As required by

the Washington State Administ rative Procedures Act Chapter 34.05 RCW

CONCISE EXPL ANT O RY STAT EMENT

AND

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

FOR THE ADOPTION OF

Chapter 173-400 WAC, General Regulation for Air Pollution Sources

12/29/04

Publication Number: 04-02-026This page left blank intentionally.As required by the Washin gton State Ad ministrative Procedures Act, RCW 34.0 5

.

CONCISE E X PLANTORY STATEM ENT

AND

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

FOR THE ADOPTION OF

CHAPTER 1 73-400 WAC,

General R e gulation for Air Pollution Sources

Prepared by :

W. Thom as Todd and Alan Newman Washington State Department of Ecolog y Air Quality P r ogram

12/29/ 04

Publication N u m b er: 04-02-026

If you need this information in an othe r fo rmat, contact Tami Dahlgren at (360) 407-6 800. If you ar e a person w ith a speech or hearing impairment, call 711 or 1- 800- 8 33- 6 388 for TTY.

### TABLE OF CO NTENTS

I. Introduction pg. 5

II. Differences Between Proposed and Final Rule pg. 5

III. Responsiveness Summary pg. 6

IV. Summary of public in volvement actions pg.7

V. Comments and Responses pg. 8

VI. Appendices pg. 99

### CONCISE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

I. Introductio n

The purpose of the rule is to update the state rule to conform to recent federal regulator y chang es with respect to New Source Review (NSR) and to fi x pr ob lem s found with our existi n g rules. The overall goal is to create a state program that will gain federal approval. The major iss u es that we w o rked on were:

1. Incorporation and m odifica tion (as neces sary to create a workable N S R program ) of federal Major Source NSR rules prom ulgated on December 3 1 , 20 02, i n th e Federal Reg i ster , 2. Public notice and Internet n o tice of Mino r NSR actions,

3. Changes to the several defi nitions,

4. Creation of a process wher eby the perm i tting authorities can write g e neral per m it s for air pollution sources.

5. Updated the fees that are charged for NSR. This was last done in 1993.

6. Changes to the Excess E m i ssions portion of the rule.

7. Changes to th e Tem porary Source portio n of the ru le, and

8. Cleanup of several m i nor mistakes such as ty p o s. Several of the changes wer e identified by EPA as SI P deficiencies. The incorporation of the fe deral Major Source NSR program

, also known as Prevention of Si gnific a nt Deterioration or PSD, i s needed to contin ue th e runnin g of t h at program b y Ecolo g y

. The fee update was done since there was a legislative opportunit y to do so at this ti me wit hout triggering t h e lim its im posed by t h e Initia tives. And General Per m it procedures were cr eated in orde r to stream line the perm ittin g process for so m e of the s m aller source categori es.

The effective date is 31 da ys af ter th e rule is f ile d with the C ode Reviser.

II. Describe Differences between Proposed and Final Rule

♦ Describe the differences between the text of the proposed rule as published in the Washington State Register and the text of the rule as adopted, other than editing changes. State the reasons for the diffe rences (RCW 34.05.325(6)(a)(ii)): The added and delete text is found in Appe ndix 4, at the end of this document. Each Response to a com m e nt includes a de cision on whether or not to accept the comment. The rationale is also inc l u d ed.III. Summarize Comments

♦ Summ arize all comm ents received regarding th e proposed rule and respond to comm e n ts by category or subject m a tter. You m u st i ndicate h o w the final rule reflects agency consideration of the comm ents or why it fails to do so (RCW 34.05.325(6)(a)(iii)):

• The comme nts and responses are organized in a section by section fashion. The first part of the C o mm ents and Responses section starts with the 0 30, Definitio ns, section o f the rule and progress to the 750, Revisions to PS D perm its. Each response includes decision Ecology m a de as to whether to accep t the suggestion or not, and the rationale for doing so. Each Comm ent and Re sponse is numbered by the section of the rule it refers to and then the number of the comme nt in that section. For exam ple Comm ent #030-6 is the sixth comm ent about rule secti on 030. Each comment also has the nam e of the commenter attached to it.

IV. Summary of public involvement opportunities

Please provide a summ ar y of public involvem e nt opportunities for this rule adoption:

List or describe:

3⁄4 workshop dates and locations, if any Imm e diately preced ing each hearing, in th e sam e location, Ecology held a workshop and explained the rule and provided an opportunity for questions. 3⁄4 hearing dates and locations Two hearings were conducted: Oly m pia – Ecology HQ Building, 30 0 Desm ond Drive, Lacey , WA 98516 Hearing Date: Novem b er 9, 200 4, Tim e : 1:30 PM Spokane – Ec olog y Eastern Regional Office, 4601 N. Monroe Street, Suite 20 2, Spokane, W A 9920 5 Hearing Date: Novem b er 10, 20 04, Tim e : 1:30 PM

3⁄4 mass mailin g pieces (i.e.

, FOCUS sheet, news re leases) The attached Hearing Notice wa s e-m a iled to over 500 people.

3⁄4 advertisements and/or newspaper announcements A Hearing Notice was published in Daily Journal of Commerce on October 8, 2004 and October 22, 2004. No copy has yet been provided for the files from the Daily Journal of Comm erce A Hearing Notice was also published in the Spokane Spokesm an-Review, also on October 8, 2004 and October 22, 2004. A copy of the notice is enclosed in Appendix 3.V. Appendices

Appendix 1: Copies of a ll written co mments rece ived.

Appendix 2: List of individuals (nam e, or ganizational affiliation, address) providing oral comments at hearings and correspon ding comm e n t num bers for indexing

Appendix 3: Copies of all public notices regarding rule (i.e., FOCUS sheets, news releases, legal notices and advertisem ents, handouts and flyers, W S R notices)

Appendix 4: Copy of the final rule text showing revisions being m a de.

# Comments and Responses

Comments about section 030 of the proposal

Comment #030-1

The Association of W a s h ington Business (AW B ) m a de the following comment: (( (33) )) (34) "Federal la nd manager" m eans the secretary of the departm e nt with authority over federal lands in the United States.* This includes, but is not lim ited to, the U.S. Departm e nt of the Interior

- Nation a l Park Servic e, the U.S. Departm e nt of the Interior

- U.S. Fish and W ildlif e Service, the U.S. Departm e nt of Agriculture

- Forest Service, and/or the U.S. Departm e nt of the Interior

- Bureau of Land Managem e nt.

AWB recomm ends that Ecology use the EP A definition (40 CFR 51.165(a)(1 )(x lii) and 52.21(b)(24 ) ) of a term used only in EPA m a jor NSR per m itting program s. The additional verbiage does not capture the full universe of potential FLMs, and it m a y be incor r ec tly construed to require notification of FLMs who have no stake in a particular perm itting action. (Double strikeout indicates th at the suggestion w a s to delete indicated text.) Response #030-1 The federal definition is: “Federal Land Manager m eans, with resp ec t to an y lands in th e United States, the S ecretary of the departm e nt with au thority over such lands.” Both cam p s, Ecology and AW B, a r e attem p ting to clarify. The pr oposed Ecology language suggests that m o re explanation is better. A W B suggests that the ex planation is incom p lete and will lead to confusion. These two ways of clarification refl ect a difference in style. E c ology chooses to

reta in the las t sentence.

Comments #030-2

AWB’s comm ent - (( (34) )) (35) "Federally enforceable" m eans all lim itations a nd conditions which are enforceable by EPA, including tho s e requi rem e nts developed under 40 CFR Parts 60 , 61, 62 and (( 61 )) 63

, requirem e nts established w ithin th e W a shington SIP, requirem e nts within any perm it or order* established under 40 CFR 52.21 or under a SIP approved new source review regulation, (( inc luding operating perm its issued under chapter 173

- 401 WAC and expressly requires adherence to any perm it issued under these programs )) and em is sions lim itation orders issued under W A C 173-400-091

. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(17) (definition of “federally enforceable”). (Highlighting indicate s that the comm ent suggested adding the highlighted text.)

Comments #030--3

The Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) m a de the following comment -Federally E n forceable: There appears to be a ty po in the def i nition. Sho u ld the defin ition read “ . . . requirements within any approval established under 40 CFR 52.21 . ..” ? Response #030-2 and -3

Both EPA a nd AWB pointed out the sam e typo, th at there was a word or words m i ssing in the proposal. E c ology can choose to add the words “p erm it, approval and/or order.” All would convey the idea of what was m eant. Ecology will use the words “approval or order.”

Comment #030-4

AWB’s comm ent - (( (48) )) (47) "Modifica t ion" m eans any physical change in, or change in the m e thod of operation of, a stationary source that increases the am ount of any air contaminant em itted by such source or tha t resu lts in the emissions of any air contaminant not previously emitted. The

term m odif i cation shall be constru e d consistent with the def i nition s * of modification in Section 7411, Title 42, United States Code, and w ith ru les im ple m enting th at section.

See RCW 70.94.0 30(14)

. Response #030-4 Chapter 70.94 RCW says, “‘Modification’ m eans any physical change in, or change in the

m e thod of operation of, a stati onary source that increases the am ount of a ny air contam inant

em itted by such source o r tha t resu lts in the em iss i on of any air contam inant not pr evio usly

em itted. The term m odif i cation shall be constru e d consistent with the def i nition of m o dif i cation in Section 7 411, Title 4 2, United States Code, a nd with rules im ple m enting that section.” AWB has pointed out a sm all typo. The rule def i nition and the RCW de finition differ only by the letter ‘s. ’ Thank you for pointing out this sm all erro r Ecolo gy will fix the m i stake.

Comment #030-5

AWB’s comm ent - (( (55) )) (53) "Ne w Sour ce Performance Standards (NSPS)" m eans the f e deral rules iden tif ied as standards of perfor m a nce in 40 C F R Part 60* as adopted in W A C 173

- 400

- 115

. The attem p t to lim it the NSPS to rules adopt ed in W A C 173 -400-115 will get Ecology into trouble. WAC ch. 173-401 requires Ecology to treat all NSPS as Title V applicable requirem e nts, yet ch. 173-401 contains no defini tion of New Source Perform a nce Standards, and WAC 173-401-200 inco rporates by reference th e de finition s contained in ch. W A C 173-400 of

term s not defined in ch. 173-401. The lim itation to rules “adopted in WAC 173-400-115” serves no purpose, and should be deleted.

Comment #030-6

EPA’s comm ent -New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Ecology proposes to revise this definition to mean “the federal rules in 40 CFR Part 60 as adopted in WAC 173-400-115. ” This proposed change is confusing because Ec ology has not made the same change to the definition of “National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Po llutants” or “National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories.” Further confusion is ca used by the fact that several regulations that refer to NSPS, refer to a source subject to “a new source performance standard, 40 CFR Part 60.” See WAC 173-400- 100(c); 173-400-110( 2)(b)(i). Note that if Ecology does intend that all refere nces to the NSPS in its rules to refer only to those NSPS incorporated by reference in WAC 173-400-115, it will be even more important that Ecology frequently updates its incorpor ation by reference of the federa l NSPS standards so that Ecology maintains its authority to implement SIP requirements. It will also require more frequent SIP revisions. Response #030-5 and -6 Both AWB and EPA suggest that we leave out the reference to the adopted NSPS as they appear in section 115. Ecology agr ees with this construction.

Comment #030-7

EPA’s comment - Nonroad engine: The new paragraph (c) should be de leted. This paragraph does nothing to define the term, but rather tells the reader what permit program applies to nonroad and stationary engines. Therefore, we recommend either a dding the language in new paragraph (c) as an “editorial note” to the definition of nonroad engine (ra ther than including the language in the definition itself) or adding this clarifying langua ge within the permitting rules themselves (i.e., WAC 173-400-035). Response #030-7

All of the revisions that were proposed for section -035 have been abandoned, due to Ecology’s inability to reconcile the comments. Therefore, this definition will not be changed from the current rule at this time.

Comment #030-8

AWB’s comment - (( (71) )) (69) "Portable source" means a stationary source* or source consisting of one or more emission units that is portable or transportable for the purpose of being operated at multiple locations. Portable sources include, but are no t limited to, rock crushers, asphalt plants, and concrete mixing plants, skid or truck mounted package boilers or other stationary sources brought to a specific site fo r a limited period of time. The term “portable source” is used exclusively in the proposed WAC 173-400-035, which subjects portable sources to NSR. RCW 70.94.152 limits NSR to “proposed new sources,” defined in RCW 70.94.030 as “constr uction or modification of a stationary source . . .” Theterm “source” has no place in NSR permitting. Ecology has recognized th at fact by defining “source” for major NSR purposes to mean “sta tionary source.” See WAC 173-400-710. The addition of the term “source” to the definiti on of a “portable source” does not increase the universe of regulated projects, but it will cau se needless confusion. AWB recommends its deletion from the definition of “portable source.” Response #030-8

All of the revisions that were proposed for section -035 have been abandoned, due to Ecology’s inability to reconcile the comments. This issue will be considered again in Phase 2. Therefore this definition (Portable source) will not be included in the rule at this time.

Comment #030-9

EPA’s comment -

Potential to Emit: In the definition of potential to emit, Ecology proposes that “secondary emissions” be defined in the same manner as in 40 CFR 52.21, the rules for the federal PSD program, rather than citing to the definition fo r the SIP-approved Part D NSR program, (40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(viii)). We do not understand the re ason for the reference to the federal PSD

program. In any event, citing to either is confusing because EPA’s current definition of “secondary emissions” has been partially vaca ted by a court decision with resp ect to marine vessel emissions and an older version of the rules is in eff ect. (See John Calcagni’s January 8, 1990 letter, “Clarifications on Secondary Emissions as Defi ned in the Code of Federal Regulations” ). It is therefore unclear what Ecology is intending by its citation to a federal de finition that has been partially vacated. Therefore, we recommend that Ecology define the term “secondary emissions” in the definition of “potential to emit,” rather than citing to a federal definition. The following language would be consistent with the court decision (see also Phase I – ECY RTC~2compare comments):

"Secondary emissions" means emissions wh ich would occur as a result of the construction or operation of a major stationa ry source or major modification, but do not come from the major stationary source or major modification itself. Secondary emissions must be specific, well defined, quantifiable, and impact the same general area as the major stationary source or major modificat ion which causes the secondary emissions. Secondary emissions may include, but are not limited to: (A) Emissions from ships or trains lo cated at the new or modified major stationary source; and (B) Emissions from any off-site support facility which would not otherwise be constructed or increase its emissions as a result of the construc tion or operation of the major stationary source or major modification. Response #030-9Ecology believes that is important that we say that secondary emissions do not count in the determination of potential to emit. But EPA ha s pointed out that the definition in 40 CFR 52.21 is not the correct definition due to a vacating of th is portion of the rule in a federal court case. We should be referring to the correct definition that is in common use. Therefore we will add the definition of secondary emissions as provided by EPA.

Comment #030-10

EPA’s comment - Prevention of Signific ant Deterioration (PSD): We believe there is a typo. Should the reference to WAC 173-400-750 be to WAC 173-400-700 to 750? Response #030-10 Thank you for pointing out the typo. Ecology will correct the error.

Comment #030-11

EPA made the comment below -

Source: Ecology is proposing to delete the second sentence, which de scribes when activities are considered ancillary to the pr oduction of a single product or functionally related groups of products. EPA believes this second sentence is a us eful clarification and should remain part of the definition because the meaning of “ancillary” in this context is not, to our knowledge, defined elsewhere in state or federal law. Response #030-11 The proposal said, “ (78) )) (76) "Source" means all of the emissions unit(s) including quantifiable fugitive emissions , that are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under th e control of the same person or persons under common control, whose activities are ancillary to the production of a single product or functionally related groups of products. (( Activities shall be considered ancillary to the production of a single product or functionally related group of pr oducts if they belong to the sa me major group (i.e., which have the same two digit code) as described in the Standard Ind ustrial Classification Manual, 1972, as amended .” The last sentence is not part of the definition of source in th e state law, RCW 70.94.030(21). We have chosen to make the two definitions the sa me. We recognize that the second sentence is a useful clarification and will make certain that this point is covered in trai ning of our staff and the staff of the local permitting authorities.

Comment #030-12

AWB’s comment -(( (85) )) (83) "Stationary internal combustion engine" or "stationary engine" is any internal combustion engine that does not meet the criteria to be classified as a nonroad engine or a mobile source. A stationary engine is also includes any engine that is bo lted or permanently installed at a fixed location to provide mechanical power to operate other equipment (such as compressors or pump) or generate electricity on an emergency, intermittent, or continuous basis. Stationary internal combustion engines are subject to th e NOC process and criteria in WAC 173-400-110.

Comment #030-13

EPA made the comment below - Stationary Internal Combustion Engine or Stationary Engine : Although the first sentence states that a stationary internal combustion engi ne is any engine that is not classified as a nonroad engine or a mobile source, the s econd sentence greatly expands what can be characterized as a stationary internal combustion e ngine, by stating that it is any engine that is bolted or installed in a fixed location. In other words, the second sentence of this definition could include nonroad engines as stationary engine s and thus stationary sources. As such, the second sentence must be deleted in order for EPA to be able to approve this definition. As discussed above, the CAA prohibits states from regulating nonroad e ngines as stationary sources. Response #030-12 and -13

All of the revisions that were proposed for section -035 have been abandoned, due to Ecology’s inability to reconcile the comments. This incl udes additional definitions beyond what is now in the regulation. This issue will be considered ag ain in Phase 2. This proposed definition will not be finalized at this time.

Comment #030-14

AWB made the comment below - (86) Temporary Source* (86) "Temporary source" is a source of emissions (such as a nonroad engine) which is operated at a particular site for a limited pe riod of time. A temporary source may or may not be a stationary sour ce or a source as defined in s ubsections (78) and (84) of this section, respectively. The definition of “temporary source” is impossibly broad. It includes any organism or device that emits air pollutants and whic h operates at some location “for a limited period of time.” The language of the definition confirms that the term encompasses more than just a stationary source or source, as those terms are defined in WAC 173-400-030, but th e definition supplies no useful criteria to identify what is NOT a temporary so urce. If Ecology’s intent is to subject cows, forklifts and marine vessels to a permitting proce ss, AWB strongly questions the need to regulate so broadly. If the intent is to regulate a more narrow subset of equipment, the definition needs to be refined to provide meaningful guidance to the regulated community. AWB recommends that a definition of “temporary source” be developed during the Phase II rulemaking, in connection with discussions over the scope and content of the “Portable and Temporary Sources Rule.” Response #030-14All of the revisions that were proposed for section -035 have been abandoned, due to Ecology’s inability to reconcile the comments. This incl udes additional definitions beyond what is now in the regulation. This issue will be considered again in Phase 2. This definition will not be finalized at this time.

Comment #030-15

EPA made the comment below - Temporary Source: There appears to be a couple of typos. Should the references to the subsections be to (76) and (82) rather than (78) and (84)? Response #030-15

All of the revisions that were proposed for section -035 have been abandoned, due to Ecology’s inability to reconcile the comments. This incl udes additional definitions beyond what is now in the regulation. This issue will be considered again in Phase 2. This definition will not be finalized at this time.

Comment #030-16

EPA made the comment below - Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS): The specific method, as well as any alternatives, should be stated in the rule. We can not a pprove language that allows “or equivalent method.” It would be acceptable if it were written as “EPA approved equivalent method.” Note that while there are no TRS limits in the SIP that would be impacted by this definition, when Ecology submits its section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills, it may need to address this issue. Response #030-16

This issue can be addressed at a later date wit hout current effect. Ecology will consider revising the term in the next Phase of rule making.

Comment #030-17 suggested the comment below:

1a. WHAT: Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-400-030(16), (33), and (44)

1b. WHY: In the definition section, the existing text and lists for "Class I area", "Federal Class I area," and "Mandatory Class I Fede ral area" are very similar. The only notable differences are that Washington State has, via a previous ame ndment, added the Spokane Indian Reservation under the state's expanded definition for Class I Area (i.e., definition 16). Compared to (16), the only text difference in the (33) citation appears to be the reclassification option under definition (33). Therefore, the need for the three Cla ss I area definitions and listings is questioned.

1c. PROPOSED FIX: Could Ecology combine these three te rms into a single definition ofClass I area; with notation of th e differences discussed above, including the State's expanded list, and Ecology's interpretation regarding modifiers (e.g., Mandatory a nd Federal) to this term, as used under WAC 173-400. Response #030-17 While we agree that it would be best if all 3 terms were consistent in use and definition, unfortunately this can not be the case. In the federal Clean Air Act, there are 2 types of Class I areas created, mandatory and other. Mandatory Federal Class I areas are those specified as Cla ss I by the CAA on August 7, 1977, and include the following areas in existence on that date: 3⁄4 international parks; 3⁄4 national wilderness areas (including certa in national wildlife refuges, national monuments and national seashores) which exceed 5,000 acres in size; 3⁄4 national memorial parks which ex ceed 5,000 acres in size; and 3⁄4 national parks which exceed 6,000 acres in size. Mandatory Federal Class I areas, may not be reclassified to Class II or III. The States and Indian governing bodies have the au thority to designate additional Class I areas. These Class I areas are not "mandatory" and may be reclassified if the State or Indian governing body chooses. States may reclassi fy either State or Federal la nds as Class I, while Indian governing bodies may reclassify only lands within the exterior boundaries of their respective reservations. Any Federal land s a State reclassifies are consid ered Federal Class I areas. Because these areas are not mandatory Federa l Class II areas, these areas may be again reclassified at some later date . In addition, there are some fe deral lands which can only be designated as Class I or Class II.

State or Indian lands reclassified as Class I are considered non-Federal Cl ass I areas (aka Class I areas). For example, if the Department of Energy were to request the state that it redesignate the Hanford Reservation as a Class I area, and Ecol ogy agreed, and after fo llowing the procedural requirements for redesignation, were to request formal EPA designation of the reservation as a Class I area, that would create a federal Class I area, but not a Ma ndatory Class I area. If at a later date, Ecology were to decide to proceed with redesignation of the reservation as a Class II area, such a redesignation is permitted to occur since the area is not a mandatory Class I area. As another example, if the Washington Departme nt of Natural Resources were to request that Ecology designate the Capital Forest (a large ar ea of state forestland near Olympia, WA) as Class I, and after the procedural requirements are met and EPA redesignates the area as Class I, that would be a state Class I area, not a federa l (the land is not manage d or owned by a federal agency) or mandatory (it’s not on the listing of areas designated by the federal Clean Air Act) Class I area. Again, this state Class I area could be redesignated as Class II again in the future.

Comment #030-18 Fluor Hanford suggested the comment below:2a. WHAT: WAC 173-400-030(83)

2b. WHY: Using this definition as an example, it contains the term " mobile source ," used in conjunction with the term " nonroad engine ," with regard to not m eeting applicability. Please provide clarification text (at leas t in the responsiveness summary, but preferably in the final rule text) on Ecology's distinction or the intended relationship between the definitions for " mobile

source ," " portable source ," and " temporary sources " that function as a " nonroad engine " and those sources that " may or may not be a stationary source " nor " stationary internal combustion engine ."

2c. PROPOSED FIX: To minimize confusion regarding a pplicability determinations, it is recommended that " temporary " be a time-dependent definition only. The most confusing portion of these definitions is Ecology's use of " may or may not "; it is recommended that Ecology remove this clause. In addition, common elements of the definition for " portable " and

" mobile " sources could be combined. A clearer distin ction is needed in tying these two terms to the long-standing definition of nonroad engine to avoid confusion during applicability determinations. Response #030-18 The proposed fix is logical and practical from the view of the commenter. Unfortunately the comment does not reflect the complex interactio ns of the state new source review program requirements and the federal exemptions for mobile sources (motor vehicles) and nonroad engines from stationary source permitting programs. It is the nature of the interactions between the federal rules on internal combustion engines and state new source permitting requirements that leads to the confusion. We were atte mpting to reduce the confusion level and were unsuccessful.

Due to the nature and extent of comments r eceived on our proposed revisions to section 035, we will be removing the definitions for portable source and temporary source from the final rule.



# Comments about section 035 of the proposal

Comment #035-1 AWB made the following comment:

WAC 173-400-035 Portable and tem porary sources. (1) ((For portable sources which locate temporarily at particular sites, the owner(s) or operator(s) shall be allowed to operate at the temporary location providing that the owner(s) or operator(s) notifies ecology or the authority of intent to operate at the new lo cation at least thirty days pr ior to starting the operation, and supplies sufficient information to enable ecology or the authority to determine that the operation will comply with the emission standards for a new source, and will not cause a violation of applicable ambient air quality standards and, if in a nonattainment area, will not interfere with scheduled attainment of ambient standards. Th e permission to operate shall be for a limited period of time (one year or less) and ecology or the authority may set specific conditions for operation during that period. A temporary source sha ll be required to comply with all applicableemission standards. A temporary or portable source that is considered a major stationary source within the meaning of WAC 173-400-113 must also comply with the requirements in WAC 173- 400-141. For portable sources which locate temporarily at pa rticular sites, the owner(s) or operator(s) shall be allowed to operate at the temporary location providing that the owner(s) or operator(s) notifies ecology or the authority of intent to operate at the new location at least thirty days prior to starting the operation, and supplies su fficient information to enable ecology or the authority to determine that the operation will comply with the emission standards for a new source , and will not cause a violation of applicable ambient air quality standards and, if in a nonattainment area , will not interfere with scheduled attainment of ambient standards . The permission to operate shall be for a limited period of time (one year or less) and ecology or the authority may set specific conditions for operation dur ing that period. A temporary source shall be required to comply with all applicable emission standards . A temporary or portable source that is considered a major stationary source within the meaning of WAC 173-400-113 must also comply with the requirements in WAC 173-400-141. (2))) The owner or operator of a portable source or temporary source must: (a) Except for nonroad engines, file a notice of construction application and obtain an order of approval prior to operating in a permitting authority's jurisdiction; (b) If the temporary source is composed of only nonroad engines, fi le a notice of intent to operate and receive an order prior to operati ng in a permitting authority's jurisdiction; and (c) Have a valid order of approval or order and follow the terms of the order of approval or order, during a ll periods of operation; and (d) Comply with all order of approval or order conditions; and (e) Register with the permitting author ity as an air pollution source; and (f) Notify the permitting authority. (2) The permitting authority: (a) Prior to issu ing an order of approval or order, mu st find that the portable source or temporary source, and any associat ed nonroad engines, will not cau se a violation of applicable ambient air quality standards, and if located in a nonattainment area will not interfere with scheduled attainment of ambient standards; and (b) May set conditions related to the use and operation of nonroad engines, with an aggregate of greater than 300 horsepower, in the order as long as the conditions conform with the criteria in 40 CFR P art 89, Appendix A to Subpart A; and (c) Shall condition the order of approval or order to limit operation of the portable source or temporary source at any particular location to one year or less; and (d) May condition the order of approval or order to require notification to the permitting authority prior to each relocation of th e portable source or temporary source; and (e) May respond to relocation no tifications by issuing site specific operating conditions.(3) Public involvement. (a) Orders and o rders of approval issued under this section are subject to public notice under WAC 173

- 400

- 171. (b) The permitting authority may provide public notice and/or comment period for relocation notifications and site specific conditions. (4) This section appli es statewide except where an auth ority has its own rule regulating such sources. AWB proposes to retain the current portable sour ce rule, pending a careful review of what types of portable and temporary sources require a pe rmiting process, and what that process should entail. The proposed WAC 173- 400-035 contains too many rough spots and unforeseen impacts to proceed with adoption in th is rulemaking. For instance, S ubsection (1), the applicability provision, does not clearly articul ate which sources require which type of permit. Paragraph (1)(b) discusses temporary sources “composed of only nonroad engines,” but it does not appear to cover a source that includes nonroad engines as well as ot her emission units. Subsection (1) also does not reveal whethe r the rule is intended to apply to marine vessels. Paragraph (1)(e) requires the owne r/operator of a portable or tem porary source to “register with the permitting authority as an air pollution source;” but it does not say whether this must happen once, every time that the equipment moves, or ever y time that it moves into the jurisdiction of a new permitting authority. Paragraph (1)(f) requires the owner/operator to “Notify the permitting authority,” but it does not describe the content of the notic e, or when notice is expected. Paragraph (3)(a) requires a public involvement process based on WAC 173-400-171 every time that a portable or temporary source changes locations. WAC 173-400-171 does not by its terms apply to WAC 173-400-035 orders. Setting asid e this drafting issue, the WAC 173-400-171 process is too elaborate and time consuming fo r each relocation of a device like a portable asphalt plant. Moreover, unpla nned outages at an industrial pl ant often require the temporary importation of equipment such as portable air compressors, cranes and truck mounted welding machines. These units are required to make repa irs and to maintain pr oduction. The need to employ this equipment often cannot be foreseen in advance. The rule as written would lead to unplanned production losses at critical infrastructu re facilities such as refineries and power plants. The rule must give the permitting author ity discretion to authorize the use of temporary equipment needed to maintain produc tion without a public comment period. Subsection (4) states that WAC 173-400-035 applies statewide “except where an authority has its own rule regulating such sources.” It may be the case, however , that an authority regulates portable or temporary sources under a regulatory scheme that looks nothing like WAC 173-400- 035. The NWAPA rules, for instance, do not regul ate portable or temporary sources by name, but appear to subject those devices to standard NWAPA minor NSR rules. In that context does the authority have “its own rule regulating such sources”? It might be preferable to allow each local air authority to decide wh at rules to employ for sources in that authority’s territory. The portable and temporary source rule needs care ful thinking and discussion before it is readyfor adoption. AWB recommends that Ecology defer this rule and the supp orting definitions of “portable source” and “temporary s ource” to the Phase II rulemaking. Response #035-1 Due to the nature, diversity and extent of th e comments received, Ecol ogy is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language at th is time. We will re-address this issue in Phase 2.

Comment #035-2 The Boeing Company commented:

1. Changes to Section 400-035 should not be in cluded in Phase 1 of this rulemaking

While we recognize that it may be desirabl e to amend Section 400- 035, it is unclear what problems with the existing rule are being addressed in this proposal. One aspect that is clear is that the draft changes add yet an other process to an already comp lex and difficult to follow rule. Further, it provides a potential mechanism for portable sour ces to evade technology requirements under the formal NSR requirements in Sectio n 400-110. Finally, this proposal imposes a significant and unwarranted burden on numerous but environmentally insignificant small sources by requiring applications or notifications be made to the permitting agencies, even though no corresponding agency approvals will be forthcoming.

In order to provide meaningful suggestions to better this rule, we need to understand what the purpose of the change is. Several suggestions have been heard in the Stakeholder Committee regarding why the rule should be amended, but a cl ear intent has not been established or agreed to by that body. Further, the ju stification for the inte nded changes has not been established. We need to know what it is we’re trying to accomplish and why, before we amend the rule.

It has been alleged that a wide range of sources exist which are not subject to the requirements of Section 400-110, but must, in the p ublic interest, be regulated. Th ese sources have neither been identified to the Stakeholder Group, nor has th e environmental benefit of the proposed rule change been demonstrated. Because the in tent is unresolved, and the environmental improvement is, as yet, undocumented, we believe it is premature to add further complication to the General Regulations. We recommend changes in Section 400-035 not be made at this time. We look forward to crafting changes, if needed, once the targets are established and justified. Response #035-2 Due to the nature, diversity and extent of th e comments received, Ecol ogy is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language at th is time. We will re-address this issue in Phase 2.

Comment #035-3 The EPA commented:WAC 173-400-035 Portable and Temporary Sources Subsection (1): The CAA and EPA regulations specifically address the need for permits for portable stationary sources in section 504(e), 40 CFR 51.165(i)(1) (iii), and 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(viii) and clearly indica te that such sources must de monstrate compliance with PSD increments. EPA is concerne d that WAC 173-400-035 is not suffi ciently clear that a portable major stationary source must also comply with WAC 173-400-720 through 750. We therefore recommend that Ecology add a provision that was in a previous draft, such as: “Comply with the requirements of WAC 173- 400-720 - 750 if the source is considered a major stationary source within the meaning of WAC 174-400-720; and,” In addition, as currently writte n, all portable and temporary stationary sources , regardless of size, must obtain an “Order of Approval.” We ques tion whether Ecology really intended that the de minimis cutoffs not apply to portable and tem porary stationary sources . If Ecology does intend to use the de minimis cutoffs in WAC 173-400- 110(4) and (5), we recommend the following revision to subsection (1): “The owner or operator of a portable source or temporary source, not otherwise exempt under WAC 173-400-110 (4) and (5), must:” Note that the requirement in WAC 173-400-035 that portable and temporary sources must apply for an order of approval under WAC 173-400-110 does not appear, in and of itself, to exempt portable and temporary stationary sources under the de minimis cutoffs in WAC 173-400-110(4) and (5). This is because WAC 173-400-110(2)(a )(ii) exempts sources regulated under WAC 173-400-035. Subsection (1)(f): This subsection requires the applican t to “notify the permitting authority” but does not specify what the owner or operator is required to notify the perm itting authority of and when such notice is required. This provision need s to better specify what such notification must contain and when it is required. Subsection (2)(d): This provision states th at the permitting authority “ may condition the order of approval or the order to require notifica tion to the permitting au thority prior to each relocation.” In a previous draft language of this rule, the requirement to notify the permitting authority of the relocation was a requirement. In order for the permitting authority to track relocation of a portable/temporary source and therefore, be able to issue site specific operating conditions, the “ may condition” should be changed to “ shall condition .” In addition, it is unclear how this provision relates to the not ification provision of (1)(f) above. Response #035-3 Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language for the current time. In response to the EPA’s comment about subsecti on (2)(d) it has been and continues to be the intent of Ecology that a temporary source must obt ain a Notice of Construction, the first time it is located in Washington, in order to insure th at BACT and other requirements to which are applicable are complied with.Comment -035-4

Fluor Hanford

3a. WHAT: WAC 173-400-035

3b. WHY: This section still needs a lot of work to make it clear and understandable because of the huge number of potentially appl icable sources it addresses. As currently written, this section can be simplified into three basi c steps: (1) owners or operato rs responsibilities, (2) Ecology or the permitting authority responsib ilities, and (3) subsequent actions required under the public involvement process. Under (1), all sources either prepare a notice of construction (NOC) (which unnecessarily parallels WAC 173-400-110) or prepare a not ice of intent (NOI) (which also parallels WAC 173-400-110). All options require a formal transmittal of info rmation to the permitting authority; as such, a NOC and NOI start to look very similar. Under paragraph (2), upon receipt of the NOC or NOI, an order of approval or order is issued. At that stage in the proposed proc ess, the only semblance to a de minimus is in the statement that " Ecology may set conditions related to the use and operation of nonroad engines, with an aggregate of greater than 300 horsepower ." It is unclear whether this statement would establish that Ecology may not set conditions for those units with an aggregate under 300 horsepower.

Introduction of the term " aggregate " raises further questions; for example, it could be assumed that a remote project requiring fi ve 75 horsepower electrical lighti ng generators is additive to an aggregate of greater than 300 horsepower, even if only one or two operated at a time. In addition, the current proposal requiring an orde r for all these actions would burden the public involvement process with many small actions, and would not allow an operator to commence until that process is completed.

3c. PROPOSED FIX: It is assumed that Ecology intends to exempt a large majority of the thousands of small engines used by home owners , farmers/ranchers, and industry and/or those available at rental stor es. Under that assumption, added expa nsion of the categorical exemptions from new source review under WAC 173-400-110(4) may also se rve as a clarification of Ecology's intent for portable/temporary units. Addition of several categories, including horsepower and unit-type exemptions (e.g., internal combustion powered compressors, generators, lawn/yard maintenance equipmen t, etc.) under WAC 173-400-110(4) would greatly assist applicability/inapp licability determinations. It is furt her suggested that the 300 horsepower threshold be increased to at least 500 rated horsepower for consis tency with WAC 173-400- 100(2)(j) and we suggest adding cate gorical size exemptions (i.e., IE Us) consistent with the list under the Operating Permit Regulation WAC 173-401. Response #035-4 Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language for the time being.

Comment #035-5Northwest Pulp and Paper Association WAC 173-400-035 Portable and Temporary Sources

General Comments Considering that WAC 173-400-110 already exists to address Ne w Source Review (NSR), WAC 173-400-035 appears to do nothing mo re than require relocation notifications and approvals for non-road engines that would be otherwise exempt fr om NSR. If this is the intent, it should be rewritten to clarify the require ments for these two items only. The use of the term “portable” does not appear to have any bearing on how the rule is applied or implemented. If this section is to be used as a one year provision for sources, just title it “Temporary Sources” and drop all references to portable. Delete any requirements that use the term “may ” as these are really not requirements. For examples see (2)(d) and (3)(b) Line Specific Comments The definition of “temporary source” has incorre ct references to cita tions (78) and (84). (1)(b) Requiring an approval process for ALL non-road engines is unreasonable and too restrictive. NWAPA Section 301, which EPA has indicated is SIP appr ovable, allows these engines to operate for up to 90 days per calenda r year before a formal approval process is required. (1)(e) This registration requirement is not needed because registration ob ligations are addressed in WAC 173-400-102 which uses potential to emit (PTE) as a basis for registration. (1)(f) This notification requirement needs to sp ecify how and when. Is it a written notice and should it be made in advance of the specified action that requires notif ication? If this requirement is advance notice, then it shoul d specify the timeframe for this notice. (2)(d) The one year limit needs to be more specific. Is this a 12-month rolling period or perhaps a calendar year? (2)(e) This notification requirement needs to specify how a nd when. Is it a written notice and should it be made in advance of the specified action that requires not ification. If this requirement is advance notice, then it shoul d specify the timeframe for this notice. Response #035-5 Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language for the time being.

Comment #035-6 Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) commented: I am writing on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) to comment on the proposed WAC ch. 173-400 amendments publishe d at WSR 04-20-105. PMSA membershipincludes the major vessel and marine termin al operators serving West Coast ports. PMSA supports the comments submitted by the Western States Petroleu m Association and the Association of Washington Business specifically as they pertain to portable and temporary source definitions a nd applicability. In reading the economic analysis and background information on this proposed rule-making it appears there is no intent for applicability to so urces such as cars, truc ks, aircraft, bulldozers, forklifts, ships, and trains. This has not been made clear in the language . We understand that this rule-making effort was primarily crafted to addr ess EPA concerns about Washington’s authority to regulate air emissions from temporary elect ric power generating resources. The rule as proposed is far broader in scope, and has the pote ntial to impact many other operations in ways not yet disclosed or di scussed to our knowledge. Although the intent not to include these sources seems cl ear, we request that any potential confusion be clarified in the language or that Ecology defer the portable/temporary source rules to Phase II of the NSR rulemaking scheduled for 2005. Response #035-5 Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language for the time being.

Comment #035-7

Stoel Rives commented: I. Exclusive Nonroad Engine Sources The proposed WAC 173-400-0350) app ears to distinguish between s ources that are exclusively nonroad engines and those that include nonroad engines along w ith other temporary sources. I should note that the rule is not cl ear as to whether it would be a ppropriate (or even mandatory) in the case of a mixed source to get an Order for the nonroad engines and then separately obtain an Order of Approval for the remaining sources. As pa rt of clarifying this qu estion, we suggest that Ecology revise the language to allow sources made up of nonroad engines and associated safety and pollution control equipment to proceed unde r the Order pathway. We have worked with temporary sources that were comprised almost entirely of nonroad engines, but that chose to utilize freestanding control device s that have been cons idered separate stationary sources. For example, with an oil and gas drilling operation it is environmentally pr eferable to route any encountered gas into an incinerator. This re duces emissions and odors and enhances workplace safety. However, IIWAC i73-400-0 35(i)(a) were to require a se parate notice of construction application for the freestanding incinerator, there w ould be a serious disincentive to use this type of device. That would not be environmentally beneficial. Therefore, we suggest that WAC 173- 400-035(1)(b) be revised as follows: (b) If the temporary source is composed of only nonroad engines and associated pollution control and safety equipment file a notice of intent to operate a nd receive an order prior to operating in a permitting authority’s jurisdiction;We believe this edit will preser ve the intent of the rule while not creating a disincentive to use appropriate control a nd safety equipment. 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards The current rules for portable and temporary sources require that a tempor ary source demonstrate compliance with ambient air qual ity standards. Ecology has inte rpreted this requirement to include a demonstration of comp liance with the Chapter 173-460 acceptable source impact levels (ASILs). For diesel combustion equipment this has presented significant problems as the ASIL for nitric oxide is low and compliance is dem onstrated based upon a 24-hour average. The very nature of temporary sources is that they typica lly locate at a site for a short period of time, operate intensively for that short period and then disappear never to be seen at that location again. The ASILs, on the other hand, assume 24 hour a day exposure for decades. By means of example, the ASIL for nitric oxide (the predom inant TAP emitted by diesel fired equipment) was derived by taking the workplace TLV and divi ding it by 300 per WAC 173-460-1 10(2)(b). We understand that the factor of 300 was derived by taking the 8-hour TLV and dividing it by 3 to convert it to a 24 hour value, di viding it by 10 to build in a buffer and dividing by 10 again to reflect the risks inherent in l ong term exposure. As a result, th e NO ASIL is dramatically overconservative for the purpose of evaluating a source that will be present on-site for less than a year. Although a permanent source might find it possi ble to proceed to a sec ond tier analysis, this option is not practical for a temporary source due to its short term nature. We suggest that Ecology address the need to c onsider the duration of th e temporary activity in the revised temporary source rule. A temporary or portable source should not be assessed against the same short term ambient concentration as a source that will be active for generations. Therefore, we suggest that Ec ology either specify that tempor ary sources are not required to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 173-460 or that temporary sources are compliant with ASILs if ambient impacts attributable to the temporary source are less than 10 times the permanent source ASIL values. Correcting the AS ILs by a factor of 10 for temporary sources will still ensure that conservative values are applied, but will also recognize that, by law, a temporary source cannot emit in the permitted location for longer than one year. Based on these concerns, we suggest that WAC 173-400-035(2)(a) as noted below: (a) Prior to issuing an order of approval or order, must find that th e portable source or temporary source, and any associated nonroad engines, will not cau se a violation of applicable ambient air quality stan dards in WAC 174-470 through 173-481, and if located in a nonattainment area will not interfere with sche duled attainment of ambient standards; Alternatively, (a) Prior to issuing an order of approval or order, must find that th e portable source or temporary source, and any associated nonroad engines, will not cau se a violation of applicable ambient air quality standards in WAC 174-470 through 173-481, will not cause ambient impacts in excess of ten times the ASILs identified in WAC 173-460 , and if located in a nonattainment ar ea will not interfere with sche duled attainment of ambient standards;Response #035-7 Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language for the time being.

Comment #035-8 The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency made the following comments:

Comment 1 – WAC 173-400-035

Issue – The proposed language in this section of the rule appears inconsistent with the underlying statutory provisions.

Discussion RCW 70.94.152 provides the statutory authority fo r new source review and the proposed WAC 173-400-035 appears to be inconsistent w ith RCW 70.94.152. First, the proposed WAC 173- 400-035 does not provide any deadline for notifying applicants that their applications are complete (or specifying all additional information necessary to complete them) and no deadline for approval or denial of a complete application. Second, and more problematic is the fact the pr oposed language does not clearly require BACT and does not expressly state that a permit may be conditioned to assure compliance with all applicable rules and regulations adopted under chapter 70.94 RCW. Regardless of whether a non-road engine is actually subject to 40 CFR Pa rt 89, any conditions of approval must conform with the criteria in 40 CFR Part 89, Appendix A to Subpart A. Third, the proposed WAC 173-400-035 is unclear a bout whether all the provisions in WAC 173- 400 and WAC 173-460 apply to permits issued un der WAC 173-400-035. Th e proposed rule is also unclear about how permitting authorities are to address app lications involving portable and temporary sources with non-road engines. Fourth, the proposed definitions of ‘ portable source ’ and ‘ temporary source ’ are quite broad. A portable source is defined as “ a stationary source or source cons isting of one or more emission units that is portable or transportable for the purpose of being operated at multiple locations...” A temporary source is defined as “a source of emissions (such as a non-road engine) which is operated at a particular site for a limited period of time .” Many of these s ources are subject to 40 CFR Part 60; some are even major stationary sources. Because we are quite concerned about the potential for circumvention of the permitting process for new (stationary) sources, if WAC 173-400-035 is adopted as proposed, we do not intend to adopt it by reference. An additional concern about the proposed WAC 173-400-035 provisions is the confusion surrounding the subsequent process following not ification by a source of an anticipated relocation. It is not clear from language if the site-specific operating conditions which the permitting authority may issue in response to th e notification would be a modification of the conditions included in the original Order of Approval. If they are included with a modified Order of Approval, do they have the same enforceability as the original Order of Approval and would these additional conditions be subject to appeal provisions in the same manner as theoriginal Order of Approval? Since this propos ed regulation is not di rectly linked to WAC 173- 400-110 for process, the procedur es are not clearly understood.

Recommendation We strongly recommend that Ecology repeal WAC 173-400-035 in its entirety (along with associated references in ot her parts of WAC 173-400) and mo ve the one provision regarding permitting of non-road engines subject to 40 CFR Pa rt 89 to a more appropriate locations within this chapter (e.g. WAC 1 73-400-112 and WAC 173-400-113). Also, we believe that portable and temporary sources should be permitted using either the standard new source review pro cedures or the proposed general Order of Approval process under WAC 173-400-560. Thus, we recommend amendm ent of the definition in WAC 173-400- 030(82) to allow for new source review of non-road engines.

Comment 2 – WA C 173-400-035(4)

Issue – Areas for rule applicab ility need clarification.

Discussion The proposed language in WAC 173 -400-035(4) could be misinterpreted to apply where the local permitting authority treats temporary and portable sources a stationary sources (i.e. different from the proposed approach). Since most of the local agencies have already addressed EPA Region 10 comments on these associated is sues in their own rulemaking efforts in a different way, it would be desira ble to avoid any implication th at differing programs must be evaluated against this approach.

Recommendation Amend WAC 173-400-035(4) as follows: “ This section shall apply onl y where there is no local permitting authority or where the local perm itting authority has adopted this section by reference .” Response #035-8 Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language for the time being.

Comment #035-9

The Western States Petroleu m Association commented:
WSPA member companies operate refineries and terminals that receive and ship products and raw materials by water. We are very concerned about the breadth of the proposed "portable and temporary source rule" in WAC 173-400-035, coupled with the definition of "temporary source" in WAC 173-400- 030. We understand that this proposal was crafted to address EPA concerns about Washington's authority to regulate air emissions from temporary electric pow er generating resources. The rule as proposed is far broader in scope, and has the potential to impact mari ne operations in ways not yet disclosed or discussed. WSP A strongly endorses AWB's recommendation that the amendment of WAC 173-400-035 and the adoption of a new "temporary source" definition be deferred until Phase II of the rulemaking, so thatstakeholders can work with Ecology to figure out whic h operations the rule should cover, and what it should require of those operations. In the event that Ecology rejects the preceding recommendation and proceeds with the adoption of WAC 173-400-035, WSPA urges that subsection (3)(a) be amended to read as follows: "Orders and orders of approval i ssued under this section are subj ect to public notice under WAC 173-400-171, except where a permitting authority dete rmines that immediate authorization to operate a temporary or portable sour ce is necessary to protect health or safety, prevent damage to equipment or to maintain the production of an e ssential product or serv ice." Unplanned outages at a refinery often require the temporary im portation of equipment such as portable air compressors, cranes and truck mounted welding machines. These units are required to make repairs and to maintain production. The need to employ this equipment usually cannot be foreseen in advance. The rule should not deprive the permitting authority of the discretion to promptly authorize the use of temporary equipmen t needed to maintain production at a refinery or an electric generating plant, wi thout a 30 day public comment period. Response #035-9 Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal. We will retain the current language for the time being.



