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 S02 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!7-5973 
WDEQ-AQD 2010 /-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Jr!frastructure SIP Certification 

3/6/15 

Division (AQD)- received written comments on the proposed 2010 S02 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 enclosures 
STATE OF WYOMING

110 Infrastructure SIP Elements for the 

2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(Reviewed December 2013)

(Revised in response 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 final 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 final Federal Register 4/16/2010; 75 FR 19886

c. Preceding WAQSR, Section 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 final Federal Register 10/21/2014; 79 FR 92859
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour 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 nitrogen oxides

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 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 final 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

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 approval 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 document submitted to EPA 9/12/2003

b. EPA final 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 final 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 final Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding WAQSR, 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 plans

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 12/21/12

b. EPA final 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 9/12/2003
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP

February 2015

3 | P a g e

b. EPA final Federal Register 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 final 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 final 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 SO2 through the State’s PSD and minor NSR programs. 

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

1-hour SO2 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) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality and

(ii) upon 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 39843

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 by 
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP

February 2015

4 | P a g e

EPA through 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 document 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 recent regulatory SIP document submitted to EPA 1/31/2013

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 final 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 recent regulatory SIP document 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 regulations 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 final Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

c. Preceding 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 39843
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP

February 2015

5 | P a g e

110(a)(2)(B) Comment:

Wyoming’s air monitoring and data systems programs meet the requirements of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states 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-regulatory 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: clarifications regarding 110 SIP 

infrastructure submissions for PM2.5, specifically addressing the current unavailability of EPA rules 

or guidance on PM2.5 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 final 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 documents 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
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour 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 meets 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 110(a)(2)(A) 

“Emission limits and other control measures,” included in this document.

Wyoming’s program for enforcement of control measures meets the requirements of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

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 state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state, or from 

interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, or to protect 

visibility, in another state. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include adequate provisions insuring compliance 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 approved 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 publication 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; SO2 Backstop Trading Program 

a. Submitted to EPA 1/12/11

b. EPA final 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-Hour 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 final Federal Register 7/28/2004; 69 FR 44965

2. Chapter 6, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP documents 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 7/28/2004, 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, Notification to the environmental 

protection agency and contiguous states

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

The WDEQ-AQD (AQD) identified a nearby area as designated nonattainment for the 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the State of Montana. The AQD 

relies on distance between sources and wind rose plots from District 3 in Wyoming to address the 

transport of SO2. Based on this information, the State of Wyoming confirms that SO2 emissions from 

Wyoming do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

in Montana or another state, and therefore meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

(Attachment A) 

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

and there are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against Wyoming with respect to the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

Adequate personnel, funding and authority: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide for 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law, and CAA section 128 requirements to 

carry out its SIP.

110(a)(2)(E) Non-regulatory Documents:
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP

February 2015

8 | P a g e

1. Resources 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 State 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. Chapter 1, Section 2, Authority

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

b. EPA final 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 final 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; penalties

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

The State of Wyoming also receives sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance 

Partnership Agreement (PPA) grants along with required State 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 SO2 

NAAQS.

Wyoming statutes and Executive Orders provide the mechanisms to satisfy CAA section 128 and meet 
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 final 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 final 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 reporting meets the 

requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

Emergency power: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities 

causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to 

implement 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 PM2.5, specifically addressing the current unavailability of EPA rules 

or guidance on PM2.5 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 Emergency 
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour 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 final 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 emergency 

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 SO2 NAAQS.

Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires states 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. Implementation 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 Quality 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 SO2 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-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP

February 2015

11 | P a g e

110(a)(2)(I) Comment:

According to EPA’s interpretation of the CAA, Section 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 Document:

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 States 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 PM2.5, specifically addressing the current unavailability of EPA rules 

or guidance on PM2.5 implementation through the PSD program.

110(a)(2)(J) Regulatory Documents, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR):
WDEQ-AQD 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP

February 2015

12 | P a g e

1. Chapter 6, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration

a. Most recent State regulatory SIP documents 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 states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements 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 meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

Air quality 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 final 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 documents 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-Hour 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 models specified in Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, and 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 SO2 NAAQS.

