"' .· 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 

Ref: 8P-AR 

Rick Sprott, Director 

Division of Air Quality 

Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 144820 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

Dear Rick: 

999 18TH STREET - SUITE 300 

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 

http://www.epa.gov/region08 

MAY I 0 200! 

The purpose of this letter is to explain the issues and concerns that we have regarding 

Utah's offset rule, and with the State's construction permit regulations in general. We believe 

that the State's new source review (NSR) regulations are not consistent with Federal 

requirements. As you know, we have been discussing these matters with your office for some 

time and would like to work with you to assure Utah's rules meet Federal requirements. Based 

on our meeting with you on May 1, 2001, we understand that you have recently taken steps to 

improve your offset program. We look forward to seeing how these changes may resolve some 

of the issues identified in this letter . 

. Tt.e enclosure to this letter explains in detail the Fed..:.ral NSR iequirements, whether we 

think Utah's rules meet those requirements, and our recommendations for revisions to Utah's 

regulations to meet those requirements. We believe such revisions are needed, both to comply 

with the Clean Air Act and to ensure that new source growth does not jeopardize the State's 

ability to maintain compliance with the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

in Salt Lake and Utah· Counties. 

Once you and your staff have reviewed this letter and the enclosures, we would like to talk 

with you about a schedule for initiating revisions to Utah's regulations to address these 

deficiencies. These revisions should be coordinated with the schedule for the PM10 maintenance 

plan development. In our October 6, 2000 letter, we proposed language that would temporarily 

remedy the director's discretion and emissions banking and trading issues in the PM10 SIP.' This 

language was later revised slightly in a November 2, 2000 email to you. This proposed language, 

which you later agreed to in your January 17, 2001 response, is:. 

Notwithstanding any other provision in the Utah SIP, no change to emission limits 

or other requirements contained in this maintenance plan, or contained in 

regulations, permits, or other documents that this maintenance plan identifies as 

A 

Q Printed on Recycled Paper 
part of the ongoing plan for maintenance, shall be effective to change such 

federally enforceable emission limits or requirements without a SIP revision 

approved by BP A. 

This language is intended for use in the interim maintenance plan submittal and would apply to 

both Salt Lake and Utah Counties. Therefore, the revisions recommended in the enclosure to 

this letter are intended for the final PM10 maintenance plans for Salt Lake and Utah Counties. 

These plans should be submitted within a year of BP A's initial approval of the Utah County 

maintenance plan. 

We believe it is of the utmost importance that our concerns regarding your NSR program 

be resolved for purposes of the PM10 maintenance plan. Until these problems are resolved, there 

will continue to be problems with your permitting program that affect the PM10 SIP and will also 

affect the future maintenance plans. Although not federally required to do so, we understand that 

you plan to retain nonattainment area permitting rules for Salt Lake and Utah Counties after these 

areas are redesignated to attainment/maintenance. 

If you have further questions, please contact me at 303/312-6005 or Larry Svoboda at 

303/312-6004. Staff may contact Megan Williams at 303/312-6431 . Legal questions should be 

directed to Terry Lukas at 303/312-6898 and banking questions should be directed to Sara 

Laumann at 303/312-6443 . 

. , 

. ' .... \ 

Enclosures 

cc: Regg Olsen, UDAQ 

.. 
" ' 

bee: JeffH. 

Sara L. 

Terry L. 

Mike 0 . 

CindyR. 

Jonah S. 

MeganW. 
Recommended Revisions to Utah's New Source Review Regulations 

to Meet Federal Requirements 

Background of Federal Requirements: 

The basic Federal requirement of any new source review (NSR) program (whether for 

major or minor stationary sources) is that a State must be able to prohibit the construction or 

modification of a stationary source if it would interfere with the control strategy or with 

attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See 40 CFR 

5 l . l 60(b ). The State Implementation Plan (SIP) must contain enforceable regulations to ensure 

that the State can meet this requirement. These must include the submission of emissions 

information by sources prior to beginning construction or modification, a process for the State to 

determine whether the source will interfere with the control strategy or attainment/maintenance of 

the NAAQS, and a thirty-day period for the public to comment on the information submitted and 

the State's analysis ofthe source's impact on air quality. (See 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.163.) 

In addition, the Clean Air Act (Act) and Federal regulations spell out specific requirements 

applicable to new major stationary sources and major modifications to existing sources proposing 

to locate in a nonattainment area. EPA' s regulations, which SIPs must address to meet these 

requirements, are found in 40 CFR 51 .165, although it is important to note that these regulations 

have not been brought up to date with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and sometimes 

conflict with the Amendments. It is our interpretation that the Amendments supersede any 

conflicting provisions in our regulations. The NSR revisions from the 1990 Amendments, found 

mainly in section 173 of the Act, are discussed in the General Preamble to Title I published in the 

Federal Register on April 16, 1992 (see 57 FR 13552-13554). 

The nonattainment NSR provisions in section 173 of the Act require that any owner or 

operator proposing to locate a new major stationary source or major modification to an existing 

major source in a nonattainment area which is major for the nonattainment pollutant must meet 

the following requirements before approval to construct can be granted: 

The owner or operator of the source must analyze alternative sites, sizes, 

production processes, and environmental control techniques and demonstrate that 

the benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and 

social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification; 

The owner oi operator of the source must certify that all major stationary sources 

owned or operated by such person in the State are in compliance, or on a schedule 

for compliance, with all applicable emission limitations and standards under the 

Act; 

The source must meet the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER); 

The owner or operator of the source must obtain emission offsets such that there is 

a net air quality benefit in the area. The offsets must ensure that the total tonnage 

1 
of emissions increase is offset by an equal or greater tonnage of emissions 

reductions in actual emissions from the same or other sources in the area. (Note 

that the pollutant-specific nonattainment requirements in part D of the Act specify 

higher than 1: 1 offset ratios for certain classes of nonattainment areas.) The 

emission reductions must be Federally enforceable before the new or modified 

source's permit is issued, and the reductions must be in effect (i.e. , have actually 

occurred) by the time the new source or modification commences operation. In 

addition, the emissions reductions must be surplus (i.e. , not otherwise required by 

the Act). 

vfn addition, if EPA has determined that the SIP is not being adequately implemented for the 

nonattainment area in which the owner or operator is proposing to locate the source, approval to 

construct cannot be granted. See section 173(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. §7503(a)(4)). 

The requirement that the State prevent construction or modification of a source if it would 

cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS generally requires some level of air quality 

modeling to determine a proposed source's impact on the NAAQS. Similarly, the net air quality 

benefit test for emission offsets for new and modified major sources may require air quality 

modeling. 40 CFR part 51, appendix S, discusses when modeling may be required to ensure that 

offsets will provide a net air quality benefit (see section IV.D. of Appendix S). Specifically, for 

primary PM10 emissions, EPA will presume that greater than 1: 1 offsets will provide for a net air 

quality benefit if the offsets are obtained from a source on the same premises.or in the immediate 

vicinity of the new/modified source, and if the pollutants disperse from substantially the same 

effective stack height. If this is not the case, or if stack emissions are offset against a ground level 

source even at the same premises, modeling would be required to show a net air quality benefit. 

The modeling could be done by the State or required of the permit applicant. 

EPA's NSR provisions in section 173(c) of the Act and section IV.C.5 of40 CFR part 51, 

appendix S, allow SIPs to provide for banking of emissions reductions to be used as offsets. The 

provisions of such banking programs need to be spelled out in_the SIP in sufficient detail to ensure 

that any emissions reductions used for maj or source NSR offset requirements meet all Federal 

: · ·'" requirements. EP A's "Improving Air Quality Through Economic Incentive Programs" (EPA452/R-01-001 ), also known as the EIP guidance; provides guidelines for programs that allow 

emission reductions to be banked solely for new source review purposes. 

For PM10 nonattainment areas where emissions of PM10 precursors contribute to PM10 

· NAAQS violations, section 189( e) of the Act requires that the nonattainment NSR requirements 

applicable to a proposed new major source or major modification of a major source of PM10 shall 

also apply to a new major source or major modification of a major source of PM10 precursors. 

The triggering threshold for a major source of a PM10 precursor is 100 tons per year for a 

moderate PM10 nonattainment area, and the significance levels for defining a major modification 

are the significance thresholds listed in 40 CFR 5 l .165(a)(l)(x) for each PM10 precursor pollutant. 

2 

, . 
Review of Utah's Rules Regarding these Requirements: 

Note - We used the version of Utah's regulations most recently approved into the SIP for this 

review. We have tried to cite both the SIP-approved rule and the citation of the rule in the 

current codification of Utah's regulations throughout this enclosure and have included a copy of 

the SIP-approved version of these rules for your reference. 

1. Basic Federal Requirements: 

The SIP-approved State rule R3 07-1-3 .1. 8 .B (R307-401-6 in the current codification of 

the Utah rules) states that the "Executive Secretary shall issue an approval order ifhe determines 

through plan review that the following conditions have been met. .. the proposed installation will be 

· in accord with applicable requirements of. .. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality 

Standards ... [or] the nonattainment plan for the area .... " However, neither this rule, nor any other 

provision in the State's permitting rules, state what the Executive Secretary will do if the 

proposed installation is not in accord with the NAAQS. While R307-1-3 .1.2 (R307-401-3 in the 

current codification of the Utah rules) states that the "Executive Secretary shall issue an order 

prohibiting the proposed construction, installation, modification, relocation or establishment ifhe 

deems any part of it inadequate to meet.the applicable requirements of these regulations", it may 

not prevent construction or modification if the proposed source is not in accord with the NAAQS. 

And while R307-1-3.3 .2 (R307-403-3 in the current codification of the Utah rules) requires the · 

Executive Secretary to determine if a source will cause or contribute to a violation of th~ 

NAAQS, this provision only applies to major sources locating in a nonattainment area and does 

not prohibit construction or modification based on that determination. Thus, we question whether 

the State has clear authority under its regulations to prohibit the construction or modification of a 

source if it would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or the control strategy. 

In addition,· becaus.e the State does not explicitly require some level of air quality medeling · • · 

· for new sources or!rnodifications locating in its nonattainment areas, we question how the ·State"J. •1 ., 1 : ••. 

can prohibit a source from constructing or modifying on the basis that it might interfere· with .. ' , ' 

attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. While the State may believe its PM10 nonattainment 

area offset program ensures no interference with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, we 

do not believe Utah's offset program will always protect the NAAQS, as discussed further below. 

As an example, Utah's recent draft permit for the proposed major modification at the 

Pacificorp Gadsby plant did not include an analysis to show that primary PM10 emissions, as well 

as precursor emissions from the project (S02 and NOx), do not cause or contribute to violations 

of the PM10 NAAQS. This was discussed in our April 5, 2001 comment letter to the State on the 

proposed permit. Utah later described an analysis of precursor impacts, but the analysis was 

appai:-ently done only in response to EPA comments. 

