PSD Appeal Nos. 98–3 through 98–20

ORDER DENYING REVIEW IN PART

AND REMANDING IN PART

Decided February 4, 1999

Syllabus

On March 30, 1998, the Shasta County, California, Air Quality Mana

(“AQMD”) issued a federal Clean Air Act prevention of significant deteriorati

mit to Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, authorizing the construction of a new fibe

turing plant to be located in the City of Shasta Lake, California. Petitions for re

p e rmit were filed by seventeen private citizens and citizens’ groups and by E

The petitions for review cover the spectrum of issues relating to PSD 

as several issues that fall outside of the Board’s jurisdiction over PSD permit 

decision discusses each of the issues raised in the petitions for review in rea

ings summarized below.

Held: Review is granted and AQMD’s permit decision is remanded a

ing issues:

•The BACT determination is being remanded to AQMD due to an in

analysis. Petitioners have raised legitimate questions about the particular c

ogy and emission limits for the proposed facility in light of alternative p

equipment configurations at other fiberglass manufacturing facilities. The r

show that AQMD adequately considered the comments received on BAC

prepare a supplemental BACT analysis that identifies multiple pollution 

and provides infeasibility analyses as necessary. In preparing the supp

analysis, AQMD need not require Knauf to pursue its competitors’ trade sec

consider pollution control designs for other facilities that are a matter of 

(Section II.B.1.)

•The issue regarding environmental justice considerations is bein

AQMD in order that an environmental justice determination prepared by 

may be added to the administrative record and made available for pu

(Section II.E.)

Review is denied as to all other issues raised in the petitions for re

the following:

•AQMD’s explanation for its use of PM1 0 monitoring data and meteorol

Redding, California, in lieu of on-site data, was adequate in light of the ge

on data re p resentativeness raised during the public comment period. (Sectio
VOLUME 8

qy p

10 

Q

increments. (Section II.B.2.b.)

•Potential adverse impacts in nearby Class I and Class II areas have been ade

ly addressed in the administrative record. The air quality analysis demonstrates tha

will be no significant air quality impacts in Class I areas. A visibility analysis was perf

for three Class II National Recreation Areas and AQMD concluded that visibility im

from the proposed facility would be less than significant. (Section II.B.3.)

•Review of issues pertaining to hazardous air pollutants and/or unregulated 

tants is denied because control of such pollutants is not an explicit requirement of th

eral PSD program and petitioners have not shown that their concerns otherwise fal

in the purview of the federal PSD program. (Section II.C.1.)

•The use of a local landfill for disposal of solid waste from the proposed facility 

subject to PSD review because: 1) waste disposal practices, including controls on the 

of waste that may be handled at a particular landfill, are not governed by the Clean A

and 2) petitioners have not established that potential emissions from a landfill site con

“secondary emissions” within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(18). (Section II.C.2.

•Requirements in the permit calling for PM10 offsets and mitigation measures a

requirements of the federal PSD program and petitioners have not shown that these 

otherwise come within the purview of the federal PSD program. Therefore, the 

denies review of these issues. (Section II.C.3.)

•The Board denies review of petitioners’ allegations regarding the impact of 

County politics on the permit review process because the issues raised do not per

requirements of the federal PSD program. (Section II.C.4.)

Before Environmental Appeals Judges Ronald L. McCa

and Edward E. Reich.1

Opinion of the Board by Judge McCallum:

On March 30, 1998, the Shasta County, California, Air Qu

Management District (“AQMD”) issued a federal prevention of signif

deterioration (“PSD”) permit, pursuant to Clean Air Act § 165, 42 U

§ 7475, to Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH (“Knauf”). The permit authorize

construction of a new fiberglass manufacturing plant to be located i

City of Shasta Lake, California. AQMD is authorized to make PSD p

1 Environmental Appeals Judge Kathie A. Stein did not participate in this decisi

Pursuant to an order issued February 4, 1999, the Board revised portions 

November 30, 1998 Order Denying Review in Part and Remanding in Part in this c

clarify certain language in the interest of avoiding possible misinterpretation. See Ord

Motions for Reconsideration (EAB, Feb. 4, 1999). This revised decision replaces and 

sedes the November 30, 1998 decision. The November 30th decision, therefore, h

precedential value in this or any other case.
Shasta County pursuant to a 1985 delegation agreement with 

IX. Because AQMD acts as EPA’s delegate under the PSD p

mits are considered EPA-issued permits, and appeals of the 

sions are heard by the Environmental Appeals Board pu

C.F.R. § 124.19. See In re Maui Elec. Co., 8 E.A.D. 1, 2 n.1 (E

this case, appeals of AQMD’s permit decision for Knauf were 

enteen private citizens and citizens’ groups and by EPA Reg

I. BACKGROUND

The City of Shasta Lake (“COSL”) is a recently incorpo

Shasta County, California, looking to create economic gro

business development. Knauf would like to construct a ne

insulation manufacturing plant in COSL to serve the fiberglas

the west coast. COSL and the rest of Shasta County enjoy rel

air. Shasta County has been designated an attainment or u

area for national ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”) 

section 107 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”).2 42 U.S.C. § 7407

C.F.R. § 81.305 (attainment status designations for California

close proximity to several national recreation areas, nationa

areas, and a national park.

Thus, the setting for this case involves virtually all of the 

merated in the congressional declaration of purpose for th

of significant deterioration provisions of the CAA. CAA § 16

§ 7470. The PSD provisions outline a framework for managin

growth in areas of the country that meet NAAQS (or are d

“unclassifiable”). The provisions also call for special attention 

ity in certain national parks and national wilderness areas. CA

165(d), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470(2), 7475(d).

The statutory PSD provisions are carried out through 

process that requires preconstruction permits for new and mo

stationary sources. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21. PSD permitting requ

eral important analyses be performed and taken into conside

ting permit terms and conditions. One of the most critical ele

permit process is the selection of “best available control tec

2 NAAQS are maximum ambient air concentrations for the following six 

fur dioxide, particulate matter (“PM”), carbon monoxide, ozone, nitroge

lead. 40 C.F.R. §§ 50.4-50.12.
VOLUME 8

also required, the primary purpose of which is to determine whet

proposed project would cause or contribute to exceedances of NA

or PSD increments.4 Special review procedures apply to those pro

whose emissions may impact certain national parks, wilderness area

other designated areas with “special national or regional natural, r

ational scenic, or historic value.” CAA §§ 160(2), 165(d), 42 U

§§ 7470(2), 7475(d). In addition to the technical requirements of 

review, the Clean Air Act emphasizes the importance of public parti

tion and input into the decisionmaking process. See CAA §§ 16

165(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470(5), 7475(a)(2). Each of these elements

several collateral concerns are at issue in this case and are discu

more fully infra Sections II.B. and II.C.

A major industrial development project potentially involves nu

ous permitting and approval requirements by federal, state, and 

agencies. The PSD permit process is just one of these requirements

proposed Knauf project required a variety of permits and approva

addition to the PSD permit that is presently before us. In this case, 

review began after other review and approval procedures were u

way. In particular, in November 1996, COSL initiated a review pr

required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal. 

Res. Code § 21000 et seq. The principal product of the CEQA process 

the generation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”).5In conjun

with the CEQA process, COSL issued a conditional use permit, con

ing conditions on a wide variety of issues affecting construction 

operation of the proposed facility. CEQA, the EIR, and the condit

use permit are distinct from PSD review and the PSD permit dec

issued by the AQMD pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

3 PSD review is triggered only for those pollutants that a new source has the po

to emit at rates equal to or in excess of “significant” rates specified in 40 

§ 52.21(b)(23). See infra note 6 and accompanying text for a discussion of the sign

levels as applied to this case.

4 PSD increments are maximum allowable increases in pollutant concentration

missible by regulation. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(c). The amount of the allowable in

depends upon the classification of the area impacted by the emissions. See infra S

II.B.3 for a discussion of area classifications.

5 Three versions of the EIR were prepared over the course of the CEQA process

are cited in this decision as follows: CH2MHill, City of Shasta Lake Industrial Projec

EIR (Feb. 1997) (“Draft EIR”); CH2MHill, Knauf Fiber Glass Manufacturing Facility R

Draft EIR (July 1997) (“Revised EIR”); CH2MHill, Final EIR Knauf Fiber Glass Manufac

Facility (Oct. 1997) (“Final EIR”).
glass facility to the AQMD in March 1997. The facility is 

m a n u f a c t u re fiberglass insulation via a rotary spin m

p rocess. The plans for the facility include production of 195 

lation per day and 24-hour operations. The proposed facil

to the PSD permitting process because it constitutes a “maj

s o u rce” under the PSD regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(1)(i

PSD review is re q u i red for emissions of particulate matter 

m i c rometers in diameter (“PM1 0”) because the potential PM

f rom the proposed Knauf facility exceed the “significant” le

in the PSD re g u l a t i o n s .6 Emissions of other pollutants do no

regulatory significant levels and are not subject to PSD re v i 

On November 24, 1997, the AQMD issued a draft PSD p

proposed Knauf facility and opened a 45–day public comme

public hearing was held on January 7, 1998. AQMD issued 

mit decision on March 30, 1998. Federal Prevention o

Deterioration (PSD) Authority to Construct (Mar. 30, 1998) (

that time, AQMD also published two documents responding 

received during the public comment period and at the hearin

to Comments, Written Comments Submitted During Publ

Period (“RTC”); Response to Comments, Public Hearing 1/7/

The Board received eighteen petitions for review regard

permit decision for Knauf. Seventeen of the petitions for 

filed by local citizens or citizens’ groups.7 One petition for 

filed by EPA Region IX, the EPA regional office with resp

activities in California. Petition No. 98–19.

A large number of the citizen petitions express displeas

decision to site the Knauf facility in COSL, or the Shasta Co

generally. Several petitioners requested that the permit be 

addition, each petition raised one or more issues challengin

of the permit and/or elements of the permitting process.

6 PSD review is triggered for PM10 if a source has the potential to emit 

or more of PM10 emissions. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(23)(i). The proposed K

expected to emit PM10 at a rate of 191 tons per year.

7 The petitioners (and corresponding appeal numbers) are: Bryan Hi

Chapter, Sierra Club (98–3), Laurie Holstein, Citizens for Cleaner Air (9

(98–5), Mary Scott, Citizens for Cleaner Air (98–6), Citizens for Respons

Valley Advocates, Inc. (98–7), Colleen Leavitt (98–8), Barbara Frisbie 

Swendiman (98–10), Fulton M. Doty (98-11), Linda Andrews (98–12), A

(98–13), Laurie O’Connell (98–14), Betty Doty (98–15), Warren L. Teel (98–1

(98–17), Patricia Cogburn (98–18), and Deborah Lynn Fisher (98–20). Th

review are cited throughout this decision as “Petition No. __.”
VOLUME 8

requested that AQMD prepare responses to the petitions for review

addition, acting on motions, the Board granted Knauf an opportun

file a response to the petitions and accepted an amicus brief from C

Order on Pending Motions (June 23, 1998). The Board also provided 

tioners an opportunity to file replies to the materials submitted by K

AQMD, and COSL.9Id. Region IX’s reply memorandum presented a 

posed settlement of the issue presented in its petition for review

response to a motion, the Board granted petitioners who had raise

same issue as Region IX an opportunity to submit a response to the 

tlement proposed in Region IX’s memorandum. Order Gra

Opportunity to Respond to Reply Memorandum Submitted by 

Region IX (Aug. 6, 1998).11

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The role of the Environmental Appeals Board in the PSD perm

process is to consider issues raised in petitions for review that perta

the PSD program and that meet the threshold procedural requiremen

the permit appeal regulations. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19. A petitioner 

have both standing to appeal and must be seeking review of issues 

have been properly preserved for review. If these threshold requirem

are satisfied, the Board will consider whether to “grant review” of a

the issues included in a petition for review. 

The permit appeal regulations provide for review only if a p

decision was based on either a clearly erroneous finding of fa

8 AQMD’s responses are cited in this decision as “AQMD [Petition #] Resp.”

9 The Board considered all petitioner replies that related to issues raised in th

tions for review. The Board did not consider new issues raised in the reply briefs

issues raised for the first time at the reply stage of these proceedings are equivalent 

filed appeals and must be denied on the basis of timeliness. See In re Beckman 

Servs., 5 E.A.D. 10, 15 (EAB 1994) (denying review of a petition that was filed after th

ty-day period specified in 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a)). The petitioner replies are cited as 

[Petition #].”

10 The details of the proposed settlement are discussed infra notes 35–36 and a

panying text. 

11 The Board’s August 6, 1998 order provided the final opportunity for subm

materials to be considered by the Board in reaching a decision on whether or not to 

review. Correspondence received after the deadline set forth in the order was not c

ered by the Board.
icy or exercise of discretion that warrants review. 40 C.F.R. § 

applying this standard for granting review, the Board has bee

the following language in the preamble to section 124.19: th

review should be only sparingly exercised” and “most perm

should be finally determined at the [permitting authority] le

Reg. 33,290, 33,412 (May 19, 1980); accord In re Maui Elec. C

1, 7 (EAB 1998); In re Kawaihae Cogeneration Project, 7 E.A

(EAB 1997).

One way that the Board implements the standard o

40 C.F.R. § 124.19 is to require petitioners to state their ob

permit and to explain why the permitting authority’s respo

objections (for example, in a response to comments docum

ly erroneous or otherwise warrants review. Kawaihae, 7 E

In re Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth., 6 E.A.D. 253, 255 (EAB 

not enough to simply reiterate comments made to the permi

ity. In re LCP Chems., 4 E.A.D. 661, 664 (EAB 1993).

Despite the strict standard of review and the Board’s exp

petitions for review, the Board tries to construe petitions filed 

unrepresented by legal counsel broadly. See In re Envotech, L

260, 268 (EAB 1996); In re Beckman Prod. Servs., 5 E.A.D. 

1994). The Board does not expect such petitions to contain s

legal arguments or to employ precise technical or legal term

the Board does expect such petitions to provide sufficient sp

that the Board can ascertain what issue is being raised. 

6 E.A.D. at 255. The Board also expects the petition to art

supportable reason as to why the permitting authority er

review is otherwise warranted. Beckman, 5 E.A.D. at 19.

Finally, it is possible that some issues will still not warra

review, even if the issues have been properly preserved for 

the petitions contain sufficient specificity. Issues that are no

the PSD program fall into this category. The PSD review p

an open forum for consideration of every environmental asp

posed project, or even every issue that bears on air quality. 

tain issues are expressly excluded from the PSD permitting 

Board will deny review of issues that are not governed by 

ulations because it lacks jurisdiction over them. 

