January 28, 2013 Bryce Bird, Director Martin D.

Gray, Manager New Source Review Section Camron Harry, Engineer Utah Division of Air Quality PO Box 144820 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820 Via: Hand Delivery Re: Intent to Approve: Holly Corporation (Holly Refining & Marketing Company, LLC) Heavy Crude Processing Project (Project Number: N10123-0041; DAQE-IN101230041-12) Dear Mr. Bird, Mr. Gray and Ms. Harry, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the November 28, 2012 Intent to Approve: Holly Corporation (Holly Refining & Marketing Company) Heavy Crude Processing Project (Project Number: N10123-0041; DAQE-IN101230041-12) and the documents that purport to support that Intent to Approve (we refer to the projects as the “Holly Expansion,” the Intent to Approve/Proposed Approval Order as “ITA” and the company as “Holly Refining”) issued by the Utah Division of Air Quality and Executive Secretary of the Air Quality Board and/or the Director of the Division of Air Quality (collectively “Executive Secretary”). We submit these comments on behalf of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Friends of Great Salt Lake and Western Resource Advocates (collectively “Utah Physicians”). Before reaching our substantive comments, we would like to express our appreciation of your willingness to extent the public comment period to allow for more meaningful review of the Holly Expansion. We also value your agency’s readiness to provide us with documents relevant to the project as well as answer our questions concerning both the planned facility expansion and your review of that expansion. Finally, we are grateful for the public hearing you held to provide a forum for public concern and comment regarding the Holly Expansion. As these comments make clear, we are deeply troubled by an insufficiently rigorous analysis of the factors relevant to the Holly Expansion permitting decision, as well as a failure to implement adequate measures to control air pollution from the Holly Refining facility. In order to address the legal inadequacies of the ITA, we turn first to an analysis of the significant adverse health and environmental impacts from the air pollutants emitted by refineries in general

and the Holly Refining facility specifically. We then address several procedural matters and the many shortcomings of the ITA as well as the purported analysis that supports the proposed decision. Importantly, we have attached, and hereby incorporate by reference, technical comments drafted on behalf of Utah Physicians. Exhibit “1”, attached, with further exhibits. These technical comments identify many significant shortcomings apparent in the ITA, the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted by Holly Refining to support what the company contends should be the terms and conditions of an air quality permit authorizing the Holly Expansion and other documents that purport to support the NOI and, presumably, the ITA. The technical comments establish, for each of the several reasons identified therein, that the proposed decision reflected in the ITA is contrary to the Clean Air Act and the Utah Air Conservation Act, is not supported adequately by the record, is illegal and is arbitrary and capricious.1 Finally, Utah Physicians hereby incorporates by reference into its comments any and all comments submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on Holly Expansion and the ITA. As such, Utah Physicians has met it burden to sufficiently raise, for the purposes of putting the Executive Secretary on notice as to the legal deficiencies of his permitting process and decision, any issues raised by EPA in that agency’s comments. We also hereby attach and incorporate by reference the comments submitted by Mark J. Hall on this same matter. Exhibit 9, attached. Health and Environmental Impacts of Air Pollution Utah Physicians Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) is the largest community service organization of health professionals in the state of Utah. UPHE and its members are health professionals, toxicologists, biologists, chemists and engineers dedicated to protecting the health and well-being of the citizens of Utah. We are troubled by the health risks that currently exist in our environment and we seek to give policy makers a better understanding of how environmental degradation, and air pollution in particular, adversely affects our own health, and the health of our patients and families. In carrying out its mission, UPHE has met with former Governor John Huntsman Jr., Gov. Gary Herbert, the Utah Air Quality Board, the Utah Public Service Commission, several local mayors, local business leaders, media and concerned citizens. We have repeatedly submitted comments to state and federal regulators and decision makers relative to specific projects and rule making that impact and influence the condition of Utah’s environment and the health of the people living here.


Importantly, to the extent that these attached comments reference “UDEQ-DAQ,” they refer collectively to the Utah Division of Air Quality and Executive Secretary of the Air Quality Board and/or the Director of the Division of Air Quality.

UPHE and its members have a strong legal interest in the Holly Expansion and the ITA based on the Clean Air Act and Utah Air Conservation Act’s protection of public health and the environment. UPHE members, their families and their patients are harmed by air pollution, including that pollution currently emitted and that will be emitted from the Holly Refining facility. They are harmed because air pollution adversely affects their health, quality of life, recreational pursuits and aesthetic sense. Therefore, UPHE and its members have a protectable legal interest in ensuring that the Executive Secretary regulates Holly Refinery to the maximum extent required by the Clean Air Act and the Utah Air Conservation Act and that emissions, including fugitive emissions, from the facility are properly modeled, monitored, reported, recorded, quantified, characterized and minimized as required by the law. FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake has, as its mission, the preservation and protection of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem. The organization seeks to increase public awareness and appreciation of the Lake through education, research, and advocacy. FRIENDS has long been involved in the protection and restoration of Great Salt Lake and its ecosystems, advocating for ways in which the public may enjoy these resources by fishing, birdwatching, boating, photographing, hiking and studying these natural areas. Importantly, The Clean Air Act identifies two types of national ambient air quality standards. Primary standards provide public health protection, including the health of sensitive populations such as children, the elderly and asthmatics. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Id. at § 7409(b)(2). Therefore, FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake, its staff and its members have a strong legal interest in the Holly expansion and the ITA based on the Clean Air Act and Utah Air Conservation Act’s protection of public health as well as the environment, including water quality in Great Salt Lake, the well-being of the birds and other wildlife that inhabit the Lake and the habitat on which they rely. FRIENDS, its staff and its members also have a legal interest in the Clean Air Act’s protection of visibility – without which members cannot undertake bird watching or enjoy the stunning views of Great Salt Lake. It goes without saying that emissions from Holly do and will adversely impact Great Salt Lake as well as the health of the people who recreate there. Therefore, FRIENDS, its staff and its members have a protectable legal interest in ensuring that the Executive Secretary regulates Holly Refinery to the maximum extent required by the Clean Air Act and the Utah Air Conservation Act and that emissions, including fugitive emissions, from the facility are properly modeled, monitored, reported, recorded, quantified, characterized and minimized as required by the law. UPHE and FRIENDS have a protected legal interest and standing sufficient to make these comments and to administratively and judicially appeal any adverse decision on the Holly Expansion on behalf of the organizations themselves and their members. This is because: 1) their members have standing to comment and sue in their own right; 2) the interests at stake are germane to purposes of the organizations; and 3) neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested requires the organizations’ members to participate directly in the lawsuit. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); see e.g. Declaration of Lynn de Freitas, Exhibit “10” attached. The members of UPHE and FRIENDS have standing to

sue in their own right because they will have suffered an injury in fact, there will be a causal connection between their injury and the conduct of the Executive Secretary, and a favorable decision on the merits will likely redress the injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The Air Pollution Consequences of Utah’s Refineries According to official inventory figures reported to the Executive Secretary, the five oil refineries in North Salt Lake and South Davis County represent the second largest source of industrial pollution along the Wasatch Front, after the Kennecott mining operation. However, there is evidence that the refineries actually emit many times the amount of pollution, volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in particular, than is reported to the Executive Secretary. On April 22, 2010 the Associated Press reported that, “[t]he nation’s oil and chemical plants are spewing a lot more pollution than they report to the Environmental Protection Agency – and the EPA knows it. Records, scientific studies and interviews suggest pollution from petrochemical plants is at least 10 times greater than what is reported to the government and the public.” The report went on to explain that oil refineries vastly underreport leaks from valves to federal and state regulators and that these unreported fugitive emissions from oil refineries add millions of pounds of harmful pollutants to the atmosphere each year, including over 80 million pounds of VOCs and over 15 million pounds of toxic HAPs. These emissions could be eliminated if refineries complied with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. One of the sources for the Associated Press story was an EPA internal memo from July 27, 2007, which stated that, “emissions of VOCs from refineries are significantly higher (10 to 20 times) than amounts estimated using standard techniques.” There is no reason to believe that the refineries in Utah are also not seriously underestimating their emissions. While it is well accepted that the refineries are a significant air pollution source, it is very likely they are, in fact, a much larger contributor to Wasatch Front air pollution than is acknowledged by state regulators. Year after year, the major urban areas on the west side of the Wasatch Mountains consistently rank in the top ten worst cities in the country for acute spikes in air pollution, and the American Lung Association gives many of these cities the grade of “F” for both particulate matter (PM) and ozone. Three of the last four winters have been plagued by recurrent and prolonged inversion episodes. This year the northern counties of Utah have had the highest levels of PM2.5 in the country on several days, including one day where the PM2.5 levels reached the dangerous value of 140 μg/m3 – exceeding the 35 μg/m3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by 400%. Even worse, during dust storms in the last few years Salt Lake County has seen PM2.5 values apparently in excess of the maximum ability of the monitoring stations to calculate the concentrations, about 250 ug/m3. Salt Lake County, home to more than 1 million people, including 300,000 children under the age of 18, continues to experience repeated episodes of severe PM pollution. In 2009, country residents were exposed to pollution levels above the 24-hour NAAQS on 19 days. The maximum 24-hour average concentration for 2009 was 74.1 μg/m3, more than double the health4

based standard of 35 μg/m3. Similarly, in 2010, Salt Lake County residents were exposed to pollution levels above the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for a total of 16 days and a maximum 24-hour average concentration of 76.4 μg/m3, again, more than twice the relevant standard. Moreover, Salt Lake County is currently failing to meet the NAAQS for SO2. Salt Lake and Utah counties are non-attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. All the counties along the Wasatch Front, including Salt Lake and Davis, are in non-attainment status for PM2.5. Finally, the Utah governor has requested that EPA declare Salt Lake, Davis and part of Weber County as not meeting the 8-hour ground level NAAQS for ozone, or smog. Although this request was recently recalled, it shows that levels of ozone pollution in the valley hover close to the NAAQS. The violation of ozone, PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 standards is particularly relevant to refinery emissions because these facilities produce PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 directly and emit precursors to PM10, PM2.5 and ozone. Human Health Impacts of Air Pollution Medical research in the last ten years clearly indicates that, certainly for PM2.5, and likely also for ozone, there is no “safe level” of exposure. Even levels previously thought to be benign we now know are not. There is no threshold below which there is no health effect and all persons are adversely affected, regardless of age and/or overall state of health. Most Utahns are exposed to high levels of ozone in the summer and PM2.5 in the winter, as well as PM10 and SO2 year-round, meaning that a large percentage of Utah’s population is exposed repeatedly to unhealthy levels of pollution throughout the year. There is now evidence that exposure to ozone and PM2.5 can act synergistically, increasing the adverse health effects from these air pollutants. 1. PM2.5 air pollution at the levels experienced by residents of the northern counties of Utah has the approximately same type and magnitude of biologic effect as living with an active smoker. E.g. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. That should not be a surprise, because most of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke are also found in fine particulate matter. As with smoking, particulate matter pollution and ozone cause increased systemic oxidative stress leading to pathologic vascular changes, including progression of atherosclerotic plaques to vulnerable forms, prothrombotic states, endothelial dysfunction and altered autonomic nervous system control. 2. For the last several years, the research-based conventional wisdom has been that with each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 long-term average, there is an increase in community mortality rate of about 10%. 3. New research draws an even stronger correlation, i.e. a mortality rate of 14% for each 10 μg/m3 increase. 4. The elderly and those with existing morbidities are particularly vulnerable to air pollution consequences. Since the late 1980s, more than 150 epidemiological studies have reported associations between daily changes in particulate air pollution and respiratory and cardiovascular mortality, hospitalizations and other related health endpoints. 5; 71 Fed. Reg. at 61150-61162. These adverse effects are seen at low and “common” concentrations of particulate pollution. A Dutch study demonstrated risks for cardiopulmonary mortality even at what are considered

