[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23987-23988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11194]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7493-2]


Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final 
Determination for Sumas Energy 2 Electrical Generating Facility in 
Sumas, WA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'').

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that on March 25, 2003, the 
Environmental Appeals Board (``EAB'') of EPA remanded in part and 
denied review in part of two petitions for review of a permit issued 
for the Sumas Energy 2 (``SE2'') electrical generating facility in 
Sumas, Washington by EPA, Region 10 and the State of Washington's 
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (``EFSEC'') pursuant to EPA's 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (``PSD'') 
regulations. EFSEC and EPA issued the PSD permit pursuant to the 
``Agreement for Partial Delegation of the Federal Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program,'' between EPA and EFSEC dated 
January 25, 1993 (``PSD Delegation Agreement'') authorized under the 
resolutions for PSD.

DATES: The effective date for final agency action on the SE2 PSD permit 
is April 17, 2003, the day EFSEC and EPA reissued the PSD permit 
consistent with the EAB's order. 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 May 6, 2003.

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, Seattle, Washington 98101. 
To arrange viewing of these documents, call Daniel Meyer at (206) 553-
4150.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Meyer, EPA, Region 10, 1200 
Sixth Avenue (OAQ-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 EPA's EAB on a 
permit issued by EPA and EFSEC (``permitting authorities'') pursuant to 
the PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21.

B. What Is the Background Information?

    On September 6, 2002, the permitting authorities jointly issued a 
PSD permit pursuant to Section 165 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7475, 40 CFR 
52.21, and the terms and conditions of EFSEC's delegation of authority 
from EPA under 40 CFR 52.21(u), for what ultimately will be a 660-
megawatt natural gas-fired combined cycle electric generation facility 
that would be located in Sumas, Washington, about one-half mile south 
of the U.S.-Canadian border. The facility is subject to PSD for 
nitrogen oxides (``NOX''), volatile organic compounds 
(``VOC''), particulate matter (``PM''), particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers 2 (``PM10''), 
sulfur dioxide (``SO2'') and sulfuric acid mist, 
(``H2SO4''). The facility would combust only 
natural gas and employ selective catalytic reduction (``SCR'') and 
catalytic oxidation technology to limit its NOX, carbon 
monoxide (``CO'') and SO2 air emissions.
    Subsequent to issuance of the PSD permit, the Province of British 
Columbia (``B.C.') and Environment Canada petitioned the EAB for review 
of the permit.

C. What Did the EAB Decide?

    On March 25, 2003, the EAB denied B.C.'s petition for review of the 
permit. The EAB did, however, remand the permit based on Environment 
Canada's petition for review for the very limited purpose of correcting 
a typographical error in the final permit which was inadvertently 
retained from the draft permit.
    B.C. raised essentially four arguments in support of its petition 
for review: (1) That the Best Available Control Technology (``BACT'') 
analysis failed to consider permit limitations on startup and shutdown 
operations; (2) that EFSEC failed to consider more stringent Canadian 
air quality standards in determining BACT; (3) that EFSEC failed to 
fully consider and respond to public comments; and (4) that SE2's 
proposal to offset NOX and PM10 emissions by 
reducing actual emissions elsewhere in the Fraser Valley airshed is

[[Page 23988]]

insufficient to offset the added air pollution from the facility.
    While the EAB rejected B.C.'s petition based, in part, on B.C.'s 
failure to properly preserve the majority of these issues for appeal, 
the EAB also noted that EFSEC had in fact considered and addressed many 
of B.C.'s concerns. Thus, for example, the EAB concluded that EFSEC had 
considered those comments that were properly submitted related to 
startup and shutdown operations and made a number of changes to the 
draft permit to make it more protective based on these comments. In 
addition, the EAB found that EFSEC had collected and considered data on 
ambient air quality, including consideration of Canadian standards, and 
that B.C. failed to show that EFSEC's determination that air quality 
concentrations would not exceed standards established to protect human 
health and the environment was clearly erroneous. The EAB also noted 
that based on its review of the record before it, it did not appear 
that the offsets offered by SE2 were intended to meet any requirement 
within the purview of the federal PSD program. Accordingly, the EAB 
found that the sufficiency of the offsets were beyond the scope of EAB 
review.
    The Board remanded the PSD permit to EPA and EFSEC, however, to 
correct a typographical error in the final permit which was 
inadvertently retained from the draft permit. In a previous permit 
application, SE2 requested the ability to burn natural gas and fuel 
oil. The use of fuel oil was rejected by EFSEC through the state's 
separate site certification process for reasons unrelated to PSD. 
Although SE2 later agreed to burn only natural gas as evidenced in a 
revised PSD permit application, the draft PSD permit failed to reflect 
SE2's concession. The final permit continued to erroneously make 
references to burning ``either fuel.'' Consistent with the EAB's order, 
EPA and EFSEC eliminated all references to the use of the phrase 
``either fuel'' in the final permit through an administrative 
amendment. EPA and EFSEC reissued the final permit on April 17, 2003.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1)(iii), when the EAB orders remand 
proceedings, for purposes of judicial review, final Agency action 
occurs upon the completion of remand proceedings. This notice is being 
published pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(2), which requires notice of any 
final agency action regarding a permit to be published in the Federal 
Register. This notice being published today in the Federal Register 
constitutes notice of the final Agency action as remand proceedings are 
complete. 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 Act, this 
determination shall not be subject to later judicial review in any 
civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.

    Dated: April 23, 2003.
L. John Iani,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 03-11194 Filed 5-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P