e e a,<, 2)(r4,

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

0 Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000

ITY 711 or 800-833-6388 (For the Speech or Hearing Impaired)

July 12, 2006

Mr. Ron Kreizenbeck

U.S. EPA Region 10 OAQ-107

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Dear Mr. Kreizenbeck:

As the Governor's designee for the State Implementation Plan (SIP), I am submitting

Washington SIP revisions for EPA approval. Ecology revised the SIP to add new and revised

sections to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's (PSCAA) Regulation I, and to remove sections

from Regulation II of the federally approved SIP.

Ecology held a public hearing on April 27, 2006 to receive comments on adopting the

regulations in the SIP. Notice was published in the Daily Journal of Commerce at least 30 days

in advance of the hearing; Ecology met all state and federal procedural requirements.

Changes to the above regulations delete certain requirements for coatings and ink manufacturing;

adjust the maximum civil penalty for inflation; update rules to reflect new criteria for impaired air

quality and provide for additional clarifications and administrative updates.

Enclosed are five paper copies of material pertaining to the revision and documentation of the

public involvement. We are also sending one electronic copy of the materials. If the revisions

meet with your approval, please expeditiously approve them. Thank you.

If you have any questions on this submittal, please contact Bob Saunders of the Air Quality

Program at (360) 407-6888.

Sincerely,

F

9 41

Jay J. Manning

Director

Enclosures

0

In- the matter of adopting rev sioi s to the Pugc

Sound CIcan Air /Agency Reulatic^z^s in the

Washington tats flip1 eirerLtation Plan SIP ADOPTION ORDER

The Washington State Department of Ecology held a public hearing on April 27, 2006 to receive

comments on revising Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations in the Washington

State Implementation Plan,

This revision adds new and revised sections to Regulation I, and removes sections from

Regulation II of the federally approved SIP.

Changes to the above regulations delete certain requirements for coatings and ink manufacturing;

adjust the maximum civil penalty for inflation; update rules to reflect new criteria for impaired air

quality and provide for additional clarifications and administrative updates.

Notice was published in the Daily Journal of Commerce on October 15, 2004, which is greater

than 30 days in advance of the hearing date. No oral public testimony and no written comments

were received. Ecology met all state and federal procedural requirements:

Therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached documents, constituting revisions, are

approved and adopted by the Department of Ecology as part of the Washington State

Implementation Plan.. All provisions of the Washington State Implementation Plan inconsistent

with the attached documents are superseded.

'71g./6 C.

Date

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7410, requires state and local air pollution control

agencies to adopt Federally approved control strategies to minimize air pollution. The resulting

body of regulations is known as a State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Local air pollution control agencies periodically submit air quality regulations to the Department of

Ecology (Ecology) for inclusion in Washington's SIP.

SIPs generally:

• establish limits or work practice standards to minimize emissions of the criteria air

pollutants or their precursors,

• include special control strategies for nonattainment areas -- areas that are not meeting the

NAAQS.

• include preconstruction permit requirements for projects that may result in emission

increases.

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Hearing Summary Memo

June 1, 2006

TO: Jay J. Manning

Director

FROM: Doug Brown

Hearings Officer

SUBJECT: Hearing on amendments to the Washington SIP

The Air Quality Program conducted a public hearing on April 27, 2006 at Puget Sound

Clean Air Agency in Seattle, Washington. The purpose of the hearing was to receive

public comment on amendments to the Washington State Implementation Plan. No

testimony was given.

STATE OF WASHINGTON - KING COUNTY

--SS.

195525 No. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

DEPT OF ECOLOGY

Affidavit of Publication

The undersigned, on oath states that he is an authorized representative of The Daily Journal of

Commerce, a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and it is now

and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in

the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in Seattle, King County, Washington, and it is now

and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of this

newspaper. The Daily Journal of Commerce was on the 12th day of June, 1941, approved as a legal

newspaper by the Superior Court of King County.

The notice in the exact form annexed, was published in regular issues of The Daily Journal of

Commerce, which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed

notice, a

PNPH:PSCAA CHANGES IN SIP

was published on

03/27/06

The amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 181.35, which amount

has been paid in full.

Notary p for the State of Washington,

ding in Seattle
,.
/

State of Washington, King County
State of Washington, King County
ka

er

r

l^'CO10

s iitysegu ations oAMA

At of ^colgg ( g'') i

e

£01 inclusion iWae in fon'e £ae

jn^pYementtion^Pla (SIP te }

SXPis a stat wxde plan for _ g

F^ingfederall►eal^h'^g®e^st^Tdat'ds

for certain fix po^luan s Str

Ec...

wh^dpubl chfa

xngto Q ►tninclu"t

in amen€lineztt§ }PgecSbund _{

(lean Air ^AgFen y J (PSGA .

fteg ilatibili 4 and Ii an'the SIP

Changes t^,be inch ad 1n

'1t^]11^6t_;tlfP n1ftY1Q1L1n1 C1V Fen "i

alty for l]aflat14n3,

update rf^7es} _to^feflect flew

cliterarfor^ul^alred air qual.;£

ity8edLy_thAlegislature,

and ,^

alloy3>f41

^Fcology urpose coal -

t i #

tiz^ents^^us^^be lmx^ed to^nclud

Bing ate ^'A h►e

dments-1n.

