[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16505]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 8, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[UT3-1-5452, FRL-5003-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Utah; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Addressing PM10
for Salt Lake and Utah County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of Utah for the purpose of bringing about
the attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). The SIP was submitted by the
Governor of Utah to satisfy certain Federal requirements for an
approvable nonattainment area PM10 SIP for Utah and Salt Lake
Counties.
EPA is also approving revisions to the State-wide SIP, chapters 1
through 7 and 10 through 15, which were submitted by the Utah Air
Quality Division Director as a supplement to the Governor's submittal.
The State-wide revisions pertain to air program elements necessary to
implement control strategies to assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS, such as resources, emergency episodes, monitoring program,
legislative authority, public notification, etc.
The Utah Air Conservation Regulations (UACR) have been revised
numerous times since the early 1970's. The regulations have been
renumbered and new requirements added. EPA is, therefore, approving the
State request to replace, in its entirety, the existing UACR with that
which was submitted on November 15, 1991.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective on August 8, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other information are
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following
location: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII, Air
Programs Branch, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Hanley at (303) 293-1760.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
A. Utah PM10 Statutory and Regulatory History
1. 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) Requirements: Revision and Implementation
of PM10 NAAQS
The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and, if appropriate,
revise the criteria on which the NAAQS for each air pollutant are
based, as well as revise the NAAQS themselves. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR
24634), EPA finalized its decision to revise the particulate matter
NAAQS from ``total suspended particulate'' (TSP) to particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10).
To implement the new particulate matter NAAQS, all areas in the
country were divided into three groups, based on the probability that
each area would violate the new PM10 NAAQS. ``Group I'' areas were
those areas having violated the PM\10\ NAAQS or having air quality data
showing a high (greater than 95%) probability of violating the NAAQS.
These areas required substantial SIP adjustment. ``Group II'' areas
were those areas estimated at having 20-95% probability of violating
the PM10 NAAQS and needing less adjustment to their existing SIPs.
``Group III'' areas were those areas estimated as having less than 20%
probability of violating the PM10 NAAQS and, therefore, only
needing SIP adjustment as required under the preconstruction review
program. See 52 FR 24672 and 52 FR 24679-82 (July 1, 1987).
In the State of Utah, Salt Lake and Utah Counties were identified
by EPA as Group I areas. The rest of the State was classified as Group
III (52 FR 29383, August 7, 1987). The State, therefore, under section
110(a)(1) of the CAA then in effect, was required to submit a PM10
SIP by April 1988. On November 15, 1990, the President signed into law
revisions to the CAA (Public Law No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399). All
former ``Group I'' areas and certain other areas were designated
nonattainment for PM10 and classified as moderate by operation of
law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. See Section 107(d)(4)(B) and
188(a) of the Act. Thus, Utah and Salt Lake Counties became moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas (56 FR 56694, 56840, November 6, 1991)
and were subject to the associated moderate PM10 nonattainment
area SIP requirements.
2. Citizen Lawsuit
In 1989, a lawsuit (Preservation Counsel v. Reilly, Civil Action
No. 89-C-262-G, (D. Utah)) was filed by the Preservation Council, Utah
Environment Center and the Utah Valley Citizens for Clean Air against
EPA. The plaintiffs claimed that, because the State had failed to
submit a PM10 SIP within the timeframe provided under the CAA that
provided for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, the duty to issue such
a plan for Utah had devolved to EPA and that EPA was required to issue
a plan for Utah pursuant to Section 110(c)(1) of the CAA then in
effect.
A settlement agreement was signed by the parties in January 1990,
which called for submittal of a SIP for Utah County and Salt Lake
County and EPA approval, or EPA promulgation of a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for these counties, if necessary, signed by
the EPA Administrator by December 31, 1991. The settlement allowed the
State to maintain the SIP development lead, but placed significant
emphasis on EPA's involvement and technical oversight.
The Utah County area plan was adopted in September 1990 and
submitted to EPA in October 1990. The Salt Lake County area plan was
adopted in June 1991, and submitted to EPA in November 1991. EPA's
agreement as to the appropriateness of developing separate plans for
the two area plans was based on its review of the various complex
source contributions in these areas, the effort by the State to address
the issues in an equitable and timely manner (numerous scoping and
public hearings were held to obtain interested parties' comments), and
the different areas' design values.
The State did consider control strategies for area and mobile
sources which were common to both counties. The Utah County plan,
therefore, was modified in June 1991 to be consistent with the Salt
Lake County plan and resubmitted with the Salt Lake County plan in
November 1991. The parties voluntarily stipulated to dismissal of the
lawsuit (agreeing to vacate the Settlement Agreement and dismiss the
complaint) in August 1991.
B. Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Area SIP Requirements
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10
nonattainment areas are set out in title I of the Act. The EPA issued a
``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA
intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under title I of the
Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM10
nonattainment area SIP requirements. (See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)
and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).) Today's final approval rulemaking
action will apply EPA's interpretations to the Utah PM10 SIP.
Part D of title I contains the provisions applicable to
nonattainment areas. Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas must meet
the applicable requirements set out in Subparts 1 and 4 of Part D.
Subpart 1 contains provisions generally applicable to all nonattainment
areas and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically applicable to
PM10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subparts 1 and 4 overlap or
conflict. The EPA has attempted to clarify the relationship among these
various provisions in the General Preamble and, as appropriate, in
today's notice.
