## Department of Environmental Quality

To protect, conserve and enhance the quality of Wyoming's

environment for the benefit of current and future generations.

Matthew H. Mead, Governor

March 6, 2015

Mr. Shaun McGrath Regional Administrator USEP A Region 8 Mail Code: 8P-AR 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 Todd Parfitt, Director

RE: 110 Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (I-SIP) Certification for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

Dear Mr. McGrath:

Section IIO(a)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that, after a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is promulgated, each state reviews its State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to ensure that they meet the requirements of the "infrastructure elements" of Section !IO(a)(2). Each time the EPA issues or revises a standard, Wyoming must review existing rules, laws and programs, and submit an Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (I-SIP) within 3 years. This I-SIP documents the existing legal authority and programs in Wyoming, demonstrating that the State has the means to meet the more protective sulfur dioxide (S02) standard.

In response to the new !-hour S0 2 NAAQS that was promulgated on June 22,2010, the State of Wyoming updated the list of documentation required to demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements of Sections IIO(a)(l) and (2) ofthe CAA. This submission certifies and demonstrates how the existing rules in Wyoming's SIP- and the laws that underline them- meet the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 2010 !-hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Wyoming's air quality program is well-established and provides the basis for compliance with this NAAQS. Between the existing provisions in Wyoming's SIP, Wyoming's Environmental Quality Act, and Govemor-enacted Executive Orders, Wyoming's provisions meet the requirements for infrastructure elements included in this submission. This submittal does not propose any new rules or changes to the SIP, and therefore is a "certification." This differs from a submittal that includes revised regulations submitted to EPA for approval and incorporation into the SIP.

The 2010 !-hour S02 I-SIP was placed on public notice begilming December 16,2013. A public hearing was held in Cheyenne, Wyoming on January 15,2014. During the 30-day public comment period, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality- Air Quality

Herschler Building · 122 West 25th Street · Cheyenne, WY 82002 · http://deq.state.wy.us**ADMINIOlJli~Ei\CH** ABANDONED MINES (307) /JJ-l/!)f:l (3()7\ 1/1614b FAX TJr/682 1-/\X Til G-162 AIR QUALITY (301)**/71-T.J~.Jl** FAX 777-56-16**INDUSTI~IAL** SITING (30J) 177-7369 FAX 777-5973 LAND QU/\lJl Y (307) 77**J.//~)6** FAX 777-5864 SOLID & HJ\Z. WASTE (:'107) Tl7-11b2 FAX 777-59/3 WATER QUALI-rY Cl01l1!7-/1Bl FAX 7!7-5973WDEQ-AQD 2010 /-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Jr!frastructure SIP Certification 3/6/15

Division (AQD)- received written comments on the proposed 2010 S0 2 I-SIP from the Sierra Club (SC), dated January 14, 2014. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51, Appendix V, a formal response to
comment document has been included as part of this I-SIP certification packet. Due to the extensive nature of SC's comments and the inclusion of numerous associated exhibits, only the primary comment document will be provided in hardcopy. All associated exhibits to SC's primary comment document will be included with the submission on CD.

If you have any questions regarding this submittal or if you need further information, please feel free to contract Steven A. Dietrich, Air Quality Administrator, at 307-777-7391.

Sincerely,

Todd Parfitt Director Department of Enviromnental Quality

Enclosure: 110 Infrastructure SIP Elements for the 2010 !-Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS, Attachment A, II O(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) Support Document, Attachment B, II O(a)(2)(E) Support Documents, Copies of comment received from Sierra Club, and AQD's formal response to
comment document.

cc: Steven A. Dietrich, AQD Administrator Jeni Cederle, AQD Steven Pratt, EPA R8 with enclosuresSTATE OF WYOMING 110 Infrastructure SIP Elements for the 2010 1

- Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(Reviewed December 2013 ) (Revised in r esponse to comment February 2015 )

Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance and other related matters.

110(a)(2)(A) Non

- regulatory Documents :

1. Control Strategy Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 2. Source Surveillance Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 3. Compliance Schedule Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842

110(a)(2)(A) Regulatory Documents , Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) :

1. Chapter 1, Section 3, Definitions

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 3/8/13 b. EPA final Federal Register 11/22/13; 78 FR 69998

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 2, Definitions i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 2. Chapter 1, Section 4, Diluting and concealing emissions

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 18, Diluting and concealing emissions i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 3. Chapter 1, Section 5, Abnormal conditions and equipment malfunction

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/11/2008 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 4/16/2010; 75 FR 19886

c. Preceding WAQSR, Sectio n 19, Abnormal conditions and equipment malfunction i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 4. Chapter 3, Section 2, Emission standards for particulate matter

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 2/10/2014 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 10/21/2014; 79 FR 92859WDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

2 | P a g e c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 14, Control of particulate emissions i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 5. Chapter 3, Section 3, Emission standards for nitro gen oxides

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 10, Nitrogen oxides i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 6. Chapter 3, Section 5, Emission standards for carbon monoxide

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 12, Carbon monoxide i. Original State regulations sub mitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 7. Chapter 3, Section 6, Emission standards for volatile organic compounds

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document (updated through Section 9, Incorporation by reference) submitted to EPA 5/24/2012 b. EPA app roval pending (EPA AirTrax # 130)

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 9, Hydrocarbons i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 8. Chapter 4, Section 2, Existing sulfuric acid production units

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP docu ment submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 5, Sulfuric acid mist i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 9. Chapter 4, Section 3, Existing nitric acid manufacturing plants

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 10, Nitrogen oxides i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 10. Chapter 8, Section 2, Sweetwater County particulate matter regulations

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding W AQSR, Section 25, Sweetwater County non

- attainment area particulate matter regulations i. Original State regulations submitted 1/25/79 ii. Approved by EPA 7/2/79; 44 FR 38473 11. Chapter 8, Section 3, Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plan s

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 12/ 21/12 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 8/15/13; 78 FR 49685 12. Chapter 10, Section 2, Open burning restrictions

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003WDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

3 | P a g e b. EPA f inal Federal Re gister 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 13, Open burning restrictions i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 13. Chapter 10, Section 3, Wood waste burners

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 15, Wood waste burners i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 14. Chapter 13, Section 2, Motor vehicle pollution control

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 17, Motor vehicle pollution control i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72 ; 37 FR 10842

110(a)(2)(A) Comment:

Wyoming also regulates emissions of SO 2 through the State ’s PSD and minor NSR programs.

Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP meet s the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A ) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to : (i) monit or, compile, and analyze data on ambient ai r quality and (ii) u pon request, make such data available to EPA

110(a)(2)(B) Non

- regulatory Documents :

1. Air Quality Surveillance Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 2. Air Quality Surveillance Network Document

a. State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 8/26/81 b. Approved by EPA 2/9/82; 47 FR 5892 3. Implementation Plan for Lead

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 8/29/84 b. Approved by EPA 10/11/84; 49 FR 398 43 4. Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan

a. Most recent Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan (2013) submitted to EPA 6/27/13 b. EPA approval pending

c. Preceding 2012 Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan approved byWDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

4 | P a g e

EPA thro ugh letter received 8/19/13
110(a)(2)(B) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) :

1. Chapter 2, Section 2, Ambient standards for particulate matter

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP d ocument submitted to EPA 8/19/2011 b. EPA approval pending

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 3, Particulates i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 2. Chapter 2, Section 3, Ambient standards for nitrogen oxides

a. Most r ecent regulatory SIP d ocument submitted to EPA 1/3 1/2013 b. EPA final Federal Register 9/15/14; 79 FR 54910

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 10, Nitrogen oxides i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 3. Chapter 2, Section 4, Ambient standards for sulfur oxides

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 2/7/2014 b. EPA approval pending (EPA AirTrax # 211)

c. Preceding WAQSR

, Section 4, Sulfur oxides i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 4. Chapter 2, Section 5, Ambient standards for carbon monoxide

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 12, Carbon monoxide i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 5. Chapter 2, Section 6, Ambient standards for ozone

a. Most r ecent regulatory SIP d ocument submitted to EPA 1/31/2013 b. EPA final Federal Register 9/15/14; 79 FR 54910

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 8, Photochemical oxidants i. Original State r egulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 6. Chapter 2, Section 8, Ambient standards for suspended sulfates

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Precedin g WAQSR, Section 6, Sulfation i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 7. Chapter 2, Section 10, Ambient standards for lead

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 8/19/2011 b. EPA approval pending

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 26, Ambient air quality standard for lead i. Original State regulations submitted 8/29/84 ii. Approved by EPA 10/11/84; 49 FR 39843WDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

5 | P a g e 110(a)(2)(B) Comment:

W yoming’s air monitoring and data systems programs meet the requirements of the CA A section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires s tates to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment NSR requirements.

110(a)(2)(C

) Non

- r egulatory Documents :

1. Legal Authority Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 2. Source Surveillance Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 3. Review of New Sources and Modifications Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 4. 3/3/08 Memorandum from Cynthia Cody, EPA Region 8 : clarificati ons regarding 110 SIP infrastructure submissions for PM 2.5 , specifically addressing the current unavailability of EPA rules or guidance on PM 2.5 implementation through the PSD program

. 110(a)(2)(C) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) :

1. Chapter 6, Section 2, Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 21 , Permit requirements for construction, modification and operation i. Original State regulations submitted 7/22/74, resubmitted 8/7/74 ii. EPA approved via FR date of 6/10/75 2. Chapter 6, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document s submitted to EPA 5/24/12 and 3/8/13 b. EPA final Federal Register 12/6/13; 78 FR 73445

c. E PA final Federal Register 11/22/13; 78 FR 69998 d. Preceding WAQSR, Section 24, Prevention of significant deterioration i. Original State regulations submitted 1/25/79 ii. EPA approved 7/2/79; 44 FR 38473 3. Chapter 6, Section 13, Nonattainment permit requirements

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 5/10/2011 b. EPA approval pendingWDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

6 | P a g e 110(a)(2)(C) Comment:

The State of Wyoming has a SIP

- approved PSD program covering the requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, including GHG, which meet s the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C). Emission limits and control measures that satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) are identified under section 1 10(a)(2)(A)

“ Emission limits and other control measures

, ” included in this document.

Wyoming’s program for enforcement of control measures meet s the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQ S.

Interstate and international transport provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D) (i) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one s tate from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of t he NAAQS in another s tate, or from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality

, or to protect visibility

, in another s tate.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include adequate provisions insuring complian ce with applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement)

.
110(a)(2)(D

) Non

- regulatory Documents :

1. Original Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP [Non

- Regulatory] (per Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA) submitted to EPA on 5/3/07, and consisting of:

a. Memorandum dated 5/3/07 from David A. Finley, AQD Administrator, to John V. Corra, DEQ Director b. Letter dated 5/3/07 from John V. Corra, DEQ Director, to Robbie Roberts, EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator

c. Certification Page For State Implementation Plans For The Air Quality Division Of The Department Of Environmental Quality; SIP adopted by DEQ on 3/15/07; DEQ adoption of SIP a pproved by Governor Dave Freudenthal on 4/15/07 d. Memorandum dated 4/ 9/07 from John V. Corra, DEQ Director, to Governor Freudenthal

e. Letter dated 4/24/07 from Nancy Vehr of the Office of the Attorney General to Dave Finley, AQD Administrator f. Public Notice of Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting of December 11, 2006
g. Dates of pu blication of Public Notice in five Wyoming newspapers h. Sign

- in sheet for attendees of 12/11/06 Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting i. Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting Agenda j. Negative Declaration Demonstration k. Approved by EPA 5/8/2008; 73 FR 26019 2. Revised 309 Regional Haze SIP; SO 2 Backstop Trading Program

a. Submitted to EPA 1/12/11 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 12/12/12; 77 FR 73926
110(a)(2)(D) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) :WDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

7 | P a g e 1. Chapter 6, Section 2, Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965 2. Chapter 6, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document s submitted to EPA 5/24/12 and 3/8/13 b. EPA final Federal Register 12/6/13; 78 FR 73445

c. EPA final Federal Register 11/22/13; 78 FR 69998 d. Preceding WAQSR, Section 24, Prevention of significant deterioration i. Original State regulations submitted 1/ 25/79 ii. EPA approved 7/2/79; 44 FR 38473 3. Chapter 6, Section 13, Nonattainment permit requirements

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 5/10/2011 b. EPA approval pending 4. Chapter 9, Section 2, Visibility

a. Revised WAQSR format EPA approved 7/2 8/2004, 69 FR 44965 b. Preceding WAQSR, Section 28

, Visibility i. Submitted as part of the SIP for Class I Visibility Protection ii. Approved by EPA on 2/15/1989, 54 FR 6912 5. Wyoming Environmental Quality Act , Section 35

- 11

- 207, Notifi cation to the e nvironmental
pr otection agency and contiguous s tates

110(a)(2)(D) Comment :

The WDEQ

- AQD (AQD) identified a nearby area as designated nonattainment for the 1

- hour sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) National Ambient Air Q uality Standard (NAAQS) in the S tate of Montana. The AQD relies on distance between sources and wind rose plots from District 3 in Wyoming to address the transport of SO 2 . Based on this information, the State of Wyoming confirms that SO 2 emissions from Wyoming do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere wit h maintenance of the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS in Montana or another s tate , and therefore meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

. (Attachment A)

No source or sources within the S tate are the subject of an active finding under section 126 of the CAA

, and t her e are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against Wyoming with respect to the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS . T herefore

, Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Adequate personnel, funding and authority: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires s tates to provide for adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under s tate law, and CAA section 128 requirements to carry out its SIP.

