## January 28, 2015

CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Ron Curry, Regional Administrator (6RA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region VI 1445 Ross A venue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

## 15r:"F812 PH 6: J4

Subject: Certification of SIP Elements for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS under Clean Air Act Sections llO(aXI) and (2)

Dear Administrator Curry:

In a letter dated September 24, 2013 Governor Mary Fallin appointed me as her designee for the purpose of submitting documents to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval and incorporation into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare and implement the state's air quality management plan under Oklahoma Statutes.

Sections 11 O(aXI) and (2) of the Clean Air Act require that each state review and revise as necessary its SIP following promulgation of a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

## [See U.S.C. § 

## 7410(a)(l) and (2)]. On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide (S02) [75 Fed.Reg. 35520, June 22, 2010]. EPA issued the "Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections IIO(aXI) and 110(aX2)" in September 2013 ("EPA's 2013 I-SIP guidance,.). Under this guidance, states may certify that their existing SIPs meet the "infrastructure" elements of§ 11 O(a)(2), rather than submitting a SIP for revised NAAQS such as the 2010 S02 NAAQS.

Oklahoma's SIP is codified in 40 CFRPart 52, Subpart LL. On behalfofthe State of Oklahoma, I hereby certify that, 

## as indicated in the enclosed table titled "Oklahoma's State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal 'Infrastructure' Checklist," Oklahoma's SIP meets the infrastructure obligations for the 20 I 0 Primary 80 2 

## NAAQS. To date, the only Program changes specifically required to meet the revised**S~** 

## NAAQS were revisions to Appendix E ofOAC 252:100, to change the level and form of the Primary 

## SOl standard [CAA § 

## II O(a)(2)(H)].

State public participation procedures for such SIP submittals were submitted to EPA for review under 40 CFR § 

## 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that Oklahoma's procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 

## 51.102 and associated guidance. Public notice for this submittal was posted on DEQ's web site beginning on April30, 2014, to allow the opportunity to provide
comments and to request a public hearing preliminarily scheduled for June 5, 2014 at DEQ's offices. No hearing request was received during the minimum 30-day comment period (5/1/14- 6/1/14). Therefore,

a notice of hearing cancellation was posted on June 2, 2014, and no hearing was held. Attached is documentation of this public notice and submittal process. Also attached are copies of comments received during the comment period and a Response to Comments document. It 

## is our understanding that the final results of EPA's review of this submittal will be detennined through rulemaking and will be 

## published in the 

## Federal Register.

## Note that this letter and its supporting documentation do not address § 

## I 10(a)(2){l), which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements ofTitle I, Part D of the Clean Air Act. These requirements are not governed by the three-year SIP submission deadline under§ IIO(a)(l). In addition, Oklahoma currently has no 

# so2 nonattainment areas, and no nonattainment plans are due.

Note also that, consistent with EPA's 2013 I-SIP guidance, this submittal is not intended to assert that Oklahoma meets all requirements of§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l), which relate to interstate pollutant transport affecting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. It 

## is our understanding that EPA expects to address § 

## 110(a)(2){D)(i)(l) separately through issuance of further guidance. However, the checklist does describe certain related aspects of DEQ's infrastructure.

If you have questions, please contact Mr. Eddie Terrill, Director, Air Quality Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality at {405) 702-4100.

Sincerely,

# ~~**~**

Michael Tear?TAf'/1.

.. · Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment

Enclosures

cc: Scott Thompson, Executive Director, Department of Environmental Quality Eddie Terrill, Director, DEQ Air Quality Division

cc: Guy Donaldson, Section Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L) Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L) Terry Johnson, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L)

:z:


# ,..... c



# - ti; Q 

# ... > lU 

# ,..... 

# a
.::::> 

## .a: V)



# - IIIII: 

### !:::: 

### lU**~** (.) (\,1 

### c.... 

## w 

# - .q: 

## a::

# ~ -J <:t 

### z II) 0::: 4.1 

# - ,_ >< 

### w11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 1 

## Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist

CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current SIP or Pending SIP Revisions 

## Updated for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

## ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

On June 2, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a new 1-hour primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) 1



### . Section 110(a)(1) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each newly promulgated or revised NAAQS. A SIP identifies how thatstate will attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary NAAQS. The SIP contains state regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory items such as plans and inventories. The initial SIPs for states were approved by the EPA on May 31, 1972 (46 Fed.Reg. 40005). The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air quality management plan under the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act and the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (see generally Title 27A Oklahoma Statutes (O.S. ) § § 2-1 -101 et seq.). The federally enforceable SIP for Oklahoma is compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. Approval of additional SIP submittals is pending.

SIPs are reviewed and revised by the state from time to time as necessary to accommodate changes in State and Federal statutes, rules, policies, and program requirements. In addition to SIP revisions to address specific program requirements (e.g., PSD/NSR Program), including those changes that directly result from a new or revised NAAQS, EPA has interpreted § 110(a)(1) of the federal CAA to require the state to demonstrate that the SIP meets the “infrastructure” requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) each time a NAAQS is issued or revised 2



### . The resulting submittal is now commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” or “I-SIP.” Under its September 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 3 

### (“2013 I-SIP Guidance”), EPA allows for certification that “... the already-approved SIP contains or references provisions that satisfy all or some of the requirements of section 110(a)(2), as applicable, for purposes of implementing the new or revised NAAQS.” The following table summarizes how and where the applicable infrastructure requirements are addressed in Oklahoma’s current SIP or pending SIP revisions. In addition to a summary of infrastructure elements as they relate to the various existing NAAQS, the table lists any changes or pertinent information specific to the subject NAAQS change.

1 EPA established the new 1-hour SO 2 standard at a level of 75 ppb [ see 40 CFR §50.17]. This rule also provided for the automatic future revocation of the previous annual and 24- hour SO 2 NAAQS for most areas following 1 year after designation under the new NAAQS [ see 40 CFR § 50.4(e)]. The previous 3-hour secondary standard remains in place indefinitely. [ see 40 CFR §50.5; 75 Fed.Reg. 35520 (June 22, 2010) ]. The EPA has also recently reviewed the air quality criteria and the secondary NAAQS for nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides and retained the current NO 2 and SO 2 secondary standards. [ see 77 Fed.Reg. 20218 (April 3, 2012) ] Because these secondary NAAQS were not revised, an I-SIP submittal requirement was not triggered for these standards.

2 For Example, EPA approved Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP (or “I-SIP”) for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS on January 26, 2012 ( 77 Fed.Reg. 3933 ).

3 Distributed under September 13, 2013 memo from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA’s Regional Air Directors, Regions 1- 10.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 2 

### This Submittal: 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) NAAQS In this I-SIP submittal, Oklahoma is demonstrating that it has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) NAAQS. This submittal was prepared under EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V – Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 3 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(A)

– Emission Limits and Other Control Measures include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act. Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act (27A O.S. §§ 1

- 1

- 101 t hru 1

- 4

- 10 7 ), Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code (27A O.S. §§ 2

- 1

- 101 thru 2

- 16

- 10 7 ) including the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. § § 2

- 5

- 101 thru 2

- 5

- 117 ) and other relevant portions

, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252: 4, Rules of Practice and Procedure, and OAC 252: 100, Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Rules

.

Oklahoma has an EPA

- approved air permitting program for both major /Part 70 s ources (OAC 252:100

- 8) and minor facilities (OAC 252:100

- 7)

. [ See discussion under Element 110(a)(2)(C)

– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

. ]

EPA actions on several SIP revisions are pending. These include portions of the February 14, 2002 SIP submittal (“Big SIP”) ; portions of the June 24, 2010 SIP submittal (SC

- 8 revision); the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess emissions); portions of the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2”) ; the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (NSR Reform); and the March 26, 2012 SIP submittal (G HG and PM2.5); as well as the annual SIP revisions for 2010 ( December 28 , 2010 ), 2011 ( February 6 , 2012 ), and 2012 ( February 4

, 2013 ).

In a letter dated March 14, 2014 and at EPA’s request

, DEQ withdrew its July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess emissions) due to the specific legal circumstances and uncertainty regarding EPA’s final Start

- up, Shut

- down, and Malfunction (SSM) policy 4

.

Oklahoma currently has no designated nonattainment areas or maintenance

areas. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52 .1960 (c) (48)

4 Although the SC 9 changes documented in the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal followed EPA’s policy on excess emissions (e.g., SSM & variance/”director’s discretion” provisions) that was in place at the time, withdrawal will allow EPA to deal with the revised policy issues on a national basis.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 4 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: No additional specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or maintain the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS (“ revised SO 2 NAAQS ”)

. OAC 252:100 includes Subchapter 31 , Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds (252:100

- 31 ). The annual SIP revision s for 2012 and 20 13 include several changes to Subchapter 31 , the more r ecent of which took the revised SO 2 NAAQS into consideration 5

. No additional changes to Subchapter 31 have been identified as needed as a result of the revised SO 2 NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related to implementation of this NAAQS through Oklahoma’s permitting program would be addressed through a separate SIP submission , including any identified through the Designations process conducted under the proposed Data Requirements Rule for the 1

- Hour SO 2 NAAQS ( 79 Fed.Reg. 27446, May 13, 2014 ) o r the related proposed Settlement Agreement ( 79 Fed.Reg. 31325, June 2, 2014 ).

5 A significant change to SC 31, effective 7/ 1/12, was affected by the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS changes, and was included in the 2012 annual SIP submittal (February 4, 2013)

. Earlier SC 31 changes effective 6/1/02 and 6/12/03 were included in the 2012 annual SIP submittal

. The 2013 annual SIP submittal (expected December 2014 ) will include an additional change to SC31 effective 7/1/13 and, due to identified documentation issues, will withdraw and replace the SC 31 portion of the 2012 submittal.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 5 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(B)

– Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and upon request, make such data available to the Administrator; The Oklahoma Clean A ir Act (27A O.S. § § 2

- 5

- 101 thru 2

- 5

- 117) provides the authority to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors. OAC 252:100

- 3, in conjunction with Appendices E and F, enumerate s the NAAQS and PSD increments.

Oklahoma operates an air quality monit oring network consistent with EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 58), and regularly reports results to EPA under previously

- approved SIP provisions. Each fiscal year, DEQ posts an Annual Network Review (ANR) on its website for public review. Following the 30

- day public review period, DEQ evaluates and responds to any comments, and submits the r eview to EPA Region 6 monitoring staff for their review

. The FY15 ANR was posted for public review from June 2, 2014 to July 2, 2014

. One public comme nt was received and addressed

, and the final FY15 ANR was submitted to EPA. Monitoring results may also be accessed through DEQ’s web site at: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/monitoring/index.htm 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52.1960(c)(22)

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma’s program has monitored sulfur dioxide from the 1970’s to the present. Oklahoma is on schedule with update s to its air quality monitoring network necessary to implement changes to EPA’s ambient air monitoring

r equirements of 40 CFR Part 58 related to the revised SO 2 NAAQS ( 75 Fed.Reg. 35520, June 22, 20 10) . Changes to reporting have been implemented as appropriate.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 6 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(C)

– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A) and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D; Oklahoma’s EPA

- appr oved air permitting program includes appropriate enforcement authority and permitting for modification and construction of stationary sources. DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described i n 27A O

. S

. § 2

- 5

- 105, and include authority to “... [e]nforce rules of the Board and orders of the Department and the Council .” 27A O

. S

. § 2

- 5

- 105(4 )

. More specific enforcement authorities are described throughout the Oklahoma Clean Air Act

, 27A O

. S

. §§ 2

- 5

- 101 et seq

. , and in OAC 252:4

- 9, Administrative Proceedings.

Oklahoma’s requirements for construction and operating permits for minor facilities and (minor) modifications to minor facilities are in OAC 252:100

- 7, Permits for Minor Facilities. The con struction permit requirements for PSD and other major sources, and requirements for both major and minor modifications to PSD and other major sources, as well as requirements for the Part 70 (Title V) operating permit program

, are in OAC 252:100

- 8, Permits for Part 70 Sources and Major New Source Review. OAC 252:4

- 7, Environmental Permit Process

, contains additional permit requirements.

Although Oklahoma does not currently have any designated nonattainment areas or maintenanc e areas, Oklahoma's SIP contains the provisions for the nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) permitting program in OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 9. Major Sources Affecting Nonattainment Areas. The EPA interprets the portion of § 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a nonattainment NSR permitting program (CAA T itle I part D ) to be outside the scope of the infrastructure SIP requirements 6

, and does not otherwise address it in the 2013 I

- SIP Guidance

. Note that Oklahoma’s PSD and Title V/Part 70 permitting program applies to sources that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) in accordance with EPA’s tailoring rule, and subsequent narrowing of EPA’s approval of the PSD program.

A number of changes to Oklahoma’s permitting program are included in the pending SIP revisions noted under Element § 110(a)(2)(A)

– Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

. 40 CFR § § 52.1920 and 52.192 9

6 Page 4, Section II. General Guidance on Infrastructure SIPs

, 2013 I-SIP Guidance11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 7 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: No specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or maintain the revised SO 2 NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related to implementation of this NAAQS through Ok lahoma’s permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs (e.g., PSD) would be addressed through a separate SIP submission.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 8 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I)

– Interstate Transport Pro vi sions contain adequate provisions

—
(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

-- (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with res pect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or The 2013 I

- SIP guidance states that EPA expects to issue guidance with
resp ect to this Subelement, 7 but does not otherwise address interstate transport provisions which prohib it significant contribution to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the NAAQS. EPA has indicated that it expects to address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) separately through issuance of further guidance

, and that the requirements would be likely be addressed in a separate Transport SIP

. 8

However, Oklahoma's air quality control rule at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 requires major stationary sources to demonstrate that t he source’s emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control region

. The State’s PSD program meets the basic requirements for implementing all NAAQS

. SIP revisions submitted on July 23, 2010 and February 6, 2012

, which are pending EPA action , contain modifications to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35. 40 CFR § § 52.1920 and 52.193 0

This NAAQS Revision: As stated, EPA’s 2013 I

- SIP guidance does not address the requirements of this Subelement

. Therefore, this evaluation is not intended to assert that Oklahoma meets all requirements of the interstate transport p rovisions of § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

. Oklahoma expects to accommodate any future related guidance and implement any finally adjudicated program changes. DEQ’s prelim inary analyses of possibly significant emission sources in Oklahoma do not indicate that, for the revised SO 2 NAAQS, Oklahoma contribute s significantly to nonattainment in nor interfere with maintenance by any other state.

