Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH

Plain-English summary

Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH planned to construct a fiberglass manufacturing facility in Shasta Lake, California, under a PSD permit issued by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District. Petitioners challenged the revised permit's best available control technology determination for PM10, its environmental justice analysis, and the way it incorporated a fiberglass NESHAP rule. The Environmental Appeals Board found that the remand record adequately supported the revised PM10 control technology and lower emission limits, that the environmental justice analysis did not show disproportionately high or adverse effects, and that cross-referencing the NESHAP in the permit was sufficient. It denied review of the revised permit and found no need for further Board action.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 40 C.F.R. §§ 50.2, 52.21, 124.19, and 124.41; 42 U.S.C. §§ 7475 and 7479.
• Outcome: Review of the revised PSD permit was denied, and the permit remained in place with the remand changes.
• Key point: A permitting authority's revised technical analysis and public-facing environmental justice review can support a PSD permit when the Board finds no clear error or abuse of discretion.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

1

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 I”). 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 I, 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.

VOLUME 9

2

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

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 I”). 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

VOLUME 9

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

3

agreement with the U.S. EPA.1 The PSD permit program is an element of the
Clean Air Act (“CAA”) that requires preconstruction review and approval for new
and modified major stationary sources. CAA § 165, 42 U.S.C. § 7475. As outlined in our previous decision regarding the planned Knauf facility, the PSD review process involves several technical analyses and determinations as well as
specific procedural requirements designed to implement the CAA’s emphasis on
public participation and input. Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 123-24.
The PSD review process for the proposed Knauf facility officially began in
March 1997, when Knauf first submitted a PSD permit application to SCAQMD.
The proposed facility is subject to PSD review due to its anticipated emissions of
particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (“PM10”).2 During the
course of the original review process, SCAQMD conducted analyses of best available control technology (“BACT”) and air quality impacts relating to PM10. In
addition, SCAQMD solicited comment on the terms of a draft permit for the proposed facility and held a public hearing. See Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 125 (providing
details of SCAQMD’s administrative review of the Knauf permit application in
1997-1998). After issuing a final permit decision in March 1998, several individuals and entities filed petitions for review with the Board, seeking our review of
SCAQMD’s permit decision and elements of its review process.
Knauf I examined several aspects of SCAQMD’s original PSD review process. We denied review of all of the issues raised in the appeal with the exception
of two items for which we felt that SCAQMD’s decisions were not adequately
justified on the record. Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 174-75. The two items that warranted
a grant of review were: (1) the PM10 BACT determination, and (2) conclusions
regarding environmental justice. Id. The Board remanded the PSD permit to
SCAQMD to provide supplemental analyses of these items and to make the analyses available for public comment. Id. The Board specifically limited the scope of
the remand to these two issues. Although the Board expressly allowed for appeals
upon conclusion of the remand procedures, we also cautioned that “[t]he subject
matter of any such appeal must be limited to the issues identified in the remand
order.” Id. at 73.

1 U.S. EPA delegated authority to the SCAQMD to administer the federal PSD program in
1985. The permits that SCAQMD issues pursuant to that delegation are considered federal permits
subject to federal permitting procedures, including the potential for review by the Environmental Appeals Board under 40 C.F.R. § 124.19. See In re RockGen Energy Center, 8 E.A.D. 536, 537 n.1
(EAB 1999); Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 123; 40 C.F.R. § 124.41 (“when EPA has delegated authority to
administer [permitting] regulations to another agency * * *, the term EPA shall mean the delegate
agency and the term Regional Administrator shall mean the chief administrative officer of the delegate
agency.”)
2 PSD review is triggered for PM
10 if a source has the potential to emit 15 tons per year or
more of PM10 emissions. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(23)(i). The annual PM10 emissions from the proposed
Knauf facility are well above this threshold.

VOLUME 9

4

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

During the remand period, SCAQMD prepared and/or obtained the supplemental analyses required by the Board’s order. SCAQMD also prepared a revised
draft permit, and made the revised permit, along with the supplemental analyses,
available for public comment in April 1999. On June 2, 1999, SCAQMD held a
public hearing on the revised permit. SCAQMD issued a final revised permit
along with two response to comments documents on August 17, 1999. See Federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Authority to Construct (Aug. 17,
1999) (“Revised Permit”); Response to Comments, Written Comments Submitted
During Public Comment Period (“Resp. to Comments”); Response to Comments,
Public Hearing 6/2/99 (“Public Hear. Resp.”).
During September 1999, the Board received sixty-five (65) petitions for review regarding the revised permit for the proposed Knauf facility.3 Sixty-four (64)
of these petitions were filed by citizens or citizens’ groups who oppose the Knauf
facility. One petition was filed by another fiberglass manufacturer, CertainTeed
Corporation. Most of the citizen petitions request that the Board deny the permit
issued to Knauf.
At the Board’s request, SCAQMD prepared responses to each of the petitions for review.4 Petitioners were subsequently granted the opportunity to file
replies to the SCAQMD responses. Notice to All Petitioners and Order Granting
Motions for Leave to File Reply Briefs (Nov. 16, 1999). EPA Region IX, which
was a petitioner in Knauf I, but did not file a petition for review of the revised
permit decision, sought permission to file an amicus brief in this proceeding. The
Board granted that request. Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Amicus