110(a)(2)(E) Non

- regulatory Documents:WDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

8 | P a g e 1. Resour ces Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 2. Legal Authority Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 3. Executive Order (EO) 1981

- 12

a. Enacted and signed by Governor Herschler in 1981 b. The EO represents the obligation of the agency to guard against ex parte contacts and biased decision making

c. Officers appointed by the Governor will comply with requirements set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 (Attachment B) 4. Executive Order (EO) 1997

- 4

a. Enacted and signed by Governor Geringer in 1997 b. The EO represents the code of ethics all public officials, elected officials, appointees, and employees of the Executive Branch of the S tate of Wyoming must adhere to (Attachment B) 5. State of Wyoming Personnel Rules

a. Chapter 1: General Provisions; Section 15, Conflicts of Interest (Attachment B)
110(a)(2)(E) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR):

1. Chap ter 1, Section 2, Authority

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965 2. Chapter 6, Section 2(g), Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965 3. Wyoming Environmental Quality Act

a. Section 9

- 13

- 106, Official decisions and votes b. Section 9

- 13

- 109, Penalties

c. Section 16

- 3

- 112(a), Contested cases; presiding officers; qualifications; powers; outside personnel, hearing officers d. Section 35

- 11

- 102, Policy and purpose

e. Section 35

- 11

- 109, Powers and duties of director f. Section 35

- 11

- 901, Violations of provisions; penal ties

110(a)(2)(E) Comment:

The State of Wyoming also receives sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership Agreement (P PA) grants along with required S tate matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out Wyoming’s SIP requirements. The State has the authority , funding and adequate personnel to fulfill the requirements necessary to meet section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Wyoming statute s and Executive Orders provide the mechanisms to satisfy CAA section 128 and meetWDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

9 | P a g e the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

The State does not rely upon any other local or regional government agency or instrumentality for implementation of the SIP

, and therefore meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS

.

Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires States to establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources

, and to submit periodic emissions reports.

110(a)(2)(F) Regulatory Documents , Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR):

1. Chapter 6, Section 2, Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965 2. Chapter 7, Section 2, Continuous monitoring requirements for existing sources

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 23, Continuous monitoring requirements for existing sources i. Original State regulations submitted 1/25/79 ii. EPA approved 7/2/79; 44 FR 38473

110(a)(2)(F) Comment:

Wyoming’s program for stationary source monitoring, recordkeeping and r eporting meets the requirements of the CAA secti on 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS

.

Emergency power: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires s tates to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implemen t the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.

110(a)(2)(G) Non

- regulatory Documents:

1. Emergency Episode Plan Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 2. Emergency Episode Contingency Plan Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 8/26/81 b. Approved by EPA 2/9/82; 47 FR 5892 3. 3/3/08 Memorandum from Cynthia Cody, EPA Region 8 : clarifications regarding 110 SIP infrastructure submissions for PM 2.5 , sp ecifically addressing the current unavailability of EPA rules or guidance on PM 2.5 implementation through emergency episode plans. As a Priority III area (as defined under 40 CFR 51.151), the State of Wyoming is not required to submit an EmergencyWDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

10 | P a g e Episode Plan.
110(a)(2)(G) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR):

1. Chapter 12, Section 2, Air pollution emergency episodes

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 20, Air pollution emergency episodes i. Original State regulations submitted 1/28/72 ii. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842 2. Wyoming Environmental Quality Act

, Section 35

- 11

- 115, Power of the director to issue emer gency orders

110(a)(2)(G) Comment:

Wyoming’s program for addressing pollution emergency episodes meets the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS

.

Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires s tates to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

110(a)(2)(

H ) Non

- regulatory Document :

1. Implement ation Plan Reviews Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 4/30/81 b. Approved by EPA 4/19/83; 48 FR 16682

110(a)(2)(

H ) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR):

1. Wyoming Environmental Quali ty Act , Section 35

- 11

- 109, Powers and duties of director 2. Wyoming Environmental Quality Act , Section 35

- 11

- 202, Establishment of standards

110(a)(2)(H) Comment:

Wyoming has the authority to revise the SIP as required by the CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas: Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires, in the case of a SIP or SIP revision for a nonattainment area, the SIP must meet applicable requirements of part D relating to nonattainment areas.WDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

11 | P a g e 110(a)(2)(I) Comment:

According to EPA’s interpretation of the CAA, S ection 110(a)(2)(I)

, Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas

, will not be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP

, and air agencies do not need to address Element I in an infrastructure SIP submission

. Section 110(a)(2)(I) infrastructure elements will be reviewed and acted upon through a separate process. ( Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)( 2), September 13, 2013, OAQPS )

Consultation with government officials: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires States to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121 relating to consultation.

110(a)(2)(J) Non

- regulatory Doc ument :

1. Consultation Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/25/79 b. Approved by EPA 7/2/79; 44 FR 38473

Public notification: Section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires States to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances pursuant to section 127 relating to public notification.

110(a )(2)(J) Non

- regulatory Document :

1. Public Notification of Air Quality Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/25/79 b. Approved by EPA 7/2/79; 44 FR 38473
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires Sta tes to meet applicable requirements of part C related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.

110(a)(2)(J) Non

- regulatory Documents:

1. Wyoming State Implementation Plan For Class I Visibility Protection Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 9/6/88 b. Approved by EPA 2/15/89; 54 FR 6912

c. Includes WAQSR, Section 28, Visibility 2. 3/3/08 Memorandum From Cynthia Cody, EPA Region 8 : clarifications regarding 110 SIP infrastructure submissions for PM 2.5 , specifically addressing the current unavailability of EPA rules or guidance on PM 2.5 implementation through the PSD program

.

110(a)(2)(J) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR):WDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

12 | P a g e 1. Chapter 6, Section 4, Prevention of s ignificant deterioration

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document s submitted to EPA 5/24/12 and 3/8/13 b. EPA final Federal Register 12/6/13; 78 FR 73445

c. EPA final Federal Register 11/22/13; 78 FR 69998 d. Preceding WAQSR, Section 24, Prevention of significant deterioration i. Original State regulations submitted 1/25/79 ii. EPA approved 7/2/79; 44 FR 38473 2. Chapter 9, Section 2, Visibility

a. Revised WAQSR format EPA approved 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965 b. Preceding WAQSR, Section 28, Visibility i. Submitted as part of the SIP for Class I Visibility Protection ii. Approved by EPA 2/15/89; 54 FR 6912

110(a)(2)(J) Comment:

EPA recognizes that s tates are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirem ents under part C of the CAA. Visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change when a new NAAQS becomes effective

, and therefore no new visibility obligations are “triggered” for the State of Wyoming under section 110(2)(2)(J).

Wyoming’ s process for consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection meet s the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

A ir q uality modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant

, and submission of such data to EPA upon request.

110(a)(2)(K) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR):

1. Chapter 6, Section 2, Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA f inal Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 21, Permit requirements for construction, modification and operation i. Original State regulations submitted 7/22/74, resubmitted 8/7/74 ii. EPA approved via FR date of 6/10/75 2. Chapter 6, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document s submitted to EPA 5/24/12 and 3/8/13 b. EPA final Federal Register 12/6/13; 78 FR 73445

c. EPA final Federal Register 11/22/13; 78 FR 69998 d. Preceding WAQSR, Section 24, Prevention of significant deterioration i. Original State regulations submitted 1/25/79 ii. EPA approved 7/2/79; 44 FR 38473

110(a)(2)(K) Comment:WDEQ

- AQD 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP February 2015

13 | P a g e Wyoming’s PSD program requires that estimates of ambient air concentrations be based on applicable air quality m odels specified in Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, an d that modification or substitution of a model specified in Appendix W must be approved by the Administrator.

Wyoming’s air quality modeling and the submission of data programs meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NA AQS.

Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit.

110(a)(2)(L) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR):

1. Chapter 6, Section 2, Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003 b. EPA Final Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 21, Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation i. State regulations submitted 11/12/93 ii. EPA approved 11/29/94; 59 FR 60905 2. Wyoming Environmental Quality Act , Section 35

- 11

- 211(a), Fees

110(a)(2)(L) Comment:

The Wyoming infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires s tates to provide for consultation and participatio n in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

110(a)(2)(M) Non

- regulatory Documents :

1. Intergovernmental Cooperation Document

a. Original State non

- regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA on 1/28/72 b. Approved by EPA 5/31/72; 37 FR 10842

110(a)(2)(M) Comment:

The Wyoming infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS.

### Attachment A

The State of Wyoming 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Support DocumentA

- 1 Attachment A

Interstate and Internatio nal Transport Provisions for the 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

On August 5, 2013

, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) designated portions of Yell owstone County, Montana as “nonattainment” for the 2010 1

- hour sulfur dioxid e (SO 2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Since Wyo ming and Montana are bordering S tates (Figure 1) , each could be considered an area of potential transport of pollution to the other. The m ajority of the Montana sulfur dioxide sources are located in the southern section of Yellowstone County (Draft TSD Montana Area Designations for the 2010 Primary NAAQS). The bulk of sulfur dioxide emitting sources located in Wyoming are located in the northeast corner, predominately Campbell County ( Tabl e 1 ), and are well over 50 kilometers ( km ) away from t he nearest edge of the Yellowstone County nonattainment area (Yellowstone County NAA) boundary ( Figure 2 ). Ac cording to the EPA’s “Guidance for 1

- Hour SO 2 NAAQS SIP Submissions, Appendix A, Modeling Gu idance for Nonattainment Areas and Section 110(a)(1) Plans

, ” sources that are over 50 km away from the violating monitor are not likely to be a dominate contributor to the nonattainment area of concern. For convenience, all figures are located at the end of Attachment A.

Table 1

.

FACILITY COMPANY COUNTY LONGITUDE LATITUDE Neil Simpson One Black Hills Corporation Campbell County

- 105.38739 44.28645 Neil Simpson Two Black Hills Corporation Campbell County

- 105.3813962 44.28488609 Wyodak Plant PacifiCorp Campbell County

- 105.4 44.2833
WYGEN Station I Black Hills Corporation Campbell County

- 105.3916395 44.28489405

WYGEN II Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power

Company Campbell County

- 105.381 44.29115
WYGEN III Black Hills Corporation Campbell County

- 105.37945 44.29116

Dry Fork Station Basin Electric Power

Cooperative Campbell County

- 105.45914 44.39012 Colony East Plant American Colloid Company Crook County

- 104.14928 44.86558 Colony West Plant American Colloid Company Crook County

- 104.1607 44.86994 Colony Plant BPM Minerals, LLC Crook County

- 104.1416 44.8603
Hulett Mill Neiman Sawmill Crook County

- 104.6055379 44.6875244 Newcastle Refinery Wyoming Refining Company Weston County

- 104.2142175 43.84747612

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

- Air Quality Division’s (WDEQ

- AQD) District 3 consists of Sheridan, Johnson, Campbell, Crook and Weston counties (Figure 3 )

, and is an area dominated frequently by north

- northwesterly winds. A compo site wind rose from the city of Sher idan, Wyoming for the y ears 2004 through 2008 (Figure 4 )

, and an annual Campbell County wind rose from 2008 (Figure 5 ), show that the transport of air pollutants is most often away from the Yellowstone County NAA. North

- northwesterly winds are not conduci ve of SO 2A

- 2

transport into the Yellowstone County NAA which is located “upwind” of Campbell County, Wyoming. More recent annual wind rose information from Black Hil ls Power located in Gillette, Wyoming, and Wyoming R efining located in Newcastle, Wyoming, sh ow some varia bility in predominate wind flow. W hile this can be attributed to monitor placement and terrain variations throughout District 3, the composite wind roses provide further evidence that SO 2 emissions from facilities or sources in northeastern W yoming are not being transported into the Yellowstone County NAA.

According to the 2012 Black Hills Power Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Report an nual wind rose (Figure 6 ), the average annual wind flow direction is dominated by a westerly component. Westerly winds varying between northwest and southwest are not conducive of SO 2 transport into the Yellowstone County NAA which is located “upwind” and northwest of Campbell County, Wyoming.

The 2012 wind rose generated for the Wyoming Refinery SO 2 Monitoring Re port (Figure 7 ) shows a high frequency of winds prevailing out of the north. The highest frequency of prevailing wind flow is out of the northeast and northwest . Neither northerly wind direction is conducive of SO 2 transport between Wyoming and the Yello wstone County NAA.

There are no other 1

- hour sulfur dioxide nonat tainment areas adjacent to the S tate of Wyo ming, including other downwind S tates such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas or Colorado. D istance from, and the use of wind roses to demonstrate prevailing wind flow through the area

, confirm that Wyoming does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS in another S tate . T herefore

, Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP meets the require ment of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).A

- 3 Figure 1.A

- 4

Figure 2.A

- 5

Figure 3.A

- 6

Figure 4.A

- 7

Figure 5.A

- 8

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

### Attachment B

The State of Wyoming 2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Element 110(a)(2)(E) Support Document',
.. -, ,\•, 

## .

. '( '.**.~** 

## .

STATE OF WYOMING

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1981

- 12

WHEREAS, it· is essential that those who come in contact with agencies have confidence that they will be dealt
w(th fairly and that they have the right to participate meaningfully 'in agency**proc~edings,** wh_ether the proceeding is a

formal contested case-.or an informal, legislative-type
proceeding; and
WHEREAS, ex parte contacts raise questions of fairness,_ accUracy in agency fact finding, ·unequai access to

agency decision makers and**i~proper** influence; and
WHEREAS, the public's right to participate meaningfully in agencY procedures is o£fe1tively nullified when the

agency decision is ba-sed not .on sutlmissions and information i known and available to all, but**ra~her** on the private co.nver- ; sat ions and argurrients to which the· :public and the participating
parties have no access; and i ' ' WHEREAS, as with ex parte

## ~ontacts, biased decision making suggests that agency. discre,ion has been unduly

·influenced by factors outside the**~ecord;**

. I, NOW THEREFORE, by virtue**o~** the authority vested in me

as Governor of Wyoming, I hereby o,der that:

It is the obligation of the: agency, consiStent with

. . !

- . its duty to afford fair procedures land its responsibility· to

i provide a record for judicial revie'w, _to guard against ex
parte contacts· and bi_ased deciSion**~aki.ng.** Thus all officers,

commissioners or other agency membel:s who hold their positions

. -**~** by virtue of ap'pointment thereto by; the Governor, or by the

Go_vernor by and with the advice and• consent of the Senate, who

are or may reasonably be expected t9 be involved in th·e agency's decisional**~recess** shall cbmply with the requirements

Page 1 of 4 ', 

### ....

. ..

of the following Sections 1, Z, and 3. Failure to comply

shall constitute cause to justify and warrant removal as proiided for by W.S. 9-2-101.

