Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman

Buddy Garcia, Commissioner

Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner

Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director

RECEIVED - 6PDL

AIR PLANNING SEC.

12 HAR 14 PH 3: 55

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIlY

Protecting Texas by Redllcing and Preventing Pollution

March 7,2012

Docket Nos. 2010-1862-RUL, 2011-o899-MIS, 2011-0707-SIP

Alfredo Armendariz, Ph.D.

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Dear Dr. Armendariz:

On January 25, 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted

revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The Commission adopted amendments to §111.147 in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 111,

concerning Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter A,

Division 4, Materials Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking Lots; a revised

Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) between the City of El Paso (the City) and the Commission; and

corresponding revisions to the SIP. The adopted rule amendments update the particles with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PMlO) controls required to

attain and maintain the PMlO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and provide the City

greater flexibility in the implementation of the PMlO control requirements in §111.147. The MOA has

been revised to reflect the changes to §111.147. The adopted SIP revision will incorporate the revised

MOA into the El Paso PMlO SIP.

Enclosed are the proposed revisions to the SIP, a public hearing certification, complete records of the

public hearing, and the accompanying order. l' look forward to your expeditious approval ofthese SIP

revisions.

Sincerely,

:::;j::,~~ Chairman

BWSjers

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor ofTexas

Mr. Toby Baker, Office of Budget, Planning and Policy, Office of the Governor

Mr. Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711~3087 • 512-239-1000 • www.tceq.texas.gov

How is om customer service? www.tceq.texas.gov!goto!customersurvey
Docket Nos. 2010-1862-RUL, 2011-o899-MIS, 2011-0707-SIP

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF TRAVIS

This is to certify that the attached electronic file is included and that the electronic file is a

true and correct copy of documents for a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan,

adopted on January 25, 2012, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 51.104. I am the

records administrator for the Air Quality Division ofthe Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality (Commission).

L ~,,\Di~""'~~-'-""-~'---------- U Air Quality Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Public Hearing

September 27, 2011

Concerning Revisions to the EI Paso

MOA SIP Revision

Project No. 2011-010-SIP-NR
INTRODUCTION

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) held a public hearing in EI Paso on

September 27, 2011, to receive testimony regarding 30 TAC §111.147, the revised Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA), and the state implementation plan (SIP) for the control of particulate matter air

pollution in the EI Paso area.

The adopted SIP revision incorporates the changes to §111.147 and the revised MOA between

the City of EI Paso and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) into the SIP for

particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10).

The 2001 MOA with the City of EI Paso has been revised to reflect the alternative control

measures in the revisions to 30 TAC Section 111.147 and the respective responsibilities of the

City of EI Paso and the TCEQ under the SIP.

The comment period closed on October 3, 2011. All testimony and comments have been reviewed

and seriously considered. This hearing record contains a complete record of the public hearings

and is divided into the following four sections:

o Public Notification and Proposal

o Written and Oral Testimony

o Evaluation of Testimony

o Staff Recommendations/Order

Additional copies of this hearing record are maintained in the TCEQ central office at 12100 Park 35

Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. Forfurther information, please contact Shelley Naik at (512) 239-1536.
NOTICE & PROPOSAL
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures:

1. Publication of notice of the public hearing in the following newspaper on the date listed:

EI Paso Times: August 22, 2011

2. Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in the September 2, 2011, issue of the Texas Register

(36 TexReg 5725).

3. Correspondence forwarding the notice of public hearings to the following officials and agencies:

Speaker of the House

Lieutenant Governor

Alamo Area Council of Governments

Capital Area Planning Council

City of Dallas, Department of Environmental Quality

City of Dallas, Department of Aviation

City of EI Paso, Environmental Services

City of EI Paso, Mayor's Office

City of Fort Worth, Environmental Management Department

City of Houston, Department of Health and Human Services

East Texas Council of Governments

EI Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization

EI Paso County Judge

Federal Highway Administration

Galveston County Health District
Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services

Houston-Galveston Area Council

North Central Texas Council of Governments

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission

Texas Department of Transportation

Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

New Mexico Environmental Department

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Example of Newspaper Classified Ad

EI Paso Times, August 22, 2011

PUblic Hltoring en PrDPos~d Revisions fo)O TAC Chapf!!r

III and Revisions 10 the Slate Implemen- tation PIon

The- Texas Commrs_ sion on Environmen- toi Quality (commis_ sion or TCEQ) will COnduct a public

h~ring to r!!'C!?ive testimony regording DroDQs~d rs>v;sions to 30 lAC Choplar 111, Control of Air Pel/u- tion from Visible Emissions and Par- liculate J\i\aTter,

§l'!l.lA7; and to the stofe impll!'mentotion plan (SIP). under the requirements of Texa-s HlKllth and Safety Ccxi!!, !3a2.011; Te::o::os Gov- ernment Code, eMP- ler 2001, Subchopter B; and .l:ll Code of Federal Re9vloliolls ~1.102 of the Unite-d Slole:> Env;ronlnen_ !oJ Protection Ageng~;:n~~ri(~~~liOn$

Tho! orOPOSi3"Q rU!emOkir19 'Noula

IJmend §IJ!.l47{]j{E) 10 remav", /he re- qlJirement 10 pave al.

:t~:·r::F~:~~1~~~ miles per y?ar, and reploce it 'Nith 1M foHowing re-quir!!_ m~r<ts: 1} all new oJ- liOYS must tH! paVed;

1) alleys may not be used tor trash PICk.- 1,10; and J) the use of re<:yc!ed <:J.5pnaJl

product os dei'ficd In

§1l1.l.i5 and

JllL147(l}, may be used as an olternotl! maam; cri Porticvlo/e Motrer conlral for al- leys. The propo~1

will also amend §HUJ7(2) 10 chens'! the sweeping tn- Quency re-QUiremenl from four rim'tS P"lr year 10 three times oer year 11' Ihe city limits and trom six limas per ~k. to four times p'!!r we'?l1 in the c(!-ntrol bu-..i- ne:oss dis/riel. (Rult PrOtlO'Ct NUmber 2(11e. O%-lll~EN)

The Memol"atKJum of Aqr_me1't (MOA) between Ihe TCEQ and the City trl EI Po- w is ooing revi:'!i-<'d fa reflect the atr~rnofive con/rol measUl"es m the proposed rulemaking and the rtsoecfive r~consj_

bilifil!'s of the City at EI Paso and the TCEQ. (Proiecl

Hum~r 2O:11_~2$-

MJ,S.SR)

Tne pn:mcslK! EI Pa. so SIP revision would incorporate the re'/l· sloo$ to JO TAC §IIU..D and th~ n- vi$o!d MOA into the PM SIP. CProieCI NlJmber ~l1...(11~SIP~

HRJ

The commission will

~~11hf; ~~~s~t~~i?l Po"!o Qfl ~ol<!mber

27. 2011 at 2:00 i==.m in the El Pc~ RI?--

ton~~a~n~e'A'~~n~: Sulll! SO(l. The heor- ii:g is slructured lor the receipt of oro I or written comment"! by irHerested persons. Indi'liduals may present oro1 stote. rni!rls When caHed upon in order of rl!'9~

istrarion. Open di~.

cussion will nol be p.ermiNed dUl"'ifl~ lhe hearing; how!!ver, COmmISSiOn sloH members will bi!

o'lol!ohle 10 discuss the proPO.sol JO mi- nutes pr,or 1o 'he hearing.

Persons Who hov~

special Cornrnunica. tion Qr other occom. mocof)on nl:'fXls Who ora' planning to cl. hmd the Meorir>g should cantoct 5<J'ndy Wor-g, Offic,," of L09GI S'lrVlces 01 (511) 239. BC2. Re<lUesls should mode os for in advCHK& as possible.

Wrirlen comments may be submined to C~crlort~ Horn. MC 205, OffiCI! of l2-901 5en(!C~. Texcs <;om- miSSion on Env,ron_ menIal QuoUy, P.O. 80x 1JC87, Austin, Te:((ls 73711·J087, or faxe<! to (5i1) m. j8{;8. Ele-crronic comments may be submitfed at: htto: /lwwwS.IC!Qfex OS·90vlr'J;e~@comml

nr~ File S,ZIt re· strictJons moy ooply to comments bein9 submitted via the

!!'Comments s·r.;lem. All comm&nts ~hould

relerll1ce the Pfoie-ct number thol the com' ment PlH"tains to:

Rule ProieC1 ~umber

2010---a-*JII-EN lor rh~ proPUse<j rule

amendmenrs; Proj- eel Number 2011-Q26- MIS-NR lol" the- oro- pos.<d MOA; ana Pr!liKt Numb"" 2Ql1- OlD-5IP-NH: for fll;:- propo~d E! Paso SIP revision. Ttle comm&nr ""riod cloS«:'s OClowr J, 201 1. Cop,~ 01 Ih~

proPoS<1"d rUlemal<ing con oe Qbfoif1ed Irom Ihe commission's WilO sitf at hltp ;1/w'Nw, fceo. t<:!XOs.90v/nov/rule!J

prooose odoof.html. CopiOl-s -of thl pro1,~:M,'I~P.52

~seu '~j,., reVIS'OI!, MOA ond oPOflndl- cp'~ can be ObtOI~'~<I

Irom the co.mmls- sian's V',~b slt& 01

hlfp ;/IwwW.fr;eo lexos.gOv/oirCJuoll/Yf

Sipfelpfe!p-loleSt.prr..

For furth?r in/anno- lion, please ::ontcr;! Pll'~r A. 09~i,Ut!, .Alr O\Johty D;\{ls:on, tS12}2J9_J9J7.
•

Notice of a Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC

Chapter III and Revisions to the State Implementation Plan

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission or

TCEQ) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding

proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 111, Control of Air Pollution

from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, §111.147; and to the

state in1plementation plan (SIP), under the requirements of lexas

Health and Safety Code §382.017; Texas Government Code Chapter

2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.102 of

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations

concel'lling SIPs.

The proposed rulemaking would mnend §1l1.I47(1)(E) to remove the

requirement to pave alleys at tile rate of 15 miles per yem; and replace

it with the foHowing requirements; 1) all new alleys must be paved;

2) alleys Illay not be used for trash pickup; and 3) thc usc of recycled

• • •

The proposed rulemaking would re ise §I06.352 to restore the requirement that any facility handling sou gas shall be located at least onequarter mile from any recreational rcu 01' residence or other structure

not occupied 01' used solely by th ownel' or operator of the facility

or the owner ofthe property upon hich the facility is located, as the

requiremel1t existed in §106.352 pI 01' to the )anual'y 26, 2011 amend·

ment. This requirement would be dded in proposed §106.352(1)(3).

The subsequent paragraphs of sub ection (I) would be re-numbered.

The proposed rulemaking would a so correct typographical errors in

§106.352 and the non-rule Air Qual ty Standard Permit for Oil and Gas

Handling and Production Facilities

PUBLIC HEARING

The commission will hold a public hearing on this proposal in Austin

on October 3,2011 at2:00 p.m. in uilding E, Room 20iS at the commission's central office located at 2100 Park 35 Circle. The hearing

is structured for the receipt of oral I' written comments by interested

persons. Individuals may present 0 'al statements when called upon in

order ofregistration. Open discussi n will not be permitted during the

hearing; however, commission sta members will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior 0 the hearing.

Persons who have special comm .cation 01' other accommodation

needs who are planning to attend he hearing should contact Sandy

Wong, Office of Legal Services, a (512) 239-1802. Requests should

be made as far in advance as possi Ie,

PUBLIC COMMENT AND INFO

Written comments may be submi ed to M~chael Parrish, Me 205,

Office of Legal Services, Texa Commission on Envil'OnmentaJ

Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Aus!' , Texas 78711-3087, or faxed

to (512) 239·4808. Electronic ornments may be submitted at:

http://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/rulesl omments/. File size restrictions

may apply to comments being sub itted via the eComlllents system.

All commentsshould reference the evision to 30 TAC §I06.352 and/or

the Standard Permit under Rule rojcct Number 2011·014-106-PR.

The comment period closes Octo er 3, 2011. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be obtained fi'om tile commission's website at

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/rule/propose_adopt.hlml.Toinquire

about the submittal of comments l' for further information, contact

Blake Stewart, Ail' Permits Divisio ,(512) 239-6931.

TRD-201103309

Robert Martinez

Director, Environmental Law Divislo

Texas Commission on Environment IQuality

Filed: August 19, 2011

Notice of a Public Hearing on roposed Revisions to 30 TAe

Chapter 106

The Texas Commission on Enviro mental Quality (TCEQ) is providing an opportunity for public comn ent and will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concernin the proposed amendment ofTitle

30 Texas Administrative Code (30 'rAC) §106.352, Oil and Gas Production Facilities. The hearing w I also provide an opportunity for

public comment on a proposed arne ldment to the non-rule Ail' Quality

Standard Permit for Oil and Gas H ndling and Production Facilities.

PROPOSED PERMIT BY RULE ND STANDARD PERMIT

a frequency of at least once eery month (not to exceed 35 days

between each monitoring); PE ALTY: $5,200; ENFORCEMENT

COORDINATOR: Rl\iesh Ach rya, (512) 239-0577; REGIONAL

OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Site H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486,

(713) 767-3500,

(21) COMPANY: TCA IN RNATIONAL INVESTMENTS,

INCORPORATED dba AI's d Mart; DOCKET NUMBER:

2011-0668-PST-E; IDENTIF : RNI01431567; LOCATION:

La Grange, Fayette County; YPE OF FACILITY: convenience

store with retails sales of gas ine; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC

§334.49(a)(1) and TWC §26.34 5(d), by failing to provide proper

corrosion protection for the und 'ground storage tank (UST) system;

30 TAC §334.50(b)(I)(A) and WC §26,3475(c)(I), by failing to

monitor the USTs for releases a a frequency of at least once every

month (not to exceed 35 days etweeneach monitoring); 30 TAC

§334.72, by failing to report a sus ected release to the TCEQ within 24

hours ofthe discovery; and 30 T C §334.74, by failing to investigate

a suspected release within 30 day of discovery; PENALTY: $13,600;

ENFORCEMENT COORDINA: R: Cara Windle, (512) 239-2581;

REGIONAL OFFICE: 2800 So h IH 35, Suite 100, Austin, Texas

78704-5712, (512) 339-2929.

(22) COMPANY: UHS of Tex ma, Incorporated dba Behavioral

Health Center; DOCKET NU ER: 201l-0676-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RNI 01567055; LOCATIO : Sherman, Grayson County; TYPE

OF FACILITY: healthcal'e; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(b)(2)

and TWC §26.3475(b), by failin to provide release detection for the

suction piping associated with th underground storage tank (UST);

and 30 TAe §37.815(a) and (b), y failing to demonstrate acceptable

financial assurance for taking cor ective action and forcompensatfng

third parties for bodily iI~ ury and ropertydamage caused by accidental releases arising floom the opera 'on ofpetroleum USTs; PENALTY:

$3,000; ENFORCEMENT CO INATOR: Andrea Park, (512)

239-4575; REGIONAL OFFICE 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth,

Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-580 .

(23) COMPANY: Vinod Nag! db Park N Sak II; DOCKET NUMBER: 201l·0994-PST-E; IDENTI IER: RNI02462660; LOCATION:

Cedar Park, Williamson County; YPE OF FACILITY: convenience

store with retail sales of gasoli e; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC

§334.50(b)(1)(A) and TWC §26 475(c)(I), by failing to monitor

underground storage tanks for I' leases at a frequency of at least

once per month (not to exceed 3 days between each monitoring);

PENALTY: $4,500; ENFORCE NT COORDINATOR: Raymond

Marlow, P.G., (409) 899-8785; R IONAL OFFICE: 2800 South ill

35, Suite 100, Austin, Texas 7870 -5712, (512) 339-2929.

TRD-201103412

Kathleen C, Decl(er

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmen

Filed: August 23, 2011

•

INADDITION September 2, 2011 36 TexReg 5725
+

asphalt product as defineCl in §l I1.145 and §1l1.l47(t), may be used

as an alternate means ofParticulate Matter control for alleys. The proposal will also amend §1l1.l47(2) to change the sweeping frequenoy

requirement from four times per year to three times per year in the city

limits and from six times pel' week to four times per week in the central

business district, (Rule Project Number 2010-046·11l.EN)

The Mcmorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the TCEQ and the

City of £1,1 Paso is being revised to reflect the alternative control measures in the proposed rulemaking and the respective responsibilities of

the City ofEI Paso and the TCEQ. (Project Number 2011·026·M1SNR)

The proposed EI Paso SIP revision would hlcorporate the revisions

to 30 TAC §1l1.147 and the revised MOA into the PM SIP. (Project

Nllluber 2011.010-SlP·NR)

The commission will hold a public hearing on this proposal in El Paso

on September 27,2011 at 2:00 p.m. in the El Paso Regional 'Office, at

401 E. Franklin Avenue, Suite 560. The hearing is structured for the

receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals

may present oral statements when called upon in order ofregistration.

Open discussion will not be permitted during the hearing; however,

commission stall'members will be available to discuss the proposal 30

minutes prior to the hearing.

l'ersons who have special communication or other accommodation

needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact Sandy

Wong, Office of Legal Services at (512) 239·1802. Requests should

be made as far in advance as possible.

Written comments may be submitted to Charlotte Horn, MC 205,

OlIlce of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed

to (512) 239·4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at:

IlItp:llwww5.tceq.lexas.govlrules!ecommentsl. File size restrictions

may apply to comments'being s\lbmitted via the eComments system.

All comments should reference the project number that the com·

ment pertains to: Rule Project Number 2010·046·111-EN for the

proposed nIle amendments; Project Number 2011·026·MIS·NR for

the proposed MOA; and Project Number 2011·010-SIP-NR for the

proposed El Paso SIP revision. The comment period closes October

3, 2011. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be obtained from

the commission's website at http://www.tceq.texas.govlnavlruleslpropose_adapt.hlmt; Copies of the proposed SIP revision, MOA,

and appendices can be obtained from the commission's website at

http://www.lceq.texas.govlail·qualitylslplelp/elp-tatest-pm. For further

information, please contact Peter A. Ogbeide, Ail' Quality Division,

(512) 239·1937. .

TRD-2011 03305

Robert Martinez

Director, E;nvironmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Flied: August 19, 2011

+

Notice of Opportunity to Com ent on Agreed Orders of

Administrative Enforcement A tions

The Texas Commission on Enviro ental Quality (TCEQ or commis·

sion) staff is providing an opportll ity for written public comment on

the listed Agreed Orders (AOs) in ccordance with Texas Water Code

(TWC), §7.075. TWC, §7.075 re uires that before the commission

may approve the AOs, the commi ion shall allow the public al1 opportunity to submit written comm nts on the proposed AOs. TWC,

§7.075 requires that notice ofthe op Ol'tllnity to comment must be published in the Texas Register no lat l' than tbe 30th day before the date

on which the public comment peri d closes, which in this case is October3, 2011. TWC,§7,075 also re, uires that the commission promptly

consider any written commellts re ived and that the commissioll may

withdraw 01' withhold approval of n AO if a comment discloscs facts

or considet'ations that indicate that consent is inappropriate, improper,

inadequate, or inconsistent with t e requirements of the statutes and

rules within the commission's juri diction or the commission's orders

and permits issued in accordance th the commission's regulatory authority. Additional notice ofchang s to a proposed AO is not required

to be published ifthose changes a made in response to written comments.

A copy of each proposed AO is av Hable'fot· pubUc inspection at both

the commission's central office,loc tcd at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78 53,(512) 239·3400 and at the ap·

plicable regional office listed as fo ows. Written comments about an

AO should be sent to the attorney esignated for the AO at the cOmmission's central office at P.O. Bo 13087, MC 175, Austin, Texas

78711-3087 and must be receivedy 5:00 p.m. on October 3, 2011.

Comments may also be sent by fa simile machine to the attol'lley at

(512) 239·3434. The designated a orney is available to ,discuss the

AO and/oi' the comment pl'Ocedure at the l.isted phone number; how·

ever, TWC, §7.075 provides that co ments on an AO shall be submitted to the commission in writing.

(1) COMPANY: ConocoPhiUips ompany; DOCKET NUMBER:

2011·0326·AIR-E; TCEQ ID NU BER: RNI02495884; LOCA.

TlON: State Sp\1l' 119 North ncar orgel', Hutchison County; TYPE

OF FACILITY: petroleum refinery RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC

§101.20(3) and §116.715(a), Flex! Ie Permit Numbers 9868A and

PSDTX102M7, Special Conditions umbel' 1, and Texas Health and

Safety Code (THSC), §382.085(b), y failing to prevent unauthorized

emissions; 30 TAC §116.615(4) an THSC, §382.085(b), by failing

to submit notification for the start of construction and completion

of construction within 15 days of currence of the event; 30 TAC

§1l6.615(5) and THSC, §382.085( ), by failing to submit notification prior to commencement of op ration; 30 TAG §113.1090 and

§122.143(4), Federal Operating Per it (FOP) Number 01440, Gen·

eral Terms and Conditions, 40 Cod of Federal Regulations (CFR),

§63.6640(a.) and THSC, §382.085 ), by failing to maintain the

temperature ofthe stationary recipro ling internal combustion engine

exhaust so the 'catalyst inlet temperat re is greater than or equal to 750

degrees Fahrenheit; 30 TAC §§10l.2 (3), 116.715(a), and 122.143(4),

Flexible Permit Numbers 9868A an PSDTXI02M7, Special ConditionsNumber 2.B., FOP Number 014 0, Special Terms and Conditions

Number 17.A, 40 CFR §60.l8(f)(2, and THSC, §382.085(b), by

failing to monitor the pilot flame w th a thermocouple, an infrared

111onitor, or equivalent device; 30 T §§101.20(3), 116.715(a), and

122.143(4), Flexible Permit Numb s 9868A and PSDTXI02M7,

Special Conditions Number 27, FOP Number 01440, Special Terms

and Conditions Number 17.A., 40 FR §60.l04(a)(l), and THSC,

§382.085(b), by failing to maintain th hydrogen sulfide concentration

in the fuel gas used to fire all heaters, oilers, and tail gas incinerators

below 162 parts per million by volu e; 30 TAC §122.143(4), FOP

Number 01440, General Terms and Co ditions, 40 CFR, §63.427(a)(3)

and§63.650(a), and THSC, §382.08 (b), by failing to operate and

maintain a continuous monitoring sy tern capable of measuring the

tempel'at\1l'e of the thermal oxidizer; and 30 TAC §101.20(3) and

§116.715(a), Flexible Pcrmit Numb s 9868A and PSDTX102M7,

Special Conditions Number 1, and T SC, §382.085(b), by failing to

prevent unauthorized emissions; PEN LTY: $141,925, Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP) offset mount of $70,962 applied to

Texas Congress of Parents and Tea hers - Texas Parent Teachers

Association Clean School Bus Progl' m; STAFF ATTORNEY: Jeff

36 TexReg 5726 September 2, 2011 Texas Register
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman

Buddy Garcia, Commissioner

Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner

Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution

Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 111

and Revisions to the State Implementation Plan

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission or TCEQ) will conduct a

public hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 111,

Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, §111.147; and to

the state implementation plan (SIP), under the requirements ofTexas Health and Safety

Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code of

Federal Regulations §51.102 ofthe United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) regulations concerning SIPs.

The proposed rulemaking would amend §111.147(1)(E) to remove the requirement to

pave alleys at the rate of 15 miles per year, and replace it with the following

requirements: 1) all new alleys must be paved; 2) alleys may not be used for trash

pickup; and 3) the use of recycled asphalt product as defined in §111.145 and §111.147(1),

may be used as an alternate means of Particulate Matter control for alleys. The proposal

will also amend §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency requirement from four

times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times per week to

four times per week in the central business district. (Rule Project Number 2010-

046-111-EN)

The Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) between the TCEQ and the City of El Paso is

being revised to reflect the alternative control measures in the proposed rulemaking and

the respective responsibilities ofthe City ofEl Paso and the TCEQ. (Project Number

2011-026-MIS-NR)

The proposed El Paso SIP revision would incorporate the revisions to 30 TAC §111.147

and the revised MOA into the PM SIP. (Project Number 2011-010-SIP-NR)

The commission will hold a public hearing on this proposal in El Paso on September 27,

2011 at 2:00 p.m. in the El Paso Regional Office, at 401 E. Franklin Avenue, Suite 560.

The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested

persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of

registration. Open discussion will not be permitted during the hearing; however,

commission staff members will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to

the hearing.

Persons who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are

planning to attend the hearing should contact Sandy Wong, Office of Legal Services at

(512) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

·P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov

How is our customer service? tceq.texas.gov/goto/customersurvey

printed on recycled paper
Written comments may be submitted to Charlotte Horn, MC 205, Office of Legal

Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas

78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at:

http://www5.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecommentsj. File size restrictions may apply to

comments being submitted via the eComments system. All comments should reference

the project number that the comment pertains to: Rule Project Number 2010-046-111-

EN for the proposed rule amendments; Project Number 2011-026-MIS-NR for the

proposed MOA; and Project Number 2011-010-SIP-NR for the proposed EI Paso SIP

revision. The comment period closes October 3, 2011. Copies ofthe proposed

rulemaking can be obtained from the commission's Web site at

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/rules/propose_adopt.html. Copies ofthe proposed

SIP revision, MOA, and appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site at

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/elp/elp-latest-pm. For further information,

please contact Peter A. Ogbeide, Air Quality Division, (512) 239-1937.
REVISIONS TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AIR QUALITY

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF PARTICULATE

MATTER AIR POLLUTION

EL PASO PARTICLES WITH AN AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER LESS

THAN OR EQUAL TO A NOMINAL TEN MICROMETERS (PMlO)

MODERATE NONATTAINMENT AREA

TCEQ

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

P.O. BOX 13087

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087

REVISED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE

CITY OF EL PASO

PROJECT NUMBER 2011-01O-SIP-NR

Proposal

August 17, 2011
This page intentionally left blank
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of EI Paso was designated nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal

10 micrometers (PMlO) and classified as a moderate area upon enactment ofthe Federal Clean

Air Act Amendments (FCAA) of 1990. On November 15, 1991, Texas submitted to the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a state implementation plan (SIP) revision for

the EI Paso moderate nonattainment area to demonstrate that the area would attain the PMlO

NAAQS no later than December 31, 1994. The international impacts provision in FCAA, §179B,

provides that an area does not have to meet the moderate nonattainment deadline ifthe state

demonstrates attainment but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. Air

dispersion modeling of United States emissions included in the SIP revision indicated that the

EI Paso nonattainment area would have been in attainment in 1991, and at the 1994 deadline,

but for emissions transported from Mexico.

Although the area modeled attainment with United States emissions only, fugitive dust control

measures were adopted to minimize impacts from United States sources. The 1991 SIP revision

included control measures in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 111, Control ofAir

Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter A, Division 4, Materials

Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking Lots. The control measures adopted

in 30 TAC §111.147 required paving as a method of dust control in the City of EI Paso for

specified roads and added a requirement that alleys be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year.

Section 111.147 also set frequencies for street sweeping in designated sections ofthe EI Paso

area. On November 5, 1991, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of EI

Paso local government (the City) and the Texas Air Control Board, a predecessor agency ofthe

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), was signed to outline the responsibilities

and regulatory requirements for both parties. This MOU was submitted to the EPA as Appendix

Q: Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the City ofEl Paso ofthe 1991 EI Paso PMlO

attainment demonstration SIP revision. On January 18, 1994, the EPA published in the Federal

Register (FR) approval ofthe EI Paso PMlO SIP revision, including the MOU, effective February

17, 1994 (59 FR 02532).

On October 9, 2001, the 1991 MOU was replaced with a Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA)

because MOUs are typically used only for agreements between two state agencies and this

agreement was between an agency and a city, so an MOA was considered more appropriate.

Although the MOA was submitted to the EPA in a letter dated February 19, 2002, it is unclear

whether the EPA accepted it as a SIP revision.

For the site reporting regulatory PMlO data for all three years from 2007 through 2009 (Socorro

AQS ID 481410057), there were no exceedances ofthe PMlO 24-hour NAAQS. The inventory of

unpaved alleys has decreased from 66% in 1991 to 16% in 2010, with approximately 23 miles of

unpaved alleys remaining. Additional city action to reduce airborne PMlO has also reduced the

need to sweep streets at the frequencies specified under the current 30 TAC §111.147 rule.

The TCEQ has a concurrently proposed rulemaking to amend 30 TAC §111.147(1)(E) to remove

the requirement for alleys in the City of EI Paso to be paved at the specified rate of 15 miles per

year and replace it with the following requirements: 1) all new alleys shall be paved; 2) alleys

may not be used for garbage and recycling collection; and 3) reclaimed asphalt pavement may be

used as an alternate means of particulate matter control for alleys. The proposal would also

amend 30 TAC §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency requirement from four times per

year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times per week to four times per week

in the central business district.

ES-l
Revision ofthe 2001 MOA with the City is being considered concurrently with this SIP revision

to reflect these changes to 30 TAC §111.147. If approved by the commission, the current SIP

revision would incorporate the revised 30 TAC §111.147 and MOA into the El Paso PMlO SIP

revision.
SECTION V: LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has the legal authority to implement,

maintain, and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to control the

quality ofthe state's air, including maintaining adequate visibility.

The first air pollution control act, known as the Clean Air Act ofTexas, was passed by the Texas

Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the Clean Air Act ofTexas was superseded by a more

comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas

Civil Statutes. The legislature amended the TCAA in 1969,1971,1973,1979,1985,1987,1989,

1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. In 1989, the TCAA was

codified as Chapter 382 ofthe Texas Health and Safety Code.

Originally, the TCAA stated that the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is the state air pollution

control agency and is the principal authority in the state on matters relating to the quality of air

resources. In 1991, the legislature abolished the TACB effective September 1, 1993, and its

powers, duties, responsibilities, and functions were transferred to the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC). With the creation ofthe TNRCC, the authority over air

quality is found in both the Texas Water Code (TWC) and the TCAA. Specifically, the authority

ofthe TNRCC is found in TWC, Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 5, Subchapters A - F, H - J, and L,

include the general provisions, organization, and general powers and duties ofthe TNRCC, and

the responsibilities and authority ofthe executive director. Chapter 5 also authorizes the TNRCC

to implement action when emergency conditions arise and to conduct hearings. Chapter 7 gives

the TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature continued the existence

ofthe TNRCC until September 1, 2013, and changed the name ofthe TNRCC to the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In 2009, the 81st Texas Legislature, during a

special session, amended section 5.014 ofthe Texas Water Code, changing the expiration date of

the TCEQ to September 1, 2011, unless continued in existence by the Texas Sunset Act. In 2011,

the 82nd Texas Legislature continued the existence ofthe TCEQ until 2023.

The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establish the level of quality to be maintained in

the state's air and to control the quality ofthe state's air by preparing and developing a general,

comprehensive plan. The TCAA, Subchapters A - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect

information to enable the commission to develop an inventory of emissions; to conduct research

and investigations; to enter property and examine records; to prescribe monitoring

requirements; to institute enforcement proceedings; to enter into contracts and execute

instruments; to formulate rules; to issue orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon

health, welfare, social and economic factors, and practicability and reasonableness; to conduct

hearings; to establish air quality control regions; to encourage cooperation with citizens' groups

and other agencies and political subdivisions ofthe state as well as with industries and the

federal government; and to establish and operate a system of permits for construction or

modification offacilities.

Local government authority is found in Subchapter E ofthe TCAA. Local governments have the

same power as the TCEQ to enter property and make inspections. They also may make

recommendations to the commission concerning any action ofthe TCEQ that affects their

territorial jurisdiction, may bring enforcement actions, and may execute cooperative agreements

with the TCEQ or other local governments. In addition, a city or town may enact and enforce

ordinances for the control and abatement of air pollution not inconsistent with the provisions of

the TCAA and the rules or orders ofthe commission.

iii
Subchapters G and H ofthe TCAA authorize the TCEQ to establish vehicle inspection and

maintenance programs in certain areas ofthe state, consistent with the requirements ofthe

Federal Clean Air Act; coordinate with federal, state, and local transportation planning agencies

to develop and implement transportation programs and measures necessary to attain and

maintain the NAAQS; establish gasoline volatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund

and authorize participating counties to implement vehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and

accelerated vehicle retirement programs.

Applicable Law

The following statutes and rules provide necessary authority to adopt and implement the state

implementation plan (SIP). The rules listed below have previously been submitted as part ofthe

SIP.

Statutes

All sections of each subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted.

TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE, Chapter 382

TEXAS WATER CODE

September 1, 2009

September 1, 2009

Chapter 5: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter A: General Provisions

Subchapter B: Organization ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter D: General Powers and Duties ofthe Commission

Subchapter E: Administrative Provisions for Commission

Subchapter F: Executive Director (except §§5.225, 5.226, 5.227, 5.2275,5.231, 5.232, and

5.2 36)

Subchapter H: Delegation of Hearings

Subchapter I: Judicial Review

SubchapterJ: Consolidated Permit Processing

Subchapter L: Emergency and Temporary Orders (§§5.514, 5.5145, and 5.515 only)

Subchapter M: Environmental Permitting Procedures (§5.558 only)

Chapter 7: Enforcement

Subchapter A: General Provisions (§§7.00l, 7.002, 7.0025, 7.004, and 7.005 only)

Subchapter B: Corrective Action and Injunctive Relief (§7.032 only)

Subchapter C: Administrative Penalties

Subchapter D: Civil Penalties (except §7.109)

Subchapter E: Criminal Offenses and Penalties: §§7.177, 7.179-7.183

Rules

All ofthe following rules are found in 30 Texas Administrative Code, as ofthe following latest

effective dates:

Chapter 7: Memoranda of Understanding, §§7.110 and 7.119

December 13, 1996 and May 2, 2002

Chapter 19: Electronic Reporting

Chapter 35: Subchapters A-C, K: Emergency and Temporary Orders and

Permits; Temporary Suspension or Amendment of Permit Conditions

iv

March 15, 2007

July 20, 2006
Chapter 39: Public Notice, §§39.201; 39.401; 39.403(a) and (b)(8)-(1O);

39-405(t)(1) and (g); 39-409; 39.411 (a), (b)(1)-(6), and (8)-(10) and (c)(1)-(6)

and (d); 39.413(9), (11), (12), and (14); 39.418(a) and (b)(3) and (4);

39-419(a), (b), (d), and (e); 39.420(a), (b) and (c)(3) and (4); 39.423 (a) and

(b); 39.601-39.605

Chapter 55: Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings;

Public Comment, §§55.1; 55.21(a) - (d), (e)(2), (3), and (12), (t) and (g);

55.101(a), (b), and (c)(6) - (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(1), (2), and (6) and

(b); 55.154; 55.156; 55.200; 55.201(a) - (h); 55.203; 55.205; 55.209, and

55·211

Chapter 101: General Air Quality Rules

Chapter 106: Permits by Rule, Subchapter A

Chapter 111: Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate

Matter

Chapter 112: Control ofAir Pollution from Sulfur Compounds

Chapter 113: Standards of Performance for Hazardous Air Pollutants and for

Designated Facilities and Pollutants

June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

May 12, 2011

May 12,2011

July 19, 2006

July 16, 1997

May 14, 2009

Chapter 114: Control ofAir Pollution from Motor Vehicles

Chapter 115: Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds

Chapter 116: Permits for New Construction or Modification

Chapter 117: Control ofAir Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds

Chapter 118: Control ofAir Pollution Episodes

Chapter 122: §122.122: Potential to Emit

Chapter 122: §122.215: Minor Permit Revisions

Chapter 122: §122.216: Applications for Minor Permit Revisions

Chapter 122: §122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions

December 13,2010

February 17, 2011

March 3, 2011

May 12, 2011

March 5, 2000

December 11, 2002

June 3, 2001

June 3,2001

December 11, 2002

Chapter 122: §122.218: Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit

Revisions Involving the Use of Economic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and

Emissions Trading

v

June 3,2001
SECTION VI: CONTROL STRATEGY

A. Introduction (No change)

B. Ozone (No change)

C. Particulate Matter (Revised)

1. Introduction (Revised)

2. PMlO Group II and Group III Areas (No change)

3. PMlO Group I Area (No change)

4. 1991 PMlO SIP for Moderate Area - El Paso (Revised)

D. Carbon Monoxide (No change)

E. Lead (No change)

F. Oxides of Nitrogen (No change)

G. Sulfur Dioxide (No change)

H. Conformity with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (No change)

I. Site Specific (No change)

J. Mobile Sources Strategies (No change)

K. Clean Air Interstate Rule (No change)

L. Transport (No change)

M. Regional Haze (No change)

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Section V: Legal Authority

Section VI: Control Strategy

Table ofContents

List ofAcronyms

List ofTables

List ofAppendices

Chapter 1: Introduction (Revised)

1.1 Background (New)

1.2 Texas Particulate Matter History, 1970 through 1990 (Revised)

1.3 EI Paso Moderate Nonattainment Area, 1991 through 2001 (New)

1.4 EI Paso Natural Events Action Plan (New)

1.5 Current SIP Revision (New)

1.6 Public Hearing Information (New)

1.7 Social and Economic Considerations (New)

1.8 Fiscal and Manpower Resources (New)

Chapter 2: PMlO Group II and Group III Areas (No change)

Chapter 3: PMlO Group I Area (No change)

Chapter 4: 1991 PMlO SIP for Moderate Area - EI Paso (Revised)

4.1 Moderate Area PMlO SIP Requirements (No change)

4.2 Definition of Moderate Area Boundary and Air Quality Status (No change)

4.3 Special Receptor Modeling Studies (No change)

4.4 PMlO Emissions Inventory (No change)

4.5 Dispersion Modeling (No change)

4.6 Control Plans (Revised)

4.6.1 Area Source Control (Revised)

4.6.1.1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures (Revised)

4.6.1.2 Control Measures for Residential Wood Combustion Devices (Revised)

4.6.2 Prescribed Burning Control Measures (No change)

4.6.3 Point Source Control (No change)

vii
4.6-4 Reasonable Further Progress (No change)

4.6.5 Contingency Measures (No change)

4.6.6 Test Methods (No change)

4.6.7 Revisions of TCEQ Rules and Regulations (Revised)

4.6.7.1 Revisions Effective February 12, 1992 (Revised)

4.6.7.2 Current Revisions (New)

viii
AQS

CFR

EPA

FCAA

FR

MOA

MOU

NAAQS

NEAP

PM

PMlO

RACM

RAP

RWCD

SIP

TAC

TACB

TCAA

TCEQ

TNRCC

TSP

TWC

~g/m3

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Air Quality System

Code of Federal Regulations

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Clean Air Act

Federal Register

Memorandum ofAgreement

Memorandum of Understanding

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Natural Events Action Plan

Particulate matter

Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5

micrometers; or particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less; or fine particulate matter

Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers; or particulate matter of 10 microns or less; or coarse particulate matter

Reasonably Available Control Measures

Reclaimed asphalt pavement

Residential wood combustion device

State Implementation Plan

Texas Administrative Code

Texas Air Control Board

Texas Clean Air Act

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission)

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Total suspended particles

Texas Water Code

Micrograms per cubic meter

ix
Table 1-1: Public Hearing Information

LIST OF TABLES

x
Appendix

Appendix A-Q

AppendixR

Appendix S

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Name

(No Change)

City of El Paso Alley Information

Draft Revised Memorandum ofAgreement with the City of El Paso

(Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR)

xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION (REVISED)

1.1 BACKGROUND (NEW)

The History ofthe Texas State Implementation Plan, a comprehensive overview ofthe state

implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted to the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) by the State ofTexas, is available on the Introduction to the SIP Web page

(http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sipintro.html#History) on the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality CTCEQ) Web site (http://www.tceq.texas.govj).

1.2 TEXAS PARTICULATE MATTER HISTORY, 1970 THROUGH 1990 (REVISED)

In 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) required the EPA to establish and periodically revise

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS for particulate matter (PM),

measured as total suspended particles (TSP), was promulgated in 1971.

In 1987, the EPA promulgated a new particulate NAAQS. The new standard replaced TSP with

particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PMlO).

The 24-hour PMlO NAAQS was 150 micrograms per cubic meter (llg/m3), not to be exceeded

more than once per year averaged over a three-year period. The annual PMlO NAAQS was 50

Ilg/m3 calculated as the arithmetic mean of 24-hour concentrations.

Also in 1987, the EPA published a Federal Register notice categorizing areas in the country into

three groups based on the probability that an area would violate the PMlO NAAQS. Areas with

95% or greater probability of violating the NAAQS were classified as Group I. Areas where the

probability of nonattainment was estimated at greater than 20%, but less than 95%, were

classified as Group II. Areas with a low probability of nonattainment (less than 20%) were

classified as Group III. Based on these classifications, the EPA identified EI Paso as a Group I

area and Harris, Dallas, Nueces, and Lubbock Counties as Group II areas. All other Texas

counties were designated as Group III areas. In response to these designations, the Texas Air

Control Board (TACB), a predecessor agency ofthe TCEQ, submitted Group II and III SIP

revisions to the EPA in July 1988. Because ofthe unique issues arising from the international

nature ofthe PMlO problem in EI Paso, the EPA allowed the TACB to submit an "Interim SIP" for

that area in August 1989. In accordance with the EPA's guidelines, the SIP contained

information on several issues, including a commitment to work with the EPA to continue studies

to characterize the nature ofthe PMlO being transported into EI Paso from the Ciudad Juarez

(Juarez), Mexico area.

Qn November 15, 1990, new FCAA amendments were enacted. The 1990 FCAA amendments

specified that all former Group I areas and any areas violating the PMlO NAAQS prior to January

1, 1989, were to be designated as nonattainment. The 1990FCAA amendments defined two

nonattainment categories: moderate and serious. All PMlO nonattainment areas were initially

classified as moderate at the time of enactment ofthe 1990 FCAA amendments, and for these

areas, an attainment date of December 31, 1994, was established. The 1990 FCAA amendments

further required that all areas which had attained the PMlO NAAQS by the time of enactment be

designated by the EPA as unclassifiable.

According to the EPA, EI Paso and Lubbock were the only areas in Texas that had not attained

the PMlO NAAQS by the time of enactment ofthe 1990 FCAA amendments and, thus, were

designated as moderate nonattainment areas. In April 1991, the TACB petitioned the EPA to

reclassify Lubbock as unclassifiable, asserting that the PMlO concentrations which indicated the

area to be in violation ofthe PMlO NAAQS were caused by dust storms. The TACB maintained

that dust storms are exceptional events, and, as such, should not be considered in the

1-1
nonattainment designation process. On August 8, 1991, the EPA published a Federal Register

notice reclassifying Lubbock as unclassifiable for PMlO•

1.3 EL PASO MODERATE NONATTAINMENT AREA, 1991 THROUGH 2001 (NEW)

The City of EI Paso was designated nonattainment for the PMlO NAAQS and classified as a

moderate nonattainment area upon enactment ofthe 1990 FCAAAmendments. On November

15, 1991, Texas submitted to the EPA a SIP revision for the EI Paso moderate nonattainment

area to demonstrate that the area would attain the PMlO NAAQS no later than December 31,

1994. This revision included air quality and meteorological analyses, including data from a

special December 1990 study that demonstrated the international scope ofthe PMlO air quality

problem in EI Paso. Air dispersion modeling of United States emissions indicated that the

nonattainment area would have been in attainment in 1991, and at the 1994 deadline, if not for

emissions transported from outside the United States.

Although the area modeled attainment with United States emissions only, the TACB adopted

fugitive dust control measures to minimize impacts from United States sources. The

international impacts provision in FCAA, §179B, provides that an area does not have to meet the

moderate nonattainment deadline ifthe state demonstrates attainment but for emissions

emanating from outside the United States. Based on this provision, the TACB determined that

there should be no requirement for a Reasonable Further Progress demonstration for the EI

Paso SIP revision. Also, due to lack of adequate information regarding the relative contribution

of EI Paso and Juarez to the problem in the shared air basin, no contingency plan was included

in the SIP revision.

The 1991 SIP revision included PM control measures in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC)

Chapter 111, Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter

A, Division 4, Materials Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking Lots. The

control measures adopted in 30 TAC §111.147 required paving as a method of dust control in the

EI Paso area for specified roads and added a requirement that alleys be paved at the rate of 15

miles per year. Section 111.147 also set frequencies for street sweeping in designated sections of

the EI Paso area. On November 5,1991, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the

City of EI Paso local government (the City) and the TACB was signed to outline the

responsibilities and regulatory requirements for both parties. This MOU was submitted to the

EPA as Appendix Q: Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the City ofEl Paso ofthe 1991 EI

Paso PMlO attainment demonstration SIP revision. On January 18,1994, the EPA published in

the Federal Register (FR) approval ofthe EI Paso PMlO SIP revision, including the MOU,

effective February 17,1994 (59 FR 02532).

On October 9, 2001, the 1991 MOU was replaced with a Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA).

Because MOUs are typically used only for agreements between two state agencies, and this

agreement was between an agency and a city, an MOA was considered more appropriate.

Although the MOA was submitted to the EPA in a letter dated February 19,2002, it is unclear

whether the EPA accepted it as a SIP revision.

1.4 EL PASO NATURAL EVENTS ACTION PLAN (NEW)

On February 21, 2007, in response to uncontrollable exceedances ofthe PMlO NAAQS caused by

natural events, the TCEQ, in conjunction with the City of EI Paso, the Joint Advisory Committee

for the Improvement ofAir Quality in the Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, El Paso, Texas, and

Dona Ana County, New Mexico Air Basin, and community stakeholders, adopted a Natural

Events Action Plan (NEAP) for EI Paso County. The EI Paso NEAP is a plan for managing the

exceedances ofthe PM standards that can be attributed to uncontrollable natural events such as

1-2
unusually high winds. The NEAP includes documentation and analysis ofthe PM monitoring

data, descriptions oflocal public outreach programs, and steps to limit public exposure to PM

emissions during natural events episodes. The NEAP describes the requirements for flagging of

high PM days due to natural events, to allow for removal ofthose days when calculating the

area's design value.

1.5 CURRENT SIP REVISION (NEW)

For the site reporting regulatory PMlO data for all three years from 2007 through 2009 (Socorro

AQS ID 481410057), there were no exceedances ofthe PMlO 24-hour NAAQS. The inventory of

unpaved alleys has decreased from 66% in 1991 to 16% in 2010, with approximately 23 miles of

unpaved alleys remaining. City action to reduce airborne PMlO has also reduced the need to

sweep streets at the frequencies specified under the current 30 TAC §111.147 rule. Details

regarding the City of EI Paso paved alley inventory can be found in Appendix R: City ofEl Paso

Alley Information.

The TCEQ has a separate proposed rulemaking to amend 30 TAC §111.147(1)(E) to remove the

requirement for alleys in the City of EI Paso to be paved at the specified rate of 15 miles per year

and replace it with the following requirements:

• all new alleys must be paved;

• alleys may not be used for garbage and recycling collection; and

• reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) may be used as an alternate means of PM control for

alleys.

The proposal would also amend 30 TAC §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency

requirement from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times

per week to four times per week in the central business district.

The City has demonstrated that the unpaved alley inventory will not increase due to a city

ordinance that requires developers to pave any new alleys. Furthermore, alleys have not been

used for garbage collection since 1997, so the traffic in alleys has been dramatically reduced.

Finally, RAP has been used to cover some unpaved alleys, which has proven to be as effective as

paving to control PM emissions. In addition, the City continues to include paving and sweeping

in its annual budget. Additional information regarding the FCAA, §110(l) demonstration for

these rule amendments can be found in the preamble to the 30 TAC §111.147 proposed

rulemaking accompanying this SIP revision.

The 2001 MOA with the City would be revised to reflect these changes to 30 TAC §111.147. The

current SIP revision would incorporate the revised MOA into the EI Paso PMlO SIP. A draft of

the revised MOA can be found in Appendix S: Draft Revised Memorandum ofAgreement with

the City ofEl Paso (Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR).

1.6 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION (NEW)

The commission will hold a public hearing for this proposed SIP revision and associated

rulemaking at the following time and location:

1-3
Table 1-1: Public Hearing Information

City Date Time Location

September 27,

EI Paso State Office Building

EI Paso, Texas 2:00 p.m., MST 401 E. Franklin Ave., Room 570 2011 EI Paso, Texas 79901

Written comments will be accepted via mail, fax, or through the eComments

(http://www5.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecomments/) system. All comments should reference "the EI

Paso MOA SIP Revision" and Project Number 2011-01O-SIP-NR. Comments may be submitted

to Shelley Naik, MC 206, State Implementation Plan Team, Chief Engineer's Office, Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to

(512) 239-5687. Electronic comments may be submitted through the eComments system. File

size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. Comments

must be received by October 3, 2011, at 5:00 p.m.

An electronic version ofthis proposed SIP revision and appendices can be found at the TCEQ's

SIP Hot Topics (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/Hottop.html) Web page.

1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (NEW)

For a detailed explanation ofthe social and economic issues involved with the revised 30 TAC

§111.147, please refer to the preamble that precedes the rule package accompanying this SIP

revision.

1.8 FISCAL AND MANPOWER RESOURCES (NEW)

The state has determined that its fiscal and manpower resources are adequate and would not be

adversely affected through implementation ofthis plan.

1-4
CHAPTER 2: PMlO GROUP II AND GROUP III AREAS (NO CHANGE)

2-1
CHAPTER 3: PMlO GROUP I AREA (NO CHANGE)

3-1
CHAPTER 4: 1991 PMlO SIP FOR MODERATE AREA - EL PASO (REVISED)

4.1 MODERATE AREA PMlO SIP REQUIREMENTS (NO CHANGE)

4.2 DEFINITION OF MODERATE AREA BOUNDARY AND AIR QUALITY STATUS

(NO CHANGE)

4.3 SPECIAL RECEPTOR MODELING STUDIES (NO CHANGE)

4.4 PMlO EMISSIONS INVENTORY (NO CHANGE)

4.5 DISPERSION MODELING (NO CHANGE)

4.6 CONTROL PLANS (REVISED)

The dispersion modeling performed with the EI Paso County particles with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PMlO) emissions inventory for the

1991 EI Paso PMlO State Implementation Plan (SIP) reviSion indicated that the designated El

Paso PMlO nonattainment area would be in attainment ofthe NAAQS by the 1994 attainment

deadline based on United States emissions alone. Analyses ofthe spatial trends in PMlO

concentrations, along with trajectory analyses, provided strong evidence that PMlO

concentrations measured in EI Paso are influenced by emissions from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

However, the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopted several new or enhanced control

measures to help minimize PMlO impacts from EI Paso sources. Those control measures

reflected the requirements for Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably

Available Control Technology specified in the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) April 2, 1991, PMlOModerateArea SIP Guidance: Final StaffWork Producu

4.6.1 Area Source Control (Revised)

The 1990 emissions inventory established that area sources are clearly EI Paso's most significant

source of PMlO• In accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

guidance on RACM, fugitive dust control measures, residential wood combustion control

measures, and prescribed burning control measure were reviewed for the 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP

revision. Many ofthe prescribed control measures were previously adopted in TACB Regulation

I and were required to be effective as soon as possible, but no later than December 31, 1991. All

control measures were evaluated for their appropriateness in El Paso, and where control or

additional control was deemed reasonable, revisions to the TACB regulations were made.

Control requirements were extended to include Fort Bliss Military Reservation, except for

tactical training areas, by modification of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §U1.141,

concerning Geographic Areas ofApplication and Date of Compliance, effective February 12,

1992.

4.6.1.1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures (Revised)

All reasonable fugitive dust control measures for the City of EI Paso, including items on the

EPA's List ofAvailable Control Measures, were reviewed as part ofthe 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP

revision. Control offugitive dust in the City of EI Paso is clearly linked to the control of

reentrained dust from vehicle traffic. Regulations requiring reasonable controls were adopted

effective July 18,1989. For the 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP revision, some ofthe rules were amended

to be effective February 12, 1992, to expand applicability and to enhance effectiveness, as

follows:

1 EPA, PM-lO Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final StaffWork Product, memorandum from John Calcagni,

2 April 1991.

4-1
• 30 TAC §111.145, concerning Construction and Demolition, was expanded to add a

requirement for EI Paso for paving or otherwise stabilizing construction and/or demolition

access roads and eliminated the existing exemption for small construction and demolition

sites.

• 30 TAC §111.147, concerning Roads, Streets, and Alleys was modified to require paving as

the only acceptable method of dust control in EI Paso for specified roads and added a

requirement that alleys be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year. Section 111.147 was also

expanded to require that all levee roads and access to such roads be paved or chemically

stabilized, and to require removal ofsoil by mechanical sweepers or their equivalent from all

paved public streets at least four times per year within the EI Paso city limits and up to six

times per week in the central business district. The rule requires spot cleaning of visibly dirty

road areas and removal ofsand used for snow and ice control in the City of El Paso. Records

must be maintained to document the sweeping activities. These requirements were needed

to enhance the feasible dust control measures for paved roads in EI Paso. The executive

director and the EPA were also given the option of granting a waiver from paving

requirements for industrial roadways, provided the roadway owner can demonstrate that the

cost of paving is economically unreasonable compared to other forms of dust control

specified in 30 TAC §111.147(l).

All other fugitive dust control measures were determined to be sufficiently addressed by the

existing regulations or were considered inappropriate for the EI Paso area because of de minimis

emissions or technological or economical infeasibility. Specific details ofthis analysis were

included in Appendix N: Evaluation ofAvailable Fugitive Dust Control Measures ofthe 1991 EI

Paso PMlO attainment demonstration SIP revision.

On November 5,1991, a Memorandum of Dnderstanding (MOD) between the City of EI Paso

local government (the City) and the TACB was signed to outline the responsibilities and

regulatory requirements for both parties. This MOD was submitted to the EPA as Appendix Q:

Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the City ofEl Paso ofthe 1991 EI Paso PMlO

attainment demonstration SIP revision. On October 9, 2001, the 1991 MOD was replaced with a

Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA). Because MODs are typically used only for agreements

between two state agencies, and this agreement was between an agency and a city, an MOA was

considered more appropriate. Although the MOA was submitted to the EPA in a letter dated

February 19, 2002, it is unclear whether it was formally adopted as a SIP revision.

For the site reporting regulatory PMlO data for all three years from 2007 through 2009 (Socorro

AQS ID 481410057), there were no exceedances ofthe PMlO 24-hour NAAQS. The inventory of

unpaved alleys has decreased from 66% in 1991 to 16% in 2010, with approximately 23 miles of

unpaved alleys remaining. Additional city action to reduce airborne PMlO has also reduced the

need to sweep streets at the frequencies specified under the current 30 TAC §111.147 rule.

Details regarding the City of EI Paso paved alley inventory can be found in Appendix R: City of

El Paso Alley Information.

The TCEQ has a concurrently proposed rulemaking to amend 30 TAC §111.147(1)(E) to remove

the requirement for the City of EI Paso to pave alleys at the specified rate of 15 miles per year

and replace it with the following requirements:

• all new alleys must be paved;

• alleys may not be used for garbage and recycling collection; and

4-2
• reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) may be used as an alternate means of PM control for

alleys.

The proposal would also amend 30 TAC §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency

requirement from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times

per week to four times per week in the central business district.

The City has demonstrated that the unpaved alley inventory will not increase due to a city

ordinance that requires developers to pave any new alleys. Furthermore, alleys have not been

used for garbage collection since 1997, so the traffic in alleys has been dramatically reduced.

Finally, RAP has been used to cover some unpaved alleys, which has proven to be as effective as

paving to control PM emissions. In addition, the City continues to include paving and sweeping

in its annual budget. Additional information regarding the FCAA, §110(l) demonstration for

these rule amendments can be found in the preamble to the 30 TAC §111.147 proposed

rulemaking accompanying this SIP revision.

The 2001 MOA with the City would be revised to reflect these changes to 30 TAC §111.147. The

current SIP revision would incorporate the revised MOA into the EI Paso PMlO SIP. A draft of

the revised MOA can be found in Appendix S: Draft Revised Memorandum ofAgreement with

the City ofEl Paso (Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR).

4.6.1.2 Control Measures for Residential Wood Combustion Devices (Revised)

All reasonable control measures for residential wood combustion devices (RWCDs) in the City of

El Paso, including items on the EPA's List ofAvailable Control Measures, were reviewed as part

ofthe 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP. The evaluation ofthese control measures considered the fact that

emissions from RWCDs in El Paso are de minimis.

As discussed in the evaluation ofthe EPA's List ofAvailable Control Measures, many ofthese

control measures could not be promulgated because the legislative authority to impose taxes or

to require local agencies to impose taxes is lacking. Rules for an episodic curtailment program

were added to 30 TAC §111.111(C), concerning Solid Fuel Heating Devices. These rules apply in

the El Paso and Fort Bliss Military Reservation. The TACB rules are similar to an EI Paso

ordinance in that applicability extends to all residential solid fuel heating devices, rather than

RWCDs only. These rules exceeded the EPA requirements for such a program. The TACB

worked with the City of EI Paso to establish an effective public information program to facilitate

compliance with the rules. All other evaluated control measures were considered inappropriate

for the EI Paso area because of de minimis emissions from these sources.

As in the case offugitive dust control measures, the November 5, 1991, MOD between the City

and the TACB served as the basis for defining the division of responsibility and commitments to

carry out the provisions of 30 TAC §111.111, concerning Solid Fuel Heating Devices. The revised

MOA with the City to reflect the changes to 30 TAC §111.147 would also include the 30 TAC

§111.111 provisions. A draft ofthe revised MOA can be found in Appendix S: Draft Revised

Memorandum ofAgreement with the City ofEl Paso (Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR).

4-3
4.6.2 Prescribed Burning Control Measures (No change)

4.6.3 Point Source Control (No change)

4.6.4 Reasonable Further Progress (No change)

4.6.5 Contingency Measures (No change)

4.6.6 Test Methods (No change)

4.6.7 Revisions ofTCEQ Rules and Regulations (Revised)

4.6.7.1 Revisions Effective February 12, 1992 (Revised)

In accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal ofImplementation Plans, the TACB revised Regulation I,

Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, to incorporate rules to

support the provisions ofthe 1991 El Paso PMlO SIP revision. Specifically, the TACB adopted the

following rule revisions:

• 30 TAC §111.111, concerning Visible Emissions, added a subsection that prohibits the use of

solid fuel heating devices during periods ofstagnation within the City of El Paso, including

the Fort Bliss Military Reservation. The revision also contained exemptions for burn down

periods, that is, periods oftime not to exceed three hours for the cessation of combustion

within the device, for buildings where the solid fuel heating device is the sole source ofheat,

and for periods oftemporary power loss within the building.

• 30 TAC §111.141, concerning Geographic Areas ofApplication and Date ofCompliance,

added the Fort Bliss Military Reservation, except for tactical training areas, to the El Paso

geographic area being addressed in the rules and added a separate compliance date of

December 10,1993, for the new controls being proposed in accordance with the EPA's PMlO

Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final StaffWork Product, April 2, 1991.

• 30 TAC §111.145, concerning Construction and Demolition, added a requirement for El Paso

for paving or otherwise stabilizing construction and/or demolition access roads and

eliminated the exemption for small construction and demolition sites.

• 30 TAC §111.147, concerning Roads, Streets, and Alleys added a notation that, within the

City of El Paso, paving is the only acceptable method of dust control for specified roads;

added a requirement that city alleys be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year; added a

requirement that all levee roads and access to such roads be paved or chemically stabilized;

gave the executive director and the EPA the option of granting a waiver from paving

requirements for industrial roadways, provided the roadway owner can demonstrate that the

cost of paving is economically unreasonable compared to other forms of dust control

specified in 30 TAC §111.147(l); deleted the exemption for removal ofsand applied on public

thoroughfares for snow or ice controls; and added specific street sweeping and

recordkeeping requirements.

4.6.7.2 Current Revisions (New)

The TCEQ has a separate proposed rulemaking to amend 30 TAC §111.147(1)(E) to remove the

requirement for the City of El Paso to pave alleys at the specified rate of 15 miles per year and

replace it with the following requirements:

• all new alleys mustbe paved;

• alleys may not be used for garbage and recycling collection; and

4-4
• RAP may be used as an alternate means of PM control for alleys.

The proposal would also amend 30 TAC §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency

requirement from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times

per week to four times per week in the central business district.

The City has demonstrated that the unpaved alley inventory will not increase due to a city

ordinance that requires developers to pave any new alleys. Furthermore, alleys have not been

used for garbage collection since 1997, so the traffic in alleys has been dramatically reduced.

Finally, RAP has been used to cover some unpaved alleys, which has proven to be as effective as

paving to control PM emissions. In addition, the City continues to include paving and sweeping

in its annual budget. Additional information regarding the FCAA, §110(1) demonstration for

these rule amendments can be found in the preamble to the 30 TAC §111.147 proposed

rulemaking accompanying this SIP revision.

4-5
APPENDIX R: CITY OF EL PASO ALLEY INFORMATION
INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF EL PASO

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) received a letter dated July 19, 2010,

from the City of EI Paso Environmental Services Department that included information

pertaining to particulate matter reduction measures that have been implemented in the City of

EI Paso. The relevant alley information is included in this Appendix.

• Alley Paving Costs and Current/Future Plans

• EI Paso City Ordinances and Standards

• Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Information
SERVICE SOLUTIONS SUCCESS

Dear Ms. Naik:

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

L

l Ellen Smyth, P.E.

Director

Please find the attached information pertaining to reduction measures which have been

implemented in El Paso Texas. This information is in response to our meeting ofJune 3, 2010

and subsequent communications, in which you requested specific information outlining the

measures that have been implemented to reduce the ambient air concentrations of PM-10. The

attached table outlines your requests and refers to the applicable attachment for supporting

information.

Dedicated to Outstanding Customer Service for a Better Community

July 19, 2010

RE: City ofEl Paso, PM-I0 reduction measures

Ms. Shelley Naik

El Paso SIP Project Manager

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

MC-206, P. O. Box 13087

J\ustin, T)C 78711-3087

I hope you find the enclosed information to be sufficient, if you require additional information

please contact Miguel Parra, P.E. at 915-599-6235.

EIPaso

bed

iijir

2010 7968 SAN PAULO, EL PASO, TEXAS 79907·915·621·6700' FAX 915·621·6711 . WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOV
ALLEY PAVING COSTS AND CURRENT/FUTURE PLANS

Alley inventory and project budget information received by the TCEQ Quality from the City of El

Paso Environmental Services Department in letter dated July 19, 2010.
...... ..

. ..:

Project Square Miles. Project.Budget Average

Yards

' SY Cost'

PhaseI 120.069 9.37

$ 3.345,893.51

$ 27.87 2005-2007

Phasall 32,181 2.72

$ 911.020.52$ 28.31 2008-2009

Phase III 14,919 1.26

$ 496,508.50

$ '33.28 2009-2010

Phase IV 12,860 1,27

$ 552,805.00$ 42.99 2010

·'Alley. ."

Surface Alley Count Square Yards Miles

Tvne'

Double

Penetratio 693 36% 604.045 37% 52 37% n Pavino'

Hot Mix

Asphalt 609 37% 542,967 33% 47 33%

Pavina

Recycled

Asphalt 214 13% 225;082 14% 20 14%

Surface-

Unpaved 252 15% 251,577 15% 23 16%

:

Totals 1,668 1,623,671 142
EL PASO CITY ORDINANCES AND STANDARDS

El Paso, Texas, Code of Ordinances, Title 19 - Subdivisions, Article 2 - Subdivision Standards,

Chapter 19.15 - Roadways, Sections 19.15.020 - Subdivider Responsibility and 19.15.160 -

Alleys. Reprinted from the Municipal Code Library (http://www.municode.comj).

City of El Paso Design Standards for Construction for Alleys received by the Texas Commission

on Environmental Quality from the City of El Paso Environmental Services Department in a

letter dated July 19, 2010.
19.15.020 • Subdivider responsibility.

A. Safety, Convenience, Functionality. Proposed roads serving new development shall provide a

safe, convenient and functional system for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation and shall

conform to the applicable master thoroughfare plan and any amendments thereto, and shall be

appropriate for the particular traffic characteristics of each proposed subdivision or development. New

developments shall be supported by a thoroughfare network having adequate capacity, and safe and

efficient traffic circulation as determined by staff and/or a traffic impact analysis.

B. Streets, Generally. All streets, including curb and gutter improvements, sidewalks, and required

infrastructure shall be provided by and at the expense of the subdivider, subject to the rough

proportionality provisions of this title. The subdivider shall dedicate all rights-of-way in accordance with

subsection C of this section. The subdivider shall install streets at all locations and in accordance with

all standards required by this title.

1. The subdivider shall pay the cost of all such improvements, except as follows:

a. Arterial Streets and Collectors Within Subdivision Boundaries. If the right-of-way for any

arterial or collector street lies entirely within the boundaries of any subdivision or portion

thereof, the city shall have the option of designing the arterial or collector and/or of being

responsible for awarding the contract for construction of required improvements, or allowing

the subdivider to arrange for the construction of such arterial provided developer/city

participation is in accordance with state bidding statutes. The subdivider shall deposit his

share of construction costs with the city prior to award of the contract. The subdivider's share

shall include the cost of pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalks for a street thirty-six feet

wide or the roughly proportional share as determined by a TIA.

b. Arterial and Collector Streets Bordering Subdivision Boundaries. If the right-of-way of

any arterial or collector street forms part of the subdivision boundary, the subdivider shall

dedicate the right-of-way and either improve the street in conformance with this title and

Section 19.10.050 or contribute to the city an amount of money equal to that necessary to

improve the street in conformance with this title and Section 19.10.050. All money received

from subdividers for improving boundary streets shall be deposited in an appropriate fund(s)

of the city. When the city council resolves to design and improve a bounding arterial or

collector street to standards appropriate to its use, then the assessment fund or similar funds

shall be utilized in payment of necessary construction costs.

c. Improving State or Federally Owned Right-of-Way. If the right-of-way for any

thoroughfare owned by the state or federal government lies within or adjacent to the

subdivision, the subdivider shall not be required to pave any portion of it. The subdivider

shall, however, arrange to construct or contribute to the city an amount of money equal to

that necessary to furnish curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements to any state- or

federally-owned arterial lying within or adjacent to the subdivision, if adequate improvements

do not already exist but are determined to be necessary within the next ten years and are not

funded by others. The developer may also be required, based on the TIA, to contribute their

rough proportional share of additional frontage road lanes, acceleration or deceleration lanes

or bus turnouts. Funds shall be deposited and disposed of in a fashion similar to that

described in the preceding paragraph (1)(b) of this subsection, concerning improvements to
arterial streets bordering subdivision boundaries.

2. Existing Boundary Streets for Small Subdivisions. If the right-of-way of an existing street

forms part of the boundary for a subdivision meeting all of the following conditions, the subdivider

shall have the option to make the contribution to the city for the cost of required street

improvements, as determined by the City Manager or designee.

3. Alleys. Where provided, alleys shall be installed and improved in accordance with all

standards required by this title and the DSC. Alleys shall be provided by and at the expense of the

subdivider.

(Ord. 16882 § 2 (part), 2008)

(Ord. No. 17236, §27, 11-10-2009; Ord. No. 17251, §9, 12-15-2009)
19.15.160 • Alleys.

A. Required. The dedication of alleys shall be optional in all subdivisions, except where alleys must

be dedicated as direct continuations or extensions of alleys existing in adjacent subdivisions. Such

continuations shall be extended in the same alignment as evident from adjacent lots in the existing

subdivision, except where an existing alley is less than sixteen feet wide. In that case, additional land

shall be dedicated so as to form an alley at least sixteen feet wide.

8. Existing Subdivisions with Alleys. Where lots are subdivided or resubdivided adjacent to or within

subdivisions already having alleys, the alley must be improved only to the same extent as may be

evident from the existing alley. Where lots are subdivided as continuations of existing subdivisions

already having alleys, alleys in the new subdivision shall be improved only to the same standards as

those existing alleys, all the way to the first street intersection. Thereafter, if alleys are required or

desired, they should conform to standards for alley dedication and improvement set forth in subsection

C below.

C. Alley ROWand Paving Widths.

1. Alley ROW's in commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential districts (including

townhouses and patio homes where rear automobile access is intended) must be a minimum

width of twenty-eight feet. Twenty-four feet of the minimum width must be surfaced in accordance

with the DSC.

2. Alley ROW's in subdivisions, or portions thereof, proposed for single-family residential use

must be a minimum width of sixteen feet. Sixteen feet of the minimum width must be surfaced in

accordance with the DSC.

D. General Requirements.

1. Alleys shall be as nearly parallel to the street frontage as reasonably possible.

2. Alley intersections with streets shall be as close to right angles (ninety degrees) as practical.

3. Where two alleys intersect or turn at an angle, a corner clip of not less than ten feet from the

normal intersection of the property line shall be provided along each property line.

4. If alleys are not straight within each block or do not connect on a straight course with alleys

on adjoining blocks, an easement shall be provided for the placement of guy wires on lot division

lines necessary to support overhead utility poles set on curving or deviating alley rights-of-way.

5. Alleys should not be platted to intersect any arterial streets.

6. Dead-end alleys shall not be permitted unless a permanent or temporary turnaround is

provided. The following standards shall apply:

a. In subdivisions subject to subsection (8)(1) above, turnarounds shall be provided with a

minimum radius of thirty-five feet;

b. In all other subdivisions, turnarounds shall be provided with a minimum radius of
thirty-two feet;

c. In instances where dead-end alleys will clearly be permanent, turnarounds shall be

surfaced in accordance with subsection (8)(1) or (8)(2), as applicable;

d. In instances were dead-end alleys are of a temporary nature, turnarounds shall be

improved with a minimum six-inch-base of crushed limestone.