3

The petitioners (and corresponding appeal numbers) are: Robert Rollins (99-8), Colleen
Leavitt (99-9), Mary Scott (99-10), David Nigro & Paula Hetzler (99-11), Debra Kaut (99-12), Betty
Doty (99-13), Dorothy Kearsley (99-14), Walter May (99-15), Citizens for Cleaner Air et al. (99-16),
Arnold Erickson (99-17), Russ Wade (99-18), Earl Hastings (99-19), Doreen Hastings (99-20), Ivan
Hall (99-21), Barbara Frisbie (99-22), Stuart Oliver (99-23), Stuart Oliver & Jonathan McInteer (9924), Radley Davis (99-25), Judy Sills (99-26), James Sills (99-27), April Frank (99-28), Warren Teel
(99-29), Sharon Bellomo (99-30), Dwight Bailey (99-31), William Caraway (99-32), Vicki Caraway
(99-33), Dara Caraway (99-34), Joanna Caul & Richard Sanford (99-35), Robert DiGiulio (99-36),
Robert & Constance Hegge (99-37), Heidi Silva (99-38), Suzanne Auteni-Tony (99-39), Rhonda
Posey (99-40), Gloria Zeller (99-41), Jim Price (99-42), Judy Hansen (99-43), Barbara Condon (9944), Elizabeth Ballou (99-45), Joseph & Lillian Hernandez (99-46), Bonnie Rule (99-47), Cindy
Christie (99-48), Aracelia Briggs (99-49), Rebecca Christie (99-50), Becky Wilson (99-51), Ron Pearsall (99-52), George McArthur (99-53), Georgette McArthur (99-54), James Melby (99-55), Carolyn
Singelmann (99-56), Fulton Doty (99-57), Nadine Stutsman (99-58), Patricia Cogburn (99-59), Bryan
Jones (99-60), Orville & Juanita Vanderzanden (99-61), Doreen Melby (99-62), Linda Andrews (9963), Jeffrey Lewellyn (99-64), Barbara Jo Garner (99-65), CertainTeed Corp. (99-66), Justin Jones
(99-67), Hans Ortlieb (99-68), Tillie Smith (99-69), Laurie O’Connell & Ed Barger (99-70), Joy
Newcom (99-71), Fulton Doty (99-72). Specific petitions are cited herein as “Petition [#].”
4
SCAQMD’s responses are cited herein as “Resp. to Petition [#].” We refer to specific pages
within the response by the administrative record page number, i.e., (AR #).

VOLUME 9

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

5

Brief (Nov. 10, 1999). The amicus brief represents the views of Region IX, EPA’s
Office of Air and Radiation, and EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice. Amicus
Brief of EPA Region IX, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, and EPA Office of
Environmental Justice in Support of Shasta County, California, Air Quality Management District’s Response to Petitioners (“EPA Amicus Brief”).
Through its responses to the petitions for review, SCAQMD challenged
several petitions on the threshold regulatory requirements of timeliness and standing. The Board reviewed all of the petitions for compliance with the timeliness
and standing requirements and issued an order dismissing several of the petitions
for review on timeliness and standing grounds. Order Dismissing Certain Appeals
on Timeliness and Standing (Jan. 3, 2000).5

II. DISCUSSION
A. Scope of Review

1. Preliminary Requirements
   In determining whether to grant review of a petition for review of a PSD
   permit, the Board first looks to whether the petition meets the threshold procedural requirements of the permit appeal regulations. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19; In re
   Sutter Power Plant, 8 E.A.D. at 685 (EAB 1999). The threshold procedural requirements include timeliness, standing, and preservation of an issue for review.
   As discussed above, the Board issued an earlier order dealing with timeliness and standing.6 In that order, we noted that we also expect petitions for review
   to meet a minimum standard of specificity. See Order Dismissing Certain Appeals
   on Timeliness and Standing at 2 n.1 (Jan. 6, 2000); citing In re Envotech, L.P.,
   6 E.A.D. 260, 267 (EAB 1996). To meet the specificity requirement, petitioners
   must include specific information supporting their allegations. Petitions for review may not simply repeat objections made during the comment period; instead
   they must demonstrate why the permitting authority’s response to those objections
   warrants review. Sutter, 8 E.A.D. at 687 (EAB 1999); In re Encogen Cogeneration Facility, 8 E.A.D. at 244, 251-52 (EAB 1999).

5 The January 3 order disposed of the following petitions for review in their entirety: 99-12,
99-25 through 99-28, 99-31, 99-39 through 99-52, 99-55, 99-56, 99-60 through 99-62, 99-64, 99-65,
99-67, 99-70. Supplemental letters in support of petition numbers 99-17 and 99-38 were also
dismissed.
6 The threshold procedural requirement that issues be properly preserved for review is not
contested in this case.

