.. ..":'. to •



### UNITED STATES ENVlRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 

### 999 18TH 

### STREET- SUITE 300

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08


### .-'- _. ". -, -'-" --'"-_."., Ref: 8P-AR



## ,Fa/A OP- glNRichard W. Sprott, Director

### C-O~05 

### - 6(p Division ofAir Quality Department ofEnvironmental Quality P.O. Box 144810 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4810 DearMr. Sprott: As the Utah Department ofAir Quality (UDAQ) begins to finalize the requests to

.redesignate Utah and Salt Lake County PMIO nonattainment areas to attainment, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to remind UDAQ ofthe commitments made to EPA in a letter dated April 18,2002that would be addressed with the upcoming submittal. While EPA recognizes that UDAQ has made significant progress on 

### the PM IO maintenance plan to redesignate Salt Lake and Utah County to attainment, there are still a number ofoutstanding issues that we expectUtah to address before we act on the Salt Lake and Utah County redesignation. This letter is to reiterate our position regarding UDAQ's commitments and what we believe to be the current status ofthe**iss~es.** Please see the enclosed infonnation pertaining to each ofthese issues. We feel that it is ofthe utmost importance that the issues Utah committed to address in the State's April 18th letter be' addressed with the upcoming submittal ofthe Salt Lake and Utah CountyPM 10 maintenanceplans. We look forward to a progress report from you regarding these issues and the steps 

### that UDAQ plans to take to address these issues. Should you have any questions please contact me 303-312-6005 orLibby Faulk ofmy staffat 303-312-6083.

# ~elY' /

# £::;:::-t-~,--r Richar Air and Enclosurescc: Dianne Nielson, UDEQ w/enc1osure Cheryl Heying, UDAQ w/enclosure

### ENCLOSURE Utah Commitments' Over the past several years, EPA has communicated to UDAQ through,letters and numerous conference calls ourconcerns with 

### existing deficiencies within Utah's State ImplementationPlan (SIP). UDAQ committed to address our concerns in a letter dated April 18, 

### 2002 when 

### UDAQ submitted thePMIO SIP revisions for,Salt**L~e** 

### and Utah County. EPA has stressed for some timenow that the approval of-the PM10 maintenance**plans~** 

### fot Salt

### Lake and Utah County is dependent onall issues being addressed. The following is our,understanding of the status ofthe issues that have been discussed. 1. 

### Director's Discretion and VarianceProvisions-·­

,Director's Discretion: EPA has informed UDAQ that the director's discretion provisions that allow for changes to be made to the SIP without EPA's approval and have resulted in SIP enforceabilityissues are counter to sections 1IO(a) and 1100) 

### ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA). We've infonned UDAQ that all directors' discretion provisions need to be removed from the SIP. UDAQ has indicated that

, the State is interested in using authority under 40 CPR 70.6(a)(l)(iii) and White Paper No.2 to

modify SIP provisions through the Tile V permitting process. Under the regulation and the policy expressed in White PaperNo.2, a state mayadopt enabling language in the SIP that allows the state to adopt equivalentormore stringent limits, monitoring techniques, recordkeeping and recording'requirements, orother SIP-elements-through tbeTide V permitting 'process. EPA has indicated that we will support the State's use ofthis authority. UDAQ recentlyprovided draft 

### rule language based onthis authority, and· 

### we are in the process of '**revi~wi!lg** 

### it. ' Even ifUDAQ 

### does develop language to allow the State to adopt equivalent or more stringent limits, monitoring techniques, recordkeeping and recording requirements, orother SIP ' elements through the Title V process, Utah will still need to remove provisions in the Utah SIP that appear to',permitthe'State:toumlaterallychafige SIPrequirements: 'We 

### have'been diligent in this Region in attempt-ing!to:·identifytllese.t:ypes'ofproVisions'inSIP**ievisions~'arid** 

### existing SIPs foralJ,ejur states, amlin woikingtocorrecftheproblemsidentified. We also believe it is appropriate to insist that UDAQ honor**it~** 

### commitment to rectifythis concern. Variance Procedures: EPA has informed UDAQ in the past that the variance language that exists within the current SIP should be removed. 