“background” levels of particulate pollution. 6. A study done in our own area demonstrated that each short-term 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with an increase in the risk of acute ischemic coronary artery events (unstable angina and myocardial infarction) of 4.5%. 7. Not only does PM2.5 result in an increase in death from cardiovascular causes, but there is also an increased risk for non-fatal events. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61151-52. For each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 there is a 24% increase in risk of a cardiovascular event and a 76% increase in the risk of death from that event. There is also an increased risk of cerebrovascular events. 8, 9, 10. It should be noted that this rate of increase approaches that demonstrated from a chronic active smoking habit. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61157. Regrettably, some Utah lawmakers and agency staff often dismiss the significance of our PM2.5 spikes with the observation that our annual average fine particulate matter concentrations are not extraordinarily high. This is false comfort and reflects a poor understanding of the existing research. Many medical studies show that impacts from pollution are seen very quickly and can last long after the air has cleared. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61164. For example, within as little as 30 minutes, exposure to particulate matter is associated with increases in blood pressure, followed within hours by increased rates of heart attacks and strokes. Community mortality rates stay elevated for 30 days after a spike in PM10 even if the episode lasts less than 24 hours. 11. Within one hour, exposure to traffic pollution, including particulate matter, is associated with increased rates of heart attacks as much as 300% compared to non-exposed individuals. 12. Other studies show rates of strokes and heart attacks in the community increase within hours after spikes in PM10. 13. Quoting from the American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement published in May 2010: The overall evidence from time-series analyses conducted worldwide since publication of the first AHA statement confirms the existence of a small, yet consistent association between increased mortality and short-term elevations in PM10 and PM2.5 approximately equal to a 0.4% to 1.0% increase in daily mortality (and cardiovascular death specifically) due to a 10 μg/m3 elevation in PM2.5 during the preceding 1 to 5 days. Confirming the strong correlation between modest, short term spikes in PM and serious health consequences are three new studies that showed spikes of as little as one day in PM10 were associated with higher rates of heart attacks, 14, daily spikes of either PM10 or PM2.5 were associated with significant increases in emergency room visits for hypertensives crisis, 15, and less than 24 hours of a spike in PM2.5 of 15-40 μg/m3 increased rates of strokes 34%, with the peak increase occurring within 12 hours. 16. Not only have numerous studies shown that there is no safe level of PM exposure, but a recent landmark study published in the flagship journal of the AHA, using data from over 1 million people, demonstrated that when cardiac mortality, the signature air pollution health outcome, was plotted against particulate matter from air pollution, first and second-hand cigarette smoke, all three sources showed a steep curve at low doses. In other words, per unit dose of exposure, low levels of PM caused higher rates of mortality. 17. Long-term exposure to particulate matter air pollution is associated with an average rise in blood pressure for populations chronically exposed. Average blood pressure was found to rise 1.7 mmHg for an

increase of 2.4 μg/m3 in PM2.5. A similar association was found with the coarser PM10. The rise was found in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. 18. Chronic exposure to particulate matter has been shown to increase the thickening of arterial walls, which is a known end result of higher blood pressure. A chronic increase in PM10 of 5.2 μg/m3 is associated with a 5% increase in the intima-media thickness of the carotid artery, which is one of many end results of the biologic process described above. 19. Another study showed a remarkable correlation between chronic exposure to PM2.5 and narrowing in the tiny arteries in the back of the eye. Chronic exposure to 3 μg/m3 of PM2.5 (one fifth of the NAAQS) was associated with narrowing equivalent to seven years of aging. 20. These finding are especially significant because they demonstrate community-wide effects, acceleration of the aging process, and impairing the health of everyone exposed, not just a susceptible population. Based on extrapolations from numerous studies and the aforementioned AHA scientific statement, UPHE estimates that between 1,400 and 2,000 premature deaths occur every year in Utah from PM2.5. The AHA has estimated that residents of most cities in the United States lose between one and three years of life expectancy due to fine particulate air pollution. 21. Furthermore, studies show that even small reductions in air pollution improve community life expectancy. 22. There is a remarkable correlation between rates of deep vein thrombosis and increased levels of PM10, beginning at very modest levels. 23. A likely mechanism of this clinical outcome is revealed by studies that show PM10 causes excessive platelet aggregation in diabetics. 24. Throughout the age spectrum, from infants to the elderly, air pollution has been shown to impair brain function. Oxidative stress (OS) appears to be the biological genesis of numerous diseases processes and a major contributor to the aging phenomenon. OS is the mechanism behind the role of particulate matter and carbon monoxide pollution in central nervous system dysfunction, neuroinflammation, cortical stress, cognitive impairment and memory loss in children and neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. 25, 26. Numerous studies show such specific outcomes as impaired intellect, and penetration of particle matter and Alzheimer type protein deposition among children who grow up breathing more particulate air pollution. 27, 28, 29. Human volunteers exposed to typical urban levels of diesel exhaust demonstrate brain cortical stress measured by EEG. 30. Children exposed to more air pollution or whose mothers were more exposed during pregnancy show an IQ loss of five to nine points. 31, 32, 33. Rates of neurobehavioral disorders correlate with NOx and PM10 levels. 34. Children exposed to more vehicle pollution show a doubling in rates of autism. 35. Older people show accelerated cognitive decline if chronically exposed to more traffic generated air pollution. 36, 37. A very recent landmark study showed that chronic exposure to 10 μg/m3 of either PM2.5 or PM2.5-PM10 was associated with faster cognitive decline in older women, equivalent to about two years of aging. 38.


Because of strong evidence that particulate air pollution's neurotoxicity is related to attached metals, 39, 40, 41, the oil refineries contribution to Wasatch Front pollution takes on additional public health significance. It is intuitive that short-term exposure to fine particulate matter would have adverse impacts on the pulmonary system. 71 Fed. Reg. at 61145 & 61152. Indeed, numerous studies show increased rates of asthma and virtually all other respiratory diseases including lung cancer where short-term PM2.5 is higher. Id. at 61154-61155 & 61157. Equally disturbing are less obvious outcomes. Even young healthy people demonstrate rapid decrease in lung function from brief exposure to particulate matter that persists for several days after the exposure has ended. Id. at 61152, 61154 & 61169; 42, 43. Again, this contradicts any comfort derived from the perspective that Utah’s fine particulate matter air pollution problem is episodic and therefore less of a problem. An unusually large proportion of Utah’s population is young. Census-based estimates indicate that nearly a third of Utah residents are under age 18 and one of every 10 residents is under age five, figures approximately 40 percent higher than the national average. This means that Utah’s unhealthy levels of air pollution constitute a public health crisis that endangers its most vulnerable populations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 58690. The physiology of children differs from that in adults in many important ways, causing them to be affected more profoundly by air pollution than adults. A child has a higher metabolic rate, meaning their oxygen demand is higher, they breathe faster and have higher heart rates and blood flows on a per weight basis than an adult. Combined with their rapidly growing organ size and function, this physiologic difference makes them more susceptible to the adverse influence of air pollution. Children who breathe more air pollution can experience a permanent stunting of their lung growth. Just as chronic exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke causes a permanent loss of lung function growth in children, so does long-term exposure to PM2.5 air pollution. 44,45; 71 Fed. Reg. at 61154, 61172; see also id. at 61169. Not only does short-term exposure to PM2.5 air pollution permanently impair the exercise capacity of individuals so affected, 46, few physiologic outcomes have more of an ultimate impact on longevity than lung function. Various forms of cancer such as lung, cervical, stomach and brain cancer show increased rates with higher concentrations of community particulate matter. 47, 48; 71 Fed. Reg. at 61152. Each 10 μg/m3 increase in long term PM2.5 concentration is associated with a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. 49. Especially troubling are the numerous studies that show increases in childhood leukemia among more exposed populations, 50, 51, and a significant association between nitrogen oxide concentrations and rates of breast cancer. 52. The precipitation of oxidative stress, as mentioned above, is the likely explanation for new studies that show higher rates of numerous other, seemingly unrelated diseases, among populations subjected to more air pollution; such as type II diabetes, obesity, arthritis, and lupus. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57. Air pollution, especially particulate matter, may have its largest impact on public health through its effect on the human embryo. A study in laboratory animals demonstrated a change in morphology of the placenta that compromised blood flow to the fetus. 58, 46. Exposure of

pregnant women to various components of traffic-related air pollution, including PM10, results in intrauterine growth retardation, including smaller head size, increased rates of spontaneous abortions, premature births and low birth weight syndrome. Genetic damage and epigenetic changes can have virtually identical consequences and both can be passed on to subsequence generations. Newborn babies whose mothers are exposed to more air pollution show increases in both, and the life-long disease burden that results can include higher rates of metabolic disorders, reactive airway disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and all the diseases consequent to immuno-suppression. Epigenetic changes can be seen within three days after exposure to PM2.5 and perhaps even as soon as minutes after exposure. 59-66. There is strong evidence for a persistence of epigenetic changes from one generation to another. Medical science is now learning that the air pollution today can adversely affect the health of future generations. For example, episodic air pollution, the type that occurs along the Wasatch Front, has been shown to be associated with fragmentation of DNA in human sperm. 67. The common assumption about particulate air pollution has been that internalizing the particles and their adsorbed compounds like heavy metals occurs through the lungs. Smaller particles are assumed more dangerous because they can penetrate more deeply into the lungs and are cleared by the lung cilia less readily. However, there is new evidence to suggest that atmospheric particulate matter is also swallowed, leading to toxicity of internal organs and increased carcinogenic risk. This is of particular relevance for increasing childhood risk. 68. That all these above mentioned adverse health outcomes can be the result of pregnant women smoking is easy for physicians and the lay public alike to comprehend and the sight of a pregnant woman smoking is now repulsive to society at large. It is a new thought process, but equally scientifically based, to think that the same thing happens when a pregnant woman has to breathe particulate air pollution. Again, regarding impact on the human embryo there appears to be no safe threshold of exposure. As a manifestation of the evidence for severe health affects from air pollution, virtually every major medical organization in the United States has called for stricter NAAQS for annual PM2.5 and for ozone, including the American Medical Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Public Health Assoc., and the National Association of Local Boards of Health, and the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (considered the nation's premier air pollution experts). Unique Toxicity of Refinery Emissions While the oil refineries contribute to the overall air pollution burden along the Wasatch Front, their uniquely toxic emissions makes their health impact even greater, per unit dose of particulate emissions, than most other common sources of urban air pollution. Refinery pollution has high concentrations of HAPs including heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The only station that monitors HAPs on a continuous basis is near the oil refineries for good reason. Holly Refining’s NOI admits to an increase in HAPs emissions of over 9.4 tons/yr.