Those States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas were required to submit, among other things, the following
provisions by November 15, 1991:
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions
which provides a sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the
attainment demonstration;
2. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) to be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
3. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but
no later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
4. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
5. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM10 precursors, except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See Sections
172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
Some provisions are due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM10 by June 30, 1992. (See Section 189(a).)
Such States also must submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993,
which become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon
a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to
attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline of
December 1994. (See Section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544.)
II. Today's Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals. (See 57 FR 13565-13566.) In this action, EPA
is approving the Utah PM10 plan revision submitted to EPA in a
letter dated November 15, 1991. This submittal was intended to satisfy
those moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements due
November 15, 1991. EPA proposed to approve the submittal on December
18, 1992, 57 FR 60149. Comments were received from Geneva Steel and
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation. EPA's response to these comments are
discussed below in III. Public Comment.
A. Regulatory Discussion
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing. (Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
Section 110(a)(2).) Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. Utah held several public hearings after reasonable notice,
evaluated the hearing comments, made changes to the SIPs and
regulations as needed, and provided EPA with documentation of this
process. The state documentation can be found in the State's Technical
Support Document (TSD), Evaluation of the PM10 SIPs Compliance
with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V Requirements.
The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action. (See Section
110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565.) The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP
submittals are set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1992). The EPA
attempts to make completeness determinations within 60 days of
receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by
operation of law if a completeness determination is not made by EPA six
months after receipt of the submission.
The Utah PM10 SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine
completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1992). The
submittal was found to be complete, and a letter dated January 19,
1992, was forwarded to the Governor indicating the completeness of the
submittal and the next steps to be taken in the review process.
The reader is referred to the Federal Register dated December 18,
1992, 57 FR 60149, for the detailed discussion on the Utah PM10
SIP and corresponding regulatory requirements. In summary, the Utah
PM10 SIP must address various elements such as: emissions
inventory, RACM (including RACT), demonstration of attainment,
PM10 precursors, quantitative milestones and reasonable further
progress (RFP), and enforceability issues.
C. The Utah PM10 SIP
1. Utah County
The Utah County area has three monitoring sites, each of which
recorded violations of the PM10 NAAQS. The Lindon site had 666
total number of days of available data; the second highest value is 254
g/m\3\, measured in February 1989. The North Provo site had
226 days of available data; the first high is 191 g/m\3\
measured in January 1988. The West Orem site had 339 days of available
data; the first high is 263 g/m\3\. These high/second high
days represent the design value for these sites; they were determined
using the ``look-up table,'' Table 6-1, in the PM10 SIP
Development Guideline document (EPA--450/2-86-001).
The Utah County monitoring network recorded additional data other
than those stated above. However, to ensure that each season of the
year is represented by the data used in determining the design value,
EPA requires the use of a complete discrete 12-month data set, or sets
which are multiples of 12-month periods. The use of the most recent
data sets which represents the area is also encouraged.
The Utah County area had a unique data base involving the
operation-shutdown-startup of Geneva Steel. The steel mill was down for
the period August 1986 to September 1987. Data comparison showed the
facility as a major contributor to the PM10 violations. The days
of violations, the average winter concentration, and average iron
content on the filters were significantly greater during the operation
of the facility than during the down period.
EPA recommends the use of certain methods to demonstrate whether a
plan will provide for timely attainment (57 FR 13538-39). Dispersion
and receptor modeling are among the recommended methods and these
methods were initially used by the State to define the design value(s)
and control strategies.
Within the time constraints in meeting the settlement agreement
imposed deadlines to complete a SIP, there were extensive reanalyses of
the monitoring network, Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) filters, and the
emission inventory (CMB is a receptor modeling effort which can be used
to define PM10 emissions). EPA determined that, with the
information available from the detailed emission inventory (supported
by a micro inventory) and CMB analyses, the SIP would not result in
additional or different control strategies if there was sufficient time
to run a dispersion modeling analysis, adjusting for the concerns
regarding stagnation and secondary contributions.
As indicated in the General Preamble, 57 FR 13539, EPA has
developed a supplemental attainment demonstration policy that applies
to the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. See ``PM10
SIP Attainment Demonstration Policy for Initial Moderate Nonattainment
Areas,'' issued by John Calcagni on March 4, 1991. The policy indicates
that in certain circumstances (where time constraints, inadequate
resources, inadequate data bases, lack of a model for some unique
situations, and other unavoidable circumstances would leave an area
unable to submit an attainment demonstration by November 15, 1991),
``modified demonstrations'' may be accepted on a case-by-case basis.
The policy recommends that a modified demonstration be accompanied with
the following: (1) documentation of the procedures or analyses used in
the modified method; (2) an explanation why alternative methods
identified in EPA guidance were not used; (3) a description of how the
modified method demonstrates, adequately and appropriately, area-wide
attainment; and (4) when the design value is based on monitoring data,
a showing that the SIP is based on one full year of adequate data for
an approved network, a review of the monitoring data and network, and
provision for appropriate followup monitoring to address issues raised
during the review. For the reasons stated previously, EPA believes it
was appropriate for the State to use a modified demonstration for Utah
County. The State TSD describes how the Utah County analyses are
consistent with this policy.
The base year emission inventory was for 1988. Since the
exceedances are wintertime occurrences, the State focused on a
wintertime (1988-89 season) inventory and an annual inventory.
Summaries of these inventories, as well as the attainment year
inventory, are provided in Table 9.A.3 of the SIP. Specific details of
the base year and attainment year (after controls) inventories are
provided in Volume II, Utah County, State Technical Support Document.
