Please replace the mailed copy of the Report sent by post on April 30, 2013 with this copy for your files.

We regret the copying and formatting errors that occurred and hope that you found the emailed version accurate, especially the formula portions.

Sincerel

A

Corky artinkovic

Planning & Analysis Division Manager

Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Evaluation ofInnovative Control Measures and Existing

Maricopa County Control Measures

Contained in the MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM10for the

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area

lii Fulfillment of Maricopa County

Board of Supervisor Resolution

C-85-12-006-M-00, dated Nov. 16, 2011

Prepared by

Planning and Analysis Division

Maricopa County Air Quality Department

April 2013
3.1 Inspections of Sources Subject to Rule 310 2

3.2 Rule 310 Violations 23.3 Rule 310 Rule Effectiveness 2

4. Rule 316: Nonmetallic Mineral Processing 3

4.1 Inspections of Sources Subject to Rule 316 3

4.2 Rule 316 Violations 3

4.3 Rule 316 Rule Effectivenesss 3

5. Rule 310.01: Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust

5.1 Inspections of Sources Subject to Rule 310.01 3

5.2 Rule 310.01 Violations 3

5.3 Rule3lO.OlRuleEffectiveness 4

6. Conclusions 4

Appendices

A. Determination of Emission-based vs. Procedural Violations A-i

B. Resolution to Evaluate Measures in the MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan

for PM10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area B-i
(

) 

e Clean Air Act, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 2012 Five Percent Planfor PM-JOfor the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (Five Percent Plan) on May 25, 2012.

To meet the annual five percent reduction requirement in Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Five Percent Plan quantified PM10 emission reductions by taking credit for increases in rule effectiveness for Maricopa County Rules 310 (Fugitive Dust from Dust Generating Operations), 310.01 (Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust) and 316 (Nonmetallic Mineral Processing). The increases in rule effectiveness are attributable to increases in compliance rates, enforcement activities, and enhanced public outreach and education activities. The five percent reductions also include the benefits for one new measure, the ADEQ Dust Action General Permit, which was expected to raise rule effectiveness of Maricopa County Rule 310.01 by one percent in 2012. Credit for this new measure is allowed under the EPA guidance, Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan.

In November 2011, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors committed to develop and assess the effectiveness ofthe innovative control program implemented through ADEQ’s dust generation forecast and new Dust Action General Permit. This assessment comprises a rule effectiveness study on Rule 310.01 for calendar year 2012.

In addition to the Rule 310.01 rule effectiveness study, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department assessed rule effectiveness in calendar year 2012 for other existing dust control rules: Rule 310 and Rule 316. As required by A.R.S § 49-406 G., the County documented its commitment to conduct a rule effectiveness study for the three dust control rules in a Board of Supervisors’ resolution. This document satisfies the requirements detailed in Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ Resolution to Evaluate Measures in the Ji’L4G 2012 Five Percent Planfor PM10for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area. The resolution is contained in Appendix B.

2. Study Purpose and Methodology

Three individual rule effectiveness studies were conducted to document that the anticipated PM10 emissions reductions were achieved during calendar year 2012 for Rules 310, 310.01, and 316. Additionally, the rule effectiveness study will demonstrate whether the new innovative control program (ADEQ Dust Action General Permit) increased rule effectiveness of Rule 310.01 by one percent in 2012.

The department, in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), created the methodology for the rule effectiveness studies analyzing the impacts of Rules 310, 310.01, and 316. The rule effectiveness studies were designed to assess the percentage of inspected sources, during the subject time period, which did not received any PM10 emission-related violations. The 2012 rule effectiveness studies used the same methods and procedures as those studies previously conducted and included in the Five Percent Plan.
fSources with an Emission-based Violation

Rule effectiveness = 1 — I Total Sources Inspected

3. Rule 310: Fugitive Dust from Dust-Generating Operations

3.1 Inspections of Sources Subject to Rule 310

The department’s Environmental Management System (EMS) was queried for information on the 6,034

inspections of earthmoving sources conducted during 2012. Any inspection that was categorized as“close-out” or “ineffective visit” was removed from further analysis as these types ofinspections are not

designed to determine compliance with Rule 310. The remaining inspection records were then reduced to

a “per-permit” basis to document the number of unique earthmoving sources with an inspection that wasdesigned to determine compliance with Rule 310. This resulted in a total of 2,971 distinct sources

inspected during 2012.

