Statement of Basis

for Ash Grove Cement Company, Inc.

Original Air Operating Permit was issued May 15, 2004

Significant Modification 1 issued 5/17/07

Administrative Amendment 1 Issued 7/13/07

Administrative Amendment 2 Issued 12/2/10

This document contains the descriptions of the changes and modifications to the Air Operating 

Permit for Ash Grove Cement Company Inc. These changes and modifications are described in 

Section below entitled "Modification 1 to Operating Permit".

Purpose of this Statement of Basis

This document summarizes the legal and factual basis for the permit conditions in the Ash Grove 

Cement Company, Inc. (hereafter referred to as Ash Grove) air operating permit to be issued 

under the authority of the Washington Clean Air Act, Chapter 70.94 Revised Code of 

Washington, Chapter 173-401 of the Washington Administrative Code and Puget Sound Clean 

Air Agency Regulation I, Article 7. Unlike the permit, this document is not legally enforceable. 

It includes references to the applicable statutory or regulatory provisions that relate to Ash 

Grove‟s emissions to the atmosphere. In addition, this statement of basis provides a description 

of Ash Grove‟s activities and a compliance history.

Source Description

Ash Grove is a major cement manufacturing plant.

Ash Grove is subject to the requirement to obtain an air operating permit because it is a “major 

source” as defined in the federal and state operating permit regulations (Title V of the federal 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and its implementing regulation 40 CFR Part 70, and RCW 

70.94.161 and its implementing regulation, Chapter 173-401 WAC). A major source has the 

potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of any criteria pollutant (such as CO, SO2, NOx, 

VOC, particulate matter, etc.) or 10 tons per year or more of any single hazardous air pollutant 

listed in Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (such as hydrochloric acid), or 25 tons per 

year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.

Ash Grove emits more than 100 tons per year of NOx and SO2 (see Attachment A, Emission 

Inventory).

Ash Grove, located in the Duwamish industrial area of Seattle, King County, Washington 

consists of a single dry kiln with a pre-calcining tower for Portland cement manufacturing. This 

kiln was installed approved for installation in 1990. It has a capacity to process 92 tons per hour 

(2200 ton per day and 750,000 ton per year) of type I, II, III clinker while burning coal, natural 

gas, whole tires, and a small amount of internally generated waste derived fuels approved for 

use.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 2 of 122

This new kiln and associated equipment was constructed on the plant site of the former Lone Star 

Cement Company constructed before 1970 and at the time of the new plant construction Ash 

Grove used some of the remaining Lone Star equipment and air pollution control systems.

The air pollution generating and controlling equipment are contained in the Puget Sound Clean 

Air Agency equipment listing.

KILN

The clinker is manufactured in a long rotary kiln approximately 500 feet long and approximately 

15 feet in diameter with nine planetary cooler tubes attached around its lower diameter end. The 

rotating kiln is a dry process kiln with a slightly inclined angle to allow pre-calcined raw 

materials from the precalciner tower to be introduced into the upper end of the kiln and move 

downward toward the lower heated end as the kiln rotates. The burners are located in the slightly 

lower end of the kiln. Heat from burning various fuels provides the heat to finish the calcining 

process in the higher temperature end of the kiln. The kiln contains limestone (CaCO3) which 

decarbonates or calcines (CO2 is driven off) to lime (CaO). Further heating of the materials 

traveling down the kiln allows calcium in the lime to fuse with alumina and iron which initiates 

the inclusion of silica into the chemical process. The reaction with silica is an exothermic 

reaction initiated by intense heat (>2500F). The production of the various compounds of 

calcium silicates (CaSiO2)n is called clinker burning. The melted calcium silicates forms a 

viscous semi-liquid material at these higher temperatures where it forms small balls called 

clinker, as it slides downward along the inclined rotating kiln. This kiln is rated at 92 tons per 

hour of clinker. The clinker transfers to the planetary coolers and is sent by elevator to the GCooler. The cooled clinker is conveyed for storage in the clinker silos and than to the Clinker 

Cooler Grinder building where it becomes ground with the addition of gypsum, limestone and 

flyash to produce Portland cement.

RAW MATERIALS

About 168 tons/hr of raw materials are ground in the raw mill grinder and transferred to the raw 

mill silos. The ground raw materials are pneumatically conveyed from the storage silos to the 

pre-calcining tower. The raw materials include limestone, sand, clay, iron ore, iron bearing 

byproducts, aluminum silicates, natural gravel, fly ash, lime, gypsum, and industrial byproducts

containing calcium, silica, iron, and alumna, such as bottom ash, slag and gypsum board. In 

general, feed stocks containing high concentrations of alkali, organic materials, and metals are 

avoided. No material regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) or as a toxic substance regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) is accepted as a feed material.

FUELS

Fuels burned in the kiln include: petroleum coke, coal, natural gas, whole tires, and a small 

amount of internally generated waste lubrication oils. The fuel usage rate is defined by slurry 

chemistry, fuel availability, and production rate. The nominal heat for clinker production is 

approximately 4.3x106 Btu per ton (Btu/ton). Fuels burned in the kiln provide about 396x106

Btu/hr. This allows a clinker production rate of about 2200 tons per day.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 3 of 122

MAIN STACK

The kiln exhausts from its upper end in the same area where preheated materials are received 

from the preheat tower. The exhaust flows up through the 5 stage preheater tower as raw 

materials cascade down towards to kiln. The exhaust preheats and starts the process of 

converting the raw materials in the preheat tower. The exhaust ducts back down to ground level 

where it either routes through the raw mill grinder or is ducted directly to the main baghouse. 

The exhaust from the main baghouse is sent to the main stack on the side of the preheater tower 

that is about 250 feet high. Dry gas scrubbing of the exhaust is used at several locations in the 

exhaust stream.

The main stack is continuously monitored for opacity, SO2, NOx, CO, oxygen, temperature and 

stack flow rate.

Typically stack emissions are about 2 to 4% opacity, about 100 ppm (20 to 30 lb/hr) SO2, 300 to 

400 ppm (300 lb/hr) NOx, about 500 to 800 ppm (250 lbs/hr) CO, about 7% oxygen, stack 

temperature of 350 oF and stack flow of about 170,000 to 180,000 cubic feet per minute.

FINISH PRODUCT

The clinker is processed in the ball mills with gypsum to form cement at about 60 tons per hour 

and sent to the cement silos for storage. Cement can be shipped by truck, rail or barge.

Each of the (2) Mill Sweep Baghouses in the Finish Mill have 20,000 cfm and each of the (2) 

High Efficiency Separator baghouses have 77,000 cfm.

OTHER PROCESS CONTROL BAGHOUSES

There are more than 60 fabric filter baghouses including the larger baghouses mentioned that 

control emissions plant-wide for the cement manufacturing operations. All the baghouses except 

the main baghouse have a particulate emission standard of 0.005 gr/dscf averaged for a 24 hour 

period.

Review of Permit Application

An air operating permit application was received from Ash Grove on January 1, 1995. An 

incompleteness letter from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency was sent on August 2, 1995. 

Additional information was received on September 5, 1995. A Completeness Determination was 

made by Puget Sound Clean Air Agency on November 20, 1995, acknowledging the application 

met the requirements of WAC 173-401-500(7) and it was determined to be complete.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 4 of 122

Compliance History

General

This compliance history summarizes enforcement actions noted from July 1, 1997 to the date of 

this initial draft air operating permit. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has inspected Ash 

Grove annually since 1997. There is one outstanding enforcement action related to asbestos and 

its status is discussed below.

Ash Grove Source History Table (below) shows each violation, date of violation, regulations or 

permit conditions cited, violation description, civil penalty number, civil penalty amount, and 

status. For discussion, the Notices of Violation are organized by violation type as follows:

 Fugitive dust and fallout cases.

 Continuous emission monitoring.

 Asbestos.

Fugitive Dust and Fallout Cases

Fugitive dust enforcement actions consist of dates when an Agency inspector observed dust 

emissions emanating from plant operations. Fallout enforcement actions are those occurring 

when an Agency inspector verified off-site particulate nuisance impacts such as clinker fallout 

impacting a complainant‟s automobile or property. Generally, emissions were not observed at 

the plant at the same time off-site fallout nuisance impacts were verified. Due to the similar 

nature of the fugitive dust and the fallout enforcement actions they were often grouped together 

in settlement agreements on the condition that Ash Grove improve fugitive dust control 

measures.

Each settlement agreement pertaining to fugitive dust and fallout is discussed below.

An Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD) signed on December 9, 1998 resolved all of the 

enforcement actions from July 16, 1997 through August 14, 1998 for Civil Penalty Nos. 8760, 

8761, 8801, and 8929. The AOD required Ash Grove to pay $12,000. A condition of the AOD 

required Ash Grove to hire a consultant to investigate potential fugitive dust sources at the plant 

and to evaluate improvement projects. The study was completed on November 2, 1999, by David 

Maars.

The study identified three potential projects to reduce fugitive clinker emissions from the plant:

1. Isolate the head end of the pan conveyor in the g-cooler.

2. Install a baghouse to improve dust capture at the tripper car discharge in the finish mill.

3. Remove ten transfer points on the clinker silo building by converting five open belt 

conveyors to a drag chain conveyor system.

On March 25, 2002, Ash Grove signed the AOD for Civil Penalty No. 9352. This AOD covered 

six fallout nuisance notices of violations issued between February 18, 2000 and October 4, 2001. 

The AOD required Ash Grove to pay $6,000 and comply with the following conditions:

1. Install water suppression systems on barge unloading, raw material conveyors, and raw 

material stockpiles.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 5 of 122

2. Install a new 20,000 CFM dust collector to capture emissions from the clinker storage 

shed.

On August 9, 2001, Ash Grove signed an AOD for Civil Penalty No. 9120. Ash Grove agreed to 

pay $2,000 and comply with the following conditions:

1. Implement an amended O&M plan for clinker storage shed dust management practices

2. Allow no unexcused violations of fugitive dust emissions from loader operations in the 

clinker storage shed for a period of two years after the date of the Consent Order.

Continuous Emission Monitoring

The Agency receives monthly reports from Ash Grove and documents reported violations.

Before September 1998, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency issued notices of violation for every 

self-reported exceedance recorded by Ash Grove's continuous emission monitor system (CEMS).

In September 1998, a significant change occurred in the Agency's review of CEMS reports when 

the Agency developed an interim Civil Penalty policy. The policy was adopted by the Agency's 

Board of Directors through Resolution No. 962 passed January 10, 2002. This Resolution 

incorporates a policy based upon the EPA Draft Guidance for High Priority Violations dated July 

1998 and includes; Continuous Emission Monitoring Civil Penalty Worksheet and 

Recommendation, and Emission Monitoring Civil Penalty Gravity Criteria.

The policy elevated chronic repeat violations to "High Priority Violations" status and directed 

penalties to be assessed for such violations. Pursuant to this policy, the Agency generally closes 

CEMS violations not meeting the high priority criteria but assesses civil penalties based on the 

Worksheet and Gravity Criteria for violations meeting the high priority criteria. An example of a 

high priority violation warranting a civil penalty would be for sulfur dioxide emissions greater 

than 15% above the emission standard for a period greater than 3% of the equipment operating 

hours during a reporting month.

Potential CEMS violations fall into the following categories: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide,, 

carbon monoxide, opacity, and missing data. Each is discussed below. There were no carbon 

monoxide violations recorded during this period.

Sulfur Dioxide

From July 1997 through March 1998, the Agency issued violations to Ash Grove for excess 

sulfur dioxide emissions at start up and during normal operations. Ash Grove self-reported these 

violations in its monthly CEM reports.

Ash Grove requested a permit modification of its SO2 limits at start-up and demonstrated it 

continued meeting Best Available Control Technology. On June 6, 2001, the Agency issued a 

revised Order of Approval No. 7381 issuing work practice standards for Ash Grove to control 

SO2 emissions at startup. The SO2 emission standard during normal operations remained 

unchanged.

Once Order of Approval No. ____ was changed, the Agency closed all open cases for SO2 

emissions at startup with a closure letter dated July 21, 1998. Enforcement actions for SO2 

emissions during normal operations were reviewed with the September 10, 1998 interim CEM 

civil penalty policy which assessed penalties for cases deemed to be significant violators per 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 6 of 122

EPA. These enforcement actions did not approach significant violator thresholds and were 

closed by two closure letters, both dated December 18, 1998.

Nitrogen Oxides

From June 1998 to February 2000, the Agency issued violations to Ash Grove for exceeding the 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) 24-hour and 1-hour emission standards listed in Order of Approval No. 

7381. While many unknown factors may cause these emissions, a common reason for many of 

these exceedances was due to burning natural gas where temperatures are higher and thermal 

NOx is formed. Thermal NOx is nitrogen oxide formation that occurs with nitrogen in air at 

high temperatures. 

Ash Grove requested a permit modification of its NOx limits and demonstrated it continued 

meeting Best Available Control Technology. Ash Grove requested that the Agency increase the 

NOx emission limit and demonstrated they were meeting Best Available Control Technology 

limits. The Agency issued Order of Approval No. 7381 on June 6, 2001 which raised the 24-

hour NOx standard from 501 ppm to 650 ppm and eliminated the 1-hour limit.

All enforcement actions have been resolved through penalty or closure. Resolutions of these 

enforcement actions are as follows:

 NOV No. 36679 was closed on August 8, 2002 based on the September 10, 1998 interim 

CEM civil penalty policy.

 NOV No. 36871 was closed on October 28, 1998 based on the September 10, 1998 

interim CEM civil penalty policy. 

 CP No. 8936 was cancelled on January 27, 1999 because Ash Grove later provided 

information that the event occurred at start-up and the WAC 173-400-107 exemption was 

granted.

 CP No. 8937 was issued for $8,000 and was paid on February 19, 1999.

 NOV No. 36682 was closed on March 31, 1999 based on the September 10, 1998 interim 

CEM civil penalty policy.

 CP No. 8972 was issued for $2,000 and was paid on May 10, 1999.

 CP No. 8985 was issued for $1,000 and paid on December 7, 1999.

 CP No. 8998 was issued for $6,000 and paid on December 28, 1999.

 NOV No. 36741 was closed on July 26, 2001 as a result of the higher limit allowed in the 

revised Order of Approval No. 7381.

 CP No. 9071 was cancelled on July 30, 2001 as a result of the higher limit allowed in the 

revised Order of Approval No. 7381.

 CP No. 9095 was resolved through an AOD signed November 1, 2000 as a result of the 

higher limit allowed in the revised Order of Approval No. 7381.

 CP No. 9053 was issued for $6,000, and CP No. 9079 was issued for $6,000. Both were 

paid on September 7, 2001.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 7 of 122

o Carbon Monoxide

During the last five years there have been no carbon monoxide violations recorded by the CEMS.

Continuous Emission Monitoring- Opacity

The NOV log shows opacity violations issued prior to the September 1998 civil penalty policy. 

All enforcement actions have been resolved and closed. Since September 1998, Ash Grove has 

continued to report infrequent opacity excursions on its monthly CEM reports. Either these 

events have not exceeded the high priority violation criteria, or they have been excused pursuant 

to WAC 173-400-107. The post September 1998 violations have been documented and closed 

based on Written Warnings.

Most opacity violations occur when the baghouse malfunctions, due to broken or loose bags. 

The baghouse contains fabric filter bags that remove particulate prior to the kiln exhaust exiting 

the main stack. Ash Grove is required to keep an Operations and Maintenance Plan to 

demonstrate that it is maintaining its equipment in good working order. The Agency continues 

to review opacity events and maintenance of the baghouse during CEM report reviews and 

during site inspections.

CEM Missing Data

The Agency issued a series of Notices of Violation to Ash Grove for continuous emission 

monitoring missing data and for operating the kiln without a quality control plan. The 

requirements in Regulation I, Section 12.03, effective January 1993, specified a data capture 

requirement of 90% valid hours of CEM data per day pursuant to Regulation I, Section 

12.03(h)(4). On June 1, 1998, the Agency amended the regulation which changed the data 

capture requirement from 90% per day to 95% per month. As a result of the rule change, the 

Agency closed the Notices of Violation issued for missing data in July-December 1997. Three 

violations were issued for missing data in March of 1998. Based upon corrective actions 

reported, the Agency closed all three cases in a closure letter dated November 2, 1998. During a 

review of the files conducted for this summary, this letter could not be found. The Agency 

issued a second case closure letter on August 8, 2002 to ensure that this determination is on file. 

Notice of Violation No. 36560 was issued to Ash Grove because it failed to respond to some of 

the Notices of Violation issued for missing data. The Agency closed this case in a case closure 

letter dated October 16, 1998 based on the June 1, 1998 rule change that lowered the data capture 

requirement.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 8 of 122

The Notices of Violation issued for operating the kiln without a CEM Quality Control plan were 

settled under the Assurance of Discontinuance for Civil Penalties No. 8897 and 8899. The AOD 

was signed by Ash Grove on August 31, 1998. Per the AOD, Ash Grove submitted a CEM 

quality assurance quality control plan dated December 1, 1998. On September 29, 1999, the 

Agency sent a letter to Ash Grove accepting the plan and closing Civil Penalties Nos. 8897 and 

8899.

Asbestos

NOV No. 4-040305 issued 10/18/01 for an asbestos violation that occurred on October 18, 2001. 

Ash Grove agreed to submit an asbestos management plan to the Agency as a corrective action 

response to the Notice of Violation. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency closed this case on 9/12/02. 

The case closure letter was based on Ash Grove‟s submittal of the asbestos management plan to 

the Agency.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 9 of 122

Ash Grove Compliance Source History Table

NOV # Date of Violation Citation Violation Description CP # AMT. Status

(CCL – Case Closure Letter)

Fallout and Fugitive Dust Violations Settled Per David Maars Fugitive Dust Study

37062 7/16/97 9.15I, 9.20 [I] Dust from white fly ash 

silo

8761 $3,000 AOD signed 12/9/98, Paid 12/23/98, 

Study Completed 11/2/99

37063 7/16/97 9.20 [I] Holes in shrink wrap 8761 $3,000 AOD signed 12/9/98, Paid 12/23/98, 

Study Completed 11/2/99

36863 7/16/97 9.11(a)[I] Fallout 8801 $8,000 AOD signed 12/9/98, Paid 12/23/98, 

Study Completed 11/2/99

36861 8/7/97 9.15(c), 9.20 [I] Holes in shrink wrap 8760 $8,000 AOD signed 12/9/98, Paid 12/23/98, 

Study Completed 11/2/99

36864 9/8/97 9.11(a)[I] Fallout 8801 $8,000 AOD signed 12/9/98, Paid 12/23/98, 

Study Completed 11/2/99

37442 4/27/98 9.11(a)[I] Fallout No CP None AOD signed 12/9/98, Paid 12/23/98, 

Study Completed 11/2/99; No CP 

assessed incorporated into AOD

37444 4/29/98 9.11(a)[I] Fallout No CP None AOD signed 12/9/98, Paid 12/23/98, 

Study Completed 11/2/99; No CP 

assessed incorporated into AOD

37075 8/14/98 9.15(a), 9.20 Fugitive Emissions 8929 $3,000 AOD signed 12/9/98, Paid 12/23/98, 

Study Completed 11/2/99

Fallout and Fugitive Dust Violations

36694 2/18/00 9.11(a)[I] Fallout Nuisance 9352 $12,000 AOD signed 3/25/02, Paid 5/6/02

36740 9/22-23/00 (verified 

9/26/00)

9.11(a)[I] Fallout Nuisance 9352 $12,000 AOD signed 3/25/02, Paid 5/6/02

37085 11/21/00 9.15(a) [I] Fugitive Dust 9120 $3,000 AOD signed 8/9/01, Paid 9/17/01

36739 12/6/00 9.11(a)[I] Fallout Nuisance 9352 $12,000 AOD signed 3/25/02, Paid 5/6/02

36879 12/21-24/00 9.11(a)[I] Fallout Nuisance 9352 $12,000 AOD signed 3/25/02, Paid 5/6/02

3-

001656

8/7/01 9.11(a)[I] Fallout Nuisance None $12,000 AOD signed 3/25/02, Paid 5/6/02

3-

000302

10/4/01 9.11(a) Fallout Nuisance 9352 $12,000 AOD signed 3/25/02, Paid 5/6/02

Sulfur Dioxide CEM Violations Start Up and Normal Operations

36238 7/10/97 OA 5730 #7 S–2 - startup None None CCL 7/21/98

36239 7/11/97 OA 5730 #7 S–2 - startup None None CCL 7/21/98
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 10 of 122

NOV # Date of Violation Citation Violation Description CP # AMT. Status

(CCL – Case Closure Letter)

36240 7/26/97 OA 5730 #7 S–2 - startup None None CCL 7/21/98

35792 8/25/97 OA 5730 #7 SO2 main stack None None CCL 7/21/98

36565 10/2/97 OA 5730 #7 Startup SO2 kiln None None CCL 7/21/98

36566 10/3/97 OA 5730 #7 Startup SO2 kiln None None CCL 7/21/98

36567 10/10/97 OA 5730 #7 Startup SO2 kiln None None CCL 7/21/98

36578 11/11/97 OA 5730 #7 Startup SO2 kiln None None CCL 7/21/98

36579 11/26/97 OA 5730 #7 Startup SO2 kiln None None CCL 7/21/98

36580 11/27/97 OA 5730 #7 Startup SO2 kiln None None CCL 7/21/98

36581 11/28/97 OA 5730 #6c SO2 normal op of kiln None None CCL 12/18/98

36598 1/29/98 OA 5730 #7 Startup SO2 kiln None None CCL 7/21/98

36713 3/8/98 OA 5730 #6c SO2 main stack None None CCL 12/18/98

Nitrogen Oxide CEM Violations

36679 5/25/98 OA 5730 #6b NOx 24 hr standard None None CCL 8/08/02

36866 6/7/98 OA 5730 #6b NOx > 501 ppm 24 hr. Ave 8936 None Cancelled 1/27/99

36867 6/10/98 OA 5730 #6b NOx > 501 ppm 24 hr. Ave

and NOx > 700 ppm 1 hr.

8937 $8,000 Paid 2/19/99

36868 6/11/98 OA 5730 #6b NOx > 501 ppm 24 hr. Ave 

and NOx > 700 ppm 1 hr.

8937 $8,000 Paid 2/19/99

36869 6/12/98 OA 5730 #6b NOx > 501 ppm 24 hr. Ave 

and NOx > 700 ppm 1 hr.

8937 $8,000 Paid 2/19/99

36870 6/13/98 OA 5730 #6b NOx > 501 ppm 24 hr. Ave 

and NOx > 700 ppm 1 hr.

8937 $8,000 Paid 2/19/99

36871 6/27/98 OA 5730 #6b NOx > 501 ppm 24 hr. Ave 

and NOx > 700 ppm 1 hr.

None None CCL 10/28/98

36721 10/15&30/98 OA 7183 #5b NOx 8972 $2,000 Paid 5/10/99

36725 11/3/98

11/12/98

11/27/98

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

NOx 8 hr

NOx 24 hr

NOx 8 hr

NOx 24 hr

NOx 1 hr avg

8985 $1,000 Paid 12/7/99; (check # 55712)

36682 12/98 OA 7381 #5b NOx 24 hr None None CCL 3/31/99

36726 1/99 OA 7381 #5b NOx 24 hr 501 ppm 8998 $6,000 Paid 12/28/99

36727 3/3/3⁄43/4/3⁄43/4/99

3/5/99

3/5/99

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

NOx 2 hr

NOx 3 hr

NOx 24 hr

8998 $6,000 Paid 12/28/99
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 11 of 122

NOV # Date of Violation Citation Violation Description CP # AMT. Status

(CCL – Case Closure Letter)

3/6/99

3/6/99

3/8/99

3/8/99

3/12/99

3/12/99

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

OA 7381 #5b

NOx 24 hr

NOx 3 hr

NOx 24 hr

NOx 2 hr

NOx 24 hr

NOx 4 hr

NOx 24 hr

NOx 3 hr

36687 11/25/99

11/25/99

11/25/99

11/26/99

11/26/99

OA 7381 #(6)(d)

OA 7381 #(5)(b)

OA 7381 #(5)(b)

OA 7381 #(5)(b)

OA 7381 #(5)(b)

NOx

NOx

NOx

NOx

NOx

9053 $6,000 Paid $6,000 9/7/01

36690 2/15/00 OA 7381 #(5)(b) NOx 24 hr 9071 $3,000 Cancelled 7/30/01

36734 3/19/00

3/20/00

3/25/00

3/28/00

OA 7381 #(5)(b)

OA 7381 #(5)(b)

OA 7381 #(5)(b)

OA 7381 #(5)(b)

NOx 24 hr

NOx 24 hr

NOx 24 hr

NOx 24 hr

9095 $2,000 AOD signed 11/1/00; all penalties 

suspended (no payment) AOD 

Completed with C1⁄21/2/01

36741 10/12/00 OA 7381 #(5)(b) NOx 24 hr avg 501 ppm None None CCL 7/26/01

Opacity CEM Violations

36583 11/1/97 9.09(b)(2)[I] >5% opacity 1 hr avg 8886 $8,000 Paid 8/25/98

36584 11/2/97 9.09(b)(2)[I] >5% opacity 1 hr avg 8886 $8,000 Paid 8/25/98

36585 11/22/97 9.09(b)(1)[I] >20% opacity 3 min 8886 $8,000 Paid 8/25/98

36597 12/4/97 9.09(b)(1)[I]

9.09(b)(2)[I]

> 20% opacity 3 min

>5% opacity 1 hr avg

None None CCL 5/5/98; Excusable per WAC

36708 2/1/98 9.09(b)(1)[I] >20% opacity 3 min None None CCL 4/16/98

36714 3/26/98 9.09(b)(1)[I]

9.09(b)(2)[I]

>20% opacity 3 min

>5% opacity 1 hr avg

None None CCL 12/18/98

36710 4/3/98 9.09(b)(2)[I] >5% opacity 1 hr avg None None CCL 12/18/98

36711 4/22/98 9.09(b)(2)[I] >5% opacity 1 hr avg None None CCL 12/18/98

36712 4/25/98 9.09(b)(2)[I] >5% opacity 1 hr avg None None CCL 12/18/98

Continuous Emission Monitoring Missing Data

37408 7/14/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] SO2 missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37409 7/14/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] CO missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37410 7/14/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] NOx missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 12 of 122

NOV # Date of Violation Citation Violation Description CP # AMT. Status

(CCL – Case Closure Letter)

37411 7/15/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] SO2 missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37412 7/15/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] CO missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37413 7/15/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] NOx missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37414 7/21/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] SO2 missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37415 7/21/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] CO missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37416 7/21/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] NOx missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37417 7/22/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] SO2 missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37418 7/22/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] CO missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37419 7/22/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] NOx missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37420 7/23/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] SO2 missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37421 7/23/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] CO missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37422 7/23/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] NOx missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37423 7/25/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] SO2 missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37424 7/25/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] CO missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37425 7/25/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] NOx missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37426 7/28/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] SO2 missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37427 7/28/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] CO missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37428 7/28/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] NOx missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37429 7/30/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] SO2 missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37430 7/30/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] CO missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

37431 7/30/97 12.02(c), 12.03(h)(4) [I] NOx missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

36559 7/30/97 – 11/18/97 OA 5730 #4;

OA 5730 #8

12.02(a)(1)[I]

No QAQC CEM Plan 8897 $3,000 AOD signed 8/31/98; Paid 9/10/98; 

QA/QC Plan Completed 9/29/99

35793 8/5/97 12.02(c)[I} Missing data None None CCL 5/19/98

35794 8/12/97 12.02(c)[I] Missing data None None CCL 5/19/98

35795 8/13/97 12.02(c)[I] Missing data None None CCL 5/19/98

35796 8/18/97 12.02(c)[I] Missing data None None CCL 5/19/98

36560 8/18/97-11/18/97 3.09(a), 3.11(b) [I] Failure to Respond None None CCL 10/16/98

36561 9/29/97-11/18/97 3.09(a), 3.11(b) [I] Failure to Respond 8899 $2,000 AOD signed 8/31/98; Paid 9/10/98; 

QA/QC Plan Completed 9/29/99

36586 11/4/97 12.02(a)(1) 12.02(c)(1)[I] Missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

36587 11/12/97 12.02(a)(1) 12.02(c)[I] Missing data None $4,000 CCL 5/19/98

36594 12/1/97 12.02(a)[I] Missing data None None CCL 5/19/98

36595 12/2/97 12.02(a)[I] Missing data None None CCL 5/19/98
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 13 of 122

NOV # Date of Violation Citation Violation Description CP # AMT. Status

(CCL – Case Closure Letter)

36596 12/3/97 12.02(a)[I] Missing data None None CCL 5/19/98

3673⁄43/4/98 OA 5730 

#8

12.02c[I]

Missing CEM data None None CCL 11/2/98 (lost); reissued CCL 8/8/02

36716 3/16/98 OA 5730 #8

12.02c[I]

Missing CEM data None None CCL 11/2/98 (lost); reissued CCL 

8/8/02

36717 3/17/98 OA 5730 #8

12.02c[I]

Missing CEM data None None CCL 11/2/98 (lost); reissued CCL 

8/8/02

CEM Violation- Late Report Rescinded

3-

001519

5/6/2002 12.03 (f) [I] Issued for late March 2002 

CEM Report due 5/1/02.

Report dated 4/29/02 found 

in Agency files. Source in 

compliance.

None None Rescinded Notice of Violation 5/6/02

Asbestos Violation

4-

040305

10/18/01 4.02(a), 4.03(a), 4.04(a), 4.05(a), 

4.05(b)(1), 4.05(b)(4), 4.05(b)(7), 

4.05(b)(9), 4.05(b)(10).

Asbestos Violations Pending Pending CP Recommended 8/8/02
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 14 of 122

Emission Inventory

The annual emissions reported to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency by Ash Grove for 1995 

through 2001 are tabulated below. The main pollutants emitted from this plant are CO and NOx 

calculated as NO2, although SO2 emissions exceed 100 tons per year primarily from burning 

coal. Emissions are based on source test data, EPA AP-42 emission factors and continuous 

emission monitoring systems. Ash Grove has supplied particulate emission data based on source 

tests from 1996.

Air Contaminant Emission Summary

TOTAL EMISSIONS

Pollutants Tons => 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

CO 1,310 1,354 1,599 1,585 1,412 1,477 1,139

NO2 1,058 959 910 1,203 1,253 1,282 1,198

PM10 53 53 51 52 52 51 46

PM2.5 0 28 27 0 0 18 16

SO2 74 171 188 181 157 106 129

Cement Kiln Dry Process with BHs

Pounds => 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

CO 2,403,240 2,485,200 2,943,000 2,916,140 2,587,460 2,708,800 2,100,000

NO2 1,941,160 1,759,400 1,675,600 2,212,820 2,295,620 2,351,600 2,210,000

PM10 57,691 57,802 56,424 59,076 59,773 58,333 52,566

PM2.5 0 31,851 31,092 0 0 10,568 9,523

SO2 136,440 313,200 346,000 332,280 287,940 195,000 238,000

Coal Mills

Pounds=> 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

CO 217,622 223134 254,441 254,659 237,413 245,078 177,034

NO2 175,779 157,968 144,866 193,240 210,636 212,760 186,308

PM10 3,312 3,284 3,162 3,194 3,356 3,309 3,083

PM2.5 0 1,810 1,742 0 0 490 456

SO2 12,355 28,121 29,966 29,017 26,420 17,643 20,064

Limestone Transfer with BH

Pounds=> 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PM10 5,748 5,608 5,333 5,507 5,583 5,533 4,931

PM2.5 0 2,908 2,767 0 0 3,320 2,959

SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Raw Mill Separator with BH

Pounds => 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PM10 4,907 4,704 4,626 4,792 4,822 4,755 4,258

PM2.5 0 2,442 2,400 0 0 2,853 2,555

SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 15 of 122

Finish Grinding Feed Belt with BH

Pounds => 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PM10 6,333 6,345 6,193 6,525 6,600 6,041 5,444

PM2.5 0 3,296 3,212 0 0 3,624 3,266

SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finish Grinding Mill Air Separator with BH

Pounds => 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PM10 27,555 27,836 25,508 25,384 24,840 24,170 21,471

PM2.5 0 14,449 13,242 0 0 14,502 12,883

SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ash Grove did not supply an estimate of plant-wide fugitive emissions in their application.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency estimated the fugitive dust emissions from Ash Grove Cement in 

a January 5, 1990 PM10 Addendum for the PM10 SIP for Seattle, Tacoma, and Kent Nonattainment areas. However, at that time, the plant was not converted to its present configuration 

and status. Production was significantly lower than its current potential.

Explanation of Applicable Requirements

Applicable requirements are listed in several sections of this operating permit as outlined below. 

