues to consider modeling a valid tool in this context, as in the April 12, 2012 letter, 

EPA goes on to say: "If your 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 a rulemaking to use modeling to advance the initial 

implementation ofthe S02 NAAQS. As an initial matter, Appendix Wand EPA guidance 

documents explain the AERclv10D modeling methodology required to determine source specific 

compliance with the S02 NAAQS. With AERMOD, EPA and/or the states can evaluate a 

specific sources' compliance with the S02 NAAQS, taking into account the background 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 source basis. This is the 

same approach taken by the Sierra Club's modeler in the attached reports. 

KDAQ has long been on notice that EPA considers modeling data an important source of 

information for achieving and maintaining the NAAQS. EPA has historically used modeling in 

determining attainment for the S02 standard. See e.g., U.S. EPA, Implementation of the J -Hour 

S01 K4AQS Draft Tf11itc Paper for Discussion at 3, ftnt. 1, (hereinafter "EPA White Paper"), 

available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20120522whitepaper.pdf: see also 

Respondent's Opposition to Motion ofthe State ofNorth Dakota for a Stay ofEPA's 1-Hour 

S02 Ambient Standard Rule at 3, National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air 

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 

generally not rely on ambient monitoring data alone, but instead will be supported by an 

acceptable modeling 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 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/so2 _guide_ 0921 09.pdf, at 2-1; see als') 

id. at 2-5 ("For S02 attaimnent demonstrations, monitoring data alone will generally not be 

adequate.'} The 1994 Guidance goes on to note that monitoring alone is likely to be inadequate: 

"[f]or S02, dispersion modeling will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively a 

source's impacts and to determine the areas of expected high concentrations based upon current 

conditions." !d. at 2-3. 

EPA· s acceptance of modeling for making attainment designations stretches back 

decades, and is equally applicable to determining the adequacy of an 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 if the monitoring data accurately 

characterize the worst case air quality in the area." I d. at 1. Of course, if there 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 of 14 
2. In fact, reliance on modeling for nonattainment designations stretches back to the Carter 

Administration. In 1978, EPA designated Laurel, Montana nonattainment "'due to 

measured and modeled violations of the 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 of using modeling to determine attainment and nonattainment status for so2 NA~QS. In doing so, EPA properly recognized the "strong source-oriented nature of S02 

ambient impacts," 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,370, and concluded that the appropriate methodology for 

purposes of determining compliance, attainment, and nonattainment with the new 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 paper that using modeling to determine attainment 

for the so2 standard "could better address several potentially problematic issues than would the 

narrower monitoring-focused approach discussed in the proposal for the S02 NAr\QS, including 

the unique source-specific impacts of so2 emissions and the special challenges so2 emissions 

have historically presented in terms of monitoring short-term S02 levels for comparison with the 

NAAQS in many situations (75 FR 35550)." EPA White Paper at 3-4. 

EPA's use of modeling has moreover been upheld by the courts. For example, in 

Montana Sulphur, Montana Sulphur challenged 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's reliance on modeling was not 

arbitrary and capricious or othenvise unlawful. I d. at 1185: see also Sierra Club v. Castle, 

657 F.2d 298, 332 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("Realistically, computer modeling is a useful and often 

essential tool for performing the Herculean labors Congress imposed on EPA in the Clean 

Air Act"); Republic Steel 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 of pollutant sources). 

EPA uses modeling because EPA is well aware that modeling produces reliable results. 

For example, John C. Y1mont was the Region 9 Regional Meteorologist in 1990. Declaration of 

John C. Yimont at 1, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. In 1990, Mr. Yimont stated under oath: 

EPA does recognize the usefulness of ambient 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 

be based on an appropriate modeling analvsis. 

Page 9 of 14 
!d. at 11 (emphasis added). 

Similarly, Roger Brode is currently a physical scientist in EPA's Air Quality Modeling 

Group. Declaration of Roger W. Brode at 1, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. He co-chairs the 

AMS/EP A Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) and the AERMOD 

Implementation Workgroup. !d. at 2. Mr. Brode has stated under oath that AERJVfOD is 

"readily capable of accurately predicting whether the revised primary S02 NAAQS is attained 

and whether individual sources cause or contribute to a violation of the S02 NAAQS." !d. Mr. 

Brode has 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 of the 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 of which 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 of the 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 

of the AERM OD model has significantly reduced the potential for overestimation 

of ambient impacts from elevated sources in complex terrain compared to othermodels. 

Jd. at 3-4 (emphasis added). 

EPA's practice in a number of other contexts also demonstrates that modeling is a 

technically superior approach for ascertaining impacts on NAAQS, and the history ofEPA's 

preference for modeling to evaluate compliance rather than monitoring. For example, all 

N02, PM2 5, and S02 NAAQS and Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") increment 

compliance verification analyses are performed with air dispersion modeling, such as running 

AERMOD in a manner consistent with the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 C.P.R. 

§ 52.21 (1)(1 ). Indeed, in order to ensure consistency in how air impacts are determined, both 

existing sources arid newly permitted sources should be assessed using the same methods. 

AERMOD modeling performs particularly well in evaluating emission sources with one or a 

handful of large emission points. The stacks are well-characterized in terms oflocation, 

dimensions and exhaust parameters, and have high release heights. In addition, the plants 

discussed above have S02 continuous emission monitoring system ("CEMS") data. AERMOD 

accurately models medium-to-large S02 sources-even with conditions of low wind speed, the 

use of off-site meteorological data, and variable weather conditions. For example, AERMOD 

has been tested and performs very well during conditions oflow wind speeds: 

Page 10 of 14 
AERMOD'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 of Camille Sears, attached hereto as Exhibit 7 (citing AERMOD evaluations and 

modeled meteorological data available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scrarn/dispersion_prefrec.htrn). 

EPA has noted as much for years: "[a]mbient monitoring data and air quality modeling data for a 

particular area can sometimes appear to conflict. This is primarily due to the fact-that modeling 

results may predict maximum S02 concentrations at receptors where no monitors are located." 

US. EPA, 1994 S02 Guideline Document at 2-6. 

In sum, neither the SIP nor permitted emission limits for individual plants currently 

ensure that counties in Kentucky will achieve and maintain the new one-hour S02 NAAQS. To 

satisfy the Act's obligations, KDAQ must include adequate emissions limits in the SIP, with onehour averaging periods. EPA has acknowledged that, for the one-hour SO:: NA.A.QS, modeling is 

the most accurate means of determining attainment with the NAAQS. 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,551, 

35,570. Accordingly, KDAQ should include source-specific S02 emission limits in the SIP that, 

when modeled, show no exceedances of the NAAQS. Under their current limits, at least ten 

sources are allowed to cause violations of the NAAQS. The Sierra Club has suggested potential 

limits for these sources that are likely even more lenient that needed to ensure compliance with 

the NAAQS. 

II. THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIP MUST INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO ENSURE 

S02 EMISSIONS WILL NOT CAUSE OR SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE 

TO NONATTAINMENT OR INTERFERE WITH MAINTENANCE OF THE 

S02 NAAQS IN ANOTHER STATE. 

In addition to causing violations of the one-hour S02 NAAQS in various counties within 

Kentucky, several of the plants modeled by the Sierra Club are also causing cross-state violations 

of the NAAQS. KDAQ must address these individual sources, and any others suspected of 

causing cross-state impacts within its infrastructure SIP revisions in order to comply with the 

Act. Under Section 110(a)(2)(D), a SIP must contain "adequate provisions (i) prohibiting ... 

any source ... from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--{I) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, 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 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

The following Kentucky plants are causing violations ofthe one-hour S02 NAAQS in 

other states and therefore "significantly" contributing to nonattainment in these states: 

Page 11 of 14 
r-[ 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 Power Station 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 modeling results, finding exceedances of the NAAQS that cross state lines, not 

only are Kentucky sources interfering with the maintenance of the one-hour S02 NAAQS, they 

are causing direct violations of the NAAQS and creating areas ofnonattainment. Kentucky's 

SIP fails to address these cross-state impacts, however, and thus stands in violation of Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

Just as EPA has historicaliy used air dispersion modeling in attainment designations and 

SIP revisions, so has the agency relied on modeling to assess cross-state impacts under the Act's 

Good Neighbor provision, that is Section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(l). In both the Clean Air Interstate 

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 C AIR and 

CSAPR have subsequently been struck down by the D.C. Circuit, the court never questioned the 

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 respect to 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 20 12) (vacating the rule because it required upwind 

states to reduce emissions by more than their own significant contributions to downwind states' 

nonattainment and did not allow states to implement reductions through SlPs before issuing 

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 source that is causing a violation in a 

single downwind state. As such, the Sierra Club's modeling reports demonstrate not only clear 

cross-state impacts, but in fact, actual violations of the one-hour S02 NAAQS in five different 

states which are being caused by individual 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 of the 

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's plume, Mr. Klafka has confirmed that N.AAQS violations from the Cooper Power 

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 of 14 
IlL KENTUCKY MUST MAKE CLEAR HOW [TS CURRENT REGULATIONS 

COMPLY WITH 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F)(iii). 

Section 11 O(a)(2)(F)(iii) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 741 O(a)(2)(F)(iii), provides that SIPs 

must require a correlation of reports by state agencies on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emission-related data and any emission limitations or standards established under the Clean 

Air Act. These reports must be available at reasonable times for public inspection. !d. \Vhile 

KDAQ attempts to address 42 U.S. C. §741 O(a)(2)(F)(ii), KDAQ does not even attempt to 

address 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F)(iii). KDAQ must add provisions to its SIP to address 42 

U.S. C. § 741 O(a)(2)(F)(iii). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The Kentucky SIP is currently inadequate to 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 any other information that might assist KDAQ in evaluating the impacts of these 

sources and developing a SIP in full compliance with the Act. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Maggie Wendler 

Law Office of Maggie Wendler 

1843 Toyon Way 

Vienna, VA 22182 

(703) 772-1433 

mwendler.esq@gmail.com 

On behalf of Sierra Club 

Kristin Henry 

Staff Attorney 

Sierra Club 

85 Second Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 0 5-3441 

(415) 977-5716 

kristin.henry@sierraclub.org 

Robert Ukeiley 

Law Office ofRobert Ukeiley 

507 Center Street 

Page 13 of 14 
Berea, KY 40403 

(859 986-5402 

rukeiley@igc.org 

On behalf of Sierra Club 

Page 14of 14 
KENTUCKY DIVISION FOR AIR 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 of the 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 Air Act (CAA) Section ll 0 requirements. 

This hearing is open to the public and all interested persons will be given the opportunity to present testimony. The 

hearing will be held, if requested, 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, if possible. To be considered part of the hearing record, comments must be received by the close of 

the hearing. Comments should be sent to the contact person. If no request for a public hearing is received, the 

hearing will be cancelled, and notice of the cancellation will be posted at the website listed below. Request for a 

public hearing must be received no later than January 18, 2013, while all comments must be submitted no later than 

January 25. 2013. 

The full text of the 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 of race, 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 opportunity to participate in all services, programs, and activities.