Environmental Administrative Decisions: Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Volume 13U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 1
... proposed 1500 - megawatt ( " MW " ) pulverized coal - fuel powered electricity generating plant . The Facility would be located at the mouth of a new underground coal mine , also developed by Prairie State , which would provide the ...
... proposed 1500 - megawatt ( " MW " ) pulverized coal - fuel powered electricity generating plant . The Facility would be located at the mouth of a new underground coal mine , also developed by Prairie State , which would provide the ...
Page 2
... proposed Facility and concluded that the use of a particular 30 - year coal supply under common ownership and control is an inherent aspect of the proposed project . The Board is satisfied that IEPA took a sufficiently hard look at the ...
... proposed Facility and concluded that the use of a particular 30 - year coal supply under common ownership and control is an inherent aspect of the proposed project . The Board is satisfied that IEPA took a sufficiently hard look at the ...
Page 8
... proposed Facility's impact on com- pliance with the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS , contained an erroneous analysis of the impact on the 1 - hour ozone NAAQS , and demonstrated that the proposed Facility will violate the SO2 and PM10 NAAQS . C ...
... proposed Facility's impact on com- pliance with the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS , contained an erroneous analysis of the impact on the 1 - hour ozone NAAQS , and demonstrated that the proposed Facility will violate the SO2 and PM10 NAAQS . C ...
Page 15
... proposed by Prairie State and that IEPA's rationale violates the statutory requirement to consider " clean fuels . " Petition at 33. Petitioners also argue that IEPA improperly rejected consideration of " alternatives " to the Facility ...
... proposed by Prairie State and that IEPA's rationale violates the statutory requirement to consider " clean fuels . " Petition at 33. Petitioners also argue that IEPA improperly rejected consideration of " alternatives " to the Facility ...
Page 16
... proposed . Prior to the public comment period , IEPA explained its reasoning as follows : With respect to alternate sources of coal , e.g. , low - sulfur western coal from Wyoming or Montana , the proposed plant is being designed and ...
... proposed . Prior to the public comment period , IEPA explained its reasoning as follows : With respect to alternate sources of coal , e.g. , low - sulfur western coal from Wyoming or Montana , the proposed plant is being designed and ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
administrative Agency Agency's air quality ALJ's alleged appeal application argument asbestos BACT analysis BACT limits Board Brief capacitors Christian County citing clear error coal compliance schedule concluded ConocoPhillips considered count D.C. Cir determination draft permit effluent limits emissions limits enforcement Environmental EPA's EPS's Euclid explained failed federal FIFRA filed Final Permit hazardous waste Howmet IEPA IEPA's IEPA's response impacts Indeck Init Initial Decision issue LTCP major stationary source Martex ment monitoring NAAQS NPDES NPDES permit NSR Manual OCS source PCB waste Penalty Policy permit decision permit issuer pesticide Petition Petitioners argue pollutant Prairie State's proposed Facility protection PSD permit public comment period RCRA record Region regulatory remand requirements Response to Comments Sierra Club SMRO specifically spent material tion U.S. EPA violations WASA water quality standards