4. T\tJ,I' (t

.

## DICK LARRY CALLIE 

## STATE OF UTAH? JEFF
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OLENE S. WALKER GOVERNOR SALT LAKE CITY LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 84114-0601**~.** March 30, 2000

William P. Yellowtail Regional Administrator EPA Region VIII One Denver Place 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80202-2405 DearMr. Yellowtail: Re: PM10 SIP Obligation: Ogden City This letter concerns Ogden City, an area that is presently designated "nonattainment" for PMI

### O. Utah is still under obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision satisfying the requirements ofPart D ofthe Clean Air Act.

, The State has not submitted a Part D SIP for Ogden City because ofthe EPA's intent to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM10. Under EPA's previous "Transition Policy," Ogden City was identified as an area that was presently attaining the old (pre-1997) NAAQS for PM 10 and had never violated the new standard. As such, EPA had indicated that the old NAAQS would be revoked provided that: 1) the PartD requirements had been met, and 2) that the State had the means and authority, under CAA section 110, to implement the new NAAQS. Furthermore, EPA indicated that, for areas such as Ogden City, the improvement in air quality was at least partially due to those control measures which applied to the entire State or to nonattainment areas in general, and that it would be inappropriate to require any new control strategies. Thus, the PartD requirements were considered to be satisfied because these control measures were already incorporated into the Utah SIP. The Utah Division ofAir Quality and EPA Region VIII were in agreement that each ofthe necessary criteria had been met, and the State officially communicated as much in two letters dated March 27, 1998, and June 25, 1998, respectively. Subsequently, the American Trucking Association challenged (among other things) EPA's authority to implement a revised PM10 standard, and on May 14, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled to vacate the new PM10 NAAQS. Consequently, Utah's obligation to satisfy the Part D requirements, as they pertain to the old NAAQS, is still outstanding.

### Page 2 March 30, 2000

In a further attempt to provide areas such as Ogden City with an avenue by which to satisfy these outstanding Part D requirements, EPA has recently made available a PM10 Clean DataAreas Approach. As with the Transition Policy approach, the area must meet certain criteria in order to qualify. These criteria are as follows: 1) 

### The area must be attaining the (pre-1997) PM 10 standards based on the last three years of air monitoring data. Ogden City meets this criteria. 2) The State must continue to operate an appropriate PM 10 monitoring network in accordance with CFRpart 58 in order to verify the attainment status ofthe area. The Stateis quite agreeable to maintaining its PMI0monitoring efforts in Ogden City. 3) Control measures for the area which were responsible for attainment must be approved by EPA. The EPA would also need to find that the State had adopted Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM). To that end, EPA Region 

## vm has already identified a number ofcontrol measures that fit this description. They are: open burning rule, visible emissions rule, fugitive dust rule, and vehicle inspection and maintenance. Accordingly, the State and EPA are in agreement that Ogden City meets the necessary criteria. As such, 

### this letter will 

### serve to officially request thatEPA makenotice in the Federal Register thatthe StateofUtah has, in fact, met its requirementsunder CAA Part D (section 172) to submit a nonattainment PM10 SIPfor the area defined as Ogden City. By way of said notice, the State understands and acknowledges the following: 

## * Requirements for developing Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) demonstrations and contingency measures (under CAA section 172) will be waived. 

## * Any sanction clocks that may be running due to failure to submit or disapproval of any Part D requirement will be terminated. 

## * This action will not constitute a redesignation under CAAsection 107. If

### the State wishes that Ogden City be redesignated to attainment then subsequent action must be taken under CAA section 175. 

## * Transportation Conformity demonstrations will still be required using the "build/no build" test or the "no greater than 1990" test. However, the "emission budget" test will not be required because the requirements for an attainment demonstration and RFP, which establish these budgets, will no longer apply. 

## * The applicable tests for General Conformity still apply. 

## * The State will continue to operate its PM10 monitoring network in accordance with CFR part 58.

### Page 3 March 30, 2000


## * The State mustproduce a basic emissions inventory for Ogden City to the satisfaction ofEPA Region VIII. The submittal of said emissions inventory and any additional documentation which EPA determines is necessary to make its finding orotherwise meet the requirements ofsection 172 ofthe Act will be submitted by Ursula Kramer, Director, Division ofAir Quality, and any questions your agency may have concerning this submittal should be addressed to Ms. Kramer at (801) 536-4022.

