DRAFT MINUTES

AIR QUALITY COUNCIL

July 17, 2002

Department of Environmental Quality

Multipurpose Room 707 N. Robinson

Oklahoma City Oklahoma

Draft for EQBoard September 10

For AQC approval October 17

APPROVED AQC 10-17-02

 

Notice of Public Meeting The Air Quality Council convened for its regular meeting at 9:00 a.m., July 17, 2002 in the Multipurpose Room of the Department of Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  Notice of the meeting was forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of State giving the date, time, and place of the meeting.  At least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting, agendas were posted on the entrance doors at the DEQ Central Office in Oklahoma City. 

 

As protocol officer, Mr. Dyke convened the hearings by the Air Quality Council in compliance with the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act and Title 40 CFR Part 51, and Title 27A, Oklahoma Statutes, Sections 2-5-201 and 2-5-101 - 2-5-118.  Mr. Dyke entered the agenda and the Oklahoma Register Notice into the record.  He added that forms were at the sign-in table for anyone wishing to comment on any of today’s rules. 

 

Chairman David Branecky called the meeting to order and requested roll call.  A quorum was confirmed.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

David Branecky

Bill Breisch

Bob Lynch

Sharon Myers

Joel Wilson

 

DEQ STAFF PRESENT 

Eddie Terrill

David Dyke

Scott Thomas

Pam Dizikes

Joyce Sheedy

Max Price

Cheryl Bradley

MEMBERS ABSENT

Fred Grosz

Gary Kilpatrick

Gary Martin

Rick Treeman

Shawna McWaters-Khalousi

Dawson Lasseter

Garry Keele

Kendall Cody

Pat Sullivan

Myrna Bruce

OTHERS PRESENT

Sign-in sheet is attached as an official part of these Minutes.

 

 

Approval of Minutes   Chairman Branecky called agenda item number 3, Approval of Minutes of the April 17 Regular Meeting.  Hearing no discussion, Chairman Branecky called for a motion to approve the Minutes as presented.  Dr. Lynch made the motion and second was made by Ms. Myers.

 

Roll call.                            Motion carried.

Bill Breisch                            Yes

Bob Lynch                            Yes

Sharon Myers                       Yes

Joel Wilson                           Yes

David Branecky                   Yes

 

 

 

Rulemaking – OAC252:100-8-2  Permits for Part 70 Sources [AMENDED]

 

Dr. Joyce Sheedy advised that staff proposed to revise the definition of major source for Part 70 operating permit program, Section 2 of Subchapter (SC) 8 in response to the change in the federal definition of major source at 40 CFR 70.2 that became effective November 27, 2001.  She stated that the definition of major source is a key component in determining the applicability of the Part 70 operating permit program to sources in the state. She added that proposed revision consists of deleting the phrase “but only with respect to those pollutants that have been regulated for that category” from (B)(xxxii) of the definition. 

 

Dr. Sheedy pointed out the revisions that would need to be made and stated that because this is a requirement of continuing the Title V delegation, it was staff’s recommendation to ask the Board for adoption as a permanent rule.  After a brief discussion and questions answered, Mr. Branecky entertained a motion to recommend the rule to the Environmental Quality Board for approval as permanent rule.  Motion was made by Ms. Myers and second by Mr. Breisch. 

 

Roll call.                            Motion carried.

Bill Breisch                            Yes

Bob Lynch                            Yes

Sharon Myers                       Yes

Joel Wilson                           Yes

David Branecky                   Yes

 

Rulemaking – OAC252:100-11 Alternative Emissions Reduction Plans and Authorizations [AMENDED]

 

Dr. Joyce Sheedy advised the Council that the proposed revision to Subchapter 11 had been presented at the January 16 meeting, continued to April 17, and to July 17 to allow changes to be made to additional sections of the rule and to respond to comments.  She advised that the revision of Subchapter 11 was originally to add the requirement that an alternative emission reduction plan must provide more reduction than actual emissions.  She added that since SC 11 is not part of the Oklahoma SIP, alternative emission reduction plans require a source specific SIP revision. 

 

Dr. Sheedy pointed out changes that had been included that would enhance the applicant’s chance of receiving EPA's approval of the resulting SIP revision; and that these additional changes would clarify the information that is necessary in the plan application and further define the requirements and limitations for such plans. 

 

Dr. Sheedy added that EPA was supportive of these changes and they thought it would help in their process of proving SIP revisions for these individual plans.  She advised that staff proposed that the Council forward the rulemaking to the Environmental Quality Board as a permanent rule.

 

After discussion and questions from Council and the public, Mr. Branecky called for a motion.  Mr. Wilson made a motion that included the changes discussed.  Mr. Breisch made the second.

 

Roll call.                            Motion carried.

Bill Breisch                            Yes

Bob Lynch                            Yes

Sharon Myers                       Yes

Joel Wilson                           Yes

David Branecky                   Yes

Rulemaking – OAC252:100-39 Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Nonattainment Areas and Former Nonattainment Areas. Part 7 [AMENDED]

                         OAC 252:100-43 Sampling and Testing Methods [AMENDED]

                         OAC 252:100-45 Monitoring of Emissions [AMENDED]

 

Mr. Max Price stated that the Department proposed changes that would move requirements from SC 45 into SC 43 and would revoke SC 45.  He added that two new sections unrelated to SC 45 are proposed for SC 43: Section 252:100-43-1.1 Definitions, will define the terms  method, monitoring and test.  Mr. Price added that Section 252:100-43-1.2 Applicability, would clarify that SC 43 may not be used to avoid compliance with applicable, but more stringent, federal or state rules.  He added that the proposed changes also amend and move section 252:100-43-15 to a new section in SC 39, 252:100-39-41.1 and amend section 252:100-39-41 to reflect this change.  

 

Mr. Price responded to comments that had been received and fielded questions from Council and audience.  Mr. Myers made motion to continue the hearing to the next Council meeting to allow more time to study the proposed revisions and see what the impact would be.  Mr. Wilson seconded.

 

Roll call.                            Motion carried.

Bill Breisch                            Yes

Bob Lynch                            Yes

Sharon Myers                       Yes

Joel Wilson                           Yes

David Branecky                   Yes

                                   

 

Rulemaking – OAC252:100-5-2-1  Registration, Emissions Inventory and Annual Operating Fees [AMENDED]

 

Mr. Max Price advised that the Department proposed to amend 5-2-1 by requiring stack testing to verify reported emissions for certain categories of fuel-burning equipment.  He pointed out that testing would be required after every 43,000 hours of operation, provided there is no other credible method available to verify the reported emissions.  He stated that this new requirement supplements existing requirements for verification of incomplete or incorrect facility emission inventories contained in 5-2-.1(e).

 

Mr. Price pointed out comments that had been received and responded to those comments.  Mr. Price then answered questions and took comments from the Council and audience.  It was recommended that the hearing be continued to allow time to receive additional written comments.

 

Mr. Branecky called for a motion to continue the hearing to the October meeting.  Mr. Wilson made motion and second was made by Ms. Myers.

 

Roll call.                            Motion carried.

Bill Breisch                            Yes

Bob Lynch                            Yes

Sharon Myers                       Yes

Joel Wilson                           Yes

David Branecky                   Yes

 

 

Rulemaking – OAC252:100-41  Control of Emission of Hazardous Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants and Appendix O.  Toxic Air Contaminants  [AMENDED]

 

Ms. Cheryl Bradley stated that the Department proposed changes to Parts 1 and 5 of SC 41 to simplify language, clarify requirements, and remove redundant language or requirements.  She advised that substantive changes were also proposed which included the addition of a new Appendix O. Toxic Air contaminants.  She pointed out the proposed changes would simplify language, clarify requirements, and remove redundant language or requirements.  She added detail of substantive changes that were also being proposed.  She entered into the record a letter of comment received from Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. She stated that there were still unresolved issues and suggested that the Council continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting.  Ms. Bradley then responded to questions from the Council and the audience.

 

Mr. Branecky entertained motion to continue the rulemaking to the October meeting.   Motion was made by Mr. Breisch and second by Ms. Myers.

 

Roll call.                            Motion carried.

Bill Breisch                            Yes

Bob Lynch                            Yes

Sharon Myers                       Yes

Joel Wilson                           Yes

David Branecky                   Yes

 

 

 

Rulemaking – OAC252:100-17  Incinerators [AMENDED]

 

Ms. Cheryl Bradley stated that the Department proposed to add OAC 252:100-17, Part 9, Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units (CISWI) to provide the means for implementing and enforcing the federal emission guidelines at 40CFR 60, Subpart DDDD and incorporates by reference sections of 40 CFR 60, Subpart CCCC.  She advised that in addition to establishing emissions standards for certain regulated pollutants, the new rule would establish requirements for operator qualifications and training, waste management plans, testing and monitoring of pollutants, and operating parameters. The proposed rules will be an essential part of Oklahoma's plan to control emissions from existing commercial and industrial incinerators. 

 

Ms. Bradley advised that it was staff’s recommendation that Council continue the rulemaking to the October meeting and fielded questions from the Council and the audience.  Mr. Branecky entertained motion.  Ms. Myers made motion to continue to October meeting and Dr. Lynch made the second.

 

Roll call.                            Motion carried.

Bill Breisch                            Yes

Bob Lynch                            Yes

Sharon Myers                       Yes

Joel Wilson                           Yes

David Branecky                   Yes

 

 

Rulemaking – OAC252:100-8 Permits for Part 70. Part 7  [AMENDED]

                         Appendix E.  Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards [REVOKED]

                         Appendix E.  Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards [NEW]

Dr. Richard Dawson petitioned the Department to amend permitting requirements for the construction of new electric power plants.  He proposed changes that would establish new BACT standards for nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide for gas-fired turbine electric generating units.  The petition would also change Oklahoma’s primary ambient air standards for both NO2 and CO contained in Appendix E.

 

Following Dr. Dawson’s presentation and discussion with Council and audience, Mr. Branecky went on the record to say that he supports clean air in Oklahoma, but he felt that Dr. Dawson failed to prove the need for the additional requirements requested. Mr. Branecky also stated that DEQ does an adequate job of protecting the health of the citizens of Oklahoma using the rule that is currently in place.  Mr. Branecky then called for a motion. 

 

Ms. Myers made a motion that Council not accept the rule revisions to SC 8 and Appendix E as proposed.  Mr. Breisch seconded that motion.  Mr. Branecky pointed out to the Council that a ‘yes’ vote would be denying the proposals.

 

Roll call.                            Motion carried.

Bill Breisch                            Yes

Bob Lynch                            Yes

Sharon Myers                       Yes

Joel Wilson                           Yes

David Branecky                   Yes

 

Mr. Wilson voiced for the record his appreciation to Dr. Dawson for getting involved in the rulemaking process as a private citizen, and his admiration for Dr. Dawson’s passion about the health of the people.  Mr. Wilson added that it was a good effort, but the proposal contained technical problems; therefore, he too must vote to deny the proposals.

 

Division Director’s Report   Mr. Terrill stated that the Air Quality Division has received another rulemaking petition filed with the DEQ. He advised that staff is in the process of setting this petition on the agenda of the October Air Quality Council meeting for a decision whether to proceed with rulemaking on the petition.   

 

New Business    None  

 

Adjournment    Meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

 

Next Meeting  October 16, 2002, Department of Environmental Quality, Multipurpose Room, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

 

A copy of the hearing transcripts are attached and made an official part of these Minutes.


 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

        AIR QUALITY DIVISION

         STATE OF OKLAHOMA

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

 

 

                    TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 

                   AIR QUALITY COUNCIL MEETING

 

                         OAC 252:100-8-2

 

                   PERMITS FOR PART 70 SOURCES

 

                HELD ON JULY 17, 2002 AT 9:00 A.M.

 

                        707 NORTH ROBINSON

 

                     OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

 

__________________________________________

 

 

 

 

REPORTED BY:   CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                     MYERS REPORTING SERVICE

                          (405) 721-2882

                         COUNCIL MEMBERS

 

 

 

David Branecky, Chairman

 

Sharon Myers, Vice-Chair

 

Rick Treeman, Member

 

Joel Wilson, Member

 

Dr. Fred Grosz, Member

 

Gary Kilpatrick, Member

 

Bill Breisch, Member

 

Dr. Bob Lynch, Member

 

 

 

                          STAFF MEMBERS

 

Eddie Terrill, Director

 

David Dyke, Protocol Officer

 

Myrna Bruce, Secretary
                                                                   3

 

 

 1

 

 2                           PROCEEDINGS

 

 3                  MR. BRANECKY:   Good morning,

 

 4   everyone.   We need to go ahead and get

 

 5   started, we've got a full agenda today.

 

 6   Hopefully -- well, I don't know if we'll

 

 7   get through by lunch, but we certainly will

 

 8   take a break for our court reporter.   Our

 

 9   court reporter, it is very difficult for

 

10   her to continue for any length of time.

 

11   So, I would plan on probably taking a break

 

12   around 10:30, if that's okay?

 

13                  THE REPORTER:   Perfect.

 

14                  MR. BRANECKY:   And then if we

 

15   need to, we'll break for lunch and come

 

16   back after lunch.   We'll go ahead and get

 

17   started.  

 

18             The first order on the agenda is for

 

19   Myrna to call the roll, please.

 

20                  MS. BRUCE:   Dr. Lynch.

 

21                  DR. LYNCH:   Here.

 

22                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Breisch.

 

23                  MR. BREISCH:   Here.

 

24                  MS. BRUCE:   Ms. Myers.

 

25                  MS. MYERS:   Here.
                                                                   4

 

 

 1                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Wilson.

 

 2                  MR. WILSON:   Here.

 

 3                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Branecky.

 

 4                  MR. BRANECKY:   Here.

 

 5                  MS. BRUCE:   For the record,

 

 6   absent are Mr. Kilpatrick, Mr. Treeman, Dr.

 

 7   Grosz and Mr. Martin.

 

 8                  MR. BRANECKY:   The next item on

 

 9   the agenda is approval of the Minutes from

 

10   the April 17th meeting.   Do we have any

 

11   discussion on the Minutes?   I'll entertain

 

12   a motion for approval.

 

13                  DR. LYNCH:   I move to approve

 

14   them.

 

15                  MS. MYERS:   Second.

 

16                  MR. BRANECKY:   I have a motion

 

17   and second.   Myrna, call the roll, please.

 

18                  MS. BRUCE:   Dr. Lynch.

 

19                  DR. LYNCH:   Yes.

 

20                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Breisch.

