Public Comments Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Public Comments Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

This document is a compilation of written* comments received during public comment period for the Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition. The public comment period was open from Jan. 14, 2020 until 4 p.m., Feb. 14, 2020.

The comments have been organized into three categories, comments in support of the petition, comments opposed to the petition, and those that are neutral.

Comment Category

Neutral Page 2

Opposed Page 19

Supports Page 146

*DEQ received verbal testimony at the Jan. 24, 2020 public hearing. That verbal testimony was recorded and is part of the EQC meeting record. DEQ considered verbal testimony but did not transcribe those comments into written form.

To: Department of Environmental Quality (attn: Karen Williams)

From: Tracy Rutten, League of Oregon Cities

Date: February 14, 2020

RE: Comments for EQC Consideration – Indirect Air Source Permitting Petition for Rulemaking

Comments submitted electronically to [email protected]

The League of Oregon Cities appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Indirect Source Rules Petition that was submitted to the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) on December 20, 2019. The LOC has been engaged in discussions and programs to address air quality emissions, including investments in Oregon’s Residential Solid Fuel Heating Air Quality Improvement Fund.

While the LOC has not taken a formal position on the petition, we do have significant concerns that we urge the EQC to carefully consider.

Impacted Cities - Construction Permits; Operating Permits:

As proposed, the petition seeks to require the regulation of emissions from the construction and operation of indirect air sources in cities and metropolitan service districts with a population of 50,000 or more. Under the proposed petition, 31 cities would be subject to regulations both in terms of direct regulation of city facilities and operations. In addition, there will be impacts to economic development and housing costs resulting from the construction and operation of various non-public facilities within city limits:

• Cities within metropolitan service district: Beaverton; Cornelius; Durham; Fairview; Forest Grove; Gladstone, Gresham; Happy Valley; Hillsboro, Johnson City; King City; Lake Oswego; Maywood; Milwaukie; Oregon City; Rivergrove; Sherwood; Tigard; Troutdale; Tualatin; West Linn; Wilsonville; Wood Village

• Cities with a population of 50,000 or more: Eugene, Salem, Bend, Medford, Springfield, Corvallis, Albany

• Types of public facilities that are likely to be considered as indirect sources under the proposed regulations: water and wastewater treatment facilities, city hall facilities, libraries, schools, parking facilities and public recreation facilities. The petition proposes that certain activities be subject to indirect source construction and operation permits. This includes construction or demolition of permanent residential, commercial or residential structures with areas exceeding 10,000 square feet; construction of parking facilities with capacity of 500 or more parking spaces, excavations exceeding 8,000 square feet of disturbed area, and

Page 1 of 3 development projects exceeding $1 million total contract value where estimated construction emissions may exceed certain annual thresholds. Again, the LOC urges the EQC to consider how these requirements will impact the ability of the state and local governments to meet identified needs for infrastructure investment, economic development and job creation, as well as housing affordability.

Infrastructure Impacts: We anticipate there will be increased costs associated with infrastructure projects as a result of the proposed regulations via the threshold for excavation (of more than 8,000 square feet) and mobile source operating provisions included in the petition. In 2016, the LOC surveyed cities across the state and identified $7.6 billion in water and wastewater infrastructure needs. In addition, over $3.5 billion in transportation needs were identified. This number represents the needs of 120 out of 241 cities in the state. The ability to address the backlog of infrastructure needs in this state should be a consideration of the EQC in the context of this deliberation and decision. In addition to addressing the general backlog of aging infrastructure, cities have clearly identified needs associated with seismic resilience for drinking water and wastewater systems. The LOC has no estimates of the potential increased infrastructure costs that could result should this petition be approved but we do ask the EQC to take the time to better understand how this may increase cost, delay needed improvements, and impact the ability of local governments to become more resilient against earthquakes and other natural disasters. Most local governments operate under budgetary constraints. As construction costs increase, the ability of local governments to invest beyond basic needs and repairs can be negatively impacted.

Impacts to Housing: One of the most critical issues facing communities statewide is the cost of housing and lack of affordable and workforce housing supply. Again, LOC has no estimates of the increased housing costs that may result should this petition for rulemaking move forward, but we ask the EQC and DEQ staff to work with other state agencies and stakeholders to estimate the potential cost impacts. It has been shown that one of the key mechanisms to address the affordable housing crisis that so many communities are facing, is to increase the supply of housing units available. With recent legislation passed in 2019 (HB 2001) many cities will be required to allow for middle housing (i.e. higher density homes) on single-family lots. In addition, it is our understanding that the construction of additional multi-family housing complexes, including affordable housing complexes made available to low-income Oregonians, will be subject to these proposed requirements. Potential increased costs for housing development should be well understood prior to moving forward with this petition.

Potential for Unfunded Mandate: Finally, the LOC will be further exploring as to whether the proposed regulations and requirements that directly relate to public facilities and services might trigger unfunded mandates provisions under Article XI, Section 15 of the Oregon Constitution. Subsection 3 reads:

(3) A local government is not required to comply with any state law or administrative rule or order enacted or adopted after January 1, 1997, that requires the expenditure of money by the local government for a new program or increased level of service for an existing program until the state appropriates and allocates to the local government reimbursement for any costs incurred to carry out the law, rule or order and unless the Legislative Assembly provides, by appropriation, reimbursement in each succeeding year for such costs. However, a local government may refuse to comply with a state law or administrative rule or order under this subsection only if the amount appropriated and allocated to the local government by the Legislative Assembly for a program in a fiscal year: (a) Is less than 95 percent of the usual and reasonable costs incurred by the local government in conducting the program at the same level of service in the preceding fiscal year; or

Page 2 of 3

(b) Requires the local government to spend for the program, in addition to the amount appropriated and allocated by the Legislative Assembly, an amount that exceeds one-hundredth of one percent of the annual budget adopted by the governing body of the local government for that fiscal year.

Ultimately, the LOC is urging the EQC to be diligent in gathering the necessary data to understand the potential impacts that these regulations could have on these key areas. This is a significant policy that we believe could result in very real impacts within the 31 cities identified above.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. W e sincerely appreciate this opportunity to share our perspective and concerns.

Page 3 of 3

January 15, 2020

Kathleen George, Chair Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Re: Indirect Source Rules for Construction and Operation

Dear Chair George:

As a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Metro has over a two-decade history collaborating with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on the implementation of air pollution and greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Metro is interested in the concept of addressing air quality impacts through indirect source permitting and believes now is an appropriate time to have this conversation.

While our region’s formal federal obligations pertaining to reducing transportation emissions were successfully completed in 2017, Metro remains aware much more needs to be done to achieve our region’s air quality and climate goals. For example, Metro is joining other jurisdictional partners to adopt clean diesel construction standards to reduce diesel emissions and pollution hotspots resulting from construction. In addition, Metro continues to partner with DEQ on implementing the Employee Commute Options Program through Metro’s Regional Travel Options program. On the horizon, Metro is aware DEQ will apply to participate in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Ozone Advance program to develop and implement proactive strategies to address recent violations of the ozone standards. Metro stands ready to assist in this effort.

We look forward to the discussion around air quality impacts through indirect source permitting and will serve in whatever capacity is helpful to find workable solutions to these very real concerns. Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

Lynn Peterson, President Shirley Craddick, District 1 Christine Lewis, District 2

Craig Dirksen, District 3 Juan Carlos Gonzalez, District 4 Sam Chase, District 5

Bob Stacey, District 6

February 14th, 2020

TO: Karen Williams FROM: Oregon Association of County Engineers and Surveyors President-Elect, Mike Bezner RE: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

To whom it may concern,

On behalf of the Oregon Association of County Engineers and Surveyors (OACES) I am writing to request that the petition to expand the Indirect Source Permit program be amended to remove transportation development projects outside of the city limits. We are an organization of transportation professionals that represent the largest share of Oregon’s road system, with 26,670 miles under county jurisdiction (39 percent), 3421 bridges, and approximately 26,000 culverts.

As transportation professionals, we have concerns with the proposed changes to the Indirect Source Permit program given the broad expansion of regulatory requirements for local governments. As written, the updated program would expand the permit program to incorporate development projects that exceed $1 million in a city or Metropolitan Service District that exceeds a population of 50,000. The threshold would apply the new regulations to many of the public works projects in those areas including some county projects.

The proposed expansion to the Indirect Source Construction Permit will delay project implementation and increase the cost of development projects that will have impacts to the detriment of emission reduction by requiring local agencies to conduct assessments and create emission reduction plans that accomplish similar results as what is already set in motion by House Bill 2007 (2019), clean diesel legislation.

Our specific concerns are outlined by section below.

Section 3(24): The definition of “Development Project” is unclear.

Under the given definition of “development project”, it is unclear whether the drafters intend to include road maintenance projects under Section 2(24)(b). If maintenance is considered a “reconstruction” activity, then counties in the Portland metro area that have jurisdiction within the

Oregon Association of County Engineers and Surveyors (OACES) 544 Ferry Street SE, Ste. 100 | Salem, OR 97301 | 503.843.5176 | www.crp.oregoncounties.org

Metropolitan Service District would be subject to additional emission standards when performing routine maintenance and operation projects.

Section 5: Delayed road maintenance decreases safety and increases emissions.

County roads are usually small, two-lane highways that need regular maintenance to maintain efficiency. The regulations would be targeting existing facilities whose projects typically encompass pavement repairs rather than increases to capacity, and are often not suitable for additional public transportation facilities which are the target of the original permit requirements.

Delayed maintenance activities from increased administration can result in inefficient roads and reduced safety that can slow traffic and increase idling and subsequent emissions. The metropolitan counties are committed to the environmental health of Oregon and have already taken steps to reduce their emissions, including supporting HB 2007 in the 2019 Legislative Session to require public fleets to transition to cleaner models by 2029.

Section 6 (2): Metro counties have already agreed to transition to cleaner, fuel-efficient medium and heavy-duty construction vehicles.

In addition to project delays, the additional regulations will increase the cost of development projects by requiring Air Impact Assessments and Monitor and Reporting Schedules to reduce the related construction emissions that are already being addressed in HB 2007.

The applicability standards for development projects include vehicle trips, horsepower, fuel consumption, and emission thresholds for construction vehicles which are all aimed at reducing the use of older diesel engines for construction activities with the prescribed mitigation measures all directly related to using newer, more efficient vehicles.

Section 6(2)(a): The proposed regulation aims to regulate off-road vehicles that should be left to the Legislative Assembly.

During the 2017 Legislative Session, the Oregon Legislative Assembly in coordination with the Association of Oregon Counties solicited an off-road diesel engine inventory study. The purpose of the study is to identify the number of off-road construction vehicles being used in public development projects to inform any future legislation.

We believe that the inventory should be complete before additional regulations are passed and that if regulations are proposed, they should be directed by the Oregon Legislative Assembly with consultation from local government.

We understand and support efforts to reduce air pollution in the Portland Metro area, but do not believe that broadly expanding the indirect source permit program is an effective means of achieving that goal. Counties in the Portland Metro area have already identified the emission-intensive equipment used in their daily operations and have committed to phasing in cleaner vehicles by 2029.

We ask that you give them the opportunity to do so without disrupting their ability to complete road maintenance projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed update to the Indirect Source Permit program. We are open to continuing the dialogue to find a collaborative solution that allows local governments to continue maintaining public infrastructure and being good stewards of the environment.

Thank you,

Mike Bezner Oregon Association of County Engineers and Surveyors President-Elect

PZ PORT OF PORTLAND Possibility. In every direction.

February 3, 2020

Karen Williams Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah St., Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Re: Indirect Source Rule Petition to the EQC

Dear Ms. Williams,

In 1891, the Oregon legislature founded the Port of Portland (Port) to dredge and maintain the shipping channel in the Columbia River from Portland to Astoria. Today, the Port manages Portland International Airport (PDX) and two general aviation airports in Troutdale and Hillsboro, operates four marine terminals, and is the largest holder of industrial land in the state — and to this day continues to dredge the shipping channel in the Columbia River on behalf of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Port is one of the state's major economic engines and transportation facilities, moving people and goods locally, regionally and globally.

The Port knows, and agrees with the petitioners, about the impacts of diesel emissions on air quality and of greenhouse gas emissions on climate. We share the petitioners' concerns regarding the environmental impacts of these emissions, and their impacts on the health of (predominately disadvantaged) communities. It is why the Port has long supported climate and clean diesel legislation in Salem, and why we are currently working with other local governments on clean diesel construction standards that we hope will accelerate the use of cleaner equipment in our region in a meaningful way.

The Port has also worked with airport partners to reduce emissions and minimize our impact on the people who live near, travel through, and/or work at PDX. We have installed preconditioned air and ground power units on all loading bridges — eliminating onsite emissions of parked aircraft. We participated in the Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) Network and will continue to work with airlines and other partners to support development of SAF use. All PDX shuttle buses run on compressed natural gas. PDX also has one of the largest collections of EV parking spaces among airports in the U.S. We aim to continuously improve on all our efforts.

As the Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Quality Commission are considering how to proceed regarding the petition to promulgate indirect source rules, we urge the commission to ensure that the department has adequate and sufficient time to fully study and evaluate the impacts of implementing such rules.

Mission: To enhance the region's economy and quality of life 7200 NE Airport Way Portland OR 97218 by providing efficient cargo and air passenger access Box 3529 Portland OR 97208 to national and global markets, and by promoting industrial development. 503 415 6000

e Printed oll 100 % recycled stock February 3, 2020 Page 2

We would also respectfully request that the commission and the department recognize that in these proposed rules, facility owners such as the Port of Portland would be asked to regulate mobile sources of emissions they don't own or control, which would make enforcement problematic and potentially harmful to our small and disadvantaged business partners.

And lastly, we strongly urge the commission to work with legislative stakeholders to ensure that the department will be adequately resourced to be able to completely assess the proposed rules and their impact and fully staff a thorough and thoughtful rule-making process. Ultimately, the department must have the program and staffing levels necessary to ensure a successful implementation of mobile source rules.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the petition to promulgate indirect source rules.

Sincerely,

Curtis Robinhold Executive Director 041.,4 PORT OF PORTLAND Possibility. In every direction

February 13, 2020

Oregon DEQ Attention: Karen Williams 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97232-4100 Email: ISPComment0Pdeq.state.or.us

Subject: Indirect Source Rules Petition - Port of Portland Additional Comments

Dear Ms. Williams:

The Port of Portland (Port) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Indirect Source Rules (ISR) petition submitted on December 20, 2019 and would like to add the following analysis to our February 3, 2020 comments. Our experience working under ISR, in the form of parking limits, and implementing voluntary emission reduction initiatives informs our perspective on the ISR petition.

Clean air matters to the Port. The Port operates under a public mandate to facilitate the movement of goods and provide efficient cargo and air passenger access to national and global markets. Maintaining good air quality helps protect the health of Portlanders, their quality of life and supports the regional economy by making Oregon more competitive, attracting new growth and development. While significant reductions in air toxics have been achieved through Federal regulatory measures, we recognize that complementary regional or state regulatory and voluntary measures are needed to protect the public's health.

The Port's principle concern is that the impact of ISR may not allow the Port to serve existing operations and grow operations in the future. With respect to this concern, we offer the following comments.

® Pnoted on 100% recycled stock Karen Williams Page 2

Comment #1a: ISR require facilities to be responsible for mobile source emissions that they predominantly do not own or control. In most cases, there are no contractual agreements with transportation providers servicing facilities, which provides little ability to control emissions. Unlike "in-use" standards, ISR have no requirement that fleet owners accelerate their purchase of new, cleaner equipment. ISR would either fine facilities when fleet owners do not purchase cleaner vehicles or would require facilities to limit hours of operation or shut down when they reach emission thresholds, which could have a chilling effect on jobs and the economic progress of our region.

Comment #1b: PDX is undertaking a significant expansion to be more resilient and to accommodate growth in passenger volumes that are projected to increase from today's 19 million passengers to just under 27 million by 2035. This expansion will require significant terminal and infrastructure improvements. Because of extensive and time- consuming permitting requirements, complex emissions modeling, and facility-wide emission limits, ISR could immediately interrupt facility construction and operations.

Recommendation #1: As an alternative to ISR, the Port recommends that DEQ explore expanding the use of "in-use" standards, similar to the state-wide standards promulgated for trucks in Oregon in HB2007, which was successfully negotiated between the trucking industry and environmental advocates. Similar to the process to develop HB2007, transportation providers should be engaged directly in the development process in order to identify the best approach to achieve desired emission reductions, while considering logistical and technology challenges and costs.

Comment #2: Large-scale emission reductions require significant investments in clean equipment and technology, which can have a profound effect on businesses, especially small and disadvantaged businesses. States like California have provided billions of dollars through programs like Carl Moyer and Proposition 1B to aid businesses in transitioning to cleaner equipment. As the California South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) contemplates ISR to address non-attainment with federal air quality standards, the creation of additional incentive funds is being contemplated to offset the cost of equipment retrofits and the purchase of new, cleaner equipment. Karen Williams Page 3

Oregon does not have comparable funding mechanisms. Volkswagen settlement funds are grossly inadequate to cover the large-scale diesel emission reductions needed in Oregon and Federal DERA funding is limited and difficult to secure.

Recommendation #2: To ease the substantial financial burden on businesses of transitioning to cleaner equipment and technologies, Oregon must create significant funding mechanisms, particularly for small and disadvantaged businesses.

Comment #3: Adequate time is needed to make large-scale transitions to cleaner equipment and technology. The success of reaching goals is linked with adequate technology, but if technology is used prematurely, or if the technology is inadequate to meet the requisite service needs, there will be significant setbacks in implementation and adoption. Moving from diesel to electric or hydrogen fuel cell will require a complete overhaul of supporting technology and infrastructure.

In adopting new technologies, adequate time is needed for infrastructure development and for businesses to undertake capital and operational planning. Pilot programs are the key to the success of emerging technologies.

Recommendation #3: A viable emissions reduction program must allow for the time needed for technology development and the time businesses need to plan and transition to cleaner equipment and technologies.

Comment #4: Regulations should not make it more difficult to conduct business in Oregon or negatively affect Oregon's supply chain or passenger services. If they do, operators may be incentivized to move to other jurisdictions which do not have the same regulations. Simply sending resource-intensive activities to markets in other ports or cities is not a solution. Doing so could have an overall negative economic and environmental effect by shifting the movement of goods to less efficient modes.

By maintaining an efficient transportation infrastructure system in Portland, the region's economy and connections to international markets can thrive and take advantage of the most fuel-efficient and cleanest solutions for moving people and cargo. Karen Williams Page 4

In developing ISR, California's SCAQMD will conduct an economic impact study, with review by a third party, that examines the proposed rule's impact on the competitiveness of the region's logistics industry. SCAQMD will also examine the potential impact on industrial real estate in Southern California.

Recommendation #4: Any regulatory proposal with the potential for significant impacts to Oregon's logistics and transportation industry should include an independently reviewed analysis of potential impacts on regional competitiveness and Oregon's economy.

Comment #5: Oregon, like other jurisdictions, is likely to face a myriad of federal preemption challenges pertaining to state authority to regulate certain mobile sources under ISR. The outcome of legal challenges has varied between different jurisdictions.

Recommendation #5: Should DEQ consider ISR rulemaking, it is recommended that DEQ consult with the Federal Aviation Administration, United States Department of Transportation, and other relevant federal authorities, to ensure that any contemplated measures do not conflict with federal authority and create a framework that regulated entities may not have the legal authority to impose on tenants and transportation providers.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional comments on the ISR petition and look forward to continuing to work with DEQ and other interested stakeholders on the issue of diesel reduction strategies in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Curtis Robinhol Executive Director From: Jeff Walden To: ISPComment Subject: ISP Comment Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 9:24:10 AM

The Obama regulations on miles per gallon standards should be reinstated and enforced as soon as possible. Where possible, make those restrictions even tighter. Instead of millions to corporate CEO's put the money into the development of cleaner fuel efficient vehicles. From: Joseph Dial To: ISPComment Subject: emissions (smoke) Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:28:54 PM

To whom it may concern; I feel that vehicles that are badly in need of smoke control ie, cars and trucks that need ring jobs, you know the ones that when they take off the folks behind them have to breathe their exhaust smoke. We should not have to live with that. Maybe the police should issue fix-it tickets. Plus businesses that own badly smoking trucks should have to pay fines if they neglect to correct their vehicle exhaust problems. Thanks From: Simon Kipersztok To: ISPComment Subject: Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 8:33:49 AM

Some vehicles that freely circulate in highways and cities releasing toxic fumes from their exhaust should be stopped and impounded until they are fixed, re-examined and documented to being unable to pollute. From: Tom Burdett To: ISPComment Subject: Letter of concern Date: Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:38:23 AM

Good day, Please review and understand my position on the Indirect Source Rulemaking. Thanks in advance for your time to read my position on this issue. Sincerely, Tom Burdett From: Kristal Dufour To: ISPComment Subject: EQC Petition Date: Saturday, January 25, 2020 4:38:45 PM

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I would like to express my objection to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The cost to business and local governments across Oregon will be enormous and completely unnecessary.

The petition is broad and applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. The impact on my community will be an unnecessary hardship.

Please reject this petition.

Kristal R. Dufour Funeral Director/Owner AAsum-Dufour Funeral Home Albany OR

February 14, 2020

Re: Airlines for America Comments on Petition to Promulgate Indirect Source Rules Submitted via email to: [email protected]

To the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Attn: Karen Williams): As the principal trade and service organization of the U.S. airline industry,1 Airlines for America (A4A) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Petition to Promulgate Indirect Source Rules (ISR Petition) recently submitted to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). A4A and our member airlines have a strong environmental record and a demonstrated commitment to sustainable aviation growth. We have a long history of working with state and local officials to create practical, effective approaches to reduce air emissions consistent with applicable federal and state law. We stand ready to work with both the Oregon ECQ and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), as well as the Port of Portland, to drive towards a more sustainable future by maintaining the aviation industry’s critical role in the national, state and local economies while further reducing our environmental footprint. However, the approach proposed by the ISR Petition is both contrary to law and untenable. Importantly, as set out in more detail below, the Clean Air Act does not provide authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHG) under an Indirect Source Review Program under any circumstances. Nor does the Act provide authority for such a program to regulate criteria pollutants unless it is “necessary to assure” either a national primary ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) is met or to prevent maintenance of that standard. Accordingly, we strongly urge that the DEQ recommend that the ECQ deny the ISR Petition and decline to initiate a rulemaking.2

Introduction A4A and our members are committed to continuing to provide safe, reliable commercial air service that is a critical engine of strong, environmentally sustainable economic growth. For the past several decades, the U.S. airlines have dramatically improved fuel and emissions efficiency by investing billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines, innovative technologies like winglets (which improve aerodynamics) and cutting-edge route-optimization software. As a result, between 1978 and 2018, the U.S. airline industry improved its fuel efficiency by more than 130 percent, resulting in nearly 5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) savings – equivalent to taking over 26 million cars off the road each of those years. Building upon this foundation, A4A and our member airlines continue their efforts to improve environmental

1 A4A’s members are: Alaska Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Federal Express Corporation, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways Corp., Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines Holdings, Inc., and United Parcel Service Co. Air Canada, Inc. is an associate member. 2 We understand that the DEQ’s solicitation of comments is intended to inform its recommendation to the EQC as to whether to deny the ISR Petition or initiate a rulemaking and that, should the EQC decide to initiate a rulemaking to consider adoption of the ISR as proposed or otherwise amended, the EQC will be obligated to formally propose any regulatory requirements and provide public notice and opportunity to comment on any such formal regulatory proposal. Accordingly, these comments are not intended to assert each and every potential basis for opposing the ISR as proposed by the Petitioners and we expressly reserve the right to assert any and all legal or other bases for opposing any such ISR or associated regulatory requirements the EQC may decide to formally propose in the future. A4A Comments February 14, 2020 Page 2 performance. Since 2009, we have been active participants in a global aviation coalition that committed to 1.5 percent annual average fuel efficiency improvements through 2020, with goals to achieve carbon neutral growth from 2020 and a 50 percent net reduction in CO2 emissions in 2050, relative to 2005 levels, subject to critical aviation infrastructure and technology advances achieved by government and industry. The initiatives our members are undertaking to further address GHG emissions are designed to responsibly and effectively limit fuel consumption, GHG contributions, and potential climate change impacts, while allowing commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key contributor to the economy, at the local, regional, national and global levels. In addition to adopting an array of technology, operations and infrastructure measures, U.S. airlines were leading participants in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) work to adopt and implement the ICAO Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) and a internationally-agreed CO2 certification standard for future aircraft. A4A and our members also have been working hard to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a viable Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) industry, including through our public-private initiatives such as the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative® (CAAFI). Moreover, the U.S. airlines have a strong record of limiting and reducing emissions with local air quality effects. For example, in addition to supporting federally-imposed emissions standards for ground support equipment (GSE), A4A and our members have committed the time and resources needed to support the development of economically reasonable, technologically feasible international standards for aircraft engines and aircraft governing noise, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM), and CO (carbon monoxide), through the International Civil Aviation Organization / Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (“ICAO/CAEP”). In turn, we have strongly supported efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – which has exclusive authority under the Clean Air Act (42 USC § 7573) to regulate aircraft engine emissions in consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – to incorporate these standards into U.S. law. In addition, our experience working with California regulators and airports to help address the most extreme air quality issues in the country also speaks to our commitment to finding viable solutions for reducing emissions. Most recently, working with the major commercial airports in the South Coast Basin, despite California’s unique regulatory authority under the federal Clean Air Act to address their extreme local air quality issues, we were able to create voluntary programs to reduce emissions from non-aircraft mobile sources related to airport operations which will generate real, verifiable emissions reductions that the South Coast Air Quality Management District will be able to credit towards attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Significantly, the District Board had initially considered developing an Indirect Source Rule for commercial airports but understood this voluntary process to be a more effective and legally viable means of achieving emissions reductions at commercial airports.

The DEQ Should Recommend the ECQ Deny the ISR Petition We urge the DEQ to recommend denial of the ISR Petition for several reasons. First, the Petitioners propose imposing strict, very specific “Emission Standards” (discussed in more detail below) without providing any basis for evaluating the emission reductions these standards would achieve or how those reductions would relate to achievement of health or climate-based air quality goals. As outlined above, we understand and support well-designed efforts to further reduce emissions and mitigate associated impacts. However, public policy and implementing regulatory measures must be based on more than generalized concerns. For example, as a predicate to its efforts to develop measures to reduce air emissions in the South

A4A Comments February 14, 2020 Page 3

Coast Basin, the District performed exhaustive analyses, including cost-benefit analyses, to understand and quantify emissions reductions necessary to achieve well-defined emission reduction goals in a cost-effective manner. The Petitioners offer no such analyses nor provide any explanation for why the very specific “Emissions Standards” proposed for non-road and on- road vehicles and engines are necessary to achieve environmental or health-based goals. Certainly, there is no attempt to assess the costs associated with achieving the proposed “Emissions Standards” or to provide a cost-benefit analysis to justify the specific emission levels proposed. In sum, while Petitioners propose very specific, very strict “Emissions Standards” they provide no basis for evaluating the specific reductions such standards would achieve or for why the emissions limits they propose are necessary to achieve health and climate goals. Second, although Petitioners propose very specific, very strict “Emissions Standards” to restrict emissions from various mobile sources (even when operating beyond Oregon’s borders3), there is no attempt to explain how or evaluate whether the proposed standards could be achieved as a practical matter. For example, under proposed Section 7(2)(C) (emphasis added), the holder of an operating permit would be required to ensure that the “total aggregate greenhouse gas emissions associated with all mobile source activities associated with the indirect [source] . . . not exceed ten metric tons per day CO2e.” “Mobile source” is defined (proposed Section 3, 41) (emphasis added) to include virtually any vehicle and engine, encompassing “both on-road and non-road vehicles and engines, including but not limited to automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, engines used in nonroad construction equipment, locomotives, marine vessels and aircraft.” The definition of “mobile source activity” (proposed Section 3, 42)) is equally sweeping as it “means any process, operation, action, or reaction (e.g., chemical) of a mobile source or combination of mobile sources that emits a regulated pollutant.” Importantly, these definitions do not establish any geographical limit to their scope. The definition of “emissions” also is without geographical limitation as Petitioners define it to mean “a release into the atmosphere of any regulated pollutant or any air contaminant” (proposed Section 3, 26) (emphasis added)). Consequently, as applied to an airport, this provision would require the airport authority to limit the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from an extraordinarily broad array of sources, including but not limited to: - aircraft (whether small general aviation piston engine aircraft, business jets, or large commercial single and twin aisle jets), trucks, buses, shuttle services and passenger cars, whether en route to or from the airport; - the vast variety of airport ground support equipment (ranging from baggage tractors, to belt loaders to large ground power units, air conditioning units, aircraft pushback tractors, large aircraft cargo loaders); and - non-road vehicles operated by the airport authority. Despite proposing this extraordinarily broad regulation of air emissions (including emissions from aircraft, trucks and cars that occur beyond the borders of Oregon and the United States), the Petitioners make absolutely no attempt to demonstrate that the “Emissions Standards” proposed in Section 7(2)(C) could be achieved as a practical matter or to examine what societal, economic and other impacts would be entailed in its achievement. Proposed Section 7(2)(a)(A) is even more problematic. That section (emphasis added) would require the holder of an “Indirect Source Operating Permit” to ensure: [t]he average exhaust emissions for all non-road vehicles, engines, and equipment greater than twenty-five (25) horsepower associated with the indirect source may not exceed 0.02 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) PM2.5 or 0.4 g/kW-hr NOx, during any sixty-minute period.”

3 With due respect, we note that the State clearly has no authority to regulate emissions beyond its borders.

A4A Comments February 14, 2020 Page 4

In addition to addressing a huge array of very different sources (aircraft, GSE, on-airport shuttle buses, etc.) and, in the case of aircraft at least, encompassing emissions that occur outside Oregon and the United States, this provision introduces a problematic temporal component. As written, “any sixty-minute period” could be interpreted to mean any such period (whether beginning and ending at the top of an hour, one minute past and after an hour, two minutes minute past and after an hour, etc.) implying a need to assess emissions and ensure compliance on a minute-to-minute basis. Again, the Petitioners offer no analysis as to whether or how this “Emissions Standard” could be achieved as a practical matter. This is especially cogent in the context of an airport, where the airport operator does not have the legal authority to restrict the operation of aircraft, passenger vehicles or cargo trucks that visit the airport. Third, as should be apparent from the discussion above, the proposed requirements would impose extraordinary administrative and practical burdens. As written, Section 7(2)(a)(A) would require the holder of an operating permit for an airport to quantify and track emissions from all non-road sources, including aircraft en route to and from the airport, at any given minute to ensure the posited “Emissions Standards” are met in “any sixty minute period.” Moreover, the regulating authority would be required to verify the permit holders’ analyses and enforce compliance with the “Emissions Standards.” It must be noted that any such efforts would be fraught with many difficult (perhaps irresolvable) analytical issues. For example, in the case of cargo trucks that may visit more than one regulated indirect source (e.g., an airport, warehouse, shopping mall, distribution center, etc.) how would emissions “associated” with each of these facilities (e.g., while en route outside of Oregon) be allocated among these regulated entities? Finally, and most importantly, the proposed ISR is unquestionably illegal as it is preempted by both the Clean Air Act and federal aviation laws.

A. Regulation of Airport and Aircraft Emissions as Proposed in the ISR is Preempted by Federal Law 1. Aircraft Engine Emissions are Exclusively Regulated at the Federal Level by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Aviation Administration The proposed ISR defines regulated mobile sources to include “aircraft,” and purports to authorize state regulation of “any process, operation, [or] action … of a mobile source or combination of mobile sources that emits a regulated pollutant.” The proposed ISR is expressly preempted by the Clean Air Act because it would effectively regulate aircraft emissions, which are exclusively regulated at the federal level. 42 USC § 7573. EPA has exclusive jurisdiction to adopt uniform emission standards for aircraft in consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with ensuring the safety of air travel. 42 USC § 7571-72. This, in part, in intended to ensure that the standards follow Congress’ imperative that “safe operation of the airport and airway system is the highest aviation priority.” See 49 U.S.C. § 47101(a)(1). EPA and FAA have exercised their authority, working with ICAO/CAEP, and EPA has adopted increasingly stringent aircraft emission standards. The State of Oregon has no legal authority to adopt its own conflicting emission requirements relating to aircraft. Certainly, no State or local government has the authority, as the Petitioners propose, per proposed Section 7(2)(a), to take emissions limits adopted by EPA to apply to a particular, carefully defined category of “nonroad” engines and apply them to aircraft. 2. The Federal Aviation Act and Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”) Preempt the Proposed ISR’s Regulation of Airport Operations The Federal Aviation Act occupies the field of aviation, and impliedly preempts states from adopting regulations relating to the movement and operation of aircraft, or the safe and efficient

A4A Comments February 14, 2020 Page 5 utilization of the national airspace system. 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a) (“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.”). In the realm of aviation, the Supreme Court has observed: Federal control is intensive and exclusive. Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal commands. The moment a ship taxis onto a runway it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls. City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 633-34 (1973) (citation omitted); see also Arapahoe County Public Airport v. FAA, 242 F.3d 1213, 1220-21 (10th Cir. 2001) (“in the arena of aviation regulation ‘federal concerns are preeminent’”) (citation omitted). Separately, the Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”) expressly preempts any state requirement “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1). ADA preemption has a “broad scope” and “expansive sweep.” Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384 (1992). Preempted measures relating to airline “services” include state efforts to regulate the frequency and scheduling of flights, aircraft types offered, and the markets to and from which transportation service is provided. 49 USC § 41713(b)(1).4 The proposed ISR would impose intensive state regulation of airport activities and aircraft operations and their associated emissions and is therefore preempted by both the Federal Aviation Act and the ADA. See, e.g., Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. City of Los Angeles, 979 F.2d 1338, 1340-41 (9th Cir. 1992) (“regulation of runways and taxiways is . . . a direct interference with the movements and operations of aircraft, and … therefore preempted by federal law.”); Federal Express Corp. v. California Public Utilities Comm’n, 936 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1991) (ADA preempts state regulation of airport cargo vehicle activities, which are “part and parcel of the air delivery system”). Among other things, Congress has vested FAA with the exclusive authority to regulate the number and frequency of landings and takeoffs at a given airport, the use of runways and taxiways, and airport takeoff, landing, approach, and taxi procedures. See e.g., Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Goldschmidt, 645 F.2d at 1315; Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1195 (5th Cir. 1982); City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 639 n.22 (1973). Both EPA and FAA have recognized that state regulation of airport transportation activities is generally preempted by federal law. See, e.g., 66 FR 57160, 57188-89 (November 14, 2001) (EPA acknowledging that states have “no authority to control airline operations”); Letter from Paul Dykeman, Deputy Director, Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, to Donald Zinger, Assistant Director for Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. EPA (August 24, 2000), page 8 (“[a] broad reading of state authority to regulate aircraft operations directly, or indirectly through ground service equipment limitations, would be inconsistent with federal preemption of airspace management and aircraft operations.”).

B. The Proposed ISR’s Construction and Operating Emission Requirements for On-Road and Non-Road Vehicles are Preempted by Clean Air Act § 209 In the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress vested EPA with the authority to set nationwide emissions standards for mobile sources, including on-road and non-road vehicles. 42 USC §§ 7521, 7547. The CAA preempts state and local governments from adopting or enforcing

4 In evaluating the legality of the regulation proposed by the Petitioners, it is relevant that a similar provision, 49 U.S.C. §1450(c)(1), also preempts state and local regulation of motor carriers. The Supreme Court has made clear that these provisions broadly preempt state regulation including where purportedly based on public health objectives. See Rowe v. N,H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008).

A4A Comments February 14, 2020 Page 6 standards relating to the control of emissions from on-road and non-road motor vehicles, unless identical to the federal standards or, given California’s unique authority, identical to standards adopted by California and authorized by EPA. See 42 USC § 7543(a), (e). Preempted state standards include requirements that fleet operators acquire and operate “vehicles with particular emission characteristics.” See Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 541 U.S. 246, 255 (2004). CAA preemption is not limited to requirements for new engines or vehicles, but also preempts state laws that would require existing vehicles to be retrofitted. See 40 CFR Part 89, App. A (“states are precluded from requiring retrofitting of used nonroad engines”); Engine Manufacturers Ass’n, 88 F.3d 1075 (CAA preemption is not limited to new vehicle emission standards). Among other things, the construction and operating permit emissions requirements in Sections 6(2) and 7(2) of the proposed ISR would expressly establish “Emissions Standards” that impose precisely the kind of quantitative vehicle emission requirements that are preempted by the CAA. . The emission requirements contemplated by the petition are preempted emission standards. Cf. Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 627 F.3d 730, 740 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An emissions limit calculated by reference to a fleet of engines or vehicles is as much a ‘standard’ as an emissions limit calculated by reference to an individual engine or vehicle.”).

