195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

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 Public 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. Definitions. 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 Cards. 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, individuals with special needs (including auxiliary communicative aids and 

services) should contact Ashley Nelson, Office of Human Resources at (801) 536-4413 (TDD 903-3978). 
ITEM 3
 

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

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. Definitions; 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 Consultant 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 Plants, and R307-328-4, Loading of Tank 

Trucks, Trailers, Railroad Tank 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 Consultant at DAQ, stated this rule was proposed in 

response to EPAs removal of portions of its prevention 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 thereof, is required to obtain a PSD or Title V 

permit. The DAQ is proposing changes to the Utah rules so that they will align with the change in 

federal regulations regarding greenhouse 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 approve 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. Regional Haze. Presented by Ryan Stephens. 

Ryan Stephens, Environmental Planning Consultant 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 the progress report. This recent comment period was 

addressing the incorporation of the report into the SIP. No comments were received on this issue. 

Staff recommends that the Board adopt R307-110-28, 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 Consultant 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 regarding Subsection 13(10). The concern was that the 

language regarding removal of vermiculite was ambiguous and hard to work with. The language 

read “to the maximum extent possible.” In response 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 following a work practice” or “an alternative work practice,” which has 
Air 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 Board 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, which is supposedly asbestos-free, is going to be 

handled. To which staff explained that one of the requirements in the rule is that vermiculite 

material must be tested to see whether it is greater than 1% asbestos. This would require at the 

time of the demolition or renovation/remodeling that 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 stores 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 they 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 benefit the regulated community, since it extends the 

time for certification and allows them to take advantage 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 Technician Certification. William Stringer 

seconded. The Board approved unanimously. 

IX. Informational Items. 

A. Air Toxics. Presented by Robert Ford. 

B. Compliance. Presented by Jay 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 three 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 analyzed for planning strategies. All of the 

data being reported is the filter data 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 bills and appropriations being tracked by the 

Legislative Clean Air Caucus during the current legislative session. There are ten House 

bills, four Senate bills, and five clean 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

Alan Matheson

Executive Director

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

Bryce C. Bird

Director

DAQ-015-16

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 18, 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 

85.” 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 that the Board adopt the amendments to R307-101-2 as 

proposed.

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801) 536-4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903-3978 

www.deq.utah.gov

Printed on 100% recycled paper
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 1 of 17

1 R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality.

2 R307-101. General Requirements.

3

4 R307-101-2. Definitions.

5 Except where specified in individual rules, definitions in 

6 R307-101-2 are applicable to all rules adopted by the Air Quality 

7 Board.

8 "Actual Emissions" means the actual rate of emissions of a 

9 pollutant from an emissions unit determined as follows:

10 (1) In general, actual emissions as of a particular date shall 

11 equal the average rate, in tons per year, at which the unit actually 

12 emitted the pollutant during a two-year period which precedes the 

13 particular date and which is representative of normal source 

14 operations. The director shall allow the use of a different time 

15 period upon a determination that it is more representative of normal 

16 source operation. Actual emissions shall be calculated using the 

17 unit's actual operating hours, production rates, and types of 

18 materials processed, stored, or combusted during the selected time

19 period.

20 (2) The director may presume that source-specific allowable 

21 emissions for the unit are equivalent to the actual emissions of the 

22 unit.

23 (3) For any emission unit, other than an electric utility steam 

24 generating unit specified in (4), which has not begun normal operations 

25 on the particular date, actual emissions shall equal the potential to 

26 emit of the unit on that date.

27 (4) For an electric utility steam generating unit (other than 

28 a new unit or the replacement of an existing unit) actual emissions 

29 of the unit following the physical or operational change shall equal 

30 the representative actual annual emissions of the unit, provided the 

31 source owner or operator maintains and submits to the director, on an 

32 annual basis for a period of 5 years from the date the unit resumes 

33 regular operation, information demonstrating that the physical or 

34 operational change did not result in an emissions increase. A longer 

35 period, not to exceed 10 years, may be required by the director if the 

36 director determines such a period to be more representative of normal 

37 source post-change operations.

38 "Acute Hazardous Air Pollutant" means any noncarcinogenic 

39 hazardous air pollutant for which a threshold limit value - ceiling 

40 (TLV-C) has been adopted by the American Conference of Governmental 

41 Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in its "Threshold Limit Values for 

42 Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure 

43 Indices, (2009)."

44 "Air Contaminant" means any particulate matter or any gas, vapor, 

45 suspended solid or any combination of them, excluding steam and water 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 2 of 17

1 vapors (Section 19-2-102(1)).

2 "Air Contaminant Source" means any and all sources of emission 

3 of air contaminants whether privately or publicly owned or operated 

4 (Section 19-2-102(2)).

5 "Air Pollution" means the presence in the ambient air of one or 

6 more air contaminants in such quantities and duration and under 

7 conditions and circumstances, as is or tends to be injurious to human 

8 health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would 

9 unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or use of property 

10 as determined by the standards, rules and regulations adopted by the 

11 Air Quality Board (Section 19-2-104).

12 "Allowable Emissions" means the emission rate of a source 

13 calculated using the maximum rated capacity of the source (unless the 

14 source is subject to enforceable limits which restrict the operating 

15 rate, or hours of operation, or both) and the emission limitation 

16 established pursuant to R307-401-8.

17 "Ambient Air" means the surrounding or outside air (Section 

18 19-2-102(4)).

19 "Appropriate Authority" means the governing body of any city, 

20 town or county.

21 "Atmosphere" means the air that envelops or surrounds the earth 

22 and includes all space outside of buildings, stacks or exterior ducts.

23 "Authorized Local Authority" means a city, county, city-county 

24 or district health department; a city, county or combination fire 

25 department; or other local agency duly designated by appropriate 

26 authority, with approval of the state Department of Health; and other 

27 lawfully adopted ordinances, codes or regulations not in conflict 

28 therewith.

29 "Board" means Air Quality Board. See Section 19-2-102(8)(a).

30 "Breakdown" means any malfunction or procedural error, to include 

31 but not limited to any malfunction or procedural error during start-up 

32 and shutdown, which will result in the inoperability or sudden loss 

33 of performance of the control equipment or process equipment causing 

34 emissions in excess of those allowed by approval order or Title R307.

35 "BTU" means British Thermal Unit, the quantity of heat necessary 

36 to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.

37 "Calibration Drift" means the change in the instrument meter 

38 readout over a stated period of time of normal continuous operation 

39 when the VOC concentration at the time of measurement is the same known 

40 upscale value.

41 "Carbon Adsorption System" means a device containing adsorbent 

42 material (e.g., activated carbon, aluminum, silica gel), an inlet and 

43 outlet for exhaust gases, and a system for the proper disposal or reuse 

44 of all VOC adsorbed.

45 "Carcinogenic Hazardous Air Pollutant" means any hazardous air 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 3 of 17

1 pollutant that is classified as a known human carcinogen (A1) or 

2 suspected human carcinogen (A2) by the American Conference of 

3 Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in its "Threshold Limit 

4 Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological 

5 Exposure Indices, (2009)."

6 "Chargeable Pollutant" means any regulated air pollutant except 

7 the following:

8 (1) Carbon monoxide;

9 (2) Any pollutant that is a regulated air pollutant solely 

10 because it is a Class I or II substance subject to a standard 

11 promulgated or established by Title VI of the Act, Stratospheric Ozone 

12 Protection;

13 (3) Any pollutant that is a regulated air pollutant solely 

14 because it is subject to a standard or regulation under Section 112(r) 

15 of the Act, Prevention of Accidental Releases.

16 "Chronic Hazardous Air Pollutant" means any noncarcinogenic 

17 hazardous air pollutant for which a threshold limit value - time 

18 weighted average (TLV-TWA) having no threshold limit value - ceiling 

19 (TLV-C) has been adopted by the American Conference of Governmental 

20 Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in its "Threshold Limit Values for 

21 Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure 

22 Indices, (2009)."

23 "Clean Air Act" means federal Clean Air Act as found in 42 U.S.C.

24 Chapter 85.

25 "Clean Coal Technology" means any technology, including 

26 technologies applied at the precombustion, combustion, or post 

27 combustion stage, at a new or existing facility which will achieve 

28 significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides 

29 of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation 

30 of electricity, or process steam which was not in widespread use as 

31 of November 15, 1990.

32 "Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project" means a project 

33 using funds appropriated under the heading "Department of Energy-Clean 

34 Coal Technology," up to a total amount of $2,500,000,000 for commercial 

35 demonstration of clean coal technology, or similar projects funded 

36 through appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency. The 

37 Federal contribution for a qualifying project shall be at least 20 

38 percent of the total cost of the demonstration project.

39 "Clearing Index" means an indicator of the predicted rate of 

40 clearance of ground level pollutants from a given area. This number 

41 is provided by the National Weather Service.

42 "Commence" as applied to construction of a major source or major 

43 modification means that the owner or operator has all necessary 

44 pre-construction approvals or permits and either has:

45 (1) Begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of actual 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 4 of 17

1 on-site construction of the source, to be completed within a reasonable 

2 time; or

3 (2) Entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, 

4 which cannot be canceled or modified without substantial loss to the 

5 owner or operator, to undertake a program of actual construction of 

6 the source to be completed within a reasonable time.

7 "Condensable PM2.5" means material that is vapor phase at stack 

8 conditions, but which condenses and/or reacts upon cooling and 

9 dilution in the ambient air to form solid or liquid particulate matter 

10 immediately after discharge from the stack.

11 "Compliance Schedule" means a schedule of events, by date, which 

12 will result in compliance with these regulations.

13 "Construction" means any physical change or change in the method 

14 of operation including fabrication, erection, installation, 

15 demolition, or modification of a source which would result in a change 

16 in actual emissions.

17 "Control Apparatus" means any device which prevents or controls 

18 the emission of any air contaminant directly or indirectly into the 

19 outdoor atmosphere.

20 "Department" means Utah State Department of Environmental 

21 Quality. See Section 19-1-103(1).

22 "Director" means the Director of the Division of Air Quality. 

23 See Section 19-1-103(1).

24 "Division" means the Division of Air Quality.

25 "Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit" means any steam electric 

26 generating unit that is constructed for the purpose of supplying more 

27 than one-third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 

28 25 MW electrical output to any utility power distribution system for 

29 sale. Any steam supplied to a steam distribution system for the 

30 purpose of providing steam to a steam-electric generator that would 

31 produce electrical energy for sale is also considered in determining 

32 the electrical energy output capacity of the affected facility.

33 "Emission" means the act of discharge into the atmosphere of an 

34 air contaminant or an effluent which contains or may contain an air 

35 contaminant; or the effluent so discharged into the atmosphere.

36 "Emissions Information" means, with reference to any source 

37 operation, equipment or control apparatus:

38 (1) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount,

39 frequency, concentration, or other characteristics related to air 

40 quality of any air contaminant which has been emitted by the source 

41 operation, equipment, or control apparatus;

42 (2) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, 

43 frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent 

44 related to air quality) of any air contaminant which, under an 

45 applicable standard or limitation, the source operation was authorized 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 5 of 17

1 to emit (including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a 

2 description of the manner or rate of operation of the source 

3 operation), or any combination of the foregoing; and

4 (3) A general description of the location and/or nature of the 

5 source operation to the extent necessary to identify the source 

6 operation and to distinguish it from other source operations 

7 (including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description 

8 of the device, installation, or operation constituting the source 

9 operation).

10 "Emission Limitation" means a requirement established by the 

11 Board, the director or the Administrator, EPA, which limits the 

12 quantity, rate or concentration of emission of air pollutants on a 

13 continuous emission reduction including any requirement relating to 

14 the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission 

15 reduction (Section 302(k)).

16 "Emissions Unit" means any part of a stationary source which emits 

17 or would have the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regulation 

18 under the Clean Air Act.

19 "Enforceable" means all limitations and conditions which are 

20 enforceable by the Administrator, including those requirements 

21 developed pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, requirements within the 

22 State Implementation Plan and R307, any permit requirements 

23 established pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or R307-401.

24 "EPA" means Environmental Protection Agency.

25 "EPA Method 9" means 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 9, "Visual 

26 Determination of Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources," and 

27 Alternate 1, "Determination of the opacity of emissions from 

28 stationary sources remotely by LIDAR."

29 "Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the Utah 

30 Department of Environmental Quality. See Section 19-1-103(2).

31 "Existing Installation" means an installation, construction of 

32 which began prior to the effective date of any regulation having 

33 application to it.

34 "Facility" means machinery, equipment, structures of any part or 

35 accessories thereof, installed or acquired for the primary purpose of 

36 controlling or disposing of air pollution. It does not include an air 

37 conditioner, fan or other similar device for the comfort of personnel.

38 "Filterable PM2.5" means particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

39 equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers that are directly emitted by a 

40 source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions and can be 

41 captured on the filter of a stack test train.

42 "Fireplace" means all devices both masonry or factory built units 

43 (free standing fireplaces) with a hearth, fire chamber or similarly 

44 prepared device connected to a chimney which provides the operator with 

45 little control of combustion air, leaving its fire chamber fully or 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 6 of 17

1 at least partially open to the room. Fireplaces include those devices 

2 with circulating systems, heat exchangers, or draft reducing doors 

3 with a net thermal efficiency of no greater than twenty percent and 

4 are used for aesthetic purposes.

5 "Fugitive Dust" means particulate, composed of soil and/or 

6 industrial particulates such as ash, coal, minerals, etc., which 

7 becomes airborne because of wind or mechanical disturbance of 

8 surfaces. Natural sources of dust and fugitive emissions are not 

9 fugitive dust within the meaning of this definition.

10 "Fugitive Emissions" means emissions from an installation or 

11 facility which are neither passed through an air cleaning device nor 

12 vented through a stack or could not reasonably pass through a stack, 

13 chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening.

14 "Garbage" means all putrescible animal and vegetable matter 

15 resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of 

16 food, including wastes attendant thereto.

17 "Gasoline" means any petroleum distillate, used as a fuel for 

18 internal combustion engines, having a Reid vapor pressure of 4 pounds 

19 or greater.

20 "Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)" means any pollutant listed by the 

21 EPA as a hazardous air pollutant in conformance with Section 112(b) 

22 of the Clean Air Act. A list of these pollutants is available at the 

23 Division of Air Quality.

24 "Household Waste" means any solid or liquid material normally 

25 generated by the family in a residence in the course of ordinary 

26 day-to-day living, including but not limited to garbage, paper 

27 products, rags, leaves and garden trash.

28 "Incinerator" means a combustion apparatus designed for high 

29 temperature operation in which solid, semisolid, liquid, or gaseous 

30 combustible wastes are ignited and burned efficiently and from which 

31 the solid and gaseous residues contain little or no combustible 

32 material.

33 "Installation" means a discrete process with identifiable 

34 emissions which may be part of a larger industrial plant. Pollution 

35 equipment shall not be considered a separate installation or 

36 installations.

37 "LPG" means liquified petroleum gas such as propane or butane.

38 "Maintenance Area" means an area that is subject to the provisions 

39 of a maintenance plan that is included in the Utah state implementation 

40 plan, and that has been redesignated by EPA from nonattainment to 

41 attainment of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

42 (a) The following areas are considered maintenance areas for 

43 ozone:

44 (i) Salt Lake County, effective August 18, 1997; and

45 (ii) Davis County, effective August 18, 1997.
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 7 of 17

1 (b) The following areas are considered maintenance areas for 

2 carbon monoxide:

3 (i) Salt Lake City, effective March 22, 1999;

4 (ii) Ogden City, effective May 8, 2001; and

5 (iii) Provo City, effective January 3, 2006.

6 (c) The following areas are considered maintenance areas for 

7 PM10:

8 (i) Salt Lake County, effective on the date that EPA approves 

9 the maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on December 2, 2015; 

10 and

11 (ii) Utah County, effective on the date that EPA approves the 

12 maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on December 2, 2015; 

13 and

14 (iii) Ogden City, effective on the date that EPA approves the 

15 maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on December 2, 2015.

16 (d) The following area is considered a maintenance area for 

17 sulfur dioxide: all of Salt Lake County and the eastern portion of 

18 Tooele County above 5600 feet, effective on the date that EPA approves 

19 the maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on January 5, 2005.

20 "Major Modification" means any physical change in or change in 

21 the method of operation of a major source that would result in a 

22 significant net emissions increase of any pollutant. A net emissions 

23 increase that is significant for volatile organic compounds shall be 

24 considered significant for ozone. Within Salt Lake and Davis Counties 

25 or any nonattainment area for ozone, a net emissions increase that is 

26 significant for nitrogen oxides shall be considered significant for 

27 ozone. Within areas of nonattainment for PM10, a significant net 

28 emission increase for any PM10 precursor is also a significant net 

29 emission increase for PM10. A physical change or change in the method 

30 of operation shall not include:

31 (1) routine maintenance, repair and replacement;

32 (2) use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an 

33 order under section 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and Environmental 

34 Coordination Act of 1974, or by reason of a natural gas curtailment 

35 plan pursuant to the Federal Power Act;

36 (3) use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under 

37 section 125 of the federal Clean Air Act;

38 (4) use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit to the 

39 extent that the fuel is generated from municipal solid waste;

40 (5) use of an alternative fuel or raw material by a source:

41 (a) which the source was capable of accommodating before January 

42 6, 1975, unless such change would be prohibited under any enforceable 

43 permit condition; or

44 (b) which the source is otherwise approved to use;

45 (6) an increase in the hours of operation or in the production 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 8 of 17

1 rate unless such change would be prohibited under any enforceable 

2 permit condition;

3 (7) any change in ownership at a source

4 (8) the addition, replacement or use of a pollution control 

5 project at an existing electric utility steam generating unit, unless 

6 the director determines that such addition, replacement, or use 

7 renders the unit less environmentally beneficial, or except:

8 (a) when the director has reason to believe that the pollution 

9 control project would result in a significant net increase in 

10 representative actual annual emissions of any criteria pollutant over 

11 levels used for that source in the most recent air quality impact 

12 analysis in the area conducted for the purpose of Title I of the Clean 

13 Air Act, if any, and

14 (b) the director determines that the increase will cause or 

15 contribute to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard 

16 or PSD increment, or visibility limitation.

17 (9) the installation, operation, cessation, or removal of a 

18 temporary clean coal technology demonstration project, provided that 

19 the project complies with:

20 (a) the Utah State Implementation Plan; and

21 (b) other requirements necessary to attain and maintain the 

22 national ambient air quality standards during the project and after 

23 it is terminated.

24 "Major Source" means, to the extent provided by the federal Clean 

25 Air Act as applicable to R307:

26 (1) any stationary source of air pollutants which emits, or has 

27 the potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or more of any 

28 pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act; or

29 (a) any source located in a nonattainment area for carbon 

30 monoxide which emits, or has the potential to emit, carbon monoxide 

31 in the amounts outlined in Section 187 of the federal Clean Air Act 

32 with respect to the severity of the nonattainment area as outlined in 

33 Section 187 of the federal Clean Air Act; or

34 (b) any source located in Salt Lake or Davis Counties or in a 

35 nonattainment area for ozone which emits, or has the potential to emit, 

36 VOC or nitrogen oxides in the amounts outlined in Section 182 of the 

37 federal Clean Air Act with respect to the severity of the nonattainment 

38 area as outlined in Section 182 of the federal Clean Air Act; or

39 (c) any source located in a nonattainment area for PM10 which 

40 emits, or has the potential to emit, PM10 or any PM10 precursor in the 

41 amounts outlined in Section 189 of the federal Clean Air Act with 

42 respect to the severity of the nonattainment area as outlined in 

43 Section 189 of the federal Clean Air Act.

44 (2) any physical change that would occur at a source not 

45 qualifying under subpart 1 as a major source, if the change would 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 9 of 17

1 constitute a major source by itself;

2 (3) the fugitive emissions and fugitive dust of a stationary 

3 source shall not be included in determining for any of the purposes 

4 of these R307 rules whether it is a major stationary source, unless 

5 the source belongs to one of the following categories of stationary 

6 sources:

7 (a) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers);

8 (b) Kraft pulp mills;

9 (c) Portland cement plants;

10 (d) Primary zinc smelters;

11 (e) Iron and steel mills;

12 (f) Primary aluminum or reduction plants;

13 (g) Primary copper smelters;

14 (h) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 

15 tons of refuse per day;

16 (i) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants;

17 (j) Petroleum refineries;

18 (k) Lime plants;

19 (l) Phosphate rock processing plants;

20 (m) Coke oven batteries;

21 (n) Sulfur recovery plants;

22 (o) Carbon black plants (furnace process);

23 (p) Primary lead smelters;

24 (q) Fuel conversion plants;

25 (r) Sintering plants;

26 (s) Secondary metal production plants;

27 (t) Chemical process plants;

28 (u) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more 

29 than 250 million British Thermal Units per hour heat input;

30 (v) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage 

31 capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels;

32 (w) Taconite ore processing plants;

33 (x) Glass fiber processing plants;

34 (y) Charcoal production plants;

35 (z) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250 

36 million British Thermal Units per hour heat input;

37 (aa) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 

38 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the federal 

39 Clean Air Act.

40 "Modification" means any planned change in a source which results 

41 in a potential increase of emission.

42 "National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)" means the 

43 allowable concentrations of air pollutants in the ambient air 

44 specified by the Federal Government (Title 40, Code of Federal 

45 Regulations, Part 50).
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 10 of 17

1 "Net Emissions Increase" means the amount by which the sum of the 

2 following exceeds zero:

3 (1) any increase in actual emissions from a particular physical 

4 change or change in method of operation at a source; and

5 (2) any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the 

6 source that are contemporaneous with the particular change and are 

7 otherwise creditable. For purposes of determining a "net emissions 

8 increase":

9 (a) An increase or decrease in actual emissions is 

10 contemporaneous with the increase from the particular change only if 

11 it occurs between the date five years before construction on the 

12 particular change commences; and the date that the increase from the 

13 particular change occurs.

14 (b) An increase or decrease in actual emissions is creditable 

15 only if it has not been relied on in issuing a prior approval for the 

16 source which approval is in effect when the increase in actual 

17 emissions for the particular change occurs.

18 (c) An increase or decrease in actual emission of sulfur 

19 dioxide, nitrogen oxides or particulate matter which occurs before an 

20 applicable minor source baseline date is creditable only if it is 

21 required to be considered in calculating the amount of maximum 

22 allowable increases remaining available. With respect to particulate 

23 matter, only PM10 emissions will be used to evaluate this increase or 

24 decrease.

25 (d) An increase in actual emissions is creditable only to the 

26 extent that the new level of actual emissions exceeds the old level.

27 (e) A decrease in actual emissions is creditable only to the 

28 extent that:

29 (i) The old level of actual emissions or the old level of 

30 allowable emissions, whichever is lower, exceeds the new level of 

31 actual emissions;

32 (ii) It is enforceable at and after the time that actual 

33 construction on the particular change begins; and

34 (iii) It has approximately the same qualitative significance 

35 for public health and welfare as that attributed to the increase from 

36 the particular change.

37 (iv) It has not been relied on in issuing any permit under 

38 R307-401 nor has it been relied on in demonstrating attainment or 

39 reasonable further progress.

40 (f) An increase that results from a physical change at a source 

41 occurs when the emissions unit on which construction occurred becomes 

42 operational and begins to emit a particular pollutant. Any 

43 replacement unit that requires shakedown becomes operational only 

44 after a reasonable shakedown period, not to exceed 180 days.

45 "New Installation" means an installation, construction of which 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 11 of 17

1 began after the effective date of any regulation having application 

2 to it.

3 "Nonattainment Area" means an area designated by the 

4 Environmental Protection Agency as nonattainment under Section 107, 

5 Clean Air Act for any National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The 

6 designations for Utah are listed in 40 CFR 81.345.

7 "Offset" means an amount of emission reduction, by a source, 

8 greater than the emission limitation imposed on such source by these 

9 regulations and/or the State Implementation Plan.

10 "Opacity" means the capacity to obstruct the transmission of 

11 light, expressed as percent.

12 "Open Burning" means any burning of combustible materials 

13 resulting in emission of products of combustion into ambient air 

14 without passage through a chimney or stack.

15 "Owner or Operator" means any person who owns, leases, controls, 

16 operates or supervises a facility, an emission source, or air pollution 

17 control equipment.

18 "PSD" Area means an area designated as attainment or 

19 unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the federal Clean 

20 Air Act.

21 "PM2.5" means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

22 less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as measured by an EPA 

23 reference or equivalent method.

24 "PM2.5 Precursor" means any chemical compound or substance which, 

25 after it has been emitted into the atmosphere, undergoes chemical or 

26 physical changes that convert it into particulate matter, specifically 

27 PM2.5, and has been identified in the applicable implementation plan 

28 for PM2.5 as significant for the purpose of developing control 

29 measures. Specifically, PM2.5 precursors include SO2, NOx, and VOC.