7. Layout and arrangement of alleys shall be designed to avoid the creation of short cuts for

traffic and to discourage use by traffic other than that generated by activity within property abutting

the alley.

8. Cross intersections of alleys shall not be permitted.

9. Alleys forming the boundary of a subdivision, and adjacent to unplatted property, shall be

dedicated and improved the same as if situated in the interior of a subdivision.

(Ord. 16882 § 2 (part), 2008)
BACK TO TITLE INDEX PAGE

1_..-- 1_4'_R_.O_.W_· ---!l

:t I ASPHALT PAVEMENT I •

',I 'io CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED "

2% MIN. INVERT CROWN

-

"ALLEY

ONE (1) WAYLANE

20' R.O.W.

i •

J

·,1

,

J 10' 10' I

r-ASPHALT PAVEMENT

OlVERT OR""" I

I ,,. I

I 2% MIN. T rCONCRt:rE AS SPECIF1~ I

- '" ~:rtt4i'

. I

I I 1.5' 1.5' I

I I I

ALLEY TW~ (2)LANES

'1. ONE (1)-THREE FOOT CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER LOCATED AT THE,

CENTERL.INE OF THE ,RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEN THE LONGITUDINAL SLOPE

OF liiE ALLEY IS LESS 11-IAN ONE (1) PERCENT, AND DRAINAGE IS

TO 8E CARRIED WITHIN THE AL.LEY.

2. NO CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER REQUIRED WHEN LONGllUDINAL SLOPE'

OF 1HE ALLEY'IS EQUAL OR GREA1'ER THAN ONE (1) PERCENT.

TITLE 19· SUBDMSION ORDINANCE

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DESIGN STANDARDS

FOR CONSlRUCTION

ALLEY CROSS-SECTIONS

AND DETAILS

3-11
BACK TO TITLE INDEX PAGE

16'

ROW

t t

16'

LANB

FA'V'H.MENi:..:.7 ""·::PROPOSED 3' CONCRETE

AS SPECIFIED VAllEY GUTTBR. REF.ER.

TO PLATE3·12

16' ALLEY NO PARKING

16'

ROW

PltOPOSED 3' CONCREtE

VAUEf GUTTER. RBFER

TO PLA1E3-12

16rALLEY

SINGLEFAWLY RESIDENTIAL

28'

ROW

24' I 'I~ _'

PAvEME:ir>':':,r"";'; $ ; '*t:~~;;;~~,. CONCR.ETE

AS SPECIFIED VALLEY GUTTER. REllER

TO PLATE 3-12

28'ALLEY

COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIALIMULTI-FAMILY

TITLE 19 M SUBDMSION ORDINANCE

ENGINEERING DEPARTIv.1ENT

DESIGN STANDARDS .

FOR CONSTRUCTION

ALLEYCROSSMSECTIONS

3-11A

ApproycdByR. A. SHIDlERT Cl.lec'kcdBr. . ltM.l!.·

Dale JUNB03.2008 DmmB1, OEC/J.lt.
BACK TO TITLE INDEX PAGE

I

:;;:'

0 1

Ii! 'HMAC AS SPECIF(~

SUBGRAOE «» 951'

COMPACTION AS

PER ASTM ~155'"

ALLEYPAVEMENT

I

'I •

,3':

I~

I

;::1

oJ Ii,I

"

t'

I

INVERT CROWN z

Si'r· CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED ., ,

2% MIN. PAVEMENT ...... ..

I

1 • I;r: ,

I~'

1.5'

3.0'

1.5'

SUBGRADE 0 95%

COMPACTION AS

PER ASThl P1557

VALLEY GUTTER

NOlES:

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONeRaE SHAll. BE F

C= 3000 P.S.l. MINIMUM

TITLE 19 - SUBDIVISION bRDINANCE

ENGINEERrnG DEPARTMENT

DESIGN STANDARDS

FOR CONSTRUCTION

ALLEY DETAlLS

3-12

~ByllA.SBUBERT CheckalBr. H.M-E.

DoIto JUNB03, 2008 DIanBY, QBC IJ.R.
RAP INFORMATION

Documentation on City of EI Paso RAP usage received by the TCEQ from the City of EI Paso

Environmental Services Department in a letter dated July 19, 2010.

Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Material Description and User Guideline from the United States

Department ofTransportation Federal Highway Administration Publication Number: FHWARD-97-148, "User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction."

Reprinted from the United States Department ofTransportation Federal Highway

Administration Web site.

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/index.cfm)

Excerpts from the November 2000 United States Department ofTransportation Federal

Highway publication, "Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual" for the South Dakota

Local Transportation Assistance Program received by the TCEQ from the City of EI Paso

Environmental Services qepartment in a letter dated July 19, 2010. Reprinted from the United

States Environmental Protection Agency Web site.

(http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/gravelroads_index.cfm)
ALLEY MAINTENANCE TOTAL MILLINGS APPLIED

9/1/2003 8/31/2004 108 CY'

9/1/2004 8/31/2005 '2658 CY

9/1/2005 8/31/2006 . 7646 CY

91112006 ~/31/2007 3656 CY

9/1/20078/S1/2008 11929 CY

9/1/2008 8/31/2009 4233 CY

9/1/2009 6/30/2010 818. CY
Federal Highway Administration> Publications> Research> Infrastructure> Structures> User Guidelines for

Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction

Publication Number: FHWA-RD-97-148

User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct

Materials in Pavement Construction

[ Asphalt Concrete (Hot [ Asphalt Concrete (Cold [Granular

Recycling) ] Recycling) ] Base]

RECLAIMED ASPHALT PAVEMENT

ORIGIN

[ Embankment or

Fill ]

Material Description

Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is the term given to removed and/or reprocessed

pavement materials containing asphalt and aggregates. These materials are generated

when asphalt pavements are removed for reconstruction, resurfacing, or to obtain access

to buried utilities. When properly crushed and screened, RAP consists of high-quality, wellgraded aggregates coated by asphalt cement.

Asphalt pavement is generally removed either by milling or full-depth removal. Milling

entails removal of the pavement surface using a milling machine, which can remove up to

50 mm (2 in) thickness in a single pass. Full-depth removal involves ripping and breaking

the pavement using a rhino horn on a bulldozer and/or pneumatic pavement breakers. In

most instances, the broken material is picked up and loaded into haul trucks by a front-end

loader and transported to a central facility for processing. At this facility, the RAP is

processed using a series of operations, including crushing, screening, conveying, and

stacking.

Although the majority of old asphalt pavements are recycled at central processing plants,

asphalt pavements may be pulverized in place and incorporated into granular or stabilized

base courses using a self-propelled pulverizing machine. Hot in-place and cold in-place

recycling processes have evolved into continuous train operations that include partial depth

removal of the pavement surface, mixing the reclaimed material with beneficiating additives

(such as virgin aggregate, binder, and/or softening or rejuvenating agents to improve
binder properties), and placing and compacting the resultant mix in a single pass.

Reliable figures for the generation of RAP are not readily available from all state highway

agencies or local jurisdictions. Based on incomplete data, it is estimated that as much as

41 million metric tons (45 million tons) of RAP may be produced each year in the United

States.(1)

Additional information on recycling of asphalt pavement can be obtained from the following

organizations:

National Asphalt Pavement Association

5100 Forbes Boulevard

Lanham, Maryland 20706-4413

Asphalt Institute

Research Park Drive

Lexington, Kentucky 40512

Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association

#3 Church Circle, Suite 250

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

CURRENT MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Recycling

The majority of the RAP that is produced is recycled and used, although not always in the

same year that it is produced. Recycled RAP is almost always returned back into the

roadway structure in some form, usually incorporated into asphalt paving by means of hot

or cold recycling, but it is also sometimes used as an aggregate in base or subbase

construction.

It has been estimated that as much as approximately 33 million metric tons (36 million

tons), or 80 to 85 percent of the excess asphalt concrete presently generated, is reportedly

being used either as a portion of recycled hot mix asphalt, in cold mixes, or as aggregate in

granular or stabilized base materials.(2) Some of the RAP that is not recycled or used

during the same construction season that it is generated is stockpiled and is eventually

reused.

Disposal

Excess asphalt concrete is disposed of in landfills or sometimes in the right of way. In most

situations, this occurs where small quantities are involved, or where the material is

commingled with other materials, or facilities are not readily available for collecting and

processing the RAP. It is estimated that the amount of excess asphalt concrete that must

be disposed is less than 20 percent of the annual amount of RAP that is generated.
MARKET SOURCES

In most cases, recycled hot mix asphalt can be obtained from central RAP processing

facilities where asphalt pavements are crushed, screened, and stockpiled for use in asphalt

concrete production, cold mix, or as a granular or stabilized base material. Most of these

processing facilities are located at hot mix asphalt plant sites, where the RAP is either sold

or used as feedstock for the production of recycled hot mix asphalt pavement or recycled

cold mix.

The properties of RAP are largely dependent on the properties of the constituent materials

and asphalt concrete type used in the old pavement. Since RAP may be obtained from any

number of old pavement sources, quality can vary. Excess granular material or soils, or

even debris, can sometimes be introduced into old pavement stockpiles. The number of

times the pavement has been resurfaced, the amount of patching and/or crack sealing, and

the possible presence of prior seal coat applications will all have an influence on RAP

composition. Quality control is needed to ensure that the processed RAP will be suitable

for the prospective application. This is particularly the case with in-place pavement

recycling.

HIGHWAY USES AND PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

Milled or crushed RAP can be used in a number of highway construction applications.

These include its use as an aggregate substitute and asphalt cement supplement in

recycled asphalt paving (hot mix or cold mix), as a granular base or subbase, stabilized

base aggregate, or as an embankment or fill material.

Asphalt Concrete Aggregate and Asphalt Cement Supplement

Recycled asphalt pavement can be used as an aggregate substitute material, but in this

application it also provides additional asphalt cement binder, thereby reducing the demand

for asphalt cement in new or recycled asphalt mixes containing RAP.

When used in asphalt paving applications (hot mix or cold mix), RAP can be processed at

either a central processing facility or on the job site (in-place processing). Introduction of

RAP into asphalt paving mixtures is accomplished by either hot or cold recycling.

Hot Mix Asphalt (Central Processing Facility)

Recycled hot mix is normally produced at a central RAP processing facility, which usually

contains crushers, screening units, conveyors, and stackers designed to produce and

stockpile a finished granular RAP product processed to the desired gradation. This product

is subsequently incorporated into hot mix asphalt paving mixtures as an aggregate

substitute. Both batch plants and drum-mix plants can incorporate RAP into hot mix

asphalt.

Hot Mix Asphalt (In-Place Recycling)

Hot in-place recycling is a process of repaving that is performed as either a single or

multiple pass operation using specialized heating, scarifying, rejuvenating, laydown, and
compaction equipment. There is no processing required prior to the actual recycling

operation.

Cold Mix Asphalt (Central Processing Facility)

The RAP processing requirements for cold mix recycling are similar to those for recycled

hot mix, except that the graded RAP product is incorporated into cold mix asphalt paving

mixtures as an aggregate substitute.

Cold Mix Asphalt (In-Place Recycling)

The cold in-place recycling process involves specialized plants or processing trains,

whereby the existing pavement surface is milled to a depth of up to 150 mm (6 in),

processed, mixed with asphalt emulsion (or foamed asphalt), and placed and compacted in

a single pass. There is no processing required prior to the actual recycling operation.

Granular Base Aggregate

To produce a granular base or subbase aggregate, RAP must be crushed, screened, and

blended with conventional granular aggregate, or sometimes reclaimed concrete material.

Blending granular RAP with suitable materials is necessary to attain the bearing strengths

needed for most load-bearing unbound granular applications. RAP by itself may exhibit a

somewhat lower bearing capacity than conventional granular aggregate bases.

Stabilized Base Aggregate

To produce a stabilized base or subbase aggregate, RAP must also be crushed and

screened, then blended with one or more stabilization reagents so that the blended

material, when compacted, will gain strength.

Embankment or Fill

Stockpiled RAP material may also be used as a granular fill or base for embankment or

backfill construction, although such an application is not widely used and does not

represent the highest or most suitable use for the RAP. The use of RAP as an

embankment base may be a practical alternative for material that has been stockpiled for a

considerable time period, or may be commingled from several different project sources.

Use as an embankment base or fill material within the same right of way may also be a

suitable alternative to the disposal of excess asphalt concrete that is generated on a

particular highway project.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Physical Properties

The properties of RAP are largely dependent on the properties of the constituent materials

and the type of asphalt concrete mix (wearing surface, binder course, etc.). There can be

substantial differences between asphalt concrete mixes in aggregate quality, size, and

consistency. Since the aggregates in surface course (wearing course) asphalt concrete
must have high resistance to wear/abrasion (polishing) to contribute to acceptable friction

resistance properties, these aggregates may be of higher quality than the aggregates in

binder course applications, where polishing resistance is not of concern.

Both milling and crushing can cause some aggregate degradation. The gradation of milled

RAP is generally finer and more dense than that of the virgin aggregates. Crushing does

not cause as much degradation as milling; consequently, the gradation of crushed RAP is

generally not as fine as milled RAP, but finer than virgin aggregates crushed with the same

type of equipment.

The particle size distribution of milled or crushed RAP may vary to some extent, depending

on the type of equipment used to produce the RAP, the type of aggregate in the pavement,

and whether any underlying base or subbase aggregate has been mixed in with the

reclaimed asphalt pavement material during the pavement removal.

During processing, virtually all RAP produced is milled or crushed down to 38 mm (1.5 in)

or less, with a maximum allowable top size of either 51 mm (2 in) or 63 mm (2.5 in). Table

13-1 lists the typical range of particle size distribution that normally results from the milling

or crushing of RAP. Milled RAP is generally finer than crushed RAP. Studies on pavements

in California, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia have shown that before and after milling,

the pavement fraction passing a 2.36 mm (No.8) sieve can be expected to increase from a

premilled range of 41 to 69 percent to a postmilled range of 52 to 72 percent. The fraction

passing a 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve can be expected to increase from approximately 6 to

10 percent to a range of 8 to 12 percent.(3) Most sources of RAP will be a well-graded

coarse aggregate, comparable to, or perhaps slightly finer and more variable than, crushed

natural aggregates.

The unit weight of milled or processed RAP depends on the type of aggregate in the

reclaimed pavement and the moisture content of the stockpiled material. Although available

literature on RAP contains limited data pertaining to unit weight, the unit weight of milled or

processed RAP has been found to range from 1940 to 2300 kg/m3(120 to 140 Ib/ft\ which

is slightly lower than that of natural aggregates.

Information on the moisture content of RAP stockpiles is sparse, but indications are that

the moisture content of the RAP will increase while in storage. Crushed or milled RAP can

pick up a considerable amount of water if exposed to rain. Moisture contents up to 5

percent or higher have been measured for stored crushed RAP.(4) As noted earlier, during

periods of extensive precipitation, the moisture content of some RAP stockpiles may be as

high as 7 to 8 percent.(5) Lengthy stockpiling of crushed or milled RAP should, therefore, be

kept to a minimum.

The asphalt cement content of RAP typically ranges between 3 and 7 percent by weight.

The asphalt cement adhering to the aggregate is somewhat harder than new asphalt

cement. This is due primarily to exposure of the pavement to atmospheric oxygen

(oxidation) during use and weathering. The degree of hardening depends on several

factors, including the intrinsic properties of the asphalt cement, the mixing temperature/time

(increases with increasing high temperature exposure), the degree of asphalt concrete

compaction (increases if not well compacted), asphalt cement/air voids content (increases

with lower asphalt/higher air voids content), and age in service (increases with age).

Table 13-1. Typical range of particle size distribution for reclaimed asphalt pavement

(RAP)
(percent by weight passing).

Screen Size

(mesh)

37.5 mm (1.5 in)

25 mm (1.0 in)

19 mm (3/4 in)

12.5 mm (1/2 in)

9.5 mm (3/8 in)

75 mm (No.4)

2.36 mm (No.8)

1.18 mm (No. 16)

0.60 mm (No. 30)

0.30 mm (No. 50)

0.15 mm (No. 100)

0.075 mm (No.

200)

Percent Finer After Processing or

Milling~::~" "" .•.... ....

100

95 -100

84 -100

70 -100

58 - 95

38 -75

25 -60

17 - 40

10 - 358

5 - 25b

3 - 20c

2 - 15d

Usually less than 30 percent

Usually less than 20 percent

Usually less than 15 percent

Usually less than 10 percent - _..".,

The RAP obtained from most wearing surface mixes will usually have an asphalt content in

the 4.5 to 6 percent range. The recovered asphalt from RAP usually exhibits low

penetration and relatively high viscosity values, depending on the amount of time the

original pavement has been in service. Penetration values at 25°C (7rF) are likely to

range from 10 to 80 while the absolute viscosity values at 60°C (140°F) may range from as

low as 2,000 poises (equivalent to AC-20) up to as high as 50,000 poises or greater,

depending on the extent of aging. Viscosity ranges from 4,000 to 25,000 poises can

normally be expected from the asphalt cement that is recovered from RAP material. (6)

Table 13-2 provides a summary of the typical ranges of physical properties of RAP, other

than gradation.

Table 13-2. Physical and mechanical properties of reclaimed asphalt pavement

(RAP).

Type of

Property RAP Property

Weight

Typical Range of Values

Physical Moisture Content

Properties !~~~:~~~1~:~7~;-8% r~ 4.5-6%

!Malximlum Range: 3-7%

iNormal: 10-80 at 25°C (7rF) ................................••
California Bearing Ratio

I(CBR)

Mechanical

Properties

Chemical Properties

bsolute Viscosity or : 4,000 - 25,000 poises

ecovered Asphalt Cement (140°F)

"~ ".~.. "1600 - 2000-k-g7;'r?~

Compacted Unit Weight (100-125Ib/ft3)

100% RAP: 20-25%

40% RAP and 60% Natural

Aggregate: 150% or higher

Mineral aggregates constitute the overwhelming majority (93 to 97 percent by weight) of

RAP. Only a minor percentage (3 to 7 percent) of RAP consists of hardened asphalt

cement. Consequently, the overall chemical composition of RAP is essentially similar to

that of the naturally occurring aggregate that is its principal constituent.

Asphalt cement is made up of mainly high molecular weight aliphatic hydrocarbon

compounds, but also small concentrations of other materials such as sulfur, nitrogen, and

polycyclic hydrocarbons (aromatic and/or naphthenic) of very low chemical reactivity.

Asphalt cement is a combination of asphaltenes and maltenes (resins and oils).

Asphaltenes are more viscous than either resins or oils and playa major role in

determining asphalt viscosity. Oxidation of aged asphalt causes the oils to convert to resins

and the resins to convert to asphaltenes, resulting in age hardening and a higher viscosity

binder.(7)

Mechanical Properties

The mechanical properties of RAP depend on the original asphalt pavement type, the

method(s) utilized to recover the material, and the degree of processing necessary to

prepare the RAP for a particular application. Since most RAP is recycled back into

pavements, there is a general lack of data pertaining to the mechanical properties for RAP

in other possible applications.

The compacted unit weight of RAP will decrease with increasin~ unit weight, with maximum

dry density values reported to range from 1600 kg/m3 (100 Ib/ft ) to 2000 kg/m3 (125

Ib/ft\(8) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values for RAP material containing trap rock

aggregate have been reported in the 20 to 25 percent range. However, when RAP is

blended with natural aggregates for use in granular base, the asphalt cement in the RAP

has a significant strengthening effect over time, such that specimens containing 40 percent

RAP have produced CBR values exceeding 150 after 1 week.(9)

Table 13-2 provides a summary of the mechanical properties of RAP discussed in the

preceding paragraphs.

REFERENCES

1. Pavement Recycling Executive Summary and Report, Federal Highway
Administration. Report No. FHWA-SA-95-060, Washington, DC, 1995.

2. Engineering and Environmental Aspects of Recycling Materials for Highway

Construction, Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Report No. FHWA-RD-93-008, Washington, DC, May 1993.

3. Kallas, B. F. Flexible Pavement Mixture Design Using Reclaimed Asphalt

Concrete, FHWAlRD-84/088, June, 1984.

4. Smith, Richard W. "State-of-the-Art Hot Recycling." Transportation Research

Board, Record No. 780, Proceedings ofthe National Seminar on Asphalt

Pavement Recycling, Washington, DC, 1980.

5. Decker, D. S. and T. J. Young, "Handling RAP in an HMA Facility." Proceedings of

the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Edmonton, Alberta, 1996.

6. Epps, J. A., D. N. Little, R. J. O'Neal, and B. M. Gallaway. "Mixture Properties of

Recycled Central Plant Materials." American Society for Testing and Materials,

Special Technical Publication No. 662, Recycling of Bituminous Pavements, West

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, December, 1977.

7. Noureldin, Ahmed Samy and Leonard E. Wood. "Variations in Molecular Size

Distribution of Virgin and Recycled Asphalt Binders Associated with Aging."

Transportation Research Board, Record No.1228, Washington, DC, 1989.

8. Senior, S. A., S. I. Szoke, and C. A. Rogers. "Ontario's Experience with Reclaimed

Materials for Use in Aggregates." Presented at the International Road Federation

Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 1994.

9. Hanks, A. J. and E. R. Magni. The Use of Bituminous and Concrete Material in

Granular Base and Earth. Materials Information Report MI-137, Engineering

Materials Office, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, Ontario, 1989.

[ Asphalt Concrete (Hot

Recycling) ]

[ Asphalt Concrete (Cold [Granular

Recycling) ] Base]

Previous I Table of Contents I Next

[ Embankment or

Fill]

Page Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Safety, RDT

Scheduled Update: Archive - No Update

Technical Issues: TFHRCWebMasler@dot.gov

TRT Terms: Waste products as road materials--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Asphalt concrete--Design and

construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Concrete--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,

Pavements--Additives--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Fills (Earthwork)--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,

Roads--Base courses--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Wastes, Environmental impacts, Recycling

Updated: 04/07/2011
Research Home IFHWA Home I

OFHWA

United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
Federal Highway Administration> Publications> Research> Infrastructure> Structures> User Guidelines for

Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction

Publication Number: FHWA-RD-97-148

User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct

Materials in Pavement Construction

[ Asphalt Concrete (Cold

Recycling) ]

[ Granular

Base]

[Embankment or

Fill]

[ Material

Description]

RECLAIMED ASPHALT PAVEMENT

INTRODUCTION

User Guideline

Asphalt Concrete (Hot Recycling)

Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) can be used as an aggregate in the hot recycling of

asphalt paving mixtures in one of two ways. The most common method (conventional

recycled hot mix) involves a process in which RAP is combined with virgin aggregate and

new asphalt cement in a central mixing plant to produce new hot mix paving mixturesY) A

second method (hot in-place recycling) involves a process in which asphalt pavement

surface distress is corrected by softening the existing surface with heat, mechanically

removing the pavement surface, mixing it with a recycling or rejuvenating agent, possibly

adding virgin asphalt and/or aggregate, and replacing it on the pavement without removing

the recycled material from the pavement siteY

PERFORMANCE RECORD

Although some form of pavement recycling had been practiced as early as 1915,(3) the first

sustained efforts to recover and reuse old asphalt paving materials were conducted during

1974 in Nevada and Texas.(4) Bolstered by the sponsorship of the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), more than 40 states performed and documented RAP

demonstration projects between 1976 and 1982.
RAP is now routinely accepted in asphalt paving mixtures as an aggregate substitute and

as a portion of the binder in nearly all 50 states. Substitution rates of 10 to 50 percent or

more, depending on state specifications, are normally introduced in pavements, and

recently developed technology has even made it possible to recycle 90 to 100 percent RAP

in hot mix.

Recycled Hot Mix

The use of processed RAP to produce conventional recycled hot mix (RHM) is the most

common type of asphalt recycling and is now considered standard asphalt paving practice.

There are abundant technical data available indicating that properly specified and

produced recycled hot mix asphalt is equivalent in quality and structural performance to

conventional hot mix asphalt in terms of rutting, raveling, weathering, and fatigue cracking.

Recycled hot mix asphalt mixtures also generally age more slowly and are more resistant

to the action of water than conventional hot mix asphalt. (See references 5,6,7,8,9,10,

and11.)

The maximum limit for RAP content in RHM produced in conventional hot mix asphalt

batch plants is widely considered to be 50 percent, limited by both the heat capacity of the

plants and gaseous hydrocarbon emissions. As much as 60 to 70 percent RAP may be

processed in drum mix plants. Special plants based on microwave technology have been

developed to limit gaseous emissions from hot mix asphalt production using very high RAP .

contents (up to 100 percent RAP), but the cost of heating is much higher than that of

conventional systems. This process was developed in California and has only seen limited

use.(12)

Table 13-3 provides a 1996 list of State Department of Transportation (DOT) specification

requirements for the use of RAP in hot mix asphalt paving mixtures. Separate requirements

are given for mixes produced in batch plants or drum-mix plants. Maximum allowable RAP

percentages are shown in Table 13-3 for wearing surface, binder, and base courses.(13)

While all state highway agencies permit the use of RAP in base and binder courses, 10

agencies do not permit the use of RAP in surface courses. These include Alaska, Florida,

Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.

Louisiana and Maine allow up to 20 percent RAP in shoulder mixes on~. Massachusetts

does not permit the use of RAP in open-graded friction course mixesY ) Minnesota permits

RAP to be used in surface mixes only on low-volume roads. (5) Oklahoma allows up to 25

percent RAP for low- volume roads (fewer than 1,000 vehicles per day) only. Oregon does

not permit RAP use in surface mixes on interstate highways.(13)

States that approve the use of RAP in surface courses generally permit from 10 to 30

percent RAP. Some states permit even higher percentages from approved RAP sources.

Allowable binder and base course aggregate substitution rates range from 10 to as high as

70 percent in one state (Arkansas). At least 22 states do not permit the blending or

commingling of RAP from different projects into combined stockpiles.(13)

Hot In-Place Recycling

The use of hot in-place recycling (HIPR) has developed rapidly over the past decade,

although it is in use only on a limited basis. Simple heater-scarification units, heat

reforming systems, and special techniques have been developed for heating, scarifying,

rejuvenation, and remixing of up to 50 mm (2 in) in depth of aged old asphalt pavement to
new hot mix quality overlay in one pass.

The Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association (ARRA) recognizes three basic HIPR

processes: (1) heater-scarification (multiple pass); (2) repaving (single pass); and (3)

remixing.

The first two processes involve removal, rejuvenation, and replacement of the top 25 mm

(1 in) of the existing pavement. The remixing process involves incorporating virgin hot mix

with the recycled paving material in a pugmill and placement to a depth of 50 mm (2 in).

Table 13-3. State DOT specification requirements for the use of reclaimed asphalt

pavement (RAP) in hot mix asphalt paving mixtures.(13)

Max. RAP % - BaHhl'b:ntt Max. RAP % - Drum. PIimts 'l\lp Size stUe

Rue JIindII: :IluIfIue Rue JIindII: :IluIfIue kRAP

PJidlan,a 40 40 15 50 50 15 2in

AW:ka - - - - - - - i\ri:1lma 30 30 30 30 30 30 1.5 in

AlkUlSas 10 10 10 10 10 10 3in

Cilifornia 50 50 50 50 50 50 2in

Colorado 15 15 15 15 15 15 1.5

CoJ.me etirol. 40 40 40 40 40 40 2in

Dehw~ 35 35 25 50 50 30 2in

Flm:ida 60 50 N~ 60 50 N~ ~ecs

Georgia 25 25 25 40 40 40 2in

Haw'aii 30 N~ N~ 40 N~ N~ 1.5 in

Idtho Opm Opm Opm Opm Opm Opm 2in

Illhois 50 25 15 50 25 15 ~ecs

Indima 50 50 20 50 50 20 2in

!wAl. Opm Opm Opm Opm Opm Opm 1.5 in

Kansas 50 50 50 50 50 50 2in

Kmtudo;y 30 30 30 30 30 30 ~ecs

Louisima 30 30 N~ 30 30 N~ 2in

Maine 40 40 N~ 40 40 N~ lin

M<.Iylmd Opm Opm Limit Opm Opm Limit ~ecs

Massadrosetls 20 20 10 40 40 10 .15 in

Michigm 50 50 50 50 50 50 ~ecs

:M:iinesota 59 50 30 50 50 30 3in

~sissippi 30 30 15 30 30 15 2in

~sOlJri 50 50 50 50 50 50 1.5 in

Montana 50 50 10 50 50 10 2in

Nebr~a Not Used Not Used Not Used Opm Opm Opm 2in

Nevada 50 50 15 50 50 15 1.5 in

New 35 35 15 50 50 15 ~ecs

~shire 25 25 10 25 25 10 2in

New Jm:ey

New Mexil:o Opm Opm Opm Opm Opm Opm 1.5 in

New YoIll 50 50 N~ 10 10 N~ 2in

Notth ClIOOlina 60 60 60 60 60 60 2in

Notth Dakota 50 50 50 50 50 50 lin

Ohio 50 35 20 50 35 20 2in
Oldlihama 25 25 NarIi! 25 25 NarIi! 2in

Oregan 30 20 20 30 20 20 lin

Pe1lrIijl.vmia Open Open Open Open Open Open 2in

Thode Ishnd 30 30 NarIi! 30 30 NarIi! 125 h

Soufh C=lina 30 25 20 30 25 20 2in

Soufh Dakota Not Used Not Used Not Used 50 50 50 15 in

Tennessee 15 Open NarIi! Open Open NarIi! Open

Texas 15 Open Open Open Open Open 2in

UUh Not Used Not Used Not Used 25 25 25 2in

Vennara. ~ecs. ~ecs. ~ecs ~ecs ~ecs ~ecs ~ecs

Virginia 25 25 25 25 25 25 2 in Open

W~ Open Open Open Open Open Open Open

West Virginia Open Open Open Open Open Open Open

WisCOllih Open 35 20 Open 35 20 Open

W)'omi:\g 50 50 50 50 50 50 2in

The major advantage of HIPR is the cost savings that it can potentially achieve over

conventional recycled hot mix, eliminating the costs associated with transporting,

processing and stockpiling RAP. Since only the top 50 mm (2 in) of pavement can normally

be reconditioned using this process, HIPR applications are limited to roadways that do not

have any structural deficiencies and do no not require additional materials. The major

disadvantage of HIPR is the inability to make significant changes to the mix. Pavements

that exhibit structural base failure, irregular patching or the need for major drainage or

grade improvements are not suitable candidates for HIPR.(2)

Not all states have experience in HIPR applications, although HIPR technology is a fairly

well accepted practice. There are 32 states that report having some experience with HIPR,

although 22 of these states consider their use of HIPR to be experimental. The 10 states

that have the most experience with HIPR are Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas,

Maryland, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. None of these states has had more

than five HIPR projects per year. A survey of these states found that, in general, all have

reported good or fair performance.(2)

The survey of HIPR experience at the state DOT level further indicated that the use of the

three different HIPR processes has been fairly evenly divided, with 13 states having had

some experience with heater-scarification, and 16 states each having some experience

with either the repaving or the remixing process. Of the 10 states with the most HIPR

experience, 5 have used heater-scarification, 4 have used the repaving process, and 6

have used the remixing process.(2)

MATERIAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

Recycled Hot Mix

Reclaimed asphalt pavement must be processed into a granular material prior to use in hot

mix applications. A typical RAP processing plant consists of a crusher, screening units,

conveyors, and stacker. It is desirable to produce either a coarse or a fine fraction of

processed RAP to permit better control over input to the hot mix plant and better control of

the mix design. The processed RAP used in recycled hot mix asphalt should be as coarse

as possible and the fines (minus 0.075 mm (No. 200 sieve)) minimized. Gentle RAP

crushing (controlled crusher speed and clearance adjustment on exit gate) is
recommended to minimize the fracture of coarse aggregate and excess fines generation.

Hot In-Place Recycling

In the HIPR process, the surface of the pavement must be softened with heat prior to

mechanical scarification. The HIPR process has evolved into a self-contained, continuous

train operation that includes heating, scarifying, rejuvenator addition, mixing, and

replacement.

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

Some of the engineering properties of RAP that are of particular interest when RAP is

incorporated into new asphalt pavements include its gradation, asphalt content, and the

penetration and viscosity of the asphalt binder.

Gradation: The aggregate gradation of processed RAP is somewhat finer than virgin

aggregate. This is due to mechanical degradation during asphalt pavement removal and

processing. RAP aggregates usually can satisfy the requirements of ASTM 0692 "Coarse

Aggregates for Bituminous Pavement Mixtures" and ASTM 01073 "Fine Aggregate for

Bituminous Pavement Mixtures.,,(14,15)

Asphalt Content and Properties: The asphalt content of most old pavements will comprise

approximately 3 to 7 percent by weight and 10 to 20 percent by volume of the pavement.

Due to oxidation aging, the asphalt cement has hardened and consequently is more

viscous and has lower penetration values than the virgin asphalt cement. Depending on the

amount of time the original pavement had been in service, recovered RAP binder may

have penetration values from 10 to 80 and absolute viscosity values at 60°C (140°F) in a

range from as low as 2,000 poises to as high 50,000 poises or greater.(16)

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Recycled Hot Mix

Mix Design

The use of processed RAP in hot mix asphalt pavements is now standard practice in most

jurisdictions and is referenced in ASTM 03515.(17) The primary steps in the design of mixes

include the determination of material properties of RAP and new materials, the selection of

an appropriate blend of RAP and virgin aggregate to meet gradation, the selection of an

appropriate asphalt cement blend to satisfy specified viscosity and/or penetration

requirements, the need to add a recycling or rejuvenating agent to soften the existing

binder, and the need to comply with stability, flow, and air voids requirements.

Either the Marshall(18) or the Hveem(19) mix design procedures are used by most state

agencies for determining the asphalt cement and acceptable RAP content of recycled

paving mixes,o)
Recycling and rejuvenating agents can be divided into three main types: "super-soft"

asphalt cements, napthenic (aromatic) oils, and paraffinic oils. These products consist of

organic compounds derived from petroleum extracts during petroleum hydrocarbon

processing. ASTM D4552(20) provides a classification of recycling or rejuvenating agents.

Procedures for selecting the quality of asphalt cement or recycling agent are outlined in

ASTM D4887.(21) This specification includes a viscosity blending chart, which enables the

designer to determine the percentage of recycling or rejuvenating agent (or soft asphalt

cement) to add to the total binder in order to achieve a desired value of absolute viscosity

for the recycled asphalt cement. The Asphalt Institute's manual on asphalt hot mix

recycling also provides trial mix design examples that indicate how to use a viscosity

blending chart to design a recycled hot mix.

The Asphalt Institute suggests that when 20 percent or less RAP is used in a mix, no

change in asphalt grade is required. However, for mixes with greater than 20 percent RAP,

a drop in one grade (softer asphalt cement) is recommended to compensate for the greater

viscosity of the oxidized binder.(1) Many states use the same grade of asphalt cement

regardless of the RAP content.