# Comments about section 040 of the proposal

Comment #040-1 Fluor Hanford suggested the comment below:

4a. WHAT: WAC 173-400-040(5)

4b. WHY: Clarification is requested regarding the term "safety" with respect to Ecology's jurisdiction and intent for comp liance with this general standa rd condition. Specifically, the phrase "...detrimental to the health, safety , or welfare of any person...." and its applicability to emission limits at the point of emission (e.g., worker safety) versus demonstration of no impact to the ambient air (i.e., environment).

4c. PROPOSED FIX: Request for Ecology clarificati on and/or distin ction between requirements governed under the Occupational Safe ty & Health Administration (OSHA) versus those regulated pursuant to the federal and stat e Clean Air Act. Those regulated under OSHA should be eliminated. Response #040-1 The part of the proposal in question states, “(5) Emissions detrimental to persons or property. No person shall cause or (( permit )) allow the emission of any air contaminant from any source if it is detrimental to the health, safety, or welf are of any person, or causes damage to property or business.”The authority for this regulation derives fr om Chapter 70.94 RCW, Th e Washington Clean Air Act. Nowhere in this law is there authority to regulate worker safety. Further the legislature added the following te xt at RCW 70.94.230: “That nothing herein shall be construed to supersede any local county, or city ordinance or resolution, or any provisi on of the statutory or common la w pertaining to nuisance; nor to affect any aspect of employer-employee rela tionship relating to condi tions in a place of work, including without lim itation, statutes, rules or re gulations govern ing industrial health and safety standards or performance standards inco rporated in zoning ordinances or resolutions of the component bodies wher e such standards relating to air pollution control or air quality containing requiremen ts not less stringent than those of the authority.” (emphasis added )

The inclusion of the underlined text shows that the intent of the legislature was to regulate the ambient air, and not to regulate, through the Washington Clean Air Act, workplace safety issues. The statutory language is particular ly clear in that it says, “. . .without limitation statutes, rules or regulations . . .” It is clea r that worker safety is not unde r the purview of the Air Quality Program. Ecology’s Air Quality Program considers the ambient air to be that air that is available to the public. Therefore the pr operty boundary or other place where the public has access is the start of the ambient air. Since this is the clear intent of the legislature, Ecology's Air Quality Program has interpreted the statutory language above and has decided to continue to focus on the ambient air and to use the word “safety” in a context that does not include industrial health and safety concerns. The legislatur e has assigned responsibilities fo r those concerns elsewhere.



# Comments on section 050 of the proposal

Comment #050-1

From EPA -

WAC 173-400-050 Emission Standards for Co mbustion and Incineration Units A copy of the “Source Test Manual - Procedures For Compliance Testing” will need to be submitted at the time of the official SIP submittal. Response #050-1 Ecology will submit a copy of the Source Test Manual with the SIP submittal.

Comment #050-2

From EPA - In subsection (3), the exception pr ovision is a director’s discre tion provision and is, therefore, not approvable as part of the SIP. Note that this exception provision was not approved in the current SIP approved version of WA C 173-400-050, state effective March 22, 1991. Response #050-2Ecology does not intend to submit the - 050(3) section for SIP approval.



# Comments on section 070 of the proposal

Comment #070-1 AWB suggested the comment below: (6) Other wood waste burners. (a) Wood waste burners not specifically prov ided for in this section shall meet all applicable provisions of WAC 173-400-040. In addition, wood waste burners subject to , and WAC 173-400-050(4) or 173-400-115 (40 CFR 60 subpart DDDD) must meet all as applicable provisions of those sections .* The purpose of the proposed edits is to clarify th at this rule applies CISWI standards only to those wood waste burners to which the CISWI st andards apply by their own terms. Ecology’s proposed language supports that conclusion, but our intent is to remove any ambiguity. Response #070-1 The proposed edits make clear our intent to no tify wood waste burners th at there are specific requirements that apply to them. It is not th e intent to require th e application of these requirements beyond their self contained applicab ilities. We have made the suggested edits.



# Comments on section 075 of the proposal

Comment #075-1 AWB suggested the comment below: (6) Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. MACT standards are officially known as National Emission Standards for Ha zardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories

. (a) Adopt by reference. 40 CFR Part 63 and Appendices in effect on (( May 15, 2002 )) October 1, 2004 , is adopted by reference (except for subparts C and E, which are nondelegable responsibilities of EPA) .* Exceptions are listed in (( (5) )) (6) (b) of this section. The redlined language duplicates subsection (6)(b), which exempts Subparts C and E from adoption by reference. Response #075-1 Thank you for pointing out the duplication; it has been removed.Comment #075-2

Elena Guilfoil commented: “WAC 173-400-075(6)(a) ... The following list of subparts to 40 CFR 63 which are shown as blank or reserved as of the date listed above, is provided for informational purpos es only: Subparts K, P, V, Z, FF, NN, ZZ, AAA,BBB, FFF, KKK, SSS, WWW, YYY, ZZ Z, BBBB, DDDD, DDDDD, OOOOO.” Subpart DDD was mistakenly included on th e proposed WAC list. Subpart DDDD, Plywood Composite Wood Product MACT, was adopted on July 30, 2004. Refer to 69 FR 4611. The complete list also needs to include: LLLL and NNNNN. I respectfully submit the following substitution to this proposed paragraph: The following list is provided for informational pu rposes only: These su bparts to 40 CFR Part 63 are shown as blank or reserved on the adopti on date listed above: Subparts K, P, V, Z, FF, NN, ZZ, AAA, BBB, FFF, KKK, SSS, WWW, YYY, ZZZ, BBBB, LLLL, DDDDD, NNNNN, and OOOOO. Response #075-2

Your re-write of these senten ces does add clarity and we th ank you for the double check of the 40 CFR 63 subparts that were adopted by EPA pr ior to 1 October 2004. The corrections have been made.



# Comments on section 100 of the proposal

Comment #100-1 AWB has made the following suggestion: - (d) Any stationary source that includes , or an emissions unit* subject to a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under 40 CFR Part 61, other than: The proposed edits carry forward Ecology’s edits to the preceding paragraph. Like Part 60, the standards in Part 61 apply to “a stationary source subject to that standa rd . . .” 40 CFR 61.05(a). Response #100-1 Thank you for again pointing out this i ssue. The change has been made.

Comment #100-2 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (B attelle) made the suggestion below:

WAC 173-400-100 Source Classifications

Issue: Paragraph (1)(d)(ii) exempts fr om registration sources subject to aNEASHAP that only emit radionuclides that are required to obtain a WDOH license, and that are also subject to 40 CFR 61 subpart s H and/or I.

Basis: It is unclear what “only emit radionuc lides” is meant to infer. This could be read to mean that a source that emits only radionuclides could be exempt from registration, but if it also emitted an unregulated amount of VOC, that it would not be exempt. Suggestions: We believe the intent here is to require registration of sources subject to a NEASHAP, but to recognize that there is no need for sources subject to WAC 246-247 and subparts H and/or I to regi ster with Ecology, because they are regulated by the WDOH and EPA. Therefore we suggest the following wording: “Sources or emission units emitting ra dionuclides, which are required to obtain a license under WAC 246-247, and are subject to 40 CFR 61 subparts H and/or I and that are not subject to any other part of 40 CFR 61, or any other parts of this section.” Response #100-2

The commenter is correct that th e intent is to exempt from Ecology’s regulation sources that would be regulated solely b ecause they emit radionuclides. Ecology sees no reason why there should be another layer of regulat ion when no criteria pollutants, or only criteria pollutants at a de minimus level, should be regulated by Ecology. These radionuclide s sources are already regulated by the Washington Department of Health and EPA. However Ecology believes that there is an Ecol ogy role if the source is subject to other previously established federal or state requireme nts. Therefore the text above will be amended to reflect that the exemption w ould not apply if the source is s ubject to any parts of 40 CFR 60, 61, 62 or 63, or if the source is subject the term s of an historical Notice of Construction limitation.



# Comments on section 105 of the proposal

Comment #105-1 AWB suggested the comment below: (1) Emission inventory. The owner(s ) or operator(s) of any air contaminant source shall submit an inventory of emissions from the source each year. The inventory (( may )) will include stack and fugitive emissions of particulate matter

, PM-10 , PM-2.5 (upon publication by EPA of emission factors for PM-2.5 em issions from source categories),* sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, total reduced sulfur compounds (TRS) , fluorides, lead, VOCs, ammonia, and other contaminants(( , and )).Emissions estimates used in the inventory may be based on the most recent published EPA emissi on factors for a source category, or on other information available to the owner(s)/operator( s).** The format for the submittal of theseinventories will be specified by the permitting au thority or ecology. When submittal of emission inventory information is reque sted, the emissions inventory shall be submitted (( (when required) )) no later than one hundred five days after the end of the calendar year. The owner(s) or operator(s) shall maintain records of inform ation necessary to substantiate any reported emissions , consistent with the averaging tim es for the applicable standards. *It is unfair and unrealistic to expect operato rs to accurately estimate PM 2.5 emissions until EPA publishes emission factors and source test methods to measure this new pollutant. **As Ecology broadens the scope of the obligation to submit emission inventories, it is critical that the rule leave no doubt that an emissions estimate reported in an inventory is only a best estimate, and that a facility owner may rely on EPA emission factors wher e no better information is available. Response #105-1 The comment on using the EPA provided emissions factors does not recognize that there are many PM-2.5 emissions factors already in AP-42. For those source categories for which there are not already published factors so urces should use other factors to the best of their ability. Other sources of emissions factors include i ndustry trade group publications and academic research. As always the source should us e the best available methods for estimating emissions for the emissions inventory.

For these reasons the comment will not cha nge Ecology’s proposal with respect to PM2.5 emissions. We will add the following sentence “Emissions estimates used in the inventory may be based on the most recent published EPA em ission factors for a s ource category, or other information available to the owner(s) or opera tor(s) which ever is the better estimate.”

Comment #105-2 The EPA suggested the comment below: 173-400-105(5): We recommend that the introductory paragraph direct the reader to the exceptions to applicability in subsection (g), such as “Except as otherwise provided in subsection (g), owners and operators of the following sources . . .” Response #105-2 The difference between Ecology’s proposed language and EPA’s suggestion is stylistic in nature. Both say the same thing. Ecology chooses to retain the langu age of the proposal.

Comment #105-3 The EPA suggested the comment below: In subsection (g) , we understand that the intent of the revi sions to this subsection is to ensure that equipment subject to continuous emissions monitoring requirements under federal law not be subject to different continuous emissions mon itoring requirements under state law. If this isthe case, should this provision state: “This subsection (5) does not appl y to any equipment subject to continuous emissions monitoring requirements imposed by . . .” Response #105-3 Thank you for the proposed language change. Ec ology will adopt this suggestion as it is reflective of the intent.

Comment #105-4 The EPA suggested the comment below: In subsection (h) , it is unclear the provision is intende d to apply only to monitoring required under WAC 173-400-105(5) or whether it is inte nded to apply to all monitoring required under WAC Chapter 173-400. The heading to WA C 173-400-105(5)(h) (monitoring system malfunctions) suggests that it was intended to apply only to monitoring systems required by WAC 173-400-105(5). The referenc e to “this chapter” in WAC 173-400-105(5)(h), however, makes this unclear. If the reference to “this chap ter” is not changed to “this section,” subsection (5)(h) must ensure that it does not relieve any person of the res ponsibility to comply with any requirement of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 62 or 63 or a permitting author ity’s adoption by reference of such federal standards. Note that the exempti on in subsection (5)(g) does not fix the reference to “this chapter” in subsection (5)(h). In addition, as previously stated, EPA does not be lieve that subsection (5)(h) contains sufficient criteria for determining when monitoring should be excused. In addition, the reference to the determination being made by “permitting authority” could be interpreted to mean that the permitting authority’s determination that the criter ia are met is binding on EPA. We suggest the following language: (h) Monitoring system malfunctions. A source is temporarily exempted from the monitoring and reporting requirements of this subsection (5) during periods of monitoring system malfunctions provid ed the source owner(s) or operator(s) demonstrates that the malfunction was not a result of inadequate design, operation or maintenance or any other reasonably prev entable condition, and that any necessary repairs to the monitoring system are conduc ted as expeditiously as practicable. Another option would be to use the language from the CAM rule, 40 CFR 64.7(c) so as to minimize duplicative, conflicting requirements on these WAC 173-400-105(5) sources that will likely be subject to CAM. Response #105-4 Ecology understands that EPA does not agree with the language in this section. The suggestions made, were not part of the proposal. As such, the scope of these change s is not allowed by the Washington Administrative Pro cedures Act. We will propose to discuss this in Phase 2.Comment #105-5 Fluor Hanford suggested

5a. WHAT: WAC 173-400-105

5b. WHY: The proposed rule amendments have offere d additional clarification in this section by removing phrases like "may include" and "whe n required." The context of the introduction paragraph, however, continues to state that "a source shall upo n notification (by Ecology);" which creates confusion compared to the paragraph (1) statement "source shall submit an inventory......format for the submittal of these inventories will be specified by the permitting authority or Ecology."

5c. PROPOSED FIX: Since introduction paragraphs are not intended to provide additional requirements (only clarifications ) for a source to maintain records, the requirement should only be specified under paragraphs (1) through (8). The current language is similar to paragraph (1), so a reader may incorrectly a ssume the introduction text rega rding records only applies to paragraph (1). We suggest that Ecology use the firs t text only to explain a pplicability criteria for a source; then, if applicable, actions in submitting the annual inventory would be provided in paragraph (1). Response #105-5 Ecology agrees that this section is confusing. This section (1 05) has grown over the last 20+ years to include differing subj ects. Ecology will propose addre ss this problem in the second phase of rule making.



# Comments on section 107 of the proposal

Comment #107-1

From the AWB: The proposed amendments to WAC 173-400-107 are harmful to the regulated community, unnecessary to protect th e environment, and fail to satisfy the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, RCW ch. 34.05. The amendments are harmful to the regulated community because they impose new procedural burdens on the owner or operator of a source se eking to claim the unavoidable excess emissions defense in WAC 173-400-107. The amendments woul d condition the availability of the defense on the owner’s ability to produ ce a “written contemporaneous record” displaying information that may or may not be available to the owner in a time frame deemed to be “contemporaneous.” The amendments would add a new paperwork requi rement to a rule that has been on the books for more than a decade, that is familiar to the regulated community, and that has been administered judiciously by Ecology and the air permitting authorities. The amendments are not necessary to comply with the federal Clean Air Act. Indeed, WAC 173-400-107 was approved into the Washington SIP in 1995 following a caref ul review by EPA. In recent months EPA Region 10 managers have questioned whethe r WAC 173-400-107 meets Clinton administrationEPA guidance governing the approval of SIP “ups et” rules, but Washington has no occasion to seek SIP approval of WAC 173-400-107. The amendments are unnecessary to protect the environment because no one has suggested that WAC 173-400-107 is working poorly, that its provisions have been a bused, or that any action to compel compliance with the Washington or Fede ral Clean Air Acts has been inhibited or curtailed by the availabi lity of the defense. The amendments violate the procedural requirement s of the Administrative Procedure Act in two respects. First, the amendments to WAC 173- 400-107 fall outside the “Subj ect of possible rule making” published in Ecology’s CR-101 in Augus t 2003. The CR-101 describes the subject of this rulemaking as “updating the Department of Ecology’s New Source Review Regulation provisions in Chapter 173-400 WAC.” RCW 3 4.05.310 directs agencies to publicize the purpose and scope of a rule before the rulemaking proceed ing commences, so that interested parties may address the scope of the rulemaking. Ecology met this requirement for its amendments to the NSR rules, but not for WAC 173-400-107. The proposed rule also constitutes a “significant legislative rule” within the meaning of RCW 34.05.328. Ecology recognized this fact in the CR- 102, and offered for public review a costbenefit analysis on the proposed rule, but th at analysis does not include the required determination for WAC 173-400-107 th at the probable benefits of the rule exceed the probable costs. Nor did Ecology include the analys is required by RCW 34.05.328( h). That provision requires Ecology to determine, for an y rule that differs from a fede ral regulation applicable to the same activity, that the difference is necessary to sa tisfy a state statute or necessary to achieve the objectives published in the CR-101. The appli cable federal regulation here is 40 CFR 52.2497, the Washington SIP, which includes the current version of WAC 173-400-107. For all of these reasons, Ecology should not a dopt any of the proposed amendments to WAC 173-400-107. AWB bases this recommendation not only on the concerns noted above, but also on EPA’s failure to clarify that the proposed amendments would resolve EPA’s reservations about WAC 173-400-107. Until EPA provides that assurance the adoption of any amendments would be a foolhardy exercise in negotiation by rulemaking. Response #107-1 Ecology disagrees with the AWB on whether or no t the proposed revision s are harmful to the regulated community. But due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reac h a different conclusion in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-2 The Boeing Company commented: Boeing recognizes that the current Section 400 -107 is somewhat ambiguous and subject to varying interpretations. Theref ore Boeing supports two of the clarifications offered in the proposed rule. The first is that excess emissi on reporting and recordkeep ing procedures for airoperating permit sources are properly handled under Chapter WAC 173-401- 615(3), rather than under Section 400-107. This clarification avoids the confusion that could arise when one attempts to apply both the general provisions of Section 400-107 and the specific provisions of 401-615(3) to sources holding an AOP. If the pr oposed amendments to this section go forward, we suggest an additional minor word ing adjustment in furtherance of this approach. Just as with the reporting of excess emissions, WAC 401-615(3) already covers the ground of requiring “contemporaneous records” of such events at AOP sources. (d) For non-chapter 173-401 WAC sources,

, A a written contemporaneous record of all excess emissions shall be kept , which . The record shall include the estimated quantity of emissions released, the probabl e cause of such excess emissions and any corrective actions or preventive measures taken. Second, Boeing supports the clarifi cations that the timi ng of reporting obligations under Section 400-107 is triggered by the discovery of an excess emissions event, rather than its occurrence. This change avoids misinterpreting the regulati on to require reporting of events which are not known to the source. Other proposed changes are more problematic. For non-operating permit sources, the new rule language would mandate written reports to the permitting agency, and demand written, contemporaneous records for all excess emissions, even if the excess emissions pose no threat to human health and safety, and even where the source is not seeking penalty relief. The permitting agency would have no discretion in receiving these reports or requiring the records. Response #107-2

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusi on in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-3 Boeing fully supports the legitimate need for repor ting of emissions that je opardize public health or safety or the environment. We have long s upported the regulators’ e fforts to focus sources’ attention on the compliance status of their opera tions, through specific pe rmit and rule provisions tailored to particular operations in question. On the other han d, we have serious reservations about any requirement to require all “excess emissi ons” to be reported regardless of nature of the exceedance or its potential impact. Blanket requirements eliminate agency flexibility in administering their programs, and therefore must be carefully considered as to impact and cost before being promulgated. This proposal would constitute a significant, costly and unwieldy requirement for both sources and regulators. We be lieve an approach that allows the agencies to specify the circumstances under which recordke eping and reporting of such excess emission events will be required most effectively direct s public and private resources to efficiently maintaining environmental quality. Ecology has stated publicly its intent to mainta in “one rule” applicability and avoid multiple vintages of requirements inside and outside of the State Impl ementation Plan. The current Section 400-107 is federally enforceable and shoul d not be replaced without assurance the newlanguage will be promptly approved by EPA. We ca nnot afford to have different state-only and federal requirements applicable. Therefore, if Ecology is unable to get EPA’s and the regulated community’s buy-in as to the acceptability of such further revisions, we respectfully suggest that the proposed revisions to Section 400-107 be w ithdrawn and that the stakeholder process continue. Response #107-3 Ecology agrees that creating a ru le that is not adoptable into the SIP is not an acceptable outcome. That is one of the reasons that Ecology has withdrawn the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusion in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-4

The EPA had these comments: EPA appreciates the many changes that Wash ington has proposed to make to WAC 173-400- 107. For example, Ecology has clarified that the affirmative defense provides an excuse from penalties, but not from an action for injunc tive relief; added a requirement to keep a contemporaneous record of excess emissions as a c ondition of relief; and clar ified the contents of the written report a source must f ile as a condition of relief. EPA continues to believe, however, that additi onal revisions are n eeded for WAC 173-400-107 to meet CAA requirements. EPA’s interpre tation of the CAA for state excess emission provisions is set forth in the Memorandum from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air And Radiation, to the Regional Administrators, entitled “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctio ns, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999) (EPA’s Excess Emissions Policy). Our remaining concerns with WAC 173-400-107 are as follows: 1. An affirmative defense to a penalty action is not appropriate where a si ngle source or small group of sources has the potential to cause an exceedance of the NAAQS or PSD increments. See EPA’s Excess Emissions Policy, pp. 2-3, Att achment pp. 3 and 5. Several states that have recently revised their excess emission rule s to address this issue have added language stating that the affirmative defense is not available if the excess emissions caused or contributed to an exceedance of the NAAQS or PSD increments. See Arizona, AAR R18-2- 310(B)(7) and (C)(1)(f); Maricopa County, MCESD R140-401.7 and -402.1(f); Michigan, MDEQ R 336.1916(2); Texas, TCEQ 101.222(b)( 11). Washington should add similar language as a criterion for obtai ning the affirmative defense. Response #107-4

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusi on in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-5EPA continued to comment:

2. An affirmative defense for excess emissions due to certain unavoidable events cannot extend to state law provisions that derive from federally promulga ted performance standards or emission limits, such as NSPS or NESHAP standa rds. This would also apply to PSD permits issued by EPA. Response #107-5

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusi on in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-6

EPA also commented: 3. WAC 173-400-107(4) provides an affirmative defense to a penalty action for excess emissions during startup and shutdown if certa in conditions are met. Our understanding is that Washington believes this provision is cons istent with CAA requirements for such startup and shutdown provisions, as discussed in EPA’s Excess Emissions Policy. See EPA’s Excess Emissions Policy, Attachment p. 6. Af ter carefully reviewing subparagraph (4), however, we continue to believe that s ubparagraph (4) does not contain the following elements necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA: a. The periods of excess emissions that o ccurred during startup and shutdown were short and infrequent. b. The excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern indi cative of inadequate design, operation or maintenance. c. At all times the facility was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions. d. The frequency and duration of operation in startup or shutdown mode was minimized to the maximum extent practicable. e. All possible steps were taken to mini mize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality (not just that you minimized emissions). f. All emission monitoring systems were kept in operation if at all possible. See EPA’s Excess Emissions Policy, Attachment p. 6. Response #107-6

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusi on in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-7 EPA had the following concern:4.WAC 173-400-107(5) provides an affirmative defe nse for excess emissions due to scheduled maintenance provided certain criteria are met. This is inappropriate under the CAA because sources should be able to schedule mainte nance that might otherwise lead to excess emissions to coincide with maintenance of pr oduction equipment or other facility shutdowns. Note, for example, that although emission limits in the New Source Performance Standards generally do not apply during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 40 CFR 60.8(c) and 40 CFR 60.11(c), the exception does not extend to sche duled maintenance. The incentive to use appropriate scheduling/practices to avoid excess emissions during scheduled maintenance should not be diminished by providing an affirm ative defense. In this regard, you should note that EPA’s 1999 Excess Emissions Policy do es not discuss allowing an affirmative defense for excess emissions during maintenance activities. This omission was intentional and based on our interpretation of the CAA that any excess emissions during maintenance activities should be addressed only through the exercise of en forcement discretion and not through the provision of an affirm ative defense to penalties. For additional discussion of how we view maintenance act ivities, see the April 27, 1977 (42 FR 21472) and November 8, 1977 (42 FR 58171) Federal Register notices. Note, however, that although EPA believes that providing an affirmative defense for excess emissions during scheduled maintenance is not consistent with the CAA, EPA does believe that a state can provide, consis tent with the CAA, that exce ss emissions due to a malfunction that occurs during scheduled maintenance can be subject to the same affirmative defense that applies for excess emissions during malfunctions . For example, Arizona’s SIP-approved excess emissions provision states: “If excess emissions occur due to a malf unction during scheduled maintenance, then those instances will be treated as othe r malfunctions subject to subsection (B).”

See Arizona Administrati ve Code, R18-2-310(D). Response #107-7

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusi on in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-8 EPA commented on the following point: 5. WAC 173-400-107(6) provides an affirmative defense to a penalty action for excess emissions due to a malfunction if certain c onditions are met. Our understanding is that Washington believes this provi sion is consistent with CAA requirements for such malfunction provisions, as discussed in EPA’ s Excess Emissions Policy. See EPA’s Excess Emissions Policy, Attachment pp. 3-4. After car efully reviewing subparagraph (6), we continue to believe that subpa ragraph (6) does not contain th e following elements necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA: a. The excess emissions were cause d by a sudden, unavoidable breakdown of technology.b. The excess emissions did not stem from a ny activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for. c. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution control equipment or processes were maintained and operated in a manner c onsistent with good pr actice for minimizing emissions. d. Repairs were made in an expeditious fa shion when the operator knew or should have known that applicable emission limitations we re being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime must have been utili zed, to the extent practicable, to ensure that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable. e. The amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practi cable during periods of such emissions. f. All emission monitoring systems were kept in operation if at all possible. See EPA’s Excess Emissions Policy, Attachment pp. 3-4. Response #107-8

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusi on in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-9

EPA commented: 6.EPA’s position is that a State or local authority ’s decision that the cr iteria for obtaining the affirmative defense from penalty are met is not binding on EPA or citizens because such an approach would be inconsistent w ith the regulatory scheme established in title I of the CAA. See 1999 Excess Emission Policy, pg. 3, Attachment pg. 2. EPA does not believe that either the current WAC 173-400-107 or with the propo sed revisions to WAC 173-400-107 can be interpreted to mean that a State or local au thority’s decision that the criteria for the affirmative defense are met is binding on EPA or citizens. EPA’s understanding is that Washington is in agreement with EPA on this issue. It would be better if WAC 173-400-107 were revised to make this explicit. In the absence of explicit language, EPA will request a letter from Washington confirming this interpre tation and EPA intends to make clear in any SIP action that a State or local’s determination on whether the affirmative defense is met is not binding on EPA or citizens. Response #107-9 Ecology believes that there is nothing in the ru le to suggest that th e federal law is being supplanted by the State. In any case, the state does not have the legal au thority to reduce any rights that are granted under federal law. But, due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will a ttempt to reach a different conclusion in the second phase of the rule making.Comment #107-10 The Flour Hanford Company said:

6a. WHAT: WAC 173-400-107

6b. WHY: Ecology's added text under paragraph (3)(a) clarifies well the actions required for a WAC 173-401 source, as specified in a source's ope rating permit, for reporting and/or recording an excess emission. The tie between a WA C 173-401 source and the requirements for documentation transmittal so far as " unavoidabl e" emissions is unclear. The WAC 173-401- 615(3) process referenced would only cover the reporting/recording obligation as part of the semi-annual deviations report, so it remains unc lear regarding the documentation process for WAC 173-401 sources' excess emissions determined to be " unavoidable ."

6c. PROPOSED FIX: Provide text defining the process for identifying " unavoidable " under paragraph (6) for WAC 173-401 sources subj ect to an air operating permit. Response #107-10

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusi on in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-11

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Batte lle) commented:

WAC 173-400-107 Excess Emission The proposed excess emission reporting requirements are for an affirmative defense to an action for penalties for emissions in excess of an emissi on standard or limitation. These provisions are generally only used by large sources (those s ources now in the operating permit program) that exceed an emission standard or limitation. These provisions are now covered in WAC 173-401 for these sources. It is recommended that th is provision in WAC 173-400-107 be deleted. If Ecology determines that they must retain this provision, we recommend that WAC 173-400- 107 (3) be changed to read, “Reporting and r ecording of excess emissions for which the unavoidable excess emission defense is sought...” This will eliminate confusion for the registered sources that gene rally do not use this provision. Response #107-11 Ecology believes that the continued existence of the rule is important for smaller sources. The fact that many of these sources may not avail th emselves of this defense, in our opinion is insufficient reason to deny all of th e sources of the potential defens e. But due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is with drawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusion in the s econd phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-12The Northwest Pulp and Paper Association commented: Comment 2: Ecology should only update the excess emission rule if it is clear that EPA will approve it. In addition to the federally mandated reforms, Ec ology is proposing to revise the excess emission rule at WAC 173-400-107 to meet some EPA requir ements. This is one of several items EPA X has identified for improvement, but which do not relate to the federal reforms. Ecology is proposing to address most of the items suggested by EPA X in Phase II of the effort to reform the state NSR/PSD program. Unless Ecology is certain that EPA X will a pprove the proposed changes to WAC 173-400-107, Ecology should not proceed with these revisi ons. Should Ecology adopt changes EPA later decides to disapprove, the state runs the risk of losing the be nefits now available under WAC 173-400-107. Otherwise, NWPPA supports the proposed re visions to the excess emissions rule. Response #107-12

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusion in th e second phase of the rule making. We do agree that finalizing a rule that cannot be accepted into the SIP is not a useful exercise.

Comment #107-13 The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency said: Comment 3- WAC 173-400-107(3)

Issue – The proposed excess emission reporting re quirements for registered sources may be unnecessary and are misleading.

Discussion This defense was historically used only by larg e sources (i.e. those now in the operating permit program) that exceeded state or local emission standards as a re sult of startup, shutdown, or scheduled maintenance. With the adoption of the ‘emergency provision’ in WAC 173-401-645, the provisions of WAC 173-400-107 became redunda nt, Therefore we suggest Ecology consider repealing WAC 173-400-107 entirely. If Ecology deems it necessary to retain the a ffirmative defense in WAC 173-400-107, we are concerned that the proposed language in paragra ph (3) (b) and (c) might be construed to require self-reporting of exce ss emissions by registered sources. Although the current language is somewhat ambiguous in this regard, it has ne ver been interpreted by Ecology or the local authorities to require such reports. We are c oncerned that the proposed language in paragraph (3) (b) and (c) would establish a new reporting re quirement for excess emissions. If paragraph 3 is retained, we believe it should be clarified in this regard to refl ect that the only time a source is required to report is when they propose to claim the affirmative defense.Recommendation If Ecology deems it necessary to retain WAC 173 -400-107 that paragraph 1 state “provides that all of the requirements in subsection (3), ( 4), (5) or (6) of this sect ion are met. And paragraph 3 state “Reporting and recording of unavoidable excess emissions:” or “R eporting and recording of excess emissions for which the unavoida ble excess emission defense is sought.” Response #107-13

Due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will attempt to reach a different conclusi on in the second phase of the rule making.

Comment #107-14 The Weyerhaeuser Company commented:

WAC 173-400-107 – The AWB comment articulates the legal reasoning for retaining the existing regulatory language. The current “Excess Emission” provisions are understood by regulator and source owner, and appear to adequa tely serve the intended regulatory purpose. The adopted regulation language is SIP-approved. With this reality, we suggest that a nuanced interpretation of an EPA guidance memo is not a sufficient basis to trigger revision of this section. Consistent with RC W 34.05.328(1), Ecology is precluded from adopting a rule more stringent than the federal counterpart absent a state law directive or compelling regulatory

reason. While the proposed revisions in subsections - 107(1)-(3) may be acceptable, we are concerned that EPA will find objections and argue for more comprehensive changes. If EPA’s concern is limited to the absence of specific rule language allowing for injunctive relief on an excess emission claim, we suggest the jurisdictional ag encies have other authority under federal and state law to pursue whatever enforcement actions they might deem appropriate. Response #107-13 Ecology has been told that the cu rrent rule, although it is in the SIP, is insufficient. EPA indicated that at the next SI P revision, no matter the subject matter, the current 107 provision would be deemed insufficient and a “SIP call” would result. This is the reason Ecology has invested time and effort to change the rule. But, due to the nature and extent of the comments received, Ecology is withdrawing the proposal and will a ttempt to reach a different conclusion in the second phase of the rule making.



# Comments on section 110 of the proposal

Comment #110-1 AWB wanted to make the following suggestion:WAC 173-400-110 New source review (NSR).* In lieu of filing a notice of construction application under this section, th e owner or operator may apply for coverage under an applicable general order of approva l issued under WAC 173

- 400

- 560. C overage under a general order of approval satisfies the requirement for new source review under RCW 70.94.152. (1) Applicability. This section, WAC 173-400-112 and (( 173

- 400

- 113 )) 173-400-113 720 ** apply statewide except where an authority has adopted its own new source review rule. In lieu of filing a notic e of construction applicat ion under this section, the owner or operator may apply for coverage under an applicable gene ral order of approval issued under WAC 173-400- 560. Coverage under a general orde r of approval satisfie s the requirement for new source review under RCW 70.94.152. *AWB proposes to move the introductory sentence into subsection (1) (“Applicability”), as it addresses which projects are subject to this rule. Response #110-1

Placement of the exact same text is a matter of style. Ecology believes that placement at the beginning of the section does the most to highlig ht it, which was the in tent. Therefore Ecology is not going to make this suggested change.

Comment #110-2 **A project in an attainment area under Ecolog y’s jurisdiction may require a minor NSR order of approval and therefore be subject to the approval criteria in WAC 173-400-113. Response #110-2 The comment is correct. Deleting the reference to section -720 is also correct since there is similar language in section -700. Th erefore we will adopt the suggestion.

Comment #110-3 AWB wanted to make the following suggestion: 110 (2)(b)(i) Any project that qua lifies as construction, reconstr uction* or modification of an affected facility, within the meaning of 40 CFR Part 60 (New Source Performance Standards)

, except Part AAA, Wood stoves (i n effect on February 20, 2001); In Phase II of this rulemaking the regulated co mmunity will ask Ecology to consider whether the “reconstruction” of an NSPS aff ected facility qualif ies as an NSR-triggering event under RCW 70.94.152. Response #110-3 As the comment suggests, this issue will be di scussed during the send phase of the rule making



### .

Comment #110-4AWB suggested: 110 (2)(b)(v) Any modification to a stationary* source that requires an increase either in a plant-wide cap or in a unit specific emission limit

. RCW 70.94.030 defines a modification as “any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source . . . “ Response #110-4 The comment is noted and the rule will be changed.

Comment #110-5

AWB commented: 110 (7) Final determination. (a) Within sixty days of receipt of a complete notice of construction application* (( or PSD permit application )), the permitting (( agency )) authority shall either issue a final decision on the application or, for those projec ts subject to public notice under WAC 173-400- 171(1), initiate public notice and comment under WAC 173

- 400

- 171 on a proposed decision, followed as promptly as possible by a final decision. ** *RCW 70.94.152(3). **The changes proposed here serve two functions. First, they revise the rule to track the statutory language in RCW 70.94.152( 9). Second, they enable Ec ology to delete the convoluted final sentence of the following paragraph, wh ile directing the read er to WAC 173-400-171 for the rules governing which projects must go through newspaper publication. Response #110-5 “Application” looks to have b een inadvertently deleted along with "or PSD permit". Ecology will make the text adjustment since the bulk of th e rest of the section uses the term "notice of construction application" or "applic ation" in this context. The text related to public notice fine tunes the proce ss related to the internet notification of applications which do not require public notice by newspa per publication. It not es that there is a class of these types of projects. It is nice to point to the location of the public involvement requirements and process, but its lack does not keep those requirements from being applicable. Ecology will adopt the language suggested.

Comment #110-6

AWB commented: 110 (7)(b) A person seeking approval to construct or modify a source that requires an operating permit may elect to integrate re view of the operating permit app lication or amendment required under (( RCW 70.94.161 )) chapter 173-401 WAC and the notice of construction application required by this section. A notice of construction application designated for integrated reviewshall be processed in accordance with operati ng permit program procedures and deadlines in chapter 173-401 WAC. (( A PSD permit application under WAC 173

- 400

- 141, a notice of nonattainment area construction )) An application for a major modification in a nonattainment area , ( (or)) a notice of construction application for a major stationary source in a nonattainment area, or a notice of constructi on application for a modification which is not a major modification to a major stationary source in a nonattainment area must also co mply with WAC 173

- 400

- 171. * See the preceding footnote. Response #110-6 These changes are good editing, thank you.

Comment #110-7 AWB suggested: 110 (7)(d) If the new source is a major stationary source or the change is a major modification subject to the requirements of WAC 173-400-112,* the permitting (( agency )) authority shall: Each use of the terms major stat ionary source and major modificati on must be tied to one of the sets of definitions that app ear in WAC 173-400-112 and WAC 173-400-710. Response #110-7 This is a good suggestion in this section. Ecology will add the words “subject to the requirements of WAC 173-400-112.”

Comment #110-8 AWB suggested: 110 (9) Construction time limitations.* Approval to construct or modify a stationary source becomes invalid if th e applicant does not begin actual commence construction (( is not commenced )) or commences construction within eighteen months afte r receipt of the approval, if construction is discontinued for a period of eighteen months or more, or if construction is not completed within a reasonable time. The permitting (( agency )) authority may extend the eighteen-month period upon a satisfactory show ing that an extension is justified. (( An ))** Any extension allowed for a project ((operating under a PS D permit)) must also comply with public notice requirements in WAC 173

- 400

- 171. This provision does not apply to the time period between construction of the approved phases of a phased construction project. Each phase must

commence or begin actual construction within eighteen mont hs of the projected and approved (( commencement )) commence or begin construction date. *The proposed edits to subsecti on (9) are important to the regul ated community, because they enable the owner of a large project to vest unde r its approval order by ex ecuting a contract foron-site construction, as opposed to beginning actu al construction activity. Major projects that require third party financing ofte n require 18 months to secure fi nancing and enter into contracts following issue of environmental permits. The ed its proposed here track the language in EPA’s PSD rules, 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2). **The grant of an 18 month extension to commen ce construction on a projec t that has secured an approval order after compliance with WAC 173-400-171 should not be required to repeat the public involvement process. The extension of ti me to complete a project, as opposed to an application to revise the projec t, does not involve enough variation from the original proposal to warrant the delay and cost of a nother public involvement process. Response #110-8 Ecology agrees that the deletion of "begin actual " and replacement with the word "commence" is reasonable reversion to the orig inal text in this regard. The pre-September 2001 versions of this section did not specify that time extensions required public involvement. The sentence added in 2001 applied to only PSD projects, not NOC projects. Thus while we disagree that time extensions should or should not, be subject to a public involvement action, deleting the se ntence stating that a time extens ion of an NOC is subject to public involvement would return this section to its current an d pre-2001 status regarding public involvement for time extensions. Ecology will accept your suggestions for the time being and more completely evaluate this question in Phase 2.

Comment #110-9 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Battelle) commented:

WAC 173-400-110 New Source Review Exemption Levels for Air Toxics

Issue: The table in Paragraph (5)(d) Exem ption Level Table contains an entry for Toxic Air Pollutants and referenc es WAC 173-460 as the source of exemption levels for toxic air pollutants. However -460 does not contain exemption levels.

Basis: This reference to threshold valu es creates confusion as to whether the SQERs in -460 are the in tended threshold values Suggestions: We understand that the SQERs ar e not the intended threshold levels, and that this entry was originally made anticipating that exemption levels would be established in -460 in future rule revision. Since the planned revision to -460 e few years ago was not comple ted, and does not appear to be scheduled for the near future, it is recommended that the Toxic Air Pollutants entry be eliminated from th e table to avoid potential confusion on the part of users and agencies. Response #110-9This problem is recognized and Ecology is pla nning to deal with de m i ni m u s for Toxic Air Pollutants in the second phase of this rule m a king. W e anticipate starting that process in the year 2005.

Be advised : the Sm all Quantity E m ission Rate ’s (SQER) listed in WAC 173-460-080(2)(e) are not threshold values in any wa y. The SQER values are an al terna tiv e m eans to dem onstrate

com p liance with the Acceptable Source Im pact Levels found in WAC 173-460-150 and 160.

Comment #110-10 EPA suggested:

WAC 173-400-110 New Source Review (NSR)

Note: As discussed above, by using the term “source,” W A C 173-400-110 could be interpreted to apply to nonroad engines, which is contrary to the CAA. Therefore, all references to the defined term “source” sh ould be rep l aced w ith “stationary so urce” in this section. Response #110-10 Ecology has added to the applicability section (110(1)) the following se ntence, “This section applies to sources as defined in RCW 70.94.030(21) , but does not include non-road engines. Non-Road engines are regul ated under WAC 173-400-035.”

Comment #110-11

EPA m a de the f o llowing comment: WAC 173-400-110(7) F i nal Determination In subsection (b), the added language in the last sentence is confus ing in that it ap pears to leave

out m i nor NSR in attainm e nt areas, potentially suggesting that such actio ns are not subject to WAC 173-400-171. We question whether this last sentence is even needed. One option is to strike the last sentence in its entirety and revise the second sentence to read as follows: “A notice of construction application designa ted for integrated review sha ll be processed in accordance with operating permit program procedures and deadlines in chapter 173-401 and must also comply with WAC 173-400-171.” Response #110-11 This is a good suggestion; your rewriting of the rule tex t includes all types of actions and elim inates te xt which m a kes the ru le a little m o re clea r.

Comment #110-12

EPA comm e n ted:WAC 173-400-110(9) C o nstruction Time Limitations

As EPA ha s previously stated, a perm it extensi on in a no nattainm e nt area for either a m a jor stationary source or a m a jor m odi fication is su bject to 30-day public notice and must com p ly with LAER as it exists a t the tim e of the perm it extension (see ECY RTC~2com pare docum ent under “other revisions”). Although WAC 173-400-110( 9) states that any extension m u st also

com p ly with the public notice requirem ents of WAC 173-400-171, WAC 173-400-171 does not include such extensions for m a jor NSR in nonattain m e nt areas on the list of actions s ubject to a

m a ndatory public com m e nt period. In addition, th is provision does not m a ke clear that an extension for m a jor NSR in nonattainm e nt areas must im pose LAER as it exists at the tim e of the

perm it extension. Adding the following language to WAC 173-400- 110(9) and WAC 173- 400-171 would address EPA’s concerns: WAC 173-400-110(9): “A perm it extension is subject to 30-day public no tice and comm ent under W A C 173-400-171(2) if the project is either a m a jor stationary sour ce in a nonattainm e nt

area or a m a jor m odification in a nonattainm e nt area. The extension of a project that is either a

m a jor stationary source in a nonatt ainm ent area or a m a jor modifi cation in a nonattainm ent area must also r e quire LAER as it exis ts a t the tim e of the extensio n. ” Response #110-12 The second sentence of the propo sed language above (The extension of a project that is either a

m a jor stationary source in a nonatt ainm ent area or a m a jor modifi cation in a nonattainm ent area must also require LAER as it ex is ts at the tim e of the exte nsion. ) h a s been added to th e ru le language.

Comment #110-13

Fluor Hanford wanted E c ology to consider:

7a. WHAT: W A C 173-400-110(4)

7b. WHY: See also comment 3, above. A tie is needed to the portable/tem porary section of this regulation. In addition, the term " demolition " should be added to paragraph (4)(a)

" Maintenance/construction ." The rationale for addition ties to an assum p tion of Ecology' s intent

to exem pt certain categories. An earlier pa ragraph in Ecology' s gene ral standards (i.e., WAC 173-400-04 0(3)) lis ts materials hand ling, cons tru c tion, dem o lition o r other operation which is a source of fugitiv e em issions. Since these are so u r ces of fugitive em issions, Ecology chose an

em issions control com p liance m e thod pursuant to the general standards and reasonable

precau tions or good indu stry practices. In looki n g at the existing WAC 173-400-110(4 ) , all but one of these term s are specifically listed. For example, "construc tion" is already exempted under paragraph (4)(a). "Materials handling" is exem pted as a category heading under paragraph (4)(d ) and many "other o p erations" o f fugitive em issions can find exemptions under therem a ining or m i scellaneous s ection of WAC 173-400-110(4).

7c. PROPOSED FIX: Add " demolition " to paragraph (4)(a) as a ca tegory header, then add a new line " (x) actions taken in wrecking/demolishing a fa cility to slab grade,, including removal of equipment, walls, excess or scrap mate rials, and/or load bearing structures. " Response #110-13

This comment will be considered w h en we address the de m i nim u s issues in Phase 2.

Comment #110-14 Fluor Hanford also suggested:

8a. WHAT: W A C 173-400-110(5)(d)

8b. WHY: The current text in the table includes under entry (i) " Toxic A i r Pollutan t s, as specified in chapter 173-460 WAC ." Previous discussions wi th the perm it authority have resulted in an agency interpretation that alt hough (a) through (h) of this table offer exemption levels for a source, there are no de m i nim u s levels specified in W A C 173-460 at this tim e. I f this line is a place holder for future exemption levels to be prom ul gated, th en a clar if ication is requested to avoid confusion in use of the table.

8c. PROPOSED FIX: Please provide clarification text fo r Ecology' s intent pursuant to W A C 173-400-110(5)(d)(i). Response #110-14 This problem has been pointed out over the last few years by several dif f erent persons. The comment will be con s ide r ed when we addr ess the de m i nim u s issues in Phase 2.

Comment #110-15 Fluor Hanford suggested:

9a. WHAT: W A C 173-400-110(9)

9b. WHY: Under the am ended text in this paragra ph, a confusing statem ent is made that an approval "...becom e s invalid if the applicant doe s not begin actual construction or commences construction within eighteen m onths..."

9c. PROPOSED FIX: The non-action and action triggers shoul d be separated for clarity. In the first situation, it is believed that Ecology in tends that an approval would become invalid if the applicant does not begin ac tual construction within 18 m onths, unless an extension is approved by the authority. The sec ond part of th e current sentence (tied by the current "or") would have an approval becom e invalid if the applicant c o mm ences construc tion within 18 months. It is assum e d that, in th e case of the latter, this is not Ecology' s intent, but rather “if the applicant fails to comm e n ce construction within 18 m onths.” Suggested approach would be to separate into two sentences.Response #110-15 You are correct; the prop osed language is confusi ng. Ecology will co rrect this to b e tter reflect the intent. S ee Response # 110-8.

Comment #110-16

Fluor Hanford comm ent e d:

10a. WHAT: W A C 173-400-110(11)

10b. WHY: The basis for Ecology's addition of this paragraph is questioned, since orders of approval r e ceived purs u ant to this section ea ch have a sim ilar state m ent. Citin g the RCW enforcem ent section would be helpful. Also, the current language would im ply that a person

must com p ly with all approval conditions (imm e d ia tely and fully) upon receip t of such approval. This would appear to negate phased appr ovals and/or conditions that are based on

commence m ent or startup.

10c. PROPOSED FIX: Add RCW reference an d clarify existi ng text to add a statement sim ilar to, "Once o p eration of the sou r ce(s ) comm ence s, the owner or operator (i.e., person) m u st

com p ly with order of approval conditions and/or lim itation s , pursuant to tim e-f r ames specif i ed therein." Response #110-16 Although need for this language m a y seem to be superfluou s, som e of t h e perm ittin g authorities indica ted th at th is chang e woul d be welcom e, since they have been questioned on whether or not all conditions of an approval order were required to be f o llowed. Adding your suggested language is a good idea that clarif ies both when the requirem e nt to com p ly starts and m a kes clear the leg i slative authority.



# Comments on section 112 of the proposal

Comment #112-1

AWB wanted to m a ke the following suggestion: (e) *

. (e) "Commence" for the purposes of WAC 173

- 400

- 112, as applied to construction, m eans: (i) Tha t th e owner or op erato r has all the n ecess a ry preconstruction approvals or perm its and eith er h a s: (A) Begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of actual on

- site construction of the source, to be com p leted within a reasonable tim e ; or (B) Entered into binding agreem ents or contractual obligations, which cannot be canceledor m odified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of actual construction of the source to be co m p leted within a reason ab le tim e

. (ii) For the purp oses of this definition, "necessar y preconstruction approvals" m eans those perm its or orders of approval require d under federal air quality control laws and regulations, including state, lo cal and federal regulations and orders contained in the S I P.

This definition is retained in WAC 173-400-030 Response #112-1 Ecology agrees with the commenter and will dele te th is definition du e to duplication.