Section 1. Contested Case Proceedings.
During the pendency of any contested case proceeding,

no agency official subject to this order shall solicit or

receive any off-the-record communication relating to any

material issue of the .case·. Nevertheless, where such communications do inadvertently or accidentally occur, the agency

official shall:

a. Inunediately draft a written document or summary setting forth the contents and cii-cumstance.s of the communication;

b. Mail the document to all parties to the proceeding

and all other agency officials involved in the decisional

process; and

c. Indicate that the matter covered in the communication will be considered at the next scheduled agency hearing
relating to the case, or ·as otherwise scheduled by the agency
with notice to all parties.

Section 2. Rule Making or Other Legislative-type Proceedings.

a. Once notice of the proceeding has been issued, any

agency official subject to this order who is contacted off the

record by a person outside the agency regarding a material

issue relevant to the merits of the proceSding before the

close of the public comment period shall:

(1) Immediately draft a written document or summary setting forth the contents and circumstances of the commu'nication;

and

(2) Forward the document for inclusion in the administrative record so·that interested persons may comment thereon.

b. Any agency official subject to this order who is

contacted by a person outside the agency desiring to discuss a

material issue relevant to the merits of the proceeding after

the close of the public comment period shall:

Page 2 of 4. .,·. (;\ '.:..:_)

(1) Refuse to discuss the matter; or
(2) · Immediately draft a written document or summary

set**tin~** forth the contents and· circumstances of the
communication; and

(3) Porward he document for inclusion in the

administrative record arid

(4) If neces ary or desirable to assure an-.effective
opportunity for publi par,ticipati<in, provide ·an opportunity

for the public to rev' ew the record of the**discussi~n** and to

comment b6fore any fi al decision is made

..
Section 3. Dis ·ualificatian· for Bias.
Any agency diately disqualify**off~cial** subject to this order shall inunehimbelf from those agency discussions and

decisions where .he can ot pa-rti"cipate f:B-ir.ly in the proceeding

because of substantial bias or preJudgment**w~th** respect to ariy_

material fact or isSue that must .be resolved.

Section 4. No ice of this Order.

a, All agenci s with members or officials who are subject to this· order hall distribute copies of this order to

all persons who ha.ve m de timely requests of the agency for

advanced notice of its rule making proceedin.gs '·.
b, As a condi ion precedent

.. to removal for 11 ca.use

deemed sufficient by t e Governor" this order has been filed

in the office of the Se rotary of State, subject to inspection
by any interested perso See, W.S. 9-Z-101.

Se'ction 5. Con truction.

This order shal be liberally construed and imple-.

mented so as to promote fairness a?d openness, and eliminate

the appearance of impropriety in admin.istrative pi-oceedillgs;

Provided however, that this order shall not be construed to
prohibit:

a. DisCussions between the agency and the AttOrney

General or its aSsighed Assistant Attorney General;

Page 3 of 4b. Discussions between th·e agency and the Governor

or his designee for gen-eral supervision, direction and**.con~rol**

over the executive branch of state government;

c._ Discuss ions relating to rule making or other legislative-type proceedings between, an agency and any state legislator which are immaterial or substantially duplicative

of communications included in the record;
d, Information provided at the request of an agency

in a non-hearing case, where the agency has decided that

emergency conditio'ns exist and that this order would otherwise

prevent the obt_aining of needed information in a timely

manner; and

e. Discussions or consultations expressly authorized by**~.S.** 9·4-lll and 9-11·105. This express authorization

shall apply with equal force to rule making or other
legislative-type proceedings.

Given under my hand and the Executive Seal of the

State of Wyoming this 15th day of December, 1981, at Cheyenne. 

# JJ.L

.L-< 

## _e 

# uu J**~vernor**

Page 4 of 4

··---·**--------~-·-·----~-------------------__J**JIM GERINGER GOVERNOR STATE OF WYOMING OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

## STATE OF WYOMING

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

EXECUTIVE ORDER

1997-4 . STATE CAPI'TOL CHEYENNE, WY 82002



### Pursuant to the authority vested in the Office of the Governor of the State of Wyoming, I, Jim Geringer, Governor of the State of Wyoming, hert'lby issue this Executive Order adopting the following Executive Branch Code of Ethics in the interest of better serving the citizens of the State of Wyoming through the provision of ethical standards applicable to all public officials, elected officials, appointees, and employees of the Executive Branch of the State of 

### Wyoming. This Code of Ethics does not apply to employees of the University of Wyoming
or community colleges.



## STATE OF WYOMING

EXECUTIVE BRANCH CODE OF ETHICS

1. Purpose. 

### Those who serve the people of the State of Wyoming should do
so with integrity. Neither impropriety nor the appearance of impropriety should

occur. This Code of Ethics is intended to serve as a yardstick by which the conduct of all who serve in the Executive Branch of the State of Wyoming can be measured.

E-MAIL: govemoJ'@missc.state.wy.us WEB PAGE: www.state.wy. us State of Wyoming- Executive Branch Code ofEtbics -page!·

11lLEPHONE: (307) m-7434 TDD: (307) m-7860 FAX: (307) 632-3909. 

# ... 2. Scope. This Code of Ethics is applicable to all employment-related activities of public officials, elected officials, appointees and employees of the Executive Branch of the State of Wyoming. The term "public employees" shall be used in this Code of Ethics to include all public officials, appointees (whether or not they receive compensation) and employees of the Executive Branch. This Code of Ethics extends, but does not supersede, those duties and standards of conduct which are delineated in cOnstitution, statute, or rule. In the event of any conflict between this Code of Ethics and any applicable constitution, statute, or rule, the constitution, statute, or rule shall prevail.

3. Statement on Gender Pronouns. Throughout this Code of Ethics, gender pronouns are used interchangeably. In cases where there is one individual holding a particular office, the gender pronoun applicable to the person holding that office as of the date of this writing has been used. In all other instances, the drafters have attempted to utilize each gender pronoun in equal numbers, with random distribution.

4. Administration of this· Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics shall be administered 

## by each agency of the State of Wyoming in accordance with the following:



### A. No agency shall delete any part of this Code of Ethics.

B. An agency head who receives an allegation of a violation of this Code of Ethics shall promptly investigate to determine whether the allegation is true. Allegations which are found to be 

### de minimis in nature shall be handled accordingly. If the allegation is true, the agency head shall take appropriate action. For permanent employees, such actions shall be in accordance with the State of Wyoming Personnel Rules.



## c. Allegations concerning violations of this Code of Ethics by an agency head or appointee shall be**inv~tigated** 

### by the Governor or his designee. Allegations which are found to be 

### de minimis in nature shall be handled accordingly. If the allegation is true, the Governor or his designee shall take appropriate action.

State of Wyoming- Exooutive Brlltloh Code ofEthios -page2-**~** . 

### 5. General Responsibilities.· 

### All pUblic employees shall:



## A. Uphold the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Wyoming.

B. 

### Abide by the laws of the United States and of the State of Wyoming.

C. Carry out the policies and objectives of the State of Wyoming as established 

## by statute, executive order, or rule, while adhering to establishe_dJ\tandards for work and peiiormance.

D. Work in cooperation with other public employees, and act within the scope of the authority delegated to them.

E. Protect and conserve all property owned, held by, or leased to the State of Wyoming, including public records. [See Wyo. Stat. §§ 

### 16-4-201 through 205.]

F. Be honest and fair. in performing public service.

G. Strive to be honorable, courteous, and dedicated to advancing the public good.

H. Avoid conduct that compromises the integrity of the public office or creates the appearance of impropriety.

6. Prohibited Activities. 

### Except as provided in Section 7, no public employee shall engage in:



### A Any activity which constitutes a conflict of interest with her employment. Such prohibited conduct includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

i. 

### Using public office or public employment for personal gain.

S!Bto ofWyoming- Exeontive Branch Code ofE1hios

- page3-**:::'");~** ' >i•



### ii. Taking official action in a matter in which the public employee has a close personal or financial relationship to a party.

iii. 

### Engaging In activities Which 

### conflict with the public employee's official position of employment.

iv. Except as allowed by state law or State of Wyoming Personnel Rules, giving preferential treatment to any person.

v. Except when functioning as a:n advocate for a client

or an agency, making decisions which are not independent and impartial.

B. Conduct which constitutes an abuse of authority. [See Section 7G (Allowed Activities) of this Code of Ethics, for a discussion of activities such as fund raising for recognized organizations which take place on the public employee's own time, which generally do not constitute an abuse 

### of authority.] Conduct which constitutes an abuse of authority includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

i. 

### Using or allowing the use by any private party of official information obtained through or in connection with the public employee's employment by the State of Wyoming, unless such information is available to the general public or unless dissemination is permitted by law.

ii. Awarding, participating in a decision to award or participating in the administration of a State of Wyoming contract, if the employee or any person with whom the employee has a close personal or financial relationship [this includes all members of the public employee's immediate family] is a party to the contract.

Stoto of Wyoming ·Executive Branch Codo of Ethics "P8l!O 4"

# _._, 

# ___________ _**-~·----·~---·------- ,..-·.~~** **-~,** ·:.:;



### iii. 

### Except as provided for in Sections ?A and 7B (Allowed Activities) of this Code of Ethics, acceptance
or solicitation by a supervisor of contributions or gifts from subordinate employees. A supervisor may neither solicit nor accept gifts directly or indirectly, for herself or for another person.

iv. Accepting meal expense, lodging or reimbursement for travel or expenses incident to travel
on official business from any source other than the State of Wyoming without approval of the agency head. Under no circumstances should a state employee accept items of this nature or gifts if the

. employee or his agency is involved in an adversarial

proceeding with the outside contributing source.

C. Outside employment or any other outside activity which is incompatible with the full and proper discharge of tne public employee's duties arid responsibilities to the State of Wyoming. [For this reason, all honoraria, fees for speaking engagements, and other such compensation received because of the public employee's position with the State of Wyoming must be deposited in the General Fund.] Activities incompatible with the public employee's duties include, but are not necessarily limited to:

i. 

### Accepting any fee, compensation, gift, payment of expense or any other thing of monetary value in circumstances which create the appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety, whether or not such conflict of interest or impropriety actually exists.

iL Receiving a salary or any other thing of monetary value from a private source as compensation for the public employee's services to the State of Wyoming. [This section does not apply to appointees to boards and commissions who do not receive a salary from the State.]

State of Wyoming ·Executive Brnnoh Code ofEtlJios -pago5-·;



### D. The use of or allowing the use of property owned or held by the State of Wyoming [including leased property] for any purpose other than carrying on the official business of the State of Wyoming. Prohibited activities include:

L Selling or soliciting for personal gain any product or service such as cosmetics, food items, or household goods and services, during official office hours in or on property owned or held by the State of Wyoming. The agency head may make written exceptions to this prohibition, for solicitation on behalf of non-profit organizations.

ii. Transacting personal business during work hours to the extent that it interferes or detracts from the employee's performance of his duties.

iii. Unless required for official business and previously approved by the public employee's supervisor, the use of any facility or building owned or leased by the State of Wyoming as the principal residence or address of any business other than the agency by whom the public employee Is employed.

7. Allowed Activities. A public employee may, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6 above:



### A. Solicit or accept voluntary gifts of nominal value or nominal donations. Examples of permissible gifts include voluntary gifts made upon the occasion of marriage, illness, or retirement, or made for charitable or civic purposes.

B. Solicit or accept any thing of monetary value from a friend, parent, spouse, child or other close relative when it is clear from

Stare ofWyoming

- Exeontivo Ilnmch Code ofEthios -page6-**--··~w--~~--""''""''""'·-'"'"'='"--"-'"='•··~n~·w~o~-· --·~~·=··** **=··~-==-~-** 

### .....**~""''', ~·** **~--** 

### ...



### the circumstances that the motivation for the action is a personaL
or familial relationship. · ·

C. Accept loans from banks or other financial institutions on customary terms of finanCe for the proper and usual activities of the public employee, such as home mortgage loans.

D. Accept unsolicited advertising or promotional material of nominal value, such as pens, pencils, note pads, and calendars.



### E. Engage in a reasonable amount of communication with family members, day care providers, medical professionals, and similarly situated individuals· during the work day. [It is incumbent upon each public employee to learn from her supervisor what is considered reasonable in a particular situation.J

F. Engage in teaching, lecturing, or writing for compensation, when those activities are not related to the public employee's employment by the State of Wyoming. [Each public employee should seek approval from her supervisor prior to engaging in such teaching, lecturing, or writing for compensation.]

G. In his private capacity, solicit persons or organizations to obtain goods, services, grants, or loans on behalf of a recognized charitable or fraternal organization.

8. Requests for Approval of Activities. In all cases enumerated above where a public employee is advised to consult with his supervisor prior to engaging in an activity, and in every instance where the public employee is not certain whether a particular activity is allowed by the Code of Ethics, he should consult with his supervisor prior to engaging in the questioned activity. If the public employee requests a written response from the supervisor, the supervisor should respond in writing. This Code of Ethics provides that:



### A. No public employee shall be penalized for inquiring of her supervisor regarding prior approval of an activity in which she wishes to engage.

Stnte of Wyoming· Executive Branoh Code ofEthics ·page?·•''.'"\**~-.··** 

### :.J



## .... B; ·If a public employee inquires regarding an activity in which he wishes to engage and his supervisor informs him that engaging in such activity would violate· this Code of Ethics, and the. public employee then engages in such activity, his supervisor may take appropriate disciplinary action. For permanent employees, such actions shall be in accordance with the State of Wyoming Personnel Rules.

9. Elected Officials. 

### Elected officials occupy their positions as a result of political election. As such, they may participate in political activities. Elected officials must disclose items or services received from outside sources 1 

### which have a value of $250 or more. 2 

### The disclosureshall be made by filing a list of the items or services received during each calendar year with the Secretary of State. The filing shall be made by February 15 of the following year. The list shall be divided into items which will be retained by the elected official as a private gift and items which will be left as property of the State of Wyoming when the elected official leaves office. This Order shall be effective on December 15, 1997, and shall remain In effect until amended.

Gi;'9n under my hand and the Executive Seal of the State of Wyoming this 

## :3 day of December, 1997.

m Geringer Governor of the State

1 

### Items do not include inherited items. Outside soutcoo do not include family members.

'Donations to a political campaign reported pursuant to WYO. STAT.§ 22-25-106 

### are exempt from this reporting requirement.

Staro of Wyoming -ExecutiveBrlUlch Code afEfuios -pageS·functions are carried out fairly, equitably and in the best interest of the State.