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 SO2 NAAQS. 

Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation 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 SO2 NAAQS. 
Attachment A

The State of Wyoming 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP

Element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Support Document
A-1

Attachment A

Interstate and International Transport Provisions for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

On August 5, 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated portions of 

Yellowstone County, Montana as “nonattainment” for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Since Wyoming and Montana are bordering 

States (Figure 1), each could be considered an area of potential transport of pollution to the other. 

The majority 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 (Table 1), and are well over 50 kilometers (km) away 

from the nearest edge of the Yellowstone County nonattainment area (Yellowstone County 

NAA) boundary (Figure 2). According to the EPA’s “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP 

Submissions, Appendix A, Modeling Guidance 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 composite wind rose from the 

city of Sheridan, Wyoming for the years 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 conducive of SO2
A-2

transport into the Yellowstone County NAA which is located “upwind” of Campbell County, 

Wyoming. More recent annual wind rose information from Black Hills Power located in 

Gillette, Wyoming, and Wyoming Refining located in Newcastle, Wyoming, show some 

variability in predominate wind flow. While this can be attributed to monitor placement and 

terrain variations throughout District 3, the composite wind roses provide further evidence that 

SO2 emissions from facilities or sources in northeastern Wyoming are not being transported into 

the Yellowstone County NAA.

According to the 2012 Black Hills Power Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Report annual 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 SO2 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 SO2 Monitoring Report (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 SO2 transport between Wyoming and the Yellowstone County NAA. 

There are no other 1-hour sulfur dioxide nonattainment areas adjacent to the State of Wyoming, 

including other downwind States such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas or 

Colorado. Distance 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 SO2 NAAQS in another State. Therefore, Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP meets the requirement 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 4 
b. 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 1 
The 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 Room, 2nd Floor, 122 W. 

25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The Division will take comment on three separate 

infrastructure 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 (O3) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); 2) the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS; 

and 3) the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 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 (NO2, O3, or SO2) Comments.” 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. 25th 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, 2nd Floor, 122 W. 25th Street, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. Electronic copies will be available on or about December 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 Tribune December 16, 2013
The 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 s1gned 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 w111 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 the 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 asststance or alternative formats will 

be made available upon request 

for mdtvtduals wtth dtsabilities 

Published: December 16, 2013 

Lega1No:975212 

. . 

St3fiTribune 

-----ltJoming1s 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 

this 
The 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 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (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 submitted 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-

schler 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 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 8 

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 

this 
The Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Air Quality Division 

(WDEQ-AQD) 

11 0 Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plans Public Hearing 

The Wyoming Departm~nt of Environmental QualltyfAir 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 

Build1ng, Wind River Conference 

Room, 2nd Floor, 122 W. 25th 

Street, Cheyenne, Wyom1ng. The 

Div1sion w11i take comment on 

three separate infrastructure 

SIPs, and they will be submitted 

to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) as required under 

the Clean A1r Act (CAA). Section 

110: 1) the 2008 8-hour ozone 

(03) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS); 2) the 2010 

1-hour n1trogen dioxide (N02) 

NAAQS; and 3) the 2010 1-hour 

sulfur dioxide (S02) NAAQS. The 

purpose of the hearing is to gather comment The Division w1ll not 

be presenting information. Comments should be clearly marked as "I-SIP (N02, 03, or S02) 

Comments." All oral comments 

made during the hearing and 

s1gned comments hand-delivered 

to Steven Dietnch 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. Dietrich, Admimstrator, DEQIAQD, Herschler Building, 

2-E, 122 W. 25th Street, Chey- enne, Wyommg, 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 not1ce and the 

proposed infrastructure SIPs for 

ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur 

diox1de are available for public inspection at the Department of En· vironmental Quality, A1r Quality 

DIVISIOn, Herschler Bu1lding, 2nd 

Floor, 122 W. 25th Street, Chey- enne, Wyoming. Electromc cop 

ies Will be available on or about 

December 16, 2013 at b!1p:ffdeq 

~y....!,&@qdfl dex.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 addit1onal1nformation contact 

Steven A. Dietrich, Administrator, 

Air Quality D1vision at 307-777-

7391 . 