The Asphalt Institute's manual on mix design methods for asphalt concrete(22) provides a

method to determine necessary mix design characteristics (such as stability, flow, and air

voids content) for either the Marshall or the Hveem mix design methods. The final mix

design proportions for the recycled hot mix paving mixture will be determined by

completing mix design testing using standard procedures to satisfy applicable mix design

criteria.

Additional virgin aggregates may be required to satisfy gradation requirements to improve

stability and to limit the RAP content in recycled hot mixes. In the production of hot mix,

superheated virgin aggregate is needed to provide indirect heat transfer to the RAP while

maintaining the proper mix temperature without the generation of "blue smoke."

Structural Design

Conventional AASHTO pavement structural design methods are appropriate for asphalt

pavements incorporating reclaimed asphalt pavement in the mix.

Hot In-Place Recycling

Mix Design

Mix design procedures for HIPR are not as well established as those for conventional

recycled hot mix. Many states as a minimum require that cores be taken of the candidate

pavement to determine in-place pavement properties, including binder content, viscosity,

and aggregate grading.(2)

The material properties of the existing asphalt pavement (to at least the depth of

scarification) should be determined prior to construction in order to permit any necessary

adjustments to aggregate gradation to develop the required voids in mineral aggregate

(VMA) and selection of the appropriate viscosity binder. This will require coring of the
pavement to be recycled and laboratory testing of the recovered paving samples.

Unlike conventional recycled hot mix where the RAP is combined with a significant amount

of new aggregate material (making up typically between 60 to 80 percent of the RHM),

HIPR may involve up to 100 percent recycling of the existing pavement. Consequently, the

extent to which the existing pavement can be improved or modified is limited by the

condition and characteristics of the old mix.

The amount of rejuvenating agent that can be added through HIRP is limited by the air

voids content of the existing asphalt. When the air voids content of the old asphalt mix is

too low to accommodate sufficient recycling agent for proper rejuvenation or softening of

the old asphalt binder without mix flushing, it may be necessary to add additional fine

aggregate or to beneficiate with virgin hot mix to open up the mix or increase the air voids.

The selection of the appropriate addition (either fine aggregate or virgin hot mix), and the

amount to be added, are determined by Marshall or Hveem mix design methods.

The type of recycling or rejuvenating agent and the percentage to be added to the binder

can be estimated using procedures outlined in ASTM methods 04552(20) and 04887.(21)

The recycling or rejuvenating agent, if used, should be compatible with the recycled and

new asphalt binder.

Structural Design

HIPR is generally considered a rehabilitation technique for addressing superficial pavement

distress to a maximum depth of about 50 mm (2 in). The recycled layer is considered to be

structurally equivalent to new hot mix asphalt.

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

Recycled Hot Mix

Material Handling and Storage

RAP is produced by milling, ripping, breaking, crushing, or pulverizing types of equipment.

To ensure that the final RAP product will perform as intended, inspection of incoming RAP

with rejection of contaminated loads (excess granular material, surface treatment, joint

sealant, etc.) should be undertaken. Some jurisdictions also require that RAP from a

particular project not be blended or commingled with RAP from other projects.

Once processed, RAP can be handled and stored as a conventional aggregate material.

However, because of the variability of RAP in comparison with virgin aggregates, many

agencies do not permit the blending of RAP from different projects into combined

stockpiles. The Asphalt Institute recommends that the height of RAP stockpiles be limited

to a maximum of 3 meters (10ft) to help prevent agglomeration or sticking together of the

RAP particles.(1) Stockpiling time should also be minimized to keep the moisture content of

RAP stockpiles from becoming excessive.

Experience has proven that conical stockpiles are preferred to horizontal stockpiles and will

not cause RAP to re-agglomerate in large piles. RAP has the tendency to form a crust (due
to a solar/thermal effect from the sun) over the first 200 to 250 mm (8 to 12 in) of pile depth

for both conical and horizontal stockpiles. This crust tends to help shed water, but is easily

broken by a front-end loader, and may help keep the rest of the pile from agglomerating.

RAP has a tendency to hold water and not to drain over time like an aggregate stockpile.

Therefore, low, horizontal, flat stockpiles are sUbject to greater moisture accumulation than

tall, conical stockpiles. It is not unusual to find RAP moisture content in the 7 to 8 percent

range during the rainy season at facilities using low, horizontal stockpiling techniques.(23)

RAP stockpiles are typically left uncovered because covering with tarps can cause

condensation under the tarp and add moisture to the RAP stockpile. For this reason, RAP

stockEiles are either left uncovered or RAP is stored in an open-sided building, but under a

roof.( 3)

When large quantities of RAP from different sources are available, it is advisable to keep

stockpiles separated and identified by source. Consistent RAP from a "composite" or

"blended" pile can be produced using a crushing and screening operation and reprocessing

stockpiles that come to the yard from different sources. Material handling machinery, such

as front-end loaders and bulldozers, should be kept from driving directly on the stockpile.

Agglomerating RAP particles can make it very difficult for the loader to handle the RAP.

Mixing, Placing and Compacting

When RAP is added to hot mix asphalt, measures must be taken to avoid exposing the

RAP to temperatures in excess of 42rC (800o

:F). Exposure of the RAP to temperatures

above this limit can result in excessive hydrocarbon emissions (blue smoke). To reduce

this problem, hot mix asphalt plants have been modified to permit the recycling of RAP.(24)

In a batch plant operation, the RAP is usually added to superheated new aggregate at the

pugmill. In drum-mix plants, RAP is usually introduced with new aggregate into the drum

using a dual feed system. The new aggregate is typically introduced at the hot end of the

drum (normally the front end of the drum), while the RAP is introduced at the middle or rear

of the drum to prevent overheating damage to the RAP.(25)

In a batch plant, typical RAP substitution rates are limited by the heat capacity of the plant

and the ability to superheat the aggregate to temperatures that will produce a suitable mix

temperature. This normally limits batch plant blends to between 10 and 30 percent RAP. In

a drum mix plant, from 30 to 70 percent RAP can be added, with a practical limit of 50

percent, due to hydrocarbon emission limitations that may be exceeded if excess RAP is

introduced.

Quality Control

To produce consistently high-quality recycled hot mix asphalt, the need for systematic

quality control of the RAP is essential. The process should be monitored for processed

RAP moisture content, gradation, and asphalt cement content.(26) Controlled plant

operations have been developed to produce a consistent (homogeneous) RAP. Extraction

tests to monitor the RAP gradation and asphalt cement content, and penetration and

viscosity tests on the recovered asphalt cement, should be performed regularly to monitor

the RAP characteristics for comparison with the job mix formula and enable appropriate

adjustments to the mix.

The same field testing procedures used for conventional hot mix asphalt mixes should be
used for mixes containing reclaimed asphalt pavement. Mixes should be sampled in

accordance with AASHTO T168,(27) and tested for specific gravity in accordance with

ASTM 02726(28) and in-place density in accordance with ASTM 02950.(29)

Hot In-Place Recycling

Mixing, Placing and Compacting

There are three basic HIPR construction processes in use: heater scarification, repaving,

and remixing. All involve a specialized plant in a continuous train operation.

Heater scarification involves a plant that heats the pavement surface (typically using

propane radiant heaters), scarifies the pavement surface using a bank of nonrotating teeth,

adds a liquid rejuvenating additive, then mixes and levels the recycled mix using a

standard auger system. The recycled asphalt pavement is then compacted using

conventional compaction equipment. The process is limited in its ability to repair severely

rutted pavements, which are often overlaid with conventional hot mix asphalt.

Repaving is a more sophisticated process that includes removing (by heating and

scarification and/or grinding) the top 25 to 50 mm (1 to 2 in) of the old asphalt pavement,

adding and mixing in a rejuvenating agent to improve asphalt viscosity, placing the

recycled material as a leveling course using a primary screed, and simultaneously placing

a thin (usually less than 25 mm (1 in) but up to 50 mm (2 in) in some systems) hot mix

asphalt overlay. Conventional equipment and procedures are used immediately behind the

train to compact both layers of material to ensure a monolithic bond between the new and

recycled layer.(30)

The remixing process is used when additional aggregates are required to improve the

strength or stability of the recycled asphalt concrete. Scarified or milled RAP is blended

with rejuvenator and new virgin aggregate or new hot mix asphalt, then placed by a

compacting screed. Conventional equipment and procedures are used to place and

compact the remixed material.

Quality Control

The initial step in the quality control of hot in-place recycled mixes is in the selection of the

pavement to be recycled. Not all pavements are good candidates for this type of recycling.

Cores of the pavement being considered for HIPR must be taken during the early planning

for the project. The cores should first be visually examined for pavement problems such as

delaminations, stripping, or stripping potential, or water in the voids or delaminations.

Pavements with delaminations, especially saturated delaminations, in the top 5 cm (2 in)

should not be considered for HIPR projects. Also, pavements that have been rutted,

heavily patched, or chip-sealed are not good candidates for HIPR projects.

Next, as noted in the Mix Design section, field core specimens should be analyzed in the

laboratory to determine (based on the asphalt content, viscosity, and penetration of the

recovered binder) the required amount of rejuvenating agent to be added to the mix in

order to attain the desired viscosity of the recycled mix. If too much rejuvenating agent (1.0

percent or more by weight of mix) must be added in order to attain this viscosity, the mix

should probably not be recycled in place. As a guideline, pavements being considered for
HIPR should not be too severely aged. It is recommended that such pavements have an

absolute viscosity lower that 200,000 poises (and preferably below 100,000 poises) in

order to be considered for HIPR projects.(31)

Field core specimens should also be evaluated for air voids content during the pavement

selection process. An existing pavement being considered for HIPR should have an air

voids content in excess of 6 percent, in order to accommodate the addition of a

rejuvenating agent without the loss of stability in the recycled mix. If material properties are

not completely satisfactory for 100 percent recycling, the addition of 20 to 30 percent by

weight of virgin hot mix during recycling should be considered.(31)

Field quality control measures during HIPR operations include monitoring the depth of

scarification, the temperature of the recycled mix, the visual appearance and homogeneity

of the scarified or milled RAP, the compaction procedure, and the visual appearance of the

recycled pavement surface after compaction. Loose samples of the recycled mix should be

obtained and extraction tests performed to monitor RAP gradation, asphalt cement and air

voids contents, and penetration and viscosity of the recovered asphalt binder for

comparison with the job mix formula.(32) The recycled mix should be monitored for in-place

density in accordance with ASTM 02950.(29)

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

While the asphalt pavement recycling technologies are well established, there is still

considerable need for additional performance information, particularly with regard to creep

(rutting resistance), fatigue endurance and durability, and the use of reclaimed asphalt

pavement in premium surface course mixes. There is also a need for more correlation of

field and laboratory measurements to refine guidelines for laboratory prediction of field

performance (for instance, laboratory curing procedures that best simulate field conditions).

Some additional issues that require resolution include:

• further information on the variability of RAP, especially from blended stockpiles;

• validation of SUPERPAVE mix design procedures with mixtures containing RAP;

• an environmental code of practice regarding gaseous emissions from hot mix plant

recycling and HIPR;

• the suitability of HIPR for surface-treated and rubberized materials (environmental

considerations); and

• evaluation methodologies for structural characterization of HIPR asphalt concrete

and CIPR asphalt concrete.

REFERENCES

1. Asphalt Institute. Asphalt Hot-Mix Recycling, Manual Series No.20, Second

Edition, Lexington, Kentucky, 1986.

2. Button, J.W., D.N. Little, and CK Estakhri. Hot In-Place Recycling ofAsphalt

Concrete, National Cooperative Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice
193, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1994.

3. "Hot Recycling of Yesterday." Recycling Report, Volume 1, Number 2, National

Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Maryland, September, 1977.

4. Transportation Research Board. Recycling Materials from Highways. National

Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 54,

Washington, DC, 1978.

5. Pavement Recycling Executive Summary and Report. Federal Highway

Administration, Report No. FHWA-SA-95-060, Washington, DC, October, 1995.

6. Little, Dallas N. and Jon A Epps. "Evaluation of Certain Structural Characteristics

of Recycled Pavement Material." Proceedings of the Association ofAsphalt Paving

Technologists, Vol. 49, 1980, pp. 219-251.

7. Little, D. N., R. J. Holmgreen, and J. A. Epps. "Effect of Recycling Agents on the

Structural Performance of Recycled Asphalt Concrete Materials." Proceedings of

the Association ofAsphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 50, 1981, pp. 32-63.

8. Kandahl, Prithri S., Shridhar S. Rao, Donald E. Watson, and Brad Young.

Performance of Recycled Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixtures in Georgia. Transportation

Research Board, Record No. 1507, Washington, DC, 1996.

9. Hossain, Mustaque, Dwight G. Metcalf, and Larry A Scofield. Performance of

Recycled Asphalt Concrete Overlays in South Western Arizona. Transportation

Research Board, Record No. 1427, Washington, DC, 1993.

10. Eaton, M. "RAP Maintenance No Different Than Virgin, Engineers Say." Roads and

Bridges, Vol. 28, No. 10, October, 1990.

11. Kiggundu, B. M. and J. K. Newman. Asphalt-Aggregate Interactions in Hot

Recycling. New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, Report No. ESL-TR-87-07,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, July, 1987.

12. Howard, P. D. and D. A Reed, "L.A Street Maintenance Recycles with 100%

RAP," Roads and Bridges, Vol. 28, No.5, p. 63, May 1989.

13. Banasiak, David. "States Plane Off Excess in RAP Specs." Roads and Bridges,

Vol. 34, No. 10, October, 1996.

14. ASTM D692-94a. "Standard Specification for Coarse Aggregate for Bituminous

Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

15. ASTM 01073-94. "Standard Specification for Fine Aggregate for Bituminous

Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

16. Epps, J. A, D. N. Little, R. J. O'Neal, and B. M. Gallaway. "Mixture Properties of

Recycled Central Plant Materials." Recycling of Bituminous Pavements, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication No. 662, West

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, December, 1977.

17. ASTM D3515-89. "Standard Specification for Hot-Mixed, Hot-Laid Bituminous

Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania

18. ASTM D1559-89. "Standard Test Method for Resistance to Plastic Flow of

Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus." American Society for Testing and

Materials, Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken,

Pennsylvania.

19. ASTM D1560-92. "Standard Test Methods for Resistance to Deformation and

Cohesion of Bituminous Mixtures by Means of Hveem Apparatus." American

Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Volume

04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

20. ASTM D4552-92. "Standard Practice for Classifying Hot-Mix Recycling Agents."

American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book ofASTM Standards,

Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

21. ASTM D4887-93. "Standard Test Method for Preparation of Viscosity Blends for

Hot-Recycled Bituminous Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials,

Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken,

Pennsylvania.

22. Mix Design Methods for Asphalt Concrete and Other Hot-Mix Types. Asphalt

Institute, Manual Series No.2, Lexington, Kentucky, 1993.

23. Decker, D. S. and T. J. Young, "Handling RAP in an HMA Facility." Proceedings of

the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Edmonton, Alberta, 1996.

24. Harvey, Fitz, E. T. Larves, and R. G. Warburton. Hot Recycling. Wyoming Dryer

Drum. Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA TS-80-234,

Washington, DC, April, 1980.

25. Olson, Roger C. and Ronald H. Cassellius. Hot Recycling of Bituminous Main Line

and Shoulders. Minnesota-Modified Dryer Drum. Federal Highway Administration,

Report No. FHWA-TS-80-233, Washington, DC, February, 1979.

26. Earl, F. J. and J. J. Emery, "Practical Experience With High Ratio Hot-Mix

Recycling," Proceedings of the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association 32nd

Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario, p. 326, November 1987.

27. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard

Method of Test, "Sampling Bituminous Paving Mixtures," AASHTO Designation:

T168-82, Part II Tests, 16th Edition, 1993.

28. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification D2726-96,
..Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted Bituminous

Mixtures," Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken,

Pennsylvania, 1996.

29. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification D2950-96,

"Density of Bituminous Concrete in Place by Nuclear Methods," Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1996.

30. Rathburn, JR, "One Step Repaving Speeds County Work," Roads and Bridges,

March 1990.

31. Rogge, David F., Walter P. Hislop, and Dick Dominic. "Hot In-Place Recycling of

Asphalt Pavements - The Oregon Experience." Presented at the 75th Annual

Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January, 1996.

32. Kazmierowski, Thomas J., Pamela Marks, and Alison Bradbury. "The Evolution of

Hot In-Place Recycling in Ontario." Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January, 1995.

[ Asphalt Concrete (Cold

Recycling) ]

[ Granular

Base]

[Embankment or

Fill]

[ Material

Description]

Previous I Table of Contents I Next

Page Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Safety, RDT

Scheduled Update: Archive - No Update

Technical Issues: TFHRCWebMasler@dot.gov

TRT Terms: Waste products as road materials--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Asphalt concrete--Design and

construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Concrete--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,

Pavements--Additives--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Fills (Earthwork)--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,

Roads--Base courses--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Wastes, Environmental impacts, Recycling

Updated: 04/07/2011

Research Home I FHWA Home I

OFHWA

United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Departm~nt

of Transportation

aintenance and

Design anual
Introduction ix

Introduction

Good gravel road maintenance or rehabilitation depends on two basic principles:proper use of a motorgrader (or other grading device) and use of good surface gravel.

The use of the grader to properly shape the road is obvious to almost everyone, but the quality

and volume of gravel needed is not as well understood. It seems that most gravel

maintenance/rehabilitation problems are blamed on the grader operator when the actual

problem

is often material related. This is particularly true when dealing with the problem of corrugation

or "washboarding." The problem is often perceived as being caused by the grader but is

primarily caused by the material itself. This manual will help provide a better understanding

of what makes good surface gravel.

Another important matter to consider is the dramatic change in the vehicles and equipment

using low volume roads. Trucks and agricultural equipment are increasing in size and

horsepower. The trend is toward even larger machinery. The effect of larger and heavier

vehicles

on our paved roads is well understood. There is a definite need to build stronger bases and

pavements. But the effect on gravel roads isjust as serious and often is not recognized. For

this reason, a section on the design of gravel roads is included. The strength of the sUbgrade

and depth of the material needed to carry tOday's heavy loads must be considered.Proper

drainage is also important.

The final section of the manual covers innovations in the gravel road maintenance/

rehabilitation industry. Change is constant in almost every aspect of this modern world

and maintaining gravel roads is no exception. There are new ways of stabilizing roads, new

methods of dust control, new and different kinds of equipment available for maintenance/

rehabilitation of gravel roads, and even new surface materials such as recycled asphalt being

used. Not all of these innovations may be available or practical for every local government

entity, but everyone is encouraged to take an objective look at each of them. Then an informed

decision can be made about changing the way gravel roads are designed and maintained

within a particularjurisdiction.
40 What is Good Gravel?

Example of a good blend of material for gravel surfacing. (Courtesy of Road Research Ministry of

RoadslTransportation,Sweden)

Good Gradation

Gravel is a mixture of three sizes or

types of material: stone, sand and fines.

This will be discussed further in the next

section.Without a good blend of these

three sizes, the gravel will perform

poorly. Unfortunately, poor performing

gravel will often be blamed on the

maintenance operator. But the operator

cannot make good gravel out of bad

gravel. Bad or poorly graded gravel

can not be changed to good gravel

without additional costs, but it is

often well worth it.

One common practice of improving

surface gravel is to add new, clean,

virgin fine gravel. Good surface gravel

needs a percentage of stone which

gives strength to support loads -

particularly in wet weather. It also

needs a percentage of sand-sized

particles to fill the voids between

the stones and give stability. But a

percentage of good, plastic fines are

also needed to bind the material

together which allows a gravel road to

form a crust and shed water. In many

regions of the country, this is a natural

clay which gives the gravel a strong

cohesive characteristic and keeps a

reasonably tight surface especially

during periods of dry weather. Some of

the fine material in surface gravel will

be lost, under traffic action, in the form

of dust that rises from the surface and

simply blows away. This can be

compensated for by specifying a higher

percentage of fines in the new gravel.

However, no gravel surface will perform

like pavement! There will be some loose

aggregate or "float"on the surface of

virtually all gravel roads. But striving to

get as good a material as budgets and

local sources allow will improve the

performance of a gravel road.

Benefit of Crushing

In a few cases the gravel may simply be

loaded onto trucks without processing.

This is often referred to as "bank run"

or "pit run" gravel. There are few

natural deposits of material that have

an ideal gradation without being

processed. In some areas of the country

it is still common to process gravel

simply by screening to a maximum

top size. A great benefit is gained from

processing the material by crushing.

This means that a good percentage

of the stone will be fractured in the

crushing process. The broken stones

will embed into the surface of a

gravel road much better than rounded,

natural-shaped stone. It also means that

the material resists movement under

loads better and gives better strength

or stability. This will vary throughout the

country, but bank run gravels are nearly

always improved through the crushing

process. Quarry gravels are considered

very good material since they are composed of Virtually all fractured particles.

Recycled Asphalt

As more of our asphalt pavements wear

out, many of them are recycled. This is

usually done by milling or crushing.

Sometimes the material is available for

use on a gravel road. It can be a good

surface, but there are pitfalls. In this

material, the bituminous portion of

the old pavement becomes the binder.

When placed on a road in hot weather,

the recycled asphalt can take on the

characteristic of pavement. But it will be

a weak pavement. It will often develop

potholes and will be hard to maintain

with simple blade maintenance. To help

overcome this problem,the material

should be placed at a minimum three

inch compacted depth and only on

a road that has a strong subgrade.

A better option is to mix the recycled

asphalt 50/50 with virgin gravel. This

will generally provide a material that

still has a good binding characteristic,

but remains workable for maintenance

and reshaping. Recycled asphalt has

also been mixed with crushed, recycled

concrete and the performance has

been good.
Section IV: Dust Control and Stabi Iization/Types of Stabi Iizers

Section IV:

Dust Control and Stabi Iization

51

1\II gravel roads will give off dust

t-\ under traffic.After all, they are

unpaved roads that typically serve a low

volume of traffic, and dust is usually

an inherent problem. The amount of

dust that a gravel road produces varies

greatly. In areas of the country that

receive a high amount of moisture,

the problem is greatly reduced.Arid

or semi-arid regions such as the desert

southwest and much of the great plains

region in the USA are prone to long

periods of dry weather. Similar regions

around the globe can have similar

weather patterns. Dust can really bring

complaints in these areas if there are

residences located near the road and

traffic is high.

The quality and type of gravel also

has some effect on the amount of

dust. Some limestone gravels can dust

severely while some glacial deposits of

gravel with a portion of highly plastic

clay can take on a strong binding

characteristic that will resist dusting

remarkably well. Still, in prolonged dry

weather, there will be dust! Whether

to provide some type of dust control

or not can be a hard decision to make.

Virtually all methods of dust control

require annual treatment.

The cost can be prohibitive if traffic

volume is low. On the other hand, if

traffic is high, the cost of dust control

can more than pay for itself with the

benefits of reduced material loss and

reduced need for blade maintenance.

(28) At this point, many agencies will

face pressure to pave the road. It may

actually be a good economic decision in

the long run, especially if there is good

indication that traffic will continue to

increase in the future. However, never

pave a road before it is ready ! There

is good information on making this

decision in Appendix D.

Types of Stabilizers

Chlorides

These are the most commonly used

products across the country. They fall

into three categories: Calcium Chloride

in flake or liqUid form, Magnesium

Chloride generally in liquid form, and

Sodium Chloride (road salt). Sodium

is seldom used and is the least effective.

Calcium and Magnesium Chloride can

be very effective if used properly. They

are hygroscopic products which, in

simplest terms, means they draw

moisture from the air and keep the

road surface constantly damp. They

are reasonably simple to use.

Resins

These are products available under various commercial names. The basic composition is lignin sulfonate which is a

by-product of the pulp milling industry.

The product is sometimes called "tree

sap" in the field. These products work

best when incorporated into the surface

gravel. They then provide cohesion to

bind the soil particles together.

Natural Clays

Some regions of the country have

excellent deposits of natural clay that
52

are highly plastic and provide strong

cohesion when added in the right

quantity to gravel.However, in prolonged dry weather, these roads will

seldom be completely dust free. It can

be difficult as well to haul the clay

onto the road and mix it into the gravel.

Because it is highly plastic,it tends to

stick to the truck boxes and requires

quite an effort to mix with the gravel.

Asphalts

The use of cut-back liqUid asphalts

to surface-treat gravel roads was once

popular for dust control. However,

because of the great amount of fuel oil

or kerosene in these products, they have

been banned in many places. Some

emulsified asphalts may work for this

purpose, but their use is very limited.

The product must be applied with

special asphalt application equipment.

Soybean Oil

This product is known technically as

Acidulated Soybean Oil Soapstock.

It is a by-product of the caustic refining

process of soybean oil. It is a biodegradable material that has many of

the characteristics of a light petroleumbased oil. It will penetrate a gravel

surface and provide a light bonding

Benefits of Stabilization

of the gravel that effectively reduces

dust when it is used properly.

Other Commercial Binders

There are too many of these to mention

individually. They are marketed under

various trade names across the country.

It is always wise to try a test section of

no more than 1000 feet in length to see

how any of these products work with

your gravel. One caution: do not use

waste products such as crankcase

drain oil from engines. This is harmful

to the environment and is in violation

of EPA rules.

Benefits of Stabilization

Once a road is stabilized there are

several benefits. On high volume

roads, these benefits can make stabilization very cost effective.

Reduced Dusting

It may be hard to justify the use of any

of these products for dust control alone.

However, when the products are working well, the added benefit of a stabilized surface that controls the loss of

fines through dusting is a great economic benefit.When the fines are lost

from a gravel surface, the stone and

sand-sized particles that remain will

tend to remain loose on the surface,

leading to some distresses like washboarding and reduced skid resistance.

It will become very hard to maintain.

Fresh gravel with a higher percentage

of fines needs to be hauled in. This

becomes very expensive.

Reduced "Whip Orr"

or Aggregate

Tllis is another economic bonus to

dust control when it is working well.

As mentioned earlier, when dust control

products are working well, the fine

material in the gravel cannot loosen

and dust away. This also means that

the stone portion of the gravel will

tend to remain embedded in the surface

and will not be lost to the edge of the

road or even whipped off onto the

inslope from heavy traffic. Studies

have shown that as much as one ton

of aggregate per mile is lost each year

for each vehicle that passes over a road

daily. This means that a road carrying

200 vehicles per day will experience

the loss of 200 tons of aggregate per

mile each year. (7) Obviously this will

vary with the amount of rainfall

received, the quality of the gravel

and other factors. Retaining aggregate

is a good added benefit to dust control.

Reduced Blade Maintenance

A road surface that remains tightly

bound and stable will require much less

blade maintenance. The manufacturers

of some dust control products highly

recommend that the surface should

not be bladed at all after their products

are applied.While extra blading, shaping and mixing is needed to prepare

a road for dust control, the overall

need for blade maintenance should

be greatly reduced. This can be a great

savings in equipment expense and

labor. A county highway official once

commented:" I don't react to dust

complaints. All gravel roads have dust.

But I do react to high maintenance

costs. When we have to regravel a road

frequently and do blade maintenance

frequently, then it's time to look at

stabilizing the surface with Magnesium

Chloride. Reduced maintenance is

what we're after. Dust control isjust

a bonus!"
Appendix D:When to Pave a Gravel Road

pendix

hen to ave a ravel* Road

D1

by Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky at Lexington,KY

Contents

• A Word About the Term "Paved"

• Introduction

• Gravel or Paved: A Matter of Trade-offs

• When Should We Pave This Gravel Road? A Ten Part Answer

1, After Developing a Road Management Program

2, When the Local Agency Is Committed to Excellence

3, When Traffic Demands It

4. After Standards Have Been Adopted

5. After Considering Safety and Design

6. After the Base and Drainage Are Improved

7. After Determining the Costs of Road Preparation

8. After Comparing Pavement Life and Maintenance Costs

9. After Comparing User Costs

10. After Weighing Public Opinion

• Stage Construction

• Summary

• References

*Gravel as used here may refer to sand and gravel,or to crushed stone.
TRASH COLLECTION LETTER FROM THE CITY OF EL PASO

The TCEQ received a letter dated October 4, 2010, from the City of El Paso Environmental

Services Department to confirm the City's policy of not picking up trash via alleys from

residential customers. This practice reduces fugitive dust emissions by reducing the traffic on

unpaved alleys. The Environmental Services Department anticipates no changes to this policy in

the future.
SERVICE SOLUTIONS SUCCESS

October 4,2010

Ms. Shelley Naik

El Paso SIP Project Manager

Texas Commission on Enviromental Quality

1210035 Park Circle, Building F

MC-206

Austin 78711-3087

RE: Solid Waste collection in alleyways

Dear Ms. Naik;

As per your request, this letter confirms our current policy of not picking up trash via alley ways

from residential customers. All residential customers are required to place their trash bins along

their corresponding paved street.

If you have any more questions, please contact Miguel Parra at 915-599-6235.

Sincerely,

Ellen Smyth

Director

EI Paso -*.'- AHlRicaCIIJ "IIJ.' ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

2010 7968 SAN PAULO, EL PASO, TEXAS 79907·915·621-6700· FAX 915-621-6711 . WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOV
APPENDIX S: DRAFT REVISED MEMORANDUM OF

AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EL PASO

(Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR)
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

I. PARTIES

This Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) is entered into between the Texas Commission

on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the City of EI Paso local government (the City),

collectively the "Parties."

1. The Parties represent that they have the authority to enter into this MOA, including

the authority granted in the Texas Government Code Chapter 791 Interlocal

Cooperation Contracts.

2. The TCEQ has authority under §S.229 ofthe Texas Water Code and §382.033 ofthe

Texas Health and Safety Code to enter into this MOA.

3. The Local Governments have authority under §382.11S ofthe Texas Health and

Safety Code to enter into this MOA.

II. INTENT AND PURPOSE

The intent ofthis MOA is to memorialize the agreement between the Parties to provide

the City with alternative methods of particulate matter (PM) control consistent with

attainment and maintenance ofthe particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PMlO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS).

The purpose ofthis MOA is to set forth in plain language the understanding ofthe

Parties regarding their respective responsibilities under the Texas State Implementation

Plan (SIP) as it pertains to the City of EI Paso (EI Paso area).

III. DEFINITIONS

As used in this MOA the following terms have the meanings given below:

1. "EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

2. "TCEQ" shall mean the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

3. "the City" shall mean the City of EI Paso, Texas local government.

4. "EI Paso area" shall mean the City of EI Paso PMlO nonattainment area.

5. "SIP" shall refer to the State Implementation Plan.

IV. BACKGROUND

1. Under §110 ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), 42 United States Code (USC),

§741O, each state that has a nonattainment area must submit a SIP to the EPA

demonstrating strategies to come into compliance with the NAAQS.

2. Section 110 ofthe FCAA, 42 USC §7410 also requires Texas to submit to the EPA for

approval any SIP revisions and to demonstrate that such SIP revisions will not

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or any other requirement ofthe FCAA, as required by §110(l) ofthe

FCAA.

3. Under the 1990 FCAAAmendments, the EI Paso area was designated nonattainment

under FCAA §107(d)(4)(B) for the PMlO NAAQS and subsequently classified as a

moderate PMlO nonattainment area.

4. In November 1991, the Texas Air Control Board (TACB), a predecessor agency ofthe

TCEQ, submitted an attainment demonstration SIP revision. The SIP revision

included PM control measures in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 111,

Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter

A, Division 4, Materials Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking

Lots.

5. The control measures adopted in 30 TAC §111.147 required paving as a method of

dust control in the EI Paso area for specified roads and added a requirement that

alleys be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year. §111.147 also set frequencies for street

sweeping in designated sections ofthe EI Paso area.

6. In 1991, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the TACB

was approved to outline the responsibilities and regulatory requirements for both

Parties.

7. The 1991 MOU was replaced with a MOA with the City in 2001.

8. This MOA replaces the 2001 MOA with the City. The MOA is being revised to reflect

changes to the control measures in 30 TAC §111.147.

v. UNDERSTANDING

1. The City agrees to maintain programs funded annually in the City's capital

improvement budget and in the Department of Transportation operations budget to

comply with environmental regulations;

2. The Parties agree that the continued enforcement of no-burning periods may

contribute to improvement in air quality in the EI Paso area. The City will continue

to enforce the regulations regarding burning contained in Chapter 9.38 ofthe EI

Paso City Code, and will continue to notify the local office ofTCEQ of violations of

Chapter 9.38 and 30 TAC §111.111.

3. The TCEQ agrees to submit this agreement to the EPA as an appendix to the EI Paso

PMlO SIP revision.

VI. TERM, RENEWAL, TERMINATION, AND MODIFICATION

This MOA will become effective upon signature by all Parties and shall remain in effect

for ten years or until superseded. Following this ten year period, the MOA shall

automatically be renewed for successive one-year renewal terms, without the necessity

offormal action on the part of either Party, unless one ofthe Parties shall provide

written notice of non-renewal 90 days prior to the end ofthe renewal term, whereupon

the MOA shall terminate at the end ofthe renewal term, as applicable. Representatives

ofthe Parties will have by no later than the last day of March each year during the

renewal term to consider whether any revisions or modifications to the MOA may be
necessary or desirable. Any revision, modification, or amendment ofthe terms ofthe

MOA must be made in writing by agreement ofthe Parties.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS

This MOA represents the entire agreement between the TCEQ and the City and

supersedes all other agreements, understandings or commitments, written or oral,

relative to the intent ofthis MOA. This MOA may not be amended or modified except

pursuant to a mutual written agreement executed by each ofthe Parties.

This MOA shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws ofthe State

of Texas.

In Witness Thereof, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the City of El

Paso, by their authorized officers, have made and executed this MOA in multiple copies,

each of which is deemed an original.

AGREED to by the undersigned Parties, this day of , 2011.

ATTEST:

By: _

Name: [name of designated signer] Date

Title: El Paso SIP Coordinator

TEXAS COMMISSION ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIIT

By: _

Name: Mark R. Vickery, P.G. Date

Title: Executive Director
ATIEST:

By: _

Name: [name of designated signer] Date

Title: El Paso SIP Coordinator

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _

Name: [name of designated signer] Date

Title: [title of designated signer]

CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS

By: _

Name: [name of designated signer] Date

Title: [title of designated signer]

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

By: _

Name: [name of designated signer] Date

Title: [title of designated signer]
TESTIMONY
Reference Number

W-l

INDEX OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY

Submitted by

Ellen Smyth, the City ofEI Paso
Sincerely,

Dear Ms. Horn:

Environmental Services Department

7968 San Paulo Drive, El Paso, TX 79907 0 (915) 621-6700 0 Fax (915) 621-6711

www.elpasotexas.gov

Attachment: Exhibit A (revised/proposed Memorandum ofAgreement)

Ellen Smyth, P.E.

Director

The following changes are consistent with city policies and are in the best

interest of the citizens of the City of EI Paso, Texas. If you have any

questions, please contact me at 915-621-6700.

