195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-48 20 Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801) 536-4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903-3978 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper 

### State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor 

### Department of Environmental Quality

Alan Matheson Executive Director DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird

Director Air Quality Board Stephen C. Sands II, Chair

Kerry Kelly, Vice-Chair Alan Matheson Erin Mendenhall Robert Paine III Arnold W. Reitze Jr Michael Smith William C. Stringer Karma M. Thomson Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary

DAQ-013-16a UTAH AIR QUALITY BOARD MEETING

FINAL AGENDA Wednesday, March 2, 2016 195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Board Working Lunch – 11:30 a.m. Four Corners Conference Rooms (4th floor) Staff will conduct annual Open and Pub lic Meetings Act training, board member orientation, and rulemaking overview. Board Meeting – 1:30 p.m. Conference Room 1015 (1st floor)

I. Call-to-Order II. Date of the Next Air Quality Board Meeting: April 6, 2016 III. Approval of the Minutes for February 3, 2016, Board Meeting. IV. Final Adoption: Amend R307-101-2. De finitions. Presented by Ryan Stephens. V. Final Adoption: Amend R307-104. Conflict of Interest. Presented by Ryan Stephens. VI. Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Western Resource Advocates, and HEAL Utah’s Petition for a Rule Change. Presented by Petitioners and Ryan Stephens.

VII. Informational Items. A. Fugitive Dust Comment Card s. Presented by Mark Berger. B. Update on the National Air Toxics Monitoring Program Annual Report. Presented by Roman Kuprov. C. Air Toxics. Presented by Robert Ford. D. Compliance. Presented by Jay Morris and Harold Burge. E. Monitoring. Presented by Bo Call. F. Other Items to be Brought Before the Board. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, individua ls with special needs (including auxiliary communicative aids a nd services) should contact Ashley Nelson, Office of Human Resources at (801) 536-4413 (TDD 903-3978).

# ITEM 3195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-48 20 Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801) 536-4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903-3978 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper 

### State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor 

### Department of Environmental Quality

Alan Matheson Executive Director DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird

Director Air Quality Board Stephen C. Sands II, Chair

Kerry Kelly, Vice-Chair Alan Matheson Erin Mendenhall Robert Paine III Arnold W. Reitze Jr Michael Smith William C. Stringer Karma M. Thomson Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary

UTAH AIR QUALITY BOARD MEETING February 3, 2016 – 1:30 p.m. 195 North 1950 West, Room 1015 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116

DRAFT MINUTES

____________________________

I. Call-to-Order Steve Sands called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Board members present: Steve Sands, Alan Matheson, Arnold Reitze, Michael Smith, and William Stringer Excused: Erin Mendenhall, Karma Thomson, Kerry Kelly, and Robert Paine Executive Secretary: Bryce Bird II. Date of the Next Air Quality Board Meeting: March 2, 2016 A working lunch will be held on March 2, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. followed by the Board meeting at 1:30 p.m. III. Approval of the Minutes for December 2, 2015, Board Meeting.

● Michael Smith moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Arnold Reitze seconded. The Board approved unanimously. IV. Final Adoption: Amend R307-101-2. Definiti ons; R307-312-5. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants; and R307-328-4. Loading of Tank Trucks, Trailers, Railroad Tank Cars, and Other Transport Vehicles. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Environmental Planning Consulta nt at DAQ, stated these rules were proposed in response to EPA’s conditional approval of parts of Utah’s PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP). The DAQ sent a letter to EPA on August 4, 2015, which committed to amending these rules. These amendments will satisfy that commitment and make Utah’s PM2.5 SIP approvable by the EPA. A public comment period was held and no comments were received. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the amendments to R307-101-2, R307-312-5, and R307-328-4.Air Quality Board Meeting February 3, 2016 Page 2 of 4 ● Michael Smith moved that the Board approve final adoption to amend R307-101-2, Definitions, R307-312-5, Hot Mix Asphalt Pl ants, and R307-328-4, Loading of Tank Trucks, Trailers, Railroad Ta nk Cars, and Other Transport Vehicles. Arnold Reitze seconded. The Board approved unanimously. V. Final Adoption: Amend R307-405-3. Definitions; and R307-415-3. Definitions. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Environmental Planning Consulta nt at DAQ, stated this rule was proposed in response to EPAs removal of portions of its preven tion of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting regulations that were initially promulgated in 2010. Due to a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, EPA can longer treat greenhouse gases as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source or modification ther eof, is required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit. The DAQ is proposing changes to the Utah ru les so that they will align with the change in federal regulations regarding gr eenhouse gases and the PSD and title V programs. A 30 day public comment period was held and no comments were received. Staff recommends that R307-405-3, Definitions, and R307-415-3, Definitions, are adopted as amended

● William Stringer moved that the Board a pprove final adoption to amend R307-405-3, Definitions, and R307-415-3, Definitions. Arnold Reitze seconded. The Board approved unanimously. VI. Final Adoption: Amend R307-110-28. Regi onal Haze. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Environmental Planning Consulta nt at DAQ, stated this rule will incorporate Utah’s five year progress report for regional haze into the SIP. A public comment period had previously been held on the substance of th e progress report. This recent comment period was addressing the incorporation of the report into the SI P. No comments were received on this issue. Staff recommends that the Board adopt R 307-110-28, Regional Haze, as amended.

● Arnold Reitze moved that the Board approve final adoption to amend R307-110-28, Regional Haze. William Stringer seconded. The Board approved unanimously. VII. Propose for Public Comment: Amend R307-801. Utah Asbestos Rule. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Environmental Planning Consu ltant at DAQ, stated that on March 25, 2015, Governor Gary Herbert signed Utah House Bill 229 (HB 229), Air Quality Modifications, into law. HB 229 revised the statutory definition of asbestos and modified what suspect asbestos-containing materials need to be inspected for in residential structures of four units or less. The proposed rule amends R307-801 so that it reflects changes to and is made consistent with Utah Air Conservation Act modifications. A 30 day public comment period was held, two comments were received. Some stakeholders expressed their concern regard ing Subsection 13(10). The concern was that the language regarding removal of ve rmiculite was ambiguous and hard to work with. The language read “to the maximum extent possible.” In r esponse to this concern, DAQ held a stakeholder meeting on January 20, 2016. An agreement was reached in which DAQ would propose the rule to the Board as a change in proposed rule. The change in the rule is that an option to meet the standard would be “by followi ng a work practice” or “an alternative work practice,” which hasAir Quality Board Meeting February 3, 2016 Page 3 of 4 been added to the rule. A work practice will be developed by DAQ with the help of the regulated community. Staff recommends that the Board propose R307-801 for a new comment period, after which, the rule will be brought back to the Bo ard in May to be considered for adoption. Public comment from Eldon Romney was introduced . Mr. Romney inquired of staff how the vermiculite that can be purchased in stores, wh ich is supposedly asbestos-free, is going to be handled. To which staff explained that one of th e requirements in the rule is that vermiculite material must be tested to see whether it is great er than 1% asbestos. This would require at the time of the demolition or renovation/remodeling th at if vermiculite is found that it be sampled/analyzed to see whether it has a regulated amount of asbestos in it. Furthermore, DAQ does not regulate what can be purchased in stor es so it is only at the time when there is a renovation or a demolition that you would have to address this issue.

● Arnold Reitze moved to approve the proposal to amend R307-801, Utah Asbestos Rule, for public comment. Michael Smith seconded. The Board approved unanimously. VIII. Propose for Public Comment: Amend R307- 841-8. Renovator Certification and Dust Sampling Technician Certification. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Environmental Planning Consultant at DAQ, stated this rule is being proposed in response to EPA’s amendments to the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule. DAQ has proposed this rule to reflect the changes the EPA made regarding certification extensions. The extensions will be reflected in state code, but th ey do not go beyond anything that EPA has already finalized in the federal rules. There will be no fiscal impact on businesses or state or local governments from this rule. It will likely benef it the regulated community, since it extends the time for certification and allows them to take adva ntage of the EPA’s new refresher courses. Staff recommends that the Board propose R307-841-8 for public comment.

● Michael Smith moved that the Board propose for public comment to amend R307-841-8, Renovator Certification and Dust Sampling T echnician Certification. William Stringer seconded. The Board approved unanimously.

IX. Informational Items. A. Air Toxics. Presented by Robert Ford. B. Compliance. Presented by Ja y Morris and Harold Burge. C. Monitoring. Presented by Bo Call. Bo Call, Air Monitoring Section Manager at DAQ, updated the Board on monitoring data graphs. It was also stated that DAQ has th ree air quality studies going on this winter and additional study research funding is being requested from the Legislature this year. Mr. Call responded to several questions about monitoring filters and the data obtained from the filters and how that data might be an alyzed for planning strategies. All of the data being reported is the filter da ta because that is the current data stream that is used for regulatory purposes. DAQ has real time data that is used for public awareness and for forecasting, but that data is not used as a primary method of determining compliance with the national ambient air quality standards. Also, DAQ does report the real time data on EPA’s repository so that data is available as well. Both data streams are kept and reported.Air Quality Board Meeting February 3, 2016 Page 4 of 4 D. Other Items to be Brought Before the Board. Bryce Bird updated the Board on air quality b ills and appropriations being tracked by the Legislative Clean Air Caucus during the curre nt legislative session. There are ten House bills, four Senate bills, and five cl ean air appropriations requests. Public comment from Ashley Soltysiak of HEAL Utah was introduced. HEAL Utah, along with Utah Physician’s for Healthy Environment and Western Resource Advocates, presented a package of rules last fall that they were going to bring to the Board for consideration. They have now completed the rule language for three rules and have submitted them to the Board. Staff indicated that DAQ did receive the rules language as well and they will be presented at the next Board meeting.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Meeting adjourned at 2:07 p.m.

# ITEM 4

### State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor 

### Department of Environmental Quality

A lan Matheson Executiv e Director DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird

Director

DAQ

- 01 5

- 16

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Air Quality Board THROUGH: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary FROM: Ryan Stephens, Environmental Planning Consultant

DATE: February 1 8 , 2016 SUBJECT: FINAL ADOPTION: R307

- 101

- 2. Definitions.

_

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________ R307

- 101

- 2 defines “PM10 Maintenance Area.” The rule has been updated to take into account the new maintenance plan the Board adopted last December. The main change is that “July 6, 2005” has been changed to “December 2, 2015.” Another minor change was made to the rule to remove a reference to the Clean Air Act as “amended in 1990.” The rule has been changed to reference the federal Clean Air Act as “found in 42 U.S.C. Chapter 8 5.” This change has been made to more accurately describe which federal laws the Air Quality Rules reference. A 30 day public comment period was held. No comments were received and no hearing was requested.

Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends t hat the Board adopt the amendments to R307

- 101

- 2 as proposed.

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, U tah Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1448 2 0 • Salt Lake City, U tah 84114

- 48 2 0 Telephone (801) 53 6

- 4 0 00 • Fa x (801 ) 536

- 4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903

- 3978 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paperR307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 1 of 17 **R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality.** 1 **R307 -**  **101. General Requirements.** 2 3 **R307 -**  **101 -**  **2. Definitions.** 4 Except where specified in individual rules, definitions in 5 R307

- 101

- 2 are applicable to all rules adopted by the Air Quality 6 Board. 7 "Actual Emissions" means the actual rate of emissions of a 8 pollutant from an emissions unit determined as follows: 9 (1) In general, actual emissions as of a particular date shall 10 equal the ave rage rate, in tons per year, at which the unit actually 11 emitted the pollutant during a two

- year period which precedes the 12 particular date and which is representative of normal source 13 operations. The director shall allow the use of a different time 14 period upon a determination that it is more representative of normal 15 source operation. Actual emissions shall be calculated using the 16 unit's actual operating hours, production rates, and types of 17 materials processed, stored, or combusted during the selected time 18 period. 19 (2) The director may presume that source

- specific allowable 20 emissions for the unit are equivalent to the actual emissions of the 21 unit. 22 (3) For any emission unit, other than an electric utility steam 23 generating unit specified in (4), which has not begun normal operations 24 on the particular date, actual emissions shall equal the potential to 25 emit of the unit on that date. 26 (4) For an electric utility steam generating unit (other than 27 a new unit or the replacement of an existing unit) actual emiss ions 28 of the unit following the physical or operational change shall equal 29 the representative actual annual emissions of the unit, provided the 30 source owner or operator maintains and submits to the director, on an 31 annual basis for a period of 5 years from t he date the unit resumes 32 regular operation, information demonstrating that the physical or 33 operational change did not result in an emissions increase. A longer 34 period, not to exceed 10 years, may be required by the director if the 35 director determines such a period to be more representative of normal 36 source post

- change operations. 37 "Acute Hazardous Air Pollutant" means any noncarcinogenic 38 hazardous air pollutant for which a threshold limit value

- ceiling 39 (TLV

- C) has been adopted by the American Conference of Governmental 40 Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in its "Threshold Limit Values for 41 Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure 42 Indices, (2009)." 43 "Air Contaminant" means any particulate matter or any gas, vapor, 44 suspended solid or any com bination of them, excluding steam and water 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 2 of 17 vapors (Section 19

- 2

- 102(1)). 1 "Air Contaminant Source" means any and all sources of emission 2 of air contaminants whether privately or publicly owned or operated 3 (Section 19

- 2

- 102(2)). 4 "Air Pollution" means the presence in the ambient air of one or 5 more air contaminants in such quantities and duration and under 6 conditions and circumstances, as is or tends to be injurious to human 7 health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would 8 unreasonably interfer e with the enjoyment of life or use of property 9 as determined by the standards, rules and regulations adopted by the 10 Air Quality Board (Section 19

- 2

- 104). 11 "Allowable Emissions" means the emission rate of a source 12 calculated using the maximum rated capacit y of the source (unless the 13 source is subject to enforceable limits which restrict the operating 14 rate, or hours of operation, or both) and the emission limitation 15 established pursuant to R307

- 401

- 8. 16 "Ambient Air" means the surrounding or outside air (Sect ion 17 19

- 2

- 102(4)). 18 "Appropriate Authority" means the governing body of any city, 19 town or county. 20 "Atmosphere" means the air that envelops or surrounds the earth 21 and includes all space outside of buildings, stacks or exterior ducts. 22 "Authorized Local Auth ority" means a city, county, city

- county 23 or district health department; a city, county or combination fire 24 department; or other local agency duly designated by appropriate 25 authority, with approval of the state Department of Health; and other 26 lawfully adopt ed ordinances, codes or regulations not in conflict 27 therewith. 28 "Board" means Air Quality Board. See Section 19

- 2

- 102(8)(a). 29 "Breakdown" means any malfunction or procedural error, to include 30 but not limited to any malfunction or procedural error during s tart

- up 31 and shutdown, which will result in the inoperability or sudden loss 32 of performance of the control equipment or process equipment causing 33 emissions in excess of those allowed by approval order or Title R307. 34 "BTU" means British Thermal Unit, the qu antity of heat necessary 35 to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. 36 "Calibration Drift" means the change in the instrument meter 37 readout over a stated period of time of normal continuous operation 38 when the VOC concentration at t he time of measurement is the same known 39 upscale value. 40 "Carbon Adsorption System" means a device containing adsorbent 41 material (e.g., activated carbon, aluminum, silica gel), an inlet and 42 outlet for exhaust gases, and a system for the proper disposal or reuse 43 of all VOC adsorbed. 44 "Carcinogenic Hazardous Air Pollutant" means any hazardous air 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 3 of 17 pollutant that is classified as a known human carcinogen (A1) or 1 suspected human carcinogen (A2) by the American Conference of 2 Governmental Industrial Hygienists (AC GIH) in its "Threshold Limit 3 Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological 4 Exposure Indices, (2009)." 5 "Chargeable Pollutant" means any regulated air pollutant except 6 the following: 7 (1) Carbon monoxide; 8 (2) Any pollutant that is a r egulated air pollutant solely 9 because it is a Class I or II substance subject to a standard 10 promulgated or established by Title VI of the Act, Stratospheric Ozone 11 Protection; 12 (3) Any pollutant that is a regulated air pollutant solely 13 because it is subjec t to a standard or regulation under Section 112(r) 14 of the Act, Prevention of Accidental Releases. 15 "Chronic Hazardous Air Pollutant" means any noncarcinogenic 16 hazardous air pollutant for which a threshold limit value

- time 17 weighted average (TLV

- TWA) havin g no threshold limit value

- ceiling 18 (TLV

- C) has been adopted by the American Conference of Governmental 19 Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in its "Threshold Limit Values for 20 Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure 21 Indices, (2009)." 22 "Cl ean Air Act" means federal Clean Air Act as found in 42 U.S.C

. 23 Chapter 85

. 24 "Clean Coal Technology" means any technology, including 25 technologies applied at the precombustion, combustion, or post 26 combustion stage, at a new or existing facility which will a chieve 27 significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides 28 of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation 29 of electricity, or process steam which was not in widespread use as 30 of November 15, 1990. 31 "Clean Coal Technolo gy Demonstration Project" means a project 32 using funds appropriated under the heading "Department of Energy

- Clean 33 Coal Technology," up to a total amount of $2,500,000,000 for commercial 34 demonstration of clean coal technology, or similar projects funded 35 thro ugh appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency. The 36 Federal contribution for a qualifying project shall be at least 20 37 percent of the total cost of the demonstration project. 38 "Clearing Index" means an indicator of the predicted rate of 39 cleara nce of ground level pollutants from a given area. This number 40 is provided by the National Weather Service. 41 "Commence" as applied to construction of a major source or major 42 modification means that the owner or operator has all necessary 43 pre - construction a pprovals or permits and either has: 44 (1) Begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of actual 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 4 of 17

on - site construction of the source, to be completed within a reasonable 1 time; or 2 (2) Entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, 3 which can not be canceled or modified without substantial loss to the 4 owner or operator, to undertake a program of actual construction of 5 the source to be completed within a reasonable time. 6 "Condensable PM2.5" means material that is vapor phase at stack 7 conditions , but which condenses and/or reacts upon cooling and 8 dilution in the ambient air to form solid or liquid particulate matter 9 immediately after discharge from the stack. 10 "Compliance Schedule" means a schedule of events, by date, which 11 will result in complia nce with these regulations. 12 "Construction" means any physical change or change in the method 13 of operation including fabrication, erection, installation, 14 demolition, or modification of a source which would result in a change 15 in actual emissions. 16 "Control Apparatus" means any device which prevents or controls 17 the emission of any air contaminant directly or indirectly into the 18 outdoor atmosphere. 19 "Department" means Utah State Department of Environmental 20 Quality. See Section 19

- 1

- 103(1). 21 "Director" means the Director of the Division of Air Quality. 22 See Section 19

- 1

- 103(1). 23 "Division" means the Division of Air Quality. 24 "Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit" means any steam electric 25 generating unit that is constructed for the purpose of supplying more 26 t han one

- third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 27 25 MW electrical output to any utility power distribution system for 28 sale. Any steam supplied to a steam distribution system for the 29 purpose of providing steam to a steam

- electric gener ator that would 30 produce electrical energy for sale is also considered in determining 31 the electrical energy output capacity of the affected facility. 32 "Emission" means the act of discharge into the atmosphere of an 33 air contaminant or an effluent which conta ins or may contain an air 34 contaminant; or the effluent so discharged into the atmosphere. 35 "Emissions Information" means, with reference to any source 36 operation, equipment or control apparatus: 37 (1) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, 38 frequency, concentration, or other characteristics related to air 39 quality of any air contaminant which has been emitted by the source 40 operation, equipment, or control apparatus; 41 (2) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, 42 frequency, con centration, or other characteristics (to the extent 43 related to air quality) of any air contaminant which, under an 44 applicable standard or limitation, the source operation was authorized 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 5 of 17 to emit (including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a 1 descr iption of the manner or rate of operation of the source 2 operation), or any combination of the foregoing; and 3 (3) A general description of the location and/or nature of the 4 source operation to the extent necessary to identify the source 5 operation and to d istinguish it from other source operations 6 (including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description 7 of the device, installation, or operation constituting the source 8 operation). 9 "Emission Limitation" means a requirement established by the 10 Boar d, the director or the Administrator, EPA, which limits the 11 quantity, rate or concentration of emission of air pollutants on a 12 continuous emission reduction including any requirement relating to 13 the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission 14 reduction (Section 302(k)). 15 "Emissions Unit" means any part of a stationary source which emits 16 or would have the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regulation 17 under the Clean Air Act. 18 "Enforceable" means all limitations and conditions w hich are 19 enforceable by the Administrator, including those requirements 20 developed pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, requirements within the 21 State Implementation Plan and R307, any permit requirements 22 established pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or R307

- 401. 23 "EP A" means Environmental Protection Agency. 24 "EPA Method 9" means 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 9, "Visual 25 Determination of Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources," and 26 Alternate 1, "Determination of the opacity of emissions from 27 stationary source s remotely by LIDAR." 28 "Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the Utah 29 Department of Environmental Quality. See Section 19

- 1

- 103(2). 30 "Existing Installation" means an installation, construction of 31 which began prior to the effective date of a ny regulation having 32 application to it. 33 "Facility" means machinery, equipment, structures of any part or 34 accessories thereof, installed or acquired for the primary purpose of 35 controlling or disposing of air pollution. It does not include an air 36 condition er, fan or other similar device for the comfort of personnel. 37 "Filterable PM2.5" means particles with an aerodynamic diameter 38 equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers that are directly emitted by a 39 source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions a nd can be 40 captured on the filter of a stack test train. 41 "Fireplace" means all devices both masonry or factory built units 42 (free standing fireplaces) with a hearth, fire chamber or similarly 43 prepared device connected to a chimney which provides the operato r with 44 little control of combustion air, leaving its fire chamber fully or 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 6 of 17 at least partially open to the room. Fireplaces include those devices 1 with circulating systems, heat exchangers, or draft reducing doors 2 with a net thermal efficiency of no greater than twenty percent and 3 are used for aesthetic purposes. 4 "Fugitive Dust" means particulate, composed of soil and/or 5 industrial particulates such as ash, coal, minerals, etc., which 6 becomes airborne because of wind or mechanical disturbance of 7 surfaces. Natural sources of dust and fugitive emissions are not 8 fugitive dust within the meaning of this definition. 9 "Fugitive Emissions" means emissions from an installation or 10 facility which are neither passed through an air cleaning device nor 11 vented through a stack or could not reasonably pass through a stack, 12 chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. 13 "Garbage" means all putrescible animal and vegetable matter 14 resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of 15 food, including w astes attendant thereto. 16 "Gasoline" means any petroleum distillate, used as a fuel for 17 internal combustion engines, having a Reid vapor pressure of 4 pounds 18 or greater. 19 "Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)" means any pollutant listed by the 20 EPA as a hazardous air pollutant in conformance with Section 112(b) 21 of the Clean Air Act. A list of these pollutants is available at the 22 Division of Air Quality. 23 "Household Waste" means any solid or liquid material normally 24 generated by the family in a residence in the cou rse of ordinary 25 day

- to

- day living, including but not limited to garbage, paper 26 products, rags, leaves and garden trash. 27 "Incinerator" means a combustion apparatus designed for high 28 temperature operation in which solid, semisolid, liquid, or gaseous 29 combus tible wastes are ignited and burned efficiently and from which 30 the solid and gaseous residues contain little or no combustible 31 material. 32 "Installation" means a discrete process with identifiable 33 emissions which may be part of a larger industrial plant. P ollution 34 equipment shall not be considered a separate installation or 35 installations. 36 "LPG" means liquified petroleum gas such as propane or butane. 37 "Maintenance Area" means an area that is subject to the provisions 38 of a maintenance plan that is includ ed in the Utah state implementation 39 plan, and that has been redesignated by EPA from nonattainment to 40 attainment of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 41 (a) The following areas are considered maintenance areas for 42 ozone: 43 (i) Salt Lake County, eff ective August 18, 1997; and 44 (ii) Davis County, effective August 18, 1997. 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 7 of 17 (b) The following areas are considered maintenance areas for 1 carbon monoxide: 2 (i) Salt Lake City, effective March 22, 1999; 3 (ii) Ogden City, effective May 8, 2001; and 4 (iii) Provo City, effective January 3, 2006. 5 (c) The following areas are considered maintenance areas for 6 PM10: 7 (i) Salt Lake County, effective on the date that EPA approves 8 the maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on December 2 , 2015 ; 9 and 10 (ii) Utah County, effective on the date that EPA approves the 11 maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on December 2 , 2015 ; 12 and 13 (iii) Ogden City, effective on the date that EPA approves the 14 maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on December 2 , 2015

. 15 (d) The following area is considered a maintenance area for 16 sulfur dioxide: all of Salt Lake County and the eastern portion of 17 Tooele County above 5600 feet, effective on the date that EPA approves 18 the maintenance plan that was adopted by the Boar d on January 5, 2005. 19 "Major Modification" means any physical change in or change in 20 the method of operation of a major source that would result in a 21 significant net emissions increase of any pollutant. A net emissions 22 increase that is significant for vo latile organic compounds shall be 23 considered significant for ozone. Within Salt Lake and Davis Counties 24 or any nonattainment area for ozone, a net emissions increase that is 25 significant for nitrogen oxides shall be considered significant for 26 ozone. Withi n areas of nonattainment for PM10, a significant net 27 emission increase for any PM10 precursor is also a significant net 28 emission increase for PM10. A physical change or change in the method 29 of operation shall not include: 30 (1) routine maintenance, repair and replacement; 31 (2) use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an 32 order under section 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and Environmental 33 Coordination Act of 1974, or by reason of a natural gas curtailment 34 plan pursuant to the Federal Powe r Act; 35 (3) use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under 36 section 125 of the federal Clean Air Act; 37 (4) use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit to the 38 extent that the fuel is generated from municipal solid waste; 39 (5) use of an alternative fuel or raw material by a source: 40 (a) which the source was capable of accommodating before January 41 6, 1975, unless such change would be prohibited under any enforceable 42 permit condition; or 43 (b) which the source is otherwise approved to use; 44 (6) an increase in the hours of operation or in the production 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 8 of 17 rate unless such change would be prohibited under any enforceable 1 permit condition; 2 (7) any change in ownership at a source 3 (8) the addition, replacement or use of a pollution con trol 4 project at an existing electric utility steam generating unit, unless 5 the director determines that such addition, replacement, or use 6 renders the unit less environmentally beneficial, or except: 7 (a) when the director has reason to believe that the p ollution 8 control project would result in a significant net increase in 9 representative actual annual emissions of any criteria pollutant over 10 levels used for that source in the most recent air quality impact 11 analysis in the area conducted for the purpose of Title I of the Clean 12 Air Act, if any, and 13 (b) the director determines that the increase will cause or 14 contribute to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard 15 or PSD increment, or visibility limitation. 16 (9) the installation, operation, c essation, or removal of a 17 temporary clean coal technology demonstration project, provided that 18 the project complies with: 19 (a) the Utah State Implementation Plan; and 20 (b) other requirements necessary to attain and maintain the 21 national ambient air quali ty standards during the project and after 22 it is terminated. 23 "Major Source" means, to the extent provided by the federal Clean 24 Air Act as applicable to R307: 25 (1) any stationary source of air pollutants which emits, or has 26 the potential to emit, one hundr ed tons per year or more of any 27 pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act; or 28 (a) any source located in a nonattainment area for carbon 29 monoxide which emits, or has the potential to emit, carbon monoxide 30 in the amounts outlined in Section 1 87 of the federal Clean Air Act 31 with respect to the severity of the nonattainment area as outlined in 32 Section 187 of the federal Clean Air Act; or 33 (b) any source located in Salt Lake or Davis Counties or in a 34 nonattainment area for ozone which emits, or has the potential to emit, 35 VOC or nitrogen oxides in the amounts outlined in Section 182 of the 36 federal Clean Air Act with respect to the severity of the nonattainment 37 area as outlined in Section 182 of the federal Clean Air Act; or 38 (c) any source locate d in a nonattainment area for PM10 which 39 emits, or has the potential to emit, PM10 or any PM10 precursor in the 40 amounts outlined in Section 189 of the federal Clean Air Act with 41 respect to the severity of the nonattainment area as outlined in 42 Section 189 o f the federal Clean Air Act. 43 (2) any physical change that would occur at a source not 44 qualifying under subpart 1 as a major source, if the change would 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 9 of 17 constitute a major source by itself; 1 (3) the fugitive emissions and fugitive dust of a stationary 2 so urce shall not be included in determining for any of the purposes 3 of these R307 rules whether it is a major stationary source, unless 4 the source belongs to one of the following categories of stationary 5 sources: 6 (a) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal drye rs); 7 (b) Kraft pulp mills; 8 (c) Portland cement plants; 9 (d) Primary zinc smelters; 10 (e) Iron and steel mills; 11 (f) Primary aluminum or reduction plants; 12 (g) Primary copper smelters; 13 (h) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 14 to ns of refuse per day; 15 (i) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants; 16 (j) Petroleum refineries; 17 (k) Lime plants; 18 (l) Phosphate rock processing plants; 19 (m) Coke oven batteries; 20 (n) Sulfur recovery plants; 21 (o) Carbon black plants (furnace pr ocess); 22 (p) Primary lead smelters; 23 (q) Fuel conversion plants; 24 (r) Sintering plants; 25 (s) Secondary metal production plants; 26 (t) Chemical process plants; 27 (u) Fossil

- fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more 28 than 250 million British T hermal Units per hour heat input; 29 (v) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage 30 capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels; 31 (w) Taconite ore processing plants; 32 (x) Glass fiber processing plants; 33 (y) Charcoal production plants; 34 (z) Fossil fuel

- fired steam electric plants of more than 250 35 million British Thermal Units per hour heat input; 36 (aa) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 37 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the federal 38 Clean Air Act. 39 "Modifi cation" means any planned change in a source which results 40 in a potential increase of emission. 41 "National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)" means the 42 allowable concentrations of air pollutants in the ambient air 43 specified by the Federal Government (T itle 40, Code of Federal 44 Regulations, Part 50). 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 10 of 17 "Net Emissions Increase" means the amount by which the sum of the 1 following exceeds zero: 2 (1) any increase in actual emissions from a particular physical 3 change or change in method of operation at a source ; and 4 (2) any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the 5 source that are contemporaneous with the particular change and are 6 otherwise creditable. For purposes of determining a "net emissions 7 increase": 8 (a) An increase or decrease in actu al emissions is 9 contemporaneous with the increase from the particular change only if 10 it occurs between the date five years before construction on the 11 particular change commences; and the date that the increase from the 12 particular change occurs. 13 (b) An in crease or decrease in actual emissions is creditable 14 only if it has not been relied on in issuing a prior approval for the 15 source which approval is in effect when the increase in actual 16 emissions for the particular change occurs. 17 (c) An increase or decre ase in actual emission of sulfur 18 dioxide, nitrogen oxides or particulate matter which occurs before an 19 applicable minor source baseline date is creditable only if it is 20 required to be considered in calculating the amount of maximum 21 allowable increases rema ining available. With respect to particulate 22 matter, only PM10 emissions will be used to evaluate this increase or 23 decrease. 24 (d) An increase in actual emissions is creditable only to the 25 extent that the new level of actual emissions exceeds the old leve l. 26 (e) A decrease in actual emissions is creditable only to the 27 extent that: 28 (i) The old level of actual emissions or the old level of 29 allowable emissions, whichever is lower, exceeds the new level of 30 actual emissions; 31 (ii) It is enforceable at and a fter the time that actual 32 construction on the particular change begins; and 33 (iii) It has approximately the same qualitative significance 34 for public health and welfare as that attributed to the increase from 35 the particular change. 36 (iv) It has not been r elied on in issuing any permit under 37 R307

- 401 nor has it been relied on in demonstrating attainment or 38 reasonable further progress. 39 (f) An increase that results from a physical change at a source 40 occurs when the emissions unit on which construction occur red becomes 41 operational and begins to emit a particular pollutant. Any 42 replacement unit that requires shakedown becomes operational only 43 after a reasonable shakedown period, not to exceed 180 days. 44 "New Installation" means an installation, construction o f which 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 11 of 17 began after the effective date of any regulation having application 1 to it. 2 "Nonattainment Area" means an area designated by the 3 Environmental Protection Agency as nonattainment under Section 107, 4 Clean Air Act for any National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The 5 designations for Utah are listed in 40 CFR 81.345. 6 "Offset" means an amount of emission reduction, by a source, 7 greater than the emission limitation imposed on such source by these 8 regulations and/or the State Implementation Plan. 9 "Opacity" means the capacity to obstruct the transmission of 10 light, expressed as percent. 11 "Open Burning" means any burning of combustible materials 12 resulting in emission of products of combustion into ambient air 13 without passage through a chimney or stack. 14 "Owner or Operator" means any person who owns, leases, controls, 15 operates or supervises a facility, an emission source, or air pollution 16 control equipment. 17 "PSD" Area means an area designated as attainment or 18 unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the federal Clean 19 Air Act. 20 "PM2.5" means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 21 less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as measured by an EPA 22 reference or equivalent method. 23 "PM2.5 Precursor" means any chemical compound or substan ce which, 24 after it has been emitted into the atmosphere, undergoes chemical or 25 physical changes that convert it into particulate matter, specifically 26 PM2.5, and has been identified in the applicable implementation plan 27 for PM2.5 as significant for the purp ose of developing control 28 measures. Specifically, PM2.5 precursors include SO 2 , NOx, and VOC. 29 "PM10" means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less 30 than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as measured by an EPA 31 reference or equivalent method. 32 "PM10 Precursor" means any chemical compound or substance which, 33 after it has been emitted in to the atmosphere, undergoes chemical or 34 physical changes that convert it into particulate matter, specifically 35 PM10. 36 "Part 70 Source" means any source subject to the permitting 37 requirements of R307

- 415. 38 "Person" means an individual, trust, firm, estate, company, 39 corporation, partnership, association, state, state or federal agency 40 or entity, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a 41 state. (Subsection 19

- 2

- 103(4)). 42 "Pollution Control Project" means any activity or project at an 43 existing e lectric utility steam generating unit for purposes of 44 reducing emissions from such unit. Such activities or projects are 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 12 of 17

limited to: 1 (1) The installation of conventional or innovative pollution 2 control technology, including but not limited to advanced f lue gas 3 desulfurization, sorbent injection for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 4 oxides controls and electrostatic precipitators; 5 (2) An activity or project to accommodate switching to a fuel 6 which is less polluting than the fuel used prior to the activity or 7 project, including, but not limited to natural gas or coal reburning, 8 or the cofiring of natural gas and other fuels for the purpose of 9 controlling emissions; 10 (3) A permanent clean coal technology demonstration project 11 conducted under Title II, sec. 101( d) of the Further Continuing 12 Appropriations Act of 1985 (sec. 5903(d) of title 42 of the United 13 States Code), or subsequent appropriations, up to a total amount of 14 $2,500,000,000 for commercial demonstration of clean coal technology, 15 or similar projects fu nded through appropriations for the 16 Environmental Protection Agency; or 17 (4) A permanent clean coal technology demonstration project 18 that constitutes a repowering project. 19 "Potential to Emit" means the maximum capacity of a source to emit 20 a pollutant und er its physical and operational design. Any physical 21 or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a 22 pollutant including air pollution control equipment and restrictions 23 on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combuste d, 24 stored, or processed shall be treated as part of its design if the 25 limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is enforceable. 26 Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit 27 of a stationary source. 28 "Primary PM2.5" means the sum of filterable PM2.5 and condensable 29 PM2.5. 30 "Process Level" means the operation of a source, specific to the 31 kind or type of fuel, input material, or mode of operation. 32 "Process Rate" means the quantity per unit of time of any raw 33 material or proc ess intermediate consumed, or product generated, 34 through the use of any equipment, source operation, or control 35 apparatus. For a stationary internal combustion unit or any other 36 fuel burning equipment, this term may be expressed as the quantity of 37 fuel bu rned per unit of time. 38 "Reactivation of a Very Clean Coal

- Fired Electric Utility Steam 39 Generating Unit" means any physical change or change in the method of 40 operation associated with the commencement of commercial operations 41 by a coal

- fired utility unit a fter a period of discontinued operation 42 where the unit: 43 (1) Has not been in operation for the two

- year period prior to 44 the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and the emissions 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 13 of 17

from such unit continue to be carried in the emission inventor y at the 1 time of enactment; 2 (2) Was equipped prior to shutdown with a continuous system of 3 emissions control that achieves a removal efficiency for sulfur 4 dioxide of no less than 85 percent and a removal efficiency for 5 particulates of no less than 98 per cent; 6 (3) Is equipped with low

- NOx burners prior to the time of 7 commencement of operations following reactivation; and 8 (4) Is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of the 9 Clean Air Act. 10 "Reasonable Further Progress" means annual incremental 11 re ductions in emission of an air pollutant which are sufficient to 12 provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the date identified in the State 13 Implementation Plan. 14 "Refuse" means solid wastes, such as garbage and trash. 15 "Regulated air pollutant" means any of t he following: 16 (a) Nitrogen oxides or any volatile organic compound; 17 (b) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality 18 standard has been promulgated; 19 (c) Any pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated 20 under Section 111 of the Act, Standards of Performance for New 21 Stationary Sources; 22 (d) Any Class I or II substance subject to a standard promulgated 23 under or established by Title VI of the Act, Stratospheric Ozone 24 Protection; 25 (e) Any pollutant subject to a standard promulgated under 26 Section 112, Hazardous Air Pollutants, or other requirements 27 established under Section 112 of the Act, including Sections 112(g), 28 (j), and (r) of the Act, including any of the following: 29 (i) Any pollutant subject to requirements under Section 112(j) 30 of the Act, Equivalent Emission Limitation by Permit. If the 31 Administrator fails to promulgate a standard by the date established 32 pursuant to Section 112(e) of the Act, any pollutant for which a subje ct 33 source would be major shall be considered to be regulated on the date 34 18 months after the applicable date established pursuant to Section 35 112(e) of the Act; 36 (ii) Any pollutant for which the requirements of Section 37 112(g)(2) of the Act (Construction, R econstruction and Modification) 38 have been met, but only with respect to the individual source subject 39 to Section 112(g)(2) requirement. 40 "Repowering" means replacement of an existing coal

- fired boiler 41 with one of the following clean coal technologies: atmo spheric or 42 pressurized fluidized bed combustion, integrated gasification 43 combined cycle, magnetohydrodynamics, direct and indirect coal

- fired 44 turbines, integrated gasification fuel cells, or as determined by the 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 14 of 17 Administrator, in consultation with the Secr etary of Energy, a 1 derivative of one or more of these technologies, and any other 2 technology capable of controlling multiple combustion emissions 3 simultaneously with improved boiler or generation efficiency and with 4 significantly greater waste reduction re lative to the performance of 5 technology in widespread commercial use as of November 15, 1990. 6 (1) Repowering shall also include any oil and/or gas

- fired unit 7 which has been awarded clean coal technology demonstration funding as 8 of January 1, 1991, by the Department of Energy. 9 (2) The director shall give expedited consideration to permit 10 applications for any source that satisfies the requirements of this 11 definition and is granted an extension under section 409 of the Clean 12 Air Act. 13 "Representative Actua l Annual Emissions" means the average rate, 14 in tons per year, at which the source is projected to emit a pollutant 15 for the two

- year period after a physical change or change in the method 16 of operation of unit, (or a different consecutive two

- year period 17 wit hin 10 years after that change, where the director determines that 18 such period is more representative of source operations), considering 19 the effect any such change will have on increasing or decreasing the 20 hourly emissions rate and on projected capacity ut ilization. In 21 projecting future emissions the director shall: 22 (1) Consider all relevant information, including but not 23 limited to, historical operational data, the company's own 24 representations, filings with the State of Federal regulatory 25 authorities, and compliance plans under title IV of the Clean Air Act; 26 and 27 (2) Exclude, in calculating any increase in emissions that 28 results from the particular physical change or change in the method 29 of operation at an electric utility steam generating unit, that p ortion 30 of the unit's emissions following the change that could have been 31 accommodated during the representative baseline period and is 32 attributable to an increase in projected capacity utilization at the 33 unit that is unrelated to the particular change, inc luding any 34 increased utilization due to the rate of electricity demand growth for 35 the utility system as a whole. 36 "Residence" means a dwelling in which people live, including all 37 ancillary buildings. 38 "Residential Solid Fuel Burning" device means any resid ential 39 burning device except a fireplace connected to a chimney that burns 40 solid fuel and is capable of, and intended for use as a space heater, 41 domestic water heater, or indoor cooking appliance, and has an 42 air

- to

- fuel ratio less than 35

- to

- 1 as determine d by the test 43 procedures prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534. It must also have a useable 44 firebox volume of less than 6.10 cubic meters or 20 cubic feet, a 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 15 of 17 minimum burn rate less than 5 kilograms per hour or 11 pounds per hour 1 as determined by test procedures pre scribed in 40 CFR 60.534, and weigh 2 less than 800 kilograms or 362.9 pounds. Appliances that are 3 described as prefabricated fireplaces and are designed to accommodate 4 doors or other accessories that would create the air starved operating 5 conditions of a r esidential solid fuel burning device shall be 6 considered as such. Fireplaces are not included in this definition 7 for solid fuel burning devices. 8 "Road" means any public or private road. 9 "Salvage Operation" means any business, trade or industry engaged 10 i n whole or in part in salvaging or reclaiming any product or material, 11 including but not limited to metals, chemicals, shipping containers 12 or drums. 13 "Secondary Emissions" means emissions which would occur as a 14 result of the construction or operation of a major source or major 15 modification, but do not come from the major source or major 16 modification itself. 17 Secondary emissions must be specific, well defined, 18 quantifiable, and impact the same general area as the source or 19 modification which causes the secon dary emissions. Secondary 20 emissions include emissions from any off

- site support facility which 21 would not be constructed or increase its emissions except as a result 22 of the construction or operation of the major source or major 23 modification. Secondary emi ssions do not include any emissions which 24 come directly from a mobile source such as emissions from the tailpipe 25 of a motor vehicle, from a train, or from a vessel. 26 Fugitive emissions and fugitive dust from the source or 27 modification are not considered se condary emissions. 28 "Secondary PM2.5" means particles that form or grow in mass 29 through chemical reactions in the ambient air well after dilution and 30 condensation have occurred. Secondary PM2.5 is usually formed at some 31 distance downwind from the source. 32 "Significant" means: 33 (1) In reference to a net emissions increase or the potential 34 of a source to emit any of the following pollutants, a rate of emissions 35 that would equal or exceed any of the following rates: 36 Carbon monoxide: 100 ton per year (tpy); 37 Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy; 38 Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy; 39 PM10: 15 tpy; 40 PM2.5: 10 tpy; 41 Particulate matter: 25 tpy; 42 Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds; 43 Lead: 0.6 tpy. 44 "Solid Fuel" means wood, coal, and other similar organic material 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 16 of 17

or combi nation of these materials. 1 "Solvent" means organic materials which are liquid at standard 2 conditions (Standard Temperature and Pressure) and which are used as 3 dissolvers, viscosity reducers, or cleaning agents. 4 "Source" means any str ucture, building, facility, or 5 installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to 6 regulation under the Clean Air Act and which is located on one or more 7 continuous or adjacent properties and which is under the control of 8 the same person or p ersons under common control. A building, 9 structure, facility, or installation means all of the 10 pollutant

- emitting activities which belong to the same industrial 11 grouping. Pollutant

- emitting activities shall be considered as part 12 of the same industrial gr ouping if they belong to the same "Major Group" 13 (i.e. which have the same two

- digit code) as described in the Standard 14 Industrial Classification Manual, 1972, as amended by the 1977 15 Supplement (US Government Printing Office stock numbers 4101

- 0065 and 16 003

- 005

- 00176

- 0, respectively). 17 "Stack" means any point in a source designed to emit solids, 18 liquids, or gases into the air, including a pipe or duct but not 19 including flares. 20 "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources" means the 21 Federally establis hed requirements for performance and record keeping 22 (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60). 23 "State" means Utah State. 24 "Temporary" means not more than 180 calendar days. 25 "Temporary Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project" means a 26 clean coal technology demonstration project that is operated for a 27 period of 5 years or less, and which complies with the Utah State 28 Implementation Plan and other requirements necessary to attain and 29 maintain the national ambient air quality standards during the proj ect 30 and after it is terminated. 31 "Threshold Limit Value

- Ceiling (TLV

- C)" means the airborne 32 concentration of a substance which may not be exceeded, as adopted by 33 the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its 34 "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents 35 and Biological Exposure Indices, (2009)." 36 "Threshold Limit Value

- Time Weighted Average (TLV

- TWA)" means 37 the time

- weighted airborne concentration of a substance adopted by the 38 American Conference of Government al Industrial Hygienists in its 39 "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents 40 and Biological Exposure Indices, (2009)." 41 "Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)" means minute separate 42 particles of matter, collected by high volume sampler. 43 "Toxic Screening Level" means an ambient concentration of an air 44 contaminant equal to a threshold limit value

- ceiling (TLV

- C) or 45R307

- 101

- 2 February 1 8 , 2016 Page 17 of 17

threshold limit value

- time weighted average (TLV

- TWA) divided by a 1 safety factor. 2 "Trash" means solids not considered to be highly flammable or 3 explosive including, but not limited to clothing, rags, leather, 4 plastic, rubber, floor coverings, excelsior, tree leaves, yard 5 trimmings and other similar materials. 6 "Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)" means VOC as defined in 40 CFR 7 51.100(s), effective as of the date referenced in R307

- 101

- 3, is hereby 8 adopted and incorporated by reference. 9 "Waste" means all solid, liquid or gaseous material, including, 10 but not limited to, garbage, trash, household refuse, construction or 11 demolition debris, or other refuse including that resulting from the 12 prosecution of any business, trade or industry. 13 "Zero Drift" means the change in the instrument meter readout over 14 a stated period of time of normal continuous operation when the VOC 15 concentration at the time of measurement is zero. 16 17 **KEY: air pollution, definitions** 18 **Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [**  **August 7, 2014 ]**  **2015** 19 **Notice of Continuation: May 8, 2014** 20 **Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19 -**  **2 -**  **104(1)(a)** 21

# ITEM 5

### State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor 

### Department of Environmental Quality

A lan Matheson Executive Director DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird

Direct or

DAQ

- 014

- 16

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Air Quality Board THROUGH: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary FROM: Ryan Stephens, Environmental Planning Consultant

DATE: February 1 8 , 2016 SUBJECT: FINAL ADOPTION: New Rule R307

- 104. Conflict of Interest.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Section 128(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act states that implementation plans must have an enforceable requirement that “any potential conflicts of interest by... the head of an executive agency” are disclosed. On October 25, 2013, the EPA partially disapproved DAQ’s infrastructure state implementation plan (SIP) for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The disapproval was based on the fact that Ut ah did not have a rule that satisfied Section 128(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act. DAQ staff worked with the Utah Attorney General’s office and the EPA to develop this rule. R307

- 104 satisfies Section 128 of the Clean Air Act and gives the EPA the opportuni ty to approve past and future infrastructure SIPs. A 30 day public comment period was held for the rule. No comments were received and no hearing was requested.

Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends that the Board adopt new rule R307

- 104 as propose d.

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, U tah Mailing Ad dress: P.O. Box 1448 2 0 • Salt Lake City, U tah 84114

- 48 2 0 Telephone (801) 53 6

- 4 0 00 • Fax (801 ) 536

- 4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903

- 3978 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paperR307

- 104 February 1 8 , 201 6 Page 1 of 1

**R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality.** 1 **R307 -**  **104. Conflict of Interest.** 2 **R307 -**  **104 -**  **1. Authority.** 3 This rule establishes procedures that are necessary for 4 promulgating federally approvable air quality standards as 5 permitted by subsection 19

- 2

- 104(1)(b). 6 7 **R307 -**  **104 -**  **2. Purpose.** 8 R307

- 104 satisfies the conflict of interest requirement of 9 42 U.S.C. 7428 (a)(2). 10 11 **R307 -**  **104 -**  **3. Disclosure of conflict of interest.** 12 (1) This rule applies to any member of the board or body 13 which approves permits or enforcement o rders, the head of the 14 Utah Division of Air Quality with similar powers, and the head 15 of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality with similar 16 powers. 17 (2) Every individual listed in R307

- 104

- 3(1) who is an 18 officer, director, agent, employee, or the own er of a 19 substantial interest in any business entity which is subject to 20 the regulation of the agency by which the individual listed in 21 R307

- 104

- 3(1) is employed, shall disclose any position held and 22 the precise nature and value of the interest upon first b ecoming 23 a public officer or public employee listed in R307

- 104

- 3(1), and 24 again whenever his or her position in the business entity 25 changes significantly or if the value of his or her interest in 26 the entity is significantly increased. 27 (3) The disclosure req uired under R307

- 104

- 3(2) shall be 28 made in a sworn statement filed with: 29 (a) the state attorney general in the case of the head of 30 the Utah Division of Air Quality and the head of the Utah 31 Department of Environmental Quality; and 32 (b) the state attorney general and the head of the agency 33 with which the member of the board or body is affiliated in the 34 case of a member of the board or body. 35 (4) This rule does not apply to instances where the total 36 value of the interest does not exceed $2,000, and life insurance 37 policies and annuities shall not be considered in determining 38 the value of any such interest. 39 (5) Disclosures made under R307

- 104

- 3 are public 40 information and shall be available for examination by the 41 public. 42 43 **KEY: conflict of interest, Clean Air Act**  44 **Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 2015** 45 **Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19 -**  **1 -**  **201; 19 -**  46 **2 -**  **104** 47

# ITEM 6

### State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor 

### Department of Environmental Quality

A lan Matheson Executive Director DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird

Director

DAQ

- 016

- 16

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Air Quality Board THROUGH: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary FROM: Division of Air Quality Staff

DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, W estern Resource Advocates , and H EAL Utah’s Petition for a Rule Change.