7 Page 3

, Section I. Introduction

, 2013 I-SIP Guidance

8 Oklahoma submitted its Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”) to EPA in May 2007, with supplemental information submitted in November 2007. EPA approved portions of the Transport SIP relating to § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (76 Fed.Reg. 81838, Dec. 29

, 2011 ). In the same action, EPA approved the portions of the Transport SIP relating to the prohibition against significant contribution to nonattainment of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA’s analyses performed in conjunction with issuance of the Transport Rule (aka Cross State Air Pollution Rule or “CSAPR”, 76 Fed.Reg. 48208, Aug. 8, 2011) concluded that emissions from Oklahoma significantly contribute to interference with maintenance of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in another state and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in a supplemental rule (76 Fed.Reg. 80760, Dec. 27, 2011) requiring Oklahoma to participate in the NO X Ozone Season trading program. On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. E.P.A. , which had vacated and remanded to EPA the Transport Rule and the Transport Rule FIPs. As of November 1, 2014, EPA wa s evaluating the impact of the decision on states’ §110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations

. Following the Supreme Court decision, the D.C. Circuit Court lifted the stay on CSPAR on October 23, 2014.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 9 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D) (i) (II)

– Interstate Transport Provisions contain adequate provisions

—
(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

--
(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility, New major stationary sources and major modifications are subject to Oklahoma’s EPA

- approved comprehensive PSD permitting program u nder OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 7

. DEQ’s air permitting program includes pre

construction review of PSD sources, including review for impacts of emissions of all “regulated NSR pollutants

, ” and requires demonstration that any increase in emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control region

. EPA approved the portion of Oklahoma’s Transport SIP relating to § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (PSD) for the 1997 Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS

on November 26

, 2010 (75 Fed .Reg. 72695)

.

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision, (“RH SIP”), submitted in February 2010, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect visibility and assure that emissions do not interfere with any other state’s measures to protect visibility. These measures include provisions in OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 11. EP A partially approved and partially disapproved Oklahoma’s Regional Haze SIP on December 28

, 2011 (76 Fed.Reg. 81728)

. EPA stated that Oklahoma’s RH SIP did not incorporate some emission reductions that were relied on to demonstrate non

- interference with ot her states’ visibility protections. In the same Federal Register notice, EPA also partially approved and partially disapproved portions of the Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8

- hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”), submitted May 10, 2007 and supplemented December 10, 2007, that address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to protection of visibility. EPA issued a Fe deral Implementation Plan ( FIP ) requiring reduction of SO 2 emissions for six units, and found that

“ the controls under this FIP, in combination with the controls required by the portion of the Oklahoma RH submittal that we are approving, will serve to prevent sources in Oklahoma from emitting pollutants in amounts that will interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.” Oklahoma submitted a revision to its RH SIP and Transport SIP on June 14, 2013 to replace the FIP as it relates to two of the six units concerned. EPA approved this revision effective April 7, 2014. (79 Fed.Reg. 12944 & 12954, March 7, 2014)

. 40 CFR § 52.1920 ( c) and ( e)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 ( d) and (e), 52.1923, and 52.192811/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 10 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: Any specific sulfur dioxide

- related issues related to Oklahoma’s permitting program (e.g., increments or significan t impact levels) would be addressed through a separate submission.

Any contribut ion to visibility impairment or interference with any other state’s measures to protect visibility attributable to SO 2 e missions are addressed through Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision , as amended, and through EPA ’s related actions (see above discussion)

. Although no visibility protection obligations are anticipated as a result of this NAAQS change (s ee discussion under element § 110(a)(2)(J)

– PSD and Visibility Protection (Part C) ), other program actions taken to assure maintenance of the revised SO 2 N AAQS will indirectly assist in avoiding interference with any other state’s measures to protect visibility. 40 CFR § 52.1920 (e)11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 11 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D) (ii)

– Interstate and International Transport Provisions contain adequate provisions

—
(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement); Oklahoma’s EPA

- approved Title V Operating (and PSD) Program includes requirements for providing a notice of draft permit to affected states under OAC 252:100

- 8

- 8 (SIP revision approved November 26, 2010 at 75 Fed.Reg. 72695 ) . This notice meet s the requirements of § 126 of the CAA.

Evaluation requirements under the PSD Program are adequate to assure compliance with international pollution abatement requirements. There are no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with respect to any existing NAAQS. 40 CFR § 52.1920 (c)

This NAAQS Revision: No source or sources within Oklahoma are the subject of an active finding under § 126 of the CAA with respect to the revised SO 2 NAAQS

. There are no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with respect to this NAAQS.

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS

.
§ 110(a)(2)(E)(i)

– Adequate Resources provide (i) necessary assurances that the state (or, except where the Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government or governments, or a regional agency designated by the state or general purpose local governments for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof); Oklahoma has previously demonst rated that it currently has and will continue to have adequate personnel and other resources to carry out its air quality programs. The powers and duties of the DEQ to implement air quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A O

. S

. § 2

- 5

- 105, and include authority to accept and expend funds necessary to carry them out. DEQ receives air quality program funds through state appropriations, permit application fees, annual operating fees, and f ederal grants under CAA § § 103 & 105

, among other s

. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920(e) and 52.196 0(c)(45)(i)

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma will continue to provide the resources needed to carry out its air quality responsibilities. No significant additional personnel or other resources have been identified as required to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS, except as otherwise noted.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)

– Adequate Resources (State Boards) provide (ii) requirements that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code lays out the composition and powers & duties of the Environmental Quality Board ( EQB) ( 27A O.S. § 2

- 2

- 101) and the Air Quality Advisory Council (27A O.S. §§ 2

- 2

- 201(H) and 2

- 5

- 107). These powers & duties include their roles in promulgating DEQ rules, but do not include approving permits or enf orcement orders under the CAA. The powers & duties and conflict of interest provisions for DEQ staff and Executive Director are described in 27A O.S. § 2

- 3

- 101 and 27A O.S. § 2

- 3

- 201, respectively. 40 CFR § 52.1920(e) and 40 CFR § 52.1960(c)(17) and (45)( i)11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 12 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the revised SO 2 NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)

– Adequate Resources (Local or Regional Implementation) provide (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provisio n; Not Applicable.

§ 110(a)(2)(F)

– Stationary Source Monitoring System and Reporting require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator

—
(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emiss ions and emissions

- related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this Act, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection; Source emissions monitoring requirements are ad dressed in OAC 252:100

- 43, Testing, Monitoring and Recordkeeping

. Source emissions inventory requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100

- 5, Registration of Air Contaminant Sources.

Area, mobile, and non

- road data are reported to EPA on a 3

- year cycle.

OAC 252:100, Air Pollution Control; OAC 252:4

- 1

- 5, Availability of a Record; 51 O

. S

. § § 24A.1 et seq

. , Oklahoma Open Records Act. 40 CFR § 52.1960(c) (48)

40 CFR § 52.1920 (c)

40 CFR § 52.1920 (c)

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the revised SO 2 NAAQS.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 13 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(G)

– Emergency Episodes provide for authority comparable to that in section 303 and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority; Chapter 6 of Oklahoma’s SIP

, as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988

, sets forth the state’s Emergency Episode Plan (EEP), as required under § 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H

– Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes and, along with provisions included in the February 2002 SIP update, describes and implements State authority comparable to that in § 303. (For the purpose of EEPs , 40 CFR § 51.150 classifies regions separately with respect to the following pollutants: s ulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone , based on ambient concentrations. § 51.152 requires a contingency plan for Priority I, IA, & II regions .)

As indicated in 40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 52. 1960(c)(38), EPA approved the plan as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988 (56 Fed.Reg 5656

, Feb. 1 2, 1991)

. 40 CFR § § 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38)

This NAAQS Revision: The measures in place in Oklahoma’s approved EEP are adequate to address an emergency episode and do not need to be updated due to the revised SO 2 NAAQS. Under 40 CFR §51.152

, a n EEP contingency plan for SO 2 is not required for any region of Oklahoma.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 14 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(H)

– Future SIP Revisions provide for revision of such plan

— (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the national ambient air quality standard which it implements, or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements established under this Act; Under authority of OAC 252:100

- 3

- 2 and 252: 100

- 3

- 3, Appendices E and F of OAC 252:100 enumerate the primary and secondary air quality standards (NAAQS), respectively.

DEQ’s powers and duties to im plement air quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 105, and include authority to:

“ 3. Prepare and develop a general plan for proper air quality management in the state in accordance with the Oklahoma Clean Air Act; ” and

“ 20. Carry out all other duties, requirements and responsibilities necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act and fulfilling the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. ” [27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 105(3) and (20)]

Any substantive changes to Oklahoma’s SIP, such as NAAQS updates and resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking process, which includes agency, public, gubernatorial, and legislative review processes. Public notice is provided ( published/posted ) for all steps in the rulemaking process, in accordance with the state Administrative Procedures Act (75 O

. S

. §§ 250.1 through 323), Open Records Act (51 O

. S

. §§ 24A.1 through 24A.29), and Open Meetings Act (25 O

. S

. §§ 301 through 314), along with corresponding DEQ and state procedural rules. The notices include the opportunity to provide comments prior to and at the public hearing before the Air Quality Advisory Council and at the public hearing before the Environm ental Quality Board.

Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of any implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted by the Governor (or the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment, acting as the Governor’s designee) to EPA as a SIP revision. This process is followed regardless of whether it results from a NAAQS update or a finding by the Administrator. State public participation procedures for SIP submittals that do not include rulemaking were submitted to EPA on Augus t 17 , 2012 for review. In a letter dated August 23 , 2012 , EPA concurred that the procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and associated guidance. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 196011/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 15 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: Appendix E of OAC 252:100 was updated to incorporate the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS effective July 1

, 2011

. The updated Appendix E was submitted to EPA as part of the annual SIP revision for 2011 (February 6, 2012)

.

This SIP submittal fulfills the stated requirement.

§ 110(a)(2)(I)

– Nonattainment Area Plan Requirements in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D (relating to nonattainment areas); Not applicable . EPA ’s 2013 I

- SIP Guidance interprets the requirements of § 110(a)(2)(I )

, which pertain to specific requirements for attainment plans for designated nonattainment areas

, to be outside the scope of the I

- SIP requirements. 9

§ 110(a)(2)(J)

– C onsultation with Government Officials ( § 121 ) meet the applicable requirements of section 121

... (relating to consultation), ... Oklahoma’s a pproved SIP includes established consultation with various entities

. Section 2

- 5

- 105 of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act specifically gives the DEQ the authority to advise, consult , and cooperate with other agencies of the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the federal government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control of new and existing air contamination sources within the State . Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of a change in a particular NAAQS. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 1960

§ 110(a)(2)(J)

– P ublic N otification ( § 127 ) meet the applicable requirements of

... section 1 27

... Public notification procedures to meet the requirements of § 127 of the CAA are established in Oklahoma’s approved SIP. DEQ provides notification of ambient air concentration levels for all NAAQS through its annual Air Data Reports, forecasting reports, and health advisories. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 1960

This NAAQS Revision: The public notification requirements included in Oklahoma’s SIP apply to the revised SO 2 NAAQS

. DEQ provides notification of SO 2 concentration levels through its annual Air Data Reports

, forecasting reports, and near real

- time health advisories . Oklahoma does not anticipate that any significant public notification changes would be required to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS.

9 page 52, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element I – Section 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas

, 2013 I-SIP Guidance11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 16 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(J)

– PSD and Visibility Protection (Part C ) meet the applicable requirements of ... part C

... (relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection); Oklahoma ’s EPA

- approved PSD permitting program , which addresses all regulated NSR air pollutants

, operates under OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 7

– Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for Attainment Areas ; the existing PSD delegation agreement ; and approved and pending portions of the SIP

. [ See d iscussion under Element § 110(a)(2) (C)

– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures .]

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision (“RH SIP”), submitted in February 2010 and amended in a revision submitted June 14, 2013 , describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect visibility, including provisions in OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 11. [ See discussion under E lement § 110(a)(2) (D)(i)

– Interstate Transport Provisions

, Subelement (II) ].

In the 2013 I

- SIP G uidance

, EPA stated that there are no new visibility protection requirements under P art C of the CAA that would result from a revised NAAQS

. T herefore, the visibility sub

- element of Element J need not be addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission 10

. 40 CFR § 52.1920 (c)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 (c ) , (d ) & (e), 52.1923, and 52.1928

This NAAQS Revision: Specific issues or changes related to implementation of the revised SO 2 NAAQS through Oklahoma’s PSD permitting program would be addressed through a separate SIP submission.

As noted

, no visibility protection obligations under § 110(a)(2)(J) are anticipated as a result of this NAAQS change

.

10 page 55, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection, 2013 I-SIP Guidance11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 17 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(K)

– Air Quality Modeling/Data provide for: (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air qua lity standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator; Under its general statutory authority (e.g., 27A O.S. §§ 2

- 3

- 202 and 2

- 5

- 105), DEQ conducts air quality modeling to support its demonstrations of attainment, and reports results to EPA. Source modeling requirements are also authorized in 27A O.S. 2

- 5

- 112, and included in the PSD permitting
program in OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35. Oklahoma currently has no designated nonattainment areas. Oklahoma will continue to update modeling protocols as appropriate to accommodate evolving program requirements and standards. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 1960

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma has had no designated nonattainment areas for the SO 2 NAAQS

, and no SO 2 SIP modeling has been required. In a letter dated February 7, 2013, EPA deferred designation action on the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for Oklahoma, while noting that its review of monitored air quality data from 2009

- 2011 showed no violations of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in any areas of Oklahoma. DEQ will continue to review and update modeling protocols as appropriate to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS. DEQ will also continue to utilize appropriate modeling to evaluate the significant SO 2 emission sources in Oklahoma that potentially impact attainment of the NAAQS, i.e., those identified in advance of the Designations process conducted under the proposed Data Requirements Rule for the 1

- Hour SO 2 NAAQS ( 79 Fed.Reg. 27446, May 13, 2014 ) and/or the related proposed Settlement Agreement ( 79 Fed.Reg. 31325, June 2, 2014 ). [ See also 78 Fed.Reg. 47191, Aug. 5, 2013 ]

§ 110(a)(2)(L)

– Permitting Fees require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this Act, a fee sufficient to cover

— (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable cost s of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V; 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 106 authorizes the DEQ through the EQB to promulgate rules regarding permit fees and 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 113 establishes that the owner or operator of any source required to have a permit must pay a permit fee to cover the cost of implementing and enforcing Oklahoma’s Air Quality permit program. Oklahoma’s EPA

- approved Title V Operating Program includes permit application fees and annual operating fees under OAC 252:100

- 8

- 1.7 and 252: 100

- 5

- 2.2, respectively ( formerly Regulation 1.4.1(d) Permit fees )

. 40 CFR § § 52.1920 (c) and 52.1960(c)(48)(ii)(A)

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS.11/ 10 /2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 18 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(M)

– Consultation/ Participation by Affected Local Entities provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the plan. Oklahoma’s a pproved SIP includes established opportunities for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by Oklahoma’s SIP.

DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including implemen ting Oklahoma’s SIP) described in 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 105 authorizes the DEQ to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the federal government, and with affected groups in the prev ention and control of new and existing air contamination sources within the State. The powers and duties of the Air Quality Advisory Council, as listed in 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 107, include the “ authority and discretion to provide a public forum for the discussio n of issues it considers relevant to the air quality of the state, and to

... hold public hearings to receive public comment in fulfillment of federal requirements regarding the [ SIP ] and make recommendations to the [ DEQ ] concerning the [ SIP ]

. ”

Any substant ive changes to Oklahoma’s SIP, such as NAAQS updates and resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking process, which includes public notice and hearing procedures. ( See the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act [75 O.S. §§ 250

– 323], DEQ procedural rules in OAC 252:4, and procedures approved under 40 CFR § 51.102(g) .) Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of any implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

O klahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of a change in a particular NAAQS. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 1960

### SCOTT A. THOMPSON
Executive Director



### January 12, 2015 OKLAHOMA
DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAl QUAliTY 

## OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Ron Curry, Regional Administrator (6RA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Region VI 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 MARY FALUN Governor



### RE: Documentation of Procedures for Submittal of Certification of SIP Elements for the 2010 Primary S02 NAAQS under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(l) and (2)

Dear Administrator Curry:

This letter is to certify that the procedures for preparation and submittal of Oklahoma's Certification of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (S0 2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under Clean Air Act Sections llO(a)(l) and (2) were in compliance with the requirements of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S. §§ 250.1 through 323, and 40 CFR § 51.102 and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, 2.l(g). State public participation procedures for such SIP submittals were submitted to EPA for review under 40 CFR § 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that the procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and associated guidance.

The Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment on the proposed certification that Oklahoma has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary S0 2 NAAQS was posted on the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) web site beginning on Wednesday, April 30, 2014. The notice set a tentative public hearing for Thursday, June 5, 2014, and included information on how the public could request a public hearing and submit written or oral comments on the proposed submittaL The notice provided that if no request for a public hearing was received by 10:00 a.m., Monday, June 2, 2014 (the close of the minimum 30-day notice period), the hearing would be cancelled, and a notice announcing the cancellation would be posted on the DEQ web site at least 24 hours prior

to the scheduled time for the hearing. A contact phone number for information on the public hearing was also included in the notice. No hearing requests were received during the minimum 30-day comment period (5/1/14 6/1114). Therefore, a notice of hearing cancellation was posted

on the DEQ web site on June 3, 2014. In 

### addition to posting the two notices on DEQ's web site,

an electronic notification (email) was sent to those on AQD's standing email mailing list.

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73101-1677

printed on recycled paper with soy inkRon Curry
EPA Regional Administrator
2010 S0 2 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Documentation January 12, 2015



### Because the submittal involves no rules or program changes, nor matter of significant public interest, newspaper and direct mail notifications were not prepared.

One set of comments was received during the comment period; therefore, a Response to Comments document was prepared. Enclosed with this letter are copies of the Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment and the Notice of Hearing Cancellation, along with copies of comments received during the comment period and a Response to Comments document, and screen shots of relevant DEQ web pages. Note that exhibits and modeling files submitted in support of the comments have been included with the full I-SIP submission on electronic media.

If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Cheryl Bradley, Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 702-4218.

Eddie Terrill, Director Air Quality Division

ET:CB:gg

Enclosures: Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment Notice of Hearing Cancellation Screen Shots ofRelevant DEQ Web Pages Full I-SIP Submission on Electronic Media

2

### 50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675

- 2380 FAX: (202) 547

- 6009 www.sierraclub.org



### V IA 

### E LECTRONIC 

### M AIL



### June 5, 2014

Cheryl Bradley Air Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1677 Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677 Cheryl. Bradley@deq.ok.gov

Re: Sierra Club Comments Concerning Oklahoma’s Compliance with Clean Air Act Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 1- hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Dear Ms. Bradley:

On behalf of the Sierra Club, its over 3,300 members in Oklahoma, and others who are adversely impacted by Oklahoma‟s sources of sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 

### ”) pollution, we submit the following comments on Oklahoma‟s Compliance with Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 1- hour National Ambi ent Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) (“Draft ISIP”). Oklahoma must submit an I nfrastructure State Implementation Plan (“Infrastructure SIP” or “ISIP”) that addresses all of the requirements in sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act for the June 2, 2010 one-hour primary SO 2 

### NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) & (2). As currently drafted, Oklahoma‟s Draft ISIP does not satisfy a number of essential requirements, includi ng requirements to establish enforceable emission limits and address significant contributions to downwind states. The following comments explain these deficiencies in greater detail. 1



### By addressing the deficiencies in its Draft ISIP, the state of Oklahoma would benefit in fou r ways. First, and most importantly, Oklahoma would take the action

1 A copy of th ese comments and all exhibits can be found at https://app.box.com/s/7mou1er9vzpkfu7hhi1z

### 2

required to improve public health impacts in the state. There are at least nine counties in which facilities are permitted to exceed the SO 2 

### NAAQS

. Since the NAAQS set ambient pollution levels that states should not exceed in order to protect the health of its citizen, the potential public health benefits of addressing these deficiencies are significant. For example, more than 80,000 children and 290,000 adults are currently living with asthma in Oklahoma 2 

### ; in 2011, hospitalizations from asthma cost Oklahomans $72 million. 3 

### Second, Oklahoma would meet its obligations under the Clean Air Act and insulate itself from corrective action by the EPA. Third, Oklahoma could prevent the inevitable future designation of nine counties as being in nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS, thus sparing the state from having to comply with rigorous supplemental Clean Air Act requirements. Finally, the state could bring regulatory certainty to coal-fired power plants in Oklahoma, which could ul timately save these regulated entities money, as utilities decide how to comply with a number of environmental regulations.

I. Legal Background.

A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The Clean Air Act is, at its core, a directive to protect the public from harmful air pollution. Indeed, “pollution prevention” is a “primary goal” of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. §7401(c). Pursuant to this mandate, EPA is required to promulgate “primary ambient air quality standards [“NAAQS”]. . . the attainment and maintenance of which . . . are requisite to protect the public health.” 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). So far, EPA has identified six criteria pollutants—sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxide, a nd lead—that have scientifically demonstrated effects on health and the environment, at certa in levels.

The NAAQS represent a ceiling of air pollution concentrations that apply throughout the country. As such, the primary NAAQS form the basis for regulating air emissions for the entire country and provide the foundation for setting specific emission limitations for most large stationary sources. The primary national ambient air quality standards set ambient pollution levels, which should not be exceeded in order to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. See 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). These standards serve as the basis for development and approval of infrastructure state implementation plans.

B. Sulfur Dioxide: Public Health Impacts and the Current NAAQS.

Exposure to SO 2 

### in eve n very short time periods—such as five minutes—has significant he alth impacts and causes decrements in lung function, aggravation of asthma, and respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity. See Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,525 (June 22, 2010) (hereinafter “Final Rule”). EPA has also determined that SO 2 

### exposure can also aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospitalizations and premature deaths. See Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,525.

2 http://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/Asthma%20in%20OK%20Children%202013.pdf

3 http://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/Asthma%20in%20OK%20adults%202013.pdf

### 3 On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO 2 

### NA AQS by establishing a new one-hour standard at a level of 75 ppb which is met when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum one-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. See Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 20, 2010), [hereinafter “Final SO 2 

### NAAQS Rule”]. The primary SO 2 

### NAAQS was set at such a level in order to protect public health from the serious threats posed by short-term exposure to SO 2



### .
Due to both the shorter averaging time and the numerical difference, the new 1- hour SO 2 

### NAAQS is far more protective of human health than the prior SO 2 

### NAAQS and promises huge health benefits. EPA has estimated that 2,300-5,900 premature deaths and 54,000 asthma attacks a year will be prevented by the new standard. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the SO 2 

### National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) tbl. 5.14 (2010). Timely implementation of the new NAAQS is thus critical. Each year of delay in implementing the SO 2 

### NAAQS nationally means 5,900 people will die prematurely and 54,000 asthma attacks will occur unnecessarily. Each year of delay will likewise drive up the medical costs that individuals will have to pay

, and will be another year in which people must abstain from everyday activities such as exercise, school, and work. EPA estimates that the net benefit of implementing the 75 ppb SO 2 

### NAA QS is up to $36 billion dollars. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,588 (June 22, 2010). Due to these and other serious impairments caused by short-term SO 2 

### exposure, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”) must properly implement the one- hour SO 2 

### NAAQS through this ISIP process in order to protect public health as re quired by law.

C. Legal Requirements for Infrastructure SIPs.

Once the NAAQS are set, the CAA establishes a statutory framework and timeline to maintain and attain the NAAQS, with some exceptions. States have “primary responsibility” for assuring air quality within the state. Id . § 7407(a). Within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must “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 Infrastructure 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 na tional ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”) through enforce able 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

### 4

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 meets the requirements of 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.”). An adequate Infrastructure SIP “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).

1. The Plain Language and Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Require That Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prevent NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment.

The Clean Air Act, on its face, requires ISIPs to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS. 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 ISIP 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 ba sis, 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 ISIPs include enforceable emission limits on sources sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

The legislative history of the Clean Air Act also 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 Ex. 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.

### 5

Rpt., 116 Cong. Rec. 42,381, 42,384 (Dec. 18, 1970) (emphasis added), attached hereto as Ex. 2. 4



### 2. EPA Regulations Implementing the Clean Air Act Require That

Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment.

EPA regulations implementing section 110(a)(2) also require that ISIPs contain emission limits and other measures that ensure NAAQS attainment. Pursuant to these regulations, in order for EPA to approve an ISIP, 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). 5 

### 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 deve loped 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 a mendments—the regulations nonetheless apply to ISIPs. EPA has not change d 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 Qua lity 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 ISIPs. Thus, it is clear that ISIPs must contain “measures, rules, and regulations” sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.

3. Prior EPA Interpretations of the Act Require That Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment.

4 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, t he 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) (ex plaining 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 Ex

. 1 6 ; 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 clarificat ion 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).

5 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, of relevance to our discussion of the SO 2 NAAQS in these comments, 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a)(1) supports the use of sulfur dioxide air dispersion modeling to evaluate the adequacy of sulfur dioxide ISIP s for maintaining the one

hour sulfu r dioxide NAAQS.

### 6 EPA has relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 on multiple occasions to re

ject 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 SO 2 

### emission limits in its ISIP for two power plants because the new emission limits would not ensure maintenance of the three- hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS then in effect. 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 C.F.R. 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 ISIP, EPA expressed concern that the sulfur dioxide emission rates for two power plants in questi on were “not protective of the short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS” because, while 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 ISIP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.112, because Indiana failed to demonstrate that the IS IP, 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 SO 2 

### emission limit for the blast furnace flare at the facility. Id. In the proposed disapproval, EPA explained that “[u]nder 40 C.F.R. 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 SO 2 

### emissions,” and, consequently, that removal of the limit would not “affect the validity of the emission rates used in the existing attainment demonstration, thus undermining the SIP‟s ability to ensure protection of the SO 2 

### NAAQS,” EPA rejected the proposed amendment. Id. at 17,159; see also 78 Fed. Reg. at 78,721.

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

### 7 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

ma intenance of the NAAQS] a State‟s plan must include „emission limitations,‟ 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. 60, 78 (1975); 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). 6 

### 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 court s 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 ISIPs 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 post1990 Clean Air Act r equires enforceable emission limits in ISIPs. For example, the

6 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.

### 8

Ninth Circuit 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 („NA AQS‟) 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).

Additionally, in Hall v. EPA , the Ninth Circuit held that EPA had not fulfilled its responsibility under another provision—section 110(l) 7



### — 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 incorrectly 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 nonrelaxation 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 considerati on of the prospects of meeting current attainment requirements under a revised air quality plan. Id . Just as a plan revision must not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS under section 110(l), an ISIP must likewise include enforceable limits sufficient to ensure the initial plan provides for maintenance of the NAAQS under 110(a)(2)(A).

II. THE DRAFT ISIP FAILS TO INCLUDE ENFORCEABLE ONE-HOUR SO 2 

### EMISSION LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIMARY SO 2 

### NAAQS.

Oklahoma‟s Draft ISIP fails to include restrictions on major SO 2 

### sources to ensure that areas not currently designated will attain and maintain the new one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS, and so Oklahoma must revise the ISIP to incorporate enforceable emission li mits.

A. Oklahoma must revise the Draft ISIP to include enforceable one-hour

SO 2 

### emission limits for sources currently allowed to cause exceedances of the NAAQS.

The Draft ISIP fails to include adequate enforceable emission limitations or other required measures for sources of SO 2 

### sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of

7 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).

### 9

the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS. As discussed, under section 110(a)(2)(A), the ISIP must “include enforce able 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.

Emission limits are especially important for meeting the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS given the “strong source-oriented nature of SO 2 

### ambient impacts.” Final SO 2 

### NAAQS Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,570. Nationally, large point sources account for 95 percent of SO 2 

### emissions, 66 percent of which come from fossil fuel combustion at electric facilities. Id

. at 35,524. Specifically, in Oklahoma, 72.8 percent (or 95,553 out of 131,187 tons) of all SO 2 

### emissions in the state come from coal-fired electric generating units (“EGUs”). See 2011 NEI SO2 28, April 2014.xlsx (based on 2011 National Emissions Inventory, Excel Worksheet “CHARTS (SC),” Ex. 3 ; see also EPA, The National Emissions Inventory, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html.

Despite the large contribution from coal-fired EGUs, ODEQ has not even attempte d to demonstrate that emissions allowed by the Draft ISIP will ensure compliance with t he one-hour SO 2 

### standard. In fact, the Draft ISIP would simply allow the major air pollution sourc es in the state to continue operating under their present emissions limits. As determined by expert air dispersion modeling conducted at Sierra Club‟s request, and in one instance by a utility‟s own modeling, however, those limits are insufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. See Steven Klafka, Sooner Generating Station, Red Rock, Oklahoma: Evaluation of Compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS for SO 2 

### (June 3, 2014 ), [hereinafter, “Sooner Report”], attached hereto as Ex. 4; Steven Klafka, GRDA Chouteau Co al-Fired Complex, Chouteau, Oklahoma: Evaluation of Compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS for SO 2 

### (May 29, 2014) [hereinafter, “GRDA Report”], attached hereto as Ex. 5; Lindsey Sears, Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis for Verifying Compliance with the One-Hour SO2 NAAQS and Oklahoma SIP Limits: Muskogee Generating Station (June 3, 2014) [hereinafter, “Muskogee Report”], attached hereto as Ex. 6; E xcerpt of Black & Veatch, Plan for Emission Control Upgrades: GRDA CoalFired Complex

(July 201 2) [hereinafter, “Black & Veatch Report”], attached hereto as Ex. 7.

