[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17300]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 15, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ16-1-5820; FRL-4884-5]
Clean Air Act Limited Approval/Disapproval and Promulgation of
PM10 Implementation Plan for Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes limited approval/disapproval of the State
implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Arizona for the
purpose of bringing about the attainment of the National ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10).
The implementation plan was submitted by the State to satisfy certain
Federal requirements for an approvable nonattainment area PM10 SIP
for the Hayden/Miami area in Arizona.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
August 15, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Robert Pallerino, Plans
Development Section (A-2-2), EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105. Copies of the State's submittal and other information are
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following
location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Toxics
Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Pallarino, Plans
Development Section (A-2-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone (415) 744-1212.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the
Act. The EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions
submitted under title I of the Act, including those State submittals
containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in
broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more
detailed discussion of the interpretations of title I advanced in this
proposal and the supporting rationale. In this action on the Arizona
moderate PM10 SIP, EPA is proposing to apply its interpretations
taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented. Thus,
EPA will consider any timely submitted comments before taking final
action on this proposal.
Those States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas were required to submit, among other things, the following
provisions by November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that
date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM10 precursors except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections
172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
Some provisions are due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)).
Such States also must submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993
which become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon
a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to
attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See
section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544.
II. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, EPA
is proposing to grant a limited approval/disapproval of the plan
revision for Hayden/Miami because it contains some portions which
strengthen the existing SIP but the revision does not wholly meet the
applicable requirements of the Act. The most serious deficiency of the
SIP revision is that it only addresses the Hayden portion of the
nonattainment area. The Hayden/Miami nonattainment area consists of two
distinct air basins which are separated by the Pinal and Mescal
Mountain ranges. These two air basins are affected by different sources
of PM10 and a separate control strategy is required for each
basin. Therefore, while the submittal does not fully meet the specific
provisions of part D, for example, a complete emission inventory that
addresses the entire nonattainment area, a description of the
monitoring network for the entire nonattainment area, and a
demonstration of attainment that includes the Miami portion of the
nonattainment area, it does contain some provisions which adequately
address PM10 air quality in the Hayden portion of the
nonattainment area. The operating permit issued to ASARCO, Inc., which
is the primary vehicle for implementing the control strategy developed
for the Hayden area, is an effective control of the largest sources of
PM10 emissions in the Hayden area and advances the NAAQS-related
air quality protection goals of the Act. Therefore, EPA proposes to
grant a limited approval for the SIP revision because of its overall
strengthening effect on Arizona's SIP, but is also proposing to
disapprove the SIP revision because it does not address the Miami
portion of the nonattainment area and because the SIP revision did not
address the general requirements pertaining to establishing provisions
for an air quality surveillance system.
A. Analysis of State Submission
The EPA is proposing to grant a limited disapproval for the SIP
submittal for not meeting the specific requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(B), 172(c)(1), and 172(c)(3) of the Act. These deficiencies
result from the SIP's failure to address the Miami portion of the
nonattainment area and also the general monitoring requirements for the
entire nonattainment area. Further discussion on these deficiencies is
provided in the Technical Support Document contained in the docket.
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.1 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)
and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals
are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 FR
42216 (August 26, 1991). The EPA attempts to make completeness
determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a
submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a completeness
determination is not made by EPA within six months after receipt of the
submission.
The State of Arizona held a public hearing on August 21, 1989 to
entertain public comment on the implementation plan for Hayden,
Arizona. Following the public hearing the plan was adopted by the State
and signed by the Governor's designee on October 16, 1989, and
submitted to EPA on October 16, 1989 as a proposed revision to the SIP.
On February 3, 1992, Arizona submitted a new transmittal letter to EPA
asking that EPA consider the October 16, 1989 submittal as meeting the
November 15, 1991 PM10 SIP submittal due date. This transmittal
letter included an attached justification for not implementing
additional RACM in the Hayden SIP.