The majority of issues raised in the petitions for review c

ly categorized into three groups. The first group includes is

reviewable under the PSD program and that were properly p
VOLUME 8

issues include, among others: questions about AQMDs BACT determ

tion, adequacy of the air quality analysis, and issues relating to im

in Class I and Class II areas. The second group of issues are items 

fall outside of the Board’s jurisdiction over PSD permit decisions bec

as presented in the petitions, they lack a nexus to the PSD prog

These issues are denominated “non-PSD” issues for convenient refer

Some of the non-PSD issues are: control of hazardous air pollutants 

“unregulated” pollutants, disposal of fiberglass waste at local lan

plans for PM10 mitigation, adequacy of the EIR prepared pursua

CEQA, and the role of Shasta County politics in the permitting pro

In the third category are a few issues that must be denied becaus

threshold requirements for review under 40 C.F.R. § 124.19 were no

isfied. Last, we address the issue of environmental justice, which doe

readily fit into one of the three categories mentioned above.

B. PSD Issues

1. BACT Determination

The Clean Air Act and the PSD regulations require that major 

stationary sources such as the proposed Knauf facility employ the 

available control technology” to limit emissions of certain pollutants. 

§ 165(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4); 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(j)(2). BACT is de

in the PSD regulations as follows:

Best available control technology means an emissions

limitation * * * based on the maximum degree of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation under [the]

Act which would be emitted from any proposed major

stationary source * * * which the Administrator, on a caseby-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental,

and economic impacts and other costs, determines is

achievable for such source * * * through application of

production processes or available methods, systems, and

techniques * * * for control of such pollutant.

40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(12). As the definition indicates, there are several 

siderations that form a part of the BACT determination. The comb

result of these considerations is the selection of an emission limita

and control technology that are specific to a particular facility. In re a 

12 The term “emission limitation” is defined broadly in the CAA:

Continued
and corresponding control technologies used at other facilities a

tant source of information in determining what constitutes best 

In an effort to lend some consistency and a framewo

determinations being made by permit issuing authorities suc

EPA has issued a guidance document that is widely used in P

U.S. EPA, New Source Review Workshop Manual (Draft Oct. 

Manual”).13 A section of the NSR Manual addresses the BACT 

tion process. The NSR Manual’s approach is structured 

account all of the elements in the regulatory definition of 

essence of the BACT determination process as described 

Manual is to look for the most stringent emissions limits achie

tice at similar facilities and to evaluate the technical feasibil

menting such limits and/or control technologies for the p

consideration.

The BACT process leads to the selection of specific emissio

t h rough an analysis of pollution control options for the propos

c o n t rol option may be an “add-on” air pollution control tec

removes pollutants from a facility’s emissions stream, or an 

l o w e r-polluting process/practice” that prevents emissions from 

erated in the first instance. NSR Manual at B.10, B.13. The peti

lenges to the BACT determination in this case raise issues rel

add-on control technology and inherently lower-polluting pro 

The BACT selection process, as set forth in the NSR 

most recently outlined by the Board in Maui Elec., 8 E.A.D. a

step in the BACT selection process involves identifying an

‘[E]mission limitation’ * * * mean[s] a requirement * * * which limits th

rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous ba

ing any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a 

assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, w

tice, or operational standard promulgated under [the CAA].

CAA § 302(k), 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k). An emission limitation is ordinarily 

numerical limit on the rate of emissions.

13 Although the NSR Manual is not a binding rule, we have looked to i

of the Agency’s thinking on certain PSD issues. See, e.g., In re Maui Elec. 

5 (EAB 1998); In re Kawaihae Cogeneration Project, 7 E.A.D. 107, 112 (EA

14 The BACT process described in the NSR Manual is not a mandatory m

p e rmitting authorities normally use it. See Kawaihae, 7 E.A.D. at 113. EPA re

of the NSR Manual methodology because it provides for application 

BACT regulatory criteria through a step-wise framework, that if followed, 

Continued
VOLUME 8

in its broadest sense under the first step and refers to control options 

a “practical potential for application to the emissions unit” under ev

tion. Id. (emphasis added). The goal of this step is to develop a com

hensive list of control options. In compiling the list of available co

options, a variety of information sources may be reviewed, inclu

information on pollution control and emission limitations for other in

trial facilities.

The second step of the BACT analysis is to consider the tech

feasibility of the control options identified in step one. During the co

of this step, technically infeasible control options are eliminated 

consideration. Id. at B.7. The purpose of this step of the BACT an

is to determine which of the options identified in step one can be 

tically deployed on the proposed project.

The technical feasibility step focuses on whether a control opti

“available” and “applicable.” Id. at B.17. Availability in this conte

somewhat different from the concept of “available” in step one. For 

poses of technical feasibility, available refers to commercial availab

Id. A technology is considered applicable if it can be “reason

installed and operated on the source type under consideration.

Applicability focuses on how a particular control option has been 

in the past and how those uses compare to the project under consi

tion. A control option is presumed applicable if it has been used o

same or similar type of source as the proposed project. Id. at B.18. I

of applicability may be particularly critical in analyzing inherently lo

polluting processes and other types of process controls.

If a permit applicant asserts that a particular control option is 

nically infeasible, the applicant should provide factual support for 

assertion. Such factual support may address commercial unavailabil

difficulties associated with application of a particular control to the 

mit applicant’s project. Id. at B.19. A control option is not consid

infeasible simply based upon the cost of applying that option to the 

posed project. Economic feasibility is evaluated in a subsequent ste

the BACT process. Id. at B.20.

defensible BACT determination. We would not reject a BACT determination simply b

the permitting authority deviated from the NSR Manual, but we would scrutinize s

d e t e rmination carefully to ensure that all regulatory criteria were considered and a

a p p ro p r i a t e l y .
judgment on the part of the permitting authority. The permi

ity must assess the materials presented by the permit applic

mately must decide which options are technically feasible. I

Once technical feasibility has been considered and an

options are eliminated, the third step of the BACT analysis 

remaining options in order of stringency, with the most strin

listed first. In step four, collateral energy, environmental, an

impacts are considered, beginning with the “top” cont

Consideration of these collateral impacts “operates primarily 

valve whenever unusual circumstances specific to the fac

a p p ropriate to use less than the most effective technol

Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 2 E.A.D. 824, 827 (A

Collateral impacts are generally reviewed in determining wh

al available control technologies produces less adverse colla

and whether such effects justify the use of a less stringent 

n o l o g y .1 6 In re Old Dominion Elec. Coop., 3 E.A.D. 779, 792 (

In short, under the NSR Manual methodology, consideration 

impacts is used to either confirm the top BACT option as ap

to demonstrate that it is inappropriate. Maui Elec., 8 E.A.D. at 

option is eliminated based on one of these considerations, th

stringent option is considered. Ultimately, “[t]he most effe

a l t e rnative not eliminated * * * is selected as BACT.” NSR Ma

The BACT analysis is one of the most critical elements 

permitting process. As such, it should be well documented in 

istrative record. A permitting authority’s decision to elimin

control options as a matter of technical infeasibility, or due 

impacts, must be adequately explained and justified. See In 

Corp., 5 E.A.D. 551, 566 (EAB 1994) (remanding PSD permi

part because BACT determination for one emission source w

an incomplete cost-effectiveness analysis); In re Pennsau

N.J., Resource Recovery Facility, 2 E.A.D. 667, 672 (Adm’r 198

ing PSD permit decision because “[t]he applicant’s BACT a

does not contain the level of detail and analysis necessary t

applicant’s burden” of showing that a particular control te

15 Collateral energy and economic impacts need not be analyzed if th

cant accepts the top control option. NSR Manual at B.26. Consideration of 

ronmental impacts is nonetheless expected at this step. Id.

16 In some cases—for example, when BACT is analyzed outside 

approach of the NSR Manual—consideration of collateral impacts, partic

environmental impacts, may require rejection of a less stringent control op

a more stringent option. See In re North County Resource Recovery Assocs

230-31 (Adm’r 1986).
VOLUME 8

830 (permit applicant and permit issuer must provide substanti

when rejecting the most effective technology). In the context of a p

appeal, the Board will look at the BACT determination, as docume

in the record, to determine whether it reflects “considered judgmen

the part of the permitting authority. See In re Ash Grove Cement 

7 E.A.D. 387, 417–19 (EAB 1997)(remanding RCRA permit because 

mitting authority’s rationale for certain permit limits was not clear 

therefore did not reflect considered judgment); In re Austin Powder 

6 E.A.D. 713, 720 (EAB 1997) (remand due to lack of clarity in perm

authority’s explanation).

The BACT determination at issue in this case involves control of 

emissions from the forming section of the proposed Knauf fa

Virtually all of the PM10 emissions from the plant are generated by 

forming process. AQMD’s PM10 BACT determination for Knauf’s for

section is memorialized in a permit condition requiring installatio

seven venturi17 scrubbers followed by a wet electrostatic precip

(“WEP”).18 Permit ¶ 48.a. These items are add-on pollution control 

nologies that remove particulate matter from the exhaust gas st

before release through the main stack. The PM10 emission limit (i.e., 

imum allowable emission rate) from the main stack is 43.6 lbs/hr or 

lbs/ton of glass pulled.19 Permit ¶ 53. Although these limits are for 

the values in the permit are expressed as total suspended partic

(“TSP”).20 The permit also imposes a production limit of 195 tons of 

per day.21 Permit ¶ 36.

17 The permit specifically calls for venturi scrubbers, although other documents 

administrative record refer to the scrubbers simply as “wet” scrubbers. We will follo

terminology as used in the particular record document being cited in our discussion

18 Six of the venturi scrubbers are designated for the bonded wool forming lin

scrubber is to be used on the unbonded wool forming line. All seven scrubbers wi

to the WEP. Permit ¶ 48.a. The venturi scrubbers remove suspended particulate matt

provide “pretreatment” of the exhaust gas prior to the WEP. Id. ¶ 49. Operating pa

ters for the pollution control devices are specified in the permit and must be me

every 15 minutes. Id. ¶ 51.

19 Emission limits for the fiberglass industry are commonly expressed in units of p

per ton of glass pulled. S e e 49 Fed. Reg. 4590, 4596 (Feb. 7, 1984). This type of lim

the allowable emissions to the plant’s production rate. We abbreviate these units as “lb

20 AQMD does not explain why PM10 limits are expressed in terms of TSP, 

appears that the test method designated in the permit for measuring PM10 emissions 

results as TSP rather than PM10. See Permit ¶ 53 (designating EPA test method 5E for 

mining PM10 emissions); 40 C.F.R. part 60 app. A, Method 5E.

21 Both the per hour emission limit and per ton of glass pulled limit produce 

identical PM10 emission rates, differing by only one pound per day. The hourly em

limit, multiplied by 24 hours, yields a daily emission rate of 1,046 lbs/day. The dail

duction limit multiplied by the per ton of glass pulled emission limit for PM10 yields a 

emission rate for PM10 of 1,047 lbs/day. 
ers require a further examination of AQMDs BACT determin

umented in the administrative record.22 The documentation 

analysis and decision is principally in Knauf’s permit applicat

permit evaluation, the RTC, and the RTPH.

Table 1 is our summary of information in the administ

pertaining to control technologies and emission limits for P

glass forming lines. Each row in the table corresponds to a s

glass manufacturing facility mentioned in the administrative 

each facility, we have listed the control technology used 

emissions from the forming line, the PM10 emission limit, an

of information on the facility from the Knauf administrative r

as we can discern, this is the primary information that unde

BACT determination for the proposed Knauf plant. The ba

each of the entries in the table is explained in the subsequen

TABLE 1

Administrative Record Information on PM10 Permit 

for Fiberglass Forming Lines

Company/ Control PM10 Emission So

Location Technology Limit Ad

A Knauf/ wet scrubber 

Lanett,AL with thermal oxidizer 7.71 lbs/ton A

B CertainTeed/ wet scrubber(s) ~1.0 lb/ton 

Chowchilla,CA plus three WEPs 

Pub

C Owens Corning/ Unknown23 Unknown 

Santa Clara,CA 

D Schuller/ Unknown Unknown 

Willows,CA 

E CertainTeed/ three WEPs 3.63 lbs/ton 

Kansas City, KS (as TSP) 

2.02 lbs/ton (as PM10)

F Knauf/ 7 venturi 5.37 lbs/ton 

COSL,CA scrubbers plus (as TSP)

(proposed) one WEP

22 Our assessment of this issue is largely based upon the administrativ

ments provided for our review. In addition, we reviewed the administrativ

for additional materials that appear to relate to AQMD’s BACT determinati

23 We found no information on PM10 permit limits for the forming 

Owens Corning or Schuller plants in the excerpts of the administrative re

provided to us for review. 
VOLUME 8

proposed facility. PSD Permit Application Revision 2 at 26–29 (Jul

1997) (“Permit App.”). Knauf’s BACT analysis indicates that E

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse24 (“RBLC”) was searched for all 

glass manufacturing entries since 1985. Permit App. at 28. Withou

cussing the results of that search, the application concludes that only 

facility in the RBLC was similar to the proposed facility for Shasta 

“The similar facility is the Knauf GmbH Lanett, Alabama facility.” Id

PM10 control technology used at the Lanett facility is a wet scrubber 

thermal oxidizer and a corresponding emission limit of 7.71 lbs/ton

See supra Table 1, Row A. The permit application for the proposed 

ity in COSL also discusses use of an electrostatic precipitator in ord

comply with one of AQMD’s local rules. Permit App. at 29. The p

application concludes that “seven (7) wet scrubbers * * * and a wet 

constitute BACT and “no further evaluation of particulate control 

nologies is necessary.” Id.

Although the permit application describes the conclusion of Kn

BACT analysis, it lacks a clearly ascertainable basis for the conclu

The overall discussion is cursory and does not explain how the dec

satisfies the regulatory criteria. The basis for the conclusion might 

been ascertainable had Knauf documented the preliminary steps 

BACT determination as outlined in the NSR Manual and desc

above.25 As it stands, the permit application does not include a listi

all possible control options, a discussion of emission control technol

and limits for fiberglass manufacturing facilities other than the K

plant in Alabama, or a technical feasibility analysis. Without this ty

information, it is impossible to know if Knauf really adopted the 

stringent option available as BACT.