 

21                  MR. BREISCH:   Yes.

 

22                  MS. BRUCE:   Ms. Myers.

 

23                  MS. MYERS:   Yes.

 

24                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Wilson.

 

25                  MR. WILSON:   Yes.

 

 

 

 

     
                                                                   5

 

 

 1                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Branecky.

 

 2                  MR. BRANECKY:   Yes.

 

 3             The next portion of the meeting,

 

 4   we'll go into the public hearing section.

 

 5   And Mr. Dyke, will you take it from there?

 

 6                  MR. DYKE:   Good morning,

 

 7   everyone.   I'm David Dyke, I'm the

 

 8   Assistant Director of the Air Quality and

 

 9   I'll be the Protocol Officer today.

 

10             These hearings will be convened by

 

11   the Council in compliance with the Oklahoma

 

12   Administrative Procedures Act.

 

13                  MR. BRANECKY:   Excuse me, Mr.

 

14   Dyke.   That reminded me, for those of you

 

15   that have mobile phones, please put them on

 

16   vibrate or mute, or pagers, whatever you

 

17   have to do.   Thank you.   Sorry.

 

18                  MR. DYKE:   Okay.

 

19                  MR. BRANECKY:   Start over.

 

20                  MR. DYKE:   This meeting is

 

21   convened by the Council in compliance with

 

22   the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act,

 

23   Title 40 of the Code of Federal

 

24   Regulations, Part 51, as well as the

 

25   Authority of Title 27A of the Oklahoma

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            6

 

 

 1   Statutes, Section 2-2-201, Sections 2-5-101

 

 2   through 2-5-118.  

 

 3             These hearings were advertised in

 

 4   the Oklahoma Register for the purpose of

 

 5   receiving comments pertaining to the

 

 6   proposed OAC 252 Chapter 100 rules, as

 

 7   listed on the agenda, which will be entered

 

 8   into the record along with the filing.

 

 9             If you wish to make a statement,

 

10   fill out a form at the back table and we'll

 

11   call on you at the appropriate time.

 

12             We'll begin with what's marked as

 

13   Agenda Item 4A, OAC 252:100-8-2, Permits

 

14   for Part 70 Sources.   And we'll call on

 

15   staff member, Joyce Sheedy.

 

16                  DR. SHEEDY:   Mr. Chairman,

 

17   Members of the Council, ladies and

 

18   gentlemen, staff proposes to revise the

 

19   definition of "major source" for the Part

 

20   70 operating permit program in Section 2 of

 

21   Subchapter 8.  

 

22             This revision is in response to the

 

23   change in the federal definition of "major

 

24   source" at 40 CFR 70.2 that became

 

25   effective on November 27, 2001.  

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   7

 

 

 1             The definition of major source is a

 

 2   key component in determining the

 

 3   applicability of the Part 70 operating

 

 4   permit program to sources in the state.

 

 5             The proposed revision consists of

 

 6   deleting the phrase "but only with respect

 

 7   to those pollutants" -- I'm sorry, "to

 

 8   those air pollutants that have been

 

 9   regulated for that category" from

 

10   (B)(XXVii) of the definition of major

 

11   source on page 5 of the rule in the Council

 

12   packet.  

 

13             Currently, the fugitive emissions of

 

14   a stationary source are not considered in

 

15   determining whether the source is a major

 

16   source (and therefore subject to Part 70)

 

17   unless the source is included in a list of

 

18   categories of stationary sources that is

 

19   included in the definition.

 

20             The last category in the list is:

 

21   All other stationary source categories

 

22   which, as of August 7, 1980, are regulated

 

23   by a NSPS or NESHAP, but only for those air

 

24   pollutants that are regulated by the NSPS

 

25   or NESHAP.  

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   8

 

 

 1             The effect of the proposed amendment

 

 2   is to expand the last category.   By

 

 3   removing the phrase "but only with respect

 

 4   to those air pollutants that have been

 

 5   regulated for this category", all fugitive

 

 6   emissions of all regulated pollutants from

 

 7   a stationary source that is subject to NSPS

 

 8   or NESHAP on and after August 7th, 1980,

 

 9   must be considered in determining Title V

 

10   applicability whether or not pollutants are

 

11   regulated under the NSPS or NESHAP in

 

12   question.   This could impact some sources

 

13   in the State.

 

14             Because this is a requirement of our

 

15   continued Title V delegation, staff asks

 

16   that the proposed rule, as amended, be

 

17   recommended for adoption by the Board as a

 

18   permanent rule.   Thank you.

 

19                  MR. TERRILL:   Questions of Dr.

 

20   Sheedy by the Council.

 

21                  MR. BREISCH:   Joyce, just

 

22   briefly, what sources might come under,

 

23   that haven't so far?

 

24                  DR. SHEEDY:   Well, I've been

 

25   trying to think what sources might come

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   9

 

 

 1   under and it's -- I really don't know.   We

 

 2   haven't done a study.   It could affect some

 

 3   sources that -- I don't know, maybe some of

 

 4   the toxic HAP sources might.

 

 5                  MR. BREISCH:   But you haven't

 

 6   been contacted by any industry --

 

 7                  DR. SHEEDY:   No.

 

 8                  MR. BREISCH:   -- or anybody that

 

 9   could be affected?

 

10                  DR. SHEEDY:   No.   No one has

 

11   contacted us.   We've received no comment at

 

12   all about this rule and if we didn't --

 

13   it's a federal rule already, so -- because

 

14   they've already changed their definitions

 

15   and it's effective already.   And this just

 

16   keeps our program in line with the federal

 

17   rule.

 

18                  MR. TERRILL:   Any further

 

19   questions from the Council?   Any questions

 

20   from the public for Dr. Sheedy?   Okay.

 

21                  MR. BRANECKY:   With that, at this

 

22   point in time, we'll entertain a motion for

 

23   approval as permanent and emergency?

 

24                  DR. SHEEDY:   No, just permanent.

 

25                  MR. BRANECKY:   Just permanent.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  10

 

 

 1                  MR.:   I'll so move.

 

 2                  MS. MYERS:   Second.

 

 3                  MR. BRANECKY:   Myrna, would you

 

 4   call the roll, please.

 

 5                  MS. BRUCE:   Dr. Lynch.

 

 6                  DR. LYNCH:   Yes.

 

 7                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Breisch.

 

 8                  MR. BREISCH:   Yes.

 

 9                  MS. BRUCE:   Ms. Myers.

 

10                  MS. MYERS:   Yes.

 

11                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Wilson.

 

12                  MR. WILSON:   Yes.

 

13                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Branecky.

 

14                  MR. BRANECKY:   Yes.

 

15        (End of Proceedings)

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  11

 

 

 1

 

 2                    C E R T I F I C A T E

 

 3   STATE OF OKLAHOMA     )

                                   )         ss:

 4   COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA    )

 

 5             I, CHRISTY A. MYERS, Certified

 

 6   Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of

 

 7   Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above

 

 8   proceeding is the truth, the whole truth,

 

 9   and nothing but the truth, in the case

 

10   aforesaid; that the foregoing proceedings

 

11   were taken by me in shorthand and

 

12   thereafter transcribed under my direction;

 

13   that said proceedings were taken on the

 

14   17th day of July, 2002, at Oklahoma City,

 

15   Oklahoma; and that I am neither attorney

 

16   for nor relative of any of said parties,

 

17   nor otherwise interested in said action.

 

18             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

 

19   set my hand and official seal on this, the

 

20   18th day of August, 2002.

 

21

                         _______________________

22                       CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

                                                              1

 

 

 1         DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

 

 2                    AIR QUALITY DIVISION

 

 3                      STATE OF OKLAHOMA

 

 4

 

 5

 

 6

 

 7

 

 8

 

 9   __________________________________________

 

10

 

11                TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 

12               AIR QUALITY COUNCIL MEETING

 

13                        OAC 252:100-11

 

14        ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLANS

 

15                     AND AUTHORIZATIONS

 

16         HELD ON JULY 17, 2002, AT 9:00 A.M.

 

17                      707 NORTH ROBINSON

 

18                  OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

19

 

20   __________________________________________

 

21

 

22

 

23   REPORTED BY:    CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

                    MYERS REPORTING SERVICE

 

                          (405) 721-2882
                                                                   2

 

 

 1                        COUNCIL MEMBERS

 

 2

 

 3   David Branecky, Chairman

 

 4   Sharon Myers, Vice-Chair

 

 5   Rick Treeman, Member

 

 6   Joel Wilson, Member

 

 7   Dr. Fred Grosz, Member

 

 8   Gary Kilpatrick, Member

 

 9   Bill Breisch, Member

 

10   Dr. Bob Lynch, Member

 

11

 

12                         STAFF MEMBERS

 

13   Eddie Terrill, Director

 

14   David Dyke, Protocol Officer

 

15   Myrna Bruce, Secretary

 

16

 

17            

 

18                  

                              

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   3

 

 

 1

 

 2                           PROCEEDINGS

 

 3                  MR. DYKE:   The next item on the

 

 4   agenda, Item 4B, OAC 252:100-11,

 

 5   Alternative Emissions Reduction Plans and

 

 6   Authorizations.   Dr. Sheedy.

 

 7                  DR. SHEEDY:   Mr. Chairman,

 

 8   Members of the Council, ladies and

 

 9   gentlemen, the proposed revision to

 

10   Subchapter 11 was first presented to the

 

11   Air Quality Council at the January 16,

 

12   2002, meeting.   That hearing was continued

 

13   to April 17, 2002, to allow changes to be

 

14   made to additional sections of the rule.

 

15   The hearing was continued at the April

 

16   meeting so that staff could respond to

 

17   comments made at that hearing.  

 

18             The revision of Subchapter 11 was

 

19   originally to add the requirement that an

 

20   alternative emissions reduction plan must

 

21   provide for a reduction in actual

 

22   emissions.   Since Subchapter 11 is not part

 

23   of the Oklahoma SIP, alternative emissions

 

24   reduction plans require a source-specific

 

25   SIP revision.  

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   4

 

 

 1             Staff decided to include changes in

 

 2   the revision that would enhance the

 

 3   applicant's chance of receiving EPA's

 

 4   approval of the resulting SIP revision.

 

 5   These additional changes clarify what

 

 6   information is necessary in the plan

 

 7   application and further define the

 

 8   requirements and limitations for such

 

 9   plans.  

 

10             We made three specific changes

 

11   agreed to at the April Council meeting.

 

12   These are:   1.   In Section 3, on page

 

13   three, we deleted "from participating in an

 

14   alternative emissions reduction program",  

 

15             2.   On page five, in Paragraph 11-

 

16   4(a)(10) we added "as applicable" at the

 

17   beginning of the paragraph.  

 

18             3.   In the second sentence of

 

19   Paragraph (2) of Subsection 5(a) on page

 

20   six, we inserted "or better" between "the

 

21   same" and "air quality level overall".  

 

22             We also made changes in response to

 

23   the comment that the proposed revision

 

24   presented in April did not deal with

 

25   emissions that increase as a result of the

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   5

 

 

 1   plan and that are not the affected

 

 2   pollutant.   Responding to this comment

 

 3   required a number of changes.  

 

 4             1.   The first change is the addition

 

 5   in Section 2 on page two, of a definition

 

 6   of "affected pollutant".   An "affected

 

 7   pollutant" is one for which the emissions

 

 8   are either reduced or increased as a result

 

 9   of the plan.   This includes increases in

 

10   emissions of pollutants due to the control

 

11   equipment or strategy.  

 

12             2.   The second change is again in

 

13   Section 2 on page two.   The definition of

 

14   "affected emission point" has been revised

 

15   to include points that experience an

 

16   increase, as well as a reduction due to the

 

17   plan.   This includes emission points that

 

18   have an increase in the emissions of

 

19   regulated air pollutants due to control

 

20   strategy or to the addition of control

 

21   equipment.  

 

22             3.   And the third change is in

 

23   Paragraph 4(b)(14) on page five.   We

 

24   deleted "for each affected pollutant" since

 

25   that terminology is no longer appropriate

 

    
                                                                   6

 

 

 1   there with the new definition of "affected

 

 2   pollutant".  

 

 3             4.   The fourth change is in

 

 4   Paragraph (1) of Subsection 5(a), again on

 

 5   page five, we replaced the term "affected

 

 6   pollutant" with "all regulated air

 

 7   pollutants" and added the words "for which

 

 8   the plan is proposed", due to the change in

 

 9   the definition of affected pollutant.   We

 

10   exempted air pollutants increased due to

 

11   the addition of control equipment or

 

12   control strategy from the requirement to

 

13   have a net emission reduction.  

 

14             5.   The fifth change is the addition

 

15   of a new paragraph -- I'm sorry,

 

16   Subparagraph (1)(B) of Subsection 5(a) on

 

17   pages five and six, which requires that

 

18   facility-wide increases in any regulated

 

19   air pollutants that result from the

 

20   implementation of the plan must comply with

 

21   limits, standards, and requirements

 

22   applicable to the emissions points

 

23   involved.

 

24             Other changes made to the rule since

 

25   the April hearing are:

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   7

 

 

 1             1.   In Paragraph (6) of Subsection

 

 2   4(b) on page four we added the requirement

 

 3   that plot plan in the application include

 

 4   the proposed location of any new control

 

 5   equipment to be added as a result of the

 

 6   plan and the emission points to be

 

 7   controlled by this new equipment.  

 

 8             2.   And on page five, Paragraph

 

 9   (15), I'm sorry, it's not Paragraph (15),

 

10   it was Paragraph (15).   In the April

 

11   revision we combined that with Paragraph

 

12   4(b)(11) in an effort to simplify the list

 

13   and to delete redundant requirements.  

 

14             3.   In Paragraph 4(b)(13) on page

 

15   five, "with any emission standard or limit"

 

16   was added for clarity.  

 

17             4.   In Subsection 4(c), again on

 

18   page five, regarding multiple facilities we

 

19   added a further limiting factor that the

 

20   facilities must also be located on

 

21   contiguous or adjacent property and

 

22   affecting the same air shed.   Subchapter 11

 

23   is not intended to provide for emissions

 

24   trading.  

 

25             5.   The requirements for plans

 

 

 

    
                                                                   8

 

 

 1   involving Part 70 sources in nonattainment

 

 2   areas have been moved to -- I mean, to

 

 3   Section 5(a) and 1(E) on page six and the

 

 4   requirement suggested by EPA that the RACT

 

 5   equipment must be maintained and operated

 

 6   is included there.  

 

 7             6.   Language has been added to

 

 8   Paragraph 11-5(a)(2) on page six allowing

 

 9   multiple facilities to be included in a

 

10   plan if in addition to the facilities being

 

11   under control by the same owner or

 

12   operator, the facilities are also located

 

13   on contiguous or adjacent property and

 

14   affect the same air shed.  

