To: RSPROTT@deq.state.ut.us

, Larry Svoboda/P2/RS/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeff Houk./P2/RS/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark. Komp/P2/RS/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Golden/P2/RS/USEPA/US@EPA, Jonah Staller/RC/RS/USEPA/US@EPA, Sara Laumann/P2/RS/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Owens/P2/RS/USEPA/US@EPA

cc:

Subject: Utah PMl 0 SIP issues list· draft

We've prepared a draft list of issues with the PM 1 0 SIP that we wanted to share with you for your input. You have seen or heard most of this on different occassions, but this is the most comprehensive list so far. Since the MPO's had requested a list of issues, we thought we should all agree on this more detailed list and then create a more general list for them. Rick, could you route this to the appropriate people in your office and then we could discuss this on the 9 am call tomorrow?

Thanks, Cindy 

# m

SIPissuesll.99.

### Utah PM lO 

### SIP 

### Issues DRAFT

General Issues with PM 10 

### SIP 1. Protection of the NAAQS .':' In 1996, Utah County recorded a maximum value of 147 microgr<,tms per 

## .s;t.iJ1'c meter, and Salt Lake County a 148. This occurred when stationary

### sources$/~:" h

.. A;:'ii;:egate were operating at about half of their allowable emissions. Tbis alon .'. that the SIP is

not sufficiently protective of the PM lO NAAQS

### anck~.lthe ai'

... i:l:.nger of .:,::::

# :::::,:i::::~:o:nd reclassification as seriout s

# .~ 2.

• This clause was approved into the origin" '.' ":"':!pearing in a numb&Ftif':p'laces in the SIP narrative, including the**regulatory':~:e::::' :,.:::~:::\"**  .nd the specific narrative for
Salt Lake County. 

## vi**U~j** 

## .. :,dil11W':"'< ''''w m",> This provision allows the director the aBility to ". s at any source

.... through AO's without EPA's apprQ:¥ ." The Region and the State disa

. believes that the AO's do n er ., .. :' requirements contained

### iIMl~~"'SIP ns'ft' 

# :tgeCi as a SIP revision. The current situation**c.r~es** an**i~Fity** be**:;::.~,..** ... '**~gulation** of stationary sources and mobile**sources,jnH~~t mobH'?~ource** **~!Wssions** are capped in the attainment demonstration anckP'6t**incr~e** withov,t;lrn EPA-approved SIP revision

. .' i:!!:t 

## f :"**i~;~\\~\l~ ~d;;!;V**  3. Var.1iW.ce**ProvisioqM~ith~~~te** Stat ."::+ i ."**~~~'.'** 

## 6 SIP and State's Regs. R307-1-2.3):**·A~;MmmL** ection 

### 2,i:····**""::::~:** e Auth ..-'
'.' "::'!*>:<.

### f~i;· ring

### i~'~t~llation or construction of air pollution control

# $)~:t¥i~~:~:~**~~'::~~~~;~t~~':~res** must be spread over a long**~7::::;¥):::'** The Reg" ":,:,:,:,,,;,

... :::.Jproblem with these allowances and this issue needs to be

## J::i~II}¥P" resolved

## l:ili~Rt of-a 1I00ntttainment designation under 

### tOO-new-PM-NAA.QS.


### 1i;!!iil1iill: Pollutant

# Traqmft~to:;f::)t:~:) -­ :!!i!::::!:}::I!:!::!h:.·**TOl1S;~r'PMIO'** S02, and NOx are treated equally in the SIP and are traded in such

# ~~~;'ed this to be put into the SIP, hut we didn't really know what the '::"':,:?itPt:,::w:" impacts were. We now know that the potential for unequal air quality impacts is likely and the" 1: 1: 1" impact assumption is no longer valid. This issue should be resolved 

### if the State has**te-"cl-e-a&IP"font'fe'fiew~2** 5 .standards. "it.-h·c 

### rnv 5\-f'

.

5. Hourly and 24 hour limits in the PM LO SIP• The Region and the State have a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of the SIP in this case.


### • The State feels that lbs./hr. and ppm limits in the SIP can be gotten rid of (Phillips case). The Region feels that the lbs./hr. and ppm limits are binding limits and the State is unable to do away with them without a formal SIP revision.

6. 

### Rule

# fO~~:~~~;~':**~:~:;~o;;~rt** that they bave haILa

# break~ unaccountable for exceedances that may

### ocgdi~~ a rdw:·m:M·eakdown.....

7. 

### Annual

# ~~~~a:r:e~:o::r~::b~~**~:ru~:~~~::~f:;"'~** EP A believes this renders the SIP unenfl

. ..:.**~im** regards to these:''elMients.

