Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final Determination for BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Facility, 50324 [05-17027]
Download as PDF
50324
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices
Dated: August 19, 2005.
Jeffrey R. Holmstead,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 05–17037 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–7960–5]
Notice of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Final Determination for
BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Facility
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final action.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces
that on June 21, 2005, the
Environmental Appeals Board (‘‘EAB’’)
of EPA denied review of a petition for
review of a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (‘‘PSD’’) permit (‘‘Permit’’)
that EPA Region 10 and the State of
Washington’s Energy Facility Site
Evaluation Council (‘‘EFSEC’’) issued to
BP West Coast Products, L.L.C. (‘‘BP’’)
for construction and operation of the BP
Cherry Point Cogeneration Facility
(‘‘Facility’’), a natural gas-fired
cogeneration facility. The Permit was
issued pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21.
DATES: The effective date of the EAB’s
decision is June 21, 2005. Judicial
review of this permit decision, to the
extent it is available pursuant to section
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’),
may be sought by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60
days of August 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to
the above action are available for public
inspection during normal business
hours at the following address: EPA,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AWT–
107), Seattle, Washington 98101. To
arrange viewing of these documents,
call Dan Meyer at (206) 553–4150.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan
Meyer, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue (AWT–107), Seattle,
Washington 98101.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
supplemental information is organized
as follows:
A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
B. What Is the Background Information?
C. What Did the EAB Decide?
A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
We are notifying the public of a final
decision by the EAB on the Permit
issued by EPA Region 10 and EFSEC
(‘‘Permitting Authorities’’) pursuant to
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:18 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
the PSD regulations found at 40 CFR
52.21.
B. What Is the Background
Information?
The Facility will be a 720-megawatt
natural gas-fired, combined cycle
combustion turbine cogeneration facility
located on a 33-acre parcel of land
adjacent to BP’s existing Cherry Point
petroleum refinery in Whatcom County,
Washington. The Facility will combust
natural gas and will employ selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) and an
oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions.
On November 7, 2003, EFSEC issued
the draft PSD permit for public review
and comment. On December 21, 2004,
after providing an opportunity for
public comment and a public hearing,
EFSEC approved the Permit. On January
11, 2005, EPA approved the Permit. On
February 4, 2005, Ms. Cathy Cleveland
(‘‘Petitioner’’) petitioned the EAB for
review of the Permit.
What Did the EAB Decide?
Petitioner, acting pro se, raised the
following issues on appeal: (1) The
Permitting Authorities failed to protect
Peace Arch Park, a Class I area; (2) the
Permitting Authorities failed to properly
evaluate particulate matter (‘‘PM’’)
emissions from the Facility and failed to
consider the health impacts related to
PM; (3) the Permitting Authorities failed
to properly model the ambient air
quality; (4) the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (‘‘NAAQS’’)
designation was incorrectly identified in
the Permit; (5) EPA’s recommended
nitrogen oxide (‘‘NOx’’) limit was not
included in the Permit; and (6) the
Memorandum of Understanding
(‘‘MOU’’) between BP and the Province
of British Columbia was missing from
the Permit attachments.
The EAB denied review of the
following three issues because these
issues were not raised during the public
comment period on the draft Permit or
during the public hearing on the draft
Permit: (1) the Permitting Authorities
failed to protect Peace Arch Park, a
Class I area; (2) the Permitting
Authorities failed to properly model the
ambient air quality; and (3) the NAAQS
designation was incorrectly identified in
the Permit. The EAB further concluded
that the Permitting Authorities properly
considered the impacts of emissions of
particulate matter less than 10 microns
(‘‘PM10’’) and particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns (‘‘PM2.5’’). Moreover,
the EAB found that Petitioner failed to
demonstrate that the Permitting
Authorities committed clear error in
adopting a NOx limit of 2.5 parts per
million (‘‘ppm’’) rather than 2.0 ppm.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Last, the EAB concluded that Petitioner
failed to demonstrate that the Permitting
Authorities committed clear error by
failing to include the MOU between BP
and the Province of British Columbia in
the administrative record. For these
reasons, the EAB denied review of the
petition for review in its entirety.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), for
purposes of judicial review, final agency
action occurs when a final PSD permit
is issued and agency review procedures
are exhausted. This notice is being
published pursuant to 40 CFR
124.19(f)(2), which requires notice of
any final agency action regarding a PSD
permit to be published in the Federal
Register. This notice constitutes notice
of the final agency action denying
review of the PSD Permit and
consequently, notice of the Permitting
Authorities’ issuance of PSD Permit No.
EFSEC/2001–02 to BP. If available,
judicial review of these determinations
under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA may
be sought only by the filing of a petition
for review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, within 60
days from the date on which this notice
is published in the Federal Register.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air
Act, this determination shall not be
subject to later judicial review in any
civil or criminal proceedings for
enforcement.
