[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32084-32085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8617]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Regional Docket Nos. II-2003-02, II-2005-05; FRL-8179-2]


Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to 
State Operating Permit for G-P Gypsum Corporation; and Request for 
Reconsideration of Order Regarding Eastman Kodak Company, Kodak Park 
Facility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final decisions concerning State operating permits.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces two decisions the EPA Administrator 
has made. First, the Administrator has partially granted and partially 
denied a citizen petition submitted by the South Jersey Environmental 
Justice Alliance (SJEJA) requesting that EPA object to an operating 
permit issued to the G-P Gypsum Corporation by the New Jersey 
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Secondly, the 
Administrator has granted a request from the New York State Department 
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that EPA reconsider certain 
revisions to the Kodak Park Facility's operating permit mandated by the 
Administrator's February 18, 2005 Order, which was issued in response 
to a citizen petition. In granting NYSDEC(s request, the Administrator 
has amended the February 18, 2005 Order. While some changes have been 
made, none of the Administrator's previous issue-specific decisions to 
grant the Kodak Park petition have been reversed in the amendment.
    Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 
Petitioner (SJEJA) may seek judicial review of those portions of the G-
P Gypsum petition which EPA denied in the United States Court of 
Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be 
filed within 60 days from the date this

[[Page 32085]]

notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307 of the 
Act. The Administrator's action amending the February 18, 2005 Order on 
Kodak is not subject to judicial review, as no portions of the original 
citizen petition were denied.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final order, the petition, and 
all relevant information at the EPA Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, New 
York, New York 10007-1866. If you wish to examine these documents, you 
should make an appointment at least 24 hours before visiting day. 
Additionally, the final order for G-P Gypsum is available 
electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb2002.htm, and the amended Kodak order is 
available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb2003.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Riva, Chief, Permitting 
Section, Air Programs Branch, Division of Environmental Planning and 
Protection, EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 
10007-1866, telephone (212) 637-4074.

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 this 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 grounds for the issues arose after this period.

I. G-P Gypsum Corporation

    On September 15, 2005, the EPA received a petition from SJEJA, 
requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating 
permit for G-P Gypsum based on the following allegations: (1) The draft 
permit was not accompanied by a statement of basis explaining various 
permitting decisions, particularly eight monitoring provisions that 
NJDEP added after the close of public comment; (2) the facility should 
have filed a compliance plan and the permit should have contained a 
compliance schedule; (3) the permit fails to address past violations; 
(4) the permit has inadequate monitoring and reporting provisions; (5) 
NJDEP failed to ensure safe ambient air quality levels in the Camden 
area; and (6) NJDEP did not adequately address environmental justice 
issues.
    On April 4, 2006, the Administrator issued an order partially 
granting and partially denying the petition on G-P Gypsum. The order 
explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NJDEP must re-
issue the statement of basis to provide an explanation for the eight 
monitoring provisions added after the close of the public comment 
period. The order also explains the reasons for denying SJEJA's 
remaining claims.

II. Kodak Park

    On August 16, 2005, the EPA received a letter from NYSDEC, 
requesting that EPA reconsider certain revisions to the Kodak Park 
Facility's operating permit, mandated by the Administrator's February 
18, 2005 Order. This Order granted in part and denied in part a 
petition filed by the New York Public Interest Research Group, asking 
EPA to object to the Kodak Park Facility(s operating permit. In its 
letter, NYSDEC sought reconsideration of EPA's objections for the 
following reasons: (1) The actual annual quantity of benzene in 
facility waste is very low compared to the permitted cap; (2) the 
standard test method for volatile organic compounds (VOC) in coatings 
and fountain solutions is burdensome and yields unreliable results, and 
actual VOC levels are low compared to permitted levels; and (3) 
frequent monitoring on several small cold cleaning units is overly 
burdensome.
    On April 4, 2006, the Administrator issued an amended order, 
granting the request for reconsideration on Kodak Park. The amended 
Order explains the reasons behind EPA's decision to provide the NYSDEC 
with some flexibility in resolving EPA's February 18, 2005 objections 
regarding these three issues. The amended Order also explains why EPA 
believes there continue to be sufficient bases on which to grant the 
citizen petition on these issues.

    Dated: May 22, 2006.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E6-8617 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P