### Utah CommitmentListAction Items

- Revised 12-23-04 Issue What Who When Comments AgreelDisagree 1. Director's Discretion

- SendFt. Hall FIP references

- Send 4 states implementing 40 CFR70.6a

- Send CO emails

- Resend list with Director's discretion ref.

- Detailed list with Director's discretion - Jonah Staller

- Cheryl Heying

- Jonah Staller

- Jonah Staller·

- Jonah Staller/Libby Faulk 10/23/03

10/23/03
10/23/03 10/28103

BegilU1ing of January 

### Update as of 1­ 23-04

­ EPA is still working to identifyallDD. During the 11-25-03 call, Utah stated that they would like to use 40 CFR 70.6 and White PaperNo.2. 

### Nextsteps

­ UDAQ wouldneedto start draftingSIP language to remove theDDprovisions from theSIP. Agree

- UDAQ can use 40 CFR 70.6 and White Paper No.2 to develop SIP language that allows equivalent or more stringent SIP changes through the Title V permitting process. Disagree Existing director's discretion provisions must be removed from the SIP.

2. Variance Procedures

- Work with AG to develop state rule only

- Rick Sprott will work with Utah AG's office. Rick thinks the State could remove the vanance provisions from the federally - Rick Sprott Update as of 11-25-03

­ UDAQ needs to go back to the AGs office and see about keeping this as a State only rule. 11-25-03

- UDAQ does not feel that the variance provisions have compromised the SIP.

- UDAQ mentioned that some oftheir other environmental programs allow variances, such as RCRA.

- EPA questions the utilityoffurther PreviouslyAgreedVariances need to be removed from the SIP, and the SIP revision to remove the variance provisions would need to go through the Board and be submitted by the Governor. IfUtah retams variance

1approved SIP, but discussions regarding I provisions in State retain them in this issue. EPA and law, UDAQ needs to State law only. ' UDAQ havehad keep in mind that -UDAQ Beforenext manyprevIOus EPA has to consider

- UDAQ plans to conf. call in discussions on this implementation of have an internal January. Issue. the SIP. Ifvariances discussion

- EPA asked UDAQ are being used, then regardingthis 

### As of 1-23-04

­ what objection it has it may raise issue and will 

### EPA hasnot to removing the questions about the report back to 

### heard from . . . vananceprOVISIons implementation of Dick Long 

### UDAQ from the federally the SIP. whetherUDAQ 

### regarding this enforceable SIP and Disagree as of wants further 

### issue. retaining them as 11/25/03 Call

­ discussions state-only provisions. UDAQ now does not involving feel that it is UDAQ's necessary to remove attorneys and the language. EPA's attorney. UDAQ believes Utah's new variance rule (not in the SIP) provides appropriate protection by stating that "Variance from these regulations maybe granted by the Committee

... unless prohibited by the CAA". EPA feels that this language will not protect the integrity

2ofthe SIP. We may have differing interpretations about what is prohibited by the CAA and EPA doesn't want enforceability ofthe SIP to be subject to this kind of uncertainty. 3. UAM Modeling

- State working on Final Modeling

- UDAQ will respond back to EPA regarding our comments on theDRAFI modelingprotocol and IPP. Ifin UDAQ's comments they express concern regarding our comments, EPA and UDAQ then need to schedule a meeting within the following week to - State developing EPA will reVIew

- UDAQ Staff Letterwill not be sent out before Christmas. 

### Update as of 1­ 23-04-EPA receiveda call on 11-18-03 from UDAQ staff regarding ourcomments on theDRAFT modeling protocol and IPP. - UDAQ Modelers informed EPA in a call on October 7, 2003 that UDAQ had figured out a wayto address our concerns regardingusing the 1996 episode by looking comprehensively at the NA area emissions. EPA informed the UDAQ Modelers during this samecall that EPA will need to see the draft TSD before we can decide whether the State would still need to considerthe 1996 episode ornot. Agree

- During our conference call with UDAQ and Dianne Nielson (dated 10­ 16-03) EPA and UDAQagreed that if there's concern with Utah not using the 1996 episode after EPA reviews the draftISO, the EPA and UDAQ agree to have a meeting, as opposed to sending comments, to openly discuss the issues andhow EPA came to the conclusion that the 1996 episode shouldbe included in the modeling.
'--------­

3discuss the concerns.

- UDAQ will provide EPA with a submittal date for the TSD once EPA and UDAQ have completed discussions on the DRAFT modeling protocol and IPP. - UDAQ Staff Update as of 1­ 23-04-EPA hasflot been provideda date. Disagree

- Whether ornot the 1996 episode should be included inthe model. EPA will wait to look at the draft TSD when it's submitted.

4. Stationary Source Modeling - State to include in demonstration - State developing EPAwill reView Agree

- Thresholds and the use of allowables as an enforceable partof the SIP. S.a. Enforceable Emission Limits - State to include in demonstration - State developing EPA will reVieW Agree

- Emission limits for sources in the SIP, including enforceable 24-hour emission limits. 

### S.b. Refinery SRUand Flaring - BackBurner

- EPA plans to discuss this issue within the Region and report back to UDAQ. - EPA Mgmt. and Staff 11-25-03 No action came from the 11-25­ 03 call. - UDAQ does not feel that there is a specific basis for requiring limits or regulations on flaring.

- UDAQ expressed concern regarding technology for monitoring flaring. Disagree

- need for emission limits for flares. Disagree

- UDAQ is concerned about setting precedent for monitoring flaring. EPA does not feel that UDAQ would be

4

# ,

- EPAhas already setting a precedent disapproved a since there's already 

# I Montana SIPbecause been monitoring for it didn't include flaring approved in limits on flares and it the Bay area. wouldbe inconsistent Disagree

- UDAQ ifwe didn't require feels that the MT Utah to include limits situation is different on flares. than Utah's and since

- UDAQ is focusing Utah is monitoring on limits as well as attainment there's no monitoring. clearpurpose as to

- UDAQ feels that whythey should look the consent decrees at flares. EPA feels that are in place will that UDAQ needs to be impacted ifthe account for all sources should have sources ofemissions, to address flares. including flares. -c:. 

