______________________________________________________________________________ State Implementation Plan Revision Package

Revisions to the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations

• Rule 310.01: Fugitive Dust from Non –Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust

Prepared By Maricopa County Air Quality Department Planning & Analysis Division 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 595 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 506

- 0169______________________________________________________________________________ Completeness Checklist for Rule 310.01 (Adopted 2010)

1. Agency: Maricopa County Air Quality Department

2. Submitted Rule:

Number Title Adoption Date

310.01 Fugitive Dust from Non

- Traditional Sources of 01/27/10 Fugitive Dust

3. EPA A nalogous Approved Rule (Applicable SIP): Rule 310.01 is analogous to the EPA applicable SIP approved Rule 310.01: Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways, which was adopted on February 17, 2005 (72 FR 46564)

4. State/District Authority for Adoption/Implementation: Authorizing statutes: A.R.S. §§ 49

- 474, 49

- 479, and 49

- 480 Implementing statute: A.R.S. § 49

- 112

5. Pollutants Regulated by Rule:

PM

_ 

__ , SO X

____ , VOC

____ , NO

x

____ , CO

____ , Pb

____

6. Identification of Sources by Name or Number/Location (City, County, or District)

Area's Attainment and Plan Status (Group by Size/Subcategory, if Necessary): Rule 310.01 minimizes the amount of fugitive dust entrained into the ambient air from non

traditional sources of fugitive dust by requiring measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Non

- traditional sources of fugitive dust include: vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots, open areas and vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, unpaved roadways (i ncluding alleys), livestock activities, erosion

- caused deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces, and easements, rights

- of

- way, and access roads for utilities (electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission).

PM 10 Classification: Seriou s (As of June 10, 1996)

7. Summary of Rule/Rule Changes: On June 6, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the Phoenix metropolitan area failed to attain the 24 -hour PM 10 standard by the December 31, 2006, attainment deadline. This failure triggered a special requirement under Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision to the EPA by December 31, 2007. Such SIP revision was required to provide for annual reductions of

PM 10 or PM 10 precursors of not less than five percent of the most recent emissions inventory, until the PM 10 standard is attained. In addition, such SIP revision was required to

continue to demonstrate that the revisions would meet the best available control measures ( BACM) test and the most stringent measures (MSM) test for significant sources and source categories in accordance with CAA § 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). This SIP revision (referred to as the “Five Percent Plan”) was prepared by the Maricopa Association of Gov ernments andsubmitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to the EPA by the December 31, 2007, deadline. In March 2008, to meet commitments made in the Five Percent Plan, the department revised Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C.

In September 2008, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) began a rulemaking process to reduce confusion, improve understanding and readability of Rules 310 and 310.01, and re

- insert text inadvertently omitted from Rule 310.01. The rule a mendments, which became effective January 27, 2010, do not interfere with the BACM and MSM tests

and do not reduce the emissions reductions claimed in the Five Percent Plan.

During the rulemaking process, the department conducted three public workshops, one Director’s courtesy briefing, one informational workshop, seven meetings with stakeholders, and eight conference calls with EPA. The department received comments from 20 stakeholders regarding this rulemaking process. The issues that were raised and dis cussed during this rulemaking process can be categorized as follows: rooftop tile cutting exemption, affirmative defense during a wind event, “immediate” clean -up of trackout, definition of “area accessible to the public” and “public roadways”, definition of “gravel pad”, definition of “unpaved parking lot”, stabilization standards for unpaved parking lots and unpaved roads, the phrase “as necessary”, and alternative control measures.

The amendments to Rules 310.01, which became effective January 27, 2010, achieve the following:

Clarify Exemptions

• Deleted an exemption regarding stabilization requirements for disturbed surface areas, because the exemption contradicted the purpose of Rule 310.01

• Deleted an exemption regarding fugitive dust and added parallel text to the definition of “fugitive dust” to clarify that disturbed surface areas are not exempt from the provisions of Rule 310.01

Clarify Control Measure Requirements

• Clarified that using a less than 30-foot wide gravel pad is contingent on the p hysical impossibility of widening the existing exit – not mere inconvenience

• Added stabilization requirements for vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots and for open areas and vacant lots; such requirements were inadvertently omitted when

Rule 310.01 was adopted in 2008

• Clarified relationship between existing control measures for unpaved parking lots and Senate Bill 1552 / Arizona Revised Statutes § 9

