WESTAR Planning Committee
December 5, 2002 Conference Call Summary
(12/10/02 draft)
Edie Chang, CA
Alice Edwards, AK
Lew Andowski, AZ
Ray Mohr, CO
April Matsumura, HI
Diane Riley, ID
Bob Habeck, MT
Annette Liebe, OR
Doug Schneider, WA
Tina Jenkins, WY
Lynn Melvin, UT
Dave McNeill, UT
Cheryl Heying, UT
Brad Schultz, SD
Rick Boddicker, SD
John Bunyak, NPS
Dan Johnson, WESTAR
Don Arkell, WESTAR
Bob Lebens, WESTAR
Call to Order:

November 7 Minutes: Incorporated comments from Doug Schneider, WA. No further
corrections / additions were suggested. Minutes will be transferred to WESTAR for posting.
The WESTAR website for viewing documents relating to Regional Haze visibility SIP
development is: http://www.westar.org/caucusweb.html

Workplan: was reviewed with no comments or revisions.
Action Issue Items:

SIP Protocol Template Ad Hoc Workgroup Update: This work item was suggested to be
rolled into the STIP II development process in order to develop a SIP protocol for a 309 RH SIP
and demonstrate some initial success. State / Tribal / EPA participants have been identified for a
December 10 conference call. State air directors discussed this approach to merging processes
on the 12/5 Air Director’s conference call. Some state air directors were concerned that the
model SIP protocol may be delayed too long for state use if merged with the STIP II process.
Also, EPA was struggling with nominating representatives to this workgroup. State air directors
made the decision to allow the SIP protocol project to be part of the STIP II project and to track
progress.

Regional Haze Development Survey - Ad Hoc Summary: Bob Habeck mentioned the final
report is almost finished. Following some final state survey reviews, the final document will be
available for review / comment and final approval on the January 9 meeting.

Conformity Work Product: Bob Habeck suggested that this topic be discussed at the Portland
meeting in February. The Planning Committee will have time to discuss this issue in order to
flush out exactly what the issues are. STAPPA has a white paper about CMAQ and the
reauthorization of TEA-21. This may be another focus paper to flush out western issues on
transportation conformity.
Tracking Issues Reports:

8-hour Ozone Consent Decree: Edie Chang spoke to issues regarding ozone implementation
guidance such as being finalized in March 2003 with recommended designations due by
December 2003. States have asked EPA to notify them for when designations are due. The
website to track the latest development on ozone implementation is found below:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/o3imp8hr/o3imp8hr.html
1

PM-2.5 Implementation Guidance: Diane Riley provided Bob Habeck with an EPA power
point presentation from Rich Damberg outlining current procedures for PM review. Proposed
PM schedule is outlined below:
2003:
Summer - Propose implementation rule.
September - States/Tribes submit nonattainment area recommendations.
December - Propose PM-2.5 transport rule.
2004:
Summer - Finalize implementation rule.
December - EPA designates nonattainment areas.
2005:
Spring - EPA finalizes PM2.5 transport rule.
2007:
December - States/Tribes submit implementation plans.
2009:
December - Attain standards.

Natural Events Policy for PM-2.5: Bob Habeck ask states if they had been contacted regarding
participation on this policy regarding incorporating PM-2.5. Doug Schneider and Dave McNeil
mentioned recent contact to Gary Blais without any response. Dan Johnson asked for copies of
recent contacts with EPA on this issue and will follow-up on the status of this topic – perhaps
with Lydia Wegman.

WRAP Workplan for 2003: Bob Habeck distributed this document as a reference for Planning
Committee members as a reference guide. Don Arkell mentioned a workgroup is being formed
by WRAP to develop a multi-year, WRAP-wide work workplan (3-5 years out). It will address
both 309 and 308 issues.

Regional Haze Update: Don Arkell summarized the major points of interest from the
WRAP board meeting such as mobile source definition of ‘significant’ contribution; clean air
corridors; STIP II project expansion; and FEJF products addressing annual emission goals
and fire tracking procedures. These issues can be found in the meeting summary when
posted on the WRAP website. Don’s report will be a standing item of our monthly meetings.
Discussion Items:

NSR – Clear Skies Initiative: John Bunyak, NPS mentioned the last rule package neglected to
mention protection for class I areas. NPS in process of challenging two permits, one in MT
and one in WY. Some of the NSR rules went direct final (those that were part of a 1996
proposal) and others will seek public comment. Cheryl Heying, UT, mentioned that minor
sources in UT may seek equal treatment from this rule.

WESTAR Committee Jamboree – Portland - February 19-20, 2003: This meeting will
bring all committees together to perform an annual review of what is working / or not; to
final work plan issues prior to the spring Business meeting, and finally to review prior to the
spring business meeting a list of priority issues from our committee to be presented to air
2
directors for consideration to give to EPA to address. These issues will be i.d. before coming
to Portland. Other issues to discuss will be transportation conformity issues.

Spring Business Meeting – San Francisco – April 9-11, 2003: Bob Habeck mentioned that
Tina Jenkins and Rita Trujillo should be given first priority to attend this meeting to present
the recommended work plan to the air directors. The State Air directors mentioned on their
subsequent call that an old committee chair should also be their to field questions regarding
previous work plan elements. Who attends will be revisited at the Portland meeting in
February.
Open Microphone:

Cheryl Heying mention that the UT Legislature allowed the I/M program to require
certifications every-other year rather than every year. EPA-R8 was concerned about
backsliding and asked UT to examine all control strategies in all control plans. MOBILE
6 guidance for reanalysis of existing plans do not require such depth of re-examination.
As states proceed on control strategies using MOBILE 6.0, be aware that EPA may ask
for extensive review of existing plans. Good strategy may be to wait and see how larger
air programs are directed through the process.
Next Call:

Thursday, January 9, at 2:00pm Mountain Standard Time
\\DEQ_MET_PRI\USR\CB6948\WORD\WESTAR\Jan_2003\Dec_minutes.doc
3