Micha O. Leavitt Governor MOLDRN:dco-, .....

# ­ 

# UTAH

1996 PMI0 INVENTORY Ogden City

State ofUtah DepartmentofEnvironmental Quality Division ofAir Quality 150 N. 1950 West P.O. Box 144820 SaltLake City, Utah 84114-4820 801-536-4000



## July 2001

### Ogden 1996 PM10 Inventory Table ofContents

Proposed for Public Comment
.................................................. P - 1 SummaryTable
.................................................. P - 2 Public Hearing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. H - 1 Affidavit ofnewspaper notice H - 2 Summary ofpublic comments and responses H - 8 Hearing statement and rosters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. H - 3
Corrected Inventory
... , , E - 1 SummaryTable
.................................................. E - 2
Certification

# Proposed Inventory

## Proposed ForPublic Comment: 1996 Inyentory for Ogden City

Background 

## * Ogden Citybecame a nonattainment area for PMI0in September 1995 

## * In 

### 1997, EPA proposed a new form ofthe PM 10 health standard. Since Ogden City had never violated this new standard, DAQceased working on a SIP. 

## * In 

### 1999, the DC Circuit Court ofAppeals vacated the new PMI0 standard. This meant, under Part D ofthe Clean Air Act, that the requirement to submit a SIP was still outstanding.
. 

## * Later that year, EPA provided areas such as Ogden City with a means to satisfy the Part D requirements ofthe Act. It's called the PM10 Clean Data Areas Approach (see attached). 

## * In

### March 2000, GovernorLeavitt sent EPA a letter officially requesting that it use this approach to declare that Utah had met the requirements under PartD ofthe Act; most notably, to submit a PM10 SIP for Ogden City (see attached). 

## * In 

### orderfor EPA to do so, DAQ must still submit an emissions inventory for the area, which corresponds to a period during which the areawas monitoring attainment ofthe health standard. There has not been an exceedance ofthe PM 10 standard in Ogden City since 1993. 

## * 1996 was such a time, and since DAQ was already compiling a more regionally comprehensive inventory for that year, we decided to use a subset ofthat inventory for this purpose. Sothat's what this is, and a summary ofthe emissions appears here as an attachment. 

## * This inventory will NOTbe used to establish a budget for conformity purposes. Nor will it constitute a cap or limit industrial sources in any way. 

## * DAQ is recommending that this inventory be released for a 30-day period ofpublic review, after which it would be forewarded to EPA as part ofthe PM10 Clean Data Areas Approach.

### ) Ogden City Inventory of PM10 And its Precursors: 502 and NOx

Representing Winter of 1996 Summary Table tons er winter weekda PM10 502 NOx

Mobile Sources 1.22 0.15 3.90 Area Sources 0.81 0.51 1.53 Point Sources 0.39 0.13 0.59 TotaL
....................... 2.42 0.79 6.02

Mobile Sources: Area Sources: tons er winter weekda PM10 502

Tailpipe 0.08 0.15 Tire Wear 0.01 Fugitive Dust 1.13 Tota!........................•• 1.22 0.15 NOx 3.90

3.90

Point Sources: tons er ear PM10 S02

Cargill Inc. - Feed Divn. 17.01 0.00 Cargill Inc. - Flour Dlvn. 18.20 0.13 Defense Logistics Agency 43.67 34.25 Fresenlus Medical Care 2.13 0.11 Hurco Industries 4.75 0.00 Koch Agricultural Co. 22.40 0.00 Levolor Home Fashions 0.30 0.00 Weber State University 0.98 0.04 rotal
.......................... 109.44 34.53 NOx 0.00 8.90 119.88 16.21 0.00 0.00 3.80 9.37 158.16 tons er winter weekda Wood Burning Coal Burning Natural Gas Fuel 011 Aircraft Railroad Misc. Non·Road Total
..........................

tons erwinterweekda

Cargill Inc.• Feed Dlvn. Cargill Inc. - Flour Dlvn. Defense Logistics Agency Fresenlus MedIcal Care Hurco Industries Koch.Agrlcultural.co. Levolor Home Fashions Weber State University TotaL
......................... PM10 502' NOx 0.61 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.65 0.02 0.42 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.68 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.81 0.51 1.53

PM10 S02 NOx days/yr I reference 0.07 0.D7 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.46 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 260 260 260 362 260 365 240 317.5 Form F2 Form F2 F2. F6a,F6b, F12,F14 Form F2, F3a Form F6a Form F2,F6a Form F2 'Form F2 0.39 0.13 0.59
• note that the days/yr entry for this source was contrived as a weighted average of operating percentages, during the firsl calendar quarter, lor each of lhe four boilers. "'ote that point sources reported lheir emissions for an annual averaging period (1996), and that these emission totals were divided by the number of operational days reported by each facility.

