State of Nevada

Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources

State Environmental Co mission SEC.nv.~Ov

901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001, Carson City, Nevada 89701

Summary Minutes of the

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (SEC)

Meeting of May 2, 2014 10:00 AM

Bryan Building Carson City

901 South Stewart Street

Carson City, NV

Members Present: Members Absent:

E. Jim Gans, Chairman Frances Barron

Tom Porta, Vice Chairman Mark Turner

Pete Anderson Tony Wasley

Cary Richardson

Jason King

Rich Perry SEC Staff Present:

Jim Barbee CoUeen Ptatt, SEC/DAG

Kathryn Landreth VaLerie King, Executive Secretary

Misti Gower, Recording Secretary

BEGIN SUMMARY MINUTES’~ :

The meeting was calLed to ~d~r ~t1,.0 00 ámby Chai~man Jim Gans. Ms. King, the Executive

Secretary, confirmed the hearihg was properLy~ noticed’~and that a quorum was present

1) Public Comments (D1scussi~n): Chairr~an Gans called for public comment. There was none.

2) Approval of Agen4a (Action Item): Chairman Gans asked if there were any changes or

comments regarding thèagenda~M~’. King confirmed there were no changes to the agenda.

Chairman Gans welcomed çbLteen Pratt, the SEC’s new Deputy Attorney GeneraL.

Commissioner Landreth moved to approve the agenda and Vice Chairman Porta seconded. The

agenda was approved as presented.

3) Approval of the minutes for the December 4, 2013 SEC meetin (Action Item): Chairman

Gans requested comments from the Commission on the December meeting minutes. Commissioner

Richardson asked if the minutes couLd be emaiLed to the Commissioners when compLeted to allow

the Commissioners to review them while the meeting is still fresh in their minds. Ms King stated

it wouLd be done in the future.

Commissioner Perry moved to approve the minutes as presented and Commissioner King seconded.

The motion passed unanimously.

Minutes of State Environmental Commission Regulatory Meeting May 2, 2014
4) Penalty Assessments for Air Quality Violations - (Action Item): Mr. Rob Bamford, Bureau Chief

of Air Pollution, and Mr. Francisco Vega, supervisor of the Compliance and Enforcement Branch,

presented the violations to the Commission. The handouts provided dunn the meeting are

included as attachments to the meeting minutes.

A. Newmont Nevada Energy Investment, LLC, TS Power Plant - NOVA No. 2453, aLleged failure

to comply with a permitted emission limit. The recommended penalty amount is $12,420.00

B. Nevada Slag, Inc. - NOAV No. 2455 and No. 2456,-alleged failure to comply with permitted

emission Limit and aLLeged faiLure to operate required air pqlli~tion controls The

recommended penalty amount is $12,600 00

C Q&D Construction, Inc - NOAV No 2462, alLeged fa~L~re~ocompLy with a permitted

emission limit The recommended penalty amount~s $3,250 O0~

D Hawthorne Army Depot - NOAV No 2471, ~ij~ged failure to comply~iith a permitted

emission Limit The recommended penalty amo~ht~s $20,800 00 ~

~r -~ P

E Rockwood Lithium Inc - NOAV No 2472, aLlegecPfaiLure~th conduct required compLiance

source testing The recommended penalty amount is $5~000 00

F ALston Construction - NOAV No 2476, a(Le~dfaiLure to apply for and obtain an operating

permit prior to commencing construction ~The recô&~mended penalty amount is $2,900 00

I P

Newmont Nevada Energy~Investment, TS Powe,r~Plant Commissioner Perry disclosed that he had

previously been employed ~by. Newm~t and that h~is daughter is currently employed by Newmont,

aLthough at a ditfe,~ent site H~ st~t~d~his judgment ~‘ioutd not be influenced —

Mr Bamford informed the~ Commission that TS~Power is a coat-fired energy plant Located in Eureka

County The faciLity is a major stationary source and has a Class I Air QuaLity Operating permit

According to,the permit, the companyni~u~t test the boiler annuaLLy for various pollutants,

includin sulfunc acid mist In Novembei~20~2, TS Power failed the acid mist emission Limit

specified in its permit. After reviewing the boiler and control system, the boiler was retested in

February 2013 andp$sed. Mr. Vég~demonstrated how the penaLty was calculated using the SEC

approved penalty matrtb~(Attachmçnt I).

Dennis Laybourn, Environrñentä( Manager at TS Power addressed the Commission. He expLained

that Newmont was not contesting the penaLty and is currently working with NDEP to update its

PSD Limits, bringing Newmont in line with the plant production and technology.

