From: Webb, Thomas 

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:02 AM 

To: Donez, Francisco 

Subject: FW: Materials for EPA & ADEQ Call Today 

This memo is for the docket for phase 2 of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP. 

EPA and ADEQ had a conference call on January 31, 2013, to discuss and identify the proposed 

disapprovals for which ADEQ may want to submit SIP revisions by the March 29, 2013 informal deadline. 

The proposed disapprovals were described in the Federal Register notice published on December 21, 

2012, titled “Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional 

Haze and Visibility Impacts of Transport, Ozone and Fine Particulates; Proposed Rules” (77 FR 75704-

75737). 

The call included three attachments listed below. 

Tom 

_____________________________________________ 

From: Webb, Thomas 

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:14 AM 

To: Eric C. Massey; Trevor Baggiore; smc@azdeq.gov

Cc: McKaughan, Colleen; Nudd, Gregory; Withey, Charlotte; Chen, Eugene; Bohning, Scott; GLASS, 

GEOFFREY; Hoag, Katherine; Kelly, Shaheerah; Donez, Francisco 

Subject: Materials for EPA & ADEQ Call Today 

Colleagues at ADEQ: 

Attached is an agenda, process time line, and excerpts from the proposed rule to assist 

us in our "kick-off" call today. We're looking forward to the call, and reaching agreement 

on what we can "tackle" over the next two months. Yes, I have the 49ers and the super 

bowl on my mind. 

Tom 

1) 

EPA & ADEQ Call 

Agenda 013113....

2) 

Time Line 

013113.doc
3) 

AZ RH SIP NPRM 

Excerpts.doc
EPA & ADEQ Conference Call 

AGENDA 

January 31, 2013 <> 12-1 PT / 1-2 MT <> 866-299-3188 (2576554#) 

Purpose: Agree on approach and focus of collaborative effort 

Materials: Agenda, List of Proposed Disapprovals, Time Line, and NPRM Excerpts 

Desired Outcome: Enable EPA to approve more of the State’s Regional Haze SIP 

TOPICS

A. Opening Statements (Eric and Colleen) 

B. Review Process and Time Line (Tom) 

· Identify process and timing issues 

· Distinguish between SIP supplements versus revisions 

· Evaluate practicality of parallel processing 

· Emphasize early review of draft SIP products 

C. Review Scope of Proposed Disapprovals (Greg)

· Understand scope and basis of proposed disapprovals (see “Excerpts”) 

· Identify initial set of issues for collaboration 

 

BART 1) Chemical Lime Nelson 

2) Hayden Smelter BART (SO2 & PM) 

3) Miami Smelter BART (SO2 & NOx) 

4) Sundt Unit 4 BART (NOx) 

5) Enforcement of BART Determinations 

REASONABLE

PROGRESS 

6) 4-Factor Analysis 

7) Point Sources (NOx) 

8) Area Sources (NOx & SO2) 

9) Particulate Matter 

10) RP Goals 

11) Long-term Strategy 

OTHER 12) Emissions Inventory for 2008 

13) Threshold for Subject to BART 

14) Visibility Transport 

D. Identify Next Steps (Eric and Colleen) 

· What, who, how, and when 

· Schedule next call 
EPA & ADEQ Collaboration 

Process & Time Line 

01/31/13 

This draft process and time line is for illustrative purposes to facilitate discussion. 