Note that we also have concerns about the emission threshold limits in Utah's rules, for 

determining when to require modeling for new or modified sources in the State's attainment and 

maintenance areas, as discussed in our August 17, 2000 letter regarding Utah's November 20, 

1996 SIP submittal on modeling of criteria pollutant impacts in attainment areas (which the State 

3 
recently withdrew). See the enclosed letter. 

Recommended Rule Revisions to Address Basic Federal Requirements: 

To ensure that the State's rules meet the requirements of 40 CPR 5 l . l 60(b ), we 

recommend adding a provision to Utah's approval order regulations stating that the Executive 

Secretary will not issue an approval order if ( s )he determines that the new or modified source will 

cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or will interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance plan for a nonattainment area. This provision should further state that, to make this 

determination, the Executive Secretary may require an air quality modeling demonstration to 

ensure that the new or modified source won't cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. 

Alternatively, the State could issue an interpretation ofR307-l-3. l.8.B (R307-401-6 in the 

current codification of the Utah rules) that would support the requirements of 40 CPR 51.160(b). 

2. Specific NSR Requirements Applicable to Nonattainment Areas: 

There are several aspects of Utah's nonattainment permitting rules that appear to be 

inconsistent with the Federal requirements. Specifically, there are three areas we are concerned 

about: applicability, offset requirements, and banking of emissions reductions. 

a. Applicability 

The Federal nonattainment NSR requirements apply to new major stationary sources and 

major modifications. However, Utah's nonattainment NSR requirements, found mostly in SIPapproved Utah Rule R307-l-3 .3 (R307-403 of the current codification of the Utah regulations), 

are not based on whether a source or modification meets the definition of major stationary source 

or major modification. Instead, Rule R307-l-3 .3.2. (R307-403-3 of the current codification of 

the Utah regulations) first requires a review of any new major source or major modification to 

determine ifthat source will cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS as of the projected 

startup date of the new source. . ·' . 

If a proposed new source or modification would cause a new violation of the NAAQS but 

would not contribute to an existing violation, R307-l-3 .3.2.B (R307-403-3(2) of the current 

codification of the Utah regulations) provides that the new source or modification must 1) meet a 

stringent enforceable emission limitation sufficient to avoid a new violation of the NAAQS; and 2) 

acquire sufficient offsets to avoid a new violation of the NAAQS. It appears that R307-l-3 .3.2.B 

would apply to a source located in a designated nonattainment area that would either 1) cause· a 

new violation of the NAAQS in an area where none had ever been monitored or modeled, or 2) 

cause a new violation of the NAAQS in a designated nonattainment area that had been attaining 

the NAAQS. In either case, R307-l-3 .3.2.B appears to make applicability of certain.major 

nonattainment NSR requirements contingent on whether NAAQS violations are projected from 

permitting of a proposed source, rather than, as the Act requires, on whether the proposed source 

is a new major source or major modification to an existing major source in a nonattainment area. 

Section R307-l-3 .3.2.C (R307-403-3(3) of the current codification of the Utah 

regulations) provides that if a source locating in a nonattainment area would contribute to an 

4 
existing violation of a NAAQS at the time of the source's proposed startup date, the source must 

1) meet LAER; 2) certify that all existing major sources in the State, owned or controlled by the 

owner or operator of the source, are in compliance with the Utah regulations and SIP, or that the 

sources are in compliance with an approved schedule for compliance; and 3) obtain emission 

offsets to the extent provided in R3 07-1 . 3. 3 . 3, sufficient to provide for reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of the NAAQS and sufficient to provide a positive net air quality 

benefit in the affected area ofnonattainment. In addition, R307-1-3.3 .2.C requires that an 

approved SIP be in effect for the pollutant to be emitted by the source, before a permit may be 

granted. R307-1-3 .3.2.C seems to make applicability of major nonattainment NSR requirements 

contingent on whether NAAQS violations are projected from permitting of a proposed source 

(same as R307-1-3.3.2.B), rather than, as the Act requires, on whether the proposed source is a 

new major source or major modification to an existing major source in a nonattainment area. 

Sections R307-1-3 .3.2.B and Care not consistent with the nonattainment NSR 

requirements of the Act, in that applicability of the nonattainment NSR requirements cannot be 

based on a source's ambient impact in a nonattainment area, or on some qualitative observation of 

whether the source would contribute to an existing violation of the NAAQS. Applicability of the 

nonattainment NSR requirements must be triggered based solely on the fact that a new major 

source or major modification is locating in a nonattainment area and is considered to be a major 

·_ source or major modification (based on either the source's potential to emit or on the net 

emissions increase expected from the modification) for the nonattainmerit pollutant. The 

requirements in R307-1-3 .3.2.B for a source causing a new violation of the NAAQS do not meet 

the requirements of the Act including LAER and offsets. Furthermore, ·it is not acceptable to 

determine whether the nonattainment NSR requirements would apply to a source as of the 

source's projected startup date. This provision implies that whatever the area's attainment status 

·1mightbe 1as of that date dictates what requirements apply. However; underEPApolicy, · 

. • '": -;. 1 • ••. ·~; applicability· Gf permitting requirements is generally determined bJ fhe date 6f the' SOUtce1i ' ·;:.' ··r-n;e: ' ·: . ·. 

~ , complete permit application. Thus, if the area is nonattainment at the t ime of the complete perinit 

application, but the State believes the area might be redesignated to attainment by the source's 

startup date, the source would still need to comply with the nonattainment NSR provisions in · , 

order to obtain a permit to construct." · ·' · 

Note that the State is required to have some provisions in its SIP for preconstruction 

review of new major sources and major modifications locating outside a nonattainment area but 

whose emissions would cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, pursuant to 40 CFR 

5 l.165(b). This appears to be adequately addressed in R307-l-3 ,3.2.D (R307-403-3(4) of the 

current codification of the Utah regulations). 

Although we have concerns about the State's nonattainment NSR provisions, we believe 

the State's definitions of "major source" and "major modification" in SIP-approved R307-1-1 are 

consistent with the corresponding Federal definitions, including how a major source or major 

modification of a PM10 precursor is defined. We recommend that, for clarity, the definitions 

include the applicable "major" thresholds for PM10 precursors (100 tons per year for major 

5 

... 
source, 40 tons per year significance level of S02 or NOx for major modifications). 

Recommended Rule Revisions to Address Applicabihty Requirements for Nonattainment NSR: 

We believe that R307-l-3 .3.2 (R307-403-3 of the current codification of the Utah 

regulations) needs to be completely restructured to trigger applicability of the nonattainment NSR 

requirements based solely on whether a source or modification proposing to locate in a 

nonattainment area is a major source or major modification for the nonattainment pollutant. We 

recommend that 3.3.2 be replaced with a general provision stating that any new major source or 

major modification proposing to locate in a nonattainment area that is considered major for the 

nonattainment pollutant as of the date of the source's complete permit application, must meet the 

requirements of this section. R307-l.3.3 .2 should then include all requirements that a new major 

source or major modification must meet, including all of the requirements ofR307-l-3 .3.2.C 

(R307-403-3(3) of the current codification of the Utah regulations), the general offset 

requirements in R307-l-3 .3.3.A (R307-403-4 of the current codification of the Utah regulations), 

and the alternative siting analysis requirements ofR307-l-3 .l.10 (R307-401-8 of the current 

· codification of the Utah regulations). 

The State will also need to retain the provisions in R307-l-3 .3.2.A and D (R307-403-3(1) 

and (4) of the current codification of the Utah regulations) in order to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.165(b), but these provisions should be separated from the requirements applicable to 

new major sources and major modifications locating in nonattainment areas in order to avoid 

confusing the regulated community. 

b. Offset requirements 

We have several concerns about Utah's offset requirements. One of our concerns involves 

the relationship between the general offset requirements in R307-l-3.3.3 .A (R307-403-4 of,the ·· ; 1: 

current codification of the Utah regulations), which are generally consistent with the requirements ., .l . 

of the Act, and the offset 'fequirements specific to.PM10 nonattainment areas in R307-l-3 .3.3.B ,' 

(R307-403-~ of the current codification of the Utah regulations). The PM10 nonattainment areaspecific offset requirements in R307-l.3 .3.3 .B do not indicate how or whether the general offset 

requirements in R307-1-3 .3.3.A fit in with the PM10 nonattainment area-specific offset 

requirements. For example, it is not entirely clear that all sources must meet the general offset 

requirements in R307-l-3.3 .3 .A, as well as the PM10 nonattainment area .. specific requirements in 

R307-l-3 .3.3.B. To satisfy Federal requirements, all new major sources and major modifications 

locating in a nonattainment area must meet the general offset requirements detailed in R307-1-

3.3.3.A. 

In addition, it is unclear in Utah's offset rules whether the general requirements in R3 07-1-

3 .3.3 .A (R307-403-4 of the current codification of the Utah regulations) also apply to S02 and 

CO nonattainment areas, for which there are no subsections in R307-1-3 .3.3, and to ozone 

attainment/maintenance areas, for which there are requirements in R307-1-3.3 .3.C. We interpret 

R307-1-3.3 .3.A to mean that offset requirements apply for major NSR in all nonattainment and 

attainment/maintenance areas. The Utah rules should make this clear. 

6 
. - ' Utah's PM10 nonattainment area-specific requirements in R307-1-3 .3.3.B (R307-403-5 of 

the current codification of the Utah regulations) allow for emission trades that are not allowed · 

under the Federal major source nonattainment NSR program. Specifically, R307-1-3 .3.3 allows 

for PM10, S02, and NOx to be treated on an equal basis for the purposes of offsets. EPA has 

proposed that limited interpollutant trading could be allowed to meet PM10 offset requirements. 

Specifically, a new major source or major modification of a PM10 precursor such as NOx or S02 

could meet the offset requirements by obtaining emission reductions in PM10. However, the 

converse could not automatically be allowed. See 61FR38304-38305 (July 23, 1996) and 

EPA's May\ 1995 approval of Utah's nonattainment area NSR rules (60 FR 22277, 22281). 

',f I 

The State's PM10 nonattainment area-specific rules also appear to allow for interpollutant 

netting. Please note, trading and netting are separate processes and are subject to separate 

requirements. It appears that Utah would allow a source to consider actual emissions reductions 

in either PM10, S02, or NOx occurring at the source in conjunction with emissions increases of 

PM10, S02, and NOx in determining whether the net increase in emissions of PM10 + S02 + NOx 

are above the offset triggering threshold of 25 tons per year. While EPA may allow some limited 

interpollutant trading between sources for meeting offset requirements as discussed above, EPA 

cannot allow interpollutant trading within a source to net out o£meeting all of the nonattainment 

NSR requirements. Applicability of major modification permitting requirements must be 

determined by calculating the net emissions increase of a particular pollutant. See the definition 

for "Major Modification" in R307-1-1.89 (R307-101-2 of the current codification of the Utah 

regulations). By allowing interpollutant trading to net out of review, Utah'·s rules could allbw a 

modification which should be considered a major modification to be exempt from the Federallyrequired permitting requirements. 