The S ooner Report, Muskogee Report and GRDA Report present the results of an air dispersion modeling analysis for each plant that compares the modeled ambient air concentrations of each plant‟s SO 2 

### emissions with the 2010 one-hour primary SO 2 

### NAAQS. The modeling analyses employed EPA‟s AERMOD program to model the plants‟ “allowable” emissions (based on the current Title V permit) and, in some instances, “actual” emissions (based on maximum plant-wide hourly emissions obtained from annual emission inventory reports) to determine whether each plant‟s emissions could cause exceedances of the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS. See Muskogee Report at 4-5; GRDA Report at 2-3; Sooner Report at 2-3. In particular, the modeling based on the allowable emissions is crucial to a determination of whether the Oklahoma Draft ISIP is adequate to attain and maintain the SO 2 

### NAAQS, because this is what is allowed in each plant‟s permit.

The modeling protocol employed in these analyses is consistent with all available technical guidance, including Appendix W and EPA‟s March 2011 guidance for

### 10

implementing the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS. Additionally, the modeler used the most recent version of AERMOD, AERMET, and AERMINUTE available at the time of the studies. See Muskogee Report at 5; GRDA Report at 2; Sooner Report at 2. Where any assumptions were made when running the models, the modeler generally employed conservative inputs, which favor the prediction of lower impacts from the plants, so that the results may understate the plants‟ SO 2 

### emission impacts. See GRDA Report at 4; Sooner Report at 4.

The modeling reports demonstrate that the Draft ISIP improperly authorizes these plants to continue to cause exceedances of the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS based on their allowable and in some instances actual or maximum emission rates. See Muskogee Report at 15; GRDA Report at 3, Table 1; Sooner Report at 3, Table 1. The modeling results are above the NAAQS, even without consideration of background concentrations, and allow exceedences in Mayes, Noble, Pawnee, Osage, Wagoner, Cherokee, Sequoyah, Muskogee, and Mc Intosh counties. See Muskogee Report at 14; GRDA Report at 3, Table 1; Sooner Report at 3, Table 1. In addition, the GRDA Report shows authorization of exceedences in Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdictions, while the Sooner Report shows authorization of exceedences in Ponca Nation and Otoe Missouria Nation jurisdictions

. Similarly, the Muskogee power plant is authorized to cause exceedances in the Muskogee Nation and Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdictions. No area in Oklahoma has been designated nonattainment under the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS. See generally Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191 (Aug. 5, 2013), [hereinafter “Final 2010 SO 2 

### Designations”]. 8 

### Because these power plants are in areas that are not currently designated nonattainment, ODEQ must submit an ISIP that “provides for implementation, maintenance, a nd enforcement of” the NAAQS within those areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1).

The findings from each modeling report are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Su mmary of Modeled Allowable and Maximum Emissions

8 EPA has yet to issue designations for areas aside from those containing monitors that recorded exceedances of the NAAQS. See Final 2010 SO 2 Designations at 47,191 (designating areas with monitor violations from 2009-2011 as nonattainment).

9 The 75 ppb to μg/m 3 calculation is 75/0.3823 = 196.2 μg/m 3

. 

### Power Plant Emission

Rates Facility

Impact (μg/m 3 

### ) SO 2



### NAAQS (μg/m 3 

### ) 9 

### Impacted Counties/ Tribal

Jurisdictions (Not Designated Nonattainment)

Sooner Power Plant Allowable 315.2 196.2 Nob le, Pawnee, and Osage c ounties ; Ponca and Otoe Missouria Nation tribal

jurisdictions Maximum 212.8

Muskogee Power Plant Allowable 1,249.1

196.2 Wagoner, Cherokee, Sequoyah, Muskogee, McIntosh counties; Cherokee Nation and Muskogee Creek Nation trib al jurisdictions Maximum 597.9

### 11

See Sooner Report at 3, Table 1; GRDA Report at 3; Muskogee Report at 15.

Based on the modeling results summarized above, ODEQ must promulgate enforceable emission limi ts with one-hour averaging times into its Draft ISIP that are no less stringent than the limits lis ted in Table 2, below, to achieve and maintain the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS. These limits represent the maximum rate that each facility can emit without causing NAAQS exceedances, thus reducing each total plant‟s allowable emissions by the corresponding percentage. These emission limits must apply at all times including during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure Oklahoma attains and maintains the SO 2 

### NAAQS. 10



### Table 2: Limits Necessary to Achieve and Maintain the One-Hour SO 2 

### NAAQS



### See Sooner Report at 4, Table 3; GRDA Report at 4, Table 3; Muskogee Report at 15.

As demonstrated by the modeling reports, the Sooner, Muskogee and GRDA power plants are currently authorized to cause exceedances of the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS based on their allowable, actual , or maximum emission rates , and so must reduce those emissions rat es . Moreover, GRDA‟s own modeling shows that even greater emissions reductions are required at its plant

. GRDA contracted with Black and Veatch to conduct

an analysis of the SO 2 

### emissions reductions required to ensure attainment of the NAAQS at the GRDA po wer plant

. See Ex. 7. The Black & Veatch Report found that the GRDA
power plant must reduce its emissions by 75 percent, or down to a rate of 3

, 128 lbs/hr or 0.3 lbs/mmbtu

. Id. The Black & Veatch Report also stated that, when air impacts from other nearby sources a re considered, even greater reductions from GRDA

— down to 0.03 or even 0.01 lbs/mmbtu

— may be required if those other sources cannot be controlled

. Id. If the other sources of SO2 emissions could not be appropriately controlled, the state may hav e to consider retirement of GRDA as the only option to prevent S0 2 

### exceedances,

as e missions reductions of this magnitude go beyond what a flue gas desulfurization control system can accomplish

. Id.

10 Modeling

- based emissions limits are well

- documented. For example, Minnes ota has used SO 2 modeling to establish emission limits on several plants in order to avoid nonattainment designations. See Black Dog Plant Permit No. 03700003

- 11, Technical Support Document, at 5 & 10 (permit emission limits based on modeling analyses) , at tached hereto as Ex. 8 ; see also Allen S. King Title V Technical Support Document, at 6, 14, 16 & 39 (permit emission limits based on modeling analyses) , attached hereto as Ex. 9

. 

### GRDA Power Plant Allowable 318.4 196.2 Mayes County; Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdiction

Plant Required Total

Facility Reduction Based on Allowable Emissions (%) Required Total

Facility Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Requi red Total

Facility 1

- hour Average Emission Rate (lbs/mmbtu)

Sooner Power Plant 41.9% 7,132.5 0.70
Muskogee Power Plant 90% 1,976.2 0.12

GRDA Power Plant 43% 7,195.4 0.69

### 12

As shown by the modeling reports, ODEQ must impose additional emission limits on the Muskogee, Soone r, and GRDA plants that will ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS a t all times. As the ISIP submission does not incorporate emission limitations that are nece ssary to meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (or indeed, any new emission limits for these or other SO 2 

### -emitting facilities), including the requirement to maintain compliance with the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS, the Draft ISIP fails to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); therefore, Oklahoma must revise its Draft ISIP to address these deficiencies.

B. Modeling is the appropriate tool for evaluating the adequacy of Infrastructure SIPs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the SO 2 

### NAAQS.

As outlined by EPA in the Final SO 2 

### NAAQS Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,551, air dispersion modeling is the best method for evaluating the short-term impacts of large SO 2 

### sources. This is consistent with EPA‟s historic use of air 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 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).

ODEQ has long been on notice that modeling data is an important resource in the SO 2 

### NAAQS attainment and maintenance process. EPA has historically used modeling in determining attainment for the SO 2 

### standard. See e.g ., U.S. EPA , Implementation of the 1-Hour SO 2 

### NAAQS Draft White Paper for Discussion at 3, fn. 1, [hereinafter “EPA White Paper”], available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20120522whitepaper.pdf; see also Respondent‟s Opposition to Motion of the State of North Dakota for a Stay of EPA‟s 1- Hour Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Standard Rule at 3, National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) (No. 10-1252), attached hereto as Ex. 10 (“the Agency has historically relied on modeling to make designations for sulfur dioxide”). I n fact, in EPA‟s 1994 SO 2 

### Guideline Document, EPA noted that “for SO 2 

### attainment demonstrations, monitoring data alone will generally not be adequate,” U.S. EPA, 1994 SO 2 

### Guideline Document, [hereinafter “1994 SO 2 

### Guideline Document”], available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/so2_guide_092109.pdf, at 2-5, and that “[a]ttainment determinations for SO 2 

### will generally not rely on ambient monitoring data alone, but instead will be supported by an acceptable modeling analysis which quantifies that the SIP strategy is sound and that enforceable emission limits are responsible for attainment.” Id . at 2-1. The 1994 SO 2 

### Guideline Document goes on to note that monitoring alone is likely to be inadequate: “[f]or SO 2 

### , dispersion modeling will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively a source's impacts and to determine

### 13

the areas of expected high concentrations based upon current conditions.” Id . at 2-3.

EPA‟s approval and 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 Ex. 11. OAQPS explained that “air quality modeling emissions data, e tc., 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 SO 2 

### standard.” Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. , 666 F.3d at 1181 (citing 43 Fed. Reg. 8,962 (Mar. 3, 1978)).

EPA‟s final 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS rule simply built upon EPA‟s historical practice of using modeling to determine attainment and nonattainment status for SO 2 

### NAAQS. In doing so, EPA properly recognized the “strong source-oriented nature of SO 2 

### ambient impacts,” Final SO 2 

### NAAQS Rule at 35,370, and concluded that the appropriate 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 SO 2 

### concentrations in areas with large point sources.”). Accordingly, in promulgating the 2010 SO 2 

### 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 SO 2 

### standard “couldbetter address several potentially problematic issues than would the narrower monitoringfocused approach discussed in the proposal for the SO 2 

### NAAQS, including the unique source-specific impacts of SO 2 

### emissions and the special challenges SO 2 

### emissions have historically presented in terms of monitoring short-term SO 2 

### levels for comparison with the NAAQS in many situations (75 FR 35550).” EPA White Paper at 3-4.

Moreover, the courts ha ve 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 SO 2



### . 666 F.3d at 1184. The court rejected Montana Sulphur‟s argument that EPA‟s reliance on modeling was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise unlawful. Id . at 1185; see also Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298, 332 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“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 full-capacity operations of

### 14

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).

Indeed, EPA employs and relies on modeling to inform its designations 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 Ex. 12. Testimony a s to the accuracy and appropriateness of modeling has also been presented by Roger Brode, a physical scientist in EPA‟s Air Quality Modeling Group who co-chairs the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) and the AERMOD Implementation Workgroup. See Declaration of Roger W. Brode at 1, 2, attached hereto as Ex. 13. Mr. Brode has stated under oath that AERMOD is “readily capable of a ccurately predicting whether the revised primary SO 2 

### NAAQS is attained and whether individual sources cause or contribute to a violation of the SO 2 

### NAAQS.” Id . at 2. Mr. Brode has explained:

As part of the basis for EPA adopting the AERMOD model as the preferred model for nearfield applications in the Guideline on Air 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 P ark (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 other-models.

Id . at 3-4 (emphasis added). The Muskogee, Sooner, and GRDA power plants are clear example s of elevated sources.

### 15 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 NO 2 

### , PM 2.5 

### , SO 2 

### NAAQS, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) increment compliance verification analyses are performed with air dispersion modeling, such as running AERMOD in a manner consistent with the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(l)(1). Indeed, in order to ensure consistency in how 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. AERMOD accurately models medium- to

large SO 2 

### sources—even with conditions of low wind speed, the use of off-site meteorologic al 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 SO 2 

### evaluation included wind speeds as low as 0.37 m/s; and the Lovett evaluation incl uded wind speeds as low as 0.30 m/s. Concerns . . . 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 Ex. 14 (citing AERMOD evaluati ons and modeled meteorological data, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm).

Finally, EPA‟s use of air dispersion modeling and AERMOD in particular was upheld in the context of a recent Clean Air Act § 126 petition for resolution of 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 SO 2 

### NAAQS in New Jersey. Id . at 518. 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.

EPA has acknowledged that, for the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS, modeling is the most accurate means of determining attainment with the NAAQS, Final SO 2 

### NAAQS Rule at 35,551, 35,570, yet the Oklahoma Draft ISIP lacks SO 2 

### emissions limitations informed by air dispersion mode ling. As a result, the proposed amendment fails to ensure that

### 16

Oklahoma will achieve and maintain the 2010 one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS. To comply with the Act‟s obligations, Oklahoma must include adequate emissions limits in the ISIP―that is, source-specific one-hour SO 2 

### emission limits that show no exceedances of the NAAQS when modeled.

C. The Draft ISIP must include enforceable SO 2 

### emission limits with a one-hour averaging period that apply at all times.

As discussed, an emission limitation necessary to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A) 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 st andard promulgated under this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k). Therefore, emission limitations must also contain proper averaging times; otherwise, the emission limits would allow for peaks that cause exceedances of the NAAQS but which, when averaged with lower emissions over time, would not register as exceedances. In this instance, the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS requires a one-hour averaging period.

In various contexts, EPA has stated that one-hour averaging times are necessary
to comply with the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS. For instance, in 2011, EPA disagreed with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment‟s issuance of a PSD permit that contained a 30 -day averaging time 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 Ex. 15. EPA ex plained:

[i] t is well known that there can be considerable variability in actual 1- h our emission rates. Therefore, to ensure protection of the 1-hour . . . SO 2 

### NAAQS . . . the permit needs to contain . . . SO 2 

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

Id . at 2. Similarly, in its disapproval of Missouri‟s SIP in 2006, EPA determined that the emission rates in t he 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 2011, the Environmental Appeals Board confirmed that emission limits for SO 2 

### should be based on hourly averaging times, and rejected an agency‟s attempt to use a 3-hour averaging time instead. In re: Mississippi Lime Co. , PSDAPLPEAL11-01, 2011 WL 3557194, at *26-27 (E.P.A. Aug. 9, 2011) (“Emission limits should be based on concentration estimates for the averaging time that results in the most stringent control requirements. 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, app. W, § 10.2.3.1.a.”).

### 17 Oklahoma‟s ISIP is required 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). Only one-hour averaging periods can ensure compliance with the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS. Therefore, to ensure that all areas in Oklahoma attain and maintain the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS, ODEQ must revise its ISIP to include enforceable emission limi ts with one-hour averaging times for coal-fired power plants and other large sources of SO 2



### . 11 

### These emission limits must apply at all times, including periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction.

D. The Draft ISIP fails to include measures that ensure compliance with section 110(a)(2 )(A) of the Act regarding the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS.

Oklahoma‟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 discusse d, under section 110(a)(2)(A), the ISIP must “include enforce able 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 Oklahoma‟s submission neither includes nor references emission limitations or other required measures that ensure compliance with the one-hour primary SO 2 

### NAAQ S. See generally Draft ISIP.

The statutory and regulatory sections that ODEQ incorporated into its Draft ISIP are insuffic ient to ensure compliance with the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS. For instance, ODEQ‟s Draft ISIP does not provide sufficient emission limits on large SO 2 

### sources to guarantee the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The SO 2 

### emissions standard contained in OAC 252:100-31, Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds, see Draft ISIP at 3, is far too weak to attain and maintain the 2010 one-hour primary SO 2 

### NAAQS based on measured and predicted air quality. The emission limit in OAC 252:100-31, subpart 25, for sulfur compounds from fuel-burning equipment constructed after 1972, may not exceed 1.2 pounds per MMBTU heat input of SO 2 

### averaged over a period of three or twenty-four hours. When compared to the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS, which limits ambient SO 2 

### to 75 ppb (or 0.075 ppm) averaged over one hour, it is apparent that this standard is grossly inadequate to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Not only is the emission limit provided extremely weak, the regulation allows certain types of sources to avoid the limit entirely. See OAC 252:100-31-16 (providing no emissions limits for coal plants built prior to 1972). As discus sed above, refined air dispersion modeling shows that more stringent lev els are required for at least the Muskogee, Sooner, and GRDA power plants, and that the existing limits maintained in the Draft ISIP are insufficient to meet the 2010 SO 2 

### standard. See Sooner Report at 4, Table 3; GRDA Report at 4, Table 3; Muskogee Report at 15. From the modeling reports, it is clear that the standards contained within the Draft ISIP were created for the less stringent, outdated NAAQS and Oklahoma must revise the ISI P to reflect the applicable one-hour standard.