Many of the studies mentioned above identifying air pollution's association with diminished intelligence, chromosomal/epigenetic dysfunction and cancer measured specifically levels of PAHs and/or heavy metals. Furthermore, children living near petrochemical industries have higher PAH levels than adults, contributing to more DNA damage, and affecting a more vulnerable population. 69. Industrial based pollution has been shown to be more toxic to DNA than traffic based pollution. 70. In homes near refineries indoor air sampling has revealed higher levels of refinery air toxics than outdoors. The heavy metals vanadium and nickel were especially elevated in those homes. 71. Emission of HAPs is undoubtedly the reason why epidemiologic studies show that rates of leukemia are double in populations living in the vicinity of oil refineries. 72. Benzene is one of the primary HAPs in refinery emissions. The Department of Health and Human Services, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Toxicology Program, and the EPA have all determined that benzene is carcinogenic to humans. The American Cancer Society has stated that studies with pregnant animals show that breathing benzene has harmful effects on the developing fetus. These effects include low birth weight, delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage. Long-term exposure to benzene primarily harms the bone marrow resulting in anemia, low white blood cell count, and low platelet counts. 73. Exposure to benzene near the legally permissible limit is associated with sperm aneuploidy (wrong number of chromosomes). 74. Exposure to petrochemicals, specifically benzene, gasoline, and hydrogen sulfide is significantly associated with increased frequency of spontaneous abortion. 75. PAHs act as developmental and reproductive toxicants and fall into the broad category of “endocrine disruptors.” The Endocrine Society, physicians who specialize in endocrinology, issued a special scientific statement on endocrine disruptors in 2009 which included this statement: “Even infinitesimally low levels of exposure indeed, any level of exposure at all, may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, particularly if exposure occurs during a critical developmental window. Surprisingly, low doses may even exert more potent effects than higher doses.” The main finding of a new report, three years in the making, published March 14, 2012, by a team of twelve scientists who study hormone-altering chemicals was: Small doses can have big health effects and there are no safe doses for endocrine disruptors. 76. A recent article in the world’s most prestigious medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, made this statement: “Mutagenic effects theoretically can result from a single molecular DNA alteration. Regulatory prudence has led to the use of “one-hit models” for mutagenic end points, particularly cancer, in which every molecule of a carcinogen is presumed to pose a risk. The carcinogens of concern in crude oil are benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).” 77. Highlighting the toxicity of chemicals volatilized from oil, the authors went on to say, “Pregnant women should particularly avoid dermal contact with oil and should avoid areas with visible oil contamination or odors.” Adverse Effects of Air Pollution on Wildlife and the Environment Air pollution has significant direct and indirect adverse effects on wildlife. Generally, animals are exposed to air pollutants via three pathways: 1) inhalation of gases or small particles;

2) ingestion of particles suspended in food or water; and 3) absorption of gases through the skin. In general, only soft-bodied invertebrates, such as earthworms, or animals with thin, moist skin, such as amphibians, are affected by the absorption of pollutants. Birds are impacted directly by industrial emission, which can damage avian respiratory systems. Ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide primarily affect the respiratory system, and it is likely that birds are even more susceptible to gaseous pollutant injury than mammals due to their higher respiratory rates. Metals damage the circulatory, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and central nervous systems of animals. Often organs such as the kidney, liver, and brain are targeted. Entire populations can be affected as metal contamination can cause changes in birth, growth, and death rates. Air pollution from industrial sources also includes organic compounds that are toxic to animals, including birds. Insects are very susceptible to air pollution. Small fluctuations in air quality force certain insects to relocate, affecting other plants and animals connected to them. Insects that are more resilient to air pollution are those that digest organic waste less effectively, which can result in a buildup of organic waste when air pollution rises in an area. Air pollution has been linked to changes in both physiology and behavior in toads and other amphibians. Ozone impairs immune systems in human beings and studies show it affects toads in a similar way. In addition to affecting individual animals or populations directly, air pollutants also affect wildlife indirectly by causing changes in the ecosystem. Vegetation affords cover for protection from predators and weather, provides breeding and nesting habitat, and also serves as a food source. Therefore, any change in vegetation could indirectly affect wildlife populations. Many studies have found that invertebrates show a preference for, or are better able to establish themselves in, air pollution-injured vegetation. Vegetation can be injured when exposed to high concentrations of various air pollutants. Injury ranges from visible markings on the foliage, to reduced growth and yield, to premature death of the plant. The development and severity of the injury depends not only on the concentration of the particular pollutant, but also on a number of other factors. These include the length of exposure to the pollutant, the plant species and its stage of development, as well as the environmental factors conducive to a build-up of the pollutant and to the preconditioning of the plant, which make it either susceptible or resistant to injury. Ozone injury to vegetation has been reported and documented in many areas throughout North America, while sulfur dioxide enters the leaves mainly through the stomata (microscopic openings), leading to both acute and chronic damage to the plant. Ammonia injury to vegetation has also been observed frequently and particulate matter deposited on vegetation can inhibit the normal respiration and photosynthesis mechanisms within the leaf. Air pollution also indirectly harms wildlife because emissions adversely impact water quality. Nitrogen compounds supply an unnatural amount of nutrients to a body of water, which can cause a rapid increase in the growth of algae. For example, studies show that up to one-third of the nitrogen that pollutes the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers comes from the air. An overabundance of algae can reduce available oxygen in the water, cause fish-kills, clog

waterways and otherwise upset the balance of the ecosystem. Some algal blooms are toxic, and since algae are at the base of the food web, their toxins can be transmitted to a wide variety of organisms. In addition to contributing to algal blooms, nitrogen pollution can also contribute to water bodies becoming more acidic. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides undergo chemical transformation in the atmosphere, and occur as sulfate, nitrate, and hydrogen ions when dissolved in precipitation known as “acid rain.” Well-buffered soils can adsorb sulfate and neutralize acidity, resulting in soil water and stream water composition being maintained in a range acceptable to organisms. The adsorption capacity of even well-buffered soils is limited, however, and long-term deposition of acidic compounds depletes the supply of base cations in the soils that buffer these inputs. The build-up of sulfates and nitrates in soils can result in delayed acidification of surface waters once saturation is reached in sensitive watersheds. Certain fish and animals, such as frogs, have a hard time adapting to and reproducing in an acidic environment. At pH 5, most fish eggs cannot hatch, and at lower pH levels some fish die. In fact, some acid lakes have no fish at all. Also, aluminum is released from soils into lakes and streams as acid rain flows through soils in a watershed. This aluminum is harmful to fish as well. The effects of decreasing pH on aquatic invertebrates and fish have been repeatedly catalogued. Insect taxa differ greatly in their response to acidity, with some species affected at pH levels near 6.0. In the early stages of acidification, acid-sensitive species are replaced by acid-tolerant ones. However, as pH levels continue to drop, more species are lost. Acid deposition is a possible cause of declines in amphibian populations. The larval stages of aquatic amphibian species are most affected by acidic water. Many studies have demonstrated that surface water acidification can lead to a decline in, and loss of, fish populations. A decrease in pH is often associated with an increase in metal availability, being particularly true for aluminum and mercury. Decreased pH and elevated aluminum have been shown to increase fish mortality, decrease fish growth, decrease egg production and embryo survival, and result in physiological impairment of adult fish. In general, embryos, fry, and juveniles are less acid-tolerant than adult fish. Aluminum can precipitate onto fish gills, inhibiting diffusion and resulting in respiratory stress. Finally, CO2 emissions trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere and worsen climate change. Climate change adversely effects wildlife in a multitude of ways, including by destroying habitat, increasing disease and altering migrations patterns. The Possibility of “Refinery Row” Hot Spot of Carbon Monoxide Holly Refining acknowledges that there will be a significant increase in CO from its expanded facility. While less emphasis has been placed on CO pollution by regulators, there is more than enough research to suggest it too has long term public health impacts, such as reduction in the production of proteins critical to cerebellar formation during prenatal development. 78. Even more alarming, this was found to occur at concentrations well below the NAAQS one hour CO standard. According to the company, the Holly Expansion will increase

the facility’s emissions of CO by over 239 tons/yr to a new total of more than 1,000 tons/yr. Apparently, the closest monitoring station to the refineries is miles away at the Hawthorne station and modeling is no replacement for monitoring of ambient air quality. As a result, the Executive Secretary has no way of knowing if this project is to be permitted in an area that already has exceedances of the CO NAAQS or whether the expansion will result in localized exceedances of the CO NAAQS. Given the CO emissions from the other refineries in the vicinity, this is likely to be a completely unassessed health hazard and potential violation of the NAAQS. Nowhere in the NOI or the ITA is there any acknowledgement of or accounting for the increase in diesel emissions from hundreds of truck trips bringing in the black wax crude substrate. Those emissions have profound health impacts. Two ground breaking studies on the toxicity of diesel emissions revealed that long-term exposure to even low levels of diesel exhaust raises the risk of dying from lung cancer about 50% for urban residents, and about 300% for occupationally exposed workers (Holly employees). 79, 80. The Failure to Acknowledge the Economic Impact of Air Pollution. Utah state government has a history of giving economic information, including profitability of applicant companies, to apparently justify issuing permits. The recently approved Tesoro permit was a good example. This kind of information has been skewed, in that the significant economic cost of air and other pollution from refineries has not been acknowledged or quantified. EPA and many other entities have attempted to quantify the economic cost of pollution. For example the State of Utah sponsored a study whose conclusion was that the pollution from just the state’s coal-fired power plants caused about $2 billion dollars in pollution related damages, and over 200 deaths per year. 81. In the 1980s, EPA calculated the economic cost of pollution on a per ton basis. Those estimates range from $300,000 per ton of particulate matter to $45,000 per ton of SO2. 82. The Executive Secretary considers NOx, SOx, and PM approximately interchangeable for permitting purposes because of their atmospheric interactions. Based on that calculation, the emissions from the Holly Refining facility, above and beyond its current emissions, adding in about 25 tons/yr of NOx from the diesel trucks required to bring the substrate, would bring the cost to the community of an additional $38 million dollars a year.2 Even that figure is undoubtedly much too low, as it does not take into account inflation, all of the health consequences of air pollution that we have learned since the mid-1980s, nor any


The basis for this calculation is presented in a chart, attached as Exhibit “2” to these comments. Exhibit “2” does not represent Utah Physicians’ complete analysis of the emission reductions improperly claimed by Holly Refining, but rather, as a rough and early examination of the errors in the company’s netting analysis. This exhibit supports Utah Physicians’ economic analysis only.

of the costs of the 34 tons of VOCs, the 239 tons of CO, or the 9.4 tons of HAPs that will be added to the air as a result of the expansion. Additionally, this calculation does not include the costs of the increased water pollution, adverse impacts to wildlife or pollution from hazardous waste associated with the project. Moreover, because of their intense toxicity at minute concentrations, as explained above, the HAPs emissions could easily dwarf the economic costs of the rest of the Holly Refining pollution inventory. When the sum total of our air pollution makes the Wasatch Front often the most polluted urban area in the country, and that information is broadcast nationally and even internationally as during the week of January 20, 2013, the long-term economic damage can be incalculable. Holly Refining emissions certainly contribute to that liability. Everything considered, this project is assuredly an economic liability to the community, tying the economic future of North Salt Lake and South Davis Country to even higher polluting, heavy industry, and in the process, driving away cleaner businesses and economic opportunities and depressing real estate values and quality of life for all the residents in the area. Despite the fact that this agency is mandated to protect public health, nowhere in either the NOI, or the ITA is there any attempt to quantify or understand the health consequences of this refinery’s current emissions, or how much they would change from the proposed expansion. Yes, there are calculations of pollutants in tons, but there is no attempt to calculate the public health cost – the human cost of those tons of emissions. Ironically, the agencies mandated to protect us from pollution do not inform the public what the health consequences of pollution are and declare such impacts simply as “not significant.” Given that the company and the State of Utah have opened up the issue of economic benefits, to be fair, the permitting process must address the economic consequences of air pollution. Furthermore, even if everything in the NOI were complete and accurate, by the time the “insignificant pollution” of Kennecott, is added to that of Tesoro, which is added to that of Chevron, which is added to that of Holly, Silver Eagle, Big West, ATK and other industrial sources of “insignificant” pollution, the result is a city that ranks in the top ten worst in the country for air pollution and the ninth most toxic city in the country according to Forbes Magazine (Feb. 2011). It is only common sense and appropriate precaution that the State suspend expansion approvals for any and all of the refineries until it provides an independent study of the full costs to the community of current refinery emissions. For this project and for all future industrial projects involving an increase in emissions, the DAQ should be required to tell the public what the full public health consequences will be, not simply declare, as they currently do with virtually every industrial permit, that the increase in emissions will be insignificant. We see in the faces of our patients the personal suffering, the loss of quality of life, and the premature end of life that is caused by air pollution. We urge you to act in defense of the health and well-being of Utah citizens and withdraw the ITA for the Holly expansion.