AQMD’s Authority to Construct/PSD Permit Evaluation (Nov

1997) (“AQMD Evaluation”) provides slightly more detail on selectio

BACT than the permit application. AQMD states that a survey of 

24 RACT/BACT/LAER stands for Reasonably Available Control Te c h n o l o g 

Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate. Each of these acr

refers to technological standards established by different sections of the CAA. BACT 

standard from the PSD provisions of the CAA. See CAA § 165(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 7475

The RBLC contains information on emission controls and emission limits for industria

ities across the country. The RBLC is organized by source category, thereby making 

atively easy to access emission control information for a particular industrial enterp

25 As noted supra note 14, a strict application of the methodology described in th

Manual is not mandatory, but we expect an analysis that is as sufficiently detailed 

model in the NSR Manual.
ed. AQMD Evaluation at 9. The document lists three Califo

that were reviewed in addition to Knauf’s Alabama facility. 

and locations of these other facilities are: 1) CertainTeed, in 

CA; 2) Owens Corning, in Santa Clara, CA; and 3) Sc

M a n v i l le

2 6 in Willows, CA. The permit evaluation stat

C e r t a i n Teed Chowchilla plant uses a wet scrubber followed 

c o n t rol PM1 0 e m i s s i o n s . I d . at 11. See supra Table 1, Row B. “N

ity appeared to have emission control equipment with this 

t rol.” AQMD Evaluation at 11. Presumably, this statement me

Chowchilla facility had the best emissions control equipment 

ities reviewed. However, there is no discussion of what cont

sion limitations are in place at the Owens Corning or Sc

Manville facilities in order to confirm that conclusion. See su

Rows C&D. AQMD ultimately concurs in Knauf’s conclusi

scrubbers and a WEP is BACT for PM1 0. AQMD Evaluation at 

Despite the minimal discussion in the permit app

AQMD’s evaluation regarding other facilities, the administr

index for this project includes several items regarding the 

tioned California fiberglass facilities. 27 We do not know wha

consist of and the record does not appear to contain any an

contents. It may be that some or all of these items would 

BACT determination here, however, no argument has been 

these lines.

During the public comment period on the draft permit, 

menters questioned why the PM10 BACT determination for K

ed in less stringent PM10 limits than the limits at the 

Chowchilla facility. Commenters pointed out that the Chow

has a PM10 emission limit of approximately 1.0 lb/ton. See RT

In addition, EPA Region IX identified a CertainTeed facility in 

Kansas, (see supra Table 1, Row E) with lower PM10 limits tha

posed for Knauf. See RTC at 20. 

In response, AQMD reiterated that the control technol

for the Knauf plant (venturi scrubbers and a WEP) constitu

26 The facility in Willows is referred to as both Schuller and Johns 

administrative record. 

27 Items pertaining to the CertainTeed Chowchilla facility appear to be 

administrative record index as follows: Vol. I.A. at 278-306, Vol. I.B. at 80

the Owens Corning facility include: Vol I.A. at 307, Vol II.E. Schuller/Johns 

rials are listed at: Vol. I.A. at 800, Vol. II.D.
VOLUME 8

PM10 from fiberglass forming lines. RTC at 15, 21. AQMD also attem

to explain the reason for the discrepancy between emission limits a

CertainTeed facilities and the proposed Knauf plant. “[T]he emission 

its established for PM10 in other issued permits for fiberglass manufa

ing facilities vary considerably since each process is different and 

patented process design techniques that are not available to others i

industry.” RTC at 21. The CertainTeed facilities use unique for

process technology that is proprietary and not available to other m

facturers. Id. CertainTeed’s unique process in Kansas City was iden

only as a “European” process, the details of which are not publicly a

able. Id. Apparently, AQMD focused on the different process tech

gies used by Knauf and CertainTeed because the process “influences 

foundly” the amount of PM10 emissions generated before control e

ment is applied. Knauf Resp. at 22. Hence, even the use of the same 

on controls may not yield the same emission rate when deployed on 

ferent processes.

AQMD’s response to comments also asserted that a commen

request that Knauf achieve the same emission rates as the Certain

plants would amount to a redefinition of the source. RTC at 15

AQMD presumed that Knauf would have to adopt CertainTeed’s pr

technology in order to achieve emission rates comparabl

CertainTeed’s plants. 

“Redefining the source” is a term of art described in the NSR Ma

The Manual states that it is legitimate to look at inherently lower-p

ing processes in the BACT analysis, but EPA has not generally requi

source to change (i.e., redefine) its basic design. NSR Manual at B.13

classic example of redefining a source involves a proposal to constr

coal-fired power plant or boiler. See In re SEI Birchwood, Inc., 5 E

25, 29 n.8 (EAB 1994). Such a proposal need not consider the altern

of a natural gas-fired unit as part of the BACT determination, even th

a natural gas unit would be inherently less polluting than the coal

unit. Id.; In re Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co., 4 E.A.D. 95, 99

(EAB 1992); In re Old Dominion Elec. Coop., 3 E.A.D. 779, 793 (A

1992). Substitution of a gas-fired power plant for a planned coal

plant would amount to redefining the source. Although it is not E

policy to require a source to employ a different design, redefinition o

source is not always prohibited. This is a matter for the permitting au

ity’s discretion. The permitting authority may require consideratio

alternative production processes in the BACT analysis when approp

See NSR Manual at B.13–B.14; Old Dominion, 3 E.A.D. at 793 (p

issuer has discretion “to consider clean fuels other than those prop

by the permit applicant.”).
the comments submitted on the draft permit.28 Several of th

echo arguments made by Region IX, namely, that the PM10 e

for Knauf should be lowered in light of the more stringent li

at the CertainTeed facilities, or that Knauf should be require

strate why such lower limits are infeasible. Petition No. 98–

also Petition Nos. 98–4, 98–5, 98–17 & 98–18. Other petitione

d i ff e rences in the control technology configuratio

CertainTeed’s Kansas City plant and Knauf’s proposal. The p

Kansas City facility requires use of three WEPs in its form

whereas the Knauf permit calls for only one WEP. Petition 

98–5 & 98–6. One petitioner, reacting to AQMD’s discussio

ing the source, asserts that Knauf should be required to lic

chase the lower-polluting process technology used by 

Petition No. 98–16.

AQMD and Knauf present several arguments in defense 

selected control option (i.e., venturi scrubbers and a WEP) a

sion limits (i.e., 5.37 lbs/ton and glass production limit of 

With regard to the emission limits, AQMD and Knauf empha

ferences between CertainTeed’s facilities and the proposed 

ty. First, AQMD argues that the CertainTeed facilities are not s

Knauf facility. AQMD 98–19 Resp. at 1. AQMD notes that the 

facilities use proprietary process technologies including: m

chemistry, glass fiberization techniques, binder chemistry, b

cation techniques, mat formation methods, and produ

According to Knauf, these unique and proprietary process

amount of PM10 generated during manufacturing before ap

any pollution control technology. Knauf Resp. at 22. Thus, 

utes the different emission rates among various facilities to 

ing process technologies. 

AQMD and Knauf also point out that even the emissi

the two CertainTeed facilities vary widely. The Chowchilla 

P M1 0 limit of approximately 1.0 lb/ton. In contrast, the PM1 0 

Kansas City facility are 2.02 lbs/ton for PM1 0 and 3.63 lbs/to

TSP). More o v e r, the Kansas City permit, with the higher em

is the more recent permit decision.29 AQMD 98–19 Resp. 

Resp. at 25.

28 Petition Nos. 98–3 through 98–6, and 98–16 through 98–19 challe

determination for PM10.

29 The PSD permit for CertainTeed’s facility in Kansas City, KS was iss

1997. The permit for the Chowchilla, CA facility dates back to November 1

ifications in 1986, 1992, and 1995. Petition No. 98-19 atts. 5 & 6.
VOLUME 8

WEP vendors performance guarantee, which in turn depends on 

nature of the exhaust stream entering the WEP. AQMD 98–19 Resp. 

AQMD claims that it cannot justify an emission limit lower than wha

pollution control technology vendor can supply. Id. at 2, 5. Prop

from three different WEP vendors attached to AQMD’s response 

indicate approximately the same guaranteed emission limit.30

Both Knauf and AQMD repeat the suggestion that Region IX is 

ing to re q u i re Knauf to redefine its source. AQMD 98–19 Resp. at 6; K

Resp. at 30–31. AQMD and Knauf believe that the only way to achiev

C e r t a i n Teed emission limits would be to apply CertainTeed’s process 

nology, and such a re q u i rement would amount to redefinition o

s o u rce, even if Knauf could obtain CertainTeed’s proprietary techno

In response to Region IX’s suggestion that Knauf should be req

to show that stricter emission limits are technically infeasible, A

states that such a showing cannot be performed because the man

turing techniques and process technologies used by CertainTeed 

unknown. AQMD 98–19 Resp. at 6. AQMD also represents that it p

ously requested Knauf to “respond to the possibility of achieving the 

est achievable emission rate of approximately 1.0 lb PM10 per ton of 

pulled.” Id. at 3. Knauf responded that in light of the proprietary pro

es at CertainTeed, the specific characteristics of Knauf’s own process

the performance guarantees from Knauf’s WEP vendors, the emission 

would have to be 5.37 lbs/ton. Id.

With regard to the differences in control technology configurati

CertainTeed’s Kansas City facility and the proposed Knauf plant, 

AQMD and Knauf reject the concept that CertainTeed’s lower emi

limits are due to the fact that CertainTeed has three WEPs on its for

section as compared to one WEP for Knauf. AQMD states 

CertainTeed splits the air flow from its forming section and each o

three WEPs treats a portion of that flow. “[A]ll of the WEPs are not 

ating to reduce emissions from one source.” AQMD 98–5 Resp. 

Knauf plans to use a single, larger WEP that receives combined air 

Id. Knauf claims that the WEP design for its plant is the equivalent o

parallel WEPs. Knauf Resp. at 35. In addition, the proposed Knauf f

ty will use scrubbers. Id. Again, AQMD and Knauf attribute the differ

in emission limits to the differences in the underlying processes r

than the WEP configuration. AQMD 98–3 Resp. at 2; Knauf Resp. a

30 Emission limit guarantees were expressed as WEP outlet loadings of 

grains/scfd.
on the inherent differences between the CertainTeed and K

facturing processes. The differences are allegedly so great, 

the fact that both companies are operating (or planning to op

spin manufacturing plants with substantially the same pollu

technology (WEPs or scrubbers plus a WEP), the emission l

company cannot be considered applicable to the other.

EPA’s history of regulating the fiberglass industry lends s

to AQMD and Knauf’s position. For example, when EPA wa

New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) for the fibergla

turing industry in the mid-1980s, the Agency addressed the 

tain plants used process modifications in lieu of or in additio

pollution control technologies:

[B]ecause of the differences in the process design 

operation employed among firms, and in the prod

produced by different firms (and in some cases by 

ferent plants within the same firm), the Agency does 

have a basis upon which to conclude that a process m

ification which has been demonstrated at one plant 

necessarily be applicable to another plant. Therefore

Administrator has determined that process modifica

are not an appropriate candidate [best demonstr

technology] for this industry.

49 Fed. Reg. 4590, 4593 (Feb. 7, 1984). In the preamble to th

the Agency furthered explained why process modifications 

the basis for the NSPS standard, even though such modific

result in lower emissions:

The Agency agrees that use of [process] modificat

alone or in combination with add-on control devices

achieve lower emissions than those allowed by the 

dard. However, process modifications are consid

confidential by the companies that comprise the f

glass industry and are not generally available to the e

industry.

50 Fed. Reg. 7694, 7696 (Feb. 25, 1985). In the course of th

making, EPA rejected more stringent PM emission limits b

limits would be based on confidential process modifications

Reg. at 4597.
VOLUME 8

H a z a rdous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule for the fiberglass manufact

industry. 62 Fed. Reg. 15,228 (Mar. 31, 1997). This proposed rule w

apply to hazardous air pollutant emissions rather than PM emissions 

the forming process, but the issue of proprietary process technology 

also addressed in this context. In selecting a formaldehyde emission 

d a rd, EPA eliminated from consideration the emission level achiev

one plant because “[t]he emission level * * * is from a proprietary for

p rocess not available to the rest of the industry.” I d . at 15,242.

From this background and the arguments presented in this case

conclude that the fiberglass manufacturing process is indeed chara

ized by specialized processes and raw material mixtures that vary 

firm to firm and product to product. Notwithstanding these differe

the pollution control devices that individual companies apply are l

mate avenues of inquiry, which must be explored fully. It is ther

appropriate to look at control technologies and emission limits at 

rotary spin plants when searching for potential control options in the 

step of the BACT determination.

We are unpersuaded by Knauf’s argument that the only facility 

in the fiberglass manufacturing industry that is suitable for comparis

the proposed COSL facility is Knauf’s plant in Lanett, Alabama. Whil

Lanett plant may well be the most similar to the proposed plant bec

Knauf intends to use the Lanett process technology in Shasta Lake, tha

should not foreclose Knauf’s obligation to look at its competitors’ plan

identifying potential control options. The approach used by Knauf ha

potential to circumvent the purpose of BACT, which is to promote u

the best control technologies as widely as possible. If a company can 

that the only facilities similar to a proposed project are its own faci

this objective of the BACT program would not be fulfilled. 

Petitioners raise legitimate questions about how the particular 

trol technology and emission limits for Knauf were selected. Based o

record information and arguments made on appeal, we cannot deter

if the particular control technology and emission limit selected fo

facility truly qualify as BACT. Answers to still open questions are ne

in order to assess AQMD’s BACT determination. For example, what 

trol technologies are in use on the forming sections of the O

Corning and Schuller fiberglass plants reportedly evaluated by Knau

AQMD? What are their emission limits for PM10? How did Knauf 

AQMD select the number of PM10 control devices and their configura

Would a different configuration, similar to what is being use
If WEPs can be designed in a variety of sizes, how did Knau

choose the size of the WEP for this facility? As the record sta

not find that AQMD adequately considered the comments 

the BACT issue. AQMD’s response to comments and the 

review have not convinced us that the particular design o

technology (i.e., size and configuration of pollution control 

or the selected PM10 emission limit necessarily constitutes BA

We are remanding the BACT determination in the intere

ing the benefit of further analysis on this issue. We are ord

to prepare a supplemental BACT analysis for this proposed 

suggest that the supplemental analysis employ the format 

the NSR Manual guidance. We would therefore expect to se

control options considered, including identification of the 

source for each option. At a minimum, it appears that such 

include Knauf’s Lanett, Alabama facility, the three Californ

facilities discussed in the permit evaluation document, and C

Kansas City, Kansas facility.32 A technical feasibility analysi

documented for each identified control option for which 

infeasibility claim. Conclusions that one or more of the opt

available or applicable need to be justified. After the technic

analysis, remaining control options should be listed in or

gency, with the most stringent option first. AQMD should als

conclusions regarding the collateral environmental impacts 

control option and any necessary analysis of other collateral 

energy or economic). If the top option is rejected, the colla

of each subsequent control option should be documented. 

The purpose of this grant of review is to provide AQM

tunity to correct some serious deficiencies in the record pert

31 In response to the petitions for review, Knauf supplied an engine

analysis for expanding the size of the WEP designed for the Shasta Lake 

Resp. Ex. 4. The analysis compares the PM10 removal and capital costs f

designed, a 50% larger WEP, and a 100% larger WEP. Larger WEPs can 

removal efficiencies by increasing treatment time for an exhaust gas stream

as designed removes approximately 238 tons of particulate per year at a cos

The analysis shows that a 50% larger WEP will remove an additional 11.9 

late per year at an additional capital cost of $1,361,000. A 100% larger W

19.1 additional tons of particulate at an additional cost of $2,721,000. Id. A 

could have provided a basis for comparing the WEP as designed with a 

design, as used at CertainTeed.