The permit only lists the requirements that the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has determined to 

be within the scope of the definition of “applicable requirements” under the operating permit 

program. Ash Grove is legally responsible for complying with all applicable requirements of the 

operating permit as well as other requirements that do not fit the definition of “applicable 

requirements” found in Chapter 173-401 Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Some of the 

applicable requirements contain terms or monitoring, maintenance and recordkeeping that 

require detailed explanation in this statement of basis. The specific conditions are listed below, 

along with any necessary explanations in monitoring, maintenance, and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Applicable Requirements

Ash Grove is subject to all the requirements listed in Section I of the operating permit. Section 

I.A contains the requirements that are applicable facility-wide, and Section I.B contains 

requirements applicable only to specific emission units or groups of emission units. The 

requirements in Section I.B only apply to the specific emission units cited; however, the 

requirements in Section I.A also apply to the specific emission units or activities described in 

Section I.B unless specifically state otherwise in the permit. If the monitoring, maintenance, and 

recordkeeping method for any requirement in Section I.A is more extensive for specific emission 

units, that requirement is repeated in Section I.B with the additional monitoring, maintenance 

and recordkeeping requirements.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 16 of 122

Section I.A. (Facility-Wide)

The table lists the citation for the “applicable requirement” in the second column. The third 

column (Date) contains the adoption or effective date of the requirement. In some cases, the 

effective dates of the Federally Enforceable, or “SIP1” Requirement and the Non-Federally 

Enforceable, or “State/Local Only” Requirement are different because only rules approved by 

EPA through Sections 110, 111, and 112 of the federal Clean Air Act are federally enforceable, 

and either the state has not submitted the regulation to the EPA or the EPA has not approved it. 

The first column is used as an identifier for the requirement, and the fourth (Requirement 

Paraphrase) column paraphrases the requirement. The first and fourth columns are for 

information only and are not enforceable conditions of this operating permit. The actual 

enforceable requirement is embodied in the requirement cited in the second and third columns.

The fifth column (Monitoring, Maintenance & Recordkeeping Method) identifies the methods 

described in Section II of the operating permit. Following these methods is an enforceable 

requirement of this permit. The sixth column identifies the averaging time for the reference test 

method. The last column (Reference Test Method) identifies the reference method associated 

with an applicable emission limit that is to be used if and when a source test is required. In some 

cases where the applicable requirement does not cite a test method, one has been added.

In the event of conflict or omission between the information contained in the fourth and sixth 

columns and the actual statute or regulation cited in the second column, the requirements and 

language of the actual statute or regulation cited shall govern. For more information regarding 

any of the requirements cited in the second and third columns, refer to the actual requirements 

cited.

Recently amended Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations. The Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency Board of Directors has recently amended several sections of its regulations. These 

amended sections are listed as State/Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Enforceable Requirements 

in the operating permit. The versions of the regulations that are in the SIP are listed as Federally 

Enforceable Requirements. The amended versions will be (or in some cases have been) 

forwarded to EPA as SIP amendments. Upon approval of the SIP changes, the revised versions 

of the regulations will be federally enforceable and the old version will no longer apply.

Facility-wide Inspections. Most of the facility-wide requirements that require monitoring refer 

to facility-wide monitoring procedures that vary in form, scope of monitoring observations, and 

frequency. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency recognizes the complexity of the facility and the 

 

1

“SIP” means “state implementation plan” which is a plan for improving or maintaining air quality and 

complying with the Federal Clean Air Act. The Federal Clean Air Act requires states to submit these plans to the 

US EPA for its review and approval. This plan must contain the rules and regulations of the state agency or local air 

authority necessary to implement the programs mandated by Federal law. Once the EPA adopts the plan or elements 

of it, the plan and its requirements become “federally enforceable” by EPA. New or modified state or local rules are 

not federally enforceable until they are “adopted into the SIP” by the EPA. 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 17 of 122

large number of small emission units that are located at Ash Grove. Because of the large number 

of emission points at the facility, the practicality of the monitoring methods and frequency have 

been tailored to reflect the compliance challenges to the level of effort necessary to determine 

compliance with the requirements included in the permit. For emission units with more potential 

for being out of compliance with air pollution requirements or where noncompliance can have 

more significant impacts, the Agency has included specific monitoring procedures appropriate 

for those units. Facility-wide inspections are intended to augment equipment-specific 

monitoring and to assure Ash Grove is aware of general activities occurring on the plant site. 

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency anticipates that the various monitoring and inspection 

activities identified in the permit will completed by trained personnel that are familiar with the 

plant, the permit, and the underlying nature of the requirements included in the permit.

1. Requirements I.A.1 and I.A.2 - 20% General Opacity

Both Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.03 and WAC 173-400-040(1) 

standards are 20% opacity and apply to all stationary sources.

Both Section 9.03 (effective date - 3/11/99) and WAC 173-400-040(1) (effective date - 9/15/01) 

are currently not federally enforceable but will be federally enforceable upon their adoption into 

the SIP. Previous versions of these regulations have been adopted into the SIP. These 

provisions have not been included in the operating permit at this time because there are no 

substantive differences between the SIP adopted versions and these versions awaiting approval. 

If a version of these regulations were adopted into the SIP which contained a substantive 

difference from the requirements included in this draft permit, the permit would need to be 

reopened to incorporate the changes.

The monitoring method is based on monthly facility-wide inspections of some emission points at 

the Ash Grove. These facility-wide inspections include checking for visible emissions, with Ash 

Grove taking corrective action or using the reference test method, WDOE Method 9A, to 

determine opacity if any visible emissions are noted. Recording of visible emissions is not 

necessarily a deviation of the opacity requirements. However, failure to take timely corrective 

action, as defined by the monitoring method, is a deviation of the specific operating permit term 

and may also be an indication of other compliance issues (e.g. Operation & Maintenance (O&M) 

failures or good working order requirements identified in I.A.14 and I.A.15). Taking corrective 

action does not relieve Ash Grove from the obligation to comply with the opacity requirement 

itself. The monitoring procedures are used for several emission limitations and requirements 

throughout the permit, which are discussed below. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has 

determined that the monitoring should be monthly for the reasons listed below.

1. Initial compliance. There have been no NOVs issued in the last five years for failure to 

meet this requirement. Ash Grove is presumed to be able to comply with this opacity 

requirement (see Compliance History).

2. Margin of compliance. Ash Grove handles and transfers over a million tons of dry dusty 

material each year that has a high potential for fugitive dust emissions. If opacity 

problems are observed, operations or maintenance problems are the most likely cause and 

must be addressed quickly by following and upgrading the O&M Plan to avoid emissions 

that would have a significant environmental impact. There have been no recent opacity 

problems observed by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the sources are well 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 18 of 122

controlled with a good O&M Plan. The Agency concludes that the margin for opacity 

compliance is large enough to justify visual inspections at a monthly frequency. By 

following this monitoring frequency, Ash Grove will take corrective action before a 

violation occurs. Recording of visible emissions is not necessarily a deviation of the 

opacity requirements. However, failure to take timely corrective action, as defined by the 

monitoring method, is a deviation of the specific permit term. Taking corrective action 

does not relieve Ash Grove from the obligation to comply with the opacity requirement 

itself.

3. Variability of process and emissions. The equipment operates on a relatively constant 

production rate, both during a per-shift basis and during a per-hour basis, so emissions 

can be expected to be relatively constant during the time period of the emission standard.

4. Environmental impacts of problems. Generally, any observed opacity is related to 

emissions of particulate matter or finely divided liquid droplets. If opacity problems are 

observed, operations or maintenance problems are the most likely cause and must be 

addressed quickly by following and upgrading the O&M Plan to avoid emissions that 

would have a significant environmental impact. There have been some relatively recent 

issues associated with clinker dust complaints which have some indirect relationship to 

this plant-wide opacity standard. The resolution of the most recent enforcement case for 

those violations required the installation of some improved dust collection and control 

measures. This monitoring procedure will include verification that those devices and 

measures are effectively managed. While this monitoring procedure is based on facility 

wide observations, it is most appropriate for use on point sources and process units. The 

permit includes other, additional monitoring procedures for fugitive dust and complaint 

related topics.

5. Technical considerations. Ash Grove is required to perform monthly self-inspections. 

By following this inspection frequency, following a good O&M Plan, and by making 

corrections and modifications to this plan, Ash Grove will likely avoid catastrophic 

failure of the air pollution generating or controlling equipment which is the main cause of 

opacity standard deviations at Ash Grove. Catastrophic failure of specific air pollution 

generating equipment is the most likely sources of an opacity standard deviation at Ash 

Grove. Additional monitoring procedures for specific emission units are specified in the 

operating permit.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 19 of 122

2. Requirements I.A.3, I.A.4, I.A.5 Particulate Concentration

Section 9.09(a) (effective date - 2/10/94) and WAC 173-400-060 (effective date - 3/22/91) are 

federally enforceable.

Section 9.09 (effective date - 4/9/98) and WAC 173-400-060 (effective date - 8/21/98) are 

currently not federally enforceable but will be federally enforceable upon their adoption into the 

SIP.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.09 (effective date - 2/10/94) limits the 

particulate emissions to 0.05 gr/dscf and WAC 173-400-060 (effective date - 3/22/91) limits the 

particulate emissions to 0.1 gr/dscf. Both requirements apply to all equipment used in a 

manufacturing process and general process units, uncorrected for excess air.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.09 (4/9/98) limits the particulate 

emissions to 0.05 gr/dscf from equipment used in a manufacturing process.

WAC 173-400-060 limits particulate emissions to 0.1 gr/dscf from general process units (i.e., 

units using a procedure or a combination of procedures for the purpose of causing a change in 

material by either chemical or physical means, excluding combustion).

For these facility-wide requirements, the monitoring method is based on visual inspections onceper-month of general air pollution generating equipment at Ash Grove not covered by Emissions 

Unit Specific Applicable Requirements (I.B), with Ash Grove taking corrective action within 24 

hours of the initial observation until there are no visible emissions or, alternatively, recording the 

opacity using the reference test method or shutting down the unit or activity until it can be 

repaired. Because particulate and opacity are in general physically related, the particulate 

monitoring for this requirement is the same as opacity (see the discussion for Requirements I.A.1 

and I.A.2 in this document).

In Condition I.A.5, the emission limit of 0.005 gr/dscf identified in Order of Approval No. 7381, 

Condition No. 4 has been included in the operating permit as a facility wide requirement. This 

Order, as well as some additional orders for Ash Grove which followed it, were the result of PM10 SIP plan requirements. This Order applied to each baghouse, excluding the main kiln 

baghouse that existed at Ash Grove when it was originally approved. Subsequent Order 

modifications have brought the current approval date up to June 6, 2001. Ash Grove has agreed 

that this order effectively applies to all emission units controlled by a baghouse (excluding the 

main kiln) at the plant and the impact on each unit is the same. All of the subject baghouses are 

managed to a “no visible emission” expectation and any unit which does have visible emissions 

is assumed to be malfunctioning on some level. This Order was issued on the basis that an 

observation of “no visible emissions” from a baghouse was sufficient to demonstrate compliance 

with this low concentration. The order provided alternative, incremental observation procedure 

options to demonstrate compliance. 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 20 of 122

These identified options require Ash Grove to use one of the following:

 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency approved source test

 No visible emissions for 15 consecutive seconds

 No visible emissions for 3 consecutive minutes

 Repairing the baghouse with visible emissions for more than 3 minutes within 24 hours

The first option is always available, but not expected to be routinely used. The next three are 

intended to provide a progressive option to respond to a visible emission condition and still 

maintain compliance. If an observer looked at the exhaust point and saw no visible emissions for 

15 consecutive seconds that would represent compliance with this condition for that observation. 

If the observer saw a short period of visible emissions, observations could continue and if the 

visible emission condition ceased, and the observer maintained the observation (and record) for 3 

consecutive minutes with no visible emissions observed, that again would represent a compliant 

observation. If the visible emission condition exceeded the 3 consecutive minute criteria, then 

the observer/operator must repair the baghouse or shut the process down until the baghouse is 

repaired and no visible emissions are observed upon restart.

For these baghouses, the existence of sustained visible emissions (either observed by Ash Grove 

or this Agency) can serve as the basis for this Agency to require Ash Grove to complete a 

compliance source test on the unit involved. The monitoring procedure to verify operation of the 

units without visible emissions will effectively satisfy the compliance with this Order. 

3. Requirement I.A.6 - SO2 Concentration

Both Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.07 (effective date - 4/14/94) which 

is federally enforceable, and WAC 173-400-040(6) (effective date - 9/20/93) are equivalent 

requirements (SO2 emissions not to exceed 1000 ppm), except for the second paragraph of the 

WAC 173-400-040(6) which is not in the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulation. That 

paragraph, which is not federally enforceable, allows for exceptions to this requirement if the 

source can demonstrate that there is no feasible method of reducing the SO2 concentrations to 

1000 ppm. Since the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency rules do not allow the exception, this 

option does not apply to Ash Grove.

WAC 173-400-060 (effective date - 9/15/01) will become federally enforceable upon its 

adoption into the SIP. This provision has not been included in the operating permit at this time 

because there are no substantive differences between the SIP adopted version and this version 

awaiting approval. If a version of this regulation was adopted into the SIP which contained a 

substantive difference from the requirement included in this draft permit, the permit would need 

to be reopened to incorporate the changes.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 21 of 122

The facility-wide activities at Ash Grove that contribute to sulfur emissions include facility-wide 

burning of pipeline quality natural gas (not including the kiln).

SO2 from facility-wide burning of pipeline quality natural gas.

“Natural gas” means a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons, with at least 80 percent methane (by 

volume), and of pipeline quality, such as the gas sold or distributed by any utility company 

regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Natural gas may also be 

referred to as “pipeline quality natural gas.” Ash Grove receives the same natural gas as all of 

the other natural gas consumers, private and industrial, in the Northwest. According to Section 

1.4-3 of AP-42, natural gas contains approximately 2000 grains of sulfur per million cubic feet, 

which is equivalent to approximately 3.4 parts of sulfur per million cubic feet of natural gas, as 

shown in the following calculation:

ppmdvS

ft nat gas

ft S

gr

lb

ft nat gas

gr S

moleS

lb

moleS

ft

3.44

.

3.44 10

32

385

7000

1

1,000,000 .

2,000

3

3

6

3

3

    



According to Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, each cubic foot of natural gas requires 

approximately 10 cubic feet of air for combustion, yielding approximately 11 cubic feet of 

combustion exhaust gases, consisting mostly of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. The 

sulfur in the natural gas will almost all be converted to sulfur dioxide, with each cubic foot of 

sulfur producing the same volume of sulfur dioxide. Since each cubic foot of natural gas 

contains 3.4410-6cubic feet of sulfur, each cubic foot of stack exhaust will contain 

approximately:

ft stack exhaust

ft SO

ft stack exhaust

ft nat gas

ft S

ft SO

ft nat gas

ft S

3

2

3

6

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

6

0.313 10

11

1 .

1

1

.

3.44 10     

The burning of natural gas generates about 0.31 ppmdv SO2. This estimated value is less than 

one-tenth of one percent of the 1,000 ppm SO2 standard.

Therefore, on a facility-wide basis (except for the kiln), it is reasonable to assume that the 

combustion of natural gas will not exceed the 1,000 ppm SO2 limits in Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency Regulation I, Section 9.07 and WAC 173-400-040(6).

SO2 from facility-handling of raw and finished materials.

Except for the main stack, the area wide sources of raw materials and finished products do not 

contain sufficient amount of sulfur to create concentrations of sulfur or sulfur dioxide in such 

quantities as to have any potential to be close to the emissions standard. Also, except for the kiln 

there are no other combustion sources that potentially oxidize sulfur to sulfur dioxide.

Therefore, this operating permit does not contain additional monitoring requirements for sulfur 

dioxide emission other than the main stack.

The remaining federally enforceable requirements in Section I.A. do not contain Emission 

Standard Reference Test Methods or an Emission Standard Period. The Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency has determined they are not necessary for these requirements. The Puget Sound Clean 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 22 of 122

Air Agency will use the results of monitoring and observations, the review of operation and 

maintenance procedures and other information available to determine compliance with these 

requirements.

4. Requirements I.A.7 and I.A.8 – Nuisance Standards

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.11 (effective date - 6/9/83) and WAC 

173-400-040(5) (effective date - 9/20/93) are federally enforceable.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.11 (effective date - 3/11/99) and WAC 

173-400-040(5) (effective date - 9/15/01) are currently not federally enforceable but will be 

federally enforceable upon their adoption into the SIP. These provisions have not been included 

in the operating permit at this time because there are no substantive differences between the SIP 

adopted versions and these versions awaiting approval. If a version of these regulations were 

adopted into the SIP which contained a substantive difference from the requirements included in 

this draft permit, the permit would need to be reopened to incorporate the changes.

RCW 70.94.040 also requires that a source shall not cause air pollution in violation of 70.94 

RCW or any ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation adopted there under. This provision is not 

federally enforceable.

WAC 173-400-040(2) (effective date - 9/15/01) prohibits the emission of particulate matter from 

Ash Grove to be deposited beyond the property line in sufficient quantity as to unreasonably 

interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property upon which the material is deposited. This 

provision is not federally enforceable.

WAC 173-400-040(4) (effective date - 9/15/01) requires Ash Grove to use recognized good 

practices to control odors in order to avoid unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of 

property. This provision is not federally enforceable. 

The monitoring methods are based on a combination of both weekly and monthly plant 

inspections and responding to complaints to identify possible causes of emissions, including the 

deposition of particulate, that may unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of 

property, correcting any problems identified and initiating corrective actions with preventative 

maintenance as a result of the inspections or investigations. Receiving complaints does not 

necessarily mean Ash Grove is in violation of this requirement but triggers action by Ash Grove 

to prevent a violation.

Ash Grove handles or processes over a million tons per year of dry fine dusty materials 

associated with the production of cement which has a large potential to become air borne even 

with the best equipment and the best practices to prevent such emissions. However, plant-wide, 

most materials are handled or processed inside or within buildings or within covered areas that 

are totally or significantly enclosed. All roadways and parking lots are paved and maintained in 

relatively clean condition. There have also been significant efforts and expenditures by this plant 

in an attempt to identify, predict and contain the releases of materials that may likely lead to 

violations of this regulation.

Even with good operations and maintenance there remains a potential for some releases of 

fugitive dust that may be in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as is, or 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 23 of 122

is likely to be, injurious to human, plant or animal life, or property, or which unreasonably 

interferes with enjoyment of life and property.

During the last five years, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has issued ten notices of violation 

of this regulation (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.11). Specifically, 

these violations were based on complaints of property damage that were verified by the Agency 

to be caused by fallout of clinker particulate originating from this cement plant and depositing on 

property. All outstanding violations have been settled and closed with signed assurances of 

discontinuances. However, to date the Agency has not conclusively determined or identified a 

particular area, a specific activity or piece of equipment that is responsible for these emissions.

The monitoring method identified in Section II.A.3 (Rooftop Inspections) specifies visual 

inspections of the plant site (facility-wide) on a weekly basis to discover, control, and repair 

sources of fugitive dust emissions and specifically identify and control releases or emissions of 

clinker particulate. The proactive periodic inspection and maintenance frequency before 

complaints are received, and the addition of the Complaint Response Program (see Section II.A.2 

of the permit) which is in effect at all times, represents a combined method for monitoring and 

assuring compliance. An additional supporting monitoring method for compliance with these 

requirements is the O&M Plan Inspections (see Section II.A.4 of the permit) which requires a 

monthly inspection of the plant equipment. The O&M Plan Inspections are intended to identify 

equipment operations and maintenance issues which could lead to a nuisance related event and 

prevent such an event. 

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has determined that weekly monitoring for sources of 

fugitive dust emissions facility-wide and specifically monitoring for potential releases of clinker 

dust, as well as full implementation of the Complaint Response Plan and the O&M Plan 

inspections are together, appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for this 

requirement for the following reasons.

1. Initial compliance. Ash Grove has generally been careful to maintain equipment to avoid 

the generation and emission of particulate that can lead to fallout of materials and 

nuisance complaints. Although there has been a long history of particulate fallout related 

issues with this plant, Ash Grove is considered to be capable of maintaining compliance 

with this standard on a continuous basis. Ash Grove has implemented a Complaint 

Response Program which has effectively been dealing with nuisance issues in the vicinity

of the plant. The recent complaint history indicates this source must be diligent and 

aggressive in monitoring (both through the Rooftop Inspections and the O&M Plan 

Inspections), and be proactive to assure compliance is maintained with this requirement.

2. Margin of compliance. Ash Grove daily handles and processes tons of dry dusty 

materials and, therefore, has significant potential to cause general fugitive dust emissions 

as well as potential visible source emissions that can cause an environmental nuisance. 

Although all the roadways and parking lots are paved within the Ash Grove plant 

boundary and all significant emission points are operated correctly, the fact that there 

have been ongoing enforcement actions for complaint issues shows that there is very little 

margin of compliance for the generation of air contaminant emissions in sufficient 

quantities to be injurious or to unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of life and property. 

The margin for compliance is considered to be small. However, with aggressive attention 

to proactive monitoring, developing and following the Compliant Response Program, and 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 24 of 122

performing both the rooftop inspections weekly and the O&M plan inspections monthly 

for nuisance emission issues (with an emphasis on dust), Ash Grove is anticipated to be 

able to maintain compliance with this standard.

3. Variability of process and emissions. Because the manufacturing process is relatively 

constant, it is unlikely that the variability of the process itself will cause emissions 

leading to environmentally detrimental problems or cause nuisances while the plant is 

normally operating except during upset conditions.

4. Environmental impacts of problems. While there may be significant potential 

environmental impacts of emissions that may be environmentally detrimental or 

potentially can cause a nuisance, quick and early identification and correction of such 

problems are required by this permit to minimize releases and impacts that could lead to 

complaints. The monitoring methods and increased frequency is designed for quick 

identification, response and correction. Following the Complaint Response Program will 

assure Ash Grove will respond appropriately, including communicating with 

complainants, and investigating potential causes of the complaints as they may be 

associated with Ash Grove activities. The recordkeeping and reporting aspects of the 

Complaint Response Program will document the level of attention the plant devotes to 

the effort and the appropriateness of their response to complaints.

5. Technical considerations. By following this monitoring frequency, there is an increased 

chance the causes of emissions (including emissions of clinker dust) that may lead to 

nuisance complaints will be identified before complaints are registered. Also, following 

the Complaint Response Program may help identify or isolate a likely source or associate 

operations such as upset equipment. Observation by plant workers during their normal 

course of work may also help to suggest potential areas of material release that could 

cause complaints.

5. Requirement I.A.9, I.A.10, I.A.11, I.A.13 - BACT and Reasonable 

Precautions Preventing Fugitive Dust

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.15(a) (effective date – 8/10/89) is a 

federally enforceable requirement for employing BACT for fugitive dust.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.15(a) requires best available control 

technology (BACT) for all fugitive dust emissions. WAC 173-400-040(3) addresses fugitive 

dust emissions for some activities and WAC 173-400-040(8) requires reasonable precautions or 

reasonably available control technology (RACT) to control fugitive emissions. Both of these 

Ecology regulations are federally enforceable (effective date - 9/20/93). Recording of fugitive

dust emissions is not necessarily a violation of the requirement, since the requirement does not 

prohibit fugitive dust emissions, but prohibits fugitive dust unless BACT is employed. BACT is 

employed for all sources of dust at this plant. Equipment controlled or vented directly through a 

stack is incapable of violating this standard while complying with the other requirements in the 

permit.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.15(c) (effective date – 8/10/89) requires 

fugitive dust not be emitted from general fuel burning equipment, general equipment used in a 

manufacturing process, or general control equipment.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 25 of 122

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.15(c) prohibits fugitive dust emissions 

from any refuse burning equipment, fuel burning equipment, equipment used in a manufacturing 

process, or control equipment. Fugitive dust emissions are emissions of smoke, dust or fumes 

that are not collected by a capture system and emitted from a stack. Ash Grove does not have 

any refuse burning equipment (i.e., equipment employed to burn any solid or liquid combustible 

refuse), and all other equipment subject to this requirement is either controlled or vented directly 

through a stack and is addressed by a combination of monitoring requirements.

Therefore, the monitoring methods specified for these requirements are the combination of the 

weekly Rooftop Inspections (Section II.A.3 of the permit) and the monthly O&M Plan 

Inspections (Section II.A.4 of the permit). As described above, the weekly rooftop inspections to 

monitor for fugitive emissions are intended to identify issues as they occur. The monitoring 

method is based on visual inspections with Ash Grove taking corrective action within 24 hours, 

if any fugitive dust emissions are noted. The monitoring method is consistent with Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency‟s “Agency Policy on Fugitive Dust Controls, March 1995,” which specifies 

reasonable precautions that must be taken to prevent fugitive dust emissions, but does not 

necessarily define BACT for all processes. The O&M Plan Inspections are the preventative 

measure intended to identify operation and maintenance issues which could lead to a fugitive 

emission condition if they were not addressed appropriately.

The fugitive dust requirements contained in the state implementation plan are addressed in 

Requirements I.A.9 through I.A.12. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Board of Directors 

revised Section 9.15 on March 11, 1999, and it became effective April 17, 1999. The revised 

fugitive dust requirements are included in the state-only Requirement I.A.13. The amended 

version will be forwarded to EPA as a SIP amendment. Upon approval of the SIP changes, the 

revised version of Regulation I, Section 9.15 will be federally enforceable and the old version 

will no longer apply. The revised rule requires the use of reasonable precautions for fugitive 

dust and lists some examples of reasonable precautions. The Monitoring, Maintenance and 

Recordkeeping Methods are the same as those listed in Requirements I.A.9. through I.A.12.

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has determined that the Rooftop Inspections (Section II.B.3) 

monitoring procedure should be weekly for the reasons listed below.

1. Initial compliance. On a plant-wide basis, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has identified 

fugitive dust as a significant potential emission at Ash Grove.

2. Margin of compliance. Because of the significant quantity of dry dusty materials that are 

handled and processed, there is a significant potential to cause fugitive dust emissions 

even if Ash Grove follows good housekeeping practices. Although all the roadways and 

parking lots are paved within the Ash Grove plant boundary and all significant emission 

points are controlled, the potential remains for the generation of air contaminant 

emissions. Therefore, the equipment is required to be visually inspected from a rooftop 

viewing weekly to ensure it is working properly without fugitive emissions.

3. Variability of process and emissions. Although the process has a minimal amount of 

variability, there is substantial variability in the amount of fine loose dry powdery 

materials that can potentially be associated with not employing BACT. Spillage and 

handling of materials are the greatest causes for variability of fugitive dust.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 26 of 122

4. Environmental impacts of problems. Although BACT is followed and employed at Ash 

Grove, there is likely to be some environmental impacts from fugitive dust potentially 

released to the environment. Weekly inspections will minimize the emissions and 

potentially discover problems before impacts become significant.

5. Technical considerations. Ash Grove is required to perform self inspections and by 

following this inspection frequency, following a good O&M Plan (as tracked through 

Section II.A.4 of the permit), and by making corrections and modifications in response to 

the Complaint Response Program as appropriate, Ash Grove will substantially avoid 

failures of the air pollution generating or controlling systems which are the main causes 

of fugitive particulate emissions.

6. Requirement I.A.12 - Track-Out and Spillage Emissions

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.15(b)(effective date – 8/10/89) requires 

that Ash Grove prevent vehicles from operating on paved roads open to the public:

1. Unless dirt loads are secured, sand is dropped for traction, or public agencies are 

constructing or maintaining roads;

2. Unless dirt loads are covered or have enough freeboard to prevent spillage; or

3. Unless its vehicles have no dirt on their body, fenders, frame, undercarriage, wheels, or 

tires.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency considers the deposition of dirt onto public paved roadways a 

violation of Section 9.15(b).

It is Ash Grove's responsibility to monitor facility-wide for securing of dirt loads, dust spillage or 

dirty undercarriages and to respond to nuisance complaints (see Requirements I.A.6 and I.A.12) 

of particulate emissions or deposition of particulate associated with track-out or dust spillage. 

Receiving complaints does not necessarily mean Ash Grove is in violation of this requirement, 

but triggers action by Ash Grove to prevent violations. Ash Grove has not received any notices 

of violation of this applicable requirement, nor has it received any complaints.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has determined that weekly monitoring is appropriate for trackout and dust spillage prevention for the reasons listed below.

1. Initial compliance. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has not issued any notices of 

violation for dust or track-out violations to Ash Grove during inspections (see 

Compliance History). However, there is a significant potential to generate track-out 

materials at Ash Grove if proper O&M is not followed. Therefore, the Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency concludes that weekly visual inspections are required to assure 

continued compliance with the track-out requirements, as described in Section II.A.5 

(Vehicle Track Out) of the permit.

2. Margin of compliance. Even though the Agency has not issued any notices of violation 

to Ash Grove for dust spillage or track-out, Ash Grove processes tons of material that 

could potentially become a spillage or track-out problem if a good O&M Plan is not 

followed and so there is not a large margin of compliance. Therefore, the Puget Sound 

Clean Air concludes that a weekly monitoring frequency is required.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 27 of 122

3. Variability of process and emissions. Although the process has a minimal amount of 

variability, there is substantial variability in the amount of fine loose dry powdery 

materials that can contribute to spillage or track-out of materials. Spillage and handling 

of materials are the greatest causes for variability of generation track-out materials. 

4. Environmental impacts of problems. If proper O&M is not followed or employed at Ash 

Grove, there would be significant environmental impacts from fugitive dust that could 

lead to emissions of air contaminants that are detrimental to persons or property. By 

following a good O&M Plan, spillage and track-out will be minimized.

5. Technical considerations. Ash Grove is required to perform self inspections. By 

following a good O&M Plan, and making corrections and modifications to this Plan, Ash 

Grove will very likely avoid generating spillage or track-out of materials. The 

monitoring for Vehicle Track Out is a simple procedure with one point to observe – East 

Marginal Way at the plant entrance. Discussions with plant personnel indicate that this 

happens every day as a routine part of coming to work. The weekly frequency reflects 

the required timing to observe and record the observation.

7. Requirement I.A.14 and I.A.15 – Operation and Maintenance 

Standards

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.20 requires Ash Grove to maintain 

equipment in good working order. Section 9.20(a) applies to sources that received a Notice of 

Construction Order of Approval under Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Article 6. 

Section 9.20(b) applies to equipment not subject to Section 9.20(a). Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency Regulation I, Section 7.09(b) requires that Ash Grove develop and implement an O&M 

plan to assure continuous compliance with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations I, II, and 

III. Section 7.09(b) also requires Ash Grove to promptly correct any defective equipment. 

However, the underlying requirement in most instances does not define “promptly,” hence for 

significant emission units and applicable requirements that Ash Grove has a reasonable 

possibility of violating or that a violation would cause an air quality problem, the Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency added clarification that “promptly” usually means within 24 hours. For many 

insignificant emission units and for equipment not listed in the permit, “promptly” cannot be 

defined, because the emission sources and suitable pollution control techniques vary widely, 

depending on the contaminant sources and the pollution control technology employed. However, 

the permit identifies a means by which to identify if Ash Grove is following good industrial 

practice.

This requirement specifies that the Plan shall reflect good industrial practice, but does not define 

how to determine good industrial practice. In the past, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has 

found that, in most instances, following the manufacturer‟s operations manual or equipment 

operational schedule, minimizing emissions until repairs can be completed and taking measures 

to prevent recurrence of the problem may be considered good industrial practice. This language 

is consistent with a Washington Department of Ecology requirement in WAC 173-400-101(4). 

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency also believes that other criteria included in the permit 

represent credible evidence towards these requirements. For example, monitoring results, 

opacity observations, or fugitive dust problems may also reveal that O&M plan provisions had 

not been followed between the scheduled O&M plan inspections. This is consistent with the 

Washington State court decision, Longview Fibre Co. v. DOE, 89 Wn. App. 627 (1998), which 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 28 of 122

held that similar wording was not vague and gave sufficient notice of prohibited conduct. In 

such a circumstance, Ash Grove may have to report deviations under these requirements based 

on information collected beyond this monitoring procedure.

Section II.A.4 of the permit (O&M Plan Inspections) identifies a monthly facility wide 

inspection to verify the O&M plans developed by Ash Grove are being followed and identify 

when the plan needs improvements or updates based on the observations. The inspection 

procedure requires Ash Grove to look for prohibited activities, activities that required prior 

approval, evidence of proper operation of equipment, evidence of fugitive dust controls are 

effectively being used, and odorous emissions. All of these are intended to be preventative 

inspection activities which should identify potential problems before they trigger required 

responses under other parts of the permit.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has determined that monthly monitoring is appropriate for O&M 

plan inspections for the reasons listed below.

1. Initial compliance. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has issued a limited number of 

notices of violation good working order problems, but none in the last few years. This 

type of violation is often associated with another problem and the O&M or good working 

order status is considered a contributing factor to the problem. For the older compliance 

history at Ash Grove, this was the case. Therefore, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

concludes that monthly O&M Plan inspections are required to assure continued 

compliance with both of these O&M based standards.

2. Margin of compliance. Even though the Agency has not issued any recent notices of 

violation to Ash Grove for the good working order provisions, Ash Grove‟s recent history 

of nuisance violations from fallout suggests that operations and maintenance practices 

may have been a factor in the compliance challenge. The lack of O&M type violations in 

those recent incidents is likely due to a lack of a direct “cause and effect” linkage at the 

time the violation was documented. However, it does suggest that there is not a large 

margin of compliance with these requirements, but a failure in this area of the permit will 

most likely lead to real impacts and possible violations of emission or impact based 

standards. Therefore, the Puget Sound Clean Air concludes that a monthly monitoring 

frequency is required.