Page 1

# Hearing**.~ .~~** **Ne~·** 

### .paper**Age3!~Y** 

### Corporaz
.. »n 143 SOUTH**~N** ST. CUSTOMER'S P.O.BOX 45838 {1IIJtjail**~akt** g):ribunt**{~N** DESERET NEWS SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84145 "'''''Cf
..,·Jl COpy

FED.TAX 1.0.# 87-0217663 

### PROOF OFPUBLICATION

02/13/01 U5364000L-07 lIT ST DEPT OF ENVR QULTY DIV OFAIR QUALITY P.O. BOX 144820 SALT LAKE CITY, 

### ur 84114 

# F:
..**"~.,-.,** 

## FEB 162( urST DEPT OFENVR ULTY
TL820117B11 801-536-4000

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

_. __ _ 1 1**~~I** AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION LEGAL BOOKKEEPER, I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PM10 FOR UT ST DEPT OF ENVR OULTY WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION, AGENT FOR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS ,DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH ,AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAH. ,a'YIC!AtJl:::l
_

SIGNATURE ------,.L...f,F---"'------::=----f-'--"---'­



### THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A "PROOF OF PUBLICATION" PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT.

### STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY BOARD

PUBLIC HEARING 

# 1996 Ogden PM Inventory

Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:30 PM DEQ Building Room 201 168 N. 1950West

SaltLake City
BEFORE 

### n . tnrnARING OFFICER

### This hearing by the Air Quality Board will come to order. My name is Jan Miller and I am rules coordinator for the Division ofAir Quality. I want to welcome you to this hearing to considerthe Ogden PMlO inventory for 1996. Division ofAir Quality staffmembers present are Bill Reiss, Environmental Engineer, and
The Air QualityBoard proposes to adopt the 1996 inventory ofparticulate (PM10) emissions for Ogden City. The inventory is one ofthe requirements necessary to demonstrate that Ogden City has attained the PMlO health standard. The inventory is not a conformitybudget and does not cap any source's emissions; it is simply areport ofemissions. Please sign the roster at the door. Ifyou wish to make a comment, please fill out a form and bring it to me. We welcome written comments. You may mail them, or send an email. The comment period will close at 5 PM on March 16, 200l--we will accept comments postmarked on that date. Now we are ready for your comments. Wewill stay until everyone has a chance to speak.

1

## UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER

HEARING DATE: 

# J -/5- D / PLACE:

# \O~a**M~** 2tJ 

# J SUBJEcr: 

# -Iii%' 0tf 

# tt4,

# 1M /0 AFFILIATION 

### NAME ADDRESS

--------+-----------+--:-----11

---------l-----------+------.- ----1/Michael O. Leavitt Governor Dianne R. Nielson. Ph.D. Executive Director Richard W. Sprott Director

TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: 

### DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL QUAUfY DIVISION OFAIR QUAUfY 150North 1950West P.O. Box 144820 SaltLake City. Utah 84114-4820 (801) 536-4000 Voice (80 I)536-4009 Fax (801) 536-4414 T.D.D. 

# MEMORANDUM

Utah Air QualityBoard DAQ-062-01 Richard W. Sprott, Executive Secretary Bill Reiss, Environmental Engineer July 2, 2001 Final Adoption: Ogden City PMI0Inventory Atyour February 7, 2001, meeting, you released a draft version ofthis 1996Ogden City PMlO inventory for public comment. The only comments received were from EPA Region Vill. These comments have been addressed (see attachment 1), and staffis now recommending that the Board approve therevised inventory for submittal to EPA. Ifyou recall, this inventory was prepared in the context ofEPA's "October 18, 1999 PMlO Clean Data Areas Approach." Basically, this approach would allow PMI0 nonattainment areas such as Ogden City, which have been attaining the PMlO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), to satisfy their planningrequirements without producing a StateImplementation Plan. The State has communicated its intent to make use ofthis approach (see attachment 4), and this inventory represents the last ofthe criteria necessary for participation. The inventoryreflects a period in time during which the Ogden City monitorwas recording data that was well within theNAAQS, and includes both PMlO and its precursors (S02 and NOx). Also attached (as attachment 3) is a copy ofthe October 18, 1999, PMlO Clean DataAreas Approach. As you can see, this inventory will notestablish a budget to be used in the context oftransportation conformity, nordoes this action constitute a redesignation to attainment. Attachment 2 is a summary table ofthe inventory itself.Summary ofComments and Responses: UDAQ proposed, for public comment, a draftinventoryfor PMlO and its precursors within the Ogden City nonattainment areaat its February 7, 2001, Utah Air Quality Board meeting. Theonly commentsreceived were from US EPA Region

