Sutter Power Plant (Board decision, December 2, 1999)

Plain-English summary

Calpine Corporation sought a prevention of significant deterioration permit to build a 500-megawatt natural-gas power plant in rural Sutter County, California. One petitioner challenged the Region's treatment of plant siting, alleged respiratory-health effects and impacts on farming communities, and objected to emissions credits. A second petition was filed more than two months after the permit was issued. The Environmental Appeals Board denied the first petition because some issues were not preserved, the emissions-credit issue fell outside PSD jurisdiction, and the Region had not clearly erred in deferring siting questions to other agencies. It denied the second petition as untimely because it was not filed within 30 days. This permit decision imposed no monetary penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470, 7471, and 7475.
• Outcome: Both petitions for review of the PSD permit were denied.
• Key point: PSD review is limited to properly preserved PSD issues, and a petition filed more than 30 days after the final permit is untimely.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 680

680
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

IN RE SUTTER POWER PLANT
PSD Appeal Nos. 99–6 & 99–73

ORDER DENYING REVIEW

Decided December 2, 1999

Syllabus
Two petitioners seek review of a prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) per- mit issued by Region IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Calpine Corporation for the construction of a new electrical power plant. The plant, which will be situated in rural Sutter County, California, outside Yuba City, is designed to produce 500 megawatts of electricity by burning natural gas and generating steam energy. The PSD per- mit authorizes the plant’s emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter in accordance with section 165 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7475.

Ms. Joan Joaquin-Wood filed the first petition for review of the PSD permit on August 17, 1999, alleging that: (1) Region IX failed to conduct an adequate review of alternative sites for the power plant; (2) the plant’s emissions will cause the incidence of respiratory illness in Sutter County to increase; (3) Calpine’s purchase of emissions credits will pre- clude an overall reduction in Sutter County air pollution; and (4) Sutter County’s econom- ically disadvantaged farming communities should not be subjected to “tiny particulate mat- ter” and other pollutant emissions from the power plant. Mr. and Mrs. Bob Amarel, Jr. filed the second petition for review on September 29, 1999.

Held: The petitions for review of the Sutter Power Plant PSD permit are denied.
Taking Ms. Joaquin-Wood’s allegations in the order listed above, review is denied on the first issue because petitioner failed to identify any error in Region IX’s decision not to reconsider, in the context of issuing a PSD permit, the plant siting decision. The Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) finds no clear error, in the circumstances of this case, in the Region’s decision to defer questions regarding the siting of the facility to the other federal and state agencies that evaluated the project in this regard. Review is denied on the second and fourth issues (regarding alleged causation of an increase in respiratory illnesses and impacts on economically disadvantaged farming communities) because these issues were not properly preserved for appellate review. With respect to Ms. Joaquin- Wood’s third issue regarding emissions credits, the Board lacks jurisdiction to decide it because the emissions credit requirement relevant here springs from the CAA nonattain- ment area program, not the PSD program. Thus, Ms. Joaquin-Wood’s petition for review is denied. As for the Amarels, their petition is denied because it is untimely. The petition was filed more than two months after Region IX issued the final PSD permit, rather than with- in the requisite thirty days.

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 681

SUTTER POWER PLANT
681

Before Environmental Appeals Judges Scott C. Fulton, Edward E. Reich, and Kathie A. Stein.
Opinion of the Board by Judge Fulton:

The Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) is presented in this case with two petitions seeking review of a prevention of significant deterio- ration (“PSD”) permit issued by Region IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to Calpine Corporation for the construction of a new electrical power plant. The plant, which will be situated in rural Sutter County, California outside Yuba City, is designed to produce 500 megawatts of electricity by burning natural gas and generating steam energy. The PSD permit authorizes the plant’s emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter in accordance with section 165 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7475. For the rea- sons expressed below, we deny the petitions for review.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Congress enacted the PSD provisions of the CAA in 1977 for the pur- pose of, among other things, “insur[ing] that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources.” CAA § 160(3), 42 U.S.C. § 7470(3). To that end, parties must obtain preconstruction approval (i.e., PSD permits) to build new major stationary sources, or to make major modifications to existing sources, in areas of the country deemed to be in “attainment” or “unclassifiable” with respect to federal air quality standards called “national ambient air qual- ity standards” (“NAAQS”). See CAA §§ 107, 160–169B, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407, 7470–7492.