30 "PM10" means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less 

31 than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as measured by an EPA 

32 reference or equivalent method.

33 "PM10 Precursor" means any chemical compound or substance which, 

34 after it has been emitted into the atmosphere, undergoes chemical or 

35 physical changes that convert it into particulate matter, specifically 

36 PM10.

37 "Part 70 Source" means any source subject to the permitting 

38 requirements of R307-415.

39 "Person" means an individual, trust, firm, estate, company, 

40 corporation, partnership, association, state, state or federal agency 

41 or entity, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a 

42 state. (Subsection 19-2-103(4)).

43 "Pollution Control Project" means any activity or project at an 

44 existing electric utility steam generating unit for purposes of 

45 reducing emissions from such unit. Such activities or projects are 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 12 of 17

1 limited to:

2 (1) The installation of conventional or innovative pollution 

3 control technology, including but not limited to advanced flue gas 

4 desulfurization, sorbent injection for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

5 oxides controls and electrostatic precipitators;

6 (2) An activity or project to accommodate switching to a fuel 

7 which is less polluting than the fuel used prior to the activity or 

8 project, including, but not limited to natural gas or coal reburning, 

9 or the cofiring of natural gas and other fuels for the purpose of 

10 controlling emissions;

11 (3) A permanent clean coal technology demonstration project 

12 conducted under Title II, sec. 101(d) of the Further Continuing 

13 Appropriations Act of 1985 (sec. 5903(d) of title 42 of the United 

14 States Code), or subsequent appropriations, up to a total amount of 

15 $2,500,000,000 for commercial demonstration of clean coal technology, 

16 or similar projects funded through appropriations for the 

17 Environmental Protection Agency; or

18 (4) A permanent clean coal technology demonstration project 

19 that constitutes a repowering project.

20 "Potential to Emit" means the maximum capacity of a source to emit 

21 a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical 

22 or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a 

23 pollutant including air pollution control equipment and restrictions 

24 on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, 

25 stored, or processed shall be treated as part of its design if the 

26 limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is enforceable. 

27 Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit 

28 of a stationary source.

29 "Primary PM2.5" means the sum of filterable PM2.5 and condensable 

30 PM2.5.

31 "Process Level" means the operation of a source, specific to the 

32 kind or type of fuel, input material, or mode of operation.

33 "Process Rate" means the quantity per unit of time of any raw 

34 material or process intermediate consumed, or product generated, 

35 through the use of any equipment, source operation, or control 

36 apparatus. For a stationary internal combustion unit or any other 

37 fuel burning equipment, this term may be expressed as the quantity of 

38 fuel burned per unit of time.

39 "Reactivation of a Very Clean Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

40 Generating Unit" means any physical change or change in the method of 

41 operation associated with the commencement of commercial operations 

42 by a coal-fired utility unit after a period of discontinued operation 

43 where the unit:

44 (1) Has not been in operation for the two-year period prior to 

45 the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and the emissions 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 13 of 17

1 from such unit continue to be carried in the emission inventory at the 

2 time of enactment;

3 (2) Was equipped prior to shutdown with a continuous system of 

4 emissions control that achieves a removal efficiency for sulfur 

5 dioxide of no less than 85 percent and a removal efficiency for 

6 particulates of no less than 98 percent;

7 (3) Is equipped with low-NOx burners prior to the time of 

8 commencement of operations following reactivation; and

9 (4) Is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of the 

10 Clean Air Act.

11 "Reasonable Further Progress" means annual incremental 

12 reductions in emission of an air pollutant which are sufficient to 

13 provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the date identified in the State 

14 Implementation Plan.

15 "Refuse" means solid wastes, such as garbage and trash.

16 "Regulated air pollutant" means any of the following:

17 (a) Nitrogen oxides or any volatile organic compound;

18 (b) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality 

19 standard has been promulgated;

20 (c) Any pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated 

21 under Section 111 of the Act, Standards of Performance for New 

22 Stationary Sources;

23 (d) Any Class I or II substance subject to a standard promulgated 

24 under or established by Title VI of the Act, Stratospheric Ozone 

25 Protection;

26 (e) Any pollutant subject to a standard promulgated under 

27 Section 112, Hazardous Air Pollutants, or other requirements 

28 established under Section 112 of the Act, including Sections 112(g), 

29 (j), and (r) of the Act, including any of the following:

30 (i) Any pollutant subject to requirements under Section 112(j) 

31 of the Act, Equivalent Emission Limitation by Permit. If the 

32 Administrator fails to promulgate a standard by the date established 

33 pursuant to Section 112(e) of the Act, any pollutant for which a subject 

34 source would be major shall be considered to be regulated on the date 

35 18 months after the applicable date established pursuant to Section 

36 112(e) of the Act;

37 (ii) Any pollutant for which the requirements of Section 

38 112(g)(2) of the Act (Construction, Reconstruction and Modification) 

39 have been met, but only with respect to the individual source subject 

40 to Section 112(g)(2) requirement.

41 "Repowering" means replacement of an existing coal-fired boiler 

42 with one of the following clean coal technologies: atmospheric or 

43 pressurized fluidized bed combustion, integrated gasification 

44 combined cycle, magnetohydrodynamics, direct and indirect coal-fired 

45 turbines, integrated gasification fuel cells, or as determined by the 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 14 of 17

1 Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, a 

2 derivative of one or more of these technologies, and any other 

3 technology capable of controlling multiple combustion emissions 

4 simultaneously with improved boiler or generation efficiency and with 

5 significantly greater waste reduction relative to the performance of 

6 technology in widespread commercial use as of November 15, 1990.

7 (1) Repowering shall also include any oil and/or gas-fired unit 

8 which has been awarded clean coal technology demonstration funding as 

9 of January 1, 1991, by the Department of Energy.

10 (2) The director shall give expedited consideration to permit 

11 applications for any source that satisfies the requirements of this 

12 definition and is granted an extension under section 409 of the Clean 

13 Air Act.

14 "Representative Actual Annual Emissions" means the average rate, 

15 in tons per year, at which the source is projected to emit a pollutant 

16 for the two-year period after a physical change or change in the method 

17 of operation of unit, (or a different consecutive two-year period 

18 within 10 years after that change, where the director determines that 

19 such period is more representative of source operations), considering 

20 the effect any such change will have on increasing or decreasing the 

21 hourly emissions rate and on projected capacity utilization. In 

22 projecting future emissions the director shall:

23 (1) Consider all relevant information, including but not 

24 limited to, historical operational data, the company's own 

25 representations, filings with the State of Federal regulatory 

26 authorities, and compliance plans under title IV of the Clean Air Act; 

27 and

28 (2) Exclude, in calculating any increase in emissions that 

29 results from the particular physical change or change in the method 

30 of operation at an electric utility steam generating unit, that portion 

31 of the unit's emissions following the change that could have been 

32 accommodated during the representative baseline period and is 

33 attributable to an increase in projected capacity utilization at the 

34 unit that is unrelated to the particular change, including any 

35 increased utilization due to the rate of electricity demand growth for 

36 the utility system as a whole.

37 "Residence" means a dwelling in which people live, including all 

38 ancillary buildings.

39 "Residential Solid Fuel Burning" device means any residential 

40 burning device except a fireplace connected to a chimney that burns 

41 solid fuel and is capable of, and intended for use as a space heater, 

42 domestic water heater, or indoor cooking appliance, and has an 

43 air-to-fuel ratio less than 35-to-1 as determined by the test 

44 procedures prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534. It must also have a useable 

45 firebox volume of less than 6.10 cubic meters or 20 cubic feet, a 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 15 of 17

1 minimum burn rate less than 5 kilograms per hour or 11 pounds per hour 

2 as determined by test procedures prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534, and weigh 

3 less than 800 kilograms or 362.9 pounds. Appliances that are 

4 described as prefabricated fireplaces and are designed to accommodate 

5 doors or other accessories that would create the air starved operating 

6 conditions of a residential solid fuel burning device shall be 

7 considered as such. Fireplaces are not included in this definition 

8 for solid fuel burning devices.

9 "Road" means any public or private road.

10 "Salvage Operation" means any business, trade or industry engaged 

11 in whole or in part in salvaging or reclaiming any product or material, 

12 including but not limited to metals, chemicals, shipping containers 

13 or drums.

14 "Secondary Emissions" means emissions which would occur as a 

15 result of the construction or operation of a major source or major 

16 modification, but do not come from the major source or major 

17 modification itself.

18 Secondary emissions must be specific, well defined, 

19 quantifiable, and impact the same general area as the source or 

20 modification which causes the secondary emissions. Secondary 

21 emissions include emissions from any off-site support facility which 

22 would not be constructed or increase its emissions except as a result 

23 of the construction or operation of the major source or major 

24 modification. Secondary emissions do not include any emissions which 

25 come directly from a mobile source such as emissions from the tailpipe 

26 of a motor vehicle, from a train, or from a vessel.

27 Fugitive emissions and fugitive dust from the source or 

28 modification are not considered secondary emissions.

29 "Secondary PM2.5" means particles that form or grow in mass 

30 through chemical reactions in the ambient air well after dilution and 

31 condensation have occurred. Secondary PM2.5 is usually formed at some 

32 distance downwind from the source.

33 "Significant" means:

34 (1) In reference to a net emissions increase or the potential 

35 of a source to emit any of the following pollutants, a rate of emissions 

36 that would equal or exceed any of the following rates:

37 Carbon monoxide: 100 ton per year (tpy);

38 Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy;

39 Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy;

40 PM10: 15 tpy;

41 PM2.5: 10 tpy;

42 Particulate matter: 25 tpy;

43 Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds;

44 Lead: 0.6 tpy.

45 "Solid Fuel" means wood, coal, and other similar organic material 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 16 of 17

1 or combination of these materials.

2 "Solvent" means organic materials which are liquid at standard 

3 conditions (Standard Temperature and Pressure) and which are used as 

4 dissolvers, viscosity reducers, or cleaning agents.

5 "Source" means any structure, building, facility, or 

6 installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to 

7 regulation under the Clean Air Act and which is located on one or more 

8 continuous or adjacent properties and which is under the control of 

9 the same person or persons under common control. A building, 

10 structure, facility, or installation means all of the 

11 pollutant-emitting activities which belong to the same industrial 

12 grouping. Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as part 

13 of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same "Major Group" 

14 (i.e. which have the same two-digit code) as described in the Standard 

15 Industrial Classification Manual, 1972, as amended by the 1977 

16 Supplement (US Government Printing Office stock numbers 4101-0065 and 

17 003-005-00176-0, respectively).

18 "Stack" means any point in a source designed to emit solids, 

19 liquids, or gases into the air, including a pipe or duct but not 

20 including flares.

21 "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources" means the 

22 Federally established requirements for performance and record keeping 

23 (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60).

24 "State" means Utah State.

25 "Temporary" means not more than 180 calendar days.

26 "Temporary Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project" means a 

27 clean coal technology demonstration project that is operated for a 

28 period of 5 years or less, and which complies with the Utah State 

29 Implementation Plan and other requirements necessary to attain and 

30 maintain the national ambient air quality standards during the project 

31 and after it is terminated.

32 "Threshold Limit Value - Ceiling (TLV-C)" means the airborne 

33 concentration of a substance which may not be exceeded, as adopted by 

34 the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its 

35 "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents 

36 and Biological Exposure Indices, (2009)."

37 "Threshold Limit Value - Time Weighted Average (TLV-TWA)" means 

38 the time-weighted airborne concentration of a substance adopted by the 

39 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its 

40 "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents 

41 and Biological Exposure Indices, (2009)."

42 "Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)" means minute separate 

43 particles of matter, collected by high volume sampler.

44 "Toxic Screening Level" means an ambient concentration of an air 

45 contaminant equal to a threshold limit value - ceiling (TLV- C) or 
R307-101-2 February 18, 2016 Page 17 of 17

1 threshold limit value -time weighted average (TLV-TWA) divided by a 

2 safety factor.

3 "Trash" means solids not considered to be highly flammable or 

4 explosive including, but not limited to clothing, rags, leather, 

5 plastic, rubber, floor coverings, excelsior, tree leaves, yard 

6 trimmings and other similar materials.

7 "Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)" means VOC as defined in 40 CFR 

8 51.100(s), effective as of the date referenced in R307-101-3, is hereby 

9 adopted and incorporated by reference.

10 "Waste" means all solid, liquid or gaseous material, including, 

11 but not limited to, garbage, trash, household refuse, construction or 

12 demolition debris, or other refuse including that resulting from the 

13 prosecution of any business, trade or industry.

14 "Zero Drift" means the change in the instrument meter readout over 

15 a stated period of time of normal continuous operation when the VOC 

16 concentration at the time of measurement is zero.

17

18 KEY: air pollution, definitions

19 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [August 7, 2014]2015

20 Notice of Continuation: May 8, 2014

21 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(1)(a)
ITEM 5
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

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 18, 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 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The disapproval was based on the 

fact that Utah 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 opportunity 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 proposed. 

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801) 536-4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903-3978 

www.deq.utah.gov

Printed on 100% recycled paper
R307-104 February 18, 2016 Page 1 of 1

1 R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality.

2 R307-104. Conflict of Interest.

3 R307-104-1. Authority. 

4 This rule establishes procedures that are necessary for 

5 promulgating federally approvable air quality standards as 

6 permitted by subsection 19-2-104(1)(b). 

7

8 R307-104-2. Purpose. 

9 R307-104 satisfies the conflict of interest requirement of 

10 42 U.S.C. 7428 (a)(2). 

11

12 R307-104-3. Disclosure of conflict of interest. 

13 (1) This rule applies to any member of the board or body 

14 which approves permits or enforcement orders, the head of the 

15 Utah Division of Air Quality with similar powers, and the head 

16 of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality with similar 

17 powers.

18 (2) Every individual listed in R307-104-3(1) who is an 

19 officer, director, agent, employee, or the owner of a 

20 substantial interest in any business entity which is subject to 

21 the regulation of the agency by which the individual listed in 

22 R307-104-3(1) is employed, shall disclose any position held and 

23 the precise nature and value of the interest upon first becoming 

24 a public officer or public employee listed in R307-104-3(1), and 

25 again whenever his or her position in the business entity 

26 changes significantly or if the value of his or her interest in 

27 the entity is significantly increased.

28 (3) The disclosure required under R307-104-3(2) shall be 

29 made in a sworn statement filed with:

30 (a) the state attorney general in the case of the head of 

31 the Utah Division of Air Quality and the head of the Utah 

32 Department of Environmental Quality; and

33 (b) the state attorney general and the head of the agency 

34 with which the member of the board or body is affiliated in the 

35 case of a member of the board or body.

36 (4) This rule does not apply to instances where the total 

37 value of the interest does not exceed $2,000, and life insurance 

38 policies and annuities shall not be considered in determining 

39 the value of any such interest.

40 (5) Disclosures made under R307-104-3 are public 

41 information and shall be available for examination by the 

42 public. 

43

44 KEY: conflict of interest, Clean Air Act

45 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 2015

46 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-1-201; 19-

47 2-104
ITEM 6
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

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, Western Resource Advocates, and HEAL 

Utah’s Petition for a Rule Change. 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

On January 15, 2016, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Western Resource Advocates, and 

HEAL Utah (collectively Petitioners) submitted three petitions to the Utah Air Quality Board (the Board) 

requesting changes to the Utah Admin. Code R307-165-1 et seq.; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the 

Salt Lake City, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.21; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the 

Provo, Utah Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.22; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Logan, UtahIdaho Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.23; PM2.5 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.

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 increase 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 PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors to obtain reductions in emissions 

from existing sources to offset these emission increases (Offset Rule). 

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801) 536-4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903-3978 

www.deq.utah.gov

Printed on 100% recycled paper
DAQ-016-16

Page 2

Petitioners request that the Board initiate rulemaking under the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act (the 

Rulemaking Act).1

Staff 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 Petitioners 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 

rulemaking 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/m3

) to 35 μg/m3.

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 submit 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 development 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 development 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 is 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 Fed. Reg. 58688-01 (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 EPA should have designated the areas under both Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, Title I of the Clean Air 

Act. See id. This decision resulted in EPA issuing a rule in 2014 that classified the non-attainment areas as Moderate 

 
DAQ-016-16

Page 4

Air monitoring data collected from 2013 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 reclassification 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 one-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 extension 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 23, 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 becomes 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 and 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 the 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 standard 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 reasonably 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 or 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 their 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 would 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 

final), these plans must include “[p]rovisions to assure that the best available control measures for the 

control of PM1022 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 forth 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 PM1025 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 potential 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 by operation of law at the time of 

designation.”).

19 57 Fed. Reg. 13,498-01, 13,540-41. 20 80 Fed. Reg. 15,340-01, 15,464. 21 Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252-53 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“The EPA’s interpretation, 

construing ‘reasonably 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 RACM requirement 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 id. § 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. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 558 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 petitions 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 constitute 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 

contained 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 

data 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 prepares 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 necessary 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 ensuring 

SIP control measures are enforceable, approvable, and provide for attainment of 24-hour PM2.5 standard.28

27 80 Fed. Reg. 15,340-01, 15,405. 28 See Petition for a Rule Change 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 summer 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 changes 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 requires the 

Director to make the documented finding of infeasibility29 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 SIP 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 issues 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 any 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 Implementation 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 standalone rule prior to EPA finalizing its PM2.5 Implementation Rule may be premature and not 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) Standards 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 resulted 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 Fed. Reg. 15,340. 32 See 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 petroleum 

refineries33 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 

regulated 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 cause 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 uses 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 cited 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 

emission 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 Director 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 period 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 

technology 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 controls – 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-hourbased parameter 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 

economic 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 (filterable 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 imposed 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 SO2 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 monitoring 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 emitted 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 multiplied 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 product 

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 Rule, EPA stated that a state has flexibility to determine an appropriate averaging time: “enforceable 

SIP regulations may address the elements in different 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 Base). 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 

considered. 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 length 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 irregular. 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 other 

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 “stationary 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/Recommendation

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 necessary 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 proposed 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 alternative 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 overall 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 Rule 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 monitor 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 use 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 particulate 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 Specification 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 technical 

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 in 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 that 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/perfspec/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 continuous 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 that 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 “this 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 Petitioners 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 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 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 

program44 or create a two-tiered system with duplicative requirements. 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 for 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 additional 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 submitting 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 Demonstrations (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. R307-170-9.

 
DAQ-016-16

Page 13

D. More Frequent Testing in the Monitoring Rule Imposes a Burden Without Providing a 

Corresponding Benefit of Improving the 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 compliance. 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 SIP 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 other 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 operating 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 certain 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 particulate 

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 environment, 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 CEMS 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 precursor 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 purpose 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 nonattainment 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 nonattainment, 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 precursors.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 show 

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 achieving 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 operations 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 permitting 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 subject 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 required to offset emissions increases, will be 

required to obtain ERCs to modify. 

50 Petition for Rule Change Offset Rule at 18. 51 See 80 Fed. 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 air 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 PM2.5 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 Language

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 fugitive 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 with 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 regarding 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 Division 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 modeling 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 on 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 nonattainment areas. 42 U.S.C.A. § 7511a(e). With such specific thresholds 

established by statute, it is highly unlikely that lower offset thresholds are mandated by the CAA, as the Petitioners 

argue.

55 Additionally, if these lower thresholds are ultimately adopted 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 ERC 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 the 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 state 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 allow 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 not 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 will 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 controls 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 need 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 this time, 

and the Division work with the Petitioners to evaluate additional strategies in the context of State 

Implementation Plan development. 
Table 1
TABLE 1

Source Petition Reference Current Requirement Comment Action 

Required

PM2.5 SIP emission limitations often have averaging times considerably longer than 24 hours

General requirements

petroleum refineries

FCCU 365 and 7-day

rolling averages for 

SO2

The overall daily SIP Caps

control total SO2 emissions 

from each refinery. 

These secondary limits 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

General requirements

petroleum refineries

H2S content 365-day 

rolling average

The overall daily SIP Caps

control total SO2 emissions 

from each refinery. 

These secondary limits 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 

NOX

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 Daily average shall be

determined monthly

for VOCs

The PM2.5 SIP has a daily 

average determined monthly

It is unreasonable 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 BCM Source-wide 12-

month rolling 

average, combined for

SO2, NOX and PM2.5

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 source.

Kennecott Smelter Holman Boiler, 30-

day average for NOX

The PM10 Maint Plan has a 

calendar day average

The limit was changed to daily limit 

in the PM10 Maintenance Plan

Bring the limit 

forward into 

the Serious 

PM2.5 SIP
2

Nucor Steel Electric Arc Furnace

Baghouse, 12-month 

rolling average for

NOX and VOCs

Electric Arc Furnace

Baghouse, 12-month rolling

average for NOX 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 NOX

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.

PM2.5 SIPs fail to impose any averaging period

Bountiful City Power for NOX 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 NOX NOx 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 NOX 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 testing 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 limit for 

NOx will be 

addressed in a 

modified 

PM2.5 SIP.
4

Kennecott BCM Road dust

suppression, ore 

conveyor use and 

opacity

The 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 conveyors 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 NOX,

VOC, PM2.5

PM10 18.8 lbs/hr

NOx 2.0 ppmdv 

The NOx limit is an instantaneous 

concentration limit.

The PM is an hourly limit. 

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 Power 

Plant

Boiler #4 for PM2.5

and NOX

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 PM2.5 PM 439 lbs/hr

 

The PM is an hourly limit. The limit 

established for 

the PM10 

Maintenance 

Plan will be 

brought 

forward to the 
5

PM2.5 SIP.

Kennecott Refinery Tankhouse Boilers

and Combined Heat

Plant for NOX

Boiler NOx 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 NOX

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 limit for 

NOx will be 

addressed in a 

modified 

PM2.5 SIP.

Nucor Steel Reheat Furnace #1 

and #2 for NOX

#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

PM2.5 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

NOX and PM10

concentration, stack 

testing once every

three to five years

All pollutants have hourly 

rates with no averaging 

periods.

Now called 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 PM10 and NOX

pounds/hour, stack

testing every five 

years

NOx 3.3 lbs/hr

PM 6.65 lbs/hr

The NOx and PM have hourly 

limits. 

Averaging period not allowed

None. Limit is 

already in the 

PM2.5 SIP.

University of Utah NOX 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 NOX 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 parametric 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 years, and a COMS.

Central Valley Water Reclamation – daily parametric monitoring using NOX emission factors from

Engine 1-5 stack tests 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 determined 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 addition, there is a COM on the FCC 

Regenerator, H2S CEMS on Flares 1-3 and the Fuel Gas Mix Point, SO2 CEMS on the SRU Tail Gas 

Incinerator, and a Loading Rack VOC CEM.

Flying J/Big West Oil – daily parametric monitoring - CRS PM2.5 emission factor determined 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 from 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 emission factors from 

Asphalt Plant stack tests every 3 years.

Geneva Rock - Point of the Mountain – daily 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 

stack 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-501 
PM2.5 testing of the following sources every 5 years: 

SOP Loadout

SOP Silo Dust Collection

SOP Plant Compaction

SOP Plant Dust Collection

Bulk Truck 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 every 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 Incinerator – SO2

Interstate Brick – Daily parametric monitoring using emission factors from the 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

Primary Crusher Baghouse Vent PM10 – every five years

Tunnel Kiln #4 SO2 – 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 following 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 SME 011 – PM2.5 – annually

REF 006 – acid mist/SOX/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/SOX – 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 – Electric Arc Furnace Baghouse CO, SO2 and NOX CEMS, and 

the following stack tests:

Electric Arc Furnace PM2.5 – annually

Electric Arc Furnace VOC – every 5 years

Reheat Furnaces #1 and #2 NOX – every three years

Olympia Sales – daily parametric monitoring.

Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe (McWane Ductile) – daily parametric 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 Side – 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 – daily 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 tests every 5 years.

Provo City Power – daily 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 West Coast – daily parametric monitoring using emissions factors from FCCU NOX and SO2

CEMS, COM, and the following stack tests:

Cogeneration Units #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 Boilers #3, #4a, #4b, #5a, and #5b every 3 years. NOX testing of the 

turbine 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:

HCl, fluorides, mercury, lead, cadmium – annually

Dioxin/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 Rule 
Joro 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 AIR QUALITY BOARD 



PETITION FOR A RULE CHANGE 

24-HOUR AVERAGING PERIOD RULE 

Submitted by 

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, 

WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES 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 proposed rule that would amend or supplement Utah regulations Utah 

Admin. Code R307-165-1 et seq.; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Salt Lake City, Utah 

Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.21; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Provo, Utah 

Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.22; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Logan, UtahIdaho Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.23; PM2.5 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 the Air Quality Board, as authorized by Utah 
2 

Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii), to initiate rulemaking proceedings relative to the proposed rule 

as specified by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 and ultimately to adopt the proposed rule. 

