[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 54 (Monday, March 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 14966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-6860]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[IN124; FRL-6562-4]


Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) 
Final Determination; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to announce that on September 
8, 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals 
Board (EAB) dismissed two appeals of a permit issued to the ConAgra 
Soybean Processing Company by the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management (IDEM) pursuant to the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) regulations in the Clean Air Act, as 
administered by the State of Indiana.

DATES: The effective date of EAB's decision denying review is September 
8, 1999.

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pallavi Reddy, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (AR-
18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 14, 1998, the IDEM issued 
construction permit number CP-129-8541-0039 under the PSD requirements 
of the Clean Air Act of 1990 to ConAgra Soybean Processing Company for 
the construction of a new soybean processing plant in Posey County, 
Indiana. On September 14, 1998, two separate entities, Valley Watch 
Inc., a non-profit environmental group, and Consolidated Grain and 
Barge Company filed petitions for review of this permit with the EPA's 
EAB (PSD Appeal Nos. 98-27 & 98-28). The petitioners alleged that: (1) 
IDEM improperly issued ConAgra's permit because the permit fails to 
demonstrate that the proposed facility will not cause or contribute to 
an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone as 
required by the Act; (2) the permit fails to satisfy the requirements 
for pre-construction monitoring for PM-10; (3) IDEM improperly issued 
the permit because the increment consumption analysis for PM-10 does 
not comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(c), (k), and (m); and 
(4) the additional impacts analysis of the proposed project on economic 
growth, soils, vegetation, and visibility required by 40 CFR 52.21(o) 
was inadequate.
    On October 18, 1999, the EAB denied the petitioners' request for 
review. The petitioners failed to prove that the permit or permit 
condition was based on a finding of fact or conclusion of law that was 
clearly erroneous, or to demonstrate that there was an exercise of 
discretion or important policy consideration warranting the EAB's 
discretionary review, as required by 40 CFR 124.19(a). The EAB also 
ordered IDEM to revise Condition 38 of the permit, which relates to 
emissions offsets, to strike reference to Federal law and specifically, 
40 CFR 52.21(k).

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 9, 2000.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 00-6860 Filed 3-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P