NAAQS are established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis and are cur- rently in effect for six air contaminants: sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide (“SO2”)), particulate matter (“PM10”),1 carbon monoxide (“CO”), ozone, nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”), and lead. 40 C.F.R. § 50.4–.12. In areas deemed to be in “attainment” for any of these pollutants, air quality meets or is cleaner than the NAAQS for that pollutant. CAA § 107(d)(1)(A)(i), 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(i); In re Maui Elec. Co., 8 E.A.D. 1, 4 (EAB 1998).

1
PM10 is comprised of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. 40 C.F.R. § 50.6(c); U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, New Source Review Workshop Manual A.18 (draft Oct. 1990) (“Draft NSR Manual”).

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 682

682
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

In “unclassifiable” areas, air quality cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.
CAA § 107(d)(1)(A)(iii), 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(iii). Areas may also be designated as “nonattainment,” meaning that the concentration of a pol- lutant in the ambient air exceeds the NAAQS for that pollutant.
CAA § 107(d)(1)(A)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(ii). The PSD program is not applicable, however, in nonattainment areas.2 See CAA § 161, 42 U.S.C. § 7471.

Applicants for PSD permits must demonstrate, through analyses of the anticipated air quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of their proposed facilities, that their facilities’ emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS or PSD “increment.” 3 CAA § 165(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3); 40 C.F.R.
§ 52.21(k)–(m). In addition, applicants for PSD permits must employ the “best available control technology,” or “BACT,” to minimize emissions of pollutants that may be emitted by the new source in amounts greater than applicable “significant” levels established by the PSD regulations.4 CAA § 165(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4); 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(j)(2). As the Board has noted on prior occasions, “[t]he requirements of preventing violations of the NAAQS and the applicable PSD increments, and the required use of BACT to minimize emissions of air pollutants, are the core of the PSD regulations.” In re Encogen Cogeneration Facility, 8 E.A.D. 244, 247 (EAB 1999); accord In re Hawaii Elec. Light Co., 8 E.A.D. 66, 73 (EAB 1998).

2
In nonattainment areas, the New Source Review requirements of CAA §§ 171–193, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501–7515; 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.160–.165, apply in lieu of the PSD requirements.
Notably, a single geographic area may be designated as attainment or unclassifiable for one or more of the six pollutants and as nonattainment for one or more of the others. See Draft NSR Manual at 4. In such cases, the PSD program will apply in that geographic area, but only to the attainment/unclassifiable pollutants.
3
PSD increments represent the maximum allowable increase in concentration that may occur above a baseline ambient air concentration for a pollutant. See 40 C.F.R.
§ 52.21(c) (increments for six regulated air pollutants).
4
The significance levels are as follows:

POLLUTANT
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL
CO
100 tons per year (“tpy”)
NOX
40 tpy
SO2
40 tpy
PM10
15 tpy
Ozone (as VOCs)
40 tpy
Lead
0.6 tpy

40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(23).

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 683

SUTTER POWER PLANT
683

B. Factual and Procedural Background

In 1998, Calpine filed an application with Region IX for permission to construct a new power plant consisting of two combustion turbine gener- ators (“CTGs”), two heat recovery steam generators (“HRSGs”) with duct burners, a steam turbine generator (“STG”), and associated equipment.
Each CTG is expected to produce approximately 170 megawatts of elec- tricity. The exhaust gases from the CTGs will be piped to the HRSGs, which will generate steam that will in turn be piped to the STG for the produc- tion of an additional 160 megawatts of electricity. Calpine proposed to site the facility in a portion of Sutter County designated as attainment or unclas- sifiable for CO, NO2, PM10, and SO2 and nonattainment for ozone. 40 C.F.R.
§ 81.305. The plant’s CTGs and HRSGs have the potential to emit NOX, CO, and PM10 in quantities sufficient to trigger the protections of the PSD pro- gram,5 and hence necessitated Calpine’s application.

Calpine also had to apply for permits and approvals to construct its proposed plant under several other federal laws, as well as under appli- cable state and local laws. For example, given the magnitude of the pro- posed project and its potential impacts on the environment, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370d, and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1534, both applied to the project. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Western Area Power Authority (“WAPA”) acted as the lead agency under NEPA and, in con- junction with the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) and others, pre- pared an environmental impact statement for the project. As for the ESA, WAPA conducted a biological assessment and engaged in formal consul- tation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regarding impacts of the pro- posed plant on endangered and threatened species and critical habitat.
Under state law, the CEC has primary authority for power plant siting issues, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 22519(c), 25500, and it conducted its own environmental review and plant siting analysis for the project. In addi- tion, given the status of Sutter County as a nonattainment area for ozone, Calpine was required under the CAA to obtain a nonattainment area per- mit from the Feather River Air Quality Management District (“AQMD”) for its prospective emissions of the ozone precursors NOX and volatile organ- ic compounds (“VOCs”).