The City ofEl Paso submits its changes for your consideration to the proposed

Memorandum of Agreement (Project Number 2011-026-MIS-NR). There

changes are primarily formatting and non-substantive changes to the

document structure. Please see attached revised MOA. We understand that the

comment period on this project closes on October 3, 2011.

W-1

September 29,2011

RE: Project Number 2011-026-MIS-NR

Ms. Charlotte Horn

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Office ofLegal Services

'MC205

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

SERVICE SOLUTIONS SUCCESS

Dedicated to Outstanding Customer Service for a Better Community

EIPaso

bOd

A11·Ame~caCltY

,III J.'

2010
EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

1. PARTIES

This Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) is entered into between the Texas Commission

on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the City of EI Paso, Texas (the "City"),

collectively the "Parties."

1. The Parties represent that they have the authority to enter into ,thi~ MOA, including

the authority granted in the Texas Government Code Chapter 791 Interlocal

Cooperation Contracts. ,/<i> ... ,

2. The TCEQ has authority under Section 5.229 ofthe/Texa.s Water Code and Section

382.033 ofthe Texas Health and Safety Code to enterinto this MOA.···,

3. The Local Governments have authority under Section 382.115 oftheTeJtas'Bealth

and Safety Code to enter into this MOA. '. ['

'sY;, /"

II. PURPOSE AND INTENT '}

The purpose ofthis MOA is to set forthJn plain language the understanding ofthe

Parties regarding their respective responsibilities under theTexasBtate Implementation

Plan (SIP) as it pertainsto certain streets and alleys within the ,City.

\);: - "',; "'::_'::,:.'-'''_:.:',''~';~:::->:~:'' ", .:<j/ The intent ofthe Parties by and through t'Qis lY.lgki()t0rn~prorialize the agreement

between the Parties to provide the City withalternativ~¢ethods of particulate matter

(PM) control consistent:withattainment arid maintenatlce ofthe particles with an

aerodynamic diameterless than or equal to ano~inal10micrometers (PMlO) National

Ambient Air QualityS,tandard (:N;AAQS). .' /

.···•...•···.·•..·/~/;'·III~I>EFi~ITIONS

As used iIltp.isMOAthe follovvlng termsh~ve the meanings given below:

1. "EP~"~hall mearitheUnitedSta.f~~ Environmental Protection Agency.

2.~~TCE8"shall mean the\!exas'Commission on Environmental Quality.

3. "the City" shall mean we City ofEI Paso, Texas local government.

4. "EI Paso ~re~"shall pj.ean the City of EI Paso PMlO nonattainment area '. ,/"'.

5. "SIP" shall refert9the Texas State Implementation Plan.

IV. BACKGROUND

1. Under Section 110 ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), 42 U.S.C. §7410, each state

that has a nonattainment area must submit a SIP to the EPA demonstrating

strategies to come into compliance with the NAAQS.

2. Section 110 ofthe FCAA, 42 U.S.C. §7410 also requires Texas to submit to the EPA

for approval any SIP revisions and to demonstrate that such SIP revisions will not

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable

1
further progress or any other requirement ofthe FCAA, as required by §1l0(1) ofthe

FCAA.

3. Under the 1990 FCAA Amendments, the City ofEI Paso (EI Paso area) was

designated nonattainment under FCAA §107(d)(4)(B) for the PM10 NAAQS and

subsequently classified as a moderate PMlO nonattainment area.

4. In November 1991, the Texas Air Control Board (TACB), a predecessor agency ofthe

TCEQ, submitted an attainment demonstration SIP revision. The SIP revision

included PM control measures in 30 TAC Chapter 111, Control 9fAir Pollution from

Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter A, Divisjon4,Materials

Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parki~.g'Lots. .

5. The control measures adopted in §111.147 required pa~n;g asain.ethod of dust

control in the EI Paso area for specified roads and added a requirement that alleys be

paved at the rate of 15 miles per year. Section llLl4zalso,set frequ~Ilciesfor street

sweeping in designated sections ofthe EI Pasoarea. ...•... ' ..............•... ............,J'

6. In 1991, a Memorandum ofUnderstanding/N.IbU) betWeen the City an<;ltIte'TACB

was approved to outline the responsibilities andregulqtg11Tl'equirements for both

parties. "'/'/'.

7. The 1991 MOU was replaced witha.MOA with the Cityill~oo1.

8. This MOA replacesthe 2001 MOAwiththeCity. ,"

v. UNDERST~DtNG//;> -"'. ""AO.)/<-":c:,:.:';,:"j::p.,':'::";:;'/

1. The City agrees to majntainprograms fullaed annlllUly in the City's capital

improvement budgepmd inthe City Department(s)operation budget(s) to comply

with environmeJ;lta,lregulati(jIls; "..'7 /' . . /

2. The Parties agf~e'tha~t~e cqn~nlled.enfoJ;'q¢:tllentof no-burning periods may

contribute to improve'in~W>inaircq'l:lalitY:;irlthe El Paso area. The City will continue

to enforq,ethe]:'egulations r~garding burning contained in Chapter 9.38 ofthe EI

Paso,c~tyCode,andwill continueto notify the local office ofTCEQ of violations of

Cll,apter 9.38 and 30 TAC § 111.111:

3. <:theT§EQ agrees to submit thIS agreement to the EPA as a technical support

document to the EI Paso PMlO SIP revision.

2
VII. MISCELLANEOUS

This MOA represents the entire agreement between the TCEQ and the City and

supersedes all other agreements, understandings or commitments, written or oral,

relative to the intent ofthis MOA. This MOA may not be amended or modified except

pursuant to a mutual written agreement executed by each ofthe Parties.

This MOA shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws ofthe State

ofTexas.

In Witness Thereof, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality andthe City of El

Paso, by their authorized officers, have made and executed thi~/MOAin multiple copies,

each ofwhich is deemed an original. ' /"

/"

/'

AGREED to by the undersigned Parties, this ",..,..'dayof -,- , 2011. / .... /'

ATTEST:

Richarda Momsen

El Paso City Clerk

Date: _

APPROVED AS TO .L'U'.L"-LY.L., ,

Elizabeth M. Ruhmann

Assistant 9i.~~'"1'~~1iB~l{' Date: --:+~--"";""''''';'''''i2:-

Name

El Paso SIP Coordinator

Date: _

3

Crr'Y'OF EL'l?A,~O, TEXAS <':>::;?~;:~

.~-<'

Joyce wilsoH,

Manager/, .;/: "

1£:::-/

AS TO CONTENT:

W. Cole

Director, Department ofTransportation

Date: _

TEXAS COMMISSION ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Mark R. Vickery, P.G.

Executive Director

Date: _
INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

NO ORAL TESTIMONY WAS RECEIVED PERTAINING TO THIS SIP REVISION.
Page 1

,---._--------------------_._-----------_.._---_._---------,

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION

Location: EI Paso State Office Building, Room 570 Date: September 27,2011,2:00 p.m.

Concerning: Proposed Chapter 111 Rule Amendments, EI Paso PM10 SIP Revision, and Revised

Memorandum of Agreement with the City of EI Paso

1-----------------------,-_._.._----_._....

NAME REPRESENTING PRESENTING ORAL TESTIMONY?

(CIRCLE ONE)

1----·---------_····__··· -····-··1----·----------------

Yes

.- ...----f-------- ------

1---- ------..- --------___\_

£-- L p~ Si) /Y\ f' 0

1----------.-----------+----------1----------.

:,'~k ~- r" \\ I ~.~.:,/', C)' r- f~ctSD / bV, >Vc5>. uef+... '~ .....----- ----..-..-.e----------- C1 ,Ir?!/~j D Yes @)

( / /~ Yes (No // L-~
Page 2

r-------------

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION

Location: EI Paso State Office Building, Room 570 Date: September 27,2011,2:00 p.m.

Concerning: Proposed Chapter 111 Rule Amendments, EI Paso PM10 SIP Revision, and Revised

Memorandum of Agreement with the City of EI Paso

-~-_._---------- ----,---~---------- --------,-----------j

--_._-

NAME REPRESENTING

_··_--_··__···_·--1 --.-------------

PRESENTING ORAL TESTIMONY?

(CIRCLE ONE)

Yes c0

Yes No

.._...._ .._-----_-.._~._----+ --------_._--+---_._._-----

Yes No

Yes No

r-----·-··--··----------..-----I--~ __...._~...__.__. _

Yes No

'----_._-_.._--_.._-----..._-------'-_._---_.._ ...._._--.._._-.-------'----_.._-_._-
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

HEARING OFFICER REPORT

I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding the proposed

revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 111, Subchapter A, §111.147,

relating to roads, streets, and alleys (Rule Project Number 2010-046-111-EN), the

proposed revised Memorandum of Agreement between the TCEQ and the City of EI

Paso (Project Number 2011-026-MIS-NR), and the proposed revision to the State

Implementation Plan for the EI Paso nonattainment area for particles with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PMlO) (Project

Number 2011-010-SIP-NR).

A public hearing was scheduled for September 27, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., at the EI Paso

Regional Office, at 401 E. Franklin Avenue, Suite 560.

At 2:00 p.m., the room was open, TCEQ staff and a court reporter were present and

ready to open the hearing for public comment. After waiting for 15 minutes, no one

had arrived to make comments on the record. Therefore, the public hearing was not

formally opened for comment and no transcript was prepared.

_C1I~,----2-0_'_~(_'----'----__ Date signed
EVALUATION
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Interoffice Memorandum

To: Commissioners Date: January 6, 2012

Thru: Bridget Bohac, Chief Clerk

Mark R. Vickery, P,G., Executive Director

From: Susana M. Hildebrand, P.E., ChiefEngine~

Docket No.: 2011-0707-SIP

Subject: Commission Approval ofthe Adoption ofthe El Paso State Implementation

Plan (SIP) Revision to Incorporate a Revised Memorandum ofAgreement

(MOA) with the City ofEl Paso

Non-Rule Project No. 2011-01O-SIP-NR

Background and reason(s) for the SIP revision:

The City of El Paso (El Paso area) was designated nonattainment under Federal Clean Air

Act (FCAA), §107(d)(4)(B) for National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for

particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers

(PMlO) and subsequently classified as a moderate nonattainment area. In November 1991,

the Texas Air Control Board (TACB), a predecessor agency ofthe Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality (TCEQ), submitted an attainment demonstration SIP revision. The

SIP revision included particulate matter (PM) control measures in 30 Texas Administrative

Code (TAC) Chapter 111, Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate

Matter, Subchapter A, Division 4, Materials Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys,

and Parking Lots. The control,measures adopted in §1ll.:t47 required paving as a method

of dust control in the El Paso area for specified roads arid added a requirement that alleys

be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year. Section 111.147 also set frequencies for street

sweeping in design~ted sections ofthe El Paso area.

On November 5,1991, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City ofEI

Paso local government (the City) and the TACB was signed to outline the responsibilities

and regulatory requirements for both parties. This MOU was submitted to the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as Appendix Q ofthe 1991 EI Paso PMlO

attainment demonstration SIP revision. The EPA approved the MOU as part ofthe EI Paso

PMlO SIP on January 18,1994.

On October 9, 2001, the 1991 MOD was replaced with a Memorandum ofAgreement

(MOA) since MODs are typically used only for agreements between two state agencies and

this agreement was between an agency and a city. Although the MOA was submitted to the

EPA in a letter dated February19, 2002, it is unclear whether the EPA accepted it as a SIP

revision. Furthermore, the MOA is not included in the listed SIP documents in the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR). The proposed SIP revision would incorporate a revised MOA

into the EI Paso PMlO SIP.

To prepare the revisions to the Chapter 111 rules and MGA, the TCEQ requested

information from the City on December 28, 2009, to ascertain what efforts the City is
Commissioners

. Page 2

January 6, 2012

Re: Docket No. 2011-0707-SIP

taking to control PM emissions. Ina response letter dated January 29, 2010, the City of El

Paso indicated the follmving;

• the City has programs funded annually in both the City's capital improvement budget

and in the Department ofTransportation operations budget in an effort to comply with

environmental regulations;

• the City has committed to an alley paving program at a level in alignment with its own

internal budgetary capacities, but not at the rate of 15 miles per year as required lmder

§111.147;

• the City maintains an inventory ofstreet and alley paving efforts to document the

current status and projections for future paving activities; and

• the City's Air Quality Program conducts surveillance and investigations to ensure

compliance with, and enforcement of, Chapter 111 rules.

For the site reporting Federal Reference Method (FRM) PMio data for all three years from

2007 through 2009 (Socorro AQS ID 481410057), there were no exceedances ofthe PMlO

24-hour NAAQS. The inventory of unpaved alleys has decreased from 66% in 1991 to 16%

in 2010, with approximately 23 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. City action to reduce

airborne PMlO has also reduced the need to sweep streets at the frequencies specified under

the current §1l1.147 rule.

The TCEQ has a separate rulemaking (Rule Project No. 201O-046-111-EN) that amends

§ill.147(1)(E) to remove the requirement for the City ofEl Paso to pave alleys at the rate of

·15 miles per year and replace it with the follovving requirements: 1) all new alleys shall be

paved; 2) unpaved alleys may not be used for residential garbage and recycling colleCtion;

and 3) reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) may be used as an alternate means of PM

control for alleys. The nuemaking also amends §111.147(2) to change the sweeping

frequency requirement from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits

and from six times per week to four times per week in the central business district. The

City has demonstrated that the unpaved alley inventory will not increase due to a city

ordinance that requires developers topave any new alleys. Furthermore, alleys have not

been used for residential garbage collection since 1997, so the traffic in alleys has been

dramatically reduced. Finally, RAP has been used to cover some unpaved alleys, which has

proven to be as effective as paving. In addition, the City continues to include paving and

sweeping in its annual budget. The TCEQ believes that the combination ofthese actions

demonstrates that the EPA anti-backsliding provisions in FCAA, §no(1) are met.·

The 2001 MOA with the City has been revised to reflectthese changes to §111.147 (Project

No. 2ol1-o26-MIS-NR). The adopted SIP revision will incorporate the revised MOA into

the EI Paso PMlO SIP.
Commissioners

Pages

January 6, 2012

Re: Docket No. 2011-0707-SIP

Scope ofthe SIP revision:

A.) Summary ofwhat the SIP revision will do:

, The adopted SIP revision will incorporate the changes to §111.147 as adopted in a separate

rulemaldng (Rule Project No. 2010-046-111-EN). The adopted SIP revision will also

incorporate a revised MOA between the City ofEl Paso and the TCEQ (Project No. 2011-

026-MIS-NR) into the SIP. The 2001 MOA with the City is being revised to reflect the

alternative control measures proposed in the revisions to §111.147 and the respective

responsibilities ofthe City and TCEQ under the SIP.

B.) Scope required by federal regulations or state statutes:

This SIP revision will incorporate a revised MOA with the City and the adopted revisions to

the Chapter 111 rules.

C.) Additional staffrecommendations that are not required by federal rule or

state statute:

None

Statutory authority:

The authority to propose and adopt this SIP revision is derived from Texas Health and

Safety Code, Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §S82.002, which provides that the policy and

purpose ofthe TCAA is to safeguard the state's air resources from pollution; TCAA,

§S82.011, which authorizes the commission to control the quality ofthe state's air; and

§S82.012, which authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general,

comprehensive plan for the control ofthe state's air.

Effect on the:

A.) Regulated community:

The rule revision and revised MOA will update the PM controls required to attain and

maintain the PMlO NAAQS. The City will have greater flexibility in the implementation of

the PM control requirements in §111.147.

B.) Public:

Implementation ofthe revised rules and MOA will continue protection of public health

through continued control of PMlO in the El Paso area.

C.) Agencyprograms:

There is no anticipated impact on agency programs.

Stakeholder meetings:

No stakeholder meetings were held.
Commissioners

Page 4

January 6, 2012

Re: Docket No. 2011-0707-SIP

Public comment:

The commission offered a public hearing for the proposed SIP revision in El Paso on

September 27, 2011. A question and answersession was held 30 minutes prior to the

meeting. The hearing was not officiallyopened, because no party indicated a desire to give

comment.

The public comment period opened on September 2, 2011, and closed on October 3, 2011.

Two comment letters were received from the City ofEl Paso. The City of EI Paso suggested

language to be added to the §Ul.147 nIle amendments and non-:substantive edits to the

MOA. A summary of the comments and the TCEQ response is provided as part ofthis SIP

revision in the Response to Comments.

Significant changes from proposal:

The City ofEI Paso recommended adding "unpaved" and "residential" to proposed

§111.147(1)(E) because some trash pick-up routes do occur in paved alleys. The TCEQ has

made the suggested changes to §111.147(1)(E) andthese changes are also reflected in this

SIP revision.

Potential controversial concerns and legislativ~interest:

The separate nIlemaking (Rule Project No. 201O-046-111-EN) includes a demonstration to

comply with the EPA anti-backsliding provisions in §110(l) ofthe FCAA. The §l1o(l)

demonstration includes the substitution ofthe alley paving and street sweeping measures

as stated in §111.147(1}(E) and (2) with alternate control measures currently in place in the

EI Paso area that have resulted in PMlO emissions reductions equivalent to, or greater than,

what would have been achieved ifthe City had complied with the prior version of

§1l1.147(1)(E) and (2). These control measures include reduced alley traffic, city

ordinances requiring developers to pave any new alleys they create, and the use ofRAP on

existing alleys. The EPA did not submit comments on the proposed rulemaldng or §110(l)

demonstration.

Does this SIP revisionaffect any current policies or require development of

new policies?

No

"What are the consequencesifthis SIP revision does not go forward? Are there

alternatives to this SIP revision?

The commission could decide not to adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 111, and

the revised MOA would not be needed. The City of EI Paso would be obligated to comply

with existing rules and MOA requirements limiting the City's fiscal and technical flexibility

to control PMlO in the El Paso area and comply with the SIP.
Commissioners

Pages

January 6, 2012

Re: Docket No. 2011-0707-SIP

Agency contacts:

Shelley Naik, 239-1536, Air Quality Division

Terry Salem, 239-0469, Environmental Law Division

Joyce Spencer, 239-5017, Air Quality Division

cc: Chief Clerk, 2 copies

Executive Director's Office

Susana M. Hildebrand, P.E.

Anne Idsal

Curtis Seaton

Ashley Morgan .

Office of General Counsel

Shelley Naik

Joyce Spencer
RECOMMENDATION
REVISIONS TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AIR QUALITY

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF PARTICULATE

MATTER AIR POLLUTION

EL PASO PARTICLES WITH AN AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER LESS

THAN OR EQUAL TO A NOMINAL TEN MICROMETERS (PMlO)

MODERATE NONATTAINMENT AREA

--

--- ---.-

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

P.O. BOX 13087

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087

REVISED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE

CITY OF EL PASO

PROJECT NUMBER 2011-01O-SIP-NR

Adoption

January 25, 2012
This page intentionally left blank
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of El Paso was designated nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal

10 micrometers (PMlO) and classified as a moderate nonattainment area upon enactment ofthe

Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (FCAA) of 1990. On November 15,1991, Texas submitted to

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a state implementation plan (SIP)

revision for the E1 Paso moderate nonattainment area to demonstrate that the area would attain

the PMlO NAAQS no later than December 31, 1994. The international impacts provision in

FCAA, §179B, provides that an area does not have to meet the moderate nonattainment deadline

ifthe state demonstrates attainment but for emissions emanating from outside the United

States. Air dispersion modeling of United States emissions included in the SIP revision indicated

that the El Paso nonattainment area would have been in attainment in 1991, and at the 1994

deadline, but for emissions transported from Mexico.

Although the area modeled attainment with United States emissions only, fugitive dust control

measures were adopted to minimize impacts from United States sources. The 1991 SIP revision

included control measures in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 111, Control ofAir

Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter A, Division 4, Materials

Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking Lots. The control measures adopted

in 30 TAC §111.147 required paving as a method of dust control in the City of El Paso for

specified roads and added a requirement that alleys be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year.

Section 111.147 also set frequencies for street sweeping in designated sections ofthe E1 Paso

area. On November 5, 1991, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of El

Paso local government (the City) and the Texas Air Control Board, a predecessor agency ofthe

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), was signed to outline the responsibilities

and regulatory requirements for both parties. This MOU was submitted to the EPA as Appendix

Q: Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the City ofEl Paso ofthe 1991 El Paso PMlO

attainment demonstration SIP revision. On January 18,1994, the EPA published in the Federal

Register (FR) approval ofthe El Paso PMlO SIP revision, including the MOU, effective February

17,1994 (59 FR 02532).

On October 9, 2001, the 1991 MOU was replaced with a Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA)

because MOUs are typically used only for agreements between two state agencies and this

agreement was between an agency and a city, so an MOA was considered more appropriate.

Although the MOA was submitted to the EPA in a letter dated February 19, 2002, it is unclear

whether the EPA accepted it as a SIP revision.

For the site reporting Federal Reference Method (FRM) PMlO data for all three years from 2007

through 2009 (Socorro AQS ID 481410°57), there were no exceedances ofthe PMlO 24-hour

NAAQS. The inventory of unpaved alleys has decreased from 66% in 1991 to 16% in 2010, with

approximately 23 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. Additional city action to reduce airborne

PMlO has also reduced the need to sweep streets at the frequencies specified under the current

30 TAC §111.147 rule.

The TCEQ has a concurrent rulemaking to amend 30 TAC §l11.147(1)(E) to remove the

requirement for alleys in the City of El Paso to be paved at the specified rate of 15 miles per year

and replace it with the following requirements: 1) all new alleys shall be paved; 2) unpaved

alleys may not be used for residential garbage and recycling collection; and 3) reclaimed asphalt

pavement may be used as an alternate means of particulate matter control for alleys. The

rulemaking also amends 30 TAC §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency requirement

ES-l
from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times per week to

four times per week in the central business district.

The 2001 MOA with the City has also been revised to reflect these changes to 30 TAC §111.147.

The current SIP revision incorporates the revised 30 TAC §111.147 and MOA into the EI Paso

PMlO SIP.
SECTION V: LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has the legal authority to implement,

maintain, and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to control the

quality ofthe state's air, including maintaining adequate visibility.

The first air pollution control act, known as the Clean Air Act of Texas, was passed by the Texas

Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the Clean Air Act of Texas was superseded by a more

comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas

Civil Statutes. The legislature amended the TCAA in 1969, 1971, 1973, 1979,1985,1987,1989,

1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. In 1989, the TCAA was

codified as Chapter 382 ofthe Texas Health and Safety Code.

Originally, the TCAA stated that the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is the state air pollution

control agency and is the principal authority in the state on matters relating to the quality of air

resources. In 1991, the legislature abolished the TACB effective September 1, 1993, and its

powers, duties, responsibilities, and functions were transferred to the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC). With the creation ofthe TNRCC, the authority over air

quality is found in both the Texas Water Code (TWC) and the TCAA. Specifically, the authority

ofthe TNRCC is found in TWC, Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 5, Subchapters A - F, H - J, and L,

include the general provisions, organization, and general powers and duties ofthe TNRCC, and

the responsibilities and authority ofthe executive director. Chapter 5 also authorizes the TNRCC

to implement action when emergency conditions arise and to conduct hearings. Chapter 7 gives

the TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature continued the existence

ofthe TNRCC until September 1, 2013, and changed the name ofthe TNRCC to the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In 2009, the 81st Texas Legislature, during a

special session, amended section 5.014 ofthe Texas Water Code, changing the expiration date of

the TCEQ to September 1, 2011, unless continued in existence by the Texas Sunset Act. In 2011,

the 82nd Texas Legislature continued the existence ofthe TCEQ until 2023.

The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establish the level of quality to be maintained in

the state's air and to control the quality ofthe state's air by preparing and developing a general,

comprehensive plan. The TCAA, Subchapters A - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect

information to enable the commission to develop an inventory of emissions; to conduct research

and investigations; to enter property and examine records; to prescribe monitoring

requirements; to institute enforcement proceedings; to enter into contracts and execute

instruments; to formulate rules; to issue orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon

health, welfare, social and economic factors, and practicability and reasonableness; to conduct

hearings; to establish air quality control regions; to encourage cooperation with citizens' groups

and other agencies and political subdivisions ofthe state as well as with industries and the

federal government; and to establish and operate a system of permits for construction or

modification offacilities.

Local government authority is found in Subchapter E ofthe TCAA. Local governments have the

same power as the TCEQ to enter property and make inspections. They also may make

recommendations to the commission concerning any action ofthe TCEQ that affects their

territorial jurisdiction, may bring enforcement actions, and may execute cooperative agreements

with the TCEQ or other local governments. In addition, a city or town may enact and enforce

ordinances for the control and abatement of air pollution not inconsistent with the provisions of

the TCAA and the rules or orders ofthe commission.

iii
Subchapters G and H ofthe TCAA authorize the TCEQ to establish vehicle inspection and

maintenance programs in certain areas ofthe state, consistent with the requirements ofthe

Federal Clean Air Act; coordinate with federal, state, and local transportation planning agencies

to develop and implement transportation programs and measures necessary to attain and

maintain the NAAQS; establish gasoline volatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund

and authorize participating counties to implement vehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and

accelerated vehicle retirement programs.

Applicable Law

The following statutes and rules provide necessary authority to adopt and implement the state

implementation plan (SIP). The rules listed below have previously been submitted as part ofthe

SIP.

Statutes

All sections of each subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted.

TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE, Chapter 382

TEXAS WATER CODE

September 1, 2009

September 1, 2009

Chapter 5: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter A: General Provisions

Subchapter B: Organization ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter D: General Powers and Duties ofthe Commission

Subchapter E: Administrative Provisions for Commission

Subchapter F: Executive Director (except §§5.225, 5.226, 5.227, 5.2275,5.231, 5.232, and

5·236)

Subchapter H: Delegation of Hearings

Subchapter I: Judicial Review

Subchapter J: Consolidated Permit Processing

Subchapter L: Emergency and Temporary Orders (§§5.514, 5.5145, and 5.515 only)

Subchapter M: Environmental Permitting Procedures (§5.558 only)

Chapter 7: Enforcement

Subchapter A: General Provisions (§§7.001, 7.002, 7.0025, 7.004, and 7.005 only)

Subchapter B: Corrective Action and Injunctive Relief (§7.032 only)

Subchapter C: Administrative Penalties

Subchapter D: Civil Penalties (except §7.109)

Subchapter E: Criminal Offenses and Penalties: §§7.177, 7.179-7.183

Rules

All ofthe following rules are found in 30 Texas Administrative Code, as ofthe following latest

effective dates:

Chapter 7: Memoranda of Understanding, §§7.110 and 7.119

December 13,1996 and May 2,2002

Chapter 19: Electronic Reporting

Chapter 35: Subchapters A-C, K: Emergency and Temporary Orders and

Permits; Temporary Suspension or Amendment of Permit Conditions

iv

March 15, 2007

July 20, 2006
Chapter 39: Public Notice, §§39.201; 39-401; 39-403(a) and (b)(8)-(1O);

39-405(f)(1) and (g); 39-409; 39.411 (a), (b)(1)-(6), and (8)-(10) and (c)(I)-(6)

and (d); 39-413(9), (11), (12), and (14); 39.418(a) and (b)(3) and (4);

39-419(a), (b), (d), and (e); 39-420(a), (b) and (c)(3) and (4); 39-423 (a) and

(b); 39.601-39.605 June 24,2010

Chapter 55: Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings;

Public Comment, §§55.1; 55.21(a) - (d), (e)(2), (3), and (12), (f) and (g);

55.101(a), (b), and (c)(6) - (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(I), (2), and (6) and

(b); 55.154; 55.156; 55.200; 55.201(a) - (h); 55.203; 55.205; 55.209, and

55.211 June 24, 2010

Chapter 101: General Air Quality Rules October 27, 2011

Chapter 106: Permits by Rule, Subchapter A May 15, 2011

Chapter 111: Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate

MaUer July 19,2006

Chapter 112: Control ofAir Pollution from Sulfur Compounds July 16, 1997

Chapter 113: Standards of Performance for Hazardous Air Pollutants and for

Designated Facilities and Pollutants May 14, 2009

Chapter 114: Control ofAir Pollution from Motor Vehicles August 11,2011

Chapter 115: Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds

Chapter 116: Permits for New Construction or Modification

Chapter 117: Control ofAir Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds

Chapter 118: Control ofAir Pollution Episodes

Chapter 122: §122.122: Potential to Emit

Chapter 122: §122.215: Minor Permit Revisions

Chapter 122: §122.216: Applications for Minor Permit Revisions

Chapter 122: §122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions

December 29, 2011

March 17, 2011

May 15, 2011

March 5, 2000

December 11, 2002

June 3,2001

June 3,2001

December 11, 2002

Chapter 122: §122.218: Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit

Revisions Involving the Use of Economic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and

Emissions Trading

v

June 3,2001
SECTION VI: CONTROL STRATEGY

A. Introduction (No change)

B. Ozone (No change)

C. Particulate Matter (Revised)

1. Introduction (Revised)

2. PMlO Group II and Group III Areas (No change)

3. PMlO Group I Area (No change)

4. 1991 PMlO SIP for Moderate Area - El Paso (Revised)

D. Carbon Monoxide (No change)

E. Lead (No change)

F. Oxides of Nitrogen (No change)

G. Sulfur Dioxide (No change)

H. Conformity with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (No change)

1. Site Specific (No change)

J. Mobile Sources Strategies (No change)

K. Clean Air Interstate Rule (No change)

1. Transport (No change)

M. Regional Haze (No change)

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Section V: Legal Authority

Section VI: Control Strategy

Table of Contents

List ofAcronyms

List ofAppendices

Chapter 1: Introduction (Revised)

1.1 Background (New)

1.2 Texas Particulate Matter History, 1970 through 1990 (Revised)

1.3 EI Paso Moderate Nonattainment Area, 1991 through 2001 (New)

1.4 EI Paso Natural Events Action Plan (New)

1.5 Current SIP Revision (New)

1.6 Public Hearing Information (New)

1.7 Social and Economic Considerations (New)

1.8 Fiscal and Manpower Resources (New)

Chapter 2: PMlO Group II and Group III Areas (No change)

Chapter 3: PMlO Group I Area (No change)

Chapter 4: 1991 PMlO SIP for Moderate Area - EI Paso (Revised)

4.1 Moderate Area PMlO SIP Requirements (No change)

4.2 Definition of Moderate Area Boundary and Air Quality Status (No change)

4.3 Special Receptor Modeling Studies (No change)

4-4 PMlO Emissions Inventory (No change)

4.5 Dispersion Modeling (No change)

4.6 Control Plans (Revised)

4.6.1 Area Source Control (Revised)

4.6.1.1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures (Revised)

4.6.1.2 Control Measures for Residential Wood Combustion Devices (Revised)

4.6.2 Prescribed Burning Control Measures (No change)

4.6.3 Point Source Control (No change)

4.6.4 Reasonable Further Progress (No change)

vii
4.6.5 Contingency Measures (No change)

4.6.6 Test Methods (No change)

4.6.7 Revisions ofTCEQ Rules and Regulations (Revised)

4.6.7.1 Revisions Effective February 12,1992 (Revised)

4.6.7.2 Current Revisions (New)

Response to Comments

viii
AQS

CFR

EPA

FCAA

FRM

FR

MOA

MOU

NAAQS

NEAP

PM

PMlO

RACM

RAP

RWCD

SIP

TAC

TACB

TCAA

TCEQ

TNRCC

TSP

TWC

flgjm3

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Air Quality System

Code of Federal Regulations

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Clean Air Act

Federal Reference Method

Federal Register

Memorandum ofAgreement

Memorandum of Understanding

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Natural Events Action Plan

Particulate matter

Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5

micrometers; or particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less; or fine particulate matter

Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers; or particulate matter of 10 microns or less; or coarse particulate matter

Reasonably Available Control Measures

Reclaimed asphalt pavement

Residential wood combustion device

State Implementation Plan

Texas Administrative Code

Texas Air Control Board

Texas Clean Air Act

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission)

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Total suspended particles

Texas Water Code

Micrograms per cubic meter

ix
Appendix

Appendix A-Q

Appendix R

Appendix S

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Name

(No Change)

City of El Paso Alley Information

Revised Memorandum ofAgreement with the City of El Paso

(Project No. 2on-026-MIS-NR)

x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION (REVISED)

1.1 BACKGROUND (NEW)

The History ofthe Texas State Implementation Plan, a comprehensive overview ofthe state

implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted to the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) by the State of Texas, is available on the Introduction to the SIP Web page

(http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjairqualityjsipintro.html#History) on the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Web site (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/).

1.2 TEXAS PARTICULATE MATTER HISTORY, 1970 THROUGH 1990 (REVISED)

In 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) required the EPA to establish and periodically revise

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS for particulate matter (PM),

measured as total suspended particles (TSP), was promulgated in 1971.

In 1987, the EPA promulgated a new particulate NAAQS. The new standard replaced TSP "vith

particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PMlO).

The 24-hour PMlO NAAQS was 150 micrograms per cubic meter (/lgjm3), not to be exceeded

more than once per year averaged over a three-year period. The annual PMlO NAAQS was 50

/lgjm3 calculated as the arithmetic mean of 24-hour concentrations.

Also in 1987, the EPA published a Federal Register notice categorizing areas in the country into

three groups based on the probability that an area would violate the PMlO NAAQS. Areas with

95% or greater probability of violating the NAAQS were classified as Group I. Areas where the

probability of nonattainment was estimated at greater than 20%, but less than 95%, were

classified as Group II. Areas with a low probability of nonattainment (less than 20%) were

classified as Group III. Based on these classifications, the EPA identified EI Paso as a Group I

area and Harris, Dallas, Nueces, and Lubbock Counties as Group II areas. All other Texas

counties were designated as Group III areas. In response to these designations, the Texas Air

Control Board (TACB), a predecessor agency ofthe TCEQ, submitted Group II and III SIP

revisions to the EPA in July 1988. Because ofthe unique issues arising from the international

nature ofthe PMlO problem in EI Paso, the EPA allowed the TACB to submit an "Interim SIP" for

that area in August 1989. In accordance with the EPA's guidelines, the SIP contained

information on several issues, including a commitment to work with the EPA to continue studies

to characterize the nature ofthe PMlO being transported into EI Paso from the Ciudad Juarez

(Juarez), Mexico area.

On November 15, 1990, new FCAA amendments were enacted. The 1990 FCAA amendments

specified that all former Group I areas and any areas violating the PMlO NAAQS prior to January

1, 1989, were to be designated as nonattainment. The 1990 FCAA amendments defined two

nonattainment categories: moderate and serious. All PMlO nonattainment areas were initially

classified as moderate at the time of enactment ofthe 1990 FCAA amendments, and for these

areas, an attainment date of December 31, 1994, was established. The 1990 FCAA amendments

further required that all areas which had attained the PMlO NAAQS by the time of enactment be

designated by the EPA as unclassifiable.