More Detailed Comments Specific to the ITA Utah Physicians Hereby References and Incorporates Any and All Comments Submitted by EPA on this Project. As an initial matter, Utah Physicians hereby incorporates by reference into its comments any and all comments submitted by EPA on the Holly Expansion and the ITA. As such, Utah Physicians has met it burden to sufficiently raise, for the purposes of putting the Executive Secretary on notice as to the legal deficiencies of his permitting process and decision, any issues raised by EPA in that agency’s comments. In Making These Comments, Utah Physicians is Necessarily Restricted to the Record. Utah Physicians is necessarily in a position to comment only on that analysis and those issues evidenced in the record and cannot be required to raise matters that are not manifest in those documents. By the same token, the adequacy of the Executive Secretary’s permitting decision must be evaluated based solely on that same record. Should the Executive Secretary Decide to Supplement the Record or His Analysis in Any Way, the Public Must be Given the Opportunity to Comment on the Additional Material. Throughout these comments, Utah Physicians points out that the record does not support the permitting decision made by the ITA. We sincerely hope that as a result of these comments, the Executive Secretary will gather additional information and undertake a fresh and more thorough analysis of the factors relevant to a sound permitting decision and will then base a new and better-informed evaluation on that data and scrutiny. However, to the extent that the Executive Secretary considers new information and undertakes new analysis, the public and commenting agencies such as EPA, must be given the opportunity to review and comment on this new material. Moreover, we also note that if the Executive Secretary supplements the record with additional data and investigation, he should undertake a corresponding reevaluation of his permitting decision. To do otherwise would be to provide a legally untenable post hoc rationalization for his previous decision, rather than a comprehensive review of that decision based on the new information before him. Not only, then, does the law require that new information and analysis be subject to public notice and comment, but also that the Executive Secretary consider his decision anew based on the supplemental evidence and review and comments submitted by the public. Holly Refining’s Most Recent Effort to Circumvent the Consent Decree and Proper Netting Analysis Must Be Rejected. In a recent “update” to a public relations piece entitled “Frequently Asked Questions” and distributed to, among others, a member of the Utah Air Quality Board, Holly Refining


appears to be abandoning its reliance on the retirement of the CO Boiler in its netting analysis.3 Instead, in answer to the following question: “Can the Refinery utilize emissions reductions for this project from the installation of controls required by the EPA’s Consent Decree?” the company provides the following answer: In 2008, the Refinery entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA that required installation of several measures to reduce emissions. The Consent Decree specifies that “Holly shall not trade or sell any Consent Decree Emissions Reductions,” but that we can “utilize emissions reductions from the installation of controls required by this Consent Decree in determining whether a project that includes both the installation of controls under this Consent Decree and other construction that occurs at the same time and is permitted as a single project triggers major New Source Review Requirement.” Because we are required to incorporate all “contemporaneous” modifications in the emissions analysis, this analysis included all changes at the Refinery in the last several years, including permitted increases as well as reductions required by the Consent Decree. As an initial matter, this provision is difficult to understand and is not supported by any analysis, documentation or calculations. Moreover, it does not appear in the NOI or the Executive Secretary’s analysis of the Holly Expansion, and the public has not been presented with the Executive Secretary’s reaction to this new notion of how to calculate emission reductions. As a result, no member of the public, including Utah Physicians and no commenting agency, such as EPA, is in a position to respond to this latest contention. Therefore, Utah Physicians reiterates, with regard to this apparent “single project” argument, that Utah Physicians is necessarily in a position to comment only on that analysis and those issues evidenced in the record and cannot be required to raise matters that are not manifest in those documents, such as those referenced in public relations pieces. By the same token, the adequacy of the Executive Secretary’s permitting decision must be evaluated based solely on that same record. Moreover, we also note that if the Executive Secretary supplements the record with additional data and investigation related to Holly Refining’s last minute contention, this must be presented to the public for review and comment. Despite the fact that Utah Physicians is not compelled to comment on assertions made by Holly Refining in a public relations piece, we make the following comments about what appears to be the company’s eleventh hour assertions. First, Holly Refining seems to be suggesting that it can take credit for the installation and operation of the wet gas scrubber that it was required to install as part of the Holly Refining Consent Decree, Exhibit “3” attached. However, this approach is prohibited by paragraph 142 of that document. Moreover, Holly Refining has gained no emission reductions beyond the Consent Decree. For example, the Consent Decree requires that the company complete installation and begin operating the wet gas scrubber no later than December 31, 2012. Consent


Elsewhere in these comments, Utah Physicians establishes that Holly Refinery’s claim of emission reductions for shut down of the CO Boiler, for the purposes of netting analysis, is illegal. These emissions, too, are not creditable.

Decree at ¶ 25 & 33. Moreover, the Consent Decree sets as an emission limit on this scrubber for SO2 of 25 ppmvd (365 day rolling average) and 50 ppmvd (7-day rolling average), Id. at ¶ 25, and for PM of 0.5 pounds for 1000 pounds of coke burned. Id. at ¶ 33. At the same time, the proposed AO (ITA) establishes an SO2 emission limit on the FCCUs (including Unit 4), and thereby on the wet gas scrubber, of 25 ppmvd (365 day rolling average) and 50 ppmvd (7-day rolling average). Therefore, there is no SO2 emission reduction, above and beyond what is required by the Consent Decree. With regard to PM emissions, the proposed AO (ITA) fails to include an emission limit on the Unit 4 – the “old” FCCU – and therefore, violates the Consent Decree but also contemplates unregulated PM emissions from this unit – a fact which has not been addressed in Holly Refining’s netting analysis. Second, to the extent that Holly Refining is suggesting that the installation of the wet gas scrubber “occurs at the same time and is permitted as a single project” with the Holly Expansion, this contention fails. After all, the installation of the wet gas scrubber for the Unit 4 FCCU was part of a project authorized and permitted by an AO issued by the Executive Secretary in 2007. As part of that 2007 project, Holly Refining claimed emission credits for emission reductions from the installation on the Unit 4 FCCU. Therefore, SO2 and PM10 emission reductions shown in the NOI for the 2007 Approval Order are not creditable. See June 8, 2007 AO (DAQEAN0101230023-07), Exhibit “4” attached; 2007 NOI DAQE-AN0101230023-07, Exhibit “5” attached; Engineering Review, Exhibit “8” attached. Because emission reductions inherent in the installation of the wet scrubber authorized in 2007 were relied on and used in issuing the 2007 AO, such emission reductions are foreclosed as being non-creditable under 40 C.F.R. Sec 52.21(b)(3)(iii)(a). By the same token, the emission limits in the Consent Decree are required to bring the FUUC into compliance and therefore are not creditable. See EPA Letter, Exhibit “6” attached. In any case, the Consent Decree requires that the company complete installation and begin operating the wet gas scrubber no later than December 31, 2012. Consent Decree at ¶ 25 & 33. Third, if Holly Refining is claiming that the rerouting of SRU emissions to the wet gas scrubber results in emission reductions at the facility above and beyond the extensive and detailed projects and reductions required by the Consent Decree, see paragraphs 52 and 53, the record does not support this assertion. The NOI contains no analysis of what, if any, these addition emission reductions might be or where, if anywhere, they are reflected in and limited by the proposed AO.4 Moreover, there is no independent analysis of this claim by the Executive Secretary, as is required by law.


For example, to understand what emission reductions there may be, the record must include information regarding flare relief/pressure relief/PORV system as it addresses the SRU and what happens to emissions during malfunctions.

Holly Refining’s Effort to Circumvent the Consent Decree and Proper Netting Analysis Based on the CO Boiler Must Also Be Rejected.5 In the NOI, Holly Refining relies on paragraph 143.a of the Consent Decree to suggest that it is entitled to take credit emission reductions for its plan to retire the CO Boiler. NOI at 312. The technical comments attached hereto as Exhibit “1” are replete with analysis that establishes why this contention is ill-founded and must be dismissed. However, to further expound on this issue, Utah Physicians provides these additional comments: Paragraph 143.a of the Consent Decree acknowledges that despite paragraph 142, Holly Refining is not prohibited from claiming emission credit “to the extent that the proposed netting reductions or emission offset credits represent the difference between the emissions limitations set forth in this Consent Decree for these refinery units and the more stringent emissions limitations that Holly may elect to accept for these refinery units in a permitting process.” Consent Decree at ¶ 143.a. At the same time, the Consent Decree defines “FCCU” as “the FCCU that Holly owns and/or operates at the Woods Cross Refinery. ‘FCCU’ as used herein shall mean a fluidized catalytic cracking unit and its regenerator and CO boiler(s) (where present).” Id. at 10 (definition “s”). This means that any projects related to and emission limits placed on the FCCU (Unit 4) in the Consent Decree also apply to the CO boiler(s), “where present.”6 Furthermore, as of December 31, 2012, the Consent Decree requires Holly Refining to install NOX controls that will achieve NOX emission limits on the FCCU/CO boiler of 20 ppmvd (365 day rolling average) and 40 ppmvd (7-day rolling average), Consent Decree at ¶ 13 & 22, to comply with SO2 emission limits on the FCCU/CO boiler of 25 ppmvd (365 day rolling average) and 50 ppmvd (7-day rolling average), Id. at ¶ 25, and to meet an emission limit for PM of 0.5 pounds for 1000 pounds of coke burned. Id. at ¶ 33. Based on the plain language of the agreement document, to show that an emission limit on the FCCU/CO boiler that is more stringent that the limit set forth in the Consent Decree, Holly Refining must show that the AO requires a decrease in the emission limit on the Unit 4 FUCC beyond the emission limits cited above (or a “difference between the emission limitations set forth in th[e] Consent Decree for these refinery units and the more stringent emission limitations that Holly may elect to accept for these refinery units”). However, the proposed AO (ITA) establishes a NOX emission limit on the FCCUs (including Unit 4) of 40 ppmvd (365 day rolling average) and 80 ppmvd (7-day rolling average)7 and an SO2 emission limit on the FCCUs


Of course, as neither the ITA/proposed AO nor the engineering review of the project mentions retiring the CO Boiler, Holly Refining’s contentions that it will be removed are of no weight.

