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 

Dear Mr. Yellowtail: 

Re: PM 10 SIP Obligation: Ogden City 

This letter concerns Ogden City, an area that is presently designated "nonattainment" for 

PM IO. Utah is still under obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision satisfying 

the requirements of Part D of the Clean Air Act. 

, 

The State has not submitted a Part D SIP for Ogden City because of the 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 PM10 and had never violated the new standard. As such, EPA had 

indicated that the old NAAQS would be revoked provided that: 1) the Part D 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 Part D requirements were considered to be satisfied because these control 

measures were already incorporated into the Utah SIP. 

The Utah Division of Air Quality and EPA Region VIII were in agreement that each of the 

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 PM 10 standard, and on May 14, 1999, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled to vacate the new PM 10 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 PM 10 Clean Data Areas 

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) PM10 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 PM10 monitoring network in 

accordance with CFR part 58 in order to verify the attainment status of the area. The State is 

quite agreeable to maintaining its PMI0 monitoring 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 

of control 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 that EPA make notice in the Federal 

Register that the State of Utah has, in fact, met its requirements under CAA Part D (section 

172) to submit a nonattainment PM10 SIP for 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 PM 10 monitoring network in accordance with 

CFR part 58. 
Page 3 

March 30, 2000 

*	 The State must produce a basic emissions inventory for Ogden City to the 

satisfaction of EPA Region VIII. 

The submittal of said emissions inventory and any additional documentation which EPA 

determines is necessary to make its finding or otherwise meet the requirements of section 172 of the 

Act will be submitted by Ursula Kramer, Director, Division of Air 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 of Utah
 

Department of Environmental Quality
 

Division of Air Quality
 

150 N. 1950 West
 

P.O. Box 144820
 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820
 

801-536-4000
 

July 2001 
Ogden 1996 PM10 Inventory 

Table of Contents 

Proposed for Public Comment .................................................. P - 1
 

Summary Table .................................................. P - 2
 

Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. H - 1
 

Affidavit of newspaper notice H - 2
 

Summary of public comments and responses H - 8
 

Hearing statement and rosters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. H - 3
 

Corrected Inventory ... , , E - 1
 

Summary Table .................................................. E - 2
 

Certification 
Proposed Inventory
 
Proposed For Public Comment: 1996 Inyentory for Ogden City 

Background 

*	 Ogden City became a nonattainment area for PMI0 in September 1995 

*	 In 1997, EPA proposed a new form of the PM10 health standard. Since Ogden 

City had never violated this new standard, DAQ ceased working on a SIP. 

*	 In 1999, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the new PMI0 standard. This 

meant, under Part D of the 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 of the Act. It's called the PM 10 Clean Data Areas 

Approach (see attached). 

*	 In March 2000, Governor Leavitt sent EPA a letter officially requesting that it use 

this approach to declare that Utah had met the requirements under Part D of the 

Act; most notably, to submit a PM10 SIP for Ogden City (see attached). 

*	 In order for EPA to do so, DAQ must still submit an emissions inventory for the 

area, which corresponds to a period during which the area was monitoring 

attainment of the health standard. There has not been an exceedance of the PM10 

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 of that 

inventory for this purpose. So that's what this is, and a summary of the emissions 

appears here as an attachment. 

*	 This inventory will NOT be 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 of public 

review, after which it would be forewarded to EPA as part of the PM 10 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 er winter weekda 

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. 

P.O.BOX 45838 CUSTOMER'S {1IIJt jail ~akt g):ribunt {~N DESERET NEWS 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84145 "'''''Cf..,·Jl COpy FED.TAX 1.0.# 87-0217663 PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

lIT ST DEPT OF ENVR QULTY U5364000L-07 02/13/01

DIV OF AIR QUALITY 

P.O. BOX 144820 

SALT LAKE CITY, ur 84114 

F:.. "~.,-.,

FEB 16 2( ur ST DEPT OF ENVR ULTY 

801-536-4000 TL820117B11

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. 1950 West
 

Salt Lake 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 of Air Quality. I want to welcome you to this hearing to 

consider the Ogden PMlO inventory for 1996. 

Division of Air Quality staff members present are Bill Reiss, Environmental Engineer, and 

The Air Quality Board proposes to adopt the 1996 inventory of particulate (PM10) emissions 

for Ogden City. The inventory is one of the requirements necessary to demonstrate that Ogden 

City has attained the PMlO health standard. The inventory is not a conformity budget and does 

not cap any source's emissions; it is simply a report of emissions. 

Please sign the roster at the door. If you 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. We will 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%' 0tftt4,1M/0 

NAME ADDRESS AFFILIATION

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

---------l-----------+------.-----1/ 
Michael O. Leavitt 

Governor 

Dianne R. Nielson. Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

Richard W. Sprott 

Director 

TO: 

THROUGH: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUfY 

DIVISION OF AIR QUAUfY 

150 North 1950 West 

P.O. Box 144820 

Salt Lake City. Utah 84114-4820 

(801) 536-4000 Voice 

(80I) 536-4009 Fax 

(801) 536-4414 T.D.D. 

MEMORANDUM 

Utah Air Quality Board DAQ-062-01 

Richard W. Sprott, Executive Secretary 

Bill Reiss, Environmental Engineer 

July 2, 2001 

Final Adoption: Ogden City PMI0 Inventory 

At your February 7, 2001, meeting, you released a draft version of this 1996 Ogden City PMlO inventory 

for public comment. The only comments received were from EPA Region Vill. These comments have 

been addressed (see attachment 1), and staff is now recommending that the Board approve the revised 

inventory for submittal to EPA. 

If you recall, this inventory was prepared in the context of EPA'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 

planning requirements without producing a State Implementation Plan. 

The State has communicated its intent to make use of this approach (see attachment 4), and this inventory 

represents the last of the criteria necessary for participation. The inventory reflects a period in time during 

which the Ogden City monitor was recording data that was well within the NAAQS, and includes both 

PMlO and its precursors (S02 and NOx). 

Also attached (as attachment 3) is a copy of the October 18, 1999, PMlO Clean Data Areas Approach. As 

you can see, this inventory will not establish a budget to be used in the context of transportation 

conformity, nor does this action constitute a redesignation to attainment. 

Attachment 2 is a summary table of the inventory itself. 
Summary of Comments and Responses: 

UDAQ proposed, for public comment, a draft inventory for PMlO and its precursors within the Ogden City 

nonattainment area at its February 7, 2001, Utah Air Quality Board meeting. The only comments received 

were from US EPA Region vm (by letter dated March 16, 2001). The following is a summary of those 

comments as well as a brief description of how each was addressed. 

Comment no. 1. The inventory needs to include a quality assurance plan that discusses the QAJQC 

measures used in its preparation. 

Response: A quality assurance plan has been compiled and specifically tailored to the Ogden City 

inventory. Region vm has reviewed the plan, and it appears to be satisfactory. It should also prove useful 

in preparing subsequent PMI0 inventories. 

Comment no. 2. EPA pointed out that, several years ago, when we were beginning a SIP for Ogden we 

used a back trajectory analysis to identify the geographical area within which we would calculate emissions 

(20km for point sources). For this go-round we are simply using the Ogden City limits as our boundary. 

Therefore, EPA has said that any sources within the back trajectory analysis that were shown to have 

impacted the monitor should be included. 

Response: For primary PM10, the results of the old Chemical Mass Balance apportionment analysis 

showed 0% impact from point sources even though the emissions accounted for 10% of the inventory 

compiled at that time. This was explained to Region VIII via telephone, and it was agreed that this was a 

..-.	 good reason not to add all the sources within the circle to the 1996 inventory. None of the sources within 

20 km of the monitor (except Hill Air Force Base [HAFB]) emitted much PMlO in '96. However, there 

are two large sources of NOx within the 20 km radius: HAFB, and Wasatch Energy Systems. UDAQ 

agreed to add these two sources to the inventory because secondary aerosol formation is regional in nature. 

Comment no. 3. UDAQ needs to provide the calculations for its area source emissions estimates (Section 

2.2, Tables 1-3). There is no indication of how emissions were converted from tons per year to tons per 

day. It appears that the annual emissions were divided by 212 days/yr. 

Response: A paragraph was added to the document in order to explain that, for most area source 

categories, winter-day emissions are not 1/365th of annual emissions (see pp. 2 of the June 6, 2001 cover 

memo at Section 2.1). In addition, the calculation summaries supporting these numbers have been 

clarified. 

Comment no. 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 Salt Lake 

City) should be included in the inventory. 

Response: UDAQ obtains these numbers from the Utah Office of Energy and Resource Planning which 

reports on a statewide basis. The statewide number is then apportioned based on county population, so in 

effect, every county will have the same relative contribution from electric utilities. In short, Gadsby does 

not belong in the inventory. This was communicated to EPA, and there is no expectation that these 

emissions will be included. 

Comment no. S. Concerning Forest Fires (Section 2.3-6), UDAQ needs to update its emission factors 

(PMI0 and NOx) to be consistent with the current version of AP-42. 
·- Response: The emission factors have since been updated as requested. Since there were no forest fIres on 

the "typical winter day," this did not have any effect on the numbers. 

Comment no. 6. Concerning Structural Fires (Section 2.3-7), the emissions appear to be off by a factor of 

1000. 

Response: The correction has been made in the fInal inventory. 

Comment no. 7. Aircraft Emissions: It was not clear 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 summary includes the assumption "the PMlO factor in (1) above for 

Civilian/Commercial aircraft and 100% of the NOx for Military aircraft for HAFB" requires further 

explanation. 

Response: As reported in the response to comment no. 2, the entire inventory for HAFB has been included 

in the inventory. All of the aircraft emissions (takeoff and landing) from HAFB have been included in the 

area source portion of the inventory (and subtracted from Hill's total in the overall summary table). 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 absent this assumption, and 

the comment is no longer pertinent. 

.,,"'­
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENRECEIVEI 

REGION 8 

999 18TH STREET - SUITE 300	 MAR 19 2001 

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 

http://www.epa.gov/region08 AIR QUALll 

MAR I 6 2001 

Ref:	 8P-AR 

Rick Sprott, Director 

Division of Air 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 

Dear Rick: 

The purpose of this 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 

NOx Representing Winter of 1996". These comments reflect a review of the subject document 

that is scheduled for public hearing on March 15,2001. In many ofthe calculation summaries, 

emissions of pollutants 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 the February 2001 draft version of the 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 of the emission inventory prepared as part of the 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 counts for the county and for Ogden City. In using this approach, the DAQ 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. 

oPrinted on Recycled Paper 
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 per year (as calculated in the summary sheets in 

Section 2.3). It appears that the emissions (in tons per year) 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 if this is meant to represent oil use from electric utilities outside 

the nonattainment area such as the Gadsby Power Plant (which was part of the trajectory 

analysis done for the 1993 inventory). Ifthe DAQ 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 on the Internet at 

\v\\-w.epa.gov/airmarkets. Quarterly values are available at is website. EPA Region 8 can 

help provide monthly and daily emissions from the plant. 

5.	 Section 2.3-6, Forest Fires: 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 of 0.26 tons per acre by the 

following conversion: 

572 kg I Hectare 1 ton 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 be 4.4 pounds per year, instead ofthe 2.2 tons per 

year calculated in Section 2.3-7: 

. 10.8 lb * 410 tons 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 Force Base (HAFB) in Davis County may impact particulate" 

concentrations in Ogden City. It is 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: "the PM10 factor in (1) 

above for Civilian/Commercial aircraft and 100% ofthe NOx for Military aircraft for 

HAFB." Please explain this assumption. 

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (303) 312-6005 

or Larry Svoboda at (303) 312-6004. Staff may contact Megan Williams at (303) 312-6431. 

cc: Dave McNeill, DAQ 
Corrected Inventory
 
.1	 t 

Ogden City Inventory of PM10 and its Precursors: 802 and NOx
 

Representing Winter of 1996
 

Summary Table 

tons per winter weekday 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 per winter weekday
 

Tailpipe 

Tire Wear 

Fugitive Dust 

Total 

Point Sources: 

tons per year 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 winter weekday 

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 

0.00 260 Page 1-2 jJ 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 dayslyr entry for this source was contrived as a weighted average of
 .......
 operating percentages, during the first calendar quarter, for each of the four boilers. .......
 

ogdn96inv 

I 

7118101 
Certification -
I, Janice L. Miller, Rules Coordinator for the Utah Division of Air Quality, do hereby certify that 

the public hearing held to receive comments regarding the 1996 PM 10 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 of July, 2001.