state of utah · erin mendenhall robert paine iii michael smith william c. stringer karma m....

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-004-17a

UTAH AIR QUALITY BOARD MEETING

FINAL AGENDA

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 - 1:30 p.m. 195 North 1950 West, Room 1015

Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 I. Call-to-Order II. Date of the Next Air Quality Board Meeting: March 1, 2017 III. Approval of the Minutes for December 7, 2016, Board Meeting. IV. Propose for Public Comment: Amend R307-335. Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations;

and New Rule R307-304. Industrial Solvent Use. Presented by Ryan Stephens. V. Informational Items. A. PM2.5 Serious State Implementation Plan Update. Presented by Bill Reiss. B. PM2.5 Serious State Implementation Plan Modeling Update. Presented by Chris Pennell. C. Utah Winter Fine Particulate Study Update. Presented by Munkh Baasandorj. D. Air Toxics. Presented by Robert Ford. E. Compliance. Presented by Jay Morris and Harold Burge. F. Monitoring. Presented by Bo Call. G. 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


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


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 December 7, 2016 – 1:30 p.m.

195 North 1950 West, Room 1015 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116

DRAFT MINUTES

____________________________ I. Call-to-Order Kerry Kelly called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Board members present: Kerry Kelly, Alan Matheson, Erin Mendenhall, Arnold Reitze, and

Michael Smith Excused: Steve Sands, Karma Thomson, Robert Paine, and William Stringer Executive Secretary: Bryce Bird A moment of silence was observed in remembrance of the Pearl Harbor attack. II. Date of the Next Air Quality Board Meeting: February 1, 2017

Staff indicates that there are no agenda items planned for a January meeting. The next planned Board meeting will be February 1, 2017.

III. Approval of the Minutes for September 7, 2016, Board Meeting. Minor grammar changes were submitted on Item 8 and Information Item F. ● Arnold Reitze moved to approve the amended minutes. Erin Mendenhall seconded. The

Board approved unanimously.

IV. Five Year Review: R307-110, R307-120, R307-121, R307-130, R307-135, R307-301, R307-320, R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335, R307-341, R307-343. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Rules Coordinator at DAQ, stated that DAQ is required to review and justify each of its rules every five years. This review process is not the time to revise or amend the rules, but it is the time to verify that the rules are still necessary and allowed under state and federal law. The

DRAFT Air Quality Board Meeting December 7, 2016 Page 2 of 7

result of this review determined that the listed rules are necessary and allowed under state and federal law. Staff recommends that the Board continue the rules listed above by approving the five year reviews to be submitted to the Office of Administrative Rules. In response to a question on the status of the Provo City CO nonattainment area, staff responded that there are no CO nonattainment areas anymore, just maintenance areas. DAQ will submit a redesignation for maintenance and staff will report back to the Board on a timeline and what the process will be moving forward at the next Board meeting. ● Arnold Reitze moved that the Board approve the listed five year reviews. Michael Smith

seconded. The Board approved unanimously. V. Final Adoption: R307-302. Amend Solid Fuel Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis,

Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, and Weber Counties. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Rules Coordinator at DAQ, stated that this rule was amended to address comments made by the EPA. The EPA said it could approve the rule if continuous controls were added in the form of a list of prohibited burning materials. Staff made these amendments and the Board had several additional comments on how to improve the rule at the June 2016 Board meeting. Staff has worked to amend the rule to incorporate the Board’s suggestions. On August 18, 2016, the EPA published a conditional approval of R307-302 based on DAQ’s commitment to include a list of prohibited fuels into the rule. The EPA also stated the rule would satisfy the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement to implement reasonably available control measures (RACM). There were several comments sent to the DAQ by a single commenter and were addressed in the memorandum to the Board. There was also an amendment to the rule during the comment period which can be found at R307-302-1, lines 4-5. If the Board adopts R307-302 as amended, EPA has indicated they can approve it, and it will become part of Utah’s PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP). Staff recommends that the Board adopt R307-302 as amended. In response to questions from the Board, staff responded that a homeowner could purchase a wood moisture meter to test the moisture content of a wood pile at local home improvement stores in the $50-$100 price range. The key is to keep the wood dry while it is being stored. It was also stated that the language in this amended rule was changed to be consistent with the new source performance standards (NSPS). ● Michael Smith moved that the Board approve final adoption of R307-302, Solid Fuel

Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, and Weber Counties. Erin Mendenhall seconded. The Board approved unanimously.

VI. Final Adoption: Amend SIP Section IX. Part H: Emission Limits and Operating Practices.

Presented by Bill Reiss. Bill Reiss, Environmental Scientist at DAQ, stated that this agenda item is for amendments to Part H, the emission limits and operating practices portion of the PM2.5 and PM10 SIPs. These amendments were proposed in September 2016, with the purpose to facilitate approval by the EPA as it reviews both the PM10 maintenance plans and the moderate area PM2.5 SIPs for the Wasatch Front. The emphasis of these amendments was on source monitoring and to achieve consistency between the PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits. DAQ worked closely with the EPA and staff feels that both agencies are comfortable with the conditions. A 30 day public comment period was held October 1 through 31, 2016. The comments and responses are summarized in the Board memorandum and a few more changes were made as a result of the comments received.


As stated in the memorandum, there were a couple of adjustments to some daily limits to account for emissions during periods of startup and shut down. These were the NOX and SOX caps at the Tesoro refinery, on pages 44 and 45. There was a revision to allow a specific alternative monitoring method at the Tesoro refinery, with regard to the sulfur recovery unit. The alternative monitoring method is permissible under Subpart J of the NSPS. Finally, there was an insertion to address a last minute concern raised by the EPA of some language affecting catalytic oxidation for volatile organic compound (VOC) control. Specifically, the language specifies that the catalytic oxidation for VOC control will be employed at all times during which an affected unit is in operation. This is a new item “h. Catalytic Oxidation for VOC Control” on page 7 of Subpart H.11. In response to the inquiry if the emission factor for low NOx burners is the same for both refinery gas and natural gas, staff answered that for that pollutant the gases are equivalent. In discussion, staff was asked to explain DAQ’s response to Western Resource Advocates’ (WRA) comment regarding public access to records related to water/chemical treatment for dust control. In particular, the recordkeeping requirements and the possible solution to require more reporting by the regulated community, even if DAQ did not have the resources to handle the reporting it would make it a public record which could then be used by interested parties. For this request the DAQ referred to the compliance inspection report which resides at DAQ through the inspection report. An inspector would identify a particular SIP condition which would determine if a source was in compliance or not. The inspector has access to a facility where the source records are maintained and the inspector evaluates those records and reports back through the inspection report, which is a public record maintained at the division. In addition, any record produced in DAQ’s compliance branch is available to the public through the electronic Easy Report record search. This includes inspection reports, emissions data, stack test reports, or emissions limits covered by continuous emissions monitoring system. Finally, discussion came to the issue of what should the division do to give the public the information it needs without the public having to go through a suit or discovery to get the information from a source. The procedure for the public to request records is through the Government Records Access Management Act. If the agency does not currently have those records, the agency is not required to provide them. The agency or the Board can make it a requirement through rulemaking, but currently there is no legal requirement for the agency to provide information it does not have. It was recommended by the Board to have a stakeholder meeting to discuss whether the current system is working to access requested information. Staff agrees that discussion on the recordkeeping issue does need to continue because it applies throughout the air quality rules, not just to this Part H agenda item. It was recommended that this amendment be approved and then have a broader discussion in the future on how to address the records issue. The comment raised by WRA applies to a single condition at a single source and not to the entire Part H. The Board decided to have two motions, one on the adoption of this agenda item as listed and one to direct the DAQ to have a stakeholder meeting to further discuss the records issue. ● Erin Mendenhall motioned that the Board adopt amendment to SIP Section IX, Part H,

Emission Limits and Operating Practices. Michael Smith seconded. The Board approved unanimously.


