Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program: Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Hunter Power Plant (Emery County, Utah) and State Operating Permit for Coyote Station Power Plant (Mercer County, North Dakota), 11999-12000 [2021-04127]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The
telephone number for the Docket Center
is 202–566–1744. For additional
information about EPA’s public docket,
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Abstract: Regulations implementing
section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) are found at 40 CFR part 125,
subpart G. This CWA section allows for
a case-by-case review of treatment
requirements for publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) discharges to
marine waters. Eligible POTW
applicants that met the set of
environmentally stringent criteria
received a modified National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit waiving secondary treatment
requirements. CWA section 301(h) only
applies to the 25 POTWs that applied by
December 29, 1982, that currently hold
modified permits and the six states in
which the POTWs are located. No new
applications are accepted.
The CWA section 301(h) program
involves collecting information from
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities (POTWs), and the state in
which the POTW is located. A POTW
holding a modified permit or reapplying
for a modification provides application,
monitoring, and toxic control program
information. The state provides
information on its determination
whether the discharge under the
proposed conditions of the modified
permit ensures the protection of water
quality, biological habitats, and
beneficial uses of receiving waters and
whether the discharge will result in
additional treatment, pollution control,
or any other requirement for any other
point or nonpoint sources. The state
also provides information to certify that
the discharge will meet all applicable
state laws and that the state accepts all
permit conditions.
There are four situations where
information will be required: (1) A
POTW reapplying for a CWA section
301(h) modified permit. As the permits
with section 301(h) modifications reach
their expiration dates, EPA must have
updated information on the discharge to
determine whether criteria are still
being met and whether the modified
permit should be reissued. (2) Once a
modified permit has been granted, EPA
must continue to assess whether the
discharge is meeting the CWA criteria,
and that the receiving water quality,
biological habitats, and beneficial uses
of the receiving waters are protected. To
do this, EPA needs monitoring and
toxics control information furnished by
the permittee. (3) Application revision
information: A POTW is allowed to
revise its application one time only,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:48 Feb 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
following a tentative decision by EPA to
deny the modified permit request. In its
application revision, the POTW usually
corrects deficiencies and changes
proposed treatment levels as well as
outfall and diffuser locations. The
application revision is a voluntary
submission for the applicant. (4) State
determination and state certification
information: The state determines
whether all state laws are satisfied.
Additionally, the state must determine
if the applicant’s discharge will result in
additional treatment, pollution control,
or any other requirement for any other
point or nonpoint sources. This process
allows the state’s views to be considered
when EPA reviews the application and
develops permit conditions.
Form numbers: None.
Respondents/affected entities:
Municipalities that currently have CWA
section 301(h) modifications from
secondary treatment, or have applied for
a renewal of a CWA section 301(h)
modified permit, and the states within
which these municipalities are located.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Estimated number of respondents: 31
(total).
Frequency of response: From once
every five years, to varies case-by-case,
depending on the category of
information.
Total estimated burden: 44,985 hours
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $1,300,339 (per
year), includes $0 annualized capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
Changes in the estimates: There is an
increase of hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the
ICR currently approved by OMB. This
increase is due to changes in respondent
universe, program status, information
needs, and use of technology.
Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021–04095 Filed 2–26–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[CERCLA–04–2018–3762; FRL 10019–53–
Region 4]
KOPPERS CO., Inc. (Charleston Plant),
Charleston, North Carolina; Notice of
Modified Settlement
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Modified Settlement.
AGENCY:
Under 122(h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11999
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has modified an existing settlement
entered by the EPA and Prospective
Purchaser (PP) Highland Resources for
the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant)
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)
Site (‘‘Site’’) in Charleston, Charleston
County, South Carolina. The existing
Administrative Agreement on Consent
(AOC) (CERCLA Docket No. 2018–3762)
became effective on March 11, 2019. HR
Charleston VII, LLC agreed to perform
work at the Koppers Superfund Site to
support redevelopment. This
modification adds a newly acquired
parcel which was not previously
included in the agreement.
DATES: The Agency will consider public
comments on the settlement until March
31, 2021. The Agency will consider all
comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the modified
settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which
indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are
available from the Agency by contacting
Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst,
using the contact information provided
in this notice. Comments may also be
submitted by referencing the Site’s
name through one of the following
methods:
Internet: https://www.epa.gov/
aboutepa/about-epa-region-4southeast#r4-public-notices.