______________________________________________________________________________________ On January 15, 2016, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, W estern Resource Advocates , and HEAL Utah (collectively Petiti oners) submitted three petitions to the Utah Air Quality Board (the Board) requesting changes to the Utah Admin. Code R307

- 165

- 1 et seq .; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Salt Lake City, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.21; PM 2.5 State Implemen tation Plan for the Provo, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.22; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Logan, Utah

Idaho Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.23; PM 2.5 Emission Limits and Operating Practices, Sections IX.11, 12 and 13; Utah Admin. Code R 307

- 403 et seq . and/or the applicable part of Utah Admin. Code Rule 307. Petitioners propose three new rules that would amend or supplement existing rules and regulations applicable to the Salt Lake City, Provo, and Logan nonattainment areas (Three NAAs). These proposed rules are:

1. A 24

- hour averaging period rule that would impose “short

- term” emission limits and controls that are averaged over 24 hours or fewer on the stationary sources in the Three NAAs (24

- Hour Rule);

2. A monitoring rule that would incre ase the frequency of the monitoring of emissions from individual sources in the Three NAAs (Monitoring Rule); and

3. An offset rule that would require a larger category of new and modified sources in the Three NAAs that seek to increase emissions of PM 2.5 an d PM 2.5 precursors to obtain reductions in emissions from existing sources to offset these emission increases (Offset Rule).

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, U tah Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1448 2 0 • Salt Lake City, U tah 84114

- 48 2 0 Telephone (801) 53 6

- 4 0 00 • Fax (801 ) 536

- 4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903

- 3978 www.deq.utah.gov Prin ted on 100% recycled paperDAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 2 Petitioners request that the Board initiate rulemaking under the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act (the Rulemaking Act). 1

Sta ff Recommendation : Utah Division of Air Quality (the Division) has carefully reviewed the proposed rules and recommends, for the reasons explained in this memorandum, that the Board deny the petitions at this time, and that the Division work with the Petit ioners to evaluate additional strategies in the context of State Implementation Plan development.

1 See Utah Code Ann. § 63G

- 3

- 601(6)(b)(ii) (West)

.DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 3 Board’s Responsibility Under the Rulemaking Act Under the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, an interested person or entity may request a board with rule making authority to make, amend, or repeal a rule. 2 The board must then either deny the request in writing (explaining reasons for the denial) or initiate rulemaking. 3 The board has 80 days to act on the petition from the date the petition was submitted. 4 The Utah Air Quality Board (the Board) has rulemaking authority under Section 19

- 2

- 104 of the Utah Code. Accordingly, the Board must either deny the petitions or initiate rulemaking by April 4, 2016 (80 days from January 15, 2016). 5 If the Board decides to initiate rulemaking, the rules will be proposed according to the Rulemaking Act.

PM2.5 SIPs Background Because the proposed rules seek to amend the PM2.5 SIPs, an overview of the PM2.5 SIPs for the Three NAAs is necessary. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the 24

- hour NAAQS for PM2.5 by lowering the level from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) to 35 μg/m 3

. 6 Within two years of this revision, EPA had to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 7 On November 13 , 2009, EPA designated the Salt Lake City, Provo, and Logan areas as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard under the Clean Air Act (CAA) title I, part D, subpart 1. 8 The designation became effective on December 14, 2009. 9 Utah was then required to su bmit an attainment plan for each area no later than three years from the date of the designations, demonstrating attainment of the PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the date of the designations. 10 The developm ent of Utah’s PM2.5 SIPs was an extensive undertaking that involved analysis and collection of inventory data, air pollution modeling, stakeholder meetings, public hearings, rule amendments, amendments to the narrative sections of Utah’s SIP, and the devel opment of source

- specific emissions limits found in Part H of the SIP. A PM2.5 SIP was finalized for the Logan nonattainment area near the end of 2012, and SIPs for the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas followed in December of 2013. In 2014, the Division was required to address Subpart 4 of part D, Title I of the Clean Air Act and resubmit the SIP with the appropriate changes in light of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 11

2 See Utah Code Ann. § 63G

- 3

- 601(2)

. 3 Id . § 63G

- 3

- 601(6)(b). 4 Id

. 5 Petitioners submitted all three petitions for rulemaking to the Board members on January 15, 2016 via e

- mail. The petitions themselves have earlier dates

— 24

- Hour Rule and Monitoring Rule petitions are dated January 13, 2016; Offset Rule petition i s dated January 14, 2016. The statute requires the Board to act on the petition within 80 days “of the submission”, which was January 15, 2016. Utah Code Ann. § 63G

- 3

- 601(6)(b)

. 6 See 40 C.F.R. § 50.13

. 7 See 42 U.S.C.A. § 7404(d) (West). 8 74 F ed. R eg. 58 688

- 01 (Nov. 13, 2009) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 81). 9 See 40 C.F.R. 81,345. 10 See 42 U.S.C.A. § 7502(a)(2) and (b)

. 11 See Nat

. Res. Def

. Council v. E .P.A. , 706 F.3d 428 ( D.C. Cir. 2013). In Natural Resources Defense Council , the court held that EP A should have designated the areas under both Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, Title I of the Clean Air Act. Se e id . This decision resulted in EPA issuing a rule in 2014 that classified the non

- attainment areas as ModerateDAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 4 Air monitoring data collected from 20 13 through 2015 will show that none of the Three NAAs attained the 24

- hour PM2.5 health standard by its attainment date (December 31, 2015). The EPA will therefore be required to re

- classify these areas as Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Once reclassifi cation becomes final, Utah will have to submit a Serious PM2.5 SIP for each of the Three NAAs within 18 months of final reclassification. 12 Upon Utah’s request, EPA left open a possibility of extending the attainment date for the Logan NAA for up to two o ne - year extensions instead of reclassifying the Logan NAA as Serious. 13 Utah may request an extension before EPA’s proposal to reclassify is finalized. 14 As of the date of this memorandum, EPA has not finalized this proposed rule and the request for extensio n is still a possibility. If such extension is granted, no changes will be necessary to the Logan portion of the PM2.5 SIP. If an extension is denied, the Logan NAA will be reclassified as Serious, which would require a Serious SIP preparation.

On March 2 3, 2015, EPA proposed Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements Rule (PM2.5 Implementation Rule). 15 Utah will be making changes in light of this rule to all the affected PM2.5 SIPs once the rule b ecomes final. Additionally, as early as the summer of 2016, Utah will likely be revising Part IX.H of the PM2.5 SIP addressing emission limits and operating practices for large sources in the Moderate Salt Lake and Provo NAAs and looking at implementing a nd applying 24 hour averaging times.

Recommendation

I. The Petitions Lack Multi

- Step Analyses Demonstrating that the Proposed Rules are RACT/RACM or BACT/BACM Along with each proposed rule, Petitioners submitted an explanation as to why they believe th e Board should initiate rulemaking. Among other things, the Petitioners state that each proposed rule meets the requirements of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) or Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and are necessary to attain the PM2.5 sta ndard as expeditiously as practicable. However, the petitions do not include a proper multi

- step analysis to support the conclusion that the proposed rules constitute RACM or BACM. A nonattainment area SIP “shall provide for the implementation of all reas onably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (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) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”). 16 Therefore, a nonattainment area SIP must include RACM, as well as “enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques . . . as may be necessary o r appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date . . . .” 17 Although the CAA does

and setting a deadline of December 31, 2014 to submit state implementation plans demonstrating attainment. See 79 Fed. Reg. 31,566 (June 2, 2014) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. ch. I). 12 See 80 Fed. Reg. 69,173

- 01 (proposed Nov. 9, 2015). 13 See id. at 69,175. 14 See id

. 15 See 80 Fed. Reg. 15,340

- 01 ( proposed March 23, 2015).

16 42 U.S.C.A. § 7502(c)(1) (emphasis added). 17 Id . § 7502(c)(6).DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 5 not define RACM, EPA has published a “General Preamble,” explaining the process for determining RACM for inclusion in a Moderate area SIP. 18 This process involves three steps: (1) listing all available control measures; (2) providing a reasoned justification for rejection of a particular RACM; and (3) evaluating remaining control measures “for reasonableness, considering the ir technological feasibility and the cost of control in the area to which the SIP applies.” 19 The control measures that are determined to be reasonable are then considered RACM. In the proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA has further defined RACM as: any technologically and economically feasible measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the date of designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment area and that achieves permanent and enforceable reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursor emissions from sources in the area. RACM includes reasonably available control technology (RACT). 20 However, a control measure or control technology for Section 7502 SIP purposes is “reasonably available” only if its imposition woul d expedite attainment. 21 Conversely, any proposed control measure or technology that does not expedite attainment is not reasonably available. As for the Serious area SIPs (which Salt Lake City and Provo will be requiring as reclassification becomes fina l), these plans must include “[p]rovisions to assure that the best available control measures for the control of PM10 22 shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a Serious Area.” 23 The EPA sets fort h the standards for determining BACM in an Addendum to the General Preamble. 24 The procedures prescribed by the EPA for determining BACM include: (1) develop an inventory of the sources of PM10 25 and PM10 precursor emissions; (2) evaluate, via modeling, the effect of PM10 concentrations of various sources to determine which are significant sources; (3) evaluate the technological and economic feasibility of the potential control measures; and (4) evaluate the costs and energy and environmental impacts of poten tial BACM. 26 EPA has recently described BACM as “maximum degree of emission reduction achievable from a source or source category which is

18 57 Fed. Reg. 13,498

- 01, 13,498 (Apr. 16, 1992). This federal regulation defines RACM for PM10 nonattainment area plans. However, the General Preamble extends to all PM2.5 nonattainment areas. See 80 Fed. Reg. 15,340

- 01, 15,348. (“ As provided in section 188(a) and reiterated in the General Preamble, all PM10 nonattainment areas and by extension all PM2.5 nonattainment areas are initially classified as Moderate b y operation of law at the time of designation.”). 19 57 Fed. Reg. 13,498

- 01, 13,540

- 41. 20 80 F ed. R eg. 15,340

- 01, 15 , 464

. 21 Nat. Res. Def. Council v. E nvtl. Prot. Agency , 571 F.3d 1245, 1252

- 53 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“ The EPA ’s interpretation, construing ‘ reason ably available ’ as meaning only control technologies that advance attainment, is reasonable in light of the statute's accompanying text and structure. ”); (“ Because the RACT requirement is located in a parenthetical modifying RACM and because the RA CM requi rement is described as ‘including’ the RACT requirement, the RACT requirement is likewise linked to the timely attainment terminology. Given this textual linkage, the EPA may reasonably extend to the RACT requirement its interpretation of RACM as requiring only those control measures that would facilitate expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. ”). 22 See n.18, supra , for explanation of application of this provision to PM2.5. 23 42 U.S.C.A . § 7513 (b)(1)(B); see also i d. § 7513a(b)(1)(B). 24 59 Fed. Reg. 41,998

- 01 (Aug. 16, 1994). 25 See n.18, supra . 26 Id . at 42,012

- 13; see also Latino Issues Forum v. E nvtl. Prot. Agency , 55 8 F.3d 936, 939 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining differences between RACM and BACM).DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 6

determined on a case

- by

- case basis, considering energy, economic and environmental impacts and other costs.” 27 The p etitions state that each of the proposed measures are legally mandated, but do not contain any of the multi

- step analyses EPA prescribes for determining RACM or BACM as explained above. Therefore, there is no basis for saying that the proposed measures con stitute RACM or BACM and consequently will meet the standard any more expeditiously than the current measures or future measures developed in the PM2.5 Serious SIP process. Accordingly, the Board does not have a legal obligation to adopt the measures conta ined in the proposed rules. Although there is no evidence that the proposed measures would expedite attainment of the NAAQS, they will impose additional administrative responsibilities on the Division. As explained earlier, under the Rulemaking Act, the Board may grant the petitions and initiate the rulemaking process. However, the rules cannot be immediately proposed because they only contain proposed rule language and lack any supporting technical analysis and data. If the Board grants the petitions and initiates rulemaking, the Division’s staff will be in the position of performing all the analysis necessary to propose the rules. Consequently, the Division would have to undertake months of research before it could have the agency record and technical da ta necessary to support a proposal on which the public could comment and EPA could review. The RACM and BACM analyses that the Division would have to undertake are ordinarily performed as part of the broader SIP process, which will take place as Utah prep ares its Serious area SIPs and makes modifications to the Moderate area SIPs. It does not make sense to duplicate the effort by initiating rulemaking on the proposed rules as a stand

- alone rulemaking when the same issues could be considered during the SIP amendment, planning, and development process. Consequently, the Division recommends the Board deny the petitions on this basis alone. However, the Division provides additional reasons for recommending denial of each individual proposed rule in the sections that follow.

II. 24

- Hour Rule

A. Summary The proposed 24

- Hour Rule would require that for each PM2.5 SIP control technology established through a RACT/RACM or BACT/BACM process, the Division must derive and impose at least one numeric emission limitation or emission standard that includes a corresponding averaging period that is no more than 24 hours. In the alternative, the Division must make a documented finding (after public notice and comment) that an emission limitation or standard is infeasible due to technical or economic limitations , and instead impose an alternative parameter that includes a corresponding averaging period of 24 hours or less. Any limitation or parameter derived under the proposed rule must be included in the 24

- hour PM2.5 SIP.

The Petitioners state that the 24

- Hour Rule meets both RACM and BACM standards because: (1) the rule meets the requirement that all SIP emission limitations be enforceable and ensure compliance; (2) averaging times in the rule meet the requirement of being nec essary or appropriate, as they meet 24

- hour NAAQS; (3) the rule will increase the accuracy of emission inventories and facilitate transfer of SIP emission limits to Title V permits; and (4) the rule will resolve factors EPA identified as crucial to ensurin g SIP control measures are enforceable, approvable, and provide for attainment of 24

- hour PM2.5 standard. 28

27 80 F ed. Reg. 15,340

- 01, 15 , 405. 28 See Petition for a Rule Chang e 24

- Hour Averaging Period Rule at 28

- 33.DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 7

B. A More Appropriate Time to Consider Petitioners’ Suggested Changes is During the PM2.5 SIP Planning and Development Process As early as the summe r of 2016, the Division will be undertaking a PM2.5 SIP revision process to Part H of the PM2.5 SIP. Additionally, the Division will be planning and developing Serious SIPs, possibly for the Logan NAA (if attainment extension is requested and denied or if attainment extension is not requested) and for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs once the reclassification is final. EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule will also require PM2.5 SIP revisions. Those would be the times to consider and potentially implement the c hanges Petitioners suggest in the 24

- Hour Rule. Implementing a stand

- alone rule at this time is not a preferable course of action because the Division does not have the necessary technical analysis and other information it typically gathers during the SIP process. The SIP development process will involve extensive modeling, analysis of emissions inventory, and numerous stakeholder meetings, resulting in a better outcome for everyone affected by the SIP provisions. If the rule were adopted as a stand

- alone rule, it would also unnecessarily complicate the SIP development process. For example, the 24

- Hour Rule requires a comment period for each determination of infeasibility of the 24

- Hour standard by the Director made under R307

- xxx - 2(2). The 24

- Hour Rule req uires the Director to make the documented finding of infeasibility 29 and then notify the public and consider public comments. 30 It is unclear whether the proposed 24

- Hour Rule’s comment period for such documented findings would be separate from the regular S IP public comment process. If it is, the 24

- Hour Rule adds an undefined review period for the SIP development process. During a regular SIP process, any discussion of infeasibility of 24

- hour standards and alternative parameter monitoring will be included in the technical support documentation (TSD) for the SIP. The TSD will then demonstrate the Division’s decisions for each of the identified sources listed in Section IX, Part H of the SIP. During the SIP public comment period, the public may address any i ssues or concerns it has with the sources that may require alternative parameters. Finally, the 24

- Hour Rule as proposed may contradict EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 31 The PM2.5 Implementation Rule affects the requirements for nonattainment areas for an y PM2.5 NAAQS, including emission inventories, attainment demonstration, provisions demonstrating reasonable further progress, quantitative milestones, contingency measures, and New Source Review nonattainment permitting programs. 32 EPA proposed a PM2.5 Imp lementation Rule on March 23, 2015 but has not yet finalized it, which means the current version of the rule may change. An imposition of a 24

- hour standard as a stand

alone rule prior to EPA finalizing its PM2.5 Implementation Rule may be premature and no t prudent at this time. During the SIP planning and development process, the Division will be closely working with EPA to determine how to show attainment and meet all the applicable standards.

C. 24

- Hour Rule is Redundant Because 24

- Hour (or Stricter) Sta ndards Already Apply to Part H Listed Sources, With a Few Appropriate Exceptions The proposed 24

- Hour Rule is redundant because 19 of the 26 sources identified in the petition already have 24

- hour or less averaging periods. These averaging periods result ed from the recent PM10 maintenance plan requirements. EPA expressed concerns regarding 24

- hour averaging times on sources listed in Part H of the SIP. In response to EPA’s comments, the Division required nearly all the applicable limits in Part H to have averaging periods of no greater than 24 hours. See Table 1 attached.

29 The requirements for such finding are not specified in the proposed 24

- Hour Rule. 30 The form of the notification and the length of the public comment period are also not specified. 31 See 80 F ed. Reg. 15,340

. 32 Se e id

.DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 8

A few sources do not have 24

- hour averaging times on each piece of equipment due to unique circumstances. For example, individual limitations on certain equipment located at the petroleu m refineries 33 were derived from RACT during the development of the existing PM2.5 SIP. They were brought forward into the PM10 SIP for consistency. Despite not every piece of equipment being assigned a 24

- hour averaging period, the sources are still regul ated in a way that ensures attainment of the standard. For example, the Division imposed plant

- wide 24

- hour emission caps on all PM10 and precursor emissions to that end. 34 While there may be some equipment located at the refineries with the potential to ca use short

- term “spikes” in emissions, those emissions are still included in the refinery

- wide cap. This means that the extra emissions from the equipment must be accounted for in order to avoid exceeding the total refinery’s emissions cap. The Division us es total contribution from each refinery in its SIP modeling and overall planning strategy. None of the other individually

- identified sources have such “exemptions,” (i.e. unique circumstances where individual limitations were derived from RACT as in the example above), but many of them have similar plant

- wide emission limitations. As a result of the Division’s conversations with EPA during the development of the PM10 SIP, the Division has already established 24

- hour emission standards at major PM2.5 SIP sources. The Petitioners offered examples of SIP sources where these shorter term emission limits were not imposed. Table 1 includes examples provided by the Petitioners and the actions taken by the Division. This table shows that 19 of the 26 sources cite d by the Petitioners already have new standards imposed. In some of the examples cited by the Petitioners, stricter standards, such as instantaneous and one

- hour standards, are in place. For five of the examples, the emission standard has not been updated, but will be updated during the planned revision to the Moderate PM2.5 SIP, during Serious PM2.5 SIP development, or during the next permit modification. While the PM10 maintenance plan has not yet been formally approved by EPA, EPA has indicated that this is the correct approach.

D. 24

- Hour Rule is Infeasible Because it Requires 24

- Hour Averaging Times for Alternative Parameters and Each Pollutant Separately A RACT/RACM or BACT/BACM analysis will sometimes result in something other than a specific emissi on limitation, which the proposed 24

- Hour Rule seems to acknowledge by making an alternative provision in R307

- XXX

- 2(2),where the Director can make a documented finding of infeasibility subject to a public notice and comment process. However, if the Direct or makes such a finding, the 24

- Hour Rule still requires imposition of an alternative parameter with a corresponding averaging period of 24 hours or less: . . . the Director shall impose at least one parameter that includes a corresponding averaging pe riod or averaging time of 24

- hours or less, separately for each pollutant

– PM2.5 (filterable and condensable) and/or any PM2.5 precursor

– emitted from the stationary source, installation, facility or emission unit to which the PM2.5 SIP control technolog y was applied. 35 Where a specific emission limitation is not required, it does not make sense to impose a 24 hour (or less) alternative parameter to demonstrate proper operation of the control technology. Some examples include

33 Specifically, those limitations found in the refinery general requirements of SIP subsection IX.H.11.g. 34 These emission caps can be found in the individual source requirements of SIP subsection IX.H.12. 35 R307

- XXX

- 2(2).DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 9 the control of fugitive dust through application of water or chemical dust suppression, a limitation on coating application, the use of improved mist elimination on cooling towers, the use of enhanced leak detection and repair at the refineries (or similar sources), or intermittent c ontrols

– such as VOC controls during tank degassing events. While some of these examples involve VOCs control, others address primary PM2.5, notably the fugitive dust controls and the cooling towers. In all of these cases, no simple 24

- hour

based paramete r monitoring can be imposed that demonstrates an emission reduction. Yet, the language of the proposed rule requires that at least one parameter be monitored with an averaging period of 24 hours or less. This defeats the purpose of the Division’s RACT/RACM or BACT/BACM analysis because the 24

- Hour Rule seeks to impose a limit (either through an emission limitation or 24

- hour averaging time for an alternative parameter) even where the analysis showed that no limit was justified based on technology or economi c concerns. 36

The 24

- Hour Rule also seeks to impose a 24

- hour or less emission limitation or emission standard or alternative parameter with the same corresponding averaging period of 24 hours or less separately on each pollutant, including PM2.5 (filterab le and condensable) and/or any PM2.5 precursor. 37 Again, this is unnecessary where an analysis shows that limits are only appropriate for one of the pollutants emitted. In many cases throughout the PM2.5 SIP, there are examples of sources where limits are i mposed only on a single pollutant rather than on the collection of PM2.5 and all precursor pollutants as would be required by the proposed rule. This is an engineering

- based decision following the RACT/BACT analysis conducted on that particular source. For sources such as natural gas

- fired turbines, the only pollutant of concern may be the precursor pollutant NOx. These turbines have very little in the way of direct PM or SO2 emissions, as was demonstrated in their RACT analyses. Imposing a limit on PM or S O2 emissions is of no value, because no control technology was required to limit those emissions. Imposing an alternate parameter to monitor, such as total fuel combusted, would be superfluous, because this is automatically limited by controlling for and m onitoring total NOx emissions. By controlling NOx, both PM and SO2 are automatically limited. Therefore, a 24 hour averaging may be in place for one pollutant being emitted from a source, but an analysis may show it is not necessary for all pollutants emit ted from that source.

E. 24

- Hour Rule is Infeasible Because it Makes no Allowance for VOC Emissions EPA will soon reclassify Utah’s Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs as Serious nonattainment. 38 The Logan NAA may also be reclassified as Serious, unless Utah asks for an extension. 39 With this expected reclassification, controlling the emissions of VOCs at stationary sources will play an increasing role in the Division’s overall SIP strategy, because VOC is one of the PM2.5 precursors. Yet, the 24

- Hour Rule makes no allowance for at least two of the larger sources of VOC emissions

— coating applications and the refineries. Coating applicators typically operate in terms of inventory. They determine VOCs emitted based on the VOC content of each product applied multiplie d by the total volume of each product used in a given month. While some allowance could be made to attempt to track each product’s usage on a daily basis, this becomes a logistical nightmare. Each source would need to track total volume of each coating pro duct checked out, total volume of each coating returned, all solvents used, all waste, etc. on a daily basis; often for dozens if not hundreds of individual materials (e.g. 75 painting operations with over 100 types of

36 EPA recognized that a one

- size

- fits

- all

- rule is not appropriate. See 80 Fed. Reg. 15,340, 15,447. In the PM2.5 Implementation R ule, EPA stated that a state has flexibility to determin e an appropriate averaging time: “ enforceable SIP regu lations may address the elements in differen t ways depending on the type of source category being regulated

. ” Id

. at 15 ,447 (emphasis added). 37 See R307

- XXX

- 2(1) and (2). 38 See 80 Fed. Reg. 69,173. 39 See id . at 69,175.DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 10 coating product at Hill Air Force Bas e). This proposed rule would need to require an extraordinarily complicated system of tracking to be imposed for these sources on a daily basis. Similarly, there are at least two areas of VOC emissions at the refineries that the proposed rule has not con sidered. The enhanced leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions of SIP subsection IX.H.11.g.iv and the tank degassing requirements found in IX.H.11.g.vi are both RACT/RACM requirements derived during the existing PM2.5 SIP development. Neither provision lends itself to a simple 24

- hour emission limitation or to an alternative parameter monitoring requirement with a similar 24

- hour averaging period. In the case of LDAR, a refinery makes a commitment to repair leaks based on the severity of the leak, the le ngth of time until the next repair period, and other factors. For tank degassing, the refinery commits to applying VOC controls during those periods when a tank is degassed. This is a process that may last far less than 24

- hours, and it is infrequent and i rregular. The proposed rule requires that both processes be monitored on some type of 24

- hour (or less) basis. For these types of sources, it is impractical to comply with the proposed 24

- Hour Rule. In addition to those larger individual sources, when the nonattainment areas are reclassified as Serious, a number of smaller sources will be added to the mix based solely on their VOC emissions. These sources may have other small emission points emitting pollutants other than VOCs, such as direct PM2.5 or othe r precursors. For example, the source could operate a small boiler or emergency generator. The rule requires that an emission limit with corresponding 24

- hour averaging period be applied to each PM2.5 and precursor pollutants separately from the “stationar y source, installation, facility or emission unit to which the PM2.5 control technology was applied.” 40 This language would require an emission limitation and 24

- hour averaging period for a small boiler and emergency generator just because BACT was applied based on VOC emissions. It would be unduly burdensome to require that amount of regulatory oversight on those VOC sources. Therefore, the 24

- Hour Rule requirement to impose limitations on all PM2.5 and precursor emissions is infeasible.

F. Conclusion/Recom mendation

1. As early as the summer of 2016, the Division will be undertaking a PM2.5 SIP revision process to Part H of the PM2.5 SIP. Implementing a stand

- alone rule at this time is not a preferable course of action because the Division does not have the n ecessary technical analysis and other information it typically gathers during the SIP process. If the rule were adopted as a stand

- alone rule, it would also unnecessarily complicate the SIP development process. Moreover, the proposed 24

- Hour Rule as propos ed may contradict EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule . 2. The proposed 24

- Hour Rule is redundant because 19 of the 26 sources identified in the petition already have 24

- hour or less averaging periods, and for those that do not, unique circumstances justify an a lternative approach to control.

3. A RACT/RACM or BACT/BACM analysis will sometimes result in something other than a specific emission limitation. In certain situations where a specific emission limitation is not required, it does not make sense to impose a 24

- hour (or less) alternative parameter to demonstrate proper operation of the control technology.

4. With the expected reclassification to Serious, controlling the emissions of VOCs at stationary sources will play an increasing role in the Division’s ove rall SIP strategy, because VOC is one

40 R307

- XXX

- 2(1).DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 11 of the PM2.5 precursors. Yet, the 24

- Hour Rule makes no allowance for at least two of the larger sources of VOC emissions

— coating applications and the refineries.

III. Monitoring Rule

A. Summary The proposed Monitoring R ule would amend the PM2.5 SIP to require use of Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to monitor compliance with any PM2.5 SIP emission limitation for SO2, NOx, or filterable PM. If the Division demonstrates that use of a CEMS is infeasible to moni tor these pollutants, an alternative monitoring method may be employed, as long as the Division demonstrates that the alternative method assures compliance with the corresponding emission limitation. Any demonstration of infeasibility (which would allow us e of an alternative to a CEMS) or sufficiency (which would justify use of a selected alternative to a CEMS) must be subject to public notice and comment. All monitoring data must be made available to the public, and the rule must be implemented within the deadlines specified in the proposed rule.

B. CEM Measure Imposes Additional Costs with No Benefit Because There are no Commercially Available PM CEMS That Accurately Measure PM There are currently no commercially available PM CEMS that reliably measure pa rticulate matter. The Division staff regularly researches CEMS and attends trade shows and presentations on available PM CEM technology and has not been able to find a product that would perform well. EPA has developed a performance standard (Performance S pecification 11) that PM CEMS must meet. The purpose of the Performance Specification 11 was “to establish the initial installation and performance procedures that are required for evaluating the acceptability” of the PM CEMS, as opposed to evaluating the ongoing performance of PM CEMS over an extended period of time. 41 As sources continued to experiment with PM CEMS, this performance standard has proven difficult to meet. In certain situations, EPA has revoked requirements to have PM CEMS because of techni cal infeasibility. For example, in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants rule (Portland Cement Rule), EPA originally proposed a PM CEM requirement, but the PM CEM technology proved unreliable. EPA dropped the PM CEM requirement from the final Portland Cement Rule, explaining that it was “amending the existing and new source PM standards in the NESHAP to require manual stack testing i n lieu of PM continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for compliance determinations and requiring that a site

- specific parametric operating level be established using a PM continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS).” 42 In years past, Kennecott Utah Copper experimented with PM CEMS on its main stack, only to be frustrated by the unreliability of the technology. There are many vendors claiming to have PM CEMS that are Performance Specification 11 capable. However, the Division is not aware of any tha t can meet these requirements under the variable operational conditions in the real operating environment, and the Petitioners do not identify any. RMB Consulting came to a similar conclusion regarding the reliability of PM CEMS. Its opinion was presented in a paper at the 1997 Electric Power Research Institute’s CEM user group meeting in Denver, Colorado. The findings, which hold true to this day, are summed up in the following paragraph:

41 Performance Specification 11, http://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/per fspec/ps

- 11.pdf (last visited February 24, 2016 ). 42 78 Fed. Reg. 10,006

- 1, 10,007 (Feb. 12, 2013) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 60 and 63).DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 12

The fundamental problem with EPA’s proposed approach to continuou s PM monitoring continues to be the fact that commercially available instruments, especially those that are based on the principal of light scattering, do not provide a direct measure of particulate mass emissions. Of course, by direct measure, we mean tha t the instrument must measure particulate mass and the volume of flue gas from which that mass of PM was sampled. As EPA observes in its Federal Register notice, the characteristics of the emitted particulate matter exhibit significant variability, and “th is variability in the particulate properties causes a varied response from the PM CEMS.” 43 The Division would be open to requiring PM CEMS if they accurately and reliably monitored PM. However, the Division is unaware of any PM CEMS that do, and the Petit ioners do not identify or suggest any. Therefore, the proposed Monitoring Rule would not serve its purpose of assessing continuous compliance with PM emissions limitations due to unreliable and inaccurate monitoring equipment. Besides, if PM CEMS were re quired and installed as proposed, they would not be collecting data necessary to help develop strategies to attain PM2.5 NAAQs. PM CEMS collect data for the entire set of particulate matter without differentiating between PM2.5, PM10, and precursor PM2.5.

C. The Proposed Monitoring Rule Creates Unnecessarily and Burdensome Procedural Requirements The proposed Monitoring Rule creates new requirements that may contradict the Division’s current CEM program 44 or create a two

- tiered system with duplicative requi rements. The Division’s current program applies to all CEMS for any pollutants for which CEMS exist, including PM and opacity. 45 The program establishes “consistent requirements for all sources required to install a continuous monitoring system (CMS) and fo r sources who opt into the continuous emissions monitoring program.” 46 It contains detailed reporting requirements, which are sufficient to ensure proper usage of CEMS. Due to these requirements and procedural safeguards, it is unnecessary to create additio nal procedures for CEMS monitoring. Besides, the proposed requirement for quarterly CEMS reports in the proposed Monitoring Rule does not specify the format of the report. Under the current CEMS rule, a source must follow a certain prescribed format when s ubmitting CEMS reports to the Division. 47 Even following this format, the report comes in as stream of numbers and codes, which the Division then must interpret to conclude whether the sources are in compliance. The Division provides data relating to the current CEMS on its website at http://eqedocs.utah.gov/ (a shortcut to this webpage can be found on the DEQ and DAQ websites). There is no need for the public availability requirements and other procedures that the proposed Monitoring Rule suggests because the data is already available to the public, and the sources are bound by extensive procedural requirements found in the current rule.

43 Ralph Roberson, Status of EPA’s Continuous Particulate Mass (PM) Monitor Demonstrat ions (May 14

- 16, 1997), http://www.rmb

- consulting.com/denpaper/rlrdenpa.htm (last visited February 24, 2016 ), citing 62 Fed. Reg. 13,775 (March 21, 1997). 44 See Utah Admin. Code R307

- 170. 45 See id

. 46 Id . R307

- 170

- 1. 47 Id . R307

- 17 0

- 9.DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 13

D. More Frequent Testing in the Monitoring Rule Imposes a Burden Without Providing a Corresponding Benefit of Improving t he Air Quality The proposed Monitoring Rule requires, “Absent a demonstration of infeasibility, no monitoring method or stack testing used to establish compliance with a PM2.5 SIP emission limitation may occur less frequently than once per year.” 48 If the Board ultimately adopts this requirement, it will impose additional administrative burdens on both the sources and the Division without the corresponding benefits. The Division’s current testing schedules and procedures are very effective in ensuring comp liance. The Division’s data from 2012 through 2014 shows compliance rates for major and minor sources ranging from 96.1% in 2014 to 97.1% in 2013. Many sources are also already currently tested more frequently than once in five years. See attached PM2.5 SI P Source Monitoring Requirements (last updated Oct. 2, 2015) (i.e. Tesoro West Coast’s Cogeneration Units #1 and #2 (Turbine & HRSG) NOx are tested every two years; Crude unit

- every three years; DDU F

- 681 Furnace NOx

- every three years; ESP (FCCU Boiler Stack) PM10

- annually; Ultraformer Furnace Stack (F1) NOx

- annually). In any event, monitoring methods at existing sources and frequency of testing is a case

- by

- case analysis, accounting for the specific emission unit, controls, emission rate, and oth er relevant considerations at a particular facility. Furthermore, source monitoring is typically established when the Division issues an Approval Order or a Title V permit for a given source. Enhanced monitoring is required for larger emission units under R307

- 415

- 6a(3)(a)(i) and Section 114(a)(3) of the CAA. 49 Rule 307

- 415

- 4(6) imposes similar requirements for non

- Title V sources. Current testing and monitoring requirements also establish more than just compliance or non

- compliance

— they establish operatin g parameters, including temperature, feed rate, etc. These parameters are then observed by the Division during the interim between the required testing as surrogates to determine compliance or non

- compliance with the emission limitations. Changes in certai n parameters indicate changes in emission rates. Thus, the Division continuously oversees the sources in the interim between the required tests.

E. Conclusion/Recommendation

1. There are currently no commercially available PM CEMS that reliably measure parti culate matter, and despite the fact that vendors claim to have PM CEMS that are Performance Specification 11 capable, the Division is not aware of any that can meet these requirements under the variable operational conditions in the real operating environm ent, and the Petitioners do not identify any. Therefore, the proposed Monitoring Rule would not serve its purpose of assessing continuous compliance with PM emissions limitations due to unreliable and inaccurate monitoring equipment. In any event, if PM CE MS are required and installed as proposed, they would not be collecting data necessary to help develop strategies to attain PM2.5 NAAQs. PM CEMS collect data for the entire set of particulate matter without differentiating between PM2.5, PM10, and precurso r PM2.5.

2. The proposed Monitoring Rule creates new requirements that may contradict the Division’s current CEM program, and creates a two

- tiered system with duplicative requirements.

3. If ultimately adopted by the Board, the proposed Monitoring Rule will impose additional administrative burdens on both the sources and the Division without the corresponding

48 R307

- XXX

- 3(4). 49 42 U.S.C.A. § 7414(a)(3).DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 14 benefits. The Division’s current testing schedules and procedures are very effective in ensuring compliance.

IV. Offset Rule

A. Summary The intended purp ose of the proposed Offset Rule is to require that reductions in emissions from existing sources be obtained to offset emission increases from specified new and modified sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors located in the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan n onattainment areas.

B. The Proposed Offset Rule is not a SIP Requirement Petitioners incorrectly state that “under current federal law” offsets are required in a Serious nonattainment area. 50 This is not true. For an area designated as a Serious nonattainm ent, the Part 4 draft PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires two changes in SIP development that impact major point sources. 51 First, the threshold for a major point source is lowered from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy for sources that emit PM2.5 or PM2.5 p recursors. 52 The second change is that a BACT analysis is required for major point sources rather than a RACT analysis. 53 A BACT analysis is expected to require better pollution control. Because Utah already requires BACT for all new and modified sources, an updated BACT is less likely to impose tighter controls. The draft PM2.5 Implementation Rule does not impose offsetting in addition to the offsetting already required by 40 C.F.R. 51, Appendix S. As the Division constructs the SIP, the SIP will need to s how attainment by December 2019. As the SIP develops, the need for an offsetting program may be necessary, but it should not be required by a rule. The proposed Offset Rule removes the Division’s option to develop appropriate and reasonable controls for ac hieving attainment. C. The Proposed Rule Results in a Construction Ban to Important Growth in the Nonattainment Areas The proposed Offset Rule will greatly limit the ability of major and medium

- sized sources to expand their operations, or construct new op erations in a nonattainment area. It is important to note that some sources in the nonattainment areas are sources that provide public services (hospitals, schools, etc.) and need the ability to grow as the population expands. The purpose of the NSR permit ting program is to provide for growth, while at the same time requiring new and modified sources to implement the best available pollution controls and to operate more efficiently. The proposed Offset Rule will lower by half the threshold for requiring a major source to obtain emission reduction credits (ERCs) to offset emission increases due to the planned modification. This proposed rule will also lower the quantity of criteria pollutants, in tons per year, triggering when a non

- major source becomes sub ject to offsetting requirements. The result is that sources emitting just 25 tpy of PM2.5, 40 tpy of SO2, NOx, VOC, or 50 tpy of a combination of the pollutants may be required to obtain offsets. With these reduced thresholds, many sources not currently re quired to offset emissions increases, will be required to obtain ERCs to modify.

50 Petition for Rule Change Offset Rule at 18. 51 See 80 Fe d. Reg. 15,340. 52 See id . at 15,432. 53 See id . at 15,355.DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 15

The added problem with requiring offsetting for additional sources and at lower threshold is that there are currently no ERCs available for offsetting direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors. No ERCs have been registered for PM2.5 nonattainment offsetting since the initial PM2.5 SIP was approved by the Board in December of 2013. Moreover, the lower thresholds in the proposed rule are unaccompanied by any analysis, and appear to be arbitrary. 54 The Division believes it will be difficult for sources in the nonattainment areas to generate ERCs. 55 The sources along the Wasatch Front are already well

- controlled. The Division permitting rules require BACT for all sources applying for an a ir quality permit. The major sources have been subject to a RACT evaluation multiple times as a result of various nonattainment designations. There is very little room for sources along the Wasatch Front to find voluntary reductions. As a result, future PM 2.5 ERCs will likely only be derived from sources shutting down or from the potential development of new control technology that is not yet required by federal standards or by BACT as a result of a permit modification.

D. The Proposed Rule Has Problematic L anguage During review of the proposed rule, some issues were identified that will require further evaluation. The first issues are two definitions in R307

- XXX

- 1. Proposed definitions for “Modify, Modified or Modification” and “Stationary Source” that are not consistent with definitions in other sections of R307. These two definitions, found in R307

- 101, are essential components in the framework of the NSR program and should not be redefined. In the proposed rule R307

- XXX

- 2(3), the Petitioners include fu gitive emissions of PM2.5, SO2, NOx and VOCs as being applicable to the offsetting requirements. In the past, the Division has not included fugitives in the offsetting program because, by definition, fugitive emissions cannot be measured. In accordance wit h Appendix S, ERCs must be permanent, enforceable and quantifiable. There are ways, however, to estimate fugitive emissions using emission factors. Should the Board decide to propose this rule, additional analysis with input from EPA will be required regar ding the creation and use of “fugitive derived” ERCs. Another condition in the proposed rule that will require additional analysis is found in R307

- XXX

- 3(1), “Requirement to obtain Emission Offsets.” In accordance with provisions of Appendix S, ERCs are created and used within the boundaries of a nonattainment area. The proposed rule indicates that ERCs be obtained “from other sources located within that part of the same county encompassed by the PM2.5 nonattainment area.” The rule would require the Divis ion to designate ERC creation and use boundaries within areas and within counties. This would add a level of complexity that needs to be addressed. Both the Division and EPA have determined that this approach is infeasible because extensive computer modeli ng will be

54 The CAA’s obligation to require offsets as part of a permitting program is separate from the RACT/RACM process, and this obligation only extends to new major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas. See 42 U.S.C. A. § 7503(a)(1) (requiring offsets for new or modified major sources). The CAA specifies offset thresholds depending o n the severity of the nonattainment problem in an airshed. For example, the CAA sets the major source threshold at 70 tpy for PM10 nonattainment areas, 42 U.S.C. A. § 7513a(b)(3), and the major source threshold can be as low as 10 tpy for Extreme ozone nona ttainment areas. 42 U.S.C.A. § 7511a(e). With such specific thresholds established by statute, it is highly unlikely that lower offset thresholds a re mandated by the CAA, as the P etitioners a rgue. 55 Additionally, if these lower thresholds are ultimately ad opted by the Board, the Division and the sources would have to go back and identify ERCs that may have been generated by the smaller sources (which have historically neither generated nor consumed ERCs) after the SIP development process is concluded. The E RC bank would become very complicated and require analysis of historic emission levels and determination of what was included in the SIP.DAQ

- 016

- 16 Page 16 required to design the “impact areas.” Due to the chemical reactions over an extended period of time for the development of the majority of PM2.5 along the Wasatch Front, such a limitation is unnecessary. The last problematic requirement of th e proposed rule is found in R307

- XXX

- 4(1), Baseline for crediting Emission Reductions to be used as offsets. For a source to obtain ERCs from reductions, the baseline emissions must be (1) in the inventory of an EPA

- approved SIP, in the inventory of a stat e approved SIP, or (2) “the actual emissions for the source, based on an average of emissions over the two years prior to the application to provide or bank emissions offsets.” The problem with this language is that small sources are not part of a SIP and the Division typically does not have “actual emissions” data from minor sources. To understand what is being proposed by the Petitioners, the Division needs to know if the proposal does not allow minor sources to create ERCs or to modify the proposal to al low the Division to use the “potential to emit” for calculating ERCs from minor sources.

E. Conclusion/Recommendation The Division recommends that the Board deny the petition for the proposed Offset Rule for the following reasons: 1. The federal rules do no t require the Division to develop an offsetting rule. This rule restricts the ability of the Division to develop a SIP that is customized to meet the State’s needs. Using EPA regulation, the SIP planners use all tools that are required by EPA, and allowed by EPA, to develop a SIP that has the best and most reasonable requirements to show attainment. By adopting this rule, the Division is forced to use a tool (offsetting) that may be overly burdensome and unnecessary for achieving attainment.

2. This rule wil l result in a decreased ability for sources to obtain or modify permits to allow for growth. The NSR permitting rules are designed to provide for growth, while at the same time requiring new and modified sources to implement the best available pollution co ntrols and to operate more efficiently. The growth will be greatly hindered because no ERCs are currently available for offsetting and the sources will find it difficult to generate ERCs, as they are already well

- controlled. Public service sources that nee d to grow as the population grows may not be able to expand operations.

3. Portions of the proposed rule conflict with existing definitions.

Conclusion For these reasons, the Division recommends that the Board deny the petitions for rule change at thi s time, and the Division work with the Petitioners to evaluate additional strategies in the context of State Implementation Plan development

.

# Table 1TABLE 1

Source Petition Reference Current Requirement Comment Action Required PM 2.5 SIP emission limitations often have averaging times considerably longer than 24 hours G eneral requirements petroleum refineries FCCU 365 and 7

- day rolling averages for SO 2 T he overall daily SIP Cap s control total SO2 emissions from each refinery. The se secondary limit s identified in the petition serve to keep SO2 emissions down over the long run

. None, SIP caps are determined on a 24

- hour average basis G eneral requirements petroleum refineries H 2 S content 365

- day rolling average T he overall daily SIP Cap s control total SO2 emissions from each re finery. The se secondary limit s identified in the petition serve to keep SO2 emissions down over the long run

. None, SIP caps are determined on a 24

- hour average basis Exelon Generation 30

- day average for NO X Total emissions of NOx from all five (5) turbines combined shall be no greater than 1050 lb of NOx on a daily basis. Now called West Valley Power Plant, the source has a new requirement imposed as of the PM10 Maintenance Plan (SIP) that limits total NOx on a daily (24

- hour) basis. The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP. Hill Air Force Base D aily average shall be determined monthly for VOCs The PM2.5 SIP has a daily average determined monthly It is u nreasonable to track paint throughput and VOC content of the paint with 65 active paint booths and +100 paint types on a daily basis. None. An alternative limit is the “best fit” for this source.

Kennecott B CM S ource - wide 12

- month rolling average, combin ed for SO 2 , NO X and PM 2.5 Maximum total mileage per calendar day for ore and waste haul trucks shall not exceed 30,000 miles The daily mileage limit provides a protection for the 24

- hour standard. None. An alternative limit is the “best fit” for this sourc e. Kennecott Smelter Holman Boiler, 30

- day average for NO X The PM10 Maint Plan has a calendar day average The limit was changed to daily limit in the PM10 Maint enance Plan Bring the limit forward into the Serious PM2.5 SIP2 Nucor Steel Electric Arc Furnace Baghouse, 12

- month rolling average for NO X and VOCs Electric Arc Furnace Baghouse, 12

- month rolling average for NO X and VOCs The source’s limit will be evaluated and adjusted , if applicable, when the PM2.5 is modified. The VOC limit is an hourly limit and is not a 12

- month average. Limit to be addressed in a modified PM2.5 SIP.

PacifiCorp Energy Natural Gas

- fired Simple Cycle Turbine Units, 30

- day average for NO X Total emissions of NOx from all three turbines combined shall be no greater than 600 lb of NOx on a daily basis. The source has a new requirement imposed as of the PM10 Maintenance Plan (SIP) that limits total NOx on a daily (24

- hour) basis. The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP. Vulcraft/Nucor, 12

- month rolling average for VOCs 12

- month rolling average for VOCs The source’s limit will be evaluated and adjusted , if applicable, when the PM2.5 is modified. Limit to be addressed in a modified PM2.5 SIP. Pacific States 12

- month rolling average for VOCs 12

- month rolling average for VOCs The source’s limit will be evaluated and adjusted , if applicable, when the PM2.5 is modified. Limit to be addressed in a modified PM2.5 SIP. PM 2.5 SIPs fail to impose any averaging period Bountiful City Power for NO X Limits in PM10 Maintenance Plan: A. GT #1 (5.3 MW Turbine) Exhaust Stack: 0.6 g NOx / kW

- hr B. GT #2 and GT #3 (each TITAN Turbine) Exhaust Stack: 7.5 lb NOx / hr These are instantaneous limits, meaning that the source must meet the limits at all times

– not over any average period. The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP.3 Central Valley Water for NO X NO x emissions from the operation of all engines at the plant shall not exceed 0.648 tons per day

. The limit was modified from the original PM2.5 SIP as the limits were 24

- hr standards and these updated limits align with those standards. The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP.

Chemical Lime Company for PM and NO X The PM limit is 0.12 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of stone feed

The NOx limit is SNCR technology shall be installed on the lime production kiln upon start

- up of the facility. Compliance testing will determine the effective emission limitation. No later than January 1, 2019, or upon source start

- up, whichever comes later, SNCR technology will be installed on the lime production kiln for reduction of NOx emissions. Additionally no later than January 1, 2019, or upon source start

- up, whichever comes later, a baghouse control technology will be installed and operating on the lime production kiln for reduction of PM emissions. Initial compliance te sting for PM and NOx is required no later than January 1, 2019 or within 180 days of source start

- up. The facility is currently in temporary care and maintenance mode. The limit for VOC is mass based and no averaging period is needed.

The l imit for NO x will be addressed in a modified PM2.5 SIP.4 Kennecott BCM R oad dust suppression, ore conveyor use and opacity T he PM2.5 and PM10 SIP limits are the same. This is a fugitive dust concern and no averaging period is required. The daily mileage limit ensures that the c onveyors are used as the primary means for transport of crushed ore from the mine to the concentrator. Opacity limits and monitoring are addressed in the general requirements, Section IX, Part H.1. None. An alternative limit is the “best fit” for this source.

Kennecott Power Plant Boiler #5 for NO X , VOC, PM 2.5 PM10 18.8 lbs/hr NOx 2.0 ppmdv The NOx limit is an instantaneous concentration limit.

The PM is an hourly limit.

T he sourc e must meet the limits at all times

– not over any average period. The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP. Kennecott Power Plant Boiler #4 for PM 2.5 and NO X PM 0.03 grains/dscf NOx 336 ppmdv The NOx and PM limits are instantaneous concentration limits. The source must meet the limits at all times

– not over any average period. The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP. Kennecott Smelter Stack 11 for PM 2.5 PM 439 lbs/hr The PM is an hourly limit. The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the5 PM2.5 SIP. Kennecott Refinery Tankhouse Boilers and Combined Heat Plant for NO X Boiler N Ox 9.5 lbs/hr

CHP NOx 5.96 lbs/hr The NOx has an hourly limit. Averaging period not allowed The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP. Kennecott MAP Natural Gas Turbine combined with Duct Burner and TEG firing

– Combined Heat Plant for NO X CHP NOx 5.01 lbs/hr The NOx has an hourly limit. Averaging period not allowed The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP. Nucor Steel Electric Arc Furnace Baghouse for VOC VOC 22.20 lbs/hr PM2.5 29.53 lbs/hr SO2 89.0 lbs/hr 24

- hour NOx 59.75 lbs/hr 12

- month Averaging period not allowed for VOC and PM2.5 Averaging period for SO2 & NOx None. Limit is already in the PM2.5 SIP.

The l imit for NOx will be addressed in a modified PM2.5 SIP. Nucor Steel Reheat Furnace #1 and #2 for NO X #1 NOx 15.0 lbs/hr #2 NOx 8.0 lbs/hr The NOx has an hourly limit. Averaging period not allowed None. Limit is already in the PM2.5 SIP.6 PM 2.5 SIP emission limitations are expressed in pounds per hour or concentrations with no averaging periods and with monitoring that is so infrequent

– once every three to five years

– that the emission limits do not serve to limit short

- term spikes in air pollution

. Great Salt Lake Minerals NO X and PM 10 concentration, stack testing once every three to five years All pollutants have hourly rates with no averaging periods. Now c alled Compass Minerals Ogden, Inc. Emission rates were updated through the permit modification process. The limit established through the permit modification will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP.

Proctor and Gamble PM 10 and NO X pounds/hour, stack testing every five years NOx 3.3 lbs/hr PM 6.65 lbs/hr The NOx and PM have hourly limit s

. Averaging period not allowed None. Limit is already in the PM2.5 SIP.