8. Exemptions to sources for fixing equipment

## .::~il~i;Wtt . • If**s~urces** fix their equipment within a**d~ftain** tl' ". Lan exceedance, they
will get an exemption for this exceed..

. Jk.

.

### ":\;~i;1i::~@i;ii;iiiiit;:::: This may cause a problem**with.:9t::::::~':~~** \ )lity requ4t_ents for SIPs.**":~~:~:::~~:::"** ..**.:.:-:.:.:.~** 9. 24 Hour Attainment

# Demonstratigt£::~~F'" A1W'''

. '. '::b,:::::::::::t®t 1 

### /:?

",S;,**.::::~:'.** Because the emissions**invent01'¥~'fbased g,~'mont**  ',: 'dnal, and in some cases, annual emissions estimates, EP A**d~$'1R>t belie.gf:~the**  SIP s a true 24-hour attainment**<::::~:::*****.~' ,:~~~:;-"** **i::::~~'** demonstration. The SIP n.s'to be 

## btifl from a .b.*.se case that uses actual 24-hour**.-:::::::::~::.::::.". ::~:;::::::::.**  ,::=:::::::" emissions estimates and**qm~Y** emissi

......**mits·.::~1it\iiV·**

# ~::~~:::f,:t.TIi ssi 0

# fl,t:i:::il!II:::!ili·:!~:::;I·jli!!:::. .

# il;:;lmlii;WWW'::·····""~;l,· 10.**S~¥¢.t~l:l.m~wces** h"" ".

. ,:' .Jarge qtiiintities of unused allowable emissions. These**el';{i:§ii&.i~::I~t** be**f~2F:::..** :.:\:::

.... 

## a. revised attainment demonstration, and rules for their use

### With~t.e standards must be developed.

11. 

## RevJ§iol1 of'sh··

.. ·· 

## ·It:s. and tracking of their impact on the SIP

### ,:,~~r time, the

.... '., vised limits for many stationary sources without revising the

## .ll~~;W~ttainment demo ::.:.,,' '.

. . This creates uncertainty as to whether the SIP still



## iJ1Wr demonstrates**att.~hment** and places sources in a situation where they face different .A:[:l:@::: enforceable

### limtt~:at the State and Federal level. This situation needs to be resolved by 

### iii::;::;;;;;:!;;", eliminating th.$.i1S'tate-Federal enforcement disconnect, and by creating a mechanism to

### :::~::;::;;;;;::;:@},:,:~!,~::\t~ack the impact of stationary source permit changes on the attainment

"**:.:;::::!:::~~~::::::~~=:::::~::::** .. :;;/:::;::-"" 12. Need for modeling The original SIP was based on CMB rollforward because no model that could handle secondaries and the basins' meteorology was available. Now that a new, more accurate

2model is available 

### (DAM), it should be used for the new SIP. This model will provide a much more accurate representation on the impacts of gaseous precursors and their controls on secondary particulate concentrations, and help resolve the" 1:1:1" trading issues. Another reason to use the model is that the old methodology is based on CMB filter analysis that doesn't reflect the current source and control mix and a calculation spreadsheet that is "buggy" and unreliable. Also, the filters from the 1996 episodes will have lost much of their secondary particulate mass by this time**t~ough** de.9';:·and probably no longer adequately represent those episodes.il1};,,:.::,t:liJP:·

Consideration of temporary and seasonal

# emiSSion~::~~teesi:!!;!i:!ii!!i:::ililii:i~iili:!:: .. ::, The SIP includes several temporary emissions

### so.~:···such as.:Wf:. ,':h. "

### generato.r*~~(: that have high allowable emissions but which in t!iCtice maYtpAly 0 ...:.:.:.:.:.:

...... :·:··

.. :

..

### :,::~g)$~iK: year. Seasonal sources come in and out of non.Q!Uenh,ea and**areri~~~~'IIt,;\lI:"the** SIP although they may contribute significantly t \,**:~Mfssions** at times. 

## E11\liWa the State need to resolve how to include and or**mod~k.** . 'urces in the SIP. 13.

# ~echni::~~:::::u:::es**~.** The SIP

### in~ludes specific

### ernissions.\i:f~ts for1ffu ':':'::::"

### ":'':::~t have since shut down, and**A::::~:~ .~~:::;'** **~&::.:::::::~::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::;:** •• it does not reflect the**emission~i,~f·inany q~'"** **sourctt~1ljieeds** to be brought up to date, and factor in new**stationary..:~.dfce** growiJ\" and oth.a{changes.

