[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 50324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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