Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP G & E - WOODBURNING POWER PLANT• • 47 Xf it i, �• \\ • i 'V '. ' u u , a ?Po p• .. 1 .. rl' gyp. • � -. � All, J X46 1 � Qt ; • Ao� .moo.. • v 7r 03 CANb OF NATURAL V' EALTH CoUn AIlp p EAU TY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 2279 DEL ORO, SUITE A - OROV'ILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 POST OFFICE BOA: 1560 TELEPHONE, (916) $34.4621 JAMES R. GRIFFITH DELBERT`M. SIEMSEN DANIEL V, BLACKSTOCK ROBERT G. BOEHM COUNTY COUNSEL DEPUTIES :April 25, 1973 "fir. Ro,er J: Peters Pacific Gas and Electric 77 Beale Street 31st: Floor San Francisco, California 94106 U, PROPOSED PG&E/LOuIS1&NA PACIFIC CO -GENERATION P014ER PLANT Dear '4r, Peters This will. confirm our telephone conversation a couple of days .ago concerning your desire to get together with county officials who will have a part, in the environmental review of the proposed PG&E/Louisiana Pacific Co -Generation Power Plaa. As I i 1 ink it would be most indicated to you in that conversation, I think appropriate for someone from our O�.f�.ce, Earl Nelson; our Environ mental Review Diroctor, and Dave Stratton, out Air Pollution Engineer, to tit down with you so that we can go over Butte County's Envirw.i" mental. Review Guidelines and discuss how the review of your Applica- tion for a stationary source permit will be handled under these Guidelinesi If you Will g u me a date when you would like to d this; I will be happy to try to set up such a meeting: For your information, I am also forwarding with this letter a copy of butte Co1i'nty ` s Environmental Review Guidelines Very truly Youts, DANIEL V. BLACXSTOCX khWrenm"60"! ; 1010x► btpI' But. ounty Counsel APR Z 8 1918 r buf+c county. �.,�, �.0 ER G , OMU4� Deputy April 7, 1.978 Dan Blackstock, Esq. Butte County Counsel, 2279 bel Oro Avenue, Orovillej CA 95965 Dear Dan: During the course of Out telephone, conversation on February 21e 1978, we discussed the question of identification of the appropriate lead agency to perform the requited environmental review of a proposed PGandE-Lbuisiana Pacific co"goneration plant. Although it should be emphasized that PGandE and Louisiana Pacific have not made any commiltmeftti either ihd'vidually or jointly, to go forward with this .projedt, the feasIbill-ty of doing so 'is presently being considered by the respective corporations. Said plant, if concurrently agreed by PGandE and Louisiana Pacific to be economically desirable and feasible, Would be constructed ad'acent I L'L to Louisiana Pacific's plantinOtoVille. The Purpose of this letter is to set forth In more detail my undetst-andiftg of the substance of our conversation, at well at to affirm the Status of the County Of Butte, functioning 'through its Air Pollution Control District, as lead agency in the environmental review of 'thisJ ro'ect. p (ctoA) At you are ,.ware, the California Environmental quality Act I - (Public Code 9 21000� et seg) Provides that any Pt6Jdct of the type which is being considered heremustbe reviewed and evalUated by ah,aPprOptidte public agency. The CEQA framework requires that the reviewing public agency consider the potential, impact of that project on the sttto'Andinq environment,. Although any One project may involve several public agencies, lesi eath:of whichhasanat0a of tesPOilsib"llty, CEQA tequires .h&t the Ptlnary reviewWork be POkfdtmOd by thepublic agency "with the greatest responsibility for stpekViriji,q or ap, )t,Oving the project as a wholed, 1 (Cal. Admin. Code tit: 14 15065(h)),, The agency with the greatest approval rdspbn'sibility * 4 r dlesikp.,�&�,dd as the "lead'agendy.11 APR 121078 V.A.01F110 O -A -s 77 BEALE STREET, 31ST FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94 10t, - (4 163 7131-4211 JOHN G. MORRISSCY VICE PRESIDE14T AND OENCRAL COUNSEL0-4.1 to—oM.0-.