In addition, Utah's PM10 offset·rule, R307-1-3.3 .3.R (R307-403-5 of the current 

., ! " ! Godification of the Utah regulatiorts ); ,could .be, inconsistent •with ·the, Federal offset reqtrirements, ' 

for .determining the amount o£emissions that need to be offset, because the State's offset nile · 

does not use the same terminology used in the Federal major source NSR requirements of 40 CFR 

51 .165. whereas the Federal permitting requirements, including offsets, are triggered based on 

the "net emissions increase" of a: modification to an existing source, Utah's PM10 nonattainment 

area-specific offset requirements are triggered if a modified source "would ptoduce an emissions 

increase" greater than the thresholds listed. "Emissions increase" is no · defined in Utah's rules 

and is not clearly consistent with "net emissions increase'.' used to determine if a major 

modification is subject to Federal permitting requirements. Because of the lack of clarity (and the 

likelihood of varying interpretations), we believe this rule poses enforceability and implementation 

problems and needs to be consistent with the State's definitions in R307-1-1 (R307-101-2 of the 

current codification of the Utah regulations). 

We also have concerns about R307-1-3 .3.5 (R307-403-7 of the current codificatiOn of 

the Utah regulations). This provision states that the baseline for determining credit for emission 

offsets will be the emission limitations or other requirements of the Utah SIP. The provision 

partially tracks the language of 40 CFR 51 .165( a)(3). However, under the 1990 Amendments to 

7 

.. ' I "•I,."... 
the Act, EPA no longer allows reductions in allowable emissions to be used for meeting emission 

offset requirements; reductions must be in actual emissions. See section 173(c)(l) of the Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 7503(c)(l). Thus, this provision in the State regulations does not conform to the 

amended Act. For further details, see the discussion in Section III.G.2.(d) of the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble to Title I (57 FR 13553). 

Utah's rules are also unclear about whether modeling is required for an emission offset 

trade to ensure a net air quality benefit in the area. R307-1-3 .3.2.C(4) (R307-403-3(3)(d) of the 

current codification of the 1.!tah regulations) requires that "the emission offsets provide a positive 

net air quality benefit in the affected area of nonattainment" but does not indicate when or 

whether modeling is required. Section IV.D. of 40 CFR part 51, appendix S, discusses when 

modeling may be required to ensure that PM10 offsets will provide a net air quality· benefit. 

Appendix S has not been updated since section 189( e) of the Act was enacted, so Appendix S is 

silent on the question of whether modeling should be required for new major sources and major 

modifications of PM10 precursors. For an offset trade between emissions of the same PM10 

precursor or to offset an increase in emissions of a PM10 precursor with a decrease in emissions of 

PM10 (i.e. , the only two types of trades that are allowed automatically), we believe that an actual 

emissions offset of at least 1: l that occurs in the immediate airshed within the nonattainment area 

should ensure a positive net air quality benefit in the nonattainment area. However, for trades 

•' between sources of primary PM10, modeling may be necessary as discussed in 40 CFR part 51, 

; appendix S, and Utah's rules should clarify this. 

Recommended Rule Revisions to Address Federal Offset Requirements: 

If, as recommended above, the State completely restructures R307-l-3 .3.2 (R307-403-3 

of the current codification of the Utah regulations) to trigger applicability of the nonattainment 

·l:'l"SR requirements based solely on whether a major source .or major.modification is proposing to 

, \·,-!.•( " ·:~1"! loq1.tf; in a nonattainment·area, then it should become ,clear that the :geneJial offset.requirements .N ,'.~ 1 .• ,, ... ,,_,,. _( ,. 

.. · .. i • apply to all new major sources and major modifications. However, the State s rule will also heed · , .. 

to clearly state that it contains requirements applicable to certain minor sources/minor 

modifications locating in PM10 nonattainment areas as well as offset requirements that apply in the 

ozone maintenance area, so that applicability .of the various requirements of the rule will be made · ;,..,v 

clear. 

The offset provisions must make clear that the general offset requirements in R3 07-1-

3. 3. 3. A (R307-403-4 of the current codification of the Utah regulations) apply to all offset 

transactions, whether for new and modified sources locating in a PM10 nonattainment area, or new 

or modified major sources locating in a S02 or CO nonattainment area or in an ozone 

attainment/maintenance area. 

Utah's PM10 nonattainment area-specific rule must clearly state that no interpollutant 

trading within a source is allowed to determine applicability of the offset requirement or of NSR 

requirements in general (i. e., no interpollutant trading to net out of review is allowed). The 

summation of pollutants (PM10 + NOx + S02) for determining applicability of the offset 

8 
. - requirements is more stringent than determining applicability on a pollutant by pollutant basis and 

we encourage that method. However, Utah's rules should be clear that the summation of PM10 + 

NOx + S02 only applies to the offset requirement (not to the determination of applicability of 

major NSR requirements) and should specify that, for major modifications, the summation is 

based on the net emission increase of each pollutant, determined individually (i.e., the net 

emissions increase of PM10 plus the net emission increase ofNOx plus the net emission increase of 

S02) . Further, replacing the phrase "which would produce an emissions increase" with "which 

would produce a net emissions increase" would eliminate enforceability and implementation 

concerns arising from the current terminology. 

In the absence of a sufficient demonstration by the State indicating the relationship 

between PM10 ambient concentrations and PM10 precursors, the State must replace the provision 

in R307-1-3.3 .3.B (R307-403-5 of the current codification of the Utah regulations) that states 

"For offset determinations, PMlO, sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen shall be considered on an 

equal basis", with a provision that does not allow interpollutant trading for emission offsets, with 

the exception of allowing a new source of a PM10 precursor to obtain its emission offsets from 

reductions in PM10. 

' The State's rules must also make clear that modeling may be required to ensure that 

offsets proyide for a net air quality benefit in the area, and the State should.either reference the 

criteria discussed in section IV.D. of 40 CFR part 51, appendix S, or incorporate· those 

requirements into its rule. 

Last, because the provision in R307-1-3 .3.5 (R307-403-7 of the current codification of the 

Utah regulations), allowing credit for reductions in allowable emissions for emission offset 

requirements is inconsistent with the amended Act, we believe this provision .must be .deleted from 

" ... ,,. .... Utah's i;:ulys . .The.general offset;provisions in R307-1-3.3.3.A '1,lr ady keclear :;whr!t is and is r. "" .-:. ,, 

' "not all~;wed i11 Crediting reductions.for Offset pUrpOSeS. . - ·' • •'I .. • , 1; 

c. ·Banking of Emissions Reductions 

Utah has very limited regulations on the banking of emissions. Specifically, R307-l-3 .3.6 

of the SIP-approved regulations (R307-403-8 of the current codification of the Utah regulations) 

states that banking of emission offset credit wili be permitted to the fullest extent allowed by 

EPA's December 4, 1986 Emission Trading Policy Statement (ETPS), 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(c), and Appendix S. This provision further states that, to preserve banked 

emissions, the State must identify the reductions ·either in the Utah SIP or in an approval order 

and provide a registry to identify the owner of the reductions and to record transactions. We do 

not consider this rule to be sufficient to ensure that banked emissions reductions meet all 

requirements to be creditable. 

First, the regulations referenced in R307-l-3 .3.6 are out of date. The 1986 ETPS has 

been superseded by the 2001 EIP guidance. The superseded guidance and regulations referenced 

9 
in Utah's current rule would allow reductions in allowable emissions to be creditable if the SIP 

attainment demonstration is based on allowable emissions, as is generally the case in Utah. 

However, the amended Act does not allow emission offsets to be obtained from reductions in 

allowable emissions; only actual emissions reductions can be used for emission offsets. 

Second, this provision does not include enough detail to clarify the process for banking 

emission reductions. The EIP outlines EPA' s guidelines for State programs that allow emission 

reductions to be banked solely for new source review purposes. Although we recognize the EIP 

is guidance and not regulation, it contains the only established guidance we have regarding the 

banking of emissions. Utah's rule lacks the details on emissions banking outlined in the EJP 

guidance to ensure adequate implementation of the State's NSR offset requirements (i.e., to 

ensure reductions are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable and permanent). 

Third, in the EIP guidance we have interpreted what an EIP should contain in order to 

meet the requirements of the Act. It is a guidance document that sets forth EPA' s non-binding 

policy and does not represent final EPA action on EIP requirements. The guidance document 

presents different types of situations and proposes elements that, if met, could assure that a State 

program would meet the applicable provisions of the Act. Although many agencies intend to 

follow the EIP to obtain a more immediate approval from EPA, direct application is not required. 

If you elect to submit rule revisions that do not contain the elements of the EIP, we will still seek 

to determine whether the applicable requirements of the Act were met, and if so, EPA would ' . approve the submission after notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

Recommended Rule Revisions to Address Banking Requirements: 

Appendix 16.15 of the EIP guidance lists the various sections that apply to emission 

.I 

' . 

.. ··: , banking for NSR offset purposes. Some.qf the ~reas include: localized increases of toxic _., ,,,1 ... : •. -, , "': 

: ., .. _:, :,..r,: , i" ·~·· .. pollutan.ts, d9~uni~ntati9n ?f.emission~ _re~uKtions, updating of ~plissions inventories, liability; .and,,,, -·~~::i,,,:, ~·. ·""'f:'~ 

. , ·. penalty provisions, public disclosure of inform~tion, protocol approval, monitoring, recordkeeping . . : r ,~, _ 

and reporting, inter-precursor trading, the prohibition on the use of shutdowns for discrete 

emission reductions (DERs), inter-credit trading, banking emission reductions, uncertainty, 

tracking systems and market clearinghouses, and transportation conformity. Additionally, the 

guidance provides flexibility and outlines some of the EIP guidance requirements that can replace 

NSR requirements; these include: NSR geographic restrictions, NSR offset ratios, baseline 

calculations, FLM notifications, environmental benefit, title V permitting, localized increases of 

criteria pollutants, general conformity, use of old credits, compliance margins, alternative 

emissions limits, and seasonal restrictions. Since public comment is required for all emissions 

trades used to meet NSR requirements, no program evaluation or. reconciliation is needed for that 

application. 

In summary, we are concerned about the lack of detail in the State's rules for emission 

banking for NSR offset purposes. We encourage the State to use the EIP guidance as a tool for 

developing the additional details needed to ensure that all banked emissions meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act. 

10 
Summary of Recommended Changes to Utah's Rules to Meet Federal Requirements 

I FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS I RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO UTAH'S RULES 

1. Basic Federal Requirements: 

The State must be able to 

prohibit the construction or 

modification of a stationary 

source if it would interfere with 

the control strategy or with 

attainment and maintenance of 

theNAAQS. 

[See 40 CFR 51.160(b)] 

2. Applicability of 

nonattainment NSR: A new 

source or modification proposing 

to locate in a nonattainment area 

that is a major source or major 

modification for the 

nonattainment pollutant must 

m~et the requirements o~ section 

173 of the CAA. 

[See Sections 173(a) and (c) of 

the CAA] 

Add a provision to Utah's approval order regulations 

stating that the Executive Secretary will not issue an 

approval order if ( s )he determines that the new or modified 

source will cause or contribute to a violation of the 

NAAQS or will interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance plan for a nonattainment area. This provision 

should also state that, to make this determination, the 

Executive Secretary may require an air quality modeling 

demonstratfon to ensure that the new or modified source 

won't cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. 

Alternatively, the State could issue an interpretation of 

R3 07-1-3 .1. 8 .B (R307-401-6 in the current codification of 

the Utah rules) that would support the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.160(b). 

Restructure rules to trigger applicability of the 

nonattainment NSR requirements solely on whether a 

source or modification proposing to locate in a 

nonattainment area is a major source or major modification 

for the nonattainment pollutant. Replace R307-l-3 .3.2 

(R307-403-3 of current codification) with a general 

provision stating that any new major source or major 

mod,ificati9n proposing to ~~cate in a noi;iattainrnent area 

that' is. co~sider~d major for the.hoiiattaiiunent poll. tant, as 

of the date of the source's complete permit application, 

must meet the requirements of this section. R307-1.3.3 .2 

should then include all requirements that a new major 

source or major modification must meet, including all of the 

requirements ofR307-l-3 .3.2.C (R307-403-3(3) of the 

current codification), the general offset requirements in . 

R307-l-3 .3.3.A (R307-403-4 of the current codification), 

and the alternative siting analysis requirements ofR307-l3-1.10 (R307-401-8 of the current codification). 

11 
l • 

i.~ 

; 

'. 

I FEDERAL REQum.EMENTS I RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO UTAH'S RULES 

3. Applicability of 

nonattainrnent NSR: The State 

must have provisions in its SIP 

for preconstruction review of 

new major sources and major 

modifications locating outside a 

nonattainrnent area but whose 

emissions would cause or 

contribute to a violation of the 

NAAQS. 

[See 40 CFR 51.165(b)] 

Retain the provisions in R307-1-3.3 .2.A and D (R307-403-

3(1) and (4) of the current codification) but keep separate 

from the requirements applicable to new major sources and 

major modifications locating in nonattainment areas to 

avoid confusion by the regulated community. 

4. Definitions - PM10 precursors 

[See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(J)(iv) 

and (x)] 

Clarify that the definitions for "major source" and "major 

modification" include the applicable major thresholds for 

PM10 precursors (100 TPY for major source, 40 TPY 

significance level of S02 or NOx for major modifications). 

5. Applicability of general offset Clarify that the general offset requirements in R3 07-1-

requirements 

[See Section 173(c) of CAA for 

federal offset requirements] 

3. 3. 3 .A (R307-403-4 in the· current codification) apply to 

all offset transactions, whether for new and modified 

sources locating in a PM10 nonattainment area, or new or 

modified major sources locating in a S02 or CO · 

nonattainment area or in an ozone attainment/maintenance 

area. The State's rule needs to clearly state that it also 

' · · contains requirements applicable to certain minor 

; .. , . ..,... .. 

6. Netting 

[See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(J)(v) 

and (vi) for definitions of major 

modification and net emissions 

increase] 

" sdtir'ciis/miiror modification· locating in their PMio ·, :,l'i'"> '-· .... · 

nonattainment areas· as well ·as offset requirements ·that · · 

apply in their ozone maintenance area, so that applicability 

to the various requirements of the rule are clear. 

Clarify th.at the summation ofPM10 + NOx + S02 only 

applies to the offset requirement (not to the determination 

of applica~ility of major NSR requirements) and specify 

that, for major modifications, the summation is based on 

the net emission increase of each pollutant, determined 

individually{i.e., the net emissions increase ofPM10 plus 

the net emission increase of NOx plus the net emission 

increase of S02) . Replace the phrase "which would 

produce an emission increase" with "which would produce 

a net emissions increase" to eliminate the enforceability 

and implementation concerns with the current terminology 

used. 

12 
. -

I FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS I RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO UTAH' s RULES 

7. Interpollutant trading for 

emission offsets 

[See 61FR38304-38305 (July 

23, 1996)] 

8. Demonstration that offsets 

provide a net air quality benefit 

[See 40 CFRpart 51, appendix 

S] 

9. Creditable emissions 

reductions (e.g., reductions in 

actual emissions) to meet 

emission offset requirements 

[See Section 173(c)(J) of CAA] 

10. Banking of emissions 

reductions . 

I ' 

[See EIP Guidance and. 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix S] 

Absent a sufficient demonstration from the State indicating 

the relationship between PM10 ambient concentrations and 

PM10 precursors, the State must replace the provision in 

R307-1-3.3 .3.B (R307-403-5 of the current codification of 

the Utah regulations) that states "For offset determinations, 

PMl 0, sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen shall be 

considered on an equal basis", with a provision that does 

not allow interpollutant trading for emission offsets, with 

the exception of allowing a new source of a PM10 precursor 

to obtain its emission offsets from reductions in PM10. 

The State's rules must make clear that modeling may be 

required to ensure that offsets provide for a net air quality 

benefit in the area. The State should either reference the 

criteria discussed in section IV.D. of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix S, or incorporate those requirements into their 

rule. 

R307-1-3 .3.5 (R307-403-7 in the current codification) 

must be deleted. The general offset provisions in R3 07-1-

3 .3 .3 .A. make clear what is and is not allowed in crediting 

reductions for offset purposes, and so R307-1-3 .3.5 is 

unnecessary. 

Utah has very limited regulations on the banking;of· 

emissions. We recommend the use of:the EIP guidance 

("Improving Air Quality Through Economic Incentive :· 

Programs" (EPA-452/R-01-001)) as a tool in developing 

the additional details needed to ensure adequate 

implementation of the State's NSR offset requirements 

(i.e., to ensure reductions are surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable and permanent). 

13 

.. 
.... 

$elevant sections or Utan·s perm1cc1ng1orrsec ruLes appruveu a~ paLL UL L11e ~Lr; 

R.;301. Environmental· Quality, Air. Quality. 

~07-1. Utah Air Conservation Regulations. 

R307-l-1. Foreword and Definitions. · 

Chapter 19-2 and the rules adopted by the Air Quaiity" Board constitute the basis for control of air . 

llution sources. in the state. These rules apply and will be enforced throughout the state, and are· 

ommended for adoption in local jurisdictions where environmental specialists are available to cooperate 

in implementing rule requirements. _ 

National Ambient Air Quality Sta~dards (NAAQS), National Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources (NSPS), National Prevention of Significant Deterioration ·of Air Quality (PSD) 

· standards, _and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) apply 

throughout the nation and are legally enforceable in Utah. · 

· ;>efinitions coeyned 1n R307~1-l are appUsabJc tg an rules adopted by the Air Quality Board. -· .· .. 

I.I A6rasive Blasting means the · operation of clean·ing or preparirrg a~ surface by forcibly ·propelling a stream of abrasive material against the surface. 

1.2 Abrasive Blasting Equipment means·any equipment utilized in abrasive 

blasting operations. 

1.3 Abrasives means any.material used in abrasive blasting operations 

1ncluding but ~ot limited to sand, slag, steel shot, garnet or walnut shells. 

1. 4 Accumulator means ~he reservoir of a condensing unit receiving the 

condensate from the condenser. · · . . 1.5 Actual Area of ·Non-Attai.nment means an· area which is shown by 

monitored data .or modeling actually to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (Boundaries are established in the Utah State Implementation Plan). 

l. 6 Actua 1 Emissions mearis the actua 1 rate of emissions of a pollutant 

from a source detennined as follows: l~ In general;· a~tual emissions as of a particular date shall equal the . 'average rate, in tons per year, at which the sour~e actually emitted •·the .. Ji0.l1utan,t during a two-ye~r period whtch . pr.e;cedes the particular date and whi.ch · . is representative of normal source operations. The Executive Secretary shall 

allow the use of a different time ·period upon a detennination that it is· more repres~ntative of normal source operation • . Actual emissions shall be calculated 

using the source's actua 1 operating hours, pro.ducti on rates, . and ,types of material~ processed, "·stored, or combμsted during the se lectedi .~time per-toq. ·. · / · 2. . The Executive Secretary may presume that source-specific allowable 

emissions for the source are equivalent to the .actual emissions of the source. 

3. For any· source which has not begun normal operations on the particular ·date, actual emissions shall equal the potential to emit of the source on ~hat 

date. · · · 

1.7. Adverse Impact on Visibility means for purposes of subsection ·3.ll of 

R307-l-3, visibility impairment which interferes with the management, protection, . preservation, or enjoyment of the vi'$itors visual experience of a mandatori Class '. ·-~ I area. This determination must b.e made on a case-by-case basis taki·ng into 

account the geographic extent, intensity, duration, frequen.cy. and time of · · visibility impairments, and how these factors carrel ate with {1} t ·imes of visitor 

use of the mandatory Class I area, and· (2) the frequency and timing of natural 

----~c;o~n~d~i;t~io~n~s~~t~h;a;t~r~e;d~u~c~e~v~is~1~·b~i~l~i~t~Y~-~~-==::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~1:=~ .-- ~tr . Cohtamm~~t m~ns any particulate . maner or any gas, vapor, suspended .solid or any 

8 

combmation of them, excluding steam and water vapors (Section 19-2-102(1)). 

. "Air Conta~inant Source'" means any and all sources of emission of air contaminants whether 

privately or publicly owned or operated (Section 19-2-102(2)). 

---- "· · - "i.·10 A1r- Dried Coating means co ~tings which are dried by the use of air 

or a forced warm a.i r at temperatures up to 90 degrees · C (194 degrees F) . . 

• 
3." The height demon.stratedvby a fluid mod~l or a field study approved by 

the Executive secretary, which ensures that the emissions from-the stack do not 

result in excessive concentrations of air"contaminants as a result of atmospheric 

do.wnwash, wakes, or eddy effects created by .the source i tse 1 f, nearby · structures 

or nearby terrain features. . . · 

. 1. 73 Hardwood ~lywood means plywood -whos.e surface 1 ayer is a veneer of hardwood~ . · 1.74 Heavy Fuel Oil means a petroleum product or ~imilar ~aterial with a 

boiling range higher than that or diesel fuel. ~ . · -1.75--Hot Well means the reservoir of a condensing unit receiving the warm 

condensate eonsisting primarily of water from the condenser. 

l.'76 Household ~aste means any solid or liquid material normally generated 

by the family in a residence in the course of ordinary day-to-day living, 

including but not limited to garbage, paper products, rags, leaves and garden 

trash. - 1.77 Hydroblasting means any abrasive blasting using high pressure liquid 

as the propelling force. 

1.79 Indirect Source means _a building, structure or i_nstallation·which 

attracts or may attract mobile 1·source activity that results in emission of a 

pollutant for which there is a national standard. . . . 1.80 Installation means ~ discrete process with identifiable emissions 

whicn may be part of a larger industrial pla~t: Pollution equipment shall not 

be considered a ~eparate installation or installations . . 1.82 Knife Coating means the application of a coating material to a 

substrate by rr ~ans of. drtawing the substrate beneath a blade. that spreads. the 

coating evenly over the width of the substrate. 

1.84 Large Appliances .means doors, cases, li'ds, panels, ·-·and interior 

support parts of ·. resfdential and commercial washers" .. · dryers, ranges, 

refrigerators, free~~rS .1 ~/ ~at er heaters, dishwashers·, · ~ra.s ,· .compactors, air 

conditioners, and ottrer\ $imi1 ar products. . . · . I.SS Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), as defJned in Section 173(2), 

Clean Air Act, mear;i~ ,. for ,any . sour.ce, that rate of .emissions which reflects: . - I. The most str.ingent emission 1 imitation which is ·contained in ·the ' . ., ,. 

implementation plan ~f any state .:for such class or ·C:ategorY of' source, 'uiiless ·he::i ? ·" .: 

owner or operator of the proposed source demonstrates that such · 1 imi tat i onS are : '· .. 

not achievable, or ~ 

2. The most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in practice 

by such class or category of source, whichever is more · 'Stringent. · In no event sha 11 the app 1 i cation of this term pe~i t a proposed new source · to emit any _ pollutant in excess of the amount allo~able under applicable new 

source standards of performance. · · l.S6 LPG mea.ns liquified petroleum gas such as propane or butane. 

I.SS Magnet~'r Wire Coating means the process cf applying coating of 

electrical insulating varnish or enamel to aluminum or copper wire for use in 

el ectri ca 1 machinery. · · · 

--..i;;;m:llii!1l'!l"t1rajor Modification" means any pnysical change in or change in the me-th=-o-d_o_f_o-peration of a major 

source that would result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant. A net emissions incre:ise 

that is significant for volatile organic compounds shall be considered significJnt for ozone. Within Salt 

Lake And Davis Counties or any nonactainment area for ozone, a nee emissions increase that is significant 

for nitrogen oxides shall be considered signific:int for ozone. Within arelS of nonaa:ainment for PMIO, 

a significant net emission increase for any PMIO precursor is also a significant net emission increase for 

10. A physical change or change in the method of operation shall not include: 

1. routine maintenance, repair and replacement; 

2. use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an order under section 2(a) and (b) of the 

.. 
~ . . . 

SECTION R307-l-1. 

· UAC (Deeember l~ 1993) Printed: June 24, 1994 Page 11 

rgy Supply and Envir.onmental Coordination Act of 1974, or by reason of a natural gas curtailment 

m pursuant to the Federal Power Act; 

3. use of an· alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under section 125 of the federal Clean Air 

Act; 

4. use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit to the extent that the fuel is generated from 

municipal solid waste; 

· S. use of an alternative fuel or raw material by a source: 

· A. which the source was capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless such change 

would be prohibited under any enforceable permit condition·; or 

B. which the source is otherwise approved to use; 

6. an incr~e in . the hours of operation or in the production rate unless such change w~uld be 

p.rohibited under any enforceable permit condition; 

7. any change in ownership at a source. ;:· 

~Major Source" means, to the extent prov1~ed by the federal Clean Air Act as applicable to these · 

rules: . 

1. any stationary source of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, one hundred tons 

per year or more of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act; or 

A. any source located· in a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide which emits, or has the potential 

to emit, carbon , inonoxide in the ·amounts outlined in Section 187 of the federal. Clean Air Act with ;. .y - . ~ '::~ 

respect to the severity of the nonattainment area as outlined in Section 187 of the federal Clean Air Act; 

or 

B . . any source located in Salt Lalce or Davis Counties or in a: nonattainnient area for ozone which 

its, o.r has· ~e po.tept.jal to emit, voe· or nitrogen oxides in ~ ~mo~ri~ ·Outlined in Section 182 of the 

!ral Clean Afr A"c;t . with respect to the severity of the noriattafnme~t area as outlined in Section 182 

the federal Clean Air Act; or · ·· · 

C .. any so~rc . logt~.in a nonattainment area for PMlO ."".~cq e~itS, ~r has the potential to. emit, 

PMIO or any PMlO precursor in the amoun~ outlined in Section l89 of the f~eral :.Clean-Air Act with , 

... ,. 

...... . . . .. .. . 

respect to· the. ~everity of the nonattainment area as outlined in ectio~ 189 qf tbe Jed er~ Clean Aii; Act:,-:j._;. •'. ~·'-''.r _. · :-; _ 2. any physical ·change that would occur at a·source not qualifying under.l.90.f ·as a major source, 

if the ·change -would constitute a maj?r sour!=e by .itself; . ,, 

3. the filgitive emiss~ons and fugitive d~st of a stationary_ s6urce shall· not be included in determining 

for any of the purposes of this section whether it is ·a major stationary sourc·e, unless the source belongs 

to one of the ·following categories of stationary sources: 

· (a) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers); 

(b) Krit't pufp mills; · : · · . ·. 

(c) P·orlfand cement plants; · 

(d) Primary zinc smelters; 

(e) Iron and steel mills; · 

(f) Primary aluminum or reduction plants; 

(g) Primary copper smelters; 

. _::._ .. 

(h) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day; 

(i) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants; 

0) Petroleum refineries; 

(k) Lime plants; 

(1) Phosphate rock processing plants; 

•• 1":· -
: '. \ 

·SECTION R307-l-1. 

UAC (December 1~ 1993) 

(m} Colee oven batteries; 

"(n} Sulfur recovery plants; 

Printed: June 24, 1994 

(o) Carbon black plants (furnace process); 

(p) Primary lead smelters; 

(q) Fuel conversion plants; 

(r) Sintering plants; 

(s) Secondary metal production plants; 

(t) Chemical process plants; . 

P:ige 12 

(u) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more than 250 miJlion British Thermal Units 

per hour heat input; 

(v-) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage .capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels; 

(w) Taconite ore processing plants; 

(x) Glass.fiber processing plants; 

(y) Charcoal production plants; 

(z) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British Thermal Units per hour 

heat input; · 

{aa) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under 

section 111 or 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act.. · 

· "Major Source· means, for the purposes of Subsection R307-1-3.6: _: · 

' · 1. any of the following sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, ioo tons 

per year or more of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act: Fossil fuel-fired steam 

electric plants of more than 250 million British thermaf units per hour heat input, coal cleaning plaritS --

·. , thermal dryers), kraft pulp mills, ortla~ cemei;i~ plants, primary zinc smelters, iron aiid :·st~HriiU · 

· • ·primary .aluminum ore reduction plant.S, primary copper smelters, municipal incinerators ·bpable 

arging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, ,hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, petroleum 

. . . refineries, lime plants, phosphate rock pro.cessing plants. coke oven batteries, sulfur recovery. plants•" 

·carbon black plants-Ifurnace process}, primary le·ad 'smelters. fuel ·conv-ersion plants, sintering plants, ·• 

secondary metal production plants, che~ical proce.sS,plants. fossil 'fueHioilers (or combination,thereof) M ( . . 1t ;.,(,.-:-f;,_ • 

totaling more than 250 million Brit~sh thermal units per hour heat input; petroleum storage an·d transfer · .- .-

units with a total storage capacity ·exceeding_ 300,000 barrels, ta~onite ore processing p"lants, glass fiber 

processing plants, and charcoal production plants; 

2. any other SOt1rce which emits, Or haS the potential tO emit, 250 tons per year Or more Of any air 

·pollutant; or · . · 

3. a source which does not otherwis~ qualify as a major source as defined in this paragraph, but · 

which is physically changed, which chang~ itself would constitute a major source. 

4. ·a source which is major for volatile:·:organic compounds is major for ozone. , , 

5. The fugitive emissions and fugitive d"rist of a stationary source shall not be inciuded in determining 

for any of the purposes of this section whether it is a major stationary source, unless the source belongs 

to one of the following categories of stationary sources: 

(a) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers); 

(b) Kraft pulp ·mills; 

(c) Portland cement plants; 

(d) Primary zinc smelters; 

. (e) Iron and steel mills; 

(t) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants; 

Primary copper smelters; 
"Net Emissions Increase .. means the amount by which the sum of the following exceeds zero: 

1. any increase in actual emissions from a particular physical change or chan.ge in· method of 

operation at a source; and 

2. any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the source that are contemporaneous with 

the particular change and are otherwise creditable. For purposes of determining a "net emissions 

increase": 

A. An increase or decrease in actual emissions is contemporaneous with the increase from the 

particular change only if it occurs between the date five years before construction on the particular change 

commences; and the date that the increase from the· particular change occurs. 

B. An increase or decrease in actual emissions is creditable only if it has not been relied on in 

issuing a prior approval for the source which approval is in effect wheri the increase in actual emissions 

for the particular change occurs. 

C. An increase or decrease in actual f,emission of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides or particulate matter 

which occurs before an applicable minor source baseline date is creditable only if it is required · to be 

considered in calculating the amount of maximum allowable increases remaining available. With respect 

to particulate matter ... only PMIO emissions will be used to evaluate this increase or decrease. 

D. An increase in actual emissions is creditable only to the extent that the new level of actual 

·emissions exceeds the old level. 

E. A decrease in-actual emissions is· creditable only to the extent that.: 

(1) The old level of actual emissions or the old level of allowable ernissiqns ~ whichever i~ lower, 

exceeds the new level ·of actual emissions; , . 

(2) It is enforeea~le aflind after the time that actual construction ori. th~ particular change begins; 

and -~ : .. ; .·.' :,: ~ . .. ~ ,;· '' :.;: 

(3) It has approximately the same· qualitative significance for pubHc health and welfare as that 

attributed to the increase from the particular change. 

· (4) lt has not be~n relied on in issuing any permit under Section-R307:"".L.,.3_l nor has it been relied ~. . • • ~ • 1 • .. ,. t. ... . ' • ~ • ht 

... on in .demonstni,ting.attainnient or reasonable further progress. ,, 

. . F: '.~ Kn increase that·' ~esui~s from a'physical change at a sour~e occtli"~ wh"e~ :rne emis~ioris· unit on ' .: 

which construction . occurred becomes operational and begins to emit. a particular pollutant. Any 

replacement unit that requires shakedown becomes operational only after a reasonable shakedown period, 

not to exceed 180 days. 

. 1.100 New Installation means an installation, construction of.which began ·after the effective date of any regulation having application to it. · 

1.101 Non-Attainment Area means for any .Pollutant, •an area which is shown ·by monitored qata or which is calculated by air: quality modeling {or other 

methods detem,~ ned by the Administrator, EPA ta-. be re 1 i able) to exceed any National Ambient Air Quality Standard for such pollutant• {Section 17~, Clean Air 

Act). Such term includes any area designated as non-attainment under Section " 107, Clean Air Act. . 1.103. O~fset.m7ans.an ~mount of emission reduction, by a source, greater- ~ 

than the em1ss1on l1~1tat1on 1mposed on such source by these regulations and/or 

the State Implementation Plan. · 

1.104 Opacity means the capacity to obstruct the transmission of light expressed as percent. ' 

. _l.~05 Open Burning means any burning of combustible materials ~esulting 

1n em1ss1an of products of combustion into ambient air without passage through 

a chimney or stack. · . . MPMlO Precursor .. means any chemical compound or substance which, after it has been emitted into 

e atmosphere, undergoes chemical or physical changes that convert it into particulate matter, specifically 

PMIO. It includes. but is not limited to, sulfur dio:::.x:..:.:i:.:::d~e...:::a'.::n~d...:n.'...'..i~rr~o.;;i.g:::..:en~o~x~jd~e~s.;......_ _____ ~~-----
UAC (January 1. 1992) Printed January 27. 1992 Paqe . 22 

paragraph 2.5.2 above. No declaratory orders will be issued in the circumstances 

described in Utah Code Annotated Section 63-46b-21(3)(a). Intervention rights 

and other procedures governing declaratory orders ~re outlined in Utah Code . ·Annotated Section 63-46b-21. · 

R307-l-3. Control of Installations. 

3.1 Notice of Intent and Approval Order 

3.1.l Except for the exemptions listed herein, any person planning to 

construct a new installation which will or might reasonably be expected to become 

a source or an indirect source of air pollution or to· make .modifications or 

relocate an existing installation which will or might reasonably be ~xpected to 

increase the amount or change the effect of, or the character of, air 

contaminants di ~tharged, so that such installation may be expe!=ted. to become a 

source -or indire·ct.source of air po_llution, or any pefson planning .to install an 

air cleaning device or other equipment intended to control ~mission of air 

contaminants ·f'f'.'Om a stationary source, sha 11 submit to the Executive -Secretary 

a notice of intent and receive an approval order prior to initiation of 

construction, mt>dification or relocation. The notice of intent shall include 

plans, specifications and. such other information as is necessary to determine 

whether the . proposed construction, installation,. modification, relocation or 

establis'hment w1·11 be in accord with applicable requi ements of these regulations 

as he deems necessary to review the proposal . Within 30 days after receipt of .a notice .o.f i{itent,. or .any additional inform~tion ~cessary to the review, the . Executfve Secretary shall advise the ap·pl icaiit of" any deficiency in the notice .. ' . or the information submitted. The £xecuti~e Secretary shall transmit tb -the 

Ad~inisi)~a~~~:, ,£PA, · a copy ,- of" eac.h not ice 9f ptf~t . for each major source. 9r ·. · .. .":··::-:· · ··: 

maJor modiflcation and provide notice to the Adn11n1strator, EPA, of every action .'. ~ 

relatec:Lto .. ·the consideration of such permit. ~,,' _ : ... _ . ~· .. . , .. _._~ .i,. 3~1.2 :. ;Within 90 days of receipt of an plans,, spec ificati~ns ·and other ' ' ·.''>:-.'.' 

•• 

1 

•• ·in'formatiOn r equired under this subsection 3. th~ Executive Secretary shall -·.; 

1 • I_ i. ~:~ ~Ue_' ~n o-rder. prbhi'b1'tl nglt:he proposed COnS ruc ti (l ;" i 11.s,ta-1'1.-at t9n ~ ;fJJOdffvicat l-On . '; :.,, r/•>:•1:" 

~ _,. " ::rel acafi o·n-· or· establishment if he deems · _a'ny part· 0-.f it inadequate . to . meet the - · · 

applicable require~ents of these regulations. If more time is needed to review 

the proposal it shall not exceed three 30-day extensions. 

3.1.3 . Pri·or to. issuing an approval or disapproval order, the Execu~i've · Secretary shall adver:~i-s e his intent to approve or disapprove in a newspaper of 

general circul~tion ih th~ locality of the. proposed construction, inst~ tian, •. 

modification, relocation or establishment. A copy .of ~he notice of-; int..ent to 

approve or disapprove shall be ·sent to the applicant, the Administrator, ·EPA and 

to officials and agencies having cognizance over the location where the proposed 

construction would. occur as follows: any other state or local air pollution 

control agencies, the chief executives of the city and county .where the .source 

would be located; any comprehensive regional land use planning agency, and any 

State, Fed.eral Land Manager, or Indian Governing body whose lands may be affected 

by emissions from the source or ·modification. Any expected degree of consumption 

of the maximum allowable increases as stated in subsection 3.6 and proposed 

emission and/or operating limitations shall be included in the notice. The 

Executive Secretary sha 11 consider any analysis performed by a Federal land 

Manager and provided to the Executive Secretary within the public comment period. 

If the · Executive Secretary concurs with a demonstration of the Federal Land 

Manager that the emissions from the proposed source or modification would have 

an adverse impact on the air quality related values (including visibility) in .any 

.. . - . -- -- . -:..· ·. --· .. - ... - . 
'AC (January 1. 1992) Printed Januarv 27. 1992 Page 23 

iederal Class I ~rea, notwithstanding that the change in air quality resulting 

from emissions from such source or modification would not cause or contribute to 

concentrations which would exceed the maximum allowable increases, the Executive 

S.ecretary sha 11 not issue an approval order for the source or modi fi cation. 

At least one location will be provided where the information submitted by 

the owner or operator and the State's analyses of the proposal will be available 

for public inspection. A 30-day period shall be allowed for submission of public 

comment. If .requested within 15 days of publication of notice, a hearing shall 

be held in the area of the proposed construction, installation, modification, 

relocation or establishment. Any comments or statements received ·shall be conside~~d before an order is issued. The public comment and hearing procedure . shall no~ be required when an order is i ssuea~ for the purpose of extending the ,, . \ ', time to review plans and specifications. . 3 .1. 4 Whenever the Executive Secretary determines that the pl ans, 

specifications and other information submitted, with such revisions as he may require; are in accord with applicable r~quirements, he shall issue an order 

permitting the proposed construction, installation, modification, relocation or 

establishment, with the further stipulatiQn that all required facilities .be 

adequately and properly maintained. Issulng of an approval order does not ·' ' 

relieve: any owner or operator of the respo~sibil ity to comply with the provisions. ·;; 

of these regulations or the State Implementation Plan or nther local, ~t~te 

and/or.; Federal requirements. T9.· acc~$no9a~e stage canst.ruction of :- Jarg ~ ,, .. :. source, he .may issue an or~er author.izing construction of an. initial s.tage ·prior · P .. r.eC,eipt of detailed plans for the ~r.t ~i~~. proposal pr.ovided he is satisfied . . · ~~r~ ustra revie.w of general plan·s,· engjlle.,t;),.ng reports and other i~fonnatio~ th~ ; .. :_' the ·:pr(>posa 1 is f eas i b 1 e under the <fnt·en.tt' of these regu 1 at; ans. Subseqqent-. ·%'. 

· detailed plans will then be ·processed as ·prescribed in thiS paragraph ~ .. For · ·· .. · phased . constr..uct ion . p_rpjects the determination under paragr.aph 3. l .,a sh~ 11 :. be .. ~ .. 

.... :,,:.~.::n: .. <>r~y i.~'(IJ~,· ~Eq ~()g i.f i ecj~.!s a~Pg>Pr i e~~. ~t , ~~~ , ea~l ~~st .:. r,e~sq q~pl e ... ~)m ~ .. P~.) 9F _t?t.: ... : ,' .·,, .. ~-· ... . , . comntfi!ncement of construct 1 o·n' of each · ·1 n'dependent phase _of' th~ proposed · source- or.!-; ' .. :~k~;"'." t •• modification. ; · · · · · .,. ..,. · · · .. 

· 3 .1. 5 Approva 1 orders issued by the Executive Secretary in accordance with .. the provisions of this subsection 3.1 shall be reviewed eighteen months after the 

·'date . of is.suance to determine the status of construction, installation, 

modification, relocation or establishment. If a continuous program of 

construction, installation, modification, relocation · or establishment is not 

proceeding, the Executive Secretary may . ·revoke the approva 1 order. 

3.1.6 The following information, where applicable, should be submitted 

with the notice of intent: 

A. A description of the nature of the · process(es) involved; the nature, 

procedures for handling and the quantities of raw materi a 1 s; the type and 

quantity of fuels employed; and the nature and quantity of finished product. 

8. Expected composition arid physical characteristics of effluent stream 

both before apd ·after treatment by an air cleaning device, including emission 

rates, volume,. temperature and concentration of air contaminants. 

C. Size, type and performance characteristics of air cleaning devices. 

D. ·Location and elevation of the emission point and other factors relating 

to dispersion and diffusion of the air contaminant in relation to the emission ~o nearby structures and window openings, and other i nformation necessary to 

appraise the possible effects of the effluent. 

E. The location of planned sampling points and the tests·of the completed 

installation to be made by the owner when necessary ta ascertain compliance. 
F. The typical operating schedule. 

G. A schedule for construction. ~. Any plans, specifications and related information which are in final 

form at the time of submission of notice of intent. 

I. Any other information necessary to determine if the proposed source or 

modification will be in compliance with these regulations. . 3.1.7 The following are exempt from the notice of intent requirement: A. Fuel-burning equipment, in which combustion takes place at no greater 

pressure than one inch of mercury above ambient pressure, with a rated capacity of less than five million BTU per hour using no other fuel than natural gas, or 

LPG or other mixed gas distributed by a utility in accordance with the rules of 

tne Public Service Commission of the State of Utah, unless there are emissions 

other than combustion gases .. 8. Comfort heating equipment, boilers, water heaters, air heaters and 

steam generators with a rated capacity of,, less than one million BTU per hour j f 

fueled only by fuel oil numbers. 1 - 6. ::::r :i\ 

· .. C. Emergency he.ating equipment, us fog c_oa] or wood for fuel, with a rated 

capacity less than 50,000 BTU per hour. 

D. Exhaust systems for controlling steam and ·heat that do not contain 

combustion products • . ,·· . E. New parking areas of less : than 600 vehicles. capacity ~ or modift&d 

parking areas .increasing -capacity by less than 350 vehicles • . ·· F. Emissions · of l,l,1-trichloroethane, ·. methylene chloride, 't"rflthlorofl uoromethane~ dictrlorodlfllUoromethane, · chl orodi fl uo·romethaife., t~ifluoromethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2~2-trifluoroethane; 1,2-dichloro-l.~~2~2-

tetra fl uoroethane, methane, eth ~ne; : arid :.'- ch 1 oroper:itafl uoroethane. , How;ever ·-~ th e , owrier·'Or operator -of a source emitting ·10 toris-per year ot- more of.any · of these . . , cbmpounds must submit a not 1 ce of. 1 nten~ to the Exec~t i ve Secretary .. _prfot: to · . .-. . ;; construetian of the source and ·an ::annuaJ ,report of emissions thereaftf}t k'··''·i · '· 

-"--'- .. · ;:'- ._, ~ J~l.8 'ne Executive Secretary shall i~~iie an<- a~proval order if he determines through ptari. re-.'i~ · . - . . that the following conditions hav~ been :,met::_ .. ' .. ~ : . ·, . . : : ; {:': ::·.·.- ,: ... r. • ' 

: , " .' ,. , _. · _/\7• J1te __ d~g_r~e o::poll,qtion co~t;o~ for e~lssio~ ; _to, i~dude ~gitive em,is~iq~s and '.fug tivc ~ust, is: , .. · .... · ... ··. . :. a~J~t be$t available contr~l tecHnology except as}qtherwa'S'e provided 1n'these regulations: · "l'"J..( ;•:;r.: !:~- : ;~ , ·-:- · · ·.," "· · · B. The proposed installatio·n will be iii"· .aceord with applicable requirements·. of: · Utah' A'.ir ~ -' 

C~nservation Regulations; National Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; National 

· Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards; National Emissipn Standards for Hazardous Air 

Polluta!1 ~; new source review criteria; maximum al19wable increase and maximum allowable 

~' 7?trations re9uirements ·for Prevention of Significant Deterioration;-the nonattainment plan · for the 

_ar,ea. ~-Jf ~e area JS classified as a nonanainment area; and new so.urce requirements for nonattainment 

areas under the Federal Clean Air Act. . · 

C. The ~xe~ti~e Se~reta~ shall only issue an approval order under paragraph 3.6.5. for a major 

sour~~ or major mod1ticat1on which consumes more than 503 of the increments in paragraph 3.6.6. after · · rece1vmg the aooroval of the Board. · , . , _ 

3.1.9 lhe owner or opera~of a source previously approved under this - paragraph who intends to temporari~y rel~cate the source (not _to exceed_ 180 

consecutive days) shall submit a notice of intent to relocate but 1s not required 

to submit additional plans and specifications nor is the Executive Secretary required . to submit the proposa 1 for public comment prior to · approva 1 or 

disapproval. · 
!iii 3.1. 10 · The owner or operalbr or a maJor ·new source .or major modification to be located in a 

. · nonanainment area or.which would impact an area of nonattainment must, in addition to the requirements 

in Subsection R307-l-3. l ~ submit with the notice of intent an adequate analysis of alternative sites, sizes, 

production processes, and environmental control techniques for such proposed source which demonstrates 

that benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed 

as a result ·of its location, construction, or modification. ·:The Executive Secretary shall review the 

analysis . . The analysis and the Executive Secretary's comm·ents shall be subject to public comment as 

required by R307-l-3.1.3. The preceding shall als~ apply in Salt Lake and Davis Counties for new major 

sources or modifications which are considered major for precursors of ozone, including volatile organic 

co~pounds and nitrogen gxides. 

: · . 3.41.ll At a time that a source or mod i fication becomes a major source -or ,i · major modification because of a relaxation of ny enforceable limitation which 

was .. e.stab] ished after August 7, 1980, ·_on th.e .capacity of a source or modification,-.. ' 

:otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on the hours of operation, 

the.n ... the preconstruction requirements,. shall apply to the source as though .. co.ns.tru.¢tion had not yet commenced on_, the ;source or modification. .. '.:.~ .·. ; .. ~:; 

.. ::i ·· ;'.l ·:;l.12 Low Oxides of Nitrogen_ su.rner 'Technol ogy. All sources (excl'_uding > ._ 1_10~:-: corrimercial _. residential dwell inqs}-.· 0

shall . inst~ll . oxides of nitrogen ·' · 

.... 

· . control / l ow oxide.s._ of ni\trogen burners or ·.cont rol s r e-su·l:ti'ng from applica,tion of ·~ '.~ .. ;:,;~:)_af\,.,....:'-Q ll.i ~n :· tec~ no logy . as1 · et rmin~d ... bY . ti~ '- Exe~ut i:ye;. reta y.~ .,,wh.ene.v.er ,; "· f.:.r.;;. ;. ..• 

. ~.: e:ici ting -. fuel combustion burners are r·eplaced, unle·ss such replacement ·is:·na f . physically practical or cost effective. The request ·for an exemption shall be 

presented· to the Executive Secretary fo-r review and approval . . J.2 Non-Attainment .Area Requirements And PHlO Nonattainment ·Area 

R_!!quirements - Existing Sour ces. . '!:· ,-r.. 

3.2.l Particulate Erri is~ion limitations And Operating Parameters (TSP')": · A. Existing sour es located in or affecting areas of non-attainment: sha-1 l ' 

use reasonably available control measures to the extent necessary to insure the 
, ' 

City and Ogden Maintenance Areas for Carbon Monoxide -

New and Modified Sources. · 

3.3.1 Emission Limitations. Any source constructed in 

an. actual area of nonaitainment, or in the Salt Lake Ciry and 

Ogden maintenance areas for carbon monoxide, or in an area 

which will impact on an actual area of nonattainment or· on 

the Salt Lake Ciry and O~den maintenance areas for carbon 

. monoxide must meet all applicable emission requirements of 

R307-l ~ Utah Air Conseri'ation ~egulations, a~d R307-2, 

Utah State Implementation Plan. A proposed soi!rce which is 

not a major source may be approved wilJlout flintier analysis · 

provided such source me'ets all sμ'Ch applicable emission 

limitations and offset requirements listed in paragraph 3.3.3. 

The emission limitations shall be stated as a condition of the 

approval order .• _ _ _ _ _ 

3.3.i .. Revfe....;_ of Major Sources of Air.t. Qua* ~;fia-;p~~!~:' Ji~er:: Y; ~ajor new source or major 

modificatio~ must be reviewed by . the Exe-cutf\l.~:.'~~~ ~ ': i:f~~et;oJifle : if a. source will cause or 

contri~1,1te to a violation of the NAAQS. The determiiiatioffof:whether a source will cause or contribute 

to ,3 yiql~~iQμ of_ Vii: NAAQS will b~ made by .the Executive Secretary as of the new source's 'projected 

st*.:YP 4A.t~;. H~ wUJ. ;jn~~ . an ~lysis of the proposed new .source's operation data using the best 

infermatlari-and.analytio31 :tttchttiques" available. · 

A. . If the owner or operacor of~ $OUrc~ . propoS.es 10 

locate the source outside an area of nonaitainme!lt where the 

source will not cause .an increase gre~fer . than the following 

increme~ts in actual areas of noriat~ihinent or in the Salt 

La,~e City and Ogden maintenanc.e .are.as fQr carbon 

monoxide. and the source other\Vise rneets tl'!e. requirements TABLE 2 

of these regulations, such source sh~U be app,rov.ed ••. 

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE .MICROGRAM/CUBIC METER IMPACT BY .AVERAGING TIME 

Pollutant AQriual. 24-Hr 8-Hr 3-Hr . .. 1-Hr ~-- . -~· 1. 0 . 5 · :fs . "f.: 

SULFUR DIOXIDE 

PM10 1.0 3 -,· .. .. ·. :~ ;~ r 1 • 

500 .. co 2000 .. -

B. If the Eiecuti~e Secretar.v finds thac the emissions from a proposed·sbtirte .. uld cause. a new . 

--

' • . . . . . -._ ~ .":-.. -:;:.· . .. ,. ' . . . ;· .: .. , ': ::-- ·? ;;,_ . 

violation.of the NAAQ~ 71iii(wou"icf'~. ~o co ri bu e to an existing v.foJation ,<th¢. ~xe~ti ti · Secretary shall . · • 

approve tfie proposed solirte if and only if: - . . • ·. .. . . 

(1) the new source is reg.uif~. to ineet a more stringent emission limitacion, sufficient to avoid a new · . 

violation of the NAAQS and · · · .' . 

(2) the new· source. ha~ a~q11ired sufficient offset to avoid a new violation ,of the NAAQS and .. 

(3) the new emission _!imitations f<? r the proposed source and . .for any affected existing sources are : <1-· 

enforceable. . 

C. If the Executive Secretary finds that the emissions from·a ·proposed source in a nonattainment area · 

would contribute to an existing violation of a national ambient air quality standard at the time of the 

source's proposed stan-up date. approval shall be granted if and only if: 

. : (1) the new source meets an emission limitation which is the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER) for such source and 

(2) the applicant has cenified that all existing major sources in the State, owned or controlled by the 

owner or operator (or by any entity controlling. controlled by or under common control with such owner 

or operator) of the proposed source, are in compliance with all applicable Utah Air Conservation 

Regulations· and Utah lmplementa'tion Plan requirements or are in compliance with an approved schedule 

and timetable for compliance under the Utah Implementation Plan, the Utah regulations, or an 

enforcement order, and that the source is complying with all requirements and limitations as expeditiously 

as practicable. 

(3) emission offsets to the extent provided in paragraph 3.3.3 are sufficient such that there will be 

reasonable further progress toward attainment of the applicable NAAQS . 

(4) the emission offsets provide. a positive net air quality benefit in the affected area of 

nonattainment. 

(5) there is an approved implementation plan in effect for the pollutant to be emitted by the proposed 

source. 

·,, "··-· 
D. A source which is lbcating outside a nonauainment 

. area or .the Salt Lake City and Ogden maintenance areas for 

carbon monoxide and which causes the significant increments 

in subparagraph 3.3.2.A to be exceeded in th~. nonattainment 

or maintenance area is subject to the requirements · of 

subparagraph 3.3.2.C: 

3.3.3 Offset Requirements. 

A. General Requirements. . 

(1) Emission offsets muse· be obtained from the same source or other sources in the same 

nonatt.ainment area except that the owner or operacor of a source ·may obtain emission offsets in another 

nonattainment ~rea if: . · · · · . · 

(a) the other area has an· equal or higher nonattainmenc classification than the area in which the 

source is located and:: 

(b) emissions from such other an~a contribute to a violation of the national ambient air quality 

standard in the noriattainmem .area in which the source is located· or which. is impacted by the source. 

(2) Any emission offsets shall be enforceable by the time a new . or modified source commences 

construction, a:nd, by the time .a new or modified source commences operation, any emission offsets shall 

be in effect and enforce~t>le and shall assure that the total tonnage-of i_p,,creased emissions of the air 

. pollutant from the new or'j~1odified source shall be offset by an equal or gr tei reduction, as applicable, 

in the actual emission5 ofsuch air pollutant from the same or other sou~c~ in the area. · 

(3) Emission reductions otherwise required by the federal Clean· Air Act or the Utah Air 

Conservation Rules and Stat.e Implementation Plan shall not be credit~ble· as emission reductions for 

purposes of any offset reqμirement. Incidental emission. reductions which_.;u:e not otherwise required by 

federal or state · law-- shall be creditable as emission reductions if suc1f' emission· reductions meet the 

requirements of paragraph_s 3.3.~ A(l) and (2). · . ~ . :':.. ' ~ : 

. (4) Sources sti_all o~ allowed. to off~~t ~ by alternative or innov.ative·(#leans. emissio_n increases from ·,. 

·rocket''engine and motor.firing, and cleaning related to su_ch firing;·at- an existing or modified major 

source that tests· rock~ engines or motors under the condit~ons outl~e4 in Section .173(e)(l) through 

· Section 173(e)(4) oftti"e federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. ·· 

;:, ! . , ·. 

· B. PMIO Nonatfa:inment Areas. . .. : . .- '~, .. , -: · 

:: · . " .-: N~vi soti~~;.)J~ : · ~Y.e. a p~tenti~ .t9 e~it, or modifi s;ci~{ &. !pt woul~ p~oducf an e~is~ion 1 j' : J-/ ;;_ Y- '-,_ ' •• ' • • ·»~ ~f~~e . rauat.t,o- or.: c;e~1~g μti: tq~r,i~ge ~~: of co~bln~ ~l;?! l,O. t-•. ~u~fur box1de~. ap,a ~~id.es ,,of,.,: .·:-,;.' ... -'-..'_. -.-r- .. , : .. :·:. ~ . •· ~ ·nitiog·eii ii~"'¢d tiefo\i wtiiCn· ~~'. ioc~t~ i!t i-~ mpaci a p~ l<f No~artajliliieh A.rea as defined ini.:~3c7:, 1 :f<· • . .,.. 

'· 3:3.3.B(l) below." shalt'obtain- an ·' ertforteable offset ·k defined 'in R307-1-3.3.3.B(2) and R301:1 ~ '" ;_;. . 

3:33.B(3). :~ ~"· : .: '"·~; -. :_:_ · . ,, 

. { · V) for the pμrpose of determining whether the owner or oper::atot:,.~hich proposes to lOcate a source 

.. ou~~d~\ a nonartainmerit area is ·required to obtain offsets; the maximum allowable impact on any 

, ,. ; riona~irtment area .is 1.0 microgram/cubic meter for a. one-year .averaging period and 3.o· · · .. microgtams/ctibiC meter for a 24-hour averaging period for any combination-of PMIO. sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen dioxide. 1 

(2) For a total of 50 tons/year or greater, an offset of 1.2: 1 of th.-e emission increase is required. 

(3) For a total of 25 tons/year but less than 50 tons/year. an offset of 1:1 of the emission increase 

·is required. ··- - , .. 

For the offset determinations, PMlO, sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen shall be considered on 

an equal basis~ In areas which are nonattainment for both PMlO and oz9ne, the most stringent emission 

qffset ratio for oxides of nitrogen required by R307-_l-3 shall apply. 

c. Ozone Nonat'tainment Areas and Davis and Salt Lake 

Counties. New sources and modifications to existing sources as 

defined and outlined in Section 182 of the Clean Air Act shall 

meet the offset requirements and con~itions listed in that 

section for the applicable classified area and for the identified 

pollutants . As outlined in Section 182 of the federal Clean Aii 

Act, for moderate areas, the emission offset ratio must be at 

least 1. 15 : l. 
« 

(1) Ozone Maintenance Plan; Salt Lake and Davis Counties. 

·In th~ event that.the contingency measures described in Section 

IX, Part D.2.h. (3) and of. the State Implementation Plan are 

triggered, the offset requirement in R307-l-3.3.3.C(2) shall 

apply to emissions of both volatile organic compounds and oxides 

of nitrogen. 

(2) The emission offset .ratio must be at least 1.2:1, and 

offset must be obtained for the same pollutant for which the 

source or modification has been deemed "major". For the purposes 

of R307-l-3.3.3.C(2), the term "major" shall mean: any stationary 

source or group ot sources located within a contiguous area and 

under common control that emits, or has the potential to emit, at 

least 50 tons per year of either volatile organic compounds or 

oxides of nitrogen; or a modification to ~ .. existing · source if 

· the net emitssions increase in either volatile organic compounds 

or oxides of ni~rogen is at least 25 tons per year. 

3.3.4 Construction in Stages. When a source is constructed or modified in stages which individually 

do not have the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year, the allowable emissio°' from all such stages 

shall .be added together in determining the applicability of subsecti.on 3.3 of these regulations. 

3.3.5 Baselin~ for Determining Credit for Emis_sion and Air Qua.lity Of(sets. The baseline to be used 

for determination . of credit for emission and air quality offsets will be the emission limitations and/or 

other requirementS: in.R307-2, the State Implementation Plan (SII>);"'revised ·in accordance with the Clean ·· 

Air Act or subsequent revisions thereto in effect at the time the application to construct or modify a , ,, 

source is filed. · 

3.3.6 B.anking of Emission Offset Credit~ Banking qf emi~ion offset credit will be permitteci"to th~ 

ftJll~t extent;al_lo\_Ved by applicable Federal Law a$. identltiecfiμ;_EPA's document "Emissions Trading . . . ~. 

Pola.er, Statemen~t published in the Federal Register on Dece1rtber 4; 1986, and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(c) •. < :.: · ~, ·< ,i 

as amend~ 9n June 28, 1989, and 40 CFR 51.165. Appendix S. To preserve banked emission '.··· : · :· 

reduction~~ e _Executive Secretary: must id ntify ~em in either th'; Utah SIP or~ order: iSsued purs"liant .' ~·- •. · "'· 

to Subse~u9n ~- 1-.. 9f these rules. and hal . pr~vide ·a registry to i dentify: the· persdrt. private ~:entity :or < .. fi: ; "·_·. ,, governmen~al· authority that has the right to use or allocate the banked emission reductioni; and· to record n • ' '. · 

any transfers of, or lien~ on these rights. 

3.4 Em1ssion lest1ng · ~ 

3.4.1 Emission testing will be required of all sour~es .: with establis~~d 

emission .limitations at least once every five ye~rs •. For .source$, located . in 

nonatta i nmelit .areas, emission test; ng wi 11 .be requ1 red at. 1 eas-,: once every f 1 ve 

years or more fr·equently as specif,ied in Section 9, Appe~d1x A, o.f-the Utah St~te Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the Air Conservation Comm1t~ee, or by ~he Executive Secretary if he has reason to believe that the.source 1s ~ot meet~ng 

its emission limitation. Sources approved in accordance ~ith ~bs~ct10.n ~.l ~ill be tested within six months of start-up. Sources for which em1s~1on l1~1~at1~ns 

are · established pursuant ·to paragraph 3.2.l which do not require mod~f1cat1on 

will be tested within one year of the effective date of. these regulat1on~. In 

addition, if the Executive Secretary has rea~on to -bel 1eve th~t. an appl ~ca~le emission limitation is being exceeded (1.e., . through v1s1ble em1ss1on 

observations and monitoring data, etc.) he may require th~ owner or operat~r to 

perform such emission testing as ; .s necessary to determine actua 1 comp 1 iance 
' , . 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 

Ref SP-AR 

Mr. Rick Sprott, Acting Director 

State of Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Division of Air Quality 

150North 1950 West 

P.O. Box 144820 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820 

Dear Mr. Sprott: 

999 18TM STREET - SUITE 500 

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 

http://www.epa.gov/region08 

AUG 11 aDJ 

\ 'I 

I am writing this letter to request additional information concerning the State's revisions 

to Utah's Air Quality Modeling rule, R307-l-3.7, and Utah's Modeling of Criteria Pollutant 

Impacts in Attainment Areas rule, R307-l-3.7.2 submitted by the Governor ori November 20, 

1996. These rules propose emission threshold limits for determining when to require modeling 

for new or modified ·sources in attaii1ffient areas. My staff has discussed this.submittal with Mr. 

Tom-,Orth of your staff Mr . ~ Orth forwarded.-1,!s a copy of.a memorandum :which contained· an -·, .. : · i ~ 1· • :;,· . . .i l 

analysis of the emission threshold limits that could potentially cause·an·exceedance ofthe:Nationaf r· 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, a memorandum dated May 1, 1995 with 

the subject, "Dispersion Modeling Demonstration of a Minor Source's Potential to Exceed the 

NAAQS", recommends facility emission' threshold limits for when the Utah Department of Air 

Quality should require an air quality impact review from a new or modifying source. In addition, 

the demonstration states, "results of this analyiis _fodicate that minor sources with facility 

emissions (in [tons per year] TPY) greater than those listed . . . do possess the potential to 

exceed the NAAQS." However, as shown in Table 1, the threshold values submitted in the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision are higher than the values listed in Mr. Orth's memorandum. 

Furthermore, the demonstration does not appear to be a worst case evaluation, does not consider ·· 

background concentrations, and does not consider cumulative effects. 

0 Printed on Recycled Paper 

.. 
Table I 

c ompansono fThr es h o Id L" um 't s 

Pollutant November 20, 1996 SIP May 1, 1995 Demonstration 

submittal (TPY) 

(TPY) 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NOJ 40 30 

Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ 40 20 

Lead (Pb) 0.6 Not analyzed 

A basic requirement of a new source review permitting program is that the State must be 

able to prohibit a source from construction or modification, if that source would interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. (See 40 CFR 51.160(b}(2)). In addition, the SIP 

must include procedures for making this determination. With this SIP revision, we are not sure 

that the State's new source review program will meet this basic Federal requirement. 

Consequently, I am requesting an analysis to support the emission threshold limits adopted by the 

State, and to verify that the State's new source review program will en5ure that a new or modified 

source will not be allowed to constru~t, ,if it would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. In addition to the foregoing, please address the following issues in your analysis: : 

1. Can the State conduct modeling whenever appropriate and on a case-by-case basis, even if 

the source operates below the emission threshold liiiμts? ( e:g., when emissions from a 

new source fall below the TPY thresholds, but there has been enough growth in emissions 

. ''" . . .. in an area to warrant a piodeling ~~~ ps~ration to ens,ure the source will not interfere with 

"i ·;·,,:,,.~;. 1 ·· -1-·~ ... >'."":·T _..,. ;.!l~ai~~~~ Of 'l!~t~~~~~~ ~M?S. . ~, l~• • ,, . : ;,: . . i.- :·.:; ~"': ·~_ .... 'i:: ,:·. :., .. J : •• • •• ,_, • 

2. What portion of the State regulations indicates that the State will prevent construction or 

modification if the analysis shows the source emissions will interfere with attainment or 

maintenance? 

... · .. t. 

3. The public hearing notice states "the present modeling requirement does not include 

smaller sources." What is the basis for this statement? Was modeling conducted at minor 

sources before this submittal? 

4. . Explain the State's procedures for modeling new and modified sources in non-attainment 

areas, both for new major sources and new minor sources. · 

In addition, we are concerned about the last clause in section 3. 7 .2 that reads, "unless 

previously performed air quality modeling for the source indicates that the addition of the 

proposed emissions increase would not violate a National Ambient Air Quality Standard or a 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration increment, as detennined by the Executive Secretary." 

First, this clause appears to give the Executive Secretary exclusive authority to determine whether 

source construction or modification would lead to a violation of the NAAQS . As you know, we 

have been discussing the use of these types of "director's discretion" clauses in the Utah PMIO 

.. j 

' . ' 
, . 

I .\ 

SIP and the problems they pose for potential EPA and citizen enforcement of SIP requirements. 

We do not believe it is appropriate for us to approve this kind of clause. Se~ond, we are not 

convinced that "previously performed air quality modeling" should be used to make the showing 

of non-interference. Such modeling could be outdated and not consider the current mix of 

emissons in the area. 

Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, please call me at (303) 312-6005, or 

have your staff contact Kerri Gurmendi at (3 03) 312-6493. 

.- . i' 

. 1 .. - ,. ~ ·,, ... - ... J. I; .,, 

.. -