1 HEAL UTAH

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

SIERRA CLUB

POWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL

SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE

September 14, 2015

By email

Ryan Stephens (rstephens@utah.gov) Jay Baker (jbaker@utah.gov)

Public Comment Division of Air Qual ity

P.O. Box 144820 Salt Lake City, UT 84114

- 4820

Re: Public comments from Conservation Organizations regarding proposed

Enforceable Commitment SIP, State Implementation Plan, Section XX.N.

Dear Messrs. Stephens and Baker:

HEAL Utah, National Parks Cons ervation Association, Sierra Club, Powder River Basin Resource Council, and San Juan Citizens Alliance (collectively referred to herein as “Conservation Organizations”) submit the following public comments regarding Utah Division of Air Quality’s (“UDAQ” o r “Utah”) proposed Enforceable Commitment (“EC”) State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) which is intended to become part of Utah’s Regional Haze (“RH”) SIP, Section XX.N, as well as the related amendment to R307

- 110

- 28. For the reasons discussed below, UDAQ’s proposed Enforceable Commitment SIP violates the requirements of Section 309 of the Regional Haze regulations. 40 C.F.R. §51.309. Moreover, the proposed EC SIP does not remedy the numerous legal and technical deficiencies that exist in the recently adopt ed Section XX.D.6. of Utah’s RH SIP. These legal and technical deficiencies were previously identified in public comment letters submitted by the Conservation Organizations dated March 8, 2011, July 16, 2012, December 22, 2014, and May 1, 2015, as well as public comment letters submitted by the National Park Service on August 1, 2008, March 4, 2011, July 13, 2012, and May 1,

2015. 1 This public comment letter identifies additional legal and technical deficiencies with Utah’s proposed adoption of Section XX. N. of the RH SIP and related amendments

to R307

- 110

- 28.

By means of background, Utah’s current RH SIP takes credit for SO2 emission reductions occurring as the result of the closure of the Carbon plant. Utah relies on these

SO2 emission reductions to exe mpt the Hunter and Huntington power plants from any

1 Each of these comment letters are attached to this comment letter as Exhibit 1

- 8 and are incorporated into this comment letter by reference.2 NOx emission reductions otherwise required under the Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”) program. In commenting on the Utah RH SIP, the Conservation Organizations and National Park Service both n oted that Utah has already taken credit for these emission reductions under the SO2 Backstop Trading Program. As a result, Utah may not “double count” these emission reductions in both the NOx BART determinations for Hunter and Huntington, as well as in t he SO2 Backstop Trading Program. Utah’s EC SIP attempts to resolve this problem by promising not to take credit for these emission reductions in the SO2 Backstop Trading Program and instead rely on these emission reductions solely in the NOx BART program for the Hunter and Huntington plants. For these reasons stated below, Utah proposed EC SIP amendment is unlawful and fails to

resolve the deficiencies with Utah’s RH SIP.

1. The EC SIP erroneously assumes that the RH SIP will effectuate SO2

reductions at t he Carbon plant.

Utah’s proposed SIP incorrectly states, “In Section D.6.c of this plan, Carbon

Units 1 and 2 will be shut down.” 2 This statement erroneously conveys that the Carbon Units are still operating and Utah’s regional haze SIP will mandate clo sure of the plant. This statement is factually incorrect because the Carbon Units ceased operation as of April 15, 2015 and are currently being dismantled. PacifiCorp, the owner of the Carbon Units, decided years ago to retire these units rather than ret rofit the plant to comply with the mercury and air toxics (MATS) rule. Thus, the Carbon unit retirements have already occurred and were never a component of Utah’s regional haze SIP until after the units ceased operation. Utah now attempts to rely on the SO2 emission reductions resulting from the Carbon retirements to excuse the Hunter and Huntington BART units their NOx/PM regional haze requirements.