-ty J KI II MALCOLM H. FURoUsH 44104 istio..I;6 A3104!iAtlt GtHERAL CbUhlti. ab..U. N—Lov J, .11c. w 0Ntl.41.ta CHARLto Si VAN Or-USEp4 ILI— 14: a. O..f PHILIP A. CRAUL. JR. '1 "o." HENRY J. L-PLANTEPulR C, rJ q `Vb? qfTr 0411. NICHAIRD A. CLARKE Jul.. JOHN U. GIBSON ,r. 61— ,t. 'a' I Loc., ARTHUR I.. HILLMAN, J R. $Vt— W, Co.., J., —VVJft,H ROBERT OHLBACH J, I MICZ-1-L M-IORM4.1104 a. A.... CH A R L C5 W. THISSVLL "It A44 UNA"id.ii.0 o.tVVT 4 6211#0*V G.tNtAit cou"itt D.W. J, W.W...U. Yq Uct R. wo-It.f."1014 NNu�CY7y WP. Afro""t's April 7, 1.978 Dan Blackstock, Esq. Butte County Counsel, 2279 bel Oro Avenue, Orovillej CA 95965 Dear Dan: During the course of Out telephone, conversation on February 21e 1978, we discussed the question of identification of the appropriate lead agency to perform the requited environmental review of a proposed PGandE-Lbuisiana Pacific co"goneration plant. Although it should be emphasized that PGandE and Louisiana Pacific have not made any commiltmeftti either ihd'vidually or jointly, to go forward with this .projedt, the feasIbill-ty of doing so 'is presently being considered by the respective corporations. Said plant, if concurrently agreed by PGandE and Louisiana Pacific to be economically desirable and feasible, Would be constructed ad'acent I L'L to Louisiana Pacific's plantinOtoVille. The Purpose of this letter is to set forth In more detail my undetst-andiftg of the substance of our conversation, at well at to affirm the Status of the County Of Butte, functioning 'through its Air Pollution Control District, as lead agency in the environmental review of 'thisJ ro'ect. p (ctoA) At you are ,.ware, the California Environmental quality Act I - (Public Code 9 21000� et seg) Provides that any Pt6Jdct of the type which is being considered heremustbe reviewed and evalUated by ah,aPprOptidte public agency. The CEQA framework requires that the reviewing public agency consider the potential, impact of that project on the sttto'Andinq environment,. Although any One project may involve several public agencies, lesi eath:of whichhasanat0a of tesPOilsib"llty, CEQA tequires .h&t the Ptlnary reviewWork be POkfdtmOd by thepublic agency "with the greatest responsibility for stpekViriji,q or ap, )t,Oving the project as a wholed, 1 (Cal. Admin. Code tit: 14 15065(h)),, The agency with the greatest approval rdspbn'sibility * 4 r dlesikp.,�&�,dd as the "lead'agendy.11 APR 121078 Dan Blackstock, Esq, Butte County Counsel April '7, 1978 Page 2. The public agency designated as lead agency has a responsibility for considering the effects of all activities involved in this project and for preparing or causing to be environmental prepared an e t p a1 impact report (EIR) for any project which may have a significant effect on the environment. Said EIR must be prepared in conformity with the state EIR Guidelines as set forth in Cal. Adman. Code, tit. 14, §S 15000-15192; Where k,EIR is determined not be necessary`, the lead agency has the responsibility for filing a Negative Declaration, briefly stating the reasons for that conclusion. In light of the procedural mandate which CEQA established it is necessary to determine which Public agency is the entity appropriate to be designated as the lead agency in this project. Normally, for thermal Powerplants, the Energy Commission or the California Public Utilities Commission (CPT -IC':, would be the lead agency. The CPUC requires an environmental report and a certificate of public convenience and necessity only for electric A capacity in excess of 50 Mw, Similarly,although th generating -plants Commission .has although the Ener ;jurisdiction over thermal plants, such plants are defined as not :o include plants with a maximum capacity of less than 50 Wi Accordingly, inasmuch as thes has a maximum capacity of 45 MW, in both cases the oplublacplant agencies referred to above are not appropriate lead agencies Given that the CPUC and the Energy Commission mould not be lead agencies ies in this endeavor, the most likely dhcy with a rDvat responsibilities would be the Co,ntybofcButte. This project conclusion is based on the fact that at least two Butte County agencies'' must either grant project approvals, issue appropriate both. More specificall proc'its, or a y, as T understnd Butte Count perm Butte County planning Commission must issue grading and toc dg permits the n , prior to any costruction on the site; and Butte County Air Quality Control Board, as the governing board of the Butte County Air Pollution Control District, must issue an air permit Prior to t'onstruction. 