OCR Text |
Show SUNDAY EVENING A6 September 17, 1999 Proposed rules could cost bum plant $1-- 4 million BY TOM BUSSELBERG Clipper Skiff Writer Proposed federal LAYTON EPA regulations could cost Wasatch Energy Systems $1 to $4 million to implement That's the estimate of LeGrand Bitter, executive director for the bum FRIDAY EVENING SEPTEMBER 17, SUNDAY MORNING SEPTEMBER 19, SUNDAY AFTERNOON SEPTEMBER 19, plant The federal agency has released standards that could apply nation- wide to "small" facilities, including the Davis plant A comment period is under way, officially, until Oct. 31 after which there could be a six month to a year period where EPA would finalize those rules. Bitter said ' I can assume that what we hav e is relativ elv close, Bitter said, adding that "a full board evaluation and development of a system will not occur m full until EPA finalizes their rules." with five years after their approval for implementation "1 guess the bogeyman has arrived," Bitter said. Currently we are in compliance with all federal rules As far as the cost goes, I think it would certainly cost well over $1 million. the top side of that" He said no funds "specifically earmarked for air quality are currently in the bank because of the January refinancing that brought payment of the bonds to 2006 from 2009 We knew when we went through the refinancing. we had some time for that, Bitter added Accumulation of those funds must 5 be separate from the required million needed as part of the bond 'We have to maintain refinancing those reserv es. money to accomplish other activ lties." he emphasized With increased savings realized from lower bond interest payments. Bitter said "hopefully those will be a sufficient tie to build enough of reserves to accomplish the retrofits." Mark Graham long-tim- e foe of the bum plant, says the regulations are long ov erdue Originally required bv the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, they were first proposed by EPA in 1995, but Wasatch Energy Svstems sued EPA over their definition of "small units" compared to large units! and won A federal court dismissed the small unit regulations in December of sending EPA back to recalculate the numbers. $10-$1- 19. Farmington Creek Estates dears hurdles BY BOB MtCKELSON Clipper Staff Writer FARMINGTON Returned to the Planning Commission for further review, and action. Candland Olsen's Farmington Creek Estates received final development plan approval for a 58-lsubdivision The commission also awarded final plat approval for the development's first phase of 17 lots Farmington Creek Estates is located on a 32 parcel just south of 500 South and west of the D&RGW railroad tracks. The Farmington City Council had referred the matter back to the planning commission because of concerns about lot sizes and drainage It will be sent back to the council for final consideration at its Sept. 15 meeting The planners then rev lewed a proposal by David Fjelsted, who is requesting conditional use and site plan approval to build two office buildings at the northeast comer of Shepard Lane and Main Street The two buildings would contain about 15,000 square feet of floor space. But, the commission tabled the matter, because, first of all, it would he along a state highway and it was thought the Utah Department of Transportation should review the plans The site plan also needed to be inspected by the city engineer and there were concerns from nearby residents about the outdoor lighting scheme Finally, the commission wanted to see a draft of the development agreement. In other action, the plannmg commission agreed to recommend an ordinance allowing for accessory buildings in ihe side yards of residences in multiple family zones. After discussing the matter at length at its poor meeting, the commission appears ready to recommend an amendment to the city's building height ordinance Such an amendment would include height definitions and how the standards would apply to all residential homes. Before taking that step, however. the plannmg commission wanted to get input from the Farmington Architectural Committee and the Utah Home Builders Association. v SEPTEMBER 19,1 |