80 FR 9456 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permits for Luminant Generating Company, LLC Steam Electric Generating Stations Martin Lake, Monticello, and Big Brown in Texas

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 35 (February 23, 2015)

Page Range		9456-9456
FR Document		2015-03583

Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated January 23, 2015, denying in part three petitions asking the EPA to object to operating permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to Luminant Generating Company, LLC (Luminant) relating to three coal fired steam electric generating stations (SES) located in East and Northeast Texas. Title V operating permit number O53 was issued by the TCEQ to Luminant for the Martin Lake SES located in Rusk County, Texas. Title V operating permit number O64 was issued to Luminant for the Monticello SES located in Titus County, Texas, while title V operating permit number O65 was issued to Luminant for the Big Brown SES located in Freestone County, Texas. The EPA's January 23, 2015 Order responds to the three petitions submitted by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) representing themselves and on behalf of Sierra Club (collectively, the Petitioners): the petition addressing the Martin Lake permit was received on February 26, 2014, while the petitions addressing the Monticello permit and Big Brown permit were both received on March 4, 2014. Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act provide that a petitioner may ask for judicial review of those portions of the Orders that deny objections raised in the petitions by the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307(b) of the Act.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9456]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03583]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9923-16-Region 6]


Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection 
to State Operating Permits for Luminant Generating Company, LLC Steam 
Electric Generating Stations Martin Lake, Monticello, and Big Brown in 
Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 
70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated January 23, 2015, 
denying in part three petitions asking the EPA to object to operating 
permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 
to Luminant Generating Company, LLC (Luminant) relating to three coal 
fired steam electric generating stations (SES) located in East and 
Northeast Texas. Title V operating permit number O53 was issued by the 
TCEQ to Luminant for the Martin Lake SES located in Rusk County, Texas. 
Title V operating permit number O64 was issued to Luminant for the 
Monticello SES located in Titus County, Texas, while title V operating 
permit number O65 was issued to Luminant for the Big Brown SES located 
in Freestone County, Texas. The EPA's January 23, 2015 Order responds 
to the three petitions submitted by the Environmental Integrity Project 
(EIP) representing themselves and on behalf of Sierra Club 
(collectively, the Petitioners): the petition addressing the Martin 
Lake permit was received on February 26, 2014, while the petitions 
addressing the Monticello permit and Big Brown permit were both 
received on March 4, 2014. Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act 
provide that a petitioner may ask for judicial review of those portions 
of the Orders that deny objections raised in the petitions by the 
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any 
petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307(b) of 
the Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Orders, the petitions, 
and other supporting information at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    For Information: Please contact Brad Toups at (214) 665-7258, email 
address: [email protected] or the above EPA, Region 6 address, to view 
copies of the final Orders, petitions, and other supporting 
information. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 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. Additionally, the final January 23, 2015 
Order is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/luminant_response2014.pdf.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to 
review, and object, as appropriate, to a title V operating permit 
proposed by a state permitting authority. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA 
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days 
after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V 
operating permit if the 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 unless the grounds for the 
issue arose after this period.
    The EPA received three petitions from the Petitioners, one dated 
February 26, 2014 for the Martin Lake permit, and one each dated March 
3, 2014 for the Monticello and Big Brown permits, to object to 
operating permits issued to Luminant Generating Company, LLC relating 
respectively to facilities located in Rusk, Titus, and Freestone 
counties, Texas.
    The Order issued on January 23, 2015 responds to claim V.A of the 
Martin Lake Petition (pp. 5-9), the Monticello Petition (pp. 5-11) and 
the Big Brown Petition (pp. 7-14) raised by EIP, the Sierra Club having 
withdrawn all of their objections prior to the issuance of the order. 
The EIP requested that the Administrator object to the proposed 
operating permits issued by the TCEQ to Luminant on several bases. The 
three petitions did not raise identical claims; however, three common 
claims are addressed in the issued order. The remaining issues are to 
be withdrawn by the petitioner in accordance with a settlement 
agreement reached on January 22, 2015 between the Petitioner and the 
EPA.
    The claims are described in detail in Section IV of the Order. In 
summary, the issues raised are that: (1) the Compliance Assurance 
Monitoring (CAM) provisions in the Martin Lake, Monticello and Big 
Brown permits do not assure compliance with the applicable particulate 
matter (PM) emission limit during periods of startup, shutdown, 
maintenance and malfunction; (2) the record supporting the CAM opacity 
indicator ranges for PM for Monticello Units 1, 2 and 3 is deficient 
and not based on reliable data; and (3) the Big Brown permit must be 
revised to ensure that any credible evidence may be used to demonstrate 
noncompliance with applicable requirements.
    Due to significant overlap in the issues raised in the Petitions 
and the similarity of the relevant permit conditions in each of the 
three permits, the EPA is responding to the identified portion of all 
three Petitions in this Order on January 23, 2015. The EPA's rationale 
for denying the addressed claims is described in the Order.

    Dated: February 9, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-03583 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

9456 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Notices

project-level conformity analyses, and Federal Register, pursuant to section the petitioner in accordance with a
decreased EPA adequacy findings. 307(b) of the Act. settlement agreement reached on
Dated: February 12, 2015. ADDRESSES: You may review copies of January 22, 2015 between the Petitioner
Karl Simon, the final Orders, the petitions, and other and the EPA.
supporting information at EPA Region 6, The claims are described in detail in
Director, Transportation and Climate
Division, Office of Transportation and Air 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– Section IV of the Order. In summary, the
Quality. 2733. issues raised are that: (1) the
[FR Doc. 2015–03577 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] For Information: Please contact Brad Compliance Assurance Monitoring
Toups at (214) 665–7258, email address: (CAM) provisions in the Martin Lake,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
toups.brad@epa.gov or the above EPA, Monticello and Big Brown permits do
Region 6 address, to view copies of the not assure compliance with the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION final Orders, petitions, and other applicable particulate matter (PM)
AGENCY supporting information. You may view emission limit during periods of startup,
the hard copies Monday through Friday, shutdown, maintenance and
[FRL–9923–16–Region 6] from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., excluding malfunction; (2) the record supporting
Federal holidays. If you wish to the CAM opacity indicator ranges for
Clean Air Act Operating Permit examine these documents, you should PM for Monticello Units 1, 2 and 3 is
Program; Petitions for Objection to make an appointment at least 24 hours deficient and not based on reliable data;
State Operating Permits for Luminant before the visiting day. Additionally, the and (3) the Big Brown permit must be
Generating Company, LLC Steam final January 23, 2015 Order is available revised to ensure that any credible
Electric Generating Stations Martin electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ evidence may be used to demonstrate
Lake, Monticello, and Big Brown in region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/ noncompliance with applicable
Texas luminant_response2014.pdf. requirements.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA Due to significant overlap in the
Agency (EPA). affords the EPA a 45-day period to issues raised in the Petitions and the
review, and object, as appropriate, to a similarity of the relevant permit
ACTION: Notice of final action.
title V operating permit proposed by a conditions in each of the three permits,
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act state permitting authority. Section the EPA is responding to the identified
(CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any portion of all three Petitions in this
70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed person to petition the EPA Order on January 23, 2015. The EPA’s
an Order, dated January 23, 2015, Administrator, within 60 days after the rationale for denying the addressed
denying in part three petitions asking expiration of this review period, to claims is described in the Order.
the EPA to object to operating permits object to a title V operating permit if the Dated: February 9, 2015.
issued by the Texas Commission on EPA has not done so. Petitions must be Ron Curry,
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to based only on objections to the permit Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Luminant Generating Company, LLC that were raised with reasonable [FR Doc. 2015–03583 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am]
(Luminant) relating to three coal fired specificity during the public comment BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
steam electric generating stations (SES) period provided by the state, unless the
located in East and Northeast Texas. petitioner demonstrates that it was
Title V operating permit number O53 impracticable to raise these issues ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
was issued by the TCEQ to Luminant for during the comment period or unless AGENCY
the Martin Lake SES located in Rusk the grounds for the issue arose after this
County, Texas. Title V operating permit period. [FRL–9923–31–Region 2]
number O64 was issued to Luminant for The EPA received three petitions from
Clean Water Act Section 303(d):
the Monticello SES located in Titus the Petitioners, one dated February 26,
Availability of List Decisions
County, Texas, while title V operating 2014 for the Martin Lake permit, and
permit number O65 was issued to one each dated March 3, 2014 for the AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Luminant for the Big Brown SES located Monticello and Big Brown permits, to Agency (EPA).
in Freestone County, Texas. The EPA’s object to operating permits issued to ACTION: Notice and request for
January 23, 2015 Order responds to the Luminant Generating Company, LLC comments.
three petitions submitted by the relating respectively to facilities located
Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) in Rusk, Titus, and Freestone counties, SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s
representing themselves and on behalf Texas. decision to identify certain water
of Sierra Club (collectively, the The Order issued on January 23, 2015 quality limited waters and the
Petitioners): the petition addressing the responds to claim V.A of the Martin associated pollutant to be listed
Martin Lake permit was received on Lake Petition (pp. 5–9), the Monticello pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section
February 26, 2014, while the petitions Petition (pp. 5–11) and the Big Brown 303(d)(2) on New York’s list of impaired
addressing the Monticello permit and Petition (pp. 7–14) raised by EIP, the waters, and requests public comment.
Big Brown permit were both received on Sierra Club having withdrawn all of Section 303(d)(2) requires that States
March 4, 2014. Sections 307(b) and their objections prior to the issuance of submit, and EPA approve or disapprove,
505(b)(2) of the Act provide that a the order. The EIP requested that the lists of waters for which existing
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

petitioner may ask for judicial review of Administrator object to the proposed technology-based pollution controls are
those portions of the Orders that deny operating permits issued by the TCEQ to not stringent enough to attain or
objections raised in the petitions by the Luminant on several bases. The three maintain State water quality standards
United States Court of Appeals for the petitions did not raise identical claims; and for which total maximum daily
appropriate circuit. Any petition for however, three common claims are loads (TMDLs) must be prepared.
review shall be filed within 60 days addressed in the issued order. The On January 13, 2015, EPA
from the date this notice appears in the remaining issues are to be withdrawn by disapproved New York’s decision to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:19 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1

Document Created: 2015-12-18 13:28:29
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 13:28:29

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice of final action.
FR Citation		80 FR 9456