Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final Determination for Cardinal FG Company, 50324-50325 [05-17028]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