5
The proposed Sutter Power Plant has the potential to emit 483 tpy of CO, 205 tpy of NOX, 31.5 tpy of SO2, 92.5 tpy of PM10, 23.7 tpy of VOCs, and 0.0 tpy of lead. Region IX’s Response to Petition for Review attachment 2 tbl.2 (Ambient Air Quality Impact Report).

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 684

684
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

In response to Calpine’s PSD application, Region IX initiated a course of action designed to encourage public participation in the permit decisionmaking process. See In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D.
121, 124 (EAB 1999) (CAA “emphasizes the importance of public partici- pation and input into the decisionmaking process”). On June 14, 1999, the Region solicited public comments on its proposal to issue a PSD per- mit for the construction of the Sutter Power Plant. The Region received only one set of comments, in a letter from Ms. Joan Joaquin-Wood. See Letter from Joan Joaquin-Wood to Barbara Witter, EPA Region IX (July 14, 1999) (“Wood Comments”). The Region responded to each of Ms.
Joaquin-Wood’s comments and concluded that “the comment letter does not provide any basis for withdrawing its proposed decision to issue the [Sutter Power Plant] PSD Permit to Calpine and does not contain any basis for making changes in specific conditions.” EPA Region IX, Response to Comments from Joan Joaquin-Wood on Draft PSD Permit for Calpine Corporation (NSR 4–4–4, SAC 98–01) at 1 (“Response to Comments”). Accordingly, on July 21, 1999, Region IX issued the final PSD permit to Calpine without making any changes to the proposed per- mit. Two appeals, and ensuing filings, followed, as described in the fol- lowing paragraphs.

1. Joaquin-Wood Petition

On August 17, 1999, Joan Joaquin-Wood filed a petition for review of the final PSD permit. Ms. Joaquin-Wood’s petition raises four allega- tions: (1) Region IX failed to conduct an adequate review of alternative sites for the power plant; (2) the plant’s emissions will cause the inci- dence of respiratory illness in Sutter County to increase; (3) Calpine’s purchase of emissions credits will preclude an overall reduction in Sutter County air pollution; and (4) Sutter County’s economically disadvantaged farmers should not be subjected to “tiny particulate matter” and other pol- lutant emissions from the power plant. Letter from Joan Joaquin-Wood to Environmental Appeals Board 1 (Aug. 16, 1999) (“Wood Pet.”).

In response to Ms. Joaquin-Wood’s petition, Region IX filed a motion for an expedited briefing schedule, arguing that the issues raised in the petition were issues of law and would not require extensive argument.
Region IX’s Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule at 1. The Board denied the motion, and Region IX subsequently filed a response to the petition on September 9, 1999. Region IX’s Response to Petition for Review (“RIX Resp.”). Calpine also filed a response to the petition on September 3, 1999.
Calpine’s Response to Petition for Review (“Calpine Resp.”).

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 685

SUTTER POWER PLANT
685

On September 15, 1999, Ms. Joaquin-Wood filed a motion for leave to file a reply to the responses submitted by Region IX and Calpine. The Board granted the motion and ordered petitioner to file a reply by close of business on October 3, 1999. Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief at 2. Ms. Joaquin-Wood filed a timely reply. See Petitioner’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”). On October 21, 1999, the Board granted Region IX’s request for leave to file a “supplemental response” to petitioner’s reply memorandum and ordered that the response be filed by October 27, 1999. Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Response at 1–2. The Region filed its supplemental response on October 28, 1999, one day late. See Region IX’s Supplemental Response to Petition for Review (“RIX Supp. Resp.”). Finally, on November 3, 1999, Ms. Joaquin- Wood filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental reply to the Region’s supplemental response, which the Board hereby denies.6

2. Amarel Petition

Meanwhile, on September 29, 1999, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Amarel, Jr. filed a petition for review of the Sutter Power Plant PSD permit. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Bob Amarel, Jr. to Environmental Appeals Board (Sept.
26, 1999). Region IX filed a response to this petition on November 2, 1999, and Calpine filed a motion for leave to file a response (which we hereby grant in light of Calpine’s status as permittee), as well as the asso- ciated response, on October 25, 1999.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Scope of Board Review

When the Board receives a petition to review a PSD permit, it begins its analysis by assessing the petitioner’s compliance with a number of important threshold procedural requirements. The Board will also deter- mine whether the issues raised in the petition fall within the purview of the PSD program and are thus subject to the Board’s jurisdiction. The pro- cedural and jurisdictional requirements are briefly explained in the fol- lowing sections.

