[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 36451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12852]



[[Page 36451]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL--8334-8]


Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to 
South Dakota State Operating Permit for GCC Dacotah Cement 
Manufacturing Plant, Rapid City, SD

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of direct final Order.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that the EPA Administrator has responded 
to a citizens' petition asking EPA to object to a State operating 
permit issued by the South Dakota Department of Environmental and 
Natural Resources (DENR). Specifically, the Administrator has partially 
granted and partially denied the petition submitted by Jeremy Nichols, 
and the other Petitioners, to object to the issuance of the operating 
permit issued to GCC Dacotah Cement Manufacturing Plant (``GCC 
Dacotah''), located in Rapid City, South Dakota.
    Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 
Petitioners may seek judicial review of those portions of the 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 of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant 
to section 307(d) of the Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and 
other supporting information at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129 after June 
30, 2007. EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the copies of these 
documents. You may view these documents Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 
to 4 p.m., excluding federal holidays. If you wish to examine these 
documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the 
visiting day. The final Order is also available electronically at each 
of the following addresses: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/dacotah_decision2006.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb2006.htm

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ajayi, Environmental 
Engineer, Air and Radiation Program, Office of Partnerships and 
Regulatory Assistance, Mail Code 8P-AR, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, telephone 
(303) 312-6320, or e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act (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 object during the 
comment period or that the grounds for the objection or other issues 
arose after this period.
    On January 18, 2006, the EPA received a petition from Petitioners 
requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the Title V operating 
permit issued by South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural 
Resources (DENR) to GCC Dacotah Cement Manufacturing Plant in Rapid 
City, South Dakota (``the Facility'').
    The Petitioners request that EPA object to the issuance of the 
proposed permit and raise the following objections as the bases for 
their petition:
    1. The permit fails to ensure low sulfur coal is utilized to ensure 
compliance with BACT for Sulfur Dioxide emissions;
    2. the permit fails to require the baghouses and electrostatic 
precipitators for control of Particulate Matter (PM) be operated and 
maintained in any specific way to ensure they control particulate 
emissions within acceptable limits;
    3. the permit is vague, lacks enforceability and is inadequate to 
ensure compliance with PM limits;
    4. the permit fails to require sufficient monitoring of BACT for 
Nitrogen Oxide emissions;
    5. the permit fails to require operation and maintenance of 
equipment according to manufacture's specification thereby failing to 
ensure compliance with BACT for CO emissions;
    6. the permit fails to require continuous PM monitoring or in the 
alternative fails to require sufficient periodic monitoring of PM for 
several units (kilns and clinker coolers);
    7. the permit does not require prompt reporting of permit 
violations;
    8. the permit fails to require prompt reporting of permit 
deviations;
    9. the permit fails to require sufficient periodic monitoring in 
Condition 6.1 for the presence of uncombined water and/or its effects 
on opacity;
    10. the permit fails to require sufficient periodic monitoring in 
Condition 6.4 and it is unclear how Test Method 201 (Method 201) will 
assure compliance with established limits;
    11. the permit fails to require sufficient periodic monitoring in 
Condition 6.8 to ensure compliance with short-term BACT SO2 
and CO limits for kiln 6 system;
    12. the permit is flawed in Condition 6.12 because it implies an 
affirmative defense to the Permittee with respect to injunction relief; 
and
    13. the permit provides an inappropriate broad exemption for 
maintenance in Conditions 8.4 & 8.5 for Continuous Emissions Monitoring 
(CEMs) and Continuous Opacity Monitors (COMs) which render the 
Conditions unenforceable as a practical matter.
    On June 15, 2007, the Administrator issued an Order in response to 
Petitioners' allegations outlined above. The Order explains the reasons 
for partially granting and partially denying objection 2 and 
granting objection 8 and directs DENR to revise certain permit 
conditions for clarification and/or include applicable provisions in 
the permit. The Order also directs DENR to take specific steps to 
improve compliance demonstration with certain permit conditions. 
Finally, the Order explains the reasons for denying the Petitioners' 
remaining claims.

    Dated: June 22, 2007.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
 [FR Doc. E7-12852 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P