.. ..":'. 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 of Air Quality
 

Department ofEnvironmental Quality
 

P.O. Box 144810
 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4810
 

Dear Mr. 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 18,2002 that would be addressed with the upcoming submittal. 

While EPA recognizes that UDAQ has made significant progress on the PMIO maintenance plan 

to redesignate Salt Lake and Utah County to attainment, there are still a number of outstanding 

issues that we expect Utah 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 of these 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 maintenance plans. 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 or Libby Faulk ofmy staff at 303-312-6083. 

~elY' / £::;:::-t-~,--r

Richar 

Air and 

Enclosures 
cc: 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 our concerns with existing deficiencies within Utah's State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). UDAQ committed to address our concerns in a letter dated April 18, 

2002 when UDAQ submitted the PMIO SIP revisions for,Salt L~e and Utah County. EPA has 

stressed for some time now that the approval of-the PM10 maintenance plans~ fot Salt Lake and 

Utah County is dependent on all issues being addressed. The following is our ,understanding of 

the status of the 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 enforceability issues are 

counter to sections 1IO(a) and 1100) of the Clean Air Act (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 Paper No.2, a state may adopt enabling language in the SIP that 

allows the state to adopt equivalent or more stringent limits, monitoring techniques, 

recordkeeping and recording'requirements, or other SIP-elements-through tbeTide V permitting 

'process. EPA has indicated that we will support the State's use of this authority. UDAQ 

recently provided draft rule language based on this 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, or other SIP ' 

elements through the Title V process, Utah will still need to remove provisions in the Utah SIP 

that appear to',permit the' State:toumlaterallychafige SIP requirements: 'We have'been diligent in 

this Region in attempt-ing!to:·identifytllese.t:ypes 'of proVisions'in SIP ievisions~'arid existing SIPs 

foralJ,ejur states, amlin woikingtocorrecftheproblemsidentified. We also believe it is 

appropriate to insist that UDAQ honor it~ commitment to rectify this 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 copy of its 

variance procedures dated February 21, 2003 in the form of a memorandum from Rick Sprott to 

UDAQ staff explaining the procedures the Division would follow in processing variance 

requests. However, the procedures do not change the statutory or 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 of the variance provisions from the EPA-app;roved SIP, 

.so that no one will think that State~granted variances'change requirements of the federally-' . 

approved SIP. ill order to honor its commitment; we believe UDAQ must seek Board approval 

of a SIP revision that removes the variance provisions from the SIP. 

As you latow, we have spent a signifi~ant amount oftime considering other UDAQ 

proposals to maintain variance provisions in the SIP and have given this matter a great deal of. 

thought. We can think of no mechanism to address our concerns regarding the integrityofthe 

federally:-approvedSIP short of removal of the 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 of removing ;the variancepro:visions from the SIP and ., . 

retaining the .provisions as state-only provisions toaddtess EPA's concerns. As of the 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 December 25,2000 through Januaryl1, 2001 and 

February 1, 2002 tlrrough February 8, 2002 as the two modeling episodes. In the past, we have 

questioned whether~the 1996 episode should be modeled. We have stated that once the' 

meteorological characteristics of these two 'episodes are better defined through analysis, the State 

should revisit the issue to determine if the 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.entory Preparation Plan (IPP)for the Utah 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 be projected using actual emissions with 

a growth rate. EPA agrees with this approach. EPA is currently reviewing the draft projection 

year inventory that UDAQ submitted to EPA on February 18, 2005 . 

.4'. Enforceable Emission Limits for Major Sources (including 24-hour emission limits):· 

An important element of the maintenance plan is that short-tenn limits (i.e. an averaging
 

time of 24 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. EPA has 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 reasons including the fact 

that the flare emissions were considered in the attainment demonstration but the SIP did not 

establish enforceable emission limits for these emission points. In the May 2002 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 of developing a FIP for the Billings area to address the provisions 

of the 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 emission rates above the' threshold outlined in 

issue number 3 of this attaclunent must be projected at their allowable emission rates. EPA,is 

currently reviewing the draft projection year inventory that UDAQ submitted to EPA on . 

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

7. NSRlBankingITrading: 

UDAQ has expressed concern regarding EPA's NSR Reform Rule and the impacts that 

the reform rule may have 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 become moot for the following reasons. First, areas of the State 

are nonattainment for other pollutants and may remain nonattainment even if Salt Lake and Utah 

counties are redesignated attainment for PMIO. Second, we think Utah must have an adequate 

nonattainmentNSR program in place in case any part of the State is designated nonattainment in 

,the future. Finally, some of the 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 unavoidable breakdown rule. EPA provided UDAQ With comments in a 

letter dated September 18,2003. InBeptember 2004, UDAQ publicly announced changes to the 

Unavoidable BreakdoWn rule., The public comment period ran from October I to November I; 

2004. EPA sent comments on the draft new rule 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 Salt Lake City to meet with stakeholders on January 19,2005 so'that 

stakeholders could get a better understanding of EPA policy and 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 of Annual Growth Rates: 

Point sources with annual emission totals smaller than the emission tonnage thresholds 

outlined in issue number 3 of this attachment will be treated as area sources, For detennining , 

future emissions, UDAQ and EPA have agreed that area source emissions will be projected" ',', 

based on baseline actual emissions plus a growth rate based on projected 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: 

EPA has informed UDAQ that according to the "Guidance Bocumentf0TResidential 

Wood Combustion Emission Contra I, Measures," woodburning control credit should be between 

60 and 70 percent. UDAQ infonned us that the State had conducted an analysis to justify higher 

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 a justification 

for a higher reduction when they conducted the modeling. We have yet to receive the 

justification. 

11. .,BackhaJf Emissions Measuring: 

UDAQ has expressed concern in the past as to whether the SIP is the appropriate place to 

require backhalf catch or whether it should be done via pennits. EPA has pointed out to UDAQ 

4 
that in the original PM 10 SlP, as well as the more recently approved Utah County PM10 SIP 

revision that became effective on January 22, 2003 (67 FR 78181) UDAQ committed to address 

backhalf catch by requiring sources to report backhilif catch for inventory purposes. UDAQ 

committed to compile infonnation on the regulatory, permitting. and compliance aspects of this 

. issue and then get baGk with EPA to discuss the issue further. EPA has not heard back from
 

UDAQ on this issue. Ifthe State believes that back-half condensibles 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 why not. However, it is
 

. essential that Utah consider back-half condensibles in permit impact and applicability analyses
 

and gather data regarding back-half condensibles for inventory purposes.
 

12. General Language Cleanup: 

UDAQ committed to clean up the general language of the PM10 SlP upon submittipg the 

PMIO redesignation request for Utah and Salt Lake Counties. EPAhas not had the opportunity to 

review a draft of the maintenance plan. 

13. Diesel 11M Revision: 

On January 20,2005, EPA provided UDAQ with comments on their "Particulate Matter 

(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 of EPA'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 exhaust reduction 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 our comments. 

14. Emission Budgets for PMIO and 'NOx in Salt Lake County: 

EPA informed UDAQ ofthe need to include separate PM10 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 of any available safety margin and 

demonstrate that the budgets demonstrate anainmentlmaintenance when combined with the 

projected emissions from all other sources. We suggest following section IX.A.IO 

"Transportation Conformity" 0 f the Utah County PM10 SIP revision approved by EPA on 

December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). EPA has yet to see drafts of a "Transportation Conformity" 

section in the Salt Lake County PM10maintenance plan showing the inclusion ofseparatePM\o 

and NOx budgets. 

5
 
15. Emission Inventory and Modeling Analysis for Automobile Emission Inspection and 

Maintenance Program Changes: . 

EPA received a draft version ofUDAQ's Teclmical Support Document (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 

if our conunents will be iiicorporated.. 

6