According to the EPA, EI Paso and Lubbock were the only areas in Texas that had not attained

the PMlO NAAQS by the time of enactment ofthe 1990 FCAA amendments and, thus, were

designated as moderate nonattainment areas. On August 8, 1991, the EPA published a Federal

Register notice reclassifying Lubbock as unclassifiable for PMlO •

1-1
1.3 EL PASO MODERATE NONATTAINMENT AREA, 1991 THROUGH 2001 (NEW)

The City of El Paso was designated nonattainment for the PMlO NAAQS and classified as a

moderate nonattainment area upon enactment ofthe 1990 FCAAAmendments. On November

15, 1991, Texas submitted to the EPA a SIP revision for the El Paso moderate nonattainment

area to demonstrate that the area would attain the PMlO NAAQS no later than December 31,

1994. This revision included air quality and meteorological analyses, including data from a

special December 1990 study that demonstrated the international scope ofthe PMlO air quality

problem in El Paso. Air dispersion modeling of United States emissions indicated that the

nonattainment area would have been in attainment in 1991, and at the 1994 deadline, if not for

emissions transported from outside the United States.

Although the area modeled attainment with United States emissions only, the TACB adopted

fugitive dust control measures to minimize impacts from United States sources. The

international impacts provision in FCAA, §179B, provides that an area does not have to meet the

moderate nonattainment deadline ifthe state demonstrates attainment but for emissions

emanating from outside the United States. Based on this provision, the TACB determined that

there should be no requirement for a reasonable further progress demonstration for the El Paso

SIP revision. Also, due to lack of adequate information regarding the relative contribution of El

Paso and Juarez to the problem in the shared air basin, no contingency plan was required to be

included in the SIP revision.

The 1991 SIP revision included PM control measures in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC)

Chapter 111, Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter

A, Division 4, Materials Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking Lots. The

control measures adopted in 30 TAC §111.147 required paving as a method of dust control in the

El Paso area for specified roads and added a requirement that alleys be paved at the rate of 15

miles per year. Section 111.147 also set frequencies for street sweeping in designated sections of

the El Paso area. On November 5,1991, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the

City of El Paso local government (the City) and the TACB was signed to outline the

responsibilities and regulatory requirements for both parties. This MOU was submitted to the

EPA as Appendix Q: Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the City ofEl Paso ofthe 1991 El

Paso PMlO attainment demonstration SIP revision. On January 18,1994, the EPA published in

the Federal Register (FR) approval ofthe El Paso PMlO SIP revision, including the MOU,

effective February 17,1994 (59 FR 02532).

On October 9, 2001, the 1991 MOU was replaced with a Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA).

Because MOUs are typically used only for agreements between two state agencies, and this

agreement was between an agency and a city, an MOA was considered more appropriate.

Although the MOA was submitted to the EPA in a letter dated February 19,2002, it is unclear

whether the EPA accepted it as a SIP revision.

1.4 EL PASO NATURAL EVENTS ACTION PLAN (NEW)

On February 21, 2007, in response to uncontrollable exceedances ofthe PMlO NAAQS caused by

natural events, the TCEQ, in conjunction with the City of El Paso, the Joint Advisory Committee

for the Improvement ofAir Quality in the Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, El Paso, Texas, and

Dona Ana County, New Mexico Air Basin, and community stakeholders, adopted a Natural

Events Action Plan (NEAP) for El Paso County. The El Paso NEAP is a plan for managing the

exceedances ofthe PM standards that can be attributed to uncontrollable natural events such as

unusually high winds. The NEAP includes documentation and analysis ofthe PM monitoring

data, descriptions oflocal public outreach programs, and steps to limit public exposure to PM

emissions during natural events episodes. The NEAP describes the requirements for flagging of

1-2
high PM days due to natural events, to allow for removal ofthose days when calculating the

area's design value.

1.5 CURRENT SIP REVISION (NEW)

The purpose ofthis SIP revision is to incorporate changes to 30 TAC §111.147 as adopted in a

separate rulemaking (Rule Project No. 201O-046-111-EN) and incorporate a revised MOA

between the City of El Paso and the TCEQ (Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR) into the El Paso PMlO

SIP. The 2001 MOA with the City has been revised to reflect the alternative control measures in

the revisions to §111.l47 and the respective responsibilities ofthe City and TCEQ under the SIP.

For the site reporting Federal Reference Method (FRM) PMlO data for all three years from 2007

through 2009 (Socorro AQS ID 481410057), there were no exceedances ofthe PMlO 24-hour

NAAQS. The inventory of unpaved alleys has decreased from 66% in 1991 to 16% in 2010, with

approximately 23 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. City action to reduce airborne PMlO has

also reduced the need to sweep streets at the frequencies specified under the current 30 TAC

§111.147 rule. Details regarding the City of El Paso paved alley inventory can be found in

Appendix R: City ofEl Paso Alley Information.

The TCEQ has a separate rulemaking to amend 30 TAC §111.147(1)(E) to remove the

requirement for alleys in the City of El Paso to be paved at the specified rate of 15 miles per year

and replace it with the following requirements:

• all new alleys must be paved;

• unpaved alleys may not be used for residential garbage and recycling collection; and

• the use ofreclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) may be used as an alternate means of PM

control for alleys.

The rulemaking also amends 30 TAC §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency requirement

from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times per week to

four times per week in the central business district.

The City has demonstrated that the unpaved alley inventory will not increase due to a city

ordinance that requires developers to pave any new alleys. Furthermore, alleys have not been

used for residential garbage collection since 1997, so the traffic in alleys has been dramatically

reduced. Finally, RAP has been used to cover some unpaved alleys, which has proven to be as

effective as paving to control PM emissions. In addition, the City continues to include paving

and sweeping in its annual budget. Additional information regarding the FCAA, §110(l)

demonstration for these rule amendments can be found in the preamble to the 30 TAC §111.l47

rulemaking accompanying this SIP revision.

The 2001 MOA with the City has been revised to reflect these changes to 30 TAC §111.147. The

current SIP revision incorporates the revised MOA into the El Paso PMlO SIP. The revised MOA

can be found in Appendix S: Revised Memorandum ofAgreement with the City ofEl Paso

(Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR).

1.6 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION (NEW)

The commission offered a public hearing for the proposed SIP revision in El Paso on September

27, 2011. A question and answer session was held 30 minutes prior to the meeting. The hearing

was not officially opened, because no party indicated a desire to give comment.

1-3
The public comment period opened on September 2, 2011, and closed on October 3, 2011.

Written comments were accepted via mail, fax, and through the eComments

(http://wwws.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecomments) system. Two comments were received, both

from the City of El Paso. A summary ofthe comments and the TCEQ response is provided as

part ofthis SIP revision in the Response to Comments.

An electronic version ofthis SIP revision and appendices can be found at the TCEQ's State

Implementation Plan (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/) Web page.

1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (NEW)

For a detailed explanation ofthe social and economic issues involved with the revised 30 TAC

§111.147, please refer to the preamble that precedes the rule package accompanying this SIP

reVISIOn.

1.8 FISCAL AND MANPOWER RESOURCES (NEW)

The state has determined that its fiscal and manpower resources are adequate and will not be

adversely affected through implementation ofthis plan.

1-4
CHAPTER 2: PMlO GROUP II AND GROUP III AREAS (NO CHANGE)

2-1
CHAPTER 3: PMlO GROUP I AREA (NO CHANGE)

3-1
CHAPTER 4: 1991 PMlO SIP FOR MODERATE AREA - EL PASO (REVISED)

4.1 MODERATE AREA PMlO SIP REQUIREMENTS (NO CHANGE)

4.2 DEFINITION OF MODERATE AREA BOUNDARY AND AIR QUALITY STATUS

(NO CHANGE)

4.3 SPECIAL RECEPTOR MODELING STUDIES (NO CHANGE)

4.4 PMlO EMISSIONS INVENTORY (NO CHANGE)

4.5 DISPERSION MODELING (NO CHANGE)

4.6 CONTROL PLANS (REVISED)

This State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision updates the control plan for particles with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PMlO) in the EI Paso

nonattainment PMlO area. The dispersion modeling performed with the EI Paso County PMlO

emissions inventory for the 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP revision indicated that the designated EI Paso

PMlO nonattainment area would be in attainment ofthe NAAQS by the 1994 attainment

deadline based on United States emissions alone. Analyses ofthe spatial trends in PMlO

concentrations, along with trajectory analyses, provided strong evidence that PMlO

concentrations measured in EI Paso are influenced by emissions from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

However, the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopted several new or enhanced control

measures to help minimize PMlO impacts from EI Paso sources. Those control measures

reflected the requirements for Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably

Available Control Technology specified in the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) April 2, 1991, PMlO Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final StaffWork Product. 1

4.6.1 Area Source Control (Revised)

The 1990 emissions inventory established that area sources are clearly EI Paso's most significant

source of PMlO• In accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

guidance on RACM, fugitive dust control measures, residential wood combustion control

measures, and prescribed burning control measure were reviewed for the 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP

revision. Many ofthe prescribed control measures were previously adopted in TACB Regulation

I and were required to be effective as soon as possible, but no later than December 31, 1991. All

control measures were evaluated for their appropriateness in EI Paso, and where control or

additional control was deemed reasonable, revisions to the TACB regulations were made.

Control requirements were extended to include Fort Bliss Military Reservation, except for

tactical training areas, by modification of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §111.141,

concerning Geographic Areas ofApplication and Date of Compliance, effective February 12,

1992.

4.6.1.1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures (Revised)

All reasonable fugitive dust control measures for the City of EI Paso, including items on the

EPA's List ofAvailable Control Measures, were reviewed as part ofthe 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP

revision. Control offugitive dust in the City of EI Paso is clearly linked to the control of

reentrained dust from vehicle traffic. Regulations requiring reasonable controls were adopted

effective July 18, 1989. For the 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP revision, some ofthe rules were amended

to be effective February 12, 1992, to expand applicability and to enhance effectiveness, as

follows:

1 EPA, PM-10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product, memorandum from John Calcagni,

2 April 1991.

4-1
• 30 TAC §111.145, concerning Construction and Demolition, was expanded to add a

requirement for the City of EI Paso for paving or otherwise stabilizing construction and/or

demolition access roads and eliminated the existing exemption for small construction and

demolition sites.

• 30 TAC §111.147, concerning Roads, Streets, and Alleys was modified to require paving as

the only acceptable method of dust control in EI Paso for specified roads and added a

requirement that alleys be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year. Section 111.147 was also

expanded to require that all levee roads and access to such roads be paved or chemically

stabilized, and to require removal ofsoil by mechanical sweepers or their equivalent from all

paved public streets at least four times per year 'Nithin the EI Paso city limits and up to six

times per week in the central business district. The rule requires spot cleaning of visibly dirty

road areas and removal ofsand used for snow and ice control in the City of EI Paso. Records

must be maintained to document the sweeping activities. These requirements were needed

to enhance the feasible dust control measures for paved roads in EI Paso. The executive

director and the EPA were also given the option of granting a waiver from paving

requirements for industrial roadways, provided the roadway owner can demonstrate that the

cost of paving is economically unreasonable compared to other forms of dust control

specified in 30 TAC §111.147(l).

All other fugitive dust control measures were determined to be sufficiently addressed by the

existing regulations or were considered inappropriate for the EI Paso area because of de minimis

emissions or technological or economic infeasibility. Specific details ofthis analysis were

included in Appendix N: Evaluation ofAvailable Fugitive Dust Control Measures ofthe 1991 El

Paso PMlO attainment demonstration SIP revision.

On November 5, 1991, a Memorandum of Dnderstanding (MOD) between the City ofEI Paso

local government (the City) and the TACB was signed to outline the responsibilities and

regulatory requirements for both parties. This MOD was submitted to the EPA as Appendix Q:

Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the City ofEl Paso ofthe 1991 EI Paso PMlO

attainment demonstration SIP revision. On October 9,2001, the 1991 MOD was replaced with a

Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA). Because MODs are typically used only for agreements

between two state agencies, and this agreement was between an agency and a city, an MOA was

considered more appropriate. Although the MOA was submitted to the EPA in a letter dated

February 19, 2002, it is unclear whether it was formally adopted as a SIP revision.

For the site reporting Federal Reference Method (FRM) PMlO data for all three years from 2007

through 2009 (Socorro AQS ID 481410057), there were no exceedances ofthe PMlO 24-hour

NAAQS. The inventory of unpaved alleys has decreased from 66% in 1991 to 16% in 2010, with

approximately 23 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. Additional city action to reduce airborne

PMlO has also reduced the need to sweep streets at the frequencies specified under the current

30 TAC §111.147 rule. Details regarding the City of EI Paso paved alley inventory can be found in

Appendix R: City ofEl Paso Alley Information.

The TCEQ has a concurrent rulemaking to amend 30 TAC §111.147(1)(E) to remove the

requirement for the City of EI Paso to pave alleys at the specified rate of 15 miles per year and

replace it with the following requirements:

• all new alleys must be paved;

• unpaved alleys may not be used for residential garbage and recycling collection; and

4-2
• the use ofreclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) may be used as an alternate means of PM

control for alleys.

The rulemaking also amends 30 TAC §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency requirement

from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times per week to

four times per week in the central business district.

The City has demonstrated that the unpaved alley inventory "vill not increase due to a city

ordinance that requires developers to pave any new alleys. Furthermore, alleys have not been

used for residential garbage collection since 1997, so the traffic in alleys has been dramatically

reduced. Finally, RAP has been used to cover some unpaved alleys, which has proven to be as

effective as paving to control PM emissions. In addition, the City continues to include paving

and sweeping in its annual budget. Additional information regarding the FCAA, §110(l)

demonstration for these rule amendments can be found in the preamble to the 30 TAC §111.147

proposed rulemaking accompanying this SIP revision.

The 2001 MOA with the City has been revised to reflect these changes to 30 TAC §111.147. The

current SIP revision incorporates the revised MOA into the EI Paso PMlO SIP. The revised MOA

can be found in Appendix S: Revised Memorandum ofAgreement with the City ofEl Paso

(Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR).

4.6.1.2 Control Measures for Residential Wood Combustion Devices (Revised)

All reasonable control measures for residential wood combustion devices (RWCD) in the City of

EI Paso, including items on the EPA's List ofAvailable Control Measures, were reviewed as part

ofthe 1991 EI Paso PMlO SIP. The evaluation ofthese control measures considered the fact that

emissions from RWCDs in EI Paso are de minimis.

As discussed in the evaluation ofthe EPA's List ofAvailable Control Measures, many ofthese

control measures could not be promulgated because the legislative authority to impose taxes or

to require local agencies to impose taxes is lacking. Rules for an episodic curtailment program

were added to 30 TAC §l1l.111(C), concerning Solid Fuel Heating Devices. These rules apply in

the EI Paso and Fort Bliss Military Reservation. The TACB rules are similar to an EI Paso

ordinance in that applicability extends to all residential solid fuel heating devices, rather than

RWCDs only. These rules exceeded the EPA requirements for such a program. The TACB

worked with the City of EI Paso to establish an effective public information program to facilitate

compliance with the rules. All other evaluated control measures were considered inappropriate

for the EI Paso area because of de minimis emissions from these sources.

As in the case offugitive dust control measures, the November 5, 1991, MOD between the City

and the TACB served as the basis for defining the division of responsibility and commitments to

carry out the provisions of 30 TAC §111.111, concerning Solid Fuel Heating Devices. The revised

MOA with the City to reflect the changes to 30 TAC §111.147 also includes the 30 TAC §111.111

provisions. The revised MOA can be found in Appendix S: Revised Memorandum ofAgreement

with the City ofEl Paso (Project No. 2011-026-MIS-NR).

4-3
4.6.2 Prescribed Burning Control Measures (No change)

4.6.3 Point Source Control (No change)

4.6.4 Reasonable Further Progress (No change)

4.6.5 Contingency Measures (No change)

4.6.6 Test Methods (No change)

4.6.7 Revisions ofTCEQ Rules and Regulations (Revised)

4.6.7.1 Revisions Effective February 12, 1992 (Revised)

In accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, the TACB revised Regulation I,

Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, to incorporate rules to

support the provisions ofthe 1991 El Paso PMlO SIP revision. Specifically, the TACB adopted the

following rule revisions:

• 30 TAC §111.111, concerning Visible Emissions, added a subsection that prohibits the use of

solid fuel heating devices during periods ofstagnation within the City of El Paso, including

the Fort Bliss Military Reservation. The revision also contained exemptions for burn down

periods, that is, periods oftime not to exceed three hours for the cessation of combustion

within the device, for buildings where the solid fuel heating device is the sole source of heat,

and for periods oftemporary power loss within the building.

• 30 TAC §111.141, concerning Geographic Areas ofApplication and Date of Compliance,

added the Fort Bliss Military Reservation, except for tactical training areas, to the El Paso

geographic area being addressed in the rules and added a separate compliance date of

December 10,1993, for the new controls being proposed in accordance with the EPA's PMlO

Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final StaffWork Product, April 2, 1991.

• 30 TAC §111.145, concerning Construction and Demolition, added a requirement for El Paso

for paving or otherwise stabilizing construction and/or demolition access roads and

eliminated the exemption for small construction and demolition sites.

• 30 TAC §111.147, concerning Roads, Streets, and Alleys added a notation that, within the

City of El Paso, paving is the only acceptable method of dust control for specified roads;

added a requirement that city alleys be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year; added a

requirement that all levee roads and access to such roads be paved or chemically stabilized;

gave the executive director and the EPA the option of granting a waiver from paving

requirements for industrial roadways, provided the roadway owner can demonstrate that the

cost of paving is economically unreasonable compared to other forms of dust control

specified in 30 TAC §111.147(l); deleted the exemption for removal ofsand applied on public

thoroughfares for snow or ice controls; and added specific street sweeping and

recordkeeping requirements.

4.6.7.2 Current Revisions (New)

The TCEQ has a concurrent rulemaking to amend 30 TAC §111.147(1)(E) to remove the

requirement for the City of El Paso to pave alleys at the specified rate of 15 miles per year and

replace it with the following requirements:

• all new alleys must be paved;

• unpaved alleys may not be used for residential garbage and recycling collection; and

4-4
• the use of RAP may be used as an alternate means of PM control for alleys.

The rulemaking also amends 30 TAC §111.147(2) to change the sweeping frequency requirement

from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times per week to

four times per week in the central business district.

The City has demonstrated that the unpaved alley inventory will not increase due to a city

ordinance that requires developers to pave any new alleys. Furthermore, alleys have not been

used for residential garbage collection since 1997, so the traffic in alleys has been dramatically

reduced. Finally, RAP has been used to cover some unpaved alleys, which has proven to be as

effective as paving to control PM emissions. In addition, the City continues to include paving

and sweeping in its annual budget. Additional information regarding the FCAA, §110(l)

demonstration for these rule amendments can be found in the preamble to the 30 TAC §111.147

rulemaking accompanying this SIP revision.

4-5
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING SIP REVISION TO

INCORPORATE THE REVISED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE

CITY OF EL PASO

The commission offered a public hearing for the proposed state implementation plan (SIP)

revision on September 27,2011, at 2:00 p.m. at the Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality (TCEQ) Regional Office in El Paso. A question and answer session was held 30 minutes

prior to the meeting. The hearing was not officially opened, because no party indicated a desire

to give comment.

The public comment period opened on September 2, 2011, and closed on October 3, 2011. The

commission received written comments from the City of El Paso (the City).

GENERAL COMMENTS

The City recommended adding the terms "unpaved" and "residential" to the proposed rule

language for 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §111.147(1)(E)(ii) because some trash pick-up

routes do occur in alleys. In addition, future incorporation of Smart Growth Community

Development will require trash receptacles to be located in alleys for newly developed

residential areas.

The commission agrees with the City's addition oflanguage to §111.147{t)(E) and

has made the suggested changes. The additional terms clarify the commission's

intent that garbage collection be conducted in paved alleys. Furthermore, the

terms give the City flexibility to continue to allow for smart growth in residential

areas and maintain compliance with the PMlO standard. The SIP revision includes

references to this rulemaking language in the Executive Summary, Chapter 1, and

Chapter 4. These portions ofthe SIP revision have been updated to reflect these

changes.

The City also recommended adding the phrase "which are under the jurisdiction ofthe City of EI

Paso and which have been designated as public thoroughfares" to the rule language for

§111.147(1)(F).

The City's suggested change to § 111.147(1)(F) is beyond the scope ofthe

rulemaking. No change has been made to the rule or SIP revision based on this

comment.

The City provided non-substantive changes to the draft Memorandum ofAgreement.

These non-substantive changes have been discussed with the City, and several

minor non-substantive changes were made in response to this comment. Minor

punctuation and grammatical corrections were made to the entire document as

needed. The paragraphs in Section II were reordered and edited for grammar. The

definition of "TCEQ" in Section III was modified to include "all predecessor

agencies." In Section IV Part 5, the phrase "in designated sections" was replaced

with "for public thoroughfares" to describe existing street sweeping requirements.

A detailed signature block was also added to the MOA in response to the City's

comments.

Page 1 of 2
The City recommended that "Department ofTransportation" be replaced with "City

Department(s)" in the budget discussion in Section V Part 1 ofthe MOA.

The commission agrees with the City's recommendation and the suggested change

was made to the MOA. This change better reflects the City's current organizational

structure.

Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX R: CITY OF EL PASO ALLEY INFORMATION
INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF EL PASO

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) received a letter dated July 19, 2010,

from the City of El Paso Environmental Services Department that included information

pertaining to particulate matter reduction measures that have been implemented in the City of

El Paso. The relevant alley information is included in this Appendix.

• Alley Paving Costs and Current/Future Plans

• El Paso City Ordinances and Standards

• Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Information
Dear Ms. Naik:

SERVICE SOLUTIONS SUCCESS

.:Ll

Ms. Shelley Naik

El Paso SIP Project Manager

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

MC-206, P. O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Dedicated to Outstanding Customer Service for a Better Community

July 19, 2010

RE: City ofEl Paso, PM-IO reduction measures

Please fmd the attached information pertaining to reduction measures which have been

implemented in El Paso Texas. This information is in response to our meeting ofJune 3, 2010

and subsequent communications, in which you requested specific information outlining the

measures that have been implemented to reduce the ambient air concentrations of PM-10. The

attached table outlines your requests and refers to the applicable attachment for supporting

information.

Ellen Smyth, P.E.

Director

I hope you find the enclosed information to be sufficient, if you require additional information

please contact Miguel Parra, P.E. at 915-599-6235 .

EI Paso ,,0'_

;",.Am

1

enca

l

·,c.;

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

2010 7968 SAN PAULO,EL PASO, TEXAS 79907·915·621·6700' FAX 915-621-6711 . WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOY
ALLEY PAVING COSTS AND CURRENT/FUTURE PLANS

Alley inventory and project budget information received by the TCEQ Quality from the City of El

Paso Environmental Services Department in letter dated July 19, 2010.
------~-------,-------- ._--_..__ _--_._--_ .

. ..... . .

Project Square Miles. Project-Budget Average

Yards . SYGost·

Phase I 120,069 9.37 $ 3,345,893.51 $ 27.87 2005-2007

Phase/l 32,181 2.72 $ 911,020.52 $ 28.31 2008-2009

Phase III 14,919 1.26 $ 496,508.50 $ 33.28 2009-2010

Phase IV 12,860 127 $ 552,805.00 $ 42.99 2010

·-Alley . ."

Surface Alley Count . Square Yards Miles

Tune·

Double

Penefratio 59:? 36% 604,045 37% 52 37%

n Pavino'

Hot Mix

Asphalt 609 37% 542,967 33% 47 33%

Pavina

Recycled

Asphalt 214 13% 225;082 14% 20 14%

Surface'

Unpaved 252 15% 251,577 15% 23 16%

;

Totals 1,668 1,623,671 142
EL PASO CITY ORDINANCES AND STANDARDS

El Paso, Texas, Code of Ordinances, Title 19 - Subdivisions, Article 2 - Subdivision Standards,

Chapter 19.15 - Roadways, Sections 19.15.020 - Subdivider Responsibility and 19.15.160 -

Alleys. Reprinted from the Municipal Code Library (http://www.municode.com/).

City of El Paso Design Standards for Construction for Alleys received by the Texas Commission

on Environmental Quality from the City of El Paso Environmental Services Department in a

letter dated July 19, 2010.
19.15.020 - Subdivider responsibility.

A. Safety, Convenience, Functionality. Proposed roads serving new development shall provide a

safe, convenient and functional system for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation and shall

conform to the applicable master thoroughfare plan and any amendments thereto, and shall be

appropriate for the particular traffic characteristics of each proposed subdivision or development. New

developments shall be supported by a thoroughfare network having adequate capacity, and safe and

efficient traffic circulation as determined by staff and/or a traffic impact analysis.

B. Streets, Generally. All streets, including curb and gutter improvements, sidewalks, and required

infrastructure shall be provided by and at the expense of the subdivider, subject to the rough

proportionality provisions of this title. The subdivider shall dedicate all rights-of-way in accordance with

subsection C of this section. The subdivider shall install streets at all locations and in accordance with

all standards required by this title.

1. The subdivider shall pay the cost of all such improvements, except as follows:

a. Arterial Streets and Collectors Witnin Subdivision Boundaries. If the right-of-way for any

arterial or collector street lies entirely within the boundaries of any subdivision or portion

thereof, the city shall have the option of designing the arterial or collector and/or of being

responsible for awarding the contract for construction of required improvements, or allowing

the subdivider to arrange for the construction of such arterial provided developer/city

participation is in accordance with state bidding statutes. The subdivider shall deposit his

share of construction costs with the city prior to award of the contract. The subdivider's share

shall include the cost of pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalks for a street thirty-six feet

wide or the roughly proportional share as determined by a TIA.

b. Arterial and Collector Streets Bordering Subdivision Boundaries. If the right-of-way of

any arterial or collector street forms part of the subdivision boundary, the subdivider shall

dedicate the right-of-way and either improve the street in conformance with this title and

Section 19.10.050 or contribute to the city an amount of money equal to that necessary to

improve the street in conformance with this title and Section 19.10.050. All money received

from subdividers for improving boundary streets shall be deposited in an appropriate fund(s)

of the city. When the city council resolves to design and improve a bounding arterial or

collector street to standards appropriate to its use, then the assessment fund or similar funds

shall be utilized in payment of necessary construction costs.

c. Improving State or Federally Owned Right-of-Way. If the right-of-way for any

thoroughfare owned by the state or federal government lies within or adjacent to the

subdivision, the subdivider shall not be required to pave any portion of it. The subdivider

shall, however, arrange to construct or contribute to the city an amount of money equal to

that necessary to furnish curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements to any state- or

federally-owned arterial lying within or adjacent to the subdivision, if adequate improvements

do not already exist but are determined to be necessary within the next ten years and are not

funded by others. The developer may also be required, based on the TIA, to contribute their

rough proportional share of additional frontage road lanes, acceleration or deceleration lanes

or bus turnouts. Funds shall be deposited and disposed of in a fashion similar to that

described in the preceding paragraph (1)(b) of this subsection, concerning improvements to
arterial streets bordering subdivision boundaries.

2. Existing Boundary Streets for Small Subdivisions. If the right-of-way of an existing street

forms part of the boundary for a subdivision meeting all of the following conditions, the subdivider

shall have the option to make the contribution to the city for the cost of required street

improvements, as determined by the City Manager or designee.

3. Alleys. Where provided, alleys shall be installed and improved in accordance with all

standards required by this title and the DSC. Alleys shall be provided by and at the expense of the

subdivider.

(Ord. 16882 § 2 (part), 2008)

(Ord. No. 17236, § 27,11-10-2009; Ord. No. 17251, § 9,12-15-2009)
19.15.160 - Alleys.

A. Required. The dedication of alleys shall be optional in all subdivisions, except where alleys must

be dedicated as direct continuations or extensions of alleys existing in adjacent subdivisions. Such

continuations shall be extended in the same alignment as evident from adjacent lots in the existing

subdivision, except where an existing alley is less than sixteen feet wide. In that case, additional land

shall be dedicated so as to form an alley at least sixteen feet wide.

B. Existing Subdivisions with Alleys. Where lots are subdivided or resubdivided adjacent to or within

subdivisions already having alleys, the alley must be improved only to the same extent as may be

evident from the existing alley. Where lots are subdivided as continuations of existing subdivisions

already having alleys, alleys in the new subdivision shall be improved only to the same standards as

those existing alleys, all the way to the first street intersection. Thereafter, if alleys are required or

desired, they should conform to standards for alley dedication and improvement set forth in subsection

C below.

C. Alley ROWand Paving Widths.

1. Alley ROW's in commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential districts (including

townhouses and patio homes where rear automobile access is intended) must be a minimum

width of twenty-eight feet. Twenty-four feet of the minimum width must be surfaced in accordance

with the DSC.

2. Alley ROW's in subdivisions, or portions thereof, proposed for single-family residential use

must be a minimum width of sixteen feet. Sixteen feet of the minimum width must be surfaced in

accordance with the DSC.

D. General Requirements.

1. Alleys shall be as nearly parallel to the street frontage as reasonably possible.

2. Alley intersections with streets shall be as close to right angles (ninety degrees) as practical.

3. Where two alleys intersect or turn at an angle, a corner clip of not less than ten feet from the

normal intersection of the property line shall be provided along each property line.

4. If alleys are not straight within each block or do not connect on a straight course with alleys

on adjoining blocks, an easement shall be provided for the placement of guy wires on lot division

lines necessary to support overhead utility poles set on curving or deviating alley rights-of-way.

5. Alleys should not be platted to intersect any arterial streets.

6. Dead-end alleys shall not be permitted unless a permanent or temporary turnaround is

provided. The following standards shall apply:

a. In subdivisions subject to subsection (B)(1) above, turnarounds shall be provided with a

minimum radius of thirty-five feet;

b. In all other subdivisions, turnarounds shall be provided with a minimum radius of
thirty-two feet;

c. In instances where dead-end alleys will clearly be permanent, turnarounds shall be

surfaced in accordance with subsection (8)(1) or (8)(2), as applicable;

d. In instances were dead-end alleys are of a temporary nature, turnarounds shall be

improved with a minimum six-inch-base of crushed limestone.

7. Layout and arrangement of alleys shall be designed to avoid the creation of short cuts for

traffic and to discourage use by traffic other than that generated by activity within property abutting

the alley.

8. Cross intersections of alleys shall not be permitted.

9. Alleys forming the boundary of a subdivision, and adjacent to unplatted property, shall be

dedicated and improved the same as if situated in the interior of a subdivision.

(Ord. 16882 § 2 (part), 2008)
BACK TO TITLE INDEX PAGE

I 14' R.O.W. I. _.. ---"':Ii.

I ASPHALT PAVEMENT. I •

. II CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED II

2% MIN. INVERT CROWN

-

··ALLEY

ONE (1) WAY LANE

20' R.O.W.

J •

,.

I

:Ii.

d

ril

. I

I

I

10'

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

2% MIN.

--

ALLEY

10'

CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED

.. ~I

I

I

J~0::

I

TWO (2) LANES

.!iQJtS;.

·1. ONE (1)-THREE FOOT CONCRE1E VAli.EY GUTTER LOCATED AT THE·

CENTERLINE OF THE RIGHT-Of-WAY WHEN 1J"IE LONGITUDINAL SLOPE

.OF THE ALLEY IS LESS THAN ONE (1) PERCENT, AND DRAINAGE IS

TO 8E CARRIED WITHIN THE ALLEY.

2. NO CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER REQUIRED WHEN LONGITUDINAL SLOPE·

OF THE ALLEY· IS EQUAL OR GREAiER "THAN ONE (1) PERCENT.

TITLE 19· SUBDMSION ORDINANCE

ENGlNBERlNG DEPARTMENT

DESIGN STANDARDS

FOR CONSTRUCTION

ALLEY CROSS-SECTIONS

AND DETAILS

3-11

.Approv1:dByIIA. SHUBERT Choo'ked~ H. M. Eo

lUNR1l3,2008 Drlwn:Br. QECIJ:R.
BACK TO TITLE INDEX PAGE

16'

ROW

t t

16'

LANE

PAVEMIINi:..:.r '''\:.:':PROPOSED 3' CONCRElB

AS SPECIFIED VALLEYCIDTTER.. REFER

TO PLA1E 3·12

.161 ALLEY NO PARKING

16'

ROW

I.

PAVEMENT . AS SPECIfIED

-

PROPOSED 3' CONCREtE

VAIJ.:E'Y GIJrTER. REFER

TO PLA1E3-12

16tALLEY

SINGLEFA:MJLY RESIDENTIAL

28'

ROW

211 24' 121

-~-

28' ALLEY

COMMERCIALIlNDUSTRIALIMULTI-FAWLY

TITLE19 - SUBDMSlON ORDINANCE

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DESIGN STANDARDS .

FOR CONSTRUCTION

ALLEY CROSS-SECTIONS

3-11A

Approv!:dBy R. A. SHUBERT Choc:kcdlly, . H.M.l!..

. Dale JUNB03.2008 DmmBy, OBel].It
BACK TO TITLE INDEX PAGE

I

;:1

~j

C.S.8 AS ~~~CJ.,;{

SPECIFIED

SUBGRADE @ 95%

COMPACTION A.S

PER ASlM {)1551

ALLEY·PAVEMENT

SUBGRADE @ 95%

COMPACTION AS

PER ASTM 01557

1.5'

:Z

::E.. (CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED ..

2% MIN. PAVEMENT - '

1.5'

r

I

I:;::1

~j'I

3.0'

VALLEY GUTTER

NOTES:

COMPRESSiVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE SHALl BE F

C= 3000 P.S.I. MINIMUM

TfIl,E 19· SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DESIGN STANDARDS

FOR CONSTRUCTION

ALLEY DETAILS

3-12

AppwvcdByllA, mERT Chec:kedB,: H.M.};'

Dahl JUNE 03. 2008 DlllwnBy' QBCIJ.R.
RECYCLED ASPHALT PAVEMENT (RAP) INFORMATION

Documentation on City of El Paso RAP usage received by the TCEQ from the City of El Paso

Environmental Services Department in a letter dated July 19, 2010.

Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Material Description and User Guideline from the United States

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Publication Number: FHWARD-97-148, "User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction."

Reprinted from the United States Department ofTransportation Federal Highway

Administration Web site.

(http:!jwww.fhwa.dot.govjpublicationsjresearchjinfrastructurejstructuresj97148jindex.cfm)

Excerpts from the November 2000 United States Department ofTransportation Federal

Highway publication, "Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual" for the South Dakota

Local Transportation Assistance Program received by the TCEQ from the City of El Paso

Environmental Services Department in a letter dated July 19, 2010. Reprinted from the United

States Environmental Protection Agency Web site.

(http://water.epa.govjpolwastejnpsjgravelroads_index.cfm)
ALLEY MAINTENANCE TOTAL :MILLINGS APPLIED

9/1/2003 8/31/2004 108 . Cy·

9/1/2004 8/31/2005 '2658 CY

9/1/2005 8/31/2006 . 7646 CY

9/112006 8/31/2007 3656 CY

9/1/2007 8/~ 1/2008 11929 CY

9/112008 8/31/2009 4233 CY

9/1/2009 6/30/2010 818 CY
Federal Highway Administration> Publications> Research> Infrastructure> Structures> User Guidelines for

Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction

Publication Number: FHWA-RD-97-148

User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct

Materials in Pavement Construction

[ Asphalt Concrete (Hot

Recycling) ]

[ Asphalt Concrete (Cold [Granular

Recycling) J Base]

[ Embankment or

Fill]

RECLAIMED ASPHALT PAVEMENT

ORIGIN

Material Description

Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is the term given to removed and/or reprocessed

pavement materials containing asphalt and aggregates. These materials are generated

when asphalt pavements are removed for reconstruction, resurfacing, or to obtain access

to buried utilities. When properly crushed and screened, RAP consists of high-quality, wellgraded aggregates coated by asphalt cement.

Asphalt pavement is generally removed either by milling or full-depth removal. Milling

entails removal of the pavement surface using a milling machine, which can remove up to

50 mm (2 in) thickness in a single pass. Full-depth removal involves ripping and breaking

the pavement using a rhino horn on a bulldozer and/or pneumatic pavement breakers. In

most instances, the broken material is picked up and loaded into haul trucks by a front-end

loader and transported to a central facility for processing. At this facility, the RAP is

processed using a series of operations, including crushing, screening, conveying, and

stacking.

Although the majority of old asphalt pavements are recycled at central processing plants,

asphalt pavements may be pulverized in place and incorporated into granular or stabilized

base courses using a self-propelled pulverizing machine. Hot in-place and cold in-place

recycling processes have evolved into continuous train operations that include partial depth

removal of the pavement surface, mixing the reclaimed material with beneficiating additives

(such as virgin aggregate, binder, and/or softening or rejuvenating agents to improve
binder properties), and placing and compacting the resultant mix in a single pass.

Reliable figures for the generation of RAP are not readily available from all state highway

agencies or local jurisdictions. Based on incomplete data, it is estimated that as much as

41 million metric tons (45 million tons) of RAP may be produced each year in the United

States.(1)

Additional information on recycling of asphalt pavement can be obtained from the following .

organizations:

National Asphalt Pavement Association

5100 Forbes Boulevard

Lanham, Maryland 20706-4413

Asphalt Institute

Research Park Drive

Lexington, Kentucky 40512

Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association

#3 Church Circle, Suite 250

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

CURRENT MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Recycling

The majority of the RAP that is produced is recycled and used, although not always in the

same year that it is produced. Recycled RAP is almost always returned back into the

roadway structure in some form, usually incorporated into asphalt paving by means of hot

or cold recycling, but it is also sometimes used as an aggregate in base or subbase

construction.

It has been estimated that as much as approximately 33 million metric tons (36 million

tons), or 80 to 85 percent of the excess asphalt concrete presently generated, is reportedly

being used either as a portion of recycled hot mix asphalt, in cold mixes, or as aggregate in

granular or stabilized base materials.(2) Some of the RAP that is not recycled or used

during the same construction season that it is generated is stockpiled and is eventually

reused.

Disposal

Excess asphalt concrete is disposed of in landfills or sometimes in the right of way. In most

situations, this occurs where small quantities are involved, or where the material is

commingled with other materials, or facilities are not readily available for collecting and

processing the RAP. It is estimated that the amount of excess asphalt concrete that must

be disposed is less than 20 percent of the annual amount of RAP that is generated.
MARKET SOURCES

In most cases, recycled hot mix asphalt can be obtained from central RAP processing

facilities where asphalt pavements are crushed, screened, and stockpiled for use in asphalt

concrete production, cold mix, or as a granular or stabilized base material. Most of these

processing facilities are located at hot mix asphalt plant sites, where the RAP is either sold

or used as feedstock for the production of recycled hot mix asphalt pavement or recycled

cold mix.

The properties of RAP are largely dependent on the properties of the constituent materials

and asphalt concrete type used in the old pavement. Since RAP may be obtained from any

number of old pavement sources, quality can vary. Excess granular material or soils, or

even debris, can sometimes be introduced into old pavement stockpiles. The number of

times the pavement has been resurfaced, the amount of patching and/or crack sealing, and

the possible presence of prior seal coat applications will all have an influence on RAP

composition. Quality control is needed to ensure that the processed RAP will be suitable

for the prospective application. This is particularly the case with in-place pavement

recycling.

HIGHWAY USES AND PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

Milled or crushed RAP can be used in a number of highway construction applications.

These include its use as an aggregate substitute and asphalt cement supplement in

recycled asphalt paving (hot mix or cold mix), as a granular base or subbase, stabilized

base aggregate, or as an embankment or fill material.

Asphalt Concrete Aggregate and Asphalt Cement Supplement

Recycled asphalt pavement can be used as an aggregate substitute material, but in this

application it also provides additional asphalt cement binder, thereby reducing the demand

for asphalt cement in new or recycled asphalt mixes containing RAP.

When used in asphalt paving applications (hot mix or cold mix), RAP can be processed at

either a central processing facility or on the job site (in-place processing). Introduction of

RAP into asphalt paving mixtures is accomplished by either hot or cold recycling.

Hot Mix Asphalt (Central Processing Facility)

Recycled hot mix is normally produced at a central RAP processing facility, which usually

contains crushers, screening units, conveyors, and stackers designed to produce and

stockpile a finished granular RAP product processed to the desired gradation. This product

is subsequently incorporated into hot mix asphalt paving mixtures as an aggregate

substitute. Both batch plants and drum-mix plants can incorporate RAP into hot mix

asphalt.

Hot Mix Asphalt (In-Place Recycling)

Hot in-place recycling is a process of repaving that is performed as either a single or

multiple pass operation using specialized heating, scarifying, rejuvenating, laydown, and
compaction equipment. There is no processing required prior to the actual recycling

operation.

Cold Mix Asphalt (Central Processing Facility)

The RAP processing requirements for cold mix recycling are similar to those for recycled

hot mix, except that the graded RAP product is incorporated into cold mix asphalt paving

mixtures as an aggregate substitute.

Cold Mix Asphalt (In-Place Recycling)

The cold in-place recycling process involves specialized plants or processing trains,

whereby the existing pavement surface is milled to a depth of up to 150 mm (6 in),

processed, mixed with asphalt emulsion (or foamed asphalt), and placed and compacted in

a single pass. There is no processing required prior to the actual recycling operation.

Granular Base Aggregate

To produce a granular base or subbase aggregate, RAP must be crushed, screened, and

blended with conventional granular aggregate, or sometimes reclaimed concrete material.

Blending granular RAP with suitable materials is necessary to attain the bearing strengths

needed for most load-bearing unbound granular applications. RAP by itself may exhibit a

somewhat lower bearing capacity than conventional granular aggregate bases.

Stabilized Base Aggregate

To produce a stabilized base or subbase aggregate, RAP must also be crushed and

screened, then blended with one or more stabilization reagents so that the blended

material, when compacted, will gain strength.

Embankment or Fill

Stockpiled RAP material may also be used as a granular fill or base for embankment or

backfill construction, although such an application is not widely used and does not

represent the highest or most suitable use for the RAP. The use of RAP as an

embankment base may be a practical alternative for material that has been stockpiled for a

considerable time period, or may be commingled from several different project sources.

Use as an embankment base or fill material within the same right of way may also be a

suitable alternative to the disposal of excess asphalt concrete that is generated on a

particular highway project.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Physical Properties

The properties of RAP are largely dependent on the properties of the constituent materials

and the type of asphalt concrete mix (wearing surface, binder course, etc.). There can be

substantial differences between asphalt concrete mixes in aggregate quality, size, and

consistency. Since the aggregates in surface course (wearing course) asphalt concrete
must have high resistance to wear/abrasion (polishing) to contribute to acceptable friction

resistance properties, these aggregates may be of higher quality than the aggregates in

binder course applications, where polishing resistance is not of concern.

Both milling and crushing can cause some aggregate degradation. The gradation of milled

RAP is generally finer and more dense than that of the virgin aggregates. Crushing does

not cause as much degradation as milling; consequently, the gradation of crushed RAP is

generally not as fine as milled RAP, but finer than virgin aggregates crushed with the same

type of equipment.

The particle size distribution of milled or crushed RAP may vary to some extent, depending

on the type of equipment used to produce the RAP, the type of aggregate in the pavement,

and whether any underlying base or subbase aggregate has been mixed in with the

reclaimed asphalt pavement material during the pavement removal.

During processing, virtually all RAP produced is milled or crushed down to 38 mm (1.5 in)

or less, with a maximum allowable top size of either 51 mm (2 in) or 63 mm (2.5 in). Table

13-1 lists the typical range of particle size distribution that normally results from the milling

or crushing of RAP. Milled RAP is generally finer than crushed RAP. Studies on pavements

in California, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia have shown that before and after milling,

the pavement fraction passing a 2.36 mm (No.8) sieve can be expected to increase from a

premilled range of 41 to 69 percent to a postmilled range of 52 to 72 percent. The fraction

passing a 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve can be expected to increase from approximately 6 to

10 percent to a range of 8 to 12 percent. (3) Most sources of RAP will be a well-graded

coarse aggregate, comparable to, or perhaps slightly finer and more variable than, crushed

natural aggregates.

The unit weight of milled or processed RAP depends on the type of aggregate in the

reclaimed pavement and the moisture content of the stockpiled material. Although available

literature on RAP contains limited data pertaining to unit weight, the unit weight of milled or

processed RAP has been found to range from 1940 to 2300 kg/m3 (120 to 140 Ib/ft\ which

is slightly lower than that of natural aggregates.

Information on the moisture content of RAP stockpiles is sparse, but indications are that

the moisture content of the RAP will increase while in storage. Crushed or milled RAP can

pick up a considerable amount of water if exposed to rain. Moisture contents up to 5

percent or higher have been measured for stored crushed RAP.(4) As noted earlier, during

periods of extensive precipitation, the moisture content of some RAP stockpiles may be as

high as 7 to 8 percent.(5) Lengthy stockpiling of crushed or milled RAP should, therefore, be

kept to a minimum.

The asphalt cement content of RAP typically ranges between 3 and 7 percent by weight.

The asphalt cement adhering to the aggregate is somewhat harder than new asphalt

cement. This is due primarily to exposure of the pavement to atmospheric oxygen

(oxidation) during use and weathering. The degree of hardening depends on several

factors, including the intrinsic properties of the asphalt cement, the mixing temperature/time

(increases with increasing high temperature exposure), the degree of asphalt concrete

compaction (increases if not well compacted), asphalt cemenUair voids content (increases

with lower asphalUhigher air voids content), and age in service (increases with age).

Table 13-1. Typical range of particle size distribution for reclaimed asphalt pavement

(RAP)
(percent by weight passing).

Percent Finer After Processing

Milling

Screen Size

, (mesh) r37~5--;;~~(1~.-5~in--)-0·~~--~~~1·~0·~0·~~~~--~-1

25 mm (1.0 in) 95 -100

19 mm (3/4 in) 84 _100

12.5 mm (1/2 in) 70 _100

9.5 mm (3/8 in) 58 _95 I 75 mm (No.4)

j 2.36 mm (No.8) 38 - 75

1

1.18 mm (No. 16) 25 - 60

17 - 40 0.60 mm (No. 30) 10 _35a

0.30 mm (No. 50) 5 _25b

0.15mm(No.100) 3-20c

0.075 mm (No. 2 _15d

a. Usually less than 30 percent

b. Usually less than 20 percent

c Usually less than 15 percent

d. less than 10 per"celnt

The RAP obtained from most wearing surface mixes will usually have an asphalt content in

the 4.5 to 6 percent range. The recovered asphalt from RAP usually exhibits low

penetration and relatively high viscosity values, depending on the amount of time the

original pavement has been in service. Penetration values at 25°C (7rF) are likely to

range from 10 to 80 while the absolute viscosity values at 60°C (140°F) may range from as

low as 2,000 poises (equivalent to AC-20) up to as high as 50,000 poises or greater,

depending on the extent of aging. Viscosity ranges from 4,000 to 25,000 poises can

normally be expected from the asphalt cement that is recovered from RAP material.(6)

Table 13-2 provides a summary of the typical ranges of physical properties of RAP, other

than gradation.

Table 13-2. Physical and mechanical properties of reclaimed asphalt pavement

(RAP).