:the SI:P _y^ritten1ctimmentd must )

be posmar^n^^terutlan April

B and s oult=be@nt to the

retedynthebox

left

Hearzn^riis£Qrmiatf on

f^,^`huradhy ^YprF1^ L006 `..

t

.Ug t,5oundCie&n Air Ag _,y5

1 OUiuon St_{Suie 300

^f^^Seat^'^leW^,^9$lOlxe^ ;.^

ga endrittoments to , en_c

.^, T)ep^rtmen`t of^Ec ology u },^

QBox41^O4 _ 4

,

ila,

marked lo

must 'bel

an A]iril.

^For^mor^ mformatior!

Ar mare-lacrxnatio a out the

x: f ` c rlor to; Contep£ f ^he e `ulatYon p

lie^hearng^'p ease contact i

TOIi`Yi Aii e son -,e!

ugeattn diCleanrAlx , €i :3 ciy

2O&} 689 461

5Ify^uuk nee apecfal acvufuma

datums please ontacltherec ep,

i

tionl^at at^Pu^e^ Sound G'lean?,ir;

A ericy^ 206) i$$ 4O1Ri^y:.April

u ro a erS0fl with

^ ^ each nr-^lealrfn gm^airr^ient;;;

cell ;(8OO) $ 3 5 388 (TDl?} by}

A rid 20' 29'

Certification of Hearing

I certify that the Washington State Department of Ecology held a public hearing on April

27, 2006 at Puget Sound Clean Air Agency in Seattle, Washington. The purpose of the

hearing was to receive public comment on including the attached amendments in the

State Implementation Plan. No public testimony was offered.

Doug Bfon, hearing officer Date YY ^^

Washington State Department of Ecology

Appendix 4

Rule SIP Revision SIP Template

Regulation II, Section 3.11 (Coatings and Ink Manufacturing)

I. Introduction: Submittal Summary

+ . What agency has submitted the SIP revision?

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

+ What has the state/local agency submitted?

The Agency is submitting the repeal of Regulation II, Section 3.11 (Coatings and Ink

Manufacturing) and the associated Impact Analysis and Relaxation Analysis.

+ What does the state/local agency want EPA to do with,subrhittal, approve or remove?

The Agency would like EPA to approve the repeal of Regulation II, Section 3.11

(CoatingsandInk Manufacturing).

II. Analysis of Submittal

1. What rules were revised?

The repeal of Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation II, Section 3.11 (Coatings

and Ink Manufacturing).

The repeal was adopted February 24, 2005 and is effectiveApril 1, 2005.

3. Describe why the pollutant is being regulated.

• Where in the CAA does the authority reside?

Does not apply. Proposal repeals a redundant rule.

• Where in state law is the state/local agency given authority to regulate the pollutant

and/or sources?

Does not apply. Proposal repeals a redundant rule.

2. Describe the revised rules.

• Generally describe the sources or source categories that are affected.

Coatings and ink manufacturers.

• Describe why the rules were revised. If it's a new rule, describe why the rule is needed.

Current rule is not as stringent as corresponding EPA MACT.

Current industrial practices are more stringent than current rule.

Rule is redundant; Agency does not need this rule to control VOC emissions.

• Describe the effect of the revision including the pollutants regulated.

Repealing the rule has no affect on VOC emitted by coatings and ink manufacturers.

(a)

(b)

(c)
4. What are the differences between the SIP-approved rules and the revised rules?

• What are the general differences?

The proposal repeals a SIP-approved rule that does not contribute to VOC

reductions.

• Will allowable or actual emissions increase, decrease, or be de minim is? Provide an

analysis.

The proposed repeal has no affect on VOC emissions from coatings and ink

manufacturers. See attached Relaxation Analysis.

• Is the revision a relaxation? -- see Appendix 6.

No. Repeal does not increase emissions.

• If revision is not a relaxation, confirm with EPA.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency provided EPA and Department of Ecology with

copies of the proposed repeal and the Relaxation Analysis: ;EPA and Ecology

accepted the Analysis.

• If revision is a relaxation, go to 5 below.

• Were these rules relied on in an attainment or maintenance plan? If so, justify revision.

Yes. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency expected the rule to contribute to VOC

reductions and included the rule in its maintenance plans. However, developments

in industrial practice and EPA promulgation of MACT for the coatings and ink

manufacturing industry have made the rule redundant. The Agency does not need

the rule to reduce \OC emissions from the coatings and ink manufacturing

industry.

• For local rules -- how does this rule differ from the state rule?

When repealed, there would be no local rule.

5. Show how relaxation meets federal requirements including.

• Are the NAAQS protected?

• Are the PSD Increments protected?

• Is the revised rule consistent with the Visibility SIP?

• For rules that are not a relaxation, this can be a short qualitative discussion.

The repeal is not a relaxation. The Agency can use BACT, MACT, PSD, and noNAAQS standards violations to minimize emissions from future expansions or new

facilities.

Attachment; Relaxation Analysis
Relaxation Analysis (Revised)

for the Repeal of Regulation II, Section 3.11

Background of Regulation

The Board of Directors (Board) of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Agency) adopted

Regulation II, Section 3.11 in June 1991 to limit VOC emissions from paint and ink

manufacturers. The Agency expected that reducing VOCs from such facilities would

help the area achieve ozone attainment. In December 1993, the Board adopted revisions

for vat cover requirements. Several emission inventory cycles showed that facilities that

manufactured low volatility paints did not emit significant quantities of VOCs. In April

1996, the Board adopted revisions that essentially de-regulated manufacturing of waterbased paints and low volatility paints. In 2003, EPA issued MACT standards for paint

and ink manufacturing that were more stringent than the Agency regulation. The Agency

consulted the regulated industry, conducted research, and proposed revisions. The

research and comments on the proposals revealed that:

• current industrial practices were more stringent than the Agency regulation

• VOC content of paints had gone down

• the manufacturers in our jurisdiction fell below the MACT thresholds

• Regulation II, Sec 3.11 had become redundant

Thus, the Agency rule does not contribute to VOC reduction efforts.

Emissions from Sources

The Agency has 16 sources registered as paint manufacturers. Four of these are coaters

who mix and use manufactured paints on site. Facilities that mix and use paint on site are

regulated by Regulation II, Section 3.04, not Regulation II, Section 3.11.

Nine of the sources do not report emissions because they are de minimis. The 3

remaining sources, Valspar, Parker, and Rudd do report their emissions. Valspar used the

latest Emission Inventory Improvement Project (EIIP) method to estimate emission

factors applicable to its operations. Parker estimated emission factors from source tests at

its San Diego facility. We used Valspar and Parker emission factors to estimate

emissions from the 9 non-reporting sources. Rudd estimated and reported its emissions.

We repeated the Rudd emission estimates with Valspar factors and obtained

approximately the same estimate.

Tons VOC Emitted Per Year 1999 2002 2003

Reporting Paint Manufacturers (Valspar, Parker, Rudd) ...44 ...: 25 27

Non-Reporting Paint Manufacturers : 18 10 11

All Point Sources 6,628 3,765 3,948

All Anthropogenic Sources 148,000 164,400 189,000

% Point Source VOC that comes

from Paint Manufacturing 0935 0.930 0.963

% All VOC that comes

from Paint Manufacturing 0.042 0.023 0.021
Rudd and Parker have synthetic minor permits that limit their emissions. If we repeal the

regulation, paint manufacturing emissions will still be below its contribution to the SIP

emissions budget for the Seattle-Tacoma ozone attainment/maintenance plan area.

Regulation II, Section 3.11(c) requires facilities to minimize VOC emissions during vat

cleaning. It is difficult to enforce this standard because the standard is written in

narrative style and therefore not prescriptive enough. Orders of Approval the Agency

issued to paint manufacturers (and paint mixers) usually concern paint booths and

baghouses. The focus of these Orders of Approval is to control particulate matter release

and not VOC. None of the Orders of Approval quote Regulation II, Section 3.11. In fact,

the Agency does not use Regulation II, Section 3.11.

The VOC contentsof paints is decreasing due to EPA efforts to control VOC emissions at

the product level. During the research to revise or repeal the regulation and for the

relaxation analysis, managers at paint manufacturing facilities stated that they plan

batches so that they can use the left over cleaning solvents in the next batch. This

reduces emissions and economic losses, and saves time. The facilities also desire to stay

below their synthetic minor permit caps.

Repealing Regulation If, Section 3.11 does not increase VOC emissions. The Agency

can use BACT and no-NAAQS standards violations to minimize emissions from future

expansions or new facilities.

Rationale for the Repeal

The rule does - not contribute to VOC reduction because industrial practices have

improved beyond the rule's provisions. Also, historically, the Agency does not receive

complaints about -paint manufacturers. Agency inspectors report that they do not notice

odors during inspections.

Notes regarding table:

Reporting Paint Manufacturers

The. 3.. paint manufacturers: Rudd, Valspar, and Parker, that report emissions or activity to the

Agency.

Non-Reporting Paint Manufacturers

Paint manufacturers whose emissions fall below the reporting thresholds. For this repeal

process, the Agency collected their activity level data and estimated their emissions with the

latest EIIP methods.

All Point Sources (includes paint manufacturing)

Sources that report emissions to the Agency. The reporting threshold may change from year-toyear. The 2003 reporting threshold exceeds the 2002 threshold, and the 2002 threshold exceeds

the 1999 threshold.

All Anthropogenie Sources

Total VOC emissions that the Agency reported to EPA in the 1999 and 2002 inventories. The

Agency does not need to report the 2003 estimate to EPA.

of VOC from Paint Manufacturing

Paint manufacturing VOC compared with VOC emissions from point sources.

Paint manufacturing VOC compared with VOC emissions from all sources.
Attachment to Relaxation Analysis (Revised)

for the Repeal of Regulation II, Section. 3.11

Differences between the revised version and the original are very minor:

The original version contained emissions data from 1996, 1999, and 2002.

The revised version replaces the 1996 emissions data with more recent 2003 data, and

revised the 2002 data with more accurate information not available at the time the

original version was prepared.

The more recent data further reinforced the Agency position that:

• Current industrial practices were more stringent than the rule;

• VOC content of paints had gone down;

• Paint manufacturers in our jurisdiction fell below the MACT thresholds; and

• Regulation II, Section 3.11 had become redundant.

