[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44434-44436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22340]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6147-4]
Kammer Power Plant; West Virginia; Stack Height Infeasibility
Analysis
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice is to announce that EPA has informed the State of
West Virginia that it does not accept the ``Kammer Plant Infeasibility
Analysis'' dated January 5, 1995, as supplemented on April 28, 1995, as
revised on February 8, 1996, and as clarified on June 29, 1998. EPA is
publishing this notice to inform all interested parties that it
disagrees with the State of West Virginia's decision to accept the
``Kammer Plant Infeasibility Analysis'' prepared by the Ohio Power
Company (OPC). EPA has determined that OPC has failed to demonstrate
that it is not feasible to meet an emission limit equivalent to the new
source performance standard (NSPS) applicable to electric utility steam
generating units. The NSPS limit is presumed to be met in order to seek
credit for having a tall stack. The credit for stack height in excess
of good engineering practice (GEP) sought by OPC for the Kammer Plant
in Moundsville, West Virginia, cannot be granted. This notice further
informs all interested parties that any revision(s) to the West
Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to EPA based upon
technical analyses which rely upon acceptance of this ``Kammer Plant
Infeasibilty Analysis'' will not meet the Clean Air Act's criteria for
approval.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director,
Air Programs, Mailcode 3AP20, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 at (215)
814-2104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Kammer Plant is a 630 MW, coal-fired
power plant constructed in Marshall County, West Virginia in 1959. The
Kammer Plant is owned and operated by Ohio Power Company (OPC), a
subsidiary of American Electric Power (AEP). Kammer operates three
coal-fired boilers and was built specifically to provide power to the
Ormet Corporation aluminum production facility in nearby Hannibal,
Ohio. High sulfur coal is currently delivered by barge from the nearby
Shoemaker Mine of Consolidation Coal Company.
In 1994, EPA began development of an enforcement case against OPC
for the Kammer Plant's failure to comply with the applicable sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emission limit in the West Virginia State
Implementation Plan (SIP). On May 21, 1996, EPA and OPC entered into a
modified partial consent decree which provided that a comprehensive
SO2 SIP revision be developed for the Marshall County Area
by November 1998. As part of that SIP development effort, West Virginia
must address the stack height provisions of the Clean Air Act as they
apply to the Kammer Plant.
In the mid-1970s, OPC replaced two 600-foot stacks at the Kammer
Plant with a single, 900-foot stack. According to EPA's stack height
regulations, the 900-foot stack exceeds good engineering practice (GEP)
design specifications. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, EPA developed
stack height regulations to limit the common practice of using tall
smokestacks to abate localized pollution problems without decreasing
net emissions. According to the stack height rules OPC has two options
with regard to this issue: (1) Accept the ``grandfathered'' creditable
stack height of 600-feet for the Kammer Plant or (2) attempt to receive
credit for some or all of the existing stack height above 600-feet.
Determination of the creditable stack height is necessary for use as
input into air quality dispersion modeling that will support the SIP
revision establishing the allowable emission limits for the affected
sources, including the Kammer Plant. OPC has chosen to seek credit for
that portion of the stack that exceeds GEP in order to justify the
approval of a higher allowable emission rate at the Kammer Plant.
In order to obtain such credit, Ohio Power must satisfy the
requirements of the federal and state stack height regulations that
allow a source to rebut the presumptive new source performance
standards (NSPS) emission limit when seeking credit for stack height
above that height provided by the good engineering practice (GEP)
formulae. Such a rebuttal is commonly termed an ``infeasibility
analysis'' because the affected company presents operational and
economic information to justify its contention that it is unable to
meet the present industry standard for new sources (the NSPS) and that
the emission limit is therefore ``infeasible'' for its source.
On May 30, 1995, West Virginia submitted to EPA the ``Kammer Plant
Infeasibility Analysis'' dated January 5, 1995, and supplemented on
April 28, 1995, as prepared by OPC. West Virginia's submittal also
included its decision to approve the analysis. On September 13 and
October 20, 1995, EPA provided extensive and significant comments to
West Virginia and OPC regarding the ``Kammer Plant Infeasibility
Analysis.'' EPA suggested in its comments that OPC overstated the
regional economic impacts that would occur if OPC pursued emission
reductions at the Kammer Plant and that it erroneously presented
economic forecasts of the costs of certain control options. On June 28,
1996, West Virginia officially forwarded to EPA the ``Kammer Plant
Infeasibility Analysis--Revision 1, February 8, 1996,'' as prepared by
OPC, again along with the State's decision to approve the analysis.