VOLUME 9

6

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

As we explained in Knauf I, the Board broadly construes petitions filed by
persons unrepresented by legal counsel. Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 127. While the
Board expects such petitions to meet the requirement of specificity, it does not
expect those petitions to contain sophisticated legal arguments or to employ precise technical or legal terms. Id.; Sutter, 8 E.A.D. at 687. For purposes of specificity, the Board expects such petitions to clearly identify the issue being raised and
to provide some supportable reason as to why review is warranted. Knauf I,
8 E.A.D. at 127; Sutter, 8 E.A.D. at 687-88.
In this case, many of the petitions for review fall far short of even this generous approach to specificity. Most of the petitions do not identify even one particular permit condition as a basis for an appeal. While many of the petitions for
review allude to the two issues that were the subject of the Board’s remand order,
i.e., BACT and environmental justice, few of them discuss why SCAQMD’s written responses on these issues are incorrect or inadequate. It is clear from reading
all of the petitions for review, that the petitioning citizens and citizens’ groups feel
strongly that the Knauf facility, at least as currently designed, is inappropriate for
the Shasta Lake community. We respect the petitioners’ right to voice their objections, but for us to fairly and accurately examine the merits of this appeal, we
must insist that minimum specificity standards are adhered to.
There are nonetheless, approximately one dozen petitions for review that
satisfy the preliminary requirements, including specificity. These petitions fairly
represent the overall collection of petitions for review filed by citizens and citizens’ groups. Of these, certain petitions for review do a particularly good job of
highlighting the issues and objections to SCAQMD’s responses. For purposes of
brevity and clarity, we will refer only to selected petitions in our discussion of the
merits on the issues before us. We view the petitions cited herein as representative
of the entire collection of citizens’ petitions meeting the preliminary requirements.

2. Standard of Review for a Grant or Denial of Review in a Permit
   Appeal
   If the preliminary requirements have been satisfied, the Board will determine whether a petition for review shows that the permit decision in question was
   based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or conclusion of law, or if the decision involves an important policy consideration or exercise of discretion that warrants review. 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a); Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 126-27. If either of
   these conditions is met, the Board will grant review and potentially remand the
   permit decision. If neither of the conditions is met, the Board denies review of the
   petition.
   The above standard of review is applied stringently in practice, in keeping
   with the directive in the preamble to section 124.19 that the “power of review
   should be only sparingly exercised” and “most permit conditions should be finally

VOLUME 9

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

7

determined at the [permitting authority] level.” 45 Fed. Reg. 33,290, 33,412 (May
19, 1980). Thus, it is infrequent that the Board will grant review in a permit appeal. The Board exercises this authority only when the petitions for review and
the administrative record are abundantly persuasive that the Board’s active involvement in the matter is warranted.

3. Limitations on Scope of Review Established by the Remand
   Order
   In this case, the potential for a grant of review is also limited by the Knauf I
   decision. That decision was final as to all issues associated with the PSD permit
   for the proposed Knauf facility, with the exception of two: BACT and environmental justice. Those are the issues that were the subject of our remand order to
   SCAQMD, and are the focus of this decision. As noted above, the Knauf I decision explicitly limited any post-remand appeals to those two issues. Knauf I,
   8 E.A.D. at 175-76.
   Therefore, we decline review of the abundance of miscellaneous issues
   raised in the petitions for review. Some of the issues outside the scope of review
   for this post-remand appeal are issues that were specifically addressed and for
   which review was denied in Knauf I. This category includes issues such as: concerns about federal and state air quality standards, permit limits on hazardous air
   pollutant emissions, the PM10 mitigation plan, the desire for an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, and use of local
   landfills for waste disposal. In addition, the petitions for review raise some new
   issues that were not before us in Knauf I. Such issues may not be raised at this
   juncture because the scope of the remand was expressly limited. All other issues
   pertaining to this PSD permit should have been raised at the time of the first appeal. Issues raised outside of the appeals period on the original permit are considered untimely. See Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 126 n.9 (new issues raised in reply briefs
   are equivalent to late filed appeals and must be denied as untimely).
   The only exception to the limitation on the scope of review as established
   by the remand order is for issues pertaining to permit conditions that were modified during the remand period. Such permit conditions may qualify for review
   because the conditions have not been previously subject to the appeal process. In
   this case, an issue has been raised regarding SCAQMD’s modification of the permit in light of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
   (“NESHAP”) for the fiberglass manufacturing industry. See 64 Fed. Reg. 31,695
   (June 14, 1999). The fiberglass NESHAP was promulgated in June 1999, during
   the remand period, and we may examine the issue raised in the petitions for review regarding the permit’s consistency with this regulation.
   The next section of the Discussion describes the revised BACT determination reached by SCAQMD during the remand period and addresses issues raised

VOLUME 9

8

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

in the petitions for review regarding this determination. Following that, we address the arguments regarding environmental justice and how that concept relates
to this case. Last, we look at the issue of how the revised permit addresses the
fiberglass NESHAP.
B. BACT
The Clean Air Act and the PSD regulations require that “best available control technology” be employed on facilities subject to PSD review. CAA
§ 165(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4); 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(j)(2). These requirements are implemented through a BACT analysis and, ultimately, a BACT determination issued by the permitting authority. The BACT determination typically
consists of selecting an emission limitation based on a specified control technology for control of a particular air pollutant. Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 128-29.
In Knauf I, we remanded SCAQMD’s original BACT determination for
PM10 because we found deficiencies in how the control technology and emission
limits for the proposed Knauf facility were selected. Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 141. The
documentation on SCAQMD’s BACT determination did not demonstrate that
SCAQMD had fully considered the PM10 control technologies and emission limits
at other fiberglass manufacturing facilities. Id. In addition, commenters in the
original permit proceeding had raised questions regarding configuration and size
of the particular pollution control equipment selected. We held that SCAQMD
had not adequately considered these comments and had not convinced us that either the particular design of the control technology or the specified emission limit
constituted BACT. Id.
Our remand order instructed SCAQMD to identify multiple PM10 control
options and to thoroughly document its analysis of the potential control options.
Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 175. During the remand period, Knauf prepared and submitted a supplemental BACT analysis to SCAQMD. Mostardi-Platt ass’n., Supplemental Best Available Control Technology Analysis for PM10 (Feb. 1999) (“Supp.
BACT Analysis”). SCAQMD subsequently revised its BACT determination. Authority to Construct/PSD Permit Evaluation (Apr. 1999) (“Revised Evaluation”).
In contrast to the documentation in the administrative record for Knauf I,
these new documents provide ample support for SCAQMD’s final decisions on
BACT and the revised permit conditions on PM10 emissions. The supplemental
BACT analysis, for example, identifies PM10 control technologies and emission
limits for five other fiberglass manufacturing facilities. Supp. BACT Analysis at

10. Knauf’s original permit application identified only one other facility for comparison purposes, a Knauf plant located in Alabama. See Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 134.
    The supplemental analysis also addresses the technical feasibility of six types of
    control options. Supp. BACT Analysis at 11-14. The original permit application
    contained no technical feasibility discussion at all. See Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 134.

VOLUME 9

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

9

SCAQMD’s documentation of its BACT determination is also much improved. SCAQMD details the PM10 control technologies used by five other fiberglass manufacturing facilities. Revised Evaluation at 14-16. SCAQMD also assesses the efficiencies of the various control options, Id. at 18-19, and concludes
that energy, environmental, and economic impacts would not justify selection of a
control option other than the top option. Id. at 20. None of these features were
included in SCAQMD’s previous evaluation document. See Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at
134-35 (description of SCAQMD’s justification for its original BACT
determination).
The supplemental BACT analysis and SCAQMD’s revised evaluation resulted in revised permit conditions governing PM10 emissions from the main stack
of the proposed Knauf facility. Table 1 compares the PM10 control technology and
emission limits as expressed in the original and revised permits.
TABLE 1
Comparison of PM10 Permit Limits
Control
Technology

PM10 Emission
Limit

Source

SCAQMD Permit Decision
(3/30/1998)

7 venturi scrubbers; WEP*

43.6 lbs/hr
5.37 lbs/ton7

¶ 48a, 53

SCAQMD Revised Permit
Decision
(8/17/1999)

Knauf process
technology; 7
venturi scrubbers; WEP

28.4 lbs/hr
3.5 lbs/ton

¶ 47, 52

*Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
The revised BACT determination, as reflected in the revised permit, differs
from the original in two ways. First, SCAQMD has chosen to list “Knauf process
technology” as a component of BACT. SCAQMD noted that each of the fiberglass facilities considered in the course of the supplemental BACT analysis use
proprietary process controls, which have some effect on the amount of PM10 emissions generated prior to any add-on pollution control technology.8 Revised Evalu-

7 Emission limits for the fiberglass industry are commonly expressed in pounds per ton of
glass pulled or “lbs/ton.” The permit expresses the PM10 emission limit in units of both lbs/hour and
lbs/ton.
8 The definition of BACT encompasses “production processes * * *, systems, and techniques,” as well as add-on pollution devices. See CAA § 169(3), 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3);
40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(12).

VOLUME 9

10

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

ation at 17. Second, the revised permit lowers the PM10 emission limit from 5.37
lbs/ton to 3.5 lbs/ton, and from 43.6 lbs/hr to 28.4 lbs/hr.
A lower PM10 emission limit was proposed by Knauf in the supplemental
BACT analysis. See Supp. BACT Analysis at 23-24. The lower limit is made
possible by two factors. First, Knauf improved the efficiency of its process technology and conducted stack tests at its Alabama plant to derive an actual emission
rate that is lower than the rate used in the original permit application.9 This rate
reflects the expected emissions without a wet electrostatic precipitator (WEP), a
type of add-on pollution control equipment. Second, Knauf obtained a slightly
higher guaranteed WEP control efficiency from its WEP vendor. The combination
of these two factors yielded a proposed PM10 emission limit of 3.9 lbs/ton. Supp.
BACT Analysis at 24.
SCAQMD tightened Knauf’s proposed emission limit even further by requiring Knauf’s process efficiency efforts at the new Shasta Lake facility to match
the more recent performance of the Alabama plant. SCAQMD recalculated expected PM10 emissions prior to treatment by the WEP by using the three best stack
test results from the Alabama facility. Revised Evaluation at 21. SCAQMD ultimately selected a PM10 emission limit of 3.5 lbs/ton. Id. at 22. This value was
included in the revised permit. Revised Permit ¶ 52.
With this background, we now turn to the petitioners’ objections to the revised BACT determination. The petitions for review pose many of the same arguments set forth in Knauf I to challenge the adequacy of the revised BACT determination. These arguments were persuasive in the prior appeal because support
for the BACT determination in the administrative record was weak. The more
thorough justification now before us adequately addresses petitioners’ arguments
and the questions we posed in Knauf I. See Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 140-41 (identification of open questions that need to be addressed in order to assess SCAQMD’s
BACT determination).

1. Availability of Proprietary Process Technology
   One of the arguments raised in Knauf I was that Knauf ought to be required
   to obtain and employ a fiberglass manufacturing process technology from one of
   its competitors, i.e., CertainTeed Corporation. See Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 142. We
   noted that while “inherently lower-polluting processes” should be considered during the BACT selection process, see id. at 129, and there must be “serious consid-

9 The stack tests from Knauf’s Alabama plant can provide relevant data for the proposed
Shasta Lake facility because the Alabama plant uses the same process technology as planned for
Shasta Lake as well as wet/venturi scrubbers for emission control. The Alabama plant does not have a
WEP.

VOLUME 9

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

11

eration of pollution control designs for other facilities that are a matter of public
record,” id. 8 E.A.D. at 142 n.34, the permit applicant does not have an obligation
to pursue its competitors’ trade secrets. Id. Petitioners in the present appeal suggest that efforts by Knauf and SCAQMD to assess the availability of other process technologies were inadequate. See, e.g., Petition 99-29 at 5.
The administrative record indicates that Knauf made several attempts to obtain information about process technologies used by other fiberglass manufacturers, including reviewing federal databases, reviewing permits issued to other fiberglass manufacturing plants, and filing Public Records Act (CA) and Freedom
of Information Act (federal) requests for information. Supp. BACT Analysis at
11-12. SCAQMD also contacted air quality agencies that had issued permits to
other fiberglass plants to seek information on process technologies. Revised Evaluation at 18. Information on process technology has been historically treated as
proprietary and confidential by the fiberglass industry, and this position was again
asserted in response to the inquiries by Knauf and SCAQMD. See Supp. BACT
Analysis app. I (contains documentation of legal action or threats of legal action
against Knauf and Knauf’s attorneys by competitor companies). Faced with this
information, SCAQMD concluded that use of a competitor’s process technology
was not a feasible control option for the proposed Knauf plant. Revised Evaluation at 18.
In Knauf I, we described the sequential elements of a BACT selection process. Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 129-32. The process begins with an investigation of a
variety of potential control technologies, consisting of both process technologies
or practices and add-on controls. While BACT selection often focuses on add-on
controls, we noted that it is legitimate to expect a permitting authority to also
include process technologies in the list of available control options if any are
available. Id. 8 E.A.D. at 142 n.34. Process technology that is treated as proprietary and confidential, however, will not likely qualify as “available” for purposes
of BACT. If that is the case, such technologies may be eliminated from the BACT
consideration process. In this case, Knauf and SCAQMD investigated the availability of process technology used by other fiberglass manufacturers, learned that it
was treated as proprietary and confidential, and concluded that such technology
was not available for purposes of BACT. SCAQMD’s decision on the non-availability of alternative process technology is adequately justified by the record.10

10 A decision that alternative process technology is not available does not exempt a permit
applicant and permitting authority from fully investigating add-on pollution controls. Knauf I,
8 E.A.D. at 142 n.34. On remand, Knauf and SCAQMD documented an investigation of add-on controls, and as described in this section, this supplemental search and analysis was satisfactorily
performed.

VOLUME 9

12

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

2. Size of Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
   A wet electrostatic precipitator (WEP) is an add-on pollution control device
   for PM10 that uses electrical forces to remove PM10 from an emission gas stream
   and deposits the particulate onto collection plates. Supp. BACT Analysis at 14.
   According to SCAQMD’s analysis, a WEP is the most effective add-on control
   device available for PM10 emissions from a fiberglass manufacturing plant.11 Revised Evaluation at 18. Petitioners have not challenged the selection of WEP technology as the most stringent add-on emission control. However, the petitions
   question the size of the WEP planned for the Knauf facility. See, e.g., Petition 9937 at 6 (challenging SCAQMD’s determination that a larger WEP is not available). We posed a similar question in Knauf I. Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 141.
   The supplemental BACT analysis contains an economic and removal efficiency analysis associated with increasing the size of the WEP as designed for the
   Knauf facility. Supp. BACT Analysis at 16-17. The analysis examines the additional costs and PM10 removals for WEPs 1.5 and 2 times larger than the WEP as
   designed. The analysis indicates that the PM10 emission rate can be reduced by 0.2
   lbs/ton with a WEP one and half times larger than the current design and by 0.3
   lbs/ton with a WEP that is twice as large. Id. at 16. The price for these incremental emissions reductions is estimated at between $43,000 and $54,000 per ton of
   additional PM10 removed. Id.
   The economic and removal efficiency analysis presented in the supplemental BACT analysis is largely a hypothetical discussion, because no vendor has
   proposed to provide a WEP of the magnitudes suggested. Of the three vendor
   proposals received, Knauf chose the largest WEP offered. Supp. BACT Analysis
   at 17. Petitioners argue that just because a larger WEP was not offered by a vendor does not mean that a larger WEP would not have been available. Petition 9937 at 6. While it may be physically possible to construct a larger WEP, we believe
   that SCAQMD’s decision to require the WEP as recommended in the supplemental BACT analysis is reasonable given the low incremental PM10 removal and
   high incremental costs associated with a larger device.
3. Multiple WEPs
   The petitions for review filed during Knauf I pointed out that fiberglass
   manufacturing facilities owned by CertainTeed Corporation use multiple WEPs

11 Other add-on control technologies discussed in the supplemental BACT analysis and the
revised evaluation included wet scrubbers, spray towers, and baghouses. Supp. BACT Analysis at 13;
Revised Evaluation at 14. SCAQMD ranked the available add-on control technologies in order of
stringency as follows: (1) wet scrubbers followed by a WEP; (2) wet scrubbers only; (3) spray towers.
Revised Evaluation at 18. Baghouses were eliminated as technically infeasible because they are used
only where PM10 exhaust is dry. Id.

VOLUME 9

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

13

for PM10 control. See Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 138. We questioned why SCAQMD
had not investigated whether the use of a different WEP configuration would result in better emissions reduction. Id. at 141. Petitioners raise this point again in
this proceeding. See, e.g., Petition 99-10 at 2; Petition 99-21 at 4-6; Petition 99-37
at 6-7.
SCAQMD noted that CertainTeed manufacturing facilities in Chowchilla,
California, and Kansas City, Kansas, use multiple WEPs, but that these devices
“are not used in series or in any other configuration . . . that would improve emission control efficiency.” Revised Evaluation at 17. SCAQMD further explained in
the response to comments that the CertainTeed WEPs are each treating a portion
of the air flow from its manufacturing process, whereas the WEP designed for
Knauf will treat the entire process air flow.12 Resp. to Comments at 23. SCAQMD
concluded that the exhaust air from the CertainTeed facilities and from the proposed Knauf facility would receive the same emission control. Id. The decision of
whether to approve, as BACT, the use of one WEP that treats the entire emission
stream rather than multiple WEPS, each of which treats a portion of the emissions
stream is one that we can comfortably leave to the technical expertise of the permitting authority. We are satisfied that SCAQMD investigated and considered
other control technology configurations used in practice and documented the reasons for its decisions in the administrative record.

4. Selection of the PM10 Emission Limit
   Many of the petitions for review raise objections to the PM10 emission limit
   in the revised permit. Even though the PM10 limit was revised downwards to 28.4
   lbs/hr and 3.5 lbs/ton, petitioners are dissatisfied because PM10 emission limits at
   CertainTeed facilities in California and Kansas are lower still.13 See, e.g., Petition

12 SCAQMD’s statement that CertainTeed’s “WEPs are sized only for a reduced portion of the
air flow” elicited an objection from CertainTeed in its petition for review. Petition 99-66 at 1.
CertainTeed objects to the characterization of its pollution control devices as sized to handle only a
portion of process exhaust. CertainTeed states, “[e]ach of CertainTeed’s WEPS * * * are sized properly to handle all of the exhaust from the corresponding processes, not just a portion.” Id. In response
to CertainTeed’s petition, SCAQMD attempts to clarify that its use of the phrase “reduced portion of
the air flow,” was simply intended to distinguish CertainTeed’s method of treating portions of air flow
by individual WEPs from Knauf’s proposed method of treating the entire exhaust stream with wet
scrubbers and one large WEP. Resp. to Petition 99-66 (AR 11,355). We believe that the issue raised by
CertainTeed in its petition is largely one of semantics rather than substance and does not merit a grant
of review.
13 The materials filed with this appeal contain a fair amount of debate and discussion regarding
what the emission limitations for the CertainTeed facilities actually are. The permits for the
CertainTeed facilities express PM10 limits differently from the way PM10 limits are expressed in the
revised permit for the proposed Knauf facility. We need not address the various issues regarding how
CertainTeed’s PM10 limits compare to Knauf’s because we find that SCAQMD’s explanation of the
reasons for the differences is adequate.

VOLUME 9

14

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

99-10 at 2; Petition 99-33 at 2; Petition 99-37 at 10.
We noted in Knauf I that emission limits for different facilities may differ,
even if identical control technology is applied. Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 143. For example, the two CertainTeed facilities in question each use a combination of wet
scrubbers and WEPs for PM10 control, yet their permitted PM10 emission limits
differ. In fact, the Kansas City facility has a higher PM10 emission limit than the
Chowchilla facility although the Kansas City facility is newer. See id. at 23; Supp.
BACT Analysis at 24-25; Revised Evaluation at 16; Resp. to Comments at 12.
Here, SCAQMD explains the difference between the CertainTeed limits and
the limit it set for the proposed Knauf facility by pointing to the underlying proprietary processes used by each of the companies. SCAQMD notes that the process technologies and product blends for individual fiberglass manufacturing facilities differ, and these differences will yield emission limitations that are
specific to a particular facility. Resp. to Comments at 12; Resp. to Petition 99-37
(AR 11,316). We agree that numerical emission limitations under the PSD program are individualized for specific facilities and we believe that SCAQMD has
adequately justified the emission limitations in the revised permit for the proposed
Knauf plant as compared to other fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
A few of the petitioners not only question the PM10 emission limit as compared the PM10 limits at the CertainTeed facilities, but also question the factors
used to derive the numerical limit of 3.5 lbs/ton. See, e.g., Petition 99-10 at 5;
Petition 99-29 at 6.
SCAQMD used the following equation to derive the PM10 emission limitation for the proposed Knauf facility:
Actual PM10 emissions (Lanett) x 1.25 (safety factor) x WEP efficiency factor

Revised Evaluation at 22. The equation begins with an average value for PM10
emissions from Knauf’s facility in Lanett, Alabama. That value is multiplied by a
safety factor to take into account process variability and then multiplied again by
the WEP efficiency factor as guaranteed by the WEP manufacturer. Petitioners
question use of the Lanett emissions level and the safety factor.
Petition 99-29 objects to the use of emissions data from Knauf’s Lanett,
Alabama facility as a basis for the emission limitation in the proposed Shasta
Lake plant. Petition 99-29 at 6. This petitioner believes that the Lanett emissions
levels may be inflated so as to obtain a more generous emission limit for Shasta
Lake. Id. The petitioner also contends that it is improper for SCAQMD to set
emission limits based on Knauf’s historical performance when Knauf has no incentive to lower its emission levels. Id. SCAQMD responds that the stack tests
from which the emissions data were produced were witnessed by Alabama officials who provide “third-party objectivity” to the data. Resp. to Petition 99-29 (AR

VOLUME 9

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

15

11,306). SCAQMD also defends its approach of setting an emission limit based
on actual emission tests from a similar facility. Id. SCAQMD believes that use of
actual emissions data from the very same process that will be employed in the
proposed facility is the best way to set an emission limitation.
The petitioner may be correct that Knauf has no incentive to lower emissions from its Lanett, Alabama facility. But in fact, the data collected from Lanett
show PM10 emissions significantly lower than the permitted emission limitation
for that facility. Supp. BACT Analysis app. M. Thus, even without an incentive,
Knauf achieved lower emissions at Lanett. SCAQMD reasonably decided to require the same level of performance at the proposed facility in Shasta Lake.
Another petitioner questions the need for a 25% safety factor (represented
as 1.25 in the above equation) for process variability. The safety factor essentially
incorporates a margin of error in the calculation of an emission limitation. The
petitioner suggests that the PM10 emission limitation should be set without regard
to a safety factor. Petition 99-10 at 5. SCAQMD responds that a 25% “variability”
factor is appropriate in light of potential variations in the fiberglass insulation
manufacturing process, which is affected by glass pull rates, temperature, and humidity. In addition, a safety factor can be used to protect against test method variability. Resp. to Comments at 24; Resp. to Petition 99-10 (AR 11,284).
There is nothing inherently wrong with setting an emission limitation that
takes into account a reasonable safety factor. The resulting emission limitation is
still an enforceable cap on PM10 emissions. The inclusion of a reasonable safety
factor in the emission limitation calculation is a legitimate method of deriving a
specific emission limitation that may not be exceeded. SCAQMD adequately explained why it set the limit where it did, and Petitioners did not meet their burdens
of showing why SCAQMD’s decision in this case was clearly erroneous or an
abuse of discretion.
In sum, we deny review of all issues raised in the petitions for review regarding the revised BACT determination for the proposed Knauf facility.
C. Environmental Justice
The issue of environmental justice as presented in this case refers to allegations made by members of the public that the issuance of a PSD permit for the
proposed Knauf facility may disproportionately impact a low-income population.
This issue was invoked through reference to an Executive Order that instructs
federal agencies to address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of [their] programs, policies, and activities
on minority and low-income populations * * *.” Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Exec.
Order 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994) (“Executive Order”).

VOLUME 9

16

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Our treatment of environmental justice in Knauf I was largely on procedural
grounds. The administrative record indicated that the issue of environmental justice pursuant to the Executive Order had been properly raised before SCAQMD,
but there was no documentation of a substantive response or analysis of the issue.
Knauf I, 8 E.A.D. at 174-175. SCAQMD asserted that EPA Region IX had taken
responsibility for addressing environmental justice and SCAQMD relied on the
Region’s representations. Our remand order instructed SCAQMD to obtain documentation of the Region’s alleged environmental justice analysis, to include it in
the administrative record, and make it available for public comment. Id. 8 E.A.D.
at 175.
SCAQMD obtained documentation of Region IX’s environmental justice
analysis, which consists of two memoranda analyzing the demographics of the
area surrounding the proposed Knauf facility and assessing whether the emissions
from the facility will have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on human
health or the environment. Memorandum from Willard Chin, Region 9 Environmental Justice Team, to Michael Kussow, Shasta County Air Pollution Control
Officer (Mar. 18, 1999) (AR 8220) (“EJ Memorandum”); Addendum to the EJ
Review Memorandum (Apr. 7, 1999) (AR 8369) (“EJ Addendum”).14
Both the EJ Memorandum and the EJ Addendum were made available during the public comment period on the revised permit. EPA Region IX prepared a
response to comments on the environmental justice analysis. EPA’s Response to
Public Comments on the Knauf Environmental Justice Review (Aug. 12, 1999)
(AR 9644) (“EPA Resp. to Comments on EJ”).
In each of the three documents prepared by Region IX regarding environmental justice, the Region concluded that the proposed Knauf facility will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects
on a minority or low-income population. EJ Memorandum at 6; EJ Addendum at
2; EPA Resp. to Comments on EJ at 2. The Region’s adverse impacts conclusion
is based on its finding that the Shasta County area has been designated as an
attainment area for PM10 and that the additional PM10 from the proposed Knauf
facility will not exceed the federal NAAQS or PSD increment for PM10. EJ Memorandum at 4; EJ Addendum at 2. The Region states, “the air quality within the
area surrounding the proposed site would remain well within the levels determined to [be] healthful and environmentally acceptable.” EJ Memorandum at 4. In
response to a comment regarding potential impacts on sensitive subpopulations,
the Region noted that the NAAQS are designed to protect public health. EPA
Resp. to Comments on EJ at 7. See also 40 C.F.R. § 50.2(b) (NAAQS are set at

14 The EJ Addendum was prepared because the EJ Memorandum incorrectly identified the
location of the proposed facility, placing it approximately two miles northeast of the actual location.

VOLUME 9

KNAUF FIBER GLASS, GMBH

17

levels that EPA has determined are necessary to protect the public health and
welfare).
Petitioners object to numerous aspects of the Region’s environmental justice
analysis, including the methodology and data used for the demographic analysis,
and the scope of the adverse impact analysis. See, e.g., Petition 99-10 at 7; Petition 99-29 at 3-4; Petition 99-37 at 13-20. None of the petitioners, however, have
shown that the Region’s conclusion regarding the lack of adverse impacts from
PM10 emissions is clearly erroneous. As there has been no serious contention that
the additional PM10 emissions from the proposed facility would in fact lead to an
adverse impact, and as the Executive Order concerns itself with effects that are
“adverse,” we find it unnecessary to address petitioners’ other objections, including those relating to the demographic analysis.
Several petitioners raised issues about the quantity and quality of the public
participation in SCAQMD’s permitting process. See, e.g., Petition 99-9 at 8; Petition 99-13 at 10; Petition 99-29 at 4; Petition 99-33 at 5. While the petitioners
uniformly assert that meaningful opportunities for public participation were lacking, SCAQMD represents that it engaged in proactive community involvement. In
light of the disconnect between the impressions of the community and the permitting authority, it is no surprise that this case led to two Board appeals. Our review
of the public participation record here shows that SCAQMD fulfilled the applicable regulatory obligations, even if it did not go beyond those requirements.
We note, however, that the public’s involvement over the course of this permitting process has had a significant role in shaping the conditions of the PSD
permit that was ultimately issued to Knauf. The PM10 emission limit in the revised
permit is less than half the level of PM10 emissions proposed by Knauf in its initial permit application. From our review of the record, it appears that these reductions are largely attributable to the active community interest and involvement in
the permit process. See In re AES Puerto Rico L.P., 8 E.A.D. 324, 351 (EAB
1999) (identifying specific conditions that were incorporated into a PSD permit as
a result of concerns raised during the public comment period), aff’d Sur Contra La
Contaminacion v. EPA, 202 F.3d 443 (1st Cir. 2000) (“That the permit issued here
is particularly stringent may be due in large part to the participation of the area
residents.”). Thus, although petitioners may not be fully satisfied with the type of
public participation that occurred here, it was, in fact, effective in securing an
environmental benefit through lower emissions.
We deny review of both the substantive and procedural environmental justice issues raised in this appeal.

VOLUME 9

18

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

D. Permit Compliance with NESHAP Rule
In June 1999, EPA promulgated a final National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) rule for the fiberglass manufacturing industry. 64 Fed. Reg. 31,695 (June 14, 1999). This rule sets hazardous air pollutant
emissions standards for fiberglass manufacturing facilities such as the proposed
Knauf facility. Petitioners argue that the requirements of the NESHAP should be
specifically enumerated in the PSD permit. Petition 99-37 at 25. SCAQMD points
out that the permit has a specific provision noting that the Knauf facility will be
subject to the new NESHAP. Revised Permit ¶ 10; Resp. to Petition 99-37 (AR
11,316). The permit condition further notes that emission limits in the NESHAP
“do not supersede more stringent limits found in other conditions of this permit.”
Revised Permit ¶ 10. SCAQMD believes that it would be “unnecessary and impracticable to enumerate all of the requirements of the NESHAP” in the PSD permit. Resp. to Petition 99-37 (AR 11,316). Based on the circumstances presented
here, we agree. The permit condition that cross-references the NESHAP is sufficient to incorporate all applicable provisions of the new rule into the PSD permit.
Moreover, the NESHAP is independently enforceable. Review is denied on this
issue.

III. CONCLUSION
The petitions for review of the revised PSD permit decision issued by
SCAQMD for the proposed Knauf facility are denied. SCAQMD has complied
with the Board’s remand order in Knauf I. Documentation of the revised BACT
determination provides adequate justification for SCAQMD’s selection of PM10
control technology and emission limitations. SCAQMD also made an environmental justice analysis available to the public in accordance with our earlier order.
That analysis concludes that the PSD permit for the proposed Knauf facility will
not cause any disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental
effects on a low-income or minority population. Finally, there is no need for review of the revised permit condition regarding applicability of the fiberglass
NESHAP.
So ordered.15

15 This decision constitutes final agency action for purposes of judicial review. See
40 C.F.R. § 124.19(f)(1)(i). Region IX shall make sure that notice of this decision is published in the
Federal Register in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(f)(2).

VOLUME 9