Comment #112-2

AWB wanted to m a ke the following suggestion: (f) * (f) "Stationary so urce" and "source" for t h e purposes of WAC 173

- 400

- 112

m eans any building, structure, facility or instal lation which em its or m a y e m it any air pollutant subject to regulation under the FCAA. WAC 173-400-112 covers NOC applica tions for m i nor as well as m a jor projects located in a nonattainm e nt area. Thus the definition of “stationa ry source” used in this section m u st cover all air contam inants, not just air pollutants s ubject to regulation unde r the F C AA. WAC 173-400- 030 defines stationary source as pr oposed here, except that it regul ates all air contam inants. The 030 definition is the one Ecology should use here By using the broader definition here Ecolog y will not increase the nu mber of poll u tants s ubject to m a jor NSR, because the W A C 173-400-112 def i nition s of “m ajor stationary sou r c e” and “m ajor m odif i cation” lim it th e scope of m a jor NSR to federal N S R pollutants. Response #112-2 Ecology disagrees. Section 112 deals with m a jor proj ects in non-attainm e nt areas. In areas such as this the federal definition as stated in (f) is the appropriate definition.

Comment #112-3

Pacific Northwest National Labor atory (Battelle) suggested: WAC 173-400-112 Requirements for New Sou rces in Nonattainment Areas and WAC 173- 400-113 Requirements for New Sources in Attainme nt or Unclassified Areas Clarification of Requirem e nts for Approval of New Sources

Issue There appears to be som e confusion as to whether WAC 173- 460 applies to all sources, or only t hose source catego ries lis ted in subsection -460-030, Requirem e nts, Applicability, and ExemptionBasis This confusion leads to potentia l misinterpretation and misapplication of the air toxics regu lation as originally in tended and promulgated. Consequently permitting actions may be taken for sources to which the regulation does not apply. Suggestions Amend the phrases in -4 00-112 Paragraph (2)(h) and -400-113 Paragraph (5) to read: “If the pr oposed new source or the proposed modification is a source listed in WAC 173-460-030 and will emit any toxic air pollutants regulated under chapter 173-460 WAC, the source meets all applicable requirements . . .” These additions will avoid the pote ntial misinterpretation that the requirements of -460 apply to any sour ce, whether it is an applicable source per -460-030 or not. Response #112-3 Ecology is choosing not to add cl arification, extension, or restri ctions on the applicability of WAC 173-460 under this rule. The references to WAC 173-460 are to its entirety, including the applicability criteria. If an emission unit or industrial type is not subject to the requirements of WAC 173-460, then it has satisfied compliance with that regulation. Any additional clarification to the applicability of WAC 173-460 will be ad dressed in a forthcoming updating of that regulation.

Comment #112-4

EPA commented: WAC 173-400-112 Requirements for New So urces in Nonattainment Areas Usage of Terms with Respect to “Stationary Source” and “Source” In subsections (1), introductory paragraph, a nd subsection (1)(f), definitions of “stationary source” and “source” : We do not understand why Ecology has c hosen to define the usage of the terms in two places, with one being defined in the introductory paragraph and the other as a defined term in subsection (1)(f). In any event, both are confusing as currently written. We under stand that Ecology’s intent was to clarify the usage of terms “source” and “s tationary source” in WAC 173-400-112 by copying the definition of stationary s ource in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(i). No te, however, that EPA has not yet updated the definition of “statio nary source” in its implementing rules to reflect a change in the CAA’s definition of stationary source (CAA section 302(z)), which excludes nonroad engines. Therefore, Ecology’s proposed definition of “stationa ry source” and “source” in WAC 173-400-112 is not consistent with the CAA. EPA recommends that Ecology revise the defi nition of “Stationary source” and “Source” in WAC 173-400-112 to read as follows:“means any building, structure, facility, or in stallation which emits, or may emit, a regulated NSR pollutant. A stationary source (or source) does not include emissi ons resulting directly from an internal combustion engine for trans portation purposes or from a nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle as defined in section 216 of the Federal Clean Air Act. ” Response #112-4 Ecology recognizes that there is a problem with the use of term s here. We intend to work towards resolving any remaining issues with the usage of those terms within the Ecology regulations in Phase 2. In the inte rim it is the policy of Ecology to use, when a source is major in a non-attainment area, the federal definitions of stationary source and major modification will be the interpretation that we will use. In an effo rt to be clear, we have removed the duplicative definition of source that is the first sentence in the section. We have also defined “stationary source” or “source” as EPA has suggested. It should also be noted that in section 112 the word “source” is considered to be short hand for the term “stationary source.”



# Comments on section 113 of the proposal

Comment #113-1

EPA commented: WAC 173-400-113 Requirements for New Sources in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas

Note: As discussed above, all references to defined term “source” should be replaced with “stationary source” in this section. Response #113-1 See the response to your comment to section 112 a bove. It should be noted that in section 113 the word “source” is considered to be s hort hand for the term “stationary source.”



# Comments on section 116 of the proposal

Comment #116-1

AWB wanted to comment:WAC 173-400-116 New source review fees. (1) Applicability. Every person required to submit a notice of construction application to the department of ecology as authorized in RCW 70.94.152 for establishment of any proposed new source or emissions unit(s) shall pay fees as set forth in subsections (2) and (3) of this se ction. Persons require d to submit a notice of construction application to a local air authority may be required to pay a fee as required by the local permitting authority. Persons required to submit a notice of construction application to a local air authority may be required to pay a fee to ecology to cover the costs of review pursuant to WAC 173-400- 141 720 ,* second tier analysis pursua nt to WAC 173-460-090, and risk management decisions pursuant to WAC 173-460-100 as set forth in subsection (3) of this section. Fees assessed unde r this section shall apply w ithout regard to whether an order of approval is issued or denied. These amendments repeal WAC 173-400-141, an d move the PSD program into WAC 173-400- 720. Response #116-1 Thank you for pointing out this typo. We will make the change.

Comment #116-2 AWB comment on propose d WAC 173-400-116(2)(a)
Source type Clarifying criteria Fee

Basic Review Fees

Low complexity

source Emissions increase * of individual pollutants are all less than one-half of the levels established in the definition of "emission threshold" in WAC 173-400- 030, or emissions increase of individual toxic air pollutants are all less than 2.0 tons/year $1250

Moderate complexity Emissions increase of one or more individual pollutants are greater than onehalf of, and less than the levels established in the definition of "emission threshold" in WAC 173-400-030, or emissions increase of one or more toxic air pollutants are greater than 2.0 tons/year and less than ten tons/year $8000

High complexity Emissions increase of one or more pollutants are greater than the levels established in the definition of "emission threshold" in WAC 173-400-030, or emissions increase of one or more toxic air pollutants are greater than ten tons/year $18,000The complexity of a project depends on the size of the emissions increase associated with the project. A tiny modification to a major sour ce should qualify for the low complexity fee. Response #116-2 Thank you for pointing out this mistake. We will make the changes you have suggested.

Comment #116-3 AWB comment on propose d WAC 173-400-116(3)(b)

Activity Fee

Tier II toxic air pollutant impact review $10,000

Tier III toxic air pollutant impact review $10,000

Case-by-case MACT determinations $12,500

Fossil fueled electric generating unit Applicability criteria found in chapter 80.70 RCW Fees listed in rule implementing RCW 70.94.892 and chapter 80.70 RCW

Changes to existing orders of approval, Tier I review, Tier II review, or other action identified above.
Activity Fee

Modification to order of approval that authorizes an increase in allowable emissions * 50% of the fee charged in WAC 173-400-116 (2)(a)

Modification of Tier II approval 50% of the fee charged in WAC 173-400-116 (2)(b) Many types of amendments to an approval order involve no increase in allowable emissions and no ambient impact assessment. These revisions do not warrant a fee equa l to 50 percent of the basic new source review fee. Response #116-3 There are many types of revisions to existing orders. Some involve an increase in allowable emissions and some do not. A strict reading of the current rule requires Ecology to change the same fee for initial issuance and for any modifica tion to the order. This fee reduction allows Ecology to change less for less work. The work lo ad analysis that Ecology performed concludedif a change in emissions limits is needed that the proposed fee would be the closest to recovering the cost of the effort expended. In order to cr eate a fee that is more appropriate for a lesser amount of work, such as a name change, etc. is something we may be willing to discuss in the future. At this time we will leave the rule language as proposed.

Comment #116-4

Fluor Hanford commented:

11a. WHAT: WAC 173-400-116(b)

11b. WHY: This comment ties to comment (3) in th e need for exemptions for certain types of small sources. If the language under WAC 173- 400-035 is amended and a tie is made to the categorical exemptions listed under WAC 173-400- 110(4), then it is assumed that (since no NOI or NOC would prepared and no or der issued) no fee would be requi red in accordance with this table.

11c. PROPOSED FIX: Following incorporation of comment (3), amend the table under (b) such that it would not unnecessarily burden small de minimus sources with a fee. Specifically, it is suggested that the row listing a $250 fee for insignificant emission units (those either located at a WAC 173-401 source or at a non-chapter 173-401 WAC source) be modified to allow exempted sources a zero fee. The same comme nt is offered for the line regarding non-road engines with less than 50 0 installed horsepower. Response #116-4 The language at the beginning of section 116(1) sa ys, “Every person required to submit a notice of construction application to the department of ecology as authorized in RCW 70.94.152 for establishment of any proposed new source or emi ssions unit(s) shall pay fees as set forth in subsections (2) and (3) of this se ction.” We read this portion of the rule to mean that only those sources required to get a NOC or NOI are required to pay a fee. If no NOC or NOI is required, then no fee is required.



# Comments on section 117 of the proposal

Comment #117-1

The AWB commented:

WAC 173-400-117 Special protection requirement s for federal Class I areas. (1) Definitions. The following definitions apply ies to this section: (a) "Adverse impact on visibility" means visibility impairment that interferes with the management, protection, preservati on, or enjoyment of the visito r's visual experience of the federal Class I area . This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the geographic extent, inte nsity, duration, frequency, and time of visibility impairment, and how these factors correlate with: ( a i) Times of visitor use of the federal Class I area ; and( b ii) The frequency and timing of natura l conditions that reduce visibility. (b) The terms “major stationary source,” “major modification” and “net emissions increase” are defined as provided in WAC 173-400-720. * These terms are used in subsections (2), (5) and (6 ), justifying the listing of their definitions up front. Response #117-1 The reference to the definitions of "major stationary source", Major modification", and "net emissions increase" were located in -117(2)(b) in our proposal . The relocation to a new - 117(1)(b) is a reasonable alternative location for this refere nce. We have incorporated the language as suggested.

Comment #117-2 The AWB proposed: Proposed WAC 173-400-117(2)(b) (( A source in a nonattainment area that is submitting )) Submittal of a notice of construction application for a major stationary source or a major modification to a major stationary so urce in a nonattainment area , as either of those terms are defined in WAC ((173

- 400

- 113, Requirements for new sources in attainment or unclassifiable

areas )) 173

- 400

- 720

. Response #117-2 Thank you for catching the necessary clarification. Since the requirements are restricted to major stationary sources, it is important to cl early limit the applicabil ity of the visibility protection process to major stationa ry sources and major modifications. The change has been made.

Comment #117-3 The AWB suggested: (5) Analysis by federal land manager. (a) The permitting (( agency )) authority will consider any demonstration presented by the responsible federal land manager that emissions from a proposed new major stationary source* or the net emissions increase from a proposed major modification described in subsection (2) of this section would have an adverse impact on visibility in any federal Class I

area , provided that the demonstration is received by the permitting (( agency )) authority within thirty days of the federal land manager's receipt of the complete application. This paragraph incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(p)(3). That subsection applies, by its terms, to major stationary sources and major modifications. Response #117-3 See response #117-2.Comment #117-4 The AWB proposed: (6) Additional requirements for proj ects that require a PSD permit. (a) For sources impacting federal Class I areas , the permitting (( agency )) authority shall provide notice to EPA of every action related to consideration of the PSD permit. (b) The permitting (( agency )) authority shall consider any dem onstration received from the responsible federal land manager prior to the close of th e public comment period on a proposed PSD permit that emissions from the proposed new major stationary* source or the net emissions increase from a proposed major modification would have an adverse impact on the air quality-related values (including visibi lity) of any mandatory Class I federal area

. See the preceding footnote. Response #117-4 See response #117-2.

Comment #117-5

The AWB commented: (7) Additional requirements for projects located in nonattainment areas. In reviewing a PSD permit application or notice of construction application for a project new major stationary source or major modification* proposed for construction in an area classified as nonattainment , the permitting (( agency )) authority must ensure that the source's emissions will be consistent with making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility by human-caused air pollution in mandatory Class I federal areas

. See 40 CFR 51.307(c). - Response #117-5 The reference to the federal rules is, “(c) Re view of any major stat ionary source or major modification under paragraph (b) of this sec tion, shall be conducte d in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and §51.166(o), (p )(1) through (2), and (q). In conducting such reviews the State must ensure that the source's emissions will be consistent with making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal referred to in §51.300(a). The State may take into account the costs of compliance, th e time necessary for comp liance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of complia nce, and the useful life of the source.” The AWB suggestion is a valid concern and theref ore Ecology will make the changes you suggest.

Comment #117-6

The EPA wrote:

EPA - WAC 173-400-117 Special Prot ection Requirements for Federal Class I Areas

Note: As discussed above, all references to defined term “source” should be replaced with “stationary source” in this section.Response #117-6 See the responses to comments #112-4 and #113-1. It should be noted that in section 117 the word “source” is considered to be shor t hand for the term “stationary source.”



# Comments on section 118 of the proposal

Comment #118-1

AWB noted:

WAC 173-400-118 Designation of Class I, II, and III areas. (1) Designation. (a) Lands within the exterior boundaries of I ndian reservations may be redesignated only by EPA, upon application of the appropriate Indian g Governing b Body.* This restriction does not apply to nontrust lands w ithin the 1873 Survey Area of th e Puyallup Indian Reservation. See 40 CFR 52.21(g)(4). Indian Governing B ody is a defined term in 40 CFR 52.21(b)

Comment #118-2

AWB commented: ( C c) Except as provided in subs ection (1) of this section, O only the department of ecology is allowed may propose* to designate or redesignate th e classification of th e areas of the state

. EPA must approve the redesignation of an area as a SIP amendment, per 40 CFR 52.21(g)(1). Response #118-1 and #118-2 Thank you for making these suggestions, your sugge stions with some small edits are what Ecology will adopt, in order to reflect the a ppropriate relationships between the various governmental organizations. The language Ec ology has chosen for WAC 173-400-118(1)(a) is “Lands within the exterior boundari es of Indian reservations ma y be proposed for redesignation by an Indian Governing Body or EPA

. redesignated only by the appr opriate Indian governing body. This restriction does not apply to nontru st lands within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Indian Reservation.”

Comment #118-3

EPA commented: WAC 173-400-118 Designation of Class I, II, and III Areas EPA assumes that the language added in subsectio n (2)(b)(ii)(C) is to clarify that the local air authorities do not have authority to designate or redesignate the classifi cation of areas of the state. As you know, it is EPA’s position that Ec ology and the local air authorities in Washington do not have authority to implement and enforce CAA requirements with respect to sources or activities located in Indian C ountry, as defined in 18 U.S.C.11 51. The one exception is within the exterior boundaries of the P uyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of I ndians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitlyprovided State and local agenci es in Washington authority ov er activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Response #118-3 The reply to AWB comments above supports the pos ition that EPA has taken in their comments. Ecology will edit WAC 173-400-11 8(2)(b)(ii)(C) to read, “Areas proposed by Ecology for designation or redesignation.”



# Comments on sections 120, 131 and 136 of the proposal

Comment #120 -1

The EPA made the comment below: Bubble Rules (120), Issuance of Emission Reduc tion Credits (131), & Use of Emission Reduction Credits (136) As currently written, these rules ar e not approvable for inclusion into the SIP. In order for these types of rules to be approvable, they need to be consistent with CAA requirements, as described in the Final Emissions Trading Policy Statement (see 51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986). Response #120-1 We are not intending to ask for SIP appr oval at this time for these provisions.



# Comments on section 151 of the proposal

Comment #151-1

The EPA commented: WAC 173-400-151 Retrofit Requirement s for Visibility Protection Ecology will need to provide a justification re garding the potential re laxation of limiting the scope of the rule to only the 26 listed source categories in subsect ion (c) instead of all sources. Our understanding from Ecology is th at failure to include the 26 s ource categories in the initial promulgation of the rule was an oversight and th at the intent was that the state definition be consistent with the federal definition. This and the potential impact of the change will need to be explained and justified in the SIP submittal. Response #151-1 Noted. Thank you for the instructions for the SIP submittal.



# Comments on section 171 of the proposal

Comment #171-1 The AWB suggested rewriting th e entire section as below:WAC 173-400-171 Public involvement.* (1) (( Applicability. )) Applicability. This section applies statewide to the actions described in s ubsection (2), except actions taken by an authority that has adopted its own public involvement rule. PSD actions under WAC 173-400-720 are not subject to the procedures in th is section. The public involvement for these projects shall follow the procedures in WAC 173-400-730(4) and 173-400-740

. *The comments on this section depart from th e redline format followed elsewhere in these comments. Because most of the edits recomm ended by AWB consist of moving text from one subsection to another, it was not helpful to show additions and deletions in redline format. This document shows the form of WAC 173-400-171 that AWB reco mmends for adoption. The biggest difference between our version and the propos ed rule is that our ve rsion treats internet notification and newspaper notifi cation as two different types of public notice, as opposed to labeling only newspaper publication as “public no tice.” In addition, we suggest changing the order of the subsections, so that the rule starts with an applicability statement, followed by a list of all of the actions subject to public notice, followed by a desc ription of the three authorized methods of providing public noti ce, followed by details on the procedures that Ecology follows in implementing each type of public notice. AWB’s comments contain very little in the way of substantive edits to the proposed rule. Our most important substantive suggestion is to make this rule inapplicable to actions taken by a local air authority that has its own public involvement rule. We urge Ecology to add an “applicability” subsection at the beginning that make s the rule applicable statewide, but clarifies that it does not govern PSD permitting or actions taken by a local authority that has its own public notice process. See WAC 173-400-171(1). We propose to add a new category of actions that require public notice, orders to designate Clean Units or Pollution Control Projects. See WAC 173-400-171(2)(q). We proposed to gather in a new subsection the three types of public notice recognized in Ecology’s draf t: Internet notific ation, newspaper publica tion and integrated review of changes that require a Title V permit amendment as well as NSR. (2) Actions subject to public notice.

T he permitting authority must provide public notice befo re approving or denying any of the following types of app lications or other actions: (a) A notice of construction application for any new source or modification ; (b) The initial application to operate a portable source in the state of Washington; (c) Any use of a modified or substituted air quality model, other than a guideline model in Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51 (in effect on July 1, 2004 ) as part of review under WAC 173- 400-110, 173-400-117, or 173-400-720 ; (d) Any order to determine RACT ; (e) An order to establish a compliance schedule or a variance; (f) An order to demonstrate the creditable height of a stack which exceeds the GEP formula height and sixty-five meters, by means of a fluid model or a field study, for the purposes of establishing an emission limitation ; (g) An order to authorize a bubble ; (h) Any action to discount the value of an ERC issued to a source per WAC 173-400- 136(6);(i) Any regulatory order to establish BART for an existing stationary facility; (j) Any notice of construction application or regulatory order used to establish a creditable emission reduction ; (k) An order issued under WAC 173-400-091 th at establishes limitations on a source's potential to emit ; (l) The original issuance and the issuance of all revisions to a gene ral order of approval issued under chapter 173-560 WAC. (m) A Washington state recommendati on that will be submitted by the director of ecology to EPA for approval of a SIP revision, including plans for a ttainment, maintenance, and visibility protection; (n) A Washington state recommendation to EPA for designation or redesignation of an

area as attainment

, nonattainment , or unclassifiable ; (o) A Washington state recommendation to EPA for a change of boundaries of an attainment or nonattainment area; or (p) A Washington state recommendation to EPA for redesignation of an area under WAC 173-400-118 (q) An order or approval order designati ng a Clean Unit or appr oving a Pollution Control Project under WAC 173-400-720. **

Comment #171-2 **WAC 173-400-720 contemplates that a WA C 173-400-091 regulatory order or a WAC 173- 400-110 approval order will be used to designat e Clean Units and to approve PCPs. Those sections employ the public notice procedures of WAC 173-400-171, so it is appropriate to add these actions to the list of actions subject to public notice. (3) Public notice methods (a) Newspaper publication. Pub lic notice of applications a nd actions described in this section will be provided by newspaper publication, ex cept for those applications that qualify for internet notification as described in paragraph (b) below. A permitting authority may decide to provide public notice by newspape r publication for a project that qualifies for internet notification, if it determines th at there is substantial public interest in the application. (b ) Internet notification of receipt of an application. Public notice of a n otice of construction application for a new source or modification or the initial application to operate a portable source in the state of Washington may be provided th rough internet no tification as described below, if no increase in emissions of any air pollutant larg er than the emission threshold rate (defined in WAC 173-400-030) would result. (i) Notice shall remain on the permitting au thority's website for a minimum of fifteen consecutive days. The internet posting shall incl ude notice of the receipt of the application, the type of proposed action, and a statement that th e public may request an opportunity to comment on the proposed action. (ii) Requests for a public comment period shall be submitted to the permitting authority in writing via letter, fax, or elec tronic mail within fifteen days of its internet posting. A public comment period shall be provided pu rsuant to subsection (7) of this section for any applicationor proposed action that receives su ch a request. Any application or proposed action for which a public comment period is not requested may be processed without further public involvement. (iii) Any application or proposed action th at requires a public comment period or for which the permitting authority proposes to have a public comme nt period does not have to be announced on the permitting authority 's internet website. (c) Integrated review. A notice of construction application designated for integrated review with an application to issue or modi fy an operating permit shall be processed in accordance with the operating permit program pro cedures and deadlines. A project designated for integrated review that includes a notice of construction application for a new major stationary source or a major modification in a nonattainment area , must also comply with public notice requirements in this section. A project designated for integrated review that includes a PSD permit application must also co mply with the requirements in WAC 173-400-730 and 173-400-740

. (4) Newspaper publication. Notice of an action or application designated for newspaper publication must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed project. Notice shall be published only after all informa tion required by the permitting authority has been submitted and after applicable preliminary determinations, if any, have been made. The applicant or other in itiator of the action must pay th e cost of publication. A copy of the newspaper notice will be sent to the EPA Re gion 10 regional administrator. The notice shall include: (a) The name and address of the owner or operator and the facility; (b) A brief description of the proposal; (c) The location of the documents ma de available for public inspection; (d) A thirty-day period for submitting written comment to the permitting authority; (e) A statement that a public hearing may be held if the permitting authority determines within a thirty-day period that significant public interest exists; (f) For those actions listed in WAC 173- 400-171(8)(b) with a manda tory public hearing requirement, the time, date, and location of the public hearing

. (g) The length of the public comment pe riod in the event of a public hearing; (h) For projects subject to s pecial protection requirements for federal Class I areas in WAC 173-400-117(5)(c), the newspaper notice shall eith er explain the permitting authority's decision or state that an e xplanation of the decision a ppears in the support document for the proposed order of approval ; (i) For a redesignation of an area unde r WAC 173-400-118, the newspaper notice shall state that an explanation of th e reasons for the proposed redesigna tion is available for review at the public location.
(5) Availability for public inspection. The information submitted by the applicant, and any applicable preliminary determinations, including anal yses of the effects on air quality, must be available for public inspection in at least one location near the proposed project. Exemptions from this requirement include information protected from disclosure under an y applicable law, including, but not limited to, RCW 70.94.205 and chapter 173-03 WAC

. (a) For a redesignation of a class II area under WAC 173-400-118, ecology must make availablefor public inspection at least thirty days before the hearing the explanation of the reasons for the proposed redesignation. (b) For a revision of the SIP

, ecology must make available for publ ic inspection the information related to the action at least thirty days before the hearing. (6) Additional public notice requi rements for a SIP revision. For a revision to the SIP that is submitted by the director of ecology

, ecology must publish the information described in subsection (4) of this section in the Washington State Register in advance of the date of the public hearing. (7) Public comment opportunity. (a) The public comment period for an action published for comment in a newspaper must be at least the thirty-day period for writte n comment specified in the newspaper notice. (b) If a public hearing is held, the pu blic comment period must extend through the hearing date. (c) T he permitting authority shall make no final decision on any application or action published for comment under this section until the public comment period has ended and any comments received during the public comm ent period have been considered. (8) Public hearings. (a) The applicant, any interested gover nmental entity, any group, or any person may request a public hearing within the thirty-day public comment period. A request must indicate the interest of the entity filing it and why a hearing is warranted. T he permitting authority may hold a public hearing if it determines significant public interest exists. T he permitting authority will determine the location, date, and time of the public hearing. (b) Ecology must hold a hearing on the following ecology only actions: (i) A Washington state recommendation to EPA that will be submitted by the director of ecology for approval of a SIP revision; (ii) A Washington state recommendation to EPA for a change of boundaries of an attainment or nonattainment area; (iii) A Washington st ate recommendation to EPA for designation of an area as attainment

, nonattainment , or unclassifiable ; and (iv) A Washington st ate recommendation to EPA to redesignate an area under WAC 173- 400-118. (c) Ecology must provide at least thirty days prior notice of a h earing required under subsection (8)(b) of this section. (9) Other requirements of law. Whenever procedures permitted or mandated by law will accomplish the objectives of public notice a nd opportunity for comment, those procedures may be used in lieu of the provisions of this section. Response #171-1 The suggested revision to the layout and text of th is section are indeed a better layout. But there are problems with implementing the suggestion. First the section does contain a small amount of newly proposed text that does not appear any where else; not in the existing rule, nor in the proposed rule. Further there are deletions from the proposal. There has not been sufficient timeto properly evaluate the entire rewrite. These take n together make the change too substantive to implement without further public involvement. Th erefore Ecology will not adopt the suggestion. But, we may decide to place this suggestion on the agenda for Phase 2. Response #171-2 See the comment and response #171-7.

Comment #171-3 Boeing had the concerns below: Reference to Small Quantity Emission Rate Tables as a trigger for public process requirements in 400-171 should be deleted. Public access and comment opportunity via the internet should be encouraged. The addition of provisions for pub lic involvement via the internet is important and welcome. Unfortunately, Ecology has attempted to distingui sh this type of public notice from more traditional newspaper publication, calling only the latter “mandatory public notice” for purposes of new source review. This distinction denies the public full use of speedier involvement while unnecessarily adding transactional cost to the process. Also, the addition of small quantity emission ra tes from the air toxics rule (WAC 173-460-080 (2)(e)) as a “trigger” for the public involveme nt process is unwarranted. Not only do the provisions of WAC 173-460 stand on their own, requiring NSR public process when appropriate, the rates listed will force many small, uncontrove rsial projects into an extended, time-consuming public process. Permitting agencies already have the option under proposed Section 400- 171(2)(c) to formally involve the public where appropriate. Using the small quantity emission rates would force many non-controversial ap provals into lengthy, unproductive public involvement exercises, delayi ng projects, increasing costs and providing no environmental benefit. Boeing supports the rearranged language proposed by the Association of Washington Business, and removing the reference to the small quantity emission rate s of WAC 173-460-080: Response #171-3

The establishment of a threshol d value to require public involvement for TAP increases is to prevent requiring even trivial TAP emission in creases from requiring the formal, newspaper notice process of public involvement. The TAP threshold is similar to the threshold value “criteria air pollutants” contai ned in the newly defined term ”emission threshold” (which replaces our current rule’s criteria of a “net significant increase” based on the PSD definition of significant). We proposed the use of the SQER values for TAPS as the threshold in lieu of other suggestions which were even smaller rates whic h would subject even more facilities to the newspaper publication requirement. In our view, the lack of a threshold value implie s that all actions are subject to the newspaper publication version of public i nvolvement, effectively negating the value of the proposal for internet notification of applica tions received for those actions not requiring public notice through the newspaper publication process.

Comment #171-4

EPA commented:

WAC 173-400-171 Public CommentMinor changes to subsections (1), (2) and (3) w ould better clarify that the internet posting specified in subsection (1) is designed to meet the public participation requirements of 40 CFR 51.161. In subsection (1)(a) , we suggest replacing the term “mandatory public notification” with “a mandatory public notice and comment period.” In subsection (1)(c) , the second sentence should state that “Public notice and comment shall be provided pursuant to subsections (3) and (4) of this section . . .” In subsections (1)(b) and (c) , it would be better to use the same phrase to refer to the public comment period in both sections ( “public comment period” seems more accurate than “opportunity to comment” ). In addition, at the end of subsection (1)(c), we recommend clarifying that the action can be “. . . processed without furt her public involvement “at the end of the 15 day posting period. ” Response #171-4 These suggestions are appreciated and help to clarify the intent of the rule.

Comment #171-5 EPA had the following concern: In subsection (2) , we suggest changing the caption to “Actions subject to public notice and

comment ” and stating in subsection (2)(a) that “The permitting authority must provide public notice and a public comment period before . . . ” Response #171-5 Thanks for the comment, Ecology agrees a nd will change the rule as suggested.

Comment #171-6

EPA commented: In subsection (2)(a)(ii ), we assume the reference to 173-400-110 captures actions under WAC 173-400-112 and -113. If not, these c itations should be added. Response #171-6 Thanks for the comment, Ecology agrees a nd will change the rule as suggested.

Comment #171-7

EPA - In subsection (2)(a) , it is unclear whether the refere nce to “PSD actions under WAC 173- 400-730 and 173-400-740" includes issuance of PSD permitting mechanisms being used to implement NSR reform, such as Clean Unit exemptions, Pollution Control Project (PCP) exemptions, and Plant-wide Applicability Limits (P ALs). This is an important issue. If such PSD avoidance mechanisms are not covered under the public involvement procedures in WAC 173-400-730(4) and -740, a category should be added to subsection (2)(a) to make clear that orders issued to designate an emissions units as a Clean Unit under 40 CFR 52.21(y), to permit aPCP under 40 CFR 52.21(z)(5), or to establish a PAL under 40 CFR 52.21(aa) are subject to the mandatory public notice and comment provi sions of subsections (2) and (3). Response #171-7

Our intent was to include these actions in the public involvement proce ss of the PSD program. Therefore we have modified the sentence to say, “PSD actions, including actions taken to avoid PSD applicability, under WAC 173-400-730 and 173-400- 740 are not required to follow the procedures in this section. The public involvement for these projects shall follow the procedures in WAC 173-400-730( 4) and 173-400-740 .”

Comment #171-8

EPA - In subsection (2)(a) , Ecology needs to revise the public notice and comment provisions in this subsection to clarify that a permit extens ion in a nonattainment area for either a major stationary source or a major modification is subject to 30-d ay public notice. The following language would address EPA’s concern on this issue: WAC 173-400-171(2)(a)(?): “Any extension of the deadline to begin actual construction of a “major stationary source” or “major modification” in a nonattainment area, or” Response #171-8 Ecology agrees with EPA’s comment and has added the proposed language at WAC 173-400- 171(2)(a)(xii).

Comment #171-9 EPA pointed out the following typo: In subsection (3)(b)(v) , should the reference be to WAC 173 -400-171(5)(b), rather than (4)(b)? Response #171-9 Thank you for pointing out this typo. Ecology will fix it.

Comment #171-10

Fluor Hanford made the comment below:

12a. WHAT: WAC 173-400-171

12b. WHY: This comment ties to comment (3). Imposing a public involvement process for typical rental or homeowner-type portabl e/temporary units would be burdensome.

12c. PROPOSED FIX: Suggest incorporating exemptions for some category of units, as per the outcome of comment resolution on WAC 173- 400-035. Clarification in the introductory paragraph could also reference exemptions in the requirements for public review. Response #171-10 Since the proposed revisions to WAC 173-400-035 have been removed from this rule making, this comment is no longer operative. We may wish to revisit this comment in the context of the second phase of the rule making.Comment #171-11 The Northwest Clean Air Agency made the suggestion below:

WAC 173-400-171 Public Involvement The reference to a threshold for toxic air po llutants in WAC 173-460- 080 (2) (e) that would require public notice has not been well thought out. This require ment would necessitate that many small projects go through a public notice where it may not be warranted (i.e. small combustion projects like small generators or boilers). A new threshold for public notice requirement s for WAC 173-460 should be established only after more analysis and considerat ion of these regulations. This pr ocess could help to insure that public notice requirements are comm ensurate with the potential impa cts of the project. This provision was specifically included to in an effort to address SIP deficiencies that were identified by EPA Region 10. It is our unders tanding that the proposed language will not be sufficient to correct these deficiencies. Response #171-11

The establishment of a threshol d value to require public involve ment for TAP increases is to prevent requiring even trivial TAP emission in creases from requiring the formal, newspaper notice process of public involvement. The TAP threshold is similar to the threshold value “criteria air pollutants” contai ned in the newly defined term ”emission threshold” (which replaces our current rule’s criteria of a “net significant increase” based on the PSD definition of significant). We proposed the use of the SQER values for TAPS as the threshold in lieu of other suggestions which were even smaller rates whic h would subject even more facilities to the newspaper publication requirement. In our view, the lack of a threshold value implie s that all actions are subject to the newspaper publication version of public i nvolvement, effectively negating the value of the proposal for internet notification of applica tions received for those actions not requiring public notice through the newspaper publication process.

Comment #171-12 The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency made the following suggestion:
Comment 4 - WAC 173-400-171(2)(a)(i)

Issue - Public involvement provisions are incorrectly extended to an indirect modification of WAC 173-460.

Discussion The proposed WAC 173-400-171(2)(a)( i) would be a significant change to our public notice requirements since, historically public notice ha s only been required for applications involving risk management decisions under WAC 173- 460-100. This context was based on WAC 173- 460-090(7) which specifies that “Ecology decisions regarding s econd tier analysis or decisions under WAC 173-450-100 shall comply with public notific ation requirements contained in WAC 173-400-171.” The only other reference to publi c notice in WAC 173-460 is in WAC 173-460-040(5)(b) which requires the permitting authority to “initiate compliance with the provisions of WAC 173-400-171 relating to public notice and public comment, as applicable.” We believe the words “as applicable” clearly imply that the public noti ce isn’t always applicable. The distinction between these two cita tions is that a Tier II decision has a required public process while other language defines a process to be fo llowed when it’s used. This proposed change does not address the record established during rulemaking for WAC 173-460, which would include the intent and interests a ssociated with th at regulation. Discussions with Ecology sta ff regarding the implementation of WAC 173-400 in its present form indicated their underlying assumption was that the absence of emissions thresholds for public notice in WAC 173-460 meant that any em issions increase required public notice. We disagree with that premise for the reasons stated above and submit that th is interpretation is not consistently used by all authorities which us e WAC 173-400-171 for their public involvement. In similar discussions regarding the absence of toxic air contamin ant emission thresholds for new source review applicability [referenced by WAC 173-400-110(5)(d)], Ecology has acknowledged a rulemaking effort for WAC 173-460 is needed. We believe this logic shoul d also be applied to the proposed public notice amendment and that sp ecifying emissions thresholds for public notice here is effectively an a ttempt to modify WAC 173-460. One additional concern is that the proposed revisions to WAC 173-400-171 have been included in an effort specifically intended to address SIP deficiencies identif ied by EPA Region 10. Without the proposed reference to WAC 173-460, this amended section remains clearly worded for our criteria pollutant permitting program and consistant with the requirements for incorporation into the SIP (40 CFR 51,161). Since WAC 173-460 is not a SIP-approved rule, referencing it in WAC 173-460- 171 will create a more complicated SIP approval action for EPA Region 10. We believe WAC 173-460 should have its own public notice applicab ility provision and should reference only the procedural requirements in WAC 173-400-171(3)-(6).

Recommendation Delete the phrase “or any increase in a pollutant re gulated under chapter 173-460 WAC which will increase above the small quantity emission rate listed in WAC 173-460-080(2)(e) would result.” Response #171-12 See the response to Comment #171-11. In addition to the response referenced, WAC 173- 460 does not set any criteri a or other thresholds for public involvement. That regulation (for example, see WAC 173-460-040(5)(b)) refers the source owner and permitting authority to WAC 173-400-171 for the proce ss and criteria relating to public notice and comment.

Comment #171-13 The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency poi nted out the two following typos:
Comment 5 - WAC 173-400-171(2)(a)(xi)
Typo - This paragraph should refer to WAC 173-400-560, not chapter 173-560 WAC.Comment # 171-14 Comment 6 - WAC 173-400-171(3)(b)(5)
Typo - The reference to actions with a mandatory public hearing should be changed from WAC 173-400-171(4)(b) to WAC 173-400-171(5)(b). Responses # 171-13 and #171-14 Thanks for pointing out these mistakes. We will fix them.



# Comments on section 175 of the proposal

Comment #175-1 AWB pointed out the following:

WAC 173-400-175 Public information. All information, except information protected from disclosure under any ap plicable law, including, but not limited to, RCW 70.94.205, is available for public inspection at the issuing agency. This includes copies of notice s of construction applications

, orders , and applications to modify ications orders. * The edit shown here is a best guess at implementing the original intent of this section. The term “modification” as used in the curren t rule has no identifiable meaning. Response #175-1 This change does make the issue a little bit more clear. Ecology will make the changes you suggested.



# Comments on section 560 of the proposal

Comment #560-1 AWB made the suggestion below: (7) Failure to qualify or comply. An owner or operator who requests and is granted approval for coverage under a general order of approval shall be subject to enforcement action for establishment of a new source in violation of WAC 173-400-110 if the emission unit or source a decision to grant coverage under a general order of approval was based on erroneous information submitted by the applicant. * is later determined not to qualify for the terms and conditions of the general order of approval.
Enforcement action is appropriate where the a pplicant misstates information on which a permitting authority bases an applicability determination. Enforc ement action is not appropriate where the permitting authority simply changes its mind about the availab ility of coverage under a general order of approval. Response #560-1 The changes that are outlined in this comment places the burden on the permitting agency to properly make the determination as to whether th e source is covered by the terms of the general permit. Ecology agrees that this is where the burden lies and so agrees with the commenter’s suggestion.Comment #560-2 EPA suggested: WAC 173-400-560 General Order of Approval

Note: As discussed above, by using the term “s ource,” WAC 173-400-560 could be interpreted to apply to nonroad engines, which is contrary to the CAA. Therefore, all references to the defined term “source” should be replaced w ith “stationary source” in this section. Response #560-2 It is inappropriate to issue gene ral orders of approval for non-road engines. This is because there is a requirement in WAC 173-400-560 for a BACT de termination when writing a general order. Non-road engines are not subject to a BACT requirement as a matte r of federal law. Non-road engines are regulated under WA C 173-400-035. At some point in the future Ecology may write rules for the establishment of general permits fo r non-road engines, without the requirement for BACT. WAC 173-400-560(1) has been modified to read, “(1) Issuance of general orders of approval. A permitting authority may issue a general order of approval applicable to a specific type of emission unit or source, not including non-road engines as defined in section 216 of the federal Clean Air Act , subject to the conditions in this section.”

Comment #560-3

EPA commented: In the introductory paragraph, we recommend that language be revised to match the similar language in WAC 173-400-110 (“ Coverage under a general order of approval satisfies the requirement for new source review under RCW 70.94.152.” ). This makes clear that the source has to qualify for a general orde r of approval in order for it to relieve the source of the responsibility to apply for and obt ain an order under WAC 173-400-110. Response #560-3 Ecology agrees with the ch anges that are suggested.

Comment #560-4 EPA pointed out the following typo. In subsection (5) , we believe there is a typo. Should “(6)(a) or (b)” be “(5 )(a) or (b)”? Response #560-4 Thank you for pointing out the typo; we will fix the typo.

Comment #560-5

EPA - In subsection (5)(b), In addition, this subparagraph should specify the date on which coverage under the general order of approval under this option (b ) becomes effective as is done in subsection (a). In this case, coverage would presumably become effective on the 31 st day afterthe application for coverage was received by the permitting authority unless a denial letter was postmarked before that date. Response #560-5 This is a good idea; Ecology agrees.

Comment #560-6 EPA made the following suggestion In addition, we believe there s hould be a provision, in the genera l permit regulation, requiring the permitting authority, on some periodic basis, to revi ew general orders of approval to ensure that what is identified as BACT is still BACT and that air quality is still bein g protected. Therefore, we support language similar to what was in Ecology’s earlier draft: “General Orders of Approval shall be reviewed by the permit issuin g authority at least once every five years from the date of announcement of the final form.” Response #560-6 That language was removed from an earlier draf t because many thought that this would be too burdensome on the permitting agencies. But the comment has raised the issue again. Ecology plans to consider a revision of this nature in Phase 2. Ecology cannot make the change as proposed by EPA because the topic of periodic re view of the General Permits was not in the formal proposal.



# Comments on section 700 of the proposal

Comment #700-1

NWCAA comments WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 The language used in the sections following WAC 173-400-700 seems to negate the language which indicates local agencies may request dele gation of specific PSD avoidance mechanisms. For example, in WAC 173-400-720( 4)(b)((iii)(E) & (F), identifying that Ecology is doing the Clean Unit exemptions [per 52.21(y)] and the PCP actions [per 52.21(z) ] negates the option identified in WAC 173-400-700, appears to forc e additional rulemaking activity by a local agency if it wanted to pursue delegation for th ese actions. It extends th e Notice of Construction (NOC) review and approval authority to Ecology for sources outside thei r current jurisdiction.

There is some confusion within these sections , for the terms, Administrator, Ecology, and permitting authority. In general, the term “p ermitting authority” should be used in all circumstances except when administrator means “EPA”. Permitting authority terms should be qualified in each use as “permitting authority that has received delegation” for the specific action identified, similar to the language in WAC 173-400-700(2)(a) or WAC 173-400-720(4) (“permitting authority with jurisdiction ove r the source under chapter 173-401 WAC”). Our suggestion that the term “permitting authority ” be used instead of Ecology is intended to make the delegation requests by lo cal agencies be processed on a simple and streamlined basis aspossible, should they decide to pu rsue it. It will also leave the rule intact and unaltered if the delegation agreement identifies who has which specific authority. We also believe that one delegation agreement for the State of Washington which involves all par ties involved (including local agencies as appropriate) is appropria te for PSD and PSD avoidance actions. NWCAA intends to seek delegation for PSD a voidance actions in our jurisdiction. Response #700-1 The intent of the language is to establish th at Ecology implements the PSD permitting program and issues the exemption from PSD permitting requirements. This leaves the local agency free to implement the state law based new source revi ew program requirements without the potential conflicts resulting form a local authority saying that for PSD purposes an action is exempt, but for state new source review purposes, the action is subject to the full scope of the state new source review program including the requirement to implement BACT emission controls even when not required by the PSD program exempti on (see discussion below related to proposed changes in WAC 173- 400-720(4)(b)(iii)(z)). The coordination language in section 700 is for th e purpose of identifying relationships between Ecology and EFSEC and a local authority if it pu rsues delegation of some or all of the PSD permitting program. Ecology is used where it is intended that Ec ology be the implementing authority, the permitting authority where it is intended to be the agency th at issues the air operati ng permit for a specific source, and EPA where the action is clear, by the terms of 40 CFR 52.21, to be only the EPA administrator. Ecology intends to continue its cl ose relationship with NWCAA and all other local authorities in implementing the PSD program and coordinating our actions with those of the local authority in its new source review and air operating permit func tions. Equally we believe that taking on the PSD program elements is an important action with potential statewide ai r quality implications that should not be entered into lightly or without forethought. The rulemaking process entails all the ramifications of adopting the prog ram to be evaluated and considered. If a local authority were to pursue regulatory changes necessary to adopt all or parts of the federal PSD program, we would not act to prevent this decision, but would work to assure the full ramifications, limitations and opportunities the decision entails. At such time as regulatory language to implement all or part of the PSD pr ogram is adopted by a local authority into its rules, we would work with the authority a nd EPA to update our delegation agreement and develop a delegation agreement for the local author ity that clearly delinea te responsibilities and jurisdictions. We have not changed the language of these se ctions to reflect a permitting authority to implement the PSD exemptions without modifying its rules.

Comment #700-2 PSCAA Comment 9, Streamline rule language in Sections -700 - 750 to support local implementation option. PSCAA suggests that all text in these sections have the term “ecology” replaced with the term “permitting authority” to allow a lo cal authority to utilize the stat e regulation to support requestsfor delegation by EPA-Region 10 of all or portions of the federal PSD permitting program. The requested language adjustment would allow for a simplified process to request such delegation. Response #700-2 At this time we do not propose to make the re quested language adjustment. We believe that requesting delegation of this federal program from EPA is a significant action that needs the full understanding and agreement of the ramifications of receiving the delegation. We believe that such a request should be made with forethought and with necessary adjustments and changes to the local authority regulations to fully conform with the elements requested for delegation. The conflicting requirements between the federal prov isions and the local authority NOC programs needs to be fully explored in a public forum which requiring local agency rulemaking to occur will allow to happen.

Comment #700-3 AWB, EPA, the Northwest Clean Air Agency, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency pointed out this typo. (2) WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400- 750 apply statewide except: (a) Where the authority has relieved received delegation of the federal PSD program from EPA or has a SIP approved PSD program. Response #700-3 We thank you for finding the typo.

Comment #700-4 EPA made the following comment: WAC 173-400-700 Review of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution

General comment: Although Ecology has proposed, in larg e part, to incorporate the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, Ecology is proposing to make some changes in adopting the federal rule. EPA will therefore expect, as part of a request for delegation or SIP approval of the PSD program, that Ecology submit an analysis discussing the changes made, the intent of the changes, and that the Ecology rules are equivalent to the federal PSD requirements. Response #700-4 Thank you for pointing this out, we are aware of th is requirement and will submit an analysis at the appropriate time.

Comment #700-5 The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency made the comment below: Comment 8 - WAC 173-400-700(4)(b) Editorial Clarity The numbering sequence [(number)(letter)(lower case Roman numeral)(capital letter)(lower caseRoman numeral)(capital letter)] for the paragraphs and subparagraphs in th is section is confusing and difficult to follow without progressive indentation of the subparagraphs. For example, paragraph (4) appears to have two sets of subpa ragraphs (b)(i) , (b)(ii) and (b)(iii). Please contact the Code Reviser to de termine the proper numbering sequence and change it accordingly. Response #700-5 This comment really applies to a different sectio n of the rule. There is no fourth paragraph in section 700. We believe that both Puget Sound Cl ean Air Agency comments apply to Section 720. The comment addresses potential confusion from copying the original federal text as published in 52.21 and retaining the original 52.21 paragraph numbering. We retained the original federal rule paragraph numbering in sect ion 720(4)(b)(iii) to keep that text properly referenced from within the unmodifi ed portions of the origin al federal text which reference the modified federal langu age. We will enclose all of these modified sections within quotations with the intent to ma ke it clearer that the language is amending the federal text, not

new state text.

Comment #700-6 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency - References to 5 2.21(b) and 52.21(r) should be explicitly stated as such rather than referenced as ‘paragraph (b ) of this section’ and ‘paragraph (r) of this section.’ Paragraph (b) of this section could be misinterpret ed to mean WAC 173-400-700(4)(b). Response #700-6 This is a good idea. Ecology will make the changes to the rule for clarity.

Comment #700-7

AWB comments: -700(2)(c) Deletes text stating “an allowables” as a descriptor for “P lantwide Applicability Limit”. Response #700-7: Thank you for catching the usage of the incorrec t descriptor. We will substitute the correct descriptor (“an actuals”) for the incorrect one.

Comment #700-8

AWB commented: -700(3) (3) The construction of a major stationary source or ma jor modification subject to the permitting requirements of the following section might also be subject to the permitting program in WAC 173-400-110. Response #700-8: Thank you for the suggestion the grammatical constr uction of the sentence is improved with the inclusion of the suggested “the” and the change has been made.