● Arnold Reitze motioned that DAQ have a stakeholder meeting to discuss the issue of whether public access is adequate to meet the needs of both the public and the DAQ in the administration of the CAA. Erin Mendenhall seconded. The motion passed with three in favor (A. Reitze, E. Mendenhall, and K. Kelly) and one opposed (M. Smith).

VII. Final Adoption: Amend R307-110-17. Emission Limits. Presented by Ryan Stephens.

Ryan Stephens, Rules Coordinator at DAQ, stated that the amendments to Section IX, Part H of the PM2.5 and PM10 SIP will have to be incorporated into the air quality rules. R307-110-17 is the rule that does that. The Board just adopted the amendments proposed to Part H. Those amendments will become part of Utah’s SIP when this rule is incorporated into the SIP. Staff recommends that the Board adopt R307-110-17. ● Arnold Reitze moved to adopt R307-110-17, Emission Limits. Michael Smith seconded.

The Board approved unanimously.

VIII. Propose for Public Comment: Amend R307-125. Clean Air Retrofit, Replacement, and Off-Road Technology Program. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Rules Coordinator at DAQ, stated that the clean air retrofit, replacement, and off-road technology (CARROT) program provides for grants or other programs such as exchange, rebate, or low-cost purchase programs for activities that reduce emissions from non-road or heavy-duty diesel, on-road engines. In just two years, the popularity of the CARROT program, particularly the lawn equipment discount and exchange program, has exceeded expectations. As a result of the success from the lawn equipment exchanges, staff is proposing amendments that would eliminate the 50% limit the rule currently places on the allocation of CARROT funds toward “exchange, rebate, or low-cost purchase program(s) under 19-2-203(2).” The limit is not required by statute, and eliminating it would give DAQ more freedom to fund a popular and successful program. Staff recommends that the Board propose the amended R307-125 for public comment. Bryce Bird added that one of the challenges with these types of programs is they take a lot of staff time to develop the program and move the money forward. This week DAQ was successful in competing for a number of federal grants. DAQ received two targeted air shed grants for $2.5 million each, which was 25% of the money available nationally. Under the diesel emissions reduction act (DERA) DAQ received $1 million. In addition, the state will get $32.4 million from the Volkswagen settlement. The applications were focused on specific vehicle projects that have already been identified. School bus replacements are a main focus of all the grants, as well as some replacements of Salt Lake City vehicles and other diesel vehicles that operate in the Salt Lake area. The targeted air shed grants apply to Cache Valley and Utah County with a target mostly towards school bus replacement, and a vehicle repair program in the Cache Valley in which vehicles that do not pass the new emissions testing program will be given the ability to fix or replace those vehicles. ● Erin Mendenhall moved to propose R307-125, Clean Air Retrofit, Replacement, and Off-

Road Technology Program, for public comment. Arnold Reitze seconded. The Board approved unanimously.


IX. Propose for Public Comment: Amend R307-841. Residential Property and Child-Occupied Facility Renovation; and R307-842. Lead-Based Paint Activities. Presented by Ryan Stephens. Ryan Stephens, Rules Coordinator at DAQ, stated that on February 17, 2016, the EPA promulgated changes to the lead renovation, repair, and painting (RRP) rule and the lead-based paint (LBP) activities rule. These amendments reduced the training burden and costs to the regulated community by allowing electronic training as an option for the LBP renovator refresher course. R307-841 and R307-842 are being amended to reflect these changes and to include several changes that were recommended by staff to better administer the LBP program in Utah. Staff recommends that the Board propose R307-841 and R307-842 for public comment. ● Arnold Reitze moved that the Board propose to amend R307-841 and R307-842 for public

comment. Erin Mendenhall seconded. The Board approved unanimously.

X. Lapoint Recycle and Storage, Inc. Early Settlement Agreement. Presented by Jay Morris. Jay Morris, Minor Source Compliance Section Manager at DAQ, stated that Utah Code Ann. 19-2-104 requires the Board to review a recommended penalty in excess of $25,000. Lapoint Recycle and Storage, Inc. (Lapoint) was issued a compliance advisory for failing to submit a notice of intent and receiving an approval order prior to constructing an oil and waste water storage, separation, and treatment operation in the Uinta Basin. The DAQ and Lapoint have negotiated the terms of a settlement for the violation with a final penalty amount of $39,200. The terms of the settlement include a cash penalty amount of $11,650, a deferred penalty amount of the same, and a credit of $15,900 towards the completion of a supplemental environmental project (SEP) where they agree to replace some diesel powered pumps with some all electric pumps. Lapoint has agreed to the above terms of the settlement. Staff recommends that the Board approve the penalty amount and early settlement offer. Mr. Morris further explained that the deferred amount is an option that DAQ has in its penalty policy so that sources will be more inclined to operate in compliance. There will be several opportunities for DAQ staff to evaluate the source and ensure they are operating in compliance through status checks of Lapoint’s SEP and regular source inspections. If a violation is found during the two year period, the Director has the option of collecting the deferred amount in addition to any penalties for the new observed violation(s). Finally, DAQ has been in contact with sources and has sent informational letters to sources for sites that appear to need a permit, as well as each of the big producers, in the Uinta Basin. Sources should be aware of permitting requirements. ● Michael Smith moved that the Board approve the penalty amount and early settlement

offer to Lapoint Recycle and Storage, Inc. Arnold Reitze seconded. The Board approved unanimously.

XI. Informational Items.

A. 2017 Utah Winter Fine Particulate Study. Presented by Munkh Baasandorj.

Munkh Baasandorj, Environmental Scientist at DAQ and Research Professor at the University of Utah, updated the Board on the pilot study done last year. The study suggests that the night time chemistry, which varies with altitude, lead to the formation of particulate matter within a polluted layer. The pollution episodes are driven by complex


interaction between the meteorology and chemistry. Detailed vertical measurements will be key to understanding processes driving the pollution episodes. This year the Utah Winter Fine Particulate Study (UWFPS) will be conducted from January 15 to February 15, 2017, in Salt Lake City and adjacent basins. The UWFPS study will include out-of-state investigators, local investigators, and DAQ and EPA staff. The main component of the study will be NOAA’s twin otter research aircraft. The key factors governing high PM2.5 events in Utah’s valleys will be studied. Ms. Baaasandorj then detailed key relevant science questions of the study. The aircraft will be equipped with instruments to measure Utah-specific particulate pollution. There will also be ground-based observations to provide continuous measurements of the chemical and meteorological parameters and to fill in the gaps between the twin otter flights. The combination of the twin otter, ground-based measurements, and remote sensing will provide the most comprehensive dataset collected to date. Further details of the study will be available on UWFPS’s webpage.

B. Final Sole Source Conversion Project Report. Presented by Joel Karmazyn. Joel Karmazyn, Environmental Scientist at DAQ, updated the Board on the project to convert sole source residences to central heating. Through the project, 35 conversions of either natural gas or propane furnaces were completed. In addition, 7 coal stokers were retired and 6 gas lines were installed. Through outreach, which took 2 years, it was discovered that 186 of the original 254 homes were no longer eligible. Most of the stoves were not EPA certified and some were removed but most are still in place. Currently, 28 homes remain on the sole source registry.

C. Air Toxics. Presented by Robert Ford.

D. Compliance. Presented by Jay Morris and Harold Burge.

E. Monitoring. Presented by Bo Call. Bowen Call, Air Monitoring Section Manager at DAQ, updated the Board on the monitoring graphs. There were no exceedances, but there were a couple of voluntary days called. The Rose Park shelter has been replaced and can now be accessed on DAQ’s mobile app as one of the sites with continuous particulate monitoring.