-WASHINGTON STATE REF S'IER Page 1 of 2

WSR 05-06-050

PERMANENT RULES

PUGET SOUND

CLEAN AIR AGENCY -

[ Filed February 28, 2005, 1:52 p.m. , effective April 1, 2005 ]

Purpose: To remove unnecessary rules and to remove the definitions that apply only to the repealed

rules.

Citation of Existing Rules Affected by this Order: Repealing Regulation II, Section 3.11 and

Regulation III, Section 3.05; and amending Regulation III, Section 1.08.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: Chapter 70.94 RCW.

Adopted under notice filed as WSR 05-03402 on January 18, 2005.

Changes Other than Editing from Proposed to Adopted Version: Repeal of four definitions in

Regulation HI, Section 1.08 that are used only in the repealed Section 3.05.

Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Comply with Federal Statute: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed

0; Federal Rules. or Standards: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Recently Enacted State Statutes: New

0, Amended 0, Repealed, O.

Number of Sections Adopted at Request of a Nongovernmental Entity: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed

0.

Number of Sections Adopted on the Agency's Own Initiative: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0.

Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Clarify, Streamline, or Reform Agency Procedures: New 0,

Amended 0, Repealed 0.

Number of Sections Adopted Using Negotiated Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0;

Pilot Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Other Alternative Rule Making: New 0,

Amended 0, Repealed O.

Date Adopted: February 24, 2005.

REPEALER

htt»•/lixnxnxrl 1 pc, urn nnz7lrlnniimPrife/wcr/7(1 }/ll6/f}5_116-(1Sfl tam 117.1 /7f10i

Kwame Agyei

Engineer
WASHINGTON STATE REO TER Page 2 of 2

REGULATION II SECTION 3.11 COATINGS AND INK MANUFACTURING

AMENDATORY SECTION

REGULATION III SECTION 1.08 SPECIAL DEFINITIONS

(a) ACCEPTABLE SOURCE IMPACT LEVEL (ASIL) means a concentration of a toxic air contaminant

in the outdoor atmosphere in any area that does not have restricted or controlled public access that is

used to evaluate the air quality impacts of a single source. There are three types of acceptable source

impact levels: risk-based, threshold-based, and special. Concentrations for these three types of ASILs

are established by the Board after public hearing and are listed in Appendix A of this Regulation III.

a true vapor prc83urc gli atcr than 4.2 kPa (0.6 t,3ia) is not hcatcd at al- abovc the boiling' point.))

(({e})) (b) ETHYLENE OXIDE AERATOR means any equipment, space, or room in which air is used to

remove residual ethylene oxide from sterilized materials.

(0140) (c), ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZER means any chamber or related piece of equipment that

uses ethylene oxide or an ethylene oxide mixture in any sterilization or fumigation process.

which opcratca at 2°C or lc33.))

((f g}))1 c1 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT (TAC) means any air contaminant listed in Appendix A of this

Regulation III.

((

-))

REPEALER

REGULATION III SECTION 3.05 SOLVENT METAL CLEANERS

OO Washington State Code Reviser's Office

itt- Ihxnxnxr1 1PCr qua unvlrlnr^»rnpntr/^xrcr/7!1115/fi6/Oc-(lf 41 S(1 him V71 /71105
Text to berepealed

REGULATION II SECTION 3.11 COATINGS AND INK

MANUFACTURING Adopted 06113/91(700)

Revised 12/09/93 (769), 04/11/96 (830)

(a) This section shall apply to the manufacture of paints, varnishes, lacquers,

enamels, shellacs, printing inks, or sealers that contain volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) with a true vapor pressure greater than 0.1 mm Hg

(0.002 psia).

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the manufacture of

coatings or inks unless the mixing vat is kept covered (except to add

ingredients or to take samples). The cover must be in contact with at least

90% of the rim of the vat. The cover may have a slit to allow clearance for

insertion of a mixer shaft, provided that the slit is covered after insertion of

the mixer.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the use of VOCcontaining materials for vat cleaning unless the cleaning is done in a manner

that minimizes VOC emissions.

Appendix 4

Rule SIP Revision SIP Template

Sections 3.11 Civil Penalties & 3.25 Federal Regulation Reference Date

I. Introduction: Submittal Summary

• What agency has submitted the SIP revision?

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Agency).

• What has the state/local agency submitted?

Revised Regulation I, Sections 3.11 and 3.25, and the Impact Analysis.

+ What does the state/local agency want EPA to do with submittal, approve or remove?

The Agency wants EPA to approve the submittal.

IL Analysis of Submittal

1. What rules were revised?

Regulation I, Section 3.11 Civil Penalties

Regulation I, Section 3.25 Federal Regulation Reference, Date

Revisions were adopted September 22, 2005; effective November 1, 2005.

2. Describe the revised rules.

The revised rules:

(1) adjust the maximum civil penalty amount to account for inflation, as determined

by the state office of economic and revenue forecast council;

(2) clarify how the Agency calculates and documents when a request for mitigation of

a civil penalty is received; and

(3) update the federal regulation reference date in order to remain current.

Describe why the pollutant is being regulated

These changes are administrative.

4. What are the differences between the SIP--approved rules and the revised rules?.

• What are the general differences? See answer No. 2 above.

• Will allowable/actual emissions increase, decrease, or be de minimis?