# Comments on section 710 of the proposal

Comment #710-1

EPA commented:

WAC 173-400-710 Definitions In subsection (2) , we understand that Ecology’s intent was to clarify the usage of term “source” in WAC 173-400-700 through 750 to mean “stationary source” as defined in 52.21(b)(5). As discussed above, however, EPA has not yet updated the definition of “stationary source” in its implementing rules to reflect a change in the CAA’s definition of stationary source (CAA section 302(z)), which excludes nonroad engines. Th erefore, Ecology’s proposed definition of “stationary source” and “source” in WAC 173-400-112 is not consistent with the CAA. Based on previous EPA comments, Ecology proposes to add the following clarifying language at the end of subsection (2): “and modified by Section 302( z) of the Clean Air Act” . Although this revision is acceptable to EPA, EP A understands that there is a concern that such language is overly broad. The following language would also address EPA’s concern: “All usage of the term “source” in WAC 173-400-710 through WAC 173-400-750 and in 40 CFR 52.21 as adopted by reference is to be interp reted to mean “stationary source” as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(5). A stationary source ( or source) does not include emissions resulting directly from an internal combustion engine for transportation purpos es or from a nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle as defined in section 216 of the Federal Clean Air Act. Response #710-2 Thank you for your clarification to your recommenda tion related to the criteria that non-road engines and transportation engines are not subject to permitting under the PSD program requirements. We have incorporated your suggestion to clarify this point.

Comment #710-2

AWB comments: -710(2) (2) Al l usage of t Notwithstanding subsecti on (1) of this section, the terms “stationary source” and "source" in WAC 173-400-710 th rough 173-400-750 and in 40 CFR 52.21 as adopted by reference is to be interpreted to mean "stationary s ource" as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(5) as modified by section 302( z) of the Federal Clean Air Act. WAC 173-400-030. The term “building, structure, facility or installati on” is defined as provide d in the federal program requirements adopted by reference in WAC 173-400-720. Ecology, EPA and the business community agree th at the PSD definition of “stationary source” should incorporate the exclusi on for nonroad engines and vehicl es that Congress enacted in 1990. The problem is that the PSD definiti on in 40 CFR 52.21 does not include the nonroad engine/vehicle exclusion. WA C 173-400-710(2) is an attempt to solve that problem, but the proposed solution does not work for two reasons. First, subsection (2) amends the term “source” but not the term “stationary source.” Many sections of 40 CFR 52.21 refer to a “stationarysource,” and those references w ould not be affected by subsecti on (2). The second problem is that the FCAA section 302(z) definition of “sta tionary source” is not used by EPA for major NSR programs. The “stationary source” definiti on used by EPA in all federal NSR progams is the one in FCAA § 111. While the 302(z) defini tion does exclude nonroad engines and vehicles, it includes a universe of emissions sources that the PSD program does not regulate, and omits criteria (e.g. common two digit SIC code) that th e PSD rules do incorporate. Thus the 302(z) definition is not suitable for use in the PSD rules.

The WAC 173-400-030 definition of “stationary source” is the Sec tion 111 definition, with the addition of language clarifying that a stationary source does not include emissi ons resulting from nonroad engines and vehicles. This is precisely the definition that everyone agrees is proper for the PSD program. Region 10 expressed so me concern about using the WAC 173-400-030 definition in the PSD rules, because that de finition does not include the PSD definition of “building, structure, facility or installation.” We have in cluded language in our proposed amendments to clarify Ecology’s intent to use th e PSD definition of “building, structure facility or installation.” Response #710-2: We agree with the editing of this paragraph to clarify the entities th at are not regulated is useful. In evaluating the suggestions, we will incorporate the clarification suggested by EPA as noted above, even though EPA has not yet codifi ed this within their regulations

Comment #710-3 Boeing Company comments: 710(2) Delete “as modified by section 302(z) of the Federal Clean Air Act” from the definition of “source” in 400-710 (2).

The definition of “stationary sour ce” contained in section 302(z) of the federal Clean Air Act is not the one that should be used in the major NS R programs. Rather, the definition in Section 111 of the Act and reflected in Se ction 400-030 of the WAC is the one appropriate for PSD. We agree that vehicles and non-road engines shoul d be excluded from PSD, but believe a more effective way of doing so is to add language to exclude these non-stationa ry sources from that definition. We suggest the following la nguage be used in Section 400-710: “(2) All usage of Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section , the term s “stationary source” and "source" in WAC 173-400-710 through 173-400-750 and in 40 CFR 52.21 as adopted by reference is to be interpreted to mean "stationary source" as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(5) as modified by section 302(z) of the Federal Clean Air Act WAC 173- 400-030. The term “building, structure, facility or installation” is defined as provided in the federal program requirements ad opted by reference in WAC 173-400-720.” Response: #710-3 See above response # 710-2.



# Comments on section 720 of the proposalComment #720-1 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency – General comment: References to 52.21(b) and 52.21(r) should be explicitly stated as such rather than referenced as ‘paragraph (b) of this section’ a nd ‘paragraph (r) of this section.’ Paragraph (b) of this section could be misinterpreted to mean WAC 173-400-700(4)(b). Response #720-1: This is a good idea. The suggest ed clarifications will be made.

Comment #720-2

The EPA Commented: WAC 173-400-720 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) As we have previously discu ssed, the differing roles and legal authorities of Ecology, on the one hand, and local air authorities, on the other ha nd, for implementing the PSD and other permitting programs is a complex one. Unless Ecology revises its rules to further cl arify these issues, EPA will expect, as part of a delegation request or SI P submittal, an Attorney General’s opinion letter clarifying Ecology’s and the locals’ authority in two respects: 1) Ecology’s authority to issue orders of approval under WAC 173-400-110 and -091 to designate Clean Units, approve PCPs, and establish PALs in jurisdictions where a local air authority is implementing a program; and 2) Ecology’s authority to issue or ders of approval under WAC 173-400-110 to designate Clean Units, approve PCPs, and establish PALs in jurisd ictions where a local authority has adopted its own section 110 equivalent such that, as provi ded in WAC 173-400-110(1), section 110 does not apply in that local jurisdiction. Response #720-2: Thank you for your comment. We intend to as k our AAG for clarifica tion of the issues identified. That AAG letter wi ll be forwarded to EPA as part of the SIP submittal.

Comment #720-3

EPA commented: In subsection (4)(a)(i), by not including attainment areas in this provision, Ecology rules are requiring that permits be denied in attainment areas if the source has any contribution to a NAAQS violation. We question whether Ecology intends this result. The EPA provision upon which this is based (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) provides fo r the use of the signifi cant impact levels at any location that does not, or would not, meet the NAAQS. To provide sources in all areas the benefit of modeling at the significance impact levels, this provision could be revised to read as follows: "This requirement will be considered to be met if the projected im pact of the allowable emissions from the proposed major stationary so urce or the projected impact of the increase in allowable emissions from the proposed ma jor modification does not exceed the following levels at any location that does not or would not meet the NAAQS ." Response #720-3:Thank you for the comment. The proposed language does not change how these criteria will be implemented for PSD scale projects in the future from how it has been implemented in the past. The additional language suggested changes the applicabil ity of the language fr om past criteria. The most important aspect of this paragraph is the establishment of ambient concentrations below which the source can be assumed to be an insignificant contributor to a nonattainment area or a potential (or actual) NAAQS exceedance. We are not changing the text as suggested.

Comment #720-4

EPA commented: In subsection(4)(a)(v) , the equipment replacement provisions of NSR reform (40 CFR 52.21(cc)) are not currently in effect as a matter of federal law because they have been stayed by the court. Because these provisions do not exist as a matter of federal law, EPA would not be able to delegate the PSD program to Ecology if Ecology adopts this provis ion. The reference to 40 CFR 52.21(cc) must therefore be deleted from the rule language if Ecology intends to retain delegation of the PSD program. Response #720-4: We believe that the large busin ess in our state value having a state run PSD program that is consonant with the federal program. Ecology has said that we will adopt the federal program, “warts and all,” meaning, the entire federal pr ogram, without regard to how well the federal program is written. On July 1, 2004 EPA posted a Federal Register Noti ce (Federal Register, volume 69, no. 126, page 40274) that incorporated the Routine Mainte nance Repair and Replacement (RMRR) revisions, even though they ar e stayed by a federal court action. Under that final federal rule the provisions that are stayed will become effective immediately upon the court lifting the stay. The language of that Federa l Register notice has many paragraphs that are like the following “ Note to paragraph . . . (applicable reference) . . . : By court order on December 24, 2003, the . . . (applicable part of the ru le) . . . is stayed indefinitely. The stayed provisions will become effective immediately if the court terminates the stay. At that time, EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register advising the public of the termination of the stay.” Each adds a note to the many paragraphs that implement the Routine Maintenance Repair and Replacement revisions. The note indicates that when (and if ) the court lifts the stay, the RMRR provisions of the federal PSD and non-attainment area major source NSR rule would be returned to the federa l rule immediately. Therefore Ecology has changed the date of the incorporation by reference for the PSD program to July 2, 2004, and we will not be deleting the reference to 52.21(cc) in this section.

Comment #720-5

The AWB commented: (v) The following subparts of 40 CFR 52.21, in effect on March 30, 2003 July 2, 2004, which are adopted by reference. Exceptions are listed in (b)(i), (ii), and (iii ) of this subsection If Ecology is going to run a delegated PSD program it needs to implement all elements of that program. Paragraph (4)(a)(v) of the proposed ru le incorporates by reference the “equipment replacement rule” in 40 CFR 52.21(cc). That rule was adopted by EPA on October 27, 2003,and amended by EPA on July 1, 2004. It is importan t that the incorporation reference date at the beginning of the paragraph pick up all of the subsections referenced in the paragraph. Ecology has expressed some con cern about whether the incor poration of EPA’s July 1, 2004 amendment during the pendency of the D.C. Circu it’s stay of the equipment replacement rule would constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority to a federal court to determine the content of Washington’s PSD rules. This concern is unfounded. EPA’s July 1 rule unambiguously adopts 40 CFR 52.21(cc) as an element of the federal PSD program, with a condition subsequent that the Court of Appeals first must dissolve th e stay. By adopting this rule Ecology would make a final determination that th e equipment replacement rule is part of its delegated PSD program. Any rule adopted by Ecology is subject to stay or revision by state and federal courts. The fact that the equipment re placement rule is curr ently undergoing judicial review does not compromise the finality or ce rtainty of Ecology’s actio n in adopting the rule. Use of “March 30, 2003” as the in corporation by reference date would not just deny Washington industries the benefit of the equipment replacement rule. It also would screen out an amendment EPA published on November 7, 2003 that clarifies the implementation of the PAL concept. See 40 CFR 52.21(aa)(6), as amended at 68 Fed.Re g. 63021 (November 7, 2003). This amendment, like the equipment replacement ru le, is necessary to enable Washington to run a delegated PSD

program. Response #720-5: See Response #720-4

Comment #720-6 Boeing Company commented: Washington’s PSD rules should include all prov isions of the federal PSD, including 40 CFR 52.21 (cc) In recent meetings the Stakeholder Committ ee, including Ecology, agreed Washington would adopt the federal PSD program “warts and all” rath er than selectively editing the program. That federal program includes the equipment repl acement provisions amended July 1, 2003 and currently stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of A ppeals. By using an “adoption by reference” date of March 30, 2003 in Section 400-720 (4)(a)(v), Ecol ogy fails to fully incorporate this portion of the PSD program and is at odds with its own unambiguous adoption of 40 CFR 52.21 (cc) later in the same proposed section. There exists no constitutional prohibition on adopting the fully promulgated federal rule. The current stay does not compromise the finalit y of that regulation, nor does it provide an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Court. If the stay is lifte d, the rule will go into effect immediately in Washi ngton providing sources with access to the full panoply of the federal rule. If it is not lifted, the provisions fo r equipment replacement will not be in force. If the federal rule is changed we will need to undertake rulemaking in order to adopt the revision. However, if we fail to adopt the current fede ral rule, Washington’s requirements will be inconsistent with federal rule and we would be forced to undertake rulemaking to again come into line with the federal program. Meanwhile Washington sources would be denied access to the valuable provisions of the fe deral rule. That imposes an unnecessary uncertainty in business decisions, and unwarranted impediment to capi tal commitment which should be avoided. We urge the adoption date in Section 400-720 (4)(a)(v) be changed to July 2, 2004.Response #720-6 See Response #720-4

Comment #720-7

The Western States Petroleu m Association commented: WSPA wants to emphasize the importance to our industry of securing the benefits of the equipment replacement rule proposed for inco rporation by reference in WAC 173-400-720. The equipment replacement rule, 40 CFR 52.21 (cc), is a core component of the federal PSD program that should be included with in the scope of the delegated federal program. A WB's comments note a technical conflict in th e proposed rule between the in corporation by reference of subsection (cc) in WAC 173-400-72 0, and the incorporation date of March 30, 2003 listed in subsection (4)(a)(v). This conf lict should be reconc iled by adopting chapter 52.21 as of July 2, 2004. Response #720-7 See Response #720-4

Comment #720-8 The Georgia Pacific Corporation commented: Georgia-Pacific Corporation ap preciates the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s proposal to revise its Prevention of Signi ficant Deterioration/New Source Review (“PSD/NSR”) rules. Overall, we support the proposal be ing considered for adoption and be lieve this represents a vast improvement in the current PSD/NSR rules for th e State of Washington. Georgia-Pacific is a member of both Association of Washington Business and Northwest Pulp and Paper Association. We support, and incorporate by reference, comme nts made by both of these organizations. The Washington business community is unanimous in its belief that the federal rule revisions provide the clarity and certainty that were missing in the often re -interpreted NSR regulation first adopted in 1977. The result has been over 3000 pages of often-conflicting guidance and court decisions. The old rules were difficult to interp ret, even for the most seasoned environmental professionals and lawyers. To compound the problem, since reforms were adopted in 2002, sources in Washington have been required to comply with both th e old and the new standards. Ecology staff has had difficulty in providing guida nce to sources trying to comply. Ecology is now acting to remove its outdated standards fr om Division 400 and adopting by reference the new federal PSD/NSR rules so that Washington will have standards consistent with the rest of the nation. We understand, and are supportive of, the state’s strategy to phase it s revisions over time. Phase I revisions—making state PSD/NSR rules consistent with federal rules—are reflected in this rulemaking, while Phase II revisions—streamlini ng state minor new source review and other provisions—will proceed following adoption of Phas e I revisions. In Phase I, however, there are several modifications to the rules which do not relate to NSR. So me of the revisions that do not relate to NSR reform appear to belong in the Phase II proceeding. Georgi a-Pacific agrees with observations and comments on the approach c oncerning non-NSR changes included the Phase I package developed by AWB and will not repeat them here.We do feel strongly that the “r outine maintenance, repair, and replacement” (RMRR) provision is an important component of the federal refo rm package and should be adopted by reference, along with the rest of the federa l reforms. This portion of the reform package was not included in Ecology’s rule package due to pending litigati on in the D.C. Circuit Court. Ecology believes that it is prohibited by law from adopting prospective rules. We disagree. The federal court has stayed the RMRR rule of the federal rules pend ing review of northeastern states’ arguments opposing the rule. EPA recognized the concerns of the states in implementing the federal package with the stayed RMRR provision and on July 1, 2004, adopted an amendment that stays the implementation of the RMRR revisions until a decision is reached. Ecology, by adopting the rule revision package in force as of July 1, 2004, will in effect adopt the RMRR stay language, as well as any directive that subsequently gets ha nded down to EPA by the court. If the court upholds the RMRR provisions, Ecology need not amend its rule in th e future to incorporate the change and sources in Washington will be able to take full advantage of the RMRR provisions. Response #720-8 See Response #720-4

Comment #720-9 NWPPA commented: Comment 1: Ecology should also adopt the EPA Equipment Replacement Rule.

EPA has issued the first two of a series of intended NSR/PSD refo rm packages. In the current proposal, Ecology only proposes to implement the first of those two (adopted December 2002), and to not adopt the second, known as the “Equ ipment Replacement Rule” (adopted October 2003). NWPPA strongly urges Ecology to also a dopt the second rule package. Ecology’s rationale for proceeding with the first set of fede ral reforms is equally applicable to the second set of reforms. NSR/PSD is intended to regulat e new emission units, or existi ng units that are sufficiently modified that “new” capacity to emit air pollution is created. Generally, replacement of existing equipment with similar equipment does not cr eate “new” capacity to emit pollution; rather replacement of aging less efficient equipment can help reduce emissions. NWPPA is aware that the D.C. Circuit, pend ing resolution of a challenge, has stayed the “Equipment Replacement Rule.” EPA took prompt action to address the concerns of states adopting this rule or in the process of doing s o. On July 1, 2004, EPA adopted rules staying the effect of equipment replacement rule, pending the outcome of the litigation. In effect, Ecology can incorporate the federal reforms as of July 2004 without risk. If the rules are upheld and the stay lifted, Washington businesses will immediatel y be able to take advantage of the mandated reform. If the rules are not upheld and are re manded for further action, they simply will not go into effect. Thus, EPA has addres sed the concerns of states that this reform may be subject to further change. NWPPA does not agree that a doption by reference of the equipment replacement rule is a violation of the state constitutional prohibition ag ainst adopting prospective rules by reference. The constitutional provision is intended to provid e procedural due process for new requirements, namely notice and opportunity to comment. In the present case, the equipmen t rule is an existing rule, not a prospective rule. EPA has adopted it in full conformity with the federal Administrative Procedure Act. The fact that it is intended to be implemented in the future when the litigation contingency is no longer an issue, does not change the fact that due process is fullysatisfied. NWPPA also believes the CR101 and CR 102 are broad enough to encompass the equipment replacement rule. In essence, it is an NSR appli cability rule, as are the ot her reforms in the first set of EPA reforms. Response #720-9 See Response #720-4.

Comment #720-10 Weyerhaeuser Company comment WAC 173-400-720(4)(a)(v) – For the reasons ar ticulated in both the AWB and NWPPA comment letters, Weyerhaeuser encourages that the applicability dates for these PSD provisions mimic EPA’s October 27, 2003 adoption and July 1, 2004 amendment dates. This change from the proposed rule would then incorporate by re ference the “equipment replacement rule” in 40 CFR 52.21(cc). Response #720-10 See Response #720-4

Comment #720-11

AWB comments: -720(4)(b)(ii) (ii) Each refe rence in 40 CFR 52.21(i) to "par agraphs (j) through (r) of this section" is amended to state "paragraphs (j) th rough (o) of this section, paragraph (r) of this section, WAC 173-400-117 and 173-400-730 and WAC 173-400-740." WAC 173-400-740 contains some of the PSD public involvement rules that Ecology intends to reference here. Response #720-11: We agree with the noted ch ange and will include it.

Comment #720-12 Boeing Company comment: Local authorities, upon delegation by EPA, should have full access to the PSD avoidance provisions of WAC Section 400-720. Washington’s local air permitting agencies ar e granted the opportunity to write regulatory instruments allowing sources to opt out of PSD permitting for Pollution Control Projects, Clean Units and Plantwide Applicability Limits. Un fortunately, the language in Section 400-720(4) limits the authority for these PSD avoidance m echanisms to Ecology only. We understand the reason behind using only “ecology” in the rule is th at this would only apply to Ecology sources. Local permitting agencies would be expected to a dopt the state rule, but replacing references to ecology and its rules with their own. This requir es each agency to individually adopt and amend these sections, and then pursue PSD delegation from EPA. This is an unnecessarily challengingundertaking, subjecting both the agencies and EPA to useless and time consuming processing. It may be easier to recognize the role of delegate d local permitting agencies directly in the state rule, and involve those agencies wishing to access these provisions directly in the delegation

process. Response #720-12 See Response to AWB comment related to this st atus and changing the la nguage to include the local air authorities. The 3 PSD exemptions which are the subject of WAC 173-400-720(4)(b)(iii )( E), (F), (G) and (H) are simply exemptions from the federal PSD program applicability. These exemptions do not change the applicability of the state ne w source review program requirements of RCW 70.94.152, as implemented in WAC 173-400-035, 110, 112, and 113. We modified the sections of the federal language that id entified a number of pot ential regulatory mech anisms to identify those actions under Chapt. 173-400 WAC that are already in the SIP and can be utilized to implement the 3 PSD exemptions (Clean Unit Status under 40 CFR 2.21(y), Pollution control projects under 52.21(z), and Ac tual Plantwide Applicability Limits under 40 CFR 52.21(aa).

Comment #720-13

AWB commented: -720(4)(b)(iii)(C) Notes that the Ecology edited pr ovision requires all majo r stationary sources (not just electric utility steam generating units ) using the baseline actual emissions to projected actual emissions test to submit the analyses a nd annual reviews to the source’s air operating permit authority. Response #720-13 No response required. AWB notes the proposed changes accurately.

Comment #720-14

AWB commented: -720(4)(b)(iii)(D) Suggest deleti ng this paragraph in its entirety and retain the language as it exists in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(7). The owner or operator of the source shall submit the informati on required to be documented and maintained pursuant to paragraphs (r)(6)(iv) and (v ) of this section annually within 60 days after the anniversary date of the original analysis . The original analys is and annual reviews sh all also be available for review upon a request for insp ection by the permitting authority or the general public pursuant to the requirements contained in 40 CFR 70.4 (b)(3)(viii). 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) requires a facility owner who c oncludes that the differe nce between baseline emissions and projected actual emissions is not PSD significant to maintain a record of the projected emissions increase and the actual emissions increase from the project for 5 or 10 years. Ecology’s amendments to that subsection require the owner to report that information to the permitting authority, as opposed to just maintaining the records. The following paragraph, 52.21(r)(7), requires the owner to make the emissions data available for review upon request by EPA or the “general public.” Ecology’s ve rsion of (r)(7) adds to thisrequirement another report to the permitting aut hority. This report, however, would contain the same information that Ecology requires to be reported in (r)(6)(iv) and (v). AWB proposes to delete the duplicative report, which equate s to using the EPA ve rsion of 52.21(r)(7). Response #720-14 We do not see a duplicative reportin g requirement in the proposal. The text proposed is intended to serve 2 purposes. First, it sets a time schedul e within which to submit the report required in WAC 173-400-720(4)(b)(iii)(C) (the 52.21(r)(6) provision which contains no time schedule to submit the report beyond “annually”). Second th e revision clarifies the process by which a member of the public to would request to re view company information related to company generated determinations of PSD non-applicability. Our proposal indicates that the public will review those records at the perm itting authority’s office as allowed by the requirements of the state public disclosure requirements. In our view, the proposed changes are a reasonable requirement related to the required submittal of both the initial PSD applicab ility determination materials a nd the annual review of actual emissions against the baseline emissions as spec ified in the modifications to 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) codified in WAC 173-400-720(4)(b)(i ii)(C). The section simply sets up a timeframe within which to submit the required report. We will retain the section but clarify that the re port is for the information and documents to be submitted pursuant to modifi ed 52.21(r)(6) paragraph.

Comment #720-15

AWB commented: -720(4)(b)(iii)(E) Propose deletion of text relate d to a public involvement process for designation of a Clean Unit. If Ecology adopts AWB suggested revisions to section 17 1, the deleted text is unnecessary. Language referenci ng section 173-400-113(3) criteria could also prevent a source from qualifying as a Clean Unit if it does not comp ly with a state ambien t air quality standard.

Comment #720-16 Boeing Company commented: To simplify we suggest that references in Sec tion 400-720(4)(b)(iii): be changed as follows:(E) 40 CFR 52.21 (y)(7) Procedures for designati ng emissions units as Clean Units. Ecology or delegated authority shall designate an emissions unit a Clean Unit only by i ssuing a regulatory order issued under pursuant to the authority of WAC 173-400- 091 or (when requested by the applicant as part of its NOC application) in an order of approval issued under WAC 173

- 400

- 110 RCW 70.94.152 , including requirements for public noti ce of the proposed Clean Unit designation and opportunity for public comment and when WAC 173-400-091 is used to designate a Clean Unit, a demonstration that th e ambient air quality impact limitations of WAC 173-400-113 (1) through (3) will be required. Such order or permit must also meet the requirements in paragraph 40 CFR 52.21 (y)(8) of this section

.

Responses # 720-15 and #720-16: Since the suggested revision to section -171 cannot be implemented at this time, the deletion cannot be implemented.The distant danger of not qualifying for Clean Un it status due to a state ambient air quality standard only exists for 2 air contaminan ts. The state has a 1-hr. standard for SO 2 and a series of ambient standards for fluorides. Both of thes e pollutants are PSD pollutants and a source could request clean unit status for either or both. After the adoption of this rule , the provisions of 52.21(y) can onl y apply when a facility goes through our state’s minor source permitting proc ess, WAC 173-400-110. The requirements of section -113 are approval criteri a for a source’s emissions to meet when going through that permitting process. In order to qualify for a Notice of Construction approval order, the source must be able to meet both the state and federal ambient air quality standards. If the source is unable to comply with one or more of these am bient air quality standards, the application is denied or the applicant is requested to modify its proposal as necessary to comply with the standard(s). In order to receive an Order of Approval from the permitting authority, the source has shown that it has met the ambient air quality impact criteria and can qualify for the BACTlike Clean Unit status provided under 40 CFR 52.21(y). Thus no conflict exists. The provisions of 52.21(y) have to be requested by the source at the time the application for the minor NSR approval is submitted. The provisions ca nnot be requested after the project has been permitted or implemented (constructed and operating) unless the request was filed prior to Dec. 31, 2004. We will retain the proposed language but also include the changes proposed by Boeing for the last sentence.

Comment #720-17

AWB Comment 720(4)(b)(iii)(F) (F) 40 CF R 52.21 (z)(5) Permit process for unlisted projects. Before an owner or operator may begin actual construction of a PCP project th at is not listed in paragraphs (b)(32)(i) through (vi) of this section, the project must be approved by ecology and included in an order of approval issued by ecology pur suant to the requirements in WAC 173-400-110, and/or WAC 173-400-091 , following opportunity for public co mment as provided for in those sections. When WAC 173

- 400

- 091 is used to approve a PCP, a demonstration that the ambient air qua lity impact limitations of WAC 173

- 400

- 112(2) and/or WAC 173

- 400

- 113 (1) through (3) will be required

. The redlined language in this pa ragraph should be deleted for all of the reasons discussed in the preceding footnote. This paragraph is even wors e, because the reference to “ambient air quality impact limitations of WAC 173-400-112(2)” incl udes the ASILS of WAC ch. 173-460. This language would force Ecology to deny an applicati on for a PCP exemption if a project resulted in the exceedance of an ASIL.

Comment #720-18 Boeing Company commented: (F) 40 CFR 52.21 (z)(5) Permit process for unlisted projects. Before an owner or operator may begin actual cons truction of a PCP project that is not listed in paragraphs (b)(32)(i) through (vi) of this section, the proj ect must be approved by ecology or delegated authority and included in an order of approval issued by ecology or delegated authority pursuant to the requirements in WAC 173

- 400

- 110 RCW 70.94.152 , and/or WAC 173-400-091, following opportunity for public comment as provided for in those sections. When WAC 173-400-091 is used to approve a PCP, a demons tration that the ambient air quality impact limitations of WAC 173-400-112(2) and/or WAC 173-400-113 (1) through (3) will be required.

Responses # 720-17 and #720-18

The reference to WAC 173-460 was an unintended consequence of the refe rence to the approval criteria of WAC 173-400-112(2). Ac cordingly, we have limited the scope of the criteria to be met to those criteria in WAC 173-400-112(2)(a) through (g) and (i). The intent of the reference to nonattainment pr ovisions of WAC 173-400-112(2) is to assure that if a “collateral air pollutant” wh ich is increased in emission rate as a result of the Pollution Control Project and is one for which the location of the project is in nonattainment with the national standards, complies with the criteria of the nonattainment area new source review permitting process. We proposed and retain Ecology as the authority to make the determinations of Pollution Control Project approval for PSD program purposes. We are doing this to avoid potential conflicts between the local authority and it s clients. Under the state NS R program, all emission increases are subject to permitting, including requiring BA CT on those increases. The federal Pollution Control Project approval provides a process by which some polluta nts are allowed to increase while being exempted from the requirement to install BACT under the federal PSD permitting

process. The PSD exemption granted under the provision of 40 CFR 52.21(z) includes elements that conflict with the requirement that all emission increases from sources are subject to BACT requirements. In the case of both listed and unlisted pollution control projects EPA anticipated that there would be increases in other polluta nts (collateral air pollutants) as a result of installation and operation of the pollution control project to reduce the emissions of a specific pollutant (an example of a listed project is a fl are used to oxidize VOC’s and sulfides increasing NOx and SO 2 emissions). As the federal regulation is written, if the collateral pollutant increase (without any requirement to install BACT) does not violate any ambient air quality standard or limitation, such as Class I increments or NAAQS, th at increase is exempt from PSD review, even if the collateral pollutant increase is a significant increase under the PSD definition of significant. This exemption from the federal PSD require ments (including BACT) for collateral emission increases does not extend to new source review required under state law and regulation. Under the provisions of our regulation and law, this emission increase would require permitting per the requirements of WAC 173-400-110 (o r the local authority equivalent), including the requirement to install BACT on the collateral emission increases. The regulatory mechanisms identified in this section and to implement designation as a pollution control project under 40 CFR 52.21(z) are those available to Ecol ogy which are already part of the SIP and can be immediately implemented to desi gnate this status for businesses in our state.

Since we are unable to include the revisions suggested by AWB for section -171, we will not change the other text of this section.

Comment #720-19Boeing Company comment 720(4)(b)(iii)(H) 40 CFR 52.21 ( aa)(2)(ix) PAL permit means the PSD permit, an ecology or delegated authority issued order of a pproval issued under WAC 173

- 400

- 110 RCW 70.94.152

, or regulatory order issued under WAC 173-400-091 issued by ecology or delegated authority that establishes a PAL for a major stationary source. 720(4)(b)(iii)((J) 40 CFR 52.21 (aa)(9)(i)(b) Ecology , after consultation with or the permitting authority, shall decide whether and how the PA L allowable emissions will be distributed and issue a revised order, order of approval or PSD permit incorpor ating allowable limits for each emissions unit, or each group of emissions units, as ecology or delegated authority determines is appropriate. Response #720-19: See above discussion in responses #720-17 and # 720-18. Changes requested will not be made.



# Comments on section 730 of the proposal

Comment #730-1

EPA commented: Notifying EPA: Ecology’s current rules require that the permitting authority provide EPA notice of PSD actions. See WAC 173-400-141(6). Earlier drafts of proposed revisions to Ecology’s PSD rules also had a requirement that “The permitting agency s hall provide notice to EPA of every action related to consideration of all actions under WAC 173-400-720 through 750. ” It is not clear why Ecology has removed th is language from the proposed rule and doing so poses a problem for delegation or SIP approval.

This section needs to be reta ined in order to meet the notification requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(p), Sources impacting Federal Class I area – additional requirements . Note that 40 CFR 51.166(p)(1) requires notification to EPA by tr ansmitting a copy of each permit application relating to a major stationary source or ma jor modification and by providing notice of every action related to consideration of su ch permit to the EPA Administrator. Response #730-1: As specifically not listed in WAC 173-400-720(4)(a)(v), Ecology is not adopting the language of 40 CFR 52.21(p) (or 40 CFR 51.166(p)). In previous rulemaking, we developed and have been implementing these requirements through WAC 1 73-400-117. EPA will receive a copy of the application per WAC 173-400-117(3) and WAC 173-400-730(1)(b)(iv). The language on notification to EPA of actions related to the PSD permitting process was removed from the PSD language section because a requirement for such notifications could not be found in the federal regulations. Subsequently , such a requirement was located in the federal Clean Air Act, Section 165(d)(1), related to notification of EPA of actions on PSD Permit applications.. Based on the inclusion of this requ irement in the federal law, we will reinstate the requirement in this section, though noting that this is a duplicative requiremen t to that in WAC 173-400-117.Comment #730-2

AWB comments: 730(2)(b)(ii) (ii) Within one year after receipt of a complete application, the effective date of the application, ecology shall provide the applicant with a preliminary determination along with a technical support document and a public notice. AWB notes that 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2) and WAC 173- 400-740(2) use the term “receipt of a complete application”. Response #730-2 EPA has used the term “receipt of a complete application” in its requirements for a SIP approvable new source review program. This term is also used within Washington’s law and minor NSR program. The proposed language is used within EPA’ s permit processing regulation 40 CFR 124. We will make the requested change to be consistent with the terminology used elsewhere in the WAC 173-400-700 – 750 sections.

Comment #730-3

AWB commented: 730(2)(c)(ii) (ii) As expeditiously as possible after the close of the public comment period, or hearing if one is held, ec ology shall prepare and issu e the final determination.

This clause is redundant to a cl ause in section 173-400-740(4). Response #730-3: The aspect of this statement relating to allowi ng the public comment peri od to finish before issuing a final determination is included in WAC 173-400-740(4) ( no decision will be made until all comments have been received). There is nothing in WAC 173-400-740(4) that establishes any expectation or requirement of how soon after the close of the comment period Ecology will issue its final PSD determination. We proposed the term “as expeditiously as possible” to establish an expectation that a d ecision will be forthcoming soon after the close of the comment period. Establishing a time certain d ecision time such as within 60 days of the end of the comment period were considered. We ha ve found that the vast majority of our PSD permit decisions are able to be completed in a pproximately 2 – 3 weeks after the close of the comment period due to a lack of comments. Ho wever, we have found that when comments are received, the time required to make a decision and prepare a document detailing the comments and our response to those comments can take considerable time if the comments require considerable research to respond to or permit appr oval conditions need to be altered in response to the comments. In response to the results of Governor Lo cke’s Competitiveness Council recommendations on permit timeliness and certainty and directives on this issue by Ecology management, we proposed that the final determination would happen as expeditiously as possi ble after the close of public comment. We are retaining this statement related to permit processing timeliness.Comment #730-4

EPA commented: In subsection (2)(d) , although we agree with including this c oncept, it is inaccurate as included here. First, as currently worded, there is nothing in the rule that directs which of the three dates applies. Can the permittee choose between the later date specified in the permit or 30 days after receipt of the final determination? In a ddition, during the time Ecology has delegation, an important caveat to the effective date of the permit occurs in th e case where review is requested on the permit under 40 CFR 124.19. One option would be to more closely follow the language in 40 CFR 124.15(b), but modify 124.15(b)(2) as follows: “Until Ecology’s has a SIP approved PSD program, review is requested under 40 CFR 124.19.” Response #730-4: The suggestion to add the text on permit effectiv eness if the PSD approval is appealed to the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board while Ecol ogy operates a delegated program is reasonable and will be implemented. The effective date of “a later date specifie d in the permit”, “30 days after issuance” or immediately upon issuance as existing aspects of the program stemming from the incorporation of aspects of 40 CFR 124 on permit effectiveness. This is the location that these differing effective dates were copied. As we have interpreted the language, the later effective date as specified in the permit could be a date contingent on a third party action occurring that is outside of the control of the permitting agency (such as waiting for confirmation that EPA’s Endangered Species Act consultation actions have been comple ted) or some reasonable later date that the applicant requests and Ecology agrees to include in the permit. Si nce we have no history with an applicant requesting a later effective date, we do not have any established criteria for this determination. We do have recent experience with significant time delays after we have completed the PSD permitting process and made a final determination while waiting for the Endangered Species Act consul tation process to complete. At this time we will not make any additiona l clarifying or other changes to this text.

Comment #730-5

AWB Comment 730(3)(h) (h) An analysis of th e impacts on air quality related values in federa l Class I areas and other Class I areas affected by the project; and See 40 CFR 51.166(p)(3). The PSD ru les require an analys is of the impact of a project on air quality related values only in Federal Class I Areas. Response #730-5 Text of 40 CFR 51.166(p) in gene ral relates to impacts on fede ral Class I areas, those areas designated in the Clean Air act as Class I, and other federal lands designated as Class I by EPA through rulemaking. The comment is correct in re lation to the evaluation and protection of air quality related values for fe deral Class I areas.The statement in the draft regulation related to federal Class I areas and other Class I areas receiving protection from AQRV impacts is reflects our general understanding of the application of the federal provisions of 40 CFR 51.166(o) as explai ned in Chapter E of EPA’s New Source Review Workshop Manual, Draft, Oct. 1990, rather than exclus ively the special protections afforded to federal Class I areas under 51.166(p). As stated on page E-7 of that manual, “The FLM, including the State or Indi an governing body, where applicable, is responsible for defining specific AQRV’s for an area and for establis hing the criteria to determine an adverse impact on the AQRV’s .” We will retain the reference to “other Class I areas”

Comment #730-6

AWB commented: -730(3)(i) (i) An analysis of the impacts of the proposed emissions on visibility in any federal Class I area following the requirements in WAC 173-400-117. WAC 173-400-117 addresses visibility in Federal Cl ass I Areas, and subsection (3)(a) of that section requires that a PSD permit application in clude an analysis of th e impacts of a project on visibility only in Federal Cla ss I areas. The proposed additi on matches the content of the technical support document to the scope of the information provi ded in the permit application. Response #730-6 We recognize that the suggesti on is a duplication of the applic ability criteria in WAC 173-400- 117. The suggestion is a reasonable clar ification and has been implemented.

Comment #730-7

AWB Comment 730(4) Propose moving text on public no tice content to s ection WAC 173-400-740. Response #730-7 We feel the criteria defining the content of the public notice are more important than whether the criteria are located in either WAC 173-400-730 or -740. There are equally reasonable reasons for each location. The content of the public notice is a processing action which is the responsibility of Ecology and not some other en tity. The public involvement section describes the process to involve the public in the decision and the content of the notice is an important aspect of that process. We agree the relocation of the public notice content criteria to the section on public involvement is a reasonable action.

Comment #730-8

EPA Comment In subsection(4)(m) , should the reference be to WAC 173-400-117 instead of WAC 173-400- 760? Response #730-8Yes the reference should be to section 117, not the nonexistent se ction 760. This change has been made.

Comment #730-9

EPA commented In subsection (6)(b)(i) , Ecology is requiring an applicant su bmit an updated BACT analysis in support of a PSD permit extension, bu t not an updated ambient impact analysis. A reanalysis of the PSD increment consumption a nd air quality impacts is appropr iate before a PSD permit is extended because interim source growth in the area may have occurred and caused significant degradation of air quality. The review agency is responsible for ensuring that the source requesting an extension would not cause or contribute to a PSD increment or NAAQS exceedances. Response #730-9 Thank you for pointing out this oversight. Th e procedural guidance on extensions of PSD permits provided by EPA on this matter does indi cate that an ambient air quality impact reevaluation be performed. The gui dance also indicates that an increment evaluation should be performed (if one were required initially). La nguage requiring submittal of an updated ambient air quality analyses is being included.

Comment #730-10

AWB commented: 730(6)(b)(i)(B) (B) An evaluati on of BACT for all pollutants s ubject to the approval conditions in the PSD permit approval

. Response #730-10 Thank you for pointing out th e typographical error.

Comment #730-11

AWB Comment 730(6)(b)(iii)(C) (C) Ecology shall notify the applicant, EPA and any person who commented on the draft permit of t T he issuance of an extension is subject to the public involvement requirements i n WAC 173

- 400

- 740

. The grant of an 18 month extension to commen ce construction on a project that has secured a PSD permit after compliance with WAC 173-400-730 and 740 should not be required to repeat the public involvement process. The extension of time to complete a project, as opposed to an application to revise the projec t, does not involve enough variation from the original proposal to warrant the delay and cost of a nother public involvement process. Response #730-11 The guidance from EPA that we have operated un der for the past 12 plus years anticipates any extension in the time to begin constructi on or a suspension of construction once it hascommenced by more than 18 months is subjec t to a public involvement and opportunity to comment. As noted in WAC 173-400-730(6)(b)(i)(B), the request is required to be accompanied with a review of BACT, which experience has shown can change between the time of initial approval and even the first request for an extens ion less than 18 months later. Since the BACT decision may change, the decision on BACT, and th e ambient air quality impacts in the area of the project may have changed, and the decision to allow an extension in time to begin construction or to suspend construction is approp riately an action that is subject to public involvement. We will retain the proposed text which embodi es our current practices regarding public involvement for permit time extensions.

Comment #730-12

AWB Comment 730(6)(b)(iv) (iv) For the extension of a PSD permit, ecology must prepare a technical support document consistent with WAC 173-400-730(3) only to the extent that those criteria apply to a request to extend the construction time limitation. Grammatical correction suggested: add “to” between “criteria appl y” and “a request”. Response #730-12 Thank you for the suggestion. We will make the change.



# Comments on section 740 of the proposal

Comment #740-1

AWB comments: -740(1)(b) (b) An extension of the time to begin c onstruction or suspend construction under a PSD permi t; or See the preceding footnote {comment on WAC 173-400-730(6)(b)(iii)(C)}. Response #740-1 If we were to accept the proposed change to 173-400-730(6)(b)(iii)(C), this proposed change would be acceptable. We are not making the suggested change to that paragraph and thus, we are retaining the proposed language here.

Comment #740-2

EPA comment In subsection (2) , there is a typo (-730( 7) should be -730(6)).Response #740-2 Thank you for the comment. We have corrected the typographical error.

Comment #740-3

EPA Comment In subsection (2)(c), Ecology’s proposed rules require that notice of th e public comment period on a PSD action be sent to the U.S. Forest Se rvice and the National Park Service, which are commonly referred to as “Class I” Federal La nd Managers (FLM). 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), however, requires that the permittin g authority send a copy of the notice of public comment to all FLMs, not just “Class I” FLMs. This was the ba sis for the comment in our Phase I, June 3, 2002 comment letter stating that “the references to the U.S. Fore st Service and the National Park Service should be replaced with references to the Federal Land Manager, because there may well be other Federal Land Managers in certain cases.” Ecology must revise subsection (2)(c) to require that the notice of public comment be provided to all FLMs. Response #740-3 Thank you for pointing out the basis for your J une, 2002 comment. We have misunderstood the basis for this comment in the past and agree th e referenced regulatory language does require notification of any federal land manager whos e lands may be affected by a PSD project’s emissions. We intend to request EPA Region 10 help us to identify the federal lands in and near Washington and the federal land ma nager contacts for those lands. We have adjusted the language of this section to require notification of all federal land managers of lands that may be a ffected by the project.

Comment #740-4

AWB comment: 740(2)(c)(i) (i) Any Indian g Governing b Body whose lands may be affected by emissions from the project; A defined term in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(28). Response #740-4 The suggestion is accepted and the change has been made.

Comment #740-5

AWB comment:

-740 Public Notice Content Suggest moving this text from section 0730 to -740 and replacing “permitting authority” with “ecology” in 2 locations of subparagraph (m). Response #740-5 We have accepted this suggestion to move the text to this section. The other sections have alsobeen renumbered to reflect this subsection’s inclusion here. Thank you for the corrections to (m). The changes have been made.



# Comments on section 750 of the proposal

Comment #750-1

EPA Comment In subsection (1)(a)

, this provision states th at Ecology may approve a change to a PSD permit condition so long as the change wi ll not cause the source to exceed an emissions standard. We are unclear what is intended by this reference. Is the intent that the change not cause the source to exceed a state or federal em ission limit other than a source-sp ecific emission limit established in the PSD permit? The intent should be clarified. Response #750-1 The intent was to copy text in existing federa l guidance on modifications of PSD permits. We intend to interpret “emission standard” as meani ng a limitation set in regulation such as 40 CFR 60, 62, or 63 or a limitation established in an Ecology regulation such as WAC 173-400, 405, 410, 415, 434, etc, or similar standards se t in regulation by a local authority. Were we intending to mean “emission standard” to refer to an emission limitation established through the BACT process or otherwise establ ished in a permit, the proposed language on revisions to PSD permits would be effectively meaningless. The ability of a source owner to request a perm it revision and Ecology to approve a revision to a PSD permit limitation does not require that there be a modification (as defined in 52.21 (b)(2) or WAC 173-400-030(47)) to occur.

We have clarified that “emission standard” mean s a limitation established in regulation, and not a BACT or other limitation established in a PSD perm it. We also will make it clear, by training of permit engineers and guidance, that a modification does not have to occur to in order for a major stationary source owner to request a revision to a PSD permit.

Comment #750-2

AWB comment 750(2) (2) Actions taken under th is subsection are subject to the public involvement provisions of WAC 173

- 400

- 740. Ecology may choose to require public involvement for administrative revisions, if in its judgment, an opportun ity for public comment should be provided. AWB proposes to consolidate this subsection with subsection (4), which already states which PSD actions are subject to public involvement. Response #750-2 The suggestion is reasonable. The deletion has b een made and the remaining sections have beenrenumbered.

Comment #750-3

EPA Comment In subsections (4)(c) and (d), Ecology is intending to admini stratively process without the opportunity for public comment (1) revisions to compliance monitoring methods that do not reduce the permittee's or Ecology's ability to de termine compliance with the emission limitation, and (2) revisions to emission limitations that do not reduce the stringe ncy of the original emission limitation. As currently written these provisions are fa r too broad to be processed without public process. The determination th at a change in monitoring does not reduce the ability to determine compliance or that a revisi on does not reduce the stringency of the emission limit should be subject to public comment unless additional criteria are added to narrow the extent of the discretion. Response #750-3 As we are unable to delineate what the changes might be that affect the ability to determine compliance, making it very difficult to prospectiv ely define criteria desc ribing the line between administrative and non-administrative changes.

We would view as an administ rative change the elimination of a requirement for using EPA Reference Method 201 testing on a we t stack and replacing it with a Method 5 test. The rational for this type of change is the advice of th e EPA Emissions Monitoring Center regarding the inability of the Method 201 particulate test to be used on wet stacks. The Method 201 test might have been required during permitting because th e BACT technology the emission limitation was based on used a dry technique while the applicant determined that they could use a wet scrubber process to meet the same emission limitation. Remember BACT is the emission limitation reflecting the applicatio n of a technology, not the technology itself. We would also view as an administrative change a reduction in the fre quency of submittal of compliance reports from monthly to quarterly to conform to th e reporting frequency of the Air Operating Permit program. A change in report ing frequency from monthly to biannually or annually would be viewed as a re duction in the ab ility to determine compliance and be subject to public involvement. We would also view as an administrative change a request to change from a manual emissions testing process such as intermittent manual st ack testing for a NSR regulated pollutant to utilization of a continuous em issions monitoring system. We would not accept as an administrative change a request to replace continuous emission or process monitoring with a system of interm ittent monitoring, regardless of the monitoring method. Similarly a request to reduce the fr equency of required reco rdkeeping of process control elements (i.e. pressure drop checks across a control device), would not be an administrative change, but would be subject to public involvement. While these seem to be clear and relatively easy answers to give, they are the easy questions and are not adequately reflective of the range of requests for permit re visions that we have received in the past which the requestor consider ed to be administrative in nature.Comment #750-4

AWB Comment 750(4)(d)(new) (d) Extension of th e construction time limitation; Suggests adding extensions of construction time per WAC 173-400-730(6) as exempt from public involvement. Response #750-4 See the response to the comment on WAC 173-400-730(6)(b)(iii)(C) - (Response #730-11). The proposed listing of a construction time period extension as an administrative permit revision will not be included.

Comment #750-5

AWB commented: 750(4)(d) ( as published for comment ) (d) Any other revision (except an extension of the construction time limitation) that does not reduce the stringency of the emission limitations in the PSD permit or the ability of ecology, the permitti ng authority, EPA, or the public to determine compliance with the approval conditions in the PSD permit. Ecology may choose to require public involvemen t for administrative revisions, if in its judgment, an opportunity for public comment should be provided. AWB’s suggestion to delete the exception stat ement for extensions of construction time limitations is consistent with their comments on WAC 173-400-730(6). The added sentence was in the proposed regulat ory language as part of WAC 173-400-750(2). Response #750-5

Since extensions to construction time limitations are not dealt with as revisions to a permit, it is reasonable to delete any refere nce to them in this section. The suggested deletion has been made.

