Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final Determination for Cardinal FG Company, 50324-50325 [05-17028]

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 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices issue PSD permits pursuant to the ‘‘Agreement for Partial Delegation of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 to the State of Washington Department of Ecology,’’ dated March 28, 2003 (‘‘PSD Delegation Agreement’’). The PSD Delegation Agreement was entered into pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u). The effective date of the EAB’s decision is March 22, 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. DATES: 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. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Meyer, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AWT–107), Seattle, Washington 98101. This supplemental information is organized as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 Ecology pursuant to the PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21. B. What Is the Background Information? The Facility will be a 650 ton-per-day flat-glass production plant located approximately five miles south of Chehalis, Washington. The Facility will employ the ‘‘3R Process’’ to limit carbon monoxide (‘‘CO’’) and nitrogen oxides (‘‘NOX’’) emissions from its natural gasfired glass furnace. On July 23, 2004, Ecology issued the draft Permit for public review and comment. On October 6, 2004, after providing an opportunity for public comment and holding a public hearing, Ecology issued the final Permit to Cardinal. On November 5, 2004, the Olympia and Vicinity Building and Construction Trades Council (‘‘Petitioner’’) petitioned the EAB for review of the Permit. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:18 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 C. What Did the EAB Decide? Petitioner raised the following issues on appeal: (1) Ecology improperly rejected ‘‘oxy-fuel technology’’ as technically infeasible to control CO and NOX emissions from the Facility’s glass furnace, (2) Ecology failed to conduct a cost-effective analysis of oxy-fuel for limiting NOX and CO emissions, (3) Ecology’s best available control technology (‘‘BACT’’) emission limits for the Facility’s glass furnace should be more stringent, and (4) Ecology failed to conduct a BACT analysis for the Facility’s ‘‘trackmobile.’’ The EAB concluded that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Ecology committed clear error in eliminating oxy-fuel as BACT due to concerns regarding its technical feasibility. Moreover, the EAB found that Ecology’s determination regarding the issue of technical feasibility was sufficient to eliminate oxy-fuel as BACT without conducting a full cost effectiveness analysis. The EAB further concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Ecology committed clear error in adopting NOX and CO emission limits, rather than the lower limits suggesting by the Petitioner. Last, the EAB concluded that Ecology correctly determined that the trackmobile is not subject to PSD review because the trackmobile does not fall within the statutory definition of ‘‘stationary source’’ under CAA section 302(z), 42 U.S.C. 7602(z). 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 Ecology’s issuance of PSD Permit No. PSD–03–03 to Cardinal. 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 CAA, this determination shall not be subject to later judicial review in any civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 50325 Dated: August 11, 2005. Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 05–17028 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–7960–7] Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final Determination for Sumas Energy 2 Electric Generating Facility United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AGENCY: ACTION: Notice of final action. SUMMARY: This document announces that on May 26, 2005, the Environmental Appeals Board (‘‘EAB’’) of EPA denied review of a petition for review of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (‘‘PSD’’) permit amendment (‘‘Permit Amendment’’) that EPA, Region 10 and the State of Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (‘‘EFSEC’’) issued to Sumas Energy 2, Inc. (‘‘SE2’’). The Permit Amendment extends the original PSD permit (‘‘Original Permit’’) issued to SE2 for construction and operation of the SE2 electric generating facility (‘‘Facility’’). The Permit Amendment was issued pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21. The effective date of the EAB’s decision is May 26, 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. DATES: 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 Pat Nair at (208) 378–5754. ADDRESSES: Pat Nair, EPA Region 10, Idaho Operations Office, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1435 North Orchard Street, Boise, ID 83706. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This supplemental information is organized as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. What Action Is EPA Taking? B. What Is the Background Information? C. What Did the EAB Decide? E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM 26AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50324-50325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17028]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7960-6]


Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final 
Determination for Cardinal FG Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

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

[[Page 50325]]

issue PSD permits pursuant to the ``Agreement for Partial Delegation of 
the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by 
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 to the 
State of Washington Department of Ecology,'' dated March 28, 2003 
(``PSD Delegation Agreement''). The PSD Delegation Agreement was 
entered into pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u).

DATES: The effective date of the EAB's decision is March 22, 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 Ecology pursuant to the PSD regulations found at 40 
CFR 52.21.

B. What Is the Background Information?

    The Facility will be a 650 ton-per-day flat-glass production plant 
located approximately five miles south of Chehalis, Washington. The 
Facility will employ the ``3R Process'' to limit carbon monoxide 
(``CO'') and nitrogen oxides (``NOX'') emissions from its 
natural gas-fired glass furnace.
    On July 23, 2004, Ecology issued the draft Permit for public review 
and comment. On October 6, 2004, after providing an opportunity for 
public comment and holding a public hearing, Ecology issued the final 
Permit to Cardinal. On November 5, 2004, the Olympia and Vicinity 
Building and Construction Trades Council (``Petitioner'') petitioned 
the EAB for review of the Permit.

C. What Did the EAB Decide?

    Petitioner raised the following issues on appeal: (1) Ecology 
improperly rejected ``oxy-fuel technology'' as technically infeasible 
to control CO and NOX emissions from the Facility's glass 
furnace, (2) Ecology failed to conduct a cost-effective analysis of 
oxy-fuel for limiting NOX and CO emissions, (3) Ecology's 
best available control technology (``BACT'') emission limits for the 
Facility's glass furnace should be more stringent, and (4) Ecology 
failed to conduct a BACT analysis for the Facility's ``trackmobile.''
    The EAB concluded that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that 
Ecology committed clear error in eliminating oxy-fuel as BACT due to 
concerns regarding its technical feasibility. Moreover, the EAB found 
that Ecology's determination regarding the issue of technical 
feasibility was sufficient to eliminate oxy-fuel as BACT without 
conducting a full cost effectiveness analysis. The EAB further 
concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Ecology 
committed clear error in adopting NOX and CO emission 
limits, rather than the lower limits suggesting by the Petitioner. 
Last, the EAB concluded that Ecology correctly determined that the 
trackmobile is not subject to PSD review because the trackmobile does 
not fall within the statutory definition of ``stationary source'' under 
CAA section 302(z), 42 U.S.C. 7602(z). 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 Ecology's 
issuance of PSD Permit No. PSD-03-03 to Cardinal. 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 CAA, this determination shall 
not be subject to later judicial review in any civil or criminal 
proceedings for enforcement.

    Dated: August 11, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05-17028 Filed 8-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M