### . , .• J


### ... .. ) 

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 999 18TH STREET
- SUITE 300

DENVER, CO: 80202-2466 , http://WW'N.epa.gov/regJon08 

## OCT 6 ·2000

Ref:8P-AR

, ,'Rick Sprott:Acting Director 

# Fo//1- O?- 

# RIflJ­

,Division ofAir Quality

,Department ofEnvirorunental Quality

### '(IO~ 

### &$
- 

# 0&

P.O. Box 144820 Salt Lake City, UT 841]4-4820

I

### , ,C', '
..:.u:; . , i DearRick,

..**·§iiC~;!:.·** " The intent ofthis letter is to describe our current position on the Salt Lake County and ',., Utah County PMIO maintenance plan approach and present the unresolved issues that we believe

',heed to be addressed for the chemical mass balance (CMB)-based maintenance plans that you are

, ' I 'deveJopingfor submittal to EPA in January 2001. As you know,we have spent significant time

working with you and your staffin evaluating optional approaches to thePMlO SIPs and maintenance plans. We have researched the CMB-based plans and now agree that this will be acceptable in lieu ofour preferred approach using dispersion modeling. However, to make these fully acceptable maintenance plans, the issues outlined in this letter,. must be resolved in the interim maintenance plans, The initial PM10 maintenance plans we referto will be submitted to try to quic;kJy resolve the confonnity lapses for both areas. As you know, Utah County was under a

,transportation confonnity lapse starting on August 15, 2000 and Salt Lake County is expected to

.lap'se on January 11, 2001. Redesignation to attainment would also provide some reliefifour : , efforts to extend the attainment dates for Salt Lake and Utah Counties are not successful. We have had many discussions with you and your staffregarding the development ofaPM IO maintenance plans and at this time we believe it is appropriate to document ourexpectatlons:for the project. In general, we agree with the planiled approach and tasks that UDAQ has outlined in Table 1 (from here on out "action items table") ofthe document "Strategy for Initial PM10 -Maintenance Plan for Salt Lake and Utah Counties," Many ofthese tasks were decided on during

, , , ,ourJune 12-13, 2000 meeting with you and your staffin Denver. However, there are several a-dditional issues that need to be addressed during this process as wel.l,which have not been Included in the table. These issues are listed below along with an explanation oftheitimportance. Commitments for Dispersion Modeled Maintenance Plans 

### .'

. The initial maintenance plans will not replace the need for a complete modeling analysis

. \. . ",.. ' ; ',I

. ;: 

# o**~rinted** on RecycledPaper

## •• - "

and' updated maintenance demonstrations based on changes that have been made since the-lS)94 ,approval ofthe PM10 nonattainment area SIPs for both areas. We expect this plan to be '" completed by UDAQ and submitted to us within a year ofredesignation ofthe areas to attainlilent and'the approval ofthe initial CMB-based maintenance plans. The initial maintenance plans will need to include Utah's firm commitment to submit, within this one-year time frame, it**re~sed** maintenance plan for both nonattainment areas that is based on a dispersion-modeled maintenance demonstration. You will need to consult with us regarding the appropriate form ofthe

,commitment. In addition, EPA requires that areas that use the Tier II interim credits under MOBILE5 include a commitmentin the SIP, orin this case a maintenance plan, to revise the ' SIP/maintenance plan using MOBILE6 within one year ofthe official release ofafinal versionof MOBll..E6. Alternatively, States may commit to revise the SIP or maintenance plan within

# two years, on the condition that theMetropolitan Plannirig Organizations not conduct any conformity determinations in that second year. (EPA articulated this policy in theFederal Register onJuly 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383).) The reason for this is thattheMOBILE5 Tier II credits are only interim approximations that do not account for many other factors (including fuel sulfur levelsy**thatiri~uence** tailpipe emissions. 

### Director's·Discretion Issues and**E~issions** 

### Bankingffrading: The director's discreti0n provisions approved into the SIP for both nonattainment areaS'on July 8, 1994'are counterto the CAA. Section 11 O(i) ofthe Act requires thatEPA approveany changes made to the SIP. The director's discretion provisions in Utah's SIP allow for changesto be made without the approval ofEP

### A. It is critical that all director's discretion provisions be removed from the SIP for both counties as soon as possible. 

### This issue has been ofconcern to the Region for several years now. Without the removal ofall director's discretion clauses from the

, SIP, 

### it will continue to pose problems for enforceability purposes. Due to the fact that we have

been unable to come to a resolution on the director's discretion issuesthat is agreeable to both UDAQ and EPA, we would like the initial maintenance plans to include a provision that precludes UDAQ from changing emission limits or any other binding provision ofthe maintenance plans withoiJt EPA approvaJ..thro\:lgh a fonmal SIP revision. Our suggested language would be to the: ' effect,that, "Notwithstanding any 0therpr6vision mthe'UtahSIP, no change,to emission limits or other requirements contained in or relied on by this maintenance plan shall be effective to'change such federally enforceable emission limits orrequirements without a SIP revision approved by EP

### A." Forthe initial maintenance plans, this wOl:lld short-circuit the need to remove all director's discretion and variance language from the existing SIP, something you have indicated would be verydifficult to achieve.' For the ultimate maintenance plans, We believe it remains important to remove all director's discretion and variance language from the SIP to eliminate potential confusion for the regulated community. Presumably, part ofthis process could be streamlined by drafting maintenance planlanguage that clearly supersedes prior SIP narrative. In addition, we believe thattheabove-proposed language for the interim maintenance
2plans will also temporarily remedy the issues we have with your emissions banking and trading program. As with the director's discretion issues, we see'this as a temporaryresolution and that

.the larger issues do indeed need to be resolved in a timely manner in the final maintenance plans for both areas.

", . We would appreciate yourresponse within the next 30 days to infonn us whethefyou are

. willing to include our suggested language in the initial maintenance plans. 

### Ifyou're notWi'lling to

include this language, we believe we have the following 'options: disapprove the redesignation requests and maintenance plans when submitted, remove the director's discretio'n and valiance 'provisions from the SIP through an error correction notice under 110(k)(6) ofthe Clean 

### Air Act, or issue a SIP call to correctthese deficiencies in the existing SIP. ' During our June 12-13, 2000 meeting in Denver, we said that we would look into the acceptability ofUDAQ's permitting provisions concept as a means of avoiding constant SIP revisions with each change in point source emissions. Our office has evaluated that proposal and the Region has contacted the Office ofGeneral Counsel onthis matter. We believe thatUDAQ's proposal to use·apermitting process similar to the currentptocessusedfor ozone, as a screening tool for emission 

### limitrevisiol1S, is not 

### an appropriate method to'solve the larger director's discretion issues. Among otherthings, we believe this approach would continue to be contraryto section IIO(i) ofthe Clean Air Act. Thresholds for Stationary Sources Major source emissions thresholds (in the SIP context, not synonymous with "major" 

### in .,: 40 CFR 51 or 70) need to be established to define the majorversus minor sources. We agreed, ' .

. that, as part ofthe inventory projections for pomt sources, a threshold would be establishedfqf
.

using actual**anc~** allowable emissions. The sources in both ceunties with emission rates

# above ,the threshol9 orcut-point will be projected at their allowable emissions; while thosebelow

## Wiube'

.. projected using actual emissions with a growth rate. Forthose sourcesprojected atallowables, the sources' allowables will need to be made an enforceable part ofthe SIP. 

### In addition, this step is important for the dispersion-modeled maintenance plans. Similarly, in,these plans, the major

.. sources 

### will have their allowable emissions in the final maintenance plans and bemoqeledat

alJowables, whilethe minor sources

### will be modeled'at actual levels with a growth'rate. On October 4,2000, your office sent a list ofallowabies for all sources in the modeling domain. We understand that thiS list is incomplete and that we will.be,gettingupdated infonnationin the near future. Short.:.term Limits

. Another important element ofthe maintenance plans which we have discussed previously and agreed on, but want to take the opportunity to emphasize again is that short-term limits (i.e. anaveraging time of24 hours or less) need to be addressed for stationary sources with emissions ,a.bove the major source threshold in order to ensure protection ofthe 24-hour 

### PMIO standard. This action item was identified during our meeting with you, but is not mentioned specifically' ,. 3under the ControlStr.ategy portion afthe action items table. As mentioned above, a major source emissions threshold needs to be**e~ta1:>lished** first 

### in orderto define majorversOs minor sources in the SIP. " New Sources Since SIP Approval As we have agreed, any new Approval Orders for any new sources in the area since the SIP approval also need to be addressed for the interim maintenance plans. Ifthere are new major sources ofPM 10, SOx, orNOx in the area, in order to reflect reality and to adequately ! demonstrate that both counties will continue to maintain the PM10standards, these new sources will need to be accounted for in the maintenance plans.

. ..... .' . Exemptions for Sources . -'­ The federally approved PM10 SIP includes a rule forunavoidable breakdowns for

.stationary sources. The rule as Wfi,tten could be construed to give theExecutive Secretary exclusiv.e auth,orityto;determine whether a violation,has occl:lrredandwhetherfurther**enforc~mentsho.uldot:;cur..** We.d<;m!t agree·with: this inter.pretation ofthe·rule. We believe the rule must be changed

# to eliminate .the yonfusion it creates and to ensure the ability ofEPA and citizens to independently enforce the SIP. The SIP also includes annual allowancesfor refineries for flaring and SRU down time. There are no enforceable limits on these events. We believe this renders the SIP unenforceable in regards to these elements. These rules and exemptions are all problematic and should be removed from the SIP during ruiemaking for the maintenance plans. Contingency Measures

.'.We agreed to research whether

## unAQ still needs to submit contingency measures as a 

### SIP revision since maintenance plans are being developed. In an October 6, 1995 memorandum from Joe Paisie ofOAQPS to theEPA regional offices, it was explained that 

### ifa PM10 nonattainment area has attained the standard with at least3 years ofclean air quality data, and as . long as that area cQntimies to attain the standard, the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure· requirement 

### will not apply. (please seethe memo included 

### in this letterfor further explanation.) Therefore, you neednotsubr:nit separate contingency measures uRder section 172(c)(9) ofthe Clean Air Act to.qualify for redesignation. Wenote that section 175A ofthe Clean Air Act requires that the maintenance plans contain contingency measures. Also, the areas havebeen attaining the NAAQS for at least three years, and as long as the areas continue to attain the NAAQS, 

### I72(c)(9) contingency measures are not necessary.

4..'

.' , ".' Ifyou have further questions, please contact me at 303/312-6005 orLarry Svoboda at 30'3/312-6004, or have your staffcontact Cindy Rosenberg at 303/3]2-6436.
,';

,·Enclosure

cc: Regg Olsen, UDAQ Fred Nelson, Utah, Office ofAttorney**Gen~ral** Lenore Epstein, UDAQ



### 5