IN RE KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

PSD Appeal Nos. 99-8 through 99-72

ORDER DENYING REVIEW

Decided March 14, 2000

Syllabus

This decision addresses the remaining petitions for review that have challenged the revised prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD") permit issued by Shasta County, California, Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD") to Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, a corporation that plans to construct a new fiberglass manufacturing facility in the City of Shasta Lake, California. This is the second time a SCAQMD PSD permit decision for the proposed Knauf facility has come before the Environmental Appeals Board. In the first round of petitions, the Board issued a decision that denied review of many issues raised on appeal but remanded SCAQMD's permit decision on two issues: the best available control technology ("BACT") determination for PM10 and environmental justice. See In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 121 (EAB 1999) (“Knauf l'). SCAQMD completed the remand proceedings on August 17, 1999, and issued a revised permit decision for the Knauf facility. The second round of petitions for review followed. Some of the petitions for review were previously dismissed on grounds of timeliness and standing. See In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, PSD Appeal Nos. 99-8 through 99-72 (EAB, Jan. 3, 2000) (Order Dismissing Certain Appeals on Timeliness and Standing).

Petitioners challenge the revised BACT determination for PM10 and the environmental justice analysis, as well as several miscellaneous issues.

Held: Review is denied of the petitions for review for the following reasons:

Many of the petitions for review fail to meet the Board's requirement that issues be raised with specificity. (Section II.A.1.)

Most of the miscellaneous issues raised in the petitions for review are outside the scope of review for this post-remand appeal. The Board's decision in Knauf I was final as to all issues associated with the PSD permit for the proposed Knauf facility, with the exception of two: BACT for PM10 and environmental justice. The only exception to the limitation on the scope of review is for issues pertaining to permit conditions that were modified during the remand period. (Section II.A.3)

In contrast to the documentation in the administrative record for Knauf 1, the supplemental BACT analysis and revised BACT determination provide ample support for SCAQMD's final decisions on BACT and the revised permit conditions on PM10 emissions. On remand, SCAQMD revised the PM10 BACT emission limitation downward from 5.37 lbs/ton to 3.5 lbs/ton and from 43.6 lbs/hr to 28.4 lbs/hr.

SCAQMD adequately explained how it reached its decisions regarding PM10 control technology and the PM10 emission limitation. (Section II.B.)

The environmental justice analysis prepared during the remand period concludes that the proposed Knauf facility will not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on a minority or low-income population. None of the petitioners have shown that the anticipated PM10 emissions from the proposed facility would in fact lead to an adverse impact. With regard to petitioners' contentions regarding public participation in this permit process, the Board notes that the public's involvement was effective in securing an environmental benefit through a lower PM10 emission limitation. (Section II.C.)

The new National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAP") rule applicable to the fiberglass manufacturing industry was appropriately cross-referenced in a revised permit condition in this instance. (Section II.D.)

Before Environmental Appeals Judges Scott C. Fulton, Ronald L. McCallum, and Kathie A. Stein.

Opinion of the Board by Judge McCallum:

This case is an appeal of an air permitting decision made by the Shasta County, California, Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"). The SCAQMD issued a preconstruction permit and authority to construct under the federal Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration ("PSD") program to Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, a corporation that plans to construct a new fiberglass manufacturing facility in the City of Shasta Lake, California. This is the second time a SCAQMD PSD permit for the proposed Knauf facility has come before the Environmental Appeals Board ("Board"). In a previous appeal, the original PSD permit issued by SCAQMD was challenged by several private citizens, citizens' groups, and by EPA Region IX. The Board issued a decision in that case in February 1999, denying review of many issues raised on appeal, but also remanding SCAQMD's permit decision on two issues. In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 121 (EAB 1999) ("Knauf 1"). On August 17, 1999, SCAQMD completed the remand proceedings and issued a new permit decision for the Knauf facility. The Board subsequently received sixty-five (65) petitions for review of the August 1999 permit decision. Those petitions constitute the present appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

The SCAQMD processes permit applications and issues permits in Shasta County, California, under the federal PSD program pursuant to a delegation