Air quality; prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): Permit determinations, etc.— ConAgra Soybean Processing Co., IN,

[Federal Register: March 20, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 54)]

[Notices]

[Page 14966]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr20mr00-67]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[IN124; FRL-6562-4]

Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Final Determination; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to announce that on September 8, 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) dismissed two appeals of a permit issued to the ConAgra Soybean Processing Company by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) pursuant to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) regulations in the Clean Air Act, as administered by the State of Indiana.

DATES: The effective date of EAB's decision denying review is September 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to the above action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pallavi Reddy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (AR- 18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 14, 1998, the IDEM issued construction permit number CP-129-8541-0039 under the PSD requirements of the Clean Air Act of 1990 to ConAgra Soybean Processing Company for the construction of a new soybean processing plant in Posey County, Indiana. On September 14, 1998, two separate entities, Valley Watch Inc., a non-profit environmental group, and Consolidated Grain and Barge Company filedpetitions for review of this permit with the EPA's EAB (PSD Appeal Nos. 98-27 & 98-28). The petitioners alleged that: (1) IDEM improperly issued ConAgra's permit because the permit fails to demonstrate that the proposed facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone as required by the Act; (2) the permit fails to satisfy the requirements for pre-construction monitoring for PM-10; (3) IDEM improperly issued the permit because the increment consumption analysis for PM-10 does not comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(c), (k), and (m); and (4) the additional impacts analysis of the proposed project on economic growth, soils, vegetation, and visibility required by 40 CFR 52.21(o) was inadequate.

On October 18, 1999, the EAB denied the petitioners' request for review. The petitioners failed to prove that the permit or permit condition was based on a finding of fact or conclusion of law that was clearly erroneous, or to demonstrate that there was an exercise of discretion or important policy consideration warranting the EAB's discretionary review, as required by 40 CFR 124.19(a). The EAB also ordered IDEM to revise Condition 38 of the permit, which relates to emissions offsets, to strike reference to Federal law and specifically, 40 CFR 52.21(k).

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: March 9, 2000. David A. Ullrich, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 00-6860Filed3-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P