Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final Determination for Wanapa Energy Center, 17844-17845 [E6-5109]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17844
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 2006 / Notices
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–5094 Filed 4–6–06; 8:45 am]
80202–2466, 303–312–6438,
buenning.hans@epa.gov.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–8056–1]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit
Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Colorado
Interstate Gas Company, Latigo
Station
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final action.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces
that the EPA Administrator has
responded to a citizen petition asking
EPA to object to an operating permit
issued by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE). Specifically, the
Administrator has partially granted and
partially denied the petition submitted
by Jeremy Nichols to object to the
operating permit issued to Colorado
Interstate Gas Company—Latigo Station.
Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act (Act), Petitioners may
seek judicial review of those portions of
the petitions which EPA denied in the
United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit. Any petition for
review shall be filed within 60 days
from the date this notice appears in the
Federal Register, pursuant to section
307 of the Act.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of
the final order, the petition, and other
supporting information at the EPA
Region 8 Office, 999 18th Street, Suite
300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the copies of the final order, the
petition, and other supporting
information. You may view the hard
copies Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If
you wish to examine these documents,
you should make an appointment at
least 24 hours before visiting day.
Additionally, the final order for the
Latigo Station is available electronically
at: https://www.epa.gov/region07/
programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/
petitions/cig_latigo_decision2005.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hans Buenning, Air & Radiation
Program, EPA, Region 8, 999 18th
Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:13 Apr 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
The Act
affords EPA a 45-day period to review,
and object to as appropriate, operating
permits proposed by State permitting
authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act
authorizes any person to petition the
EPA Administrator within 60 days after
the expiration of this review period to
object to State operating permits if EPA
has not done so. Petitions must be based
only on objections to the permit that
were raised with reasonable specificity
during the public comment period
provided by the State, unless the
petitioner demonstrates that it was
impracticable to raise these issues
during the comment period or the
grounds for the issues arose after this
period.
On July 5, 2005, the EPA received a
petition from Jeremy Nichols requesting
that EPA object to the issuance of the
title V operating permit to the Colorado
Interstate Gas Company—Latigo Station
(Latigo). Mr. Nichols asserts that the
permit: (1) Fails to ensure compliance
with volatile organic compound and
hazardous air pollutant emission
standards for the glycol dehydrator; (2)
fails to require opacity monitoring; and
(3) fails to appropriately control volatile
organic compound emissions from
internal combustion engines.
On February 17, 2006, the
Administrator issued an order partially
granting and partially denying the
petition. The order explains the reasons
behind EPA’s conclusion that the
CDPHE must revise the permit to refine
the fuel restrictions and recordkeeping
provisions to adequately assure
compliance with the State
Implementation Plan opacity condition
of 20%. The order also explains the
reasons for denying Mr. Nichols’
remaining claims.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Dated: March 27, 2006.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E6–5111 Filed 4–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–8055–9]
Notice of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Final Determination for
Wanapa Energy Center
Environmental Protection
Agency (‘‘EPA’’).
ACTION: Notice of final action.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: This document announces
that on February 9, 2006, 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 issued to Diamond
Wanapa I, L.P. (‘‘Diamond’’) for
construction and operation of the
Wanapa Energy Center (‘‘Facility’’), a
natural gas-fired combined cycle electric
generating facility. The Permit was
issued pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21.
DATES: The effective date of the EAB’s
decision was February 9, 2006. 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 April 7, 2006.
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
supplementary 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 pursuant to
the PSD regulations found at 40 CFR
52.21.
B. What Is the Background
Information?
The Facility will be a 1200-megawatt
natural gas-fired, combined cycle
electric generating facility located near
Umatilla, Oregon on land held in trust
by the federal government for the
benefit of the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation. The
Facility will combust natural gas and
will employ selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) and an oxidation
catalyst to reduce emissions.
On November 23, 2004, EPA Region
10 issued the draft PSD permit for
public review and comment. On August
8, 2005, after providing an opportunity
for public comment and a public
hearing, EPA Region 10 approved the
Permit. On September 9, 2005, Mr. K.E.