6
At this time, the Board has sufficient information before it to decide this case. Further briefing is unnecessary.

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 686

686
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

1. Threshold Procedural Requirements

The Board’s authority to review PSD permits is set forth in EPA’s reg- ulations establishing procedures for the issuance, modification, and ter- mination of such permits. See 40 C.F.R. pt. 124. Interested parties may petition the Board for review of PSD permit conditions if:

(1) They do so within thirty days after issuance of the final permit decision; and
(2) They filed comments on the draft permit.

40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a). In accordance with these rules, petitions filed more than thirty days after permit issuance will be dismissed as untimely. Id.; see In re AES Puerto Rico L.P., 8 E.A.D. 324, 328 (EAB 1999); In re Envotech, L.P., 6 E.A.D. 260, 265–66 (EAB 1996). Moreover, petitions received by parties that did not file comments on the draft permit will be dismissed because the parties lack “standing” to appeal the final permit.7 See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a); In re Encogen Cogeneration Facility, 8 E.A.D.
244, 249–51 (EAB 1999); Envotech, 6 E.A.D. at 266–67.

Petitioners that meet the threshold requirements of timeliness and standing must also submit petitions that:

(1) Demonstrate that any issues being raised were raised during the public comment period;8 and
(2) Show that the permit condition in question is based on:
(a) A finding of fact or conclusion of law that is clear- ly erroneous; or
(b) An exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration that the Board should, in its discretion, review.

7
Parties who did not file comments on the draft permit may petition only for review of the changes made (if any) from the draft to the final permit decision. 40 C.F.R.
§ 124.19(a).
8
Alternatively, a petitioner may demonstrate that an issue for which it seeks review was not “reasonably ascertainable” during the public comment period. See 40 C.F.R.
§ 124.13; In re Encogen Cogeneration Facility, 8 E.A.D. 244, 250 n.8 (EAB 1999). Neither of the petitioners in this case have argued that review should be granted under this alter- native standard.

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 687

SUTTER POWER PLANT
687

40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a). The intent of these rules is to ensure that the per- mitting authority—here, Region IX—has the first opportunity to address any objections to the permit, and that the permit process will have some finality. See Encogen, 8 E.A.D. at 249–50 (“The effective, efficient, and predictable administration of the permitting process demands that the permit issuer be given the opportunity to address potential problems with draft permits before they become final.”). “‘In this manner, the permit issuer can make timely and appropriate adjustments to the permit deter- mination, or, if no adjustments are made, the permit issuer can include an explanation of why none are necessary.’” In re Essex County (N.J.) Resource Recovery Facility, 5 E.A.D. 218, 224 (EAB 1994) (quoting In re Union County Resource Recovery Facility, 3 E.A.D. 455, 456 (Adm’r 1990)). As EPA explained when it promulgated the part 124 rules, the Board’s power of review “should be only sparingly exercised,” and “most permit conditions should be finally determined at the Regional level.” 45 Fed. Reg. 33,290, 33,412 (May 19, 1980); see In re Maui Elec. Co., 8 E.A.D.
1, 7 (EAB 1998).

In complying with these requirements, petitioners must include specific information supporting their allegations. It is not sufficient sim- ply to repeat objections made during the comment period; instead, a peti- tioner “must demonstrate why the Region’s response to those objections (the Region’s basis for its decision) is clearly erroneous or otherwise war- rants review.” In re LCP Chems., 4 E.A.D. 661, 664 (EAB 1993); accord Encogen, 8 E.A.D. at 251. The burden of demonstrating that review is warranted rests with the petitioner. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a); AES Puerto Rico, 8 E.A.D. at 328; In re Hawaii Elec. Co., 8 E.A.D. 66, 71 (EAB 1998).