 

15             Since the rule has been on the

 

16   website and gone out to the Council in the

 

17   packet, we have had a comment that was

 

18   brought to our attention that the use of

 

19   "the plan" for "alternative emissions

 

20   reduction plan" could be confusing in some

 

21   places where another plan might also be

 

22   mentioned.  

 

23             So, if the Council wishes, we could

 

24   change in Paragraph 11-4(b)(6) on page

 

25   four, in next to the last line, where we

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   9

 

 

 1   use the word plan, we would recommend

 

 2   changing that to "alternative emissions

 

 3   plan" so it wouldn't be confused with --

 

 4   that's a plot plan in that instance.

 

 5             And on page five, Paragraph (13), we

 

 6   also proposed that we change plan to

 

 7   "alternative emissions reduction plan" here

 

 8   when we are speaking also about compliance

 

 9   plan, so there will be no difficulty in

 

10   determining if we're talking about the

 

11   emissions reduction plan or the compliance

 

12   plan.  

 

13             We haven't had any comments -- any

 

14   written comments since the last meeting.

 

15   We have had a telephone conference with Tom

 

16   Diggs, Alan Shar and Stanley Spraille in

 

17   Region 6 to answer some questions they had.

 

18   And they basically, over the phone, were

 

19   supportive of these changes, indicating

 

20   that they thought it would help them in

 

21   their process of approving our SIP

 

22   revisions for these individual plans.   And

 

23   since the Air Quality Division has no

 

24   intention of making Subchapter 11 part of

 

25   our SIP, they had no real concerns

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  10

 

 

 1   regarding this proposed revision.

 

 2                  MR. TERRILL:   Questions of Dr.

 

 3   Sheedy from the Council?  

 

 4                  MR. BREISCH:   Joyce, is there any

 

 5   reason in Paragraph 5(a)(1), at the last

 

 6   sentence, that that one word "plan" needs

 

 7   to be changed like the rest of them?

 

 8                  DR. SHEEDY:   5(a)(1).

 

 9                  MR. BREISCH:   On page five.

 

10                  DR. SHEEDY:   Let's see.

 

11                  MR. BREISCH:   The last sentence.

 

12                  DR. SHEEDY:   Right, I see that.

 

13   Are we -- have we mentioned another plan in

 

14   that particular paragraph?

 

15                  MR. BRANECKY:   I guess what you

 

16   did on page three (a), 11-4(a), you talked

 

17   about the alternative emissions reduction

 

18   plan, in parenthesis referred to as the

 

19   "plan".

 

20                  DR. SHEEDY:   Yes.

 

21                  MR. BRANECKY:   So anytime we see

 

22   the "plan" --

 

23                  DR. SHEEDY:   It should mean that

 

24   is the plan.

 

25                  MR. BREISCH:   So we don't need to

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  11

 

 

 1   make that --

 

 2                  DR. SHEEDY:   I don't think we do.

 

 3                  MR. BREISCH:   Okay.

 

 4                  DR. SHEEDY:   Unless the Council

 

 5   wants to.   We were just trying to get rid

 

 6   of having to say the alternative emissions

 

 7   reduction plan over and over.

 

 8                  MR. BREISCH:   Well, there is a

 

 9   couple of places in that paragraph where

 

10   you just say plan, so that's all.

 

11                  DR. SHEEDY:   In that case, it is

 

12   the emissions reduction plan.  

 

13                  MR. BREISCH:   Yeah.

 

14                  DR. SHEEDY:   The only reason we

 

15   thought that -- in the two places that

 

16   indicated that we might make it really

 

17   clear that when we -- because we talk about

 

18   plot plans and we want to make it just

 

19   totally clear that when we say the "plan"

 

20   down here, we're not still talking about

 

21   plot plans or compliance plans.   Any other

 

22   places where we use the "plan", we are not

 

23   discussing any other plan.   And I'll leave

 

24   it to the Council if they want to make that

 

25   change for clarity or not.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  12

 

 

 1                  MR. DYKE:   Additional questions

 

 2   of Dr. Sheedy from the Council?

 

 3                  MR. WILSON:   I have a question.

 

 4   If you have multiple facilities that are

 

 5   involved that are under control of one

 

 6   owner and then they have an alternative

 

 7   emissions reduction plan and then later one

 

 8   of the facilities is sold to another owner,

 

 9   does the alterative emission reduction plan

 

10   still stay effective?

 

11                  DR. SHEEDY:   I wouldn't think so,

 

12   because it would no longer meet the

 

13   requirements and this is something that I

 

14   haven't really thought of.   We may need a

 

15   legal point of view, as well, but if you

 

16   don't have -- if the same owner doesn't

 

17   have control of both plants, then I don't

 

18   know that they can ensure what's happening

 

19   in the other plant.

 

20             Of course, most of these things will

 

21   be also part of a permit, so you couldn't

 

22   just change it willy nilly.

 

23                  MR. WILSON:   Yeah.

 

24                  DR. SHEEDY:   I hadn't thought of

 

25   that.   Pam, do you have any --

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  13

 

 

 1                  MS. DIZIKES:   Well, certainly it

 

 2   would take a review at the time that it

 

 3   happens --

 

 4                  MR. DYKE:   Pam.   Pam.

 

 5                  MS. DIZIKES:   -- in any case

 

 6   where a facility is split --

 

 7                  MR. DYKE:   Identify yourself,

 

 8   please.

 

 9                  MS. DIZIKES:   I'm sorry.   I'm Pam

 

10   Dizikes and I'm counsel with the Air

 

11   Quality Division.   And anytime that there

 

12   is going to be a splitting of a facility

 

13   where only a portion of it is going to go

 

14   with a new owner is going to require going

 

15   through and issuing permits for the

 

16   separate air emission points then.

 

17                  MR. WILSON:   Okay.

 

18                  MS. DIZIKES:   So it would become

 

19   an issue at that time.

 

20                  MR. WILSON:   Okay.   So, it's the

 

21   state's position that this is -- the

 

22   alternative emissions reduction plan is

 

23   effective for multiple facilities, as long

 

24   as those facilities stay under the control

 

25   of one owner?

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  14

 

 

 1                  MS. DIZIKES:   Yes.

 

 2                  DR. SHEEDY:   Yes.

 

 3                  MR. WILSON:   Okay.

 

 4                  DR. SHEEDY:   And they are

 

 5   adjacent (inaudible).

 

 6                  MR. WILSON:   And they meet the

 

 7   other requirements.   Thanks.

 

 8                  MR. DYKE:   Is there any questions

 

 9   of Dr. Sheedy from the public?   Dennis.

 

10                  MR. DOUGHTY:   My name is Dennis

 

11   Doughty with the law firm of McKinney-

 

12   Stringer.   And Joyce, on page four, I

 

13   noticed on Paragraph 7 and 8, you used the

 

14   phrase "each emission point".   And I was

 

15   wondering, do you actually mean affected

 

16   emission point there?

 

17                  DR. SHEEDY:   Okay.   I'm going to

 

18   take a quick look at this.   This is the

 

19   content of the application for the plan.

 

20   I'm sorry, which paragraph?

 

21                  MR. DOUGHTY:   Paragraph 7 and

 

22   Paragraph 8.  

 

23                  DR. SHEEDY:   Okay.   I thought we

 

24   meant each emission point.

 

25                  MS. DIZIKES:   Yes, I believe we

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  15

 

 

 1   mean entire facility.

 

 2                  DR. SHEEDY:   Not just the

 

 3   affected emission point.   We want to know

 

 4   what's going on with other plants.

 

 5                  MR. DOUGHTY:   Okay.

 

 6                  MR. DYKE:   Are there any other

 

 7   questions from the public of Dr. Sheedy?

 

 8   Anything further from the Council?  

 

 9             Mr. Chairman.

 

10                  DR. SHEEDY:   I guess I didn't

 

11   make a proposal, did I?   I'm sorry.   We

 

12   would like to propose at this time that the

 

13   Council forward this to the Board as a

 

14   permanent rule.

 

15                  MR. BRANECKY:   All right.   We

 

16   have staff's recommendation asking for

 

17   passage as a permanent rule.   Do I have a

 

18   motion?

 

19                  MR. WILSON:   David, we probably

 

20   need to insert the words here, alternative

 

21   emissions reductions.

 

22                  MR. BRANECKY:   With the proposed

 

23   changes.

 

24                  MR. WILSON:   Okay.   Well, with

 

25   the proposed changes, I'll make a motion

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  16

 

 

 1   that we pass this.

 

 2                  MR. BREISCH:   Second.

 

 3                  MR. BRANECKY:   Any further

 

 4   discussion?   Myrna, call the roll, please.

 

 5                  MS. BRUCE:   Dr. Lynch.

 

 6                  DR. LYNCH:   Yes.

 

 7                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Breisch.

 

 8                  MR. BREISCH:   Yes.

 

 9                  MS. BRUCE:   Ms. Myers.

 

10                  MS. MYERS:   Yes.

 

11                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Wilson.

 

12                  MR. WILSON:   Yes.

 

13                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Branecky.

 

14                  MR. BRANECKY:   Yes.

 

15        (End of Proceedings)

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                   1

 

 

 1         DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

 

 2                    AIR QUALITY DIVISION

 

 3                      STATE OF OKLAHOMA

 

 4

 

 5

 

 6

 

 7

 

 8

 

 9   __________________________________________

 

10

 

11                TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 

12               AIR QUALITY COUNCIL MEETING

 

13             OAC 252:100-39, OAC 252:100-43

 

14                      AND OAC 252:100-45

 

15                           MONITORING

 

16         HELD ON JULY 17, 2002, AT 9:00 A.M.

 

17                      707 NORTH ROBINSON

 

18                  OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

19

 

20   __________________________________________

 

21

 

22

 

23   REPORTED BY:    CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

 

24

 

25

 

 

                    MYERS REPORTING SERVICE

 

                          (405) 721-2882
                                                                   2

 

 

 1                        COUNCIL MEMBERS

 

 2

 

 3   David Branecky, Chairman

 

 4   Sharon Myers, Vice-Chair

 

 5   Rick Treeman, Member

 

 6   Joel Wilson, Member

 

 7   Dr. Fred Grosz, Member

 

 8   Gary Kilpatrick, Member

 

 9   Bill Breisch, Member

 

10   Dr. Bob Lynch, Member

 

11

 

12                         STAFF MEMBERS

 

13   Eddie Terrill, Director

 

14   David Dyke, Protocol Officer

 

15   Myrna Bruce, Secretary

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   3

 

 

 1

 

 2                           PROCEEDINGS

 

 3                  MR. DYKE:   The next item on the

 

 4   agenda, Item C, OAC 252:100-39, 100-43 and

 

 5   100-45.  

 

 6             I'll call on staff member, Max

 

 7   Price.

 

 8                  MR. PRICE:   Mr. Chairman, Members

 

 9   of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, at

 

10   the April Air Quality meeting, staff

 

11   proposed the following changes as a single

 

12   action by the Air Quality Council.  

 

13             We proposed to merge the

 

14   requirements of 252:100-45, Monitoring of

 

15   Emissions, into Subchapter 8 and 43, and

 

16   then revoke Subchapter 45.  

 

17             We also proposed to amend and move

 

18   Section 252:100-43-15 to a new section in

 

19   Subchapter 39, that would be 39-41.1 and

 

20   amend Section 252:100-39-41 to reflect this

 

21   change.

 

22             At that time, only EPA Region VI,

 

23   had commented and we had not had time to

 

24   review their comment.   We, therefore,

 

25   requested that the Council vote to hold

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   4

 

 

 1   these changes over until this meeting to

 

 2   allow time for further public comment.  

 

 3             In response to the comments received

 

 4   from EPA, we've made a significant change

 

 5   in the proposed rules since the April Air

 

 6   Quality meeting.   We are proposing to move

 

 7   the requirements of Sections 252:100-45-4

 

 8   and 5 to a new Section in Subchapter 43,

 

 9   that would be 43-6, instead of Subchapter

 

10   8.  

 

11             We've also substantially changed the

 

12   language to better reflect the language in

 

13   the CFR concerning credible evidence and

 

14   compliance certifications.

 

15             We have received the following

 

16   comments since the April Air Quality

 

17   meeting.

 

18             Comment number one.   Subsections

 

19   252:100-43-3(c) and (d), pre-test plans and

 

20   notifications of test date, should be

 

21   combined into a subsection -- into a single

 

22   Subsection because the test date would be

 

23   part of the pre-test plan.

 

24             Our response:   We disagree.   It is

 

25   assumed that the pre-test plan would

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   5

 

 

 1   contain the initial notification for the

 

 2   planned test date.   However, the planned

 

 3   test date and the actual test date may not

 

 4   be the same.   Circumstances may delay the

 

 5   test or the test may have to be repeated

 

 6   for some technical reason.   Thus, the

 

 7   requirements are and should remain

 

 8   separate.

 

 9             Comment number two.   Section

 

10   252:100-43-7, reports and records required,

 

11   adds new reporting requirements and

 

12   increases the frequency of reporting of

 

13   required reports.

 

14             Response:   We disagree.   The

 

15   reporting -- pardon me.   The reporting

 

16   requirement, units and reporting

 

17   frequencies are the same as they were in

 

18   Subchapter 45.   The only differences are

 

19   minor textural changes for clarity such as

 

20   substituting the term "six months" for the

 

21   term "biannually".  

 

22             In addition, Subsections (a) and (b)

 

23   clearly indicate that the report

 

24   requirements for Paragraphs (b)(1) through

 

25   (b)(5) are default requirements for reports

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   6

 

 

 1   and records the Director may require.  

 

 2             They indicate that the Director may

 

 3   require other or different data than the

 

 4   default requirements in Paragraphs (b)(1)

 

 5   through (b)(5) to report emissions, to

 

 6   demonstrate compliance, as part of a

 

 7   permit.

 

 8             We would like to propose a change to

 

 9   that.   If I can find my change, I'll be a

 

10   happy man, to make that further clear.   I

 

11   think I grabbed the wrong thing here.   Here

 

12   we go.

 

13             We'd like to change Paragraph (b) to

 

14   read as follows to further clarify this, if

 

15   I can read the new proposed language for

 

16   Paragraph (b).  

 

17             Records and reports shall be

 

18   recorded and submitted on forms provided by

 

19   or described by the Director unless

 

20   different units of measure or procedures

 

21   are reported under other applicable

 

22   requirements or required by the Director,

 

23   the following units and procedures shall be

 

24   used in any recording required -- any

 

25   required record reporting.  

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   7

 

 

 1                  MR. BRANECKY:   Can you read that

 

 2   again?

 

 3                  MR. PRICE:   Okay.

 

 4                  MR. BRANECKY:   Slower.

 

 5                  MR. PRICE:   This will be

 

 6   Paragraph (b) under 45-3.   Records and

 

 7   reports shall be recorded and submitted on

 

 8   forms provided by or described by the

 

 9   Director unless different units of measure

 

10   or procedures are reported under other

 

11   applicable requirements or required by the

 

12   Director, the following units and

 

13   procedures shall be used in any required

 

14   record or report.  

 

15                  MR. TERRILL:   Max, you might want

 

16   to clarify where you are, because I think

 

17   you said 45-3.   I don't think that's where

 

18   you are.

 

19                  MR. PRICE:   Okay.   I'm sorry.

 

20                  MR. BREISCH:   What page are we

 

21   on?

 

22                  MR. PRICE:   Holy cow.   I am

 

23   sorry.   Pardon me.  

 

24                  MR. BRANECKY:   43-7?

 

25                  MR. PRICE:   Yes.   I got confused

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   8

 

 

 1   there, I'm sorry.   It's 43-7, I was looking

 

 2   at the wrong thing.   I'm very sorry.  

 

 3                  MR. BRANECKY:   You better read it

 

 4   again.

 

 5                  MR. PRICE:   All right, one more

 

 6   time.   This is the proposal for Paragraph

 

 7   (b) under 43-7.   The records and reports

 

 8   shall be recorded and submitted on forms

 

 9   provided by or described by the Director

 

10   unless different units of measure or

 

11   procedures are reported under other

 

12   applicable requirements or required by the

 

13   Director, the following units and

 

14   procedures shall be used in any required

 

15   record or report.  

 

16             And, of course, that's on page four

 

17   of the rule on 43.   I think I got everyone

 

18   totally confused now.  

 

19                  MR. BRANECKY:   I think we're

 

20   okay.

 

21                  MR. PRICE:   All right.   Our

 

22   recommendation.   Staff believes these

 

23   proposed rule changes will make our rules

 

24   more understandable to the general public

 

25   and enhance their enforceability.  

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   9

 

 

 1             Staff recommends that the Council

 

 2   vote to send these proposals to the DEQ

 

 3   Board for adoption as permanent rules.

 

 4                  MR. DYKE:   Questions of Mr. Price

 

 5   from the Council?

 

 6                  MR. WILSON:   I have a question.

 

 7   The new language for the credible evidence,

 

 8   can you explain to me what this is?

 

 9                  MR. PRICE:   Credible evidence,

 

10   it's a federal requirement for us to

 

11   determine violations, just like it says.

 

12                  MR. WILSON:   The CFR -- I

 

13   believe, the changes that were made in the

 

14   CFR were the addition of four words, "for

 

15   any credible evidence".   And is that --

 

16                  MR. PRICE:   The language is

 

17   exactly as it shows up on those applicable

 

18   CFRs.   In fact, I ran a copy of this.   The

 

19   language is almost identical.   Let's see,

 

20   on Section 51.212, I'm going to quote it

 

21   now.  

 

22             For the purpose of submitting

 

23   compliance certifications or establishing

 

24   whether or not a person has violated or is

 

25   in violation of any standard in this part,

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  10

 

 

 1   the plan must not preclude the use,

 

 2   including the exclusive use, of any

 

 3   credible evidence or any information,

 

 4   relevant to whether a source, blah, blah,

 

 5   blah.  

 

 6             And 52-333, compliance

 

 7   certifications, it reads:   For the purpose

 

 8   of submitting compliance certification

 

 9   nothing that's part of a plan promulgated

 

10   by the Administrator shall preclude the

 

11   use, including the exclusive use of any

 

12   credible evidence or information relevant.

 

13   And it's repeated throughout the CFR and we

 

14   just made our language identical to it.

 

15                  MR. WILSON:   Okay.  

 

16                  MR. DYKE:   I have notice here

 

17   that someone else wants to make a comment.

 

18                  MR. branecky:   I have one more

 

19   question.

 

20                  MR. DYKE:   Okay.

 

21                  MR. BRANECKY:   Under 43-3(b),

 

22   page three, it says the Director may

 

23   require the owner or operator of a source

 

24   to conduct a test at his own expense.   I

 

25   assume that's at the Director's expense?

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  11

 

 

 1                  MR. PRICE:   No, sir, that refers

 

 2   to the owner or operator.

 

 3                  MR. BRANECKY:   Is that clear?

 

 4                  MR. PRICE:   Well, it's supposed

 

 5   to be clear.   If the Council wishes, we can

 

 6   always change that, but of course it's the

 

 7   owner or operator.   I would suggest we move

 

 8   the at -- a test at his own expense, take

 

 9   that phrase and move it up next to owner or

 

10   operator, comma, and separate it.   So it

 

11   would read:   The Director may require the

 

12   owner or operator, at his own expense,

 

13   owner or operator of a source to conduct a

 

14   test.   That's one way to handle that.   Or

 

15   we could simply substitute the word owner

 

16   or operator for his.   Whichever way the

 

17   Council would like to do that.

 

18                  MR. BRANECKY:   I think either way

 

19   would satisfy my concerns.   Does Council

 

20   have any preference on that?

 

21                  MR. WILSON:   David, I've got to

 

22   confess, I don't know --

 

23                  MR. BRANECKY:   Where I'm at?

 

24                  MR. WILSON:   -- where you're at.

 

25                  MR. BRANECKY:   Page three, 43,

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  12

 

 

 1   Section B at the top, 43-3(b), the Director

 

 2   may require the owner or operator.

 

 3                  MR. WILSON:   I hope the Director

 

 4   has a lot of money.  

 

 5                  MR. BRANECKY:   Well, that's the

 

 6   way I read it.

 

 7                  MR. TERRILL:   I'll just raise the

 

 8   Title V fees.

 

 9                  MR. BRANECKY:   So we probably

 

10   ought to clarify that.  

 

11                  MR. PRICE:   So I should move the

 

12   participle -- I guess that's what that's

 

13   called, the Director separated by commas,

 

14   owner or operator?

 

15                  MR. BRANECKY:   Why don't we just

 

16   put a test at the owner or operator's

 

17   expense.

 

18                  MR. PRICE:   Okay.   Just

 

19   substitute that.   Okay.   We can do that.

 

20                  MR. BRANECKY:   That way it will

 

21   be totally clear.   Is that okay with the

 

22   Council?  

 

23                  MR. DYKE:   Any additional

 

24   questions for Mr. Price before we go on to

 

25   other comments?   We can bring it back.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  13

 

 

 1   Thanks for now, Max.

 

 2             Don, did you want to make a comment?

 

 3                  MR. WHITNEY:   Yes, please.   My

 

 4   name is Don Whitney with Trinity

 

 5   Consultants, and I would like to comment on

 

 6   this Section 43-7, demonstrating

 

 7   compliance.

 

 8             And I would just like to point out

 

 9   that this seems to me to be a huge increase

 

10   of testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and

 

11   reporting requirements in its breadth and

 

12   scope.  

 

13             The first point, it seems to apply

 

14   to both major and minor sources.   In other

 

15   words, everything, every source in the

 

16   state would be subject to this

 

17   recordkeeping and reporting, which is

 

18   somewhat contradictory to the permit

 

19   continuum concept whereby only bigger

 

20   sources are required more testing and

 

21   proportionately the smaller, less

 

22   significant sources have less testing,

 

23   reporting and monitoring requirements.   And

 

24   this would seem to require the same

 

25   standards across the board.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  14

 

 

 1             Secondly, the recording and testing

 

 2   requirements are currently, for most

 

 3   facilities, specified when and how often

 

 4   these tests are done are, at least in

 

 5   general, specified in the permit.   And

 

 6   therefore, if more specific testing

 

 7   requirements in specific situations for

 

 8   specific sources are needed, I would

 

 9   suggest that the permit would be a better

 

10   place to do it, rather than having across

 

11   the board requirements for every source

 

12   without regard to the level of emissions at

 

13   a particular source.

 

14             Thirdly, this -- the broad testing

 

15   and calculation of emissions seems to

 

16   duplicate the emissions inventory function.

 

17   You have annual requirements for all

 

18   sources to do this and to also do it at six

 

19   months or other intervals, which seem to

 

20   duplicate that.   I don't see the advantage

 

21   of having it calculated at six months and

 

22   reported in addition to the annual

 

23   emissions inventory.  

 

24             Point number four, some of this

 

25   testing apparently requires reference

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  15

 

 

 1   method -- EPA reference method testing.

 

 2   Specifically I'm looking at small Paragraph

 

 3   3, particulate matter emissions shall be

 

 4   sampled and submitted at six month

 

 5   intervals.  

 

 6             The normal way of testing for

 

 7   particulate matter emissions is reference

 

 8   method five, which is an expensive test and

 

 9   do we really suggest that each and every

 

10   source in the whole state of Oklahoma

 

11   should do a reference method five or what

 

12   other method were we thinking of there that

 

13   would give you particulate matter

 

14   emissions.  

 

15             Point number five, sulphur content,

 

16   in little paragraph five there.   Sulphur

 

17   content of fuels, again, is across the

 

18   board.   One prime example I can think of

 

19   would be pipeline quality gas.   Once the

 

20   gas has been processed, the sulphur content

 

21   is so insignificant that EPA standard

 

22   emission factors say that it's so small

 

23   that there is no way, essentially no way

 

24   that it could exceed any state permit

 

25   limit.   And, therefore, it seems to me

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  16

 

 

 1   there should be a flat out exemption for

 

 2   sulphur content of pipeline quality gas.

 

 3             So these are some examples of my

 

 4   concerns about this proposal.  

 

 5             In summary, it's an across the board

 

 6   requirement of huge increases in testing,

 

 7   recordkeeping and reporting and if those

 

 8   testing requirements were needed in

 

 9   specific cases, I think it could be much

 

10   better tailored to the specific facility

 

11   and inserted in the permit, rather than

 

12   across the board requirements on all

 

13   facilities.

 

14                  MR. BRANECKY:   Well, it was my

 

15   understanding this is not an across the

 

16   board requirement and that was the intent

 

17   of the language that Mr. Price suggested

 

18   the changes to clarify that, that it's only

 

19   for those reports or those tests that the

 

20   Director specifically requires.   It's not

 

21   an across the board for everybody, every

 

22   permit in the state.   Is that your concern?

 

23                  MR. WHITNEY:   Well, that helps.

 

24   I still think that leaves a tremendous

 

25   uncertainty then on the part of industry of

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  17

 

 

 1   knowing which ones are going to be asked

 

 2   for and basically does not -- does not the

 

 3   Air Quality Division have that authority

 

 4   already to require specific testing, and

 

 5   recordkeeping?   And, again, those

 

 6   requirements could be put into a permit,

 

 7   Title V renewal or at such other time to --

 

 8   I believe there is a general requirement in

 

 9   40, 43 or 45, that the Director can require

 

10   testing and monitoring without going into

 

11   the specifics in here.

 

12             Wouldn't it be better to leave the

 

13   flexibility to the Director to ask for that

 

14   to be done whenever it was needed?

 

15                  MR. PRICE:   All right.   First of

 

16   all, the paragraphs in question have been

 

17   in existence since this rule was originally

 

18   drafted.   And the only reason we held them

 

19   over, we had some discussions about this,

 

20   and my first inclination was to delete that

 

21   whole section.  

 

22             But we had discussions about it and

 

23   we decided that we ought to leave it in

 

24   there for our own staff and also for the

 

25   public to have an idea what might be

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  18

 

 

 1   required.  

 

 2             And I thought the language made it

 

 3   clear that this is only default values.   If

 

 4   we have to report, one for sulphur and it's

 

 5   in a permit or, I'm just using sulphur as

 

 6   an example, it's part of a permit, it's

 

 7   part of the emissions inventory or whatever

 

 8   the reason, these are default values and

 

 9   they didn't change.   These are simply

 

10   examples and they are not requirements,

 

11   they're not new requirements certainly,

 

12   because they've been in the rule since -- I

 

13   don't know how long, since we've had 45 on

 

14   the books.

 

15                  MR. WHITNEY:   I see the general

 

16   testing and recording is required and

 

17   that's what I'm suggesting, but that

 

18   generic capability and authority to the

 

19   agency is sufficient, but it says,

 

20   Paragraph (a), the owner or operator shall

 

21   do all these things.   Are you saying they

 

22   don't have to do them until the Director

 

23   asks for it?

 

24                  MR. BRANECKY:   Right.   It says --

 

25   it says as required by the Director.   So,

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  19

 

 

 1   unless --

 

 2                  MR. WHITNEY:   And other data as

 

 3   required by the Director.

 

 4                  MR. PRICE:   It also says the

 

 5   forms are described by or supplied by the

 

 6   Director.   Obviously the units and

 

 7   procedures will be part of the forms.   It's

 

 8   always been that way.

 

 9                  MR. WHITNEY:   I'm a little uneasy

 

10   about the status of industry of, you know,

 

11   being faced with, well, are we supposed to

 

12   do this automatically right now, or are we

 

13   supposed to wait for the Director to ask

 

14   for it.  

 

15             And if we're supposed to wait for

 

16   the Director to ask for it, the Director

 

17   can clearly ask for whatever is needed at

 

18   the time, rather than, shall we say, tying

 

19   the Director's hands saying this is only

 

20   what the Director can ask for.

 

21                  MR. PRICE:   But the Director is -

 

22   - his hands aren't tied.   If you read this

 

23   clarification we made to (b), it clearly

 

24   states the Director can modify that or not

 

25   use that.   It's not stated, but that's what

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  20

 

 

 1   it says.  

 

 2             Those are simply default values,

 

 3   guidelines if you will, and like I said, I

 

 4   would prefer to delete them, but people

 

 5   thought it would be good to keep them in

 

 6   there as instructions because it's old

 

 7   language that's been there for a thousand

 

 8   years and were uncomfortable about removing

 

 9   it.

 

10                  MR. WHITNEY:   The specifics of

 

11   43-7 are new, though, I believe.   All of

 

12   these specifics of testing is new.   The

 

13   generic requirement is there, if the

 

14   Director asks for it, but the specifics are

 

15   all new and that's what I question.