I. Purpose of the Rule 

 The “24-Hour Averaging Period Rule” prevents short-term spikes in emissions of PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors from the individual stationary sources identified in the PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan nonattainment areas (the 

“Three NAAs”). The rule requires that, in addition to other emission limitations, “short-term” 

emission limits and controls be imposed that are averaged over 24 hours or fewer. This means 

that the source or emission unit will be prohibited from emitting PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors at a 

rate higher than that established by the applicable limit or control when averaged over the shortterm – a period of 24 hours or less. 

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

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. This “short-term” standard is intended, by law, to 

protect “against health effects associated with short-term PM2.5 exposures, especially in areas 

with high peak PM2.5 concentrations.” 80 Fed. Reg. 15340, 15347 (March 23, 2015). EPA 

determined that the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are necessary to “provide[] increased public health 

protection, including the health of at-risk populations which include children, older adults, 

persons with pre-existing health and lung disease and persons of lower socioeconomic status, 

against a broad range of PM2.5-related effects that include premature mortality, increased hospital 

admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease.” 

Id. 

The Three NAAs are indeed “areas with high peak PM2.5 concentrations.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 

15347. As detailed below, air quality along the Wasatch Front during 2013 exceeded the 24-
3 

hour PM2.5 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/m3, almost double the 24-hour standard 

of 35 μg/m3

.

1

 In Lindon, January also brought 17 exceedances with a high reading of 123 μg/m3 

– 350% of the standard. Id. In Logan, the standard was violated on 18 days in January 2013, 

topping out at 97 μg/m3

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

hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded on 13 days and the Logan monitor determined violations on 

11 days. The highest reading that month – 68 μg/m3 – was in Ogden.2 

More specifically, the purpose of the 24-Hour Rule is to address the “high peak PM2.5

concentrations” that afflict the Three NAAs. The rule ensures that limitations placed on 

emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors by the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the Three 

NAAs will prevent 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. 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 explained when it commented on the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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-term emissions that can impact a short-term 

standard such as the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.” Id. at 24. 

 

 

1

 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN13.pdf 

2

 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN14.pdf 
4 

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) (Board may make rules “regarding the control, 

abatement, and prevention of air pollution from 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 monitoring 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 statewide 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 hearings 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 professionals, toxicologists, biologists, 

chemists and engineers. The organization is dedicated to protecting the health and well-being of 

the citizens of Utah by promoting science-based health education and 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 Intermountain 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 Physicians for a Healthy Environment before the D.C. Circuit Court 

of Appeals, successfully defending an EPA decision to include the most populous portions of 

Tooele and Box Elder County in the Salt Lake City Nonattainment Area. ATK Launch Systems 

v. EPA, 669 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

 In carrying out their missions, these organizations 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 concerned 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 rulemaking processes that 

impact and influence the condition of Utah’s air quality, environment and the health of the 

people living here. 

 The organizations have a strong legal interest in the promotion 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 Conservation 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 the government actions impacting air 

quality, including the drafting 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 nonattainment areas, are harmed by air pollution, 

particularly concentrations of PM2.5 that exceed the NAAQS, and are entitled, by the Clean Air 

Act and Utah Air Conservation Act, to air quality that meets the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7513-

7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a; Utah Code 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 requires 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 health, 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 Conservation Act comply with the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 7410; 42 U.S.C. § 7502; 42 U.S.C. § 7513a, 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 “inversions” that settle on Salt Lake Valley for extended periods, causing 

concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 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 play, agonized about parents and grandparents with 
7 

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 community worldwide. 

First, there is no safe level of exposure to particulate 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/m3

 increase in PM2.5 

concentrations, community mortality rates rise 14%. Id. at 1. Therefore, Utah Physicians 

estimates that 1,400 to 2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM2.5. Id. at 2. 

Air pollution has the same extensive, broad-based health consequences as cigarette smoke 

because the signature physiologic response is the same – low-grade arterial inflammation, 

narrowing of blood vessels and increased propensity for clot formation, resulting in immediate 

increases in blood pressure, followed within hours by higher rates of heart attacks and strokes. 

Id. at 2-4. 

 The inflammation caused by PM2.5 affects other organs. Particulate pollution penetrates 

every cell in the body, but is particularly well-documented in the brain. There, air pollution is 

linked to poor neurologic outcomes across the age spectrum, including loss of intelligence in 

children, higher rates of autism, and attention deficit 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 growth 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, brain and stomach cancer, occur at higher rates among 

people exposed to more air pollution, while cancer survival rates are reduced. Id. 
8 

 The blood vessel inflammation caused by air pollution also affects the placenta, arguably 

representing the most significant public health impact of air pollution. Women who breathe 

more air pollution have higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes, their newborn babies 

showing increased birth defects, genetic damage, and a life-long disease burden that includes 

higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, 

Alzheimer’s and all diseases consequent to immuno-suppression. Id. at 8-9. The alteration of 

genetic material triggered by pollution can be seen within minutes, underscoring 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 PM2.5 air pollution in the nation – 

the most polluted location outside of California.3 Logan was ranked as the 8th worst area in the 

nation. Id. The ALA estimated that, in the Salt Lake 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 pulmonary disease; 99,000 

adults with cardiovascular disease; 113,350 adults with diabetes; and, 284,260 individuals living 

in poverty, all of whom are particularly at risk for heart attacks, strokes, emergency room visits 

for asthma, cardiovascular disease, and an early death brought on by PM2.5. 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/assets/ALA_State_of_the_Air_2015.pdf at 11 
9 

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 PM2.5 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 County and Ogden City are also 

designated as nonattainment areas for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and Salt Lake and Toole 

counties as nonattainment areas for the SO2 NAAQS.4

 

 Our air pollution is serious. In 2013, air quality along the Wasatch Front exceeded the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard on at least 43 days – often by alarming levels. In January of that year, 

the monitor at the playground of Hawthorne Elementary School recorded 17 violations of the 

NAAQS, with a high reading of 62 μg/m3

, almost double the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3.

5

 In 

Lindon, January also brought 17 exceedances with a high reading of 123 μg/m3 – 350% of the 

standard – while in Logan the standard was violated on 18 days, topping out at 97 μg/m3

. 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 old – were subjected to levels of air pollution 

 

4

 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/ancl.html. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-

hour average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to 35 μg/m3

. As EPA explains, the 

standard is “defined as an integer (zero decimal places) as determined by rounding. For 

example, a 3-year average 98th percentile concentration of 35.49 μg/m3 would round to 35 μg/m3 

and thus meet the 24-hour standard and a 3-year average of 35.50 μg/m3would round to 36 and, 

hence, violate the 24-hour standard.” 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_history.html. 

5

 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN13.pdf 

6

 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm 
10 

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 PM2.5 standard was 

exceeded on 13 days and the Logan monitor determined violations on 11 days. The highest 

reading that month – 68 μg/m3

 – 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 the 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 record and the warmest since 1981. Id. As a result, air 

quality in the nonattainment areas generally met the standard. In January 2015, the Hawthorne 

monitor logged 4 readings over the standard, the highest at 53 μg/m3

, while the Rose Park 

monitor documented 5 exceedances, the highest at 56 μg/m3.

9

 

 Periods of high ozone concentrations are increasingly 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, first in 1997, by replacing the 1-hour 

standard with an 8-hour standard and then by lowering 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 Wasatch 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/airquality/greenbook/phistory_ut.html 

11 http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_history.html 

12 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ 
11 

standard. For example, in 2012, there were 13 days 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 surpassed 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 scientific 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 nonattainment 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 “design values,” representing the 3-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations and the manner in which compliance 

with the 24-hour PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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]his plan identifies an attainment date of 

 

13 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/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.html 
12 

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, Section 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) that it is impracticable to attain the NAAQS in 2015.”) 

 Moreover, in the 2014 PM2.5 SIP, the Director estimated that, after accounting for 

emission reductions from the SIP measures, the 2013-2015 “design value” – the 3-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – at the Hawthorne, Salt Lake City 

monitoring station would be 37 μg/m3. 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 smaller commercial and industrial businesses”). 

Likewise, the Director anticipated a 2015 design value for the Lindon, Utah County monitoring 

station of 36 μg/m3. Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 43 (December 3, 2014) Given that Utah 

is having extreme difficulty securing the emission reductions necessary to attain the NAAQS and 

is failing to show attainment before December 2019, the difference between these 2015 design 

values and attainment constitutes a considerable barrier 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 PM2.5 concentrations 

confirm that the nonattainment areas are not close to attaining the NAAQS. The 3-year averages 

of the annual 98th percentile monitored PM2.5 concentrations for the Salt Lake City and Provo 
13 

nonattainment areas, calculated by averaging the 98th percentile monitored 24-hour PM2.5 

concentrations for 2013 and 2014 with the 98th percentile monitored January 2015 

concentrations, are 43.8 μg/m3 and 42.8 μg/m3, respectively. 17, 18 These design values are 

substantially higher than the NAAQS and significantly higher than the modeled values of 37 

μg/m3 and 36 μg/m3

. 

 More importantly, the monitored design values (3-year average of the annual 98th

percentile) for the Hawthorne monitor – 38.2 μg/m3

 (2010-2012), 41.1 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 43.7 

μg/m3 (2012-2014),19 and 43.8 μg/m3 (2013-January 2015) – show a steady trend away from 

attainment and certainly do not show linear progress toward attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5

standard. Similarly, the monitored design values for the Lindon monitor – 32.4 μg/m3 (2010-

2012), 44.3 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 41.8 μg/m3 (2012-2014),20 and 42.8 μg/m3 (2013-January 2015)

and the Logan monitor – 37.3 μg/m3 (2010-2012), 45.8 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 45 μg/m3 (2012-

 

17 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentration monitored at Hawthorne (29.3 μg/m3

) is 

averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 58.8 μg/m3 and 43.3 

μg/m3

 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.8 μg/m3, which eclipses the NAAQS. 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 

18 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentration monitored at Lindon to date (26.9 μg/m3

) is 

averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 72.4 μg/m3 and 29.1 

μg/m3

 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 42.8 μg/m3, which eclipses the NAAQS. 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/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.pdf 
14 

2014),21 and 43.2 μg/m3

 (2013-January 2015)22 – fail to establish consistent 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 concern 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 their understanding that Wasatch Front air quality 

threatens their health. A child bore a sign stating simply that “I want to play outside.” Another 

common slogan read “Clean Air Now, No Excuses.” 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, erodes our quality of life 

and stifles our economy much as it does our lungs.”24

 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 

 

21 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf 

22 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentration monitored at the Logan monitor (21.8 μg/m3

) 

is averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 68 μg/m3

 and 39.9 

μg/m3 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.2 μg/m3, which eclipses the NAAQS. 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 

23 December 2015 monitored values for the Three NAAs have been high enough that the annual 

98th percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5 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/57447995-78/capitol-clean-industry-lake.html.csp 
15 

– more than Utah’s lack of diversity, education constraints and scarcity of water combined.25 

Survey authors noted that “poor air quality threatens core values 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 air quality as one of the most important 

issues in the state, they also believe that Utah is performing worse on air quality than on any 

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

inability to enjoy the outdoors during poor air quality episodes, and the legacy we leave for 

future generations,” Envision Utah stated. “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 quality as one of the state’s most important issues, 

and a resounding three out of four Utahns voted 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-air-pollution-as-No-1-

threat-to-quality-of-life.html?pg=all. 

26 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/Utah-residents-rank-air-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-quality/item/48-your-utah-your-future-survey-results 
16 

VII. Regulatory Background 

On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to provide increased 

protection of public health by lowering its level to 35 μg/m3. 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). 

Effective on December 14, 2009, EPA designated the Three NAAs as nonattainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, (Nov. 13, 2009).29 On June 2, 2014, EPA classified all the 

areas that were designated in 2009 – including 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 implementation of all reasonably available control 

measures [RACM] for the control of PM2.5 as expeditiously as practicable, 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 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015 was 

impracticable. 

 That demonstration has proven to be accurate. Despite fairly good air quality in 2015 to 

date, none of the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by December 31, 

2015 – the Moderate attainment date.31 Because the 24-hour PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 expeditiously as practicable 

but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area’s designation as 
17 

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/m3

.

32 Based on January 2015 monitored data, the 2013-2015 design values are 43.8 

μg/m3

 for the Hawthorne monitor, 42.8 μg/m3 for the Lindon monitor, and 43.2 μg/m3 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 

PM2.5 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 date, 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 after 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 [PM2.5] 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)). In other words, by June 2017 or shortly thereafter, 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 reclassified by operation of law as a Serious 

Area.”). 
18 

must, at minimum, present a “Serious” SIP identifying 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 measures necessary to bring these areas into 

attainment as soon as possible. Because of the significant threat to public health and the 

environment posed by air pollution that exceeds the national standards, 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 attainment date shall be as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area’s designation as 

nonattainment”) & (c)(2) (“For a Serious Area, the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the 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 PM2.5 NAAQS as Expeditiously as Possible. 

A. The 24-Hour Rule Addresses the Short-Term Spikes in PM2.5 that Afflict the Three 

NAAs. 

 

 By imposing emission limitations on PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors that are averaged over a 

period no longer than 24 hours, the proposed rule prevents short-term spikes in emissions from 

individual stationary sources identified in the PM2.5 SIPs. The 24-Hour Rule further mandates 
19 

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 BACT 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 period of 24 hours or less, will be “the lowest 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. 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 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; see also id. at 15405, fn. 170 

(“EPA will interpret PSD BACT and [PM2.5] BACM as generally similar[.]” However “[t]he 

difference in policy goals, arguably, suggests that the [PM2.5] BACM control standard should be 

more stringent than that for PSD BACT.”). Finally, the 24-Hour Rule requires that these RACT 

and BACT-based emission limitations with the corresponding averaging periods be specifically 

stated in the PM2.5 SIPs. 35

 

34 References to RACT and BACT are also references 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 analogous term for RACM includes RACT for Moderate 

areas. The legislative history for the 1990 Amendments to the CAA supports this interpretation, 

as the EPA has explained in past guidance.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15404. 

35 The 24-Hour Rule is triggered when RACT and/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 limitation for each relevant air pollutant – PM2.5 or any PM2.5

precursor. The goal of the rule is not to require that every PM2.5 SIP emission limitation be a 

short-term emission limitation. In many instances, 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 emission limitation for each pollutant be a short-term 

emission limit. 
20 

 The 24-Hour Rule reflects the fact that the Three NAAs are failing to attain the “shortterm” 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

necessary to protect “against health effects associated with short-term PM2.5 exposures, 

especially in areas with high peak PM2.5 concentrations.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15347. In other words, 

EPA determined exposure to acute spikes in PM2.5 air pollution is just as damaging to public 

health and the environment as is chronic exposure to lower levels of PM2.5. Id. EPA therefore 

concluded that the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are necessary to “provide[] increased public health 

protection, including the health of at-risk populations which include children, older adults, 

persons with pre-existing health and lung disease and persons of lower socioeconomic status, 

against a broad range of PM2.5-related effects that include premature 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 

PM2.5 concentrations” that threaten the health and well-being of all Utahns living along the 

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

PM2.5, settle on the Three NAAs for days and weeks at a time and can raise the levels of PM2.5 to 

alarming concentrations ranging from double to more than three times the standard. The 24-

Hour Rule addresses these “high peak PM2.5 concentrations” by ensuring that limitations placed 

on emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIPs Lack Short-Term Emission Limitations. 

 The 24-Hour Rule is warranted because the PM2.5 SIPs fail to establish short-term 

emission limitations and therefore fail to prohibit short-term spikes in emissions from PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors. First, important PM2.5 SIP emission limitations often have averaging times 

considerably longer than 24 hours. E.g. PM2.5 Emission Limits and Operating Practices, 

Sections IX.H.11, 12, & 1336 at 42 (general requirements petroleum refineries – FCCU 365 and 

7-day rolling averages for SO2); id. at 43 (general requirements petroleum refineries – H2S 

content 365-day rolling average); id. at 52 (Exelon Generation 30-day average for NOX); id. at 

60 (Hill Air Force Base, “daily average shall be determined monthly” for VOCs); id. at 65 

(Kennecott BCM – source-wide 12-month rolling average, combined for SO2, NOX and PM2.5); 

id. at 69 (Kennecott Smelter Stack 11, annual average for NOX); id. at 69 (Kennecott Smelter, 

Holman Boiler, 30-day average for NOX); id. at 72 (Nucor Steel – Electric Arc Furnace 

Baghouse, 12-month rolling average for NOX and VOCs); id. at 75 (PacifiCorp Energy, Natural 

Gas-fired Simple Cycle Turbine Units, 30-day average for NOX); id. at 82 (Vulcraft/Nucor, 12-

month rolling average for VOCs); id. at 91 (Pacific States, 12-month rolling average for VOCs). 

For many other core emission limitations, the PM2.5 SIPs fail to impose any averaging period 

at all. E.g. id. at 51 (Bountiful City Light for NOX); id. at 53 (Central Valley Water for NOX); id. at 

53-54 (Chemical Lime Company for PM and NOX); id. at 65 (Kennecott BCM – road dust 

suppression, ore conveyor use and opacity); id. at 66 (Kennecott Boiler #5 for NOX, VOC, PM2.5); id. 

at 67 (Boiler #4 for PM2.5 and NOX); id. at 69 (Kennecott Smelter Stack 11 for PM2.5); id. at 70 

(Kennecott, Tankhouse Boilers and Combined Heat Plant for NOX); id. at 71 (Kennecott Natural Gas 

 

36 http://www.deq.utah.gov/Laws_Rules/daq/sip/docs/2014/12Dec/PartH_Final_Adopted_12-3-

14_ALL_Part%20H.pdf 
22 

Turbine combined with Duct Burner and TEG firing – Combined Heat Plant for NOX); id. at 72 

(Nucor Steel – Electric Arc Furnace Baghouse for VOC, Reheat Furnace #1 and #2 for NOX). 

 Finally, in several cases, the PM2.5 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, NOX and PM10 concentration, stack testing once every 

three to five years); id. at 79 (Proctor and Gamble, PM10 and NOX pounds/hour, stack testing every 

five years); id. at 80 (University of Utah, NOX concentration, stack testing once every one to three 

years); id.at 85 (BYU, NOX concentration, stack testing once every three years).37 

2. EPA Commented Extensively on the Failure of the SIPs to Control Short-Term 

Spikes in PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors. 

 

 In commenting on the 2014 PM2.5 SIPs, EPA repeatedly “questioned whether long-term 

periods...for a RACT emission limit adequately address the short-term 24-hour PM2.5 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 PM2.5” NAAQS. Id. at 2. EPA’s assessment of the SIPs focused on 

two interconnected issues. First, SIP emission limits must represent RACT – generally, the 

lowest emission limit a source can meet by the application of reasonably available control 

technology38 – and short-term emissions should and do represent RACT. Id. at 10 (regarding 

 

37 As these examples and the many others in the 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 preventing short-term spikes in air pollution. More 

frequent monitoring of a long-term emission limitation will likewise not prevent sharp increases 

in emissions over the short-term. 

38 EPA has historically defined RACT as ‘‘the lowest 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 that 
23 

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 economic feasibility.”); id. at 14 (concerning PacifiCorp: “[A] shortterm 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 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 PM2.5 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 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.”). 

 Second, EPA continually underscored that short-term emission limitations are necessary 

to prevent spikes in emissions and therefore to attain the 24-hour PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS.”); id. at 7 

(asking “how and why averaging...(i.e, 30-day, annual, 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 area “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 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 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 that it “considered a shorter-term limit to 

be unreasonably burdensome because industry typically only records inventory usage on a monthly 

basis. However, this response does nothing to address 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 PM2.5 standard. RACT achieves permanent and enforceable 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 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...as 
25 

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 Reasonably Available Control Measures and 

Additional Reasonable Measures.

 A nonattainment SIP shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (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 that Moderate area attainment plans contain 

provisions to assure that RACM and RACT are implemented no later than four years after 

designation, 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 

NAAs on December 14, 2009). Thus, Utah’s Moderate SIP must provide for the implementation 

of RACM and RACT for existing sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than December 2013. This is true even though the Three NAAs cannot 

practicably attain by the statutory 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, means or techniques. . . as may be necessary or 

 

39 Id. at 15464 (RACM “is 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)”). 
26 

appropriate to provide for attainment.” 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6). This requires states to 

implement any technologically and economically feasible control measures, including control 

technologies, for all sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 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 15368.40 In the case of the Three NAAs, Utah must have 

imposed these additional 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, 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 PM2.5 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 standard and, prior to the Moderate attainment 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 PM10 [including PM2.5] 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. § 

 

40 Id. at 15464 (“Additional reasonable measure is any control measure that otherwise meets the 

definition of [RACM] but can only be implemented 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 the 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 reclassified 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 available 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, 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 date of reclassification of a PM2.5 nonattainment area and that 

generally can achieve greater permanent and enforceable emissions reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions and/or emissions of PM2.5 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 Element of RACM and BACM and Required to 

Ensure that the Three NAAs Will Attain the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Expeditiously. 

 Utah is currently under significant obligation 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 addressing 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 measure that otherwise meets the definition of 

[BACM] but can only be implemented in whole or in part beginning 4 years after the date of 

reclassification of an area as Serious and no later than the statutory attainment date for the area.” 

Id. at 15464. 
28 

Clean Air Act mandates attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 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 component of both RACM and BACM and a legally 

adequate SIP, adoption of the rule is warranted. 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 requires nonattainment SIPs to “include enforceable emission 

limitations, and such other control measures, means 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 Section 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 measures[.]” 80 Fed. Reg. at 15447. The agency 

determined, therefore, that to be “complete with regard to compliance monitoring provisions” the 

“SIP must include the following critical element[];” 

Averaging time – the period over which to average 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 control 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 averaging time or a stack test method for the proposed 

NOX 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 “averaging times.” The rule therefore provides a 

“critical element” of enforceable emission limitations and a necessary component of the 

“compliance monitoring provisions” of a legally adequate SIP. See id. at 15448 (“EPA continues 

to believe that approval of regulations 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 emission 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), averaging times must be imposed “as may be 

necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment.” 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 emission limitations are necessary to prevent shortterm spikes in PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. “[T]he issue is whether the RACT limit is adequate 

to attain and protect the 24-hour standard.” EPA Region 8 Comments at 8; id. (“In several 

instances, EPA has previously questioned whether long-term periods...for a RACT emission 

limit adequately address the short-term 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Under a long-term limit, 

emissions from a source can spike 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 intended 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 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 PM2.5 NAAQS.”). 
30 

 This is true whether the rates at which air pollutants are emitted from a source to be 

controlled are variable or are typically steady. As EPA explains, where emissions from a source 

are erratic, short-term emission limitations are required to prevent 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 allows significantly higher short-term emissions that can impact a 

short-term standard such as the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.”); id. (“Under 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 PM2.5 NAAQS.”). The more prone a source is to 

emission spikes, the more critical it is to attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 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 therefore represents RACT or BACT. E.g. EPA Region 8 Comments 

at 8 (“[I]f it is correct that the 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: “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 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 address the 24-hour standard seems 

feasible and should be considered as RACT.”); id. at 21 (“Since UDAQ states that there is very 

little variation in operation of the 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 reasonably available control technology43 and must be shown 

sufficient to attain and protect the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As EPA explained, Utah’s SIP must 

include the provisions necessary to “make the [RACT] limits practically enforceable, to include 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, and to align the limit’s averaging period 

to be appropriate to the 24-hour PM2.5” standards. EPA Region 8 Comments at 2; id. at 8 (“[T]he 

issue is whether the RACT limit is adequate to attain and protect the 24-hour standard.”); id. at 

10 (“[P]lease explain why a 24-hour limit is not RACT, taking into account technological and 

economic feasibility.”); id. at 11 (“[W]hy is the additional margin the best that can be achieved, 

taking into account technological and economic feasibility?”). This process and outcome is 

exactly what the 24-Hour Rule entails. 

 Third, the 24-Hour Rule serves to increase the accuracy of emission inventories and 

Utah’s eventual attainment demonstration and, where applicable, facilitates the transfer of SIP 

emission limitations to title V operating permits. 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 representative 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 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. 

