. , .• 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 of Air Quality 

, Department ofEnvirorunental Quality '(IO~ &$- 0& 

P.O. Box 144820
 

Salt Lake City, UT 841] 4-4820
 I ,C', , '..:.u:; . , i Dear Rick, .. ·§iiC~;!:.· " 

The intent of this 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 staff in 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 of our 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 refer to 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 relief if our 

: , efforts to extend the attainment dates for Salt Lake and Utah Counties are not successful. We 

have had many discussions with you and your staff regarding the development ofa PMIO 

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") of the document "Strategy for Initial PM10 

-Maintenance Plan for Salt Lake and Utah Counties," Many ofthese tasks were decided on during , , , 

,our Ju ne 12-13, 2000 meeting with you and your staff in 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 oftheit importance. 

Commitments for Dispersion Modeled Maintenance Plans 

.' . 

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

. \. .",.. ' 

; ',I . 

;: o~rinted on Recycled Paper 
•• 

- "
 

and' updated maintenance demonstrations based on changes that have been made since the-lS)94 

,approval of the PM10 nonattainment area SIPs for both areas. We expect this plan to be '" 

completed by UDAQ and submitted to us within a year of redesignation of the areas to attainlilent 

and'the approval of the 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 of the 

,commitment. 

In addition, EPA requires that areas that use the Tier II interim credits under MOBILE5 

include a commitment in the SIP, or in this case a maintenance plan, to revise the ' 

SIP/maintenance plan using MOBILE6 within one year of the official release ofa final version of 

MOBll..E6. Alternatively, States may commit to revise the SIP or maintenance plan within two 

years, on the condition that the Metropolitan Plannirig Organizations not conduct any conformity 

determinations in that second year. (EPA articulated this policy in the Federal Register on July 

28, 2000 (65 FR 46383).) The reason for this is that the MOBILE5 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 counter to the CAA. Section 11 O(i) ofthe Act requires that EPA approve any 

changes made to the SIP. The director's discretion provisions in Utah's SIP allow for changes to 

be made without the approval ofEPA. 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 of concern to the 

Region for several years now. Without the removal of all 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 issues that 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 or requirements without a SIP revision approved by 

EPA." For the 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 

very difficult 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 plan language that clearly supersedes prior SIP narrative. 

In addition, we believe thattheabove-proposed language for the interim maintenance 

2 
plans 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 temporary resolution 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 your response 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 correct these 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 of General Counsel on this matter. We believe that UDAQ's 

proposal to use·a permitting process similar to the currentptocessused for ozone, as a screening 

tool for emission limit revisiol1S, is not an appropriate method to' solve the larger director's 

discretion issues. Among other things, we believe this approach would continue to be contrary to 

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 major versus minor sources. We agreed, ' . 

. that, as part of the 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 or cut-point will be projected at their allowable emissions; while those below Wiube' .. projected using actual emissions with a growth rate. For those sources projected atallowables, 

the sources' allowables will need to be made an enforceable part of the 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, while the minor sources will be modeled 'at actual levels with a growth' rate. On 

October 4,2000, your office sent a list of allowabies for all sources in the modeling domain. We 

understand that thiS list is incomplete and that we will.be,gettingupdated infonnation in the near 

future. 

Short.:.term Limits 

. Another important element of the 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' ,. 

3 
under the ControlStr.ategy portion afthe action items table. As mentioned above, a major source 

emissions threshold needs to be e~ta1:>lished first in order to define major versOs 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. If there are new major 

sources of PM10, SOx, or NOx in the area, in order to reflect reality and to adequately ! 

demonstrate that both counties will continue to maintain the PM10 standards, these new sources 

will need to be accounted for in the maintenance plans. . ..... 

.' . Exemptions for Sources .-'­

The federally approved PM10 SIP includes a rule for unavoidable breakdowns for 

.stationary sources. The rule as Wfi,tten could be construed to give the Executive Secretary 

exclusiv.e auth,ority to;determine whether a violation,has occl:lrredand whether further 

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 allowances for 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 of OAQPS to the EPA regional offices, it was explained that ifa PM10 

nonattainment area has attained the standard with at least 3 years of clean 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 see the memo included in this letter for further explanation.) 

Therefore, you neednotsubr:nit separate contingency measures uRder section 172(c)(9) ofthe 

Clean Air Act to. qualify for redesignation. We note that section 175A of the Clean Air Act 

requires that the maintenance plans contain contingency measures. Also, the areas have been 

attaining the NAAQS for at least three years, and as long as the areas continue to attain the 

NAAQS, I 72(c)(9) contingency measures are not necessary. 

4 
..' 

.' , ".' If you have further questions, please contact me at 303/312-6005 or Larry Svoboda at 

30'3/312-6004, or have your staff contact Cindy Rosenberg at 303/3]2-6436. 

,'; 

,·Enclosure 

cc:	 Regg Olsen, UDAQ 

Fred Nelson, Utah, Office of Attorney Gen~ral

Lenore Epstein, UDAQ 

5