[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17635]



[[Page 42493]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Petition IV-2010-4; FRL-9701-1]


Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to 
State Operating Permit for Cash Creek Generation, LLC--Cash Creek 
Generation Station; Henderson County, KY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to a state 
operating permit.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA Administrator signed 
an Order, dated June 22, 2012, partially granting and partially denying 
a petition to object to a CAA merged prevention of significant 
deterioration and title V operating permit issued by the Kentucky 
Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) to Cash Creek Generation, LLC for its 
Cash Creek Generation Station (Cash Creek) located near Owensboro in 
Henderson County, Kentucky. This Order constitutes a final action on 
the petition submitted by Environmental Policy & Law Center on behalf 
of Sierra Club, Ursuline Sisters of Saint Joseph, and Valley Watch 
(Petitioners) and received by EPA on June 18, 2010. A petition for 
judicial review of those parts of the Order that deny issues in the 
petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this notice is 
published in the Federal Register.

DATES: September 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Order, the petition, and all pertinent 
information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA 
Region 4; Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW; Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Order is also available 
electronically at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/cashcreek_response2010.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, 
EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9115 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to 
review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating 
permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the 
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 
70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to 
object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the 
expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its 
own initiative. 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.
    Petitioners submitted a petition regarding Cash Creek (received by 
EPA on June 18, 2010), requesting that EPA object to the CAA title V 
operating permit (V-09-006). Petitioners alleged that the 
permit was not consistent with the CAA because: (1) KDAQ failed to 
provide an opportunity for meaningful public participation; (2) KDAQ's 
calculation of the proposed facility's potential to emit volatile 
organic compounds (VOC), hydrogen sulfide and hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) failed to account for full emissions from active flaring; (3) the 
permit's source-wide VOC emission limit was not enforceable as a 
practical matter; (4) the best available control technology (BACT) 
limits applicable to the flare during startup and steady-state 
operations were not supported by a proper BACT analysis; (5) the BACT 
limits applicable to the flare did not cover shutdown and malfunction 
periods; (6) the applicant incorrectly estimated fugitive emissions 
from equipment leaks; (7) KDAQ omitted numerous control options and 
relied on a faulty cost-effectiveness analysis in selecting BACT for 
equipment leaks; (8) KDAQ improperly determined that the source was 
minor for HAPs; (9) Cash Creek's calculation of particulate matter 
emissions from material handling assumed an unreasonably high control 
efficiency for wet suppression control methods and used an unreasonably 
low silt loading factor; (10) permit terms and conditions governing 
material handling were unenforceably vague and did not equate to the 
assumed control efficiencies; and (11) Cash Creek failed to perform an 
adequate ozone impacts analysis.
    On June 22, 2012, the Administrator issued an Order partially 
granting and partially denying the petition. The Order explains EPA's 
rationale for partially granting and partially denying the petition.

    Dated: July 6, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-17635 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P