3. Variability of process and emissions. Although the process has a minimal amount of 

variability, there is substantial amount of equipment actively operational at the plant a 

large amount of material being handled. 

4. Environmental impacts of problems. If proper O&M is not employed at Ash Grove, there 

would be significant environmental impacts from fugitive dust that could lead to 

emissions of air contaminants that are detrimental to persons or property. By using and 

updating a good O&M Plan, other permit deviations and possible violations can be 

minimized.

5. Technical considerations. Ash Grove is required to perform self inspections. By 

following a good O&M Plan, and making corrections and modifications to this Plan, Ash 

Grove will very likely avoid other permit deviations and possible violations. The 

monthly facility wide inspections identified in the permit (Section II.A.4) are broad 

ranging and are not limited to equipment procedures alone. These facility wide 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 29 of 122

inspections are to include general observations which may trigger responses that include, 

but are not limited to new O&M plan development, permit deviation reports, or other 

action to respond to observations of activities which may either be noncompliant or lead 

to noncompliance if unattended. The monthly frequency reflects the required timing to 

observe and record the observation. 

8. Requirement I.A.16 - Emissions from a common stack

WAC 173-400-040 (8/20/93) requires that the emissions from a common stack must meet the 

most restrictive standard of any of the connected emissions units.

Ash Grove does not have stacks that are subject to this standard, so no monitoring is required.

9. Requirement I.A.17 - HCl Emissions

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.10(a) (effective date – 6/9/88) specifies 

that HCl emissions shall not exceed 100 ppm (dry), corrected to 7% O2 for combustion sources. 

The kiln is the only known source of HCl at Ash Grove. The kiln is subject to the emission 

limits and testing of 40 CFR 63, Subpart LLL. The NESHAPS applicability testing of the main 

stack demonstrated the HCl concentration is less than 5 ppm. If operations changed at the kiln 

which could increase the observed HCl concentrations or emission rates, Ash Grove will face the 

major source threshold trigger for additional NESHAP affected unit coverage well before the 

HCl limit of 100 ppm is ever reached. Therefore, there is no requirement for monitoring other 

that required by the NESHAPS. 

Section I.B. (Emission Unit Applicable Requirements)

Section I.B. of the permit lists applicable requirements that are specific to an emission unit or 

activity. The Generally Applicable Requirements of Section I.A. apply to all the emission units 

listed in Section I.B. and are not repeated in this section. Monitoring Methods and Reference 

Methods are also identified if they are different from, or in addition to, those listed in Section 

I.A.

The EPA incorporates what the EPA has determined to be “all necessary monitoring” into all 

recently adopted federal air pollution regulations. Where a recently adopted federal regulation 

does not identify a monitoring method, the permit does not identify one either, except in some 

cases where the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has determined additional monitoring to be 

necessary. Finally, any requirements that are inapplicable to the specific emission unit are also 

listed in this section.

All generally applicable requirements apply to the specific emission units. To simplify the 

permit, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency did not repeat these requirements for each unit unless 

a specific monitoring requirement applied. Following is a summary of all the Notice of 

Construction Applications and the Orders of Approval issued by the Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency. The applicable portions of these Orders of Approvals are listed in Section I.B. for the 

specific applicable requirements for each emission unit. The table below contains a list of all the 

obsolete Orders of Approval issued to Ash Grove.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 30 of 122

1. Requirements: EU 1.1 through EU 1.4 for Kiln Baghouse Visible 

Emissions

Requirement EU 1.1, which cites Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 

9.09(b)(1) (effective date 2/10/94), is a 20% opacity limit for a period aggregating more than 3 

minutes in any one hour (as determined by the continuous emission monitoring system) applies 

to the Kiln.

Requirement EU 1.2, which cites Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 

9.04(c)(2) (effective date 4/09/98), is both a visual and an instrumental opacity standard. This 

standard is a 20% opacity limit. The source shall not cause or allow the emission of any air 

contaminant during any hour that contains any consecutive 6-minute period averaging greater 

than 20% opacity from the Kiln.

EU 1.1 will be superceded by EU 1.2 when EPA adopts the current SIP. The reference methods 

include both EPA Method 9 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A (7/1/02) (Appendix X.A.(2) of this permit) 

and EPA Performance Specification 1, (40 CFR 60, Appendix B (7/2/97) (Appendix X.C.(1) of 

this permit).

Requirement EU 1.3, which cites Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 

9.09(b)(2) (effective date - 2/10/94), is a 5% CEMS opacity limit averaged for one hour applies 

to the Kiln.

Requirement EU 1.4, which cites Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 

9.04(c)(1) (effective date 4/9/98), is a 5% opacity limit as a one-hour average applies to the Kiln.

EU 1.3 will be superceded by EU 1.4 when EPA adopts the current SIP. Note that EU 1.2 visible

emission standard has two compliance reference methods. The results of the two compliance 

reference methods may not be identical because the opacity measurements are conducted at 

difference locations. The CEMS measures the opacity inside the stack (the transmissometer 

operates at all times the Kiln operates) where the temperature is hot. EPA Method 9 measures 

the opacity from outside the stack where the cooler temperature allows particulate in the form of 

mist or vapor to condense that otherwise may not be detected by the CEMS inside the hot stack.

Regulation I, Section 9.03(a)(1) (effective date 9/08/94) does not apply to the kiln emissions 

because Regulation I, Section 9.03(e) (effective date 9/08/94) states, "Section 9.03(a) shall not 

apply to any source which meets the requirements of Section 9.09(c)." Ash Grove meets the 

requirements of Regulation I, Section 9.09(c) (effective date 2/10/94), so 9.03(a)(1) (effective 

date 9/08/94) does not apply.

The old version of Regulation I, Section 9.03(a)(1) (effective date 9/08/94) will be superseded by 

the new version of Regulation I, Section 9.03 (effective date 3/11/99) and the new version of 

Regulation I, Section 9.04 (effective date 4/9/98), once they are adopted into the SIP. When this 

happens the SIP will list both compliance methods for this standard.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 31 of 122

This continuous opacity monitoring allows Ash Grove to take timely corrective action in 

response to increasing CEMS measured emissions. These requirements are continuously 

monitored for compliance with the opacity standards and deviations from the standards are 

enforceable by Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. This Agency reviews the monthly monitoring 

reports as a part of the enforcement assessment for Ash Grove.

2. Requirements EU 1.5 (NC 5687 Waste Derived Fuels) and EU 1.7 and 

1.8 (NC 5755 Tire Derived Fuel)

Ash Grove has two Orders of Approval which allow replacement or alternative fuels to be used 

in the kiln. Order of Approval No. 5687 (1/11/95) allows waste derived fuel to be fired in the 

Kiln and includes a limitation on the amount which can be burned. Order of Approval No. 5755 

(11/4/93) allows burning whole tires in the Kiln and limits the weight of tires burned.

The monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with these fuel restrictions is for Ash 

Grove to maintain records on site of the fuels burned. The recordkeeping is for daily and annual 

amounts and types of fuels with the average daily amount of tires burned as specified in 

Conditions No. 6 in both Orders of Approval.

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has determined that this monitoring and recordkeeping 

frequency is satisfactory to assure compliance with the Order of Approval limits for the 

following reasons.

1. Initial compliance. Ash Grove has demonstrated compliance with the conditions and 

limits of the above Orders of Approval and maintains equipment associated with the 

handling of these fuels. Ash Grove has done extensive testing to show regulatory 

compliance.

2. Margin of compliance. The limits of waste fuels and tires are easy to manage because 

this cement plant does not generate, use or burn a significant amount of these fuels. The 

margin for compliance is considered to be large for these conditions.

3. Variability of process and emissions. Because the manufacturing process is relatively 

constant, it is unlikely that the variability of the process itself will cause violations of 

these limits.

4. Environmental impacts of problems. The air modeling of the stack emission while 

burning these fuels has shown that there are no significant environmental issues.

5. Technical considerations. The Kiln has a significant flow rate so the emission limits are 

continuously monitored. By following the required monthly recordkeeping and 

monitoring schedule any significant emissions will be detected and corrected before there 

are compliance problems.

3. Requirements EU 1.9 through 1.14 Kiln Emission Limits for NOx, 

CO, SO2 and PM10 (Order of Approval No. 7381 and PSD Permit 90-

03)

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Order of Approval No. 7381 (6/6/01) and Ecology‟s PSD Permit 

90-03 limit the main stack baghouse emissions for NOx, CO, SO2 and PM. These current 

versions of approvals represent the third version of conditions, with the original versions 

approved in 1990. As Ash Grove gained experience with their kiln following the project 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 32 of 122

modifications, various conditions in the approvals needed modified as some portions of the 

limitations were not achievable. What conditions are in effect at this time are the following 

forms of limitations:

 Concentration limitations on NOx, CO, and SO2 with different averaging times

 Startup operational procedures (attached to the Order of Approval as approved startup 

and shutdown procedures for SO2 compliance and identified in Section II.B.8 of the 

permit) and startup emission limits which apply to SO2 emissions

 Annual mass emission rate limitations for NOx, CO, SO2, and PM-10, to include startup 

and shutdown operations

 Mass emission rate limit for CO on an 8-hour average basis and a PM-10 mass emission 

limit in terms of lb/hr

Ash Grove uses a continuous emission monitoring system and the submittal of monthly reports 

to satisfy the monitoring requirements for this order of approval and the PSD permit approval. 

These reports have been submitted routinely in the past and will continue under this operating 

permit. Some new monitoring provisions are being added to these ongoing practices as a part of 

this operating permit to demonstrate compliance with all of these requirements. 

In Section II.B.9 of the permit, a PM source test is identified to be completed once during each 

permit term. The purpose of this test is to revalidate PM emission limit compliance and reestablish the emission rate to production rate relationship. This relationship is used to convert 

annual production rates to mass emission rates identified in the identified approvals orders. 

Additionally, the production rate data required for other purposes (Section II.B.10 of the permit) 

will support these annual emission calculations.

In Section II.B.3 of the permit, a requirement to calculate and record the mass emission rates for 

the gaseous pollutants has been included. The CEMS data demonstrates compliance with the 

concentration based limits, but does not directly produce mass emission rate values. Most of the 

mass emission rate limits are on an annual basis (CO being the exception) and no direct 

requirement exists in the existing Orders to make that compliance determination. This mass 

conversion rate will provide the positive record that the mass emission rate limits are met and 

that those values include all operations, including startup and shutdown.

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has determined that the monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting frequency for these combined Order of Approval and PSD Permit conditions is 

satisfactory to assure compliance for the following reasons:

1. Initial compliance. Ash Grove has demonstrated compliance with these conditions and 

the current limitations in these approvals match the operational capabilities of the kiln. 

Past violations have been noted against prior versions of the approvals, but no violations 

of these present limitations have been noted. Past source testing for PM emissions have 

also indicated compliance with the underlying PM-10 limitations.

2. Margin of compliance. The margin of compliance is small for the concentration based 

limits. The revisions to Orders of approval over the past 10 years have reflected 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 33 of 122

challenges with the original concentration limits, but the current form of limitation does 

not produce the same, historical amount of violations. The current revised version of the 

Order of Approval identifies specific startup and shutdown procedures that are followed 

instead of defined concentrations monitored by the CEMS. This is an indication that the 

compliance margin is small and must be actively managed by the source and guided by 

the CEMS data at other routine operation times. The margin of compliance for the 

annual mass emission rates is considered high. There are no monitoring, recordkeeping, 

or reporting requirements for those mass emission rates in the approval orders. The 

margin of compliance for PM-10 emissions is also considered high, since the kiln is 

monitored by a COMS to verify compliance with a visible emission limitation of 5% 

opacity.

3. Variability of process and emissions. The process is highly variable during startup and 

shutdown procedures and relatively constant during normal operations. This fact is 

reflected by the startup and shutdown procedures being defined as an approval order 

condition and the normal operations being monitored by the CEMS.

4. Environmental impacts of problems. The air modeling of the stack emissions during the 

Notice of Construction and PSD permit review has shown that there are no significant 

environmental issues related the impacts of these pollutants.

5. Technical considerations. The Kiln has a significant flow rate so the emission limits are 

continuously monitored. By following the required monthly recordkeeping and 

monitoring schedule any significant emissions will be detected and corrected before there 

are compliance problems.

4. Requirements EU 1.15 through 1.17 and EU-3 – Portland Cement 

NSPS (40 CFR 60, Subpart F)

What NSPS Subpart F Requirements Apply to Ash Grove?

Ash Grove is subject to the Portland Cement NSPS regulation promulgated in 40 CFR 60, 

Subpart F. As a result, corresponding applicable provisions of the NSPS General Provisions (40 

CFR 60, Subpart A) are also applicable to Ash Grove.

Ash Grove has demonstrated compliance with the opacity and particulate requirements of the 

NSPS for the affected emission units. A performance test report for the kiln was submitted to 

this Agency on September 7, 1993 and it demonstrated compliance with the Subpart F provisions 

which apply to the kiln.

This NSPS regulation was triggered by the kiln project originally approved in 1990. The 

emission units at the plant with this standard as an applicable requirement include the kiln and 

raw mill, as well as other various emission units identified in EU-3 of the permit. The clinker 

storage shed, the finish mills, the steel scale tanks and the Group II silos included in the permit 

are not subject to this NSPS because these units were not constructed or modified after August 

17, 1971.

These NSPS requirements are separated in the permit to reflect different standards and different 

monitoring requirements. In EU 1.15 to EU 1.17, the particulate emission limit and visible 

emission limit for the kiln are identified, as well as the requirement to record production rates 

and feed rates. Compliance with the particulate emission limit in this NSPS was demonstrated 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 34 of 122

by the performance test results submitted to this Agency on September 7, 1993. That test report 

also indicated that the kiln met the visible emission limitation of 10% opacity. While that was 

compliant, subsequent guidance from the EPA indicates that the appropriate visible emission 

limitation for this unit is 20% opacity. In 40 CFR 60.62(a)(2), the visible emission limitation for 

kiln emissions is identified at 20% opacity. In 40 CFR 60.62(c), the visible emission limitation 

for other affected facilities is 10% opacity. The raw mill system is considered an “other affected 

facility” and that seems to have been the observation by Ash Grove with the September 7, 1993 

test submittal. In an EPA memorandum from John Rasnic to EPA Regional Air Directors 

(September 7, 1996, ADI Control Number 9600083), it was concluded that in-line raw mills 

were considered integral to the operation of the kiln, that such a configuration was not 

circumvention, and the 20% opacity limitation for the kiln applied to the exhaust for this type of 

source (see Attachment B). Ash Grove has an in-line raw mill.

The NSPS Subpart F requirements identified in EU-3 (Portland Cement NSPS Affected 

Facilities) represent all other Subpart F emission units. These units are various point sources and 

material handling process which are subject to the visible emission limitation of 10% opacity 

identified in 40 CFR 60.62(c).

How will Ash Grove comply with NSPS Subpart F?

The portions of this subpart which apply to Ash Grove include:

1. Recurring source test for particulate emission compliance demonstration (once each 

permit term ) as described in Section II.B.9 of the permit;

2. Continuous opacity monitoring of the Kiln Baghouse for opacity in Section II.B.1 of the 

permit;

3. Routine opacity monitoring identified in Section II.A.1 of the permit, which monitors 

the baghouse emissions to no visible emissions (for units other than the kiln;

4. Semi-Annual Compliance Reports (to include Excess Emission Reports) in Section II.C.5 

of the permit;

5. The Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) plan meeting requirements of Subpart A

The specific requirements from the NSPS Subpart F provisions which are applicable are 

included in the operating permit. The NSPS Subpart A General Provisions which are applicable 

to Ash Grove and which may govern action or future potential action on the part of Ash Grove 

(under this operating permit and implementation of Subpart F compliance) have been included 

for reference. The underlying requirements are in Subpart F, which identify the Subpart A 

citations associated with compliance activities.

5. Requirements EU 1.18 through 1.20 – Coal Preparation Facilities 

NSPS (40 CFR 60, Subpart Y)

What NSPS Subpart Y Requirements Apply to Ash Grove?

Ash Grove‟s coal mills are subject to the Coal Preparation Facilities NSPS regulation 

promulgated in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Y. As a result, corresponding applicable provisions of the 

NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR 60, Subpart A) are also applicable to Ash Grove.

This requirement was discovered during the preparation of this operating permit to be applicable 

to the coal mill exhaust. It appears this NSPS regulation may have also been triggered by the kiln 

project in 1990 and Subpart Y applies because the coal mills have the ability to process more 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 35 of 122

than 200 tons/day. No NSPS performance test of this emission unit has been completed for these 

Subpart Y objectives.

The emission units at the plant with this standard as an applicable requirement are the two coal 

mill baghouses, which exhaust a portion of the kiln exhaust gas used to dry coal prior to its use 

in the kiln as fuel. The applicability of this rule needed some clarification by the EPA since the 

use of the exhaust gas stream from the kiln could lead to the conclusion that the NSPS, Subpart F 

for Portland cement manufacturing applied to these discharge point. In an EPA memorandum 

from John Rasnic to the Air Compliance Branch for New Jersey/Caribbean Compliance Section 

(May 12, 1995, ADI Control Number 9600082), it was directly concluded that when gases 

originating in one affected facility (e.g. cement kiln and Subpart F) and pass through another 

affected facility (e.g. coal mill dryer and Subpart Y), the EPA applies to the standard for the 

affected facility from which the gases are directly discharged to the atmosphere (see Attachment 

C). This cited memorandum specifically talks about Subpart F and Subpart Y overlaps and 

identifies the coal mill dryer as being subject to Subpart Y.

Subpart Y also regulates coal storage, transfer and loading equipment between the raw coal silo 

and the kiln. The Subpart Y requirements for this equipment are listed in Section I.B.2 of the 

permit. The coal loading, transfer and storage equipment upstream of the raw coal silo are not 

affected emission units subject to Subpart Y. In EPA clarifications (February 24, 1977, ADI 

Control Number Y002 and October 29, 1990, ADI Control Number NR90), the EPA indicates 

that unless the equipment is handling coal transfer to or from an affected unit (see Attachment 

D), it would not be subject to the rule. These identified units fit this definition and are not 

subject to Subpart Y.

In EU 1.18 to EU 1.20, the particulate emission limit and visible emission limit for the coal mill 

dryer exhaust gases are identified, as well as the requirement to monitor the coal mill exhaust gas 

temperature. Compliance with the particulate emission limit and the visible emission limit will 

be established by a performance test included in the operating permit (see Section II.B.12 of the 

permit) and the temperature monitoring requirement overlaps with a NESHAP requirement to 

monitor temperature (see Section II.B.13 of the permit).

The NSPS Subpart Y requirements identified in EU-2 (Coal Processing, Storage and Transfer 

Facilities) represent all other Subpart Y emission units. These units are various point sources and 

material handling processes which are subject to the visible emission limitation of 20% opacity 

identified in 40 CFR 60.252(c).

How will Ash Grove comply with NSPS Subpart Y?

The portions of this subpart which apply to Ash Grove include:

1. Performance source test for particulate emission and visible emission compliance 

demonstration as described in Section II.B.12 of the permit;

2. Routine opacity monitoring identified in Section II.A.1 of the permit, which monitors 

the baghouse emissions to no visible emissions;

3. Semi-Annual Compliance Reports (to include Excess Emission Reports) in Section II.C.5 

of the permit;

4. The Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) plan meeting requirements of Subpart A

The specific requirements from the NSPS Subpart Y provisions which are applicable are 

included in the operating permit. The NSPS Subpart A General Provisions which are applicable 

to Ash Grove and which may govern action or future potential action on the part of Ash Grove 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 36 of 122

(under this operating permit and implementation of Subpart Y compliance) have been included 

for reference. The underlying requirements are in Subpart F, which identify the Subpart A 

citations associated with compliance activities.

6. Requirements EU 1.21 through 1.35– Portland Cement NESHAPS (40 

CFR 63, Subpart LLL)

What NESHAP Subpart LLL Requirements Apply to Ash Grove?

Ash Grove is subject to the Portland Cement NESHAP regulation promulgated in 40 CFR 63, 

Subpart LLL. As a result, corresponding applicable provisions of the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR 63, Subpart A) are also applicable to Ash Grove.

Ash Grove is classified as a major source of criteria pollutants and thus was required to obtain an 

operating permit. However, the plant is considered an area source for hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs), meaning the source‟s potential to emit is less than 10 tons/year for any individual HAP 

and less than 25 tons/year for total HAPs. The industry and EPA guidance makes it clear that 

emissions of hydrogen chloride and formaldehyde are the key HAPs for this evaluation.

Ash Grove‟s emission rate for HCl was found to be 1.26 tons per year and formaldehyde was 

found to be 8.58 tons per year as a maximum potential to emit.

Ash Grove completed area source determination testing in May 2001. Testing to demonstrate 

compliance with this standard and to set the limits of Kiln baghouse inlet temperatures for 

several operational modes (raw mill online and raw mill offline) and for the coal mill exhaust 

was completed during October 22-24, 2002. The results of that performance testing were 

submitted to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency by the deadlines outlined in the NESHAP. The 

May 1, 2001 test report was received by this Agency on July 2, 2001 and it demonstrates that 

Ash Grove is an existing area source with HAPs projected to be less than 10 tons/year.

The area source definition means that the only emission limit from this regulation which applies 

to this plant is a dioxin/furan (D/F) limit of 0.40 ng/dscm (TEQ) at 7% O2 when the average 

Kiln baghouse inlet temperatures are equal to or less than 400oF during the performance test [40 

CFR 63.1343(d)(2)] and 0.20 ng/dscm (TEQ) at 7% O2 when the average Kiln baghouse inlet 

temperatures are less than 400oF during the performance test [40 CFR 63.1343(d)(1)]. Ash 

Grove has conducted D/F performance testing for setting the Kiln inlet baghouse temperature 

for the two modes of operation of the Raw Mill (ON and OFF). 

This testing included the Coal Mill Grinder emissions of dioxin/furan. Although most of the 

Kiln emissions vent through the Raw Mill (when it is operating) and exhaust out the main stack, 

there is a small portion of hot Kiln exhaust gases that are routed directly from the Kiln exhaust 

(before the Kiln gases enters the Raw Mill or main baghouse). This small portion of hot Kiln 

gas vents through the Coal Mill Grinder baghouse. This Coal Mill Grinder uses hot kiln exhaust 

gases for drying processed coal for Kiln fuel. The Kiln exhaust is withdrawn at the bottom of 

the precalciner tower and before the Raw Mill. For safety reasons the Coal Mill temperature 

must not be allowed to exceed about 180oF to 200oF. Although, the dioxin emission limit of 40 

CFR §63.1343(d)(3) limits all Kiln exhaust discharge points that the Kiln exhausts to the 

atmosphere, Ash Grove requested an alternative monitoring method for the coal mill baghouse 

temperature requirement as a method of dealing with the safety challenges created by testing the 

coal mill at maximum temperature conditions. In a letter from the Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency on October 18, 2002, the proposed intermediate monitoring change was approved. This 

intermediate alternative monitoring change required the performance test to be completed for the 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 37 of 122

coal mill exhaust gas but established the temperature value that shall not be exceeded during 

operation at 200oF (see Attachment E). It is expected that Ash Grove will demonstrate the 

dioxin/furan emissions are well below the emission standards of the NESHAPS once the 

performance test and compliance demonstration is submitted. The dioxin/furan performance test 

must be repeated every 30 months. As a result, the actual value of the temperature limitation is 

not being included as an explicit operating permit condition at this time since it will routinely be 

updated with the subsequent performance test requirements. It is important to note that this 

NESHAP regulation states (40 CFR 63.1350(b)) that, "Failure to comply with any provision of 

the operations and maintenance plan developed in accordance with 40 CFR 63.1350(a) shall be a 

violation of the standard." It is also important to note that this regulation indicates that 

temperature observations greater than the test derived value for that operational condition is also 

considered an exceedances of the dioxin/furan limit.

How will Ash Grove comply with NESHAP Subpart LLL?

The portions of this subpart which apply to Ash Grove include:

1. Applicability determination for area/major source

2. Performance test for compliance demonstration

3. Continuous Kiln inlet baghouse temperature monitoring and continuous coal mill 

baghouse temperature monitoring

4. Submit an O&M plan (for review and approval) which meets the requirements identified 

in this regulation

5. Develop & implement a Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) plan meeting the 

requirements of Subpart A and Subpart LLL

6. Document, report, and update SSM plan activities, as necessary and as identified in 

Subpart A

7. Repeat the dioxin/furan performance testing once every 30 months.

The specific requirements from the NESHAP Subpart LLL provisions which are applicable are 

included in the operating permit. The NESHAP Subpart A General Provisions which are 

applicable to Ash Grove and which may govern action or future potential action on the part of 

Ash Grove (under this operating permit and implementation of Subpart LLL compliance) have 

been included for reference, as appropriate. The underlying requirements are in Subpart LLL, 

which identify the Subpart A citations associated with compliance activities. 

7. Requirements EU 1.36 through 1.46 - WAC 173-434 Solid Waste 

Incinerator Facilities

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency concluded during the review of the comments on the draft 

operating permit that this regulation did apply to Ash Grove and had been omitted from the 

original document. The details of this applicability and impacts of the recent Ecology revision of 

this regulation are discussed in detail in the response to comments below [see Comment 28 (by 

Ash Grove 4/30/03)].

WAC 173-434 initially was adopted on September 17, 1990, with an effective date of October 

18, 1990. The Department of Ecology amended WAC 173-434 on December 22, 2003. Ash 

Grove currently is not subject to the 2003 version of WAC 173-434, because the 2003 version 

exempts tires and non-hazardous waste oil burned in a cement kiln from the definition of “solid 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 38 of 122

waste,” and Ash Grove currently is not permitted to burn any other materials for energy recovery 

that are classified as “solid waste” under the 2003 version of the incinerator regulation. Ash 

Grove remains subject to the 1990 version of 173-434, because Ash Grove burns more than 12 

tons per day of whole tires, and the 1990 version does not exempt tires. Under both the 1990 

and the 2003 versions of WAC 173-434 the definition of “solid waste” does not include 

industrial byproducts consumed as raw materials. For instance, Ash Grove consumes bottom ash 

from the Centralia coal plant as a source of alumina, slag from the Trail smelter as a source of 

iron, and gypsum chips from a drywall plant as a source of silica. These materials are not 

classified as “solid waste,” and their use does not subject Ash Grove to the requirements of 

WAC 173-434. 

The applicable requirements of the 1990 version of this regulation have been added to the permit 

in Conditions EU 1.36 through 1.46, to include some specific monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting provisions associated with this applicable regulation.

The requirements from this regulation are clear and discrete, with a couple of exceptions. In 

Condition EU 1.41 (3% oxygen concentration in gas leaving the kiln) and EU 1.44 (350oF inlet 

temperature to the kiln baghouse), the regulations for these operational limitations do not 

identify averaging times for the monitoring or compliance demonstrations. In both of these 

requirements, this Agency has concluded that the appropriate averaging period is 24-hours on a 

block average basis. Some of the other regulatory requirements of this rule specify averaging 

times (e.g. EU 1.37 and EU 1.39). When an averaging time is not specified in the regulation and 

a monitoring requirement for compliance creates the need to specify the averaging time, this 

Agency has to establish one for the permit. In this circumstance, this Agency has concluded that 

the 24-hour average is consistent with the regulation since the applicability criteria for the rule is 

the burning of 12 or more tons of solid waste per day.

This agency has determined that the WAC 173-434-130 emission limits for particulates and 

hydrogen chloride (HCl) do not apply to Ash Grove, because WAC 173-434-100(2) exempts 

incinerator facilities from the requirements of WAC 173-434 where other, more stringent 

regulations, controls or emission limits apply. Ash Grove‟s kiln is subject to a particulate limit 

(see Condition EU 1.13) more stringent than that imposed by WAC 173-434-130(1). Ash 

Grove‟s designation as an area source under 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL requires Ash Grove 

to emit HCl at rates well below the 50 ppm limit contained in WAC 173-434-110(2). The 

Inapplicable Requirements table in Section VIII of the permit grants the protection of the Title V 

permit shield to these findings. 

8. Requirements EU-4.1 and 4.2 Finish Mills (Order of Approval No. 

5276)

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Order of Approval No. 5276 (1/19/94) identifies the particulate 

concentration limitation of 0.01 gr/dscf (Order of Approval 5276, Condition No. 4) and a visible 

emission limitation of 10% opacity (Order of Approval 5276, Condition No. 5). These emission 

limitations were identified to specify the emission control performance requirements for the 

baghouses installed on these units. The specific monitoring requirements identified in Condition 

No. 7 of that Order has been included as a specific monitoring requirement in Section II.B.4 of 

the permit. The frequency for this pressure drop is being established with this permit and is 

identified to be monthly for this unit. That Order originated monitoring requirement is based on 

pressure drop monitoring and corrective action when the observed pressure drop across the 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 39 of 122

baghouse is outside of the approve range. This specific monitoring is in addition to the general 

opacity monitoring provisions included in Section I.A.1 of the permit.

9. Requirement EU-5.1 Cement Dome & Steel Scale Tanks (Order of 

Approval No. 7242)

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Order of Approval No. 7242 (1/6/98) approved the installation of 

the cement storage dome controlled by a baghouse. Additionally, the Order approved 

replacement of a baghouse on the Steel Scale Tanks. The approval order includes requirements 

to install pressure drop monitoring devices on each baghouse, mark the acceptable range for each 

baghouse, monitor and record the values for each shift the baghouse is used, and take corrective 

action if the observation is outside the acceptable range in accordance with the O&M plan 

(Conditions No. 4-6). These are included in the permit in Section II.B.7. The frequency for this 

monitoring is specified in the approval order. Additionally, this approval order includes the PM10 concentration limit of 0.005 gr/dscf (Condition No. 7 of the approval order), which parallels 

the PM-10 limitations identified and discussed for Condition I.A.5 of this permit. The same 

monitoring has been included for these emission units (Section II.A.1 General Opacity 

Monitoring) to demonstrate compliance with this concentration limitation.

10. Requirement EU-6.1 Bulk Loading Station (Order of Approval No. 

8318)

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Order of Approval No. 8318 (1/8/01) approved the installation of 

a bulk loading station equipped with a baghouse for emission control. The Order of Approval 

included requirements for no visible emissions or fallout from the baghouse (Condition No. 3) 

and the observation of visible emissions, abnormal pressure drop, or fallout trigger a corrective 

action response within 24-hours of observation. The monitoring for these two requirements is 

identified in Section II.B.11 of the operating permit, which specifies weekly inspections (when 

the equipment is operating) for visible emissions, pressure drop, and fallout. This monitoring 

procedure and frequency is specified in the Order of Approval (Condition Nos. 4-6).

11. Requirement EU-7.1 Clinker Storage Shed (Order of Approval No. 

8600) and Requirement EU-8.1 Group II Cement Silos (Order of 

Approval No. 8643)

Both of these approval orders were for the installation of baghouse equipment for particulate 

matter emission controls. Both orders included the PM-10 concentration limit of 0.005 gr/dscf 

(Condition No. 3 of each order), which parallels the PM-10 limitations identified and discussed 

for Condition I.A.5 of this permit. The same monitoring has been included for these emission 

units (Section II.A.1 General Opacity Monitoring) to demonstrate compliance with this 

concentration limitation.

Monitoring, Maintenance and Recordkeeping Procedures

Ash Grove must follow the procedures contained in Section II of the permit, Monitoring, 

Maintenance and Recordkeeping Procedures. Failure to follow a requirement in Section II may 

not necessarily be a violation of the underlying applicable emission standard in Section I. 

However, not following a requirement of Section II is a violation of Section II, and Ash Grove 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 40 of 122

must report such violations, as well as violations or deviations from any other permit condition, 

as a deviation under Section II.C.2 of the permit. In addition, all information collected as a result 

of implementing Section II can be used as credible evidence under Section V.O of the permit. 

Reporting a permit deviation and taking corrective action does not relieve Ash Grove from its 

obligation to comply with the underlying applicable requirement.

A standard Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Notice of Construction (NOC) Approval Condition 

No. 1, requires that the equipment, device or process be installed according to plans and 

specifications submitted to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Once the equipment is installed, 

the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency requires certification by the applicant that the installation was 

as approved; this is usually done with a Notice of Completion. Normally within six months to a 

year after receiving a Notice of Completion, a Puget Sound Clean Air Agency inspector verifies 

by inspection that the equipment was installed as specified and in accordance with the Approval 

Order. While the Notice of Completion is a one-time requirement that has been completed by 

Ash Grove, Ash Grove cannot change the approved equipment in such a manner that requires an 

NOC without first obtaining an NOC approval which is addressed in Section IV.A of the permit. 

In most cases, once Ash Grove has filed the Notice of Completion and a Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency inspector has verified that the equipment was installed according to the Approval Order, 

the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency considers NOC Condition No. 1 an obsolete condition. 

However, in some cases in the permit the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has identified a need to 

specify that the equipment cannot be altered in such a manner that requires an NOC Approval.

The permit requires Ash Grove to conduct monthly facility-wide inspections as a part of the 

O&M Plan Inspections. These inspections are to include checking for prohibited activities under 

Section III of the permit and activities that require additional approval under Section IV of the 

permit, as well as checking for any “nuisance” odor-bearing contaminants. The Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency determined the frequency of these inspections after considering the potential 

for emissions, the lack of federally required monitoring, Ash Grove's in-house training practices 

and similar factors. If problems are identified, Ash Grove has the responsibility to not only 

correct the specific problem, but also to adjust the work practices and training to prevent future 

problems. 

In determining the appropriate monitoring frequencies for monitoring identified in Section II.A. 

of the permit, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency considered several factors, including the 

following:

 Ash Grove‟s compliance history and the likelihood of violating the applicable 

requirement.

 The complexity of the emission unit including the variability of emissions over time.

 The likelihood that the monitoring would detect a compliance problem.

 The likely environmental impacts of a deviation.

 Whether add-on controls are necessary for the unit to meet the emission limit.

 Other measures that Ash Grove may have in place to identify problems.

 The type of monitoring, process, maintenance, or control equipment data already 

available for the emissions unit. 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 41 of 122

 The technical and economic considerations associated with the range of possible 

monitoring methods.

 The type of monitoring found on similar emissions units. 

Section II.B of the permit imposes source-specific monitoring methods for particular emission 

units and applicable requirements. Condition II.B.15, Operational Monitoring For Solid Waste 

Incinerator Facilities, requires Ash Grove to monitor certain parameters to show compliance with 

the Design and Operation Standards of WAC 173-434-160. WAC 173-434-160(2) requires 

incinerator facilities to maintain a minimum combustion chamber residence time of at least one 

second. The combustion zone of Ash Grove‟s kiln is the distance from the kiln inlet to the tip of 

the burner pipe. This distance is 205 feet. Throughout this zone the gas temperature exceeds 

1800 degrees F during normal operations. To traverse the combustion zone within one second 

gas would have to travel 205 feet/second, or 12,300 feet per minute. The working internal 

diameter of the kiln is 13.5 feet, or an area of 143.1 square feet. The product of the area (143.1 

square feet) times the flow rate (205 ft/second) yields the maximum flow rate (1,760,130 actual 

cubic feet per minute or acfm) at which gas can traverse the kiln before the residence time drops 

below one second. Condition II.B.15 requires Ash Grove to monitor flow rate at the baghouse 

outlet to demonstrate that the residence time and combustion air distribution control 

requirements are met.

WAC 173-434-130(3) requires that excess air leaving the final combustion zone must contain at 

least three percent oxygen measured on a wet basis. Ash Grove‟s oxygen analyzer, located at the 

outlet of the preheat tower, measures kiln exhaust gas oxygen content on a “dry” basis. The 

moisture content of the exhaust gas stream from the Ash Grove‟s process averages 10%. To 

convert “dry” oxygen content data to show compliance with the “wet” limit in WAC 173-434-

130(3) Ash Grove applies the following formula:

“Dry” O2 % = “Wet” O2 % x (1/(1-(Gas moisture content %/100))

“Dry” O2 = 3.0% x (1/(1-(10/100))

= 3.0% x 1.11

= 3.3%

Condition II.B.15 requires Ash Grove to continuously monitor the dry oxygen concentration at 

the preheat tower outlet, and to report as a deviation any 24 hour block during which the average 

dry oxygen concentration is less than 3.3 percent. 

Prohibited Activities

Some of the requirements Ash Grove identified in the operating permit application are included 

in Section III as prohibited activities. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has listed these activities 

in this section to highlight that they cannot occur at the facility. Since these activities are 

prohibited, routine monitoring of parameters is not appropriate; however, the permit does require 

Ash Grove to look for such activities during a routine facility-wide inspection.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 9.13 and WAC 173-400-040(7) contain 

similar requirements addressing concealment and masking of emissions. Although both 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 42 of 122

requirements apply, the permit language has been simplified by grouping these requirements 

together. 40 CFR 63.4(b) is included in the Prohibited Activities section of the operating permit 

with other more general requirements regarding concealment, but it would only be cited if the 

emission unit was subject to a NESHAPS.

Activities Requiring Additional Approval

Some of the requirements Ash Grove identified in the operating permit application are included 

in Section IV as activities that require additional approval. For new source review, the permit 

language has been simplified. Chapter 173-460 WAC and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

Regulation I, Article 6 New Source Review Programs require approval to construct, install, 

establish, or modify an air contaminant source. All these requirements apply, but the language in 

these requirements has been incorporated into one section to simplify the permit language. 

WAC 173-400-110 does not apply within Puget Sound Clean Air Agency‟s jurisdiction because 

the rule exempts areas that have a local program that is incorporated into the state 

implementation plan. Also included in this section are the specific sections in the Part 63 

General Provisions pertaining to new source review. This includes 40 CFR 63.5 pertaining to 

construction and reconstruction of sources subject to 40 CFR Part 63 (NESHAPS). 

Reporting and Notification Requirements

Section II.C and II.D contains the reporting and notification requirements applicable to Ash 

Grove. 

The recordkeeping requirements section contains recordkeeping that is both general and specific 

in nature, depending on the origin of the requirement. There are additional requirements listed 

under specific emission units in Section II. Ash Grove should refer to these general requirements 

any time maintenance of records is required.

The reporting requirements section includes both general reporting requirements and reports 

specific to emission units. The operating permit requires Ash Grove to report deviations of the 

permit to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, normally within 30 days after the end of the 

month. The operating permit requires that a responsible official certify all required reports at 

least once every six months. Ash Grove may submit the certification with the report or certify all 

the reports submitted in the previous six months. For example, if Ash Grove detected a deviation 

in January, it must report the deviation to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency in February. A 

responsible official must certify the report according to WAC 173-401-520 at the time the report 

is submitted or any other time within six months of submitting the report.

If Ash Grove does not detect any deviations to report for a six-month period, then Ash Grove 

shall report that there were no deviations during the six-month period.

The notification requirement section includes source testing notification requirements and new 

source review and change of information notification requirements in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 43 of 122

Standard Terms and Conditions

Some of the requirements Ash Grove identified in the operating permit application are included 

in Section V, Standard Terms and Conditions. This provided an easier mechanism for describing 

requirements that are more general in nature. This section also contains the standard terms and 

conditions specifically listed in WAC 173-401-620.

Section II.C.2 of the permit requires Ash Grove to report deviations of the permit to the Puget 

Sound Clean Air Agency, normally within 30 days after the end of the month. Section II.C.1 and 

Section V.Q of the permit requires that a responsible official certify all required reports at least 

once every six months. Ash Grove may submit the certification with the report or certify all the 

reports submitted in the previous six months. For example, if Ash Grove detected a deviation in 

January, it must report the deviation to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency in February. A 

responsible official must certify the report according to WAC 173-401-520 at the time the report 

is submitted or any other time within six months of submitting the report.

If Ash Grove does not detect any deviations to report for a six-month period, then Ash Grove 

shall report that there were no deviations during the six-month period.

Obsolete Requirements

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has issued many Notice of Construction Orders of Approval 

to Ash Grove. Each of these Orders of Approval contains at least one condition that requires 

Ash Grove to do something one-time, and one-time only. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

has determined that some of the approval conditions are now informational statements because 

they have already been complied with and, therefore, do not meet the criteria of being applicable 

requirements. Those approval conditions are described here.

The NOC Order of Approvals from No. 685 approved January 13, 1972 through NOC Order of 

Approval No. 2399, approved February 28, 1983 for Ash Grove by Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency included one General and some times added a Specific condition. The General 

Condition was:

"Permission is hereby granted as provided in Article 6 of Regulation I of PSAPCA to 

APPLICANT to install, alter, or establish the equipment, device, or process described hereon at 

the INSTALLATION ADDRESS in accordance with the plans and specifications on file in the 

ENGINEERING DIVISION of PSAPCA. This approval is not a waiver of liability for the 

infraction of Regulation I nor does it relieve the APPLICANT or OWNER of any requirements 

of other government agencies."

PSAPCA or Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency was the former name of the Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency before July 1, 1999

Approval Condition No. 3 in NOC Orders of Approval issued prior to February 6, 1997 (which 

included Order of Approval No. #2743 approved February 26, 1986 through Order of Approval 

No. #6644 approved October, 18, 1996), and Condition No. 2 of all other NOC Orders of 

Approval since Order of Approval No. #2743 inform the applicant that the approval does not 

relieve it of any requirement of any other agency. This requirement is informational only and is 

not included in the air operating permit.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 44 of 122

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency considered making Approval Condition No. 1 in all of the 

NOC Orders of Approval obsolete since it requires the applicant to install the approved 

equipment according to the specifications submitted to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. This 

requirement has been complied with in all cases as indicated by the submittal of the Notice of 

Completion to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency by Ash Grove. However, this requirement 

was kept in the air operating permit as a reminder that Ash Grove must continue to operate 

equipment as originally permitted.

Order of Approval No. 6644 is not obsolete, but it does not include specific approval conditions 

that equate to emission or performance limits or monitoring requirements. It is similar to a the 

general provision discussed above in that it allowed Ash Grove to use water spray to control dust 

at two locations in an existing Conveyor System, but it does not specifically require it to be used. 

Specifically, Condition No. 4 of this order states “This Order of Approval No. 6644, issued to 

allow water sprays to control dust at transfer towers #10A and #11, hereby supersedes and 

cancels Orders of Approval No. 2399 dated Feb 28, 1983 and No. 5696 dated Jan 11, 1995.”. 

No requirements are missing from the operating permit with the exclusion of this Order. The

following table lists all Orders of Approval with obsolete conditions that are not active and not 

included in the permit.

No. Approved Approval Summary Specific 

Approval 

Conditions in 

Order of 

Approval?

Status

685 1/13/72 Replace (2) Type 241H Western Precipitator Multiclones

Specific: Owner must furnish a source test within 90 days after 

placing new multiclones in operation showing that emissions 

from the stack do not exceed the applicable standards of 

Regulation I, Section 9.09.

Yes Equipment 

Removed 

918 2/23/73 Upgrade Kiln - ESP Phase I No Equipment 

Removed

1011 7/19/73 Upgrade Kiln - ESP Phase II No Equipment 

Removed

1344 10/25/74 Concrete Supplies Filter Vent Model V16 for Cement Silo No Obsolete

1538 4/19/76 Conversion of Cement Process Operation from Natural Gas 

Firing to Coal Firing & Installing Coal Crusher & Processing 

Facility

Specific: Submit complete source test reports of particulate and 

SO2 emissions from main stack within 60 days after fuel 

change is effective. These tests must be made in accordance 

with all PSCAA test procedures, and observed by this Agency.

Yes Obsolete

1905 1/4/79 Clinker Storage & Grinding Storage Hall Extension - North 

Side and Enclosure

No Obsolete

1918 8/13/79 Plastic Strip Curtains on the East & West End of Packhouse 

Shipping Shed and on the SE Small Storage Shed. (3) McGuire 

Pendadors Model DF-400.

No Equipment 

Removed

1919 8/13/79 Replace existing Duct Collector at the Belt Conveyor Transfer 

Point (Tower 11) with a Fuller Plenum Pulse Baghouse @ 

5,000 acfm, with 1,001 ft2bag area.

No Obsolete
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 45 of 122

No. Approved Approval Summary Specific 

Approval 

Conditions in 

Order of 

Approval?

Status

1920 8/13/79 Replace existing Dust Collector at the Belt Conveyor Transfer 

Point located immediately West of the Finish Mill Building 

with a 5,000 acfm Fuller Plenum Pulse Baghouse with 1,001 ft2

bag area.

No Equipment 

Removed

1921 8/13/79 Enclose West Belt Transfer Point - Clinker Unloading - Tower 

10

No Obsolete

1922 8/13/79 Enclosure Belt Transfer Tower 11 No Obsolete

2305 9/21/81 Rail Car Unloading, (4) Baghouses (Stella Ordered 7/23/02) No Equipment 

Removed

2399 2/28/83 (Cancelled by NOC #6644 10/18/96)

Coal Unloading & Stockpiling: consisting of Coal Barge 

unloading, Coal Discharge pile (4,000 tons), Coal Storage pile 

(7,500 tons), and existing Conveyors, (3) Baghouses, Coal Silo 

(600 tons), and Coal receiving station.

Specific: Subject to the fugitive dust control requirements and 

emission offset as described in Lone Star letter dated 1/12/83.

Yes Cancelled

2743 2/26/86 (1) Fuller Plenum Pulse Baghouse @ 5,000 acfm (Kiln 

Discharge Elevator), (1) Fabric Filter NW Baghouse @ 7,000 

cfm (Barge Unloading), and Construction of Wall & Addition 

of Rollup Door to enclose the Clinker Storage Shed.

No Obsolete

2866 2/13/87 Cone Crusher with Water Sprays No Equipment 

Removed

3382 6/19/90 (Cancelled by NOC #5730 12/29/94)

Modified Cement Plant 

(1) Dry process 92 tph (2200 tpd, 750,000 tpy) coal fired 

cement plant with baghouse control at 177,000 cfm. The plant 

consists of the following modifications and additions (see 

attached): Systems 141, 151, 161, 163, 152, 155, 331, 212, 341, 

351, 361, 431, 471, 461, 462 and 463 with 24 baghouses of 

various sizes

4. This source is subject to Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 60.

5. The emissions from the main baghouse shall not exceed the 

following limits:

(a). For Carbon Monoxide (CO): 1000 ppm @ 10% oxygen 

(O2), 538 pph (pounds per hour) 8-hr average and 2,353 tpy 

(tons per year);

(b) For Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): 668 ppm @ 10% O2 1-hr 

average, 590 pph, 422 pph (24-hr average), 478 ppm @ 10% 

O2 24-hr average, and 1846 tpy.

(c) For Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): 33 ppm @ 10% O2 1-hour 

average, 40 pph and 176 tpy;

Yes Cancelled
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 46 of 122

No. Approved Approval Summary Specific 

Approval 

Conditions in 

Order of 

Approval?

Status

(d) For Particulate Matter (PM): 10.6 pph and 46 tpy.

6. The monitoring and reporting of CO, NOx, SO2 and Opacity 

shall be done in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation I.

7. Emissions of Particulate Matter from all baghouses shall not 

exceed 0.010 gr/dscf.

8. All emission testing, monitoring and reporting shall be 

performed in accordance with PSCAA requirements.

9. Offsets of PM emissions (deducted from ERC # 107) are 

required under this NOC 3382, pursuant to Section 6.08 of 

Regulation I.

5006 7/8/93 Addition of a Dry Sorbent Silo (90 tons), venting to a Day 

16PJF6 Baghouse @ 750 cfm.

No Obsolete

5276 1/19/94 (2) Baghouses at 20,000 acfm each connected to the Finish Mill 

Grinding System.

4. Particulate emissions shall not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf as 

measured by EPA Method 5 with the back half. Ash Grove 

shall submit a testing plan to PSCAA for approval within 60 

days of the approval date of this Order of Approval.

5. Ash Grove shall perform a compliance source test within 60 

days of startup.

6. Ash Grove shall not exceed 10% opacity for an aggregate of 

3 minutes in any 1 hour from the baghouse exhaust.

7. Ash Grove shall measure and record pressure drop across 

the baghouse, and maintain the pressure drop between 3 and 6 

inches.

Yes Active

Condition 

No. 5 is 

Obsolete

5338 3/15/94 (Replaced by 8415)

(1) 150 ton Fly Ash Storage Silo with a 750 cfm Fabric Filter, 

and a pneumatic conveyor.

No Cancelled

5351 3/15/94 (1) DCL FS-175 Baghouse at 1,000 cfm for Rail Car Loading. No Obsolete

5696 1/11/95 (Cancelled by NOC #6644 10/18/96)

Conveying System 

Modify Raw Material Conveyance System by the addition of 

(3) new covered 36' wide Elevated Conveyors at Transfer 

Tower No. 11 which includes existing Conveyors and (3) 

existing Baghouses (Ref NOC 2399) to encompass Barge 

Unloading, Transfer and Stockpiling of Solid Raw Materials 

and Fuels used in manufacturing of Portland Cement.

No Cancelled

5730 12/29/94 (Cancelled by NOC #7381 6/29/98) Yes Cancelled
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 47 of 122

No. Approved Approval Summary Specific 

Approval 

Conditions in 

Order of 

Approval?

Status

Limit PM10 Emissions 

(5) New Baghouse - Finish Mill

This Order of Approval No. 5730 supersedes Order of 

Approval No. 3382 and adds the installation of a 120 ton/hour 

Clinker Pre-Grind Crusher with a Baghouse at 20,000 cfm, and 

a Finish Mill High Efficiency Separator Project including two 

(2) 60 ton/hour High Efficiency Separators with (2) Baghouses 

at 77,000 cfm each, two (2) Baghouses at 10,000 cfm each, and 

one Baghouse at 5,000 cfm.

4. This source is subject to Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 60.

5. PM-10 emissions from each baghouse except the Main 

Stack baghouse shall not exceed 0.005 grains/dscf over a 

twenty-four hour period. Ash Grove may demonstrate 

compliance with this condition by any of the following:

a. Performing a PSAPCA approved source test according to 

EPA Method 5 or EPA Method 201A.

b. Demonstrating no visible emissions for 15 consecutive 

seconds.

c. Demonstrating no visible emissions for three consecutive 

minutes, or

d. Repairing within 24 hours, any baghouse that has visible 

emissions for more than three consecutive minutes.

Compliance shall be determined for visible emissions using 

EPA Method 22. PSCAA may require a source test for any 

baghouse that has sustained visible emissions, unless such 

emissions are unavoidable under WAC 173-400-107.

6. Except during startup and shutdown of the kiln, scheduled 

maintenance and for emissions considered unavoidable under 

WAC 173-400-107, emissions from the main baghouse shall 

not exceed the most stringent of PSD limits or the following 

limits:

a. Carbon monoxide (CO): 1049 ppm @ 10% oxygen (O2), 8-

hr average, and 2353 tpy (tons per year);

b. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): 700 ppm @ 10% O2 1-hr average, 

501 ppm @ 10% O2, 24-hr average, and 1846 tpy.

c. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): 180 ppm @ 10% O2 1-hr average, 

and 176 tpy.

d. Particulate Matter (PM): 10.6 pph and 46 tpy.

7. During startup and shutdown of the kiln, and during 

scheduled maintenance on the main baghouse, all of the 

emission limits stated in Condition 6 apply, except that 

emissions from the main stack shall not exceed 200 ppm of 

SO2 corrected to 10% O2 for a one-hour average and 1000 ppm 

of NOx corrected to 10% O2 for a one-hour average. Appendix 

A to this order defines the startup, shutdown and scheduled 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 48 of 122

No. Approved Approval Summary Specific 

Approval 

Conditions in 

Order of 

Approval?

Status

maintenance conditions under which these alternate limits 

apply.

8. Ash Grove shall monitor and report CO, NOx, SO2, and 

opacity from the main baghouse according to Article 12 of 

Regulation I.

9. By May 1, 1995, Ash Grove shall submit to PSAPCA for 

approval a best available control technology determination for 

controlling fugitive emissions from the clinker discharge end of 

the kiln. The evaluation must include start up and shut down.

10. Ash Grove shall submit a testing plan to PSAPCA for 

approval within 60 days of startup for testing of the High 

Efficiency Separator Baghouse.

11. This Order of Approval supersedes and cancels Order of 

Approval No. 3382 dated June 19, 1990.

7381 6/29/98 (Cancelled by NOC #7381 6/6/01)

5 Baghouse - Finish Mill 

Modifies NOx Emissions Standards

This Order of Approval No. 7381 supersedes Orders of 

Approval No. 3382 and No. 5730 which added the following 

equipment: a 120 ton/hour Clinker Pre-grind Crusher with a 

Baghouse rated at 20,000 cfm, and a Finish Mill High 

Efficiency Separator Project including two 60 ton/hour High 

Efficiency Separators with two Baghouses rated at 77,000 cfm 

each, two Baghouses rated at 10,000 cfm each, and one 

Baghouse rated at 5,000 cfm.

3. This source is subject to Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 60.

4. PM-10 emissions from each baghouse, except the main stack 

baghouse, shall not exceed 0.005 grains/dscf over a 24-hour 

period. Ash Grove may demonstrate compliance with this 

condition by any of the following:

(a) Performing a Puget Sound Clean Air Agency-approved 

source test according to EPA Method 5 or EPA Method 201A;

(b) Demonstrating no visible emissions for 15 consecutive 

seconds;

(c) Demonstrating no visible emissions for three consecutive 

minutes; or

(d) Repairing within 24 hours, any baghouse that has visible 

emissions for more than three consecutive minutes.

Compliance shall be determined for visible emissions using 

EPA Method 22. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency may 

require a source test for any baghouse that has sustained visible 

emissions, unless such emissions are unavoidable under WAC 

173-400-107.

5. Except during startup and shutdown of the kiln, scheduled 

Yes Cancelled
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 49 of 122

No. Approved Approval Summary Specific 

Approval 

Conditions in 

Order of 

Approval?

Status

maintenance and for emissions considered unavoidable under 

WAC 173-400-107, emissions from the main baghouse shall 

not exceed the most stringent of PSD limits or the following 

limits:

(a) Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions shall not exceed 1049 

ppm (parts per million) corrected to 10% oxygen (O2) for an 8-

hour average, and CO shall not exceed 2353 tons per year;

(b) Nitrogen oxides (NOx) shall not exceed 700 ppm corrected 

to 10% O2 for a 1-hour average, and NOx shall not exceed 501 

ppm corrected to 10% O2, for a 24-hour average, and NOx 

shall not exceed 1846 tons per year;

(c) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions shall not exceed 180 ppm 

corrected to 10% O2 for a one-hr average, and 176 tons per 

year;

(d) Particulate matter (PM) emissions shall not exceed 10.6 

pounds per hour, and 46 tons per year.

6. During startup and shutdown of the kiln, and during 

scheduled maintenance on the main baghouse as defined in 

Appendix A to this approval, all of the emission limits stated in 

Condition No. 5 apply, except that emissions from the main 

baghouse shall not exceed the following limits.

(a) During the kiln startup-preheating period prior to kiln feed 

introduction, the SO2 emission limit for the main baghouse 

shall consist of compliance with the following work practices 

and fuel restrictions:

(1) Only natural gas shall be used as fuel, and Appendix A to 

this approval shall be followed for heating a cold or warm 

kiln system and system conditioning after maintenance, and

(2) Sulfur rings shall be removed from the kiln prior to 

startup, if sulfur ring formation had required the kiln to be 

shut down.

(b) During the kiln startup-feed introduction period, SO2

emissions from the main baghouse shall not exceed 200 ppm 

corrected to 10% O2 for a one-hr average.

(c) Any shutdown of the kiln shall follow the normal rotation 

and cool down procedures in Appendix A to this approval for 

the removal of as much material from the kiln as possible 

without damaging system components.

(d) At all times during kiln startup, shutdown and scheduled 

maintenance, NOx emissions shall not exceed 1000 ppm 

corrected to 10% O2 for a one-hour average; and

(e) Ash Grove shall log as part of the Operations and 

Maintenance (O&M) Plan and report to the Puget Sound Clean 

Air Agency as part of the monthly Continuous Emission 

Monitoring Report:
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 50 of 122

No. Approved Approval Summary Specific 

Approval 

Conditions in 

Order of 

Approval?

Status

(1) The date, start and end times, and the fuel used for kiln 

startup-preheating periods prior to feed introduction;

(2) The sulfur ring removal from the kiln, if the ring 

formation required the kiln to be shut down;

(3) The date, start and end times for kiln startup-feed 

introduction periods; and

(4) The cause for kiln shut down, the duration of kiln cool 

down and the kiln rotation schedule in kiln cool down.

7. Ash Grove shall monitor and report CO, NOx, SO2, and 

opacity emissions from the main baghouse according to Article 

12 of Regulation I. SO2 emissions from the main stack shall be 

monitored at all times following the introduction of feed to the 

kiln.

8. This Order of Approval No. 7381, supersedes and cancels 

Order of Approval No. 5730 dated Dec 29, 1994.

8415 3/20/01 Cement Storage Silo vents to existing BH (Replaces NOC 

5338)

Fuller FK Material Pump and Ramsey Horizontal Rotary 

Gravimetric Metering System controlled by an existing Fly Ash 

Storage Silo 750 cfm baghouse.

No Obsolete
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 51 of 122

Response to Comments

Public Comment Started 12/31/02

Public hearing on 4/1/03

Public Comment Extended to 4/30/03

Written Comment Summary

Comment 1 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Section I.B1 – Emission Unit #1

Page 9 kiln has nominal capacity of 2400 tons per day.

“This emission unit consists of a nominal 22002400 ton/day capacity rotary Portland cement 

kiln, primarily fired with coal and natural gas, and controlled by a nominal 177,000 acfm 

baghouse.” 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 2 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

EU 1.15 and EU 1.18 should state the NSPS emission standards apply at all times except during 

SSM (startup, shutdown and malfunction) periods.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 52 of 122

Reqmt. 

No.

Enforceable

Requirement

Adoption 

or Effective 

Date

Requirement 

Paraphrase

(Information Only)

Monitoring, Maintenance & 

Recordkeeping Method 

(See Section II)

Reference

Test 

Method

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart F Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants

EU 

1.15

40 CFR §60.62(a)(1)

40 CFR § 60.8(c)

10/6/75

2/12/99

Kiln exhaust shall 

not exceed 0.30 lb of 

particulate per ton of 

feed (dry basis), 

except during SSM 

periods.

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Y Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Facilities

EU 

1.18

40 CFR 60.252(a)(1)

40 CFR 60.8(c)

10/17/00

2/12/99

Coal mill exhaust 

shall not exceed 

0.031 gr/dscf, except 

during SSM periods

II.A.1 General Opacity 

Monitoring

II.B.12 Coal Mill 

NSPSPrep Facility

Performance Test

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 3 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Conditions EU 1.18, 1.19 and 2.2 refer to II.B.12, “Coal Mill Performance Test.” Rename 

monitoring method “Coal Prep Facility Performance Test”.

Condition EU 1.30 prescribes a coal mill performance test from which Ash Grove has requested 

to be exempted. See letter of January 23, 2003 from Gerald Brown to Steve Van Slyke. In the 

event that PSCAA is unable to act on this request prior to issuance of the final Title V permit, 

please revise Condition 1.30 to allow any exemption to take effect automatically.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 53 of 122

Reqmt. 

No.

Enforceable

Requirement

Adoption or 

Effective 

Date

Requirement

Paraphrase

(Information Only)

Monitoring, Maintenance & 

Recordkeeping Method 

(See Section II)

Reference

Test 

Method

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Y Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Facilities

EU 

1.18

40 CFR 60.252(a)(1)

40 CFR 60.8(c)

10/17/00

2/12/99

Coal mill exhaust 

shall not exceed 

0.031 gr/dscf, 

except during SSM 

periods

II.A.1 General Opacity 

Monitoring

II.B.12 Coal Mill 

NSPSPrep Facility

Performance Test

EU 

1.19

40 CFR 60.252(a)(2)

40 CFR 60.11(c)

10/17/00

10/17/00

Coal mill exhaust 

shall not exceed 20 

percent opacity 

except during SSM 

periods

II.A.1 General Opacity 

Monitoring

II.B.12 Coal Mill 

NSPSPrep Facility

Performance Test

40 CFR Part 63, Subparts A and LLL

EU 

1.30

40 CFR 

63.1349(b)(3) and 

(d);

12/6/02 Every 30 

monthsExcept as 

waived or modified 

pursuant to 40 CFR 

63.7 or 63.8, Ash 

Grove shall conduct 

a performance test

every 30 months on 

the kiln 

EU 

2.2

40 CFR 60.252(c)

40 CFR 60.11(c)

10/17/00

10/17/00

Exhaust gases shall 

not exceed 20 

percent opacity 

except during SSM 

periods.

II.A.1 General Opacity 

Monitoring

II.B.12 Coal MillPrep 

Facility Performance Test

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. Identified request is being reviewed and may be resolved with final action prior 

to the final permit issuance.

Action – Change made to permit. 

Comment 4 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

EU 1.35, delete, “Ash Grove shall submit the O&M plan for this requirement to the Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency for approval.” Ash Grove submitted plan on May 24, 2002. We did not see 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 54 of 122

any requirement to submit O&M plan updates for approval. Ash Grove believes this 

requirement was satisfied by their initial submittal on May 24, 2002. 

Reqmt. 

No.

Enforceable

Requirement

Adoption 

or 

Effective 

Date

Requirement 

Paraphrase

(Information Only)

Monitoring, Maintenance & 

Recordkeeping Method 

(See Section II)

Reference

Test 

Method

40 CFR Part 63, Subparts A and LLL

EU 

1.35

40 CFR §63.1350(a)-

(b)

12/6/02 Failure to comply with 

those procedures shall 

be a violation of 

Subpart LLL.

Ash Grove shall 

submit the O&M plan 

for this requirement to 

the Puget Sound Clean 

Air Agency for 

approval.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. The Agency does not agree with respect to the inapplicability of this 

requirement for O&M plan amendments to be submitted for review and approval. Since the 

NESHAP regulation indicates in 40 CFR 63.1350(b) that a “failure to comply with any 

provisions of the operations and maintenance plan developed in accordance with paragraph (a) of 

this section shall be a violation of the standard”. As such, the version of the O&M plan 

provisions which relate to compliance with 40 CFR 63, Subpart LLL are important for reporting 

and compliance purposes. If Ash Grove updated the plan after the initial submittal, the Agency 

could be reviewing the compliance status of the facility with respect to documents which have 

not been shared with the Agency and are not part of the source record. If deviations were 

reported and/or enforcement actions were pending based on O&M plan provisions, it would be 

important for Ash Grove and this Agency to be working from the same document. 

Action – No change made to permit. 

Comment 5 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Sections I.B.5 and I.B.6 – Emission Units 5 and 6

Insert standard header bar in the Applicable Requirements Table.

I.B.6 change to Bulk Bag Loading Station.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 55 of 122

3. Emission Unit #6 (EU-6): Bulk Bag Loading Station 

APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Orders of Approval NOC 8318 – Bulk Loading Station

EU-6.1 Puget Sound Clean 

Air Agency Order of 

Approval No. 8318

Condition 3.

1/8/01 Ash Grove shall allow 

no visible emissions 

or fallout from the 

500 cfm baghouse 

controlling the bulk 

bag loading station.

II.B.11 Bulk Bag Loading 

Station Monitoring

NA NA

EU 6. 2 Puget Sound Clean E

Air Agency Order of 

Approval No. 8318

Condition 5.

1/8/01 If visible emissions, 

abnormal pressure 

drop or fallout are 

observed Ash Grove 

shall investigate the 

cause and either 

initiate repairs or shut 

down the equipment 

vented to the baghouse 

within 24 hours of the 

observation.

II.B.11 Bulk Bag Loading 

Station Monitoring

NA NA

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 6 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.A.2 – Complaint Response

II.C.4 Add cross reference to new complaint investigation reporting.

2. Complaint Response

Ash Grove shall develop and implement an Air Pollution Complaint 

Response Program as part of the O&M Plan required by Regulation I 

Section 7.09(b). The Complaint Response Program shall be annually 

reviewed and updated along with the O&M Plan. This Program shall 

include:

 An Ash Grove local contact person and a 24-hour telephone number;

 Complaint forms available to the public;

 Criteria and methods for establishing whether Ash Grove may be the source 

of fugitive dust or other air contaminant impacts on neighboring property;

 Format of communicating results of investigations and advising 

complainants of Ash Grove's corrective actions and preventive 

maintenance;
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 56 of 122

 Ash Grove shall record air pollution complaints (including those forwarded 

to Ash Grove from this Agency) and findings of investigations as provided 

in Condition II.D.6. Investigations shall be initiated within 3 working days 

of receipt of a complaint.

If Ash Grove determines that emissions from its plant unreasonably 

impacted neighboring properties Ash Grove shall either eliminate the 

problem within 24 hours of identification or report a deviation as provided 

in Condition II.C.2. Ash Grove also shall report as a deviation any failure 

to initiate investigation of a complaint within 3 working days of receipt of 

the complaint. Results of complaint investigations shall be reported 

monthly, as provided in Condition II.C.4. 

[WAC 173-401-615(1), 10/17/02]

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted, yet the desire to combine the Complaint Response Reports described in II.C.10 

of the draft permit does not address the concern identified by Ash Grove [see Comment 16 (by 

Ash Grove 1/31/03 below] regarding the complaint response procedures. Submitting the 

Complaint Response Report concurrently with the Monthly CEM Report is acceptable to the 

Agency. However, inserting this separate reporting requirement as a component of the Monthly 

CEM Report could be misleading to the public. Combining the reports into one reporting 

requirement will not reduce any paper or reporting requirements under this permit and would at a 

minimum, require a change to the report description identified in II.C.4 of the permit (e.g. 

Monthly CEM and Complaint Response Report).

Action – No change made to the permit for this comment.

Comment 7 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.A.3 – Rooftop Inspection

Page 31, footnote 1, define a “roof-top inspection” as a visual inspection of the overall facility.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 57 of 122

3. Roof Top Inspections

Ash Grove shall conduct a roof-top1inspection at least weekly. These 

inspections shall include inspection for odor-bearing contaminants and for 

fugitive emissions from any part of the facility. In the event any fugitive 

emission release is discovered by an inspection, Ash groveGrove shall as 

soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after discovered, begin 

corrective action, shut the operatonoperation down until the problem can 

be corrected, or report the release as a deviation as provided in Condition 

II.C.2. Ash Grove shall document each inspection as provided in Condition 

II.D.5.

[WAC 173-401-615(1) and WAC 173-401-615(2), 10/17/02]

1 A “roof-top inspection” is ana visual inspection of the overall facility from a sufficient 

height to allow the determination of the point(s) of origin and possibly the cause(s) of 

fugitive emissions.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 8 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.B.2 – SO2, CO and NOx CEMS

Paragraph iii, update Appendix B performance specifications reference date to 1992, EPA‟s 

performance specifications in effect when CEMS Reg I § 12.03(c).

[See “Comment 24 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)” below for more discussion of this comment.]

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 9 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.B.3 – SO2, CO and NOx Mass Emission Rate Monitoring

Clarify annual CO and SO2 limits as calendar year limits and 8-hr CO limit is block average 

limit with 3 intervals per day. Add cross-references of reporting & recordkeeping. Delete 

 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 58 of 122

recordkeeping requirements and add II.D.10. Reference PSD permit, which requires monitoring 

described in this condition.

3. SO2, CO, and NOx Mass Emission Rate Monitoring

Ash Grove shall calculate annualSO2 and CO emissions of SO2, COfrom 

the cement kiln operation on a calendar year basis, and NOx emissions from 

the cement kiln operation on a 12-month rolling total basis, using the CEMS 

data collected under the requirements of Section II.B.2 of this permit. 

Additionally, Ash Grove shall calculate the 8-hour block average mass 

emission rate for CO using on CEMS data collected under the requirements 

of Section II.B.2 of this permit. Each day shall consist of three 8-hour 

compliance intervals, the first interval commencing at 12:00 a.m. When 

CEM data is not available or not required to be collected as identified by 

this permit, other information available to Ash Grove shall be used to 

compile the emission rate values. The CEM data conversions used to 

generate mass emission rate values for these calculations shall be 

documented and retained with the record. Other supplemental emission rate 

determinations used for operational periods lacking CEM data shall also be 

documented (and retained with the record) to complete the annual emission 

rate calculation.Report deviations as provided in Condition II.C.4. Maintain 

records as provided in Condition II.D.10.

[WAC 173-401-615(1) and WAC 173-401-615(2), 10/17/02] [; Order of 

Approval No. 7381, Condition 7, 6/6/01; PSD Permit 90-03, Amendment 3, 

Conditions 1-3, 10/8/01]

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment is essentially correct. A review of the specific language in the referenced PSD 

approval does not specify calendar year on the annual emission limitations. The specific 

language in Order of Approval No. 7381 Condition No. 5(b) identifies the annual NOx limitation 

as a “12-month running total”. In contrast, the annual limitations for SO2 and CO have no 

parallel language regarding “running total”. This is indicative that the annual limitations have 

been approved on different calculation bases and the comment from Ash Grove is correct. 

Additionally, the comment on the 8-hour CO concentration limit as three 8-hour blocks of CO 

data for a 24-hour operational period is also correct. This comment merely reflects the parallel 

treatment of 1-hour concentration limits as 24 blocks of monitor data for each 24-hour operating 

day. The comment on linkage to recordkeeping in II.D.10 of the permit is also appropriate [see 

discussion below on Comment 18 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)].

Action – Change made to permit. 

Comment 10 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.B.9 – PM Monitoring Main Baghouse
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 59 of 122

Propose modifying subsection (b) to clarify adjusting PM10 emission factor for only future 

reporting intervals.

9. PM Monitoring Main Baghouse

(b) Initially, multiplyMultiply the annualcalendar year tonnage of clinker 

production by an emission factor of 0.0414 kg/Mg to determine annual 

PM10 emissions. RecalculateRevise this emission factor using data from 

the most recent PM source test, provided that the test yields data deemed 

representative of the kiln baghouse emission rate. Use the revised emission 

factor to calculate annual emissions for years subsequent to receipt of the 

source test data. Record in a log the annual tonnage of clinker production. 

Report per Condition II.C.2 if calendar year PM emissions exceed 46 tons 

per year.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment is noted and the Agency agrees with the comment with one exception. The revised 

emission factor to calculate annual emissions should be for subsequent years following the date 

of the source test rather than the date of receipt of the source test. Since the calculation is 

completed on a calendar year basis, this would eliminate the possibility that a source test result 

from a test completed in December would not be used for 13 months as a result of the necessary 

elapsed time to produce a source test report.

Action – Change made to the permit, with the exception noted above for test date rather than 

report receipt. 

Comment 11 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II B.11 – Bulk Loading Station Monitoring

Propose “Bulk Bag Loading Station Monitoring,” to distinguish form bulk truck loading station.

11. Bulk Bag Loading Station Monitoring

At least once a week when the bulk bag loading station is in operation, Ash 

Grove shall inspect the dust collector for visible emissions, fallout and 

pressure drop across the filters.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 12 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.B.12 – Coal Mill NSPS Performance Test
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 60 of 122

Propose renaming “Coal Prep Facility Performance Test.” NSPS Subpart Y requires opacity and 

grain loading tests on coal mills, and an opacity test on units of Condition I.B.2. Need to address 

all performance tests required by Subpart Y.

12. Coal Mill NSPSPrep Facility Performance Test 

Within 180 days of permit issuance, Ash Grove shall conduct aan NSPS 

performance test to show compliance with Condition EU 1.18 (40 CFR 

60.252(a)(1) and 60.252(a)(2) (Requirement EU 1.18,) (coal mills only) and 

Conditions EU 1.19 and EU 2.2 (40 CFR 60.252(a)(2) (all Subpart Y 

affected facilities). Source testing methods required by 40 CFR 60.254 

shall be used the. The procedures identified in Sections V.N and V.P of this 

permit shall apply.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 13 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.C.4 – Monthly CEM Report 

Propose adding language after condition for monthly reports June to December for semi-annual 

reports per II.C.5, 6 and 7 and add paragraph for complaint investigations in a month, replacing 

II.C.10.

C. Reporting

4. Monthly CEM Report

Ash Grove shall file with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency a monthly CEM 

report, which shall be delivered or postmarked within 30 days after the end 

of the month in which the data were recorded. This report shall include:

a. Results of any complaint investigations conducted pursuant to 

Condition II.A.2;

b. The monthly CEM reports for June and December shall include, as 

attachments, the reports required by Conditions II.C.5, II.C.6 and 

II.C.7.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 61 of 122

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. The Agency agrees with the comment and suggestion for insertion of 

paragraph (j) regarding attachment of reports required by Conditions II.C.5, II.C.6 and II.C.7. 

Based on the discussion above [Comment 6 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)], the Complaint Response 

Report may be attached to the Monthly CEM Report but it will remain a distinct reporting 

requirement.

Action – Insert (i) to the permit stating “Complaint Response Report required by Condition 

II.C.10 shall be included as attachments to the CEM Report”. Insert (j) as suggested by the 

comment.

Comment 14 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.C.6 – Semi-annual NESHAPS Subpart LLL Summary Report

Propose edit of (i) for tracking excess emissions on the kiln and coal mills.

6. Semi-annual NESHAPS Subpart LLL Summary Report

i. Performance summary, including each three hour period during the 

reporting period in which the average temperature of the kiln and/or each of 

the coal mills exceeded the respective temperature limits for those units as 

set forth in Conditions EU 1.29 and 1.30, the total duration of excess 

emissions expressed as a percent of the total kiln and/or coal mill operating 

time during the reporting period, and a breakdown of the total duration of 

excess emissions into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 

equipment problems, process problems, other known causes and unknown 

causes;

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 15 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.C.7 – Semi-annual NESHAPS Subpart LLL SSM Report

Propose edit of SSM report for each kiln SSM event, as in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i). Propose 

adding Part 63 definition “malfunction,” to know which events to report.

7. Semi-annual Subpart LLL Startup Shutdown and Malfunction Report

The monthly CEM reports for June and December shall include, as an 

attachment, a semi-annual Subpart LLL SSM report. The SSM Report shall 

list the number, duration and a brief description of each kiln startup, 

shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period. If actions taken by 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 62 of 122

Ash Grove during SSM events occurring between January 1 and June 30 of 

each year were consistent with the procedures in Ash Grove‟s SSM plan the 

monthly CEM report for the month of June shall include a statement to that 

effect. If actions taken by Ash Grove during SSM events occurring 

between July 1 and December 31 of each year were consistent with the 

procedures in Ash Grove‟s SSM plan the monthly CEM report for the 

month of December shall include a statement to that effect. For purposes of 

this report a “malfunction” means any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of kiln air pollution control equipment or the 

kiln process to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not 

malfunctions.

[40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) (4/5/02); 40 CFR 63.2 (4/5/02); 40 CFR 

63.1354(b)(4) (6/14/99); WAC 173-401-615(3) (10/17/02)]

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. Referenced malfunction definition is correct for 40 CFR Part 63.

Action – Change made to the permit, as modified by a related subsequent comment [see 

Comment 26 (by Ash Grove 2/13/03)].

Comment 16 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.C.10 – Complaint Response Reporting

This condition as proposed is impractical and unrealistic because it assumes that all complaints 

will be determined to be “attributable to Ash Grove” or not attributable. Much of the time a 

conclusive determination cannot be made, for reasons including the age of the complaint, the 

inability to collect a sample, or if the particulate analyzed in a sample does not bear the chemical 

fingerprint of cement products. Ash Grove is willing to report on the results of every complaint 

investigation conducted pursuant to Condition II.A.2, as part of the monthly CEM report 

described in Condition II.C.4,. We propose to delete this condition and to add a new paragraph 

to II.C.4 to require reporting the results of every complaint investigation.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and the Agency agrees that not all complaints will be decisively attributable to 

Ash Grove. Ash Grove‟s suggestion to report on all complaints will help illustrate for others the 

level of effort associated with complaint response and will be included in the permit. The scope 

and the nature of the complaint response requirement identified in Condition II.A.2 are discussed 

in more detail below [see Comments 39 through 45 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)]. Also, the 

desire to delete Condition II.C.10 was discussed previously [see Comment 6 (by Ash Grove 

1/31/03)] and it will remain a part of the permit.

Action – Condition II.A.2 of the permit was modified as discussed in the referenced comments 

above.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 63 of 122

Comment 17 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.D.8 – NESHAPS Subpart LLL Recordkeeping

Delete reference to 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A) in paragraph (g) because temperature CMS is not 

subject to that paragraph.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and is correct. However, the citation needs to be corrected rather than removed. 

The correct citation should be 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vii) rather than 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A). 

The text in paragraph (vii)(A) is referring to CEMS data, which is not used for NESHAP 

compliance monitoring. However, paragraph (vii) refers to CMS data the temperature 

monitoring provisions of the NESHAP that apply to Ash Grove are used for NESHAP 

compliance monitoring.

Action – Change made to permit as discussed above.

Comment 18 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition II.D.10 – SO2, CO and NOx Mass Emission Rate Recordkeeping

Proposes edits agree with proposed in change of Condition II.B.3. See II.B.3.

D. Recordkeeping

10. SO2, CO, and NOx Mass Emission Rate Recordkeeping

Ash Grove shall maintain on site records which document the 12-month 

rolling total annual emission calculations for SO2, CO, and NOx emissions 

from the kiln, the calendar year calculations for CO and SO2 emissions 

from the kiln and summary 8-hour block average CO mass emission rates 

from the cement kiln. The records shall include the monthly calculations 

for each annual pollutant value, sufficient documentation to demonstrate the 

conversions from CEM data to mass emission rates, sufficient 

documentation to demonstrate the calculation methods used for mass 

emission rate data that is not CEM based, and documentation showing that 

all kiln operational time is included in the totals. The CEM data 

conversions used to generate mass emission rate values for these 

calculations shall be documented and retained with the record. Emission 

rate estimates used for operational periods lacking CEM data also shall be 

documented and retained.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 64 of 122

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and the suggestions are consistent with previous comment and response [see 

Comment 9 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)].

Action – Change made to the permit to reflect this suggestion.

Comment 19 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition V.O – Credible Evidence

The second paragraph of this condition overstates the scope of the credible evidence rules cited 

as legal authority for the paragraph. 40 CFR 52.12(c) states that nothing in Part 52 (i.e., the PSD 

rules and the Washington SIP) precludes the use of any credible evidence. 40 CFR 52.33(a) says 

that nothing in Part 52 or in any Federal Implementation Plan shall preclude the use of any 

credible evidence. Neither of these regulations addresses whether other Clean Air Act 

provisions, notably the Title V permit shield, may limit the use of any credible evidence in an 

enforcement dispute. We do not ask PSCAA to resolve today the question of how the credible 

evidence rule interacts with the permit shield. We do request that PSCAA preserve the question 

for another day by amending the second paragraph of Condition V.O to track the language of the 

federal rules cited as authority for this condition.

V. STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS

O. Credible Evidence

For purposes of Federal enforcement, nothing in any Federally enforceable 

State or Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulation, permit, or order40 CFR 

Part 52 shall preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible 

evidence or information, relevant to whether Ash Grove would have been in 

compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or 

compliance test procedures or methods had been performed.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit to reflect earlier language proposed by Ash Grove. Section V.O 

of the permit will read as follows:

V.O Credible Evidence

For the purpose of establishing whether or not a person has violated or is in 

violation of any provision of chapter 70.94 RCW, any rule enacted pursuant to 

that chapter, or any permit or order issued thereunder, nothing in Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency Regulation I shall preclude the use, including the exclusive use 

of any credible evidence or information, relevant to whether a source would have 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 65 of 122

been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance 

or compliance test procedures or methods had been performed.

[Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 3.06 (10/08/98); 

State/Puget Sound Clean Air Agency only]

For purposes of Federal enforcement, nothing in 40 CFR Part 52 shall preclude 

the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, 

relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test procedures or 

methods had been performed.

[40 CFR 52.12(c) and 52.33(a) (2/24/97)]

Comment 20 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Condition V.Q – Certification of Truth, Accuracy and Completeness

There is some stray boilerplate inserted between Conditions V.Q and V.R. It addresses Ecology 

rules prohibiting sources from tampering with monitoring devices, or making false statements. 

We propose to move these requirements into Section III of the permit, and to list each of them as 

its own permit condition.

V. STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Q. Certification of Truth, Accuracy and Completeness

“No person shall render inaccurate any monitoring device or method 

required under Chapter 70.94 RCW, or any ordinance, resolution, 

regulation, permit, or order in force pursuant thereto.” 

[WAC 173-400-105(8), 8/21/98 STATE ONLY]

"No person shall make any false material statement, representation or 

certification in any form, notice, or report required under Chapter 70.94 

RCW, or any ordinance, resolution, regulation, permit, or order in force 

pursuant thereto.”

[WAC 173-400-105(7), 8/21/98 STATE ONLY]

III. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

G. Tampering

Ash Grove shall not render inaccurate any monitoring device or method 

required under Chapter 70.94 RCW, or any ordinance, resolution, 

regulation, permit or order in force pursuant thereto. [WAC 173-400-

105(8), 8/21/98 STATE ONLY]

H. False Statements
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 66 of 122

Ash Grove shall not make any false material statement, representation or 

certification in any form, notice or report required under Chapter 70.94 

RCW, or any ordinance, resolution, regulation, permit or order in force 

pursuant thereto. [WAC 173-400-105(7), 8/21/98 STATE ONLY]

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit to reflect suggestion in this comment.

Comment 21 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Section VIII – Inapplicable Requirements

This condition includes two tables, one for requirements determined to be inapplicable to the 

entire plant, and the second for requirements determined to be inapplicable to a particular 

emission unit or units. The second row in the second table, discussing NSPS Subpart OOO, 

should be moved into the first table, because it finds that there are no Subpart OOO affected 

facilities at the Seattle plant.

The fifth row in Table 2, dealing with 40 CFR 60.8 performance tests, contains an editorial 

comment that should be deleted from the permit. The “Basis for Nonapplicability” column 

includes a statement that “Performance test for the coal mill is included in this permit in Section 

II.B.12.” This statement should be deleted, because it simply restates a requirement found in 

Section II.B.12.

The tenth row in the second table contains a statement that is now obsolete. Please delete “and 

the test report and compliance notification will be submitted as identified in Section II.C.8 of this 

permit.” Those reports were filed on December 20, 2002.

The 12th, 13th and 14th rows in the second table contain incomplete citations to Portland Cement 

MACT regulations. Please correct these errors as shown in the attached redline of the permit.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 67 of 122

VIII. INAPPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS

Citation Type of Requirement Basis for Nonapplicability

PSD Permit 90-03 

(6/20/90) and 

Amendments 1 (11/7/95) 

and 2 (3/8/99)

PSD Permit These versions of Permit 90-03 were superseded by 

Amendment 3 (10/8/01).

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 

OOO

NSPS for Nonmetallic 

Mineral Processing Plants

40 CFR 60.670(b) states that a Subpart OOO “affected 

facility” that is subject to Subpart F or that follows in the 

plant process any facility subject to Subpart F is not 

subject to Subpart OOO. All equipment at the Seattle 

plant that falls within the Subpart OOO definition of 

“affected facility” is also a Subpart F “affected facility.” 

Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency Approval 

Orders 3382, 5730 and 

7381 (6/29/98)

New source approval orders Superseded by Order of Approval 7381, condition 8 

(6/6/01)
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 68 of 122

Citation Type of Requirement Basis for Nonapplicability

The requirements that are identified below are inapplicable for specific emission units or for rule and unit 

specific reasons. The requirements identified in the first column for these subsequent items are inapplicable 

only insofar as the scope and explanation provided in the third column qualifies the limitation of 

inapplicability and are not universally inapplicable to the entire site or for this permit beyond that scope and 

explanation.

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 

OOO

NSPS for Nonmetallic 

Mineral Processing Pants

40 CFR 60.670(b) states that a Subpart OOO “affected 

facility” that is subject to Subpart F or that follows in the 

plant process any facility subject to Subpart F is not 

subject to Subpart OOO. All equipment at the Seattle 

plant that falls within the Subpart OOO definition of 

“affected facility” is also a Subpart F “affected facility.” 

40 CFR 60 Part 60, 

Subpart F

NSPS for Portland Cement 

Plants

Clinker storage shed, finish mills, steel scale tanks and 

Group II silos are not Subpart F “affected facilities” 

because neither unit was constructed or modified after 

August 17, 1971. 40 CFR 60.60(b) (7/25/77). 

40 CFR 60.8 Initial performance test Requirement to conduct NSPS initial performance test on 

the kiln was satisfied on 6/17/93. Performance test for the 

coal mill is included in this permit in Section II.B.12.

40 CFR 63.7 and 

63.1349(a) and (b)

MACT initial performance 

test requirements

The requirement to conduct a performance test to 

demonstrate initial compliance with the dioxin/furan 

emission standards in 40 CFR 63.1343(d) was satisfied on 

October 22-24, 2002 and the 2002. The test report and 

compliance notification will be submitted as identified in 

Section II.C.8 of this permit on December 20, 2002.

40 CFR 135063.1350(g) Dioxin/furan monitoring 

requirements for kilns that 

employ carbon injection as 

an emission control 

technique

The Seattle plant does not employ carbon injection as an 

emission control technique.

40 CFR 135163.1351(b) Subpart LLL compliance 

date for affected sources 

that commence new 

construction or 

reconstruction after March 

24, 1998

Ash Grove did not commence new construction or 

reconstruction on any Subpart LLL affected source after 

March 24, 1998.

40 CFR 134463.1344(b) Temperature limit for 

affected sources determined 

through performance test

The procedure in 40 CFR 1344(b) to set the temperature 

limit for affected sources through measurements taken 

during dioxin/furan performance testing does not apply to 

the coal mills, because Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

approved an intermediate monitoring change establishing 

the coal mill temperature limit at 200 degrees F. See 

letter of October 18, 2002 from Steven Van Slyke to 

Robert Vantuyl.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 69 of 122

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – The Agency agrees with the first element (move the reference to 40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart OOO from the list of specifically noted inapplicable requirements to the plan-wide noted 

inapplicable requirements), the third element (reference to wording changes in 40 CFR 63.7 and 

63.1349(a) and (b)), and the fourth element (expanding the wording from 40 CFR 1350(g), 40 

CFR 1351(b) and 40 CFR 1344(b) to 40 CFR 63.1350(g), 40 CFR 63.1351(b) and 40 CFR 

63.1344(b)) of these comments and the requested changes to the permit will be made as 

requested.

The comment regarding the citation for 40 CFR 60.8 as it relates to the initial performance tests 

illustrates how this citation could be confusing. Ash Grove‟s comment suggests that an initial 

performance test should be cited as an inapplicable requirement. The comment included in the 

draft permit to explain why that inapplicability would be true identifies that the performance test 

for the Coal Mill has not been completed and is identified as a permit term in the draft document. 

Deleting the reference to a test that will be completed does not clarify the basis for 

inapplicability for this requirement with respect to 40 CFR 60, Subpart Y. Ash Grove identified 

the applicability of this NSPS rule in developing the draft permit. 

The interest of this Agency is not whether the performance test identified in Section II.B.12 of 

the draft permit is an “initial” performance test but rather that a performance test is completed 

and documented for the record to satisfy the NSPS requirement. Since the understanding of 40 

CFR 60, Subpart Y applicability evolved for both the source and this Agency, it will suffice to 

complete the performance test as identified in the draft permit. As a result, this Agency is 

deleting the 40 CFR 60.8 citation from the Inapplicable Requirements table. A performance test 

was completed on June 17, 1993 on the cement kiln to satisfy the performance test requirements 

of 40 CFR 60, Subpart F and the permit identified performance test for the coal mill in Section 

II.B.12 of the permit will satisfy the performance test requirement 40 CFR 60, Subpart Y. Since 

40 CFR 60.8 addresses all performance tests, regardless of whether it is an initial or subsequent 

performance testing event, identifying a portion of this regulation as inapplicable is confusing.

Comment 22 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Section IX – Insignificant Emission Units

The “Lignoute Tank” mentioned in the IEU table should be a “Lignite Tank.”
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 70 of 122

VIII. INSIGNIFICANT EMISSION UNITS

A. Insignificant Emission Units and Activities

Unit Basis for IEU Designation

LignouteLignite Tank WAC-173-401-533(2)(c)

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 23 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

Section X – Appendices

Ash Grove does not see any need to attach the test methods and EPA QA manual for COMS 

referenced in Conditions X.B and X.D. Ash Grove and PSCAA each have copies of these 

documents.

X. APPENDIXES

B. Non-EPA Test Methods (attached)by reference only)

C. Reference Continuous Emission Monitoring Performance 

Specification (by reference only, not attached)

(1) EPA Performance Specification 1 (Opacity Monitoring), [40 CFR 60, 

Appendix B, July 1, 1997]1992]

(2) EPA Performance Specification 2 (SO2 and NOx Monitoring) [40 CFR 60, 

Appendix B, July 1, 1997]1992]

(3) EPA Performance Specification 3 (O2 Monitoring) [40 CFR 60, Appendix 

B, July 1, 1997]1992]

(4) EPA Performance Specification 4 (CO Monitoring) [40 CFR 60, Appendix 

B, July 1, 1997]1992]
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 71 of 122

D. EPA Quality Assurance Procedures (attached)by reference only)

Continuous Emission Monitoring for Opacity: "Recommended Quality 

Assurance Procedures for Opacity Continuous Monitoring Systems" 

(EPA 340/1-86-010)

E. Elements of Opacity COMS Summary Report for 40 CFR 60.7(d) 

(Condition II.C.5)

Pollutant (i.e., NOx, CO, SO2, Opacity): opacity; Reporting period dates; 

Company name and address; Process unit(s) description; Emission limits; 

Monitor manufacturer and model no.; Date of latest CMS Certification or 

Audit; Total source operating time in reporting period1

Include Name and Signature (Title) of the responsible official and Date

1. For Opacity, record all times in minutes. For gases, record all times in hours.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. The Agency disagrees with this comment about attachments. The distinction 

between attached and referenced appendix materials was considered during the draft permit 

development and the choice was based on the relative ease to access and/or retrieve the 

documents. Public access to this information is also a consideration. 

Action – No change made to permit.

Comment 24 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

The references to CEMS performance specifications in Section X.C.(1) should be dated 1992, 

rather than 1997. Regulation I § 12.03(c) states that a CEMS shall meet the performance spec in 

40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B “in effect at the time of its installation.” This rule is reflected in 

permit conditions II.B.1 and II.B.2, which reference the 1992 versions of each performance spec. 

To be consistent Section X.C.(1) also should cite the 1992 versions.

[See comment 23 for suggested language changes.]

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. The CEMS equipment was installed as required by Order of Approval No. 

3382. That Order of Approval had an approval date of June 19, 1990 and the installation was 

reported to be complete on November 1, 1992.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 25 (by Ash Grove 1/31/03)

The NSPS Summary Report format incorporated in Section X.E.1 should be revised to apply 

solely to data from Ash Grove‟s opacity COMS. While the Seattle plant contains several CEMS, 

the only one required by an NSPS is the opacity COMS on the kiln. For this reason only the 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 72 of 122

opacity COMS is subject to the semi-annual report required by 40 CFR 60.7(d). All of Ash 

Grove‟s CEMS are subject to monthly reporting required by Regulation I § 12.03(f). The 

additional report required by 40 CFR 60.7(d) is required only of the opacity COMS.

[See comment 23 for suggested language changes.]

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Change made to permit.

Comment 26 (by Ash Grove 2/15/03)

From: Cohen, Matthew (for Ash Grove) 

Sent: 2/12/03

Proposes words for proposed 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) for SSM Plan in II.C.7.

The monthly CEM reports for June and December shall include, as an attachment, a semiannual Subpart LLL SSM report. The SSM Report shall list the number, duration and a brief 

description of each Part 63 startup, shutdown and malfunction during the reporting period. The 

requirement to report startups and shutdowns is deleted on the effective date of a rule change 

amending 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) to delete the requirement to report startups and shutdowns. . . .

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. The proposed rule referenced by this comment was promulgated and effective 

on May 30, 2003. The previous comment relating to Condition II.C.7 [see Comment 15 (by Ash 

Grove 1/31/03)] is modified and superceded by this comment and the EPA finalization of this 

regulation.

Action – Change made to permit. Condition II.C.7 is revised to read as follows:

7. Semi-annual Subpart LLL Startup Shutdown and Malfunction Report

The monthly CEM reports for June and December shall include, as an 

attachment, a semi-annual Subpart LLL SSM report. The SSM Report shall 

list the number, duration and a brief description of each kiln startup, 

shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period. If actions taken by 

Ash Grove during SSM events occurring between January 1 and June 30 of 

each year were consistent with the procedures in Ash Grove‟s SSM plan, 

the SSM report for the month of June shall include a statement to that 

effect. If actions taken by Ash Grove during SSM events occurring 

between July 1 and December 31 of each year were consistent with the 

procedures in Ash Grove‟s SSM plan the SSM report for the month of 

December shall include a statement to that effect. Each SSM report shall 

identify any instance where an action taken by Ash Grove during and SSM 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 73 of 122

event (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) is not consistent 

with the SSM Plan but the kiln and/or coal mill did not exceed an emission 

limit in Conditions EU 1.26 through 1.29. The report shall also include the 

number, duration and brief description for each type of malfunction which 

occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused 

an emission limit in Conditions EU 1.26 through 1.29 to be exceeded. For 

purposes of this report a “malfunction” means any sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of kiln air pollution control equipment or 

the kiln process to operate in a normal or usual manner which causes, or has 

the potential to cause, any of the emission limitations in Conditions 1.26 

through 1.29 to be exceeded. Failures that are caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.

[40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) (5/30/03); 40 CFR 63.2 (5/30/03); 40 CFR 

63.1354(b)(4) (6/14/99); WAC 173-401-615(3) (10/17/02)]

Comment 27 (by Ash Grove 3/28/03)

From: Cohen, Matthew (for Ash Grove)

Sent: 3/28/03

Source requested an extension of comment period to prepare comments regarding potential 

applicability of WAC Chapter 173-434 to the Ash Grove Seattle plant.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted.

Action – Comment period extended through April 30, 2003.

Comment 28 (by Ash Grove 4/30/03)

A. WAC 173-434

Section VIII of the draft permit contains a finding that the Seattle plant is not subject to WAC ch. 

173-4342because the plant is not a solid waste incinerator facility. PSCAA has asked Ash 

Grove to support this finding, in light of the Pollution Control Hearings Board opinion in City of 

Tacoma Department of Public Works v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 02-020.

The City of Tacoma decision involved the Tacoma Steam Plant, a 1931 coal-fired electric power 

generating plant that was converted in 1986 to perform dual functions as a solid waste 

incinerator and energy recovery plant. WAC ch. 173-434 applies to any “incinerator facility,” 

defined in WAC 173-434-030 to mean “all of the emissions unit(s) . . . whose activities are 

 

2 The permit erroneously cites the solid waste incinerator rules as WAC ch. 173-435. This error should be corrected 

in the proposed version of the permit.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 74 of 122

ancillary to the incineration of solid waste.” Tacoma argued that the Steam Plant is not an 

incinerator facility because its primary purpose is to generate electricity, not to dispose of solid 

waste. Tacoma relied in part on the WAC 173-400-030 definition of “incinerator,” which refers 

to “a furnace used primarily for the thermal destruction of waste.” The Board rejected this 

argument, holding that “the term „incinerator facility‟ broadens the regulatory scope to include 

units whose burning of solid waste may be only „ancillary‟ to its primary purpose.” Order 

Granting Summary Judgment at 6. 

The Board did not explain its interpretation of the terms “ancillary” or “incineration of solid 

waste.” Nor did the Board reconcile its decision with the first sentence of WAC 173-434-030, 

which declares that “the definitions of terms contained in chapter 173-400 are incorporated by 

reference.”

Assuming, however, that the PCHB decision is correct and binding, Ash Grove‟s Seattle plant 

clearly is not an “incinerator facility,” because the combustion of solid waste is neither its 

primary nor its ancillary function.3 Ash Grove operates the kiln exclusively to produce cement 

clinker. The production of clinker requires a great deal of energy and large volumes of raw 

materials. The compounds required to manufacture clinker include calcium, silica, alumina and 

iron oxides. Ash Grove extracts these compounds from a mix of virgin materials, industrial 

byproducts and recycled tires. The secondary raw material streams and the quantities processed 

in 2002 are as follows:

 bottom ash from Centralia coal plant – 105,000 tons

 slag from the Trail zinc smelter – 18,000 tons

 recycled tires – 5500 tons 

 trim chips from James Hardie Gypsum – 4000 tons

Ash Grove uses each of these products to recover constituents required for clinker production. 

Bottom ash supplies alumina. Trail slag supplies iron. Gypsum chips provide silica. Recycled 

tires provide not only silica and iron4but also a supplemental fuel source that displaces coal.

The calcium, silica, alumina and iron compounds contained in Centralia bottom ash, Trail slag 

and gypsum chips have commercial value. To obtain them Ash Grove must purchase these 

materials for fair market value. There is no local secondary market for used tires. As a result 

recyclers pay Ash Grove a small fee to accept them, in lieu of land filling the tires. 

The use of tires as a supplemental fuel and raw material source has two collateral environmental 

benefits. First, tire consumption generates less NOx than coal, on a pound per ton of clinker 

basis. Ash Grove reduced NOx emissions in 2002 by about 100 tons by exploiting the fuel and 

 

3 Webster defines “ancillary” using the following synonyms: subordinate, subsidiary, auxiliary and supplementary. 

Webster‟s New Collegiate Dictionary (1981). 

4The average passenger car tire contains 2.5 pounds of steel. On a typical day recycled tires supply almost 10 

percent of the Fe2O3 required by the kiln.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 75 of 122

raw material values found in tires. Second, tire consumption recovers materials and energy from 

a waste stream that otherwise would consume landfill capacity.

The clinkering process produces no ash or other waste material. One hundred percent of the 

secondary materials inserted into the kiln are absorbed into clinker.

By contrast, the Tacoma Steam Plant was designed to serve two functions: energy generation and 

thermal destruction of municipal solid waste (MSW). Declaration of Jay Willenberg ¶ 9, PCHB 

No. 02-020 (filed May 10, 2002). In its application for a state solid waste grant to retrofit the 

plant the City explained that the primary purpose of the retrofit “is to reduce the volume of solid 

waste entering the Tacoma landfill while attempting to maximize the energy potential in the solid 

waste.” Declaration of Peter Lyon ¶ 8, PCHB No. 02-020 (filed May 10, 2002). The Steam 

Plant proved to be economically unviable if it could not be used to combust MSW. Declaration 

of Douglas Walker In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment ¶ 9, PCHB No. 02-220 (“The 

City, NRG and TERC have agreed to temporarily suspend operation of the Steam Plant 

indefinitely due to economics and the inability of the plant to obtain the necessary operating 

permits for burning alternative fuels.”). The Steam Plant produced no product other than energy. 

The waste combusted in the plant had no raw material value, and no commercial value. On this 

record, the PCHB found that the combustion of solid waste was at least an “ancillary” purpose of 

the Tacoma Steam Plant. Order Granting Summary Judgment at 6.

How can PSCAA support a determination Ash Grove is not an “incinerator facility”?

 Ash Grove, unlike the Tacoma Steam Plant, was designed and operates exclusively to 

produce cement clinker. The thermal destruction of solid waste is neither a principal nor 

an ancillary function of the plant.

 Ash Grove accepts only those secondary materials that provide constituents needed to 

produce clinker. Tires in particular supply about 10 percent of the iron required to 

produce clinker.

 Ash Grove would continue to manufacture cement (albeit at higher cost) if secondary 

materials no longer could be utilized. The economic viability of the plant does not 

depend on its use as a waste destruction unit.

Under the criteria applied by the PCHB in the City of Tacoma decision, Ash Grove/Seattle is not 

an “incinerator facility.” Moreover, none of the secondary materials that Ash Grove consumes 

in its kiln, other than recycled tires, are “solid waste” within the meaning of WAC 173-434-

030(3). An industrial byproduct purchased at fair market value as a raw material source is not a 

“waste” at all. 

The design and operation standards contained in WAC 173-434-160 were designed for 

incinerators, not for cement kilns. Ash Grove cannot meet at least one of those standards when 

the raw mill is not operating. The main kiln baghouse operates with an average inlet temperature 

of 493 degrees F with the raw mill off, well above the 350 degree maximum temperature limit 

set by WAC 173-434-160(6) for the inlet to the particulate control device. This limit was 

established to ensure that an incinerator baghouse captures condensable toxic particulates. 

Response to comments on WAC ch. 173-434 at 15 (undated). Ash Grove is subject to 40 CFR 

63 Subpart LLL and has conducted emission testing with the raw mill running and with the raw 

mill off. In both cases we have demonstrated that the kiln is an area source for the regulated 

hazardous air pollutants including HCl (less than 10 tons per year) and that dioxin emissions are 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 76 of 122

well below the applicable standards for both conditions as well. This demonstrates that Ash 

Grove‟s kiln is a well controlled source and there is no need to subject this manufacturing 

process to standards other than 40 CFR 60 Subpart F and 40 CFR 63 Subpart LLL.

Ash Grove‟s raw mill operates whenever the kiln operates, except during planned maintenance 

shutdowns and unscheduled malfunctions. WAC 173-434-160 does not specify the averaging 

interval over which the particulate control device temperature limit must be demonstrated. If 

PSCAA concludes that the Seattle plant is an “incinerator facility,” Ash Grove requests that the 

permit include a condition requiring compliance with the temperature limit over a 30 day rolling 

average, a time period long enough to accommodate raw mill outages.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. The Agency respectfully disagrees with this analysis. At Ash Grove, the 

practice in question is the feeding of tires to the kiln at rates greater than 12 tons per day. This 

practice was reviewed and approved in Notice of Construction Order of Approval No. 5755, 

issued on March 30, 1995. That NOC application described the tires as a fuel supplement to the 

kiln. Also, it is acknowledged that the draft permit erroneously identified this regulation as an 

“inapplicable” requirement. Further review and subsequent activities have clarified the 

applicability of this regulation to Ash Grove.

Ash Grove contends that WAC 173-434 should not apply because the facility was designed and 

operated exclusively to produce cement clinker and thus, thermal destruction of solid waste is 

neither a principal nor an ancillary function. In light of the decision of the Pollution Control 

Hearings Board (PCHB) in City of Tacoma Department of Public Works and Tacoma Energy 

Recovery Co. v. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Order Granting Summary Judgment (PCHB 

No. 02-020, June 14, 2002), the Agency does not find this argument compelling. The Agency 

concludes that the burning of tires, which are considered solid waste, is ancillary to the cement 

production process and subject to WAC 173-434.

Ash Grove also contends that the tires provide raw material benefits, specifically iron, for the 

cement manufacturing process. While that may be true, the NOC record for the tire feeding 

activity clearly identified these tires as a fuel substitution for the primary fuel (coal). Ash Grove 

also contends that the use of the tires as feed to the kiln is not an economic necessity and that 

cement production would continue without this secondary material. That does not alter the 

conclusion above or change the consideration of the plant operation as an “incinerator facility” 

when tires are being fed as a fuel substitute.

The Agency believes the recent rulemaking efforts by the Washington State Department of 

Ecology regarding WAC 173-434 supports the Agency‟s conclusion that WAC 173-434 applies 

to Ash Grove. Comments on the applicability of WAC 173-434 to cement kilns were offered by 

Ash Grove and Lafarge during Ecology‟s rulemaking effort. The outcome of that rulemaking 

was a provision to allow existing practices at the cement plants, specifically the use of tires and 

waste oil that is nonhazardous as a fuel supplement, to be excluded from the definition of solid 

waste under WAC 173-434. Since the regulation has an applicability threshold of 12 tons per 

day of solid waste incinerated, this exclusion [found in WAC 173-434-030(3)(b)] means the 

current practices followed by the two cement plants in Seattle do not count towards that 12 ton 

per day threshold, but other solid wastes proposed and approved for use as fuel supplements can 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 77 of 122

count towards the 12 ton threshold total. This exclusion would not have been necessary if WAC 

173-434 had been found to be inapplicable to cement plants.

Ash Grove states that the kiln operation cannot meet the temperature limit (350oF) at the inlet to 

the air pollution control device, as identified in WAC 173-434-160, when the raw mill is "off" 

(i.e., The kiln exhaust bypasses the raw mill and goes directly to the main baghouse). Ash Grove 

also requests that if the rule is deemed applicable, the averaging time for this temperature 

parameter be defined as a 30-day rolling average to accommodate raw mill outages. It is the 

understanding of the Agency that normal cement plant operation at Ash Grove is conducted with 

the raw mill "on" (i.e. The kiln exhaust goes through the raw mill before entering the main 

baghouse). The operation of this plant is designed such that the raw mill is scheduled to be "off" 

for short periods of time (e.g. a few hours) to allow for routine maintenance activities (e.g. 

scheduled changes of worn raw mill grinding tires). The raw mill may also be off line for longer 

periods of time as a result of unforeseen upsets. The durations of these upsets depend on the 

specific problem encountered, but can last for hours and up to days. If the raw mill is down for 

an extended period of time, the cement plant will run out of feed material. The Agency agrees 

that an averaging period longer than an hour is appropriate for this temperature parameter, but 

does not have information supporting a 30 day rolling average as requested by Ash Grove. The 

Agency concludes that a 24-hour average value is appropriate.

To clarify the impact of this Agency‟s decision that WAC 173-434 is applicable to Ash Grove, 

the following steps are being taken:

 Applicable provisions of WAC 173-434, as identified in the SIP approved version of this 

regulation (effective date 10/18/90), have been added to the operating permit.

 WAC 173-434 (effective date 1/22/04) is identified as an inapplicable requirement for 

Ash Grove within this permit upon EPA‟s incorporation of that updated regulation into 

the Washington SIP.

 Each of the provisions included in the permit from the previous (10/18/90) version of the 

regulation are labeled as inapplicable for the permit upon the EPA‟s incorporation of the 

updated regulation into the Washington SIP.

The Agency agrees with the technical and environmental benefits identified by Ash Grove 

regarding the use of tires as a supplemental fuel. The source has complied with the dioxin/furan 

emission limits under 40 CFR 63, Subpart LLL with results significantly below the standard. 

The use of tires for fuel support NOX emission reductions for normal kiln operation. The 

decision on the applicability of WAC 173-434 is not intended to signal that this fuel substitution 

practice is inappropriate. The provisions added to the permit for this regulation reflect the 

understanding that Ash Grove can comply with all aspects of this regulation.

Action – Applicable requirements from the SIP approved version of WAC 173-434 have been 

added to the permit in Conditions EU 1.36 through 1.48. As described above, the inapplicability 

of the rule has been incorporated into the operating permit to allow automatic implementation by 

the source once the EPA completes the SIP revision for this regulation.

Comment 29 (by Ash Grove 4/30/03)

NSPS Recordkeeping
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 78 of 122

Condition II.D.7 of the permit, entitled “NSPS Recordkeeping,” omits the 40 CFR 60.7(b) 

requirement to maintain records of the startup, shutdown or malfunction of NSPS “affected 

facilities,” control equipment and continuous monitoring systems. “Affected facilities” at Ash 

Grove include the Subpart F kiln and the equipment subject to Subpart Y. Please revise 

Condition II. D. 7 as follows:

7. NSPS Recordkeeping

Ash Grove shall maintain the following information for at least two years following the date 

of measurements, maintenance, reports and records:

a file of all measurements recorded by the kiln COMS and by the continuous 

temperature monitors installed at the inlet to each coal mill baghouse;

all reports of performance tests conducted under 40 CFR Part 60 and all applicable 

subparts;

all reports of performance evaluations on the kiln COMS and the coal mill 

temperature monitors;

all reports of CMS calibration checks on the kiln COMS and the coal mill 

temperature monitors;

all records of adjustments and maintenance performed on the kiln COMS and the coal 

mill temperature monitors;

all records required by Condition II.B.9 of the permit (kiln production rate and feed 

rate records)

records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the 

operation of the kiln, coal mills, coal feeders # 1 and 2, the raw coal silo and PF 

bin;

records of any malfunction in a baghouse serving the kiln, coal mills, coal feeders # 1 

and 2, the raw coal silo and PF bin;

records of any period during which the kiln COMS or a coal mill temperature monitor 

is inoperative.

[40 CFR §60.7(b) and (f) (2/12/99); 40 CFR 60.63(a) (12/14/88); 40 CFR 60.253(a) 

(10/17/00); WAC 173-401-615(2)(a) (10/17/02)]

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and is consistent with a decision by EPA Region X regarding startup and 

shutdown records for NSPS sources (Applicability Determination Index Control No. 0300016, 

4/18/02).

Action – Change made to the permit.

Comment 30 (by Ash Grove 4/30/03)

NSPS Reporting

The last sentence of Condition II.C.5 states that semi-annual NSPS reports must be filed with 

both PSCAA and EPA Region 10. Section VIII of the permit (Inapplicable Requirements) 

describes NSPS reporting requirements that do not apply because of the delegation agreement 

between EPA and PSCAA. These sections should be updated to reflect the broader scope of 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 79 of 122

delegation described in EPA‟s letter of February 5, 2003 to Dennis McLerran. Please delete the 

last sentence of Condition II.C.5 (“The semi-annual NSPS report shall be submitted to both the 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and EPA Region 10.”). In Section VIII, please revise the row 

labeled “40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, NSPS reporting requirements” to read as follows:

40 CFR Part 60, 

Subparts A, F and Y

NSPS reporting 

requirements

The following NSPS notices and reports need be 

submitted only to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, not 

to EPA: notification of commencement or 

construction or reconstruction, notification of 

anticipated and actual startup, notifications of any 

physical change to an existing facility which may 

increase the emission rate of any air pollutant to which 

an NSPS standard applies, notifications of the date 

upon which demonstration of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system performance commences in 

accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(c), notification of when 

continuous opacity monitoring system data results will 

be used to determine compliance with the applicable 

opacity standard during a performance test required by 

40 CFR 60.8 in lieu of Method 9 observation data as 

allowed by 40 CFR 60.11(e)(5), and performance test 

reports. Letter of October 8, 1999 from Anita Frankel, 

EPA Region 10, to Mary Burg, Washington 

Department of Ecology. NSPS notices and reports 

required by Subparts A, F and Y need be submitted 

only to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, not to EPA. 

Letter of February 5, 2003 from Betty Weise, EPA 

Region 10 to Dennis McLerran. EPA retains 

responsibility for review and approval of major 

changes to NSPS monitoring and test methods, as 

described in the February 5 letter. 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 80 of 122

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and it raises an issue that is confusing, depending on the document referenced. 

The most current NSPS delegation letter received by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency from 

EPA Region 10 is dated February 5, 2003. In paragraph 4 of that letter, the EPA states “With 

delegation, the PSCAA becomes the primary implementation and enforcement authority for these 

delegated NSPS standards. You will be the recipient of all notifications and reports and be the 

point of contact for questions and compliance issues. Although EPA looks to you as the lead for 

implementing the delegated NSPS, we retain the authority to enforce any applicable emission 

standard or requirement. EPA will request notifications and reports from sources, if needed.”. 

This statement suggests that the EPA is waiving its need to receive required notifications and 

reports from the sources and that it will rely on Agency files if EPA is interested in a specific 

source or issue.

When reviewing 40 CFR 60.4, a different conclusion might be reached. In 40 CFR 60.4(b), it 

states “Section 111(c) directs the Administrator to delegate to each State, when appropriate, the 

authority to implement and enforce standards of performance for new stationary sources located 

in such State. All information required to be submitted to the EPA under paragraph (a) of this 

section, must also be submitted to the appropriate State Agency of any State to which this 

authority has been delegated (provided, that each specific delegation may except sources from a 

certain Federal or State reporting requirement).” It is not clear that the modifying language in 

the parentheses means the delegation authority granted by an EPA region effectively eliminates 

the parallel document submittals discussed in 40 CFR 60.4(a) and (b).

The Agency contacted EPA Region 10 for clarification. In a discussion with Jeff Ken Knight, 

Manager of Federal & Delegated Air Programs Unit at EPA Region 10, it was confirmed that the 

delegation letter language as it relates to parallel submittals of documents was consistent with 

this comment and EPA policy.

Action – Change was made to the permit to reflect this comment.

Comment 31 (by Port of Seattle 2/3/03)

Port of Seattle requested a hearing on the permit. The letter recapped the concern about dust 

fallout from the Ash Grove operations and the potential for property damage and health effects 

from that dust. The letter also highlighted the Port‟s efforts to organize tenants and neighbors to 

elevate their interests to Ash Grove and this Agency to make progress on their concerns about 

dust. The letter also expressed concern about the differences in the complaint response 

provisions of the permit in comparison to a draft air operating permit for Lafarge reviewed 

earlier.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 81 of 122

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted, yet more specific comments were submitted on April 30, 2003. Information 

regarding the public comment period was shared with Kay Wisner, with the understanding it 

would be shared with the interested group working with the Port. There was no intention to 

exclude the Port or anyone from commenting on the permit. 

With respect to the comment regarding differences from the Lafarge document reviewed 

previously by the Port, the document the Port refers to was a “draft” air operating permit and has 

only indirect relationship to this specific permit open for review. Differences with the Lafarge 

draft complaint response conditions are discussed in more detail later.

Action – The comment period for the Ash Grove permit was extended through April 30, 2003 

and a public hearing was held on April 1, 2003 in order to expand the public opportunity to 

comment on this draft permit.

Comment 32 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

The following is a summary of an introductory comment in a longer comment letter:

A. Impact of Ash Grove Air Emissions on Port Property

 Port owns over 200 acres near Ash Grove, including three marinas, Terminal 104 

(directly north), Terminal 106 (several buildings south and east with 11 tenants including 

Customs, USDA), Terminal 108 (south including Container Care), Terminal 102 (south 

end Harbor Island with 27 tenants, and Terminal 25 (Harbor Island cranes).

 The Port and all these businesses have complained for years about property damage and 

potential health concerns related from gritty corrosive dust fallout from Ash Grove. 

Terminal 106 roof and gutters get covered and damaged with measurable and obvious 

cement dust fallout. Additional total Port maintenance costs due to fallout is over 

$100,000 per year.

 Submitting an aerial photograph of the Ash Grove facility (about early summer 1994), 

showing white cement dust fallout on parking lot of Terminal 104 (north), and darken the 

roof of Terminal 106 (south).

 Port and other employees vehicles affected.

 Ash Grove‟s fallout is extremely abrasive, and damages auto paint and windshields Boats 

are damaged and many customers have left.

 The Port has tried to work with Ash Grove for many years (major efforts in 1995 and 

2001). Some periodic progress but generally Ash Grove denies responsibility. Ash 

Grove motivated by fear of lawsuits, rather than sincere desire to solve problem. Ash 

Grove refuses to have a reliable off-site monitoring program.

 Appreciate recent equipment upgrades (required by the Agency), but afraid nuisance 

emissions will continue.

 The Agency needs to use its regulatory authority in the Operating Permit.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 82 of 122

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted, though no specific permit comment or suggested permit change suggested with 

this comment.

Action – No changes made to permit based on this comment.

Comment 33 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

B. Comments on the Ash Grove Permit

Permit Requirement: Page 5, Nuisance Standard (Requirement No. I.A.7)

The Port very much supports the inclusion of the nuisance standard in this permit. In particular, 

the statement that the Permittee “shall not deposit particulate matter beyond property boundary” 

clearly expresses the Port‟s long-standing position that Ash Grove must look beyond its own 

property line when evaluating its environmental effects.

The nuisance standard language states that monitoring for compliance will be achieved through 

three methods: Complaint Response, Roof-top Inspections, and O&M Plan Inspections. 

Unfortunately, as discussed below, these methods are insufficient to establish an enforceable 

monitoring program. This section should be amended to include Off-Site Monitoring 

requirements. 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. Please see the responses to Comments 34 through 38 (by Port of Seattle 

4/30/03) for more detailed discussion of the elements of this comment.

Action – No changes made to the permit on the basis of this comment.

Comment 34 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 6, Fugitive Dust Standard (Requirement No. I.A.10)

Comment: The Port supports the inclusion of this fugitive dust standard, because it sets a “zero 

tolerance” for fugitive dust from any equipment used in the manufacturing process or control 

equipment. At the hearing on this permit, Mr. Jim Nolan of the Agency stated that the permit 

covered the barges and trucks used to transport the raw and finished materials; therefore, we 

assume this fugitive dust standard also applies to that “equipment.”

The fugitive dust standard language states that monitoring for compliance will be achieved 

through two methods: Complaint Response and Roof-top Inspections. This section should be 

amended to include Off-Site Monitoring requirements. (It is not clear why O&M Plan 

Inspections should not also be a compliance method – the agency should consider amending this 

section to include those inspections as well). 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 83 of 122

Comment noted but it is not clear if the draft version available to the public was used for this 

comment. Condition I.A.10 is part of the currently SIP approved version of the fugitive dust 

regulation and it does identify both Roof Top Inspections (Condition II.A.3) and O&M Plan 

Inspections (Condition II.A.4) as the required monitoring provisions which have been identified 

for this applicable requirement.

The comment that this requirement creates a “zero tolerance” for fugitive emissions is inaccurate 

with respect to both the previously SIP approved version of Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

Regulation I, Section 9.15 and the currently implemented version of this regulation as found in 

the most recent Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulations (see Condition I.A.13 of the permit). 

When the EPA approves the latest version of Regulation I, Section 9.15 into the Washington SIP, 

Condition I.A.13 of the permit will be the only Puget Sound Clean Air Agency requirement for 

fugitive dust that will be effective in the Ash Grove permit. At that point, Conditions I.A.9, 

I.A.10, and I.A.12 will be superceded and no longer in effect for this permit. Action by EPA on 

the update to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency portion of the Washington SIP is expected to 

occur soon.

The compliance and project history for Ash Grove indicates that fugitive dust problems which 

have been identified have been corrected through improvements in equipment and operational 

practices. When fugitive dust is released from some piece of equipment that is normally 

contained, it is most often due to an upset and Ash Grove should respond to the condition 

appropriately, including efforts to minimize and reduce releases. The Agency believes the 

permit and the various plans implemented by Ash Grove will support that response. 

Action – No change to the permit made based on this comment.

Comment 35 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 31, Roof-top Inspections (Part II (A)(3))

Comment: Rooftop inspections are an amazingly crude and subjective way to measure an 

enforceable air quality requirement. As I understand it, this requirement basically consists of a 

company employee climbing up on the roof and peering around. The problems with such an 

approach are obvious. First, the inspection is limited to only that property contained within the 

facility boundaries (see footnote 1). Thus, on its face it fails to be a reliable indicator of 

compliance with the off-property nuisance standard. Second, the requirement does not specify 

when the inspection must take place. As the Agency knows very well, Ash Grove‟s harmful 

emissions are extremely dependent on such factors as plant operations and weather conditions. 

Ash Grove can simply select a time for its inspection when everything is working perfectly. 

Third, the emissions may not be visible to the naked eye, but can still be harmful when they 

accumulate over time. 

At a minimum, the Agency should require that the inspections happen at certain times, for 

example during upset conditions, or within one hour after a complaint is received, or every other 

Wednesday. In no event should the inspection take place when the facility is not operating. 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 84 of 122

Comment noted. This monitoring is the same requirement used in several Title V permits for 

large sources. As a result of Title V, sources must now do significantly more monitoring and 

record keeping. Since the operating permit requires roof top monitoring in conjunction with 

general O&M inspections, plant-wide opacity monitoring, inspection for track out, and a 

complaint response program, significant efforts will be implemented to identify and respond to 

potentially problematic conditions within the plant. Each of these efforts, along with the ongoing 

Agency inspections, is believed to reasonably assure continuous compliance. Inspections are 

written for plant activities within the Ash Grove site since that is the scope of the permit and 

represents the operations and emissions for which Ash Grove is directly responsible.

Additionally, upsets or operational problems which could cause problem impacts offsite should 

be dealt with in a preventative and/or timely response at the source to correct the problem or 

minimize its impact. The compliance history documented for the site indicates that effective 

equipment operation and timely maintenance provide the most responsive corrective actions to 

problems.

The permit directly states in Condition II.A.1 that the observations must be made when the 

equipment is operating. Ash Grove will determine the specific schedule for required 

observations and it must meet the frequency and informational requirements specified by this 

permit. With regard to conducting scheduled observations during upsets or following 

complaints, it is the expectation of this Agency that Ash Grove will be responding to an upset to 

correct the problem or that it will be investigating the complaint once it is received, rather than 

scheduling routine compliance monitoring observations. Complaint response activities will be 

included in the monthly reports required by the permit anyway [see Comment 45 (Port of Seattle 

4/30/03)].

Action – No change made to the permit based on this comment.

Comment 36 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 31, O&M Plan Inspections (Part II (A)(4))

Comment: This is the second “monitoring method” that is intended to determine whether 

nuisance emissions have occurred. However, the sole purpose of this inspection method is to 

make sure that the equipment is working correctly. Obviously, the equipment that is in place is 

not adequate to prevent nuisances, or there wouldn‟t be continuing complaints. Thus, although it 

is certainly a good idea to make sure the equipment is working, this is an insufficient measure of 

compliance success in the case of the nuisance standard.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. The O&M plan inspection requirement identified in the draft permit covers 

both the operation of equipment and other activities associated with potential fugitive dust 

emissions. The compliance history discussed in the draft statement of basis indicated that many 

of the fugitive dust violations (cited as either fugitive dust or nuisance violations) for the plant 

resulted from equipment not being operated correctly. In some of those enforcement cases, 

additional equipment or equipment improvements or improved O & M procedures were part of 

the resolution. At the present time, the Agency believes that the equipment onsite is adequately 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 85 of 122

designed and that compliance will be maintained through a commitment from Ash Grove to 

effectively follow their O&M plan.

Action – No change made to the permit based on this comment.

Comment 37 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: None

Comment: As should be clear from the above discussion, what is missing from the permit is a 

reliable, non-subjective measurement of non-compliance with the nuisance standard. In other 

words, what is missing is an Off-site Monitoring Program for both fugitive dust and nuisance 

emissions.

It is our understanding that the Draft Permit does not include such an off-site monitoring 

program because the existing state and federal rules do not establish a standardized testing 

method. However, we encourage the Agency to view this as an opportunity to exert leadership, 

not as an insurmountable hurdle. We believe strongly that what is needed at this point is an 

independent research program to answer the question, to the extent possible, of what is source of 

deposition on neighboring properties. This research program should be headed by the Agency, 

but should involve the participation of affected neighbors, to assure that the outcome is 

acceptable to all parties. 

We propose that the following language be added to Part II.A.

II.A.6 Off-Site Monitoring Program 

Within 90 days of the permit effective date, Ash Grove shall submit its plan for an Off-Site 

Monitoring Program to measure the quality and quantity of fugitive dust emissions and nuisance 

emissions on adjacent properties. At a minimum, the plan will describe the sampling locations, 

sampling frequency and duration, quality assurance and analytical methods, and reporting 

formats to be used. Sampling events shall be spread adequately to account for seasonal 

variations. There must be adequate number of samples collected to ensure statistical 

significance. 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and the Agency disagrees with the technical and regulatory premise of this 

request. Although there is an old Washington Department of Ecology fallout standard that was 

promulgated prior to the federal EPA program for ambient standards, there is currently no 

approved state method for sampling. This old fallout standard was supplanted by the current 

federally supported suspended particulate ambient standards. 

The ambient air in the vicinity of the Ash Grove plant is a shared resource and any measured 

pollutant concentrations which are observed from any ambient monitoring technique would 

reflect the impacts of Ash Grove, Port operations, operations by Port tenant business, and others 

beyond the immediate vicinity. Even if such a requirement was appropriate, the Agency is not 

aware of any reasonably available monitoring technology and strategy which will answer the 

question posed by the Port. 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 86 of 122

There are no outstanding violations which would support a compliance plan to be attached to this 

permit. The level and frequency of monitoring identified in the permit is based on the 

compliance history and potential for violations.

Action – No change made to the permit based on this comment.

Comment 38 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

The Agency, in conjunction with affected property owners selected by the Agency (hereafter, the 

“Off-Site Monitoring Program Taskforce”) shall review and comment on the draft proposal. Ash 

Grove shall incorporate all reasonable comments made by the Taskforce. The Agency shall 

determine what is reasonable.

Within 30 days after the plan for the Off-Site Monitoring Program has been finalized, Ash Grove 

will begin conducting the prescribed monitoring. 

After one year of monitoring, the Agency and the Taskforce will reconvene to review the results. 

At that time, the Agency may request changes to the Off-Site Monitoring Plan. These changes 

shall be incorporated, and a new version of the plan developed and implemented. Monitoring 

under the revised protocol shall then continue for one additional year.

Within 60 days after the cessation of monitoring, the Permittee shall submit a final report to the 

Agency. The final report shall summarize the results of the monitoring and identify the likely 

sources of fugitive dust or other air contaminants impacting neighboring properties. 

Alternately, the last paragraph (reporting requirements) could be put into Part II(C). 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 37 above, regarding offsite monitoring as an 

element of an air operating permit. Additionally, the concept of establishing a task force through 

air operating permit conditions is inconsistent with the relevant regulations. The permit must 

identify all applicable air regulatory requirements and identify the monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting necessary to reasonably assure continuous compliance by the source. The Agency 

believes the permit conditions should focus on plant operations rather than offsite impacts. 

Action – No change made to the permit based on this comment.

Comment 39 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 30, Complaint Response, Third Bullet (Part II.A(2))

Comment: As an initial matter, many aspects of this Compliant Response section are positive, 

and we are hopeful that including them as permit requirements will create consistency and 

accountability in what has, up to now, been a purely voluntary effort on the part of Ash Grove.

We would like to comment on the third bullet (“criteria and methods for establishing whether 

Ash Grove may be the source of fugitive dust.”) As discussed above, the Port is unconvinced of 

the wisdom of having Ash Grove itself determine what should be the criteria. We respectfully 

suggest that the final report of the Off-Site Monitoring Program (discussed above) be used to 

establish this. Although this approach has the disadvantage of postponing for several years the 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 87 of 122

establishment of these criteria, it has the benefit that the eventual outcome will be acceptable to 

all, rather than a source of continuing disagreement and controversy.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. Please see Comment 41 for a response to the comment on the Complaint 

Response provisions of the permit. Please see Comment 37 and 38 for a response to the 

proposed offsite monitoring program comment.

Action – No changes made to the permit based on this comment.

Comment 40 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Complaint Response, Missing bullet 

Comment: The Complaint Response section in the 

Lafarge permit states that the Complaint Response Program must include an element for “actions 

for addressing complaints and their causes.” The deletion of this element from the Ash Grove 

permit lets them off the hook completely. Without it, Ash Grove need only record and 

investigate complaints -- they never have to DO anything about it. This is a very, very 

significant omission and should be corrected.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and the Agency disagrees with the comment. The language in Condition 

II.D.6(d) requires a record of the investigation efforts and basis for conclusions reached on that 

complaint. Condition II.D.6(e) requires a record of any corrective action taken as a response to a 

complaint. Please see response to Comment 43 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03) for more discussion.

Action – No changes made to the permit based on this comment.

Comment 41 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 30, Complaint Response, Fifth bullet (Part II.A(2))

Comment: The fourth bullet requires that “investigations shall be initiated within 3 working 

days.” This should be changed to read “conducted within 3 working days.” In addition, a 

parallel change would need to be made to the last sentence on page 30.

This suggested change is the language in the Lafarge permit, and there is no reason why Ash 

Grove should be allowed a more lenient standard (in fact, just the opposite). Complaining 

persons should not have to wait 3 days to get an initial response from the company.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and the Agency agrees with the comment in general. The Agency disagrees 

with the premise that an investigation should be completed within 3 working days because some 

investigation activities cannot be completed within that period of time. For example, if samples 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 88 of 122

were collected for analysis, results may not be available within that period of time. Additional 

information from other entities may be requested but not available within that time frame.

In response to this comment, the Agency is revising the complaint response provisions of the 

permit to require an investigation be initiated within 1 day of receipt of the complaint [see 

Comment 45 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03) for revised Condition II.A.2 language]. The permit 

originally used the term working day, but it is not clear that the word “working” is needed. If the 

plant is running on a weekend, the Agency would consider that a working day for Ash Grove and 

the complaint response program should provide the ability for Ash Grove to receive complaints 

on those days and begin an investigation and/or response as appropriate. Ash Grove‟s complaint 

response plan can more specifically define “receipt” of complaints and its initial steps to 

“investigate” the complaint.

The Agency acknowledges the concerns expressed by Ash Grove regarding the ability to 

determine whether each complaint is attributable to Ash Grove since it has no control over the 

timeliness or level of detail they receive in a complaint [see Comment 16 (by Ash Grove 

1/31/03]. It is useful for all citizens that will use the complaint response provisions described in 

this permit to remember that the timeliness and level of detail provided with the complaint will 

enhance the ability of Ash Grove to investigate and respond in an appropriate manner. At the 

same time, it is the responsibility of Ash Grove to identify for the complainants what types of 

information they would like to receive which will make their investigation and response more 

productive.

Action – Change made to the permit as discussed above.

Comment 42 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 30, Complaint Response, Fifth Bullet (Part II.A(2))

Comment: The Lafarge permit also contains certain criteria for when investigations should be 

initiated, which have been deleted from the Ash Grove permit. These should be reinstated. 

Please insert the following language at the end of the fifth bullet: 

Investigations shall include potential sources within Ash Grove’s facility, considering the 

following circumstances:

1) Emissions that are, or likely to be, injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or 

property, or which unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of life and property;

2) Fugitive dust emissions or evidence of inadequate fugitive dust control measures;

3) Evidence of fallout materials and any physical or chemical associations with plant-site 

activities;

4) Materials tracked onto paved roads open to the public;

5) Emissions of odor-bearing air contaminants;

6) Equipment operating in such a manner as can reasonably be expected to contribute to 

emissions that can result in fallout complaints;
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 89 of 122

7) Emissions due to startup, shutdown, malfunction or emergencies as defined in WAC 173-400-

107 or WAC 173-401-645;

8) Emissions caused by non-compliance with applicable requirements of this permit; and

9) Any complaints relating to other applicable requirements of this permit.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. The elements of a complaint response program are different from the draft 

Lafarge document yet not in significant ways [see Comment 31 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03) 

regarding the relationship between a draft permit for Lafarge and a draft permit for Ash Grove]. 

It is important to consider the entire complaint response provisions included in the Ash Grove 

permit. Conditions II.A.2, II.C.10, and II.D.6 represent the monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping provisions of the complaint response efforts, respectively. The draft Ash Grove 

permit had less prescriptive language regarding the elements of an investigation than identified 

in the draft Lafarge document, but the program Ash Grove must develop for compliance with 

this permit has to identify the criteria and methods used to establish whether Ash Grove may be 

the source of fugitive dust or other air contaminant impacts on neighboring property. The 

program is a part of the O&M plans for the facility and must be reviewed and updated annually. 

Failure to follow the program as identified in the program included in the O&M plans for the 

facility will be considered a deviation from the permit. The elements of all three conditions 

included in the permit for complaint response reflect that fact.

There are three reasons for a less rigid or prescriptive description of the scope of investigation in 

response to a complaint:

 The complaint response plan needs to respond to all air quality related complaints and 

can not presume in advance the full range of complaints that may be received. The 

program needs to be broad enough and flexible enough to deal with unexpected 

complaints.

 If some aspect of Ash Grove‟s complaint response program were deemed inadequate 

based on a review of the complaint response records or other information available to the 

Agency or the public, feedback to Ash Grove could address the adequacy and possible 

need to update the program.

 When the program is updated in the future, it is desirable to have it be done without 

necessitating an operating permit modification. Including more specific language in a 

permit may lead to more permit modifications.

In the Ash Grove permit documents, an investigation is required for every complaint. The 

adequacy of the investigations will be available for review based on the records kept and the 

reports that must be submitted regularly.

Action – No changes made to the permit on the basis of this comment.

Comment 43 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 30, Complaint Response, Last paragraph
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 90 of 122

Comment: This paragraph states that “[i]f Ash Grove determines that emissions from its plant 

unreasonably impacted neighborhood properties....” On the other hand, the Lafarge permit 

simply states that “[i]f Lafarge identifies its plant as the source contributing to air pollution 

complaints ....” This is a very significant difference. For one thing, the use of the word 

“unreasonable” is subjective – how can Ash Grove determine whether someone else is being 

“unreasonably impacted”? Moreover, the Lafarge language only requires that Lafarge 

“contribute” to the complaints, while Ash Grove‟s language could be interpreted to require a 

more direct cause/effect relationship. We suggest you substitute the Lafarge language. An 

alternate idea is to have the Taskforce tasked with coming up with criteria/triggers for what is 

“unreasonable.”

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted – please see Comment 42 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03) response for discussion of 

the relationship between the draft Lafarge operating permit and the draft Ash Grove operating 

permit.

This comment implies that most complaint communication to Ash Grove and response by Ash 

Grove to that complaint is a real time phenomenon. The history with the facility indicates that 

this is rarely the case and Ash Grove must determine if it is possible or probable that a complaint 

relates to its plant operation.

The complaint response program, as revised based on comments to the draft permit, provides 

adequate checks and balances. The three conditions which address this program (Conditions 

II.A.2, II.C.10, and II.D.6) will provide the following information:

 For each complaint, what investigation efforts were made and what is the basis for the 

conclusion reached by Ash Grove? [Condition II.D.6 (d)]

 For each complaint, what corrective action (if any) was taken? [Condition II.D.6(e)]

The records maintained by Ash Grove under this program allow the review of the record relating 

to all complaints. This information may also trigger other actions and responses under 

Conditions II.A.3, II.A.4, and II.A.5 of the permit.

Another aspect of the program which is open to review is the complaint response timeliness. If 

someone files a complaint with the plant indicating that a nuisance related event is occurring at 

the time of the complaint and the plant waits for 1 day to begin its investigation (as the revised 

permit conditions allow), then it will be difficult for Ash Grove to claim a time lapse as a 

contributing factor to the inability to reach a determination of its role (if any) in the complaint. 

Action – No changes made to the permit based on this comment. However, please see Comment 

45 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03) for revisions to the complaint response program elements as a 

result of other comments.

Comment 44 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 30, Complaint Response, Last paragraph

Comment: This paragraph requires that Ash Grove “eliminate the problem” within 24 hours. 

This seems to be not quite reasonable when the “problem” is a complaint, and may create a 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 91 of 122

disincentive to taking appropriate action. The company should also have the option of taking 

other corrective action, even if the result is not the “elimination” of the problem, or it doesn‟t 

happen within 24 hours. For example, a positive solution might be for them to clean our parking 

lot, even though that doesn‟t eliminate the problem, but simply temporarily mitigates a symptom. 

We suggest the following change:

Ash Grove shall either:

1) eliminate the problem within 24 hours of identification or

2) report a deviation...., or

3) within 3 days of identification, obtain written agreement to an alternate course of action from 

the complaining party, and subsequently implement that course of action.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted. Please see response to Comments 42 and 43 (Port of Seattle, 4/30/03) for 

related responses.

Note – the suggested language would not be appropriate for an operating permit. If Ash Grove 

needs to correct a problem within 24 hours, then it either needs to correct the problem or report a 

deviation and explain why it did not meet that requirement. The comment suggesting a third 

party may negotiate a compliance agreement with the source is not acceptable to this Agency as 

an appropriate response to permit deviations.

Action – No change made to the permit based on this comment.

Comment 45 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03)

Permit Requirement: Page 41, Complaint Response Reporting (Part II.C (10)) 

Comment: For completeness, this requirement should be re-written as follows:

Ash Grove shall submit in writing ...a report documenting

1) complaints received that are determined not to be attributable to Ash Grove operations;

2) complaints received that are determined to be attributable to Ash Grove operations that 

trigger corrective action; and

3) complaints received that as well as those that are determined to be attributable to Ash Grove 

operations that did not trigger corrective action.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted and the Agency agrees that a more complete Complaint Response Report is 

appropriate for this permit. A monthly report identifying all complaints received will be required 

in the final permit.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 92 of 122

Action – Change made to the permit as discussed above. See revised conditions (Conditions 

II.A.2 and II.C.10) of the permit relating to complaint response below.

II.A.2 Complaint Response

Ash Grove shall develop and implement an Air Pollution 

Complaint Response Program as part of the O&M Plan required by 

Regulation I Section 7.09(b). The Complaint Response Program 

shall be annually reviewed and updated along with the O&M Plan. 

This Program shall include:

 An Ash Grove local contact person and a 24-hour telephone 

number;

 Complaint forms available to the public;

 Criteria and methods for establishing whether Ash Grove may be 

the source of fugitive dust or other air contaminant impacts on 

neighboring property;

 Format of communicating results of investigations and advising 

complainants of Ash Grove's corrective actions and preventive 

maintenance;

 Ash Grove shall record air pollution complaints (including those 

forwarded to Ash Grove from this Agency) and findings of 

investigations as provided in Condition II.D.6. Investigations shall 

be initiated within 1 3 working days of receipt of a complaint. 

Complaint investigations shall include efforts to contact the 

complainant, to inspect the conditions described in the complaint, 

to determine whether the Seattle plant sustained a malfunction or 

other operating or site conditions that might have generated 

abnormal levels of fugitive emissions, and to determine the wind 

speed, direction and/or other meteorological conditions during 

relevant times preceding receipt of the complaint.

If Ash Grove determines that emissions from its plant unreasonably 

impacted neighboring properties Ash Grove shall either eliminate the 

problem within 24 hours of identification or report a deviation as provided 

in Condition II.C.2. Ash Grove also shall report as a deviation any failure 

to initiate investigation of a complaint within 1 3 working days of receipt of 

the complaint. 

[WAC 173-401-615(1), 10/17/02]

II.C.10 Complaint Response Reporting

Ash Grove shall submit in writing to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency a 

report documenting all complaints received with a summary of the nature of 

the complaint, the conclusion of the investigation, and any corrective action 

taken in response. that are determined not to be attributable to Ash Grove 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 93 of 122

operations as well as those that are determined to be attributable to Ash 

Grove operations yet did not trigger corrective action. This report shall be 

submitted no later than 30 days after the end of the month during which this 

condition occurred. In the event there are no reportable events, Ash Grove 

shall include a statement to that effect, as identified in Section II.C.1 of this 

permit.

[WAC 173-401-615(3) (10/17/02)]

II.D.6 Complaint Response Recordkeeping

Records for complaints received concerning odor, fugitive emissions or 

nuisance conditions must contain the following information:

a) Date and time of the complaint,

b) Name and address of the person complaining, if known,

c) Nature of the complaint, 

d) Investigation efforts and the basis for conclusions reached 

regarding the complaint, and

e) Date, time and nature of any corrective action taken.

[Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 7.09(b)(6), 

(10/6/97)] [Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Section 7.09(b)(6), 

9/10/98, (State Only)] [WAC 173-401-615(2)(a) (10/17/02)]

Comment 46 (by Dave & Erin Simkus 3/25/03)

Dave and Erin Simkus

March 25, 2003

 Boat owner at Harbor Island Marina.

 Requests off-site boat and rooftop inspections by independent third party.

 Include barges and unloading in I.A.I0 on page 6.

 Cover conveyers from barges.

 Have Task Force set criteria for source of fugitive dust.

 Task Force include Ash Grove, Lafarge and neighbors.

 Ash Grove should not be allowed to define "unreasonably" on page 307.

 Remove "unreasonably", it is too vague, if impacting neighbors it's a problem.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comments noted and are similar to comments made by the Port of Seattle (4/30/03).
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 94 of 122

Action – Please see responses to Comments 32 through 45 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03) and the 

changes made to the permit based on those comments.

Comment 47 (by Lee & Dan Rees 4/9/03)

LEE & DAN REES

April 9, 2003

 Written comments not at public hearing.

 Boat owners at Harbor Island Marina.

 Ash Grove's cement dust has increased over last ten years.

 Complained to Ash Grove and Agency.

 The most severe discharges are periodic and leave a residue that is extremely difficult to 

clean off of fiberglass boats. "Grit" jams wenches and instruments, and can not rinse off 

but must scrub with chemical cleaners. Cleaners removes wax finish. Dust discolors and 

eats decks.

 Ash Grove claims dust is not from their plant. Sample analysis takes 3-4 weeks

 Nuisance Standards in I.A.7 is wholly insufficient.

 Need following:

o Require three continuous monitors near marina to detect discharges.

o Streamline timely tests for fingerprinting residue and source in plant.

o Ash Grove fix damages due to their discharges.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comments noted and are similar to comments made by the Port of Seattle (4/30/03). Note – in 

the past investigations conducted by inspectors from this Agency when samples were collected, 

the important time element was not sample turnaround for results but the proximity to the release 

event which created a deposit for sampling (i.e. Is the sample fresh?).

Action – Please see responses to Comments 32 through 45 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03) and the 

changes made to the permit based on those comments.

Comment 48 (by Bruce Andre, Ponchos’Legacy LLC 4/30/03)

The following is a summary of written comments provided by Mr. Andre: 

 Since hearing two major kiln upsets causing clinker dust on our property.

 Reported to PSCAA and Ash Grove.

 4/2/03 kiln upset, blew hot ash with south wind. Videoed event. Jerry Brown offered car 

cleaning. Ash Grove estimates 30-days to pay.

 4/13/03 kiln upset, not turning 4/14/03. Lots of clinker dust on our roof. Jerry Brown 

said lost kiln "ID Fan". Videoed April 14th. He inspected our roof, took samples and 

asked what they could do for us. Our roofer is meeting with Jerry Brown for an 

acceptable cleaning method. Jerry said water spraying of kiln for operational reasons, not 

for suppression of fugitive dust. Water was turned off after event.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 95 of 122

 4/29/03 complaint to Agency of odor from Ash Grove. The wind changed to south 

blowing directly from Ash Grove. Complainant felt that this specific complaint was 

incorrectly being grouped with complaints focused on Lafarge.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

Comment noted, though these comments are not specific to the permit or changes suggested to 

the permit. The comment with respect to possible misclassification of complaints is 

acknowledged. No specific enforcement action was taken by the Agency with respect to the 

events Mr. Andre discusses.

Action – No changes made to the permit based on this comment.

Comment 49 (by Bruce Andre, Ponchos' Legacy LLC 4/30/03)

The following is a summary of written comments provided by Mr. Andre: 

 Owner of Legacy, employee of International Belt & Rubber Supply Inc, north of Ash 

Grove. Has a great deal of personal knowledge and understanding of Ash Grove. 

International Belt and Rubber did not complain about fallout because of contracts. 

Requested Ash Grove clean roof after Port had their roof cleaned

 Provides details of historical fallout problems from his perspective.

 Legacy cleaned clinker off roof 8/16/02 and complained to Ash Grove.

 Ponchos‟ Legacy damaged their roof while trying to clean it.

 Legacy invoiced Ash Grove for roof repairs ($5,500) and Ash Grove stopped contracts 

Legacy (~$300,000/year).

 Chronological records of correspondence and actions:

o 10/2/89 Ash Grove paid Elliot Bay Investments $6,616 for roof repairs without 

liability.

o 2/9/94 Ash Grove mitigated impacts to John Harvey's roof.

o 9/19/95 Agency describes Port samples that CTL found clinker.

o 7/17/96 Ash Grove's corrective action included;

 Enclosing 531.030 conveyor with plastic wrap,

 Enclosing 471.170 conveyor with plastic wrap, and

 Designing kiln leaf seals.

 Ash Grove reiterates efforts to be a "good neighbor."

o 8/30/96 EPA to Port indicates enforcement is PSCAA's.

o 10/7/96 Thomas Newlon (senior Port counsel) dissatisfied with Agency's actions 

to solve fallout problem.

o 4/18/97 Thomas Newlon to Ash Grove's attorney, asks for mitigation.

o 11/20/97 Ash Grove to Newlon for settlement without admitting liability.

o 11/21/97 Ash Grove's mitigation process for Port employees.

o 6/6/98 Legacy buys building.

o 9/21/99 CTL finds Portland cement clinker, cement and fly ash.

o 11/30/99 CTL XRD confirms Sept 21, 1999 results.

o 2/13/99 Process Analysis Corp. says it doesn't "look" like clinker.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 96 of 122

o 2/13/01 Agency's fallout procedures with Ash Grove's corrective actions.

o 6/10/02 Ash Grove's reporting procedures and cleaning of affected neighbors.

o 6/26/02 Port to tenants and neighbors of Ash Grove's 6/10/02 actions.

o 8/16/02 Complained to Agency of dust from Ash Grove.

o 8/20/02 Ash Grove cuts business with Belt and Rubber.

 Major areas causing fugitive dust problems and suggested improvements:

o Barge Unloading Conveyors. Re-engineer and enclose with suppression 

measures.

o Limestone/Coal piles and Conveyors. Enclose "storage shed".

o Raw Products Reclaim System. Enclose.

o Kiln Cooler Elbows and Tubes. Boltless liners and water on kiln not enough. Put 

roof over burner end of kiln to stop clinker from blowing into the air. Since last 

start up, smelled chlorine from Ash Grove with south winds which causes me a 

head ache. Other employee's have also smelled this odor.

o Kiln Discharge End and G-Cooler. Continue to discharge clinker. What is status 

of kiln leaf seals? Grate cooler system has been investigated which may control 

some fugitive dust.

o New Clinker Storage Silo Baghouses. Access doors are often left open.

o Conveyor 531. 030. Completed.

o Finish Mill Building. Blows dust and needs new dust control system.

o Conveyor Clinker Silos to Clinker Shed. Completely enclose.

o Clinker Storage Shed. Needs new dust collector.

o Clinker Storage Shed Reclaim Elevator. Visible dust needs enclosing..

o Baghouse by Maintenance Shop. Fugitive dust during normal during 

maintenance.

o Air Slides & Ducting top of Load Out Silos. Leaks per 1994 video.

o Dome Storage Silo. Leaks, need to close doors.

o Finish Mill, Clinker Storage silos and Clinker Storage Shed. All have asbestos 

siding with no protective coating or encapsulation. It is deteriorating and being 

damaged by employees or sub-contractors, causing airborne uncontained asbestos 

fibers. Please coat it or remove it!

o Dome Storage Silo. Creates wind funnel increasing fallout on our property.

 Ash Grove's monitoring is flawed and doesn't address neighbor's property damage.

 Monitoring should be half-mile beyond property boundary, by affected.

 Monitor monthly and after each upset.

 Title V permit should be renewed annually.

 Request Ash Grove implement these solutions and pay damages to roofs, windows, 

awnings, HVAC systems, automobiles and inventories of tenants. Total damage cost at 

Legacy and International Belt $100,000, not including health issues. Our pictures show 

about 16 yards of dust removed before refinishing our roof.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 97 of 122

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Response

The comments are noted and the Agency appreciates the effort of Mr. Andre to document in 

writing the comments offered at the hearing on this draft permit on April 1, 2003.

The comments regarding the compliance issues identified in this letter are consistent with the 

compliance history provided in the draft statement of basis for this permit. Historically, there 

have been issues which were resolved through enforcement action. Some of that enforcement 

action has led to equipment and operational practice improvements. The efforts by Ash Grove to 

improve its operation and minimize its impacts on neighboring property have resulted in fewer 

complaints and enforcement actions.

The operating permit cannot address financial interests related to the assertion of damages 

caused by Ash Grove.

This list of suggested projects which would improve fugitive dust emission control is appreciated 

and may be useful in the future. However, the ability to order equipment modifications or 

upgrades normally occurs as part of the resolution of enforcement actions. There are presently 

no outstanding enforcement actions against Ash Grove with respect to fugitive dust or nuisance 

regulations.

With respect to the permit monitoring provisions, please see the responses to Comments 32 

through 45 (by Port of Seattle 4/30/03) which address the same comments raised here.

Also, air operating permits are renewable on a 5-year frequency, as specified in WAC 173-401.

Action – No changes made to the permit based on these comments.

Hearing Comments

Summary

The public hearing to receive comments on the draft air operating permit for Ash Grove was held 

on April 1, 2003. Comments made (using notes taken during the hearing) are provided below to 

identify the speaker and show the nature of their comments.

The comments at the hearing reflect the written comments received on the permit. This is 

expected since many of the speakers at the hearing also submitted comments in writing. The 

comments at the hearing can be summarized as follows:

Ash Grove is committed to being a good neighbor, acknowledged that mistakes had been made 

in the past, but believes they have invested in equipment and time to provide real improvements 

in performance, and hopes to be able to effectively work with their neighbors in the future.

The Port of Seattle staff and neighbors near the Ash Grove plant feel that:

 The fugitive dust and other emissions from the plant are a nuisance and are causing 

property damage.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 98 of 122

 The permit should be more aggressive to require offsite monitoring as an element of 

compliance demonstration.

 A task force should be initiated to guide monitoring and response to complaint efforts and 

attempt to put objective criteria in place to resolve subjective standard language disputes.

 The complaint response program included in the permit should be more rigorous and 

prescriptive regarding requirements for Ash Grove to respond.

 There is some uneasiness regarding the judgment and decisions which rest with Ash 

Grove under an operating permit.

 Some felt that things had improved, but they were tired of having to contact Ash Grove to 

alert them of a problem or to get action. They would prefer there were no problems or 

impacts and when that is not possible, they would prefer that Ash Grove be more 

proactive.

The Agency responses developed to the written comments on the draft permit address all of these 

hearing comments. The response record for those written comments should be used to determine 

what changes were made to the permit in response to comments.

One commenter at the hearing (Dana Stall, Port of Seattle) referred to possible health effects 

related to emissions and releases from Ash Grove. It is important to note that the area in the 

vicinity of the Ash Grove plant meets all ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. 

These standards, established by EPA, are established on the basis of being protective of human 

health. The commenter further mentioned toxic air contaminants and the burning of tires. This 

is discussed in some detail in the response to Comment 28 (by Ash Grove 4/30/03). The Notice 

of Construction review for the proposal to burn tires in the kiln reviewed the impacts from 

increases in toxic air contaminants associated with that activity and those impacts were all below 

the Acceptable Source Impact Levels (ASILs) identified in Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

Regulation III.

Gerry Brown

 Ash Grove appreciated willingness of community to work with Ash Grove.

 Spent a great deal of money upgrading plant.

 Improved communication with neighborhood.

 Notification process of neighbors when events occur.

 Spent $4 million to control dust.

 Complaint response (24 hr & phone #).

 Ash Grove responds within 24 hrs.

 Ash Grove works with neighbors and responds to damage complaints.

 There have been resolutions of a number of complaints to Agency.

 There has been a reduction in the number of complaints.

 There are monitoring requirements and complaint response procedures in permit

Serin Simkus

 There is tons of materials from barge during unloading (not addressed in plan).

 Requests including offsite monitoring of boats & surrounding roof tops.

 Include criteria to define sources of dust.

 He suggested an independent party to conduct offsite monitoring.

 He said we are all partners on the river.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 99 of 122

 Clinker dust has ruined canvas & finishes on boats.

 Clinker fallout problems have improved but coal & limestone handling still remain a 

problem.

 He wants to have it controlled.

Bruce Andre

 His site is just north of Ash Grove at 3685 Duwamish Ave S. and since 1998 has been 

Ponchos' Legacy.

 He understands the cement industry.

 His building has a 44,000 ft2 warehouse roof.

 Ash Grove agreed to dispose of debris.

 He wants Ash Grove to pay for cleaning after the end of the relationship between Ash 

Grove and International Belt & Rubber.

 He lists the chronology of correspondence.

 Ash Grove no longer does business with International Belt & Rubber.

 He described the following from West to East -

o The barge unloading & conveyors, limestone & coal stockpiles all should be in

storage shed.

o The sources of dust include limestone reclaim area, raw material reclaim area, raw 

mill, kiln cooler elbows, and kiln cooler tubes.

o There needs to be roof over kiln

 He said that recently he has smelled chlorine from Ash Grove.

 He has witnessed the following:

o Discharge from kiln G-cooler (grate cooler),

o Major improvements,

o Clinker storage silo (need to close doors),

o Old dust control system,

o Clinker storage shed needs a baghouse,

o Reclaim elevators and leaks in air slides

 Other things include:

o Asbestos siding on buildings (need to coat asbestos siding panels);

o Monitor monthly;

o Title V should be renewed annually;

o Information should be free of charge;

o Compensate neighbor for damage; and

o No retaliation against International Belt & Rubber

Susan Ridgley

 Will provide written comments for POS (Port of Seattle) Property location around Ash 

Grove Cement

 POS is the largest land owner with 200 acres.

 POS has been aware of impacts of Ash Grove for some time.

 There has been damage to cars & boats and other sensitive surfaces.

 Damage to POS property includes roof tops and gutter systems.

 There has been $100,000 per year as routine costs to maintain POS properties

 Ash Grove has used a lot of words but little action.

 The complaint response tracking system is okay.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 100 of 122

 The clinker fallout is getting better but it is difficult to keep the pressure on Ash Grove all 

the time.

 Permit related comments:

o Page 5 I.A.7 Nuisance standard 173-400-040 (No deposition beyond property 

boundary);

o Page 31 2A Monitoring Roof top, and O&M;

o If just a visual standard it is too crude and subjective;

o The discussion of O&M plan is not adequate;

o There needs to be offsite monitoring for dust and clinker;

o Maybe there should be the use of a task force made from the neighbors and 

others, to answer where dust originates, monitor locations and provide reporting.

o What is the source of the dust?

o The complaint response has significant deviations from Lafarge.

o Dusting problems appear to solely from within Ash Grove.

o There needs to be criteria and the description of methods.

o The response needs to be conducted within 3-days

o The concept of "Unreasonably" is too subjective.

o What triggers can be developed?

o The words, "Eliminate the problem" is no good (we mean "corrective action").

o Page 41 Response report.

o Complaints should not be Ash Grove's to decide if it triggers corrective actions.

o Barge operations cause problems.

Lyle Turnbull

 Boats are covered with dust.

 There are many sources in the Duwamish.

 Nucor Steel is also a source at Boulder Place (west of John Davis Marina).

 Dust affects the seams in the canvas of sails.

 Cheap shot.

Dana Stahl (POS Hygienist)

 Tires contain (dioxin okay, phthalates, heavy metals).

 More PM10 samples needed from the baghouse.

 The dust comes from more areas than just the baghouse.

 Excess emissions should be reported.

Kay Wisner (boat owner)

 Dust has been a big time problem, but in the last couple years there have some changes 

for the better. Ash Grove's measures seem to have been working.

 She appreciates boat cleaning & notification of emission events and they did a good job 

on this action.

 She does not like to continually need to go to Ash Grove.

 The same offers have not been made to all the boat owners.

 The offers need to be fair for everybody.

 The dust from barge activities is still a major issue.

 The barges are so large they are much closer to our boats in the marina.

 There needs to be offsite monitoring that is neutral (what is the dust & where is it coming 

from?).
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 101 of 122

 PM monitoring should include barge activities.

 There needs to be covers on the conveyors!

 Monitor all activities because dust comes from many sources at this plant.

 Ash Grove should be sprinkling their barges more often.

 The coal and limestone dust is also very abrasive.

 The boat owners expect some damage due to their location near the plant.

 If you cause the dusting problem you should be required to clean it up!

 The dust grows mildew on the canvas on the boats.

 There needs to be offsite monitoring.

 There needs to be a task force to get to the root of the problem.

 There are lots of companies in the area.

 The Agency needs to do more inspections.

 The permit should require more actions.

 The dusting is an ongoing problem.

Bruce Andre

 He shows a 4/15/94 video tape of dust fallout.

 He shows dust from Ash Grove.

Gerry Brown

 He says that mistakes have been made in the past.

 He says that Ash Grove is working hard to prevent problem in the future
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 102 of 122

Modification 1 to Operating Permit (11/17/06)

The modification of Ash Grove‟s Air Operating Permit is triggered by the incorporation of 

Notice of Construction and Application for Approval No. 9229 to allow the burning of a limited 

amount of used oils in the cement kiln.

The Project description for NOC No. 9229 is:

Used oil firing system including tanks, pumps and piping, using existing burner, with the 

following new equipment: (1) 20,000 gal used oil holding tank, (1) 6 gal/min pump, (1) Mass 

flow meter, (1) 3/4" pipe with nozzle fitted inside existing ignition sleeve of existing burner.

This Order of Approval No. 9229 is for the limited use of liquid used oil as fuel in addition to the 

currently approved fuels in the cement kiln. A description of the Conditions of this Order of 

Approval are added below.

This Order of Approval No. 9229 cancels and supersedes Order of Approval No. 5687 dated 

January 11, 1995. Order of Approval No. 5687 allows a very small amount of internally 

generated used oils to be burned in the cement kiln. However, because Order of Approval No. 

5687 is being replaced with Order of Approval No. 9229, the current Air Operating Permit needs 

to be opened and modified to include Order of Approval No. 9229.

This Order of Approval No. 9229 is being incorporated into the Air Operating Permit as a 

significant modification. All other changes in the Air Operating Permit are minor. These minor 

changes include updating EPA SIP approval dates and recognizing required testing activities that 

have already been satisfied.

For further information and details refer to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Notice of 

Construction Work Sheet No. 9229 on file at the Agency. This significant modification of the 

operating permit is being co-processed with the proposed Order of Approval, sharing the same 

public comment period on both permit actions. Following the public comment period, the AOP 

will also be submitted to EPA in a proposed permit form, as described in WAC 173-401-810.

The following describes the conditions of approval of Order of Approval No. 9229.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 103 of 122

THE FOLLOWING LISTS AND DESCRIBES CONDITIONS OF ORDER 

OF APPROVAL NO. 9229

GENERIC CONDITIONS

1. Approval is hereby granted as provided in Article 6 of Regulation I of the Puget Sound Air 

Pollution Control Agency to the applicant to install or establish the equipment, device or process 

described herein at the INSTALLATION ADDRESS in accordance with the plans and 

specifications on file in the engineering Division of Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

2. This approval does not relieve the applicant or owner of any requirement of any other 

governmental agency.

Conditions No. 1 & 2 are generic for all orders of approval.

BURN NON-HAZARDOUS USED OIL

3. Ash Grove shall limit used oil to non-hazardous as defined by WAC 173-303-515, Special 

Requirements for Used Oil Burned for Energy Recovery, or by WAC 173-303-090, Dangerous 

Waste Characteristics. Ash Grove is authorized to burn used oils meeting the material 

specifications in Condition No. 5 of this order.

Conditions No. 3 limits the type of used oils to assure that Ash Grove does not burn 

hazardous or dangerous waste materials. The sample procedures and testing methods 

are contained in or referenced by these cited regulations.

4. Ash Grove shall limit the total amount of used oil injected into the kiln to 8640 gal/calendar 

day. Ash Grove shall monitor and maintain daily records of the volume of used oil injected into 

the kiln and the number of kiln operating hours/calendar day. Ash Grove shall submit these

records on a monthly basis with the required CEMS. Examples of used oil include:

(a) Used oils;

(b) Refined oil tank bottoms;

(c) Raw crude tank bottoms;

(d) Heavy vacuum gas oil waste;

(e) Off specification fuel oil.

Conditions No. 4 limits the daily injection rate of used oils and requires monthly 

reporting of usage. Examples of used oil are included.

5. Ash Grove shall only burn used oils meeting the following limits as delivered:

(a) As less than or equal to 5 ppm;

(b) Cd less than or equal to 2 ppm;

(c) Cr less than or equal to 10 ppm;

(d) Pb less than or equal to 100 ppm;

(e) PCB less than or equal to 50 ppm;

(f) Total Halogens less than 1000 ppm;
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 104 of 122

(g) Flash Point greater than or equal to 100F;

(h) Heat content between 5,000 Btu/lb to 19,000 Btu/lb.

Conditions No. 5 limits the used oil burned to specific criteria. By accepting used oils for 

burning in the kiln which meet these criteria Ash Grove will remain below the trigger

points for dangerous or hazardous materials as specified in the WAC 173-303-515, WAC 

173-303-090. EPA has specification for burning used oil. For example applicable 

standards for burning of used oil containing PCB are regulated in 40 CFR 761.20(e). In 

addition the requirements of 40 CFR part 279, subparts G and H apply to the marketing 

and burning of used oil that is above the EPA trigger values.

However, because this Order of Approval is specifically for regulating air emissions it is 

the responsibility of Ash Grove to maintain knowledge of and compliance with all 

applicable regulations and to avoid triggering applicability criteria.

USED OIL DELIVERIES

6. Ash Grove shall:

(a) Authorize the person receiving and reviewing used oil shipments the authority to reject 

materials exceeding standards of this approval.

(b) Obtain a signed laboratory report from the oil supplier verifying each shipment of used 

oil received meets Conditions No. 5(a) through (h).

(c) Maintain a used oil delivery log and record in this log the name of the supplier, the 

delivery date, the volume of used oil and a signed laboratory report of each shipment of used 

oil received.

Conditions No. 6 lists the characteristics and parameters of the used oils that Ash Grove 

will follow to assure that the used oil is properly managed and monitored.

7. Ash Grove shall calibrate the used oil flow meter at least once per calendar year and maintain 

records of that calibration.

This annual calibration will assure that the used oil flow rate is correctly maintained 

below the 8640 gal/day limit.

SOURCE TEST

8. Ash Grove shall submit a source test plan for Condition No. 9(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) 

no later than 30 days after the completion date specified in the Notice of Completion for this 

Order, meeting Regulation I, Section 3.07 with sampling methods, analytical procedure and 

testing dates. Ash Grove shall also follow 40 CFR 63, Subpart A and Subpart LLL for Condition 

No. 9(e) (Dioxin/Furan) including determining the average inlet temperature of the particulate 

matter control device.

Conditions No. 8 requires a source test to be performed and links the testing to the 

details of Condition No. 9.

9. Ash Grove shall complete performance source testing while operating with and without the 

injection of used oil. These tests shall be conducted while burning coal but not injecting tires 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 105 of 122

and with the raw mill both operating and not operating. All tests shall be performed no later than 

90 days after the completion date specified in the Notice of Completion with the following 

methods:

(a) Opacity (CEMS);

(b) SO2 (CEMS);

(c) NOx (CEMS);

(d) CO (CEMS);

(e) Formaldehyde (Method 0011/SW-8315);

(f) HCl (EPA Method 26A)

(g) Metals (EPA Method 29);

(h) Dioxin/Furan (EPA Method 23). 

Conditions No. 9 specifies the parameters that need to be measured and the methods for 

testing. The tests are to be done under the specified conditions.

10. During the tests required in Condition No. 9, Ash Grove shall record the following data:

(a). Main Baghouse inlet temperature following 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(3);

(b) Type and quantity of clinker manufactured for cement;

(c) Type and quantity of raw materials added to kiln;

(d) Type, quantity and fuel Btu added to the kiln (including used oil);

(e) Burnability Index; and

(f) Variability of raw mix.

Conditions No. 10 specifies the operating parameters that need to be monitored, recorded 

and reported with the source test report.

RECORDS

11. Ash Grove shall maintain written records required by this Order of Approval on site, in 

addition, Ash Grove shall retain each record for at least five years and make them available to 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency personnel upon request.

Conditions No. 11 provides an Agency Inspector the ability to request records.

OA 5687 SUPERSEDED 

12. Order of Approval 9229 cancels and supersedes Order of Approval No. 5687 dated January 

11, 1995.

Conditions No. 12 simply deletes the old order and replaces it with the new order.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 106 of 122

ADDITIONAL CHANGES PROPOSED IN DRAFT MODIFICATION TO 

ASH GROVE'S AIR OPERATING PERMIT

Three additional groups of changes have been made as a part of the draft modification to Ash 

Grove‟s operating permit. These changes are grouped as follows:

Inapplicability of Washington’s Solid Waste Incineration Facility Regulation

The Washington Department of Ecology updated the solid waste incineration facility regulation 

(WAC 173-434) on December 22, 2003. The previous version of this regulation (adopted in 

1990) was an applicable requirement for Ash Grove and previously included in their permit. 

With the adoption of the latest version of WAC 173-434, Ecology determined that a facility like 

Ash Grove would not be subject to the rule providing the substitute fuels used were those defined 

in the new regulation. The 1990 version of WAC 173-434 was included in the approved 

Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP). That version remained an applicable requirement 

in Ash Grove‟s permit until EPA took final action to update Washington‟s SIP. That occurred 

on September 6, 2005. Ash Grove‟s operating permit was originally written to reflect that WAC 

174-434 would no longer be an applicable requirement when EPA approved the new regulation 

in the SIP. Thus, WAC 173-434 has not been an applicable requirement since that EPA effective 

date and this modification removes the details of the 1990 versions of WAC 173-434 from the 

permit and shows the current version of that regulation as in inapplicable requirement.

Other SIP Changes Updated

Other SIP actions taken by EPA since the original operating permit was written have been 

completed. The operating permit included both the SIP approved versions of regulations and the 

SIP pending versions. The permit included statements that the SIP pending regulations would 

supersede the previous regulation upon approval in the SIP. Where that has occurred, the 

obsolete requirement has been deleted to clean up the permit document.