F. Other Items to be Brought Before the Board. Bryce Bird stated that EPA’s administrator signed Utah’s finding of failure to attain the PM2.5 standard with a deadline set of December 31, 2017, for the next SIP to be submitted. This proposal reclassifies each of the nonattainment areas in Utah as serious. A public comment period will start once it is published in the Federal Register. DAQ is already working with EPA on defining the modeling inputs and the criteria for developing the plan as it may be necessary that Utah will miss the deadline by a month or two because of timing. Staff has already met with the 70 ton stationary sources in preparation of a serious designation. DAQ will have a stakeholder process and will send out notification when the information is available.


Public comment from Kathy Van Dame of Breathe Utah was introduced. Ms. Van Dame explained that last year the Legislature passed the Utah Sustainable Transportation & Energy Plan (STEP) initiative by Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) which was controversial. One of the issues was funding to keep RMP’s Gadsby station from operating on forecasted red air days. On past inversion days, Gadsby and other electric generators in the valley are being run and dispatched because of market conditions unrelated to Utah. In the SIP Part H that was adopted today, one of the natural gas generators is given authority to start and stop over 600 times in a year. Ms. Van Dame suggests that someone come up with a way to give financial incentives to sources to not sell to the market on days when air quality is bad. Alan Matheson updated the Board on Governor Herbert’s proposed budget. In terms of air quality, there was $1.45 million, which includes a one-time $1.3 million and ongoing $150,000, listed for air quality monitors and $250,000 proposed for research. In addition to the awarded amounts Bryce mentioned earlier, there is money in air assist grants from the Department of Workforce Services to help small businesses comply with regulations. The DEQ is fortunate to get good funding and proposed funding for air quality and water quality issues.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Meeting adjourned at 3:12 p.m.

ITEM 4

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


Director

DAQ-005-17

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Air Quality Board THROUGH: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary FROM: Joel Karmazyn, Environmental Scientist DATE: January 19, 2017 SUBJECT: Amend R307-335. Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations; and Propose New Rule

R307-304. Industrial Solvent Use. ______________________________________________________________________________________ The degreasing rule, R307-335, was amended under the moderate PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) to include industrial solvent cleaning (R307-335-7 and 8) because solvent cleaning is technically a form of degreasing. Since the time that the current version of R307-335 was adopted by the Board, EPA has notified the state that they will be reclassifying the area as a PM2.5 Serious Nonattainment Area. In order to clarify the requirements of R307-335, and to achieve further volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions which will be required for the serious area PM2.5 SIP, DAQ staff is proposing the following:

1. Amend R307-335 by removing the industrial solvent cleaning sections found in R307-335-7 and R307-335-8.

2. Move the industrial solvent cleaning requirements in R307-335 to a new solvent rule, R307-304. 3. Lower the threshold for gallons of solvent used in the applicability section of R307-304 to 55

gallons or more per year. Stakeholder Notification A stakeholder meeting was held on November 21, 2016. In recognition that this proposed rulemaking will impact a wide range of sources, invitations were sent to all applicable state industrial trade associations, the seven county chambers of commerce, the Department of Transportation, colleges and universities, major point sources, and individuals who requested to be notified of proposed rulemaking. The meeting was attended by only a handful of affected major point sources that are already familiar with the existing rule. Therefore, no significant issues were raised.


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


DAQ-005-17 Page 2 Best Available Control Measures (BACM) Analysis The requirements for R307-335-7 were derived from the EPA guidance for industrial solvent cleaning (EPA 453/R-06-001). EPA recommends that states set industrial solvent cleaning rule applicability at 15 lbs. of VOCs/day or approximately 720 gallons of solvent/year in order to meet reasonably available control measures (RACM). The Board approved R307-335-7 at that level. Based on EPA’s intent to reclassify Utah’s PM2.5 nonattainment areas as serious, Utah’s area source rules will have to be based on best available control measures (BACM). BACM must result in real air quality benefits that can be reliably implemented. Staff found in its analysis of various state and air district rules that regulate industrial solvent cleaning that most apply the EPA’s VOC content limit recommendations for aqueous-based solvent cleaning and applicability threshold of 15 lbs. of VOCs/day. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4663, Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal, is the most stringent rule because its applicability is set at 55 gallons or more of solvent products in any consecutive 12 month period and requires some solvent cleaning operations to use solvents at or below 0.84 lb./gallon. Amending the current rule applicability to 55 gallons or more in a year (0.15 gallon/day) would essentially regulate most industrial solvent cleaning and usage within the PM2.5 nonattainment area that is not already regulated under industry-specific coating rules. R307-335-7 originally included the extremely low VOC content requirements found in Rule 4663. Unfortunately, stakeholders did not provide comments on the original rule until after the rule was approved by the Board. Subsequently, staff began to receive industry complaints that the extremely low VOC content limits were not achievable. In some cases, the only option was to use an acetone based solvent. Sources cited flammability concerns, equipment damage and/or solubility incompatibility with acetone usage. The Board responded by amending the rule by increasing the solvent content limits such that the lowest limit is 2.5 lb./gallon. As staff has proceeded to review all of the coating rules for the next SIP, we continue to receive stakeholder concern regarding cleaning solvent levels mandated in California rules. Consequently, we believe that the lowest VOC content limit should remain as proposed because it meets the BACM requirement for being reliably implementable. R307-304 represents BACM because it provides for a reliable control measure at the lowest reasonable applicability threshold.

DAQ-005-17 Page 3 VOC Emission Reduction The VOC content limits under new rule R307-304 will remain the same, but the applicability of the rule has been amended to be more stringent. The limits are as follows:

Solvent Cleaning Category VOC Limit (gram/Liter)

% Reduction

Coatings, adhesives and ink manufacturing 500 44 Electronic parts and components 500 44 General miscellaneous cleaning and solvent use 300 67 Medical devices and pharmaceutical

• Tools, equipment and machinery • General surface cleaning

800 600

11 33

Screening printing operations 500 44

Semiconductor tools, maintenance and equipment cleaning

800 11

Average 36 Average specific gravity for a typical VOC cleaning solvent = 900 grams/liter (EPA 453/R-06-001, September 2006) Emission Reduction = [control efficiency (CE) x rule effectiveness (RE)] x rule penetration (RP)

• CE = average reduction across industry sources (36%) • RE = rule effectiveness (80% default value) • RP = rule penetration is applied based on the RP matrix developed in the moderate PM2.5 SIP

where the RP is equal to 98% where a rule threshold is at least 2.7 tons per year Emission Reduction = [(36%) (80%)] (98%) = 28% Cost EPA’s 2006 guidance on industrial solvent cleaning estimates that annual costs for aqueous-based parts cleaning is $1,762 (in 2016 dollars). This cost does not account for any specialized equipment that may be necessary. Given the 28% VOC reduction, the cost per ton removed is $4.36 ($1,762/404 tons removed/year). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board propose new rule R307-304 and the amendments to R307-335 for public comment.