The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness
shortly after November 15, 1991, in accordance with the completeness
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57
FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). EPA determined that the submittal was
complete, but did not make a formal finding of completeness. By
operation of law the submittal was deemed complete as of May 15, 1992.
As noted, in this action EPA proposes to partially approve Arizona's
PM10 SIP submittal for Hayden/Miami and invites public comment on
the action.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions
in the area. Because the submission of such inventories are necessary
to an area's attainment demonstration (or demonstration that the area
cannot practicably attain), the emissions inventories must be received
with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).
Arizona submitted an emissions inventory for base year 1986. The
base year inventory only identified sources in Hayden (the ASARCO
smelter stack, copper ore tailings, ore crushing, the ASARCO slag dump,
road dust, ASARCO smelter building fugitives, and copper ore). These
are the primary sources of PM10 in the Hayden portion of the
nonattainment area, contributing over 90 percent of the total emissions
in Hayden during the time that the violations were recorded. Additional
contributing sources included lime handling, gypsum handling,
locomotive exhaust, automobile exhaust, and woodburning stoves.
The EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory. While the
emission inventory contains some inaccuracies with respect to certain
point, area, and mobile source emissions, EPA feels that the inventory
is accurate enough for determining the primary sources of PM10 in
the Hayden area and the control strategy's effect on PM10
emissions in the nonattainment area. Furthermore, EPA feels the
inventory provides a sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of
the attainment demonstration for this area consistent with the
requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Clean Air
Act (ACT).\2\ For further details see the Technical Support Document
(TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. We believe that this document
provides a general basis for meeting the requirements of the new
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas must
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of
EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57
FR 13539-13545 and 13560 13561).
It should be noted that the SIP revision for the Hayden area was
developed prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Implementation of RACM was not a required portion of the SIP at that
time. Arizona subsequently submitted an addendum to the SIP revision on
February 3, 1992 which presented the justification for not implementing
all of the RACM measures identified in Appendices C1, C2, and C3 of the
General Preamble. The basic argument against implementation of further
RACM was that the SIP demonstrated attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in
1990, four years sooner than required by the Act, and that additional
RACM would not cause the area to reach attainment any sooner. This is a
valid argument in favor of not adopting further RACM. The control
measures that are being implemented in the Hayden area are consistent
with the guidance issued by EPA regarding fugitive dust in its General
Preamble. Furthermore, the Hayden area has not experienced any
violations of the PM10 NAAQS since 1990. The SIP submitted by
Arizona for the Hayden nonattainment area used Chemical Mass Balance
receptor modeling and dispersion modeling and then reconciled the
results according to guidance provided by EPA in the document Protocol
For Reconciling Differences Among Receptor And Dispersion Models, EPA,
March 1987. As a result, five sources were identified as contributing
to the PM10 nonattainment problem in Hayden and will be controlled
with a variety of measures. Table 1 lists these measures and the
associated emission reductions.
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions w/o Emissions
controls after controls
(contribution (contribution
Source/source Control measure to 24 hr to 24 hr
category ambient levels ambient levels
in g/ in g/
m3) m3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ore Unloading, Increased use of 410.8 39.6
Crushing, and spray bars,
Conveying. hooding,
enclosures, newer
and more efficient
rotoclones, better
housekeeping.
Unpaved Roads...... Capping, watering, 86.5 8.7
use of dust
suppressants.
Locomotives........ Implementation of 58.8 23.5
40% opacity limit.
Paved Roads........ No controls to be 29.9 29.9
implemented.
Gypsum Handling.... Source permanently 10.2 0.0
shut down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The control measures in Table 1 have been implemented and therefore
meet the requirement of implementing RACM by December 10, 1993.
According to the SIP, control of these sources will result in an
estimated emission reduction of 292 tons per year of PM10. A more
detailed discussion of the individual source contributions, their
associated control measures (including available control technology)
and an explanation as to why certain available control measures were
not implemented, can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD).