'As to the'buildin Plant is likel} y to g Permit, you had indicated that the proposed zoning framewoqualify as an approved use within the present rk and that accordingly no use permit would be required. not appear toebeadiscretiona�ry governmental of the Planning Commission would be ministerial in nature_ Y gc�verntnental functions, but would merely In contrast, the function of the Air` appear to be discretionary and controllingslof lthe Coreso n lbardoul project.. Accordingly, it Would appear to be the most likely entity ofd en�ity to be designated as Lead agency. It is my belief that in light of the d0hsiderations set Forth above it would be appropriate to designate the Butte County Air pollution Control District as the lead agency for this pro' J It it also icy 'under-- standing that this opinion is shared by the County Counsels a£fice. A Dan Blackstock, Esq, Butte County Counsel April 7, 1978 Page 3 further clarify this understanding, T believe that at an appropriate time it would be useful for representatives of PGandE, x,ouisiana Pacific, the Butte County Planning Commission, members df the Butte County Air .sality Control Board, the Butte County Counsel's Office and the Environmental Review Director for Butte County to meet. object of that meeting would be to detail the responsibilities of The the various parties and procedures involved in order to facilitate timely compliance with CEQA, to clarify the actions which will set the CEQA timetable in motion and to identify other, local permit requirements. The above discussion sets forth my understanding status of the proposed of the present project as it interacts with CEQA. If state- conversations or our understanding- of the Present of our state- ments made hereindonot coincide with our resent situation, y u have any questions in this regard, do not hesitate tocontact 1me. Best regards, ROGER J. Fur's ROGER J. PETERS RJP/vbb cc: Mr. David Jenkins - City Administrator, Oroville, Mr. Bar! D. Nelson - Butte County Environmental review Director Mr. David Stratton - 8U-tte County FP D Mr. Jim Lawson - Butte County Planning Director Mr. Don Dutton - Louisana Pacific Corp. Mr. Randy E. V!ndehe g Loui.sana Pacific Corp. Mr. James T. Brodie Creative Bower Management Mr. Hank Campbell H. W. Campbell & Assoc. w t' '.. 0 :: � Powe)✓ ..., .. _,., 1 , Air Pollution Control'Officer;, Attn: Dave Stratton Robert G. I36ehm, Deputy County Counsel. APPLICATION OF rMt CALXFC)MIA Er4v1R0NMX4TAL QUALITY ACT T A 45 IC? CODE GEMMTION POWER PWUP PROPOSED BY LO UISIAITA March l :8 PACIFIC AND P . Q . & * k41r Vais dtemorandurn will ccix firnx my convarsati,ons with. DAve i� the, application 0- the California Envi,�ronmen�Ia 'Stratton concernit QualityAct to the. 45 X14 cogeneratiCin pdvFer plant proposed by Louisi:ana,padtfja and P 0,&.E, wherein I recommended that the wizest course to b,e foll.oVted wiiuld be to plreparr an Z IR incident to the Jt sdahce of a' dtatioz�s.ry soureP per ,i f > this power plant. The appli.cati or. of the California ,Environmonotal QUalitY Act to the issuance of a s.tHati.on4ry souroa permits under the Calif-.., crrMia Ijealth Axid Saf0ty, Cnida and dist ii i.ct, air polluti.oa control regulations is less-,than well s)�,t:tled. regulations 4or TMj)l.ementa-' ti.oa of the. California iEjhVi1'ohban ,,eta , Qual,;it y Act of 191Q, 14 Cal.. Admin. Cade 915000 et, 9,M. Alnd -"AlItrte County Environmental, dvi en; Gu di line's Moth pxov de; a caLe,�,o�ica�. exe-Mptioi� for r�ct~ionr