Motion: Commissioner Richardson moved to accept NDEP’s recommended penalty of $12,420.00

for Air QuaLity Violation No. 2453. Commissioner Barbee seconded the motion and it passed

unanimously.

Nevada Slag, Inc.: Mr. Bamford stated that the faciLity is Located in McGiLl and processes copper

sLag, a byproduct from copper ore processed severaL years ago. The slag is used as a sandbtasting

agent.

2

Minutes of State Environmental Commission Regulatory Meeting May 2, 2014
Mr. Bamford.stated that NDEP has been unable to leach a repr,esentatiye of.Nevada Slag for the

past year TI~e ‘mail has been retuned as “und~liverable” and the phone ~iumber has been

disçonnécted., •.i..

~

. ~“.• •“.... *~‘ . ‘•~

~-• ~ .. •,.‘,,..‘~

Ms King state4~that the Lettersent froip the SEC was aLso’ñot dqttverable and the~company was

identiid as “dissolv d” on the Nevada Secretary o~ States website Deputy Attorney GeneraL,

CotLeen PLatt, confirmed that the Bureau of Air PolLution Control and the SEC had properly noticed

the company and the CommissioncóuLd continue withthe penalty process.

.,.,~‘ •~ .. Mr Bamford stated that substantive fu itive dust emissions were observed during an~,on site

inspeéion conduè~’ed on June 27, 2013 The inspector, ~êh~o is ce~rtifi~d to determine dust and

smoke opacity, per~forrne4visuaL.emtssion opacity readings qn~2 pieces of equipment~ The

inspector determined opacity was approximateLy 80% on each ui~it, which was significantly above

the permitted 20%~Limit. The units did not have water running to them and therefore were not

capabLe of operating prop~rLy. He sta!ed the appLication of th~e penalty matri~c accoupts for the

severity of. the ppacity.viotation.and .tI~e. non~operation of the. emission çontroLs~(Attachment II).

Motion: Commissioner Barbee moved to approve the.recornmended penalty~of $1 2,600.00 for Air

QuaLity Violations No 2455 and No 2456 CommissIoner Anderson seconded the motion and it

passed unanimously. . ~

‘•~.ycs ‘!‘‘~ .

Q&D Construction, Inc Mr Bamford explained that the facility is a hot mix asphalt plant that

incLudes a drum dryer which combustspropane to gençrate~ heat. The permit has a NOx test

requirement. In June 2013, Q&D performed the Nc~x test, which’ failed. Mr. Vega demonstrated

how the penalty was caLculated through the use of the penaLty matrx (Attachment III).

Chairman Gans asked if anyone from the comp,~ny was in the audience Ms King stated she had

spoken with arepresentat4ve who informed her they were not contesting the penalty and would

not be present. ...

~ ..t . -~

Motion Comrn~ssioner Landreth made a motion to ac ept the recommended penalty of $3,250 00

for Air Quaiiq VioLat’on No. 2462. Vice Chairman Porta seconded the motion and it passed

unanimously’.

Hawthorne Army Depot: Mr. Bamford stated, the Hawthorne Army Depot operates a munitions

detonation rotary kiln that is used tp destroy. specific types of explosives and munitions by

controlled detonation..The permitrequiresa stack test for dioxins and furans. The kiln exceeded

its permit Limits during a stack test. Mr. Vega described how the penalty was caLculated, via the

application of the penalty matrix. He stated a base vaLue had been appLied for a major source and

a multiplier was added for the severity of the failed test. He stated an additional value was added

for 2 previous violations in the past 5 years (Attachment IV).

Tom Erickson, contracted Director ‘of Base Operations and Stephen McKay, who oversees the

contracted operator at the Hawthorn Army Depot, were present at the meeting to represent the

Hawthorne Army Depot. They did not contest the recommended penalty.

Motion: Vice Chairman Porta made a motion to accept the recommended penalty of $20,800.00

for Air Quality Violation No. 2471. Commissioner Barbee seconded the motion and it passed

unanimously.