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 2006 / Notices
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Thompson (‘‘Petitioner’’) petitioned the
EAB for review of the Permit.
C. What Did the EAB Decide?
Petitioner, acting pro se, raised the
following issues on appeal: (1) EPA
Region 10 failed to address the human
health or environmental effects of the
proposed facility on ‘‘both majority and
minority populations’’; (2) EPA Region
10 improperly treated emission from
nonroad heavy duty diesel engines
differently than emission from power
plants such as the Facility; (3) Region 10
failed to perform a cumulative impact
analysis; (4) EPA Region 10 improperly
considered meteorological data from
Spokane and Walla Walla, Washington;
(5) EPA Region 10 should have treated
the airshed around the proposed
Facility in the same manner as a Class
I or Class II wilderness or scenic area;
(6) EPA Region 10 did not consider a
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
study of regional air quality; (7) EPA
Region 10 erred in establishing the
Permit’s volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions limitation; and (8) EPA
Region 10 erred by failing to include
permit conditions addressing emissions
from nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines
that will be used during construction of
the proposed Facility.
The EAB denied review of the
following four 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) EPA Region 10 failed to
address the human health or
environmental effects of the proposed
facility on ‘‘both majority and minority
populations’’; (2) EPA Region 10 did not
consider a BPA study of regional air
quality; (3) EPA Region 10 erred in
establishing the Permit’s VOC emissions
limitation; and (4) EPA Region 10 erred
by failing to include permit conditions
addressing emissions from nonroad
heavy-duty diesel engines that will be
used during construction of the
proposed Facility. Moreover, the EAB
found that, even if these four issues had
been preserved for review, Petitioner
failed to demonstrate that EPA Region
10’s permit determination was clearly
erroneous or otherwise warranted
review.
The EAB denied review of the
following four remaining issues because
the Petitioner failed to demonstrate why
the Region’s response to public
comments was clearly erroneous or
otherwise warrants review: (1) EPA
Region 10 improperly treated emission
from nonroad heavy duty diesel engines
differently than emission from power
plants such as the Facility; (2) Region 10
failed to perform a cumulative impact
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:13 Apr 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
analysis; (3) EPA Region 10 improperly
considered meteorological data from
Spokane and Walla Walla, Washington;
and (4) EPA Region 10 should have
treated the airshed around the proposed
Facility in the same manner as a Class
I or Class II wilderness or scenic area.
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 EPA Region
10’s issuance of PSD Permit No.
R10PSD–OR–05–01 to Diamond. 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: March 1, 2006.
L. Michael Bogert,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. E6–5109 Filed 4–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
17845
proposal. The review may have
disclosed opportunities for application
of mitigation measures that could be
accomplished with no more than minor
changes to the proposal.
EC—Environmental Concerns
The EPA review has identified
environmental impacts that should be
avoided in order to fully protect the
environment. Corrective measures may
require changes to the preferred
alternative or application of mitigation
measures that can reduce the
environmental impact. EPA would like
to work with the lead agency to reduce
these impacts.
EO—Environmental Objections
The EPA review has identified
significant environmental impacts that
must be avoided in order to provide
adequate protection for the
environment. Corrective measures may
require substantial changes to the
preferred alternative or consideration of
some other project alternative
(including the no action alternative or a
new alternative). EPA intends to work
with the lead agency to reduce these
impacts.
EU—Environmentally Unsatisfactory
The EPA review has identified
adverse environmental impacts that are
of sufficient magnitude that they are
unsatisfactory from the standpoint of
public health or welfare or
environmental quality. EPA intends to
work with the lead agency to reduce
these impacts. If the potentially
unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected
at the final EIS stage, this proposal will
be recommended for referral to the CEQ.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
[ER–FRL–6674–1]
EPA believes the draft EIS adequately
sets forth the environmental impact(s) of
the preferred alternative and those of
the alternatives reasonably available to
the project or action. No further analysis
or data collection is necessary, but the
reviewer may suggest the addition of
clarifying language or information.