by regti 14tory a.gendiet for proteatlon cif the euvi ionttnsnt, Sp,ell3.ng 611t Lois :exempt:i.6nl 14 calx? Admin. oblid, §15108 andAppendix E of tit%, nutte County- nvizar�z enta`3. lk4N jew Guidt:1.. nes 'doth provide, °+Class 8 tons 'L§t;�s of attion,�- taken by reg u],story a eno3.es,' as �authgriiod4 by state or 10441 6idinancato aasure. the ;taaintenaticeI restos. Cit�n enan,c�:nent; or protactian of true entri;ron-tut' where tht� regulatory process invct.ves, prcicedures' i:o the pa:otect'i.on o1 the eniroYitrtent Gonetaruoiwiot� activi.tldt ldtdl rid itadlud d 41;,.chi's examp,tiarx �� 4 (ane ou .d r�3a 'our b .y ,i.ntcrpr tr trkiis cat.egor3,c& bxettipti,ari i apFl a per iit ,sued, by an a.x , p il..n#�3,ft control r, istr .ct otae+'1�+ar in. thd, Baso c►ir rho pt wet ;: .aritr pi;cip i ed bar I.oi�i:bUh . Ps.cii:ic .shd F i,,GA .• hots don ruot: �ni� 1.► ix' o�.ve(I to 3ri tfcis permit opt b a C »ass �8 'int;oi*, << }Rhe op%ni.on n th, Cai:if±nrni.a ` �ipretnc Court ' n i �.iife' thi:ek-er �n (1976> °, 1 PC 19 0 also �trr�1y t�.�g�;�iat� .t ai`t i va.0 us�.i.t: Aot .vt+nuld he „pk�lieati,e;.to a . .e ,:+a, rprri a inv roniaettial striot ttir` ,a statibna y .. Issued aft.,si+r paltib�t oontxb.l source vhdte the source may) have a.,, s ni.£i+rssn e feet. on the en riron* went cci�rt~ ° e op", hia,r:n bat Kwase i ctust�cti x�hethc�t th+eesotrce L � ,gahoy i ;at twhcir3' ed � c er the ' k�a ; f.'t't` ya Erivi,xa me tel " Y i q t if r•r K . 4-1 '... t to create a categorical. exemption for actions taken 'bar a xd�gt�lr�froxy ra enGy in corittection with a. p�r6je�:ct. T�hich Might. have 4 significant e fc:ct :cin the enviranmervI: notwithstanding the fadt; th+it taken by the regulatory �agancy in connection w4t h the proof e w�acis j e��t s tion for the prdtact3.on o1° the anviranment. 7Cha court's Wnian in that case is also signifi Caz t, 90 fa as the emphasis p �a on Public Resources Cade 521.i�8 P 1975 c r�:atdt� ,a"t1t:�trna�,w VO to the EIR req,u .remet.,ts for qualified �atat an e agars 44s hnv n- imporL•arit environmental. responsibilities. s v3.et�ed h the !G`eu8 the to adoption of this , section by the le8isl ature ndgataa a leg ,41 tine intent that the actions of regulatory agencies for the prot+�c-- t:ioi of the environ-ment should be exem�tn from the applioat`ioYr cif i:he Cal. foxnis l nvirorin ental quail,ty Act « (Incidentally. we ought to take a e]:ost: IraoX• ,at this) se'r:.t;�on ;,o scp � '.ttviran- if BUtt�e Count T mental: Gtaidelines cAnnat be ute ide t~onsist~ent with the rovi»si:ans of Publ:i c Re`t�ouroata Code t .1Ct �.S tz�� a to gave the btxttre Co'uraty, Air I�axl:utictn Control..11istrr$xt jin:!.ajtey 76tivet o .the Preparation of aq SIR for st.'ationary -source. j e .i� trt�> Notwithst:andillg the s�lja fv I< knave be n adVi.se i by the �� nc�01 staff of tho Air Ra�ot��q�es Vvoa4,d gib` t by and. lar pollution most, air o lut»ioi� control districts itQ h�;, � t�.a�,e of tJaxffc�L•nia have 'not been prey>c•in�; eiav►ironmental im impact �a��,aui:h�s, . ` 'for ,atatj;onsry source pe too ciowever� some, districts have backed off fxo tibia positrion wkxoM t si t ui cant~. atmtt :o ary source- �.a, irA�ol:vad rind pa, epa a en i .roar ental itap� ctt repo tt in ton unction "wit:i>, P , p ocoss fo � each chair exanittiri -soute6s' The .State Air Resourcaa,, ward ;I.0961 stafeo howaver, was ;c a Ming, to offer a „fi,xm bpinion` z��ietkter or not an I I:R should bt? _� rep�a'red dor the hauiis3ana PaeiE Etc and P410".