1 Kelly, Shaheerah

From: hswriter@frontiernet.net
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:05 PM
To: Kelly, Shaheerah Subject: Re: Sierra Pacific Biomass factory Dec. 10 public hearing clarification request.



### Dear Shaheerah,

If the PSD permit process is not part of CEQA or NEPA, is it part of the Clean Air Act?

Sincerely,

Heidi Strand

From: "Kelly, Shaheerah" <K elly.Shaheerah@epa.gov>

To: "hswriter@frontiernet.net" <hswriter@frontiernet.net>
Cc: R9AirPermits <R9AirPermits@epa.gov>; "K elly, Shaheerah" <Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: RE: Sierra Pacific Biomass factory Dec. 10 public hearing clarification request.

Dear Ms. Strand,

Thank you again for your comments. As mentioned prev iously, we will include them and respond when we provide our response to comments document.

You asked “will this new equipment be placed in a new building?” The new equipment will be installed in a new building within the existing property of the Sierra Pacific Industries facility.

The PSD permit is not part of the NEPA or CEQA pro cesses. Therefore, the regul ations governing the NEPA and CEQA processes do not apply to the PSD permit. EPA’s regulations governi ng the PSD permitting process are at 40 CFR 52.21, and EPA’s public participation regul ations for the PSD permit are at 40 CFR part 124. These regulations require EPA to pr ovide at least 30 days for public comment period, and require EPA to provide notice of a public hearing at least 30 days prior to the hearing. As mentioned in the previous e-mail message, EPA did this. Additionally, we recently announced that we are extending the public comment period to January 10, 2014.

In accordance with our regulations, EPA will be accepting oral and written comments during the public hearing

scheduled for December 10.

Sincerely,

************************************ Shaheerah Kelly Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: hswriter@frontiernet.net [ma ilto:hswriter@frontiernet.net]

Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 7:09 PM2 To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Cc: Jordan, Deborah; kbundy@biologicaldiversity.org; Marily Woodhouse; Wsloan@mofo.com; rob@wildcalifornia.org; rob@redwoodrob.com; R9FOIA; rramalin@arb.ca.gov; darthur@redding.com; dluo@arb.ca.gov Subject: Re: Sierra Pacific Biomass factory Dec. 10 public hearing clarification request.



### December 7, 2013

Dear Shaheerah,

Thank you for your quick response. In answer to my question is this new construction or a modification, you responded: "This statement means that if EPA issues a final permit, SPI can begin the process of constructing and installing the new equipment authorized by th e permit, including a new biomass-fired boiler, a new emergency engine and a new cooling tower."

Will this new equipment be placed in a new building?

According to the following do cument, there is a 90 day recirculation process. 

## NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental

Reviews

Draft for Public Review and Comment

March 2013

Finally, a Record of Decision (ROD)m ay only be issued 30 days after the Notice of Availability of a Final EIS and 90 days afte r the Notice of Availability for a Draft EIS have been published(40 CFR §1506.10(b)(1)-(2)).



### ~ Office of the President and the Governor's office of Planning and Research (State of California)

Please explain why this does not apply.

Sincerely, Heidi Strand, Co-chair

Citizens for Clean Air3 er EPA guidelines, a public hearing is to gather comments from the public during the scoping/beginning of the permitting

process

. 

### If Region 9 skips this process, and does n ot recirculate the revised/draft permit then the purpose of a public hearing is defeated. The intent of the Envir onmental Appeals Board ruling has not been respected. The Region's December 10th pu blic hearing on the permit is only valid as a scoping meeting before recirculating the draft permit for review.

While EPA regulations require a 45 day minimum for recirculating a draft permit, I feel due to the complexity and controversy, a 90 day recirculation is appropriate.

Thank you,

Heidi Strand



## Kelly, Shaheerah" < Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov >

To: " hswriter@frontiernet.net " < hswriter@frontiernet.net > Cc: R9AirPermits < R9AirPermits@epa.gov > Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 3:36 PM Subject: RE: Sierra Pacific Biomass factory Dec. 10 public hearing clarification request.

Dear Ms. Strand,

Thank you for your comments. We will include them a nd respond when we provide our response to comments document. Please be aware that the public comment period ends on January 10, 2014.

Regarding your question about what is meant by “cons truction of the modification,” we assume you are referencing our public notice, whic h states, “If EPA issues a final decision granting the PSD permit modification, and there is no appeal, construction of the modification may commence, subject to the conditions of the PSD permit and other applicable permit and legal requirements.” This statement means that if EPA issues a final permit, SPI can begin the process of cons tructing and installing the ne w equipment authorized by the permit, including a new biomass-fired boiler, a ne w emergency engine and a new cooling tower.

We would like to note that your reference to a 90-day recirculation process is unclear. On November 8, 2013, we announced a 30-day public comment period, which is required by EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 124.10. We recently announced that we are extending the public comment period to January 10, 2014. Since we announced the public comment period, the draft permit has been available on our website at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/ permit/r9-permits-issued.html . It will help us to better respond to your question if you clarify why you believe there is a 90-day recirculation process.4 On Tuesday, December 10 th , we will hold a public information meeting prior to the public hearing to provide the public with an opportunity to as k clarifying questions. More inform ation about the public information meeting and public hearing can be f ound in the attached public notice.

Sincerely,

************************************ Shaheerah Kelly Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US on 12/06/2013 07:33 AM -----

From: " hswriter@frontiernet.net " < hswriter@frontiernet.net >
To: R9AirPermits@EPA,

Cc: Deborah Jordan/R9/USEPA/US@MSO365, " kbundy@biologicaldiversity.org " < kbundy@biologicaldiversity.org >, " darthur@redding.com " < darthur@redding.com >, Kara Christenson/R9/USEPA/US@MSO365, " epatton@arb.ca.gov " < epatton@arb.ca.gov >, " evirgin@arb.ca.gov " < evirgin@arb.ca.gov >, " ewong@arb.ca.gov " < ewong@arb.ca.gov >, Larry Gottesman/DC/USEPA/US@MSO365, " info@eastvalleytimes.com " < info@eastvalleytimes.com >, Ivry Johnson/R9/USEPA/US@MSO365, " jlindber@arb.ca.gov "

< jlindber@arb.ca.gov >, " kscott@arb.ca.gov " < kscott@arb.ca.gov >, " mgabor@arb.ca.gov " < mgabor@arb.ca.gov >, " news@khsltv.com " < news@khsltv.com >,

" noconnor@arb.ca.gov " < noconnor@arb.ca.gov >, Omer Shalev/R9/USEPA/US@MSO365, Marily Woodhouse < marily-lobo@hotmail.com >, " Wsloan@mofo.com "

< Wsloan@mofo.com >, " bwalker@co.shasta.ca.us " < bwalker@co.shasta.ca.us >
Date: 12/05/2013 08:15 PM Subject: Sierra Pacific Biomass factory Dec. 10 public hearing clarification request.



## Attn: EPA R9 Air Director Deborah Jordan

December 5th, 2013

To: Environmental Engineer Shaheerah Kelly.

Dear Shaheerah Kelly,

Per your Public Notice published on November 8th, it states "...construction of the modification may commence."

Could you define what 'Construction of a modification' means?

Per your public notice of the extension of public comment period on Permit Application No. SAC 12-01:

The public notice states "On November 8th, 2013, we announced a new version of the permit..." Does this not trigger a 90 day recirculation process as required for all new draft permits ?5 

## It is our understanding that the public hearing follows this 90 day recirculation process. Will Region 9 be holding a public hearing after the 90 day recirculation of the draft permit?

Sincerely,

Heidi Strand

Co-chair Citizens for Clean Air