University of Utah NO X concentration, stack testing once every one to three years NOx All units have an instantaneous limit. This is an instantaneous limit, meaning that the source must meet the limits at all times

– not over any average period. The limit established for the PM10 Maintenance Plan will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP . A. hourly rate will be established

.7 BYU NO X concentration, stack testing once every three years All pollutants have hourly rates for NOx with no averaging periods. Emission rates were updated through the permit modification process. The limit established through the permit modification will be brought forward to the PM2.5 SIP.

# PM2.5 SIP Source Monitoring Requirements (Oct. 2, 2015)

### PM2.5 SIP Source Monitoring Requirements :

ATK

- Promontory

– daily p arametric monitoring

. Bountiful City Light and Power

– daily parametric monitoring using emission factors from annual NOX and CO turbine stack tests and NOX and CO testing of Engine 8 every 8,760 hours, but no later than 2 years. Brigham Young University

– daily parametric monitoring and NOX testing of Boilers #1, #4, #5 and #6 every 3 years, PM10 testing of the baghouse every 3 ye ars, and a COMS. Central Valley Water Reclamation

– daily parametric monitoring using NOX emission factors fr om Engine 1

- 5 stack test s performed every 5 years. In addition, CO stack testing performed every 5 years.

Chemical Lime (Lhoist): Grantsville

– parametric monitoring , 3 year PM and NOX stack testing of the Lime Kiln and 3 year PM stack testing of the Hydrator

– currently not operating.

Chevron : Salt Lake Refinery

– daily parametric monitoring

- FCC Regenerator and SRU PM2.5 emission factors de termined by stack testing every three years . FCC Regenerator NOX and SO2 emission factors are determined by CEM. Boilers 5 and 6 NOX emission factors are determined by stack testing every 3 years. Plant gas SO2 emission factor is determined by CEM. In ad dition, there is a COM on the FCC Regenerator, H2S CEMS on Flares 1

- 3 and the Fuel Gas Mix Point, SO2 CEMS o n the SRU Tail Gas Incinerator, and a Loading Rack VOC CEM. Flying J/Big West Oil

– daily parametric monitoring

- CRS PM2.5 emission factor determi ned by stack test every 5 years. CRS NOX and SO2 emission factors determined by CEM. In addition, there is a COM on the CRS, an SO2 CEMS on the SRU, and VOC CEMS on the VRU. Geneva Nitrogen

– daily parametric monitoring of PM2.5 using emission factors fr om 3 year stack tests of the Prill Tower

. NOX testing of the Weatherly every 3 years and Montecatini Plants every 2 years and daily monitoring with a NOX CEM (shared analyzer)

. Geneva Rock

– Orem

– daily parametric monitoring using PM10, NOX, and SOX emi ssion factors from Asphalt Plant stack test s every 3 years. Geneva Rock

- P oint of the Mountain

– d aily parametric monitoring using PM10 emission factors from stack testing performed every 3 years (recycle asphalt) or 5 years (virgin materials). Great Salt Lake Minerals (Compass Minerals): Ogden

– There are NOX CEMS on Boilers 1 and 2 and s tack testing as follows: PM2.5 testing of the following sources every 3 years: SOP Plant Compaction/Loadout Salt Plant Screening SOP Plant Dryer D

- 001 SOP Plant Dryer D

- 002 SOP Plant Dryer D

- 003 SOP Plant Dryer D

- 004 SOP Plant Heater D

- 005 Salt Plant Dryer D

- 501PM2.5 testing of the following sources every 5 years: SOP Loadout SOP Silo Dust Collection SOP Plant Compaction SOP Plant Dust Collection Bulk Tru ck Salt Loadout Mag Chloride Plant

Hexel Corporation: Salt Lake Operations

– daily parametric monitoring.

HAFB

– daily parametric monitoring of VOC emissions. In addition, the following stack tests are required:

Boiler #1 NOX

– every three years Boiler #2 NOX

– every three years Boiler #3 NOX

– every three years Boiler #8 NOX

– every three years Boiler #9 NOX

– every three years Landfill Gas Engine #1 NOX/CO every five years Landfill Gas Engine #2 NOX/CO every five years Landfill Gas Engine #3 NOX/CO eve ry five years Holly Refining and Marketing

– daily parametric monitoring of PM2.5, NOX, and SO2. Stack testing for emission factors used is as follows:

Boiler #10 NOX

– every five years Boiler 12H1 NOX

– every five years Boiler #5 NOX

– every five years Heater 19H1

– PM10

– every five years Heater 20H1

– PM10

– every five years Heater 20H2

– PM10

– every five years Heater 8H1

– PM10

– every five years The following CEMS are also in use:

LOD

– VOC Amine Plant

– H2S FCCU

– CO, NOX, and PM2.5 Tail Gas Inc inerator

– SO2

Interstate Brick

– Daily parametric monitoring using emission factors from t he following stack tests: Line 3 Baghouse PM10

- every five years Line 4 Baghouse PM10

– every five years North End Kiln #3 Scrubber PM10

- every five years Primar y Crusher Baghouse Vent PM10

– every five years Tunnel Kiln #4 S O 2

– annually Tunnel Kiln #4 NOX and Fluorides

– every five years Tunnel Kiln #4 PM10/PM2.5

– every three years

Kennecott

- Mine and Concentrator

– daily parametric monitoring and the followi ng stack tests:C6/C7 transfer points

– PM10

- every three years C7/C8 transfer points

– PM10

– every three years In

- Pit Crusher Baghouse

– PM10

– every three years

Kennecott

- Power Plant and Tailings Impoundment

– daily parametric monitoring, COMS on Units 1

- 4 , stack tests of Unit 5 PM2.5, NOX, and VOC every 3 years, and stack tests of Units 1

- 4 PM2.5 and NOX emissions annually. Units 1

- 3 will be shut down January 1, 2018.

Kennecott

- Smelter and Refinery

– parametric monitoring, Main Stack and Concentrator Dryer COMS, Main Stack NOX and SO2 CEMS, Holman Boiler NOX CEM, and Acid Plant COM and SO2 CEM, and the following stack tests: Main Stack Pb/PM

- daily Acid Plant Tail Gas SME 011b

– acid mist

– every three years Anode Scrap REF 005

– acid mist

– every three years Cathode Wash with Demister Pads

– H2S04 and acid mist

– every three years Combined Heat Plant

– NOX and CO

– annually Dry Matte Bin Baghouse SME 013

– PM10

– every three years Feed Storage Belt Baghouse SME 001

– PM10

- every five years Feed Storage Building BH SME 002

– PM10

- every three years Feed Transfer Belt Baghouse SME 003

– PM10

– every three years Gold/Silver Recovery Baghouse REF 010

– PM10

– every three years Liberator REF 001

– acid mist

– every three years Main Stack S ME 011

– PM 2.5

– annually REF 006

– acid mist/S OX /Pb/HCl

– every five years REF 007 Hydrometallurigical Silver

– H2S04/NH3

– every three years Tankhouse Boilers (2)

– NOX and CO

– every three years SME 010b Slag Granulation Scrubber

– PM10/S OX

– every five years Wet Feed Bin SME 004

– PM10

– every 5 years FSF Dry Feed Bin SME 005

– PM10

– every 5 years Rotary Dryer SME 011e

– PM

– every 5 years Limestone Flux Bin

– PM10

– every 5 years Matte Granulator Scrubbers SME 010a

– PM10

– every 5 years Slag Granulator Scrubber SME 010b

– PM10 and SO2

– every 5 years SME 011a and 011c Vacuum Cleaning System

– PM10

– every 5 years Nucor Bar Mill Group Plymouth Division

– E lectric A rc F urnace B aghouse CO, SO2 and NOX CEM S , and the following stack tests:

Electr ic Arc Furnace PM 2.5

– annually Electric Arc Furnace VOC

– every 5 years Reheat Furnace s #1 and #2 NO X

– every three years Olympia Sales

– daily parametric monitoring

. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe (McWane Ductile)

– daily p arametric monitoring of VOC and stack testing of Cupola Stack SO2 , CO, and NOX

– every two years. Pacificorp

- Gadsby

– NOX and CO CEMS on Units 1

- 6

.Pacificorp

– Lake S ide

– NOX and CO CEMS on the Units 1

- 4 . Stack testing of the Auxillary Boiler for PM10/CO/NOX/VOC

– every five years. Annual PM10 testing of the HRSGs. Payson City Power

– d aily parametric monitoring using emission factors from stack tests of Engines 1

- 4 NOX and CO every three years.

Procter & Gamble

– Boiler NOX and CO and Paper Machine PM2.5 and NOX stack test s every 5 years. Provo City Power

– d aily parametric monitoring using NOX emission factors from stack tests of Engines 1

- 4 every 8 , 760 hours of operation , but no later than every 5 years. Springville City Power

– NOX and CO CEMS on Units 1

- 4

. Tesoro We st Coast

– daily parametric monitoring using emissions factors from FCCU NOX and SO 2 CEMS , COM, and the following stack tests: Cogeneration Unit s #1 and #2 (Turbine & HRSG) NOX

– every two years Crude Unit Furnace H101 NOX and CO

– every three years DDU F

- 681 Furnace NOX

– every three years ESP (FCCU Boiler Stack) PM10

– annually Ultraformer Furnace Stack (F1) NOX

– annually University of Utah

– NOX testing of Boiler s #3 , #4a, #4b, #5a, and #5b every 3 years. NOX testing of the t urbine annually.

Vulcraft

– daily parametric monitoring of VOCs. Wasatch Integrated Waste Management

– NOX , SO2, and CO CEMS, parametric monitoring, COMS, and the following stack tests of Units A & B :

HC l , fluorides, mercury, lead, cadmium

– annually Dioxi n /furan

– every other year PM

– every two years West Valley Power Plant (CER/Excelon Generation)

– NOX and CO CEMS on Units 1

- 5

.

# Petitioners proposed new rules: a) 24-Hour Averaging Period Rule b) Monitoring Rule c) Offset RuleJoro Walker, USB # 6676 Charles R. Dubuc, Jr., USB # 12079 Western Resource Advocates 150 South 600 East, Ste. 2A Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 email: jwalker@westernresources.org rdubuc@westernresources.org Telephone: 801.487.9911 Attorneys for Petitioners Utah Physicians, et al

. BEFORE THE UTAH AI R QUALITY BOARD

 PETITION FOR A RULE CHANGE 24-HOUR AVERAGING PERIOD RULE Submitted by Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, W ESTERN R ESOURCE A DVOCATES and HEAL Utah January 13, 2015

 Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3 -601(2) and Utah Admin. Code R15-2-1 et seq ., Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Western Resource Advocates and HEAL Utah respectfully submit to the Utah Air Quality Board this Petition for a Rule Change. Attached to this Petition is the text of a pr oposed rule that would amend or supplement Utah regulations Utah

Admin. Code R307-165-1 et seq .; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Salt Lake City, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.21; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Provo, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.22; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Logan, UtahIdaho Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.23; PM 2.5 Emission Limits and Operating Practices, Sections IX.11, 12 and 13; Utah Admin. Code R307-403 et seq . and/or the applicable part of

Utah Admin. Code Rule 307. Exhibit “1” attached. Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment,

Western Resource Advocates and HEAL Utah ask th e Air Quality Board, as authorized by Utah2 Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii), to initiate rulemaking proceedings re lative to the proposed rule as specified by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 an d ultimately to adopt the proposed rule. I. Purpose of the Rule The “24-Hour Averaging Period Rule” preven ts short-term spikes in emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors from the individual sta tionary sources identified in the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas (the “Three NAAs”). The rule requires that, in add ition to other emission limitations, “short-term” emission limits and controls be imposed that ar e averaged over 24 hours or fewer. This means that the source or emission unit will be prohibited from emitting PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors at a rate higher than that established by the applicab le limit or control when averaged over the shortterm – a period of 24 hours or less.

The 24-Hour Rule reflects the fact that th e Three NAAs are failing to attain the 24-hour

PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. This “short-term” standard is intended, by law, to protect “against health effects associated with short-term PM 2.5 exposures, especially in areas with high peak PM 2.5 concentrations.” 80 Fed. Reg. 15340, 15347 (March 23, 2015). EPA

determined that the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS are necessary to “provide[] increased public health protection, including the health of at-risk popul ations which include children, older adults, persons with pre-existing hea lth and lung disease and persons of lower socioeconomic status, against a broad range of PM 2.5 -related effects that include prem ature mortality, increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease.”

Id. The Three NAAs are indeed “areas with high peak PM 2.5 concentrations.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15347. As detailed below, air quality along the Wasatch Front during 2013 exceeded the 24-3 hour PM 2.5 standard on at least 43 days – often by alarming levels. In January of that year, the monitor at the playground of Salt Lake City ’s Hawthorne Elementary School recorded 17 violations of the NAAQS, with a high reading of 62 μg/m 3 , almost double the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m 3

. 1 In Lindon, January also brought 17 exceed ances with a high reading of 123 μg/m 3

– 350% of the standard. Id. In Logan, the standard was violated on 18 days in January 2013, topping out at 97 μg/m 3

. Id. In January of 2014, the Hawthorne monitor recorded that the 24-

hour PM 2.5 standard was exceeded on 13 days and the Logan monitor determined violations on 11 days. The highest reading that month – 68 μg/m 3 – was in Ogden. 2 More specifically, the purpos e of the 24-Hour Rule is to address the “high peak PM 2.5 concentrations” that afflict th e Three NAAs. The rule ensure s that limitations placed on

emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors by the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the Three NAAs will prevent short-term spikes in air polluti on. To do this, the proposed rule imposes, in addition to other longer-term emission limitations , limits that are averaged over periods of 24 hours or less. The rule is necessary because limitations averaged over periods longer than 24 hours – such as 7 days, 30 days or 365 days – do not prevent sharp increases in emissions over the short-term. As EPA explai ned when it commented on the PM 2.5 SIPs, “[u]nder a long-term limit, emissions from a source can spike during a short-term period.” EPA Region 8 Comments on Utah’s Proposed PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans and Technical Support Documents at 8 (Oct. 30, 2014). The agency expounded that, for example, “[a]n emission limit expressed as a 30-day average allows significantly higher short-te rm emissions that can impact a short-term

standard such as the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.” Id. at 24.

1 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN13.pdf 2 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN14.pdf4 II. Jurisdiction The Air Quality Board has jurisdiction to consider, analyze and adopt this proposed rule pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-104(1)(a) (Boa rd may make rules “regarding the control, abatement, and prevention of air pollution fr om all sources and the establishment of the maximum quantity of air pollutants that may be emitted by an air pollutant source”); Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-104(1)(c)(i) (Board may make rules “requiring persons engaged in operations that result in air pollution to...install, maintain, and use emission mon itoring devices, as the board finds necessary”); and, Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-109( 2)(a) (“The [B]oard may establish emission control requirements by rule that in its judgment may be necessary to prevent, abate, or control air pollution that may be statew ide or may vary from area to area, taking into account varying local conditions.”); See also Utah State Implementation Plan, Section I (Legal Authority); 42 U.S.C. § 7513-7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a. III. Petitioning Organizations HEAL Utah is an environmental non-profit that promotes renewable energy and protects Utah’s public health and environment from air pollution and nuclear, toxic, and dirty energy threats. Beginning in 2012, HEAL began working to urge state officials to do more to clean the air, creating online actions sending strong messages to policymakers, organizing historic rallies on the steps of the Capitol, and packing hear ings where key air quality decisions are made.

Members of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment , the largest community service organization of its kind in Utah, include health professiona ls, toxicologists, biologists, chemists and engineers. The or ganization is dedicated to protec ting the health and well-being of the citizens of Utah by promoting science-based health education a nd interventions that result in progressive, measurable improvements to air quality and the environment.5 Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional non-profit conservation organization with programs and staff spanning the Intermounta in West, including Utah. Our mission is to protect the land, air and water of our region, using law, science, economics, advocacy, education, and action. To this end, we work to improve air quality, curb climate change and achieve environmentally sustainable management of energy, land, and water resources. WRA represented intervenor Utah Phys icians for a Healthy Environment before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully defending an EPA deci sion to include the most populous portions of Tooele and Box Elder County in the Sa lt Lake City Nonattainment Area. ATK Launch Systems

v. EPA , 669 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In carrying out their missions, these organiza tions have met with former Governor John Huntsman Jr., Governor Gary Herbert, members of the Utah Public Service Commission, staff of the Utah Division of Air Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency, several local mayors, Utah business leaders, media and concer ned citizens to advocate for clean air and to advance efforts to reduce air pollution. We have repeatedly submitted comments to state and federal regulators and decision makers relative to specific projects and ru lemaking processes that impact and influence the condition of Utah’s ai r quality, environment and the health of the people living here. The organizations have a str ong legal interest in the promo tion and ultimate adoption of the proposed rule. The Clean Air Act, which largely governs the content of Utah’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), and Utah Air Conser vation Act, have as goals the protection of public health and the environment. E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1); Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-101(2). These statutes also guarantee the public a significant role in th e government actions impacting air quality, including the drafti ng and review of SIPs. E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1), (a)(2) &6 (a)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l); see also, 42 U.S.C. § 7427; Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(2);

Utah Admin. Code R15-2-1 et seq . The organizations’ staff and members, their families and their patients, who live, work, and recreate in the nona ttainment areas, are harmed by air pollution, particularly concentrations of PM 2.5 that exceed the NAAQS, and are entitled, by the Clean Air Act and Utah Air Conservation Act, to air qua lity that meets the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7513- 7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a; Utah C ode Ann. § 19-2-107(2)(xii). Where air quality exceeds the health-based standards, such as in the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas, the law requi res that measures be taken immediately to bring air quality into compliance with NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A) & (a)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2). Poor air quality and a failure to attain the NAAQS harm the organizations’ staff and members, their families and patients because air pollution adversely affects their heal th, quality of life, recreational pursuits and aesthetic sense. Therefore, the organizations have a protectable legal interest in ensuring that rules promulgated under the Utah Air Conservati on Act comply with the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410; 42 U.S.C. § 7502; 42 U.S.C. § 7 513a, and include the measures necessary to attain, inter alia , the 24-hour NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B) &( c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2). IV. Adverse Health Impacts of Particulate Matter Pollution Anyone living along the Wasatch Front has experienced our air pollution crisis, particularly wintertime “inversi ons” that settle on Salt Lake Valle y for extended periods, causing concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) to skyrocket and giving Utah the dubious distinction of having the nation’s worst air quality. We have felt our eyes and lungs burn, fretted over whether to let our children outside to pla y, agonized about parents and grandparents with7 heart problems – even taken them to the emergency room as their symptoms worsened – and

watched those with asthma struggle to breathe. The health consequences of our dirty air are significant. The findings of 3,000 published research papers underscore key concepts now accepted by the medical co mmunity worldwide. First, there is no safe level of exposure to pa rticulate pollution and no threshold below which negative health effects disappear. Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution at 1-4, attached as Exhibit “2.” People literally die from exposure. For every 10 μg/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 concentrations, community mo rtality rates rise 14%. Id . at 1. Therefore, Utah Physicians estimates that 1,400 to 2,000 premature deat hs occur every year in Utah from PM 2.5 . Id . at 2. Air pollution has the same extensive, broad-ba sed health consequences as cigarette smoke because the signature physiol ogic response is the same – lo w-grade arterial inflammation, narrowing of blood vessels and increased propensity for clot formation, resulting in immediate increases in blood pressure, follo wed within hours by higher rates of heart attacks and strokes.

Id . at 2-4. The inflammation caused by PM 2.5 affects other organs. Partic ulate pollution penetrates every cell in the body, but is particularly well-documented in the brain. There, air pollution is linked to poor neurologic outco mes across the age spectrum, including loss of intelligence in children, higher rates of autism, and attention de ficit disorders, as well as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, and accelerated cognitive decline in the elderly. Id . at 5-6. Virtually every lung disease is caused or exacerbated, and grow th of lung function during childhood can be irreversibly stunted by air pollution exposure. Id . at 6-7. Cancers, including childhood leukemia, lung, breast, prostate, cervical, brai n and stomach cancer, occu r at higher rates among people exposed to more air pollution, wh ile cancer survival rates are reduced. Id

.8 The blood vessel inflammation caused by air poll ution also affects th e placenta, arguably representing the most significan t public health impact of air pollution. Women who breathe more air pollution have higher rates of adverse pregnancy ou tcomes, their newborn babies showing increased birth defects, genetic damage, and a life-long disease burden that includes higher rates of metabolic disorder s, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer,

Alzheimer’s and all diseases c onsequent to immuno-suppression. Id . at 8-9. The alteration of genetic material triggered by pollution can be se en within minutes, unders coring that short-term spikes in air pollution harm developing fetuses. Id. V. Air Quality in the Nonattainment Areas In 2015, the American Lung Association (ALA ) designated the metropolitan area of Salt Lake City, Provo and Orem as having the 7th worst short-term PM 2.5 air pollution in the nation – the most polluted locatio n outside of California. 3 Logan was ranked as the 8th worst area in the

nation. Id. The ALA estimated that, in the Salt La ke City metropolitan area, there are 734,560 children under the age of 18; 214,000 adults over the age of 65; 45,600 children with asthma; 148,700 adults with asthma; 64,000 adults with chronic obstructive pu lmonary disease; 99,000 adults with cardiovascular disease; 113,350 adu lts with diabetes; and, 284,260 individuals living in poverty, all of whom are particularly at risk fo r heart attacks, strokes, emergency room visits for asthma, cardiovascular disease, and an early death brought on by PM 2.5 . Id. Based on this analysis, the ALA gave Cache, Davis, Salt Lake City, Utah and Weber counties “F” grades for their high particulate air pollution days in 2011-2013. Id. at 156. Over the same time frame, Salt Lake County was given an “F” for its high ozone pollution days, while Utah and Weber counties received “D” grades. Id.

3 http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/as sets/ALA_State_of_the_Air_2015.pdf at 119 Monitors quantify this public health emergency. Since 2009, Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah, Cache counties and the most populous areas of Tooele and Box Elder counties have been formally designated as failing to attain the nation’s 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, 58768-70 (November 13, 2009). These counties are included in the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas. Id. Salt Lake County, Utah Count y and Ogden City are also designated as nonattainment areas for the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS, and Salt Lake and Toole

counties as nonattainment areas for the SO 2 NAAQS. 4 Our air pollution is serious. In 2013, air quality along the Wasatc h Front exceeded the

24-hour PM 2.5 standard on at least 43 days – often by alarming levels. In January of that year, the monitor at the playground of Hawthorne Elem entary School recorded 17 violations of the NAAQS, with a high reading of 62 μg/m 3 , almost double the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m 3

. 5 In Lindon, January also brought 17 exceedances with a high reading of 123 μg/m 3 – 350% of the standard – while in Logan the standard wa s violated on 18 days, topping out at 97 μg/m 3

. Id. Over the entire year, monitored values in Logan exceeded the standard on 39 days and values in Salt Lake City on 37 days. 6 This means that for more than a month, our community – including its most vulnerable populations, the young and the ol d – were subjected to levels of air pollution

4 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/g reenbk/ancl.html. The 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3- year average of the a nnual 98th percentile 24- hour average PM 2.5 concentration is less than or equal to 35 μg/m 3 . As EPA explains, the standard is “defined as an integer (zero decimal places) as determined by rounding. For example, a 3-year average 98th pe rcentile concentration of 35.49 μg/m 3 would round to 35 μg/m 3 and thus meet the 24-hour standard and a 3-year average of 35.50 μg/m 3 would round to 36 and, hence, violate the 24-hour standard.” http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/st andards/pm/s_pm_history.html. 5 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN13.pdf 6 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm10 considerably higher than concentrations deemed unsafe and unhealthy at exposures lasting only 24 hours. 71 Fed. Reg. 61144, 61150-77 (Oct. 17, 2006). In January of 2014, the Hawthorne monitor recorded that the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard was exceeded on 13 days and the Logan monitor dete rmined violations on 11 days. The highest reading that month – 68 μg/m 3 – was in Ogden. 7 The winter of 2014 to 2015 was an outlier – the

warmest Utah winter on record. 8 The average temperature over the months December 2014 to February 2015 was 6.8o F higher than th e 20th Century average temperature. Id. The average minimum temperature for that period was also the warmest ever and the average maximum temperature the second warmest on r ecord and the warmest since 1981. Id. As a result, air quality in the nonattainment areas generally me t the standard. In January 2015, the Hawthorne monitor logged 4 readings over the standard, the highest at 53 μg/m 3 , while the Rose Park

monitor documented 5 exceedance s, the highest at 56 μg/m 3

. 9 Periods of high ozone concentrations are in creasingly plaguing the Wasatch Front. In 1978, Davis and Salt Lake counties were designated as not meeting the then applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 10 EPA revised the ozone NAAQS, firs t in 1997, by replacing the 1-hour

standard with an 8-hour standard and then by lowe ring the standard in 2008. 11 Initially, Utah was deemed in compliance with the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 12 However, now significant portions of the Wasa tch Front are failing to comply with the 2008 8-hour ozone

7 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN14.pdf 8 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp -and-precip/climatologicalrankings/index.php?periods%5B%5D=3¶meter =tavg&state=42&div= 0&month=2&year=2 015#ranks-form 9 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 10 http://www3.epa.gov/airqual ity/greenbook/phistory_ut.html 11 http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/st andards/ozone/s_o3_history.html 12 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/11 standard. For example, in 2012, there were 13 da ys in the Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield

airshed that exceeded the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (.075 ppm) and 5 days in the Provo-Orem

airshed. 13 The greater Salt Lake City area recorded 11 days that exceeded the 2008 standard in 2013 and Provo-Orem 5 days. In 2014, air quality in both the Salt Lake City and Provo areas exceeded the 2008 ozone standard on 4 days. Preliminary 2015 data show 11 days where readings in the Salt Lake City -Ogden-Clearfield airshed surpasse d the 8-hour ozone standard. 14 On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8- hour NAAQS for ground- level ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb), based on extensive scien tific evidence about ozone’s adverse effects on public health and welfare. 15 EPA determined, based on existing monitored data for ozone concentrations in Utah, that Salt Lake, Utah, Weber, Tooele, Duchesne and Uintah counties are not attaining the 2015 ozone standard. 16 Utah will be required to develop, secure EPA approval of and implement an ozone SIP for any nonattainme nt area that is not in compliance with the

2015 ozone standard. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7509 & 7511-7511f. Examination of predicted and monitored “desi gn values,” representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations and the ma nner in which compliance

with the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is determined, confirm that the Three NAAs will be plagued by dangerous air quality for years to come. For example, the Director’s air quality models concluded that the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas would not meet the 24-hour

PM 2.5 NAAQS until December 14, 2019, and then only by the slimmest margin. Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.21 at 40 (December 3, 2013) (“[T]h is plan identifies an attainment date of

13 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarch ive/archo3.htm (Violation Days (CSV)) 14 http://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html 15 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/actions.html 16 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/maps.html12 December 14, 2019, and requests that the Administrator extend the attainment date the full 5 years permissible under Section 172(a)(2) of the Act.”) ; Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 40 (Provo Nonattainment Area); Utah SIP, Sectio n IX. Part A.21 (December 3, 2014) at 58, fn. 1 (“The SIP revision adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on December 4, 2013 had demonstrated attainment by December 14, 2019. This SIP revision includes a demonstration under CAA Section 189(a)(1)(B) th at it is impracticable to attain the NAAQS in 2015.”) Moreover, in the 2014 PM 2.5 SIP, the Director estimated that, after accounting for emission reductions from the SIP measures, th e 2013-2015 “design value” – the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations – at the Hawthorne, Salt Lake City monitoring station would be 37 μg/m 3 . Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.21 at 43 (December 3, 2014) (2015 design value based on the “combination of SIP reductions on point sources and new rules to be implemented that will affect sma ller commercial and industrial businesses”). Likewise, the Director anticip ated a 2015 design value for th e Lindon, Utah County monitoring station of 36 μg/m 3 . Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 43 (December 3, 2014) Given that Utah is having extreme difficulty secu ring the emission reductions nece ssary to attain the NAAQS and is failing to show attainment before Decem ber 2019, the difference between these 2015 design

values and attainment constitutes a considerable ba rrier to compliance. Thus, when the effects of

the 2014 SIP measures and emission reductions were modeled , the 2015 design values for the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas were predicted to exceed the NAAQS by a considerable margin. Moreover, 2015 design values based on monitored 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations

confirm that the nonattainment areas are not clos e to attaining the NAAQS. The 3-year averages of the annual 98th percentile monitored PM 2.5 concentrations for the Salt Lake City and Provo13 nonattainment areas, calculated by averag ing the 98th percentile monitored 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations for 2013 and 2014 with the 98th percentile monitored January 2015 concentrations, are 43.8 μg/m 3 and 42.8 μg/m 3 , respectively. 17, 18 These design values are substantially higher than the NAAQS and significantly higher than the modeled values of 37 μg/m 3 and 36 μg/m 3

. More importantly, the monitored design values (3-year average of the annual 98 th percentile) for the Hawthorne monitor – 38.2 μg/m 3 (2010-2012), 41.1 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 43.7 μg/m 3 (2012-2014), 19 and 43.8 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) – show a steady trend away from attainment and certainly do not show linear progress toward attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. Similarly, the monitored design values for the Lindon monitor – 32.4 μg/m 3 (2010- 2012), 44.3 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 41.8 μg/m 3 (2012-2014), 20 and 42.8 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) and the Logan monitor – 37.3 μg/m 3 (2010-2012), 45.8 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 45 μg/m 3 (2012-

17 If the January 2015 98th percentile concen tration monitored at Hawthorne (29.3 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile mo nitored values from 2013 and 2014, 58.8 μg/m 3 and 43.3 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.8 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS. http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 18 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentr ation monitored at Lindon to date (26.9 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile mo nitored values from 2013 and 2014, 72.4 μg/m 3 and 29.1 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 42.8 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS. http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 19 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 20 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf14 2014), 21 and 43.2 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) 22 – fail to establish c onsistent progress toward attainment of the NAAQS. 23 VI. Air Quality Is of Overwhelming Concern to Utahns. Addressing Utah’s poor air quality is increasingly a top concer n of Utah’s urban dwellers.

A Salt Lake Tribune poll released on January 20, 2014 found that 57% of Utahns reported being more concerned about air quality than they were five years ago. Those polled also favored, by a 3 to 1 margin, tougher emission standards for industry. On January 25, 2014, more than 5,000 Utahns stood on the steps of the Capitol to advocate for state government intervention in the fight against air pollution. Protesters wore surgical and gas masks to demonstrate thei r understanding that Wasatch Front air quality

threatens their health. A child bo re a sign stating simply that “I want to play outside.” Another common slogan read “Clean Air Now, No Excuse s.” Dr. Moench, founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, told the crowd, “The most fundamental right there is is the right to breathe clean air. Air pollution tarnishes our community reputation, erod es our quality of life and stifles our economy much as it does our lungs.” 24 A survey released by Envision Utah on Janua ry 15, 2015 revealed th at Utahns rank poor air quality as detracting from their quality of life more than any other aspect of living in the state

21 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 22 If the January 2015 98th percen tile concentration monitored at the Logan monitor (21.8 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 68 μg/m 3 and 39.9 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.2 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS. http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 23 December 2015 monitored values for the Thr ee NAAs have been high enough that the annual 98th percentile of the 24-hour PM 2.5 concentration will ultimately be greater than the numbers used to make these calculations. Thus, the design values for 2013-2015 will increase. 24 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57 447995-78/capitol-clean-indus try-lake.html.csp15 – more than Utah’s lack of di versity, education constraints an d scarcity of water combined. 25 Survey authors noted that “poor air quality threatens core va lues identified in the survey, attacking the health of families and impairing the ability to get out and enjoy that scenic beauty.” 26 The study concluded while Utahns rank ai r quality as one of the most important issues in the state, they also believe that Ut ah is performing worse on air quality than on any

other issue. Id. “The concern about air quality relates pr imarily to the impacts to health, the inability to enjoy the outdoors during poor air qu ality episodes, and the legacy we leave for future generations,” Envision Utah stat ed. “Utahns want the air to improve.” 27 In April and May, 2015, 52,845 Utahns participated in a more detailed Envision Utah survey. These participants also “ranked air qual ity as one of the state’s most important issues, and a resounding three out of four Utahns vot ed to reduce emissions by 40% from [today’s levels], even as Utah’s population nearly doubles.” 28 This 75% of survey participants indicated that they wanted air quality that was well within national health -based standards. Id.

25 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/ Utah-residents-rank-ai r-pollution-as-No-1- threat-to-quality-of-l ife.html?pg=all. 26 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/ Utah-residents-rank-ai r-pollution-as-No-1- threat-to-quality-of -life.html?pg=all 27 http://www.sltrib.com/news/2063029-155/ utahns-rank-poor-air-quality-the 28 http://yourutahyourfuture.org/topics/air-qual ity/item/48-your-utah-your-f uture-survey-results16 VII. Regulatory Background On October 17, 2006, EPA revise d the 24-hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 to provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level to 35 μg/m 3 . 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). Effective on December 14, 2009, EPA designated th e Three NAAs as nonattainment for the 2006

PM 2.5 standard. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, (Nov. 13, 2009). 29 On June 2, 2014, EPA classified all the areas that were designated in 2009 – includi ng the Three NAAs – as “Moderate” nonattainment areas and required those areas to submit Moderate SIPs to EPA by December 31, 2014. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(a); 79 Fed. Reg. 31566 (June 2, 2014). 30 Among other requirements, the Moderate SIPs for the Three NAAs must provide for the imp lementation of all reasonably available control measures [RACM] for the control of PM 2.5 as expeditiously as pract icable, but no later than December 14, 2013. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(C). The plans must also either demonstrate that the plan will provide for attainment by the Moderate attainment date – December 31, 2015 – or demonstrate that attainment by that date is impracticable. 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(B). As explained above, Utah submitted SIPs for the Three NAAs that

demonstrated attainment of the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015 was impracticable. That demonstration has proven to be accura te. Despite fairly good air quality in 2015 to date, none of the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by December 31,

2015 – the Moderate attainment date. 31 Because the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is based on the 3-

29 EPA originally designated these areas under Clean Air Act title I, part D, subpart 1. Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM 2.5 24-hour standard based on both CAA title I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4. 30 The rule did not affect the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015. 31 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) (the moderate “attainment date shall be as exped itiously as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth cal endar year after the area’s designation as17 year average of the annual 98th percentile, and annual values for 2013 and 2014 were so high, the relevant 3-year average (2013-2015) for each nonattainment area will be considerably greater than 35 μg/m 3

. 32 Based on January 2015 monitored da ta, the 2013-2015 desi gn values are 43.8 μg/m 3 for the Hawthorne monitor, 42.8 μg/m 3 for the Lindon monitor, and 43.2 μg/m 3 for the Logan monitor. These values exceed the 24-hour standard by a substantial amount. On November 9, 2015, acknowledging that the Three NAAs could not attain the 24-hour

PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2015, EPA proposed to “bump up” the designation of the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas to “Serious” areas prior to the Moderate attainment date pursuant to its purported 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(1), Clean Air Act § 188(b)(1), authority. 80 Fed. Reg. 69173, 69178 (Nov. 9, 2015); 80 Fed. Reg. 69172 (Nov. 9, 2015). Alternatively, after the Moderate attainment da te, EPA is required to designate the Three NAAs as “Serious” areas by operation of the law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2), Clean Air Act § 188(b)(2). Regardless of the route the Three NAAs take to designation as Serious areas, the Director must, no later than “18 months af ter reclassification of the area as a Serious Area,” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2), 33 submit “provisions to assure that the best available control measures for the control of [PM 2.5 ] shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a Seri ous Area.” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2) (referencing paragraph (1)(B)). In other words, by June 2017 or shortly th ereafter, the Director

nonattainment”); 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, 58768-70 (November 13, 2009) (designating Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas as of December 14, 2009). 32 Footnotes 17, 18 and 22, supra . http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12- 14Avepm25.pdf 33 Reclassification dates to the failure of the area to attain the NAAQS – December 31, 2015. See 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he area shall be re classified by operation of law as a Serious Area.”).18 must, at minimum, present a “Serious” SIP id entifying all best available control measures (BACM) and establishing that these measures will be implemented in the nonattainment areas no

later than 2019. The designation of the Three NAAs as “Serious” underscores the need for the immediate implementation of the effective and potent meas ures necessary to bring these areas into attainment as soon as possible. Because of the significant th reat to public health and the environment posed by air pollution that exceed s the national standard s, the Clean Air Act demands that air quality in nonattainment areas be brought into compliance with the NAAQS as soon as possible. Specifically, where air quality exceeds the health-based standards, such as in the Three NAAs, the Clean Air Act requires that measures be taken immediately to attain NAAQS as “expeditiously as practicable.” E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A) & (a)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) (“For a Moderate Area, the a ttainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than th e end of the sixth calendar year after the area’s designation as nonattainment”) & (c)(2) (“For a Seri ous Area, the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than th e end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area’s designation as nonattainment.”). Thus, the law gua rantees Utah’s citizens air that meets the national standards as promptly as feasible.

VIII. The Proposed Rule Is Legally Mandated and Represents a Sound Strategy for Attaining the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS as Expediti ously as Possible. A. The 24-Hour Rule Addresses the Short-Term Spikes in PM 2.5 that Afflict the Three NAAs. By imposing emission limitations on PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors that are averaged over a period no longer than 24 hours, the proposed rule prevents short-te rm spikes in emissions from individual stationary sources identified in the PM 2.5 SIPs. The 24-Hour Rule further mandates19 that, given that the limit will be averaged over a period of 24 hours or less, the emission limitation shall be derived by RACT and/or BA CT analysis and ultimately represent RACT

and/or BACT. 34 In other words, if implemented as part of a Moderate SIP, the emission limitation, as averaged over a peri od of 24 hours or less, will be “the lowest emission limit that a source is capable of meeting by th e application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and ec onomic feasibility[.]” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369

. If implemented pursuant to a Serious SIP, the emission limitation, as averaged over a period of 24 hours or less, shall represent “the maximum degree of emissi on reduction achievable from a source or source category which is determined on a case-by-cas e basis, considering energy, economic and environmental impacts and other costs.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15405; see also id. at 15405, fn. 170 (“EPA will interpret PSD BACT and [PM 2.5 ] BACM as generally similar[.]” However “[t]he difference in policy goals, ar guably, suggests that the [PM 2.5 ] BACM control standard should be more stringent than that for PSD BACT.”). Fina lly, the 24-Hour Rule requ ires that these RACT

and BACT-based emission limitations with the co rresponding averaging pe riods be specifically

stated in the PM 2.5 SIPs. 35

34 References to RACT and BACT are also re ferences to RACM and BACM, which encompass the foregoing. “Section 189(b)(1 )(B) refers only to BACM, but the EPA has long interpreted this term to include BACT, just as the anal ogous term for RACM includes RACT for Moderate areas. The legislative history fo r the 1990 Amendments to the C AA supports this interpretation, as the EPA has explained in pa st guidance.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15404. 35 The 24-Hour Rule is triggered when RACT a nd/or BACT applies to a stationary source, facility, installation or emission unit. The rule specifies that when RACT and/or BACT is derived for a stationary source, facility, installation or emission unit, the result must include at least one short-term emission limitati on for each relevant air pollutant – PM 2.5 or any PM 2.5 precursor. The goal of the rule is not to require that every PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation be a short-term emission limitation. In many instance s, it may be appropriate to impose both shortterm and long-term emission limitations. Rather , the 24-Hour Rule requires that, where RACT and/or BACT is applied, at least one emissi on limitation for each pollutant be a short-term emission limit.20 The 24-Hour Rule reflects the fact that th e Three NAAs are failing to attain the “shortterm” 24-hour PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Qualit y Standard. The 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS are necessary to protect “agai nst health effects associated with short-term PM 2.5 exposures, especially in areas with high peak PM 2.5 concentrations.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15347. In other words, EPA determined exposure to acute spikes in PM 2.5 air pollution is just as damaging to public

health and the environment as is ch ronic exposure to lower levels of PM 2.5 . Id. EPA therefore

concluded that the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS are necessary to “provide[] increased public health protection, including the health of at-risk popul ations which include children, older adults, persons with pre-existing hea lth and lung disease and persons of lower socioeconomic status, against a broad range of PM 2.5 -related effects that include prem ature mortality, increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease.”

Id. As set forth in detail above, the Three NAAs are repeatedly afflicted “with high peak

PM 2.5 concentrations” that threaten the health and well-being of all Ut ahns living along the

Wasatch Front. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 15347. Inversions, wh ich signal high concentrations of

PM 2.5 , settle on the Three NAAs for days and week s at a time and can ra ise the levels of PM 2.5 to alarming concentrations ranging from double to mo re than three times the standard. The 24- Hour Rule addresses these “high peak PM 2.5 concentrations” by ensuring that limitations placed

on emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors by the SIP will prohibit short-term spikes in air pollution. To do this, the proposed rule imposes , in addition to other longer-term emission limitations, limits that are averaged over periods of 24 hours or less. These short-term emission limits are required where emission limitations on SIP sources have been derived to represent

RACM or BACM.21 1. In Many Instances, the PM 2.5 SIPs Lack Short-Term Emission Limitations.

The 24-Hour Rule is warranted because the PM 2.5 SIPs fail to establish short-term emission limitations and therefore fail to prohi bit short-term spikes in emissions from PM 2.5 and

PM 2.5 precursors. First, important PM 2.5 SIP emission limitations of ten have averaging times considerably longer than 24 hours. E.g. PM 2.5 Emission Limits and Operating Practices, Sections IX.H.11, 12, & 13 36 at 42 (general requirements petr oleum refineries – FCCU 365 and 7-day rolling averages for SO 2 ); id. at 43 (general requirements petroleum refineries – H 2 S content 365-day rolling average); id. at 52 (Exelon Generation 30-day average for NO X ); id. at 60 (Hill Air Force Base, “daily average sh all be determined monthly” for VOCs); id. at 65 (Kennecott BCM – source-wide 12-mont h rolling average, combined for SO 2 , NO X and PM 2.5 );

id. at 69 (Kennecott Smelter Stack 11, annual average for NO X ); id. at 69 (Kennecott Smelter, Holman Boiler, 30-day average for NO X ); id. at 72 (Nucor Steel – Electric Arc Furnace Baghouse, 12-month rolling average for NO X and VOCs); id. at 75 (PacifiCorp Energy, Natural Gas-fired Simple Cycle Turbine Units, 30-day average for NO X ); id. at 82 (Vulcraft/Nucor, 12- month rolling average for VOCs); id. at 91 (Pacific States, 12-m onth rolling average for VOCs). For many other core emission limitations, the PM 2.5 SIPs fail to impose any averaging period

at all. E.g. id. at 51 (Bountiful City Light for NO X ); id. at 53 ( Central Valley Water for NO X ); id. at 53-54 (Chemical Lime Company for PM and NO X ); id. at 65 (Kennecott BCM – road dust suppression, ore conveyor use and opacity); id. at 66 (Kennecott Boiler #5 for NO X , VOC, PM 2.5 ); id. at 67 (Boiler #4 for PM 2.5 and NO X ); id. at 69 (Kennecott Smelter Stack 11 for PM 2.5 ); id. at 70 (Kennecott, Tankhouse Boilers and Combined Heat Plant for NO X ); id. at 71 (Kennecott Natural Gas

36 http://www.deq.utah.gov/Laws_Rules/daq/s ip/docs/2014/12Dec/Part H_Final_Adopted_12-3- 14_ALL_Part%20H.pdf22 Turbine combined with Duct Burner and TEG firing – Combined Heat Plant for NO X ); id. at 72 (Nucor Steel – Electric Arc Furnace Baghouse for VOC, Reheat Furnace #1 and #2 for NO X ). Finally, in several cases, the PM 2.5 SIP emission limitations are expressed in pounds per hour or concentrations with no averaging periods and with monitoring that is so infrequent – once every three to five years – that the emission limits do not serve to limit short-term spikes in air pollution. E.g. id. at 57-58 (Great Salt Lake Minerals, NO X and PM 10 concentration, stack testing once every three to five years); id. at 79 (Proctor and Gamble, PM 10 and NO X pounds/hour, stack testing every five years); id. at 80 (University of Utah, NO X concentration, stack testing once every one to three years); id. at 85 (BYU, NO X concentration, stack testing once every three years). 37 2. EPA Commented Extensively on the Failure of the SIPs to Control Short-Term Spikes in PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 Precursors. In commenting on the 2014 PM 2.5 SIPs, EPA repeatedly “que stioned whether long-term periods...for a RACT emission limit adequa tely address the s hort-term 24-hour PM 2.5 standard.” EPA Region 8 Comments at 8. EPA stated that “RACT limits in some cases need revisions to make the limits practically enforceable...and to align the limit’s averaging period to be appropriate to the 24-hour PM 2.5 ” NAAQS. Id. at 2. EPA’s assessment of the SIPs focused on two interconnected issues. First, SIP emissi on limits must represent RACT – generally, the lowest emission limit a source can meet by the application of reasona bly available control technology 38 – and short-term emissions should and do represent RACT. Id. at 10 (regarding

37 As these examples and the many others in th e Petition for a Rule Change for the “Monitoring Rule” submitted with this Petition show, frequent monitoring and short-term emission limits are necessarily two sides of the same coin. 24-hour averaging periods without adequate monitoring to establish compliance are ineffective at preven ting short-term spikes in air pollution. More frequent monitoring of a long-term emission limit ation will likewise not prevent sharp increases in emissions over the short-term. 38 EPA has historically defined RACT as ‘‘the lo west emission limit that a source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility[.]” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369

. Section 172(c)(6) requires that23 general SIP provisions applying to petroleum refineries: “UDAQ has not explained why the 7- day rolling average emissions limit is RACT” [or] “why a 24-hour limit is not RACT, taking into account technological and ec onomic feasibility.”); id. at 14 (concerning PacifiCorp: “[A] shortterm limit to address the 24-hour standard seems f easible and should be co nsidered as RACT.”);

id. at 14 (pertaining to Exelon Generation: “a shor t-term limit to address the 24-hour standard seems feasible and should be considered as RACT.”); id. at 20 (regarding ATK: “This provision specifies limits...per rolling 12-month period. Please explain how these limits are appropriate as

RACT for the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard.”); id. at 21 (re: Valcraft/Nucor: “Please explain how a rolling 12-month emission limit can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”); id. at 21 (addressing Kennecott BCM: “Please explain how rolling 12-month limits can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”); id. at 24 (pertaining to Kennecott Smelter: “Please explain how an annual av erage can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”); id. at 24 (re: Kennecott Holman Boiler – “Please explain how 30-day averages can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”). Second, EPA continually underscored that s hort-term emission limitations are necessary to prevent spikes in emissions and therefore to atta in the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. Id. at 8 (“[u]nder a long-term limit, emissions from a source can spike during a short-term period.”); id

. at 24 (“An emission limit expressed as a 30-day average allows significantly higher short-term emissions that can impact a short-term standard such as the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.”); id. at 7 (asking “how and why averaging...(i.e, 30-day, annua l, etc. for averaging...) are applied and are considered valid to support modeling and attainment”); id. at 14 (concerning PacifiCorp:

a state’s attainment plan for a nonattainment ar ea “include enforceable emission limitations.” 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6).24 “UDAQ’s previous response states that this average is appropriate because the emissions do not vary over the short-term. In that case, a short-term limit to addr ess the 24-hour standard seems

feasible and should be co nsidered as RACT.”); id. at 14 (pertaining to Exelon Generation: “a

short-term limit to address the 24-hour standard seems feasible and should be considered as RACT.”); id. at 20 (regarding ATK: “This provision sp ecifies limits...per rolling 12-month period. Please explain how these limits are appropriate as RACT for the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard.”); id. at 21 (relative to Nucor Steel: “This is not an adequate explanation for how the 12-month rolling average is protective of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard.”); id. at 21(re: Valcraft/Nucor: “Please explain how a rolling 12-month emission limit can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”); id. at 21 (re: Valcraft/Nucor: UDAQ indicated th at it “considered a shorter-term limit to be unreasonably burdensome because industry typi cally only records inventory usage on a monthly basis. However, this response does nothing to a ddress the possibility that the source will use higher amounts of paints during short-term periods.”); id. at 21 (addressing Kennecott BCM: “Please explain how rolling 12-month limits can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”); id. at 24 (pertaining to Kennecott Smelter: “Please explain how an annual average can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”); id. at 24 (re: Kennecott Holman Boiler – “Please explain how 30-day averages can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”). Thus, RACT and short-term emission limitations are necessarily intertwined where the goal

is to attain the short-term 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. RACT achieves permanent and enforceable

reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions and/or PM 2.5 precursor emissions for the purposes of expeditious attainment. For these reductions “to provide for attainment” of the 24-hour standard effectively, they must prohibit short-term spikes in emissions. See 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6) (“[P]lan provisions shall include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques...as25 well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date[.]”). “[T]he issue is whether the RACT limit[s] [are] adequate to attain and protect the 24-hour standard,” id. at 8, and repeatedly EPA maintained that only short-term emission limits are up to the task. B. The Proposed Rule Is a Necessary Component of Both a Moderate and Serious SIP. 1. Utah Must Implement All Reason ably Available Control Measures and Additional Reasonable Measures. A nonattainment SIP shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonabl y available control t echnology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. 42 U. S.C. § 7502(c)(1); 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. 39 For particulate matter nonattainment areas, Congress mandated th at Moderate area attainment plans contain provisions to assure that RACM and RACT ar e implemented no later than four years after designation, 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(C), or in th e case of the Utah nonattainment areas, no later than December 2013. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58768-70 (November 13, 2009) (designating the Three NAAs on December 14, 2009). Thus, Utah’s Moderate SIP must provide for the implementation

of RACM and RACT for existing sources of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 2013. This is true even though the Three NAAs cannot practicably attain by the statutor y attainment date and therefore will be designated as “Serious” areas. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. Beyond RACM and RACT, nonattainment SIPs must “include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, mean s or techniques. . . as may be necessary or

39 Id. at 15464 (RACM “is any technologically and ec onomically feasible measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the date of designation of a PM 2.5 nonattainment area and that achieves permanen t and enforceable reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions and/or PM 2.5 precursor emissions from sources in the area. RACM includes reasonably available control technology (RACT)”).26 appropriate to provide for attainment.” 42 U. S.C. § 7502(c)(6). This requires states to implement any technologically and economically feasible control measur es, including control technologies, for all sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, that can only be implemented

after the 4 year deadline for RA CM and RACT has passed, but before six years after the designation date. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15368. 40 In the case of the Three NAAs, Utah must have imposed these additional reasonable measures th at are capable of being implemented before December 31, 2015. In Moderate areas that cannot practicably comply with the standard by the statutory attainment date, states must still implement all RACM and RACT, together with any additional reasonable measures, on sources in the nonattainment area. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. 2. Utah Must Implement All Be st Available Control Measures. As they will fail to attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2015, the Three NAAs will be designated “Serious” area by EPA as an operation of law. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2)(A). Alternatively, EPA has proposed to acknowledge that the Three NAAs cannot practicably attain the st andard and, prior to the Moderate atta inment date, designate the areas as “Serious” nonattainment areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7513( b)(1). In either case, the Director must, no

later than “18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area,” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2), 41 submit “provisions to assure that the best available control measures for the

control of PM 10 [including PM 2.5 ] shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassi fied) as a Serious Area.” 42 U. S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. §

40 Id. at 15464 (“Additional reasonable measure is any control meas ure that otherwise meets the definition of [RACM] but can only be implemen ted in whole or in part during the period beginning 4 years after the date of designation of a nonattainment area and no later than the end of the sixth calendar year following th e date of designation of the area.”). 41 Reclassification dates to the failure of the area to attain the NAAQS – December 15, 2015. See 42 U.S.C. § 7513(2)(A) (“[T]he area shall be recl assified by operation of law as a Serious Area.”).27 7513a(b)(2) (referencing paragraph (1)(B)). Thus, by June 14, 2017, the Director is required to present a “Serious” SIP identifying all best avai lable control measures (BACM) and establishing that these measures will be implemented in the nonattainment areas no later than December

2019. BACM is “the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable from a source or source category which is determined on a case- by-case basis, consider ing energy, economic and environmental impacts and other costs.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15405; id. at 15464 (BACM “is any technologically and economically feasible control measure that can be implemented in whole or

in part within 4 years after the date of reclassification of a PM 2.5 nonattainment area and that generally can achieve greater permanent and en forceable emissions reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions and/or emissions of PM 2.5 precursors from sources in the area than can be achieved through the implementation of RACM on the same source(s). BACM includes best available control technology (BACT).”). 42

3. The 24-Hour Rule Is a Necessary Elemen t of RACM and BACM and Required to Ensure that the Three NAAs Will Attain the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS Expeditiously. Utah is currently under significant obligati on to impose reasonable and best control

measures on and secure substantial reduce emissions from industrial sources in the nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act requires Utah to have implemented all RACM and other additional reasonable measures by December 31, 2015. Starting December 31, 2015, the State is also required to begin implementing any BACM as expeditiously as practicable. Ultimately, the

42 Under 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6), states addres sing Serious nonattainment areas must also implement “additional feasible measures” as well as BACM. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15406. An “additional feasible measure” is “any control me asure that otherwise meets the definition of [BACM] but can only be implemented in whole or in part beginning 4 ye ars after the date of reclassification of an area as Se rious and no later than the statutor y attainment date for the area.” Id . at 15464.28 Clean Air Act mandates attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard as soon as is feasible. There is real urgency in the mandate that Utah immediately take the steps necessary to bring the Three

NAAs into attainment with the standard. As the 24-Hour Rule is a necessary com ponent of both RACM and BACM and a legally adequate SIP, adoption of the rule is warrant ed. First, the 24-Hour Rule will meet the requirement that all SIP emission limitations be enforceable and ensure compliance. Section 172(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act re quires nonattainment SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, mean s or techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment.” 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6). EPA interpreted Secti on 172(c)(6) to require , as a component of enforceability, that an adequate SIP will “ensure compliance with an applicable emissions limit” by including “requirements for both performance testing of emissions and ongoing monitoring of the compliance performance of control measur es[.]” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15447. The agency determined, therefore, that to be “complete w ith regard to compliance monitoring provisions” the “SIP must include the following critical element[];” Averaging time – the period over which to aver age data to verify compliance with the emissions limitation or standard or proper operation of the pollution control measure. Examples of averaging time include a 3-hour average in units of the emissions limitation, a 30-day rolling average emissions value, a daily average of a c ontrol device operational parametric range, periodic ( e.g , monthly, annual) average of raw materials or fuel pollutant content, and an instantaneous alarm[.]