Despite the apparent stringency of the foregoing procedural require- ments, the Board broadly construes petitions filed by persons who are unrepresented by legal counsel. See In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 121, 127 (EAB 1999); In re Commonwealth Chesapeake Corp., 6 E.A.D. 764, 772 (EAB 1997); Envotech, 6 E.A.D. at 268; In re Beckman Prod. Servs., 5 E.A.D. 10, 19 (EAB 1994). The Board is concerned that public participation be meaningful and not unduly hampered by process restrictions, and thus does not expect such petitions to contain sophisti- cated legal arguments or to employ precise technical or legal terms.9 That being said, however, the Board nonetheless does expect such petitions to provide sufficient specificity to apprise the Board of the issues being

9
As the First Circuit Court of Appeals has held:

It would be inconsistent with the general purpose of public participation regula- tions to construe the regulations strictly. Such a strict construction would have Continued

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 688

688
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

raised. In re Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth., 6 E.A.D. 253, 255 (EAB 1995).
The Board also expects the petitions to articulate some supportable rea- son or reasons as to why the permitting authority erred or why review is otherwise warranted. Beckman, 5 E.A.D. at 19.

2. Board Jurisdiction to Review PSD Permits

Apart from the procedural issues described above, the Board must also have jurisdiction to review issues raised in a petition. Under the existing regulatory structure, the Board has jurisdiction to review issues directly related to permit conditions that implement the federal PSD pro- gram. Knauf, 8 E.A.D. at 161. As we have explained, “The PSD review process is not an open forum for consideration of every environmental aspect of a proposed project, or even every issue that bears on air qual- ity. In fact, certain issues are expressly excluded from the PSD permitting process. The Board will deny review of issues that are not governed by the PSD regulations because it lacks jurisdiction over them.” 10 Id. at 127; see id. at 161–73 (denying review based on lack of jurisdiction to con- sider issues concerning hazardous or unregulated air pollutant impacts, use of landfill for waste disposal, emissions offsets, NEPA issues, opacity limits, and other issues); Encogen, 8 E.A.D. at 259–60 (no jurisdiction to consider acid rain, noise, and water-related issues).

B. Joaquin-Wood Petition

In her petition for review of Calpine’s PSD permit, Ms. Joaquin-Wood raises four objections. See Wood Pet. at 1. Each objection is addressed in turn below.

the effect of cutting off a participant’s ability to challenge a final permit by virtue of imposing a scientific and legal burden on general members of the public who, initially, simply wish to raise their legitimate concerns * * * in the most accessi- ble and informal public stage of the administrative process, where there is pre- sumably some room for give and take between the public and the agency.

Adams v. U.S. EPA, 38 F.3d 43, 52 (1st Cir. 1994).
10
As we noted in Knauf, “[i]n determining whether we have jurisdiction, the Board places considerable reliance on how the issue is framed in the petition for review, such as the basis upon which relief is being sought.” Knauf, 8 E.A.D. at 161–62.

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 689

SUTTER POWER PLANT
689

1. Alternative Sites

Ms. Joaquin-Wood contends that Region IX did not engage in an ade- quate review of alternative locations in which to site the proposed power plant. Wood Pet. at 1 (“alternative sites for the project were not ade- quately reviewed”); see also Reply Br. at 9–15. In response, the Region argues that this “generalized objection” simply reiterates the petitioner’s comments on the proposed permit without specifically identifying clear errors of law or fact on the Region’s part or important policy considera- tions warranting Board review, as required by the part 124 regulations and Board precedent. RIX Resp. at 5–7. The Region also asserts that mul- tiple federal, state, and local governmental agencies have been involved in approving this power plant. The Region points out that under California law, the CEC has “primary authority over issues concerning the siting of power plants and transmission routes.” Id. at 7 n.5; see Cal. Pub.
Res. Code §§ 22519(c), 25500. According to the Region, “[l]and use issues in selecting an appropriate site for the project were subject to considera- tion and public hearings by the [CEC] and to review under [NEPA] by the federal Department of Energy. Issues concerning land use, including potential alternative sites, were resolved by those agencies prior to EPA’s PSD permitting decision.” RIX Resp. at 7–8.

In its response to the petition, Calpine echoes many of the arguments raised by Region IX. See Calpine Resp. at 7–11. Calpine also alleges that Ms. Joaquin-Wood failed to demonstrate that her objection was raised during the public comment period. Id. at 4–6. In particular, Calpine con- tends that the generalized siting issue petitioner raises before us is not the same siting issue she raised in her comments, in which she singled out “at least three alternative” (yet unidentified) sites as having not received consideration. Id. at 5.

As pointed out by the Region and Calpine, the land use planning process that yielded the site for the proposed plant had run its course prior to EPA’s permitting decision. As the Region explained, it duly ana- lyzed the impacts the proposed facility, as sited, would have on air qual- ity, in keeping with the PSD regulations. RIX Resp. at 8–9; see id. attach- ment 2 (Ambient Air Quality Impact Report). Petitioner has not identified any error in the Region’s decision not to reconsider the siting decision in the context of issuing a PSD permit. See Wood Pet. Thus, we find no clear error, in the circumstances of this case, in the Region’s decision to defer questions regarding the siting of the facility to the other agencies that evaluated the project in this regard. Cf. In re EcoEléctrica, L.P., 7 E.A.D.
56, 74 (EAB 1997). Accordingly, review is denied on this ground.

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 690

690
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

2. Emissions Reduction Credits

In her petition for review, Ms. Joaquin-Wood alleges that “the pur- chase of Emission Reduction Credits by Calpine do[es] not improve or even mitigate the additional pollution that will occur * * *; this means only that pollution that has been removed from other sites will be put back into [Sutter County’s] air.” Wood Pet. at 1. The Region responds to this allegation the same way it did to the allegation just addressed, arguing that it merely reiterates the petitioner’s very general comments without specifically identifying clear errors of law or fact on the Region’s part or important policy considerations warranting Board review. RIX Resp. at 5–7, 11. In addition, the Region notes that Calpine’s purchase of offset credits is authorized under its nonattainment permit from the Feather River AQMD, not its PSD permit. Id. at 11. Accordingly, asserts the Region, Ms. Joaquin-Wood cannot seek review of the Feather River AQMD’s nonattainment decision through an appeal of an EPA-issued PSD permit. Id. For its part, Calpine again echoes the Region’s arguments and also repeats its theme that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the issue raised on appeal is the same as the issue raised during the comment peri- od. Calpine Resp. at 4–9, 12–13.

Petitioner’s argument is jurisdictionally flawed. The Board may not review, in a PSD appeal, the decisions of a state agency made pursuant to non-PSD portions of the CAA or to state or local initiatives and not oth- erwise relating to permit conditions implementing the PSD program. See Knauf, 8 E.A.D. 167–68; see also In re Milford Power Plant, 8 E.A.D. 670, 675–78 (EAB 1999). According to the Region, the emissions credits at issue here were imposed via Calpine’s nonattainment area permit, which the Feather River AQMD issued; petitioner has not shown otherwise.
Moreover, the petitioner has not identified any conditions in Calpine’s PSD permit or pointed to any PSD provisions in the CAA or regulations calling for emissions reduction credit purchases. Thus, the Board denies review of the PSD permit on this issue due to lack of jurisdiction. See Knauf, 8 E.A.D. at 167–68.

3. Farmers and Particulate Emissions

Ms. Joaquin-Wood states in her petition for review that “92.4 tons of tiny particulate matter annually, in addition to the other pollutants, should not be loosed on [Sutter County’s] economically disadvantaged farming communities.” Wood Pet. at 1. In response, both Region IX and Calpine assert that Ms. Joaquin-Wood did not raise this objection during the public comment period. RIX Resp. at 11–12; Calpine Resp. at 6.
Region IX also contends that this objection was not reasonably

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 691

SUTTER POWER PLANT
691

ascertainable from petitioner’s other comments and that, even if it were reasonably ascertainable, the objection is not sufficiently specific to war- rant Board review. RIX Resp. at 12. Calpine joins in the Region’s argu- ment regarding lack of the requisite specificity. Calpine Resp. at 7.
Finally, both parties claim that with respect to the Region’s PM10 BACT determination, petitioner provides no facts showing that the Region made a clear error of fact or law or abused its discretion, or that any other important issue warrants discretionary Board review of that determina- tion. RIX Resp. at 5–6, 12; Calpine Resp. at 10, 13–14.

Petitioner asserts that this objection was preserved for Board review, claiming that she raised the point in paragraphs 2, 3, 7, and 8 of her com- ments on the proposed PSD permit. Reply Br. at 15. These paragraphs, however, contain very general, unsupported statements that do not allege any particular error or errors on Region IX’s part. For example, petition- er wrote:

I object to the placement of this project in the middle of rice fields, prune orchards, and homes, and that the power lines will be next to the Sutter Wildlife Refuge.

Construction will disrupt farming for many months.

Wood Comments at 1 ¶¶ 2–3. Paragraph 7 of petitioner’s comments con- tains a claim that an additional hearing is necessary to explain why the proposed power plant may emit NO2, VOCs, and PM10 into the “already polluted air of Sutter County,” and paragraph 8 contains allegations regarding rice farmers selling “burn credits” to Calpine, which purport- edly will result in a failure to reduce the amount of SO2 and ozone in Sutter County’s air. Id. at 1 ¶¶ 7–8.