Related to the added sentence: We believe the option for Ecology to have an administrative permit revision or a revision for which the clarity of being administrative or si gnificant go through a public involvement process is an important and necessary procedural protec tion for the source and Ecol ogy. As stated in the sentence proposed by AWB, this is an opportunity that we intend to make use of for situations where a public involvement may be advisable, even though the permit revision is viewed as administrative by the applicant. Under our cu rrent operating procedures, we have required public involvement for any permit revision where we had any question whether it was or was not administrative in nature. Once this operating pr ocedure has been enacted into rule, visible to anyone, we do not anticipated or expect to change our previous philosophy. The suggested addition has been made.

## Appendix 1: Copies of al l written comments received. Index of Comments

Comments were received from the fo llowing persons and organizations:

Commenter Comments have been cataloged in the Comments and Response Section of this CES at the following numbered comments and responses. Association of Washington Business (AWB) 030-1; 030-2; 030-4; 030-5; 030-8; 030-12; 030-14; 035- 1; 070-1; 075-1; 100-1; 105- 1; 107-1; 110-1; 110-2; 110- 3; 110-4; 110-5; 110-6; 110- 7; 110-8; 112-1; 112-2; 117- 1; 117-2; 117-3; 117-4; 117- 5; 118-; 118-2; 171-1; 171-2; 175-1; 560-1; 700-3; 700-7; 700-8; 710-2; 720-5; 720-11; 720-13; 720-14; 720-15; 720-17; 730-2; 730-3; 730-5; 730-6; 730-7; 730-10; 730-11; 730-12; 740-1; 740-4; 740-5; 750-2; 750-4; 750-5 Boeing Company 035-2; 107-2; 107-3; 171-3; 710-3; 720-6; 720-12; 720- 16; 720-18; 720-19

Elena Guilfoil 075-2 Environmental protection Agency (EPA) 030-3; 030-6; 030-7; 030-9; 030-10; 030-11; 030-13; 030-15; 030-16; 035-3; 050-1; 050-2; 105-2; 105-3; 105- 4; 107-4; 107-5; 107-6; 107- 7; 107-8; 107-9; 110-9; 110- 10; 110-11; 110-12; 112-4; 113- 1; 116-1; 116-2; 116-3; 117-6; 118-3; 120-1; 151-1; 171-4; 171-5; 171-6; 171-7; 171-8; 171-9; 560-2; 560-3; 560-4; 560-5; 560-6; 700-3; 700-4; 710-1; 720-2; 720-3; 720-4; 730-1; 730-4; 730-8; 730-9; 740-2; 740-3; 750-1; 750-3

Fluor Hanford 030-17; 030-18; 035- 4; 040-1; 105-5; 107-10; 110-13; 110-14; 110-15; 110-16; 116-4; 171-10 Georgia Pacific Corporation 720-8

Northwest Clean Air Agency 171-11; 700-1; 700-3

Northwest Pulp and Paper Association 035-5; 107-12; 720-9

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) 035-6

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Battelle) 100-2; 107-11; 110-9; 112-3

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 035-8; 107-13; 171-12; 171-13; 171-14; 700-2; 700-3; 700-5; 700-6; 720-1Stoel Rives 035-7

Western States Petroleum Association 035-9; 720-7

Weyerhaeuser Company 107-14; 720-10

# Appendix 2: List of individuals (name, organizational affiliation, address) providing oral comments at hearings and corresponding comment numbers for indexing

Llewellyn Mathews of the Northwest Pulp and Pa per Association was the only person to provide oral comments. These comments were the same as the written comments that were received by written comments. Her concerns were addresse d as indicated by the index of written comments in Appendix 1.

# Appendix 3: Copies of all public notices regarding rule (i.e., FOCUS sheets, news releases, legal notices and advertisements, handouts and flyers, WSR notices)

# Appendix 4: Copy of the final rule text showing revisions being made.

WAC 173-400-030 Definitions. Except as provided elsewhere in this chapter, the following definitions apply throughout the chapter: (1) "Actual emissions" means the actual rate of emissions of a pollutant from an emission unit , as determined in a ccordance with (a) through (c) of this subsection. (a) In general, actual emissions as of a partic ular date shall equal the average rate, in tons per year, at which the emissions unit actually emitted the pollutant during a two-year period which precedes the particular date and which is representative of normal source operation. Ecology or an authority shall allo w the use of a different time period upon a determination that it is more representative of normal source operation. Actual emissions shall be calculated using the emissions unit's actual operating hours, production rate s, and types of materials processed, stored, or combusted during the selected time period. (b) Ecology or an authority may presume that source-specific allowable emissions for the unit are equivalent to the actual emissions of the emissions unit. (c) For any emissions unit which has not begun normal operations on the particular date, actual emissions shall equal the potential to emit of the emissions unit on that date. (2) "Adverse impact on visibility" is defined in WAC 173-400-117. (3) "Air contaminant" means dust, fumes, mist, smoke, other particulate matter, vapor, gas, odorous substance, or any co mbination thereof. "Air pollutant" means the same as "air contaminant." (4) "Air pollution" means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in sufficient quantities, and of such characteristics and duration as is, or is likely to be, injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or property, or which unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life and property. For the pur poses of this chapter, air pollution shall not include air contaminants emitted in complia nce with chapter 17.21 RCW, the Washington Pesticide Application Act, which regulates the application and control of the use of various pesticides. (5) "Allowable emissions" means the emission rate of a source calculated using the maximum rated capacity of the source (unless the s ource is subject to federa lly enforceable limits which restrict the operating rate , or hours of operation, or both) and the most stringent of the following: (a) The applicable standards as in 40 CFR Part 60, 61, 62, or 63 ; (b) Any applicable SIP emissions limitati on including those with a future compliance date; or (c) The emissions rate specified as a federally enforceable approval condition, including those with a future compliance date.(6) "Ambient air" means the surrounding outside air. (7) "Ambient air quality standard" means an established c oncentration, exposure time, and frequency of occurrence of air contaminan t(s) in the ambient air which shall not be exceeded. (8) "Approval order" is defined in "order of approval." (9) "Attainment area" means a geographic area design ated by EPA at 40 CFR Part 81 as having attained the National Ambient Air Qu ality Standard for a given criteria pollutant

. (10) "Authority" means any air pollution contro l agency whose jurisdictional boundaries are coextensive with the bounda ries of one or more counties. (11) "Begin actual construction" means, in general, initiation of physical on-site construction activities on an emission unit which are of a permanent nature. Such activities include, but are not limited to, installati on of building supports and foundations, laying underground pipe work and construction of perman ent storage structures. With respect to a change in method of operations, this term refers to those on-site activities other than preparatory activities which mark the initiation of the change. (12) "Best available contro l technology (BACT)" means an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction for each air pollutant subject to re gulation under chapter 70.94 RCW emitted from or which results from any new or modified stationary source, which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such s ource or modification through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning, clean fu els, or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such pollutant. In no event shall application of the "best available control technology" result in emissions of any pollutants which will exc eed the emissions allowed by any applicable standard under 40 CFR Part 60 and Part 61. Emi ssions from any source utilizing clean fuels, or any other means, to comply with this paragraph shall not be allowed to increase above levels that would have b een required under the definition of BACT in the Federal Clean Air Act as it existed prior to enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. (13) "Best available retrofit technology (BART)" means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the a pplication of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant which is em itted by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a case- by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollutio n control equipment in use or in existenc e at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the de gree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. (14) "Bubble" means a set of emission limits which allows an increase in emissions from a given emissions unit in ex change for a decrease in emissi ons from another emissions unit, pursuant to RCW 70.94. 155 and WAC 173-400-120. (15) "Capacity factor" means the ratio of the average load on equipment or a machine for the period of time considered, to the manu facturer's capacity rating of the machine or equipment. (16) "Class I area" means any area designated under se ction 162 or 164 of the FederalClean Air Act as a Class I area. The following ar eas are the Class I areas in Washington state: (a) Alpine Lakes Wilderness; (b) Glacier Peak Wilderness; (c) Goat Rocks Wilderness; (d) Mount Adams Wilderness; (e) Mount Rainier National Park; (f) North Cascades National Park; (g) Olympic National Park; (h) Pasayten Wilderness; and (i) Spokane Indian Reservation. (17) "Combustion and incineration units" means units using combustion for waste disposal, steam production, chemical recovery or other process re quirements; but excludes open burning. (18)(a) “ Commence " as applied to construction, means that the owner or operator has all the necessary preconstruction approv als or permits and either has: (i) Begun, or caused to begin, a continuous pr ogram of actual on-site construction of the source, to be completed within a reasonable time; or (ii) Entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified without s ubstantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of actual construction of the source to be completed within a reasonable time. (b) For the purposes of this definition, "necessary preconstruction approvals" means those permits or orders of approval required under fede ral air quality control laws and regulations, including state, local and federal regula tions and orders contained in the SIP. (19) "Concealment" means any action taken to re duce the observed or measured concentrations of a pollu tant in a gaseous effluent while, in fact, not reducing the total amount of pollutant discharged. (20) "Criteria pollutant" means a pollutant for which there is established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard at 40 CFR Part 50. The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter, ozone (O 3 ) sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), lead (Pb), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). (21) "Director" means director of the Washington state department of ecology or duly authorized representative. (22) "Dispersion technique" means a method which attempts to affect the concentration of a pollutant in the ambient air other than by the use of pollution abatement equipment or integral process pollution controls. (23) "Ecology" means the Washington state department of ecology. (24) "Emission" means a release of air contaminants into the ambient air. (25) "Emission reduction credit (ERC)" means a credit granted pursuant to WAC 173- 400-131. This is a voluntary reduction in emissions.(26) "Emission standard" and " emission limitation" means a requirement established under the Federal Clean Air Act or chapter 70.94 RCW which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air contaminants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a so urce to assure continuous emission reduction and any design, equipment work practice, or operati onal standard adopted under the Federal Clean Air Act or chapter 70.94 RCW. (27) "Emission threshold" means an emission of a listed ai r contaminant at or above the following rates:

Air Contaminant Annual Emission Rate

Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year (tpy) Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy

Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
Particulate matter (PM): 25 tpy of PM emissions 15 tpy of PM-10 emissions Volatile organic compounds: 40 tpy

Fluorides: 3 tpy

Lead: 0.6 tpy

Sulfuric acid mist: 7 tpy
Hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S): 10 tpy

Total reduced sulfur (including H 2 S): 10 tpy

Reduced sulfur compounds (including H 2 S): 10 tpy

(28) "Emissions unit" or "emission unit" means any part of a stationary source or source which emits or would have the potential to emit any pollutant su bject to regulation under the Federal Clean Air Act, chapter 70.94 or 70.98 RCW. (29) "Excess emissions" means emissions of an air pollutant in excess of any applicable emission standard. (30) "Excess stack height" means that portion of a stack which exceeds the greater of sixty-five meters or the calculated stack height de scribed in WAC 173-400-200(2). (31) "Existing stationary facility (FACILITY)" is defined in WAC 173-400-151. (32) "Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA)" means the Federal Clean Air Act, also known as Public Law 88-206, 77 Stat. 392, December 17, 1963, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as last amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-549, November 15, 1990.[ 109 ] OTS-7551.1 (33) "Federal Class I area" means any federal land that is classified or reclassified Class I. The following areas are federa l Class I areas in Washington state: (a) Alpine Lakes Wilderness; (b) Glacier Peak Wilderness; (c) Goat Rocks Wilderness; (d) Mount Adams Wilderness; (e) Mount Rainier National Park; (f) North Cascades National Park; (g) Olympic National Park; and (h) Pasayten Wilderness. (34) "Federal land manager" means the secretary of the de partment with authority over federal lands in the United States. This includes, but is not limited to, the U.S. Department of the Interior - National Park Service, the U.S. Department of the Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agricu lture - Forest Service, and/or the U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. (35) "Federally enforceable" means all limitations and conditions which are enforceable by EPA, including those require ments developed under 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 62 and 63 , requirements established within the Washington SIP, requirements within any approval or order established under 40 CFR 52.21 or under a SIP approved new source review regulation, and emissions limitation orde rs issued under WAC 173-400-091

. 36) "Fossil fuel-fired steam generator" means a device, furnace, or boiler used in the process of burning fossil fuel for the primar y purpose of producing steam by heat transfer. (37) "Fugitive dust" means a particulate emission made airborne by forces of wind, man's activity, or both. Unpaved roads, constructi on sites, and tilled land are examples of areas that originate fugitive dust. Fugitive dust is a type of fugitive emission. (38) "Fugitive emissions" means emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other f unctionally equivalent opening. (39) "General process unit" means an emissions unit using a procedure or a combination of procedures for the purpose of causi ng a change in material by either chemical or physical means, excluding combustion. (40) "Good engineering practice (GEP)" refers to a calculated stack height based on the equation specified in WAC 173-400-200 (2)(a)(ii). (41) "Incinerator" means a furnace used primarily for the thermal destruction of waste. (42) "In operation" means engaged in activity related to the primary design function of the source. (43) "Lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)" means for any source that rate of emissions which reflects the more stringent of: (a) The most stringent emission limitation whic h is contained in th e implementation plan of any state for such class or category of s ource, unless the owner or operator of the proposed[ 110 ] OTS-7551.1 new or modified source demonstrates that such limitations are not achievable; or (b) The most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in practice by such class or category of source. In no event shall the application of this term allow a proposed new or modified source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount allo wable under applicable New Source Performance Standards. (44) "Mandatory Class I federal area" means any area defined in Section 162(a) of the Federal Clean Air Act. The following areas are the mandatory Class I federal areas in Washington state: (a) Alpine Lakes Wilderness; (b) Glacier Peak Wilderness; (c) Goat Rocks Wilderness; (d) Mount Adams Wilderness; (e) Mount Rainier National Park; (f) North Cascades National Park; (g) Olympic National Park; and (h) Pasayten Wilderness; (45) "Masking" means the mixing of a chemically nonreactive control agent with a malodorous gaseous effluent to change the perceived odor. (46) "Materials handling" means the handling, transp orting, loading, unloading, storage, and transfer of ma terials with no significant ch emical or physical alteration. (47) "Modification" means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source that increase s the amount of any air contaminant emitted by such source or that results in the emissions of any air contaminant not previously emitted. The term modification shall be construed consistent with the definition of modification in Section 7411, Title 42, United States Code, and w ith rules implementing that section. (48) "National Ambient Air Qu ality Standard (NAAQS)" means an ambient air quality standard set by EPA at 40 CFR Part 50 and includes standards for carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter, ozone (O 3 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), lead (Pb), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). (49) "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)" means the federal rules in 40 CFR Part 61. (50) "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories" means the federal rules in 40 CFR Part 63. (51) "Natural conditions" means naturally occurring pheno mena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extincti on, visual range, contrast, or coloration. (52) "New source" means: (a) The construction or modification of a st ationary source that in creases the amount of any air contaminant emitted by such source or that results in the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted; and[ 111 ] OTS-7551.1 (b) Any other project that constitutes a new source under the Federal Clean Air Act. (53) "New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)" means the federal rules in 40 CFR Part 60. (54) "Nonattainment area" means a geographic area de signated by EPA at 40 CFR Part 81 as exceeding a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for a given criteria pollutant. An area is nonattainment only for the pollutants for which the area has been designated nonattainment. (55) "Nonroad engine" means: (a) Except as discussed in (b) of this subsection, a nonr oad engine is any internal combustion engine: (i) In or on a piece of equipment that is self-propelled or serves a dual purpose by both propelling itself and performing another function (such as garden tractors, off-highway mobile cranes and bulldozers); or (ii) In or on a piece of equipment that is intended to be propelled while performing its function (such as lawnmowers and string trimmers); or (iii) That, by itself or in or on a piece of equipment, is portable or transportable, meaning designed to be and capable of be ing carried or moved from one lo cation to another. Indicia of transportability include, but are not limited to, wh eels, skids, carrying handl es, dolly, trailer, or platform. (b) An internal combustion engi ne is not a nonroad engine if: (i) The engine is used to propel a motor vehi cle or a vehicle used solely for competition, or is subject to standards promulgated under section 202 of the Federal Clean Air Act; or (ii) The engine is regulated by a New S ource Performance Standard promulgated under section 111 of the Federal Clean Air Act; or (iii) The engine otherwise included in (a)(iii) of this subsection remains or will remain at a location for more than twelve consecutive mont hs or a shorter period of time for an engine located at a seasonal source. A location is any si ngle site at a building, st ructure, facility, or installation. Any engine (or engine s) that replaces an engine at a location and that is intended to perform the same or similar function as the engine replaced will be included in calculating the consecutive time period. An engine located at a seasonal source is an engine that remains at a seasonal source during the full annual operating period of the seasonal source. A seasonal source is a stationary source that remains in a single location on a permanent basis (i.e., at least two years) and that operates at that single location a pproximately three months (or more) each year. This paragraph does not apply to an engine after the engine is removed from the location. (56) "Notice of construc tion application" means a written application to allow construction of a new source, modification of an existing stationary source or replacement or substantial alteration of c ontrol technology at an ex isting stationary source. (57) "Opacity" means the degree to which an object seen through a plume is obscured, stated as a percentage. (58) "Open burning" means the combustion of material in an open fi re or in an outdoor container, without providing for the control of combustion or the control of the emissions from[ 112 ] OTS-7551.1 the combustion. Wood waste disposal in wigw am burners is not considered open burning. (59) "Order" means any order issued by ecology or a local air author ity pursuant to chapter 70.94 RCW, including, but not limited to RCW 70.94.332, 70.94.152, 70.94.153, 70.94.154, and 70.94.141(3), and includes, where used in the generic sense, the terms order, corrective action order, order of approval, and regulatory order. (60) "Order of approval" or "approval order" means a regulatory order issued by a permitting authority to approve the notice of constr uction application for a proposed new source or modification, or the replacement or substantia l alteration of control technology at an existing stationary source. (61) "Ozone depleting substance" means any substance listed in Appendices A and B to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 82. (62) "Particulate matter" or "particulates" means any airborne fi nely divided solid or liquid material with an aerodynamic diam eter smaller than 100 micrometers. (63) "Particulate matter emissions" means all finely divided solid or liquid material, other than uncombined water, emitted to the am bient air as measured by applicable reference methods, or an equivalent or alternative method sp ecified in Title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations or by a test method specified in the SIP. (64) "Parts per million (ppm)" means parts of a contaminant per million parts of gas, by volume, exclusive of water or particulates. (65) "Permitting authority " means ecology or the local ai r pollution control authority with jurisdiction over the source. (66) "Person" means an individual, firm, public or private corporation, association, partnership, political subdivision, m unicipality, or government agency. (67) "PM-10" means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diamet er less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix J and designated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53 or by an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53. (68) "PM-10 emissions" means finely divided solid or liquid material, including condensible particulate matter, w ith an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable reference method, or an equivalent or alternate method, specified in Appendix M of 40 CFR Part 51 or by a test method specified in the SIP.

(69) "Potential to emit" means the maximum capacity of a source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operationa l design. Any physical or operati onal limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant , including air polluti on control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design only if the limitati on or the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit of

a source. (70) "Prevention of signific ant deterioration (PSD)" means the program in WAC 173- 700 to 173-400-750

.[ 113 ] OTS-7551.1 (71) "Projected width" means that dimension of a struct ure determined from the frontal area of the structure, projected onto a plane perpendicular to a line between the center of the stack and the center of the building. (72) "Reasonably attributable" means attributable by visual observation or any other technique the state deems appropriate. (73) "Reasonably available control technology (RACT)" means the lowest emission limit that a particular source or source category is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reas onably available considerin g technological and economic feasibility. RACT is determined on a case-by- case basis for an individual source or source category taking into account the impact of th e source upon air quality, the availability of additional controls, the emission reduction to be achieved by additi onal controls, the impact of additional controls on air quality, and the capital and operating cost s of the additional controls. RACT requirements for any source or source ca tegory shall be adopted only after notice and opportunity for comm ent are afforded. (74) "Regulatory order" means an order issued by ecology or permitting authority to an air contaminant source which applies to that so urce, any applicable provision of chapter 70.94 RCW, or the rules adopted thereunder, or, for sources regulated by a local air authority, the regulations of that authority. (75) "Secondary emissions" means emissions which would occur as a result of the construction or operation of a ma jor stationary source or major modification, but do not come from the major stationary source or major modi fication itself. Secondary emissions must be specific, well defined, quantifiable, and impact the same general area as the major stationary source or major modification which causes the s econdary emissions. Secondary emissions may include, but are not limited to: (A) Emissions from ships or trains located at th e new or modified major stationary source; and (B) Emissions from any off-site support facility which would not otherwise be constructed or increase its emissions as a result of the construc tion or operation of the ma jor stationary source or major modification. (76) "Source" means all of the emissions unit(s) including quantifiable fugitive emissions, that are located on one or more cont iguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same person or persons under common control, whose activities are ancillary to the production of a single product or functi onally related groups of products. (77) "Source category" means all sources of the sa me type or classification. (78) "Stack" means any point in a source designed to emit solids, liquids, or gases into the air, including a pipe or duct. (79) "Stack height" means the height of an emissi on point measured from the groundlevel elevation at the base of the stack. (80) "Standard conditions" means a temperature of 20 (6 8 F) and a pressure of 760 mm (29.92 inches) of mercury. (81) "State implementation plan (SIP)" or "Washington SIP" means the Washington SIP in 40 CFR Part 52, subpart WW. The SIP cont ains state, local and federal regulations and orders, the state plan and compliance schedul es approved and promulgated by EPA, for the[ 114 ] OTS-7551.1 purpose of implementing, maintaining, and en forcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. (82) "Stationary source" means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air contaminant. This te rm does not include emissions resulting directly from an internal combustion engine for transp ortation purposes or from a nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle as defined in Section 216(11) of the Federal Clean Air Act. (83) "Sulfuric acid plant" means any facility producing sulfuric acid by the contact process by burning elemental sulfur, alkyla tion acid, hydrogen sulf ide, or acid sludge. (84) "Synthetic minor" means any source whose potential to emit has been limited below applicable thresholds by means of a fe derally enforceable order, rule, or approval condition. (85) "Total reduced sulfur (TRS)" means the sum of the sulfur compounds hydrogen sulfide, mercaptans, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide, and any other organic sulfides emitted and measured by EPA method 16 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 60 or an approved equivalent method and expressed as hydrogen sulfide. (86) "Total suspended particulate" means particulate matter as measured by the method described in 40 CF R Part 50 Appendix B. (87) "Toxic air pollutant (TAP)" or "toxic air contaminant" means any Class A or B toxic air pollutant listed in WAC 173-460-150 and 173-460-160. Th e term toxic air pollutant may include particulate matter and volatile orga nic compounds if an individual substance or a group of substances within e ither of these classes is lis ted in WAC 173-460-150 and/or 173-460- 160. The term toxic air pollutant does not in clude particulate matter and volatile organic compounds as generic classes of compounds. (88) "Unclassifiable area" means an area that cannot be designated attainment or nonattainment on the basis of available informa tion as meeting or not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the criteria po llutant and that is liste d by EPA at 40 CFR Part 81. (89) "United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)" shall be referred to as EPA. (90) "Visibility impairment" means any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast , or coloration) from that wh ich would have existed under natural conditions. (91) "Volatile organic compound (VOC)" means any carbon compound that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. (a) Exceptions. The following compounds are not a VOC: Acet one; carbon monoxide; carbon dioxide; carbonic acid; metallic carbides or carbonates; ammonium carbonate, methane; ethane; methylene chloride (dichloromethane); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (m ethyl chloroform); 1,1,2- trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane (C FC-113); trichlorofluor omethane (CFC-11); dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC- 12); chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC23); 1,2-dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC -114); chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115); 1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123) ; 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 1,1- dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b); 1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane (H CFC-142b); 2-chloro 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafl uoroethane (HFC-125); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane[ 115 ] OTS-7551.1 (HFC-134); 1,1,1-trifluoroeth ane (HFC-143a); 1,1-difl uoroethane (HFC-152a); parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF); cyclic, br anched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes; perchloroethylene (tetrachloroet hylene); 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1, 2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca); 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pent afluoropropane (HCFC-225cb); 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5- decafluoropentane (HFC 43-10mee); difluorom ethane (HFC-32); ethylfluoride (HFC-161); 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa); 1,1,2,2,3- pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc); chloro fluoromethane (HCFC-31); 1 chloro-1- fluoroethane (HCFC-151a); 1,2-dichloro -1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4- nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane (C 4 F 9 OCH 3 ); 2-(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3- heptafluoropropane ((CF 3 ) 2 CFCF 2 OCH 3 ); 1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane (C 4 F 9 OC 2 H 5 ); 2-(ethoxydifluoromethyl)- 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane((CF 3 ) 2 CFCF 2 OC 2 H 5 ); methyl acetate and perfl uorocarbon compounds that fa ll into these classes: (i) Cyclic, branched, or linear completely fluorinated alkanes; (ii) Cyclic, branched, or linear complete ly fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; (iii) Cyclic, branched, or linear completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no unsaturations; and (iv) Sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturatio ns and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine. (b) For the purpose of determining comp liance with emission limits, VOC will be measured by the appropriate methods in 40 CF R Part 60 Appendix A. Where the method also measures compounds with negligible photoche mical reactivity, these negligibly-reactive compounds may be excluded as VOC if the amount of the compounds is accurately quantified, and the exclusion is approved by ecology, the authority, or EPA. (c) As a precondition to excluding these neg ligibly-reactive compounds as VOC or at any time thereafter, ecology or the authority may require an owner or operator to provide monitoring or testing methods and results de monstrating, to the sa tisfaction of ecology or the authority, the amount of negligibly-reactive comp ounds in the source's emissions. 

# We are retaining the language in 035 that is in the current rule[ 116 ] OTS-7551.1 WAC 173-400-035 Portable and temporary sources. (1) For portable sources which locate temporarily at particular sites, the owner(s ) or operator(s) shall be allowed to operate at the temporary location providing that the owner(s) or operator(s) notifies ecology or the authority of intent to operate at the new location at least thirty days prior to starting the operation, and supplies sufficien t information to enable ecology or the authority to determine that the operation will comply with the emission standards for a new source , and will not cause a violation of applicable ambient air quality standards and, if in a nonattainment area , will not interfere with scheduled attainment of ambient standards . The permission to operate shall be for a limited period of time (one year or less) and ecology or the authority may set specific conditions for operation during that period. A temporary source sha ll be required to comply with all applicable emission standards . A temporary or portable source that is considered a major stationary source within the meaning of WAC 173-400-113 must also comply with the requirements in WAC 173-400-141. (2) This section applies statewide except where an authority has its own rule regulating such sources.

WAC 173-400-040 General standards for maximum emissions. All sources and emissions units are required to meet the emission standards of this chapter. Where an emission standard listed in another chapter is applicable to a specific emissions unit , such standard will take precedent over a general emission standard listed in this chapter. When two

or more emissions units are connected to a common stack and the operator elects not to provide the means or facilities to sample emissions from the individual emissions units , and the relative contributions of the individual emissions units to the common discha rge are not readily distinguishable, then the emissions of the common stack must meet the most restrictive standard of any of the connected emissions units . Further, all emissions units are required to use reasonably available control technology (RACT) which may be determined for some sources

or source categories to be more stringent than the applicable emission limitations of any chapter of Title 173 WAC. Wh ere current controls are dete rmined to be less than RACT

, ecology or the authority shall, as provided in RCW 70.194.154 [RCW 70.94.154}, define RACT for each source or source category and issue a rule or regulatory order requiring the installation of RACT

. (1) Visible emissions. No person shall cause or allow the emission for more than three minutes, in any one hour, of an air contaminant from any emissions unit which at the emission point, or within a reasonable distance of the emission point, exceeds twenty percent opacity except: (a) When the emissions occur due to soot blowing/grate cleaning and the operator can demonstrate that the emissions will not exceed twenty percent opacity for more than fifteen minutes in any eight consecutive hours. Th e intent of this provision is to allow the soot blowing and grate cleaning necessary to the operation of boiler facilities. Th is practice, except for testing and trouble shooting, is to be scheduled fo r the same approximate times each day and ecology or the authority be advised of the schedule.[ 117 ] OTS-7551.1 (b) When the owner or operator of a source supplies valid data to show that the presence of uncombined water is the only reason for the opacity to exceed twenty percent. (c) When two or more emission units are connected to a common stack

, ecology or the authority may allow or require the use of an alternate time period if it is more representative of normal operations. (d) When an alternate opacity limit has been establis hed per RCW 70.94.331 (2)(c). (e) Exemptions from twenty percent opacity standard. (i) Visible emissions reader certification testing. Visibl e emissions from the "smoke generator" used for testing and certification of vi sible emissions readers per the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Reference Method 9 and ecology methods 9A and 9B shall be exempt from compliance with the twenty pe rcent opacity limitation while being used for certifying visible emission readers. (ii) Visible emissions resulting from military obscurant training exercises is exempt from compliance with the twenty perc ent opacity limitation provided the following criteria are met: (A) No visible emissions shall cross the bounda ry of the military tr aining site/reservation. (B) The operation shall have in place methods, which have been reviewed and approved by the permitting authority, to det ect changes in weather that woul d cause the obscurant to cross the site boundary either dur ing the course of the exer cise or prior to the star t of the exercise. The approved methods shall include provisions that re sult in cancellation of the training exercise, cease the use of obscurants during the exercise until weather conditions would allow such training to occur without causing obscurant to leave the site boundary of the military site/reservation. (iii) Visible emissions from fixed and mobile fire fighter training facilities while being used to train fire fighters a nd while complying with the requi rements of chapter 173-425 WAC. (2) Fallout. No person shall cause or allow the emission of particulate matter from

any source to be deposited beyond the property under dir ect control of the owner or operator of the source in sufficient quantity to interfere un reasonably with the use and enjoyment of the property upon which the ma terial is deposited. (3) Fugitive emissions. The owner or operator of any emissions unit engaging in materials handling, construction, demo lition or other operation which is a source of fugitive emission: (a) If located in an attainment area and not impacting any nonattainment area , shall take reasonable precautions to prevent the release of air contaminants from the operation. (b) If the emissions unit has been identified as a significant contributor to the nonattainment status of a designated nonattainment area , the owner or operator shall be required to use reasonable and available contro l methods, which shall include any necessary changes in technology, process, or other control strategies to control emissions of the air contaminants for which nonattainment has been designated. (4) Odors. Any person who shall cause or allow the generation of any odor from any

source which may unreasonably interfer e with any other property owner's use and enjoyment of his property must use recognized good practice and procedures to reduce these odors to a reasonable minimum.[ 118 ] OTS-7551.1 (5) Emissions detrimental to persons or property. No person shall cause or allow the emission of any air contaminant from any source if it is detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of any person, or causes damage to property or business. (6) Sulfur dioxide.

No person shall cause or allow the emission of a gas containing sulfur dioxide from any emissions unit in excess of one thousand ppm of sulfur dioxide on a dry basis, corrected to seven percent oxygen for combustion sources , and based on the averag e of any period of sixty consecutive minutes, except: When the owner or operator of an emissions unit supplies emission data and can demonstrate to ecology or the authority that there is no feasib le method of reducing the concentration to less than one thousand ppm (on a dry basis, correcte d to seven percent oxygen for combustion sources ) and that the state and federal ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide will not be exc eeded. In such cases, ecology or the authority may require specific ambient air monitoring stations be established, ope rated, and maintain ed by the owner or operator at mutually approved locations. All sampling results will be made available upon request and a monthly summary will be submitted to ecology or the authority

. (7) Concealment and masking. No person shall cause or allow the installati on or use of any means which conceals or masks an emission of an air contaminant which would otherwise violate any provisions of this chapter. (8) Fugitive dust. (a) The owner or operator of a source of fugitive dust shall take reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne and shall maintain and operate the source to minimize emissions

. (b) The owner or operator of any existing source of fugitive dust that has been identified

as a significant contributor to a PM-10 nonattainment area shall be required to use reasonably available control technology to control emissions . Significance will be determined by the criteria found in WAC 173-400-113 (2)(c).

WAC 173-400-050 Emission standards for combustion and incineration units. (1) Combustion and incineration emissions units must meet all requirements of WAC 173-400-040 and, in addition, no person shall cause or allow emissions of particulate matter in excess of 0.23 gram per dry cubic meter at standard conditions (0.1 grain/dscf), except, for an emissions unit combusting wood derived fuels for the production of steam. No person shall allow the emission of particulate matter in excess of 0.46 gram per dry cubic meter at standard conditions (0.2 grain/dscf), as measured by EPA method 5 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 60, (in effect on July 1, 2004 ) or approved procedures contained in " Source Test Manual - Procedures For Compliance Testing," state of Washington, department of ecology , as of July 12, 1990, on file at ecology. (2) For any incinerator , no person shall cause or allow emissions in excess of one hundred ppm of total carbonyls as measured by Source Test Method 14 procedures contained in

" Source Test Manual - Procedures for Compliance Testing," state of Washington, department of ecology , as of July 12, 1990, on file at ecology . An applicable EPA reference method or other[ 119 ] OTS-7551.1 procedures to collect and analyze for the sa me compounds collected in the ecology method may be used if approved by the permitting au thority or ecology prior to its use. (a) Incinerators not subject to the requirements of chapter 173-434 WAC or WAC 173- 400-050 (4) or (5), or requirements adopted by reference in WAC 173-400-075 (40 CFR 63 subpart EEE) and WAC 173-400-11 5 (40 CFR 60 subparts E, Ea , Eb, Ec, AAAA, and CCCC) shall be operated only during daylight hours unless written permission to operate at other times is received from the permitting authority

. (b) Total carbonyls means the concentra tion of organic compounds containing the

. =C

. =O radical as collected by the Ecology S ource Test Method 14 contained in " Source Test Manual - Procedures For Compliance Testing, " state of Washington, department of ecology, as of July 12, 1990, on file at ecology. (3) Measured concentrations for combustion and incineration units shall be adjusted for volumes corrected to seve n percent oxygen, except when ecology or the authority determines that an alternate oxygen correction factor is mo re representative of normal operations. (4) Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units constructed on or before November 30, 1999. (See WAC 173-400-115(2) for the requirements for a commercial and industrial solid waste in cineration unit constructed after November 30, 1999, or modified or reconstructed after June 1, 2001.) (a) Definitions. (i) "Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit" means any combustion device that combusts commercial and i ndustrial waste, as define d in this subsection. The boundaries of a CISWI unit are defined as, but not limited to, the co mmercial or industrial solid waste fuel feed system, grate system, fl ue gas system, and bottom ash. The CISWI unit does not include air pollution control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit boundary starts at the commercial and industrial so lid waste hopper (if applicable) a nd extends through two areas: (A) The combustion unit flue gas system, which ends immediately after the last combustion chamber. (B) The combustion unit bottom ash system, which ends at the truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to fina l disposal. It includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling system. (ii) "Commercial and indus trial solid waste" means solid waste combusted in an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion without energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility (including field erected, modular, and custom built incineration units operating with starved or excess air), or solid waste combusted in an air curtain incinerator wit hout energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility. (b) Applicability. This section applies to in cineration units that meet all three criteria: (i) The incineration unit meets the defi nition of CISWI unit in this subsection. (ii) The incineration unit commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999. (iii) The incineration unit is not exempt under (c) of this subsection. (c) The following types of incineration un its are exempt from this subsection: (i) Pathological waste incineration units. Incineration units burni ng 90 percen t or more[ 120 ] OTS-7551.1 by weight (on a calendar quarter ba sis and excluding the weight of auxiliary fuel and combustion air) of pathological waste, low-le vel radioactive waste, and/or ch emotherapeutic waste as defined in 40 CFR 60.2265 (in effect on January 30, 2001) are not subject to this s ection if you meet the two requirements specified in (c)( i)(A) and (B) of this subsection. (A) Notify the permitting authority that the unit meets these criteria. (B) Keep records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of pathological waste, lowlevel radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste burned, and the weight of all other fuels and wastes burned in the unit. (ii) Agricultural waste incineration units. Incineration units burni ng 90 percent or more by weight (on a calendar quarter ba sis and excluding the weight of auxiliary fuel and combustion air) of agricultural wastes as defined in 40 CFR 60.2265 (in effect on January 30, 2001) are not subject to this subpart if you meet the two requir ements specified in (c)(i i)(A) and (B) of this subsection. (A) Notify the permitting authority that the unit meets these criteria. (B) Keep records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of agri cultural waste burned, and the weight of all other fuel s and wastes burned in the unit. (iii) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that meet either of the two criteria specified in (c)(iii )(A) and (B) of this subsection. (A) Units are regulated under 40 CFR Part 60, s ubpart Ea or subpart Eb (in effect on July 1, 2000); Spokane County Air Pollution Control Aut hority Regulation 1, Sec tion 6.17 (in effect on February 13, 1999); 40 CFR Part 60, subpart AAAA (adopted on December 6, 2000 and in effect on June 1, 2001); or WAC 173-400-050(5). (B) Units burn greater than 30 percent munici pal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel, as defined in 40 CFR Part 60, subparts Ea (in effect on July 1, 2000), Eb (in effect on July 1, 2000), and AAAA (adopted on December 6, 2000 and in effect on June 1, 2001), and WAC 173-400- 050(5), and that have the capacity to burn less than 35 tons (32 me gagrams) per day of municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel, if you meet the two requirements in (c)(iii)(B)(I) and (II) of this subsection. (I) Notify the permitting authority that the unit meets these criteria. (II) Keep records on a calendar quarter basi s of the weight of municipal solid waste burned, and the weight of all other fu els and wastes burned in the unit. (iv) Medical waste incineration units. Incineration units regulated under 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Ec (Standards of Perfor mance for Hospital/Medical/Infec tious Waste Incinerators for Which Construction is Commenced After June 20, 1996) (in effect on July 1, 2000); (v) Small power production facilities. Units that meet the three requirements specified in (c)(v)(A) through (C) of this subsection. (A) The unit qualifies as a small power-production facility under section 3 ( 17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (17)(C)). (B) The unit burns homogeneous waste (not including refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity. (C) You notify the permitting authority that the unit meets all of these criteria.[ 121 ] OTS-7551.1 (vi) Cogeneration facilities. Units that meet the three requirements specified in (c)(vi)(A) through (C) of this subsection. (A) The unit qualifies as a cogeneration facility under section 3 (18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (18)(B)). (B) The unit burns homogeneous waste (not including refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of energy used for industrial, co mmercial, heating, or cooling purposes. (C) You notify the permitting authority that the unit meets all of these criteria. (vii) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units that meet either of the two criteria specified in (c)(vii)(A) or (B) of this subsection. (A) Units for which you are required to get a permit under sectio n 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. (B) Units regulated under subpart EEE of 40 CFR Part 63 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Wast e Combustors) (in effect on July 1, 2000). (viii) Materials recovery units. Units that combust wast e for the primary purpose of recovering metals, such as primary and secondary smelters; (ix) Air curtain incinerators. Air curtain incinerators that burn only the materials listed in (c)(ix)(A) through (C) of this subsection are only re quired to meet the requirements under "Air Curtain Incinerators" in 40 CFR 60.2245 th rough 60.2260 (in effect on January 30, 2001). (A) 100 percent wood waste. (B) 100 percent clean lumber. (C) 100 percent mixture of only wood wast e, clean lumber, and/or yard waste. (x) Cyclonic barrel burners. See 40 CFR 60.2265 (in e ffect on January 30, 2001). (xi) Rack, part, and drum reclamation units. See 40 CFR 60.2265 (in effect on January 30, 2001). (xii) Cement kilns. Kilns regulated under subpart LLL of 40 CFR Part 63 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry) (in effect on July 1, 2000). (xiii) Sewage sludge incinerators. Incineration units regul ated under 40 CFR Part 60, (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treat ment Plants) (in effect on July 1, 2000). (xiv) Chemical recovery units. Combustion units burning materials to recover chemical constituents or to produce chemi cal compounds where there is an existing commercial market for such recovered chemical constituents or comp ounds. The seven types of units described in (c)(xiv)(A) through (H) of this subsection are considered chemical recovery units. (A) Units burning only pulping liquors (i.e., bl ack liquor) that are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery process and reus ed in the pulping process. (B) Units burning only spent sulfuric aci d used to produce virgin sulfuric acid. (C) Units burning only wood or coal f eedstock for the production of charcoal. (D) Units burning only manufacturing by-prod uct streams/residues containing catalyst[ 122 ] OTS-7551.1 metals which are reclaimed and reused as catalysts or used to produce commercial grade catalysts. (E) Units burning only coke to produce purified carbon monoxide that is used as an intermediate in the production of other chemical compounds. (F) Units burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids to pr oduce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or other gases fo r use in other manufacturing processes. (G) Units burning only photograp hic film to recover silver. (xv) Laboratory analysis units. Units that burn samples of materials for the purpose of chemical or physical analysis. (d) Exceptions. (i) Physical or operational changes to a CISW I unit made primarily to comply with this section do not qualify as a "modification" or "reconstruction" (as defined in 40 CFR 60.2815, in effect on January 30, 2001). (ii) Changes to a CISWI unit made on or afte r June 1, 2001, that meet the definition of "modification" or "reconstruction" as define d in 40 CFR 60.2815 (in effect on January 30, 2001) mean the CISWI unit is considered a new unit and subject to WAC 173-400-115(2), which adopts 40 CFR Part 60, subpart CCCC by reference. (e) A CISWI unit must comply with 40 CFR 60.2575 through 60.2875, in effect on January 30, 2001, which is adopted by reference. The federal rule contains these major components:

 Increments of progress toward s compliance in 60.2575 through 60.2630;

 Waste management plan requirements in 60.2620 through 60.2630;

 Operator training and qualifica tion requirements in 60.2635 through 60.2665;

 Emission limitations and operating limits in 60.2670 through 60.2685;

 Performance testing requirements in 60.2690 through 60.2725;

 Initial compliance requir ements in 60.2700 through 60.2725;

 Continuous compliance requirements in 60.2710 through 60.2725;

 Monitoring requirements in 60.2730 through 60.2735;

 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 60.2740 through 60.2800;

 Title V operating permits requirements in 60.2805;

 Air curtain incinerator re quirements in 60.2810 through 60.2870;

 Definitions in 60.2875; and

 Tables in 60.2875. In Table 1, the final control plan must be submitted before June 1, 2004, and final compliance must be achieved by June 1, 2005. (i) Exception to adopting the federal rule. For purposes of this s ection, "administrator" includes the permitting authority

. (ii) Exception to adopting the fe deral rule. For purposes of this section, "you" means the[ 123 ] OTS-7551.1 owner or operator. (iii) Exception to adopting the federal rule. For purposes of this section, each reference to "the effective date of state plan approval" means July 1, 2002. (iv) Exception to adopting the federal rule. The Title V operating permit requirements in 40 CFR 2805(a) are not adopted by reference. Each CISWI unit, regardless of whether it is a major or nonmajor unit, is subject to the ai r operating permit regulati on, chapter 173-401 WAC, beginning on July 1, 2002. See WAC 173-401-500 fo r the permit application requirements and deadlines. (v) Exception to adopting the federal rule. The following compliance dates apply: (A) The final control plan (Increment 1) mu st be submitted no later than July 1, 2003. (See Increment 1 in Table 1.) (B) Final compliance (Increment 2) must be achieved no later than July 1, 2005. (See Increment 2 in Table 1.) (5) Small municipal waste combustion units constructed on or before August 30, 1999. (See WAC 173-400-115(2) for the requirements for a municipal waste combustion unit constructed after August 30, 1999, or reconstr ucted or modified after June 6, 2001.) (a) Definition. "Municipal waste combustion unit" means any setting or equipment that combusts, liquid, or gasified municipal solid wa ste including, but not li mited to, field-erected combustion units (with or withou t heat recovery), modular com bustion units (starved air- or excess-air), boilers (for example, steam generating units), furnaces (whether suspension-fired, grate-fired, mass-fired, air-curtai n incinerators, or fluidized be d-fired), and pyrolysis/combustion units. Two criteria further define municipal waste combustion units: (i) Municipal waste combustion unit s do not include the following units: (A) Pyrolysis or combustion units located at a plastics or r ubber recycling unit as specified under the exemptions in (d )(viii) and (ix) of this subsection. (B) Cement kilns that com bust municipal solid waste as specified under the exemptions in (d)(x) of this subsection. (C) Internal combustion engines, gas turbin es, or other combustion devices that combust landfill gases collected by landfill gas collection systems. (ii) The boundaries of a municipal waste co mbustion unit are defined as follows. The municipal waste combustion unit includes, but is not limited to, the municipal solid waste fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, bottom ash system, and the combustion unit water system. The municipal waste combustion unit does not include air pollu tion control equipment, the stack, water treatment equipment, or the turbine-generator set. The municipal waste combustion unit boundary starts at the municipal solid waste pit or hopper and extends through three areas: (A) The combustion unit flue gas system, whic h ends immediately afte r the heat recovery equipment or, if there is no heat recovery equipment, immediatel y after the combustion chamber. (B) The combustion unit bottom ash system, wh ich ends at the truc k loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to fina l disposal. It includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling system.[ 124 ] OTS-7551.1 (C) The combustion unit water system, which starts at th e feed water pump and ends at the piping that exits the steam drum or superheater. (b) Applicability. This section applies to a municipal waste combustion unit that meets these three criteria: (i) The municipal waste combustion unit has th e capacity to combust at least 35 tons per day of municipal solid waste but no more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel. (ii) The municipal waste combustion unit co mmenced construction on or before August 30, 1999. (iii) The municipal waste combustion unit is not exempt under (c ) of this section. (c) Exempted units. The following municipa l waste combustion units are exempt from the requirements of this section: (i) Small municipal waste com bustion units that combust less than 11 tons per day. Units are exempt from this section if four requirements are met: (A) The municipal waste combustion unit is su bject to a federally enforceable order or order of approval limiting the amount of municipal solid waste combusted to less than 11 tons per day. (B) The owner or operator notifies the permitting authority that the unit qualifies for the exemption. (C) The owner or operator of the unit sends a copy of the federally enforceable order or order of approval to the permitting authority

. (D) The owner or operator of the unit keeps daily records of the amount of municipal solid waste combusted. (ii) Small power production units. Units are exempt from this section if four requirements are met: (A) The unit qualifies as a small power produc tion facility under section 3 (17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (17)(C)). (B) The unit combusts homogeneous waste (e xcluding refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity. (C) The owner or operator notifies the permitting authority that the unit qualifies for the exemption. (D) The owner or operator submits documentation to the permitting authority that the unit qualifies for the exemption. (iii) Cogeneration units. Units are exempt from this se ction if four requirements are met: (A) The unit qualifies as a small power produc tion facility under section 3 (18)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (18)(C)). (B) The unit combusts homogeneous waste (e xcluding refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of energy used for industrial, co mmercial, heating, or cooling purposes.[ 125 ] OTS-7551.1 (C) The owner or operator notifies the permitting authority that the unit qualifies for the exemption. (D) The owner or operator submits documentation to the permitting authority that the unit qualifies for the exemption. (iv) Municipal waste combustion units that combust only tires. Units are exempt from this section if three requirements are met: (A) The municipal waste combustion unit comb usts a single-item waste stream of tires and no other municipal waste (the unit can cofi re coal, fuel oil, na tural gas, or other nonmunicipal solid waste). (B) The owner or operator notifies the permitting authority that the unit qualifies for the exemption. (C) The owner or operator submits documentation to the permitting authority that the unit qualifies for the exemption. (v) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units are exempt from this section if the units have received a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. (vi) Materials recovery units. Units are exempt from this section if the units combust waste mainly to recover metals. Primary and s econdary smelters may qualify for the exemption. (vii) Cofired units. Units are exempt from this section if four requirements are met: (A) The unit has a federally enforceable order or order of approval limiting municipal solid waste combustion to no more than 30 percent of total fuel input by weight. (B) The owner or operator notifies the permitting authority that the unit qualifies for the exemption. (C) The owner or operator subm its a copy of the federally enforceable order or order of approval to the permitting authority

. (D) The owner or operator records the wei ghts, each quarter, of municipal solid waste and of all other fuels combusted. (viii) Plastics/rubber recycling units. Units are exempt from this section if four requirements are met: (A) The pyrolysis/combustion un it is an integrated part of a plastics/rubber recycling unit as defined in 40 CFR 60.1940 (i n effect on February 5, 2001). (B) The owner or operator of the unit records the weight, each quarter, of plastics, rubber, and rubber tires processed. (C) The owner or operator of the unit record s the weight, each quarter, of feed stocks produced and marketed from chemical plants and petroleum refineries. (D) The owner or operator of the unit keeps the name and addr ess of the purchaser of the feed stocks. (ix) Units that combust fuels made from pr oducts of plastics/rubber recycling plants. Units are exempt from this sec tion if two requirements are met: (A) The unit combusts gasoline, diesel fuel, je t fuel, fuel oils, residua l oil, refinery gas,[ 126 ] OTS-7551.1 petroleum coke, liquified petrol eum gas, propane, or butane produced by chemical plants or petroleum refineries that us e feed stocks produced by pl astics/rubber recycling units. (B) The unit does not combust any other municipal solid waste. (x) Cement kilns. Cement kilns that combust mu nicipal solid waste are exempt. (xi) Air curtain incinerators. If an air curtain incine rator as defined under 40 CFR 60.1910 (in effect on February 5, 2001) combusts 100 percent yard waste, then those units must only meet the requirements under 40 CFR 60.1910 through 60.1930 (in effect on February 5, 2001). (d) Exceptions. (i) Physical or operational changes to an existing municipal waste combustion unit made primarily to comply with this section do not quali fy as a modification or reconstruction, as those terms are defined in 40 CFR 60.1940 (in effect on February 5, 2001). (ii) Changes to an existing municipal wast e combustion unit made on or after June 6, 2001, that meet the definition of modification or r econstruction, as those terms are defined in 40 CFR 60.1940 (in effect on February 5, 2001), mean the unit is considered a new unit and subject to WAC 173-400-115(2), which adopts 40 CFR Pa rt 60, subpart AAAA (in effect on June 6, 2001). (e) Municipal waste combustion units are di vided into two subcategories based on the aggregate capacity of the municipa l waste combustion plant as follows: (i) Class I units. Class I units are small m unicipal waste combustion units that are located at municipal waste combustion plants with an aggregate plant combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal so lid waste. See the definition of "municipal waste combustion plant capacity" in 40 CFR 60.1940 (in effect on Febr uary 5, 2001) for the specification of which units are included in the a ggregate capacity calculation. (ii) Class II units. Class II units are sm all municipal waste combustion units that are located at municipal waste combustion plants with an aggregate plant combustion capacity less than or equal to 250 tons per da y of municipal solid waste. See the definition of "municipal waste combustion plant capacity" in 40 CFR 60.1940 (in effect on February 5, 2001) for the specification of which units are included in the aggregate capacity calculation. (f) Compliance option 1. (i) A municipal solid waste combustion unit may choose to reduce, by the final compliance date of June 1, 2005, the maximum com bustion capacity of the unit to less than 35 tons per day of municipal solid waste. The owner or operator must submit a final control plan and the notifications of achievement of increm ents of progress as specified in 40 CFR 60.1610 (in effect on February 5, 2001). (ii) The final control plan must, at a minimum, include two items: (A) A description of the physical changes th at will be made to accomplish the reduction. (B) Calculations of the current maximum combustion capacity and the planned maximum combustion capacity after the reduction. Use th e equations specified in 40 CFR 60.1935 (d) and (e) (in effect on February 5, 2001) to calculate the combustion capacity of a municipal waste combustion unit.[ 127 ] OTS-7551.1 (iii) An order or orde r of approval containing a restriction or a change in the method of operation does not qualify as a reduction in ca pacity. Use the equations specified in 40 CFR 60.1935 (d) and (e) (in effect on Fe bruary 5, 2001) to calculate the combus tion capacity of a municipal waste combustion unit. (g) Compliance option 2. The municipal wa ste combustion unit must comply with 40 CFR 60.1585 through 60.1905, and 60.1935 (i n effect on February 5, 20 01), which is adopted by reference. (i) The rule contains these major components: (A) Increments of progress towards compliance in 60.1585 through 60.1640; (B) Good combustion practices - oper ator training in 60.1645 through 60.1670; (C) Good combustion practices - oper ator certification in 60.1675 through 60.1685; (D) Good combustion practices - operating requirements in 60.1690 through 60.1695; (E) Emission limits in 60.1700 through 60.1710; (F) Continuous emission m onitoring in 60.1715 through 60.1770; (G) Stack testing in 60.1775 through 60.1800; (H) Other monitoring requirements in 60.1805 through 60.1825; (I) Recordkeeping reporting in 60.1830 through 60.1855; (J) Reporting in 60.1860 through 60.1905; (K) Equations in 60.1935; (L) Tables 2 through 8. (ii) Exception to adopting the federal rule. For purposes of this s ection, each reference to the following is amended in the following manner: (A) "State plan" in the fede ral rule means WAC 173-400-050(5). (B) "You" in the federal rule means the owner or operator. (C) "Administrator" includes the permitting authority

. (D) Table 1 in (h)(ii) of this subsection substitutes for Table 1 in the federal rule. (E) "The effective date of th e state plan approval" in the federal rule means December 6, 2002. (h) Compliance schedule. (i) Small municipal waste combustion units must achieve final compliance or cease operation not later than December 1, 2005. (ii) Small municipal waste combustion units must comply with Table 1.