Utah’s attempt to take credit for the Carbon SO2 reductions in its regional haze SIP won’t do anything to improve visibility. Utah’s emission reduction accounting proposal will not reduce visibility

- impairing emissions or improve regional haze in the region’s treasured national parks. Instead, it will unreasonably delay visibility benefits and wrongly exempt BART controls for NOx and PM emissions at the Hunter and Huntington plants resulting in continued impairment and an abdication from the statutory mandate to make reasonable progress toward natural conditions. The BART program was enacted to require some o f the oldest grandfathered coal

- burning power plants to retrofit with new air pollution controls to combat regional haze. Hunter and Huntington Units 1

& 2 are such BART units and must achieve BART NOx/PM emission reductions to make the requisite progress toward eliminating human

- caused visibility impairment. As discussed more fully below, the Carbon Units are not BART units and emission reductions resulting from the MATS program in the manner advanced cannot be credited to Hunter and Huntington to excuse their obligations under the regional haze program.

2 Section XX.N.3 2. UDAQ is impermissibly attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Utah’s proposed Enforceable Commitment SIP states that its purpose is to

“ ensure [ s ] that SO2 emissions reductions from the Carbon power plant closure are not

double counted in the Regional Haze SIP ” (emphasis added). However, the EC SIP fails

to address the fundamental issue of the whether the SO2 emissions from the Carbon units

should be counted at all in its NOx/PM regional haze SIP. As discussed below, Utah’s attempt to rely on SO2 emission reductions from the Carbon units in the context of a NOx/PM regional haze SIP is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the purposes of the regional haze program.

Utah is trying to fit a squ are peg in a round hole. Utah has submitted a regional haze NOx/PM BART SIP to EPA for approval. The sole focus of the current RH SIP submittal is to evaluate necessary NOx and PM emission reductions required by the BART program at Hunter and Huntington Units 1 & 2. Instead of evaluating BART NOx reductions at Hunter and Huntington, Utah’s RH and EC SIPs slides in a past action for a different pollutant from a separate source category and seeks to take credit for SO2

reductions at the non

- BART Carbon uni ts.

The Carbon plant is not a subject to BART facility and any emission reductions from this source cannot be used to excuse upgrades at BART sources in this context. Further, the focus of the RH SIP currently pending with EPA is constrained as it rela tes only to BART emission reductions requirements for NOx and PM at the Hunter and Huntington BART sources

— it is not somehow broader because the state wishes it to be so; already delivered SO2 emission reductions from a non

- BART source do not displace

ongo ing emissions from Utah’s BART sources. Moreover, even if Carbon’s SO2 reductions could legitimately be counted, which they cannot, they fail to offset the level of pollutant reductions that should be achieved through adequate NOx and PM BART

critical to m aking reasonable progress, as is explained in the attached Conservation Organization and National Park Service comment letters.

When viewed in its proper light, the inappropriateness of Utah’s latest EC SIP proposal becomes readily apparent. Instead of c ontorting requirements of the regional haze program to avoid application of NOx BART to Hunter and Huntington, Utah must properly apply the BART program and mandate real NOx emission reductions thereby achieving actual improve visibility impairment in Utah ’s national parks.

3. UDAQ’s proposed post

- hoc amendment of its SO2 RH SIP would undermine the legal justification for EPA’s approval of that SIP

In 2011, Utah submitted an SO2 regional haze SIP to EPA, which EPA approved.

Utah’s SO2 RH SIP took credit for the Carbon plant SO2 emission reductions in its justification for the SIP’s BART alternative for SO2. That alternative program, developed under 40 C.F.R. § 51.309 (“Section 309”), relied on a regional SO2 Backstop Trading Program to purportedly achieve g reater emission reductions than would source

by

- source application of the SO2 BART requirements. According to UDAQ’s “Response4 to Comments” in its most recent SIP revision, the SO2 RH SIP did not explicitly account

for the future Carbon Plant retirement o r SO2 emissions reductions in its projected emissions inventories for the alternative program, although it was well aware that PacifiCorp intended to retire the plant. S ee Response No. 62. Yet this Response ignores that alternative program was found to b e “better than BART” expressly because emissions reductions projected by those inventories would be exceeded through voluntary measures at “smaller, non

- BART sources.” Final Rule, State of Utah; Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory Class I Areas Under 40 CFR 51.309, 77 Fed. Reg. 74,355, 74,360

