130 likes | 265 Views
Title V Petitions Update. Art Hofmeister Air Permits Section EPA Region IV. Petitions Update. Petitions received-to-date 1 : Nationally: 224 Region IV: 46 (third most) Regions II, IV, and IX account for approximately 65 percent of the national total
E N D
Title V Petitions Update Art Hofmeister Air Permits Section EPA Region IV
Petitions Update • Petitions received-to-date1: • Nationally: 224 • Region IV: 46 (third most) • Regions II, IV, and IX account for approximately 65 percent of the national total 1Based on data entered into the Petition Electronic Tracking System (or PETS)
Petitions Update (cont.) • Regional breakdown (by state): Alabama 8 Florida 0 Georgia 23 Kentucky 4 Mississippi 0 N. Carolina 4 S. Carolina 3 Tennessee 4
Petitions Update (cont.) • Regional breakdown (by year): 1998 1 1999 0 2000 5 2001 10 2002 9 2003 9 2004 3 2005 4 2006 4 2007 1
Petitions Update (cont.) • Of 46 received, 30 have been resolved as follows: • Twenty-three (23) have been issued final, amended final, and/or remanded final Orders • Eight (8) since the last workshop • Five (5) have been deemed “untimely” in accordance with 40 CFR § 70.8(d) • Two (2) have been withdrawn by petitioner(s)
Petitions Update (cont.) • Another Remanded final Order • King Finishing America • Originally petitioned by GCLPI (on behalf of the Sierra Club) on January 9, 2001 • Issues raised: • Inadequate public notice • Inadequate public participation process • Limitation of credible evidence • Limitation of enforcement authority
Petitions Update (cont.) • Inadequate reporting • Inadequate monitoring of NOx emissions • EPA denies petition (in-full) on January 9, 2002 • Pursuant to section 502(b) of CAA, petitioner appeals EPA decision to U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (in Atlanta) • On January 20, 2006, the Court partially grants the petition for review and remands mailing list issue back to EPA for further consideration
Petitions Update (cont.) • The Court concluded that (by failing to object) EPA: “abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously” • EPA’s rationale: “not convinced that the existence of a mailing list would have significantly increase the public participation related to previously issued permits”
Petitions Update (cont.) • On September 21, 2006, EPA objects to the King Finishing permit for EPD’s failure to use a mailing list • No remedial action resulted – EPD had already begun regular use of a mailing list (as of June 2001)
Petitions Update (cont.) • First petition by a source received • Filed by Georgia Power Company (GPC) • Relates to the renewal permit for the Wansley Steam-Electric Generating Plant • GPC requests that EPA object to the permit because it includes “misleading and potentially confusing” language relating to common control
Petitions Update (cont.) • Permit gives the false impression that the following co-located facilities are under common control: • Wansley Steam-Electric Plant (“Blocks 6 and 7”) • Chattahoochee Energy Facility (“Block 8”) • Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) Unit 9 (“Block 9”) • In reality: • Block 8 is solely owned/operated by Oglethorpe Power Corporation • Block 9 is solely owned/operated by MEAG
Petitions Update (cont.) • GPC requests that EPA direct EPD to use more accurate language in the permit
Petitions Update (cont.) • To locate petitions and final Orders, use the following link: http://www.epa.gov/region7/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb.htm