The original ``Kammer Plant Infeasibility Analysis'' and the
revised analysis state that any alternative other than the status quo
at the facility would be catastrophic to the regional economy and the
viability of Ormet and the Shoemaker coal mines. EPA's review of the
original and revised analyses indicate that West Virginia had not
adequately supported this position. On October 17, 1997, EPA informed
West Virginia that the June 28, 1996 Infeasibility Analysis--Revision 1
was inadequate and would not be approved as part of, or as the basis
of, any SIP revision for Kammer. EPA based this decision on the fact
that in September 1996 AEP and Ormet entered into a new electric supply
contract whereby the Kammer Plant will supply Ormet's needs only until
the end of 1999. After 1999, Kammer will market its electricity
[[Page 44435]]
to other customers. The Infeasibility Analysis--Revision 1 does not
reflect these future operating conditions at Kammer.
On November 20, 1997, West Virginia stated to EPA that their
approval of the infeasibility analysis was based upon the potential
closure of the Shoemaker Mine, and the resultant loss of jobs to the
local economy, as the probable result of any decision to require
controls at the Kammer Plant. On January 20, 1998, West Virginia
submitted AEP's Economic Analysis of Kammer Plant SO2
Control Options to EPA. On February 6, 1998, EPA met with West
Virginia, AEP, and other interested parties to present comments on the
Economic Analysis of Kammer Plant SO2 Control Options. The
EPA found that AEP had incorrectly specified the base case for the
analysis and had equated feasibility with least cost. The EPA concluded
that both the scrubbing and alternative fuel options were feasible.
On June 29, 1998, West Virginia forwarded to EPA, along with its
endorsement, a ``Response to Comments by USEPA on Economic Analysis of
Kammer Plant SO2 Control Options,'' prepared by AEP and
dated June 4, 1998. In their response, AEP revised the base costs as
suggested by EPA. AEP emphasized that the most cost effective option
for the Kammer Plant is to continue to use the coal from the Shoemaker
Mine. AEP also stated that the incremental cost of electricity (c.o.e.)
is a better indicator of the Kammer Plant's ability to remain
profitable because the EPA metric of dollars per ton removed is not
representative.
AEP further pointed out that there would be no net change of total
emissions of SO2 loaded to the atmosphere because of the
provisions of the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air
Act. AEP stated that the Kammer Plant would receive an allotment of
23,775 tons (of SO2 emissions) under Phase II of the Acid
Rain Program. AEP argued that if Kammer had to purchase allowances to
equal the actual emissions in the future, those emissions would have to
be reduced somewhere else. Or, conversely, if Kammer did not need to
purchase the allowances the emissions would occur somewhere else.
AEP also provide a table of control options and the associated
cost, reproduced in the table, below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
(marginal)
Levelized Levelized Average annual levelized
Option annual annual cost of SO2 reduction annual per ton
incremental removal (tons/year) cost of SO2
C.O.E. ($1998) ($1998) removal ($/
ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoemaker Coal (Base Case)...................... $0 $0 0 $0
Switch to 2.5 lb Coal in 2000................... 726,000 15,402,000 58,209 264
Switch to 2.5 lb Coal in 1998................... 3,179,000 20,593,000 71,144 401
Switch to 1.2 lb Coal........................... 16,635,000 41,124,000 100,046 710
Wet Lime Scrubber............................... 15,115,000 44,587,000 120,407 487
Limestone Scrubber.............................. 13,877,000 43,391,000 120,577 461
Ammonia Scrubber................................ 12,805,000 42,320,000 120,577 440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another point that AEP felt should be considered was the length of
time to engineer, design, and install a scrubber, estimated to be three
years. With a potential retirement date of 2008 there would be only
eight years for capital recovery. AEP expressed concern about
controlling costs in view of the possible requirement to install
controls for nitrogen oxides.
In addition AEP indicated that scrubber technology cannot be
considered an option because it cannot assure air quality compliance
under all operating conditions. Because, AEP argued, scrubber systems
are subject to start-ups, shutdowns, upsets, and malfunction there will
be times when the ambient air quality standards could be violated.
Although West Virginia and AEP believe that the cost of electricity
should be considered in evaluating infeasibility, by tradition and rule
the EPA has relied upon an incremental cost of dollars per ton of
pollutant reduced for evaluating alternative controls. The preamble to
the stack height regulations states that EPA will use the use of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for determining that the
presumptive new source performance standard (NSPS) limitation cannot
feasibly be met by an individual facility. The BART guidelines
specifically identify dollars per ton removed as the metric to be used.
The levelized annual per ton cost of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) removal estimates provided by AEP indicate that any of
the scrubbing options are feasible. The BART guidelines identify cost
effectiveness as the relevant factors to consider in determining
whether specified controls are economically and technically feasible,
not what is the least cost option. Furthermore, as was stated at the
February 6, 1998, meeting, costs in excess of $1,000 per ton, sometimes
substantially higher, have been determined to be reasonable. A decision
to install a scrubber would allow the continued use of coal from the
Shoemaker Mine and would ensure the preservation of the coal miners'
jobs.
As stated previously, AEP also pointed out that the total loading
of sulfur would remain the same in that the allowances, under Title IV
of the Clean Air Act, will be used somewhere, if not at Kammer.
However, once again, the relevant inquiry according to the BART
guidelines is to examine the technical and economic feasibility of
controls at a particular facility. The concern here is with the
feasibility of Kammer's meeting the emission rate equivalent to the
presumptive NSPS. Furthermore, this analysis is ostensibly being
performed to support a relaxation of the allowable SO2
emission rate of the West Virginia SIP under Title I of the Clean Air
Act. Finally the likelihood of the allowances being used more
efficiently elsewhere should be noted. In terms of megawatts per ton of
SO2 the Kammer plant is, by far, the least efficient plant
in all of the states which comprise EPA Region III's jurisdiction and
one of the least efficient in the country. To illustrate the
ineffeciency of the Kammer Plant, EPA has tabulated, in decreasing
order of efficiency, the Phase I utilities in Region III. In the table
below, are the rated capacity, the 1996 SO2 emissions
reported by the Acid Rain Program, the megawatts of electricity per
ton, and the inverse (or tons per megawatt).
[[Page 44436]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region III--Phase I Utility Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated 1996 SO2 Generation efficiency
Plant name capacity emissions -------------------------
(mw) (tons) (mw/ton) ton/mw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kammer..................................................... 712.5 119,369 0.00597 168
Armstrong.................................................. 326.4 32,150 0.01015 98
Hatfields Ferry............................................ 1728. 153,413 0.01126 89
Shawville.................................................. 625. 53,945 0.01159 86
Martins Creek 1&2.......................................... 312.5 24,601 0.01270 79
CP Crane 1&2............................................... 399.84 28,744 0.01391 72
Cheswick................................................... 565.25 39,980 0.01414 71
Albright................................................... 140.25 9,246 0.01517 66
Mount Storm................................................ 1662.48 107,211 0.01551 64
Fort Martin................................................ 1152. 71,152 0.01619 62
Portland................................................... 426.7 25,783 0.01655 60
Morgantown................................................. 1252. 72,778 0.01720 58
Chalk Point................................................ 728. 37,211 0.01956 51
Sunbury.................................................... 621. 20,450 0.03037 33
Mitchell................................................... 1632.6 53,152 0.03072 33
Brunner Island............................................. 1558.73 47,771 0.03263 31
Conemaugh.................................................. 1872. 40,182 0.04659 21
Harrison................................................... 2052. 16,469 0.12460 08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two responses to AEP's concern that there are potentially
only eight years for capital recovery of the cost of a scrubber. First,
AEP could have elected to install a scrubber in 1987 when the final
stack height rules were promulgated. In that case the time for capital
recovery would more than double. Secondly, there is no assurance that
the Kammer plant will in fact be retired in 2008.
The additional contention by AEP that scrubber technology cannot be
considered because it cannot assure air quality compliance under all
operating conditions has no validity. Many of the state and federal air
pollution control requirements involve devices which can, and do,
shutdown or malfunction and require maintenance. These instances do
have the potential to result in air quality violations. Nevertheless
these devices are relied upon to protect air quality. To accept AEP's
argument in this regard would undermine almost all air pollution
control programs.
At the time of the Congressional deliberation on the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, it was suggested that the stack height provisions
would no longer be necessary because the acid rain control provisions
would serve to reduce SO2 emissions. The Congress rejected
this notion and reaffirmed that constant emission controls were to be
required versus using dispersion from tall stacks to achieve and
maintain the ambient air quality goals and standards under Title I of
the Act.
Therefore, the State of West Virginia has been informed by EPA that
it cannot approve the analysis which seeks to demonstrate the
infeasibility of Kammer's meeting the emission rate equivalent to the
new source performance standard. The SIP development project for
Marshall County should go forward with the Kammer plant modeled at the
grandfathered stack height of 600 feet.
Dated: August 11, 1998.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 98-22340 Filed 8-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
