[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42062-42063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14405]


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

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