R307-335 January 19, 2017 Page 1 of 6 R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality. 1 R307-335. Degreasing [and Solvent Cleaning Operations]. 2 R307-335-1. Purpose. 3 The purpose of this rule is to limit volatile organic compound 4 (VOC) emission from degreasing [and solvent cleaning] operations. 5 6 R307-335-2. Applicability. 7 R307-335 applies to [all] degreasing [or solvent cleaning] 8 operations that use VOCs and that are located in [PM10 and PM2.5 9 nonattainment and maintenance plan areas as defined in 40 CFR 81.345 10 (July 1, 2011)]Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, or 11 Weber counties. 12 13 R307-335-3. Definitions. 14 The following additional definitions apply to R307-335: 15 "Batch open top vapor degreasing" means the batch process of 16 cleaning and removing grease and soils from metal surfaces by 17 condensing hot solvent vapor on the colder metal parts. 18 "Cold cleaning" means the batch process of cleaning and removing 19 soils from metal surfaces by spraying, brushing, flushing or immersing 20 while maintaining the solvent below its boiling point. 21 "Conveyorized degreasing" means the continuous process of 22 cleaning and removing greases and soils from metal surfaces by using 23 either cold or vaporized solvents. 24 ["Department of Defense military technical data" means a 25 specification that specifies design requirements, such as materials 26 to be used, how a requirement is to be achieved, or how an item is to 27 be fabricated or constructed.] 28 "Freeboard ratio" means the freeboard height (distance between 29 solvent line and top of container) divided by the width of the 30 degreaser. 31 ["Industrial solvent cleaning" means operations performed using 32 a liquid that contains any VOC, or combination of VOCs, which is used 33 to clean parts, tools, machinery, equipment and work areas. Cleaning 34 operations include, but are not limited to, spraying, wiping, 35 flushing, and purging.] 36 "Open top vapor degreaser" means the batch process of cleaning 37 and removing soils from metal surfaces by condensing low solvent vapor 38 on the colder metal parts. 39 ["Separation operation" means any process that separates a 40 mixture of compounds and solvents into two or more components. 41 Specific mechanisms include extraction, centrifugation, filtration, 42 and crystallization. 43 "Solvent metal cleaning" means the process of cleaning soils from 44 metal surfaces by cold cleaning, open top vapor degreasers, or 45

R307-335 January 19, 2017 Page 2 of 6 conveyorized degreasing.] 1 2 R307-335-4. Cold Cleaning Facilities. 3 No owner or operator shall operate a degreasing or solvent 4 cleaning operation unless conditions in R307-335-4(1) through (7) are 5 met. 6 (1) A cover shall be installed which shall remain closed except 7 during actual loading, unloading or handling of parts in cleaner. The 8 cover shall be designed so that it can be easily operated with one hand 9 if: 10 (a) The volatility of the solvent is greater than 2 kPa (15 mm 11 Hg or 0.3 psi) measured at 38 degrees C (100 degrees F), 12 (b) The solvent is agitated, or 13 (c) The solvent is heated. 14 (2) An internal draining rack for cleaned parts shall be 15 installed on which parts shall be drained until all dripping ceases. 16 If the volatility of the solvent is greater than 4.3 kPa (32 mm Hg at 17 38 degrees C (100 degrees F)), the drainage facility must be internal, 18 so that parts are enclosed under the cover while draining. The drainage 19 facility may be external for applications where an internal type cannot 20 fit into the cleaning system. 21 (3) Waste or used solvent shall be stored in covered containers. 22 (4) Tanks, containers and all associated equipment shall be 23 maintained in good operating condition, and leaks shall be repaired 24 immediately or the degreaser shall be shutdown. 25 (5) Written procedures for the operation and maintenance of the 26 degreasing or solvent cleaning equipment shall be permanently posted 27 in an accessible and conspicuous location near the equipment. 28 (6) If the solvent volatility is greater than 4.3 kPa (33 mm Hg 29 or 0.6 psi) measured at 38 degrees C (100 degrees F), or if solvent 30 is heated above 50 degrees C (120 degrees F), then one of the following 31 control devices shall be used: 32 (a) Freeboard that gives a freeboard ratio greater than 0.7; 33 (b) Water cover if the solvent is insoluble in and heavier than 34 water); or 35 (c) Other systems of equivalent control, such as a refrigerated 36 chiller or carbon adsorption. 37 (7) If used, the solvent spray shall be a solid fluid stream at 38 a pressure that does not cause excessive splashing and may not be a 39 fine, atomized or shower type spray. 40 41 R307-335-5. Open Top Vapor Degreasers. 42 Owners or operators of open top vapor degreasers shall, in 43 addition to meeting the requirements of R307-335-4(3), (4) and (5), 44 (1) Equip the vapor degreaser with a cover that can be opened 45

R307-335 January 19, 2017 Page 3 of 6 and closed without disturbing the vapor zone. The cover shall be 1 closed except when processing work loads through the degreaser; 2 (2) Install one of the following control devices: 3 (a) Equipment necessary to sustain: 4 (i) A freeboard ratio greater than or equal to 0.75, and 5 (ii) A powered cover if the degreaser opening is greater than 6 1 square meter (10.8 square feet), 7 (b) Refrigerated chiller, 8 (c) Enclosed design (cover or door opens only when the dry part 9 is actually entering or exiting the degreaser), 10 (d) Carbon adsorption system, with ventilation greater than or 11 equal to 15 cubic meters per minute per square meter (50 cubic feet 12 per minute per square foot) of air/vapor area when cover is open and 13 exhausting less than 25 parts per million of solvent averaged over one 14 complete adsorption cycle; 15 (3) Minimize solvent carryout by: 16 (a) Racking parts to allow complete drainage, 17 (b) Moving parts in and out of the degreaser at less than 3.3 18 meters per minute (11 feet per minute), 19 (c) Holding the parts in the vapor zone at least 30 seconds or 20 until condensation ceases, 21 (d) Tipping out any pool of solvent on the cleaned parts before 22 removal, and 23 (e) Allowing the parts to dry within the degreaser for at least 24 15 seconds or until visibly dry. 25 (4) Spray parts only in or below the vapor level; 26 (5) Not use ventilation fans near the degreaser opening, nor 27 provide exhaust ventilation exceeding 20 cubic meters per minute per 28 square meter (65 cubic feet per minute per square foot) in degreaser 29 open area, unless necessary to meet state and federal occupational, 30 health, and safety requirements. 31 (6) Not degrease porous or absorbent materials, such as cloth, 32 leather, wood or rope; 33 (7) Not allow work loads to occupy more than half of the 34 degreaser's open top area; 35 (8) Ensure that solvent is not visually detectable in water 36 exiting the water separator; 37 (9) Install safety switches on the following: 38 (a) Condenser flow switch and thermostat (shuts off sump heat 39 if condenser coolant is either not circulating or too warm); and 40 (b) Spray switch (shuts off spray pump if the vapor level drops 41 excessively, i.e., greater than 10 cm (4 inches). 42 (10) Open top vapor degreasers with an open area smaller than 43 one square meter (10.8 square feet) are exempt from R307-335-5(2)(b) 44 and (d). 45

R307-335 January 19, 2017 Page 4 of 6 1 R307-335-6. Conveyorized Degreasers. 2 Owners and operators of conveyorized degreasers shall, in 3 addition to meeting the requirements of R307-335-4(3), (4) and (5) and 4 R307-335-5(5): 5 (1) Install one of the following control devices for 6 conveyorized degreasers with an air/vapor interface equal to or 7 greater than two square meters (21.5 square feet): 8 (a) Refrigerated chiller; or 9 (b) Carbon adsorption system, with ventilation greater than or 10 equal to 15 cubic meters per minute per square meter (50 cubic feet 11 per minute per square foot) of air/vapor area when downtime covers are 12 open, and exhausting less than 25 parts per million of solvent, by 13 volume, averaged over a complete adsorption cycle. 14 (2) Equip the cleaner with equipment, such as a drying tunnel 15 or rotating (tumbling) basket, sufficient to prevent cleaned parts 16 from carrying out solvent liquid or vapor. 17 (3) Provide downtime covers for closing off the entrance and 18 exit during shutdown hours. Ensure that down-time cover is placed over 19 entrances and exits of conveyorized degreasers immediately after the 20 conveyor and exhaust are shut down and is removed just before they are 21 started up. 22 (4) Minimize carryout emissions by racking parts for best 23 drainage and maintaining the vertical conveyor speed at less than 3.3 24 meters per minute (11 feet per minute). 25 (5) Minimize openings: Entrances and exits should silhouette 26 work loads so that the average clearance (between parts and the edge 27 of the degreaser opening) is either less than 10 cm (4 inches) or less 28 than 10% of the width of the opening. 29 (6) Install safety switches on the following: 30 (a) Condenser flow switch and thermostat - shuts off sump heat 31 if coolant is either not circulating or too warm; 32 (b) Spray switch - shuts off spray pump or conveyor if the vapor 33 level drops excessively, i.e., greater than 10 cm or (4 inches); and 34 (c) Vapor level control thermostat - shuts off sump level if 35 vapor level rises too high. 36 (7) Ensure that solvent is not visibly detectable in the water 37 exiting the water separator. 38 39 [R307-335-7. Industrial Solvent Cleaning. 40 (1) Exemptions. The requirements of R307-335-7 do not apply to 41 aerospace, wood furniture, shipbuilding and repair, flat wood 42 paneling, large appliance, metal furniture, paper film and foil, 43 plastic parts, miscellaneous metal parts coatings and light autobody 44 and truck assembly coatings, flexible packaging, lithographic and 45

R307-335 January 19, 2017 Page 5 of 6 letterpress printing materials, fiberglass boat manufacturing 1 materials, and operations that are exclusively covered by Department 2 of Defense military technical data and performed by a Department of 3 Defense contractor and/or on site at installations owned and/or 4 operated by the United States Armed Forces. 5 (2) Operators of industrial solvent cleaning that emit 15 pounds 6 of VOCs or more per day from industrial solvent cleaning operations, 7 shall reduce VOC emissions from the use, handling, storage, and 8 disposal of cleaning solvents and shop towels by implementing the 9 following work practices: 10 (a) Covering open containers; and 11 (b) Storing used applicators and shop towels in closed fire 12 proof containers, and 13 (c) Limiting VOC emissions by either: 14 (i) Using solvents (excluding water and solvents exempt from the 15 definition of volatile organic compounds found in R307-101-2) with a 16 VOC limit in Table 1; or 17 (ii) Installing an emission control system designed to have an 18 overall capture and control efficiency of at least 85%. 19 20 TABLE 1 21 Solvent Cleaning VOC Limits 22 23 Solvent Cleaning Category VOC Limit (lb/gal) 24 Coatings, adhesives and ink manufacturing 4.2 25 Electronic parts and components 4.2 26 General miscellaneous cleaning 2.5 27 Medical devices and pharmaceutical 28 Tools, equipment and machinery 6.7 29 General surface cleaning 5.0 30 Screening printing operations 4.2 31 Semiconductor tools, maintenance and equipment 32 Cleaning 6.7 33 34 R307-335-8. Add-on Emission Control Systems Operations. 35 (1) Determination of overall capture and control efficiency 36 shall be determined using EPA approved methods, as follows. 37 (a) The capture efficiency of a VOC emission control system's 38 VOC collection device shall be determined according to EPA's 39 "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency," January 9, 1995 and 40 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, Methods 204-204F, as applicable. 41 (b) The control efficiency of a VOC emission control system's 42 VOC control device shall be determined using test methods in Appendices 43 A-1, A-6, and A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60, for measuring flow rates, total 44 gaseous organic concentrations, or emissions of exempt compounds, as 45

R307-335 January 19, 2017 Page 6 of 6 applicable. 1 (c) An alternative test method may be substituted for the 2 preceding test methods after review and approval by the EPA 3 Administrator. 4 (2) The owner or operator of a control system shall provide 5 documentation that the emission control system will attain the 6 requirements of R307-335-7(2)(c)(ii). 7 (3) The owner or operator shall maintain records of key system 8 parameters necessary to ensure compliance with R307-335-7. Key system 9 parameters may include, but are not limited to, temperature, pressure 10 and flow rates. Operator inspection schedule, monitoring, 11 recordkeeping, and key parameters shall be in accordance with the 12 manufacturer's recommendations, and as required to demonstrate 13 operations are providing continuous emission reduction from the source 14 during all periods that the operations cause emissions from the source. 15 (4) The owner or operator shall maintain for a minimum of two 16 years records of operating and maintenance sufficient to demonstrate 17 that the equipment is being operated and maintained in accordance with 18 the manufacturer recommendations.] 19 20 R307-335-[9]7. Recordkeeping. 21 The owner or operator shall maintain, for a minimum of two 22 years, appropriate records [of the solvent VOC content applied and the 23 physical characteristics that]to demonstrate compliance with 24 R307-335[-7(2)]. 25 26 KEY: air pollution, degreasing[, solvent cleaning] 27 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment:[December 1, 2014]2017 28 Notice of Continuation: February 1, 2012 29 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(1)(a) 30

R307-304 January 19, 2017 Page 1 of 3 R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality. 1 R307-304. Industrial Solvent Use. 2 R307-304-1. Purpose. 3 The purpose of R307-304 is to limit volatile organic compound 4 (VOC) emissions from industrial solvent cleaning operations and 5 general solvent usage. 6 7 R307-304-2. Applicability. 8 R307-304 applies to an owner or operator using 55 gallons or 9 more a year of VOC containing solvent products for solvent 10 cleaning operations and general solvent usage that are located in 11 Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah and Weber 12 counties. 13 14 R307-304-3. Definitions. 15

The following additional definitions apply to R307-304: 16 “General solvent usage” means the use of solvents containing 17

any VOC, or combinations of VOCs that are not otherwise used for 18 “industrial solvent cleaning.” 19

“Industrial solvent cleaning” means operations performed 20 using a liquid that contains any VOC, or combination of VOCs, 21 which is used to clean parts, tools, machinery, equipment and work 22 areas. Cleaning operations include, but are not limited to, 23 spraying, wiping, flushing, and purging. 24 25 R307-304-4. Exemptions. 26

(1) The requirements of R307-304 do not apply to the coating 27 operations that are regulated under R307-343 through R307-355. 28

(2) The following operations are exempt from the 29 requirements of R307-304: shipbuilding and repair and fiberglass 30 boat manufacturing materials. 31

(3) Operations that are exclusively covered by Department of 32 Defense military technical data and performed by a Department of 33 Defense contractor and/or on site at installations owned and/or 34 operated by the United States Armed Forces are exempt from the 35 requirements of R307-304. 36

(4) Janitorial cleaning, including graffiti removal, is 37 exempt from the requirements of R307-304. 38 39 R307-304-5. VOC Content Limits. 40

No owner or operator shall use solvent products with a VOC 41 content in excess of the amounts specified in Table 1, unless the 42 owner or operator uses an add-on control device as specified in 43 R307-304-7. 44

45

R307-304 January 19, 2017 Page 2 of 3

TABLE 1 1 2

Solvent Cleaning VOC Limits (excluding water and exempt solvents 3 from 4

the definition of volatile organic compounds found in R307-101-2) 5 6 Solvent Cleaning Category VOC Limit (lb/gal)(g/L) 7 8 Coatings, adhesives and ink manufacturing 4.2 500 9 Electronic parts and components 4.2 500 10 General miscellaneous cleaning and solvent use 2.5 300 11 Medical devices and pharmaceutical 12 Tools, equipment and machinery 6.7 800 13 General surface cleaning 5.0 600 14 Screening printing operations 4.2 500 15 Semiconductor tools, maintenance and equipment 16 cleaning 6.7 800 17 18 R307-304-6. Work Practices. 19 An owner or operator shall: 20

(1) cover open containers of solvent products; and 21 (2) store used applicators and shop towels in closed 22

fireproof containers. 23 24 R307-304-7. Add-on Emission Control Systems Operations. 25

(1) The add-on control device must have an emission control 26 system designed to have an overall capture and control efficiency 27 of at least 85%. Determination of overall capture and control 28 efficiency shall be determined using EPA approved methods, as 29 follows: 30 (a) The capture efficiency of a VOC emission control 31 system's VOC collection device shall be determined according to 32 EPA's "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency," January 9, 33 1995 and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, Methods 204-204F, as 34 applicable. 35 (b) The control efficiency of a VOC emission control 36 system's VOC control device shall be determined using test methods 37 in Appendices A-1, A-6, and A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60, for measuring 38 flow rates, total gaseous organic concentrations, or emissions of 39 exempt compounds, as applicable. 40 (c) An alternative test method may be substituted for the 41 preceding test methods after review and approval by the EPA 42 Administrator. 43 44 R307-304-8. Recordkeeping. 45

R307-304 January 19, 2017 Page 3 of 3 (1) The owner or operator shall maintain, for a minimum of 1 two years, records of the following: 2 (a) the VOC content of the solvent product applied; and 3 (b) if an add-on control device is used, key system 4 parameters necessary to ensure compliance with R307-304-7. Key 5 system parameters shall include, but are not limited to, 6 temperature, pressure, flow rates, and an inspection schedule. Key 7 inspection parameters shall be in accordance with the 8 manufacturer's recommendations, and as required to demonstrate 9 operations are providing continuous emission reduction from the 10 source during all periods that the operations cause emissions from 11 the source. 12 (2) Records shall be available to the director upon request. 13 14 KEY: air pollution, solvent cleaning, solvent use 15 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 2017 16 Notice of Continuation: 2017 17 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(1)(a) 18

ITEM 5

Informational Items

PM2.5 Serious State Implementation Plan Fact Sheet

Fact Sheet for Utah’s Serious Area PM2.5 SIP Development

PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas are classified as either Moderate or Serious areas. All areas are initially classified as Moderate. Areas will be reclassified as Serious if, as of their attainment date, they are unable to monitor attainment using the three most recent years of air quality data.

All three of Utah’s PM2.5 nonattainment areas were found to be exceeding the 24‐hour health standard as of their attainment date (December 31, 2015), and the EPA has proposed to reclassify each of the areas to Serious.

Utah’s PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

Once reclassified, the Clean Air Act will require a new SIP for each area. These Serious Area plans are to be “in addition to” the Moderate Area plans Utah has already submitted, but they will essentially build upon what has already been accomplished.

The new Serious Area plans are due to EPA at the end of 2017, and will differ from the Moderate Area plans in the following respects:

Include updated inventories of emissions, both a base year (2014) and an attainment year which must be identified in the plan and could be as early as 2019 or as late as 2024.

The air pollutants of concern are PM2.5 and all its precursors (SOx, NOx, VOC, and ammonia).

o DAQ will again evaluate whether it is appropriate to require emission controls at sources of ammonia. A similar analysis in the Moderate Area SIP concluded that it would not result in lower concentrations of PM2.5.

Application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). By contrast, the Moderate Area SIP had required Reasonably Available Controls (RACT).

o This applies to Area and Mobile Sources as well as to Point Sources.

o These two benchmarks (RACT and BACT) are very similar and are really separated only by the number of dollars feasibly spent to eliminate a ton of air pollution.

o Practically speaking, many of the control measures approved into the Moderate Area SIPs will be re‐evaluated, and will likely also meet the BACT criteria. In other instances however, existing control measures will need to be upgraded.

o Apart from the re‐evaluation of existing control measures, Utah will continue to look for sources of emissions that are still uncontrolled.

If it is impracticable to model attainment of the PM2.5 standard in 2019, Utah will have to request an extension of the attainment date. Should that be the case, the necessary level of controls would rise from BACT to what is called the Most Stringent Measures (MSM).

o MSM would achieve the most stringent emissions reductions from among those control measures which are either included in any SIP for any other NAAQS or that have been achieved in practice in any state, and that can feasibly be implemented in the nonattainment area.

o Even if the air quality model indicates that it is possible to attain the standard by 2019, sources in the nonattainment areas could still be required to apply MSM if, upon reaching the attainment date, the air monitoring data does not support a showing of attainment.

PM2.5 Serious State Implementation Plan Modeling

Update

Improvements in Modeling

Chris Pennell, Nancy Daher PhD

Progress• Utah‐funded

enhancements:– Snow chemistry– Geography

• Much more realistic• Better results!

HW

Salt Lake Cou

nty

CMAQ 4.7 (2014) CAMx 6.3 (2017)

HW

24‐hour PM2.5 Concentrations• Measured• Modeled (CAMx 6.3)

Enhanced Spatial

Resolution9x Horizontal

3x Vertical

4 km 1.33 km

Better Meteorology

• Univ. of Utah work funded by Utah

• Refinements:– Sunlight reflection off

snow– Great Salt Lake

• Accurate cold‐pools

observed

simulated

Satellite

Modeling Resources

Center for

HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING

In five years, we’ve increased:• Processing Power (12x)• Storage (15x)

Air Quality Simulation January 1st – 10th, 2011

A persistent temperature inversion sets in northern Utah

Air pollution is trapped in valley floors affecting 80% of Utah’s population

PM2.5 levels exceed federal standards

A strong storm cleans out the air

Utah Winter Fine Particulate Study

2017 Update

Utah Winter Fine Particulate Study 2017

NOAA Twin Otter Research Flights

https://esrl.noaa.gov/csd/groups/csd7/measurements/2017uwfps/

Photo: Ale Franchin

Scientific Goals

• Source and distribution of precursor gases and aerosols

• Major process leading to particulate matter

Variation with time of day

Variation with height above ground level

Role of Great Salt Lake in regional air quality

• Major aerosol components

Ammonium nitrate

Organic (carbon) aerosol

Chloride

Sulfates

AMSNH3

NOx, NOy

O3

I- TOF

CIMS

AerosolNH3

NOx, NOy

O3

I- TOF

CIMS

Measurement Instrument Investigators Institution

Aerosol Composition and Size Distributions

Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (AMS) & Particle Sizer

Ale FranchinAnn Middlebrook

NOAA

Acid GasesChemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer

Lexie GoldbergerJoel Thornton

University of Washington

Nitrogen oxides, ozoneCavity Ring-DownSpectrometer

Dorothy FibigerCarrie WomackErin McDuffie

NOAA

Ammonia Infrared QCL SpectrometerAlex MoravekJennifer Murphy

University of Toronto

UWFPS Twin Otter Team

NOx, NOy, O3: Carrie Womack, Erin

McDuffie, Dorothy Fibiger

Lead Engineer: Bill Dubé

Aerosol measurements:

Ale Franchin, Ann

Middlebrook

Acid Gases: Lexie

Goldberger, Joel

Thornton

Ammonia: Alex Moravek,

Jen Murphy

Pilots: JC Clark, Rob

MitchellAircraft Technical

Support: Rob Miletic

Probing Shallow Haze Layers with Aircraft

Image of inversion depth from February 2015, Sebastian Hoch, U. Utah

• Depth of the haze can be as little as 1000 feet

• You may see the twin otter flying very low over the city !

• Use frequent missed approaches at airfields around the region to

sample the vertical structure of these shallow layers

1200 feet

2100 feet

Flight Patterns

Salt LakeInternational

Logan

Salt LakeInternational

Ogden

Brigham City

Bolinder

South Valley

Provo

Spanish Fork

Research Flights to Date

Utah Arrival

January 15

5 Research Flights

January 16-1810 Research Flights

January 26-31

Particulate Matter Distributions, January 18

• To provide continuous measurements of chemistry and meteorology• To augment the aircraft observations

UWFPS Ground-based Observations

5 x Ground sites Remote Sensing Extensive metobservations

Sites for Ground-based Observations

2. Logan site: EPA trailer +USU

5. Lindon site: EPA BYUUDAQ

3. UU site: rooftop

4. DAQ Hawthorne site:UU, EPA

1. Smithfield site: USDA

5 x Main Ground sites

GC’s Org. N, S

Logan, Utah

Remote sensing:

Column NO2, HCHO

NOy

Trace gasPM properties

Trace gas

Remote sensing:

Ceilometer

-Filter collection

for speciated OA

-size distribution

Salt Lake Valley: Rooftop Measurements at University of UtahAtmospheric Sciences Building

Precursors, PM2.5

composition

Trace gas

Real time VOC

PM2.5 mass

HCHO

Example: Time Evolution of Size Distribution and PM2.5 Mass (University of Utah)

• Size distribution from ultrafine to coarse

• Accumulation overtime; growth in size

Dr. Gannet’s group UofU

PM2.5 mass concentration measured at UU.• Build-up rate ~ 10 ug/m3 per day• Strong diurnal variation

Dr. Baasandorj

Example Remote Sensing Data

• Time evolution of aerosol layer

• Depth: 500 – 800 m• Indication of PM

formation• Cloud cover, precip…

Very first ceilometer data in Utah Valley

Ceilometer

measurements

based on aerosol

backscattering

Valley Cold Pool

DAY

Met Observations to Study Transport Processes• Vertical wind profile• Aerosol (pollution) loading• Surface values of PM2.5 and Ozone

Parleys Canyon Exit

Hawthorne ElementarySLC

Landfill

UU

Up-Canyon Flows

Dr. Sebastian Hoch and Erik Crossman University of Utah

Surface and BeyondSnow Sampling:to study change in snow content

L. Valin

A. Hrdina U Toronto

Passive Ammonia Sampling Network

Participants of UWFPS

Summary• Most extensive study to date in this region.• State Legislature provided $ 130 K as a seed money.• Estimated cost > $ 2 million. In-kind contributions from

our federal and university partners.• Support for comprehensive analysis will be essential.

Questions ?

Photo: Ale Franchin

Air Toxics

Compliance Monitoring

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


Director

DAQA-885-16

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Air Quality Board FROM: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary DATE: December 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Air Toxics, Lead-Based Paint, and Asbestos (ATLAS) Section Compliance Activities –

November 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Asbestos Demolition/Renovation NESHAP Inspections 41

Asbestos AHERA Inspections 38

Asbestos State Rules Only Inspections 5

Asbestos Notifications Accepted 195

Asbestos Telephone Calls Answered 295

Asbestos Individuals Certifications Approved/Disapproved 62/0

Asbestos Company Certifications/Re-Certifications 1/7

Asbestos Alternate Work Practices Approved/Disapproved 16/0

Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Inspections 3

LBP Notifications Approved 0

LBP Telephone Calls Answered 17

LBP Letters Prepared and Mailed 13

LBP Courses Reviewed/Approved 0/0

LBP Course Audits 4

LBP Individual Certifications Approved/Disapproved 24/0

LBP Firm Certifications 13


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


DAQA-885-16 Page 2 Notices of Violation Issued 0

Compliance Advisories Issued 6

Warning Letters Issued 5

Settlement Agreements Finalized 2

Penalties Agreed to:

National Environmental Services Corporation $4,050.00

Autocraft Sales, Inc. $1,678.00

$5,728.00

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


Director

DAQA-005-17

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Air Quality Board FROM: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary DATE: January 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Air Toxics, Lead-Based Paint, and Asbestos (ATLAS) Section Compliance Activities –

December 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Asbestos Demolition/Renovation NESHAP Inspections 28

Asbestos AHERA Inspections 63

Asbestos State Rules Only Inspections 0

Asbestos Notifications Accepted 156

Asbestos Telephone Calls Answered 222

Asbestos Individuals Certifications Approved/Disapproved 87/0

Asbestos Company Certifications/Re-Certifications 2/21

Asbestos Alternate Work Practices Approved/Disapproved 8/0

Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Inspections 3

LBP Notifications Approved 0

LBP Telephone Calls Answered 12

LBP Letters Prepared and Mailed 7

LBP Courses Reviewed/Approved 0/0

LBP Course Audits 0

LBP Individual Certifications Approved/Disapproved 23/0

LBP Firm Certifications 12

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


DAQA-005-17 Page 2 Notices of Violation Issued 0

Compliance Advisories Issued 8

Warning Letters Issued 5

Settlement Agreements Finalized 1

Penalties Agreed to:

Regency Excavation $1,921.88

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


Director

DAQC-1714-16

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Air Quality Board FROM: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary DATE: December 14, 2016 SUBJECT: Compliance Activities – November 2016 _____________________________________________________________________________________

Annual Inspections Conducted:

Major .................................................................................................... 5 Synthetic Minor ................................................................................... 1 Minor ................................................................................................. 35

On-Site Stack Test Audits Conducted: ............................................................. 7 Stack Test Report Reviews: ............................................................................ 39 On-Site CEM Audits Conducted: ..................................................................... 0 Emission Reports Reviewed: ............................................................................ 7

Temporary Relocation Requests Reviewed & Approved: ................................ 7

Fugitive Dust Control Plans Reviewed & Accepted: .................................... 103 Open Burn Permits Issued ................................................................................ 0 Soil Remediation Report Reviews: ................................................................... 1 1Miscellaneous Inspections Conducted: .......................................................... 17 Complaints Received: ..................................................................................... 28


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


DAQC-1714-16 Page 2

Breakdown Reports Received: .......................................................................... 2 Compliance Actions Resulting From a Breakdown .......................................... 0 Warning Letters Issued: .................................................................................... 3 Notices of Violation Issued: .............................................................................. 0 Compliance Advisories Issued: ......................................................................... 2 Settlement Agreements Reached: ..................................................................... 1

Wilbur-Ellis Feed ............................................................................ $583.00 1Miscellaneous inspections include, e.g., surveillance, level I inspections, VOC inspections, complaints, on-site training, dust patrol, smoke patrol, open burning, etc.

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


Director

DAQC-018-17

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Air Quality Board FROM: Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary DATE: January 9, 2017 SUBJECT: Compliance Activities – December 2016 _____________________________________________________________________________________

Annual Inspections Conducted:

Major ................................................................................... 2 Synthetic Minor 2 Minor ................................................................................. 19

On-Site Stack Test Audits Conducted: ............................................................. 3 Stack Test Report Reviews: ............................................................................ 44 On-Site CEM Audits Conducted: ..................................................................... 0 Emission Reports Reviewed: ............................................................................ 3

Temporary Relocation Requests Reviewed & Approved: ................................ 5

Fugitive Dust Control Plans Reviewed & Accepted: ...................................... 91 Soil Remediation Report Reviews: ................................................................... 3 1Miscellaneous Inspections Conducted: ............................................................ 8 Complaints Received: ..................................................................................... 22 Breakdown Reports Received: .......................................................................... 2


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


DAQC-018-17 Page 2

Compliance Actions Resulting From a Breakdown .......................................... 0 Warning Letters Issued: .................................................................................... 1 Notices of Violation Issued: .............................................................................. 0 Compliance Advisories Issued: ......................................................................... 2 Settlement Agreements Reached: ..................................................................... 1

Quinex Energy Corporation ................................................................. $718

1Miscellaneous 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

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

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 27 28 29 30 31

PM2.

5 (u

g/m

3)

Days

Utah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data October 2016Bountiful Brigham City Erda Hawthorne

Hurricane Lindon Magna North Provo

Ogden #2 Rose Park Smithfield Spanish Fork

24-hr Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3

Exceedence Value is 35 ug/m3


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

PM2.5 (ug/m

3)

Days

Utah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data November 2016BountifulBrigham CityErdaHawthorne

HurricaneLindonMagnaNorth Provo

Ogden #2Rose ParkSmithfieldSpanish Fork




0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

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 27 28 29 30 31

PM2.