Section 14. Politics.

(a) Employees shall not use official authority or influence to interfere with

or influence the result of an election or nomination for office; directly or indirectly

coerce a State officer or employee to pay, lend or contribute anything of value to

a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes; conduct any political activity on State time; or be a candidate for partisan elective office if employed in a program covered by the Federal Hatch Act.

(b) Discrimination against any person in recruitment, examination, appointment, retention, discipline or any other aspect of personnel administration because of political opinion or affiliation is prohibited. No questions shall be asked on any application, examination or interview which would directly or indirectly require the disclosure of a person's political affiliation, preferences or opinions. Applicants and employees are prohibited from using political influence

as an advantage in securing or making appointments or for other personal benefit for themselves or others in personnel matters.

Section 15. Conflicts of Interest.

Employees shall not enter into any financial or other relationship with a State agency, private business, or other organization which would constitute a conflict of interest with their State employment. Employees shall not permit themselves to be placed under any personal or other obligation which could lead any person, group, or organization to expect official favors.

Section 16. Personal Conduct.

Employees shall be courteous, considerate, and impartial in dealing with and serving the public. Employees shall conduct themselves in a manner that will not bring discredit or embarrassment to the State.

Section 17. Dual Employment.

(a) There shall be no conflicting hours of work when a person is employed by two (2) or more State agencies or in two (2) or more positions in the same State agency. In the case of the former, both agency heads shall first agree to the terms of the dual employment. Dual employment within State service shall have prior approval of the Human Resources Division.

(b) An agency head may allow an employee to work for another employer

so long as the employee performs satisfactorily and there is no conflict of hours. No employee shall engage in outside employment or other activity which is not

1-6

State of Wyoming Personnel Rules- Effective 11-2-09 Chapter 1The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division (WDEQ

- AQD) 110 Infrastructure State Implementation Plans Public Hearing

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (AQD or Division) will hold an Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) hearing on January 15, 2014 at 9:00 AM, at the WDEQ

- AQD Herschler Building, Wind River Conference R oom, 2 nd Floor, 122 W. 25 th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The Division will take comment on three separate in frastructure SIPs , and they will be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 110: 1) the 2008 8

- hour ozone (O 3 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard s (NAAQS) ; 2) the 2010 1

- hour nitrogen di oxide (NO 2 ) NAAQS ; and 3) the 2010 1

- hour sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS . The purpose of the hearing is to gather comment. The Division will not be presenting information. Comments should be clearly marked as “ I

- SIP (NO 2 , O 3 , or SO 2 ) C omments

. ” All oral comments made during the hearing and signed comments hand

- delivered to Steven Dietrich at the hearing will become a part of the public record. Written comments will also become a part of the public record if they are signed by the commenter and submitted to Steven A. Dietrich, Administrator, DEQ/AQD, Herschler Building, 2

- E, 122 W. 25 th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82002, or faxed to 307

- 777

- 5616, by the close of the hearing on January 15, 2014 . Emailed comments will not be included in the public record. Copies of the public notice and the proposed infrastructure SIPs for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide are available for public inspection at the Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Herschler Building, 2 nd Floor, 1 22 W. 25 th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Electroni c copies will be available on or about Decem ber 16 , 2013 at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/index.asp . If you have questions regarding the infrastructure SIPs, or request a hard copy of any of the materials, please contact Jeni Cederle at 307

- 777

- 7740.

For additional information contact Steven A. Dietrich, Administrator, Air Quality Division at 307

- 777

- 7391.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance or alternative formats will be made available upon request for individuals with disabilities.

## 110 Infrastructure State Implementation Plans Public Hearing January 15, 2014

-- Public Notice

Newspaper Date of Publication

Casper Star T ribune December 16, 2013The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division

(WDEQ-AQD) State Implementation Plan for Sulfur Dioxide (S02) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Public Hearing

The Wyoming Department of Enwon mental Quality/Air Quality DIVISIOn (AQD or Division) will hold a State lmplementabon Plan (SIP) hearing on January 15 2014 at 9:00AM, at the WDEQ: AQD Herschler Building, Wind R1ver Conference Room 2nd Floor, 122 W. 25th Street, Chey
enne. Wyommg. The SIP is being rev1sed to Incorporate all of the ex1st1ng federal S02 ambient standards. The purpose of the heanng 1s to gather comment on the SIP rev1sion. The Division will not be presenting information. Comments should be clearly marked as "SIP Rev1sion for S02 NAAQS." All oral comments made during the heanng and Signed comments hand-delivered to Steven D1etnch at the hearing Will become a part of the public record. Written comments will also become a part of the public record 1f they are s 1 gned by the commenter and submitted to Steven A. Dietrich, Admmistrator, DEQ/AQD, Herschler Building 2-E, 122 W

. 25th Street

, Chey: enne, Wyommg, 82002, or faxed to 307-777-5616, by the close of the heanng on January 15, 2014. Ema1led comments w 1 11 not be in · eluded 1n the public record

. Cop 1es of the public notice and the proposed S02 NAAQS SIP revi s1on are available for public in · spect1on at the Department of En · v1ronmental Quality, Air Quality DIVISIOn, Herschler Building, 2nd Floor, 122 W. 25th Street, Chey

- enne, Wyom1ng Electronic cop 1es Will be available on or about December 16 2013 at b!!p·//deq**state.wy~qdlindex** asp- If you have**que~t1ons r~>gardmg**  th e proposed S02 NAAQS SIP, or re quest a hard copy of any of the matenals

, please contact Jeni Cederle at 307-777

- 7740. For additional information contact Steven A. Dietrich, Administrator A1r Quality Div1sion at 307

- 777, 7391. In accordance with the Americans Wtth Dtsabtltttes Act, special as

ststance or alternative formats will be made available upon request for mdtvtduals wtth dtsabilities Published : December 16, 2013 Lega1No:975212 

# . . 

# St3fiTribune

-----ltJoming 1 

### s News Source

P.O. Box 80 • Casper, WY 82602·0080 • (307) 266·0500

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF WYOMING ) COUNTY OF NATRONA)

I, the undersigned, being a person in the employ of
the 

### Casper Star- Tribune, a newspaper published in CASPER, NATRONA COUNTY, WYOMING, and knowing the facts herein set forth do so solemnly swear that a copy of the notice as per clipping attached was printed and published**~**
daily**~**
in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper, and
not in any supplement thereof, for

consecutive 

# G
weeks

commencing with issue dated

ending with issue dated

# ~~ ""

signed ·

Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me thisThe Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Air Quality Division

(WDEQ-AQD) Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 5-Year Progress Report Public Hearing

The Wyoming Departr11ent of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (AQD or Division) w1ll hold a Regiona l Haze State Implementation P l an (SIP) 5-Year Progress Report hearing on January 15 2014 at 9:00AM, at the WDEQ-AQD Herschler Building, Wind River Conference Room, 2nd Floor, 122 W. 25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The Division will take comment on the Progress Report as required un- der 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), a penodic report in the form of a SIP revision that assesses reason- able progress as provided by the State

.. s Regional Haze (RH) SIP This Progress Report must be sub mitt ed to the EnVIronmental Protect1on Agency (EPA) for approval as a rev1s1on to the Regional Haze SIP pursuant to section 169 of the Clean Air Act. The purpose of the hearing .1s to gather comment The Div1s1on will not

be presenting informatiOn. Comments should be clearly marked
as "RH SIP 5-Year Progress Report Comment " All oral com- ments made dunng the heanng and signed comments handdelivered to Steven Dietnch at the heanng will become a part of the public record Written comments will also become a part of the pub · he recmd if they arc s•gned by the commenter and submitted to Steven A. Dietrich, Adm1mstrator

, DEQ/AQD, Herschler Bu1ld1ng, 2 _E 122 w. 25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming

, 82002

, or faxed to 307-777-5616, by the close of the hearing on January 15, 2014. Emailed comments w1ll not be Included 10 the public record Cop1es of the public notice and the proposed Regional Haze SIP 5

- Year Progress Report are avail

- able for public 1nspect1on at the Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality DIVISIOn

, Her

- sch l er Building, 2nd Floor, 122_ W 25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Electronic copies will be available
on or about December 16, 2013 at**h!lP~ state.~.us/aqdf1ndex**  g§p. 11 you have questiOns regarding the Regional Haze SIP 5-Year Progress Report, or re

- quest a hard copy of any of the matenals, please contact Jem Cederle at 307-777-7740

. For additional mformatiOn contact Steven A. Dietnch, Adm1mstrator, Air Quality Division at 307-777 ·**n~** . In accordance with the Amencans with Disabilities Act

, spectal as

- sistance or alternative formats wt/1 be made available L!pon request for individuals wtth dtsabtltttes. Published: December 16,2013 Legal**No: ::._** **97 :..:** **..:. ..:.** **--~~-** 

# . . 

# St3fiTribune

----- fi)'oming 1 

### s News Sourc e

P.O. Box 80 • Casper, WY 82602-0080 • (307) 266-0500

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF WYOMING ) COUNTY OF NATRONA)

I, the undersigned, being a person in the employ of
the 

### Casper Star- Tribune, a newspaper published i n CASPER, NATRONA COUNTY, WYOMING

, and knowing the facts herein set forth do so so lemnly swear that a copy of the notice as per clipping attached was printed and published

daily 

# 8

in the regular a nd entire issue of said newspaper , and not in any supplement thereof

, for

consecut iv e 

# G

weeks

commencing with issue dated

ending with issue dated

Signed

S ub sc rib ed in my presence and swo rn to before m e thisT h e Wyoming De p artment of Environmenta l Quality

Air Quality Division

(WDEQ-AQD) 1 1 0 Infr as tru ct u re Sta t e I mplementation P l ans P ub lic H ea r ing

The Wyoming**Departm~nt** of En

vironmental QualltyfAir Quality Division (AQD or Division) will hold an Infrastructure State Im

plementation Plan (SIP) hearing
on January 15

, 20 1 4 at 9:00 AM

, at the WDEQ-AQD Herschler Bui l d1ng, Wind River Conference Room, 2nd Floor

, 122 W. 25th Street

, Cheyenne

, Wyom1ng. The Div1sion w11i take comment on three separate in f rastructure SIPs

, and they will be submitted to the Environmental Pro t ect i on Agency (EPA) as requ i red under the Clean A1r Act (CAA). Section 110: 1) the 2008 8-hour ozone (03) Nat i onal Ambient Air Qua l ity Standards (NAAQS); 2) the 2010 1-hour n 1 t r ogen dioxide (N02) NAAQS; and 3) the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (S02) NAAQS

. The purpose o f t h e hearing is to gather comment The Division w1ll not be presen t ing information. Comm ents should be clearly marked
as "I-SIP (N02, 03

, or S02) Comments." A ll oral comments made during the hearing and s1gned comments hand-delivered to Steven Die t nch at the hearing Will become a part of the public record. Wntten comments Will also become a part of ·the public record if they are signed by the commenter and submitted to Steven A. D i etrich

, Admimstrator

, DEQIAQD, Herschler Building

, 2-E

, 1 22 W

. 25 t h Street

, Chey

- enne, Wyommg, 82002

, or faxed to 307-777

- 5616

, by the clos e of the hearing on January 15, 2014. Emailed comments will not be included in t he public record. Copies of th e pub l ic not1ce and the proposed i nfrastructure S I Ps for ozone, nitrogen diox i de and sulfur d i ox1de are available for public inspection at the Department of En · vironmental Quality, A1 r Quali t y DIVISIOn, Herschler Bu1lding, 2nd F l oo r , 122 W. 25th Street

, Chey-
enne , Wyoming. Electromc cop ies Will be availab l e on or about December 16, 20 1 3 at b!1p:ffdeq**~y....!,&@qdfl dex.asp.**  If you h ave questions regarding th e Infrastructure S I Ps, or reques t a ha r d copy of any of t h e mate r ials

, pl ease co n tac t Jen i Cederle at 3 0 7-777-7740. For addit1onal1 n forma t ion contact Steven A. D ietrich, Adminis t rator, Air Quality D1v i sion at 307-777- 7391

. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special as

sis t ance or alternative formats will be made available upon request for mdividuals with disabilities. Published: December 16

, 20 1 3 L ega1No : 975193 

# . .

# ta**~Tribun e** 

----- ""Yomihg 1 

### s N e w s S o ur ce

P

. O

. Bo x 80 • Casper, WY 82602

- 0080 • (307) 266-0 5 00

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF WYOMING ) COUNTY OF NATRONA)

I

, th e und ers igned

, being a p e rson i n th e emp l o y o f

t h e 

### Casper S tar

- Tribune

, a n ews p a p e r publ is h ed i n C A S PE R, NATRONA C OUNT Y, W Y OMING

, a n d know in g t he fac ts here i n s et forth do s o so lemnl y s w ea r t hat a copy of the notice a s p e r clipping attach ed w a s pr i n t e d and pub lished

da ily

in t h e reg ul ar a nd ent i r e is s u e of s a id n e w s pap e r , a n d

no t i n a n y s u ppl ement thereof

, fo r 

# _j_

consec ut ive w eeks

ending wit h i ss ue dated

S ub sc r ibe d in m y pr ese n ce a nd swo rn to bef o r e m e th isV IA U.S. M AIL

January 14
, 2014

Steven A. Dietrich Administrator Air Quality Division The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Herschler Building, 2

- E 122 W. 25th Street Cheyenne, WY 82002

Re: Comments Concerni ng Wyoming’s Section 110(a) Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal for 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

Dear Mr. Dietrich:

On behalf of the Sierra Club, its over 800 members in Wyoming, and others who are adversely impacted by Wyoming’s sourc es of sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”) pollution (“the Commenters”), we submit the following comments on Wyoming’s proposed Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) addressing the requirements for the 2010 one

- hour sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”), required by sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”). 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) & (2). We submit these comments and exhibits as notice that the submission fails to comply with the requirements of CAA sections 11 0(a)(1) and (2). 1

The primary NAAQS define the levels of air quality that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Administrator determines to be necessary to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. See 42 U.S.C. § 7409( b)(1). In 2010, EPA determined that a primary SO 2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (“ppb”) is necessary to protect public health from the serious threats posed by short

- term exposure to SO 2 , including decreased lung function,

1 All exhibits, supporting modeling files, and a copy of these comments can be found at https:// app.box.com/s/xmb0x9qnsk2hhzn4ylwv.2 increased respiratory symptoms such as c hest tightness, wheezing, and shortness of breath, and other serious indicators of respiratory illness, especially in asthmatics, children, and the elderly. See generally Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Final Rule, 75 Fed . Reg. 35,520, 35,526

- 27 (June 20, 2010) [hereinafter “Final SO 2 NAAQS Rule”]. The health data relied upon by EPA in promulgating the new standard overwhelmingly indicates that increased asthma attacks and hospital visits are attributable to short

- term co ncentrations of sulfur compounds in the air. Id . Due to these and other serious impairments caused by short

- term SO 2 exposure, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) must properly implement the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS to protect public healt h.