Although the design values varied by site, the source
apportionments were similar. The source apportionment at the West Orem
monitoring site, which had the County's highest design value, was
representative of the source apportionment of the Lindon and North
Provo monitoring sites. Thus, if attainment can be demonstrated at West
Orem, attainment could also be assured at the other two sites. The
categories of sources contributing to the design day include Geneva
Steel (62.5%, primary and secondary), automobile (10.9%, primary and
secondary), space heating (including wood and coal burning, primary and
secondary, 16.6%), and other point sources (10%, primary and
secondary).
To demonstrate attainment by December 1994 (and to show on-going
maintenance of the NAAQS), the SIP provided for implementation of the
following control measures (the SIP shows attainment by 1993 and
maintenance to 2003):
(1) New operating parameters and emission limitations for
PM10, SO2, and NOx for existing sources of primary and
secondary PM10 impacting the ambient concentrations at the
monitoring sites are detailed in Appendix A.1. of the Utah Air
Conservation Regulation (UACR). These control measures include:
(a) a 54.4% emission reduction for Geneva Steel (primarily from the
coke oven stacks and open hearth) includes facility-wide emission
limitations and reporting and recordkeeping requirements specified in
Appendix A.1.2.F of the SIP;
(b) fourteen other sources, which include a nitric acid plant,
power plants, and asphalt & cement plants, have emission limitations
specified in Appendix A.1.2.A through A.1.2.O;
(c) provisions limiting fuel burning to natural gas or to a
specific sulfur content in the fuel, with specific permitting and
recordkeeping requirements, apply to all major fuel burning units or
facilities in the County;
(d) general provisions relating to stack testing, opacity,
compliance with annual limitations, recordkeeping requirements of
consumption/ production, on-site fugitive dust control requirements
from unpaved operation areas, etc., are specified in Appendix A.1.1;
(e) regulations to ensure implementation and enforcement provisions
were revised or added, such as definitions, general requirements
applicable to all sources or source categories, permitting regulations,
emission standards, and emergency episode requirements.
(2) No burn periods, beginning September 1992, will achieve 60%
emission reduction from fireplaces and 50% from woodstoves (Section
9.A.6(4)(a) of the SIP):
(a) area coverage is north of the southernmost border of Payson
City and east of State Route 68 (this covers virtually all the
populated areas in Utah County; the areas not covered are mountainous
areas and Utah Lake);
(b) program is triggered when ambient PM10 concentrations
reach 120 g/m\3\ as measured by the real-time monitor located
at the Lindon monitoring site;
(c) City and County Health Department commits to adopt local
regulations to promulgate plan consistent with the State regulations;
(d) the State commits to eight inspectors round-the-clock during
mandatory no burn periods and inspections to include investigation of
calls made by private citizens;
(e) a regulation which specifically prohibits any visible emissions
during the mandatory no burn period, except for those residences with
burning as the sole source of heat for the entire residence and
registered with the Executive Secretary or the local Health District
(UACR 4.13.3);1 and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The SIP requires that the County develop regulations/
ordinances for fireplace and woodstove installer and operator
training programs, a solid fuel burner inspection program,
weatherization requirements for homes, and banning of coal burning.
EPA notes that when implemented, this program should help ensure
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) guidelines established for assessing the amount of penalty for
violation of the no burn regulation (UACR 9.A.6.(4)(c)(viii)).
(3) Reducing sand/salt/slag applied to roads during the wintertime
by 20% (Section 9.A.6(7) of the SIP). In addition, a study is to be
conducted to confirm 20% reduction. Within six months from completion
of the study, agencies responsible for application of these materials
on the road must submit a plan and implementation schedules to reduce
initial silt loading by 25% from the amount applied during the 1990
base year. The methods included in the Plan must be implemented by
October 1, 1993. Regulations specifying the requirements for those who
apply salt, slag or sand to roads are located in UACR 3.2.7.A & B.
EPA requires that attainment be demonstrated at all sites violating
the PM10 standard. The control measures discussed above are
necessary for all the sites to attain the standard, although the impact
of a specific source category at a site may vary. The attainment
summary for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at each of the three monitoring
sites (Lindon, North Provo, and West Orem) through the year 2003 can be
found in Tables 9.A.5, 9.A.7 and 9.A.9 of the SIP, respectively.
Changes in emissions between 1993 and 2003 show a slight decrease in
mobile source emissions, but a slight increase in residential space
heating (woodburning) emissions.
Although the State focused on the emissions and exceedances during
the winter months, the control measures specific to the stationary
sources are year-round. The highest annual average in Utah County
occurred in 1988 at the Lindon site and was 54 g/m\3\. Since
attainment of the 24-hour design value results in an emission reduction
of 43% in Utah County, the 24-hour emission limits are the more
restrictive and will ensure attainment of the annual standard (as
summarized in Table 9.A.24 of the SIP).
The State has also committed to adopt a diesel inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program to reduce diesel particulate emissions by
20%. The SIP contains a detailed discussion of the program elements,
committed to by the State, including, among other things, the following
measures:
(a) opacity inspections and mandatory repair upon failure;
(b) compliance monitored through diesel vehicle registration;
(c) certification of mechanics and stations upon their
demonstration of adequate training, skill, and resources;
(d) opacity compliance test methods and roadside opacity
enforcement;
(e) fleet self-certification;
(f) limited waiver provisions;
(g) public education on the program requirements provided to diesel
vehicle owners and diesel industry organizations;
(h) enforcement program, penalties and annual program evaluation.
