No. 37253 (5-year Review): Rule R307-250. Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program

DAR File No.: 37253
Filed: 02/06/2013 04:06:19 PM

NOTICE OF REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF CONTINUATION

Concise explanation of the particular statutory provisions under which the rule is enacted and how these provisions authorize or require the rule:

Subsection 19-2-104(1)(a) authorizes the Air Quality Board to make rules "...regarding the control, abatement, and prevention of air pollution from all sources and the establishment of the maximum quantity of air contaminants that may be emitted by any air contaminant source." Subsection 19-2-104(3)(e) states that the board may "prepare and develop a comprehensive plan or plans for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution in this state." Rule R307-250 is required to implement the provisions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), Section XX, the Regional Haze Plan. The Plan is required under 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, Visibility. The Plan requires a backstop trading program for emissions of sulfur dioxide from large sources, and Rule R307-250 sets forth the requirements sources will have to meet if the program is ever triggered.

Summary of written comments received during and since the last five-year review of the rule from interested persons supporting or opposing the rule:

Rule R307-250 was amended once since the last five-year review (DAR No. 31559). Comments were received from EPA Region 8 and from Kathy Van Dame of the Wasatch Clean Air Coalition. A summary of their comments, along with DAQ responses to those comments follows. Comment 1 (EPA Region 8): Subsection R307-250-4(1)(a) describes the applicability of the backstop trading rule. Utah has deleted paragraph (a) which would have included "all BART-eligible sources defined in 40 CFR 51.301 that are BART eligible due to sulfur dioxide emissions." Utah needs to add this section back into the model rule. Response to No. 1: Subsection R307-250-4(1)(a) has been changed as recommended. Comment 2 (EPA Region 8): Utah's SIP was updated to refer to the allowance tracking system as the "WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS)." Utah should do a word search and correct the trading rule. On a separate but related issue, the Division noticed that the trading rule refers to two different tracking systems -- "allowance tracking system" and "emissions tracking database." In a trading program, there should only be one tracking system, the WEB EATS. It appears the term "emissions tracking database" may be referring to the tracking system during the pre-trigger period. While the SIP may need both terms because it covers pre-trigger and post-trigger periods, that would not be true for the trading rule which only covers post-trigger periods. Therefore, Utah should also replace the term "emissions tracking database" in the trading rule with "WEB EATS." Response to No. 2: Rule R307-250 has been changed to reference the "WEB EATS" as recommended. Comment 3 (EPA Region 8): Utah needs to add a date for the submittal of a monitoring plan revision that is referenced in Model Rule provision I2(a)(3). The model rule has a submittal deadline of 90 days after implementing the change. The date should go into Subsection R307-250-9(6)(b). Response to No. 3: Subsection R307-250-9(6)(b) has been changed as recommended. Comment 4 (Kathy Van Dame, Wasatch Clean Air Coalition): SIP XX.E.3.a (1) (a) (i) and (ii) apparently refer to Subsections R307-250-4(1)(a) and (b). In XX the different types of sources are named "Category 1" and "Category 2". In Section R307-250-4, there is no such simple descriptor. In XX, Category 2 sources are described as "WEB sources that commenced operation on January 1, 2008 or a later date" while in Subsection R307-250-4(1)(b) they are described as "A new source that begins operation after the program trigger date." If in fact, the two descriptions refer to each other, they should be harmonized. In any case, the reference within XX.E.3.a(1)(a) to Rule R307-250 should be to a specific part of Rule R307-250. Response to No. 4: The two descriptions referred to in the comment are not intended to mean the same thing and do not need to be harmonized. The applicability language in the rule identifies the sources that are subject to the trading program. Applicability is determined based on actual emissions for existing sources and Potential to Emit (PTE) for new sources. The language in the SIP further divides the sources that are subject to the program into Category 1 and Category 2 sources. Category 1 sources will receive their floor allocation from either the utility or non-utility pool of allowances. These sources will also be eligible for a reducible allocation. Category 2 sources will receive their floor allowances from the new source set-aside, and will not be eligible for a reducible allocation. The reference within SIP Section XX.E.3.a(1)(a) has been changed as recommended to refer to Section R307-250-2 where the term "WEB source" is defined. Comment 5 (Kathy Van Dame, Wasatch Clean Air Coalition): In SIP XX.E.3.a (1)(c)(i) "early reduction credit", XX E.3. "early reduction allocation", and the title of Subsection R307-250-7(5) "Early Reduction Bonus Allocation," these terms apparently all refer to the same item; if so, they should be harmonized. In the case of multiple, interlocking documents, lack of uniformity of terms contributes to misunderstandings and disputes. Response to No. 5: The SIP and rule text have been modified as recommended to use a consistent terminology "early reduction bonus allocation." Comment 6 (Kathy Van Dame, Wasatch Clean Air Coalition): Emission threshold is undefined in Sections R307-205-6 and R307-250-9. Also because there is a procedure spelled out for a source that exceeds by accident, and can prove they have fixed the problem, R307-250-4(2), the issue of a threshold is muddy and care is needed on this point. Response to No. 6: R307-250-6 and R307-250-9 have been modified as recommended to clarify that the threshold is 100 tons/year of SO2 as required by Section R307-250-4.

Reasoned justification for continuation of the rule, including reasons why the agency disagrees with comments in opposition to the rule, if any:

Rule R307-250 is required to implement the provisions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), Section XX, the Regional Haze Plan, required under 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P. Therefore, this rule should be continued.

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Environmental Quality
Air QualityRoom Fourth Floor
195 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3085

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Mark Berger at the above address, by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

Authorized by:

Bryce Bird, Director

Effective:

02/06/2013

---