Event Related Permit Terms Satisfied

When an operating permit term is a single event requirement and the event has been 

satisfactorily completed, that requirement may also be removed from the permit. In this case, 

Ash Grove had a requirement to complete a performance test on the coal mill. That has been 

completed (and compliance was demonstrated). Thus, it no longer represents an active permit 

requirement. It has been deleted in the draft modified permit to clean up the document.

The removal of obsolete or superseded permit conditions in this draft modified permit have in 

some places let to sections listed as “ [RESERVED] ”. This was done to avoid reformatting the 

entire document and renumbering cross referenced citations. When a deleted section could be 

used without that complication, it was used for new requirements associated with the 

incorporation of NOC No. 9229 into the operating permit.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 107 of 122

Public Comments for Significant Modifications Received 

during the 30-day Public Comment Period

Comment from People for Puget Sound

e-mailed to the Agency 1/16/2007

January 15, 2007

Fred Austin

Engineer

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

110 Union Street, Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98101

Via email: freda@pscleanair.org

RE: Draft Notice of Construction Order of Approval No. 9229 and draft 

Modification of the Air Operating Permit for Ash Grove Cement Company (Ash 

Grove)

Dear Mr. Austin, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the a draft Notice of Construction Order of 

Approval No. 9229 and draft Modification of the Air Operating Permit for Ash Grove Cement 

Company (Ash Grove), located at 3801 E Marginal Way South, Seattle.

People For Puget Sound is a nonprofit, citizens‟ organization whose mission is to protect and 

restore Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits, including a specific goal to protect and restore the 

2,000 miles of Puget Sound shoreline by 2015.

Ash Grove is a major emitter and releases over 100 tons of NOx and SO2 annually. Ash Grove 

is now requesting that they be permitted to burn used oil (up to 12% Btu basis) in addition to 

tires (at a rate of up to 12 tons per day). The use of these fuels moves the facility into a waste 

incinerator mode and raises serious human and wildlife health concerns. 

Our specific comments follow:

1. Re-evaluation of the facility. Given that Ash Grove was granted a permit to burn tires in 

1995 and they are now asking to burn used oil, we strongly feel that the facility permit 

should be re-evaluated. Since 1995, Chinook salmon have been listed as endangered, the 

Duwamish River has been listed as a Superfund Site, and more and more concerns have 

been raised about human health in the Duwamish Valley. It appears that each airpermitted facility in the Duwamish Basin is allowed to continually ratchet up and add 

more and more components to their facility (or fuel stream) rather than following a 

continual process of ratcheting down toxic emissions in order to protect wildlife and 

human health. 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 108 of 122

2. Cumulative Impact. Our second major concern is that permits and permit changes are 

granted without consideration of cumulative impacts. According to the Engineer‟s 

Report, Engineer‟s Report mercury emissions described in the facility‟s 2003 TRI Report 

totaled 34 lbs/year. Lafarge, as reported in the recent public meeting has mercury 

emissions of about 84 lbs/year (baseline, prior to burning tires!). Lafarge‟s formaldehyde 

emissions are about 17,260 lbs/year. Chromium-6 is also a contaminant of concern 

throughout the Duwamish Basin. There are likely a number of other toxic chemicals that 

are cumulatively impacting human and wildlife health but we have not yet seen the WA 

Department of Health study (which was due out in the fall of 2006). 

3. Emissions of toxic chemicals. People For Puget Sound is concerned about the release of 

toxic chemicals such as heavy metals and dioxin from this facility. Most of these toxic 

emissions are not required to be regularly monitored by the facility. We are especially 

concerned that lead and cadmium will be increased from this facility with the use of used 

oil. Lead (according to the Engineer‟s Report) is up to 100 times higher in used oil than 

in coal.

a. The Statement of Basis includes an emission summary for 1995-2001. Why are 

recent data not included as an update to the Statement?

b. Why is PSCAA not requiring Ash Grove to report plant-wide fugitive emissions?

c. The Port of Seattle and its tenants have had significant complaints about material 

falling on their property, buildings and cars and the potential human health 

impacts. They have requested that Ahs Grove install reliable and continuous offsite monitoring. We agree with this request and further we request that these data 

be presented to the public in a separate and easily understood report (that includes 

a map). It is not acceptable to state that off-site monitoring would be 

compromised by other pollutants. A sound monitoring program would allow for 

distinguishing between different sources and if, in fact, there are multiple 

significant sources of pollutants, the public has a right to this information.

d. The used oil regulations allow up to 50 ppm PCBs in oil that might be burned at 

Ash Grove. This is not acceptable in the source area for a Superfund Site (the 

Duwamish River) in which millions of dollars are being spent to clean up PCBs. 

The permit should require that any oil burned at Ash Grove must have very low 

PCBS – on the order of <5 ppm or lower. Also, the emissions should include a 

requirement for regular PCB monitoring.

4. Poor compliance History. Ash Grove has a very poor compliance history. Most of the 

violations occurred in the late 1990‟s-early 2000‟s and that leads one to conclude that 

either Ash Grove has improved their compliance or PSCAA has lost staff capacity and is 

not able to review their files and inspect their facility as often. We would like to know if 

compliance inspections and reviews have decreased. The past poor compliance signifies 

that extra precaution must be taken with the facility, especially in a transition period.

5. Equivalent scrutiny as Lafarge. If permitted, the facility should be required to meet all 

of the testing and monitoring requirements that Lafarge is being required to do currently. 

The public should be allowed to see the testing results and be invited to a public meeting 

to discuss the results.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 109 of 122

6. Map of deposition plume. We would like to see a map that shows the area of deposition 

of material from the air plume of Ash Grove. If such a map is not available, we strongly 

feel that Ash Grove should be required to prepare a map.

7. Continuation of Dioxin tests. The Engineer‟s Reports states that: “This regulation 

requires performance tests requirement for dioxin/furan emissions every 30 months after 

the compliance effective date of June 14, 2002. The initial performance test was 

completed by Ash Grove on May 29-30, 2002. Ash Grove followed this initial test by 

conducting their required 30-month performance test on October 13-14, 2004 within the 

required time period.” It appears that these dioxin tests were discontinued. We request 

that these tests be required on a continuing basis.

8. Grinding Wheel and toxic chemicals. We are concerned that the raw mill grinder is part 

of the pollution control for this facility and certain toxic chemicals, such as HCl and 

formaldehyde, are not well controlled during the 10% of the operational time when the 

grinding wheel is not in use. According to the Engineer‟s Report: “When the grinder is 

not operating the gases bypass the grinder and go directly to the main baghouse. When 

the raw mill grinder operates the gases flowing through grinder tend to be scrubbed of 

some of the pollutants.” What assurance do we have that chemicals are monitored at both 

times – when the grinding wheel is in operation and when it is not. How are we assured 

that significant increases are controlled when the grinding is not operational? 

9. SEPA Review. The Report states “The Agency, as the lead agency for this proposal, has 

also made a preliminary determination that the proposal would not have a probable 

significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) 

is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a 

completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file at the Agency.” We 

disagree with this assessment because of the cumulative impacts of this facility combined 

other facilities and other sources in the Duwamish Basin.

10. Tires. We strongly object to the burning of tires at this facility. We do not have a 

complete data set to show that burning tires in the Duwamish cement facilities is safe for 

human and wildlife health. We recognize that this facility was previously permitted to 

use tires, but this use should be re-evaluated in light of cumulative impacts of the 

multiple facilities in the Duwamish. Further, the Engineer‟s Report states: “Also 

because burning tires (as approved per Order of Approval No. 5755 (approved 3/30/95) 

reduces emissions compared to coal, the use of tires are not included in this analysis and 

the conditions for source testing requires not burning tires with used oil in the kiln.” We 

disagree that emissions are reduced for all toxics – and are particularly concerned about 

dioxins, mercury and other metals emissions associated with tire burning.

11. Unknown contaminants in used oils. We are concerned that unknown contaminants 

could be introduced into used oils due to human error. What assurance do we have that 

the used oils will be relatively clean?

12. Why are not tests required for tire burning conditions as well? Engineer‟s Report: 

“Ash Grove shall complete performance source testing while operating with and without 

the injection of used oil. These tests shall be conducted while burning coal but not 

injecting tires and with the raw mill both operating and not operating.” We believe that 

the tire burning condition should also be tested and the data presented to the public.

13. Economics trumps human health. The Engineer‟s Report states “Ash Grove and 

Lafarge are requesting approval to burn alternative fuels. Ash Grove wants to burn waste 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 110 of 122

oil (Lafarge was approved to burn waste oils several years ago). Lafarge wants to burn 

whole tires (Ash Grove was approved to burn whole tires several years ago). So the two 

plants want to expand their fuels to compete directly with each other.” We feel that 

economic considerations are being placed over the concerns about human and wildlife 

health.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 382-

7007 or htrim@pugetsound.org.

Sincerely,

Heather Trim

Urban Bays Coordinator

Agency Response to People for Puget Sound

Ash Grove's proposal is based on replacing the burning of 100% coal fuel with the burning 

of a blend of 88% coal and 12% used oil as limited by the Agency permit conditions. The 

burning of used oil replaces a portion of coal which is a cleaner fuel. The burning of tires 

as a fuel was not part of this analysis because the emissions from tires and coal is lower 

than using 100% coal and because Ash Grove obtained authorization to uses whole tires as 

a substitute fuel previously (Order of Approval No. 5755 dated March 30, 1995). Tires are 

typically a cleaner fuel than coal. Therefore, the most conservative scenario is to compare 

the emissions from burning a blend of coal and used oil with the emissions from burning 

100% coal.

The operation of the cement kiln at Ash Grove does not trigger the definition of incinerator 

as defined in WAC 173-434 nor is the raw materials or fuels classified as solid waste. This 

cement kiln operates at temperatures above 2800F which is over a 1000F hotter than that 

found in incinerators (incinerators operate at 1600 - 1800F). Also, because a cement kiln 

is hundreds of feet long the combustion residence time lasts for many seconds versus 

fractions of seconds as found in incinerators.

Comment #1 Re-evaluation of the facility

The Ash Grove application to burn used oils has been evaluated following Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency Regulation I, Article 6; WAC 173-400; and WAC 173-460. These rules 

give this Agency permitting authority for evaluating the establishment of a new source. In 

this case, the burning of used oil in this existing cement kiln as a replacement fuel for coal 

is defined as a new source and so this Agency's approval of NOC 9229 would only be for 

the new fuel. All the existing equipment and operations have already been evaluated and 

approved under existing Orders of Approval prior to this Notice of Construction.

Comment #2 Cumulative Impact

The Table named "AGENCY Estimation of Maximum Metal Emissions while Burning Used Oil 

with Coal" above compares the maximum annual emission of metals from burning 100% 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 111 of 122

coal fuel with the burning of a blend of 88% coal and 12% used oil. Typical levels of lead 

in coal have been found to be about 0.9 ppm. WAC 173-303-515 limits used oil to 100 ppm 

of lead. The difference between burning 100% coal and burning 88% coal with 12% used 

oil blend is 0.074 lb of lead per year (0.002 lb of cadmium per year). This analysis assumes 

none of the metals become incorporated into the cement product and that none of metals 

are captured by the baghouse.

The every small increase in lead and cadmium assumed in the worst case scenario would 

produce a very small ambient impact as follows:

Compound Averaging time Maximum 

Emissions

Maximum

Ambient Impact

Ambient Source Impact 

Level (ASIL)

% of ASIL

Lead 24-hour 1.0x10-06 g/s 5.3x10-9μg/m30.050 μg/m30.00001%

Cadmium Annual 1.2x10-07 g/s 2.4x10-8μg/m30.00056 μg/m30.004%

Therefore, the ambient impact of lead or cadmium is significantly below the acceptable 

source impact levels at the point of maximum ground level concentration. These are the 

only two metal constituents which were projected to have emission increases (using the 

analysis described above). The proposed approval conditions include testing to verify these 

conclusions. A cumulative impacts analysis, as envisioned by this comment, is not a part of 

the Notice of Construction review as the ASIL’s define the criteria for approval. The 

Washington Department of Health study referenced was begun with no direct linkage to 

any new or modified source action as a trigger and a cumulative impacts review is broader 

than any source specific application.

Comment #3a

The Statement of Basis was written to support the Title V air operating permit that was 

issued May 15, 2004. The emission summary for 1995 to 2001 was the latest information 

available at that time prior to issuing the permit.

The reported emissions for the years 2002 to 2005, which is also available to the public, are

as follows:
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 112 of 122

CAS # Chemical Name VOC TAC HAP

2002 Total 

Tons

2003 Total 

Tons

2004 Total 

Tons

2005 Total 

Tons

CO Carbon Monoxide No No No 1414 1197 1285 1468

NO2 Nitrogen Oxides No No No 1213 1035 1266 1580

PM10 Particulate Matter No No No 50 39 43 51

PM2.5 Particulate Matter No No No 40 31 34 40

SO2 Sulfur Oxides No No No 188 148 150 34

50-00-0 Formaldehyde Yes Yes Yes * * 5 6

67-64-1 Acetone No Yes No * * 6 7

7664-41-7 Ammonia (NH3) No Yes No * * 3 3

Totals VOC * * 5 6

Totals TAC * * 14 16

Totals HAP * * 5 6

* Not Measured before 2004

Comment #3b

Fugitive emissions are addressed in the Title V permit. The frequency of fugitive emissions 

and complaints have significantly decreased since the issuance of the Title V permit.

Ash Grove's permit contains significant procedures requiring monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting whenever fugitive dust emissions are observed or complaints are received. 

Fugitive dust emissions by virtue of the fact that they are not released from stacks 

generally do not have quantifiable methods for direct measurements, making the exercise

of estimating fugitive dust emissions an attempt in quantifying the unquantifiable. The 

current regulations governing visible emissions and the requirements for reasonable 

control measures, roof top inspections and fugitive dust control measures are adequate to 

maintain compliance with the permit.

Comment #3c

While Ash Grove has had significant dust complaints in the past, currently there have been 

few dusting incidences. The situation as it stands at Ash Grove indicates that historical 

fugitive dust problems have been addressed through improvements in equipment and 

operational practices. This Notice of Construction is for the burning of used oil as a 

supplemental fuel whose emissions are controlled by the main baghouse which is not a 

fugitive dust emission point.

Comment #3d
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 113 of 122

One of the best ways to dispose of PCBs which are persistent environmental chemicals is by 

destruction in a cement kiln. Condition No. 5 limits PCB below the trigger value set by 

EPA and Condition No. 6 requires monitoring each shipment of used oil.

Comment #4

The Agency staff associated with activities at Ash Grove and the inspection frequency has 

not changed. Also, please see responses to Comments #3c and #5.

Comment #5

Ash Grove is required to operate a system of continuous emission monitors for opacity, 

SO2, NOx, and CO. Lafarge has continuous emission monitors for opacity and SO2. The 

source testing requirements contained in Agency Orders for both Lafarge and Ash Grove 

help to establish emission pollutant factors not directly measured by the continuous 

emission monitors.

Both plants measure dioxin as required by 40 CFR 63, Subpart LLL. Ash Grove like 

Lafarge, has made equipment improvements and changes as parts of Agency Orders that 

have helped to significantly improve operations, control emissions and reduce complaints.

Condition No. 9 requires the measurement of formaldehyde, HCl, metals, and dioxin.

All Agency records are available to the public including the testing reports required for 

Ash Grove.

In addition to inviting public comments for this Notice of Construction applicaiton, the 

Agency has held two public hearings in response to citizen inquires for this proposed 

action.

Comment #6

The emissions from the Ash Grove stack are controlled with a 200,000 cubic feet per 

minute baghouse. Large sized particulates (greater than 10 microns) that would be 

expected to settle out of the ambient air and become deposited on the ground are very well 

controlled (more than 99.9% are captured). Because the Agency makes the conservative 

estimate of comparing the maximum ground level concentration from the model to the 

concentration from the Acceptable Source Impact Levels table, the point of maximum 

concentration is not specified. This effectively assumes that the maximum concentration is 

everywhere.

Comment #7

As you indicate, dioxin tests are required every 30 months. The dioxin testing is being 

conducted on schedule at Ash Grove and emissions continue to demonstrate complaince 

with the requirements and standards of 40 CFR 63.1349(d). Dioxin source test are 

repeated every 30 months. Ash Grove conducted their most recent dioxin test during the 

week of February 12, 2007. The results will be available in less than 60 days. The last 

dioxin source test results on October 13, 2004, required by 40 CFR 63, Subpart LLL, shows 

that Ash Grove is well below the required NESHAPS standard.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 114 of 122

The dioxin standard is 0.02 ng/dscm (0.02 nanogram per dry standard cubic meter).

The October 13, 2004 dioxin source test measured dioxin with the following results.

Raw Mill - ON -- 0.000431 ng/dscm.

Raw Mill - OFF -- 0.002370 ng/dscm.

The status when the raw mill operates occurs about 90% of the time, while the status when 

the raw mill is not operating occurs about 10% of the time during the year.

Therefore, Ash Grove's emissions of dioxin is about 2% of the standard (during 90% of the 

year) and the emissions of dioxin is about 12% of the standard (during 10% of the year).

Comment #8

There are no continuous emission monitors for HCl or formaldehyde at this plant. These 

emissions are measured by source tests on the main stack baghouse during raw mill 

grinding operations.

The raw mill grinder is not an emission control device. It is equipment designed for 

processing raw materials in preparation for the kiln. The raw mill grinder (about 4 - 5 feet 

in diameter) operates about 90% of the time the kiln operates. The raw mill grinder is 

designed to be replaced during the balance of the kiln's operation. The function of the raw 

mill grinder is to grind raw materials to a powder usable in the kiln to make clinker for 

cement. The main raw material is primarily limestone with additions of lime, sand, clay, 

iron ore, aluminum silicates, natural gravel, fly ash, and gypsum. There are also smaller

amounts of materials added including calcium, silica, iron, and alumna, bottom ash, slag 

and gypsum board. Waste heat from the kiln, which would otherwise be lost, is used in the 

processing of the raw materials. By using this waste heat Ash Grove improves kiln 

efficiency which reduces the use of coal and thereby there occurs a reduction in the 

generation of CO2, a greenhouse gas. This reduction in greenhouse gases indirectly affects 

emissions.

During the preparation of materials for the kiln the raw mill grinder does adsorb some 

gases when operating. However, the air pollution control system has been designed to 

effectively control emission below the standards even when the raw mill grinder is not 

operating.

As mentioned above Ash Grove Cement is subject to Subpart LLL of the NESHAPS. 

When any cement plant emits greater than 10 tons per year of any one toxic chemical or 25 

tons per year of all toxic chemicals, enhanced monitoring is triggered as a NESHAPS point 

source. Ash Grove continues to monitor their emissions demonstrating that they satisfy the 

NESHAPS area source criteria.

Comment #9

Please see responses to Comments No. 1 and 2 above.

Comment #10
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 115 of 122

Source tests preformed at Ash Grove for Order of Approval 5755 demonstrated 

compliance with the standards and showed that the emissions met the ASIL values. The 

testing results showed a decrease in emissions with the burning of tires. Order of Approval 

9229 is conservative in requiring Ash Grove to only use coal and used oils during the 

compliance tests.

Comment #11

The many conditions in the proposed Order of Approval define and delineate the required 

testing and monitoring Ash Grove is required to perform to maintain compliance while 

adding used oil as fuel to the cement kiln. Each shipment of used oil is monitored as 

required by Conditions # 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Comment #12

See response to Comment # 10 above.

Comment #13

By allowing both cement plants to burn these additional fuels, the air emissions will in 

general be decreased. If these fuels are not burned in cement plants these fuels could 

unnecessarily be burned in locations with far less efficiency with significant increases in 

emissions. These materials would allow increased recycling of materials and increase 

efficiency of energy use.

Comment from Heidi Raykeil & JB Tellez

Comment on Air 

Operating Permit for Ash Grove.msg

Dear Mr. Austin --

My neighbor, Bob Anderton couldn't have put it better -- our family is in total agreement with 

his sentiments. Please don't allow my children to grow up breathing worse air than they already 

are down here. It is not safe.

From Bob's letter --

Dear Mr. Van Slyke and Mr. Austin:

I am not a scientist or an environmental lawyer, but I am a resident of Seattle's South Park 

neighborhood who is affected by poor air quality. I do not understand how burning "8640 

gallons per day of used oils" is not significant. I do understand the significance of a finding of

non-significance, however.

I am requesting that the determination of non-significance be reviewed and the application be 

scrutinized to allow for additional pollution controls. South Park is already burdened by poor air 
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 116 of 122

quality. If the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush administration is unwilling or 

unable to do its job to protect people from pollution, then local agencies must rise to this 

challenge. Please protect us.

South Park residents understand that they live in an area mixed with industrial and residential 

uses and we value this. We do not wish to shut down industries. However, we want to breathe 

easy and, with the worst air quality in Seattle likely to get worse with unknown used oil 

contaminants, we cannot, at this time, do so.

Please let us know how the Puget Sound Clear Air Agency can help.

Thank you,

Bob Anderton

Sincerely,

Heidi Raykeil and JB Tellez

1010 S. Thistle St.

Seattle, WA

206-763-3866

Agency Response to Heidi Raykeil & JB Tellez

Please see the Agency response to Bob Anderton's comment.

Comment from Bob Anderton

Ash Grove Cement 

Hearing Question and Comment.msg

Dear Mr. Van Slyke and Mr. Austin:

I am writing as to whether yesterday's public hearing was cancelled due to the snow 

and ice. If was, please inform me (and the community) of the next hearing date. If it 

was not, please register this email as my comment and, if possible, respond to it.

I am not a scientist or an environmental lawyer, but I am a resident of Seattle's South 

Park neighborhood who is affected by poor air quality.

I do not understand how burning "8640 gallons per day of used oils" is not 

significant. I do understand the significance of a finding of non-significance, however.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 117 of 122

I am requesting that the determination of non-significance be reviewed and the 

application be scrutinized to allow for additional pollution controls.

South Park is already burdened by poor air quality. If the Environmental Protection 

Agency under the Bush administration is unwilling or unable to do its job to protect 

people from pollution, then local agencies must rise to this challenge. Please protect 

us.

South Park residents understand that they live in an area mixed with industrial and 

residential uses and we value this. We do not wish to shut down industries. However, 

we want to breathe easy and, with the worst air quality in Seattle likely to get worse with 

unknown used oil contaminants, we cannot, at this time, do so.

Please let us know how the Puget Sound Clear Air Agency can help.

Thank you,

Bob Anderton

Bob Anderton

Bike Lawyer and More

Representing People, Not Corporations

ANDERTON LAW OFFICE

710 Second Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98104

Phone: 206-262-9290

Fax: 206-223-0884 E-mail: bob@andertonlaw.com

http://www.andertonlaw.com

http://www.washingtonbikelaw.com

This message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended 

recipient, please reply to sender only and delete the message. Thank you.

Agency Response to Bob Anderton

The burning of used oils as a fuel in the cement kiln means there is less coal 

burned as fuel.

This kiln has been permitted to burn coal. This application would allow burning 

used oils as a substitute for some coal in the kiln. The emissions from burning 

used oils are less than that from burning coal. Please see the Agency response 

above to Heather Trim especially the Agency response to comment No. 3.

Comment from M.C. Halvorsen

FW Meeting 

Regarding Ash Grove Proposal.msg
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 118 of 122

From: m.c. halvorsen [mailto:teddy2halle@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:41 PM

To: Steve Van Slyke

Subject: Meeting Regarding Ash Grove Proposal

Dear Steve:

Although I had planned to attend the meeting tonight, January 11, 2007 at the South Park Center, 

I find that the road are too icy for me to be out driving.

I do have a question and wanted to bring it to the attention of the people in charge of this 

proposal. Why isn't the Company interested in installing scrubbers which would prevent 

particles from entering the air? Is it cost? If so, couldn't a tax credit of some kind be given 

because it would improve the overall quality of the air in the area?

I don't know what the objection to scrubbers is. In europe, they are required on all incinerators.

Back east, the incinerators are proud of thier scrubbers. WhI was in the Mid-West, people were 

bragging how improved their air quality was by installing scrubbers. Seattle likes to brag that it 

leads the nation in environmental issues, but it is certainly lagging behind on this one.

M. C. Halvorsen

10002 Aurora Ave. N., 35546

Seattle, Wa 98133

206-766-9416

Agency Response to M.C. Halvorsen

Ash Grove Cement operates a baghouse to control particulate with a dry scrubber to 

control acid gases. There are many different technologies used to control air pollution 

emissions. The operation of a baghouse at a cement plant is recognized as having the best 

efficiency at capturing particulate.

Comment from Ash Grove Cement

January 15, 2007

Mr. Fred Austin

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

110 Union Street, Suite 500

Seattle, WA. 98101-2038

Re: Comments on Notice of Construction # 9229 and Draft Modification of Air Operating Permit 

# 11339
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 119 of 122

Dear Mr. Austin:

Ash Grove Cement Company submit the following comments regarding Notice of Construction 

# 9229 and Draft Modification of Air Operating Permit # 11339.

The header on the Statement of Basis document should be changed from Saint-Gobain to Ash 

Grove Cement.

1. Section I.B.6 of the Statement of Basis document incorrectly specifies the emission standard 

for dioxins and furans. The standard should state that the dioxin limit of 0.4 ng/dscm (TEQ) 

at 7% O2 when the average of the Kiln baghouse temperatures are equal to or less than 400 

F during the performance test (40 CFR 63.1343(d)(2)) and 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ) at 7% O2 

when the average of the Kiln baghouse inlet temperatures are greater than 400 F during the 

performance test (40 CFR 63.1343(d)(1)).

2. Section EU 1.26 of the draft Title V permit. The applicable emission standards for dioxins 

and furans apply to air pollution control device inlet temperatures, not the mill mode of 

operation. Ash Grove requests this requirement paraphrase be modified to reflect the 

standard as written.

3. Section EU 1.36 of the draft Title V permit. The referenced EU 1.50 in the requirement 

paraphrase section does not exist. The reference should be corrected to read EU 1.38.

4. Section II.B.5 (a) of the draft Title V permit and item #4 of NOC 9229 requires that kiln 

operating hours are to be reported on a daily basis. This additional requirement to that is 

unnecessary. Section C.4(c) currently requires in kiln operating hours are to be reported on a 

monthly basis. Ash Grove requests that this additional reporting requirement is deleted from 

Section II.B.5(a) and Section C.4(c) the draft AOP and item #4 NOC 9229.

5. Section II.B.12 (b) of the draft Title V permit and item #9(e) of NOC 9229. Rather than 

specify a source test method for Formaldehyde, HCl, and Metals, Ash Grove requests that it 

retain the flexibility to propose any air test method with written prior approval from the 

agency.

6. Section II.B.12 (b) of the draft Title V permit and item #9. Ash Grove questions the 

requirement to conduct performance tests both with and without used oil. The performance 

test should only require testing while using used oil to determine if the facility maintains its 

status as an area source and demonstrate compliance with other applicable emission limits.

7. Section II.B.12 (b) of the draft Title V permit and item #10 (e) and 10(f) of NOC 9229. The 

requirement to record the Burnability Index and Variability of the raw mix during the 

performance test has no relevance on whether the facility can demonstrate compliance with 

emission limits and should be deleted as a requirement.

8. Please note that the expected NOx, SOx, and CO data to be reported when the performance 

test demonstration is performed should not be used to project any longer-term emission 

increases for PSD analysis or anything else. If this is the case, a longer averaging time 

should be used and a pre-test baseline establish for comparisons to be made against.

Yours truly,

Gerald J. Brown

Manager Safety and Environmental
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 120 of 122

Agency Response to Ash Grove Cement

1. Section I.B.6 of the Statement of Basis document incorrectly specifies the emission standard 

for dioxins and furans. The standard should state that the dioxin limit of 0.4 ng/dscm (TEQ) at 

7% O2 when the average of the Kiln baghouse temperatures are equal to or less than 400 F 

during the performance test (40 CFR 63.1343(d)(2)) and 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ) at 7% O2 when the 

average of the Kiln baghouse inlet temperatures are greater than 400 F during the performance 

test (40 CFR 63.1343(d)(1)).

Correction noted.

2. Section EU 1.26 of the draft Title V permit. The applicable emission standards for dioxins 

and furans apply to air pollution control device inlet temperatures, not the mill mode of 

operation. Ash Grove requests this requirement paraphrase be modified to reflect the standard as 

written.

Correction noted.

3. Section EU 1.36 of the draft Title V permit. The referenced EU 1.50 in the requirement 

paraphrase section does not exist. The reference should be corrected to read EU 1.38.

Correction noted.

4. Section II.B.5 (a) of the draft Title V permit and item #4 of NOC 9229 requires that kiln 

operating hours are to be reported on a daily basis. This additional requirement to that is 

unnecessary. Section C.4(c) currently requires in kiln operating hours are to be reported on a 

monthly basis. Ash Grove requests that this additional reporting requirement is deleted from 

Section II.B.5(a) and Section C.4(c) the draft AOP and item #4 NOC 9229.

The requested change has been made to both the Order of Approval conditions and the 

operating permit document. The requirement for daily recording of used oil volume fired 

is directly related to the allowable volume, but a daily kiln operational hours record does 

not relate to this specific requirement.

5. Section II.B.12 (b) of the draft Title V permit and item #9(e) of NOC 9229. Rather than 

specify a source test method for Formaldehyde, HCl, and Metals, Ash Grove requests that it 

retain the flexibility to propose any air test method with written prior approval from the agency.

A provision has been added to allow for alternative methods to be used only after review 

and approval by the Agency.

6. Section II.B.12 (b) of the draft Title V permit and item #9. Ash Grove questions the 

requirement to conduct performance tests both with and without used oil. The performance test 

should only require testing while using used oil to determine if the facility maintains its status as 

an area source and demonstrate compliance with other applicable emission limits.

Previous tests have shown significant differences in emissions between the Raw Mill both 

"On" and "Off". These tests will verify the correct emissions for these two scenarios and 

also establish the correct emission factors for calculating annual emissions.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 121 of 122

7. Section II.B.12 (b) of the draft Title V permit and item #10(e) and 10(f) of NOC 9229. The 

requirement to record the Burnability Index and Variability of the raw mix during the 

performance test has no relevance on whether the facility can demonstrate compliance with 

emission limits and should be deleted as a requirement.

In order to establish a base line and document differences between burning 100% coal 

versus burning a coal and used oils blend, the values for the Burnability Index and the 

variability of the raw materials need to be established to show that differences in emissions 

are caused by differences in fuels rather than any differences in raw materials or patterns 

caused by combustion parameters. Also, when Ash Grove requested the ability to increase 

the emission limit of NOx, part of the background of information included the changes that 

had occurred in the Burnability Index.

8. Please note that the expected NOx, SOx, and CO data to be reported when the performance 

test demonstration is performed should not be used to project any longer-term emission increases 

for PSD analysis or anything else. If this is the case, a longer averaging time should be used and 

a pre-test baseline establish for comparisons to be made against.

The Agency recognizes that these tests are designed to be used to document changes in 

emissions as a function of fuel changes. The results of these tests would help Ash Grove in 

estimating annual emissions based on the annual ratio of fuel usages.

Administrative Amendment 1 to Operating Permit (7/13/07)

Ash Grove requested an Administrative Amendment (received June 18, 2007) to the operating 

permit to delete the monitoring requirement in Section II.A.5 of the permit. This request 

represents a request to correct a typographical error found in the modified permit that was issued 

on May 17, 2007. In the permit modification action completed on May 17, 2007, the Agency 

deleted Condition I.A.12 of the permit because it was no longer an applicable requirement. 

Condition I.A.12 had included requirements found in Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation 

I, Section 9.15(b) (effective date 8/10/89). That regulation was a SIP approved requirement 

when the original Ash Grove Air Operating Permit was issued on May 15, 2004. Subsequent 

changes to this Agency‟s regulations and SIP approval actions by EPA eliminated that as an 

applicable requirement. This superseded requirement that no longer exists related to vehicle 

track out and spillage of particulate matter on public roadways. Section II.A.5 of the permit 

represented a monitoring requirement created through gap filling for this one applicable 

regulation alone in the permit. When the SIP update eliminated the provision found in Condition 

I.A.12 in the permit, it ceased to be an applicable requirement. In an attempt to clean up the 

obsolete conditions in the permit, we deleted that requirement but failed to delete the monitoring 

provisions that were specifically linked to it. The Agency concurs with the request as an 

administrative amendment as it represents a typographical error and oversight in the preparation 

of the last modification. If this amendment were not completed, then the monitoring in Section 

II.A.5 of the permit would be an orphan, having no underlying requirement for the monitoring 

and without an authority for a gap filling permit term.
Statement of Basis for Ash Grove 

Administrative Amendment 2, issued 12/2/10 Page 122 of 122

Administrative Amendment 2 to Operating Permit (12/2/10)

Ash Grove requested an Administrative Amendment (received October 12, 2010) to the 

operating permit to change the responsible official to Todd Hinton. That change was made 

November 1, 2010 and a letter to that effect was sent to Dan Peters who requested the update.