I. LEGAL BACKGROUND

The Clean Air Act creates a framework for the “development of cooperative Federal, State, regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollution.” 42 U.S.C. § 7401(a)(4). Pursuant to section 109(b)(1) of the Act, EPA has established primary NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants, “the attainment and maintenance of which . . . are requisite to protect the public health.” Id. § 7409(b)(1). States have “primary responsibility” for assuring air quality within the
state. Id

. § 7407(a). Following promulgation of a NAAQS, the Act requires that a state shall “adopt and submit to the Administrator . . . a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such primary [NAAQS].” Id. § 7410(a)(1). For attain ment and unclassifiable areas, section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that these plans (which EPA refers to as Infrastructure SIPs or “I

- SIPs”) “include enforceable emission limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary o r appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act, including the requirement to maintain the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2)(A), 7410(a)(1); Conn. Fund for Env’t, Inc. v. EPA , 696 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir. 1982) (CAA requires that SIPs c ontain “measures necessary to ensure the attainment and maintenance of NAAQS”); Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA , 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) ( “ The Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans

— SIPs

— that ‘assure’ attainment and maint enance of national ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”) through enforceable emission limitations.”) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(a), 7410(a)(2)(A)); Hall v. EPA , 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Each State must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the mann er in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region in the State”) (internal citations omitted); see also EPA, “Sulfur Dioxide Implementation

— Programs and Requirements for Reducing Sulfur Dioxide,” available
at

http:/ /www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html.

EPA may approve an Infrastructure SIP only if it finds that the SIP meets a number of requirements identified in section 110(a)(2) of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A)

- (M). The state bears the burden of demonstrating that its SIP submission satisfies the standards of section 110(a)(2). Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner , 230 F.3d 181, 183, 185 (6th Cir. 2000) (affirming EPA’s rejection of a SIP proposal where the state “failed to offer ev idence that [the] proposed rules will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.”). For a plan to be adequate, it “must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attai nment and maintenance of the national standard that it implements.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a) (noting also the adequacy of a plan’s control measures “shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality models . . .”)3 A. The Plain Language and Legislative H istory of the Clean Air Act Require That Infrastructure SIPs Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prevent NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment

The Clean Air Act, on its face, requires I

- SIPs to be adequate to prevent exeedances of the NAA QS. As noted above, following promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must “adopt and submit to the Administrator . . . a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such [NAAQS].” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)( 2)(A), this I

- SIP must “include enforceable emission limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act (which include the requirement to mainta in compliance with the NAAQS). Id. § 7410(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). As defined by the Act, the term “emission limitation” means “a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions o f air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter. ” Id. § 7602(k). Thus, the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that I

- SIPs include enforceable emission limitations on sources sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.

The legislative history of the Clean Air Act supports this interp retation. As the Senate Committee Report accompanying the 1970 Clean Air Act explained, the Act “would establish certain tools as potential parts of an implementation plan and would require that emission requirements be established by each State for sourc es of air pollution agents or combinations of such agents in such region and that these emission requirements be monitored and enforceable.” Sen. Cmte. on Pub. Works Rpt. at 12 (Sept. 17, 1970) (emphasis added), attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This was reaf firmed in the subsequent Senate Conference Report, which stated that: “In order to implement the national ambient air quality standards, these [state implementation] plans must provide for emission limitations on all services in the region covered by the p lan
, together with schedules and timetables of compliance, systems for monitoring both ambient air and emissions from individual sources, and adequate enforcement authority.” Sen. Conf. Rpt., 116 Cong. Rec. 42,381, 42,384 (Dec. 18, 1970) (emphasis added), attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 2

2 Although the language of current section 110(a)(2)(A) was originally found in section 110(a)(2)(B), the substance has remained true to the statements found in the Senate Committee Reports. There were only two substa ntive changes between 1970 and the present. First, the addition of former section 172(c)’s requirement that SIPs’ emission limitations, schedules, and timetables be “enforceable.” See Rpt. of the Senate Cmte. on Envt. and Pub. Works accompanying the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989 at 20 (Dec. 20, 1989) (explaining that “Paragraph (1) of rewritten section 110(c) combines and streamlines existing section 110(a)(2)(b) and the enforceability requirements of section 172(c) of current law”), attached hereto as Exhibit 3; see also 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c) (section 172(c)) (requiring that a SIP revision submitted before July 1, 1982 pursuant to a demonstration under subsection (a)(2) “shall contain enforceable measures to assure attainment of the applicable standard no t later than December 1, 1987”). Second, the clarification in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that the “means[] or techniques” for meeting the requirements of the Act included “economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissi ons rights.” 42 U.S.C § 7410(a)(2)(A).4 B. EPA Regulations Implementing the Clean Air Act Require That Infrastructure SIPs Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment

EPA regulations implementing section 110(a )(2) also require that I

- SIPs must be adequate to prohibit exceedances of the NAAQS. Pursuant to these regulations, in order for a SIP to be approved by EPA, it “must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to pr ovide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national standard that it implements.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a). 3 The regulation clearly states that all SIPs must contain emission limits that adequately ensure the NAAQS is achieved. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a). Although these regulations were developed before the Clean Air Act separated Infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs

— a process that began with the 1977 amendments and was completed by the 1990 amendments

— the regulations nonetheless apply to I

- SIPs. EPA has not changed the regulation since 1990, and in the preamble to the final rule promulgating 40 C.F.R. § 51.112, EPA expressly identifies that its new regulations were not implementing Subpart D, the new nonattainment provisions of the Act. See Air Quality Implementation Plans; Restructuring SIP Preparation Regulations, 51 Fed. Reg. 40,656, 40,656 (Nov. 7, 1986) (“It is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of the Act . . . .”). Consequently, 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 was intended to apply to I

- SIPs. Thus, it is clear that I

- SIPs must contain “measures, rules, and regulations” sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.

C. Prior EPA Interpretations of the Act Require That Infrastructure SIPs Impose Emission L imits Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment

EPA has relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 on multiple occasions to reject Infrastructure SIPs that did not contain specific emissions limits sufficient to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. For example, in March 2006, EPA disapproved Missouri’s attempt to revise the sulfur dioxide emission limits in its I

- SIP for two power plants because the new emission limits would not ensure maintena nce of the short

- term sulfur dioxide NAAQS. See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, 71 Fed. Reg. 12,623, 12,624 (Mar. 13, 2006). In so doing, EPA explained that “Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the [Act] requires, in part, that the [state implementation] plan include emission limitations to meet the requirements of the Act, including the requirement in section 110(a)(1) that the plan must be adequate to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards.” Id . EPA further explain ed that “40 CFR 51.112 requires that the plan demonstrate that rules contained in the SIP are adequate to attain the ambient air quality standards.” Id. In the case of Missouri’s proposed I

- SIP, EPA expressed concern that the sulfur dioxide emission rate s for the two power plants in question were “not protective of the short

- term sulfur dioxide NAAQS.” Because while

3 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a)(1) further specifies that “[t]he adequacy of a control strategy shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality models , data bases, and other requirements specified in appendix W of t his part (Guideline on Air Quality Models).” (emphasis added). Consequently, 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a)(1) supports the use of sulfur dioxide air dispersion modeling to evaluate the adequacy of sulfur dioxide I

- SIPs for maintaining the one

- hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS.5 Missouri had lowered the emission rates for the facilities, it had dramatically increased the averaging times (from a 3

- hour average to an a nnual average) without providing “a demonstration, as required by the [Clean Air Act] and EPA regulations, that the [sulfur dioxide national ambient air quality] standards, and particularly the three

- hour and the twenty

- four hour standards, can be protecte d by an annual emission limit.” Id.

More recently, in December 2013, EPA rejected a revision to Indiana’s sulfur dioxide SIP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.112, because Indiana failed to demonstrate that the SIP, as revised, was sufficient to ensure mainte nance of the sulfur dioxide NAAQS. See Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 78,720, 78,721 (Dec. 27, 2013). Indiana had submitted a request to EPA to revise its sulfur dioxide SIP for the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor facility to remove the sulfur dioxide emission limit for the blast furnace flare at the facility. Id. In the proposed disapproval, EPA explained that “[u]nder 40 CFR 51 .112(a), each SIP must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations it contains are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.” See Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State Implem entation Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor; Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 17,157, 17,158 (Mar. 20, 2013). Because Indiana did not demonstrate that the ArcelorMittal blast furnace gas flare’s existing emission limit was “redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not result in or allow an increase in actual SO 2 emissions,” and, consequently, that removal of the limit would not “affect the validity of the emission rates used in the existing attainment demonstration, thus undermining the SIP’s ability to ensure protection of the SO 2 NAAQS,” EPA rejected the proposed amendment. Id. at 17,159; see also 78 Fed. Reg. at 78,721.

Indeed, while in its recent Infrastructure SIP guidance EPA purported to postpone certain I

- SIP start

- up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements, nowhere in that guidance does EPA discuss postponement of any other I

- SIP requirement. 4 See U.S. EPA, Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), at 19

- 20 (Sept. 13, 2013) [hereinafter “EPA I

- SIP Guidance”]. This is simply a further indication that the CAA requires I

- SIPs to include emission limits adequate to ensure attainment of the NAAQS and that the imposition of such limits may not be delayed.

D. Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions Hold That Infrastructure SIPs Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment

Since the inception of the modern Clean Air Act in 1970, courts have interpreted the language presently found in section 110(a)(2)(A) to require that SIPs contain enforceable emission limits sufficient to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS. In Train v. NRDC , a seminal case on SIP approval requirements, the Supreme Court explained that:

In complying with this requirement [that a SIP provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS] a State’s plan must include ‘emission limitations,’

4 Sierra Club disagrees, moreover, with EPA’s apparent postponement of those same SSM requirements; such postponeme nt is unsupported by the CAA.6 which are regulations of the composition of substances emitted into the ambient air from such sources as p ower plants, service stations, and the like. They are the specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are subject, and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meets the national standards.

421 U.S. at 78; see also id. at 67 (citin g language from then

- current section 110(a)(2)(B) now found in section 110(a)(2)(A)).

Courts of appeals have echoed the same conclusion. For example, in Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources v. EPA , the Third Circuit stated that the Clean Air Act “directs the EPA to withhold approval from a state implementation plan if the ‘maintenance of [the] standard’ cannot be assured.” 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3rd Cir. 1991). 5 The court observed that the “need to maintain the Clean Air Act standards once th ey are reached is well

- recognized by the Courts.” Id. Other courts have provided similar analyses. In Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA
, for example, the First Circuit explained that, “[b]efore approving an air quality implementation plan or revision, the Administrator must determine that it ‘includes emission limitations . . . and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of (the) primary or secondary standard . . . .’” 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976) (quoting former se ction 110(a)(2)(B)).

The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments do not alter this picture. Court decisions since the 1990 amendments have continued to hold that I

- SIPs must have emission limits that maintain the NAAQS. In Alaska Department of Environmental Co nservation v. EPA , the Supreme Court explained that an Infrastructure SIP under CAA section 110(a)(1) must be a “‘plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of [NAAQS].’” 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) (quoting section 110(a)(1)). “Wh ile States have wide discretion in formulating their plans

. . . SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, in order fo r EPA to approve, a SIP, it “must ‘include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques . . . as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable [CAA] requirements.’” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A)).

T he circuit courts have also been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) from the post

- 1990 Clean Air Act requires enforceable emission limits in I

- SIPs. For example, as noted above, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed that “[t]he Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans

— SIPs

— that ‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (‘NAAQS’) through enforceable emission limitations .” Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. , 666 F.3d at 1180 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(a), 7410(a)(2)( A)) (emphasis added). And the Sixth Circuit has explained that “EPA’s deference to a state is conditioned on the state’s submission of a plan ‘which satisfies the standards of § 110(a)(2)’ and which includes emission limitations that result in compliance with the NAAQS.” Mich. Dept. of Envtl Quality , 230 F.3d at 185 ( quoting Train , 421 U.S. at 79).

5 The court was interpreting the 1977 version of the statute in which Subpart 1 of Part D had been added
, id. at 271 n.1, but relied on the language of then

- current section 110(a)(2)(B) (now found in section 110(a)(2)(A)). Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 32 F.2d at 272.7 Additionally, in Hall v. EPA , the Ninth Circuit held that EPA had not fulfilled its responsibility under another provision

— section 110(l) 6

— to evaluate wheth er a revised air quality plan will achieve the pollution reductions required under the Act. 273 F.3d at 1152. In Hall
, EPA approved a revision to an air quality plan solely on the basis that the revisions did not relax the existing SIP, rather than “meas ur[ing] the existing level of pollution, compar[ing] it with the national standards, and determin[ing] the effect on this comparison of specified emission modifications.” Id . at 1157

- 58 ( quoting Train , 421 U.S. at 93). EPA claimed a statutory equivalence between non

- relaxation of rules approved in 1981 and non

- interference with current attainment requirements. Id. at 1155. The court rejected EPA’s application of the “no relaxation” rule, finding it inconsistent with the Act because it set an improper ba seline that failed to take into consideration the 1990 amendments, which set new deadlines for attainment and established other new requirements for incremental progress towards attainment. Id . at 1160

- 61. Those current attainment requirements were the b aseline from which EPA should have measured “non

- interference.” Id. EPA’s analysis was required to reflect consideration of the prospects of meeting current attainment requirements under a revised air quality plan. Id . Based on the Ninth Circuit’s anal ysis, just as a plan revision must not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS under section 110(l), an I

- SIP must likewise include enforceable limits sufficient to ensure the initial plan provides for maintenance of the NAAQS under 110(a)(2)(A).