In accordance with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, special assistance or alternative formats will 

be made available upon request 

for mdividuals with disabilities. 

Published: December 16, 2013 

Lega1No: 975193 

. . 

ta ~Tribune -----""Yomihg1

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 

_j_ consecutive weeks 

ending with issue dated 

Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me 

this 
VIA U.S. MAIL

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 Concerning 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 sources of sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) 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 

110(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 SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (“ppb”) is necessary to protect public health from 

the serious threats posed by short-term exposure to SO2, 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 chest 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 SO2 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 concentrations of sulfur 

compounds in the air. Id. Due to these and other serious impairments caused by short-term SO2

exposure, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) must properly 

implement the one-hour SO2 NAAQS to protect public health. 

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 attainment 

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 or 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 contain “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 maintenance 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 manner 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 evidence 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 attainment 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 History 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 NAAQS. 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 maintain 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 of 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 interpretation. 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 sources 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 reaffirmed 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 plan, 

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 substantive 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 not 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 emissions 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 provide 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 Limits 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 maintenance 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 

explained 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 rates 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 this 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 annual 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 protected 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 maintenance 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 Implementation 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 postponement is unsupported by the CAA.
6

which are regulations of the composition of substances emitted into the ambient 

air from such sources as power 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 (citing 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 they 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 section 

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 Conservation 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)). “While 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 

for 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)).

The 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 whether 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 “measur[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 baseline 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 baseline 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 analysis, 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 WYOMING INFRASTRUCTURE SIP IMPERMISSIBLY FAILS TO 

INCLUDE ENFORCEABLE ONE-HOUR SO2 EMISSION LIMITATIONS 

TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE NAAQS.

Even though the 2010 SO2 NAAQS requirements impose a new, more protective 

standard for ambient air, Wyoming’s proposed I-SIP fails to include restrictions on major SO2

sources to ensure that areas not designated nonattainment will attain and maintain the new onehour SO2 NAAQS. 

A. Wyoming must include enforceable one-hour SO2 emission limits for 

sources currently 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 SO2 

sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Emission limits are 

especially important for meeting the one-hour SO2 NAAQS, given the “strong source-oriented 

nature of SO2 ambient impacts.” Final SO2 NAAQS Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,570. Nationally, 

large point sources account for 95 percent of SO2 emissions, 66 percent of which come from 

fossil fuel combustion at electric facilities. Id. at 35,524. Coal-fired power plants, including

PacifiCorp Energy Dave Johnston Plant (“Dave Johnston Plant”) 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 Administrator 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 SO2 emissions and currently lack emission limits 

that prevent exceedances of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 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 SO2 NAAQS.

WDEQ has not even attempted to demonstrate that emissions allowed by the proposed ISIP will ensure compliance with the one-hour SO2 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, PacifiCorp Energy Dave 

Johnston Plant, Converse County, Wyoming, Sierra Club Evaluation of Compliance with 1-hour 

SO2 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 SO2 NAAQS (Sept. 12, 2012), [hereinafter 

“Jim Bridger Modeling Report”], attached hereto as Exhibit 5; Steven Klafka, Naughton Power 

Plant, Kemmerer, Wyoming, Evaluation of Compliance with 1-hour SO2 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 concentrations from each plant’s emissions with the 2010 

one-hour SO2 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 plantwide 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 SO2 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 with 

all available technical guidance, including Appendix W and EPA’s March 2011 guidance for 

implementing the one-hour SO2 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, employed 

conservative inputs, which favor the prediction of lower impacts from the plants so that the 

results may understate the plants’ SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 NAAQS. Id. These SO2

NAAQS exceedances based on both permitted emission limits and actual 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 designations for areas aside from those containing 

monitors that recorded exceedances of the NAAQS. See Air Quality Designations for the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191, 

47,191 (Aug. 5, 2013) (designating areas with monitor violations from 2009-2011 as 

nonattainment), [hereinafter “SO2 Designations Final Rule”]; see also Final Nonattainment 

Areas for 2010 SO2 Standards Round 1 – July 2013 (not currently designating any part of 

Wyoming as nonattainment), 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

SO2 Designations Final Rule, WDEQ must submit an I-SIP that “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

(μg/m3)

Background

(μg/m3)

7

Total Impact

Facility 

Impact plus 

Background

(μg/m3)

SO2

NAAQS

(μg/m3)

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

Naughton Allowable 3,492.6 15.7 3,508.3 196.2

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 SO2 NAAQS. 

8

 The 75 ppb to μg/m3 calculation is 75/0.3823 = 196.2 μg/m3.
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 SO2 NAAQS. These limits 

represent the maximum rate that each facility can emit without causing NAAQS exceedances, 

thus reducing each total plant’s allowable 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 SO2 NAAQS

Plant

Maximum Total Facility 

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 Report 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 SO2

NAAQS based on their allowable 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 current 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 maintenance of the NAAQS

As outlined by EPA in the Final SO2 NAAQS Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,551, air 

dispersion modeling is the best method for evaluating the short-term impacts of large SO2 

sources. This is consistent with EPA’s historic use of air dispersion 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. Auto 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 statement 
11

that additional 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 

SO2 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 SO2 standard. See e.g., U.S. EPA, 

Implementation of the 1-Hour SO2 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 SO2 Guideline Document, EPA noted that “for SO2

attainment demonstrations, monitoring data alone will generally not be adequate,” U.S. EPA, 

1994 SO2 Guideline Document, [hereinafter “1994 SO2 Guideline Document”], available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/so2_guide_092109.pdf, at 2-5, and that 

“[a]ttainment determinations for SO2 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 responsible for attainment.” Id. at 2-1. 

The 1994 SO2 Guideline Document goes on to note that monitoring alone is likely to be 

inadequate: “[f]or SO2, dispersion modeling will generally be necessary to evaluate 

comprehensively a source's impacts and to determine 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 adequacy 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 as 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 designations 

stretches back to the Carter Administration. In 1978, EPA designated Laurel, Montana as 

nonattainment “due to measured and modeled violations of the primary SO2 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 SO2 NAAQS rule simply continued and built upon EPA’s 

historical practice of using modeling to determine attainment and nonattainment status for SO2 

NAAQS. In doing so, EPA properly recognized the “strong source-oriented nature of SO2 

ambient impacts,” Final SO2 NAAQS Rule at 35,370, and concluded that the appropriate 
12

methodology for purposes of determining compliance, attainment, and nonattainment with the 

new NAAQS is modeling. See id. at 35,551 (describing dispersion modeling as “the most 

technically appropriate, efficient and readily available method for assessing short-term ambient 

SO2 concentrations in areas with large point sources.”). Accordingly, in promulgating the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, EPA explained that, 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 

determine attainment for the SO2 standard “could better address several potentially problematic 

issues than would the narrower monitoring-focused approach discussed in the proposal for the 

SO2 NAAQS, including the unique source-specific impacts of SO2 emissions and the special 

challenges SO2 emissions have historically presented in terms of monitoring short-term SO2 

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 modeling. 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 nonattainment for SO2. 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) (“Realistically, 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 

future violations and incorporating “worst-case” assumptions regarding weather and fullcapacity operations of pollutant sources). Further demonstrating the superiority of modeling, the 

D.C. Circuit has acknowledged the inherent problem of using monitored data 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. 

EPA 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 modeling 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 (AERMIC) 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 accurately 
13

predicting whether the revised primary SO2 NAAQS is attained and whether individual sources 

cause or contribute to a violation of the SO2 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 Quality 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, Research 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 Part 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 model 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 othermodels.

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, SO2 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 air 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 

are well characterized in terms of location, dimensions, and exhaust parameters, and have high 

release heights. In addition many plants have SO2 continuous emission monitoring system 

(“CEMS”) data. AERMOD accurately models medium-to-large SO2 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 site-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 SO2 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]mbient 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 

SO2 concentrations at receptors where no monitors are located.” 1994 SO2 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 nonattainment and interference with the maintenance of the one-hour SO2

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 rational 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 SO2 NAAQS. To satisfy the Act’s obligations, Wyoming must 

include adequate emissions limits in the SIP with one-hour averaging periods. EPA has 

acknowledged that, for the one-hour SO2 NAAQS, modeling is the most accurate means of 

determining attainment with the NAAQS. Final SO2 NAAQS Rule at 35,551, 35,570. 

Accordingly, Wyoming must include source-specific SO2 emission limits in the SIP that, when 

modeled, show no exceedances of the NAAQS. 

C. Wyoming must include enforceable SO2 emission limits with a one-hour 

averaging period that apply at all times

As discussed, the emission 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 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.” 

42 U.S.C. at § 7602(k). Therefore, the emission limitations 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 

SO2 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 time 
15

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 and 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 . . . SO2 NAAQS . . . 

the permit needs to contain . . . SO2 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 review 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 require monitoring of these SO2 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 because the NSPS requirements do not call for monitoring during every hour of 

operation. In order to ensure the emission limits protect the one-hour SO2 NAAQS, the emission 

limits must be monitored during every hour of operation.

The I-SIP is meant to implement, 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 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, Wyoming must include emission limitations for the all 

major SO2 sources, including Dave Johnston Plant, Jim Bridger Plant, and Naughton Power Plant 

and others not modeled but known to be contributing to SO2 emissions, such as Laramie River 

Station in Wheatland and Wyodak Power Plant in Gillette, that reflect the new one-hour SO2

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 discussed, 

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 emission 
16

limitations or other required measures that ensure compliance. See WDEQ, 110 Infrastructure 

SIP Elements for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Dec. 

2013), [hereinafter “I-SIP Submission”]. 

The regulations that WDEQ cites are insufficient to ensure compliance with the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. For example, WDEQ cites Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (“WAQSR”) 

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 emission 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 SO2 NAAQS. It provides 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 ISIP and prevent Wyoming from ensuring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Wyoming must 

revise these provisions before EPA can approve the Infrastructure SIP. Additionally, WDEQ cites other 

provisions that do not address emissions from some of the largest sources of SO2, 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 vehicle 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 proper mass limitations and one-hour averaging periods are imposed on fuelburning 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 SO2 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 exemptions and variances 

that undermine its permitting and enforcement mechanisms, thus failing to ensure the attainment 

and maintenance of the SO2 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 conditions and 

equipment malfunctions allows for exceptions in emission levels. These regulations, as well as 

others statutes and regulations that allow for exceptions, may frustrate the purpose of the I-SIP 

and prevent Wyoming from ensuring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Wyoming 

must revise these provisions before EPA can approve the Infrastructure SIP.

IV. THE WYOMING INFRASTRUCTURE SIP IMPERMISSABLY FAILS TO 

INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO ENSURE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.

Wyoming’s proposed I-SIP does not adequately address 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 be 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 

statutes and regulations that WDEQ cites do not guarantee that the public will be notified of SO2

NAAQS exceedances. See I-SIP Submission at 11. While WAQSR Chapter 12, Section 2, Air 

pollution emergencies, provides for notification of air alerts, warnings, and emergencies, the 

levels that trigger notification are well above the 2010 SO2 standard. The lowest level triggering 

notification is a SO2 exceedance of 300 ppb averaged over a 24 hour time period. The SO2

NAAQS requires that the public be notified when 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 requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J).
18

V. CONCLUSION

The proposed SIP fails to ensure that the one-hour SO2 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 Club
PUBLIC 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 (S02) 

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 S02 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 S02 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 S02 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 S02 

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 S02 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 S02 I-SIP must impose enforceable 1-hour S02 

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. The 
WDEQ-AQD 2010 502/-5/P Submission 

Response to Comment 

2/25/15 

commenters further assert that the S02 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 S02 I-SIP submission due to SC's comments. 

SC's second comment is that the S02 I-SIP for the 2010 1-hour S02 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 S02 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 S02 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 

2 
WDEQ-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 S02 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 S02 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 S02 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 S02 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, "S02 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance 

Document", and "S02 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical 

Assistance Document," which address both modeling and monitoring approaches for assessing 

!-hour S02 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 S02 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. 

3 
WDEQ-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 (S02) standard. This I-SIP submission is not a demonstration of 

attainment of the 2010 S02 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 S02 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 S02 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 S02 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 

4 
WDEQ-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 S02 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 S02 

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 S02 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