& g Y p0wez plant n reeoManditig that �n I t e preparo-d,,,f0i. the poorer ; pi t rbposed iay' .r��t,�sian4-�'$o�4f'ic aiYd F �+ 1 Kava., sidersbl; la�.flt�ono,ed U tete pt 4 c� P`roponenb s des�a t4 prepare i.. ' g ' . the ove, I t hitilt t fi r an` lit % t? t~ha utwdrta�i�ntics +loutlirier 'tab ; past,ar�ttWh��se aid. wise J,n that �t:mdanr expense in p g re axigi all �l�t is dtat+weiglx+e�; byt t"he a o�ura tri• sexlous fit�snc�,al, conso uences no x ick.. re ariad and the pro«jecb air de�yr y d by r s �►ait of li at on► challldliginp! tvha °dedialQ.n ,nod tuo, ze I also nota t: sat dt✓ the bi>a7tl that:; rho tit f"o tYii p pale ;an 11L s ut'+ f,r sons .de�raxir .vn, tic mr y l� pan ag .d .1n the 'hdn�gt comment pl.atXtaiz�g. '�xacoss� *�hka: w�:lxte' u rd iaat corse About of if3oattt nate ,lic partici;�l �rlp , hditive,. o to .. t;ig t`i t t o a y 0ourec thaby' r , ; ,". Tzo;:ct,« ° °"ail.ure ,ta ptrpa�riPAII,ftr tlts�. �o l:f ys�tt'' �hon�,d, peva a�ri� � tha aborre� p . ase give tna a ca i « futthor c�'uesti�ns itt regard to A 404 . HMO- - T ,T FO;{ iM7'i/ •- CC?h1F'ANV USES RECEIVED D11/1$10(4 OR UEPAPRihICN`r LAW MAR 11978 F•ILr. No. RF LETTER OF SITINIG DEPARTMENT S U dJ tOT February 28, 1378 MESSRS. K. L. PICKETT A. P. KILROY G. C. DOWSON Attached are two documents relating to the LP Co-generation project, The first is a memo to file briefly setting forth the substance-of a conversation with Dan Blackstoclu-, Butte County Counsel. That memo is for your information and file. The second item a draft of a letter Which I setting forth out discussion .is propose to send to 31acY.stock. and the informally reached. I would understanding' appreciate any comments or clarification which: should be put in the letter.. ROGER J'. PETERS 'RJP C� 81) n r Attachment Louisiana Pacific OrOville Co-generatloh Plant February 28, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO FILE: On February 21, 1978, the question of the designation of a leadlagenQy insofar as environmental review of the above referenced project is concerned was discussed in the course I of the te-tuphone conversation with Dan Blackstock, Butte County Counsel. Although initially Mr. BlackstQGk seemed burpri8ed that state agency approval would :not be required for the projecti and specifically that neither the CPUC hot the Energy Commission had review jurisdiction over the project, the suggestion that in light of this fact Butte County would be the logical lead agency seemedacceptable, Or, as Mr. Blackstock stated, at least inevI Acco-v'dingly, i" Was agreed that the Butte County Air Quality Control Board would function as "lead agency" in the environmental review process required by CEQA. Such status would initiate upon filing of the requisite air Permit with. the Butte County Air Pollution Control District. The County would not obtain lead agency status by Virtue of any goftihq or building regulation, inasmuch as a use permit would hot be necessary for the type of development Planned in the area in quelstioni, At the conclusion of the conversation it was agreed that it Would be useful to formalize the County's lead agenc status at such time as it was felt y 'Dthat it would be desirable for the environmental review process to begin. Accordingl, it was agreed that 1 wo'ald contact Mr. .-Black-8tock to setupy, a meeting ►invol-vi-ng himself , Earl j4r=!l8On 'mental Aeview (Butte County Environ.- j nave Stratton (Butte COtInty APCI)) James Lawson (,Butte CbllhtY Plahftlhg Director), and other appropriate County, LoUisiaraPacifici and -rGand8 parties in order to clarify the County's status as ,i As the c6uhty,8 obligaLlons which ead agency and as well designation,, I ich would result from that RJP: nr i DRArT t 2-28-78 1' RJPeters:nr Dan Blackstock, Esq, County Counsel Butte. County Oroville, CA 95955 Dear Dan: During the course of our telephone conversation on February 21, 1978,'we discussed the question of identification of the appropriate lead agency to perform the required environ mental review of a proposed PGandE--Lbuisiana Pacific co"generation plant which is presently being considered by the respective corporations. Said plant, if concurrently agreed by PGa7.dE and Louisiana Pacific to be wonomically desirable and feasible, would be constructed adjacent to Louisiana Pacific's plant-in Qroville. The purpose of this letter Is to set forth in more detain my understanding of 'the substance of"our conversation; as well as-`to affirm the status of the County of Bu .