II. THE WYOM ING INFRASTRUCTURE SIP IMPERMISSIBLY FAILS TO INCLUDE ENFORCEABLE ONE

- HOUR SO 2 EMISSION LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE NAAQS.

Even though the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS requirements impose a new, more protective standard for ambient air, Wyom ing’s proposed I

- SIP fails to include restrictions on major SO 2 sources to ensure that areas not designated nonattainment will attain and maintain the new one

hour SO 2 NAAQS.

A. Wyoming must include enforceable one

- hour SO 2 emission limits for

sources curre ntly allowed to cause exceedances of the NAAQS, including the PacifiCorp Energy Dave Johnston Plant, PacifiCorp Energy Jim Bridger Plant, and Naughton Power Plant

WDEQ fails to include adequate enforceable emission limitations for sources of SO 2 sufficien t to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Emission limits are especially important for meeting the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS, given the “strong source

- oriented nature of SO2 ambient impacts.” Final SO 2 NAAQS Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,570. Na tionally, large point sources account for 95 percent of SO 2 emissions, 66 percent of which come from fossil fuel combustion at electric facilities. Id

. at 35,524. C oal

- fired power plants, including PacifiCorp Energy Dave Johnston Plant (“Dave Johnston Pl ant”) in Converse County
, PacifiCorp Energy Jim Bridger Plant (“Jim Bridger Plant”) in Sweetwater County, and Naughton

6 Section 110( l ) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he Administrato r shall not approve a revision of a [state implementation] plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . ., or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7410( l ).8 Power Plant in Kemmerer, are contributing to SO 2 emissions and currently lack emission limits that prevent exceedances of the 2010 SO 2 NA AQS. In order to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A), the Wyoming proposed SIP must be amended to ensure these sources cannot cause exceedances of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.

WDEQ has not even attempted to demonstrate that emissions allowed by the proposed I

SIP wi ll ensure compliance with the one

- hour SO 2 standard, nor could it. As determined by modeling conducted at the Sierra Club’s request, the limits in place under the current I

- SIP are insufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. See Steven Klafka, PacifiC orp Energy Dave Johnston Plant, Converse County, Wyoming, Sierra Club Evaluation of Compliance with 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS (Sept. 12, 2012), [hereinafter “Dave Johnston Modeling Report”], attached hereto as Exhibit 4; Steven Klafka, PacifiCorp Energy Jim Bridger Plant, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Sierra Club Evaluation of Compliance with 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS (Sept. 12, 2012), [hereinafter “Jim Bridger Modeling Report”], attached hereto as Exhibit 5; Steven Klafka, Naughton Power Plant, Kemmerer, Wyoming, Evaluation o f Compliance with 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS (Jan. 14, 2013), [hereinafter “Naughton Modeling Report”], attached hereto as Exhibit 6

. The modeling reports contain an air dispersion modeling analysis for each plant that compares the modeled ambient air concentration s from each plant’s emissions with the 2010

one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. The modeling reports used EPA’s AERMOD program to model the plants’ “allowable” (based on the current Title V permit) and “actual” (based on maximum plant

wide hourly emissions obtained from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Data and Maps database) emissions to determine whether the plant can cause exceedances of the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. See Dave Johnston Modeling Report at 4, fnt 3

- 4; Jim Bridger Modeling Report at 4, fnt 3

- 4; Naughton Modeling Report at 3, fnt 4

- 5. While the reports include both analyses, the modeling based on the allowable emission is crucial to a determination of whether the Wyoming I

- SIP is adequate to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The modeling protocol employed is consistent wit h all available technical guidance, including Appendix W and EPA’s March 2011 guidance for implementing the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. Additionally, it used the most recent version of AERMOD available at the time of the studies. Dave Johnston Modeling Report at 2, 5 (using AERMOD version 12060); Jim Bridger Modeling Report at 2, 5 (using AERMOD version 12060); Naughton Modeling Report at 2, 7 (using AERMOD version 12345). Where any assumptions were made in the running of the models, the modeler, Mr. Klafka, emp loyed conservative inputs, which favor the prediction of lower impacts from the plants so that the results may understate the plants’ SO 2 emission impacts. Dave Johnston Modeling Report at 3; Jim Bridger Modeling Report at 3; Naughton Modeling Report at 4.

The modeling reports demonstrate that, based on the existing I

- SIP, these plants are authorized to cause exceedances of the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS based on their allowable emission
rates. See Dave Johnston Modeling Report at 2

- 4; Jim Bridger Modeling Report at 2

- 4; Naughton Modeling Report at 2

- 3. The modeling also shows that actual emissions from these facilities are high enough to cause exceedances of the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. Id . These SO 2 NAAQS exceedances based on both permitted emission limits and act ual maximum emissions are impacting at least five counties in Wyoming. The modeling results are above the NAAQS, even without adding in a background concentration. Nevertheless, WDEQ did not recommend that a single county be designated as nonattainment. See Letter from Matthew H. Mead,9 Governor, Wyoming to James Martin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8, 1

- 2 (May 24, 2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/recletters/R8_WY_rec.pdf, [hereinafter “Mead Letter”]. EPA has yet to issue desi gnations for areas aside from those containing monitors that recorded exceedances of the NAAQS. See Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191, 47,191 (Aug. 5, 2013) (desig nating areas with monitor violations from 2009

- 2011 as nonattainment), [hereinafter “SO 2 Designations Final Rule”]; see also Final Nonattainment Areas for 2010 SO2 Standards Round 1

– July 2013 (not currently designating any part of Wyoming as nonattainmen t), available at http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/july2013SO2nonattainmentcounties.pdf. Because these power plants are in areas that are not currently designated nonattainment, see generally SO 2 Designations Final Rule, WDEQ must submit an I

- SIP th at “provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of [the NAAQS] within such State.” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1).

The findings from each of the modeling reports are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Modeled Emissions

Power Plant Emission Rates Facility Impact ( μ g/m 3 ) Background ( μ g/m 3 ) 7 Total Impact Facility Impact plus Background

( μ g/m 3 ) SO 2 NAAQS ( μ g/m 3 ) 8 Counties Impacted

Allowable 1,960.1 10.5 1,970.6 196.2 Dave Johnston

Plant Maximum 948.2 10.5 958. 7 196.2 Converse & Natrona

Allowable 600.4 10.5 610.9 196.2 Jim Bridger Plant Maximum 352.1 10.5 362.6 196.2 Sweetwater

Allowable 3,492.6 15.7 3,508.3 196.2 Naughton

Power Plant Maximum 7,312.7 15.7 7,328.4 196.2 Lincoln & Uinta

Dave Johnston Modeling Report at Table 1, Figure 1; Jim Bridger Modeling Report at Table 1, Figure 1; Naughton Modeling Report at Table 1, Figure 1.

7 The varying background concentrations reflect the most accurate background levels from when the plant emissions and permits were analyzed. Even without background concentrations, every plant discussed is violating the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.
8 The 75 ppb to μ g/m 3 calculation is 75/0.3823 = 196.2 μ g/m 3

.10 Based on the modeling results summarized above, WDEQ must promulgate enforceable emission limits with one

- hour averaging time into its SIP that are no less stringent than the limits listed in Table 2, below, to achieve and maintain the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. These limits represent the maximum rate that each facility can emit without causing NAAQS exceedances, thus reducing each total plant’s al lowable emissions by the corresponding percentage. These emission limits must apply at all times including during periods of start

- up, shutdown, and malfunction.

Table 2: Limits Necessary to Achieve and Maintain 1

- hr SO 2 NAAQS

Plant Maximum Total Faci lity Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Required Total Facility Emission Reduction (%)

Dave Johnston Plant 1,036.7 90.5%

Jim Bridger Plant 1,872.2 69.1%

Naughton Power Plant 356.7 94.8 %

Dave Johnston Modeling Report at Table 3; Jim Bridger Modeling R eport at Table 3; Naughton Modeling Report at Table 3.

As demonstrated by the modeling reports, the Dave Johnston Plant, Jim Bridger Plant, and Naughton Power Plant are currently authorized to cause exceedances of the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS based on their all owable emission rates. Therefore WDEQ must impose additional emission limits on the plants that ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS at all times. As the Infrastructure SIP submission does not include these emission limitations, and Wyoming’s cu rrent regulations do not suffice, the I

- SIP fails to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).

B. AERMOD modeling, such as that provided by the Sierra Club, is the appropriate tool for evaluating the adequacy of Infrastructure SIPs and ensuring attainment and m aintenance of the NAAQS

As outlined by EPA in the Final SO 2 NAAQS Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,551, air dispersion modeling is the best method for evaluating the short

- term impacts of large SO 2 sources. This is consistent with EPA’s historic use of air dispe rsion modeling for attainment designations and SIP revisions. Furthermore, an agency may not ignore information put in front of it, such as Sierra Club’s modeling submitted with these comments. See generally Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. A uto Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (holding that it was arbitrary and capricious for the agency to ignore an important aspect of an issue placed before it); see also NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1254 (D.C. Cir.2009) (restating EPA’s own statement11 that add itional information presented in a notice

- and

- comment rulemaking must be considered during the rulemaking by the corresponding state and EPA) ( citing 70 Fed. Reg. 71,612, 71,655).

WDEQ has long been on notice that modeling data is an important resource in the NAAQS attainment and maintenance process. In fact, WDEQ expected EPA to use modeling for SO 2 designations. Mead Letter at 1 (recognizing EPA “ set[] forth a different approach to making designations relying heavily on modeling rather than monitoring. ”) . Moreover, EPA has historically used modeling in determining attainment for the SO 2 standard. See e.g ., U.S. EPA

, Implementation of the 1

- Hour SO 2 NAAQS Draft White Paper for Discussion at 3, fn. 1, [hereinafter “EPA White Paper”], available at http:/ /www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20120522whitepaper.pdf; see also Respondent’s Opposition to Motion of the State of North Dakota for a Stay of EPA’s 1

- Hour Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Standard Rule at 3, National Environmental Development Association’ s Clean Air Project v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) (No. 10

- 1252), attached hereto as Exhibit 7(“the Agency has historically relied on modeling to make designations for sulfur dioxide”).

For example, in EPA’s 1994 SO 2 Guideline Document, EPA noted that “for SO 2 attainment demonstrations, monitoring data alone will generally not be adequate,” U.S. EPA, 1994 SO 2 Guideline Document, [hereinafter “1994 SO 2 Guideline Document”], available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/so2_guide_092109.pdf, at 2

- 5, and t hat “[a]ttainment determinations for SO 2 will generally not rely on ambient monitoring data alone, but instead will be supported by an acceptable modeling analysis which quantifies that the SIP strategy is sound and that enforceable emission limits are res ponsible for attainment.” Id . at 2

- 1. The 1994 SO 2 Guideline Document goes on to note that monitoring alone is likely to be inadequate: “[f]or SO 2 , dispersion modeling will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively a source's impacts and to determ ine the areas of expected high concentrations based upon current conditions.” Id . at 2

- 3.

EPA’s acceptance of modeling for making attainment designations stretches back decades and demonstrates that modeling is equally applicable to determining the adequ acy of an Infrastructure SIP. In 1983, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (“OAQPS”) issued a Section 107 Designation Policy Summary. See Sheldon Meyers Memorandum re Section 107 Designation Policy Summary (April 21, 1983), attached hereto a s Exhibit 8. OAQPS explained that “air quality modeling emissions data, etc., should be used to determine if the monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air quality in the area.” Id . at 1. Without modeling data, the worst case air quality may not be accurately characterized. In certain instances, EPA relied solely on modeling data to determine nonattainment designations, demonstrating modeling is accepted and trustworthy. Id . at 2. In fact, reliance on modeling for nonattainment designa tions stretches back to the Carter Administration. In 1978, EPA designated Laurel, Montana as nonattainment “due to measured and modeled violations of the primary SO 2 standard.” Mont. Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA , 666 F.3d at 1181 (citing 43 Fed. Reg. 8 ,962 (Mar. 3, 1978)).

As such, EPA’s final 2010 SO 2 NAAQS rule simply continued and built upon EPA’s historical practice of using modeling to determine attainment and nonattainment status for SO 2 NAAQS. In doing so, EPA properly recognized the “strong s ource

- oriented nature of SO 2 ambient impacts,” Final SO 2 NAAQS Rule at 35,370, and concluded that the appropriate12 methodology for purposes of determining compliance, attainment, and nonattainment with the new NAAQS is modeling. See id

. at 35,551 (describi ng dispersion modeling as “the most technically appropriate, efficient and readily available method for assessing short

- term ambient SO 2 concentrations in areas with large point sources.”). Accordingly, in promulgating the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS, EPA explained th at, for the one

- hour standard, “it is more appropriate and efficient to principally use modeling to assess compliance for medium to larger sources . . . .” Id at 35,570. Similarly, EPA then explained in the EPA White Paper that using modeling to determin e attainment for the SO 2 standard “could better address several potentially problematic issues than would the narrower monitoring

- focused approach discussed in the proposal for the SO 2 NAAQS, including the unique source

- specific impacts of SO 2 emissions an d the special challenges SO 2 emissions have historically presented in terms of monitoring short

- term SO 2 levels for comparison with the NAAQS in many situations (75 FR 35550).” EPA White Paper at 3

- 4.

Moreover, the courts have upheld EPA’s use of modelin g. For example, in Montana Sulphur , the company challenged a SIP call, a SIP disapproval, and a Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) promulgation, because they were premised on a modeling analysis that showed the Billings/Laurel, Montana area was in nonatt ainment for SO 2 . 666 F.3d at 1184. The court rejected Montana Sulphur’s argument that EPA’s reliance on modeling was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise unlawful. Id . at 1185; see also Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298, 332 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“Realis tically, computer modeling is a useful and often essential tool for performing the Herculean labors Congress imposed on EPA in the Clean Air Act”); Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle , 621 F.2d 797, 805 (6th Cir. 1980) (approving use of modeling to predict futu re violations and incorporating “worst

- case” assumptions regarding weather and full

capacity operations of pollutant sources). Further demonstrating the superiority of modeling, the D.C. Circuit has acknowledged the inherent problem of using monitored dat a for criteria pollutants, namely that “a monitor only measures air quality in its immediate vicinity.” Catawba County v. EPA , 571 F.3d 20, 30 (D.C. Cir 2009).

