fil d - eqc.state.wy.useqc.state.wy.us/orders/air closed cases/13-2101 aqd rulemaking... · fil d...
TRANSCRIPT
The \Vyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD)
Wyoming Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting
FIL D
The Wyoming Air Quality Advisory Board will meet on January 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM, in the Cottonwood Meeting Room, Laramie County Library, 2200 Pioneer Avenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The Air Quality Division (AQD or Division) is requesting the Board's consideration on proposed changes to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR), Chapter 4, State Performance Standards tor Specific Existing Sources, Chapter 5, National Emission Standards, Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, and Chapter I 1, National Acid Rain Program. Most of the changes involve annual updates to portions of the State Air Regulations which are adopted verbatim by reference from the federal Code of Regulations (CFR). These changes affect Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 11. The Division is also proposing changes to Chapter 4, Section 5, to update regulations covering hospital and medical waste incinerators so that State regulations match federal guidelines. Finally, the Division will present changes to Chapter 6, Section 4, to update PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) rules to 1) specifically list new minor source baseline dates for fine particulate, 2) include revised federal language on the treatment of condensable particulate matter, and 3) clarify when the maximum allowable increment is exceeded for particulate matter. The Division is also providing opportunity for comment on two infrastructure State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to address the 2010 1-hour N02 ambient standard and the 2008 8-hour ozone ambient standard. Changes to Chapter 6, as well as the N02
and ozone infrastructure SIPs, involve changes to the SIP to satisfy Clean Air Act (CAA) Sections 110 or 166, and those changes will be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The public is invited to attend the meeting and may comment on all matters before the Board. All oral comments made during the meeting, and signed comments handdelivered to Steven A Dietrich at the meeting, will become part of the public record. Written comments will also become part of the public record if they are signed by the commenter and submitted to Steven A. Dietrich, Administrator, DEQ/AQD, Herschler Building 2-E, 122 W. 25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82002, or fa-xed to 307-777-5616, by the close of the meeting on January 16, 2013. Emailed comments will not be included in the public record. Copies of the agenda, public notice, proposed regulations, and the Infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 N02
standard and the 2008 ozone standard are available for public inspection at the Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Herschler Building, 2nd Floor, 122 W. 25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Electronic copies will be available after December 16, 2012, at
If you have questions regarding the proposed rule changes, the N02 or ozone Infrastructure SIPs, or request a hard copy of any of the materials, please contact Christine Anderson at 307-675-5624.
For additional information contact Steven A Dietrich, Administrator, Air Quality Division, at 307-777-7391.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance or alternative formats
will be made available upon request for individuals with disabilities.
6
8
9
0
12
3
14
15
16
18
19
0
D
s t to notice dul given to a part es in
in teres
16
this matter came on for meeting on
of January, 2013, at the hour of :01 a.m.,
at the Cottonwood Room of the Laramie County Library,
2200 Pioneer Avenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming before the
Air Qua ity Advisory Board, Mr. Timo Brown,
pres ding, with Ms. Diana G. Hulme, Mr. Joe "J.
1/'Jasse and Mr. Klaus D. Hanson, Ph.D. in
a tendance.
ich, Ai it st
0
ng
r;
6
9
10
1
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
3
r
er Ms. Anderson Mr. Smith
An de on Mr. Ander on Ms. Vehr Mr. son t-1s. An de son
Ruling the rd
er 6 Ms. Anderson Ruling the Board
r ll Ms. Anderson Ruling the Board
110 Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 1-hour N02 Standard - Ms. Cede e
1 0 Inf st ture -hour N02 Standard
IP for the 008 Ms. Ceder e
r
I
0
11
3
14
15
16
9
The firs
from July 12th meeting.
0 r s
BOARD MEMBER HANSON:
BOARD MEMBER HULME:
BOARD MEMBER BROWN:
• I
0
So moved.
cond.
Second.
So moved and seconded. questions? Any
comment?
Okay. Meeting minutes from Ju 1 th are
approved.
Old business. Staff acti ty.
t-1R. DIETRICH: Yes, that would be
covering the hiring status. I believe r la
've had s
l
4
s
r
9
10
1
1
1
4
15
16
18
9
0
s
the Ti
He'
their roles s the las
t , v1e Board meeting -- Advisory Board
meet
then to Josh's r is Cole Anderson. He's
the New ource Review program manager. And to his right is
l\1ar t:h. k Smith works a lot of the oil and gas
tt , and he will actually be doing a presentation
later on this morning.
over to the aisle -- over the aisle is
Vehr. She's th the AG's office. To her is
ina Anderson with rule development. And then to he ri
is rle, who was
you s e before?
i I
4
6
7
8
9
0
3
4
15
16
17
2
8
9
0
on i l , Shel
rry. ey,
BERRY:
MR. IETRICE: 's the new Gina. Gina
left us to go wo k in
Land Quality. So she's
r Qual ty. And Shelley came from
ng us like Gina used to in the
past.
And see if I've ten anyone. Oh, here we
go, all right. I need some he
MS. MILLER: Shannon Miller.
fviR. ETR CH: Shannon Miller, yes. Thank
you.
And she s th month \-!Or with Brian.
Ha to he 're in ng
8
0
1
14
15
16
17
18
9
's where
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Would i i
introduced ourselves?
MR. DIETRICH: Yes. I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: My name is Tim Brown.
I work at Chemicals. I'm an environmental se s
supervisor. I've been in environmental for about 20 years.
BOARD MEMBER WASSERBURGER: My name is
J.D. Wasse r. I'm from Lusk. I'm a rancher, and I
have an oil field contract business.
retired universi
~ 1 0 .L.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Klaus Hanson.
professor. I know nothing about
I
'rn a
at
ch,
6
9
10
1
1
13
4
5
16
18
19
0
N with the
g this on
i on.
Our last meet cvas back in and at that
t \;,Jere 6 open enforcement cases,
s ope rat under various consent decrees.
Our l st report in July covered four months, and this
rt six months. So since the July report, we
opened 35 cases, nine of those in these first two weeks of
013. So it was a little bit busy this first couple of
weeks here.
total in 012 were 6 new cases.
t'V'e 've osed, the past six months, 25 cases. One of
thos wi be c osed in 0 3. And so the total we closed
s. now we've 3 open
n s Like I
d,
re
l
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
8
19
0
on n
rds
that go out 0 'd 0 0.
there for a little bit.
The other one is an appea Powder
River Coal on an enforcement and r agency action. And
that was opened in late summer of 01 , and 're in
settlement negotiations currently on that
There's some other cases that we follow
and Tina state and a l those involved most of
the ambient lutants that we just kind o eye on.
We're not a participant in those es. The l s so stil
the gas rules that are being
At ast t
f i
t
6
8
9
10
1
1
1
14
5
16
18
19
in
f
l.
0
1
0
far
k
the
us an oral the
haven't heard ng, so it's t
ing on their docket and still an open se.
other case that we're partie ing in is an
interven with a number of states is called White
tal ion V. EPA, but it's in regard to utilities MATS case.
We've done our part on the briefing, and it's still in that
brie se, so we're waiting for the other side to
re to briefing, and then it should all be eted
somet n the in terms of the briefing, then go to
our
r itigation that's ongoing involves regiona
e federa v.Jas a se --
t
ust st month, for an ion
9 because want t repropos on 's state
10 So we're to go it all ove again.
11 Harch 3 st, 013 is the deadline, the court deadline for
12 EPA to s a reproposal, and then r 2 , 2013 is
13 the deadline for EPA to take final action on 's
14 l Haze Plan. So we' l have to see what show us
15 come March.
16 And that particular an dealt th
17 oxide and ate matter emissions our BART
18 determinations, Best Avai Retrofit Technology.
19 - or, excuse not ask for an
0 extensi in e
J
0
8 questions on items of interest
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: t
0 Board?
1 BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Jus one ques
1 We dealt with an area of haze out West. Is that
3 what you'd be referring to when you said there was
14 something in the courts about one area where we had the
15 special haze situation last time we discussed t?
16 MS. VEHR: haze, I don't recall
17 the discussion last time, but 1 haze is for mult e
18 sources over many areas.
9 BOARD MEMBER HANSON:
0 . VEHR: s s
4
6
8
9
10
1
2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
5
1
e
s
s fe ng
So this has nothing to do with
. VEHR: No, this is haze. This is
visibil
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: 0 Thank you.
MS. VEHR: Thanks.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Thank you.
Let's see. New business, rulema
MS. ANDERSON: Good mo
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Good morni
. ANDERSON: Tina Anderson with the Ai
lity Di s and I'm go to give you a game an
nes , and I' - we'
and f
6
8
0 :;J
10
1
12
13
1 L1 .L "
15
16
1
18
9
0
2
5
1
p
comment letter that I'm the
rulema that we're ng from EDF,
Environmental Defense , and ng Outdoo i !
WOC. And we'll talk abou t whe:1 we to
but you can read it at your leis
We also have in that e copies of pres ntations
that Mark will be that have to do with oil and gas,
and also some background information that Da a Potter has
forwarded ozone in the Upper Green. And then
finally in that le you'l find a ece of islat on
that is actual over the 1 ri novJ be
discussed this week the nea future
gas s. of
s
E.
6
8
9
0
1
1
14
15
16
1
8
1
4
t l l
the end of discuss on we wi whether
you ll commend we proce with and
t's the action that we'l ask you to vote on And
you' , of course, as always, free to make conunenda tions
on different wording or different ideas that we proposed.
Once we closed that section, Jeni is to
introduce two new infrastructure SIPs, and she wi l talk
more about what those mean. But not rul so
separate them from the rulema piece.
And then inal y the s to the si
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
0
2
s
w th sion, we'
go to a look er 4,
State Performance tanda fi Exist Sources.
Nost of the s ions n the r are red
EPA under the Cle ion 11 (d) r 4,
Section 5 is a big chunk o what we're focus on today,
amended emission limi s. We'll also see some
revised compliance monitor and report pieces of it.
And this is focused on existing Ho l Medical
Infectious Waste Incinerators, or HNIWis. You'll hear me
refer to HHIWis. I' jus say that all The
are be proposed to ng's
recommendations to tch the lines.
0 i l 0
ubni
::he June
s
l
5
10
1
13
14
15
16
8
1
l
s rom
9, but had ion s the
federal government as f '09.
The ed rules are no more st
than those gat the PA. The revised state plans
off of the amended emission imi s were due October 6,
010. This didn't , as our rules had yet to be
and adopted. The amended emission limits became
effected became effective and enforceable as soon as
possible after the EPA would have our state
but no than three years, we would have five years
after the date of the rule
five-year mark wil be October 6,
s
t
1 < _l
ion.
0 4.
st
So r now our
of in
y
l:l
1
PA
t
6 0
7
8 the arne Feder a 0 s
9 f you go ahead and take a k at er 4, we
10 amended Se ions 1, 5, and 5 be the bu k of i
1 ta loo at: introduct on, Sect on , you'll
12 we added Section 6 to be an incorporation by reference
there.
14 We'll move on to Section 5, which is page 4 37.
Eve ahead of that is all of our old from
16 the regs striked out. And beginning with part (a),
17 ::Jef tions, we removed the entire list of definitions and
18 incorporated CFR reference. This will a low the s ate to
19 s to the definiti and let occur
20 sica you' l s
' a
up
4 j ) f ch u t
7, ki
I
'I I
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
6
8
19
0
1
i
1 t r
0 f modified on or
be 1 98. The new added to that that
diffe our old regs the modified section,
othe e the was our own trigger date in our old regs.
date number 2, construction would
commence a e June of 1 6, or June 20, 996, but no later
than December 1, 2008, or modified after March 16, 1998,
but no later than il lOth, 2010.
Our faci ity is considered existing under the
amended ru s and falls under tr r date what I refer
to as trigger date number 1. But those are the two
s 've added in here. The second part didn't
ex
0 0
) ( ) ~
9
t
i
up
8 s.
on to C 1 Emiss ch is on page
0 The new rule s mo ss on
11 l sl ed off the new rigge l HMIWI. As
you go Tables lB and 2B represent the new emission
imits.
14 Moving on to Section 0 1 rator Training on
15 page operator training and Part (e) 1 Waste
16 Plan, page 4-43, have not ; however 1 are now
1 being referenced the appropriate CFR. Before we
8 had isted out all of the steps, and now they're
9 to about the Ec.
(f), 4 I
1
2
t
4
! \ I r t
I
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
th f 1
to and then the fol is the "but," the
lus
To kind o you an overall view of the new
things, a lot of it's very similar to the old regs, but
there are some new pieces. The remainder of the
are additions or revisions to the 1997 rule, and I'll just
kind of summarize what some of the changes were for you,
since it was pretty extensive
different CFRs.
through all the
Exist sources are allowed to use
ssion test results to demonstrate iance with the
s ts. a test
4
10
12
1
14
15
16
1
18
19
s , there
even
selective noncatal i to reduce NOx,
and that's what was real the iance
performance test ng and monitoring sect on.
the
Moving on from
BOARD
J'v1S. CEDERLE:
and Reco
re, Part (h).
BROWN: Which page are you on?
I'm on page 4-48. We're into
rements. Our old regs
were fairly mimicked to this 40 CFR 60.58c through g,
Ec. And rt Ec s what we're see pushed
out of -- that's re 're gett directed
new regs as well.
l a s the
, but s c
::'s
{ ) f
2
8
9
0
1
1
13
14
5
16
1
18
19
0
2
s
s
i
our -- he
as possible as revisions to the final rul are made.
Does have any questions s?
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: I t ied to read
this whole , and the one that occurred
to me, I presume other itals live:: their
biohazard to this facility, right?
MS. CEDERLE: I'm not sure on that.
MS. ANDERSON: They do.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: must get rid of
it in some fashion, ?
J\1S. ANDERSON: can ithe to a
f 11, if the l i l s
t
T
6
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
8
19
0
you we 1 see
ri y so, and
Tha
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: If there are any.
HANSON: Because, you know,
the stuff very judiciously, and
but on the way it flies all over the
place could be a pollution hazard.
MS. CEDERLE: Absolute
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Maybe that's just a
dumb question, but is there something like that?
MS. CEDERLE: It's I can look
of
ransportat on, but currently, our Air Quali
don' ike that 're
l '
l "
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
4
15
16
1
18
19
0
n
y
I -- 'm
va
Our regs also do -- , Sect on 4 als
covers exist muni l solid waste andfil s. So there
is regulation on the landfil s out there
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Yes.
MS. CEDERLE: - but: as far as know,
there's nothing from the federal government
BOARD MEMBER HANSON:
MS. CEDERLE: that haven't crept up.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: I was wonde ing.
That was my concern here.
MS. CEDERLE: Absol ely.
CH: f
1 ta about, t
l
l
8
9
10
1
12
1
14
1
6
1
18
t
BOARD
discussi from ' ? l .
vle
MS. CEDERLE: Thank you very much.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Would it
lked about each one and moved on to the next,
approve eve at the end?
te
MR. DIETRICH: You want to cover a l o
them, Tina, and then --
MS. ANDERSON: That's up to you.
·;: l.c
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Why don't we do them
ri now so vJe can 're fresh in our mind. That way
we' l have it over with, if that's o with you guys.
BOARD MEMBER WASSERBURGER: Mr. Chai
wou that presented st
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
rs
Definitions, re's a ss ng here, "Terms us
not defined," think 's "in s section"
HR. ETRI ry
BOARD HEHBER HANSON: -- "have the
Once in a while I catch something ike that.
HR. DIETRICH:
BOARD HEHBER BROWN: Any other ques ions?
Comments?
Next item, 5, National Emission
Standards.
s is where we're to
c
7
the industries in this state prefe we
that way.
10 So on page 5 very ra r
ins ficant we a ly, under
1 Subpart D and Da, we are s y the titles. We're
3 the dates that are associated wi those
14 particular standards. It's not that the -- that the dates
15 are going away. The sources that are constructed in these
16 time frames are still the sources have to comply with these
1 rules, but EPA s y removed the dates from the tit es.
8 So pretty subtle s there. Bu~ t's really easier in
9 the run if we stay on the same page as EPA as
se.
set f
6
8
9
0
1
12
3
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
4
who
0 wil them ly
get
the
i
ral ister,
and the year has pass wi moved into
the back to you with next round of
0
l\'IEMBER HANSON: Tina, one quest on.
It on tal there about onshore. That refers to
the continuous entire United States, vis a-vis offshore, I
presume, somewhere out in the ocean.
tviS . ANDERSON: Ri
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Thank you.
ust vJonde had onshore ion here.
you knovl t
e
1
e,
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
0
s inali
And s go the , so we'
go to have him k about them both sections all at
once. you' l jus you -up on that.
MEMBER HANSON:
MS. ANDERSON: s and then we'll come
back and hit what's ft in the er.
So with that, we' l ask you to move down to the
front row, and we'll boot up the ector.
And Mark, will you come forward.
Of course it worked much better when we were
MR. DIETRICH: re you go. It's gett
er.
4
9
10
11
12
3
4
15
16
17
18
0
l
l
s e some di rences.
next one.
ke I said, this rul feet ion
l ties basically from the llhead the ty gate, so
it covers l and gas, I mean, in gene l, al the way up
to that point. So it's that' constructed or
modified after t 23rd, 201 .
Some of the main points that come out of 0000
that are go to affect us is this rement for reduced
emissions tions or green What that is
s a t that the industry has that l ows
on specialized ion
f
l
7
, pneumat at
9 on to be red to be low
10 bl /no the low bleed is from
11 the Gas r , \.Vh ch s cubic foot of gas per hour,
12 is what that bleed rate can be. It has to be less than
3 thaL to be considered low bleed.
14 The 0000 also affects individual storage
15 tanks at ion sites, compressor stations,
16 a the way. 're s high carbon
1 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Can you repeat
18 that?
19 . SMITH: What's that?
0 s
i t
a _)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
8
9
t
it's
percent ch is what you get sent to your
house, l those cont lers at
those facilities woGld red be zero bleed
devices, and that's new that hasn't been in
before. 've had other different versions of
controllers at the sites.
And then it gets into ting compressors,
s themselves, where they don't set any limits on the
but it's set for re compressors, have to
out the rod king. That's ust one of the
rernents that e in the has to be
ry f 0 it' we
0
i w
1
e,
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
1
19
l
the green t on s
emented since 00 in the Jonah-Pinedale
our l tes sions to gu n 0 0,
those e"Cion rements out to
counties in the southwest part of the state, ch
Uinta, Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Fremont, Carbon, and
Natrona. So all the operators in those areas were
red, per the guidance, to come in and get green
completion permits, and then there's monitoring and
re rements that they have t submi 0 us
ry whenever comp ete new we s.
s fferent from theirs, whereas the 0000
0 5 ..
t
Ri
ce,
•J J
s,
in
8 do the reen I find where
9 actually sel it sn't create s hazards
10 th ngs like that. We have our - the green ion
1 pe ts we have reasonings and may have to
1 submit in their reports as to they have to flare X
13 amount of gas and volumes, eve ng like that, but it
14 definitely does reduce the emissions from that completion
15 se.
16 Our rements don't specify oil wells versus
gas wells, so that is one difference from the 0000 s
8 Ours just re where - if at all possible in those
9 areas. And that s one o the
i' u Do about the s
i ' i
I
9
10
1
1
14
1
16
9
0
n' s
in the new
ill for oil. not e i 't be
ect to the 0000 y re ace i now
ther. Part of the stuff 're 1 ng at in terms of
possible emis ions would our CDA
rements into these new areas. That's something I
think we're evaluating that
be able to reduce those fla emissions, like we have
gotten some comments and stuff on.
Those are us some f the differences, where
say gas wells, we wouldn' would our
s. We wouldn't gas
j n
7
8
9
10
11
12
3
14
15
16
1
18
19
ti
i t
v-rhen were those to
ties after that would have to have those on start
and think have year on facilities that were
tructed after 01 , to go back and replace those. Our
rements -- we've had that re rement in since the
August 1, 010 revision, so that really isn't
to make much of a difference in terms of what we see
in our rules.
Go ~o the next one.
The tank emissions is where we have a litt e t
of difference. The 0000, ike I said earlier, s
any -- any tank at an oil and gas ion faci ty l
to a 6- r- r limi All
I
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
3
s
i
re it. Whereas under
0000, if had tons or tons,
wouldn' s there's 5.9 tons
ch i And have we've
a 'ooked at t as one as source, rather than on
a per ank basis. that's one of those areas it could be
different.
eve ng
And the same thing in the statewide area,
tank emissions are greater than 10 tons,
that's where we re controls, and that would be 60
of star on new wells.
Al ri Then this i where it gets into some
of the 1 k detect on programs t were under KKK. And
t boo into
2
10
1
13
14
15
16
1
1
19
0
s
it rs the leak detect om 0,000
s per million VOC content down to 00. And
monitor t used to be for va s, it' also
connectors, pumps
THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Connectors
MR. SMITH: Connectors, pumps, pressure
relief devices, open-ended valves and lines. So it's a
full leak detection program, so that any aces
a the in the that has ial for leaks
have to be monitored with some type of device that can
detect VOC content from es from thos connections.
The LLL revis is for olar recove
at natural gas s
I
9
ts i
on
emiss ons -- benzene,
e -- what these emission limits can be,
1 and i 's ong -out equation based on the
ion o rhe BTEX and the gas stream is
th that ion unit, and it's a ni re.
1 That's I didn't it up here.
14 But the way that any of the -- any sources that
5 we have in the state, this could possibly affect when they
16 come in for a -- for a construction permit, going through
17 the MACT process as a new source would - our limits
for 1'1ACT are mo str than what these concentration
9 imits be. I don't see a big effect on any of our
n v sites,
21 k HH y f y
4
0
g
6
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
40
l
gets i t on
to go 's
have t'
weird equation with concentration of BTEX and
But we don't have cally too many of the e, so
there's --we don't ook like it's gong to affect many of
our sources. And then also one of those s was it
remains an ion from iance startup,
shutdown, malfunction time.
That's all I have, unless anyone has any
questions.
MS. ANDERSON: Probably ask you to come
back up. This wil you awake.
SJVIITH: 's is benzene,
toluene, e
-·
I
6 r
7 's
we as, for purposes of her ing, sure he
9 can hear you. So speak clearly and slowly. And if there's
0 any other , she'll us s. you.
MS. ANDERSON: Did you guys have a~y
12 questions?
13 BOARD MEMBER HULJVIE: I had a ,_. ques~lOn.
14 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Okay.
15 BOARD MEMBER HULME: A just had a
16 clarifying question. I obvious missed something here.
So we're looking at ing the Federal ster ve::::sion
of Subpart 0000 ri new, ri ?
1 MR. SMITH: Uh-huh.
HULivJE: But
1 s
?
s 26
7
9
10
11
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
0
ng l i
Good quest
JV1R. TH: The sumption of P-BACT,
which s the
operators to permi the fa
Guidance, is how we allow the
ities and to start them up.
They're al owed to d~ill the r we ls, te them, and
start flowing them back, start the wells, prior
to the permit, as long as they follow the rules
that are under the Presumpt BACT requirement. So if
follow those rules and control when it's setting those
deadlines and fol ow eve we have set forth, 're
allowed to construct tha lity or to gett a
t.
0 ffe
l
j t
l
e,
2
8
9
0
1
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
0
You
it, mean,
our -- s it in the ity and t do
this at this ?
MR. DI The is ied to our
r 6, Section 2 ions which res pe
for any facility out there that makes emissions. We handle
this through It's a long history of i~. There's
a lot of revisions that have been done to the
It's been very successful. And Mark's ri , once you
a permit, then you're tied to r 6, Section 2 anyway
getting a permit.
BOARD MEMBER HULME: Ri Ri
MR. DIETRI But this mere l ows
addit rk t. t
s i
0
t
I
l i
9 So can - vle go back if know, if
10 submits an ication that's two years late
1 was never controlled, we can go back and take enforcement
12 on those on that facili if -- they never
3 instal ed their controls and they finally come in and get a
14 I'll write that up in my ana is that we do when
15 we draft the permits, and that goes out to ic notice,
16 and then send that over to our iance staff and say,
well, there's this faci ity, here's their ication they
8 sent in, it was such and such ate, just didn't have
19 s red, we're writ a permit to
n J l s a
2
6
9
0
11
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
9
0
1
MR. Si'H us
t will allow us to do
compressors, s don'
the vent seals on a centri l comp
have to comply with the 0000.
BOARD MEMBER HULME:
MR. SMITH: Uh-huh.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN:
- it wi l al us
ri l 1
fi l ions on
or, we can just say
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do we have any corr~ents from ic? Questions?
Concerns?
JVJR. DAILEY: I one question.
BOARD MEMBE~ BROWN: Could you come on up?
I' o
7
10
4 1 _j_J._
1
13
14
15
16
9
1
s
i
i mo!1
s does that p now wi
rule?
JVIR. SM TH: t with
s HH, those records tho
reporting re rements, thos a sti go to EPA. I
don't know if-- I guess I'm not sure how that --how that
will work with us, if they have to send us -- they might
have to send us a copy. JVIost of wha those recordkeeping
and rements are is maintain their
re rds showing that they're under t ts that are set
forth that these that that emission
emplation to show that they're no ec - they're
1 s 's
s
0
8
9
10
11
12
3
14
15
16
1 " j_ I
18
19
0
4
i
i
i l
0
JltlS. We' a -- an
oversi he a the ways and of ing s
So on 5 f you'll k at that.
Like I ta ked about before, we are propos to
from the ral ister, which we don't normally
do. The mechanism for s in back of this er
the Code f Federal ations, so those aren't
quite So what I'd like to propose is take this
anguage t's on the very back of this section on page
46 ng the tion reference and modi
i so t's ate in lace for Feder a
what 0 s
d
l
g
l
Federal 1 from the
9 federa s close to
10 that. If I your s on rna that ustment.
1 0 d lea \vhat have in for the
1 CFR portion something close to what I just
1 read on page 6, and, again, on page -40. 5-40 vlas the
14 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
15 what we call NESHAPS. 're in a different section,
16 because those deal with hazardous air pollutants. The
earlier ones dealt with what we call criteria pollutants,
8 i 's the sulfur dioxides, the nitrous oxides, and the
1 iculate matters. So 'm to make s on
fl
y
l
6
8
9
0
11
13
14
15
16
8
20
1
l
n
Clean f 0.
red to do a s to determine f t s
reasonable or necessary to ate ardous
pollutants frorn ilities.
199 they released their s , and 2000 a
determination was made the EPA that it was sonabl
and necessary to regulate. Administrations come and go.
The next administration reversed this rul -- this
determination, I should say, and decided that instead of
ating these air lutants as hazardous air lutants
under 1 of the Clean Air Act, that the who e 1 on
would fted 11 of the Clean Air s the
s sect on, t
l
cap
t
0 l
n
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
9
0
50
ies.
the
1 the
t , and i what we have
t' s 11 out of woods
I'm go turn it over to Cole at this
He Col rson, from New Source Review,
and we wi ~ to you what's in it.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Tina.
Cole Anderson, New Source Review program manager.
And that was a great lead-in, because I spent about 10
years with the Division, and I've spent about 5 of those
wor on power plants.
And i 's really kind of a privi to be
spea with you , because the MATS rule has been
I have
I
c . • 4
0
1
3
14
15
16
1
18
1
0
t
s
i f i
wa 0 a
de t on o the le , Novembe Oth
f 01 , and accepted s de ion unt
7th of 0 we USL finished another
l c comment per od on these ru e
So I want to describe first the facilities that
are ect to proposed s rt. For the power ants, or
e ectric generating units, these will be ccal- or oil fired
units desi to mo than 5 megawatts of
lectricity. f EGUs ect to NESHAP include
furnace, boiler, or de vi for combust
the 0 so
t
i
I
9
10
1
12
1
1
15
16
17
18
2
un
n
up in the k f and f
for the Prairie Generat tation.
re will be emission limits establ shed fo
se EGUs, and I'll cover those here for you. There
seven es in the rule. There are two coal
gories, four oil ries, and one for i
gasification combine cycle.
units fall into the category of EGUs
desi for coal where the coal has a heat value
er than or to 8,300 Btu per Essential y
these are coal units that are not des to fire 1 te
s for l te coal, which is
in kota, a
r_ e
2
s
o choose s t c acid
9 an emiss t oxide. in, in this rule,
10 s 1 're moni
11 which demor:st ori gas emissions are
2 be centro led. It says the option to choose a sulfur
13 dioxide is y ilable to sources with flue gas
14 desulfurization. These are units that have scrubbers,
either or wet scrubbers. cally in Wyoming that's
16 most of our sources. Right now there are only two
1 coal fired ants that don't have scrubbers on and
18 're located at the Dave Johnston Power Plant.
19 Final y, the third and final emissions limitation
0 s nume i t 1 t s
21 j_Q
2
t
6
8
9
10
1
1
3
14
15
16
0
1- i t 0
minus per megawatt did s we
red evaluation of further emission reduct with
target range of 20 times 10 to the nus Taki a look
at that lower value of 20, the NESHAP that's proposed
I'm sorry, the NESHAP emission 1 that was finalized is
y 37 lower than the emission rate
targeted the Division. So that number of 20 was
some that we were asking power s to evaluate and
determine if can achieve. The new ss on level s
35 lower than that level.
We are a so aware that the a cha for
s
c , I
1
a J
0
11
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
0
2
ss
natab y r. t s
! ~ L
y
l
factor of 100
ller than the leve for exist sources. Sa a new
source coming into the state of will have t reduce
emissions a r of a hundred to achieve the NESHAP
level.
I addi ian to emission limits, there are work
practice standards. Wyoming sources, as existing sources,
will be required to conduct a tune-up of EGU burner and
combus ion controls at least 36 months or 48 calendar
months apart f neural network combustion optimization
softv1a s
t 're getting at here is every three years
the boi s
s
e
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
0
4
y
l
them
n' s po nt.
f
startup and s i lude start ng up
on natural s or st l ate oil, ope ing their
continuous moni oring equ ing sta and
shutdown, and also making the pol ion controls are
in operation during the shutdown mode and on line
as soon as possible. Origina y as proposed, EPA was
s there should be numeric l ts on emissions of
hazardous air pollutants du ing periods of startup and
shutdown, and in the fina y determined that work
practices would be more
Also added in si was sions
fo s s
n
r
6
7 s PM s
8 s l area vlhat vlOuld call di
for us that's iculate matter, continuous emission
0 to ing ystems. And these si to
iculate levels continuous as boil ope e
1 Currently we don't have any of these in the state of
as are on power s.
14 There's also additional test and not ficat on
15 requirements. Sources subject to the NESHAPS are red
6 to perform initial performance tests, may install
1 continuous emission moni for sulfur
8 dioxide, PM, oric acid, and fluori acid.
1 NESHAP the to demonstrate whe r
t a
0
4
t
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
l to y
with NE s them three years,
there's a pet ion process g s them one additional
year.
In on year that may petit on
the state for, re is a one-year extension whi E may
issue as an administrative order under which the source
will have the on of up to one year in which to come
into iance. EPA has ssued a memorandum and
bac in December how intend to operate under the
administrative orders. Es entia ly with the administrative
orders i says s to make a demonstration
l
0
2
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
8
19
0
commented on for
The first comment noted that EPA should ider
the of mercury control when s abli a
the-floor standard for HCL admissions. of the
that EPA did in part -- in the reconsideration was they
went back and did a beyond-the-floor analysis. What that
is is an additional step that EPA can undertake to prove
that more control, what al determined,
could be ied to these both cost effectively and as a
technical matter too. So had demonst t t on a
technical basis and look at cost when it
the floor.
1
l
i 4
60
Q v ions s ll. So you're
9 rsus i gas emissions. I the Powde
0 in 've had some demonstration projects where
ct chlor to ra se the mercury l,
1 we' se ust insi ficant increases in HCL emissions.
1 But we do, in our comment, note to EPA they must consider
14 the additional effects from chloride when you're t to
15 establish the HCL emission level.
16 We also noted that -- and this was to
1 ryone's atten:: PA, but we commented that n
1 establi the emission level, it did look at a
19 commercia excuse me, a commercial boile inst of
0 type
4
6
8 boiler, whi d be 00 and t s
9 we believe that Lhis uni achieve the emiss ons leve
10 Because one can, expe everyone e se to. And
11 comment s, you're r:g from megawatts, all
12 the way up to -- in some s s boi ers exceed 500, 800, and
13 even a thousand in i So you're looking
14 at some very large boilers. And to ck middle of the
15 road, you know, I don't think necessari answers the
16 question.
17 Finally, EPA reques response and commer:t on
18 whether to retain ion perform rte stack
19 i th the .c . ' .Lll_ rable
0 E
y
n
0
1
3
14
15
16
8
1
0
5
6
t's
acronyms. I ari ike.
BOARD you i new
sources having trouble the lower mercury imits?
MR. 't seen
achieve that one. It's .5 times 10 to the minus 7.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN:
MR. ANDERSON: And when you look at that,
it's a hundred times lower than what we're seeing our best
plants demonstrate I think that would be difficult.
BO.l\RD BROWN: Would that
new source , then, that can achi that --
. ANDERSON: l
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
0
0
l y
a l 've
sses. ed i
We ooking a
clay y would ect nstead of a
carbon. 're definitely motivated and be
inventi up with solutions.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: What kind of control
are we at now, our mercury emission imit or where are
they runn ng at now, a
is one t's ch
there. a
didn' s
cal
9 times 10 to the minus
've seen a lot of emissions
·~ L
L
es. 1\ctua l , we
t t,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0 J
0
1
a
s t
s.
Shutdown or
what are you alking about
MR. ANDERSON: Wel
BOARD MEMBER WASSERBURGER: Fines?
MR. ANDERSON: Wel , you want to speak to
that? can talk to
MR. DIETRICH: Let speak to that.
will speak to that.
MS. VEHR: This is Nancy Vehr with the AG's
Office. And on enforcement, under-- there's two
under this SU, a federal rule, and there's
Federal C ean Air and ons that EPA follows have
f choose to enforce
s
t
0
t
8 get source k i iance. The nk that
9 hit on was whether a source could a y achieve
0 i the tandard. that EPA choose to
1 enforce, we don't have any particular
For the State of once we a a federal
13 standa into our state ions, t state law.
1 Under the Environmental Quality Act, there's a sion,
15 it's 35 ll 701, and the goal under the Environmental
16 Qua ity Act is for the rtment to work with sources to
17 get them bac into iance. We have mechan sms for
8 issuing a ~ot ce of Violation, which s an al on that
19 ion s occurred. That gets the
0 a s i
1
f t
10
13
14
16
9
i
t's diffi
~
Lr
f
same
labl pursue a t in to achieve
mechanisms ca~ be federal, state, or the
t can be in the state arena or federal
you have an actual situation in front of you,
t to say how the state would -- what action
the state would take other than t cally when we have a
iance concern, it's through this Notice of Violation
me i re we start ng to r the facts. And
it's de a very serious consideration for all
af s.
oned le , is pa
s
t
c.
6
7
8
9
10
2
13
14
15
16
1
8
9
0
's
that t 1 s
extended lance s out, and additiona
two one-year sions, sure how that's go to
work. As far I know, t never been done in the
EPA level before in terms of the total rulemaking package.
may have done it on a source-by-source basis. So the
sources are very anxious to see how this rolls out, and is
of frank concern. And there's been a lot of press about
this particular rule. may have seen announcements
about various sources closing. This is one of the rules
that affects them
i 's not a di answer to question, but
permi
t' t
6
0
1
1
14
5
6
9
a y'
boilers at megawatts in s may
s be an source if actuall measured
po s.
while there aren't specific ons for
area sources, did i some sources that mi
i for area source tion.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN:
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN:
MS. ANDERSON: We've
BOARD MEMBER BROWN:
. ANDERSON: One more
t
Thank you.
other - Tina?
one mo
more.
i
6
6
8
9
10
11
2
13
14
15
16
1
8
9
1
0
that r
o at s po f you to rna de si
about re ng with the revisions that we talked about,
and 'd 1 t ke 10-minute break or
omething.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Okay. You may have to
he us wi~h the language once we get to --
MS. ANDERSON:
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Any discussion from
the Board?
BOARD MEMBER WASSERBURGER: I have one more
que t on for Co
a turbine, what kind of mercury
s
I k
t'
t.
l
9 Board reco~~ends that er
10 5, reference us rev is
forth in 's meet
So 10-minute break, is that
MS. ANDERSON: That would be
BOARD MEMBER BROWN:
0:40a.m. to 10:5 a.m.\
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: 0
reconvene.
, Pe tt rements.
1
1 _l_
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
18
9
0 a
l le.
ng fi 0
you'll s t the of page
referenc the minor source baseline dates
culate matter that is 2.5 microns or smaller. So
ooking at really fine particulate. And the PSD
program-- I'll give you a little bit of bac round here,
0 ng from the really to the really small here.
PSD program, as I said, deals with large sources.
And when they come in to get an application from Cole and
s group, one of the things have to do is model the
t f this source to anti the that source
wou d have the future, and they do that
on from the source about what expe their
to be whatnot. Down
k
i I 4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
l i
l
s tab i the
national -- at the nat
So we have ambient standa for pa culate and
nitrous oxide.
This parti a one deals with, again, real y
fine particulate, what we ~1 And when this big
source does this model exercise, they look at the
what the rule says, you cannot pollute up to the standard,
that you're only allowed an increment of that standard. So
it's even more stringent than t ng to y with the
standard. And s all done with a model
exercise. So when 're allowed in s
e ncrement,
t
0
the
s
for sul n
9 oxide. we've been a ions,
1 () -LV not because EPA res them, but . .._
lL kes a lot
11 easier for the icants coming , becaus
2 know this information in order to do this modeling so that
13 they can get approved application. So we've been t ng
14 them in as these areas get triggered.
15 And PM 2.5 is a new pollutant in the air qua ity
16 scheme of things, and so the trigger dates have been
fairly recent. So what we re recommending here is to add
8 these three new trigger areas end dates. One is fo
9 Laramie where we are, was t,
0 011 • ~ f s 0
24 w
t
l Inc.
8
9
10
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
9
0
?
T you
sh s base ine and
sou eline ? Just back thos two.
JV1S. .2\NDERSCN: mi cal on here.
JV1R. ANDERSON: Yeah, the minor source s
tr red l ke you said, the rst e
application, and the or source is tr red earlier n
the rule. So it's two different points in time. And
minor source is usual red at the end, when we get
first ication, so it's ast one to get
ggered.
c Thanks.
t wa
l
g
l
8 when we made on ch s
9 were atta and not atta
0 BOP.~RD MEMBER my ques ion.
11 Would this affect attainment s?
1 ]VIS • ANDERSON: It's -- so when a new
13 standard is , we go i and the s ff determi s
14 what areas we want to break the state up into, and then
15 determine whether each of those areas is in at inment or
16 nonattainment. For 2.5, eve was in at ainment, but
17 we knew that this comes down road n i s increment
18 tracking. So we broke them into ler pieces. If we
19 don't do that, you trigger s as soon as
0 on s
1
g p
. 4 4 .
9
0
1
14
5
16
8
9
0
N
JV1S . ANDERSON:
r L
the definitions we de
pol utant s. NSR, New Source Revi
s section. s s New Source Review.
I
e.
a ted
is bas y
se a the
pollutants that are under the section, and it is,
for the mos part, the pollutants we've been ta king about.
that has, as the definition indicates, a National
Ambient Air Quality Standard is a pollutant under
this s ction. There's also some additional things, and
that's wha we're to get into here.
Pa culate emissions are more
ist o a fi terable and a condensable f ction.
p ea 0
s
U~l l
l s
6
0
11
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
h
's
the now believes they are
point where addres the condens e portion,
espe a ly whe you' coking a the really fine
parti es, because condensable part lat s
So th s is not new , that regul ted
condensables. We a lly had language like this n re
before, but what has the fundamental that we're
ng to you today i that they are no longer looking at
the larger particulate. So if you look on page 6-68, the
language has rossed out, you'll see the word PM s --
is what's miss n the new language. ust have PM
.5 and PM 0 ons. Where it was , whi s the
a
0
c
8
new
8 on.
9 PJV1, which is
10 eVen include pa les which are even larger
than 10 microns -
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: 0
MS. 1\NDERSON: 40 microns.
14 And there you're looking at s that are not
15 t cally not related to the combustion process, so you
16 don't eVen have that condensing mechanism
1 BOARD MEMBER HANSON:
18 MS. ANDERSON: And then you also See on
page 6- 8 we had to the number because we moved
0 of hes tha ' wha 's ll
0
11
12
3
14
15
16
17
18
9
2
2
7
0
l
l I
I ha o do th how prist
Class I areas are nat ona pa ks
wi ss areas. lowstone, Tetons are ass I a as.
e s I~ state are Class II. And ly
we have a r standard to meet in the more s ne
reas.
And that gets me to what we're actually
here. So under PM .5, we've simply added asterisk for the
PM 2.5, 24-hour max and the PM 10, 24-hour maximum.
And the aste sk cla ~fies that when you actually model
this and you show exceedances, that you can get - may be
exceeded onoe pe year t any re si s
l
c
1
8
9
0
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
80
to 1 i
t's it r
BROWN: comments from the
ic? Concerns
dis s on from the Board?
HANSON: I just said we've got
more particulate.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Do we have a motion?
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Move to adopt the
s.
BOARD MEMBER HULME: I'll second.
BROWN: Second. It's
language in
0
t i
9
10
11
1
3
14
15
16
17
0 J
4
t
ng forvnrd
t?
the date of
s
of 0
- '
{ ) '
0
BOARD
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Move ion o
THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Can you repeat
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: To move it forward to
1, 2012 from 2010.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Second.
BOARD MEMBER WASSERBURGER: I second.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: It's been moved and
ed reference 1 to include the
Nmv have p
?
9
0
l
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
VJe
i f s s
0
we
SERBURGER: I
about 11: I hate to do that to , but
t back in Torrington :00, Mr. Chairman.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: don't we do that.
t's forward to infrastructure 7 or the one-hour
tandard. And this is , we're not vot on
this, correct?
MS. ANDERSON: Correct.
MS. CEDERLE: Jeni Cederle with the Air
Qua ty Di s We're to be kind of switching
rs he while we're tal about infrastructure SIP,
's St ementation Plan. And would ust like to
know i s SI
repre
I
9
0
11
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
three-
0 f
-hour t on, and 1 's
been s at 100 parts bi 1 on.
Air Quality
has f nal z rulema
to include one-hour standa in our ations, and
that became ffecti at the state on December 19,
012.
The Clean Air Act, Section 10, res the
states to submit a that s for the
ion, mainLenance, and enforcement of fie
air qua ity standards. need to do this within three
years f PA ion o new standard, the new
now
c +-'
c ..
8
0
1
2
3
4
15
16
1
18
9
s new standard.
So in the end we have three years the S P
EPA. That deadline would be somet
the IP sorry. We have three years to do it. t was
in 2010, so our SIP is due to EPA for approva
il 013. There's been some de ay, as EPA has moved
forward with on exactly what want these
infrastructure SIPs to look like. There's a lot of chatter
out in the world now about be a multi-pollutant
SIP or break it down to the criteria lutants. So we'
us kind of with what we knew. s to use a
lot of d file' re go forward in that manner,
what we're repres ng
6
r do
-hour trogen dioxide s
9 any additional one-hour reduction
s
Fo : t we have i divided out in
1 a to Documents from the past, eve that's been
13 n a as ee start here in 972. And as you
4 fl page 2, we're still in the past and we're
15 forward.
16 What we have added on page 3 is number 23. We
1 have had te to r 3, Section 6, emission standards
8 for at c And our most recent
19 sta 's S P document was submitted to EPA on
0 l EPA
1
i
8
9
0
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
s
is our r k
Plan, which is, you know, a sion
It's red the EPA. It's a yea
an that our moni section goes s
assessment and it he them decide and make the ective
decisions on where go
future in the state.
Fl over to page 4, it's another create
monitoring deal we do red by the EPA. It's the
Ambient Air Monitor Network Asses This is
done every five years, where the one we ust talked about
is done annual we've had our st tted
y of 0 l.
t
ni
9 10, r Section 4, ambient
10 fc s fur oxide. in, state rulema made
11 effective cember 19, and we' l be forwa a p
submittal in of 2013.
13 Number 1 , r 2, Section 6, ambient
14 standards for ozone. in, this was to move forward in
1 our most recent state rulema became effective at the
16 state level December 19th. And what we will be do here
is another S P submittal for 2013. But this \vi l
18 be, I bel eve, nonattainment rements -- I'm sorry. I
sread that. It was -- oh, no, that's correct. ry.
0 ng th
on,
t 0
E 1 _L.
8
9
0
1
12
13
14
15
16
1 '! -'- I
18
9
0
88
t
stands, t
nonattainment pe tt s. The recent IP
went down to EPA in 0 011 and has been posted in the
Federal ster as o Ju 011.
And moving on to next interstate and
international transport sions. Thi was the section
that has been fairly problematic in the infrastructure SIP
development in that the from the EPA hasn't been
to us. And now have said, you know, if you
in some instances with some pollutants -- and we'll cover
that with ozone in a little bi said you can it
and may still deem your infrastructure of SIP te.
What v-ze have g ahead done is created
OVJn ng o n s
l
n
l
7
9
0
1
1
14
15
16
18
9
I
on
sn't l
nto that network, but how it shakes
see.
on into the atory document se ion
the bottom of page 6, er 6, Section 4, the PSD program
works out really well, and we're you know, we've got a
good program in place at this time.
We've also added in number 3, the ng
Environmental Quality Act, Article 2, notification to the
Environmental Protection and contiguous states.
This is just that we would notice a state if we
would notice to an outside state if did a
sue
r
I
6
s
9 have been in the past, and we' had nothing
10 in the programs to add to tha .
11 We' movi on to Element J, consult
12 consultation with government officials and ic
13 noti ication. And out into PSD and visibility
14 ection, the first two I'm sorry, consultation with
15 government officials and ic notification, we're
16 that vJe' re roll that forward from the -- from another
1 SIP that has been and these programs do y to
18 -hour N02 s
19 ng into the PS visibili protect
0 s, cio a IP
0
r t
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
3
y
i
of
pe tt fees pat fected
loca ent ties, and those wi n standa off of the
SIP.
Does ques ions one-
hour N02 infrastructure SIP?
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Questions from the
Board?
No questions.
MS. CEDERLE: 0 Well, I will move
along.
l\1S. ANDERSON: So ooint of order, we'd have
you ask if the ic
i
10
11
1
13
14
15
16
17
8
9
0
ng
approva l s
NENBER HANSON: s.
NS. CEDERLE: It' mo l of contents
PA to look at. It's the l block of our
's how we maintain 0 i way of
lett the EPA know we have -- you know, we've been moving
forward, we're our PSD regs all the time and
our PSD and our SIP to you. You need to
's i house. So that's that's why t's
Federal ster e I'm wait on
f PA.
HAN
6
s tu , but
8 I rea y your at do apol iz for
9 miss look t.
10 MS. DERLE: This second is the e
11 hour oz structure S P. It's very much not putting
12 any further rements on sources. in, we're here to
13 go process for this.
14 The bac of this one is a little different
15 than our N02 -- the one-hour N02 standard was brand-new
16 when created, so we had to build a SIP for that. With the
1 e -hour ozone, that was a to standard. And
18 what here-- we'll start with a i tle bit of
19 bac I 1v1arch of 00 EPA sed the
0 s c y from
2
2
9
c
st you -- EPA
9 know how we' intain -- how
0 attain or rna
gated of '08,
1 March 1 , '08, and we had three-year deadl ne to get this
ozone infrastructure S that ended up being
1 March 12, 2011. So we're behind again. However, in the
5 case of the 2008 ei -hour ozone NAAQS, there was a period
16 of time EPA decided to reconsider it. And that was
1 expected to fair new near term. So what
18 is the reconsiderat on process ended up ext
about six months 0 1 submission deadline
0 t f f
i
i
t get:
t
8 t
ng s v.ra t was iti
10 008 s to even initiate our emaking
to the rule, new standard, and then we ld go
and initiate what we're doing t , whi is the
13 nfrastructure SIP, based off of that standard.
14 there was no revision, what happened was the March 0
15 deadline remained lega ly icable.
16 That said, EPA was also sued by NGO for not
1 taking time y act on inst states that had not t
s SIP March 0 We were all future rwa
19 loo ng back. litigation resulted in of
ng f
4 f
2
l
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
9
0
96
t
The has the e
008 zone s rd our rules and regs, and w th
submiss on o s IP tc follow on the heels of this
i meet The E s aware of our current rulema
and what we're up and the forthcoming SIP submission.
know ~:Je' re i
So, again, the structure is very same to the one-
hour N02, which, you know, the Clean Air Act, Section 110,
has the elements A 1'1. And a lot of them are the
same. I'll try run it a little bit cker.
the ion the first element, ssion
limits and othe measures. On page , numbe 3 f
on s
p
l t
6 a
and
Ambient Moni oring Network sessment. Number
0 ing done year EPJ.I~. And number
every five years. l\nd th in, he llS c:ermine on
1 monitor setups and our ectives o monitoring.
Moving on to page 4, number 8, under latory
14 Documents, r 2, Se ion , ambient standards for
15 particulate matter. SIPs submitted to EPA t of 20 1,
16 approval.
17 Numbe 9, r Section 3, ambient standards
18 for nitrogen oxides. TiJe' ve state rules, again,
19 ffective the 19th of December, revised S P submission
5
n
And
s t
l 0 0
8 next e red n this t
9 program for enforcement of control measures.
0 down towards the bottom of the page, under
1 tory Documents, number 4, r 6, Section 4,
1 PS . n, that's the submittal, approva
13 however, as it stands, we meet all federal rements
14 with our PSD program.
15 Number 5, r 6, Section 13, nonattainment
16 permit rements, was submitted in May 201 , and has
1 been posted in the Federal ster 2011.
The next element, interstate and international
9 sions. in, this is the the real
0 the
t
I
6
0
12
13
14
15
16
18
9
0 l
0 r Green River
Basin, cause 1 of the des ion, it
f 1 of , because we
don't have any othe s ts the basin, and our
entire argument for the boundary of the basin is that it's
under certain meteoro cal tions, and that - not
another way to say it, but there's no seepage out to the
southern counties. It's very isolated and to that
basin.
So we've gone ahead and us the des ion and
the approva of that designation as our a that we're
not a pa 0 ransport to r states. And we've gone
inks s i ster,
de f
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
8
9
100
l.
the same. We it
infrastructure SIP, which was
On to page 8, stationary source monitoring
systems. That re states to establish a system to
monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit
periodic emissions reports. What we've added in unde
Regulatory Documents is number 4, Environmental
Quality Act, Article 1, powers of administrators in the
divisions that operated basical y just says the
operators will with our statutes and mon to
their emissions and to us.
on to emergency power.
s was roll forward from 1
oz s
0
l
'l
l
6 'm
re.
8 t wan ri that
do not PSD program because we do not
pi You're awa f that. Just
becaus we' a cord of this, I ust wanted
it on the cord that that's the case.
l ~ J..~
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: PSD?
14 MS. ANDERSON: Yes.
15 BOARD MEMBER HANSON: What does it mean?
16 MS. ANDERSON: Oh, ion of
1 s gn fi erioration.
18 BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Deterioration, o
9 MS. .A.NDERSON: Go ahead. Sorry.
0 No, you're fine.
3
I
9
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
8
19
0
0
s, tt
consultation ion affected entities has
been rolled forward from 9 zone infrastructure
SIP with no to this current
Does have any questions
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: questions from the
Board?
questions from the lie? Comments?
MS. CEDERLE: Thank you very much.
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Thank you.
JVIS. ANDERSON: Yes. also for the
record, we did not receive any the mail
the ei -hour
l
1
6 i
8 UN FIED MALE: It' ng
MR. ETRICH: It's ng up.
0 J\1S. POTTER: 'm Da a am the
11 Air Quality Resource r for Qual y
Division. You've heard from me numerous times before on
-: 3 this c, and I don't envision that s any time
14 soon, so we'll keep you up to date.
15 The purpose for these updates at each Board
16 meeting is to make sure that we continue this dialog with
the Board to you up to date as this c evolves over
time, because eventual , and as we to the of the
9 presentation, I wil nt out several points, which we
0 be the Boa
have
L
0
l
6
rtment o
9 En vi t f s ion of recommendations
10 f the sk
1 We vli l on r i Division resources
1 that we are cat to ozone, primari y in the
1 Green River Basin in , but we a loo at these
14 issues statewide as well.
15 We will focus on the winter of 2013 for that
16 Upper Green River Basin and what activities are ongo and
1 al star-ced.
18 And, las y, we will focus on the oz
19 nonattainment s r Green River Bas
na.
8
9
0
1
12
3
14
15
16
1
18
9
y, 0 0 in
submitted 10 recommendat the
Environmental Qual Just ast
Oth, the Air s to
meet again with the task force the to
communicate our evaluation of those recommendations to
the to the DEQ.
If we could as we go to the next s ide, we'll
the basis of our evaluation to you. We won't go
that was covered in that meet last
Thursday, but that presentation from last Thur 's
meet is posted on the DEQ website. For
convenience, a copy of them have also been to you
so that can look at
et
I
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
9
0
1
0
t on,
you'
processes that we go
s , that process to f nal
te e, and then on to EPA when appropriate.
!tile a so have some authority limitat ons.
Those were of cons ration to us as we did these
ngs. We a so "ooked at the overall benefit of each
recorrlliendation in terms of ozone. That was the
ective of these recommendations.
What we as we get into this a litt e bit
further, what you' s is some recommendat:ions \vere
l y placed two ngs based on the
a There are some things are le
i
l
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
0
t
0
l you
1
ions on the le po on f the slide
on can be orne in the near term.
o the numbe ng oc ated :::h the ions
are the numbers that corre the task force
recommendations.
One thing that I -- you should be aware of is
when we got the recommendations, there was no
recommendation number 8. So not to not to throw us off
in regard to that.
Some of the actions in 1 are things that
are a1 in motion some the Air t
s I ill 1
i
0
4
6
1
s 6
9 ted between 1 and two
10 examples of reco~~endations where the s some that
1 we can do in the near term with each of s
1 reconwendations, but there is something that needs to be
13 emented n the longe term.
14 2 focuses on implementation in the longer
15 term. These are actions that will require the agency to go
16 the regulatory process. So in terms of these
commendations, as we would go that a tory
1 process, that rulema would first and foremos come to
1 s Board your consi ration be i
thes
t
l.
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
4
t
f !
0
y,
s That
an the
y e tasks. In these cas s, both
f s wr en spe ific to nonroad
mobi e engines, and those are a source category that the
State of ng does noL have direct authority to control.
In - in some of these instances we need some
more bac information as we 1. We need to seek that.
Because we don't have the authority on those, assistance by
the EnvironmenLa
appropriate. And
in go
tection
ld v.Je end
and we
s
l
t
ki
i
d
would be necessary and
at a point where those,
overcome those
09
9
0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
9
0
110
i
r,
in s r
ions, the luat of those
force commendat ca ls out some of these categories,
al it doesn't ca 1 out rticular recommendation.
And so you think it's rtant to point out once again
that the Division did not reject any of the 10
recoa~endations from the task force. Rather, what we did
was evaluated what can we look at and work with near term,
what will re rulemaking, primari y, and that, as a
direct resul of the rulemaking process that's red
a of , would take onger to ish. And
ly t s don't a
0
i ve .
6 t
on
JVJEMBER HULJVJE: dn't go i
10 exact on what those would thos out, but
obvi ly idea is to incentiv e to
1 ssions, but we don't know what process yet.
13 MS. POTTER: Correct.
14 BOARD MEMBER HULME: Is that what you're
s ?
16 MS. POTTER: A lot of these
1 recommendations -- we 1, we can tell you that the wording
18 these recommendation because had to achieve
among a stakeholders, ng was
e
t
t t f i
11
l
6 s se s
Di CD we wi
we wi the e ndations.
9 MEMBER HULME: Thank you.
10 MS. POTTER: Klaus.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Two questions, 7 and
1 1 . Let me go 11 fi st. I guess that's ust your
13 reaction, cause there were 10 commandments. So 1 is
14 your reaction to this?
15 MS. POTTER: No. 11 is a recommendation.
16 So you have to remember they didn't give us a
1 recommendation 8.
8 BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Oh, so
19 MS. POTTER: So they s 8.
20 HANSON: Uh-huh.
And 0,
t:.
l I
6
8
9
:lO
1
1
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
2
1
qua ue ..
1\nd have spec f s t you know
dedi resources y. so hovJ 're
coating our resources uate cvhethe
we need to dedicate additiona rs l. I' l cove
that for you t
Then you had a quest on on ?
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Yeah, I just wanted
to know the term " water." This is what industrial
the industrially
what does it refer to?
MS. POTTER:
water or whatever --
The anguage in the
recommendat on spec f ca y states n evaporation
t h
l
6
8
9
10
11
1
13
4
15
16
7
18
2
go
y.
HANSON:
now
MS. POTTER: Uh-huh.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON:
. POTTER: 0
Thank you.
So from here on I'm
to leave the task force recommendations.
have any remaining questions, now would
So if you
be a
time to answer those with the Board.
No? So we'll move on.
Klaus, I couldn't have paid you money to ask me a
be ter question about recowmendation 11. Perfect segue.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: I'll do it for free.
MS. POTTER: Oh, thank you.
'11 to resources that are
y to f oz , part
Ba 0
s
c.
9
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
9
1
t n
s f
the r and Pl Tina and
Jeni pa rulemaking and our State
on side f things. Andrew
is t~e staf on in our New Source Permitt
, and he part s in that group. Cara Keslar
leads our moni on, and she partie s in that
group. And we have two staff that are dedicated to
compliance in Pinedale and the r Green, Jennifer
Frazier and Brandi O'Brien, and partie te in that
group as their schedul s a low as we l.
The team ions and reports to Steve Dietrich,
our ll.i Qua ni trator. As I mentioned, we
cate of
on
to
1
0
next l
r effort.
10 As i each one season, s much
1 broader group of individuals that are involved s
1 a team effort. As you look at the slide, what you
13 may see is that a number of -- number of e's itles
14 are repeated over and over. Because we have mult e
15 that serve in their roles and their jobs and their
6 responsibilities of what they're hired to do on a
basis for the Air Division and for other
s as well, the rtment of Heal
9 Governor's Policy Office, DEQ as a whol ,
A u s this of f
I
1
6
9
10
1
2
3
14
15
16
1
8
9
2
t
s
y don't have one l
that ssue. I 's a much bigger issue than
And t s a of year-round and
larger team o s we go into each one.
From here we'l go into the things that are
speci ically in p ace for this winter so that you know
what's ng on, and if you hear press in relations to
these things, you can kind of ace them in context.
Well, first go to the next slide and we'll talk
about winter o one forecast
The Division issues a daily forecast from
nd to 29th I'm sorry, that should say 20 3
HANSON: Yeah.
0
s
l i
In
a
s i
l k
7 next
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
And the the so
can make the isions about their level
of outdoor activity.
Ozone levels ffect each and
differently. We know that the e
with sed re systems
ry individual
the young, those
y see the
greatest effect from elevated ozone, but the reality is no
two people react exact the same way. So it's
for the public to be able to make their own decisions. We
make this information available each a posting on our
Division website. We have a tol r that
has a recorded message t so that can in and
hear what the expectat s r
on i
In
1
t to
formation of elevated one l
9 This is done ly allow industry who have
0 ozone to thos
short-term emission reduction measures with that notice.
So this decision is issued noon each t
13 gives indus ry that ability to then in ace those
14 contingency plans the foll day. Those are
15 voluntary. They're not required. And each company chooses
16 the emission reduction measures that fit their operation.
This year we have 31 companies that have submitted oz
8 cont and that is up from in the past two
19 years we had about 26, es. So we continue
0 tifor that effort.
t i
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
0
0
i s thes s
ke, are do -- can you quant
at al , are l s?
MS. POTTER: our best attempt at
quantification is more qua itative. When we issue an ozone
act on , for the past two winters what we have done is
had our iance staff observe activity levels within the
communities, as well as out in the industrial development
area.
MEfv1BER Uh-huh.
MS. POTTER: And t we learned last yea ,
for two o action ssued last year, was
l
l
6
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
1
8
19
0
t
i
s
i ? l
ime i r you
practices to accommodate 0 do you
see I mean, what's the f this, do we know? s
it real he or is it sort f feel- i ica
MS. POTTER: We can' quanti
unfortunately we don't have a method to i the
emissions reduction that occurs in association wi these
contingency plans. So I would say there's y some
reali to the statement of, you know, fee -good measure.
BOARD MEMBER HULME: Uh-huh.
MS. POTTER: We have systems that set up
that end up being multi events. And I would say in
particular, for those mul i events, i 's fo to
be abl emis i
a
2
1
t
i
aus.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: You mentioned
0 s that re was an increa n the number of
11 ind0st part c
12 MS. POTTER: Uh-huh.
13 MEMBER HANSON: What's the percentage
14 altogether? You said I think up to 24, or s like
15 that. How many participants could there be?
16 MS. POTTER: You know, I'd have to go back
1 and
18 BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Uh-huh.
9 . POTTER: look at the number of
(\ v
2
I
6
8
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
0 0
0
s
s e
past. And so that's what we
MS. cont to encourage
of the program. And cent nue to encourage the
those who have part ted before to continue to
cipate.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: The other question,
we are two weeks into the program, have we issued any
action ?
MS. not ssued --
HANSON:
0 on
ng
t
c
n s,
da
ry ng
9 ' . f' nn..t.ng O.c. because i 's a very system,
0 and need very much be vigi And f re's a
1 for those weather condi ions s t up, v:e want
to make sure that we're letting the i know so that
1 can take the ate precautions.
14 BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Last question. I
15 think last meet we discussed the proportion of snow
6 levels, I think.
" 7 MS. POTTER: Uh-huh.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: And this has been a
ry nter. Does that a posit feet any
f ?
l st
's
l
L
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
0
_L
2
ng a d
start on
01 . 01 wa last
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: g one.
MS. POTTER: yea of o , you know,
really elevated ozone leve s in the Green. And so it
is someLhing we wat losely.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Uh-huh.
MS. POTTER: In fact, while we were up
there last ni had a nice snowstorm come
wh there, added between 3 to inches
i of the Upper Green Rive Basin.
so nmv-pac that teriorated s far this
s s so ch
t ~ t
I l
6
l
8 In s on, I ioned kind
of the qua itat response. do ask them to go out and
0 have a field pres on one ct It's
qua itative, t give a better feel for, you know,
what evel of act ty is s ill go on. And, you know,
1 that activity leve you know, both in terms of the ozone
14 cont plans as well as communi participation.
15 When we issue an ozone action for those
6 es that have cont p ans within 10 of
that they not fy us send in an event summary
that lets us know how they were able to - how were
able to meet the t indicated would do on
ct i 0 ~ ives us a
t y
2
4
l
7
0
r y 0 t
n't ed that unt winter
0 0 00 s yea wha
1 nforr'la t s ssary. This yea our that
12 s is for ng atory moni oring six stations
13 that \>Je that are in the station -- in ba in
14 year-round, and we are s ementing that ory
15 monitoring at six stations with additional ambient and
16 meteorological monit
17 So the current monitor s at six s tes. It's
18 a l fede reference monitoring. \ile wil be
19 ng three me onet s tes .. These are tr
s a
ll
e l
. 2
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
l
poss s year, with a mobi e
s ion we monitor those conditions and
compa k to that information from years.
wi coll ct speciated VOC s es. Those
wil a number of our t sites, as well as a
number o se mesonet sites, so that we a spatial
feel for the volatile c compound speciation
the basin. Those aren't continuous. What we
look for are meteorological conditions that are ideal for
ozone f ion, and then we trigger those canisters to
collect dur that: time frame.
then s year we will be 1 some
ytre
g ct:ure
i
I
1
9
1
13
4
15
16
18
0
1
i
we*
s
s we
ves n Pinedale
dur thi ime 's that
goes wrong any f the that chnician we
d cy f X t. That c also
responsible for the collection of the spe a ed volati e
0 s es, as we s ssisting with those
ozone and radio sondes launches. So it, in and of itself,
takes a great deal of effort to do the monitoring we do
each winter.
BOARD MEI'1BER What is SODAR?
MS. POTTER: know, I 't know cvha t
the acronym stands for.
?
g
8
10
11
1
1
14
15
16
9
0
c
s
0
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Sounds like
ystem f sorts.
JVlS. POTTER: But a small one.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Small one.
MR. DIETRICH: Mini.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Mini.
MS. POTTER: Okay. So we're going to leave
what we're doing in the winter, and we'll transition into
ozone nonattainment planning. And thanks to Tina Anderson,
she's she's our ozone nonattainment ng expert, and
s s may have to he me f you have hard questions on
thes
re are four slides that walk you
e
L
9
0
11
12
3
14
15
16
18
9
0
l
t
n
t
con
may reca las
general con rmi
process ~c:as e ln
revised state rule was pac
a SIP revis on.
Thls t c is very
e fore you.
And
n
some of you
te to our
That rulemaking
December that
up and submitted to EPA as
ant to ongoing
coordination with the Bureau of Land Management and ongoing
oil and gas development in the r Green River Basin.
And so whi e EPA to, in fact, revise our state
ementation with the ed rule, we are
continuing t with know, we've al met
to wi them
s
I
8
9
10
1
1
13
14
15
16
1
18
1
0
s
s te rules.
These would and be applied New
Source Review Permitt as any ma source within
the nonattainment area. Either a new source or modified
source comes through for nonattainment a New Source
Review permit. Stricter standards, such as lowest
achievable emission rate, LAER, instead of BACT, best
achievable control such as that.
This also s some offset rements,
but as of our interim , which is the
ations, we've got those that to a ources in
the Green River Basin as well. If use
fsets in order demons ra to
't
T
1
1
9
0
3
14
5
16
1
9
0 s
in
the Environmenta
to col
s
s ons in the state of
0 "' to satis EPA rements, we'll need to take that
as a rule. And so the staff will develop an
emissions rule in the traditional rulemaking
process. You will see that rule, and you will see it in
2013.
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: So that would
be the last two bullets are sort of connected
t anothe , ? Because you want to get to some
nd th second rt:, s on
t t atta
I
4
0
8 s in
9 BOARD Oh.
10
11 the actual act t leve , and that:'s ing
12 the emissions assoc ated with t, where
13 nonattainment New S ce is forv1ard as
14 sources are new or modified to make sure that as those
15 continue to come into the basin and are modified for major
16 sources, those are be looked at so that 're not
17 making their nonatt:ainment: worse.
18 BOARD MEMBER HANSON:
19 MS. 0 to
s for
l t
1
1
6
7
9
0
13
4
15
16
1
9
1
f
sions, and we ke 's
re zed the Environmental Protect
So we an to document Our "
" leve ff rward" letter also 0
incorporate the l recommendations from the task
force. Those are the nearer term items tha we can go
forward with. And we will evaluate and look at what of the
possible Group 2 items from the task force to include as
well, which of those by the April of 2013 time frame are
appropriate.
So that is our for submitt that
forward" etter. It just s out for EPA what
1 done and do.
r t
1
t
I
8
9
0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
y
s s
So you' those two bullets
And then in this this of that are a ittle
bit more i to we are go to n
wor on those tas force recommendations firs
and foremos that don' invo rulema So the 's
some to water and storage that we don't
believe will re rulema We'll look at wor on
those. And then the DEQ personne evaluation, we don't
believe vJi l re em a , but definite has some
islat rns associated with it. So
far are i
I
8
9
0
11
1
13
14
15
16
1
8
19
0
4
7
l
s
s
as st as are
the emissions inventories, t
a
know
need to ook at those and go k and evaluaLe, you know,
more permanent and enforceabl mechanisms ons,
not just the voluntary reductions that have occurred so
far.
with that, oil and gas deve and
industrial deve continues be rtant to that
basin. And so as we look at emis ions
from older sources, we also so
that vJe be ab 0
• 4 . L
8
9
0
3
14
15
16
1
18
19
8
and k,
Clean Air
emiss on ions. We al do lot o k in
respect s, but we need to move away the basi
ience on to workable solutions and pra i
s ience So \ve ;,-.rill we will continue to ook
at wha~ do '
but look with a new eye and a new lens
for how we can move that program forward as we l.
0 And lastly, it should be no se,
there are stil actions ng from EPA. So while we are
rea y t to move forward as best we can, there are
st a numbe of that we don't have the crystal
bal to know y \vhat wil be red of us E
are l
s. s r
t l
7
In
8 when monit ish
addit t ng,
10 there oftent s a s do that.
11 would have be e tabl here. It al fine our
12 ozone season. We don'L have a traditional ozone season in
13 the r Green River Bas so this of particular
14 importance to the State of ng as well.
15 We've talked of -- before about the fact that we
16 are already in the r for the next ozone
1 National }l"mbient Air Qua ty Standard review. We are
18 expect EPA to propose a new ozone s anda in 0 3
19 associated with Lhat We're anti ng t would
0 be r
s
7
0 0
10
11
1
13
14
15
16
1
18
9
2
those recommendat
e
engines. As
ions are specifi
ng doesn't have
does, we continue to k on encourag
forward on some some nonroad
would be he he for us.
And last , as you know
y.
nonroad
but EPA
o move
s that
now, we have a very
we're not the only state that has a wintertime ozone
em, but 're one of the few. don't fit the mold
f what EPA has devel and created in terms f ozone
ls, fi Photochemical Those
i
i
6
9
10
11
1
13
14
15
6
1
19
0
1
4
t
l a
, but
1
k t
fel l
t
to
e you on the task force recommendat
HANSON:
engine on up fore, is i just a l k f a
ions on tha on nonroad s tha nothing has
ever come from l slature, or how come there s no
no ion?
MS. POTTER: Under the Clean Air Act
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Yeah.
MS. POTTER: there's only one state that
has authority address mobile sources and nonroad
s s, 's the state of Ca ifornia.
-huh.
;vJS.
i
y
9
10
1
1
3
4
15
6
8
9
14
's
s s k
ear , et cetera.
JVIS • very much.
NR. CH:
HANSON: Boy, that's strange.
NS. I think the intent
was so that we didn't have a patchwork of mobile source
regulations all over the country. That's what EPA was
thin So had one, EPA would do all the emissions
setting.
BROI'JN: If do lower the
national emissi zone, could that throw the
whol s te as this last
t
1
i l
d
6
8
POTTER: Yeah, you're as a l
0 Bac in the livest.
11 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Yes.
12 MS. POTTER: Is to be - and
13 cor get this wrong -- between 0 and 60 rts
14 per mi lion. Where -- that's where we hit the rub, s when
15 EPA is coking at a range for Ambient Air Quali Standard
16 of 60 to 70 parts per million, if in the West -
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: it k.
18 MS. POTTER: -- bac is 0 parts per
9 l , you , we wi l not be the west s
n v em.
2
ll
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
13
14
15
16
1
18
2
y
e is set low
rs that you do monitored data that
s that those s tes should be des
nonattainment, and the y port ons of your state that you
don't have that indication are the, you know, portions
0 state tha a unmonitored, you know, stands to
reason that those then would become unclassifiable because
you don't have the monitoring data to show they would
attain.
IviR. DIETRICH:
NS. POTTER: That would be a
s on.
CH:
t
l
t
8 which we in
gene formi What I
10 was go ng do you know, n vJith t
tion tha 's nov.r Sl not effect
1 And the reason it's not s e of our statute.
13 If you r our statute -- our tatute 35-ll- 3, fo a
4 long time, from the late ' Os unti just last year, A
15 were the sections that re in our statute.
16 And as I go forward with this, if I sl up, I
know you're to correct ri t,
18 HS. VEHR: Corre
9 DIETRI was it us
i es to
e
1
0
1
1
14
15
16
17
18
9
s
l, become effect in our
EPA's eyes. And what it would then do is it would
the tate, either to ask or have it automatically
to get rid of the FIP, the Federal ation Plan,
that's currently in , to ace it with a State-
and E SIP, o ? What, in essence,
that would do, then, in the end, it would
permitting that's currently going on for EPA
the dual
to
issue the PSD for e gas and the State
ss permits for all other lutants we ate,
y have EPA DEQ issue the ts for both -
of those lutants.
're t lat on
f
I
6 s ?
0 We
8 s and ourn, ?
9 MEMBER BROWN: Next meeting quarterly
10 r wheneve needed. t-ve want set the date now
1 ck the l r and s wha 's coming up after the
1 legislature?
13 ETRICH: Tina, do you have any idea
14 when you think we want to have another meet ? I
15 know we've got a lot of rules we've talk about here, you
16 saw them on the slides here.
17 Ri There are a lot of
rules you're gc to be loo at in 2013, and we'll
9 y ask to t e times. Not fully
0 fer you, but because
1
1
4
7
8 MS. ANDERSON: And al
9 have some s about that?
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Let's see. We've done
1 the southwest, southeast and middle. It's y
northeast or northwest, I suppose.
13 MR. DIETRICH: 0
4 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Unless it's so
15 important we need to centralize it in Casper, like we did
16 last time.
1 BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Eve has to
18 travel a little bit.
9 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Doesn't matter to me.
0 k about it lat r too.
1
1
6
n \)
1
13
14
15
16
8
9
5
ad ourn, or
ETRICH: 0
JvlEMBER BROWN: Do \.Je need a moti
t ourn?
BOARD MEMBER HANSON: Motion 0 ourn.
BOARD l\1EMBER HULME: Second.
MEMBER BROWN: Meet is ourned.
MR. DIETRICH: Thank you.
(Air Quali Advisory Board meeting
concluded 12:55 p.m. January 16, 2013.)
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
2 5
1 50
C E R T I F I C A T E
I , KA THY J. KE NDR I CK, a Regi ste r ed Pro fe ssiona l
Reporter , do hereb y cer ti fy that I repo rte d by ma c hi n e
shor tha nd the foregoin g p roc e edi n g s c ontained here in ,
cons tituting a ful l , t r ue and co rrect t ranscript.
Da t e d th i s 5th day of Februar y , 2013 .
Wyomi n g Repo rt ing Se rv ice, I n c . 1 . 800 . 444 . 28 26