### Asof 11-25-03

­

-

# TheUtah~ identifies flar t 

### EPA and UDAQ are the flares are 

### still in disagreement excluded frc the**~this** 

### issue. emissions limits. /\



### - EPA is

- State to include 6. Emission Inventory

/// in demonstration 

### currently**~/** 

### reviewinga DRAFTTSD

, 

### rec'don January 12, 

# I 2004.

5

### 7. NSRlBanking/Trading

- Look at May 10lh letter again to -EPNUDAQ 11/25/03

- EPA stated that typically states switch Disagree

- UDAQ feels these issues determine what over to a PSD would bemoot issues remain if program when the should Utah state goes PSD area becomes an implement a PSD

- Establish Focus -EPNUDAQ

- After EPA's attainment area. program. EPA does Group to discuss research not feel that all the

- EPAwill -EPA

- Completed- issues would be research whether Regional EPA provided resolved bygoing to these issues would Counsel this info. in an a PSD program but be resolved should email to UDAQ will look into it and Utah go to a PSD on 12-15-03 get back with program.
- See above UDAQ.

- EPA will check

- EPA comment to see what policy orguidance refers to switching from anonattainment NSRto aPSD program.
- Update: EPA

- EPA will meet -EPNUDAQ metinternally 1-23-04 -EPA has internally the Dec. 16. EPA notheardback from week ofDec. 8 emailed UDAQ UDAQ regarding and then we'll to schedulea establishing a call. tentatively meet meeting forDec. with UDAQ the 23 orthe week week ofDec. 15 of Jan. 5. to discuss.

-_._­
68. Unavoidable

- Update progress - Cheryl 111/25/03

- UDAQ Breakdown on Excess Heying, Fred stakeholders have Emissionrule Nelson 

# I expressed concern development about the fact that the policy is not rule and

- UDAQ will

- UDAQ Staff 

### 1-23-04 -UDAQ questions what the provide comments 

### is stillworkillg authority is in going back to EPAon Oil 

### a responseto beyond federal rule. EPA's comments 

### EPA. onUDAQ'srule language.

- UDAQ will -UDAQ 

### Update: Pera work withtheir 

### 12-16-03 email AG's office, their 

### from Cheryl stakeholders and 

### Heying, UDAQ EPA to navigate 

### isplanningon the issues. 

### starting discussions with theStakeholders alld UDAQ is researching this issue as to what has beell discussedat otherRegions andare following what

Texas recently adopted.

7)

### - UDAQis meeting with the AGsofe. Oil 

### Dec. 3 andwill report back to EPA. -UDAQ 1-23-04

- EPA has not heard from UDAQ 

# I I 

# I

9. Inclusion ofAnnual Growth Rates 

### - EPA will provide case law on this subject.

- State to include in demonstration 

### -EPA

- State developing EPA will 

### Completed

Agree

- annual growthrates will be included. reVIew 10. Wood Burning Credits

- State to include in demonstration - State developing EPAwill Agree

- UDAQ will provide a technical demonstration to 

### II. Back HalfEmissions

- Review language in 1991 SIP revIew

- EPAIUDAQ Completed

- UDAQ expressed concern that there is justifythe credit. Disagree

- UDAQ feels that no other

- EPA will check to see ifDenver measured for - EPA Completed no way to characterizebackhalf by size.

- EPA feels that until state withinRegion 8 has been required to measure backhalf. EPA feels that the Backhalf.

- EPA needs to

- EPA Dick offered UDAQ inventories backhalf, we can't determine the level of measuring of backhalfis not a one size fits all discuss this issue withinthe Region and report backto UDAQ. UDAQthe options ofnot including backhalfin the significance ofthese emISSIOns.

- UDAQ agreed to measure backhalffor requirement

maintenance inventorypurposes in

8plan but that UDAQwould need to begin measunng backhalfinthe the 1991 SIP as well as in the Utah County SIP revision that was recently approvedby EPA. future.

i - UDAQ has had some internal discussion regarding Dick's offer about not -UDAQ

- UDAQ would getback with us after theyhave more internal discussions. i

, including backhalf in the maintenance plan but beginning to measure backhalf 1-23-04 Update: EPA has not heard back from UDAQ in the future. UDAQ would like more time to discuss this issue internally. 12. General Language Cleanup - State to include in final plan - State developing EPA will reVIeW 

### 3 

# 1

L Diesel lIM

- Develop language justifying 2% - State mobile source section, EPA will review 11/25/03 Agree- UDAQ will provide a technical demonstrationto

9

### - UDAQ mobile

- UPDA TE: EPA justify the credit. 

### source folks will will 

### review and begettingto this provide SOOIl. 

### UPDA TE: commellts. UDAQ submitted to EPA 01112-16­ 03. 14. Emission Budgets for PM and NOx - State to include in demonstration

- State to include separate budgets for PMto and NOx in the Salt Lake County SIP. - State developing EPAwill review Agree Separate budgets are needed for PM IO and NOx.

15. IJM Program Changes

- State to include in demonstration - State developing EPA will review Agree- UDAQ and EPA are in agreement that the switch to biennial testing will be modeled and that changed requirements will be submitted as a SIP revision. 16. Magna dust I Set up a new call I d"

to ISCUSS Bev orDeb As schedules allow


### Asof 1-23-04 UDAQhas not contactedEPA on tltis issue.

10