Environmental Impact Statements and
Regulations; Availability of EPA
Comments
Availability of EPA comments repared
pursuant to the Environmental Review
Process (ERP), under section 309 of the
Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of
the National Environmental Policy Act
as amended. Requests for copies of EPA
comments can be directed to the Office
of Federal Activities at 202–564–7167.
Summary of Rating Definitions
Environmental Impact of the Action
LO—Lack of Objections
The EPA review has not identified
any potential environmental impacts
requiring substantive changes to the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Category 1—Adequate
Category 2—Insufficient Information
The draft EIS does not contain
sufficient information for EPA to fully
assess environmental impacts that
should be avoided in order to fully
protect the environment, or the EPA
reviewer has identified new reasonably
available alternatives that are within the
spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the
draft EIS, which could reduce the
environmental impacts of the action.
The identified additional information,
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17844-17845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8055-9]
Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final
Determination for Wanapa Energy Center
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'').
ACTION: Notice of final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces that on February 9, 2006, 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 issued to Diamond
Wanapa I, L.P. (``Diamond'') for construction and operation of the
Wanapa Energy Center (``Facility''), a natural gas-fired combined cycle
electric generating facility. The Permit was issued pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21.
DATES: The effective date of the EAB's decision was February 9, 2006.
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 April 7, 2006.
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 supplementary 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 pursuant to the PSD regulations found at
40 CFR 52.21.
B. What Is the Background Information?
The Facility will be a 1200-megawatt natural gas-fired, combined
cycle electric generating facility located near Umatilla, Oregon on
land held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The Facility
will combust natural gas and will employ selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) and an oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions.
On November 23, 2004, EPA Region 10 issued the draft PSD permit for
public review and comment. On August 8, 2005, after providing an
opportunity for public comment and a public hearing, EPA Region 10
approved the Permit. On September 9, 2005, Mr. K.E.
[[Page 17845]]
Thompson (``Petitioner'') petitioned the EAB for review of the Permit.
C. What Did the EAB Decide?
Petitioner, acting pro se, raised the following issues on appeal:
(1) EPA Region 10 failed to address the human health or environmental
effects of the proposed facility on ``both majority and minority
populations''; (2) EPA Region 10 improperly treated emission from
nonroad heavy duty diesel engines differently than emission from power
plants such as the Facility; (3) Region 10 failed to perform a
cumulative impact analysis; (4) EPA Region 10 improperly considered
meteorological data from Spokane and Walla Walla, Washington; (5) EPA
Region 10 should have treated the airshed around the proposed Facility
in the same manner as a Class I or Class II wilderness or scenic area;
(6) EPA Region 10 did not consider a Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) study of regional air quality; (7) EPA Region 10 erred in
establishing the Permit's volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
limitation; and (8) EPA Region 10 erred by failing to include permit
conditions addressing emissions from nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines
that will be used during construction of the proposed Facility.
The EAB denied review of the following four 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) EPA Region
10 failed to address the human health or environmental effects of the
proposed facility on ``both majority and minority populations''; (2)
EPA Region 10 did not consider a BPA study of regional air quality; (3)
EPA Region 10 erred in establishing the Permit's VOC emissions
limitation; and (4) EPA Region 10 erred by failing to include permit
conditions addressing emissions from nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines
that will be used during construction of the proposed Facility.
Moreover, the EAB found that, even if these four issues had been
preserved for review, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that EPA Region
10's permit determination was clearly erroneous or otherwise warranted
review.
The EAB denied review of the following four remaining issues
because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate why the Region's response
to public comments was clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review:
(1) EPA Region 10 improperly treated emission from nonroad heavy duty
diesel engines differently than emission from power plants such as the
Facility; (2) Region 10 failed to perform a cumulative impact analysis;
(3) EPA Region 10 improperly considered meteorological data from
Spokane and Walla Walla, Washington; and (4) EPA Region 10 should have
treated the airshed around the proposed Facility in the same manner as
a Class I or Class II wilderness or scenic area. 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 EPA
Region 10's issuance of PSD Permit No. R10PSD-OR-05-01 to Diamond. 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: March 1, 2006.
L. Michael Bogert,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. E6-5109 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