`-,e, through its Air Quality Control Board, as lead agency in the environ- menta: review of this project. As you are aware, the California Environlnental; Quality Act (CEQA) (Public 'Resources Code § X21000, et seq.) provides that any project of the type which is being considered here mist be reviewed and evaluatoe by an ,appropriate public agency. The CEQA framework requires that the reviewing public agehcy consider the potential impact of that project on the surrounding ehviroh 7nent. an Although g Y olle project may involve several public agencies, each of Which has an area of J;esponsib;ilitw. j CEQA requires that -2 - The Primary review work beerformed b P y the public agency "with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole." (Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14 5'15065(b)) The agency with the greatest approval responsibility is designated as the "lead agency.' The public agency designated as lead agency has a responsibility for considering the effects of all activities involved in the project and for preparing or causing to be pre- pared an environmental .impact report (EIR) for any project which may have a significant effect on the environment. Said EIR must_ be prepared in conformity with the state EIR Guidelines as `set l rth in Cal.Admin. Code, tit. 14, 55 150.00-15192 (October 9 5). Where an ESR is determined not to be necessary, the le«d K: icy has the responsibility for filing a Negative Declaration, 4 ..fly stating -the reasons for that conclusion. In light, of the procedural mandate which CEQA established 18 necessaryto determine which public- agency is the entity appropriata to be dcsigtated as the lead agency in this project.. Initially, for a project of this type, the most likely .agency :to be ,designated .as the lead agency should be either the , Energy Commission or the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) However, as to both agencies, closer examination reveals this. not to be the case. 13 virtue of CPUC General. Order No. 1311 as amended, the CPUC requires an ehVironmentaJ report and a cer- tificate of public convenience and necessity only for electric generating plants having in aggregate a capacity in excess of -3- 50 MW. Similarly, although the Energy Commission has ;jurisdiction over thermal plants, such plants are defined as not to include plants with a maximum capacity of less than 50 14W. Accordingly, inasmuch as the proposed plant has a maximum capacity of 45 MW, in both cases the public agencies referred to above are not appropriate lead agencies. They have no review jurisdiction over this project., Given that the CPUC and the Energy Commi,ssi.on would ' not be proper lead agencies in this endeavor, the next most likely public agency with significant project approval responsibilities would be the County of Butte. This Conclusion is reached based on the fact that in order for the project to he realized at least two Butte County agencies must either grant approvals, issue appropriate permits-, or both. More specifically, as I understand Butte County procedures,, the Butte County Planning Commission must issue building and grading permits prior to any construction on the site. Additionally, the Butte County Air Quality Control Board must issue an air: permit in order for construction of the plant to begin As to the building permit, you had indicated that the prr,, osed. plant is likely to quia7.ify as an approved use within the p're;int zoning framework and that accordingly no use permit would be tagi a :gid. If this is the case then the actions of the Planning Commission 4r:�uld not appear to be discretionary govern" mental functions and %,IO d mtarely be ministerial in nature: In Obftttast the function of the Air ,Quality Control. Board Would appear to be and controlling of the M -g whale scope of the pro7ect. unless the Bar.,.d is convinced that relevant ambient air quality standards and