Id. at 15448. Thus, the Clean Air Act mandates that all SIP emission limitations include appropriate averaging times or periods. Id. ; see also EPA Region 8 Comments at 21 (regarding Nucor Steel: The SIP “does not specify an averag ing time or a stack test method for the proposed

NO X emission limits at Reheat Furnaces #1 and #2, nor for the proposed VOC emission limit at the EAF Baghouse.”)29 By requiring, at a minimum, that emissions be controlled by limits averaged over periods of 24 hours or less, the 24-Hour Rule imposes “av eraging times.” The rule therefore provides a

“critical element” of enforceable emission limitations and a necessa ry component of the “compliance monitoring provisions” of a legally adequate SIP. See id. at 15448 (“EPA continues to believe that approval of regulat ions adopted into SIPs would have to ensure that these critical elements,” including averaging times, “are present and clearly defined to be approvable.”); EPA Region 8 Comments at 21 (referencing Nucor Steel: The SIP “does not specify an averaging time or a stack test method for the proposed NOx emi ssion limits at Reheat Furnaces #1 and #2, nor for the proposed VOC emission limit at the EAF Baghouse.”). Second, as mandated by Section 172(c)(6), av eraging times must be imposed “as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainme nt.” 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6). In the case of attaining the 24-hour NAAQS, this means that SIP emission limitations must be averaged over periods of 24 hours or less. These short-term em ission limitations are necessary to prevent shortterm spikes in PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors. “[T]he issue is wh ether the RACT limit is adequate to attain and protect the 24-hour stan dard.” EPA Region 8 Comments at 8; id. (“In several instances, EPA has previously questioned whet her long-term periods...for a RACT emission limit adequately address the short-term 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. Under a long-term limit, emissions from a source can spik e during a short-term period.”); id. at 21 (“Please explain how a rolling 12-month emission limit can represent RACT in a plan that is intend ed to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.”); id. at 24 (“Please explain how 30-day averages can represent RACT in a plan that is intended to attain a 24-hour NAAQS.... An emissi on limit expressed as a 30-day average allows significantly higher short term emi ssions that can impact a short- term standard such as the 24-

hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.”).30 This is true whether the rates at which ai r pollutants are emitted from a source to be controlled are variable or are ty pically steady. As EPA explains , where emissions from a source are erratic, short-term emission lim itations are required to preven t sharp increases in emissions and to protect the 24-hour NAAQS. E.g. EPA Region 8 Comments at 8 (“An emission limit expressed as a 30-day average allo ws significantly higher short-term emissions that can impact a

short-term standard such as the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.”); id. (“Under a long-term limit, emissions from a source can spik e during a short-term period.”); id. at 24 (“An emission limit expressed as a 30-day average allo ws significantly higher short-term emissions that can impact a

short-term standard such as the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.”). The more prone a source is to emission spikes, the more critical it is to attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard to impose

short-term emission limitations on that source. See id. Alternatively, where emissions from a source are fairly consistent, the imposition of a emission limitation averaged over a period of 24 hours or less is technologically and economically feasible and theref ore represents RACT or BACT. E.g. EPA Region 8 Comments at 8 (“[I]f it is correct that th e source does not have significant variation in its daily emissions, then it should be technologically and economically feasible to set a short term limit as RACT.”);

id. at 14 (concerning PacifiCorp: “U DAQ’s previous response stat es that this average is appropriate because the emissions do not vary over the short-term. In that case, a short-term limit

to address the 24-hour standard seems feasible and should be considered as RACT.”); id. at 14 (pertaining to Exelon Generation: “a short-term limit to addr ess the 24-hour standard seems

feasible and should be co nsidered as RACT.”); id. at 21 (“Since UDAQ states that there is very little variation in operation of th e EAF, a short-term limit appears feasible and should constitute RACT.”).31 In any case, a legally sufficient RACT must culminate in the lowest emission limit that a source is capable of meeting using r easonably available control technology 43 and must be shown sufficient to attain and protect the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. As EPA explai ned, Utah’s SIP must include the provisions necessary to “make the [R ACT] limits practically enforceable, to include monitoring, recordkeeping, and repo rting requirements, and to a lign the limit’s averaging period to be appropriate to the 24-hour PM 2.5 ” standards. EPA Region 8 Comments at 2; id. at 8 (“[T]he issue is whether the RACT limit is adequate to attain and protect th e 24-hour standard.”); id. at 10 (“[P]lease explain why a 24-hour limit is not RACT, taking into acco unt technological and economic feasibility.”); id. at 11 (“[W]hy is the additional marg in the best that can be achieved, taking into account technological and economic f easibility?”). This pr ocess and outcome is exactly what the 24-Hour Rule entails. Third, the 24-Hour Rule serves to increas e the accuracy of emission inventories and Utah’s eventual attainment demonstration and, wh ere applicable, facilitates the transfer of SIP emission limitations to title V operating perm its. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15448. Conversely, adequate “compliance obligations, including emissions limits and other applicable requirements,” such as explicit and sufficient averaging periods “need to be representa tive of and accountable to the assumptions used in a state’s attainment demonstration.” Id. (“This accountability would include the ability to transfer the applicable regulatory requirements to a title V operating permit subject to the EPA and public review.”). 44 Valid modeling that can be relied on to demonstrate

43 RACT is ‘‘the lowest emission limit that a s ource is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is r easonably available consideri ng technological and economic feasibility[.]” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. 44 Unless the SIP imposes a short-term emission limitation on a source, Utah may not merely postulate, for the purposes of modeling, that emi ssions will not spike over the short-term. Rather, as EPA suggested, modeling assumptions must reflect specific emission limitations and therefore what emission limits allow. EPA Regi on 8 Comments at 7 (“ [W]e suggest that the32 attainment must reflect SIP emission limitations, in cluding short-term averaging periods. In the absence of these controls on emissions, the resulting modeling will necessarily be making unsupported assumptions about short-term emissi ons that are not enforced by the corresponding

SIP emission limitations. The 24-Hour Rule a voids this outcome by imposing short-term emission limitations and thereby serving to make modeling that seeks to characterize compliance with the short-term NAAQS representative of the SIP control measures actually imposed. Finally, the 24-Hour Rule resolves factor s EPA identified as crucial to ensuring SIP control measures are enforceable, approvable and provide for attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. See 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6). The 24-Hour Rule establishes the li nk between control measures and averaging periods. Averaging peri ods are “critical elements” of enforceable SIP measures, necessary to “verify compliance with the emissions limitation or standard or proper operation of the pollution control measure.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15448; see also 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6). By imposing averaging periods of 24 hours or less on RACT and BACT emission limitations, the proposed rule ensures that a BACT or “RACT limit is adequate to attain and protect the 24-hour standard,” EPA Region 8 Comments at 8, and that an emission “limit’s averaging period [is] appr opriate to the 24-hour PM 2.5 ” standards. Id. at 2; id. at 8 “[T]he issue is whether the RACT limit is adequate to a ttain and protect the 24-hour standard.”); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6) (“plan provisions shall include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques...as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may

UDAQ...explain ...why the state chose to use the pr ojected actual emissions of point sources in its attainment modeling...how and why averaging and frequency of monitoring/testing (i.e, 30- day, annual, etc...) are applied a nd are considered valid to suppor t modeling and attainment[.]”); id. at 8 ( “[T]he issue is whether the RACT limit is adequate to attain and protect the 24-hour standard.”).33 be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date[.]”). The 24-Hour Rule likewise addresses EPA’s repeated contention that s hortterm emission limitations are necessary to prevent sp ikes in emissions and therefore to attain the

24-hour PM 2.5 standard. E.g. EPA Region 8 Comments at 8 (“Under a long-term limit, emissions from a source can spik e during a short-term period.”); id. at 24 (“ An emission limit expressed as a 30-day average allows significantly higher short term emissions that can impact a short term standard such as the 24-hour PM2.s NAAQS.”); id. at 21 (“[T]his response does nothing to address the possibility that the source will use higher amounts of paints during short-term periods.”). Thus, whether looked at through the lens of RACM or BACM, the 24-Hour Rule is a

critical element of a Moderate or Serious SIP an d a reasonable measure that will make Utah’s

SIP control measures enforceable and establish th e basis for compliance. The proposed rule will prohibit spikes in emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors in order to at tain and protect the 24- hour standard and so, as the Clean Air Act requires , constitutes an important step in expeditious

attainment of the short-term PM 2.5 NAAQS. See e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2). 45 C. The Proposed Rule Furth ers Other Legal and Policy Goals.

State and local officials in Utah have sought for years to iden tify appropriate measures to help reduce dangerous emissions of air pollution and bring Utah into compliance with the 24- hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 . Those efforts have borne fruit, but additional steps – including this proposed rule – are necessary to ensure expeditious and long-term compliance with the standard. First, given that all projections agree that Ut ah’s population and economy will continue to grow

45 The 24-Hour Rule will also promote continued maintenance of the 24-Hour PM 10 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a).34 significantly in the coming decades, our air qua lity policies will need to keep pace by enacting controls to address expanding mobile, area and poin t sources. Census data released earlier this

year 46 show familiar statistics: a five-year population gr owth rate that ranks fourth in the nation; the second highest growth in new homes over th e past year; and, the th ird highest over the previous five. The state’s population recently surp assed three million reside nts – and is projected to hit four million in as few as 16 years. 47 According to a detailed report from the Utah Foundation, 48 which examined a wide array of research, much of that growth is expected no t just in our non-attainme nt areas, but in more far-flung suburban areas, raising th e specter of a significant incr ease in commutes and vehicle miles travelled (VMTs). Predictions of Utah’s future emissions inventor y offer some significant reasons for hope – particularly due to a slow but steady reduction from the mobile sector. Our cars and trucks will pollute less both because of the EPA’s Tier 3 program and also from increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. But much of those gains will be eaten away by increases in population, the number of homes and in overall VMTs, due to more cars on the road and the expansion of the suburbs. These trends mean that Utah will need to

continue to find additional emission reductions and bolster its regulatory oversight for decades to come – twin goals that our proposed rule will accomplish. Secondly, Utah faces serious repercussions if it does not meet the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by 2019. While the precise penalties are not certain, the Clean Air Ac t gives a clear idea of what

46 Another Piece to the Puzzle: Census R eveals Utah’s Growth Among Top In Nation , Deseret News, 2015-05-20, http://www.deseretnews.co m/article/865629128/Another-piece-to-thepuzzle-Census-reveals-Utahs-growth -among-top-in-nation.html?pg=all 47 Herbert Says there Are Three Million People Living in Utah ,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2015- 10-26, http://www.sltrib.com/home/3103221-155/ utahs-population-surpasses-3-million. 48 A Snapshot of 2050: An Analysis of Projected Population Change in Utah , the Utah Foundation, April 2014, http://www.ut ahfoundation.org/uploads/rr720.pdf35 might come. Sanctions include: 1) being required to adopt the most stringent measures being implemented in any other states, 42 U.S.C. § 75 13(e); and, 2) having to identify an additional 5 percent emission cuts across the board every year until the standard has been attained. 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(d). Each of these requireme nts serves to take discretion out of the state’s hands, forcing the state to implement measures th at would be not be tailored to Utah’s particular situation and that would likely be unpopular. Third, as it reviews Utah’s Mode rate SIP, Serious SIP and any request for an extension of the attainment date for a Serious area, EPA has au thority to approve or disapprove aspects of the plans and, if necessary, assume authority to develop and implement a SIP. See 42 U.S.C. § 7502(b), (c) & (d); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k); 42 U. S.C. § 7513(e); 42 U.S.C. § 7509. Thus, we believe, it is important for state officials to demo nstrate that Utah is willing to make difficult decisions and embrace policies that will reduce em issions from all polluting sectors, including large stationary sources. More colloquially, it is urgent to look under every rock for emissions cuts and it is important that Utah exhibit a will ingness to impose these available measures with the goal of achieving the national standard as soon as possible. Fourth, there are significant advantages to having the Division and the Board carefully consider this rule on its own merits, rather than as an element of a Moderate SIP or the Serious SIP that Utah will be required to develop and impl ement in the next two years. Utah’s SIPs have

been and will continue to be highly technical and expansive docu ments, covering a wide range of control measures. The 2014 SIP, for example, included 23 new rules on area sources alone. Due to the sheer volume of these plans and the documents that support them, it is very difficult for the Board and the public to debate any particular SIP provision or to o ffer revisions to the SIP in the short comment period that has typically attended these rulemaking efforts.36 The rule presented here, on the other hand, o ffers opportunity for i ndividual scrutiny. The Division, public and regulated community will have the chance to provide meaningful and detailed feedback, while the Board will have th e chance to carefully review these comments one rule at a time, which is very difficult to do when it is faced with approving or disapproving of an entire nonattainment SIP as a single rule. Lastly, we maintain that it is valuable to focus rulemaking on stationary sources, even though inventories suggest that emissions from this sector are less than emissions from either mobile or area sources. Various estimates, whic h misleadingly give equa l weight to direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, indicate that about 12 percent of total emissions in the Salt Lake City nonattainment area come from stationary sour ces and the 2013 SIP an ticipates that by 2019, these sources will account for 28 percent of direct PM 2.5 emissions in the area. It is true that

mobile and area sources contribute significantly to our failure to at tain the NAAQS. That is why we have pushed hard for rules, programs and funds to address these sources of PM 2.5 emissions, such as the Tier 3 program, electric vehicle in centives, expansion of transit funding, updates to building codes, and low NO X hot water heater requirements. We are confident that rules addressing la rge industrial sources have merit as one important piece of an overall strategy intended to bring the nonattainment areas into compliance

with the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practi cable. Cleaning up Utah’s air is not about adopting a few measures or addressing only those sect ors that contribute the most emissions. Rather, the severity of our air po llution problem requires that we implement every effective measure and strategy to reduce emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors. Because the proposed rule, backed by the EPA, will minimi ze emission increases and strengthen the state’s overall oversight of stationary sources, is not only worth debating, but also worth adding to our37 SIP as an appropriate and necessa ry addition to a legally robust plan designed to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

IX. Conclusion The 24-Hour Rule is a critical component of an adequate PM 2.5 SIP and necessary to expeditious attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. By requiring that RACT and BACT be implemented, at a minimum, by emission limitations that are averaged over periods of 24 hours or less, the rule imposes enforceability and provisions to ensure compliance. As mandated by Section 172(c)(6), the 24-Hour Rule ensures that SIP contro l technologies are derived and implemented as “necessary” to “provi de for attainment” of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. The rule

mandates the short-term emission limitations needed to prevent spikes in emissions and therefore to attain and protect the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. Based on these cons iderations and the analysis detailed above, Utah Physicians for a Healt hy Environment, HEAL Ut ah and Western Resource Advocates respectfully ask the Air Quality Bo ard to initiate Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 rulemaking proceedings relative to the 24-Hour Ru le as authorized by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3- 601(6)(b)(ii) and ultimately to adopt the proposed rule. Respectfully submitted this 13 th day of January, 2016.

JORO WALKER ROB DUBUC Attorneys for Utah Physicians, et al

.Exhibit List

Exhibit “1” 24-Hour Averag ing Rule – Proposed Text Exhibit “2” Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution

## EXHIBIT “1”The “24-Hour Averaging Rule”

R307-XXX. PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas: Minimum Averaging Period.

R307-XXX-1. Definitions. The following definitions apply to R307-XXX: (1) PM 2.5 SIP means any Utah state implementation plan requ ired by subpart 1 or subpart 4, part D of title I of the Clean Air Act and relating to the 24-hour PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard(s). (2) PM 2.5 SIP Control Technology means any control technology or cont rol measure that is applied to, adopted for or imposed on any stationary source, insta llation, facility or emissi on unit and that is or has been: (a) identified as reasonably available contro l technology (RACT), reasona bly available control measure (RACM), best available control technology (BAC T) or best available control measure (BACM) pursuant to section 189(a) (1)(C) or section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act and that has been adopted or implemented in the form of an emissions limitation, emissions standard or parameter demonstrating proper operati on of a pollution control measure; (b) referenced in, applied to, adopted for or imposed on any stationary source, installation, facility or emission unit included in the Utah PM 2.5 SIP Subsections IX.H.11, 12, or 13 (PM 2.5 Emissions Limits and Operating Practices); (c) adopted or implemented in the form of an emissions limitation, emissions standard or parameter demonstrating proper operation of a pollu tion control measure at a stationary source, installation, facility or emi ssion unit located in a 24-hour PM 2.5 nonattainment area; or, (d) adopted or implemented in the form of an emissions limitation, emissions standard or parameter demonstrating proper operation of a pollu tion control measure at a stationary source, installation, facility or emissi on unit located outside of a PM 2.5 nonattainment area where application of the contro l technology or control measure has been determined to be necessary to provide for attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS by the Director. (3) Averaging time or averaging period means the period over which to average data to verify compliance with an emissions limitation or emissions standard or the proper operation of the pollution control measure. R307-XXX-2. Minimum Averaging Times. (1) For each PM 2.5 SIP control technology, the Director shall derive and impose at least one emissions limitation or emissions standard th at includes a correspondi ng averaging period or averaging time of 24 hours or less, separately for each pollutant – PM 2.5 (filterable and conde nsable) and/or any PM 2.5precursor – emitted from the stationary source, inst allation, facility or emission unit to which the PM 2.5 SIP control technology was applied. (2) Only where the Director makes a documented fi nding, after notifying the pubic and considering any public comment, that an emissions limitation or em issions standard is in feasible because of technological or economic limitations on the appli cation of measurement methodology to a particular emissions unit, may the Director impose an alterna tive parameter demonstrating proper operation of a pollution control measure. Upon such a finding, the Di rector shall impose at least one parameter that includes a corresponding aver aging period or averagi ng time of 24-hours or less, separately for each pollutant – PM 2.5 (filterable and condensable) and/or any PM 2.5 precursor – emitted from the stationary source, installation, f acility or emission unit to which the PM 2.5 SIP control technology was applied. (3) Any emission limitation referred to in R307- XXX-2(1) and the corresponding averaging period or averaging time shall comply with and reflect an d be derived from and imposed as RACT, RACM, BACT and/or BACM. (4) Any emission limitation, emissions standard or parameter referred to in R307-XXX-2(1) and the corresponding averaging period or averaging time shall be incl uded in the Utah 24-Hour PM 2.5 SIP subsection IX.H.11, 12, or 13.

## EXHIBIT “2”2 Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution

Medical research in the last ten years clearly indicates that, certainly for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), and likely also for ozone, there is no “safe level” of exposure. Even levels previously thought to be benign we now know are not. There is no threshold below which there are no health effects and all persons are adversel y affected by air polluti on, regardless of age or overall state of health. 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38903 (June 29, 2012). Most Utahns are exposed to high levels of ozone in the summer and PM 2.5 in the winter, as well as PM 10 and SO 2 year-round, meaning that a large percentage of Utah’s population is exposed re peatedly to unhealthy levels of pollution throughout the year. There is now evidence that exposure to ozone and PM 2.5 can act synergistically, increasing th e adverse health effects from these air pollutants. 1

PM 2.5 air pollution at the levels experienced by residents of the northern counties of Utah has the approximately same type and magnitude of biologic effect as living with an active

smoker. E.g. 71 Fed. Reg. 61144, 61157 (Oct. 17, 2006). That should not be a surprise, because

most of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke are al so found in fine particulate matter. As with smoking, particulate matter pollution and ozone cause increased systemic oxidative stress leading to pathologic vascular changes, including progression of atherosclerotic plaques to vulnerable forms, prothrombotic states, endothe lial dysfunction and altered autonomic nervous system control. 2 For the last several years, th e research-based conventional wisdom has been that with

each 10 μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 long-term average, there is an increase in community mortality rate of about 10%. 3 New research draws an even stronger correlation – a mortality rate of 14%

for each 10 μ g/m 3 increase. 4 The elderly and those with existing morbidities are particularly vulnerable to air pollution consequences.3 Based on extrapolations from numerous st udies and the American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement explained below, Ut ah Physicians estimates that between 1,400 and 2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM 2.5 . See 78 Fed. Reg. 3086, 3103 (Jan. 15, 2013) (“[S]tudies have reported consistent increases in morbidity and/or premature mortality

related to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations, with the strongest ev idence reported for cardiovascularrelated effects.”); 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38908- 09 (June 29, 2012) (“[N]ewly available

information combined with information availabl e in the last review provides substantially stronger confidence in a causal relationship between long- and short-term exposures to PM 2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects.”). The AHA ha s estimated that reside nts of most cities in the United States lose between one and three years of life expectancy due to fine particulate air pollution. 5 Furthermore, studies show that even small reductions in air pollution improve community life expectancy. 6 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. Since the late 1980s, more than 150 epidemiol ogical studies have re ported associations between daily changes in particul ate air pollution and respirator y and cardiovascular mortality, hospitalizations and other related health endpoints. 7 71 Fed. Reg. at 61150-61162; 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908-09. These adverse effects are seen at low and “common” concentrations of particulate pollution. A Dutch study demonstrat ed risks for cardiopulmonary mortality even at what are considered “b ackground” levels of particulate pollution. 8 A study

done in our own area demonstrat ed that each short-term 10 μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 was associated with an increase in the risk of acute ischemic coronary artery events (unstable angina and myocardial infarction) of 4.5%. 9 Not only does PM 2.5 result in an increase in death from cardiovascular causes, but there is

also an increased risk for non-fatal events. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61151-52; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907; 774 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“Bell et al. (2008) reported higher PM 2.5 risk estimates for hospitalization for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the winter compared to other seasons.”). For each 10

μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 there is a 24% increase in risk of a cardiovascular event and a 76%

increase in the risk of death from that event. There is also an increase d risk of cerebrovascular

events. 10,11,12 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. It should be noted that this rate of increase approaches that demonstrated from a chronic active smoking habit. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. The significance of our PM 2.5 spikes may not be dismissed with observations that our annual average fine particulate matter concentrati ons are not extraordinarily high. This is false comfort and reflects a poor understanding of the existing research. Many medical studies show that impacts from pollution are se en very quickly and can last long after the air has cleared. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61164. For example, within as little as 30 minutes, exposure to particulate matter is associated with increases in blood pressure, fo llowed within hours by incr eased rates of heart attacks and strokes. Community mortality rates stay elevated for 30 days after a spike in PM 10 even if the episode lasts less than 24 hours. 13 Within one hour, exposure to traffic pollution, including particulate matter, is associated

with increased rates of heart attacks as much as 300% compared to non-exposed individuals. 14

Other studies show rates of strokes and heart attacks in the communityincrease within hours after spikes in PM 10 . 15 See also 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103 (Evidence links “long-term exposure to PM2.5 with an array of cardiovascular effects such as heart attacks, congestive heart failure, stroke, and mortality.”). In 2010, the AHA summarized: The overall evidence from time-series analys es conducted worldwide since publication of the first AHA statement confirms the existen ce of a small, yet consistent association between increased mortality and short-term elevations in PM 10 and PM 2.5 approximately equal to a 0.4% to 1.0% increase in da ily mortality (and cardiovascular death specifically) due to a 10 μ g/m 3 elevation in PM 2.5 during the preceding 1 to 5 days. 35 Confirming the strong correlation between mode st, short-term spikes in PM and serious health consequences are three new studies that showed spikes of as little as one day in PM 10 were associated with higher rates of heart attacks, 16 daily spikes of either PM 10 or PM 2.5 were associated with significant increases in em ergency room visits for hypertensives crisis, 17 and less than 24 hours of a spike in PM 2.5 of 15-40 μ g/m 3 increased rates of strokes 34%, with the peak increase occurring within 12 hours. 18 Not only have numerous studies shown that there is no safe level of PM exposure, but a recen t landmark study published in th e flagship journal of the AHA, using data from over 1 million people, demonstr ated that when cardiac mortality, the signature air pollution health outc ome, was plotted against particulate matter from air pollution, first and second-hand cigarette smoke, all three sources showed a steep cu rve at low doses. In other words, per unit dose of exposure, it is the low leve ls of PM that cause hi gher rates of mortality. 19 Long-term exposure to particulate matter air po llution is associated with an average rise in blood pressure for chronically exposed populati ons. Average blood pressure was found to rise 1.7 mmHg for an increase of 2.4 μ g/m 3 in PM 2.5 . A similar association was found with the

coarser PM 10 . The rise was found in both syst olic and diastolic blood pressure. 20 Chronic exposure to particulate matter has also been show n to increase the thickening of arterial walls, which is a known end result of higher bl ood pressure. A chronic increase in PM 10 of 5.2 μ g/m 3 is associated with a 5% increase in the intima-media thickness of the carotid artery, which is one of many end results of the biol ogic process described above. 21 Another study showed a remarkable co rrelation between chronic exposure to PM 2.5 and narrowing in the tiny arteries in the back of the eye. Chronic exposure to 3 μ g/m 3 of PM 2.5 (one fourth of the annual NAAQS) was associated with narrowing equivalent to seven years of aging. 22 These finding are especially significant because they demonstrate community-wide6 effects, acceleration of the aging process, and im pairing the health of everyone exposed, not just a susceptible population. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 3104 (“The population potentially affected by

PM 2.5 is large. In addition, large su bgroups of the U.S. population ha ve been identified as at-risk populations.”).

There is a remarkable correlation between ra tes of deep vein thrombosis and increased

levels of PM 10 , beginning at very modest levels. 23 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“[R]ecent studies provide additional evidence for cardiovascul ar effects associated with sub-daily (e.g., one to several hours) exposure to PM, especially effects related to cardi ac ischemia, vasomotor function, and more subtle change s in markers of systemic infl ammation, hemostasis, thrombosis and coagulation[.]”). A likely mechanism of this clinical outcome is re vealed by studies that

show PM 10 causes excessive platelet aggregation in diabetics. 24 Throughout the age spectrum, from infants to the elderly, air pollution has been shown to impair brain function. 77 Fed. Reg. at 38909. Oxid ative stress (OS) appear s to be the biological genesis of numerous diseases processes and a ma jor contributor to the aging phenomenon. OS is the mechanism behind the role of particulate matter and carbon monoxide pollution in central nervous system dysfunction, neuro inflammation, cortical stress, cogni tive impairment and memory loss in children and neuro-degenera tive diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. 25, 26 Numerous studies show such specific outcomes as impaired intellect and pe netration of particle matter and Alzheimer type protein depositi on among children who grow up breathing more particulate air pollution. 27, 28, 29 Volunteers exposed to typical ur ban levels of diesel exhaust demonstrate brain cortical stress measured by EEG. 30 Children exposed to more air pollution or whose mothers were more exposed during pregnancy show an IQ loss of five to nine points. 31, 32, 33 Rates of neurobehavioral disorders7 correlate with NO X and PM 10 levels. 34 Children exposed to more vehicle pollution show a doubling in rates of autism. 35 Older people show accelerated c ognitive decline if chronically exposed to more traffi c generated air pollution. 36, 37 A recent landmark study showed that chronic exposure to 10 μ g/m 3 of either PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 -PM 10 was associated with faster cognitive decline in older women, equivalent to about two years of aging. 38 Because of strong evidence that particulate air pollution’s neurotoxicity is related to attached metals, 39, 40, 41 the oil refineries contribution to Wasatch Front pollution takes on additional public he alth significance. It is intuitive that short-term exposure to fine particulate matter would have adverse impacts on the pulmonary system. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61145 & 61152; 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103-04. Indeed, numerous studies show increased rates of asthma and virtually all other respiratory diseases including lung cancer where short-term PM 2.5 is higher. 71 Fed. Reg

. at 61154-61155 & 61157; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. Equally distur bing are less obvious outcomes. Even young, healthy people demonstrate rapid decrease in lu ng function from brief exposure to particulate matter that persists for several da ys after the exposure has ended. Id . at 61152, 61154 &

61169. 42, 43 Again, this contradicts any comfort derived from the perspective that Utah’s fine particulate matter air pollution problem is episodic and therefore less of a problem. An unusually large proportion of Utah’s population is young. Census-based estimates indicate that nearly a third of Utah residents are under age 18 and one of every 10 residents is under age five, figures approximately 40 percent hi gher than the national average. This means that Utah’s unhealthy levels of air pollution cons titute a public health crisis that endangers its most vulnerable populations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58 690; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38911 (“With regard to respiratory effects in children associ ated with short-term exposures to PM 2.5 , currently available8 studies provide stronger evidence of respiratory-related hospitaliz ations with larger effect estimates observed among children.”). The physiology of children differs from that of adults in many important ways, causing them to be affected more profoundly by air po llution than adults. Children have higher metabolic rates, meaning their oxygen demand is higher, they breathe fa ster and have higher heart rates and blood flows on a per weight basis than an adult. Combined with their rapidly growing organ size and function, th is physiologic difference makes th em more susceptible to the adverse influence of air pollution. “There is emerging but limited evid ence for an association between long-term PM 2.5 exposure and respiratory mortality in post-neonatal infants where longterm exposure was considered as approximately on e month to one year.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908.

Children who breathe more air pollution can experience a perm anent stunting of their lung growth. Just as chronic expos ure to second-hand cigarette sm oke causes a permanent loss of lung function growth in children, so does long-term exposure to PM 2.5 air pollution. 44,45 71 Fed. Reg. at 61154, 61172; see also id . at 61169; 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38911 (June 29, 2012) (“These analyses provide evidence that PM 2.5 -related effects [to children] persist into early adulthood and are more robust and larger in magnitude than previously reported.”). Not only does short-term exposure to PM 2.5 air pollution permanently impair the ex ercise capacity of individuals so affected, 46 few physiologic outcomes have more of an ultimate impact on longevity than lung

function. Various forms of cancer such as lung, cervi cal, stomach and brain cancer show increased rates with higher concentrations of community particulate matter. 47, 48 71 Fed. Reg. at 61152; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Each 10 μ g/m 3 increase in long term PM 2.5 concentration is associated with a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. 49 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Especially9 troubling are the numerous studies that show increases in childhood leukemia among more exposed populations, 50, 51 and a significant asso ciation between nitrogen oxide concentrations

and rates of breast cancer. 52 The precipitation of oxidative stress, as mentioned above, is the likely explanation for new studies that show higher rates of numer ous other, seemingly unrelated diseases among populations subjected to more ai r pollution. These diseased incl ude type II diabetes, obesity, arthritis, and lupus. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 Air pollution, especially particulate matter, ma y have its largest imp act on public health through its effect on the human embryo. A study in laboratory animals demonstrated a change in morphology of the placenta that compromised blood flow to the fetus. 58, 46 Exposure of pregnant women to various components of traffi c-related air pollu tion, including PM 10 , results in intrauterine growth retardation, including sma ller head size, increased rates of spontaneous abortions, premature births and low birth weight syndrome. 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Genetic damage and epigenetic changes can have virtually identic al consequences and both can be passed on to subseque nt generations. Newborn babies whose mothers are exposed to more air pollution show increa ses in both, and the life-long dise ase burden that results can include higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway di sease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and all the diseases cons equent to immuno-suppr ession. 78 Fed. Reg. 3104 (“The strongest evidence for an association between PM 2.5 and developmental and reproductive effects comes from epidemiological studies of lo w birth weight and infant mortality, especially due to respiratory causes during the post-ne onatal period (i.e., 1 month–12 months of age).”). Epigenetic changes can be seen with in three days after exposure to PM 2.5 and perhaps even as soon as minutes after exposure. 59-66 There is strong evidence for a persistence of epigenetic10 changes from one generation to another. Medica l science is now learning that the air pollution today can adversely affect the h ealth of future generations. Fo r example, episodic air pollution, the type that occurs along the Wasatch Front , has been shown to be associated with fragmentation of DNA in human sperm. 67 The common assumption about particulate air pollution has been that internalizing the particles and their adsorbed compounds like h eavy metals occurs through the lungs. Smaller particles are assumed more dangero us because they can penetrate more deeply into the lungs and are cleared by the lung cilia less readily. Howe ver, there is new evidence to suggest that atmospheric particulate matter is also swallowed, leading to toxicity of internal organs and increased carcinogenic risk. This is of pa rticular relevance for increasing childhood risk. 68

That all the above mentioned adverse heal th outcomes can be the result of pregnant women smoking is easy for physicians and the la y public alike to comprehend and the sight of a pregnant woman smoking is now repu lsive to society at large. See 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. It is a new thought process, but equally sc ientifically based, to think that the same thing happens when a pregnant woman has to breat he particulate air pollution. Again, regarding impact on the human embryo, there appears to be no safe threshold of exposure.

As a manifestation of the evidence for seve re health effects from air pollution, virtually every major medical organization in the United St ates has called for stricter NAAQS for annual

PM 2.5 and for ozone, including the American Medi cal Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Lung Asso ciation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Cardiology, the Amer ican Heart Association, the Am erican Cancer Society, the American Public Health Assoc., and the Nationa l Assoc. of Local Boards of Health, and the11 EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (considered the nation’s premier air pollution experts). 77 Fed. Reg. at 38897.12 REFERENCES 1. Mauderly J.L., Samet J.M., Is There Ev idence for Synergy Among Air Pollutants in Causing Health Effects? 117 Enviro n. Health Perspect. 1-6 (2009). 2. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascul ar Health: Smoke and Pollution Matter, 120(11) EPUB 924-27 (2009). 3. Brook R., Rajagopalan S., Pope C.A., Brook J., Bhatnagar A., et al., AHA Scientific Statement: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease; An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American H eart Association, Circulation, American Heart Association 121:2331-2378 (2010). 4. Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harv ard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print]. 5. Pope CA, Ezzate M, Dockery D. Fine-Par ticulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States, 360(4) N. ENGL. J. MED. 376-86 (2009). 6. 101. Correia A, Pope CA, Dockery D, Wa ng Y, Ezzati M, Dominici F. Effect of Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in th e United States: An Analysis of 545 U.S. Counties for the Period from 2000 to 2007 Epidemiology. 3 December 2012 doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31827702377. Zanobetti A., Schwar tz J., Samoli E., Gryparis A., Touloumi G., Peacock J., Anderson R.H., Le Tertre A., Bobros J., Celko M., Goren A., Forsberg B., Michelozzi P., Rabczenko D., Hoyos S. P., Wichmann H.E., and Katsouyanni K., The Temporal Pattern of Respiratory and Heart Di sease Mortality in Response to Air Pollution, 111(9) ENVIRON. HEALTH PE RSPECT. 1188-1193 (2003). 8. Peters, A., and Pope, C.A., III, Editorial, LANCET. Vol. 360, Oct 19, 2002. 9. Pope C.A. III, Muhlestein J.B., May H.T., et al ., Ischemic Heart Disease Events Triggered by Short-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, 114(23) EPUB 2443-48 (2006). 10. Dockery D.W., Stone P.H. Cardiovascular Risks from Fine Particulate Air Pollution, 356(5) N. ENGL. J. MED. 511-13 (2007). 11. Miller K.A., Siscovick D.S., Sheppard L. et al ., Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women, 356(5) N. ENGL. J. MED. 447-58 (2007). 12. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascular Health: Smoke and Pollution Matter, 120(11) EPUB 924-27 (2009).13 13. Urch B, Silverman F, Corey P, et al . Acute Blood Pressure Responses in Healthy Adults during Controlled Ai r Pollution Exposures, 113 (8) E NVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1052-55 (2005). 14. Peters A., von Klot S., Heier M., et al ., Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction, 351 (17) N. ENGL. J. MED. 1721-30 (2004). 15. Shang-Shyue Tsai, William B. Goggi ns, Hui-Fen Chiu, and Chun-Yuh Yang, Evidence for an Association between Air Pollu tion and Daily Stroke Admissions in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 34 (11) STROKE 2612-16 (2003).

16. Mustafi ć H, Jabre P, Caussin C, Murad M, et al . Main Air Pollutants and Myocardial Infarction: A Sy stematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2012. vol. 307, no. 7 pg. 713-721. 17. Szyszkowicz M, Rowe BH, Brook RD. Ev en Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollutants Are Associated With Increased Emergency Depart ment Visits for Hypertension. Can J Cardiol. 2011 Sep 23. [Epub ahead of print]. 18. Wellenius G, Burger M, Coull B, Schwartz J, et al . Ambient Air Pollution and the Risk of Acute Ischemic Stroke. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(3): 229-234. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.732. 19. Calle E, Thun M, Pope CA, Burnett R, et al . Cardiovascular Mo rtality and Exposure to Airbourne Fine Particulat e Matter and Cigarette Smoke, Circulation, American Heart Association 120:941-948 (2009). 20. Hoffman B., Higher Blood Pressure Found in People Living in Urban Areas, Presentation, American Thor acic Society (May 17, 2010). 21. Tonne C, Yanosky JD, Beevers S, Wilkinso n P, Kelly FJ. PM Mass Concentration and PM Oxidative Potential in Relation to Carotid Intima-media Thickness. Epidemiology. 2012 Mar 23. [Epub ahead of print]. 22. Adar SD, Klein R, Klein BE, Szpiro AA, Cotch MF, Wong TY, O'Neill MS, Shrager S, Barr RG, Siscovick DS, Daviglus ML, Samp son PD, Kaufman JD. Air Pollution and the Microvasculature: A Cross-Secti onal Assessment of In Vivo Retinal Images in the PopulationBased Multi-Ethnic Study of Atheroscle rosis (MESA). PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 30; 7(11):e1000372. 23. Baccarelli A., Martinelli A., Zanobetti A., et al ., Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Risk of Deep Vein Throm bosis, 168 ARCH. INTERN MED. 920-27 (2008). 24. Jacobs L., Emmerechts J., Mathieu C ., Hoylaerts M.F., Fierens F., Hoet P.H., Nemery B., Nawrot T.S. Air Pollution Related Pr othrombotic Changes in Persons with Diabetes, 118(2) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 191-96 (2010).14 25. Hartz A., Bauer B., Block M., Diesel Exhaust Particles Induce Oxidative Stress, Proinflammatory signaling, and P- Glycoprotein, Up-Regulation at the Blood-Brain Barrier, THE FASEB JOURNAL 2723-33 (2008). 26. Lopez I, Acuna D, Beltran-Parrazal L, et al . Evidence for oxidative stress in the developing cerebellum of the rat after chronic m ild carbon monoxide exposure (0.0025% in air). BMC Neuroscience 200 9, 10:53doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-53. 27. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Mora-Tis careno A., Ontiveros E., et al., AIR POLLUTION, COGNITIVE DEFICITS AND BR AIN ABNORMALITIES: A PILOT STUDY WITH CHILDREN AND DOGS, 68(2 ) BRAIN COGN. 117-27 (2008). 28. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Solt A.C., et al., Long-Term Air Pollution Exposure is Associated with Neuroinflammation, an Altered Innate Immune Response, Disruption of the Blood-Brain Barrier, Ultrafine Pa rticulate Deposition, and Accu mulation of Amyloid Beta-42 and Alpha-Synuclein in Children and Young Adults, 36(2) TOXICO L. PATHOL. 289-310 (2008). 29. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Franco-Lira M ., Torres-Jardon R., Pediatric Respiratory and Systemic Effects of Chronic Air Pollu tion Exposure: Nose, Lung, Heart, and Brain Pathology, 35(1) TOXICOL. PATHOL.154-162 (2007). 30. Cruts B., van Etten L., Tornquvist H., et al ., Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Induces Changes in EEG in Human Vo lunteers, 5(4) PART FIBRE TOXICOL. dol: 1186/1743-8977-5-4 (2008). 31. Suglia S.F., et al ., Association of Black Carbon w ith Cognition among Children in a Prospective Birth Cohort Study, 167 AM . J. EPIDEMIOLOGY 280-86 (2008). 32. Edwards SC, Jedrychowski W, Butscher M, Camann D, Kieltyka A, Mroz E, et al. 2010. Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycycl ic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Children’s Intelligence at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort Study in Poland. Environ Health Perspect:-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901070. 33. Perera, FP, L Zhigang, R Whyatt, L Hoepner, S Wang, D Camann and V Rauh. 2009. 2009. Prenatal airborne polycyc lic aromatic hydrocarbon expos ure and child IQ at age 5 years. Pediatrics doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3506. 34. Wang, Z., Zeng, X, Zeng, Y, Wang, S. Chen, S., Association of Traffic-Related Air Pollution with Children’s Neurobehavioral Func tions in Quanzhou, China, 117(10) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1612-18 (2009). 35. Volk H, Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L, Lurmann F, McConnell R. Residential Proximity to Freeways and Autism in the CHAR GE study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Dec 13. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 21156395.15 36. Power MC, Weisskopf MG, Alexeeff SE, Coull BA, Spiro Iii A, Schwartz J. Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Cognitive Functi on in a Cohort of Older Men. Harvard School of Public Health. Environ Health Pe rspect. 2010 Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print]. 37. Ranft U, Schikowski T, Sugiri D, Krut mann J, Krämer U. Long-term exposure to traffic-related particulate matte r impairs cognitive function in the elderly. Environ Res. 2009 Nov; 109(8):1004-11. Epub 2009 Sep 4. 38. Weuve J, Puett R, Schwartz J, Yanos ky J, Laden F, Grodstein F. Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Cognitive Declin e in Older Women Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(3):219-227. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.683. 39. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Serrano-Sierra A, Torres-Jardón R, Zhu H, Yuan Y, Smith D, Delgado-Chávez R, Cross JV, Medina-Cortina H, Kavanaugh M, Guilarte TR. The impact of environmental metals in young urbanites’ br ains. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2012 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]. 40. Ciesielski T, Weuve J, Bellinger DC, Schwartz J, Lanphear B, Wright RO 2012. Cadmium Exposure and Neurodevelopmental Outc omes in U.S. Children. Environ Health Perspect :-. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104152. 41. Henn BC, Schnaas L, Ettinger AS, Schwar tz J, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, HernándezAvila M, et al . 2011. Associations of Early Childhood Ma nganese and Lead Coexposure with Neurodevelopment. Environ Health Perspect 120:126-131. http://dx.doi .org/10.1289/ehp.1003300. 42. Schelegle, E., Morales, C., Walby, W., et al ., 6.6 Hour Inhalation of Ozone Concentrations from 60 to 87 Parts per Bil lion in Healthy Humans , 180 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE 265-72 (2009). 43. Thaller, E., Petronella, S., Hochman, D. et al ., Moderate Increases in Ambient PM 2.5 and Ozone are Associated with Lung Func tion Decreases in Beach Lifeguards, 50(2) JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONA L AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE 202-11 (2008). 44. Gauderman W.J., Gilliland G.F., Vora H., et al ., Association between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in Southern Californi a Children: Results from a Second Cohort, 166 AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED. 76-84 (2002). 45. Gauderman W.J., Gilliland G.F., Vora H., et al ., The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age, 351(11) N. ENGL. J. MED. 1057-67 (2004). 46. Cakmak S, Dales R, Leech J, Liu L. The influence of air pollution on cardiovascular and pulmonary function and exercise capacity: Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). Environ Res. 2011 Oct 13. [Epub ahead of print].16 47. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Andersen ZJ, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sorensen M, Hansen J, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence: a Danish cohort study. Environ Health. 2011 Jul 19; 10(1):67. [Epub ahead of print]. 48. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Andersen Z, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sørensen M, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjønneland A. Lung Can cer Incidence and Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jan 12. [Epub ahead of print]. 49. Turner MC, Krewski D, Pope Iii CA, Chen Y, Gapstur SM, Thun MJ. Long-Term Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Lung Cancer in a Large Cohort of Never Smokers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Oct 6. [Epub ahead of print]. 50. Pearson R.L., Wachtel H., Ebi K.L., Dist ance-Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity to a Home is a Risk Factor for Leukemia a nd Other Childhood Cancers, 50(2) J. AIR WASTE MANAG. ASSOC. 175-180 (2000). 51. Weng H.H., Tsai S.S., Chen C.C., et al ., Childhood Leukemia Development and Correlation with Traffic Air Pollution in Taiwan Using Nitrogen Dioxide as an Air Pollutant Marker, 71(7) J. TOXICOL. ENVI RON. HEALTH A. 434-8 (2008). 52. Crouse DL, Goldberg MS, Ross NA, Chen H, Labrèche F 2010. Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Tr affic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: A Case–Control Study. E nviron Health Perspect 118:1578-1583. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002221. 53. Xu X, Liu C, Xu Z, Tzan K, et al . Long-term Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Pollution Induces Insulin Resi stance and Mitochondr ial Alteration in Adipose Tissue. Toxicological Sciences Volume 124, Issue 1Pp. 88-98. 54. Zou M. Is NAD(P)H Oxidase a Missing Link for Air Pollution–Enhanced Obesity? Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol . 2010; 30:2323-2324, doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.216648. 55. Zeft AS, Prahala S, Lefevre S, et al . Juvenile idiopathic arthritis and exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Clin Exp Rheumotol 2009 Sep-Oct; 27(5):877-84. 56. Krämer U, Herder C, Sugiri D, Strassburger K, Schikowski T, Ranft U, et al . 2010. Traffic-related Air Pollution and Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Results from the SALIA Cohort Study. Environ Health Perspect:-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901689. 57. Puett RC, Hart JE, Schwartz J, Hu FB, Liese AD, Laden F 2011. Are Particulate Matter Exposures Associated w ith Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Environ Health Perspect 119:384- 389. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002344. 58. Veras M.M., Damaceno-Rodregues N., Cald ini E., Ribeiro A., et al., Particulate Urban Air Pollution Affects the Functional Mo rphology of Mouse Plac enta, 79(3) BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION 578-84 (2008).17 59. Perera F., Tang W., Herbstman J., Relati on of DNA Methylation of 5-CpG Island of ACSL3 to Transplacental Exposure to Airbor ne PAH and Childhood Asth ma, 4(2) PLOS ONE e4488 (2009). 60. Hansen C., Barnett A., Prichard G.,T he Effect of Ambient Air Pollution during Early Pregnancy on Fetal Ultrasound Measurem ents during Mid-Preg nancy, 116(3) ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP. 362-69 (2008). 61. Bocskay K., Tang D., Orjuela M., et al ., Chromosomal Aberrations in Cord Blood Are Associated with Prenatal Exposure to Ca rcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. CANCER EPIDEM. BIOMARKERS AND PREV. 506-511 (2005). 62. Perera F., Tang D., Tu Y., Biomarkers in Maternal and Newborn Blood Indicate Heightened Fetal Susceptibility to Pr ocarcinogenic DNA Damage, 112(10) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSP. 1133-36 (2004). 63. Pilsner J.R., Hu H., Ettinger A., Sanchez B.N., et al ., Influence of Prenatal Lead Exposure on Genomic Methaylation of Co rd Blood DNA, 117 (9) ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP., 1466-71 (2009). 64. Baccarelli A., Breathe Deeply into Your Genes! Genetic Variants and Air Pollution Effects, 179(6) AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED., 431-2 (2009). 65. Baccarelli A., Wright R.O., Bollati V., Tarantini L., Litonjua A.A., Suh H.H., Zanobetti A, Sparrow D., Vokonas P.S., Schwar tz J., Rapid DNA Methylation Changes after Exposure to Traffic Particle s, 179(7) AM. J. RESPIR. CRI T. CARE MED., 523-4 (2009). 66. Yan Zhong, Steven G. Carmella, Pramod Upadhyaya, J. Bradley Hochalter, Diane Rauch, Andrew Oliver, Joni Jensen, Doro thy Hatsukami, Jing Wang, Cheryl Zimmerman, Stephen S. Hecht. Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxide s. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2010; 101227010050010 DOI: 10.1021/tx100345x. 67. Rubes J, Selevan S, Evenson D, Zudova D, Vozdova M, Zudova Z, Robbins W, Perreault S. Episodic air polluti on is associated with increa sed DNA fragmentation in human sperm without other changes in semen qua lity. Human Reproduction Vol.20, No.10 pp. 2776– 2783, 2005 doi:10.1093/humrep/dei122. Advance Access publication June 24, 2005. 68. Møller P, Folkmann JK, Danielsen PH, Jantzen K, Loft S. Oxidative Stress Generated Damage to DNA by Gastrointestinal E xposure to Insoluble Par ticles. Curr Mol Med. 2012 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print].Joro Walker, USB # 6676 Charles R. Dubuc, Jr., USB # 12079 W ESTERN R ESOURCE A DVOCATES 150 South 600 East, Ste. 2A Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 email: jwalker@westernresources.org Telephone: 801.487.9911 Attorneys for Petitioners Utah Physicians, et al

. BEFORE THE UTAH AI R QUALITY BOARD

 PETITION FOR A RULE CHANGE MONITORING RULE Submitted by HEAL Utah, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment W ESTERN R ESOURCE A DVOCATES January 13, 2016

 Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3 -601(2) and Utah Admin. Code R15-2-1 et seq ., HEAL Utah, Utah Physicians for a Healthy En vironment, and Western Resource Advocates respectfully submit to the Utah Air Quality Board this Petition for a Rule Change. Attached to this Petition is the text of a pr oposed rule that would amend or supplement Utah regulations Utah

Admin. Code R307-165-1 et seq .; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Salt Lake City, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.21; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Provo, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.22; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Logan, UtahIdaho Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.23; PM 2.5 Emission Limits and Operating Practices, Sections IX.11, 12 and 13; Utah Admin. Code R307-403 et seq . and/or the applicable part of

Utah Admin. Code Rule 307. Exhibit “1” attache d. HEAL Utah, Utah Physicians for a Healthy

Environment and Western Resource Advocates ask th e Air Quality Board, as authorized by Utah2 Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii), to initiate rulemaking proceedings re lative to the proposed rule as specified by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 an d ultimately to adopt the proposed rule. I. Purpose of the Rule The “Monitoring Rule” increases the frequenc y of the monitoring of emissions from

individual sources id entified in the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas (the “Three NAAs”) by requiring, where feasible, the

use of a continuous emissions monito ring system (CEMS) to monitor SO 2 , NO X and filterable particulate matter (PM). The ru le also requires that, where stack testing is employed and has been demonstrated adequate to show continuous compliance with SIP em ission limitations, this testing will occur at least once a year. The purpose of the proposed rule is two-fold. First, the Monitoring Rule will meet the Clean Air Act requirement that all nonattainment state implementation plan control measures be enforceable. SIPs must provide for the expeditio us implementation of all reasonably available or best available control measures for larger emittin g facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(C); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B). 1 These controls must be “enforceable,” 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6) (“[P]lan provisions shall include enforceable emission limitations.”), and “measurable,” and “include period ic source testing, monitoring or other viable means to establish whether the source meets the applicable em ission limit.” 80 Fed. Reg. 15340, 15378 (March 23 2015). The Monitoring Rule meets this mandate. Second, the Monitoring Rule serves to increas e the accuracy of emission inventories, to identify appropriate control measures a nd to reduce emissions. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15453.

