Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permits for Midwest Generation Fisk and Crawford Stations, 23154-23155 [05-8869]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
23154
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 4, 2005 / Notices
restricted by statute, is not included in
the official public docket, and will not
be available for public viewing in
EDOCKET. For further information
about the electronic docket, see EPA’s
Federal Register notice describing the
electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May
31, 2002), or go to https://www.epa.gov/
edocket.
Title: General Conformity of Federal
Actions to State Implementation Plans
(40 CFR part 51, subpart W; part 93,
subpart B) (Renewal).
Abstract: Before any agency,
department, or instrumentality of the
Federal government engages in,
supports in any way, provides financial
assistance for, licenses, permits, or
approves any activity, that agency has
the affirmative responsibility to ensure
that such action conforms to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
attainment and maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS).
The Federal government uses
information collected to ensure that
general Federal actions conform to
applicable provisions of the SIP and that
the Federal action does not impede the
goal of attaining and maintaining the
NAAQS throughout the country. The
State and local air agencies use the
results from conformity determinations
to determine applicability of the general
conformity requirements, to
demonstrate that their actions satisfy
both the emissions and air quality
criteria stipulated in the regulation, and
to demonstrate that their actions
conform to applicable provisions of the
SIP.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are
identified on the form and/or
instrument, if applicable.
Burden Statement: The annual public
reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is
estimated to average 35 hours per
response. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:08 May 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
Respondents/Affected Entities:
Entities potentially affected by this
action are those which take Federal
Actions, or are subject to Federal
Actions, and emit pollutants above
deminimis levels.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
674.
Frequency of Response: One time, or
every five years.
Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:
9,435 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Cost:
$592,763, which includes $0 annualized
capital/startup costs, $0 annual O&M
costs, and $592,763 annual labor costs.
Changes in the Estimates: There is a
decrease of 811 hours in the total
estimated burden currently identified in
the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens. This decrease is applicable to
the Non-Federal, State, and Local
agencies which are the entities more
affected. This number is calculated
based on Non-Federal, State, and Local
agencies only.
Dated: April 26, 2005.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 05–8870 Filed 5–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Regional Docket Nos. V–2004–1, –2; [IL
225–1, FRL–7907–8]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit
Program; Petitions for Objection to
State Operating Permits for Midwest
Generation Fisk and Crawford Stations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final action.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces
that the EPA Administrator has
responded to two citizen petitions
asking EPA to object to operating
permits issued by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) to two facilities. Specifically, the
Administrator has partially granted and
partially denied each of the petitions
submitted by the Chicago Legal Clinic to
object to the operating permits issued to
the Midwest Generation Fisk and
Crawford stations.
Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act (Act), Petitioner may seek
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
judicial review of those portions of the
petitions which EPA denied in the
United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit. Any petition for
review shall be filed within 60 days
from the date this notice appears in the
Federal Register, pursuant to section
307 of the Act.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of
the final orders, the petitions, and other
supporting information at the EPA
Region 5 Office, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If
you wish to examine these documents,
you should make an appointment at
least 24 hours before visiting day.
Additionally, the final orders for the
Midwest Generation Fisk and Crawford
stations are available electronically at:
https://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/
artd/air/title5/petitiondb/
petitiondb2004.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permitting
Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, EPA, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886–
4447.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act
affords EPA a 45-day period to review,
and object to as appropriate, operating
permits proposed by State permitting
authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act
authorizes any person to petition the
EPA Administrator within 60 days after
the expiration of this review period to
object to State operating permits if EPA
has not done so. Petitions must be based
only on objections to the permit that
were raised with reasonable specificity
during the public comment period
provided by the State, unless the
petitioner demonstrates that it was
impracticable to raise these issues
during the comment period or the
grounds for the issues arose after this
period.
On January 22, 2004, the EPA
received from the Chicago Legal Clinic
petitions requesting that EPA object to
the issuance of the title V operating
permits to the Midwest Generation Fisk
and Crawford stations. The petitions
raise issues regarding the permit
application, the permit issuance
process, and the permits themselves.
Chicago Legal Clinic asserts that the
permits: (1) Lack compliance schedules
designed to bring the Midwest
Generation Fisk and Crawford stations
into compliance with Clean Air Act
requirements; (2) contain language that
fails to include conditions that meet the
legal requirements for monitoring; (3)
contain language that violates the
requirements related to credible
evidence; (4) contain language regarding
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 4, 2005 / Notices
startup, malfunction and breakdown
that violates EPA policy; and (5) contain
language that violates EPA policy
requiring a permit to be practically
enforceable.