11 Though no averaging time longer than one hour can ensure compliance with the 1

- hour SO2 NAAQS, if a state nonetheless uses a longer averaging time, the emission limits at minimum would need to be ratcheted down accordingly to ensure that no short

- term exceedances of the standard occur.

### 18 Further, the Draft ISIP impermissibly allows for ambient air incremental increase s, variances, exceptions, or exclusions with regard to limits placed on sources of SO 2 

### , and so further fails to assure attainment of the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS. The Draft ISIP in corporates existing regulatory provisions that allow exemptions from enforcement that undermine the programs meant to ensure attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS. See Draft ISIP at 2. For instance, in the Oklahoma Clean Air Act, the Council may grant a variance for any provision of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act under certain circumstances. See 27A O.S. § 2-5-109. Moreover, OAC 252:100-9-8 allows owners and operators of any size sources to be relieved of a civil or administrative penalty, thus evading enforcement actions for excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These provisions and others not discussed in these comments undermine the efficacy of the ISIP by permitting sources to evade enforcement and emit excess emissions, pre venting Oklahoma from attaining and maintaining the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS.

As a result of all of these inadequacies, exemptions, variances, and other shortfalls not listed in these comments, the Draft ISIP cannot ensure that Oklahoma will attain and maint ain the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS. In particular, the Draft ISIP fails to address large sources of SO 2 

### pollution, including the Muskogee, Sooner, and GRDA fossil plants that lack emission limits necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the standard. See generally Sooner Report, Muskogee Report, and GRDA Report. Oklahoma must revise its ISIP to include enforceable emission limits that address the exceedances demonstrated by

expert modeling analyses submitted with these comments and that otherwise address the short-term, one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS. It must also update its emission regulations to ensure that proper mass limitations and one-hour averaging periods are imposed on large SO 2 

### sources, including coal-fired power plants.

E. Enforceable emission limits are necessary to avoid future nonattainme nt designations.

In addition to being a required component of the ISIP, enforceable emission limits

— either in permits or source-specific SIP provisions—are necessary to avoid future nonattainme nt designations in areas where modeling or monitoring shows that SO 2 

### levels exceed the one-hour NAAQS. See EPA, Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard at 4 (Feb. 6, 2013) (explaining that agencies should work “ to avoid a nonattainment designation by establishing and submitting to EPA enforceable emission limitations ensuring that attainment with the SO 2 

### NAAQS (in the form of permit limits, source

‐ specific SIP revisions, or other permanent and enforceable legal documents) occurs prior to the date that final designations based on modeling information are issued” (emphasis added)); Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,553 (June 22, 2010) (areas will “be designated „nonattainment‟ if either available monitoring data or modeling shows that a violation exists, or „attainment‟ if both available monitoring data and modeling indicate the area is attaining” (emphasis added)). Oklahoma should use this opportunity to do exactly that—add enforceable emissions limits to preve nt nonattainment designations later on and protect public health. In order to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A) and avoid nonattainment designations for areas

### 19

impacted by high SO 2 

### emissions, ODEQ must amend the Draft ISIP to ensure that large sources of SO 2 

### cannot cause exceedances of the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS.

To date no county in Oklahoma has been designated as nonattainment, but that number will jump to nine counties as the designation process continues. Nonattainment designations c reate rigorous Clean Air Act requirements that states must comply with, including offsets, LAER, and nonattainment NSR. Oklahoma should use this opportunity to avoid having nine counties formally designated as nonattainment and protect public health by adding enforceable emissions limits to attain and maintain the SO 2 

### NAAQS.

Addressing the issue now is also a way to bring regulatory certainty to coal-fired power plants in Oklahoma, which could ultimately save these regulated entities money. This is because many of the coal-fired power plants that do not already have flue gas desulfurizati on equipment are currently evaluating which sulfur controls to install to comply with other rules, including MATS, CSAPR, and Regional Haze. As a result, moving forward now with emission limits and pollution control requirements will allow sources to plan for compliance with all potentially applicable rules, avoiding an outcome in which a source makes a significant investment in a suite of pollution controls for MATS, Regional Haze, or CSAPR only to conclude that that the suite of controls is inadequate to comply with the SO 2 

### NAAQS and that a second suite of controls is necessary. Thus, complying with the SO 2 

### NAAQS may add little or no additional capital

co st to the costs of complying with other rules—provided that the sources can factor the SO 2 

### NAAQS into their initial decision on which controls to install.

Indeed, industry itself has made this same exact point to EPA, though in slightly different terms:

Mu ltiple recently-issued rules all focus on large combustion source-related emissions (e.g. boilers) and may require significant capital expenditures to achieve compliance. The compliance options and deadlines for these rules, however, vary widely. If the rules compliance deadlines and requirements are not coordinated, the sources subject to them will be forced to make investment decisions without a full understanding of what may required to comply with the rules having later compliance deadline. This may result in a series of sub-optimized decisions . . . [with a] suboptimal overall solution—both from a cost and environmental perspective. For example . . . a source could invest in Boiler MACT controls without a full understanding of the SO2 NAAQS issued because SO2 air dispersion modeling has not yet been completed . . . .

See NAAQS Implementation Coalition Comments on the 10th Modeling Conference, March 6, 2012 Joseph C. Stanko, Hunton and Williams, at 10 (emphasis added). By regulating these facilities now, the state of Oklahoma can prevent a source from incurring additional expe nses through piecemealed legislation.

To avoid inevitable nonattainment designations in nine counties and to bring regulatory c ertainty to sources in those counties, ODEQ should amend the Draft ISIP to

### 20

establish enforceable emission limits to ensure that large sources of SO 2 

### do not cause exceedances of the one-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS.

III. THE DRAFT ISIP MUST BE REVISED TO ADDRESS SOURCES SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTING TO NONATTAINMENT OR INTERFERENCE WITH MAINTENANCE OF THE NAAQS IN DOWNWIND STATES.

Oklahoma must address i nterstate transport of Oklahoma‟s emissions that would contribute to exceedances or interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS. Under section 110(a)(2)(D), a SIP must contain “adequate provisions (i) prohibiting . . . any source . . . from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will—(I) contribute significantly

to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); see also EPA v. EME Homer City Generation , No. 12-1182, slip op. at 14 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014) (reiterating that this is a mandatory duty) [hereinafter

“ Homer City ”]. Oklahoma‟s ISIP, as proposed, fails to address any cross-state impacts that are due to sources within the state. This is inadequate and should result in EPA disapproving the submittal.

The Clean Air Act sets a mandatory duty for states to submit ISIPs within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). Under CAA section 110, there is no prerequisite action required, such as EPA issuing guidance, before states must fulfill their mandatory duty. See Homer City at 14 (“the CAA sets a series of precise deadlines to whi ch the States and EPA must adhere”). ODEQ cannot rely on the fact that EPA‟s 2013 ISIP Guidance does not address interstate transport provisions. See Draft ISIP at 6

- 7. 12 

### This guidance directly contradicts the language of th e Clean Air Act. Therefore, Oklahoma must create a SIP to address Prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate provisions and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on it. 13



### Moreover, ODEQ cannot rely on its Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program and Air Quality Impact regulation, OAC 252:100-8-35. See Draft ISIP at 6. That program and regulation apply only to new sources and modifications. Thus, sources are only evaluated under those regulations when built or undergoing a major modification and only evaluated for contribution to the NAAQS at the time of that action. A plant

12 The Supreme Court has resoundingly disapproved the belief that states cannot address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the Good Neighbor provision, until EPA first calculates the budget of emiss i ons and gi ves upwind states the opportunity to propose SIPs allocating those budgets among in

- state sources b efore issuing a FIP. See Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev‟d , No. 12

- 1182, slip op. at 27

- 28 (U.S. Apr. 29,2014) (stating “nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor obligations” and finding the D.C. Circuit impermiss ibly altered the clear deadlines in the Act).

13 Just as EPA has historically used air dispersion modeling in attainment designations and SIP revisions, so has the agency relied on modeling to assess cross-state impacts under the Act‟s Good Neighbor provision— section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”) and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSAPR”), as well as the 2003 NO
x SIP Call, EPA has used modeling to determine pollutants‟ crossstate impacts. Note that the D.C. Circuit court never questioned the agency‟s use of modeling to assess cross-state impacts. See generally North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

### 21

built as recently as 2009, therefore would not have submitted to ODEQ an analysis of its compliance with t he 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Consequently, ODEQ must revise its ISIP to adequately

address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

In light of the recent Homer City Supreme Court decision, ODEQ should act quickly to address pol lution that may be contributing to another state‟s nonattainment or interfering with another state‟s maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Court‟s decision means Oklahoma must address its exceedances under its own volition or EPA will be required to act instead. In particular, under its current emission limits, the GRDA, Sooner, and Muskogee power plants are impermissibly permitted to cause NAAQS

excee dances in the following tribal jurisdictions: Cherokee Nation, the Ponca and Otoe Missouria Nation , and the Muskogee Creek Nation . As such, ODEQ must include proper emission limitations in its ISIP for this plant and other s to ensure that they do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any downwind state.

IV. OKLAHOMA’S DRAFT I-SIP FAILS TO INCLUDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE EMERGENCY EPISODE PLAN.

Under section 110(a)(2)(G), Oklahoma must provide an emergency plan. Here, Oklahoma claims that this requirement has been satisfied by a plan submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988. See Draft ISIP at 11. 14 

### However, ODEQ does not provide the plan or a link to the plan for the public to evaluate whether it is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G). In order for the public to adequately weigh whether the emergency episode plan is sufficient, Oklahoma must provide the plan. Thus, Oklahoma should revise its Draf

t ISIP to include the emergency plan.

V. CONCLUSION

The Draft ISIP fails to ensure that the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is attained and maintained, as described above. Oklahoma must revise the ISIP to adopt adequate emission limi ts and other standards to protect public health and comply with the Act‟s requirements. Sierra Club would be happy to provide any other information that might assist Oklahoma in evaluating the impacts of these sources and developing an ISIP in full compliance with t he Clean Air Act.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Laurie Williams Laurie Williams Associate Attorney

14 Sierra Club disagrees that Oklahoma can ignore its duty to address visibility requirements under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(J). See Draft ISIP at 14. The statute clearly states that each plan shall meet the requirements relating to visibility protec tion. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(J).

### 22 Sierra Club 50 F Street, NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20001 (202) 548-4597 laurie.williams@sierraclub.org

On behalf of Sierra Club

### DEQ NOTE: A copy of the Exhibits & Supporting Modeling Files referenced in this email are included with electronic copies of other documents submitted to EPA on CD & available on DEQ's web site. Kirlin, Brooks

From: Kadie McShirley <kadie.mcshirley@sierraclub.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 10:51 AM
To: Bradley, Cheryl
Cc: Kirlin, Brooks Subject: Sierra Club's Comments Concerning Oklahoma’s Compliance with Clean Air Act Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour NAAQS. Attachments: OK I-SIP for SO2_Sierra Club Comments_Final.pdf



### Dear Ms. Cheryl Bradley,

Attac hed, please find Sierra Club's Comments Concerning Oklahoma’s Compliance with Clean Air Act Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards. You can find and download the exhibits and supporting modeling files to Sierra Club's comments here. Please confirm receipt of this email and that you are ab le to download the exhibits from this link. A hard copy of Sierra Club's Comments will be sent via First Class USPS mail today. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

-- Kadie McShirley Legal Assistant Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second Street, Second Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 kadie.mcshirley@sierraclub.org office: 415-977-5658 cell: 805-451-1301

### 1 

## Summary of Comments and Responses Oklahoma’s I-SIP Submittal for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) NAAQS

CAA Requirements Under § 110(a)(1) & (2)

DEQ received no request for a public hearing during the notice period, therefore, as stated in the public notice, a hearing was not held. One set of comments was received during the comment period, submitted on June 5, 2014 by Laurie Williams, Associate Attorney, on behalf of Sierra
Club.

Sierra Club Sierra Club (SC) prefaced its specific comments with considerable background discussion of the
SO 2 

### NAAQS and I-SIP i 

### requirements under the CAA and EPA rules and policies, which required no response. The following is a summary of specific comments and responses.

Comments I.C.1 through 4
I.C.1 : “The plain language and legislative history of the Clean Air Act require that infrastructure
SIPs must impose emission limits adequate to prevent NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment.” (Page 4)

I.C.2 : “EPA regulations implementing the Clean Air Act require that infrastructure SIPs must impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment.” (Page 5)

I.C.3 : “Prior EPA interpretations of the act require that infrastructure SIPs must impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment.” (Page 5)

I.C. 4 : “Supreme and Appellate Court opinions hold that infrastructure SIPs must impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment.” (Page 6)

Response to Comments I.C.1 through 4 : These comments are substantially the same as the SC

comments ii 

### EPA addressed extensively on March 27, 2014 at 79 Fed.Reg. 17043. EPA’s response indicated that it does not view the purpose of the I-SIP submittal as an attainment/maintenance demonstration, but primarily as an opportunity for a review of the state’s air quality management program, particularly as it accommodates a new or revised NAAQS. Both the CAA and EPA’s programs include multiple provisions for SIP changes to meet new and evolving requirements, including the Designations process. Oklahoma’s draft I-SIP submittal

### 2



### describes how the state has integrated the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1) & (2) into its basic programs, including changes to date to accommodate the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS.

The EPA’s responses in the referenced Federal Register notice included a number of statements that summarize an appropriate response to SC’s comments, including:

EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Id., pg. 17045

In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA’s long-standing position regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each
individual area of the state. Id., pg. 17046

Thus, the pr esent-day [40 CFR Section] 51.112 contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy SIPs and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan. Id., pg. 17049

Furthermore, EPA has explicitly addressed this issue in its September 2013 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” (“ 2013 I-SIP Guidance”) There, EPA states that I-SIPs merely “should identify existing EPA-approved SIP provisions or new SIP provisions” that “limit emissions of pollutants relevant to the subject NAAQS,” but “emissions limitations and other control measures needed” will be due on a later date for those areas designated nonattainment. 2013 I-SIP Guidance at 18. EPA has further confirmed this by stating that when evaluating I-SIPs, it has “long interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due” and that “EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose[;] instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state’s SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.” 79 Fed.Reg. 27241 at 27245 (May 13, 2014). Thus, an air agency is not obligated to provide additional emissions limitations o r control measures until a designation of nonattainment has been made.