44 Unless the SIP imposes a short-term emission limitation on a source, Utah may not merely 

postulate, for the purposes of modeling, that emissions 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 Region 8 Comments at 7 (“[W]e suggest that the 
32 

attainment must reflect SIP emission limitations, including short-term averaging periods. In the 

absence of these controls on emissions, the resulting modeling will necessarily be making 

unsupported assumptions about short-term emissions that are not enforced by the corresponding 

SIP emission limitations. The 24-Hour Rule avoids 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 factors EPA identified as crucial to ensuring SIP 

control measures are enforceable, approvable and provide for attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5

standard. See 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(6). The 24-Hour Rule establishes the link between control 

measures and averaging periods. Averaging periods 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] appropriate to the 24-hour PM2.5” standards. Id. at 2; id. at 8 “[T]he issue is 

whether the RACT limit is adequate to attain 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 projected 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 and are considered valid to support 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 shortterm emission limitations are necessary to prevent spikes in emissions and therefore to attain the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard. E.g. EPA Region 8 Comments at 8 (“Under 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 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 and a reasonable measure that will make Utah’s 

SIP control measures enforceable and establish the basis for compliance. The proposed rule will 

prohibit spikes in emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in order to attain 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 PM2.5 NAAQS. See e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2).45

C. The Proposed Rule Furthers Other Legal and Policy Goals.

State and local officials in Utah have sought for years to identify appropriate measures to 

help reduce dangerous emissions of air pollution and bring Utah into compliance with the 24-

hour NAAQS for PM2.5. 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 Utah’s population and economy will continue to grow 

 

45 The 24-Hour Rule will also promote continued maintenance of the 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a). 
34 

significantly in the coming decades, our air quality policies will need to keep pace by enacting 

controls to address expanding mobile, area and point sources. Census data released earlier this 

year46 show familiar statistics: a five-year population growth rate that ranks fourth in the nation; 

the second highest growth in new homes 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.47 

According to a detailed report from the Utah Foundation,48 which examined a wide array 

of research, much of that growth is expected not just in our non-attainment areas, but in more 

far-flung suburban areas, raising the specter of a significant increase in commutes and vehicle 

miles travelled (VMTs). Predictions of Utah’s future emissions inventory 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 PM2.5 NAAQS 

by 2019. While the precise penalties are not certain, the Clean Air Act gives a clear idea of what 

 

46 Another Piece to the Puzzle: Census Reveals Utah’s Growth Among Top In Nation, Deseret 

News, 2015-05-20, http://www.deseretnews.com/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.utahfoundation.org/uploads/rr720.pdf 
35 

might come. Sanctions include: 1) being required to adopt the most stringent measures being 

implemented in any other states, 42 U.S.C. § 7513(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 requirements serves to take discretion out of the state’s hands, forcing 

the state to implement measures that would be not be tailored to Utah’s particular situation and 

that would likely be unpopular. 

Third, as it reviews Utah’s Moderate SIP, Serious SIP and any request for an extension of 

the attainment date for a Serious area, EPA has authority 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 demonstrate that Utah is willing to make difficult 

decisions and embrace policies that will reduce emissions 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 willingness 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 implement in the next two years. Utah’s SIPs have 

been and will continue to be highly technical and expansive documents, 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 offer 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, offers opportunity for individual scrutiny. The 

Division, public and regulated community will have the chance to provide meaningful and 

detailed feedback, while the Board will have the 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, which misleadingly give equal weight to direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors, indicate that about 12 percent of total emissions in the Salt Lake City 

nonattainment area come from stationary sources and the 2013 SIP anticipates that by 2019, 

these sources will account for 28 percent of direct PM2.5 emissions in the area. It is true that 

mobile and area sources contribute significantly to our failure to attain the NAAQS. That is why 

we have pushed hard for rules, programs and funds to address these sources of PM2.5 emissions, 

such as the Tier 3 program, electric vehicle incentives, expansion of transit funding, updates to 

building codes, and low NOX hot water heater requirements. 

We are confident that rules addressing large industrial sources have merit as one 

important piece of an overall strategy intended to bring the nonattainment areas into compliance 

with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Cleaning up Utah’s air is not 

about adopting a few measures or addressing only those sectors that contribute the most 

emissions. Rather, the severity of our air pollution problem requires that we implement every 

effective measure and strategy to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors. Because the 

proposed rule, backed by the EPA, will minimize emission increases and strengthen the state’s 

overall oversight of stationary sources, is not only worth debating, but also worth adding to our 
37 

SIP as an appropriate and necessary 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 PM2.5 SIP and necessary to 

expeditious attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 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 control technologies are derived and 

implemented as “necessary” to “provide for attainment” of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The rule 

mandates the short-term emission limitations needed to prevent spikes in emissions and therefore 

to attain and protect the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Based on these considerations and the analysis 

detailed above, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, HEAL Utah and Western Resource 

Advocates respectfully ask the Air Quality Board to initiate Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 

rulemaking proceedings relative to the 24-Hour Rule as authorized by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-

601(6)(b)(ii) and ultimately to adopt the proposed rule. 

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of January, 2016. 

JORO WALKER 

ROB DUBUC 

Attorneys for Utah Physicians, et al. 
Exhibit List 

Exhibit “1” 24-Hour Averaging Rule – Proposed Text 

Exhibit “2” Health Impacts of Particulate Air Pollution 
EXHIBIT “1” 
The “24-Hour Averaging Rule” 

R307-XXX. PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas: Minimum Averaging Period. 

R307-XXX-1. Definitions. 

The following definitions apply to R307-XXX: 

(1) PM2.5 SIP means any Utah state implementation plan required by subpart 1 or subpart 4, part D of 

title I of the Clean Air Act and relating to the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard(s). 

(2) PM2.5 SIP Control Technology means any control technology or control measure that is applied to, 

adopted for or imposed on any stationary source, installation, facility or emission unit and that is or has 

been: 

(a) identified as reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control 

measure (RACM), best available control technology (BACT) 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 operation 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 PM2.5 SIP Subsections IX.H.11, 12, or 13 (PM2.5

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 pollution control measure at a stationary source, 

installation, facility or emission unit located in a 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment area; or, 

(d) adopted or implemented in the form of an emissions limitation, emissions standard or 

parameter demonstrating proper operation of a pollution control measure at a stationary source, 

installation, facility or emission unit located outside of a PM2.5 nonattainment area where 

application of the control technology or control measure has been determined to be necessary to 

provide for attainment of the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP control technology, the Director shall derive and impose at least one emissions 

limitation or emissions standard that includes a corresponding averaging period 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 technology was applied. 

(2) Only where the Director makes a documented finding, after notifying the pubic and considering any 

public comment, that an emissions limitation or emissions standard is infeasible because of 

technological or economic limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a particular 

emissions unit, may the Director impose an alternative parameter demonstrating proper operation of a 

pollution control measure. Upon such a finding, the Director shall impose at least one parameter that 

includes a corresponding averaging period 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 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 and 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 included in the Utah 24-Hour PM2.5 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 (PM2.5), 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 adversely affected by air pollution, 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 PM2.5 in the winter, as well as PM10 and SO2 year-round, 

meaning that a large percentage of Utah’s population is exposed repeatedly to unhealthy levels of 

pollution throughout the year. There is now evidence that exposure to ozone and PM2.5 can act 

synergistically, increasing the adverse health effects from these air pollutants.1 

PM2.5 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 also 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, endothelial dysfunction and altered autonomic nervous 

system control.2

 

For the last several years, the research-based conventional wisdom has been that with 

each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 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 μg/m3

 increase.4 The elderly and those with existing morbidities are particularly 

vulnerable to air pollution consequences.
3

Based on extrapolations from numerous studies and the American Heart Association 

(AHA) scientific statement explained below, Utah Physicians estimates that between 1,400 and 

2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM2.5. See 78 Fed. Reg. 3086, 3103 (Jan. 

15, 2013) (“[S]tudies have reported consistent increases in morbidity and/or premature mortality 

related to ambient PM2.5 concentrations, with the strongest evidence reported for cardiovascularrelated effects.”); 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38908-09 (June 29, 2012) (“[N]ewly available 

information combined with information available in the last review provides substantially 

stronger confidence in a causal relationship between long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and 

mortality and cardiovascular effects.”). The AHA has estimated that residents 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 epidemiological studies have reported associations 

between daily changes in particulate air pollution and respiratory 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 demonstrated risks for cardiopulmonary 

mortality even at what are considered “background” levels of particulate pollution.8

 A study 

done in our own area demonstrated that each short-term 10 μg/m3

 increase in PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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; 77 
4

Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“Bell et al. (2008) reported higher PM2.5 risk estimates for hospitalization for 

cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the winter compared to other seasons.”). For each 10 

μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 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 increased 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 PM2.5 spikes may not be dismissed with observations that our 

annual average fine particulate matter concentrations 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 seen 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, followed within hours by increased rates of heart 

attacks and strokes. Community mortality rates stay elevated for 30 days after a spike in PM10

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 community increase within hours 

after spikes in PM10.

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 analyses conducted worldwide since publication of 

the first AHA statement confirms the existence of a small, yet consistent association 

between increased mortality and short-term elevations in PM10 and PM2.5 approximately 

equal to a 0.4% to 1.0% increase in daily mortality (and cardiovascular death 

specifically) due to a 10 μg/m3 elevation in PM2.5 during the preceding 1 to 5 days.3
5

 Confirming the strong correlation between modest, short-term spikes in PM and serious 

health consequences are three new studies that showed spikes of as little as one day in PM10 were 

associated with higher rates of heart attacks,16 daily spikes of either PM10 or PM2.5 were 

associated with significant increases in emergency room visits for hypertensives crisis,17 and less 

than 24 hours of a spike in PM2.5 of 15-40 μg/m3

 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 recent landmark study published in the flagship journal of the AHA, 

using data from over 1 million people, demonstrated that when cardiac mortality, the signature 

air pollution health outcome, was plotted against particulate matter from air pollution, first and 

second-hand cigarette smoke, all three sources showed a steep curve at low doses. In other 

words, per unit dose of exposure, it is the low levels of PM that cause higher rates of mortality.19

 Long-term exposure to particulate matter air pollution is associated with an average rise 

in blood pressure for chronically exposed populations. Average blood pressure was found to rise 

1.7 mmHg for an increase of 2.4 μg/m3 in PM2.5. A similar association was found with the 

coarser PM10. The rise was found in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.20 Chronic 

exposure to particulate matter has also been shown to increase the thickening of arterial walls, 

which is a known end result of higher blood pressure. A chronic increase in PM10 of 5.2 μg/m3

is associated with a 5% increase in the intima-media thickness of the carotid artery, which is one 

of many end results of the biologic process described above.21

 Another study showed a remarkable correlation between chronic exposure to PM2.5 and 

narrowing in the tiny arteries in the back of the eye. Chronic exposure to 3 μg/m3 of PM2.5 (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-wide 
6

effects, acceleration of the aging process, and impairing the health of everyone exposed, not just 

a susceptible population. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 3104 (“The population potentially affected by 

PM2.5 is large. In addition, large subgroups of the U.S. population have been identified as at-risk 

populations.”). 

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

levels of PM10, beginning at very modest levels.23 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“[R]ecent 

studies provide additional evidence for cardiovascular effects associated with sub-daily (e.g., one 

to several hours) exposure to PM, especially effects related to cardiac ischemia, vasomotor 

function, and more subtle changes in markers of systemic inflammation, hemostasis, thrombosis 

and coagulation[.]”). A likely mechanism of this clinical outcome is revealed by studies that 

show PM10 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. Oxidative stress (OS) appears to be the biological 

genesis of numerous diseases processes and a major 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, cognitive impairment and 

memory loss in children and neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease.25, 26

Numerous studies show such specific outcomes as impaired intellect and penetration of particle 

matter and Alzheimer type protein deposition among children who grow up breathing more 

particulate air pollution.27, 28, 29 Volunteers exposed to typical urban 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 disorders 
7

correlate with NOX and PM10 levels.34 Children exposed to more vehicle pollution show a 

doubling in rates of autism.35 Older people show accelerated cognitive decline if chronically 

exposed to more traffic generated air pollution.36, 37 A recent landmark study showed that 

chronic exposure to 10 μg/m3

 of either PM2.5 or PM2.5-PM10 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 health 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 disturbing are less obvious outcomes. Even young, 

healthy people demonstrate rapid decrease in lung function from brief exposure to particulate 

matter that persists for several days 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 higher than the national average. This means 

that Utah’s unhealthy levels of air pollution constitute a public health crisis that endangers its 

most vulnerable populations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58690; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38911 (“With regard to 

respiratory effects in children associated with short-term exposures to PM2.5, currently available 
8

studies provide stronger evidence of respiratory-related hospitalizations 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 pollution than adults. Children have higher 

metabolic rates, meaning their oxygen demand is higher, they breathe faster 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, this physiologic difference makes them more susceptible to the 

adverse influence of air pollution. “There is emerging but limited evidence for an association 

between long-term PM2.5 exposure and respiratory mortality in post-neonatal infants where longterm exposure was considered as approximately one month to one year.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. 

Children who breathe more air pollution can experience a permanent stunting of their lung 

growth. Just as chronic exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke causes a permanent loss of 

lung function growth in children, so does long-term exposure to PM2.5 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 PM2.5-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 PM2.5 air pollution permanently impair the exercise 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, cervical, 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 μg/m3

 increase in long term PM2.5 concentration is associated with 

a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality.49 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Especially 
9

troubling are the numerous studies that show increases in childhood leukemia among more 

exposed populations,50, 51 and a significant association 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 numerous other, seemingly unrelated diseases among 

populations subjected to more air pollution. These diseased include type II diabetes, obesity, 

arthritis, and lupus. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

 Air pollution, especially particulate matter, may have its largest impact 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 traffic-related air pollution, including PM10, results in 

intrauterine growth retardation, including smaller 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 identical consequences and 

both can be passed on to subsequent generations. Newborn babies whose mothers are exposed to 

more air pollution show increases in both, and the life-long disease burden that results can 

include higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, 

cancer, Alzheimer’s and all the diseases consequent to immuno-suppression. 78 Fed. Reg. 3104 

(“The strongest evidence for an association between PM2.5 and developmental and reproductive 

effects comes from epidemiological studies of low birth weight and infant mortality, especially 

due to respiratory causes during the post-neonatal period (i.e., 1 month–12 months of age).”).

Epigenetic changes can be seen within three days after exposure to PM2.5 and perhaps even as 

soon as minutes after exposure.59-66 There is strong evidence for a persistence of epigenetic 
10

changes from one generation to another. Medical science is now learning that the air pollution 

today can adversely affect the health of future generations. For 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 heavy metals occurs through the lungs. Smaller 

particles are assumed more dangerous because they can penetrate more deeply into the lungs and 

are cleared by the lung cilia less readily. However, 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 particular relevance for increasing childhood risk.68 

 That all the above mentioned adverse health outcomes can be the result of pregnant 

women smoking is easy for physicians and the lay public alike to comprehend and the sight of a 

pregnant woman smoking is now repulsive to society at large. See 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. It is a 

new thought process, but equally scientifically based, to think that the same thing happens when 

a pregnant woman has to breathe 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 severe health effects from air pollution, virtually 

every major medical organization in the United States has called for stricter NAAQS for annual 

PM2.5 and for ozone, including the American Medical Association, the American Thoracic 

Society, the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 

College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the 

American Public Health Assoc., and the National Assoc. of Local Boards of Health, and the 
11

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 Evidence for Synergy Among Air Pollutants in 

Causing Health Effects? 117 Environ. Health Perspect. 1-6 (2009). 

2. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascular 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 Heart 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 Harvard 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-Particulate 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, Wang Y, Ezzati M, Dominici F. Effect of 

Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in the 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., Schwartz 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 Disease Mortality in Response to Air Pollution, 

111(9) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 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 Air Pollution Exposures, 113 (8) ENVIRON. 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. Goggins, Hui-Fen Chiu, and Chun-Yuh Yang, 

Evidence for an Association between Air Pollution and Daily Stroke Admissions in Kaohsiung, 

Taiwan, 34 (11) STROKE 2612-16 (2003). 

16. Mustafić H, Jabre P, Caussin C, Murad M, et al. Main Air Pollutants and 

Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2012. vol. 307, no. 7 

pg. 713-721. 

17. Szyszkowicz M, Rowe BH, Brook RD. Even Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollutants 

Are Associated With Increased Emergency Department 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 Mortality and Exposure 

to Airbourne Fine Particulate 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 Thoracic Society (May 17, 2010). 

21. Tonne C, Yanosky JD, Beevers S, Wilkinson 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, Sampson PD, Kaufman JD. Air Pollution and the 

Microvasculature: A Cross-Sectional Assessment of In Vivo Retinal Images in the PopulationBased Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (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 Thrombosis, 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 Prothrombotic 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 mild carbon monoxide exposure (0.0025% in air). 

BMC Neuroscience 2009, 10:53doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-53. 

27. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Mora-Tiscareno A., Ontiveros E., et al., AIR 

POLLUTION, COGNITIVE DEFICITS AND BRAIN 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 Particulate Deposition, and Accumulation of Amyloid Beta-42 

and Alpha-Synuclein in Children and Young Adults, 36(2) TOXICOL. PATHOL. 289-310 

(2008). 

29. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Franco-Lira M., Torres-Jardon R., Pediatric Respiratory 

and Systemic Effects of Chronic Air Pollution 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 Volunteers, 5(4) PART FIBRE TOXICOL. dol: 1186/1743-8977-5-4 

(2008). 

31. Suglia S.F., et al., Association of Black Carbon with 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 Polycyclic 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 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure 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 Functions 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 CHARGE 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 Function in a Cohort of Older Men. Harvard School 

of Public Health. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print]. 

37. Ranft U, Schikowski T, Sugiri D, Krutmann J, Krämer U. Long-term exposure to 

traffic-related particulate matter 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, Yanosky J, Laden F, Grodstein F. Exposure to 

Particulate Air Pollution and Cognitive Decline 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’ brains. 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 Outcomes in U.S. Children. Environ Health 

Perspect :-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104152. 

41. Henn BC, Schnaas L, Ettinger AS, Schwartz J, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, HernándezAvila M, et al. 2011. Associations of Early Childhood Manganese 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 Billion 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 Function Decreases in Beach Lifeguards, 50(2) 

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL 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 California 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 Cancer 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., Distance-Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity 

to a Home is a Risk Factor for Leukemia and 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. ENVIRON. 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 Traffic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: 

A Case–Control Study. Environ 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 Resistance and Mitochondrial 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 with Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Environ Health Perspect 119:384-

389. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002344. 

58. Veras M.M., Damaceno-Rodregues N., Caldini E., Ribeiro A., et al., Particulate 

Urban Air Pollution Affects the Functional Morphology of Mouse Placenta, 79(3) BIOLOGY 

OF REPRODUCTION 578-84 (2008). 
17

59. Perera F., Tang W., Herbstman J., Relation of DNA Methylation of 5-CpG Island of 

ACSL3 to Transplacental Exposure to Airborne PAH and Childhood Asthma, 4(2) PLOS ONE 

e4488 (2009). 

60. Hansen C., Barnett A., Prichard G.,The Effect of Ambient Air Pollution during 

Early Pregnancy on Fetal Ultrasound Measurements during Mid-Pregnancy, 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 Carcinogenic 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 Procarcinogenic 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 Cord 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., Schwartz J., Rapid DNA Methylation Changes after 

Exposure to Traffic Particles, 179(7) AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED., 523-4 (2009). 

66. Yan Zhong, Steven G. Carmella, Pramod Upadhyaya, J. Bradley Hochalter, Diane 

Rauch, Andrew Oliver, Joni Jensen, Dorothy Hatsukami, Jing Wang, Cheryl Zimmerman, 

Stephen S. Hecht. Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxides. 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 pollution is associated with increased DNA fragmentation in human 

sperm without other changes in semen quality. 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 Exposure to Insoluble Particles. Curr Mol Med. 

2012 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print]. 
Joro 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 

Telephone: 801.487.9911 

Attorneys for Petitioners Utah Physicians, et al. 

BEFORE THE UTAH AIR QUALITY BOARD 



PETITION FOR A RULE CHANGE 

MONITORING RULE 

Submitted by HEAL Utah, 

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES 

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 Environment, 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 proposed rule that would amend or supplement Utah regulations Utah 

Admin. Code R307-165-1 et seq.; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Salt Lake City, Utah 

Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.21; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Provo, Utah 

Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.22; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Logan, UtahIdaho Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.23; PM2.5 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. HEAL Utah, Utah Physicians for a Healthy 

Environment and Western Resource Advocates ask the Air Quality Board, as authorized by Utah 
2

Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii), to initiate rulemaking proceedings relative to the proposed rule 

as specified by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 and ultimately to adopt the proposed rule. 

I. Purpose of the Rule 

The “Monitoring Rule” increases the frequency of the monitoring of emissions from 

individual sources identified in the PM2.5 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 monitoring system (CEMS) to monitor SO2, NOX and filterable 

particulate matter (PM). The rule also requires that, where stack testing is employed and has 

been demonstrated adequate to show continuous compliance with SIP emission 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 expeditious implementation of all reasonably available or 

best available control measures for larger emitting 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 periodic source testing, monitoring or other viable means to establish 

whether the source meets the applicable emission limit.” 80 Fed. Reg. 15340, 15378 (March 23 

2015). The Monitoring Rule meets this mandate. 

Second, the Monitoring Rule serves to increase the accuracy of emission inventories, to 

identify appropriate control measures and to reduce emissions. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15453. 

                                                            

1

 SIPs must also provide for additional reasonable 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 monitoring requirements, like the control measures 

with which they are associated, 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 that 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 PM2.5 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 PM10 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) (Board may make rules “regarding the control, 

abatement, and prevention of air pollution from 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 monitoring 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 statewide 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 professionals, toxicologists, biologists, 

chemists and engineers. The organization is dedicated to protecting the health and well-being of 

the citizens of Utah by promoting science-based health education and 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 Intermountain 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 Physicians for a Healthy Environment before the D.C. Circuit Court 

of Appeals, successfully defending an EPA decision to include the most populous portions of 

Tooele and Box Elder County in the Salt 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 hearings where key air quality decisions are made. 

 In carrying out their missions, these organizations 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 
5

mayors, Utah business leaders, media and concerned 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 rulemaking processes that 

impact and influence the condition of Utah’s air quality, environment and the health of the 

people living here. 

 The organizations have a strong legal interest in the promotion 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 Conservation 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 the government actions impacting air 

quality, including the drafting 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 nonattainment areas, are harmed by air pollution, 

particularly concentrations of PM2.5 that exceed the NAAQS, and are entitled, by the Clean Air 

Act and Utah Air Conservation Act, to air quality that meets the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7513-

7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a; Utah Code 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 requires 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 health, quality of life, recreational pursuits and 
6

aesthetic sense. Therefore, the organizations have a protectable legal interest in ensuring that 

rules promulgated under the Utah Air Conservation Act comply with the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 7410; 42 U.S.C. § 7502; 42 U.S.C. § 7513a, 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 “inversions” that settle on Salt Lake Valley for extended periods, causing 

concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 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 play, 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 community worldwide. 

First, there is no safe level of exposure to particulate 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/m3

 increase in PM2.5 

concentrations, community mortality rates rise 14%. Id. at 1. Therefore, Utah Physicians 

estimates that 1,400 to 2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM2.5. Id. at 2. 

Air pollution has the same extensive, broad-based health consequences as cigarette smoke 

because the signature physiologic response is the same – low-grade arterial inflammation, 

narrowing of blood vessels and increased propensity for clot formation, resulting in immediate 
7

increases in blood pressure, followed within hours by higher rates of heart attacks and strokes. 

Id. at 2-4. 

 The inflammation caused by PM2.5 affects other organs. Particulate pollution penetrates 

every cell in the body, but is particularly well-documented in the brain. There, air pollution is 

linked to poor neurologic outcomes across the age spectrum, including loss of intelligence in 

children, higher rates of autism, and attention deficit 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 growth 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, brain and stomach cancer, occur at higher rates among 

people exposed to more air pollution, while cancer survival rates are reduced. Id. 

 The blood vessel inflammation caused by air pollution also affects the placenta, arguably 

representing the most significant public health impact of air pollution. Women who breathe 

more air pollution have higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes, their newborn babies 

showing increased birth defects, genetic damage, and a life-long disease burden that includes 

higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, 

Alzheimer’s and all diseases consequent to immuno-suppression. Id. at 8-9. The alteration of 

genetic material triggered by pollution can be seen within minutes, underscoring 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 PM2.5 air pollution in the nation – 

the most polluted location outside of California.2

 Logan was ranked as the 8th worst area in the 

nation. Id. The ALA estimated that, in the Salt Lake 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 pulmonary disease; 99,000 

adults with cardiovascular disease; 113,350 adults with diabetes; and, 284,260 individuals living 

in poverty, all of whom are particularly at risk for heart attacks, strokes, emergency room visits 

for asthma, cardiovascular disease, and an early death brought on by PM2.5. 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 PM2.5 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 County and Ogden City are also 

designated as nonattainment areas for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and Salt Lake and Toole 

counties as nonattainment areas for the SO2 NAAQS.3 

                                                            

2

 http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/assets/ALA_State_of_the_Air_2015.pdf at 11 

3

 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/ancl.html. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-
9

 Our air pollution is serious. In 2013, air quality along the Wasatch Front exceeded the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard on at least 43 days – often by alarming levels. In January of that year, 

the monitor at the playground of Hawthorne Elementary School recorded 17 violations of the 

NAAQS, with a high reading of 62 μg/m3, almost double the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3.

4

 In 

Lindon, January also brought 17 exceedances with a high reading of 123 μg/m3 – 350% of the 

standard – while in Logan the standard was violated on 18 days, topping out at 97 μg/m3

. 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 old – 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 PM2.5 standard was 

exceeded on 13 days and the Logan monitor determined violations on 11 days. The highest 

reading that month – 68 μg/m3

 – 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 the 20th Century average temperature. Id. The average 

                                                            

hour average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to 35 μg/m3. As EPA explains, the 

standard is “defined as an integer (zero decimal places) as determined by rounding. For 

example, a 3-year average 98th percentile concentration of 35.49 μg/m3 would round to 35 μg/m3 

and thus meet the 24-hour standard and a 3-year average of 35.50 μg/m3would round to 36 and, 

hence, violate the 24-hour standard.” 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/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-form 
10

minimum temperature for that period was also the warmest ever and the average maximum 

temperature the second warmest on record and the warmest since 1981. Id. As a result, air 

quality in the nonattainment areas generally met the standard. In January 2015, the Hawthorne 

monitor logged 4 readings over the standard, the highest at 53 μg/m3

, while the Rose Park 

monitor documented 5 exceedances, the highest at 56 μg/m3

.

8

 

 Periods of high ozone concentrations are increasingly 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 then 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 are failing to comply with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. For 

example, in 2012, there were 13 days 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.12 

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 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 scientific evidence about ozone’s adverse effects on 

                                                            

8

 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 

9

 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/phistory_ut.html 

10 http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_history.html 

11 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ 

12 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archo3.htm (Violation Days (CSV)) 

13 http://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html 
11

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 nonattainment 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 “design values,” representing the 3-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations and the manner in which compliance 

with the 24-hour PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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]his 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, Section 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) that it is impracticable to attain the NAAQS in 2015.”) 

 Moreover, in the 2014 PM2.5 SIP, the Director estimated that, after accounting for 

emission reductions from the SIP measures, the 2013-2015 “design value” – the 3-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – at the Hawthorne, Salt Lake City 

                                                            

14 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/actions.html 

15 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/maps.html 
12

monitoring station would be 37 μg/m3. 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 smaller commercial and industrial businesses”). 

Likewise, the Director anticipated a 2015 design value for the Lindon, Utah County monitoring 

station of 36 μg/m3

. Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 43 (December 3, 2014) Given that Utah 

is having extreme difficulty securing the emission reductions necessary to attain the NAAQS and 

is failing to show attainment before December 2019, the difference between these 2015 design 

values and attainment constitutes a considerable barrier 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 PM2.5 concentrations 

confirm that the nonattainment areas are not close to attaining the NAAQS. The 3-year averages 

of the annual 98th percentile monitored PM2.5 concentrations for the Salt Lake City and Provo 

nonattainment areas, calculated by averaging the 98th percentile monitored 24-hour PM2.5 

concentrations for 2013 and 2014 with the 98th percentile monitored January 2015 

concentrations, are 43.8 μg/m3

 and 42.8 μg/m3, respectively. 16, 17 These design values are 

                                                            

16 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentration monitored at Hawthorne (29.3 μg/m3

) is 

averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 58.8 μg/m3

 and 43.3 

μg/m3 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.8 μg/m3, which eclipses the NAAQS. 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 

17 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentration monitored at Lindon to date (26.9 μg/m3

) is 

averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 72.4 μg/m3 and 29.1 

μg/m3

 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 42.8 μg/m3

, which eclipses the NAAQS. 
13

substantially higher than the NAAQS and significantly higher than the modeled values of 37 

μg/m3 and 36 μg/m3

. 

 More importantly, the monitored design values (3-year average of the annual 98th

percentile) for the Hawthorne monitor – 38.2 μg/m3

 (2010-2012), 41.1 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 43.7 

μg/m3

 (2012-2014),18 and 43.8 μg/m3 (2013-January 2015) – show a steady trend away from 

attainment and certainly do not show linear progress toward attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5

standard. Similarly, the monitored design values for the Lindon monitor – 32.4 μg/m3 (2010-

2012), 44.3 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 41.8 μg/m3 (2012-2014),19 and 42.8 μg/m3 (2013-January 2015)

and the Logan monitor – 37.3 μg/m3 (2010-2012), 45.8 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 45 μg/m3 (2012-

2014),20 and 43.2 μg/m3 (2013-January 2015)21 – fail to establish consistent 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 concern 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/dataarchive/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 percentile concentration monitored at the Logan monitor (21.8 μg/m3

) 

is averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 68 μg/m3 and 39.9 

μg/m3 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.2 μg/m3, which eclipses the NAAQS. 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 

22 December 2015 monitored values for the Three NAAs have been high enough that the annual 

98th percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5 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 their understanding that Wasatch Front air quality 

threatens their health. A child bore a sign stating simply that “I want to play outside.” Another 

common slogan read “Clean Air Now, No Excuses.” 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, erodes 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 diversity, education constraints and scarcity of water combined.24 

Survey authors noted that “poor air quality threatens core values 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 air quality as one of the most important 

issues in the state, they also believe that Utah is performing worse on air quality than on any 

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

                                                            

23 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57447995-78/capitol-clean-industry-lake.html.csp 

24 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/Utah-residents-rank-air-pollution-as-No-1-

threat-to-quality-of-life.html?pg=all. 

25 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/Utah-residents-rank-air-pollution-as-No-1-

threat-to-quality-of-life.html?pg=all 
15

inability to enjoy the outdoors during poor air quality episodes, and the legacy we leave for 

future generations,” Envision Utah stated. “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 quality as one of the state’s most important issues, 

and a resounding three out of four Utahns voted 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 revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to provide increased 

protection of public health by lowering its level to 35 μg/m3. 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). 

Effective on December 14, 2009, EPA designated the Three NAAs as nonattainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, (Nov. 13, 2009).28 On June 2, 2014, EPA classified all the 

areas that were designated in 2009 – including 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 implementation of all reasonably available control 

measures [RACM] for the control of PM2.5 as expeditiously as practicable, 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-quality/item/48-your-utah-your-future-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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015 was 

impracticable. 

 That demonstration has proven to be accurate. Despite fairly good air quality in 2015 to 

date, none of the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by December 31, 

2015 – the Moderate attainment date.30 Because the 24-hour PM2.5 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/m3.

31 Based on January 2015 monitored data, the 2013-2015 design values are 43.8 

μg/m3 for the Hawthorne monitor, 42.8 μg/m3 for the Lindon monitor, and 43.2 μg/m3 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 

PM2.5 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 date, EPA is required to designate the Three NAAs 

                                                            

30 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) (the moderate “attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable 

but no later than the end of the sixth calendar 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.pdf 
17

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 after 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 [PM2.5] 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)). In other words, by June 2017 or shortly thereafter, the Director 

must, at minimum, present a “Serious” SIP identifying 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 measures necessary to bring these areas into 

attainment as soon as possible. Because of the significant threat to public health and the 

environment posed by air pollution that exceeds the national standards, 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 attainment date shall be as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the 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 reclassified by operation of law as a Serious 

Area.”). 
18

nonattainment”) & (c)(2) (“For a Serious Area, the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the 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 PM2.5 NAAQS as Expeditiously as Possible. 

A. The Monitoring Rule Responds to the Infrequent Testing Required by Utah Regulation 

and the PM2.5 SIPs. 

 

 The “Monitoring Rule” increases the frequency and efficacy of the monitoring of 

emissions from individual sources identified in the PM2.5 SIPs. Exhibit “1.” The rule generally 

requires the use of CEMS to monitor SO2, NOX and filterable PM. To authorize a monitoring or 

testing method for SO2, NOX 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 compliance with the relevant emission limitation. 

 To utilize a monitoring or testing method other than CEMS for an air pollutant other than 

SO2, NOX or filterable PM, the Director must, after 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 involves stack testing, that stack testing must 

occur at least once a year unless a further demonstration of infeasibility is made. 

 The Monitoring Rule amends Utah regulation, which mandates only infrequent emissions 

monitoring of PM2.5 SIP sources. The rule also addresses the requirement that the 2014 PM2.5

SIPs must derive adequate monitoring requirements in the context RACT analysis and otherwise 

establish that the monitoring imposed is sufficient to show continuous compliance with SIP 

emission limitations. 
19

 The Monitoring Rule also fosters public participation and 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 PM2.5 SIPs for the Three 

NAAs. Utah Admin. Code R307-165-2. The PM2.5 SIP itself states that unless source-specific 

conditions indicate otherwise, H.11.e establishes the 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. PM2.5 Emission Limits and Operating Practices, Section IX, Part H at 41-41 

(December 2014). As 11.e does not specify a stack testing frequency, the default is once every 

five years. Id.; Utah Admin. Code R307-165-2. 

 In many instances, the source-specific conditions reference neither 11.e nor any stack 

testing frequency to determine or verify emission factors used to determine compliance with SIP 

emission limits. For example, the Chevron Refinery is required to conduct stack testing to 

establish a filterable PM2.5 emission factor for the FCC catalyst generator and the ratio of 

condensable PM2.5 from the unit and the SRUs, but the SIP fails to stipulate if and when this 

testing will be repeated to verify 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 NOX

limit determined by “associated emission factor,” while “the most recent listing of these emission 
20

factors is maintained in Chevron’s AO”); id. at 55 (Chevron emission factor for catalyst 

regeneration system “established by most recent stack test”). Similarly, at the HollyFrontier 

Refinery, performance tests may be used to adjust emission factors, but the SIP fails to indicate if 

and when these performance tests must be repeated to confirm 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 Plant “emission factors for NOX 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 (Refinery 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 boilers and SOP dryers – once every 

three years); id. at 66 (Kennecott power plant – 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 boilers – 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). Therefore, in many instances, SIP emission limits on 

large industrial sources generally require only infrequent monitoring. 

Moreover, in most situations, there is no explanation or showing, either generally or 

specific to the PM2.5 SIP sources, to establish that any monitoring regime is sufficient to assure 

continuous compliance with any particular SIP emission limitation. This is particularly true 

when monitoring is based on emission factors derived from stack testing. 
21

 In commenting on the 2014 PM2.5 SIPs, EPA expressed significant concern about the 

sufficiency of the infrequent monitoring of PM2.5. SIP emission limits. E.g. EPA Region 8 

Comments on Utah’s Proposed PM2.5 State Implementation Plans 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.”), and requested that the Director explain why the 

specified monitoring was adequate to support modeling, establish RACT and demonstrate 

attainment. Id. at 7 (“[W]e suggest that the UDAQ...clarify and provide more detail...in SIP 

sections and/or RACT evaluations” to explain “how and why...frequency of monitoring/ 

testing...(continuous, daily, monthly, etc. for monitoring; 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 Reasonably Available Control Measures and 

Additional Reasonable Measures.

 A nonattainment SIP shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (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 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)”). 
22

additional requirements for particulate matter nonattainment areas, Congress mandated that 

Moderate area attainment plans contain provisions to assure that RACM and RACT are 

implemented no later than four years after designation, 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 NAAs on December 14, 2009). Thus, Utah’s 

Moderate SIP must provide for the implementation of RACM and RACT for existing sources of 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 2013. 

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

attainment date and therefore will be or have been 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, means 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 technologies, for all sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 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 15368.34 In the case of the Three 

NAAs, Utah must impose all additional 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 measure that otherwise meets the 

definition of [RACM] but can only be implemented 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 the 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 PM2.5 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 standard and, prior to the Moderate attainment 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 PM10 [including PM2.5] 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)). Therefore, by June 14, 2017, the Director must 

present a “Serious” SIP identifying all best available 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 date of reclassification of a PM2.5

                                                            

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 reclassified by operation of law as a Serious 

Area”). 
24

nonattainment area and that generally can achieve greater permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or emissions of PM2.5 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).”).36

3. The Monitoring Rule is a Necessary Element of RACM and BACM and 

Required to Ensure that the Three NAAs Will Attain the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Expeditiously. 

 Utah is currently under significant obligation 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 PM2.5 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 warranted. First, the Monitoring Rule will meet the 

requirement that all SIP control measures be enforceable. 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 addressing 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 measure that otherwise meets the definition of 

[BACM] but can only be implemented in whole or in part beginning 4 years after the date of 

reclassification of an area as Serious and no later than the statutory 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 “measurable,” and “include periodic source testing, 

monitoring or other viable means 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 means to establish whether the affected source 

meets the applicable emission limit. Additionally, to verify the continued performance of 

the control measure, specific emissions monitoring programs appropriate for the type of 

control measure employed and the level of emissions 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 PM2.5 and PM2.5 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 stationary source emissions reductions of up to 13 

percent.” Id. 

 Third, the Monitoring Rule serves to increase the accuracy of emission 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 reasonable 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 implementation of the Serious SIP Utah must submit to EPA 

to show expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. 

 Finally, the details of the Monitoring Rule correspond to the elements EPA identified as 

critical to ensuring SIP control measures are enforceable and approvable. The Monitoring Rule 

acknowledges the link between control measures 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]ppropriate stationary source emissions 

monitoring requirements, like the control measures with which they are associated, are a 

fundamental element of an approvable implementation 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 wherever feasible.”). With its flexible 

approach to feasibility and ultimate focus on sufficiency, the Monitoring Rule appropriately 

mandates that all emissions limits must be accompanied 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 sufficient 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 data and reports be submitted to and retained by 

the Director and by mandating that quarterly compliance 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 and a reasonable measure that will make Utah’s 

SIP control measures enforceable and will reduce emissions to ensure, as the Clean Air Act 

requires, that the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM2.5 national standards as 

expeditiously as practicable, see e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2).38

Acknowledging the complexity of the industrial sources and monitoring technologies, the 

proposed rule provides the Director discretion to determine monitoring and stack testing 

requirements adequate to ensure continuous compliance with emission limitations. Above, we 

outline the many reasons while requiring broader use of CEMS and boosting stack test frequency 

is a critical step towards reducing emissions and increasing public confidence in air quality 

regulation. 

We also recognize that for particular pollutants 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 structured to create a transparent process that 

allows for public input, by which the Director can make an informed decision on an appropriate 

monitoring and testing regimen that will ensure continuous compliance with SIP emission 

limitations. The Monitoring Rule achieves this goal by boosting monitoring and testing 

effectiveness and frequency, but without an unnecessarily rigid mandate. 

C. The Proposed Rule Furthers Other Legal and Policy Goals.

 State and local officials in Utah have sought for years to identify appropriate measures to 

help reduce dangerous emissions of air pollution and bring Utah into compliance with the 24-

                                                            

38 The Monitoring Rule will also promote continuous maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS. See 42 

U.S.C. § 7505a(a). 
28

hour NAAQS for PM2.5. 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 Utah’s population and economy will continue to 

grow significantly in the coming decades, our air quality policies will need to keep pace by 

enacting controls to address expanding mobile, area and point sources. Census data released 

earlier this year39 show familiar statistics: a five-year population growth rate that ranks fourth in 

the nation; the second highest growth in new homes 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 not just in our non-attainment areas, but in more 

far-flung suburban areas, raising the specter of a significant increase in commutes and vehicle 

miles travelled (VMTs). Predictions of Utah’s future emissions inventory 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 Reveals Utah’s Growth Among Top In Nation, Deseret 

News, 2015-05-20, http://www.deseretnews.com/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.utahfoundation.org/uploads/rr720.pdf 
29

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 PM2.5 NAAQS 

by 2019. While the precise penalties are not certain, the Clean Air Act 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. § 7513(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 requirements serves to take discretion out of the state’s hands, forcing 

the state to implement measures that would be not be tailored to Utah’s particular situation and 

that would likely be unpopular. 

 Third, as it reviews Utah’s Moderate SIP, Serious SIP and any request for an extension of 

the attainment date for a Serious area, EPA has authority 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 demonstrate that Utah is willing to make difficult 

decisions and embrace policies that will reduce emissions 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 willingness 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 implement in the next two years. Utah’s SIPs have 
30

been and will continue to be highly technical and expansive documents, 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 offer revisions to the SIP 

in the short comment period that has typically attended these rulemaking efforts. 

 The rule presented here, on the other hand, offers opportunity for individual scrutiny. The 

Division, public and regulated community will have the chance to provide meaningful and 

detailed feedback, while the Board will have the 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, which misleadingly give equal weight to direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors, indicate that about 12 percent of total emissions in the Salt Lake City 

nonattainment area come from stationary sources and the 2013 SIP anticipates that by 2019, 

these sources will account for 28 percent of direct PM2.5 emissions in the area. It is true that 

mobile and area sources contribute significantly to our failure to attain the NAAQS. That is why 

we have pushed hard for rules, programs and funds to address these sources of PM2.5 emissions, 

such as the Tier 3 program, electric vehicle incentives, expansion of transit funding, updates to 

building codes, and low NOX hot water heater requirements. 

 We are confident that rules addressing large industrial sources have merit as one 

important piece of an overall strategy intended to bring the nonattainment areas into compliance 

with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Cleaning up Utah’s air is not 
31

about adopting a few measures or addressing only those sectors that contribute the most 

emissions. Rather, the severity of our air pollution problem requires that we implement every 

effective measure and strategy to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors. Because the 

proposed rule, backed by the EPA, will minimize 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 necessary addition to a legally robust plan designed to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. 

IX. Conclusion

 The Monitoring Rule is a critical component of an adequate PM2.5 SIP. By increasing the 

frequency and efficacy of monitoring and mandating that any monitoring or testing regime will 

assure continuous compliance with PM2.5 SIP emission limitations, the rule imposes a reasonable 

control measure on industrial sources, functions to make SIP emission limitations enforceable, 

reduces emissions and improves Utah’s emissions inventory, and informs its selection of control 

measures. Therefore, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, HEAL Utah and Western 

Resource Advocates respectfully ask the Air Quality Board to initiate Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-

301 rulemaking proceedings relative to the Monitoring Rule as authorized by Utah Code Ann. § 

63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii) and ultimately 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 PM2.5: Emission Monitoring and Testing. 

R307-XXX-1. PM2.5 SIP Emission Limitations.

(1) PM2.5 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 requirements 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 reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), reasonably available control measure(s) (RACM), best available 

control technology (BACT), or best available control measure(s) (BACM) for the 

purposes of section 189(a)(1)(C) or section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act; 

(c) is included in Utah PM2.5 SIP Subsections IX.H.11, 12, or 13 (PM2.5 Emissions Limits 

and Operating Practices); or, 

(d) has otherwise been determined to contribute to the attainment of the PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

(2) Stack Test or Stack Testing, also referred to in U.S. Environmental 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 destruction 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 concentration or emission rate using pollutant 

analyzer measurements and a conversion equation, graph, or computer program to produce 

results in units of the applicable emission limitation or standard. 

R307-XXX-2. Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) Required.

(1) For any PM2.5 SIP emission limitation: 

 

(a) Utah PM2.5 SIP Subsections IX.H.11, 12, or 13; and, 

 

(b) any approval order and any operating permit containing that emission limitation must 

mandate with particularity monitoring and/or stack testing on a sufficiently frequent basis 

to assure continuous compliance, including during periods of start-up and shut-down, 

with the applicable requirements and/or emission limitation as specified by the 

corresponding averaging time or period. 
(2) Absent a demonstration of infeasibility made by the Director, a continuous emission 

monitoring systems (CEMS) shall be used to monitor compliance with a PM2.5 SIP emission 

limitation for SO2, NOX or filterable particulate matter (PM). 

R307-XXX-3. Alternative Monitoring or Testing. 

(1) Only following a demonstration of infeasibility made by the Director determining that it is 

infeasible to use CEMS to monitor SO2, NOX, or filterable PM as controlled by a PM2.5 SIP 

emission limitation, may an alternative monitoring method be employed. 

(2) Before authorizing any method other than CEMS to monitor SO2, NOX, or filterable PM for 

compliance with a PM2.5 SIP emission limitation or authorizing any method to monitor another 

air pollutant control by a PM2.5 SIP emission limitation, the Director must make a demonstration 

of sufficiency establishing that the alternative 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 process 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 PM2.5 SIP emission limitation is based; and 

(c) are described by, included in and required by Utah PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 referenced in R307-XXX-2(2), R307-XXX-3(1) and 

R307-XXX-3(4) may consider, if relevant, cost; technical feasibility; availability of the 

technology; recent monitoring and testing results; total emissions and controlled emissions; the 

margin of compliance; the variability of process, equipment and emissions; frequency of 

breakdowns, start-ups and shut-downs; and the age and condition of the proposed control 

technology. 

(2) A demonstration of sufficiency, as referenced in R307-XXX-3(2) must, at a minimum: 

incorporate and analyze recent monitoring and testing results; total emissions and controlled 

emissions; the margin of compliance; the variability of process, equipment and emissions; 

frequency of breakdowns, start-ups and shut-downs; and the age and condition of the proposed 

control technology. Consideration of recent monitoring data must include an evaluation of the 
frequency 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 adequate notice of any proposed 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 beginning of the public comment period, the Director 

shall make readily available to the public—preferably by posting electronic copies on the 

Division website—all documents on which the Director relies in making the proposed 

demonstration. Before issuing a final demonstration, the Director shall consider and respond to 

any timely submitted comments and make that response publically available. 

R307-XXX-5. Reporting and Public Availability of Monitoring and Testing Data. 

All monitoring and testing data and reports associated with any PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 reports available online for five years so that the 

general public can readily access the information 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 regulation takes effect, the Director shall comply with 

R307-XXX-2 to XXX-5 for any PM2.5 SIP emission limitation included in the Utah PM2.5 SIP 

(PM2.5 Emissions Limits and Operating Practices) Subsections IX.H.11, 12, and 13 on the date 

this regulation takes effect. 

(2) For any PM2.5 SIP emission limitation not included in the Utah PM2.5 SIP (PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP emission limitation is established. 

(3) Notwithstanding subpart (2), the earliest date by which the Director must comply with R307-

XXX-2 to XXX-5 for any PM2.5 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 (PM2.5), 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 adversely affected by air pollution, 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 PM2.5 in the winter, as well as PM10 and SO2 year-round, 

meaning that a large percentage of Utah’s population is exposed repeatedly to unhealthy levels of 

pollution throughout the year. There is now evidence that exposure to ozone and PM2.5 can act 

synergistically, increasing the adverse health effects from these air pollutants.1 

PM2.5 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 also 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, endothelial dysfunction and altered autonomic nervous 

system control.2

 

For the last several years, the research-based conventional wisdom has been that with 

each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 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 μg/m3

 increase.4 The elderly and those with existing morbidities are particularly 

vulnerable to air pollution consequences.
3

Based on extrapolations from numerous studies and the American Heart Association 

(AHA) scientific statement explained below, Utah Physicians estimates that between 1,400 and 

2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM2.5. See 78 Fed. Reg. 3086, 3103 (Jan. 

15, 2013) (“[S]tudies have reported consistent increases in morbidity and/or premature mortality 

related to ambient PM2.5 concentrations, with the strongest evidence reported for cardiovascularrelated effects.”); 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38908-09 (June 29, 2012) (“[N]ewly available 

information combined with information available in the last review provides substantially 

stronger confidence in a causal relationship between long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and 

mortality and cardiovascular effects.”). The AHA has estimated that residents 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 epidemiological studies have reported associations 

between daily changes in particulate air pollution and respiratory 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 demonstrated risks for cardiopulmonary 

mortality even at what are considered “background” levels of particulate pollution.8

 A study 

done in our own area demonstrated that each short-term 10 μg/m3

 increase in PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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; 77 
4

Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“Bell et al. (2008) reported higher PM2.5 risk estimates for hospitalization for 

cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the winter compared to other seasons.”). For each 10 

μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 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 increased 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 PM2.5 spikes may not be dismissed with observations that our 

annual average fine particulate matter concentrations 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 seen 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, followed within hours by increased rates of heart 

attacks and strokes. Community mortality rates stay elevated for 30 days after a spike in PM10

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 community increase within hours 

after spikes in PM10.

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 analyses conducted worldwide since publication of 

the first AHA statement confirms the existence of a small, yet consistent association 

between increased mortality and short-term elevations in PM10 and PM2.5 approximately 

equal to a 0.4% to 1.0% increase in daily mortality (and cardiovascular death 

specifically) due to a 10 μg/m3 elevation in PM2.5 during the preceding 1 to 5 days.3
5

 Confirming the strong correlation between modest, short-term spikes in PM and serious 

health consequences are three new studies that showed spikes of as little as one day in PM10 were 

associated with higher rates of heart attacks,16 daily spikes of either PM10 or PM2.5 were 

associated with significant increases in emergency room visits for hypertensives crisis,17 and less 

than 24 hours of a spike in PM2.5 of 15-40 μg/m3

 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 recent landmark study published in the flagship journal of the AHA, 

using data from over 1 million people, demonstrated that when cardiac mortality, the signature 

air pollution health outcome, was plotted against particulate matter from air pollution, first and 

second-hand cigarette smoke, all three sources showed a steep curve at low doses. In other 

words, per unit dose of exposure, it is the low levels of PM that cause higher rates of mortality.19

 Long-term exposure to particulate matter air pollution is associated with an average rise 

in blood pressure for chronically exposed populations. Average blood pressure was found to rise 

1.7 mmHg for an increase of 2.4 μg/m3 in PM2.5. A similar association was found with the 

coarser PM10. The rise was found in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.20 Chronic 

exposure to particulate matter has also been shown to increase the thickening of arterial walls, 

which is a known end result of higher blood pressure. A chronic increase in PM10 of 5.2 μg/m3

is associated with a 5% increase in the intima-media thickness of the carotid artery, which is one 

of many end results of the biologic process described above.21

 Another study showed a remarkable correlation between chronic exposure to PM2.5 and 

narrowing in the tiny arteries in the back of the eye. Chronic exposure to 3 μg/m3 of PM2.5 (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-wide 
6

effects, acceleration of the aging process, and impairing the health of everyone exposed, not just 

a susceptible population. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 3104 (“The population potentially affected by 

PM2.5 is large. In addition, large subgroups of the U.S. population have been identified as at-risk 

populations.”). 

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

levels of PM10, beginning at very modest levels.23 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“[R]ecent 

studies provide additional evidence for cardiovascular effects associated with sub-daily (e.g., one 

to several hours) exposure to PM, especially effects related to cardiac ischemia, vasomotor 

function, and more subtle changes in markers of systemic inflammation, hemostasis, thrombosis 

and coagulation[.]”). A likely mechanism of this clinical outcome is revealed by studies that 

show PM10 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. Oxidative stress (OS) appears to be the biological 

genesis of numerous diseases processes and a major 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, cognitive impairment and 

memory loss in children and neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease.25, 26

Numerous studies show such specific outcomes as impaired intellect and penetration of particle 

matter and Alzheimer type protein deposition among children who grow up breathing more 

particulate air pollution.27, 28, 29 Volunteers exposed to typical urban 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 disorders 
7

correlate with NOX and PM10 levels.34 Children exposed to more vehicle pollution show a 

doubling in rates of autism.35 Older people show accelerated cognitive decline if chronically 

exposed to more traffic generated air pollution.36, 37 A recent landmark study showed that 

chronic exposure to 10 μg/m3

 of either PM2.5 or PM2.5-PM10 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 health 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 disturbing are less obvious outcomes. Even young, 

healthy people demonstrate rapid decrease in lung function from brief exposure to particulate 

matter that persists for several days 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 higher than the national average. This means 

that Utah’s unhealthy levels of air pollution constitute a public health crisis that endangers its 

most vulnerable populations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58690; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38911 (“With regard to 

respiratory effects in children associated with short-term exposures to PM2.5, currently available 
8

studies provide stronger evidence of respiratory-related hospitalizations 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 pollution than adults. Children have higher 

metabolic rates, meaning their oxygen demand is higher, they breathe faster 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, this physiologic difference makes them more susceptible to the 

adverse influence of air pollution. “There is emerging but limited evidence for an association 

between long-term PM2.5 exposure and respiratory mortality in post-neonatal infants where longterm exposure was considered as approximately one month to one year.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. 

Children who breathe more air pollution can experience a permanent stunting of their lung 

growth. Just as chronic exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke causes a permanent loss of 

lung function growth in children, so does long-term exposure to PM2.5 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 PM2.5-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 PM2.5 air pollution permanently impair the exercise 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, cervical, 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 μg/m3

 increase in long term PM2.5 concentration is associated with 

a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality.49 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Especially 
9

troubling are the numerous studies that show increases in childhood leukemia among more 

exposed populations,50, 51 and a significant association 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 numerous other, seemingly unrelated diseases among 

populations subjected to more air pollution. These diseased include type II diabetes, obesity, 

arthritis, and lupus. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

 Air pollution, especially particulate matter, may have its largest impact 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 traffic-related air pollution, including PM10, results in 

intrauterine growth retardation, including smaller 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 identical consequences and 

both can be passed on to subsequent generations. Newborn babies whose mothers are exposed to 

more air pollution show increases in both, and the life-long disease burden that results can 

include higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, 

cancer, Alzheimer’s and all the diseases consequent to immuno-suppression. 78 Fed. Reg. 3104 

(“The strongest evidence for an association between PM2.5 and developmental and reproductive 

effects comes from epidemiological studies of low birth weight and infant mortality, especially 

due to respiratory causes during the post-neonatal period (i.e., 1 month–12 months of age).”).

Epigenetic changes can be seen within three days after exposure to PM2.5 and perhaps even as 

soon as minutes after exposure.59-66 There is strong evidence for a persistence of epigenetic 
10

changes from one generation to another. Medical science is now learning that the air pollution 

today can adversely affect the health of future generations. For 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 heavy metals occurs through the lungs. Smaller 

particles are assumed more dangerous because they can penetrate more deeply into the lungs and 

are cleared by the lung cilia less readily. However, 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 particular relevance for increasing childhood risk.68 

 That all the above mentioned adverse health outcomes can be the result of pregnant 

women smoking is easy for physicians and the lay public alike to comprehend and the sight of a 

pregnant woman smoking is now repulsive to society at large. See 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. It is a 

new thought process, but equally scientifically based, to think that the same thing happens when 

a pregnant woman has to breathe 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 severe health effects from air pollution, virtually 

every major medical organization in the United States has called for stricter NAAQS for annual 

PM2.5 and for ozone, including the American Medical Association, the American Thoracic 

Society, the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 

College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the 

American Public Health Assoc., and the National Assoc. of Local Boards of Health, and the 
11

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 Evidence for Synergy Among Air Pollutants in 

Causing Health Effects? 117 Environ. Health Perspect. 1-6 (2009). 

2. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascular 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 Heart 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 Harvard 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-Particulate 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, Wang Y, Ezzati M, Dominici F. Effect of 

Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in the 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., Schwartz 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 Disease Mortality in Response to Air Pollution, 

111(9) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 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 Air Pollution Exposures, 113 (8) ENVIRON. 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. Goggins, Hui-Fen Chiu, and Chun-Yuh Yang, 

Evidence for an Association between Air Pollution and Daily Stroke Admissions in Kaohsiung, 

Taiwan, 34 (11) STROKE 2612-16 (2003). 

16. Mustafić H, Jabre P, Caussin C, Murad M, et al. Main Air Pollutants and 

Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2012. vol. 307, no. 7 

pg. 713-721. 

17. Szyszkowicz M, Rowe BH, Brook RD. Even Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollutants 

Are Associated With Increased Emergency Department 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 Mortality and Exposure 

to Airbourne Fine Particulate 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 Thoracic Society (May 17, 2010). 

21. Tonne C, Yanosky JD, Beevers S, Wilkinson 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, Sampson PD, Kaufman JD. Air Pollution and the 

Microvasculature: A Cross-Sectional Assessment of In Vivo Retinal Images in the PopulationBased Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (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 Thrombosis, 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 Prothrombotic 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 mild carbon monoxide exposure (0.0025% in air). 

BMC Neuroscience 2009, 10:53doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-53. 

27. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Mora-Tiscareno A., Ontiveros E., et al., AIR 

POLLUTION, COGNITIVE DEFICITS AND BRAIN 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 Particulate Deposition, and Accumulation of Amyloid Beta-42 

and Alpha-Synuclein in Children and Young Adults, 36(2) TOXICOL. PATHOL. 289-310 

(2008). 

29. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Franco-Lira M., Torres-Jardon R., Pediatric Respiratory 

and Systemic Effects of Chronic Air Pollution 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 Volunteers, 5(4) PART FIBRE TOXICOL. dol: 1186/1743-8977-5-4 

(2008). 

31. Suglia S.F., et al., Association of Black Carbon with 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 Polycyclic 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 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure 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 Functions 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 CHARGE 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 Function in a Cohort of Older Men. Harvard School 

of Public Health. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print]. 

37. Ranft U, Schikowski T, Sugiri D, Krutmann J, Krämer U. Long-term exposure to 

traffic-related particulate matter 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, Yanosky J, Laden F, Grodstein F. Exposure to 

Particulate Air Pollution and Cognitive Decline 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’ brains. 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 Outcomes in U.S. Children. Environ Health 

Perspect :-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104152. 

41. Henn BC, Schnaas L, Ettinger AS, Schwartz J, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, HernándezAvila M, et al. 2011. Associations of Early Childhood Manganese 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 Billion 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 Function Decreases in Beach Lifeguards, 50(2) 

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL 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 California 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 Cancer 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., Distance-Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity 

to a Home is a Risk Factor for Leukemia and 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. ENVIRON. 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 Traffic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: 

A Case–Control Study. Environ 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 Resistance and Mitochondrial 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 with Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Environ Health Perspect 119:384-

389. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002344. 

58. Veras M.M., Damaceno-Rodregues N., Caldini E., Ribeiro A., et al., Particulate 

Urban Air Pollution Affects the Functional Morphology of Mouse Placenta, 79(3) BIOLOGY 

OF REPRODUCTION 578-84 (2008). 
17

59. Perera F., Tang W., Herbstman J., Relation of DNA Methylation of 5-CpG Island of 

ACSL3 to Transplacental Exposure to Airborne PAH and Childhood Asthma, 4(2) PLOS ONE 

e4488 (2009). 

60. Hansen C., Barnett A., Prichard G.,The Effect of Ambient Air Pollution during 

Early Pregnancy on Fetal Ultrasound Measurements during Mid-Pregnancy, 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 Carcinogenic 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 Procarcinogenic 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 Cord 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., Schwartz J., Rapid DNA Methylation Changes after 

Exposure to Traffic Particles, 179(7) AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED., 523-4 (2009). 

66. Yan Zhong, Steven G. Carmella, Pramod Upadhyaya, J. Bradley Hochalter, Diane 

Rauch, Andrew Oliver, Joni Jensen, Dorothy Hatsukami, Jing Wang, Cheryl Zimmerman, 

Stephen S. Hecht. Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxides. 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 pollution is associated with increased DNA fragmentation in human 

sperm without other changes in semen quality. 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 Exposure to Insoluble Particles. Curr Mol Med. 

2012 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print]. 
Joro 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 

Telephone: 801.487.9911 

Attorneys for Petitioners Utah Physicians, et al. 

BEFORE THE UTAH AIR QUALITY BOARD 



PETITION FOR A RULE CHANGE 

OFFSET RULE 

Submitted by, 

WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES

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 proposed rule that would amend or supplement Utah regulations Utah 

Admin. Code R307-165-1 et seq.; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Salt Lake City, Utah 

Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.21; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Provo, Utah 

Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.22; PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the Logan, UtahIdaho Nonattainment Area, Section IX.A.23; PM2.5 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. Western Resource Advocates, HEAL Utah 

and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment ask the Air Quality Board, as authorized by Utah 
Code Ann. § 63G-3-601(6)(b)(ii), to initiate rulemaking proceedings relative to the proposed rule 

as specified by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-3-301 and 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 increases from specified new and modified sources of 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors located in the Salt Lake City, 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 the obligation to acquire offsets applies. The 

required emission offsets will minimize increases in emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors to 

ensure, as the Clean Air Act requires, that the nonattainment areas will attain the PM2.5 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 PM10 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) (Board may make rules “regarding the control, 

abatement, and prevention of air pollution from 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 monitoring 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 statewide or may vary from area to area, taking into account varying 

 

1

 There are currently no large industrial sources 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 hearings 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 professionals, toxicologists, biologists, 

chemists and engineers. The organization is dedicated to protecting the health and well-being of 

the citizens of Utah by promoting science-based health education and 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 Intermountain 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 Physicians for a Healthy Environment before the D.C. Circuit Court 

of Appeals, successfully defending an EPA decision to include the most populous portions of 

Tooele and Box Elder County in the Salt Lake City Nonattainment Area. ATK Launch Systems 

v. EPA, 669 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 
 In carrying out their missions, these organizations 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 concerned 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 rulemaking processes that 

impact and influence the condition of Utah’s air quality, environment and the health of the 

people living here. 

 The organizations have a strong legal interest in the promotion 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 Conservation 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 the government actions impacting air 

quality, including the drafting 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 nonattainment areas, are harmed by air pollution, 

particularly concentrations of PM2.5 that exceed the NAAQS, and are entitled, by the Clean Air 

Act and Utah Air Conservation Act, to air quality that meets the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7513-

7513b; 42 U.S.C. § 7501-7509a; Utah Code 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 requires 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 health, 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 Conservation Act comply with the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 7410; 42 U.S.C. § 7502; 42 U.S.C. § 7513a, 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 “inversions” that settle on Salt Lake Valley for extended periods, causing 

concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 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 play, 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 community worldwide. 

First, there is no safe level of exposure to particulate 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/m3

 increase in PM2.5 

concentrations, community mortality rates rise 14%. Id. at 1. Therefore, Utah Physicians 

estimates that 1,400 to 2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM2.5. Id. at 2. 
Air pollution has the same extensive, broad-based health consequences as cigarette smoke 

because the signature physiologic response is the same – low-grade arterial inflammation, 

narrowing of blood vessels and increased propensity for clot formation, resulting in immediate 

increases in blood pressure, followed within hours by higher rates of heart attacks and strokes. 

Id. at 2-4. 

 The inflammation caused by PM2.5 affects other organs. Particulate pollution penetrates 

every cell in the body, but is particularly well-documented in the brain. There, air pollution is 

linked to poor neurologic outcomes across the age spectrum, including loss of intelligence in 

children, higher rates of autism, and attention deficit 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 growth 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, brain and stomach cancer, occur at higher rates among 

people exposed to more air pollution, while cancer survival rates are reduced. Id. 

 The blood vessel inflammation caused by air pollution also affects the placenta, arguably 

representing the most significant public health impact of air pollution. Women who breathe 

more air pollution have higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes, their newborn babies 

showing increased birth defects, genetic damage, and a life-long disease burden that includes 

higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, 

Alzheimer’s and all diseases consequent to immuno-suppression. Id. at 8-9. The alteration of 

genetic material triggered by pollution can be seen within minutes, underscoring 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 PM2.5 air pollution in the nation – 

the most polluted location outside of California.2

 Logan was ranked as the 8th worst area in the 

nation. Id. The ALA estimated that, in the Salt Lake 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 pulmonary disease; 99,000 

adults with cardiovascular disease; 113,350 adults with diabetes; and, 284,260 individuals living 

in poverty, all of whom are particularly at risk for heart attacks, strokes, emergency room visits 

for asthma, cardiovascular disease, and an early death brought on by PM2.5. 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 PM2.5 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 County and Ogden City are also 

designated as nonattainment areas for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and Salt Lake and Toole 

counties as nonattainment areas for the SO2 NAAQS.3 

 

2

 http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/assets/ALA_State_of_the_Air_2015.pdf at 11 

3

 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/ancl.html. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-
Our air pollution is serious. In 2013, air quality along the Wasatch Front exceeded the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard on at least 43 days – often by alarming levels. In January of that year, 

the monitor at the playground of Hawthorne Elementary School recorded 17 violations of the 

NAAQS, with a high reading of 62 μg/m3, almost double the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3.

4

 In 

Lindon, January also brought 17 exceedances with a high reading of 123 μg/m3 – 350% of the 

standard – while in Logan the standard was violated on 18 days, topping out at 97 μg/m3

. 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 old – 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 PM2.5 standard was 

exceeded on 13 days and the Logan monitor determined violations on 11 days. The highest 

reading that month – 68 μg/m3

 – 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 the 20th Century average temperature. Id. The average 

 

hour average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to 35 μg/m3. As EPA explains, the 

standard is “defined as an integer (zero decimal places) as determined by rounding. For 

example, a 3-year average 98th percentile concentration of 35.49 μg/m3 would round to 35 μg/m3 

and thus meet the 24-hour standard and a 3-year average of 35.50 μg/m3would round to 36 and, 

hence, violate the 24-hour standard.” 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/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-form 
minimum temperature for that period was also the warmest ever and the average maximum 

temperature the second warmest on record and the warmest since 1981. Id. As a result, air 

quality in the nonattainment areas generally met the standard. In January 2015, the Hawthorne 

monitor logged 4 readings over the standard, the highest at 53 μg/m3

, while the Rose Park 

monitor documented 5 exceedances, the highest at 56 μg/m3

.

8

 

Periods of high ozone concentrations are increasingly 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 then 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 are failing to comply with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. For 

example, in 2012, there were 13 days 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.12 

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 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 scientific evidence about ozone’s adverse effects on 

 

8

 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 

9

 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/phistory_ut.html 

10 http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_history.html 

11 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ 

12 http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archo3.htm (Violation Days (CSV)) 

13 http://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html 
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 nonattainment 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 “design values,” representing the 3-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations and the manner in which compliance 

with the 24-hour PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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]his 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, Section 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) that it is impracticable to attain the NAAQS in 2015.”) 

 Moreover, in the 2014 PM2.5 SIP, the Director estimated that, after accounting for 

emission reductions from the SIP measures, the 2013-2015 “design value” – the 3-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – at the Hawthorne, Salt Lake City 

 

14 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/actions.html

15 http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/maps.html 
monitoring station would be 37 μg/m3

. 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 smaller commercial and industrial businesses”). 

Likewise, the Director anticipated a 2015 design value for the Lindon, Utah County monitoring 

station of 36 μg/m3

. Utah SIP, Section IX. Part A.22 at 43 (December 3, 2014) Given that Utah 

is having extreme difficulty securing the emission reductions necessary to attain the NAAQS and 

is failing to show attainment before December 2019, the difference between these 2015 design 

values and attainment constitutes a considerable barrier 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 PM2.5 concentrations 

confirm that the nonattainment areas are not close to attaining the NAAQS. The 3-year averages 

of the annual 98th percentile monitored PM2.5 concentrations for the Salt Lake City and Provo 

nonattainment areas, calculated by averaging the 98th percentile monitored 24-hour PM2.5 

concentrations for 2013 and 2014 with the 98th percentile monitored January 2015 

concentrations, are 43.8 μg/m3

 and 42.8 μg/m3, respectively. 16, 17 These design values are 

 

16 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentration monitored at Hawthorne (29.3 μg/m3

) is 

averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 58.8 μg/m3

 and 43.3 

μg/m3 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.8 μg/m3, which eclipses the NAAQS. 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 

17 If the January 2015 98th percentile concentration monitored at Lindon to date (26.9 μg/m3

) is 

averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 72.4 μg/m3 and 29.1 

μg/m3

 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 42.8 μg/m3

, which eclipses the NAAQS. 
substantially higher than the NAAQS and significantly higher than the modeled values of 37 

μg/m3 and 36 μg/m3

. 

 More importantly, the monitored design values (3-year average of the annual 98th

percentile) for the Hawthorne monitor – 38.2 μg/m3

 (2010-2012), 41.1 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 43.7 

μg/m3

 (2012-2014),18 and 43.8 μg/m3 (2013-January 2015) – show a steady trend away from 

attainment and certainly do not show linear progress toward attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5

standard. Similarly, the monitored design values for the Lindon monitor – 32.4 μg/m3 (2010-

2012), 44.3 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 41.8 μg/m3 (2012-2014),19 and 42.8 μg/m3 (2013-January 2015)

and the Logan monitor – 37.3 μg/m3 (2010-2012), 45.8 μg/m3 (2011-2013), 45 μg/m3 (2012-

2014),20 and 43.2 μg/m3 (2013-January 2015)21 – fail to establish consistent 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 concern 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/dataarchive/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 percentile concentration monitored at the Logan monitor (21.8 μg/m3

) 

is averaged with the 98th percentile monitored values from 2013 and 2014, 68 μg/m3 and 39.9 

μg/m3 respectively, the result, representing the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, comes to 43.2 μg/m3, which eclipses the NAAQS. 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/Y98pt12-14Avepm25.pdf and 

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/PM25JAN15.pdf 

22 December 2015 monitored values for the Three NAAs have been high enough that the annual 

98th percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5 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 their understanding that Wasatch Front air quality 

threatens their health. A child bore a sign stating simply that “I want to play outside.” Another 

common slogan read “Clean Air Now, No Excuses.” 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, erodes 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 diversity, education constraints and scarcity of water combined.24 

Survey authors noted that “poor air quality threatens core values 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 air quality as one of the most important 

issues in the state, they also believe that Utah is performing worse on air quality than on any 

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

 

23 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57447995-78/capitol-clean-industry-lake.html.csp 

24 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/Utah-residents-rank-air-pollution-as-No-1-

threat-to-quality-of-life.html?pg=all. 

25 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620440/Utah-residents-rank-air-pollution-as-No-1-

threat-to-quality-of-life.html?pg=all 
inability to enjoy the outdoors during poor air quality episodes, and the legacy we leave for 

future generations,” Envision Utah stated. “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 quality as one of the state’s most important issues, 

and a resounding three out of four Utahns voted 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 revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to provide increased 

protection of public health by lowering its level to 35 μg/m3. 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). 

Effective on December 14, 2009, EPA designated the Three NAAs as nonattainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. 74 Fed. Reg. 58688, (Nov. 13, 2009).28 On June 2, 2014, EPA classified all the 

areas that were designated in 2009 – including 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 implementation of all reasonably available control 

measures [RACM] for the control of PM2.5 as expeditiously as practicable, 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-quality/item/48-your-utah-your-future-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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015 was 

impracticable. 

 That demonstration has proven to be accurate. Despite fairly good air quality in 2015 to 

date, none of the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by December 31, 

2015 – the Moderate attainment date.30 Because the 24-hour PM2.5 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/m3.

31 Based on January 2015 monitored data, the 2013-2015 design values are 43.8 

μg/m3 for the Hawthorne monitor, 42.8 μg/m3 for the Lindon monitor, and 43.2 μg/m3 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 

PM2.5 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 date, EPA is required to designate the Three NAAs 

 

30 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) (the moderate “attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable 

but no later than the end of the sixth calendar 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.pdf 
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 after 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 [PM2.5] 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)). In other words, by June 2017 or shortly thereafter, the Director 

must, at minimum, present a “Serious” SIP identifying 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 measures necessary to bring these areas into 

attainment as soon as possible. Because of the significant threat to public health and the 

environment posed by air pollution that exceeds the national standards, 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 attainment date shall be as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the 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 reclassified by operation of law as a Serious 

Area.”).
nonattainment”) & (c)(2) (“For a Serious Area, the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the 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 PM2.5 NAAQS as Expeditiously as Possible. 

A. The Offset Rule Will Minimize Increases of PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors. 

 

 The Offset Rule will minimize emission increases of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from 

industrial sources by requiring that emission reductions be obtained from existing sources to 

“offset” emission increases from new and modified sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 

located in the Three NAAs. The required emission offsets will minimize increases in emissions 

to ensure, as the Clean Air Act requires, that these areas will attain the 24-hour PM2.5 national 

standards as expeditiously as practicable, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2), and will 

continue to maintain the PM10 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a). 

Federal law applicable to Utah already requires, at a minimum, offsets for new major 

sources and major modifications to existing major sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. 42 

U.S.C. § 7503(a)(1)(A). In Serious nonattainment areas, the Clean Air Act defines a “major” 

source as one that emits (or has the potential to emit) 70 tons per year (tpy) of PM2.5. 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 PM2.5); 80 Fed. Reg. 

15340, 15463 (March 23, 2015). Any control requirements 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, for Serious nonattainment areas, EPA has proposed 

to set the major source threshold for the PM2.5 precursors NOX, SO2 and VOCs to 70 tpy. 80 
Fed. Reg. at 15433 & 15463. These means that under current federal law, in a Serious 

nonattainment area, offsets are required for a new major source that has the potential to emit 70 

tpy or more of PM2.5, NOX, SO2 or VOCs. 

For the purpose of determining when a change to a major source qualifies as a major 

modification, EPA has proposed to define a “significant” emissions increase33 as an increase of 

10 tpy of PM2.5 and 40 tpy of the PM2.5 precursors NOX, SO2 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 PM2.5, NOX, SO2 or 

VOCs) resulting in an emissions increase of 10 tpy or more of PM2.5 and 40 tpy or more of the 

PM2.5 precursors NOX, SO2 and VOCs. 

The Offset Rule merely reduces these thresholds for the purposes of determining when 

offsets are required. Under the rule, offsets are required for any new stationary source that 

would be located in the Three NAAs and that has the potential to emit PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors 

in an amount equal to or greater than the following emissions levels: 

PM2.5 25 tpy 

SO2 40 tpy 

NOX 40 tpy 

VOCs 40 tpy 

Total of PM2.5 + 

SO2 + NOX + 

VOCs 

50 tpy 

 

33 In this context, significant emissions increase refers to a significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase. 
As a result of the offset requirement, emission increases from these new sources would be 

balanced by emission reductions with a result that guarantees a net benefit to air quality. 

Similarly, the Offset Rule mandates offsets for a modification to an existing source 

where the modification would increase emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in an amount 

equal to or greater than the following emissions levels: 

PM2.5 25 tpy 

SO2 40 tpy 

NOx 40 tpy 

VOCs 40 tpy 

Total of PM2.5 + 

SO2 + 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 PM2.5 or 

PM2.5 precursors – where the modification would result in an increase of emissions of PM2.5 or 

PM2.5 precursors in an amount equal to or greater than the following emissions levels: 

PM2.5 5 tpy 

SO2 20 tpy 

NOx 20 tpy 

VOCs 20 tpy 

Total of PM2.5 + 

SO2 + 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 has the potential to emit 70 tons per year or more 
of PM2.5 and PM2.5 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 PM2.5 are more potent and contribute more 

directly to increased concentrations of PM2.5 than do emissions of PM2.5 precursors, the Offset 

Rule restricts interpollutant trading. For example, increases in PM2.5 must be offset by 

reductions of PM2.5, while emissions of SO2 may be offset by reductions of SO2 and PM2.5. 

NOX emission increases may be offset by reductions of NOx, PM2.5 and VOCs and VOCs 

increases may be offset by reductions of VOCs and PM2.5. Interpollutant trading in 

combinations other than those provided by the rule are allowed only if there is a demonstration 

that the proposed offsets will yield a net air quality improvement. 

The Offset Rule is modeled after two existing Utah rules, Utah Admin. Code R307-421 

and R307-403-5. These rules similarly lowered the threshold for requiring offsets for PM10 and 

PM10 precursors with the goal of attaining the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS expeditiously. As with 

PM2.5, federal law applicable to Utah already requires, at a minimum, offsets for new major 

sources and major modifications to existing sources of PM10 and PM10 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 PM10 or PM10 precursors. 40 C.F.R. § 

51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(a)(1)(A). For the purpose of determining when a 
project would be a major modification, federal law defines a “significant” emissions increase34 as 

an increase of 15 tpy of PM10 and 40 tpy of the PM10 precursors NOX, SO2 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 PM10 and PM10 precursors from new sources and modifications at 

thresholds much lower than those imposed by federal 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 increase from a modification of a source). In either instance, if the 

emission increases of the PM10 precursors NOX or SO2 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 NOX or SO2 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 PM10 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 PM10, NOX and SO2 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 PM10, NOX and SO2 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 PM10, NOX and SO2 reductions. Utah Admin. 

Code R307-403-5(2). Thus, both the existing Utah PM10 offset rules and the proposed Offset 

 

34 In this context, significant emissions increase 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 expeditiously 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 federal law requires offsets for PM10 and PM10 precursors to the 

thresholds imposed by Utah Admin. Code R307-403-5 for both new sources and modifications. 

Exhibit “3” attached. Chart 2 likewise compares existing federal law thresholds for PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 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 Reasonably Available Control Measures and 

Additional Reasonable Measures. 

 A nonattainment SIP shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (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 that Moderate area attainment plans contain 

provisions to assure that RACM and RACT are implemented no later than four years after 

designation, 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 

NAAs on December 14, 2009). Thus, Utah’s Moderate SIP must provide for the implementation 

of RACM and RACT for existing sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 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 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)”). 
practicably attain by the statutory 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, means 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 measures, including control 

technologies, for all sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 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 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, 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 have failed to attain the 24-hour PM2.5 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 standard and, prior to the Moderate attainment 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 measure that otherwise meets the 

definition of [RACM] but can only be implemented 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 the date of designation of the area.”). 
7513a(b)(2), submit “provisions to assure that the best available control measures for the control 

of PM10 [including PM2.5] 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)). Thus, 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 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, 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 date of reclassification of a PM2.5 nonattainment area and that 

generally can achieve greater permanent and enforceable emissions reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions and/or emissions of PM2.5 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 Element of RACM and BACM and Required to 

Ensure that the Three NAAs Will Attain the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Expeditiously.

 Utah is currently under significant obligation 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 PM2.5 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. 

Initially, the Offset Rule will minimize emission increases of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 

from industrial sources by requiring emission reductions from existing sources to offset emission 

increases from new or modified sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors located in the Three 

NAAs. This is a reasonable measure and an important 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 been enacted before the Moderate attainment 

date – and therefore must be implemented as part of the Moderate SIP – is underscored by the 

fact that Utah adopted a very similar rule as part of its effort to bring Salt Lake and Utah counties 

and Ogden into attainment with the 24-hour PM10 standard. Before 2006, the PM10 standards 

were the sole mechanisms by which particulate matter air pollution was regulated. At that time, 

Utah properly acknowledged that a rule that would minimize emission increases of PM and PM

precursors from industrial sources was a technologically and economically feasible measure that 

could be implemented at any time. The same reasoning applies here – and even more strongly – 

as Utah failed to attain the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015, and monitored design 

values exceed the standard by levels that show substantially more emission reductions are 

necessary. 

Adoption of the Offset Rule is further mandated 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 adoption of a similar rule to resolve the state’s 

failure to attain the PM10 standards, the Offset Rule is plainly 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 SIP and a reasonable measure that will minimize 

increases in emissions or secure the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable to 

ensure, as the Clean Air Act requires, that the nonattainment areas will attain the 24-hour PM2.5 

national standards as expeditiously as practicable, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7513(c)(1) & (c)(2), and 

will continue to maintain the PM10 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a). 

C. The Proposed Rule Furthers Other Legal and Policy Goals.

 State and local officials in Utah have sought for years to identify appropriate measures to 

help reduce dangerous emissions of air pollution and bring Utah into compliance with the 24-

hour NAAQS for PM2.5. 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 Utah’s population and economy will continue to 

grow significantly in the coming decades, our air quality policies will need to keep pace by 

enacting controls to address expanding mobile, area and point sources. Census data released 

earlier this year37 show familiar statistics: a five-year population growth rate that ranks fourth in 

the nation; the second highest growth in new homes over the past year; and, the third highest 

 

37 Another Piece to the Puzzle: Census Reveals Utah’s Growth Among Top In Nation, Deseret 

News, 2015-05-20, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865629128/Another-piece-to-thepuzzle-Census-reveals-Utahs-growth-among-top-in-nation.html?pg=all 
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.38 

 According to a detailed report from the Utah Foundation,39 which examined a wide array 

of research, much of that growth is expected not just in our non-attainment areas, but in more 

far-flung suburban areas, raising the specter of a significant increase in commutes and vehicle 

miles travelled (VMTs). Predictions of Utah’s future emissions inventory 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 PM2.5 NAAQS 

by 2019. While the precise penalties are not certain, the Clean Air Act 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. § 7513(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 requirements 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.utahfoundation.org/uploads/rr720.pdf 
the state to implement measures that would be not be tailored to Utah’s particular situation and 

that would likely be unpopular. 

 Third, as it reviews Utah’s Moderate SIP, Serious SIP and any request for an extension of 

the attainment date for a Serious area, EPA has authority 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 demonstrate that Utah is willing to make difficult 

decisions and embrace policies that will reduce emissions 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 willingness 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 implement in the next two years. Utah’s SIPs have 

been and will continue to be highly technical and expansive documents, 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 offer revisions to the SIP 

in the short comment period that has typically attended these rulemaking efforts. 

 The rule presented here, on the other hand, offers opportunity for individual scrutiny. The 

Division, public and regulated community will have the chance to provide meaningful and 

detailed feedback, while the Board will have the 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, which misleadingly give equal weight to direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors, indicate that about 12 percent of total emissions in the Salt Lake City 

nonattainment area come from stationary sources and the 2013 SIP anticipates that by 2019, 

these sources will account for 28 percent of direct PM2.5 emissions in the area. It is true that 

mobile and area sources contribute significantly to our failure to attain the NAAQS. That is why 

we have pushed hard for rules, programs and funds to address these sources of PM2.5 emissions, 

such as the Tier 3 program, electric vehicle incentives, expansion of transit funding, updates to 

building codes, and low NOX hot water heater requirements. 

 We are confident that rules addressing large industrial sources have merit as one 

important piece of an overall strategy intended to bring the nonattainment areas into compliance 

with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Cleaning up Utah’s air is not 

about adopting a few measures or addressing only those sectors that contribute the most 

emissions. Rather, the severity of our air pollution problem requires that we implement every 

effective measure and strategy to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors. Because the 

proposed rule, backed by the EPA and modeled 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 adding to our SIP as an appropriate 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 PM2.5 SIP. By lowering the 

emission thresholds above which offsets are required and therefore minimizing increases in 

emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 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 PM2.5 national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) as expeditiously as practicable, and will continue to maintain the 

PM10 NAAQS. Therefore, Western Resource Advocates, Utah Physicians for a Healthy 

Environment and HEAL Utah respectfully ask the Air Quality Board 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 ultimately 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: PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas: Offsets. 

R307-XXX-1. Definitions.

The terms used in this rule shall have the meaning given to the terms as defined in Utah Admin. 

Code R307-101-2, unless specifically defined below: 

(1) PM2.5 Nonattainment Area means any area(s) of nonattainment for any of the PM2.5 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 emit 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 

PM2.5 nonattainment area and that is not specifically accounted for in the baseline and attainment 

emission inventories of the state implementation plan for a PM2.5 nonattainment area adopted by 

the Utah Air Quality Board in December 2014.

(3) Existing Stationary Source means, for the purposes of this rule, a building, structure, facility, 

or installation that emits or has the potential to emit any air pollutant upon which construction 

commenced before the date of enactment of this rule and that is located in a PM2.5 nonattainment 

area and that has been accounted for in the baseline and attainment emissions inventories of the 

state implementation plan for a PM2.5 nonattainment area adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board 

in December 2014. 

(4) Large Existing Stationary Source means an existing stationary source that emits, or has the 

potential to emit 70 tons per year of PM2.5 or 70 tons per year of any PM2.5 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 PM2.5 nonattainment area with the potential to emit 

PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in an amount equal to or greater than the following emissions 

levels: 

 
PM2.5 25 tpy 

SO2 40 tpy 

NOX 40 tpy 

VOCs 40 tpy 

Total of PM2.5 + SO2

+ NOX + VOCs 

50 tpy 

(b) Any modification to an existing stationary source in a PM2.5 nonattainment area that 

would result in an emission increase of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in an amount equal to 

or greater than the following emissions levels: 

PM2.5 25 tpy 

SO2 40 tpy 

NOX 40 tpy 

VOCs 40 tpy 

Total of PM2.5 + 

SO2 + NOX + VOCs 

50 tpy 

(c) Any modification to a large existing stationary source in a PM2.5 nonattainment area 

that would result in an emission increase of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in an amount equal 

to or greater than the following emissions levels: 

PM2.5 5 tpy 

SO2 20 tpy 

NOX 20 tpy 

VOCs 20 tpy 

Total of PM2.5 + SO2

+ NOX + 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), the following calculation 

must be made: 

(a) Determine the potential to emit of PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and VOCs of the existing 

stationary source as modified. 

(b) Determine the “baseline emissions” of PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and VOCs of the existing 

stationary source in tons per year as the lower of the following: 

(i) the emissions, in tons per year, assumed for the existing stationary source in 

the control strategy or the attainment emissions inventory of the state 

implementation plan for the nonattainment area adopted by the Utah Air Quality 

Board in December 2014; or 
(ii) if no emissions are specifically identified for the existing stationary source in 

the state implementation plan for the PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, then the potential 

to emit of PM2.5, SO2, NOX, 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 difference between the potential to emit of the 

existing stationary source as modified and the baseline emissions. 

(5) Fugitive emissions of PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and/or VOCs must be included when determining 

applicability to these emission offset requirements. 

(6) If a proposed new stationary source or installation to be located in a PM2.5 nonattainment area 

is a proposed major stationary source or major modification as those terms are defined at R307-

403-1 for PM2.5, 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 Obtain Emission Offsets. 

(1) For any new stationary source or modification to an existing stationary source that meets the 

applicability provisions above, enforceable emission offsets must be obtained at a ratio of greater 

than 1:1 for the emissions increases associated with the new stationary source or modification to 

an existing stationary source as calculated to determine applicability to this rule. Emission 

offsets must be obtained within the same source or from other sources located within that part of 

the same county encompassed by the PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

(2) 

(a) For increases of PM2.5, emission offsets must be obtained from emission reductions of 

PM2.5. 

(b) For increases of SO2, emission offsets must be obtained from emission reductions of 

SO2 or PM2.5 or any combination of these two pollutants. 

(c) For increases of NOX, emission offsets must be obtained from emission reductions of 

NOX, PM2.5, or VOCs, or any combination of these pollutants. 

(d) For increases of VOCs, emission offsets must be obtained from reductions of VOCs 

or PM2.5 or any combination of these two pollutions. 

(e) Emission reductions and interpollutant trading in combinations other than those stated 

above may be used for offsets only if a demonstration 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 commences 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 emission reductions is determined at the time the source applies to 

provide emission offsets or to bank emission reductions as offsets and is the lowest of the 

following: 

(a) The allowable emissions for the source under the EPA-approved state 

implementation plan; 

(b) The allowable emissions for the source under the control strategy of the most recent 

PM2.5 state implementation plan adopted by the state; or 

(c) The actual emissions for the source, based 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 baseline 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 (PM2.5), 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 adversely affected by air pollution, 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 PM2.5 in the winter, as well as PM10 and SO2 year-round, 

meaning that a large percentage of Utah’s population is exposed repeatedly to unhealthy levels of 

pollution throughout the year. There is now evidence that exposure to ozone and PM2.5 can act 

synergistically, increasing the adverse health effects from these air pollutants.1 

PM2.5 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 also 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, endothelial dysfunction and altered autonomic nervous 

system control.2

 

For the last several years, the research-based conventional wisdom has been that with 

each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 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 μg/m3

 increase.4 The elderly and those with existing morbidities are particularly 

vulnerable to air pollution consequences.
3

Based on extrapolations from numerous studies and the American Heart Association 

(AHA) scientific statement explained below, Utah Physicians estimates that between 1,400 and 

2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM2.5. See 78 Fed. Reg. 3086, 3103 (Jan. 

15, 2013) (“[S]tudies have reported consistent increases in morbidity and/or premature mortality 

related to ambient PM2.5 concentrations, with the strongest evidence reported for cardiovascularrelated effects.”); 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38908-09 (June 29, 2012) (“[N]ewly available 

information combined with information available in the last review provides substantially 

stronger confidence in a causal relationship between long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and 

mortality and cardiovascular effects.”). The AHA has estimated that residents 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 epidemiological studies have reported associations 

between daily changes in particulate air pollution and respiratory 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 demonstrated risks for cardiopulmonary 

mortality even at what are considered “background” levels of particulate pollution.8

 A study 

done in our own area demonstrated that each short-term 10 μg/m3

 increase in PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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; 77 
4

Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“Bell et al. (2008) reported higher PM2.5 risk estimates for hospitalization for 

cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the winter compared to other seasons.”). For each 10 

μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 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 increased 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 PM2.5 spikes may not be dismissed with observations that our 

annual average fine particulate matter concentrations 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 seen 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, followed within hours by increased rates of heart 

attacks and strokes. Community mortality rates stay elevated for 30 days after a spike in PM10

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 community increase within hours 

after spikes in PM10.

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 analyses conducted worldwide since publication of 

the first AHA statement confirms the existence of a small, yet consistent association 

between increased mortality and short-term elevations in PM10 and PM2.5 approximately 

equal to a 0.4% to 1.0% increase in daily mortality (and cardiovascular death 

specifically) due to a 10 μg/m3 elevation in PM2.5 during the preceding 1 to 5 days.3
5

 Confirming the strong correlation between modest, short-term spikes in PM and serious 

health consequences are three new studies that showed spikes of as little as one day in PM10 were 

associated with higher rates of heart attacks,16 daily spikes of either PM10 or PM2.5 were 

associated with significant increases in emergency room visits for hypertensives crisis,17 and less 

than 24 hours of a spike in PM2.5 of 15-40 μg/m3

 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 recent landmark study published in the flagship journal of the AHA, 

using data from over 1 million people, demonstrated that when cardiac mortality, the signature 

air pollution health outcome, was plotted against particulate matter from air pollution, first and 

second-hand cigarette smoke, all three sources showed a steep curve at low doses. In other 

words, per unit dose of exposure, it is the low levels of PM that cause higher rates of mortality.19

 Long-term exposure to particulate matter air pollution is associated with an average rise 

in blood pressure for chronically exposed populations. Average blood pressure was found to rise 

1.7 mmHg for an increase of 2.4 μg/m3 in PM2.5. A similar association was found with the 

coarser PM10. The rise was found in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.20 Chronic 

exposure to particulate matter has also been shown to increase the thickening of arterial walls, 

which is a known end result of higher blood pressure. A chronic increase in PM10 of 5.2 μg/m3

is associated with a 5% increase in the intima-media thickness of the carotid artery, which is one 

of many end results of the biologic process described above.21

 Another study showed a remarkable correlation between chronic exposure to PM2.5 and 

narrowing in the tiny arteries in the back of the eye. Chronic exposure to 3 μg/m3 of PM2.5 (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-wide 
6

effects, acceleration of the aging process, and impairing the health of everyone exposed, not just 

a susceptible population. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 3104 (“The population potentially affected by 

PM2.5 is large. In addition, large subgroups of the U.S. population have been identified as at-risk 

populations.”). 

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

levels of PM10, beginning at very modest levels.23 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38923 (“[R]ecent 

studies provide additional evidence for cardiovascular effects associated with sub-daily (e.g., one 

to several hours) exposure to PM, especially effects related to cardiac ischemia, vasomotor 

function, and more subtle changes in markers of systemic inflammation, hemostasis, thrombosis 

and coagulation[.]”). A likely mechanism of this clinical outcome is revealed by studies that 

show PM10 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. Oxidative stress (OS) appears to be the biological 

genesis of numerous diseases processes and a major 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, cognitive impairment and 

memory loss in children and neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease.25, 26

Numerous studies show such specific outcomes as impaired intellect and penetration of particle 

matter and Alzheimer type protein deposition among children who grow up breathing more 

particulate air pollution.27, 28, 29 Volunteers exposed to typical urban 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 disorders 
7

correlate with NOX and PM10 levels.34 Children exposed to more vehicle pollution show a 

doubling in rates of autism.35 Older people show accelerated cognitive decline if chronically 

exposed to more traffic generated air pollution.36, 37 A recent landmark study showed that 

chronic exposure to 10 μg/m3

 of either PM2.5 or PM2.5-PM10 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 health 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 disturbing are less obvious outcomes. Even young, 

healthy people demonstrate rapid decrease in lung function from brief exposure to particulate 

matter that persists for several days 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 higher than the national average. This means 

that Utah’s unhealthy levels of air pollution constitute a public health crisis that endangers its 

most vulnerable populations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58690; 77 Fed. Reg. at 38911 (“With regard to 

respiratory effects in children associated with short-term exposures to PM2.5, currently available 
8

studies provide stronger evidence of respiratory-related hospitalizations 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 pollution than adults. Children have higher 

metabolic rates, meaning their oxygen demand is higher, they breathe faster 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, this physiologic difference makes them more susceptible to the 

adverse influence of air pollution. “There is emerging but limited evidence for an association 

between long-term PM2.5 exposure and respiratory mortality in post-neonatal infants where longterm exposure was considered as approximately one month to one year.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. 

Children who breathe more air pollution can experience a permanent stunting of their lung 

growth. Just as chronic exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke causes a permanent loss of 

lung function growth in children, so does long-term exposure to PM2.5 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 PM2.5-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 PM2.5 air pollution permanently impair the exercise 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, cervical, 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 μg/m3

 increase in long term PM2.5 concentration is associated with 

a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality.49 See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 38908. Especially 
9

troubling are the numerous studies that show increases in childhood leukemia among more 

exposed populations,50, 51 and a significant association 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 numerous other, seemingly unrelated diseases among 

populations subjected to more air pollution. These diseased include type II diabetes, obesity, 

arthritis, and lupus. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

 Air pollution, especially particulate matter, may have its largest impact 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 traffic-related air pollution, including PM10, results in 

intrauterine growth retardation, including smaller 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 identical consequences and 

both can be passed on to subsequent generations. Newborn babies whose mothers are exposed to 

more air pollution show increases in both, and the life-long disease burden that results can 

include higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, 

cancer, Alzheimer’s and all the diseases consequent to immuno-suppression. 78 Fed. Reg. 3104 

(“The strongest evidence for an association between PM2.5 and developmental and reproductive 

effects comes from epidemiological studies of low birth weight and infant mortality, especially 

due to respiratory causes during the post-neonatal period (i.e., 1 month–12 months of age).”).

Epigenetic changes can be seen within three days after exposure to PM2.5 and perhaps even as 

soon as minutes after exposure.59-66 There is strong evidence for a persistence of epigenetic 
10

changes from one generation to another. Medical science is now learning that the air pollution 

today can adversely affect the health of future generations. For 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 heavy metals occurs through the lungs. Smaller 

particles are assumed more dangerous because they can penetrate more deeply into the lungs and 

are cleared by the lung cilia less readily. However, 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 particular relevance for increasing childhood risk.68 

 That all the above mentioned adverse health outcomes can be the result of pregnant 

women smoking is easy for physicians and the lay public alike to comprehend and the sight of a 

pregnant woman smoking is now repulsive to society at large. See 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. It is a 

new thought process, but equally scientifically based, to think that the same thing happens when 

a pregnant woman has to breathe 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 severe health effects from air pollution, virtually 

every major medical organization in the United States has called for stricter NAAQS for annual 

PM2.5 and for ozone, including the American Medical Association, the American Thoracic 

Society, the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 

College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the 

American Public Health Assoc., and the National Assoc. of Local Boards of Health, and the 
11

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 Evidence for Synergy Among Air Pollutants in 

Causing Health Effects? 117 Environ. Health Perspect. 1-6 (2009). 

2. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascular 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 Heart 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 Harvard 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-Particulate 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, Wang Y, Ezzati M, Dominici F. Effect of 

Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in the 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., Schwartz 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 Disease Mortality in Response to Air Pollution, 

111(9) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 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 Air Pollution Exposures, 113 (8) ENVIRON. 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. Goggins, Hui-Fen Chiu, and Chun-Yuh Yang, 

Evidence for an Association between Air Pollution and Daily Stroke Admissions in Kaohsiung, 

Taiwan, 34 (11) STROKE 2612-16 (2003). 

16. Mustafić H, Jabre P, Caussin C, Murad M, et al. Main Air Pollutants and 

Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2012. vol. 307, no. 7 

pg. 713-721. 

17. Szyszkowicz M, Rowe BH, Brook RD. Even Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollutants 

Are Associated With Increased Emergency Department 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 Mortality and Exposure 

to Airbourne Fine Particulate 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 Thoracic Society (May 17, 2010). 

21. Tonne C, Yanosky JD, Beevers S, Wilkinson 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, Sampson PD, Kaufman JD. Air Pollution and the 

Microvasculature: A Cross-Sectional Assessment of In Vivo Retinal Images in the PopulationBased Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (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 Thrombosis, 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 Prothrombotic 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 mild carbon monoxide exposure (0.0025% in air). 

BMC Neuroscience 2009, 10:53doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-53. 

27. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Mora-Tiscareno A., Ontiveros E., et al., AIR 

POLLUTION, COGNITIVE DEFICITS AND BRAIN 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 Particulate Deposition, and Accumulation of Amyloid Beta-42 

and Alpha-Synuclein in Children and Young Adults, 36(2) TOXICOL. PATHOL. 289-310 

(2008). 

29. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Franco-Lira M., Torres-Jardon R., Pediatric Respiratory 

and Systemic Effects of Chronic Air Pollution 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 Volunteers, 5(4) PART FIBRE TOXICOL. dol: 1186/1743-8977-5-4 

(2008). 