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05–17027 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–7960–6]
Notice of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Final Determination for
Cardinal FG Company
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notice of final action.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces
that on March 22, 2005, the
Environmental Appeals Board (‘‘EAB’’)
of EPA denied review of a petition for
review of a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (‘‘PSD’’) permit (‘‘Permit’’)
that the State of Washington’s
Department of Ecology (‘‘Ecology’’)
issued to Cardinal FG Company
(‘‘Cardinal’’) for construction and
operation of a flat glass production plant
(‘‘Facility’’) near Chehalis, Washington.
The Permit was issued pursuant to 40
CFR 52.21. Ecology has the authority to
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 50324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17027]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7960-5]
Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final
Determination for BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Facility
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces that on June 21, 2005, the
Environmental Appeals Board (``EAB'') of EPA denied review of a
petition for review of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(``PSD'') permit (``Permit'') that EPA Region 10 and the State of
Washington's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (``EFSEC'') issued
to BP West Coast Products, L.L.C. (``BP'') for construction and
operation of the BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Facility (``Facility''),
a natural gas-fired cogeneration facility. The Permit was issued
pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21.
DATES: The effective date of the EAB's decision is June 21, 2005.
Judicial review of this permit decision, to the extent it is available
pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA''), may be
sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 days of August 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to the above action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
address: EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AWT-107), Seattle,
Washington 98101. To arrange viewing of these documents, call Dan Meyer
at (206) 553-4150.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Meyer, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue (AWT-107), Seattle, Washington 98101.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information is organized
as follows:
A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
B. What Is the Background Information?
C. What Did the EAB Decide?
A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
We are notifying the public of a final decision by the EAB on the
Permit issued by EPA Region 10 and EFSEC (``Permitting Authorities'')
pursuant to the PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21.
B. What Is the Background Information?
The Facility will be a 720-megawatt natural gas-fired, combined
cycle combustion turbine cogeneration facility located on a 33-acre
parcel of land adjacent to BP's existing Cherry Point petroleum
refinery in Whatcom County, Washington. The Facility will combust
natural gas and will employ selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and an
oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions.
On November 7, 2003, EFSEC issued the draft PSD permit for public
review and comment. On December 21, 2004, after providing an
opportunity for public comment and a public hearing, EFSEC approved the
Permit. On January 11, 2005, EPA approved the Permit. On February 4,
2005, Ms. Cathy Cleveland (``Petitioner'') petitioned the EAB for
review of the Permit.
What Did the EAB Decide?
Petitioner, acting pro se, raised the following issues on appeal:
(1) The Permitting Authorities failed to protect Peace Arch Park, a
Class I area; (2) the Permitting Authorities failed to properly
evaluate particulate matter (``PM'') emissions from the Facility and
failed to consider the health impacts related to PM; (3) the Permitting
Authorities failed to properly model the ambient air quality; (4) the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS'') designation was
incorrectly identified in the Permit; (5) EPA's recommended nitrogen
oxide (``NOx'') limit was not included in the Permit; and
(6) the Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') between BP and the
Province of British Columbia was missing from the Permit attachments.
The EAB denied review of the following three issues because these
issues were not raised during the public comment period on the draft
Permit or during the public hearing on the draft Permit: (1) the
Permitting Authorities failed to protect Peace Arch Park, a Class I
area; (2) the Permitting Authorities failed to properly model the
ambient air quality; and (3) the NAAQS designation was incorrectly
identified in the Permit. The EAB further concluded that the Permitting
Authorities properly considered the impacts of emissions of particulate
matter less than 10 microns (``PM10'') and particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns (``PM2.5''). Moreover, the EAB
found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Permitting
Authorities committed clear error in adopting a NOx limit of
2.5 parts per million (``ppm'') rather than 2.0 ppm. Last, the EAB
concluded that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Permitting
Authorities committed clear error by failing to include the MOU between
BP and the Province of British Columbia in the administrative record.
For these reasons, the EAB denied review of the petition for review in
its entirety.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), for purposes of judicial review,
final agency action occurs when a final PSD permit is issued and agency
review procedures are exhausted. This notice is being published
pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(2), which requires notice of any final
agency action regarding a PSD permit to be published in the Federal
Register. This notice constitutes notice of the final agency action
denying review of the PSD Permit and consequently, notice of the
Permitting Authorities' issuance of PSD Permit No. EFSEC/2001-02 to BP.
If available, judicial review of these determinations under section
307(b)(1) of the CAA may be sought only by the filing of a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
within 60 days from the date on which this notice is published in the
Federal Register. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, this
determination shall not be subject to later judicial review in any
civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05-17027 Filed 8-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M