These-are administrative changes and do not affect emissions.

• If revision is not a relaxation, confirm with EPA. Done - with SIP development plan.

• Were these rules relied on in an attainment or maintenance plan? No.

5. Show how relaxation meets federal requirements.,

There is no expected relaxation.

Enc: Impact Analysis
Impact Analysis

Proposed Amendments to Regulation I:

Section 3.11 - Civil Penalties and

Section 3.25 - Federal Regulation Reference Date

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

An Environmental Checklist and a Determination of Nonsignificance, required

under SEPA for non-project administrative changes, were prepared on June 22,

2005. The proposed rule-making CR-102 form will be filed with the Washington

State Code Reviser on August 3, 2005.

A. Affected Regulations

Regulation I, Sections 3.11 and 3.25.

B. Rationale for the Proposed Regulation Revision

The proposed adjustment to the maximum civil penalty amount accounts for

inflation, as determined by the state office of the economic and revenue forecast

council.. Without this adjustment, the maximum penalty amount would effectively

decrease each year. The CPI for the Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton area increased by

2.7% during the previous calendar year, which amounts to an increase in the

maximum civil penalty of $386.

The proposal would clarify how the Agency calculates and documents when a

request for mitigation of a civil penalty is received.

The federal regulation reference date requires an annual update in order to remain

current.

C. Probable Benefits and Costs

There are no benefits or costs associated with the proposed amendments.

D. Differences Between Proposed Regulation and State/FederalLaw

There are no, known conflicts between the proposed revisions and the state or

federal air pollution control enabling statutes.

E. Coordination with Federal,State,and Other Local Agencies

These changes to PSCAA's regulations are expected to be adopted by Ecology as

revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and forwarded to Ecology and

EPA for approval as a SIP revision at the end of the calendar year.

F. Regulation Implementation Plan

CR-102 Form Filed with State Code Reviser

PSCAA Board Hearing

CR-103 Form to State Code Reviser

Revised Regulation Effective Date

Ecology SIP Revision Hearing Notice

Submittal to Ecology as a SIP Revision

- Date

August 3, 2005

September 22, 2005

September 26, 2005

November 1, 2005

December 2005

January 2006

ImpactAnalysis.doc 1
VV F]J u1^iU 1'J1V i11-k 1 1C GL710 1 Dr, rage 1or

WSR 05-20-022

PERMANENT RULES

PUGET SOUND

CLEAN AIR AGENCY

[Filed September 27, 2005, 10:11 a.m. , effective November 1, 2005 ]

Purpose: To adjust the maximum civil penalty amount for inflation, to clarify civil penalty mitigation

requests, and to update the federal regulation reference date in order to remain current.

Citation of Existing Rules Affected by this Order: Amending Regulation I, Sections 3.11 and 3.25.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: Chapter 70,94 RCM.

Adopted under notice filed as WSR 05-16-070 on August 1, 2005.

Changes Other than Editing from Proposed to Adopted Version: The words "receipt of were added

twice in Section 3.11(c) immediately preceding the words "a Notice and Order of Civil Penalty..." and

once in Section 3.11(e) immediately preceding the words "the Notice and Order of Civil Penalty...."

Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Comply with Federal Statute: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed

0; Federal Rules or Standards: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Recently Enacted State Statutes: New

0, Amended 0, Repealed 0.

Number of Sections Adopted at Request of a Nongovernmental Entity: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed

Number of Sections Adopted on the Agency's Own Initiative: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed O.

Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Clarify, Streamline, or Refotun Agency Procedures: New 0,

Amended 0, Repealed O.

Number of Sections Adopted Using Negotiated Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0;

Pilot Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Other Alternative Rule Making: New 0,

Amended 0, Repealed O.

Date Adopted: September 22, 2005.

James Nolan

Director - Compliance

AMENDATORYSECTION

REGULATION I SECTION 3.11 CIVIL PENALTIES

0.

file://11Chinook\UserslLynnS1WORKIWASHINGTON STATE REGISTER.htm 10/19/2005
W Hlri11VU 1 VJ.V 71 A 1E, 1CLl.rIJ 1 MC . rage L or J

(a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of chapter 70.94 RCW or any of the rules or

regulations in force pursuant thereto, may incur a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed

(($14,300.00)) $14,686.00 per day for each violation.

(b) Any person who fails to take action as specified by an order issued pursuant to chanter 70.94

_R__CW or Regulations I, .II, and III of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency shall be liable for a civil penalty

ofnot more than (($143(*-00)) $14,686.00 for each day of continued noncompliance.

(c) Within 30 days of the date of ((ftf:t.er)) receipt of a Notice and Order of Civil Penalty, the person

incurring the penalty may apply in writing to the Control Officer for the remission or mitigation of the

penalty. To be considered timely, a mitigation request must be actually received by the Agency, during

regular office hours, within 30 days of the date of receipt of a Notice and Order of Civil Penalty. This

time •eriod shall be calculated b excludin the first da and including the last unless the last da • is a

Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, and then it is excluded and the next succeeding day that is not a

Saturday, Sunday, or le ag 1 holida is included. The date stain s ed b the A:enc on the mitigation

request is prima facie evidence of the date the Agency received the request.