C. The Clean Air Act’s Indirect Source Review Provisions Require Denial of the ISR Petition Contrary to the Petitioners’ arguments (e.g., ISR Petition at 20), the indirect source review provisions of the federal CAA do not give States the breadth or type of authority claimed and certainly are not a blanket authorization for states to indirectly regulate mobile source emissions they are clearly preempted from regulating directly. First, Congress did not grant States the authority to adopt ISRs. Rather, Congress authorized States to “include” an ISR “in a State Implementation Plan” subject to EPA approval. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(A)(5)(a)(i). Moreover, under § 7410(A)(5)(D) an “indirect source review program” is defined as a: facility-by-facility review of indirect sources of air pollution, including such measures as are necessary to assure, or assist in assuring, that a new or modified indirect source will not attract mobile sources of air pollution, the emissions from which would not cause or contribute air pollution concentrations - - (i) exceeding any national primary ambient air quality standard attainment date, or (ii) preventing maintenance of any such standard after such date. Thus, the CAA provides no authority whatsoever to any entity (federal, state or local) to address GHG emissions through an “indirect source review program” as GHG emissions are not the subject of a national primary ambient air quality standard. Further, any such state ISR program must be designed to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS. As pointed out above, the Petitioners have made no such showing and thus established no legal basis for adopting the ISR they propose.5 Finally, § 7410(A)(5)(B) (emphasis added) makes clear that, in the case of

5 DEQ unequivocally affirms that “[c]urrently, all Oregonians live in areas that meet federal air quality standards” (see https://www.oregon.gov/deq/aq/Pages/default.aspx) (emphasis added) and that in Portland, home of Portland International Airport, “air quality currently meets all federal air quality health standards” (see https://www.oregon.gov/deq/aq/Pages/AQ-Portland.aspx.). There are three areas that remain designated as “nonattainment”: Klamath Falls and Oakridge (in Lane County) for PM2.5 and Oakridge for PM10 (see (https://www.oregon.gov/deq/aq/Pages/Nonattainment-Areas.aspx). However, EPA has finalized findings of attainment for all three of these areas. See 81 Fed. Reg. 36176 (June 6, 2016) (“finding of attainment . . . for the Klamath Falls PM2.5 area as meeting the requirements of the CAA”); 66 Fed. Reg. 38,947 (July 26, 2001) (finding “the Oakridge nonattainment area in Oregon has attained the [NAQQS for PM10].”)) and 83 Fed. Reg. 5537 (February 8, 2018) (“finding of attainment by the attainment date . . . for the Oakridge-Westfir (Oakridge), Oregon fine particulate matter area”). DEQ indicates that there are only two maintenance areas for PM10 in the State, only one of which (Grants Pass) has a “Limited Maintenance Plan” – as DEQ explains (at p. 5, emphasis added) such “limited” plans were developed as an “option for areas with little risk of re-violating the PM10

A4A Comments February 14, 2020 Page 7 federal facilities, “[t]he Administrator shall have the authority to promulgate, implement and enforce regulations . . . respecting indirect source programs,” specifying such exclusive authority pertains to “federally assisted highways, airports, and other major federally assisted indirect sources and federally owned and operated facilities.”

Conclusion Again, A4A stands ready to work with state and local officials to create effective legally viable approaches to further reduce emissions, protect public health, and address climate change while maintaining the aviation industry’s critical role in the national, state and local economies. For the reasons stated above, the approach proposed in the ISR Petition must be rejected -- certainly as applied to aircraft and airports. Accordingly, we strongly urge that the DEQ recommend that the ECQ deny the ISR Petition and decline to initiate a rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Timothy A. Pohle Senior Managing Director, Environmental Affairs

standard.” There is only one Ozone Maintenance Plan in the state, the Portland-Vancouver and Salem-Keizer Area Ozone Maintenance Plan, which dates from 2007. There is no indication that the Ozone standard is in danger of being violated in Portland.

February 14, 2020

Oregon DEQ Attn: Karen Williams 700 NE Multnomah St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Submitted Electronically to [email protected]

RE: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) strongly urges the DEQ to recommend the EQC deny the ISR Petition and decline to initiate a rulemaking. 1 As discussed below, the petition proposes to establish new regulatory authority that conflicts with federal law and would be impractical to implement. For these reasons, the petition should be denied.

The trucking industry has made significant progress reducing emissions. As a result of more stringent federal engine emissions standards, a new truck today generates 90% less particulate matter (PM) and the ozone precursor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), than a similar truck manufactured prior to 2007. In addition, the fuel economy of these new trucks is improved by at least 20 percent, which directly correlates to reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. An additional 25 percent improvement in fuel economy, and GHG reductions, is being phased-in through 2027. These improvements will provide additional reductions in NOx and PM emissions.

Efforts are also underway to further lower NOx emissions from heavy-duty trucks through EPA’s proposed Cleaner Trucks Initiative. This national effort will provide further emissions reductions throughout the nation. Despite these significant emissions reduction efforts, the ISR petition seeks to establish new regulatory authority over trucking operations in Oregon. ATA opposes this unprecedented effort to establish a patchwork of differing emissions standards among the various facilities in the state. Specific concerns are discussed below.

1. The proposed rule’s emissions requirements are preempted by the Clean Air Act.

In the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress vested EPA with the authority to set nationwide emissions standards for mobile sources, including on-road and non-road vehicles [42 USC §§ 7521, 7547]. The CAA preempts state and local governments from adopting or enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from on-road and nonroad motor vehicles, unless identical to standards adopted by California and authorized by

1 ATA is a united federation of motor carriers, state trucking associations, and national trucking conferences created to promote and protect the interests of the trucking industry. Directly and through its affiliated organizations, ATA encompasses over 34,000 motor carriers and suppliers of every type and class of operation in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition Comments of the American Trucking Associations, February 14, 2020 Page 2 of 4

EPA [42 USC § 7543(a), (e)]. Preempted state standards include requirements that fleet operators acquire and operate “vehicles with particular emission characteristics” [Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 541 U.S. 246, 255 (2004)]. The CAA preemption is not limited to requirements for new engines or vehicles, but also preempts state laws that would require existing vehicles to be retrofitted [40 CFR Part 89, App. A; Engine Manufacturers Ass’n, 88 F.3d 1075].

Among other things, the construction and operating permit emissions requirements in Sections 6(2) and 7(2) of the proposed Indirect Source Rule would expressly establish “emissions standards” that impose precisely the kind of quantitative vehicle emission requirements that are preempted by the Clean Air Act. Such requirements go well beyond regulating total emissions from a particular location and effectively impose direct mandatory emission limits on vehicles. Thus, the emission requirements contemplated by the petition are preempted emission standards [Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 627 F.3d 730, 740 (9th Cir. 2010].

2. The Clean Air Act’s Indirect Source Review provisions create no state legal authority to impose substantive emission limits.

Contrary to the Petitioners’ arguments (e.g., ISR Petition at 20), the Indirect Source Review provisions of the federal Clean Air Act do not give states the breadth or type of authority claimed and certainly are not a blanket authorization for states to indirectly regulate mobile source emissions they are clearly preempted from regulating directly. First, Congress did not grant states the authority to adopt ISRs. Rather, Congress authorized states to “include” an ISR “in a State Implementation Plan” subject to EPA approval [42 U.S.C. § 7410(A)(5)(a)(i)]. Oregon only has two remaining nonattainment areas, both of which fall below the geographic threshold contained in the petition. As such, the proposed rule would apply to areas of the state which attain federal air quality standards and do not require a SIP. Moreover, under § 7410(A)(5)(D) an “indirect source review program” is defined as a:

“facility-by-facility review of indirect sources of air pollution, including such measures as are necessary to assure, or assist in assuring, that a new or modified indirect source will not attract mobile sources of air pollution”, the emissions from which would not cause or contribute air pollution concentrations (i) exceeding any national primary ambient air quality standard attainment date, or (ii) preventing maintenance of any such standard after such date.

Thus, there is no authority under the CAA whatsoever to address GHG emissions through an “indirect source review program” as GHG emissions are not the subject of a national primary ambient air quality standard. Further, any such state ISR program must be designed to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS. As pointed out above, the Petitioners have made no such showing and thus established no legal basis for adopting the ISR they propose. Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition Comments of the American Trucking Associations, February 14, 2020 Page 3 of 4

3. The proposed rule violates the dormant Commerce Clause.

As discussed below, the proposed rule will have serious negative effects on interstate commerce and will add unique and discriminatory burdens which will have the effect of impeding the state’s economic competitiveness. Accordingly, the proposed rule will be subject to close scrutiny under the federal constitution’s “dormant commerce clause” and “rights and immunities” protections.

4. The primacy of local government control over land use decisions must be recognized.

The primacy of local governments’ decision-making powers concerning questions of land use and development needs to be considered. The proposed rule would impinge on the prerogatives that have been reserved for local government affecting land use decisions. These impact will undergo close scrutiny under state law.

5. In a practical sense, the proposed rule will negatively impact goods movement and goods movement-dependent businesses in the following ways.

Create System Uncertainty. Shippers will not know if they can deliver goods to facilities subject to the permitting scheme and emissions standards. Similarly, facility operators may not have control over or knowledge of the characteristics of the vehicles entering or exiting their facilities. In addition, truck owners depend upon a minimum “useful economic life” when purchasing and operating a truck. Excluding vehicles from facilities could threaten this economic life and, ultimately, the livelihood of their businesses.

Increase Emissions. The proposed rule will encourage freight distributors to invest in areas outside of the affected geographic regions, or even the state, thus leading to increased VMT, more fuel consumption and higher greenhouse gas emissions. A review of literature on “carbon optimized supply chains” suggests that carbon emissions are lowered by locating freight facilities closer to the populations they serve. Limits on freight facility throughput in Oregon will drive distributors further from the state’s population centers.

Decrease Efficiency. Traveling further to reach freight hubs leads to increased delay, increased cost, and decreased efficiency.

Decrease the Competitiveness of Oregon’s Goods Movement System. Fewer investments in new facilities will be made if investors cannot be assured that the facility will be able to grow over time and earn a fair return. Less cargo with high fixed costs leads to higher transportation costs per unit, and higher transportation costs per unit lead to less cargo with higher fixed costs per unit. This is a dangerous cycle. Less cargo and lower revenues will lead to fewer job opportunities in freight, lower state and local tax revenues from freight, lower re-investment levels in freight infrastructure, and lower levels of economic activity for middle class and blue collar workers. Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition Comments of the American Trucking Associations, February 14, 2020 Page 4 of 4

What else will the proposed rule do?  Divert goods to competing out-of-state ports and regions;  Discourage new development in Oregon, particularly warehousing;  Squander existing infrastructure and capacity investments due to vacancies in existing warehouses and underutilized facilities;  Eliminate many logistics jobs;  Increase congestion, vehicle miles traveled, and overall emissions, especially GHGs;  Delay manufacturing schedules;  Lead to increased perishable cargo spoilage due to delays; and  Increase demands for overnight truck parking.

For the reasons stated above, ATA strongly urges the DEQ to recommend the EQC deny the ISR Petition and decline to initiate a rulemaking. We stand committed to continuing to work with our federation partner, the Oregon Trucking Association, to seek practical solutions to further reduce emissions at the state and national levels.

Respectfully,

Michael Tunnell Director, Energy and Environmental Affairs American Trucking Associations

February 14, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Chair George:

I do not support the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. Oregon has regulatory programs that improve air quality. This petition ignores good staff work by staff of the Oregon, as well as the fact that the state is not exceeding State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter or Ozone in areas where this petition would apply. Let’s not burden Oregon businesses with more costly regulations.

I support improving Oregon’s air quality and believe the state should continue to implement the regulatory programs that make our state’s air cleaner. I’m an advocate for affordable housing, this petition would also apply to all new development projects, even the size of a typical single-family home. That’s just wrong. Plus, many vital local services would be affected, hospitals, churches, schools, universities, government buildings, day care centers, senior citizen centers, housing projects (affordable and otherwise), prisons, and grocery stores.

It is clear that the petitioners’ real target is to regulate fuel efficiency and reduce emissions from mobile sources. This regressive regulatory approach ignores that ODEQ already administers numerous programs for regulating emissions from mobile sources, like the Clean Fuels, Clean Diesel, Low Emission Vehicle and Vehicle Inspection Programs.

Please take the time to evaluate this petition, which drives unnecessary and onerous regulations that would negatively affect business, government and Oregonians. Our state deserve unbiased regulations.

Sincerely,

Liz Cawood, APR President

9450 SW Commerce Circle, #200 Wilsonville, OR 97070 January 24, 2020 503-682-3363 800-826-6610 Fax 503-682-1696 Kathleen George, Chair www.agc-oregon.org Oregon Environmental Quality Commission 700 NE Multnomah St., Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97232

RE: EQC Consideration of Indirect Source Petition

Dear Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

Associated General Contractors – Oregon Columbia Chapter, Oregon’s largest commercial construction trade association, represents contractors doing business throughout rural and urban Oregon. They include every type of highway and building contractor, and every size of business. This being Oregon, the vast majority of our members (and the industry at large) are classic small business with 10 to 20 employees or fewer. Our members build your hospitals, roads, retail stores, schools, manufacturing facilities, sport facilities, parking garages, port infrastructure - anything you can imagine.

The indirect sources rule proposed by the petition would apply to virtually every single type of construction and facility that we all need, use, and frequent in our lives, throughout every community in Oregon. That’s how broadly this rule would apply. This proposed rule would have a massive chilling effect that would virtually bring construction to a trickle and make building anything in Oregon considerably more expensive throughout the state. In effect, it would result in a massive slowdown of commercial construction in our state.

First, the permitting costs associated with this program alone would be prohibitively expensive, particularly for smaller projects, facility owners, and small contractors. Even determining whether a permit is needed will require highly technical and expensive air dispersion modeling. For example, the San Joaquin 2019 OFFICERS program that the petitioners referenced cost contractors $26 million in fees and Sandy Trainor President payments in 2018 alone, and that was in a very limited regional area. These costs Russ Batzer will be repeated and add up year after year, draining money that could otherwise be First spent on infrastructure projects that would alleviate congestion and, as a result, Vice President Yohn Baldwin improve air quality. Second Vice President Scott Williams Second, it is impossible at this point to actually predict the time that would be Secretary necessary for DEQ to issue permits, given the number of projects that would fall Joe McDonnell under this proposed indirect source program. Our best reference point is how air Treasurer Cameron Foroud permits work today. Today, it can take DEQ a year to two years to issue other air Immediate permits that require ambient air quality impact analyses, since DEQ is already Past President EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mike Salsgiver

The Voice & Choice of the Construction Industry! @ AGCOreCol • agcorecol 9450 SW Commerce Circle, #200 Wilsonville, OR 97070 slammed with the permitting requirements they currently oversee. Our industry is 503-682-3363 800-826-6610 trying to imagine how long it would take and how much it would cost for the Fax 503-682-1696 construction projects of all kinds in the state. The requirements will necessitate thatwww.agc -oregon.org DEQ hire significant additional staff to verify the accuracy of the information submitted in applications, verify the results of the required air dispersion models and confirm that mitigation measures proposed by project owners are implemented as advertised.

Obviously there is much more to say about the impact this far-reaching indirect source proposal would have on our industry alone. Despite the complexity and breadth of this rule, it would appear that this rule does not address what impact this rule would have broadly on the economy.

One final note, AGC comes here today with a long history of engagement on issues related to off-road diesel, both at the legislature and as a participant in the third party off-road diesel inventory that DEQ is currently conducting. It is that kind of information and the detailed analysis that follows that must be completed and thoroughly vetted before any far-reaching diesel-related regulation should even be considered and put in place.

AGC thanks you for your time and for the opportunity to offer written comments. For more information, please contact John Rakowitz or Kirsten Adams.

2019 OFFICERS Sandy Trainor President Russ Batzer First Vice President Yohn Baldwin Second Vice President Scott Williams Secretary Joe McDonnell Treasurer Cameron Foroud Immediate Past President EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mike Salsgiver

The Voice & Choice of the Construction Industry! @ AGCOreCol • agcorecol

February 6, 2020

Dear Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The petition is a clear attempt to impose a new regulatory standard on diesel emissions from mobile sources. However, it goes much farther than regulating diesel emissions and punishes Oregon communities and local businesses for their use of cars, trucks, and other diesel and gasoline-powered equipment.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, affordable housing projects, and several of my branches. Central Willamette Credit Union along with these facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Stacie Wyss-Schoenborn President/CEO

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION

Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition ) February 14, 2020 ) )

COMMENTS OF DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA LLC

Submitted via e-mail.

On December 20, 2019, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) received a petition to adopt rules regarding emissions from indirect sources and requested comments from the public on this petition. Daimler Trucks North America LLC (DTNA), one of Portland, Oregon’s largest employers, with headquarters in Portland and with manufacturing, test, and engineering facilities on Swan Island, Portland, hereby submits comments in response. DTNA is the country’s leading manufacturer of heavy- duty trucks used in delivering food, medicine, clothing, and much more. DTNA researches, develops, builds, and tests new heavy-duty vehicles powered by the world’s most advanced diesel, natural gas, and electric motors. Among other accomplishments, DTNA was the first manufacturer to certify to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas regulations in 2012, certifying our entire fleet of vehicles two years before the 2014 date when the regulations became mandatory, before any other manufacturer certified any of their vehicles. DTNA, in a project with the U.S. Department of Energy, developed and demonstrated the “Super Truck,” a vehicle that improved freight efficiency by 115% over the prior state-of-the-art vehicle. And DTNA then incorporated many Super Truck technologies into series production vehicles to save fuel and reduce emissions. DTNA is currently working with the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board on the “Clean Truck Initiative” to further reduce emissions from current levels. Although we support efforts to improve air quality, the proposed rules as written would significantly impact DTNA’s research, development, manufacturing, and testing facilities in Portland, limiting us from developing new, cleaner vehicles. Therefore, we wish to work with EQC and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to develop more feasible options to achieve the desired goal of cleaner air.

The proposed rules would create a significant burden for compliance. The proposed rules would require, among other things, permitting any facility with 50 or more heavy-duty diesel vehicle trips per day in order to reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions. The applicant for a permit would have to submit an Air Impact Assessment and potentially a monitoring plan and a mitigation plan. The proposed rule would not distinguish between clean fleets that run the newest vehicles with modern emission controls and exhaust after-treatment from those that run older, pre-emission-control equipment, the

Comments of DTNA – Public Comment Page 1

latter of which emit on the order of 100 times as much as the former1. So if a facility runs at least 50 trips per day of vehicles with the new emission controls, then the facility must run a monitoring and mitigation plan, while a facility that runs one trip per day of pre-emission-control equipment—and therefore emits more—does not need such plans. Similarly, if the city’s ambient conditions are above 1 to 2 µg/m3 of fine PM, PM2.5, which is at the clean end of the EPA’s cleanest air quality category2, then all indirect sources will have to undertake monitoring and mitigation plans, even if there is nothing their facilities can do to further reduce such already-low PM2.5 levels. If a facility, including an office building, has more than about 30 employees who drive to work in a given day (which is generally enough to cross the 5,000 horsepower threshold, assuming the average passenger car today has around 150 horsepower), then the facility would need monitoring and mitigation plans—even if the facility owner cannot change the cars that its employees drive. And if a facility takes deliveries from, or sends shipments with, private carriers, the facility would need to control the emissions of the vehicles that those carriers drive. (There are other triggers for the plans besides these, but the analysis above provides is a representative example of the difficulties in the proposed program as the rules are currently written.)

Such a broad rule would be resource intensive and, in the case of DTNA’s Portland facilities, unnecessary. DTNA designs and tests the newest vehicles, with the most current emission controls and aftertreatment systems. There is little more that DTNA could do to reduce emissions than use such vehicles—or shut down our facilities and lay off the employees currently working there. And if DTNA’s facilities were shut down, that would hamper the industry’s capability to introduce new vehicles into the market, thus keeping old vehicles on the road longer. What more can a mitigation plan involve than developing Super Trucks or vehicles for a Clean Truck Initiative? We suggest that the EQC and DEQ consider the burden of monitoring and mitigation plans, particularly for facilities that already operate low emission vehicles. Creating exemptions, for example, applicable to clean vehicle fleets, would alleviate some of our concerns. So would exempting deliveries made by carriers not under the control of the indirect source.

The bottom line is that if the EQC and DEQ do agree to draft rules, the proposed rules need revisions to become workable for businesses like ours. We at DTNA offer our support and expertise to draft workable rules. Please contact David Kayes ([email protected]) to get involved.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA LLC

1 A. Schlusser et al., “Deconstructing Diesel: A Law & Policy Roadmap For Reducing Diesel Emissions In The Portland Metropolitan Area,” Green Energy Institute, July 2019, p. iii. 2 EPA calls an air quality index of 0 to 50 “good,” which is the cleanest category. At 2 µg/m3 of PM2.5, the air quality index is 8, less than 20% of the threshold between “good” and “moderate.”

Comments of DTNA – Public Comment Page 2

February 12, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George, Chair Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

RE: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Chair George:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition. Established in 1914, Food Northwest is an association of food manufacturers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Our members with facilities in Oregon would be directly impacted by the petition’s proposed rule.

Members of Food Northwest are the people who make food in the state of Oregon. We share the Commission’s goal to protect and improve the environment. We are very proud that we are nationally recognized for our leadership and efforts to become more energy efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have completed 10 years of effort to achieve our goal to reduce energy use and carbon emissions by 25%. This year we are beginning efforts toward another 25% percent reduction in 10 years. We have also added goals to reduce water use, reduce food waste, and reduce emissions and fuel use in mobile sources.

Food Northwest urges the Commission to deny the petition because a new regulatory program to reduce mobile source emissions is not needed for the follow reasons:

Oregon has already acted to address mobile source emissions. Oregon has about 20 regulatory programs that focus on air quality. The state has been regulating indirect sources since 1974 and while it has issued indirect source construction permits in the past, has not found a need to do so for 20 years. Last year, the Oregon legislature passed HB 2007, designed to reduce diesel emissions and which requires the replacement or retrofit of older diesel engines. This year, it is considering greenhouse gas emissions legislation. In addition, the Department of Environmental Quality has several programs, including Vehicle inspection Program, Oregon Clean Fuels, Clean Diesel Initiative, Volkswagen (Settlement) Environmental Mitigation Plan, and the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program. Petitioners have

8338 NE Alderwood Road, Suite 160, Portland, OR 97220 Phone: 503.327.2200 • Website: www.foodnorthwest.org

failed to demonstrate that existing laws, regulations and programs are inadequate to address mobile source emissions.

Petitioners’ substantial and complex regulatory process will impose needless costs and personnel requirements upon the Department of Environmental Quality. It will negatively impact current regulatory and mitigation programs by diverting funds and staff resources from these programs. Current programs such as the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program have a backlog of applications and are over a year behind in issuance of rebates.

An additional complex regulatory program will stress the resources and capacity of the Department of Environmental Quality’s Air Division. Last year, they began implementation of regulations for a huge new program, Cleaner Air Oregon. In addition, because of need for additional revenue and staffing for the Air Contaminant Discharge Permit Program, a 70% fee increase has been proposed.

Petitioners’ proposed regulations will impose huge costs on regulated facilities. Substantial permit fees would be required to support DEQ’s administration and implementation of the petitioners’ requirements. All facilities requiring permits must hire third-party consultants to model emissions from all mobile sources at their site. They may also be required to develop a mitigation plan, implement reduction measures (which could limit the number of vehicles visiting the site) and to monitor the site.

Food Northwest urges the Commission to deny the petition. We believe the better approach is for the Commission and DEQ to focus efforts on the programs that are currently in place, like the Clean Diesel Program and Clean Vehicle Rebate. The Commission could also advocate for tax credits for installation of equipment to reduce emissions and for continuation of existing federal tax credits for EVS and renewable energy. It could work with the Department of Transportation to reduce traffic congestion. There are a myriad of activities that could promote action on existing priority strategies.

The new mandates in the Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition are not needed. Food Northwest members have demonstrated that much can be achieved voluntarily and through partnership with existing state and federal resources. We look forward to engaging with DEQ and other state agencies as we embark on our mobile sources initiative.

Sincerely,

Pamela Barrow, Vice President

Page 2 - Food Northwest

H E A T I N G · V E N T I L A T I O N · A I R C O N D I T I O N I N G MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 748 ~ ALBANY, OREGON 97322 ~ OFFICE LOCATION: 113 41ST AVENUE SE ~ ALBANY, OREGON 97322 OFFICE: 541.928.1804 ~ TOLL FREE: 800.659.1804 ~ FAX: 541.928.0309 WEB: www.MikesAC.com OR CCB: #83205 WA REG: CCMIKESHC904QD

January 24th, 2020

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Mike’s Heating & Air 541-928-1804 (o) 541-928-0309 (f) [email protected]

Reject Indirect Source Petition

The program proposed in the December 20, 2019 petition is much too broad in scope, going far beyond construction equipment diesel emissions and one or two industries. It applies to a massive array of so-called indirect sources throughout the state, including new and existing retail facilities, government offices and buildings, schools, colleges, hospitals, rail terminals, ports, airports, distribution activities, residential and other development projects. This broad application means that all of Oregon’s economy will be impacted by this sweeping program.

This program is a solution in search of a problem: Oregon has long had an indirect source program and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has evaluated more than 400 indirect sources under this program. DEQ reports that it has never found an indirect source project to cause a violation of ambient air quality standards. This begs the question of why we need a new program at all.

The impact of this program, which would require all subject sources to seek, obtain and comply with a new permit from DEQ, would be felt by Oregon’s whole economy, but especially by small businesses. The cost of permitting alone will be prohibitive for some small contractors and businesses. Substantial delays would also be caused by this program as subject sources could neither begin construction of or commence operation without having permits in place. The petition also requires third- party verification of emissions data provided by subject sources. Collectively, these requirements and DEQ’s permit processing and issuance process would cause extreme delays in project construction and operation, likely spanning years for each project (given that it currently takes DEQ one to two years to issue other permits that require ambient air quality impact analyses). The permitting fees and costs to perform the sophisticated emissions modeling that would be required would also create a substantial impediment to construction or operation of most businesses. DEQ has acknowledged that they will need additional staff and funding for the program, meaning additional fees will be imposed on the project operators and builders.

Finally, the proposed program targets regulating fuel efficiency and carbon emissions from mobile sources. As such, the proposed program has significant legal defects and policy flaws. The petitioners also claim that the program they propose was legal in the San Joaquin Valley; however, the San Joaquin program is different in structure and was implemented to directly address local issues meeting ambient air quality standards. That is not the case with this proposed program.

To ensure that Oregon’s economy keeps running smoothly and to avoid redistributing DEQ’s limited resources to implement a program that is not necessary at this time, we urge you to reject this petition outright. At the present moment, our collective challenge and focus is on the Oregon Legislature’s efforts to evaluate options for regulating greenhouse gas emissions statewide. Those efforts could leave DEQ with even more responsibility. Accordingly, until the dust settles on the legislature’s consideration of GHG regulation this session and impacts on DEQ and sources are known, no further consideration of indirect source emissions is warranted.

For more information, please contact Sharla Moffett (OBI), John Rakowitz (AGC) or Kirsten Adams (AGC) For more information, please contact Sharla Moffett (OBI), John Rakowitz (AGC) or Kirsten Adams (AGC) February 14, 2020

Oregon DEQ Oregon EQC Attn: Karen Williams Attn: Kathleen George, Chair 700 NE Multnomah St., Ste. 600 700 NE Multnomah St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100 Portland, OR 97232-4100 [email protected] [email protected]

Re: Comments Opposing Adoption of Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Ms. Williams and Chair George:

This letter is being submitted by a broad consortium of businesses and business organizations committed to improving the environment in Oregon through sensible regulation. The Petition to Promulgate Indirect Source Rules currently under consideration by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) is not such a sensible regulation. In short, it is fatally flawed as a matter of law, policy and common sense. The petition is a solution in search of a problem that will hinder the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ or the Department) efforts to improve air quality. The EQC should unquestionably deny the petition as it would impose a severe burden on low-income persons, faith-based organizations and public service providers (among others) without a commensurate benefit. Our multiple reasons for this recommendation are summarized below and explained in more detail thereafter.

• The petition duplicates programs already in effect, including the recently enacted HB 2007 Diesel Cleanup program • The petition is contrary to the clear legislative intent on diesel regulation recently established by HB 2007 • The petition violates state and federal law and will invite unnecessary litigation • The petition will impose crippling costs and delays on Oregon’s public and private services • The petition will create little benefit at great cost • The petition will force hundreds of small sources to obtain expensive permits • The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District experience underscores the excessive cost and nominal benefits of such programs • The petition will divert resources from programs that are much more effective at improving air quality • The petition represents a poorly thought out approach that will not materially benefit Oregon’s environment

Below is a more detailed assessment consistent with these points.

The Petition Seeks a Program that Would be Duplicative and Unnecessary

Oregon has long had an indirect source program applicable in the more urban parts of the state, and there is no need to expand that program. DEQ already requires permits for parking lot

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 2 developments and expansions exceeding 800 spaces (in downtown Portland) or 1,000 spaces elsewhere. According to DEQ, between the mid-1970s and early 1990s, DEQ regulated more than 400 indirect sources statewide and issued Indirect Source Construction Permits for malls, multi-family residential developments, commercial developments and road projects.1 Notwithstanding this high level of activity, DEQ never identified a single project that would cause a violation of air quality standards. The inescapable conclusion from DEQ’s history of regulating indirect sources is that piling additional regulation onto indirect sources is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time.

The petition is based on the fallacy that new rules are needed because we lack any environmental regulations addressing mobile sources. This is just not true. Oregon is a national leader in a broad variety of regulations that directly and indirectly regulate mobile sources.

And it is nothing short of ironic that the groups petitioning for new mobile source rulemaking are doing so just months after the adoption of legislation they championed that forces the replacement of older diesel engines. Referred to as the Diesel Cleanup Bill, House Bill (HB) 2007 prohibits the titling and registration of older medium and heavy duty on-road diesel engines starting in 2023. In just a few years (2025) it will be illegal to title a medium or heavy duty on- road diesel vehicle in the Portland Metro area that is not at least a 2010 vehicle year. In addition, $51 million dollars of Volkswagen settlement funds were authorized to be disbursed with a focus on cleaning up diesel emissions. Large state public works projects will also have clean diesel requirements that will further drive diesel emission improvements. As one of the petitioners (Oregon Environmental Council) has proclaimed, “HB 2007 is the second strongest diesel legislation in the nation.”2 Another of the petitioners (Climate Solutions) stated that HB 2007 “will help reduce toxic diesel exhaust, which contributes to climate change and is linked to serious health problems.”3 The Oregon Department of Transportation estimated that HB 2007 will affect 13,600 of the 42,400 medium and heavy duty diesel vehicles in the tri-county area around Portland.4 And yet notwithstanding the broad scope of HB 2007, barely more than four months after it took effect, petitioners (many of whom were HB 2007’s firmest supporters), petitioned the EQC to develop rules going in a different direction than endorsed by the Legislature. It is inappropriate to contemplate the development of a massive mobile source permitting program just months after the legislature adopted HB 2007 and before the state even has a chance to implement the clear directive on diesel that the legislature provided.

1 https://www.oregon.gov/deq/Regulations/rulemaking/Pages/indirectsource.aspx 2 https://oeconline.org/diesel/ 3 https://www.climatesolutions.org/article/1562647780-what-oregons-leaders-got-done-and-didnt-climate 4 https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019I1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/207401

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 3

Beyond HB 2007, Oregon has a number of other programs in place to address mobile source emissions. Most prominent among these are Oregon’s vehicle emission standards, where Oregon has long stood beside California in adopting more stringent emission standards than the federal requirements. Oregon has adopted California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program which requires new light-duty vehicles to meet stringent emission requirements that reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs), criteria pollutants and air toxics. The LEV program also includes a Zero Emission Vehicle mandate which requires automobile manufacturers to deliver a certain number of new battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to Oregon. These requirements are the most powerful and efficient means of reducing emissions from mobile sources—far more direct and practical than a haphazard permitting program such as the petition requests.

To further reduce mobile source emissions, DEQ implements the Employee Commute Option program (Division 242). This mandatory program requires private employers with more than 100 employees to generate a minimum 10 percent reduction in employee commute auto trips. Again, this program is much more targeted and efficient than a command and control permit program as it enable employers the flexibility of determining the best means of decreasing vehicle miles traveled.

DEQ’s Vehicle Inspection program (VIP) works in a similar fashion to reduce motor vehicle emissions. The VIP achieves emissions reductions by requiring vehicles to be maintained so that on-board emission control systems maintain emissions to within the allowable emission standards over the life of the vehicle. The VIP requires vehicle emission testing prior to vehicle registration in targeted urban areas of the state.

The Petition Seeks a Program that Would be Illegal and Invite Litigation

In addition to being unnecessary, the extensive permitting program that petitioners seek would be illegal and will result in far more litigation and distraction for the Department than it will generate improvement in the environment.

Petitioners are clear that the intent of the requested permitting program is to impose diesel emission standards that the neither the state nor the federal legislature have authorized. The EQC can only adopt regulations that are within the scope of the authority delegated to the agency by the legislature. In this regard, it is hard to contest that the Legislature just spoke to this issue and directed DEQ, ODOT and others to proceed in a very specific manner that is contrary to the direction taken by the petitioners. The petition is a blatant attempt to push the EQC and DEQ to be crosswise with the Legislature. Furthermore, petitioners acknowledge that their dual goals of regulating fuel efficiency and emissions from mobile sources are prohibited by federal law.

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 4

Nonetheless, they urge the EQC to do what they know is not permissible. Our attorneys have concluded that the proposed rules would be illegal under both Oregon and federal law and, therefore, the EQC lacks the authority to initiate rulemaking proceedings in response to the petition. It makes no sense to act beyond the agency’s authority where there are already multiple programs, some just months old, that will accomplish petition objectives of improving air quality.

The Petition Seeks a Program that Would Impose Crippling Costs on Oregonians

The scope of the program proposed by the petitioners is excessive and would harm the very communities that petitioners claim to want to assist. At its core, the program is intended to make it extremely expensive and painful to employ diesel or gasoline-fired mobile sources. The program would significantly increase the cost of even small construction projects. As stated in the petition, residential construction such as middle housing, e.g., duplexes, triplexes, quads, etc. would be impacted by this program. Middle housing should not be penalized, as it will increase housing density in areas close to services and reduce vehicle miles traveled by residents, thereby reducing vehicle emissions. Nonetheless, under the proposed program, contractors would have to engage expensive consultants to model emissions to confirm applicability and to comply with the program if it is applicable. They would then be required to pay for third party verification of their submittals—a significant additional expense. Then they would have to pay fees and wait months for DEQ to review the modeling and draft a permit. DEQ would then be required, under the petition, to place the draft permit out for public comment in compliance with the Division 209 requirements. Obtaining even a Simple Air Contaminant Discharge Permit from DEQ can take 9 to 12 months.5 Obtaining an indirect source permit as envisioned by the petition, with all of its commensurate ambient air quality modeling, compliance demonstrations and public notice, could take even longer—particularly given the substantial additional burden/distraction that would be placed upon DEQ’s already struggling air permitting program.6 The delay in issuance of a permit will be exacerbated by the hundreds (or more) of source-specific permits that would have to be issued in the first 12 months of the program (as discussed further below).

5 For example, last month DEQ issued a Simple Air Contaminant Discharge Permit to a Hillsboro company that took 11 months from initial application submittal to permit issuance. That was a sophisticated company with substantial permitting expertise. The permit process could be far slower for a company that is not well versed in computer modeling and permit applications. 6 Just two years ago, in auditing DEQ’s performance, the Oregon Secretary of State noted that “DEQ struggles to issue timely air quality permits and renewals ….” See https://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2018-01.pdf. Since that time, DEQ has greatly expanded its permitting obligations, having added the Cleaner Air Oregon program. Adding yet another permitting program would exacerbate the issues identified by the Secretary of State’s office.

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 5

In short, the requested permitting requirements would add months of delay and tens of thousands of dollars to projects. The scope of the rules would wrap in all types of construction for most sizes of projects including renovations at schools, hospitals, middle housing and low-income housing projects, and senior citizen centers, just to name a few. The rules would impose the most serious harm on those projects, with the lowest margins, aimed to assist the most vulnerable. This program is terribly regressive and would actively harm Oregon.