Email: Painter.Paula@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paula V. Painter at 404/562–8887.
Dated: January 21, 2021.
Maurice Horsey,
Chief, Enforcement Branch, Superfund &
Emergency Management Division.
[FR Doc. 2021–04128 Filed 2–26–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–10020–66–Region 8]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit
Program: Petitions for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Hunter
Power Plant (Emery County, Utah) and
State Operating Permit for Coyote
Station Power Plant (Mercer County,
North Dakota)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final orders on
petitions to object to state operating
permits.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
12000
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices
The EPA Administrator
signed orders, dated January 13, 2021,
and January 15, 2021, denying the
petitions submitted on separate
permitting actions in Utah and North
Dakota, respectively. The January 13,
2021 Order pertains to two petitions
submitted by the Sierra Club requesting
that EPA object to the issuance of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating
permit issued to the Hunter Power Plant
in Castle Dale, Emery County, Utah, by
the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Air Quality
(UDAQ). The January 13, 2021 Order
responds to Sierra Club’s April 11, 2016
petition regarding title V operating
permit # 1500101002 (2016 Permit), and
Sierra Club’s October 20, 2020 petition
regarding title V operating permit #
1500101004 (2020 Permit). The January
15, 2021 Order responds to petitions
submitted by Casey and Julie Voigt
requesting that EPA object to the title V
operating permit issued to the Coyote
Station Power Plant in Beulah, Mercer
County, North Dakota, by the North
Dakota Department of Environmental
Quality (NDDEQ).
The Orders constitute final actions on
the petitions.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of
the Orders and petitions electronically
at https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operatingpermits/title-v-petition-database. To
reduce the risk of COVID–19
transmission, for this action we do not
plan to offer hard copy review of these
documents or other supporting
information. Please email or call the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section if you
need to make alternative arrangements
for access to the documents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail
Fallon, Air Permitting and Monitoring
Branch (8ARD–PM), EPA Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado,
80202–1129. Phone: (303) 312–6281.
Email: fallon.gail@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA
affords EPA a 45-day period to review
and, as appropriate, the authority to
object to operating permits proposed by
state permitting authorities under title V
of the CAA, 42. U.S.C. 7661–7661f.
Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40
CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to
petition the EPA Administrator to object
to a title V operating permit within 60
days after the expiration of EPA’s 45day review period if EPA has not
objected on its own initiative. 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
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:48 Feb 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
impracticable to raise these issues
during the comment period or the
grounds for the issues arose after this
period. Pursuant to sections 307(b) and
505(b)(2) of the Act, a petition for
judicial review of those portions of the
Order that deny issues in the petition
may be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit
within 60 days from the date this
document appears in the Federal
Register.
State Operating Permit for Hunter
Power Plant (Emery County, Utah)
EPA received petitions from the Sierra
Club, requesting that EPA object to the
2016 Permit and the 2020 Permit for the
Hunter Power Plant. Among other
things, the Sierra Club claims that the
2016 and 2020 Permits are deficient
because they do not include Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting requirements. More
specifically, the Sierra Club asserts that
Best Achievable Control Technology
requirements as well as terms and
conditions necessary to adequately
protect national ambient air quality
standards and PSD increments are
required. EPA denied the 2016 petition
on October 16, 2017; however, the
Sierra Club sought judicial review of a
portion of the 2017 Order in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit. On July 2, 2020, the Tenth
Circuit issued a decision vacating and
remanding the 2017 Order. EPA’s
January 13, 2021 Order responds to the
Tenth Circuit’s decision, replaces the
vacated portion of EPA’s 2017 Order,
and separately responds to the 2020
Petition.
On January 13, 2021, the
Administrator issued an Order denying
the petitions, but directing UDAQ to
reopen the 2020 Permit for cause.
State Operating Permit for Coyote
Station Power Plant (Mercer County,
North Dakota)
EPA received petitions from the
Voigts, requesting that EPA object to the
title V permit for the Coyote Station
Power Plant. The Voigts allege that the
permit fails to ensure compliance with
applicable requirements under the CAA
in that: (1) The Coyote Station Power
Plant and the nearby Coyote Creek Mine
should be considered a single source for
title V and New Source Review
preconstruction permitting purposes;
and (2) the permit fails to include
appropriate CAA requirements for the
mine, the mine’s coal processing plant,
and the power plant. On January 15,
2021, the Administrator issued an Order
denying the petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Orders issued on January 13,
2021, and January 15, 2021, explain
EPA’s basis for denying the petitions.