The SIP contains a detailed schedule of the State's action on the
diesel I/M program that indicates, among other things, the program
provisions will become effective on July 1, 1993. The State has since
advised EPA that the implementation of this program has slipped due to
delays in the national opacity testing and measurement specifications.
2. Salt Lake County
Two distinct PM10 problems have been identified in Salt Lake
County: (1) the summertime exceedances due to blowing dust from the
Kennecott tailings in Magna, and (2) the winter exceedances during
winter inversion periods in Salt Lake and Davis Counties.
a. Magna
Based on 724 observations in a three-year period, 1987 through
1989, the design value was determined to be the third-high reading, 304
g/m3. The exceedances were specifically caused by blowing
dust from the Kennecott tailings pond while the facility was shut down.
Additional analyses to determine any other source contribution were not
necessary.
Kennecott and the State agreed to various control measures to
ensure dust control of the tailings pond during current operation, and
temporary or permanent shutdown of the mine, smelter and/or associated
tailings pond operations.
The control measures (which included slurry distribution throughout
the periphery and surface top of the pond) were completed in July 1988.
Vegetation planting was also initiated. The meteorological conditions
(winds at 15 mph or greater) which caused the past exceedances have
occurred since the implementation of the control measure and no
exceedances were recorded. The control measures are defined in Section
9.A.6(1) of the SIP and Appendix A.2.2.BB.B of the Utah Air
Conservation Regulation.
b. Salt Lake County
The Salt Lake County exceedances, with the exception of the Magna
area problem, occurred only during the winter season (November through
February). The County has three monitoring sites (North Salt Lake, Air
Monitoring Center, and Salt Lake), which recorded violations of the
PM10 NAAQS. The North Salt Lake design value is 169 g/
m3. The Air Monitoring Center design value is 177 g/
m3. The Salt Lake design value is 170 g/m3.
The source apportionments for these sites are fairly similar,
showing significant PM10 contribution from secondary emissions.
The Salt Lake area has different types of major stationary sources
which emit SO2 and NOx emissions, including refineries, a
copper smelter, power plants, and asphalt plants. Significant emissions
were also identified from industrial vehicles, trains, and planes (Salt
Lake has an international airport and a major railroad distribution
center), woodburning, and from gasoline vehicles. The State concluded
that showing attainment at the Air Monitoring Center, where the design
value was highest, would also show attainment at the remaining two
sites.
Analyses of the gridded emission inventory and the CMB indicated
that the Salt Lake monitors, especially the North Salt Lake site, were
impacted by PM10 and its precursors (SO2 and NOx) in
Davis County. Therefore, to adequately address the nonattainment
problem in Salt Lake County, sources were evaluated and controls
required in Davis County, as well as in Salt Lake County.
As with the Utah County effort, the Salt Lake modeling analysis was
receptor modeling, or CMB, due to difficulties with using dispersion
modeling. Low wind speed (stagnation) and inversions were recurring
meteorological conditions; they were not necessarily as severe as the
conditions in Utah County. The area, however, had significant mountain-
valley-lake effects. (The Wasatch Mountains are to the east and the
Great Salt Lake is to the west.) The State has only vector wind data,
which could not be changed to scaler units in a timely manner.
Therefore, to meet the deadlines of the Settlement Agreement, EPA and
the State agreed to proceed with the Salt Lake analysis using CMB and
emission inventory rollback. A micro inventory and critical review of
the CMB provides an adequate and appropriate analysis of the PM10
contribution and the required emission reduction necessary for
attainment in Salt Lake County. In addition, Kennecott Copper performed
a tracer study in February 1990 to determine if its emissions impact
the Salt Lake monitoring sites. That study confirmed that the 1215 ft.
stack and emissions from low heights at the smelter do impact the
monitoring sites.
As discussed in II.C.1. above, EPA's policy indicates that, in
certain circumstances, ``modified demonstrations'' may be accepted on a
case-by-case basis. The policy is applicable to the Salt Lake County
attainment demonstration due to the meteorological and topographical
concerns, as well as the secondary particulate contribution issues.
These issues were documented in Volume I, Salt Lake County, General
Data Technical Support Document.
The base year emission inventory was for 1988. Since the
exceedances were wintertime occurrences, the State focused on a
wintertime (1988-89 season) inventory and an annual inventory.
Summaries of these inventories, as well as the attainment year
inventory, are provided in Table 9.A.13 of the SIP. Specific details of
the base year and attainment year (after controls) inventories are
provided in Volumes II through VI, Salt Lake County, State Technical
Support Document.
The Air Monitoring Center site, with the highest design value in
the area, was used as the ``control'' site for demonstrating attainment
of the PM10 NAAQS in Salt Lake County. The categories of source
contribution for the highest design value site include refineries
(5.35% primary), other point sources (12.42% primary), secondary
sulfates (12.97%, primarily from Kennecott smelter and refineries),
secondary nitrates (10.42%, primarily from Kennecott mine and
refineries), automobiles (29.28% primary and secondary), space heating
(including wood and coal burning, 24% primary and secondary), and other
sources (trains and planes, 3.52% primary and secondary). The source
contribution for all the sources, except Kennecott, is similar at the
other monitoring sites. The Kennecott source contributions were 4 to 6%
for primary PM10 at the North Provo and Salt Lake sites and 0% at
the Air Monitoring Center.