The San Joaquin Program Exemplifies the Huge Cost and Nominal Benefit

Petitioners tout the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (San Joaquin) indirect source program as a model for Oregon.7 But petitioners fail to mention that the San Joaquin program was designed to address an issue that does not exist in any of the areas in Oregon where petitioners’ program would apply. The purpose of the San Joaquin program was to address historical noncompliance with particulate matter ambient air quality standards—standards that have never been exceeded in any of the areas in Oregon where petitioners’ program would apply. Therefore, the needs that drove the San Joaquin program do not exist in Oregon.

The San Joaquin program has imposed a tremendous cost on the community. The December 2019 report prepared by the implementing agency addressing the costs and benefits of the program over the most recent reporting year (ending in June 2019), notes that the indirect source program collected $51,697,087 in fees/payments during the most recent 12 month period.8 The agency received 360 indirect source permit applications during those 12 months, notwithstanding the fact that the applicability thresholds are higher under the San Joaquin program than what petitioners propose and that the San Joaquin program does not (contrary to the proposal) apply to existing sources.9 San Joaquin has 69 technical permit staff to service the program.10 The ultimate benefit associated with collecting $52 million in fees was to reduce PM10 emissions by only 86 tons.11 This massive cost, compared to the minimal benefit, underscores the impact that such a program would have on Oregon communities. Large amounts of money would be extracted from sectors such as schools, hospitals, low income housing projects, senior citizen centers, ports, sports facilities, retail buildings, industrial and commercial facilities, and government, without commensurate benefits.

7 The San Joaquin Valley implements an indirect source program with some similarities and some differences between what petitioners have proposed. 8 http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/Documents/2019-Annual-Report.pdf. 9 For example, the San Joaquin program does not apply to residential development unless it comprises more than 50 units while petitioners seek to have a program that would apply to any residential structures with an aggregate of 10,000 sq. ft. or more. At that size, a modest apartment building consisting of just 8 units could trigger applicability. 10 https://www.oregon.gov/deq/EQCdocs/01242020_ItemM_Slides.pdf 11 http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/Documents/2019-Annual-Report.pdf.

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 6

The most profound difference between the petitioners’ proposed program and the San Joaquin program is that the California approach is purely forward looking. The San Joaquin program applies to new projects. By contrast, petitioners proposed to wrap into the permitting program existing indirect sources at levels far below anything previously permitted in Oregon. That permitting effort will overwhelm DEQ’s permitting resources and seriously enlarge and compromise the regulated community—again, with, at most, nominal benefit.

The Petition Seeks to Require Absurdly Small Sources to Obtain Operating Permits

As noted above, a novel characteristic of the petition is to require that existing indirect sources obtain operating permits. Various criteria are listed and the exceedance of any one criterion would trigger the requirement for an operating permit. One of those criteria is that “Total aggregate emissions from all mobile source activity associated with the facility exceeds 1.0 ton per year of any criteria pollutant. Based on Bureau of Transportation statistics, the average emission rate of a 2018 model year light-duty vehicle (i.e., a car) is 3.941 grams/mile.12 Based on EPA’s standard assumption of 12,500 miles of travel per year for a light-duty vehicle, 19 cars would, in aggregate, produce more than 1 ton of carbon monoxide (a criteria pollutant) annually. The petition defines emissions “associated with” an indirect source to include “any mobile source activity originating or terminating at an indirect source, and any mobile source activity that passes through or operates within the boundaries of an indirect source for a limited period of time.” Under this definition, a hot dog stand that resulted in 19 cars passing through its parking lot would be required to obtain a permit and conduct ambient air quality modeling because cars visiting the stand would generate more than 1.0 tons of a criteria pollutant (carbon monoxide) annually. The results from implementing such a requirement in urban areas across the state would be absurd.

The Petition Would Distract DEQ from Improving Air Quality

One of the most dangerous flaws associated with the petition is that it would divert critical resources from dealing with important health issues to chasing down thousands of sources and educating them on their permitting obligations. This would require, at a minimum, dozens of new staff and thousands if not tens of thousands of person-hours in pursuit of a permitting program with next to no air quality benefits. The effort of identifying and educating those sources would alone exhaust DEQ’s air permitting resources. However, DEQ would only be starting the effort as it would then need to issue and then renew those permits, and routinely

12 https://www.bts.gov/content/estimated-national-average-vehicle-emissions-rates-vehicle-vehicle-type-using- gasoline-and

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 7 inspect those sources to validate compliance. The petition further requires that the permits expire and be renewed every five years, and so the burden would be continuing. DEQ is an agency of limited staff and resources. DEQ has many air permits that are over ten years overdue for renewal due to limited availability of experienced staff. Adding a new, massive, low-benefit program such as what petitioners propose to the agency’s responsibilities would ensure that DEQ is not able to implement the Department’s other programs that have a demonstrated track record of benefitting air quality in Oregon. For these reasons, the program sought by petitioners is ultimately bad for the health of Oregonians.

The Petition Would Shut Down Oregon’s Critical Public Services

As is evident, granting the petition would result in a monumental permitting process for both new and existing indirect sources. It is hard to conceive of an apartment building, hospital, church, school, government building, day care center, senior citizen center, housing project, office building, hotel, sports center, shopping center, prison, gas station, movie theater, restaurant, university, grocery store, dry cleaner or construction project larger than single family home (to name just a few) that would not require a permit to be issued under this program. And yet the specific wording of the proposed rule language mandates that all of these venues, each of which is critical to the quality of life, “shall not commence or continue operations beyond one year following the final promulgation of this rule, without an approved Indirect Source Operating Permit issued by the Department…” In other words, if each of these hundreds, perhaps thousands, of indirect sources is not issued a permit within 365 days of the date on which the rules take effect, those sources must cease operation. Such a mandate is without precedent. Even suggesting such a requirement calls into question the seriousness with which the petitioners prepared and considered this petition. Granting the petition would cause incalculable damage to Oregon’s public services and communities. Conclusion

We have outlined above just a few of our many concerns with the petition. At the end of the day it makes no sense to consider such an unprecedented and expensive program when other programs are just coming online to address the concerns voiced by the petitioners. The petition makes no sense and would do far more damage to DEQ and the environment than the minimal benefits would justify. ORS 183.390(2) requires that the EQC “request public comment on whether options exist for achieving the rule’s substantive goals in a way that reduces the negative economic impact on businesses.” While this requirement is specific to petitions to amend or repeal a rule, this requirement goes to the heart of our comments and should be considered here. The most effective means of achieving the goals of the petition is to not shackle DEQ with untested, extraneous new requirements with minimal benefits. Rather, DEQ should be allowed to implement the rules and clear statutory mandates that it already has before it. As we

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 8 said at the outset of this letter, the parties signing onto this letter are committed to improving Oregon’s environment through sensible regulation. The petition does not represent sensible or effective regulation.

ORS 183.390(1) provides the EQC two options for responses to the petition. The EQC must either deny the petition or initiate rulemaking proceedings consistent with the petition. The only proper response to this petition is denial. We urge the EQC to deny the petition and allow DEQ to implement its existing programs.

[Signature Page(s) to Follow]

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 9

Respectfully,

105283155.2 0071623-00001

Oregon DEQ [email protected] February 14, 2020 Page 10

CC (by email): Richard Whitman, Director, DEQ ([email protected]) Greg Addington, Commissioner, EQC ([email protected]) Sam Baraso, Commissioner, EQC ([email protected]) Molly Kile, Commissioner, EQC ([email protected]) Wade Mosby, Commissioner, EQC ([email protected])

105283155.2 0071623-00001

February 14, 2020

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Ms. Williams and Chair George:

The Oregon Farm Bureau is writing to urge you reject the petition for indirect source rulemaking currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). By way of background, the Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB) is the state’s largest agricultural trade association, representing nearly 7,000 farm and ranch families across the state, many of whom farm or ranch in urban areas, or sell at farmers markets, farm stands, or grocery stores located in urban areas. OFB is part of a broad coalition of business groups that has provided comments today on the indirect source rulemaking petition. We strongly support the broader coalition concerns about the legality, unintended consequences, regulatory burden and insignificant environmental effect of the petition, but wanted to highlight some agriculture specific concerns.

As noted in our coalition letter, the petition seeks to require absurdly small sources to obtain operating permits. In the context of agricultural operations, this could require several farms in urban areas to have to get a permit due to traffic associated with their farms. These farms have often preceded urbanization, watching cities and housing developments grow around them. Many have become integral parts of their communities, hosting farmers markets, pumpkin patches, and other agritourism or community events. Similarly, many farmer’s markets host several farmer vendors, who drive to the market to sell local agricultural products to the public. Under the definition in the petition, these farms and farmers markets that result in more than 19 cars passing through their

Indirect Source Rulemaking Comments | 1

parking lots would be required to obtain a permit and conduct ambient air quality modeling because cars visiting the farms and farmers markets would generate more than 1.0 tons of a criteria pollutant (carbon monoxide) annually. The results from implementing such a requirement in urban areas would impose significant costs on farmers who are barely making ends meet, and whose businesses are vital parts of their community, their local food supply, and all Oregonians’ access to farm fresh products.

As discussed above and in our coalition letter, moving forward with this petition would be a significant cost impact on farmers in urban areas or farmers who directly serve urban areas, could jeopardize critical farms, farm stands, and farmers markets in urban areas across the state, and would be a waste of limited DEQ resources. We strongly encourage you to reject the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Mary Anne Cooper Vice President of Public Policy Oregon Farm Bureau Federation

Deschutes Plan Comments | 2

February 12, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Via Email: [email protected] Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Re: Indirect Source Petition

Dear Chair George and Members of the Commission:

The Oregon Rail Users’ League (ORULE) respectfully submits this letter to request that the Commission deny the petition for rulemaking regarding air quality regulations for indirect sources of certain air pollutants. ORULE is a coalition of public and private sector stakeholders that operate, use and support expansion of railroads in Oregon. One of the key advantages of rail over other modes of transportation is that rail is, by far, the most environmentally friendly mode of ground transportation.

Regarding the petition for rulemaking, we would first like to recognize that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) already maintains a long-established Indirect Source program which has evaluated more than 400 indirect sources to date. Despite hundreds of evaluations, the existing program has not identified a single project that would produce an air quality violation. Based on this data alone, we submit that a new program is unnecessary, particularly one as broad and far reaching as the proposal currently before the commission.

Another significant flaw with this proposal is how it specifically targets diesel emission standards on mobile sources. Curiously, even as this proposal targets mobile diesel emissions, the petitioners openly acknowledge that such a proposal is prohibited by federal law. They essentially acknowledge that enacting such a proposal would put the commission in the untenable position of violating federal law. Such violation would almost certainly lead to a costly and extensive phase of protracted litigation.

The proposal would also impact a large variety of businesses and service providers, including hospitals, emergency services, manufacturers, agriculture, timber, and other cornerstone industries and institutions. Beginning one year after adoption, the proposed rule would apply to existing rail facilities which would likely result in profound economic impacts that would reverberate throughout the state economy. By retroactively applying this new policy to operations that are currently permitted and completely lawful, this new policy would almost certainly raise serious questions about fairness and legality.

The proposal also seeks to include locomotives within the definition of “mobile source.” This scope would be preempted by federal law, and has been the subject of extensive and costly litigation. For example, in the case of Association of American Railroads v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19237, *6 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) “preempt[s] a wide range of state and local regulation of rail activity.” Furthermore, courts have consistently ruled that federal policy preempts efforts by local

Page Two Environmental Quality Commission February 12, 2020

governments to regulate traffic going to and from rail facilities, as in Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2010). In short, the proposed policy as applied to railroad locomotives would almost certainly face legal challenges.

In conclusion, we believe the proposed policy is unnecessary, infeasible, and would likely be met with significant and costly legal challenges. It would not improve Oregon’s environmental quality and could actually have a deleterious effect on Oregon’s sustainability goals by dis-incentivizing freight rail movement and investment in freight rail infrastructure. It would also add unnecessary costs to numerous businesses around the state with little (if any) environmental benefit.

For these reasons we urge you to reject the petition for rulemaking regarding air quality regulations for indirect sources of certain air pollutants.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Johan Hellman President Oregon Rail Users’ League (ORULE)

From: Doug Drader with Pioneer TruckWeld To: ISPComment Subject: FW: petition Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 10:18:35 AM

I’m wanting to voice my concerns with this petition. I’m the General Manager of a manufacturing company here in Salem. We employ 71 people , doing $16 million a year in sales. Pioneer Truckweld, INC. We manufacture Truck Bodies and Gravel trailers. We take raw materials, cut them, form them, weld them, paint them, and then install them on customers trucks. If these regs go into effect it will put us out of business.

We are already at a disadvantage due to the gross receipt tax and to add this will be the final blow. I know it has nothing to do with carbon emissions, its all about money. If they are truly concerned about emissions then help businesses not bankrupt them. Even with the misleading calculation of Oregon’s carbon out put it does not even move the needle. 0.007% of US carbon emissions. The Dems need to go back to school and review “Insignificant Digit”. Destroy Oregon’s economy to have zero impact on global carbon output. Mr. Motes comment that Oregon’s plan would make a major difference in global temps is delusional. How about working on real issues. Human trafficking. Oregon ranks 4th nationally. Traffic congestion, drug use, cost of living just to mention a few.

Thank you, Doug Drader President / General Manager Pioneer Truckweld, INC. Salem, OR.

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous. This will affect my dad’s small business, that I also work for, in so many ways. This is not necessary.

Please reject this petition.

Claire Juran Employee of a small Keizer business, Remodeling by Classic Homes Inc. From: Jim Daniels To: ISPComment Subject: ISP Comment Date: Monday, February 3, 2020 4:07:27 PM

I urge the EQC to reject the Indirect Source Petition as submitted. The proposed regulations will be costly for small businesses like Rosboro Company. The application process alone is unreasonably convoluted and will require costly and complex analysis of indirect emissions and greenhouse gasses. Then the whole thing will have to be done again in order to satisfy the third party verification requirements, all because the petitioners don’t trust DEQ to conduct an unbiased review. After that, compliance with the permit itself will cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars for us. When you strip away the extraneous ins and outs of these poorly written regulations, it is clear that the writers’ intent is to limit all off-road diesel vehicles to EPA Tier 4 (2015 or newer equipment). The direct effect will be to require us to replace 13 forklifts and at least 6 log loaders. The unintended consequence for the state of Oregon will mean that our existing equipment will be sold to a rural jurisdiction that is not affected by the ISP regulation, thus leaving the net indirect diesel emissions the same but unfairly penalizing Rosboro for having the bad luck to be located in a city of more than 50,000 population. Then we’ll be further burdened by having to contend with the required emissions reductions to greenhouse gasses. The petitioners blithely offer mitigation measures while ignoring the reality of limits to bio-diesel supply and the total absence of electric options for heavy equipment. Again, the facilities who are lucky enough to be located in small or rural areas will have an unfair competitive advantage, while the rest of us will have to cope by locating re- load facilities outside of the city limits – thus rendering their good intentions an inefficient waste that will ultimately result in higher emissions for the state as a whole.

Jim Daniels February 11, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Chair George:

I am writing to object to the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) that would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. For decades, Oregon has implemented many successful regulatory programs aimed at improving air quality, including the regulation of indirect sources. I am gravely concerned that the petition before the Commission will negatively impact these effective regulatory programs, divert staff and funding away from carrying out the Department of Environmental Quality’s current programs, and place an enormous and costly regulatory burden on Oregon businesses and other entities.

Oregon has long regulated indirect sources and, according to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), more than 400 indirect sources have been evaluated under the program. The indirect source program has never found a single project that would cause a violation of air quality standards. In fact, the push to regulate indirect sources this severely is puzzling since Oregon is not exceeding State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter or Ozone in areas where this petition would apply.

I support improving Oregon’s air quality and believe the state should continue to implement the approximately 20 separate regulatory programs focused on making our state’s air cleaner. However, as written, this petition would require permits to be issued to hundreds, potentially thousands of existing businesses, facilities and operations one short year after rules are adopted. If these sources are not issued a permit within 365 days of the date on which the rules take effect, they must stop operating. Such an enormous sanction is uncalled for and without precedent. The petition would also apply to all new development projects disturbing an area approximately the size of a typical single-family home. Indirect sources responsible for obtaining construction and operating permits will include hospitals, churches, schools, universities, government buildings, day care centers, senior citizen centers, housing projects (affordable and otherwise), prisons, and grocery stores, to name just a few.

All affected sources requiring permits would be subject to requirements that impose huge costs and would significantly delay projects across the state. Sources seeking permits would be responsible for hiring expensive consultants to perform complex air analyses and modeling and would then be required to pay to have this work verified by a separate, independent consultant before submittal to ODEQ. Additionally, emissions limits would be established in permits which could require new equipment or retrofits, mitigation activities, and limitations on the number of mobile sources visiting an indirect source that would have huge impacts on the sources and the communities that depend on them.

It is clear that the petitioners’ real target is to regulate fuel efficiency and reduce emissions from mobile sources. To that end, petitioners would place all of the regulatory burden onto sources that are they least equipped to carry it, e.g., schools, hospitals and businesses offering essential community services like grocery stores and affordable housing developments.

The obvious flaws with such a regressive regulatory approach are highlighted by the fact that ODEQ already administers numerous programs for regulating emissions from mobile sources such as the Clean Fuels, Clean Diesel, Low Emission Vehicle and Vehicle Inspection Programs. Just last year, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2007, which – among other things -- forces the replacement of older diesel engines. Given that the Legislature just addressed the issue of how diesel emissions for road and non-road engines should be reduced, it would be inappropriate to adopt a massive new permitting program focused on indirect sources that is contrary to the Legislature’s directive in HB 2007.

It would be a gross disservice to Oregonians and our urban communities to pile on additional, severe regulatory requirements when those areas are meeting applicable air quality standards and actions are already being taken to address emissions from mobile sources statewide. In addition, to being a disservice, the program petitioners seek suffers from fatal legal flaws that will undoubtedly result in distracting and protracted litigation, compromising the program’s purported benefits.

It is crucial that ODEQ, the agency charged with protecting the environment and human health, evaluate and determine if and when to embark on various regulatory programs rather than allowing misguided activists to drive unnecessary, onerous and sweeping regulations that would have major consequences for business, government and Oregonians statewide. I urge you to support the development of scientifically sound, unbiased regulations and deny the indirect source petition in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Wesolek

Senior Environmental Engineer who has worked in Oregon for 20 years February 12, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Chair George:

I write on behalf of Standard Insurance Company, a Portland-based insurance and financial services company with over 2,000 employees in Oregon.

I am writing to express concern with the breadth of the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) that would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. For decades, Oregon has implemented many successful regulatory programs aimed at improving air quality, including the regulation of indirect sources. I am concerned that the petition before the Commission will negatively impact these effective regulatory programs and divert staff and funding away from carrying out the Department of Environmental Quality’s current programs by creating an unnecessary and overly broad new regulatory framework.

Oregon has long regulated indirect sources and, according to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), more than 400 indirect sources have been evaluated under the program. The indirect source program has never found a single project that would cause a violation of air quality standards. Oregon is not exceeding State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter or Ozone in areas where this petition would apply, making these proposed rules unnecessary.

The proposed rules are also overly broad. As written, hospitals, churches, schools, universities, government buildings, day care centers, senior citizen centers, housing projects (affordable and otherwise), prisons, and grocery stores, among many other types of facilities, would be required to obtain and maintain operating permits. In addition, many large employers with office buildings, such as The Standard, would also be swept into this regulatory regime by virtue of its employees coming to work every day. The Standard is not a point source emitter in any capacity. We support and encourage our employees who choose not to drive a car to the office through carpool incentives, sizable transit subsidies, secure bicycle storage and showers, and electric car charging stations. These and other efforts enabled us to obtain a LEED Gold certification for our existing headquarters in downtown Portland. Despite all this, The Standard and other companies already working to decrease mobile source emissions would be regulated under the proposed rules.

I support ODEQ and its charge to protect the environment and human health through the development of scientifically sound, appropriately targeted, unbiased regulations. Unfortunately, this petition would not result in such regulation. It would create unnecessary, onerous and sweeping regulations that would create added work and expense for business, government and Oregonians statewide to achieve no measurable decrease in emissions. I urge you to deny the indirect source petition in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Ryan Chieffo

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking. And the fact that special interest groups can so easily get their agenda added to these pieces of legislation or petitions etc. so easily.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

This program adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and is not needed. Oregon already has an indirect source program, and no project has ever been found to violate air quality standards. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem. From: Nicole Hazelbaker To: ISPComment Subject: ISP Comments Date: Monday, February 24, 2020 2:58:30 PM

Good afternoon,

Please see the comments below on ISP. We apologize they are after the February 14 deadline but please advise if these may still be submitted to the record.

Thank you

Nicole Palmateer Hazelbaker On behalf of Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Petition to Promulgate Indirect Source Rules. The program proposed in this petition is much too broad in scope, going far beyond construction equipment diesel emissions and one or two industries. It applies to a massive array of so-called indirect sources throughout the state, including new and existing retail facilities, government offices and buildings, schools, colleges, hospitals, rail terminals, ports, distribution activities, residential and other development projects. This broad application means that all of Oregon’s economy will be impacted by this sweeping program. It also means there would be direct impacts to Oregon’s system of public safety including the fire service.

The impact of this program, which would require all subject sources to seek, obtain and comply with a new permit from DEQ, would be felt by Oregon’s whole economy, but especially by small entities such as local fire districts and departments. The cost of permitting alone will be prohibitive for some small entities. Limited local resources are better directed to protecting the public’s safety. This is our priority.

To ensure that Oregon’s system of public safety keeps running smoothly and to avoid redistributing DEQ’s limited resources to implement a program that is not necessary at this time, we urge you to reject this petition outright. At the present moment, our collective challenge and focus is on the Oregon Legislature’s efforts to evaluate options for regulating greenhouse gas emissions statewide. Those efforts could leave DEQ with even more responsibility. Once the dust settles on the legislature’s consideration of GHG regulation this session and impacts on DEQ and sources are known, no further consideration of indirect source emissions is warranted.

Thank you for your consideration.

Contact: Deputy Chief Les Hallman. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

Robert Poole Director, Technical and Regulatory Affairs

February 13, 2020

Oregon DEQ [email protected] Attn: Karen Williams 700 NE Multnomah St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Re: Objection to Proposed Indirect Source Rule Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Commissioners,

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the petition currently being considered to adopt new rules targeting indirect sources. WSPA is a non-profit trade association that represents companies that account for the bulk of petroleum exploration, production, refining, transportation and marketing in the five western states, including Oregon.

WSPA joins with many other stakeholders in the position that this petition is a solution in search of a problem. Oregon has long had an indirect source program in which, according to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), over 400 indirect sources have been evaluated with no project found to have the potential to violate air quality standards. These facts alone beg the question of why do we need a far-reaching, time-consuming and costly new program, especially in light of the fact that this proposed rulemaking would be a defacto attempt at regulating mobile sources which is prohibited by federal law.

The Program Scope is far-reaching

The scope of the proposed rulemaking, encompassing both Indirect Source Construction and Operating Permits identifies an extensive list of indirect public and private sources including, but not limited to retailers, commercial and industrial facilities, schools, office and government buildings, hospitals, warehouses and freight distribution facilities, rail terminals, ports and marine terminals, construction and development projects.

The indirect source program would apply to qualifying indirect sources in cities, municipalities and metropolitan services districts with a population exceeding 50,000. Based on current population data, that would include Portland, Eugene, Salem, Gresham, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Bend, Medford, Springfield, Corvallis, Albany and Tigard, in addition to smaller municipalities such as Lake Oswego and Milwaukie which are covered by metropolitan service districts.

While the petitioners suggest emissions from diesel fuel is the issue, the program goes far beyond diesel. Permit rules in both the proposed construction and operating rules refer to “mobile sources”, the definition of which includes all types of combustion engines, both stationary and mobile.

Western States Petroleum Association 975 Carpenter Road NE, Suite 601, Lacey, WA 98516 360.352.4507 wspa.org DEQ February 13, 2020 Page 2

The Program would be time consuming and costly

This proposal will have a huge economic impact across the state

It will penalize contractors and operators of various types of businesses for others’ use of cars, trucks and other diesel and gasoline-fired equipment.

It would severely impact even small contractors and businesses with substantial permitting costs. Even determining whether a permit is needed will require highly technical and expensive computer modeling. Further, permitting costs will be compounded by ongoing compliance costs. If the computer modeling in an application indicates the potential to exceed emission limits, then a list of measures will need to be provided to DEQ to reduce the internal combustion engine emissions associated with the indirect source to comply with these limits. These mitigation measures will then become enforceable permit conditions. Ongoing compliance monitoring of the mitigation measures will also need to be conducted and periodically reported to DEQ. In addition, permittees will be required to provide proof of continued funding of the measures.

This proposal would result in lengthy and costly permitting delays.

Any project submittal must undergo 3rd party verification prior to submittal to DEQ and then undergo a lengthy permit issuance process. Given the average time it typically takes DEQ to issue other air permits requiring ambient air quality impact analyses, this impact would also be financially costly.

In conclusion, WSPA respectfully requests the petition be rejected in its entirety. It has fundamental flaws, is time-consuming and costly and would radically impact and reshape Oregon’s economy for the worse. As previously stated, Oregon has long had an indirect source program in which, according to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), over 400 indirect sources have been evaluated with no project found to have the potential to violate air quality standards.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this very important issue. If you have any immediate questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Western States Petroleum Association 975 Carpenter Road NE, Suite 601, Lacey, WA 98516 360.352.4507 wspa.org From: Alyson Salz To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:10:04 PM

Dear Chair George,

I am a business owner with facilities in both Clackamas, OR and Kansas City, MO, The increased burdens proposed by the environmental lobby will be detrimental to my ability to remain competitive within our industry. If these measures pass, we will move our manufacturing operations exclusively to Missouri, thus losing the Oregon jobs we provide now.

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Alyson Salz Oregon City, OR From: amanda cook To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 8:20:04 AM

Dear Chair George,

You liberal legislators are slowly destroying what was once a wonderful state. Please stop it.

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely, amanda cook

Independence, OR From: barbie walker To: ISPComment Subject: More and More Unwarranted Unnecessary Taxes. Gov has enough $$$ YOU"RE KILLING stretched thin business..... EQC Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:59:29 PM

February 13, 2020 Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100 Via Email: [email protected] Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition Dear Chair George: Government super spending and asking for more and more money is ruining Oregon. Oregon the new California. How's that working for CA? I am writing to object to the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) that would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. For decades, Oregon has implemented many successful regulatory programs aimed at improving air quality, including the regulation of indirect sources. I am gravely concerned that the petition before the Commission will negatively impact these effective regulatory programs, divert staff and funding away from carrying out the Department of Environmental Quality’s current programs, and place an enormous and costly regulatory burden on Oregon businesses and other entities. Oregon has long regulated indirect sources and, according to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), more than 400 indirect sources have been evaluated under the program. The indirect source program has never found a single project that would cause a violation of air quality standards. In fact, the push to regulate indirect sources this severely is puzzling since Oregon is not exceeding State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter or Ozone in areas where this petition would apply. I support improving Oregon’s air quality and believe the state should continue to implement the approximately 20 separate regulatory programs focused on making our state’s air cleaner. However, as written, this petition would require permits to be issued to hundreds, potentially thousands of existing businesses, facilities and operations one short year after rules are adopted. If these sources are not issued a permit within 365 days of the date on which the rules take effect, they must stop operating. Such an enormous sanction is uncalled for and without precedent. The petition would also apply to all new development projects disturbing an area approximately the size of a typical single-family home. Indirect sources responsible for obtaining construction and operating permits will include hospitals, churches, schools, universities, government buildings, day care centers, senior citizen centers, housing projects (affordable and otherwise), prisons, and grocery stores, to name just a few. All affected sources requiring permits would be subject to requirements that impose huge costs and would significantly delay projects across the state. Sources seeking permits would be responsible for hiring expensive consultants to perform complex air analyses and modeling and would then be required to pay to have this work verified by a separate, independent consultant before submittal to ODEQ. Additionally, emissions limits would be established in permits which could require new equipment or retrofits, mitigation activities, and limitations on the number of mobile sources visiting an indirect source that would have huge impacts on the sources and the communities that depend on them. It is clear that the petitioners’ real target is to regulate fuel efficiency and reduce emissions from mobile sources. To that end, petitioners would place all of the regulatory burden onto sources that are they least equipped to carry it, e.g., schools, hospitals and businesses offering essential community services like grocery stores and affordable housing developments. The obvious flaws with such a regressive regulatory approach are highlighted by the fact that ODEQ already administers numerous programs for regulating emissions from mobile sources such as the Clean Fuels, Clean Diesel, Low Emission Vehicle and Vehicle Inspection Programs. Just last year, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2007, which – among other things -- forces the replacement of older diesel engines. Given that the Legislature just addressed the issue of how diesel emissions for road and non-road engines should be reduced, it would be inappropriate to adopt a massive new permitting program focused on indirect sources that is contrary to the Legislature’s directive in HB 2007. It would be a gross disservice to Oregonians and our urban communities to pile on additional, severe regulatory requirements when those areas are meeting applicable air quality standards and actions are already being taken to address emissions from mobile sources statewide. In addition, to being a disservice, the program petitioners seek suffers from fatal legal flaws that will undoubtedly result in distracting and protracted litigation, compromising the program’s purported benefits. It is crucial that ODEQ, the agency charged with protecting the environment and human health, evaluate and determine if and when to embark on various regulatory programs rather than allowing misguided activists to drive unnecessary, onerous and sweeping regulations that would have major consequences for business, government and Oregonians statewide. I urge you to support the development of scientifically sound, unbiased regulations and deny the indirect source petition in its entirety. Sincerely, Barbie Walker Owner The Webfoot University District The Pint Pot Public House Pearl/West U UDBA President Eugene, Or From: [email protected] To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Promulgate Indirect Source Rules Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 7:03:48 AM

To Whom It May Concern,

I have the petition to the best of my abilities and think a few thing should be considered:

1. Do we want to use standards set by California. I believe this would be a mistake they use some very high standards that are above even recommended minimum levels. We should instead develop standards that reflect Oregon and what we want. 2. How difficult do we want it for business to develop in Oregon. I believe this petition makes it extremely difficult to do business in Oregon which is already a problem and this would only limit further develop and create a large amount of red tape to do so. 3. We already have standards for air quality in Oregon could we just evaluate our rules and adapt those rather than set up a new set of rules and add more layers of workers and perhaps a whole new department which will need to be funded and create hardship in already difficult process.

While we should be conscious of the environment which is important I believe this petition is extremely one sided and does not balance both sides of the needs in Oregon my vote would be not to except this petition but rather take the valid points and develop a plan that suites our needs here in Oregon.

Thanks for taking time to listen to my thoughts on this matter, Brian Earls

February 13, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Chair George:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce with serious concerns regarding the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) that would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. For decades, Oregon has implemented many successful regulatory programs aimed at improving air quality, including the regulation of indirect sources. The petition before the Commission will negatively impact effective regulatory programs, diverting resources from the Department of Environmental Quality’s current programs, and place an enormous and costly regulatory burden on Oregon businesses and other entities.

Our business members strongly support efforts to improve Oregon’s air quality, however, this petition would require potentially thousands of businesses to adopt excessive and costly practices that would seem unnecessary, given that the current indirect source program has never found a single project that would be in violation of air quality standards.

The petition would also apply to all new development projects disturbing an area approximately the size of a typical single-family home, in a time when economic development resources to address our housing crisis is scarce. The petition would apply to hospitals, churches, schools, universities, government buildings, day care centers, senior citizen centers, housing projects (affordable and otherwise), prisons, and grocery stores and other businesses to an unprecedented degree imposing huge costs and significant impacts.

These unnecessary, onerous and sweeping regulations would have major consequences for business, government and Oregonians statewide. I urge you to support the development of scientifically sound, unbiased regulations and deny the indirect source petition in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Brittany Quick-Warner President and CEO, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce

1401 Willamette Street P.O. Box 1107 Eugene, OR 97440-1107 Tel: 541.484.1314 Fax: 541.484.4942 eugenechamber.com

Chad E Strong Salem, OR

January 28, 2020

Environmental Quality Commission Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100 [email protected] Via email transmission only

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The aforementioned petition is a clear attempt to impose a new regulatory standard on diesel emissions from mobile sources. However, it goes much farther than regulating diesel emissions and punishes Oregon communities and local businesses for their use of cars, trucks, and other diesel, gasoline and other fossil fuel-powered equipment.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! This is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses, public and private institutions, and local governments across Oregon would be immense and enormous.

This program adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and is quite honestly not needed. Oregon already has an indirect source program, and based on the limited research I’ve done, I can find no project that has ever been found to violate air quality standards. The proposal with this petition is a solution in search of a problem.

Please reject this petition and allow what’s been in place to continue to do its thing.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

/s/ Chad E. Strong, Concerned Oregon Resident

February 14, 2020

Kathleen George, Chair 1914 Willamette Falls Drive, Suite 260 Oregon Environmental Quality Commission West Linn, Oregon 97068 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 t: 503.344.6637 f: 503.344.6693 Portland, Oregon 97232 www.nwga.org Twitter: @nwgas Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition Via Email: [email protected]

Dear Chair George: The Northwest Gas Association (NWGA) represents the interests of the natural gas distribution companies and pipelines that deliver warmth and comfort to more than two million Oregon residents and productive energy to almost 100,000 businesses here. The NWGA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Petition to Promulgate Indirect Source Rules to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). We object to the petition and ask the EQC not to direct the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to promulgate the indirect source rules put forth by the petitioners or any other rules beyond the current indirect source program that has been in place and successful in improving Oregon’s air quality since 1975. A Solution in Search of a Problem Oregon has long had an indirect source program that has made and will continue to make meaningful progress toward improving and maintaining Oregon’s air quality. We believe the state should continue to implement the approximately 20 separate regulatory programs focused on making our state’s air cleaner. According to DEQ’s summary of the petition, more than 400 indirect sources have been evaluated under the current program. During that time DEQ has not found a single project that caused or would cause a violation of Oregon’s existing air quality standards. Yet as written, this rulemaking would require permits to be issued to hundreds, potentially thousands of existing businesses, facilities and operations one short year after rules are adopted. If these indirect sources are not issued a permit within 365 days of the date on which the rules take effect, they must stop operating. Such an enormous sanction is uncalled for and without precedent. The petition would also apply to all new development projects disturbing an area approximately the size of a typical single-family home. Indirect sources responsible for obtaining construction and operating permits will include hospitals, churches, schools, universities, government buildings, day care centers, senior citizen centers, housing projects (affordable and otherwise), prisons, and grocery stores, to name just a few. Oregon does not need a new overly broad, time-consuming and costly program such as the one proposed by the petitioners, especially when next to nothing will be gained by it. Legal Implications The petitioners are asking the EQC to adopt this program as a means to do what they acknowledge is illegal. The petitioners state that the proposed program has been deemed legal in San Joaquin Valley. However, the San Joaquin program is different in structure and was implemented to directly address chronic violations of ambient air quality standards, which Oregon rarely experiences. The state would almost certainly confront litigation were it to adopt this rulemaking. Permitting Costs, Delays and Fees According to the proposed rules, the process of determining whether a permit is needed will require highly technical and expensive computer modeling that typically cannot be done in- house, requiring the regulated entity to hire a consultant to perform the work. This will be both expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, any submittal must undergo third-party verification prior to submittal to DEQ and then undergo a lengthy permit issuance process. Under DEQ’s current permitting processes, it takes one to two years for DEQ to issue air permits that require ambient air quality impact analyses. The petition, if adopted, would dramatically increase DEQ’s workload and incur lengthy delays and intolerable costs for projects that would otherwise contribute beneficially to Oregon’s economy without materially affecting its air quality. In DEQ’s summary of the petition, they acknowledge the need for additional staff and funding to implement the program, which means fees imposed on builders, project developers, and existing facilities that will be pulled into the program. These are dollars that will be taken directly out of the budgets of hospitals, schools, low-income housing projects, fire and police departments, public and private utilities, and other businesses subject to the rulemaking. The proposed rules would also apply to all forms of pre-existing indirect sources such as fire and police, transportation, ports, colleges, schools, utilities, and others. Additional Concerns • The proposed rule is much too broad in scope. It would affect fire and police operations, transportation, ports, utilities, colleges, schools, libraries and affordable housing, among a myriad of other projects. • The petitioners suggest diesel emissions are the main issue of concern but have submitted a proposal that affects far more than diesel emissions with little or no corresponding benefit. • The proposal attempts to indirectly regulate the use of cars, trucks, and other diesel and gasoline-fired equipment that are already directly regulated by DEQ. • The petition promises to dramatically and negatively affect Oregon’s economy with no discernible benefit. Conclusion In summary, there is no upside with the rulemaking proposed by the petition. It imposes an enormous burden on project sponsors – public and private alike – and on DEQ, while resolving nothing. The NWGA ask that EQC reject the petition in its entirety.

Sincerely,

DAN S. KIRSCHNER Executive Director From: Dana Burk To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:30:07 PM

Dear Chair George,

This new rule will impact all businesses in Oregon. We already have higher taxes on gross sales and you are trying to stop all companies from being competitive as these rules make Oregon a non-friendly state. Our rules are wors

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Dana Burk Keizer, OR

PO Box 11923 Eugene, OR 97440 Office: 541-683-1751 www.cornerstonecommunityhousing.org

February 13, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Chair George:

I am writing to object to the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) that would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. For decades, Oregon has implemented many successful regulatory programs aimed at improving air quality, including the regulation of indirect sources. As an affordable housing developer, I am gravely concerned that the petition before the Commission will negatively impact effective regulatory programs, divert staff and funding away from carrying out the Department of Environmental Quality’s current programs, and place an enormous and costly regulatory burden on Oregon businesses and other entities.

Cornerstone Community Housing is committed to building quality, affordable housing for people living on limited incomes and offering services that promote opportunities for personal growth and economic independence.

PO Box 11923 Eugene, OR 97440 Office: 541-683-1751 www.cornerstonecommunityhousing.org before submittal to ODEQ. Additionally, emissions limits would be established in permits which could require new equipment or retrofits, mitigation activities, and limitations on the number of mobile sources visiting an indirect source that would have huge impacts on the sources and the communities that depend on them.

It would be a gross disservice to Oregonians and our urban communities to pile on additional, severe regulatory requirements when those areas are meeting applicable air quality standards and actions are already being taken to address emissions from mobile sources statewide. Additionally, the program petitioners seek suffers from fatal legal flaws that will undoubtedly result in distracting and protracted litigation, compromising the program’s purported benefits.

Sincerely,

Darcy Phillips Executive Director

From: Destinee Schuster To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:40:05 PM

Dear Chair George,

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Destinee Schuster Gervais, OR 97026

From: Ellie Hilger To: ISPComment Subject: feedback on indirect source rules petition Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 7:21:27 PM

Dear Oregon DEQ,

The Indirect Source Rules Petition is another layer of bureaucracy that slows businesses efficiency, limits innovation, and forces large expenses on businesses. This is a high cost to pay when it is not even clear if the indirect source regulation that dates back to the 1970s was even responsible for carbon monoxide emissions being lowered, since CO attainment is commonly attributed to increasingly protective federal vehicle emission standards.

Petitioners propose that if emissions exceed thresholds, then permittees would be required to reduce emissions, possibly through using lower emitting construction vehicles, using electric vehicles, or using alternative fuels. All of these would be extremely expensive and impractical for businesses to attain. Construction vehicles and equipment are not electric, and converting vehicles to use alternative fuels is also extremely expensive. There isn't a current viable market for alternative fuels or electric vehicles. Forcing a business to turn to something that isn't a reasonable alternative will put companies out of business.

Oregon is growing and our infrastructure needs to grow to meet those needs. We will not be able to meet those needs with impractical regulations that put companies out of business with high costs and tedious bureaucracy.

Thank you for hearing my concerns. Ellie Hilger February 14, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Chair Kathleen George:

I am writing to share my objection and concerns regarding the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) that would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. For decades, Oregon has implemented many successful regulatory programs aimed at improving air quality, including the regulation of indirect sources. I have serious concerns that the petition before the Commission will negatively impact these already in place and effective regulatory programs, divert staff and funding away from carrying out the Department of Environmental Quality’s current programs, and place an enormous and costly regulatory burden on Oregon businesses and other entities.

Sincerely,

® ® Emily A. Secord, CRPC , CFP

868 High Street, Eugene, OR 97401 The John G. Shedd PO Box 1497, Eugene, OR 97440-1497 Telephone: 541.434.7000 Institute for the Arts www.theshedd.org

February 14, 2020 OPERATIONS James Ralph Executive Director Tony Roethler & Kristina Gribskov, Business Office Ms. Kathleen George Kayla Clark, Monique Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Balas Butler, Lynnea Barry; Caroline Huff, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Stewardship 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 PERFORMANCE Portland, OR 97232-4100 Kristin Combs Artistic Administrator Chris Lewis Technical Services Via Email: [email protected] EDUCATION Ginevra Ralph Director of Education re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition Heidi Turnquist Assistant Director Dear Ms. George: COMMUNITY EVENTS Flavio Ortiz Community Events Manager I write on behalf of the Board of The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts to object to Eryne Grant the petition for the Commission to regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. Ticket Office Manager Jan Easton Building Services The Shedd is a year-round performing arts, community music school and cultural Donna Nunes Food Services center in Eugene. We own a 70,000 square foot former church complex with a ¼ block

BOARD OF DIRECTORS parking lot. We serve over 75,000 people annually. Randall Collis The regulations being proposed would be severely damaging to our business and only Chairman Ginevra Ralph serve the goal of “reduced emissions” by discouraging event attendance and student Vice-Chair Karen Warren participation because the costs imposed would require either significant increases in pass- Secretary through ticket, tuition, and rental costs, or an equally significant increase in donations to Greg Lyons Treasurer cover the costs. The same will be true across all affected entities. Beth Sheehan President We urge the continued creation of incentives to encourage citizens to “go greener”, as Steven Asbury well as the focused regulatory steps the Commission takes when a serious problem is Jonathan Brandt Mark Brockett identified. Callan Coleman In our opinion, this petition is the wrong sledgehammer to respond to our shared Bob Cross Lee Daniel environmental issues and challenges. Dan Dunnington Sandee Gerber Bruce Heldt Sincerely, Christine Hogan Rik Huhtanen Linda Lawrence Christina Lund Ginevra Ralph, co-founder and Director of Education/Stewardship Natalie Newlove Sally Nill Jenny Rexius Nancy Oft Rose Lourdes Sá nchez Doug Sheffer Mary Sheffer Hank Storr Jenny Ulum Gayle Warren

The mission of The Shedd Institute is to be an education and performance center where people find and nurture community through discovery, creation and celebration. Johan Hellman BNSF Railway Company Regional Assistant Vice President 2454 Occidental Ave. South, Bldg. 1A State Government Affairs Seattle, WA 98134

February 14, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Chair George:

We are writing today to object to the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) which would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. If enacted, this petition could have serious consequences on commerce and trade throughout the state of Oregon, and could even have serious deleterious effects on environmental quality by diverting resources away from existing regulatory programs that have consistently shown success in meeting state and national emissions targets.

As members of the railroad industry, we would like to begin by highlighting a few facts about the environmental sustainability of modern freight rail transportation. First, modern railroads are extremely fuel efficient. On average, a BNSF locomotive can move one ton of freight, nearly 500 miles, on a single gallon of fuel. What’s more, modern locomotives are comparatively low emitting. As an illustration, if just 10 percent of freight that currently moves on trucks was transferred to freight railroads, the fuel savings would be more than 1.5 billion gallons per year and annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by more than 17 million tons. That would be the equivalent of removing about 3.2 million cars from the nation’s highways for one year, or planting about 400 million trees. In recent years, BNSF has invested heavily in next-generation locomotives and continually updated operating practices to ensure that our fleet is among the most efficient and cleanest running in the industry.

As these statistics indicate, the state of Oregon would actually be removing an important tool that benefits both the state’s economic development goals as well as its environmental goals by advancing a policy that specifically targets railroad locomotives, as the petition before you proposes. This proposed change in policy would seriously undermine both goals, and would represent an unfortunate shift away from current policy which has a proven history of meeting important air quality standards.

To our knowledge, Oregon is not currently exceeding state or national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, particulate matter, or ozone in areas where the proposed petition would apply. Furthermore, our understanding is that the current indirect sources program has never found a single project that would cause a violation of air quality standards, even though the state has long regulated indirect sources (with more than 400 indirect sources evaluated under the current program). Therefore, it is puzzling that the state might choose to divert resources from the existing program with its record of success and direct those resources into an unproven and likely unnecessary new regime.

The financial costs of this policy shift would likely be enormous. For one, the administrative costs of considering and issuing permits to hundreds or even thousands of existing businesses within the first year of implementation would be significant. Even more significant would be the individual cost burdens on individual businesses as they seek consultants to perform complex air modeling and analyses and then pay additional costs associated with verifying their findings, complying with new permit requirements, and then mitigating against potential impacts. These impacts would likely fall most acutely on smaller businesses, especially those in rural areas.

By extending these costs to the transportation sector, the state would be adding yet another layer of increasing costs to businesses already struggling to meet the imposition of significant new burdens. Railroads serve a variety of industries, moving a multitude of cargo to companies and businesses throughout Oregon. These include businesses in a variety of sectors including agriculture, timber, manufacturing, retail, e-commerce, brewers, distillers, and many more. In this way, the state would create an exponential burden on these businesses, which could have a serious impact on the state’s economic vibrancy. And since trains are four times more fuel efficient than trucks and sixteen times safer, the potential diversion of cargo away from freight rail could severely impact the cost of doing business in the state as well as the overall safety and environmental sustainability of the state’s transportation network.

Finally, we believe the proposal before you would likely conflict with federal law and would, therefore, be the subject of extensive and costly litigation. By including railroad locomotives within the definition of a “mobile source,” the state could very well be initiating a scope that is preempted. Multiple lawsuits over many years have affirmed that federal regulators are solely responsible for all aspects of railroad safety and operations. Courts have consistently ruled that federal policies preempt efforts by state and local governments that would essentially regulate traffic moving through rail facilities. Therefore, it seems almost certain that the proposed policy as applied to railroad locomotives would face legal challenges.

In closing, we believe it would be an unnecessary and burdensome shift in policy to adopt the petition on indirect sources which is currently being offered for your consideration. For one, this change in policy could undermine the abundance and availability of freight rail, which is an important tool supporting the state’s goals of maximizing transportation efficiency and minimizing air emissions. What’s more, the cost of such a policy shift would have an exponential impact on numerous businesses and industries in Oregon which rely on safe and efficient freight rail to bring resources to their businesses and to move finished product out to the national and global marketplace. Such a policy shift is unnecessary since the state of Oregon currently manages an extensive regulatory system which continues to serve the state’s citizens by ensuring compliance with state and national air quality standards. Finally, we believe the policy as applied to rail transport and locomotives would face significant and costly legal challenges. To the extent adjustments are required, we believe they can be made through the existing framework.

For these reasons, we urge you to reject the proposed petition on indirect sources.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Johan Hellman From: jeannine parisi To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 4:38:50 PM

Ms. Kathleen George, I am a long-serving member of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Board and am a strong advocate for clean air and protective health standards for our vulnerable community members. My position is not reflective of the LRAPA Board but as an informed member of the public who is also a small business owner. I am very familiar with the plethora of regulations already in place impacting small business and feel the sting of the perhaps relatively minor, but numerous financial impacts of those regulations on my ability to maintain a viable business operation and employment for sixteen people.

I am concerned about the indirect source petition before the Commission. My understanding is that our experience with existing indirect source regulations is that these operations (parking lot construction for Eugene airport, or the on-ramp to the Jefferson Bridge) did not pose a threat to air quality. I’m skeptical that this petition will provide any measurable environmental benefits, but instead add another layer of regulation and cost impacts that trickle down to all of us.

I’m concerned that the petition takes a one size fits all approach to a large state with vastly different air quality problems, population densities, and demographic make-up. I’m also concerned about the timing of this new regulation on the heels of a vast new set of regulations aimed at better understanding and reducing risk from air toxics. We have a clean fuels and clean diesel programs that, like unleaded gasoline, will clean up emissions from heavy equipment. We are using VW settlement money to upgrade school buses. I’m in strong support for a price on carbon which I believe is the only economically practical path to addressing the climate crisis and if implemented, will help support a faster conversion of fleets to alternative fuels like CNG, hydrogen and blended fuels.

In short, Oregon is making strides in the right direction. But I don't believe this is the right regulation or the right time and urge the Commission to reject the petition. If there are specific non-point sources that are of concern, like marine terminals, railyards, airports, etc., let’s first better understand the specific air quality issues and health impacts to workers and address those discretely with best available science.

Respectfully,

Jeannine Parisi

Eugene, Oregon

February 13, 2020

Ms. Kathleen George Chair, Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition

Dear Chair George:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition. Waste Connections urges you to deny the Petition for reasons outlined below. Waste Connections values our working relationships in the public and private sectors in regards to all material handling activities and this petition will put excessive, duplicative and unnecessary financial and obligatory burdens on many operating Oregon businesses. The unintended consequences need to be measured before moving forward.

Waste Connections is an integrated solid waste services-company that provides essential public services that protect public health, human safety and the environment in the geographic area proposed to be covered by the indirect source petition. Our services include non-hazardous waste collection, transfer, disposal and comprehensive recycling services.

We are writing to object to the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) that would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. For decades, Oregon has implemented many successful regulatory programs aimed at improving air quality, including the regulation of indirect sources. We are gravely concerned that the petition before the Commission will negatively impact these effective regulatory programs, divert staff and funding away from carrying out the Department of Environmental Quality’s current programs, and place an enormous and costly regulatory burden on Oregon businesses and other entities.

Waste Connections | 4822 70th Avenue E. Fife, WA 98424

puzzling since Oregon is not exceeding State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter or Ozone in areas where this petition would apply.

Waste Connections | 4822 70th Avenue E. Fife, WA 98424

Sincerely,

Jody L Snyder

Jody L Snyder Senior Manager of Regulatory and Governmental Affairs Waste Connections

Waste Connections | 4822 70th Avenue E. Fife, WA 98424

From: John Lloyd To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:20:03 PM

Dear Chair George,

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

John Lloyd Salem, OR From: Julie Stockfleth To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 9:26:38 AM

I oppose this Indirect Source Rulemaking Petion. It will impose arduous procedures on companies trying to do business in Oregon by requiring them to learn how to or hire outside agencies to fill out environmental paperwork that is, no doubt, going to be quite scientific by the requirements of knowing very specific emissions quantities for all vehicles, construction equipment and even heating and cooling equipment installed in new and existing buildings.

It seems that requiring more fees on housing will only worsen the housing crisis in Oregon. Also, new fees on hospitals will also be passed on to patients.

It also appears that there will be new fees/taxes for permits related to these forms. I feel like any new fees/taxes should at least be presented to the State legislature before being considered.

Thank you, Julie Stockfleth Clatsop County Oregon From: Krisstine Jacobsen To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:40:06 PM

Dear Chair George,

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

And will do nothing to contribute to the overall solution. It will only cost our families more, as all costs get passed down. Struggling Oregon families need to be represented here. This petition needs to be rejected.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Krisstine Jacobsen Wilsonville, OR From: Linda Almendinger To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 8:40:03 AM

Dear Chair George,

I, as a business owner, object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking. You are relentlessly breaking the backs of Oregon small business!

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

This program adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and is not needed. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Linda Almendinger Turner, OR From: Marcia Baker To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:10:04 PM

Dear Chair George,

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Marcia Baker Carlton, OR From: Matthew Hadler To: ISPComment Subject: ISP Comment Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:17:47 PM

There is no need to regulate the use of of equipment by businesses as this what it appears and reads to be. These vehicles or indirect sources are already regulated heavily by both state and federal authority and to do so further is duplicitous, burdensome and frankly stupid.

Please stop reaching into people’s pockets.

Regards, Matthew Hadler From: Michelle Adame To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:30:07 PM

Dear Chair George,

Why do you have an attack on small business in Oregon? You are destroying our state with these bills we said NO to cap and trade along with gross sales tax and all the other bills that are killing small business you are breaking our backs and we employ more people then big business.

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Michelle Adame Salem, OR

Date 2/7/2020

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

As a small business owner as well as a commercial real estate owner I object to being forced deal with more bureaucracy because my business is in Oregon. This state is already one of the hardest to do business in due to the taxes and governmental oversite we are forced to deal with and do not need more. The petition is a clear attempt to impose a new regulatory standard on diesel emissions from mobile sources. However, it goes much farther than regulating diesel emissions and punishes Oregon communities and local businesses for their use of cars, trucks, and other diesel and gasoline-powered equipment. The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous. This program adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and is not needed. Oregon already has an indirect source program, and no project has ever been found to violate air quality standards. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem.

Please reject this petition. Sincerely, Mike Van Atta

From: Mina Hanssen To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020 7:40:04 PM

Dear Chair George,

Enough is enough. It is Time to stop catering to loud special interests. The cost of housing is already too high in Oregon. This will only exacerbate the problem and create additional homelessness

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Mina Hanssen Salem, OR From: Nancy Bigley To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 3:43:06 AM

Dear Chair George: I am writing to object to the petition currently before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) that would regulate indirect sources of air pollutants. For decades, Oregon has implemented many successful regulatory programs aimed at improving air quality, including the regulation of indirect sources. I am gravely concerned that the petition before the Commission will negatively impact these effective regulatory programs, divert staff and funding away from carrying out the Department of Environmental Quality’s current programs, and place an enormous and costly regulatory burden on Oregon businesses and other entities. Oregon has long regulated indirect sources and, according to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(ODEQ), more than 400 indirect sources have been evaluated under the program. The indirect source program has never found a single project that would cause a violation of air quality standards. In fact, the push to regulate indirect sources this severely is puzzling since Oregon is not exceeding State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter or Ozone in areas where this petition would apply. I support improving Oregon’s air quality and believe the state should continue to implement the approximately 20 separate regulatory programs focused on making our state’s air cleaner. However, as written, this petition would require permits to be issued to hundreds, potentially thousands of existing businesses, facilities and operations one short year after rules are adopted. If these sources are not issued a permit within 365 days of the date on which the rules take effect, they must stop operating. Such an enormous sanction is uncalled for and without precedent. The petition would also apply to all new development projects disturbing an area approximately the size of a typical single-family home. Indirect sources responsible for obtaining construction and operating permits will include hospitals, churches, schools, universities, government buildings, day care centers, senior citizen centers, housing projects (affordable and otherwise), prisons, and grocery stores, to name just a few. All affected sources requiring permits would be subject to requirements that impose huge costs and would significantly delay projects across the state. Sources seeking permits would be responsible for hiring expensive consultants to perform complex air analyses and modeling and would then be required to pay to have this work verified by a separate, independent consultant before submittal to ODEQ. Additionally, emissions limits would be established in permits which could require new equipment or retrofits, mitigation activities, and limitations on the number of mobile sources visiting an indirect source that would have huge impacts on the sources and the communities that depend on them. It is clear that the petitioners’ real target is to regulate fuel efficiency and reduce emissions from mobile sources. To that end, petitioners would place all of the regulatory burden onto sources that are they least equipped to carry it, e.g., schools, hospitals and businesses offering essential community services like grocery stores and affordable housing developments. The obvious flaws with such a regressive regulatory approach are highlighted by the fact that ODEQ already administers numerous programs for regulating emissions from mobile sources such as the Clean Fuels, Clean Diesel, Low Emission Vehicle and Vehicle Inspection Programs. Just last year, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2007, which – among other things -- forces the replacement of older diesel engines. Given that the Legislature just addressed the issue of how diesel emissions for road and non-road engines should be reduced, it would be inappropriate to adopt a massive new permitting program focused on indirect sources that is contrary to the Legislature’s directive in HB 2007. It would be a gross disservice to Oregonians and our urban communities to pile on additional, severe regulatory requirements when those areas are meeting applicable air quality standards and actions are already being taken to address emissions from mobile sources statewide. In addition, to being a disservice, the program petitioners seek suffers from fatal legal flaws that will undoubtedly result in distracting and protracted litigation, compromising the program’s purported benefits. It is crucial that ODEQ, the agency charged with protecting the environment and human health, evaluate and determine if and when to embark on various regulatory programs rather than allowing misguided activists to drive unnecessary, onerous and sweeping regulations thatwould have major consequences for business, government and Oregonians statewide. I urge you to support the development of scientifically sound, unbiased regulations and deny the indirect source petition in its entirety. Sincerely,

Nancy Bigley

Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce, immediate past chair From: Pamela Fahndrich To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:40:06 PM

Dear Chair George,

January 28, 2020

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

This program adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and is not needed. Oregon already has an indirect source program, and no project has ever been found to violate air quality standards. This proposal is so broad that nearly every sector and every community will face an added cost burden that will surely stifle economic growth and vitality in our state.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Pamela Fahndrich Salem, OR From: Philip Farrington To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rules Petition Thursday, Date: February 13, 2020 4:49:13 PM

Dear Chair George and Environmental Quality Commission members,

Having previously worked as Director of Land Use Planning and Development for PeaceHealth, I worked with the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency to secure an indirect source permit as part of the development process for Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend. Although the hospital project provided 40% of its parking area within structures, the number of parking spaces for employees and patients warranted going through the indirect source permit process. For facilities and projects of that scale, the permit process was wholly justified.

The petition proposal before you, however, would vastly expand the applicability for indirect source permits such that it if adopted would carry unintended consequences and true burdens, with little measurable environmental benefit.

I’m now working on developing a residential housing project that would be captured by the proposed requirements for construction permitting, and presumably on-going operating permitting. At a time when faced with dramatically rising construction costs, increases in local systems development charges, construction excise tax, and the duplicative increases to construction projects from the CAT, development projects – particularly those providing needed housing – are being hit hard already. The proposed permitting scheme will add further burdens and costs, challenging the ability to deliver housing when it is needed most.

The project we are working on is a multi-story apartment structure located on a street that will be improved as a neighborhood greenway this summer, is proximate to the 15-mile riverside bike/pedestrian trail system, and just a block from the Emerald Express (EmX) high capacity transit corridor. The project would provide vehicle parking for residents to meet the city’s minimum vehicle parking standards, and include EV charging stations. It will cater to the needs of cyclists by providing not only ample covered, locked bicycle parking and storage, but an on-site bike repair station. The project will promote walkability given its location within easy walking distance to a grocery, pharmacy, restaurants, coffee shops, and employment. This will be the first development meeting the city’s form-based code standards, and represents exactly the kind of in-fill development that will reduce the need for vehicles and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the building area will exceed 10,000 sf and the $1 million total contract value for the development project, thereby triggering the requirement for indirect source construction permitting, as proposed. Although our project was granted needed land use approvals last month, we have yet to submit for construction permits in advance of our anticipated mid-summer groundbreaking. But the proposal would establish permitting requirements as of January 1, 2020, thereby applying as-yet developed standards to projects that began prior to your hearings to consider the matter, much less the adoption of any rulemaking. This is inherently unfair.

I urge you to deny the petition and reject the proposed expansion of the indirect source permitting program: it is a solution in search of a problem. If adopted as proposed, the permit proposal would create a raft of new problems far beyond the DEQ’s scope, with burdens that will far outweigh any potential benefit. Sincerely,

Philip Farrington, AICP Director of Planning & Real Estate Development CDC Management Corp. Eugene, OR From: Robert Biffle To: ISPComment Subject: Public Comment Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 4:21:57 AM

Dear Sirs and Madames, If considering new legislation to target indirect sources, please keep in mind the fact that no theory has yet been proven that any climate change of the planet is anthropogenic. It has not been proven. Carbon content in the atmosphere (upper) is 100X less effective than water content at doing that. Furthermore, our economy depends on trucking, which is a much smaller percentage than the total barrels used compared to the airline industry. The naturally shifting temperatures of this planet has given way to 'chicken little' thinking and reacting. Doubtless many on your panel have fallen prey to the manipulation of data and those ideologies in support of error. Yet you must take into your accounting this opinion and comment. Vote No against further legislation. It would be both; harmful and unnecessary.

Seriously, Robert Biffle

February 14, 2020

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Attn. Karen Williams 700 NE Multnomah St., Suite #600 Portland, OR 97232-4100 Sent via email to: [email protected] & [email protected]

Subject: Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Petition

Western Wood Preservers Institute (WWPI) is a non-profit trade association founded in Oregon in 1947. WWPI represents 11 wood preserving manufacturing facilities in Oregon that contribute markedly to rural economies and employment, as well as state and local taxes. The jobs, economic benefits, and value-added products they provide are essential to healthy and vital rural communities.

WWPI opposes the Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Petition submitted on Dec. 20, 2019, and respectfully requests the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to reject the whole petition. The foundation of our opposition to this petition is grounded by our legal analysis, which concludes this petition would be illegal under Oregon state law as well as federal law. Thus, we believe it will lead to extensive litigation.

The petitioners centered on diesel emissions as a major threat to human health and the environment. However, the petition goes beyond diesel emissions to include all indirect emission sources in jurisdictions with a population greater than 49,999. This petition will negatively impact the rail and truck transportation of raw materials and finished products for our members as well as their ability to offer customer and employee parking. The feasibility to comply with this petition would be nearly impossible for a business to financially endure as the fees that would be required to administer the program would surely force our members to close their doors.

Our opposition to this petition also stems from the multiple programs currently administered and being developed for implementation. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) already has an indirect source program with the objective of controlling the concentration of air contaminants, Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 340, Division 254. Through the current program, DEQ has evaluated indirect source emissions and continues to do so. The Clean Diesel Initiative has reduced diesel exhaust by burning less fuel, burning cleaner fuels and retrofitting engines to help remove emissions from the engine exhaust. Finally, DEQ is currently in the process of conducting rulemaking for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting protocols for facilities emitting 2,500 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide.

The petition notes that, “DEQ has also proposed several strategies to reduce diesel emissions, but the majority of these recommendations have not been implemented.” Given the programs currently administered and those in the process of being developed for implementation, adding a new program will certainly create further delays while overextending existing resources.

It is not clear what this petition will achieve that is not already administered or in the process of being implemented, other than endless judicial frustration. WWPI urges the Environmental Quality Commission to completely reject this petition. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our strong opposition with the petition to regulate indirect sources of air pollution. Please contact me should you have questions about our comments.

Sincerely,

Ryan Pessah Director of Government Relations Western Wood Preservers Institute From: Scott Freeburn To: ISPComment Cc: Janet Steele, President, Albany Area Chamber of Commerce Subject: Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Thursday, January 23, 2020 6:48:48 PM

Chair George and Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The petition is an effort to impose a new stringent, and totally unjustified, regulatory standard on diesel emissions from mobile sources. However, the proposal is far more insidious than a simple limitation on diesel emissions, as it would mandate a technically extravagant, expensive permitting program burdening the Department of Environmental Quality and thousands of business caught in its expansive regulatory net. It truly would punish large and small businesses, and their customers, who MUST rely on their cars, trucks, and other diesel and gasoline-powered equipment to meet everyday needs. The proposal is replete with deficiencies and bad ideas but I will focus on a few:

Applicability

The scope of the applicability of the rule is staggering. The most trivial of construction projects would require permitting. A contractor planning to build two adjacent homes would require a permit and would need to conduct ambient monitoring during the course of construction. It may even apply to one home if the cost is greater than $1,000,000 and projected ambient impacts are sufficiently high. A trigger of 8000 square feet of soil disturbance may very well be a one day project and is, for sure, less than one fifth of the similar requirement triggering stormwater protection measures. This requirement alone sets DEQ up for processing many hundreds of applications each year.

Monitoring

The referenced ambient monitoring method specifies a 24-hour sampling period but the proposed regulation requires compliance on an hourly basis. The required short-term sampling would not conform to the method. The alternative monitoring approval process reference provides no useful information. If there is an a proven alternative it should be specifically referenced so the costs and complications can be known.

There is no basis for the significance levels for ambient impacts. The incremental concentration value of 1 ug/m3 will be hard to determine in an ambient setting where values maybe ten or twenty times that value or wherever there is even modest amounts of non-diesel fine particulate matter. There is no information provided as to how monitoring results will be separated from existing ambient conditions. If this is by conventional upwind/downwind comparisons, multiple samplers are required taking hourly samples for a 12-hour sampling day. So this means collection and analysis of 24 samples for each work day? Unless the wind shifts, then if will require more samples. As a former consultant familiar with field sampling and analytical costs, this requirement, as broached in the proposed rule, will add thousands of dollars to simple construction projects. Aren’t we trying to find a way to build LOW cost housing?

Operating Permits

The permit programs contain a variety of new-to-Oregon requirements for which neither the applicants not the agency have experience but for which there are numerous obvious unknowns. The schedule proposed for implementation, even if it were worth it, is unrealistic and impossible without massive staffing increases and costs related to the questionably need to expedite the process.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations on existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. (This schedule is a fantasy considering the resources available to conduct the necessary monitoring , modeling, analysis, and application preparation and review.) The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

This is just another example of how we to make bad rules. The proposal represents another importation of an approach from California, a state of 35 million people, for implementation in a state of four million residents. It is justified by quoting alleged health benefits associated with reduced diesel smoke exposure. The benefits are developed from laboratory or limited epidemiological data, multiplied by overlapped conservative assumptions, and extrapolated via conservative modelling. By the time the final risks are generated, it is a wonder any of us are alive. These results are generated from an intentionally conservative process, never have had any real life verification, and yet serve as the justification for punishing regulations which will have unmeasurably small benefits to anyone but the petitioners. This proposed rule would add costs and layers of bureaucracy and truly is not needed. Oregon already has an indirect source program that is adequate to the needs of the state as no project has ever been found to violate air quality standards. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Please reject this petition. Scott A. Freeburn, P.E. Albany, Oregon From: Tim Richardson To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:40:32 PM

Dear Chair George,

As business owner with multiple location across the state, it is important for me to speak on behalf of business owners and project developers. This petition, although well-intended, clearly places undue burden on those businesses and individuals that are creating the jobs and spaces for work that our state so desperately needs. This broad-sweeping petition only adds to the difficulties we currently face. I’d like to add my voice to the conversation outlined below.

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Tim Richardson Silverton, OR From: Tracie Farnsworth To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:40:06 PM

Dear Chair George,

I work in the construction industry. This would severely impact our business and the construction industry. This would increase costs, delay project schedules, discourage development in Oregon, etc. This would also be a huge financial burden for contractors if the "air impact study" is out of compliance. The emissions mitigation measures would be costly and cause delays. The application process appears to be time consuming and I can't imagine what a backlog of applications would do to delay a project from starting on schedule. This petition has not considered what kind of impact this would have on Oregon's economy and businesses. I strongly encourage you to reject this petition.

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Tracie Farnsworth Salem, OR From: Vonnie Mikkelsen To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 2:10:17 PM

Dear Chair George,

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking, on behalf of members of the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce who have brought forth their concerns t, and in support of those who have submitted their objections to this petition directly to the Commission.

Oregon already has an indirect source program. Given that the Legislature just addressed the issue of how diesel emissions for road and non-road engines should be reduced, it would be inappropriate to adopt a massive new permitting program focused on indirect sources that is contrary to the Legislature’s directive in HB 2007.

While we support reasonable air quality regulatory programs focused on making our state’s air cleaner, the petition before the Commission adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and is not needed. It will place an enormous, unnecessary, and costly regulatory burden on our businesses and administrative burden on environmental agencies administering the program. Moreover, it would due a great disservice to Oregon's smaller and medium-sized urban communities like Springfield and Eugene to pile on additional, severe regulatory requirements when those areas are meeting applicable air quality standards, and as actions are already being taken to address emissions from mobile sources statewide.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Vonnie Mikkelsen Springfield, OR From: Wayne A Thackery To: ISPComment Subject: Reject Petition for Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:30:07 PM

Dear Chair George,

I write today to object to the petition for indirect source rulemaking.

The indirect source petition requires facilities to obtain a costly new air permit and make investments in emissions reductions technologies, and it imposes these new regulations to existing structures! It is so broad that it applies to local fire and police stations, transportation infrastructure, ports, colleges, schools, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, utilities, and affordable housing projects. These facilities would be required to obtain a costly new air permit within one year of adoption. The cost to businesses and local governments across Oregon would be enormous.

Please reject this petition.

Sincerely,

Wayne A Thackery Keizer, OR

From: Beven Byrnes To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:31:54 PM

Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington, Molly Kile, Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera

Bridges Middle School supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Respectfully, Mrs. Byrnes

Beven Byrnes Principal/Executive Director

Bridges Middle School Portland, OR

Http://BridgesMS.org As one of the few schools in Oregon devoted to students with learning differences and the only one focused exclusively on middle school, Bridges offers its 5th through 8th grade students small class sizes, differentiated instruction, and a safe place to learn and grow. Brooklyn Action Corps Neighborhood Association

February 13, 2020

Environmental Quality Commission Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

RE: Indirect sources rule Dear Environmental Quality Commission: The Brooklyn Action Corps neighborhood association would like to endorse the proposed indirect sources rule. The Portland metro region is within the 95th percentile nationally for diesel pollution exposure, and the Brooklyn neighborhood in particular has some of the worst concentration of air pollutants in Portland. Our neighborhood is uniquely sited near major sources of air pollution which go unaddressed due to their "indirect" status. This includes multiple highways, industrial activity, and a large rail yard with extensive heavy truck traffic. Regulating indirect sources is a common sense, health-based approach that will make a significant impact on the air quality in our neighborhood. Regardless of whether the site's air pollution is considered direct or indirect, the impact on surrounding communities is the same and should be treated as such. Regulating indirect sources will help to address many of the known problems from diesel pollution, from lost productivity to cancer and disease to early deaths.

Page 1 Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Brooklyn Action Corps Neighborhood Association

Cc: Governor Kate Brown State Representative Rob Nosse State Senator Kathleen Taylor

Page 2 Indirect Source Petition Testimony:

Good morning. My name is Erin Saylor, I'm a staff attorney at Columbia Riverkeeper. My organization is one of the co-petitioners on the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to speak to you today about the importance of adopting more stringent rules aimed at reducing emissions from indirect sources.

DEQ has long recognized the severe impact indirect sources have on air quality, particularly with respect to carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions. There is no question that exposure to diesel engine exhaust can lead to cardiovascular disease and lung cancer; risks that are disproportionately shouldered by low-income and minority communities located near industrial areas, rail lines, and freeways. However, recent studies have shown that diesel engine exhaust is not only an issue to human health but also a major contributor to climate change. The World Bank estimates that one of the components of diesel exhaust, black carbon particles, are 3,200 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide in the near-term. 1 A 2013 assessment published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres estimated that black carbon is the second greatest human emission contributing to climate change, behind carbon dioxide. Specifically, the study found that the warming effect attributed to black carbon emissions from diesel engines is so strong that eliminating all short-lived emissions from these sources would have a near-term cooling effect on the climate. 2

Scientific evidence has overwhelmingly shown that human-caused climate change is happening; a conclusion that has been affirmed by 97 percent of the world's climate scientists. 3 Within Oregon, climate change has already led to an increase in temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and rising coastal ocean water and river temperatures. The record-setting drought of 2015, which led to an 89% decrease in snowpack, resulted in significant environmental and economic impacts, including damaged crops and production declines at hatcheries. Additionally, the 2015 drought conditions led to a severe wildfire season that saw more than 1.6 million acres burned across Oregon and Washington, resulting in more than $560 million in fire suppression costs. 4 We have reached a point in human history where we can no longer ignore these signs. While some progress has been made to improve emissions from indirect sources, it hasn't gone far enough. Which is why we are calling on you today to promulgate stronger rules to protect our health and the climate from indirect source emissions. I'm making this request not just as an environmental attorney, but also as a mother of three young kids. We owe it to their generation, and future generations to come, to leave them a healthy, livable planet. Thank you.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/04/29/cleaning-up-diesel-exhaust-improves-health-clima te 2 Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment, available at 0.1 71 3 See Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming (2016), available at https://iopscience. iop. erg/article/ 1O.1088/ 17 48-9326/11 /4/048002/pdf 4 See https://www.keeporegoncool.org/climate-change-in-oregon From: Melissa Di Rito To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: ISP Comment Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 7:06:13 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera, the commission’s assistant

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

Common Ground Wellness Cooperative supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Let’s walk our talk about how green Oregon is. We owe it to our kids, our communities, and ourselves. Our future here on Earth depends on it.

In health & wellness,

Melissa Di Rito From: Melissa Di Rito To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: ISP Comment Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 7:06:13 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera, the commission’s assistant: [email protected]

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

Let’s walk our talk about how green Oregon is. We owe it to our kids, our communities, and ourselves. Our future here on Earth depends on it.

In health & wellness,

Melissa Di Rito TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission: Kathleen George, Chair; Sam Baraso, Vice- Chair; Greg Addington; Molly Kile; and Wade Mosby CC: Stephanie Caldera, Commission Assistant FROM: Creston Kenilworth Neighborhood Association DATE: February 6, 2020 RE: Petition to Adopt Rules With Regard to Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

The Creston-Kenilworth Neighborhood Association urges the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to establish an effective Indirect Source Rule as soon as possible, thereby placing a cap on toxic diesel emissions from non-road sources. This would include, but not be limited to, construction sites and rail yards throughout the state of Oregon. There are about 42,000 people who live in the six neighborhoods surrounding the Brooklyn Rail Yard in SE Portland. Within the last few years, Union Pacific has expanded this rail yard’s operations to incorporate container trans-shipment that formerly took place in the Albina Rail Yard. The Brooklyn Rail Yard services freight trains and an estimated 600 heavy diesel trucks daily from Monday through Friday, with smaller numbers on weekends. ODOT traffic counts in 2017 indicate that there are about 1,500 heavy and medium trucks crossing the Ross Island Bridge going west on a daily basis. Many of these trucks enter the rail yard’s main entrance located on SE Holgate Blvd, while others are drawn to the industrial area surrounding the rail yard both on the east and west. Through direct observation at the main entrance on Holgate, a substantial share of trucks entering the rail yard are older than 2007, and are therefore unlikely to be filtered. In addition, heavy construction affects many of these neighborhoods. Neighbors who monitor PM 2.5 levels with portable Sensorbot PM monitoring devices note that PM 2.5 levels surrounding the Brooklyn Rail Yard are often substantially higher than the DEQ-measured 2.5 levels for the same location.** It should be noted that the DEQ readings themselves are generally 50 to 200 times the state’s PM 2.5 health benchmark. While HB 2007 promises to gradually reduce on-road diesel emissions, it will have no effect on the large number of out-of-state trucks using the Brooklyn Rail Yard, and it exempts fleets of five or fewer trucks. It also does not address a major source of Oregon’s diesel pollution: non-road emissions. Therefore, Indirect Source Rules present a great opportunity to reduce harmful air pollution emissions from vehicles and engines that aren't currently regulated at the state or local levels. Current medical research implicates diesel pollution in a wide range of painful, debilitating, and costly conditions and diseases, including ADHD and dementia. As Dr. Erica Moseson, a pulmonologist and President of the Oregon Thoracic Society, stated at the EQC hearing on January 24, 2020, “There is no free air pollution.” We all pay for the human and economic costs of this pollution, especially those who can least afford these costs. We strongly urge the Environmental Quality Commission to use its existing authority to adopt an effective Indirect Source Rule, which is urgently needed towards decreasing the high levels of harmful diesel emissions in our neighborhoods.

Sincerely yours,

Rachel Davies, Chair On Behalf of the Creston-Kenilworth Neighborhood Association

** DEQ’s PM data stream for the area surrounding the Brooklyn Rail Yard is obtained from its SE Lafayette monitoring station between SE 57th and SE 60th. This station is located about 3 miles east of the Brooklyn Rail Yard. From: Gregory Sotir To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel emissions Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 3:37:54 PM

To the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission:

The Cully Air Action Team (CAAT) is an organization of community members from Portland’s Cully neighborhood that focuses on addressing ongoing air pollution and toxicity in that area.

CAAT urges the EQC to take a strong protective stand for the health of all Oregon residents and wild-life regarding the Indirect Source Rule for diesel pollution. Under-regulated and unregulated diesel polluters need to understand that their dangerous habits are causing cancers, asthma, and other health ailments in anyone who is breathing the air in Oregon. For too long has the State regulatory apparatus given these polluters a free rein, and that has encouraged out-of-state polluters to dump their obsolete inefficient engines into Oregon. The state's taxpayers have had to pay to heal the effects of negative health results from diesel pollution.

CAAT urges the EQC to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emission, and alleviate the pollution and health effects falling onto the people of Oregon so that we can all lead healthy and productive lives rather then suffer the cancers and respiratory illnesses that diesel pollution will cause.

Gregory Sotir for the Cully Air Action Team ~ CAAT Portland, Oregon www.cullycleanair.org From: Amanda Chapman To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: VOTE YES Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Sunday, January 26, 2020 8:12:52 AM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners,

Thank you, Amanda Chapman Member, Eastside Portland Air Coalition From: Dawn Smallman To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Vote YES on Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:36:54 AM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners,

Thank you,

Dawn Smallman

Member, Eastside Portland Air Coalition From: Jessica Applegate To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: VOTE YES Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 8:49:15 AM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners,

Thank you,

Jessica Applegate

Member, Eastside Portland Air Coalition

Sent from my iPhone From: julie reardon To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: VOTE YES Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:21:54 PM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners, I support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to VOTE YES: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you, Julie Reardon Member, Eastside Portland Air Coalition From: Katharine Salzmann To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: VOTE YES Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:06:02 AM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners,

Thank you, Katharine Salzmann Member, Eastside Portland Air Coalition Cleaner Air Oregon RAC, alternate

Sent from my iPhone From: mark colman To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: VOTE YES Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:16:01 AM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners, I support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to VOTE YES: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you, Mark Colman Member, Eastside Portland Air Coalition From: remmers To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: VOTE YES Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:38:17 AM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners,

Thank you,

Susan Remmers

Member, Eastside Portland Air Coalition From: s alexander To: ISPComment Cc: Susan Stringer Subject: ISP comment Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:37:39 PM

Dear Ms. Williams,

I am very pleased that someone is petitioning the DEQ on this issue. We live near I-5 and MLK. There is constant traffic and construction around our house. We as a family of five exclusively use public transit and bikes to get across town to work and school to reduce emissions, yet we are subjected to diesel exhaust in our neighborhood from unfiltered trucks and construction work. There are frequently as many as three idling trucks in front of our house, and the employees have large private diesel trucks as well which they idle in during their lunch hour, adding to the background pollution. It is a serious and unnecessary health threat for those of us with asthma, and for the new infant in our family. California is filtering diesel trucks and has taken a leap to reduce emissions. When will Oregon take the steps needed to address this air quality crisis?

Please adopt new regulations as requested by the Clean Air advocates in the petition.

Thank you, Shara Alexander Frances Green Lulu Green Ash Green Tony Green

Kathleen George, Chair Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

RE: Environment Oregon supports petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution

Chair George and members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

Environment Oregon is a statewide, citizen-based environmental advocacy organization working for clean air, clean water and open space.

Environment Oregon is in full support of the petition for Oregon to use its existing authority to control diesel emissions from currently unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources, including equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals, and rail yards. These off-road sources are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in urban centers in Oregon.

Diesel exhaust contributes to climate change and negatively impacts public health. Breathing diesel exhaust can elevate the risk of asthma attacks, heart and lung disease, stroke and cancer. 23 of 36 counties in Oregon exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution. This is a critical issue that requires meaningful action.

We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Please vote yes to protect public health and reduce climate pollution.

Sincerely,

Celeste Meiffren-Swango State Director, Environment Oregon

From: Janet Butorac To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:30:21 AM

Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby

The First Unitarian Church of Portland supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely, Jan Butorac 10015 S.W. Terwilliger Boulevard Portland, Oregon 97219 Phone: (503) 768-6741 Fax: (503) 768-6671 [email protected]

February 14, 2020

Submitted via electronic mail

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Attn: Karen Williams 700 NE Multnomah St., Ste. 600 Portland, Oregon 97232

Re: Comments on Indirect Source Rule Petition

The Green Energy Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, and Neighbors for Clean Air respectfully urge the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to recommend that the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adopt indirect source rules for Oregon. Diesel pollution presents a serious threat to public health in Oregon and is a major contributor to the global climate crisis. After conducting a thorough analysis of available regulatory mechanisms to address this issue, we determined that indirect source rules present a promising and feasible strategy to reduce emissions from some of Oregon’s largest sources of diesel pollution. We petitioned the EQC to adopt the proposed indirect source rules, which represent a starting point for what we hope will result in a deliberative, collaborative rulemaking process.

Indirect source rules would help to mitigate a serious public health threat while also reducing Oregon’s contribution to climate change. Diesel pollution currently presents a very real and significant threat to public health and is responsible for hundreds of premature fatalities across Oregon each year. The problem is particularly pronounced in Oregon’s urban areas. For example, diesel pollution concentrations across the entire city of Portland far exceed levels deemed safe for human health. This issue is particularly alarming from an environmental justice standpoint. While all Portland residents are exposed to unhealthy levels of diesel exhaust, communities of color—particularly those with large African American or Hispanic populations—may be exposed to three times more diesel pollution than the average city resident.1 This is primarily because there is a strong link between race and income in Oregon, and property values tend to be lower near major roadways and large indirect sources of diesel pollution, such as freight distribution centers, industrial facilities, and rail yards. As a result, the city’s historically marginalized communities face even greater diesel-related health threats than most Oregonians.

1 MULTNOMAH COUNTY HEALTH DEPT., 2014 REPORT CARD ON RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES 31 (2014), https://multco.us/file/37530/download. Oregon’s diesel pollution problems have grown in recent years as other West Coast jurisdictions have taken action to improve air quality. California has long recognized the urgency of the diesel pollution threat, and the state is in the process of phasing out older diesel vehicles and equipment from California-based fleets. Some California air pollution control districts have also taken action to reduce diesel pollution through indirect source regulations. Oregon, however, has thus far failed to take action to effectively address its diesel pollution problems or proactively prevent California equipment owners from dumping their old diesel engines into the Oregon market. As a result, Oregon has experienced an influx of dirty diesel trucks and construction equipment in recent years, and this problem is expected to increase as California continues to phase out older engines.

The proposed indirect source rules present a practical and effective regulatory mechanism for addressing Oregon’s diesel pollution problem for several reasons. First, the proposed rules would enable Oregon to control aggregate emissions from a wide variety of vehicles and engines that are not currently subject to regulation in the state, nor are likely to be subject to regulation in the future under existing state policies. Second, the proposed indirect source rules avoid federal legal constraints that limit Oregon’s authority to regulate emissions from individual mobile sources. Third, the proposed indirect source rules would reduce diesel pollution and the associated economic, environmental, and societal impacts while also providing flexibility to regulated entities. And fourth, the proposed indirect source rules would provide regulatory uniformity and prevent Portland’s diesel pollution problem from leaking to other cities across the state.

A. The proposed indirect source rules address emissions from vehicles and engines that are not subject to regulation under existing state policies.

In 2019, the Oregon legislature took some action to address emissions from some sources of diesel pollution in the Portland metropolitan area. While HB 2007 will not fully go into effect until 2029, the legislation will eventually help phase out some of the older diesel trucks registered in the Portland metropolitan area. However, HB 2007’s titling and registration limits will only apply to a portion of the diesel vehicles and engines contributing to Oregon’s diesel pollution problem. For example, HB 2007 will not affect emissions from trucks registered outside the Portland metro area, nor from trucks that are proportionally registered in Oregon and another state. In addition, HB 2007 does not apply to nonroad diesel equipment, which is the largest categorical source of diesel exhaust in Portland and a major contributor to indirect source emissions. Unless Oregon takes additional action to regulate mobile sources that are not covered under HB 2007, indirect sources will continue to emit large, unmitigated quantities of diesel pollution.

The proposed indirect source rules will help to fill Oregon’s regulatory gaps by addressing emissions from indirect sources that attract vehicles and equipment that are not otherwise covered under HB 2007, such as construction sites and warehouse distribution centers that send or receive deliveries by trucks registered outside the Portland metro area. The proposed indirect source rules are also designed to avoid duplicative or redundant regulation within the state. For example, indirect sources in Portland could comply with both HB 2007 and the proposed rules by transitioning to electric or new diesel trucks.

2 B. The proposed indirect source rules avoid preemption constraints under federal law.

Federal law restricts state and local authority to directly regulate tailpipe emissions from mobile sources. For example, the Clean Air Act preempts Oregon from directly regulating emissions from nonroad engines or new on-road vehicles. The proposed indirect source rules avoid these legal constraints by regulating the aggregate emissions associated with certain facilities rather than regulating emissions from individual vehicles or equipment. The Clean Air Act expressly authorizes states to include indirect source rules (also known as indirect source review programs) in their state implementation plans.2

The proposed indirect source rules also present a tool for addressing emissions from certain types of facilities that emit large quantities of diesel pollution, yet are challenging to regulate under federal law. For example, the Clean Air Act preempts Oregon from adopting its own emissions standards for locomotives, yet allows states to regulate railyards as indirect sources of air pollution.3 The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) also preempts state laws that manage or govern railroad activity, yet do not preempt generally applicable state regulations that do not unreasonably burden railroad activity.4 Because the proposed rules are applicable to indirect sources in general and are designed to regulate aggregate emissions from all vehicles and engines operating within or associated with indirect sources of air pollution, including rail yards, the proposed rules should avoid preemption under the Clean Air Act and the ICCTA.5

C. The proposed indirect source rules will help reduce the costly externalities associated with diesel pollution while providing compliance flexibility to regulated sources.

Diesel pollution currently imposes alarmingly high external costs on Oregon’s citizens. Based on DEQ’s own estimates, diesel-related health and environmental impacts in Oregon total more than $2 billion per year.6 If these costs were born evenly across the state, they would amount to nearly $500 per year per resident. The vast majority of these costs are born by individual citizens who have been exposed to unhealthy levels of diesel pollution over extended periods of time. While workers employed in emissions-intensive industries face higher risks of developing diesel-related health issues, the companies emitting this toxic air pollution are largely insulated from the cost impacts associated with their activities. Under the state’s current regulatory system, Oregon citizens are effectively forced to subsidize the industries responsible for poisoning the air they

2 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(5)(A)(i). 3 See Center for Community Action and Envt’l Justice v. BNSF Railway Co., 764 F.3d 1019, 1029 (9th Cir. 2014) (clarifying that the Clean Air Act gives EPA exclusive authority to directly regulate locomotive emissions, and expressly leaves authority to states to regulate railyards as indirect sources of air pollution.) 4 Ass’n of American Railroads v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 622 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). 5 In Association of American Railroads, the Ninth Circuit held that three South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations were preempted under the ICCTA because the rules applied “exclusively and directly to railroad activity,” and therefore were not rules of general applicability. Id. at 1098. 6 In 2015, DEQ estimated that diesel-related health and climate impacts totaled $1.874 billion per year in Oregon. Adjusted for inflation, these estimated costs exceed $2 billion per year in 2020 dollars. OR. DEPT. OF ENVT’L QUALITY, THE CONCERNS ABOUT DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST 6 (2015), http://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/DieselEffectsReport.pdf.

3 breathe. According to DEQ estimates, these hidden subsidies amount to between $3.00 to nearly $5.00 per gallon of diesel fuel.7

If fleet owners were required to pay for the economic impacts associated with their emissions, their annual costs could total more than $60,000 for every older diesel truck in their fleet.8 Construction contractors could incur costs of more than $28,000 per year for operating an older diesel excavator.9 These economic impacts should be sending clear cost signals to incentivize a transition to cleaner vehicles and engines. Unfortunately, however, Oregon’s existing regulatory system allows diesel equipment owners to push these costs onto the victims of air pollution exposure, thereby passing costs to individuals that lack any power to effectively mitigate negative impacts.

The proposed indirect source rules aim to address some of these economic imbalances while also providing a degree of compliance flexibility to regulated sources. Rather than mandate that every indirect source upgrade their equipment by a certain date, the proposed rules would allow regulated entities to select compliance mechanisms that make the most sense for their specific facilities and business models. This flexibility would help reduce compliance burdens while still ensuring improvements in air quality, particularly in the local communities that are disproportionately impacted by diesel pollution.

D. Indirect source rules should apply in large urban areas across the state to provide regulatory uniformity and prevent Portland’s diesel pollution problem from leaking to other cities.

Portland and Multnomah County have already taken action to reduce diesel pollution in the metro area, and the proposed indirect source rules would build off these existing efforts and prevent Portland’s pollution problem from leaking to other Oregon jurisdictions. The City of Portland and Multnomah County collaborated with Metro and the Port of Portland to develop uniform clean diesel construction standards for public contracts.10 In 2021, contractors that work on public projects in Portland and Multnomah County must start phasing out their older construction equipment, and by 2026, all vehicles and nonroad equipment used on public projects must meet the most stringent federal emissions standards currently in effect. Indirect source rules would help ensure that phased-out older diesel engines do not continue to operate in the metro area, by deterring private contractors from purchasing old equipment from public contractors. Indirect source rules that apply uniformly in urban areas across the state would also help prevent leakage issues that could result as older diesel trucks and construction equipment

7 Id. at 8. 8 According to DEQ estimates, a representative diesel truck creates $56,398 in health-related costs and $4,036 in climate-related costs each year. Id. (cost estimates adjusted to 2020 dollars). 9 According to DEQ estimates, a representative diesel excavator creates $26,644 in health-related costs and $1,907 in climate-related costs each year. Id. (cost estimates adjusted to 2020 dollars). 10 See City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, City of Portland Commits to Clean Air Construction Standard (Dec. 13, 2018), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/706766; Multnomah County, Portland Aims to Cut Deadly Emissions, Commits to Cleaner Diesel on Public Construction Sites (Dec. 13, 2018), https://multco.us/multnomah-county/news/portland-aims-cut-deadly-emissions-commits-cleaner-diesel- public- construction. As of February 14, 2020, the City of Portland and Multnomah County have adopted Clean Air Construction Requirements. City of Portland Bureau of Revenue and Financial Services, Clean Air Construction Requirements, https://www.portlandoregon.gov/brfs/article/733321.

4 are phased out in the Portland area. Unless Oregon takes action to establish a certain degree of regulatory uniformity among its urban areas, Portland may inadvertently export its diesel pollution problem to other Oregon cities.

Indirect source rules that apply uniformly in urban areas across the state would provide regulatory certainty to covered sources and help establish clear market signals to facilitate a transition to cleaner vehicles and equipment. In contrast, indirect sources rules that only apply in the Portland metro area could create a race to the bottom by incentivizing indirect sources in other Oregon cities to hoard old, dirty diesel trucks and construction equipment. This scenario could cause the growing diesel-related public health crisis to explode across the state, and would only serve to cement Oregon’s reputation as a dumping ground for dirty diesel engines.

CONCLUSION

Diesel pollution currently contributes to the deaths of hundreds of Oregonians each year and puts a large portion of the state’s population at risk of developing cancer, heart disease, or serious respiratory ailments. Black carbon from diesel exhaust also significantly increases Oregon’s contributions to global climate change. Much of this harmful pollution is emitted from mobile sources operating within or associated with indirect sources of air pollution. Indirect source rules are a practical and effective regulatory mechanism for reducing diesel emissions from these facilities. We strongly urge DEQ to support the development and adoption of effective indirect source rules for Oregon by recommending that the EQC approve our petition for rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Amelia Schlusser Staff Attorney, Green Energy Institute

Mark Riskedahl Executive Director, Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Mary Peveto Executive Director, Neighbors for Clean Air

5 From: Tyler Bristow To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 2:08:41 PM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

Green Lents supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority topromulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated andinadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commissionto vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect SourceRulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Tyler Bristow Green Lents http://www.greenlents.org/ From: Willie To: ISPComment Subject: Item M Comment Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 12:09:49 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera, the commission’s assistant: [email protected] RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

Human Access Project supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel- fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually. But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Willie Levenson Human Access Project

The Humboldt Neighborhood Association

4815 NE 7th Avenue Portland, OR 97211

[email protected] https://humboldtneighborhood.org

Date: January 23rd, 2020

TO: The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: [email protected]

CC: Karen Williams, Oregon DEQ: [email protected]

Stephanie Caldera, the commission’s assistant: [email protected]

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

The Humboldt Neighborhood Association supports the effort underway to ask The Environmental Quality Commission to adopt regulations that would reduce emissions associated with indirect sources from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. Sources of air pollution such as land-use activity or development that concentrates emissions from mobile sources such as cars, trucks, construction equipment or locomotives should be in compliance in standards at least comparable to adjoining states Washington & California. We urge The DEQ to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality Commission to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions as swiftly as possible.

Thank you,

The Humboldt Neighborhood Association

From: Amy Wilson To: ISPComment Subject: Support for indirect source rule making Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 6:08:21 PM

To: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Re: Petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution Dear Members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, The King Neighborhood Association represents neighbors living in inner northeast Portland. Like many other areas with a highly concentrated population, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles are a significant risk to the health of our community. This pollution also contributes to the negative effects of climate change, a threat to all Oregonians. It has come to our attention that up to 65% of our state’s diesel emissions are attributed to off-road sources, not just diesel-fueled trucks. If we are going to make progress in addressing this important public safety issue, we must be able to regulate these indirect emissions. The King Neighborhood Association supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to implement an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Respectfully, Amy Wilson, Chair King Neighborhood Association The League of Women Voters of Oregon is a 100-year-old grassroots nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government. We envision informed Oregonians participating in a fully accessible, responsive, and transparent government to achieve the common good. LWVOR Legislative Action is based on advocacy positions formed through studies and member consensus. The League never supports or opposes any candidate or political party.

January 22, 2020

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera, the commission’s assistant

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

The League of Women Voters of Oregon has a long history of supporting efforts to protect air, land and water resources. The League’s position is “Preserve the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the ecosystem, with maximum protection of public health and the environment”. The League particularly insists on pollution prevention.

We support the effort underway that strongly urges the Environmental Quality Commission to establish new regulations to address emissions from indirect sources. Such a new rule would use existing authority to regulate the toxic diesel emissions found in non-road sources that are responsible for the majority of emissions in areas of high population concentrations such as the Portland metro area. The high concentration of diesel particulate matter in our air presents a serious threat to public health, a threat that disproportionately affects children and environmental justice communities.

Diesel emissions have a disastrous effect on the environment. The League of Women Voters of Oregon recognizes that the greatest environmental/moral challenge facing us at this time is climate disruption. Reducing these emissions can have an immediate impact on carbon levels and could play a key role in meeting our two climate goals: first, a 20% reduction in the carbon emissions of transportation fuels, and second, supporting businesses in minimizing the carbon intensity of their supply chains.

Oregon’s clean air laws lag behind nearly every other state when it comes to diesel, particularly California and Washington. Revising the Indirect Source Rule is a practical and immediate way to minimize the disastrous impacts of diesel pollution. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Rebecca Gladstone Susan Mates LWVOR President LWVOR Air Quality Portfolio

1330 12th St. SE, Suite 200 • Salem, OR 97302 • 503-581-5722 • [email protected] • www.lwvor.org From: Sarah Ryan-Knox To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 4:20:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Neighbors for Clean Air supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sarah Ryan-Knox Portland, OR 222 NW Davis Street Suite 309 Portland, OR 97209-3900 503.222.1963 www.oeconline.org

Submitted via email to: [email protected]

January 28, 2020

RE: Comments to DEQ Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

Oregon Environmental Council (“OEC”) is one of the petitioners for the indirect source rule, and submits these written comments to urge immediate action to update Oregon’s rules to include regulating the aggregate emissions from indirect sources, such as diesel construction equipment and other nonroad vehicles.1 Granting this petition is within this agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act, and will complement Oregon’s state implementation plans (“SIPs”).2 OEC welcomes this opportunity to work with the agency and other stakeholders to finalize a fair and equitable indirect source rule.

It is no secret that exposure to diesel pollution has negative health and climate consequences. Diesel exhaust was classified as a known human carcinogen in 2012 by the International Association for Research on Cancer. And yet, 90% of Oregonians today reside where diesel exhaust exceeds the health benchmarks for cancer risk.3 The does not seem to be getting better, as a 2018 report from the American Lung Association ranked 4 Oregon cities amongst the top 50 worst for short-term particle pollution in the nation.4

2019 data estimates that 385,000 people worldwide die premature deaths yearly ßdue to lung disease and stroke caused by breathing in air pollution. Almost 50% of all these deaths by air pollution are caused by diesel emissions.5 Locally, diesel exhaust prematurely kills 460

1 See Green Energy Institute et. al., Petition to Promulgate Indirect Source Rules (Dec. 20, 2019). OEC also attempted to testify on January 24, 2019 in front of the Environmental Quality Commission, but did not get the opportunity to, due to the long list of participants. 2 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(5). 3 Oregon Environmental Council, Dirt on Diesel Report (2016) at p. 4, available at https://oeconline.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/05/Diesel_2016.pdf. 4 American Lung Assn, State of the Air Report (2018), available at http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy- air/state-of-the-air/sota-2018-full.pdf. 5 International Council on Clean Transport and Climate and Clean Air Coalition, A Global Snapshot of the Air Pollution-Related Health Impacts of Transportation Sector Emissions in 2010 and 2015 (pub. 2019), available at 1 Oregonians, causes over 140 heart attacks, over 25,000 lost work days, and costs the state $3.5 billion in lost work days, hospital visits, and medical illnesses every year.6 DEQ’s own data projects that reducing diesel emissions could save over $1.6 billion in avoidable public health impacts, including treatment for illness, hospitalizations, lost work days and premature deaths every year in Oregon.

And diesel pollution is an occupational hazard. Lung cancer risks amongst truck drivers, railroad workers, and heavy-equipment operators were found to be 40% higher than the average population.7 Surely the owners of diesel engines care about these medical, emotional, and occupational costs. Reducing emissions from places like railyards, construction sites, marine terminals, and ports through an indirect source rule would support a healthier Oregon workforce.

Last year, the Oregon Legislature passed HB 2007, which will phase out older, dirtier diesel engines in heavy-duty and medium-duty trucks in the Portland metro region. While this legislation was a good first step for Oregon, it doesn’t apply statewide, it doesn’t reduce emissions quickly enough, and it doesn’t effectively reduce emissions from sources like construction equipment. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to expand the Indirect Source Rule as a tool to to further accelerate diesel cleanup and significantly reduce all sources of diesel pollution.ß

Respectfully submitted,

Jamie Pang (South) Environmental Health Program Director Oregon Environmental Council

Founded in 1968, the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership- based organization. We advance innovative, collaborative and equitable solutions to Oregon’s environmental challenges for today and future generations.

https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/resources/global-snapshot-air-pollution-related-health-impacts-transportation- sector-emissions-2010. 6 2016 OEC Dirt on Diesel Report; DEQ, Concerns About Diesel Engine Exhaust (revised 2015) at p. 7, available at https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/DieselEffectsReport.pdf; Multnomah County, Diesel Pollution: Bad for Oregon’s Health (Jan. 2019), available at https://www.portlandoregon.gov/brfs/article/733313. 7 State of California. (1998). Part B: Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust. California Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/part_b.pdf; See also Lung Cancer and Vehicle Exhaust in Trucking Industry Workers, Environ Health Perspect. (Oct. 2008); 116(10): 1327–1332, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569090/. 2 From: Beven Byrnes To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:30:17 PM

Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington, Molly Kile, Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera

Portland Clean Air supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state.

As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines.

We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Respectfully, Beven

Beven Byrnes Volunteer Coordinator & Spokesperson Portland Clean Air and Cascadia Action

Portland Clean Air is a registered Oregon Political Committee working to address industrial pollution in Multnomah and Washington Counties. Cascadia Action is a registered 501(c)(3) for education and outreach regarding air quality issues in the Cascadian bioregion. From: Michael Hall To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Petition to adopt rules regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 8:55:18 AM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

Quiet Clean PDX supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state.

We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Michael Hall From: BROCK Denise - ODE To: ISPComment Subject: Yes vote to control diesel Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:05:59 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso,Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera, the commission’s assistant: [email protected]

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

The Richmond Neighborhood in SE Portland supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Denise Brock

January 24, 2020

To: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

Dear Commissioners,

Re: Support Petition to Adopt Rules on Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

We are a national nonprofit that works to advance safe walking and bicycling to and from schools, to improve the health and wellbeing of kids of all races, income levels, and abilities, and to foster the creation of healthy communities for everyone. Through our work on transportation, housing, and affordability policy in the Pacific Northwest, we serve as a catalyst for the creation of safe, active, equitable, and healthy communities.

As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon has limited authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing non-road vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or non-road mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. We believe that air quality is an environmental justice issue that Oregon can begin to address through indirect source rulemaking.

Diesel harms people’s hearts, lungs, and brains. It contributes to cancer risk, as well as heart disease and heart attacks, asthma attacks, reduced lung growth in children, birth anomalies and autism, and more. Diesel pollution exceeds the state’s health benchmark in 23 of 36 counties across the state, exposing most Oregonians to toxic emissions. And those in the greater Portland region breathe diesel at levels 4-8 times higher than the state’s health benchmark.

Those most at-risk to air pollution include children, the elderly, those with chronic health problems, people of color, and people of lower socioeconomic levels. Children, infants, and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to harm from air pollution. Reducing early exposures that cause irreversible harm can improve health outcomes over a lifetime. Low-income communities and communities of color are 2-3 times more likely to be exposed to diesel particulate matter. Diesel pollution further burdens vulnerable communities that already experience greater rates of asthma and heart disease.

We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

Becky Gilliam & Kari Schlosshauer

Pacific Northwest Regional Policy Managers Safe Routes to School National Partnership

1 Safe Routes Partnership | Pacific Northwest Regional Network www.saferoutespartnership.org/pacific-northwest

From: Thomas Karwaki To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 9:36:15 PM

The University Park Neighborhood Association Board of Directors supports Oregon exercising its existing authority to develop and implement indirect source rules to control diesel emissions from unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources.

We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes and to direct the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to initiate an Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thomas Karwaki Secretary, University Park Neighborhood Association Portland, Oregon From: Mal Chaddock To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: VOTE YES Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:07:56 AM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners, I support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to VOTE YES: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you, Malcolm J. Chaddock Veterans For Peace, Portland, OR

-- "The main contradiction of liberal democracy is that it has largely been shaped through a history of various forms of illegal civil disobedience against entrenched power structures. Such civil disobedience is (retrospectively) seen as justified and the people committing it are (retrospectively) seen as heroes but each successive generation is asked to believe any further civil disobedience would be unreasonable." - @quasi-normalcy

Malcolm Chaddock From: A. Fromme To: ISPComment Subject: Dirty Diesel Emissions Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 7:20:24 PM

I support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Please follow California’s lead on this important issue. Thank you, Arne Fromme From: Aaron Brown To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition. Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 4:28:24 PM

My name is Aaron, and I live in the St Johns neighborhood of North Portland.

I support the recommendations proposed by Neighbors for Clean Air. Diesel is outrageously dangerous to the public health of Oregonians across the state, and particularly for those of us living in the Portland Metro region. It’s a massive environmental justice issue, and it’s exhausting that everyday citizens and community leaders have to spend time in their day pleading with their local and state governments to ensure that the air in their communities are safe to breathe. Please vote yes and continue to push for corporate accountability for clean air. From: Abraham Sutfin To: ISPComment Subject: ISP Comment Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:34:21 AM

Karen,

I am a resident and business owner of North Portland for over a decade and I have lived within close proximity of the I5 corridor the entire time. Currently, and of for the past 8 years, I live 4 blocks from the freeway.

Recently, I submitted an email to the DEQ requesting information regarding the regulation of wood smoke. I was curious why DEQ recommends that Oregonians are told to limit their burns during an air stagnation event, like the one we had in November, yet there is no recommendation for driving less. I specifically wanted to know why it is recommended that people stay inside while there is not a recommendation for driving less/reducing car trips. Lauren Wirtes responded with an accurate basis and graph (PM2.5, etc.), stating that is the criteria for this recommendation is based on the particulate matter size. Woodsmoke is of this size and this is why DEQ recommends limiting burning wood during these events. In a follow up email I asked why the DEQ doesn't recommend that freight companies limit the use of the trucks they use or why privately owned diesel cars and trucks are recommended to reduce their use, since they too have a PM2.5.

I received no response. However, I would like to state again that I don't understand why there is a recommendation from the DEQ to limit human activity outside when air quality is poor, yet not make recommendations to limit driving and construction. Were humans not here before cars, trucks and freight? Were wood stoves not here before cars, trucks and freight?

I frequently cross over the I5 on my way to and from work and I am constantly holding my breath because I can't breathe the emissions, especially during the rush hour times.

I would like to see indirect sources of diesel emissions regulated in our city and state. My entire neighborhood along north Williams Ave is and has been under construction for the past five years. I'm tired of breathing the pollution of other people's profits.

I also live up wind from Swan Island. The freight industry, both trains and semi-tractor trailers, are constantly stinking up my neighborhood.

Abraham Sutfin From: Adam Heroux [Brunelle] To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 4:21:07 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission RE: yes for clean air- yes on Indirect source rule!

On behalf of Green Lents, I am writing to inform you of our full support for the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule that controls diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Lents is a diverse community affected significantly by many indirect sources, including industrial lands that congregate diesel trucks, construction sites full of polluting diesel machinery, and highways and main streets that are dangerously concentrating air pollution. It is an environmental injustice that our diverse community is so adversely affected—and you can do something about it. It’s the EQC’s responsibility to protect us when the existing system of laws can’t.

Adam Heroux Executive Director, Green Lents

-- Adam Heroux [Brunelle] Executive Director pronouns: he/him

-- Adam Heroux [Brunelle] Executive Director pronouns: he/him From: Alexander Macdonald To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 10:22:10 AM

Please accept another citizen’s hope to further the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you, Alex Macdonald Resident, NW Portland From: Alison Hardin To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel petition Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 8:47:13 AM

To whom it may concern, Due to the fact that Oregon has diesel pollution present at unhealthy levels throughout the state, Oregon policymakers need to establish regulations for toxic diesel emissions from nonroad sources such as construction sites, distribution centers and rail yards.

Please help implement sensible, health-based regulations to protect the health of all Oregonians. It is critical to take bold actions now to help our environment before it is too late!!!!

Sincerely, Alison Hardin Portland, OR From: Amanda Cort To: ISPComment Subject: Get Dirty Diesel out of Oregon!Thursday, Date: February 6, 2020 11:48:36 PM

Dear Environmental quality commission,

How is it 2020 and Oregon STILL has some of the least restrictions on diesel emissions in the country? Who do you think is opposed to this?

My name is Amanda Cort, and I live in Portland, OR. MY son goes to Abernethy Elementary, a neighborhood school in SE Portland. A large proportion of families walk, bike, or use the bus to get to school, but still the air quality around the neighborhood is extremely poor - I’ve heard it’s among the worst in the nation. How are we supposed to protect our children when companies dump their worst-polluting trucks on us because we lack the regulations to protect ourselves?

In conclusion, please support the adoption of rules to address indirect sources of pollution and vote YES on this resolution at the 3/2020 meeting.

Best Regards, Amanda From: Amy Hamala To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 9:34:56 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission My name is Amy Hamala and I live in Portland, Oregon. I want you know that air quality in Portland is a top concern of mine.I want clean air for all Oregonians and that diesel pollution in Oregon and/or Portland needs to be reduced. Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots. Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reductions = immediate climate benefits. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND that you urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you, Amy Hamala, Portland From: Andrew N To: ISPComment Subject: RE: Petition to adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Saturday, January 25, 2020 7:58:04 PM

As a concerned citizen, I am writing to endorse the regulation of indirect sources of air pollution.

Pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change especially high population areas such as the Portland metro area. 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually.

We need to regulate both diesel trucks but also off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon.

-- Andrew Nemec From: Andy Ellis Valdini To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 6:53:55 PM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I’m Andy Ellis Valdini, and I live in SE Portland, OR. Many mornings, when my daughters and I step out the door on our way to school, we can smell the pollution in the air, and feel it burning in our lungs. Whenever the wind allows the air to sit over the city, conditions become unhealthy for us and other living things.

You have the power to help me and my family to avoid exposure to diesel pollution. You can help to reduce the risk of cancer and premature death of my wife and daughters. By expanding the state’s Indirect Source Rule, you can make sure that the biggest diesel polluters slow down their destructive and unhealthy practices.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon.

I understand that you have a meeting coming this March when you will have the opportunity to vote on this issue. I want to call on you to please vote yes to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

Andy Ellis Valdini Portland, OR From: Ann Howell To: ISPComment Subject: CLEAN AIR! Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 11:19:39 AM

I can't imagine why we are still having any conversations in 2020 about Diesel fuel It is stanky! Let's get rid of it!

-- Ann W Howell she/her From: Anne Weiss To: ISPComment Subject: Expand indirect source rule Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 10:37:03 AM

To whom it may concern;

We need desperately to clean up our environment from every angle. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I strongly you urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

I suffer from asthma as do a number of my family members and a number of my friends; this affect us, And all Oregonians, directly.

Thank you very much, sincerely,

Anne Weiss, Portland, OR From: annie To: ISPComment Subject: indirect source rule comment Saturday, Date: February 8, 2020 2:48:26 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I am Annie Capestany from Portland. I am very concerned about pollution caused by diesel motors (among other things!) I have a friend who died from asthma and a brother with asthma. I know air quality is directly linked to breathing difficulties.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution (which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon). AND that I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote YES at their March 2020 meeting and direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for allowing everyone to breath freely. annie capestany

Portland, OR From: Ashlin Aronin To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 6:50:37 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Ashlin Aronin and I live in Portland, OR.

I live in SE Portland, right next to the Brooklyn train yard and a towing company. I am directly affected by diesel emissions in my neighborhood.

I am writing to express my support for the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at the March 2020 meeting to direct the DEQ to commence Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely, Ashlin Aronin Portland, OR From: Barb Greene To: ISPComment Subject: Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:28:03 AM

In the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually.

Off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. Regulation of emissions from both new and existing non-road vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. Indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines.

Thank you,

Barb Greene North Portland From: Barbara Harris To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel Air Pollution Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 2:39:05 PM

Commission Members:

I am Bill Harris living at ******, Portland, OR. for a long time.

There are construction sites with diesel powered large construction machinery continuously near-by. The truck and train depots are permanent here. I do not smell it, do not see it but know dangerous levels of polution are consistently tested present.

Please request that DEQ create air quality rules for large construction sites, depots, and railroads from which we are getting a large proportion of our pollution.

Respectfully, Bill Harris Portland, OR From: Barbara Len To: ISPComment Subject: YES for Clean Air & Indirect Source Rule! Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 2:02:19 PM

Hello,

I bought a house and moved to St. Johns in 2014. I am so concerned about the air quality in the city that I have been considering leaving. For now I plan to stay to see if it is possible to be successful in a fight for healthy air.

Please, please, please help us to have a safer environment for all!

Sincerely,

Barbara Len Portland resident From: Beppie Shapiro To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 4:00:54 PM

To: Environmental Quality Commission: From: Beppie Shapiro, Portland, OR

I have two young grandchildren who attend public school in the inner city area of Portland. I have been alarmed and discouraged to read, repeatedly, that Portland school children breathe some of the most polluted air in the country. The consequences of such prolonged exposure to pollution are grave: lung problems, brain development impact, etc.

I wholeheartedly support the petition to revise the rules governing indirect sources of air pollution. These indirect sources like the ubiquitous construction sites in our growing city, account for well over half of diesel emissions.

I hope your Commission members vote in March to direct the DEQ to initiate and carry forward indirect source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Beppie Shapiro Portland, OR From: beth To: ISPComment Subject: Comment in favor of air quality regulations on Indirect Sources Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 2:52:27 PM

I'm a resident of Oregon - I live in NE Portland, Multnomah County. I developed adult-onset asthma after moving to Portland, solely due to our air quality. This is shocking and saddening, as this is such a visually beautiful place it is hard to believe our air is hurting us.

I am in favor of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission putting new regulations on Indirect Sources of air pollution such as construction projects & railroads. This would make a huge difference to all Oregonians.

Beth Heins Multnomah County, Oregon From: Beth Levin To: ISPComment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:02:07 PM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

I want clean air for all Oregonians--diesel pollution in Oregon and/or Portland needs to be reduced.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely, Beth Levin Portland, Oregon From: Bonnie Singman To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 8:22:54 PM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Bonnie Singman, and I live in NE Portland.

I want clean air for all Oregonians and diesel pollution in Oregon and Portland needs to be reduced. Why taking action on diesel pollution matters:

1. Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. 2. The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. 3. Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots. 4. Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reductions = immediate climate benefits. 5. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely, Bonnie Singman, Portland, OR From: Brooke Kavanagh To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule comment Tuesday, Date: February 4, 2020 11:57:05 AM

To the members of the EQC:

I have lived in Oregon my whole life and want clean air for all of us living here, but Oregon's diesel pollution problem is a huge obstacle. We are exposed to unhealthy levels of diesel pollution everyday, and this pollution has devastating health consequences that disproportionately impact communities of color. Much of this pollution come from indirect sources that need to be better regulated to protect our health.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution and urge the EQC to vote YES at your March meeting, to direct Oregon's DEQ to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your consideration,

Brooke Kavanagh From: Bryna Antonia Cortes To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:32:22 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I am Bryna Cortes and I live in Portland, Oregon and have family who live in Newport, Oregon.

I want clean air for all Oregonians. Diesel pollution in Portland and greater Oregon needs to be reduced for the following reasons:

Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots. Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reductions = immediate climate benefits. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards.

As a person of color, with childhood asthma, and someone believes that we should be taking all measures to help reduce our destruction towards the environment, I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon.

I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at your March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you, Bryna Cortes - Portland, Oregon From: CASEY SUNDERMANN To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel rules Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:53:39 PM

Diesel fumes are very unhealthy for people and for the climate. Portland has one of the worst levels of diesel pollution in the nation. We need new regulations that protect the health of the people of Oregon and rules that better protect the climate. The DEQ should stand up for human right to breathe clean air, rather than protect industry from having to spend some money to clean up their act.

Casey Sundermann Portland, OR From: Charles Williams To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 8:41:25 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Charles Williams, I live in Scappoose, OR adjacent to land zoned for industrial use. The city has been expanding and there is significant construction taking place that requires heavy equipment for utilities, roads, hauling aggragate and contouring the land for construction in the industrial area. There are many families that live on the border of that area.

Additionally, my daughter and grandchildren live in North Portland near the train yards, distribution centers, and industrial area which has a heavy concentration of diesel pollution. This is a lower income area with a significant minority population. It is fundamentally immoral to think the air quality and health of those families can be ignored.

Therefore I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution from diesel emissions for all Oregon communities and urge you who are members of the Environmental Quality Commission to vote YES at the March, 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s D.E.Q. to begin Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Chalres Williams Scappoose, OR From: Chris Canote To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: VOTE YES Indirect Diesel Source Rulemaking Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:22:49 AM

Dear Environmental Quality Commissioners,

Thank you,

Chris Canote SE Portland From: Chris Streight To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel Petition Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 3:31:19 PM

But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals, and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited.

In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. I, therefore, support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state.

I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control of diesel emissions.

Best regards, Chris Streight Portland, Oregon From: Cindy Irvine To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 8:03:09 PM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Cynthia Irvine and I live in Portland, Oregon. I have become more concerned about diesel pollution over the years, as I learn all the ways it can negatively impact humans. For example, I have a friend in Portland with ALS, a horrible and deadly neurological condition that is linked to breathing diesel particulate matter. I also find my own throat is constricted and sore in the summer and winter -- I used to think the rain would clear the air, but it turns out the rain does not clean the air of diesel particulates! And now that all the states around Oregon have established higher standards for diesel trucks, Oregon is the dumping ground for all the high-polluting vehicles. This frightens me when I think of my son growing up having to breathe this air... he has so many friends with asthma and I don't want that to happen to him too.

Now I am learning that even though I have been worried about trucks, I need to worry about "indirect" sources of diesel pollution too-- that these are 65% of the problem, and affect communities of color the most. So why wait to take action?

I am also really concerned about air pollution, because I see our world headed for a climate catastrophe, and I know that air pollution is a significant contributing factor. We may not be able to change the federal government, but why not take action in our home state. I support the petition to adopt rules for indirect air pollution. I encourage you to VOTE YES at the March 2020 meeting -- tell the Department of Environmental Quality to begin the "Indirect Source Rule Making" to control diesel pollution.

Thank you for listening. Cynthia Irvine Portland, OR From: c g To: ISPComment Date: Sunday, January 26, 2020 9:17:33 AM

To Oregon Environmental Quality Commission:

Please update the standards to better control diesel air pollution. The indirect source rulemaking needs to be enacted. Unregulated sources of diesel air pollution is sickening many, lowering quality of life and shortening life expectancies.

Thank you, Claud Gilbert From: Colleen Murray To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition. Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:17:17 PM

As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing non-road vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or non-road mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines.

I therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you, Colleen Murray Portland, 97212 From: Cooper Morrow To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 4:02:54 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I am Cooper Morrow, a resident of Bend, and former resident of Portland. Living in NE Portland, I became all too aware of the unnecessarily dirty air I and other residents were breathing. There is no reason our state can't do a better job improving our air quality, and one way is to minimize dirty diesel emissions.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. Therefore, I urge you to vote yes at your March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your time.

Cooper Morrow From: Courtney Olive To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition. Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:34:15 PM

I live in North Portland, in the Overlook neighborhood—surrounded on three sides by major diesel truck routes (I-5, and the streets of N. Greeley and N. Going). As the father of a four- and seven-year-old, I strongly urge you to support the Indirect Source Petition.

Yours Sincerely, Mr. Courtney Olive From: Craig Mackie To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:38:34 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

I am proud to be an Oregonian because we care about our environment which includes keeping our rivers clean, our air clean, and our state clean by passing one of the first bottle bills in the nation. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Craig Mackie Nehalem, Oregon

-- Advice from a Raindrop

You think you’re too small to make a difference? Tell me about it. You think you’re helpless, at the mercy of forces beyond your control? Been there.

Think you’re doomed to disappear, just one small voice among millions? That’s no weakness, trust me. That’s your wild card, your trick, your implement. They won’t see you coming until you’re there, in their faces, shining, festive, expendable, eternal. Sure you’re small, just one small part of a storm that changes everything. That’s how you win, my friend, again and again and again.

—Kim Stafford From: Pamala To: ISPComment Subject: deisel pollution in Oregon and specifically in Portland metro area Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 2:35:37 PM

In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually. But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Craig and Pamala Enberg Portland, OR From: Cristy Murray To: ISPComment Subject: Toxic Emissions Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:44:42 AM

Dear Commissioners,

Sincerely,

Cristy Murray

Oregon City From: cynthia enlow To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 2:42:37 PM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Mrs. Cynthia Enlow, from Albany, OR. I strongly support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon, I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

We want clean air for all Oregonians. As a nurse who dealt with patients suffering from asthma and chronic lung diseases I know the cost of pollution. We need to start from every angle. Diesal emissions is one.

Thank you. Cynthia Enlow Albany, OR. From: Damian Hinman To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 2:00:19 PM

Dear members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Damian Hinman; I live in Beaverton, OR. I am writing to express my strong support for clean air for all Oregonians. Specifically diesel pollution in Oregon, and the especially high levels in Portland, needs to be reduced. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. Also, I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s

Department of Environmental Quality to begin the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your necessary leadership on this isssue!

Damian Hinman

Beaverton, OR From: Dan Revel To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:41:36 AM

As a resident of North Portland I am reminded daily of the pervasiveness of diesel pollution. Trains in the railyards, ships in the harbor, and trucks on the highways all spew toxic fumes into our air endangering residents, families, children, the elderly, as well as contributing to the accumulation of greenhouse gases causing global climate change.

My family therefore supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

-- Dan Revel From: Dana Mozer To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for CLEAN AIR/Indirect Source Petition Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:11:42 AM

As I am unable to present in person today for the meeting regarding the Indirect Source (diesel) petition, i am writing to voice my support of the effort underway to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely,

Dana Mozer Family Nurse Practitioner Portland Oregon From: evergreensustainabilityllc To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 12:31:25 PM

To the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission:

Here are several reasons why we must limit or eliminate toxic diesel emissions in our state:

1. Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. 2. The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. 3. Communities of ethnic diversity experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of their proximity to significant pollution sources. 4. Diesel is a climate influencer, contributing 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only being in the air for a few days. 5. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards.

Here's an opportunity to really do the right thing when it comes to protecting our state's reputable quality of life. Support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution. I encourage the Environmental Quality Commission to vote YES at the March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

Mr. Dana Weintraub Beaverton, OR From: Dane Pikkola To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule comment Friday, Date: February 14, 2020 3:10:41 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

For years now I have found a heavy black soot accumulating on my white window sill that I must periodically clean off. (I live on the 5th floor of an apartment on W. Burnside street.) I was never sure what it was, until recently. It is now obvious that it is carbon particulates from diesel engines. I was further shocked when I learned that Portland has some of the very worst air quality in the country, and that outdated diesel equipment from Washington and California is being brought into Oregon with our more relaxed air quality standards for construction equipment, etc. I urge you to please vote YES at your March 2020 meeting directing the DEQ to address this issue. It is disgraceful that Oregon is not on top of this already. Thank you for your attention.

Dane Pikkola Portland, Or. From: Darla Sweet To: ISPComment Subject: YES FOR CLEAN AIR Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 2:06:43 PM

In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel- fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually. But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing non road vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or non road mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

-- David Goodyke From: David Newman To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel Petition Support Date: Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:50:32 PM

I live in the Portland metro area and I am painfully aware of just how unsafe our air here is. The level of diesel emissions and particulate matter is off the charts. I have even been considering moving out of state because of it.

The knowledge that both our state neighbors to the north and south have more stringent regulations is so frustrating. And because of our weak standards, the more polluting trucks come to Oregon.

I urge you to enact far more stringent regulations on diesel emissions at specific sites like parking lots and construction sites. We absolutely need far more protections and we are counting on you to keep our air safe.

Deborah Romerein Business Owner Portland OR From: Deborah Romerein To: ISPComment Subject: Regulations for Toxic Diesel Emissions Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020 7:27:35 AM

I moved to Portland 3 years ago and was shocked to find that Oregon has far fewer protections against diesel emissions and particulate matter than my old home state of Washington. And I had no idea when I moved here that the air was so foul here.

Please please establish far more stringent regulations for toxic diesel emissions at sites like railyards, distribution centers and construction sites. We all deserve clean air. Our health depends on you.

Kay Romerein Portland OR From: Dell Goldsmith To: ISPComment Subject: diesel pollution Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 6:39:13 PM

We urge you to create stronger rules for diesel pollution which is indefensibly high in our area. This poses a risk to children with their young lungs, to older people and to low income neighborhoods. Portland is a standout in this dismal picture and we wonder why you do not stand up for our health and well-being.

Diesel pollution is damaging to our vital climate and accelerates us toward a tipping point from which we may be unable to recover. Why do you not stand up for us? Why not act now to protect us, our fellow creatures and the natural world we all depend on? Dell Goldsmith and Robin McLeod From: Diane Jacobs To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:12:32 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Diane Jacobs and I live in Portland. I want clean air for all Oregonians and the diesel pollution in Portland in particular needs to be reduced. I am taking action because:

Please support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND that you urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you, diane

Diane Jacobs From: Diane Luck To: ISPComment Subject: Regulation of Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 8:03:26 AM

Dear Ms. Williams;

I strongly urge the Environmental Quality Commission to adopt regulations that would reduce emissions associated with Indirect Sources. Indirect sources of air pollution, land-use activity or development that concentrates emissions from mobile sources, are a significant factor in pollution and need to be strictly regulated.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Diane Luck Portland, Oregon From: Don Merrick To: ISPComment Subject: Regulating Diesel Emissions Monday, Date: January 27, 2020 4:42:07 PM

The impact of diesel exhaust on human health and the environment is well documented. The toxins and particulate matter released to the atmosphere are extraordinarily significant, and imposing a source rule can render significant benefits.

Don Merrick Tigard, OR From: Donna Richards To: ISPComment Subject: Our city hasn’t earned its wings Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:14:08 PM

I hear again and again how Portland is behind in completing its goals of a clean environment. This would be a good start. We have to work even harder because of EPA being dismantled. I have a friend that works for them and she and her coworkers at the quality of new management. Many are leaving Donna Richards

Sent from my iPhone From: Elizabeth Lindsey To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel Regulation Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:48:31 PM

I support diesel being regulated to protect everyone. Elizabeth Graser-Lindsey Beavercreek, OR From: Elizabeth Winslea To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:35:04 AM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

My name is Elizabeth Winslea and I live in Portland, Oregon. I am writing because I want clean air for all Oregonians. At a workshop, I recently learned of the alarming levels of diesel pollution both in Portland and across our state. It is clear that diesel pollution needs to be reduced.

This is a critical issue that we have the ability as citizens of Portland and Oregon to address. Let us do this now.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution. And I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emission.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Winslea Portland, Oregon From: Emily Herbert To: ISPComment Subject: : Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:24:43 AM

Dear commissioners, In the face of loosening federal regulations, it is imperative that Oregon act to stop indirect, construction related diesel pollution, especially in light of growing evidence that people of low income and color are most affected by the health impacts of this deadly pollution. Too long has Oregon avoided facing our history of separation and discrimination in land use against the most disadvantaged in our society. Please act with haste to exercise existing authority to promulgate effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state.

Sincerely, Emily Herbert Portland

-- The time is always right to do what is right. ~ Martin Luther King Jr. From: Emily Krafft To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Thursday, Date: February 13, 2020 11:01:33 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I am writing because all Oregonians have a right to clean air. I live in Portland where diesel pollution is some of the worst in the country. It is critical that we reduce this pollution, for the sake of our health as well as our climate.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. At your next meeting, I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your leadership & for your service, Emily Krafft From: Evelyn Kochanowskij To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 6:05:50 PM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission

I am Evelyn Kochanowski and I live very close to Columbia Blvd. in Portland.

I want clean air for all Oregonians, and that diesel pollution in Oregon and/or Portland needs to be reduced.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions.

I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote YES at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Evelyn Kochanowski Portland From: Fran Greenlee To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Diesel Emission Pollution: Source Rule Comment Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:32:43 PM

To: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission - rule-making board From: Fran Greenlee, Bend, Oregon Re: Rule-making to reduce pollution-causing emissions from diesel.

We need clean air in order to have a healthy environment for all living things. The things over which we, as humans have control, should be to the benefit of all. Therefore, I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution — like diesel emissions, which I understand are responsible for 65% of those causing the unhealthy air we are breathing in Oregon. This is simply unsustainable and unreasonable. Especially in those areas close to the sites where these emissions are taking place: construction yards, rail yards or distribution centers, etc. As responsible human beings, when there are ways to eliminate this pollution, it should be done — for the health of all. I urge you to support the proposed rules. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of all Oregonians - and other living things. Fran Greenlee Bend, OR From: Francisco Gadea To: ISPComment Subject: Comments on the Indirect Source Rules Petition Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 6:12:55 PM

To Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

Below are my comments related to the petition to put new regulations on Indirect Sources such as construction and railroads:

We have a serious air quality problem in Oregon specifically due to diesel particulates. Multnomah county ranks worst in the state on diesel pollution. The tri-county Multnomah-Washington-Clackamas region is in the 95th percentile for exposure nationwide. Not only are diesel car and trucks contributing to the problem but also equipment used at construction sites, marine vessels and rail yards. It is estimated that these are responsible for up to 65% of diesel emissions in urban areas of Oregon. Each year Oregon’s diesel problem is estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks and 25,000+ lost work days. Please place sensible health-based regulations to help control our air quality! I support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rule-making to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely,

Francisco Gadea Portland, OR From: gh To: ISPComment Subject: Comments on Diesel Pollution Monday, Date: February 10, 2020 3:57:23 PM

Dear DEQ: Exposure to diesel pollution and other vehicle emissions has negative health and climate consequences. A scientific report released in 2019 estimates that 385,000 people worldwide die prematurely each year due to lung disease and stroke caused by breathing in air pollution and almost 50�of these deaths are caused by diesel emissions. Locally, diesel exhaust prematurely kills 460 Oregonians, causes over 140 heart attacks, over 25,000 lost work days, and costs the state $3.5 billion in lost work days, hospital visits, and medical illnesses every year. DEQ projects that reducing diesel emissions could save over $1.6 billion in avoidable public health impacts, including treatment for illness, hospitalizations, lost work days and premature deaths every year in Oregon. It is time to hold huge, pollution-emitting projects responsible for reducing air pollution to protect human health. As a concerned citizen, I care about the health of all Oregonians. I urge you to finalize this commonsense rule to regulate indirect mobile sources. Sincerely,

Geoffrey Harold From: Anjali To: ISPComment Subject: we demand CLEAN AIR! Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 4:28:24 PM

Construction sites are examples of an indirect source: huge toxic emissions -with zero regulation. We demand the state of Oregon take action now.

In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually. But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on- road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Gitanjali J Hursh Portland, Ore. From: Gordy Molitor To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:03:28 PM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

My names is Gordon Molitor and I live in Portland, near I-5. Because of my home's location, we have considerable diesel and gas pollution.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution, which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting to direct the Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Regards,

Gordy Molitor From: Grazia Ori Cunningham To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:51:01 PM

We support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

In a state that claims to value the environment, it's appalling that our air is so dirty. We've got to clean it up for the future generations.

Thank you! Grazia Cunningham From: Gretchen Hollands To: ISPComment Subject: clean air Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 1:08:22 PM

Hi Friends at the DEQ,

Diesel air pollution has increased in Portland for a number of reasons; growth and the influx of high emission vehicles from California. Please support strong emissions limits. We need clear air.

Gretchen Hollands Portland, OR From: Hanna Heddy To: DEQINFO Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 11:36:20 AM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, (Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington, Molly Kile, Wade Mosby)

Greetings! Thank you for all you do.

My family supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

I appreciate your time and care, Hanna Heddy Resident of Lents neighborhood next to Interstate 205 in Portland From: Hayden Marsh To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:25:52 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission, My name is Hayden Marsh and I have lived in Portland, Oregon for 4 years. I have loved every minute of my time in my adopted city.

With climate change effects starting to take hold, I have a strong belief that we all must do our part to keep our world clean and limit our destruction on the eco-system. I love that Oregonians have a desire to make those changes and I believe we must be leaders for the rest of the country.

I want clean air for all Oregonians and that diesel pollution in Oregon needs to be reduced. Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots. Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reductions = immediate climate benefits. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards as so we have a duty to cut these every way we can.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND I strongly plead that the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you, Hayden Lawler Marsh Portland, Oregon From: Helge Berg To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 12:27:08 PM

Dear EQC members, My name is Helge Berg - I'm a retired MD - living since 1985 in Newberg/Yamhill County Oregon. I support the petition to adopt rules on indirect air pollution sources - with the goal of improving the pulmonary health of Oregonians. My wife of 40 years died in 2016 from lung cancer (though a 'never-smoker'). Lung cancer, asthma, and evidence even suggests that also heart and neurologic diseases (such as ALS) are increased by diesel air pollution. Diesel air pollution can and should be reduced. The result would be better health for all of us - please act on this important issue. Thankyou, Helge R Berg MD - (retired) From: Holly Cook To: ISPComment Subject: Air Pollution from Indirect Sources Control Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:54:41 PM

Hello Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

I support rules to control air pollution from indirect sources. I believe we all should have access to clean air. The rest of the country shows us that we can do better, even in large metropolitan areas. Let's step this up and reduce our annual emissions for our health, for our economy and for our marginalized citizens.

Thank you, Holly Cook Portland, OR From: Holly Hansen To: ISPComment Subject: please get deisel out of my air...i live downtown and need to walk outdoors Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 8:49:41 PM its not right that i have to breathe all this dirty deisel and at levels 100 times the allowed levels at the many construction sites i walk past please stop abusing my air there is no filter i can wear to block deisel particulates i wear a p100 mask for normal particulute but diesel is too small to be filtered out the laws need to be stronger please crack down on this From: Ian Gallager To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Saturday, Date: February 8, 2020 10:34:25 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Ian Gallager, and I'm a moderately low-income renter in North Portland, OR. I live near the Yellow Line of the MAX rail on N Interstate Avenue, which I value for the access it provides me to the rest of the city.

However, living in this area also means being in close proximity to the extensive industrial areas in North Portland, including the rail yards and distribution centers along N Columbia Ave. Also, the increase in construction along N Interstate Avenue - which I generally consider a good thing, because I think dense infill development around major transit corridors is the best way to build for a better city - has meant an increase in the amount of trucks and heavy machinery operating in the area, burning diesel fuel. I frequently go out for a run or walk in the evening, and when I come back inside, I notice the smoky smell that my clothing picked up while out and about in the neighborhood. I live near a park and school, and I think about all the families raising children here, and what kind of impact bad air quality can have on the health of growing children.

I was excited to learn about the upcoming opportunity to expand the Indirect Source Rule. I think this is a great chance to capture more of the major diesel polluters under this rule and make a big difference for the health of our communities and environment.

I stand with the 21 organizations that submitted a petition to DEQ requesting this expansion, for the following reasons:

I look forward to following the progress of this policy and hope that DEQ will act to hold construction sites, distribution centers, and rail yards accountable for their impact on the environment and the communities that surround them.

Thanks, Ian Gallager Portland, OR From: ineke deruyter To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel Petition comment Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:26:33 PM

Dear State Legislators,

In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and cause temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non- fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually. But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing non-road vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or non-road mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines.We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes:direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rule-making to control diesel emissions

Thank you, Ineke Deruyter, Portland, OR From: Jake Sullivan To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 6:25:34 PM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I’m Jake Sullivan from Portland and I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at your March 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your consideration!

Sincerely, Jake From: JJNeu To: ISPComment Cc: James Neu Subject: Indirect Source Rule Making Petition Comments Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 10:20:27 PM

Department of Environmental Quality Attention Karen Williams,

I am in support of new standards for expanding regulations to reduce Indirect Source air pollution in the state of Oregon. Diesel particulate matter is created during incomplete combustion of diesel emissions which contain nitrogen oxide that contributes to ground level ozone. This and the particulate matter irritates respiratory systems causing coughing, choking, and reduces lung capacity.

Diesel exhaust has been classified as a potential human carcinogen by the US Environmental Protection Agency and International Agency for Research on Cancer. Ultra- fine particulates, which are small enough to penetrate the cells of lungs, make up 80-95% of diesel soot pollution

The City of Eugene, which has a population of approximately 167,000 residents, has many Indirect Sources of particulate matter pollution due to the burning of mobile fossil fuels.

Vehicle corridors such as Hwy. 569, the Beltline, is a prime truck route for logging trucks that transport timber products from I-5 to Seneca Mill ( Prairie Rd.) , Teevan Log Yard ( Irving Rd.) Murphy Plywood (Prairie Rd.)Flakeboard (Danebo Rd.) and Baxter Chemical Treating ( Hwy 99). It also serves refined gas products to and from the Prairie Rd. Tank Farm, Wildish Construction on No. Coburg Rd., and Knife River Sand and Gravel on Division St. Combined, all of these easily surpass the 50 trips per 24hr. criteria.

For the past several years, the City of Eugene and the University of Oregon are in a building boom. Many existing and future projects greater than 8,000 sq.ft are currently being constructed or proposed for the next several years. The Downtown Riverfront Project and several large student housing buildings are just several projects slated to break ground in the next few years.

The Union Pacific train yard that runs north and south along the west length of the NW Expressway is and has been a source of diesel particulate matter from idling locomotives for more than 85 years. Residents in the River Rd. and Santa Clara communities that are just east of the rail yard have complained of diesel particulate pollution, noise, and respiratory ailments due to prolonged idling trains. These communities are downwind of the rail yard and hear and smell the effects of locomotive activity constantly; 24/7, 365 days per year. Some locomotives sit idling for longer than 24 hours as residents close to the rail yard have observed and documented. As the DEQ has studied and reported, this UP rail yard was a source of underground water pollution and soil contamination due to toxic pollutants from the railroad industry.

I welcome this opportunity to comment on Indirect Sourcing of air pollution in the state and in my community of Eugene. I thank you for reading my comments and taking time in this very important matter to clean our air of particulate matter due to the burning of fossil fuels in internal combustion engines. As an owner of an electric Nissan Leaf powered by a rooftop 4.4 Kw photovoltaic solar system, I feel fortunate to be able to do my part to reduce my carbon footprint. Reducing Indirect Sourcing of emissions is paramount in reducing local GHG to fight climate change.

I look forward to the results of your petition.

Respectfully,

James Neu Eugene, Or. 925-446-0234

Sent from my iPad From: James Powell To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 9:29:01 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I am James E. Powell of Portland, OR.

My family and I spend a good solid hour every day in transit through the town: to schools, and to work. Our transit inevitably passes by a number of really foul construction projects where filthy diesel engines are in full-time operation. We know the diesel fumes deliver ill-health and we regret Oregon's unusually high level of exposure to this threat.

We want clean air in Oregon and to accomplish this diesel fumes must be reduced. We regret also the unfair extra burden of pollution from diesel that poorer communities suffer.

We support the petition from NEDC and others to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Signed, James Powell Portland, OR

-- Pronouns: he/him/his Applied Physics PhD Candidate Department of Physics Portland State University From: Jan Zuckerman To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 9:57:19 PM

Dear members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Jan Zuckerman and I live in Portland, Oregon. My family business is located across the street from a very large condominium that took two years to build. The amount of diesel pollution that permeated the area was sickening. In fact, my son, who walks to work, and was often in and out of the business, loading supplies, had an increase in asthma, a condition that hadn’t bothered him in years. This is not just our story, but the story of so many of my friends who live near construction sites that are everywhere now in Portland. My sister and her husband, who is elderly and has asthma, ended up in the hospital last time he was here due to a severe asthma attack. They can no longer visit Portland. It’s sad that Portland was once considered a clean city and now it is one of the cities with the worst air quality due to diesel pollution. I strongly support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon and urge you to vote YES at your March 2020 meeting to direct the DEQ to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you very much, Jan Zuckerman Portland, Oregon From: Jane Comeault To: ISPComment Cc: Representative Barbara Smith Warner; Senator Michael Dembrow Subject: Regulation of Diesel Emissions Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:22:22 PM

To DEQ,

HB2007 was an important step in regulating diesel emissions that pollute our air, but it only addresses a fraction of diesel pollution. Let’s focus on the bulk of the problem - the non-road sources such as construction equipment, rail yards, marine vessels, etc. I would like to see concrete regulations to reduce diesel emissions from these sources, as soon as possible. It is ridiculous to sacrifice human health for something so simple to upgrade. I realize it costs money, but the health impacts from pollution are not free either. Thank you for reviewing this important issue.

Sincerely, Jane Comeault

Portland OR From: Janet Walker To: ISPComment Subject: Comment: rules to regulate indirect sources of air pollution Date: Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:57:20 AM

I strongly support having the DEQ create rules regulating indirect sources of air pollution. I live in a residential area that abuts shopping area with a grocery store. The trucks that bring items to the grocery store pack the residential street--clearly not designed to handle this level of traffic. There is only space for one at a time in the loading dock, so trucks sit and idle, belching pollution. They have no incentive to turn the motors off, even though there is no need to keep them running. It is a constant problem and very unhealthy for neighbors.

Janet Walker Portland Oregon From: Janet Williams To: ISPComment Subject: Comment on EQC consideration of Indirect Source Rule Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 2:15:04 PM

Janet R. Williams David H. Williams Portland Oregon 97225 From: Jean Eilers To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:35:39 PM

the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission I am Jean Eilers and was born in Portland and live here now. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Jean Eilers, Portland, OR

Thank you, and in solidarity, From: Jeanne Kennedy Crosby, D.C. To: ISPComment Subject: diesel emissions Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 9:49:39 AM

Hello,

Diesel needs to be much more regulated than it currently is, especially in more dense populated areas. I returned home last night from a trip to my North Portland neighborhood, and the smell of diesel was very noticeable driving down N. Willamette Blvd., over Swan Island. There were no trucks around. Some days it’s so bad I can taste it. This is unacceptable.

I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Jeanne Kennedy Crosby Portland, Oregon From: Jeanne Roy To: ISPComment Subject: diesel emission petition Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 2:56:41 PM

From: Jeanne Roy, Portland, OR To: Environmental Quality Commission Date: January 15, 2020 Subject: Indirect source petition

I have long been concerned about the effects of diesel emissions since the days when I sat in an idling ski bus on Mt Hood and felt sick from the exhaust.

The high concentration of diesel particulate matter in Oregon’s air presents a serious threat to public health. Diesel particulate matter is the leading cause of cancer toxicity in the Portland area.

Diesel also contributes to global warming. Diesel pollution is a type of short-term climate accelerant known as black carbon, which within 20 years has 3,000 times the carbon intensity of CO2. Reducing diesel emissions can have an immediate impact on carbon levels and play a key role in helping cities like Portland meet its climate goals of reducing the lifecycle of carbon emissions of transportation fuels by 20 percent.

We made some progress in the legislature in regulating harmful diesel emissions from trucks, but we’re still missing the major source of our state’s diesel pollution.

Indirect source rules present an opportunity to reduce harmful air pollution emissions from vehicles and engines that aren’t currently regulated at the state or local levels. Although Oregon’s Indirect Source Rule has existed for decades, it is currently only being applied to new construction of large parking lots in certain urban areas. The petition, would direct the state to create a new rule to cover large construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards, and other indirect sources. PSU measurements have noted especially high concentrations of diesel pollution around construction equipment. The above sources are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon.

I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to direct DEQ to initiate the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. From: Jenny B To: ISPComment Subject: comment on diesel Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 4:39:12 PM

I support strict regulations on diesel pollution. Our kids health matters. Clean air matters.

I stand with Neighbors for Clean Air.

Jennifer Bevacqua Pediatric Nurse Practitioner Parent From: Jenny Pompilio To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 3:40:38 PM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission As a physician, public health advocate and mother of a 13yo son, I support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise its existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated (and inadequately regulated) pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote Yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you, Jenny Pompilio MD, MPH From: Jeremiah Hayden To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 2:41:24 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission

My name is Jeremiah Hayden, and I've lived in Portland, OR for the past 19 years - Salem, OR for 17 years prior.

I'm writing to let you know that I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution. Indirect sources are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. Many Oregonians, myself included, want clean air for all Oregonians and the time is now to reduce diesel emissions in our state.

Thank you for your time,

Jeremiah Hayden Portland, OR From: Joan House To: ISPComment Subject: ISPC Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:10:58 PM

Anything that helps with air pollution is important for the health of all Oregonians and should be considered. From: Jodi Tanner Tell To: ISPComment Subject: Please expand Indirect Source Rules Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 9:17:57 AM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission members,

Please vote yes at the march 2020 meeting to have Oregon’s DEQ start Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Diesel pollution is a serious problem in Oregon. According to diesel pollution in Portland is more than 10 times higher than the state’s healthy air benchmarks (DEQ report 2015). My family lives on a busy road and I worry about my children’s health as they are exposed to these pollutants on a daily basis. We also need to act now to limit sources of climate change gases, including black carbon, which comes in large part from diesel.

The majority of diesel emissions come from indirect sources. This makes it critically important that we update and expand the Indirect Source Rule, creating a new rule to cover distribution centers, large construction sites and other sources.

Thank you, Jodi Tanner Tell Portland, OR From: Jody To: ISPComment Subject: Health Protective Diesel Emissions Rules Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 12:04:33 PM

Please enact and enforce the strictest possible, health protective ISP diesel emissions rules.

Thank you, Jody Bleyle Portland, Oregon From: Joe Hovey To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition. Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:43:28 AM

In the Portland area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to our public health, as well as causing temperature increases that contribute directly to global climate change.

But it isn’t simply JUST the trucks we see traveling on our Portland area roads! Off-road sources such as equipment used on construction sites, marine terminals, and the Union Pacific Rail Yards are also responsible for as much as 65% of the diesel emissions in our area.

As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s pre-emption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing non-road vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or non-road mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and Union Pacific Rail Yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines.

We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote YES! directing Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your time and efforts!

Joe Hovey Portland OR From: John Carr To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:23:05 AM

Dear Commissioners:

I support the effort to ask the State of Oregon to exercise its existing authority to create an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from currently unregulated and poorly regulated pollution sources in our state.

Off-road sources of diesel emissions — including equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals, and rail yards — are the most troubling. They are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon's urban centers.

I urge you to vote yes and direct Oregon’s DEQ to being the Indirect Source Rulemaking process to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely, John Carr Resident of SE Portland From: John Durkin To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:58:58 PM

Dear Serving Members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I want to encourage you to support the petition for the adoption of the rules regarding the indirect sources of diesel fuel air pollution. These emissions are responsible for 65% of diesel exhaust in Oregon.

With my family living just down the street from a rock quarry, we experience this pollution firsthand and have to deal with the effects of the diesel burning dump trucks that travel a busy street close to our home.

The people of Oregon deserve clean air to raise our families, grow vegetables in our gardens and trees in our yards.

I would appreciate your support by voting yes at the March 2020 meeting to require the DEQ to get busy working on the Indirect Source of Rulemaking to control these diesel emissions.

Thank you so much for your Support!

John Durkin Beaverton, OR From: John Dwyer To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 9:35:57 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is John Dwyer and I'm writing to express my strong support for the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution. As you know, diesel pollution in Portland is 10 times higher than Oregon's heathy air benchmark and causes cancer and other negative health impacts.

My home is located near I-84 in Northeast Portland and I worry about the effects of all the diesel pollution from trucks on the highway on my young children's lungs when they play outside. I'm encouraged that recent legislation will reduce diesel emissions from trucks in the coming years, but there are many sources of diesel pollution outside of highways, like construction sites, rail yards, and distribution centers, that are harming people in our communities.

It's a dirty secret that Portland has such polluted air. And it's unjust that this pollution disproportionately impacts communities of color. It doesn't have to be that way. I urge you to vote yes to direct Oregon's DEQ to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

John Dwyer Portland, OR From: John Olmsted To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 9:16:18 AM

I support the efforts to control diesel emissions. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote to direct Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking.

John Olmsted MA, Med. Portland, Oregon From: mazda63 To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 1:02:23 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I, Jules Moritz live in Corvallis, OR and want clean air for all Oregonians. I also believe that diesel pollution in all of Oregon needs to be reduced.

Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation.

The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birth weight.

Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots.

Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reductions = immediate climate benefits.

65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I also urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes (at their March 2020 meeting) to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

Jules Moritz Corvallis, OR From: Jynx Houston To: ISPComment Subject: DIESEL EMISSIONS Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:16:14 PM

IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR THE HEALTH OF ALL OREGONIANS & THE PLANET THAT YOU SEVERELY REDUCE TOXIC DIESEL EMISSIONS IN THE STATE.

Jynx Houston Portland, OR From: Karen Heinemann To: ISPComment Subject: Portland Air Toxics Solutions Project Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 11:56:26 AM

Dear Commissioners,

I am an emergency physician practicing in Hood River. I view clean air and water as a pubic health priority. We need to ALL we can to ensure that all Oregonians breathe the cleanest air possible.

I am writing to support the expansion of the outdated ISR in the hope of creating new rules to cover indirect sources of diesel emissions. I am 75 and try to spend time outside. Both and I my young grandchildren need clean air. Let’s make Oregon live up to it’s reputation as an environmentally friendly state. Karen LaMorticella 97214 From: Katherine Gorell To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 2:13:16 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice- Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera, the commission’s assistant

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, in which I reside, parent a young child, and own property, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non- fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually.

Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you, Katherine Gorell From: Katherine Brann Fredricks To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:18:01 PM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission:

My name is Katherine Brann Fredricks and I live in North Portland. There are active construction sites all over my neighborhood, and diesel fumes are intense.

Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. Public health concerns require clean air for all Oregonians, so diesel pollution in Oregon needs to be reduced.

The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight.

Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as the construction sites in my neighborhood.

A coalition of 21 organizations has submitted a petition to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that asks the state to expand its outdated Indirect Source Rule (ISR). The petition would direct the state to create a new rule to cover large construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards, and other indirect sources that are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I support this petition and urge you to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote YES on this petition during your March 2020 meeting. Please direct Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality to control diesel emissions from indirect sources.

Thank you for your attention,

Katherine Brann Fredricks - Portland From: Kathleen Ronning To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:16:49 PM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission, My name is Kathleen Ronning and I live in Bend. As you know Bend is growing rapidly and with that comes constant construction of roads, neighborhoods, schools, hotels, and many businesses of all kinds. With that comes a great deal of diesel pollution from the many construction sites and also from the many trucks, mostly diesel, that it requires to deliver materials and haul away materials from these sites as well as the building process itself. I live in what I call a “diesel sandwich” between Highway 20 and OB Riley Road and above a pumice mine that excavates and distributes materials. Also nearby our home is a Knife River sand and gravel site with a large fleet of trucks. I know firsthand the color and smell of the emissions caused pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines. As much as 65% of diesel emissions come from places like construction sites. Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution. I am concerned for my health and that of all Oregonians as well as our climate. The human health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. As for our climate, diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at the March 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you. Kathleen Ronning Bend, Oregon From: Kathy Orton To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule, Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:59:44 AM

As a longtime Brooklyn neighborhood resident in Portland, I support the passage of the updated Indirect Source Rule. It is a way to allow industry to exist with better health for the total population at the same time. Living in Portland since 1978, the unseen toxins from diesel do affect our health: allergies, respiratory illness. Could the benzene in diesel be the cause of my son's rare aplastic anemia? We will never know, luckily stem cell transplant has cured him. Why should health be ignored when this rule could remedy the situation.

More at stake is the reputation of Oregon as an environmental leader; when both Washington & California have adopted cleaner diesel regulations, we have chosen to be a dumping ground of their rejects. We have a booming economy, there is no reason to jeopardize health! Industry and energy will be evolving, this is an opportunity to assist both while protecting health of our citizens. I urge your approval of it. Thank you,

Kathy & Lee Orton Portland, OR From: Kelsey Hill To: ISPComment Subject: Comments on Diesel Pollution Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 10:08:42 PM

Dear DEQ:

What they said below, and this: the world is moving on towards either a green future or complete annihilation. Let’s be on the right side of history and fight for a green future. Now, read these perfectly adequate words below.

Exposure to diesel pollution and other vehicle emissions has negative health and climate consequences. A scientific report released in 2019 estimates that 385,000 people worldwide die prematurely each year due to lung disease and stroke caused by breathing in air pollution and almost 50% of these deaths are caused by diesel emissions. Locally, diesel exhaust prematurely kills 460 Oregonians, causes over 140 heart attacks, over 25,000 lost work days, and costs the state $3.5 billion in lost work days, hospital visits, and medical illnesses every year. DEQ projects that reducing diesel emissions could save over $1.6 billion in avoidable public health impacts, including treatment for illness, hospitalizations, lost work days and premature deaths every year in Oregon.

It is time to hold huge, pollution-emitting projects responsible for reducing air pollution to protect human health.

As a concerned citizen, I care about the health of all Oregonians. I urge you to finalize this commonsense rule to regulate indirect mobile sources.

Sincerely, Kelsey From: Ken Shultz To: ISPComment; CALDERA Stephanie Subject: RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 4:16:16 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby

Regards,

Dr. Kenneth A. Shultz From: Kendall KIC To: ISPComment Subject: RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 8:47:01 AM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

It seems crazy that Rosa Parks Elementary School located near I-5 has to install an expensive air filtration system (money Portland Public Schools doesn't have) so the students can breath clean air inside their school, but the moment they go outside to play the pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles will go into their wee lungs to potentially cause severe illness. The simple solution, is to strengthen our air quality standards, then all children can play outside safely. In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually. But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for hearing me, Kendall KIC Portland, OR 62A2 SE 21't Avenue Portland, Oregon 97202 February 13,2020

Oregon DEQ Attn: Karen Williams 700 NE Multnomah St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100

RE: Indirect Source Rule petition

I write in support of the petition before the Environmental Quality Commission to consider and move to adoption the Indirect Source Rule presented to the Commission on December 20,2019.

Diesel particulate is the only pollutant that, at current levels of exposure in Oregon, has direct, signifrcant, immediate and simultaneous impacts on human health and climate change. Each of which are of substantial concern. Quite possibly as many Oregonians die each year from the legacy exposure to diesel exhaust as are killed in motor vehicle accidents. Black carbon, for which diesel engines represent the largest singular source in Oregon and North America, would make up at least 10 percent of the inventory of climate forcers, if we gave up the unsupported notion that only gases contribute to global warming.

These facts are not disputed by those arguing against taking action in adopting the proposed rule. Instead, the major concerns raised in opposition are prima1rly economic. These arguments are incomplete and shortsighted.

For instance, in terms of overall impact on the economy, the effects are marginal, if not absorbed into the normal course of commerce. California, which has adopted comprehensive regulations restricting legacy diesel engines has seen its gross domestic product increase by l factor of 2.2 in the period from 2001 to 2018 (according to the Bureau of Economicl data). Compare thai to Oregonat2.l and Washington state at2.4. In fact, considering the counties that are within the San Joaquin Air District, the gross domestic product of that jurisdiction rose by afactor of 2.3 during the same time. It is clear that the adverse economic impacts portrayed by opponents have not mate rialized.

The short sighted economic argument posed by opponents ignores the very real costs that result from unfiltered diesel exhaust. Students in introductory microeconomics learn that not all costs are readily accounted for in market place transactions, especially those

I lrttps ://wwrry. bea. gov/d atalgdp/gdp-state, acces sed February I A, 2AZA involving uncontrolled and free access to public resources like the atmosphere - leading to the phenomenon of free riders. EPA in adopting the heavy-duty truck and the Tier 4 diesel regulations identified more than 80 health, welfare and environmental impacts tied to diesel exhaust but was able to assign a monetary value to just 18, notably excluding cancer from the monetized analysis. EPA's incomplete and conservative assessment puts the health and welfare cost at $3.50 per gallon of fuel combusted in older engines. Since this analysis was completed with a yeff 2000 basis year for calculation pu{poses, many cost factors that contribute to this analysis have increased (91 percent in medical care inflation from 2000 to 2019, compare to consumer price index increase of 48.2 percent over that same time). A more recent analysis estimates these costs at approximately $5 per gallorr'. Th.te costs are ume alized and unaccounted by older truck and equipment owners but represent an ongoing subsidy by Oregonians. Operatinga2006 model year truck up until 2030, EPA's projected horizon, represents a lifetime subsidy of more than $ 1 .2 million for each truck.

Allowing unfettered use of older diesel engines has been a phenomenally generous gesture by Oregonians but it's time we took action and did not wait for ordinary, inefficient and incomplete market forces to make this change.

As for particulars on the proposed rule itself, I offer these recommendations. 1. The rule should apply in those counties where most recent modeling data indicate Iifetime risk is above Oregon benchmark values for diesel particulate exposure. This is not just a Portland metropolitan areaissue but affects, at last count, more than 90 percent of Oregonians exposed to unnecessary health risk. 2. The threshold for plan compliance should be such that an operation demonstrating use of 2010 and later heavy-duty trucks and Tier 4 equipment, or equivalent in other fuel platforms, would be compliant. If anything, the plan could adjust goals to allow sites to overcontrol, allowing some older trucks and equipment to operate so as to average the impact to equivalent to2010/Tier 4 conditions.

Thank you for your consideration, firffi>MfrU.../' Kevin Downing

'Dre* Shindell, (2015) The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release. Climate Change, 130(2):313-326. From: Kiel Johnson To: ISPComment Subject: Letter in support of Adopting Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 12:20:15 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby,

States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. We therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. thanks you for your consideration,

Kiel Johnson From: Kim Davis To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Promulgate Indirect Source Rules Date: Sunday, January 19, 2020 8:02:17 PM

I am writing to request your support for the above mentioned petition. Oregon must step up its efforts to protect its citizenry and reduce black carbon particulates. As an employee at a Veterans Health Administration outpatient clinic in Salem, I am highly concerned that our staff and veterans are exposed to significant diesel exhaust on a daily basis given our location 2 blocks from a rail road switching station, 1 block from the track, and surrounded by warehouses and industries that allow idling trucks and engines to spew exhaust that is harmful to us all.

Oregon must improve its efforts to monitor, regulate and reduce harmful toxins in our environment. We have too many poor air quality days in the Willamette Valley in the last year alone, let's turn this around now.

Thank you for doing everything possible to reduce black carbon. Our children and grandchildren, not to mention our grandparents, depend on it!

Sincerely, Kim M. Davis From: Kjell Benson To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect source rule comment Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 7:46:30 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission: My name is Kjell Benson and I live in Fairview, near the large wood chip and cement plants out by the Troutdale airport. This area has expanded in both residential living and industrial areas recently, putting people into ever closer proximity to heavy diesel usage. Most diesel emissions continue to come from indirect sources such as rail, cement, construction, that we see around Fairview/Troutdale. We need clean air for all Oregonians and this is a chance to do something positive for it by adopting rules regarding indirect sources. Vote yes to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking.

-Kjell Benson Fairview Oregon From: Kris DiPaola To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 7:03:28 PM

To Whom it Concerns:

I therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you for putting the well being of our health and environment above the profits of a few.

With sincere thanks - Kristina DiPaola

Portland, OR consultant and mother From: Kristin Thiel To: ISPComment; Subject: Regarding the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 11:12:12 AM

The Northwest District Association Safety & Livability Committee supports the petition to request the State of Oregon to use its existing authority to create an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes -- direct Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality to begin the Indirect Source Rule-making to set safe, science-informed limits on diesel emissions.

Thank you, NWDA Safety & Livability Committee members From: Kristine Falletta Abraldes To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 8:10:11 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

My name is Kristine Abraldes and I live in SE Portland.

I want clean air for all Oregonians - diesel pollution in Oregon needs to be reduced.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND I urge you, the Environmental Quality Commission, to vote yes at your March 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Kristine Abraldes, Portland Oregon From: BRUCE L HELLEMN To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel pollution Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 12:17:58 PM

I live 4 blocks south of N. Going St. in Portland, which is the road going to the Swan Island industrial area. There are diesel trucks coming to and going from Swan Island 24/7 365 days a year and the diesel pollution is evident. I have to use an inhaler, that my Dr. prescribed, almost every day. In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually.

Please vote yes for these two important ways to protect our communities’ health. That is your job and we desperately need to clean up our act! Thank you.

Lark Brandt Hillsboro Or From: Brenda and Larry Smith To: ISPComment Subject: Clean air Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 7:57:52 AM

Please support clean air by decreasing diesel fuel exhaust. I have emphysema caused by secondary sources. I would like to spare others of this disease. Brenda H Smith Portland, OR From: Laura Allen To: ISPComment Subject: support for IPC regulations Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:51:40 PM

Dear Karen Williams at the DEQ,

I am writing in support of the proposed new standards for expanding regulations to reduce indirect source pollution.

Diesel pollution is a major source of air pollution and a threat to the health of Oregonians. Gas powered motor also contribute to air pollution. Oregon needs more avenues to support clean air and reduce carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Reducing mobile source pollution is necessary for Oregon to meet target greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Diesel particulate emissions are of particular concern in Oregon’s urban centers and environmental justice communities.

Thank you for your work on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Laura Allen Eugene, Oregon From: Laura Dunn To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 9:29:03 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Laura Dunn, and I live in Portland, Oregon, just off of Powell Boulevard where diesel trucks barrel by every couple seconds. Sometimes when I’m walking with my kids to the grocery store etc, the fumes make me choke. This is not what people think of Oregon, but we have some of the worst diesel pollution in the country. I want clean air for all Oregonians and diesel pollution in Oregon and/or Portland needs to be reduced. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

Laura Dunn

Portland, Oregon

Laura Dunn She/Her/Hers Artistic Director The Broken Planetarium From: LAURA MILLER To: ISPComment Subject: Toxic air Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 2:38:15 PM

Put regulations in place that protect people from the toxic air that companies into the air we breath. It should not be that diffcult plus, I've been asking for cleaner air for years. Make it happen now.

Laura Miller

Portland, OR From: Laura Rogers To: ISPComment Subject: NOW is the time for the Indirect Source Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 4:23:43 PM

Multnomah County has one of the highest rates of diesel exhaust exposure in the US. Residents are regularly exposed to diesel particulate matter concentrations that are more than 10 times higher than Oregon's health-based standards. Each year in Portland on-road and nonroad vehicles and engines collectively emit approximately 472 tons of particulate matter pollution. To meet Oregon's health-based standard for diesel particulate matter, Portland must reduce its annual emissions by 86%.

These levels of diesel pollution put my children, their spouses, and my grandchildren at high risk of developing cancer, heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disorders and dementia.

I urge you to implement the Indirect Source Regulations at the earliest opportunity!

Sincerely

Mrs. June Rogers Lake Oswego, OR From: Laura Rogers To: ISPComment Subject: Act Now to Implement the Indirect Source Rule Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 4:41:09 PM

As a person experiencing dementia, I urge you to act with all deliberate speed to enact the Indirect Source regulations. I live in Multnomah County, which has one of the highest rates of diesel exhaust exposure in the US. We are regularly exposed to diesel particulate matter concentrations that are more than 10 times higher than Oregon's health-based standards. These levels of diesel pollution put us at higher risk of developing cancer, heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disorders and dementia.

In addition to health hazards, this deadly pollutant is a signifiant contributor to climate change.

My life expectancy may be short, but I believe it is absolutely critical that DEQ act swiftly to protect the health of our children and to protect the environment in which they will live.

Sincerely,

S. Thomas Alexander III Portland, OR From: Laurie Harrer To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:40:49 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission My name is Laurie Harrer and I live in Bend, Oregon. I have been noticing diesel pollution more and more now that I walk my newborn son around my neighborhood and my town. I am constantly worried about what all of the diesel pollution in the air is doing to his little lungs when I am trying to give him the chance to get to know the outdoors.

I want clean air for not only my family, but also all Oregonians. Diesel pollution in Oregon and/or Portland needs to be reduced. Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots. Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reductions = immediate climate benefits. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you for your consideration.

Laurie Harrer, Bend, Oregon.

-- Laurie E. F. Harrer, M.S. From: Leela Devi To: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Clean up diesel pollution Date: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:27:14 PM

To members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission: Kathleen George, Sam Baraso, Greg Addington, Molly Kile, and Wade Mosby:

Please vote yes to commence the indirect source rulemaking to control diesel emissions. This work is long overdue.

Leela Devi

I get up. I walk. I fall down. Meanwhile, I keep dancing. ~ Hillel From: Linda S Craig To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect source regulation petition Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 2:35:23 PM

To the EQC:

I live in NW Portland where construction is booming. I’m writing to support indirect source rules that would limit diesel pollution at construction sites.

I am appalled that Oregon is at the bottom of states with respect to air quality due to diesel emissions. The absence of a rule is literally killing us.

Please act to restrict diesel emissions per this well-crafted petition.

Linda Craig Portland, OR From: Lisa Adatto To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel Emissions Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:34:53 AM

To whom it may concern at the DEQ:

I support additional rules to reduce harmful diesel emissions in the Portland area. I have lung cancer, and I am aware that the emissions in the Portland area are often at dangerous levels. Because we have not kept up with Washington and California, the dirtiest trucks are ending up in Oregon. It is imperative that we add new regulations to protect our health.

All the best, Lisa Adatto Lake Oswego From: Lisa Manning To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air/ Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:37:31 PM

To the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission ~

23 of 36 counties in Oregon exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution which is estimated to cause; 400+ premature deaths,140+non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+lost work days, with an aggregate coast of $3.6 billion dollars annually!

Let’s cut back on Global Warming and protect citizen health. We have the technology and brains to fix the pollution from diesel fueled vehicles, and indirect sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards. These indirect sources are responsible for 65% diesel emissions in Oregon urban centers!

As a member of Neighbors for Clean Air, I urge you to support the effort to control diesel fuel emissions in the state of Oregon! Please do the right thing to make this a beautiful and clean state! Vote YES to direct the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rules for controlling diesel fuel in Oregon!

Thank you! Lisa Manning From: Liza Dormady To: ISPComment; CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:31:43 AM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera, the commission’s assistant

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines.

I therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote Yes: Direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

Liza Dormady -- Take care, Liza From: Madeline Pruett To: ISPComment Subject: ISP comment - indirect diesel emissions Date: Monday, February 3, 2020 9:41:15 AM

As a current member of the Bullseye Glass PHA Community Committee, I am writing in support of regulating all diesel emissions regardless of source. In my role working as a volunteer with OHA, I have learned a great deal about the health impacts of our environment. Air pollution is one of the most dangerous and complex risks in our neighborhoods.

As Portland grows, increases neighborhood density, and experiences a building boom, these emissions and their impact become ever more significant.

Today, I am raising two young children just .5 miles away from Bullseye and the Brooklyn Yards. While the glass factory has taken steps to stop polluting the air of all their neighbors, no changes have taken place in the railyard. As rail and semi-truck traffic increase, so does the pollution my kids breath every day.

As a city, we need to start assessing not just the level of a single polluter, but the collective neighborhood/population impact of all polluters collectively on the neighborhood. Similarly, childcare facilities should factor in the pollution exposure of the surroundings and take precautions.

Air pollution can only be addressed through smart public policy and reasonable regulations. I can't choose to stop breathing, neither can my kids. So that means it is up to our government to ensure the air we breath isn't going to make us sick.

Madeline Pruett From: Maia Hixon To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 2:19:46 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission

My name is Maia Hixon and I live in Portland and I want clean air for all Oregonians and that diesel pollution in Oregon and/or Portland needs to be reduced.

Is is essential that you take action diesel pollution because:

1. Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. 2. The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birth weight. 3. Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hot spots. 4. Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reductions = immediate climate benefits. 5. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards.

I insist that you must support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND that you urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rule making to control diesel emissions.

-- Maia Hixon - Portland, OR pronouns: she/her From: M. Rodríguez To: ISPComment Subject: Item M Comment Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 10:46:33 AM

Oregon has become a dumping ground for dirty diesel. As other states are improving their air quality and require that fleet and other vehicles switch to the most modern versions of diesel engines, Oregon has become a dumping ground for dirty diesel engines that are not acceptable in other states. We need to close this loophole for clean air and the health of our residents.

Again, if these engines are too dirty for other Pacific Coast states then why are we becoming a graveyard for dirty diesel when the science and health needs of the people of Oregon demand that we make sure that our diesel regulations are best in class.

Do the right thing.

Dr. Marc Rodriguez Portland, OR From: Margaret Murdock To: ISPComment Subject: Support decreasing indirect diesel emissions Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:52:36 AM

As someone whose health has been directly impacted by air pollution, I support proposals to target "indirect" diesel emissions from construction sites, distribution centers, etc. I had to move away from Portland because of exacerbation of asthma.

My job was providing home health care services and required driving all over the metro area. I dreaded getting stuck in traffic behind an old diesel vehicle, because I knew it would worsen my asthma. I had trouble making ends meet because of missing time from work.

I did not realize that so much diesel pollution comes from locations like construction sites, distribution centers and even hospitals. Knowing my reaction to vehicular emissions, I am sure that indirect sites have a large impact on their neighbors' health. Also, knowing that air pollution spreads readily through the atmosphere, I am sure that these sites of concentrated diesel emissions have an impact far beyond their immediate neighborhoods.

I understand that people own old vehicles because it costs too much to upgrade. I am no different. So I think in combination with regulation of these emissions, there should be financial incentives in place, and assistance in obtaining resources such as grants and tax credits to make it feasible for people to upgrade.

Thank you for considering my input.

Margaret Murdock Clatsop County, Oregon From: Mark Griffin To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 5:34:25 PM

Attn: Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby

I support efforts underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. mark griffin portland, Oregon From: marnah To: ISPComment Subject: air quality Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:23:16 AM

Dear Commissioners,

Sincerely,

Marna Herrington From: marnah To: ISPComment Subject: control diesel emissions Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:24:57 AM

Thank you,

Marna Herrington From: Mary Faye Bennett To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 3:54:30 PM

· Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission My name is Mary Faye Bennett and I live in Portland, OR

I am concerned about the diesel pollution which is still at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where, as you know, we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. The health impacts of Diesel pollution are serious and include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots.

I am sure you are aware that diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Therefore, reductions equal immediate climate benefits.

Construction sites, distribution centers, and rail yards are the sources of 65% of diesel emissions.

We can, and must, greatly reduce the use of diesel fuels and find more healthful sources of energy. If we can send people into outer space and return them safely, we can certainly create energy sources that will not destroy our climate.

Thank you for doing everything you can to make this happen, Our children and grandchildren will have a much better life because you help reduce the use of diesel fuel. From: Mary Jo Mann To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Friday, Date: February 7, 2020 10:19:30 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission, My name is Mary Jo Mann from Portland, Oregon. I am writing to speak up for the rights of citizens to have clean air. Diesel pollution impacts the health of people who live near highways, and or other polluted sites. My daughter lives in a diesel red zone (5x - 10x the health risk) based on a map published on portlandcleanair.org. We all have a right to breath clean air, and not have our lives and health jeopardized.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I strongly urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely,

Mary Jo Mann Portland, Oregon From: Maureen Valdini To: ISPComment Subject: clean air vs. indirect source diesel damage Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:18:46 PM

To whomsoever can effect necessary change:

I find breathing air that ranks in the 95th percentile for diesel particulate matter is simply unacceptable. The ecological, environmental, economic, and health effects of ignoring the available science rather than capping diesel fuel discharges for trucks, trains, cars, whatever, are simply too exorbitant. Everyone's future depends on your making a decision that supports the general welfare, not narrow, moneyed interests. You hold a public trust and are thereby obligated to the public good. Do the right thing; cap diesel emissions wherever they occur.

Thank you, Maureen Valdini

Portland OR From: Melissa R. To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel petition Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:48:42 PM

Hello,

Melissa Rehder Portland, OR From: Melody Randolph To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 3:24:27 PM

I am writing as a citizen of Oregon to ask that our great state exercise its right of preemptive provision under the federal Clean Air Act to directly regulate diesel emissions from all sources.

As a healthcare professional, I am well versed in the damage that diesel pollution can do: asthma, heart attacks, lost work, and premature death, not to mention the cost to our beautiful natural environment. However, 23 of 36 counties in Oregon currently have diesel pollution levels higher than the state health benchmark. This is caused not only by direct sources, such as diesel cars and trucks, but also indirect sources, such as rail yards and construction sites. These indirect sources, some of which are within walking distance of my home, are estimated to be responsible for as much as 65% of diesel pollutants in Oregon’s air. The state government has the power to regulate these emissions and therefore protect the health of its residents and the environment.

Therefore, I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your time.

Melody Randolph From: Michael Aiello To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Thursday, January 16, 2020 7:58:06 PM

Oregon Environmental Quality Commission. Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera

I live off of I 26 in SE Portland for the past 13 years. Prior to this I had always had healthy lungs. After the first 7 years of living by 26 I have developed RAD, otherwise known as reactive airways disease. It is defined as asthmatic like symptoms. Can you imagine my New York family’s shock that here in The Green Friendly Portland, Oregon, I have developed this condition?

Please do all you can to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution. For me, my daughter and every human that comes after us, we are counting on you doing the right thing so that we can all simply breathe easier.

Thank you, Michael Aiello From: Michael Krauss To: ISPComment Subject: Support control of air pollution from indirect sources Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 12:25:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health and causes temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non- fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost workdays, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually.But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon. As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off- road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines. I, therefore, support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. -- Michael Krauss From: michelle neidiger To: ISPComment; [email protected] Subject: Re: Support Petition to Adopt Rules on Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 12:35:09 PM

February 14, 2020

To: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

700 NE Multnomah St, Suite 600

Portland, Oregon 97232

Dear Kathleen George, Chair, and Commissioners,

Re: Support Petition to Adopt Rules on Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

We support safe walking and bicycling to and from schools, to improve the health and wellbeing of kids of all races, income levels, and abilities, and to foster the creation of healthy communities for everyone. My committee supports Safe Routes Partnership, Melissa Powers, on behalf of the Green Energy Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School (GEI), Mark Riskedahl, on behalf of the Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC), and Mary Peveto, on behalf of Neighbors for Clean Air (Neighbors) and hereby submit this letter of support on the Petition for Agency Rulemakingto the EQC.

In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as where I live in Rose City Park Neighborhood in the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines present a significant risk to public health and cause the temperature increases that contribute to global climate change. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost workdays, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually. But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Instead, off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals, and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon.

An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution. Buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards are all examples of indirect sources of air pollution.

Because of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source.

My committee supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michelle Neidiger, Environmental Committee Chair Commercial Building Designer

Members: Tamara DeRidder, Environmental Committee Member Ed Gorman, Environmental Committee Member Don Levine, Environmental Committee Member Geoff Gifford, Environmental Committee Member Sharron Fuchs, Environmental Committee Member

Rose City Park Neighborhood Association c/o Central Northeast Neighbors 4415 NE 87th Ave Portland, OR 97220

[email protected] | www.rcpna.org From: Mike O"Brien To: ISPComment Cc: Mike O"Brien Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:24:45 AM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Michael O’Brien, and my family lives in Portland’s Overlook neighborhood, near Swan Island and the railroad yards, close enough to hear the trains working. We are also near the I-5 freeway corridor.

I was moved to write you after reading this article: https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/putting-air-filters-in-classrooms-could-give- student-performance-a-serious

Briefly, researchers found that filtering air in schools significantly improved student performance in reading and math. The study is a powerful argument for cleaning up air, both for students and for residents of urban areas exposed to diesel particulates.

So I’m writing to ask you to support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution, which are responsible for about 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I also ask that you support the Environmental Quality Commission’s directive to Oregon DEQ to start indirect source rulemaking to control diesel emssions.

Thanks for your consideration,

Michael O’Brien Portland, Oregon From: Mindy Strnad To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Thursday, Date: February 13, 2020 11:57:46 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Melinda Strnad and I live and work as a primary care physician in Portland, Oregon.

As a physician, I see the negative influences of diesel pollution on my patients’ lives: worse asthma and COPD outcomes, increased cardiovascular disease. I see that these effects disproportionately affect my patients who are poor who have less control over where they live in the city. I want clean air for all Oregonians and believe diesel pollution in Oregon needs to be reduced.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Sincerely,

Dr Melinda Strnad Portland, Oregon From: Mitch Fletcher To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 3:52:39 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission

I'm a resident of Portland. There are many construction sites near my home and workplace, accounting for a noticeable worsening of air quality that makes me concerned about my family's health.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions at your March Meeting.

Mitch Fletcher From: Nancy H To: ISPComment Subject: Toxic Air Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 8:54:03 PM

I walk a lot for my health and it really bothers me to be breathing the exhaust from vehicles, especially diesel smoke.

Nancy Hoecker From: Nate Hildebrand To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 2:44:32 PM

To the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

Lives and the quality of life in our communities are at stake, especially low-income areas that cannot afford their own home filtration systems. Businesses that use unfiltered trucks need to be forced to add filters or stopped from using the unfiltered trucks.

Thanks, Nate Hildebrand NE Portland, OR, Eliot Neighborhood From: Nate Hildebrand To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 3:20:26 PM

Dear members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

I live in NE Portland and my son has asthma - I wouldn't be surprised if his weakness of breath nowadays was due almost entirely to the heavy particulates in the Portland area he has lived in all his life.

Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation.

65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. and I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Adding filtering to transport trucks would be especially effective since there are a huge number of unfiltered trucks that drive through our area. Other cost-effective measures could include adding sapling trees (not full grown) to line city streets and not let them die by choking them with those heavy metal grates.

Thank you, Nate Hildebrand, Portland, OR From: Nona Gamel To: ISPComment Subject: Clean Air Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 7:44:23 AM

Dirty diesel is literally a matter of life and death for all of us who live in urban areas, but most importantly for the workers who are heavily exposed 8 hours or more daily. If California and Washington can clean up their diesel engines, so can Oregon.

Please help us all breathe cleaner air. Nona Gamel Portland Oregon From: Deb McGee and Patty Hine To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rules Petition Saturday, Date: January 18, 2020 3:00:13 PM

Jan. 18, 2020

Dear Karen Williams,

I am commenting in regard to the Indirect Source Rules Petition. As a citizen, I appreciate the opportunity to try to influence things that deeply affect my life.

As a career public school counselor working in low income neighborhood schools, I saw first hand the increase in asthma and other respiratory illness for children living with high levels of air pollution from cars, trucks and trains. The learning of these children was constantly interrupted by their health needs to take medications or respond to a crisis. People of color especially, suffer from the fact that industrial business are sited and zoned in neighborhoods they can afford to live in, not in the district where the university families live. This is the very definition of environmental injustice and inequality.

Personally, our family is transporting ourselves with our third electric car, having gone from a range of 20 miles in 2006, to a range of over 200 miles in 2017. When I “idle” my vehicle there are no particulates going into the lungs of my neighbors children or the atmosphere we depend upon for life. We must no longer be using diesel or gas engines. All energy for transportation, can and should be clean and renewable. Scientist tells us we must reduce fossil fuel use 50% in this next ten years. It is totally possible, if we make that choice.

For the sake of all living being, I urge you to do everything in your power to protect our precious planet for future generations. This is no time for business as usual. We are living on a dying planet with a climate crisis bearing down.

I hope you will do the right thing. In your heart, you know what that is.

Sincerely,

Debby McGee M.Ed, LPC Eugene, Oregon

(Pronouns: she/her/hers) From: paul keady To: ISPComment Subject: Off Road Diesel Control Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 1:04:52 PM

As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on-road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. In other words, indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines.

I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thanks, Paul Keady From: Paul Seer To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel Regulation (Item M) Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 6:23:38 AM

Dear Oregon EQC, I am a RN of 35 years and have spent most of my career in the Emergency Room setting. As such, I have been exposed to the the negative effects of many environmental pollutants on human beings in the form of asthma, cancer, COPD, allergies, etc. I have also had plenty of opportunity to read and research articles pertaining to specific pollutants and public health.

Below are excerpts from two research articles regarding the negative impact of diesel pollution on humans and particularly children. A simple search will reveal that the rates of childhood asthma continue to climb to the point where it is becoming increasingly common and is being described, by the medical community, as a childhood epidemic.

I firmly believe much can be done if diesel is regulated. You, as an agency. have the authority to do this, and it is clearly in the public interest to do so. I appreciate any efforts you make to do this, but would hope you would take the maximum measures possible.

Thank you!

Paul Seer, RN (Father of a four year old) Portland, OR

Diesel engines: environmental impact and control.

Lloyd AC1, Cackette TA.

Diesel emissions contribute to the development of cancer; cardiovascular and respiratory health effects; pollution of air, water, and soil; soiling; reductions in visibility; and global climate change. Where instituted, control programs have been effective in reducing diesel fleet emissions. Fuel changes, such as reduced sulfur and aromatics content, have resulted in immediate improvements across the entire diesel on- and off-road fleet, and promise more improvements with future control.

Chronic effects of air pollution on respiratory health in Southern California children: findings from the Southern California Children’s Health Study

Zhanghua Chen, Muhammad T. Salam, [...], and Frank D. Gilliland Outdoor air pollution is one of the leading contributors to adverse respiratory health outcomes in urban areas around the world. Children are highly sensitive to the adverse effects of air pollution due to their rapidly growing lungs, incomplete immune and metabolic functions, patterns of ventilation and high levels of outdoor activity. The Children’s Health Study (CHS) is a continuing series of longitudinal studies that first began in 1993 and has focused on demonstrating the chronic impacts of air pollution on respiratory illnesses from early childhood through adolescence. A large body of evidence from the CHS has documented that exposures to both regional ambient air and traffic-related pollutants are associated with increased asthma prevalence, new-onset asthma, risk of bronchitis and wheezing, deficits of lung function growth, and airway inflammation. These associations may be modulated by key genes involved in oxidative-nitrosative stress pathways via gene-environment interactions. Despite successful efforts to reduce pollution over the past 40 years, air pollution at the current levels still brings many challenges to public health. To further ameliorate adverse health effects attributable to air pollution, many more toxic pollutants may require regulation and control of motor vehicle emissions and other combustion sources may need to be strengthened. From: peggy Halloran To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Thursday, Date: February 6, 2020 11:15:20 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission

I want clean air for all Oregonians and diesel pollution in Oregon and/or Portland needs to be reduced. . I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Thank you Margaret Halloran Mcminnville, Oregon From: Peggy Shultz To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 2:23:16 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby

Regards,

Margaret C. Shultz From: Penny and Al Meiners To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 4:41:10 PM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

I am a member of the North Portland Air Quality Group. I live on the bluff above the Swan Island industrial area. There is a rail spur at the base of the bluff running out to the port terminals further west on the peninsula. Now that the Great Recession is over and the rail-yards packed and busy, trains are often left parked on that spur directly below my neighborhood. While the trains are parked the engines are not turned off. The diesel exhaust from those parked trains is not just a nuisance to my neighborhood it is a health hazard.

That is however a minor problem compared to the health risks my Great-niece and her fellow students face every day at the Harriet Tubman Middle School. The school is located adjacent to a nasty vortex of diesel exhaust from a large rail yard, a congested freeway, and port terminals along the Willamette. The air around the school is so harmful to the children's health and development that they are only allowed to play outside for 15-30 minutes a day. There are no outdoor PE classes. The school district did install an air filtration system in the school building so the inside air is safe to breath. That however is just a bandaid, most the children live within two miles of the school so when they go home they go back to breathing unhealthy levels of diesel exhaust and other pollutants. They need and deserve a real fix not just a bandaid.

I therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote YES: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your time,

Penny Meiners From: Peter Wilcox To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel Petition Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 9:18:59 AM

This proposed diesel regulator is a good thing - as long as it specifically excludes Renewable diesel (RD) made from at least 80% recycled waste. Per CARB’s study released in 2018, Renewable diesel reduces GHG’s by 60-90% (although some manufacturers are now making carbon neutral RD), PM’s by 30% or more (although several makers are now achieving 0% PM RD), and 95%+ reductions in SoX, NoX and other air pollutants. RD can be made from many types of plastic, MSW minus the metals that are conventionally recycled, cellulosic wastes like rotting sawdust, burned trees, fire safety thinnings, and pulp mill waste (“Black liquor”), among many others.

Capt. Peter Wilcox

Portland, OR From: Philip Bowser To: ISPComment Subject: public comment on petition to limit toxic diesel emessions Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:38:04 PM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am a retired senior living in SE Portland, a few blocks south of the Brooklyn rail yard and near the rail line that parallels the Max orange line tracks.

It is my understanding that you are considering a petition to establish regulations for toxic diesel emissions from non-road sources such as construction sites, distribution centers and rail yards.

I’ve read that diesel pollution is already present at unhealthy levels throughout the state, however the Portland metro area is particularly bad. It’s like — what—95th percentile for particulates as compared to the USA as a whole?

It seems to me that the petition seeks to implement sensible, health-based regulations to protect the health of all Oregonians. I’m writing to encourage you to especially consider the health of growing children in this area. For me, the damage has already been done. But you have a chance to significantly improve the health and vigor of the babies, young children, and youth of this area.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Philip B. Bowser Portland, OR 97202 From: Philip Ratcliff To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:46:56 PM

Dear Department of Environmental Quality Some thoughts on the Indirect Source Rule:

23 of 36 Oregon counties exceed our state health benchmark for diesel pollution, leading to an estimated 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually. Indirect sources away from main highways and roads account for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon’s urban centers. Oregon has the authority to take these steps to curb off-road diesel emissions from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, and rail yards.

Philip Ratcliff Salem OR From: R.B. Garden To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rules Petition, Comment Date: Saturday, February 1, 2020 11:28:49 AM

I'm asking the Environmental Quality Commission to adopt rules that regulate emissions from the construction and operation of Indirect Sources in cities with a population greater than 50,000, such as Eugene and Springfield, Oregon.

Examples of Indirect Sources:

Parking Facilities (including idling cars) Commercial & Industrial Facilities Sports & Recreational Facilities (Knight Center Neighborhood) Rail yards & Terminals (Eugene Union Pacific Yard idling locomotives) Excavation Projects > 8,000 sq. ft. (Hayward Field, Knight Science Center) Development Projects > $1 Mil. (UO and Downtown Eugene) Diesel Motor Vehicle Trips > 50 trips in 24 hr. period (Trucks on Beltline, NW Expressway, Prairie Road, N Coburg Road; Seneca Mill/ Teavan Log/ Murphy Plywood, Knife River Gravel, Wildish Construction)

All of these activities contribute to the indirect source of air pollution here in Lane Co. and around the state.

Thank you, Rouanna Garden Springfield, OR From: Rick Kronewitter To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Improve Indirect Source Rules Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:47:34 PM

February 10, 2020 Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission, My name is Rick Kronewitter. I have been a Portland resident for over 30 years. I am a happily married Husband and a very proud Dad of one amazing Daughter. I am writing you today as a troubled citizen to ask you to please reduce diesel pollution in our air, and across our great state. I am troubled because tragically our planet is sick, and in great peril. Everyday headlines detail new suffering wrought on various groups of people, animals, and plants, due to our rapidly changing climate. We are losing pollinators across Oregon and across our country at an alarming rate! Quite literally the birds and the bees are dying out -- on our watch! It’s not right. Please support the “Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution”, as submitted to this Commission on December 20, 2019, by the coalition of 20+ environmental organizations. It will bring diesel pollution levels down significantly in Oregon. Especially in Portland. Our air will be cleaner because major “indirect generators” of diesel pollution, like distribution centers, transportation hubs, and construction sites, will need to comply with higher air quality standards. To the same clean air standards other Oregon businesses already meet, and exceed. A very meaningful change to our state’s air quality. By supporting this petition in its entirety, you will send a clear message to our citizens you stand for a healthy, clean, and vibrant Oregon! You will show us you value clean air for all of our residents. Including our vanishing pollinators. Thank you for considering my views about the air we breathe. Respectfully submitted, Richard E. Kronewitter Portland, OR PS I fear we are approaching a tipping point where many plants will no longer be able to reproduce. With our families, our future generations, and our pollinators in mind, please support this petition. From: Rick Ray To: ISPComment Subject: off-road sources of toxic pollution Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:59:37 AM

Hello Commissioner,

Clean air is a top priority for our family.

Please enact an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. Direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

Rick Ray Portland From: Rob Oberdorfer To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:41:41 PM

I am writing in support of the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

-Rob Oberdorfer From: Robert Burch To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Commen Sunday, Date: February 2, 2020 12:36:25 PM

I just finished reading “Choked” by Beth Gardiner. I highly recommend it to every member of the Commission! It will be due diligence on the Commission’s part.

To the members of the Environmental Quality Commission:

Thank you for your work protecting air quality in Oregon. I'm Roberta Richards, a community college librarian in Portland.

One of the perks of my job is that I can learn about all sorts of topics as I assist students researching a range of topics. I was shocked to learn about the dangers of diesel pollution. The immediate harms include cancer, asthma, and a range of other conditions. The communities that suffer the greatest harm from diesel pollution are low income Oregonians with the fewest choices about where to live and go to school.

The long term harms of diesel pollution concerns how this form of carbon pollution is an especially potent greenhouse gas. With our planet perilously close to a tipping point, it is imperative that Oregon take strong action to limit the advance of climate change. So, I am writing in support of the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at your March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Many thanks, Roberta Richards, M.L.I.S., Ph.D. Portland, OR

“The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction.” ― Rachel Carson From: Roberta Robles To: ISPComment Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:45:08 AM

I support cleaner diesel and better air quality regulations. HB2007 is not enough

Thanks Roberta Robles From: [email protected] To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 2:36:00 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission.

My name is Roger H. Kofler and I live in Jennings Lodge Oregon. Diesel particulate pollution is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution to the health of Oregonians. Oregon lags behind both California and Washington in regulation of diesel pollution. This has made Oregon a dumping ground for diesel engines that no longer meet the standards of our neighboring states. A large percentage of diesel pollution comes from indirect sources, such as construction jobs. I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for reading my comment.

Roger H. Kofler Portland Oregon From: Rosalie McDougall To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Yes for clean air! Yes for indirect source petition! Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 4:59:04 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission:

Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera the commission’s assistant: [email protected]

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

North Portland Air Quality Activist supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: please direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thanks,

Rosalie McDougall

Portland, OR From: Ruth Dallas To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 5:30:17 PM

Dear Oregon Environmental Quality Commissionersel,

My name is Ruth Dallas. I live at ******, Gaston, OR. I am writing to ask that you to support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon.

As a person with asthma and a mother of a child with asthma I worry about how these diesel fumes make breathing more difficult for us and other people with respiratory issues.

Thank you for considering my opinions.

Ruth Dallas From: Ryan Vanden Brink To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect source rule making petition comment Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 11:42:45 AM

Dear Chair George and EQC members,

Please vote in favor of the indirect source citizen’s petition and direct the DEQ to initiate rule making to control air pollution from indirect sources. This rule should be based in science, apply at least in urban areas and for any facilities that cause increased health risks, and require the facilities to control and reduce their emissions and concentrations to levels that do not cause health risks, without regard to cost of compliance. Just as the current rule applies to and attempts to address construction of parking lots in urban areas, each of the facilities listed in the petition, during both construction and operation, should be required to calculate and study the effects of their emissions, including black carbon, diesel, greenhouse gases, and other listed or regulated pollutants. Where these exceed the lower of either current regulatory levels or cause increased health and welfare risks, these facilities should be regulated and the emissions controlled. As stated in the petition and supporting materials, the concentration of mobile sources at and around these facilities creates a health hazard and contributes to higher concentration of pollutants, particularly in urban areas. Vulnerable populations are often at risk at the very facilities, taking educational and hospital facilities as examples, and by virtue of being neighbors to other facilities. Local governments and citizens are constrained in addressing these problems, which is why I ask you to initiate rule making. As I understand the process, the DEQ does not need to adopt the proposed rule, but the EQC should direct the DEQ should adopt a rule at least as strong as the one proposed in order to protect Oregonians.

Thank you,

Ryan Vanden Brink --- Ryan Vanden Brink Intelekia Law Group LLC Portland, OR From: S. L. To: ISPComment Cc: REP Nosse; SEN Taylor Subject: Indirect sources comment Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 3:39:34 PM Attachments: BAC - Indirect sources rule DEQ comments.pdf

Hello,

I stand with the Brooklyn Action Corp's position on the indirect sources rule. As a resident of a neighborhood with some of the worst air pollution in Portland, regulating indirect sources is of the utmost importance to me and, I hope, a high priority for the legislators representing me.

Thank you, Sarah Lombardi From: Sally Riley To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel toxins Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:10:27 PM

As a mother of a child with asthma when he gets colds, I am hoping that you can make stricter air quality laws to help protect our children from toxic diesel emissions. Thank you for your help, - Sally Riley From: Samia Estassi To: ISPComment Subject: Comments on Diesel Pollution Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 4:46:39 PM

Dear DEQ:

It is time to hold huge, pollution-emitting projects responsible for reducing air pollution to protect human health.

As a concerned citizen, I care about the health of all Oregonians. I urge you to finalize this commonsense rule to regulate indirect mobile sources.

Sincerely,

Samia Estassi Portland, OR From: SANDRA MEUCCI To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 3:05:42 PM

Dear members of Environmental Quality Commission -

I understand we have an opportunity to curb carbon emissions by more tightly regulating diesel emissions. I live in Portland Oregon. Diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reductions = immediate climate benefits. We need to be on the advance against these known harms.

I have been made aware that a coalition of 21 organizations has submitted a petition to the Department of Environmental Quality asking the state to expand its outdated indirect source rule and create a new one to cover large construction sites, distributions centers, rail yards and other indirect sources that are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon.

I support this petition and request to direct Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you

Sandra Meucci, Ph.D. Tobacco Policy Specialist Portland, Oregon From: Sandy Joos To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 2:46:03 PM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission: Kathleen George, Chair; Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair; Greg Addington, Molly Kile, and Wade Mosby cc: Stephanie Caldera, Commission assistant RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution FROM: Sandra Joos, Portland, OR

I am writing to express my support for the effort to ask Oregon to exercise its existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote “Yes”, and direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. From: Sandy Joos To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:03:02 PM

Dear members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

I am writing because I want clean air for all Oregonians and diesel pollution in Oregon and Portland needs to be reduced. Currently, diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation.

The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. Communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots.

Diesel also is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2. Reducing diesel pollution would have immediate climate benefits. Because 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards, these need to be addressed directly in any rules to control diesel emissions.

Therefore, I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution, which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I also urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely,

Sandra Joos

Portland, OR From: Sarah Moses To: ISPComment Subject: Diesel emissions Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:11:07 AM

I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sarah Moses From: Scott Hillson To: ISPComment Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 10:24:27 PM

I support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. From: Sooney Viani To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Partition Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:07:54 PM

To the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby

As a tax-payer in Oregon, since 1990, I want my state to have high standards for air quality. I want my state to protect me, my child, all children, old folks, .... everyone, from toxic air. Diesel emissions can be terrible even in my own backyard in Ashland! Walking on a street or gardening, sometimes I get away from the fumes fast enough. Please protect citizens and visitors from diesel exhaust in both high population and rural areas.

Thank you,

Susan Viani Ashland From: Spencer Ehrman To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:20:04 AM

TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Kathleen George, Chair Sam Baraso, Vice-Chair Greg Addington Molly Kile Wade Mosby

Chair George and Commission Members:

In May of 2013 City Club of Portland published its report on Air Toxics. Shortly thereafter, the research committee and I presented that report to the EQC. Among its conclusions, the report stated that Diesel engines are one of the leading sources of Toxics in the Portland Metro Air-shed, second only to wood smoke.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Spencer Ehrman From: Spencer Kroll To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:27:34 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Spencer Kroll and I live in the East Columbia neighborhood of Portland.

I am writing you as a plea for stricter requirements regarding diesel particulates and other harmful pollutants that are emanating from what are commonly referred to as 'indirect sources'.

As I had mentioned, I live in the East Columbia neighborhood of Portland. This is an area surrounded by the Columbia Slough and in the former Columbia River floodplain. It is a wonderful wetland area that has a tremendous amount of biodiversity for its immediate location within the City of Portland.

It is also home to a huge agglomeration of truck yards and distribution centers that are miserable neighbors. Apart from being incredibly noisy and producing a huge amount of unmitigated runoff, these lots create an absurd amount of diesel pollution that affect me on a daily basis. The effect from being surrounded by the indirect source yards is so bad that on days with heavy fog or inversions, I can barely walk outside without coughing, gagging or feeling actively poisoned. I am an otherwise healthy 32 year old adult and I worry that living in this area, that despite being so beautiful, is slowly killing me and my neighbors because of these fine diesel particulates.

This isn't just about me. This is about all Oregonians having clean air, especially children and folks without healthy immune systems. Nobody should be forced to breath in these toxic pollutants just because of the neighborhood they live in. Diesel pollution in Portland and all of Oregon needs to be reduced drastically. In the year 2020, there is no excuse for this to continue other than blind corruption, blatant greed and abject cruelty.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge you, the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at your March 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. I am tired of feeling like my leaders would rather take money from polluters than enact practical legislation and guidelines to prevent me and my fellow citizens from getting cancer (with such a miserable health system in this country) and inevitably dying. Please stop letting companies kill us.

Please do the right thing. Thank you for your time.

Best,

Spencer Kroll Portland, OR From: Stan Jewett To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect source air pollution Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 10:22:08 AM

Now is the time to introduce new rules to reduce diesel fumes in the Portland area. In Portland 20% of the state's population is exposed to diesel fume concentrations up to 10 times the state's health-based standard. Please act promptly and decisively to reduce this expensive health hazard.

Stan Jewett Portland area From: Stephanie M. Glazer To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment - Oregonians Deserve Clean Air! Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:37:05 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

I urge you to act now to improve air quality for ALL Oregonians. I have read that Indirect Sources of diesel account for some 65% of diesel air pollution in OR--a massive amount of pollution given how much horrible diesel pollution I see from point sources on the highway!

Ending diesel pollution is an urgent issue and deserves immediate and definitive action. Why are our lungs and our children's lungs valued less than those in other states? In other states, like California, dirty diesel engines (pre-2007) have long since been phased out and transitioned to cleaner engines. Yet Oregon did nothing to prevent Californians from selling all of their old, dirty engines here in Oregon. We deserve better!

I live with my family in the Greater Portland Metro area, and having come from the Bay Area, I am continually shocked by the amount of toxic smoke being sprayed into my face daily, by trucks, landscaping equipment, construction equipment, etc.

I strongly support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely, Stephanie Glazer From: Stephen Bachhuber To: ISPComment Subject: Proposed Indirect Source Rule Thursday, Date: January 23, 2020 10:58:32 AM

To the DEQ: I am a retired physician who specialized in anesthesiology including pulmonary medicine. I live in southeast Portland's Brooklyn neighborhood with my extended family. I write to you in support of the proposed Indirect Source Rule developed by the Green Energy Institute and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center at Lewis and Clark Law School.

Mobile source emissions are a serious threat to human health, climate, and the natural environment, particularly in southeast Portland. Our neighborhood is surrounded by Highway 26 to the north, the Brooklyn Rail Yards to the east, McLoughlin Blvd. (Highway 99) to the west, and Holgate Blvd. to the south. Diesel emissions in my neighborhood are dangerously high from truck traffic, construction, trains, and especially the rail yards and its associated truck traffic. Multnomah county ranks worst in the state for unhealthy diesel pollution concentrations, and our tri-county area is in the 95th percentile for exposure nationally. Brooklyn neighborhood suffers disproportionately.

The health effects of diesel pollution are recognized and undisputed. The DEQ's own reports show that diesel pollution causes lung and bladder cancer, certain heart attacks, other blood clotting diseases, coronary artery disease, malignant childhood brain tumors, decreased cognitive functioning, increased incidence of ALS, acute bronchitis, and asthma. The cost of the health impacts in Oregon due to diesel pollution exceeds $3 billion annually. Among my own family and neighbors I observe increased incidence of respiratory illness, sinusitis, cough, and phlegm compared to more suburban neighborhoods that I have lived in previously.

Air quality regulations must be health based. The indirect source rule is a unique approach that has had success elsewhere, and falls within the existing State and Federal legal framework. I strongly support the DEQ in the regulation of total diesel emissions from places like construction sites, distribution centers and rail yards. This is a practical and immediate way to minimize the disastrous effects of diesel pollution. It will not only help us reach our climate goals, it will dramatically improve public health, and reduce costs overall. Please institute the Proposed Indirect Source Rule.

Sincerely,

Stephen Bachhuber, M.D. Portland, OR From: Stephen Funk To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 9:33:32 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Stephen Funk, I live in Portland, Oregon.

I am writing to advocate for clean air for all Oregonians, and that diesel pollution in Portland needs to be reduced. It is especially concerning that communities of color are hit the hardest by diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots.

Sincerely, Stephen Funk From: Steve Nugent To: ISPComment Cc: Steve Nugent; 350 org Indirect Subject: Source Rule Comment Friday, Date: February 7, 2020 10:43:20 AM

Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

I live in Central Oregon at Black Butte Ranch. My community experiences construction projects continually since we have a lot of infrastructure that requires maintenance, updating and replacing. I also shop weekly in Bend, Oregon.

In Central Oregon it is mostly rural, however there is a lot of construction employment by small companies. Most of the workers from these companies own diesel pickups. The continuous construction projects at BBR create significant diesel fumes, from the lifts, cranes, excavators, electric generators and many of the workers sitting in their diesel trucks on-site having lunch while their engines are running.

BBR has a small project in process currently to replace our General Store. For this small house-size building, there are two large diesel lifts, one of which runs all day long. There is a large diesel generator that runs 24/7. There was a smaller one in addition early in the project for providing power to their construction shack. That also ran 24/7. There is also a forklift and almost always a backhoe or front-loader on the site, also running all day long. These are large diesels that undoubtedly do not conform to the new diesel emissions standards. I can smell the pollution from this site a block away, near the post office and administration building. These ranch employees are undoubtedly exposed to high levels of diesel particulates at times.

We also have a parking lot where trucks stop to register across the street from the Welcome Center so they can get through the gates at BBR. Every large diesel tractor-trailer or flat-bed runs their engine in park while they walk across the street from their vehicle to register, violating ORS 825.605.

When I am in Bend, there are literally hundreds of parking lots where 10% of the vehicles are parked and idling, including Costco, Walmart and other large parking lots. About half of these are diesel pickups. The parking lot at Target almost always has a Salvation Army truck parked idling the entire time they are there collecting used items.

Somehow, the residents of Central Oregon have not gotten the message that diesel fumes are carcinogenic and the second leading cause of Global Warming. Central Oregon is one place where you would think that fresh air would be plentiful, but it is literally difficult to get away from the polluters. I moved here for the clean air, but I’m finding that between the diesels and the wildfires that it is as bad as Portland at times.

We need some kind of regulation to reduce this pollution. The Indirect Source Rules are one way to make improvements and I fully support them.

Steve Nugent Black Butte Ranch, OR From: Susan Palmiter To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 9:28:58 PM

Dear Environmental Quality Commission members:

I have been a Portland resident for almost 30 years and I'm deeply concerned about the air quality in Portland metropolitan area. Because laws in Washington and California are more stringent, our citizens are having more breathing issues due to diesel emissions. And why should we have some of the worst exposure issues in the country? Portland can do BETTER!

In addition, the exhaust from diesel is extremely harmful to the Climate. Diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days. Reducing diesel NOW, will help to slow down climate change.

A solid 2/3rds of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards. That's got to stop!

I fervently support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for diesel emissions in Oregon. AND I urge Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions

Thank you for your attention to this important new rule. If you don't take care of it, who will?

Susan Palmiter Portland OR

"If your mind were only a slightly greener thing, we would drown you in meaning." from "The Overstory" by Richard Powers From: Tanya Schaefer To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition. Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 2:15:12 PM

But the trucks you see on the highway aren’t all that we should be worrying about. Off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon.

As a result of the federal Clean Air Act’s preemption provisions, Oregon’s authority to directly regulate emissions from both new and existing nonroad vehicles and engines, such as off-road construction equipment, is limited. States, however, are not restricted from adopting indirect source rules that regulate the aggregate emissions produced by on- road or nonroad mobile sources within the boundaries of an indirect source. An indirect source is a physical location that attracts or may attract mobile sources of air pollution, e.g., buildings, parking lots, construction sites, highways, ports, and rail yards. Indirect source rules regulate the aggregate emissions produced by mobile sources within an indirect source’s boundaries, without directly regulating the emissions from individual vehicles and engines.

I urge you to exercise your existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in Oregon. Vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you, Tanya Schaefer Portland, OR From: Teresa McFarland To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:06:22 PM

Dear members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission:

My name is Teresa McFarland from Portland, Oregon.

I am very concerned about air pollution, especially diesel pollution, because of my young grandson who needs to breathe!

I want clean air for all Oregonians and I demand a large reduction in diesel pollution.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon.

I strongly urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely, Dr. Teresa McFarland, Portland, Oregon From: Terese Kelly To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 8:51:33 AM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Terese Kelly and I have been a resident of NE Portland for 25 years. In 2018 it was determined that Portland had the second worst air quality of any major U.S. city. It is now 2020. Given that our air is so toxic, why do we not have more stringent regulations around diesel emissions?

Diesel emissions contribute to the development of cancer; cardiovascular and respiratory health effects; pollution of air, water, and soil, and climate change. Given the appalling effects of this type of pollution, the disproportionate effects on communities of color and the City of Portland's stated mission of implementing measure to address climate change, I completely support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution.

Terese Kelly Northeast Portland From: The Nielsons and McClays To: ISPComment Subject: Oregon Air Quality Date: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:52:42 AM

I’ve been diagnosed as at high risk for pulmonary fibrosis, so I’m very aware of what everyone should already know: air quality is a matter of life and a slow, unpleasant death, or at least loss of quality of life. Suffice it to say, my family supports the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority topromulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated andinadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. We urge the Environmental Quality Commissionto vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect SourceRulemaking to control diesel emissions

Sincerely, The Nielsons and McClays From: Tim Donovan To: ISPComment Subject: Public Comments Re: Diesel Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:44:28 AM

As a resident of NE portland, there are some unavoidable sources of diesel emissions. However, with the volume of construction in the area for the foreseeable future we need to work to mitigate exposure for all populations, mostly the very young and elderly.

Tim Donovan From: Timothy Stinson To: ISPComment Subject: Expand & Enforce Indirect Source Rule (ISR) Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:44:24 AM

DEQ,

I live in Albany, OR, near the railroad yard there, & frequently experience the diesel pollution produced by rail locomotives that operate there. Also, exhaust from construction & farm equipment. Also, even though this kind of vehicle isn't calculated as among the 65% of causes, the proliferation of diesel-powered private vehicles, i.e., light trucks & SUV's, increasingly contributes to the problem.

Thank you for any action by DEQ to mitigate this through more stringent controls, & increased enforcement.

Sincerely, Timothy Stinson From: Tracy Burkholder To: ISPComment Subject: Regulate toxic emissions Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:02:53 AM

Dear Commissioners,

Sincerely,

Tracy Burkholder From: Trish Bowcock To: ISPComment Subject: Proposed indirect diesel emission source rule. Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:16:50 AM

I wholly support of the effort underway asking Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state.

I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes and direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Diesel emissions are attributed to a host of serious lung illnesses and cancers. Taking this course of action will contribute to the well-being of Oregon’s citizens.

Thank you,

Patricia Bowcock

Portland OR From: Tyler Wagner To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for new pollution rules Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 9:24:28 PM

Our current air pollution levels result in significant health costs, especially to our most vulnerable populations such as children and senior citizens. They also impact marginalized communities such as communities of color and low-income communities disproportionately. These negative health effects also have a harmful effect on the economy through premature deaths and illnesses. With these significant negative effects, it is important that we reduce the impact of air pollution.

I therefore support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to move forward an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely,

Tyler Wagner Portland resident St. Andrew Catholic Church parishioner From: Usha Noble To: ISPComment Subject: The Indirect Source Rule making to control diesel emissions- vote yes Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 10:01:05 AM

Dear members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Usha Noble and I live in NE Portland where there are construction sites and trucking routes all around where I live and work. Diesel pollution creates a direct health impact on our community and has a serious negative impact on the climate. 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources like construction sites, distribution centers and rail yards.

I support the petition to adopt rules regarding these indirect sources of air pollution and urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregons Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rule making to control diesel emissions.

Sincerely, Usha Noble, Portland From: Vance Kimball To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Thursday, Date: February 13, 2020 10:25:35 AM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name's Vance Kimball and I live in Beaverton, Oregon. I'm writing to comment on the expansion of the Indirect Source Rule. As you probably know, diesel pollution is at unhealthy levels throughout Oregon. It is especially bad in Portland, where we have one of the worst exposure rates in the nation. The health impacts of diesel pollution include asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, premature death and low birthweight. Unfortunately communities of color experience disproportionate health impacts from diesel pollution because of the location of pollution hotspots. Furthermore, diesel is a climate killer with 3,000 times the intensity of CO2 but only stays in the air for a few days, which means reducing it will have immediate climate benefits. Since 65% of diesel emissions come from indirect sources such as construction sites, distribution centers, rail yards, I believe that expansion of the Indirect Source Rule is vital to the health of our people and planet. That's why I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution and urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you,

Vance A. Kimball Beaverton, OR From: Vicki in North Portland To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air - Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:51:13 PM

I urge Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state.

Vicki in North Portland From: Virginia Feldman To: ISPComment Subject: Controlling Diesel emissions Tuesday, Date: January 21, 2020 3:50:02 PM

Dear Commissioners: Since up to 73% of diesel pollution comes from off-road sources, present rules, & even the new law do not regulate the toxic diesel emissions from non-road sources. So much of our diesel pollution is caused by rail yards, locomotives that are parked and idling at rail yards, and even marine terminals and other hubs like distribution centers that attract a lot of mobile emissions to one place. So, I urge you to support the effort underway to ask Oregon to exercise existing authority to promulgate an effective indirect source rule to control diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state. Two thirds ( 23 of 36) of our counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution. This ongoing diesel pollution would cause, in the future, an estimate of 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with a cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually.

So...I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes: direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for listening Dr. Virginia Feldman MD Portland, OR From: Virginia Wiseman To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Saturday, February 8, 2020 4:27:14 PM

Dear Members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

I'm a Portland resident and bicyclist. I am writing in strong support of the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. I urge you to vote yes at your March meeting in order to direct DEQ to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

As someone that chooses to bike to work on a daily basis for both environmental and health reasons, I find it ironic that in trying to curb my own pollution and to stay in shape, I am actually compromising my own health by choking on others' pollution. All Oregonians deserve fresh, clean air to breathe in their daily lives. Please take action to move us in that direction.

Virginia Portland, OR --

Virginia Wiseman From: Vivian Christensen To: ISPComment Cc: CALDERA Stephanie Subject: Yes for the indirect source petition Date: Friday, February 14, 2020 3:31:33 PM

Dear members of the DQE,

I am asking that you please recognize the Indirect Source Petition. My family lives in SE Portland not far from Brooklyn Yard which is a truck to train transfer facility. We are exposed diesel exhaust on an ongoing basis. Diesel pollution causes cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, preterm birth, and respiratory illness such as asthma. Recent research has now demonstrated a link between Alzheimer’s and exposure to diesel pollution. Oregon has the sixth highest level of diesel emissions in the country. In Multnomah County, the average diesel pollution level is 10 times more than Oregon’s established health benchmark. Currently, Oregon’s health benchmark is 30 times less protective than California and Washington. We can do better than this. While polluters will claim that to strengthen regulations will mean increased costs for business and ultimately job loss for many, I hope you will consider that it is the public that currently shoulders the burden of maintaining the status quo with our health, increased healthcare costs, lost wages, and our quality of life. The public health costs of diesel pollution for Oregon is over 3 billion dollars per year. My son was diagnosed with asthma when he was just five years old. He has had to deal with missed school days, visits to the emergency room, and countless visits to his pediatrician. My son's asthma has also cost our family thousands of dollars in out of pocket expenses for his medical care and has resulted in missed work days for both me and my husband. I hope you will take the health of Oregonians in to account when making your decision whether to strengthen protections against diesel pollution by recognizing the Indirect Source Petition.

Thank you for your consideration,

Vivian Christensen

SE Portland From: Walt Mintkeski To: ISPComment Subject: Commence Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:46:44 AM

To: Members of the Environmental Quality Commission of Oregon, In areas of high population concentration in Oregon, such as the Portland metropolitan area, pollution from diesel-fueled vehicles and engines presents a significant risk to public health. In fact, 23 of 36 counties exceed the state health benchmark for diesel pollution, and are estimated to cause: 400+ premature deaths, 140+ non-fatal heart attacks, and 25,000+ lost work days, with an aggregate cost of $3.6 Billion dollars annually.

Off-road sources such as equipment used at construction sites, marine terminals and rail yards are responsible for as much as 65% of diesel emissions in our urban centers in Oregon.

Thank you, Walt Mintkeski Portland, OR From: Walter Englert To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Friday, Date: February 7, 2020 10:58:13 AM

Dear Members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Walter Englert, and I live in Portland. I live not far from the Brooklyn Rail Yard in SE Portland, and frequently ride my bicycle by the rail yard. I am very concerned about the diesel pollution from the train engines and diesel trucks that deliver their loads to the rail yard many times a day.

I was shocked and saddened when I learned a year ago that Portland has one of the worst exposure rates to diesel pollution in the nation. Neighboring states have begun serious crackdowns on diesel pollution, while Oregon, and especially Portland, lags behind. As I am sure you know, diesel pollution has very detrimental effects on people, resulting in increased risks for cancer, asthma, cardiovascular disease, and higher death rates.

We must reduce diesel emissions as quickly as possible, and for this reason I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution. At your March 2020 meeting, I urge you to begin the indirect source rule making to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your attention and time.

Yours,

Walter Englert Portland, OR From: Wendy Kempfer To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 7:03:51 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

As a Northwest Portland resident, I know that my neighbors and I could be directly affected by lax regulation of diesel pollution. Please vote to expand the Indirect Source Rules so that indirect sources are regulated and significantly reduced. Like all fossil fuel-related emissions, our goal should be to eliminate them completely as rapidly as we can, for the sake of our health and the climate.

Wendy Kempfer Portland, OR 97209 TO: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission: Kathleen George, Chair; Sam Baraso, Vice- Chair; Greg Addington; Molly Kile; and Wade Mosby

CC: Stephanie Caldera, Commission Assistant

FROM: Wesley T. Ward, Portland, OR

DATE: February 12, 2020

RE: Petition to Adopt Rules Regarding Indirect Sources of Air Pollution

I respectfully request that the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission promulgate an effective Indirect Source Rule controlling diesel emissions from otherwise unregulated and inadequately regulated pollution sources in our state and especially in Oregon’s largest metropolitan areas and large cities. We urge the EQC to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence Indirect Source Rulemaking as soon as possible. About 42,000 people live in the six neighborhoods around the Brooklyn Railyard. Over recent years, Union Pacific has expanded the Railyard’s operations to incorporate container trans-shipment that formerly took place in the Albina Railyard in North Portland. The Brooklyn Railyard services freight trains and an estimated 600 heavy diesel trucks daily from Monday through Friday, with smaller numbers on Saturdays. PDOT traffic counts in 2017 indicate 2,000 – 2,500 heavy and medium trucks crossing Ross Island Bridge from the west daily; many of these trucks turn south of McLoughlin Boulevard and are drawn to the Railyard’s main entrance on SE Holgate Blvd; others are drawn to the industrial area bordering the Railyard, mainly on its east side. Direct observation at the main Holgate entrance in the summer of 2019 suggests that a substantial share of trucks entering the Railyard are older than 2007 and are therefore unlikely to be filtered. In addition, heavy construction equipment at numerous sites frequently affects our southeast Portland neighborhoods. Neighbors who monitor PM 2.5 levels with portable Sensorbot monitoring devices, and who also receive DEQ’s PM data stream from its SE Lafayette monitoring station between DE 57th and 60th Avenues, note that PM 2.5 levels surrounding the Railyard are often substantially higher than DEQ-measured levels about 3 miles to the east. Those DEQ-measured levels are generally 50 to 250 times the state’s PM 2.5 benchmark. My specific suggestion is that the Indirect Source rule mandate continual monitoring by owners and operators of sites that are designated under the rule. The PM 2.5 modeling available to neighbors has been important in raising consciousness about this threat, but it is also important to monitor specific sources. Such monitoring, like DEQ’s data streams, must be available publicly. It is incredible to me that Union Pacific was allowed to expand its Brooklyn Railyard with no requirement to monitor its emissions. My understanding is that DEQ is in the process of installing professional monitors in the vicinity of the Railyard on its east side (one near its southern exit at SE Harold Street) and near SE McLoughlin Boulevard and Haig Street. But it will still be impossible to know to what extent particulate matter emanates from the Railyard or from heavy truck traffic on SE McLoughlin. Only a monitor within the Railyard itself will tell the story. HB 2007 promises gradually to reduce on-road diesel emissions, but it will have no effect on the large number of out-of-state trucks using Brooklyn Railyard, and it exempts trucks in fleets of five or fewer trucks. Meanwhile, the technologically unnecessary assault of diesel pollution on our neighborhood residents continues. Medical research implicates diesel pollution in a wide range of painful, debilitating, and costly conditions and diseases, including ADHD and dementia. As Dr. Erica Moseson, a pulmonologist and President of the Oregon Thoracic Society, stated at the EQC hearing on January 24, 2020, “There is no free air pollution.” We all pay for the human and economic costs of this pollution, especially those who can least afford these costs. I strongly urge the Environmental Quality Commission to use its existing authority to adopt an effective Indirect Source Rule, which is an urgently needed step toward decreasing the unacceptably high levels of harmful diesel emissions in our neighborhoods. Thank you for giving the petition serious consideration.

From: Will Lambeth To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 8:29:34 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Will Lambeth and I live in Portland.

As you may know, areas of Portland (including my own) are reported by OPB to rank in the bottom 10% of the entire country for diesel pollution. These pollutants are widely known to cause serious health issues including cancer, asthma, and multiple forms of brain, heart, and lung damage, particularly in our city's children. Diesel also has the effect of greatly worsening our climate crisis, with greenhouse effects 3,000 times those of carbon dioxide.

I've lived over 30 years in this city, and continue to be an avid cyclist for both work and pleasure - however, there are many days in recent years (both summer and winter) where the air quality has been too poor to partake in this activity, or when I've had to knowingly put my health at risk by choosing to bike to work with unsafe air. It absolutely breaks my heart to see the beautiful and pristine outdoors our state is known for in such a degraded state.

That said, this problem is solvable. Over 65% of diesel pollution comes from indirect sources, and this is why I am a strong supporter of the Northwest Environmental Defense Center's petition to expand our state's Indirect Source Rule. I emphatically urge you, the Commission, to vote yes in March and direct the Department of Environmental Quality to commence Indirect Source Rulemaking and control diesel emissions. The city I love, our state, and our planet cannot afford anything less.

Thank you,

Will Lambeth Portland From: yvonne Vleer To: ISPComment Subject: Yes for Clean Air, Yes for the Indirect Source Petition Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 3:47:19 PM

Please consider the Health of Oregon residents. Yes for Clean Air, and Yes for the indirect source petition. Hope you as the state will protect us from toxic air!!

Thank you,

Yvonne Vleer Portland, Or 97202 From: Zinnia Cardamomum To: ISPComment Subject: Please protect clean air. Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 6:57:10 PM

Dear Members of the Environmental Quality Commission, Hello! As parents wanting healthy futures for our children, we advocate for investing in clean air and clean healthy communities and ecosystems. We strongly support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon. AND that you urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions. Take good care, Mark and Zinnia C. From: Zoe Blatter To: ISPComment Subject: Indirect Source Rule Comment Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:36:24 PM

Dear members of the Environmental Quality Commission,

My name is Zoe Blatter and I live in North Portland. Whether commuting to work or talking my newborn on neighborhood walks, I notice trucks and equipment spewing diesel pollution all over the place. As Portlanders and Oregonians we pride ourselves on having such a green image, yet we do very little to actively fight the overbearing dependence of fossil fuels that’s destroying our land, air, and water ways.

As a positive step toward fixing this broken system, I support the petition to adopt rules regarding indirect sources of air pollution which are responsible for 65% of diesel emissions in Oregon and I urge the Environmental Quality Commission to vote yes at their March 2020 meeting: to direct Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality to commence the Indirect Source Rulemaking to control diesel emissions.

Thank you for your time, Zoe Blatter, Portland, OR