Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6657 

Dated: January 23, 2008. 

William Grawe, 

Acting Director, National Pollution Funds 

Center, United States Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. E8–1516 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–1091; FRL–8525–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans Kentucky: 

Tennessee Valley Authority Paradise 

Facility State Implementation Plan 

Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a source specific State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision submitted on 

October 19, 2007, by the Kentucky 

Division for Air Quality (KDAQ). The 

purpose of the SIP revision is to remove 

from the Kentucky State 

Implementation Plan a previous sourcespecific revision approved by EPA on 

August 25, 1989, and relating to the 

redistribution of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions from Tennessee Valley 

Authority’s (TVA’s) Paradise Steam 

Plant located in Muhlenburg County, 

Kentucky. This proposal includes SO2

limits that are more stringent than the 

current SIP-approved statewide SO2

limits for electric generating units 

(EGUs). Consistent with Kentucky 

Administrative Regulations (KAR) 

approved into the SIP, affected facilities 

located in Muhlenberg County are 

subject to an SO2 emission limit of 3.1 

pounds per million British Thermal 

Units (lbs/mmBTU). The 3.1 lbs/ 

mmBTU limit was approved by EPA in 

June 24, 1983, as part of Kentucky’s 

control strategy for attaining and 

maintaining the primary and secondary 

SO2 national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) in Muhlenberg 

County. This SIP revision proposes a 

limit of 1.2 lbs/mmBTU for all three 

units with limited bypass emissions of 

3.1 lbs/mmBTU for scrubber 

maintenance on Unit 3. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number, ‘‘EPA–

R04–OAR–2007–1091,’’ by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: lesane.heidi@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2007–

1091,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi 

LeSane, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number, ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–

2007–1091.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9074. 

Ms. LeSane can also be reached via 

electronic mail at lesane.heidi@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

II. What is the Background for EPA’s 

Proposed Action? 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve a sourcespecific SIP revision submitted by 

KDAQ on October 19, 2007. The 

purpose of the SIP revision is to change 

and update the Kentucky SIP with 

regard to applicable SO2 emissions 

limits for the TVA Paradise Plant 

located in Muhlenberg County, 

Kentucky. The new proposed limits are 

1.2 lbs/mmBTU for all three units with 

limited bypass emissions of 3.1 lbs/ 

mmBTU during scrubber maintenance 

on Unit 3. A previous source-specific 

SIP revision was approved by EPA on 

August 25, 1989 (54 FR 35326). The 

proposed change is consistent with 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 

224.10–100, and associated KAR 

including 401 KAR 61:015, Appendix B. 

These KAR, which are SIP-approved, 

allow for an SO2 emission limit of 3.1 

lbs/mmBTU at the TVA Paradise 

facility. The 3.1 lbs/mmBTU limit 

described in 401 KAR 61:015 was 

approved by EPA on June 24, 1983 (48 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
6658 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

FR 28988) as part of Kentucky’s control 

strategy for attaining and maintaining 

the primary SO2 NAAQS in Muhlenberg 

County. The current source specific 

revision proposes SO2 limits for TVA 

Paradise that are more stringent than 

those approved in August 25, 1989, 

however, 401 KAR 61:015 would be the 

backstop (i.e., emissions could not 

exceed those allowed pursuant to 401 

KAR 61:015). 

II. What Is the Background for EPA’s 

Proposed Action? 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires 

EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants 

considered to be harmful to public 

health and the environment. The CAA 

established two types of NAAQS: 

Primary and secondary NAAQS. 

Primary NAAQS are set in order to 

protect public health, including the 

health of sensitive populations such as 

asthmatics, children, and the elderly. 

Secondary NAAQS are set in order to 

protect public welfare, including 

protection against visibility impairment, 

damage to animals, crops, vegetation, 

and buildings. EPA has established 

primary and secondary NAAQS for the 

criteria pollutant SO2. Muhlenberg 

County, Kentucky, the location of the 

TVA Paradise facility, is currently 

designated as attainment for the primary 

and secondary SO2 NAAQS, as well as 

all of the other NAAQS. 

In 1978, EPA designated Muhlenberg 

County, Kentucky, as nonattainment for 

primary and secondary SO2 NAAQS (43 

FR 8962, March 3, 1978). In 1979 

Kentucky submitted a SIP revision 

including its SO2 control strategy, 

which provided for attainment and 

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. As 

part of that submittal, the control 

strategy used dispersion modeling 

(mathematical formulations to 

characterize the atmospheric processes 

that disperse a pollutant emitted by a 

source) to show that more stringent SO2

emission limits at several sources, 

including the TVA Paradise facility, 

would be adequate to insure attainment 

of both the primary and secondary SO2

NAAQS. 

Kentucky’s 1979 SO2 control strategy 

SIP submittal included state regulations 

establishing SO2 emissions limits for 

steam generating plants in every county. 

Specifically, 401 KAR 61:015, sets the 

SO2 limit for each unit within a county 

depending on the type of fuel used by 

the unit and the rated heat input 

capacity for the specific unit. For 

facilities with a maximum rated heat 

input capacity of 21,000 BTU or more, 

like the TVA Paradise facility, the 

applicable SO2 limit, pursuant to 401 

KAR 61:015, is 3.1 lbs/mmBTU on a 24- 

hour average. In addition to 401 KAR 

61:015, the 1979 control strategy 

submittal also included a compliance 

schedule for TVA Paradise to achieve 

the 3.1 lb/mmBTU limit at each unit by 

September 1, 1982. Pursuant to the 

terms of a federal private party consent 

decree (Tennessee Thoracic Society v. 

Freeman, Case No. 77–3286, U.S. 

District Court for the Middle District of 

Tennessee) negotiated in 1979 and 

signed in December 1980, the TVA 

Paradise facility was allowed to meet a 

limit of 5.2 lbs/mmBTU limit at Unit 3 

until December 1, 1983, at which time 

the facility was required to meet the 

limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU, pursuant to 

401 KAR 61.015. 

On October 31, 1980, EPA took final 

action to approve Kentucky’s SO2

control strategy SIP, including approval 

of the 3.1 lb/mmBTU SO2 limit 

established by 401 KAR 61:015 (45 FR 

72153). Subsequently, on June 24, 1983, 

EPA approved a request by Kentucky to 

redesignate Muhlenberg County to 

attainment for the primary SO2 NAAQS 

(48 FR 28988). 

In 1987, TVA requested a 

redistribution of allowable SO2

emissions at the Paradise facility such 

that each of its three units would have 

a specific limit that when considered 

together, would be equivalent to 3.1 lbs/ 

mmBTU averaged over a 24-hour period 

(as required by the KAR). The TVA 

Paradise facility has two units (Units 1 

and 2) with an electric generating 

capacity of approximately 704 

megawatts (MW) each, and a third unit 

(Unit 3) with an electric generating 

capacity of approximately 1150 MW. 

The 1987 submittal included an 

equivalency demonstration that 

explained how the unit-specific limits 

were equivalent to the KAR requirement 

of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU. As described in the 

1987 submittal, for Units 1 and 2, the 

SO2 the emission limit would be 1.2 lbs/ 

mmBTU, with a maximum heat input of 

6,305 mmBTU/hour, and for Unit 3, the 

SO2 emission limit would be 5.4 lbs/ 

mmBTU, with a maximum heat input of 

10,390 mmBTU/hour. Kentucky’s 1987 

submittal also contained a final state 

operating permit issued to TVA for the 

Paradise facility (permit number 0–87–

012) which included these new limits. 

On August 25, 1989, EPA took final 

action to approve the source-specific 

SIP revision for TVA Paradise into the 

Kentucky SIP (54 FR 35326). EPA’s 

approval of that revision was based on 

EPA’s finding that the SO2 limits in 

addition to the heat input rates, made 

the redistribution equivalent to the SIPapproved 3.1 lbs/mmBTU limit. TVA’s 

1987 operating permit included the SO2

limits described in the 1989 SIP 

revision. The actions summarized 

above, including the 1989 final action 

and accompanying equivalency 

determination are available in the 

Docket for the current proposed action. 

In 1998, EPA approved Kentucky’s 

request to redesignate Muhlenberg 

County as attainment for the secondary 

SO2 NAAQS (63 FR 44143, August 18, 

1998). Dispersion modeling performed 

by EPA and Kentucky demonstrated that 

the existing measures approved in the 

SIP (including the TVA Paradise sourcespecific SO2 emissions distribution) 

were adequate to protect the secondary 

SO2 NAAQS. 

On October 19, 2007, Kentucky 

submitted to EPA a source-specific SIP 

revision requesting that the 1989 sourcespecific redistribution of SO2 emission 

limits for TVA Paradise be revised to 

account for new control technology at 

the facility. Kentucky proposed that the 

TVA Paradise facility be subject to 

specific limits discussed below which 

are more stringent than the backstop of 

Kentucky’s SIP-approved KAR, 

requiring a 3.1 lbs/mmBTU. The 

rationale for the 1989 redistribution was 

the lack of control measures (a scrubber) 

on Unit 3. TVA has now installed a wet 

scrubber on Unit 3, and as a result, the 

1989 redistribution is no longer 

necessary for the facility to comply with 

the SIP-approved 401 KAR 61:015. At 

this time, Units 1 and 2 are equipped 

with Venturi-type limestone slurry flue 

gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers, and 

Unit 3 is equipped with an electrostatic 

precipitator and a wet limestone FGD 

scrubber. The facility is now able to 

meet (and exceed) the requirements of 

401 KAR 61:015 without a unit-specific 

redistribution. 

As described by Kentucky in the 

October 2007 SIP submittal, due to the 

installation of control technology at the 

facility, it is now possible for the 

Paradise facility to meet not only the 

current KAR, but even further control 

the facility to meet a lower limit. 

Therefore, Kentucky proposed that the 

facility continue to meet an SO2

emissions limit of 1.2 lbs/mmBTU for 

Units 1 and 2, and also meet a limit of 

1.2 lb/mmBTU on Unit 3 when the 

scrubber is operating. Because Unit 3 

has a ‘‘single-module’’ scrubber which 

cannot be operated during maintenance 

events, Kentucky proposed that the 

facility meet the SIP-approved KAR 

limit of 3.1 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour 

average during the limited times when 

the scrubber is bypassed for 

maintenance. Provisions limiting the 

number of hours when the scrubber can 

be by-passed are conditioned in the 

most recent title V operating permit 

issued on November 1, 2007, and shall 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6659 

not exceed 720 hours in any 12-month 

period. Kentucky’s October 2007 sourcespecific SIP revision therefore proposes 

SO2 limits for the Paradise facility that 

are more stringent than the SIPapproved KAR. Kentucky’s SIP 

submittal includes technical support 

information comparing the limits 

required by KAR with the current 

proposed source-specific revision. This 

information is available in the Docket 

for this proposed action. The new limits 

will be included in a CAA title V 

operating permit. 

Consistent with Section 110 of the 

CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this 

revision to the Kentucky SIP. The 

revision would supersede the 1989 

source-specific SIP revision for the TVA 

Paradise facility and subject the facility 

to the specific SO2 emission limits 

discussed above. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve a sourcespecific SIP revision submitted by 

KDAQ in October 2007 regarding the 

SO2 emission limits for the three units 

at the TVA Paradise Facility. This 

proposal would supersede the 1989 

source-specific SIP revision and subject 

TVA Paradise to emission limits of 1.2 

lbs/mmBTU at Units 1, 2, and 3, except 

that Unit 3 may meet the limit of 3.1 

lbs/mmBTU that is established in 401 

KAR 61:015 during the limited times 

when the Unit 3 scrubber is bypassed 

for maintenance. Now that TVA has 

installed the control technology 

necessary to achieve the KAR limit of 

3.1 lbs/mmBTU at all three units of the 

Paradise facility, the previous 

redistribution is no longer necessary. 

This proposed revision is consistent 

with Section 110 of the CAA because it 

will continue to provide for attainment 

and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this proposed 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed 

action merely approves Kentucky law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 

approve pre-existing requirements 

under Kentucky law and does not 

impose any additional enforceable duty 

beyond that required by Kentucky law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a Kentucky rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

Commonwealth to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no 

authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use VCS. It 

would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 

a SIP submission, to use VCS in place 

of a SIP submission that otherwise 

satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) 

of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 24, 2008 

Russell L. Wright, Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E8–2089 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–8523–8] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the 

Industrial Waste Control Superfund Site 

from the National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a 

notice of intent to delete the Industrial 

Waste Control Superfund Site located in 

Fort Smith, Arkansas from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public 

comments on this notice of intent. The 

NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 

105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found 

at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, 

which is the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of Arkansas, through the 

Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ), have determined that 

all appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation and 

maintenance and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

Section of this Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final notice of 

deletion of the Industrial Waste Control 

Superfund Site without prior notice of 

intent to delete because we view this as 

a noncontroversial revision and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

deletion in the direct final deletion. If 

we receive no adverse comment(s) on 

the direct final notice of deletion, we 

will not take further action on this 

notice of intent to delete. If we receive 

adverse comment(s), we will withdraw 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS