Department
of Environmental Quality
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 |
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 |
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.
|
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?<