5 (u

g/m

3)

Days

Utah 24-Hr PM2.5 Data December 2016Bountiful Brigham City Erda Hawthorne

Hurricane Lindon Magna North Provo

Ogden #2 Rose Park Smithfield Spanish Fork




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

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 29 30

PM10

(ug/

m3)

Days

Utah 24-hr PM10 Data September 2016Bountiful Hawthorne Herriman #3

Hurricane Lindon Magna

North Provo Ogden Smithfield

24-hr Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3

Exceedance Value is 150 ug/m3


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031

PM10 (ug/m

3)

Days

Utah 24-hr PM10Data October 2016BountifulHawthorneHerriman #3

HurricaneLindonMagna

North ProvoOgdenSmithfield




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

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 29 30

PM10

(ug/

m3)

Days

Utah 24-hr PM10 Data November 2016Bountiful Hawthorne Herriman #3

Hurricane Lindon Magna

North Provo Ogden Smithfield




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031

PM10 (ug/m

3)

Days

Utah 24-hr PM10Data December 2016BountifulHawthorneHerriman #3

HurricaneLindonMagna

North ProvoOgdenSmithfield



12.314.0

16.217.1 17.6

20.7

19.0

19.9 21.2

18.219.8

20.7

18.4

21.9

25.0

19.8

5.3

8.2

18.2

20.2

11.8

9.6

13.0

7.2

13.1

15.0

9.6

3.0 3.3

4.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30

Daily M

axim

um Tem

perature (0C) (H

awthorne

)

Ozone

(ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature November 2016Brigham City Bountiful Copperview Erda Herriman #3Harrisville Hawthorne Ogden #2 Exceed. TM

13.7

11.3 11.9

13.013.0

15.015.8

14.4 14.1

15.0

14.0 13.7

14.7

14.214.4 13.8

6.5

3.3

6.48.1

5.7

8.3

6.44.6

3.4

4.55.4

2.2

3.2

0.1

‐10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30

Daily M

axim

um Tem

perature (0C) (R

oosevelt)

Ozone

(ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature November 2016Price #2 Roosevelt Vernal Exceed. TM

6.910.0

11.9

13.614.414.5

14.5

15.3 15.415.3

15.614.7

13.915.2

16.9

8.2

1.42.9

9.3

14.2

7.25.2

5.9

4.05.8

7.8

3.60.6

0.20.2

‐10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30

Daily M

axim

um Tem

perature (0C) (Smith

field)

Ozone

(ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature November 2016Smithfield Exceed. TM

12.114.0

15.317.1

19.2

21.4

19.7

20.020.8

18.4

21.8

18.9

18.4

21.8

24.5

17.3

3.4

7.6

18.117.3

9.2 9.0

11.3

6.6

14.2 14.6

6.9

1.2

3.0

2.80.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30

Daily M

axim

um Tem

perature (0C) (N

orth Provo)

Ozone

(ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature November 2016North Provo Spanish Fork Exceed. TM

18.2

20.4

23.0 23.0

21.9 22.2

23.024.8

23.822.5 22.0

20.220.7

21.521.4

21.8

9.4

14.5

19.219.5

12.7

13.8 14.2

12.5

16.3

18.0

8.6

6.2

8.1

7.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30

Daily M

axim

um Tem

perature (

0 C) (Hurric

ane)

Ozone

(ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature November 2016Hurricane Exceed. TM

2.9

3.03.3

7.6

8.1

0.8

‐0.9

0.3

9.8 11.1

7.6 6.8

5.0

4.1

16.5

12.0

‐1.6‐2.0 0.0

4.8

3.1 2.4

7.5

10.8

0.1‐0.2

‐0.7

4.0

2.2

‐1.3‐2.8

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (

0 C)

(Haw

thor

ne)

Ozo

ne (p

pm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature December 2016

Brigham City Bountiful Copperview Erda Herriman #3Harrisville Hawthorne Ogden #2 Exceed. TM

0.5 0.8

‐0.2

1.52.7

‐1.8 ‐2.0

‐4.6

‐1.8

0.0

5.7

8.5

1.5 1.4

4.5 4.2

‐0.5

‐5.1 ‐4.2

0.21.4

‐0.8‐1.7

2.8

0.4

‐2.3

‐4.8

0.5

‐1.2

‐3.3

‐1.6

‐20.0

‐10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (0 C

) (R

oose

velt)

Ozo

ne (

ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature December 2016Price #2 Roosevelt Vernal Exceed. TM

‐0.1

‐0.6 ‐0.7

4.5

2.8

‐5.1‐5.2

‐7.0

1.1

5.3

2.2

2.4

‐0.4 ‐1.5

6.2

6.9

‐7.0‐7.2

‐4.1

0.8 0.4

‐2.3

0.2

1.0

‐3.2

‐6.5

‐3.8

0.0

‐8.1 ‐8.2

‐6.6

‐20.0

‐10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (0 C

) (S

mith

field

)

Ozo

ne (

ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature December 2016Smithfield Exceed. TM

1.1

3.3

0.5

3.4

6.3

1.6

‐0.9

1.9

10.310.0

6.6

7.2

3.73.2

13.9

10.2

‐1.8

‐5.0

‐1.3

5.1

2.00.6

4.5

7.4

‐0.3‐1.0

‐2.8

2.8

0.6

2.1

‐6.1

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (

0 C)

(Nor

th P

rovo

)

Ozo

ne (

ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature December 2016North Provo Spanish Fork Exceed. TM

8.3

5.9

8.4

11.712.6

11.6

7.6

10.410.1

13.614.5

14.2 13.813.8

16.5

13.9

2.82.6

6.7

10.3

7.2 7.0

9.6 10.6

3.6 4.0

7.8 8.8

12.110.2

7.9

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (

0 C)

(Hur

rican

e)

Ozo

ne (

ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature December 2016Hurricane Exceed. TM

-0.5

0.3

0.5

7.6

-3.1

-6.4 -5.8

13.3 13.4

9.6

8.5

3.13.9

2.8

1.0

-0.5

1.7

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (

OC

) (H

awth

orne

)

Ozo

ne (p

pm)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2017

Brigham City Bountiful Erda Herriman #3 HarrisvilleHawthorne Ogden #2 Exceed. TM

‐1.1

2.2

‐1.9

‐1.5‐2.2

‐14.7 ‐14.3

‐9.0

1.8

1.2

2.9

‐0.2 0.1

1.0

‐0.5‐2.2

‐7.4

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (

OC

) (R

oose

velt)

Ozo

ne (

ppm

)

Days


Price #2 Roosevelt Vernal #4 Exceed. TM

-7.6

-4.8

-5.7

-2.8

-11.4

-22.9

-15.5

2.8

6.6

4.13.0

-2.0

-5.7 -5.8

-10.6

-12.9 -12.9

-25.0

-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (

OC

) (S

mith

field

)

Ozo

ne (p

pm)

Days


Smithfield Exceed. TM

3.1 2.9

1.4

4.9

-3.4

-11.5

-3.6

11.110.0

7.07.7

1.61.7

1.3

-1.0 -0.7-0.5

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re

(OC

) (N

orth

Pro

vo)

Ozo

ne (p

pm)

Days


North Provo Spanish Fork Exceed. TM

9.9

8.9

9.2

7.78.2

0.4

4.6

11.812.8

12.6

13.7

9.0

11.8

9.57.9

7.19.2

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

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 29 30 31

Dai

ly M

axim

um T

empe

ratu

re (

OC

) (H

urric

ane)

Ozo

ne (

ppm

)

Days

Highest 8-hr Ozone Concentration & Daily Maximum Temperature January 2017Hurricane Exceed. TM

state of utah · erin mendenhall robert paine iii michael smith william c. stringer karma m....

Documents