32 These are the facilities for which there is some documentation in 

supra Table 1. To the extent that other facilities or information sources wer

are considered in the course of the remand, those should also be included 
VOLUME 8

and the PM10 emission limit are legitimate questions that were rej

without adequate explanation. Thus, the PM10 BACT determination fo

proposed Knauf facility is clearly erroneous because the analysis of 

trol options was incomplete. Incomplete BACT analyses are ground

remand. See In re Masonite Corp., 5 E.A.D. 551, 568–69, 572 (EAB 

(remand of PSD permit in light of incomplete analyses in BACT det

nation); In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Resource Recovery Facility, 3 E

867, 875 (Adm’r 1992) (PSD permit remanded for failure to adequ

consider viability of measures suggested by petitioner for reductio

NOX emissions).

In ordering a remand on BACT, it is also appropriate to prov

few clarifying comments relating to particular issues raised on ap

First, Petition No. 98–16 suggests that Knauf should obtain and em

CertainTeed’s manufacturing process technology in lieu of its own. W

this may be included as one of the alternatives in the first step o

BACT analysis, this option may well turn out to be technically infeas

We acknowledge that there are differences in features of the man

turing process among companies, and that such differences have hi

cally been treated as proprietary and confidential.33 Process technolo

that are treated as proprietary and are not commercially available ma

considered technically infeasible and eliminated from the BACT co

eration process. 34 Individual permit applicants and permitting autho

ordinarily should not have to negotiate with owners of propri

process technologies in order to satisfy BACT requirements.

33 We accept the Agency’s characterization of confidential and proprietary p

technology used by the fiberglass industry as articulated in the standard setting co

The national standards (i.e., NSPS and NESHAPs) are the best tools for effecting in

wide adoption of lower emitting processes. The program offices in charge of deve

such standards are better equipped than we are to assess confidentiality claims reg

process technology.

34 We believe that the commercial availability test is the proper way to deal wit

prietary and confidential technologies rather than an inquiry into redefining the sou

request to redefine a source presumes that an alternative (and lower-polluting) pro

available. Here, it is not clear that lower-polluting processes are available to 

(although that is a legitimate area of inquiry in preparing a supplemental BACT an

on remand). Even if such processes are not available, however, Knauf and AQMD a

exempt from fully investigating available add-on pollution controls.

We reject AQMD and Knauf’s argument regarding redefining the source to the 

that they seek to avoid performing and/or documenting a BACT analysis that con

pollution control options used by their competitors. While we are not requiring Kn

pursue its competitors’ trade secrets, we do expect serious consideration of pollution 

trol designs for other facilities that are a matter of public record.
account and discuss any difference in the numerical emissio

to the application of a particular control option to the Knauf 

ticular control technology may be available and applicable 

cific numerical emission limit achievable by Knauf may not 

limitation achieved elsewhere. To the extent that the emiss

ference is a matter of technical feasibility, this issue falls un

of the BACT analysis as outlined in the NSR Manual. To the 

different limit is justified due to collateral energy, economic

mental considerations, the issue falls under step four. Due to 

tics of individual plant processes, we recognize that applica

tical technology may not yield identical emission limits. H

BACT analysis should contain a comparison of these limits 

an explanation for the differences.

The conclusion of AQMD’s supplemental response re g a 

may be that the emission limits and control technology curre

by the permit still constitute BACT. Alternatively, AQMD ma

that a diff e rent control technology and/or emission limit cons

We express no opinion as to what AQMD’s conclusion o

H o w e v e r, we do expect to see a more complete analysis and 

of the BACT determination than is currently provided in the 

Finally, we address Region IX’s Reply Memorandum, wh

a proposed settlement of the BACT issue and addresses the 

ity claims raised by AQMD and Knauf.35 In essence, Region I

to investigate process technology used by other fiberglass m

and to assess (and litigate, if necessary) any claims of co

asserted by the manufacturers. If Region IX obtains any pro

mation regarding lower-emitting process technologies, the 

pass that information on to Knauf. Knauf has committed to s

sibility and cost of employing such alternative processes an

ment those processes if certain conditions are met. The Re

posal is commendable for seeking to address the problem o

lower-polluting processes and methods that are not in wid

because of confidentiality claims. However, we are skeptic

possibility of actually achieving any transfer of process techn

35 Region IX’s BACT proposal would be implemented through addition 

mit condition and execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (“M

Region IX and Knauf. Knauf and AQMD concur with the proposed appro

invited other petitioners to express an opinion on the proposal. O

Opportunity to Respond to Reply Memorandum Submitted by EPA Regi

1998). The petitioners who responded to the Board’s order all opposed th
VOLUME 8

the deficiencies in the current BACT analysis, and cannot substitute 

properly done analysis. Therefore, we are not ordering a modificati

the permit to add the new permit condition nor are we ordering ex

tion of the MOU. If the parties desire to proceed with the process 

lined in the proposed permit condition and MOU, they are welcom

pursue that process through some vehicle other than the permit itse

The specific terms of the remand order covering the BACT issu

presented in Section III of this decision. 

2. Air Quality Analysis

A PSD application must include an air quality analysis for any 

lated pollutant that the proposed source plans to emit in signif

amounts. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(m)(1)(i). In this case, the PM10 emissions 

the proposed Knauf facility exceed the regulatory significance level

the air quality analysis requirements apply.37 The purpose of the air 

ity analysis is to demonstrate that emissions from a proposed new so

and other existing sources will not cause or contribute to a violation 

NAAQS or PSD increment. NSR Manual at C.1. The petitions for re

raise several issues relating to the air quality analysis (referred to i

record as the air quality impact analysis (“AQIA”)) prepared by Kna

36 The number and nature of the conditions included within Region IX’s proposa

us wondering whether the technology transfer objectives could ever be realized

notably, there are several mandatory time frames specified in the MOU that hav

potential to terminate the entire effort to discover and implement potentially lower-

ing processes. For example, EPA has just 60 days to complete its investigation of 

manufacturers and turn over information on lower-polluting processes to Knauf. 

98–19 att. A § 2.0. This deadline is extended to six months if EPA has to litigate con

tiality claims with the other manufacturers. Id. In light of the fiberglass industry’s his

asserting confidentiality claims, we would expect litigation to be a likely scenario 

the MOU, and six months does not appear to be an adequate period of time for reso

of litigation. 

If EPA is unable to produce fruits of its investigation of other manufacturers wit

days (or 6 months if there is litigation), Knauf has no obligation to attempt to use 

tially lower-polluting processes. Id. § 5.1. In addition, even if EPA can obtain some 

mation on alternative process technology within the specified time period, Knauf mu

reasonable efforts to obtain permission to use the technology within another 30 da

§ 2.0. If Knauf is unable to secure the requisite permissions, it has no obligation to u

lower-polluting process. Finally, the MOU specifies several technical and cost criter

may prevent application of an alternative process technology. Knauf is to determine 

of these criteria would preclude use of the technology. Id. §§ 3.0, 4.0.

37 The regulatory significance level for PM10 is 15 tons per year. See supra note 
and Meteorological Data

In order to perform an air quality analysis, certain d

obtained, including information on existing ambient air qual

rates for the proposed source, and meteorological data to 

emissions will behave once released from the stack. The 

review challenge AQMD’s decision to use existing ambient ai

meteorological data from Redding, California, rather than re

lection of on-site data for Knauf’s AQIA.

For ambient air quality data, the PSD regulations gene

“continuous air quality monitoring data * * * gathered over a 

least one year and shall represent at least the year precedin

the application.” 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(m)(1)(iv). This requiremen

isfied by conducting pre-construction monitoring at the prop

by using existing ambient air quality data when the permitt

has determined that such data are representative of the air q

site. NSR Manual at C.18–C.19. 

Meteorological data requirements are outlined in EPA’s 

Air Quality Models (“Guideline on AQM”). 40 C.F.R. part 51 

Guideline on AQM is incorporated by reference into the PSD 

40 C.F.R. § 52.21(2)(1). The Guideline on AQM emphasizes 

representative meteorological data and points out that such 

ically obtained from the National Weather Service or from o

toring stations. Guideline on AQM § 9.3. The NSR Manua

meteorological data should “be representative of the atmosp

sion and climatological conditions at the site of the prop

* * * and at locations where the source may have a significa

air quality.” NSR Manual at C.22.

Petitioners have challenged Knauf’s use and AQMD’s a

ambient air quality data and meteorological data collected 

Redding, California, approximately nine miles from the pro

location. Petition Nos. 98–4, 98–7, 98–17. The meteorologic

obtained from a National Weather Service station at the Red

ambient air quality data for PM1 0 w e re collected from AQM

monitoring station in Redding. The petitioners argue that bo

ent PM1 0 data and the meteorological data from Redding ar

sentative of site conditions. The response to comments doc

cate that the data re p resentativeness issue was raised gener
VOLUME 8

commenters complained that the Redding data were not re p resentative

they did not provide supporting reasons. More detailed arguments 

p rovided in the petitions for re v i e w .

In particular, petitioners point out that the ambient PM10 data ar

likely to be representative because Redding is a well-populated area 

paved roads and advanced development. In contrast, the proposed K

site is in a rural area, where roads are largely unpaved, and dust is 

generated from agriculture and construction activities. Petition No. 

at 16. With regard to meteorological data, petitioners claim that the 

posed Knauf site is surrounded by complex terrain and that meteor

ical conditions at the height of the stack are less stable than those m

ured at the airport. Id. at 17–18.

AQMD’s response to comments regarding the ambient PM10 data 

as generic as the original comments received. AQMD noted that the 

Manual permits use of existing ambient air quality data in lieu of re

ing pre-construction monitoring on-site. RTC at 23. AQMD also ass

that use of the ambient PM10 data from Redding provide a conserv

estimate of ambient PM10 conditions at the site. Id.; AQMD 98–7 Res

3. In responding to the more specific allegations in the petition

review, AQMD states that ambient PM10 levels in Redding are expect

be greater than those near the Knauf site because sources of PM10 

Redding are more densely concentrated. AQMD 98–7 Resp. at 3.

As for the meteorological data, AQMD stated in the response to 

ments documents that “[t]he meteorological data from the Redding ai

was selected because it was the most complete and accurate data 

able in the format required for modeling.” RTC at 24; see also RTPH 

(“National Weather Service data available from the nearest airport 

vides the most complete surface data in the format needed to do 

modeling * * *.”). AQMD also provided the opinion that even if o

meteorological data were available, the results of the air quality an

would be the same as when the Redding data were used. RTC at 2

response to the petitions for review, AQMD asserts that in light of the 

tance from the Redding airport to the site, the meteorological data 

Redding “is not expected to reflect radical differences in wind sp

temperatures, and inversion tendencies from that at the project 

AQMD 98–7 Resp. at 3.

38 Our understanding of the issues raised below is based on the comment ex

included in the RTC and RTPH. The petitioners who raised the data issues to the 

have not suggested that the comment excerpts are inaccurate or incomplete.
purchase ambient air monitors and establish a meteorologic

the site. Permit ¶¶ 24, 25. The ambient monitors will measu

PM2.5 concentrations during construction and for at least two 

construction. Permit ¶ 24; RTC at 23; Knauf Resp. at 40. No t

operation of the meteorological station is provided. Howeve

these permit conditions are relevant to the issue of pre-cons

acquisition for use in the air quality analysis. Post-construct

ing is governed by a separate regulatory provision and is gen

the discretion of the permitting authority. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(m

re Valero Gathering Co., 1 E.A.D. 828, 829 (Adm’r 1983) (find

in PSD permit for failure to require post-construction monito

The choice of appropriate data sets for the air quality a

issue largely left to the discretion of the permitting auth

Hibbing Taconite Co., 2 E.A.D. 838, 851 (Adm’r 1989) (up

mitting authority’s exercise of discretion in using existing amb

rather than requiring on-site monitoring). Guidance docume

sentativeness of data identify important factors to consider i

the need for on-site data collection, but do not dictate exact

site data must be used rather than data from nearby locations

Redding data in this case. We will be inclined to support 

authority’s technical judgment on this issue, provided that it

adequately justified in the record.

AQMD’s response to comments regarding data repres

provided general justifications for issues that had been raised 

al manner. This is all that was required, given that the more d

ulation of the issues as presented in the petitions for review 

was not submitted to AQMD during the public comment per

ulations governing the permitting process require persons to 

reasonably available arguments supporting their position by 

the public comment period * * *.” 40 C.F.R. § 124.13. In this c

39 In responding to the more specific concerns included in the petiti

AQMD states that PM10 sources are more densely concentrated in Redding 

As such, the ambient PM10 data from Redding should reflect higher PM10 b

centrations than actually exist at the site. Since background conditions ar

account in determining whether Knauf’s proposed emissions satisfy CAA re

of the Redding data actually provides an additional margin of safety for fu

at the site. 

As to the use of Redding meteorological data, the National Weather Se

Redding is not far from the site and can provide a number of years of data 

ety of meteorological conditions can be considered in the course of air qu

Continued
VOLUME 8

AQMD below.39

We are not convinced that AQMD’s decision to exempt Knauf 

collection of pre-construction, on-site ambient air data or meteorolo

data was clearly erroneous or implicated an important policy i

Therefore we are denying review of this issue. 

(b) Air Quality Modeling: Demonstrating Complianc

with NAAQS and PSD Increments

An air quality analysis provides predictions of pollutant conce

tions in ambient air by modeling the impacts of new emissions fr

proposed source. The air quality analysis looks at two specific endp

First, the analysis must determine whether emissions from a prop

source will cause or contribute to a violation of NAAQS. NAAQS 

maximum ambient air concentrations for certain pollutants that a

nationwide. See supra note 2. The standards are set at levels tha

Administrator of EPA has determined are necessary to protect the p

health and welfare. 40 C.F.R. § 50.2(b). 

Second, the analysis must calculate whether the proposed emis

will be within the applicable PSD increment. A PSD increment is the 

imum allowable increase in pollutant concentration over a baseline 

centration. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(c). The PSD increment concept 

designed to accommodate economic growth and increased poll

associated with such growth while placing limits on new pollu

Significant deterioration is prevented if the amount of new pollution 

the proposed source, in conjunction with pollution from certain ex

sources, is less than the amount permitted by the PSD increment. See 

Manual at C.3.

The PSD regulations state that emissions from a proposed so

may not cause or contribute to a violation of either the NAAQS o

PSD increment. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(k). Compliance with this requireme

demonstrated through the air quality analysis. If, after taking into acc

emissions from a proposed source and emissions from certain ex

Petitioners mention complex terrain in the vicinity of the site. The permit applicatio

refers to complex terrain. Permit App. at 32. While acknowledging the existence o

plex terrain, AQMD concludes that the meteorological conditions at the site are not e

ed to be radically different from those measured in Redding. Petitioners have not s

why either of these explanations is clearly erroneous, particularly given the broad 

tion afforded the permitting authority in selecting appropriate data for use in the ai

ity analysis.
the NAAQS, and the increase in concentration for that pol

than the applicable PSD increment, the permit applicant has 

demonstrated compliance. NSR Manual at C.51.

