Southwest Regional Clean Air Agency
Title V Program Review
(2nd Round)
EPA Region 10
Final November 4, 2019
-------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 3
SWCAA's Title V Program 3
Program Review Objective and Overview 3
Program Review Report Structure 5
II. Follow-up to 2007 Program Review 6
Section A. Title V Permit Preparation and Content 6
Section C. Monitoring 9
Section D. Public Participation and Affected State Review 12
Section E. Permit Issuance / Revision / Renewal 13
Section F. Compliance 14
III. Additional Review 16
New Concerns 17
IV. Summary of Concerns and Recommendations 19
Concerns 19
Recommendations 19
Attachments
1 Program Review Kickoff Letter and Information Request, April 30, 2019
2 Program Review Information Request Response, June 5, 2019
3 Title V Operating Permit System Reported Data Summary
4 SWCAA's Response to the Draft Report, September 30, 2019
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 2
-------
I. Introduction
This report documents the (2019) second review of the Southwest Regional Clean Air Agency's
(SWCAA's) Title V permitting program. The first Title V program review for SWCAA was
completed in September 2007.
SWCAA's Title V Program
The Southwest Regional Clean Air Agency is a local air pollution control agency with
jurisdiction in five counties in southwestern Washington: Clark, Cowlitz, Lewis, Skamania and
Wahkiakum. SWCAA implements the state of Washington operating permit regulations found in
Washington Administrative Code 173-401, but has their own fee rules. The Environmental
Protection Agency Region 101 granted SWCAA full approval of its title V program, effective
September 12, 2001. 66 FR 42439 (August 13, 2001). A revision to Washington's Title V rules
was approved, effective on January 2, 2003. 67 FR 71479 (Dec 2, 2003). We have not approved
any revisions to Washington's title V program since 2003. SWCAA has revised their fee rules
since 2003; these revisions did not require EPA approval.
SWCAA currently issues Title V permits to approximately 17 sources. There are four permit
writers that are responsible for writing Title V permits as well as processing construction
permits, inspecting sources, reviewing source test reports, reviewing emission inventories and
other miscellaneous duties. Each permit writer is assigned specific sources for performing all of
these responsibilities. There are other staff that provide management, administrative,
enforcement and accounting support to the Title V program.
Program Review Objective and Overview
The EPA initiated Title V program reviews in response to recommendations in a 2002 Office of
Inspector General audit. The objective of broader program reviews (as opposed to individual
permit reviews) is to identify good practices that other agencies can learn from, document areas
needing improvement and learn how the EPA can help improve state and local Title V programs
and expedite permitting.
The EPA set an aggressive initial national goal of reviewing all state and local Title V programs
with 10 or more Title V sources. SWCAA was one of ten Title V programs in Region 10
reviewed between 2004 and 2007. Here is the list of agencies in Region 10 reviewed in the first
round along with the final report date and an approximate number of Title V sources they
regulated when reviewed:
Permitting Authority (first round)
Report
Date
Permits
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
January
2004
59
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
June
2006
111
Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (OR)
June
2006
19
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (WA)
August
2006
10
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (WA)
September
2006
35
Washington Department of Ecology
September
2006
27
Northwest Clean Air Agency (WA)
September
2006
21
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
September
2006
158
Olympic Regional Clean Air Agency (WA)
September
2007
15
Southwest Clean Air Agency (WA)
September
2007
12
1 In this report, the term "EPA" refers to the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a nationwide
agency. The term "Region 10" and the first-person plural (we/us/our) refer to EPA Region 10.
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 3
-------
In response to a follow-up review by the Office of Inspector General, the EPA also committed to
repeat the reviews of all Title V programs with 20 or more Title V sources every four years
beginning in 2007. The original, second-round commitment covered each of the four state
programs in Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington) as well as two local agencies in
Washington (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and Northwest Clean Air Agency). In September
2016, we fulfilled that commitment and decided to continue second-round reviews for the
remaining agencies that were reviewed in the first round, but not yet reviewed for a second time.
Below is the list of agencies reviewed to date in the second round along with the final report
date. All of the program review reports can be found on Region 10's air permitting website.2
Permitting Authority (second round)
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (WA)
Northwest Clean Air Agency (WA)
Washington Department of Ecology
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (OR)
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (WA)
Report Date
September 2007
September 2008
September 2013
September 2014
September 2015
September 2016
September 2017
November 2018
In the first title V program review, we covered all major elements of a title V program. In the
second round of program reviews, we focused on issues specific to each permitting authority's
implementation of its permitting program. Of particular interest is how each authority has
addressed the concerns identified in the first review. We also considered permit issuance
progress, resources, compliance assurance monitoring (which is required to be added during
permit renewal for most sources) and how programs have integrated new requirements and rules
into their permits and program.
To prepare for this review, Region 10 sent a letter in April 2019 requesting specific information
from SWCAA (Attachment 1). Region 10 reviewed SWCAA's emailed response (compiled as
Attachment 2) which included, as requested, a staff list, financial records, and an update
regarding each of the concerns raised in 2007.
Region 10 also reviewed past permit issuance data SWCAA reported to the Title V Operating
Permits System (Attachment 3) and a selection of recently-issued permits. Permits issued more
recently were intentionally selected for review to provide a more accurate depiction of how
SWCAA's permits have changed since the first program review. The permits reviewed include
those listed in the table below, as well as six other permits for which only compliance assurance
monitoring implementation was reviewed - those six permits are specifically discussed in the
follow-up section for Concern C-3.
Permit No. Company Name & Location Date Issued
SW97-1-R2 City of Vancouver Westside Treatment Plant 01/25/2016
SW14-20-R0 Cowlitz County Landfill Castle Rock 10/10/2018
SW97-4-R3 Hampton Lumber Mills Randle 06/12/2018
SW18-23-R0 Weyerhaeuser Longview Lumber 06/18/2019
While on site at SWCAA's office on July 16-17, 2019, Region 10 staff interviewed permit
writing staff, finance staff and the agency management. The purpose of the interviews was to
2 https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/permit-program-reviews-epa-region-10
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 4
-------
clarify and discuss what was learned from the review of their permits and other information
provided by SWCAA. Region 10 staff and SWCAA staff discussed permit issuance progress,
program resources (and the fee program), general program implementation topics, and specific
issues identified during the previous review of SWCAA's program including compliance
assurance monitoring.
A draft report was shared with SWCAA on September 1, 2019. SWCAA replied with responses
to each of the concerns raised in the draft report on September 30, 2019, and a request to discuss
New Concern #4 (see Attachment 4). Region 10 held a conference call with SWCAA on October
30, 2019, discussing New Concern #4 and original Concern F-l, concluding that the two
agencies understood each other on those topics. Region 10 is satisfied with SWCAA's responses
to the concerns identified in the report.
Program Review Report Structure
This program review report is presented in four main sections:
I. Introduction
II. Follow-up to 2007 Program Review
III. Additional Review
IV. Summary of Concerns and Recommendations
Section I presents background information regarding SWCAA's Title V program as well as an
overview of Region 10's program review plan. Section II presents Region 10's evaluation of
SWCAA's progress in resolving concerns identified in the 2007 program review. Section III
presents additional observations from Region 10's review of SWCAA's individual permits and
other information provided. Finally, Section IV summarizes Region 10's second-round concerns
and presents Region 10's recommendations for resolving any outstanding issues.
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 5
-------
II. Follow-up to 2007 Program Review
In the initial Title V program review, finalized in September 2007, Region 10 provided
observations delineated into nine separate topic areas labeled A through I. In each section,
Region 10 identified good practices, concerns and other observations and asked SWCAA to
respond to the concerns identified. In January 2008, SWCAA responded to Region 10 addressing
the concerns identified by Region 10.
This section of the second-round program review report presents Region 10's evaluation of the
progress SWCAA has made in addressing the concerns identified in the initial program review.
Each of Region 10's original concerns is listed below, followed by SWCAA's 2007 responses,
SWCAA's 2019 update, and, finally, Region 10's second-round (Round 2) evaluation.
Section A. Title V Permit Preparation and Content
A-l 2007 EPA Concern: Each of the permits reviewed had a different list of standard
conditions or included similar standard conditions with different wording or even titles.
Each of the permits appears to be missing standard provisions that should be in the
permits. SWCAA should develop a list of standard provisions that they will add to all
Title V permits in a consistent manner. One of the standard provisions is titled "Permit
appeals." This condition describes the state appeal process, but makes no mention of the
federal appeal (petition) process. If SWCAA does not think it is appropriate to add the
federal appeal option to their standard provisions, they should at least explain it in the
Basis Statement and in their public noticing materials.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA believes its permitting process is in compliance with
this comment on the use of standardized conditions. SWCAA's permit development
process includes the incorporation of a consistent list of standard conditions for all of the
Title V permits the agency issues. However, the list of standard conditions is updated and
revised from time to time based on feedback from sources/EPA and changes in applicable
regulations. Since the "upgrade" process is continual, standard conditions will be similar
for permits issued in a contemporaneous time frame, but will differ from one time period
to another. These differences are noticeable, and to be expected, when reviewing permits
issued in different time frames. SWCAA believes it is important to maintain a standard
list of conditions, and will continue this practice in the future. SWCAA agrees that it will
be beneficial for sources to have the Federal appeal process cited in their Title V permits,
and will begin doing so on all future permits.
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA considers this concern addressed. SWCAA includes
each of the standard terms and conditions from WAC 173-401-620 in each permit. This
includes item (i) Permit Appeals where this section makes reference to RCW 43.2IB.310
and Section 505(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act.
Round 2 Evaluation: The two sections of the permits that include Standard Provisions
and General Terms and Conditions were different in all four permits reviewed. The
differences include the order and titles of the specific conditions, the text of certain
conditions, the citations and missing conditions. Some differences can be expected over
time with changing rules and policies, but that doesn't explain the differences that still
exist between the permits today. SWCAA should consider adding to all permits a general
reporting requirement to submit a test plan (and describing the minimum content),
consistent with SWCAA 400-106. The requirement could explain what the test plan must
cover and include notification/reporting details and operating rates, monitoring and
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 6
-------
recording required during testing. SWCAA should also consider adding a provision that
captures the monitoring and reporting requirement that could apply if a source concludes
under WAC 173-400-720(4)(b)(iii)(D) that a modification is not subject to PSD.
SWCAA should develop a consistent list of the Standard Provisions and General Terms
and Conditions to include in all Title V permits. When a condition is changed, SWCAA
should communicate that change to all of its permit writers to ensure all future permits
remain consistent.
A-2 2007 EPA Concern: The permits and Basis Statements reviewed included a list of
emission units. In all cases, it appeared that several plant activities were not addressed by
the list of emission units. In one case, a process handling cyclone and paved road traffic
was missing; in another, a fuel storage tank was missing. If only facility-wide
requirements apply to these missing emission units, it is not critical that they be in the
permit; however, the Basis Statement should still be clear in describing all of the
operations at the facility.
2007 SWCAA Response: The examples cited in this comment are pieces of equipment
and/or activities that are not regulated as emission units in the respective permits (i.e., the
activities are insignificant). Furthermore, Title V permits issued by SWCAA have a well
defined list of equipment and activities that are regulated as emission units. Washington
State's Title V rule (WAC 173-401) contains prescriptive language regarding which
pieces of equipment and/or activities are considered to be insignificant emission units.
While SWCAA agrees that there is value in specifically addressing selected
equipment/operations, the majority of insignificant activities do not merit comment (e.g.,
motor vehicle exhaust, street sweeping, landscaping activities, bathroom vents, etc.).
SWCAA's permitting practice has been to provide specific descriptions where deemed
necessary to clarify emission unit applicability, but not provide a detailed review of every
potential activity at a facility.
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA considers this item concern addressed. Each permit
contains a list of Emission Units (EU). Each permit does not necessarily contain every
piece of equipment/activity that is considered to be an insignificant emission unit (IEU).
The equipment/activities identified in the concern were insignificant emission units.
Categorically exempt insignificant emission units are not even required to be identified in
the permit application as specified under WAC 173-401-532.
Round 2 Evaluation: Describing IEUs in the permit emission unit list and/or Basis
Statement is important, as some IEUs such as road traffic can be significant particulate
matter emission sources. SWCAA does a good job of noting when generally applicable
requirements apply to IEUs. SWCAA has the authority to add specific monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for IEUs when necessary to assure compliance.
To the extent specific compliance assurance requirements are added to the permit, the
IEUs should be included in the permit emission unit list. When not included in the
permit, the Basis Statement can describe which general requirements apply to IEUs and
clarify whether emissions from IEUs are included in fee assessments. Other than asking
SWCAA to consider our suggestions, Region 10 does not consider this a concern that
warrants follow-up.
A-3 2007 EPA Concern: While it appears that SWCAA has clearly cited the approved and
unapproved versions of their regulation that are included in the permit as applicable
requirements, during the on-site interviews, SWCAA staff pointed out that keeping the
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 7
-------
regulatory citations organized has been a lot of work. They added that they may begin
leaving out the approved SIP citations when they have been replaced with newer versions
of regulations that were submitted to EPA several years earlier. While EPA understands
SWCAA's frustration with the SIP approval backlog, it is still EPA's policy that
requirements from the most recently approved SIP must be included in the permit, even if
SWCAA has adopted new regulations and submitted them to EPA for approval.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA's policy is to cite the most recently approved SIP in
the permits. The comment by SWCAA staff was meant to highlight the difficulties posed
by the incorporation of "obsolete" SIP rules, and encourage EPA to act more timely in
approving SIP submittals. This difficulty may not have been identified in other agency's
permits because SWCAA has noted that permits issued by other jurisdictions (including
EPA Part 71 permits) often do not cite rule adoption dates, and therefore it is unclear
which version of the rule is being cited (SIP versus most recent). In those cases,
SWCAA meant to convey that the affected agencies may be applying the most recent
version of the rule regardless of its SIP status. SWCAA attempts to identify all versions
of an applicable rule in its permit citations, but is aware that some of SWCAA's SIP rules
are over 10 years out of date. The SIP version of those rules often conflict with newer
versions and/or new EPA requirements. In some cases, sources can not simultaneously
comply with both the SIP version and the current version of a rule. Consequently,
SWCAA has generally "streamlined" competing versions of each rule in favor of the
most recent.
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA has implemented a revised method of identifying the
rules and versions of those rules that are applicable. SWCAA has inserted a table with a
single reference to each rule and version with all the dates in one location so it does not
have to be repeated each time the rule is cited in the permit. Progress has been made in
updating regulations in the SIP.
Round 2 Evaluation: SWCAA's idea to include one version of a rule in the permit and
address other versions of that rule in one place in a cross-referencing table is a good one;
however, it is important for SWCAA to ensure that streamlined rules are substantially the
same as the rule included. In checking only a few rules, some omitted rules were not the
same and should have been included separately in the permit. Also, some citations in the
cross-referencing table may be in error. SWCAA should also confirm the effective dates
of cited rules and clarify whether the date is the effective date of the SIP or the state/local
rule. General federal rules that apply to SWCAA rather than the source, such as 40 CFR
part 51 and 40 CFR part 52 (in general), are not applicable requirements. Specifically,
only Subpart WW of 40 CFR part 52 should be included; that will also cover EPA's
federal implementation plan for permitting greenhouse gas emissions from biomass
combustion found in 40 CFR 52.2497.
A-4 2007 EPA Concern: While SWCAA's Basis Statements have some good features, they
could be improved. Permitting, compliance and construction histories would be helpful;
the potential to emit should be presented to support any major/minor source claims or
applicability determinations that rely on it; and the applicability of requirements (CAM,
NSPS, NESHAP, etc) could have been explained better in some cases. SWCAA should
continue to look for ways to improve the Basis Statements.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA agrees with much of this comment, and will make
improvements where possible to improve look-back capability for enforcement issues and
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 8
-------
initiatives. However, SWCAA does not agree that all of the cited elements cited in the
comment belong in the Title V Statement of Basis. For example, the technical support
document for SWCAA's NSR permits provides a review of the NSR permitting history
of the affected facility. Repeating this information in the Title V Statement of Basis
would be redundant, and potentially adds significant volume to the Statement of Basis
with little added benefit. Also, some facilities have 40 or more historic NSR actions, and
selected actions have been obsolete for decades. Citing the old/obsolete NSR actions
would add confusion to the document when trying to explain currently applicable
requirements. SWCAA's Title V permits reference the source of each applicable
requirement, and the Statement of Basis for each Title V permit generally contains a
discussion of source history where deemed necessary to clarify the status of affected
emission units.
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA has added discussion of the potential to emit (PTE) for
each facility in the Statement of Basis to support the major source determination.
SWCAA also includes a discussion of relevant permitting and enforcement actions since
the last permitting activity. A discussion of CAM and NSPS and NESHAP applicability
is included in each Statement of Basis; sometimes as a general statement if none apply
and sometimes on an individual EU basis.
Round 2 Evaluation: SWCAA has taken several of Region 10's suggestions regarding
adding permitting and compliance histories to Basis Statements. A summary of the
potential to emit is included, though the details are not. A applicable/non-applicable
requirement section is included in some, though some listed requirements lack an
explanation as to why they are not applicable. CAM applicability was consistently noted,
but the justifications were often not adequate. See the discussion about CAM in Concern
C-3. Though SWCAA's Basis Statements can still be improved, they are much better
today.
Section C. Monitoring
C-l 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA relies on periodic inspections and visual observations (see
- no see decisions) as a first level for assuring compliance with several requirements.
Whenever visual checks are used, it is useful to clarify that the observers should be
trained in visual observations and utilize the general observation criteria found in EPA
Reference Method 22. Furthermore, a requirement to act on any observation of a visible
emission should not be required of sources that normally do exhibit some visible
emissions. In those cases, some other type of routine monitoring is more appropriate.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA utilizes a "see - no see" method only when the
expected opacity levels are zero. SWCAA also relies on Method 22 in many cases when
the applicable opacity standard is zero percent. In Method 22 Section 2.3, the method
states that determination of opacity is not required. Since this procedure requires only the
determination of whether visible emissions are present, and does not require
determination of opacity, observer certification pursuant to Method 9 is not necessary.
Where appropriate, SWCAA has required several facilities to make periodic Method 9
readings, and in a few instances, required the facilities to maintain at least one Method 9
certified observer. SWCAA works with each facility to ensure that the facilities are
capable of making visible emission determinations consistent with the requirements of
their Title V permits. SWCAA will continue to work with the facilities to ensure
appropriate use of the visible emission methods - both Method 9 and Method 22.
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 9
-------
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA utilizes a "see - no see" method only when the expected
opacity levels are zero. SWCAA also relies on Method 22 in many cases when the
applicable opacity standard is zero percent. In Method 22 Section 2.3, the method states
that determination of opacity is not required. Since this procedure requires only the
determination of whether visible emissions are present, and does not require
determination of opacity, observer certification pursuant to Method 9 is not necessary.
Where appropriate, SWCAA has required several facilities to make periodic Method 9
readings, and in a few instances, required the facilities to maintain at least one Method 9
certified observer. SWCAA works with each facility to ensure that the facilities are
capable of making visible emission determinations consistent with the requirements of
their Title V permits. SWCAA will continue to work with the facilities to ensure
appropriate use of the visible emission methods - both Method 9 and Method 22.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 still considers periodic walkthroughs and see-no see
observations a good approach for confirming ongoing compliance with visible and
fugitive emissions requirements. SWCAA requires RM22 in some permits but not all,
which is fine. Region 10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
C-2 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA often required monitoring baghouse pressure drop to
assure compliance with particulate and opacity emission limits. Monitoring experts
within EPA have concluded that pressure drop is not a reliable approach for monitoring
baghouse compliance. Alternatives to pressure drop include opacity and bag leak
detectors and can be combined with a good operation and maintenance program.
SWCAA should avoid relying on pressure drop monitoring to assure baghouse
compliance.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA utilizes periodic source emission testing and periodic
(usually monthly) visual observations (Method 22) as this comment suggests as the
primary method of determining compliance with particulate and opacity emission limits.
The suggested use of bag leak detectors has merit, and SWCAA will be exploring this
option in future permitting actions. SWCAA's use of baghouse pressure drop is a
secondary method of determining compliance with particulate and opacity emission
limits. It is a parameter that can be routinely monitored by plant staff and agency
representatives to provide a quick indication of performance.
2019 SWCAA Update: As mentioned in 2 above, SWCAA is moving away from
Method 22 as a monitoring provision. In addition, SWCAA agrees that monitoring of
baghouse pressure drop in itself, is not an indicator of compliance, but does provide an
indication of attention to operations and maintenance programs referred to above. To the
degree that this monitoring requirement continues to exist in NSR permits, this condition
will continue to be included in the Title V permit. As the opportunity arises in the NSR
permit program, this requirement will be phased out in favor of other monitoring
provisions.
Round 2 Evaluation: Where SWCAA requires baghouse pressure drop monitoring as a
secondary parameter, it is in addition to other, more appropriate monitoring. Region 10
agrees that pressure drop monitoring can be an indicator of the source's maintenance
program. Region still believes that bag leak detectors are another good alternative for
baghouses that require a more rigorous level of scrutiny than periodic observations
provide (e.g. when CAM applies). Region 10 does not consider this a concern that
warrants follow-up.
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 10
-------
C-3 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA's permits do not consistently address compliance
assurance monitoring (CAM) applicability and CAM-based monitoring decisions. CAM
is a very important aspect of Title V permits and should be clearly explained in Basis
Statements.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA agrees with this comment, and will be more diligent
in the future in addressing CAM determinations in the Statement of Basis, and provide
more detail regarding CAM based monitoring decisions in its Title V permits. Please
note that CAM does not apply to all of the Title V facilities at SWCAA. In addition,
selected SWCAA facilities are still operating under their original Title V permits. The
first round of SWCAA permits were issued prior to promulgation of the current CAM
requirements. Hence, CAM provisions are not addressed in those permits, but will
become applicable upon the first Title V permit renewal. SWCAA is incorporating CAM
provisions as appropriate in each renewal permit. SWCAA expects the incorporation of
CAM to have little impact on existing permit conditions because appropriate compliance
monitoring has already been established in the associated NSR permitting actions.
2019 SWCAA Update: Through the Title V permit renewal process, SWCAA has
incorporated CAM requirements into each Title V permit for each facility where CAM is
applicable or made a determination and documented that CAM is not applicable.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 reviewed the CAM analyses in the four permits
reviewed as part of this program review as well as six other permits, to evaluate
SWCAA's implementation of the CAM program. Region 10 is still very concerned about
SWCAA's approach to CAM applicability determinations and documentation. One
common mistake is the application of the exception of rules promulgated after 1990.
CAM applies to emission units that use a control device to comply with an emission
limitation that is not exempt from CAM. If the control device is used to comply with non-
exempt applicable emission limitations, CAM still applies. For instance, if an emission
unit is subject to a (post 1990) MACT standard and a SIP limitation and has a control
device needed to meet both requirements, SWCAA should apply CAM to the emission
unit for the SIP limitation, but not the MACT standard. Opacity limits should also be
factored into the CAM analysis. The CAM applicability analysis should address
baghouses, explaining those cases where the baghouse is actually used as process
equipment. Emission units that use continuous compliance determination monitors for a
specific pollutant are exempt from CAM. When an emission unit has a continuous
emission monitoring system that is not the compliance determination method (a reference
method test is the compliance determination method), but rather just an indicator of
compliance, the pollutant-specific emission unit is still subject to CAM. SWCAA's
permits should clarify when a required continuous monitoring system is the compliance
determination method. The Basis Statement (where the CAM applicability analysis
should be) should present pre- and post-control potential emissions (for applicability and
monitoring frequency decisions, respectively) as part of the CAM applicability analysis.
SWCAA should re-evaluate CAM applicability in their permits to assure CAM has been
applied correctly.
C-4 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA's permits often contained tiered approaches to monitoring,
commonly for opacity and particulate emission limits. The approach normally begins
with some sort of an observation which can lead to corrective actions, additional
observations and eventually deviation reporting. Only occasionally did the monitoring
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 11
-------
scheme lead to a reference method test (e.g. RM 9) and rarely to a particulate matter test.
Where initial observations indicate possible concerns about compliance, the permit can
be designed to automatically require a reference method test to confirm compliance. This
is particularly appropriate where the initially-observed concerns recur often or are not
promptly corrected. When renewing permits, SWCAA should add specific reference
method testing where appropriate and consider the use of "automated" test requirements.
2007 SWCAA Response: As noted in the comment, SWCAA's monitoring requirements
often include a tiered approach with progressively more sophisticated monitoring if there
is cause for concern in regard to observations or plant data which suggest areas of
possible noncompliance. SWCAA will incorporate specific reference method testing
where appropriate and add the use of "automated" test requirements.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no change to this response.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 continues to believe that tiered monitoring and testing
requirements can be useful permit writing techniques. SWCAA appears to use tiered
monitoring related to periodic inspections and visual observation, which can lead to RM9
opacity readings. There were few if any examples wherein a SWCAA permit required
emission testing if periodic monitoring identified an issue that was not quickly corrected
or a required emission test resulted in a limit exceedance or near exceedance. During the
onsite interviews, SWCAA explained that they handle those situations on a case-by-case
basis outside of the permit, which is acceptable. Region 10 still suggests SWCAA
consider adding automated testing and tiered monitoring/testing as built-in tools for
assuring ongoing compliance.
C-5 2007 EPA Concern: Occasionally, SWCAA's permits contained operation and
maintenance requirements mixed in with monitoring requirements. Monitoring is
generally used to identify problems (or assure there are no problems) while maintenance
is used to avoid problems or to address identified problems. Finally, operation and
maintenance requirements do not necessarily satisfy the need to have monitoring; in fact,
monitoring should be specified to assure compliance with any operation and maintenance
requirements. SWCAA should consider this type of clarification during future permit
renewals.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA will review each permit at renewal time to ensure
that monitoring activities are clearly separated from operations and maintenance
requirements.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no change to this response.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
Section D. Public Participation and Affected State Review
D-l 2007 EPA Concern: Like many of the permitting authorities across the country, SWCAA
provides the permittee with a pre-draft permit for review and comment before the draft
permit goes out for public comment. Soliciting the permittee's input on the factual
aspects of the permit can help to reduce errors in the permit and help educate the
permittee on its obligations under the permit. Working with the permittee on developing
the substantive requirements of the permit, however, can create the impression that the
permit issuance process is not an open process. SWCAA should carefully balance these
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 12
-------
interests as it works with permittees during the development and issuance of Title V
permits.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA does not work with the permittees when developing
substantive requirements. Substantive requirements are generally pre-existing,
originating from NSR permitting actions, applicable regulations, and other enforcement
documents. Substantive requirements are not open for negotiation or review under Title
V. Only the factual aspects of the permit are available for comment. SWCAA is very
diligent, and will continue to be diligent, to ensure that there is no appearance of a non-
open process.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response.
Round 2 Evaluation: This is generally not an issue when the agency documents the basis
for all of the requirements in the permit and assures that all comments received during the
public comment period are documented and addressed before the permit is issued.
SWCAA understand and implements their program this way. As long as SWCAA
continues to make the entire record available to the public during the public review
process, Region 10 is satisfied with SWCAA's approach for ensuring transparency. We
no longer consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
Section E. Permit Issuance / Revision / Renewal
E-l 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA noted that issuance of several permits has been delayed
due to NSR and MACT issues. In their last TOPS report (Jan thru June, 2007), three
permits had been extended past 5 years pending renewal and one significant modification
application was older than 18 months. EPA has recognized ways to avoid permit issuance
delays when new MACT standards and complicated NSR enforcement actions are not yet
resolved. SWCAA should continue to manage their workload in a practical way while
meeting the regulatory deadlines for permit issuance.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA has focused on this issue in recent months and as of
1/10/2008 only one permit is currently extended past 5 years. SWCAA has several
sources that are subject to MACT standards that have been promulgated and have been
vacated in full or in part. As noted previously, this situation has complicated the Title V
permitting process. SWCAA is working through each of these permits in an orderly and
informed fashion, but additional time is required in each case to ensure that appropriate
terms and conditions are incorporated into the final permit language.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response. One permit is currently
extended due to NSR and MACT incorporation and one permit is extended due to SSI
rule requirements that the facility is not in compliance with, so the permit cannot be
reissued.
Round 2 Evaluation: SWCAA reports its permit issuance progress to Region 10 semi-
annually. Attachment 3 to this report shows SWCAA's reported permit issuance data for
the past seven reporting periods (2018-1 is the first half of 2018, 2018-2 is the second
half). SWCAA's backlog in initial permits has never been more than one permit; has not
had any outstanding significant modification applications; and the backlog in renewal
(extended) permits has been reduced from 60% down to 12% over this reporting period,
an excellent trend. SWCAA clearly manages their permit workload very well. Region 10
does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 13
-------
E-2 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA does not require minor permit applications to include a
certification by a responsible official. This is required by Part 70. SWCAA should expect
certification with minor permit modifications.
2007 SWCAA Response: During the audit, SWCAA misunderstood this question to
relate to its minor source permit program. Upon further review, we understand the
question relates to minor modifications of a Title V permit. Under the SWCAA Title V
program, most submittals have contained a certification by a responsible official. In the
future, SWCAA will be more diligent to ensure that every permit action includes a
certification by a responsible official.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
E-3 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA's fee structure bases part of the fee on the number of
emission units to account for permit complexity. The emission unit concept in Title V
generally allows useful flexibility in grouping or non-grouping of plant site activities
based on a number of factors such as similar applicable requirements or operations. This
can make implementation of the permit requirements more practical. Placing a price (by
basing the fee) on the number of emission units can put these intentions at odds with each
other. SWCAA should consider ways to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the
emission unit concept despite the fee system design.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA does consider flexible approaches in making
emission unit groupings at affected facilities. The potential effect on fees is not a
consideration in grouping determinations. SWCAA's minor source program and Title V
program share a common emission unit structure that groups similar emission units when
it is practical for purposes of implementing requirements or operations. In practice,
grouping determinations are driven by the need to develop permit conditions that are
understandable and enforceable as a practical matter. Title V permit conditions are based
on major and minor source NSR permits. Only on a rare occasion are permit conditions
developed under the gap filling provisions of Title V. SWCAA tries to maintain as much
continuity as possible between the minor source and Title V permitting programs in
making these determinations.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
Section F. Compliance
F-l 2007 EPA Concern: Even where it was apparent that emission testing had been required
by and performed under a previously issued permit, rarely did the Basis Statement
discuss the results or rely on the results for making future testing or monitoring decisions.
Where testing was required, rarely were emission unit and control equipment operational
parameters recorded and related to the test results to assure the parameters monitored
truly represent compliance. Source-specific test data can be very useful for designing an
appropriate compliance monitoring approach. SWCAA should not only document the
results but consider them when requiring monitoring for future permits.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA will provide a better description of the testing history
of affected sources in the Statement of Basis for each Title V permit. It should be noted
that the majority of the equipment specific testing and monitoring requirements found in
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 14
-------
SWCAA's Title V permits are drawn directly from underlying NSR permits. Compared
with other air agencies, SWCAA has a long history of requiring emission testing and
compliance monitoring in its NSR permits. There has been little need for additional
measures to be implemented via the Title V permitting process. For other Washington
agencies where this has not been done, the Title V permitting process often includes the
development of comprehensive testing/monitoring schemes under Part 70 'gap-filling'
provisions. However, current EPA guidance for gap-filling monitoring precludes
SWCAA from using a Title V permit to change or 'enhance' testing/monitoring measures
established in underlying permits. Hence, SWCAA's Title V permitting actions have not
involved significant testing/monitoring decisions. If there is a compliance issue that
would benefit from source testing, SWCAA would require testing as part of the
compliance issue on a basis that is supported by the issue. These decisions are made as
part of the compliance process and generally are not anticipated or historically
documented in the Title V Statement of Basis.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response.
Round 2 Evaluation: There was little evidence in the Basis Statements reviewed that
SWCAA considers past test results when determining monitoring or testing frequency in
a permit. During the onsite interviews, SWCAA indicated that the frequency for testing
specified in the permit, commonly once every five years, was rarely adjusted based on
previous test results. Infrequent testing can provide an adequate assurance of compliance
if there is a history of consistently low test results (i.e. a good margin of compliance), but
may not be sufficient in all cases. To be sufficient, the frequency of testing should be
adjusted based on SWCAA's confidence in ongoing compliance and the relative margin
of compliance in past testing. The Basis Statement should consider past compliance data
(including test results and margins of compliance) and explain the basis for setting the
frequency of monitoring and testing in the permit. Finally, process and control equipment
parameters that are monitored as compliance surrogates should be linked to levels
recorded during compliance testing to help assure ongoing compliance.
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 15
-------
III. Additional Review
In addition to reviewing concerns identified in the first review, Region 10 requested an update
about program resources and permit issuance progress and reviewed several permits that were
issued by SWCAA within the last few years. The following permits were reviewed by Region 10
as part of this program review:
The focus of the permit reviews was generally on previously identified concerns and specifically
on compliance assurance monitoring requirements and incorporation of new requirements. In the
process of reviewing a selection of SWCAA's permits, we also gain a perspective of SWCAA's
general permit quality. CAM has been a recent focus for Region 10's oversight work for several
reasons. CAM is required to be applied in the initial permit for sources with "large" pollutant-
specific emission units and in the first renewal for all other emission units. Most pollutant-
specific emission units are not large, so CAM has been primarily implemented during the
renewal phase of the Title V program. Region 10 had a rigorous permit oversight program in the
early years of Title V. By the time state and local agencies were issuing renewal permits, Region
10 had scaled back its oversight program substantially and, in fact, reviewed very few permits
that addressed CAM. Beginning in fiscal year 2013, Region 10 began to review a small
percentage of state/local renewal permits to see how CAM was being addressed. A consistent
lack of documentation regarding CAM applicability and monitoring decisions in Basis
Statements was discovered. Logically, Region 10 decided to specifically review how CAM was
being addressed in permits as part of the second-round program reviews. Region 10's review of
SWCAA's CAM implementation is addressed in previous Concern C-3. SWCAA's
incorporation of new applicable requirements is covered in the New Concerns section of the
report below. Other new concerns about SWCAA's permits are also in that section of the report.
In reviewing the agency's permit issuance progress and resources, including their fee program
and staffing, we learn how the Title V program is being managed. Permit issuance problems,
namely large backlogs of unissued permits, are often linked to a lack of resources. SWCAA
appears to manage their fees and expenses very well. Combined with their small permit backlog,
Region 10 has no concerns about SWCAA's management of their resources. With the
information Region 10 requested, Region 10 received a copy of SWCAA's 2018 fee assessment
calculations and the Title V Fee Running Balance (see Attachment 2). SWCAA posts all their
past financial reports on their website. SWCAA uses the same fee structure as the Washington
Department of Ecology and other local agencies in Washington. Total Title V fees are divided
into three equal assessments each year: complexity (based on the number of emission units),
emissions (emitted by each Title V source) and a flat fee assessed to each Title V source. The
workload analysis has not been revised since 2007, which resulted an average facility fee basis of
$25,789 per year. The annual program budget is set by multiplying the number of Title V sources
by the fee basis. If collected fees are projected to be overspent, a supplemental billing is
assessed. Collected fees left over at the end of the year are carried into the next year where it
reduces the fees collected for that year. This is a fee good system that allows the agency a lot of
flexibility.
Permit No. Company Name & Location
SW97-1-R2 City of Vancouver Westside Treatment Plant
SW14-20-R0 Cowlitz County Landfill Castle Rock
SW97-4-R3 Hampton Lumber Mills Randle
SW18-23-R0 Weyerhaeuser Longview Lumber
Date Issued
01/25/2016
10/10/2018
06/12/2018
06/18/2019
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 16
-------
SWCAA's staff is likely the most experienced staff in a Region 10 Title V agency. Engineers are
assigned specific sources and serve as the permit writer, inspector and general agency reviewers
of all things related to the regulation of that source. Staff retention is exceptional at the agency.
SWCAA has one of the smallest permit backlogs of Region 10 agencies. Permit issuance
progress is addressed in previous Concern E-l.
New Concerns
1. Regarding SWCAA's incorporation of new requirements, Region 10 thinks it is a good
practice to add a section to the Basis Statement that describes the new applicable
requirements that are being added to a renewal permit. Including a broader-scoped section
that describes all changes to the permit (in this renewal) would also be good and could
encompass the new applicable requirements. SWCAA's Basis Statements did not have a
section that described the changes or even the new applicable requirements.
2. The incorporation of the boiler MACT to one permit reviewed could have been better.
Obsolete boiler MACT requirements included in the renewal could have been omitted. Some
compliance options that are clearly not options for that particular source also could have been
omitted. In those cases where the compliance option chosen by the source is clear, the Basis
Statement can explain that. If the other options are no longer possible, the permit can also be
cleaned up by removing the compliance options not used. Some Boiler MACT requirements
referenced with a citation in the permit should have been written fully into the permit. These
suggestions should be applied to all of the permits that SWCAA issues.
3. Related to citing the correct version of the SIP and SWCAA's rules, covered in Concern A-3,
where the applicable citations are listed for individual permit conditions, which may contain
several different requirements, SWCAA should be more specific about which requirements
in the condition are paired with each citation. SWCAA seems to be grouping "like"
requirements into a single permit condition from several applicable requirements. That is
acceptable as long as the individual citations are clearly linked to the correct requirement in
the condition.
4. In some of the permits reviewed, SWCAA paraphrased some applicable requirements.
Paraphrasing long or complicated applicable requirements is an acceptable practice as long as
the paraphrased version of the requirement is accurate and complete. If SWCAA is
concerned about the accuracy of the paraphrased version of the requirement, Region 10
suggests adding a general statement to the permit that clarifies that the underlying regulation
takes precedence when the wording is not exact. Note that this general statement will
effectively nullify the permit shield regarding compliance with the permit assuring
compliance with the underlying requirement. SWCAA should also consider this suggestion
when streamlining multiple requirements in one permit condition, where the individual
regulations are not exact. If including the general permit shield regarding compliance with
underlying requirements, SWCAA should be sure that paraphrased versions of those
underlying requirements are accurate and complete.
5. Several permits with hourly and annual emission limits did not include the compliance
method or, because the limits were listed in the same permit condition as other limits such as
concentration limits, included compliance methods that are only appropriate for
concentration limits (e.g. emission testing). All limitations, including hourly and annual
emission limits, must have appropriate compliance demonstration methods included in the
permit. Compliance with daily and annual limits generally requires an emission factor and
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 17
-------
process monitoring be specified in the permit. Changes to the required emission factors "off-
permit" should be done using a replicable procedure specified by the permit.
6. When limiting process parameters in a permit, such as temperature, the permit condition that
includes the limit should include the location of the monitor and the averaging period for
demonstrating compliance. Some permits described the averaging time in the associated
monitoring condition rather than the limit condition. Then, the process limit averaging time
and monitoring averaging time should match.
7. In some Basis Statements, SWCAA includes an Appendix that present an Applicable
Requirements Review. The Appendix states whether the requirement was included in the
permit, but does not always explain why. This seems like a logical place to explain
applicability and, more importantly, inapplicability. This appendix, complete with
justifications, would be a good addition to those Basis Statements that don't include it.
8. Region 10 reorganized changing our office and unit structure into a division, branch and
section structure. This changed our mailing addresses. Where SWCAA includes the address
for mailing copies of certain documents to Region 10, the permits should be revised
accordingly. Region 10 can supply the new addresses if needed.
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 18
-------
IV. Summary of Concerns and Recommendations
Concerns
Many of the concerns identified in the first-round program review have been resolved to Region
10's satisfaction, but some still need at least some attention. Region 10 is satisfied with
SWCAA's progress on 8 of the 14 concerns identified in the 2007 program review. Region 10
thinks SWCAA can still improve on the other six remaining original concerns. Region 10 has
identified seven new concerns that SWCAA should address and is providing information
regarding one new topic.
Region 10 has provided some new information regarding one topic. Due to a reorganization,
the titles and mailing addresses for all of Region 10's offices has changed. SWCAA should note
the new addresses for submitting information to Region; SWCAA should also update their
permits with the new address (New Concern 8).
Region 10 has suggestions SWCAA should consider regarding two topics. Region 10 still
thinks SWCAA should consider use of tiered monitoring and testing schemes in permits to help
assure ongoing compliance (Concern C-4). SWCAA should consider adding a section to the
Basis Statements that explains what changed from the previous permits, specifically noting the
new applicable requirements (New Concern 1).
SWCAA has made improvements to their permits and Basis Statements, but more
improvements can be realized for six original concerns and five new concerns. SWCAA
should develop a list of standard conditions to use consistently on all permits. (Concern A-l).
SWCAA should review the regulatory basis in each permit to confirm the citations are correct
and ensure that streamlined requirements are reflected in the resulting permit conditions
(Concern A-3). SWCAA can still generally improve their Basis Statements (Concern A-4).
SWCAA must improve their CAM applicability determinations and documentation (Concern C-
3). SWCAA should use and document the use of past test data to set monitoring and testing
requirements in permits (Concern F-l). SWCAA can improve the incorporation of new federal
requirements such as the boiler MACT (New Concern 2). SWCAA more clearly tie citations to
permit conditions with multiple requirements (New Concern 3). SWCAA should confirm
paraphrased permit conditions are accurate and include general language regarding the text in the
rule takes precedence (New Concern 4). SWCAA must ensure that hourly and annual emission
limits are enforceable as a practical matter (New Concern 5). SWCAA should clarify
process/control device limitation details and match the monitoring periods to the limitation (New
Concern 6). SWCAA should include a section in the Basis Statement that explains permit
changes in renewals and/or applicability/non-applicability for all reasonably applicable
requirements (New Concern 7).
Recommendations
Because SWCAA provided to Region 10 a response that explains what they plan to do to resolve
the 13 topics/concerns flagged in this Section (Concerns A-l, A-3, A-4, C-3, C-4 and F-l and
New Concerns 1 thru 7), and SWCAA and Region 10 discussed the only concerns that warranted
it (Concern F-l and New Concern #4), SWCAA does not need to provide another response to
Region 10. SWCAA should follow through on the commitments made in their September 30,
2019, response to Region 10 about the draft report. If SWCAA wants to further discuss any of
the concerns in the future, Region 10 will gladly accommodate that.
SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019
Page 19
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. . UNI I tL) i) I A I ti) tIMVIKUIMIVI tIM I AL
f REGION 10
5 . | 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155
Seattle, WA 98101-3123 air & radiation
DIVISION
Mr. Uri Papish
Executive Director
Southwest Clean Air Agency
Suite 1294
11815 NE 99th Street
Vancouver, WA 98682
Dear Mr. Papish:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 plans to perform a
second evaluation of the Southwest Clean Air Agency's title V operating permit program. This letter kicks off the
effort by describing the evaluation process and our proposed schedule. We are also requesting information that will
assist us in our program evaluation. Your agency will be the ninth of the second-round program evaluations that Region
10 will undertake.
This program evaluation will focus primarily on the following four areas: (1) follow-up on concerns identified during
our 2007 evaluation of your program; (2) permit issuance progress and resources; (3) compliance assurance
monitoring; and (4) new applicable requirements and rules. We will review a selection of your permits, focusing on
those issued more recently. This program review will require involvement of staff and managers from your permitting,
technical, finance and compliance groups. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance.
Our tentative schedule is as follows:
Task
Tentative Date
Region 10 sends kickoff letter
Today
SWCAA sends requested information
May 24, 2019
Region 10 visits SWCAA
July 16-17, 2019
Region 10 sends draft report
August 16, 2019
SWCAA sends comments to Region 10
September 6, 2019
Region 10 sends final report
September 30, 2019
The enclosure describes the information we would like to receive in advance, so we can be efficient during the onsite
interviews. Please return the information (preferably in electronic form) as early as possible, but no later than the date
in the table above, to Doug Hardesty (hardesty.doug@epa.gov) who will be leading the evaluation. We will contact you
if we need any additional information.
We look forward to working with you and your staff. If you have any questions about the program evaluation, please
do not hesitate to call me at (206) 553-1679 or Doug at (208) 378-5759.
Sincerely,
/s/April 30, 2019
Kelly McFadden, Manager
Stationary Source Unit
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Paul Mairose, SWCAA (electronic)
-------
Title V Program Evaluation
Southwest Clean Air Agency
Information Request
Please send the following information in electronic form as soon as possible, but no later than May 24, 2019, to Doug
Hardesty (hardesty.doug@epa.gov)
1. A list of Southwest Clean Air Agency staff that work in the title V program, noting their responsibilities (e.g.
permit writer, rule writer, inspector, etc.).
2. Identification of any title V permits, renewals, or revisions that are recent enough that they are not represented
on the Southwest Clean Air Agency website.
3. A list and description of any rule changes that have been made to Southwest Clean Air Agency's title V
regulations (e.g. those that affect applicability, implementation, or fees) since the last revision approved in
January 2003. If any of the rule changes have been submitted to Region 10 for review, note the date of
submittal.
4. An update regarding each of the concerns raised in the 2007 title V program evaluation, noting whether the
plan to address the concern was completed and whether Southwest Clean Air Agency is approaching any of the
concerns differently than previously communicated to Region 10 in January 2008. Provide a narrative
explaining the different approach, if applicable.
5. Any issues or requests that Southwest Clean Air Agency would like to raise to Region 10 regarding any aspect
of the title V program.
2
-------
June 5, 2019
Doug Hardesty
US EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 155
Seattle. W A 98101-3123
Subject: Information Request Documentation foi Second Title V Program Evaluation
Dear Mr, Hardesty;
The purpose of this letter is to transmit information and documentation in support of the second
evaluation of the Title V program for the Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA). This
information was requested by Kelly McFadden in a letter dated April 30, 2019. This letter
requested that we provide listed information to you in electronic format.
There were five specific items in the above request. Each of these is detailed in an attachment to
this correspondence. Each item is listed with the SWCAA response following.
If you have any questions in regard to our responses, please do not hesitate to contact me at
or by telephone at (360) 574-3058 extension 1 12. or Paul Mairose at
or by telephone at (360 574-3058 extension 130.
Sincerely,
/
/
Uri Papish
Executive Director
-------
Attachment A
EPA Region 10 Title ¥ Program Evaluation
Southwest Clean Air Agency Responses to Information Request
June 5, 2019
1, A list of Southwest Clean Air Agency staff that work in the title V program, noting
their responsibilities (e.g. permit writer, rule writer, inspector, etc.).
Uri Papish, Executive Director
Budget authorization, permit reviewer and approver, program oversight
Paul Mai rose - Chief Engineer
Permit reviewer, permit approver, hilling support, compliance review, source
test report review, web page support, database support, rule support, fee
support, electronic file management
Jerry Ehersole - Operations Manager
Compliance and enforcement manager, inspections review, source test review,
complaints manager
Clint Lamoreaux. Engineer 111
Title fV program lead, permit writer, inspector, compliance, test reviewer,
report evaluations, emission inventory review, facility complaint follow-up
TransAlta Generation, TransAlta Mining, Owens Brockway Glass, Eagle US
2, Cowlitz Landfill, EFSEC - PacifiCorp - Chehalis
Wess Safford. Engineer II
Title V program lead, permit writer, inspector, compliance, test reviewer,
report evaluations, emission inventory review, facility complaint follow-up,
rule support
Cardinal EG, Mint Farm Generation, River Road Generation, NORPAC,
Weyerhaeuser Lumber
John St.Clair, Engineer 11
Title HI program lead, permit writer, inspector, compliance, test reviewer,
report evaluations, emission inventory review, facility complaint follow-up
Emerald Kalama Chemical, City of Vancouver - Westside
Vannessa McClelland, Engineer I
Permit writer, inspector, compliance, test reviewer, report evaluations,
emission inventory review, facility complaint follow-up
NW Pipeline - Washougal, NW Pipeline Chehalis, Sierra Pacific, Hampton
Lumber - Morton, Hampton Lumber - Randle
Richard (Chip) Chuprinko. Database Programmer
Web Page, Database. Servers. Network, Computers
Admin support Tor all things data related in-house
Traci Arnold Office Administrator
Finance and accounting. Title V billing. Financial Audits Budgets, Pub! c
Outreach, Public Hearings
-------
Tina Hal lock. Secretary
Data entry, filing, reporting, paper and electronic file management, phones,
public notices
2, Identification of any title V permits, renewals, or revisions that are recent enough
that they are not represented on the Southwest Clean Air Agency website.
The SWCAA website is up to date for all title V permitting activities. As of mid-June
20i1^. the NORPAC Paper Mill and the Weyerhaeuser Lumber Mill Title V permits will
go final for SWCAA. This action is the demarcation of official transfer of regulatory
authority for air quality related issues for these two facilities. Prior to the Title V permits
going final, these facilities are regulated by the Washington Department of Ecology -
Industrial Section. All final title V permits for SWCAA. are available at this web address
. . . Additional facility information for
each title V facility can be found at this web address by selecting the individual facility
3. A list and description of any rule changes that have been made to Southwest Clean Air
Agency's title V regulations (e.g. those that affect applicability, implementation, or fees)
since the last revision approved in January 2003. if any of the rule changes have been
submitted to Region 10 for review, note the date of submittal.
SWCAA utilizes the statewide operating permit regulation in WAC 173-401. SWCAA does
not have its own Title V regulation. Any changes made would be those made by the
Department of Ecology. SWCAA staff have no active role in this activity.
With regard to fees. SWCAA's Title V program is self-funding. SWCAA's fee methodology
follows the Ecology framework of a three-part fee assessment each year. One-third of the
fees are based on complexity (number of emission units), one-third are based on emissions
and one-third are based on a Hat fee component. In 2007 SWCAA revisited the workload
analysis for the title V program. An adjustment was made at that lime where the average
facility fee basis is now $25,789 per year. The program budget is established at the total
tiumber of Title V facilities multiplied by this average fee basis. Because state law requires
that the assessed fees provide a neutral balance target each year, any fees collected but not
spent in a given year are carried into the next year where it reduces the amount to be billed to
individual sources, if the total fees collected are projected to be overspent, then a
supplemental billing is prepared to ensure adequate funding is available to cany out Title V
program responsibilities. S\\ CAA's 2018 fee assessment calculations are included as
Appendix C. The I'itlc V Fee Running Balance is included as Attachment D. Monthly time
accounting and tinancials are available on the SWC AA website at this web address:
-------
4. An update regarding each of the concerns raised in the 2007 Title V program
evaluation, noting whether the plan to address the concern was completed and whether
Southwest Clean Air Agency is approaching any of the concerns differently than
previously communicated to Region 1(1 in January 2008. Provide a narrative explaining
the different approach, if applicable.
Refer to Attachment B for a concern by concern review.
5. Any issues or requests that Southwest C lean Air Agency would like to raise to Region
10 regarding any aspect of the Title V program.
SWCAA has no issues or concerns to raise at this time.
-------
Attachment B
EPA Region ID Title V Program Evaluation
Southwest Clean Air Agency Responses to Information Request
June 5,2019
Summary of Concerns Raised in 2007 EPA Title V Program Evaluation
A, Title ¥ Permit Preparation and Content
Good Practices
1. SWC'AA has a good internal review process for Title V permits. Each permit is reviewed
by several permit staff in-house. The senior engineer reviews all permits before issuance.
This collaboration likely results in better, more comprehensive and more enforceable
permits.
2. SWC'AA has redesigned their NSR permit format with Title V in mind so applicable
requirements can be more easily incorporated into Title V permits.
3. SWCAA's statements of basis generally are very useful in that they discuss the
incorporation of past permits and specifically address each monitoring condition.
4. Permits often clarified rule citations by including all enforceable versions of the rules,
adding the date of the rules.
5. Despite the more-challenging table format that SWCAA uses for their permits, the permits
appear to be well written and comprehensive. It is obvious from review of the permits and
interviews with permit engineers that SWCAA's technical staff has a good understanding
of air pollution standards and air pollution engineering.
EPA Concerns
1. Each of the permits reviewed had a different list of standard conditions or included similar
standard conditions with different wording or even titles. Each of the permits appears to
be missing standard provisions that should be in the permits. SWCAA should develop a
list of standard provisions that they will add to all Title V permits in a consistent manner.
One of the standard provisions is titled "Permit appeals." This condition describes the state
appeal process, but makes no mention of the federal appeal (petition) process. If SWCAA
does not think it is appropriate to add the federal appeal option to their standard provisions,
they should at least explain it in the statement of basis and in their public noticing materials,
SWCAA Response: SH'CAA believes its permitting process is in compliance with this
comment on the use of standardized conditions. SWCAA's permit development process
-------
includes the incorporation of a consistent list of standard conditions for all of the Title V
permits the agency issues. However, the list of standard conditions is updated and revised
from time to time based on feedback from sources/EPA and changes in applicable
regulations. Since the "upgrade "process is continual, standard conditions will be similar
for permits issued in a contemporaneous time frame, but will differ from one time period
to another. These differences are noticeable, and to be expected, when reviewing permits
issued in different time frames. SWCAA believes it is important to maintain a standard list
of conditions, and will continue this practice in the future.
SWCAA agrees that it will be beneficial for sources to have the Federal appeal process
cited in their Title Vpermits, and will begin doing so on all future permits.
SWCAA 2019 Update;
SWCAA considers this concern addressed. SWCAA includes each of the standard terms
and conditions from WAC 173-401-620 in each permit. This includes item (i) Permit
Appeals where this section makes reference to RCW 43.2113.310 and Section 505(h) of the
Federal Clean Air Act,
2. The permits and statements of basis reviewed included a list of emission units. In ail cases,
it appeared that several plant activities were not addressed by the list of emission units. In
one case, a process handling cyclone and paved road traffic was missing; in another, a fuel
storage tank was missing. If only facility-wide requirements apply to these missing
emission units, it is not critical that they be in the permit; however, the statement of basis
should still be clear in describing ail of the operations at the facility.
SWCAA Response: The examples cited in this comment are pieces of equipment and/or
activities that are not regulated as emission units in the respective permits (i.e., the
activities are insignificant). l:urthermore, Title Vpermits issued by SWCAA have a list of
equipment and activities that are regulated as emission units. Washington State's Title V
rule (IVAC 173-401) contains prescriptive language regarding which pieces of equipment
and/or activities are considered to be insignificant emission units. While SWCAA agrees
that there is value in specifically addressing selected equipment/operations, the majority
of insignificant activities do not merit comment (e.g.. motor vehicle exhaust, street
sweeping, landscaping activities, bathroom vents, etc.). SWCAA s permitting practice has
been to provide specific descriptions where deemed necessary to clarify emission unit
applicability, but not provide a detailed review of every potential activity at a facility.
SWCAA 2019 Update;
SWCAA considers this item concern addressed. Each permit contains a list of Emission
Units (EU). Each permit does not necessarily contain every piece of equipment/activity
that is considered to be an insignificant emission unit (LEU). The equipment/activities
identified in the concern were insignificant emission units. Categorically exempt
insignificant emission units are not even required to be identified in the permit
application as specified under WAC 173-401-532.
-------
3. While it appears that SWCAA has clearly cited the approved and unapproved versions of
their regulation thai are included in the permit as applicable requirements, during the on-
site interviews, SWCAA staff pointed out that keeping the regulatory citations organized
has been a lot of work. They added that they may begin leaving out the approved SIP
citations when they have been replaced with newer versions of regulations that were
submitted to EPA several years earlier. While EPA understands SWCAA's frustration
with the SIP approval backlog, it is stiil HPA's policy that requirements from the most
recently approved SIP must be included in the permit, even if SWCAA has adopted new
regulations and submitted them to EPA lor approval.
SWCAA Response. SWCAA 's policy is to cite the most recently approved SIP in the
permits. The comment by SWCAA staff was meant to highlight the difficulties posed by the
incorporation o f "obsolete " SIP rules and encourage EPA to act more timely in approving
SIP submittal's. This difficulty may not have been identified in other agency's permits
because SIVCAA has noted that permits issued by other jurisdictions (including EPA Pari
71 permits) often do not cite rule adoption dates, and therefore it is unclear which version
of the rule is being cited (SIP versus most recent). In those cases, SWCAA meant to convey
that the affected agencies may be applying the most recent version of the rule regardless
of its SIP status.
SIVCAA attempts to identify all versions of an applicable rule in its permit citations, but is
aware that some of SWCAA's SIP rules are over SO years out of date. The SIP version of
those rules often conflict with newer versions and/or new EPA requirements. In some
cases, sources can not simultaneously comply with both the SIP version and the current
version of a ride. Consequently. SIVCAA has generally "streamlined" competing versions
of each rule in favor of the most recent.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
SWCAA has implemented a revised method of identifying the rules and versions of those
rules that are applicable. SWCAA lias inserted a table with a single reference to each rule
and version with all the dates in one location so it does not have to be repeated each time
the rule is cited in the permit. Progress has been made in updating regulations in the SIP.
4. While SW;CA.A"s statements of basis have some good features, they could be improved.
Permitting, compliance and construction histories would be helpful; the potential to emit
should be presented to support any major/minor source claims or applicability
determinations that rely on it; and the applicability of requirements (CAM, NSPS,
NESHAP. etc) could have been explained better in some eases. SWCAA should continue
to look for ways to improve the statements of basis.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA agrees with much of this comment and will make
improvements where possible to improve look-back capability for enforcement issues and
initiatives.. However, SWCAA does not agree that all of the cited elements cited in the
comment belong in the Title V Statement of Basis. For example, the technical support
document for SWCAA's NSR permits provides a review of the NSR permitting history of
the affected facility. Repeating this information in the Title V Statement of Basis would be
-------
redundant, and potentially adds significant volume to the Statement of Basis with tittle
added benefit. Also, some facilities have 40 or more historic NSR actions, and selected
actions have been obsolete for decades. Citing the old/obsolete HSR actions would add
confusion to the document when trying to explain currently applicable requirements.
'A A '.v Title V permits reference the source of each applicable requirement, and the
Statement of Basis for each Title V permit generally contains a discussion of source history
where deemed necessary to clarify the status of affected emission units.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
SWCAA has added discussion of the potential to emit (PTE) for each facility in the
Statement of Basis to support the major source determination. SWCAA aiso includes a
discussion of relevant permitting and enforcement actions since the last permitting activity.
A discussion of CAM and NSPS and NESILAP applicability is included in each Statement
of Basis; sometimes as a general statement if none apply and sometimes on an individual
EU basis.
Other Observations
1. During the on-site interviews, SWCAA's permit formal was discussed. Suggestions for
changes were made based on other formats used by permitting authorities in the northwest.
While it would likely take a considerable effort io change all of the permits to a different
format (see permits issued by Oregon or Idaho). SWCAA should consider the benefits of
making practical changes during permit renewals. As a minimum, SWCAA could at least
sort the applicable requirements table by emission unit and to combine the monitoring and
recordkeeping sections; this would make it easier to write, find and understand several
permit conditions.
SWCAA Response; SWCAA and other Washington local air agencies reviewed the
permit formats used by Idaho. Oregon, and other agencies, and queried some ofSW( 'A A \s
Title V sources regarding which format they prefer The current format is preferred by
SWCAA s Title Vsources. SfVC/tA believes this input from affected sources is an important
comment on the user friendliness of a permit format. When SWCAA previously evaluated
changing the permit format. SWCAA concluded that the format change being proposed
could double or triple permit length for little practical gain for the sources or SWCAA. If
circumstances change, SiVCAA can aiso change. In specific. SWCAA has found it more
convenient to organize the table on a requirement specific basis rather than an emission
unit specific basis as suggested by this comment because SWCAA 's approach clearly
identifies which emission units are affected by a given requirement, and avoids repetitious
citations of general conditions and permit conditions that apply to more than one emission
unit. Please note, that SWCAA has removed/consolidated one of the table columns in
response to EPA suggestions.
From a historical perspective, during the first round of permitting in the early 1990's. the
Washington State permit -writer's group and individual Washington sources spent
considerable time on developing a permit format. SWCAA's current permit format was the
-------
result of that effort. While EPA staff and other outside agencies may prefer a different
format, the format in use should be one that is preferred by affected sources and the
implementing agency. This customer oriented approach to industry helps, to ensure that
those using the Title V permits are best able to navigate the permit and achieve and
demonstrate compliance with permit terms and conditions. This outcome was the original
reason that industry supported the adoption of Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
SWCAA has made changes on a case by case basis to the monitoring and recordkeeping
provisions where it was practical in individual permits. SWCAA has an NSR permit
(SHI 1) format similar to the EPA suggested table format by emission unit. This has
resulted in this permit having substantially more pages and many of the sections for each
emission unit just repeat the same monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, SWCAA
has decided to not implement this strategy for future permits.
2. Recent MAC'!' vacaturs (boiler and plywood) are causing SWCAA permit writing
difficulties.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA agrees with this comment. SWCAA has several sources that
are significantly impacted by the promulgation and vacaturs of several MACT standards.
Little guidance and/or conflicting guidance from EPA regional offices and the lack of a
national policy by EPA has led to difficulties identifying applicable requirements in some
permits. This has delayed permit issuance due to SlV(\4A 's concern regarding the
inclusion of incorrect or inappropriate requirements.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
Several federal rules are still undergoing legal challenges and revisions which make them
difficult to incorporate into Title V permits. Examples are the Plywood and Composite
Wood Products MACT and the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Emission Guidelines with
federal plan requirements. These issues are impacting issuance of a permit or two.
3. SWCAA should become familiar with CROMERR as it applies to electronic submittals to
their agency.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA is aware of the CROMERR rule and requirements and will
adopt this technology when the Environmental Council of the States (EC(JS) and the
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) support implementation of this
technology, ECOS and NACAA formally expressed significant concerns regarding the
CROMERR ride and requirements to EPA via tetter in April 2007. SWCAA supports
minimizing paperwork and the need for multiple submissions of data that can be submitted
electronically. However, it is very challenging and expensive to adopt and implement
electronic reporting such as that driven by CROMERR that may not have national support
and a national implementation strategy. SWCAA will monitor progress with this
technology and when appropriate, implement this program.
-------
SWCAA 2019 Update:
SWCAA has continued to monitor progress with the CROMERR rule as states have
implemented this strategy. While there are benefits to having a paperless program there
are pitfalls that complicate that process as well. SWCAA provides significantly more
electronic documents on its web page than most Title V implementing agencies without
the benefit of implementing CROMERR, While electronic submittal of ail documents
cited in the CROMERR rule could streamline the submittal process. SWCAA has
encountered problems with spam, blocked emails, and electronic file management that
has complicated a process that should be straight forward. SWCAA does not have a
formal records management system, which would likely make this process easier to
manage. However, the time and expense of implementing such a system takes away from
more routine permitting and compliance activities, A couple of attempts have been made
to implement a records management system but have not been implemented for a variety
of reasons. For SWCAA, the time and technology are not ripe yet for this action,
B. General Permits
SWCAA supports the basic principle of general permits. SWCAA has observed the
development of general permits by other agencies and learned that there are unanticipated
pitfalls with many of the general permits developed to date. In addition, SWCAA*s universe
of Title V sources is fairly small, and does not contain large numbers of sources that fail within
the same industry type. Hence, the development of general permits would not provide a great
benefit for the agency.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
There is no change to this response for 2019. SWCAA "s universe of Title V permittees is
small and not conducive to the use of a general permit. Therefore, SWCAA has no Title
V General Permits.
C. Monitoring
Good Practices
1. Each requirement in the monitoring section of SWCAA's permits includes a cross
reference to the applicable requirements for which the monitoring was designed to assure
compliance.
2, SWCAA is one ofthe few agencies known to require lab-based lumber drying and emission
testing. On-site performance testing oi l umber dry kilns is very difficult and generally not
required, leaving agencies to rely on non-source-spcciiic emission factors for sources that
are now considered significant sources of VOC and HAP emissions. Given that lab-based
testing has been proven to be representative of actual kiln testing, SWCAA has tapped a
very practical approach to a difficult issue. Hopefully, institutions capable of lab-testing
will continue to provide the service and other agencies will follow SWCAA's lead.
-------
Concerns
1. SWCAA relies on periodic inspections and visual observations (see - no see decisions) as
a first level for assuring compliance with several requirements. Whenever visual checks
are used, it is useful to clarify that the observers should be trained in visual observations
and utilize the general observation criteria found in EPA Reference Method 22.
Furthermore, a requirement to act on any observation of a visible emission should not be
required of sources that normally do exhibit some visible emissions. In those cases, some
other type of routine monitoring is more appropriate.
SWCAA Response; SWCA A utilizes a "sec - no see" method only when the expected
opacity levels are zero. SWC.'AA also relies on Method 22 in many cases when the
applicable opacity standard is zero percent. In Method 22 Section 2.3, the method states
that determination of opacity is not required. Since this procedure requires only the
determination of whether visible emissions are present, and does riot require determination
of opacity, observer certification pursuant to Method 9 is not necessary. Where
appropriate, SWCAA has required several facilities to make periodic Method 9 readings,
and in a Jew instances, required the facilities to maintain at least one Method 9 certified
observer. SIVCAA works with each fact lily to ensure that the facilities are capable of
making visible emission determinations consistent with the requirements of their Title V
permits. SWCAA will continue to work with the facilities to ensure appropriate use of the
visible emission methods - both Method 9 and Method 22.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
SWCAA is moving away from specifying Method 22 as a monitoring provision because
of the training and documentation that is required by the Method. Rather, a see no see
concept or specific reference to Method 9 is being cited where appropriate. In some
instances, SWCAA requires facilities to have personnel on-site that are certified in Method
9 for purpose of determining compliance
2. SWCAA often required monitoring baghousc pressure drop to assure compliance with
particulate and opacity emission limits. Monitoring experts within EPA have concluded
that pressure drop is not a reliable approach for monitoring baghousc compliance.
Alternatives to pressure drop include opacity and bag leak detectors and can be combined
with a good operation and maintenance program. SWCAA should avoid relying on
pressure drop monitoring to assure baghouse compliance.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA utilizes periodic source emission testing and periodic
(usually monthly) visual observations (Method 22} as this comment suggests as the primary
method oj determining compliance with particulate and opacity emission limits. The
suggested use of bag leak detectors has merit, and SWCAA will be exploring this option in
future permitting actions. SWCAA s use of baghouse pressure drop is a secondary' method
of determining compliance with particulate and opacity emission limits. It is a parameter
that can be routinely monitored by plant staff and agency representatives to provide a quick
indication oj performance.
-------
SWCAA 2019 Update:
As mentioned in 2 above. SWCAA is moving away from Method 22 as a monitoring
provision. In addition, SWCAA agrees that monitoring ofbaghou.se pressure drop in itself,
is not an indicator of compliance, but does provide an indication of attention to operations
and maintenance programs referred to above. To the degree that this monitoring
requirement continues to exist in NSR permits, this condition will continue to be included
in the Title V permit. As the opportunity arises in the NSR permit program, this
requirement will be phased out in favor of other monitoring provisions.
SWCAA's permits do not consistently address compliance assurance monitoring (CAM)
applicability and CAM-based monitoring decisions. CAM is a very important aspect of
Title V permits and should be clearly explained in statements of basis.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA agrees with this comment and will be more diligent in the
future in addressing CAM determinations in the Statement of Basis, and provide more
detail regarding CAM based monitoring decisions in its Title Vpermits. Please note that
CAM does not apply to alt of the Title Vfacilities at SWCAA. In addition, selected SWCAA
facilities are still operating under their original Title V permits. The first round of SWCAA
permits were issued prior to promulgation of the current CAM requirements. Hence, CAM
provisions are not addressed in those permits, but will become applicable upon the first
Title Vpermit renewal. SWCAA is incorporating CAM provisions as appropriate in each
renewal permit. SJVCAA expects the incorporation of CAM to have little impact on existing
permit conditions because appropriate compliance monitoring has already been
established in the associated NSR permitting actions.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
Through the Title V permit renewal process, SWCAA has incorporated CAM
requirements into each Title V permit for each facility where CAM is applicable or made
a determination and documented that CAM is not applicable.
SWCAA's permits often contained tiered approaches to monitoring, commonly for opacity
and particulate emission limits. The approach normally begins with some sort of an
observation which can lead to corrective actions, additional observations and eventually
deviation reporting. Only occasionally did the monitoring scheme lead to a reference
method test (e.g. RM 9) and rarely to a particulate matter test. Where initial observations
indicate possible concerns about compliance, the permit can be designed to automatically
require a reference method test to confirm compliance. This is particularly appropriate
where the initially-observed concerns recur often or are not promptly corrected. When
renewing permits, SWCAA should add specific reference method testing where
appropriate and consider the use of'"automated" test requirements.
SWCAA Response: As noted in the comment, SWCAA's monitoring requirements often
include a tiered approach with progressively more sophisticated monitoring if there is
cause for concern in regard to observations or plant data which suggest areas of possible
noncompliance. SWCAA will incorporate specific reference method testing where
appropriate and add the use of "automated" test requirements.
-------
SWCAA 2019 Update:
Addressed - no change to this response.
5, Occasionally, SWCAA's permits contained operation and maintenance requirements
mixed in with monitoring requirements. Monitoring is generally used to identity problems
(or assure there are no problems) while maintenance is used to avoid problems or to address
identified problems. Finally, operation and maintenance requirements do not necessarily
satisfy the need to have monitoring; in tact, monitoring should be specified to assure
compliance with any operation and maintenance requirements. SWCAA should consider
this type of clarification during future permit renewals.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA will review each permit at renewal time to ensure that
monitoring activities are clearly separated from operations and maintenance
requirements.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
Addressed - no change to this response.
Other Observations
None.
D, Public Participation and Affected State Review
Good Practices
1. in addition to publishing public notices in a local newspaper and sending them to their
maintained mailing list, SWCAA uses the WDOE Air Operating Permit Register and posts
them on the SWCAA website. Notices are also sent to a list of affected states and tribes.
Individuals on SWCAA's mailing list can request to receive all notices or just specific
notices.
Concerns
1. Like many of the permitting authorities across the country, SWCAA provides the permittee
with a pre-draft permit for review and comment before the draft permit goes out for public
comment. Soliciting the permittee's input on the factual aspects of the permit can help to
reduce errors in the permit and help educate the permittee on its obligations under the
permit. Working with the permittee on developing the substantive requirements of the
permit, however, can create the impression that the permit issuance process is not an open
process. SWCAA should carefully balance these interests as it works with permittees
during the development and issuance of Title V permits.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA does not work with the permittees when developing
substantive requirements. Substantive requirements are generally pre-existing,
-------
originating from NSR permitting actions, applicable regulations, and other enforcement
documents. Substantive requirements arc not open for negotiation or review under Title
V. Only the factual aspects of the permit are available for comment. SWCAA is ivn
diligent, and will continue to be diligent, to ensure that there is no appearance of a non-
open process.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
Addressed - no changes to response.
Other Observations
None.
E. Permit Issuance / Revision / Renewal
Good Practices
Num.
Concerns
1. SWCAA noted that issuance of several permits has been delayed due to NSR and MACT
issues. In their last TOPS report (January thru 2007), three permits had been extended
past 5 years pending renewal and one significant modification application was older than
18 months. EPA has recognized ways to avoid permit issuance delays when new MACT
standards and complicated NSR enforcement actions are not yet resolved. SWCAA should
continue to manage their workload in a practical way while meeting the regulatory
deadlines for permit issuance.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA has focused on this issue in recent months and as of
LJ0/2O0S only one permit is currently extended past 5 years. SWCAA has several sources
that arc subject to MACT standards that have been promulgated and have been vacated in
full or in part. As noted previously, this situation has complicated the Title Vpermitting
process. SWCAA is working through each of these permits in an orderly and informed
fashion, but additional time is required in each case to ensure that appropriate terms and
conditions are incorporated into the final permit language.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
Addressed no changes to response. One permit is currently extended due to NSR and
MACT incorporation and one permit is extended due to SS] rule requirements that the
facility is not in compliance with, so the permit cannot be reissued.
2, SWCAA does not require minor permit applications to include a certification by a
responsible official. This is required by Part 70. SWCAA should expect certification with
minor permit modifications.
-------
SWCAA Response: During the audit, SWCAA misunderstood this question to relate to
its minor source permit program. Upon further review, vt c understand the question relates
to minor modifications of a Title V permit. Under the SWCAA Title V program, most
submittals have contained a certification by a responsible official. In the future, SWCAA
will be more diligent to ensure that every permit action includes a certification by a
responsible officio I
SWCAA 2019 Update;
Addressed - no changes to response.
3. SWCAA's ice structure bases part of the fee on the number of emission units to account
for permit complexity. The emission unit concept in Title V generally allows useiul
flexibility in grouping or non-grouping of plant site activities based on a number of factors
such as similar applicable requirements or operations. This can make implementation of
the permit requirements more practical. Placing a price (by basing the fee) on the number
of emission units can put these intentions at odds with each other. SWCAA should
consider ways to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the emission unit concept
despite the fee system design.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA does consider flexible approaches in making emission unit
groupings at affected facilities. The potential effect on fees is not a consideration in
grouping determinations. SWCAA's minor source program and Title Vprogram share a
common emission unit structure that groups similar emission units when it is practical for
purposes of implementing requirements or operations. In practice, grouping
determinations are driven by the need to develop permit conditions that are understandable
and enforceable as a practical matter. Title V permit conditions are based on major and
minor source NSR permits. Only on a rare occasion are permit conditions developed under
the gap filling provisions of Title V. SWCAA tries to maintain as much continuity as
possible between the minor source and Title V permitting programs in making these
determinations.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
Addressed - no changes to the rtsp msc.
Other Observations
None.
F. Compliance
Good I f dctices
1. SWCAA requires all deviations to he reported no later than 30 days after the end of the
month in which they were discovered, with some reported sooner. This should allow
SWCAA to ensure more timely mitigation and enforcement as needed.
-------
Concerns
1. Even where it was apparent that emission testing had been required by and performed under
a previously issued permit, rarely did the statement of basis discuss the results or rely on
the results for making future testing or monitoring decisions. Where testing was required,
rarely were emission unit and control equipment operational parameters recorded and
related to the test results to assure the parameters monitored truly represent compliance.
Source-specific test data can be very useful for designing an appropriate compliance
monitoring approach. SWCAA should not only document the results but consider them
when requiring monitoring for future permits.
SWCAA Response: SWCAA will provide a belter description of the testing history of
affected sources in the Statement of Basis for each Title V permit, it should he noted that
the majority of the equipment specific testing and monitoring requirements found in
SIVCAA's Title V permits are drawn directly from underlying NSR permits. Compared
with other air agencies, SIVCAA has a long history of requiring emission testing and
compliance monitoring in its NSR permits. There has been Utile need for additional
measures to be implemented via the Title V permitting process. For other Washington
agencies where this has not been done, the Title V permitting process often includes the
development of comprehensive testing-monitoring schemes under Part 'gap-filling'
provisions. However, current KFA guidance for gap-filling monitoring precludes SWCAA
from using a Title V permit to change or 'enhance' testing/monitoring measures
established in underlying permits. Hence. SWCAA's Title Vpermitting actions have not
involved significant testing/monitoring decisions.
Ifthere is a compliance issue that Mould bene fa from source testing, SWCAA would require
testing as part of the compliance issue on a basis that is supported by the issue. 'These
decisions are made as part of the compliance process and generally are no! anticipated or
historically documented in the Title V Statement of Basis.
SWCAA 2019 Update:
Addressed - no changes to the response.
Other Observations
1. I he focus of this Title V program review was on S WCAA's implementation of its Title V
program. Accordingly, in conducting this Title V program review, EPA did not review
monitoring reports or compliance certifications submitted by Title V facilities to determine
the extent of compliance with Title V requirements in SWCAA's jurisdiction and whether
SWCAA is taking appropriate enforcement actions in response it) noncompliance, EPA
conducts periodic reviews of state and local Clean Air Act enforcement programs which
look at, among other things, source compliance and enforcement actions.
-------
G, Resources and Internal Management Support
Good Practices
1. SWCAA appears to have a sound accounting system which effectively tracks Title V
revenues and expenses separate from non-Title V revenues and expenses.
2, SWCAA has been able to avoid significant staff turnover for the last 5 to 6 years. They
suggested this was due in part lo their use of competitive salaries, merit pay. a good work
environment and diversity of work.
Concerns
None,
Other Observations
1. SWCAA would like to see EPA facilitation of more frequent regional training events for
Title V permit writers. The regional workshop held in the Spring of 2007 was very
informative for new and experienced permit writers and is a good example. SWCAA also
thinks that EPA should write standards that are clearer and less complicated.
H. Title V Benefits
Benefits Identified by SWCAA, In response to the program review questionnaire and during the
on-site interviews, SWCAA identified a number of benefits that have resulted from
implementation of the Title V program.
1. SWCAA staff better understand how to design enforceable monitoring terms to assure
compliance and how to write enforceable permits terms.
2. Occasionally, the permit issuance process identified compliance piubluns prior to the
submittal of an application.
3. Permittees are devoting more resources to compliance monitoring and have a better
awareness of compliance obligations.
4. Title V has resulted in better documentation of the basis for applicable requirements (in the
statement of basis).
5. NSR permits have been adjusted to more closely resemble Title V permits to ease
incorporation of requirements and now have the equivalent of a statement of basis.
6. SWCAA uses Title V information to target inspections and/or enforcement.
-------
7, Title V lees have been helpful in running the program by providing more resources for
.stall such as CFRs and computers, better funding lor travel to sources and stable funding
despite fluctuations in funding for other state programs.
I, Document Review (Rules/Forms/Gtiidance)
Good Practices
1, SWCAA's web site contains ail of their Title V permits and statements of basis, as well as
many o( the supporting documents such as construction approvals and consent decrees.
This is a very effective way to make these permit-related documents available to industry
and the general public.
Concerns
None,
Other Observations
1. SWCAA would like to see HP A make more of an effort to facilitate national/regional
consistency in explaining Part 70 program requirements. Nationally consistent
interpretation of Part 70 program elements would be helpful.
-------
I
!
ri-
ll
IP!
I!
if
??i
[if
i
i
ii
u to *1 E »
III!
III
hi
If
I
5 , , ,
§ <> i
V ^
11! f
!«
I
I
f!
>
I
0
Sr
1
s
(rtK
n
-------
Appendix D
SWCAATMeV-
flfMBMB
mmwr
mtmm
mmmM
msam
grtwy nfr--
mmmm
D2tdQ8^
mujmm
msjmm
tmmm
tmmm
& » $11156696 ;
mm» mmmm":
siimm mmmm:
tmjs®#® ••
¦smmm mwm'l
tfii-M SS&SJSJ S® .'
txjmm mtwm- -
ffttUt&ae* n^lfli,
8!iM •'
Ktt Ml,#®.® .
sumoo*
m&mm
m&m
mnmm
mim»
mmimm
m\mm
t&UMS*
%34&JMQ&
mjmm
mmM
mmmh
m.mM
tm,mm
mmm
tMNJS&SOe ;•
mmmm •=
ftt&MBlM I
sour*
S^SS ¦
wWai •;
wmmm.
Mlltt# .
«H»» uwmt# ;•
smjxj* tiisytwso ?
SO;zttMX!' ;
Ch c,».vF
**.ewj®.c
fv^.
15S2S5L
tflpN j* ¦ *
»M»« .. v»
i
*f ijti* , . . .)*
fF.MM* :¦,¦¦¦¦.«
tMMii j- •¦¦ ¦ m
mm ?
tsjtjijut
iSja.s t > ¦" ¦
r urn##-t •
' ' MSjmi f: -; .-
*MI2 > ' •¦¦¦¦ S3
K!W '¦ :¦ *
mmn i.: -. ;¦¦ i
¦ mmmu >¦¦•:•¦ . !i
mm*i i-: ¦¦ ¦¦ i
mmM 1...' :¦¦• *
v-
%mm-w
mmM
tSM&t»
5-.
*. .
..._ ..
"irr&rr
immsm
i s>^\
*£i££M*/
»fwt -
..-.*«*•••
&
ijyu:* -*
fc$ ?•»
piftsi'M® "~
U<-.AU i*
—•'¦«». !
wtitei
:4agttftj
mSFsr fliqJ
Se **5 v*
tm*s«
2fJ4MS«4
iiss-
«J!8
II
II
U
m,m
mm
%mn
12
ii wit
ii tM.m
ii iit.m
U IMkJtil
t* IS^IB
is mill
i# mm
»S «•-!«
«r
A
¦a
lirtttl
mm
it
1(24.414
ITOS*
'in
HM
yyi^ «t
l»!tK
SS^.Ci^
iis«^
ISWJ11
f!'21,*S*
mm
4%m
mt> i-m.
m.3»
mm
wm'm
saw
¦*i- IS
mm
m.m
^»tst
Mm-
ami
SMWTT
u.m
*m*u
m m
410.01*
%m,m
si m
mtm
u*%
mm
§mtm
)**%
mmm
nm
mm
mtm
iim
tttl.7M
nm
U2H
rn.tM
».s*
mmm
VAijtn
mjrn
tmm
tW.Wi
imMs
-;r
jijjl
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
turn
tsi/e?
mm
mm
mm
mm
mmi mm
»»»?
S3V^
mjii
ami itjii im.#&
mm- mm nm mm
simjm
tmjm fit124
ni^ao iiijss
ssi^tw ii*? m-m
mim mm$ *km mm
tis,Ms mjjm VMi m n
tsym t}u«> i?jm en?
i^,i* t&.u
njtn m,m
a^m m.n
*£,}« XlUft
mm
mi mm
tim m*z
tnu rnn
vum mm
M* KJit UM»i7
4|lli«pr«ndi|kNninWM
S-l mtsmtf-% • WAP* to slsw pro- M rf¦«
^ ^ waliwrfW #Il84f'lir, ^ pwp l^st% ^
md
-------
2016-1
AK
Sources
148
Active
Permits
152
Initial
Permits
Initial < 18 Outstanding
mo.
App.
Expired
Permits
Extended
Permits
42
Sig. Mod
ID
49
47
12
OR
OR -LRAPA
111
18
109
17
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
41
4
WA - BCAA
WA - NWCAA
WA - ORCAA
WA - PSCAA
WA - SRCAA
WA - SWCAA
WA - YRCAA
2
23
12
31
9
14
4
2
23
12
24
8
13
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
19
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
WA - CRO 5 5
WA-ERO 12 10
WA-Nuclear 1 1
WA - Industrial 9 9
WA - total 27 25
WA - EFSEC 2 1
Part 71
Active
Sources Permits
RIO 8 7
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
Indian Deepwater
Country OCS Ports
7 0 0
0 0 0
0 6 0
0 0 0
0 5 0
0 11 0
0 0 0
In place of Initial < 18 Outstanding
P70 mo. App.
0 0 1
Sig. Mod < Outstanding
18 mo. Sig. Mod.
5 2
0 0
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 0
Expired Extended Sig. Mod < Outstanding
Permits Permits Sig. Mod 18 mo. Sig. Mod.
0 2 110
-------
2.c)
149
47
109
18
127
2
23
11
31
9
15
4
95
5
13
1
9
28
2
125
448
is
8
Active Initial Initial < 18 Outstanding Expired Extended Sig. Mod
Permits (3) Permits (4.a) mo. (4.b) App. (5) Permits (6.a) Permits (6.b) (7.a)
154
0
0
0
0
27
%
Sig. Mod < Outstanding outstanding
18 mo. (7.b) Sig. Mod. (8) % extended + extended
4 1 18% 18%
47
0
0
19%
19%
106
18
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
1
43
4
47
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
41%
22%
38%
41%
22%
39%
2
23
11
25
8
13
4
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
6
1
1
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
19
3
8
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0%
26%
64%
76%
38%
62%
0%
50%
0%
35%
64%
81%
44%
60%
0%
56%
5
10
1
9
25
1
112
437
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
13
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
6
0
6
13
0
56
139
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
8
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
20%
60%
0%
67%
52%
0%
50%
32%
20%
62%
0%
67%
54%
50%
55%
34%
Active Indian
Permits Country
6 6
Deepwater In place of Initial < 18 Outstanding Expired Extended
OCS Ports P70 mo. App. Permits Permits
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sig. Mod < Outstanding
Sig. Mod 18 mo. Sig. Mod.
0 0 0
-------
2.c)
150
47
109
18
127
2
23
11
32
9
15
4
96
5
13
1
9
28
2
126
450
is
8
Active Initial Initial < 18 Outstanding Expired Extended Sig. Mod
Permits (3) Permits (4.a) mo. (4.b) App. (5) Permits (6.a) Permits (6.b) (7.a)
153
0
30
%
Sig. Mod < Outstanding outstanding
18 mo. (7.b) Sig. Mod. (8) % extended + extended
2 2 20% 21%
47
0
0
11%
11%
107
18
125
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
43
5
48
2
0
2
2
0
2
1
0
1
40%
28%
38%
40%
28%
39%
2
23
11
24
8
13
4
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
1
1
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
20
3
7
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0%
17%
55%
83%
38%
54%
0%
47%
0%
26%
55%
84%
44%
53%
0%
53%
5
10
1
9
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
5
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40%
60%
0%
56%
52%
40%
62%
0%
56%
54%
1
111
436
0
0
4
0
0
2
1
14
16
0
0
1
0
53
136
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
1
4
0%
48%
31%
50%
53%
34%
Active Indian Deepwater In place of Initial < 18 Outstanding Expired Extended Sig. Mod < Outstanding
Permits Country OCS Ports P70 mo. App. Permits Permits Sig. Mod 18 mo. Sig. Mod.
660000101000
-------
2.c)
150
47
107
18
125
2
23
11
32
9
15
4
96
5
13
1
9
28
2
126
448
is
9
Active Initial Initial < 18 Outstanding Expired Extended Sig. Mod
Permits (3) Permits (4.a) mo. (4.b) App. (5) Permits (6.a) Permits (6.b) (7.a)
153
0
0
29
%
Sig. Mod < Outstanding outstanding
18 mo. (7.b) Sig. Mod. (8) % extended + extended
1 1 19% 20%
47
0
0
11%
11%
105
17
122
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
37
5
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
35%
29%
34%
36%
28%
34%
2
23
11
24
8
13
4
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
1
1
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
13
1
7
1
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0% 0%
0 22% 30%
0 55% 55%
0 54% 63% corrected 6.b
1 13% 22%
0 54% 53%
0 25% 25%
1 46% 52%
5
10
1
11
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
5
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40%
60%
0%
45%
48%
40%
62%
0%
56%
54%
0%
50%
113
14
52
46%
52%
435
16
128
29%
32%
Active Indian
Permits Country
6 6
Deepwater In place of Initial < 18 Outstanding Expired Extended
OCS Ports P70 mo. App. Permits Permits
0 0 0 0 2 0 1
Sig. Mod < Outstanding
Sig. Mod 18 mo. Sig. Mod.
0 0 0
-------
2018-1
2018-1
AK
ID
Total
Sources
(2.c)
150
48
Active
Permits (3)
148
47
Initial
Permits
issued (4.a)
1
0
Initial issued
< 18 mo.
(4.b)
1
0
Outstanding
initial App.
(5)
3
0
Expired
Permits
(6.a)
0
0
Extended
Permits
(6. b)
28
5
Sig. Mod
issued (7.a)
4
0
Sig. Mod
issued < 18
mo. (7.b)
3
0
Outstanding
Sig. Mod. >
18 mo (8)
0
0
% extended
19%
11%
%
outstanding
+ extended
21%
10%
OR
106
104
0
0
1
0
37
0
0
2
36%
36%
OR - LRAPA
18
17
0
0
0
1
7
1
0
0
41%
39%
OR-Total 124 121 0 0 1 1 44 1 0 2 36% 36%
WA-CRO 5500002001 40% 40%
WA - ERO 13 10 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 60% 54%
WA-Nuclear 1100001000 100% 100%
WA - Industrial 9 11 00004000 36% 44%
WA - Ecology Total
28
27
0
0
1
0
13
0
0
1
48%
50%
WA - BCAA
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
WA - NWCAA
23
23
0
0
2
0
5
0
0
0
22%
30%
WA - ORCAA
11
11
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
45%
45%
WA - PSCAA
32
24
0
0
7
0
13
0
0
0
54%
63%
WA - SWCAA
15
13
0
0
2
0
6
0
0
0
46%
53%
WA - SRCAA
8
8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
13%
13%
WA - YRCAA
4
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
25%
25%
Total CAAs 95 85 0 0 11 1 31 0 0 1 36% 44%
WA - EFSEC
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
50%
WA-Total 125 113 0 0 13 1 44 0 0 2 39% 46%
Total Part 70 447 429 1 1 17 2 121 5 3 4 28% 31%
Part 71
Total
Sources(2c)
Active
Permits (3)
Indian
Country
ocs
Deepwater
Ports
In place of
P70
Initial issued
(4a)
Initial issued
< 18 mo.
(4b)
Outstanding
Initial App. >
18 m (5)
Expired
Permits (6a)
Extended
Permits (6b)
Sig. Mod
Issued (7a)
Sig. Mod <
18 mo. (7b)
Outstanding
Sig. Mod. >
18 mo (8)
R10
8
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
-------
2018-2
Total
Sources (2.c)
Active
Permits (3)
Initial
Permits
issued (4.a)
Initial issued
< 18 mo.
(4-b)
Outstanding
initial App.
(5)
Expired
Permits (6.a)
Extended
Permits (6.b)
Sig. Mod
issued (7.a)
Sig. Mod
issued < 18
mo. (7.b)
Outstanding
Sig. Mod. >
18 mo (8)
% extended
%
outstanding
+ extended
AK 148 150 1 0 3 1 1 3 3 0 1% 3%
ID 48 47 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 13% 13%
OR
107
104
0
0
2
0
39
0
0
3
38%
38%
OR - LRAPA
16
16
0
0
0
1
9
1
1
0
56%
56%
OR-Total 123 120 0 0 2 1 48 1 1 3 40% 41%
WA - CRO
5
5
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
40%
60%
WA - ERO
13
10
0
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
40%
54%
WA - Nuclear
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
100%
100%
WA - Industrial
9
11
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
45%
56%
WA - Ecology Total
28
27
0
0
4
0
12
0
0
0
44%
57%
WA - BCAA
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
WA - NWCAA
22
22
0
0
2
0
5
0
0
0
23%
32%
WA - ORCAA
11
11
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
36%
36%
WA - PSCAA
33
24
0
0
7
0
13
0
0
0
54%
61%
WA - SWCAA
15
14
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
21%
27%
WA - SRC A A
8
8
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
50%
50%
WA - YRCAA
4
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
25%
25%
Total CAAs
95
85
1
0
10
1
30
0
0
1
35%
42%
WA - EFSEC
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
50%
WA-Total 125 113 1 0 15 1 42 0 0 1 37% 46%
Total Part 70
444
430
4
2
20
3
97
4
4
4
23%
26%
Part 71
Total
Sources (2c)
Active
Permits (3)
Active Indian
Country
Active OCS
Active
Deepwater
Ports
Active In
place of P70
Initial issued
(4a)
Initial issued
< 18 mo.
(4b)
Outstanding
Initial App. >
18 m (5)
Expired
Permits (6a)
Extended
Permits (6b)
Sig. Mod
Issued (7a)
Sig. Mod <
18 mo. (7b)
Outstanding
Sig. Mod. >
18 mo (8)
R10
8
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
------- OCR error (D:\Scanspot\Jobroot\ps1\MJA0003C\tiff\P10102CA.tif): Unspecified error
-------
SWCAA History
Total
Initial
Initial issued
Outstanding
Expired
Extended
Sig. Mod
Outstanding
%
Sources
Active
Permits
< 18 mo.
initial App.
Permits
Permits
Sig. Mod
issued < 18
Sig. Mod. >
outstanding
Half-year
(2.c)
Permits (3)
issued (4.a)
(4.b)
(5)
(6.a)
(6.b)
issued (7.a)
mo. (7.b)
18 mo (8)
% extended
+ extended
2016-1
14
13
1
0
1
0
6
1
1
0
2016-2
15
13
0
0
1
0
8
1
1
0
62%
60%
2017-1
15
13
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
54%
53%
2017-2
15
13
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
54%
53%
2018-1
15
13
0
0
2
0
6
0
0
0
46%
53%
2018-2
15
14
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
21%
27%
2019-1
17
15
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
7%
12%
-------
August 16, 2006
Semiannual Title V Permit Data Report
This information request is authorized pursuant to the Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating
Permit Regulations, EPA Number 1587.06, OMB Number 2060-0243; April 2004.
Permitting Authority:
SWCAA
Report Date:
July 5, 2019
Reporting Period:
^January 01 - June 30, 2019
*Report due July 31*
~July 01 - December 31, yyyy
*Report due January 31*
Data Element
Reported Value
Information
1. Outstanding
Permit
Issuance
a) Number of final actions:
4
• Total final actions on Permitting Authority-specific
permit issuance commitments (i.e., agreements by
the Permitting Authority to complete action on initial
permits within a specified time-frame, such as
agreements related to the 2001 citizen comments).
• If the Permitting Authority does not have a
commitment, enter "not applicable" in 1 (a) and 1 (b).
b) Total commitment
universe:
c) Date commitment
completed (if applicable):
2. Total Current
Part 70
Source
Universe and
Permit
Universe
a) Number of active part 70
sources that have
obtained part 70 permits,
plus the number of
active part 70 sources
that have not yet
obtained part 70 permits:
17
• The total current Dart 70 source universe includes all
sources subject to the Permitting Authority's part 70
program applicability requirements (i.e., provisions
comparable to §70.3).
• In 2.a), count all active sources that either have
obtained or will obtain a part 70 permit. EPA expects
that this data will be primarily based on the Permitting
Authority's application and permit tracking information.
If, however, the Permitting Authority is aware of part 70
sources that are not yet captured by application or
permit information, count those sources as well.
• Do not count sources that are no longer subject to part
70, such as sources that have shut down, or become
natural minors or synthetic minors, and do not have an
active part 70 permit.
• Do not double count sources included in 2.b).
-1 -
-------
August 16, 2006
Total Current
Part 70
Source
Universe and
Permit
Universe
(Continued)
b) Number of part 70
sources that have
applied to obtain a
synthetic minor
restriction in lieu of a
part 70 permit, and the
part 70 program's permit
application due dates for
those sources have
passed:
0
• Element 2.b) is intended to capture the universe of
part 70 sources that are seeking synthetic minor
restrictions in lieu of part 70 permits, but haven't
received those restrictions before becoming subject
to the part 70 program's permit application
requirements. If the part 70 applications don't readily
identify sources seeking such restrictions, the
Permitting Authority may include those sources in
2.a), and need not break them out here. However,
EPA expects Permitting Authorities to consider
pending synthetic minor requests not addressed in
part 70 applications to calculate this portion of the
part 70 source universe.
• Count sources that currently meet the part 70
program's applicability requirements, their part 70
application due dates have passed, and they have
requested but not yet received synthetic minor
restrictions in lieu of a part 70 permit (or permit
renewal).
• Also count active sources whose synthetic minor
restrictions have expired (i.e., no synthetic minor
restrictions are currently in place, even though they
may be eligible for such restrictions) and are past
their part 70 program's application due date.
• Do not count sources that have active synthetic minor
restrictions and are no longer subject to part 70.
• Do not double count sources included in 2(a).
c) Total number of current
part 70 sources (a+b):
17
d) For permitting
authorities that issue
multiple part 70 permits
to a single source: total
number of active part 70
permits issued, plus part
70 permits applied for:
N/A
• For Permitting Authorities that issue multiple part 70
permits to a single source, and these permits are
issued and tracked separately, report the total permit
universe, including # of active part 70 permits issued
(element 3 below), plus permits applied for (based on
pending applications). This information is for
correlating data when the Permitting Authority's part
70 permit universe mav be areater than the part 70
source universe.
• For Permitting Authorities that do not issue multiple
permits to a single source, or for those that issue and
track multiple permits issued to a source on a
source-wide basis, enter "not applicable" in 2.d).
-------
August 16, 2006
3. Total Active
Part 70
Permits
Total number of active part
70 permits:
15
• This element includes all active initial and renewal part
70 permits issued by the permitting authority. Do not
count inactive permits, i.e., permits that are no longer
in effect due to source shutdown, synthetic minor
restrictions, etc. Note: the procedures for rendering
part 70 permits no longer effective may vary,
depending on the part 70 program.
• Do not count both initial and renewal permits (or prior
renewal and current renewal permits) issued to the
same source; i.e., do not double count.
• Count permits that have been extended (see 6.b.
below), but do not count permits that have expired, or
have been voided, revoked, etc.
• Count each source covered by a general permit
separately for this data element. If a single source has
several general permits and/or source specific permits,
refer to the information for permitting authorities that
issue multiple part 70 permits to a single source.
• For permitting authorities that issue multiple part 70
permits to a single source and included information in
element 2(d), count each permitted portion of the
source separately for this element. This distinction is
for correlating this data element with the permit
universe information in element #2(d).
4. Timeliness of
Initial Permits
(PART
element)
a) Total number of initial
part 70 permits issued
during 6 month reporting
period:
0
• This data element tracks the initial part 70 permits
issued as final (e.g., not draft or proposed) during the 6
month reporting period covered by this report, and
whether they were issued within 18 months of receipt
of an administratively complete application.
• For TOPS purposes, initial permits are permits that are
issued to any source that has become subject to part
70 for the first time, or any source that comes back into
the part 70 program after a period of not being subject.
• If no initial permits were issued during the 6 month
reporting period, report "zero" in 4(b), and "not
applicable" in 4(a).
• Start the 18-month clock on the submittal date of an
administratively complete application. For purposes
of this data element, do not stop or restart the 18
month clock for additional information submitted after
the application is deemed administratively complete.
• For permitting authorities that issue multiple part 70
permits to a single source and included information in
2(d), count each permitted portion of the source
separately for this element. This distinction is for
determining individual permit timeliness.
b) Number of initial part 70
permits finalized during 6
month reporting period
that were issued within
18 months:
0
-------
August 16, 2006
5. Total
Outstanding
Initial Part 70
Applications
The number of active initial
part 70 applications
older than 18 months:
1
• This element tracks all active, administratively
complete initial part 70 permit applications that the
permitting authority has not taken final action on within
18 months of receipt of the administratively complete
application. Do not stop or restart the 18 month clock
for additional information submitted after the
application is deemed administratively complete.
• For TOPS purposes, initial part 70 applications are
applications for sources that are subject to title V for
the first time, or for any source that comes back into
the title V program after a period of not being subject.
Do not include renewal applications.
• Include all current outstanding initial applications,
including those that may also be tracked in data
element #1.
• Do not count initial applications the Permitting
Authority has taken final action on.
6. Outstanding
Renewal
Permit
Actions
a) Total number of expired
permits for active part 70
sources:
0
• This data element tracks the total number of expired
permits for active part 70 sources. Part 70 permits
expire after 5 years if the sources do not submit timely
and complete renewal applications, or if they have lost
their application shield by not timely responding to
additional requests for information.
• Include expired permits that have been addressed
through consent orders or other enforcement
mechanisms. Expired permits can be further
addressed in the "Additional Information" element.
• Do not include permits that have expired because the
source is no longer subject to Title V; i.e., they have
shutdown or have received synthetic minor restrictions.
For permitting authorities that issue multiple part 70
permits to a single source and included information in
2(d), count each expired permit separately.
-------
August 16, 2006
Outstanding
Renewal
Permit
Actions
(Continued)
b) Total number of active
permits with terms
extended past 5 years:
1
• This data element tracks the total number of active
permits that have been extended past the original 5
year permit term. Part 70 permits or permit conditions
are extended beyond the original 5 year term when
sources submit a timely and complete renewal
application (and any timely and complete additional
information requested by the permitting authority), but
the permitting authority has not yet issued a renewal
permit.
• Count all extended permits, including extended permits
for sources that submitted timely and complete
renewal applications within the last 18 months.
Pending applications that are less than 18 months old
can be further addressed in the "Additional Information'
element.
• Do not include inactive extended permits, i.e., when a
subsequent permit renewal has been issued or a
source is no longer subject to part 70.
• Do not include "expired part 70 permits" that have
been addressed through consent orders or other
enforcement mechanisms. Count expired permits in
6(a).
• For permitting authorities that issue multiple part 70
permits to a single source and included information in
2(d), count each extended permit separately.
-------
August 16, 2006
7. Timeliness of
Significant
Modifications
(PART
element - a
and b only)
a) Total number of
significant modifications
issued during 6 month
reporting period:
0
• This data element tracks the number of significant
modifications issued as final (e.g., not draft or
proposed) during the 6 month reporting period. It also
tracks the number of those modifications that were
issued within 18 months of receipt of an
administratively complete significant modification
application, and also the number that were issued
within 9 months. Note that 7(c) is a subset of 7(b).
• If no significant modifications were issued during the 6
month reporting period, report "zero" in 7(a) and "not
applicable" in 7(b) and 7(c).
• Start the application clock on the submittal date of an
administratively complete significant modification
application. Do not restart the clock for additional
information submissions.
b) Number of significant
modifications finalized
during 6 month reporting
period that were issued
within 18 months:
N/A
c) Number of significant
modifications finalized
during 6 month reporting
period that were issued
within 9 months:
N/A
8. Outstanding
Significant
Permit
Modifications
Total number of active
significant modification
applications older than 18
months:
0
• This element tracks all active, administratively
complete significant permit modification applications
that the permitting authority has not taken final action
on within 18 months of receipt of the administratively
complete application.
• Do not stop or restart the 18 month clock for
additional information submitted after the application
is deemed administratively complete.
• Do not count significant modification applications the
Permitting Authority has taken final action on.
9. Comments
and
Additional
Information
None
Permitting authorities may provide any additional
information in this section. For example, a permitting
authority may address data changes, data management
issues, general permits, multiple permits issued to single
stationary sources, synthetic minor information, additional
relevant data, etc.
-------
SWCAA
Southwest Clean Air Agency
September 30, 2019
Doug Hardest)
US EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 155
Seattle. WA 98101-3123
Subject: SWCAA Response to HP A Seeond Round Title V Program (-valuation Comments
Dear Mr, Hardesty:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit responses from the Southwest Clean Air Ageney
(SWCAA) to the comments made by EPA Region 10 as a result of the Title V Round Two
Evaluation. This EPA evaluation culminated in an onsitc review and discussion at the SWCAA
office on J uly 16-17. 2019. A report of the EPA findings was provided to SWCAA on August
30, 2019.
The attached document provides individual responses to each of the concerns identified by EPA
staff in their review document. In general. SWCAA agrees with EPAs findings and commits to
redouble its efforts to make improvements in certain areas within the Title V permitting program.
SWCAA has provided increased focus and time to completing renewals and keeping current with
permit issuance as noted in the TOPS reports provided quarterly to EPA. This is alas noted in
the Seeond Round Title V Program Evaluation. In the future SWCAA will focus more attention
on details in the Title V Permits and Statement of Basis to make the next level of improvements.
There is one issue that SWCAA would like to have additional dialog with EPA on how to
appropriately address the issue. That issue is the incorporation of applicable requirements and
paraphrasing of long and complex rules while still nosing the underlying requirement. The issue
of Permit Shield embodied under 40 CFR 70.6(0(1 )(i) and WAC 173-401-640 and how this is
appropriately incorporated into the Title V permit. We would refer back to early Title V
program guidance dated February 29. 1996 from Joan Cabre/.a (EPA) to Region 10 State and
Local Air Pollution Agencies.
If you have any questions please contact Paul Mairose, Chief Engineer, at 360-574-3058
extension 130 or myself at extension 112.
Sincerely,
Uri Papish \
Executive Director
Our
co Preserve and
-------
SWCAA 2019 Responses to EPA Round 2 Title ¥ Program Review
II. Follow-up to 2007 Program Review
In the initial Title V program review, finalized in September 2007, Region 10 provided
observations delineated into nine separate topic areas labeled A through 1- In each section.
Region 10 identified good practices, concerns and other observations and asked SWCAA to
respond to the concerns identified, in January 2008, SWCAA responded to Region 10 addressing
the concerns identified by Region 10.
This section of the second-round program review report presents Region 10"s evaluation of the
progress SWCAA has made in addressing the concerns identified in the initial program review.
Each of Region 10's original concerns is listed below, followed by SWCAA's 2007 responses,
SWCAA's 2019 update, and. finally. Region 10"s second-round (Round 2} evaluation.
Section A, Title V Permit Preparation and Content
A-l 2007 HPA Concern: Each of the permits reviewed had a different list of standard conditions
or included similar standard conditions with different wording or even titles. Each of the permits
appears to be missing standard provisions that should be in the permits. SWCAA should develop
a list of standard provisions that they will add to all Title V permits in a consistent manner. One
of the standard provisions is titled "Permit appeals." This condition describes the state appeal
process, but makes no mention of the federal appeal (petition) process. Ff SWCAA does not
think it is appropriate to add the federal appeal option to their standard provisions, they should at
least explain it in the Basis Statement and in their public noticing materials.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA believes its permitting process is in compliance with this
comment on the use of standardized conditions. SWCA A's permit development process includes
ihe incorporation of a consistent list of standard conditions for all of the Tit le V permits the
agency issues. However, the list of standard conditions is updated and revised from time to time
based on feedback from sources/EPA and changes in applicable regulations. Since the "upgrade"
process is continual, standard conditions will be similar for permits issued in a contemporaneous
time frame but will differ from one time period to another. These differences are noticeable, and
to be expected, when reviewing permits issued in different time frames. SWCAA believes it is
important to maintain a standard list of conditions and will continue this practice in the future.
SWCAA agrees that it will be beneficial for sources to have the Federal appeal process cited in
their Title V permits and will begin doing so on all future permits.
201 9 SWCAA Update: SWCAA considers this concern addressed. SWCAA includes each of
the standard terms and conditions from WAC 173-401-620 in each permit. This includes item (i)
Permit Appeals where this section makes reference to RCW 43,21 B.310 and Section 505(b) of
the Federal Clean Air Act.
Round 2 Evaluation: The two sections of the permits that include Standard Provisions and
General Terms and Conditions were different in all four permits reviewed. The differences
-------
include the order and titles of the specific conditions, the text of certain conditions, the citations
and missing conditions. Some differences can he expected over time with changing rules and
policies, brn that doesn't explain the differences that still exist between the permits today.
SWCAA should consider adding to all permits a general reporting requirement to submit a test
plan (and describing the minimum content), consistent with SWCAA 400-106. The requirement
could explain what the test plan must cover and include notification/reporting details and
operating rates, monitoring and SWCAA Title V Program Review - 2019 Page 7 recording
required during testing. SWCAA should also consider adding a provision that captures the
monitoring and reporting requirement that could apply if a source concludes under WAC 173-
400-720(4)(b)(iii)(D) that a modification is not subject to PSD. SWCAA should develop a
consistent list of the Standard Provisions and General Terms and Conditions to include in all
Title V permits. When a condition is changed. SWCAA should communicate that change to ail
of its permit writers to ensure all future permits remain consistent.
SWCAA 2010 Round 2 Response: SWCAA will re-evaluate its list of Standard Terms and
Conditions and Standard Provisions to ensure the order of the items and the titles are consistent
between permits and that the conditions are "standard". The suggestion for including in all permits a
general reporting requirement to submit a test plan, this is an active requirement in each permit
because it is part of an active requirement in each NSR permit. As each tcsi plan can be different.
SWCAA does not consider it to he appropriate to include the level of detail of what needs to be in a
every test plan in the permit in the Standard Terms and Conditions. This is evaluated on a case by-
ease basis for each facility and each piece of equipment to be tested and each test activity by
SWCAA personnel at the time of testing. Sometimes the test plan needs to be different to
accommodate any necessary changes or additions based on past compliance or testing activities.
SWCAA has updated its general conditions to include a reference to the authority under
SWCAA 400-106 to be able to require additional testing or changes to testing as necessary.
In regard to the suggestion for SWCAA to add a provision that captures the monitoring and
reporting requirement that could apply if a source concludes under WAC 173-400-
720(4)(b)(iii)(D) that a modification is not subject to PSD, this again is an activity that is done at
the time of NSR permitting and has already been vetted as to PSD applicability before being
incorporated into the Title 5 permit. SWCAA has very few facilities that are subject to PSD or
have a PSD permit or have emission levels that could potentially trigger PSD. Any new
emission units or changes that result in an increase in emissions by state law are subject to NSR
provisions except for those items identified as de minimis. The SWCAA de minimis threshold in
SWCAA 400-109 is substantially different than the Ecology thresholds of WAC 173-400-110
(4)(5) and (6) and does not provide a mechanism that could potentially trigger PSD review or
consideration like the WAC. if a project has an increase in facility emissions that could
potentially trigger PSD, we arc obligated to notify the Department of Ecology who has the
authority to make PSD applicability determinations. SWCAA does not have PSD authority.
Note your reference to WAC 173-400-720 as this is an Ecology only rule.
A-2 2007 EPA Concern: The permits and Basis Statements reviewed included a list of emission
units. In all cases, it appeared that several plant activities were not addressed by the list of
emission units. In one case, a process handling cyclone and paved road traf fic was missing; in
another, a fuel storage tank was missing. If only facility-wide requirements apply to these
Page 3 of 18
-------
missing emission units, it is not critical that they be in the permit; however, the Basis Statement
should still be clear in describing all of the operations at the facility.
2007 SWCAA Response: The examples cited in this comment are pieces of equipment and/or
activities that are not regulated as emission units in the respective permits (i.e., the activities are
insignificant). Furthermore, Title V permits issued by SWCAA have a well defined list of
equipment and activities that arc regulated as emission units. Washington State's Title V rule
(WAC 173-401) contains prescriptive language regarding which pieces of equipment and/or
activities are considered to be insignificant emission units. While SWCAA agrees thai there is
value in specifically addressing selected equipment/operations, the majority of insignificant
activities do not merit comment (e.g., motor vehicle exhaust, street sweeping, landscaping
activities, bathroom vents, etc.). SWCAA;s permitting practice has been to provide specific
descriptions where deemed necessary to clarify emission unit applicability, but not provide a
detailed review of every potential activity at a facility.
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA considers this item concern addressed. Each permit contains a
list of Emission Units (EU). Each permit does not necessarily contain every piece of
equipment/activity that is considered to be an insignificant emission unit (IEU). The
equipment/activities identified in the concern were insignificant emission units. Categorically
exempt insignificant emission units are not even required to be identified in the permit
application as specified under WAC 173-401--532.
Round 2 Evaluation: Describing IEUs in the permit emission unit list and/or Basis Statement is
important, as some IEUs such as road traffic can be significant particulate matter emission
sources. SWCAA does a good job of noting when generally applicable requirements apply to
IElJs. SWCAA has the authority to add specific monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for IEUs when necessary to assure compliance. To the extent specific compliance
assurance requirements are added to the permit, the IEUs should be included in the permit
emission unit list. When not included in the permit, the Basis Statement can describe which
general requirements apply to IEUs and clarify whether emissions from IEUs are included in fee
assessments. Other than asking SWCAA to consider our suggestions. Region 1 (! does not
consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
A-3 2007 EPA Concern: While it appears that SWCAA has clearly cited the approved and
unapproved versions of their regulation that are included in the permit as applicable
requirements, during the on-site interviews, SWCAA staff pointed out that keeping the SWCAA
regulatory' citations organized has been a lot of work. They added that they may begin leaving
out the approved SIP citations when they have been replaced with newer versions of regulations
that were submitted to EPA several years earlier. While EPA understands SWCAA's frustration
with the SIP approval backlog, it is still F.PA's policy that requirements from the most recently
approved SIP must be included in the permit, even if SWCAA has adopted new regulations and
submitted them to EPA for approval.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA's policy is to cite the most recently approved SIP in the
permits. The comment by SWCAA staff was meant to highlight the difficulties posed by t he
incorporation of "obsolete" SIP rules and encourage EPA to act more timely in approving SIP
Page 4 of 18
-------
submittals. This difficulty may not have been identified in other agency's permits because
SWCAA lias noted that permits issued by other jurisdictions (including EPA Part 71 permits)
often do not cite rule adoption dates, and therefore it is unclear which version of the rule is being
cited (SIP versus most recent). In those cases. SWCAA meant to convey that the affected
agencies may be applying the most recent version of the rule regardless of its SIP status.
SWCAA attempts to identify all versions of an applicable rule in its permit citations but is aware
that some of SWCAA's SIP rules are over 10 years out of date. The SIP version of those rules
often conflict with newer versions and/or new EPA requirements. In some cases, sources can not
simultaneously comply with both the SIP version and the current version of a rule.
Consequently. SWCAA has generally "streamlined'' competing versions of each rule in favor of
the most recent.
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA has implemented a revised method of identifying the rules and
versions of those rules that are applicable. SWCAA has inserted a table with a single reference
to each rule and version with all the dates in one location so it does not have to be repeated each
time the rule is cited in the permit. Progress has been made in updating regulations in the SIP.
Round 2 Evaluation: SWCAA's idea to include one version of a rule in the permit and address
other versions of that, rule in one place in a cross-referencing table is a good one: however, it is
important for SWCAA to ensure that streamlined rules are substantially the same as the rule
included. In checking only a few rules, some omitted rules were not the same and should have
been included separately in the penr.it. Also, some citations in the cross-referencing table may
be in error. SWCAA should also confirm the effective dates of cited rules and clarify whether
the date is the effective date of the SIP or the state/local rule. General federal rules that apply to
SWCAA rather than the source, such as 40 CFR part 51 and 40 CFR part 52 (in general), are not
applicable requirements. Specifically, only Subpart WW of 40 CFR part 52 should be included;
that will also cover EPA's federal implementation plan for permitting greenhouse gas emissions
from biomass combustion found in 40 CFR 52.2497.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA will review the individual permits where these
inconsistencies are apparent and have been noted. In the case of the more generally applicable
requirements, SWCAA will make note and either clarify or revise the citations as necessary as
suggested, by HP A.
A-4 2007 EPA Concern: While SWCAA's Basis Statements have some good features, they
could be improved. Permitting, compliance and construction histories would be helpful: the
potential to emit should be presented to support any major/minor source claims or applicability
determinations that rely on it; and the applicability of requirements (CAM, NSPS, NESHAP,
etc.) could have been explained better in some cases. SWCAA should continue to look for ways
to improve the Basis Statements.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA agrees with much of this comment and will make
improvements where possible to improve look-back capability for enforcement issues and
initiatives. However, SWCAA does not agree that all of the cited elements cited in the comment
belong in the Title V Statement of Basis. For example, the technical support document for
SWCAA's NSR permits provides a review of the NSR permitting history of the affected facility.
Repeating this information in the Title V Statement of Basis would be redundant, and potentially
Page 5 of 18
-------
adds significant volume to the Statement of Basis with little added benefit. Also, some facilities
have 40 or more historic NSR actions, and selected actions have been obsolete for decades.
Citing the old/obsolete NSR actions would add confusion to the document when trying to explain
currently applicable requirements. SWCAA's t itle V permits reference the source of each
applicable requirement, and the Statement of Basis for each Title V permit generally contains a
discussion of source history where deemed necessary to clarify the status of affected emission
units.
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA has added discussion of the potential to emit (PI H) for each
facility in the Statement of Basis to support the major source determination. SWCAA also
includes a discussion of relevant permitting and enforcement actions since the last permitting
activity. A discussion of CAM and NSPS and NF.SHAP applicability is included in each
Statement of Basis: sometimes as a general statement if none apply and sometimes on an
individual EU basis.
Round 2 Evaluation: SWCAA has taken several of Region 10's suggestions regarding adding
permitting and compliance histories to Basis Statements. A summary of the potential to emit is
included, though the details are not. An applicable/non-applicable requirement section is
included in some, though some listed requirements lack an explanation as to why they are not
applicable. CAM applicability was consistently noted, but the justifications were often not
adequate. See the discussion about CAM in Concern C-3. Though SWCAA's Basis Statements
can still be improved, they are much better today.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA will review the individual permits where these issues
are present and try to augment those discussions to be mor e complete in the next update of those
permits.
Section C. Monitoring
C-l 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA relies on periodic inspections and visual observations (see - no
see decisions) as a first level for assuring compliance with several requirements. Whenever
visual checks are used, it is useful to clarify that the observers should be trained in visual
observations and utilize the general observation criteria found in EPA Reference Method 22.
Furthermore, a requirement to act on any observation of a visible emission should not be
required of sources that normally do exhibit some visibl e emissions. In those cases, some other
type of routi ne monitoring is more appropriate.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA utilizes a "see - no see" method only when the expected
opacity levels are zero. SWCAA also relies on Method 22 in many cases when the applicable
opacity standard is zero percent. In Method 22 Section 2.3, the method states that determination
of opacity is nor required. Since this procedure requires only the determination of whether
visible emissions are present, and does not require determination of opacity, observer
certification pursuant to Method 9 is not necessary7. Where appropriate. SWCAA has required
several facilities to make periodic Method 9 readings, and in a few instances, required the
facilities to maintain at least one Method 9 certified observer. SWCAA works with each facility
to ensure that the facilities arc capable of making visible emission determinations consistent with
Page 6 of! 8
-------
the requirements of their Title V permits. SWCAA will continue to work with the facilities to
ensure a ppropriate use of the visible emission methods both Method 9 and Method 22.
2019 SWCAA Update: SWCAA utilizes a "see - no see" method only when the expected opacity
levels are zero. SWCA A also relies on Method 22 in many cases when the applicable opacity
standard is zero percent. In Method 22 Section 2.3. the method states that determination of
opacity is not required. Since this procedure requires only the determination of whether visible
emissions are present, and does not require determination of opacity, observer certification
pursuant to Method 9 is not necessary. Where appropriate. SWCAA has required several
facilities to make periodic Method 9 readings, and in a few instances, required the facilities to
maintain at least one Method 9 certified observer. SWCAA works with each facility to ensure
that the facilities are capable of making visible emission determinations consistent with the
requirements of their Title V permits. SWCAA will continue to work with the facilities to ensure
appropriate use of the visible emission methods - both Method 9 and Method 22.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 still considers periodic walkthroughs and see-no see
observations a good approach for confirming ongoing compliance with visible and fugitive
emissions requirements. SWCAA requires RM22 in some permits but not all, which is fine.
Region 10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
C-2 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA often required monitoring baghouse pressure drop to assure
compliance with particulate and opacity emission limits. Monitoring experts within EPA have
concluded that pressure drop is not a reliable approach for monitoring baghouse compliance.
Alternatives to pressure drop include opacity and bag leak detectors and can be combined with a
good operation and maintenance program. SWCAA. should avoid relying on pressure drop
monitoring to assure baghouse compliance.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA utilizes periodic source emission testing and periodic
(usually monthly) visual observations (Method 22) as this comment suggests as the primary
method of determining compliance with particulate and opacity emission limits. The suggested
use of bag leak detectors has merit, and SWCAA will be exploring this option in future
permitting actions. SWCAA's use of baghouse pressure drop is a secondary method of
determining compliance with particulate and opacity emission limits. It is a parameter that can
be routinely monitored by plant staff and agency representatives to provide a quick indication of
performance.
2019 SWCAA Update: As mentioned in 2 above, SWCAA is moving away from Method 22 as a
monitoring provision. In addition. SWCAA agrees that monitoring of baghouse pressure drop in
itself, is not an indicator of compliance, but does provide an indication of attention to operations
and maintenance programs referred to above. To the degree that this monitoring requirement
continues to exist in NSR permits, this condition will continue to be included in the Title V
permit. As the opportunity arises in the NSR permit program, this requirement will be phased
out in favor of other monitoring provisions.
Round 2 Evaluation: Where SWCAA requires baghouse pressure drop monitoring as a secondary
parameter, it is in addition to other, more appropriate monitoring. Region 10 agrees that pressure
drop monitoring can be an indicator of the source's maintenance program. Region 10 still
Page 7 of 18
-------
believes that hag leak detectors are another good alternative for baghouses that require a more
rigorous level of scrutiny than periodic observations provide (e.g. when CAM applies). Region
10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
C-3 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA's permits do not consistently address compliance assurance
monitoring (CAM) applicability and CAM-based monitoring decisions. CAM is a very important
aspect of Title V permits and should be clearly explained in Basis Statements.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWC'AA agrees with this comment and will be more diligent in the
future in addressing CAM determinations in the Statement of Basis and provide more detail
regarding CAM based monitoring decisions in its Title V permits. Please note that CAM does
not apply to all of the Title V facilities at SWCAA. In addition, selected SWCAA facilities arc
still operating under their original Title V permits. The first round of SWCAA permits were
issued prior to promulgation of the current CAM requirements. Hence. CAM provisions are not
addressed in those permits, but will become applicable upon the first Title V permit renewal.
SWCAA is incorporating CAM provisions as appropriate in each renewal permit. SWCAA
expects the incorporation of CAM to have little impact on existing permit conditions because
appropriate compliance monitoring has already been established in the associated NSR
permitting actions.
2019 8 WCAA Update: Through the Title V permit renewal process, SWCAA has incorporated
CAM requirements into each Title V permit for each facility where CAM is applicable or made a
determination and documented that CAM is not applicable.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 reviewed the CAM analyses in the four permits reviewed as part
of this program review as well as six other permits, to evaluate SWCAA's implementation of the
CAM program. Region 10 is still very concerned about SWCAA's approach to CAM
applicability determinations and documentation. One common mistake is the application of the
exception of rules promulgated after 1990. CAM applies to emission units that use a control
device to comply with an emission limitation that is not exempt from CAM. If the control device
is used to comply with non-exempt applicable emission limitations, CAM still applies. For
instance, if an emission unit is subject to a (post 1990) MACT standard and a SIP limitation and
has a control device needed to meet both requirements, SWCAA should apply CAM to the
emission unit for the SIP limitation, but not the MACT standard. Opacity limits should also be
factored into the CAM analysis. The CAM applicability analysis should address baghouses,
explaining those cases where the baghousc is actually used as process equipment. Emission
units that use continuous compliance determination monitors for a specific pollutant are exempt
from CAM. When an emission unit has a continuous emission monitoring system that is not the
compliance determination method (a reference method test is the compliance determination
method), but rather just an indicator of compliance, the pollutant-specific emission unit is still
subject to CAM. SWCAA's permits should clarify when a required continuous monitoring
system is the compliance determination method. The Basis Statement (where the CAM
applicability analysis should be) should present pre- and post-control potential emissions (for
applicability and monitoring frequency decisions, respectively) as part of the CAM applicability
analysis. SWCAA should re-evaluatc CAM applicability in their permits to assure CAM has
been applied correctly.
Page H of 18
-------
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA agrees with this comment and will re-evaluate how
CAM is incorporated into the Title 5 permits and Statement of Basis and make necessary changes to
the permits and Basis Statement. SWCAA has no instances where a baghouse is used as process
equipment. SWCAA will be more diligent to specify the compliance determination method for e iL.h
CAM subject pollutant in the permit.
C-4 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA "s permits often contained tiered approaches to monitoring,
commonly for opacity and particulate emission limits. The approach normally begins with some
sort of an observation which can lead to corrective actions, additional observations and
eventually deviation reporting. Only occasionally did the monitoring scheme lead to a reference
method test (e.g. RM 9) and rarely to a particulate matter test. Where initial observations
indicate possible concerns about compliance, the permit can be designed to automatically require
a reference method test to confirm compliance. This is particularly appropriate where the
initially observed concerns recur often or are not promptly corrected. When renewing permits.
SWCAA should add specific reference method testing where appropriate and consider the use of
"automated" test requirements.
2007 SWCAA Response: As noted in the comment. SWCAA's monitoring requirements often
include a tiered approach with progressively more sophisticated monitoring if there is cause for
concern in regard to observations or plant data which suggest areas of possible noncompliance.
SWCAA will incorporate specific reference method testing where appropriate and add the use of
"automated" test requirements.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no change to this response.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 continues to believe that tiered monitoring and testing
requirements can be useful permit writing techniques. SWCAA appears to use tiered monitoring
related to periodic inspections and visual observation, which can lead to RM9 opacity readings.
There were few if any examples wherein a SWCAA permit required emission testing if periodic
monitoring identified an issue that was not quickly corrected or a required emission test resulted
in a limit exceedance or near exceedance. During the onsite interviews, SWCAA explained that
they handle those situations on a case-by-case basis outside of the permit, which is acceptable.
Region 10 still suggests SWCAA consider adding automated testing and tiered
monitoring/testing as built-in tools for assuring ongoing compliance.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA has considered tiered monitoring and testing, where
appropriate. For some agencies this may be a very important and helpful inclusion in the permit to
assist with addressing compliance issues. Compliance issues for SWCAA can be driven by many
different factors that are not necessarily resolved with additional or more frequent testing or
monitoring. Sometimes tiered testing may be an appropriate action, but that is determined as part of
the compliance resolut ion process. SWCAA disagrees that this practice of tiered monitoring and
testing is automatically a better way to address compliance issues. SWCAA considers this issue as a
compliance issue, not a permit having unclear permit terms and insufficient permit conditions for
demonstrating compliance. Compliance issues tend to he unique situations that can't easily be
identified during permitting and usually require a specific approach to resolution. SWCAA has a
robusl compliance program and desires to address compliance issues as just that compliance issues.
Page! i f18
-------
C-5 2007 EPA Concern: Occasionally. SWCAA's permits contained operation and maintenance
requirements mixed in with monitoring requirements. Monitoring is generally used to identify
problems (or assure there are no problems) while maintenance is used to avoid problems or to
address identified problems. Finally, operation and maintenance requirements do not necessarily
satisfy the need to have monitoring; in fact, monitoring should be specified to assure compliance
with any operation and maintenance requirements, SWCAA should consider this type of
clarification during future permit renewals.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA will review each permit at renewal time to ensure that
monitoring activities are clearly separated from operations and maintenance requirements.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no change to this response.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
Section D. Public Participation and Affected State Review
D-l 2007 EPA Concern: Like many of the permitting authorities across the country, SWCAA
provides the permittee with a pre-draft permit for review and comment before the draft permit
goes out for public comment. Soliciting the permittee's input on the factual aspects of the permit
can help to reduce errors in the permit and help educate the permittee on its obligations under the
permit. Working with the permittee on developing the substantive requirements of the permit,
however, can create the impression that the permit issuance process is not an open process.
SWCAA should carefully balance these interests as it works with permittees during the
development and issuance of Title V permits,
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA does not work with the permittees when developing
substantive requirements. Substantive requirements are generally pre-existing, originating from
NSR permitting actions, applicable regulations, and other enforcement documents. Substantive
requirements are not open for negotiation or review under Title V. Only the factual aspects of
the permit are available for comment. SWCAA is very diligent, and will continue to he diligent,
to ensure that there is no appearance of a non-open process.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response.
Round 2 Evaluation: This is generally not an issue when the agency documents the basis for all
of the requirements in the permit and assures that all comments received during the public
comment period are documented and addressed before the permit is issued. SWCAA
understands and implements their program this way. As long as SWCAA continues to make the
entire record available to the public during the public review process, Region 10 is satisfied with
SWCAA's approach for ensuring transparency. Wc no longer consider this a concern that
warrants follow-up.
Page 10 of 18
-------
Section E. Permit Issuance / Revision / Renewal
E-l 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA noted that issuance of several permits has been delayed due to
NSR and MACT issues. In their last TOPS report (Jan thru June, 2007), three permits had been
extended past 5 years pending renewal and one significant modification application was older
than 18 months. EPA has recognized ways to avoid permit issuance delays when new MACT
standards and complicated NSR enforcement actions are not yet resolved. SWCAA should
continue to manage their workload in a practical way while meeting the regulatory deadlines for
permit issuance.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA has focused on this issue in recent months and as of
1/10/2008 only one permit is currently extended past 5 years. SWCAA has several sources that
are subject to MACT standards that have been promulgated and have been vacated in full or in
part. As noted previously, this situation has complicated the Title V permitting process. SWCAA
is working through each of these permits in an orderly and informed fashion, but additional time
is required in each case to ensure that appropriate terms and conditions are incorporated into the
final permit language.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response. One permit is currently extended
due to NSR and MACT incorporation and one permit is extended due to SSI rule requirements
that the facility is not in compliance with, so the permit cannot be reissued.
Round 2 Evaluation: SWCAA reports its permit issuance progress to Region 30 semi-annually.
Attachment 3 to this report shows SWCAA's reported permit issuance data for the past seven
reporting periods (201 8-1 is the first half of 201 8, 2018-2 is the second hali). SWCAA's
backlog in initial permits has never been more than one permit; has not had any outstanding
significant modification applications; and the backlog in renewal (extended) permits has been
reduced from 60% down to 12% over this reporting period, an excellent trend. SWCAA clearly
manages their permit workload very well. Region 10 does not consider this a concern that
warrants follow-up.
E-2 2007 EPA Concern: SWCAA does not require minor permit applications to include a
certification by a responsible official. This is required by Part 70. SWCAA should expect
certification with minor permit modifications.
2007 SWCAA Response: During the audit. SWCAA misunderstood this question to relate to its
minor source permit program. Upon further review, we understand the question relates to minor
modifications of a Title V permit. Under the SWCAA Title V program, most submittals have
contained a certification by a responsible official. In the future, SWCAA will be more diligent to
ensure that every permit action includes a certification by a responsible official.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
Page 11 of 18
-------
E-3 2007 HP A Concern: SWCAA's fee structure bases part of the fee on the number of emission
units to account for permit complexity. The emission unit concept in Title V generally allows
useful flexibility in grouping or non-grouping of plant site activities based on a number of factors
such as similar applicable requirements or operations. This can make implementation of the
permit requirements more practical. Placing a price (by basing the fee) on the number of
emission units can put these intentions at odds with each other. SWCAA should consider ways
to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the emission unit concept despite the fee system
design.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA does consider flexible approaches in making emission unit-
groupings at affected facilities. The potential effect on fees is not a consideration in grouping
determinations. SWCAA's minor souree program and Title V program share a common
emission unit structure that groups similar emission units when it is practical for purposes of
implementing requirements or operations. In practice, grouping determinations are driven by the
need to develop permit conditions that are understandable and enforceable as a practical matter.
Title V permit conditions are based on major and minor source NSR permits. Only on a rare
occasion are permit conditions developed under the gap tilling provisions, CAM or insufficiency
provisions of Title V. SWCAA tries to maintain as much continuity as possible between the
minor source and Title V permitting programs in making these determinations.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to respoi. s<.
Round 2 Evaluation: Region 10 does not consider this a concern that warrants follow-up.
Section F. Compliance
F-l 2007 EPA Concern: Even where it was apparent that emission testing had been required by
and performed under a previously issued permit, rarely did the Basis Statement discuss the
results or rely on the results for making future testing or monitoring decisions. Where testing
was required, rarely were emission unit and control equipment operational parameters recorded
and related to the test results to assure the parameters monitored truly represent compliance.
Source-specific test data can be very useful for designing an appropriate compliance monitoring
approach. SWCAA should not only document the results but consider them when requiring
monitoring for future permits.
2007 SWCAA Response: SWCAA will provide a better description of the testing history of
affected sources in the Statement of Basis for eacii Title V permit. It should be noted that the
majority of the equipment specific testing and monitoring requirements found in SWCAA's Title
V permits are drawn directly' from underlying NSR permits. Compared with other air agencies.
SWCAA has a long history of requiring emission testing and compliance monitoring in its NSR
permits. There has been little need for additional measures to be implemented via the Title V
permitting process. For other Washington agencies where this has not been done, the Title V
permitting process often includes the development of comprehensive testing/monitoring schemes
under Part 70 'gap-filling" provisions. However, current EPA guidance for gap-filling
monitoring precludes SWCAA from using a Title V permit to change or "enhance"
testing/monitoring measures established in underlying permits. Hence. SWCAA's Title V
Page 12 of 18
-------
permitting actions have not involved significant testing/monitoring decisions, If there is a
compliance issue that would benefit from source testing, SWCAA would require testing as part
of the compliance issue on a basis that is supported by the issue. These decisions are made as
part of the compliance process arid generally are not anticipated or historically documented in the
Title V Statement of Basis.
2019 SWCAA Update: Addressed - no changes to response.
Round 2 Evaluation: There was little evidence in the Basis Statements reviewed that SWCAA
considers past test results when determining monitoring or testing frequency in a permit. During
the onsite interview's, SWCAA indicated that the frequency for testing specified in the permit,
commonly once every five years, was rarely adjusted based on previous test results, infrequent
testing can provide an adequate assurance of compliance if there is a history of consistently low
test results (i.e. a good margin of compliance), but may not be sufficient in ail cases. To be
sufficient, the frequency of testing should be adjusted based on SWCAA's confidence in ongoing
compliance and the relative margin of compliance in past testing. The Basis Statement should
consider pas! compliance data (including test results and margins of compliance) and explain the
basis for setting the frequency of monitoring and testing in the permit. Finally, process and
control equipment parameters that are monitored as compliance surrogates should be linked to
levels recorded during compliance testing to help assure ongoing compliance.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: Testing frequency is established under SWCAA's NSR
program and specified in facility NSR permits. Frequencies are established based on size of the
equipment, potential for non-compliance, potential impact to the airshed if violated, compliance
history, and technical innovation of the control technology. Test frequencies and minimum protocols
are included as an appendix to each NSR permit and carried forward into each T itle 5 permit. For
some agencies this is likely not the case. In the event that there is an exeeedance of an emission
limit, corrective measures are identified as part of the SWCAA compliance program. As a minimum,
this includes additional testing that documents compliance but may include additional monitoring or
reporting. The root cause is considered in the enforcement action and is not considered appropriate
by SWCAA as a permitting issue. All SWCAA test reports and result summaries are available on the
SWCAA webpage. Past results arc plainly documented on the webpage and the full test reports are
available lor review right from the webpage. Compliance history is also documented on the webpage
on a facility basis to be able to assess where and how SWCAA has taken enforcement action.
SWCAA would provide for additional testing, monitoring or reporting under gap-filling authority or
sufficiency monitoring if deemed appropriate. To date, SWCAA has not observed a need to do
testing beyond what is already specified in NSR permits or as necessary to resolve a compliance
issue.
III. Additional Review
In addition to reviewing Company Name & Date Issued
concerns identified in the Location
first review. Region 10
requested an update about
program resources and
permit issuance progress
Pil,c 13 of 18
-------
and reviewed several
permits that were issued by
SWC-AA within the last
few years. The following
permits were reviewed by
Region 10 as part of this
program review:
Permit No.
SW97-1-R2
SW14-2U-R0
SW97-4-R3
SW18-23-RO
City of Vancouver 01/25/2016
Westside Treatment Plant
Cowlitz County Landfill 10/10/2018
Castle Rock
Hampton Lumber Mills 06/12/2018
Randle
Weyerhaeuser Longview 06/18/2019
Lumber
New Concerns
1. Regarding SWCAA's incorporation of new requirements. Region 10 thinks it is a good
practice to add a section to the Basis Statement that describes the new applicable
requirements that are being added to a renewal permit. Including a broader-scoped section
that describes all changes to the permit (in this renewal) would also be good and could
encompass the new applicable requirements. SWCAA's Basis Statements did not have a
section that described the changes or even the new applicable requirements.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: New requirements come from several different places including
new/revised federal rules such as MACT and NSPS. changes in state or local rules, issuance of
new or modified NSR permits or the result of SWCAA updating permits as a result of this review
to provide additional requirements, monitoring or recordkeeping under gap-filling, or sufficiency
monitoring provisions. SWCAA will attempt to augment the Statement of Basis to include a
brief discussion of any new applicable requirements.
2. The incorporation of the boiler VIACT to one permit reviewed could have been better.
Obsolete boiler MACT requirements included in the renewal could have been omitted. Some
compliance options that are clearly not options for that particular source also could have been
omitted. In those cases where the compliance option chosen by the source is clear, the Basis
Statement can explain that. If the other options are no longer possible, the permit can also be
cleaned up by removing the compliance options not used. Some Boiler MACT requirements
referenced with a citation in the permit should have been written fully into the permit. These
suggestions should be applied to all of the permits that SWCAA Issues.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response; SWCAA will review the specific permits that incorporate
Boiler MACT and address the issues identified by EPA.
Page 14 of 18
-------
3. Related to citing the correct version of the SIP and SWCAA's rules, covered in Concern A-3.
where the applicable citations are listed for individual permit conditions, which may contain
several different requirements, SWCAA should he more specific about which requirements
in the condition arc paired with each citation, SWCAA seems to be grouping '"like"
requirements into a single permit condition from several applicable requirements. That is
acceptable as long as the individual citations are clearly linked to the correct requirement in
the condition.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA will be more specific in its citation of individual rules
to ensure that if different versions that are not substantially similar are each identified and have
the appropriate citation to be able to clearly identify the basis for the underlying requirement,
4. Paraphrasing long applicable requirements is an acceptable practice as long as the
paraphrased version of the requirement is accurate and complete and the permit contains a
general statement that clarifies that the underlying regulation takes precedence when the
wording is not exact. This is also important when streamlining multiple requirements in one
permit condition, where the individual regulations are not exact.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA would like additional dialog with EPA on this issue to
ensure thai SWCAA appropriately identifies where paraphrasing and streamlining multiple
requirements is done in its permits. In addition, we need further dialog on how the Permit Shield
provisions of Title V (40 CFR 70.6(0(1 )(i)) and WAC 173-401-640 are applied in an instance
where there may be ambiguity about the underlying requirement(s).
5. Several permits with hourly and annual emission limits did not include the compliance
method or, because the limits were listed in the same permit condition as other limits such as
concentration limits, included compliance methods that are only appropriate for
concentration limits (e.g. emission testing). All limitations, including hourly and annual
emission limits, must have appropriate compliance demonstration methods included in the
permit. Compliance with daily and annual limits generally requires an emission factor and
process monitoring be specified in the permit. Changes to the required emission factors "off-
permit" should be done using a replicablc procedure specified by the permit.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA will evaluate the underlying permits that are the basis
lor this concern and provide appropriate compliance demonstration methodologies. In addition.
SWC AA will augment the Statement of Basis to further clarify emission calculation
methodologies and emission factors.
6. When limiting process parameters in a permit, such as temperature, the permit condition that
includes the limit should include the location of the monitor and the averaging period for
demonstrating compliance. Some permits described the averaging time in the associated
monitoring condition rather than the limit condition. Then, the process limit averaging time
and monitoring averaging time should match.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA will evaluate the underlying permits thai are the basis
for this concern and provide appropriate locations and averaging times for the permit condition.
Page 15 of 18
-------
7. In some Basis Statements, SWCAA includes an Appendix that present an Applicable
Requirements Review. The Appendix states whether the requirement was included in the
permit hut does not always explain why. This seems like a logical place to explain
applicability and. more importantly, inapplicability. This appendix, complete with
justifications. would be a good addition to those Basis Statements that don't include it.
SWCAA 201 y Round 2 Response: SWCAA will evaluate the underlying permits that are the basis
for this concern and provide appropriate enhancements to the applicability discussion.
8. Region 10 reorganized changing our office and unit structure into a division, branch and
section structure. "1'his changed our mailing addresses. Where SWCAA includes the address
for mailing copies of certain documents to Region 10, the permits should be revised
accordingly. Region 10 can supply the new addresses if needed.
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: SWCAA will attempt to stay on top of EPA reorganizations and
address changes with permit updates. The rules require that the EPA address be included in each
permit, it would be good if EPA could identify an appropriate address that would not change
with each reorganization to limit the additional workload associated with updating the EPA
address and reissuing the permit.
IV, Summary of Concerns and Recommendations
Concerns
Many of the concerns identified in the first-round program review have been resolved to Region
10's satisfaction, but some still need at least some attention. Region 10 is satisfied with
SWCAA's progress on 8 of the 14 concerns identified in the 2007 program review. Region 10
thinks SWCAA can still improve on the other six remaining original concerns. Region 10 has
identified seven new concerns that SWCAA should address and is providing information
regarding one new topic.
Region 10 has provided some new information regarding one topic. Due to a reorganization,
the titles and mailing addresses for all of Region 10*s offices has changed. SWCAA should note
the new addresses for submitting information to Region: SWCAA should also update their
permits with the new address (New Concern 8).
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response Se*. response to new comm^ i K
Region 10 has suggestions SWCAA should consider regarding two topics. Region 10 still
thinks SWCAA should consider use of tiered monitoring and testing schemes in permits to help
assure ongoing compliance (Concern C-4). SWCAA should consider adding a section to the
Basis Statements that explains what changed from the previous permits, specifically noting the
new applicable requirements (New Concern 1).
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response: 1) This may be an appropriate action for Agencies that do not
specify testing requirements in their NSR permits. SWCAA utilizes tiered monitoring and testing
schemes in permits where appropriate. When a compliance issue arises, it is dealt with as a
Page 16 of 18
-------
compliance issue and not as a permuting issue. If additional monitoring or testing is needed to assure
continued compliance, it is required as part of the compliance resolution strategy.
2) SWCAA will attempt to identify new requirements as new in the Statement of Basis for each
requirement and provide a short broad description of new requirements such as new/modified MACT
standards, state or local rules or new NSR permitting activities. SWCAA does not consider lengthy
discussions of these types of new requirements warranted in the Title V permit or Statement of Basis.
SWCAA has made improvements to their permits and Basis Statements, but more
improvements can be realized for six original concerns and five new concerns. SWCAA
should develop a list of standard conditions to use consistently on ail permits. (Concern A-l).
SWCAA should review the regulatory basis in each permit to confirm the citations are correct
and ensure that streamlined requirements are reflected in the resulting permit conditions
(Concern A-3). SWCAA can still generally improve their Basis Statements (Concern A-4).
SWCAA must improve their CAM applicability determinations and documentation (Concern C-
3). SWCAA should use and document the use of past test data to set monitoring and testing
requirements in permits (Concern F-l). SWCAA can improve the incorporation of new federal
requirements such as the boiler MACT (New Concern 2). SWCAA more clearly tie citations to
permit conditions with multiple requirements (New Concern 3). SWCAA should confirm
paraphrased permit conditions are accurate and include general language regarding the text in the
rule takes precedence (New Concern 4). SWCAA must ensure that hourly and annual emission
limits tire enforceable as a practical matter (New Concern 5). SWCAA should clarify
process/control device limitation details and match the monitoring periods to the limitation (New
Concern 6). SWCAA should include a section in the Basis Statement that explains permit
changes in renewals and/or applicability/non-applicability for all reasonably applicable
requirements (New Concern 7).
SWCAA 2019 Round 2 Response:
A-l) SWCAA will review its list of standard conditions and attempt to make the list standard across
all permits given limitations for changes and updates.
A-3) SWCAA will review- the regulatory basis in each permit to confirm that the citations are
correct and ensure that streamlined requirements are reflected in the resulting permit
conditions.
A-4) SWCAA will make improvements with the Statements of Basis to pro\ ide more ehmv tor
issues identified by EPA.
C-3) SWCAA will be re-evaluating CAM discussions in each permit where CAM applies based
on our updated understanding of the CAM requirements.
F-l) SWCAA has a well-established history of requiring appropriately established monitoring
and testing requirements. Compliance issues arc resolved through the enforcement
program. The need for additional or more frequent monitoring and/or testing is prescribed
under the enforcement program.
New 2) SWCAA will review those permits that cite the boiler MACT and clean up citations as
suggested by EPA.
New 3) SWCAA will review the underlying permits for this concern and make necess ir\
changes as suggested by EPA.
New 4) SWCAA would like additional dialog with EPA on this issue to ensure that SWCAA
appropriately identifies where paraphrasing and streamlining multiple requirements is done in its
Page 17 ol 18
-------
permits. In addition, we need further dialog on how the Permit Shield provisions of Title V (40
CFR 70.6(0(1 ){i)) and WAC 173-401-640 are applied lit an instance where there may he
ambiguity about the underlying requirement(s).
New 5) SVVCAA will evaluate the underlying permits thai are the basis for this concern and provide
appropriate compliance demonstration methodologies. In addition. SWCAA will augment the
Stateroom of Basis to further clarify emission calculation methodologies and emission factors.
New 6) SWCAA will evaluate the underlying permits that are the basis for this concern and provide
appropriate locations and averaging times for the permit condition.
New 7) SWCAA will evaluate the underlying permits that are the basis for this concern and provide
appropriate enhancements to the applicability discussion.
New 8) SWCAA will attempt to stay on top of EPA reorganizations and address changes with permit
updates to note new KPA addresses.
Kccommendati o n s
SWCAA should provide to Region 10 a response that explains what they plan to do to resolve
these 13 topics/concerns: Concern A-l. A-3, A-4. C-3, C-4 and F-l and New Concerns 1 thru 7.
If SWCAA prefers to discuss any of the concerns before responding, Region 10 will gladly
accommodate that.
Page 18 of 18
------- |