TASKS TIME FRAME 

AZ RH SIP NPRM #2 December 21, 2012

E&A hold kick-off conference call January 31 

E&A agree on priorities, approach, process and time line February 8 

E&A collaborate on SIP supplements and revisions February - March 

PUBLIC COMMENTS DEADLINE FOR NPRM #2 (75 days) March 6

E&A collaboration continues February - March 

EPA reviews and responds to public comments March - April 

ADEQ provides draft SIP revisions to EPA and FLMs March 

EPA and FLMs provide comments to ADEQ March 

ADEQ SUBMITS PRELIMINARY SIP REVISIONS March 29

EPA develops draft NPRM #3 to act on SIP revisions April 

ADEQ conducts public process and secures approvals April 

ADEQ SUBMITS FINAL SIP REVISIONS May 1 

EPA RA signs NPRM #3 May 1 

EPA PUBLISHES AZ RH SIP NPRM #3 May 10 

EPA develops AZ RH SIP NFRM May - June 

EPA drafts language to approve SIP revisions May 

PUBLIC COMMENTS DEADLINE (30 days) June 10

EPA reviews and responds to public comments June 

EPA further develops and completes NFRM June 

EPA prepares signature package for NFRM July 

EPA RA signs NFRM July 15 

AZ RH SIP NFRM DEADLINE July 15
1 

EPA & ADEQ Collaboration 

Excerpts from AZ RH NPRM 

01/30/13 

These excerpts from the AZ RH NPRM published on December 21, 2012, are to facilitate 

discussion during the conference call between ADEQ and EPA Region 9 Air Divisions 

scheduled for January 31, 2013. 

BART

1) Nelson Chemical Lime Plant 

We propose to disapprove the State’s determination and find that Nelson Lime Plant is subject to 

BART. However, we are seeking comment on whether the State’s decision was, in fact, 

reasonable and should be approved. If, based on comments received, we determine that the 

State’s determination was reasonable, then we may approve the State’s decision to find this 

source not subject-to-BART. In addition, EPA also seeks comments on whether there are cost 

effective pollution controls at Nelson Lime Plant. 

2a) Hayden Smelter (PM)

We propose to disapprove ADEQ’s determination that a BART determination is not required for 

PM10. 

We propose to find that a BART determination for PM10 is required. We intend to propose 

BART requirements for PM10 at Hayden as part of our Phase 3 proposal. At minimum, we expect 

that BART would require compliance with the NESHAP MACT Subpart QQQ control 

requirements and emission limits. 

2b) Hayden Smelter (SO2)

We are proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s streamlined determination that SO2 BART is the 

existing double contact acid plant with the NSPS Subpart P emission standard of 650 ppm. We 

are disapproving this determination because ADEQ’s streamlined analysis does not demonstrate 

that the NSPS Subpart P level of control represents the best level of control. 

We are proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s BART determination, in part, because ADEQ did not 

provide information demonstrating that NSPS Subpart P meets the requirements for a 

streamlined BART determination. 

We are also proposing to disapprove the BART determination because it does not require that all 

of the BART-eligible units meet the control requirements and emissions standards in NSPS 

Subpart P. 
2 

ADEQ does not specify whether its BART determination would require that all of the BARTsubject gas streams at the Hayden smelter meet all of the relevant control requirements and 

emissions standards in Subpart P. 

In the alternative, we are proposing to approve ADEQ’s determination that compliance with 

NSPS Subpart P constitutes BART for SO2, provided ADEQ or other commenters submit 

additional information demonstrating that the sulfuric acid plant cannot achieve a lower level of 

SO2 emissions. ADEQ’s use of NSPS Subpart P in its streamlined analysis must be supported by 

additional information because, while the BART Guidelines provide that states generally may 

rely on MACT standards for purposes of BART, the same is not true for NSPS standards. NSPS 

standards may be outdated and may not represent current pollution control technology 

performance from acid plants operating at smelters and other industries. 

As a result, we propose to approve ADEQ’s reliance on NSPS Subpart P in its streamlined 

analysis as a starting point, provided we receive additional information showing the emission 

limit remains the most appropriate as BART, that the sulfuric acid plant cannot be operated costeffectively at a lower level of SO2 emissions, and that all other SO2 emissions from the BARTeligible units meet BART. Commenters should not rely solely on the information regarding 

copper smelters in the RBLC but should include information from other acid gas plants. 

Finally, we can fully approve ADEQ’s BART determination for this source only if ADEQ also 

submits adequate compliance requirements, including a clearly defined scope for the applicable 

NSPS requirements, compliance deadlines, operation and maintenance procedures, and 

monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

3a) Miami Smelter (NOx) 

We propose to disapprove ADEQ’s determination that a BART determination is not required for 

NOX. 

3b) Miami Smelter (SO2) 

We are proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s SO2 BART determination or, in the alternative, 

approve the SO2 BART determination if we receive adequate additional information during the 

comment period to support the appropriateness of the streamlined analysis in the SIP and that the 

control requirements and emissions standards from NSPS Subpart P are enforceable at all units 

as BART. 

We are proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s BART determination, in part, because ADEQ did not 

provide information demonstrating that NSPS Subpart P meets the requirements for a 

streamlined BART determination.

We are proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s streamlined determination that SO2 BART is the 

existing double contact acid plant with the NSPS Subpart P emission standard of 650 ppm. We 

are disapproving this determination because ADEQ’s streamlined analysis does not demonstrate 

that the NSPS Subpart P level of control represents the best level of control. We are also 

proposing to disapprove the BART determination because it does not require that all of the 

BART-eligible units meet the control requirements and emissions standards in NSPS Subpart P. 
3 

Finally, we are proposing to disapprove the lack of enforceability and compliance requirements 

for this BART determination. 

In the alternative, we are proposing to approve ADEQ’s determination that compliance with 

NSPS Subpart P constitutes BART for SO2 provided ADEQ or other commenters submit 

additional information demonstrating that the sulfuric acid plant cannot achieve a lower level of 

SO2 emissions. ADEQ’s use of NSPS Subpart P in its streamlined analysis must be supported by 

additional information because, while the BART Guidelines provide that states generally may 

rely on MACT standards for purposes of BART, the same is not true for NSPS standards. NSPS 

standards may be outdated and may not represent current pollution control technology 

performance from acid plants operating at smelters and other industries. 

As a result, we propose to approve ADEQ’s reliance on NSPS Subpart P in its streamlined 

analysis as a starting point provided we receive additional information showing the emission 

limit remains the most appropriate as BART, that the sulfuric acid plant cannot be operated costeffectively at a lower level of SO2 emissions, and that all other SO2 emissions from the BARTeligible units meet BART. Commenters should not rely solely on the information regarding 

copper smelters in the RBLC but should include information from other acid gas plants. 

4) Sundt 

EPA concludes that, even accepting ADEQ’s determination that TEP Sundt Unit 4 was 

“reconstructed” after August 7, 1977, the Unit remains BART-eligible because it did not go 

through NSR/PSD permitting. We propose to disapprove Arizona’s determination that Tucson 

Electric Power Sundt Generating Station (Sundt) Unit 4 is not eligible for BART. 

5) Compliance and Enforcement 

Regional Haze SIPs must include requirements to ensure that BART emission limits are 

enforceable. In particular, the RHR requires inclusion of (1) a schedule for compliance with 

BART emission limitations for each source subject to BART; (2) a requirement for each BART 

source to maintain the relevant control equipment and (3) procedures to ensure control 

equipment is properly operated and maintained. General SIP requirements also mandate that the 

SIP include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

REASONABLE PROGRESS

6) 4-Factor Analysis 

The RHR specifies that RPGs, as well as the demonstration of the reasonableness of attainment 

beyond 2064, are to be established and evaluated taking into consideration four factors: costs of 

compliance; time necessary for compliance; energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. As explained below, 

we propose to find that the State did not conduct an adequate analysis of these four factors. 

7) Point Sources of NOx
4 

The State’s analysis of point sources to justify its RPGs did not provide sufficient supporting 

information to demonstrate the requirements of the RHR have been met. For example, the State’s 

analysis of internal combustion engines and combustion turbines stated that “the Department has 

determined that it is not possible to complete a four-factor analysis without a major investment 

of resources . . . which is beyond the scope and effort required in this first Regional Haze SIP 

and therefore no further analysis was conducted.” Similarly, with respect to cement kilns, the 

ARHP contends that the Rillito Cement Plant does not “appreciably diminish or impair 

visibility”, but the plan does not provide technical documentation of that assertion. Given the 

slow rate of visibility improvement on the worst days at all Class I areas, a thorough analysis is 

required before concluding that nothing more can be done to improve visibility. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to disapprove the State’s finding that it is not reasonable to require additional NOX

controls on non-BART point sources in Arizona. 

8) Area Sources (NOx & SO2) 

The State did not complete an adequate analysis of the potential for reasonable controls from 

area sources of NOX and SO2. While a number of source categories are listed in Chapter 11 of 

the ARHP, in the case of area sources, the state typically judged that it was too resource 

intensive to conduct the analysis. Given the lack of supporting analysis, the EPA proposes to 

disapprove the State’s finding that there are no reasonable controls for NOx or SO2 on area 

sources. 

9) Particulate Matter 

We propose to disapprove the State’s finding that it was not reasonable to require additional 

reductions of coarse mass or fine soil emissions, given that the State did not conduct an analysis 

for these pollutants, given that they contribute significantly to visibility impairment and are 

mostly from anthropogenic sources. 

10) RP Goals 

EPA proposes to find that State did not demonstrate that its RPGs for the worst 20 percent of 

days in 2018 constitute reasonable progress toward the goal of natural visibility impairment by 

2064. Specifically, EPA proposes to find that the State did not perform an adequate analysis for 

reasonable controls for fine soil and coarse mass. EPA furthermore proposes to find that the State 

did not perform an adequate analysis justifying its decision that it is not reasonable to require 

additional NOx controls on non-BART point sources. Based on these shortcomings, EPA 

proposes to disapprove the State’s RPGs for the worst 20 percent days at all Class I Areas in the 

state. 

EPA also proposes to disapprove the State’s RPGs for the best 20 percent of days. We expect 

that visibility on these days will be better than the State projects, given additional controls 

required by the EPA. 

11) Long-term Strategy 

The LTS, as approved into the applicable Arizona SIP, will not include all of the emissions 
5 

reductions that were assumed in the WRAP-developed visibility modeling. Accordingly, 

Arizona’s LTS does not include all measures needed to achieve its allotment of emission 

reductions agreed upon through the WRAP process. Therefore, we propose to determine that the 

LTS does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

Because we have disapproved certain elements of the ARHP in our Phase 1 final rule and are 

proposing to disapprove other elements related to the implementation of enforceable BART 

controls and enforceable controls for reasonable progress, we are also proposing to determine 

that the LTS does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii), (v)(C) and (v)(F). 

Therefore, we propose to find that the LTS does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii), (v)(C), and (v)(F) and we propose to disapprove the ARHP with respect to these 

requirements. 

Accordingly, Arizona’s long-term strategy (i.e., the compilation of all control measures that 

Arizona will implement to meet the relevant RPGs) lacks enforceable emissions limitations for 

certain air pollutants as necessary to achieve RPGs for all Class I areas affected by emissions 

from Arizona, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

OTHER

12) Emissions Inventory for 2008 

If the State submits a complete 2008 inventory in a format consistent and comparable with the 

2002 and 2018 inventories submitted in the plan, EPA proposes to approve the plan as having 

met this requirement. 

13) Threshold for Subject to BART 

Given that the modeled average 98th high impact of one BART-eligible source, the Nelson Lime 

Plant, is within 0.002 dv of 0.5 dv, EPA is also seeking comment on whether it was unreasonable 

for ADEQ to set a threshold of 0.5 dv. If, after taking into consideration any comments received, 

we determine that the State’s determination was unreasonable, then we may disapprove the 

State’s decision to set a threshold of 0.5 dv. 

14) Visibility Transport 

Because we partially disapproved Arizona’s BART provisions for three sources (Apache, Cholla, 

and Coronado) and are proposing in this notice to partially disapprove Arizona’s BART and 

reasonable progress analyses, we propose to conclude that the Arizona SIP does not include 

sufficient measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the RPGs for Class I areas in 

other states. Furthermore, Arizona has not made a demonstration that emissions from the state’s 

sources and activities will not have the prohibited impacts under the existing SIP. 

Thus, we propose to find that Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 Transport SIPs and Regional Haze Plan 

do not contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that interfere with SIP measures 

required of other states to protect visibility. Accordingly, we propose to disapprove these SIP 
6 

revisions for the visibility requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.