Several petitions for review raise issues relating to th

analysis that was performed for the proposed Knauf facility 

AQIA). One petitioner specifically claims that certain elem

AQIA do not comport with EPA’s guidance. Petition No. 98–

also question whether pollutant contributions from other so

vicinity of the proposed Knauf facility were considered. P

98–4, 98–7, 98–17. Two petitioners make general argume

Knauf permit conditions do not ensure that there will be n

deterioration of air quality. See Petition Nos. 98–3, 98–17. O

argues generally that expected emissions are not compati

surrounding area. Petition No. 98–10. We consider all of the

in looking at the adequacy of the modeling in Knauf’s AQIA 

clusions regarding NAAQS and PSD increment compliance.

E PA’s guidance on PSD air quality analyses suggests that 

analysis be conducted in order to determine whether a full i

sis is necessary. NSR Manual at C.24. The preliminary analys

els the pollutant concentrations attributable to the proposed 

p reliminary analysis does not take into account existing amb

ity or pollutant contributions from other sourc e s . I d . Thus, the 

monitoring data discussed in the previous section are not us

liminary analysis. The results of the preliminary analysis are 

so-called “significant ambient impact levels.” 4 0 I d . If a mode

concentration from the proposed source exceeds the releva

ambient impact level, a full impact analysis must be conduct

The significant ambient impact levels relevant to this d

presented in Table 2:

TABLE 2

Significant Ambient Impact Levels for PM10

Pollutant Significant Ambient Impa

PM10 (24–hour average) 5 g/m3

PM10 (annual average) 1 g/m3

40 Significant ambient impact levels are defined in the NSR Manual and 

ically in the context of the air quality analysis. See NSR Manual at C.28. S

ent impact levels are just one set of several standards in the PSD program 

of the word “significant.” These levels are not to be confused with the sig

that govern PSD review generally. See, e.g., supra notes 3, 6.
VOLUME 8

NSR Manual at C.28. Knauf’s AQIA predicts ambient air conce

tions of PM10 in excess of the PM10 (24-hour) significant ambient im

level. The AQIA does not predict any ambient air concentration

excess of the PM10 (annual) significant ambient impact level. Permit 

at 33, app. C. Thus, Knauf was required to conduct a full impact a

sis for 24-hour ambient impacts of PM10.

41

Knauf’s full impact analysis for PM10 is documented in its p

application and in a letter from Knauf’s consultant addressing se

AQIA questions raised during the public comment period. Letter 

Joseph Macak, Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., to Michael Kussow, S

County AQMD (Feb. 17, 1998) (“Mostardi-Platt letter”). Knauf mod

PM10 impacts out to a 48-kilometer radius around the proposed plan

Permit App. at 42. The maximum PM10 (24-hour) concentration was 

eled at approximately 11 g/m3 and is predicted to occur approxim

1.2 kilometers (3⁄4 of a mile) from the plant site. Permit App. at ap

This location is the top of a hill west of the proposed site. See, 

Mostardi-Platt letter at 4, 5; RTC at 12; RTPH at 5, 18.

There are also at least two figures in the record illustrating all 

dicted PM10 (24-hour) significant ambient impacts (i.e., concentra

above 5 g/m3) attributable to the Knauf plant. Mostardi-Platt 

Figure 1; Revised EIR Figure 4–1. These two figures are presented in 

ferent formats and use different scales. However, they appear to pr

substantially the same information, and both support Knauf’s AQIA 

clusions. Both figures indicate that the most distant point at which 

PM10 (24-hour) significant ambient impact level of 5 g/m3is predict

occur is not far beyond the location of predicted maximum impact 

the top of the hill west of the site). The record does not indicate ex

how far the edge of the 5 g/m3 area is from the plant, but our im

cise calculations from these two figures place it at less than 2 kilom

(approximately 1.2 miles) from the proposed site.42

41 Although only the PM10 (24-hour) significant ambient impact level is predicted 

exceeded, Knauf nonetheless conducted a full impact analysis for both 24-hour and 

al PM10 impacts. See Permit App. at 33–36.

42 An exhibit to Petition No. 98-7 suggests that the most distant point at which th

(24-hour) significant ambient impact level of 5 g/m3 occurs is approximately 2.7 k

ters (1.7 miles) from the site. Petition No. 98-7 Ex. C (Draft EIR Figure 5–7, annota

petitioner). This exhibit is an earlier version of Revised EIR Figure 4–1. The exhib

plied by the petitioner is an illustration of predicted PM10 (24-hour) impacts from th

posed Knauf facility without use of a WEP. The updated figure in the Revised EIR 

trates predicted ambient PM10 (24-hour) concentrations from WEP controlled emissi
occur is used to define an impact area. NSR Manual a

remaining elements of an air quality analysis are carried ou

defined impact area. An impact area is defined as “a circula

radius extending from the source to (1) the most distant 

approved dispersion modeling predicts a significant ambien

occur, or (2) a modeling receptor distance of 50 km, which

Id. Using this definition and our own calculation of the dis

farthest point at which a PM10 (24-hour) concentration of 5 

occur, the impact area for the proposed Knauf facility is a 

radius extending less than 2 kilometers from the facility.

Petitioner 98–7 complains that Knauf did not define a 

impact area” in accordance with EPA’s guidance in the N

Petition No. 98–7 at 7. In response, Knauf and AQMD point 

tration of significant impact areas in the Mostardi-Platt letter. 

Resp. at 2; Knauf Resp. at 49–50. It appears that the parties a

term “significant impact area” differently. Petitioner 98–7 is us

to refer to the “impact area” as defined in the NSR Manual an

above. The use of the term significant impact area in the M

letter refers only to those specific areas where Knauf’s pred

will exceed a significant ambient impact level. The Mostard

does not refer to the circular area surrounding the plant site

ence in terminology makes for some confusion in parsing 

and responses on AQIA issues, but has no impact on the m

underlying objections. 

It is true that Knauf did not supply a figure depictin

a rea labeled “impact area.” However, this failure does no

the default impact area of 50 kilometers should be applied 

ed by the petitioner. Petition No. 98–7 at 7–8. By provi

indicating the most distant point at which the signific

impact level is predicted to occur, Knauf did define the di

an impact area in accordance with the NSR Manual m

M o re o v e r, Knauf’s AQIA proceeds to analyze overall air qu

within the impact area. 

The next step in the full impact analysis involves modeli

from sources in addition to the proposed new source who

may affect the air quality within the impact area. NSR 

C.30–C.31. In this case, Knauf modeled the emissions from a 

lumber mill located 1.4 miles from the proposed site. Permi

Mostardi-Platt letter at 3. The Sierra Pacific mill is either withi
VOLUME 8

way, the decision to model the Sierra Pacific emissions shows pru

judgment. As a matter of discretion, a permitting authority may re

m u l t i - s o u rce modeling as part of the air quality analysis. In re EcoEléc

L . P. , 7 E.A.D. 56, 65–66 (EAB 1997). Knauf determined that a PM10 

centration of 1.77 g/m3 attributable to Sierra Pacific is predicted to o

at the location of Knauf’s own maximum impact. Permit App. at 36. T

the Sierra Pacific analysis demonstrates that PM10 contributions from 

sources that may affect Knauf’s impact area were incorporated into 

air quality analysis.

Petitioners claimed that other nearby sources should also be taken 

account in order to assess the cumulative emissions impact in the 

Petition Nos. 98–4, 98–7. Each of the sources identified by petition

located well outside the <2 kilometer impact area. Nonetheless

M o s t a rdi-Platt letter provides a further analysis of multi-source emiss

The analysis predicts PM1 0 impacts from Knauf and four other sourc

addition to Sierra Pacific. Mostardi-Platt letter at 3, 8. A figure show

called significant impact areas (“SIAs”), i . e ., a reas with PM1 0 (24-hour) 

centrations greater than 5 g / m3, from each of the modeled sou

M o s t a rdi-Platt Figure 3. None of the SIAs overlap with the SIA for the K

facility. Id. The Mostardi-Platt figures provide helpful illustrations an

responsive to the comments requesting additional multi-source mode

The final element of an air quality analysis is to determine wh

the predicted emissions from a new source, in conjunction with 

sions from other sources impacting the impact area, would cause or 

tribute to a violation of the NAAQS or the applicable PSD increm

Knauf presented this analysis in its permit application. Permit App. a

For the NAAQS analysis, the maximum modeled PM10 concentr

from Knauf was added to the background ambient air concentr

obtained from monitoring data and the modeled PM10 contribution 

Sierra Pacific. The total PM10 impact was compared to the PM10 NAAQ

illustrated in Table 3:

43 We have estimated the radius of the impact area at less than 2 kilometers, 

would put the Sierra Pacific mill just outside the Knauf impact area. However, we 

acknowledged that our calculation is imprecise, and it may be that the Sierra Pacific 

actually falls within the impact area. 
PM10 (24–hour) NAAQS Compliance Demonstrati

Maximum Maximum PM10 (24–hour) Total PM 

PM10 (24–hour) Ambient Contribution (24–hour)

Concentration Background from Sierra Impact

from Knauf Concentration Pacific

11.42 60 1.77 73.2 

* All concentrations presented in g/m3.

As 73.2 is less than 150, the air quality analysis adequa

strates compliance with the PM10 NAAQS.44

The PSD increment analysis involved adding the maxim

PM10 concentration from Knauf to the estimated contribution 

Pacific45 and comparing the total to the PM10 (24-hour) PSD 

shown in Table 4:

TABLE 4

PM10 (24–hour) PSD Increment Compliance Demons

Maximum PM10 PM10 (24–hour) Combined 

(24–hour) Contribution from PM10 

Concentration from Sierra Pacific (24–hour) 

Knauf Impact 

11.42 1.77 13.19 

* All concentrations presented in g/m3.

44 The AQIA conclusions in the permit application also compare the 

hour) impact to California’s ambient air quality standard for PM10 (24-hour)

dard is 50 g/m3, stricter than the federal NAAQS. The total PM10 (24-hour) 

g/m3is greater than 50 g/m3 and therefore does not demonstrate comp

California standard. To the extent that petitioners’ generalized claims rega

tion of air quality are in reference to the state air standards, we note that 

state air standards is beyond our jurisdiction. The scope of the Board’s revi

federal PSD issues. In re West Suburban Recycling and Energy Ctr., 6 E.A.D

1996). See discussion infra Section II.C.

45 Knauf and AQMD identified Sierra Pacific as the only other facility 

have consumed PSD increment. Permit App. at 34. None of the petitioners s

lenged this determination.
VOLUME 8

ment for PM10 is satisfied. This analysis supports the conclusion tha

permit limits will prevent significant deterioration of air quality.

In sum, we find that Knauf’s AQIA adequately demonstrates com

ance with the PM10 NAAQS and PSD increments. We therefore decli

grant review of petitioners’ challenges to the AQIA.

3. Impacts on Class I and Class II Areas

All areas subject to PSD review are classified as Class I, II o

“Class I areas are areas of special national or regional value from a 

ral, scenic, recreational, or historic perspective.” NSR Manual at 

These areas must be specifically designated as Class I. Several nat

parks and wilderness areas were designated Class I areas by statute. 

§ 162(a), 42 U.S.C. § 7472(a). All other areas within the PSD program 

attainment areas or unclassifiable areas) were originally classified as 

II. CAA § 162(b), 42 U.S.C. § 7472(b). Class II areas are designe

“accommodate normal well-managed industrial growth.” NSR Manu

C.5. It is possible to reclassify a Class II area to Class III in order to 

vide for a larger amount of development than Class I or Class II w

permit. It is also possible to reclassify a Class II area to Class I, a m

which restricts the amount of permissible new pollution.

This case involves issues relating to Class I and Class II areas

site for the proposed Knauf facility and the surrounding area are Cl

areas. However, Knauf’s permit application identified seven Class I 

within 160 kilometers (100 miles) of the proposed plant site. Permit 

at 42–43. The closest Class I area is the Yolla-Bolly Middle Eel Nat

Wilderness (“Yolla-Bolly”), located 50 kilometers from Knauf’s site

Closer to the site are three national recreation areas (“NRAs”).46 The N

are all Class II areas. 

The PSD review process contains special procedures and provi

to protect Class I areas. See In re Commonwealth Chesapeake Cor

E.A.D. 764, 768 (EAB 1997); In re Hadson Power 14-Buena Vista, 4 E

258, 260–61 (EAB 1992). Class I areas receive special attention in the 

review process largely because Federal Land Managers (“FLMs”) 

required to receive notice of PSD permit applications for facilities w

emissions may affect a Class I area. CAA § 165(d)(2)(A), 42 U

46 The closest NRA is Shasta Lake NRA, located approximately 4 miles northwest 

proposed site. Final EIR at 3-45. Whiskeytown NRA is approximately 8 miles southw

the proposed site. Id. Trinity NRA is further removed from the proposed site in the 

west direction. 
relating to Class I areas are raised with the permitting autho

may comment on any aspect of a permit application, althou

primary focus is on visibility impacts and other air quality re

of Class I areas. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(p); NSR Manual at E.20. 

permit decision is made by the permitting authority, but the 

dations of an FLM are important and must be adequately a

the permitting authority when issuing a permit decision.

As a matter of policy, EPA considers that proposed s

affect” a Class I area if the source will locate within 10

(approximately 62 miles) of any such area. NSR Manu

Proposed sources within this range may be required to perfo

of analyses relating to the Class I area. Possible analyses in

quality analysis and a visibility impact analysis. Id. at E.16, E

One petitioner claims that AQMD and Knauf failed to 

assess air quality impacts for the five Class I areas located wit

meters of the proposed facility.48 Petition No. 98–7. The petit

that Knauf’s AQIA was inadequate because it only modeled 

trations to a distance of 48 kilometers from the site. The cl

area, Yolla-Bolly, is located 50 kilometers away. Id. at 5. AQM

that the predicted PM10 concentrations at 48 kilometers were 

g/m3. PM10 concentrations will further decrease with distanc

Thus, AQMD concluded that PM10 impacts in Yolla-Bolly a

Class I areas attributable to the Knauf facility would not b

AQMD 98–7 Resp. at 1. AQMD also represented that the FLM

ious Class I areas have accepted the conclusion that the pro

ty will not impact Class I areas. Id.; RTC at 10. 

