Clean Air Act Limited Approval/Disapproval and Promulgation of PMINF10 Implementation Plan for Arizona

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