Table 1 Compliance Schedules and Increments of Progress[ 128 ] OTS-7551.1 Affected units Increment 1 (Submit final control plan) Increment 2 (Award contracts) Increment 3 (Begin on-site construction) Increment 4(Complete onsite construction) Increment 5 (Final compliance)

All Class I units August 6, 2003 April 6, 2004 October 6, 2004 October 6, 2005 November 6, 2005

All Class II units September 6, 2003 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable May 6, 2005

(iii) Class I units must comply with these additional requirements: (A) The owner or operator must submit the diox ins/furans stack test results for at least one test conducted during or after 1990. The stack test must have been conducted according to the procedures specified under 40 CFR 60.1790 (in effect on February 5, 2001). (B) Class I units that commenced construc tion after June 26, 1987, must comply with the dioxins/furans and mercury limits specified in Tables 2 and 3 in 40 CFR Part 60, subpart BBBB (in effect on February 5, 2001) by the later of two dates: (I) December 6, 2003; or (II) One year following the issuance of an order of approval (revised construction approval or operation permit) if an order or order of approval or operation modification is required. (i) Air operating permit. Applicability to chapter 173-401 WAC, the air operating permit regulation, begins on Ju ly 1, 2002. See WAC 173-401-500 for the permit application requirements and deadlines.

WAC 173-400-060 Emission standards for general process units. General process units are required to meet all applicable provisions of WA C 173-400-040 and, no person shall cause or allow the emission of particulate material fr om any general process operation in excess of 0.23 grams per dry cubic meter at standard c onditions (0.1 grain/dscf) of exhaust gas. EPA test methods (in effect on February 20, 2001) from 40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61, and 63 and any other approved test procedures which are contained in ecology's " Source Test Manual - Procedures For Compliance Testing " as of July 12, 1990, will be used to determine compliance.

WAC 173-400-070 Emission standards for certain source categories. Ecology finds that the reasonable regulation of sources within certain categories requires separate standards applicable to such categories. The standards set forth in this section shall be the maximum allowable standards for emissions units within the categories listed. Except as specifically provided in this section, such emissions units shall not be required to meet the provisions of WAC 173-400-040, 173-400-050 and 173-400-060. (1) Wigwam burners.(a) All wigwam burners shall meet all provi sions of WAC 173-400-040 (2 ), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and WAC 173-400-050(4) or 173-400-115 (40 CFR 60 subpart DDDD) as applicable

. (b) All wigwam burners shall use RACT. All emissions units shall be operated and maintained to minimize emissions. These require ments may include a cont rolled tangential vent overfire air system, an adequate underfire syst em, elimination of all unnecessary openings, a controlled feed and other modifications dete rmined necessary by ecology or the permitting authority. (c) It shall be unlawful to install or incr ease the existing use of any burner that does not meet all requirements for new sources including those requireme nts specified in WAC 173-400- 040 and 173-400-050, except operating hours. (d) Ecology may establish additional requirement s for wigwam burners located in sensitive areas as defined by chapter 173-440 WAC. These requirements may include but shall not be limited to: (i) A requirement to meet all provi sions of WAC 173-400-040 and 173-400-050. Wigwam burners will be considered to be in co mpliance if they meet the requirements contained in WAC 173-400-040(1). An exception is made for a startup period not to exceed thirty minutes in any eight consecutive hours. (ii) A requirement to apply BACT. (iii) A requirement to reduce or eliminate emissions if ecology establishes that such emissions unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property of others or are a cause of violation of ambient air standards. (2) Hog fuel boilers. (a) Hog fuel boilers shall meet all provisions of WAC 173- 400-040 and 173-400-050(1), except that emissions may exceed twenty percent opacity for up to fifteen consecutive minutes once in any eight hours. The intent of this provision is to allow soot blowing and grate cleaning necessary to the operation of these units. This practice is to be scheduled for the same specific times each day and the permitting authority shall be notified of the schedule or any changes. (b) All hog fuel boilers shall utilize RACT and shall be operate d and maintained to minimize emissions. (3) Orchard heating. (a) Burning of rubber materials, asphaltic products, crankcase oil or petroleum wastes, plastic, or garbage is prohibited. (b) It is unlawful to burn any material or op erate any orchard-heating device that causes a visible emission exceeding twenty percent opacity , except during the first thirty minutes after such device or ma terial is ignited. (4) Grain elevators. Any grain elevator which is primarily classified as a materials handling operation shall meet all the provisions of WAC 173- 400-040 (2), (3), (4), and (5). (5) Catalytic cracking units. (a) All existing catalytic cracking units shall meet all provisi ons of WAC 173-400-040 (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) and:(i) No person shall cause or allow the emission for more than three minutes, in any one hour, of an air contaminant from any catalytic cracking unit which at the emission point, or within a reasonable distance of the emi ssion point, exceeds forty percent opacity. (ii) No person shall cause or allow the emission of particulate material in excess of 0.46 grams per dry cubic meter at standard condi tions (0.20 grains/dscf) of exhaust gas. (b) All new catalytic cracking units sh all meet all provisi ons of WAC 173-400-115. (6) Other wood waste burners. (a) Wood waste burners not specifically prov ided for in this se ction shall meet all applicable provisions of WAC 173-400-040. In addition, wood waste bur ners subject to 173-400- 050(4) or 173-400-115 (40 CFR 60 subpart DDDD) must meet all applicable provisions of those sections

. (b) Such wood waste burners shall utilize RACT and shall be operated and maintained to minimize emissions

. (7) Sulfuric acid plants.

No person shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from a sulfuric acid plant, any gases which contain aci d mist, expressed as H 2 SO 4 , in excess of 0.15 pounds per ton of acid produced. Sulfuric acid production shall be expressed as one hundred percent H 2 SO 4 . (8) Sewage sludge incinerators. Standards for the incine ration of sewage sludge found in 40 CFR Part 503 subparts A (General Provisions ) and E (Incineration) in effect on July 1, 2004 , are adopted by reference. (9) Municipal solid waste landfills constructe d, reconstructed, or modified before May 30, 1991. A municipal solid waste landfill (MSW landfill) is an entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household wa ste is placed in or on the land. A MSW landfill may also receive other types of waste regulated under S ubtitle D of the Federal Recourse Conservation and Recovery Act including the fo llowing: Commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. Portions of an MSW landfill may be separated by access roads. A MSW landfill may be either publicly or privately owned. A MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill, an existing MSW landfill, or a lateral expansion. All references in this subsec tion to 40 CFR Part 60 rules mean those rules in effect on July 1, 2000. (a) Applicability. These rules apply to each MSW landfill constructed, reconstructed, or modified before May 30, 1991; and the MS W landfill accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or the landfill has additional cap acity for future waste deposition. (See WAC 173-400-115(2) for the requirement s for MSW landfills constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or after May 30, 1991.) Terms in this subsec tion have the meaning given them in 40 CFR 60.751, except that every use of the word "administrat or" in the federal rules referred to in this subsection includes the "permitting authority ." (b) Exceptions. Any physical or operational change to an MSW landfill made solely to comply with these rules is not cons idered a modification or rebuilding. (c) Standards for MSW landfill emissions. (i) A MSW landfill having a design capacity less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters must comply with the re quirements of 40 CFR 60.752(a) in addition to theapplicable requirements speci fied in this section. (ii) A MSW landfill having design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 60.752(b) in addition to the applicable re quirements specified in this section. (d) Recordkeeping and reporting. A MSW landfill must follow the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 60.757 (submittal of an initial design capacity report) and 40 CFR 60.758 (recordkeeping requirement s), as applicable, except as provided for under (d)(i) and (ii). (i) The initial desi gn capacity report for the facility is due before September 20, 2001. (ii) The initial nonmethane organic com pound (NMOC) emissions rate report is due before September 20, 2001. (e) Test methods and procedures. (i) A MSW landfill having a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters must calculate the landfill nonmethane organic compound emission rates following the procedures listed in 40 CFR 60.754, as applicable, to determine whether the rate equals or exceeds 50 megagrams per year. (ii) Gas collection and control systems must meet the requiremen ts in 40 CFR 60.752 (b)(2)(ii) through the fo llowing procedures: (A) The systems must follow the operational standards in 40 CFR 60.753. (B) The systems must follow the complia nce provisions in 40 CFR 60.755 (a)(1) through (a)(6) to determine whether the system is in compliance with 40 CFR 60.752 (b)(2)(ii). (C) The system must follow the appli cable monitoring provisions in 40 CFR 60.756. (f) Conditions. Existing MSW landfills that meet the following conditions must install a gas collection and control system: (i) The landfill accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987, or the landfill has additional design capacity availabl e for future waste deposition; (ii) The landfill has design capacity greater th an or equal to 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters. The landfill may calculate de sign capacity in either megagrams or cubic meters for comparison with the exception values . Any density conversions shall be documented and submitted with the report; and (iii) The landfill has a nonmethane organi c compound (NMOC) emission rate of 50 megagrams per year or greater. (g) Change in conditions. After the adoption date of this rule, a landfill that meets all three conditions in (e) of this subsection must co mply with all the requir ements of this section within thirty months of the date when the conditi ons were met. This change will usually occur because the NMOC emission rate equaled or ex ceeded the rate of 50 megagrams per year. (h) Gas collection and control systems. (i) Gas collection and cont rol systems must meet the requirements in 40 CFR 60.752 (b)(2)(ii). (ii) The design plans must be prepared by a licensed professional e ngineer and submittedto the permitting authority within one year after the a doption date of this section. (iii) The system must be installed within ei ghteen months after the submittal of the design plans. (iv) The system must be opera tional within thirty months after the adoption date of this section. (v) The emissions that are collected must be controlled in one of three ways: (A) An open flare designed and operated according to 40 CFR 60.18; (B) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98 percent by weight;

or (C) An enclosed combustor designed and operated to reduce the outlet NMOC concentration to 20 parts per million as hexane by volume, dry basis to three percent oxygen, or less. (i) Air operating permit. (i) A MSW landfill that has a design capaci ty less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters on January 7, 2000, is not subject to the air operating permit regulation, unless the landfill is subject to chapter 173-401 WAC for some other reason. If the design capacity of an exempted MSW landfill subseque ntly increases to equal or exceed 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters by a change that is not a modification or reconstruction, the landfill is subject to chapte r 173-401 WAC on the date the ame nded design capacity report is due. (ii) A MSW landfill that has a design capac ity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters on Janua ry 7, 2000, is subject to chapter 173-401 WAC beginning on the effective date of this secti on. (Note: Under 40 CFR 62.14352(e), an applicable MSW landfill must have submitted its application so that by April 6, 2001, the permitting authority was able to determine that it was tim ely and complete. Under 40 CFR 70.7(b), no source may operate after the time that it is requi red to submit a timely and complete application.) (iii) When a MSW landfill is closed, the owner or operator is no longer subject to the requirement to maintain an operating permit for the landfill if the landfill is not subject to chapter 173-401 WAC for some other reason and if e ither of the following conditions are met: (A) The landfill was never s ubject to the requirement for a control system under 40 CFR 62.14353; or (B) The landfill meets the conditions for c ontrol system removal specified in 40 CFR 60.752 (b)(2)(v).

WAC 173-400-075 Emission standards for sources emitting hazardous air pollutants. (1) National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs). 40 CFR Part 61 and Appendices in effect on July 1, 2004 , is adopted by reference. The term "administrator" in 40 CFR Part 61 includes the permitting authority

. (2) The permitting authority may conduct source tests and require access to records, books, files, and other information specific to the control, recover y, or release of those pollutants regulated under 40 CFR Parts 61, 62, 63 and/or 65 in order to determine the status of complianceof sources of these contaminants and to carry out its enforcement responsibilities. (3) Source testing, monitoring, and analytical methods for sources of hazardous air pollutants must conform with the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 61, 62, 63 and/or 65. (4) This section does not appl y to any source operating under a waiver granted by EPA or an exemption granted by the president of the United States. (5) Where EPA has delegated to the permitting authority, the authority to receive reports under 40 CFR Parts 61 or 63, from the affected facil ity in lieu of providing such report to EPA, the affected facility is required to provide such reports only to the permitting authority unless otherwise requested in writing by the permitting authority or EPA. (6) Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. MACT standards are officially known as National Emission Standards fo r Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories

. (a) Adopt by reference. 40 CFR Part 63 and Appendices in effect on October 1, 2004 , is adopted by reference

. Exceptions are listed in (6) (b) of this section. The following list of subparts to 40 CFR 63 whic h are shown as blank or reserved as of the date listed above, is provided for informational purposes only : Subparts K, P, V, Z, FF, NN, ZZ, AAA, BBB, FFF, KKK, SSS, WWW, YYY, ZZZ, BBBB, DDDDD, NNNNN, and OOOOO. (b) Exceptions to adopting 40 CFR Part 63 by reference. (i) The term "administrator" in 40 CFR Part 63 includes the permitting authority

. (ii) The following subparts of 40 CFR Part 63 are not adopted by reference: (A) Subpart C: List of Hazardous Air Po llutants, Petition Process, Lesser Quantity Designations, source Category List. (B) Subpart E: Approval of State Program s and Delegation of Federal Authorities. (C) Subpart M: National Perchloroeth ylene Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities as it applie s to nonmajor sources. (6) Consolidated requirements for the synt hetic organic chemical manufacturing industry. 40 CFR Part 65, in effect on July 1, 2001, is adopted by reference. (7) Emission Standards for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners. (a) Applicability. (i) This section applies to al l dry cleaning systems that use pe rchloroethylene (PCE). Table 1 divides dry cleaning fac ilities into 3 regulatory source categories by the type of equipment they use and the volume of PCE purchased. Each dr y cleaning system must follow the applicable requirements in Table 1:

TABLE 1. PCE Dry Cleaner Source CategoriesDry cleaning facilities with: Small area source purchases less than: Large area source purchases between: Major source purchases more than:

(1) Only Dry-to-Dry Machines 140 gallons PCE/yr 140-2,100 gallons PCE/yr 2,100 gallons PCE/yr

(2) Only Transfer Machines 200 gallons PCE/yr 200-1,800 gallons PCE/yr 1,800 gallons PCE/yr

(3) Both Dry-to-Dry and Transfer Machines 140 gallons PCE/yr 140-1,800 gallons PCE/yr 1,800 gallons PCE/yr

(ii) Major sources. In add ition to the requirement s in this section, a dry cleaning system that is considered a major source according to Table 1 must follow the federal requirements for major sources in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart M (in effect on July 1, 2001). (b) Operations and maintenance record. (i) Each dry cleaning facility must keep an operations and maintenance record that is available upon request. (ii) The information in the operations and maintenance record must be kept on-site for five years. (iii) The operations and maintenance record must contain the following information: (A) Inspection: The date and result of each inspection of the dry cleaning system. The inspection must note the conditi on of the system and the time any leaks were observed. (B) Repair: The date, time, and result of each repair of the dry cleaning system. (C) Refrigerated condenser information. If you have a refrigerated condenser, enter this information: (I) The air temperature at the inle t of the refrigerated condenser; (II) The air temperature at the ou tlet of the refrig erated condenser; (III) The difference between the inlet and outlet temperature readings; and (IV) The date the temperature was taken. (D) Carbon adsorber information. If you have a carbon adsorber, ente r this information: (I) The concentration of PCE in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber; and (II) The date the concentration was measured. (E) A record of the volume of PCE purchased each month must be entered by the first of the following month; (F) A record of the total amount of PCE purch ased over the previous twelve months must be entered by the first of each month; (G) All receipts of PCE purchases; and (H) A record of any pollution preventi on activities that have been accomplished. (c) General operations and ma intenance requirements. (i) Drain cartridge filters in their housing or other sealed container for at least twenty-fourhours before discarding the cartridges. (ii) Close the door of each dr y cleaning machine except when tr ansferring articles to or from the machine. (iii) Store all PCE, and wast es containing PCE, in a closed container with no perceptible leaks. (iv) Operate and maintain the dry clea ning system according to the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. (v) Keep a copy on-site of the design sp ecifications and operating manuals for all dry cleaning equipment. (vi) Keep a copy on-site of the design specifications and operating manuals for all emissions control devices. (vii) Route the PCE gas-vapor stream from the dry cleaning system th rough the applicable equipment in Table 2:
TABLE 2. Minimum PCE Vapor Vent Control Requirements

Small area

source Large area

source Major source

Refrigerated condenser for all machines installed after September 21, 1993. Refrigerated condenser for all machines. Refrigerated condenser with a carbon adsorber for all machines installed after September 21, 1993.

(d) Inspection. (i) The owner or operator must inspect the dry cleaning system at a minimum following the requirements in Table 3:

TABLE 3. Minimum Inspection Frequency

Small area source Large area source Major source

Once every 2 weeks. Once every week. Once every week.

(ii) An inspection must include an exam ination of these components for condition and perceptible leaks: (A) Hose and pipe connections, fittings, couplings, and valves; (B) Door gaskets and seatings;(C) Filter gaskets and seatings; (D) Pumps; (E) Solvent tanks and containers; (F) Water separators; (G) Muck cookers; (H) Stills; (I) Exhaust dampers; and (J) Cartridge filter housings. (iii) The dry cleaning system must be inspected while it is operating. (iv) The date and result of each inspect ion must be entered in the operations and maintenance record at th e time of the inspection. (e) Repair. (i) Leaks must be repaired within twenty -four hours of detection if repair parts are available. (ii) If repair parts are unavailable, they must be ordered within two working days of detecting the leak. (iii) Repair parts must be installed as s oon as possible, and no later than five working days after arrival. (iv) The date and time each leak was discove red must be entered in the operations and maintenance record. (v) The date, time, and result of each repa ir must be entered in the operations and maintenance record at the time of the repair. (f) Requirements for systems with refrigerated condensers. A dry cleaning system using a refrigerated condenser must meet all of the following requirements: (i) Outlet air temperature. (A) Each week the air temper ature sensor at the outlet of the refrigerated condenser must be checked. (B) The air temperature at the outlet of the refrigerated condenser must be less than or equal to 45F (7.2C) dur ing the cool-down period. (C) The air temperature must be entered in the operations and main tenance record manual at the time it is checked. (D) The air temperature sensor must meet these requirements: (I) An air temperature sensor must be permanently installed on a dry-to-dry machine, dryer or reclaimer at the outlet of the refrigerated condenser. The air temperature sensor must be installed by September 23, 1996, if the dry cleani ng system was constructed before December 9, 1991. (II) The air temperature sensor must be accurate to within 2F (1.1C).(III) The air temperature sensor must be desi gned to measure at least a temperature range from 32F (0C) to 120F (48.9C); and (IV) The air temperature sensor must be labeled "RC outlet." (ii) Inlet air temperature. (A) Each week the air temperature sensor at the inlet of the refrigerated condenser installed on a washer must be checked. (B) The inlet air temperature must be entered in the operations and maintenance record at the time it is checked. (C) The air temperature sensor must meet these requirements: (I) An air temperature sensor must be permanen tly installed on a washer at the inlet of the refrigerated condenser. The air temperature se nsor must be installed by September 23, 1996, if the dry cleaning system was constructed before December 9, 1991. (II) The air temperature sensor must be accurate to within 2F (1.1C). (III) The air temperature sensor must be desi gned to measure at least a temperature range from 32F (0C) to 120F (48.9C). (IV) The air temperature sensor must be labeled "RC inlet." (iii) For a refrigerated condenser used on the washer unit of a transfer system, the following are additional requirements: (A) Each week the difference between the ai r temperature at the inlet and outlet of the refrigerated condenser must be calculated. (B) The difference between the air temperatur e at the inlet and outlet of a refrigerated condenser installed on a washer must be greater than or equal to 20F (11.1C). (C) The difference between the inlet and outle t air temperature must be entered in the operations and maintenance reco rd each time it is checked. (iv) A converted machine with a refrigerated condenser must be operated with a diverter valve that prevents air drawn into the dry clea ning machine from passing through the refrigerated condenser when the door of the machine is open; (v) The refrigerated condenser must not vent the air-PCE gas-vapor stream while the dry cleaning machine drum is rotating or, if installed on a washer, unt il the washer door is opened; and (vi) The refrigerated condenser in a transfer machine may not be c oupled with any other equipment. (g) Requirements for systems with carbon adsorbers. A dry cleaning system using a carbon adsorber must meet all of the following requirements: (i) Each week the concentra tion of PCE in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber must be measured at the outlet of the carbon adsorb er using a colorimetric detector tube. (ii) The concentration of PCE must be wr itten in the operations and maintenance record each time the concentration is checked. (iii) If the dry cleaning system was c onstructed before December 9, 1991, monitoringmust begin by September 23, 1996. (iv) The colorimetric tube must meet these requirements: (A) The colorimetric tube must be able to measure a concentration of 100 parts per million of PCE in air. (B) The colorimetric tube must be accurate to within 25 parts per million. (C) The concentration of PCE in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber must not exceed 100 ppm while the dry cleaning machine is venting to the carbon adsorber at the end of the last dry cleaning cycle prior to desorption of the carbon adsorber. (v) If the dry cleaning system does not have a permanently fixed colorimetric tube, a sampling port must be provided within the exhaus t outlet of the carbon adsorber. The sampling port must meet all of these requirements: (A) The sampling port must be easily accessible; (B) The sampling port must be located 8 stack or duct diameters downstream from a bend, expansion, contraction or outlet; and (C) The sampling port must be 2 stack or duct diameters upstream from a bend, expansion, contracti on, inlet or outlet.

WAC 173-400-099 Registration program. (1) Program purpose. (a) The registration program is a program to develop and maintain a current and accurate record of air contaminant sources. Informa tion collected through the registration program is used to evaluate the effectiveness of air pollu tion control strategies and to verify source compliance with applicable air pollution requirements. (b) Permit program sources, as defined in RCW 70.94.030(17), are not required to comply with the registration requirem ents of WAC 173-400-100 through 173-400-104. (2) Program components. The components of the registration program consist of: (a) Initial registrati on and annual or other periodic repo rts from stationary source owners providing information on location, size, height of contaminant outlets, processes employed, nature and quantity of the air contaminant emissions , and other information th at is relevant to air pollution and available or reasonably capable of be ing assembled. For purposes of this chapter, information relevant to air pollution may include air pollution requireme nts established by rule, regulatory order, or ordinan ce pursuant to chapter 70.94 RCW. (b) On-site inspections necessary to verify compliance with registration requirements. (c) Data storage and retrieval systems nece ssary for support of the registration program. (d) Emission inventory reports and em ission reduction credits computed from information provided by source owners pur suant to registration requirements. (e) Staff review, including engineering an alysis for accuracy and currentness of information provided by source owners pursuan t to registration program requirements. (f) Clerical and other office support in dire ct furtherance of the registration program. (g) Administrative support provided in dir ectly carrying out the registration program.WAC 173-400-100 Source classifications. (1) Source classification list. In counties without a local authority, or for s ources under the juri sdiction of ecology, the owner or operator of each source within the following source categories shall register the source with ecology : (a) Agricultural chemical facilities e ngaging in the manufacturing of liquid or dry fertilizers or pesticides; (b) Agricultural drying and dehydrating operations; (c) Any category of stationary source that includes an emissions unit subject to a new source performance standard (NSPS) under 40 CFR Part 60, other than Subpart AAA (Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters); (d) Any stationary source , that includes an emissions unit subject to a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under 40 CFR Part 61, other than: (i) Subpart M (National Emission Standard for Asbestos); or (ii) Sources or emission units emitting only radionuclides, which are required to obtain a license under WAC 246-247-060, and are subject to 40 CFR Part 61, subparts H and/or I, and that are not subject to any othe r part of 40 CFR 61, 62 or 63, or any other parts of this section; (e) Any source , or emissions unit subject to a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard) under 40 CFR Part 63; (f) Any source , stationary source or emission unit with an emission rate of one or more pollutants equal to or greater than an "emission threshold" defined in WAC 173-400-030 ; (g) Asphalt and asphalt pr oducts production facilities; (h) Brick and clay manufacturing pl ants, including tiles and ceramics; (i) Casting facilities and f oundries, ferrous and nonferrous; (j) Cattle feedlots with ope rational facilities which have an inventory of one thousand or more cattle in operation between June 1 and October 1, where vegetation forage growth is not sustained over the majority of the lot during the normal growing season; (k) Chemical manufacturing plants; (l) Composting operations, including comme rcial, industrial and municipal, but exempting residential composting activities; (m) Concrete product manufacturers and r eady mix and premix concrete plants; (n) Crematoria or animal carcass incinerators ; (o) Dry cleaning plants; (p) Materials handling and transfer facilities that generate fine particulate, which may include pneumatic conveying, cyclones, baghous es, and industrial hous ekeeping vacuuming systems that exhaust to the atmosphere; (q) Flexible vinyl and urethane coating and prin ting operations; (r) Grain, seed, animal f eed, legume, and flour processing operations, and handlingfacilities; (s) Hay cubers and pelletizers; (t) Hazardous waste treatmen t and disposal facilities; (u) Ink manufacturers; (v) Insulation fiber manufacturers; (w) Landfills, active and inact ive, including covers, gas coll ections systems or flares; (x) Metal plating a nd anodizing operations; (y) Metallic and nonmetallic mineral proces sing plants, including rock crushing plants; (z) Mills such as lumber, plywood, shake, shingle, w oodchip, veneer operations, dry kilns, pulpwood insulating board, or any combination thereof; (aa) Mineralogical processing plants; (bb) Other metallurgical processing plants; (cc) Paper manufacturers; (dd) Petroleum refineries; (ee) Petroleum produc t blending operations; (ff) Plastics and fiberglass produc t fabrication facilities; (gg) Rendering plants; (hh) Soil and ground water remediation projects; (ii) Surface coating manufacturers; (jj) Surface coating operations including: Au tomotive, metal, cans, pressure sensitive tape, labels, coils, wood, plastic, rubber , glass, paper and other substrates; (kk) Synthetic fiber production facilities; (ll) Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industries; (mm) Tire recapping facilities; (nn) Wastewater treatment plants; (oo) Any source that has elected to opt-out of th e operating permit program by limiting its potential-to-emit (synthetic minor) or is required to report periodically to demonstrate nonapplicability to EPA requirements under Sections 111 or 112 of Federal Clean Air Act. (2) Equipment classification list. In counties without a local authority , the owner or operator of the following e quipment shall register the source with ecology : (a) Boilers, all solid and liquid fuel burni ng boilers with the excep tion of those utilized for residential heating; (b) Boilers, all gas fired boilers above 10 million British thermal units per hour input; (c) Chemical concentration evaporators; (d) Degreasers of the cold or vapor type in which more than five percent of the solvent iscomprised of halogens or such aromatic hydro carbons as benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene or xylene; (e) Ethylene oxide (ETO) sterilizers; (f) Flares utilized to combust any gaseous material; (g) Fuel burning equipment with a heat inpu t of more than 1 million Btu per hour; except heating, air conditioning systems, or ventilating systems not de signed to remove contaminants generated by or released from equipment; (h) Incinerators designed for a capacity of one hundred pounds per hour or more; (i) Ovens, burn-out and heat-treat; (j) Stationary internal com bustion engines and turbines ra ted at five hundred horsepower

or more; (k) Storage tanks for organic liquids associat ed with commercial or industrial facilities with capacities equal to or greater than 40,000 gallons; (l) Vapor collection syst ems within commercial or industrial facilities; (m) Waste oil burners above 0.5 mm Btu heat output; (n) Woodwaste incinerators ; (o) Commercial and industrial solid wa ste incineration units subject to WAC 173-400- 050(4); (p) Small municipal waste combusti on units subject to WAC 173-400-050(5).

WAC 173-400-102 Scope of registration and reporting requirements. (1) Administrative options. A source in a listed source category that is located in a county without an active local authority will be addressed in one of several ways: (a) The source will be required to register and report once each year. The criteria for identifying these sources are listed in subsection (2) of this section. (b) The source will be required to regist er and report once every three years. The criteria for identifying these sources are listed in subsection (3) of this section. (c) The source will be exempted from registration program requirements. The criteria for identifying these sources are listed in subsection (4) of this section. (2) Sources requiring annual reg istration and inspections. An owner or operator of a

source in a listed source category that meets any of the followi ng criteria shall register and report once each year: (a) The source emits one or more air pollutants at rates greater than the " emission threshold" rates defined in WAC 173-400-030 ; (b) Annual registration and reporting is nece ssary to comply with federal reporting requirements or emission standards ; or (c) Annual registration and reporting is required in a reasonably available control technology determination for the source category ; or(d) The director of ecology determines that the source poses a potential threat to human health and the environment. (3) Sources requiring periodic registration and inspections. An owner or operator of

a source in a listed source category that meets any of the followi ng criteria shall register and report once every three years: (a) The source emits one or more air pollutants at rates greater than the emission rates listed in subsection (5) of this section and all air pollutants at rates less than the " emission threshold" rates defined in WAC 173-400-030 ; or (b) The source emits measurable amounts of on e or more Class A or Class B toxic air pollutants listed in WAC 173-460-150 and 173-460-160. (4) Sources exempt from registration program requirements. Any source included in a listed source category that is located in a count y without an act ive local air authority shall not be required to register if ecology determines the following: (a) The source emits pollutants below emission rates specified in subsection (5) of this section; and (b) The source or emission unit does not emit measurable am ounts of Class A or Class B toxic air pollutants specified in WAC 173-460-150 and 173-460-160. (5) Criteria for defining exempt sources. The following emission rates will be used to identify listed sources that are exempt from registration program requirements:

Pollutant Tons/Yea

r

Carbon Monoxide 5.0
Nitrogen oxides 2.0

Sulfur dioxide 2.0

Particulate Matter (PM) 1.25

Fine Particulate (PM10) 0.75
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 2.0

Lead 0.005

WAC 173-400-104 Registration fees. (1) Registration fee determination. In counties without an active local air pollu tion control authority, ecology sh all establish registration fees based on workload using the process outlined below. The fees collected shall be sufficient to cover the direct and indirect costs of administering the regi stration program within ecology's jurisdiction. (2) Budget preparation. Ecology shall conduct a workload analysis projecting resource requirements for administering th e registration program. Workload estimates shall be preparedon a biennial basis and shall estimate the reso urces required to perform registration program activities listed in WAC 173-400- 099(2). Ecology shall prepare a budget for administering the registration program using workload estimates identified in the workload analysis for the biennium. (3) Registration fee schedule. Ecology's registration program budget shall be distributed to sources located in its jurisdiction according to the following: (a) Sources requiring periodic registration and inspections sh all pay an annual registration fee of four hundred dollars. (b) Sources requiring annual registration and inspections shall pay a registration fee comprised of the following three components: (i) Flat component. This portion of a s ource's fee shall be calculated by the equal division of thirty-five percent of the budget amount allocated to annual registration sources by the total number of sources requiring annual registration. (ii) Complexity component. Each source is assigned a complexity rating of 1, 3, or 5 which is based on the estimated amount of time n eeded to review and inspect the source. This portion of the fee is calculat ed by dividing forty percent of the budget amount allocated to annually registered sources by the total complexity of sources located in ecology's jurisdiction. The quotient is then multiplied by an individual source's complexity rating to determine that source's complexity portion of the fee. (iii) Emissions component. This portion of a source's fee is calculated by dividing twenty-five percent of the budget amount allocated to annuall y registered sources by the total billable emissions from those sources. The quotient is then multiplied by an individual source's billable emissions to determine that source's em issions portion of the fee. Billable emissions include all air pollutants except carbon m onoxide and total suspended particulate. (4) Regulatory orders. Owner s or operators registering a source as a synthetic minor must obtain a regulatory order which limits the source's emissions. The owner will be required to pay a fee based on the amount of time required to research and write the order multiplied by an hourly rate of sixty dollars. (5) Fee reductions for pollution prevention initiatives. Ecology may reduce registration fees for an individual source if that source demonstrates the use of approved pollution prevention measures or best management practic es beyond those required of the source. (6) Fee reductions for economic hardships. If a small business owner believes the registration fee results in an extreme economic hardship, the sm all business owner may request an extreme hardship fee reduction. The owner or operator must provide sufficient evidence to support a claim of an extreme hardship. The f actors which ecology may consider in determining whether an owner or operator has special economic circumstances and in setting the extreme hardship fee include: Annual sales; labor force size; market conditions wh ich affect the owner's or operator's ability to pass the cost of the re gistration fee through to customers; average annual profits, and cumulative effects of multiple site ownership. In no case will a registration fee be reduced below two hundred dollars. (7) Fee payments. Fees specified in this secti on shall be paid within thirty days of receipt of ecology's billing statement. All fees collected under this regulation sha ll be made payable to the Washington department of ecology. A late fee su rcharge of fifty dollars or ten percent of thefee, whichever is more, may be assessed for a ny fee not received afte r the thirty-day period. (8) Dedicated account. All registration fees collected by ecology shall be deposited in the air pollution control account. (9) Tracking revenues, time, and expenditure s. Ecology shall track revenues collected under this subsection on a source -specific basis. Ecology sha ll track time and expenditures on the basis of ecology budget functions. (10) Additional registration fee for fossil fu eled electric generating facilities. A fossil fueled electric generating facility subject to the provisions of ch apter 80.70 RCW and RCW 70.94.892, is subject to additional fe es pursuant to that chapter.

WAC 173-400-105 Records, monitoring, and reporting. The owner or operator of a

source shall upon notification by the director of ecology , maintain records on the type and quantity of emissions from the source and other information deemed necessary to determine whether the source is in compliance with applicable emission limitations and control measures. (1) Emission inventory. The owner(s ) or operator(s) of any air contaminant source shall submit an inventory of emissions from the source each year. The inventory will include stack and fugitive emissions of particulate matter

, PM-10 , PM-2.5, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, total reduced sulfur compounds (TRS) , fluorides, lead, VOCs, ammonia, and other contaminants. The format for the submittal of these inventories will be specified by the permitting authority or ecol ogy. When submittal of emission inventory information is requested, the emissions inventory shall be submitted no later than one hundred five days after the end of the calendar year. Th e owner(s) or operator(s) shall maintain records of information necessary to substantiate any reported emissions , consistent with the averaging times for the applicable standards. Emissions estimates used in the inventory may be based on the most recent published EPA emission factor s for a source category, or other information available to the owner(s) or operator(s) which ever is the better estimate. (2) Monitoring. Ecology shall conduct a con tinuous surveillance program to monitor the quality of the ambient atmosphere as to concentrations and movements of air contaminants . As a part of this program, the director of ecology or an authorized representative may require any

source under the jurisdiction of ecology to conduct stack and/or ambient air monitoring and to report the results to ecology

. (3) Investigation of conditions. Upon presentation of appr opriate credentials, for the purpose of investigating conditions specific to the control, recove ry, or release of air contaminants into the atmosphere, personnel from ecology or an authority shall have the power to enter at reasonable times upon any private or public property, excepting nonmultiple unit private dwellings hous ing one or two families. (4) Source testing. To demonstrate compliance, ecology or the authority may conduct or require that a test be conducted of the source using approved EPA methods from 40 CFR parts 51, 60, 61 and 63 (in effect on July 1, 2004 ), or procedures contained in " Source Test Manual - Procedures for Compliance Testing," state of Washington, department of ecology , as of July 12, 1990, on file at ecology . The operator of a source may be required to provide the necessary platform and sampling ports for ecology personnel or others to perform a test of an emissions unit

. Ecology shall be allowed to obtain a sample from any emissions unit . The operator of the source shall be given an opportunity to obs erve the sampling and to obtain asample at the same time. (5) Continuous monitoring and recording. Owners and operators of the following categories of sources shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate equipment for continuously monitoring and recording those emissions specified. (a) Fossil fuel-fired steam generators. (i) Opacity , except where: (A) Steam generator capacity is less than two hundred fifty million BTU per hour heat input; or (B) Only gaseous fuel is burned. (ii) Sulfur dioxide, except where steam gene rator capacity is less than two hundred fifty million BTU per hour heat input or if sulfur dioxide control equipment is not required. (iii) Percent oxygen or carbon dioxide where such measurements are necessary for the conversion of sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring data. (iv) General exception. Thes e requirements do not apply to a fossil fuel-fired steam generator with an annual average capacity factor of less than thirty percent, as reported to the Federal Power Commission for calendar year 1974, or as otherwise demonstrated to ecology or the authority by the owner(s) or operator(s). (b) Sulfuric acid plants. Sulfur dioxide where producti on capacity is more than three hundred tons per day, expressed as one hundred pe rcent acid, except for those facilities where conversion to sulfuric acid is utilized primarily as a means of preventing emissions to the atmosphere of sulfur dioxide or other sulfur compounds. (c) Fluid bed catalytic cracking units catalys t regenerators at petroleum refineries. Opacity where fresh feed capacity is more than twenty thousand barrels per day. (d) Wood residue fuel-fired steam generators. (i) Opacity , except where steam generator capacity is less than one hundred million BTU per hour heat input. (ii) Continuous monitoring equipment. The requirements of (e) of this subsection do not apply to wood residue fuel-fired steam gene rators, but continuous monitoring equipment required by (d) of this subsection shall be subject to approval by ecology

. (e) Owners and operators of those sources required to instal l continuous monitoring equipment under this subsection shall demonstrate to ecology or the authority , compliance with the equipment and performance specifications an d observe the reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P, Sections 3, 4 and 5 (in effect on July 1, 2004 ). (f) Special considerations. If for reas on of physical plant limitations or extreme economic situations, ecology determines that continuous m onitoring is not a reasonable requirement, alternative monitoring and reporting pr ocedures will be established on an individual basis. These will generally take the form of stack tests conducted at a frequency sufficient to establish the emission levels over time and to monito r deviations in these levels. (g) Exemptions. This subsection (5) doe s not apply to any equipment subject to continuous emissions monitoring requirement im posed by standard or requirement under 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 62, 63, or 75 or a permitting author ity's adoption by reference of such federalstandards

. (h) Monitoring system malfunctions. A source may be temporarily exempted from the monitoring and reporting requirements of this ch apter during periods of monitoring system malfunctions provided that the source owner(s) or operator(s) shows to the satisfaction of the permitting authority that the malfunction was unavoidable an d is being repaired as expeditiously as practicable. (6) Change in raw materials or fuels for sources not subject to requirements of the operating permit program. Any change or series of changes in raw material or fuel which will result in a cumulative increase in emissions of sulfur dioxide of forty tons per year or more over that stated in the initial inve ntory required by subsection (1) of this section shall require the submittal of sufficient information to ecology or the authority to determine the effect of the increase upon ambient concentrations of sulfur dioxide. Ecology or the authority may issue regulatory orders requiring controls to reduc e the effect of such increases. Cumulative changes in raw material or fuel of less than 0.5 percent increase in average annual sulfur content over the initial inventory shall not require such notice. (7) No person shall make any false material statemen t, representation or certification in any form, notice or report required under chapter 70.94 or 70.120 RCW, or any ordinance, resolution, regulation, permit or order in force pursuant thereto. (8) No person shall render inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under chapter 70.94 or 70.120 RCW, or any ordina nce, resolution, regul ation, permit, or order in force pursuant thereto.



# We are retaining the language in 107 that is in the current rule

WAC 173-400-107 Excess emissions. (1) The owner or operator of a source shall have the burden of proving to ecology or the authority or the deci sion-making authority in an enforcement action that excess emissions were unavoidable. This demonstration shall be a condition to obtaining relief under subsecti ons (4), (5) and (6) of this section.

(2) Excess emissions determined to be una voidable under the procedures and criteria in this section shall be excused and not subject to penalty.

(3) Excess emissions which represent a potentia l threat to human health or safety or which the owner or operator of the source believes to be unavoidable shall be repor ted to ecology or the authority as soon as possible. Other excess emissi ons shall be reported within thirty days after the end of the month during which the event oc curred or as part of the routine emission monitoring reports. Upon request by ecology or the authority, the owner(s) or operator(s) of the source(s) shall submit a full wr itten report including the known causes, the corrective actions taken, and the preventive measures to be taken to minimize or eliminate the chance ofrecurrence.

(4) Excess emissions due to startup or shutdown conditions shall be considered unavoidable provided the source reports as required under subsection (3) of this section and adequately demonstrates that the excess emissions could not have been prevented through careful planning and design and if a bypass of control equipment o ccurs, that such bypass is necessary to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage.

(5) Maintenance. Excess emissions due to scheduled maintenance shall be considered unavoidable if the source reports as required under subsection (3) of this section and adequately demonstrates that the excess emissions could not have been avoided through reasonable design, better scheduling for maintenance or through be tter operation and maintenance practices.

(6) Excess emissions due to upsets shall be considered unavoida ble provided the source reports as required under subsection (3) of this section and adequately demonstrates that:

(a) The event was not caused by poor or inadequate design, operation, maintenance, or any other reasonably pr eventable condition;

(b) The event was not of a recurring pa ttern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and

(c) The operator took immediate and appropr iate corrective action in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practic e for minimizing emissions during the event, taking into account the total emissions impact of the corr ective action, including sl owing or shutting down the emission unit as necessary to minimize emi ssions, when the operator knew or should have known that an emission standard or permit condition was being exceeded.