On March 25, 2005, the Administrator
issued orders partially granting and
partially denying the petitions. The
orders explain the reasons behind EPA’s
conclusion that the IEPA must reopen
the permits to: (1) Address Petitioner’s
significant comments; (2) include
periodic monitoring in compliance with
40 CFR § 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B); (3) remove the
note stating that compliance with the
carbon monoxide limit is inherent; (4)
explain in the statement of basis how it
determined in advance that the
permittee had met the requirements of
the Illinois State Implementation Plan
(SIP) or to specify in the permit that
continued operation during malfunction
or breakdown will be authorized on a
case-by-case basis if the source meets
the SIP criteria; (5) remove language
which is not required by the underlying
applicable requirement or explain in the
permit or statement of basis how this
language implements the meaning and
intent of the underlying applicable
requirement; (6) remove ‘‘established
startup procedures,’’ include the startup
procedures in the permit, or include
minimum elements of the startup
procedures that would ‘‘affirmatively
demonstrate that all reasonable efforts
have been made to minimize startup
emissions, duration of individual
startups and frequency of startups;’’ (7)
require the owner or operator of the
sources to report to the agency
‘‘immediately’’ or explain how the
phrase ‘‘as soon as possible’’ meets the
requirements of the SIP; (8) remove
‘‘reasonably’’ and ‘‘reasonable’’ from
relevant permit terms or define or
provide criteria to determine
‘‘reasonably’’ and ‘‘reasonable’’ that
meet the requirements of the SIP; (9)
remove the term ‘‘reasonable’’ from the
relevant permit conditions in
accordance with the language in Part 70,
Section 504 of the Clean Air Act or
Section 39.5 of the Environmental
Protection Act; (10) remove the ability
to waive the testing requirements or
explain how such a waiver would meet
the requirements of part 70; (11) define
‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ in a
manner consistent with the
requirements of the SIP or remove the
language from the permit; and (12)
remove ‘‘summary of compliance’’ from
the permit or clarify the term such that
the reader understands what a
‘‘summary of compliance’’ must contain
and how the summary relates to the
control measures. The orders also
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:08 May 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
explain the reasons for denying Chicago
Legal Clinic’s remaining claims.
Dated: April 19, 2005.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05–8869 Filed 5–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[MI 86–01; FRL–7907–9]
Notice of Final Determination for the
Final Determination for the IndeckNiles Energy Center, L.L.C. located in
Niles, MI
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final action.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces that on
September 30, 2004, the Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB or Board) of the
United States EPA denied a petition for
review of a Federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
issued to Indeck-Niles L.L.C. (Indeck) by
the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
DATES: The effective date for the EAB’s
decision is September 30, 2004.
Pursuant to Section 307(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1),
judicial review of this permit decision,
to the extent it is available, may be
sought by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit within 60 days of May
4, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to
the above action are available for public
inspection during normal business
hours at the following address:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard
(AR–18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604. To
arrange viewing of these documents,
call Laura L. David at (312) 886–0661.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura L. David, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W.
Jackson Boulevard (AR–18J), Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Anyone who wishes to
review the EAB decision can obtain it at
https://www.epa.gov/eab/orders/
indeck2004.pdf.
In the
Board’s September 30, 2004 Order
Denying Review, the Board made the
following findings. On November 2,
2000, Indeck-Niles, L.L.C. applied to
MDEQ for permission to construct a
new 656–MW simple-cycle natural gasfired electrical generating facility, to be
transformed into a 1,076–MW
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23155
combined-cycle facility approximately
twelve to eighteen months after startup
of the simple-cycle facility. Indeck
proposed to site the new facility
(Indeck-Niles Energy Center) in the
southwestern corner of the State of
Michigan, in Cass County, northeast of
the City of Niles, Michigan, and not far
from South Bend, Indiana. That portion
of the State was designated as
attainment or unclassifiable for carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (measured
as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)),
and particulate matter (PM) at the time
of permit issuance.
In the first phase of the project,
Indeck proposed to install four natural
gas-fired combustion turbines for
operation in simple-cycle mode. In the
second phase, Indeck proposed to
convert the four simple-cycle turbines
into combined-cycle units through the
addition of heat recovery steam
generators and natural gas-fired duct
burners to increase steam output. The
conversion would take place within
twelve to eighteen months after
operation of the simple-cycle turbines
commences. The steam produced would
be piped to two steam condensing
turbines to produce additional power. In
this configuration, the proposed facility
has the potential to emit NOX, CO,
VOCs, and PM in quantities sufficient to
trigger the requirement for emissions
limitations reflecting Best Available
Control Technology (BACT).
Accordingly, as part of the permit
application process, Indeck conducted
BACT analyses for the relevant
pollutants and proposed BACT
emissions limits for the pollutants of
concern.
In December 2001, MDEQ approved
Indeck’s analyses and issued a permit to
the company for the proposed facility
(New Source Review Permit to Install
No. 364–00). However, a number of
individuals timely petitioned the Board
for review of that permit, which
prevented the permit from going into
effect at that time. On March 11, 2002,
the Board issued an order denying the
individuals’ petition for review and the
permit therefore became final on that
date. Notably, however, Indeck failed to
commence construction of its new
facility within eighteen months of
issuance of the final PSD permit. Under
the State of Michigan’s air pollution
control regulations (which are based on
the Federal PSD rules), such a lack of
action within the prescribed time frame
renders the permit void (Mich. Admin.
Code r. 336.1201(4)).
A year and a half later, in June 2003,
Indeck requested that MDEQ reissue the
PSD permit for the proposed Indeck-
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23154-23155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8869]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Regional Docket Nos. V-2004-1, -2; [IL 225-1, FRL-7907-8]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection
to State Operating Permits for Midwest Generation Fisk and Crawford
Stations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has
responded to two citizen petitions asking EPA to object to operating
permits issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
to two facilities. Specifically, the Administrator has partially
granted and partially denied each of the petitions submitted by the
Chicago Legal Clinic to object to the operating permits issued to the
Midwest Generation Fisk and Crawford stations.
Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act),
Petitioner may seek judicial review of those portions of the petitions
which EPA denied in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60
days from the date this notice appears in the Federal Register,
pursuant to section 307 of the Act.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final orders, the petitions,
and other supporting information at the EPA Region 5 Office, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If you wish to examine
these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours
before visiting day. Additionally, the final orders for the Midwest
Generation Fisk and Crawford stations are available electronically at:
https://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/
petitiondb2004.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permitting
Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312)
886-4447.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to
review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by
State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes
any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the
expiration of this review period to object to State operating permits
if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to
the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the
public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner
demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the
comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
On January 22, 2004, the EPA received from the Chicago Legal Clinic
petitions requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V
operating permits to the Midwest Generation Fisk and Crawford stations.
The petitions raise issues regarding the permit application, the permit
issuance process, and the permits themselves. Chicago Legal Clinic
asserts that the permits: (1) Lack compliance schedules designed to
bring the Midwest Generation Fisk and Crawford stations into compliance
with Clean Air Act requirements; (2) contain language that fails to
include conditions that meet the legal requirements for monitoring; (3)
contain language that violates the requirements related to credible
evidence; (4) contain language regarding
[[Page 23155]]
startup, malfunction and breakdown that violates EPA policy; and (5)
contain language that violates EPA policy requiring a permit to be
practically enforceable.
On March 25, 2005, the Administrator issued orders partially
granting and partially denying the petitions. The orders explain the
reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the IEPA must reopen the permits
to: (1) Address Petitioner's significant comments; (2) include periodic
monitoring in compliance with 40 CFR Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B); (3) remove
the note stating that compliance with the carbon monoxide limit is
inherent; (4) explain in the statement of basis how it determined in
advance that the permittee had met the requirements of the Illinois
State Implementation Plan (SIP) or to specify in the permit that
continued operation during malfunction or breakdown will be authorized
on a case-by-case basis if the source meets the SIP criteria; (5)
remove language which is not required by the underlying applicable
requirement or explain in the permit or statement of basis how this
language implements the meaning and intent of the underlying applicable
requirement; (6) remove ``established startup procedures,'' include the
startup procedures in the permit, or include minimum elements of the
startup procedures that would ``affirmatively demonstrate that all
reasonable efforts have been made to minimize startup emissions,
duration of individual startups and frequency of startups;'' (7)
require the owner or operator of the sources to report to the agency
``immediately'' or explain how the phrase ``as soon as possible'' meets
the requirements of the SIP; (8) remove ``reasonably'' and
``reasonable'' from relevant permit terms or define or provide criteria
to determine ``reasonably'' and ``reasonable'' that meet the
requirements of the SIP; (9) remove the term ``reasonable'' from the
relevant permit conditions in accordance with the language in Part 70,
Section 504 of the Clean Air Act or Section 39.5 of the Environmental
Protection Act; (10) remove the ability to waive the testing
requirements or explain how such a waiver would meet the requirements
of part 70; (11) define ``extraordinary circumstances'' in a manner
consistent with the requirements of the SIP or remove the language from
the permit; and (12) remove ``summary of compliance'' from the permit
or clarify the term such that the reader understands what a ``summary
of compliance'' must contain and how the summary relates to the control
measures. The orders also explain the reasons for denying Chicago Legal
Clinic's remaining claims.
Dated: April 19, 2005.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05-8869 Filed 5-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
