"' 

## .· UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8

Ref: 8P-AR Rick Sprott, Director Division ofAir Quality Department ofEnvironmental 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 ofthis 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 detai l the Fed..:.ral NSR ie quirements, 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 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 Paperpart ofthe 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 PM 10 maintenance plans for Salt Lake and Utah Counties
. These plans should be submitted within a year ofBPA's initial approval ofthe Utah County maintenance plan
. We believe it is ofthe utmost importance that our concerns regarding your NSR program be resolved for purposes ofthe PM 10 maintenance plan. Until these problems are resolved, there will continue to be problems with your permitting program that affect the PM 10 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. Ifyou 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 ofFederal 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 ofthe 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 achiev able 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 th e total tonn age
1of 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 adequ ately 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 PM 1 0 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 ofthe new/modified source, and ifthe pollutants disperse from substantially the same effective stack height
. Ifthis 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 ofthe permit applicant. EPA ' s NSR provisions in section 173(c) ofthe 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
. EPA's "Improving Air Quality Through Economic Incentive Programs" (EPA

452/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 . F or PM 10 nonattainment areas where emissions ofPM 10 precursors contribute to PM 10 · N AAQS violations , section 189( e) ofthe Act requires that the nonattainment NSR requirements applicable to a proposed new major source or major modification of a major source ofPM 10 shall also apply to a new major source or major modification of a maj o r source ofPM 10 precursors. The trig gering threshold for a major source of a PM 10 precursor is 100 tons per year for a moderate PM 10 nonattainment area, and the significance levels for defining a major modification are th e sig nificance thresholds listed in 40 CFR 5 l
. 165(a)(l)(x) for each PM 1 0 precursor pollutant.

2 , 

# .Review ofUtah's Rules Regarding these Requirements: Note

- We used the version ofUtah's regulations most recently approved into the SIP for this review. We have tried to cite both the SIP-approved rule and the citation ofthe rule in the current codification ofUtah'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 ifthe 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 ifit 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 ofthe NAAQS. While the State may believe its PM 10 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 PM 10 emissions, as well as precursor emissions from the project (S0 2 and NOx) , do not cause or contribute to violations of the PM 10 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
3recently 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 ofthe 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 ofUtah ' 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 ofthe 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 . Sectio n 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofmajor 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 ofthe 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 ofthe NAAQS do not meet the requirements ofthe Act including LAER and offsets
. Furthermore, ·it is not acceptable to determine whether the nonattainment NSR requirements would apply to a source as ofthe source's projected startup date. This provision implies that whatever the area's attainment status ·1 mightbe 1 

### as of

### that date dictates what requirements apply. However; underEPApolicy , ·

. • '": -;. 1 • ••.**·~;** 

### applicability · 

### Gf permitting requirements is generally determined 

## bJ fhe date 6fthe' SOUtc e 1

### i ' ·;:.' ··r-n;e: ' · : . ·.**~** 

### , complete permit application. Thus , if

### the area is nonattainment at the t ime ofthe 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 provi sions 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 PM 10 

### precursor is defined. We recommend that , for clarity, the definition s include the applicable " major" thresholds for PM 10 

### precursors (100 tons per year for major
5 

# ...source, 40 tons per year significance level of S0 2 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 ofthe current codification ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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) ofthe 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.PM 10 nonattainment areas in R307-l-3
. 3
. 3
.B ,'**(R307-403-~** of the current codification ofthe Utah regulations)
. The PM 10 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 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 me an that offset requirements apply for major NSR in all nonattainment and attainment/maintenance areas . The Utah rules should make this clear
.
6

## . - ' Utah's PM 10 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 PM 10 , S0 2 , 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 PM 10 offset requirements. Specifically, a new major source or major modification of a PM 10 precursor such as NOx or S0 2 could meet the offset requirements by obtaining emission reductions in PM 10 . However, the converse could not automatically be allowed
. See 61FR38304-38305 (July 23, 1996) and EPA's May\ 1995 approval ofUtah's nonattainment area NSR rules (60 FR 22277, 22281).

',f I The State's PM 10 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 PM 10 , S0 2 , or NOx occurring at the source in conjunction with emissions increases of PM 10 , S02 , and NOx in determining whether the net increase in emissions ofPM 10 

### + S0 2 

### + NO x 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 particularpollutant
. See the definition for "Major Modification" in R307-1-1.89 (R307-101-2 ofthe current codification ofthe 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 PM 10 offset ·rule, R307-1-3.3
. 3
.R (R307-403-5 of the current

., ! " ! Godification ofthe 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 PM 10 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 ofthe lack of clarity (and the likelihood ofvarying 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 ofthe 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) ofthe 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 ofthe 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 PM 10 offsets will provide a net air quality · benefit. Appendix S has not been updated since section 189(e) ofthe Act was enacted, so Appendix S is silent on the question ofwhether modeling should be required for new major sources and major modifications of PM 10 precursors . For an offset trade between emissions of the same PM 10 precursor or to offset an increase in emissions of a PM 10 precursor with a decrease in emissions of PM 10 

### (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 PM 10 , modeling may be necessary as discussed in 40 CFR part 51, ; appendix S , and Utah ' s rules should clarify this. 

### RecommendedRule 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 ofthe nonattainment

· l:'l"SR r equirements 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment area , or new or modified major sources locating in a S0 2 or CO nonattainment area or in an ozone attainment/maintenance area. Utah ' s PM 10 nonattainment area-specific rule must clearly state that no interpollutant trading within a source is allowed to determine applicability of the offset requirement or ofNSR requirements in general 

### (i. e., no interpollutant trading to net out of review is allowed)
. The summation of pollutants (PM 10 

### + NO x 

### + S0 2 ) 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 ofPM 10 

### + NOx 

### + S0 2 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 ofPM 10 plus the net emission increase ofNOx plus the net emission increase of S0 2)
. 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 PM 10 ambient concentrations and PM 10 precursors , the State must replace the provision in R307-1-3.3
.3
.B (R307-403-5 ofthe current codification ofthe 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 PM 10 precursor to obtain its emission offsets from reductions in PM 10 . ' 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 ofthe 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 gu idance and regulations referenc ed
9in Utah ' s current rule would allow reductions in allowable emissions to be creditable 

### ifthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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
. Ifyou 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~** **_r e~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
. 1 0Summary of Recommended Changes to Utah's Rules to Meet Federal Requirements 

# IFEDERAL 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 ifit 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 requi rements**o~** section 173 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe date ofthe source's complete permit application, must meet the requirements ofthis 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)
.

11l •**i.~** ; '. 

# IFEDERAL 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

- PM 10 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment area, or new or modified major sources locating in a S0 2 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 ofthe rule are clear
. Clarify th
. at the summation ofPM 10 + NOx + S0 2 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 ofPM 10 plus the net emission increase ofNOx plus the net emission increase of S0 2)

. 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

# . - 

# IFEDERAL 

### 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 PM 10 ambient concentrations and PM 10 precursors, the State must replace the provision in R307-1-3.3
. 3.B (R307-403-5 ofthe 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 PM 10 precursor to obtain its emission offsets from reductions in PM 10 . 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 1f, nearby ·structures or nearby terrain features.
. . ·



### . 1. 73 Hardwood**~lywood** 

### means plywood -whos
. e surface 

### 1ayer 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"t 1 

### rajor 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~e ral**  : . 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 (

. . 1 t ;.,(,.-:-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 ~t** **harged,** 

### so that such installation may be expe!=ted
. to become a source - or indire· ct . source of air po

_ llution, or any pe f son 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 e quired under this subsection**3. th~**  

### Executive Secretary shall -·.; 1 • I_ i.

### ~:~**~Ue _'** **~n** 

# o -rder

. prbhi'b 1 'tl ng lt:he proposed COnS**ruc ti** **(l ;"** **i** 

### 11.s, ta
- 1'1.-at 

# t9n**~** 

### ;fJJOd f fvicat l-O n . '; :.,, 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 1at; 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 1s; 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~** 

### dictrlorodlfllU oromethane, · 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 · ..-. .**;; construe** **tian** 

### 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** **~us t,**  

# is : ,..· .... · ... ··. . :.**a~J~t** be$t available**contr~l** tecHnolog y exc ept as }qtherwa'S'e provided 1 n ' 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 ofnonattainment 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. 4 1. 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~ :-:** **co rrim** **ercial** 

### _. residential dwell inqs} -.· 0

### shall
.**inst~ll** 

### . oxides of nitrogen ·' · 

# ....

· . c ontro l / l ow oxide
.s ._ of ni\ trogen burners or ·. con t ro l s r e-s u · l :

ti 'n g from applica,tion of**·~ '.~**  

### ..**;:,;~:) _af\** **,.,....: '-Q** **ll.i ~n** **:· tec~** **no logy** **.** 

### as 1 ·**et rmi** **n~ d**  

### ...bY
.**ti~** 

### '-**Exe~ut i:** **ye ;.** **reta y.~**  

### .,,wh
. ene. v

. e r ,; "· f.:.r.;;. ;...•



### .**~.: e:ici** **ting -.** **fuel** 

### c ombustion burners are r · eplac ed , un le · ss such rep lacement · 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 cond i tion of the approval order
. • _ _ _ _ _ 

### 3.3.i
. . Revfe....;
_ of Major Sources of**Ai r.t.** **Qua*****~; fia** **-;p~ ~!** **~:' Ji** **~e r::** **Y; ~ajor**  new source or major**modificatio~** must be reviewed by
. the**Exe-cut f\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 AQ riual
. 24-Hr 8-Hr 3-Hr

. 

# .. 1-Hr**~--** .**-~· 1.**  0
. 5 

# · :fs

. "f.: 

### SULFUR DIOXIDE PM10 1.0 3

.. . . · .**:~ ;~**  r 1 • -, · 500 . . 2000 

## co .. 

### - B. If the**Eiecuti~e** Secre tar. v finds thac the emissions from a p roposed ·sbtirte. .**uld** ca us e. a ne w . 

### - -

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

. . . ;· .: .. , ': ::-- · ? ;;,_ . violation
.of the**NAAQ~ 71iii(** **wou "icf'** **~. ~o** **co ri** **bu e**  to 

# an existing**v.foJation ,<** **th¢. ~xe~ti** **ti ·**  Secretary sh a ll
. · • approve tfie proposed solirte if 

### and only if : - . . • ·. .. . . (1) the new source is**reg.uif~ .**  

# to ineet 

# amore 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 Secr etary 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 implementat ion 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

### in**i.: ~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 A

ct, 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 reg istry to i dentify :the ·per sdrt
.**priv ate** **~: entity**  : or <..

## fi: ; "·_·. ,,**governmen~al ·**  authority that has the right to use or allocate the 

### ban ked 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 ofUtah Department ofEnvironmental Quality Division ofAir 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 staffhas discussed this
.submittal with 

### Mr
. Tom-,Orth ofyour staff Mr

.**~** Orth forwarded .-1,!s a copy of.a memorandum :which contained· an -·, .. :· i**~** 1· • :;, · . . .i l analysis ofthe 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 ofthis 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 Prin ted on Recycled Paper 

# ..Table 

### I 

# compansono fThr h Id 

### L" 't es o um 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, ifthat source would interfere with attainment or maintenance ofthe 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,** ,ifit would interfere with attainment or maintenance ofthe 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~r ation**  to ens, ure the source will not interfere with

## "i**·;· ,,:,,.~;.** **1** 

## ··**-1-·~** ...

## >'."":·T**_..,. ;.!l** **~ai ~~** **~~** 

## O f**'l!~t~~~~~~ ~M?S.** **. ~,** **l~•** • ,, . : ;,: . .

## i.-**:· .:;** **~"': ·~_**  . .. . 'i:: ,: ·. :., .. J : • • • •• ,_, • 2
. What portion of the State regulations indicates that the State will prevent construction or modification ifthe 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 ofclause.**Se~ond,** 

### we are not convinced that "previously performed air quality modeling" should be used to make the showing ofnon-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; .,,

.

# . -