- 500.04

• Added an alternative control measure option to the control measures required for

livestock activities

Clarify How Rule 310.01 Applies t o Certain Dust

- Generating Operations

• Added “paved” and deleted “public” to clarify what is and is not considered an area accessible to the public• Added “residential activities related to feeding and raising animals” to clarify that livestock activities apply not only to large arenas and livestock events but also to residential activities related to feeding and raising animals

• Deleted “and any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or priv ate street uses, as evidenced by a recorded document, or having thereon a public easement for such use” to clarify that the definition of “unpaved roadway” does not apply to private roads

8. Rule's Effect on Emissions: The effect on emissions was published in the Maricopa Association of Governments ́ (MAG’s) 2007 Five Percent Plan For PM 10 and the technical support document is available

at: http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/PM10_2007_Appendices_vol-3.pdf )

The Five Percent Plan for PM 10 was submitted to the EPA in December 2007. The effect on emissions, as published in the MAG’ s 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM 10 , remains valid, since the rule amendments correct and clarify existing rule provisions and definitions to reduce confusion and to improve understanding and readability.

Construction activities represent a significant contribution to the attainment demonstration for both high wind and low wind days at two separate sites. For a low wind design day,

Table 8 -8 on page 8- 50 (West 43 rd Avenue site) shows that construction activities contribute

11.39 **μ** g/m 3 out of a total of 233.0 9 **μ** g/m 3 . A source category that contributes 5 **μ** g/m 3 or more is considered to be a significant contributor to a nonattainment area’s

exceedances. Table 8 -8 also indicates that a 48% reduction in construction activities is

needed in order for the monitor to achieve attainment. In terms of a high wind day, the roll back modeling performed at the Higley monitor in Maricopa County demonstrates the dominant role construction activities play in contributing to the monitor’s

exceedances. Table VI -29 on page VI- 43 i ndicates that construction activities contribute a staggering 80.43% of the PM 10 emissions around the monitor, far outweighing any other

source of emissions.

Lastly, the emissions reductions from construction activities attributed to the control measures (see measures 2, 3, 8

- 10, 16, 36 -38, 44) as documented in the Technical Support Document combine to total 16,373 tons per year by 2010.

9. Demonstration that NAAQS (PSD) Increments/RFP Demonstration are Protected (As Appropriate): Maricopa County is prote cting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter.

On June 6, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the Phoenix metropolitan area failed to attain the 24 -hour PM 10 standard by the December 31, 2006, attainment deadline. This failure triggered a special requirement under Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision to the EPA by December 31, 2007. Such SIP revision was required to provide for annual reductions of

PM 10 or PM 10 precursors of not less than five percent of the most recent emissionsinventory, until the PM 10 standard is attained. In addition, such SIP revision was required to

continue to demonstrate that the revisions would meet the best avai lable control measures (BACM) test and the most stringent measures (MSM) test for significant sources and source categories in accordance with CAA § 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). This SIP revision (referred to as the “Five Percent Plan”) was prepared by the Mar icopa Association of Governments and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to the EPA by the December 31, 2007, deadline. In March 2008, to meet commitments made in the Five Percent Plan, the department revised Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C.

In September 2008, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) began a rulemaking process to reduce confusion, improve understanding and readability of Rules 310

and 310.01 and to re

- insert text inadvertently omitted fr om Rule 310.01. The rule amendments, which became effective January 27, 2010, do not interfere with the BACM and

MSM tests and do not reduce the emissions reductions claimed in the Five Percent Plan.

During the rulemaking process, the department conducted three public workshops, one Director’s courtesy briefing, one informational workshop, seven meetings with stakeholders, and eight conference calls with EPA. The department received comments from 20 stakeholders regarding this rulemaking process. The issue s that were raised and discussed during this rulemaking process can be categorized as follows: rooftop tile cutting exemption, affirmative defense during a wind event, “immediate” clean -up of trackout, definitions of “area accessible to the public” and “pu blic roadways”, definition of “gravel pad”, definition of “unpaved parking lot”, stabilization standards for unpaved parking lots and unpaved roads, the phrase “as necessary”, and alternative control measures.

In general, the amendments to Rules 310.01 cl arify the following issues: exemptions, control measure requirements, and how Rule 310.01 applies to certain dust-generating operations.