This “where present” and “if present” language referring to the CO boiler is repeated throughout the Consent Decree.

There is some question as to the FCCU NOX emission limit proposed for the AO. However, regardless of that limit, it is based on control technology required by the Consent Decree and therefore emission reductions from that installation are not creditable. Second, even if the AO

(including Unit 4) of 25 ppmvd (365 day rolling average) and 50 ppmvd (7-day rolling average). With regard to PM emissions, the proposed AO (ITA) fails to include an emission limit on the Unit 4. Therefore, Holly Refining cannot show that there is a stricter emission limit imposed on the FCCU beyond what is required by the Consent Decree and, as a result, cannot rely on paragraph 143.a to claim that purported emission reductions from retiring the CO boiler are creditable in any netting analysis. In any case, the emission limits in the Consent Decree are required to bring the FUUC into compliance and therefore are not creditable. See EPA Letter, Exhibit “6” attached. Holly Refining’s Effort to Circumvent the Consent Decree and Proper Netting Analysis Based on the Propane Flare Must Also Be Rejected. Holly Refining appears to be taking credit, for the purposes of netting analysis, the shutting down of the Propane Pit Flare. Of course, as neither the ITA/proposed AO nor the engineering review of the project mentions retiring the Propane Pit Flare, Holly Refining’s contentions that it will be removed are of no weight. In addition, Holly is prohibited from using any purported emission reductions from shutting down this flare by paragraph 142. This is because Holly Refining shut down the Propane Pit Flare in 2009 pursuant to the Consent Decree and undertook performance testing on a “new” flare in March 2010. See 2012 Semiannual Progress Report, Exhibit “7” attached. Moreover, according to the Consent Decree, Holly Refining was required to “eliminate all routinely-generated gas” from either the new or old flare. Consent Decree at ¶ 56.a; Semiannual Progress Report at CD ¶ 56, 56a. Initially, it is impossible to determine whether the “existing Propane Pit Flare” for which emission credit is claimed, NOI at 3-15, is the “old” flare, referenced as being shut down and replaced the Semiannual Progress Report, or the new one, that replaced it and was tested as recently as March 2010. Second, there is no discussion of what will happen to emissions or gas that were once directed to this flare, or what the resulting emissions might be as a consequence of this change in operations. Third, as the Consent Decree and the Progress Report make clear, the flare that was shut down – whether old or new – should not be receiving any “routinelygenerated gas.” Therefore, without an explanation as to how the emission reductions shown in the NOI at 3-15 that would result from closing down this flare could be as high as indicated when no “routinely-generated gas” was being directed to the flare, Holly Refining’s emission calculations must be rejected. Holly’s Permit Application Underestimates the Increase in PM Emissions from the new FCCU. Particulate matter emissions from the new fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) are not well documented and likely underestimated. New Source Review requires facilities to account

limit is 20 ppmvd (365 day rolling average) and 40 ppmvd (7-day rolling average), as has been suggested, there is no evidence in the record that the Consent Decree emission limit will be less stringent than that in the AO, as EPA has yet to establish the Consent Decree limit. Consent Decree at ¶ 22.

for both the condensable and filterable fractions of PM emissions. Holly Refining has projected the particulate matter emissions based on compliance with the consent decree PM10 limit of .5 lbs/1000 lbs of coke. An emission projection based on this limit underestimates emissions because it does not account for the condensable PM emissions released from the FCCU. Recent stack testing at seven different FCCUs, conducted pursuant to EPA’s petroleum refinery ICR, found that condensable PM emissions accounted for nearly 50% of the total PM emissions. See Chart. Based on this average, the PTE from Holly Refining’s new FCCU is twice as much as what Holly represented in its permit application.

Refinery Particulate Matter (PM) Condensible vs. Filterable Emission Rates
Condensible PM (lbs/hr) 20.8 1.7 8.5 9.5 2.6 21.7 34.2 2.3 Filterable PM (lbs/hr) 1.3 4.5 22.7 13.2 1.6 21.7 82.0 6.2 Total PM (lbs/hr) 22.1 6.1 31.2 22.7 4.2 43.5 116.2 8.5

Facility ID

Facility Name


% Condensible

% Filterable

CA5A0190 HI5A0380 IL2A0420 IN2A0440 LA3C0560 LA3C0630 PA1A1030 TX3B1250

ExxonMobil Torrance CA Chevron Kapolei, HI Marathon Robinson, IL BP Whiting, IN Citgo Lake Charles, LA Motiva Norco LA Sunoco Philadelphia, PA Valero Port Arthur, TX


94% 27% 27% 42% 62% 50% 29% 27%

6% 73% 73% 58% 38% 50% 71% 73%

Holly Refining Is Violating 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts Ja and the Consent Decree Relative to Its Flares. In its NOI, Holly Refining states that 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Ja applies to the new FCCU and fuel gas combustion devices, including flares and process heaters. NOI at 4-3. Under Subpart Ja, the South Flare, which will be reconstructed as part of the Holly Expansion, is a flare and fuel gas combustion device subject to Subpart Ja NSPS. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.100a(b) (“the provisions of this subpart apply only to flares which commence construction, modification, or reconstruction, after June 24, 2008”). Subpart Ja requires, inter alia, that Holly Refining: 1) develop and implement a written flare management plan and conduct a root cause analysis, § 60.103a(a) & (b); 2) install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration of reduced sulfur in flare gas, § 60.107a(d); report excess emissions in a particular way, § 60.107a(f); and, if subject to § 60.102a(g)(3) install, operate, calibrate, and maintain CPMS to measure and record the exhaust gas flow rate. § 60.107a(e). Finally, § 60.102a(g) requires: (g) Each owner or operator of an affected fuel gas combustion device shall comply with the emission limits in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For each fuel gas combustion device, the owner or operator shall comply with either the emission limit in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section or the fuel gas concentration limit in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section. (i) The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere that contain SO2 in excess of 20 ppmv (dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess air) determined hourly on a 3-hour

rolling average basis and SO2 in excess of 8 ppmv (dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess air), determined daily on a 365 successive day rolling average basis; or (ii) The owner or operator shall not burn in any fuel gas combustion device any fuel gas that contains H2S in excess of 162 ppmv determined hourly on a 3-hour rolling average basis and H2S in excess of 60 ppmv determined daily on a 365 successive calendar day rolling average basis. (2) For each process heater with a rated capacity of greater than 40 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), the owner or operator shall not discharge to the atmosphere any emissions of NOx in excess of 40 ppmv (dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess air) on a 24-hour rolling average basis. (3) Except as provided in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section, the owner or operator of an affected flare shall not allow flow to each affected flare during normal operations of more than 7,080 standard cubic meters per day (m3/day) (250,000 standard cubic feet per day (scfd)) on a 30-day rolling average. The owner or operator of a newly constructed or reconstructed flare shall comply with the emission limit in this paragraph by no later than the date that flare becomes an affected flare subject to this subpart. The owner or operator of a modified flare shall comply with the emission limit in this paragraph by no later than 1 year after that flare becomes an affected flare subject to this subpart. However, there is nothing in the ITA/proposed AO that requires Holly Refining to comply with these requirements. As a result, the ITA/proposed AO must be rejected. For example, Holly Refining “shall not allow flow to each affected flare during normal operations of more than 7,080 standard cubic meters per day (m3/day) (250,000 standard cubic feet per day (scfd)) on a 30-day rolling average.” Yet, there is no flow restriction or monitoring requirement in the AO.8 Moreover, the methods used to calculate PTE for the Holly Expansion seem to contemplate flows through the flare greater than is permitted under these regulations, e.g. NOI at 3-24 to 25, and the AO contemplates emissions from “normal flaring.” Finally, as the South Flare is a “flue gas combustion device,” it must comply with the relevant emission limits put forth in § 60.102a(g) as well as any other applicable provisions of Subpart Ja. See § 60.102a(a) (defining flare as “an open-flame fuel gas combustion device used for burning off unwanted gas or flammable gas and liquids.”). At the same time, Holly Refining is violating the Consent Decree relative to all its flares. The Consent Decree states, inter alia, that Subpart J applies to the facility’s three flares and that Holly Refining can meet the obligations of Subpart J in one of three ways. Consent Decree at ¶ 56a. According to the Semiannual Progress Report, Holly Refinery chose to Eliminate the routing of continuous or intermittent, routinely-generated refinery fuel gases to a Flaring Device and operate the Flaring Device such that it only receives


The AO does provide: “Flow meters and gas combustion monitors shall be installed on the South flare gas line to monitor flare combustion efficiency.” AO at 26. This does not appear to be adequate to comply with Subpart Ja.

process upset gases, fuel gas released as a result of relief valve leakage or gases released due to other emergency Malfunctions. Consent Decree at ¶ 56a; Semiannual Progress Report at CD ¶ 56, 56a. Moreover, this elimination of routinely-generated gas to the flaring device and receipt of only gases during upsets and “other” malfunctions was completed in 2009. Consent Decree at Appendix D. However, in the NOI, the company states: “The average non-upset throughput to the south flare is estimated to be 17,000 standard cubic feet per hour (scf/h) and was based on 2011 flow monitoring data.” NOI at 3-24. This strongly suggests that routinely-generated gases have been eliminated from the south flare. Moreover, the methods used to calculate PTE for the Holly Expansion seem to contemplate flows through the flare greater than is permitted the Consent Decree, e.g. NOI at 3-24 to 25, and the AO contemplates emissions from “normal flaring.” In any case, Holly Refining must comply with the Consent Decree and eliminate routinelygenerated gas to its flares and, as this is required for compliance, the AO must reflect this. That Holly Refining Has No Title V Permit is a Violation of the Clean Air Act. That Holly Refining is required to have a Title V permit is clear under both federal law and state law. 40 C.F.R. part 70; Utah Admin. Code R307-415. After all, the Holly Refining facility is a major source and thus bound by R307-415. Utah Admin. Code R307-415-4(1)(a); see also R307-415-4(2) (none of the exemptions apply). As a result, all of the requirements of Utah’s Title V program apply to the permitting of the facility, including, but not limited to, a permit application that provides: 1) identification and description of all points of emission; 2) descriptions of fuels, fuel use, raw materials, production rates, and operating schedules; 3) citation and description of all applicable requirements; 4) a compliance plan; 5) a compliance schedule; 6) and, a schedule for submission of certified progress reports. Utah Code Ann. R307-415-5c. Yet, the NOI fails to meet these requirements. In addition, a proper Title V permit must meet all the requirements listed in R307-415-6a, including; 1) emission limitations and standards, including those operational requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance; and 2) monitoring and related recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The permit must also meet the requirements of R307-415-6b and 6c. Yet, the proposed AO fails to meet these standards. Finally, “no Part 70 source may operate after the time that it is required to submit a timely and complete application, except in compliance with a permit issued under these rules.” Utah Admin. Code R307-415-7b(1).9 Therefore, Holly Refinery is illegally operating and will continue to do so until it receives a valid Title V permit.


At a minimum, the AO must comply with all applicable requirements of R307-415.

The BACT Analysis and ITA/Proposed AO Are Inadequate Because They Do Not Result in Emission Limits on Each Subject Emission Unit and Do Not Protect Short Term NAAQS. The EPA New Source Review Manual states: To complete the BACT process, the reviewing agency must establish an enforceable emission limit for each subject emission unit at the source and for each pollutant subject to review that is emitted from the source. * * * * * * BACT emission limits or conditions must be met on a continual basis at all levels of operation (e.g., limits written in pounds/MMbtu or percent reduction achieved), demonstrate protection of short term ambient standards (limits written in pounds/hour), and be enforceable as a practical matter (contain appropriate averaging times, compliance verification procedures and recordkeeping requirements). NSR Manual at B.56. Similarly, EPA guidance related to the one-hour SO2 NAAQS further states: Because compliance with the new SO2 NAAQS must be demonstrated on the basis of a 1-hour averaging period, the reviewing authority should ensure that the source’s PSD permit defines a maximum allowable hour emission limitation for SO2 regardless of whether it is derived from the BACT top-down approach or is the result of an air-quality based emissions rate. Hourly limits are important because they are the foundation of the air quality modeling demonstration relative to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. U.S. EPA 1Hour SO2 NAAQS Guidance Memo at 7. Although EPA’s one-hour NO2 NAAQS guidance is silent on this issue, significant portions of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS guidance echo the language in the one-hour NO2 NAAQS guidance. Based on this analysis, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) stated: “Accordingly, the Board believes that it is reasonable to infer that U.S. EPA expects ‘PSD permit[s] [to] define a maximum allowable hour emission limitation’ for NOx to protect the onehour NO2 NAAQS.” In Re: Mississippi Lime, PSD Appeal No. 11-01 (August 9, 2011); 2011 WL 3557194 at 17. As a result of this analysis, the EBA determined that On remand, IEPA must either include maximum allowable hourly emissions limitations for SO2 and NOx and explain how it concluded that the limitations are protective of the respective one-hour NAAQS or provide sufficient rationale for not including such emissions limitations. In either case, IEPA must reopen the public comment period to provide the public with an opportunity to submit comments. Id. at 18. Applying this reasoning to the Holly Refinery ITA indicates that the proposed permit fails on several grounds. First, the proposed AO lacks an enforceable emission limit for each subject emission unit at the source and for each pollutant subject to review that is emitted from the source. For example, there are no emission limits (other than opacity) on the South Flare. There are no emission units that are controlled for PM2.5 emissions. The only VOC emission

unit that has an emission limitation is Boiler #11. See Proposed AO at II.B.10.a. Therefore, none of the remaining VOC emission units subject to BACT has an associated enforceable emission limit. The only SOX emission unit with an emission limit is the FCCU. See Proposed AO at II.B.2.b. Therefore, none of the remaining SO2 emission units subject to BACT has an associated enforceable emission limit. The only PM emission unit with an emission limit is also the FCCU. See Proposed AO at II.B.2.b. Therefore, none of the remaining PM emission units subject to BACT has an associated enforceable emission limit. The only CO emission units with an emission limits are the FCCU, II.B.2.a, and the 24H1, 20H3, 25H1, 26H1, 27H1, 68H6, 68H7, 68H10, 68H11, 68H12, 68H13, 33H1 and boiler 11. Id. at II.B.9.a. Therefore, none of the remaining CO emission units subject to BACT has an associated enforceable emission limit. Similarly, not all NOX emission units subject to BACT are controlled by an emission limit. Moreover, many emission limits expressed in pounds/MMbtu lack adequate averaging times. These failures constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act and Utah Air Conservation Act. Second, the proposed AO lacks short-term emission limits necessary to protect short-term PSD increment and short term NAAQS. For example, there are no hourly emission limits on the FCCU necessary to protect the one hour NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. Indeed, other than the CO one hour limit on the FCCU, this unit is limited by, at the shortest, 7 day average emission limits. The same is true for all SO2 emission units, as well as NO2 emission units. Moreover, there are no short term emission limits sufficient to protect the secondary, three-hour SO2 NAAQS or the eight hour ozone NAAQS, or even the 24 hour PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. After all, there are no limits on PM2.5 in the permit and the shortest term PM emission limit is tons per day, the shortest term SO2 limit is tons per day, the shortest term NOX limit is a three hour average and the only VOC emission limit is not expressed in terms of a length of time. Moreover, as not every emission unit has an emission limit, the issue of failing to protect NAAQS and increment extends beyond those emission limits in the proposed AO. Finally, as indicated above, there are no emission limits for Holly Refinery flares, other than to wrap them into a yearly and ton per day NOX emission limit.10 In addition, emissions from “upsets” are not limited. Without such emission limits, the proposed AO fails to protect short term and medium term NAAQS and increment.11 It is Impossible to Verify the Facility’s SO2 Potential to Emit. Holly Refining must revise its permit application to substantiate and verify the projected sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission increase from heaters and boilers. SO2 emissions from heaters and boilers are a function of the concentration of the total reduced sulfur (TRS) in the fuel and the amount of fuel combusted. The NOI states that the “SO2 emissions are based on a 60 ppm average of H2S [hydrogen sulfide] in plant gas.” This is problematic for two reasons. First, estimating emissions based on the H2S concentration of the fuel gas likely underestimates SO2


The proposed AO is insufficient, as it fails to regulate SO2 and PM2.5 emissions from flares.


It is unclear whether the Executive Secretary intended flare emissions (even in non-upset situations) to be accounted for in determining compliance with the daily and annual emission caps at the refinery. Therefore, it is not possible to comment on this issue.

emissions. H2S is just one of the sulfur compounds in refinery fuel gas that is converted to SO2 when it is combusted at heaters and boilers. Furthermore, testing at several refineries done pursuant to EPA’s petroleum refinery ICR found that the TRS content of fuel gas to about 8% higher than the H2S content of fuel gas. An accurate estimation of the increase in SO2 emissions from the heaters and boilers would be based on the TRS concentration of the fuel gas. The TRS concentration of the fuel gas can be measured using continuous monitors or periodic sampling of the fuel gas. Second, the stated emission calculation method is incomplete. As explained above, SO2 emissions are function of both the concentration of fuel gas and the volume of fuel gas combusted. Holly Corporation’s permit application does not state how much fuel gas the new and modified heaters will combust. Therefore it is impossible to verify the facility’s SO2 potential to emit calculations for the refinery’s heaters and boilers. The Modeling that Purports to Support the ITA/Proposed AO is Inadequate. There are several significant shortcomings associated with the modeling that purports to support the ITA. Initially, in the Modeling Analysis for the Holly Refining facility, the Executive Secretary stated: Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) expressed concern with the number of new emission release points resulting from the modification. The UDAQ felt that the proposed changes would significantly alter the environmental impact footprint created by the source. To ensure compliance with all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) prior to the issuance of the Approval Order (AO), the UDAQ requested that the applicant include a NAAQS impact analysis for NO2, SO2, and PM10 with the proposed new modifications. That analysis was added as a supplement to the NOI to demonstrate the source’s continued compliance with R307-401-8(1)(b)(vii) for all pollutants emitted in significant quantity. While modeling for impacts to the NO2, SO2, and PM10 NAAQS was done, no modeling was required for PM2.5. Yet, the same rationale and legal basis, R307-401-8(1)(b)(vii), that require modeling relative to the NO2, SO2, and PM10 NAAQS necessarily applies to the PM2.5 NAAQS. There is no justification that explains this disparate treatment. In addition, as the proposed AO lacks short-term emission limits, modeling based on permit terms and conditions cannot determine the effect emissions from the facility will have on short-term NAAQS. Modeling longer averaging periods can mask shorter-term emissions spikes. For example, an emissions limit averaged over a twelve or twenty-four hour period can be met even if emissions are extremely high for an hour or two, as long as emissions are sufficiently low for the remainder of the twelve or twenty-four hours in the averaging period. It is the shorter-term spikes, however, that constitute the facility's “maximum” or “worst-case” emissions and it is those shorter-term spikes that are not captured and appropriately modeled in the source impact analyses conducted for Holly Refining facility. The Record Does Not Support the Executive Secretary’s BACT Determination. Utah Admin. Code R307-401-2(1) states:

‘best available control technology’ means an emissions limitation (including a visible emissions standard) based on the maximum degree of reduction for each air contaminant which would be emitted from any proposed stationary source or modification which the executive secretary, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such source or modification through application of production processes or available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of such pollutant. In no event shall application of best available control technology result in emissions of any pollutant which would exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable standard under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61. If the executive secretary determines that technological or economic limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a particular emissions unit would make the imposition of an emissions standard infeasible, a design, equipment, work practice, operational standard or combination thereof, may be prescribed instead to satisfy the requirement for the application of best available control technology. Such standard shall, to the degree possible, set forth the emissions reduction achievable by implementation of such design, equipment, work practice or operation, and shall provide for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results. Emphasis added. In other words, BACT requires consideration of the “maximum” degree of control and the balancing of considerations of economics, energy, and environmental impact. As a general matter, Holly Refinery’s BACT analysis and the Executive Secretary’s uncritical adoption of that analysis are legally inadequate. The record includes no independent analysis by the Executive Secretary – rather the analysis merely parrots, largely verbatim, analyses done by the company. Most importantly, the BACT analysis lacks sufficient citation to credible sources of information, particularly those that form the basis for the cost analysis. There is also inadequate evidence in the record, such as dates relating to projects and technologies that were reviewed, to determine the relevancy of the analysis and the “availability” of the technology. The BACT review often fails to compare the current emission limits at the Holly Refining facility to possible emission limits for various technologies, using same units. Finally, the BACT analysis, for all practical purposes, is based solely on cost considerations which are not transparent to either the public or EPA and thus cannot be considered an adequate BACT decision making process for setting final BACT limits. More specifically, the BACT analyses: o often do not result in an emission limit; o generally contain no adequate description of current technology or removal efficiency, making it impossible to compare the proposed technologies; o make no effort to quantify actual emissions achieved, either of present configuration or of the proposed technologies; o provide no basis in the record for cost estimates; o conflict with existing information; and, o is not BACT.


The BACT for the South Flare Is Inadequate. In particular, the analysis for the South Flare cannot support the BACT determination. This is in part because the analysis fails to consider fuel savings secured by using the recovered flare gas where purchased natural gas is now being used to fire equipment such as boilers and process heaters. See Exhibit “11” attached. As part of the BACT analysis, the Executive Secretary must provide rationale and supporting evidence regarding the flare waste gas reduction options considered and the quantity of flare gas that would be recovered or prevented by the option. In addition, the BACT analysis is inadequate because it fails to undertake cost analysis for SO2 and PM. Finally, the BACT analysis is mistaken because it treats each cost analysis – for NOx, CO and VOC – separately. However, it is the installation and operation of the same equipment that leads to all of the emission reductions referenced in the analysis. If properly done – if the BACT analysis accounts for the fact that the same cost would result in emission reductions of NOx, SO2, VOC, CO and PM combined – then the resulting cost per ton of pollution reduced would be considerably lower. The Proposed AO Lacks Adequate Enforceability. The NSR Manual provides that a PSD permit must, among other things, provide for adequate reporting and recordkeeping so that the permitting agency can determine the compliance status of the source. However, many of the stack tests set forth in the AO are to be performed once every five years, and others, every three years. Testing every three or five years is not frequent enough to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the regulations for practical enforceability and periodic testing and inspection of stationary sources. See, e.g., Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C), and (F) of the Act; 40 CFR 51.210, 51.212. The Proposed AO Lacks Throughput or Production Limits The proposed permit impermissibly lacks production or operation limits. The only such limit is on the FCCU Unit 4 – a limit of 3,250,000 barrels per rolling 12-month period. Inexplicitly, there is no similar limit on the new FCCU Unit 25. A lack of production or operation limits fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the regulations that mandate practical enforceability of stationary sources. The Proposed AO Impermissibly Lacks a PM Limit on the FCCU and Lacks and PM2.5 Emission Limit. There is no PM limit on the FCCU Unit 4. This violates the Consent Decree and fails to demonstrate compliance with NAAQS and protection of increment. In addition, there are no emission limits in the entire proposed permit that limit PM2.5 emissions. This fails to ensure compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area of the facility, as well as the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and during times when the relevant airshed is not exceeding the NAAQS.


The ITA/Proposed AO Does Not Comply with the Federally Enforceable PM10 SIP. The federally-enforceable PM10 SIP applicable to Holly Refinery was approved by EPA in 1994. Appendix A to that SIP establishes the applicable emission limits for the facility.12 Comparing the Appendix A emission limits for the Holly Refining facility with the proposed permit limits shows non-compliance with the SIP. The following limits from the SIP are not imposed on the refinery:  SO2 Emission limits shall be individually set for each point source not designated as being in the emission cap. The following non-emissions cap sources shall be regulated individually: TCC Unit (4-1a, 4-1b, 51-6 and 51-7) and SRU Tailgas Incinerator.  PM10 emission limits shall be individually set for each point source not designated as being in the emission cap.  PM emissions shall not exceed 0.441 tons per day. All sources under the emissions cap shall not exceed 0.021 tons per day. Based on the above, it is also evident that any new emission unit would be required to have an individual emission limit. There is No Adequate Basis in the Record for the ITA as the Record Does Not Reflect Independent Analysis of the Assertions and Calculations Made in the NOI. The record is almost devoid of independent analysis of the factors that by law must be considered and incorporated into the Executive Secretary’s permitting decision. Indeed, the Executive Secretary’s entire review of the Holly Expansion is limited to a few pages, much of which is a verbatim repetition of the analysis put forward by the company. As the Executive Secretary is required to undertake independent review of the permittee’s data, claims and analysis, the decision reached in the ITA is necessarily inadequate. In other words, because the record lacks a basis for the state’s decision, the ITA is legally deficient. There is Insufficient Information and Analysis in the Record to Support the ITAs. As indicated above, the Executive Secretary has failed to support his decision on the Holly Expansion. Almost without exception, there is no indication in the record how he weighed or considered the various factors relevant to a complete and legally adequate permitting decision. Moreover, just as there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the Executive Secretary’s review of the proposed project and the Notice of Intent that purports to justify it, there is inadequate data and analysis to support contentions made by the company.


This appendix may be found at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/R8/R8Sips.nsf/b2af5baa99cc429287256b5f0054df73/7868fa249dc40d8 987256bad00746ebc?OpenDocument.

There is no Examination of the Feedstock in the Record, although Such Analysis is Necessary to Estimate Projected Emissions and otherwise Evaluate the Legality of the Permit. In its NOI, Holly Refining contends that the purpose of the expansion project is to increase and improve the refinery’s processing of black wax crude and to add to the refinery’s repertoire the processing of yellow waxy crude. However, the record is devoid of analysis of this feedstock and the impact the refining of that feedstock will have on emissions and the operation of the facility. Such analysis is critical for several reasons. Handling multiple crude feedstocks can stretch logistics assets. Acidic crudes can cause corrosion. Continually changing operating conditions can adversely affect machinery reliability. Difficult-to-refine feedstocks, such as heavy crude, are characterized by low API gravity (high density) and high viscosity, high initial boiling point, high carbon residue, high nitrogen content, high sulfur content, and high metals content. Black and yellow waxy crudes may be high in heavy metals such as nickel, vanadium, lead, chromium, mercury, arsenic, selenium, and other toxic elements. Moreover, heavier and dirtier types of crude oil require more cleaning. Yet, there is nothing in the record that addresses these issues: nothing that assesses the impact on the facility from the new feedstock or the potential for corrosion and increased problems with reliability, and nothing that evaluates the potential for heavy metals in the feedstock. All of these considerations would impact emissions and the proper permitting of the facility. Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this permit. Please inform us directly of any further action you take with regard to the NOI, ITA, proposed AO or the Holly Expansion. We hope that you will carefully review our comments and reconsider your decision in light of what we say here.

_____________________ Joro Walker Rob Dubuc Attorney for Utah Physicians, et al.


REFERENCES 1. Mauderly J.L., Samet J.M., Is There Evidence for Synergy Among Air Pollutants in Causing Health Effects?, 117 Environ. Health Perspect. 1-6 (2009). 2. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascular Health: Smoke and Pollution Matter, 120(11) EPUB 924-27 (2009). 3. Brook R., Rajagopalan S., Pope C.A., Brook J., Bhatnagar A., et al., AHA Scientific Statement: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease; An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association, Circulation, American Heart Association 121:2331-2378 (2010). 4. Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print]. 5. Zanobetti A., Schwartz J., Samoli E., Gryparis A., Touloumi G., Peacock J., Anderson R.H., Le Tertre A., Bobros J., Celko M., Goren A., Forsberg B., Michelozzi P., Rabczenko D., Hoyos S.P., Wichmann H.E., and Katsouyanni K., The Temporal Pattern of Respiratory and Heart Disease Mortality in Response to Air Pollution, 111(9) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1188-1193 (2003). 6. Peters, A., and Pope, C.A., III, Editorial, LANCET. Vol. 360, Oct 19, 2002. 7. Pope C.A. III, Muhlestein J.B., May H.T., et al., Ischemic Heart Disease EventsTriggered by Short-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, 114(23) EPUB 244348 (2006). 8. Dockery D.W., Stone P.H.. Cardiovascular Risks from Fine Particulate Air Pollution, 356(5) N. ENGL. J. MED. 511-13 (2007). 9. Miller K.A., Siscovick D.S., Sheppard L. et al., Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women, 356(5) N. ENGL. J. MED. 447-58 (2007). 10. Peters, A., Air Quality and Cardiovascular Health: Smoke and Pollution Matter, 120(11) EPUB 924-27 (2009). 11. Urch B, Silverman F, Corey P, et al. Acute Blood Pressure Responses in Healthy Adults during Controlled Air Pollution Exposures, 113 (8) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1052-55 (2005). 12. Peters A., von Klot S., Heier M., et al., Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction, 351 (17) N. ENGL. J. MED. 1721-30 (2004).


13. Shang-Shyue Tsai, William B. Goggins, Hui-Fen Chiu, and Chun-Yuh Yang, Evidence for an Association between Air Pollution and Daily Stroke Admissions in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 34 (11) STROKE 2612-16 (2003). 14. Mustafić H, Jabre P, Caussin C, Murad M, et al. Main Air Pollutants and Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2012. vol 307, no. 7 pg 713-721. 15. Szyszkowicz M, Rowe BH, Brook RD. Even Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollutants Are Associated With Increased Emergency Department Visits for Hypertension. Can J Cardiol. 2011 Sep 23. [Epub ahead of print]. 16. Wellenius G, Burger M, Coull B, Schwartz J, et al. Ambient Air Pollution and the Risk of Acute Ischemic Stroke. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(3):229-234. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.732. 16. Calle E, Thun M, Pope CA, Burnett R, et al. Cardiovascular Mortality and Exposure to Airbourne Fine Particulate Matter and Cigarette Smoke, Circulation, American Heart Association 120:941-948 (2009). 17. Hoffman B., Higher Blood Pressure Found in People Living in Urban Areas, Presentation, American Thoracic Society (May 17, 2010). 18. Kunzil N., Jerrett M., Garcia-Esteban, R., et al., Ambient Air Pollution and the Progression of Atherosclerosis in Adults, 5(2) PLOS ONE e9096 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009096 (2010). 19. Tonne C, Yanosky JD, Beevers S, Wilkinson P, Kelly FJ. PM Mass Concentration and PM Oxidative Potential in Relation to Carotid Intima-media Thickness. Epidemiology. 2012 Mar 23. [Epub ahead of print]. 20. Adar SD, Klein R, Klein BE, Szpiro AA, Cotch MF, Wong TY, O'Neill MS, Shrager S, Barr RG, Siscovick DS, Daviglus ML, Sampson PD, Kaufman JD. Air Pollution and the Microvasculature: A Cross-Sectional Assessment of In Vivo Retinal Images in the PopulationBased Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 30;7(11):e1000372. 21. Pope CA, Ezzate M, Dockery D. Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States, 360(4) N. ENGL. J. MED. 376-86 (2009). 22. 101. Correia A, Pope CA, Dockery D, Wang Y, Ezzati M, Dominici F. Effect of Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in the United States: An Analysis of 545 U.S. Counties for the Period from 2000 to 2007 Epidemiology. 3 December 2012 doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182770237 23. Baccarelli A., Martinelli A., Zanobetti A., et al., Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis, 168 ARCH. INTERN MED. 920-27 (2008).

24. Jacobs L., Emmerechts J., Mathieu C., Hoylaerts M.F., Fierens F., Hoet P.H., Nemery B., Nawrot T.S. Air Pollution Related Prothrombotic Changes in Persons with Diabetes, 118(2) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 191-96 (2010). 25. Hartz A., Bauer B., Block M., Diesel Exhaust Particles Induce Oxidative Stress, Proinflammatory signaling, and P-Glycoprotein, Up-Regulation at the Blood-Brain Barrier, THE FASEB JOURNAL 2723-33 (2008). 26. Lopez I, Acuna D, Beltran-Parrazal L, et al. Evidence for oxidative stress in the developing cerebellum of the rat after chronic mild carbon monoxide exposure (0.0025% in air). BMC Neuroscience 2009, 10:53doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-53. 27. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Mora-Tiscareno A., Ontiveros E., et al., AIR POLLUTION, COGNITIVE DEFICITS AND BRAIN ABNORMALITIES: A PILOT STUDY WITH CHILDREN AND DOGS, 68(2) BRAIN COGN. 117-27 (2008). 28. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Solt A.C., et al., Long-Term Air Pollution Exposure is Associated with Neuroinflammation, an Altered Innate Immune Response, Disruption of the Blood-Brain Barrier, Ultrafine Particulate Deposition, and Accumulation of Amyloid Beta-42 and Alpha-Synuclein in Children and Young Adults, 36(2) TOXICOL. PATHOL. 289-310 (2008). 29. Calderon-Garciduenas L., Franco-Lira M., Torres-Jardon R., Pediatric Respiratory and Systemic Effects of Chronic Air Pollution Exposure: Nose, Lung, Heart, and Brain Pathology, 35(1) TOXICOL. PATHOL.154-162 (2007). 30. Cruts B., van Etten L., Tornquvist H., et al., Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Induces Changes in EEG in Human Volunteers, 5(4) PART FIBRE TOXICOL. dol:1186/1743-8977-5-4 (2008). 31. Suglia S.F., et al., Association of Black Carbon with Cognition among Children in a Prospective Birth Cohort Study, 167 AM. J. EPIDEMIOLOGY 280-86 (2008). 32. Edwards SC, Jedrychowski W, Butscher M, Camann D, Kieltyka A, Mroz E, et al. 2010. Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Children’s Intelligence at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort Study in Poland. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901070. 33. Perera, FP, L Zhigang, R Whyatt, L Hoepner, S Wang, D Camann and V Rauh. 2009. 2009. Prenatal airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure and child IQ at age 5 years. Pediatrics doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3506. 34. Wang, Z., Zeng, X, Zeng, Y, Wang, S. Chen, S., Association of Traffic-Related Air Pollution with Children’s Neurobehavioral Functions in Quanzhou, China, 117(10) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1612-18 (2009).