(d) ((Any auch)) A mitigation request must contain the following:

(1) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and telefacsimile number (if available) of the party

requesting mitigation;

(2) A copy of the Notice and Order of Civil Penalty involved;

(3) A short and plain statement showing the grounds upon which the party requesting mitigation

considers such order to be unjust or unlawful;

(4) A clear and concise statement of facts upon which the party requesting mitigation relies to sustain

his or her grounds for mitigation;

(5) The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and

(6) A statement that the party requesting mitigation has read the mitigation request and believes the

contents to be true, followed by the party's signature.

( ))The Control Officer shall remit or mitigate the, penalty only upon

a demonstration by the requestor of extraordinary circumstances such as the presence of information or

factors not considered in setting the original penalty.

(({e))) (e) Any civil penalty may also be appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board pursuant

to chaptc143.2IB RCW and chapter 371--08 WAC. ((if the)) An appeal ((1)) must be filed with the

Hearings Board and served on the Agency within 30 days ((after receipt by the pawn penalized of the

notice imposing the penalty or 30 days after receipt)) of the date of receipt of the Notice and Order of

Civil Penalty or the notice of disposition on the application for relief from penalty.

(({e})) (f), A civil penalty shall become due and payable on the later of:

(1)30 days after receipt of the notice imposing the penalty;

file:lAlChinooklUserslLynnS\WORKIWASHINGTON STATE REGISTER.htm 10/19/2005
YY1161111NU1U1N ,1 H 11 1t U1.J1 1C rage i of .i

(2) 30 days after receipt of the notice of disposition on application for relief from penalty, if such

application is made; or

(3) 30 days after receipt of the notice of decision of the Hearings Board if the penalty is appealed.

(({})) If the amount of the civil penalty is not paid to the Agency within 30 days after it becomes

due and payable, the Agency may bring action to recover the penalty in King County Superior Court or

in the superior court of any county in which the violator does business. In these actions, the procedures

and rules of evidence shall be the same as in an ordinary civil action.

(({g})) (h) Civil penalties incurred but mot paid shall accrue interest beginning on the 91st day

following the date that the penalty becomes due and payable, at the highest rate allowed by RKW

19.52.020 on the date that the penalty becomes due and payable. If violations or penalties are appealed,

interest shall not begin to accrue until the 31st day following final resolution of the appeal.

(((-It})) Q To secure the penalty incurred under this section, the Agency shall have a lien on any

vessel used or operated in violation of Regulations I, II, and III which shall be enforced as provided in

RCW 60.36.050.

AMENDATORY SECTION

REGULATION I SECTION 3.25 FEDERAL REGULATION REFERENCE DATE

Whenever federal regulations are referenced in Regulation I, II, or III, the effective date shall be July

1, ((2004)) 2005.

© Washington State Code Reviser's Office

file://11ChinooklUserslLynnS\WORK1WASHINGTON STATE REGISTER.htm 1 011 9/2 00 5

SECTION 3.1.1_ CIVIL PENALTIES

(a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of chapter 70.94 RCW or any of

the rules or regulations in force pursuant thereto, may. incur a civil penalty in an

amount not to exceed $14,686.00 per day for each violation.

(b) Any person who fails to take action as specified by an order issued pursuant to

chapter 70.94 RCW or Regulations I, II, and III of the Puget Sound Clean Air

Agency shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $14,686.00 for each

day of continued noncompliance.

(c) Within 30 days of the date of receipt of a Notice and Order of Civil Penalty, the

person incurring the penalty may apply in writing to the Control Officer for the

remission or mitigation of the penalty. To be considered timely, a mitigation

request must be actually received by the Agency, during regular office hours,

within 30 days of the date of receipt of a Notice and Order of Civil Penalty.

This time period shall be calculated by excluding the first day and including the

last, unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, and then it is.

excluded and the next succeeding day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal '

holiday is included. The date stamped by the Agency on the mitigation request

is prima facie evidence of the date the Agency received the request.

(d) A mitigation request must contain the following:

(1) The name, mailing address; telephone number, and telefacsimile number

(if available) of the party requesting mitigation;

(2) A copy of the Notice and Order of Civil Penalty involved; .

(3) A short and plain statement showing the grounds upon which the party

requesting mitigation considers such order to be unjust or unlawful;

(4) A clear and concise statement of facts upon which the party requesting . mitigation relies to sustain his or her grounds for mitigation;

(5) The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and

(6) A statement that the party requesting mitigation has read the mitigation

request and believes the contents to be true, followed by the party's

signature.

The Control Officer shall remit or mitigate the penalty , only upon a

demonstration by the requestor of extraordinary circumstances such as the

presence of information or factors not considered in setting the original penalty.

(e) Any civil penalty may also be appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings

Board pursuant to chapter 43.21B RCW and chapter 371-08 WAC. An appeal

must be filed with the Hearings Board and served on the Agency within 30

days of the date of receipt of the Notice and Order of Civil Penalty or the notice

of disposition on the application for relief from penalty.

(f) A civil penalty shall become due and payable on the. later of:

(1) 30 days after receipt of the notice imposing the penalty;

1
(2) 30 days after receipt of the notice of disposition on application for relief

from penalty, if such application is made; or

(3) 30 days after receipt of the notice of decision of the Hearings Board if the

penalty is appealed.