Dated: February 23, 2021.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2021–04127 Filed 2–26–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OW–2021–0128; FRL–10020–81–
OW]
Proposed Information Collection
Request; Comment Request; Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS)
(Reinstatement)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR),
‘‘Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
(CWNS) (Reinstatement)’’ (EPA ICR No.
0318.14, OMB Control No. 2040–0050)
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so,
EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described
below. This is a reinstatement of the
ICR. 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.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before April 30, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2021–0128 online using
www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes profanity, threats,
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elisabeth Schlaudt, Office of Water,
State Revolving Fund Branch, (4204M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11999-12000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04127]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-10020-66-Region 8]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program: Petitions for Objection
to State Operating Permit for Hunter Power Plant (Emery County, Utah)
and State Operating Permit for Coyote Station Power Plant (Mercer
County, North Dakota)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final orders on petitions to object to state
operating permits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12000]]
SUMMARY: The EPA Administrator signed orders, dated January 13, 2021,
and January 15, 2021, denying the petitions submitted on separate
permitting actions in Utah and North Dakota, respectively. The January
13, 2021 Order pertains to two petitions submitted by the Sierra Club
requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
title V operating permit issued to the Hunter Power Plant in Castle
Dale, Emery County, Utah, by the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). The January 13, 2021 Order
responds to Sierra Club's April 11, 2016 petition regarding title V
operating permit # 1500101002 (2016 Permit), and Sierra Club's October
20, 2020 petition regarding title V operating permit # 1500101004 (2020
Permit). The January 15, 2021 Order responds to petitions submitted by
Casey and Julie Voigt requesting that EPA object to the title V
operating permit issued to the Coyote Station Power Plant in Beulah,
Mercer County, North Dakota, by the North Dakota Department of
Environmental Quality (NDDEQ).
The Orders constitute final actions on the petitions.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the Orders and petitions
electronically at https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of these documents
or other supporting information. Please email or call the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you need to make
alternative arrangements for access to the documents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, Air Permitting and
Monitoring Branch (8ARD-PM), EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129. Phone: (303) 312-6281. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating
permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the
CAA, 42. U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR
70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to
object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the
expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its
own initiative. 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.
Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act, a petition for
judicial review of those portions of the Order that deny issues in the
petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this document appears
in the Federal Register.
State Operating Permit for Hunter Power Plant (Emery County, Utah)
EPA received petitions from the Sierra Club, requesting that EPA
object to the 2016 Permit and the 2020 Permit for the Hunter Power
Plant. Among other things, the Sierra Club claims that the 2016 and
2020 Permits are deficient because they do not include Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements. More
specifically, the Sierra Club asserts that Best Achievable Control
Technology requirements as well as terms and conditions necessary to
adequately protect national ambient air quality standards and PSD
increments are required. EPA denied the 2016 petition on October 16,
2017; however, the Sierra Club sought judicial review of a portion of
the 2017 Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit. On July 2, 2020, the Tenth Circuit issued a decision vacating
and remanding the 2017 Order. EPA's January 13, 2021 Order responds to
the Tenth Circuit's decision, replaces the vacated portion of EPA's
2017 Order, and separately responds to the 2020 Petition.
On January 13, 2021, the Administrator issued an Order denying the
petitions, but directing UDAQ to reopen the 2020 Permit for cause.
State Operating Permit for Coyote Station Power Plant (Mercer County,
North Dakota)
EPA received petitions from the Voigts, requesting that EPA object
to the title V permit for the Coyote Station Power Plant. The Voigts
allege that the permit fails to ensure compliance with applicable
requirements under the CAA in that: (1) The Coyote Station Power Plant
and the nearby Coyote Creek Mine should be considered a single source
for title V and New Source Review preconstruction permitting purposes;
and (2) the permit fails to include appropriate CAA requirements for
the mine, the mine's coal processing plant, and the power plant. On
January 15, 2021, the Administrator issued an Order denying the
petition.
The Orders issued on January 13, 2021, and January 15, 2021,
explain EPA's basis for denying the petitions.
Dated: February 23, 2021.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2021-04127 Filed 2-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