We find that AQMD’s conclusion regarding the Class I 

ported by the record and EPA’s guidance. As discussed in 

section, if an air quality analysis shows that emissions from 

source will not exceed significant ambient impact levels in 

that showing is generally sufficient to demonstrate comp

NAAQS and PSD increment requirements. This same conc

used in determining whether a proposed source may have 

impact on a Class I area. The NSR Manual suggests a signific

47 The NSR Manual also makes clear that under certain circumstanc

here, the phrase “may affect” may be interpreted to apply to sources at a 

than 100 kilometers from a Class I area. NSR Manual at E.16.

48 Knauf’s permit application identified seven Class I areas within 100 m

posed site. Of the seven, five are within 100 kilometers of the site. The petiti

focuses only on those areas within the 100-kilometer radius mentioned in th
VOLUME 8

at C.28, E.16–E.17. Here, the air quality analysis shows that conce

tions of PM10 attributable to Knauf emissions are less than 1 g/m3 

before reaching any Class I areas. Since concentrations of PM10 will 

decrease with additional distance, any PM10 concentrations in the C

areas that are attributable to the proposed facility will necessarily be 

than the significant ambient impact level. The AQIA modeling is 

quate to demonstrate that there will be no significant air quality im

in Class I areas. Review is therefore denied on petitioner’s challen

the AQIA for Class I areas.

Class II areas are not subject to the special review procedures 

requirements for Class I areas. Nonetheless in this case, the 

involved in the PSD review process for the Class I areas also made 

ommendations regarding the Class II NRAs. As a result additional a

ses were conducted in relation to the NRAs. 

Petitioners argue that the emissions allowed pursuant to Knauf’s 

mit will cause adverse impacts in Class II areas. Petition Nos. 98–4, 

98–17. The petitioners seem to be primarily concerned with visi

impacts in the Whiskeytown, Shasta Lake, and Trinity NRAs.50 In resp

ing to public comments regarding the NRAs, AQMD noted that the 

for the National Park Service had requested that an impact analys

conducted for the three NRAs. RTC at 10, 14; RTPH at 12. A visi

analysis was performed and documented in the Final EIR. RTPH a

see Final EIR at 3–45 to 3–51. 

A visibility analysis is one of the “additional impact analyses” re q 

by 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(o).5 1 The regulation, however, does not specify 

49 We emphasize that the use of significant ambient impact levels for Class I are

the 1 g/m3value in particular are not regulatory requirements. However, as a ma

policy, EPA has applied the concept of a significant ambient impact level to Class I 

Values other than 1 g/m3 have also been used or proposed. For example, one polic

ument references a level of 1.35 g/m3for PM10 (24-hour average). Memorandum 

John Calcagni, Air Quality Management Division, to Thomas J. Maslany, Air, Radia

Toxics Division (Sept. 10, 1991). A more recent regulatory proposal suggests a sign

ambient impact level of 0.3 g/m3for PM10 (24-hour average). 61 Fed. Reg. 38,250, 

(July 23, 1996). AQMD’s conclusion that PM10 impacts from the proposed Knauf 

would not be significant in Class I areas is supported by any of these values.

50 One petitioner does not mention the NRAs but argues that AQMD did not asse

ibility impairment in the local area generally. Petition No. 98–7.

51 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(o) is one of the general PSD requirements that applies to all 

regardless of classification. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(i)(3) (requirements of 40 

Continued
E PA guidance outlines a visibility screening process and 

which models to use. NSR Manual at D.6, D.7. A visibility 

involve three levels of scre e n i n g . I d . Each level is more comp

specific than the previous. The Level 1 analysis typically util

CREEN model and a large number of worst-case default va

i n t roduces more site-specific data into the VISCREEN mode

analysis is the most detailed and re q u i res special visibility m

The visibility analysis documented in the Final EIR invo

and Level 2 VISCREEN analyses. The screening criteria fo

analysis were exceeded, so a Level 2 analysis was performed

2 analysis concluded that impacts from the proposed fac

exceed visibility criteria for the Trinity or Whiskeytown NRA

at 3–48, 3–49. The analysis also predicted that visibility cri

exceeded at Shasta Lake NRA during 8% of daylight hours. 

3–51; AQMD 98–5 Resp. at 2. A Level 3 screening was no

AQMD concludes that these visibility impacts are less than 

AQMD 98–7 Resp. at 3. Notably, the FLM who initially reque

ibility analysis for the Class II NRAs did not submit further co

the Level 2 screening was performed. RTPH at 12.

The VISCREEN analysis documented in the Final EIR an

by AQMD satisfies the regulatory requirement to analy

impairment to visibility. The PSD regulations do not speci

impairment levels or other mandatory criteria for addressi

This is one of the many determinations in the permitting pro

appropriately left to the reasoned judgment and expertise o

ting authority. The record adequately documents the visib

and provides a rational conclusion regarding the results of t

Petitioners have not demonstrated that the visibility analysi

AQMD’s interpretation of the results of the analysis are clearl

§§ 52.21(j)–(r) apply to major stationary sources that would be constructe

areas). Therefore, we reject Knauf’s argument that a “formal visibility 

required to be performed in Class II areas.” Knauf Resp. at 40. It is true th

gram involves more rigorous requirements as to visibility impacts in Class I 

§ 52.21(p)(3), but the special treatment for Class I areas does not negate th

of section 52.21(o) as to all areas. 

52 As evidence of her claim that there will be adverse impacts in the N

98-4 submitted copies of the data sets from the Level 1 screening for th

NRA. Reply 98-4. The Final EIR acknowledges that the Level 1 screenin

exceeded for the Whiskeytown and Shasta Lake NRAs. Final EIR at 3-46. B

2 screening was subsequently conducted, we do not consider petitioner’s d

as evidence of the final results of the visibility analysis.
VOLUME 8

impacts in Class I and Class II areas. We find that the administr

record adequately addresses the issues presented by the petitioners 

there is no evidence of clear error or important policy considerations 

warrant our review.

4. Adequacy of Emission Estimates

Multiple petitioners raise issues pertaining to estimates of emis

from the proposed facility. One petitioner challenges the accuracy of 

eral emission estimates included in the permit application. Petition 

98–7. Another petitioner requests a specific estimate of emissions 

equipment malfunctions. Petition No. 98–16. A third petitioner q

tioned whether zero emissions are possible and is dissatisfied 

AQMD’s response to that inquiry. Petition No. 98–20.

The issues raised in Petition No. 98–7 re g a rding accuracy of emi

estimates were all adequately addressed in AQMD’s response to com

documents and further explained in AQMD and Knauf’s responses t

petition. AQMD 98–7 Resp. at 3–4; Knauf Resp. at 52–53. Review is t

f o re denied as to these issues. We will not address each of petitio

contentions in detail, but make a few observations on two of the iss

First, petitioner challenges the basis for expected PM emissions 

the PM emission limit on the glass melting furnace. Petition No. 98

19–20. As support for this objection, petitioner points to PM emi

rates for glass furnaces published in the proposed National Emi

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) for Wool Fiber

Manufacturing, 62 Fed. Reg. 15,228 (Mar. 31, 1997). The glass fur

emission rates discussed in the NESHAP preamble are ostensibly h

than the emission rate planned for the new Knauf facility. The prop

NESHAP discusses several varieties of glass furnaces, but with rega

cold top electric furnaces (the type of furnace to be used in this p

the preamble notes that the design of the furnace limits particulate 

sions, and add-on control devices are not expected to be necessa

meet the proposed NESHAP standard. Id. at 15,239. Nonetheless

Knauf permit requires use of two baghouse dust collectors as an ad

pollution control on the glass melting furnace. Permit ¶ 37. The co

nation of the lower polluting furnace and the add-on control techno

explains the low emission estimate for this source.

The second issue raised in Petition No. 98–7 relating to emissio

petitioner’s claim that the emission estimate for dust collectors in 

packaging area is unsupported. Petition No. 98–7 at 20–21. Alth
sion limit for the packaging area dust collectors, AQMD chan

in the final permit. The permit now allows no outside emissi

packaging area. Permit ¶ 60. The dust collectors may o

indoors in compliance with state occupational safety and 

dards. Id. Thus, the emission source that was the subject o

objection has been eliminated. 

Petition No. 98–16 seeks estimates of emissions durin

equipment malfunction. Petition No. 98–16 at 6. Petitione

issue during the public hearing, and AQMD responded by ref

permit condition that governs periods of upsets, breakdow

functions. RTPH at 16; Permit ¶ 7. This condition requires c

malfunctioning equipment within specific time frames and 

re q u i rement to report such problems to AQMD. However, the 

dition does not specifically address petitioner’s concern, whic

the amount of emissions that may occur during a period of 

The answer to petitioner’s question is in the permit emissio

P e rmit ¶¶ 32, 42, 53, and 60. These conditions indicate th

allowable emissions from the plant. There are no exception

mit limits for periods of equipment malfunction, breakdown, 

Petition No. 98–20 requests an answer to the questio

emissions possible?” The petitioner made the same inquiry 

public hearing and was dissatisfied with AQMD’s respo

apparently viewed the question as an implicit request to set 

limit at zero. AQMD therefore responded to the commen

“[t]he commentor offers no support for the suggested zero em

dard.” RTPH at 2. AQMD continues by describing the BACT 

tion for the proposed facility. Id. We do not interpret petiti

tion as requesting a zero emission standard. It seems that th

may simply have wanted a better understanding of the typ

being proposed and its associated emissions. It appears tha

to petitioner’s question is, no, zero emissions are not poss

type of facility. Despite the misunderstanding, we nonethel

Petition No. 98–20 does not warrant review. The petition do

clear error and does not raise an important policy considera

In sum, review is denied as to each of the issues relating 

estimates in Petition Nos. 98–7, 98–16, and 98–20.
VOLUME 8

A number of petitioners assert that Knauf ultimately intends to 

a much larger facility than the one described in the permit applica

Petition Nos. 98–6, 98–16, 98–17. These petitioners are concerned 

after Knauf builds the permitted facility, it will seek to increase pro

tion and add additional manufacturing lines. Petitioners believe 

Knauf should be required to apply for a PSD permit for the full 

build-out at this time. Petition No. 98–16 at 3.

In response to these concerns, AQMD modified a permit cond

so as to explicitly prohibit expansion of production beyond 195 

of fiberglass/day. Permit ¶ 3. This condition also states that a new 

application will be re q u i red should Knauf seek to increase pro d u c 

I d . In the response to comments, AQMD explained that a new 

p e rmit and CEQA review is re q u i red before any expansion wi

p e rmitted. RTC at 5, 13.

The express prohibition in the permit is fully adequate to ad

petitioners’ concerns. A permit will be required before construction 

commence on any major modification to the plant. The purpose of a 

PSD review process for major modifications of facilities like the prop

Knauf plant is to allow issues such as BACT and the air quality an

to be revisited before any expansion takes place. The public particip

requirements are also applicable to PSD modification applications

fact that an existing facility is requesting a PSD permit confers no 

tlement to receipt of the permit.

Requiring a PSD review of potential expansion plans (that ma

may not ever be implemented) would circumvent several impo

aspects of the PSD program. The PSD regulations require that a pe

tee begin construction within 18 months of receiving approval to 

struct (i.e., a final PSD permit). 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(r)(2). If constructi

not commenced within that time period, the permit becomes invalid

Therefore, even if Knauf were to include potential expansion plans 

permit application now, any permit approving such plans would bec

invalid unless Knauf began work on the expansion within 18 month

addition, a benefit of conducting a permitting process for an expan

at a later date is that advances in air pollution control technology and 

53 Section 52.21(r)(2) provides for extensions to the construction deadline if th

mitting authority agrees that an extension is justified. It would be disingenuous to 

use this extension provision merely to preserve an old permit decision for a possible 

modification to the facility. It is important that PSD review occur contemporaneousl

the planned modification.
that time. In re New York Power Auth., 1 E.A.D. 825, 826 (

(the time limits in section 52.21(r)(2) are to ensure that facilit

structed in accordance with reasonably current pollution c

dards and on the basis of current information regarding the 

pollution in the locality where the facility is to be located.”)

We deny review of the issues pertaining to a potential e

petitioners have not demonstrated that AQMD’s response t

cerns was clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review.

6. Adequacy of AQMD’s Response to Comments

Many of the petitioners express dissatisfaction with AQ

tion to their concerns and responses to their comments. On

claims that AQMD did not take the public’s comments serio

AQMD made only limited changes in the final permit. Petitio

The regulation governing response to comments in a P

ing requires that the permitting authority “[b]riefly describe 

to all significant comments.” 40 C.F.R. § 124.17(a)(2). Sign

regulation does not require a permitting authority to make ch

permit as part of this process. In re NE Hub Partners, L.P., 7 

583 (EAB 1998). Of course, a permitting authority may use 

ments as a basis for changing the permit, but we do not ju

quacy of the response to comments based on the number 

made in the permit.

Nonetheless, we note that AQMD modified 31 of the 6

in the draft permit. AQMD 98–6 Resp. at 1. Several of these c

made as a direct result of public comments. See, e.g., RTC 

12, 13, 18–22. We consider the adequacy of AQMD’s respo

cific issues raised by petitioners in conjunction with our d

those issues in this decision. However, we deny review of 

ized challenge to AQMD’s responsiveness based on the 

changes made to the permit.

C. Non-PSD Issues

Most of the remaining issues raised in the petitions fo

outside of the Board’s jurisdiction over PSD permit decisions. 

jurisdiction to review PSD permits extends to those issues d

ing to permit conditions that implement the federal PSD 
VOLUME 8

reliance on how the issue is framed in the petition for review, su

the basis upon which relief is being sought.

The Board does not have authority to review every environm

concern associated with this project. Rather, the Board is charged 

ensuring that AQMD’s PSD permit decision comports with the appli

requirements of the federal PSD program. Often, permitting autho

that issue PSD permit decisions pursuant to a delegation agreement 

EPA include requirements in a permit under both federal and state 

In this case, AQMD’s local rules are also a source for certain p

requirements. Including such provisions in a PSD permit is legitima

consolidates all relevant requirements in one document and obviate

need for separate federal, state, and local permits. However, “the B

will not assume jurisdiction over permit issues unrelated to the fe

PSD program.” In re West Suburban Recycling and Energy Ctr., L.

E.A.D. 692, 704 (EAB 1996); see also In re American Ref-Fuel Co., 2 E

280, 281 (Adm’r 1986) (matters not related to federally delegated 

authority are not reviewable under 40 C.F.R. § 124.19).

We refer to issues outside the Board’s PSD authority as “non-

issues. The term “non-PSD” is used as a matter of convenience for 

poses of this decision, and refers to issues that are not explicit req

ments of the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act or EPA’s impleme

regulations and have not been otherwise linked to the federal PSD 

gram in the context of this case.54 For virtually all of these issues, 

are other regulatory programs in place designed to address petitio

concerns and protect the public health. In many cases, avenues of re

are available for persons dissatisfied with a particular decision. We 

cuss each of the non-PSD issues that were preserved for review si

to explain why the issue is outside of the Board’s jurisdiction over 

appeals and to indicate, where appropriate, which other regulatory 

gram covers the issue.

