[Federal Register: July 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 42062-42063]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy05-82]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[Regional Docket Nos. V-2004-3, -4, IL226-1, FRL-7942-2]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection
to State Operating Permits for Midwest Generation Romeoville and Joliet
Stations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final orders on petitions to object to two State
operating permits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has
responded to two citizen petitions asking EPA to object to operating
permits proposed 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 on behalf of Citizens Against Ruining the
Environment to object to the proposed operating permits for the Midwest
Generation Romeoville and Joliet stations.
Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act),
Petitioner may seek judicial review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit of those portions of the petitions
which EPA denied. 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 Romeoville and Joliet stations are available electronically
at: http://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 the EPA 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
[[Page 42063]]
grounds for the issues arose after this period.
On January 26, 2004, the EPA received from the Chicago Legal Clinic
petitions requesting that EPA object to the proposed title V operating
permits for the Midwest Generation Romeoville and Joliet 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) Fail to comply with State and Federal
requirements; (2) allow excess emissions during startup and
malfunction, contrary to U.S. EPA policy; (3) contain conditions that
are not practically enforceable; (4) allow the plant to continue to
operate in a manner which causes severe health impacts on the
surrounding communities; (5) contain numerous typographical errors,
mistakes, and omissions; (6) are legally inadequate because they do not
impose enforceable schedules to remedy non-compliance; and (7) fail to
address mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
On June 24, 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 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 Illinois 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; (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; (13)
include appropriate prompt reporting requirements or explain how and
where the permit meets the prompt reporting requirements of part 70;
and (14) insert ``which'' after ``any new process emission unit'' to be
consistent with the SIP. The orders also explain the reasons for
denying Chicago Legal Clinic's remaining claims.
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05-14405 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P