July 8, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Technical Support Document: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation

Plans; Texas; El Paso ; Particulate Matter Contingency Measures

FROM: Jeff Riley, Environmental Scientist

Air Planning Section (6PD

- L)

TO: FI LE

I. Background

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipa ted to endanger public health or welfare. States have developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that identifies how these standards will be attained and maintained. The State must submit revisions to the SIP to EPA for approval. EPA reviews and approves the revision if it conforms with the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and Federal regulations. Approval makes the revisions Federally enforceable. If the revision does not conform with the CAA and Federal regulations, EPA disapproves it. Disapproval may lead t o further revisions by the State or development of a Federal Implementation Plan by EPA.

A. El Paso PM

10 History Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the City of El Paso, Texas was designated nonattainment of the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) with an aerod ynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM 10 ) and classified as a moderate PM 10 nonattainment area under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the CAA. The CAA required that states with moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas submit SIPs t o the EPA by November 15, 1991, detailing how the areas would attain the NAAQS by the December 31, 1994 deadline.

On November 5, 1991, the Texas Air Control Board (TACB), a predecessor agency of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitt ed the El Paso PM 10 Attainment

Demonstration SIP revision. The SIP revision add ed PM control measures in to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 111, Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and

Particulate Matter . These control measures includ ed prescribed burning, residential burning, and fugitive dust control measures . Specifically, the fugitive dust control measures added to 30 TAC Chapter 111, Subchapter A, Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Division 4, Materials Handling, Constructi on, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking Lots, §111.147 consisted of the requirement that existing unpaved alleys within the city limits be paved at a rate of 15 miles per

year , as well as set ting frequencies for street sweeping in designated sections of th e El Paso area.

In addition to these PM 10 control measures, the November 5, 1991 SIP revision included a modeling demonstration, under CAA Section 179B, providing for timely attainment but for particulate emissions from Mexico. Section 179B allowed that m oderate nonattainment areas2

would not be reclassified as serious if the state could demonstrate that such areas would achieve attainment by the December 31, 1994 deadline if not for air quality impact contributions from emissions emanating from outside the United States. In response to the CAA Section179B provision, Texas demonstrated attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS for the El Paso moderate nonattainment area through dispersion modeling of United States emissions alone. On January 18, 1994 (59 FR 02532), EPA a pproved the El Paso PM 10 SIP revision, and approved the attainment demonstration SIP as meeting the requirements of Section 179B, showing that the area would timely attain the PM 10 standard but for emissions from Mexico. EPA also approved

the three types o f PM control measures added to 30 TAC Chapter 11 as contingency measures because they went beyond reasonably available control measures and were not relied upon to show attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP).

As part of its approval of the PM 10 S IP revision, EPA also approved the included Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated November 5, 1991, between the City of El Paso

and the State which outline s the responsibilities and regulatory requirements for both parties in implementing the El Paso are a dust control methods. This MOU was replaced with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the City of El Paso on November 29, 2001, containing the same requirements. However, Texas has not submitted a formal request to EPA to replace the

SIP

- approved MOU wit h the MOA, so the MOU remains in the SIP.

On November 21, 2003, the El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization submitted a letter requesting that the TCEQ develop a PM 10 redesignation request and maintenance plan for the El
Paso area. On December 28, 2009 , the TCEQ requested information from the City to determine what efforts El Paso has taken to support a request for redesignation. In a response letter dated January 29, 2010, the City provided the following:

 the City has programs funded annually in both t he City's capital improvement budget and in the Department of Transportation/Street Department 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

i nternal budgetary capacities, but not at the rate of 15 miles per year as required under §111.147;

 the City maintains an inventory of street 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.

B. Texas’ Submittals On March 7, 2012, Texas submitted revisions to the El Paso SIP to remove the requirement to pave alleys a t the rate of 15 miles per year, and replace it with the following requirements: 1) all new alleys must be paved; 2) unpaved alleys may not be used for residential garbage and recycling collection; and 3) recycled asphalt product (RAP) as defined in §111.1 45 and §111.147(1) may be used as an alternate means of Particulate Matter control for unpaved alleys. The SIP revisions also change the established street sweeping frequency requirement from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits a nd from six times per week to four times per week in the central business district. Revisions to the MOA between the TCEQ and the City3

of El Paso to reflect the revised control measures and the respective responsibilities were also included as part of the SIP revision. The El Paso SIP revision would incorporate the State’s revisions to 30 TAC §111.147 into the PM SIP.

II. Evaluation

The State’s submittal is intended to provide the City with alternative methods of PM control,

and demonstrate that the cha nges to §111.147 will not interfere with continued attainment of the

PM 10 NAAQS in order to comply with the anti

- backsliding provisions in CAA Section 110(l). The revisions to §111.147(1)(E) and (2) would substitute the established alley paving and street sweeping measures with alternate control measures currently in place in the El Paso area that the State argues have resulted in PM 10 emissions reductions equivalent to or greater than what would have been achieved if the City had continued to implement the prior version of §111.147(1)(E) and (2). These control measures include the use of RAP on existing unpaved alleys, city ordinances requiring developers to pave any new alleys they create, and reduced alley traffic.

Section 110(l) of the CAA sta tes that E PA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, the EPA will approve a SIP revision that removes

or modifies control measure(s) in the SIP only after the State has demonstrated that such removal or modification will not interfere (“noninterference”) with attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of Progress (ROP), RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Because the City implemented early the contingency measures for paving of alleys and street sweeping on an on

going basis since 1991 even though never required by EPA to be implemented, Texas only must show that the status quo in air quality is preserved, and noninterferen ce is demonstrated. Texas provided a qualitative analysis of the emission reductions coupled with evaluation of air quality data to show that the level of emissions provided for by the revised early implemented contingency measures would not interfere with attainment or RFP.

At the time of EPA’s approval of the paving of alleys as a contingency measure, there were an estimated 89 miles of unpaved alleys, and the projected 1994 emissions were to be reduced by 0.5 percent. The State has documented in its sub mittal that the inventory of unpaved alleys in El Paso has significantly decreased from 66% of total alley miles in 1991, to 16% of total alley miles in 2010, with approximately 23 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. On December 3, 2014, the State provided s ubsequent data from the City indicat ing that between 2010 through 2014, the percentage of unpaved alleys has continued to decrease to 13% of the total inventory, with approximately 17 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. This represents an 81% reduction of the original inventory of unpaved alley miles in the City of El Paso, through early implemented contingency measures that were not relied upon to demonstrate attainment. A total of 72 alley miles have been paved and the estimated emissions reductions for 1 994 have been met

. Further progress has been made in part through the use of RAP as an alternate means of PM control for

pre

- existing unpaved alleys. The overall inventory of unpaved alleys in El Paso has continued to decrease, and thereby further reductio ns in PM 10 levels have occurred well beyond those levels represented in the approved attainment demonstration.4

The City also established ordinances requiring developers to pave any new alleys, ensuring that the inventory of unpaved alleys will not increa se. In addition, the City discontinued garbage collection in alleys in 1997, significantly reducing traffic in all alleys. The submitted SIP

revision codifies this discontinuation by prohibiting garbage collection in alleys. Some

commercial trash collectio n routes may still occur in paved alleys, and future growth may require trash receptacles to be located in paved alleys for newly developed residential areas, but traffic on unpaved alleys has been substantially reduced since 1991. Further, §111.147(2) mai ntains an existing requirement that sand applied to roads in El Paso for the specific purpose of snow or ice control must be removed as soon as such control is no longer necessary. The progress made by the City's alley and road paving programs, paving ordi nances for new alleys, and discontinued garbage collection in alleys have reduced the overall amount of unpaved roadways, and therefore fugitive dust, in the El Paso area. These measures to reduce airborne PM 10 have reduced the need to sweep streets at the frequencies originally specified under §111.147. The City has commit ted to include street and alley paving and sweeping in its annual budget for continued maintenance

of the PM 10 standard.

The State’s submittal also relied upon Federal Reference Method ( FRM) PM 10 ambient monitoring data reported by the Socorro monitoring site (AQS ID 481410057) for the years 2007 through 2009 to demonstrate that the area monitored no exceedances of the PM 10 24

- hour NAAQS. The El Paso area continues to monitor attainment o f the PM 10 NAAQS based on data

from the Socorro site and other network monitors through 2013

. The level of the 1987 NAAQS

for PM 10 is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) , and t he NAAQS metric for the PM 10 NAAQS is the 3

- year average expected number of e xceedances (ENE). The NAAQS is not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over a 3

- year period.

Concentrations flagged by States, Tribes, and local agencies as exception events (e.g., high winds, wildfires, volcanic eruptions, construction) an d concurred by the associated EPA Regional Office are not included in these calculations. Data from quality assurance monitors, data from special purpose monitors operating less than 24 months, data identified as “non

regulatory”, data collected with non

- r eference/equivalent methods, and other data judged by EPA as not meeting 40 CFR 58 monitoring requirements are also not included in these calculations; such data are deemed to be not NAAQS comparable. The Average Estimated

Exceedances values shown in Tab le 1 are computed for the latest 3

- year period using Federal Reference Method or equivalent data reported by States, Tribes, and local agencies to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). Only valid, NAAQS comparable Average Estimated Exceedance values

are shown in this table.

Table 1: El Paso County PM 10 Monitor Expected Number of Exceedances (ENE) 20 07

- 2013

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Monitor

Location & Site

ID ENE ENE ENE ENE ENE ENE ENE5

10834 Ivanhoe (Ivanhoe Fire Station)

48

- 141

- 00 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

301 Midway Dr. (Riverside High School)

48

- 14

- 0038 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

320 Old Hueco

Tanks Rd. (Socorro)

48

- 141

- 0057 0 0 0 1 2 0 0

Data obtained from U.S. EPA Air Quality System, 7/9/2015

EPA believes the requirements that no further unpaved alleys be allowed and the reduced traffic on these alleys provides for continued reduction of PM emissions. With th e current level of emission reductions, the area is meeting the PM 10 standard. We expect that further reductions

will continue into the future as the few remaining alleys are paved or treated with RAP. EPA agrees that RAP can be effective in suppressing dust. Moreover, these reductions are surplus to the 1991 attainment demonstration showing attainment but for emissions from Mexico because many additional alleys have been paved since the 1994 “but for” attainment date. Because the

reductions that have been achieved in the El Paso area are well in excess of the reductions in the

“but for” attainment demonstration

, and bec ause these reductions will be continued through early implemented contingency measures and the area is now meeting the standard, compliance with

the anti

- backsliding provisions in CAA Section 110(l) is demonstrated. The SIP revision will not

interfere with the area’s ability to continue to attain or maintain the affected NAAQS or other CAA requirements.

IV. Conclusion

We have reviewed the El Paso PM10 contingency measure revision request and believe that approval of the submittal is warranted, consistent with the requirements of CAA Section 110(l). EPA believes that the TCEQ has submitted sufficient information to support the SIP revision

.

V. Recommended Agency Action

We are proposing to approv e revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to changes to th e PM 10 contingency measures in the City of El Paso. The State’s revisions submitted on March 7, 2012

amend rule 30 TAC §111.147(1)(E) by removing the requirement to pave alleys at the rate of 15 miles/year, and replac ing 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.6

We also are approving 30 T AC §111.145 and §111.147(1) that define RAP, and 30 TAC § 111.147(2) that changes the sweeping frequency requirement from 4x/year to 3x/year in the city

limits and from 6x/week to 4x/week in the El Paso central business district. We have evaluated

the Stat e’s submittals and have determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, and are consistent with EPA policy.