- 61 (Dec. 14, 2012). Now, Utah proposes to amend its SO2 RH SIP by somehow extracting the previously relied upon Carbon plant SO2 reductions and apply

these reductions to its NOx/PM BART SIP for Hunter and H untington. But Utah’s proposal would effectively undermine EPA’s legal justification for approving the Section 309 alternative program. Having touted the 309 Program’s ability to garner SO2 emission reductions from “smaller, non

- BART sources” such as the Carbon Plant, Utah may not now extract such sources from the program without nullifying its previous “better than BART” determination and the legal underpinnings for the 309 Program approval.

Further, if Utah’s proposed omission of the Carbon Plant fro m the 309 Program were permissible, there would be nothing to stop Utah and the other states participating in the Program from removing other “smaller, non

- BART sources” from the Program. The result would strip the 309 Program of its justification under t he Regional Haze regulations. Such maneuverings would also undermine the essence of the regional haze program to compel reasonable progress towards clear skies and place achievement of the natural conditions goal out of reach.

4. EPA’s Regional Haze Reg ulations prohibit Utah’s proposed emission

reduction accounting proposal.

Section 309 of the Regional Haze regulations establishes the rules for the accounting of SO2 emissions under the SO2 Backstop Trading Program. 40 C.F.R. §51.309. More specificall y, the regional haze regulations state that Utah’s 309 plan

“ must include provisions requiring the monitoring, recordkeeping, and annual reporting

of actual stationary source SO2 emissions within the State.” 40 C.F.R. §51.309(d)(4)(iii). Utah’s propose d EC SIP would violate this provision by arbitrarily including over 8,000 tons of SO2 emissions from the Carbon plant in future inventory reports, when in fact the actual emissions from the Carbon plant from 2016

- 2018 will be zero. Thus, Utah’s proposed E C SIP violates the mandatory requirement to report

“ actual stationary source SO2 emissions within the State.” The requirement to use “actual emissions” is repeated throughout the 309 regulations. See i.e, 40 C.F.R. §51.309(d)(4)(i) (“[c]ompliance with th e 2018 milestones shall be measured by comparing actual emissions from the year 2018 with the 2018 milestone”)(emphasis added). Since the regional haze regulations specifically prohibit Utah’s proposed accounting proposal , the Utah Air Quality Board may not adopt the State’s unlawful EC

SIP amendments.5 5. UDAQ’s delay until March 2018 to revise its SIPs is arbitrary and capricious.

Utah’s proposed EC SIP purports to resolve the “double counting” of SO2 emission reductions from the Carbon plant in both the Utah RH SO2 SIP and the EPA

pending RH NOx/PM SIP. However, Utah’s proposed EC SIP fails to resolve anything but instead unlawfully delays agency action until 2018, at the soonest.

More specifically, Utah’s proposed EC SIP claims it will “ as necessary ” revise its RH SO2 SIP (emphasis added). Additionally, Utah vaguely asserts “[o]ther applicable provisions that may be identified in the future will be amended as well.” Utah’s use of vague language renders the EC SIP deficient because Utah it is neither “enforceable” nor is there an adequate “commitment” to resolve current obligations or the double counting

issue.

Further, Utah’s EC SIP proposes to delay resolving the SIP discrepancies until 2018. Utah’s proposed three

- year delay to resolve the double c ounting issue is arbitrary and capricious. Any amendments to the SO2 and NOx RH SIP must occur now, not in three years. Otherwise, the Conservation Organizations are prevented from fully evaluating whether Utah’s proposed SIP amendments comply with the l aw and are consistent with the regional haze program. The EC SIP fails to explain why Utah cannot immediately amend its SO2 and NOx SIP and present the actual SIP amendment language for consideration in the EC SIP. As such, Utah’s EC SIP is woefully defic ient and should not be adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board.

6. UDAQ’s EC SIP amendments create irreconcilable accounting methodologies among the three

- state Western Backstop Trading Program.

Utah’s proposed EC SIP ignores that there are two other states p articipating in the SO2 Western Backstop Trading Program, namely Wyoming and New Mexico. All states in the Western Backstop Trading Program must use the same inventory methodology. Indeed, Section 309 specifically recognizes that, “...all States in the prog ram [must] use the same methodology.” 40 C.F.R. §51.309(d)(4)(i). While Utah’s EC SIP makes vague promises to resolve its SIP discrepancies by 2018, it fails to mandate similar changes to the Wyoming and New Mexico SO2 SIPs. Nothing in the Utah EC SIP pr events Wyoming and New Mexico from counting the Carbon SO2 emission reductions in their future annual milestone reports. Likewise, nothing in the EC SIP requires Wyoming or

New Mexico to revise their SO2 SIPs to discount the Carbon SO2 emission reductions. Thus, Utah’s EC SIP does little to resolve the problems created by their unlawful accounting proposal. Instead, the EC SIP creates more problems than it solves. The Utah Air Quality Board should not adopt Utah’s EC SIP because it will result in irreconc ilable inventory accounting methodologies among the three participating states.6 Conclusion

The undersigned Conservation Organizations request that the Utah Air Quality Board reject the proposed EC SIP and instead direct the Air Quality Division to i mpose stringent NOx emission limits and SCR controls at Hunter and Huntington Units 1 and 2 as required by the regional haze BART program.

Sincerely,

Matt Pacenza

Executive Director

HEAL Utah

Stephanie Kodish

National Park s Conservation Association

Gloria Smith

Sierra Club

Shannon Anderson

Powder River Basin Resource Council

Mike Eisenfeld

San Juan Citizens Alliance

cc: Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Administrator Janet McCabe, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and

Radiation Susan Johnson, National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Chief, Policy, Planning, and Permit ReviewUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 8

1595 Wynkoop Street

Denver, CO 80202-1129

Phone 800-227-8917
www.epa.gov/region080

Ref: 8P-AR

Mr. Bryce Bird
Director, Division of Air Quality

Utah Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 144820

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 SEP 0 8 2015

Re: EPA Region 8 Comments on Utah's July 23, 2015 Draft Regional Haze SIP Revision

Dear Mr. Bird:

The Environmental Protection Agency has completed a preliminary review of Utah's July 2015 draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) and related documents, as provided by the state's July 31, 2015 automated email notification of air quality rulemaking actions. The state's SIP proposes to provide an enforceable commitment to ensure proper accounting of sulfur dioxide emissions from PacifiCorp's Carbon power plant. Our comments, which are detailed below, focus on the SIP narrative

in Section XX, Part N.

We understand that you intend to consider and respond to all comments received on this public comment
version before finalizing the documents. Please note that we will only come to a final conclusion regarding the regional haze program for Utah when we take action on the program through our own public notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Comments: Section XX, Part N

Enforceable Commitments for the Utah Regional Haze SIP

1. Paragraph N .1: There appears to be a typographical error in the third sentence which should read,

"The resulting combined annual emissions ofNOx, S02 and PM will be 2,876 tons lower than

the most stringent BART controls."

2. Paragraph N.2: Please explain in more detail how these commitments address limited portions in

each of the required SIP programs, including a basis for characterizing the amounts as limited. Additionally, please explain the derivation of any emissions figures referenced. For example, it is

unclear how the figure of 42,016 tons of S02 and NOx emissions reductions was derived.

*Printed on Recycled PaperThank you for the opportunity to work with you and your staff during the review of this public comment

version of the draft regional haze BART assessment and enforceable commitment. If you have any questions on the EPA's comments, please contact me, or your staff may contact Gail Fallon at (303) 312-6281.

cc: Mr. Jay Baker

Environmental Scientist,

Utah Division of Air Quality

Ms. Patricia Brewer Sincerely, 

# GYJ-{

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

Environmental Protection Specialist, National Park Service,

United States Department of Interior

Mr. Tim Allen Meteorologist, Branch of Air and Water Resources,

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Mr. Bret Anderson

National Atmospheric Modeling/Regional Haze Coordinator,

United States Forest Service

2