35. Volk H, Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L , Lurmann F, McConnell R. Residential Proximity to Freeways and Autism in the CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Dec 13. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 21156395. 36. Power MC, Weisskopf MG, Alexeeff SE, Coull BA, Spiro Iii A, Schwartz J. Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Cognitive Function in a Cohort of Older Men. Harvard School of Public Health. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print]. 37. Ranft U, Schikowski T, Sugiri D, Krutmann J, Krämer U. Long-term exposure to traffic-related particulate matter impairs cognitive function in the elderly. Environ Res. 2009 Nov;109(8):1004-11. Epub 2009 Sep 4. 38. Weuve J, Puett R, Schwartz J, Yanosky J, Laden F, Grodstein F. Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Cognitive Decline in Older Women Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(3):219-227. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.683. 39. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Serrano-Sierra A, Torres-Jardón R, Zhu H, Yuan Y, Smith D, Delgado-Chávez R, Cross JV, Medina-Cortina H, Kavanaugh M, Guilarte TR. The impact of environmental metals in young urbanites' brains. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2012 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]. 40. Ciesielski T, Weuve J, Bellinger DC, Schwartz J, Lanphear B, Wright RO 2012. Cadmium Exposure and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in U.S. Children. Environ Health Perspect :-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104152. 41. Henn BC, Schnaas L, Ettinger AS, Schwartz J, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, HernándezAvila M, et al. 2011. Associations of Early Childhood Manganese and Lead Coexposure with Neurodevelopment. Environ Health Perspect 120:126-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003300. 42. Schelegle, E., Morales, C., Walby, W., et al, 6.6 Hour Inhalation of Ozone Concentrations from 60 to 87 Parts per Billion in Healthy Humans, 180 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE 265-72 (2009). 43. Thaller, E., Petronella, S., Hochman, D. et al., Moderate Increases in Ambient PM 2.5 and Ozone are Associated with Lung Function Decreases in Beach Lifeguards, 50(2) JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE 202-11 (2008). 44. Gauderman W.J., Gilliland G.F., Vora H., et al., Association between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in Southern California Children: Results from a Second Cohort, 166 AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED. 76-84 (2002). 45. Gauderman W.J., Gilliland G.F., Vora H., et al., The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age, 351(11) N. ENGL. J. MED. 1057-67 (2004).


46. Cakmak S, Dales R, Leech J, Liu L. The influence of air pollution on cardiovascular and pulmonary function and exercise capacity: Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). Environ Res. 2011 Oct 13. [Epub ahead of print]. 47. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Andersen ZJ, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sorensen M, Hansen J, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence: a Danish cohort study. Environ Health. 2011 Jul 19;10(1):67. [Epub ahead of print]. 48. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Andersen Z, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sørensen M, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjønneland A. Lung Cancer Incidence and Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jan 12. [Epub ahead of print]. 49. Turner MC, Krewski D, Pope Iii CA, Chen Y, Gapstur SM, Thun MJ. Long-Term Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Lung Cancer in a Large Cohort of Never Smokers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Oct 6. [Epub ahead of print]. 50. Pearson R.L., Wachtel H., Ebi K.L., Distance-Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity to a Home is a Risk Factor for Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers, 50(2) J. AIR WASTE MANAG. ASSOC. 175-180 (2000). 51. Weng H.H., Tsai S.S., Chen C.C., et al., Childhood Leukemia Development and Correlation with Traffic Air Pollution in Taiwan Using Nitrogen Dioxide as an Air Pollutant Marker, 71(7) J. TOXICOL. ENVIRON. HEALTH A. 434-8 (2008). 52. Crouse DL, Goldberg MS, Ross NA, Chen H, Labrèche F 2010. Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: A Case–Control Study. Environ Health Perspect 118:1578-1583. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002221. 53. Xu X, Liu C, Xu Z, Tzan K, et al. Long-term Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Pollution Induces Insulin Resistance and Mitochondrial Alteration in Adipose Tissue. Toxicological Sciences Volume 124, Issue 1Pp. 88-98. 54. Zou M. Is NAD(P)H Oxidase a Missing Link for Air Pollution–Enhanced Obesity? Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2010;30:2323-2324, doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.216648. 55. Zeft AS, Prahala S, Lefevre S, et al. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis and exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Clin Exp Rheumotol 2009 Sep-Oct; 27(5):877-84. 56. Krämer U, Herder C, Sugiri D, Strassburger K, Schikowski T, Ranft U, et al. 2010. Traffic-related Air Pollution and Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Results from the SALIA Cohort Study. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901689. 57. Puett RC, Hart JE, Schwartz J, Hu FB, Liese AD, Laden F 2011. Are Particulate Matter Exposures Associated with Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Environ Health Perspect 119:384389. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002344.


58. Veras M.M., Damaceno-Rodregues N., Caldini E., Ribeiro A., et al., Particulate Urban Air Pollution Affects the Functional Morphology of Mouse Placenta, 79(3) BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION 578-84 (2008). 59. Perera F., Tang W., Herbstman J., Relation of DNA Methylation of 5-CpG Island of ACSL3 to Transplacental Exposure to Airborne PAH and Childhood Asthma, 4(2) PLOS ONE e4488 (2009). 60. Hansen C., Barnett A., Prichard G., The Effect of Ambient Air Pollution during Early Pregnancy on Fetal Ultrasound Measurements during Mid-Pregnancy, 116(3) ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP. 362-69 (2008). 61. Bocskay K., Tang D., Orjuela M., et al., Chromosomal Aberrations in Cord Blood Are Associated with Prenatal Exposure to Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. CANCER EPIDEM. BIOMARKERS AND PREV. 506-511 (2005). 62. Perera F., Tang D., Tu Y., Biomarkers in Maternal and Newborn Blood Indicate Heightened Fetal Susceptibility to Procarcinogenic DNA Damage, 112(10) ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSP. 1133-36 (2004). 63. Pilsner J.R., Hu H., Ettinger A., Sanchez B.N., et al., Influence of Prenatal Lead Exposure on Genomic Methaylation of Cord Blood DNA, 117 (9) ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP., 1466-71 (2009). 64. Baccarelli A., Breathe Deeply into Your Genes!: Genetic Variants and Air Pollution Effects, 179(6) AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED., 431-2 (2009). 65. Baccarelli A., Wright R.O., Bollati V., Tarantini L., Litonjua A.A., Suh H.H., Zanobetti A, Sparrow D., Vokonas P.S., Schwartz J., Rapid DNA Methylation Changes after Exposure to Traffic Particles, 179(7) AM. J. RESPIR. CRIT. CARE MED., 523-4 (2009). 66. Yan Zhong, Steven G. Carmella, Pramod Upadhyaya, J. Bradley Hochalter, Diane Rauch, Andrew Oliver, Joni Jensen, Dorothy Hatsukami, Jing Wang, Cheryl Zimmerman, Stephen S. Hecht. Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxides. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2010; 101227010050010 DOI: 10.1021/tx100345x. 67. Rubes J, Selevan S, Evenson D, Zudova D, Vozdova M, Zudova Z, Robbins W, Perreault S. Episodic air pollution is associated with increased DNA fragmentation in human sperm without other changes in semen quality. Human Reproduction Vol.20, No.10 pp. 2776– 2783, 2005 doi:10.1093/humrep/dei122. Advance Access publication June 24, 2005. 68. Møller P, Folkmann JK, Danielsen PH, Jantzen K, Loft S. Oxidative Stress Generated Damage to DNA by Gastrointestinal Exposure to Insoluble Particles. Curr Mol Med. 2012 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print].


69. Sánchez-Guerra M, Pelallo-Martínez N, Díaz-Barriga F, Rothenberg SJ, HernándezCadena L, Faugeron S, Oropeza-Hernández LF, Guaderrama-Díaz M, Quintanilla-Vega B. Environmental polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure and DNA damage in Mexican children. Mutat Res. 2011 Dec 17. [Epub ahead of print]. 70. Topinka J, Rossner P Jr, Milcova A, Schmuczerova J, Svecova V, Sram RJ. DNA Adducts and Oxidative DNA Damage Induced by Organic Extracts From PM2.5 in an Acellular Assay. Toxicol Lett. 2011 Feb 14. [Epub ahead of print]. 71. Brody, J.G., R. Morello-Frosch, A. Zota, P. Brown, C. Perez and R. Rudel. 2009. Linking Exposure Assessment Science with Policy Objectives for Environmental Justice and Breast Cancer Advocacy: The Northern California Household Exposure Study. American Journal of Public Health, 99: S600-S609. 72. Barregard L, E Holmberg and G Sallsten. 2009. Leukaemia incidence in people living close to an oil refinery. Environmental Research 109:985-990. 73. Toxicological Profile for Benzene, 2005 Draft for Public Comment Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry United States Public Health Service. 74. Xing C, Marchetti F, Li G, et al. Benzene exposure near the US permissible limit is associated with sperm aneuploidy. Environ Health Perspect 2010;118:833-839. 75. Xu, Xiping, Sung-Il Cho, et al.. “Association of petrochemical exposure with spontaneous abortion.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 55: 31-36. 1998. 76. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR Jr, Lee DH, Shioda T, Soto AM, Vom Saal FS, Welshons WV, Zoeller RT, Myers JP. Hormones and EndocrineDisrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses. Endocr Rev. 2012 Mar 14. [Epub ahead of print]. 77. Goldstein B, Osofsky H, Lichtveld M. The Gulf Oil Spill. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:1334-1348. April 7, 2011. 78. A Lopez 1, Acuna D, Beltran-Parrazal L, et al. Evidence for oxidative stress in the developing cerebellum of the rat after chronic mild carbon monoxide exposure (0.0025% in air). BMC Neuroscience 2009,10:53 doi10.1186/1471-2202-10-53 79. Silverman DT, Samanic CM, Lubin JH, et al. The diesel exhaust in miners study: a nested case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust. J Natl Cancer Inst. March 2, 2012. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs034. 80. Attfield MD, Schlieff PL, Lubin JH, et al. The diesel exhaust in miners study: a cohort mortality study with emphasis on lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. March 2, 2012. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs035.


81. Fisher J, et al. Synapse Energy Economics. Co-Benefits of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Utah, March 24, 2010. 82. Hammond PB. Valuing Health Risks, Costs, and Benefits for Environmental Decision Making. National Research Council...EPA 1983, 1985.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful