Notice of Final Determination for the Final Determination for the Indeck-Niles Energy Center, L.L.C. located in Niles, MI, 23155-23156 [05-8874]
Download as PDF
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
23156
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 4, 2005 / Notices
Niles Energy Center, largely as
originally conceived. Indeck did not
revise or supplement its initial BACT
analyses, performed in November 2000,
but instead relied on the information
contained therein as the best available
information for the permit review. One
difference between the original permit
and the present one relates to the NOX
control technology. In its original permit
application, Indeck had proposed to
equip each of the four natural gas-fired
combustion turbines with dry low-NOX
burners and a selective catalytic
reduction system to achieve a NOX
BACT emissions limit, during combined
cycle operations, of 3.5 parts per million
dry volume at 15% oxygen averaged
over a twenty-four hour rolling time
period. Those proposals became part of
the original permit. In the new permit,
those air pollution control measures are
still included; however, Indeck has also
agreed to install a catalytic oxidation
system on each of the four combustion
turbine/dry low-NOX burner pairs,
which is a more stringent technology
option than previously proposed, in
order to achieve the BACT limits for CO
and VOCs emissions.
MDEQ subsequently reviewed and
approved Indeck’s BACT analyses.
Accordingly, MDEQ issued a draft PSD
permit to Indeck in January 2004,
containing proposed terms and
conditions to regulate the proposed
power plant. MDEQ also published a
notice inviting public comment on the
draft permit and establishing a 30 day
comment period. On February 25, 2004,
MDEQ held a public hearing on the
draft permit at the Niles High School
Auditorium in Niles, Michigan. The
Department received approximately
sixty written and twelve oral comments
on the draft permit from interested
parties, including comments from Mr.
Douglas Meeusen (‘‘Petitioner’’). After
reviewing the public comments on the
draft permit, MDEQ issued a final
permit (Permit to Install No. 364–00A)
on April 21, 2004, for Indeck’s
construction of the Niles Energy Center,
along with a document responding to
the comments on the draft permit.
On May 20, 2004, Petitioner filed PSD
Appeal No. 04–01 with the Board. In his
appeal, Petitioner raised concerns about
the startup and shutdown frequency of
the proposed facility’s combustion
turbines. Under Indeck’s PSD permit,
each turbine is allowed to operate in
startup/shutdown mode a maximum of
500 hours per twelve-month rolling time
period, as determined at the end of each
calendar month, or a total of 2,000 hours
for the four turbines annually. The
Petitioner challenged special condition
5.8 of the permit which provides that
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:08 May 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
Indeck mustprepare a plan (‘‘emission
minimization plan’’) to minimize air
pollutant emissions during startup and
shutdown periods, as well as
malfunction periods, and obtain
MDEQ’s approval of this plan prior to
initiating operation of the combustion
turbines and duct burners. The
Petitioner pointed out that, in his
comments on the draft version of the
permit, he had asked MDEQ to provide
for public scrutiny of the emissions
minimization plan and to follow all the
directives given to MDEQ by the EAB in
a previous decision regarding Tallmadge
Energy Center, Order Denying Review in
Part and Remanding in Part (PSD
Appeal No. 02–12, EAB May 21, 2003),
regarding a similar emissions
minimization plan. The Petitioner
argued that MDEQ ignored the
Tallmadge requirements and, as a
consequence, the plan called for in
Indeck’s PSD permit lacks the requisite
degree of specificity to allow for
meaningful comment by Petitioner and
other members of the public.
At the request of the Board, MDEQ
submitted a response to the merits of the
petition for review on June 25, 2004. In
response, MDEQ distinguished the
factual circumstances of this case from
those in Tallmadge Energy Center. First,
MDEQ noted that the Tallmadge permit
explicitly exempted that facility from
complying with all BACT emission
limits during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction periods and instead made
the facility’s operations contingent on
the permittee’s submittal of a plan
describing how it would minimize
emissions during those periods.
Indeck’s permit, MDEQ noted, does not
contain such explicit exemption from
all BACT limits. To the contrary, MDEQ
observed that Indeck’s permit
incorporates annual BACT emission
limitations (expressed in terms of tons
per year) that must be met at all times,
including during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction periods, and it also
contains restrictions on the amount of
time the turbines can be in startup/
shutdown mode and sets forth a
minimum load requirement of ninety
percent that defines when startup is
completed. Second, MDEQ responded to
any latent concerns that might exist
about the Indeck permit’s exclusions of
the facility from short-term (i.e., hourly,
daily) BACT concentration limits during
startup and shutdown periods.
Specifically, MDEQ explained that due
to the nature of operations during
startup and shutdown, involving lower
and inconsistent combustion
temperatures, the proposed facility will
not be capable of always meeting the
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
short-term concentration limits in those
periods. In addition, MDEQ stated that,
unlike the situation in Tallmadge,
Indeck’s permit does not ‘‘rely on a
startup, shutdown and malfunction plan
to establish permitting requirements in
lieu of emission limits that satisfy
BACT.’’ In MDEQ’s view, the permit
required Indeck to submit a plan to
minimize emissions during these
periods. MDEQ, however, did not
consider that plan a substitute for the
BACT limits contained in the permit.
Since Indeck’s PSD permit does not
completely exempt startup/shutdown
from BACT limitations, the Board
declined the basis for invoking
Tallmadge Generating Station and
Rockgen Energy Center (an electric
power generating case out of the State
of Wisconsin and cited as precedent in
Tallmadge). The Board remanded the
PSD permits in both of those cases
because the permits contained blanket
exemptions from BACT emissions limits
during startup and shutdown periods,
contrary to the directives of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), as interpreted by EPA
policymakers. In the Indeck case,
however, the PSD permit explicitly
establishes BACT emissions limits for
NOX, CO, VOCs, and particulate matter,
on a tons per twelve-month rolling time
period basis (as determined at the end
of each calendar month), including all
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. The permit also has a
provision limiting total startup/
shutdown event time to 2,000 hours per
year (500 hours per individual turbine)
and defining ‘‘startup’’ as ‘‘the period of
time from initiation of combustion firing
until the unit reaches steady state
operation (loads greater than 90
percent).’’ In these circumstances, EAB
determined that it would be
inappropriate to construe Tallmadge
and Rockgen as establishing bright-line
rules for every case in which the PSD
permit contains a startup/shutdown
emissions minimization plan.
On September 30, 2004, for the
foregoing reasons, the Board denied the
petition for review of PSD Permit No.
364–00A.
Dated: April 22, 2005.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05–8874 Filed 5–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23155-23156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8874]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[MI 86-01; FRL-7907-9]
Notice of Final Determination for the Final Determination for the
Indeck-Niles Energy Center, L.L.C. located in Niles, MI
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 gas-fired electrical generating
facility, to be transformed into a 1,076-MW 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-
[[Page 23156]]
Niles Energy Center, largely as originally conceived. Indeck did not
revise or supplement its initial BACT analyses, performed in November
2000, but instead relied on the information contained therein as the
best available information for the permit review. One difference
between the original permit and the present one relates to the
NOX control technology. In its original permit application,
Indeck had proposed to equip each of the four natural gas-fired
combustion turbines with dry low-NOX burners and a selective
catalytic reduction system to achieve a NOX BACT emissions
limit, during combined cycle operations, of 3.5 parts per million dry
volume at 15% oxygen averaged over a twenty-four hour rolling time
period. Those proposals became part of the original permit. In the new
permit, those air pollution control measures are still included;
however, Indeck has also agreed to install a catalytic oxidation system
on each of the four combustion turbine/dry low-NOX burner
pairs, which is a more stringent technology option than previously
proposed, in order to achieve the BACT limits for CO and VOCs
emissions.
MDEQ subsequently reviewed and approved Indeck's BACT analyses.
Accordingly, MDEQ issued a draft PSD permit to Indeck in January 2004,
containing proposed terms and conditions to regulate the proposed power
plant. MDEQ also published a notice inviting public comment on the
draft permit and establishing a 30 day comment period. On February 25,
2004, MDEQ held a public hearing on the draft permit at the Niles High
School Auditorium in Niles, Michigan. The Department received
approximately sixty written and twelve oral comments on the draft
permit from interested parties, including comments from Mr. Douglas
Meeusen (``Petitioner''). After reviewing the public comments on the
draft permit, MDEQ issued a final permit (Permit to Install No. 364-
00A) on April 21, 2004, for Indeck's construction of the Niles Energy
Center, along with a document responding to the comments on the draft
permit.
On May 20, 2004, Petitioner filed PSD Appeal No. 04-01 with the
Board. In his appeal, Petitioner raised concerns about the startup and
shutdown frequency of the proposed facility's combustion turbines.
Under Indeck's PSD permit, each turbine is allowed to operate in
startup/shutdown mode a maximum of 500 hours per twelve-month rolling
time period, as determined at the end of each calendar month, or a
total of 2,000 hours for the four turbines annually. The Petitioner
challenged special condition 5.8 of the permit which provides that
Indeck mustprepare a plan (``emission minimization plan'') to minimize
air pollutant emissions during startup and shutdown periods, as well as
malfunction periods, and obtain MDEQ's approval of this plan prior to
initiating operation of the combustion turbines and duct burners. The
Petitioner pointed out that, in his comments on the draft version of
the permit, he had asked MDEQ to provide for public scrutiny of the
emissions minimization plan and to follow all the directives given to
MDEQ by the EAB in a previous decision regarding Tallmadge Energy
Center, Order Denying Review in Part and Remanding in Part (PSD Appeal
No. 02-12, EAB May 21, 2003), regarding a similar emissions
minimization plan. The Petitioner argued that MDEQ ignored the
Tallmadge requirements and, as a consequence, the plan called for in
Indeck's PSD permit lacks the requisite degree of specificity to allow
for meaningful comment by Petitioner and other members of the public.
At the request of the Board, MDEQ submitted a response to the
merits of the petition for review on June 25, 2004. In response, MDEQ
distinguished the factual circumstances of this case from those in
Tallmadge Energy Center. First, MDEQ noted that the Tallmadge permit
explicitly exempted that facility from complying with all BACT emission
limits during startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods and instead
made the facility's operations contingent on the permittee's submittal
of a plan describing how it would minimize emissions during those
periods. Indeck's permit, MDEQ noted, does not contain such explicit
exemption from all BACT limits. To the contrary, MDEQ observed that
Indeck's permit incorporates annual BACT emission limitations
(expressed in terms of tons per year) that must be met at all times,
including during startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods, and it
also contains restrictions on the amount of time the turbines can be in
startup/shutdown mode and sets forth a minimum load requirement of
ninety percent that defines when startup is completed. Second, MDEQ
responded to any latent concerns that might exist about the Indeck
permit's exclusions of the facility from short-term (i.e., hourly,
daily) BACT concentration limits during startup and shutdown periods.
Specifically, MDEQ explained that due to the nature of operations
during startup and shutdown, involving lower and inconsistent
combustion temperatures, the proposed facility will not be capable of
always meeting the short-term concentration limits in those periods. In
addition, MDEQ stated that, unlike the situation in Tallmadge, Indeck's
permit does not ``rely on a startup, shutdown and malfunction plan to
establish permitting requirements in lieu of emission limits that
satisfy BACT.'' In MDEQ's view, the permit required Indeck to submit a
plan to minimize emissions during these periods. MDEQ, however, did not
consider that plan a substitute for the BACT limits contained in the
permit. Since Indeck's PSD permit does not completely exempt startup/
shutdown from BACT limitations, the Board declined the basis for
invoking Tallmadge Generating Station and Rockgen Energy Center (an
electric power generating case out of the State of Wisconsin and cited
as precedent in Tallmadge). The Board remanded the PSD permits in both
of those cases because the permits contained blanket exemptions from
BACT emissions limits during startup and shutdown periods, contrary to
the directives of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as interpreted by EPA
policymakers. In the Indeck case, however, the PSD permit explicitly
establishes BACT emissions limits for NOX, CO, VOCs, and
particulate matter, on a tons per twelve-month rolling time period
basis (as determined at the end of each calendar month), including all
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The permit also has a
provision limiting total startup/shutdown event time to 2,000 hours per
year (500 hours per individual turbine) and defining ``startup'' as
``the period of time from initiation of combustion firing until the
unit reaches steady state operation (loads greater than 90 percent).''
In these circumstances, EAB determined that it would be inappropriate
to construe Tallmadge and Rockgen as establishing bright-line rules for
every case in which the PSD permit contains a startup/shutdown
emissions minimization plan.
On September 30, 2004, for the foregoing reasons, the Board denied
the petition for review of PSD Permit No. 364-00A.
Dated: April 22, 2005.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05-8874 Filed 5-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P