### In an effort to meet our concerns, UDAQ provided a copyofits variance procedures dated February 21, 2003 in the form ofa memorandum from Rick Sprott to UDAQ staffexplaining the procedures the Division would follow in processing variance requests. However, the procedures do not change the statutoryor regulatory variance provisions currently in Utah's SIP, but simply describe the process for granting a variance.

### I 

# ,I

As with director's discretion provisions, variance provisions approved into a SIP may make it appear that we have authorized the State to unilaterally change SIP requirements. This is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act, and the UDAQ variance procedures will not change this basic problem. " '.

. The only solution is the removal ofthe varianceprovisions from the EPA-app;roved SIP,

.so that no one will 

### think that**State~granted** variances'change requirements ofthe federally-'

. approved SIP. ill order to honor its commitment; we believe UDAQ must seek Board approval ofa SIP revision that removes the variance provisionsfrom the SIP. As you latow, we have spent a**signifi~ant** amount oftime considering otherUDAQ proposals to maintain variance provisions 

### in the SIP and have given this matter a great deal of. thought. We can think ofno mechanism to address our concerns regarding the integrityofthe federally:-approvedSIP short ofremoval ofthe variance provisions from the SIP.

. ERA understood that UDAQ was seeking input from attorneys in the Utah Attorney.:. General's office about.the po$sibi.lity ofremoving;the variancepro:visions from the SIP and ., . retaining the .provisions as state-only provisions toaddtess EPA's concerns. As ofthe date of

. :<this letter UDAQ haS taken no action to remove the variance provisions from the SIP.

'2. ·UA.M-Aero Based Modeling: EPA'understands that UDAQ is using December25,2000 through Januaryl1, 2001 and February 1, 2002 tlrrough February 8, 2002 as the two modeling episodes. In thepast, we have questioned**whether~the** 

### 1996 episode shouldbe modeled. We have stated that once the' meteorological characteristics ofthese two 'episodes are better defined through analysis, the State should revisit the issue to determine ifthe 1996 episode is still more severe. EPA has yetto receive any draft modeling analysis for review an.d comment. 3. Stationary.Sour.ce Modeling: l[.OAQagreedan,d**st~te9** in the In:v.entoryPreparationPlan (IPP)fortheUtah County and**Sal~La1ce** CP.unty PMIO nonattainment.areas that as part.ofthe:inventoly':projection for· point. sources, threSholds of. 100 tons per y.ear(tpy) ofPM10, 200 tpy ofNOx, and 250 tpy for S02 will be used. Sources with allowable emission rates above these thresholds will be projected at their allowable emission rates, while those falling below will beprojected using actual emissions with a growth rate. EPA agrees with this approach. EPA is currentlyreviewing the draft projection year inventory that UDAQ submitted to EPA onFebruary 18, 2005

. .4'. EnforceableEmission Limits for Major Sources (including 24-hour emission limits):· An important element ofthe maintenance plan is that short-tenn limits (i.e. an averaging time of24 h0urs or less) must be included for stationary sources with emissions above the thresholds as discussed earlier 

### in this attachment (see Issue #3) in order to ensure protection of 

### 2.'



### the 24-hour PM 10 

### standard. ThelPP states that an inventory for specific episode days will be created to determine compliance with the 24-hour standard. EPAhas yet to receive a copy of this episodic inventory for review. UDAQ has indicated that they win include appropriate 24­ 

### hour emission limits in 

### theSIP. 5. Refinery SRU and Flaring: EPA has infonned UDAQ in the past that flaring needs to be addressed in the Utah SIP. UDAQ infonned EPA that UDAQ was waiting for EPA to complete the Billings FD> before addressing flaring in the Utah PMJO SIP/mmntenance phl1'1. We 

### partially approved and partially disapproved the Billings/Laurel S02 SlP on May 2, 2002, for several reasonsincludingthe fact that the flare emissions were considered in the attainment demonstration but the SIP didnot establish enforceable emission limits for these emissionpoints. In 

### theMay2002 notice we indicated that we may develop a plan [a FIP] to assure that attainment for the area is met. We are in the process ofdeveloping a FIP for the Billings area to address the provisions ofthe SIP that we disapproved. However, the BiHings FIP wiIl not be resolved in the same timeframe that Utah has to develop its PMlo SIP/maintenance plan. Therefore, we do not believe

. it is appropriate to delay action on these issues in the Utah SIP. UDAQ staffhas indicated to

EPA that they were researching issues with regard to refinery SRU downtime and flaring and that they would report back to EPA. We have.not seen any information from UDAQregardiilg this issue. 6

.. 

### Emission Inventory and Modeling Analysis for Sources in Nonattainment Areas: EPA**pr~vided** 

### comments to UDAQ on the draft Modeling Protocol, Episode Selection Document, and Inventory Preparation Plan as wen as the draft TechnicalSupp,ort Documentation (TSD) for the Wasatch Front PMIO Redesignation: Episodic Inventory, Volumes ill-V. The comments emphasized that sources with allowable emissionrates above the'threshold outlined in issuenumber 3 ofthis attaclunent must be projected at their allowable emission rates. EPA,is currently reviewing the draft projection year inventory that UDAQ submitted to EPAon.

. .February 18, 2005, EPA has yet to see the modeling analysis.

.:,: .

7. 

### NSRlBankingITrading: UDAQ has expressed concernregarding EPA's NSRReform Rule and the impacts that the reform rule mayhave on the commitments UDAQ has made to EPA to address the deficiencies in Utah's NSR rules. UDAQ has also questioned whether the EPA's concerns with UDAQ's NSR program would become moot once the areas are redesignated to attaimnent and fall under the State's PSD rules. EPA has expressed to 'tJDAQ in the past that the,State could still continue to work on the emission banking and interpollutant trading issues despite NSR Reform. EPA has also researched ·whether or not our current concerns with UDAQ's NSR rules would indeed become moot·should the Salt Lake and Utah County areas be redesignated and 'therefore fall under PSD. 3, 'I We believe these issues wjll not becomemoot for the following reasons. First, areas ofthe State are nonattainment for other pollutants and mayremain nonattainment even ifSalt Lake and Utah counties are redesignated attainment for PMIO. Second, wethink Utah must have an adequate nonattainmentNSR program in place in case any part ofthe State is designated nonattainment 

### in ,the future. Finally, some ofthe issues we have identified apply to PSD and minor source ,.'

. permitting as well as nonattainment NSR.:," 

### 8. Unavoidable Breakdown Rule: UDAQ submitted to EPA's Enforcement program in an

### em~il dated July 3, 2003 a draft ofUtah's proposed unavoidablebreakdownrule. EPAprovided UDAQ With comments in a letter datedSeptember 

### 18,2003. InBeptember 2004, UDAQ publicly announced changes to the Unavoidable BreakdoWn rule., The public commentperiod ran from October I to November I; 2004. EPA sent comments on the draftnewrule on October 22,2004. UDAQ decided not to go forward with the rule because ofstrong differences in comments from industry and EPA. UDAQ requested that EPA come to SaltLake Cityto meet with stakeholders on January 19,2005 so'that stakeholders could get a better understanding ofEPA policyand EPA could hear from '. '.' stakeholders. The meeting

### Was productive, 'and we are prepared t6 offer additional Input on ' ,,' possible approaches,to address our concerns. ' 9. Inclusion ofAnnual Growth Rates: Point sources with annual emission totals smaller than the emission tonnage thresholds outlined inissue number 3 ofthis attachment will be treated as area sources, For detennining , future emissions, UDAQ and EPA have agreed that area source emissions will beprojected" ',', based on baseline actual emissions plus a growth rate based onprojected population growth,,'" Utah will detennine population growth through employment estimates made by the Governor's Office ofPlanning and Budget. The procedure,was described in Utah's IPP for the Utah add Salt Lake Counties 

### PMJO nonattainment areas. EPA has yet to see documentation on this procedure and the resulting population estimates. 

### 10. Woodburning Credits: EPAhas informed UDAQ thataccording to the "Guidance Bocumentf0TResidential Wood Combustion Emission Contra

### I,Measures," woodburning control credit should bebetween 60 and 70 percent. UDAQ infonned usthat the State had conducted 

### an analysis tojustifyhigher reductions. We asked to review the State's analysis. We have not received the analysis. DUring a March 5, 2003 call, UDAQ staffinfonned us that they would provide EPA with ajustification for a higher reduction when they conducted the modeling. We have yet to receive the justification. 

### 11. .,BackhaJfEmissions 

### Measuring: UDAQ has expressed concern in the past as to whetherthe SIP is the appropriate place to require backhalfcatch or whether 

### it should be done via pennits. EPA has pointed out to UDAQ 4that in the original PM 10 SlP, as well as the more recently approved Utah County PM10 SIP revision that became effective onJanuary22, 2003 (67 FR 78181) UDAQ committed to address backhalfcatch byrequiring sources to report backhilifcatch for inventorypurposes. UDAQ committed to compile infonnation on the regulatory, permitting. and compliance aspects ofthis

. issue and then get baGk 

### with EPA to discuss the issue further. EPAhas notheard backfrom

UDAQ on this issue. Ifthe Statebelieves that back-halfcondensibles and Method 202 testing will nothave a s.ubstantial impact on.the countywide**eri1issio~ in've~~ories**  or attainment/maintenance demonstrations, the State shquld explain whynot. However, it is

.essential that Utah considerback-halfcondensibles

# in permit impact and applicability analyses and gather data regarding back-halfcondensibles for inventorypurposes. 12. General Language Cleanup: UDAQ committed to clean up the general language ofthe PM 10 SlP upon submittipg the PMIO redesignation request for Utah and Salt Lake Counties. EPAhas not had the opportunity to review a draft ofthe maintenance plan. 13. Diesel 11M Revision: On January 20,2005, EPA provided UDAQ with comments on their "ParticulateMatter (PM) Exhaust Emissions Reductions from Diesel Inspection and**Maintenan~e** (lIM) Programs in Utah (Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties)," dated December 10; 2003. Our comments provide UDAQ with specific requirements that must be addressed in order for the State to claim 2%

. PMlO emission reduction credit for their diesel 11M program. UDAQ's request must

### meetth~ , requirements ofEPA's memorandum entitled, "Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs [(YMEP)] in State Implementation Plans (SIPs)," dated October 24, 1997. Please note UDAQ's report requests 3.5% PM exhaustreduction ofon-road diesel vehicles in Salt Lake County and 6.8% in Utah County, exceeding the 2%PMIO emission reduction credit previously discussed. We have not yet seen a response to ourcomments. 14. Emission Budgets for PM IO and'NOx in SaltLake County: EPA informed UDAQ ofthe need to include separatePM 10 and NOx budgets in the maintenance plan for Salt Lake County. A "Transportation Conformity" section in the

. maintenance plan should also include a detailed calculation ofany available safetymargin and demonstrate that the budgets demonstrate anainmentlmaintenance when combined with the projected emissions from allother sources. We suggest following section IX.A.IO "Transportation Conformity" 0 

### f the Utah County PM 10 SIP revision approved by EPA on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). EPA has yet to see drafts ofa "Transportation Conformity" section in the Salt Lake County PM10maintenance plan showing the inclusion ofseparatePM\o and NOx budgets.

515. Emission Inventory and Modeling Analysis for Automobile Emission Inspection and Maintenance Program Changes: . EPA received a draft version ofUDAQ's Teclmical SupportDocument (TSD) on August 12,2003 that included information on the emission inventory for the nonattainment areas and the use ofMOBILE6. EPA provided comments back to UDAQ in a letter dated December 16, 2003. EPA has not heard back 'from UDAQ regarding any clarification in response to our comments or ifour conunents will be iiicorporated

..

6