3.2 Rule 310 Violations

Department records show that 442 violations were issued to earthmoving sources in 2012. Any violations

that were later rescinded, or determined to be unrelated to earthmoving activities, were removed from

further analysis.

The remaining violation data was then analyzed to determine ifthe violation was emission-based or

procedural. Rule violations documenting a source’s compliance with emissions or control measure

application were considered emission-based. For example, a recordkeeping violation for failing to recordthe amount and location of water used to stabilize an earthmoving site was considered an emission-based

violation.

The emission-based violation data was then reduced to a “per permit” basis to document the number of

unique earthmoving sources with an emission-based violation.

The total number of earthmoving sources that received an emission-based violation for the Rule 310 rule

effectiveness study was 216.

3.3 Rule 310 Rule Effectiveness

The Rule 310 rule effectiveness for 2012 was calculated as:

iSources with an Emission-based Violation ‘ 216

Rule effectiveness = 1 — I I = 1 — = 0.9273 Total Sources Inspected 1 2,971

Rounding to the nearest percent, the rule effectiveness for Rule 310 in 2012 was 93%.

2
p

g 

spection that was designed to determine compliance with Rule 316. This resulting in a total of 155 distinct sources inspected during 2012.

4.2 Rule 316 Violations

Department records show that 104 violations were issued to nonmetallic mineral processing source in 2012. Any violations that were later rescinded, or determined to be unrelated to nonmetallic mineral processing, were removed from further analysis.

The remaining violation data was then analyzed to determine ifthe violation was emission-based or procedural. Rule violations documenting a source’s compliance with emissions or control measure application was considered an emission violation. For example, a recordkeeping violation for failing to record the amount and location of water used to stabilize an earthmoving site was considered an emission violation.

The emission-based violation data was reduced to a “per permit” basis to document the number of unique nonmetallic mineral processing sources with an emission-based violation.

The total number of nonmetallic mineral processing sources that received an emission-based violation for the Rule 316 rule effectiveness study was 27.

4.3 Rule 316 Rule Effectiveness

The rule effectiveness for 2012 was calculated as:

Rule effectiveness iSources with Emission-based Violation \ 27 = 1

— I Sources I = 1 — — 0.82 58 Inspected / 155

Rounding to the nearest percent, the rule effectiveness for Rule 316 in 2012 was 83%.

5. Rule 310.01: Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust

5.1 Inspections of Sources Subject to Rule 310.01 EMS was queried for information on the 5,910 inspections of Rule 310.01 sources conducted during 2012. The inspection records were then reduced to a “per site” basis to document the number of unique Rule 310.01 sources with an inspection. This resulted in a total of 5,431 distinct sites inspected during 2012.

5.2 Rule 310.01 Violations

Department records show that 149 violations were issued to Rule 310.01 source in 2012. Any violations that were later rescinded, or determined to be unrelated to Rule 310.01 activities, were removed from further analysis. All Rule 310.01 violations were considered emission-based because of the nature of Rule 310.01.

3
The Rule 310.01 rule effectiveness for 2012 was calculated as:

fSources with Emission-based Violation ‘ 129

Rule effectiveness = 1 — = 1 — = 0.9762 Sources Inspected / 5431

Rounding to the nearest percent, the rule effectiveness for Rule 310.01 in 2012 was 98%.

6. Conclusion

The 2012 rule effectiveness study results show significant increases in compliance compared to 2007:

93% (from 76%) for Rule 310 sources, 98% (from 85%) for Rule 310.01 sources, and 83% (from 40%)for Rule 316 sources.

There was a significant increase in rule effectiveness for Rule 310.01 since the previous study for

calendar year 2010 (96% to 98%). The Five Percent Plan estimated a one percent increase from 2010 ruleeffectiveness as a result of full implementation of the newly created innovative control program, theADEQ Dust Action General Permit. In actuality, rule effectiveness increased by two percent in 2012

after the implementation ofthe ADEQ Dust Action General Permit, resulting in larger reductions in 2012

PM10 emissions than quantified in the Five Percent Plan.