31. Suglia S.F., et al., Association of Black Carbon with 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 Polycyclic 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 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure 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 Functions 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 CHARGE 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 Function in a Cohort of Older Men. Harvard School 

of Public Health. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print]. 

37. Ranft U, Schikowski T, Sugiri D, Krutmann J, Krämer U. Long-term exposure to 

traffic-related particulate matter 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, Yanosky J, Laden F, Grodstein F. Exposure to 

Particulate Air Pollution and Cognitive Decline 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’ brains. 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 Outcomes in U.S. Children. Environ Health 

Perspect :-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104152. 

41. Henn BC, Schnaas L, Ettinger AS, Schwartz J, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, HernándezAvila M, et al. 2011. Associations of Early Childhood Manganese 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 Billion 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 Function Decreases in Beach Lifeguards, 50(2) 

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL 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 California 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 Cancer 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., Distance-Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity 

to a Home is a Risk Factor for Leukemia and 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. ENVIRON. 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 Traffic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: 

A Case–Control Study. Environ 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 Resistance and Mitochondrial 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 with Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Environ Health Perspect 119:384-

389. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002344. 

58. Veras M.M., Damaceno-Rodregues N., Caldini E., Ribeiro A., et al., Particulate 

Urban Air Pollution Affects the Functional Morphology of Mouse Placenta, 79(3) BIOLOGY 

OF REPRODUCTION 578-84 (2008). 
17

59. Perera F., Tang W., Herbstman J., Relation of DNA Methylation of 5-CpG Island of 

ACSL3 to Transplacental Exposure to Airborne PAH and Childhood Asthma, 4(2) PLOS ONE 

e4488 (2009). 

60. Hansen C., Barnett A., Prichard G.,The Effect of Ambient Air Pollution during 

Early Pregnancy on Fetal Ultrasound Measurements during Mid-Pregnancy, 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 Carcinogenic 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 Procarcinogenic 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 Cord 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., Schwartz J., Rapid DNA Methylation Changes after 

Exposure to Traffic Particles, 179(7) AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED., 523-4 (2009). 

66. Yan Zhong, Steven G. Carmella, Pramod Upadhyaya, J. Bradley Hochalter, Diane 

Rauch, Andrew Oliver, Joni Jensen, Dorothy Hatsukami, Jing Wang, Cheryl Zimmerman, 

Stephen S. Hecht. Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxides. 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 pollution is associated with increased DNA fragmentation in human 

sperm without other changes in semen quality. 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 Exposure to Insoluble Particles. Curr Mol Med. 

2012 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print]. 
EXHIBIT “3” 
Chart 1: Comparing Federal Requirements to Utah’s PM10 Offset Rule (R307-403-5) 

PM10, NOX and SOX interchangeable under Utah rule. Federal rule does not specify. 

Modification PM10 NA 

(Moderate) 

Federal Baseline Definition 

of Major Modification 

Utah’s PM10 Offset Rule 

Applicability and Ratios for 

Modifications 

PM10 15 tpy >50 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1.2:1 

>25 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1:1 

NOX 40 tpy >50 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1.2:1 

>25 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1:1 

SOX 40 tpy >50 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1.2:1 

>25 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX: 1:1 

PM10, NOX and SOX interchangeable under Utah PM10 rule. 

New Source PM10 NA 

(Moderate) 

Federal Baseline Definition 

of Major Source of PM10 

Utah’s PM10 Offset Rule 

Applicability and Ratios for 

New Sources 

PM10 100 tons per year (tpy) >50 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1.2:1 

>25 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1:1 

NOX 100 tpy >50 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1.2:1 

>25 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1:1 

SOX 100 tpy >50 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1.2:1 

>25 tpy (total PM10, NOX and 

SOX): 1:1 
Chart 2: Comparing Federal Baseline Requirements to Proposed PM2.5 Offset Rule 

Major Source PM2.5 NA 

(Serious) 

Proposed Federal Baseline 

Definition of Major Source 

for Serious PM2.5 NA 

Proposed PM2.5 Offset Rule 

Applicability to New 

Stationary Source and 

Modification to Existing 

Stationary Source 

PM2.5 70 tons per year (tpy) 25 tpy 

NOX 70 tpy 40 tpy 

SOX 70 tpy 40 tpy 

VOCs 70 tpy 40 tpy 

Total 

PM2.5+SO2+NOX+VOCs 

n/a 50 tpy 

ammonia 70 tpy n/a 

Major Source PM2.5 NA 

(Serious) 

Federal Baseline Definition 

of Major Modification for 

Serious PM2.5 NA 

Proposed PM2.5 Offset Rule 

Applicability to Modification 

to “Large” Existing 

Stationary Source 

PM2.5 10 tpy 5 tpy 

NOX 40 tpy 20 tpy 

SOX 40 tpy 20 tpy 

VOCs 40 tpy 20 tpy 

Total PM2.5 + NOX + SO2 + 

VOCs 

n/a 30 tpy 

ammonia case-by-case n/a 
Comments received:

March 1, 2016

COMMENTS BY THE UTAH MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION, THE UTAH PETROLEUM 

ASSOCIATION, AND THE UTAH MINING ASSOCIATION ON THE PETITIONS FOR RULE CHANGES 

SUBMITTED BY WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES, UTAH PHYSICIANS FOR A HEALTHY 

ENVIRONMENT AND HEAL UTAH

MARCH 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 Associations and their members agree with the Utah 

Division of Air Quality (“UDAQ”) that the Board should decline to initiate rulemaking for the 

rules proposed by Petitioners. 

Numerous of the Associations’ member companies are located in the PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

and their employees work, live, and recreate along the Wasatch Front. The Associations support 

actions to improve Utah’s air quality, and based on the rules adopted as part of the PM2.5 SIP, our 

members have invested millions of dollars to reduce PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions. These 

plans were developed based on a technically sound process initiated by the UDAQ, which 

included analysis of the costs and 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 written response to the rulemaking petitions. Rather, our comments 

emphasize a handful of issues the Associations believe 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 consider the rulemaking petitions in the context of the 

work that already has been done to address air quality along the Wasatch Front and the additional 

planning and implementation efforts that will take place in the coming months and years. 

As this Board is aware, UDAQ recently completed the extensive process of developing PM2.5 

SIPs, based on a transparent process informed by stakeholder involvement and a comprehensive 

analysis of reasonable controls for PM2.5 as well PM2.5 precursors. The Associations and their 

members, as well as the Petitioners, were active participants in the SIP development process. 

This Board approved PM2.5 SIPs in both late 2013 and early 2015 and implementation of those 

plans is ongoing. Indeed, many of the control requirements for stationary sources are only now 

taking effect and the reductions attributable to these controls have 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 invested 
2 

in compliance with SIP requirements, any additional regulatory obligations will be more 

expensive while yielding fewer and fewer actual emission reductions. 

UDAQ also must have the opportunity to assess the costs and benefits of additional requirements 

on industrial sources in light of the relatively small contribution from stationary sources—

UDAQ emissions inventories currently show that only about 11% of air pollutants come from 

large industrial sources, while 32% come from smaller area sources such as homes, small 

businesses, and agriculture, and 57% come from transportation. Any additional requirements for 

industry must carefully evaluated in this context with respect to technical and economic 

feasibility, as well as a demonstration that attainment will be materially 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 summer when UDAQ re-enters the PM2.5 SIP planning process to develop a 

serious nonattainment SIP for the Salt Lake and Provo nonattainment areas. 

Petitioners argue that there is benefit to the Board’s consideration of these 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 examined in the context of the SIP. For example, 

Petitioners’ emissions offset proposal would impose 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 process cannot be reviewed in isolation. 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 technical 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 documentation required by statute. In other words, 

Petitioners want the petitions to be vetted through public comment. This strategy, however, is 

not as straightforward and simple as Petitioners contend. 

First, the strategy is not supported by the statutes and regulations that govern the Board’s 

consideration of the petitions. Utah Code section 63G-3-601(6)(b) restricts the Board to two 

options in responding to the petitioners: (1) deny 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 Board 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 proceedings – 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 that the SIPs require for attainment, but are also supporting 

the agency’s efforts in other ways. For instance, the associations 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 need to meet the requirements of Utah Code 

section 63G-3-301, which imposes the burden of preparing a rule analysis that includes, among 

other things, an examination of compliance costs to affected entities as well 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 the SIP development process that UDAQ and this 

Board completed in 2013 and 2014/2015 contained the public debate that Petitioners desire. 

Petitioners also will have the opportunity as part of the serious SIP development process to 

weigh in on source-specific SIP limitations—including monitoring requirements, emission 

limits, and averaging periods. Importantly, these types 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 opportunity to participate in the process and result in an integrated, 

technologically sound and effective SIP. 

 The Proposed Rules Flip the SIP Process 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 PM2.5 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 demonstrating the reasonableness of its actions. 

Whether in the context of single source permitting or SIP development, UDAQ relies on its 

expertise and information provided by public participants to determine the mix of reasonable 

controls necessary to attain air quality standards. When UDAQ evaluates and sets appropriate 

limitations and parameters, including averaging 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, the public, as well as the regulated source, has the opportunity to 

raise the issue with the UDAQ and the agency will respond in reliance on its technical expertise. 

The proposed rules flip this process on its head. 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 allowing 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 demonstrate what is not available. This will 

result in a very resource intensive process. The Associations do not believe it is prudent to 

restrict the ability of the agency to make case-by-case determinations based on their expertise, 

particularly where the agency’s current process—a process used by EPA and common to most 
4 

administrative agencies—already provides an avenue for a robust dialogue that ensures agency 

consideration of available 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 nonattainment 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-designated as serious nonattainment areas, this threshold will be 

moved to 70 tons per year. 

Petitioners’ proposed offset thresholds go well beyond 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 PM2.5 SIPs. Such thresholds would impose an unwarranted restriction on 

economic growth with no demonstration that they would expedite attainment, placing Utah at a 

significant economic disadvantage relative to other areas—including nonattainment areas—

around the country. 

The Clean Air Act, rather than making the offset 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 approved by this Board. Importantly, UDAQ 

considered—and ultimately rejected—a minor source offset program as part of the PM2.5 SIP 

development processes. Based on a public stakeholder process and UDAQ’s technical analysis, 

the agency ultimately chose not to pursue that option because of the unintended consequences 

that could result, namely, sources would be constrained from modernizing, which often results in 

improvements in efficiency. In addition, in the current situation, where there are no offsets in the 

bank, sources requisite for public safety, community development, 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 develop a plan that accounts for the 

specific meteorology, topography, source distribution, pollutant chemistry and other 

considerations that will bring the nonattainment areas into compliance with the NAAQS without 

requiring unnecessarily stringent offset requirements. This attainment demonstration expressly 

accounts for expected growth that will occur in the nonattainment areas related 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 limit the potential for modest economic expansion and growth 

without any demonstration of an improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. 
5 

In conclusion, the Associations and their members 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 overall SIP planning. For this 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 Resource Advocate’s 

Petition for Rule Change – PM2.5 Offset Rule 

Dear Utah Air Quality Board: 

Staker Parson Companies (“Staker Parson”) respectfully submits this letter to the Utah Air 

Quality Board for consideration as the Board reviews the January 14, 2016 petition for 

rulemaking submitted by Western Resource Advocates on behalf 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 PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Staker Parson is a Utah corporation that produces aggregate and landscape products, 

including ready-mixed concrete and asphalt, and provides paving 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 PM2.5 emission reduction credits (“ERCs”) when the Utah Division of Air 

Quality (“UDAQ”) zeroed out the PM2.5 ERCs as part of the 2013/2014 PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan (“SIP”) process. Staker Parson was seriously 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 offsetting 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. Staker Parson requests that the 

 

1

 Staker Parsons also joins with the comments submitted to the Air Quality Board on behalf of the Utah Manufacturers’ 

Association, the Utah Petroleum Association, and the 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 than Clean Air Act 

requirements 

The Clean Air Act already provides a graduated program that is designed to require 

emissions reductions from increasingly smaller sources based on the status of the 

nonattainment area. 

For example, in areas that are attaining a National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(“NAAQS”), the threshold for major source permitting is 250 tons per year (or 100 tons per 

year for certain categories of sources). In nonattainment areas, 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 NAAQS.”2 The threshold for “major 

source” does not remain at 250 tons per year, but decreases based on the area’s 

nonattainment status. Currently, the “major source” threshold has been reduced to 100 tons 

per year in the Utah PM2.5 nonattainment areas. When the Salt Lake and Utah County areas 

are designated serious nonattainment later this year, the emissions 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 contemplates achieving additional 

emission reductions by reaching smaller sources based on an area’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 source construction and 

modification of existing area sources because there are simply no PM2.5 or PM2.5 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 offset program on top of the 

already existing stringent Clean Air Act permitting program would allow for reasonable 

growth and is necessary to demonstrate attainment. 

II. The minor source offset rule was considered and rejected 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 PM2.5 SIPs. The 

decision not to include a minor source offset requirement was made within the context of 

 

2 See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S (Emission Offset Interpretive Ruling). 

3

 There have been no PM2.5 offsets created since December of 2013; the most recent update to the Salt Lake and Utah 

County banked emissions summary specifies that the emissions credits are “not available for PM2.5 offsetting.”). See

www.deq.utah.gov/Permits/air/EmissionOffsets.htm. 
3 

the full SIP attainment demonstration—including a baseline that contemplates economic 

and population growth—and input from stakeholder groups, which included 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 sources 

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 issue. 

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 PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor ERCs in 

the attainment demonstration, which means that these ERCs are no longer available for use 

as offsets in the PM2.5 nonattainment areas. UDAQ’s actions constrained allowable 

emissions increases for the nonattainment areas, and Staker Parson lost more than a 

thousand PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor ERCs, worth millions of dollars. 

The 2013 PM2.5 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 restrain growth through a minor 

source offset program. Because these two decisions are technically 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 consequences and to ensure 

that certain categories of sources do not bear a disproportionate 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 the PM2.5 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 Comments: Summaries and Responses to Comments Made 

During the October 2013 Public Comment Period and Public Hearings, at 13 (Nov. 25, 2013). 

5

Id. 
4 

Another important unintended consequence of the proposed minor source offset rule would 

be to make local companies less competitive by increasing their 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 State’s infrastructure: a new prison, 

an expansion of the airport, and more than $1 billion in road and infrastructure 

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 billion in large infrastructure projects are 

anticipated in the nonattainment areas, including: 

• Prison Relocation (estimates range from $400 million to $650 million in construction 

and materials); 

• Regent Street Hotel in Salt Lake City (an estimated $150 million in construction and 

materials); 

• Overpass for 1800 North ($180 million plus in construction and materials); 

• Mountain View Corridor ($135 million in construction and materials); and 

• Salt Lake City Airport expansion ($400 million in construction and materials just in 

2016; $1.5 billion over the next three-four years). 

Each of these projects will seek bids for locally sourced aggregate 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 their operations to provide 

the materials necessary to support infrastructure development projects. If Staker Parson and 

similarly situated companies with facilities emitting below the major source thresholds are 

unable to modify or expand their operations due to the inability to obtain offsets—as will be 

the case for the foreseeable future—the materials (and likely the labor) for these 

improvements must come from outside the airshed. Sourcing aggregate and construction 

products from other areas would dramatically increase costs, 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 selling preexisting PM2.5 and PM2.5 

precursor ERCs to offset emissions in the nonattainment areas. If the Board initiates 
5 

rulemaking for the proposed offsets rule, Staker Parson would 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 recommendation and deny petitioners’ 

rulemaking request for a minor source offset program. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Mike Dalley, Oldcastle Mountain West Division Sustainability Director 

Staker Parson Companies 

cc: Melissa Yazhe, Administrative Secretary, Utah Division of Air Quality 

 Craig Anderson, Environmental Division Chief, Office of Attorney General 

8530382_1 
ITEM 7
Informational 

Items 
National Air 

Toxics 

Monitoring 

Program Annual 

Report 
2012 EPA Annual Toxics Rep

Summary

By

Roman Kuprov, Atmospheric Scientist

Utah Division of Air Quality

March 2, 2016
National Network Overvie

• 64 Nationwide

monitoring stations

measuring air toxics

• Data collected on a 1‐in‐

6 day schedule

• A single station was

established in Utah in

2002

Bountiful Monitoring S
Exposure Risk Metrics

(Screening Values)

• One in one million cancer risk

Represented as the number of people per million acancer, provided a lifetime exposure.

• Non‐cancer risk

Represented as Hazard Quotient. Values above onrepresent that some health effects may occur. Valuone indicate that there is no appreciable health ris(calculated over a lifetime)

Pollutant Annual Average

(ug/m3)

Cancer Risk

Approximation (in‐a‐million)

Noncancer RApproximati(HQ)

Formaldehyde 4.44 ± 0.75 57.67 0.45Benzene 1.02 ± 0.13 7.92 0.03Acetaldehyde 2.54 ± 0.35 5.58 0.28CarbonTetrachloride

0.66 ± 0.03 3.97 0.01

1,3‐Butadiene 0.12 ± 0.02 3.53 0.06

Cancer & Non‐cancer Risk

Approximation and Trends for U
Pollutant Cancer Risk

Approximation(in‐a‐million)

Noncancer RiskApproximation(HQ)

Annua(tpy)

Formaldehyde 57.67 0.45 Benzene 7.92 0.03 Acetaldehyde 5.58 0.28 Carbon Tetrachloride 3.97 0.01 

1,3‐Butadiene 3.53 0.06 

Emissions, Cancer & Noncancer 

Approximation for Utah


• 2015 Toxics Study

– $110,000 State resea

budget

– Taking a closer look a

HAPs distribution be

Salt Lake and Utah V

– Enhanced sampling

frequency

– Comparison with his

data

2016 Toxics Stud

– $355,000 Fede

– A wide array o

pollutants and 

• PM2.5• O3, NOx, CO• EC/OC• Speciation• Particulate & 

HAPS

– Source apport

modeling

– Public Outreac
Summary

• Formaldehyde is the ambient HAP with the biggest contributio

and non‐cancer health risks in Utah. It is the second most‐emit

the State according to the NEI.

• Although benzene is the HAP with the second largest contribut

significantly weaker impact than formaldehyde. It is the most e

in the State.

• Pollutants of interest:

– Carbon Tetrachloride

– 1,2‐dichloroethane– Acetaldehyde– 1,3‐butadiene– Dichloromethane

– Naphthalene

• Toxics studies are underway to better understand HAPs distribu

trends across the Wasatch Front and identify the emission sou
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 Telephone Calls Answered 362

Asbestos Individuals Certifications Approved/Disapproved 111/0

Asbestos Company Certifications/Re-Certifications 0/23

Asbestos Alternate Work Practices Approved/Disapproved 8/0

Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Inspections 1

LBP Notifications Approved 0

LBP Telephone 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, Utah 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801) 536-4099 • T.D.D (801) 903-3978 

www.deq.utah.gov

Printed on 100% recycled paper
DAQA

-073-16

Page 2

Notices of Violation Issued0

Compliance Advisories Issued4

Warning Letters Issued2

Settlement Agreements Finalized1

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 ................................................................................. 21

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:..................................................................................... 38

Breakdown Reports Received:........................................................................ 28

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801)536-4099 • T.D.D. (801) 903-3978 

www.deq.utah.gov

Printed on 100% recycled paper
DAQC-171-16

Page 2

Compliance Actions Resulting From a Breakdown.......................................... 0

Warning 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, complaints, 

on-site training, dust patrol, smoke patrol, open burning, etc.
Utah Division of Air Quality

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

PM2.5 (ug/m3)

Days

Utah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data November 2015

Bountiful Brigham City HawthorneHurricane Lindon Logan #4Magna North Provo Ogden #2Rose Park Smithfield Spanish Fork24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3

Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m
Utah Division of Air Quality

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

1 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 

PM2.5 (ug/m3)

Days

Utah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data December 2015

Bountiful Brigham City Hawthorne HurricanLindon Logan #4 Magna North PrOgden #2 Rose Park Smithfield Spanish 24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3

Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3
Utah Division of Air Quality

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

1 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 

PM2.5 (ug/m3)

Days

Utah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data January 2016

Bountiful Brigham City Erda HawthorHurricane Lindon Magna North PrOgden #2 Rose Park Smithfield Spanish 24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3

Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3
Utah Division of Air Quality

0.0

10.020.030.040.050.060.070.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

PM2.5 (ug/m3)

Days

Utah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data February 2016

Bountiful Brigham City Erda HawthHurricane Lindon Magna North Ogden #2 Rose Park Smithfield Spanis24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3

Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m
Utah Division of Air Quality

0

20406080

100120140160

1 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 2

PM10 (ug/m3)

Days

Utah 24-hr PM10 Data November 2015

Bountiful Hawthorne Herriman #3Hurricane Lindon LoganMagna North Provo OgdenSmithfield 24-hr Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3

Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3
Utah Division of Air Quality

0

20406080

100120140160

1 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 

PM10 (ug/m3)

Days

Utah 24-hr PM10 Data December 2015

Bountiful Hawthorne Herriman #3Hurricane Lindon Logan #4Magna North Provo OgdenSmithfield 24-hr Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3

Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3
Utah Division of Air Quality

0

20406080

100120140160

1 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 

PM10 (ug/m3)

Days

Utah 24-hr PM10 Data January 2016

Bountiful Hawthorne Herriman #3Hurricane Lindon MagnaNorth Provo Ogden Smithfield24-hr Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3

Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3
-4.8

-5.2

-2.7

-0.4

6.4

4.7

2.2

1.4

2.5

0.0 0.0

0.4

-0.2

3.4

1.7

3.4

7.4

4.9

5.9 5.5

5.1

6.5

5.6

2.0 1.9

2.4

1.7

3

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.080

1 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 

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2

Brigham City Bountiful Copperview Erda HerrimaHarrisville Hawthorne Ogden #2 Exceed. TM
‐8.6

‐8.6

‐6.0

‐5.7

‐3.0

0.1

1.2

4.9

0.0

‐1.5

‐5.8

‐5.4

‐5.1

‐4.2

0.5

‐0.9

3.5

‐0.1

0.4

2.7

0.1

‐0.7

‐2.5

2.0

‐3.9

‐5.1

‐3.1 ‐2

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.080

1 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 

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature Janua

Price #2 Roosevelt Vernal #4 Exceed. TM
-14.6

-10.6

-5.6 -5.0

-1.7 -0.6

0.1

-0.6

-1.7

-3.4

-5.7

-7.5

-6.8

-1.6

-1.5

0.1

1.3

0.3

0.5

4.6

-3.0

-5.3

-3.4

0.4

-0.9

-6.4

-9.0 -8

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.080

1 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 2

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 

Smithfield Exceed. TM
-6.0

0.3

2.6 4.8

6.8

4.4

4.7

1.5

1.8

0.2

-0.1

-0.9

3.6 3.7

2.1

3.4

5.6 5.2

4.7

5.1

4.0

8.4

6.5

2.5

2.9

1.7 0.5

2.3

5.8

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.080

1 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 

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2

North Provo Spanish Fork Exceed. TM
6.1

10.5

11.0

9.0 8.2

6.6

5.0

6.7

5.5

7.3

5.9

7.3

9.4 10.1

8.1

7.7

10.3

9.9 10.1

13.0

11.1

13.4

11.5

11.5

9.2

10.5

11.5

13.8

14

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.080

1 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 2

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 201

Hurricane Exceed. TM
-1.5

-2.9

-1.3 -1.3

3.2

3.9 4.1 4.9 4.7

0.8

1.3

0.9

2.9

6.0

12.8

14.1

15.9

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.100

1 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 

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 20

Brigham City Bountiful Copperview Erda Herriman Harrisville Hawthorne Ogden #2 Exceed. TM
‐2.3

‐0.5

‐3.7

‐5.0

‐3.3

‐2.3

1.1

1.8

2.5

1.9

4.3

5.8 5.8

4.9

8.7

9.9

8.6

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.100

1 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 2

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature Februar

Price #2 Roosevelt Vernal #4 Exceed. 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

‐2.5

0.6

8.0

6.6 8.0

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.100

1 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 

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 

Smithfield Exceed. TM
‐1.1

‐2.0

‐1.9

‐3.2

2.7

1.1

2.8

3.2

3.9 3.8

0.4

2.1

2.6

1.7

11.6 13.6

14.6

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.100

1 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 

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 2

North Provo Spanish Fork Exceed. TM
3.4

2.6

4.3

7.9

10.4

11.7

13.7

16.2

17.4

17.6

19.2 19.6

18.9

18.1

19.4

20.6

22.1

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.100

1 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 

Ozone (ppm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature February 

Hurricane Exceed. TM