Non-road emissions :/:II:.ill.: 

# I ;::'···::**Ail:i:i!i~f::r** ..

# :.:~dii:::!;lV 2.

### Sinc~:Jhis SIP was

### .gf¥xli"~d, EP p#.r::··::::<::<:::·

### ·.:·~:::f:~ have learned a lot more about non-road

# ~~~~ns**:~~ :~;~r~:~i:~;~~;~~flb~~~:r:~~~~~s~er** 

3.**S~¥crnr yeai~::'**  '. ":::,.:.::,:presefited information to the State and Counties indicating that



## . ,the' diesel 

### 11M**p'f.f.S.:I'~s** probably not producing anywhere near the level of emission .:::::::::p'reductions

### assurrt~~i!I\~li'e SIP. The SIP takes 20% credit for the diesel IIM programs, but 

### ,/:;:::::? the actual reductWh i';"probably in the 1-2% range. There is also the potential for a NO x

;::::i,'!:::::::;!::, increase from**!:bl~** program. This needs to be updated to reflect current knowledge about

## ~sprogram

4. Fugitive Dust The SIP needs to be updated with more recent emission factor data. Also, the Utah County SIP assumes no growth in fugitive dust emissions, which is not realistic.

35. 

### Other mobile source issues The whole mobile source element of the SIP 

### is badly out of date, and needs to be revised
to reflect the latest information about national vehicle emissions controls, diesel and gasoline sulfur controls, lIM and OBD, and local transportation control measures. Also, the growing use of light duty trucks should be reflected in the modeling, and some mechanism should be put in place to ensure consistent modeling of vehicle registration and VMT mix data in the SIP 

### and in conformity determinations.**..;ili~:~i:'**


### VMT .,It

# .,:j:;!!111111;::t~d1:::::ii::::l~\:f::·· 6. 

### The VMT and speed estimates need to be**updatedit~IJ:the ofr~:·**  

### . surrounding the single-occupant-vehicle trip

### redu¢ijlr~easures¥·i.**.;:;~~:::.:;:.** .. 

### . ,.t.: 

### '.::.'j;:J:,**,.,:*:~::~:;'** .' 

### conformity determinations should be resolved, adlihese**m~.~~~if'es** 

### s

..... :.

.**w.ect~~t:iri** 

### the SIP 

### as well. Any land use or

### transportationitl~t.~d**c~~·es** emergi"::

### .l~lljj;;;f': Envision Utah process should be factored in. Idlil';,i,!dTand use, transpdiUiUsffand air

# ::::~:~::**:~::s:::o** 

# counties should
all

# be~ 7. 

### The SIP 

### needs to better reflect emissions frQW,PlThtp':structiomtMtilt.$.i' including both fugitive dust emissions from disturbed

, .• /**.,::@~ii'i"::':~m'·::i:i}:::::~:.:** 

### ..... sions**f;6'j(Spri~truction** 

### equipment. The conformity rule requires that cq

.. 

### <":: c "':'\

.. §**bec~:gidered** 

### in conformity determinations if they are

### specific:~''quanti.:<<<, ,

### ":!~~~Utah air and transportation agencies should consider whethmt,lfhey w'mtYo inc q:::,:::JBJttdget for construction emissions and regulate this activity thrgjg:tfconfouiiiy.,£W·

8. 

### Area sources

# A::lj!.I~lli:·::;:':'·/ dl::ilillr 

## V .At:;):;!;:;!)::::?·


### The .iMea source invdtQdis need t .:: ····::JKtiflo reflect recent population and 

# a::t

i' 

# _""'fning 

# trends.

9. 

### The**sI@:··:·········,·····,·············I~::fonsidgt;tIJ.l~1W::it** 

### wants to establish a separate growth allowance (i.e.,

a "bu.dg

.. ::

...**,~::,..** '::<'. 

## 'p.e**for··'M~'f~:::activities** 

### subject to the general conformity rule, such as

10

# L::~Jf~de:

.iJ:::!::if The Utah**transp.~ftatlon** 

### agencies have expressed an interest in establishing some /:ji::i:::ii::,:i:: mechanism**fo~** 

### ..**,4.~:aling** 

### with future changes in transportation and mobile source emissions**::::i:::::~::::jI:::::\** 

### models, in**Q.t4.~t'** 

### to avoid future conformity problems caused by changes in the required

# ~.

Utah County 

### PM 10 

### SIP Revision:



### ] . Overall emissions cap for Geneva

4

### This is probably not acceptable to EPA.

2. Role of AO's in the SIP The specific source requirements that were taken out of the SIP in this revision and referenced in AO's are not enforceable. 

# t

5