Even greater increases were observed in the Rule 316 rule effectiveness. The rule effectiveness for 2012

was 83%, an increase of ten percent since 2010. The ten percent increase in rule effectiveness provides

larger reductions in 2012 PM10 emissions than quantified in the Five Percent Plan. Implementation ofthe

Maricopa County’s Rapid Response Program is one ofthe primary reasons for the rule effectiveness

increase. The Rapid Response Program monitors the PM10 readings at various air quality monitors. Ifthe

air quality monitor is reading elevated concentrations ofPM10,Maricopa County can send notifications to

stakeholders located around the elevated monitor to implement additional control measures. In particular,

ADEQ’s extended dust generating forecast, increased inspections and outreach by Maricopa County, and

stakeholder participation are additional factors that helped increase rule effectiveness for Rule 316.

The rule effectiveness for Rule 310 was 93% for calendar year 2012. This was a decrease by one percent

since the previous rule effectiveness study conducted in 2010. Because ofthe high compliance rate and

the large amount of violation and inspection data, it would not be uncommon to see slight variations in

rule effectiveness for Rule 310 such as the one percent decrease for 2012. Even though the rule

effectiveness for Rule 310 decreased by one percent, the two percent gain in rule effectiveness for Rule

310.01 and the ten percent gain in rule effectiveness for Rule 316 produced larger overall reductions in

2012 PM10 emissions than those quantified in the Five Percent Plan, ensuring that the annual five percent

reductions in PM10 emissions required by Section 189(d) ofthe Clean Air Act is achieved.

4
Number of Inspections Number of Number of Sources

conducted resulting in a unique facilities receiving an emission- Rule

Rule compliance determination inspected based violation(s) Effectiveness

310 5,963 2,971 216 93%

310.01 5,910 5,431 129 98%

316 444 155 27 83%

Figure 1: Rule Effectiveness Rates for Rule 310, Rule 310.01, and Rule 316

U, U, w

C

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

95% 95% 950/

1

.Jj%

——

65%

40%

------

---____

2007 2008

Rule 316 40%

2009 2010 2012

——Rule 310 76% 90% 92% 94%

—* Rule 310.01 85% 95% 96% -____________

65% 69%

96% 98%

73% 83%

5
No Person Shall Construct, Operate Or Modify Any Regulated

200 301 Source Without Obtaining A Permit Or Revision E

200 303.1 Fail To Obtain A Non-Title V Permit Revision P

200 305 Fail To Obtain A Dust Control Permit E

Conducting Dust Generating Operations On A Permitted Site

200 306.1 Without Registering As A Subcontractor E

Fail To Notify the Control Office At Least 10 Days Prior To

200 410.4 Transportation OfA Portable Source P

220 405.3 Implementing A Non-Minor Permit Revision Prior To Approval P

220 302.2 Enforceable Emissions Limitation And Standards E

Fail To Conduct An Annual Performance Test With The

270 400 Asphalt Drum Dryer Baghouse E280 303.2 Fail To Pay Required Fees P

310 301.1 Fail To Comply with the Standard E

310 302.1 Fail To Obtain Dust Control Permit E

310 302.2 Fail To Obtain Dust Control Permit E

310 303.la Fail To Prevent Dust Emissions From 20% Opacity E

310 304.2a Fail To Stabilize Unpaved HaullAccess Roads E

310 304.3 Fail To Stabilize Disturbed Surface Area E

310 305 Fail To Implement Control Measures E

310 305.1a2 Fail To Load Haul Trucks Highest Point E

310 305.1a4 Fail To Cover Cargo With Tarp E

310 305.lc Fail To Install, Maintain & Use Suitable Trackout Device E

310 305.3b Fail To Load Haul Trucks Properly E

310 305.3c Fail To Prevent Spillage E

310 305.4b Fail To Implement Control Measures; Bulk Material Stacking E

310 305.5 Fail To Implement Control Measures; Storage Piles E

310 305.6 Fail To Implement Control Measures; Unpaved Areas E

310 305.7 Fail To Implement Control Measures; Haul Access Roads E310 305.7a Fail to Apply Water So That The Surface Is Visibly Moist E