Commen ts II.A through C
Commen t II : “The draft ISIP fails to include enforceable one-hour SO 2 

### emission limitations to ensure attainment and maintenance of the primary SO 2 

### NAAQS.” (P age 8)

### 3



### Comment II.A : “Oklahoma must revise the Draft ISIP to include enforceable one-hour SO 2 

### emission limits for sources currently allowed to cause exceedances of the NAAQS.” (Page 8)

Commen t II.B : “Modeling is the appropriate tool for evaluating the adequacy of Infrastructure SIPs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the SO 2 

### NAAQS.” (Page 12)

Comment II.C : “The Draft ISIP must include enforceable SO 2 

### emission limits with a one-hour averaging period that apply at all times.” (Page 16)

Response to Comments II.A through C : As documente d in the I-SIP Checklist, DEQ’s Air Quality program requires enforcement and compliance with all NAAQS, and the authority to require emission evaluations and limits in the appropriate form. However, the detailed comments provided are outside the scope of this I-SIP submittal. A demonstration that emissions allowed under the current Oklahoma SIP are adequate
to attain a new SO 2 

### standard would be appropriately performed for an attainment SIP. As
discussed in the previous response, this is not an attainment SIP – it is intended to show that the
State ha s the legal authority and resources that meet the requirements of CAA Sections 110(a)(1)&(2) to implement 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS. DEQ will continue to evaluate the significant
SO 2 

### emission sources in Oklahoma that potentially impact attainment of the NAAQS, i.e., those identified in advance of the Designations process conducted under the proposed Data Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour SO 2 

### NAAQS ( 79 Fed.Reg. 27446, May 13, 2014 ) and/or the related proposed Settlement Agreement ( 79 Fed.Reg. 31325, June 2, 2014 ). The evaluation would identify any necessary and appropriate actions and/or emissions limitations needed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, taking into account any SO 2 

### reductions that will occur in the near term due to implementation of federal measures (e.g., MATs, BART, CSAPR) and/or other announced retirements or modifications. Modeling has and will be used as a tool in emissions evaluations, as appropriate.

Comment II.D : “The Draft ISIP fails to include measures that ensure compliance with section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act regarding the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS.” (Page 17) Specifically, the commenter stated that the requirements of Subchapter 31 Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds of AQD’s rules, and in particular OAC 252:100-31-16 & -25, are inadequate t o guarantee the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The commenter also expressed concern over certain variance provisions included in the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. § 2-
5 -109) and excess emissions reporting requirements and enforcement provisions that may apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (252:100-9-8).

Response: As previously stated, DEQ concurs with EPA’s position that this is an I-SIP submittal, not an Attainment or Maintenance SIP. Regarding the Subchapter 31 requirements, DEQ acknowledges that, as SC stated, 252:100- 31 -25 (Requirements for new fuel-burning) do

### 4



### not, and never have, applied to pre-July 1972 equipment, and that 252:100-31-16 (Requirements
for exist ing fossil fuel-fired steam generators) does not include specific emission limits for preJuly 1972 coal-fired power plants. Many of the requirements of Subchapter 31 were developed long before the development and implementation of the Title V program, the bulk of NSPS & NESHAPs, and other federal measures. Although various facilities are still technically subject to the requirements of Subchapter 31, in many cases other, more stringent requirements take precedence. [Significant changes were made to Subchapter 31 effective July 2012, including
removal of c ertain old er standards which were redundant and/or not protective of the new SO 2 

### NAAQS . The public comment period and hearings held on the rulemaking also served as an opportunity to receive related comments on Oklahoma’s SIP. DEQ notes that the Sierra Club raised none of their concerns during the nearly year-long formal rulemaking process for the Subchapter 31 changes.] Subchapter 31 is only one portion of the infrastructure on which
Oklahoma relies for attainment and maintenance of the SO 2 

### NAAQS.

Several years ago, DEQ made significant modifications to Subchapter 9 (Excess Emission Reporting Requirements ), in large measure to accommodate changes in EPA enforcement policy regarding excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), and other issues. As documented in the checklist, the Subchapter 9 changes were submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on July 16, 2010. In a letter dated March 14, 2014 and at EPA’s request, DEQ
withdrew this SIP submittal to allow EPA to deal with the issues on a national basis. EPA included a discussion of the appropriate treatment of SSM and variance issues for the I-SIP submission in the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, page 19, Section III.

Comm ent II.E : “Enforceable emission limits are necessary to avoid future nonattainment designations.” (Page 18)

Response : As stated in a previous response, DEQ will continue to evaluate the significant SO 2 

### emission sources in Oklahoma that potentially impact attainment of the NAAQS, and identify any appropriate additional actions and/or emissions limitations, in addition to any SO 2 

### reductions that will occur in the near term due to implementation of federal measures (e.g., MATs, BART, CSAPR) and/or other announced retirements or modifications. DEQ is pleased that the commenter recognizes the role of placing enforceable limits in permits.

Comment III : “The draft ISIP must be revised to address sources significantly contributing to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states.” (Page 20) Specifically, the commenter stated that DEQ cannot rely on its PSD rule under OAC 252:100-8- 35, since it would only require a NAAQS evaluation when a PSD was being built or undergoing a major modification. Sierra Club also expressed concerns over the potential impact of SO 2 

### emissions of three facilities on tribal lands of the Cherokee Nation, the Ponca and Otoe Missouria Nation, and the Muskogee Creek Nation.

### 5



### Response : The checklist has been modified to more explicitly state that, per EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance, DEQ is not asserting that Oklahoma meets all requirements of the interstate transport provisions of § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in this SIP submittal, and to update the status of transport requirements. As EPA has stated in its evaluation of several states’ I-SIPs (e.g., see 59 F ed.Reg. 46708), EPA is continuing to evaluate the impact of the Supreme Court’s EME Homer City decision on states’ § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. Following this decision, the D.C. Circuit
court lifte d the stay on CSPAR on October 23, 2014. While this I-SIP submittal does not make an assertion regarding § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Oklahoma’s SIP does not rely solely on OAC
252:100-8-35 to provide protections against interstate transport of pollutants. DEQ fully expects
to address transport issues in a future SIP submission under specific EPA guidance as to Oklahoma’s obligation for the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS under § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

As stated in the proposed checklist, DEQ’s preliminary analyses of possibly significant emission sources in Oklahoma do not indicate that, for the revised SO 2 

### NAAQS, Oklahoma contributes significantly to nonattainment in or interferes with maintenance by any other state. DEQ believes that the evaluations being conducted in advance of the Designations process will identify and address any interstate transport issues, particularly because the attainment and
maintenance concerns for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 

### NAAQS are primarily source-related. This would, of course, extend to protection of potentially affected tribal lands.

Commen t IV : “Oklahoma’s draft I-SIP fails to include information regarding the emergency episode plan.” (Page 21) The commenter asserted that the I-SIP must include a copy of the plan (or a link to the plan) so that the public could evaluate whether Oklahoma’s approved plan meets the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(G).

Response : The proposed I-SIP submittal documents Oklahoma’s EPA-approved Emergency Episode Plan (EEP) for all covered pollutants in Chapter 6 of the state’s SIP, which was submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988. [ see 40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38)] DEQ acknowledges that the full original SIP document is not currently available online. DEQ would be happy to provide the best copy available of these historical documents upon request under the state Open Records Act.
No request for

a copy of the EEP was received from the public during the comment period. It is important to note that an EEP contingency plan would not be required under 40 C.F.R. § 51.152
for SO 2 

### for any region of Oklahoma.

An EEP or contingency plan for a particular pollutant is required under 40 CFR § 51.152 for any region classifie d as Priority II or higher (i.e., Priority I or IA). The Priority II Region classification levels in 40 CFR § 51.150 for Sulfur Dioxides are currently set at 60–100 μg/m 3 

### (0.02–0.04 ppm) annu al arithmetic mean; 260–445 μg/m 3 

### (0.10–0.17 ppm) 24-hour maximum;

### 6



### or any concentration above 1,300 μg/m 3 

### (0.50 ppm) three-hour average. The highest monitored
SO 2 

### values for the previous 3 years (2011 to 20 13 ) were 0.00496 ppm annual arithmetic mean; 0.0278 ppm 24-hour maximum; and 0.105 ppm three-hour average – all well below the Priority
II classific ation level. Therefore, Oklahoma’s regions are classified as Priority III according to 40 C.F.R. § 51.150, and under 40 C.F.R. § 51.152(c), “Areas classified Priority III do not need to develop episod e plans.” Thus, Oklahoma is not required to submit a new EEP for SO 2 

### at this
time.

Nevertheless, the EEP approach is a 1948-vintage concept iii 

### . An Emergency Episode Action Plan, as it was sometimes referred to, was beneficial at a time when pollutants could be predicted to build-up over multiple days or weeks from a broad variety of sources to a level that would greatly exceed the health and safety standards, and a number of the sources (e.g., power plants) could be shut down without causing a shut-down of the electric grid.

Oklahoma’s EEP will be updated as needed if and when EPA revises the classification levels in 40 CFR § 51.150. However, the EEP as a func tional concept in Oklahoma in 2014 has largely been replaced by air quality monitoring, prediction, & notification tools , including the Air Quality Index (AQI), Ozone Watches, and Air Quality Health Advisories iv 

### . These tools have evolved along with other safeguards, and are more appropriate under today’s conditions. The

excee dance levels covered under an EEP are more indicative of a catastrophic event, rather than

even a significant NAAQS exceedance. It would be difficult and likely impractical to predict such an event a day or so in advance and quickly shut down larger sources of SO 2 

### until the episode passes. [An exception could be when a malfunctioning large source is the cause of the episode, but then a shutdown or curtailment would likely result from an existing permit/rule requirement, physical limitation, or the State’s ordinary emergency powers.] The DEQ doubts that the commenter would prefer that limited resources be diverted from emergency prevention and response efforts that are working, in order to redevelop a plan that has never been and likely
never will be used.

Comment (Footnote 14) : “Sierra Club disagrees that Oklahoma can ignore its duty to address visibility requirements under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(J). See Draft ISIP at 14. The statute clearly states that each plan shall meet the requirements relating to visibility protection.” (Footnote 14, page 21)

Response : The draft I-SIP submittal reviews DEQ’s existing infrastructure related to visibility obligations under CAA § 110(a)(2). However, EPA ’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance states that there are no new visibility protection requirements under Part C of the CAA that would result from a revised NAAQS

, and therefore the visibility sub-element of § 110(a)(2)(J) need not be addressed in an

### 7



### infrastructure SIP submission v



### . DEQ notes the commenter’s disagreement with EPA’s stated policy.

i Note that in its comments , Sierra Club uses the term Infrastructure SIP or ISIP to refer to the state’s full existing and EPA- approved program and SIP, as distinguished from the state’s “I

- SIP submittal,” i.e., its review and certification of the adequacy of its program and SIP.

ii Sierra Club comments on Virginia’s 2008 ozone I -SIP revision contended that EPA could not approve the section 110(a)(2)(A) portion of the submittal because the plain language of 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, legislative history of the CAA, case law, EPA regulations such as 40 CFR 51.112(a), and EPA interpretations in rulemakings, require the inclusion of enforceable emission limits in an infrastructure SIP to prevent NAAQS violations in areas not designated nonattainment. 79 Fed.Reg. 1704 5, 3- 27

- 14 . DEQ will n ot repeat or attempt to expand on EPA’s full legal analysis of these Sierra Club comments.

iii The concept of an emergency episode plan, including a warning system based on combined air pollution and weather conditions, was recommended by public health agencies at least in part as a result of the 1948 Donora (PA) Smog incident http://www.donorasmog.com/

iv Starting in 1991, for the Tulsa metropolitan area, and 1992 for the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, the ODEQ has called ozone alerts. These alerts are called by 4:00 pm the day before, and advertised in many ways to encourage the public to do what they can to reduce their emissions and exposure. Additionally, for the last five years, the Oklahoma DEQ has issued health alerts when it has determined that the ozone

, SO 2 or PM concentrations are projected to approach the primary NAAQS.

v page 55, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element J

– Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection, 2013 I-SIP GuidancePublic Notice

OK 2010 SO 2 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Posted 4/ 30 /2014



### OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment
Oklahoma’s Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification

2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby announces an opportunity to comment on and request a public hearing on the proposed certification that Oklahoma has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The hearing, if one is requested, will be held on Thursday, June 5, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the 1 st 

### Floor Multi purpose Room of the DEQ, 707 North Robinson Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. NOTE : If no request for a public hearing is received by 10:00 a.m., Monday, June 2, 2014 (the close of the minimum 30-day notice period), the hearing will be cancelled, and a notice announcing that the hearing has been cancelled will be posted on the DEQ web site ( http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm ) at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled time for the hearing. You may call (405) 702-4100 to find out if the hearing has been cancelled. Under the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru -117), DEQ is given the primary responsibility

and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air quality management plan, compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. The DEQ prepared the proposed certification to comply with the requirements contained in Section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans. This certification was prepared for submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under EPA’s Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) , issued Sept. 13, 2013. All persons interested in these matters are invited to submit written comments prior to the scheduled close of the public hearing ( i.e. , 12:00 noon on Thursday, June 5, 2014) and/or provide oral comments at the public he aring (if a hearing is requested and held). Persons planning to comment at the hearing may submit a written statement and/or additional information relevant to this matter for inclusion in the record of proceedings of the public hearing. The hearing officer may limit the length of oral presentations to allow all those who wish to provide oral comments an opportunity to do so. The proposed certification is available on the DEQ web site at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm. Copies may also be obtained from the Department by contacting Cheryl E. Bradley, Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 702-4100

or Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov

. Written comments and/or a public hearing request regarding the proposed 2010 Primary SO 2 

### NAAQS § 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification should be emailed to Ms. Bradley at Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov or mailed to: Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division P.O. Box 1677 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677 ATTN: Cheryl E. Bradley Comments may be submitted by fax to the Air Quality Division, ATTN: Cheryl E. Bradley, at (405) 702-4101. Should you desire to attend the public hearing but have a disability and need an accommodation, please notify the Air Quality Division three (3) days in advance at (405) 702-4172. For the hearing impaired, the TDD relay number is 1-800-522-8506 or 1-800-722-0353, for TDD machine use only.1 

### Kirlin, Brooks

From: DEQ Air Quality Division <air-council@deq.ok.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:12 PM
To: Kirlin, Brooks Subject: Public Comment & Hearing Set for SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP



### The Air Quality Division is taking comments and hearing requests on the proposed certification of Oklahoma's Section
110 I nfrastructure SIP for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

If a hearing request is received by 10:00 a.m. June 2, 2014, a public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 5, 2014, from 10:00 am to noon in the Multipurpose Room at the DEQ Central office in Oklahoma City. The hearing notice and additional information can be found on the Department's website at:

http://m1e.net/c?118762547-S0PVxfH7sUAI2%40102067551-IoWX YeTPccIc2

-- To unsubscribe/change profile: http://www.mailermailer.com/u/update/118762547y-f5ae05f8

To subscribe: http://www.mailermailer.com/u/signup/20551e

Our address: 707 N. Robinson | P.O. Box 1677 | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101

Email Marketing by MailerMailerNotice of Cancellation – Pu blic Hearing 2010 SO 2 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Posted 6/2/2014



### OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY



# Notice of Cancellation of Public Hearing

Oklahoma’s Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification

2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby announces that no request for a public hearing was received by the close of the 30-day notice period (5/1/2014 – 6/1/2014) on the proposed c ertification that Oklahoma has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) Nationa l Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Therefore, the hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 5, 2014 has been cancelled, as provided for in the notice announcing the opportunity to request a public hearing and comment on the proposal. This announcement is in accordance with the public notice requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102.

Written comments on the proposal will be accepted through noon on Thursday, June 5, 2014. The public notic e and proposed certification are available on the DEQ website at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm

. Copies may also be obtained from the Department by contacting Cheryl E. Bradley, Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 702 -4100 or Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov

.1 

### Kirlin, Brooks

From: DEQ Air Quality Division <air-council@deq.ok.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 10:11 AM
To: Kirlin, Brooks Subject: Public hearing cancelled for SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP



### Noti c e of Cancellation of Public Hearing: No request for a public hearing was received by the close of the 30-day notice period (5/1/2014 - 6/1/2014) on the proposed certification of Oklahoma's SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP.

Therefore, the hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 5, 2014 has been cancelled. The Air Quality Division will continue to accept comments on the proposal until noon, Thursday, June 5.

-- To unsubscribe/change profile: http://www.mailermailer.com/u/update/118762547y-f5ae05f8

To subscribe: http://www.mailermailer.com/u/signup/20551e

Our address: 707 N. Robinson | P.O. Box 1677 | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101

Email Marketing by MailerMailerProposed Certification Letter Language

OK 2010 SO 2 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Posted 4- 30

- 20 14



### Draft Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

Given below is draft language for the body of the I

- SIP certification letter. The language would be provided to the Governor’s office to assist in preparing the certification letter for the Governor’s signature or her designee (e.g., the Secretary of Energy and Environment).

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act require that each state review and revise as necessary its State Implementation Plan (SIP) following promulgation of a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). [ See 42 U.S.C. 7410( a)(1) and (2)] On June 2, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the level and form of the Primary NAAQS for Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) [75 Fed.Reg. 35520, June 22, 2010]. EPA issued the “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementa tion Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” in September 2013 (“EPA’s 2013 I-SIP guidance ”)

. Under this guidance, states may certify that their existing SIPs meet the “infrastructure” elements of § 110(a)(2), rather than submitting a SIP for a revised NAAQS such as the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS.

Oklahoma's SIP is codified in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. On behalf of the State of Oklahoma, I hereby certify that, as indicated in the enclosed table titled “Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal ‘Infrastructure’ Checklist,” Oklahoma’s SIP meets the infrastructure obligations for the 201 0 Primary SO 2 

### NAAQS . To date, the only Program changes required to meet the revised SO 2 

### NAAQS we re revisions to Appendix E of OAC 252:100, to change the level and form of the Primary SO 2 

### standard [CAA § 110(a)(2)(H )]

.
State publi c participation procedures for such SIP submittals were submitted to EPA for review under 40 CFR § 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that Oklahoma’s procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and associated guidance. Public notice for this submittal was posted on DEQ’s web site on April 30, 2014, to allow the opportunity to provide
comments a nd to request a public hearing preliminarily scheduled for June 5, 2014 at DEQ’s offices. {Option: No hearin g requests were received during the minimum 30-day comment period (5/1/14 – 6 /1/14). Therefore, a notice of hearing cancellation was posted on June 2, 2014.} Attached is doc umentation of this public notice and submittal process. Attached are copies of comments received during the comment period and the public hearing, and a Response to Comments document. It is our understanding that the final results of EPA’s review of this submittal will be determined through rulemaking and will be published in the Federal Register

.
Note that this letter and its supporting documentation do not address § 110(a)(2)(I), which pertains to the nonattainm ent planning requirements of Title I, Part D of the Clean Air Act. These requirements are not governed b y the three-year SIP submission deadline under § 110(a)(1). In addition, Oklahoma currently has no SO 2 

### nonattainment areas, and no nonattainment plans are due.

Note also that this submittal is not intended to assert that Oklahoma meets all requirements of § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which relate to interstate pollutant transport affecting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. It is our understanding that EPA expects to address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) separately through issuance of further guidance. However, the checklist does describe certain related aspects of DEQ’s infrastructure.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 1 

## Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist

CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current SIP or Pending SIP Revisions 

## Updated for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

## ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

On June 2, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a new 1-hour primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) 1



### . Section 110(a)(1) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each newly promulgated or revised NAAQS. A SIP identifies how thatstate will attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary NAAQS. The SIP contains state regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory items such as plans and inventories. The initial SIPs for states were approved by the EPA on May 31, 1972 (46 Fed.Reg. 40005). The Oklahoma Depa rtment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air quality management plan under the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act and the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (see generally Title 27A Oklahoma Statutes (O.S. ) § § 2-1 -101 et seq.). The federally enforceable SIP for Oklahoma is compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. Approval of additional SIP submittals is pending.

SIPs are reviewed and revised by the state from time to time as necessary to accommodate changes in State and Federal statutes, rules, policies, and program requirements. In addition to SIP revisions to address specific program requirements (e.g., PSD/NSR Program), including those changes that directly result from a new or revised NAAQS, EPA has interpreted § 110(a)(1) of the federal CAA to require the state to demonstrate that the SIP meets the “infrastructure” requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) each time a NAAQS is issued or revised 2



### . The resulting submittal is now commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” or “I-SIP.” Under its September 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 3 

### (“2013 I-SIP Guidance”), EPA allows for certification that “... the already-approved SIP contains or references provisions that satisfy all or some of the requirements of section 110(a)(2), as applicable, for purposes of implementing the new or revised NAAQS.” The following table summarizes how and where the applicable infrastructure requirements are addressed in Oklahoma’s current SIP or pending SIP revisions. In addition to a summary of infrastructure elements as they relate to the various existing NAAQS, the table lists any changes or pertinent information specific to the subject NAAQS change.

This Submittal: 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) NAAQS In this I-SIP submittal, Oklahoma is demonstrating that it has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) NAAQS. This submittal was prepared under EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V – Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions.

1 EPA established the new 1-hour SO 2 standard at a level of 75 ppb [ see 40 CFR §50.17]. This rule also provided for the automatic future revocation of the previous annual and 24- hour SO 2 NAAQS for most areas following 1 year after designation under the new NAAQS [ see 40 CFR § 50.4(e)]. The previous 3-hour secondary standard remains in place indefinitely. [ see 40 CFR §50.5; 75 Fed.Reg. 35520 (June 22, 2010) ]. The EPA has also recently reviewed the air quality criteria and the secondary NAAQS for nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides and retained the current NO 2 and SO 2 secondary standards [ see 77 Fed.Reg. 20218 (April 3, 2012) ].
2 For Example, EPA approved Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP (or “I-SIP”) for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS on January 26, 2012 ( 77 Fed.Reg. 3933 ).

3 Distributed under September 13, 2013 memo from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA’s Regional Air Directors, Regions 1- 10.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 2 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(A)

– Emission Limits and Other Control Measures include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act. Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act (27A O.S. §§ 1

- 1

- 101 thru 1

- 4

- 1 0 7 ), Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code (27A O.S. §§ 2

- 1

- 101 thru 2

- 16

- 10 7 ) including the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. § § 2

- 5

- 101 thru 2

- 5

- 117 ) and other relevant portions

, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252: 4, Rules of Practice and Procedure, and OAC 252: 100, Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Rules

.

Oklahoma has an EPA

- approved air permitting program for both major /Part 70 s ources (OAC 252:100

- 8) and minor facilities (OAC 252:100

- 7)

. [ See discussion under Element 110(a)(2)(C)

– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

. ]

EPA actions on several SIP revisions are pending. These include portions of the February 14, 2002 SIP submittal (“Big SIP”) ; portions of the June 24, 2010 SIP submittal (SC

- 8 revision); the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess emissions); portions of the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2”) ; the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (NSR Reform); and the March 26, 2012 SIP submittal (G HG and PM2.5); as well as the annual SIP revisions for 2010 ( December 28 , 2010 ), 2011 ( February 6 , 2012 ), and 2012 ( February 4

, 2013 ).

In a letter dated March 14, 2014 and at EPA’s request

, DEQ withdrew its July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess emissions) due to the specific legal circumstances and uncertainty regarding EPA’s final Start

- up, Shut

- down, and Malfunction (SSM) policy 4

.

Oklahoma currently has no designated nonattainment areas or maintenance

areas. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52 .1960 (c) (48)

4 Although the SC 9 changes documented in the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal followed EPA’s policy on excess emissions (e.g., SSM & variance/”director’s discretion” provisions) that was in place at the time, withdrawal will allow EPA to deal with the issues on a national basis.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 3 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: No specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or maintain the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS (“ revised SO 2 NAAQS ”)

. OAC 252:100 includes Subchapter 31 , Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds (252:100

- 31 ). The annual SIP revision s for 2012 and 20 13 include several changes to Subchapter 31 , the more r ecent of which took the revised SO 2 NAAQS into consideration 5

. No additional changes to Subchapter 31 have been identified as needed as a result of the revised SO 2 NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related to implementation of this NAAQS through Oklahoma’s permitting program would be addressed through a separate SIP submission.

§ 110(a)(2)(B)

– Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and upon request, make such data available to the Administrator; The Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. § § 2

- 5

- 101 thru 2

- 5

- 117) provides the authority to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors. OAC 252:100

- 3, in conjunction with Appendices E and F, enumerate s the NAAQS and PSD increments.

Oklahoma operates an air quality moni toring network consistent with EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 58), and regularly reports results to EPA under previously

- approved SIP provisions. Each fiscal year, DEQ posts an Annual Network Review (ANR) on its website for public review. Following the 30

- day public review period, DEQ evaluates and responds to any comments, and submits the r eview to EPA Region 6 monitoring staff for their review. The FY14 ANR was posted for public review from August 5, 2013 to September 9, 2013. No public comments were received

, and the final FY14 ANR was submitted to EPA. Monitoring results may also be accessed through DEQ’s web site at: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/monitoring/index.htm 40 CFR § § 52.1920 and 52.1960(c)(22)

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma’s program has monitored sulfur dioxide from the 1970’s to the present. Oklahoma is on schedule with update s its air quality monitoring network necessary to implement changes to EPA’s ambient air monitoring

r equirements of 40 CFR Part 58 related to the revised SO 2 NAAQS ( 75 Fed.Reg. 35520, June 22, 20 10) . Changes to reporting have been implemented as appropriate.

5 A significant change to SC 31, effective 7/ 1/12, was affected by the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS changes, and was included in the 2012 annual SIP submittal (February 4, 2013)

. Additional SC 31 changes effective 6/1/02 and 6/12/03 were included in the 2012 annual SIP submittal

. The 201 3 annual SIP submittal (expected July 2014) will include a change to SC31 effective 7/1/13 and, due to identified documentation issues, will withdraw and replace the SC 31 portion of the 2012 submittal.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 4 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(C)

– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A) and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D; Oklahoma’s EPA

- approved air permitting program includes appropriate enforcement authority and perm itting for modification and construction of stationary sources. DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A O

. S

. § 2

- 5

- 105, and include authority to “... [e]nforce rules of the Board and orders of the Department and the Council .” 27A O

. S

. § 2

- 5

- 105(4 )

. More specific enforcement authorities are described throughout the Oklahoma Clean Air Act

, 27A O

. S

. §§ 2

- 5

- 101 et seq

. , and in OAC 252:4

- 9, Administrative Proceedings.

Oklahoma’s requirements for construction and operating permits for minor facilities and (minor) modifications to minor facilities are in OAC 252:100

- 7, Permits for Minor Facilities. The construction permit requirements for PSD and other major sources, and requiremen ts for both major and minor modifications to PSD and other major sources, as well as requirements for the Part 70 (Title V) operating permit program

, are in OAC 252:100

- 8, Permits for Part 70 Sources and Major New Source Review. OAC 252:4

- 7, Environmental Permit Process

, contains additional permit requirements.

Although Oklahoma does not currently have any designated nonattainment areas or maintenanc e areas, Oklahoma's SIP contains the provisions for the nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) permitting program in OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 9. Major Sources Affecting Nonattainment Areas. The EPA interprets the portion of § 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a nonattainment NSR permitting program (CAA T itle I part D ) to be outside the scope of the infrastructure SIP requirements 6

, and does not otherwise address it in the 2013 I

- SIP Guidance

. Note that Oklahoma’s PSD and Title V/Part 70 permitting program applies to sources that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) in accordance with EPA’s tailoring rule, and subsequent narrowing of EPA’s approval of the PSD program.

A number of changes to Oklahoma’s permitting program are included in the pending SIP revisions noted under Element § 110(a)(2)(A)

– Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

. 40 CFR § § 52.1920 and 52.192 9

6 Page 4, Section II. General Guidance on Infrastructure SIPs

, 2013 I-SIP Guidance4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 5 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: No specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or maintain the revised SO 2 NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related to implementation of this NAAQS through Ok lahoma’s permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs (e.g., PSD) would be addressed through a separate SIP submission.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 6 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I)

– Interstate Transport Pro vi sions contain adequate provisions

—
(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

-- (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with res pect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or The 2013 I

- SIP guidance states that EPA expects to issue guidance with
resp ect to this Subelement, 7 but does not otherwise address interstate transport provisions which prohibit significant contribution to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the NAAQS. If necessary, the requirements in § 110(a)(2) (D) (i)(I) will be handled in a se parate Transport SIP 8

However, Oklahoma's air quality control rule at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 requires major stationary sources to demonstrate that t he source’s emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control region

. The State’s PSD program meets the basic requirements for implementing all NAAQS

. SIP revisions submitted on July 23, 2010 and February 6, 2012

, which are pending EPA action , contain modifications to OAC 252:10 0

- 8

- 35. 40 CFR § § 52.1920 and 52.193 0

This NAAQS Revision: As stated, EPA’s 2013 I

- SIP guidance does not address the requirements of this Subelement, but Oklahoma expects to accommodate any future related guidance and implement any finally adjudicated program changes. DEQ’s preliminary analyses of possibly significant emission sources in Oklahoma do not indicate that, for the revised SO 2 NAAQS, Oklahoma contribute s significantly to nonattainment in nor interfere with maintenance by any other state.