1. Hazardous Air Pollutants and Unregulated Pollutants

Not all air pollutants are covered by the federal PSD review re q 

ments. For example, the PSD statutory provisions and regulations d

apply to hazardous air pollutants listed in CAA section 112(b). 

§ 112(b)(6), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b)(6). See In re Genesee Power Statio

E.A.D. 832, 849 (EAB 1993) (“emissions of * * * toxic substances are ex

54 Although the issues identified as “non-PSD” issues in this decision are not sub

review in the permit appeals process, permit conditions associated with these 

nonetheless become federally enforceable permit terms upon final approval of the p
Act.). Congress chose to control hazardous air pollutants un

pendent re q u i rements of section 112(b), and there f o re exempt

lutants from the PSD program. In addition, because PSD revie

applies only to pollutants subject to regulation under the CA

“ u n regulated pollutants” are also not subject to PSD re q u i re m 

Petitioners raise several issues relating to hazardous a

and/or unregulated pollutants. One petitioner objects to the 

mit because it does not provide for adequate monitoring o

pollutants. Petition No. 98–9. Another petitioner believes tha

sions should be analyzed to determine the composition an

emissions. Petition No. 98–16. The same petitioner claims tha

not adequately assess odor impacts from the proposed facilit

petitioner seeks additional permit conditions relating to emis

pirable glass fibers and requests that an ambient air analy

fibers be conducted. Petition No. 98–5. We must deny review 

these issues because control of hazardous and unregulated a

is not an explicit requirement of the federal PSD program a

ers have not shown that their concerns otherwise fall within 

of the federal PSD program.57

Even though these issues are “non-PSD” issues as de

AQMD nonetheless provided responses to these types of con

during the public comment period. For example, with rega

toring of hazardous air pollutants, AQMD pointed out tha

contains several conditions requiring emissions monitoring 

55 See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(i)(2) (“the requirements of paragraphs (j

this section [PSD requirements] shall apply * * * with respect to each poll

regulation under the Act.”).

56 There is one exception to the general rule that hazardous air pollut

ulated pollutants are not covered by the PSD program. It is legitimate to co

lated pollutants as a collateral environmental impact in the context of the 

nation. See supra Section II.B.1. If a technology has “an incidental effect o

decreasing emissions of unregulated pollutants,” consideration of that effec

into account in selecting BACT for a facility. Genesee Power, 4 E.A.D. at 84

North County Resource Recovery Assocs., 2 E.A.D. 229, 230 (Adm’r 1986). P

lenges regarding hazardous air pollutants and unregulated pollutants in t

claim error in the BACT determination on the basis of this exception.

57 The petitioners seeking review of issues pertaining to toxic air poll

city of emissions are raising issues that are subject to the section 112(b)(6) 

hazardous air pollutants. The issue of odor falls into the category of unregu

In re Texas Indus., Inc., 2 E.A.D. 277, 278 n.2 (Adm’r 1986). The issues pe

pirable fiberglass emissions also involve unregulated pollutants except to 

such emissions are regulated by the PM10 standards and emission limits.
VOLUME 8

formaldehyde and phenol. RTPH at 4; Permit ¶ 56. On the issue of 

city of emissions, AQMD pointed out that a toxicological assessme

PM10 emissions was presented in an appendix to the Draft EIR. RTP

15. Odor impacts are addressed through a permit condition that exp

ly prohibits “odorous chemical releases” that create a public nuis

“beyond the plant property boundaries[.]” Permit ¶ 22.e. Finally, 

regard to respirable fiberglass, AQMD notes that fiberglass particles 

component of PM10 emissions and will be controlled pursuant to the 

mit limits for PM10. RTC at 7.

The respirable fiberglass emissions at issue in this case are an e

ple of unregulated pollutants under the Clean Air Act. AQMD states 

the average diameter of glass fibers from the proposed Knauf facility 

be 3 to 4 micrometers. Smaller glass fibers (1 micrometer in diamet

less) are listed hazardous air pollutants.58 CAA § 112(b)(1), 42 U

§ 7412(b)(1). Although emissions of hazardous air pollutants are not 

ject to PSD review, they may be subject to regulation under the se

112(b) program. The glass fiber emissions expected from the prop

Knauf facility do not fall within either the PSD or the 112(b) prog

Despite the unregulated status of these emissions, the Knauf permit 

tains a requirement that Knauf finance an ambient air monitoring 

gram for respirable fiberglass particles. Permit ¶ 26. The monitoring 

gram will be conducted by AQMD. Id. In addition, the permit req

PM10 emissions to be tested for glass fiber content. Permit ¶ 29. These 

conditions are not requirements of the federal PSD program but will 

vide important information to AQMD and the public regarding fiber

emissions from the facility.

2. Use of Local Landfills for Waste Disposal

Many of the petitions for review include objections to Knauf’s 

to dispose of waste from plant operations at a local landfill. Petition 

98–5, 98–6, 98–12, 98–13, 98–14, 98–16, 98–17. The Final EIR states 

8 tons of solid waste per day are destined for landfill disposal. The w

stream will be composed of off-specification fiberglass, off-specific

raw materials, packaging and office wastes, and filter cake from 

WEPs. Final EIR at 3–59.

Petitioners’ concerns regarding the expected landfilling can be a

gated into two categories. First, petitioners are concerned about “t

58 Glass fibers are included in the category of “Fine mineral fibers” in CAA s

112(b)(1).
rials can be safely disposed of at either of the two sanitary (

ardous) landfills that have been identified as candidates f

Knauf waste. This is a classic non-PSD issue. Disposal pract

fills, including controls on what types of wastes may be hand

ticular landfill, are not governed by the Clean Air Act.59 AQM

that landfill disposal issues are governed by state law and 

tered by a state agency. RTPH at 5, 14, 16. Waste disposal is

to the proposed Knauf plant were analyzed during the cours

process, and many of the concerns raised by petitioners are 

the Final EIR. See Final EIR 3–59 to 3–63. We will not revi

quacy of the specific responses in the Final EIR because suc

beyond the scope of the PSD program and our review auth

Second, some of the petitioners raise concerns about 

for emissions from the landfill selected to receive Knauf w

basic disposal issues, landfill emissions may be an issue cov

PSD program. Emissions from a landfill used by Knauf mus

ered during the PSD review process if such emissions qua

ondary emissions” under the PSD regulations.60 Two petitio

cally allege that secondary emissions will result from dispos

waste at a landfill. Petition Nos. 98–5, 98–6. 

Secondary emissions are defined as:

[E]missions which would occur as a result of the 

struction or operation of a major stationary source 

but do not come from the major stationary source 

itself. Secondary emissions include emissions from 

off-site support facility which would not be constru

or increase its emissions except as a result of the 

struction or operation of the major stationary source 

40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(18). AQMD asserts, without explanati

landfills are not support facilities within the meaning 

52.21(b)(18). AQMD 98–5 Resp. at 2. Knauf relies upon AQ

mination on this issue. Knauf Resp. at 42. We do not know 

59 Hypothetically, waste issues might be legitimate subjects of PSD 

issues were raised in the context of the BACT determination as collateral 

impacts. See supra Section II.B.1 and note 56. We note, however, no suc

been raised in this case.

60 Secondary emissions are factored into the full impact analysis step 

ty analysis. Such emissions are quantified for purposes of determining N

increment compliance. See NSR Manual at C.25, C.34.
VOLUME 8

not subject to a blanket exemption from the secondary emissions re

tion. Therefore, it is possible that a landfill operation could constit

support facility. Whether a landfill is likely to generate emissions 

constitute secondary emissions depends on the particulars of the pr

under consideration.

In this case, petitioners believe that a substantial portion of the K

waste materials sent to a landfill will become airborne and create 

ondary emissions of respirable fiberglass and hazardous air polluta

See, e.g., Petition Nos. 98–5, 98–12. In essence, petitioners are arg

that landfill emissions will increase as a consequence of the Knauf p

and therefore such emissions must be factored into the PSD re

process. Knauf argues that emissions of fiberglass or chemicals in 

fiberglass waste “are only possible if the waste material is handled 

propriately at the landfill.” Knauf Resp. at 46. 

To identify secondary emissions for purposes of PSD review, 

guidance indicates that “secondary emissions must be specific, 

defined, quantifiable, and impact the same general area as the statio

source * * * undergoing review.” NSR Manual at A.18; see also 54 Fed. 

27,286, 27,289 (June 28, 1989).62 Although it is possible that Knauf’s w

materials could generate emissions at a landfill site, we see no evid

that such emissions would amount to a specific, well-defined, or q

tifiable source. Petitioners have not supported their claims that a 

stantial fraction of the wastes would become airborne.63 Such a r

would indicate a poor landfilling operation. See In re Genesee P

61 As discussed in the previous Section, respirable fiberglass and hazardous air 

tants are exempt or excluded from regulation pursuant to the PSD program. How

these substances may be components of PM10, which is subject to PSD review. Fo

poses of analyzing petitioners’ secondary emissions argument, we will treat petit

objection as an objection to the potential PM10 emissions from the landfill rather th

discrete components.

62 The four criteria for identifying secondary emissions (i.e., specific, well-de

quantifiable, and impacting the same general area as the source being permitted) 

apparently inadvertently omitted from the regulatory definition of “secondary emissio

40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(18) when the definition was amended in 1982. See 47 Fed. Reg. 2

27,561 (June 25, 1982). Although the omission has not yet been corrected, the criteri

been used in EPA’s discussion of secondary emissions in various policy statements, i

ing the NSR Manual and 1989 Federal Register preamble cited in the text. The four c

also appear in the companion definition of “secondary emissions” at 40 

§ 51.166(b)(18).

63 Petitioner 98-12 makes much of the tonnage reflected in the waste flow estim

argue that more than 25 tons/year of hazardous air pollutants will become airborne. 

Continued
emissions issue where petitioner did not show that waste ha

particular facility under consideration presented a real possi

ondary emissions).

More importantly, petitioners have not shown that po

sions from either of the candidate landfills will impact the s

area as the proposed Knauf plant. This criterion requires th

from the primary source (i.e., the proposed fiberglass pla

alleged secondary source (i.e., a landfill) overlap. In assess

overlap, we start with the significant impact areas for the pri

The significant PM10 impacts from the fiberglass plant are 

occur in the vicinity of the hill located approximately 2 kil

miles) west of the plant site. See supra Section II.B.2.b. T

states that the two candidate landfills are near Igo, Ca

Anderson, California, communities neighboring COSL, but s

south of the proposed Knauf site. Petitioners have articulat

about air quality in the vicinity of the landfills, but have not 

potential emissions from the landfills will impact the hill wes

posed site in COSL. Therefore, petitioners have not given 

believe that landfill emissions will impact the same genera

Knauf plant. For purposes of PSD review, we find that peti

not satisfied their burden of showing that the waste material

filled constitute a source of secondary emissions. 

In a related issue, two petitioners claim that ambient ai

should be conducted at the landfill before and after plant star

Nos. 98–5, 98–16. We must deny review of this item as a no

for reasons similar to those articulated above.64 The landfill to 

disposal of wastes from the proposed Knauf plant has not 

to constitute a source of secondary emissions. Thus, other 

ments, including ambient air monitoring and an air quality 

not apply to the landfill. In addition, to the extent that pet

98–12. As noted in the text, that assertion is unsupported by the petition

waste stream includes “raw, toxic, uncooked, chemicals” as the petition

chemicals will not necessarily become air pollutants. In addition, the 25 to

a reference to EPA’s hazardous air pollutant (“HAP”) program under sec

CAA. The HAP program addresses HAP emissions from all types of sources, 

fills. However, the HAP program under section 112 is entirely separate fro

and its operation is outside the scope of the Board’s jurisdiction. See supra 

64 Although this issue does not fall within the strictures of the PSD p

noted that air testing at a landfill could be ordered if the landfill is suspect

public nuisance. RTPH at 16-17. In addition, as one petitioner points out, A

ulate landfill emissions directly, under other regulatory authority. See Reply 
VOLUME 8

lutants, such matters are not requirements of the federal PSD pro

and petitioners have not established that the issues otherwise fall w

the purview of the federal PSD program.

We deny review of all issues pertaining to waste disposal, emiss

and air monitoring at local landfills.

3. PM10 Emission Offsets and Mitigation Measures

AQMD’s PSD permit decision requires Knauf to offset its PM10 

sions in accordance with the conditional use permit issued by C

Permit ¶ 21. The permit sets forth several PM10 mitigation options 

may be used to satisfy the offset requirement. One of the mitig

options involves paving selected dirt roads within approximately 2 

of the site. Permit ¶ 21.c. The particulars of the road paving plan an

PM10 mitigation options in general are the subject of objections from 

tiple petitioners. See Petition Nos. 98–3, 98–4, 98–6, 98–11, 98–16, 98

Permit condition 21 is an example of a requirement that is base

state or local rules and is not a requirement of the federal PSD prog

Emission offsets are not required in the PSD context. See In re Multit

Ltd. Partnership, 4 E.A.D. 24, 27 (EAB 1992) (denying review of a 

tion objecting to a permit condition on offsets because the Clean A

and the PSD regulations do not require such a condition). Under the 

program, air quality is primarily protected through the NAAQS and 

increment analyses. If anticipated emissions from a proposed facility 

demonstrate compliance with these air quality standards, there is no 

tional obligation to undertake mitigation measures or to obtain offs

65 One petitioner claims that the PM10 mitigation requirements are insufficient be

they will not prevent a violation of an air quality standard. Petition No. 98-16. We di

with the petitioner as far as the federal NAAQS and PSD increments are concerned. A

cussed supra Section II.B.2.b, the air quality analysis for the proposed Knauf facilit

demonstrates compliance with the applicable federal air quality standards. Complianc

demonstrated without taking into account the effect of PM10 mitigation. Additional 

ses illustrated the effect of PM10 mitigation, although such analyses were not requir

purposes of federal PSD review. See Mostardi-Platt letter at 4, 9, 13.

To the extent that the petitioner is referencing the state air quality standard for 

he is correct in noting that even the PM10 reductions achieved through expected miti

measures are not sufficient to prevent a violation of the state standard. Violations 

state standard are largely influenced by background PM10 levels that already e

California’s PM10 (24-hour) standard. See Permit App. at 33. The consequences of thi

ation must be addressed through state channels as we do not have authority to e

state standards. See supra note 44.
former requirement of AQMDs local rules. At the time Kna

its permit application, one of AQMD’s rules required emissio

new sources with the potential to emit a criteria pollutant su

a rate of more than 25 tons per year. AQMD Rule 2:1 § 302 (re

24, 1997); see Permit App. at 23. Thus, the permit applicati

that Knauf will offset its excess PM10 emissions at a ratio 

Permit App. at 37. The amount of offsets will actually exceed 

of predicted PM10 emissions from the facility.66 This offset 

was incorporated into the draft and final permit decisions 

the local rule had since been repealed.