To demonstrate attainment by December 1994 (and to show ongoing
maintenance of the NAAQS), the SIP provides for implementation of the
following control measures (the SIP shows attainment by 1993 and
maintenance to at least 2000):
(1) New operating parameters and emission limitations for
PM10, SO2, and NOx for existing sources of primary and
secondary PM10 impacting the ambient concentrations at the
monitoring sites are detailed in Appendix A.2. of the UACR. These
control measures include:
(a) significant emission reduction for Kennecott's facilities
(concentrator, power plant, refinery, gold mine, copper mine and
smelter). The smelter's 1215 ft. stack previously was allowed to emit
SO2 emissions of 18,000 lbs/hr, annual average and a maximum 3-
hour average of 98,400 lbs/hr. The new emission limit which requires
emission reduction equivalent to that which would be realized from a
double contact acid plant is 3240 lbs/hr, annual average and 5700 lbs/
hr, 24-hour average.
(b) emission reduction for the refineries (the major control
requirements are the installation of a sulfur recovery unit, and
emission limitations on the boilers, furnaces, flares, catalytic
crackers, etc.);
(c) provisions allowing the burning of only natural gas fuel during
the wintertime (November through February) at all power plants; year-
round burning of natural gas fuel is required at Utah Power and Light
(Gadsby and 40 N. 100W.) and Murray City Power;
(d) sources are considered major if they emit 50 tpy of PM10,
SO2, or NOx, or any combination of the three pollutants.
(e) general provisions relating to stack testing, opacity,
compliance with annual limitations, recordkeeping requirements of
consumption/ production, on-site fugitive dust control requirements
from unpaved operation areas, etc.
(f) regulations to ensure implementation and enforcement provisions
were revised or added, such as definitions, general requirements
applicable to all sources or source categories, permitting regulations,
emission standards, emergency episode requirements and malfunction
provisions.
(2) No burn period, beginning September 1992, will achieve 60%
emission reduction from fireplaces and 50% from woodstoves (Section
9.A.6(4)(b) of the SIP):
(a) area coverage is all of Salt Lake County and for areas in Davis
County which are south of the southernmost border of Kaysville; the
prohibition applies when the ambient concentration of PM10 reaches
120 g/m3 and the forecasted weather includes a
temperature inversion which is predicted to continue for at least 24
hours;
(b) the State commits to eight inspectors round-the-clock during
mandatory no burn periods and inspections to include investigation of
calls made by private citizens;
(c) a regulation which specifically prohibits any visible emissions
during the mandatory no burn period, except for those residences with
burning as the sole source of heat for the entire residence and
registered with the Executive Secretary or the local health department
(UACR 4.13.3); and
(d) guidelines established for assessing the amount of penalty for
violation of the no burn regulation (UACR 9.A.6.(4)(c)(viii))
(3) Reducing sand/salt/slag applied to roads during the wintertime
by 20%, as described above in the Utah County plan, B.1.d.3. EPA's
position regarding this measure is also the same as described above in
the discussion of the Utah County plan and is incorporated here by
reference. In short, EPA is approving the road salting and sanding
rules contained in the SIP. Based on the information currently
available, EPA believes the 20% reduction estimated by the State is
reasonable. However, in acting on any SIP revision following from the
study described in B.1.d.3 above, EPA would review the sufficiency of
any new measures in light of the new information. EPA also may find it
necessary to assess the sufficiency of the area's attainment
demonstration in light of such new information. See Section 110(k)(6)
of the Act.
The control strategies discussed above are necessary to demonstrate
attainment at the three monitoring sites, although the impact of a
specific source category at a site may vary. The attainment summaries
for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at each of the monitoring sites (North
Salt Lake, Air Monitoring Center, and Salt Lake City) through the year
2000 can be found in Tables 9.A.16, 9.A.a and 9.A.22, respectively.
Changes in emissions between 1993 and 2000 show a slight decrease in
mobile source emissions, but an increase from residential space heating
(woodburning).
Although the State focused on the emissions and exceedances during
the winter months, the control measures specific to the stationary
sources are year-round. The highest annual average, 54
m3, in Salt Lake County occurred in 1988 at the North
Salt Lake site. Since the 24-hour design value results in a PM10
emission reduction of 19.6% in Salt Lake County, the 24-hour emission
limits are more restrictive, and will ensure attainment of the annual
standard (as summarized in Table 9.A.24 of the SIP).
The State's commitment to adopt a diesel I/M program to reduce
diesel particulate emission by 20% applies to Salt Lake and Davis
County as well as Utah County (Section 9.A.6(6) of the SIP). In the
Utah County portion of this notice, EPA described in broad terms the
program elements and associated schedules committed to by the State.
The prior discussion of the commitment applies with equal force here.
EPA's position regarding the State's commitment to adopt this program
is also the same as that described in the Utah County discussion above
and is incorporated here by reference.
D. Additional Section 110(a)(2) and Section 172 CAA Requirements
The Utah State-wide SIP was last revised in 1978 and, at that time,
the State addressed major SIP elements such as resources, ambient
monitoring program, emergency episodes, permitting, etc. These program
elements are required by Section 110(a)(2) and Section 172 (Part D) of
the CAA. The Utah SIP has been revised since 1978, but the revisions
were only for pollutant specific nonattainment areas. To ensure
adequate implementation and enforcement of the PM10 SIP, the State
reviewed and updated its State-wide SIP and regulations. The
regulations were revised, as necessary, to enforce the PM10 SIP.
The State-wide SIP, excluding Section 9 (pollutant-specific
nonattainment area plans), and Section 8 (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration), was revised to address changes in EPA guidance and
other Federal requirements. A public hearing was held on these
revisions on December 16, 1991. The revisions were made effective on
March 31, 1992 and officially submitted to EPA on October 16, 1992.
Prior to this revision, the UACR were incorporated into the State-
wide SIP, Chapter 12. During the public hearing process, the State
identified administrative and publishing concerns which justified the
``rearranging'' of the regulations and the document titled ``SIP''. The
State clarified that the SIP has always been incorporated by reference
into the regulations, as stated in UACR R446-2. Past inclusion of the
regulations into the SIP creates a double incorporation. The State
clarified that the regulations and the revised ``SIP'' will continue to
be federally enforceable for the State-wide program. Clarification of
the State's position on this issue is documented in the State's
response to public hearing comments on the revisions to Chapter 1-7 and
10-15; the State's internal memorandum of its response to public
hearing comments is dated December 23, 1991, and is included in the
State TSD.
E. Post SIP Submittal Issues
EPA reviewed the Utah PM10 submittal dated November 15, 1991,
and determined the package as administratively and technically
complete. This finding was documented in a letter to the Governor of
Utah on January 17, 1992. EPA, however, had several concerns on the
approvability of the SIP due to missing documentation. Documentation on
the State's analyses on various stationary source control measures and
how they were to be revised in the SIP and specified in the permits was
needed. EPA has since received a majority of the documentation
requested or has received an adequate State response with respect to
correcting any stationary-source emission-limitation clarity issues.
The State did not need a formal SIP revision (i.e., that which has gone
to the public hearing process) to correct these changes (with the
exception of the Pacific States Cast Iron opacity and the 202 test
method, discussed below) because the changes were not significant and
substantive modifications.
The Pacific States Cast Iron Company (this source is located in
Utah County) opacity limit stated in the SIP is 30%. Generally, EPA
policy provides that, for any major stationary source emitting
particulates in a nonattainment area, the opacity should be restricted
to 20% unless the source can demonstrate that 20% is not feasible. In
that case, the source must demonstrate the lowest opacity level that is
feasible. The 30% opacity was a requirement that was stated in the
public hearing document. This opacity limit was an oversight in the
review of the Pacific States Cast Iron emission limitations. In a
letter dated October 23, 1992, the Director of the Utah Division of Air
Quality committed to review the emission limit (the 20% or feasible
opacity level) for this source and to adopt a SIP revision, if
appropriate, by March 1993. This review must be completed by the State.
When the Utah PM10 SIP was finalized, Method 202 had not been
promulgated by EPA. Therefore, the absence of Method 202 is not a basis
for disapproving any requirements or elements in the SIP submittal
being acted on today. However, Method 202 is now available and should
be specified in the future as appropriate in the SIP and in the
stationary source permits. The State was aware of this potential
requirement and has agreed to address this issue as part of its State/
EPA Agreement for fiscal year 1994.
During the review of the November 15, 1991 submittal, EPA and the
State identified typographical errors in the final printing of the SIP.
The State has committed to correct these errors in a letter dated July
1, 1992. The typographical errors on (1) page 42 of the SIP, Section
9.A.6.(2)(a), (2) page 52 of the SIP, third paragraph, sixth line, and
(3) page 185, Section 9 of the SIP, Appendix A.2.2.RR, Condition 6,
have been corrected in September 1993.
Since State adoption of this PM10 SIP, the State has been
finalizing the permit conditions for stationary sources. EPA has
discussed and advised the State on the need to ensure consistency with
the State's permits and the federally-enforceable SIP. The State's
permit program is in the federally-approved SIP. The final approval to
the PM10 SIP will also make the emission limitations for the
stationary sources federally enforceable. EPA is giving notice that
should different emission limitations exist, EPA will enforce the more
stringent of the two (or more) emission limitations. EPA must have
assurance that the attainment demonstration of a nonattainment area
plan is maintained. The less stringent emission limitation may not
provide that assurance without a reanalysis of the attainment
demonstration. It is, therefore, critical that the State maintain
consistent emission limitations in the permits and in the federally-
approved nonattainment-area plan. EPA has agreed to allow the State to
update the emission limitations section of the SIP once a year, i.e.,
by September of each year beginning 1993. The tracking of this effort
will be documented annually in the EPA/State Agreement.
III. Public Comment
EPA proposed to approve the Utah PM10 SIP on December 18,
1992, 57 FR 60149. Comments were received from Geneva Steel and
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation. The Geneva comments consisted of two
parts: general comments in support of the SIP and a specific comment
regarding equity on where controls were required and what controls are
necessary for growth. The Kennecott comments contained a status report
of its control measures on its tailings pond and the belief that the
Federal approval of the PM10 SIP, which includes sulfur emission
limitations for the smelter, would automatically imply resolution of
the stack-height issues at the smelter. (The Kennecott smelter has a
long history of issues surrounding its 1215 ft. stack. These issues are
being addressed in a separate Federal Register action.) The Geneva and
Kennecott comments are discussed in more details below.
A. Geneva Comments
The Geneva comments raised interesting issues, some of which have
been raised previously during the PM10 SIP development, others
which would be more appropriately addressed by the State in its current
work on the PM10 contingency plan SIP Revision or the Carbon
Monoxide SIP Revision. The comments are summarized below:
1. Geneva believes it has done its fair share to reduce emissions,
but the SIP does not provide an adequate margin for growth from area
and mobile sources. Geneva claims it has submitted data in February
1993 suggesting that ignoring the increasing vehicle emissions has
resulted in overcontrol at Geneva.
Response: EPA has not seen the February 1993 data. The SIP,
however, cannot be changed simply by the submittal of new data. EPA
believes the State made the best decision with the data available at
the time of the SIP development in 1990. The State can evaluate new
data and revise the SIP accordingly. The State is required to submit a
SIP Revision by November 15, 1993, to address contingency measures. The
State should work with Geneva in considering the February 1993 data in
the next SIP Revision.
2. Geneva commented that no Up-Down-Up analysis was performed on a
similar source [the Kennecott smelter] in Salt Lake County which was
also temporarily shut down during the PM10 data collection period.
If the Up-Down-Up analysis is really useful, equivalent use for source
apportionment in Salt Lake County would be expected.
Response: EPA believes that the State did not have sufficient data
or time to perform an Up-Down-Up analysis for the Kennecott facility.
Instead, the State used a tracer study which Kennecott funded. EPA and
the State reviewed the data and believed they adequately evaluated the
Kennecott emissions impact in the Wasatch Front. EPA believes that for
PM10, equitable emission reduction was applied to this stationary
source category.
3. Geneva claims significantly different approaches were applied in
defining the design values for the Utah County and Salt Lake County
SIPs.
Response: The design value determination had been discussed between
EPA, the State and Geneva prior to and during the State public hearing
period. EPA continues to believe that the State adequately applied the
appropriate rationale for evaluating quality assured complete data sets
for both area SIPs. EPA Headquarters specifically documented the
procedures for review of PM10 data in Utah County in EPA internal
memoranda dated May 11, 1990 and July 11, 1990. The Salt Lake data were
reviewed in the same manner.
4. Geneva pointed out that reductions in coal burning emissions
were not adequately considered in the Utah County SIP and credit
inappropriately applied in the Salt Lake County SIP.
Response: EPA agrees that coal burning emissions may not have been
adequately addressed in the Utah County or Salt Lake County SIPs. EPA,
however, did not give emission reduction credit for coal burning
control measures in either SIP. EPA does agree that significant data
were gathered on coal burning emissions in the Utah County area and
that more data gathering may be needed in Salt Lake County. EPA
believes the State could address these issues when it develops its
PM10 contingency plan.
5. Geneva commented that the oxygenated fuels program may increase
mobile source NOX emissions which could jeopardize the success of
the PM10 SIP (NOX has been determined to be a PM10
precursor in the Utah County area).
Response: The oxygenated fuels program is being implemented in Utah
County in response to the CAA mandate for moderate CO nonattainment
areas with design values greater than 12.7 ppm. It was adopted and
implemented after the PM10 SIP was adopted and submitted to EPA.
That is, the PM10 SIP did not and could not have anticipated the
impact of other future CAA requirements. EPA believes that the State
should address the Utah County oxygenated fuels issues through the
Carbon Monoxide (CO) SIP and filter data analyses to demonstrate that
mobile source emissions, during the oxygenated fuels program, did in
fact raise the NOX emissions in the area. EPA has seen much of the
data referenced by Geneva, but has also seen data to the contrary. EPA
Headquarters has not made a conclusive determination on either data
base.
6. Geneva suggested that the diesel emissions may not have been
accurately apportioned; emissions assigned to diesel vehicles should
have been assigned to gasoline vehicles.
Response: The PM10 SIP does break out diesel and gasoline
fueled PM10 emissions, but does not break out NOX emissions;
there is only a single category for secondary nitrate. The NOX
emission estimates came from the MOBILE model, which includes both
EPA's tailpipe emission factors and VMT shares for gasoline and diesel
fueled vehicles. The model provides one composite NOX emission
factor, which is multiplied by total VMT in the County to produce one
NOX emissions number. Since the MOBILE model includes the
necessary emission factors for the different vehicle types, the only
way the State could have produced an erroneous NOX estimate using
the model would have been to input faulty VMT share information for gas
and diesel vehicles. EPA believes the State used EPA's default inputs
for VMT share.
7. Geneva claims that EPA and the State used the Kennecott tracer
study for the PM10 SIP but that EPA was not in favor of applying
the Geneva tracer study in the same manner for the Utah County CO SIP.
Response: EPA believes the intent and application of the Kennecott
PM10 tracer study differed from the Geneva CO study. The Kennecott
study was to determine if there was an impact from Kennecott in the
Salt Lake or Utah County PM10 nonattainment area. The Kennecott
emission limitations were then set using emission rollback and CMB
analyses. The Geneva study was to determine Geneva's impact in downtown
Provo, but EPA has questioned the emission rates used during the study
and the length of the study time. EPA believes that the study contains
good information, but is inadequate to define the CO impact during
stagnation conditions or establish emission rates as was done with the
Kennecott study. This discussion, however, is not applicable to the
approval of the Utah County PM10 SIP.
In summary, the Geneva comments raised interesting issues, some of
which have been raised previously, and others which are more
appropriate for the State to address during the PM10 contingency
SIP revision or for the CO SIP revision.
B. Kennecott Comments
Kennecott made two specific comments. The first is the status of
the vegetation cover around the tailings pond and its success in
attaining the standard in the Magna area in the past four and a half
years. In the second comment, Kennecott indicates that for PM10,
attainment was demonstrated using receptor modeling and ambient
monitoring data. Kennecott states that ``If the smokestacks used by one
or more of the PM10 sources had been taller or shorter than they
actually are, the ambient data would have been different and the
results of the CMB analysis would have been different. Therefore, if
any of the stacks were taller than GEP, credit could not be given for
the height above GEP and an attainment demonstration based on CMB would
not be valid.'' Kennecott reiterates its commitment to install a double
contact acid plan and asserts that EPA's approval of the PM10 SIP
implies approval of the GEP SIP.
Response: EPA acknowledges the good faith effort Kennecott has made
in successfully implementing the control measures for the tailings
pond. The comment on GEP, however, is not applicable here. The
PM10 SIP did not attempt to review stack height issues in the Salt
Lake or Utah County areas. (Stack heights could have been reviewed if
any of the stationary sources emitted greater than 5000 tpy total
suspended particulates. Such sources did not exist in these PM10
nonattainment areas.)
As stated in I.C.2.b above, Kennecott emissions from the tall stack
and from other sources did impact PM10 monitoring sites in Utah
and Salt Lake Counties. The Salt Lake PM10 SIP is related to the
stack height (GEP) issue because SO2 emissions in the Wasatch
Front have been determined to be precursors of PM10. To
demonstrate attainment for the Utah SIP, ``major'' PM10 sources
and their precursors must demonstrate RACT. For the Kennecott smelter,
RACT was a double contact acid plant or its equivalent. A double
contact acid plant has been determined by EPA to be RACT for the
SO2 SIP, but it is a control measure that was highly contested by
Kennecott over the past two decades in favor of other control measures.
Emissions rollback was used to determine the level necessary for
PM10 attainment of the area. Stack height (or GEP) was not an
issue which had to be resolved for the PM10 SIP. EPA did encourage
the double contact acid plant control measure since such control
measure, combined with other requirements, was necessary for both the
PM10 and SO2 attainment demonstration. The GEP SIP is focused
on another criteria pollutant, was not discussed in the proposed
approval rulemaking of the Utah PM10 SIP, and must be processed in
a separate Federal Register action.
As with the Geneva comments, the Kennecott comments/issues do not
affect the approvability of the PM10 SIP.
IV. Implications of Today's Action
The EPA is approving the plan revision submitted to EPA for the
Utah and Salt Lake Counties, Utah, in a letter from the Governor dated
November 15, 1991. Among other things, the State of Utah has
demonstrated that the Utah and Salt Lake Counties PM10
nonattainment areas will attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31,
1994.
The Utah Air Conservation Regulations (UACR) have been revised
numerous times since the early 1970's. The regulations have been
renumbered and new requirements added. EPA is today approving the
replacement of the entire UACR submitted on November 15, 1991.
EPA is approving the State-wide SIP revisions (Chapters 1-7 and 10-
15) submitted in a letter dated October 15, 1992, by the Director, Utah
Air Quality Division. As with the UACR, the State-wide SIP was updated
to clarity and consistency with current State and Federal requirements.
The October 15, 1992 submittal was referenced in the Governor's
original November 15, 1991 letter.
As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM10
nonattainment areas were due at later dates. These include a new source
review program for new and modified major sources of PM10 (and
PM10 precursors, where applicable), which was required to be
submitted by June 30, 1992 (see Section 189(a) of the Act) and
contingency measures, which were required to be submitted by November
15, 1993 (see Section 172(c)(9) of the Act and 57 FR 13543). The EPA
will determine the adequacy of any such submittal as appropriate.
The approval of the PM10 plans for the Salt Lake and Utah
Counties has benefits that extend to other criteria pollutant efforts.
The approval of these PM10 plans, however, does not automatically
resolve the other criteria pollutant issues, such as GEP and the
SO2 SIP. The GEP issue and the SO2 SIP for Salt Lake County
will be addressed in a separate Federal Register notice.
The approval of this PM10 plan for Salt Lake and Utah Counties
establishes emission limitations and implementation milestones. The
State must update its SIP for changes to these emission limitations,
especially for stationary sources. EPA and the State agree that such
updates (which are SIP Revisions) will occur each September, as
appropriate. Should differences exist between emission limitations, EPA
will enforce, as necessary, the most stringent limitation.
Final Action
This document makes final the action proposed at 57 FR 60149,
December 18, 1992, including the clarifications discussed above. As
noted elsewhere in this notice, EPA received public comments in support
of its proposed approval and on comments more applicable to other
pollutant (SO2 and CO) issues; no adverse public comments were
believed to have been submitted on the proposed action. As a direct
result, the Regional Administrator has reclassified this action from
Table I to a Table III under the processing procedures established at
54 FR 2214, January 19, 1989.
Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over population of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship
under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A. 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 6, 1994. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see Section 307(b)(2)).
Executive Order 12866
OMB has exempted this action from Executive Order 12866 review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
reference, hydrocarbons, intergovernmental relations, nitrogen dioxide,
particulate matter, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
sulfur dioxide.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Utah was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: April 26, 1994.
William Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart TT--Utah
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(25) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(25) The Governor of Utah submitted a PM10 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah with a
letter dated November 15, 1991. The submittals were made to satisfy
those moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements due for
Salt Lake and Utah Counties as outlined in the Clean Air Act of 1990.
The Governor's submittal also included revisions to the Utah Air
Quality Rules and to other sections of the State-wide SIP. The Utah Air
Conservation Regulations have been revised and renumbered over the past
decade and are being replaced in its entirely with this Governor's
submittal.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Utah Air Conservation Regulations, printed January 27, 1992.
(B) Utah State Implementation Plan, Section 1-7 and 10-15,
effective March 31, 1992.
(C) Utah State Implementation Plan, Section 9, Part A and Section
9, Part A, Appendix A effective August 14, 1991.
[FR Doc. 94-16505 Filed 7-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