Minutes of State Environmental Commission Regulatory Meeting May 2, 2014
R~k~o~l Lith1u,~iñ Mr.’Bàrnfôr ~tatëdthàt thi~ facitity1has a’~CLàss2, niinàr source air

quality o~er~ti~g permit~ The permit~re~ui~es inibaL~c~mpLiànce source testing for four pollutants

Testing was ~equirçd to occur in May 2013 butwas not conducted until Octobé~ 201 3~ ‘5 môi~th

aftertherequfredtirnef~ame. Mr. Vega reported that in this case, the calculated penaLty, using

th~penalt~ matnx, takes into account one unit that failed to test for four potLutant~ He clanfied

that the muLtiplier is based upon the unit, not the number of pollutants required to be tested

(Attachment V). :

Scott Reed came forward to represent the company. Mr. Reed informed the Commission the

company was not contesting the penalty, rather, they wouLd be completing the required te~ts

within 60 to 90 days Mr Bamford stated that Rockwood Lithium and NDEP had been~

communicating thr6ughout~this issue and that Rockwo&f Lithium had béeñ and continues to be

very cooperative

Motion Commissioner King made a motion to accept the penalty of $5,000 00 for Air Quality

Violation No. 2474. Comniissiórfer Barbèeseconded the motion and it passed ünanimously~

Aiston Construction: Commissioner Richards n disclosed that the owher of Atston COnstruction

was a former empLoyee but that wouLd not affecthisjudginerit;

Mr. Bamford stated that a NDEP inspector witnessed dirt work being performed on more than 5

acres without a vaLid permit. Atston Construction was notified that the work required a Surface

Area Disturbance permitand submitted an.applicatióri thesai’n& day. Mr. Vega stated the penalty

calculation, using the penalty matrix, tookinto account the number of acres disturbed as the

multiplier (Attachment VI)

Mark Drahos, with AlstOnConstruc.tion, addressed the~C’ornrnission. ‘H~ did not contest the

recommended penaLty amount. He,stated thatall controls had ~eén inplace to mitigate dust;

however, the onsite süp~rvisor did net know the permit appLication had not yet been submitted to

NDEP and that a permit ~‘as r~ot in place.

Motion: Cominissidnè~ Landreth ma~de a ñiotiôn to accept the recommended penalty of $2,900.00

for Air Quality Violation ‘No 2476; Vice Chairman Porta seconded the motion and it passed

unanimdusfr;

5) RI 45-13 Bureau, of Air Quality ~lanning - Ambient Air Quality Standards: (Action Item) Ms.

Jasmine Mehta, Bureau Chief for~Ai~ QuaLity PLanning, presented the proposed regulation

amendmentsto the Commission using a supplementary handout (Attachment VII). She stated the

amendments are proposed in response to a federal requirement. The proposed amendments wilL

bring the ambient air quaLity standards table in the Nevada Administrative Code into aLignment

with the national standards currently in effect and provided specific information regarding the

changes.

Chairman Gans ask if there were any comments from the public on the proposed regulation. Mr.

Allen Biaggi, representing the Nevada Mining Association (NMA), stated the NMA is in full support

of the proposed reguLation. He also commented that NDEP had done good work in crafting the

regulation package.

Motion: Commissioner Perry moved to adopt regulation R145-1 3. Commissioner Landreth seconded

the motion and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Barbee Left during the presentation and did

not partake in the vote.

4

Minutes of State Environmental Commission Regulatory Meeting May 2, 2014
6) Approval of SEC Form 4- Small business Impact Statement: (Action Item) Ms. King presented

the proposed changes to the SEC Form 4. Ms. 1(1 informed the commission the 2013 Legislative

session resulted in changes to the small business impact statement prepared by state agencies

when proposing regulations. She stated the proposed chan es to the Form 4 had previously been

reviewed and approved by the deputy attorney generals for both the SEC and NDEP.

Motion: Commissioner Landreth moved to adopt Form 4. Vice Chairman Porta seconded the

motion and it passed unanimously.

14) Administrator’s Briefing to the Commission: (Discussion) Mr. Dave Gaskin, Deputy

Administrator of NDEP, addressed the Commission in place of A4ministrator Colteen Cripps. Mr.

Gaskin welcomed Colleen Pratt to the Commission and then~ddressed personnel changes at NDEP.

He stated that Ms Chns Andres is the new Bureau Chief of F~ederal Facilities, repLacing Tim

Murphy who recently retired. He stated that the deput~&àdinhiii~trator interviews will be held on

May I 3th ‘~~‘

Mr Gaskin stated that NDEP has been workingdili~ ~iLy with the Divi~ion of MineraLs on the

proposed fracking regulation. SeveraL worksho~≤i~ere held in March. Böth~divisions are now going

through the public comments and refining the projiosed regulation.

Mr Gaskin stated that a settLement has been reached regarding the BMI Complex with

Anadarko/Arco for $1.1 billion dollar~ Hé’~’ Id that NDEP Is currently pLannin• how best to use the

money for a long term clean up remedy at.thè~’site.