None of the comments referred to by petitioner, or any other com- ments for that matter, fairly raise the issue advanced on appeal—that the economically disadvantaged farming communities of Sutter County should not be subjected to the proposed plant’s particulate and other emissions.11 Moreover, petitioner does not claim that this issue was not

11
Ms. Joaquin-Wood did mention the 92.4 tpy PM10 limit in her comments, Wood Comments at 1 ¶ 7, but she neither linked the PM10 limit to economically disadvantaged farming communities of Sutter County nor identified any errors or abuses allegedly com- mitted by Region IX in establishing this emission limit. Instead, she requested that the Region hold a hearing to “explain why” the proposed plant’s NOX, VOCs, and PM10 limits were set where they were. See id. The Region responded in reasonable fashion to this comment, explaining that it did not hold such a hearing because it deemed the public Continued

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 692

692
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

reasonably ascertainable at the time she filed her comments. See 40 C.F.R.
§ 124.13 (petitioners “must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments supporting their position by the close of the public comment period”). As we have repeatedly held, the Board will not consider arguments, such as this one, made for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., In re Rockgen Energy Center, 8 E.A.D. 536, 540 (EAB 1999); In re Encogen Cogeneration Facility, 8 E.A.D. 244, 249–50 (EAB 1999); In re Maui Elec. Co., 8 E.A.D. 1, 8–10 (EAB 1998). Thus, review of the PSD permit is denied on this ground.

4. Increased Incidences of Respiratory Illness

Finally, Ms. Joaquin-Wood alleges that the proposed power plant “will further pollute [Sutter County’s] already “moderately” polluted air, thereby increasing the already higher-than-average respiratory illness in the county.” Wood Pet. at 1. In response, Region IX notes that NAAQS “‘are set at levels that the Administrator of EPA has determined are nec- essary to protect the public health and welfare’” and that PSD increments provide an extra measure of safety in this regard. RIX Resp. at 9 (quot- ing Knauf, 8 E.A.D. at 148). According to the Region, the air quality analysis conducted for the proposed plant showed that, as long as the plant complies with its PSD permit, it will not cause or contribute to an exceedence of any NAAQS or PSD increment. With the NAAQS as the bellwether of health protection, the Region argues that this new plant’s construction and operation will not compromise the respiratory health of the surrounding community. RIX Resp. at 10. The Region further asserts that the Board should deny review because the petitioner failed to pro- vide data or other information refuting the power plant’s air quality impact analysis or challenging the NAAQS and increments as insufficient- ly protective of the public health. Id. Calpine follows the same line of rea- soning in its response to the petition. See Calpine Resp. at 11–12.

interest in the project to be low (as evidenced by its receipt of only one comment letter) and because it did not believe any issues in the draft PSD permit required clarification.
See Response to Comments at 3–4. Petitioner could have but did not object to this finding on appeal. What she cannot do, however, is what she did do: completely change the focus of her underlying comment and raise that for the first time before the Board. See, e.g., In re Rockgen Energy Center, 8 E.A.D. 536, 546 (EAB 1998) (issues that are reasonably ascertainable but not raised during the comment period are not preserved for review by the Board).

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 693

SUTTER POWER PLANT
693

Ms. Joaquin-Wood contends that it is not sufficient to rely solely on the NAAQS to determine whether adverse health impacts will occur as a result of emissions from the new plant. Instead, Ms. Joaquin-Wood claims that collateral environmental impacts caused by emissions of unregulated pol- lutants may be considered in the determination of BACT. Reply Br. at 3–4.
In this case, Region IX chose Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”) tech- nology as BACT. SCR uses ammonia as a catalyst to reduce NOX emissions, and some portion of unreacted ammonia apparently escapes from the exhaust stack as “ammonia slip.” According to Ms. Joaquin-Wood, ammo- nia slip reacts with nitric acid in the ambient air to form ammonium nitrate, which can be measured as PM10. Assuming an average ammonia slip of 5 parts per million dry volume (“ppmvd”) from the SCR, Ms. Joaquin-Wood estimates that approximately 438 tons per year (“tpy”) of secondary PM10 emissions will be added to the air of Sutter County, which is above and beyond the plant’s permitted PM10 emissions.12 Id. at 5–6. Ms. Joaquin- Wood claims that Region IX’s BACT analysis is flawed because these significant secondary impacts were not considered. Id. at 2–8.