310 305.lOb Fail To Apply Water To All Disturbed Soil Surfaces E

310 305.1 lb Fail To Implement Control Measures During Ops E

310 306.1 al Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage And/Or Erosion E

A-i
E 310 306.2a1 Fail To Immediately Clean Trackout From Paved Area

E 310 306.2a2 Fail To Clean Trackout At End OfWorkday

E 310 306.2b Fail To Implement Control Measures Street Sweeper

E 310 307 Fail To Operate

A Water Application System

E 310 308 Fail To Erect

& Maintain Project Info Sign

P 310 308.2 Fail To Erect

& Maintain Project Info Sign; Permit Number

P 310 308.4 Fail To Erect

& Maintain Project Info Sign; Complaints Number

P 310 309.la Fail To Complete Basic Training

E 310 309.lb Fail To Complete Basic Training

E 310 309.lbl Fail To Complete Basic Training; Water Truck Driver

E 310 309.1b3 Fail To Complete Basic Training; Superintendent

E 310 309.2a Fail To Complete Comprehensive Training

E 310 310.1 Fail To Have Dust Control Coordinator On Site

E 310 402.la Owner/Operator Shall Submit Dust Control Plan W/Permit

P 310 403.2a Dust Control Plan Shall Be Revised If Project Changed

P 310 409 Fail To Have Permit And/Or Control Plan Onsite

P 310 410.1 Fail To Complete Basic Training

E 310 502 Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records

E 310 502.1 Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records

E 310 502.1 a Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records

E Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records: Water 310 502.lb Application

E Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records: Street 310 502.lc Sweeping Frequency

E Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records: Surface 310 502.ld Treatments

& Trackout Control Maintenance

E Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records: Types And 310 502.1 e Results Of Test Methods Conducted

E 310 502.lg Fail To Keep Control Records, Subs, Names, Reg. Number

E Fail to keep Records Of Employees Who Completed Dust 310 502. lh Control Training Class

E 310 502.3 Fail To Provide Records To Control Officer

E Fail To Conduct Visible Emission Testing With Crushing 316 20 Equipment

E 316 301.2b Fail To Permanently Mount Watering Systems

E

A-2
316 303.2d Fail 

Fail To Comply With All Identified Actions And Schedules In

316 305.lc Each O&M Plan P

316 306.4a Fail To Limit Silt Loading On Unpaved Roads E

316 307.1A Fail To Implement Control Measures E

316 307. lb Fail To Implement Fugitive Dust Control Measures E

316 307.3a Fail To Implement Fugitive Dust Control Measures E

316 307.6b1 Fail To Properly Install & Maintain A Rumble Gate E

316 307.6d Fail To Meet Trackout Requirements E

316 308 Fail To Erect & Maintain A Project Sign P

316 309 Fail To Have A Dust Control Technician On-Site E

316 309.5 Fail To Have A Dust Control Technician On-Site E

316 310 Fail To Have Dust Tech Who Meets Qualifications E

316 310.2 Fail To Obtain Visible Emissions (Opacity) Certification E

316 501 Fail To Keep & Maintain Adequate Records E

Fail To Conduct Visible Emission Testing With Crushing

4OCFR 60.672B Equipment E

Fail To Conduct Visible Emission Testing With Crushing

Null Null Equipment E

A-3
B-i
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act required the Maricopa County nonattainment area to attain the

PM10 particulate matter standard by December 31, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the Maricopa County nonattainment area failed to attain the PM10 particulate matter

standard by December 31, 2006; and

WHEREAS, due to the Maricopa County nonattainment areas failure to meet the PM10 particulate

matter standard MAG as the regional air quality planning agency is required to develop a plan to reduce

PM10emissions by five percent per year until the standard is met (“the Five Percent Plan”); and

WHEREAS, the Five Percent Plan contains Innovative control measures implemented in 2011 and

existing dust control rules to reduce PM10 particulate matter emissions which must be retrospectively

assessed to evaluate the effectiveness of such measures; and

WHEREAS, Arizona Revised Statutes 49-406 G. requires that each agency that commits to

implement a control measure describe that commitment In a resolution adopted by the governing body

which specifies its authority for implementing the measures as provided In statute, ordinance, or rule; a

program for enforcement of the measure; and the level of personnel and funding allocated to the

implementation of the measure; and

WHEREAS, Maricopa County Is responsible for tracking emissions from point, area and nonroad

mobile sources and for tracking Implementation of control measures in the 1992 Memorandum of

Agreement developed under Arizona Revised Statutes § 49406 (F).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MARICOPA COUNTY

(BOARD) as follows:

SECTION 1. That the BOARD agrees to proceed with a good faith effort to implement the

commitment Identified In Exhibit A, which Is part of this resolution.

SECTION 2. That the BOARD commits to implement the measures as scheduled and with

the funding sources identified. Recognizing, however, that the availability of necessary funding may

depend on the funding programs or processes of various state and federal agencies, Maricopa Countyagrees to consider modifications of the funding or schedules for implementation actions, If necessary.

Maricopa County agrees to submit any modification to the commitments in Exhibit A to EPA for approval

as a SIP revision.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Arizona, this JL day of

Jov€rn1r 2011.

4nase,

S.__ Cier of the Board
permitted and unpermitted 

sources 

dust action general permit on

Perform a rule effectiveness

of PM10in Maricopa County on forecast high risk days. study on the implementation of existing dust control rules.

Supervisors

Responsible

is

Agency

authorized

and Authority for implementation: The Maricopa County Board of

§ 49-480 to establish, administer by A.R.S. § 49-479 to adopt rules for air pollution control and by A.R.S.

adopted rules establishing

and enforce a program for air quality permits. The Board

designated

an air quality permit program and pursuant to A.R.5. § 49-473, the Air Quality Department

program. In the Memorandum

to issue permits and administer and enforce the permit

Maricopa County

of Agreement developed in 1992 under A.R.5. § 49-406 (F),

sources and for tracking

is responsible for tracking emissions from point, area and non-road mobile

the executive head of

the Implementation control measures. By operation of A.R.S. § 49-471,

Pollution Control Officer.

the department designated under A.R.S. § 49-473 serves as the Air

enforcement actions set forth

The Air Pollution Control Officer is specifically authorized to take the in A.R.S.

§ 49-502,49-511,49-512 (A)(11) requires adoption of and 49-513. A.R.S. § 474.01

provisions by October

rule provisions by March 31, 2008, and enforcement of the 1, 2008, regardIng stabilization of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots.

Implementation Schedule: The Air Quality Department Environmental Protection Agency in consultation with the U. 5. (EPA) completed a rule effectiveness impact of Rules 310, 310.01 study analyzing the and 316 for the 2008 PM. 0Periodic Emissions in the appendix of the MAG Inventory contained

Nonattainment Area.

2012 Five Percent Plan for PM1for the Maricopa County The department

process with an appropriate temporal

in consultation with EPA will use a similar approach and period to evaluate the new Innovative such as the dust generation control measures

Department will

forecast and dust action general permit. The Air Quality conduct the program evaluations as follows:

Initial Evaluation:

January 2013 Initiate evaluation process for new innovative control measures and existing rule effectiveness studies.

March 2013 Complete draft program evaluation reports.

April 2013 Complete final program evaluation reports.

control

Periodic

measures

Evaluation: The department will reevaluate the effectiveness of the new ir.rovative as part of the periodic emissions Inventory required by EPA every three years.

Allocated

Level of Personnel

for Implementation:

and Funding Allocated for Implementation: Level of Personnel and Funding

Program evaluations wiI be accommodated as part of the air quality compliance, and planning processes enforcement

Department’s

and will be coordinated by the Maricopa County Air Quality existing Planning and Analysis Dvision.
Enforcement Program:

The Air Quality Department’s enforcement options for regulatory programs include orders of

abatement, civil actions for injunctive relief or civil penalties, and filing a class 1 misdemeanor

citation. Senate Bill 1552 authorizes the county to enter the lot to stabilize the disturbed

surface, issue notices of violation, and collect monetary penalties that include the cost of

stabilization.

Monitoring Program:

As noted above, the Air Quality Department will assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the

new innovative measures as well as the complete rule effectiveness studies for the existing

Rules 310, 310.01 and 316.