1 SIPs must also provide for additional reasonabl e measures and additional feasible measures. 80 Fed. Reg. 15340, 15468 & 15469 (March 23, 2015). These measures must also be enforceable. Id.3 “[A]ppropriate stationary source emissions mon itoring requirements, like the control measures with which they are associate d, are a fundamental element of an approvable implementation plan.” Id. For example, EPA has found that improved monitoring can provide information that

allows a source to take “corrective action th at could potentially reduce emissions up to 15 percent[.]” Id . Similarly, more frequent monitoring “could yield potential stationary source emissions reductions of up to 13 percent.” Id. Thus, the Monitoring Rule is a critical component of an adequate SIP intended to ensure that the Three NAAs will meet the 24-hour PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as expeditiously as practicable, see e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2), and will continue to maintain the PM 10 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a. II. Jurisdiction The Air Quality Board has jurisdiction to consider, analyze and adopt this proposed rule pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-104(1)(a) (Boa rd may make rules “regarding the control, abatement, and prevention of air pollution fr om all sources and the establishment of the maximum quantity of air pollutants that may be emitted by an air pollutant source”); Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-104(1)(c)(i) (Board may make rules “requiring persons engaged in operations that result in air pollution to...install, maintain, and use emission mon itoring devices, as the board finds necessary”); and, Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-109( 2)(a) (“The [B]oard may establish emission control requirements by rule that in its judgment may be necessary to prevent, abate, or control air pollution that may be statew ide or may vary from area to area, taking into account varying local conditions.”); See also Utah State Implementation Plan, Section I (Legal Authority); 42 U.S.C. § 7513-7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a.4 III. Petitioning Organizations

Members of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment , the largest community service organization of its kind in Utah, include health professiona ls, toxicologists, biologists, chemists and engineers. The or ganization is dedicated to protec ting the health and well-being of the citizens of Utah by promoting science-based health education a nd interventions that result in progressive, measurable improvements to air quality and the environment. Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional non-profit conservation organization with programs and staff spanning the Intermounta in West, including Utah. Our mission is to protect the land, air and water of our region, using law, science, economics, advocacy, education, and action. To this end, we work to improve air quality, curb climate change and achieve environmentally sustainable management of energy, land, and water resources. WRA represented intervenor Utah Phys icians for a Healthy Environment before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully defending an EPA deci sion to include the most populous portions of Tooele and Box Elder County in the Sa lt Lake City Nonattainment Area. ATK Launch Systems

v. EPA , 669 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2012). HEAL Utah is an environmental non-profit that promotes renewable energy and protects Utah’s public health and environment from air pollution and nuclear, toxic, and dirty energy threats. Beginning in 2012, HEAL began working to urge state officials to do more to clean the air, creating online actions sending strong messages to policymakers, organizing historic rallies on the steps of the Capitol, and packing hear ings where key air quality decisions are made. In carrying out their missions, these organiza tions have met with former Governor John Huntsman Jr., Governor Gary Herbert, members of the Utah Public Service Commission, staff of the Utah Division of Air Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency, several local5 mayors, Utah business leaders, media and concer ned citizens to advocate for clean air and to advance efforts to reduce air pollution. We have repeatedly submitted comments to state and federal regulators and decision makers relative to specific projects and ru lemaking processes that impact and influence the condition of Utah’s ai r quality, environment and the health of the people living here. The organizations have a str ong legal interest in the promo tion and ultimate adoption of the proposed rule. The Clean Air Act, which largely governs the content of Utah’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), and Utah Air Conser vation Act, have as goals the protection of public health and the environment. E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1); Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-101(2). These statutes also guarantee the public a significant role in th e government actions impacting air quality, including the drafti ng and review of SIPs. E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1), (a)(2) & (a)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l); see also, 42 U.S.C. § 7427; Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(2);

Utah Admin. Code R15-2-1 et seq . The organizations’ staff and members, their families and their patients, who live, work, and recreate in the nona ttainment areas, are harmed by air pollution, particularly concentrations of PM 2.5 that exceed the NAAQS, and are entitled, by the Clean Air Act and Utah Air Conservation Act, to air qua lity that meets the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7513- 7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a; Utah C ode Ann. § 19-2-107(2)(xii). Where air quality exceeds the health-based standards, such as in the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas, the law requi res that measures be taken immediately to bring air quality into compliance with NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A) & (a)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2). Poor air quality and a failure to attain the NAAQS harm the organizations’ staff and members, their families and patients because air pollution adversely affects their heal th, quality of life, recreational pursuits and6 aesthetic sense. Therefore, the organizations have a protectable legal interest in ensuring that rules promulgated under the Utah Air Conservati on Act comply with the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410; 42 U.S.C. § 7502; 42 U.S.C. § 7 513a, and include the measures necessary to attain, inter alia , the 24-hour NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B) &( c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2). IV. Adverse Health Impacts of Particulate Matter Pollution Anyone living along the Wasatch Front has experienced our air pollution crisis, particularly wintertime “inversi ons” that settle on Salt Lake Valle y for extended periods, causing concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) to skyrocket and giving Utah the dubious distinction of having the nation’s worst air quality. We have felt our eyes and lungs burn, fretted over whether to let our children outside to pla y, agonized about parents and grandparents with heart problems – even taken them to the emergency room as their symptoms worsened – and

watched those with asthma struggle to breathe. The health consequences of our dirty air are significant. The findings of 3,000 published research papers underscore key concepts now accepted by the medical co mmunity worldwide. First, there is no safe level of exposure to pa rticulate pollution and no threshold below which negative health effects disappear. Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution at 1-4, attached as Exhibit “2.” People literally die from exposure. For every 10 μg/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 concentrations, community mo rtality rates rise 14%. Id . at 1. Therefore, Utah Physicians estimates that 1,400 to 2,000 premature deat hs occur every year in Utah from PM 2.5 . Id . at 2. Air pollution has the same extensive, broad-ba sed health consequences as cigarette smoke because the signature physiol ogic response is the same – lo w-grade arterial inflammation, narrowing of blood vessels and increased propensity for clot formation, resulting in immediate7 increases in blood pressure, follo wed within hours by higher rates of heart attacks and strokes.

Id . at 2-4. The inflammation caused by PM 2.5 affects other organs. Partic ulate pollution penetrates every cell in the body, but is particularly well-documented in the brain. There, air pollution is linked to poor neurologic outco mes across the age spectrum, including loss of intelligence in children, higher rates of autism, and attention de ficit disorders, as well as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, and accelerated cognitive decline in the elderly. Id . at 5-6. Virtually every lung disease is caused or exacerbated, and grow th of lung function during childhood can be irreversibly stunted by air pollution exposure. Id . at 6-7. Cancers, including childhood leukemia, lung, breast, prostate, cervical, brai n and stomach cancer, occu r at higher rates among people exposed to more air pollution, wh ile cancer survival rates are reduced. Id

. The blood vessel inflammation caused by air poll ution also affects th e placenta, arguably representing the most significan t public health impact of air pollution. Women who breathe more air pollution have higher rates of adverse pregnancy ou tcomes, their newborn babies showing increased birth defects, genetic damage, and a life-long disease burden that includes higher rates of metabolic disorder s, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer,

Alzheimer’s and all diseases c onsequent to immuno-suppression. Id . at 8-9. The alteration of genetic material triggered by pollution can be se en within minutes, unders coring that short-term spikes in air pollution harm developing fetuses. Id.8 V. Air Quality in the Nonattainment Areas In 2015, the American Lung Association (ALA ) designated the metropolitan area of Salt Lake City, Provo and Orem as having the 7th worst short-term PM 2.5 air pollution in the nation – the most polluted locatio n outside of California. 2 Logan was ranked as the 8th worst area in the

nation. Id. The ALA estimated that, in the Salt La ke City metropolitan area, there are 734,560 children under the age of 18; 214,000 adults over the age of 65; 45,600 children with asthma; 148,700 adults with asthma; 64,000 adults with chronic obstructive pu lmonary disease; 99,000 adults with cardiovascular disease; 113,350 adu lts with diabetes; and, 284,260 individuals living in poverty, all of whom are particularly at risk fo r heart attacks, strokes, emergency room visits for asthma, cardiovascular disease, and an early death brought on by PM 2.5 . Id. Based on this analysis, the ALA gave Cache, Davis, Salt Lake City, Utah and Weber counties “F” grades for their high particulate air pollution days in 2011-2013. Id. at 156. Over the same time frame, Salt Lake County was given an “F” for its high ozone pollution days, while Utah and Weber counties received “D” grades. Id. Monitors quantify this public health emergency. Since 2009, Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah, Cache counties and the most populous areas of Tooele and Box Elder counties have been formally designated as failing to attain the nation’s 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, 58768-70 (November 13, 2009). These counties are included in the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas. Id. Salt Lake County, Utah Count y and Ogden City are also designated as nonattainment areas for the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS, and Salt Lake and Toole

counties as nonattainment areas for the SO 2 NAAQS. 3

2 http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/as sets/ALA_State_of_the_Air_2015.pdf at 11 3 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/g reenbk/ancl.html. The 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3- year average of the a nnual 98th percentile 24-9 Our air pollution is serious. In 2013, air quality along the Wasatc h Front exceeded the

24-hour PM 2.5 standard on at least 43 days – often by alarming levels. In January of that year, the monitor at the playground of Hawthorne Elem entary School recorded 17 violations of the NAAQS, with a high reading of 62 μg/m 3 , almost double the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m 3

. 4 In Lindon, January also brought 17 exceedances with a high reading of 123 μg/m 3 – 350% of the standard – while in Logan the standard wa s violated on 18 days, topping out at 97 μg/m 3

. Id. Over the entire year, monitored values in Logan exceeded the standard on 39 days and values in Salt Lake City on 37 days. 5 This means that for more than a month, our community – including its most vulnerable populations, the young and the ol d – were subjected to levels of air pollution considerably higher than concentrations deemed unsafe and unhealthy at exposures lasting only 24 hours. 71 Fed. Reg. 61144, 61150-77 (Oct. 17, 2006). In January of 2014, the Hawthorne monitor recorded that the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard was exceeded on 13 days and the Logan monitor dete rmined violations on 11 days. The highest reading that month – 68 μg/m 3 – was in Ogden. 6 The winter of 2014 to 2015 was an outlier – the

warmest Utah winter on record. 7 The average temperature over the months December 2014 to February 2015 was 6.8o F higher than th e 20th Century average temperature. Id. The average

hour average PM 2.5 concentration is less than or equal to 35 μg/m 3 . As EPA explains, the standard is “defined as an integer (zero decimal places) as determined by rounding. For example, a 3-year average 98th pe rcentile concentration of 35.49 μg/m 3 would round to 35 μg/m 3 and thus meet the 24-hour standard and a 3-year average of 35.50 μg/m 3 would round to 36 and, hence, violate the 24-hour standard.” http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/st andards/pm/s_pm_history.html. 4 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN13.pdf 5 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm 6 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN14.pdf 7 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp -and-precip/climatologicalrankings/index.php?periods%5B%5D=3¶meter =tavg&state=42&div= 0&month=2&year=2 015#ranks-form10 minimum temperature for that period was also the warmest ever and the average maximum temperature the second warmest on r ecord and the warmest since 1981. Id. As a result, air quality in the nonattainment areas generally me t the standard. In January 2015, the Hawthorne monitor logged 4 readings over the standard, the highest at 53 μg/m 3 , while the Rose Park

monitor documented 5 exceedance s, the highest at 56 μg/m 3

. 8 Periods of high ozone concentrations are in creasingly plaguing the Wasatch Front. In 1978, Davis and Salt Lake counties were designated as not meeting the then applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 9 EPA revised the ozone NAAQS, first in 1997, by replacing the 1-hour standard

with an 8-hour standard and th en by lowering the standard in 2008. 10 Initially, Utah was deemed in compliance with the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 11 However, now significant portions of the Wasatch Front ar e failing to comply with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. For example, in 2012, there were 13 days in the Sa lt Lake City-Ogden-Clea rfield airshed that

exceeded the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (.075 ppm) a nd 5 days in the Provo-Orem airshed. 12 The greater Salt Lake City area recorded 11 da ys that exceeded the 2008 standard in 2013 and Provo-Orem 5 days. In 2014, air qu ality in both the Salt Lake City and Provo areas exceeded the 2008 ozone standard on 4 days. Preliminary 2015 data show 11 days where readings in the Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield airshed surpassed the 8-hour ozone standard. 13 On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8- hour NAAQS for ground- level ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb), based on extensive scien tific evidence about ozone’s adverse effects on

8 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 9 http://www3.epa.gov/airqual ity/greenbook/phistory_ut.html 10 http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/st andards/ozone/s_o3_history.html 11 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ 12 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarch ive/archo3.htm (Violation Days (CSV)) 13 http://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html11 public health and welfare. 14 EPA determined, based on existing monitored data for ozone concentrations in Utah, that Salt Lake, Utah, Weber, Tooele, Duchesne and Uintah counties are not attaining the 2015 ozone standard. 15 Utah will be required to develop, secure EPA approval of and implement an ozone SIP for any nonattainme nt area that is not in compliance with the

2015 ozone standard. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7509 & 7511-7511f. Examination of predicted and monitored “desi gn values,” representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations and the ma nner in which compliance

with the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is determined, confirm that the Three NAAs will be plagued by dangerous air quality for years to come. For example, the Director’s air quality models concluded that the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas would not meet the 24-hour

PM 2.5 NAAQS until December 14, 2019, and then only by the slimmest margin. Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.21 at 40 (December 3, 2013) (“[T]h is plan identifies an attainment date of December 14, 2019, and requests that the Administrator extend the attainment date the full 5 years permissible under Section 172(a)(2) of the Act.”) ; Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 40 (Provo Nonattainment Area); Utah SIP, Sectio n IX. Part A.21 (December 3, 2014) at 58, fn. 1 (“The SIP revision adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on December 4, 2013 had demonstrated attainment by December 14, 2019. This SIP revision includes a demonstration under CAA Section 189(a)(1)(B) th at it is impracticable to attain the NAAQS in 2015.”) Moreover, in the 2014 PM 2.5 SIP, the Director estimated that, after accounting for emission reductions from the SIP measures, th e 2013-2015 “design value” – the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations – at the Hawthorne, Salt Lake City

14 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/actions.html 15 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/maps.html12 monitoring station would be 37 μg/m 3 . Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.21 at 43 (December 3, 2014) (2015 design value based on the “combination of SIP reductions on point sources and new rules to be implemented that will affect sma ller commercial and industrial businesses”). Likewise, the Director anticip ated a 2015 design value for th e Lindon, Utah County monitoring station of 36 μg/m 3 . Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 43 (December 3, 2014) Given that Utah is having extreme difficulty secu ring the emission reductions nece ssary to attain the NAAQS and is failing to show attainment before Decem ber 2019, the difference between these 2015 design

values and attainment constitutes a considerable ba rrier to compliance. Thus, when the effects of

the 2014 SIP measures and emission reductions were modeled , the 2015 design values for the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas were predicted to ex ceed the NAAQS by a considerable margin. Moreover, 2015 design values based on monitored 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations

confirm that the nonattainment areas are not clos e to attaining the NAAQS. The 3-year averages of the annual 98th percentile monitored PM 2.5 concentrations for the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas, calculated by averag ing the 98th percentile monitored 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations for 2013 and 2014 with the 98th percentile monitored January 2015 concentrations, are 43.8 μg/m 3 and 42.8 μg/m 3 , respectively. 16, 17 These design values are

16 If the January 2015 98th percentile concen tration monitored at Hawthorne (29.3 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile mo nitored values from 2013 and 2014, 58.8 μg/m 3 and 43.3 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.8 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS. http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 17 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentr ation monitored at Lindon to date (26.9 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile mo nitored values from 2013 and 2014, 72.4 μg/m 3 and 29.1 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 42.8 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS.13 substantially higher than the NAAQS and significantly higher than the modeled values of 37 μg/m 3 and 36 μg/m 3

. More importantly, the monitored design values (3-year average of the annual 98 th percentile) for the Hawthorne monitor – 38.2 μg/m 3 (2010-2012), 41.1 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 43.7 μg/m 3 (2012-2014), 18 and 43.8 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) – show a steady trend away from attainment and certainly do not show linear progress toward attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. Similarly, the monitored design values for the Lindon monitor – 32.4 μg/m 3 (2010- 2012), 44.3 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 41.8 μg/m 3 (2012-2014), 19 and 42.8 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) and the Logan monitor – 37.3 μg/m 3 (2010-2012), 45.8 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 45 μg/m 3 (2012- 2014), 20 and 43.2 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) 21 – fail to establish c onsistent progress toward attainment of the NAAQS. 22 VI. Air Quality is of Overwhelming Concern to Utahns. Addressing Utah’s poor air quality is increasingly a top concer n of Utah’s urban dwellers.

A Salt Lake Tribune poll released on January 20, 2014 found that 57% of Utahns reported being

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 18 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 19 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 20 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 21 If the January 2015 98th percen tile concentration monitored at the Logan monitor (21.8 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 68 μg/m 3 and 39.9 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.2 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS. http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 22 December 2015 monitored values for the Thr ee NAAs have been high enough that the annual 98th percentile of the 24-hour PM 2.5 concentration will ultimately be greater than the numbers used to make these calculations. Thus, the design values for 2013-2015 will increase.14 more concerned about air quality than they were five years ago. Those polled also favored, by a 3 to 1 margin, tougher emission standards for industry. On January 25, 2014, more than 5,000 Utahns stood on the steps of the Capitol to advocate for state government intervention in the fight against air pollution. Protesters wore surgical and gas masks to demonstrate thei r understanding that Wasatch Front air quality

threatens their health. A child bo re a sign stating simply that “I want to play outside.” Another common slogan read “Clean Air Now, No Excuse s.” Dr. Moench, founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, told the crowd, “The most fundamental right there is is the right to breathe clean air. Air pollution tarnishes our community reputation, erod es our quality of life and stifles our economy much as it does our lungs.” 23 A survey released by Envision Utah on Janua ry 15, 2015 revealed th at Utahns rank poor air quality as detracting from their quality of life more than any other aspect of living in the state

– more than Utah’s lack of di versity, education constraints an d scarcity of water combined. 24 Survey authors noted that “poor air quality threatens core va lues identified in the survey, attacking the health of families and impairing the ability to get out and enjoy that scenic beauty.” 25 The study concluded while Utahns rank ai r quality as one of the most important issues in the state, they also believe that Ut ah is performing worse on air quality than on any

other issue. Id. “The concern about air quality relates pr imarily to the impacts to health, the

23 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57 447995-78/capitol-clean-indus try-lake.html.csp 24 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/ Utah-residents-rank-ai r-pollution-as-No-1- threat-to-quality-of-l ife.html?pg=all. 25 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/ Utah-residents-rank-ai r-pollution-as-No-1- threat-to-quality-of -life.html?pg=all15 inability to enjoy the outdoors during poor air qu ality episodes, and the legacy we leave for future generations,” Envision Utah stat ed. “Utahns want the air to improve.” 26 In April and May, 2015, 52,845 Utahns participated in a more detailed Envision Utah survey. These participants also “ranked air qual ity as one of the state’s most important issues, and a resounding three out of four Utahns vot ed to reduce emissions by 40% from [today’s levels], even as Utah’s population nearly doubles.” 27 This 75% of survey participants indicated that they wanted air quality that was well within national health -based standards. Id. VII. Regulatory Background On October 17, 2006, EPA revise d the 24-hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 to provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level to 35 μg/m 3 . 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). Effective on December 14, 2009, EPA designated th e Three NAAs as nonattainment for the 2006

PM 2.5 standard. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, (Nov. 13, 2009). 28 On June 2, 2014, EPA classified all the areas that were designated in 2009 – includi ng the Three NAAs – as “Moderate” nonattainment areas and required those areas to submit Moderate SIPs to EPA by December 31, 2014. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(a); 79 Fed. Reg. 31566 (June 2, 2014). 29 Among other requirements, the Moderate SIPs for the Three NAAs must provide for the imp lementation of all reasonably available control measures [RACM] for the control of PM 2.5 as expeditiously as pract icable, but no later than December 14, 2013. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(C). The plans must also either demonstrate that the plan will provide for attainment by the Moderate attainment date –

26 http://www.sltrib.com/news/2063029-155/ utahns-rank-poor-air-quality-the 27 http://yourutahyourfuture.org/topics/air-qual ity/item/48-your-utah-your-f uture-survey-results 28 EPA originally designated these areas under Clean Air Act title I, part D, subpart 1. Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM 2.5 24-hour standard based on both CAA title I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4. 29 The rule did not affect the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015.16 December 31, 2015 – or demonstrate that attainment by that date is impracticable. 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(B). As explained above, Utah submitted SIPs for the Three NAAs that

demonstrated attainment of the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015 was impracticable. That demonstration has proven to be accura te. Despite fairly good air quality in 2015 to date, none of the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by December 31,

2015 – the Moderate attainment date. 30 Because the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is based on the 3- year average of the annual 98th percentile, and annual values for 2013 and 2014 were so high, the relevant 3-year average (2013-2015) for each nonattainment area will be considerably greater than 35 μg/m 3

. 31 Based on January 2015 monitored da ta, the 2013-2015 desi gn values are 43.8 μg/m 3 for the Hawthorne monitor, 42.8 μg/m 3 for the Lindon monitor, and 43.2 μg/m 3 for the Logan monitor. These values exceed the 24-hour standard by a substantial amount. On November 9, 2015, acknowledging that the Three NAAs could not attain the 24-hour

PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2015, EPA proposed to “bump up” the designation of the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas to “Serious” areas prior to the Moderate attainment date pursuant to its purported 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(1), Clean Air Act § 188(b)(1), authority. 80 Fed. Reg. 69173, 69178 (Nov. 9, 2015); 80 Fed. Reg. 69172 (Nov. 9, 2015). Alternatively, after the Moderate attainment da te, EPA is required to designate the Three NAAs

30 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) (the moderate “attainment date shall be as exped itiously as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth cal endar year after the area’s designation as nonattainment”); 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, 58768-70 (November 13, 2009) (designating Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas as of December 14, 2009). 31 Footnotes 16, 17 and 22, supra . http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12- 14Avepm25.pdf17 as “Serious” areas by operation of the law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2), Clean Air Act § 188(b)(2). Regardless of the route the Three NAAs take to designation as Serious areas, the Director must, no later than “18 months af ter reclassification of the area as a Serious Area,” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2), 32 submit “provisions to assure that the best available control measures for the control of [PM 2.5 ] shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a Seri ous Area.” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2) (referencing paragraph (1)(B)). In other words, by June 2017 or shortly th ereafter, the Director must, at minimum, present a “Serious” SIP id entifying all best available control measures (BACM) and establishing that these measures will be implemented in the nonattainment areas no

later than 2019. The designation of the Three NAAs as “Serious” underscores the need for the immediate implementation of the effective and potent meas ures necessary to bring these areas into attainment as soon as possible. Because of the significant th reat to public health and the environment posed by air pollution that exceed s the national standard s, the Clean Air Act demands that air quality in nonattainment areas be brought into compliance with the NAAQS as soon as possible. Specifically, where air quality exceeds the health-based standards, such as in the Three NAAs, the Clean Air Act requires that measures be taken immediately to attain NAAQS as “expeditiously as practicable.” E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A) & (a)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) (“For a Moderate Area, the a ttainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than th e end of the sixth calendar year after the area’s designation as

32 Reclassification dates to the failure of the area to attain the NAAQS – December 31, 2015. See 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he area shall be re classified by operation of law as a Serious Area.”).18 nonattainment”) & (c)(2) (“For a Seri ous Area, the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than th e end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area’s designation as nonattainment.”). Thus, the law gua rantees Utah’s citizens air that meets the national standards as promptly as feasible.

VIII. The Proposed Rule Is Legally Mandated and Represents a Sound Strategy for Attaining the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS as Expediti ously as Possible. A. The Monitoring Rule Responds to the In frequent Testing Required by Utah Regulation and the PM 2.5 SIPs. The “Monitoring Rule” increases the fre quency and efficacy of the monitoring of

emissions from individual sources identified in the PM 2.5 SIPs. Exhibit “1.” The rule generally requires the use of CEMS to monitor SO 2 , NO X and filterable PM. To authorize a monitoring or testing method for SO 2 , NO X and filterable PM other than CEMS , the Director must, after public notice and comment, make a demonstration that CEMS is infeasible and that an alternative method is sufficient to assure continuous complia nce with the relevant emission limitation. To utilize a monitoring or testing method other than CEMS for an air pollutant other than

SO 2 , NO X or filterable PM, the Director must, afte r public notice and comment, demonstrate that

the alternative method is sufficient to assure continuous compliance with the relevant emission limitation. Where the approved monitoring method i nvolves stack testing, that stack testing must occur at least once a year unless a further de monstration of infeasibility is made. The Monitoring Rule amends Utah regulati on, which mandates only infrequent emissions monitoring of PM 2.5 SIP sources. The rule also addre sses the requirement that the 2014 PM 2.5 SIPs must derive adequate monitoring requireme nts in the context RACT analysis and otherwise establish that the monitoring imposed is suffi cient to show continuous compliance with SIP

emission limitations.19 The Monitoring Rule also fosters pub lic participation a nd oversight of SIP implementation and permitting by requiring that electronic monitoring and testing data and reports be submitted to and retained by the Director. The rule also mandates that the Director post quarterly compliance reports online for five years to ensure that such information is readily accessible by the public. Id. at 15448 (“EPA also recommends that compliance reports be made available online so that the general public can readily access the information without the need to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the EPA. The EPA is in the process of revising federal rules to make similar requirements apply.”). Currently, Utah law requires “emission testing” at least once every five years to establish compliance with, inter alia , the emission limitations specified in the PM 2.5 SIPs for the Three

NAAs. Utah Admin. Code R307-165-2. The PM 2.5 SIP itself states that unless source-specific conditions indicate otherwise, H.11.e establishes th e stack testing protocol intended to show that sources in the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas are complying with the applicable

SIP emission limits. PM 2.5 Emission Limits and Operating Pract ices, Section IX, Part H at 41-41 (December 2014). As 11.e does not specify a stac k testing frequency, the default is once every five years. Id. ; Utah Admin. Code R307-165-2. In many instances, the source-specific condi tions reference neither 11.e nor any stack testing frequency to determine or verify emissi on factors used to determine compliance with SIP emission limits. For example, the Chevron Refi nery is required to c onduct stack testing to

establish a filterable PM 2.5 emission factor for the FCC catal yst generator and the ratio of

condensable PM 2.5 from the unit and the SRUs, but the SIP fails to stipulate if and when this testing will be repeated to ve rify whether the derived emission factors are representative of emissions. Section IX, Part H at 54-55; id. at 77 (Tesoro); see also id. (source-wide daily NO X limit determined by “associated emission factor,” while “the most recent listing of these emission20 factors is maintained in Chevron’s AO”); id . at 55 (Chevron emission factor for catalyst regeneration system “established by most recent stack test”). Similarl y, at the HollyFrontier Refinery, performance tests may be used to adjust emission factors, but the SI P fails to indicate if and when these performance tests must be repeated to confir m their veracity. Id. at 61-63. The same approach is adopted for Tesoro, id. at 77; see also id. at 77-78 (“[E]mission factors for all

other emission units are based on the results for the most recent stack test for that unit.”), and Big

West. Id. at 48-49; see also id. at 93 (Provo City Power Pl ant “emission factors for NO X shall be derived from the most recent emission test results”). Where it is mentioned, source-specific stack testing frequency is typically once every three to five years. E.g. Section IX, Part H at 42 (Refiner y FCCUs – once every five years); id. at 53 (Central Valley engines – once every five years ); id. at 54 (Chemical Lime Co. kiln – once every five years ); id. at 57-58 (Great Salt Lake Mineral bo ilers and SOP dryers – once every three years); id. at 66 (Kennecott power plan t – once every three years); id. at 70 (Kennecott refinery tank house boilers – once every three years); id. at 72 (Nucor Steel – once every three years and once every five years); id. at 79 (Proctor and Gamble – once every five years); id. at 80-81 (University of Utah boile rs – once every three years); id. at 85 (BYU – once every three years); id. at 87 (Geneva – once every three years); id. at 92 (Payson City Power – once every three years and once every five years). Theref ore, in many instances, SIP emission limits on large industrial sources generally requ ire only infrequent monitoring. Moreover, in most situations, there is no e xplanation or showing, either generally or specific to the PM 2.5 SIP sources, to establish that any monitoring regime is sufficient to assure continuous compliance with any pa rticular SIP emission limitation. This is particularly true when monitoring is based on emission f actors derived from stack testing.21 In commenting on the 2014 PM 2.5 SIPs, EPA expressed significant concern about the sufficiency of the infrequent monitoring of PM 2.5 . SIP emission limits. E.g. EPA Region 8 Comments on Utah’s Proposed PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan s and Technical Support Documents at 7, 9-10 & 12 (Oct . 30, 2014). EPA emphasized that adequate monitoring is a crucial component of an acceptable SIP, id. at 12 (“Implementation includes adequate monitoring, which must be in the SIP.”), and that stack testing once every three to five years is, on its face, inadequate to show continuous compliance, id. at 9-10 (“We are concerned with stack test frequencies longer than one year. Please explain why these test frequencies are sufficient to ensure continuous compliance with the limits.”), a nd requested that the Director explain why the specified monitoring was adequate to suppor t modeling, establish RACT and demonstrate

attainment. Id. at 7 (“[W]e suggest that the UDAQ...clar ify and provide more detail...in SIP sections and/or RACT evaluations” to expl ain “how and why...frequency of monitoring/ testing...(continuous, daily, monthly, etc. for mon itoring; once per year, 3 years, 5 years for stack testing)...[is] considered valid to support modeling and attainment”). B. The Proposed Rule Is a Necessary Component of both a Moderate and Serious SIP. 1. Utah Must Implement All Reason ably Available Control Measures and Additional Reasonable Measures. A nonattainment SIP shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonabl y available control t echnology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. 42 U. S.C. § 7502(c)(1); 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. 33 In setting forth

33 Id. at 15464 (RACM “is any technologically and ec onomically feasible measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the date of designation of a PM 2.5 nonattainment area and that achieves permanen t and enforceable reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions and/or PM 2.5 precursor emissions from sources in the area. RACM includes reasonably available control technology (RACT)”).22 additional requirements for particulate matte r nonattainment areas, Congress mandated that Moderate area attainment plans contain provi sions to assure that RACM and RACT are implemented no later than four years after design ation, 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(C), or in the case of the Utah nonattainment areas, no later than December 2013. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58768-70 (November 13, 2009) (designating the Three N AAs on December 14, 2009). Thus, Utah’s Moderate SIP must provide for the implementati on of RACM and RACT for existing sources of

PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors as expeditiously as pract icable, but no later than December 2013.

This is true even in the case of Moderate ar eas that cannot practicably attain by the statutory

attainment date and therefore will be or have b een designated as Serious areas. 80 Fed. Reg. at

15369. Beyond RACM and RACT, nonattainment SIPs must “include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, mean s or techniques. . . as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment.” 42 U. S.C. § 7502(c)(6). EPA has interpreted this provision to require states to implement any technologically and economically feasible control measures, including control technologie s, for all sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, that can only be implemented after the 4 year deadline for RACM and RACT has passed, but

before six years after the designa tion date. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15368. 34 In the case of the Three NAAs, Utah must impose all addi tional reasonable measures that are capable of being implemented before December 31, 2015. In Moderate areas that cannot practicably comply with the standard by the statutory attainment date, states must still implement all RACM and RACT,

34 Id. at 15464 (“Additional reasonable measure is any control meas ure that otherwise meets the definition of [RACM] but can only be implemen ted in whole or in part during the period beginning 4 years after the date of designation of a nonattainment area and no later than the end of the sixth calendar year following th e date of designation of the area.”).23 together with any additional reasonable measures , on sources in the nonattainment area. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. 2. Utah Must Implement all Best Available Control Measures. As they will fail to attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2015, the Three NAAs will be designated “Serious” area by EPA as an operation of law. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2)(A). Alternatively, EPA has proposed to acknowledge that the Three NAAs cannot practicably attain the st andard and, prior to the Moderate atta inment date, designate the areas as “Serious” nonattainment areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7513( b)(1). In either case, the Director must, no

later than “18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area,” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2), 35 submit “provisions to assure that the best available control measures for the

control of PM 10 [including PM 2.5 ] shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassi fied) as a Serious Area.” 42 U. S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2) (referencing paragraph (1)(B)). Th erefore, by June 14, 2017, the Director must present a “Serious” SIP identifying all best avai lable control measures (BACM) and establishing that these measures will be implemented in the nonattainment areas no later than December

2019. BACM is defined as “the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable from a source or source category which is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering energy, economic and environmental impacts and other costs.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15405; Id. at 15464 (BACM “is any technologically and economically feasible control measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the da te of reclassification of a PM 2.5

35 Reclassification dates to the failure of the area to attain the NAAQS – December 15, 2015. See 42 U.S.C. § 7513(2)(A) (“[T]he area shall be recl assified by operation of law as a Serious Area”).24 nonattainment area and that generally can achieve greater permanent and enforceable emissions

reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions and/or emissions of PM 2.5 precursors from sources in the area than can be achieved through the implemen tation of RACM on the same source(s). BACM

includes best available c ontrol technology (BACT).”). 36

3. The Monitoring Rule is a Necess ary Element of RACM and BACM and Required to Ensure that the Three NAAs Will Attain the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS Expeditiously. Utah is currently under significant obligati on to impose reasonable and best control

measures on and secure substantial emission reductions from industrial sources in the nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act requires Utah to have implemented all RACM and other additional reasonable measures by December 31, 2015. Starting December 31, 2015, the State is also required to begin implementing any BACM as expeditiously as practicable. Ultimately, the

Clean Air Act mandates attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard as soon as is feasible. There is real urgency in the mandate that Utah immediately take the steps necessary to bring the Three

NAAs into attainment with the standard. As the Monitoring Rule is a necessary component of both RACM and BACM and a legally adequate SIP, adoption of the rule is warr anted. First, the Monitoring Rule will meet the requirement that all SIP control measures be enfo rceable. SIPs must provide for the expeditious implementation of all reasonably available or best available control measures for larger emitting

36 Under 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6), states addres sing Serious nonattainment areas must also implement “additional feasible measures” as well as BACM. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15406. An “additional feasible measure” is “any control me asure that otherwise meets the definition of [BACM] but can only be implemented in whole or in part beginning 4 ye ars after the date of reclassification of an area as Se rious and no later than the statutor y attainment date for the area.” Id. at 15464.25 facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1); 42 U.S. C. § 7513a(a)(1)(C); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B). 37 These controls must be “enforceable,” 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6) (“plan provisions shall include enforceable emission limitations”), and “measurab le,” and “include periodic source testing, monitoring or other viable mean s to establish whether the source meets the applicable emission limit.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15378. As EPA explained in more detail: [SIP] control measures must be enforceable. This means that they must...include periodic source testing, monitoring or other viable m eans to establish whether the affected source meets the applicable emission limit. Additiona lly, to verify the continued performance of the control measure, specific emissions mon itoring programs appropriate for the type of control measure employed and the level of em issions must be included to verify the continued performance of the control measure.

Id. ; see also id. at 15412 (“After a state has identified its BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures for a particular nonattainment area, it must implement those measures through a legally enforceable mechanism to be included in the SIP.”). Second, the Monitoring Rule will reduce emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors from

industrial sources and therefore represents RACM and BACM. EPA has found that improved monitoring provides information that allows a source to take “corrective action that could potentially reduce emissions up to 15 percent[.]” 80 Fed. Reg. 15340, 15378. Similarly, more frequent monitoring “could yield potential statio nary source emissions reductions of up to 13 percent.” Id. Third, the Monitoring Rule serves to increas e the accuracy of emissi on inventories and to identify appropriate control measures. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15453. Thus, the rule would play an

37 SIPs must also provide for additional reasonabl e measures and additional feasible measures. 80 Fed. Reg. 15340, 15468 & 15469 (March 23, 2015). These measures must also be enforceable. Id.26 important role in the derivation and implementati on of the Serious SIP Utah must submit to EPA to show expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. Finally, the details of the M onitoring Rule correspond to the elements EPA identified as critical to ensuring SIP control measures are en forceable and approvable. The Monitoring Rule acknowledges the link between control measur es and monitoring requirements – without monitoring, control measures are not meaningful – and identifies monitoring as a component of a legally sufficient SIP. E.g. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15453 (“[A]ppropriat e stationary source emissions monitoring requirements, like the control measur es with which they are associated, are a fundamental element of an approvable implementa tion plan.”). The rule sets as the standard CEMS for measuring and monitoring of emissions. Id. at 15448 (“Directly enforceable emission measurements, such as PM CEM[ S], are preferred wher ever feasible.”). With its flexible approach to feasibility and ultimate focus on sufficiency, the Monitoring Rule appropriately

mandates that all emissions limits must be acco mpanied by monitoring of sufficient frequency and efficacy to assure continuous compliance with the SIP emission limitation. Id. at 15447 (“[M]onitoring requirements would have to be su fficient to enable the state or the EPA to determine whether the source is complying with the emission limit on a continuous basis.”). By requiring that electronic monitoring and testing da ta and reports be submitted to and retained by the Director and by mandating that quarterly co mpliance reports be made available online, the Monitoring Rule also implements EPA policy that such information be readily accessible by the public. Id. at 15448 (“EPA also recommends that compliance reports be made available online so that the general public can readily access the information without the need to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the EPA. The EPA is in the process of revising federal rules to make similar requirements apply.”).27 Thus, whether looked at through the lens of RACM or BACM, the Monitoring Rule is a

critical element of a Moderate or Serious SIP an d a reasonable measure that will make Utah’s

SIP control measures enforceable and will reduc e emissions to ensure, as the Clean Air Act requires, that the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 national standards as expeditiously as practicable, see e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2). 38 Acknowledging the complexity of the industria l sources and monitoring technologies, the proposed rule provides the Dire ctor discretion to determine monitoring and stack testing requirements adequate to ensure continuous co mpliance with emission li mitations. Above, we outline the many reasons while requiring broader use of CEMS and boosting stack test frequency is a critical step towards re ducing emissions and increasing pu blic confidence in air quality regulation. We also recognize that for particular pollu tants and for specific emission units, CEMS may not be feasible due to considerations such as cost or the availability of the relevant technology. In response, the Monitoring Rule is st ructured to create a tr ansparent process that allows for public input, by which the Director can make an info rmed decision on an appropriate monitoring and testing regimen that will ensu re continuous compliance with SIP emission limitations. The Monitoring Rule achieves th is goal by boosting m onitoring and testing effectiveness and frequency, but wit hout an unnecessarily rigid mandate. C. The Proposed Rule Furth ers Other Legal and Policy Goals.

State and local officials in Utah have sought for years to id entify appropriate measures to help reduce dangerous emissions of air pollution and bring Utah into compliance with the 24-

38 The Monitoring Rule will also promot e continuous maintenance of the PM 10 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a).28 hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 . Those efforts have borne fruit, but additional steps – including this proposed rule – are necessary to en sure expeditious and long-term co mpliance with the standard. First, given that all projections agree that Utah’s population and economy will continue to grow significantly in the coming decades, our ai r quality policies will need to keep pace by enacting controls to address expanding mobile, ar ea and point sources. Ce nsus data released earlier this year 39 show familiar statistics: a five-year populat ion growth rate that ranks fourth in the nation; the second highest growth in new hom es over the past year; and, the third highest over the previous five. The state’s population recently surpassed three million residents – and is projected to hit four million in as few as 16 years. 40 According to a detailed report from the Utah Foundation, 41 which examined a wide array of research, much of that growth is expected no t just in our non-attainme nt areas, but in more far-flung suburban areas, raising th e specter of a significant incr ease in commutes and vehicle miles travelled (VMTs). Predictions of Utah’s future emissions inventor y offer some significant reasons for hope – particularly due to a slow but steady reduction from the mobile sector. Our cars and trucks will pollute less both because of the EPA’s Tier 3 program and also from increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. But much of those gains will be eaten away by increases in population, the number of homes and in overall VMTs, due to more cars on the road and the expansion of the suburbs. These trends mean that Utah will need to

39 Another Piece to the Puzzle: Census R eveals Utah’s Growth Among Top In Nation , Deseret News, 2015-05-20, http://www.deseretnews.co m/article/865629128/Another-piece-to-thepuzzle-Census-reveals-Utahs-growth -among-top-in-nation.html?pg=all 40 Herbert Says there Are Three Million People Living in Utah ,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2015- 10-26, http://www.sltrib.com/home/3103221-155/ utahs-population-surpasses-3-million. 41 A Snapshot of 2050: An Analysis of Projected Population Change in Utah , the Utah Foundation, April 2014, http://www.ut ahfoundation.org/uploads/rr720.pdf29 continue to find additional emission reductions and bolster its regulatory oversight for decades to come – twin goals that our proposed rule will accomplish. Secondly, Utah faces serious repercussi ons if it does not meet the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by 2019. While the precise penalties are not certain, the Clean Air Ac t gives a clear idea of what might come. Sanctions include: 1) being required to adopt the most stringent measures being implemented in any other states, 42 U.S.C. § 75 13(e); and, 2) having to identify an additional 5 percent emission cuts across the board every year until the standard has been attained. 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(d). Each of these requireme nts serves to take discretion out of the state’s hands, forcing the state to implement measures th at would be not be tailored to Utah’s particular situation and that would likely be unpopular. Third, as it reviews Utah’s M oderate SIP, Serious SIP and a ny request for an extension of the attainment date for a Serious area, EPA has au thority to approve or disapprove aspects of the plans and, if necessary, assume authority to develop and implement a SIP. See 42 U.S.C. § 7502(b), (c) & (d); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k); 42 U. S.C. § 7513(e); 42 U.S.C. § 7509. Thus, we believe, it is important for state officials to demo nstrate that Utah is willing to make difficult decisions and embrace policies that will reduce em issions from all polluting sectors, including large stationary sources. More colloquially, it is urgent to look under every rock for emissions cuts and it is important that Utah exhibit a will ingness to impose these available measures with the goal of achieving the national standard as soon as possible. Fourth, there are significant advantages to having the Division and the Board carefully consider this rule on its own merits, rather than as an element of a Moderate SIP or the Serious SIP that Utah will be required to develop and impl ement in the next two years. Utah’s SIPs have30 been and will continue to be highly technical and expansive docu ments, covering a wide range of control measures. The 2014 SIP, for example, included 23 new rules on area sources alone. Due to the sheer volume of these plans and the documents that support them, it is very difficult for the Board and the public to de bate any particular SIP provision or to offer revisions to the SIP in the short comment period that has typi cally attended these rulemaking efforts. The rule presented here, on the other hand, o ffers opportunity for i ndividual scrutiny. The Division, public and regulated community will have the chance to provide meaningful and detailed feedback, while the Board will have th e chance to carefully review these comments one rule at a time, which is very difficult to do when it is faced with approving or disapproving of an entire nonattainment SIP as a single rule. Lastly, we maintain that it is valuable to focus rulemaking on stationary sources, even though inventories suggest that emissions from this sector are less than emissions from either mobile or area sources. Various estimates, whic h misleadingly give equa l weight to direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, indicate that about 12 percent of total emissions in the Salt Lake City nonattainment area come from stationary sour ces and the 2013 SIP an ticipates that by 2019, these sources will account for 28 percent of direct PM 2.5 emissions in the area. It is true that

mobile and area sources contribute significantly to our failure to at tain the NAAQS. That is why we have pushed hard for rules, programs and funds to address these sources of PM 2.5 emissions, such as the Tier 3 program, electric vehicle in centives, expansion of transit funding, updates to building codes, and low NO X hot water heater requirements. We are confident that rules addressing la rge industrial sources have merit as one important piece of an overall strategy intended to bring the nonattainment areas into compliance

with the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practi cable. Cleaning up Utah’s air is not31 about adopting a few measures or addressing only those sect ors that contribute the most emissions. Rather, the severity of our air po llution problem requires that we implement every effective measure and strategy to reduce emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors. Because the proposed rule, backed by the EPA, will minimi ze emission increases and strengthen the state’s overall oversight of stationary sources, is not only worth debating, but also worth adding to our SIP as an appropriate and necessa ry addition to a legally robust plan designed to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

IX. Conclusion The Monitoring Rule is a critic al component of an adequate PM 2.5 SIP. By increasing the frequency and efficacy of monitoring and mandati ng that any monitoring or testing regime will assure continuous compliance with PM 2.5 SIP emission limitations, the rule imposes a reasonable

control measure on industrial sour ces, functions to make SIP em ission limitations enforceable, reduces emissions and improves Utah’s emissions i nventory, and informs its selection of control measures. Therefore, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, HEAL Utah and Western Resource Advocates respectfully ask the Air Qualit y Board to initiate Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3- 301 rulemaking proceedings relative to the Monito ring Rule as authorized by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii) and ultimatel y to adopt the proposed rule. Respectfully submitted the 13th day of January 2016.

JORO WALKER ROB DUBUC Attorneys for Utah Physicians, et al

.Exhibit List

Exhibit “1” Monitoring Rule – Proposed Text Exhibit “2” Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution

## EXHIBIT “1”The “Monitoring Rule”

R307-XXX. Nonattainment Areas for PM 2.5 : Emission Monitoring and Testing.

R307-XXX-1. PM 2.5 SIP Emission Limitations. (1) PM 2.5 SIP Emission Limitation means any emission limitation or emission standard imposed on any source, installation or emission unit where that emission limitation: (a) is implemented pursuant to or meets the re quirements of subpart 1 or subpart 4, part D of title I of the Clean Air Act; (b) has been determined by the Director to represent reasonabl y available control technology (RACT), reasonably av ailable control measure(s) (RACM), best available control technology (BACT), or best available control m easure(s) (BACM) for the purposes of section 189(a)(1)(C) or sec tion 189(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act; (c) is included in Utah PM 2.5 SIP Subsections IX.H.11, 12, or 13 (PM 2.5 Emissions Limits and Operating Practices); or, (d) has otherwise been determined to contribute to the attainment of the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). (2) Stack Test or Stack Testing , also referred to in U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations as a performance or source test, is a procedure that measures the amount of a specific regulated pollutant, pollutants, or surrogates being emitted; demonstrates the capture efficiency of a capture system; or determines the destructio n or removal efficiency of a control device used to reduce emissions at facilities subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act. (3) Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) is the total equipment necessary for the determination of a gas or particulate matter c oncentration or emission rate using pollutant analyzer measurements and a conversion equa tion, graph, or computer program to produce results in units of the applicable emission limitation or standard.

R307-XXX-2. Continuous Emission Mo nitoring Systems (CEMS) Required. (1) For any PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation: (a) Utah PM 2.5 SIP Subsections IX.H.11, 12, or 13; and, (b) any approval order and any operating perm it containing that emission limitation must mandate with particularity monitoring and/or stack testing on a suffici ently frequent basis to assure continuous compliance, including during periods of star t-up and shut-down, with the applicable requirements and/or emission limitation as specified by the corresponding averagin g time or period.(2) Absent a demonstration of infeasibility made by the Director, a continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) shall be us ed to monitor compliance with a PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation for SO 2 , NO X or filterable particulate matter (PM). R307-XXX-3. Alternative Monitoring or Testing. (1) Only following a demonstrati on of infeasibility made by the Di rector determining that it is infeasible to use CEMS to monitor SO 2 , NO X , or filterable PM as controlled by a PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation, may an alternative monitoring method be employed. (2) Before authorizing any method other than CEMS to monitor SO 2 , NO X , or filterable PM for compliance with a PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation or authoriz ing any method to monitor another air pollutant control by a PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation, the Director must make a demonstration of sufficiency establishing that the alternat ive method shall provide assurance of compliance with the corresponding emission limitation at all times, including during start-up and shut-down. (3) Any monitoring method deemed to meet the requirements of subsection (2) that relies on stack testing must be conducted under operational conditions that: (a) represent the range of combined proce ss and control measure conditions under which the source expects to operate; (b) are likely to challenge the facility or emission unit emission control measures or technology on which any PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation is based; and (c) are described by, included in and required by Utah PM 2.5 SIP Subsections IX.H.11, 12, or 13 as conditions under which the monitoring method will be conducted. (4) Absent a demonstration of infeasibility, no monitoring method or stack testing used to establish compliance with a PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation may occur less frequently than once per year. R307-XXX-4. Demonstrations of Infeasibility and Sufficiency. (1) A demonstration of infeasibility, as re ferenced in R307-XXX-2( 2), R307-XXX-3(1) and R307-XXX-3(4) may consider, if relevant, cos t; technical feasibility ; availability of the technology; recent monitoring and testing results; total emissions and controlled emissions; the margin of compliance; the variability of pr ocess, equipment and emissions; frequency of breakdowns, start-ups and shut-downs; and th e age and condition of the proposed control technology. (2) A demonstration of sufficiency, as refere nced in R307-XXX-3(2) must, at a minimum: incorporate and analyze recent m onitoring and testing results; to tal emissions and controlled emissions; the margin of compliance; the vari ability of process, equipment and emissions; frequency of breakdowns, start-ups and shut-dow ns; and the age and condition of the proposed control technology. Consideration of recent monito ring data must include an evaluation of thefrequency of the underlying monitoring or testing and whether these data represent the range of combined process and control measure conditions under which the source expects to operate. (3) The Director shall give the public adequa te notice of any propos ed demonstration of sufficiency or infeasibility and provide a period of at least 30 days for the public to comment on the proposed demonstration. Prior to the beginn ing of the public comment period, the Director shall make readily available to the public—p referably by posting elec tronic copies on the Division website—all documents on which the Director relies in making the proposed demonstration. Before issuing a final demonstrat ion, the Director shall consider and respond to any timely submitted comments and make that response publically available. R307-XXX-5. Reporting and Public Availabi lity of Monitoring and Testing Data. All monitoring and testing data a nd reports associated with any PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation shall be submitted to the Director and retained by the Director in electronic form. A report demonstrating compliance (or noncompliance) with any PM 2.5 emission limitation shall be submitted to the Director in electronic form on a quarterly basis (every three months). The Director shall make these quarterly compliance repor ts available online for fi ve years so that the general public can readily access the informati on without making a request pursuant to the Government Records and Access Management Act or Freedom of Information Act. R307-XXX-6. Timing of Implementation. (1) Within two years of the date this regulati on takes effect, the Director shall comply with R307-XXX-2 to XXX-5 for any PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation included in the Utah PM 2.5 SIP (PM 2.5 Emissions Limits and Operating Practices ) Subsections IX.H.11, 12, and 13 on the date this regulation takes effect. (2) For any PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation not included in the Utah PM 2.5 SIP (PM 2.5 Emissions Limits and Operating Practices) Subsections IX .H.11, 12, and 13 on the date this regulation takes effect, the Director shall comply with R307-XXX -2 to XXX-5 as soon as possible, but no later than 6 months after the PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation is established. (3) Notwithstanding subpart (2), the earliest date by wh ich the Director must comply with R307- XXX-2 to XXX-5 for any PM 2.5 SIP emission limitation established after the date this regulation takes effect shall be two years after the date this regulation takes effect.

## EXHIBIT “2”2 Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution

Medical research in the last ten years clearly indicates that, certainly for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), and likely also for ozone, there is no “safe level” of exposure. Even levels previously thought to be benign we now know are not. There is no threshold below which there are no health effects and all persons are adversel y affected by air polluti on, regardless of age or overall state of health. 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38903 (June 29, 2012). Most Utahns are exposed to high levels of ozone in the summer and PM 2.5 in the winter, as well as PM 10 and SO 2 year-round, meaning that a large percentage of Utah’s population is exposed re peatedly to unhealthy levels of pollution throughout the year. There is now evidence that exposure to ozone and PM 2.5 can act synergistically, increasing th e adverse health effects from these air pollutants. 1

PM 2.5 air pollution at the levels experienced by residents of the northern counties of Utah has the approximately same type and magnitude of biologic effect as living with an active

smoker. E.g. 71 Fed. Reg. 61144, 61157 (Oct. 17, 2006). That should not be a surprise, because

most of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke are al so found in fine particulate matter. As with smoking, particulate matter pollution and ozone cause increased systemic oxidative stress leading to pathologic vascular changes, including progression of atherosclerotic plaques to vulnerable forms, prothrombotic states, endothe lial dysfunction and altered autonomic nervous system control. 2 For the last several years, th e research-based conventional wisdom has been that with

each 10 μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 long-term average, there is an increase in community mortality rate of about 10%. 3 New research draws an even stronger correlation – a mortality rate of 14%

for each 10 μ g/m 3 increase. 4 The elderly and those with existing morbidities are particularly vulnerable to air pollution consequences.3 Based on extrapolations from numerous st udies and the American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement explained below, Ut ah Physicians estimates that between 1,400 and 2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM 2.5 . See 78 Fed. Reg. 3086, 3103 (Jan. 15, 2013) (“[S]tudies have reported consistent increases in morbidity and/or premature mortality

related to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations, with the strongest ev idence reported for cardiovascularrelated effects.”); 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38908- 09 (June 29, 2012) (“[N]ewly available

information combined with information availabl e in the last review provides substantially stronger confidence in a causal relationship between long- and short-term exposures to PM 2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects.”). The AHA ha s estimated that reside nts of most cities in the United States lose between one and three years of life expectancy due to fine particulate air pollution. 5 Furthermore, studies show that even small reductions in air pollution improve community life expectancy. 6 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. Since the late 1980s, more than 150 epidemiol ogical studies have re ported associations between daily changes in particul ate air pollution and respirator y and cardiovascular mortality, hospitalizations and other related health endpoints. 7 71 Fed. Reg. at 61150-61162; 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908-09. These adverse effects are seen at low and “common” concentrations of particulate pollution. A Dutch study demonstrat ed risks for cardiopulmonary mortality even at what are considered “b ackground” levels of particulate pollution. 8 A study

done in our own area demonstrat ed that each short-term 10 μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 was associated with an increase in the risk of acute ischemic coronary artery events (unstable angina and myocardial infarction) of 4.5%. 9 Not only does PM 2.5 result in an increase in death from cardiovascular causes, but there is

also an increased risk for non-fatal events. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61151-52; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907; 774 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“Bell et al. (2008) reported higher PM 2.5 risk estimates for hospitalization for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the winter compared to other seasons.”). For each 10

μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 there is a 24% increase in risk of a cardiovascular event and a 76%

increase in the risk of death from that event. There is also an increase d risk of cerebrovascular

events. 10,11,12 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. It should be noted that this rate of increase approaches that demonstrated from a chronic active smoking habit. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. The significance of our PM 2.5 spikes may not be dismissed with observations that our annual average fine particulate matter concentrati ons are not extraordinarily high. This is false comfort and reflects a poor understanding of the existing research. Many medical studies show that impacts from pollution are se en very quickly and can last long after the air has cleared. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61164. For example, within as little as 30 minutes, exposure to particulate matter is associated with increases in blood pressure, fo llowed within hours by incr eased rates of heart attacks and strokes. Community mortality rates stay elevated for 30 days after a spike in PM 10 even if the episode lasts less than 24 hours. 13 Within one hour, exposure to traffic pollution, including particulate matter, is associated

with increased rates of heart attacks as much as 300% compared to non-exposed individuals. 14

Other studies show rates of strokes and heart attacks in the communityincrease within hours after spikes in PM 10 . 15 See also 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103 (Evidence links “long-term exposure to PM2.5 with an array of cardiovascular effects such as heart attacks, congestive heart failure, stroke, and mortality.”). In 2010, the AHA summarized: The overall evidence from time-series analys es conducted worldwide since publication of the first AHA statement confirms the existen ce of a small, yet consistent association between increased mortality and short-term elevations in PM 10 and PM 2.5 approximately equal to a 0.4% to 1.0% increase in da ily mortality (and cardiovascular death specifically) due to a 10 μ g/m 3 elevation in PM 2.5 during the preceding 1 to 5 days. 35 Confirming the strong correlation between mode st, short-term spikes in PM and serious health consequences are three new studies that showed spikes of as little as one day in PM 10 were associated with higher rates of heart attacks, 16 daily spikes of either PM 10 or PM 2.5 were associated with significant increases in em ergency room visits for hypertensives crisis, 17 and less than 24 hours of a spike in PM 2.5 of 15-40 μ g/m 3 increased rates of strokes 34%, with the peak increase occurring within 12 hours. 18 Not only have numerous studies shown that there is no safe level of PM exposure, but a recen t landmark study published in th e flagship journal of the AHA, using data from over 1 million people, demonstr ated that when cardiac mortality, the signature air pollution health outc ome, was plotted against particulate matter from air pollution, first and second-hand cigarette smoke, all three sources showed a steep cu rve at low doses. In other words, per unit dose of exposure, it is the low leve ls of PM that cause hi gher rates of mortality. 19 Long-term exposure to particulate matter air po llution is associated with an average rise in blood pressure for chronically exposed populati ons. Average blood pressure was found to rise 1.7 mmHg for an increase of 2.4 μ g/m 3 in PM 2.5 . A similar association was found with the

coarser PM 10 . The rise was found in both syst olic and diastolic blood pressure. 20 Chronic exposure to particulate matter has also been show n to increase the thickening of arterial walls, which is a known end result of higher bl ood pressure. A chronic increase in PM 10 of 5.2 μ g/m 3 is associated with a 5% increase in the intima-media thickness of the carotid artery, which is one of many end results of the biol ogic process described above. 21 Another study showed a remarkable co rrelation between chronic exposure to PM 2.5 and narrowing in the tiny arteries in the back of the eye. Chronic exposure to 3 μ g/m 3 of PM 2.5 (one fourth of the annual NAAQS) was associated with narrowing equivalent to seven years of aging. 22 These finding are especially significant because they demonstrate community-wide6 effects, acceleration of the aging process, and im pairing the health of everyone exposed, not just a susceptible population. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 3104 (“The population potentially affected by

PM 2.5 is large. In addition, large su bgroups of the U.S. population ha ve been identified as at-risk populations.”).

There is a remarkable correlation between ra tes of deep vein thrombosis and increased

levels of PM 10 , beginning at very modest levels. 23 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“[R]ecent studies provide additional evidence for cardiovascul ar effects associated with sub-daily (e.g., one to several hours) exposure to PM, especially effects related to cardi ac ischemia, vasomotor function, and more subtle change s in markers of systemic infl ammation, hemostasis, thrombosis and coagulation[.]”). A likely mechanism of this clinical outcome is re vealed by studies that

show PM 10 causes excessive platelet aggregation in diabetics. 24 Throughout the age spectrum, from infants to the elderly, air pollution has been shown to impair brain function. 77 Fed. Reg. at 38909. Oxid ative stress (OS) appear s to be the biological genesis of numerous diseases processes and a ma jor contributor to the aging phenomenon. OS is the mechanism behind the role of particulate matter and carbon monoxide pollution in central nervous system dysfunction, neuro inflammation, cortical stress, cogni tive impairment and memory loss in children and neuro-degenera tive diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. 25, 26 Numerous studies show such specific outcomes as impaired intellect and pe netration of particle matter and Alzheimer type protein depositi on among children who grow up breathing more particulate air pollution. 27, 28, 29 Volunteers exposed to typical ur ban levels of diesel exhaust demonstrate brain cortical stress measured by EEG. 30 Children exposed to more air pollution or whose mothers were more exposed during pregnancy show an IQ loss of five to nine points. 31, 32, 33 Rates of neurobehavioral disorders7 correlate with NO X and PM 10 levels. 34 Children exposed to more vehicle pollution show a doubling in rates of autism. 35 Older people show accelerated c ognitive decline if chronically exposed to more traffi c generated air pollution. 36, 37 A recent landmark study showed that chronic exposure to 10 μ g/m 3 of either PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 -PM 10 was associated with faster cognitive decline in older women, equivalent to about two years of aging. 38 Because of strong evidence that particulate air pollution’s neurotoxicity is related to attached metals, 39, 40, 41 the oil refineries contribution to Wasatch Front pollution takes on additional public he alth significance. It is intuitive that short-term exposure to fine particulate matter would have adverse impacts on the pulmonary system. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61145 & 61152; 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103-04. Indeed, numerous studies show increased rates of asthma and virtually all other respiratory diseases including lung cancer where short-term PM 2.5 is higher. 71 Fed. Reg

. at 61154-61155 & 61157; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. Equally distur bing are less obvious outcomes. Even young, healthy people demonstrate rapid decrease in lu ng function from brief exposure to particulate matter that persists for several da ys after the exposure has ended. Id . at 61152, 61154 &

61169. 42, 43 Again, this contradicts any comfort derived from the perspective that Utah’s fine particulate matter air pollution problem is episodic and therefore less of a problem. An unusually large proportion of Utah’s population is young. Census-based estimates indicate that nearly a third of Utah residents are under age 18 and one of every 10 residents is under age five, figures approximately 40 percent hi gher than the national average. This means that Utah’s unhealthy levels of air pollution cons titute a public health crisis that endangers its most vulnerable populations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58 690; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38911 (“With regard to respiratory effects in children associ ated with short-term exposures to PM 2.5 , currently available8 studies provide stronger evidence of respiratory-related hospitaliz ations with larger effect estimates observed among children.”). The physiology of children differs from that of adults in many important ways, causing them to be affected more profoundly by air po llution than adults. Children have higher metabolic rates, meaning their oxygen demand is higher, they breathe fa ster and have higher heart rates and blood flows on a per weight basis than an adult. Combined with their rapidly growing organ size and function, th is physiologic difference makes th em more susceptible to the adverse influence of air pollution. “There is emerging but limited evid ence for an association between long-term PM 2.5 exposure and respiratory mortality in post-neonatal infants where longterm exposure was considered as approximately on e month to one year.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908.

Children who breathe more air pollution can experience a perm anent stunting of their lung growth. Just as chronic expos ure to second-hand cigarette sm oke causes a permanent loss of lung function growth in children, so does long-term exposure to PM 2.5 air pollution. 44,45 71 Fed. Reg. at 61154, 61172; see also id . at 61169; 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38911 (June 29, 2012) (“These analyses provide evidence that PM 2.5 -related effects [to children] persist into early adulthood and are more robust and larger in magnitude than previously reported.”). Not only does short-term exposure to PM 2.5 air pollution permanently impair the ex ercise capacity of individuals so affected, 46 few physiologic outcomes have more of an ultimate impact on longevity than lung

function. Various forms of cancer such as lung, cervi cal, stomach and brain cancer show increased rates with higher concentrations of community particulate matter. 47, 48 71 Fed. Reg. at 61152; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Each 10 μ g/m 3 increase in long term PM 2.5 concentration is associated with a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. 49 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Especially9 troubling are the numerous studies that show increases in childhood leukemia among more exposed populations, 50, 51 and a significant asso ciation between nitrogen oxide concentrations

and rates of breast cancer. 52 The precipitation of oxidative stress, as mentioned above, is the likely explanation for new studies that show higher rates of numer ous other, seemingly unrelated diseases among populations subjected to more ai r pollution. These diseased incl ude type II diabetes, obesity, arthritis, and lupus. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 Air pollution, especially particulate matter, ma y have its largest imp act on public health through its effect on the human embryo. A study in laboratory animals demonstrated a change in morphology of the placenta that compromised blood flow to the fetus. 58, 46 Exposure of pregnant women to various components of traffi c-related air pollu tion, including PM 10 , results in intrauterine growth retardation, including sma ller head size, increased rates of spontaneous abortions, premature births and low birth weight syndrome. 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Genetic damage and epigenetic changes can have virtually identic al consequences and both can be passed on to subseque nt generations. Newborn babies whose mothers are exposed to more air pollution show increa ses in both, and the life-long dise ase burden that results can include higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway di sease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and all the diseases cons equent to immuno-suppr ession. 78 Fed. Reg. 3104 (“The strongest evidence for an association between PM 2.5 and developmental and reproductive effects comes from epidemiological studies of lo w birth weight and infant mortality, especially due to respiratory causes during the post-ne onatal period (i.e., 1 month–12 months of age).”). Epigenetic changes can be seen with in three days after exposure to PM 2.5 and perhaps even as soon as minutes after exposure. 59-66 There is strong evidence for a persistence of epigenetic10 changes from one generation to another. Medica l science is now learning that the air pollution today can adversely affect the h ealth of future generations. Fo r example, episodic air pollution, the type that occurs along the Wasatch Front , has been shown to be associated with fragmentation of DNA in human sperm. 67 The common assumption about particulate air pollution has been that internalizing the particles and their adsorbed compounds like h eavy metals occurs through the lungs. Smaller particles are assumed more dangero us because they can penetrate more deeply into the lungs and are cleared by the lung cilia less readily. Howe ver, there is new evidence to suggest that atmospheric particulate matter is also swallowed, leading to toxicity of internal organs and increased carcinogenic risk. This is of pa rticular relevance for increasing childhood risk. 68

That all the above mentioned adverse heal th outcomes can be the result of pregnant women smoking is easy for physicians and the la y public alike to comprehend and the sight of a pregnant woman smoking is now repu lsive to society at large. See 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. It is a new thought process, but equally sc ientifically based, to think that the same thing happens when a pregnant woman has to breat he particulate air pollution. Again, regarding impact on the human embryo, there appears to be no safe threshold of exposure.

As a manifestation of the evidence for seve re health effects from air pollution, virtually every major medical organization in the United St ates has called for stricter NAAQS for annual

PM 2.5 and for ozone, including the American Medi cal Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Lung Asso ciation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Cardiology, the Amer ican Heart Association, the Am erican Cancer Society, the American Public Health Assoc., and the Nationa l Assoc. of Local Boards of Health, and the11 EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (considered the nation’s premier air pollution experts). 77 Fed. Reg. at 38897.12 REFERENCES 1. Mauderly J.L., Samet J.M., Is There Ev idence for Synergy Among Air Pollutants in Causing Health Effects? 117 Enviro n. Health Perspect. 1-6 (2009). 2. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascul ar Health: Smoke and Pollution Matter, 120(11) EPUB 924-27 (2009). 3. Brook R., Rajagopalan S., Pope C.A., Brook J., Bhatnagar A., et al., AHA Scientific Statement: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease; An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American H eart Association, Circulation, American Heart Association 121:2331-2378 (2010). 4. Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harv ard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print]. 5. Pope CA, Ezzate M, Dockery D. Fine-Par ticulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States, 360(4) N. ENGL. J. MED. 376-86 (2009). 6. 101. Correia A, Pope CA, Dockery D, Wa ng Y, Ezzati M, Dominici F. Effect of Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in th e United States: An Analysis of 545 U.S. Counties for the Period from 2000 to 2007 Epidemiology. 3 December 2012 doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31827702377. Zanobetti A., Schwar tz J., Samoli E., Gryparis A., Touloumi G., Peacock J., Anderson R.H., Le Tertre A., Bobros J., Celko M., Goren A., Forsberg B., Michelozzi P., Rabczenko D., Hoyos S. P., Wichmann H.E., and Katsouyanni K., The Temporal Pattern of Respiratory and Heart Di sease Mortality in Response to Air Pollution, 111(9) ENVIRON. HEALTH PE RSPECT. 1188-1193 (2003). 8. Peters, A., and Pope, C.A., III, Editorial, LANCET. Vol. 360, Oct 19, 2002. 9. Pope C.A. III, Muhlestein J.B., May H.T., et al ., Ischemic Heart Disease Events Triggered by Short-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, 114(23) EPUB 2443-48 (2006). 10. Dockery D.W., Stone P.H. Cardiovascular Risks from Fine Particulate Air Pollution, 356(5) N. ENGL. J. MED. 511-13 (2007). 11. Miller K.A., Siscovick D.S., Sheppard L. et al ., Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women, 356(5) N. ENGL. J. MED. 447-58 (2007). 12. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascular Health: Smoke and Pollution Matter, 120(11) EPUB 924-27 (2009).13 13. Urch B, Silverman F, Corey P, et al . Acute Blood Pressure Responses in Healthy Adults during Controlled Ai r Pollution Exposures, 113 (8) E NVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1052-55 (2005). 14. Peters A., von Klot S., Heier M., et al ., Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction, 351 (17) N. ENGL. J. MED. 1721-30 (2004). 15. Shang-Shyue Tsai, William B. Goggi ns, Hui-Fen Chiu, and Chun-Yuh Yang, Evidence for an Association between Air Pollu tion and Daily Stroke Admissions in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 34 (11) STROKE 2612-16 (2003).

16. Mustafi ć H, Jabre P, Caussin C, Murad M, et al . Main Air Pollutants and Myocardial Infarction: A Sy stematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2012. vol. 307, no. 7 pg. 713-721. 17. Szyszkowicz M, Rowe BH, Brook RD. Ev en Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollutants Are Associated With Increased Emergency Depart ment Visits for Hypertension. Can J Cardiol. 2011 Sep 23. [Epub ahead of print]. 18. Wellenius G, Burger M, Coull B, Schwartz J, et al . Ambient Air Pollution and the Risk of Acute Ischemic Stroke. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(3): 229-234. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.732. 19. Calle E, Thun M, Pope CA, Burnett R, et al . Cardiovascular Mo rtality and Exposure to Airbourne Fine Particulat e Matter and Cigarette Smoke, Circulation, American Heart Association 120:941-948 (2009). 20. Hoffman B., Higher Blood Pressure Found in People Living in Urban Areas, Presentation, American Thor acic Society (May 17, 2010). 21. Tonne C, Yanosky JD, Beevers S, Wilkinso n P, Kelly FJ. PM Mass Concentration and PM Oxidative Potential in Relation to Carotid Intima-media Thickness. Epidemiology. 2012 Mar 23. [Epub ahead of print]. 22. Adar SD, Klein R, Klein BE, Szpiro AA, Cotch MF, Wong TY, O'Neill MS, Shrager S, Barr RG, Siscovick DS, Daviglus ML, Samp son PD, Kaufman JD. Air Pollution and the Microvasculature: A Cross-Secti onal Assessment of In Vivo Retinal Images in the PopulationBased Multi-Ethnic Study of Atheroscle rosis (MESA). PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 30; 7(11):e1000372. 23. Baccarelli A., Martinelli A., Zanobetti A., et al ., Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Risk of Deep Vein Throm bosis, 168 ARCH. INTERN MED. 920-27 (2008). 24. Jacobs L., Emmerechts J., Mathieu C ., Hoylaerts M.F., Fierens F., Hoet P.H., Nemery B., Nawrot T.S. Air Pollution Related Pr othrombotic Changes in Persons with Diabetes, 118(2) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 191-96 (2010).14 25. Hartz A., Bauer B., Block M., Diesel Exhaust Particles Induce Oxidative Stress, Proinflammatory signaling, and P- Glycoprotein, Up-Regulation at the Blood-Brain Barrier, THE FASEB JOURNAL 2723-33 (2008). 26. Lopez I, Acuna D, Beltran-Parrazal L, et al . Evidence for oxidative stress in the developing cerebellum of the rat after chronic m ild carbon monoxide exposure (0.0025% in air). BMC Neuroscience 200 9, 10:53doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-53. 27. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Mora-Tis careno A., Ontiveros E., et al., AIR POLLUTION, COGNITIVE DEFICITS AND BR AIN ABNORMALITIES: A PILOT STUDY WITH CHILDREN AND DOGS, 68(2 ) BRAIN COGN. 117-27 (2008). 28. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Solt A.C., et al., Long-Term Air Pollution Exposure is Associated with Neuroinflammation, an Altered Innate Immune Response, Disruption of the Blood-Brain Barrier, Ultrafine Pa rticulate Deposition, and Accu mulation of Amyloid Beta-42 and Alpha-Synuclein in Children and Young Adults, 36(2) TOXICO L. PATHOL. 289-310 (2008). 29. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Franco-Lira M ., Torres-Jardon R., Pediatric Respiratory and Systemic Effects of Chronic Air Pollu tion Exposure: Nose, Lung, Heart, and Brain Pathology, 35(1) TOXICOL. PATHOL.154-162 (2007). 30. Cruts B., van Etten L., Tornquvist H., et al ., Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Induces Changes in EEG in Human Vo lunteers, 5(4) PART FIBRE TOXICOL. dol: 1186/1743-8977-5-4 (2008). 31. Suglia S.F., et al ., Association of Black Carbon w ith Cognition among Children in a Prospective Birth Cohort Study, 167 AM . J. EPIDEMIOLOGY 280-86 (2008). 32. Edwards SC, Jedrychowski W, Butscher M, Camann D, Kieltyka A, Mroz E, et al. 2010. Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycycl ic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Children’s Intelligence at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort Study in Poland. Environ Health Perspect:-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901070. 33. Perera, FP, L Zhigang, R Whyatt, L Hoepner, S Wang, D Camann and V Rauh. 2009. 2009. Prenatal airborne polycyc lic aromatic hydrocarbon expos ure and child IQ at age 5 years. Pediatrics doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3506. 34. Wang, Z., Zeng, X, Zeng, Y, Wang, S. Chen, S., Association of Traffic-Related Air Pollution with Children’s Neurobehavioral Func tions in Quanzhou, China, 117(10) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1612-18 (2009). 35. Volk H, Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L, Lurmann F, McConnell R. Residential Proximity to Freeways and Autism in the CHAR GE study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Dec 13. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 21156395.15 36. Power MC, Weisskopf MG, Alexeeff SE, Coull BA, Spiro Iii A, Schwartz J. Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Cognitive Functi on in a Cohort of Older Men. Harvard School of Public Health. Environ Health Pe rspect. 2010 Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print]. 37. Ranft U, Schikowski T, Sugiri D, Krut mann J, Krämer U. Long-term exposure to traffic-related particulate matte r impairs cognitive function in the elderly. Environ Res. 2009 Nov; 109(8):1004-11. Epub 2009 Sep 4. 38. Weuve J, Puett R, Schwartz J, Yanos ky J, Laden F, Grodstein F. Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Cognitive Declin e in Older Women Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(3):219-227. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.683. 39. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Serrano-Sierra A, Torres-Jardón R, Zhu H, Yuan Y, Smith D, Delgado-Chávez R, Cross JV, Medina-Cortina H, Kavanaugh M, Guilarte TR. The impact of environmental metals in young urbanites’ br ains. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2012 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]. 40. Ciesielski T, Weuve J, Bellinger DC, Schwartz J, Lanphear B, Wright RO 2012. Cadmium Exposure and Neurodevelopmental Outc omes in U.S. Children. Environ Health Perspect :-. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104152. 41. Henn BC, Schnaas L, Ettinger AS, Schwar tz J, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, HernándezAvila M, et al . 2011. Associations of Early Childhood Ma nganese and Lead Coexposure with Neurodevelopment. Environ Health Perspect 120:126-131. http://dx.doi .org/10.1289/ehp.1003300. 42. Schelegle, E., Morales, C., Walby, W., et al ., 6.6 Hour Inhalation of Ozone Concentrations from 60 to 87 Parts per Bil lion in Healthy Humans , 180 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE 265-72 (2009). 43. Thaller, E., Petronella, S., Hochman, D. et al ., Moderate Increases in Ambient PM 2.5 and Ozone are Associated with Lung Func tion Decreases in Beach Lifeguards, 50(2) JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONA L AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE 202-11 (2008). 44. Gauderman W.J., Gilliland G.F., Vora H., et al ., Association between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in Southern Californi a Children: Results from a Second Cohort, 166 AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED. 76-84 (2002). 45. Gauderman W.J., Gilliland G.F., Vora H., et al ., The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age, 351(11) N. ENGL. J. MED. 1057-67 (2004). 46. Cakmak S, Dales R, Leech J, Liu L. The influence of air pollution on cardiovascular and pulmonary function and exercise capacity: Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). Environ Res. 2011 Oct 13. [Epub ahead of print].16 47. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Andersen ZJ, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sorensen M, Hansen J, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence: a Danish cohort study. Environ Health. 2011 Jul 19; 10(1):67. [Epub ahead of print]. 48. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Andersen Z, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sørensen M, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjønneland A. Lung Can cer Incidence and Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jan 12. [Epub ahead of print]. 49. Turner MC, Krewski D, Pope Iii CA, Chen Y, Gapstur SM, Thun MJ. Long-Term Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Lung Cancer in a Large Cohort of Never Smokers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Oct 6. [Epub ahead of print]. 50. Pearson R.L., Wachtel H., Ebi K.L., Dist ance-Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity to a Home is a Risk Factor for Leukemia a nd Other Childhood Cancers, 50(2) J. AIR WASTE MANAG. ASSOC. 175-180 (2000). 51. Weng H.H., Tsai S.S., Chen C.C., et al ., Childhood Leukemia Development and Correlation with Traffic Air Pollution in Taiwan Using Nitrogen Dioxide as an Air Pollutant Marker, 71(7) J. TOXICOL. ENVI RON. HEALTH A. 434-8 (2008). 52. Crouse DL, Goldberg MS, Ross NA, Chen H, Labrèche F 2010. Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Tr affic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: A Case–Control Study. E nviron Health Perspect 118:1578-1583. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002221. 53. Xu X, Liu C, Xu Z, Tzan K, et al . Long-term Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Pollution Induces Insulin Resi stance and Mitochondr ial Alteration in Adipose Tissue. Toxicological Sciences Volume 124, Issue 1Pp. 88-98. 54. Zou M. Is NAD(P)H Oxidase a Missing Link for Air Pollution–Enhanced Obesity? Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol . 2010; 30:2323-2324, doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.216648. 55. Zeft AS, Prahala S, Lefevre S, et al . Juvenile idiopathic arthritis and exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Clin Exp Rheumotol 2009 Sep-Oct; 27(5):877-84. 56. Krämer U, Herder C, Sugiri D, Strassburger K, Schikowski T, Ranft U, et al . 2010. Traffic-related Air Pollution and Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Results from the SALIA Cohort Study. Environ Health Perspect:-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901689. 57. Puett RC, Hart JE, Schwartz J, Hu FB, Liese AD, Laden F 2011. Are Particulate Matter Exposures Associated w ith Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Environ Health Perspect 119:384- 389. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002344. 58. Veras M.M., Damaceno-Rodregues N., Cald ini E., Ribeiro A., et al., Particulate Urban Air Pollution Affects the Functional Mo rphology of Mouse Plac enta, 79(3) BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION 578-84 (2008).17 59. Perera F., Tang W., Herbstman J., Relati on of DNA Methylation of 5-CpG Island of ACSL3 to Transplacental Exposure to Airbor ne PAH and Childhood Asth ma, 4(2) PLOS ONE e4488 (2009). 60. Hansen C., Barnett A., Prichard G.,T he Effect of Ambient Air Pollution during Early Pregnancy on Fetal Ultrasound Measurem ents during Mid-Preg nancy, 116(3) ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP. 362-69 (2008). 61. Bocskay K., Tang D., Orjuela M., et al ., Chromosomal Aberrations in Cord Blood Are Associated with Prenatal Exposure to Ca rcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. CANCER EPIDEM. BIOMARKERS AND PREV. 506-511 (2005). 62. Perera F., Tang D., Tu Y., Biomarkers in Maternal and Newborn Blood Indicate Heightened Fetal Susceptibility to Pr ocarcinogenic DNA Damage, 112(10) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSP. 1133-36 (2004). 63. Pilsner J.R., Hu H., Ettinger A., Sanchez B.N., et al ., Influence of Prenatal Lead Exposure on Genomic Methaylation of Co rd Blood DNA, 117 (9) ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP., 1466-71 (2009). 64. Baccarelli A., Breathe Deeply into Your Genes! Genetic Variants and Air Pollution Effects, 179(6) AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED., 431-2 (2009). 65. Baccarelli A., Wright R.O., Bollati V., Tarantini L., Litonjua A.A., Suh H.H., Zanobetti A, Sparrow D., Vokonas P.S., Schwar tz J., Rapid DNA Methylation Changes after Exposure to Traffic Particle s, 179(7) AM. J. RESPIR. CRI T. CARE MED., 523-4 (2009). 66. Yan Zhong, Steven G. Carmella, Pramod Upadhyaya, J. Bradley Hochalter, Diane Rauch, Andrew Oliver, Joni Jensen, Doro thy Hatsukami, Jing Wang, Cheryl Zimmerman, Stephen S. Hecht. Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxide s. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2010; 101227010050010 DOI: 10.1021/tx100345x. 67. Rubes J, Selevan S, Evenson D, Zudova D, Vozdova M, Zudova Z, Robbins W, Perreault S. Episodic air polluti on is associated with increa sed DNA fragmentation in human sperm without other changes in semen qua lity. Human Reproduction Vol.20, No.10 pp. 2776– 2783, 2005 doi:10.1093/humrep/dei122. Advance Access publication June 24, 2005. 68. Møller P, Folkmann JK, Danielsen PH, Jantzen K, Loft S. Oxidative Stress Generated Damage to DNA by Gastrointestinal E xposure to Insoluble Par ticles. Curr Mol Med. 2012 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print].Joro Walker, USB # 6676 Charles R. Dubuc, Jr., USB # 12079 W ESTERN R ESOURCE A DVOCATES 150 South 600 East, Ste. 2A Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 email: jwalker@westernresources.org Telephone: 801.487.9911 Attorneys for Petitioners Utah Physicians, et al

. BEFORE THE UTAH AI R QUALITY BOARD

 PETITION FOR A RULE CHANGE OFFSET RULE

Submitted by, W ESTERN R ESOURCE A DVOCATES Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and HEAL Utah January 14, 2015

 Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3 -601(2) and Utah Admin. Code R15-2-1 et seq ., Western Resource Advocates, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and HEAL Utah respectfully submit to the Utah Air Quality Board this Petition for a Rule Change. Attached to this Petition is the text of a pr oposed rule that would amend or supplement Utah regulations Utah

Admin. Code R307-165-1 et seq .; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Salt Lake City, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.21; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Provo, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.22; PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Logan, UtahIdaho Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.23; PM 2.5 Emission Limits and Operating Practices, Sections IX.11, 12 and 13; Utah Admin. Code R307-403 et seq . and/or the applicable part of

Utah Admin. Code Rule 307. Exhibit “1” attach ed. Western Resource Advocates, HEAL Utah and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment ask the Air Quality Board, as authorized by UtahCode Ann. § 63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii), to initiate rulemaking proceedings re lative to the proposed rule as specified by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 an d ultimately to adopt the proposed rule. I. Purpose of the Rule The purpose of the proposed rule is to require that reductions in emissions from existing

sources be obtained to offset emission increase s from specified new and modified sources of

PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors located in the Salt Lake C ity, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas (the “Three NAAs”). 1 The “Offset Rule” lowers the thresholds, both for new sources and for modifications to existing sources, above which th e obligation to acquire offsets applies. The required emission offsets will minimize increases in emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors to ensure, as the Clean Air Act requires, that the nonattainment areas will attain the PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as expeditiously as practicable, see ,e.g. , 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2), and will continue to maintain the PM 10 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a). II. Jurisdiction The Air Quality Board has jurisdiction to consider, analyze and adopt this proposed rule pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-104(1)(a) (Boa rd may make rules “regarding the control, abatement, and prevention of air pollution fr om all sources and the establishment of the maximum quantity of air pollutants that may be emitted by an air pollutant source”); Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-104(1)(c)(i) (Board may make rules “requiring persons engaged in operations that result in air pollution to...install, maintain, and use emission mon itoring devices, as the board finds necessary”); and, Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-109( 2)(a) (“The [B]oard may establish emission control requirements by rule that in its judgment may be necessary to prevent, abate, or control air pollution that may be statew ide or may vary from area to area, taking into account varying

1 There are currently no large industrial s ources in the Logan Nonattainment Area.local conditions.”); See also Utah State Implementation Plan, Section I (Legal Authority); 42 U.S.C. § 7513-7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a. III. Petitioning Organizations HEAL Utah is an environmental non-profit that promotes renewable energy and protects Utah’s public health and environment from air pollution and nuclear, toxic, and dirty energy threats. Beginning in 2012, HEAL began working to urge state officials to do more to clean the air, creating online actions sending strong messages to policymakers, organizing historic rallies on the steps of the Capitol, and packing hear ings where key air quality decisions are made.

Members of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment , the largest community service organization of its kind in Utah, include health professiona ls, toxicologists, biologists, chemists and engineers. The or ganization is dedicated to protec ting the health and well-being of the citizens of Utah by promoting science-based health education a nd interventions that result in progressive, measurable improvements to air quality and the environment. Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional non-profit conservation organization with programs and staff spanning the Intermounta in West, including Utah. Our mission is to protect the land, air and water of our region, using law, science, economics, advocacy, education, and action. To this end, we work to improve air quality, curb climate change and achieve environmentally sustainable management of energy, land, and water resources. WRA represented intervenor Utah Phys icians for a Healthy Environment before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully defending an EPA deci sion to include the most populous portions of Tooele and Box Elder County in the Sa lt Lake City Nonattainment Area. ATK Launch Systems

v. EPA , 669 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2012).In carrying out their missions, these organiza tions have met with former Governor John Huntsman Jr., Governor Gary Herbert, members of the Utah Public Service Commission, staff of the Utah Division of Air Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency, several local mayors, Utah business leaders, media and concer ned citizens to advocate for clean air and to advance efforts to reduce air pollution. We have repeatedly submitted comments to state and federal regulators and decision makers relative to specific projects and ru lemaking processes that impact and influence the condition of Utah’s ai r quality, environment and the health of the people living here. The organizations have a str ong legal interest in the promo tion and ultimate adoption of the proposed rule. The Clean Air Act, which largely governs the content of Utah’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), and Utah Air Conser vation Act, have as goals the protection of public health and the environment. E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1); Utah Code Ann. § 19-2-101(2). These statutes also guarantee the public a significant role in th e government actions impacting air quality, including the drafti ng and review of SIPs. E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1), (a)(2) & (a)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l); see also, 42 U.S.C. § 7427; Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(2);

Utah Admin. Code R15-2-1 et seq . The organizations’ staff and members, their families and their patients, who live, work, and recreate in the nona ttainment areas, are harmed by air pollution, particularly concentrations of PM 2.5 that exceed the NAAQS, and are entitled, by the Clean Air Act and Utah Air Conservation Act, to air qua lity that meets the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7513- 7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a; Utah C ode Ann. § 19-2-107(2)(xii). Where air quality exceeds the health-based standards, such as in the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas, the law requi res that measures be taken immediately to bring air quality into compliance with NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. E.g. 42 U.S.C. §7502(a)(2)(A) & (a)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2). Poor air quality and a failure to attain the NAAQS harm the organizations’ staff and members, their families and patients because air pollution adversely affects their heal th, quality of life, recreational pursuits and aesthetic sense. Therefore, the organizations have a protectable legal interest in ensuring that rules promulgated under the Utah Air Conservati on Act comply with the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410; 42 U.S.C. § 7502; 42 U.S.C. § 7 513a, and include the measures necessary to attain, inter alia , the 24-hour NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B) &( c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2). IV. Adverse Health Impacts of Particulate Matter Pollution Anyone living along the Wasatch Front has experienced our air pollution crisis, particularly wintertime “inversi ons” that settle on Salt Lake Valle y for extended periods, causing concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) to skyrocket and giving Utah the dubious distinction of having the nation’s worst air quality. We have felt our eyes and lungs burn, fretted over whether to let our children outside to pla y, agonized about parents and grandparents with heart problems – even taken them to the emergency room as their symptoms worsened – and

watched those with asthma struggle to breathe. The health consequences of our dirty air are significant. The findings of 3,000 published research papers underscore key concepts now accepted by the medical co mmunity worldwide. First, there is no safe level of exposure to pa rticulate pollution and no threshold below which negative health effects disappear. Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution at 1-4, attached as Exhibit “2.” People literally die from exposure. For every 10 μg/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 concentrations, community mo rtality rates rise 14%. Id . at 1. Therefore, Utah Physicians estimates that 1,400 to 2,000 premature deat hs occur every year in Utah from PM 2.5 . Id . at 2.Air pollution has the same extensive, broad-ba sed health consequences as cigarette smoke because the signature physiol ogic response is the same – lo w-grade arterial inflammation, narrowing of blood vessels and increased propensity for clot formation, resulting in immediate increases in blood pressure, follo wed within hours by higher rates of heart attacks and strokes.

Id . at 2-4. The inflammation caused by PM 2.5 affects other organs. Partic ulate pollution penetrates every cell in the body, but is particularly well-documented in the brain. There, air pollution is linked to poor neurologic outco mes across the age spectrum, including loss of intelligence in children, higher rates of autism, and attention de ficit disorders, as well as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, and accelerated cognitive decline in the elderly. Id . at 5-6. Virtually every lung disease is caused or exacerbated, and grow th of lung function during childhood can be irreversibly stunted by air pollution exposure. Id . at 6-7. Cancers, including childhood leukemia, lung, breast, prostate, cervical, brai n and stomach cancer, occu r at higher rates among people exposed to more air pollution, wh ile cancer survival rates are reduced. Id

. The blood vessel inflammation caused by air poll ution also affects th e placenta, arguably representing the most significan t public health impact of air pollution. Women who breathe more air pollution have higher rates of adverse pregnancy ou tcomes, their newborn babies showing increased birth defects, genetic damage, and a life-long disease burden that includes higher rates of metabolic disorder s, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer,

Alzheimer’s and all diseases c onsequent to immuno-suppression. Id . at 8-9. The alteration of genetic material triggered by pollution can be se en within minutes, unders coring that short-term spikes in air pollution harm developing fetuses. Id.V. Air Quality in the Nonattainment Areas In 2015, the American Lung Association (ALA ) designated the metropolitan area of Salt Lake City, Provo and Orem as having the 7th worst short-term PM 2.5 air pollution in the nation – the most polluted locatio n outside of California. 2 Logan was ranked as the 8th worst area in the

nation. Id. The ALA estimated that, in the Salt La ke City metropolitan area, there are 734,560 children under the age of 18; 214,000 adults over the age of 65; 45,600 children with asthma; 148,700 adults with asthma; 64,000 adults with chronic obstructive pu lmonary disease; 99,000 adults with cardiovascular disease; 113,350 adu lts with diabetes; and, 284,260 individuals living in poverty, all of whom are particularly at risk fo r heart attacks, strokes, emergency room visits for asthma, cardiovascular disease, and an early death brought on by PM 2.5 . Id. Based on this analysis, the ALA gave Cache, Davis, Salt Lake City, Utah and Weber counties “F” grades for their high particulate air pollution days in 2011-2013. Id. at 156. Over the same time frame, Salt Lake County was given an “F” for its high ozone pollution days, while Utah and Weber counties received “D” grades. Id. Monitors quantify this public health emergency. Since 2009, Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah, Cache counties and the most populous areas of Tooele and Box Elder counties have been formally designated as failing to attain the nation’s 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, 58768-70 (November 13, 2009). These counties are included in the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas. Id. Salt Lake County, Utah Count y and Ogden City are also designated as nonattainment areas for the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS, and Salt Lake and Toole

counties as nonattainment areas for the SO 2 NAAQS. 3

2 http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/as sets/ALA_State_of_the_Air_2015.pdf at 11 3 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/g reenbk/ancl.html. The 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3- year average of the a nnual 98th percentile 24-Our air pollution is serious. In 2013, air qua lity along the Wasatch Front exceeded the

24-hour PM 2.5 standard on at least 43 days – often by alarming levels. In January of that year, the monitor at the playground of Hawthorne Elem entary School recorded 17 violations of the NAAQS, with a high reading of 62 μg/m 3 , almost double the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m 3

. 4 In Lindon, January also brought 17 exceedances with a high reading of 123 μg/m 3 – 350% of the standard – while in Logan the standard wa s violated on 18 days, topping out at 97 μg/m 3

. Id. Over the entire year, monitored values in Logan exceeded the standard on 39 days and values in Salt Lake City on 37 days. 5 This means that for more than a month, our community – including its most vulnerable populations, the young and the ol d – were subjected to levels of air pollution considerably higher than concentrations deemed unsafe and unhealthy at exposures lasting only 24 hours. 71 Fed. Reg. 61144, 61150-77 (Oct. 17, 2006). In January of 2014, the Hawthorne monitor recorded that the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard was exceeded on 13 days and the Logan monitor dete rmined violations on 11 days. The highest reading that month – 68 μg/m 3 – was in Ogden. 6 The winter of 2014 to 2015 was an outlier – the

warmest Utah winter on record. 7 The average temperature over the months December 2014 to February 2015 was 6.8o F higher than th e 20th Century average temperature. Id. The average

hour average PM 2.5 concentration is less than or equal to 35 μg/m 3 . As EPA explains, the standard is “defined as an integer (zero decimal places) as determined by rounding. For example, a 3-year average 98th pe rcentile concentration of 35.49 μg/m 3 would round to 35 μg/m 3 and thus meet the 24-hour standard and a 3-year average of 35.50 μg/m 3 would round to 36 and, hence, violate the 24-hour standard.” http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/st andards/pm/s_pm_history.html. 4 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN13.pdf 5 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm 6 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN14.pdf 7 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp -and-precip/climatologicalrankings/index.php?periods%5B%5D=3¶meter =tavg&state=42&div=0&month=2&year=2 015#ranks-formminimum temperature for that period was also the warmest ever and the average maximum temperature the second warmest on r ecord and the warmest since 1981. Id. As a result, air quality in the nonattainment areas generally me t the standard. In January 2015, the Hawthorne monitor logged 4 readings over the standard, the highest at 53 μg/m 3 , while the Rose Park

monitor documented 5 exceedance s, the highest at 56 μg/m 3

. 8 Periods of high ozone concentrations are in creasingly plaguing the Wasatch Front. In 1978, Davis and Salt Lake counties were designated as not meeting the then applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 9 EPA revised the ozone NAAQS, first in 1997, by replacing the 1-hour standard

with an 8-hour standard and th en by lowering the standard in 2008. 10 Initially, Utah was deemed in compliance with the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 11 However, now significant portions of the Wasatch Front ar e failing to comply with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. For example, in 2012, there were 13 days in the Sa lt Lake City-Ogden-Clea rfield airshed that

exceeded the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (.075 ppm) a nd 5 days in the Provo-Orem airshed. 12 The greater Salt Lake City area recorded 11 da ys that exceeded the 2008 standard in 2013 and Provo-Orem 5 days. In 2014, air qu ality in both the Salt Lake City and Provo areas exceeded the 2008 ozone standard on 4 days. Preliminary 2015 data show 11 days where readings in the Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield airshed surpassed the 8-hour ozone standard. 13 On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8- hour NAAQS for ground- level ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb), based on extensive scien tific evidence about ozone’s adverse effects on

8 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 9 http://www3.epa.gov/airqual ity/greenbook/phistory_ut.html 10 http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/st andards/ozone/s_o3_history.html 11 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ 12 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarch ive/archo3.htm (Violation Days (CSV)) 13 http://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.htmlpublic health and welfare. 14 EPA determined, based on existing monitored data for ozone concentrations in Utah, that Salt Lake, Utah, Weber, Tooele, Duchesne and Uintah counties are not attaining the 2015 ozone standard. 15 Utah will be required to develop, secure EPA approval of and implement an ozone SIP for any nonattainme nt area that is not in compliance with the

2015 ozone standard. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7509 & 7511-7511f. Examination of predicted and monitored “desi gn values,” representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations and the ma nner in which compliance

with the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is determined, confirm that the Three NAAs will be plagued by dangerous air quality for years to come. For example, the Director’s air quality models concluded that the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas would not meet the 24-hour

PM 2.5 NAAQS until December 14, 2019, and then only by the slimmest margin. Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.21 at 40 (December 3, 2013) (“[T]h is plan identifies an attainment date of December 14, 2019, and requests that the Administrator extend the attainment date the full 5 years permissible under Section 172(a)(2) of the Act.”) ; Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 40 (Provo Nonattainment Area); Utah SIP, Sectio n IX. Part A.21 (December 3, 2014) at 58, fn. 1 (“The SIP revision adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on December 4, 2013 had demonstrated attainment by December 14, 2019. This SIP revision includes a demonstration under CAA Section 189(a)(1)(B) th at it is impracticable to attain the NAAQS in 2015.”) Moreover, in the 2014 PM 2.5 SIP, the Director estimated that, after accounting for emission reductions from the SIP measures, th e 2013-2015 “design value” – the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations – at the Hawthorne, Salt Lake City

14 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/actions.html 15 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/maps.htmlmonitoring station would be 37 μg/m 3 . Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.21 at 43 (December 3, 2014) (2015 design value based on the “combination of SIP reductions on point sources and new rules to be implemented that will affect sma ller commercial and industrial businesses”). Likewise, the Director anticip ated a 2015 design value for th e Lindon, Utah County monitoring station of 36 μg/m 3 . Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 43 (December 3, 2014) Given that Utah is having extreme difficulty secu ring the emission reductions nece ssary to attain the NAAQS and is failing to show attainment before Decem ber 2019, the difference between these 2015 design

values and attainment constitutes a considerable ba rrier to compliance. Thus, when the effects of

the 2014 SIP measures and emission reductions were modeled , the 2015 design values for the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas were predicted to exceed the NAAQS by a considerable margin. Moreover, 2015 design values based on monitored 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations

confirm that the nonattainment areas are not clos e to attaining the NAAQS. The 3-year averages of the annual 98th percentile monitored PM 2.5 concentrations for the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas, calculated by averag ing the 98th percentile monitored 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations for 2013 and 2014 with the 98th percentile monitored January 2015 concentrations, are 43.8 μg/m 3 and 42.8 μg/m 3 , respectively. 16, 17 These design values are

16 If the January 2015 98th percentile concen tration monitored at Hawthorne (29.3 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile mo nitored values from 2013 and 2014, 58.8 μg/m 3 and 43.3 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.8 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS. http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 17 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentr ation monitored at Lindon to date (26.9 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile mo nitored values from 2013 and 2014, 72.4 μg/m 3 and 29.1 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 42.8 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS.substantially higher than the NAAQS and significantly higher than the modeled values of 37 μg/m 3 and 36 μg/m 3

. More importantly, the monitored design values (3-year average of the annual 98 th percentile) for the Hawthorne monitor – 38.2 μg/m 3 (2010-2012), 41.1 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 43.7 μg/m 3 (2012-2014), 18 and 43.8 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) – show a steady trend away from attainment and certainly do not show linear progress toward attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. Similarly, the monitored design values for the Lindon monitor – 32.4 μg/m 3 (2010- 2012), 44.3 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 41.8 μg/m 3 (2012-2014), 19 and 42.8 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) and the Logan monitor – 37.3 μg/m 3 (2010-2012), 45.8 μg/m 3 (2011-2013), 45 μg/m 3 (2012- 2014), 20 and 43.2 μg/m 3 (2013-January 2015) 21 – fail to establish c onsistent progress toward attainment of the NAAQS. 22 VI. Air Quality Is of Overwhelming Concern to Utahns. Addressing Utah’s poor air quality is increasingly a top concer n of Utah’s urban dwellers.

