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 10 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 PMlO SIP Issues 

DRAFT 

General Issues with PM10 SIP 

1.	 Protection ofthe 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 oftheir allowable emissions. Tbis alon .'. that the SIP is 

not sufficiently protective of the PMlO 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:!!:tf:" 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 

~~~;'edthis 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 ifthe 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 PMLO 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:;"'~ EPA 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, EPA 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·

10. ~::~~:::f,:t.TIissi0 fl,t:i:::il!II:::!ili·:!~:::;I·jli!!:::. . il;:;lmlii;WWW'::·····""~;l,· 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.estandards must be developed. 

11.	 RevJ§iol1 of'sh··..·· ·It:s. and tracking oftheir 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~ackthe impact ofstationary 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 

2
 
model is available (DAM), it should be used for the new SIP. This model will provide a
 

much more accurate representation on the impacts ofgaseous 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 oftheir secondary particulate mass by this time t~ough de.9';:·and
 

probably no longer adequately represent those episodes.il1};,,:.::,t:liJP:·
 

Consideration oftemporary 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

2. ;::'···:: Ail:i:i!i~f::r ..:.:~dii:::!;lV Sinc~:Jhis SIP was .gf¥xli"~d, EPp#.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 NOx 

;::::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. 

3 
5.	 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:'

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

7. 

::::~:~:: :~::s:::o counties should all be~

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:;):;!;:;!)::::?· a::t The .iMea source invdtQdis need t .:: ····::JKtiflo reflect recent population and

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 

.iJ:::!::if 

L::~Jf~de: 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 PM10 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 ofthe SIP in this revision and 

referenced in AO's are not enforceable. 

t
 

5