10. Modeling Information Used t o Support Rule Revision: The amendments to Rule 310.01, which became effective January 27, 2010, do not affect the SIP therefore modeling did not need to be performed. Information on regional modeling activities can be found in the Technical Support Document for the Maricopa County Five Percent Plan (available at: www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/PM10_2007_Appendices_vol-3.pdf ),

which was submitted to the EPA in December 2007.

11. Evidence that Emission Limitations are Based on Emission Reduction Technology,

Add

- On Controls, Reformulated Materials, and / or Industrial /Proces s Equipment Designs:

Each non- traditional source of fugitive dust regulated by Rule 310.01 has visible emissions requirements and stabilization requirements.

Visible emissions ar e not allowed to cross a property line in regards to vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots, open areas and vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and livestock

activities.

Visible fugitive dust emissions cannot exceed 20% opacity in regards to unpaved roa dways (including alleys), livestock activities, and easements, rights

- of

- way, and access roads for utilities (electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission).Silt loading and silt content standards apply to unpaved parking lots, unpaved roadw ays (including alleys), and easements, rights

- of

- way, and access roads for utilities (electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission).

Stabilization measures including a soil crust or vegetative cover apply to vehicle use in open

areas and vac ant lots and open areas and vacant lots.

A trackout control device is required for unpaved parking lots and livestock activities.

12. Identification of Section/Paragraph in Rule that Contains Emissions Limitations, Work Practice Standards, Averaging Time s, Test Procedures and / or Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements:

Each non- traditional source of fugitive dust regulated by Rule 310.01 has visible emissions requirements and stabilization requirements.

Section 302.4(a)

– Vehicle Use in Open Areas and Vacan t Lots Section 302.5(a)

– Open Areas and Vacant Lots

Section 302.6

– Unpaved Parking Lots

Section 302.7 – Unpaved Roadways (Including Alleys)

Section 302.8

– Livestock Activities

Section 302.9 – Erosion-Caused Deposition of Bulk Materials onto Paved Surfaces

Section 302.10

- Easements, Rights

- of

- Way, and Access Roads for Utilities (Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Water, and Gas Transmission)

13. Compliance/Enforcement Strategies To Be Used To Determine Compliance (Including Frequency of Inspection):

Rule 31 0.01 requirements are administered through a visual inspection program and/or a permit program that includes review of permits, inspection of work sites, performance of compliance test methods, and review of records and activities. The department’s enforce ment options include: notice to comply, notice of violation, follow

- up inspection/investigation, department report, referral to County Attorney, review by Enforcement of ficer, order of abatement by consent, order of abatement, civil complaint, notice to ap pear and complaint (criminal complaint), injunctive relief, photographs, videos, compliance inspection reports, correspondence, records, other applicable documentation, and analytical tests.

14. Special Economic/Technological Justifications for Deviations from EPA Policies (As Appropriate): Not Applicable.

15. Other Comments: Attached Support Documentation Includes the Following:

Appendix 1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Rules 310 and 310.01 Appendix 2 Agenda Form s for Rules 310, 310.01 and Dust Contr ol Permit Application Package Appendix 3 Notice of Final Rulemaking s for Rules 310 and 310.01,Appendix 4 Notice of Public Hearing for Rules 310, 310.01 and Dust Control Permit Application Package Appendix 5 Affidavit of Publication for Rules 310, 310.01 and Dust Control Permit Application Package Appendix 6 Certified Excerpts from the Minutes of the Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing for Rules 310, 310.01 and Dust Control Permit Application Package Appendix 7 Final Adopted Version of Rules 310, 310.01 and Resolution t o Submit Supplemental Information to Support Implementation of Rule 310 for the Maricopa County, Arizona Serious Nonattainment Area for PM10 and Exhibit A of the Resolution – Dust Control Permit Application Package Appendix 8 Analys is of Rooftop Tile Cutting Exemption for 310 Appendix 9 Demonstration that January 27, 2010 Adopted Version of Rule 310 i s a s stringent a s SIP -Approved Rule 310 Appendix 10 Demonstration that January 27, 2010 Adopted Version of Rule 310.01 is a s Stringent As SIP

- Approved Rule 310.01 Appendix 11 Comparison of SIP

- Approved Rule 310 with January 27, 2010 Adopted

Version of Rule 310 Appendix 12 Comparison of SIP

- Approved Rule 310.01 with January 27, 2010 Adopted

Version of Rule 310.01 Appendix 13 Noti ce of Final Rulemaking for 310 and 310.01 (Adopted 2008)