(g) If the amount of the civil penalty is not paid to the Agency within 30 days after

it becomes due and payable, the Agency may bring action to recover the

penalty in King County Superior Court or in the superior court of any county in

which the violator does business. In these actions; the procedures and rules of

evidence shall be the same as in an ordinary civil action.

(h) Civil penalties incurred but not paid shall accrue interest beginning on the 91st

day following the date that the penalty becomes due and payable, at the highest

rate allowed by RCW 19.52.020 on the date that the penalty becomes due and

payable. If violations or penalties are appealed, interest .shall not begin to

accrue until the 31st day following final resolution of the appeal.

(i) To secure the penalty incurred under this section, the Agency shall have a lien

on any vessel used or operated in violation of Regulations I, IT, and III which

shall be enforced as provided in RCW 60.36.050.

SECTION 3.25 FEDERAL REGULATION REFERENCE DATE

Whenever federal regulations are referenced in Regulation I, II, or III, the effective

date shall be July 1, 2005.

2
Appendix 4

Rule SIP Revision SIP Template

Section 13.02 - General Conditions for Solid Fuel Burning Devices

I. Introduction: Submittal Summary

• What agency has submitted the SIP revision?

" Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

• What has the state/local agency submitted?

The Agency is submitting a revision to Regulation I, Section 13.02 (General Conditions

for Solid Fuel Burning Devices).

• What does the state/local agency want EPA to do with submittal, approve or remove?

The Agency would like EPA to approve the submittal.

11. Analysis of Submittal

1. What rules were revised?

• Provide list of rules and state/local effective dates.

A revision to Regulation I, Section 13.02 - General Conditions for Solid Fuel Burning

Devices was adopted by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Board of Directors on

September 22, 2005. The effective date is November 1, 2005.

2. Describe the revised rules.

The purpose of this change to the Agency's regulation is to align it with recent changes

enacted by the Washington State Legislature to the State's Clean Air Act. During its

2005 session, the Legislature amended chapter 70.94.473 of the Revised Code of

Washington to use levels of fine particulate (PM2.5) as the basis upon which the state

Department of Ecology and local air agencies would determine if an area was

temporarily experiencing impaired air quality and call "burn bans," or prohibitions on

the use of certain solid fuel burning devices. The effective date of this revised state law

is July 24, 2005. As a result of this legislative action, the two stages of impaired air

quality contained in Washington law are now defined based on levels of PM2.5, rather

than PM1o. The Agency is amending Regulation 1, Section 13.02, to reflect these new

state definitions.

3. Describe why the pollutant is being regulated.

• Where in the CAA does the authority reside?

The CAA regulates PM2.s.

• Where in state law is the state/local agency given authority to regulate the pollutant

and/or sources?

RCW 70.94.141 defines the powers and duties of an activated air pollution control

authority.
4. What are the differences between the SIP-approved rules and the revised rules?

• What are the general differences?

The SIP-approved rules contain references to previous definitions of impaired air

quality, based on levels of PMio. The newly adopted statewide definitions of

impaired air quality are based on levels of PM2.5. The revised rule implements this

technical change to the definition of impaired air quality.

• Will allowable or actual emissions increase, decrease, or be de minimis? Provide an

analysis.

No emission rates are affected by this technical revision.

•

Is the revision a relaxation? -- see Appendix 6.

No.

• If revision is not a relaxation, confirm with EPA.

Done.

• If revision is a relaxation, go. to 5 below.

NIA

• Were these rules relied on in an attainment or maintenance plan? If so, juste revision.

No.

• For local rules -- how does this rule differ from the state rule?

This rule adopts the changes implemented by the state Legislature and will be the

same as the state rule.-

5. Show how relaxation meets federal requirements...

There is no expected relaxation.
YY1-5,01111NkJI1J1V 01II.1 .Gil, rage i of L

WSR 05-20-023

PERMANENT RULES

PUGET SOUND

CLEAN AIR AGENCY

[ Filed September 27, 2005, 10:12 a.m. , effective November 1, 2005 ]

. Purpose: To reflect new state definitions of impaired air quality adopted by the legislature (effective

July 24, 2005). The previous definitions were based on ambient concentrations of PM10; the new

definitions are based on concentrations of PM2.5. Using the new definitions will allow the agency to

impose indoor burning restrictions earlier in the build-up of pollution, thus decreasing the contribution

from these sources to an air pollution episode.

Citation of Existing Rules Affected by this Order: Amending Regulation I, Section 13.02.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: Chapter 70.94 RCW.

Adopted under notice filed as WSR 05-16-072 on August 1, 2005.

Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Comply with Federal Statute: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed

0; Federal Rules or Standards: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Recently Enacted State Statutes: New

0, Amended 0, Repealed O.

Number of Sections Adopted at Request of a Nongovernmental Entity: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed

0.

Number of Sections Adopted on the Agency's Own Initiative: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed O.

Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Clarify, Streamline, or Reform Agency Procedures: New 0,

Amended 0, Repealed O.

Number of Sections Adopted Using Negotiated Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0;

Pilot Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Other Alternative Rule Making: New 0,

Amended 0, Repealed O.

Date Adopted: September 22, 2005.

John K. Anderson

Supervisory Engineer

AMENDATORY SECTION

REGULATION I SECTION 13.02 GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR SOLID FUEL BURNING

DEVICES

file:l/11ChinooklUsers\LynnSIWORK.IWASHINGTON STATE REGISTERxx.htm 10/19/2005
W 1-131111-N J l_IIN i Ik it K I AJ1 1 MC rage z or L

In addition to the provisions of this regulation, the Agency adopts by reference and enforces the

following provisions for solid fuel burning devices established by the Washington State Department of

Ecology:

WAC 173-433-03.0 Definitions. {effective 4120/91)

WAC 173-433-110 Opacity standards. (effective 316193)

WAC 173.433-120 Prohibited fuel types. (effective

4120191)

WAC 173-433-130 General emission standards. _..__._._mm

(effective 4120191)

WAC 173-433-140 Impaired air quality criteria.

(1){b), (2), (3), and (effective 4120191) (First Stage of

(4) Impaired Air Quality has the

meaning contained in RCN.

7'0;9.4.473 {fl(b); Second- Stage of

Impaired Air Qualityhasthe

meaning contained in RCW

70.94..473 (1)(c))

WAC173.4331150 Curtailment. (effective 4120191)

© Washington State Code Reviser's Office

file:1A\ChinooklUserslLynnS1WORK1WASHINGTON STATE REGISTERxx.htm 10/.19/2005
SECTION 13.02 GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR SOLID FUEL BURNING

DEVICES

In addition to the provisions of this regulation, the Agency adopts by reference and

enforces the following provisions for solid fuel burning devices established by the

Washington State Department of Ecology:

WAC 173-433-030 Definitions. (effective 4120/91)

WAC 173-433-110 Opacity standards.. (effective 316/93)

WAC 173-433-120 Prohibited fuel types. (effective 4120/91)

WAC 173-433-130 General emission standards. (effective 4/20/91)

WAC 173-433-140 Impaired air quality criteria. (effective 4/20/91)

(1)(b), (2), (3), and (4) (First Stage of Impaired Air Quality has the . meaning contained in RCW 70.94.473(1)(b);

Second Stage of Impaired Air Quality has the

meaning contained in RCW 70.94.473(1)(c).)

WAC 173-433-150 Curtailment. (effective 4/20/91)

1

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

Explanation:

PM2.5 Levels Protective of PMto Standard

The revisions to Regulation I, Section 13.02, change the basis for calling

temporary bans on the use of solid fuel burning devices (wood stoves, fireplaces,

and fireplace inserts). Previously, ambient levels of PMto were the basis for

calling burn bans; now Washington State Law (RCW 70.94.473) uses ambient

levels of PM2.5 as the trigger point for the state's two-stage burn ban program.

Prior to 'the passage of the legislation changing the trigger pollutant to PM2.5, the

Agency analyzed the ambient pollution concentrations before and during burn

bans over the past several years, all of which were called on the basis of PMto.

The Agency's analysis indicates that had these bans been called using a PM2.5-

based trigger, the bans would have been called approximately one day earlier in

the build-up of ambient particle pollution, and at lower concentrations of PMto

than were allowed under the existing burn ban statute. A PM2.5-based burn ban

would thus have been enacted . sooner, and at a more protective level, than the

PMto-based bum ban was.

Burn bans are largely meteorologically driven, caused by temporary temperature

inversions trapping wintertime pollutants, and they end when weather conditions

change and allow pollutants to disperse. Calling off a burn ban is thus a function

of weather conditions, and the pollutant upon which the ban was initially called is

irrelevant for its termination. Again, Agency analysis of recent historical burn

bans indicates that ambient concentrations of both PMto and PM2.5 drop when

weather conditions allow pollutants to disperse, therefore burn bans would be

called off in the same manner under the new PM2.5-based program and be equally

protective.
Amy Fowler

Friday, July 29, 2005 12:59 PM

John Anderson; Dave Kircher

Laurie Halvorson; Jim Nolan

FW: EPA's Comments on PSCAA's Proposed Revision to the Solid Fuel Burning Devices

Rule

FYI.

Original Message

From: Suzuki.Debra@epamail.opa.gov [mailto:Suzuki.Debra@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 12:36 PM

To: Amy Fowler

Cc: brud462@ecy.wa.gov ; Cunningham.Roylene@epamail.epa.gov ; Lynn Sykes

Subject: EPA's Comments on PSCAA's Proposed Revision to the Solid Fuel Burning Devices

Rule

Hi Amy,

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. on the proposed rulerevision to

Regulation I, Section 13.02 - General Conditions for Solid Fuel Burning Devices.

Comments:

- When you submit this rule revision to EPA as a Sit') revision, please include in the

submittal an explanation of how calling burn bans based on. the PM2.5levels in the new RCW

70.94.473 is as protective of the PM10 standard as calling burn bans based on the PMIO

levels in the

former version of RCW 70.94.473. Since the solid fuel burning devices

rule is relied' on in the Seattle PM10 Maintenance Plan, this explanatien•will help us to

justify approving this revision.

- The new RCW 70.94.473 also added definitions for "fine particulate"

and "trigger le.vel.";You may want to consider whether these definitions should be

incorporated . by reference into PSCAA's rules or whether your rules.can be implemented

without incorporating these two definitions.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Debra Suzuki

EPA, Region 10

(206) 553-0985

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

1