7 Page 3

, Section I. Introduction

, 2013 I-SIP Guidance

8 Oklahoma submitted its Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”) to EPA in May 2007, with supplemental information submitted in November 2007. EPA approved portions of the Transport SIP relating to § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (76 Fed.Reg. 81838, Dec. 29

, 2011 ). In the same action, EPA approved the portions of the Transport SIP relating to the prohibition against significant contribution to nonattainment of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA’s analyses performed in conjunction with issuance of the Transport Rule (aka Cross State Air Pollution Rule, 76 Fed.Reg. 48208, Aug. 8, 2011) concluded that emissions from Oklahoma significantly contribute to interference with maintenance of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in another state and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in a supplemental rule (76 Fed.Reg. 80760, Dec. 27, 2011) requiring Oklahoma to participate in the NO X Ozone Season trading program. A subsequent ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded to EPA the Transport Rule and the Transport Rule FIPs

. The Court allowed CAIR to remain in effect until the promulgation of a valid replacement. (Oklahoma is not covered under CAIR.) As of April 30, 2014, an appeal of the D.C. Circuit Court ’s ruling was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 7 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D) (i) (II)

– Interstate Transport Provisions contain adequate provisions

—
(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

--
(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or t o protect visibility, New major stationary sources and major modifications are subject to Oklahoma’s EPA

- approved comprehensive PSD permitting program u nder OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 7

. DEQ’s air permitting program includes pre

construction review of PSD sources, including review for impacts of emissions of all “regulated NSR pollutants

, ” and requires demonstration that any increase in emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air q uality control region

. EPA approved the portion of Oklahoma’s Transport SIP relating to § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (PSD) for the 1997 Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS

on November 26

, 2010 (75 Fed .Reg. 72695)

.

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision, (“RH SIP”), submitted in February 2010, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect visibility and assure that emissions do not interfere with any other state’s measures to protect visibility. These measures include provisions in OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 11. EP A partially approved and partially disapproved Oklahoma’s Regional Haze SIP on December 28

, 2011 (76 Fed.Reg. 81728)

. EPA stated that Oklahoma’s RH SIP did not incorporate some emission reductions that were relied on to demonstrate non

- interference with other states’ visibility protections. In the same Federal Register notice, EPA also partially approved and partially disapproved portions of the I nterstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8

- hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”), submitted May 10, 2007 and supplemented December 10, 2007, that address § 110( a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to protection of visibility. EPA issued a Fe deral Implementation Plan ( FIP ) requiring reduction of SO 2 emissions for six units, and found that

“ the controls under this FIP, in combination with the controls required by the portion of the Oklahoma RH submittal that we are approving, will serve to prevent sources in Oklahoma from emitting pollutants in amounts that will interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.” Oklahoma submitted a revision to its RH SIP and Transport SIP on June 14, 2013 to replace the FIP as it relates to two of the six units concerned. EPA approved this revision effective April 7, 2014. (79 Fed.Reg. 12944 & 12954, March 7, 2014)

. 40 CFR § 52.1920 ( c) and ( e)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 ( d) and (e), 52.1923, and 52.19284/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 8 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: Any specific sulfur dioxide

- related issues related to Oklahoma’s permitting program (e.g., increments or significan t impact levels) would be addressed through a separate submission.

Any contribut ion to visibility impairment or interference with any other state’s measures to protect visibility attributable to SO 2 e missions are addressed through Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision , as amended, and through EPA ’s related actions (see above discussion)

. Although no visibility protection obligations are anticipated as a result of this NAAQS change (s ee discussion under element § 110(a)(2)(J)

– PSD and Visibility Protection (Part C) ), other program actions taken to assure maintenance of the revised SO 2 NAAQS will indirectly assist in avoiding interference with any other state’s measures to protect visibility. 40 CFR § 52.1920 (e)4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 9 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D) (ii)

– Interstate and International Transport Provisions contain adequate provisions

—
(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement); Oklahoma’s EPA

- approved Title V Operating (and PSD) Program includes requirements for providing a notice of draft permit to affected states under OAC 252:100

- 8

- 8 (SIP revision approved November 26, 2010 at 75 Fed.Reg. 72695 ) . This notice meet s the requirements of § 126 of the CAA.

Evaluation requirements under the PSD Program are adequate to assure compliance with international pollution abatement requirements. There are no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with respect to any existing NAAQS. 40 CFR § 52.1920 (c)

This NAAQS Revision: No source or sources within Oklahoma are the subject of an active finding under § 126 of the CAA with respect to the revised SO 2 NAAQS

. There are no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with respect to this NAAQS.

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS

.
§ 110(a)(2)(E)(i)

– Adequate Resources provide (i) necessary assurances that the state (or, except where the Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government or governments, or a regional agency designated by the state or general purpose local governments for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof); Oklahoma has previously demonst rated that it currently has and will continue to have adequate personnel and other resources to carry out its air quality programs. The powers and duties of the DEQ to implement air quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A O

. S

. § 2

- 5

- 105, and include authority to accept and expend funds necessary to carry them out. DEQ receives air quality program funds through state appropriations, permit application fees, annual operating fees, and f ederal grants under CAA § § 103 & 105

, among other s

. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920(e) and 52.196 0(c)(45)(i)

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma will continue to provide the resources needed to carry out its air quality responsibilities. No significant additional personnel or other resources have been identified as required to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS, except as otherwise noted.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)

– Adequate Resources (State Boards) provide (ii) requirements that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code lays out the composition and powers & duties of the Environmental Quality Board ( EQB) ( 27A O.S. § 2

- 2

- 101) and the Air Quality Advisory Council (27A O.S. §§ 2

- 2

- 201(H) and 2

- 5

- 107). These powers & duties include their roles in promulgating DEQ rules, but do not include approving permits or enf orcement orders under the CAA. The powers & duties and conflict of interest provisions for DEQ staff and Executive Director are described in 27A O.S. § 2

- 3

- 101 and 27A O.S. § 2

- 3

- 201, respectively. 40 CFR § 52.1920(e) and 40 CFR § 52.1960(c)(17) and (45)( i)4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 10 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the revised SO 2 NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)

– Adequate Resources (Local or Regional Implementation) provide (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provisio n; Not Applicable.

§ 110(a)(2)(F)

– Stationary Source Monitoring System and Reporting require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator

—
(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emiss ions and emissions

- related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this Act, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection; Source emissions monitoring requirements are ad dressed in OAC 252:100

- 43, Testing, Monitoring and Recordkeeping

. Source emissions inventory requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100

- 5, Registration of Air Contaminant Sources.

Area, mobile, and non

- road data are reported to EPA on a 3

- year cycle.

OAC 252:100, Air Pollution Control; OAC 252:4

- 1

- 5, Availability of a Record; 51 O

. S

. § § 24A.1 et seq

. , Oklahoma Open Records Act. 40 CFR § 52.1960(c) (48)

40 CFR § 52.1920 (c)

40 CFR § 52.1920 (c)

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the revised SO 2 NAAQS.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 11 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(G)

– Emergency Episodes provide for authority comparable to that in section 303 and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority; Chapter 6 of Oklahoma’s SIP

, as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988

, sets forth the state’s Emergency Episode Plan (EEP), as required under § 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H

– Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes and, along with provisions included in the February 2002 SIP update, describes and implements State authority comparable to that in § 303. (For the purpose of EEPs , 40 CFR § 51.150 classifies regions separately with respect to the following pollutants: s ulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.)

As indicated in 40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 52. 1960(c)(38), EPA approved the plan as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988. 40 CFR § § 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38)

This NAAQS Revision: The measures in place in Oklahoma’s approved EEP are adequate to address an emergency episode and do not need to be updated due to the revised SO 2 NAAQS.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 12 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(H)

– Future SIP Revisions provide for revision of such plan

— (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious method s of attaining such standard, and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the national ambient air qualit y standard which it implements, or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements established under this Act; Under authority of OAC 252:100

- 3

- 2 and 252: 100

- 3

- 3, Appendices E and F of OAC 252:100 enumerate the primary and secondary air quality stan dards (NAAQS), respectively.

DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 105, and include authority to:

“ 3. Prepare and develop a general plan for proper air quality

m anagement in the state in accordance with the Oklahoma Clean Air Act; ” and

“ 20. Carry out all other duties, requirements and responsibilities necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act and fulfilling the requirements of th e Federal Clean Air Act. ” [27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 105(3) and (20)]

Any substantive changes to Oklahoma’s SIP, such as NAAQS updates and resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking process, which includes agency, public, gubernatorial, and legislative review processes. Public notice is provided ( published/posted ) for all steps in the rulemaking process, in accordance with the state Administrative Procedures Act (75 O

. S

. §§ 250.1 through 323), Open Records Act (51 O

. S

. §§ 24A.1 through 24A.29), and Open Meetings Act (25 O

. S

. §§ 301 through 314), along with corresponding DEQ and state procedural rules. The notices include the opportunity to provide comments prior to and at the public hearing before the Air Quality Advisory Council and at the public hearing before the Environm ental Quality Board.

Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of any implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted by the Governor (or the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment, acting as the Governor’s designee) to EPA as a SIP revision. This process is followed regardless of whether it results from a NAAQS update or a finding by the Administrator. State public participation procedures for SIP submittals that do not include rulemaking were submitted to EPA on Augus t 17 , 2012 for review. In a letter dated August 23 , 2012 , EPA concurred that the procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and associated guidance. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 19604/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 13 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision: Appendix E of OAC 252:100 was updated to incorporate the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS effective July 1

, 2011

. The updated Appendix E was submitted to EPA as part of the annual SIP revision for 2011 (February 6, 2012)

.

This SIP submittal fulfills the stated requirement.

§ 110(a)(2)(I)

– Nonattainment Area Plan Requirements in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D (relating to nonattainment areas); Not applicable . EPA ’s 2013 I

- SIP Guidance interprets the requirements of § 110(a)(2)(I )

, which pertain to specific requirements for attainment plans for designated nonattainment areas

, to be outside the scope of the I

- SIP requirements. 9

§ 110(a)(2)(J)

– C onsultation with Government Officials ( § 121 ) meet the applicable requirements of section 121

... (relating to consultation), ... Oklahoma’s a pproved SIP includes established consultation with various entities

. Section 2

- 5

- 105 of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act specifically gives the DEQ the authority to advise, consult , and cooperate with other agencies of the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the federal government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control of new and existing air contamination sources within the State . Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of a change in a particular NAAQS. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 1960

§ 110(a)(2)(J)

– P ublic N otification ( § 127 ) meet the applicable requirements of

... section 1 27

... Public notification procedures to meet the requirements of § 127 of the CAA are established in Oklahoma’s SIP. DEQ provides notification of ambient air concentration levels for all NAAQS through its annu al Air Data Reports, forecasting reports, and health advisories. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 1960

This NAAQS Revision: The public notification requirements included in Oklahoma’s SIP apply to the revised SO 2 NAAQS

. . DEQ provides notification of SO 2 concentration levels through its annual Air Data Reports

, forecasting reports, and near real

- time health advisories . Oklahoma does not anticipate that any significant public notification changes would be required to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS.

9 page 52, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element I – Section 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas

, 2013 I-SIP Guidance4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 14 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(J)

– PSD and Visibility Protection (Part C ) meet the applicable requirements of ... part C

... (relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection); Oklahoma ’s EPA

- approved PSD permitting program , which addresses all regulated NSR air pollutants

, operates under OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 7

– Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for Attainment Areas ; the existing PSD delegation agreement ; and approved and pending portions of the SIP

. [ See d iscussion under Element § 110(a)(2) (C)

– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures .]

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision (“RH SIP”), submitted in February 2010 and amended in a revision submitted June 14, 2013 , describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect visibility, including provisions in OAC 252:100

- 8, Part 11. [ See discussion under E lement § 110(a)(2) (D)(i)

– Interstate Transport Provisions

, Subelement (II) ].

In the 2013 I

- SIP G uidance

, EPA stated that there are no new visibility protection requirements under P art C of the CAA that would result from a revised NAAQS

. T herefore, the visibility sub

- element of Element J need not be addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission 10

. 40 CFR § 52.1920 (c)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 (c ) , (d ) & (e), 52.1923, and 52.1928

This NAAQS Revision: Specific issues or changes related to implementation of the revised SO 2 NAAQS through Oklahoma’s PSD permitting program would be addressed through a separate SIP submission.

As noted

, no visibility protection obligations under § 110(a)(2)(J) are anticipated as a result of this NAAQS change

.

10 page 55, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection, 2013 I-SIP Guidance4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 15 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(K)

– Air Quality Modeling/Data provide for: (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air qua lity standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator; Under its general statutory authority (e.g., 27A O.S. §§ 2

- 3

- 202 and 2

- 5

- 105), DEQ conducts air quality modeling to support its demonstrations of attainment, and reports results to EPA. Source modeling requirements are also authorized in 27A O.S. 2

- 5

- 112, and included in the PSD permitting
program in OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35. Oklahoma currently has no designated nonattainment areas. Oklahoma will continue to update modeling protocols as appropriate to accommodate evolving program requirements and standards. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 1960

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma has had no designated nonattainment areas for the SO 2 NAAQS

, and no SO 2 SIP modeling has been required. In a letter dated February 7, 2013, EPA deferred designation action on the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for Oklahoma, while noting that its review of monitored air quality data from 2009

- 2011 showed no violations of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in any areas of Oklahoma. DEQ will continue to review and update modeling protocols as appropriate to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS. [ See also 78 Fed.Reg. 47191, Aug. 5, 2013 ]

§ 110(a)(2)(L)

– Permitting Fees require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this Act, a fee sufficient to cover

— (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable cost s of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V; 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 106 authorizes the DEQ through the EQB to promulgate rules regarding permit fees and 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 113 establishes that the owner or operator of any source required to have a permit must pay a permit fee to cover the cost of implementing and enforcing Oklahoma’s Air Quality permit program. Oklahoma’s EPA

- approved Title V Operating Program includes permit application fees and annual operating fees under OAC 252:100

- 8

- 1.7 and 252: 100

- 5

- 2.2, respectively ( formerly Regulation 1.4.1(d) Permit fees )

. 40 CFR § § 52.1920 (c) and 52.1960(c)(48)(ii)(A)

This NAAQS Revision: Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to implement the revised SO 2 NAAQS.4/ 30 /2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Update 16 Section 110(a)(2) E lement Summary of E lement

(Statutory Language) Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or Recent SIP Revision Submittals Where C odified or A pproved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(M)

– Consultation/ Participation by Affected Local Entities provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the plan. Oklahoma’s a pproved SIP includes established opportunities for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by Oklahoma’s SIP.

DEQ’s powe rs and duties to implement air quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) described in 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 105 authorizes the DEQ to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other stat es and the federal government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control of new and existing air contamination sources within the State. The powers and duties of the Air Quality Advisory Council, as listed in 27A O.S. § 2

- 5

- 107, include the “ a uthority and discretion to provide a public forum for the discussion of issues it considers relevant to the air quality of the state, and to

... hold public hearings to receive public comment in fulfillment of federal requirements regarding the [ SIP ] and mak e recommendations to the [ DEQ ] concerning the [ SIP ]

. ”

Any substantive changes to Oklahoma’s SIP, such as NAAQS updates and resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking process, which includes public notice and hearing procedures. ( See the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act [75 O.S. §§ 250

– 323], DEQ procedural rules in OAC 252:4, and procedures approved under 40 CFR § 51.102(g) .) Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of any implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of a change in a particular NAAQS. 40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 52. 1960