WAC 173-400-110 New source review (NSR). In lieu of filing a notice of construction application under this section, th e owner or operator may apply for coverage under an applicable general order of approval issu ed under WAC 173-400-560. Covera ge under a general order of approval satisfies the requirement for new source review under RCW 70.94.152. (1) Applicability. (a) This section, WAC 173-400-112 and 173-400- 113 apply statewide except where an authority has adopted its own new source review rule. (b) This section applies to sources as de fined in RCW 70.94.030(21), but does not include nonroad engines. Non-Road engine s are regulated un der WAC 173-400-035. (2) Projects subject to NSR - notice of construction application. (a) A notice of construction application must be filed by the owner or operator and an order of approval issued by the permitting authority prior to the establishm ent of any new source, except for the following: (i) Those sources exempt under subsection (4) or (5 ) of this section; and (ii) A source regulat ed under WAC 173-400-035. For purposes of this section "establishment " shall mean to begin actual construction, asthat term is defined in WAC 173-400-030, and "new source" shall in clude any modification to an existing stationary source, as defined in WAC 173-400-030. (b) Regardless of any other s ubsection of this section, a notic e of construction application must be filed and an order of approval issued by the permitting authority prior to establishment of any of the following new sources: (i) Any project that qualifies as constr uction, reconstruction or modification of an affected facility, within the meaning of 40 CFR Part 60 (New Source Performance Standards)

, except Part AAA, Wood stoves (i n effect on February 20, 2001); (ii) Any project that qualifies as a new or modified source within the meaning of 40 CFR 61.02 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) (in effect on July 1, 2004 ), except for asbestos demolition and renov ation projects subject to 40 CFR 61.145, and except from sources or emission units emitting on ly radionuclides, which are required to obtain a license under WAC 246-247-060, and are subject to 40 CFR Part 61, subparts H and/or I ; (iii) Any project that qualifies as a new source within the meaning of 40 CFR 63.2 (National Emission Standards for Hazard ous Air Pollutants for Source Categories) (in effect on July 1, 2004 ); (iv) Any project that qualifies as a new major stationary source , or a major modification to a major stationary source subject to the requirements of WAC 173-400-112 ; (v) Any modification to a stationary source that requires an increase either in a plantwide cap or in a unit specific emission limit

. (c) An applicant filing a notice of construction application for a project described in WAC 173-400-117(2), Special pr otection requirements for Class I areas , must send a copy of the application to the responsible federal land manager

. (3) Modifications. New source review of a modification shall be limited to the emission unit or units proposed to be added to an existing source or modified and the air contaminants whose emissions would increase as a result of the modification ; provided, however, that review of a major modification must comply with WAC 173-400-112 and/or 173-400-720 , as applicable. (4) Emission unit and activity exemptions. Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, establishment of a new emission unit that falls within one of the categories listed below is exempt from new source review. Modification of any emission unit listed below is exempt from new source review, provided that the modified unit continues to fall within one of the listed categories. The installation or modification of a unit exempt under this subsect ion does not require the filing of a notice of construction application

. (a) Maintenance/construction: (i) Cleaning and sweeping of streets and paved surfaces; (ii) Concrete applica tion, and installation; (iii) Dredging wet spoils handling and placement; (iv) Paving application and main tenance, excluding asphalt plants; (v) Plant maintenance and upkeep activities (g rounds keeping, gene ral repairs, routinehouse keeping, routine plant painting, welding, cutting, brazing, soldering, plumbing, retarring roofs, etc.); (vi) Plumbing installation, plumbing protec tive coating application and maintenance activities; (vii) Roofing application; (viii) Insulation application and main tenance, excluding products for resale; (ix) Janitorial services and consumer use of janitorial products. (b) Storage tanks:

Note: It can be difficult to determine requirements for storage tanks. Ecology strongly recommends that an owner or operator contact the permitting authority to determine the exemption status of st orage tanks prior to their installation.

(i) Lubricating oil storage ta nks except those facilities that are wholesale or retail distributors of lubricating oils; (ii) Polymer tanks and storage devices a nd associated pumping and handling equipment, used for solids dewatering and flocculation; (iii) Storage tanks, reservoirs, pumping and handling equipment of any size containing soaps, vegetable oil, grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aq ueous salt solutions; (iv) Process and white water storage tanks; (v) Operation, loading and unloading of stor age tanks and storage ve ssels, with lids or other appropriate closure and less than 260 gallon capacity (35 cft); (vi) Operation, loading a nd unloading of storage tanks,

 1100 gallon capacity, with lids or other appropriate closure, not for use with materials containing toxi c air pollutants, as defined in chapter 173-460 WAC, max. VP 550 mm Hg @21C; (vii) Operation, loading and unloading storage of butane, propane, or liquefied petroleum gas with a vessel capacity less than 40,000 gallons; (viii) Tanks, vessels and pump ing equipment, with lids or other appropriate closure for storage or dispensing of aqueous solutions of inorganic salt s, bases and acids. (c) A project with combined aggregate heat inputs of combustion units,

 all of the following: (i)

 500,000 Btu/hr using coal with

 0.5% sulfur or other fuels with

 0.5% sulfur; (ii)

 500,000 Btu/hr used oil, per th e requirements of RCW 70.94.610; (iii)

 400,000 Btu/hr wood waste or paper; (iv) < 1,000,000 Btu/hr using kerose ne, #1, or #2 fuel oil and with

 0.05% sulfur; (v)

 4,000,000 Btu/hr using natural gas, propane, or LPG. (d) Material handling: (i) Continuous digester chip feeders; (ii) Grain elevators not licen sed as warehouses or dealers by either the Washington statedepartment of agriculture or the U.S. Department of Agriculture; (iii) Storage and handling of water based lubricants for metal working where organic content of the lubricant is

 10%; (iv) Equipment used exclusively to pu mp, load, unload, or store high boiling point organic material in tanks less than one million gallon, material with in itial atmospheric boiling point not less than 150C or vapor pressure not more than 5 mm Hg @21C, with lids or other appropriate closure. (e) Water treatment: (i) Septic sewer systems, not including active wastewater treatment facilities; (ii) NPDES permitted ponds and lagoons used solely for the purpose of settling suspended solids and skimming of oil and grease; (iii) De-aeration (oxygen scav enging) of water where toxic air pollutants as defined in chapter 173-460 WAC are not emitted; (iv) Process water filtration sy stem and demineralizer vents; (v) Sewer manholes, junction boxes, sumps and lift stations associated with wastewater treatment systems; (vi) Demineralizer tanks; (vii) Alum tanks; (viii) Clean water condensate tanks. (f) Environmental chambers and laboratory equipment: (i) Environmental chambers and humidity chambers not using toxic air pollutant gases, as regulated under chapter 173-460 WAC; (ii) Gas cabinets using only gases that are not toxic air pollutants regulated under chapter 173-460 WAC; (iii) Installation or modification of a single laboratory fume hood; (iv) Laboratory calibration and maintenance equipment. (g) Monitoring/quality assurance/testing: (i) Equipment and instrumentation used fo r quality control/assurance or inspection

purpose; (ii) Hydraulic and hydrostatic testing equipment; (iii) Sample gathering, pr eparation and management; (iv) Vents from continuous emission monitors and ot her analyzers. (h) Miscellaneous: (i) Single-family re sidences and duplexes; (ii) Plastic pipe welding; (iii) Primary agricultural production activ ities including soil preparation, planting, fertilizing, weed and pest control, and harvesting;(iv) Comfort air conditioning; (v) Flares used to indicate danger to the public; (vi) Natural and forced air vents and stacks for bathroom/toilet activities; (vii) Personal care activities; (viii) Recreational fireplaces including the use of barbecues, campfires, and ceremonial fires; (ix) Tobacco smoking rooms and areas; (x) Noncommercial smokehouses; (xi) Blacksmith forges for single forges; (xii) Vehicle maintenance activities, not including vehicle surface coating; (xiii) Vehicle or equipment washing (see (c) of this subsection for threshold for boilers); (xiv) Wax application; (xv) Oxygen, nitrogen, or rare gas extr action and liquefaction equipment not including internal and external combustion equipment; (xvi) Ozone generators and ozonation equipment; (xvii) Solar simulators; (xviii) Ultraviolet curing pr ocesses, to the extent that toxic air pollutant gases as defined in chapter 173-460 WAC are not emitted; (xix) Electrical circuit breakers, transfor mers, or switching equipment installation or operation; (xx) Pulse capacitors; (xxi) Pneumatically operated equipment, including tools and hand held applicator equipment for hot melt adhesives; (xxii) Fire suppression equipment; (xxiii) Recovery boiler blow-down tank; (xxiv) Screw press vents; (xxv) Drop hammers or hydraulic pre sses for forging or metal working; (xxvi) Production of foundry sand molds, unhe ated and using binders less than 0.25% free phenol by sand weight; (xxvii) Kraft lime mud storag e tanks and process vessels; (xxviii) Lime grits washer s, filters and handling; (xxix) Lime mud filtrate tanks; (xxx) Lime mud water; (xxxi) Stock cleaning and pressurized pulp washing down process of the brown stock washer;(xxxii) Natural gas pressure regulator vent s, excluding venting at oil and gas production facilities and transportation marketing facilities; (xxxiii) Nontoxic air pollutant, as defined in chapter 173-460 WAC, solvent cleaners less than 10 square feet air-vapor interface with solvent vapor pressure not more than 30 mm Hg @21C; (xxxiv) Surface coating, aqueous solution or suspension containing

 1% (by weight) VOCs, and/or toxic air pollutants as defined in chapter 173-460 WAC; (xxxv) Cleaning and stripping activities and equipment using solutions having

 1% VOCs (by weight); on metallic substanc es, acid solutions are not exempt; (xxxvi) Dip coating operations, using materi als less than 1% VOCs (by weight) and/or toxic air pollutants as de fined in chapter 173-460 WAC. (5) Exemptions based on emissions. (a) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section and in this subsection: (i) A new emissions unit that has a potential to emit below each of the levels listed in the table contained in (d) of th is subsection is exempt from new source review provided that the conditions of (b) of this subsection are met. (ii) A modification to an existing emissions unit that increases the unit's actual emissions by less than each of the thre shold levels listed in the ta ble contained in (d) of this subsection is exempt from new source review provided that the conditions of (b) of this subsection are met. (b) The owner or operator seek ing to exempt a project from new source review under this section shall notify, and upon request, file a brief project summary with the permitting authority prior to beginning actual construction on the project. If the permitting authority determines that the project wi ll have more than a de m inimus impact on air quality, the permitting authority may require the filing of a notice of construction application . The permitting authority may require the owner or oper ator to demonstrate that the emissions increase from the new emissions unit is smaller than all of the levels listed below. (c) The owner/operator may begin actual construction on the project thirty-one days after the permitting authority receives the summary, unless the permitting authority notifies the owner/operator within thirty days that the proposed new source requires a notice of construction application

. (d) Exemption level table:

POLLUTANT LEVEL ( TONS

PER YEAR )

(a) Total Suspended Particulates 1.25 (b) PM-10 0.75(c) Sulfur Oxides 2.0
(d) Nitrogen Oxides 2.0
(e) Volatile Organic Compounds, total 2.0

(f) Carbon Monoxide 5.0
(g) Lead 0.005
(h) Ozone Depleting Substances 1.0
(in effect on July 1, 2000), total

(i) Toxic Air Pollutants As specified in chapter 173-460 WAC.

(6) Application processing - completeness determination. (a) Within thirty days after receiving a notice of construction application , the permitting authority shall either notify the applicant in writing that the application is complete or notify the applicant in writing of all add itional information necessary to complete the application. (b) For a project subject to the Special protection requirements for federal Class I areas in WAC 173-400-117(2), a completeness determin ation includes a determination that the application includes all information required fo r review of that pr oject under WAC 173-400- 117(3). (7) Final determination. (a) Within sixty days of receipt of a complete notice of construction application

, the permitting authority shall either issue a final decision on the application or for those projects subject to public noti ce under WAC 173-400-171(1), initiate notice and comment on a proposed decision, followed as promptly as possible by a final decision. (b) A person seeking approval to construct or modify a source that requires an operating permit may elect to integrate re view of the operating permit app lication or amendment required under chapter 173-401 WAC and the notice of construction application required by this section. A notice of construction application designated for integrat ed review shall be processed in accordance with opera ting permit program procedures and deadlines in chapter 173- 401 WAC and must also co mply with WAC 173-400-171

. (c) Every final determination on a notice of construction applicati on shall be reviewed and signed prior to issuance by a professional engin eer or staff under the direct supervision of a professional engineer in the employ of the permitting authority

. (d) If the new source is a major stationary source or the change is a major modification subject to the requirements of WAC 173-400-112 , the permitting authority shall: (i) Submit any control technology de termination included in a final order of approvalfor a major source or a major modification to a major stationary source in a nonattainment area to the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse maintained by EPA ; and (ii) Send a copy of the final approval order to EPA. (8) Appeals. A ny conditions contained in an order of approval , or the denial of a notice of construction application may be appealed to the pollution control hearings board as provided in chapter 43.21B RCW. The permitting authority shall promptly mail copies of each order approving or denying a notice of construction application to the applicant and to any other party who submitted timely comments on the applic ation, along with a noti ce advising parties of their rights of appeal to the pollution control hearings board. (9) Construction time limitations. Approval to construct or modify a stationary source becomes invalid if th e applicant does not begin construction within ei ghteen months after receipt of the approval, if construction is discontinued for a period of eighteen months or more, or if construction is not completed within a reasonable time. The permitting authority may extend the eighteen-month period upon a sa tisfactory showing that an ex tension is justified. The extension of a project that is e ither a major stationary source in a nonattainment area or a major modification in a nonattainment area must also re quire LAER as it exists at the time of the extension. This provision does not apply to the time period be tween construction of the approved phases of a phased construc tion project. Each phase must commence construction within eighteen months of the projec ted and approved commence construction date. (10) Change of conditions. (a) The owner or operator may request, at any time, a change in conditions of an approval order and the permitting authority may approve the re quest provided the permitting authority finds that: (i) The change in condi tions will not cause the source to exceed an emissions standard ; (ii) No ambient air quality standard will be exceeded as a result of the change; (iii) The change will not adversely impact the ability of ecology or the authority to determine compliance with an emissions standard ; (iv) The revised order will continue to require BACT , as defined at the time of the original approval, for each new source approved by the order except where the Federal Clean Air Act requires LAER ; and (v) The revised order meets the re quirements of WAC 173-400-110, 173-400-112, 173- 400-113 and 173-400-720 , as applicable. (b) Actions taken under this subsection are s ubject to the public i nvolvement provisions of WAC 173-400-171. (c) This rule does not prescribe the exact form such requests must ta ke. However, if the request is filed as a notice of construction application , that application must be acted upon using the timelines found in subsections (6) and (7) of this section. The fee schedule found in WAC 173-400-116 shall also apply to requests filed as notice of construction applications

. (11) Enforcement. All persons who receive an order of approval must comply with all approval conditions contained in the order of approval.WAC 173-400-112 Requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas. (1) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: (a) "Major modification," for the purposes of WAC 173-400-112, means any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Federal Clean Air Act

. (i) Any net emissions increase that is considered significant for volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides shall be considered significant for ozone. (ii) A physical change or change in the method of operation shall not include: (A) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement; (B) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an order under section 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (or any superseding legislation) or by reason of a natural gas curtailment plan purs uant to the Federal Power Act; (C) Use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under se ction 125 of the Federal Clean Air Act ; (D) Use of an alternative fuel at a steam ge nerating unit to the extent that the fuel is generated from municipal solid wa ste; (E) Use of an alternat ive fuel or raw material by a

source which: (I) The source was capable of accommodating before December 21, 1976, unless such change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit or approval order condition which was established after D ecember 12, 1976, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or a SIP approved new source review regulation; or (II) The source is approved to use under any permit or approval order issued under WAC 173-400-112; (iii) An increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate, unless such change is prohibited under any federally enforceable permit or approval order condition which was established after December 21, 1976 , pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or a SIP approved new source review regulation. (iv) Any change in ownership at a source

. (v) The addition, replacement, or use of a pollution control project (as defined in 40 CFR 51.165 (a)(1)(xxv), in effect on July 1, 2001) at an existing electric utility steam generating unit, unless the permitting authority determines that such addition, replacement, or use renders the unit less environmentally beneficial, or except: (A) When the permitting authority has reason to believe th at the pollution control project would result in a significant net emissions increase in representative actual annual emissions of any criteria pollutant over levels used for that source in the most recent air quality impact analysis in the area conducte d for the purpose of title I of the Federal Clean Air Act , if any; and (B) The permitting authority determines that the increase will cause or contribute to aviolation of any National Ambient Ai r Quality Standard or PSD increment, or visibility limitation. (vi) The installation, opera tion, cessation, or removal of a temporary clean coal technology demonstration project, provi ded that the proj ect complies with: (A) The SIP ; and (B) Other requirements necessary to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard during the project and after it is terminated. (b) "Major stationary source," for the purposes of WAC 173-400-112, means: (i) Any stationary source of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit , 100 tons per year or more of any pollu tant subject to regulation under the Federal Clean Air Act

, except that lower emissions thresholds shall apply as follows: (A) 70 tons per year of PM-10 in any "serious" nonattainment area for PM-10. (B) 50 tons per year of car bon monoxide in any "serious" nonattainment area for carbon monoxide where stationary sources contribute significantly to carbon monoxide levels in the

area. (ii) Any physical change that would occur at a stationary source not qualifying under (b)(i) of this subsection as a major stationary source, if the change would constitute a major stationary source by itself. (iii) A major stationary source that is major for volatile organic compounds or NOx shall be considered major for ozone. (iv) The fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not be included in determining for any of the purposes of this paragraph whet her it is a major stati onary source, unless the

source belongs to one of the following categories of stationary sources or the source is a major stationary source due to (b)(i)(A) or (b)(i)(B)of th is subsection: (A) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers); (B) Kraft pulp mills; (C) Portland cement plants; (D) Primary zinc smelters; (E) Iron and steel mills; (F) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants; (G) Primary copper smelters; (H) Municipal incinerators capable of char ging more than 50 tons of refuse per day; (I) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants; (J) Petroleum refineries; (K) Lime plants; (L) Phosphate rock processing plants; (M) Coke oven batteries;(N) Sulfur recovery plants; (O) Carbon black plan ts (furnace process); (P) Primary lead smelters; (Q) Fuel conversion plants; (R) Sintering plants; (S) Secondary metal production plants; (T) Chemical process plants; (U) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination th ereof) totaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input; (V) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a tota l storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels; (W) Taconite ore processing plants; (X) Glass fiber processing plants; (Y) Charcoal production plants; (Z) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input; and (AA) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act

. (c) "Net emissions increase," for the purposes of WAC 173-400-112, means: (i) The amount by which the sum of the following exceeds zero: (A) Any increase in actual emissions from a particular physical change or change in method of operation at a source ; and (B) Any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the source that are contemporaneous with the particular change and are otherwise creditable. (ii) An increase or decrease in actual emissions is contemporaneous with the increase from the particular change only if it occurs before the date that the increase from the particular change occurs. (iii) An increase or decrease in actual emissions is creditable only if: (A) It occurred no more than one year prior to the date of submittal of a complete notice of construction application for the particular change, or it has been documented by an emission reduction credit (ERC) . Any emissions increases occurring between the date of issuance of the ERC and the date when a particular change beco mes operational shall be counted against the ERC

. (B) The permitting authority has not relied on it in issuing any permit or order of approval for the source under this section or a previous SIP approved nonattainment area new

source review regulation, which order or permit is in effect when the increase in actual emissions from the particular change occurs. (iv) An increase in actual emissions is creditable only to the ex tent that the new level ofactual emissions exceeds the old level. (v) A decrease in actual emissions is creditable only to the extent that: (A) The old level of actual emissions or the old level of allowable emissions , whichever is lower, exceeds the new level of actual emissions ; (B) It is federally enforceable at and af ter the time that actual construction on the particular change begins; (C) It has approximately the same qualitati ve significance for public health and welfare as that attributed to the increas e from the particular change; and (D) The permitting authority has not relied on it in issuing any permit or order of approval under this section or a SIP approved nonattainment area new source review regulation; or the permitting authority has not relied on it in dem onstrating attainment or reasonable further progress. (vi) An increase that results from a physical change at a source occurs when the emission unit on which construction occurred becomes oper ational and begins to emit a particular pollutant. Any replacement unit that require s shakedown becomes operational only after a reasonable shakedown period, not to exceed one hundred eighty days. (d) "Significant," for purposes of WAC 173-400-112, means, in reference to a net emissions increase or the potential of a major stationary source to emit any of the following pollutants, a rate of emissions that would equal or exceed any of the following rates:

Pollutant and Emissions Rate

Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year (tpy) Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy

Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy

Volatile organic compounds: 40 tpy

Lead: 0.6 tpy

PM-10: 15 tpy

(e) "Stationary source" and "source" for the purposes of WAC 173-400-112 means any building, structure, facility or instal lation which emits or may emit a regulated NSR pollutant. A stationary source (o r source) does not include emissions resulting directly from an internal combustion engine for transportation purposes or from a nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle as defined in section 216 of the Federal Clean Air Act.” (f) "Building, structure facility or installation" means for the purposes of WAC 173- 400-112, all the pollutant-emitting activities whic h belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent pr operties, and are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control). Polluta nt-emitting activities shall be considered as part of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same major group (i.e., which have thesame two digit code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual , as amended by the 1977 supplement. (2) The permitting authority that is reviewing an application to establish a new source in a nonattainment area shall issue the order of approval if it determines that the proposed project satisfies each of the following requirements: (a) The proposed new source or modification will comply with all applicable new source performance standards

, national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

, national emission standards for hazard ous air pollutants for source categories

, emission standards adopted under chapter 70.94 RCW and, for sources regulated by an authority , the applicable emission standards of that authority

. (b) The proposed new source will employ BACT for all air contaminants , except that if the new source is a major stationary source or the proposed modification is a major modification it will achieve LAER for the air contaminants for which the area has been designated nonattainment and for which the proposed new source or modification is major

. (c) The proposed new source will not cause any ambient air quality standard to be exceeded, will not violate the requirements for reasonable further progress established by the SIP and will comply with WAC 173-400-113 (3) for all air contaminants for which the area has not been designated nonattainment

. (d) If the proposed new source is a major stationary source or the proposed modification is a major modification , the permitting authority has determined, based on review of an analysis performed by the source of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques, that the be nefits of the project si gnificantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification

. (e) If the proposed new source or the proposed modification is major for the air contaminant for which the area is designated nonattainment

, allowable emissions from the proposed new source or modification of that air contaminant are offset by reductions in actual emissions from existing sources in the nonattainment area. Emission offsets must be sufficient to ensure that total allowable emissions from existing major stationary sources in the nonattainment area

, new or modified sources which are not major stationary sources , and the proposed new or modified source will be less than total actual emissions from existing

sources (before submitting the application) so as to represent (when considered together with the nonattainment provisions of section 172 of the Federal Clean Air Act ) reasonable further progress. All offsetting emission reductions must satisfy the following requirements: (i) The proposed new level of allowable emissions of the source or emissions unit(s) providing the reduction must be le ss than the current level of actual emissions of that source or emissions unit(s) . No emission reduction can be credited for actual emissions which exceed the

current allowable emissions of the source or emissions unit(s) providing the reduction. Emission reductions imposed by local, state, or fede ral regulations, regulatory orders, or permits required by the Federal Clean Air Act , including the SIP , cannot be credited. (ii) The emission reductions must provide for a net air quality benefit. For marginal

ozone nonattainment areas , the total emissions of volatile organic compounds or total emissions of nitrogen oxides are reduced by a ratio of 1.1 to 1 for the area in which the new

source is located. For any other nonattainment area , the emissions offsets must provide a positive net air quality benefit in the nonattainment area . Determinations on whetheremissions offsets provide a positive net air quality be nefit will be made in accordance with the guidelines contained in 40 CFR 51 Appendix S (in effect on July 1, 2004 ). (iii) If the offsets are provided by another source , the reductions in emissions from that

source must be federally enforceable by the time the order of approval for the new or modified

source is effective. An emission reduction credit issued under WAC 173-400-131 may be used to satisfy some or all of the offset requirements of this subsection. (f) If the proposed new source is a major stationary source or the proposed modification is a major modification , the owner or operator ha s demonstrated that all major stationary sources owned or operated by such person (or by any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such pe rson) in Washington are subject to emission limitations and are in compliance, or on a schedul e for compliance, with all applicable emission limitations and standards under the Federal Clean Air Act , including all rules in the SIP

. (g) If the proposed new source is a major stationary source within the meaning of WAC 173-400-720 , or the proposed modification is a major modification within the meaning of WAC 173-400-720 , it meets the requirements of the PSD program in WAC 173-400-720 for all air contaminants for which the area has not been designated nonattainment

. (h) If the proposed new source or modification will emit any toxic air pollutants regulated under chapter 173-460 WAC, the source meets all applicable requirements of that chapter. (i) If the proposed new source is a major stationary source within the meaning of WAC 173-400-720 , or the proposed modification is a major modification within the meaning of WAC 173-400-720 , the project meets the s pecial protection requirements for federal Class I

areas in WAC 173-400-117.

WAC 173-400-113 Requirements for new sources in attainment or unclassifiable

areas. The permitting authority that is reviewing an a pplication to establish a new source or modification in an attainment or unclassifiable area shall issue an order of approval if it determines that the proposed project sa tisfies each of the following requirements: (1) The proposed new source or modification will comply with all applicable new source performance standards

, national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

, national emission standards for hazard ous air pollutants for source categories, emission standards adopted under chapter 70.94 RCW and, for sources regulated by an authority , the applicable emission standards of that authority

. (2) The proposed new source or modification will employ BACT for all pollutants not previously emitted or whose emissions would increase as a result of the new source or modification

. (3) Allowable emissions from the proposed new source or modification will not delay the attainment date for an area not in attainment nor cause or contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard . This requirement will be considered to be met if the projected impact of the allowable emissions from the proposed new source or the projected impact of the increase in allowable emissions from the proposed modification at any location within a nonattainment area does not exceed the following levels for the pollutants for which the area has been designated nonattainment :Pollutant Annual Average 24-Hour Average 8-Hour Average 3-Hour Average 1-Hour Average

CO-

- 0.5 mg/m 3

- 2 mg/m 3

SO 2 1.0 μg/m 3 5 μg/m 3

- 25 μg/m 3 30 μg/m 3

PM 10 1.0 μg/m 3 5 μg/m 3

- - -

NO 2 1.0 μg/m 3

- - - -

An offsetting emission reduction may be used to satisfy some or all of the requirements of this subsection. (4) If the proposed new source is a major stationary source or the proposed modification is a major modification , it meets all applicable requirements of WAC 173-400- 720 through 173-400-750

. (5) If the proposed new source or the proposed modification will emit any toxic air pollutants regulated under chapter 173- 460 WAC, the source meets all applicable requirements of that program. (6) If the proposed new source is a major stationary source or the proposed modification is a major modification , the project meets the s pecial protection requirements for federal Class I areas of WAC 173-400-117.

WAC 173-400-115 Standards of performance for new sources. NSPS. Standards of performance for new sources are called New Source Performance Standards , or NSPS

. (1) Adoption by reference. (a) 40 CFR Part 60 and Appendices in effect on July 1, 2004 , is adopted by reference. Exceptions are listed in subsection (1)(b) of this section. The following list of subparts to 40 CFR Part 60 wh ich are shown as blank or reserved in the Code of Federal Regulations as of the date listed above, is pr ovided for informational purposes only: 40 CFR Part 60, subparts FF, II, JJ, OO, YY, ZZ, CCC, EEE, MMM, XXX, YYY, ZZZ, Appendix E, and Appendix H. (b) Exceptions to adopting 40 CFR Part 60 by reference. (i) The term "administrator" in 40 CFR Part 60 includes the permitting authority

. (ii) The following sections and subparts of 40 CFR Part 60 are not adopted by reference: (A) 40 CFR 60.5 (determination of construction or modification); (B) 40 CFR 60.6 (review of plans); (C) 40 CFR Part 60, subpart B (Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities), and subparts C, Cb, Cc, Cd, Ce, BBBB, and DDDD (emi ssion guidelines); and (D) 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix G, Provi sions for an Alternative Method of Demonstrating Compliance With 40 CFR 60.43 for th e Newton Power Station of Central Illinois[ 162 ] OTS-7551.1 Public Service Company. (2) Where EPA has delegated to the permitting authority, the authority to receive reports under 40 CFR Part 60, from the affected facility in lieu of providing such report to EPA, the affected facility is required to provide such reports only to the permitting authority unless otherwise requested in writing by the permitting authority or EPA.

Note: Under RCW 80.50.020(14), larger energy facilities subject to subparts D, Da , GG, J, K, Kb, Y, KKK, LLL, and QQQ are regulated by the energy facility site evaluation council (EFSEC)

.

WAC 173-400-116 New source review fees. (1) Applicability. Every person required to submit a notice of construction application to the department of ecology as authorized in RCW 70.94.152 for establishment of any proposed new source or emissions unit(s) shall pay fees as set forth in subsections (2) and (3) of th is section. Persons requi red to submit a notice of construction application to a local air authority may be required to pay a fee as required by the local permitting authority. Persons required to submit a notice of construction application to a local air authority may be required to pay a fee to ecology to cover the costs of review pursuant to WAC 173-400-720 , second tier analysis pursuant to WAC 173-460-090, and risk management decisions pursuant to WAC 173-460-100 as set fort h in subsection (3) of this section. Fees assessed under this section shall a pply without regard to whether an order of approval is issued or denied. (2) Basic review fees. All owners or operators of pr oposed new sources are required to pay a basic review fee. The ba sic review fee covers the costs associated with preapplication assistance, completeness determination, BACT determination, technical review, public involvement and approval /denial orders . Complexity determination shall be based on the project described in the notice of construction application . The b asic review fees are either (a) or (b) below: (a) Basic new source review fees.

Source type Clarifying criteria Fee

Basic Review Fees

Low complexity

source Emissions increase of individual pollutants are all less than one-half of the levels established in the definition of "emission threshold" in WAC 173-400-030, or emissions increase of individual toxic air pollutants are all less than 2.0 tons/year $1250Moderate complexity Emissions increase of one or more individual pollutants are greater than one-half of, and less than the levels established in the definition of "emission threshold" in WAC 173- 400-030, or emissions increase of one or more toxic air pollutants are greater than 2.0 tons/year and less than ten tons/year $8000

High complexity Emissions increase of one or more pollutants are greater than the levels established in the definition of "emission threshold" in WAC 173- 400-030, or emissions increase of one or more toxic air pollutants are greater than ten tons/year $18,00 0

(b) New source review fees for specific source categories.

Source type Clarifying criteria Fee
Dry cleaners $250

Gasoline stations $250

Storage tanks

< 20,000 gallons $250

20,000 - 100,000 gallons $650

> 100,000 gallons $900

Chromic acid plating and anodizing identified in WAC 173-460-060 $250Solvent metal cleaners identified in WAC 173-460-060 $250

Abrasive blasting identified in WAC 173-460-060 $250

New emission units or activities that qualify as insignificant emission units under WAC 173-401-530 whether located at a chapter 173-401 WAC source or nonchapter 173-401 WAC source $250

Application for coverage under a general order of approval WAC 173-400- 560 and criteria included in a specific general order of approval $500

Nonroad engines

Less than a total of 500 installed horsepower $500

More than 500 horsepower and less than a total of 2000 installed horsepower $900

More than 2000 horsepower and less than a total of 5000 installed horsepower $200 0

More than 5000 horsepower and less than a total of 10,000 installed horsepower $400 0

More than a total of 10,000 installed horsepower $750 0

(c) Additional units. An owner or operator proposing to build more than one identical emission unit shall be charged a fee for the additional units equal to one-third the basic review fee of the first unit. (3) Additional charges. In addition to those fees required under subsection (2)(a) through (c) of this section, the following fees will be required as applicable: (a) Major NSR actions unde r WAC 173-400-720 and 173-400-112.[ 165 ] OTS-7551.1 Activity Clarifying criteria Fee

Prevention of significant deterioration review or increase in a PAL limitation WAC 173-400- 720 $15,000

Establishing LAER and offset requirements WAC 173-400- 112 $10,000

Establishing or renewal of clean unit status Per 40 CFR 52.21(y) $1500

Pollution control project approval Per 40 CFR 52.21(z) $1500

Establishment of a PAL Per 40 CFR 52.21(aa) $4000

Renewal of a PAL Per 40 CFR 52.21(aa) $4000

Expiration of a PAL Per 40 CFR 52.21(aa) $12,000

PSD permit revisions
All except administrative WAC 173-400- 750 $10,000

Administrative revisions WAC 173-400- 750 $1500

(b) Other actions.

Activity Fee

Tier II toxic air pollutant impact review $10,000

Tier III toxic air pollutant impact review $10,000Case-by-case MACT determinations $12,500

Fossil fueled electric generating unit Applicability criteria found in chapter 80.70 RCW Fees listed in rule implementin g RCW 70.94.892 and chapter 80.70 RCW

Changes to existing orders of approval, Tier I review, Tier II review, or other action identified above.
Activity Fee

Modification to order of approval 50% of the fee charged in WAC 173-400-116 (2)(a)

Modification of Tier II approval 50% of the fee charged in WAC 173-400-116 (2)(b)

(4) Small business fee reduction. The new source review fee identified in subsections (2) and (3) of this section may be reduced for a small business. (a) To qualify for the small business new source review fee reduction, a business must meet the requirements of "small busine ss" as defined in RCW 19.85.020. In RCW 19.85.020, "small business" means any business entity, in cluding a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or other legal ent ity, that is owned and operated independently from all other businesses, that has the purpose of making a pr ofit, and that has fift y or fewer employees. (b) To receive a fee reduction, the owner or operator of a small business must include information in the application de monstrating that the conditions of (a) of this subsection have been met. The application must be signed: (i) By an authorized corporate offi cer in the case of a corporation; (ii) By an authorized partner in the ca se of a limited or general partnership; or (iii) By the proprietor in the case of a sole proprietorship. (c) Ecology may verify the application information and if the owner or operator has made false statements, deny the fee reduction request and revoke previously granted fee reductions.(d) For small businesses determined to be eligible under (a) of this subsection, the new source review fee shall be reduced to the greater of: (i) Fifty percent of the new source review fee; or (ii) Two hundred fifty dollars. (e) If due to special economic circumstances , the fee reduction determined under (d) of this subsection imposes an extr eme hardship on a small business, the small business may request an extreme hardship fee reduction. The owner or operator must provide sufficient evidence to support a claim of an extreme hardship. The factors which ecology may consider in determining whether an owner or operator has special economic circumstances and in setting the extreme hardship fee include: Annual sales; labor force size; market conditions wh ich affect the owner's or operator's ability to pass the cost of the new source review fees through to customers; and average annual profits. In no case will a new source review fee be reduced below one hundred dollars. (5) Fee reductions for pollu tion prevention initiatives. Ecology may reduce the fees defined in subsections (2) and (3) of this sect ion where the owner or operator of the proposed

source demonstrates that approved pollution prevention measures will be used. (6) Fee payments. Fees specified in subsect ions (2) through (5) of this section shall be paid at the time a notice of construction application is submitted to the department. A notice of construction application is considered incomplete until ecology has received the appropriate

new source review payment. Additional charges asse ssed pursuant to subsection (3) of this section shall be due thirty days after r eceipt of an ecology billing statement. All fees collected under this regulation shall be made paya ble to the Washington department of ecology

. (7) Dedicated account. All new source review fees collected by the department shall be deposited in the air pol lution control account. (8) Tracking revenues, time, and expenditures. Ecology shall track revenues collected under this subsection on a source -specific basis. Ecology sha ll track time and expenditures on the basis of complexity categories. (9) Periodic review. Ecology shall review and, as appropriate , update this section at least once every two years.

WAC 173-400-117 Special protection requirement s for federal Class I areas. (1) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: (a) "Adverse impact on visibility" means visibility impairment that interferes with the management, protection, preservati on, or enjoyment of the visito r's visual experience of the federal Class I area . This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the geographic extent, inte nsity, duration, frequency, and time of visibility impairment, and how these factors correlate with: (i ) Times of visitor use of the federal Class I area ; and (ii) The frequency and timing of natu ral conditions that reduce visibility. (b) The terms “major stationary source,” “major modification” and “net emissions increase” are as provided in WAC 173-400-720.(2) Applicability. The requirements of this secti on apply to all of the following permitting actions : (a) A PSD permit application for a new major stationary source or a major modification ; or (b) Submittal of a notice of construction application for a major stationary source or a major modification to a major stationary source in a nonattainment area , as either of those terms are defined in WAC 173-400-720

. (3) Contents and distribution of application. (a) The application shall include an analysis of the anticipated impacts of the project on visibility in any federal Class I area

. (b) The applicant must mail a copy of the a pplication for the projec t and all amendments to the application to the permitting authority , EPA and to the responsible federal land
managers

. Ecology will provide a list of the names and addresses of the federal land manager

. (4) Notice to federal land manager. (a) The permitting authority shall send a copy of the comp leteness determination to the responsible federal land manager

. (b) If, prior to receiving a notice of construction application or a PSD permit application, the permitting authority receives notice of a project described in subsection (2) of this section that may affect visibility in a federal Class I area , the permitting authority shall notify the responsible federal land manager within thirty days of the notification. (5) Analysis by federal land manager. (a) The permitting authority will consider any demons tration presented by the responsible federal land manager that emissions from a proposed new major stationary

source or the net emissions increase from a proposed major modification described in subsection (2) of this section would have an adverse impact on visibility in any federal Class I

area , provided that the demonstration is received by the permitting authority within thirty days of the federal land manager's receipt of the complete application. (b) If the permitting authority concurs with the federal land manager's demonstration, the PSD permit or approval order for the project either shall be denied, or conditions shall be included in the approval order to prevent the adverse impact. (c) If the permitting authority finds that the federal land manager's analysis does not demonstrate that the pr oject will have an adverse impact on visibility in a federal Class I area

, the permitting authority either shall explain its decision in the public notice required by WAC 173-400-730 , or, in the case of public notice of proposed action on a PSD permit application, state that an explanation of the decisi on appears in the Technical Support Document for the proposed permit. (6) Additional requirements for proj ects that require a PSD permit. (a) For sources impacting federal Class I areas , the permitting authority shall provide notice to EPA of every action related to consideration of the PSD permit. (b) The permitting authority shall consider any demons tration received from the responsible federal land manager prior to the close of the public comment period on a proposedPSD permit that emissions from the proposed new major stationary source or the net emissions increase from a proposed major modification would have an adverse impact on the air quality-related values (i ncluding visibility) of any mandatory Class I federal area

. (c) If the permitting authority concurs with the demonstration, the PSD permit either shall be denied, or conditions shall be included in the PSD permit to prevent the adverse impact. (7) Additional requirements for projects located in nonattainment areas. In reviewing a PSD permit application or notice of construction application for a new major stationary source or major modification proposed for construction in an area classified as nonattainment , the permitting authority must ensure that the source's emissions will be consistent with making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility by human-caused air pollution in mandatory Class I federal areas . In determining the need for approval order conditions to meet this requirement, the permitting authority may take into account the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and nonair quality envi ronmental impacts of compliance, and the useful life of the source. (8) Monitoring. The permitting authority may require post-construction monitoring of the impact from the project. The monitoring sha ll be limited to the impact s on visibility in any federal Class I area near the proposed project.

WAC 173-400-118 Designation of Class I, II, and III areas. (1) Designation. (a) Lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations may be proposed for redesignation by an Indian Governing Body or EPA . This restriction does not apply to nontrust lands within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Indian Reservation. (b) All areas of the state must be designated either Class I , II or III. (i) The following areas are the Class I areas in Washington state: (A) Alpine Lakes Wilderness; (B) Glacier Peak Wilderness; (C) Goat Rocks Wilderness; (D) Adams Wilderness; (E) Mount Rainier National Park; (F) North Cascades National Park; (G) Olympic National Park; (H) Pasayten Wilderness; and (I) Spokane Indian Reservation. 1 (ii) All other areas of the state are Class II, but may be redesignated as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section.

1. EPA redesignated this land based on a request from the Spokane Tribal Council. See 40 CFR 52.2497 and 56 FR 14862, April 12, 1991, for details.(2) Restrictions on area classifications. (a) Except for the Spokane Indian Reservation, the Class I areas listed in subsection (1) of this section may not be redesignated. (b) Except as provided in (a) of this subs ection, the following areas that exceed 10,000 acres in size may be redesignated as Class I or II: (i) Areas in existence on August 7, 1977: (A) A national monument; (B) A national primitive area; (C) A national preserve; (D) A national wild and scenic river; (E) A national wildlife refuge; (F) A national lakeshore or seashore; or (G) A national recreation area

. (ii) Areas established after August 7, 1977: (A) A national park; (B) A national wilderness area; or (C) Areas proposed by Ecology for designation or redesignation. (3) Redesignation of area classifications. (a) Ecology shall propose the redesignation of an area classification as a revision to the SIP

. (b) Ecology may submit to EPA a proposal to redesignate areas of the state as Class I or II if: (i) Ecology followed the public involvement procedures in WAC 173-400-171; (ii) Ecology explained the reasons for the proposed redesignation, including a description and analysis of the health, envi ronmental, economic, social, a nd energy effects of the proposed redesignation; (iii) Ecology made available for public inspection at least thirty days before the hearing the explanation of the reasons for the proposed redesignation; (iv) Ecology notified other states, tr ibal governing bodies, and federal land managers (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(24)) whose lands may be affected by the proposed redesignation at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; (v) Ecology consulted with the elected leadersh ip of local governments in the area covered by the proposed redesignation be fore proposing the redesignation; and (vi) Ecology followed these procedures when a re designation includes any federal lands: (A) Ecology notified in writing the appropriate federal land manager on the proposed redesignation. Ecology allowed forty-five days for the federal land manager to confer with ecology and to submit written comments.(B) Ecology responded to any written comments from the federal land manager that were received within forty-five days of notification. Ecology's response was available to the public in advance of th e notice of the hearing. (I) Ecology sent the written comments of the federal land manager , along with ecology's response to those comments , to the public location as required in WAC 173-400-171 (2)(a). (II) If ecology disagreed with the federal land manager's written comments, ecology published a list of any inconsistency between the redesignation a nd the comments of the federal land manager , together with the reasons for making the redesignation against the recommendation of the federal land manager

. (c) Ecology may submit to EPA a proposal to redesignate any area other than an area to which subsection (1) of this se ction applies as Class III if: (i) The redesignation followed the public involvement requirements of WAC 173-400- 171 and 173-400-118(3); (ii) The redesignation has been specifica lly approved by the governor of Washington state, after consultation with the appropriate committees of the legislature if it is in session, or with the leadership of the legislature, if it is not in session; (iii) The redesignation has been approved by local governments representing a majority of the residents of the area to be redesignated. The local gover nments enacted legislation or passed resolutions concurri ng in the redesignation; (iv) The redesignation would not cause, or contribute to, a co ncentration of any air contaminant which would exceed any maximum a llowable increase permitted under the classification of any other area or any National Ambient Air Quality Standard ; and (v) A PSD permit under WAC 173-400-720 for a new major stationary source or major modification could be issued only if the area in qu estion were redesignated as Class III, and material submitted as part of that applicati on was available for public inspection prior to any public hearing on redesignation of the area as Class III.

WAC 173-400-120 Bubble rules. (1) Applicability. The ow ner(s) or operator(s) of any source(s) may apply for a bubble for any contaminan t regulated by state or federal law for which the emission requirement may be stated as an allowable limit in weight of contaminant per unit time for the emissions units involved. (2) Conditions. A bubble may be authorized provided the following conditions have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the permitting authority. (a) The contaminants exchanged must be of the same type, that is, PM 10 for PM 10 , sulfur dioxide for sulfur dioxide, etc. (b) The bubble will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. No bubble shall be authorized in a nonattainment area unless there is an EPAapproved SIP which demonstrates attainment for that area. (c) The bubble will not result in a delay in compliance by any source, nor a delay in anyexisting enforcement action. (d) The bubble will not supersede NSPS, NE SHAPS, BACT, or LAER. The emissions of hazardous contaminants shall not be increased. (e) The bubble will not result in an increase in the sum of actual emission rates of the contaminant involved from the emissions units involved. (f) A bubble may not be authorized only fo r opacity limits. However, if the emission limit for particulates for a given emissions unit is increased as part of a bubble, the opacity limit for the given emissions unit may be incr eased subject to the following limitations: (i) The new opacity limit shall be sp ecific for the given emissions unit; (ii) The new opacity limit shall be consistent with the new particulates limit; (iii) An opacity greater than sixt y percent shall never be authorized; (iv) If the given emissions unit emits or has the potential to emit one hundred tons per year or more of particulate matter, the opacity shall be monitored continuously. (g) The emission limits of the bubble are equiva lent to existing limits in enforceability. (h) Concurrent with or prior to the author ization of a bubble, each emission unit involved in a bubble shall receive or have received a regulatory order or permit that es tablishes total allowable emissions from the source for the contaminant being bubble d, expressed as weight of the contaminant per unit time. (i) There will be no net adverse impact upon air quality from the establishment of new emission requirements for a specific source or emissions unit. Determination of net adverse impact shall include but not be limited to public perception of opacity and public perception of odorous contaminants. (j) Specific situations may require additional demonstration as requested by the permitting authority. (3) Jurisdiction. Whenever a bubble applica tion involves emissions units, some of which are under the jurisdiction of an authority, approval will requ ire concurrence by both authorities. The new emission limits for each emissions unit w ill be enforced by the authority of original jurisdiction. (4) Additional information. Within thirty days, after the receipt of a bubble application and all supporting data and documentation, the permitting authority may require the submission of additional information needed to review the application. (5) Approval. Within thirty days after all the required information has been received, the permitting authority shall approve or deny the application, based on a finding that conditions in subsection (2)(a) through (j) of th is section have been satisfied or not. If the application is approved, a regulatory order or equivalent document shall be issued which includes new allowable emissions limits expressed in weight of pollutant per unit time for each emissions unit affected by the bubble. The regulatory order or equivalent docume nt shall include any conditions required to assure that subsection (2)(a) through (j) of this secti on will be satisfied. If the bubble depends in whole or in part upon the s hutdown of equipment, the regulatory order or equivalent document must prohib it operation of the affected equipment. The regulatory order establishing the bubble is subjec t to the public involvement requirements of WAC 173-400-171.[ 173 ] OTS-7551.1 WAC 173-400-131 Issuance of emission reduction credits. (1) Applicability. The owner or operator of any source may apply to the permitting authority for an emission reduction credit (ERC) if the source proposes to reduce its actual emissions rate for any contaminant regulated by state or federal law for which the emission requirement may be stated as an allowable limit in weight of contaminant per unit time for the emissions units involved. (2) Time of application. The application for an ERC must be made prior to or within one hundred eighty days after the emission reduction has been accomplished. (3) Conditions. An ERC may be authorized provided the following conditions have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the permitting authority

. (a) The quantity of emissions in the ERC shall be less than or equal to the old allowable emissions rate or the old actual emissions rate, whichever is the lesser, minus the new allowable emissions rate. (b) The ERC application must include a description of all the ch anges that are required to accomplish the claimed emissions reduction, such as, new control equipment, process modifications, limitation of hours of operation, pe rmanent shutdown of equipment, specified control practices, etc. (c) The ERC must be large enough to be read ily quantifiable relative to the source strength of the emissions unit(s) involved. (d) No part of the emission reductions claimed for credit shall have been used as part of a determination of net emission increase , nor as part of an offs etting transaction under WAC 173- 400-112 (2)(d), nor as part of a bubble transaction under WAC 173-400-120, nor to satisfy NSPS

, NESHAPS, for Source Categories

, BACT , or LAER

. (e) Concurrent with or prio r to the authorization of an ERC , the applicant shall receive (have received) a regulatory order or permit that establishes total allowable emissions from the

source or emissions unit of the contaminant for which the ERC is requested, expressed as weight of contaminant per unit time. (f) The use of any ERC shall be consistent with all other federal, state, and local requirements of the program in which it is used. (4) Additional information. Within thirty days after the receipt of an ERC application and all supporting data and documentation, the permitting authority may require the submission of additional information needed to review the application. (5) Approval. Within thirty days after all requi red information has been received, the permitting authority shall approve or deny the applicati on, based on a finding that conditions in subsection (3)(a) through (e) of th is section have been satisfied or not. If the application is approved, the permitting authority shall: (a) Issue a regulatory order or equivalent document to assure that the emissions from the source will not exceed the allowable emission rates claimed in the ERC application, expressed in weight of pollutant per unit time for each emission unit involved. The regulatory order or equivalent document sha ll include any conditions require d to assure that subsection (3)(a) through (e) of this secti on will be satisfied. If the ERC depends in whole or in part upon[ 174 ] OTS-7551.1 the shutdown of equipment, the regulatory order or equivalent document must prohibit operation of the affected equipment; and (b) Issue a certificate of emission reduction credit . The certificate shall specify the issue date, the contaminants involved, the emission decrease expressed as we ight of pollutant per unit time, the nonattainment area involved, if app licable, and the person to whom the certificate is issued.