EPA uses modeling because the agency is well aware that modeling produces reliable results. For example, as John C. Vimont, EPA Region 9’s Regional Meteorologist, has stated under oath:

EPA does recognize the usefulness of ambient measurements for information on background concentrations, provided reliable monitoring techniques are available. E PA does not recommend, however, that ambient measurements be used as the sole basis of setting emission limitations or determining the ambient concentrations resulting from emissions from an industrial source. These should be based on an appropriate modeli ng analysis.

Declaration of John C. Vimont at 1, 11 (emphasis added), attached hereto as Exhibit 9.

Similarly, Roger Brode is a physical scientist in EPA’s Air Quality Modeling Group and

co

- chairs the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERM IC) and the AERMOD Implementation Workgroup. Declaration of Roger W. Brode at 1, 2, attached hereto as Exhibit 10. Mr. Brode has stated under oath that AERMOD is “readily capable of accurately13 predicting whether the revised primary SO 2 NAAQS is attained and whether individual sources cause or contribute to a violation of the SO 2 NAAQS.” Id . at 2. Mr. Brode has explained:

As part of the basis for EPA adopting the AERMOD model as the preferred model for nearfield applications in the Guideline on Air Qual ity Models
, Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51, the performance of the AERMOD model was extensively evaluated based on a total of 17 field study data bases (AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results. EPA

- 454/R

- 03

- 003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, R esearch Triangle Park (2003), portions of which are attached to this affidavit) (“EPA 2003”). The scope of the model evaluations conducted for AERMOD far exceeds the scope of evaluations conducted on any other model that has been adopted in Appendix W to P art 51. These evaluations demonstrate the overall good performance of the AERMOD model based on technically sound model evaluation procedures, and also illustrate the significant advancement in the science of dispersion modeling represented by the AERMOD m odel as compared to other models that have been used in the past. In particular, adoption of the AERMOD model has significantly reduced the potential for overestimation of ambient impacts from elevated sources in complex terrain compared to other

models.

Id . at 3

- 4 (emphasis added). The power plants discussed in these comments are clearly elevated

sources.
EPA’s practice in a number of other contexts also demonstrates that modeling is a technically superior approach for ascertaining impacts on NAAQS, as well as the extensive history of EPA’s preference for modeling over monitoring to evaluate compliance. For example, all nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 microns , SO 2 NAAQS, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( “PSD”) increment compliance verification analyses are performed with air dispersion modeling, such as running AERMOD in a manner consistent with the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(l)(1). Indeed, in order to ensure consistency in how a ir impacts are determined, both existing sources and newly permitted sources should be assessed using the same methods. AERMOD modeling performs particularly well in evaluating emission sources with one or a handful of large emission points. The stacks

ar e well characterized in terms of location, dimensions, and exhaust parameters, and have high release heights. In addition many plants have SO 2 continuous emission monitoring system (“CEMS”) data. AERMOD accurately models medium

- to

- large SO 2 sources

— even with conditions of low wind speed, the use of off

- site meteorological data, and variable weather conditions. Indeed, AERMOD has been tested and performs very well during conditions of low wind speeds:

AERMOD’s evaluation analyses included a number of si te

- specific meteorological data sets that incorporate low wind speed conditions. For example, the Tracy evaluation included meteorological data with wind speeds as low as 0.39 meter/second (m/s); the Westvaco evaluation included wind speeds as low as 0.31 m/s; the Kincaid SO 2 evaluation included wind speeds as low as 0.37 m/s; and the Lovett evaluation included wind speeds as low as 0.30 m/s. Concerns . . .14 regarding AERMOD’s ability to model low wind speed conditions seem to neglect the data used in actual AERMOD evaluations.

Comments of Camille Sears 1, at 10, attached hereto as Exhibit 11 (citing AERMOD evaluations and modeled meteorological data, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm). EPA has noted as much for years: “[a]mbi ent monitoring data and air quality modeling data for a particular area can sometimes appear to conflict. This is primarily due to the fact

- that modeling results may predict maximum SO 2 concentrations at receptors where no monitors are located.” 1994 SO 2 Guideline Document at 2

- 6.

Finally, EPA’s use of air dispersion modeling and AERMOD in particular was recently upheld in the context of a Clean Air Act § 126 petition for cross

- state impacts. See Genon Rema, LLC v. U.S. EPA
, 722 F.3d 513, 526 (3rd Cir. 2013). In this case, the EPA granted the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s 126 petition, finding that trans

- boundary sulfur dioxide emissions from the Portland coal

- fired power plant in Pennsylvania were significantly contributing to no nattainment and interference with the maintenance of the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS in New Jersey. Id . at 518. The EPA based its finding on a review of the AERMOD dispersion modeling submitted by New Jersey, its independent assessment of AERMOD, and other highly technical analyses. Id . The court upheld the EPA’s decision after examining the record, which showed that EPA had thoroughly examined the relevant scientific data and clearly articulated a satisfactory explanation of the action that established a ration al connection between the facts found and the choice made. Id . at 525

- 28.

In sum, the Wyoming SIP does not ensure that counties in Wyoming will achieve and maintain the 2010 one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. To satisfy the Act’s obligations, Wyoming must include a dequate emissions limits in the SIP with one

- hour averaging periods. EPA has acknowledged that, for the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS, modeling is the most accurate means of determining attainment with the NAAQS. Final SO 2 NAAQS Rule at 35,551, 35,570. Accordingly , Wyoming must include source

- specific SO 2 emission limits in the SIP that, when modeled, show no exceedances of the NAAQS.

C. Wyoming must include enforceable SO 2 emission limits with a one

- hour averaging period that apply at all times

As discussed, the e mission limitations necessary to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A) mean “a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requir ement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. at § 7602(k). Therefore, the emission limitati ons must also contain proper averaging times

— in this instance, a one

- hour averaging period.

EPA has stated that one

- hour averaging times are necessary to comply with the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. In 2011, EPA disagreed with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment’s (“KDHE”) issuance of a PSD permit that contained a 30

- day averaging time15 rather than a one

- hour averaging period. See Letter from Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 7 to Dr. Robert Moser, Secretary, Kansas Department of Health a nd Environment (Feb

. 3, 2011), attached hereto as Exhibit 12 . EPA explained

[i]t is well known that there can be considerable variability in actual 1

- hour emission rates. Therefore, to ensure protection of the 1

- hour . . . SO 2 NAAQS . . . the permit need s to contain . . . SO 2 1

- hour average emission limits for both new and existing steam generating units. To ensure the source does not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of the NAAQS, the emission limits should be consistent with the modeling rates and have the same averaging period, i.e. in this case maximum hourly emission limits consistent with the 1

- hour NAAQS.

Id . at 2. Although this determination was made in the PSD permitting context, there is no functional difference between this re view process by EPA and the I

- SIP approval, as PSD permits reflect the provisions of a state’s SIP including federal standards and requirements. Similarly, in its disapproval of Missouri’s SIP in 2006, EPA determined that the emission rates in the SIP were “not protective of the short

- term sulfur dioxide NAAQS” because they were based on an annual average. See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, 71 Fed. Reg. 12,623, 12,624 (Mar. 13, 2006).

In addition, the I

- SIP must r equire monitoring of these SO 2 emission limits on a continuous basis using a continuous emission monitor system or systems. Monitoring performed pursuant to the New Source Performance Standard (“NSPS”) requirements in 40 C.F.R. Part 60 is not adequate bec ause the NSPS requirements do not call for monitoring during every hour of operation. In order to ensure the emission limits protect the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS, the emission limits must be monitored during every hour of operation.

The I

- SIP is meant to imple ment, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS and therefore must include “enforceable emission limitations” to ensure its effectiveness. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A). EPA has stated that only one

- hour averaging periods can ensure compliance with the one

- hour SO 2 N AAQS. Therefore, Wyoming must include emission limitations for the all major SO 2 sources, including Dave Johnston Plant, Jim Bridger Plant, and Naughton Power Plant and others not modeled but known to be contributing to SO 2 emissions, such as Laramie Rive r Station in Wheatland and 

### Wyodak Power Plant in Gillette, that reflect the new one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS limitation and the proper averaging period.

D. Wyoming’s Infrastructure SIP is currently inadequate to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act

Wyoming’s Infrastructure SIP submission fails to include measures that sufficiently demonstrate that it will comply with section 110(a)(2)(A), and therefore it cannot ensure the proper implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS as required. As discus sed, under section 110(a)(2)(A), the I

- SIP must “include enforceable emission limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act (which include the requirement to maintain compliance with the NAAQS). Yet, Wyoming’s submission does not reference emission16 limitations or other required measures that ensure compliance. See WDEQ, 110 Infrastructure SIP Elements for the 2010 1

- Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nati onal Ambient Air Quality Standard (Dec. 2013), [hereinafter “I

- SIP Submission”].

The regulations that WDEQ cites are insufficient to ensure compliance with the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. For example, WDEQ cites Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (“WAQS R”) Chapter 3, Section 4, Emission standards of sulfur oxides. According to the I

- SIP Submission, this regulation is currently pending EPA approval, id . at 2, and is marked “reserved” on Wyoming’s Public Access to Rules website. See Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Standards and Regulations, General Emission Standards, Chapter 3, available at http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/9293.pdf. The Sierra Club and other interested members of the public cannot assess the emissi on standards, because they have not been provided to the public. WDEQ must release the standard to the public and give the public an opportunity to comment on this regulation and its ability to help Wyoming attain and maintain the NAAQS through its I

- SIP.

WDEQ also cites WAQSR Chapter 1, Section 5, Abnormal conditions and equipment malfunction. I

- SIP Submission at 1. This regulation not only does not help attain and maintain the NAAQS, it may hinder the attainment and maintenance of the SO 2 NAAQS. It p rovides that the division can allow excess emissions to occur undercutting the intent of section 110(a). This regulation, as well as others that provide for variances and exceptions to emission limits, may frustrate the purpose of the I

SIP and prevent Wy oming from ensuring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Wyoming must revise these provisi ons before EPA can approve the I nfrastructure SIP. Additionally, WDEQ cites other provisions that do not address emissions from some of the largest sources of S O 2 , including WAQSR Chapter 8, Section 3, Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plans, WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 2, Open burning restrictions, WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 3, Wood waste burners, and WAQSR Chapter 13, Section 2, Motor v ehicle pollution control. I

- SIP Submission at 2.

All of these regulations contain the same fatal flaw: not ensuring that the standard actually is met by addressing large sources that have already been shown to be violating the NAAQS, like Dave Johnston Plant, Jim Bridger Plant, and Naughton Power Plant. Wyoming must revise its SIP to include enforceable emission limits that address the dramatic exceedances demonstrated by Sierra Club’s modeling analyses submitted with these comments. WDEQ has made no demonstration that the cited statutes and regulations are sufficient to ensure the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and therefore its submission fails to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A). WDEQ must update its emission regulations to ensure that pr oper mass limitations and one

- hour averaging periods are imposed on fuel

burning sources, which will ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.17 III. THE WYOMING INFRASTRUCTURE SIP IMPERMISSIBLY FAILS TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SO 2 NAAQS BECAUSE ITS STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CONTAIN EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCES THAT UNDERMINE ITS PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS.

Wyoming’s statutes and regulations for its air program contain exemptio ns and variances that undermine its permitting and enf orcement mechanisms, thus failing to ensure the attainment and maintenance of the SO 2 NAAQS. For example, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, cited in several places in the I

- SIP submittal, contains several variances and exceptions, which may weaken the permitting program. Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program , WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 4(b)(ix) allows the Governor to grant variances in certain instances. As mentioned above, WAQSR Chapter 1, Section 5 Abnormal conditio ns and equipment malfunctions allows for exceptions in emission levels. These regulations, as well as others statut es and regulations that allow for exceptions
, may frustrate the purpose of the I

- SIP and prevent Wyoming from ensuring attainment and mainten ance of the NAAQS. Wyoming must revise these provisi ons before EPA can approve the I nfrastructure SIP.

IV. THE WYOMING INFRASTRUCTURE SIP IMPERMISSABLY FAILS TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO ENSURE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.

Wyoming’s proposed I

- SIP does not adequately ad dress public notification requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J). Each Infrastructure SIP must meet the applicable requirements of section 127. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(J). Section 127 states that “ [e]ach State plan shall contain measures which will b e effective to notify the public during any calendar on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any national primary ambient air quality standard is exceeded or was exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year . . . .” However, the
sta tutes and regulations that WDEQ cites do not guarantee that the public will be notified of SO 2 NAAQS exceedances. See I

- SIP Submission at 11. While WAQSR Chapter 12, Section 2, Air pollution emergencies, provides for notification of air alerts, warnings, a nd emergencies, the levels that trigger notification are well above the 2010 SO 2 standard. The lowest level triggering notification is a SO 2 exceedance of 300 ppb averaged over a 24 hour time period. The SO 2 NAAQS requires that the public be notified whe n 75 pbb averaged over a one

- hour time period is exceeded. WDEQ cites no other regulations that guarantee that the public will be informed of exceedances of the NAAQS. Thus, Wyoming must revise its SIP to adequately address the public notification require ments under section 110(a)(2)(J).18 V. CONCLUSION

The proposed SIP fails to ensure that the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS is attained and maintained, as described above. WDEQ must adopt new provisions into the SIP to protect the public health and comply with the Act’s requirements. The Sierra Club would be happy to provide any other information that might assist WDEQ in evaluating the impacts of these sources and developing a SIP in full compliance with the Act.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Elizabeth Toba Pearlman

Elizabeth Toba Pearlman Office of Elizabeth Toba Pearlman 1523 27th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 643

- 4068 etplaw@gmail.com

On behalf of Sierra ClubPUBLIC HEARING 110 INFRASTRUCTURE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS REGIONAL HAZE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5- YEAR PROGRESS REPORT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR 1-HOUR SULFUR DIOXIDE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS HERSCHLER BUILDING

- WIND RIVER CONFERENCE ROOM 122 W. 25TH STREET CHEYENNE, WYOMING 9:00AM- JANUARY 15, 2014

Please Print YOUR NAME NAME AND ADDRESS OF COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION SIP HEARING OF INTEREST

Ozone 

### N02 so2 RHSIP 

### so2

IF SIP IF SIP IF SIP 5-YR PR NAAQS

## c~N\**C,.ei::>.£'{2-L~ 1/Vb~-**  A-G.\) t22 

## IN

.**..zs-1-~@.** 

# 01<., wY 82oo 

## "J

## vtt~A~v--. 

# 'B\t.-

.. h-::>

## ~""' I 

## PuB**13~2 ~{;.\?.** 

## ~~ W'j 't\2 "'\ 0 :2!. 

# By"v\/c. e**U-t.~J.u** V\.

... 

## (.t A- eu£J ""'- 

### t.e"**~C..** 

### o I 

## Pv--v**s.p~..:t- P~w-** 

## 1 r;;:t- Cc1 

## t-0.., r L{) 

## 80!:,-ZJ'

# Thv~ C:l<1loti"'s Bt,**~.,** 

# (/..eJr/<.

# ~'J LJY ¥, 

## ZZ() I 

## "D()..(' \c;... ,./ 

## "Poif-ev W'DEC'l 

### A&i::l 1 :z '"l.- 11-1 2-S T'"-

## .5~**~** /I..NI'U.. I)) 

### t-f fS" 2 0**~** 2 

# {)htl LuA 

# <J2. •· 11-

## ~ "U / "11'\F:hl 1\Q.Q /'2

... 2- W. 

## 2£4' @- rh,.lonrtn 

### iA.N f?'Z...CD'L

# <:;-re\JA~ iZ t 

### c 

### l-\ \ <- '2- 

### W· Lb'¥- 

### s\_ 0 \II**~t:** 

### 6< A Es>**~** 

### C-he.'{f-NNt. 

### W\.f**~1.-oo'Z...** 'Wyoming Department of Envil·onmental Quality- Air Quality Division Infrastructure State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (S0 2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard Response to Comments

The Wyoming Depmiment of Environmental Quality- Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD)- has assumed responsibility for maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as allowed under Section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). This is accomplished using a combination of measmes including, but not limited to, the issuance of federally
enforceable air permits that establish air emission control requirements, the effective implementation of compliance and inspection progrmns, and statewide ambient air monitoring.
These measures enable the State of Wyoming to successfully and efficiently implement, maintain and enforce new or revised NAAQS.

In response to the new !-hom S0 2 NAAQS that was promulgated on June 22,2010, the State of Wyoming updated the list of documentation required to demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements of Sections llO(a)(l) m1d (2) of the CAA. The Wyoming Infrastructure SIP (I-SIP) for the 20 I 0 S0 2 NAAQS was proposed by the WDEQ-AQD on December 16, 2013. The WDEQ-AQD conducted a public hearing on January 15,2014 in the Wyoming DEQ, Herschler Building, Wind River Conference Room, 2"d Floor, 122 W. 25 St., Cheyenne, WY. During the 30-day public comment period, the WDEQ-AQD received written comments on the proposed
2010 S0 2 Infrastructure SIP from the Sierra Club (SC), dated January 14,2014.

After reviewing the comments from SC, it quickly became apparent that most of the comments

were not particular to the State of Wyoming, but rather, were generalized to encompass several

states across the nation. SC submitted nearly identical comments to every state with large S0 2

sources, ranging from New York to Nevada. SC's comments can be boiled down to a list of issues that SC has with the CAA, and with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) rules and guidance regarding the NAAQS designation process. Because of the generalized nature of
these comments, WDEQ-AQD does not believe that a detailed response to each ofSC's arguments with EPA's interpretation of the CAA is warranted or necessary prior to the submission of the Wyoming I-SIP certification for the 2010 S0 2 NAAQS. Furthermore, in light of EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA § 110(a)(2), Wyoming has determined that
SC's comments do not provide evidence of any shortcomings in Wyoming's S02 I-SIP.

SC's first comment asserts that Wyoming's S0 2 I-SIP must impose enforceable 1-hour S0 2 emission limits to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas currently designated as attainment. The commenters claim that such specific emission limitations are required by the CAA, EPA regulations, EPA interpretations, Supreme Court opinions, and appellate comi opinions. TheWDEQ-AQD 2010 502/-5/P Submission Response to Comment
2/25/15

commenters further assert that the S0 2 I-SIP must include enforceable emission limitations to

ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

The WDEQ-AQD would like to emphasize that an "infrastructure SIP" is not the same as a "nonattainment area SIP," nor does it have the same requirements. An I-SIP is a demonstration

to EPA that a state has the infrastructure in place to implement, maintain, and enforce a new or revised NAAQS. Conversely, a nonattainment SIP demonstrates to EPA how a state will bring a designated nonattainment area into compliance with the NAAQS by detailing specific emission
reduction programs (including emission control requirements) for achieving the NAAQS, and how those programs will be enforced. Due to the distinct differences between these two types of SIPs, Wyoming believes that SC's comments do not pertain to the I-SIP process, or to the

content of an I-SIP. This belief is substantiated by EPA's "Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2)" (September 2013),
where EPA states:

"As noted earlier in this document, the EPA does not expect il?frastructure SIP submissions to address subsection 11 O(a)(2)(I). The specific SIP submissions .for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I part D, are subject to a different submission schedule than those .for section 110 if?frastructure elements and will
be reviewed and acted upon through a separate process. Air agencies do not need to address Element I in an infrastructure SIP submission. "

According to EPA's interpretation of the CAA, subsection 110(a)(2)(I) does not need to be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, and establishing emissions limitations to achieve attainment with NAAQS is not the purpose of 11 O(a)(2)(A). A state is not obligated to develop a SIP that addresses nonattainment requirements until the state has been designated as nonattainment in 40 CFR part 81. Until the attainment status is formally promulgated by EPA, states cannot define appropriate emission limits to ensure attainment of the NAAQS; therefore, no changes were made to the S0 2 I-SIP submission due to SC's comments.

SC's second comment is that the S0 2 I-SIP for the 2010 1-hour S0 2 NAAQS must contain
emission limitations for the following PacifiCorp facilities: Dave Johnston Plant, Jim Bridger Plant, and Naughton Power Plant. The commenters claim that AERMOD modeling is the appropriate tool for evaluating S0 2 I-SIPS, and for ensuring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. SC also contends that emission limitations based on 1-hour averaging periods must be
used for these facilities in the S0 2 I-SIP.

The WDEQ-AQD takes issue with two aspects of this comment: firstly, that modeling is the only appropriate tool, and secondly, that new emission limits belong in an I-SIP. With regards to the growing argument over which tools should be used to evaluate designation status, EPA has

2WDEQ-AQD 2010 5021-5/P Submission Response to Comment
2/25/15
openly admitted that the process is much more complicated than earlier assumed. The method
for determining whether a particular source or area is violating the !-hour S0 2 NAAQS is still being developed by EPA. Wyoming is waiting for EPA to make an attainment determination
and/or issue final implementation guidance and rule that specifies the state's requirements. EPA
has supported such practices in its dialogue with the states; for example, in its April 12,2012 letters to states, the EPA stated the following:

"

... we recommend for now that statesfocus their 2013 SIP submittals on the
traditional il?frastructure elements of Clean Air Act sections JJO(a)(l) and (2), rather
than on modeling demonstrations showingfuture attainment of the standard by a fixed datefor unclassifiable areas. "

In August 2013, EPA made an initial round of nonattainment designations for areas with air quality monitors that measured violations of the !-hour S0 2 standard. For all other areas, EPA
released an updated designation strategy paper for identifying: (I) which sources and areas would be addressed, (2) how air quality would be characterized for those sources and areas, and (3) when key steps would be taken in the overall process. This strategy paper defined a timetable for air agencies to submit plans using air quality monitoring, modeling, or a combination of both, therefore illustrating that modeling is not the only option for 

## so2 designations that is provided to states.

On December 6, 2013, the designation process for this standard was further complicated when the U.S.
District Court for the Northem District of Califomia determined that the EPA Administrator had
violated her duty to promulgate S0 2 designations by the June 2013 deadline. As of February 25,2015,
the Court has not yet determined the appropriate remedy; the Court's pending ruling could determine
when EPA promulgates designations.

Meanwhile, EPA continues to refine its strategy for an acceptable method for determining whether a state has achieved the !-hour S0 2 NAAQS, and EPA released the proposed Data Requirements Rule on May 13, 2014. In December 2013, EPA re-released the draft technical
assistance documents entitled, "S0 2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document", and "S0 2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical
Assistance Document," which address both modeling and monitoring approaches for assessing !-hour S0 2 NAAQS. According to the latest EPA guidance documents, final designations
based on modeling and monitoring are projected to be made in December 2017 and 2020. In

summary, while EPA has issued a "strategy" that allows the use of dispersion modeling for nonattainment designations for the 2010 S0 2 NAAQS, no final guidance or rule requiring modeling has been issued. Because of this, the modeling that SC has submitted with these

comments cannot be used for determining a nonattainment status and, therefore, cannot be used

to require emissions limitations or averaging periods to ensure attainment of the NAAQS.

3WDEQ-AQD 2010 S02 /-SIP Submission Response to Comment
2/25/15

With regmds to the second aspect of SC' s comment, that !-hour emission limits must be imposed
in the I-SIP, WDEQ-AQD further insists that this comment is beyond the scope of this I-SIP submission. The purpose of this I-SIP submission is to demonstrate that Wyoming meets the
infrastructure and transport requirements of CAA §II O(a)(2) for the 2010 SOz NAAQS. This ISIP submission lists existing Wyoming statutes and rules that allow the state to meet its obligations under the CAA. Furthermore, this I-SIP documents the existing legal authority and

programs in Wyoming demonstrating that we have the means to sufficiently implement the more protective sulfur dioxide (S0 2 ) standard. This I-SIP submission is not a demonstration of attainment of the 2010 S0 2 NAAQS. Until attainment status has been determined by EPA, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) require the compliance and enforcement of all NAAQS; all applicable sources must comply with those regulations, thus satisfying Wyoming's regulatory obligation. Therefore, no change was made to this S0 2 I-SIP
submission in response to the broad-based issues raised by SC.

With respect to specific issues raised by SC on the Wyoming 2010 S0 2 NAAQS I-SIP, the WDEQ-AQD provides the following responses:

The Chapter 3, Section 4 regulations, which SC contends are not accessible to the public, were removed from the WAQSR through the formal rulemaking process in the fourth quarter of2012. The rulemaking process included multiple opportunities for SC and other interested members of
the public to review and provide comment. The regulations were submitted to EPA for removal from the state SIP because they were outdated and superseded by more stringent regulations, primarily New Source Performance Standmds (NSPS). During EPA's review and approval

process, the public was again afforded the opportunity to review and provide comment. EPA approved Wyoming's Chapter 3, Section4 SIP revision in 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 65362). All that remains of Section 4 in the WAQSR is the word "Reserved," left as a simple placeholder for a possible future regulation. Nothing has ever been hidden from interested members of the public or SC. However, because the revision to the WAQSR, and to the EPAapproved SIP, includes the removal of language, WDEQ-AQD will remove the reference to Chapter 3, Section 4 in the 2010 !-hour S0 2 I-SIP submission to EPA.

SC also claims that Wyoming's Chapter 6, Section 4(b)(ix) regulation allows the Governor to grant variances in certain instances, and SC interprets this language as a gateway to undermining Wyoming's permitting and enforcement mechanisms. The WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 4, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program is a federally approved progran1 and is included in Wyoming's SIP. What SC fails to acknowledge is that Wyoming's Chapter 6, Section 4 regulation is incorporated directly ti·om the federal version of the same rule. SC's objection to Wyoming's inclusion of Federal language from 40 CFR part 51.166 (the Federal

4WDEQ-AQD 2010 S02 /-SIP Submission Response to Comment 2/25/15

PSD) program in the State PSD program- Chapter 6, Section 4- fmther illustrates that SC's argument is not with State of Wyoming, but rather with the federal interpretation of the CAA.

SC also commented on Chapter 1, Section 5 of the WAQSR, which deals with abnormal conditions and equipment malfunctions. The EPA fully approved this section of the SIP in 2010 (75 FR 19886). Chapter I, Section 5 simply recognizes that malfunctions occur, describes a
process for dealing with the malfunctions, and strictly holds the source accountable. for a remedy.
This regulation does not provide exceptions for emission limits, as claimed by the SC. Again, given the recognition that EPA fully approved this section of Wyoming's SIP, it is apparent that
SC's comments pertain to the federal level of regulation.

Finally, SC claims that the Wyoming I-SIP does not adequately address public notification requirements under 110(a)(2)(J). As clearly indicated in the 2010 S0 2 I-SIP, Wyoming included references to the portions of the SIP that do address public notification requirements. The first of these is a SIP document submitted to EPA on 1125/79 and approved by EPA on 7/2/79 ( 44 FR 38473). The document includes a commitment by the WDEQ-AQD to notify the public on a regular basis of any non-compliance with ambient air quality standards. Since the !-hour S0 2 standard is an ambient air quality standard, it is also covered under this portion of the approved and cited SIP. Wyoming, therefore, has demonstrated compliance with II O(a)(2)(J), and has done so for the past 3 5 years.

Additionally, this I-SIP submission has been revised to include the Federal Register publication dates of EPA final actions that occurred during the interim period between public notice (December 2013) and the official submission of this I-SIP to EPA (March 2015). Any revision
made is minor in nature and does not change the purpose or intent of the I-SIP submission, but rather, provides the most recent information regarding EPA action on Wyoming SIP submissions.

In conclusion, if and when SC decides to challenge EPA's interpretation of the CAA regarding!- SIPs, Wyoming will respond in the appropriate time and place. A response to comment document is not the proper forum to tackle potential CAA deficiencies or differences in interpretation. The Wyoming Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 S0 2 NAAQS is consistent with all guidance for infrastructure SIPs provided by EPA, and therefore demonstrates that the SIP meets the requirements of Sections l!O(a)(l) and (2) of the CAA. The State of Wyoming does not believe that any of the comments raised by the SC demonstrate deficiencies in the Wyoming Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 S02 NAAQS, and therefore Wyoming deems this document to sufficiently address SC's comments.

5