particulate emissions are acceptable no air permit would be forthcoming. Accordingly, it would appear to be the most likely entity to ,be designated as lead agency. It is my belief that in light of the considerations set forth above it would be appropriate to designate the Air Quality Coritrol Board as a,lead agency for this project. It is also my understanding that this off inion is * shared by the County Counsel's office. To further clarify this understanding, I believe that at an appropriate time it would be useful for representatives of PGandE, Louisiana Pacific, the Butte County Planning Commissi.oi , the Butte county AirQuality Control Board, the Butte County Counsels Office and the Environtaenta'1 Review Director for But;,e County to meet. The object of that fleeting would be to detail the responsibilities of the various parties in order to facilitate timely compliance with CEQA and to clarify the actions which will set the CtOA timetable in motion. The above discussion sets forth my understanding of the ,present ,.stratus bf the proposed project as its nteracts..H*ith CEQA if st ftternents made herein do not coincide with your recollection of our conversation or your- understanding of the present situation, or if you have any questions in this regard; do not hesitate to contact itto: Best regards, ItOCEn J. P��Tk�R PLiP : n LOUISIANA PACIFIC - PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC DROVLLE PROJECT MEETING AGENDA February 3, 1978, , 10 a.m. Introductions t P_ r o j ect Ovfe-,r e Fuel Chronology Features Problems Possible Conclusion Government Approt-`-, I D—dred Local Mate Federal Schedule for -Approvals Local State Federal Further Action 16 Information Needed M NOXI Meeting - �niitonmenlmj hbrtevi Dep4. 9 6 1978 I guts® Gaun}yi PG&E-LOUISIANA-PACIFIC-OROVILLE WOOD BURNING CO -GENERATION PROJECT "ACCELEHATEDr' APPROVALS SCHWULE ASSUMES THAT AIR QUALITY MONITORING & ANALYSIS Notes 1 LPA it bald t) 1911 Join 1,ir Act Ale �rih7ile s biio imas CC apistbval bmyeat haloid Owiimattlal in Asalmes �' Y tl'i'tb and Ali fifrl ptelmwloh. fat 11114 tuutte 1,10wr to lira Stele and pro local'air 4 AtsUmdt Water is to fie ptuvldsvf by Lhultlnnaliodrii. poliulian thnlrui 111044, S Allier iinif 81g1n aNiYj drawings 04 tomplaltd, x Asstlmat Ilu 0A stack to be hear 2661ee1, 0 hopte Nyla14 and owmntbWoklotl. 1977 1328 1979 1980 1981 1982 1903 1084 CONSULTANT Authorization Agseaments Spidy FUEL Fuel Survey Analysis ECONOMICS Cost Estimate q:ngineering.Planning Analysis�' C ' of Project Economia _ AIR OUAE(TY r Idenl6v appllethle o nissions ' limitations AnahAis (by consultant) tad , Preliminary Dots Analysts t, Imhinisa review of consultant ' inalyris Finalize air quality review report menagemont approval of ty Company position on air giiollty CONTRACT r r Oavelop Company Recommendation Manegement:Revie+v e.. Management Ouestions a Answar Questions t iA"ement Approval Make alter to Louisiana-Pacific Louisiana-Pacific Review of Response s, _ Negotiations Sign Contract at t PERMIT PREPARATION 2t AGENCY APPROVALS FEDERAL , Environmental Protection Agency Alt Ouality Data monitoring & analysis Permit ptepstatiem t - Agency approval 1 Federal Aulation Adminirtratlon Z Permit Preparation Aoancy approval Fedoral Communication Cohsmissian3 Permit preparation Agency apprray.1 is ,STATE .4 Regional Water OUAty Control Board 4 Permit preparation t Agency approval .. �. Department of Intlustrla) Relations k ' Preparation or application mck Agan. approval durjn tonstruttlonl Y ( gW" Mile —L BIMM LOCAL BUtteCoUnty AisPotldrbn Contrnl Dktrki t Dana monitoNng, reafysii PKrinit prepar6/ryF Agency approval Dutta CoUnty Planmlo,2 Depatlment I Ptepaii Wait Environmental Impact Raped, Buildlog add Ornsing Peft ills li " .Agency o iptbJil of DraltE1R & BUIIdIngPesmlt Agoney epploval of grsdliq permit Dulls County Planning Commission 6 Permit ptepiraiion ' I Agency Approvil t CONS1'dUCTIOIJ COMME►ICIAL OPERATItiN 4 1382 1304 ....:.., 1977 