Mr Gaskin sated that the Army~Corp of Engineers and~the EPA recently put out a proposed rule

which would redefine the waters o(the Unltéd~States, specifically, what waters wouLd fall under

the Clean Water Act He rndlcatedit will have~a~potentiaL impact on Nevada All the states and

associations are evaluating the information that~ has been presented and will be preparing

comments He concluded th~t the Administrator will be keeping the Commission updated on this

matter. ‘.:

15) Public Comment: (DIsc~ission) Chairman Gans asked for public comments. Hearing none he,

asked wheA the, next SEC meeting will beheld. Ms. King stated the next meeting will be held

October 8, 2014.in the Tahoe Conferencë~Room on the 2”~ floor of the Bryan Building.

16) Adjournment: (Discussion) Meeting was adjourned at 12:40pm.

Minutes of State Environmental Commission Regulatory Meeting May 2, 2014
ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT I: Newmont Nevada Energy Investment, TS Power Plant

ATTACHMENT II: Nevada Slag, Inc.

ATTACHMENT III: Q&D Construction, Inc.

ATTACHMENT IV: Hawthorne Army Depot

ATTACHMENT V: Rockwood Lithium Inc.

ATTACHMENT VI: Aiston Construction

ATTACHMENT VII: Ambient Air Quality Standards

ATTACHMENT VIII: SEC Form 4

Minutes of State EnvironmentaL Commission ReguLatory Meeting - May 2, 2014
ATTACHMENT II

Ambient Air Quality Standards

13

Minutes of State Environmental Commission Regulatory Meeting May 2, 2014
F

V

.

>‘

a)

S

a
I.

• A 

• Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA must review 

standards for each criteria pollutant every 5 years

Criteria pollutants: CO, Pb, NO2, SO2, PM, 03.

• EPA must tighten stand rds i necessary to be pro

of public health & welfare.

• EPA is not allowed to consider cost when setting

standards.
(New) pollutant standards that NDEP is req

implement:

o 20 PM2,5 ‘(a- .~ & ann

0 ioN i

i. 802 (i-br)
— — — w

• CAA requires that States will implement these fed

pollution standards.

States must submit a State Implementation Plan 

implement the standards. Otherwise, EPA will im

them.

• State regulation/implementation cannot be less s

than federal law.
II. I— 0

States have 3 years to implement a new standard afte

promulgates it.If a State is late or deficient with implementatio , EPA 

solution (“FIP”).State’s federal funds may be sanctioned

(i.e., highway funding).

State loses program approval and all permit acti ty m

directly through EPA (EPA Region 9 in San Francisco

NDEP is under an accelerated~~Jine by which it mu

SIP to EPA. “FIP clock” expires October 2014.
0 I III ~I ..

• Stakeholder meeting on November 6, 2013

• Workshop on NOvember 26, 2013.

LIReceived s -ver 1 c mments an wor ed wi

i aust . Revised r posed amen ments bon comme ts.

Workshop to discuss revisions on March 2

2014.
I

NAC 445B,~39~For new or modified so

applicant must submit environmental eval

for Director td~d~tëih~iñëi~EaiiimentojNANAC 445B.3JO: Applicant for new or rev

permit must submit with the application a

environmental evaluation i

N w proje t> 5 TE of a reg. polluta tModific tio , if exsting s rce as E> TP 

r . olluta an modification h s > 10 TP 

reg. P0 1 tant.
a w

NAC 445B.311: Contents of Environmen

Evaluation.

Eval for new or modified source m St CO t in..

dispe sion analysis of each regulate air 61

NAC 445B.22O~fl tandards of Quality 

Ambient Air.

recto s a 1 use Ne a Standar s~ c. 

w h rti.iss ea e mi
• •.Ià~ —•.

• Adds to the Nevada side ofthe table:

~~f~hQu Nitrogen ioxid standarI a r S ifur xi e standar

~An ual mean and 24- ur s anda d for 2.5

• Adds language to ensure the new standard

no more stringent than the federal standa

~ ...t e Director sh 11 use the form of the sta d rds set forth i ~ C

50.11, 50.1 and 50.17, as those ro sio s existed o the effec ve 

regul tion, t ensure that the Nev a standar. is no more stringen

National stan ar in determining whether the sta ii ‘ ource w

. . 

with the Nevada stantlar s in areas whereThe general p lic as a

• Clarifies how rné?~~jjrements ofPM2.5 and 

are to be made.
•1O —•1 ‘ I A

Adds a section that exempts

.—-~.---.—

applicant

—~-—————~

from

providii~iir model for i-hour S02 or i-ho

- N02 if PTEs are less than 40 tons per yea

new source ormodific~tioncf source.
.~ • I I

Rob Bamford

rbamford@ndep.nv.gov

Jasmine Mehta

jme a@ndep. v.gov