WAC 173-400-136 Use of emission reduction credits (ERC). (1) Permissible use. An ERC may be used to satisfy the re quirements for authorization of a bubble under WAC 173- 400-120; as a part of a determination of "net emissions increase;" or as an offsetting reduction to satisfy the requirements for new source review in WAC 173- 400-112 or 173-400-113 (3)

. (2) Surrender of ERC certificate. When an ERC is used under subsection (1) of this section, the certificate for the ERC must be surrendered to the permitting authority . If only a portion of the ERC is used, the amended certificate wi ll be returned to the owner. (3) Conditions of use. (a) An ERC may be used only for the air contaminants for which it was issued. (b) The permitting authority may impose additional conditions of use to account for temporal and spatial differences between the emissions units that generated the ERC and the emissions units that use the ERC

. (4) Sale of an ERC. An ERC may be sold or otherwise transferred to a person other than the person to whom it was originally issue d. Within thirty days after the transfer of ownership, the certificate must be surrendered to the issuing authority . After receiving the certificate, the issuing authority shall reissue the certificate to the new owner. (5) Redemption period. An unused ERC expires ten years after da te of original issue. (6) Discount due to change in SIP. If reductions in emissi ons beyond those identified in the SIP are required to meet an ambient air quality standard , if the standard cannot be met through controls on operating sources, a nd if the plan must be revised, an ERC may be discounted by the permitting authority after public involvement according to WAC 173-400- 171. This discount shall not exceed the percenta ge of additional emission reduction needed to reach attainment.

WAC 173-400-151 Retrofit requirements for visibility protection. (1) The requirements of this section apply to an existing stationary facility . An "existing stationary facility" means a stationary source of air contaminants that meets all of these conditions: (a) The stationary source must have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of

any air contaminant

. Fugitive emissions , to the extent quantifiab le, must be counted in determining the potential to emit ; and (b) The stationary source was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977; and[ 175 ] OTS-7551.1 (c) Is in one of the following 26 source categories:

Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, Coke oven batteries,

Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers), Sulfur recovery plants,

Kraft pulp mills, Carbon black plants (furnace process),
Portland cement plants, Primary lead smelters,

Primary zinc smelters, Fuel conversion plants,

Iron and steel mill plants, Sintering plants,

Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, Secondary metal production facilities,
Primary copper smelters, Chemical process plants,
Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input,
Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels,

Petroleum refineries, Taconite ore processing facilities,
Lime plants, Glass fiber processing plants, and
Phosphate rock processing plants, Charcoal production facilities.

(d) For purposes of determining whether a stationary source is an existing stationary facility, the term "building, structure, facility, or installation" means all of the pollutant-emitting activities which belong to the same industrial gr ouping, are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control). Pollutant-emitting activities shall be co nsidered as part of the same major group (i.e., which have the same two digit code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972, as amended in the 1977 supplement

. (2) Ecology shall identify each existing stationary facility which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class 1 federal

area in Washington and any adjacent state.(3) For each existing stationary facility identified under subsecti on (2) of this section, ecology, in consultation with the permitting authority shall determine BART for each air contaminant of concern and any additi onal air pollution control tec hnologies that are to be required to reduce impairment from the existing stationary facility

. (4) Each existing stationary facility shall apply BART as new technology for control of the air contaminant becomes reasonably available if: (a) The existing stationary facility emits the air contaminant contributing to visibility impairment ; (b) Controls representing BART for that air contaminant have not previously been required under this section; and (c) The impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class 1 federal area is reasonably attributable to the emissions of the air contaminant.

WAC 173-400-171 Public involvement. (1) Internet notification of receipt of an application. (a) For applications and actions not subj ect to mandatory public notice and comment period per subsection (2)(a) of this sec tion, the permitting authority will either: (i) Post on the permitting authority's internet website an announcemen t of the receipt of notice of construction applications and othe r proposed actions; or (ii) Follow the public involvement process found in subsection (3 ) of this section. (b) For internet notification, notice shall remain on the perm itting authority's website for a minimum of fifteen consecutive days. The inte rnet posting shall include notice of the receipt of the application, the type of proposed action, and a statement that the public may request a public comment period on the proposed action. (c) Requests for a public comment period shall be submitted to the permitting authority in writing via letter, fax, or electr onic mail within fifteen days of its internet posting. A public notice and comment period shall be provided pursuan t to subsection (3) and (4) of this section for any application or proposed act ion that receives such a reques t. Any application or proposed action for which a public comment period is not requested may be processed without further public involvement at the end of the 15 day comment period. (d) Any application or proposed action that automatically requir es a public comment period pursuant to subsection (2) of this section or for which the agency proposes to have a public comment period does not have to be announced on the permitting authorities' internet website. (2) Actions subject to pub lic notice and comment. (a) T he permitting authority must provide public notice and a public comment period before approving or denying any of the follo wing types of applications or other actions: (i) Notice of construction application for any new or modified source , including the initial application for operation of a portable source, if an in crease in emissions of any air pollutant at a rate above the emission thresh old rate (defined in WAC 173-400-030) or anyincrease in a pollutant regulated under ch apter 173-460 WAC which will increase above the small quantity emission rate listed in WAC 173-460-080 (2)(e) would result; or (ii) Any use of a modified or substituted air quality model, other than a guideline model in Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51 (in effect on July 1, 2004 ) as part of review under WAC 173- 400-110, 173-400-112, 173-400-113, 173-400-117, or 173-400-720 ; or (iii) Any order to determine RACT ; or (iv) An order to establish a compliance sc hedule or a variance; or (v) An order to demonstrate the creditable height of a stack which exceeds the GEP formula height and sixty-five meters, by means of a fluid model or a field study, for the purposes of establishing an emission limitation ; or (vi) An order to authorize a bubble ; or (vii) Any action to discount the value of an ERC issu ed to a source per WAC 173-400- 136(6); or (viii) Any regulatory order to establish BART for an ex isting stationary facility; or (ix) Notice of construction application or regulatory order used to establish a creditable emission reduction ; (x) An order issued under WAC 173-400-091 th at establishes limitations on a source's potential to emit ; or (xi) The original issuance and the issuance of all revisions to a general order of approval issued under chapter 173-400-560 WAC. (xii) Any extension of the deadline to begi n actual construction of a “major stationary source” or “major modification” in a nonattainment area, or (xiii) Exception. PSD actions, including actions taken to avoid PSD applicability, under WAC 173-400-730 and 173-400-740 are not required to follow the proc edures in this section. The public involvement for these projects shal l follow the procedures in WAC 173-400-730(4) and 173-400-740

. (b) Ecology must provide notice on the following ecology only actions: (i) A Washington state recommendation that will be submitted by the director of ecology

to EPA for approval of a SIP revision, including plans for attainment, maintenance, and visibility protection; or (ii) A Washington state recommendation to EPA for designation or redesignation of an

area as attainment

, nonattainment , or unclassifiable ; or (iii) A Washington st ate recommendation to EPA for a change of boundaries of an attainment or nonattainment area; or (iv) A Washington st ate recommendation to EPA for redesignation of an area under WAC 173-400-118. (c) The permitting authority will provide publ ic notice before approving or denying any application or other action for which the permitti ng authority determines there is substantial public interest.(d) A notice of construction application designated for integrated review with an application to issue or modify an operating perm it shall be processed in accordance with the operating permit program procedures and deadlines. A project designated for integrated review that includes a notice of construction application for a major modification in a nonattainment area , or a notice of construction application for a major stationary source in

a nonattainment area must also comply with public noti ce requirements in this section. A project designated for integrated review that in cludes a PSD permit application must also comply with the requirements in WAC 173-400-730 and 173-400-740

. (3) Public notice. Public notice shall be made only after all information required by the permitting authority has been submitted and after applicable preliminary determinations, if any, have been made. The applicant or other initiator of the action must pay the cost of providing public notice. P ublic notice shall include: (a) Availability for public inspection. Th e information submitted by the applicant, and any applicable preliminary determ inations, including analyses of the effects on air quality, must be available for public inspection in at least one location near the proposed project. Exemptions from this requirement include information protec ted from disclosure under any applicable law, including, but not limited to, RCW 70.94.205 and chapter 173-03 WAC

. (i) For a redesignation of a class II area under WAC 173-400-118, ecology must make available for public inspection at least thirty da ys before the hearing the explanation of the reasons for the proposed redesignation. (ii) For a revision of the SIP subject to subsection (2) (b)(iii) of this section, ecology must make available for public inspection the informati on related to the action at least thirty days before the hearing. (b) Newspaper publication. Public notice of the proposed project must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the ar ea of the proposed project and must include: (i) The name and address of the owner or operator and the facility; (ii) A brief description of the proposal; (iii) The location of the documents made available for public inspection; (iv) A thirty-day period for submitting written comment to the permitting authority ; (v) A statement that a public hearing may be held if the permitting authority determines within a thirty-day period that significant public interest exists or for those actions listed in WAC 173-400-171 (5)(b) with a mandatory public hearing requirement, the time, date, and location of the public hearing

. (vi) The length of the public comment period in the event of a public hearing; (vii) For projects subject to s pecial protection requirements for federal Class I areas in WAC 173-400-117 (5)(c), public noti ce shall either explain the permitting authority's decision or state that an explanation of the decision appears in the support document for the proposed order of approval ; and (viii) For a redesignation of an area u nder WAC 173-400-118, public notice shall state that an explanation of the reas ons for the proposed redesignation is available for review at the public location.(c) Notifying EPA. A copy of th e public notice will be sent to the EPA Region 10 regional administrator. (d) Additional public notice requirements for a SIP revision. For a revision to the SIP that is submitted by the director of ecology

, ecology must publish the public notice required by subsection (3) (b) of this section in the Washington State Register in advance of the date of the public hearing. (4) Public comment. (a) The public comment period must be at l east the thirty-day period for written comment specified in the public notice. (b) If a public hearing is held, the pu blic comment period must extend through the hearing date. (c) T he permitting authority shall make no final decision on any application or action of any type described in subsection (1) of this section until the public comment period has ended and any comments received during the public comment period have been considered. (5) Public hearings. (a) The applicant, any interested gover nmental entity, any group, or any person may request a public hearing within the thirty-day public comment period. A request must indicate the interest of the entity filing it and why a hearing is warranted. T he permitting authority may hold a public hearing if it determines significant public interest exists. T he permitting authority will determine the location, date, and time of the public hearing. (b) Ecology must hold a hearing on the following ecology only actions: (i) A Washington state recommendation to EPA that will be submitted by the director of ecology for approval of a SIP revision; (ii) A Washington state recommendation to EPA for a change of boundaries of an attainment or nonattainment area; (iii) A Washington st ate recommendation to EPA for designation of an area as attainment

, nonattainment , or unclassifiable ; and (iv) A Washington st ate recommendation to EPA to redesignate an area under WAC 173- 400-118. (c) Ecology must provide at least thirty days prior notice of a h earing required under subsection (4)(b) of this section. (6) Other requirements of law. Whenever procedures permitted or mandated by law will accomplish the objectives of public notice a nd opportunity for comment, those procedures may be used in lieu of the provisions of this section.

NEW SECTIONWAC 173-400-175 Public information. All information, except information protected from disclosure under any applicable law, including, but not limited to, RCW 70.94.205, is available for public inspection at the issu ing agency. This includes copies of notice of construction applications

, orders , and applications to modify orders.

WAC 173-400-200 Creditable stack height and dispersion techniques. (1) Applicability. These provisions sh all apply to all sources except: (a) Stacks for which construction had commenced on or before December 31, 1970, except where pollutants are being emitted from such stacks used by sources which were constructed, or reconstructed, or for which majo r modifications were carried out after December 31, 1970; (b) Coal-fired steam electric generating units subject to the provisi ons of Section 118 of the Federal Clean Air Act, which commenced operation before July 1, 1957, and for whose stacks construction commenced before February 8, 1974; (c) Flares; (d) Outdoor burning for agricultural or silvicultura l purposes as covered under the smoke management plan; (e) Residential wood combustion and open burning for which episodic restrictions apply. These provisions shall not be construe d to limit the actual stack height. (2) Prohibitions. No source may use dispersi on techniques or excess st ack height to meet ambient air quality standards or PSD increment limitations. (a) Excess stack height. Excess stack height is that portion of a stack which exceeds the greater of: (i) Sixty-five meters, measured from the ground level elevation at the base of the stack; or (ii) H g

. = H

. + 1.5L

where: H g

. = "good engineering practice" (GEP) stack height, measured from the ground level elevation at the base of the stack,

H

. = height of nearby structure(s) measured from the ground level elevatio n at the base of the stack,

L

. = lesser dimension, height or projected width, of nearby structure(s), subject to the proviso below.

"Nearby," as used in this subsection for purposes of applying the GEP formula means that distance up to five times the lesser of the height or the wi dth dimension of a structure, but not greater than 0.8 kilometer (1/2 mile). (b) Dispersion techniques. Increasing fi nal exhaust gas plume rise by manipulating source process parameters, exhaust gas paramete rs, stack parameters, or combining exhaustgases from several existing stacks into one stack ; or other selective handling of exhaust gas streams so as to increase the exhaust gas plume rise. This does not include: (i) The reheating of a gas st ream, following the use of a po llution control system, for the purpose of returning the gas to th e temperature at which it was or iginally discharged from the facility generating the gas stream; (ii) The merging of gas streams where: (A) The source was originally designed and co nstructed with such merged gas streams, as demonstrated by the source owner(s) or operator(s). (B) Such merging is part of a change in operation at the facility that includes the installation of pollution contro ls and is accompanied by a ne t reduction in the allowable emissions of a pollutant. This exclusion sha ll apply only to the emission limitation for the pollutant affected by such change in operation. (C) Before July 8, 1985, such merging was part of a change in operation at the facility that included the installation of emissions control equipmen t or was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons, and not primarily motivated by an intent to gain emissions credit for greater dispersion. (3) Exception. EPA, ecology, or a permitting authority may require the use of a field study or fluid model to verify the creditable stack height for the source. This also applies to a source seeking credit after the eff ective date of this rule for an increase in existing stack height up to that established by the GEP formula. A fluid model or field st udy shall be performed according to the procedures described in the EPA Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Height (Tec hnical Support Document of the Stack Height Regulations). The creditable height demonstrat ed by a fluid model or field study shall ensure that the emissions from a stack do not result in excessive concentrations of any air po llutant as a result of atmospheric downwash, wakes, or eddy effects creat ed by the source itself, nearby structures or nearby terrain features. (a) "Nearby," as used in this subsection for conducting a field study or fluid model, means not greater than 0.8 km, except that the por tion of a terrain feature may be considered to be nearby which falls within a distance of up to te n times the maximum height of the feature, not to exceed two miles if such feature achieves a hei ght 0.8 km from the stack th at is at least forty percent of the GEP stack height or twenty-six mete rs, whichever is greater, as measured from the ground-level elevation at the base of the stack. Th e height of the structur e or terrain feature is measured from the ground-level elev ation at the base of the stack. (b) "Excessive concentration" is defined fo r the purpose of determining creditable stack height under this subsection and means a ma ximum ground-level concentration owing to a significant downwash effect which contributes to excursion over an ambient air quality standard. For sources subject to PSD review (WAC 173-400-720 and 40 CFR 52.21) an excessive concentration alternatively means a maximum gr ound-level concentration owing to a significant downwash effect which contributes to excursion over a PSD increment. The emission rate used in this demonstration shall be the emission rate specified in the state implementation plan, or in the absence of such, the actual em ission rate of the source. "S ignificant downwash effect" means a maximum ground-level concentration due to emissions from a stack due in whole or in part to downwash, wakes, and eddy effects produced by n earby structures or nearby terrain features which individually is at least forty percent in excess of the maximum c oncentration experiencedin the absence of such downwas h, wakes, or eddy effects.

NEW SECTION

WAC 173-400-560 General order of approval. In lieu of filing a notice of construction application under WAC 173-400-11 0, the owner or operator may apply for coverage under a general order of approval issued under this s ection. Coverage under a general order of approval satisfies the requireme nt for new source review under RCW 70.94.152. (1) Issuance of general orders of approval. A permitting authority may issue a general order of approval applicable to a specific type of emission unit or source, not including non-road engines as defined in section 216 of the federal Clean Air Act, subject to the conditions in this section. A general order of appr oval shall identify criteria by wh ich an emission unit or source may qualify for coverage under the associated gene ral order of approval and shall include terms and conditions under which the owner or operator ag rees to install and/or operate the covered emission unit or source. At a minimum, these terms and conditions shall include: (a) Applicable emissions limitati ons and/or control requirements; (b) Best availabl e control technology; (c) Appropriate operational restrictions, such as: (i) Criteria related to the physical size of the unit(s) covered; (ii) Criteria related to raw materials and fuels used; (iii) Criteria related to allowed or prohibited locations; and (iv) Other similar criteria determined by a permitting authority; (d) Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping re quirements to ensure compliance with the applicable emission limits and control requirements; (e) Appropriate initia l and periodic emission testing requirements; (f) Compliance with chapter 173-460 WAC, and WAC 173-400-112 (2)(c) or 173-400- 113(3) as applicable; (g) Compliance with 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 62, and 63; and (h) The application and approval process to obtain coverage under the specific general order of approval. (2) Public comment. A permitting authority shall pr ovide an opportunity for public comment on a proposed new genera l order of approval or modifi cation of an existing general order of approval in accor dance with WAC 173-400-171. (3) Modification of general orders of approval. A permitting authority may review and modify a general order of approval at any time. Only the permitting authority that issued a general order of approval may modify that genera l order of approval. Modifications to general orders of approval shall follow the procedures of this regulat ion and shall only take effect prospectively.(4) Application for coverage under a general order of approval. (a) In lieu of applying for an individu al order of approval under WAC 173-400-110, an owner or operator of an emission unit or sour ce may apply for and receive coverage from a permitting authority under a general order of approval if: (i) The owner or operator of the emission unit or source applies for coverage under a general order of approval in ac cordance with this regulation a nd any conditions of the approval related to application for and granting cove rage under the general order of approval; (ii) The emission unit or source meets all the qualifications listed in the requested general order of approval; (iii) The requested emission unit or source is no t part of a new major stationary source or major modification subject to the requir ements of WAC 173-400-112 or 173-400-720; and (iv) The requested emission unit or source doe s not trigger applicability of the operating permit program under chapter 173-401 WAC or tr igger a required modification of an existing operating permit. (b) Owners or operators of emission units or sources applying for coverage under a general order of approval shall do so using the forms supplied by a permitting authority and include the required fee. The a pplication must include all information necessary to determine qualification for, and to assure compli ance with, a general order of approval. (c) An application shall be incomplete until a permitting authority has received any required fees. (d) The owner or operator of a new source or modification of an existing source that qualifies for coverage under a ge neral order of approval may not begin actual construction of the new source or modification until its application for coverage has been approved or accepted under the procedures established in WAC 173-400-560(5). (5) Processing applications for cover age under a general order of approval. Each general order of approval shall include a section on how an app licant is to request coverage and how the permitting authority will grant coverage. The section of the general order of approval will include either the method in subsection (5)(a) or (b) of this section to describe the process for the applicant to be granted coverage. (a) Within thirty days of receipt of an a pplication for coverage under a general order of approval, the permitting authority shall notify an applicant in writing that the application is incomplete, approved, or denied. If an application is incomplete, the permitting authority shall notify an applicant of the information needed to complete the application. If an application is denied, the permitting authority shall notify an a pplicant of the reasons why the application is denied. Coverage under a general order of approval is effective as of th e date of issuance of approval by the permitting authority. (b) The applicant is approved for coverage under the general order of approval 31 days after an application for coverage is received by the permitting authority, unless the owner or operator receives a letter from the permitting authority, postmarked within thirty days of when the application for coverage was received by the permitting authority, notifying the owner or operator that the emissions unit or source does no t qualify for coverage under the general order of approval. The letter denying coverage shall no tify the applicant of the disqualification and the reasons why coverage is denied.(6) Termination of coverage under a general order of approval. An owner or operator who has received approva l of an application for cove rage under a general order of approval may later request to be excluded from c overage under that general order of approval by applying to the same permitting authority for an individual order of approval, under WAC 173- 400-110, or for coverage under another general or der of approval. If the same permitting authority issues an individual order of approva l or other permit or order serving the same purpose as the original general or der of approval, or approves cove rage under a different general order of approval, coverage under the original general order of approval is automatically terminated, effective on the effective date of the individual order of approv al, order or permit or new general order of approval. (7) Failure to qualify or comply. An owner or operator who requests and is granted approval for coverage under a general order of approval shall be subjec t to enforcement action for establishment of a new source in viola tion of WAC 173-400-110 if a decision to grant coverage under a general order of approval was based upon erroneous information submitted by the applicant.

PERMITTING OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES

NEW SECTION

WAC 173-400-700 Review of major stationary sources of air pollution. (1) The following sections are to be used by ecology when reviewing and permitting new major stationary sources and major modi fications to major stationary s ources located in attainment or unclassified areas in Washington. (2) WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400- 750 apply statewide except: (a) Where the authority has received delega tion of the federal PSD program from EPA or has a SIP approved PSD program. (b) To projects under the juri sdiction of the energy facility site evaluati on council site certification process pursua nt to chapter 80.50 RCW. (c) Applications or requests to designate an emissions unit as a Clean Unit under 40 CFR 52.21(y), to permit a Pollution Control Project under 40 CFR 52.21(z)(5), or to establish an actuals Plantwide Applicability Limit under 40 CFR 52.21(aa) shall be processed by the authority where the authority has received dele gation from EPA to admi nister the relevant alternative PSD applicability tests. (3) The construction of a major stationary source or major modification subject to the permitting requirements of the following section might also be subject to the permitting program in WAC 173-400-110.NEW SECTION

WAC 173-400-710 Definitions. (1) The definitions in WAC 173-400-030 are to be used in WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 unless: (a) A term is defined differently in WAC 173-400-710 for use in the major source permitting requirements in WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750; or (b) A term is defined differently in the federal program requirements adopted by reference in WAC 173-400-720. (2) All usage of the te rm "source" in WAC 173-400- 710 through 173-400-750 and in 40 CFR 52.21 as adopted by reference is to be interpreted to mean "s tationary source" as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(5) as modified by section 302(z) of the Federal Clean Air Act. A stationary source (or source does not include emissions resu lting directly from an internal combustion engine for transportation purposes for from a non road engine or nonroad vehicle as defined in section 216 of the federal Clean Air Act.

NEW SECTION

WAC 173-400-720 Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). (1) No major stationary source or major modification to whic h the requirements of this section apply shall begin actual construction without having received a PSD permit. (2) Early planning encouraged. In order to develop an appropriate application, the source should engage in an early planning pro cess to assess the needs of the facility. An opportunity for a preapplication m eeting with ecology is available to any potential applicant. (3) Enforcement. Ecology or the permitting authority with jurisdiction over the source under chapter 173-401 WAC, the Oper ating permit regulation, shall: (a) Receive all reports required in the PSD permit; (b) Enforce the requirement to apply fo r a PSD permit when one is required; and (c) Enforce the conditions in the PSD permit. (4) Applicable requirements. (a) A PSD permit must assure compli ance with the following requirements: (i) Allowable emissions from the proposed major stationary source or major modification will not delay the attainment date for an area not in attainment nor cause or contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard. This requirement will be considered to be met if the projected impact of the allo wable emissions from the proposed major stationary source or the projected impact of the increase in allowable emissions from th e proposed major modification at any location within a nonattainment area does not exceed the following levels for the pollutantsfor which the area has been designated nonattainment:

Pollutant Annual Average 24-Hour Average 8-Hour Average 3-Hour Average 1-Hour Average

CO-

- 0.5 mg/m 3

- 2 mg/m 3

SO 2 1.0 μg/m 3 5 μg/m 3

- 25 μg/m 3 30 μg/m 3

PM 10 1.0 μg/m 3 5 μg/m 3

- - -

NO 2 1.0 μg/m 3

- - - -

An offsetting emission reduction may be used to satisfy some or all of the requirements of this subsection. (ii) WAC 173-400-117 - Special protection requirements fo r federal Class I areas; (iii) WAC 173-400-730 - Preventi on of significant deteriorat ion application processing; (iv) WAC 173-400-740 - Prevention of signi ficant deterioration public involvement requirements; and (v) The following subparts of 40 CFR 52.21, in effect on July 2, 2004 , which are adopted by reference. Exceptions are listed in (b )(i), (ii), and (iii) of this subsection:

Section Title

40 CFR 52.21(a)(2) Applicability Procedures.
40 CFR 52.21 (b) Definitions.

40 CFR 52.21 (c) Ambient air increments.

40 CFR 52.21 (d) Ambient air ceilings.

40 CFR 52.21 (h) Stack heights.

40 CFR 52.21 (i) Review of major stationary sources and major modifications - source applicability and exemptions. 40 CFR 52.21 (j) Control technology review.

40 CFR 52.21 (k) Source impact analysis.

40 CFR 52.21 (l) Air quality models.
40 CFR 52.21 (m) Air quality analysis.

40 CFR 52.21 (n) Source information.

40 CFR 52.21 (o) Additional impact analysis.

40 CFR 52.21 (r) Source obligation.40 CFR 52.21 (v) Innovative control technology. 40 CFR 52.21 (w) Permit rescission.
40 CFR 52.21 (x) Clean unit test for emission units subject to BACT or LAER. 40 CFR 52.21 (y) Clean unit test for emission units that achieve an emission limitation comparable to BACT. 40 CFR 52.21 (z) Pollution Control Project exclusion. 40 CFR 52.21 (aa) Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limitation. 40 CFR 52.21 (bb) Severability clause.

40 CFR 52.21 (cc) Equipment replacement provisions.(b) Exceptions to adopting 40 CFR 52.21 by reference. (i) Every use of the word "administr ator" in 40 CFR 52.21 means ecology except for the following: (A) In 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(17), the de finition of federally enforceable, "administrator" means the EPA administrator. (B) In 40 CFR 52.21 (l)(2), air quality models, "administrator" means the EPA administrator. (C) In 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(43) the definition of prevention of significant deterioration program, "administrator" means the EPA administrator. (D) In 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(48)(i i)(c) related to regulations promulgated by the administrator, "administrator" means the EPA administrator. (E) In 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(50)(i) related to the definition of a regulated NSR pollutant, "administrator" means the EPA administrator. (ii) Each reference in 40 CFR 52.21(i) to "paragraphs (j) through (r) of this section" is amended to state "paragraphs (j) through (o) of th is section, paragraph (r) of this section, WAC 173-400- 117, 173-400-730, and 173-400-720 ." (iii) The following paragraphs replace the designated paragraphs of 40 CFR 52.21: (A) In 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(1)(i)(a) and (b )(1)(iii)(h), the size threshold for municipal waste incinerators is chan ged to 50 tons of refuse per day. (B) 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(23)(i) After the entr y for municipal solid waste landfills emissions, add Ozone Depleting Substances: 100 tpy. (C) 40 CFR 52.21 (r)(6) “The provisions of this paragraph of 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) apply to projects at an existing emissions un it at a major stationary source (other than projects at a Clean Un it or at a source with a PAL) in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility that a project that is not a part of a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase and th e owner or operator el ects to use the method specified in paragraphs 40 CF R 52.21(b)(41)(ii)(a) th rough (c) for calc ulating projected actual emissions. (i) Before beginning actual construction of the project, the owner or operator shall document and maintain a record of the following information: (A) A description of the project; (B) Identification of the emissions unit( s) whose emissions of a regulated NSR pollutant could be affected by the project; and (C) A description of the applicability test used to determine that the project is not a major modification for any regulated NSR pollutant, including the baseline actual emissions, the projected actual emissions , the amount of emissions excluded under paragraph 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(41)(ii)(c) and an explanation for why such amount was excluded, and any netting calcu lations, if applicable.(ii) The owner or operator shall subm it a co py of the inf o rm ation set ou t in paragraph 40 CFR 52.21 (r )(6) ( i) to the perm itting autho r ity b e f o re b e ginning ac tual

construc tion

. This inf o rm ation may be sub m itted in c onjunction with any NOC application required under the provisi ons of WAC 173-400-110. Nothing in this paragraph (r)(6)(ii) shall be construed to requi re the owner or operator of such a unit to obtain any PSD determination from the perm itting authority before beginning actual construction. (iii) The o w ner or operato r shall mon itor the e m issions of any regulated NSR pollutant tha t cou l d incre a se a s a re su lt of th e p r oject and that is em itted b y any em issions unit iden tified in paragraph 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6 )(i)(b ); and calculate and m a intain a record of the annual em issions, in tons per year on a calendar year basis, for a period of 5 years following resum p tion of regular operations afte r the change, or for a period of 10 ye ars following resum p tion of regular operations afte r the change if the project increases the design c a pa city of or p o tential to e m it that r e g u lated NSR pollu tant at such em issions unit. (iv) The owner or op era t or sha ll sub m it a report to the p e rm itting autho r ity with in 60 days after the end of each year duri ng which reco rd s m u st be generated under paragraph 40 CFR 52.21 (r)(6)(ii i) setting out the unit' s annual em issions during the calendar year that preceded subm ission of the report. (v) The owner or oper a tor shall sub m it a report to the perm itting autho r ity if the annual em issions, in tons per year, from the project identified in paragraph 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)(i), exceed the baseline actual em issions (as docum ented and m a intained pursuant to paragraph 40 CFR 52.21 (r)(6 )(i)(c ), by a significant am ount (as defined in paragraph 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23) for that regu lated NSR pol lutant, and if such e m iss i ons differ from the preconstruction projection as docum ented and m a intained pursuant to paragraph 4 0 CFR 52.21 (r)(6)(i)(c). Such rep o rt shall b e subm itted to the perm itting author ity w ithin 60 d a ys af ter th e end of such year. T h e repor t s h all con t a i n the following: (a) The nam e , address and telephone num ber of the m a jor stationary source; (b) The annual em issions as calculate d pursuant to para graph 40 CFR 52.21 (r)(6)(iii); a nd (c) Any other inform ation that the owner or o p erato r wis h es to inc l u d e in the report (e.g., an explanation as to why the em issions differ from the preconstruction projection).” (D) 40 CFR 52.21 (r)(7) The owner or ope rator of the sour ce shall subm it the inform ation required to be docum ented and m a intained pursuant to paragraphs 40 C F R 52.21 (r)(6 )(iv) and (v) annually with in 60 days af ter the anniversary date of the original analysis. The original analysis and annual reviews shall also be available for review

upon a requ est for inspection by the perm itting aut hority o r the general p ublic pursuant to the requirem ents contained in 40 CFR 70.4 (b)(3)(viii). (E) 40 CFR 52.21 (y)(7) Procedures for designating em issions units as Clean Units. E c ology shall designate an em issi ons unit a Clean Unit only by issuing a regulatory order issued under the authority of WAC 173-400-091 or (when requested bythe applicant as part of its NOC application) in an orde r of approval issued under WAC 173-400-110, including requirem e nts for public notice of the pr oposed Clean Unit designation and opportunity for public comm en t and when WAC 173-400-091 is used to designate a Clean Unit, a dem onstration that the am bient air quality im pact lim itation s of WAC 173-400-113 (1 ) through (3 ) will be requ ire d. Such perm it m u st also m e et the requirem e nts in paragraph 40 CFR 52.21 (y)(8). (F) 40 CFR 52.21 (z)(5) Perm it process for un listed projects. Be fore an owner or operator m a y begin actual construc tion of a PCP project that is not listed in paragraphs 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(32)(i) through (vi), the project m u st be approv ed by ecology and included in an order of approval issued by ecology pur suant to the requirem e nts in W A C 173-400- 110, and/or WAC 173-400-091, following opportuni ty for public comment as provided for in those sections. W h en WAC 173- 400-091 is used to approve a P C P, a dem onstration that the am bient air quality im pact lim itations of WAC 173-400-112(2) and/or W A C 173-400-113 (1) through (3) will be required. (G) 40 CFR 52.21 (z)(6)(iii) Perm it requirem e nts. The owner or operator m u st

com p ly with any provisions in the order of a pproval or other order issued for the project related to use and approval of the P C P exclusion. (H) 40 CFR 52.21 (aa)(2)(ix) PA L perm it means the PS D perm it, a n ecology issued order of approval issued under W A C 173-400-110, or regul atory order issued under WAC 173-400-091 issued by eco logy that establis hes a PAL for a m a jor stationary

source. (I) 40 CFR 52.21 (aa)(5) Publ ic participation requirem e nts for PALs. PALs for existing m a jor stationary sources shall be established, renewed, or expired through the public participation process in W A C 173-400-171. A request to increase a PAL shall be processed in accordance with th e app lication pro c essing and p ublic participation process in WAC 173-400-730 and 173-400-740. (J) 40 CFR 52.21 (aa)(9)(i)(b) Eco l ogy, after consultation with the p e rm itting author ity, sh all de cide w h ether and h o w the PAL allowable e m issions will be dis t r i bu ted and issue a revised order, order of approval or PSD perm it inc o rporating a llowable limits for each em issions unit, or each group of em issions units, as eco logy determ ines is appropriate. (K) 40 CFR 52.21 (aa)(14) Reporting and not ification requirem e nts. The owner or operator shall subm it sem i annual m onitoring reports and prom pt deviation reports to the perm itting authority in accordan ce with the requirem e nts in chapter 173-401 WAC. The reports shall m eet the requirem ents in paragraphs 40 CFR 52.21 (aa)(14)(i) through (iii). (L) 40 CFR 52.21 (aa)(14)(ii) Deviation re port. The m a jor st ationary source

owner or op erato r shall prom ptly subm it repo rts of any deviations or ex ceedance of the PAL requirem e nts, including periods where no m onitoring is available. A report subm itted pursuant to WAC 173-401-615 (3)(b) a nd with in the tim e lim its prescribed shall satisfy this reporting requirem e nt. The reports shall contain the infor m ation found at WAC 173-401-615(3).NE W SECT ION

WAC 173-400-730 Prevention of significant deterioration application processing procedures. (1) Application submittal. (a) The applicant shall s u bm it an ap plica tion tha t provid e s c o m p lete inf o rm ation adequate for ecology to determ ine com p lia nce with all PSD program requirem e nts. (b) The ap plican t shall subm it complete copies of its PSD application or an application to increase a PAL, di strib u ted in the f o llowing m a nner: (i) Th ree co pies to ecolo gy: Air Qua lity P r ogram , P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600. (ii) One cop y to each of the followin g federal lan d m a nagers: (A) U.S. Departm e nt of the Inte rior - National Park Service; and (B) U.S. Departm e nt of Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service. (iii) One co py to the p e rm itting au thority with authority o v er th e sou r ce under chapter 173-401 W A C. (iv) One copy to EPA. (c) Applica t ion subm ittal and pro cess i ng f o r r e qu ests f o r a Clean Unit des i gnation under 40 CFR 52.21(y), a pollution control pr oject exem ption under 40 CFR 52.21( z) or the initial request, renewal or expiration of a PAL under 40 CFR 52.21(aa) shall be done as provided in WAC 173 -400-720 (4)(b)(iii). (2) Application processing. (a) Com p leteness determ ination. (i) W ithin thirty days after receiv i n g a PSD perm it application, ecolog y shall eithe r notif y the applicant in writing that th e applica tion is com p lete or notif y the applic ant in writing of all addition a l inf o rm ation necessary to com p lete the applica t ion. Ecology m a y reques t ad dition a l inform ation clar ifying aspects of the ap plication after i t has been determ ined to be com p lete. (ii) The effective date of the applicati on is the date on which ecology notifies the applicant that the applicati on is complete pursuant to (a)(i) of this subsection. (iii) If an applicant fails or refuses to correct deficien cies in the application, the

perm it m a y be denied and appropriate enforcem e n t action taken. (iv) The per m itting auth ority shall s e nd a copy of the com p leten e ss de te rm ination to the responsible federal land m a nager. (b) Preparation and issuance of the pr elim inary de term ination.(i) W h en the application has been determ ined to be com p lete, ecology shall begin developing the prelim inary determ inati on to approve or deny the application. (ii) W ithin one year af te r rece ipt of a

com p lete applica tion , ecology shall provide the applicant with a prelim inary determ ina tion along with a techni cal support docum ent and a public notice. (c) I ssuance of the f i nal determ inatio n. (i) Ecology shall m a ke no final deci sion until the public comm ent period has ended and all comments received during the public comment pe riod have been considered. (ii) As expeditiously as possible after the close of the public comment period, or hearing if one is held, ec ology shall prepare and issu e the final determ ination. (d) The effective d a te of a final dete rm ination is one of the following dates: (i) If no comments on the prelim inary dete rm ination we re rece ived, the date of issuance; or (ii) If comments we re re ceive d, thirty days af ter rece ipt of the final determ ination;

or (iii) A later date as sp ecified within the PSD perm it approval. (3) PSD technical support document. Ecology shall develop a technical support docum ent for each prelim inary PSD determ in ation. The prelim inar y technical support docum ent will be updated prior to iss u ance of the final determ ination to reflect changes to the final determ ination based on comments received. The technical support docu m ent shall includ e the f o llowin g inf o rm ation: (a) A brief description of the m a jor st ationary source, m a jor m odification, or activ ity sub j ect to revie w ; (b) The physical location, ownership, pr oducts and processes involved in the

m a jor stationary source or m a jo r m o dification subject to review; (c) The type and quantity of pollutan t s proposed to be em itted into th e air; (d) A brief summary of the BACT opti ons considered and the reasons why the selec t ed BACT level of contro l was selec t ed; (e) A brief summ ary of t h e basi s f o r the perm it a pproval con d itions ; (f

) A state m ent on whether the em issions will o r will not cause a state and nationa l ambient a i r qua lity s t anda rd to be exce e d ed; (g) The degree of increm ent consumption expected to result from the source or modification; (h) An analysis of the i m pacts on air quali ty rela ted values in f e deral Clas s I areas and other Class I areas a ffected by the project; and (i) An analysis of the im pacts of th e proposed e m issions on visibility in any federal Clas s I are a following the requirem ents in W A C 173-400-117.(4) Appeals. A PSD perm it, any conditions co ntained in a PSD per m it, or the denial of PSD perm it m a y be appealed to the pollution control heari ngs board as provided in chapter 43.21B RCW. A PSD per m it issued under the term s of a dele gation agreem ent can be appealed to the E P A' s environm ental appeals board as provided in 40 CFR 124.13 and 40 CFR 124.19. (5 ) Constru c tion time limita tions. (a) Approval to construct or m odify a m a jor stationary source becom e s invalid if

construc tion is not co mmenced within e i ghteen m onths of the eff ectiv e date of the approval, if construction is di scontinued for a period of eight een m onths or m o re, or if

construc tion is not co mpleted within a rea s o n able tim e . The tim e period be tween construction of the approved phases of a phase d construction project cannot be extended. Each phase must commence cons truction with in eighteen months of the projected and approved commence m ent date. (b) Ecology m a y extend th e eigh teen-m onth effectiv e period of a PSD perm it upon a satisfactory showing that an extension is justified. A request to extend the effective tim e to begin or com p lete act ual construction under a PSD per m it may be subm itted. The request m a y result f r om the cessation of on-site cons truc tion bef o re

com p letion or failure to begin actual constr uction of the project(s) covered by the PSD

perm it. (i) Request requirem e nts. (A) A written request for the exten s ion, subm itted by the PSD per m it holder, as soon as possible prior to the expira tion of the current PSD perm it. (B) An evaluation of BACT and an updated am bient im pact, including an increm ent analysis, for all pollutants subject to the approval conditions in the PSD

perm it. (ii) Duration of extensions. (A) No single extension of tim e sh all be longer than eighteen months. (B) The cu mulative tim e prior to beginni ng actual construction und er the o r igin al PSD per m it and all approved tim e extensions sh all no t exceed fi fty-four months. (iii) Issuance of an extension. (A) Ecology m a y approve and issue an extension of the current PSD perm i t

. (B) The extension of approval shall re f l ec t any revised BACT lim itatio ns based on the evaluation of BACT presented in the request for extension and other inform ation available to ecology. (C) The is suance of an extensio n is subje c t to th e public invo lvem ent requirem e nts in WAC 173-400-740. (iv) For the extension of a PSD per m it, ecology m u st prepare a technical support docum ent consistent with WAC 173-400-730(3) only to the extent that those criteria apply to a request to extend the construction tim e lim itation.NE W SECT ION

WAC 173-400-740 PSD permitting public in volvement requirements. ( 1 ) Actions requiring notifi cation of the public. Ecology must pr ovide public notice before approving or denying any of the f o llowing typ e s of ac tio ns re lated to im ple m entation of the PSD program contained in W A C 173-400-720: (a) Any pr elim inary d e term ination to approve or disapprove a PS D perm it applic ation ; or (b) An extension of the ti m e to begin construction or suspend construction under a PSD per m it; or (c) A revision to a PSD perm it, excep t an ad m i nistrativ e am endment to an existing perm it. (2) Notifica tion of the public. W i thin one yea r of the rece ipt of a com p lete PSD application, and as expe ditiously as possible after receipt of a request for extension of the construction tim e lim it under W A C 173-400-730(6 ) or f

o r a n onadm inistr ative rev i sio n to a PSD per m it under W A C 173-400-750, ecology shall: (a) Make a v ailab l e f o r

public insp ection in at leas t one location in the vic i nity where the proposed source would be constructe d, or for revisions to a PS D perm it where the perm ittee exists, a copy of the inform ation subm itted by th e ap plican t, and any applic able p r elim inary determ ination s , includi ng analyses of the effects on air quality and air quality related values, considered in m a king the prelim inary determ ination. Exem ptions from this requirem e nt include in form ation protected from disclosure under any applicable law, including, but not lim ited to, RCW 70.94.205 and chapter 173-03 WA C. (b) Notif y th e public by : (i) Causing to be published, in a newspa per of general circul ation in th e area of the propo sed project, the public n o tice prep ared in accordance with WAC 173-400- 730(4). The date the public no tice is published in the news paper starts the required thirty-day comm ent period. (ii) If ecology grants a request to ex tend the public comm ent period, the extension notice m u st also be published in a newspaper as noted above and a copy of the extension notice sent to the organizations and individuals listed in (c) and (d) of this subsection. The closing date of the extended comment pe riod shall be as defined in the public comment period extension notification. (iii) If a hearing is held, the public comm ent period m u st extend through the hearing date. (iv) The ap plican t or other initia tor of the action m u st pay the cost of providing public notice. (c) Send a copy of the public notice to:(i) Any Ind i an G overning B ody whose lands m a y be affected by em issions from the pro j ect; (ii) The chief executive of the c ity w h ere th e project is located; (iii) The chief executive of the c ounty where the proj ect is located; (iv) Individuals or organizat ions th at reque sted notif ica tion of the specif ic projec t proposal; (v) Other individuals who request ed notif ica tion of PSD per m its; (vi) Any state within 100 km of the proposed project. (d) Send a copy of the public notice, PSD prelim inary determ ination, and the technical support docum ent to: (i) The applicant; (ii) The affected Federal Land Manager ; (iii ) EPA Region 10; (i v) The p e rm itting auth ority with authority over the sou r ce under chap ter 173

- 401 W A C; (v) Individuals or organizatio ns who request a copy; and (vi) The location for pub lic inspection of m a terial required under (a) of this subsection. (3) Public notice content. The pu blic no tic e s h all conta i n at least the f o llowing inf o rm ation: (a) The nam e and address of the applicant; (b) The location of the proposed project; (c) A brief description of the project proposal; (d) The pr elim inary deter m ination to approve or disapprove th e applicatio n; (e) How m u ch increm ent is exp ected to be consu m ed by this project; (f) The na me, address, and telephone num b er of the person to contact for further inf o rm ation; (g) A brief explanation of how to comment on the project; (h) An explanation on how to request a public hearing; (i) The location of the docum e nts m a de available for public inspection; (j) The r e is a thirty -da y period from th e date of publication of the notice for subm itting written comm ent to ecology; (k) A statem ent that a public hearing m a y be held if ecology determ ines within a thir ty-day p e riod that s i gnif i cant pu blic inte rest exists ; (l) The length of the public comm ent pe riod in the event of a public hearing;(m ) For projects subject to special pr otection requirem e nts for federal Cl ass I areas, in WAC 173-400-117, and where the Ecol ogy disagrees with the analysis done by the Federal Land Manager, the Ecology shall e xplain its decision in the public notice or state that an explana tion of the decision appears in th e technical support docum ent for the proposed approval or denial.

(4) Public h e arings. (a) The applicant, any interested governm e ntal entity, any group, or any person

m a y request a public hearing within the thirty-d ay public comm ent period. A request must indica te the in tere st of the entity f iling it and why a hearing is warran t ed. W h ether a request for a hearing is filed or not, ecology may hold a pub lic hear in g if it de ter m ines significant public intere st exists. Ecology will determ ine the location, date, and tim e of the public hearing. (b) Notifica t ion of a public hea r ing will be acco mplished pe r the requ ire m ents of WAC 173-400-740(2). (c) The public m u st be notified at least thir ty days prior to the date of the hearing (or first of a series of hearings). (5 ) Consideration of public comments. Ecology shall m a ke no final decision on any application or action of any type describe d in subsection (1) of this section until the public com m e nt period has ended and any comm ents receiv e d during th e public co mment period have been considered. Ecology shall m a ke all public comm e n ts available for public in spe c tion a t the sam e locations wh ere the preconstruction inform ation on the proposed major source or m a jor m o dification was m a de available. (6 ) Issuance of a final d e terminatio n. (a) The final approval or disapproval de term inatio n shall inclu d e the f o llo wing: (i) A copy o f the final PSD per m it or the determ ination to deny the perm it; (ii) A summary of the co mments received; (iii) Ecology' s response to those com m e nts; (iv) A description of wh at appro v al cond itio n s changed from the prelim inary determ ination; and (v) A cover letter that in cludes an ex pl anation of how the fi nal determ ination m a y be appealed. (b) Ecology shall m a il a copy of the cover letter that accom p anies the final determ inatio n to: (i) Individuals or organizat ions th at requested n o tif ica tion o f the specif i c projec t proposal; (ii) Other individuals who reque sted notif ica tion of PSD per m its. (c) A copy of the final determ ination shall be sent to: (i) The applicant;(ii) U.S. Departm e nt of the In ter i or - National Pa rk Servic e; (iii) U.S. Departm e nt of Ag riculture - Forest Service; (iv) EPA Region 10; (v) The p e rm itting auth ority with author ity over the source under chap ter 173-401 WA C; (vi) Any person who commented on the prelim inary determ ination; and (vii) The location for p ublic inspection of m a teri al required under subsection (2)(a) of this section.

NE W SECT ION

WAC 173-400-750 Revisions to PS D permits. (1) The ow ner or operator m a y request, at any tim e, a change in conditions of a PSD per m it and ecology m a y approve the request provided ecology finds that: (a) The change in conditions will not cause the source to exceed an em issions standard established by regulation ; (b) No am bi ent air quality standard o r PSD incre m ent will be exceeded as a result of the chang e ; (c) The change will not adversely im pact the ab ility of eco log y or th e au th ority to determ ine c o m p liance with an em issions standa rd; (d) The revised PSD perm it will continue to r e qu ire BACT, as def i ned at the tim e of the original PSD pe rm it, for ea ch new or modified em ission unit approved by the origin al PS D perm it; and (e) The revised PSD perm it continues to m eet the requirem e nts of W A C 173-400- 112(2), and 173-400-113, as applicable. (2) A request to revise a PSD per m it must be acted upon using the tim elines found in WAC 173-400-730. T h e fee schedule found in WAC 173-400-116 shall also apply. (4) All revisions to PSD perm its are subj ect to public involve m e nt except for the following adm i nistrative revisions: (a) Change of the owner or operator' s business nam e and/or m a iling address; (b) Corrections to typographical errors; (c) Revisions to compliance m o nitoring m e thods that do not reduce the

perm ittee' s or ecology' s ability to determ ine com p liance with the em ission lim itations; or (d) Any other revision that does not reduce the stringency of the e m ission lim itations in the PSD perm it or the ability of ecology, the p e rm itting au thority, EPA, or the public to determ ine com p liance with th e approval conditions in the P S D per m it.