197b 1879 i980 1983,_ Notes 1 LPA it bald t) 1911 Join 1,ir Act Ale �rih7ile s biio imas CC apistbval bmyeat haloid Owiimattlal in Asalmes �' Y tl'i'tb and Ali fifrl ptelmwloh. fat 11114 tuutte 1,10wr to lira Stele and pro local'air 4 AtsUmdt Water is to fie ptuvldsvf by Lhultlnnaliodrii. poliulian thnlrui 111044, S Allier iinif 81g1n aNiYj drawings 04 tomplaltd, x Asstlmat Ilu 0A stack to be hear 2661ee1, 0 hopte Nyla14 and owmntbWoklotl. G&C-LOUISIANA-kCiF*ROAIi -GENWOOD E3UNo iavt<G COR vNERATION PRO, CT " S SCHEDULE INCLUDES 1 YEAR FOR AIR CC LIALITY MONITORING E• ANALYSIS `� �✓^r����r�i 1971 187k 1879 18130 1981 r 19821083 1084 r CONSULTANT Authorisation m Agreements :Study "mm, FUEL Mtaly3is ECONOMICS first Estimate Englncerittg Planning Anaiyils , t of Project Economks Q AiR QUALITY Idsnlly applicable am ssiorvi AmitarlonsAnais I o elimidary Data rtaiy Is t y 'tn•ftoute review of eonwitant analysis final"air yusury terhrw I tit ' I report ' Ltnrnyoment approval of r I Company position on air I quaiity CdWTRACT 0—tor, Compatry Recommendation s .t VAcnatement ArAsw rt Uanagement 0orsiiotsa Artswts edtsttons f :f Aanagen icntApprovai hake tiller to Louhian"a,111c 1Louklanahaeitic Review of Response 7to7ottadons $to Contract t i%SWir P3lerARAt1oN & 1 �: AGENCY APPROVALS Emironrnental Protection Agency j LAIr Duality D oil monitoring & arteNtis I I rYtrmit preparation '7t06cy sppro mi l Federal Aviation Administration 2 'Agency a3cPloval Ij , federal comrounkadon commissior,3 t .►erm3t Prspatition , : Agency appy ivel STATE Maul Water quality Control noard4' I ifar vitt preparation . Agem* approval tR. fb pattntant of Industrial Ralatlons ,rx Rteparatton of ap�lieatlori 4AVerq spptoraj during eorutnrelionl w LMAL f `'butte county APohutlon Control bkirkt Data monitoring, hnalvils PPermit prop}Fatten 'AVUV approval r mittleCountyPlanning bepirtntcnt Pf*iie Draft Envlronmtntal Impoct Atiettey appieVil tit DtalttiR tl Par & Qutkling P fruit nd Cradht mipb Agoncy approval of gradInq permit Suite count y P46niro comm' won 6 r peimit PlePatatie l AgtncyApptora) y .. CONSTRIICYION Kill CQMl.1EitC1ALoPEhATIOtJ � ,. 1077 1970 ifl70 1fI9b 1901 1982 1D63 18134 Weirs t 1 Aentardks2 in dna "14 7 Clean��h Ad Amondrinnta 3 A►utmei PCC aporriral one year boor. eommetilel ' EEA.hadd dvlegati by July 1, i010 the authority opdtalinn data and nd Chi brepiration. foamew itvarca ravl.w to the State anis tha local air i AW%ipdj tiviiij It to be lit avldeil by Lou kl4h6P►elt6 , poTdu tlorr tulilttil d4tiki. b Allot Inial Itytneering d0wityis'ara etrhp4(td, 4 Aatsvttei Ilu JU atkk ib bi oaef 200 ►anti 6 Rbuta tatilew and fattihimendallon 1 12 3 d File Signifcance Submit ! Final EIR Application Decision Draft Released 10 EIR Certified Permits EIR by County y Approved Prepare ft Negative Declaration File for Permits 5 Decision on Final Permit Negative Declaration Approvals 8 KEY , I Meeting with public agenciesto present project, - 6 Time period during which we must present additional information in the form of a draft EIR. No more than 225 days, Have sbown 45 to speed up process. 3 Request for meeting to discuss project issues'with any and all oncerned public agencies. Attendance is required, Sinal EIR e p ' the County and%r a consultant must develope'a 7 45 day time period in which 3 Meeting with a �ncies issues should be vol distribute it to all agenclas, g 1 voiced .and mitigation discussed. Shouli serve to focus F1 R, Alto point at which We could appeal decision, 8. 105 day period in which negative declaration must be certified, 4 Additional a Requesting agency meetings to continue communication. Might consider 9 One year time'period during Which ti R mutt be certifiedi thea lication gs on a weekly basis following the filing of PP with the County, Y0 Hearings on M and or permits, Can request joint hearings to expedlte the 5 Negative declaration process; proces#: 11 File fol' all otherpermits. This will allow joint hearings, ti l a 1'