On December 9, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) received a petition (“Petition”) from Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342, Heat and Frost Insulators / Asbestos Workers Local 16, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 302, the Boilermakers Union Local 549 and the Laborers Union Local 324 (“Unions” or “Petitioners”) requesting that the EPA Administrator object to the issuance of a state operating permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, (“BAAQMD” or “District”) to Chevron Products Company to operate its petroleum refinery located in Richmond, California (“Permit”), pursuant to title V of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661-7661f, CAA §§ 501 507, EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 70 (“Part 70), and the District’s approved part 70 program.See 66 Fed. Reg. 63503 (Dec. 7, 2001). Petitioners requested EPA object to the Permit on several grounds. Generally, Petitioners alleged that the Permit was deficient it its treatment of,inter alia, combustion units, cooling towers, flares, storage tanks, and other units at the facility. Petitioner also alleged several deficiencies in the Permit Application and the public process employed by BAAQMD in issuing the Permit .EPA has now fully reviewed the Petitioners’ allegations pursuant to the standard set forth in section 505(b)(2) of the Act, which places the burden on the petitioner to “demonstrate[] to the Administrator that the permit is not in compliance” with the applicable requirements of the Act or the requirements of part 70, see also 40 CFR § 70.8(c)(1), and I hereby respond to them by this Order. In considering the allegations, EPA reviewed the Chevron Permit and related 1 materials and information provided by the Petitioners in the Petition. 1 Based on this review, I deny the Petitioners’ request that I object to issuance of the Chevron Permit for the reasons described below.
Posted on: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:56:41 +0000