State Implementation Plan Revision Package

Revisions to the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Appendix C – Fugitive Dust Test Methods

Prepared by Maricopa County Air Quality Department Planning & Analysis Division 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 595 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 372-1465

Completeness ChecklistCompleteness Checklist

1. Agency: Maricopa County Air Quality Department

2. Submitted Rule:

Number Title Adoption Date Appendix C Fugitive Dust Test Methods March 26, 2008

3. EPA Analogous Approved Rule (Applicable SIP): Appendix C is analogous to the SIP approved Appendix C of April 7, 2004.

4. State/District Authority for Adoption/Implementation: Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §49- 406(G), A.R.S. §49-479, and A.R.S. §49-480

5. Pollutants Regulated by Rule:

PM

_ 9

__ , SO X ___, VOC____, NO

x ___, CO____, Pb____

6. Identification of Source s by Name or Number/Location (City, County, or District) Area's Attainment and Plan Status (Gro up by Size/Subcategory, if Necessary): Dust-generating operations include: any activity capable of generating fugitive dust, including but not limited to, la nd clearing, earthmoving, we ed abatement by discing or blading, excavating, construc tion, demolition, bulk material handling, storage and/or transporting operations, vehicle use and movement, the operatio n of any outdoor equipment, or unpaved parking lots. For the purpose of th is rule, landscape maintenance and playing on or maintaining a field used for non-motorize d sports shall not be considered a dustgenerating operation. However, landscape main tenance shall not includ e grading, trenching, or any other mechaniz ed surface disturbing activities performed to establish initial landscapes or to redesign exis ting landscapes. The completeness checklist for Rule 310 is in a separate document.

Appendix C describes procedures for test me thods associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust).

PM 10 Classification: Serious (As of June 1996)

Carbon Monoxide Classification: Serious (As of July 1996)

Ozone Classification: Seri ous (As of February 1998)

7. Summary of Rule/Rule Changes: The Maricopa County Air Quality Depa rtment (MCAQD) revised Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C to implement control measures and increase compliance with existing

rules for the Five Percent Plan for PM 10 . On June 6, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its finding that the Phoenix Nonattainment Area did not attain

the 24-hour PM 10 standard by the deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA), December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007) Under Section 189(d) of the CAA,

serious PM 10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “p lan revisions which provi de for attainment ofthe PM 10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for

an annual reduction in PM 10 or PM 10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for such area.” In accordance with the CAA section 179(d)(3), the attainment deadline applicable to an area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable. The region submitted a Five Percent Plan for PM 10 by December 31, 2007.

One of the major changes to Appendix C is the requirement to determine opacity from livestock activities-corrals, pens and arenas in Section. Another major change is the requirement to perform the "Drop Ball Test" in Section 2.3.3 for determining silt content.

8. Rule's Effect on Emissions: Appendix C is associated with Rule 310 (F ugitive Dust). Appendix C addresses test methodologies and has no effect on emissions from the changes made to this rule.

9. Demonstration That NAAQS/PSD Incremen ts/RFP Demonstratio n Are Protected (As Appropriate): Appendix C is associated with Rule 310 (F ugitive Dust), which st rengthens the SIP by limiting the amount of PM 10 emitted from all dust-generatin g operations. The completeness

checklist for Rule 310 is in a separate document.

In accordance with 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Maricopa County nonattainment area was initially classified as "moderate" for PM 10 pollution. As a

moderate nonattainment ar ea, Maricopa County was required to submit to EPA a

moderate PM 10 nonattainment area plan and to show attainment of the PM 10 national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) by December 31, 1994. Moderate PM 10 nonattainment area plans were submitted to EPA in 1991 and 1993.

The Maricopa County moderate PM 10 nonattainment area, upon EP A’s findings, failed to attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Consequently, on May 10, 1996, EPA reclassified Maricopa County as a serious PM 10 nonattainment area. Maricopa County was then required to submit a serious PM 10 nonattainment area plan, which had to include Best Available Control Measures (BACM), m easures designed to achieve the maximum degree of emissions reduction for PM 10 sources. Maricopa County had to show

attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS by December 21, 2001.

Emission inventories and air quality modeling analysis of existing control measures

showed that attainment could not be reached by December 21, 2001. A shortfall of a

16.4% reduction in PM 10 concentration was identified. Consequently, a rigorous planning effort was conducted to develop 77 additional control measures, which included revising Maricopa County's Rule 310. The serious PM 10 nonattainment area plan was submitted to EPA on July 9, 1999.

On November 9, 1999, EPA determined that the serious PM 10 nonattainment area plan

could not be approved, because the plan assumed that Maricopa County's Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 would achieve 90% compliance by 2006. EPA believed that the compliancerate was unrealistic and that there was no stra tegy in the plan for reducing dust on private unpaved roads. To address the approvability issues, Maricopa County committed to revising Rule 310 and to strengthening the enforcement of Rule 310. A revised serious

PM 10 nonattainment area plan was submitted to EPA in February 2000.

EPA approved the revised serious PM 10 nonattainment area plan in April 2002, contingent on the completion of three co mmitments by Maricopa County. The revisions to Appendix C address one of the commitments.

The Maricopa county air quality depart ment (MCAQD) revi sed rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C to implement control measures and increase compliance with existing rules for the five percent plan for PM 10 . On June 6, 2007, the E nvironmental Protection agency (EPA) finalized its finding that the Phoenix nonattainment area did not attain the

24-hour PM 10 standard by the deadline mandated in the clean air act (CAA), December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007) under sec tion 189(d) of the CAA, serious PM 10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to subm it within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide for a ttainment of the PM 10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual

reduction in PM 10 or PM 10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of the amount of such emissions as reporte d in the most recent inventory prepared for such area.” In accordance with the CAA section 179(d)(3), the attainment deadline applicable to an area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable. The region submitted a Five Percent Plan for PM 10 by December 31, 2007.

10. Modeling Information Used to Support Rule Revision: Modeling information was not used to support revisions to Appendix C, because Appendix

C is associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust), which strengt hens the SIP by limiting the

amount of PM 10 emitted from all dust-generating ope rations. The completeness checklist for Rule 310 is in a separate document. In formation on regional mode ling activities can be found in the Technical Support Document for the Maricopa County Five Percent Plan (available at: http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/c ms.resource/PM10_2007_Appendices_vol-3.pdf )

which was submitted to EPA in December 2007.

11. Evidence That Emissions Limitations ar e Based on Continuous Emission Reduction Technology, Add-On Controls, Reformulated Materials, and/or Industrial/Process Equipment Designs: Appendix C describes procedures for test me thods associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust). The emissions limitations and work practices standards required in Rule 310 include the most stringent measures from other stat es. For example, the control measures for trackout are potentially more stringent than So uth Coast's Rule 403; the control measures for bulk material transport are as stringent as the most stringent measures identified in Imperial County's Regulation VIII; the control measures for material spillage, erosion, and accumulation onto roadways are as stringent as South Coast's Rule 1186.12. Identification of Section/ Paragraph in Rule That Contains Emission Limitations, Work Practice Standards, Averaging Times, Test Procedures and/or Recordkeeping/Report ing Requirements: Appendix C describes procedures for test me thods associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust). Section 2 describes test methods for st abilization and Section 3 describes methods of visual opacity determination of emi ssions from dust-generating operations.

Appendix C is associated with the following sections in Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust):

Section 301 (General Requirements for Dust-Generating Operations) Section 304 (Stabilization Requirement s for Dust-Generating Operations Section 501 (Complia nce Determination) Section 502 (Recordkeeping)

13. Compliance/Enforcement Strategies to be Used to Determine Compliance (Including Frequency of Inspection): Appendix C is associated with Rule 310 (F ugitive Dust), which st rengthens the SIP by limiting the amount of PM 10 emitted from all dust-generatin g operations. The completeness

checklist for Rule 310 is in a separate document.

Implementation of an enhanced fugitive dus t program includes public outreach/education, rule development, staffing, inspection fre quency, policy development, enforcement plan development, and performance measures.

Rule 310 requirements are administered th rough a visual inspection program and/or a permit program that includes review of permits , inspection of work s ites, performance of compliance test methods, and review of records and activities. Maricopa County's enforcement options include: compliance status notification, notice of violation, follow-up inspection/investigation, Department report, referral to County Attorney, review by Enforcement Officer, order of abatement by cons ent, order of abatemen t, civil complaint, notice to appear and complaint (criminal comp laint), injunctive relief, photographs, videos, compliance inspection reports, correspondence, records, other applicable documentation, and analytical tests.

14. Special Economic/Technological Justificat ions for Deviations From EPA Policies (As Appropriate): Appendix C does not deviate from EPA policies.

15. Other Comments: Attached Support Documenta tion Includes The Following:

Appendix 1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Appendix 2 Agenda Form and Notice of Final Rulemaking Appendix 3 Notice of Public Hearing Appendix 4 Affidavit of PublicationAppendix 5 Certified Excerpts From the Minutes of the Board of S upervisors' Public Hearing Appendix 6 Final Adopted Version of RuleFor EPA Use Only

SIP RULE REVISION IS: ____ __COMPLETE _____INCOMPLETE

Name Telephone Number

District Contact: Jo Crumbaker (602) 506-6705

State Contact: Ira Do msky (602) 771-2365

Diane Arnst (602) 771-2375

State Submittal Date: ________

_____________________________________________