The EPA has reviewed the State's explanation and associated
documentation and concluded that it adequately justifies the control
measures to be implemented. There are a limited and obvious number of
PM10 sources in the Hayden area and the State addresses each of
them in the SIP revision. The implementation of Arizona's part D
particulate matter nonattainment plan control strategy will result in
the attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. By this
document EPA is proposing to approve the RACM, including RACT,
developed by Arizona for the Hayden area's control strategy. EPA is
proposing to approve the operating permit issued to ASARCO, Inc., the
measure restricting off road vehicle use, the measure for locomotive
emissions and the measure for gypsum handling.
4. Demonstration
As noted, the CAA requires that initial moderate PM10
nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration (including air quality
modeling) showing that the plan will provide for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 1994 (See
section 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). Alternatively, the State must show
that attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. The SIP
submitted by Arizona for Hayden contains an attainment demonstration
using Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Receptor Modeling reconciled with the
Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST) Dispersion Model. This
demonstration indicates that the NAAQS for PM10 will be attained
by 1990 in Hayden and maintained in future years. The 24-hour PM10
NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and the
standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year
with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is
equal to or less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM10 NAAQS
is 50 g/m3, and the standard is attained when the
expected annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to
50 g/m3. The demonstration predicted that the 24-hour
design concentration in the attainment year of 1990 will be 129
g/m3, thus demonstrating attainment of the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS. The annual design concentration of 31.6 g/
m3 predicted for the same year demonstrates attainment of the
annual PM10 NAAQS. The demonstration also showed that the
PM10 NAAQS will be maintained in future years by predicting a 24-
hour design concentration of 147.1 g/m3, and an annual
design concentration of 34.2 g/m3 for the year 1997. The
control strategy used to achieve these design concentrations is
summarized in the section titled ``RACM (including RACT)''.
The State's demonstration of attainment of the 24 hour NAAQS in the
Hayden area is approved as is the SIP's demonstration of attainment of
the annual PM10 NAAQS in the Hayden area. For a more detailed
description of the attainment demonstration and the control strategy
used, see the Technical Support Document.
5. PM10 Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM10, also apply to major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in
that area (see section 189(e) of the Act).
An analysis of air quality and emissions data for the Hayden
portion of the nonattainment area indicates that exceedances of the
NAAQS are attributable chiefly to direct particulate matter emissions
from copper ore unloading, crushing and conveying activities, unpaved
roads, locomotives, and gypsum handling. Sources of particulate matter
precursor emissions of SO2 contribute anywhere from 3 g/
m3 to 5 g/m3 to the 24 hr design concentration.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to find that major sources of precursors
of PM10 do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels in
excess of the NAAQS. The consequences of this finding are that the
PM10 nonattainment area control requirements will not apply to the
sources of PM10 precursors. Further discussion of the analyses and
supporting rationale for EPA's finding are contained in the Technical
Support Document. Note that while EPA is making a general finding for
this area, today's finding is based on the current character of the
area including, for example, the existing mix of sources in the area.
It is possible, therefore, that future growth could change the
significance of precursors in the area. The EPA intends to issue future
guidance addressing such potential changes in the significance of
precursor emissions in an area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The PM10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and
which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment
by December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable
further progress is defined in section 171(1) as such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by part D or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable
NAAQS by the applicable date.
In determining RFP for this initial moderate area, EPA has reviewed
the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area and
assessed whether annual incremental reductions different from those
provided in the SIP should be required in order to ensure attainment of
the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). Since
Arizona has not recorded a violation of the PM10 NAAQS in the
Hayden since 1990, EPA feels that the State of Arizona has satisfied
the RFP requirement for the Hayden portion of the nonattainment area.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the State and EPA (See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's and SIP
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section
110(a)(2)(C)).
The particular control measures contained in the SIP are addressed
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that
discussion, including, for example, copper ore unloading, crushing and
conveying, dust from unpaved roads, locomotive exhaust, gypsum
handling, and off-road vehicle use. The SIP provides that the affected
activities are subject to the applicable control measures.
Consistent with the attainment demonstration described above, the
SIP requires that all affected activities must be in full compliance
with the applicable SIP provisions by December 31, 1991. In addition to
the applicable control measures, this includes the applicable record-
keeping requirements which are addressed in the supporting technical
information. In addition, the SIP sets out a compliance schedule for
the ASARCO smelting facility that includes enforceable deadlines by
which the source must implement the appropriate control measures. The
compliance schedule is described in more detail in the supporting
technical information. Compliance for certain measures, such as the
limitation of process emissions from the crushing facility and the
control of emissions from unpaved roads must be determined in
accordance with appropriate test methods. The SIP provides that
compliance with the operating permit process emission conditions
applicable to the ASARCO facility will be determined in accordance with
EPA approved test methods as contained in the Arizona Testing Manual.
For the control of unpaved road emissions compliance will be determined
based on test methods contained in the EPA document Control of Open
Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA-450/3-88-008). The EPA believes these test
methods are appropriate for determining compliance.
The attached Technical Support Document (TSD) contains further
information on enforceability requirements including: enforceable
emission limitations; a description of the rules contained in the SIP
and the source types subject to them; and reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The State of Arizona has given the State Department of
Environmental Quality the necessary legal authority to ensure that the
measures contained in the SIP are adequately enforced.
8. Contingency Measures
As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. These measures
must be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the initial moderate
nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of other
available measures that are not part of the area's control strategy.
These measures must take effect without further action by the State or
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP
or attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline.
However, as noted the States are not required to submit the
contingency plan in section 172(c)(9), until November 15, 1993 (see 57
FR 13543 (April 16, 1992)). Consequently, Arizona will have until
November 15, 1993 to submit a contingency plan.
III. Implications of This Action
The EPA is proposing to grant a limited approval/disapproval for
the SIP revision submitted by the State of Arizona on October 16, 1989
for the Hayden/Miami moderate PM10 nonattainment area. If
finalized, this disapproval would constitute a disapproval under
section 179(a)(2) of the Act (see generally 57 FR 13566-13567). As
provided under section 179(a) of the Act, the State of Arizona would
have up to 18 months after a final SIP disapproval to correct the
deficiencies that are the subject of the disapproval before EPA is
required to impose either the highway funding sanction or the
requirement to provide two-to-one new source review offsets. If the
State has not corrected its deficiency within 6 months thereafter, EPA
must impose the second sanction. Any sanction EPA imposes must remain
in place until EPA determines that the State has come into compliance.
If EPA ultimately disapproves all or part of the SIP submittal for the
Hayden/Miami nonattainment area and the State of Arizona fails to
correct the deficiency within 18 months of such disapprovals, EPA
anticipates that the first sanction it would impose would be the two to
one offset requirement. Note also that any final disapproval would
trigger the requirement for EPA to impose a Federal implementation plan
as provided under section 110(c)(1) of the Act.
IV. Request for Public Comments
The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of today's proposal
including EPA's proposed decision to impose the two to one new source
review offset requirement as the first sanction should EPA ultimately
disapprove this submittal in whole or in part and the State fail to
timely remedy the deficiency. EPA is particularly interested in
comments addressing the adequacy of the State's modeling and the
accuracy of the State's emissions inventory. As indicated at the outset
of this document, EPA will consider any comments received by August 15,
1994.
V. Executive Order (EO) 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not ``significant''. It
has not been submitted to OMB for review in accordance with section 6
of E.O 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for- profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2).
The disapproval action taken against Arizona's SIP submittal for
not addressing the Miami portion of the nonattainment area affects only
one source, Cyprus Miami Mining Corp. Cyprus Miami Mining Corp. is not
a small entity. Therefore, EPA certifies that this disapproval action
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: April 15, 1994.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-17300 Filed 7-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P