[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72826-72827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23720]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Petition IV-2002-1; FRL-8005-7]


Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to 
State Operating Permit for Oglethorpe Power Company--Wansley Combined 
Cycle Energy Facility; Roopville (Heard County), GA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of amended final order denying petition to object to a 
state operating permit in response to remand.

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

SUMMARY: This Amended Order Responding to Remand corrects certain 
errors that were found in the Order Responding to Remand that was 
issued on September 15, 2005. The September 15th Order, which is 
superseded by this Order, is being amended to correct certain clerical 
errors and to address a factual error in note 13 of that order 
regarding whether Oglethorpe Power Company (Oglethorpe) had any

[[Page 72827]]

ownership interest in units at Plant Wansley operated by Georgia Power 
Company. The Administrator issued the preceding Order Responding to 
Remand denying a petition to object to a state operating permit issued 
to Oglethorpe--Wansley Combined Cycle Energy Facility (Block 8) located 
in Roopville, Heard County, Georgia, pursuant to title V of the Clean 
Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. On February 4, 2002, Sierra 
Club had filed a petition seeking EPA's objection to the title V 
operating permit for Block 8 issued by the Georgia Environmental 
Protection Division (EPD). The Administrator denied the petition in an 
Order dated November 15, 2002. Pursuant to Section 502(b) of the Act, 
Sierra Club appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 
Circuit (the Court), arguing that Oglethorpe was not entitled to a 
permit for Block 8 (in accordance with Georgia's Statewide Compliance 
Rule) because it owns part of another major stationary source that has 
been cited for non-compliance with the Act. On May 5, 2004, the Court 
granted Sierra Club's petition for review, vacated the November 12, 
2002, Order, and remanded to EPA for further explanation of the manner 
in which the Georgia rule should be applied in cases of partial 
ownership. After considering the issues raised by the Court, the 
Amended Order Responding to Remand (like the Order Responding to 
Remand) reached the same conclusion as EPA's original Order, but 
provided a more detailed explanation.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Amended Order Responding to Remand, 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 amended final order is also available electronically at the 
following address: http://www.epa.gov/region7/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/opcwansley_decision2002_amendedremand.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, 
EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9115 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#224a4d444f474b515647500c435056624752430c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="533b3c353e363a202736217d322127133623327d343c25">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Georgia Center for Law in the Public 
Interest originally submitted a petition on behalf of the Sierra Club 
(Petitioner) to the Administrator on February 4, 2002, requesting that 
EPA object to a state title V operating permit issued by the EPD to 
Oglethorpe. Other inconsistencies (with the Act) alleged by the 
Petitioner were: (1) That the permit failed to require a case-by-case 
maximum achievable control technology determination for the emissions 
of hazardous air pollutants; (2) that the permit failed to include 
adequate monitoring of carbon monoxide; (3) that the permit 
impermissibly limited the enforceability of a federal stack height 
provision; and (4) that the permit failed to include short-term best 
available control technology limits. EPA's responses to the above 
issues in the November 12, 2002, Order were upheld by the Court; 
therefore, sections IV.B. through IV.E. of the November 12, 2002, Order 
are incorporated by reference into the Amended Order Responding to 
Remand.

    Dated: November 27, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 05-23720 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>