In its supplemental response to petitioner’s reply, the Region con- tends, among other things, that its purported failure to consider second- ary PM10 emissions associated with the use of SCR as BACT cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Supplemental Response to Petition for Review at 1–5 (“Supp. Resp.”). According to the Region, Ms. Joaquin- Wood “never raised during the comment period the issue of potential environmental effects associated with SCR,” id. at 4, and the allegation that secondary PM10 emissions will approach 450 tpy is wholly new.13 Id. at 5.

12
Ms. Joaquin-Wood states:

Assuming the average ammonia slip over the life of the SCR catalyst is 5 ppmvd, the Project would emit about 93 tons/yr of [ammonia]. * * * Further assuming that one lb mole of [ammonia] reacts to form one lb mole of [ammonium nitrate], up to 438 tons/yr (2,398 lb/day) of secondary PM10 could be formed in the stack and downwind assuming adequate [nitric acid] is available.

Reply Br. at 5–6.
13
Moreover, even if the issue were deemed preserved for review, the Region contends that Ms. Joaquin-Wood committed substantial errors in her calculation of secondary PM10 emissions. The Region states:

The science of secondary PM formation is far more complex and far less certain than presented by Petitioner. To form secondary PM emissions, ambient ammo- nia must react with ambient nitrates or sulfates. It is the presence or absence of these chemicals in the ambient air that determine[s] the potential for secondary PM emissions. It is also extremely difficult to determine the source of those ambient ammonia emissions which react with [nitric acid]. Further, the reactivity Continued

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 694

694
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

The only comments on the permit offered by Ms. Joaquin-Wood relating to this point read as follows:

No mention of the effect of the plant’s emissions on asthma sufferers has ever been made.

There should be an additional hearing to explain why this plant is being allowed to emit * * * 92.4 tons of tiny particulate matter into the already polluted air of Sutter County.

Wood Comments at 1. We agree with the Region that the complex issue of ammonia slip/secondary PM10 formation from SCR use was not raised in these comments. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.13. Indeed, the comments make no reference to ammonia as a pollutant of concern, nor do they indicate concern regarding SCR as a source of PM10 emissions not contemplated by the permit. To the contrary, the comments’ reference to 92.4 tons of particulate matter—the amount contemplated by the permit—belies the suggestion that they should be read as contemplative of the worry expressed on appeal that SCR technology would result in 438 tons of fine particulate matter beyond that envisioned by the permit. While it is appropriate to hold permitting authorities accountable for a full and meaningful response to concerns fairly raised in public comments, such authorities are not expected to be prescient in their understanding of vague or imprecise comments like those advanced here. “At a minimum, commenters must present issues with sufficient specificity to apprise the permit issuing authority of the issues being raised. Absent such specificity, the permit issuer cannot meaningfully respond to comments.” In re Rockgen Energy Center, 8 E.A.D. 536, 547–48 (EAB 1999). This prin- ciple is no less important in the context of petitioners not represented by counsel. See, e.g., In re Commonwealth Chesapeake Corp., 6 E.A.D. 764, 772 (EAB 1997).

Thus, we must deny review on this ground. See In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 121, 126 n.9 (EAB 1999) (“[n]ew issues raised for

of the compounds depends on highly variable local conditions, including temper- ature and meteorologic conditions. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to quantify secondary PM emissions from ammonia slip associated with SCR at this time.

Supp. Resp. at 6–7 (citations omitted). The Region contends that Ms. Wood’s calculations contain too many assumptions to be credible. Id. at 6–7 & n.4.

VOLUME 8
187-274/Sections29-33 10/15/01 4:20 PM Page 695

SUTTER POWER PLANT
695

the first time at the reply stage of these proceedings are equivalent to late filed appeals and must be denied on the basis of timeliness”).

C. Amarel Petition

As explained in Part II.A.1 above, petitions for review of PSD permits must be filed within thirty days after the issuance of a final permit deci- sion. See supra Part II.A.1; 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a). Late-filed appeals will be dismissed as untimely. In re AES Puerto Rico L.P., 8 E.A.D. 324, 328 (EAB 1999). Here, the Amarels filed their petition with the Board on September 29, 1999, more than two months after Region IX’s issuance of Calpine’s final PSD permit on July 21, 1999. The Amarels’ petition therefore must be dismissed as untimely. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a); AES Puerto Rico, 8 E.A.D. at 328–330; Beckman Prod. Servs., 5 E.A.D. 10, 15–16 (EAB 1994).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review of the Sutter Power Plant PSD permit are denied.

So ordered.

VOLUME 8