A Salt Lake Tribune poll released on January 20, 2014 found that 57% of Utahns reported being

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 18 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 19 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 20 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 21 If the January 2015 98th percen tile concentration monitored at the Logan monitor (21.8 μg/m 3 ) is averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 68 μg/m 3 and 39.9 μg/m 3 respectively, the result, repres enting the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.2 μg/m 3 , which eclipses the NAAQS. http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/da taarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 22 December 2015 monitored values for the Thr ee NAAs have been high enough that the annual 98th percentile of the 24-hour PM 2.5 concentration will ultimately be greater than the numbers used to make these calculations. Thus, the design values for 2013-2015 will increase.more concerned about air quality than they were five years ago. Those polled also favored, by a 3 to 1 margin, tougher emission standards for industry. On January 25, 2014, more than 5,000 Utahns stood on the steps of the Capitol to advocate for state government intervention in the fight against air pollution. Protesters wore surgical and gas masks to demonstrate thei r understanding that Wasatch Front air quality

threatens their health. A child bo re a sign stating simply that “I want to play outside.” Another common slogan read “Clean Air Now, No Excuse s.” Dr. Moench, founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, told the crowd, “The most fundamental right there is is the right to breathe clean air. Air pollution tarnishes our community reputation, erod es our quality of life and stifles our economy much as it does our lungs.” 23 A survey released by Envision Utah on January 15, 2015 revealed that Utahns rank poor air quality as detracting from their quality of life more than any other aspect of living in the state

– more than Utah’s lack of di versity, education constraints an d scarcity of water combined. 24 Survey authors noted that “poor air quality threatens core va lues identified in the survey, attacking the health of families and impairing the ability to get out and enjoy that scenic beauty.” 25 The study concluded while Utahns rank ai r quality as one of the most important issues in the state, they also believe that Ut ah is performing worse on air quality than on any

other issue. Id. “The concern about air quality relates pr imarily to the impacts to health, the

23 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57 447995-78/capitol-clean-indus try-lake.html.csp 24 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/ Utah-residents-rank-ai r-pollution-as-No-1- threat-to-quality-of-l ife.html?pg=all. 25 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/ Utah-residents-rank-ai r-pollution-as-No-1- threat-to-quality-of -life.html?pg=allinability to enjoy the outdoors during poor air qu ality episodes, and the legacy we leave for future generations,” Envision Utah stat ed. “Utahns want the air to improve.” 26 In April and May, 2015, 52,845 Utahns participated in a more detailed Envision Utah survey. These participants also “ranked air qual ity as one of the state’s most important issues, and a resounding three out of four Utahns vot ed to reduce emissions by 40% from [today’s levels], even as Utah’s population nearly doubles.” 27 This 75% of survey participants indicated that they wanted air quality that was well within national health -based standards. Id. VII. Regulatory Background On October 17, 2006, EPA revise d the 24-hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 to provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level to 35 μg/m 3 . 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). Effective on December 14, 2009, EPA designated th e Three NAAs as nonattainment for the 2006

PM 2.5 standard. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, (Nov. 13, 2009). 28 On June 2, 2014, EPA classified all the areas that were designated in 2009 – includi ng the Three NAAs – as “Moderate” nonattainment areas and required those areas to submit Moderate SIPs to EPA by December 31, 2014. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(a); 79 Fed. Reg. 31566 (June 2, 2014). 29 Among other requirements, the Moderate SIPs for the Three NAAs must provide for the imp lementation of all reasonably available control measures [RACM] for the control of PM 2.5 as expeditiously as pract icable, but no later than December 14, 2013. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(C). The plans must also either demonstrate that the plan will provide for attainment by the Moderate attainment date –

26 http://www.sltrib.com/news/2063029-155/ utahns-rank-poor-air-quality-the 27 http://yourutahyourfuture.org/topics/air-qual ity/item/48-your-utah-your-f uture-survey-results 28 EPA originally designated these areas under Clean Air Act title I, part D, subpart 1. Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM 2.5 24-hour standard based on both CAA title I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4. 29 The rule did not affect the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015.December 31, 2015 – or demonstrate that attainment by that date is impracticable. 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(B). As explained above, Utah submitted SIPs for the Three NAAs that

demonstrated attainment of the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015 was impracticable. That demonstration has proven to be accura te. Despite fairly good air quality in 2015 to date, none of the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by December 31,

2015 – the Moderate attainment date. 30 Because the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is based on the 3- year average of the annual 98th percentile, and annual values for 2013 and 2014 were so high, the relevant 3-year average (2013-2015) for each nonattainment area will be considerably greater than 35 μg/m 3

. 31 Based on January 2015 monitored da ta, the 2013-2015 desi gn values are 43.8 μg/m 3 for the Hawthorne monitor, 42.8 μg/m 3 for the Lindon monitor, and 43.2 μg/m 3 for the Logan monitor. These values exceed the 24-hour standard by a substantial amount. On November 9, 2015, acknowledging that the Three NAAs could not attain the 24-hour

PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2015, EPA proposed to “bump up” the designation of the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas to “Serious” areas prior to the Moderate attainment date pursuant to its purported 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(1), Clean Air Act § 188(b)(1), authority. 80 Fed. Reg. 69173, 69178 (Nov. 9, 2015); 80 Fed. Reg. 69172 (Nov. 9, 2015). Alternatively, after the Moderate attainment da te, EPA is required to designate the Three NAAs

30 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) (the moderate “attainment date shall be as exped itiously as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth cal endar year after the area’s designation as nonattainment”); 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, 58768-70 (November 13, 2009) (designating Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas as of December 14, 2009). 31 Footnotes 16, 17 and 21, supra . http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12- 14Avepm25.pdfas “Serious” areas by operation of the law pursu ant to 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2), Clean Air Act § 188(b)(2). Regardless of the route the Three NAAs take to designation as Serious areas, the Director must, no later than “18 months af ter reclassification of the area as a Serious Area,” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2), 32 submit “provisions to assure that the best available control measures for the control of [PM 2.5 ] shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a Seri ous Area.” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2) (referencing paragraph (1)(B)). In other words, by June 2017 or shortly th ereafter, the Director must, at minimum, present a “Serious” SIP id entifying all best available control measures (BACM) and establishing that these measures will be implemented in the nonattainment areas no

later than 2019. The designation of the Three NAAs as “Serious” underscores the need for the immediate implementation of the effective and potent meas ures necessary to bring these areas into attainment as soon as possible. Because of the significant th reat to public health and the environment posed by air pollution that exceed s the national standard s, the Clean Air Act demands that air quality in nonattainment areas be brought into compliance with the NAAQS as soon as possible. Specifically, where air quality exceeds the health-based standards, such as in the Three NAAs, the Clean Air Act requires that measures be taken immediately to attain NAAQS as “expeditiously as practicable.” E.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A) & (a)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) (“For a Moderate Area, the a ttainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than th e end of the sixth calendar year after the area’s designation as

32 Reclassification dates to the failure of the area to attain the NAAQS – December 31, 2015. See 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he area shall be re classified by operation of law as a Serious Area.”).nonattainment”) & (c)(2) (“For a Seri ous Area, the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than th e end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area’s designation as nonattainment.”). Thus, the law guarantees Utah’s citizens air that meets the national standards as promptly as feasible.

VIII. The Proposed Rule Is Legally Mandated and Represents a Sound Strategy for Attaining the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS as Expediti ously as Possible.

A. The Offset Rule Will Minimize Increases of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 Precursors.

The Offset Rule will minimize emission increases of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors from industrial sources by requiring th at emission reductions be obtain ed from existing sources to

“offset” emission increases from new and modified sources of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors located in the Three NAAs. The required emissi on offsets will minimize increases in emissions to ensure, as the Clean Air Act requires, that these areas will attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 national standards as expediti ously as practicable, see, e.g. , 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2), and will

continue to maintain the PM 10 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a). Federal law applicable to Utah already requi res, at a minimum, offsets for new major sources and major modifications to existing major sources of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors. 42 U.S.C. § 7503(a)(1)(A). In Se rious nonattainment areas, the Cl ean Air Act defines a “major” source as one that emits (or has the potent ial to emit) 70 tons per year (tpy) of PM 2.5 . 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(3) (explaining that for a Serious Area, “major source” includes “any stationary source...that emits, or has the potential to emit, at least 70 tons per year” of PM 2.5 ); 80 Fed. Reg. 15340, 15463 (March 23, 2015). Any control requir ements in a SIP applicable to major stationary sources of particulate matter must also apply to major stationary sources of particulate precursors. 42 U.S.C § 7513a(e). Therefore, fo r Serious nonattainment areas, EPA has proposed to set the major source threshold for the PM 2.5 precursors NO X , SO 2 and VOCs to 70 tpy. 80Fed. Reg. at 15433 & 15463. These means that unde r current federal law, in a Serious nonattainment area, offsets are required for a ne w major source that has the potential to emit 70 tpy or more of PM 2.5 , NO X , SO 2 or VOCs. For the purpose of determining when a change to a major source qualifies as a major modification, EPA has proposed to defi ne a “significant” emissions increase 33 as an increase of 10 tpy of PM 2.5 and 40 tpy of the PM 2.5 precursors NO X , SO 2 and VOCs. Id. at 15463. Therefore, as proposed under current federal law, in a Serious nonattainment area, offsets would be required for a modification to a major source (emitting 70 tpy or more of PM 2.5 , NO X , SO 2 or VOCs) resulting in an emissions increase of 10 tpy or more of PM 2.5 and 40 tpy or more of the

PM 2.5 precursors NO X , SO 2 and VOCs. The Offset Rule merely reduces these thresholds for the purposes of determining when offsets are required. Under the rule, offsets ar e required for any new stationary source that

would be located in the Three NAAs a nd that has the potential to emit PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in an amount equal to or greater th an the following emissions levels:



### PM 2.5 

### 25 tpy

SO 2 

### 40 tpy NO X 

### 40 tpy VOCs 40 tpy Total of PM 2.5 

### +

SO 2 

### + NO X 

### + VOCs 50 tpy

33 In this context, significant emissions increa se refers to a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase.As a result of the offset requirement, emissi on increases from these new sources would be balanced by emission reductions with a result that guarantees a net be nefit to air quality. Similarly, the Offset Rule mandates offset s for a modification to an existing source

where the modification would increase emissions of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in an amount equal to or greater than the following emissions levels:



### PM 2.5 

### 25 tpy

SO 2 

### 40 tpy NOx 40 tpy VOCs 40 tpy Total of PM 2.5 

### +

SO 2 

### + NOx + VOCs 50 tpy

Finally, under the Offset Rule, offsets must be obtained for any modification to a “large” existing source – defined as having the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors – where the modification would re sult in an increase of emissions of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in an amount equal to or grea ter than the following emissions levels:



### PM 2.5 

### 5 tpy

SO 2 

### 20 tpy NOx 20 tpy VOCs 20 tpy Total of PM 2.5 

### +

SO 2 

### + NOx + VOCs 30 tpy

As explained above, in Serious nonattainment areas, the Clean Air Act defines a “major source” as any stationary source that emits or ha s the potential to emit 70 tons per year or moreof PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors. 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(3) & (e). Therefore, the Offset Rule requires that emission increases from modifications to sources defined as “major” in Serious

nonattainment areas at the levels listed above be offset by corresponding emission reductions. Again, the rule mandates that emission increases from these modifications would be balanced by corresponding emission reductions and guarantees a net improvement in air quality in the

nonattainment area. Importantly, recognizing that emissions of PM 2.5 are more potent and contribute more directly to increased concentrations of PM 2.5 than do emissions of PM 2.5 precursors, the Offset Rule restricts interpollutant trad ing. For example, increases in 

### PM 2.5 

### must be offset by

reductions of PM 2.5 , while emissions of SO 2 may be offset by reductions of SO 2 and PM 2.5 . NO X emission increases may be o ffset by reductions of NOx, PM 2.5 and VOCs and VOCs increases may be offset by reductions of VOCs and PM 2.5 . Interpollutant trading in combinations other than those pr ovided by the rule ar e allowed only if there is a demonstration that the proposed offsets will yi eld a net air quality improvement.

The Offset Rule is modeled after two exis ting Utah rules, Utah Admin. Code R307-421 and R307-403-5. These rules similarly lowered the threshold for requiring offsets for PM 10 and

PM 10 precursors with the goal of attaining the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS expeditious ly. As with

PM 2.5 , federal law applicable to Utah already re quires, at a minimum, offsets for new major sources and major modifications to existing sources of PM 10 and PM 10 precursors. 42 U.S.C. § 7503(a)(1)(A). For Moderate areas, the Clean Air Act defines a “major” source as one that emits (or has the potential to emit) 100 tpy of PM 10 or PM 10 precursors. 40 C.F.R. § 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)( 1 ); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(A). Fo r the purpose of determining when aproject would be a major modifi cation, federal law defines a “s ignificant” emissions increase 34 as an increase of 15 tpy of PM 10 and 40 tpy of the PM 10 precursors NO X , SO 2 and VOCs. 40 C.F.R. § 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A). Like the Offset Rule, Utah Admin. Code R307-421 and R307-403-5 require offsets for

emission increases of PM 10 and PM 10 precursors from new sour ces and modifications at thresholds much lower than those imposed by fede ral law. Affecting both Salt Lake and Utah counties, R307-421 applies equally to new sources (or the potential to emit of a new source) and modifications (or an emission increa se from a modification of a source) . In either instance, if the

emission increases of the PM 10 precursors NO X or SO 2 from the project equal 50 tpy or more, offsets in a ratio of 1.2 units of emission decrease to 1unit of emission increase are required. Utah Admin. Code R307-421-3(1)(a). For an emission increase of NO X or SO 2 of 25 tpy or more, but less than 50 tpy, an offset ratio of 1 to 1 is mandated. Id. at 3(1)(b). R307-403-5 applies to sources in or that impact PM 10 nonattainment areas and similarly equates emission increases from new sources (or the potential to emit from a new source) to emission increases from modifications (or the emission increases from a modification of an existing source). In either case, if the emission increases of PM 10 , NO X and SO 2 from the project combined equal 50 tpy or more, an offset ratio of 1.2 to 1 is required. Utah Admin. Code R307- 403-5(1)(b). For a combined project emission increase of PM 10 , NO X and SO 2 of 25 tpy or more, but less than 50 tpy, an offset ratio of 1 to 1 is mandated. Utah Admin. Code R307-403-5(1)(c). These offsets may be met by any combination of PM 10 , NO X and SO 2 reductions. Utah Admin. Code R307-403-5(2). Thus, both the existing Utah PM 10 offset rules and the proposed Offset

34 In this context, significant emissions increa se refers to a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase.Rule acknowledge that reducing the offset threshold is a reasonable way to help achieve the relevant 24-hour particulate matter NAAQS as expe ditiously as possible. Moreover, these rules

lower the thresholds for new and modified sources to a comparable extent. Chart 1 compares the threshold at which existing fede ral law requires offsets for PM 10 and PM 10 precursors to the thresholds imposed by Utah Admin. Code R307- 403-5 for both new sources and modifications. Exhibit “3” attached. Chart 2 likewise comp ares existing federal law thresholds for PM 2.5 and

PM 2.5 precursors to those envisioned by the proposed Offset Rule. Id. B. The Proposed Rule Is a Necessary Component of Both a Moderate and Serious SIP. 1. Utah Must Implement All Reason ably Available Control Measures and Additional Reasonable Measures. A nonattainment SIP shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonabl y available control t echnology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. 42 U. S.C. § 7502(c)(1); 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. 35 For particulate matter nonattainment areas, Congress mandated th at Moderate area attainment plans contain provisions to assure that RACM and RACT ar e implemented no later than four years after designation, 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(C), or in th e case of the Utah nonattainment areas, no later than December 2013. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58768-70 (November 13, 2009) (designating the Three NAAs on December 14, 2009). Thus, Utah’s Moderate SIP must provide for the implementation

of RACM and RACT for existing sources of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 2013. This is true even though the Three NAAs cannot

35 Id. at 15464 (RACM “is any technologically and ec onomically feasible measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the date of designation of a PM 2.5 nonattainment area and that achieves permanen t and enforceable reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions and/or PM 2.5 precursor emissions from sources in the area. RACM includes reasonably available control technology (RACT)”).practicably attain by the statutor y attainment date and therefore will be designated as “Serious” areas. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. Beyond RACM and RACT, nonattainment SIPs must “include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, mean s or techniques. . . as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment.” 42 U. S.C. § 7502(c)(6). This requires states to implement any technologically and economically feasible control measur es, including control technologies, for all sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, that can only be implemented after the 4 year deadline for RACM and RACT has passed, but before six years after the designation date. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15368. 36 In the case of the Three NAAs, Utah must have imposed these additional reasonable measures th at are capable of being implemented before December 31, 2015. In Moderate areas that cannot practicably comply with the standard by the statutory attainment date, states must still implement all RACM and RACT, together with any additional reasonable measures, on sources in the nonattainment area. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15369. 2. Utah Must Implement All Be st Available Control Measures

. As they have failed to attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2015, the Three NAAs will be designated “Serious” area by EPA as an operation of law. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2)(A). Alternatively, EPA has proposed to acknowledge that the Three NAAs cannot practicably attain the st andard and, prior to the Moderate atta inment date, designate the areas as “Serious” nonattainment areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7513( b)(1). In either case, the Director must, no

later than “18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area,” 42 U.S.C. §

36 Id. at 15464 (“Additional reasonable measure is any control meas ure that otherwise meets the definition of [RACM] but can only be implemen ted in whole or in part during the period beginning 4 years after the date of designation of a nonattainment area and no later than the end of the sixth calendar year following th e date of designation of the area.”).7513a(b)(2), submit “provisions to as sure that the best available c ontrol measures for the control

of PM 10 [including PM 2.5 ] shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a Serious Area.” 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(2) (referencing paragraph (1)(B)). Th us, by June 14, 2017, the Director must, at minimum, present a “Serious” SIP identifying all best available control measures (BACM) and establishing that these measures will be implem ented in the nonattainment areas no later than

December 2019. BACM is “the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable from a source or source category which is determined on a case- by-case basis, consider ing energy, economic and environmental impacts and other costs.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15405; id. at 15464 (BACM “is any technologically and economically feasible control measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the date of reclassification of a PM 2.5 nonattainment area and that generally can achieve greater permanent and en forceable emissions reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions and/or emissions of PM 2.5 precursors from sources in the area than can be achieved through the implementation of RACM on the same source(s). BACM includes best available control technology (BACT).”). 3. The Offset Rule is a Necessary El ement of RACM and BACM and Required to Ensure that the Three NAAs Will Attain the 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS Expeditiously. Utah is currently under significant obligati on to impose reasonable and best control

measures on and secure substantial reduce emissions from industrial sources in the nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act requires Utah to have implemented all RACM and other additional reasonable measures by December 31, 2015. Starting December 31, 2015, the State is also required to begin implementing any BACM as expeditiously as practicable. Ultimately, the

Clean Air Act mandates attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard as soon as is feasible. There isreal urgency in the mandate that Utah immediately take the steps necessary to bring the Three

NAAs into attainment with the standard. Initially, the Offset Rule will minimize emission increases of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors from industrial sources by requiring emission reduc tions from existing sources to offset emission

increases from new or modified sources of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors located in the Three

NAAs. This is a reasonable measure and an im portant step toward attaining the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable as Utah attempts to reduce emissions of these pollutants significantly and to do so from every sector.

That the rule is reasonable and could have b een enacted before the Moderate attainment date – and therefore must be implemented as pa rt of the Moderate SIP – is underscored by the fact that Utah adopted a very sim ilar rule as part of its effort to bring Salt Lake and Utah counties and Ogden into attainment with the 24-hour PM 10 standard. Before 2006, the PM 10 standards were the sole mechanisms by which particulate ma tter air pollution was regulated. At that time, Utah properly acknowledged that a rule th at would minimize emission increases of PM and PM precursors from industrial sources was a technologi cally and economically feasible measure that could be implemented at any time. The same r easoning applies here – and even more strongly –

as Utah failed to attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015, and monitored design values exceed the standard by levels that s how substantially more emission reductions are

necessary. Adoption of the Offset Rule is further manda ted because it is also BACM and therefore, given that the nonattainment areas will necessarily be designated as Serious areas, must be implemented as expeditiously as possible. See 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(2). The Offset Rule represents “the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable”from industrial sources. Again, given Utah’s adop tion of a similar rule to resolve the state’s

failure to attain the PM 10 standards, the Offset Rule is plai nly in keeping with Utah’s previous reasonable approach to particulate matter pollution and represents a measure that will achieve the

maximum reductions of industrial emissions. Thus, whether looked at through the lens of RACM or BACM, the Offset Rule is a

feasible element of a Moderate or Serious SI P and a reasonable measure that will minimize

increases in emissions or secure the maximu m degree of emission reduction achievable to ensure, as the Clean Air Act requires, that th e nonattainment areas wi ll attain the 24-hour PM 2.5 national standards as expe ditiously as practicable, see, e.g. , 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2), and

will continue to maintain the PM 10 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a). C. The Proposed Rule Furth ers Other Legal and Policy Goals.

State and local officials in Utah have sought for years to id entify appropriate measures to help reduce dangerous emissions of air pollution and bring Utah into compliance with the 24- hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 . Those efforts have borne fruit, but additional steps – including this proposed rule – are necessary to en sure expeditious and long-term co mpliance with the standard. First, given that all projections agree that Utah’s population and economy will continue to grow significantly in the coming decades, our ai r quality policies will need to keep pace by enacting controls to address expanding mobile, ar ea and point sources. Ce nsus data released earlier this year 37 show familiar statistics: a five-year populat ion growth rate that ranks fourth in the nation; the second highest growth in new hom es over the past year; and, the third highest

37 Another Piece to the Puzzle: Census R eveals Utah’s Growth Among Top In Nation , Deseret News, 2015-05-20, http://www.deseretnews.co m/article/865629128/Another-piece-to-thepuzzle-Census-reveals-Utahs-growth -among-top-in-nation.html?pg=allover the previous five. The state’s population recently surpassed three million residents – and is projected to hit four million in as few as 16 years. 38 According to a detailed report from the Utah Foundation, 39 which examined a wide array of research, much of that growth is expected no t just in our non-attainme nt areas, but in more far-flung suburban areas, raising th e specter of a significant incr ease in commutes and vehicle miles travelled (VMTs). Predictions of Utah’s future emissions inventor y offer some significant reasons for hope – particularly due to a slow but steady reduction from the mobile sector. Our cars and trucks will pollute less both because of the EPA’s Tier 3 program and also from increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. But much of those gains will be eaten away by increases in population, the number of homes and in overall VMTs, due to more cars on the road and the expansion of the suburbs. These trends mean that Utah will need to

continue to find additional emission reductions and bolster its regulatory oversight for decades to come – twin goals that our proposed rule will accomplish. Secondly, Utah faces serious repercussi ons if it does not meet the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by 2019. While the precise penalties are not certain, the Clean Air Ac t gives a clear idea of what might come. Sanctions include: 1) being required to adopt the most stringent measures being implemented in any other states, 42 U.S.C. § 75 13(e); and, 2) having to identify an additional 5 percent emission cuts across the board every year until the standard has been attained. 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(d). Each of these requireme nts serves to take discretion out of the state’s hands, forcing

38 Herbert Says there Are Three Million People Living in Utah ,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2015- 10-26, http://www.sltrib.com/home/3103221-155/ utahs-population-surpasses-3-million. 39 A Snapshot of 2050: An Analysis of Projected Population Change in Utah , the Utah Foundation, April 2014, http://www.ut ahfoundation.org/uploads/rr720.pdfthe state to implement measures th at would be not be tailored to Utah’s particular situation and that would likely be unpopular. Third, as it reviews Utah’s M oderate SIP, Serious SIP and a ny request for an extension of the attainment date for a Serious area, EPA has au thority to approve or disapprove aspects of the plans and, if necessary, assume authority to develop and implement a SIP. See 42 U.S.C. § 7502(b), (c) & (d); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k); 42 U. S.C. § 7513(e); 42 U.S.C. § 7509. Thus, we believe, it is important for state officials to demo nstrate that Utah is willing to make difficult decisions and embrace policies that will reduce em issions from all polluting sectors, including large stationary sources. More colloquially, it is urgent to look under every rock for emissions cuts and it is important that Utah exhibit a will ingness to impose these available measures with the goal of achieving the national standard as soon as possible. Fourth, there are significant advantages to having the Division and the Board carefully consider this rule on its own merits, rather than as an element of a Moderate SIP or the Serious SIP that Utah will be required to develop and impl ement in the next two years. Utah’s SIPs have

been and will continue to be highly technical and expansive docu ments, covering a wide range of control measures. The 2014 SIP, for example, included 23 new rules on area sources alone. Due to the sheer volume of these plans and the documents that support them, it is very difficult for the Board and the public to de bate any particular SIP provision or to offer revisions to the SIP in the short comment period that has typi cally attended these rulemaking efforts. The rule presented here, on the other hand, o ffers opportunity for i ndividual scrutiny. The Division, public and regulated community will have the chance to provide meaningful and detailed feedback, while the Board will have th e chance to carefully review these comments onerule at a time, which is very difficult to do when it is faced with approving or disapproving of an entire nonattainment SIP as a single rule. Lastly, we maintain that it is valuable to focus rulemaking on stationary sources, even though inventories suggest that emissions from this sector are less than emissions from either mobile or area sources. Various estimates, whic h misleadingly give equa l weight to direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, indicate that about 12 percent of total emissions in the Salt Lake City nonattainment area come from stationary sour ces and the 2013 SIP an ticipates that by 2019, these sources will account for 28 percent of direct PM 2.5 emissions in the area. It is true that

mobile and area sources contribute significantly to our failure to at tain the NAAQS. That is why we have pushed hard for rules, programs and funds to address these sources of PM 2.5 emissions, such as the Tier 3 program, electric vehicle in centives, expansion of transit funding, updates to building codes, and low NO X hot water heater requirements. We are confident that rules addressing la rge industrial sources have merit as one important piece of an overall strategy intended to bring the nonattainment areas into compliance

with the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practi cable. Cleaning up Utah’s air is not about adopting a few measures or addressing only those sect ors that contribute the most emissions. Rather, the severity of our air po llution problem requires that we implement every effective measure and strategy to reduce emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors. Because the proposed rule, backed by the EPA and modele d after an existing Utah rule, will minimize emission increases and strengthen the state’s overall oversight of stationary sources, is not only worth debating, but also worth addi ng to our SIP as an appropri ate and necessary addition to a legally robust plan designed to attain and maintain the NAAQS.IX. Conclusion

The Offset Rule is a critical component of an adequate PM 2.5 SIP. By lowering the

emission thresholds above which offsets are re quired and therefore minimizing increases in

emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, the rule benefits air quality and health, and helps to ensure, as the Clean Air Act requires, that the Three NAAs will attain the PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as expeditiously as practic able, and will continue to maintain the

PM 10 NAAQS. Therefore, Western Resource Advocates, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and HEAL Utah resp ectfully ask the Air Quality Boar d to initiate Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 rulemaking proceedings relative to the Offset Rule as authorized by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii) and ultima tely to adopt the proposed rule. Respectfully submitted the 14th day of January 2016.

JORO WALKER ROB DUBUC Attorneys for Utah Physicians, et al

.Exhibit List

Exhibit “1” Offset Rule – Proposed Text Exhibit “2” Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution

Exhibit “3” Chart 1 and Chart 2

## EXHIBIT “1”The “Offset Rule”

R307-XXX: PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas: Offsets.

R307-XXX-1. Definitions.

The terms used in this rule shall have the mean ing given to the terms as defined in Utah Admin. Code R307-101-2, unless specifically defined below: (1) PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area means any area(s) of nonatta inment for any of the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency at 40 C.F.R. § 81.345. (2) New Stationary Source means, for the purposes of this rule, a building, structure, facility or installation that emits or has the potential to em it any air pollutant upon which construction commenced on or after the date of enactment of this rule and that is or will be located within a PM 2.5 nonattainment area and that is not specifically accounted for in the baseline and attainment emission inventories of the state implementation plan for a PM 2.5 nonattainment area adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board in December 2014. (3) Existing Stationary Source means, for the purposes of this ru le, a building, stru cture, facility, or installation that emits or has the potentia l to emit any air pollutant upon which construction commenced before the date of enactment of this rule and that is located in a PM 2.5 nonattainment area and that has been accounted for in the base line and attainment emissi ons inventories of the state implementation plan for a PM 2.5 nonattainment area adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board in December 2014. (4) Large Existing Stationary Source means an existing stationary s ource that emits, or has the potential to emit 70 tons per year of PM 2.5 or 70 tons per year of any PM 2.5 precursor. (5) Modify, Modified or Modification means any planned change in a building, structure, facility, or installation that results in a potential increase of emissions. R307-XXX-2. Applicability (1) This rule applies to the following: (a) Any new stationary source in a PM 2.5 nonattainment area with the potential to emit PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in an amount equal to or greater than the following emissions levels:PM 2.5 25 tpy SO 2 40 tpy NO X 40 tpy VOCs 40 tpy Total of PM 2.5 + SO 2 + NO X + VOCs 50 tpy

(b) Any modification to an exis ting stationary source in a PM 2.5 nonattainment area that would result in an emission increase of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in an amount equal to or greater than the fo llowing emissions levels:

PM 2.5 25 tpy

SO 2 40 tpy NO X 40 tpy VOCs 40 tpy Total of PM 2.5 + SO 2 + NO X + VOCs 50 tpy

(c) Any modification to a large ex isting stationary source in a PM 2.5 nonattainment area that would result in an emission increase of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in an amount equal to or greater than the following emissions levels:

PM 2.5 5 tpy

SO 2 20 tpy NO X 20 tpy VOCs 20 tpy Total of PM 2.5 + SO 2 + NO X + VOCs 30 tpy

(2) To determine whether the emission increase due to a modification to an existing stationary source would equal or exceed the emissions levels in subsection (1), th e following calculation must be made: (a) Determine the potential to emit of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , and VOCs of the existing stationary source as modified. (b) Determine the “baseline emissions” of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , and VOCs of the existing stationary source in tons per year as the lower of the following: (i) the emissions, in tons per year, assume d for the existing stationary source in the control strategy or the attainment emissions inventory of the state implementation plan for the nonattainmen t area adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board in December 2014; or(ii) if no emissions are specifically identif ied for the existing stationary source in the state implementation plan for the PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, then the potential to emit of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , and VOCs for the installation. ( c ) The increase in emissions for a modification to an existing stationary source is then determined for each pollutant as the differe nce between the potential to emit of the existing stationary source as modi fied and the baseline emissions. (5) Fugitive emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , and/or VOCs must be in cluded when determining applicability to these emission offset requirements. (6) If a proposed new sta tionary source or installati on to be located in a PM 2.5 nonattainment area is a proposed major stationary source or major modification as those te rms are defined at R307- 403-1 for PM 2.5 , then the proposed new major stationary source or major modification must meet the emission offset requirements of R307-403-3(c) and R307-403-4. R307-XXX-3. Requirement to Ob tain Emission Offsets. (1) For any new stationary sour ce or modification to an existing stationary source that meets the applicability provisions above, enfo rceable emission offsets must be obtained at a ratio of greater than 1:1 for the emissions increases associated wi th the new stationary source or modification to an existing stationary source as calculated to determine applicab ility to this rule. Emission offsets must be obtained within the same source or from other sources locate d within that part of the same county encompassed by the PM 2.5 nonattainment area. (2) (a) For increases of PM 2.5 , emission offsets must be obtai ned from emission reductions of PM 2.5 . (b) For increases of SO 2 , emission offsets must be obtai ned from emission reductions of SO 2 or PM 2.5 or any combination of these two pollutants. (c) For increases of NO X , emission offsets must be obtai ned from emission reductions of NO X , PM 2.5 , or VOCs, or any combination of these pollutants. (d) For increases of VOCs, emission offsets must be obtained from reductions of VOCs or PM 2.5 or any combination of these two pollutions. (e) Emission reductions and interpollutant trad ing in combinations other than those stated above may be used for offsets only if a demonstr ation of a net air quality benefit is made. (3) Emission offsets for a new stationary source or modification to an existing stationary source must be enforceable by the time construction co mmences on the source and must have actually occurred by the time the new or modified stationary source commences operation.(4) Emission reductions otherwise required by the federal Clean Air Act or Utah Admin. Code R307, including any state implementation plan, shall not be creditable as emission reductions for purposes of any offset requirement. Incidental emission reductions which are not otherwise required by federal or state law shall be creditable as emission reductions if such emission reductions meet the requirements of this rule. R307-XXX-4. Baseline for Crediting Emission Reductions to Be Used as Offsets. (1) The baseline for crediting emi ssion reductions is determined at the time the source applies to provide emission offsets or to bank emission reduc tions as offsets and is the lowest of the following: (a) The allowable emissions for th e source under the EPA-approved state implementation plan; (b) The allowable emissions for the source under the control strategy of the most recent PM 2.5 state implementation plan adopted by the state; or (c) The actual emissions for the source, ba sed on an average of emissions over the two years prior to the application to provide or bank emission offsets. (2) Only those emission reductions below the ba seline for crediting emission reductions may be used as offsets.

## EXHIBIT “2”2 Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution

Medical research in the last ten years clearly indicates that, certainly for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), and likely also for ozone, there is no “safe level” of exposure. Even levels previously thought to be benign we now know are not. There is no threshold below which there are no health effects and all persons are adversel y affected by air polluti on, regardless of age or overall state of health. 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38903 (June 29, 2012). Most Utahns are exposed to high levels of ozone in the summer and PM 2.5 in the winter, as well as PM 10 and SO 2 year-round, meaning that a large percentage of Utah’s population is exposed re peatedly to unhealthy levels of pollution throughout the year. There is now evidence that exposure to ozone and PM 2.5 can act synergistically, increasing th e adverse health effects from these air pollutants. 1

PM 2.5 air pollution at the levels experienced by residents of the northern counties of Utah has the approximately same type and magnitude of biologic effect as living with an active

smoker. E.g. 71 Fed. Reg. 61144, 61157 (Oct. 17, 2006). That should not be a surprise, because

most of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke are al so found in fine particulate matter. As with smoking, particulate matter pollution and ozone cause increased systemic oxidative stress leading to pathologic vascular changes, including progression of atherosclerotic plaques to vulnerable forms, prothrombotic states, endothe lial dysfunction and altered autonomic nervous system control. 2 For the last several years, th e research-based conventional wisdom has been that with

each 10 μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 long-term average, there is an increase in community mortality rate of about 10%. 3 New research draws an even stronger correlation – a mortality rate of 14%

for each 10 μ g/m 3 increase. 4 The elderly and those with existing morbidities are particularly vulnerable to air pollution consequences.3 Based on extrapolations from numerous st udies and the American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement explained below, Ut ah Physicians estimates that between 1,400 and 2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM 2.5 . See 78 Fed. Reg. 3086, 3103 (Jan. 15, 2013) (“[S]tudies have reported consistent increases in morbidity and/or premature mortality

related to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations, with the strongest ev idence reported for cardiovascularrelated effects.”); 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38908- 09 (June 29, 2012) (“[N]ewly available

information combined with information availabl e in the last review provides substantially stronger confidence in a causal relationship between long- and short-term exposures to PM 2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects.”). The AHA ha s estimated that reside nts of most cities in the United States lose between one and three years of life expectancy due to fine particulate air pollution. 5 Furthermore, studies show that even small reductions in air pollution improve community life expectancy. 6 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. Since the late 1980s, more than 150 epidemiol ogical studies have re ported associations between daily changes in particul ate air pollution and respirator y and cardiovascular mortality, hospitalizations and other related health endpoints. 7 71 Fed. Reg. at 61150-61162; 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908-09. These adverse effects are seen at low and “common” concentrations of particulate pollution. A Dutch study demonstrat ed risks for cardiopulmonary mortality even at what are considered “b ackground” levels of particulate pollution. 8 A study

done in our own area demonstrat ed that each short-term 10 μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 was associated with an increase in the risk of acute ischemic coronary artery events (unstable angina and myocardial infarction) of 4.5%. 9 Not only does PM 2.5 result in an increase in death from cardiovascular causes, but there is

also an increased risk for non-fatal events. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61151-52; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907; 774 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“Bell et al. (2008) reported higher PM 2.5 risk estimates for hospitalization for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the winter compared to other seasons.”). For each 10

μ g/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 there is a 24% increase in risk of a cardiovascular event and a 76%

increase in the risk of death from that event. There is also an increase d risk of cerebrovascular

events. 10,11,12 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. It should be noted that this rate of increase approaches that demonstrated from a chronic active smoking habit. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. The significance of our PM 2.5 spikes may not be dismissed with observations that our annual average fine particulate matter concentrati ons are not extraordinarily high. This is false comfort and reflects a poor understanding of the existing research. Many medical studies show that impacts from pollution are se en very quickly and can last long after the air has cleared. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61164. For example, within as little as 30 minutes, exposure to particulate matter is associated with increases in blood pressure, fo llowed within hours by incr eased rates of heart attacks and strokes. Community mortality rates stay elevated for 30 days after a spike in PM 10 even if the episode lasts less than 24 hours. 13 Within one hour, exposure to traffic pollution, including particulate matter, is associated

with increased rates of heart attacks as much as 300% compared to non-exposed individuals. 14

Other studies show rates of strokes and heart attacks in the communityincrease within hours after spikes in PM 10 . 15 See also 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103 (Evidence links “long-term exposure to PM2.5 with an array of cardiovascular effects such as heart attacks, congestive heart failure, stroke, and mortality.”). In 2010, the AHA summarized: The overall evidence from time-series analys es conducted worldwide since publication of the first AHA statement confirms the existen ce of a small, yet consistent association between increased mortality and short-term elevations in PM 10 and PM 2.5 approximately equal to a 0.4% to 1.0% increase in da ily mortality (and cardiovascular death specifically) due to a 10 μ g/m 3 elevation in PM 2.5 during the preceding 1 to 5 days. 35 Confirming the strong correlation between mode st, short-term spikes in PM and serious health consequences are three new studies that showed spikes of as little as one day in PM 10 were associated with higher rates of heart attacks, 16 daily spikes of either PM 10 or PM 2.5 were associated with significant increases in em ergency room visits for hypertensives crisis, 17 and less than 24 hours of a spike in PM 2.5 of 15-40 μ g/m 3 increased rates of strokes 34%, with the peak increase occurring within 12 hours. 18 Not only have numerous studies shown that there is no safe level of PM exposure, but a recen t landmark study published in th e flagship journal of the AHA, using data from over 1 million people, demonstr ated that when cardiac mortality, the signature air pollution health outc ome, was plotted against particulate matter from air pollution, first and second-hand cigarette smoke, all three sources showed a steep cu rve at low doses. In other words, per unit dose of exposure, it is the low leve ls of PM that cause hi gher rates of mortality. 19 Long-term exposure to particulate matter air po llution is associated with an average rise in blood pressure for chronically exposed populati ons. Average blood pressure was found to rise 1.7 mmHg for an increase of 2.4 μ g/m 3 in PM 2.5 . A similar association was found with the

coarser PM 10 . The rise was found in both syst olic and diastolic blood pressure. 20 Chronic exposure to particulate matter has also been show n to increase the thickening of arterial walls, which is a known end result of higher bl ood pressure. A chronic increase in PM 10 of 5.2 μ g/m 3 is associated with a 5% increase in the intima-media thickness of the carotid artery, which is one of many end results of the biol ogic process described above. 21 Another study showed a remarkable co rrelation between chronic exposure to PM 2.5 and narrowing in the tiny arteries in the back of the eye. Chronic exposure to 3 μ g/m 3 of PM 2.5 (one fourth of the annual NAAQS) was associated with narrowing equivalent to seven years of aging. 22 These finding are especially significant because they demonstrate community-wide6 effects, acceleration of the aging process, and im pairing the health of everyone exposed, not just a susceptible population. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 3104 (“The population potentially affected by

PM 2.5 is large. In addition, large su bgroups of the U.S. population ha ve been identified as at-risk populations.”).

There is a remarkable correlation between ra tes of deep vein thrombosis and increased

levels of PM 10 , beginning at very modest levels. 23 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“[R]ecent studies provide additional evidence for cardiovascul ar effects associated with sub-daily (e.g., one to several hours) exposure to PM, especially effects related to cardi ac ischemia, vasomotor function, and more subtle change s in markers of systemic infl ammation, hemostasis, thrombosis and coagulation[.]”). A likely mechanism of this clinical outcome is re vealed by studies that

show PM 10 causes excessive platelet aggregation in diabetics. 24 Throughout the age spectrum, from infants to the elderly, air pollution has been shown to impair brain function. 77 Fed. Reg. at 38909. Oxid ative stress (OS) appear s to be the biological genesis of numerous diseases processes and a ma jor contributor to the aging phenomenon. OS is the mechanism behind the role of particulate matter and carbon monoxide pollution in central nervous system dysfunction, neuro inflammation, cortical stress, cogni tive impairment and memory loss in children and neuro-degenera tive diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. 25, 26 Numerous studies show such specific outcomes as impaired intellect and pe netration of particle matter and Alzheimer type protein depositi on among children who grow up breathing more particulate air pollution. 27, 28, 29 Volunteers exposed to typical ur ban levels of diesel exhaust demonstrate brain cortical stress measured by EEG. 30 Children exposed to more air pollution or whose mothers were more exposed during pregnancy show an IQ loss of five to nine points. 31, 32, 33 Rates of neurobehavioral disorders7 correlate with NO X and PM 10 levels. 34 Children exposed to more vehicle pollution show a doubling in rates of autism. 35 Older people show accelerated c ognitive decline if chronically exposed to more traffi c generated air pollution. 36, 37 A recent landmark study showed that chronic exposure to 10 μ g/m 3 of either PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 -PM 10 was associated with faster cognitive decline in older women, equivalent to about two years of aging. 38 Because of strong evidence that particulate air pollution’s neurotoxicity is related to attached metals, 39, 40, 41 the oil refineries contribution to Wasatch Front pollution takes on additional public he alth significance. It is intuitive that short-term exposure to fine particulate matter would have adverse impacts on the pulmonary system. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61145 & 61152; 78 Fed. Reg. at 3103-04. Indeed, numerous studies show increased rates of asthma and virtually all other respiratory diseases including lung cancer where short-term PM 2.5 is higher. 71 Fed. Reg

. at 61154-61155 & 61157; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38907. Equally distur bing are less obvious outcomes. Even young, healthy people demonstrate rapid decrease in lu ng function from brief exposure to particulate matter that persists for several da ys after the exposure has ended. Id . at 61152, 61154 &

61169. 42, 43 Again, this contradicts any comfort derived from the perspective that Utah’s fine particulate matter air pollution problem is episodic and therefore less of a problem. An unusually large proportion of Utah’s population is young. Census-based estimates indicate that nearly a third of Utah residents are under age 18 and one of every 10 residents is under age five, figures approximately 40 percent hi gher than the national average. This means that Utah’s unhealthy levels of air pollution cons titute a public health crisis that endangers its most vulnerable populations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58 690; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38911 (“With regard to respiratory effects in children associ ated with short-term exposures to PM 2.5 , currently available8 studies provide stronger evidence of respiratory-related hospitaliz ations with larger effect estimates observed among children.”). The physiology of children differs from that of adults in many important ways, causing them to be affected more profoundly by air po llution than adults. Children have higher metabolic rates, meaning their oxygen demand is higher, they breathe fa ster and have higher heart rates and blood flows on a per weight basis than an adult. Combined with their rapidly growing organ size and function, th is physiologic difference makes th em more susceptible to the adverse influence of air pollution. “There is emerging but limited evid ence for an association between long-term PM 2.5 exposure and respiratory mortality in post-neonatal infants where longterm exposure was considered as approximately on e month to one year.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908.

Children who breathe more air pollution can experience a perm anent stunting of their lung growth. Just as chronic expos ure to second-hand cigarette sm oke causes a permanent loss of lung function growth in children, so does long-term exposure to PM 2.5 air pollution. 44,45 71 Fed. Reg. at 61154, 61172; see also id . at 61169; 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38911 (June 29, 2012) (“These analyses provide evidence that PM 2.5 -related effects [to children] persist into early adulthood and are more robust and larger in magnitude than previously reported.”). Not only does short-term exposure to PM 2.5 air pollution permanently impair the ex ercise capacity of individuals so affected, 46 few physiologic outcomes have more of an ultimate impact on longevity than lung

function. Various forms of cancer such as lung, cervi cal, stomach and brain cancer show increased rates with higher concentrations of community particulate matter. 47, 48 71 Fed. Reg. at 61152; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Each 10 μ g/m 3 increase in long term PM 2.5 concentration is associated with a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. 49 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Especially9 troubling are the numerous studies that show increases in childhood leukemia among more exposed populations, 50, 51 and a significant asso ciation between nitrogen oxide concentrations

and rates of breast cancer. 52 The precipitation of oxidative stress, as mentioned above, is the likely explanation for new studies that show higher rates of numer ous other, seemingly unrelated diseases among populations subjected to more ai r pollution. These diseased incl ude type II diabetes, obesity, arthritis, and lupus. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 Air pollution, especially particulate matter, ma y have its largest imp act on public health through its effect on the human embryo. A study in laboratory animals demonstrated a change in morphology of the placenta that compromised blood flow to the fetus. 58, 46 Exposure of pregnant women to various components of traffi c-related air pollu tion, including PM 10 , results in intrauterine growth retardation, including sma ller head size, increased rates of spontaneous abortions, premature births and low birth weight syndrome. 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Genetic damage and epigenetic changes can have virtually identic al consequences and both can be passed on to subseque nt generations. Newborn babies whose mothers are exposed to more air pollution show increa ses in both, and the life-long dise ase burden that results can include higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway di sease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and all the diseases cons equent to immuno-suppr ession. 78 Fed. Reg. 3104 (“The strongest evidence for an association between PM 2.5 and developmental and reproductive effects comes from epidemiological studies of lo w birth weight and infant mortality, especially due to respiratory causes during the post-ne onatal period (i.e., 1 month–12 months of age).”). Epigenetic changes can be seen with in three days after exposure to PM 2.5 and perhaps even as soon as minutes after exposure. 59-66 There is strong evidence for a persistence of epigenetic10 changes from one generation to another. Medica l science is now learning that the air pollution today can adversely affect the h ealth of future generations. Fo r example, episodic air pollution, the type that occurs along the Wasatch Front , has been shown to be associated with fragmentation of DNA in human sperm. 67 The common assumption about particulate air pollution has been that internalizing the particles and their adsorbed compounds like h eavy metals occurs through the lungs. Smaller particles are assumed more dangero us because they can penetrate more deeply into the lungs and are cleared by the lung cilia less readily. Howe ver, there is new evidence to suggest that atmospheric particulate matter is also swallowed, leading to toxicity of internal organs and increased carcinogenic risk. This is of pa rticular relevance for increasing childhood risk. 68

That all the above mentioned adverse heal th outcomes can be the result of pregnant women smoking is easy for physicians and the la y public alike to comprehend and the sight of a pregnant woman smoking is now repu lsive to society at large. See 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. It is a new thought process, but equally sc ientifically based, to think that the same thing happens when a pregnant woman has to breat he particulate air pollution. Again, regarding impact on the human embryo, there appears to be no safe threshold of exposure.

As a manifestation of the evidence for seve re health effects from air pollution, virtually every major medical organization in the United St ates has called for stricter NAAQS for annual

PM 2.5 and for ozone, including the American Medi cal Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Lung Asso ciation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Cardiology, the Amer ican Heart Association, the Am erican Cancer Society, the American Public Health Assoc., and the Nationa l Assoc. of Local Boards of Health, and the11 EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (considered the nation’s premier air pollution experts). 77 Fed. Reg. at 38897.12 REFERENCES 1. Mauderly J.L., Samet J.M., Is There Ev idence for Synergy Among Air Pollutants in Causing Health Effects? 117 Enviro n. Health Perspect. 1-6 (2009). 2. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascul ar Health: Smoke and Pollution Matter, 120(11) EPUB 924-27 (2009). 3. Brook R., Rajagopalan S., Pope C.A., Brook J., Bhatnagar A., et al., AHA Scientific Statement: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease; An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American H eart Association, Circulation, American Heart Association 121:2331-2378 (2010). 4. Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harv ard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print]. 5. Pope CA, Ezzate M, Dockery D. Fine-Par ticulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States, 360(4) N. ENGL. J. MED. 376-86 (2009). 6. 101. Correia A, Pope CA, Dockery D, Wa ng Y, Ezzati M, Dominici F. Effect of Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in th e United States: An Analysis of 545 U.S. Counties for the Period from 2000 to 2007 Epidemiology. 3 December 2012 doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31827702377. Zanobetti A., Schwar tz J., Samoli E., Gryparis A., Touloumi G., Peacock J., Anderson R.H., Le Tertre A., Bobros J., Celko M., Goren A., Forsberg B., Michelozzi P., Rabczenko D., Hoyos S. P., Wichmann H.E., and Katsouyanni K., The Temporal Pattern of Respiratory and Heart Di sease Mortality in Response to Air Pollution, 111(9) ENVIRON. HEALTH PE RSPECT. 1188-1193 (2003). 8. Peters, A., and Pope, C.A., III, Editorial, LANCET. Vol. 360, Oct 19, 2002. 9. Pope C.A. III, Muhlestein J.B., May H.T., et al ., Ischemic Heart Disease Events Triggered by Short-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, 114(23) EPUB 2443-48 (2006). 10. Dockery D.W., Stone P.H. Cardiovascular Risks from Fine Particulate Air Pollution, 356(5) N. ENGL. J. MED. 511-13 (2007). 11. Miller K.A., Siscovick D.S., Sheppard L. et al ., Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women, 356(5) N. ENGL. J. MED. 447-58 (2007). 12. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascular Health: Smoke and Pollution Matter, 120(11) EPUB 924-27 (2009).13 13. Urch B, Silverman F, Corey P, et al . Acute Blood Pressure Responses in Healthy Adults during Controlled Ai r Pollution Exposures, 113 (8) E NVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1052-55 (2005). 14. Peters A., von Klot S., Heier M., et al ., Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction, 351 (17) N. ENGL. J. MED. 1721-30 (2004). 15. Shang-Shyue Tsai, William B. Goggi ns, Hui-Fen Chiu, and Chun-Yuh Yang, Evidence for an Association between Air Pollu tion and Daily Stroke Admissions in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 34 (11) STROKE 2612-16 (2003).

16. Mustafi ć H, Jabre P, Caussin C, Murad M, et al . Main Air Pollutants and Myocardial Infarction: A Sy stematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2012. vol. 307, no. 7 pg. 713-721. 17. Szyszkowicz M, Rowe BH, Brook RD. Ev en Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollutants Are Associated With Increased Emergency Depart ment Visits for Hypertension. Can J Cardiol. 2011 Sep 23. [Epub ahead of print]. 18. Wellenius G, Burger M, Coull B, Schwartz J, et al . Ambient Air Pollution and the Risk of Acute Ischemic Stroke. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(3): 229-234. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.732. 19. Calle E, Thun M, Pope CA, Burnett R, et al . Cardiovascular Mo rtality and Exposure to Airbourne Fine Particulat e Matter and Cigarette Smoke, Circulation, American Heart Association 120:941-948 (2009). 20. Hoffman B., Higher Blood Pressure Found in People Living in Urban Areas, Presentation, American Thor acic Society (May 17, 2010). 21. Tonne C, Yanosky JD, Beevers S, Wilkinso n P, Kelly FJ. PM Mass Concentration and PM Oxidative Potential in Relation to Carotid Intima-media Thickness. Epidemiology. 2012 Mar 23. [Epub ahead of print]. 22. Adar SD, Klein R, Klein BE, Szpiro AA, Cotch MF, Wong TY, O'Neill MS, Shrager S, Barr RG, Siscovick DS, Daviglus ML, Samp son PD, Kaufman JD. Air Pollution and the Microvasculature: A Cross-Secti onal Assessment of In Vivo Retinal Images in the PopulationBased Multi-Ethnic Study of Atheroscle rosis (MESA). PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 30; 7(11):e1000372. 23. Baccarelli A., Martinelli A., Zanobetti A., et al ., Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Risk of Deep Vein Throm bosis, 168 ARCH. INTERN MED. 920-27 (2008). 24. Jacobs L., Emmerechts J., Mathieu C ., Hoylaerts M.F., Fierens F., Hoet P.H., Nemery B., Nawrot T.S. Air Pollution Related Pr othrombotic Changes in Persons with Diabetes, 118(2) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 191-96 (2010).14 25. Hartz A., Bauer B., Block M., Diesel Exhaust Particles Induce Oxidative Stress, Proinflammatory signaling, and P- Glycoprotein, Up-Regulation at the Blood-Brain Barrier, THE FASEB JOURNAL 2723-33 (2008). 26. Lopez I, Acuna D, Beltran-Parrazal L, et al . Evidence for oxidative stress in the developing cerebellum of the rat after chronic m ild carbon monoxide exposure (0.0025% in air). BMC Neuroscience 200 9, 10:53doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-53. 27. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Mora-Tis careno A., Ontiveros E., et al., AIR POLLUTION, COGNITIVE DEFICITS AND BR AIN ABNORMALITIES: A PILOT STUDY WITH CHILDREN AND DOGS, 68(2 ) BRAIN COGN. 117-27 (2008). 28. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Solt A.C., et al., Long-Term Air Pollution Exposure is Associated with Neuroinflammation, an Altered Innate Immune Response, Disruption of the Blood-Brain Barrier, Ultrafine Pa rticulate Deposition, and Accu mulation of Amyloid Beta-42 and Alpha-Synuclein in Children and Young Adults, 36(2) TOXICO L. PATHOL. 289-310 (2008). 29. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Franco-Lira M ., Torres-Jardon R., Pediatric Respiratory and Systemic Effects of Chronic Air Pollu tion Exposure: Nose, Lung, Heart, and Brain Pathology, 35(1) TOXICOL. PATHOL.154-162 (2007). 30. Cruts B., van Etten L., Tornquvist H., et al ., Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Induces Changes in EEG in Human Vo lunteers, 5(4) PART FIBRE TOXICOL. dol: 1186/1743-8977-5-4 (2008). 31. Suglia S.F., et al ., Association of Black Carbon w ith Cognition among Children in a Prospective Birth Cohort Study, 167 AM . J. EPIDEMIOLOGY 280-86 (2008). 32. Edwards SC, Jedrychowski W, Butscher M, Camann D, Kieltyka A, Mroz E, et al. 2010. Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycycl ic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Children’s Intelligence at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort Study in Poland. Environ Health Perspect:-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901070. 33. Perera, FP, L Zhigang, R Whyatt, L Hoepner, S Wang, D Camann and V Rauh. 2009. 2009. Prenatal airborne polycyc lic aromatic hydrocarbon expos ure and child IQ at age 5 years. Pediatrics doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3506. 34. Wang, Z., Zeng, X, Zeng, Y, Wang, S. Chen, S., Association of Traffic-Related Air Pollution with Children’s Neurobehavioral Func tions in Quanzhou, China, 117(10) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1612-18 (2009). 35. Volk H, Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L, Lurmann F, McConnell R. Residential Proximity to Freeways and Autism in the CHAR GE study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Dec 13. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 21156395.15 36. Power MC, Weisskopf MG, Alexeeff SE, Coull BA, Spiro Iii A, Schwartz J. Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Cognitive Functi on in a Cohort of Older Men. Harvard School of Public Health. Environ Health Pe rspect. 2010 Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print]. 37. Ranft U, Schikowski T, Sugiri D, Krut mann J, Krämer U. Long-term exposure to traffic-related particulate matte r impairs cognitive function in the elderly. Environ Res. 2009 Nov; 109(8):1004-11. Epub 2009 Sep 4. 38. Weuve J, Puett R, Schwartz J, Yanos ky J, Laden F, Grodstein F. Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Cognitive Declin e in Older Women Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(3):219-227. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.683. 39. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Serrano-Sierra A, Torres-Jardón R, Zhu H, Yuan Y, Smith D, Delgado-Chávez R, Cross JV, Medina-Cortina H, Kavanaugh M, Guilarte TR. The impact of environmental metals in young urbanites’ br ains. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2012 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]. 40. Ciesielski T, Weuve J, Bellinger DC, Schwartz J, Lanphear B, Wright RO 2012. Cadmium Exposure and Neurodevelopmental Outc omes in U.S. Children. Environ Health Perspect :-. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104152. 41. Henn BC, Schnaas L, Ettinger AS, Schwar tz J, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, HernándezAvila M, et al . 2011. Associations of Early Childhood Ma nganese and Lead Coexposure with Neurodevelopment. Environ Health Perspect 120:126-131. http://dx.doi .org/10.1289/ehp.1003300. 42. Schelegle, E., Morales, C., Walby, W., et al ., 6.6 Hour Inhalation of Ozone Concentrations from 60 to 87 Parts per Bil lion in Healthy Humans , 180 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE 265-72 (2009). 43. Thaller, E., Petronella, S., Hochman, D. et al ., Moderate Increases in Ambient PM 2.5 and Ozone are Associated with Lung Func tion Decreases in Beach Lifeguards, 50(2) JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONA L AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE 202-11 (2008). 44. Gauderman W.J., Gilliland G.F., Vora H., et al ., Association between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in Southern Californi a Children: Results from a Second Cohort, 166 AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED. 76-84 (2002). 45. Gauderman W.J., Gilliland G.F., Vora H., et al ., The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age, 351(11) N. ENGL. J. MED. 1057-67 (2004). 46. Cakmak S, Dales R, Leech J, Liu L. The influence of air pollution on cardiovascular and pulmonary function and exercise capacity: Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). Environ Res. 2011 Oct 13. [Epub ahead of print].16 47. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Andersen ZJ, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sorensen M, Hansen J, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence: a Danish cohort study. Environ Health. 2011 Jul 19; 10(1):67. [Epub ahead of print]. 48. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Andersen Z, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sørensen M, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjønneland A. Lung Can cer Incidence and Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jan 12. [Epub ahead of print]. 49. Turner MC, Krewski D, Pope Iii CA, Chen Y, Gapstur SM, Thun MJ. Long-Term Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Lung Cancer in a Large Cohort of Never Smokers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Oct 6. [Epub ahead of print]. 50. Pearson R.L., Wachtel H., Ebi K.L., Dist ance-Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity to a Home is a Risk Factor for Leukemia a nd Other Childhood Cancers, 50(2) J. AIR WASTE MANAG. ASSOC. 175-180 (2000). 51. Weng H.H., Tsai S.S., Chen C.C., et al ., Childhood Leukemia Development and Correlation with Traffic Air Pollution in Taiwan Using Nitrogen Dioxide as an Air Pollutant Marker, 71(7) J. TOXICOL. ENVI RON. HEALTH A. 434-8 (2008). 52. Crouse DL, Goldberg MS, Ross NA, Chen H, Labrèche F 2010. Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Tr affic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: A Case–Control Study. E nviron Health Perspect 118:1578-1583. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002221. 53. Xu X, Liu C, Xu Z, Tzan K, et al . Long-term Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Pollution Induces Insulin Resi stance and Mitochondr ial Alteration in Adipose Tissue. Toxicological Sciences Volume 124, Issue 1Pp. 88-98. 54. Zou M. Is NAD(P)H Oxidase a Missing Link for Air Pollution–Enhanced Obesity? Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol . 2010; 30:2323-2324, doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.216648. 55. Zeft AS, Prahala S, Lefevre S, et al . Juvenile idiopathic arthritis and exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Clin Exp Rheumotol 2009 Sep-Oct; 27(5):877-84. 56. Krämer U, Herder C, Sugiri D, Strassburger K, Schikowski T, Ranft U, et al . 2010. Traffic-related Air Pollution and Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Results from the SALIA Cohort Study. Environ Health Perspect:-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901689. 57. Puett RC, Hart JE, Schwartz J, Hu FB, Liese AD, Laden F 2011. Are Particulate Matter Exposures Associated w ith Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Environ Health Perspect 119:384- 389. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002344. 58. Veras M.M., Damaceno-Rodregues N., Cald ini E., Ribeiro A., et al., Particulate Urban Air Pollution Affects the Functional Mo rphology of Mouse Plac enta, 79(3) BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION 578-84 (2008).17 59. Perera F., Tang W., Herbstman J., Relati on of DNA Methylation of 5-CpG Island of ACSL3 to Transplacental Exposure to Airbor ne PAH and Childhood Asth ma, 4(2) PLOS ONE e4488 (2009). 60. Hansen C., Barnett A., Prichard G.,T he Effect of Ambient Air Pollution during Early Pregnancy on Fetal Ultrasound Measurem ents during Mid-Preg nancy, 116(3) ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP. 362-69 (2008). 61. Bocskay K., Tang D., Orjuela M., et al ., Chromosomal Aberrations in Cord Blood Are Associated with Prenatal Exposure to Ca rcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. CANCER EPIDEM. BIOMARKERS AND PREV. 506-511 (2005). 62. Perera F., Tang D., Tu Y., Biomarkers in Maternal and Newborn Blood Indicate Heightened Fetal Susceptibility to Pr ocarcinogenic DNA Damage, 112(10) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSP. 1133-36 (2004). 63. Pilsner J.R., Hu H., Ettinger A., Sanchez B.N., et al ., Influence of Prenatal Lead Exposure on Genomic Methaylation of Co rd Blood DNA, 117 (9) ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP., 1466-71 (2009). 64. Baccarelli A., Breathe Deeply into Your Genes! Genetic Variants and Air Pollution Effects, 179(6) AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED., 431-2 (2009). 65. Baccarelli A., Wright R.O., Bollati V., Tarantini L., Litonjua A.A., Suh H.H., Zanobetti A, Sparrow D., Vokonas P.S., Schwar tz J., Rapid DNA Methylation Changes after Exposure to Traffic Particle s, 179(7) AM. J. RESPIR. CRI T. CARE MED., 523-4 (2009). 66. Yan Zhong, Steven G. Carmella, Pramod Upadhyaya, J. Bradley Hochalter, Diane Rauch, Andrew Oliver, Joni Jensen, Doro thy Hatsukami, Jing Wang, Cheryl Zimmerman, Stephen S. Hecht. Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxide s. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2010; 101227010050010 DOI: 10.1021/tx100345x. 67. Rubes J, Selevan S, Evenson D, Zudova D, Vozdova M, Zudova Z, Robbins W, Perreault S. Episodic air polluti on is associated with increa sed DNA fragmentation in human sperm without other changes in semen qua lity. Human Reproduction Vol.20, No.10 pp. 2776– 2783, 2005 doi:10.1093/humrep/dei122. Advance Access publication June 24, 2005. 68. Møller P, Folkmann JK, Danielsen PH, Jantzen K, Loft S. Oxidative Stress Generated Damage to DNA by Gastrointestinal E xposure to Insoluble Par ticles. Curr Mol Med. 2012 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print].

## EXHIBIT “3”Chart 1: Comparing Federal Requirements to Utah’s PM 10 Offset Rule (R307-403-5)

PM 10 , NO X and SO X interchangeable under Utah rule. Federal rule does not specify.

Modification PM 10 NA (Moderate) Federal Baseline Definition of Major Modification Utah’s PM 10 Offset Rule Applicability and Ratios for Modifications PM 10 15 tpy >50 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1.2:1 >25 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1:1 NO X 40 tpy >50 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1.2:1 >25 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1:1 SO X 40 tpy >50 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1.2:1 >25 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X : 1:1

PM 10 , NO X and SO X interchangeable under Utah PM 10 rule.

New Source PM 10 NA (Moderate) Federal Baseline Definition of Major Source of PM 10 Utah’s PM 10 Offset Rule Applicability and Ratios for New Sources PM 10 100 tons per year (tpy) >50 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1.2:1 >25 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1:1 NO X 100 tpy >50 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1.2:1 >25 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1:1 SO X 100 tpy >50 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1.2:1 >25 tpy (total PM 10 , NO X and SO X ): 1:1Chart 2: Comparing Federal Baseline Requirements to Proposed PM 2.5 Offset Rule Major Source PM 2.5 NA (Serious) Proposed Federal Baseline Definition of Major Source for Serious PM 2.5 NA Proposed PM 2.5 Offset Rule Applicability to New Stationary Source and Modification to Existing Stationary Source PM 2.5 70 tons per year (tpy) 25 tpy

NO X 70 tpy 40 tpy

SO X 70 tpy 40 tpy

VOCs 70 tpy 40 tpy

Total PM 2.5 +SO 2 +NO X +VOCs n/a 50 tpy

ammonia 70 tpy n/a

Major Source PM 2.5 NA (Serious) Federal Baseline Definition of Major Modification for Serious PM 2.5 NA Proposed PM 2.5 Offset Rule Applicability to Modification to “Large” Existing Stationary Source PM 2.5 10 tpy 5 tpy

NO X 40 tpy 20 tpy

SO X 40 tpy 20 tpy VOCs 40 tpy 20 tpy

Total PM 2.5 + NO X + SO 2 + VOCs n/a 30 tpy

ammonia case-by-case n/a

# Comment s received: March 1, 2016C OMMENTS BY THE U TAH M ANUFACTURERS ’ A SSOCIATION , THE U TAH P ETROLEUM A SSOCIATION , AND THE U TAH M INING A SSOCIATION ON THE P ETITIONS FOR R ULE C HANGES S UBMITTED BY W ESTERN R ESOURCE A DVOCATES , U TAH P HYSICIANS FOR A H EALTHY E NVIRONMENT AND HEAL U TAH M ARCH 1, 2016 The Utah Manufacturers Association, the Utah Petroleum Association, and the Utah Mining Association (the “Associations”) submit these comments to the Utah Air Quality Board for consideration as the Board reviews the January 14, 2016 petitions for a rule change submitted on January 14, 2016 by Western Resource Advocates, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, and HEAL Utah (“Petitioners”). The Associati ons and their members agree with the Utah Division of Air Quality (“UDAQ”) th at the Board should decline to initiate rulemaking for the rules proposed by Petitioners. Numerous of the Associations’ memb er companies are located in the PM 2.5 nonattainment areas and their employees work, live, and recreate along the Wasatch Fr ont. The Associations support actions to improve Utah’s air quality, and ba sed on the rules adopted as part of the PM 2.5 SIP, our members have invested millions of dollars to reduce PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions. These plans were developed based on a technically sound process initiated by the UDAQ, which included analysis of the costs a nd benefits of proposed rules as well as modeling of how specific emission reductions impact the unique chemistry that creates much of the pollution in our nonattainment areas. The Associations believe that UDAQ has made a strong case for rejecting the petitions for rulemaking. The point of the Associations’ comments is not to reiterate all of the arguments that UDAQ identified in their writte n response to the rulemaking pe titions. Rather, our comments emphasize a handful of issues the Associations belie ve are important for the Board to consider as it responds to the rulemaking petitions.

 The SIP Development Process Provides the Best Insurance that Emission Reduction Requirements Are Based on a Sound Technical and Economic Foundation and Will Deliver the Promised Results The Associations believe it is important to consid er the rulemaking petitions in the context of the work that already has been done to address ai r quality along the Wasatch Front and the additional planning and implementation efforts that will ta ke place in the coming months and years. As this Board is aware, UDAQ recently completed the extensive process of developing PM 2.5 SIPs, based on a transparent process informed by stakeholder involvement and a comprehensive analysis of reasona ble controls for PM 2.5 as well PM 2.5 precursors. The Associations and their members, as well as the Petitioners, were active participants in the SIP development process. This Board approved PM 2.5 SIPs in both late 2013 and earl y 2015 and implementation of those plans is ongoing. Indeed, many of the control re quirements for stationary sources are only now taking effect and the reductions at tributable to these controls ha ve not been measured. Until UDAQ understands the air quality impact of these controls, it is premature to impose additional regulatory requirements. Moreover, because the major industrial sources already have invested2 in compliance with SIP requirements, any a dditional regulatory obligations will be more expensive while yielding fewer and fewer actual emission reductions. UDAQ also must have the opportunity to assess th e costs and benefits of additional requirements on industrial sources in light of the relatively small contribution from stationary sources— UDAQ emissions inventorie s currently show that only about 11% of air polluta nts come from large industrial sources, while 32% come from smaller area s ources such as homes, small businesses, and agriculture, and 57% come from transportation. Any additional requirements for industry must carefully evaluated in this co ntext with respect to technical and economic feasibility, as well as a demonstr ation that attainment will be ma terially expedited. Otherwise, meaningless regulations can result that may sound promising but in reality are not only costly but fail to deliver the promised reductions. 1 As UDAQ has noted, this evaluation process will begin again as early as this summe r when UDAQ re-enters the PM 2.5 SIP planning proce ss to develop a serious nonattainment SIP for the Salt Lake and Provo nonattainment areas. Petitioners argue that there is benefit to the Bo ard’s consideration of th ese rules alone, rather than as part of the broader SIP planning process. But Petitioners’ proposed rules are inextricably intertwined with the SIP and need to be examin ed in the context of the SIP. For example, Petitioners’ emissions offset proposal would im pose onerous requirements on existing sources above and beyond the technology assessments already required under the SIP. A rule that would require assessment, and potentially revision, of the technology standards only recently imposed as part of the SIP planning pro cess cannot be reviewed in isolat ion. They must be analyzed as part of broader emission reductions that will be implemented as part of the SIP. Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, the point of the “highly t echnical and expansive” SIP process is for the Board to assess the costs of these rules and resulting improvements in air quality as a part of a comprehensive “State Implementation Plan .” Petitioners assert that the rulemakings that they have crafted deserves public debate despite the technical infirmities and lack of supporting documen tation required by statute. In other words, Petitioners want the petitions to be vetted thro ugh public comment. This strategy, however, is not as straightforward and simp le as Petitioners contend. First, the strategy is not supported by the stat utes and regulations th at govern the Board’s consideration of the petitions. Utah Code sect ion 63G-3-601(6)(b) restricts the Board to two options in responding to the petitioners: (1) de ny the petition; or (2) initiate rulemaking proceedings. Rule 15-2-5(1)(b) provides further context in the event that the Board wishes to proceed to rulemaking. Under that rule, the Bo ard is required to identify a “date when the agency is initiating a rule change consistent with the intent of the petition.” It is evident from this authority that the second option – e.g., to initiate rulemaking pro ceedings – should not be used to vet ideas that come through a petition for rulemaking.

1 The Associations and their members are not only fully engaged in the SIP development process and investing millions of dollars necessary to achieve the reductions th at the SIPs require for attainment, but are also supporting the agency’s efforts in other ways. For instance, the asso ciations routinely support the agency’s budget requests (as it has done this year) and has been aligned with the agency’s and the Petitioners’ efforts to allow the Air Quality Board to retain authority to regulate water heater emissions.3 Second, the strategy suggests that there is no significant burden on the agency’s limited resources to proceed by going to rulemaking. In their response, UDAQ has identified numerous tasks that it would need to complete before the proposed rules could be sent out for public comment. Additionally, any such rule would n eed to meet the requirements of Utah Code section 63G-3-301, which imposes the burden of prep aring a rule analysis that includes, among other things, an examination of compliance costs to affected entities as we ll as costs to the state and small businesses. All of these requirements impose a significant expenditure of resources by UDAQ. Finally, Petitioners fail to acknowledge that th e SIP development process that UDAQ and this Board completed in 2013 and 2014/2015 contained th e public debate that Petitioners desire. Petitioners also will have the opportunity as pa rt of the serious SIP development process to weigh in on source-specific SIP limitations—i ncluding monitoring requirements, emission limits, and averaging periods. Importantly, these type s of limitations would then be raised within the context of overall changes to the SIP, ensuring that UDAQ can undertake appropriate technical and economic analyses. UDAQ has limited resources and, in our view, this appears to be an inefficient use of their time and expertise, particularly where the agency has just completed a similar analysis and is preparing to do another round of SIP planning shortly. This process will provide the Petitioners ample opportun ity to participate in the proces s and result in an integrated, technologically sound and effective SIP.

 The Proposed Rules Flip the SIP Pro cess On Its Head by Requiring the Agency to Rebut One-Size Fits All Requirements Petitioners’ proposed one-size-fits-all rules strip away UDAQ’s ability to use its technical expertise to fashion solutions to the local PM 2.5 problem. If the Board adopts Petitioners’ approach, it would transform UDAQ from the expert agency to a defendant in a public process in which UDAQ bears the burden of demonstrat ing the reasonableness of its actions. Whether in the context of si ngle source permitting or SIP development, UDAQ relies on its expertise and information provide d by public participants to de termine the mix of reasonable controls necessary to attain air quality standa rds. When UDAQ evaluates and sets appropriate limitations and parameters, including averagin g times and monitoring requirements for a particular facility, UDAQ engages in a case-by-case determination. All of that information is then vetted by the public in a formal review process. If the agency failed to consider a particular issue or erred in its analysis, th e public, as well as the regulate d source, has the opportunity to raise the issue with the UDAQ and th e agency will respond in reliance on its technical expertise. The proposed rules flip this process on its h ead. For instance, the proposed monitoring rule establishes a presumption that the agency will require a CEMS to monitor PM, NOx and SO2 limits identified in the SIP. Under the proposed rule, it is the agency’s burden to prove that CEMS monitoring is not feasible. Rather than al lowing UDAQ to exercise its technical expertise and determine what is available and reasonable to install in light of costs and air quality benefits, the proposed rule imposes the burden on UDAQ to dem onstrate what is not available. This will result in a very resource intens ive process. The Associations do not believe it is prudent to restrict the ability of the agen cy to make case-by-case determina tions based on their expertise, particularly where the agency’s current pro cess—a process used by EPA and common to most4 administrative agencies—already provides an avenue for a robust dialogue that ensures agency consideration of availa ble monitoring methods.

 UDAQ Already Considered and Rejected a Minor Source Offset Rule within the SIP Development Process The Clean Air Act’s RACT/RACM requirement does not impose a mandatory duty for this Board to extend the offset rule to minor new sources and minor modifications under the PM2.5 SIP. In contrast to the position set out in the rulemaking petitions, the Clean Air Act and corresponding federal regulation speak with clarity to the offset thresholds required in nonattainment areas for all states. The requirement to impose offsetting in nonattain ment areas is founded in section 173(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which in turn only applies to major new construction or major modification. Other provisions of the CAA specify in detail the appropriate thresholds for major sources depending on the severity of the nonattainment area. For instance, when any of Utah’s PM2.5 nonattainment areas are re-designa ted as serious nonattainment ar eas, this threshold will be moved to 70 tons per year. Petitioners’ proposed offset thresholds go well be yond what is required by the Clean Air Act, the requirements of other state air quality programs, and what is supported by the technical analysis supporting Utah’s PM 2.5 SIPs. Such thresholds would impos e an unwarranted restriction on economic growth with no demonstration that they would expedite attainment, placing Utah at a significant economic disadvantag e relative to othe r areas—including nonattainment areas— around the country. The Clean Air Act, rather than making the offs et requirement mandatory for the minor source program, allows states to customize their SIPs to suit the needs of their airsheds. UDAQ has done that in the 2013 and 2014/2015 SIPs a pproved by this Board. Importantly, UDAQ considered—and ultimately reject ed—a minor source offset program as part of the PM2.5 SIP development processes. Based on a public stak eholder process and UDAQ’s technical analysis, the agency ultimately chose not to pursue that option because of the unintended consequences that could result, namely, source s would be constrained from mode rnizing, which often results in improvements in efficiency. In addition, in the cu rrent situation, where ther e are no offsets in the bank, sources requisite for public safety, community developmen t, and basic lifestyle needs would be unable to run their businesses as needed to keep our growing communities functioning. In light of these realities, the agency used its expertise to deve lop a plan that accounts for the specific meteorology, topography, source di stribution, pollutant chemistry and other considerations that will bri ng the nonattainment areas into compliance with the NAAQS without requiring unnecessarily stri ngent offset requirements. This attainment demonstration expressly accounts for expected growth that will occur in the nonattainment areas rela ted to new sources and modifications that are not subject to the Clean Air Act’s mandatory major source offset requirements. Ultimately, an aggressive minor source offset requirement, as proposed by Petitioners, would severely lim it the potential for modest ec onomic expansion and growth without any demonstration of an improvement in PM 2.5 concentrations.5 In conclusion, the Associations and their me mbers are committed to working with UDAQ and other stakeholders to improve air quality. But the one-size fits all nature of these petitions fails to consider the implications of the rules on ove rall SIP planning. For th is and the other reasons discussed above, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny the petitions at this time.1



### March 1, 2016

VIA EMAIL 

### Utah Air Quality Board 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Re: Staker Parson’s Support for Denial of Western Res ource Advocate’s Petition for Rule Change – PM 2.5 

### Offset Rule Dear Utah Air Quality Board: Staker Parson Companies (“Staker Parson”) respectfully su bmits this letter to the Utah Air Quality Board for consideration as the Board reviews the Ja nuary 14, 2016 petition for rulemaking submitted by Western Resource Advocates on beha lf of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and HEAL Utah. 1 

### Specifically, Staker Parson requests that the Board deny the petitioners’ request for rulemaking to establish a minor source offsetting program in the three Utah PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas. Staker Parson is a Utah corporation that produces aggregate and landscape products, including ready-mixed concrete and asphalt, and provides pavi ng and construction services. Staker Parson’s corporate headquarters are in Weber County, and it has business operations throughout Utah and the Intermountain West. Staker Parson’s facilities are not major sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act, but Staker Parson was one of the largest owners of banked PM 2.5 

### emission reduction credits (“ERCs”) when the Utah Division of Air Quality (“UDAQ”) zeroed out the PM 2.5 

### ERCs as part of the 2013/2014 PM 2.5 

### State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) process. Staker Parson was se riously and uniquely affected by this decision. Petitioners’ proposed minor offset rule would further harm Staker Parsons, and similarly situated area sources, without any proof that it would hasten attainment. UDAQ already considered and rejected a minor source offse tting rule through the more inclusive and technically sound SIP development process, and petitioners’ offset rule should not be considered in isolation from this past rulemaking. St aker Parson requests that the

1 Staker Parsons also joins with the comments submit ted to the Air Quality Board on behalf of the Utah Manufacturers’ Association, the Utah Petroleum Association, and th e Utah Mining Association.2



### Board continue to respect this process by denying petitioners’ attempt to circumvent the SIP process. I. The minor source offset rule is more restrictive th an Clean Air Act requirements The Clean Air Act already provides a graduated program t hat is designed to require emissions reductions from increasingly smaller sources bas ed on the status of the nonattainment area. For example, in areas that are attaining a National Am bient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”), the threshold for major source permitting is 2 50 tons per year (or 100 tons per year for certain categories of sources). In nonattainment ar eas, however, major sources must comply with more “stringent” conditions that are “designed to insure that the new source's emissions will be controlled to the greatest degree possible ; that more than equivalent offsetting emission reductions (emission offsets) will be obtained from existing sources; and that there will be progress toward achievement of the NAAQ S.” 2 

### The threshold for “major source” does not remain at 250 tons per year, but decreas es based on the area’s nonattainment status. Currently, the “major source” thres hold has been reduced to 100 tons per year in the Utah PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas. When the Salt Lake and Utah County a reas are designated serious nonattainment later this year, the e missions threshold for requiring offsets will be lowered to 70 tons per year. This threshold level would be lowered further if the standard is not attained as planned. Therefore, the existing structure of the Clean Air Act c ontemplates achieving additional emission reductions by reaching smaller sources based on an a rea’s nonattainment status, but it does so in a systematic and predictable manner. Under the proposed rule, the minor source offset program would prevent altogether new area sourc e construction and modification of existing area sources because there are s imply no PM 2.5 

### or PM 2.5 

### precursor ERCs available for use to offset any emissions increases in the attainment area. 3 

### Petitioners have offered no demonstration that layering a minor source off set program on top of the already existing stringent Clean Air Act permitting prog ram would allow for reasonable growth and is necessary to demonstrate attainment. II. The minor source offset rule was considered and rej ected by UDAQ in the 2013 and 2014 SIPs Petitioners’ request for an offset rule for minor sources is not new. UDAQ considered and rejected the option of a minor source permitting program for the 2013 PM 2.5 

### SIPs. The decision not to include a minor source offset requirement w as made within the context of

2 See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S (Emission Offset Interp retive Ruling). 3 There have been no PM 2.5 offsets created since December of 2013; the most r ecent update to the Salt Lake and Utah County banked emissions summary specifies that the emissions credits are “not available for PM2.5 offs etting.”). See www.deq.utah.gov/Permits/air/EmissionOffsets.htm.3



### the full SIP attainment demonstration—including a baseli ne that contemplates economic and population growth—and input from stakeholder groups, which in cluded petitioners. UDAQ outlined the reasoning for its decision on offsets in the 2013 and 2014 SIPs:

DAQ did consider, during the SIP development process, the idea of also imposing an offset requirement for minor source s and minor modifications. This would have been over-and-above what is required by the federal Nonattainment NSR. In fact , a group of stakeholders was convened to discuss this very iss ue. As a result of that process, DAQ ultimately chose not to introduce this additional constraint. 4 

### Instead, UDAQ declined to include any of the banked PM 2.5 

### and PM 2.5 

### precursor ERCs in the attainment demonstration, which means that these ERCs a re no longer available for use as offsets in the PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas. UDAQ’s actions constrained allowable emissions increases for the nonattainment areas, and Staker P arson lost more than a thousand PM 2.5 

### and PM 2.5 

### precursor ERCs, worth millions of dollars. The 2013 PM 2.5 

### SIP was the first time in the history of the Utah ERC bank that UDAQ did not include existing ERCs in the attainment demonstration. This decision was made within the broader context of UDAQ’s decision not to further restr ain growth through a minor source offset program. Because these two decisions are te chnically and economically related, and each has an impact on the emission reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment, a determination to institute a minor source offset program must not be made in isolation. III. Enacting the minor source offset rule in isolation from a SIP development process would have unintended consequences An important role of the SIP process is to avoid unintended conse quences and to ensure that certain categories of sources do not bear a disproportiona te cost of reducing emissions. As UDAQ explained:

One of the considerations that support this decision [not to enact a minor source offset requirement] was to avoid the unintended consequence of not allowing sources to modernize , which often results in improvements in efficiency and, consequently, fewer emissions on a production basis. 5 

### Requiring a minor source rule now, outside the context of t he PM 2.5 

### SIP development process, deprives the stakeholders and the public of the proper contextual and technical analysis that takes place during SIP development.

4 DAQ, PM2.5 SIP Section X.A.21 and X.A.22 Public Co mments: Summaries and Responses to Comments Made During the October 2013 Public Comment Period and P ublic Hearings, at 13 (Nov. 25, 2013). 5 Id

.4



### Another important unintended consequence of the proposed minor sou rce offset rule would be to make local companies less competitive by increasing the ir costs of doing business. Area sources seeking to modify or modernize would be faced with the impossible task of obtaining offsets, which would make similar services from out-of-state companies more competitive and attractive for local consumers.

IV. Impacts of the proposed minor source offset program on Utah infrastructure development plans Utah’s rapid growth will place increasing pressure on the St ate’s infrastructure: a new prison, an expansion of the airport, and more than $1 billion in road and inf rastructure improvements are planned over the next decade. Moreover, construction and housing are just starting to recover from the impacts of the recession. Many of the general contractors in Utah are expecting record demand for services in 2016 (estimated at nearly $4 billion from six of the largest general contractors). Nearly $2 billi on in large infrastructure projects are anticipated in the nonattainment areas, including:

• Prison Relocation (estimates range from $400 million to $65 0 million in construction and materials);

• Regent Street Hotel in Salt Lake City (an estimated $15 0 million in construction and materials);

• Overpass for 1800 North ($180 million plus in construction and m aterials);

• Mountain View Corridor ($135 million in construction and mat erials); and

• Salt Lake City Airport expansion ($400 million in constructi on and materials just in 2016; $1.5 billion over the next three-four years). Each of these projects will seek bids for locally sourced a ggregate and construction products and related services. The nature of the infrastructure and construction business requires companies to have the flexibility to move, modify, and expand t heir operations to provide the materials necessary to support infrastructure developme nt projects. If Staker Parson and similarly situated companies with facilities emitting be low the major source thresholds are unable to modify or expand their operations due to the inabilit y to obtain offsets—as will be the case for the foreseeable future—the materials (and l ikely the labor) for these improvements must come from outside the airshed. Sourcing aggregate and construction products from other areas would dramatically increase cos ts, increase delays and heavy road traffic, and potentially lead to equivalent additional emissions from mobile and temporary sources traveling further distances within the nonattainment areas. Staker Parson has a unique perspective on petitioners’ proposed offset rule. Staker Parson suffered substantial financial loss as a result of UDAQ ’s decision in previous SIP development processes to preclude sources from using or sel ling preexisting PM 2.5 

### and PM 2.5 

### precursor ERCs to offset emissions in the nonattainment areas . If the Board initiates5



### rulemaking for the proposed offsets rule, Staker Parson w ould be further harmed because its facilities would be unable to undertake capacity increases or other projects necessary to service Utah’s growing infrastructure demands. For these reasons, Staker Parson respectfully requests that the Board adopt UDAQ’s recomm endation and deny petitioners’ rulemaking request for a minor source offset program. Thank you for your consideration,

Mike Dalley, Oldcastle Mountain West Division Sustainabi lity Director Staker Parson Companies cc: Melissa Yazhe, Administrative Secretary, Utah Di vision of Air Quality Craig Anderson, Environmental Division Chief, Office of Attorney General

8530382_1

# ITEM 7

# Informational Items

# National Air Toxics Monitoring Program Annual Report2012EPAAnnualToxicsReportSummaryByRomanKuprov,AtmosphericScientistUtahDivisionofAirQualityMarch2,2016NationalNetworkOverview•64Nationwidemonitoringstationsmeasuringairtoxics•Datacollectedona1‐in‐6dayschedule•AsinglestationwasestablishedinUtahin2002BountifulMonitoringStation(BTUT)ExposureRiskMetrics(ScreeningValues)•OneinonemillioncancerriskRepresentedasthenumberofpeoplepermillionatriskforcancer,providedalifetimeexposure.•Non‐cancerriskRepresentedasHazardQuotient.Valuesaboveone(1)representthatsomehealtheffectsmayoccur.Valuesbelowoneindicatethatthereisnoappreciablehealthrisk.(calculatedoveralifetime)Pollutant AnnualAverage(ug/m3)CancerRiskApproximation(in‐a‐million)NoncancerRiskApproximation(HQ)Formaldehyde 4.44± 0.75 57.67 0.45Benzene 1.02± 0.13 7.92 0.03Acetaldehyde 2.54± 0.35 5.58 0.28CarbonTetrachloride0.66± 0.03 3.97 0.011,3‐Butadiene 0.12± 0.02 3.53 0.06Cancer&Non‐cancerRiskApproximationandTrendsforUtahPollutant CancerRiskApproximation(in‐a‐million)NoncancerRiskApproximation(HQ)AnnualEmissions(tpy)Formaldehyde 57.67 0.45 68.61Benzene 7.92 0.03 111.98Acetaldehyde 5.58 0.28 40.38CarbonTetrachloride 3.97 0.01 N/A1,3‐Butadiene 3.53 0.06 14.29Emissions,Cancer&NoncancerRiskApproximationforUtah•2015ToxicsStudy–$110,000Stateresearchbudget–TakingacloserlookattheHAPsdistributionbetweenSaltLakeandUtahValleys–Enhancedsamplingfrequency–Comparisonwithhistoricaldata2016ToxicsStudy–$355,000Federalgrant–Awidearrayofreal‐timepollutantsandHAPS.•PM2.5•O3,NOx,CO•EC/OC•Speciation•Particulate&GaseousHAPS–Sourceapportionmentmodeling–PublicOutreachSummary•FormaldehydeistheambientHAPwiththebiggestcontributiontocancerandnon‐cancerhealthrisksinUtah.Itisthesecondmost‐emittedHAPintheStateaccordingtotheNEI.•AlthoughbenzeneistheHAPwiththesecondlargestcontribution,ithasasignificantlyweakerimpactthanformaldehyde.ItisthemostemittedHAPintheState.•Pollutantsofinterest:–CarbonTetrachloride–1,2‐dichloroethane–Acetaldehyde–1,3‐butadiene–Dichloromethane–Naphthalene•ToxicsstudiesareunderwaytobetterunderstandHAPsdistributionandtrendsacrosstheWasatchFrontandidentifytheemissionsources.

# Air Toxics Compliance

Monitoring

### State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor 

### Department of Environmental Quality

Alan Matheson Executive Director DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird

Director

DAQA

- 073

- 16

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Air Quality Board FROM: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary DATE: February 9 , 2016 SUBJECT: Air Toxics, Lead

- Based Paint, and Asbestos (ATLAS) Section Compliance Activities

– January 2016

______________________________________________________________________________________ Asbestos Demolition/Renovation NESHAP Inspections 36 Asbestos AHERA Inspections 33 Asbestos State Rules Only Inspections 1 Asbestos Notifications Accepted 130 Asbestos Telep hone Calls An swered 362 Asbestos Individuals Certifications Approved/Disapproved 111 / 0 Asbe stos Company Certifications/Re

- C ertifications 0 / 2 3 Asbestos Alternate Work Practices Approved/Disapproved 8 / 0 Lead

- Based Paint (LBP) Inspections 1 LBP Notifications Approved 0 LBP Telep hone Calls Answered 10 LBP Letters Prepared and Mailed 0 LBP Courses Reviewed/Approved 0 / 0 LBP Course Audits 0 LBP Individual Certifications Approved/Disapproved 17 / 0 LBP Firm Certifications 10

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, U tah Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, U tah 84114

- 4820 Telephone (801) 536

- 4000 • Fax (801) 536

- 4099 • T.D.D (801) 903

- 3978 www.de q.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paperDAQA

- 0 73

- 16 Page 2

Notices of Violation Issued 0 Compliance Advisories Issued 4 Warning Letter s Issued 2 Settlement Agreements Finalized 1 Penalties Agreed to : Wayne School District $125.00

### State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor 

### Department of Environmental Quality

Alan Matheson Executive Director DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird

Director

DAQC

- 171

- 16

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Air Quality Board FROM: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary DATE: February 11, 2016 SUBJECT: Compliance Activities

– January 2016

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Annual Inspections Conducted: Major

................................ ................................ ................. 19 Synthetic Minor

................................ ................................ ................... 0 Minor

................................ ................................ ................. 2 1

On

- Site Stack Test Audits Conducted:

................................ ............................. 4 Stack Test Report Reviews:

................................ ................................ ............ 48

On

- Site CEM Audits Conducted:

................................ ................................ ..... 3 Emission Reports Reviewed:

................................ ................................ .......... 26 Temporary Relocation Requests Reviewed & Approved:

................................ 3 Fugitive Dust Control Plans Reviewed & Accepted:

................................ ...... 84 Soil Remediation Report Reviews:

................................ ................................ ... 6

1 Miscellaneous Inspections Conducted:

................................ .......................... 16 Complaints Received:

................................ ................................ ..................... 3 8 Breakdown Reports Received:

................................ ................................ ........ 28

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, U tah Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1448 2 0 • Salt Lake City, U tah 84114

- 48 2 0 Telephone (801) 53 6

- 4 0 00 • Fax (801 ) 536

- 4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903

- 3978 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paperD AQC

- 171

- 1 6 Page 2 Compliance Actions Resulting From a Breakdown

................................ .......... 0

Wa rning Letters Issued:

................................ ................................ .................... 4

Notices of Violation Issued:

................................ ................................ .............. 2 Compliance Advisories Issued:

................................ ................................ ....... 22 Settlement Agreements Reached:

................................ ................................ ..... 1 Savage Services

................................ ................................ ..... $ 2 , 160 .00

1 Miscellaneous inspections include, e.g., surveillance, level I inspections, VOC inspections, complain ts, on - site training, dust patrol, smoke patrol, open burning, etc.Utah Division of Air Quality0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

PM2.5 (ug/m3)DaysUtah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data November 2015BountifulBrigham CityHawthorneHurricaneLindonLogan #4MagnaNorth ProvoOgden #2Rose ParkSmithfieldSpanish Fork24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3Utah Division of Air Quality0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

PM2.5 (ug/m3)DaysUtah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data December 2015BountifulBrigham CityHawthorneHurricaneLindonLogan #4MagnaNorth ProvoOgden #2Rose ParkSmithfieldSpanish Fork24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3Utah Division of Air Quality0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

PM2.5 (ug/m3)DaysUtah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data January 2016BountifulBrigham CityErdaHawthorneHurricaneLindonMagnaNorth ProvoOgden #2Rose ParkSmithfieldSpanish Fork24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3Utah Division of Air Quality0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

PM2.5 (ug/m3)DaysUtah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data February 2016BountifulBrigham CityErdaHawthorneHurricaneLindonMagnaNorth ProvoOgden #2Rose ParkSmithfieldSpanish Fork24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3Utah Division of Air Quality0204060801001201401601 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

PM 10 (ug/m3)DaysUtah 24-hr PM10Data November 2015BountifulHawthorneHerriman #3HurricaneLindonLoganMagnaNorth ProvoOgdenSmithfield24-hr Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3Utah Division of Air Quality0204060801001201401601 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

PM 10 (ug/m3)DaysUtah 24-hr PM10Data December 2015BountifulHawthorneHerriman #3HurricaneLindonLogan #4MagnaNorth ProvoOgdenSmithfield24-hr Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3Utah Division of Air Quality0204060801001201401601 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

PM 10 (ug/m3)DaysUtah 24-hr PM10Data January 2016BountifulHawthorneHerriman #3HurricaneLindonMagnaNorth ProvoOgdenSmithfield24-hr Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3-4.8-5.2-2.7-0.46.44.72.21.42.50.0 0.00.4-0.23.41.73.47.44.95.95.55.16.55.62.01.92.41.73.910.19.6-0.1-10.00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0801 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Maximum Temperature ( O C) (Hawthorne)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2016Brigham CityBountifulCopperviewErdaHerriman #3HarrisvilleHawthorneOgden #2Exceed.TM‐8.6‐8.6‐6.0‐5.7‐3.00.11.24.90.0‐1.5‐5.8‐5.4‐5.1‐4.20.5‐0.93.5‐0.10.42.70.1‐0.7‐2.52.0‐3.9‐5.1‐3.1‐2.81.13.51.2-20.0-10.00.010.020.030.040.050.060.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0801 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Maximum Temperature ( O C) (Roosevelt)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2016Price #2RooseveltVernal #4Exceed.TM-14.6-10.6-5.6-5.0-1.7-0.60.1-0.6-1.7-3.4-5.7-7.5-6.8-1.6-1.50.11.30.30.54.6-3.0-5.3-3.40.4-0.9-6.4-9.0-8.02.31.5-4.5-20.0-10.00.010.020.030.040.050.060.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0801 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Maximum Temperature ( O C) (Smithfield)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2016SmithfieldExceed.TM-6.00.32.64.86.84.44.71.51.80.2-0.1-0.93.63.72.13.45.65.24.75.14.08.46.52.52.91.70.52.35.87.90.3-10.00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0801 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Maximum Temperature ( O C) (North Provo)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2016North ProvoSpanish ForkExceed.TM6.110.511.09.08.26.65.06.75.57.35.97.39.410.18.17.710.39.910.113.011.113.411.511.59.210.511.513.814.015.111.1-10.00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0801 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Maximum Temperature ( O C) (Hurricane)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2016HurricaneExceed.TM-1.5-2.9-1.3-1.33.23.94.14.94.70.81.30.92.96.012.814.115.9-10.00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Daily Maximum Temperature ( O C) (Hawthorne)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 2016Brigham CityBountifulCopperviewErdaHerriman #3HarrisvilleHawthorneOgden #2Exceed.TM‐2.3‐0.5‐3.7‐5.0‐3.3‐2.31.11.82.51.94.35.85.84.98.79.98.6-10-50510152025303540455055606570758085900.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Daily Maximum Temperature ( 0 C) (Roosevelt)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 2016Price #2RooseveltVernal #4Exceed.TM‐6.0‐9.7‐5.3‐5.1‐2.0‐1.5‐1.2‐6.4‐8.2‐5.7‐5.8‐5.7‐2.50.68.06.68.0-10.0-5.00.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.090.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Daily Maximum Temperature ( 0 C) (Smithfield)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 2016SmithfieldExceed.TM‐1.1‐2.0‐1.9‐3.22.71.12.83.23.93.80.42.12.61.711.613.614.6-10.0-5.00.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.090.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Daily Maximum Temperature ( 0 C) (North Provo)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 2016North ProvoSpanish ForkExceed.TM3.42.64.37.910.411.713.716.217.417.619.219.618.918.119.420.622.10.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.090.095.0100.00.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Daily Maximum Temperature ( 0 C) (Hurricane)

Ozone (ppm)DaysHighest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 2016HurricaneExceed.TM