 

16                  MR. PRICE:   They were in 45 since

 

17   the rules --

 

18                  MR. BRANECKY:   What if we change

 

19   the word "shall" -- I'm looking at (a) --

 

20   at (b), under 43-7(b), the second to the

 

21   last line on the right hand side.   It says

 

22   the following units and procedures shall be

 

23   used.   Could we put the following units and

 

24   procedures may be used?

 

25                  MR. PRICE:   Sounds good to me.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  21

 

 

 1                  MR. BRANECKY:   That way that

 

 2   would not tie us down to any particular

 

 3   numbers.  

 

 4                  MS. DIZIKES:   I'm not sure we

 

 5   want to do that.

 

 6                  MR. PRICE:   Let me read this

 

 7   here.   Would that change the meaning of --

 

 8   records and reports shall be reported and

 

 9   submitted on forms provided by or described

 

10   by the Director.   On (b) that would have to

 

11   stay because that's a requirement.  

 

12                  MR. BRANECKY:   But what I'm

 

13   saying is the procedures, the following

 

14   units and procedures may be used in any

 

15   required reporting.

 

16                  MR. PRICE:   Okay.  

 

17                  MR. BRANECKY:   Would that help

 

18   any?

 

19                  MR. PRICE:   Would that make a

 

20   difference?

 

21                  MR. BRANECKY:   Don, that's what

 

22   I'm asking.

 

23                  MR. WHITNEY:   That would be fine.

 

24                  MR. DYKE:   Mr. Ground.

 

25                  MR. GROUND:   My name is Howard

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  22

 

 

 1   Ground with American Electric Power and I

 

 2   wrote comments and I had the same concerns

 

 3   that basically what was in 45 was now just

 

 4   moved over to 43, but there was a

 

 5   parenthetical left out that explained, that

 

 6   to me explained it, which said the

 

 7   procedures below are examples of such

 

 8   requirements.

 

 9                  MR. BRANECKY:   Did you submit

 

10   written comments?

 

11                  MR. GROUND:   Yes, I did.

 

12                  MR. BRANECKY:   Have we seen those

 

13   written comments?

 

14                  MR. PRICE: Are they not in the --

 

15                  MR. BRANECKY:   They're not in our

 

16   packet and I don't have them in front of

 

17   me.   We need to see copies of those.

 

18                  MR. GROUND:   But to me that fully

 

19   explained it that all those, (1) through

 

20   whatever it was, (5) below, the procedures

 

21   below are examples of such requirements.

 

22   And those are examples of the Director's

 

23   request.

 

24                  MR. BRANECKY:   Okay.   Does

 

25   Council want a copy of those comments?   I

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  23

 

 

 1   think we need -- I would like to see copies

 

 2   of the comments.  

 

 3                  MR. PRICE:   Do you have a copy of

 

 4   those, Myrna?

 

 5                  MR. DYKE:   Dr. Dawson.

 

 6                  DR. DAWSON:   I would like to make

 

 7   a statement in response to our gentlemen

 

 8   from industry.   First of all, I -- Robert

 

 9   Kennedy appeared in town here about a month

 

10   or so ago, I don't know whether any of you

 

11   have read his book called "The River

 

12   Keepers".   I would strongly suggest it to

 

13   the two representatives from industry over

 

14   here.  

 

15             The problem is enforcing the

 

16   regulations and getting the data.   In

 

17   Oklahoma, there are a number of things and

 

18   I'll just mention one because there is lack

 

19   of time here at this place.  

 

20             But, for example, when we had the

 

21   North Canadian wastewater treatment plant

 

22   out of compliance three years in a row,

 

23   they only monitor the water, if I'm not

 

24   mistaken, quarterly.   And, so, I really

 

25   feel, and these are dangers to the public

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  24

 

 

 1   health, and the industry, in my opinion and

 

 2   in the opinion of the people that wrote the

 

 3   book "The River Keepers" are more

 

 4   interested in profits than they are

 

 5   protecting the public health.   And I would

 

 6   hope that it would be more out of ignorance

 

 7   than design.

 

 8             So, I feel that the more monitoring

 

 9   reporting requirements that are necessary

 

10   with certain limitations for small

 

11   industries should be instituted, because

 

12   the big industries right now, like power

 

13   plants, in my opinion, as you all know,

 

14   don't have sufficient monitoring to protect

 

15   public health.   Thank you.

 

16                  MR. BRANECKY:   I think what Mr.

 

17   Whitney was proposing was there are

 

18   different situations, different scenarios,

 

19   and by stating that this is what must be

 

20   used you're not allowing for that

 

21   flexibility for small businesses.   And

 

22   we're waiting -- I'm waiting to get AP's

 

23   comments.   I would like to see those before

 

24   we proceed with this item on the agenda.

 

25   They are making copies.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  25

 

 

 1             But I don't think we're trying to

 

 2   get out of any monitoring or what's

 

 3   proposed here, it's just allowing the

 

 4   flexibility to allow for different

 

 5   situations and different scenarios.

 

 6                  MR. PRICE:   That was the idea.

 

 7   Like I said, we were trying to preserve as

 

 8   much of the language in 45 for consistency.

 

 9             At the same time, we're still

 

10   wanting to make sure that everyone

 

11   understood that these were, as I said, a

 

12   little higher examples.   That's the reason

 

13   I took that out, because I didn't really

 

14   think that examples were really the right

 

15   word because we do require some of these on

 

16   emission inventories.  

 

17             So I wanted to raise it somewhat but

 

18   then took that out.   But at the same time,

 

19   I hope the language will say that these are

 

20   basically default values and nothing else,

 

21   these are examples of what would be

 

22   required.   And if the language didn't do

 

23   that, then maybe we need to think about

 

24   putting those explanation sentences back

 

25   in.   Although (inaudible) seems to pretty

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  26

 

 

 1   well take care of itself, that one word

 

 2   seems to make it clear, again, to me, but

 

 3   then I wrote it.

 

 4                  MR. WILSON:   I have a question

 

 5   here.   You mentioned that these are

 

 6   discretionary?

 

 7                  MR. PRICE:   Up to the Director,

 

 8   right.

 

 9                  MR. WILSON:   Up to the Director?

 

10                  MR. PRICE:   Right.

 

11                  MR. WILSON:   Specifically where

 

12   in the language is that description given?

 

13                  MR. PRICE:   If I can read the

 

14   Paragraph (b) again.   It says, unless

 

15   different units of measure or procedure are

 

16   required by other applicable requirements.

 

17   That includes any federal rule, that

 

18   requires recording, any other state

 

19   requirement would be covered under that.  

 

20             In other words, if it's in the

 

21   permit, if it's in inventory, if it's in

 

22   the federal rule, it requires a different

 

23   recording context then that would take

 

24   precedence over those programs.

 

25            This says or required by the

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  27

 

 

 1   Director, as well.   And that means that the

 

 2   Director can modify or change any of this.

 

 3   And it basically says that he has

 

 4   discretion on what reports are required.

 

 5                  MS. MYERS:   So permit

 

 6   requirements would take precedence over

 

 7   this?

 

 8                  MR. PRICE:   Yes, unless there was

 

 9   no specific reason not to have that in

 

10   there.   In other words, if you're going to

 

11   report sulphur dioxide as part of a permit,

 

12   then generally speaking these are the way

 

13   we require them to be reported.   However,

 

14   that could be changed in the permit for

 

15   other certain things.

 

16                  MR. WHITNEY:   Can I make a

 

17   further suggestion?   I think perhaps one of

 

18   the significant concerns is the way I read

 

19   the start of that Paragraph (a), the owner

 

20   or operator shall do that.   And then at the

 

21   -- then we're finally leaving it up at the

 

22   discretion of the Director.  

 

23             Perhaps if we move the term "at the

 

24   Director" back to the beginning of the

 

25   sentence, so at the -- as required by the

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  28

 

 

 1   Director the owner or operator shall do

 

 2   this, making it more clear that this is

 

 3   only a requirement if the Director asks for

 

 4   it, rather than allowing it to be read as

 

 5   if you just read the first part of the

 

 6   paragraph, depending on the sentence where

 

 7   you put the commas, it could be read as a

 

 8   hard requirement and then it's just other

 

 9   data as required by the Director.  

 

10             So what I'm suggesting is put --

 

11   "the Director may require recordkeeping by

 

12   the owner or operator", something like

 

13   that, move that to the beginning of the

 

14   sentence.

 

15                  MR. PRICE:   That's going to take

 

16   some major re-writing.

 

17                  MR. DYKE:   Dr. Dawson.

 

18                  DR. DAWSON:   I would also ask

 

19   then that some little word be put in there

 

20   that a citizen could also have some input

 

21   into this so that if there is someone that

 

22   really feels they are aggrieved or hurt by

 

23   this, then it's not just up to the

 

24   Director, that the citizen can also ask for

 

25   some sort of testing.   That way it might

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  29

 

 

 1   avoid unnecessary testing but in terms of

 

 2   protection of the environment and human

 

 3   health, then we can get testing if the

 

 4   Director disagrees.

 

 5                  MR. PRICE:   I would like to

 

 6   suggest, if that's causing confusion, why

 

 7   not add a comma after data?

 

 8                  THE REPORTER:   After what word?

 

 9                  MR. PRICE:   After data.

 

10                  MR. WILSON:   What paragraph?

 

11                  MR. PRICE:   Paragraph (a).   The

 

12   owner or operator shall report and maintain

 

13   records and submit reports on emissions and

 

14   other data, as required.   That way we've

 

15   lumped it all together in a single

 

16   subchapter, as required by the Director, to

 

17   demonstrate compliance with any federal,

 

18   state emission (inaudible, due to noise)

 

19   standards, blah, blah, blah.   I think that

 

20   makes it clear that we're talking about

 

21   emissions and other data and that would be

 

22   a simple way to clarify that.

 

23                  MR. BRANECKY:   Well, at this

 

24   point, I'm almost thinking that we're

 

25   talking about a lot of changes, and seems

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  30

 

 

 1   like fairly significant changes, that maybe

 

 2   we need to continue this until the October

 

 3   meeting, because I'm lost.   There's too

 

 4   many words of what go where and I would be

 

 5   hesitant to try to approve something today.

 

 6                  MR. BREISCH:   David, the only one

 

 7   thing I would comment on, you've got so

 

 8   many scenarios here, you've got it bogged

 

 9   down trying to describe every possibility.

 

10   It's going to get voluminous.   I like the

 

11   wording, I'm not against continuing this,

 

12   but I think you've covered it, you've given

 

13   some flexibility, and I think that was the

 

14   intent.   I don't know and I have not heard

 

15   whether anybody has been plagued with this

 

16   up to this point.   I don't hear that they

 

17   have.

 

18                  MR. PRICE:   I haven't heard

 

19   anything from anyone.

 

20                  MR. BREISCH:   I just think we're

 

21   almost getting into a nitpicking situation

 

22   here trying to cover every possible

 

23   scenario that might come up.   I like this

 

24   wording.   I'm not going to object to

 

25   continuing it, David.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  31

 

 

 1                  MR. BRANECKY:   Okay.

 

 2                  MR. BREISCH:   But I just think

 

 3   that we're overkilling the whole thing.

 

 4                  MR. DYKE:   We have another

 

 5   comment.   He's there in the back.

 

 6                  MR. TRAVIS:   Yes, Glen Travis

 

 7   with Sonoco in Tulsa.   I didn't sign up to

 

 8   speak, but maybe vent a little bit here

 

 9   with some of these, the way some of these

 

10   things are written.

 

11             In industry, you have a turnover,

 

12   you have new engineers, you have people

 

13   that's giving you a reg book or a

 

14   regulation book and this is what we must

 

15   follow.   And when you give this to someone,

 

16   with 43, you know, the first thing I'm

 

17   going to look at is the heading and it

 

18   tells me I have testing, monitoring and

 

19   recordkeeping, so I know I have all those

 

20   things.  

 

21             Then I go to the purpose, okay, the

 

22   purpose of the subchapter is to provide

 

23   general requirements, it tells me right

 

24   there I've got requirements for testing,

 

25   monitoring and recordkeeping.   So, I'm

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  32

 

 

 1   thinking I've got all this stuff to do.

 

 2             Now, the next thing, I want to know

 

 3   if it's applicable to me.   Okay.   When I go

 

 4   over to 43-1.2, Applicability.   It says

 

 5   requirements of this Subchapter apply to

 

 6   any testing, monitoring or recordkeeping

 

 7   activity, including permits, compliance --

 

 8   compliance being something right there gets

 

 9   my attention, I always have compliance

 

10   responsibilities -- performance tests and

 

11   enforcement, conducted at any stationary

 

12   source, says it's applicable to me.  

 

13             So I'm thinking I have to do all

 

14   this stuff as I read this so far going

 

15   through, and now we're making changes back

 

16   into, "may and shall" on page four or five

 

17   that maybe gets me out of this.  

 

18             It's very confusing to someone when

 

19   it says this is what you may comply with,

 

20   and you have requirements, the

 

21   applicability is to me, if it's not

 

22   applicable, I think that needs to be

 

23   defined much more up in the applicability

 

24   rather than four or five subchapters on

 

25   into the rule, just for a practical matter

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  33

 

 

 1   of easily trying to know what I must do to

 

 2   stay in compliance and a lot of our regs

 

 3   are like this and make it difficult.

 

 4                  MR. PRICE:   Well, that was an

 

 5   attempt we were trying to make with this

 

 6   because, like I said, this section was

 

 7   originally in 45.   And we had two different

 

 8   subchapters that basically covered the same

 

 9   thing.   That's what we're attempting to do,

 

10   is pull things together into a single

 

11   subchapter and make it easier to

 

12   understand.   And this was an attempt to do

 

13   that.  

 

14                  MR. TRAVIS:   I would go back to

 

15   what -- Howard Ground said was the fact

 

16   that back in the old 45, when it did say

 

17   these are examples, that led me to believe

 

18   that, yes, this is probably what's going to

 

19   be required if this happens or if the

 

20   Director asks, but I don't see that clearly

 

21   as it comes through 43.

 

22                  MR. BRANECKY:   Council.

 

23                  MS. MYERS:   I'll entertain a

 

24   motion to continue until the next Council

 

25   meeting, so we have more of a chance to

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  34

 

 

 1   study it and see what the impacts are.

 

 2                  MR. BRANECKY:   That's a motion to

 

 3   continue --

 

 4                  MS. MYERS:   Yes.

 

 5                  MR. BRANECKY:   -- to our next

 

 6   meeting.

 

 7                  MR. WILSON:   Second.

 

 8                  MR. BRANECKY:   All right.   I have

 

 9   a motion and a second to continue this

 

10   until the next meeting.   Myrna.

 

11                  MS. BRUCE:   Dr. Lynch.

 

12                  DR. LYNCH:   Aye.

 

13                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Breisch.

 

14                  MR. BREISCH:   Yes.

 

15                  MS. BRUCE:   Ms. Myers.

 

16                  MS. MYERS:   Yes.

 

17                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Wilson.

 

18                  MR. WILSON:   Yes.

 

19                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Branecky.

 

20                  MR. BRANECKY:   Yes.

 

21        (End of Proceedings)

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  35

 

 

 1

 

 2                    C E R T I F I C A T E

 

 3   STATE OF OKLAHOMA     )

                                   )         ss:

 4   COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA    )

 

 5             I, CHRISTY A. MYERS, Certified

 

 6   Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of

 

 7   Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above

 

 8   proceeding is the truth, the whole truth,

 

 9   and nothing but the truth, in the case

 

10   aforesaid; that the foregoing proceedings

 

11   were taken by me in shorthand and

 

12   thereafter transcribed under my direction;

 

13   that said proceedings were taken on the

 

14   17th day of July, 2002, at Oklahoma City,

 

15   Oklahoma; and that I am neither attorney

 

16   for nor relative of any of said parties,

 

17   nor otherwise interested in said action.

 

18             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

 

19   set my hand and official seal on this, the

 

20   12th day of August, 2002.

 

21

                         ______________________

22                       CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

                         Certificate No. 00310

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

 

                                                              1

 

 

 1         DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

 

 2                    AIR QUALITY DIVISION

 

 3                      STATE OF OKLAHOMA

 

 4

 

 5

 

 6

 

 7

 

 8

 

 9   __________________________________________

 

10

 

11                TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 

12               AIR QUALITY COUNCIL MEETING

 

13                      OAC 252:100-5-2.1

 

14       REGISTRATION, EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND

 

15                   ANNUAL OPERATING FEES

 

16         HELD ON JULY 17, 2002, AT 9:00 A.M.

 

17                      707 NORTH ROBINSON

 

18                  OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

19

     __________________________________________

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

     REPORTED BY:    CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

24

 

25

 

 

 

                    MYERS REPORTING SERVICE

                          (405) 721-2882
                                                                   2

 

 

 1                        COUNCIL MEMBERS

 

 2

 

 3   David Branecky, Chairman

 

 4   Sharon Myers, Vice-Chair

 

 5   Rick Treeman, Member

 

 6   Joel Wilson, Member

 

 7   Dr. Fred Grosz, Member

 

 8   Gary Kilpatrick, Member

 

 9   Bill Breisch, Member

 

10   Dr. Bob Lynch, Member

 

11

 

12                         STAFF MEMBERS

 

13   Eddie Terrill, Director

 

14   David Dyke, Protocol Officer

 

15   Myrna Bruce, Secretary

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   3

 

 

 1

 

 2                           PROCEEDINGS

 

 3                  MR. DYKE:   The next item on the

 

 4   agenda, Item 4D, OAC 252:100-5-2.1,

 

 5   Registration, Emissions Inventory and

 

 6   Annual Operating Fees.   Mr. Price.

 

 7                  MR. PRICE:   Mr. Chairman, Council

 

 8   Members, ladies and gentlemen, at the April

 

 9   Air Quality meeting, staff first proposed

 

10   to add language to Section 252:100-5-2.1,

 

11   Emissions Inventory, that would require the

 

12   owners or operators of: (1) stationary

 

13   internal combustion   engines; (2) gas-fired

 

14   turbines; and (3) boilers to conduct stack

 

15   tests to verify their reported emissions

 

16   after every 43,000 hours, that works out to

 

17   about 4.9 standard years of operation.

 

18             Staff requested at that time that

 

19   the Council hold those proposed changes to

 

20   allow time for further public comment.   The

 

21   following comments have been received since

 

22   the April meeting.

 

23             Comment number one, since OAC

 

24   252:100-5-2.1(e) currently gives the

 

25   Division the authority to require stack

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   4

 

 

 1   tests for verification of emission

 

 2   inventories, the proposed rule is not

 

 3   necessary.

 

 4             Response, the Division does have the

 

 5   authority to require stack tests for

 

 6   verification under the referenced

 

 7   subsection when a submitted inventory is

 

 8   found not to be complete or is not

 

 9   corrected within a reasonable time.

 

10             However, the purpose of these

 

11   proposals is to improve the quality of

 

12   emissions inventories by encouraging

 

13   industry to look more closely at their

 

14   emission inventory procedures periodically.

 

15             Comment number two, stack tests are

 

16   too expensive.  

 

17             Response is, we disagree.   Our

 

18   survey of local stack testing companies

 

19   indicate that the cost of testing the

 

20   described emissions units would range from

 

21   $2,500 to $5,000 with a median price of

 

22   about $3,500 and the cost would be

 

23   amortized over a period of at least five

 

24   years.

 

25             Comment number three, over 2,000

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   5

 

 

 1   facilities would be affected.  

 

 2             We disagree.   We estimate that

 

 3   approximately 600 fuel-burning units

 

 4   statewide would be affected by the new rule

 

 5   as proposed.  

 

 6             Further, the proposed rule allows

 

 7   the Director to issue a waiver under three

 

 8   conditions:   1) fuel burning equipment is

 

 9   operated under a current permit that limits

 

10   its emissions or;   2) it is equipped with

 

11   monitoring equipment or;   3) the owner or

 

12   operator can demonstrate by other means

 

13   that the inventory is true and accurate.

 

14             Comment number four, keeping a

 

15   running total of operating hours is

 

16   excessive.  

 

17             Response, we disagree.   The hours of

 

18   operation are already required under

 

19   emission inventories.

 

20             Comment number five, the rule ought

 

21   to specify which pollutants would have to

 

22   be tested.

 

23             We have to agree with that.   It

 

24   ended up being a bit open-ended.   Let me

 

25   address this down here, further down.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   6

 

 

 1                  MR. WILSON:   Max, where are you

 

 2   reading from?

 

 3                  MR. PRICE:   I'm reading from my

 

 4   list of stuff that you guys don't have.

 

 5   Myrna's got copies made for you.   These are

 

 6   a summary of some of the comments.

 

 7                  MR. WILSON:   You are summarizing?

 

 8                  MR. PRICE:   Yes, I'm summarizing

 

 9   the comments.   Some of the commentors made

 

10   the same comments three or four times and

 

11   I'm just summarizing them here and reading

 

12   them into the record.

 

13             Comment number six, the Division

 

14   should allow an exemption to the proposed

 

15   requirement to test at 43,000 hours for

 

16   those sites where quarterly emission

 

17   testing by portable engine analyzer is

 

18   already taking place.

 

19             Response, Subsection 252:100-5-

 

20   2.1(d) delineates the acceptable methods

 

21   for calculating emission inventories.   The

 

22   use of data from Portable Engine Analyzers

 

23   is not included.   252:100-5-2.1(d)(9)

 

24   allows for other methods with the approval

 

25   of the Division.   The Air Quality Division

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   7

 

 

 1   has already disapproved the use of data

 

 2   from Portable Engine Analyzers for

 

 3   inventory purposes.

 

 4             Comment number seven, the threshold

 

 5   levels are too low.  

 

 6             The staff agrees.   And thus we agree

 

 7   to raise threshold limits for engines from

 

 8   400 brake horsepower to 600 brake

 

 9   horsepower, for gas turbines from 1,000

 

10   horse power to 5,000 horse power and for

 

11   boilers from 20 million BTU per hour heat

 

12   input to 60 million BTU per heat input.

 

13   The higher threshold levels should place

 

14   the majority of these types of sources at

 

15   or near 80 percent of Title V major source

 

16   categories.

 

17             Okay.   Will air toxics have to be

 

18   tested?  

 

19             Under the current rule, they may

 

20   have been.   We weren't even thinking in

 

21   those terms when we wrote this.   So, what

 

22   we're going to propose, if I jump ahead of

 

23   this stuff here, is what I'm going to do is

 

24   I'm going to request that the Council hold

 

25   this over until the next meeting.   And what

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   8

 

 

 1   we're going to propose to do is go back and

 

 2   revisit this rule and limit the pollutants

 

 3   that need to be testing to just four

 

 4   pollutants, oxides of nitrogen, carbon

 

 5   monoxide, PM and VOCs and we're also going

 

 6   to expand the waiver section of that to

 

 7   allow the owners and operators to test out

 

 8   of each group.   In other words, if they

 

 9   have a way or technique to say that the

 

10   VOCs emissions are true and accurate, they

 

11   don't have to perform a test, they can just

 

12   show in the waiver that they don't have to.

 

13                  MS. MYERS:   I've got a question.

 

14   What about facilities that have continuous

 

15   emissions monitors that are calibrated and

 

16   certified, why would they be required to go

 

17   in and do additional stack testing?

 

18                  MR. PRICE:   They're not.   The --

 

19                  MS. MYERS:   Is that included in

 

20   that, also?

 

21                  MR. PRICE:   Yes.   That's under

 

22   the waiver of conditions.   Simply if they

 

23   tell us these are true and accurate and if

 

24   they have emissions inventory, I mean

 

25   monitoring, then that's the one they use

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   9

 

 

 1   for their waiver.

 

 2                  MS. MYERS:   Okay.

 

 3                  MR. DYKE:   So, Max, you recommend

 

 4   this be held over?

 

 5                  MR. PRICE:   Yes, sir.

 

 6                  MR. DYKE:   And continued?

 

 7                  MR. PRICE:   Yes.

 

 8                  MR. DYKE:   Don, did you want to

 

 9   make a comment?

 

10                  MR. WHITNEY:   No, thank you.

 

11                  MR. DYKE:   Are there any

 

12   questions of Mr. Price from the Council at

 

13   this time?   Is there any questions from the

 

14   public of Mr. Price?   Yes.

 

15                  MR. MOYER:   I'm Stephen Moyer

 

16   with Sinclair Oil Refinery in Tulsa.   Just

 

17   out of curiosity, I'm new to Oklahoma, so

 

18   if it's acceptable for me to use an AP42

 

19   emissions boiler, why do I have to do a

 

20   stack test for that boiler?

 

21                  MR. PRICE:   AP42 is pretty

 

22   generous emission factors.   But the idea

 

23   behind this rule is to encourage industry

 

24   to take a closer look at their permits and

 

25   their emissions inventories.   AP42 factors

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  10

 

 

 1   are fine and usually though, they're too

 

 2   high.   We're trying to improve the quality

 

 3   of emissions inventory for various and lots

 

 4   of reasons, compliance reasons, future

 

 5   programs we may have to do, compliance

 

 6   situations, and most of our sources in the

 

 7   state are these types of sources.  

 

 8             And so in our way of thinking,

 

 9   having emissions that are really too high

 

10   is just as bad as having emissions that are

 

11   too low.   An AP42 tends to lean toward

 

12   that.   And that's why we're choosing to do

 

13   this.   Also, these are pretty close to

 

14   major sources, now that we've raised the

 

15   threshold because of that factor.   The

 

16   smaller engines (inaudible) do this.  

 

17                  MR. WILSON:   They use AP42 for

 

18   your permitting.

 

19                  MR. PRICE:   And the Department

 

20   says that that's fine.   That's fine.

 

21   (Inaudible) the permit writers and the

 

22   owners and operators have some way of

 

23   verifying this, it's okay.   This applies to

 

24   sources like if they have a permit that say

 

25   there are no emission limits for this

 

 

 

   
                                                                  11

 

 

 1   particular source.   That would be -- that

 

 2   would be considered a grandfather, for

 

 3   example.

 

 4                  MR. WILSON:   I need one of those

 

 5   permits.

 

 6                  MR. PRICE:   Then it wouldn't have

 

 7   a permit that had emission limits on it.

 

 8                  MR. TERRILL:   Let me speak to

 

 9   this for just a second.   This is partly --

 

10   or a lot of it, this is my idea, anyway, to

 

11   get this dialogue started.  

 

12             And the reason being is, we still

 

13   see a lot of compliance issues, enforcement

 

14   issues that deals primarily with folks not

 

15   reading their permits.   And, you know, I'm

 

16   fully aware that it costs money to do

 

17   testing.   I'm also fully aware that good

 

18   stack testers are hard to come by.   There's

 

19   not enough of them out there.   I don't

 

20   anticipate this is going to generate a

 

21   flood of -- in fact, I don't think it will

 

22   generate any more than is already being

 

23   done.  

 

24             But what it will do is periodically,

 

25   you're going to have to take that permit

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  12

 

 

 1   down off the shelf, knock the dust off of

 

 2   it, and take a look at your emission points

 

 3   and verify in some form or fashion that

 

 4   they are accurate.   AP42 may be fine, we're

 

 5   using them for permits, they're using them

 

 6   industry-wide, they're not the best in the

 

 7   world but they're okay.  

 

 8             But there may be some instances

 

 9   where we need to take a look or you want to

 

10   take a look at what you're doing.   But it

 

11   just forces you to take a look at your

 

12   permit more frequently than is being done

 

13   now.  

 

14             But the question back there about

 

15   AP42, that would be one of the examples

 

16   where that's probably fine, but at least

 

17   you've taken the time to take a look at it

 

18   and verify that, yeah, that's accurate.

 

19   Yeah, we believe those numbers are correct.

 

20   So, that's really what's driving this.  

 

21             I just don't anticipate that we're

 

22   going to have a whole lot of additional

 

23   stack testing being done, but it will be an

 

24   opportunity for you to take a look at what

 

25   your emissions are and satisfy yourself,

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  13

 

 

 1   which ought to -- you ought to be doing

 

 2   that, anyway, that what you're reporting is

 

 3   truly accurate, or is as accurate as can

 

 4   be.

 

 5                  MR. DYKE:   Glen.

 

 6                  MR. TRAVIS:   Yes.   I have one

 

 7   question as to, when we're setting the

 

 8   applicability again, what we're trying to

 

 9   target here or what we're trying to

 

10   capture, is that totally arbitrary on the

 

11   horsepower requirement and/or BTU per hour

 

12   or how would we --

 

13                  MR. PRICE:   No, sir, that's -- we

 

14   studied that considerably.   First of all,

 

15   we did a study that went through all our

 

16   permit files and all our inventory files

 

17   and found where the majority of NOX,

 

18   emitters -- supposedly NOx and CO emitters

 

19   were -- they fell under those three

 

20   categories.   There are a lot of sources out

 

21   there that didn't fall under those.  

 

22             So the majority of the sources in

 

23   the state are these type of sources for

 

24   NOx.   And then we went through and looked

 

25   at the permit again, to see how many times

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  14

 

 

 1   we had a situation where there were no

 

 2   limits listed in the permit or there was no

 

 3   permit for them at all, this kind of thing.

 

 4   And so they weren't arbitrary.  

 

 5             And originally the lower level

 

 6   percent, because it got most of them in

 

 7   there because of the horsepower, we tried

 

 8   to avoid using actual emissions, because

 

 9   that's what we're trying to determine, and

 

10   so we lowered them.   We deliberately made

 

11   the horsepower ratings and BTU per hour low

 

12   because we wanted to catch ninety-nine

 

13   percent of these.

 

14             But the Council said that's probably

 

15   too low, so we raised it to about

 

16   approximately eighty percent threshold for

 

17   Title V permitting purposes.   So if you're

 

18   up to close to pushing eighty tons per year

 

19   on these sources and that's what you're

 

20   reporting and it's in your permit that way,

 

21   then probably you are -- this rule would

 

22   apply to them.   But it's the lower stuff,

 

23   the smaller engines are pretty well covered

 

24   in those.

 

25             Yes, sir.

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  15

 

 

 1                  MR. WARRAM:   My name is Jim

 

 2   Warram with Xerox and the exemption --

 

 3                  THE REPORTER:   I'm sorry.   What

 

 4   was your last name?

 

 5                  MR. WARRAM:   Warram, W-a-r-r-a-m.

 

 6   The exemption is for operating permits that

 

 7   limit the emissions, but on a lot of this

 

 8   equipment the emissions will be limited to

 

 9   NOx, PM, CO and may not have hazardous air

 

10   pollutants or VOCs, but you mentioned those

 

11   are going to be listed as testing

 

12   requirements.

 

13                  MR. PRICE:   No, sir.   Actually,

 

14   the way the rules were originally written,

 

15   it's kind of open ended on that.   And we're

 

16   going to kind of leave it up to the

 

17   Director in the waiver process to take care

 

18   of that.  

 

19             But we're going to limit these

 

20   things now that's the reason we're going to

 

21   hold it over, to just the four criteria

 

22   pollutants, because we realize that Part 63

 

23   NESHAP is coming along and some of that may

 

24   require some periodic testing for mercury

 

25   and who knows what all.  

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  16

 

 

 1             I certainly don't want to make

 

 2   people test again for us when they've

 

 3   already had to test for some CFR

 

 4   requirement.   So we don't limit this just

 

 5   to the four criteria that I mentioned.

 

 6   That's why we're holding it over.

 

 7                  MR. DYKE:   Any additional

 

 8   questions from Council?

 

 9                  MR. MOYER:   If I could just ask

 

10   another question, I'm sorry.

 

11                  THE REPORTER:   I'm sorry.   Would

 

12   you repeat your name?

 

13                  MR. MOYER:   Steve Moyer.   Because

 

14   I'm unfamiliar with Oklahoma, if I -- do

 

15   permitted fuel-burning sources that meet

 

16   these criteria, are they required to do

 

17   stack tests every five years?

 

18                  MR. PRICE:   If they have a permit

 

19   that says their emissions are limited in

 

20   some way.

 

21                  MR. MOYER:   They don't?

 

22                  MR. PRICE:   Right.

 

23                  MR. MOYER:   So then one of my

 

24   options for compliance is to take my

 

25   grandfathered boilers and ask for permit

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  17

 

 

 1   conditions and then I don't have to do

 

 2   stack tests?

 

 3                  MR. PRICE:   According to this

 

 4   rule, yes.   You may have to do stack

 

 5   testing in order to get the permit.

 

 6                  MR. MOYER:   But that would be a

 

 7   one time thing.

 

 8                  MR. PRICE:   Right.

 

 9                  MR. MOYER:   Probably not every

 

10   five years?

 

11                  MR. PRICE:   Right.

 

12                  MR. MOYER:   Okay.   I just wanted

 

13   to make sure I understand.   Thank you.

 

14                  MR. DYKE:   Howard.

 

15                  MR. GROUND:   I'm Howard Ground

 

16   with American Electric Power.   I just want

 

17   to question -- I know you said that you

 

18   raised those limits on brake horsepower.

 

19   It seems like those would catch a lot of

 

20   the minor sources.

 

21                  MR. PRICE:   Well, that's

 

22   (inaudible) 70 --

 

23                  MR. GROUND:   Right.

 

24                  MR. PRICE:   They're probably

 

25   under a permit that limits their emissions,

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  18

 

 

 1   but there is no emissions level required of

 

 2   them.

 

 3                  MR. GROUND:   So when you said

 

 4   there is six hundred sources that this

 

 5   would pick up in the state, that's in

 

 6   addition to the number of sources that are

 

 7   already being tested?

 

 8                  MR. PRICE:   The six hundred

 

 9   sources that I did the study on were --

 

10   that was an estimate based on all the

 

11   permit files, including Part 70 files.

 

12                  MR. GROUND:   Because I remember a

 

13   number coming up like fourteen hundred that

 

14   Eddie's use for number of minor sources

 

15   that are in the system.

 

16                  MR. PRICE:   Perhaps we should

 

17   clarify that.   This is actually the number

 

18   of engine boilers and applicable fuel

 

19   burning equipment that we've found in

 

20   various facilities in the state that might

 

21   be applicable to that.

 

22             And from what I can figure, there's

 

23   about six hundred fuel burning units in the

 

24   state that this would be applicable to.

 

25   It's not the source itself, not the whole

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  19

 

 

 1   plant, just the applicable fuel-burning

 

 2   units in the plant.   And there is about six

 

 3   hundred of those.

 

 4                  MR. GROUND:   It just seems like

 

 5   from the past and the things that have come

 

 6   before the Council to try to take a lot of

 

 7   these minor sources out, that there would

 

 8   be some kind of exclusions for smaller

 

 9   sources.   We've got emergency diesel

 

10   generators that are over six hundred brake

 

11   horsepower operating.

 

12                  MR. PRICE:   How long do you think

 

13   they're going to run before they reach

 

14   44,000 hours?

 

15                  MR. GROUND:   And that seems

 

16   ridiculous to put something out that we're

 

17   not going to have to test for, you know, a

 

18   hundred and seventy years.

 

19                  MR. PRICE:   Well, that's --

 

20   you'll be, you know, eighty-nine years is

 

21   what I worked out for you, I think, on

 

22   those generators.  

 

23                  MR. GROUND:   Okay.

 

24                  MR. PRICE:   The chances are, this

 

25   rule won't even be on the book in eighty

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  20

 

 

 1   nine years.

 

 2                  MR. GROUND:   Well, that just

 

 3   seems a little beyond the scope of trying

 

 4   to write a reg to include things like that.

 

 5                  MR. PRICE:   Basically, it's the

 

 6   same as units that operate an awful lot and

 

 7   emergency generators, things of that

 

 8   nature, only operate five hundred or a

 

 9   thousand hours a year, I figure a thousand

 

10   hours a year.   It's just simply a matter of

 

11   when they're going to reach the 44,000

 

12   hours before they're replaced, if you know

 

13   what I mean, from a practical point of

 

14   view.

 

15                  MR. GROUND:   In thirty years or

 

16   forty years.  

 

17                  MR. PRICE:   Yeah.   It will never

 

18   come about.

 

19                  MR. GROUND:   A little beyond the

 

20   scope of writing a regulation?

 

21                  MR. PRICE:   By then, the

 

22   regulation probably won't even be there.

 

23                  MR. DYKE:   Glenn.

 

24                  MR. TRAVIS:   I'm Glenn Travis

 

25   with Sonoco.   Another thing that happens to

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  21

 

 

 1   us, where you write this reg here for this,

 

 2   and it includes internal combustion

 

 3   engines, whatever the rate of horsepower

 

 4   is, six hundred, there is a NESHAP that

 

 5   will be promulgated in another two to

 

 6   three, whatever EPA does, that brings in

 

 7   combustion engines at five hundred brake

 

 8   horsepower.  

 

 9             You know, this we're already trying

 

10   to deal with and then we have a new NESHAP

 

11   that comes in that is going to have who

 

12   knows what those requirements will be and

 

13   then we are back into dual controls and are

 

14   we trying to do this, are we trying to do

 

15   that, and, you know, it seems to be a

 

16   problem.  

 

17             When you look forward, you have

 

18   state regs with some of these requirements,

 

19   and then you have these NESHAPS that come

 

20   in or NSPS or whatever.

 

21                  MR. PRICE:   One of the changes

 

22   we're going to make in this rule, to answer

 

23   that, is there is a new Part 63 NESHAP that

 

24   comes out that requires stack testing for

 

25   these particular pollutants, for some

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  22

 

 

 1   reason.   I'm just going to pick one, say

 

 2   VOCs, and that's part of your VOC stack

 

 3   test requirements, then you don't have to

 

 4   do the VOC.  

 

 5             It would be foolish to make you do a

 

 6   stack test and turn around eighteen months

 

 7   later and do another one when it's a Part

 

 8   63 requirement.   And the way that's worded

 

 9   right now, it's periodic.   So if you're

 

10   only going to do a one time performance

 

11   test, it doesn't count.   But if you have to

 

12   do a periodic test once every seven years,

 

13   three years, whatever, then you're exempt

 

14   from this rule.   As far as that one

 

15   pollutant goes.   That's the changes we're

 

16   going to make.

 

17                  MR. DYKE:   As I understand it, we

 

18   have a recommendation to continue this.   We

 

19   encourage your comments in writing.  

 

20             Is there anyone else wishing to

 

21   comment today on this particular rule?  

 

22                  MR. BRANECKY:   Okay.   I've got a

 

23   recommendation that we continue this to the

 

24   October meeting.   Do we have a motion.

 

25                  MR. WILSON:   David, before I move

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  23

 

 

 1   on that, I want to just state for the

 

 2   record that there were comments that were

 

 3   read by Mr. Price that were summarized by

 

 4   Mr. Price in the earlier presentation.   So

 

 5   not comments written verbatim but

 

 6   summarized.  

 

 7                  MR. BRANECKY:   Okay.   Okay.

 

 8                  MR. WILSON:   With that, I'll move

 

 9   to continue this to the next meeting.

 

10                  MS. MYERS:   Second.

 

11                  MR. BRANECKY:   Okay.   Myrna,

 

12   would you call the roll, please?

 

13                  MS. BRUCE:   Dr. Lynch.

 

14                  DR. LYNCH:   Yes.

 

15                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Briesch.

 

16                  MR. BREISCH:   Yes.

 

17                  MS. BRUCE:   Ms. Myers.

 

18                  MS. MYERS:   Yes.

 

19                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Wilson.

 

20                  MR. WILSON:   Yes.

 

21                  MS. BRUCE:   Mr. Branecky.

 

22                  MR. BRANECKY:   Yes.

 

23        (End of Proceedings)

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  24

 

 

 1

 

 2                    C E R T I F I C A T E

 

 3   STATE OF OKLAHOMA     )

                                   )         ss:

 4   COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA    )

 

 5             I, CHRISTY A. MYERS, Certified

 

 6   Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of

 

 7   Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above

 

 8   proceedings is the truth, the whole truth,

 

 9   and nothing but the truth, in the case

 

10   aforesaid; that the foregoing proceedings

 

11   were taken by me in shorthand and

 

12   thereafter transcribed under my direction;

 

13   that said proceedings were taken on the

 

14   17th day of July, 2002, at Oklahoma City,

 

15   Oklahoma; and that I am neither attorney

 

16   for nor relative of any of said parties,

 

17   nor otherwise interested in said action.

 

18             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

 

19   set my hand and official seal on this, the

 

20   12th day of August, 2002.

 

21

                         ______________________

22                       CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

                         Certificate No. 00310

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

 

                                                              1

 

 

 1         DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

 

 2                    AIR QUALITY DIVISION

 

 3                      STATE OF OKLAHOMA

 

 4

 

 5

 

 6   __________________________________________

 

 7                TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 

 8               AIR QUALITY COUNCIL MEETING

 

 9                        OAC 252:100-41

 

10           CONTROL OF EMISSION HAZARDOUS AIR

 

11        POLLUTANTS AND TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

 

12                        AND APPENDIX O,

 

13                   TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

 

14         HELD ON JULY 17, 2002, AT 9:00 A.M.

 

15                      707 NORTH ROBINSON

 

16                  OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

17   __________________________________________

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22   REPORTED BY:    CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

                    MYERS REPORTING SERVICE

 

                          (405) 721-2882
                                                                   2

 

 

 1                        COUNCIL MEMBERS

 

 2

 

 3   David Branecky, Chairman

 

 4   Sharon Myers, Vice-Chair

 

 5   Rick Treeman, Member

 

 6   Joel Wilson, Member

 

 7   Dr. Fred Grosz, Member

 

 8   Gary Kilpatrick, Member

 

 9   Bill Breisch, Member

 

10   Dr. Bob Lynch, Member

 

11

 

12                         STAFF MEMBERS

 

13   Eddie Terrill, Director

 

14   David Dyke, Protocol Officer

 

15   Myrna Bruce, Secretary

               

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   3

 

 

 1

 

 2                           PROCEEDINGS

 

 3                  MR. DYKE:   The next item on the

 

 4   agenda is Item 4E, OAC 252:100-41, Control

 

 5   of Emission of Hazardous Air Pollutants and

 

 6   Toxic Air Contaminants and Appendix O,

 

 7   Toxic Air Contaminants.  

 

 8             I'll call on staff member, Cheryl

 

 9   Bradley.

 

10                  MS. BRADLEY:   Good morning.

 

11   We're moving along a little faster than I

 

12   had anticipated.   We've done really well.

 

13             Chairman Branecky, Members of the

 

14   Council, ladies and gentlemen, the

 

15   Department is proposing amendments to OAC

 

16   252:100-41, titled Control of Hazardous Air

 

17   Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants,

 

18   Parts 1 and 5, and the addition of a new

 

19   Appendix O, Toxic Air Contaminants.  

 

20             Parts 1 and 5 of Subchapter 41 set

 

21   forth the provisions of the Department's

 

22   program to control the routine emission of

 

23   toxic air contaminants from stationary

 

24   sources.   These rules originally became

 

25   effective on March 8th, 1987 and have

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   4

 

 

 1   remained substantially unchanged since that

 

 2   date.

 

 3             The Air Quality Council considered

 

 4   amendments to Parts 1 and 5 during its

 

 5   February 21, 2001 and April 18, 2001

 

 6   meetings.   At the February meeting, the

 

 7   Council and Air Quality Division

 

 8   recommended the formation of a workgroup to

 

 9   consider ways to improve our state air

 

10   toxics rules.   The workgroup met two times

 

11   in Oklahoma City and once in Tulsa.

 

12   Several workgroup members also attended a

 

13   separate state air toxics program training

 

14   session in Tulsa.  

 

15             The workgroup was created to

 

16   generate a dialogue from various parties

 

17   having an interest in the rules so that

 

18   Department's recommendations for changes

 

19   reflected the concerns of the regulated

 

20   community and retained the public health

 

21   protection aspect.  

 

22             The workgroup did not reach a

 

23   consensus on how best to address concerns

 

24   raised by regulated industries, the public

 

25   and DEQ staff.   The proposed rules before

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   5

 

 

 1   you today represent DEQ's effort to distill

 

 2   and address the concerns raised.

 

 3             These draft rules differ

 

 4   substantially from the previous versions of

 

 5   the amendments considered by the Council.

 

 6   These revisions refine the Department's

 

 7   regulatory continuum and focus the agency's

 

 8   resources on the control of air pollutants

 

 9   that are most likely to adversely affect

 

10   public health or the environment.  

 

11             In the process of preparing the

 

12   draft amendments, staff looked at several

 

13   states' air toxics programs but focused on

 

14   the programs in Louisiana, Texas, Michigan

 

15   and California.   Some aspects of those

 

16   programs were added to the draft rules.

 

17             The proposed changes will simplify

 

18   language, clarify requirements, and remove

 

19   redundant language or requirements;

 

20   however, substantive changes are also being

 

21   proposed.   In an effort to utilize the

 

22   Council's and public's time most

 

23   effectively, I will limit my presentation

 

24   to the key substantive changes:

 

25             252:100-41-2, Definitions.  

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   6

 

 

 1             a)   The definition for "substances

 

 2   of low toxicity" (Category C) will be

 

 3   deleted.   A new definition for "substances

 

 4   of concern" will be added.   Substances of

 

 5   concern include those former Category C

 

 6   substances that are also federal hazardous

 

 7   air pollutants or those substances that are

 

 8   not hazardous air pollutants but are

 

 9   emitted by stationary sources in Oklahoma.

 

10             b)   The references to specific

 

11   workplace exposure standards in the

 

12   definition of "occupational exposure limit"

 

13   will be updated to their 2002 versions.

 

14             c)   The definition of "toxic air

 

15   contaminant" will be amended to mean those

 

16   substances that are included in Appendix O

 

17   or those that are substances of high or

 

18   moderate toxicity.

 

19             252:100-41-37, New Sources.

 

20   Subsection (b) was clarified and the

 

21   language "because of the unavailability of

 

22   economic or technically feasible controls

 

23   and upon presentation of adequate proof of

 

24   same, or can show that the MAAC is clearly

 

25   unreasonable" will be removed from the

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   7

 

 

 1   language.

 

 2             a)   Section 38, Existing Sources.

 

 3   Subsections (a) and (b) were clarified, and

 

 4   the phrase "or a showing that the MAAC is

 

 5   clearly unreasonable" in Subsection (a) was

 

 6   removed.  

 

 7             b)   The provision for the use of

 

 8   modeling data, with or without monitoring

 

 9   data, as evidence of an MAAC violation

 

10   resulting from the combined emissions of

 

11   two or more sources was added to Subsection

 

12   (c).

 

13             Section 40, Maximum Acceptable

 

14   Ambient Concentrations.   All references to

 

15   substances of low toxicity (Category C)

 

16   were removed.

 

17             New Section 40.1, Toxic Air

 

18   Contaminant List.   A new section was added

 

19   to reference and establish the connection

 

20   between Subchapter 41 and Appendix O.

 

21   Subsection (b) affirms that substances can

 

22   only be added to Appendix O through

 

23   rulemaking.

 

24             Section 43, Exemptions.  

 

25             a)   The de minimis exemption levels

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   8

 

 

 1   for Category A, B, and C toxics in this

 

 2   section were replaced with a single

 

 3   exemption similar to that found in

 

 4   Michigan's health-based air quality

 

 5   standards.   The proposed new 43(a)(5) will

 

 6   exempt "any source which emits less than 10

 

 7   pounds per month or 0.14 pound per hour of

 

 8   any toxic air contaminants that is not a

 

 9   carcinogen or cocarcinogen.

 

10             b)   Exemptions were added for

 

11   specific sources subject to other state or

 

12   federal air toxics requirements such as

 

13   those imposed in New Source Performance

 

14   Standards, State 111(d) Plans or MACT

 

15   standards.

 

16             c)   Subsection (b) was expanded to

 

17   clarify its intent and a provision for the

 

18   use of modeling data, with or without

 

19   monitoring data, as evidence of a MAAC

 

20   violation resulting from the combined

 

21   emissions of two or more sources was added.

 

22             Appendix O, Toxic Air Contaminants.

 

23   The list of toxic air contaminants and

 

24   their associated MAAC values will be added

 

25   as Appendix O.   The current "Partial List

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                   9

 

 

 1   of Toxic Air Contaminants" is not part of

 

 2   the rule and contains over 1500 substances.

 

 3   The proposed Appendix O contains a little

 

 4   over 400 substances and includes toxic air

 

 5   contaminants that are carcinogens, federal

 

 6   hazardous air pollutants, Category A and B

 

 7   substances reported on the 1997, 1998, and

 

 8   1999 emissions inventories, except gasoline

 

 9   and silica, and substances of concern.

 

10             Notice of the proposed rule changes

 

11   was published in the Oklahoma Register on

 

12   June 17, 2002 and requested comments from

 

13   members of the public.  

 

14             Staff received one written comment

 

15   from Mid Continent Oil and Gas Association

 

16   of Oklahoma.   I received it just prior to

 

17   the meeting this morning.   I read over it.

 

18   It referred to the proposed new de minimis

 

19   of 10 pounds per month and 0.14 pounds per

 

20   hour.   I did receive three phone calls also

 

21   regarding this same area of the rule.   All

 

22   commentors felt that the proposed de

 

23   minimis standard would be too stringent.  

 

24             Staff's in the process of reviewing

 

25   those comments and I would like to offer

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  10

 

 

 1   the Mid-Continent letter for inclusion in

 

 2   the hearing record at this time.

 

 3             Since we have unresolved issues,

 

 4   principally that regarding the de minimis

 

 5   standard, staff suggests that the Council

 

 6   continue the hearing on the proposed rule

 

 7   changes to its October meeting.   Thank you.

 

 8                  MR. DYKE:   Questions of Ms.

 

 9   Bradley from the Council?

 

10                  DR. LYNCH:   Where does 10 pounds

 

11   per month come from?

 

12                  MS. BRADLEY:   The state of

 

13   Michigan did an impact analysis which took

 

14   into consideration the dispersion modeling

 

15   and the more stringent 0.1 microgram per

 

16   cubic meter standard utilized in their

 

17   rules, which we also have in ours.  

 

18   The dispersion model looked at sources that

 

19   might have lower stack heights and from

 

20   that study they determined that the low is

 

21   ten pounds per month, there would be an

 

22   unlikely situation of adverse affect on

 

23   public health.  

 

24             We have not done an in depth

 

25   analysis yet of those -- of that particular

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  11

 

 

 1   report, it's about two hundred pages, and

 

 2   we're in the process of doing that now.

 

 3                  DR. LYNCH:   So the comments were

 

 4   too --

 

 5                  MS. BRADLEY:   Too stringent.

 

 6                  DR. LYNCH:   -- too stringent.

 

 7   Did they have recommended suggestions or

 

 8   different numbers?

 

 9                  MS. BRADLEY:   They would like to

 

10   go back to the twelve hundred pounds per

 

11   year annual de minimis for Category A.

 

12   Staff, at this time, feels that with regard

 

13   to carcinogens, which are currently covered

 

14   under that -- exempted under that

 

15   threshold, that that would not be prudent,

 

16   given the lack of evidence in the threshold

 

17   for carcinogens, anyway.  

 

18             In absence of a threshold, it would

 

19   be a requirement to implement BACT to

 

20   control any known carcinogens.   The ten

 

21   pounds per hour or the per month may not be

 

22   realistic for all -- for sources in

 

23   Oklahoma with regards to noncarcinogens and

 

24   things like that, particularly the impact

 

25   that it may have on enforcement and

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  12

 

 

 1   permitting.

 

 2                  MR. DYKE:   Additional questions

 

 3   from Council?

 

 4                  DR. LYNCH:   I have one more.   I

 

 5   was in on some of the discussions about the

 

 6   working group.   Why was most substances of

 

 7   low toxicity, why was that removed?

 

 8                  MS. BRADLEY:   Initially we had

 

 9   offered that we would remove Category C

 

10   substances.   And as I looked at that

 

11   category, it requires a large portion of

 

12   the fifteen hundred substances.   Many of

 

13   those substances were not actually emitted

 

14   but had been categorized over the history

 

15   of the program.   Some of those substances

 

16   were also HAPs.  

 

17             Rather than require that all

 

18   Category C substances or substances of low

 

19   toxicity be regulated under the program, we

 

20   would impose a different standard in that

 

21   they would have to be on Appendix O and be

 

22   subject to rulemaking before we would

 

23   establish requirements.  

 

24             If the Council did not like the term

 

25   "substances of concern", we certainly would

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  13

 

 

 1   come up with an alternative.   Most of them

 

 2   are substances of low toxicity and that was

 

 3   a way of not including all of them.

 

 4                  MR. DYKE:   I have notice here

 

 5   that someone from Marathon wishes to speak;

 

 6   is that still the case?

 

 7                  MR. LEARNED:   My name is Al

 

 8   Learned with Marathon Oil.

 

 9                  THE REPORTER:   I'm sorry.   What

 

10   is your name?

 

11                  MR. LEARNED:   Al Learned, I'm

 

12   here on behalf of MOGA.   My comments have

 

13   already been addressed through the agency.

 

14   The concern is that certain substances on

 

15   that Appendix O list that are no de minimis

 

16   exemptions, and zero is very hard to attain

 

17   so that (inaudible) BACT is required for

 

18   everything, no matter how small the

 

19   emission rate is.   There's even some level,

 

20   it's pretty small amounts that have to

 

21   demonstrate BACT and have these rules

 

22   apply.   Thank you.

 

23                  MR. DYKE:   Dr. Dawson.

 

24                  DR. DAWSON:   I have more of a

 

25   question.   On page ten here under

 

 

 

 

 
                                                                  14

 

 

 1   exemptions, it says the application of

 

 2   pesticides and fertilizers, I would hope

 

 3   that that would mean for farm use rather

 

 4   than the aerosols and pesticides, like

 

 5   cooling towers of power plants, for people

 

 6   to breathe.   So if you would clarify for me

 

 7   --

 

 8                  MR. BRANECKY:   Where are you at

 

 9   Dr. Dawson?

 

10                  DR. DAWSON:   I'm sorry.   On page

 

11   ten under 252:100-41-43 under exemptions.

 

12                  MR. BRANECKY:   Okay.

 

13                  DR. DAWSON:   So the question for

 

14   you is, is how is this Department

 

15   considering pesticides?   Are they

 

16   considered as hazardous air pollutants, are

 

17   they considered as toxic air contaminants,

 

18   as in use in the cooling towers for power

 

19   plants, or are they considered differently,

 

20   as in the Pesticide and Rodenticide Act?

 

21                  MS. BRADLEY:   State statute,

 

22   under the Department of Agriculture

 

23   regulations, I believe it's Title II,

 

24   addresses the application of pesticides and

 

25   fertilizers.  

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  15

 

 

 1             We have included that because we do

 

 2   not -- the Department of Environmental

 

 3   Quality does not have jurisdiction in that

 

 4   area.   And the statutes are -- do not

 

 5   address the specific situation we're

 

 6   speaking of here.   We do have proposed

 

 7   standards included in the proposed rule

 

 8   revisions that address pesticides.   But as

 

 9   to the specific situation, I do not feel

 

10   prepared to comment.

 

11                  MR. WILSON:   Regarding gasoline

 

12   filling stations or retail outlets, would

 

13   this rule apply to those?

 

14                  MS. BRADLEY:   At this time,

 

15   gasoline has been removed from the list.

 

16                  MR. WILSON:   It's got benzene in

 

17   it.

 

18                  MS. BRADLEY:   It has benzene,

 

19   there is a benzene standard.   There are

 

20   also toluene, ethylene benzene, and xylene

 

21   standards.   Benzene standard would be the

 

22   overriding one, the most stringent and the

 

23   most critical.  

 

24                  MR. WILSON:   Where is that

 

25   benzene standard at?

 

 

 

 

    
                                                                  16

 

 

 1                  MS. BRADLEY:   It's within

 

 2   Appendix O.

 

 3                  MR. WILSON:   Okay.   So this

 

 4   subchapter would apply then to the emission

 

 5   of benzene at filling stations?

 

 6                  MS. BRADLEY:   Yes, but not the

 

 7   mixture of gasoline.

 

 8                  MR. WILSON:   But the benzene

 

 9   that's in gasoline is regulated?

 

10                  MS. BRADLEY:   Is regulated, yes.

 

11   And Eddie Terrill may want to speak as to -

 

12   -

 

13                  MR. TERRILL:   I do.

 

14                  MS. BRADLEY:   -- we have looked

 

15   at it.   We have technology -- well,

 

16   Subchapter 41 has an ambient standard or

 

17   sets ambient standards.  

 

18             The requirements imposed upon

 

19   facilities, demonstrates of compliance with

 

20   that ambient standard, but ultimately we're

 

21   trying to put the best technology in place.

 

22             With regards to gasoline

 

23   distribution and retail outlets, stage one

 

24   recovery is currently being utilized in

 

25   Tulsa.  

 

 

 

 

  
                                                                  17

 

 

 1             Stage two, as I understand it, may

 

 2   not be an effective option given the

 

 3   technological advances in automobiles.  

 

 4   Stage one, for the audience, being the

 

 5   control of release of vapors when the big

 

 6   tanker comes in to the retail outlet and

 

 7   puts gasoline into the tanks that are

 

 8   underground.  

 

 9             Stage two, I encountered in

 

10   California, which captured the vapors that

 

11   were released at refueling of the actual

 

12   vehicle.

 

13             And the new automobile designs have

 

14   what was explained to me to be very similar

 

15   to what our sinks have.   They have a trap

 

16   that keeps the gasoline vapor from coming

 

17   back out in refueling and so there may not

 

18   be a necessity or the expense of going to

 

19   that may not -- of stage two may not be

 

20   warranted.

 

21                  MR. WILSON:   I guess the question

 

22   is, stage one then is BACT?

 

23