STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION

RELATING TO THE SIP REVISION FOR KENTUCKY’S REGIONAL HAZE SIP,

WHICH DOCUMENTS REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS FOR KENTUCKY’S

CLASS I AREA MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK AND INCLUDES BEST

AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOG Y (BART) DETERMINATIONS

Amended After Comments



# Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet

Department for Environmental Protection Division for Air Quality

(1) The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabine t (formerly the Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet) conducted a public hearin g on April 7, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) in the

Conference Room of the Divisi on for Air Quality, 803 Schenkel La ne, Frankfort, Kentucky. The hearing was held to receive comments on a pro posed State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that includes the pre-hearing draft of Ke ntucky’s Regional Haze SIP, which documents reasonable progress goals for Kentucky’s Class I area Mammo th Cave National Park and

includes best available retrofit t echnology (BART) determinations.

Written and oral comments were received during the public comment period.

(2) The following individuals attended and/or provided written and/ or oral comments:

Name and Title Organization

Jason Wilkerson* E.ON U.S. Gary Revlett* E.ON U.S. George J. Schewe*, **, *** Alpine Geophysics Mike Zimmer*, *** Trinity Consultants Jimmy Keeton* Kentucky Power

John R. Cline** Troutman Sanders LLP on behalf of Southeast Visibility Industry Coalition (SEVIC) Gordon G. Park** Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Richard A. Schutt** U.S. EPA Region 4

*Attended hearing. **Written comments provided. ***Oral comments provided.

(3) The following individuals from the Kent ucky Energy and Environment Cabinet attended the public hearing:

Martin Luther, Environmental Scientis t II* & ** Division for Air Quality Lona Brewer, Environmental Branch Manager** Division for Air Quality Ty Martin, Environmental Technolo gist I Division for Air Quality

* Agency moderator. **Drafted responses to comments recei ved during the public comment period.

1Response to Comments on the proposed revisio n to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that includes the March 3, 2008, Pre-Hearing Draft of Kentucky’s Regional Haze SIP, which documents reasonable progress goals fo r Kentucky’s Class I area Mammoth Cave

National Park and includes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations.

1. Comment: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Limits in the SIP:

In the prehearing package, the proposed BART controls for five facilities are summarized in Table 7.5.3-1 in Section 7.5.3, p.62-64 of th e SIP narrative, and in Table 9.1 of SIP Appendix L on pages 24-26. The BART limits and associated compliance schedules are required to be in the SIP per 40 CFR 51.308(e): " The State must submit an implementation plan containing emission lim itations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART . . .". Therefore, the SIP must include the specific emission limits (and supporting information for those limits) and compliance schedules for BART for the two facilities not currently subject to federal consent decrees (CDs). These limits

must be in a form that can be enfo rced by both the Commonwealth and EPA.

For the three facilities installing controls for BART to meet federally enforceable emission limits contained in CDs, the Comm onwealth may rely on the federal CDs to establish emission limits that are federally en forceable. The BART limits established pursuant to federal CDs, and the conditions n ecessary to support those limits, do not need to be incorporated into th e SIP, unless any changes are made to the limits. Emission limits from the CDs must be placed in each f acility’s title V permit prior to the expiration

date of its CD. Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet concurs and the appli cable BART emission limitations and compliance schedules have been more clearl y identified in the SIP and BART emission limitations will be added to the source Title V permit as appropriate or on renewal. Also, in reviewing the applicable consent decrees in response to the USEPA’s comments, it was discovered that the East Kentucky Po wer Cooperative (EKPC) consent decree summarized in the SIP on page 42 was imprope r and as a result the Cabinet has provided the proper EKPC consent decree summary fo r the EKPC 7/2/2007 consent decree.

2. Comment: BART Compliance Dates: a) 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv) requires each implementation plan to include: “ A requirement that each source subject to BART be required to install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan revision. ” Please clarify the timeframe for compliance with BART.

b) Section 9.4 on page 27 of SIP Appendix L not es that in accordance with a federal CD, one of the BART controls may not be inst alled until December 2015, which is likely to

fall outside the allowable time window fo r BART compliance provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). For example, if EPA uses the full 18 months allowed under the Clean

2Air Act to take final action on a SIP received in May 2008, five years from November 2009 is November 2014. We encourage the Comm onwealth to work with the facility to install the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber for Big Sandy Unit 2 as expeditiously as practicable.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this commen t and has clarified in the SIP the timeframe for source compliance with BART. In addition, the Cabinet will work with the source to install the flue gas desulfurizat ion (FGD) scrubber for AEP Big Sandy Unit 2 as expeditiously as practicable. However, in the U.S. EPA’s negotiations with AEP on the subject consent decree, if EPA had contacted Kentucky before agreeing to the timeframes, the necessity of these controls and timeframes could have been discussed with the possible outcome bei ng controls installed earlier.

3. Comment: Legal Authority: In the final SIP submittal, please include evidence as required per Appendix V of 40 CFR part 51 that the Common wealth has the necessary legal authority under Kentucky law to a dopt and implement the Regional Haze implementation plan, including the BART limits.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this commen t and has provided language in the preface on page ii of the SIP narrative to indicate that the Cabinet, per KRS 224.10- 100(5), has the statutory legal authority to adopt and implement the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), including the BART emission limits.

4. Comment: Dates of Adoption and Effectiveness: The text in Section 7.5.3 of the SIP

narrative and Section 9.1 of SIP Appendix L indicates that the BART controls for all the sources are targeted to be adopted into title V permits in 2008, and that these BART limits will be taken to public notice. The final SIP submittal must provide evidence that the regional haze plan, including the BART lim its, is adopted and effective in accordance with Appendix V of 40 CFR part 51. Additional clarification is needed to address when the BART limits and supporting conditions will be officially adopted by and effective in

the Commonwealth for each of the facilities.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this commen t. As indicated in the Cabinet response to comment 3, the Cabinet, pe r KRS 224.10-100(5), has the statutory legal authority to adopt and implement Kentucky’ s Regional Haze SIP. In addition, the applicable BART emission limitations and comp liance schedules have been more clearly

identified in the SIP and BART emission limita tions will be added to the source Title V permit as appropriate or on renewal.

5. Comment: General: We recommend that the SI P narrative provide a summary of the BART emission limits and the compliance schedules associated with them for all five facilities installing controls for BART. If the BART limits and supporting conditions are provided elsewhere in the document, th is should be cl early identified.

3Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet concurs and the appli cable BART emission limitations and compliance schedules have been more clearl y identified in the SIP and BART emission limitations will be added to the source Title V permit as appropriate or on renewal.

6. Comment: Section 2.1 and 2.3: a) Section 2.3 of the SIP narrative references Appendix

B.2 for more information on how the new IMPR OVE equation is used to estimate natural background. However, none of the documents in Appendix B discuss where the data (i.e., PM2.5 species concentration data) used in the new IMPROVE equation was

obtained and how it was used in the equation for the Kentuc ky Class I areas. Please clarify.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes consistent with the wording utilized in other states regional haze SIPs.

7. Comment: b) Please provide a citation in sectio n 2.1 and/or section 2.3 for the location of the 20 percent best and worst days used in the technical analyses for the Kentucky

Class I areas.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. A citation providing the location of the 20 percent best and worst days used in the technical analyses for Kentucky’s Class I area has been provided in Section 2.3.

8. Comment: Appendix L - E.ON US Mill Creek Station: Please further clarify the basis for limiting controls for BART (sorbent injectio n) to the larger two units versus all four units. The cost per ton and cost per decivi ew for the two larger units that are being controlled are very similar to that for the sm aller two units that ar e not being controlled (see table on page 142 of appendix L.11)

. Further, the dollars per deciview ($/dv) cited is

similar to that for contro ls under the Clean Air Inters tate Rule (CAIR) rule.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. As indicated in the E.ON U.S. Mill Creek BART determination submittal, the average cost for installing sorbent

controls on all four Mill Creek units is a bout the same (an estimated 5.1 million $/dv). However, sorbent injection at all four un its would mean an additional total capital investment of $8.8 million as compared to controls only on the larger Units 3 and 4.
Therefore, E.ON U.S. concluded that BART should be the installation of sorbent injection controls on the larger Mill Creek Units 3 and 4 since they can achieve an estimated 70 percent of the total dv improvement achieved by contro lling all four units. Given the extra cost for the lesser additional dv improvement, the Cabinet agreed that

BART for Mill Creek is the installation of sorb ent injection controls on the larger Units 3

and 4.

49. Comment: Section 1.5, p.5: This section stat es that procedures for continuing consultation with the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) are required per 40 CFR 51.308(i), however, no such procedures are outlined in th is section. Rather, Section 1.5 describes the consultation procedures used to date to engage other states , FLMs, and others. Section 11 on page 87 in the fourth para graph appears to provide continuing FLM consultation procedures as required by 40 CFR 51.308(i). We sugge st that Kentucky clearly identify what is intended to constitute its continuing FLM consultation procedures.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment. However, the Cabinet did not make any changes since the wording utilized by th e Cabinet was consistent with the wording

utilized in other states regional haze SIPs.

10. Comment: Section 3.1, page 15: Figure 3.1-1 pres ents the Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path for the 20 percent worst days at the Mammoth Cave Class I area. These figures reference a “Method 1 Prediction” for the reasonable progress assessment. However, Figure 3.1-1 does not present the modeled reasonable progress goals. It is suggested that the “Method 1 Prediction” entry in the le gend be deleted. To avoid confusion, we suggest deletion of “Reasonable” in the title of Figure 3.1-1 on page 15.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment a nd has made the suggested changes.

11. Comment: Section 7.2.4, Figures 7.2.4-1 and 7. 2.4-2, pages 46-47: Figures 7.2.4-1 and 7.2.4-2 present the Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path for the 20 percent worst days and 20 percent best days at the Mammoth Cave Class I area, respectively. In the legend, these figures reference a “Met hod 1 Prediction” for the reas onable progress assessment. However, the text does not describe what is meant by Method 1. We suggest a

clarification of Me thod 1 in the text.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment. However, the Cabinet did not make any changes since the wording utilized by th e Cabinet was consistent with the wording

utilized in other states regional haze SIPs.

12. Comment: Section 10, p. 86: The text appears ambiguous regarding the Commonwealth’s approach to addressing M ANE-VU's request with respect to a 28 percent reduction in non-EGU sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissi ons for the first planning period. We suggest that the Commonw ealth’s approach be clarified.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and has made some wording changes to provide clarification. The Ca binet has related in the SIP narra tive that it believes that the significant Kentucky existing and exp ected EGU emission controls more than adequately addresses MANE-VU’s EGU and Non-EGU emission control requests.

513. Comment: Appendix L Summary: The summary doc ument to Appendix L is very useful and informative. Kentucky is commended for the good work done to organize the appendices. Much, if not all, of the disc ussion in the introductory summary document to Appendix L on how the BART requirement wa s met, (i.e., exemption volatile organic compound emissions, contribution threshold, sour ces exempted, etc.), could be moved to the SIP narrative starting in section 7.5.1. It is a very well documented discussion of the BART modeling.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment , but no changes were made since Appendix L is referenced numerous times in the SIP narrative.

14. Comment: Overall, SEVIC concurs with the Kentucky Division for Air Quality’s (KYDAQ’s) most significant conc lusion for its initial regional haze SIP. That is, given the projected magnitude of vi sibility improvements in Mammoth Cave National Park by 2018 due to other, non-regional haze Clean Air Act programs, any control measures beyond any State BART requirements will not ac hieve further reasonable progress during the current planning period. That result is full y consistent with EPA’s expectations for some Class I areas during th is initial planning period. See 64 Fed. Reg. 35721-22 (July 1, 1999).

However, SEVIC does not agree with portions of the methodology that KYDAQ used to arrive at that important conclusion. Because Ke ntucky will be repeating the regional haze planning process numerous times over the next 40 years, SEVIC is concerned with the potential precedent of the State’s curren t planning approach. While the planning

deficiencies identified herein had no materi al impact on the State’s overall conclusions for this planning period, the same might not be true for future planning periods if substantial visibility improvements are not achieved by other (non -regional-haze) CAA programs in the future. Therefore, SEVIC offe rs the enclosed detailed comments with the hope that KYDAQ (1) will take a fresh look at the fundamental requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the Act, (2) will examin e some of the conflicting EPA guidance on regional haze with a critical eye and (3) w ill re-structure its future reasonable progress analyses to better align the State’s met hodology with the plain la nguage and purpose of those statutory provisions.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

15. Comment: SEVIC is disappointed that KYDAQ has c hosen to structure the content and analyses within its regional haze SIP in acco rdance with what we can only label as, for lack of a better description, the “Carolina Model.” While SEVIC appreciates the VISTAS States’ need to cooperate with each other and to maintain some level of consistency in their respective analytical and regulato ry approaches, we believe that KYDAQ has missed an opportunity to raise the quality of its regional haze SIP above the level of

earlier submittals of several St ates. When the contents of certain State-specific analyses

6in one SIP are practically word-for-word the sa me as the contents of those analyses in other States’ SIPs, SEVIC believes that th e importance of indi vidual State-by-State analysis and decision-making on matters of vi sibility protection, which the statute so clearly anticipated, has been sacrificed in the name of consistent, mechanical and sometimes illogical SIP uniformity.

If KYDAQ could make but a single change to its future regional haze planning, SEVIC requests that the State adopt a method for determining reasonable progress which comports with the fundamental approach in the statute rather than with conflicting and misleading “guidance.” “Reasonable progress” means reasonable visibility improvement in a Class I area ... period. The statute says absolutely nothi ng about “reasonable control measures.” And any reasonable progress determ ination that considers the named statutory

factors but not the related vi sibility improvement constitu tes a fundamentally, if not fatally, flawed approach to regional haze planning.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

16. Comment: SEVIC’s comments on Kentucky’s draft regional haze SIP focus on its Chapter 7, i.e., the long-term strategy, and its companion Appendix H. In particular,

SEVIC has numerous concerns with the stru cture of the State’s reasonable progress analyses. We believe that approach requires substantive revision prio r to any reasonable progress determinations for fu ture SIP planning periods.

In addition, we also take exception with how KYDAQ has defined BART for those sources that are subject to the independent emission-reduction requirements of a consent

decree or similar administrative or judicial order. Those pa rticular control measures are not required by the regional haze rule but ra ther are due to other CAA programs. Thus, it

is incorrect to attribute su ch reductions to BART. Any BART requirements for such

sources should start with an emissions base line that accounts for the emission reductions attributable to all other CAA programs, in cluding those currently required by a consent

decree.

SEVIC’s comments also reflect a number of concerns with VISTAS’ (and Kentucky’s) methods (1) for identifying the relative visibi lity-impairment contributions of different pollutants in Class I areas and (2) for defini ng an Area of Influence, purportedly by 2018 SO2 emissions, which for some reason is h eavily influenced by SO2 emissions during

2000-2004.

Finally, SEVIC notes that KYDAQ’s Chapter 7 identifies a number of “technical improvements” which the State hopes can be made “to support regulatory decisions for regional haze.” SEVIC reque sts that KYDAQ also commit to an independent State

assessment or audit of the structure and me thodologies of its regional haze analyses. Because that process is iterative over the next four decades, the State needs some form of periodic review of its pro cess and procedures in orde r that its planning may be continually enhanced and targeted toward the underlying statutory prov isions at all times.

7John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment. Please see responses for specific

Section 7 comments as follows.

17. Comment: Section 7.0, Page 39, 1 st ¶, The regional haze rule does not require States to establish reasonable progress goals for visibil ity improvement at each affected Class I area. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1) clearly prescrib es that “[f]or each mandatory Class I

area located within the Stat e, the State must establish [reasonable progress] goals . . .” Reasonable progress during the initial planning period must be achieved through measures contained in the Stat e’s long-term strategy and measures required as BART. See C AA section 169(A)(b)(2).
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

18. Comment: § 7.1, 1st ¶, The first sentence purportedly establishes a “key conclusion” which has little to no real significance to the list of questions which follow.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

19. Comment: § 7.1, item a, The “glidepath” represen ts a uniform rate of visibility improvement. Therefore, the appropriate co mparison should be between the visibility improvement resulting from existing federal and State air regulatory requirements and that visibility improvement achieved by the glidepath over the planning period.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

20. Comment: § 7.1, item b, The emission controls per se representing BART are immaterial. Rather, the question should focu s on the additional visibility improvement in Kentucky’s Class I area resulting from those BART controls.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

21. Comment: § 7.1, item c, Again, it is not the addi tional emission reductions that are at issue. The question should focus on whether additional visibility improvement, beyond that achieved by existing air regulatory requi rements and by BART, is needed to achieve reasonable progress in Kentucky’s Class I area.

8John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

22. Comment: § 7.1, item d, From Kentucky’s stand point of establishing a reasonable progress goal for its Class I area, the greatest impact on visibility in other, specific Class I areas is not pertinent to the State’s inquiry.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

23. Comment: § 7.1, item f, Again, from Kentucky’s pers pective, the inquir y is not for “a given Class I area” but rather fo r Kentucky’s single Class I area.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

24. Comment: § 7.1, item g, Reasonable progress is a m easure of visibility improvement. Therefore, “additional emission controls” cannot represent reasonable progress. Instead, the question is whether visibility improveme nt achieved by additional emission controls will constitute reasonable progress.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

25. Comment: § 7.1, item h, SEVIC recommends re-sta ting the question as follows: After accounting for the visibility improvement ach ieved in Kentucky’s Class I area due to emission reductions required by other CAA programs and by BART, is additional visibility improvement still needed to achie ve that which the glidepath would achieve over the planning period?
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

26. Comment: Page 41, 1st ¶, last sent. The requirement for use of ultra-low sulfur diesel in on-road engines is already required.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

927. Comment: Page 41, 4th ¶ The non-road diesel rule required no more than 500 ppm of sulfur beginning in 2007, dropping to 15 ppm for most non-road engines in 2010 and for ships and locomotives in 2012.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

28. Comment: Page 43, 4th ¶ In several places within this document, reference is made to “updated growth and control data consistent with the data used in the USEPA’s CAIR analyses.” SEVIC requests that a specific Fe deral Register citation be included for that “data used in the USEPA’s CAIR analyses” in order that the refe renced data may be

located and examined.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and included a citation for the USEPA’s CAIR analyses.

29. Comment: Page 46, 2nd ¶ The subject figures do c onstitute one type of “reasonable progress assessment for Mammoth Cave Nationa l Park.” The comparison is only between visibility improvement achieved by impleme ntation of existing federal and state regulations and visibility im provement achieved at the uniform rate of progress for Mammoth Cave National Park. Thus, the figures’ title of “Reasonable Progress Assessment” should be qualified by a dding “for Other CAA Programs.”

Also, the red lines do not show the uniform ra te of progress to natu ral conditions in 2064 for the 20 percent best days. John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

30. Comment: Page 53, 2nd ¶, last sent. By “not ... accounting for international emissions in setting the 2018 reasonable progress goals fo r [Mammoth Cave],” KYDAQ has injected a bias in its overall analysis. Because visibili ty impairment attributable to international

emissions is contained in the value of th e baseline impairment in Mammoth Cave, the uniform rate of progress for that Class I area as determined by KYDAQ will be slightly greater (steeper glidepath) than what woul d otherwise be necessary to reach natural conditions by 2064. Therefore, in its interi m progress review during the first planning period, KYDAQ must account for this bias when evaluating whether the actual rate of visibility improvement in Mammoth Cave is acceptable. Sources should not be penalized (by subse quently requiring further emission reductions) for that embedded portion of visibility impa irment due to international emissions that cannot be reduced during the planning period.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

10Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment. The Cabinet does not think it wise

to state at this time if international emissi ons should be accounted for in future Regional Haze SIPs. The Cabinet plans to assess if intern ational emissions should be accounted for in setting the reasonable progress goals fo r future assessment periods at the time those goals are established.

31. Comment: § 7.4, Relative Contributions - SEVIC understands that this particular analysis was intended to “identify the ke y pollutants contributing to visibility impairment” in Mammoth Cave National Pa rk. However, SEVIC believes that the reported results are misleading and may not be re presentative of the relative contributions of various pollutants that actually remain afte r emission reductions due to all existing and planned control measures.

This SIP evaluation was based initially on the “2018 projections inventory.” Intuitively, that approach seems appropriate for defining the mix of visibility-impairing pollutants that remain after accounting for emissions reductions due to other CAA programs over the planning period. However, the analysis also consisted of modeling runs with the “2009 projection inventory,” and, in fact , KYDAQ has relied on those latter modeling

results to estimate the relative contributi ons of visibility impairing pollutants in

Mammoth Cave NP.

SEVIC believes KYDAQ has erred in rely ing on modeling re sults based upon 2009 emissions as the basis for determining those relative contributions . For example, CAIR will clearly achieve substantial reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions during the period from 2010 to 2018. Consequently, that will likel y result in the rela tive contributions from other pollutants increasing signifi cantly, i.e., the fraction of ea ch of those other pollutants

will increase as those for SO2 and NOx decrease substantially.

While SEVIC understands KYDAQ’s conclusion that point source emissions of SO2 will be major contributors to visibi lity impairment in the subjec t Class I area after accounting for all other CAA programs, the relative contributions of all other pollutants are inherently biased low in this study due to the inappropriate reliance on projected 2009

emissions instead of those from 2018.

This also raises the fundamental ques tion as to why VISTAS and KYDAQ found it necessary to exclude the resu lts of its analysis using projected 2018 emissions. SEVIC believes that those results and their implicati ons deserve some discus sion within the draft

SIP.

Aside from KYDAQ’s questionable reliance on re sults using an inappropriate emissions inventory, SEVIC also questions whether the populat ion of the reported results was large enough to be representative of the polluta nt mix that should be expected. If we understand KYDAQ’s explanations, two epis odes totaling 70 days in 2009 were modeled, and responses of the 20 percent wo rst days were averaged. Nevertheless,

SEVIC cannot find in this draft SIP what th e result of that averaging was for the 20 percent worst days.

11Instead, for Mammoth Cave NP, KYDAQ ha s presented the results based only upon “responses on six of the 20 percent worst visi bility days.” In SEVIC’s view, responses on the 20 percent worst days would consist of re sults from 14 days. We , therefore, request KYDAQ to explain why it has selectively chosen responses from only 6 days to purportedly be representative of th e results for this analysis.

Because of the limited amount of information used to support the reported results, SEVIC questions some of the conclusions wh ich KYDAQ makes based on those misleading results. For example, KYDAQ st ates that “[r]educing carbon from fires was not found to

be effective because there was little fire activity at these si tes on the days modeled in the sensitivity analyses.” Perhaps the days mode led were simply not representative of the frequency of fires which impact Mammoth Cave NP. Indeed, if the results ultimately reported were based solely on responses during 6 days, then it is understandable that no significant fire contributions may have occurred for that very limited data set.

Finally, if the determina tion of the relative contributions of visibility im pairing pollutants had been based on the 2018 emissions inventory, and if the modeled re sponses from all of the 20 percent worst-visibility days had b een used, KYDAQ is reque sted to discuss (1) the likely results from that latter approach and (2) the magnitude of the differences between those results and the draft SIP’s report ed values of the relative contributions. In short, SEVIC believes that th is latter approach could sugge st greater potential benefits

from future reductions of thos e other pollutants’ emissions.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet does not agree. The inte nt of using the sensitivity modeling

results was not to determine what the relativ e contribution from different States/regions had on visibility, but rather to better understand how reductions in various source sectors would impact visibility. The Cabinet used da ta from existing modeling as a qualitative guide to identify the key pollutants contribu ting to visibility impairment at Kentucky’s

Class I area.

32. Comment: Page 56, 3rd ¶ It is incorrect to state that section 169A directs States to assess

certain ... older emission sources for the possible applicability of BART. When Congress adopted section 169A, all the sources potentially subject to BART were no more than 15 years old. The ages of the aff ected sources at this time are due to the 30- year delay in implementing the statutory BART requirements.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made wording changes deemed appropriate.

33. Comment: Page 58, 3rd ¶ The statutory provision fo r BART plainly requires the State to determine whether a source “emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribu te to any impairment of visi bility in any such [Class I] area.” Thus, if KYDAQ determines that some sources do not cause or contribute to

12visibility impairment in a Class I ar ea, then SEVIC believes that KYDAQ has no discretion in exempting those sources from BART. In other words, contrary to KYDAQ’s assertion, a BART exemption for such a source is not something that may be considered. Instead, exemption from BART must be granted to the source.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

34. Comment: Page 61, 2nd ¶ For purposes of clarit y and continuity, this paragraph beginning with the words “The USEPA has de termined ...” should precede the paragraph on the previous page.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

35. Comment: Page 61, last ¶ This one sentence appear s to be completely redundant.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

36. Comment: § 7.5.3, Determination of BART for Subject-to-BART Sources - KYDAQ has explained that any BART determinati on for an EGU needs only be made for particulate matter because CAIR has been consid ered to be equal to or better than BART for SO2 and NOx. Furthermore, KYDAQ states th at it has used PM10 as an indicator for particulate matter to iden tify BART-eligible units.

SEVIC objects to KYDAQ’s BART determinations for certain affected sources because those determinations go far beyond considera tion of BART for particulate matter. In particular, two of the five BART-affected sources are already re quired under consent decrees to install highly effi cient control systems for condensible particulate emissions and other visibility impairi ng pollutants. Those controls will be required regardless of whether BART applies to the affected units. SEVIC therefore questi ons the propriety of identifying those controls as BART. Instea d, SEVIC believes that a realistic assessment

of BART for those un its with new emission control systems that already are required

should be based on a baseline level of emissions that those new controls are designed to

achieve.

Not only are those new control systems alr eady required in the absence of any BART determinations, KYDAQ has not limited its BART analysis only to particulate matter, in general, and to PM10, in particular. Ra ther, KYDAQ has now defined BART for those

affected units on the basis of reductions of “condensible particulate emissions and other visibility impairing pollutants”. KYDAQ’s BA RT “determinations” for PM emissions from those units already affected by consent decrees are inappropria te and should be reevaluated based on PM emissions which will remain after controls already required by the consent decrees are implemented.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

13Response: The Cabinet does not agree. Subject Kentucky BART sources were already completing BART determination modeling before the final consent decrees were issued.

The issuance of a consent decree control does not preclude controls from being

considered as a control for BART. In additi on, since condensable part iculates are part of PM, the Cabinet finds that it was appropr iate to require their control for BART.

37. § 7.6.3, SO2 Areas of Influence - The purpos e of VISTAS’ and KYDAQ’s analysis was to “define the geographic area with highest pr obability of influencing the receptor [Class I area] on the 20 percent worst days in 2000-2004 that were dominated by sulfate.” However, for identifying sources of emi ssion reductions that can possibly achieve additional reasonable progress in Mammoth Cave NP, SEVIC believes the analysis should have been based on back trajectories on the projected 20 percent worst days in 2018 that are dominated by sulfate. That is, SEVIC believes the analysis would be more

informative if it had defined the sources with the most visibility impact in Mammoth Cave after accounting for the many emi ssions reductions requ ired by other CAA programs through 2018. In short, much of KYDAQ’s area of influence for Mammoth Cave has been determined by emissions that will not exist in the future and therefore

should never be considered as candidates for achieving additional reasonable progress.

That area of influence should have been de termined only by emissions which will remain after the many reductions already requir ed by existing and planned controls.

Furthermore, KYDAQ states that deliberately weighting the back tr ajectories by sulfate extinction results in “plac[ing] less importa nce on days influenced by organic carbon from fires.” It appears to SEVIC that that inherent bias is further reason why KYDAQ later questionably conc ludes that the visibility-impai rment contribution of fires in

Mammoth Cave NP is not material.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and has made wording changes it deemed appropriate. The area of influence pl ots were developed to understand the area that most likely impacted the Class I area s during the baseline period of 2000 – 2004. This provided the State with a starting point to identify those sources located within the region that may have impacted the 20% wo rst days. The KYDAQ c ould then evaluate those sources, their estimated future emissions and any potential cont rol technologies that may be considered reasonable measures. A lthough the sulfate weighted residence times were calculated from 2002 emissions, the only emission sources that decreased significantly between 2002 and 2018 were the electric gene rating units (EGUs) that are expected to be controlled by 2018. Since the KYDAQ determined that the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) were deemed reasona ble control measures for the EGUs, only the

non-EGU sources were left to evaluate. If a non-EGU s ource happened to be located within the same grid cell as an EGU, it potent ially could have been weighted higher than if it had not. However, since the KYDAQ evaluated each source on its own merits, the

outcome would not have been different.

1438. Comment: § 7.6.4, Emissions Sources within SO2 Areas of Influence - For similar reasons, SEVIC also questions the appropria teness of KYDAQ’s plots which show “2018 SO2 emissions weighted by residence time.” As SEVIC understands the resultant plots, the sulfate-extinction weighted residence times were dete rmined from the 20% worst days of visibility due to sulfate during 2000-2004. This ra ises the question of the usefulness of those results for 2018 projecti ons if those results have been heavily influenced by SO2 emissions during 2000-2004, many of which will not be present in

2018. John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comm ent and made changes deemed appropriate.

39. Comment: Page 72, 2nd ¶ KYDAQ states that “[t]he emission sensitivities . . . indicated very small benefits of controlling NOx, NH 3, and primary PM emissions at Kentucky’s Class I area, but if these emissions were of concern, different s ource categories would need to be addressed.” As SEVIC has previo usly explained, these pollutants were found to be of lesser importance with respect to visibility in Mammoth Cave NP partially

because their relative contributions were biased low by VISTAS/KYDAQ’s inappropriate use of 2009 emissions in the relative-contribution analysis.

SEVIC believes that such a bias must be a voided in future analyses of the relative contributions of different po llutants. As the SO2 emissi ons inventory continues to decrease over the next decade, the relative contributions due to other pollutants almost certainly will increase. Consequently, in future regional haze planning periods, SEVIC asserts that other pollutants will be “of con cern” and thus “different source categories

would need to be addressed.”
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made changes deemed appropriate.

40. Comment: Page 73, 1st ¶ “KYDAQ considered what a dditional control measures for

electric utilities and industrial boilers are reasonable.” This statement likely refers to the State’s subsequent reasonable progress analys es for those source categories. Although we understand that KYDAQ’s terminology in the ab ove sentence likely arises from some questionable draft EPA guidance that was ne ver fully corrected or clarified, SEVIC believes that KYDAQ’s future regional haze pl anning must adopt an approach that is wholly consistent with the fundamental principles in the Clean Air Act.

To that end, and as will be discussed subsequently in more detail, KYDAQ must

understand that the so-called “four-f actor analysis” does not determine reasonable control

measures . The plain language of se ction 169A(g)(1) of the Act re quires certain statutory

factors to be considered when “ determining reasonable progress .” The word “progress” in the context of the Act’s provi sions for visibility protec tion is nothing more than a synonym for “visibility improvement.” Cons equently, one mandate for KYDAQ in this

15regional haze SIP is to consider certain statutory factors when evaluating whether

additional control measures for electrtic ut ilities and industrial boilers will achieve reasonable progress (visibility improvement) in Mammoth Cave National Park. The Act says nothing about determining whether control measures are “reasonable.”
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

41. Comment: § 7.7, Evaluating the Four Statutory Factors for Specific SO2 Emissions

Sources in Each Area of Influence

Page 74, 6th ¶ This approach reflects a funda mental flaw in the structure of KYDAQ’s (and other States’) reasonable pr ogress analysis. Aside from what those States believe the regional haze rule requires, the underlying, unavo idable fact is that section 169A of the Clean Air Act requires four factors to be considered when “determining reasonable progress.” Thus, those four factors must be considered when determining whether visibility improvement is reasonable. In othe r words, it is highly misleading to label a reasonable progress analysis as a “four-factor analysis” inasmuch as that analysis must

involve five discrete statut ory factors. SEVIC believes that any reasonable progress analysis for a candidate control measure that does not account for its associated visibility improvement is deficient as a matter of law.

KYDAQ’s reasonable progress is not, however, fa tally flawed in this instance because, for one reason, the State has actually considered visibility improvement as part of its reasonable progress analysis . Although KYDAQ indicates th at it has used “cost of compliance” as a screening tool for its r easonable progress analysis (p.78, 4th ¶), the State fails to mention, at leas t explicitly, that it has also us ed “visibility improvement” or “progress” as a screening tool as well.

By determining “which emission units would be evaluated based on impact”, i.e., “those emission units with a contribution of one percen t or more to the visibility impairment at [Mammoth Cave National Park],” KYDAQ has sc reened out all other emission units for which additional control measures have less po tential to achieve visibility improvement in that Class I area. Thus, KYDAQ’s evaluation of additional control measures for certain

sources has been confined onl y to those sources where such control measures have the greatest likelihood of achiev ing reasonable progress.

Moreover, as part of its reasonable progr ess analysis, KYDAQ did ultimately consider visibility improvement achieved by some ca ndidate control measures. However, SEVIC does not believe that visibility improvement was assessed at the appropriate point in the process. As KYDAQ states, “If any control measure for an emission unit was found reasonable after assessing the four factors, modeling would be performed to determine if the controls would result in a visibility improvement.”

SEVIC already has established that the statute says abso lutely nothing about finding a

control measure to be reasonable. Rather the objective of any reasonable progress

16analysis is to determine whether visibility improvement achieved by a candidate control measure is reasonable. Consequently, KYDAQ’s “four-factor analysis,” by itself, for a particular emission unit was nothi ng more than a further scre ening analysis that limited

considerations of visi bility improvement to a limited number of control measures.

SEVIC strongly believes that visibility impr ovement must not be considered only after some non-descript determination of a “reasona ble control measures.” Rather, the extent of visibility improvement from a candidate control measure s hould be considerered at the

same time as evaluations of the cost of compliance and the other statutory factors.

The other reason that KYDAQ’s reasonable progress analysis in this instance is not fatally flawed is because of the substantial amounts of reasonable progr ess that either has already been or will be achieved by other CAA programs during this initial planning period. That is, the amount of visibili ty improvement obtained by 2018 at Mammoth Cave NP due to other CAA programs is predic ted to be greater progress than what would

be obtained with the Class I area’s uniform rate of progress. As a result, when using the statutory factors, it would be exceedingly di fficult to justify visibility improvement achieved from any “regional haze” controls (except perhaps by BART ) during this first planning period as “reasonable” In short, SEVIC believes that the ultimate conclusion of KYDAQ’s reasonable progress analysis is co rrect, even though the State’s methodology for getting there was not fully in accordance with the statute.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

42. Comment: § 7.8, Which Control Measures Represen t Reasonable Progress for Individual Sources? One can tell from the particular way this question is phrased that the analysis which follows will likely not be consistent with the statutory command for “determining reasonable progress.” First, control measures do not “represent” re asonable progress” but instead they may “achieve” reasonable progres s. Second, control measures do not achieve reasonable progress “for” indivi dual sources but rather for “Class I areas,” in general, and for Mammoth Cave National Park, in pa rticular in this instance. While SEVIC nevertheless understands the underlying intent of KYDAQ’s analysis, we believe that strict adherence to the appropriate terminol ogy will result in a more acceptable structure of a reasonable progress analysis.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made changes deemed appropriate.

43. Comment: Page 76, Step 3 The phrase “CAIR is su fficient for reasonable progress” is another example of the use of inappropriate terminology. SEVI C believes the intent here seeks to determine whether the visibility improvement achieved from CAIR-required

emission reduction will constitute reasonabl e progress. However, KYDAQ’s subsequent

focus on emission reductions makes that interpretation suspect.

17SEVIC does commend KYDAQ’s c onsideration of control costs which go beyond the mere mechanical calculation of $/ton “cost -effectiveness” for control measures. By acknowledging the CAIR’s evaluation of various economic impacts to electric utilities, KYDAQ’s assessment of the “costs of complian ce” statutory factor constitutes a more thorough and reasoned evaluation of that factor which SEVIC be lieves is consistent with congressional expectations for section 169A.

However, SEVIC believes that CAIR is more appropriately accounted for by defining the reasonable progress to be achieved by CA IR and all other CAA programs. Once the magnitude of that aggregate visibility improvement is de fined (greater than that obtainable with the uniform rate of progress), then the reasonable progress analysis for a particular EGU becomes a question of whet her further visibility improvement achieved by any “beyond-CAIR” control measure, in the c ontext of the statutory factors, would be found to be reasonable during the first planning period.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

44. Comment: Page 77, last ¶ In planning for its 2012 periodic report, KYDAQ indicates that it will focus on a comparison of planned emission reductions to those actually being achieved. Inasmuch as the ultimate goal of the regional haze program is to reduce visibility impairment in Class I ar eas, SEVIC believes that KYDAQ’s 2012 “reevaluation” should instead focus on the amount and rate of visibility improvement achieved by that time in Mammoth Cave Nationa l Park versus what the State’s initial regional haze SIP had projected.

The last sentence states that “the KYDAQ has concluded that at this time these existing regulatory programs constitute reasonable control measures for Kentucky EGUs during this first assessment period.” Once again, th is shorthand statement does not directly address either the statutory or regulatory ob ligation of the State. Rather, SEVIC believes that KYDAQ’s conclusion should be stated as follows: “Based on the magnitude of reasonable progress projected for Mammoth Cave National Park by 2018 due to other CAA programs, Kentucky DAQ concludes that additional control measures on any Kentucky EGU would not achieve further reas onable progress at Mammoth Cave during this initial planning period.”
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

45. Comment: Page 80, 4th ¶ This paragraph needs to be updated to reflect developments

which have occurred since it was first writte n. In particular, VISTAS’ “best-and final” modeling run has now been completed, and the results have been provided to the States. The December 17, 2007 submittal deadline for the regional haze SIPs is no longer a relevant factor in how KYDAQ addr esses the “final modeling run.”

18Given the magnitude of reasonable progress e xpected for Mammoth Cave during the first planning period, KYDAQ likely has no need to revise its reasonabl e progress goals for that Class I area. However, the final SIP fo r this planning period should, at a minimum, acknowledge the most recent status of VISTAS’ regional modeling and comment on

whether the latest results are at least as favorable for Mammoth Cave as the earlier modeling results on which KYDAQ has relied.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment and made changes deemed appropriate.

46. Comment: Page 87, 4th ¶ SEVIC concurs with KYDAQ’s belief that its new source review regulations are adequate for addressing visibility impacts in Class I areas due to new major stationary sources and major modifi cations. Indeed, the le gislative history of

title I of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act confirms that Congress intended for the major NSR statutory provisions to address visibility impacts from new and modified major stationary sources and for the separate vi sibility protection prov isions of the Act to address such impacts from existing sources.
John R. Cline, Troutman Sanders LLP

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment.

47. Comment: Please clarify what is meant by “s teady state operations” for the 24-hour emissions used in BART exemption modeling. George J. Schewe, Alpine Geophysics

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges the comment. The term may reflect operations that are stable and not transient or varyi ng. However, the Cabinet recommends that the commenter directly communicate this question to the USEPA for a response since this question concerns the USEPA’s BART rule and guidelines.

48. Comment: Would like clarification and concurrence that a facility that is cited as an exempt facility, that through the SIP process, that they will gain their federally enforceable condition to have that exemption, or whether a facility th at has been cited as an exempt facility will have to undergo furt her additional work after this process. Mike Zimmer, Trinity Consultants

Response: The Cabinet’s Regional Haze SIP identifie s those sources that were exempted

from BART based on the source’s BART exem ption modeling. For clarification, those exempted sources through the SIP process ar e exempt from BART and will not have to undergo further analysis in the future for BA RT, but possibly for r easonable progress.

49. Comment: Section 7.5.3 of the Draft Implementa tion Plan states that hydrated lime injection was determined to be BART for Pa radise Fossil Plant (PAF). However, TVA

did not determine that this control should be the basis for BART. Rather, hydrated lime injection will be installed at PAF to mitig ate stack opacity due to SO3 emissions well

19before BART controls are required. As an added benefit, the opacity-mitigation systems will concurrently achieve the reduction in visibility impacts listed in the Draft Implementation Plan. Because these systems will be included in the PAF Title V permit and will, therefore, be federally enforceable , no further analysis or control should be required under BART regulations.
Gordon G. Park, TVA

Response: The Cabinet concurs with the comment. Since TVA had previously indicated to the KYDAQ its plans to install hydrated lim e injection controls on TVA Paradise Units1-3 to mitigate opacity due to SO3 emissions and that additional controls are not costeffective at this time, the Cabinet (KYDAQ) has determined BART to be no control for TVA Paradise Units 1-3. However, as related by TVA, the hydrated lime injection

controls for TVA Paradise Units 1-3 will be in place well before the BART controls are required; will achieve the reduction in visibility impacts listed in the Draft Implementation Plan (Kentucky Regional Haze SIP); and will be included in TVA Paradise’s Title V permit as appropriate or upon renewal. Specifically, regarding the installation of hydrated lime injection controls for TVA Paradise Units 1-3, TVA has communicated to KYDAQ its proposed plan th at provides for permitting activities to proceed in July 2008; for construction to begin in mid-2009 on Unit 3 with construction for Unit 1 and 2 to follow; and for controls to be operating on all three TVA Paradise units possibly by the fall of 2010.

20