### vm (by letter dated March 16, 2001). Thefollowing is a summary ofthose comments as well as a briefdescription ofhow each was addressed.
Commentno. 1. Theinventory needs to include a quality assurance plan that discusses the QAJQC measures used in its preparation. Response: A quality assuranceplan hasbeen compiled and specificallytailored to the Ogden City inventory. Region

### vm has reviewed theplan, and it appears to be satisfactory. It should alsoprove useful in preparing subsequent PMI0 inventories. Commentno. 2. EPA pointed outthat, several years ago, when we were beginning a SIPforOgden we used a back trajectory analysis to identify thegeographical area within which we would calculate emissions (20kmfor point sources). Forthis go-round we are simplyusing the Ogden Citylimits as ourboundary. Therefore, EPA has said that any sources within the back trajectory analysis that were shown to have impactedthe monitor should be included. Response: ForprimaryPM10, the results ofthe old ChemicalMass Balance apportionment analysis showed 0% impactfrom point sources even though the emissions accounted for 10% ofthe inventory compiled atthat time. This was explained to Region VIII viatelephone, and it was agreed that this was a
..-. goodreason not to add all the sources within the circleto the 1996 inventory. None ofthe sources within 20 km ofthe monitor (exceptHill AirForceBase [HAFB]) emitted much PMlO in '96. However, there are two large sources ofNOx within the 20 km radius: HAFB, andWasatch EnergySystems. UDAQ agreed to add these two sources to the inventory because secondary aerosol formation isregional innature. Comment no. 3. UDAQneeds to providethecalculations for its area source emissions estimates (Section 2.2, Tables 1-3). There is noindication ofhow emissions were converted from tons peryear to tons per day. It appears that the annual emissions weredividedby212days/yr. Response: A paragraph was added to the document in order to explain that, for most area source categories, winter-dayemissions arenot 1/365th ofannual emissions (see pp. 2 ofthe June 6, 2001 cover memo at Section 2.1). In addition, the calculation summaries supporting these numbers havebeen clarified. Commentno. 4. In Section 2.3-4, Oil Combustion, the "Industrial" oil consumption data includes a contribution from electric utilities. This led EPA to speculate that perhaps the Gadsby plant (in SaltLake City) should beincluded in theinventory. Response: UDAQ obtains these numbers from the Utah Office ofEnergy andResource Planning which reports on a statewidebasis. The statewidenumberis then apportioned based on countypopulation, so in effect, every county will have the same relativecontribution from electric utilities. In short, Gadsby does notbelong in theinventory. This was communicated to EPA, and there is no expectation that these emissions will be included. Commentno. S. Concerning ForestFires (Section 2.3-6), UDAQneeds to update its emission factors (PMI0 and NOx) tobe consistent with the current version ofAP-42.·- Response: The emission factors have since been updated as requested. Sincethere werenoforest fIres on the "typical winter day," this did not have any effecton the numbers. Commentno. 6. Concerning Structural Fires (Section 2.3-7), the emissions appear to beoffby a factor of 1000. Response: The correction has been made in the fInal inventory. Commentno. 7. Aircraft Emissions: Itwas notclear how these emissions were distributed between HAFB and Ogden-Hinckley Airport. EPA requested we include all other emissions from HAFB. Finally,

. the Section 2.3-10 calculation summaryincludesthe assumption "thePMlO factor in (1) abovefor

Civilian/Commercial aircraft and 100% ofthe NOxfor Military aircraft for HAFB" requires further explanation. Response: As reported in the response to commentno. 2, the entire inventory for HAFB has been included in the inventory. All ofthe aircraft emissions (takeoffand landing) from HAFB havebeen included inthe area sourceportion ofthe inventory (and subtracted from Hill's total in the overall summarytable). The aircraft emissions also include the contribution from Ogden-Hinckley Airport. Concerning the comment from Section 2.3-10, the aircraft PMlO emissions have since been recalculated absentthis assumption, and the commentis no longerpertinent.

