## .. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECnON AGENCY REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop Street DENVER. CO**80202~1129** Phone**800·227~17** http://www.epa.govlreglon08

r : : I', ::**r·~.,':** :

, I .";= r .

Ref: 8P-AR 

### AUG - 4 2003 Cheryl Heying, Director j , Air Quality Division DepartmentofEnvironmental Quality I

### SO North 1950 West Salt LakeCity, U-T- 841-16 

# --- ----_...

# ----- --_.-
,-, RE: Utah's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Section XX


### Dear Chezyl:
On 

### July 1,2008,the State ofUtah posted the public comment version oftheir 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (RH SIP). We have completed our 

### preliminary review ofthe State'sRH SIP and are providing ourcomments below. We are also enclosing a copy of our letterto the State dated June 3, 2008. The June 3, 2008 letteroutlinedEPA'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 

### othercomments 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.
BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART)
1. Utah's RH SIP does not contain afive 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 §SI.308(e); 

### Under40CFR §SI.308(e)(I)(ii)(A), states "musttake into consideration the technology available, the costs ofcompliance, the 

### energy and non-airquality 

### environmental impacts ofcompliance, 

### any pollution control equipment in use at the source, and the remaining useful life ofthe source." The 

## eAA also requires States toconsider the five factors in making theirBART determinations (see Clean AirAct §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. TheCMrequires 

### 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 permitconditions 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 ofState
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 strategiesand 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 ReefNational 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 ofthe 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 TradingProgram 

### The following 

### are minor

### typographical errors in

### the Backstop Trading Program portion ofthe 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 has2006 

# -

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 ofemissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements ofthis chapter; (B) provide for establishment and operation ofappropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedW'eS necessary to

- (i)monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient airquality, 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 SIPmpon 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 sulfurdioxide emissions." 

### Utah needs

## to add this section back into the model rule.
7. Utah's SIP 

### was updatedl()referfO the aIIowancetiaCIiliig 

### syMCinastlie"WEBEDi1ssf6ns-"-' and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS)". Utah should do aword search and correct the trading role; for instance R307-2S0-8 needs to be corrected to reference

## xxx, rather than YYY. Ona separate butrelated issue, we noticed that the trading rule refers to two different tracking systems

- "allowance tracking system" and "emissions tracking database." In IItrading program. there should only be one tracking system, the WEB EATS. Itappears 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·triggerperiods, that would not be true for the trading rule which only covers post·triggerperiods. Therefore, Utah should also replace the 

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

# "­

8. Utah needs to add adate for the submittal ofa monitoring planrevision 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 yourpublic hearing. Ifyou have lUly questions on EPAt Scomments, please contact me at**303·312~34,** orhave your staff contact Laurel Dygowski at 303-312-6144.

.

## -,------: 

# G:J9 01J

# r·~ Callie A. Videtich, Director AirProgrmn