The offset requirement and the mitigation options inc

PSD permit are not requirements of the federal PSD prog

have petitioners shown that these issues come within the pu

federal PSD program. Therefore, we deny review of issues 

the specific mitigation options, including the draft road pavi

4. Political Atmosphere in Shasta County

The issue raised most frequently by petitioners is that t

mit process was tainted by the political atmosphere in Sha

Several petitioners are adamant that the AQMD did not fulf

tions as the permitting authority in an objective and unbia

Petitioners believe that the AQMD was pressured to issue th

mit by local politicians. Petitioners are also unhappy with the 

cians, whom they blame for lowering local air quality stand

brokering a “done deal” with Knauf, prior to any signif

involvement. See Petition Nos. 98–4, 98–6, 98–9, 98–10, 98

98–18. Each of the petitioners present their own version of th

ical scene and its impact on this project. We address just a c

recurring themes.

Petitioners believe that AQMD could not conduct an obje

of the permit application because AQMD’s governing board 

of the same individuals who serve as the Shasta Coun

66 PM10 emissions from the proposed facility are not to exceed 191 

planned PM10 offsets amount to 200 tons/year.

67 By including petitioners’ allegations regarding local politics among 

issues in this decision, we are not suggesting that issues relating to the inte

mit process are never reviewable by the Board. In this case, however, th

plaints raised by the petitioners do not pertain to particular PSD requireme

nations but involve challenges to certain political decisions per se.
VOLUME 8

the effort to bring Knauf to Shasta County and offered the compa

number of inducements to encourage Knauf to locate in C

Petitioners provide anecdotes of instances in which the Supervisors m

statements in favor of the Knauf project or predicted certain outcom

permitting processes such as the PSD review. See, e.g., Petition Nos

15, 98–16, 98–18.

We do not doubt that the Supervisors acted as advocates for this 

ect. Very often, business and industrial development in a particular 

only occurs with facilitation and support from local politicians. 

politicians are ultimately accountable for their actions through the 

toral process. AQMD’s permit process is not necessarily tainted si

because local politicians who may have been working in support o

Knauf project also provide policy oversight as the AQMD board. The

no indication that any of the Supervisors were personally involved i

PSD review process. With the exception of specific areas where we 

found deficiencies, the administrative record demonstrates that 

AQMD fulfilled its obligations under the federal PSD regulations an

delegation agreement with EPA. The AQMD solicited and accepted 

lic comment on a wide range of issues and responded to those comm

by altering permit conditions and preparing written responses. Fin

one of the purposes of this appeal process is to ensure that perm

authorities with delegated PSD programs are implementing those 

grams in accordance with the CAA and PSD regulations. The Superv

have no direct or indirect influence over us and we have independ

considered each of the issues raised in the petitions for rev

Therefore, we do not believe that the identity in membership o

Supervisors and AQMD’s board is an issue that warrants our review

Another common complaint from petitioners is that the Superv

sitting as the AQMD board, voted to eliminate a local AQMD rule re

ing emission offsets.68 Petition Nos. 98–4, 98–6, 98–10, 98–15, 98–16

AQMD board made this decision pursuant to a state statute author

such action. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40918.5 (Deering 1997) (ref

to in the petitions as AB 3319). Of course we have no authority to re

an action of the California legislature. In addition, we will not review 

AQMD board’s decision to amend its local regulations when the su

of the amendment is beyond the scope of the federal PSD program, 

the case with AQMD’s offset provision. See supra Section I

Moreover, the AQMD board’s action in eliminating the offset rule di

even affect the permit decision in this case because AQMD noneth

included a permit condition calling for Knauf to provide PM10 offset

68 For a discussion of AQMD’s former offset rule, see supra Section II.C.3.
Shasta County politics on the permit review process becaus

raised do not pertain to requirements of the federal PSD pro

5. Issues Pertaining to California Environmental Qua

(“CEQA”) Review Procedures

Three petitioners raise issues that pertain to the CEQA r

proposed Knauf project. CEQA is a state law, and its requ

wholly separate from federal PSD review. One of the require

CEQA is preparation of an Environmental Impact Rep

Petitioners claim that the EIR is flawed and is the subject o

Petition Nos. 98–4, 98–6, 98–16. In addition, petitioners co

was inappropriate to use a “statement of overriding cons

approve the Knauf project. Petition Nos. 98–4, 98–6. Both of 

are related to the CEQA process rather than PSD review, and 

authority over them. Therefore, we must deny review of the

6. NEPA Review

One petitioner calls for preparation of an environmental 

ment or environmental assessment pursuant to the National En

Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370d. Petition No. 98–

PSD permit decisions are exempt from the environmental imp

re q u i rement in NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 124.9(b)(6); In re Kawaihae C

P ro j e c t , 7 E.A.D. 107, 129 (EAB 1997); E c o E l é c t r i c a , 7 E.A.D

(exemption from NEPA supplied by the Energy Supply and En

C o o rdination Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. § 793(c)(1)). The lack of a 

ronmental impact statement in this case does not implicate any 

re q u i rements. There f o re, review is denied on this issue.

69 It is not clear that the EIR litigation mentioned by petitioners is still a

the status of this litigation is irrelevant to our decision not to review this iss

on a PSD appeal is independent of resolution of any non-PSD issues (such 

ters) that are awaiting determination in another forum. See In re EcoEléctric

56, 76 (EAB 1997). Our decision speaks only to the PSD re q u i rements for thi

extent that other local, state, or federal re q u i rements are at issue, these m

independent of the PSD pro c e s s .

70 In several instances, AQMD referred to sections of the EIR in its re

ments documents and in its responses to the petitions for review. To the ex

has relied upon the EIR as support for its PSD decisions, we have consid

tions of the EIR cited by AQMD. However, we decline to undertake a who

the EIR as urged by petitioners.
VOLUME 8

The Knauf permit contains two limits on opacity of emissions

opacity of the exhaust from the glass melting furnace may not excee

for more than a three-minute period per hour. Permit ¶ 41. A similar 

dition limits the opacity of the exhaust from the main stack to 20%. P

¶ 47. Both conditions require an audible alarm in the plant control r

if opacity exceeds the permit limits. Id. 

One petitioner described these limits as allowing emission of “

opacity smoke” for “three minutes every hour of every day of the y

Petition No. 98–13. The petitioner questioned the means for enforcin

limits. Id. The same concern was raised during the public comment 

od. AQMD noted that the opacity limits in the permit are enforc

under state and federal law. RTPH at 14. In addition, laws prohib

public nuisances apply even if the opacity is within the permit limit

The petition for review expresses doubt as to whether a public 

sance remedy for obnoxious exhaust will be effective. This is an issu

enforcement and state law, both of which are beyond the scope o

Board’s review authority. The Board can review specific permit c

tions that might affect subsequent enforcement actions, such as mon

ing or reporting requirements, but the petitioner has not challenged 

conditions. EcoEléctrica, 7 E.A.D. at 70–71; In re Federated Oil & G

E.A.D. 722, 730 (EAB 1997). We deny review of the issue relate

enforcement of opacity limits because this issue is not a requireme

the federal PSD program and the petitioner has not shown that the 

otherwise falls within the purview of the federal PSD program.

8. Chemicals in Proximity to Populations

One petitioner urges our review of the proposed plant’s plans fo

and storage of chemicals in close proximity to civilian, student, and re 

populations. Petition No. 98–17. As AQMD explained in responding 

similar comment, basic chemical safety issues are not governed by the 

p rogram, but must be addressed in emergency response plans to be 

mitted to local authorities. RTPH at 10. Issues of safe chemical handlin

generally outside the scope of the PSD program unless raised in the 

text of the BACT determination as collateral environmental impacts

K a w a i h a e , 7 E.A.D. at 117. Petitioner has not claimed that the pro p 

plant’s chemical use and storage plans would impact the BACT det

nation for the facility. This issue is not a re q u i rement of the federal 

p rogram and the petitioner has not shown that the issue otherwise 

within the purview of the federal PSD program. We must deny re v i e w 
The regulations that govern appeals of permit decisions 

petitioners have standing to appeal. In order to achieve 

appeal, a petitioner must have participated in the public rev

either by filing written comments or participating in a public 

C.F.R. § 124.19(a). If a petitioner did not participate in the p

process, he or she may only appeal issues pertaining to chan

draft to the final permit. Id.; In re Envotech, L.P., 6 E.A.D. 26

1996) (citing In re Beckman Prod. Servs., 5 E.A.D. 10, 16 (EA

AQMD asserts that the petitioners who submitted Petition 

and 98–17 do not meet the requirements for standing and th

should deny review of their petitions. AQMD 98–14 Resp. 

98–17 Resp. at 1. It appears from our review of the administ

materials that neither of these petitioners submitted written c

participated in the public hearing. The petitioner filing Petitio

does not contest the standing issue. The petitioner filing 

98–17 claims that he has standing because the issues he ra

subjects in the PSD permit that were “altered in some man

* * * final release.” Reply 98–17 at 1. However, the petition

identify which changed permit conditions he is challenging 

The consequences of denying review on standing grou

particularly critical in this case. The issue raised in Petition N

most of the issues raised in Petition No. 98–17 were also rai

petitioners whose standing is not in question. As a matter 

ness, we cited these two petitions for review along with othe

cussion of each of the common issues. We identified only f

Petition No. 98–17 that were not raised by other petitione

these issues do not involve any change between the draft a

mit.71 We therefore deny review of those issues due to petitio

to satisfy the standing requirement. The fourth issue arguabl

change from the draft to the final permit, and we therefore ad

issue in Section II.C.8.72

71 These three issues are: (1) petitioner’s challenge to the permit emissio

of the PSD threshold; (2) challenge to the VISCREEN analysis; and (3) conc

impacts from trucks and trains servicing the plant.

72 Petitioner’s concern about the volume of chemicals in proximity to 

tions arguably relates to a change made in the final permit. The final perm

outdoor aqueous ammonia tank that was not included in the draft permit. 

be generous in reading petitions filed by unrepresented parties, we find 

should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
VOLUME 8

One of the petitions for review raises the issue of environmenta

tice. Petition No. 98–8. During the public hearing, this petitioner req

ed that environmental justice be considered during the permitting pr

in accordance with Executive Order 12,898. AQMD Hearing Transcr

23. The petitioner specifically asserted that COSL is a low-income 

and claimed that environmental justice guidelines had been violate

at 24. In the petition for review, petitioner provided statistics on ave

income levels for COSL and Shasta County. Petition No. 98–8.

The issue raised by the petitioner relates to the environmental ju

mandate issued by the President of the United States to the federal a

cies. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Min

Populations and Low-Income Populations, Exec. Order No. 12,89

Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994) (“Executive Order”). The Executive O

requires federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate “di

portionately high and adverse human health or environmental effec

[their] programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 

income populations in the United States * * *.” Id. § 1–101. The EPA is

an environmental justice strategy as required by the Executive Ord

1995. EPA’s environmental justice strategy does not specifically addr

or how the broad goals of the Executive Order are to be implement

the context of a PSD permit process carried out by a delegated pe

ting authority such as AQMD.

AQMD, of course, is not a federal agency, and thus the Exec

O rder does not apply to AQMD directly. However, AQMD exercises 

egated authority to administer and enforce the federal PSD program

such, AQMD “stands in the shoes” of EPA for purposes of impleme

the federal PSD program, and PSD permits issued by AQMD are co

e red federal permits. S e e 45 Fed. Reg. 33,290, 33,413 (May 19, 1980) 

the purposes of part 124, a delegate * * * stands in the shoes o

Regional Administrator. Like the Regional Administrator, the delegate 

follow the procedural re q u i rements of Part 124. * * * A permit issued 

delegate is still an ‘EPA-issued permit’ * * *.”). Clarification is ne

re g a rding how the Executive Order should be implemented in the co

of delegated PSD pro g r a m s .

We may not need to solve that problem, however, for purpos

this case. Here, AQMD asserts that Region IX took the initial respon

ity for making an environmental justice determination. In the respon

comments, AQMD states that EPA Region IX reviewed environmenta

tice policies with respect to the proposed Knauf plant and did not f
randum to the administrative record on this subject after issu

permit decision and after this petition for review was filed. 

randum documents a prior consultation between AQMD and 

ee of Region IX regarding environmental justice issues. M

from R. Michael Kussow to Knauf Fiberglass File (June 3

memorandum states, “[i]t was his [the Region IX employee’s

after reviewing the project location and surrounding demogr

was unlikely that an Environmental Justice issue applied.” Id

Unfortunately, there are no details regarding Region IX’

tion in the administrative record. As such, we cannot judge 

cy of the Region’s analysis. See In re EcoEléctrica, L.P., 7 E.A.

(EAB 1997) (describing environmental justice analysis perf o rme

in light of claim of low-income communities proximate to pr

ity). At a minimum, the petitioner’s comment invoking th

Order deserves a more complete response than the cursory 

currently in the record. If an environmental justice issue is un

context of this proposed project, we need to know the basis 

clusion. Therefore, we are including this issue as part of 

order. AQMD should obtain the Region’s environmental jus

nation and make it available during the remand process. 

III. REMAND ORDER

We hereby remand the permit decision for the proposed 

glass manufacturing facility to AQMD for the following limite

1) BACT Determination: AQMD must provide adeq

documentation of its BACT determination for the 

emissions from the proposed Knauf facility. The d

mentation should identify multiple control options 

the sources of those options. A technical infeasib

analysis must be provided for any control option th

rejected as not available or applicable to this plant. 

remaining options should be listed in order of string

and AQMD should present any conclusions regar

collateral energy, environmental, and economic imp

of the most stringent option. The objective of this rem

is to ensure that both the control technology sele

and the numerical PM10 emission limit for the prop

Knauf plant, are based on a complete review of rele

control technologies.
VOLUME 8

mentation of the environmental justice analysis conducted by EPA Region IX and include it in the administrative

record for this permit decision.

The results of the analyses described in items 1) and 2) mu

made available for public comment. If as a result of these supplem

analyses AQMD proposes to change any permit conditions, AQMD 

revise the permit and provide a justification for the revised conditio

IV. CONCLUSION

The PSD permit for the proposed Knauf fiberglass manufact

facility in the City of Shasta Lake, California, is remanded with respe

the following issues: 1) the completeness of the BACT determinatio

PM10; and 2) environmental justice.73 Review is denied as to all 

issues. AQMD is directed to reopen the permit proceedings for the 

ed purposes identified in the Remand Order section of this decision

party who participates in the remand process may file an appeal wit

Board pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 124.19. The subject matter of any 

appeal must be limited to the issues identified in the remand order

So ordered.

73 Although 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(c) contemplates that additional briefing typically w

submitted upon a grant of review, a direct remand without additional submissions is 

priate where, as here, it does not appear as though further briefs on appeal would 

light on the issues to be addressed on remand.