.,,"'­

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENRECEIVEI REGION 8 999 18TH STREET
- SUITE 300 

## MAR 19 2001

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 http://www.epa.gov/region08 

# AIRQUALll MAR I 6 2001

Ref: 8P-AR Rick Sprott, Director Division ofAir Quality Department ofEnvironmental Quality P.O. Box 144820 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 Re: EPA Comments on Ogden City Inventory of PMIO and its Precursors: SOx and NOx Representing Winter of 1996 DearRick: The purpose ofthis letter is to provide the Division ofAir Quality (DAQ) with EPA's comments concerning the proposed "Ogden City Inventory ofPMIO and its Precursors: SOx and NOxRepresenting Winter of 1996". These comments reflect a review ofthe subject document that is scheduled for public hearing onMarch 15,2001. In many ofthe calculation summaries, emissions ofpollutants other than PM10, SOx, and NOx are presented. Our comments only address a review ofPM10, SOx, and NOx emissions. We have the following comments on theFebruary 2001 draft version ofthe inventory: 

### General 1. A quality assurance plan needs to be included that discusses the quality assurance/quality control (QAlQC) methodologies used to prepare this inventory. Perhaps the QAlQC plan developed for the Utah County PMIO inventory meets this requirement. 2. The DAQ used a portion ofthe emission inventory prepared as part ofthe modeling effort for the Utah County PMIO SR> that is under development. Emission estimates for the much larger multi-county modeling domain were apportioned for Weber County using census countsfor the county and for Ogden City. In using this approach, theDAQ has abandoned its early effort to develop an Ogden City emission inventory for 1993. Since this latest emission inventory gives a more detailed look at the emissions in the area, it is supported. However, the wind trajectory analysis done in 1993 should be considered for this 1996 inventory and sources from that study that were shown to impact particulate concentrations in Ogden City should be included. 

# o Printedon RecycledPaper

### Area Sources (Section 2) 3. Section 2.2, Tables 1-3: Emissions are presented in tons per day without any indication of how emissions were converted from tons peryear (as calculated in the summary sheets in Section 2.3). It appears that the emissions (in tons peryear) were divided over 212 days. An explanation ofthis is needed. 4. Section 2.3-4, Oil Combustion: The "Industrial" oil consumption data includes electric utilities. Since there are no electric utilities listed in the point sources section ofthe inventory, it's not clear ifthis is meant to represent oil use from electric utilities outside the nonattainment area such as the Gadsby PowerPlant (which was part ofthe trajectory analysis done for the 1993 inventory). IftheDAQ has determined that Gadsby impacts the Ogden City nonattainment area, emissions from Gadsby should be included in Section 3 (point Sources) ofthe inventory. The power plant's actual emission for 1996 are available from EPA's Acid Rain Database. The data are available onthe Internet at \v\\-w.epa.gov/airmarkets. Quarterly values are available at is website. EPARegion 8 can help provide monthly and daily emissions from the plant. 5. Section 2.3-6, ForestFires: The emission factors used for this section do not correspond to AP-42 factors, as indicated. The PMlO emission factor from AP-42, Table 13.1-2, is 572 kglHectare. This corresponds to an emission factor of0.26 tons per acre bythe following conversion:
572 kg I Hectare 1ton to

# % PMlO: • • -- = 0.26 ns Hectare 2.47 acres 907 kg acre The emission factor used in Section 2.3-6 for PMlO is 0.058 tons per acre. This factor, as well as the NOx emission factor, should be changed to reflect the most current AP-42 emission factors converted to tons per acre. 6. Section 2.3-7, Structural Fires: Emissions for-structural fires are offby a factor of 1000. PMlO emissions, for example, should be4.4

### pounds peryear, instead ofthe 2.2 

### tons per year calculated in Section 2.3-7:

. 10.8 lb 

### * 410tons mat'l**~b** PMlO' = 4.4 1000 tons mat' 1 yr yr NOx emissions should be recalculated as well. 7. Section 2.3-10, Aircraft Emissions: The trajectory analysis done in 1993 showed that air emissions from Hills Air ForceBase (HAFB) in Davis County may impact particulate" concentrations in Ogden City. Itis unclear how much ofthe aircraft emissions calculated in Section 2.3-10 are from HAFB. Please provide an explanation ofthe representation of the air base's aircraft emissions in the inventory

- for both PMlO and NOx. Also, any point source emissions from HAFB should be included in Section 3 (e.g., PM10, NOx and SOx emissions from boilers, emergency generators, media blast booth, fire training, etc.).

### The Section 2.3-10 calculation summary includes the assumption: "thePM10 factor in (1) above for Civilian/Commercial aircraft and 100% oftheNOx for Military aircraft for HAFB." Please explain this assumption. Ifyou have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (303) 312-6005 orLarry Svoboda at (303) 312-6004. Staffmay contactMegan Williams at (303) 312-6431.

cc: DaveMcNeill, DAQ

# CorrectedInventory

# .1 

# t Ogden City Inventory of PM10 and its Precursors: 802 and NOx Representing Winter of 1996
Summary Table tons perwinterweekday PM10 502 NOx

Mobile Sources 1.22 0.15 3.90 Area Sources 0.96 0.44 3.12 Point Sources 1.06 0.43 2.27 Total 3.25 1.02 9.29

Mobile Sources: tons perwinterweekday

Tailpipe Tire Wear Fugitive Dust Total

Point Sources: tons peryear I

Cargiillnc.
- Feed Divn. Cargiillnc.• Flour Divn. Defense Logistics Agency Fresenius Medical Care 'Hill Air Force Base Hurco Industries Koch Agricultural Co. Levolor Home Fashions Wasatch Energy Systems Weber State University Total PM10 0.08 0.01 1.13 1.22

PM10 17.01 18.20 43.67 2.13 170.25 4.75 22.40 0.30 4.98 0.98 284.67 502 0.15

0.15 Area Sources: NOx tons per winterweekday 3.90

3.90 Wood Bumin9 Coai Buming Natural Gas Fuel Oil Aircraft Railroad Misc. Non-Road Total

I 502 I NOx tons per winter weekday 0.00 0.13 34.25 0.11 16.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.49 0.04 126.40 0.00 Cargill Inc. - Feed Divn. 8.90 Cargiillnc.
- Flour Divn. 119.88 Defense Logistics Agency 16.21 Fresenius Medical Care 161.43 Hill Air Force Base 000 Hurco Industries 000 Koch AgricUltural Co. 380 Levolor Home Fashions 343.07 Wasatch Energy Systems 9.37 Weber State University 662.66 Total I PM10 0.61 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.14 I 0.96

I PM10 0.07 0.07 0.17 0.01 0.65 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.06 I 502 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.29 I 0.44

I 502 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.43 I NOx 0.06 0.00 0.65 0.01 0.57 

### )/ 0.68 1.15 

## -(, 

# -\ I 3.12 

### ;f I NOx dayslyr Ireference 0.00 0.Q3 260 Form F2 0.46 260 Form F2 0.04 260**F2.F6~F6b,F12,F14** 0.62 362 Form F2, F3a 

# jJ 0.00 260 Page 1-2 0.00 260 Form F6a 0.02 365 Form F2, F6a 1.06 240 Form F2 0.03 322.5 "Form F2 317.5 '''Form F2 2.27
Note that point sources reported their emissions for an annual averaging period (1996), and that these emission totals were divided by the number of operational days reported by each facility.

, note that this source includes aircraft emissions that have been included, In this table, as an area source. These emissions are: 7.4, 20.3, and 188.3 tonslyr of PM1 0, S02, and NOx respectively. "note that the dayslyr entry for this source is the average number of operational days for boilers A and B.

.., note that the dayslyrentry for this source was contrived as a weighted average of

....... operating percentages, during the first calendar quarter, for each ofthe four boilers.

.......
ogdn96inv I

7118101

# Certification



# -

### I, Janice L. 

### Miller, Rules Coordinator for the Utah Division ofAir Quality, do hereby certify that the public hearing held to receive comments regarding the 1996 PM10 Inventory for Ogden City was held in accordance with the information provided in each published public notice and as defined in Utah Code 19-2-109. The change was adopted by the Air Quality Board on July 11, 2001. Signed this 12th 

### day ofJuly, 2001.