Typical Range of Values

Maximum: 7-8%

Normal: 4.5-6%

~~~~_ M~ximum Range: 3-~~. . _

Normal: 10-80 at 25°C (7rF)

RAP Property

eight

Physical

Properties
!

I te Viscosity or ,Normal: 4,000 - 25,0

I ~~~~~~:~:~,~_Iat 60°C (140°F)

I,---- r1600 - 2000 kg/m ICclm~)ac1tedUnit Weight 1(100-125Ib/ft3)

Mechanical

;

, Propert,'es CaI'f,ornla. B . R eanng at'10 i100% . RAP: 20-25%

I (CBR) 11~~or:g~~e~~~0~~o~r~~~~~a; "--------------'----------------'----------------------------------"-----"--=

Chemical Properties

Mineral aggregates constitute the overwhelming majority (93 to 97 percent by weight) of

RAP. Only a minor percentage (3 to 7 percent) of RAP consists of hardened asphalt

cement. Consequently, the overall chemical composition of RAP is essentially similar to

that of the naturally occurring aggregate that is its principal constituent.

Asphalt cement is made up of mainly high molecular weight aliphatic hydrocarbon

compounds, but also small concentrations of other materials such as sulfur, nitrogen, and

polycyclic hydrocarbons (aromatic and/or naphthenic) of very low chemical reactivity.

Asphalt cement is a combination of asphaltenes and maltenes (resins and oils).

Asphaltenes are more viscous than either resins or oils and playa major role in

determining asphalt viscosity. Oxidation of aged asphalt causes the oils to convert to resins

and the resins to convert to asphaltenes, resulting in age hardening and a higher viscosity

binder.(?)

Mechanical Properties

The mechanical properties of RAP depend on the original asphalt pavement type, the

method(s) utilized to recover the material, and the degree of processing necessary to

prepare the RAP for a particular application. Since most RAP is recycled back into

pavements, there is a general lack of data pertaining to the mechanical properties for RAP

in other possible applications.

The compacted unit weight of RAP will decrease with increasin~ unit weight, with maximum

dry density values reported to range from 1600 kg/m3(100 Ib/ft ) to 2000 kg/m3 (125

Ib/ft\(8) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values for RAP material containing trap rock

aggregate have been reported in the 20 to 25 percent range. However, when RAP is

blended with natural aggregates for use in granular base, the asphalt cement in the RAP

has a significant strengthening effect over time, such that specimens containing 40 percent

RAP have produced CBR values exceeding 150 after 1 week.(9)

Table 13-2 provides a summary of the mechanical properties of RAP discussed in the

preceding paragraphs.

REFERENCES

1. Pavement Recycling Executive Summary and Report, Federal Highway
Administration, Report No. FHWA-SA-95-060, Washington, DC, 1995.

2. Engineering and Environmental Aspects of Recycling Materials for Highway

Construction, Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Report No. FHWA-RD-93-008, Washington, DC, May 1993.

3. Kallas, B. F. Flexible Pavement Mixture Design Using Reclaimed Asphalt

Concrete, FHWAlRD-84/088, June, 1984.

4. Smith, Richard W. "State-of-the-Art Hot Recycling." Transportation Research

Board, Record No. 780, Proceedings of the National Seminar on Asphalt

Pavement Recycling, Washington, DC, 1980.

5. Decker, D. S. and T. J. Young, "Handling RAP in an HMA Facility." Proceedings of

the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Edmonton, Alberta, 1996.

6. Epps, J. A, D. N. Little, R. J. O'Neal, and B. M. Gallaway. "Mixture Properties of

Recycled Central Plant Materials." American Society for Testing and Materials,

Special Technical Publication No. 662, Recycling ofBituminous Pavements, West

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, December, 1977.

7. Noureldin, Ahmed Samy and Leonard E. Wood. "Variations in Molecular Size

Distribution of Virgin and Recycled Asphalt Binders Associated with Aging."

Transportation Research Board, Record No.1228, Washington, DC, 1989.

8. Senior, S. A, S. I. Szoke, and C. A Rogers. "Ontario's Experience with Reclaimed

Materials for Use in Aggregates." Presented at the International Road Federation

Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 1994.

9. Hanks, A J. and E. R. Magni. The Use of Bituminous and Concrete Material in

Granular Base and Earth. Materials Information ReportMI-137, Engineering

Materials Office, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, Ontario, 1989.

[ Asphalt Concrete (Hot

Recycling) }

[ Asphalt Concrete (Cold [Granular

Recycling) } Base]

Previous I Table of Contents I Next

[ Embankment or

Fill}

Page Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Safety, RDT

Scheduled Update; Archive - No Update

Technical Issues: TFHRC,WebMasler@dotgov

TRT Terms: Waste products as road materials--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Asphalt concrete--Design and

construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Concrete--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,

Pavements--Additives--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Fills (Earthwork)--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,

Roads--Base courses--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Wastes, Environmental impacts, Recycling

Updated: 04/07/2011
I FHV\iA Horne I

OFHWA

United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
Federal Highway Administration> Publications> Research> Infrastructure> Structures> User Guidelines for

Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction

Publication Number: FHWA-RD-97-148

User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct

Materials in Pavement Construction

[ Asphalt Concrete (Cold

Recycling) 1

[ Granular

Base]

[ Embankment or

Fill]

[ Material

Description]

RECLAIMED ~~~~~~ASPHALT __PAVEMENT "__ __ff"~ _ User Guideline

Asphalt Concrete (Hot Recycling)

INTRODUCTION

Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) can be used as an aggregate in the hot recycling of

asphalt paving mixtures in one of two ways. The most common method (conventional

recycled hot mix) involves a process in which RAP is combined with virgin aggregate and

new asphalt cement in a central mixing plant to produce new hot mix paving mixtures.(1) A

second method (hot in-place recycling) involves a process in which asphalt pavement

surface distress is corrected by softening the existing surface with heat, mechanically

removing the pavement surface, mixing it with a recycling or rejuvenating agent, possibly

adding virgin asphalt and/or aggregate, and reflacing it on the pavement without removing

the recycled material from the pavement siteY

PERFORMANCE RECORD

Although some form of pavement recycling had been practiced as early as 1915,(3) the first

sustained efforts to recover and reuse old asphalt paving materials were conducted during

1974 in Nevada and Texas.(4) Bolstered by the sponsorship of the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), more than 40 states performed and documented RAP

demonstration projects between 1976 and 1982.
RAP is now routinely accepted in asphalt paving mixtures as an aggregate substitute and

as a portion of the binder in nearly all 50 states. Substitution rates of 10 to 50 percent or

more, depending on state specifications, are normally introduced in pavements, and

recently developed technology has even made it possible to recycle 90 to 100 percent RAP

in hot mix.

Recycled Hot Mix

The use of processed RAP to produce conventional recycled hot mix (RHM) is the most

common type of asphalt recycling and is now considered standard asphalt paving practice.

There are abundant technical data available indicating that properly specified and

produced recycled hot mix asphalt is equivalent in quality and structural performance to

conventional hot mix asphalt in terms of rutting, raveling, weathering, and fatigue cracking.

Recycled hot mix asphalt mixtures also generally age more slowly and are more resistant

to the action of water than conventional hot mix asphalt. (See references 5,6,7,8,9,10,

and11.)

The maximum limit for RAP content in RHM produced in conventional hot mix asphalt

batch plants is widely considered to be 50 percent, limited by both the heat capacity of the

plants and gaseous hydrocarbon emissions. As much as 60 to 70 percent RAP may be

processed in drum mix plants. Special plants based on microwave technology have been

developed to limit gaseous emissions from hot mix asphalt production using very high RAP

contents (up to 100 percent RAP), but the cost of heating is much higher than that of

conventional systems. This process was developed in California and has only seen limited

use.(12)

Table 13-3 provides a 1996 list of State Department of Transportation (DOT) specification

requirements for the use of RAP in hot mix asphalt paving mixtures. Separate requirements

are given for mixes produced in batch plants or drum-mix plants. Maximum allowable RAP

percentages are shown in Table 13-3 for wearing surface, binder, and base courses. (13)

While all state highway agencies permit the use of RAP in base and binder courses, 10

agencies do not permit the use of RAP in surface courses. These include Alaska, Florida,

Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.

Louisiana and Maine allow up to 20 percent RAP in shoulder mixes onl~. Massachusetts

does not permit the use of RAP in open-graded friction course mixes.(1 ) Minnesota permits

RAP to be used in surface mixes only on low-volume roads.(5) Oklahoma allows up to 25

percent RAP for low- volume roads (fewer than 1,000 vehicles per day) only. Oregon does

not permit RAP use in surface mixes on interstate highways.(13)

States that approve the use of RAP in surface courses generally permit from 10 to 30

percent RAP. Some states permit even higher percentages from approved RAP sources.

Allowable binder and base course aggregate substitution rates range from 10 to as high as

70 percent in one state (Arkansas). At least 22 states do not permit the blending or

commingling of RAP from different projects into combined stockpiles.(13)

Hot In-Place Recycling

The use of hot in-place recycling (HIPR) has developed rapidly over the past decade,

although it is in use only on a limited basis. Simple heater-scarification units, heat

reforming systems, and special techniques have been developed for heating, scarifying,

rejuvenation, and remixing of up to 50 mm (2 in) in depth of aged old asphalt pavement to
new hot mix quality overlay in one pass.

The Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association (ARRA) recognizes three basic HIPR

processes: (1) heater-scarification (multiple pass); (2) repaving (single pass); and (3)

remixing.

The first two processes involve removal, rejuvenation, and replacement of the top 25 mm

(1 in) of the existing pavement. The remixing process involves incorporating virgin hot mix

with the recycled paving material in a pugmill and placement to a depth of 50 mm (2 in).

Table 13-3. State DOT specification requirements for the use of reclaimed asphalt

pavement (RAP) in hot mix asphalt paving mixtures.(13)

Max. RAP % -BUdl.1'laJW 1.tax. RAP % - Drum.1'bJW Thp SUe stUe

Due lIinAk Smfi(e Due lIinAk Smfi(e fur RAP

Ahb= 40 40 15 50 50 15 2in

Ahsloia - - - - - - - .I\ri=\a 30 30 30 30 30 30 1.5in

MallSas 10 10 10 10 10 10 3in

CilifcmUa 50 50 50 50 50 50 2in

Colarado 15 15 15 15 15 15 1.5

Col'lJ:'lect.i.cut. 40 40 40 40 40 40 2in

Deklwm 35 35 25 50 50 30 2in

FJ.orida 60 50 None 60 50 None &Jecs

Goorgia 25 25 25 40 40 40 2in

:H'.awaii 30 None None 40 None None 15 in

Idaho Open Open Open Open Open Open 2in

Illi:tois 50 25 15 50 25 15 &Jecs

Jnd.ima 50 50 20 50 50 20 2in

Ia= Open Open Open Open Open Open 15 in

K;msas 50 50 50 50 50 50 2in

Ke1'11Ilcby 30 30 30 30 30 30 &Jecs

L01ili;i"ma 30 30 None 30 30 None 2in

Maine 40 40 None 40 40 None lin

MlIylmd Open Open Linrii Open Open Linrii &Jecs

MassuhuHtts 20 20 10 40 40 10 .15 in

50 50 50 50 50 50 &Jecs

Mi'lJ:'lesota 59 50 30 50 50 30 3in

Mtsissippi 30 30 15 30 30 15 2in

Mtsauri 50 50 50 50 50 50 1.5in

Mo:t1tma 50 50 10 50 50 10 2in

Nebraska Not Used Not Used Not Used Open Open Open 2in

Nevada 50 50 15 50 50 15 1.5in

New 35 35 15 50 50 15 &Jecs

Hw::>p5hire 25 25 10 25 25 10 2in

New Jm'ij

New :M:exi.co Open Open Open Open Open Open 15 in

NewYorl-; 50 50 None 10 10 None 2in

North Ci4'Olina 60 60 60 60 60 60 2in

North Da};ota 50 50 50 50 50 50 lin

Ohio 50 35 20 50 35 20 2in
Old.ahoma 25 25 No:n. 25 25 Non. 2ilt

()r@gon 30 20 20 30 20 20 lilt

P'!I:"ll\5)'Mrtia Open Open Open Open Open Open 2ilt

Fho~ Islmd 30 30 Nane 30 30 Non. U5n

Soulh c;~lit\a 30 25 20 30 25 20 2ilt

Soulh Dakota Not U~ed Not U~ed NotU~ed 50 50 50 15ilt

Terme~~ee 15 Open No:n. Open Open No:n. Open

Texas 15 Open Open Open Open Open 2ilt

tJtah NotU~ed NotU~ed NotU~ed 25 25 25 2ilt

VeIm.01.'ll. !:pec~. !:pec~ . !:pe(~ !:pec~ !:pec~ !:pec~ !:pec~

Virginia 25 25 25 25 25 25 2ilt Open

W~ Open Open Open Open Open Open Open We~Virgi:rt:ia Open Open Open Open Open Open Open

Wis(~h Open 35 20 Open 35 20 Open

\Iijonl:ilg 50 50 50 50 50 50 2ilt

The major advantage of HIPR is the cost savings that it can potentially achieve over

conventional recycled hot mix, eliminating the costs associated with transporting,

processing and stockpiling RAP. Since only the top 50 mm (2 in) of pavement can normally

be reconditioned using this process, HIPR applications are limited to roadways that do not

have any structural deficiencies and do no not require additional materials. The major

disadvantage of HIPR is the inability to make significant changes to the mix. Pavements

that exhibit structural base failure, irregular patching or the need for major drainage or

grade improvements are not suitable candidates for HIPR.(2)

Not all states have experience in HIPR applications, although HIPR technology is a fairly

well accepted practice. There are 32 states that report having some experience with HIPR,

although 22 of these states consider their use of HIPR to be experimental. The 10 states

that have the most experience with HIPR are Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas,

Maryland, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. None of these states has had more

than five HIPR projects per year. A survey of these states found that, in general, all have

reported good or fair performance. (2)

The survey of HIPR experience at the state DOT level further indicated that the use of the

three different HIPR processes has been fairly evenly divided, with 13 states having had

some experience with heater-scarification, and 16 states each having some experience

with either the repaving or the remixing process. Of the 10 states with the most HIPR

experience, 5 have used heater-scarification, 4 have used the repaving process, and 6

have used the remixing process.(2)

MATERIAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

Recycled Hot Mix

Reclaimed asphalt pavement must be processed into a granular material prior to use in hot

mix applications. A typical RAP processing plant consists of a crusher, screening units,

conveyors, and stacker. It is desirable to produce either a coarse or a fine fraction of

processed RAP to permit better control over input to the hot mix plant and better control of

the mix design. The processed RAP used in recycled hot mix asphalt should be as coarse

as possible and the fines (minus 0.075 mm (No. 200 sieve)) minimized. Gentle RAP

crushing (controlled crusher speed and clearance adjustment on exit gate) is
recommended to minimize the fracture of coarse aggregate and excess fines generation.

Hot In-Place Recycling

In the HIPR process, the surface of the pavement must be softened with heat prior to

mechanical scarification. The HIPR process has evolved into a self-contained, continuous

train operation that includes heating, scarifying, rejuvenator addition, mixing, and

replacement.

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

Some of the engineering properties of RAP that are of particular interest when RAP is

incorporated into new asphalt pavements include its gradation, asphalt content, and the

penetration and viscosity of the asphalt binder.

Gradation: The aggregate gradation of processed RAP is somewhat finer than virgin

aggregate. This is due to mechanical degradation during asphalt pavement removal and

processing. RAP aggregates usually can satisfy the requirements of ASTM 0692 "Coarse

Aggregates for Bituminous Pavement Mixtures" and ASTM 01073 "Fine Aggregate for

Bituminous Pavement Mixtures.,,(14,15)

Asphalt Content and Properties: The asphalt content of most old pavements will comprise

approximately 3 to 7 percent by weight and 10 to 20 percent by volume of the pavement.

Due to oxidation aging, the asphalt cement has hardened and consequently is more

viscous and has lower penetration values than the virgin asphalt cement. Depending on the

amount of time the original pavement had been in service, recovered RAP binder may

have penetration values from 10 to 80 and absolute viscosity values at 60°C (140°F) in a

range from as low as 2,000 poises to as high 50,000 poises or greater.(16)

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Recycled Hot Mix

Mix Design

The use of processed RAP in hot mix asphalt pavements is now standard practice in most

jurisdictions and is referenced in ASTM 03515.(17) The primary steps in the design of mixes

include the determination of material properties of RAP and new materials, the selection of

an appropriate blend of RAP and virgin aggregate to meet gradation, the selection of an

appropriate asphalt cement blend to satisfy specified viscosity andlor penetration

requirements, the need to add a recycling or rejuvenating agent to soften the existing

binder, and the need to comply with stability, flow, and air voids requirements.

Either the Marshall(18) or the Hveem(19) mix design procedures are used by most state

agencies for determining the asphalt cement and acceptable RAP content of recycled

paving mixes.(1)
Recycling and rejuvenating agents can be divided into three main types: "super-soft"

asphalt cements, napthenic (aromatic) oils, and paraffinic oils. These products consist of

organic compounds derived from petroleum extracts during petroleum hydrocarbon

processing. ASTM 04552(20) provides a classification of recycling or rejuvenating agents.

Procedures for selecting the quality of asphalt cement or recycling agent are outlined in

ASTM 04887.(21) This specification includes a viscosity blending chart, which enables the

designer to determine the percentage of recycling or rejuvenating agent (or soft asphalt

cement) to add to the total binder in order to achieve a desired value of absolute viscosity

for the recycled asphalt cement. The Asphalt Institute's manual on asphalt hot mix

recycling also provides trial mix design examples that indicate how to use a viscosity

blending chart to design a recycled hot mix.

The Asphalt Institute suggests that when 20 percent or less RAP is used in a mix, no

change in asphalt grade is required. However, for mixes with greater than 20 percent RAP,

a drop in one grade (softer asphalt cement) is recommended to compensate for the greater

viscosity of the oxidized binder.(1) Many states use the same grade of asphalt cement

regardless of the RAP content.

The Asphalt Institute's manual on mix design methods for asphalt concrete(22) provides a

method to determine necessary mix design characteristics (such as stability, flow, and air

voids content) for either the Marshall or the Hveem mix design methods. The final mix

design proportions for the recycled hot mix paving mixture will be determined by

completing mix design testing using standard procedures to satisfy applicable mix design

criteria.

Additional virgin aggregates may be required to satisfy gradation requirements to improve

stability and to limit the RAP content in recycled hot mixes. In the production of hot mix,

superheated virgin aggregate is needed to provide indirect heat transfer to the RAP while

maintaining the proper mix temperature without the generation of "blue smoke."

Structural Design

Conventional AASHTO pavement structural design methods are appropriate for asphalt

pavements incorporating reclaimed asphalt pavement in the mix.

Hot In-Place Recycling

Mix Design

Mix design procedures for HIPR are not as well established as those for conventional

recycled hot mix. Many states as a minimum require that cores be taken of the candidate

pavement to determine in-place pavement properties, including binder content, viscosity,

and aggregate grading.(2)

The material properties of the existing asphalt pavement (to at least the depth of

scarification) should be determined prior to construction in order to permit any necessary

adjustments to aggregate gradation to develop the required voids in mineral aggregate

(VMA) and selection of the appropriate viscosity binder. This will require coring of the
pavement to be recycled and laboratory testing of the recovered paving samples.

Unlike conventional recycled hot mix where the RAP is combined with a significant amount

of new aggregate material (making up typically between 60 to 80 percent of the RHM),

HIPR may involve up to 100 percent recycling of the existing pavement. Consequently, the

extent to which the existing pavement can be improved or modified is limited by the

condition and characteristics of the old mix.

The amount of rejuvenating agent that can be added through HIRP is limited by the air

voids content of the existing asphalt. When the air voids content of the old asphalt mix is

too low to accommodate sufficient recycling agent for proper rejuvenation or softening of

the old asphalt binder without mix flushing, it may be necessary to add additional fine

aggregate or to beneficiate with virgin hot mix to open up the mix or increase the air voids.

The selection of the appropriate addition (either fine aggregate or virgin hot mix), and the

amount to be added, are determined by Marshall or Hveem mix design methods.

The type of recycling or rejuvenating agent and the percentage to be added to the binder

can be estimated using procedures outlined in ASTM methods 04552(20) and 04887.(21)

The recycling or rejuvenating agent, if used, should be compatible with the recycled and

new asphalt binder.

Structural Design

HIPR is generally considered a rehabilitation technique for addressing superficial pavement

distress to a maximum depth of about 50 mm (2 in). The recycled layer is considered to be

structurally equivalent to new hot mix asphalt.

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

Recycled Hot Mix

Material Handling and Storage

RAP is produced by milling, ripping, breaking, crushing, or pulverizing types of equipment.

To ensure that the final RAP product will perform as intended, inspection of incoming RAP

with rejection of contaminated loads (excess granular material, surface treatment, joint

sealant, etc.) should be undertaken. Some jurisdictions also require that RAP from a

particular project not be blended or commingled with RAP from other projects.

Once processed, RAP can be handled and stored as a conventional aggregate material.

However, because of the variability of RAP in comparison with virgin aggregates, many

agencies do not permit the blending of RAP from different projects into combined

stockpiles. The Asphalt Institute recommends that the height of RAP stockpiles be limited

to a maximum of 3 meters (10ft) to help prevent agglomeration or sticking together of the

RAP particles.(1) Stockpiling time should also be minimized to keep the moisture content of

RAP stockpiles from becoming excessive.

Experience has proven that conical stockpiles are preferred to horizontal stockpiles and will

not cause RAP to re-agglomerate in large piles. RAP has the tendency to form a crust (due
to a solar/thermal effect from the sun) over the first 200 to 250 mm (8 to 12 in) of pile depth

for both conical and horizontal stockpiles. This crust tends to help shed water, but is easily

broken by a front-end loader, and may help keep the rest of the pile from agglomerating.

RAP has a tendency to hold water and not to drain over time like an aggregate stockpile.

Therefore, low, horizontal, flat stockpiles are subject to greater moisture accumulation than

tall, conical stockpiles. It is not unusual to find RAP moisture content in the 7 to 8 percent

range during the rainy season at facilities using low, horizontal stockpiling techniques.(23)

RAP stockpiles are typically left uncovered because covering with tarps can cause

condensation under the tarp and add moisture to the RAP stockpile. For this reason, RAP

stockEiles are either left uncovered or RAP is stored in an open-sided building, but under a

roof.( 3)

When large quantities of RAP from different sources are available, it is advisable to keep

stockpiles separated and identified by source. Consistent RAP from a "composite" or

"blended" pile can be produced using a crushing and screening operation and reprocessing

stockpiles that come to the yard from different sources. Material handling machinery, such

as front-end loaders and bulldozers, should be kept from driving directly on the stockpile.

Agglomerating RAP particles can make it very difficult for the loader to handle the RAP.

Mixing, Placing and Compacting

When RAP is added to hot mix asphalt, measures must be taken to avoid exposing the

RAP to temperatures in excess of 42rC (800o:F). Exposure of the RAP to temperatures

above this limit can result in excessive hydrocarbon emissions (blue smoke). To reduce

this problem, hot mix asphalt plants have been modified to permit the recycling of RAP.(24)

In a batch plant operation, the RAP is usually added to superheated new aggregate at the

pugmill. In drum-mix plants, RAP is usually introduced with new aggregate into the drum

using a dual feed system. The new aggregate is typically introduced at the hot end of the

drum (normally the front end of the drum), while the RAP is introduced at the middle or rear

of the drum to prevent overheating damage to the RAP.(25)

In a batch plant, typical RAP substitution rates are limited by the heat capacity of the plant

and the ability to superheat the aggregate to temperatures that will produce a suitable mix

temperature. This normally limits batch plant blends to between 10 and 30 percent RAP. In

a drum mix plant, from 30 to 70 percent RAP can be added, with a practical limit of 50

percent, due to hydrocarbon emission limitations that may be exceeded if excess RAP is

introduced.

Quality Control

To produce consistently high-quality recycled hot mix asphalt, the need for systematic

quality control of the RAP is essential. The process should be monitored for processed

RAP moisture content, gradation, and asphalt cement content. (26) Controlled plant

operations have been developed to produce a consistent (homogeneous) RAP. Extraction

tests to monitor the RAP gradation and asphalt cement content, and penetration and

viscosity tests on the recovered asphalt cement, should be performed regularly to monitor

the RAP characteristics for comparison with the job mix formula and enable appropriate

adjustments to the mix.

The same field testing procedures used for conventional hot mix asphalt mixes should be
used for mixes containing reclaimed asphalt pavement. Mixes should be sampled in

accordance with AASHTO T168,(27) and tested for specific gravity in accordance with

ASTM 02726(28) and in-place density in accordance with ASTM 02950.(29)

Hot In-Place Recycling

Mixing, Placing and Compacting

There are three basic HIPR construction processes in use: heater scarification, repaving,

and remixing. All involve a specialized plant in a continuous train operation.

Heater scarification involves a plant that heats the pavement surface (typically using

propane radiant heaters), scarifies the pavement surface using a bank of nonrotating teeth,

adds a liquid rejuvenating additive, then mixes and levels the recycled mix using a

standard auger system. The recycled asphalt pavement is then compacted using

conventional compaction equipment. The process is limited in its ability to repair severely

rutted pavements, which are often overlaid with conventional hot mix asphalt.

Repaving is a more sophisticated process that includes removing (by heating and

scarification and/or grinding) the top 25 to 50 mm (1 to 2 in) of the old asphalt pavement,

adding and mixing in a rejuvenating agent to improve asphalt viscosity, placing the

recycled material as a leveling course using a primary screed, and simultaneously placing

a thin (usually less than 25 mm (1 in) but up to 50 mm (2 in) in some systems) hot mix

asphalt overlay. Conventional equipment and procedures are used immediately behind the

·train to compact both layers of material to ensure a monolithic bond between the new and

recycled layer.(30) .

The remixing process is used when additional aggregates are required to improve the

strength or stability of the recycled asphalt concrete. Scarified or milled RAP is blended

with rejuvenator and new virgin aggregate or new hot mix asphalt, then placed by a

compacting screed. Conventional equipment and procedures are used to place and

compact the remixed material.

Quality Control

The initial step in the quality control of hot in-place recycled mixes is in the selection of the

pavement to be recycled. Not all pavements are good candidates for this type of recycling.

Cores of the pavement being considered for HIPR must be taken during the early planning

for the project. The cores should first be visually examined for Pi3vement problems such as

delaminations, stripping, or stripping potential, or water in the voids or delaminations.

Pavements with delaminations, especially saturated delaminations, in the top 5 cm (2 in)

should not be considered for HIPR projects. Also, pavements that have been rutted,

heavily patched, or chip-sealed are not good candidates for HIPR projects.

Next, as noted in the Mix Design section, field core specimens should be analyzed in the

laboratory to determine (based on the asphalt content, viscosity, and penetration of the

recovered binder) the required amount of rejuvenating agent to be added to the mix in

order to attain the desired viscosity of the recycled mix. If too much rejuvenating agent (1.0

percent or more by weight of mix) must be added in order to attain this viscosity, the mix

should probably not be recycled in place. As a guideline, pavements being considered for
HIPR should not be too severely aged. It is recommended that such pavements have an

absolute viscosity lower that 200,000 poises (and preferably below 100,000 poises) in

order to be considered for HIPR projectsY1)

Field core specimens should also be evaluated for air voids content during the pavement

selection process. An existing pavement being considered for HIPR should have an air

voids content in excess of 6 percent, in order to accommodate the addition of a

rejuvenating agent without the loss of stability in the recycled mix. If material properties are

not completely satisfactory for 100 percent recycling, the addition of 20 to 30 percent by

weight of virgin hot mix during recycling should be considered.(31)

Field quality control measures during HIPR operations include monitoring the depth of

scarification, the temperature of the recycled mix, the visual appearance and homogeneity

of the scarified or milled RAP, the compaction procedure, and the visual appearance of the

recycled pavement surface after compaction. Loose samples of the recycled mix should be

obtained and extraction tests performed to monitor RAP gradation, asphalt cement and air

voids contents, and penetration and viscosity of the recovered asphalt binder for

comparison with the job mix formula.(32) The recycled mix should be monitored for in-place

density in accordance with ASTM 02950.(29)

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

While the asphalt pavement recycling technologies are well established, there is still

considerable need for additional performance information, particularly with regard to creep

(rutting resistance), fatigue endurance and durability, and the use of reclaimed asphalt

pavement in premium surface course mixes. There is also a need for more correlation of

field and laboratory measurements to refine guidelines for laboratory prediction of field

performance (for instance, laboratory curing procedures that best simulate field conditions).

Some additional issues that require resolution include:

• further information on the variability of RAP, especially from blended stockpiles;

• validation of SUPERPAVE mix design procedures with mixtures containing RAP;

• an environmental code of practice regarding gaseous emissions from hot mix plant

recycling and HIPR;

• the suitability of HIPR for surface-treated and rubberized materials (environmental

considerations); and

• evaluation methodologies for structural characterization of HIPR asphalt concrete

and CIPR asphalt concrete.

REFERENCES

1. Asphalt Institute. Asphalt Hot-Mix Recycling, Manual Series No.20, Second

Edition, Lexington, Kentucky, 1986.

2. Button, J.w., D.N. Little, and C.K. Estakhri. Hot In-Place Recycling ofAsphalt

Concrete, National Cooperative Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice
193, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1994.

3. "Hot Recycling of Yesterday." Recycling Report, Volume 1, Number 2, National

Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Maryland, September, 1977.

4. Transportation Research Board. Recycling Materials from Highways. National

Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 54,

Washington, DC, 1978.

5. Pavement Recycling Executive Summary and Report. Federal Highway

Administration, Report No. FHWA-SA-95-060, Washington, DC, October, 1995.

6. Little, Dallas N. and Jon A. Epps. "Evaluation of Certain Structural Characteristics

of Recycled Pavement Material." Proceedings of the Association ofAsphalt Paving

Technologists, Vol. 49,1980, pp. 219-251.

7. Little, D. N., R. J. Holmgreen, and J. A. Epps. "Effect of Recycling Agents on the

Structural Performance of Recycled Asphalt Concrete Materials." Proceedings of

the Association ofAsphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 50, 1981, pp. 32-63.

8. Kandahl, Prithri S., Shridhar S. Rao, Donald E. Watson, and Brad Young.

Performance of Recycled Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixtures in Georgia. Transportation

Research Board, Record No. 1507, Washington, DC, 1996.

9. Hossain, Mustaque, Dwight G. Metcalf, and Larry A. Scofield. Performance of

Recycled Asphalt Concrete Overlays in South Western Arizona. Transportation

Research Board, Record No. 1427, Washington, DC, 1993.

10. Eaton, M. "RAP Maintenance No Different Than Virgin, Engineers Say." Roads and

Bridges, Vol. 28, No. 10, October, 1990.

11. Kiggundu, B. M. and J. K. Newman. Asphalt-Aggregate Interactions in Hot

Recycling. New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, Report No. ESL-TR-87-07,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, July, 1987.

12. Howard, P. D. and D. A. Reed, "L.A. Street Maintenance Recycles with 100%

RAP," Roads and Bridges, Vol. 28, No.5, p. 63, May 1989.

13. Banasiak, David. "States Plane Off Excess in RAP Specs." Roads and Bridges,

Vol. 34, NO.1 0, October, 1996.

14. ASTM D692-94a. "Standard Specification for Coarse Aggregate for Bituminous

Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

15. ASTM D1073-94. "Standard Specification for Fine Aggregate for Bituminous

Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

16. Epps, J. A., D. N. Little, R. J. O'Neal, and B. M. Gallaway. "Mixture Properties of

Recycled Central Plant Materials." Recycling of Bituminous Pavements, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication No. 662, West

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, December, 1977.

17. ASTM D3515-89. "Standard Specification for Hot-Mixed, Hot-Laid Bituminous

Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania

18. ASTM D1559-89. "Standard Test Method for Resistance to Plastic Flow of

Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus." American Society for Testing and

Materials, Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken,

Pennsylvania.

19. ASTM D1560-92. "Standard Test Methods for Resistance to Deformation and

Cohesion of Bituminous Mixtures by Means of Hveem Apparatus." American

Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Volume

04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

20. ASTM D4552-92. "Standard Practice for Classifying Hot-Mix Recycling Agents."

American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book ofASTM Standards,

Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

21. ASTM D4887-93. "Standard Test Method for Preparation of Viscosity Blends for

Hot-Recycled Bituminous Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials,

Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken,

Pennsylvania.

22. Mix Design Methods for Asphalt Concrete and Other Hot-Mix Types. Asphalt

Institute, Manual Series No.2, Lexington, Kentucky, 1993.

23. Decker, D. S. and T. J. Young, "Handling RAP in an HMA Facility." Proceedings of

the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Edmonton, Alberta, 1996.

24. Harvey, Fitz, E. T. Larves, and R. G. Warburton. Hot Recycling. Wyoming Dryer

Drum. Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA TS-80-234,

Washington, DC, April, 1980.

25. Olson, Roger C. and Ronald H. Cassellius. Hot Recycling of Bituminous Main Line

and Shoulders. Minnesota-Modified Dryer Drum. Federal Highway Administration,

Report No. FHWA-TS-80-233, Washington, DC, February, 1979.

26. Earl, F. J. and J. J. Emery, "Practical Experience With High Ratio Hot-Mix

Recycling," Proceedings of the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association 32nd

Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario, p. 326, November 1987.

27. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard

Method of Test, "Sampling Bituminous Paving Mixtures," AASHTO Designation:

T168-82, Part II Tests, 16th Edition, 1993.

28. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification D2726-96,
..Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted Bituminous

Mixtures," Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken,

Pennsylvania, 1996.

29. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification D2950-96,

"Density of Bituminous Concrete in Place by Nuclear Methods," Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1996.

30. Rathburn, J.R., "One Step Repaving Speeds County Work," Roads and Bridges,

March 1990.

31. Rogge, David F., Walter P. Hislop, and Dick Dominic. "Hot In-Place Recycling of

Asphalt Pavements - The Oregon Experience." Presented at the 75th Annual

Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January, 1996.

32. Kazmierowski, Thomas J., Pamela Marks, and Alison Bradbury. "The Evolution of

Hot In-Place Recycling in Ontario." Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January, 1995.

[ Asphalt Concrete (Cold

Recycling) ]

[ Granular

Base]

[ Embankment or

Fill]

[ Material

Description]

Previous I Table of Contents I Next

Page Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Safety, RDT

Scheduled Update: Archive - No Update

Technical Issues: TFHRC.WebMaster@dot.gov

TRT Terms: Waste products as road materials--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Asphalt concrete--Design and

construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Concrete--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,

Pavements--Additives--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Fills (Earthwork)--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,

Roads--Base courses--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Wastes, Environmental impacts, Recycling

Updated: 04/07/2011

...~~LWJlJ:iQ~ I FH\fI;~A, Home I

OFHWA

United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

Introduction ix

Introduction

Good gravel road maintenance or rehabilitation depends on two basic principles:

proper use of a motorgrader (or other grading device) and use of good surface gravel.

The use of the grader to properly shape the road is obvious to almost everyone, but the quality

and volume of gravel needed is not as well understood. It seems that most gravel

maintenance/rehabilitation problems are blamed on the grader operator when the actual

problem

is often material related. This is particularly true when dealing with the problem of corrugation

or "washboarding." The problem is often perceived as being caused by the grader but is

primarily caused by the material itself. This manual will help provide a better understanding

of what makes good surface gravel.

Another important matter to consider is the dramatic change in the vehicles and equipment

using low volume roads. Trucks and agricultural equipment are increasing in size and

horsepower. The trend is toward even larger machinery. The effect of larger and heavier

vehicles

on our paved roads is well understood. There is a definite need to build stronger bases and

pavements. But the effect on gravel roads is just as serious and often is not recognized. For

this reason, a section on the design of gravel roads is included. The strength of the subgrade

and depth of the material needed to carry today's heavy loads must be considered. Proper

drainage is also important.

The final section of the manual covers innovations in the gravel road maintenance/

rehabilitation industry. Change is constant in almost every aspect of this modern world

and maintaining gravel roads is no exception. There are new ways of stabilizing roads, new

methods of dust control, new and different kinds of eqUipment available for maintenance/

rehabilitation of gravel roads, and even new surface materials such as recycled asphalt being

used. Not all of these innovations may be available or practical for every local government

entity, but everyone is encouraged to take an objective look at each of them. Then an informed

decision can be made about changing the way gravel roads are designed and maintained

within a particularjurisdiction.
40 What is Good Gravel?

Example of a good blend of material for gravel surfacing. (Courtesy of Road Research Ministry of

RoadsfTransportation.Sweden)

Good Gradation

Gravel is a mixture of three sizes or

types of material: stone, sand and fines.

This will be discussed further in the next

section.Without a good blend of these

three sizes, the gravel will perform

poorly. Unfortunately, poor performing

gravel will often be blamed on the

maintenance operator. But the operator

cannot make good gravel out of bad

gravel. Bad or poorly graded gravel

can not be changed to good gravel

without additional costs, but it is

often well worth it.

One common practice of improving

surface gravel is to add new, clean,

virgin fine gravel. Good surface gravel

needs a percentage of stone which

gives strength to support loads -

particularly in wet weather. It also

needs a percentage of sand-sized

particles to fill the voids between

the stones and give stability. But a

percentage of good, plastic fines are

also needed to bind the material

together which allows a gravel road to

form a crust and shed water. In many

regions of the country, this is a natural

clay which gives the gravel a strong

cohesive characteristic and keeps a

reasonably tight surface especially

during periods of dry weather. Some of

the fine material in surface gravel will

be lost, under traffic action, in the form

of dust that rises from the surface and

simply blows away. This can be

compensated for by specifying a higher

percentage of fines in the new gravel.

However, no gravel surface will perform

like pavement! There will be some loose

aggregate or "float"on the surface of

virtually all gravel roads. But striving to

get as good a material as budgets and

local sources allow will improve the

performance of a gravel road.

Benefit of Crushing

In a few cases the gravel may simply be

loaded onto trucks without processing.

This is often referred to as "bank run"

or "pit run" gravel. There are few

natural deposits of material that have

an ideal gradation without being

processed. In some areas of the country

it is still common to process gravel

simply by screening to a maximum

top size. A great benefit is gained from

processing the material by crushing.

This means that a good percentage

of the stone will be fractured in the

crushing process. The broken stones

will embed into the surface of a

gravel road much better than rounded,

natural-shaped stone. It also means that

the material resists movement under

loads better and gives better strength

or stability. This will vary throughout the

country, but bank run gravels are nearly

always improved through the crushing

process. Quarry gravels are considered

very good material since they are composed of virtually all fractured particles.

Recycled Aspha It

As more of our asphalt pavements wear

out, many of them are recycled. This is

usually done by milling or crushing.

Sometimes the material is available for

use on a gravel road. It can be a good

surface, but there are pitfalls. In this

material, the bituminous portion of

the old pavement becomes the binder.

When placed on a road in hot weather,

the recycled asphalt can take on the

characteristic of pavement. But it will be

a weak pavement. It will often develop

potholes and will be hard to maintain

with simple blade maintenance. To help

overcome this problem,the material

should be placed at a minimum three

inch compacted depth and only on

a road that has a strong subgrade.

A better option is to mix the recycled

asphalt 50/50 with virgin gravel. This

will generally provide a material that

still has a good binding characteristic,

but remains workable for maintenance

and reshaping. Recycled asphalt has

also been mixed with crushed, recycled

concrete and the performance has

been gOOd.
Section IV: Dust Control and Stabilization/Types of Stabilizers

Section IV:

Dust Control and Stabi I ization

51

1\ II gravel roads will give off dust

t-\ under traffic.After all, they are

unpaved roads that typically serve a low

volume of traffic, and dust is usually

an inherent problem. The amount of

dust that a gravel road produces varies

greatly. In areas of the country that

receive a high amount of moisture,

the problem is greatly reduced.Arid

or semi-arid regions such as the desert

southwest and much of the great plains

region in the USA are prone to long

periods of dry weather. Similar regions

around the globe can have similar

weather patterns. Dust can really bring

complaints in these areas if there are

residences located near the road and

traffic is high.

The quality and type of gravel also

has some effect on the amount of

dust. Some limestone gravels can dust

severely while some glacial deposits of

gravel with a portion of highly plastic

clay can take on a strong binding

characteristic that will resist dusting

remarkably well. Still, in prolonged dry

weather, there will be dust! Whether

to provide some type of dust control

or not can be a hard decision to make.

Virtually all methods of dust control

require annual treatment.

The cost can be prohibitive if traffic

volume is low. On the other hand, if

traffic is high, the cost of dust control

can more than pay for itself with the

benefits of reduced material loss and

reduced need for blade maintenance.

(28) At this point, many agencies will

face pressure to pave the road. It may

actually be a good economic decision in

the long run, especially if there is good

indication that traffic will continue to

increase in the future. However, never

pave a road before it is ready! There

is good information on making this

decision in Appendix D.

Types of Stabilizers

Chlorides

These are the most commonly used

products across the country. They fall

into three categories: Calcium Chloride

in flake or liquid form, Magnesium

Chloride generally in liquid form, and

Sodium Chloride (road salt). Sodium

is seldom used and is the least effective.

Calcium and Magnesium Chloride can

be very effective if used properly. They

are hygroscopic products which, in

simplest terms, means they draw

moisture from the air and keep the

road surface constantly damp. They

are reasonably simple to use.

Resins

These are products available under various commercial names. The basic composition is lignin sulfonate which is a

by-product of the pUlp milling industry.

The product is sometimes called "tree

sap" in the field. These products work

best when incorporated into the surface

gravel. They then provide cohesion to

bind the soil particles together.

Natural Clays

Some regions of the country have

excellent deposits of natural clay that
52

are highly plastic and provide strong

cohesion when added in the right

quantity to gravel.However, in prolonged dry weather, these roads will

seldom be completely dust free. It can

be difficult as well to haul the clay

onto the road and mix it into the gravel.

Because it is highly plastic,it tends to

stick to the truck boxes and requires

quite an effort to mix with the gravel.

Asphalts

The use of cut-back liquid asphalts

to surface-treat gravel roads was once

popular for dust control. However,

because of the great amount of fuel oil

or kerosene in these products, they have

been banned in many places. Some

emulsified asphalts may work for this

purpose, but their use is very limited.

The product must be applied with

special asphalt application equipment.

Soybean Oil

This product is known technically as

Acidulated Soybean Oil Soapstock.

It is a by-product of the caustic refining

process of soybean oil. It is a biodegradable material that has many of

the characteristics of a light petroleumbased oil. It will penetrate a gravel

surface and provide a light bonding

Benefits of Stabilization

of the gravel that effectively reduces

dust when it is used properly.

Other Commercial Binders

There are too many of these to mention

individually. They are marketed under

various trade names across the country.

It is always wise to try a test section of

no more than 1000 feet in length to see

how any of these products work with

your gravel. One caution: do not use

waste products such as crankcase

drain oil from engines. This is harmful

to the environment and is in violation

of EPA rules.

Benefits of Stabilization

Once a road is stabilized there are

several benefits. On high volume

roads, these benefits can make stabilization very cost effective.

Reduced Dusting

It may be hard to justify the use of any

of these products for dust control a lone.

However, when the products are working well, the added benefit of a stabilized surface that controls the loss of

fines through dusting is a great economic benefit.When the fines are lost

from a gravel surface, the stone and

sand-sized particles that remain will

tend to remain loose on the surface,

leading to some distresses like washboarding and reduced skid resistance.

It will become very hard to maintain.

Fresh gravel with a higher percentage

of fines needs to be hauled in. This

becomes very expensive.

Reduced "Whip Off"

of Aggregate

This is another economic bonus to

dust control when it is working well.

As mentioned earlier, when dust control

products are working well, the fine

material in the gravel cannot loosen

and dust away. This also means that

the stone portion of the gravel will

tend to remain embedded in the surface

and will not be lost to the edge of the

road or even whipped off onto the

ins lope from heavy traffic. Studies

have shown that as much as one ton

of aggregate per mile is lost each year

for each vehicle that passes over a road

daily. This means that a road carrying

200 vehicles per day will experience

the loss of 200 tons of aggregate per

mile each year. (7) Obviously this will

vary with the amount of rainfall

received, the quality of the gravel

and other factors. Retaining aggregate

is a good added benefit to dust control.

Reduced Blade Maintenance

A road surface that remains tightly

bound and stable will require much less

blade maintenance. The manufacturers

of some dust control products highly

recommend that the surface should

not be bladed at all after their products

are applied.While extra blading, shaping and mixing is needed to prepare

a road for dust control, the overall

need for blade maintenance should

be greatly reduced. This can be a great

savings in eqUipment expense and

labor. A county highway official once

commented:"1 don't react to dust

complaints. All gravel roads have dust.

But I do react to high maintenance

costs. When we have to regravel a road

frequently and do blade maintenance

frequently, then it's time to look at

stabilizing the surface with Magnesium

Chloride. Reduced maintenance is

what we're after. Dust control isjust

a bonus!"
Appendix D:When to Pave a Gravel Road

A pendix 0:

When to Pave a >k

Gravel' Road

D1

by Kent.ucky T,'anspon:at.ion Center', University of Kentucky at Lexin9ton,KY

Contents

• A Word About the Term "Paved"

• Introduction

• Gravel or Paved: A Matter of Trade-offs

III When Should We Pave This Gravel Road? A Ten Part Answer

1. After Developing a Road Management Program

2. When the Local Agency Is Committed to Excellence

3. When Traffic Demands It

4. After Standards Have Been Adopted

5. After Considering Safety and Design

6. After the Base and Drainage Are Improved

7. After Determining the Costs of Road Preparation

8. After Comparing Pavement Life and Maintenance Costs

9. After Comparing User Costs

10. After Weighing Public Opinion

III Stage Construction

III Summary

III References

*Gravel as used here may refer to sand and gravel,or to crushed stone.
TRASH COLLECTION LETTER FROM THE CITY OF EL PASO

The TCEQ received a letter dated October 4, 2010, from the City of El Paso Environmental

Services Department to confirm the City's policy of not picking up trash via alleys from

residential customers. This practice reduces fugitive dust emissions by reducing the traffic on

unpaved alleys. The Environmental Services Department anticipates no changes to this policy in

the future.
SERVICE SOLUTIONS SUCCESS

Dear Ms. Naik;

Sincerely,

Ellen Smyth

Director

If you have any more questions, please contact Miguel Parra at 915-599-6235.

Received

OCT 06'2010

RE: Solid Waste collection in alleyways

October 4, 2010

Ms. Shelley Naik

EI Paso SIP Project Manager

Texas Commission on Enviromental Quality

12100 35 Park Circle, Building F

MC-206

Austin 78711-3087

As per your request, this letter confIrms our current policy of not picking up trash via alley ways

from residential customers. All residential customers are required to place their trash bins along

their corresponding paved street.

El Paso .'0,_

AU-America CIty

UII J.' • ENVIRONMENTALSERVICESDEPARTMlliNT

2010 7968 SAN PAULO, EL PASO, TEXAS 79907· 915-621-6700· FAX 915-621-6711 . WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOV
APPENDIX S: REVISED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

WITH THE CITY OF EL PASO
C\:T Y CU:RI\ DEPT.

7.0\\ HO\l22. Pl'\ \ h3

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

I. PARTIES

This Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) is entered into between the Texas Commission

on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") and the City of EI Paso, Texas ("the City"),

collectively the "Parties."

1. The Parties represent that they have the authority to enter into this MOA, including

the authority granted in the Texas Government Code Chapter 791 Interlocal

Cooperation Contracts.

2. The TCEQ has authority under § 5.229 ofthe Texas "Vater Code and § 382.033 ofthe

Texas Health and Safety Code to enter into this MOA.

3. The Local Governments have authority under § 382.115 ofthe Texas Health and

Safety Code to enter into this MOA.

II. INTENT AND PURPOSE

The purpose ofthis MOA is to set forth in plain language the understanding ofthe

Parties regarding their respective responsibilities under the Texas State Implementation

Plan (SIP) as it pertains to the City of EI Paso (EI Paso area).

The intent ofthe Parties by and through this MOA is to memorialize the agreement

between the Parties to provide the City with alternative methods of particulate matter

(PM) control consistent with attainment and maintenance ofthe National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a

nominal 10 micrometers (PMlO).

III. DEFINITIONS

As used in this MOA the following terms have the meanings given below:

1. "EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

2. "TCEQ" shall mean the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and all

predecessor agencies.

3. "the City" shall mean the City of El Paso, Texas local government.

4. "EI Paso area" shall mean the City of EI Paso PMlO nonattainment area.

5. "SIP" shall refer to the State Implementation Plan.

IV. BACKGROUND

1. Under § 110 ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), 42 United States Code (USC) §

7410, each state that has a nonattainment area must submit a SIP to the EPA

demonstrating strategies to come into compliance with the NAAQS.

2. Section 110 of the FCAA, 42 USC § 7410 also requires Texas to submit to the EPA for

approval any SIP revisions, and to demonstrate that such SIP revisions will not
Memorandum ofAgreement Between the City of El Paso and the TCEQ

Page 2

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable

further progress or any other requirement ofthe FCAA, as required by §no(l) ofthe

FCAA.

3. Under the 1990 FCAA Amendments, the El Paso area was designated nonattainment

under FCAA § 107(d)(4)(B) for the PMlO NAAQS and subsequently classified as a

moderate PMlO nonattainment area.

4. In November 1991, the Texas Air Control Board (TACB), a predecessor agency ofthe

TCEQ, submitted an attainment demonstration SIP revision. The SIP revision

included PM control measures in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 111,

Control ofAir Pollution ftom Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter

A, Division 4, Materials Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking

Lots.

5. The control measures adopted in 30 TAC § 111.147 required paving as a method of

dust control in the El Paso area for specified roads and added a requirement that

alleys be paved at the rate of 15 miles per year. Section 111.147 also set frequencies

for street sweeping for public thoroughfares in the EI Paso area.

6. In 1991, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the TACB

was approved to outline the responsibilities and regulatory requirements for both

Parties.

7. The 1991 MOD was replaced with a MOA with the City in 2001.

8. This MOA replaces the 2001 MOA with the City. This MOA is being revised to reflect

changes to the control measures in 30 TAC §1l1.147.

V. UNDERSTANDING

1. The City agrees to maintain annual program funds in the City's capital improvement

budget and in the City Department(s) operation budget(s) to comply with

environmental regulations;

2. The Parties agree that the continued enforcement of no-burning periods may

contribute to improvement in air quality in the El Paso area. The City will continue

to enforce the regulations regarding burning contained in Chapter 9.38 ofthe El

Paso City Code, and will continue to notifY the local office ofTCEQ of violations of

Chapter 9.38 and 30 TAC § 111.111.

3. The TCEQ agrees to submit this agreement to the EPA as an appendix to the El Paso

PMlO SIP revision.

VI. TERM, RENEWAL, TERMINATION, Ac1'liD MODIFICATION

This MOA will become effective upon signature by all Parties and shall remain in effect

for ten years or until superseded. Following this ten year period, the MOA shall

automatically be renewed for successive one-year renewal terms, without the necessity

of formal action on the part of either Party, unless one ofthe Parties provides written
Memorandum ofAgreement Between the City of E1 Paso and the TCEQ

Page 3

notice of non-renewal 90 days prior to the end ofthe renewal term, whereupon the

MOA shall terminate at the end of the renewal term, as applicable. Representatives of

the Parties will have by no later than the last day of March each year during the renewal

term to consider whether any revisions or modifications to the MOA may be necessary

or desirable. Any revision, modification, or amendment of the terms ofthe MOA must

be made in writing by agreement ofthe Parties.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS

This MOA represents the entire agreement between the TCEQand the City and

supersedes all other agreements, understandings or commitments, written or oral,

relative to the intent ofthis MOA. This MOA may not be amended or modified except

pursuant to a mutual written agreement executed by each of the Parties.

This MOA shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State

ofTexas...

In Witness Thereof, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the City of El

Paso, by their authorized officers, have made and executed this MOA in multiple copies,

each of which is deemed an original. . tIL 01 /

AGREED to by the undersigned Parties, this ct9 day of /fWvLi:3:v , 2011.

By:-+__L.L..:.::.....L.I'-"'f1~I-C-.:....L:.<~ _

Richarda Momsen

El Paso Qity QIerk

Date: til)..'1 J!lb /I

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: Lq~ ""Z

Elizabeth M. R hmann

Assistant City Attorney

Date: }(. z,:~" I I

By:-H-----'''''''--=-+--I--'t.:.o::r---I---'''<-----

Mar R. Vickery, . .

Executive Director 'I

Date: I'" '3 (-d-& ItA

CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS

BY:~ If. ~..a:::.... · Joy Wilson

City Manager /

Date: 11(:<// / :L<J II

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

Da'

By~a . Cole

Director, Department ofTransportation

Date: 11~ 21 -II
TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF TRAVIS ....

I. hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of a

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality document,

COMMISSION ON ENVI~){u~(lfI'\l records of the Commission.

7~~" Given ~r my harid and the seal of office on

.-

/....::':'."'::~~'/.....lx' "'.:.)..... 6#fff/.&Iov. FEB 012012

!.:;.?;/!Bridget C. ohac. Chief Clerk

,

~~

./ Texas Commission on E~ntal Quality .

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED RULES, REVISED MEMORANDUM OF

AGREEMENT, AND REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Docket Nos. 2010-1862-RUL, 2011-o899-MIS, 2011-0707-SIP

On January 25,2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission),

during a public meeting, considered adoption of amended § 111.147. The Commission adopts

this amended rule in 30 TAC Chapter 111, concerning Control ofAir Pollution from Visible

Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter A, Division 4, Materials Handling,

Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking Lots; a revised Memorandum ofAgreement

(MOA) between the City of EI Paso and the Commission; and corresponding revisions to the

state implementation plan (SIP). The adopted rule amendments update the PMlO controls

required to attain and maintain the PMlO NAAQS and provide the City greater flexibility in

the implementation ofthe PMlO control requirements in §111.147. The MOA has been revised

to reflect the changes to §111.147.Under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 382.011, 382.012,

and 382.023 (Vernon 2001), the Commission has the authority to control the quality ofthe

state's air and to issue orders consistent with the policies and purposes ofthe Texas Clean Air

Act, Chapter 382 ofthe Tex. Health &Safety Code. The proposed rules were published for

comment in the September 2,2011, issue ofthe Texas Register (36 TexReg 5640).

Pursuant to Tex. Health &Safety Code Ann. § 382.017 (Vernon 2001), Tex. Gov't Code

Chapter 2001 (Vernon 2008), and 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 51.102, and after proper

notice, the Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the amended rules, revised

MOA and revisions to the SIP. Proper notice included prominent advertisement in the areas

affected at least 30 days prior to the date ofthe hearing. A public hearing was held on

September 27,2011, at 2:00 p.m. at the El Paso State Office Building in EI Paso. The hearing

was not officially opened, because no party indicated a desire to give comment.

The Commission circulated hearing notices of its intended action to the public,

including interested persons, the Regional Administrator ofthe EPA, and all applicable local

air pollution control agencies. The public was invited to submit data, views, and

recommendations on the proposed amended rules, revised MOA, and SIP revisions, either

orally or in writing, at the hearing or during the comment period. Prior to the scheduled

hearing, copies ofthe proposed amended rules, revised MOA, and SIP revisions were

available for public inspection at the Commission's central office and on the Commission's

Web site.

Data, views, and recommendations ofinterested persons regarding the proposed

amended rules, revised MOA, and SIP revisions were submitted to the Commission during

the comment period, and were considered by the Commission as reflected in the analysis of

testimony incorporated by reference to this Order. The Commission finds that the analysis of

testimony includes the names of all interested groups or associations offering comment on
2AX::JT,0 3lf\T8 3HY

21VA'iT =10

£ 10 Di711 ;JO Uf'\ij 'hii} (h 2'111

liJ>1nsrfU iC wfj1::1 nci<!~irrwOOIO esXflT

·f!f{"€?t1i~tQbd~ea;~wen(l~.grml~stt.@ffMtPM!~A, and SIP revisions and their position concerning

h 0D~;'Tfn F) ,ift,,! ,~b· ,1} t'.lfmi! lm ltttlrnJ rteift.8 t esame. {

. IT IS THE~~ . M THE COMMISSION that the amended rules,

revise(f;~8~1\TcrPgcVr1fflrf~5kn:rt?'31'.Prl1corporatedby reference to this Order are hereby

adopted. The Commission further authorizes staffto make any non-substantive revisions to

the rules necessary to comply with Texas Register requirements. The adopted rules and the

preamble to the adopted rules, revised MOA, and the revisions to the SIP are incorporated by

reference in this Order as ifset forth at length verbatim in this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that on behalf ofthe

Commission, the Chairman should transmit a copy ofthis Order, together with the adopted

rules, revised MOA, and revisions to the SIP, to the Regional Administrator of EPA as a

proposed revision to the Texas SIP pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, codified at 42 U.S.

Code Ann. §§ 7401 - 7671q, as amended.

This Order constitutes the Order ofthe Commission required by the

Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Gov't Code, § 2001.033 (Vernon 2008).

If any portion ofthis Order is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of

competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of any portion shall not affect the validity ofthe

remaining portions.

Date issued: .JAN 302017

TEXAS COMMISSION ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY