..
 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECnON AGENCY
 

REGION 8
 

1595 Wynkoop Street
 

DENVER. CO 80202~1129
 

Phone 800·227~17
 

http://www.epa.govlreglon08 : I',	 :: r·~.,': : r , : I .";= 

r . 

Ref: 8P-AR AUG - 4 2003 

Cheryl Heying, Director 

j , Air Quality Division
 

Department of Environmental Quality
 

ISO North 1950 West
 

Salt Lake City, U-T- 841-16 -------_...-------_.- ,-,
 

RE: Utah's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Section XX 

Dear Chezyl: 

On July 1,2008, the State of Utah posted the public comment version of their 309 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (RH SIP). We have completed our preliminary review 

ofthe State's RH SIP and are providing our comments below. We are also enclosing a copy of 

our letter to the State dated June 3, 2008. The June 3, 2008 letter outlined EPA's concerns with 

the development ofthe 309 milestones for the Backstop Trading Program that is part ofthe RH 

SIP. Since we are submitting our comments during the State's public comment period, a written 

response to EPA's comments, and all other comments received, is required to meet the 

completeness criteria outlined in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V and must be included in the formal 

Governor1s submittal ofthis SIP once they are finalized. 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

1.	 Utah's RH SIP does not contain a five factor BART analysis for NOx and PM, as 

required by 40 CFR §51.309(d)(4)(vii). States doing a 309 RH SIP must still do a BART 

analyses accotding to 40 CFR §S I.308(e); Under 40CFR §SI.308(e)(I)(ii)(A), states 

"must take into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control 

equipment in use at the source, and the remaining useful life ofthe source." The eAA 

also requires States to consider the five factors in making their BART determinations (see 

Clean Air Act §169A(g)(2». 

2.	 The State's RH SIP does not contain the elements necessary to make BART limits 

practically enforceable. Utah's SIP contains controls, emission limits and general 

schedules but does not include permit conditions specifying averaging times, recordkeeping, monitoring, and specific schedules for compliance. The CM requires that SIPs. 

including the RH SlP, contain elements sufficient to ensure emission limits are practically 

1111111 ~III~IIIIIIII
 DAQ-200a-000923
 

Document Date: 08/04/2008
 
--

enforceable. I It is not sufficient to include these elem.ents in a separate permit or 

agreement that is not made part ofthe SIP. EPA does not consider permit conditions 

adequate to meet this enforceability requirement. as permit conditions may be modified. 

We also note that the BART guidelines require a 30-day averaging period for BART 

limits (see 70 FR 39172, col. 3. July 6, 2005). We view a 30-day or shorter averaging 

period as being necessary to protect visibility in the nearby Class I areas, since visibility is 

sensitive to short term spikes in pollutants which contribute to visibility impairment. 

Long Term Strategy and Impact on Clsssl areas in State and out of State 

3. Utah's RH SIP does not adequately address Utah's impacts from NOx and PM on Class r 

areas, both in and out ofstate. 40 CFR Section 5I.309(d)(4)(vii) requires that SIPs 

contain necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for stationary source 

einissiODs ol~O~ and PM:""'UfiiIi'SNO;e1iiiSsiOns hive asigrnfieantiiIipacf6ii severiilm·- _ 

State and out-of-State Class rareas. Specific examples include Capital Reef National 

Park in Utah and Craters ofthe Moon National Monument and Preserve in Idaho, 

.. 

In order to address impacts from NOx and PM, 40 CFR Section 51.309(a) requires that 

each 309 State follow 51.308 requirements, both for BART and reasonable progress. in 

evaluating Class I areas outside of the Colorado Plateau affected by the State. 40 CFR 

Section 51.308(d)(3) requires that States must submit a long term strategy that addresses 

regional haze visibility impairment for each CJass I area located outside the State which 

may be affected by emissions from the State. 40 CFR Section 51.308(d)(3) also requires 

that long~term strategies include enforceable emission limitations (see comments in 2. 

above). compliance schedules. and other measures necessary to achieve reasonable 

progress goals. 

Backstop Trading Program 

The following are minor typographical errors in the Backstop Trading Program portion of the 

309 RH SIP and accompanying rules: 

--- ---- -_. - 4. There are a number ofplaces where the Utah SIP differs from the 4/23/08 Model SIPmp - . - -on-WRAP;s·website. For example~Table 8 h88 different milestone values"fur the years - .--­ 2003-2009, Table 10 bas different numbers for the 2018 non-utility portion. and Section 

E.3(a)(2)(g)(ii) has 2000-2006 as the baseline period while the Model SIPrrIP has 2006 

-

I eAA Section 110(2) states that SIPs "shall (A) include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means. or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this 

chapter; (B) provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedW'eS necessary to - (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and 

(ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator," 
as the baseline. We recommend that Utah modify the 2008 SIP to match the 4/23/08 

Model SIPmp on WRAP's website. 

S. ID the flow control example in provision E.(3)(h)(2) on page 60 ofthe 2008 8W, the 2008 

SIP refers to the 2010 milestone B! "(S.state, no smelter)" which is not correct. We 

recommend that the parenthetical phrase be deleted. The corresponding reference in the 

Model SIP is provision C4.2(b)(3). 

6. RJ07·250-4(1)(a) describes the applicability ofthe backstop trading rule. Utah has 

deleted paragraph (a) which would have included "all BARTooeligible sources defined in 

40 CFR 51.301 that are BART eligible due to sulfur dioxide emissions." Utah needs to 

add this section back into the model rule. 

7. Utah's SIP was updatedl()refer fO the aIIowancetiaCIiliig syMCinastlie"WEB EDi1ssf6ns-"-' 

and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS)". Utah should do a word search and 

correct the trading role; for instance R307-2S0-8 needs to be corrected to reference xxx, 

rather than YYY. On a separate but related issue, we noticed that the trading rule refers 

to two different tracking systems - "allowance tracking system" and "emissions tracking 

database." In II trading program. there should only be one tracking system, the WEB 

EATS. It appears the term "emissions tracking database" may be referring to the tracking 

system during the p~trigger period. While the SIP may need both terms because it 

covers pre-trigger and post·trigger periods, that would not be true for the trading rule 

which only covers post·trigger periods. Therefore, Utah should also replace the term 

"emissions tracking database" in the trading rule with "WEB EAT8.Ii 

"­

8.	 Utah needs to add a date for the submittal ofa monitoring plan revision that is referenced in 

Model Rule provision I2(aX3). The model role bas a submittal deadline of90 days after 

implementing the change. The date should go into RJ07-25o-9(6)(b). 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments for your public hearing. Ifyou have 

lUly questions on EPAt S comments, please contact me at 303·312~34, or have your staff 

contact Laurel Dygowski at 303-312-6144. 

. -,------: 

G:J901J r·~
 Callie A. Videtich, Director 

AirProgrmn