PROPOSED
Revised PM10 State
Implementation Plan for
the Salt River Area

AIR QUALITY DIVISION
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 2005

This page left intentionally blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

1

1.1 Overview
1
1.2 Background
1
1.2.1
Regulatory History of the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area 1
1.2.2
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
4
1.2.3
Location of the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment and Salt River
Study Areas
5
1.2.4
Physical Geography, Soils, Climate, and Meteorology of Metropolitan
Phoenix , and the Salt River Study Area
5
1.2.5
Population, Economy, and Land Use Data
9
1.2.6
General SIP Requirements - The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAA)
10
CHAPTER 2:

CHAPTER 3:

CHAPTER 4:

CHAPTER 5:

AIR QUALITY MONITORING FOR PARTICULATE MATTER

17

2.1 Introduction
2.1.1
PM10 Air Quality Monitoring Network
2.1.2
Description of Salt River Study Area Monitors
2.1.3
The Durango Complex Site
2.1.4
Maricopa County Historical PM10 Air Quality Data (1994 to 2002)

17
17
17
18
18

PM10 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES

19

3.1 Introduction
3.1.1
Salt River Study Base Year PM10 Emissions Inventory (2002)
3.2 Salt River Study Future Year PM10 Emissions Projections (2006)

19
19
22

OVERVIEW OF PM10 CONTROL MEASURES

26

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Source Categories
4.3 BACM and MSM Control Measures for Significant Source Categories
4.3.1
BACM and MSM Analysis
4.3.2
Significant Source Categories
4.3.3
Area Source Control Measures
4.3.4
Permitted Industrial Source Control Measures
4.3.5
On-Road Mobile Source Control Measures
4.3.6
Summary of Selected Control Measures
BACM and MSM Implementation Schedule
4.3.7

26
26
28
28
28
29
41
69
71
77

DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT OF PM10 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS

80

5.1 Overview
5.1.1
Projected Emission and Ambient Air Quality Changes Between 2002
And 2006
5.2 Necessary Emissions Reductions To Meet The Standard
5.3 Attainment And Emission Reductions
i

80
80
82
84

CHAPTER 6:

5.4 Attaining the PM10 Standard - Conclusions

84

DEMONSTRATION OF REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS AND
CONTINGENCY MEASURES

86

6.1 Overview Of Attainment Demonstration
6.2 Reasonable Further Progress
6.2.1
Reasonable Further Progress – Conclusions
6.3 Contingency Measures

86
87
87
87

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.2.3
Table 1.2.4
Table 1.2.5
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 4.2.1
Table 4.2.2
Table 4.3.3.1
Table 4.3.3.2
Table 4.3.3.3
Table 4.3.3.4
Table 4.3.3.5
Table 4.3.3.6
Table 4.3.4.1
Table 4.3.4.2
Table 4.3.4.3
Table 4.3.4.4
Table 4.3.4.5
Table 4.3.4.6
Table 4.3.4.7
Table 4.3.4.8
Table 4.3.4.9
Table 4.3.4.10
Table 4.3.4.11
Table 4.3.4.12
Table 4.3.4.13

Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area, Maricopa and Pinal
Counties
Metropolitan Phoenix Meteorological Characteristics
Population Projections
Salt River PM10 Emissions Inventory – Year 2002 (Metric Tons/Day)
Salt River PM10 Emissions Inventory – Base Case 2006 (Metric
Tons/Day)
Base Case 2006 Salt River PM10 Emissions Inventory – Significant
Sources for Low Wind and High Wind Days
2002 Salt River Study Area Source Category Contributions to
Ambient PM10 Concentrations for the 2006 Attainment Case
Salt River Study Area Source Category Contributions to Ambient
PM10 Concentrations
Open Areas and Vacant Lots Control Measures
Alluvial Channel Control Measures
Estimated Cost for Control Measures (Dollars) – Open Areas and
Vacant Lots
Estimated Cost for Control Measures (Dollars) – Alluvial Channels
Estimated Cost-Effectiveness – Open Areas and Vacant Lots
Estimated Cost-Effectiveness – Alluvial Channels
Industrial Source Emissions by Category
Emissions Reductions for Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Control
Measures
Cost-Effectiveness as a Function of Capital Cost Per Baghouse
System
Cost-Effectiveness as a Function of Annual Operating Cost Per
Baghouse System
Cost-Effectiveness as a Function of Capital Cost For One Baghouse
& Suction Shroud System
Cost-Effectiveness as a Function of Annual Operating Cost for One
Baghouse & Suction Shroud System
Maricopa County Rule 316: Crushing and Screening Plants
Maricopa County Rule 316: Concrete Batch Plants
Maricopa County Rule 316: Asphalt Batch Plants
Maricopa County Rule 310: Stockpiles
Emissions Reductions Percentages for Unpaved Haul and Access
Roads Control Measures
Maricopa County Rule 310: Unpaved Haul and Access Roads
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

ii

5
8
10
21
23
25
27
27
32
33
36
36
37
37
41
43
46
46
46
46
47
49
51
55
59
62
68

LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5

Percent Change in Emissions Between 2002 and 2006 Attainment
Case
Salt River PM10 Study Area Background Reductions from Area-Wide
Controls
Salt River PM10 Study Area Background PM10 Concentrations and
Their Responses to Anticipated Area-Wide Emissions Reductions by
2006
Reductions of Emissions Necessary to Meet the Standard for Eight
Salt River PM10 Exceedances
Salt River PM10 Study Area Exceedances and Attainment Status in
2006

81
83
83
84
85

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.2.3-A: Map of the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area
Figure 1.2.3-B: Map of the Salt River PM10 Study Area

15
16

EMISSION SOURCE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS

89

REFERENCES

91

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:

PM10 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA FOR 24-HOUR
STANDARD (1994-2002)
Table A
Table B
Table C
Table D
Table E
Table F
Table G
Table H
Table I
Table J
Table K

1994 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
1995 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
1996 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
1997 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
1998 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
1999 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
2000 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
2001 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
2002 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
2003 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary
2004 PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary

APPENDIX B:

MARICOPA COUNTY BACM/MSM RULE REVISIONS AND ADOPTED RULE

APPENDIX C:

LIST OF CANDIDATE MSM/BACM CONTROL MEASURES

APPENDIX D:

RESOLUTIONS OF COMMITMENTS FOR CONTROL MEASURE 04-DC-01

APPENDIX E:

2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY –
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS)
MARICOPA COUNTY’S AIR QUALITY’S INSPECTION PRIORITIZATION PLAN
FOR VACANT LOTS AND WORKLOAD ANALYSIS FOR EARTHMOVING AND
VACANT LOT PROGRAMS

APPENDIX F

iii

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9

ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1:
ATTACHMENT 2:
ATTACHMENT 3:

ADEQ AIR QUALITY DIVISION ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENTATION
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

iv

This page left intentionally blank

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1

OVERVIEW

In a rule published July 2, 2002, EPA found the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s
(ADEQ’s) Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Maricopa County PM10
Nonattainment Area (May 1997), inadequate to achieve attainment of the 24-hour National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter 10 microns or fewer in aerodynamic diameter
(PM10) at the Salt River monitoring site. The 1997 ADEQ SIP revision included attainment and
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) demonstrations for the 24-hour NAAQS at the Salt River air
quality monitoring site of the Maricopa County PM10 Serious Nonattainment Area, as well as at
three other monitoring sites in the Phoenix area, - the Maryvale, Gilbert, and West Chandler sites.
On August 4, 1997, EPA approved ADEQ’s attainment and RFP demonstrations for the Salt River
monitoring area, which showed that the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS would reach attainment in the area
by May 1998 (62 FR 41856, August 4, 1997). Due to continuing violations of the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS at the Salt River air quality monitoring site since May 1998, EPA subsequently required
Arizona to submit a revision to correct SIP inadequacies (67 FR 44369, July 2, 2002).
This document consists of Arizona’s revisions to the state implementation plan for the Maricopa
County PM10 Serious Nonattainment Area and includes the following SIP requirements, as
described by EPA in its Federal Register notice of disapproval (67 FR 44369, July 2, 2002):
¾

A modeling demonstration showing that the level of emissions reductions from
application of Best Available Control Measures (BACM) / Most Stringent Measures
(MSM) for all significant sources of PM10, will result in attainment of the 24-hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by December 31, 2006, at the Salt River PM10
monitoring site (in accordance with CAA §§ 189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e));

¾

Commitments to implement BACM/MSM for sources significantly contributing to
exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard in the Salt River area as expeditiously as
possible (CAA § 189(b)(1)(B)), and a commitment that all BACM and MSM control
measures adopted and applied to sources in the Salt River Study Area will be applied to
all similar sources throughout the Maricopa County PM10 Serious Nonattainment Area;

¾

A demonstration that the plan constitutes Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) up to the
attainment deadline, December 31, 2006; and

¾

A demonstration that all the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAA) that pertain to serious PM10 nonattainment areas are met (including CAA §§
110(l), 110(a)(2)(E)(i), 40 CFR §§ 51.280, and 51.111).

1.2

BACKGROUND

1.2.1

REGULATORY HISTORY OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT
AREA

On November 15, 1990, Congress enacted the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in accordance
with the provisions of which, EPA classified U.S. PM10 nonattainment areas meeting the
qualifications of CAA § 107(d)(4)(B), including the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area, as
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, by operation of law. Pursuant to the provisions of the 1990
CAA § 188(a), EPA required that Arizona, and other U.S. moderate PM10 nonattainment areas,

1

demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. On November 15, 1991,
Arizona submitted its moderate area PM10 plan to EPA.
In 1995, EPA issued final approval to Arizona's moderate area PM10 state implementation plan, (60
FR 18010, April 10, 1995). The revised SIP provided PM10 control measures applicable to sources
including paved roads, construction and demolition activities, unpaved parking areas and roads,
nonmetallic mineral mining and processing facilities, open burning activities, uncovered haul trucks
and farming operations. On April 27, 1995, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI)
filed suit (Ober v. EPA) challenging EPA’s approval of Arizona's 1991 particulate plan, due to the
plan’s failure to address the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS standard. The suit, filed in Tucson Federal
District Court, requested that the Court order EPA to produce a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
Due to continued exceedances of both the annual and 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and failure of the
area to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the December 31, 1994, deadline for moderate nonattainment
areas, EPA reclassified the Phoenix Planning Area as a “serious” nonattainment area for PM10, by
operation of law, on May 10, 1996 (61 FR 21372, May 10, 1996). The action allowed Arizona 18
months to develop a new state implementation plan that would provide for attainment of the PM10
NAAQS by December 31, 2001, the CAA attainment date for serious nonattainment areas.
On May 14, 1996, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 1995 approval of Arizona's
moderate PM10 plan, and on March 25, 1997, the U.S. District Court approved a consent decree
that required EPA to propose a Moderate Area Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), if EPA
disapproved all or part of ADEQ's 24-hour PM10 plan. On August 4, 1997, EPA partially approved
and partially disapproved ADEQ's microscale plan, the Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM10
Standard – Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area, submitted May 9, 1997 (62 FR 41856,
August 4, 1997).
On December 10, 1997, Arizona submitted the Maricopa Association of Government's (MAG's)
Serious Area Committed Particulate Control Measures for PM10 and Support Technical Analysis. On
February 25, 1998, EPA found that Arizona had failed to submit: the regional moderate PM10 area
requirements for the 24-hour PM10 standard; the serious area plan requirements for the annual
PM10 standard; and the regional serious area requirements for the 24-hour standard, the deadline
for each of which was December 10, 1997. EPA's action triggered the 18-month time clock for
mandatory application of sanctions, and a two-year FIP clock (63 FR 9423, February 25, 1998).
On August 3, 1998, in accordance with the requirements of Ober v. EPA consent decree, EPA
published a FIP to address moderate area PM10 requirements in the Maricopa County PM10
Nonattainment Area, under the authority of CAA § 110(c)(1). By this action, EPA finalized
disapproval of Arizona's moderate area plan RACM, RFP, and impracticability demonstrations; and
required that Arizona demonstrate that: it could not meet PM10 standards by the statutory deadline;
that RACT would be implemented expeditiously and that RFP standards were being met. In
addition, EPA set forth a fugitive dust rule to control PM10 emissions from vacant lots, unpaved
parking lots, and unpaved roads, as well as an enforceable commitment to ensure the application of
RACM to agricultural sources in the Phoenix area (63 FR 41326, August 3, 1998).
MAG's Regional Council adopted the MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10, June 23,
1999. The Plan contained approximately 77 state and local government control measure
commitments.
On June 29, 1999, EPA withdrew its August 1998 FIP requirement that Arizona adopt and
implement RACM for agricultural fields and aprons in the Maricopa County PM10 nonattainment

2

area, due to Arizona's adoption of legislation requiring that agricultural sources implement best
management practices (BMP), which EPA determined were compliant with CAA RACM
requirements, to control fugitive dust in the area (64 FR 34726, June 29, 1999). On July 9, 1999,
ADEQ submitted MAG's plan to EPA.
In November 1999, EPA notified MAG of deficiencies in its Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10,
submitted in June 1999, sufficient to cause EPA disapproval of the proposed SIP revision. EPA
indicated that the SIP inadequacies related to the level of source compliance that the SIP assumed
with respect to Maricopa County's two fugitive dust rules, and the absence, or insufficiency, of
controls the SIP provided to address fugitive dust from public and private unpaved roads.
In its February 16, 2000 Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10 for the
Maricopa County Nonattainment Area, MAG demonstrated attainment of both the annual and 24hour PM10 standards. In response to the deficiencies noted by EPA, and to address the SIP
approvability problem, MAG amended its Transportation Improvement Program for fiscal year 20002004, including a program to pave Maricopa County public, and publicly-maintained, dirt roads and
allocated funding for, and committed to, the purchase of PM10-efficient street sweepers. In addition,
Maricopa County has adopted a Resolution strengthening enforcement of its fugitive dust rules
which is in SIP Appendix D, along with an Inspection Strategy.
In recent, additional actions, EPA approved or proposed approval of the following control measures
for the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area:
¾

In response to the requirements of CAA § 110(a) and Part D, Arizona rules (Maricopa
County Rule 318, “Approval of Residential Woodburning Devices,” and the Maricopa
Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance, adopted April 21, 1999) controlling
particulate matter emissions from residential wood combustion in the Maricopa County
PM10 Nonattainment Area. EPA’s ruling incorporated the rules into the federallyapproved Arizona State Implementation Plan (approval, 64 FR 60678, November 8,
1999);

¾

In response to the requirements of CAA § 189(a)(1)(C), a general permit rule (A.R.S.
49-457, approved as RACM) providing for the implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to reduce PM10 from agricultural sources in the Maricopa County PM10
Nonattainment Area, in a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (approval,
66 FR 51869, October 11, 2001); and

¾

Revisions to the Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) program currently approved
in the Arizona State Implementation Plan, which will replace Arizona's interim CBG
program with a permanent program, amend the wintertime CBG program to limit the
types of gasoline that may be supplied, and remove the minimum oxygen content
requirement for summertime gasoline (proposed approval, 68 FR 55920, September 29,
2003).

On July 2, 2002, EPA found the controls proposed in ADEQ's May 1997 Plan for Attainment of the
24-Hour PM10 Standard – Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area, inadequate to ensure the
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS at the Salt River air quality monitoring sites. The finding of
inadequacy included the SIP’s attainment and RFP demonstrations for the 24-hour PM10 standard
at the Salt River monitoring sites, as well as for three other microscale sites in the Maricopa County
PM10 Nonattainment Area (Maryvale, Gilbert, and West Chandler).

3

Although EPA approved Arizona's 1997 SIP revision, and additional required controls proposed by
MCESD on August 4, 1997 (62 FR 41856), EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
continued to show exceedances at the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area Salt River site,
recording expected exceedances in 1999, 2000, and through three quarters of 2001. EPA required
Arizona to submit a SIP revision to identify and implement corrective PM10 control provisions in the
Salt River Study Area, and for similar, significant sources in the Maricopa County PM10
Nonattainment Area (67 FR 44369, July 2, 2002). Arizona's SIP revision was due to EPA 18 months
following the effective date of its action, or by February 2, 2004, to provide for attainment in the Salt
River site, no later than December 31, 2006, in accordance with CAA §§ 189(b)(1)(A), and 188 (e).
Also in July 2002, EPA approved Arizona's serious area PM10 plan for the Maricopa County part of
the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area; granted Arizona's request to extend the CAA
deadline for attainment of the annual and 24-hour PM10 standards from 2001 to 2006; and approved
the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department's (MCESD’s) fugitive dust rules,
Residential Woodburning Restrictions Ordinance, and commitments by Maricopa County
jurisdictions to implement PM10 controls (67 FR 48718, July 25, 2002).
1.2.2

PM10 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)

In promulgating its initial particulate matter standards in 1971, EPA published primary and
secondary particulate standards applicable to, “total suspended particulates” (“TSP”) which applied
to airborne suspended particulate matter, without reference to particle size. The primary, or “healthbased,” standards established 260 micrograms per cubic meter (µ/m3), as the 24-hour average
standard, not to be exceeded more than once annually. EPA established a separate primary annual
TSP standard, 75 µ/m3, determined by calculation of annual geometric mean measurements. The
secondary standard, designed to protect public welfare, was established at 150 µ/m3, calculated as
a 24-hour average, and not to be exceeded more than once per year.
On July 1, 1987, EPA replaced the concept of TSP, focusing on particulate matter 10 microns in
diameter or smaller, or PM10, as the applicable ambient standards (at 52 FR 24634). In addition,
EPA collapsed the primary and secondary standards into one set of standards to protect both public
health and welfare. EPA’s 1987 standard established150 µ/m3, as the new 24-hour standard, with
no more than one expected exceedance annually; and 50 µ/m3, as the expected annual arithmetic
mean, as the new annual standard.
July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 1987 24-hour NAAQS standards applicable to PM10, specifying that
the 24-hour PM10 standard would be based on the 99th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each
monitor within an area, and added separate standards applicable to particulate matter 2.5
micrometers or fewer in diameter, or PM2.5 (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). The new standards were
issued to provide increased protection to the public, especially children, the elderly, and other atrisk populations. On December 22, 2000, following a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, EPA took final action to remove 40 CFR § 50.6(d) from federal
regulations applicable to national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM10,
since the Court had decided that the particulate standards, as revised in 1997, constituted double
regulation of the PM2.5 component of the PM10 NAAQS (65 FR 80776). The PM10 rules in 40 CFR §
50.6(a) and (b) remained in effect, however.
The current PM10 standards are as set forth at 40 CFR § 50.6. The primary and secondary 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24hour average concentration above 150 µ/m3, is equal to or less than one.

4

1.2.3

LOCATION OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AND SALT
RIVER STUDY AREAS

EPA formally designated Maricopa County as nonattainment for particulate matter in April 1974. On
March 3, 1978, EPA published a list of Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas, in
accordance with 1977 Clean Air Act Amendment requirements (43 FR 8964). The March 1978 EPA
ruling identified the area of Maricopa County as nonattainment for TSP.
EPA later replaced TSP standards with new standards that applied only to particulate matter ten
microns or fewer in diameter (52 FR 24634, July 1, 1987). On August 7, 1987, EPA identified the
Phoenix Planning Area as a “Group I” area, an area highly likely to violate the new NAAQS
standards for PM10 (52 FR 29383). On October 31, 1990, EPA provided technical corrections to
clarify the descriptions of the PM10 areas of concern, after collecting data on area source emissions,
and ambient PM10 concentrations; identifying control measures; and predicting future PM10
concentrations using dispersion models (55 FR 45799, October 31, 1990).
The October 1990 technical corrections defined the boundaries of many U.S. PM10 nonattainment
areas, including the Phoenix Planning Area PM10 Nonattainment Area. The Phoenix Planning Area
boundaries exist today as EPA defined them in October 1990. For the purposes of this SIP, the
Phoenix Planning Area is referred to as the Maricopa County PM10 (Serious) Nonattainment Area
(geographically defined in Table 1.2.3). Figure 1.2.3-A (page 15) depicts the geographical area
encompassing the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area.
Table 1.2.3 Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area, Maricopa and Pinal Counties
Located in Maricopa and Pinal Counties, the Phoenix Planning [Maricopa County] PM10
Nonattainment Area is defined as the rectangle determined by and including the Townships
and Ranges as noted, below.1
T6N, R3W
The Phoenix Planning Area was designated as a moderate PM10
nonattainment area, November 15, 1990, and as a serious PM10
T6N, R7E
nonattainment area, June 10, 1996.
T2S, R3W
T2S, R7E
T1N, R8E
Source: 40 CFR § 81.303, 1978, as amended at 55 FR 45799, October 31, 1990

The Salt River Study Area portion of the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area contains
approximately 32 square miles in metropolitan Phoenix, which is in the center of the Salt River
Valley. The study area is bounded by 59th Avenue to the west; 10th Street, to the east; Van Buren
Street to the north; and Baseline Road, to the south (see map of the Salt River Study Area, Figure
1.2.3-B, page 16).
1.2.4

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY, SOILS, CLIMATE, AND METEOROLOGY OF
METROPOLITAN PHOENIX, AND THE SALT RIVER STUDY AREA

Physical Geography

1
Although EPA finalized the rule that defined the current boundaries of the Phoenix Planning Area at 57 FR 56714, on
November 6, 1992, ADEQ will seek a technical correction of the EPA-defined boundaries, based on a 1991 Arizona
boundary submittal request.

5

The normally-dry, Salt River Channel crosses the study area at about mid-point, east to southwest.
Although once a natural perennial stream with mesquites, willows, and cottonwood trees, the Salt
River is now a dry river that has been altered by levee work and channelized along different parts of
the river. The Salt River is classified as an ephemeral stream, since flows result from controlled
water releases from dams many miles upstream, as well as rainfall and local sources discharge into
the dry river channel.2 The form of the Salt River channel is directly related to past regional flood
events and human activities, such as sand and gravel mining.
From a broad geographic perspective, Phoenix is located in the Basin and Range Province, which
is one of three provinces comprising the Intermontane Plateaus Major Division. The Basin and
Range Province begins south of the Columbia Plateaus and comprises most of Nevada and
portions of Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah, and southern Arizona. In Arizona, the Basin and Range
Province, which runs in a northwest-southeast direction across the state, is divided into the Mexican
Highlands section to the north and the Sonoran Desert section to the south that extends southward
into Sonora, Mexico, and Baja, California. This physiographic province is characterized by several
linear basins filled with debris from surrounding mountains, composed of metamorphosed
sedimentary and volcanic rocks or of intrusive granite rocks. Typically, these are fault-block
mountains formed by faulting and tilting of the earth's crust.
The basins in the province are filled with thick deposits of gravel, sand, silt, clay, and other
sediments as a product of continental sedimentation. The result is desert rangelands over basin
floors. Several small mountain ranges with relatively small geographic coverage, rise above the
desert floor with elevations ranging from approximately 2,600 to 4,500 feet above mean sea level,
surrounding the metropolitan Phoenix area: the South Mountains are located six miles to the south
(T1S, R3E, Section 21); 18 miles to the southwest lie the Sierra Estrella Mountains (T2S, R1E,
Section 8); eight miles to the north are the Phoenix Mountains with Piestewa Peak (T2N, R3E,
Section 2); and 30 miles to the west-northwest, and north-northeast, 6 miles, respectively, lie the
White Tank Mountains (T3N, R3W, Section 28), and Camelback Mountain.
Although the elevation of Phoenix is approximately 1,100 feet above sea level, elevations vary from
one direction to another with increasing elevations to the east. The following illustrates how
elevation contours change within the study area.
Soils
Phoenix is located in the northern edge of the Sonoran Desert in a large alluvial basin. The region is
arid, consisting of stream-carved valleys with alluvial sands, playa deposits, gravels, and
sedimentary formations. The Sonoran Desert contains more species of plants and animals than any
other desert in North America. The distribution of plants, which is related to the plant life in the
regions south and west, is dependent on a variety of interacting environmental factors (e.g.,
temperature, precipitation, soil, and slope). It contains, for example, a variety of cacti (e.g., saguaro,
organ pipe, cholla), wild flowers, bushes, trees, and grasses. Native vegetation includes mesquite,
catclaw, creosote bush, cacti, bursage, ironwood, arrowweed, saltbush, desert thorn, annual
grasses, and weeds. Plant invasion from other proximate vegetation associations have reduced the
area covered by grasslands and altered other vegetation. Invasions include woody species and
2

Phoenix is located in the lowlands hydrologic province. Reservoirs hold the perennial streams of the Central Highlands
hydrologic province which lies north and northeast of Phoenix. The Roosevelt Dam, which was completed in 1911, was the
first Reclamation Service project. It dammed off the Salt River about 60 miles to the east. Three more dams were built on
the Salt River between 1923 and 1930: Mormon Flat Dam, Horse Mesa Dam, and Stewart Mountain Dam. A project that
raised the elevation of Roosevelt Dam reduced peak flows and flow duration down the Salt River.

6

changes in the mix and density of nonwoody species of plants. The area also has ephemeral
vegetation due to the biseasonal precipitation distribution in the Sonoran Desert.
Soil types found in Maricopa County are classified as Hyperthermic Arid, based on temperature and
precipitation zones. These soils have a mean annual soil temperature of 72E F or higher and
receive less than 10" of mean annual precipitation.3 These soils are found at the lower elevations
in the western and southwestern part of the state, covering about 27 percent of Arizona.
Ten subgroup associations comprise Hyperthermic Arid soils. The Torrifluvents Association is
comprised of well-drained soils formed in sandy to clayey recent mixed alluvium on floodplains and
adjacent lower alluvial fans, for example, of the lower Salt River. The soil classification under this
association is the ATypic Torrifluvents@ that can be described as stratified, coarse to finely textured
on nearly level to gently sloping hills from elevations of 100 to 2,500 feet.4
The Salt River Study Area mainly contains soils formed from floods. The stream channels and
terraces in the Salt River, for example, mainly is comprised of Carrizo-Brios soil, characterized as
nearly level to gently sloping gravelly sandy loams and sandy loams. The remaining soil in the Salt
River Study Area is comprised of Gilman-Estrella-Avondale soil, characterized as nearly level loams
and clay loams on valley plains and low stream terraces. Only a very small area in the southern part
of the study area is comprised of Laveen-Coolidge and Mohall-Laveen soils. These soils are
characterized as nearly level sandy loams, loams, and clay loams on old alluvial fans and valley
plains.5 Other soil classifications comprise several other associations found in Maricopa County.
These soils range from fine to coarse or gravelly textured soils on broad valley plains and shallowly
dissected alluvial fans and valley slopes.
Climate and Meteorology
The greater Phoenix area experiences hot summers and relatively warm winters, with fewer
weather changes than most parts of the U.S. The average daily maximum temperature in July is
105.9° F (Fahrenheit), and the average low temperature in January is 41.2° F. The year-round
average temperature is 72.6° F, with daily normal high and low temperatures of 85.9° F and 59.3°
F, respectively. The Phoenix metropolitan area receives about 300 days of sunshine per year, while
average annual rainfall is fewer than eight inches, with overall low humidity (see Table 1.2.4).
The climate and meteorology for the Salt River Study Area is representative of the climate in
metropolitan Phoenix, as well as of the southwestern one-third of Arizona. Different classification
schemes for describing climate are in use. The schemes consider such climatologic conditions as
temperature, wind, precipitation, humidity, and visibility. According to the Köppen classification
system, Phoenix is classified as an arid subtropical climate.6 The arid subtropical climate describes
the climate of the southwestern one-third of Arizona.

3

For this classification, the difference between mean summer and mean winter temperatures must be greater than nine
degrees Fahrenheit, at a depth of 20 inches, or at soil / bedrock interface.
4
Arizona Soils, David M. Hendricks, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, 1985
5
Soil Survey of Maricopa County, Arizona Central Part, Soil Conservation Service, September, 1977.
6
This climate zone encompasses one-third of southwestern Arizona, including the low valleys tributary to this region. The
arid subtropical climate, represented by a January mean temperature greater than 32E F, is one of six different climatic
types.

7

Table 1.2.4 Metropolitan Phoenix Meteorological Characteristics7
Month
Mean Monthly
Mean Monthly
Mean Monthly
Temperature
Rainfall
Wind Speed
(in Degrees F)
(in Inches)
(in Miles/Hour)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual

53.6°
57.7°
62.2°
69.9°
78.8°
88.2°
93.5°
91.5°
85.6°
74.5°
61.9°
54.1°
72.6°

0.67”
0.68”
0.88”
0.22”
0.12”
0.13”
0.83”
0.96”
0.86”
0.65”
0.66”
1.0”
7.66"

5.3 mph
5.9 mph
6.6 mph
6.9 mph
7.0 mph
6.8 mph
7.1 mph
6.6 mph
6.3 mph
5.1 mph
5.3 mph
5.1 mph
6.2 mph

Monthly
Wind
Direction
E
E
E
E
E
E
W
E
E
E
E
E
E

Source: General Geographical and Climatological Summary (http://geography.asu.edu.cerveny/wxpart1.html); the Western
Regional Climate Center provided monthly mean wind speed and wind direction data (www.wrcc.dri.edu/)

Phoenix has two separate rainfall seasons. One season is represented by the winter months,
November through March, when the valley is subject to storms from the Pacific Ocean. Light snow
occasionally falls in the higher mountains surrounding the Salt River Valley. The other rainfall
season, known as the “monsoon” season, occurs during the summer, especially, July and August.
The remaining months generally are dry, but rainfall has been recorded during every month of the
year.
During the summer, monsoon air masses swell north, starting at the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean,
or West Coast of Mexico and Gulf of California. Unstable air moves into Arizona from the southeast
over heated land surfaces and yields moderate afternoon or evening thunderstorms. This can occur
when the Pacific high-pressure cell off the West coast moves northeast in late June and the
southwestern region of the U.S. receives air flow from the Gulf of Mexico on the southwest side of a
high pressure cell that protrudes from the Atlantic Ocean into the central part of the U.S. Because
Arizona's monsoon air masses do not show typical monsoon frontal characteristics, Arizona's
monsoons are not as severe as elsewhere. Seasonal changes occur in the wind directions affecting
Phoenix, from westerly to southerly wind, during July through early September. Thunderstorms can
be intense at times creating heavy rain, destructive winds, blowing dust, and flash flooding. During
these times, normally dry river channels can drain heavy rains.
April weather in the Phoenix area is normally very dry, and the monthly average rainfall total is the
third driest of the year. Maximum daytime temperatures of 90° F or more are commonplace, and
occasionally exceed 100° F. The evaporation rate is high. Dry local weather conditions combine
with disturbed soil surfaces to cause the release of fugitive dust during high wind events, due to dry
7

In Table 1.2.4, temperature is shown in degrees Fahrenheit, and rainfall in inches per month. The monthly mean
temperatures reflect 1961-1990 data. The mean monthly rainfall depicts 1896-1995 data.

8

frontal passages. In these situations, eastward-moving, mid-latitude cyclones produce strong
surface pressure gradients and associated strong winds aloft mix down to the surface, resulting in
southwesterly to westerly winds in the 25 to 35 mph range. Since no rain and little if any cloud cover
accompany these episodes, there is little moisture available to mitigate blowing and airborne dust
particles.
The alluvial basin of the Salt River Valley is generally free of strong winds. In spring months,
southwesterly and westerly winds predominate, associated with low-pressure troughs. During the
summer rainy season, local, strong, gusty winds can occur with blowing dust, which may or may not
be accompanied by rainfall. At that time, winds generally originate from the northeast to southeast,
and very often, remain under ten miles per hour. The heat and lack of moisture experienced in
Phoenix during the summer are conducive to the generation of airborne dust. During July and
August, humidity increases and there can be afternoon and evening cloudiness associated with
cumulus clouds over the mountains surrounding the Salt River Valley.
1.2.5

POPULATION, ECONOMY, AND LAND USE DATA

The City of Phoenix is one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S. The 2002 estimated
population is 1,365,675. Since 1970, Phoenix has grown 126 percent, representing a numerical
gain of 736,742 inhabitants. In 2000, Phoenix was ranked as the 6th largest city in the U.S.8
Arizona’s climate and recreational venues have attracted many new residents, as well as tourists
and winter visitors that spend part of their time living in metropolitan Phoenix. In 2000, the PhoenixMesa-Scottsdale Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is comprised of Maricopa and Pinal
counties, ranked 14th in the U.S., for population.9 The MSA contains 22 cities, once separate
communities that have coalesced to form the metropolitan area. According to Census 2000,
Maricopa County gained the most number of people numerically, ranking it as the fourth largest
county in the nation.
The Salt River Study Area is similar to other metropolitan areas, in that a variety of land uses and
activities coexist. Land uses in the Salt River Study Area include: urban, and urban development:
residential, commercial, government, educational, public cultural, and industrial. The development
phase of these various urban land uses, at times, necessarily entails different types of vacant lands,
either under construction, awaiting construction, or with construction in progress. Agriculture
represents another land use noted in the Salt River Study Area. The area contains irrigated
croplands used to cultivate: cotton, grains, alfalfa, sugar beets, pasture grasses, vegetables, citrus,
and those used as pasture, and rangelands. The continuing, speedy growth of metropolitan
Phoenix has resulted in a steady decline in the number of acres of land dedicated to agricultural
use, over the past several decades. Between 1987 and 1997, agricultural land use in Maricopa
County declined approximately 49 percent - from 1,391,456 acres used for agriculture, to 708,656
acres.10
The Department of Economic Security's projection series of 1997 indicates that the population of
Phoenix will grow by 36 percent over the 2000 to 2020 period. Table 1.2.5 contains population
projections in five-year intervals beginning with 2005. For reference, the 2000 Census counts and
the 2002 mid-year population estimates are also included in Table 1.2.5, below.

8

U.S. Census Bureau, County and City Data Book 2000: Table C-1.
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File, Internet release date, April 2, 2001.
10
Arizona Agricultural Statistics Service, A2002 Arizona Agricultural Statistics Bulletin@ (September 2003), “Census Farm
Numbers and Land in Farms by County,” page 6.
9

9

Table 1.2.5 Population Projections
Designation

2000
Census

2002
Estimate

2005
Projection

2010
Projection

2015
Projection

2020
Projection

PhoenixMesaScottsdale
MSA

3,251,876

3,488,645

3,511,048

3,909,281

4,317,999

4,747,319

Phoenix

1,321,045

1,365,675

1,415,330

1,544,093

1,641,489

1,795,539

State Total

5,130,632

5,472,750

5,553,849

6,145,108

6,744,754

7,363,604

Source: US. Census Bureau, Census 2000; Population Statistics Unit, Research Administration, Department of
Economic Security (DES), Approved by Director August 1, 1997 and December 6, 2002.11

1.2.6

GENERAL SIP REQUIREMENTS - THE 1990 CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS (CAA)

Clean Air Act § 110(l)
Clean Air Act § 110(l), “[Implementation] Plan Revisions,” requires that each revision to an
implementation plan submitted by a state be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and
public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(as defined in CAA § 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.
Arizona will implement the provisions of this SIP revision, as required by CAA § 110(l), after
reasonable notice and public hearing, and commits to the continuing development of the
appropriate state and local control measures for adoption and implementation that will promote
attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Salt River PM10 Study Area, and Maricopa County
PM10 Nonattainment Areas.
Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(E)(i), “Implementation Plans,” requires that state and/or local
governments, and/or regional agencies, demonstrate to the Administrator that such entities will
have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under appropriate law, to carry out the subject
implementation plan, or plan revision.
Arizona commits to working with other jurisdictions in the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment
Area, so that the resultant controls are affordable, efficient and necessary to address undercontrolled sources of emissions.
40 CFR §§ 51.280, and 51.111
Subpart O of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements,”
requires that state and local agencies, at implementation plan submission, include descriptions of
the resources needed to carry out plan implementation during the five-year period following plan
submission.
Arizona commits to describing the resources that will be necessary to carry out implementation of
the plan provisions that state, county, and local jurisdictions eventually adopt and implement.
11

Phoenix population projections approved by MAG Regional Council on June 25,1997.

10

Subpart G of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Description of Control Measures,” requires that
each plan set forth a control strategy that includes a description of enforcement methods including,
but not limited to: (1) procedures for monitoring compliance; (2) procedures for handling violations;
and (3) a designation of agency responsibility for enforcement of implementation.
Arizona commits to the description of control strategy enforcement methods to be implemented
when control strategy commitments are finalized and adopted by the various affected jurisdictions.
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(1)
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(1), “Nonattainment Plan Provisions,” requires that, “…plan provisions shall
provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as
practicable (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) and shall
provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”
SIP Chapter 4, and Appendix C, describe the proposed BACM/MSM control measures that Arizona
has identified, and proposed implementation of, in the Salt River PM10 Study Area, and for similar
significant sources, throughout the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area.
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(2)
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(2), “RFP,” requires that plan provisions shall demonstrate Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) such that annual incremental reductions in emissions ensure attainment of
the 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 by the applicable attainment deadline. For the purposes of this SIP,
the applicable deadline is December 31, 2006.
In Chapter 6, Arizona provides an RFP demonstration, as required by CAA § 172(c)(2), and in
Chapter 4 and Appendix C, Arizona commits to the adoption of BACM/MSM controls to provide for
attainment of the 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 by the applicable attainment deadline.
The Revised PM10 State Implementation Plan for the Salt River Area, which addresses general
PM10 control in the Salt River Study Area and the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area, does
not affect the Regional Transportation Plan or transportation conformity budget for PM10. The PM10
Regional Transportation Plan and transportation conformity budget represent on-road mobile
source emissions in the Maricopa County portion of the PM10 Nonattainment Area, an area of about
2,850 square miles.
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(3)
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(3), “Inventory,” requires that plan provisions, “…include a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or
pollutants in such area, including such periodic revisions as the Administrator may determine
necessary to assure that the requirements of this part are met.”
Chapter 3, and the Technical Support Document (TSD) that accompany this SIP explain how ADEQ
developed and maintains historical and current databases of actual emissions from Salt River PM10
Study Area point and area sources, including those permitted by Maricopa County, the permitting
authority in the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area. Arizona also commits to periodic

11

revisions as may be required by the EPA Administrator to assure that a comprehensive, accurate,
and current inventory is maintained for the Salt River PM10 Study Area.
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(4)
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(4), “Identification and Quantification,” requires that state implementation plan
provisions shall expressly identify and quantify the emissions of the pollutant or pollutants that will
be allowed, in accordance with CAA § 173(a)(1)(B), from the construction and operation of major
new or modified stationary sources in each area under review. The CAA requires that the plan shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the emissions quantified for this purpose
will be consistent with the achievement of reasonable further progress, and will not interfere with
attainment of the applicable NAAQS, by the applicable deadline date.
This emissions inventory modeling for this SIP quantifies the reductions in current emissions
required to achieve attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Salt River PM10 Study Area.
ADEQ commits to provide all appropriate future emissions inventories to quantify emissions
allowable for any future sources of PM10 emissions in the Salt River Study Area, and in Maricopa
County Nonattainment Area.
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(5)
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(5), “Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources,” requires that
the state implementation plan shall require permits for the construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources throughout the nonattainment area.
All new sources and modifications to existing sources in Arizona are subject to state requirements
for preconstruction review and permitting pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.), Title 18,
Chapter 2, Articles 1 through 5. All new and major sources and modifications to existing major
sources in Arizona are subject to the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of these rules or
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for maintenance areas. The state NSR program was
conditionally approved by EPA in1992, and is pending final approval. ADEQ currently has full
approval of its Title V permit program.
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(6)
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(6), “Other Measures,” requires that plans include enforceable emissions
limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedule and
timetables for compliance, as necessary, consistent with the commitments for the adoption of
BACM/MSM control measures.
Arizona commits to a program of enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures,
means, techniques, schedules, and timetables for compliance, as necessary.
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(7)
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(7), “Compliance with Section 110(a)(2),” requires that plan provisions shall
meet the applicable provisions of CAA § 110(a)(2). Arizona commits to demonstrating compliance
with CAA § 110(a)(2), “State Implementation Plans.”
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(8)

12

Clean Air Act § 172(c)(8), “Equivalent Techniques,” requires that a plan use equivalent techniques,
such as equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures allowed by the
Administrator, upon application by a state. No equivalent techniques were used in the development
of this SIP.
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(9)
Clean Air Act § 172(c)(9), “Contingency Measures,” requires that the plan provide for the
implementation of specific measures to take effect without further action by the state or the
Administrator in the event the area fails to make reasonable further progress or attain the primary
national ambient air quality standards.
Chapter 6 of this SIP contains a review of the committed contingency measures that Arizona
adopted in the Revised MAG 1999 Serious area Particulate Plan for PM10 for the Maricopa County
Nonattainment Area (1999/2000 MAG SIP or MAG SIP) (February 2000), and supports the
1999/2000 MAG SIP’s contingency measure analysis that demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour
and annual PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 2006. ADEQ commits to the adoption and
implementation of specific contingency measures to take effect in the event the area fails to make
reasonable further progress or attain the primary NAAQS by December 31, 2006.
Clean Air Act § 176(c)(1)(A)
Clean Air Act § 176(c)(1)(A), “Limitations on Certain Federal Assistance,” provides that no agency
of the federal government shall provide assistance for, license, permit, or approve, any activity that
does not conform to an implementation plan after its approval or promulgation under CAA § 110.
Conformity with the purpose of a state implementation plan requires uniformity with the plan’s
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS, and
achieving expeditious attainment of the NAAQS.
Criteria for making determinations and provisions for general conformity as outlined in 40 CFR
93.153 can be located in A.A.C. R18-2-1438. There are no federal plans or actions adversely
affecting PM10 concentrations currently in the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area, nor are
any foreseen through year 2015.
Clean Air Act §§ 191 and 192
This SIP will be submitted in compliance with the deadlines specified in §§ 191 and 192.
Clean Air Act §§ 188(e), and 188(f)
Clean Air Act §188(e) provides that upon application by any state, the EPA Administrator may
extend the attainment date for a serious PM10 area beyond the date specified under CAA §188(c), if
attainment by the deadline specified in § 188(c) would be impracticable, the state has complied with
all requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in the implementation plan, and the state
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for that area includes the most
stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state, or are achieved in
practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area.
On July 25, 2002, EPA granted Arizona’s request to extend the CAA PM10 serious area attainment
deadline from December 31, 2001, to December 31, 2006 (67 FR 48718).

13

Clean Air Act §188(f) provides that the EPA Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, waive any
requirement applicable to any serious PM10 area, where the Administrator determines that
anthropogenic sources of PM10 do not contribute significantly to the violation of the PM10 standard in
the area. The Administrator may also waive a specific date for attainment of the standard where the
Administrator determines that nonanthropogenic sources of PM10 contribute significantly to the
violation of the PM10 standard in the area.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this SIP, and the TSD emissions inventory and modeling demonstrate that
for a large part of the Salt River PM10 Study Area, the predominant sources of PM10 are
anthropogenic, even on high-wind days. Due to the absence of nonanathropogenic source
contributions in the Salt River Study Area, Arizona does not currently believe that basis for a CAA
§188(f) waiver request exists.
Clean Air Act §§ 189(b)(1)(A) and 189(b)(1)(B)
Clean Air Act §189(b)(1)(A) and (B) set forth state implementation plan provisions for serious PM10
nonattainment areas, requiring that the plan provides for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, or that an extension is granted (see CAA §188(e), above).
Clean Air Act §189(b)(1)(B) requires that plan provisions for serious PM10 nonattainment areas will
assure that the Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for the control of PM10 be implemented no
later than four years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a serious PM10 area.
Arizona demonstrates, in SIP Chapter 4, and in the TSD, that Arizona has complied with the CAA
requirement to implement BACM in the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area, and submits a
BACM/MSM analysis that identifies candidate measures for potential implementation. Arizona
commits to implementing BACM/MSM measures that are feasible and cost-effective for
implementation in the Nonattainment Area and will provide sufficient emissions reductions to
promote PM10 attainment as soon as practicable, but not later than December 31, 2006.

14

Figure 1.2.3-A – The Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area

15

Figure 1.2.3-B – The Salt River PM10 Study Area

16

This page left intentionally blank

CHAPTER 2: AIR QUALITY MONITORING FOR PARTICULATE
MATTER
2.1

INTRODUCTION

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the 1990 CAA requires ambient air quality monitoring for the purposes of
state implementation plan development. These requirements also address criteria for reporting air
quality monitoring data to EPA. The purpose of this chapter is to present a general description of
the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area monitoring network, and of the monitoring network
in the Salt River Study Area. This chapter details the historical PM10 air quality data for the Salt
River Study Area for years 1994 through 2002. Although EPA had approved the attainment and
RFP demonstrations for the Salt River, Maryvale, Gilbert, and West Chandler air quality monitoring
sites in ADEQ's microscale plan, Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Maricopa
County PM10 Nonattainment Area, submitted May 9, 1997 (62 FR 41856, August 4, 1997), the Salt
River monitoring site continued to measure violations of the 24-hour PM10 standard, after the May
1998 attainment deadline. As a result of the continued violations, EPA issued a SIP call, requiring
Arizona to submit a SIP revision to plan for attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in Maricopa
County, and Salt River Study Areas (67 FR 44369, July 2, 2002).
2.1.1

PM10 AIR QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK

The monitoring stations in the Maricopa County portion of the PM10 Nonattainment Area were
operated by: the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, and the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality. In the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area, as at other
Arizona monitoring sites, suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), is usually sampled for 24
hours, from midnight to midnight, most often every-sixth-day. Ambient air is drawn through an inlet
of a specified design, at a known flow rate, using a calibrated timer, onto a filter which collects all
PM less than a diameter specified by the inlet design. PM10, and PM2.5 samples are processed in
the same manner: those filters are weighed before and after the sample period to determine the
difference in mass, and then integrated with flow rate and timer data to arrive at a mass per unit
volume concentration. These data are then summarized into the appropriate quarterly or annual
averages.
Common particulates instruments include the high-volume sampler (Hi-vol) and the dichotomous
sampler (dichot). The dichotomous sampler measures both fine and coarse particulates.
Particulates are also monitored continuously with a tapered element oscillating microbalance
(TEOM) instrument.
2.1.2

DESCRIPTION OF SALT RIVER STUDY AREA MONITORS

Four PM10 air quality monitoring sites have operated in the Salt River Study Area since 1994. (See
Appendix A for historical PM10 monitoring data.)
The Salt River Site
ADEQ and MCESD began operating the Salt River monitoring site on January 14, 1994. The Salt
River monitoring site, a Special Purpose Monitor (SPM), was located at 3045 South 22nd Avenue,
in a City of Phoenix vehicle maintenance yard, in an industrial area. The site had one, high-volume
PM10 sampler that ran every sixth-day. The objectives of measurement at the site were to measure
maximum concentrations, and determine the impact of significant sources or source categories.

17

The site was relocated within the property in January 2002, and discontinued altogether at the end
of 2002, due to substantial construction on and near the property. As a result of efforts by MCESD,
EPA, and ADEQ to find a suitable replacement site with comparable PM10 concentrations and
industrial emissions, a site was identified and established as the “West 43rd Avenue” site.
The West 43rd Avenue Site
MCESD began monitoring near West 43rd Avenue on April 1, 2002. The site is located at 3940 West
Broadway Road (West 43rd Avenue and Broadway Road) in Phoenix, in a Maricopa County
Department of Transportation storage lot. The monitoring objective of the site is to measure the
maximum concentration of PM10 and to determine the impact on ambient pollution levels of
significant sources or source categories. The site has one, six-day SS high-volume particulate
monitor. The site is surrounded by a combination of heavy industry, residential areas, and the river
bottom. The industrial sources around the site include sand and gravel operations, auto and metal
recycling, landfills, paved and unpaved haul roads, and cement casting.
2.1.3

THE DURANGO COMPLEX SITE

The Durango Complex site, which began operating in the Salt River Study Area in 1999, is located
at 2702 AC Esterbrook Boulevard, in the Maricopa County Flood Control District storage yard, near
agriculture, the highway department, and the river bottom. MCESD operates the State and Local Air
Monitoring Station (SLAMS) site, which measures particulates, wind speed, and wind direction. The
objective of use of the Durango site is measurement of maximum concentrations.
The South Phoenix Site
MCESD has operated the National Air Monitoring Station (NAMS) and SLAMS at the South Phoenix
site since at least 1994. The site is located at 33 West Tamarisk, at Central and Broadway Roads,
in a Phoenix residential area. The site borders commercial land use comprised of retail stores, food
establishments, and office parks. The station represents two high population areas, north and west
of the site. The criteria pollutants monitored at this station are carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM10.
2.1.4

MARICOPA COUNTY HISTORICAL PM10 AIR QUALITY DATA (1994 TO 2002)

The PM10 concentrations presented in Appendix A show the historical data for all Maricopa County
sites for the 24-hour PM10 standard, from 1994 through 2002. The numbers represented in bold
type indicate exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

18

CHAPTER 3: PM10 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES
3.1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an overview of the methodology, assumptions and data for the Salt River
Study Area PM10 emissions inventory, specific data regarding which are found in the accompanying
Salt River PM10 State Implementation Plan Technical Support Document (TSD). The boundaries of
the modeling domain are Van Buren Street on the north, Baseline Road on the south, 59th Avenue
on the west and 10th Street on the east, - approximately 32 square miles. See TSD Appendix A for a
satellite image of the study area with the locations of the four air quality monitors and depiction of
the modeling grid (Map A-1). The base year emissions inventory captures 2002 PM10 emissions,
and the future year emissions inventory projects 2006 emissions.
Chapter 4 of the TSD also provides calculations reflecting gridded hourly emissions for four design
days: January 8, 2002; April 15, 2002; April 26, 2002; and December 16, 2002. The design days
were selected based on two separate meteorological constructs, each of which reflects different
arrays of emissions sources and different levels of source significance: two days represent high
PM10 concentrations experienced during days affected by low wind conditions and a thermal
inversion (January 8, and December 16, 2002); two days represent high PM10 concentrations
experienced during days affected by periodic wind speeds over 15 miles per hour (April 15, and
April 16, 2002). Following are the four major PM10 source categories developed for the purposes of
this SIP:
•

Point Sources – The point source category includes major stationary sources, defined as all
facilities emitting greater than five tons per year (TPY) PM10. Point source emissions include
emissions from combustion, process operations, material transfers, storage pile wind erosion,
and paved and unpaved roads within facility grounds.

•

Area Sources – The area source category includes smaller anthropogenic stationary sources
that are not included in the point source inventory, for example: small industrial facilities;
agricultural tillage and harvesting; construction activity; and wind erosion of areas with disturbed
topsoil, and considers PM10 emissions from non-point, non-anthropogenic sources.

•

On-Road Mobile Sources – The on-road mobile source category includes vehicles certified for
highway use: cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Re-entrained road dust from paved and dust from
unpaved roads are also considered.

•

Off-Road Mobile Sources – The off-road mobile source category includes a wide variety of
gasoline and diesel equipment that either move under their own power or can be moved from
site to site, consisting of equipment not licensed or certified as highway vehicles and which will
move or be moved at least once during a 12-month period. Off-road mobile sources include
equipment used in agriculture; construction; mining; commercial and industrial operations; lawn
and garden maintenance; aircraft; airport ground support; locomotives; railroad; recreational
equipment; and water craft.

3.1.1

SALT RIVER STUDY BASE YEAR PM10 EMISSIONS INVENTORY (2002)

Technical Support Document Chapter 4, section 4.2, “Overview of Methodology,” presents an
overview of the development of the base year emissions inventory for the Salt River SIP. The base
year emissions inventory was developed as the result of an extensive field study, conducted

19

between June 1, and December 31, 2002. The study focused on identifying the locations of
activities in the Salt River Study Area that generate fugitive dust. Satellite image analysis and
observation of the Salt River Study Area resulted in the identification of the following general
categories of PM10 emissions sources, which were subsequently input into ADEQ’s GRIDTEST
emissions model for the development of source hourly emissions, by grid:
Agricultural land;
Alluvial channels;
Construction areas;
Miscellaneous disturbed, or open, areas;
Paved primary roads
Paved parking lots;
Paved secondary roads;
Unpaved roads;
Unpaved road shoulders;
Unpaved parking lots;
Surface mining;
Vacant lots.
TSD Chapter 4, section 4.2.1, “Satellite Image Analysis,” provides a summary of the process by
which the gridded hourly emissions data were developed. A satellite image of the Salt River Study
Area with an overlay of the above land uses is found in Appendix A of the TSD (Map A-2). ADEQ’s
emissions inventory for the Salt River Study Area was developed from this data.
Between June 1 and December 31, 2002, ADEQ and Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department staff collected additional observational data on fugitive dust in the Salt River Study
Area. Chapter 4, section 4.2.2, “Fugitive Dust Study,” of the TSD describes the process by which
ADEQ conducted observations of the locations and activities, within the Salt River Study Area,
associated with noted occurrences of fugitive dust. Although these observations did not constitute a
comprehensive survey of land use in the Study Area, they provided a method of documenting area
incidents of fugitive dust. These observations were superimposed on a satellite map of the Salt
River Study Area, reviewed by teams of ADEQ observers, and grouped them into the following 12
emissions categories, for further analysis:
Agriculture, including all general agricultural activities;
Earthmoving, including general activities associated with construction;
Trackout, including soil or bulk material on a paved street surface;
Material handling, including vehicle traffic on dirt or gravel roads at construction, industrial, or
commercial sites;
Diesel exhaust, including exhaust from internal combustion engines that use diesel as fuel;
Wind event, including airborne dust due to wind movement;
Unpaved hauling, including vehicle traffic on dirt or gravel roads at construction at industrial or
commercial sites;
Process equipment, including mechanical equipment used to produce a product or perform a
specific function that produces airborne dust;
Unpaved parking, including vehicle traffic on unpaved parking areas;
Burning, including open burning;
Street work, including activities associated with street maintenance; and
Other, which was a general category used to describe airborne dust not attributable to a specific
fugitive dust source or sources.

20

Appendix A of the TSD (Map A-3) depicts the locations and types of fugitive dust-producing
activities that were observed during the Salt River study. Figure 4-1 of the TSD contains a pie graph
showing the relative contributions of the types of fugitive dust sources observed during the Fugitive
Dust Study. Figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 show: contributions attributed to vehicle material transport at
construction and industrial sites; contributions attributed to trackout at construction, industrial, and
private sources; and contributions attributed to unpaved hauling observations at industrial and
construction sources, respectively. Documentation appears on Page 6-16 and in Appendix P
entitled “Mapping Weighted Trackout Emissions Into Predicted Concentrations” of the October 2004
TSD.
Chapter 4, section 4.3 of the TSD, “Development of 24-Hour Emissions Inventory,” describes the
development of ADEQ’s 24-hour emissions inventory, and TSD Chapter 4, section 4.4, “Summary
of 2002 PM10 Emissions Inventory,” ranks the 2002 inventory sources by relative significance in the
Salt River Study Area for the four design days. Figures 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 depict the Salt River
Study Area PM10 source categories by percentage contribution. Table 4-5 of the Technical Support
Document (below, Table 3.2), identifies the 2002 Salt River PM10 emissions inventory source
categories and 2002 estimated PM10 emissions for each. Documentation of windblown emissions
from unpaved shoulders appears on page 4-17 of the October 2004 TSD. Documentation of
trackout from unpaved road shoulders is included on Pages 6-16 through 6-18 of the October 2004
TSD. Miles of paved shoulders are reported in the 2004 Milestone Reports in SIP Appendix E.
TABLE 3.2 – Salt River PM10 Emissions Inventory – Year 2002 (Metric Tons per Day)

1.

1/8/02
Low Wind

4/15/02
High Wind

Tuesday
0.11

Monday
114.34

4/26/02
High
Wind
Friday
114.34

Wind Erosion – Agricultural

46.76

46.76

Wind Erosion – Construction

18.76

18.76

Wind Erosion - Cleared Areas

39.01

39.01

AREA SOURCES
Ag Tilling (Land Preparation)

12/16/02
Low
Wind
Monday

0.11

•

Vacant lots

21.27

21.27

•

Miscellaneous disturbed areas

17.74

17.74

9.81

9.81

48.61

56.05

4.94

12.38

42.92

42.92

0.27
0.45
0.03
0.84

0.27
0.45
0.03
0.84

0.27
0.45
0.03
0.84

0.84
4.33

0.84
4.33

0.84
4.33

Wind Erosion - Alluvial Channels
2. INDUSTRIAL SOURCES

0.75

MCESD Permitted Sources – Windblown
Stockpiles
MCESD Permitted Sources – Windblown
Cleared Areas
MCESD Permitted Sources - Stacks
MCESD Permitted Sources – Process
MCESD Permitted Sources – Small
3. NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES
Agricultural Equipment Exhaust
Construction Activity
4. ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES

21

0.27
0.45
0.03
0.85
0.005
0.84
4.33

0.75

TABLE 3.2 – Salt River PM10 Emissions Inventory – Year 2002 (Metric Tons per Day)

Paved Road
Freeway – (subtotal)
Brakes, Tires, Exhaust, Reentrainment
Primary Roads
• Reentrained road dust
• Exhaust
• Brakes
• Tires
Primary Roads Emissions Subtotal
Secondary roads
• Reentrained road dust
• Exhaust
• Brakes
• Tires
Secondary Roads Emissions Subtotal
Paved Road Total Emissions
5. Trackout
6. Unpaved Shoulders & Parking Lots
Unpaved Road Shoulders
Unpaved Parking Lots - Reentrained dust
PM10 EMISSIONS - GRAND TOTAL

3.2

1/8/02
Low Wind

4/15/02
High Wind
Monday

4/26/02
High
Wind
Friday

12/16/02
Low
Wind
Monday

Tuesday
0.06

0.06

0.06

0.06

2.95
0.09
0.02
0.01

2.95
0.09
0.02
0.01

2.95
0.09
0.02
0.01

2.95
0.09
0.02
0.01

3.07

3.07

3.07

0.59
0.02
0.004
0.003

0.59
0.02
0.004
0.003

0.59
0.02
0.004
0.003

0.59
0.02
0.004
0.003

0.62
3.69
0.66
0.133
0.13
0.003
6.25

0.62
3.69
0.66
0.133
0.13
0.003
168.43

0.62
3.69
0.66
0.133
0.13
0.003
175.87

0.62
3.69
0.66
0.133
0.13
0.003
6.14

SALT RIVER STUDY FUTURE YEAR PM10 EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS (2006)

The following emissions source categories in the Salt River PM10 Study Area are projected to show
a change in emissions between Year 2002 and Year 2006:
Agricultural Tillage. The amount of agricultural land, and emissions from agricultural tillage, are
projected to decrease 80% due to conversion of agricultural land to residential and commercial
uses. Documentation appears in Appendix Q entitled “Projected Construction Activity” and on
pages F-11 and F-13 of Appendix F entitled “Agricultural Tillage and Harvest” of the October
2004 TSD.
Construction Activity. MCESD estimated the overall control effectiveness for the control
measures for construction activity for year 2002 to be 56 percent based on a 90-percent control
efficiency, an 80-percent compliance rate, and an adjustment to reflect future test method
improvements. Emissions from construction activity are projected to decrease in coming years,
to increase the rule effectiveness for this category from 56 percent to 72 percent.
Roads (Freeway, Primary, and Secondary). Traffic is projected to increase by six percent
between 2002 and 2006, based on the growth in traffic volumes in the Salt River Study Area,
which occurred between 1998 and 2002. Since there are no plans for road-building projects in
the Salt River PM10 Study Area, this estimate of VMT growth, 1.5 percent per year, based on a
22

MAG analysis of City of Phoenix traffic counts, is consistent with the central location and older
neighborhoods characteristic of the study area.
Unpaved Parking Lots. Emissions from unpaved parking lots greater than 0.10 acres are
projected to decrease due to MCESD strengthening Rule 310,0 which increases the rule
effectiveness for this category from 55% to 71%.
Unpaved Road Shoulders. Unpaved road shoulders in the study area have decreased by 10
percent since 2002, due to completion of road shoulder stabilization projects. Thus, the amount
of emissions from road shoulders has also decreased by 10 percent.
Wind Erosion – Agricultural. The amount of agricultural land, and emissions from wind erosion
of agricultural land, are projected to decrease 80% due to conversion of agricultural land to
residential and commercial uses (Maricopa County Farm Bureau, 2003 and ADEQ analysis).
Wind Erosion – Construction. Emissions from wind erosion of disturbed areas due to
construction are projected to attain 70 percent by 2006.
Wind Erosion – Vacant Lots and Miscellaneous Disturbed Areas. The amount of vacant lots are
projected to decrease by 39% and miscellaneous disturbed areas are projected to decrease
13.6% due to conversion of vacant lots and miscellaneous disturbed areas to residential and
commercial uses. ADEQ estimated the decrease in vacant lots and miscellaneous disturbed
areas would parallel the conversion of agricultural land to residential and commercial uses
(URS and ERG, 2001). In addition, MCESD strengthened Rule 310 to increase the rule
effectiveness for this category from 55% to 71%.
Table 3.3(below) and Table 4-7 of the TSD reflect the 2006 base case projected emissions for each
of the design days:
TABLE 3.3 – Salt River PM10 Emission Inventory – Base Case 2006 (Metric Tons/Day)

1. AREA SOURCES
Ag Tilling (Land Preparation)
Wind Erosion – Agricultural
Wind Erosion – Construction
Wind Erosion – Cleared Areas
Vacant lots
Miscellaneous disturbed areas
Wind Erosion – Alluvial Channels
2. INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
MCESD Permitted Sources –
Windblown Stockpiles
MCESD Permitted Sources –
Windblown Cleared Areas
MCESD Permitted Sources Stacks

1/8/06*
Low Wind
Tuesday*
0.02
0.02

0.75

0.27

23

4/15/06*
High Wind
Monday*
50.34

4/26/06*
High Wind
Friday*
50.34

9.35
15.20
21.57
11.76
9.81
4.22
48.61
4.94

9.35
15.20
21.57
11.76
9.81
4.22
56.05
12.38

42.92

42.92

0.27

0.27

12/16/06*
Low Wind
Monday*

0.75

0.27

TABLE 3.3 – Salt River PM10 Emission Inventory – Base Case 2006 (Metric Tons/Day)
1/8/06*
Low Wind
Tuesday*
0.45

4/15/06*
High Wind
Monday*
0.45

4/26/06*
High Wind
Friday*
0.45

12/16/06*
Low Wind
Monday*
0.45

MCESD Permitted Sources –
Process
MCESD Permitted Sources –
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Small
3. NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
Agricultural Equipment Exhaust
0.004
Construction Activity
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
4. ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES
4.19
4.19
4.19
4.19
Paved Road
Freeway – Brakes, Tires, Exhaust,
Reentrainment
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Primary Roads
Reentrained road dust
3.19
3.19
3.19
3.19
Exhaust
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Brakes
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Tires
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
3.32
3.32
3.32
3.32
Primary roads subtotal
Secondary roads
Reentrained road dust
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
Exhaust
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Brakes
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
Tires
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
Secondary Roads Subtotal
Paved Road Total Emissions
4.06
4.06
4.06
4.06
5. Trackout
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
6. Unpaved Shoulders & Parking
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.133
Lots
Unpaved Road Shoulders
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Unpaved Parking Lots - Reentrained
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
dust
PM10 EMISSIONS - GRAND TOTAL
6.16
104.47
111.91
6.14
* Theoretical design days in year 2006 that have identical meteorological conditions, time of year, and day
of week to the four design days in year 2002 emissions inventory and modeling.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, source categories and their relative significance in the
emissions inventory of the Salt River Study Area varied with changes in meteorology: design days
with low wind speeds featured a different combination of emission sources than were reflected for
the design days with high wind speeds. The design days with high wind speeds had additional
emission sources related to wind erosion of disturbed soil, especially with respect to the wind
erosion of agricultural and alluvial channel areas. Section 4.5, Table 4-7 shows 2006 uncontrolled
emission estimates and Section 6.4.2, Table 6-12 shows 2006 controlled emissions estimates. The
City of Phoenix Progress Report on implemented alluvial channel control measures is in SIP
Appendix E.
The most significant source categories projected for 2006 for low and high wind days are given in
Table 3.4, below.

24

TABLE 3.4 – Base Case 2006 Salt River PM Emissions Inventory - Significant Sources for Low
Wind and High Wind Days
LOW WIND DAYS
HIGH WIND DAYS
Primary Paved Roads
60.57%
Wind Erosion – Industrial
39.79%
Industrial Sources
13.62%
Wind Erosion – Cleared Areas
29.57%
Secondary Paved Roads
12.22%
Wind Erosion – Construction
20.83%
Trackout
10.73%
Wind Erosion – Agricultural
16.02%
Construction Activity
9.85%
Wind Erosion – Stockpiles
7.91%
Unpaved Road Shoulders
2.09%
On-Road Mobile
4.43%
Wind Erosion – Alluvial Channels
26.06%

See Appendix N “Wind Roses” of October 2004 TSD.

25

This page left intentionally blank

CHAPTER 4: OVERVIEW OF PM10 CONTROL MEASURES
4.1

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1.2.2 of this SIP ("Regulatory History of the Metropolitan Maricopa PM10 Nonattainment
Area") notes that on July 25, 2002, EPA approved the Maricopa Serious PM10 Nonattainment Area,
and granted Arizona's request, in accordance with CAA § 188(e), to extend the CAA deadline for
attainment of the annual and 24-hour PM10 standards from December 31, 2001, to December 31,
2006 (67 FR 48718).
Because the attainment deadline for this plan revision is also December 31, 2006, and the
measures must be applied to all similar sources throughout the Phoenix Nonattainment Area (see
67 FR 44369, July 2, 2002), the control strategies must meet the "Most Stringent Measures" test, as
well as the “Best Available Control Measures/Technology” test. In its July 25, 2002, approval of the
Maricopa County Plan, EPA defined “most stringent measures” (MSMs) as the most stringent
measures included in any state implementation plan, or being implemented in any state, that are
economically and technologically feasible for the nonattainment area in question. “Best Available
Control Measures” (BACM) must be applied in serious nonattainment areas, also taking into
account the economic and technological feasibility of each measure.
This chapter details the proposed BACM and MSM that were evaluated for each significant source
category.
4.2

SOURCE CATEGORIES

The Salt River Study Area 2002 base year emissions inventory is described in Chapter 3.0 and the
TSD’s Chapter 4.0. The 2002 emissions source category contributions to ambient PM10 are
depicted in Table 4.2.1. The average concentrations are derived from the modeled concentrations
outlined in the TSD, Chapter 6.
Assumptions used to calculate trackout emissions appear in Appendix K “Methodology for
Weighting Trackout Emissions” and Appendix P “Mapping Weighted Trackout Emissions into
Predicted Concentrations” of the October 2004 TSD. Calculation methodology for street sweeping
emissions reductions appears in Appendix L “Street Sweeping Reductions” of the October 2004
TSD.
Table 4.2.1 2002 Salt River Study Area Source Category Contributions to Ambient PM10
Concentrations
Average Low Wind
Average High Wind
Highest
Day Contribution
Day Contribution
Contribution(µg/m3)
Source Category
Percentage
Percentage
Low Wind High Wind
Contribution
Contribution
Day
Day
Industrial Sources
25.9%
8.3%
60.2
31.8
Point Emissions
2.7%
1.1%
5.3
3.0
Area Emissions
23.2%
7.2%
54.9
28.8
Construction
5.8%
0.9%
6.0
4.4
Area Sources
4.2%
0.7%
8.0
3.1
Unpaved Parking Lots
1.7%
0.2%
0.8
1.4
Unpaved Shoulders
2.5%
0.4%
7.2
1.7

26

Table 4.2.1 2002 Salt River Study Area Source Category Contributions to Ambient PM10
Concentrations
Average Low Wind
Average High Wind
Highest
Day Contribution
Day Contribution
Contribution(µg/m3)
Source Category
Percentage
Percentage
Low Wind High Wind
Contribution
Contribution
Day
Day
Roads & Trackout
63.7%
13.5%
73.6
42.7
Freeway
0.4%
0.2%
0.7
0.4
Primary Roads
43.6%
9.3%
44.8
33.3
Secondary Roads
7.5%
1.5%
6.9
1.5
Trackout
12.1%
2.5%
21.2
7.5
Agricultural Tillage
0.4%
NA
0.2
NA
Windblown Dust
NA
76.7%
NA
290.1
Agricultural Fields
NA
21.3%
NA
84.9
Alluvial Channels
NA
14.9%
NA
79.5
Construction
NA
3.5%
NA
14.0
Industrial
NA
7.3%
NA
33.6
Disturbed Areas
NA
5.2%
NA
25.9
Stockpiles
NA
3.6%
NA
12.6
Vacant Lots
NA
20.9%
NA
39.6

Note: Bold concentrations exceed the 5 µg/m3 threshold for significant sources.

In Table 4.2.2, the modeled contributions for each of the source categories are given for the 2006
attainment case. These percentages are similar to the 2002 case, but with several significant
differences. For example, the windblown contribution decreases from 77% to 59% from 2002 to
2006.
Table 4.2.2 Salt River Study Area Source Category Contributions to Ambient PM10
Concentrations for the 2006 Attainment Case
Source Category
Average Low Wind Day
Average High Wind Day
Contribution
Contribution
Percentage Contribution
Percentage Contribution
Industrial Sources
29.7%
12.1%
Point Source Emissions
4.4%
3.1%
Area Emissions
25.2%
8.9%
Construction
5.2%
1.8%
Area Sources
7.1%
2.1%
Unpaved Parking Lots
0.5%
0.6%
Unpaved Shoulders
6.6%
1.5%
Roads & Trackout
58.0%
24.7%
Freeway
0.9%
0.4%
Primary Roads
48.3%
21.6%
Secondary Roads
6.8%
1.9%
Trackout
2.0%
0.7%
Agricultural Tillage
0.1%
NA
Windblown Dust
NA
59.4%
Agricultural Fields
NA
8.9%
Alluvial Channels
NA
15.4%
Construction
NA
4.2%
Industrial
NA
6.7%
Disturbed Areas
NA
10.1%
Stockpiles
NA
5.9%
Vacant Lots
NA
8.4%

27

4.3

BACM AND MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE
CATEGORIES

4.3.1

BACM AND MSM ANALYSIS

EPA provided guidance regarding the requirements of CAA § 188(e) in its July 25, 2002, approval
of the Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10 for the Maricopa County
Nonattainment Area (67 FR 48718), and in its more recent proposed approval of the Clark County
PM10 Implementation Plan (68 FR 2954, January 22, 2003). For the 24-hour standard, BACM must
be applied to source categories contributing at least 5 µg/m3, the same threshold used for the New
Source Review program. In its approval of the Phoenix plan, EPA commented that states should
focus on the controls most likely to result in real air quality benefits and not use limited resources on
controls with trivial impacts (see page 67 FR 48721). The threshold for which sources MSM must be
applied is the same (see page 67 FR 48722).
BACM and MSM are required for all sources that exceed the 5 µg/m3 threshold level, however, the
economic and technical feasibility of potential controls also must be considered. Because of varying
factors, such as the mix of sources, including nonanthropogenic sources, population exposure, and
availability of controls, the set of control measures must be individualized for the specific conditions
in each nonattainment area.
Identifying potential BACM and MSM controls involves researching controls in other areas. The
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department (MCESD) began with the analyses performed for the MAG and Clark County
Plans, then researched and added additional PM10 controls proposed in other SIPs or being
implemented by other jurisdictions. These include: Coachella Valley, California; South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California; Washoe County, Nevada; Mohave Desert Air
Quality Management District (DAQAD), California; San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Unified Air Pollution
Control District (APCD); California; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ); Florida
Department of Environmental Protection; Bay Area Quality Management District, California; and
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
4.3.2

SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES

The source categories exceeding the significance threshold of 5 µg/m3 are:
Area Sources
Windblown emissions from construction, agriculture, open areas and vacant lots, and the Salt River
alluvial channel;
Permitted Industrial Sources
Emissions from industrial point sources, industrial area sources, windblown cleared areas, and
stockpiles; and
On-Road Mobile Sources
Emissions from paved roads including primary and secondary roads, trackout, and unpaved
shoulders.

28

A detailed discussion of construction activity, although significant, has been left out of the following
discussion. Its omission stems from EPA’s finding that County Rule 310 already qualifies as
BACM/MSM.
4.3.3

AREA SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES

Windblown Construction
Background
Emissions in this category originate from wind erosion of topsoil that has been disturbed by
earthmoving activities related to construction.
Potential Control Measures
The potential control measure is better enforcement of MCESD Rule 310 pertaining to the control of
fugitive dust. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) conditionally approved
Rule 310 as BACM contingent upon the completion of 3 commitments by MCESD: 1) research and
develop standards and test methods for earthmoving sources that are enforceable and meet BACM
requirements on stringency and source coverage; 2) incorporate additional requirements for dust
suppression practices/equipment for construction activities into dust control plans and/or Rule 310;
and 3) revise sample daily recordkeeping logs for new and renewed Rule 310 permits to be
consistent with rule revisions and to provide sufficient detail documenting the implementation of
dust control measures required by Rule 310 and the dust control plan.
MCESD met the first commitment by amending Appendix C of the MCESD Air Pollution Control
Regulations which outlines test methods used for fugitive dust observations. MCESD established
test methods for non-continuous and continuous plumes from dust generating operations. To meet
the second commitment, MCESD revised dust control permit applications to more clearly request
the information that is required in order to evaluate chosen control measures. MCESD met the final
commitment by revising sample record keeping logs and making them widely available to regulated
sources and the public. MCESD also clarified the recordkeeping requirements listed in Rule 310,
Section 500, to reflect the changes to the sample forms. On April 7, 2004, the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors adopted the required enhancements to Rule 310.
The methods available under enhanced Rule 310 to control windblown dust emissions from
disturbed areas include opacity restrictions, the use of water or dust suppressants, and the
installation of wind barriers. Temporary measures to be implemented during weekends, after work
hours, on holidays or high wind events include applying water, dust suppressants, or gravel, and
restricting vehicular access.
Rule Compliance/Test Methods/Record Keeping
Rule Compliance, Test Methods, and Record Keeping can be found in MCESD Rule 310. A critical
aspect of strengthening enforcement of the Rule 310 control measures listed above is the hiring of
additional inspectors for the program (this includes resources for the enforcement of Rules 310.01
for open areas and vacant lots and Rule 316 pertaining to industrial sources). In 1998, MCESD had
four inspectors, one supervisor, and one enforcement officer on staff to enforce 1,700 earthmoving
permits. In 2000, MCESD increased the number of personnel working on Rule 310 (“Fugitive Dust”)
compliance to eight inspectors, one supervisor, one coordinator, two enforcement officers, one
aide, and one County attorney. In 2000, MCESD was responsible for 2,500 earthmoving permits.

29

Currently, MCESD is responsible for 4,150 earthmoving permits. Appendix B contains a copy of
MCESD Rule 310, 310.01, 316, and 325 as adopted by the Maricopa Board of Supervisors.
The Maricopa County Air Quality (MCAQ) Department (formerly MCESD) has completed the work
load analyses, entitled “Workload Analyses for Earth Moving and Vacant Lots Program” which is
included in Appendix F. The first analysis will focus on three to five inspections per year at
earthmoving sites ten acres or larger in size and one inspection per year at smaller sites for
compliance with Maricopa County Rule 310. The second analysis will focus on inspections of 5,300
vacant lots per year, which constitutes 20 percent of the 26,446 vacant lots identified as of October
2003, for compliance with Maricopa County Rule 310.01 (“Fugitive Dust from Open Area, Vacant
Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways”). Included in Appendix F is a copy of the
Maricopa County’s Air Quality’s Inspection Prioritization Plan for Vacant Lots.
The third analysis will focus on increasing inspection for compliance with Maricopa County Rule 316
(“Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Processing”) to four times per year. The workload analysis will
also address proposed enforcement for Maricopa County’s proposed Rule 325, which will provide
PM10 controls for structural clay and brick manufacturers.
These analyses are expected to result in identification of the number of additional personnel and
salaries/fringe benefits totals necessary for an effective enforcement effort to attain the PM10
standard. Interim funding to enable accelerated hiring of some additional personnel was also
explored and identified. A resolution committing Maricopa County to a funding mechanism and
specified number of enforcement positions to be added and filled in 2004-2005 was presented to
the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for adoption and is included in Appendix D. Following
adoption of the resolution, Maricopa County will hire additional personnel in the October 2004
through September 2005 timeframe. In the interim, Maricopa County will revise fees through
revisions to Maricopa County Rule 280 to fund the additional positions. MCESD held an initial public
workshop on fees and will bring this rule to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for adoption
in the first half of 2005.
Windblown Cleared Areas (Open Areas, Vacant Lots, and the Alluvial Channel)
Background
Windblown dust from open areas and vacant lots can be a major source of PM10 emissions. As high
winds pass over open areas and vacant lots, particulate emissions are generated by a process
called the saltation effect, where large particles begin to roll and then bounce, knocking smaller
particles into the wind stream. Windblown dust emissions from open areas and vacant lots can be
produced for many hours at a time when the wind speed exceeds the wind erosion threshold speed
of 15 mph.
A special case of windblown emissions from open areas and vacant lots is emissions from
disturbed soils in the Salt River alluvial channel. The alluvial channel is mostly dry and contains
loose soil due to disturbance from wind erosion and vehicular trespass.
Potential Control Measures
The potential control method is better enforcement of MCESD Rule 310.01 pertaining to fugitive
dust control on open areas and vacant lots. Rule 310.01 control measures for reducing windblown
particulate matter emissions from open areas, vacant lots, and the alluvial channel can be grouped
into three categories: soil stabilization, barriers to trespassing, and wind breaks.

30

Soil stabilization methods include establishing a vegetative ground cover on disturbed areas,
restoring disturbed surface areas such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are
similar to adjacent or nearby native conditions, applying a dust suppressant to disturbed surface
areas, and uniformly applying and maintaining surface gravel, river rock, or broken concrete debris
on disturbed surface areas.
Barriers to trespassing prevent vehicles from having access to open areas and vacant lots. These
include concrete and rock barriers, fences, ditches, berms, and posting no trespassing signs.
Barriers and signage are necessary for law enforcement to respond to trespassing complaints.
Wind breaks reduce surface wind speeds to below the reentrainment emission threshold of 15 miles
per hour. These include chain link fences with inserts, walls, and planting of trees and shrubs. Wind
breaks are not currently a control method option in MCESD Rule 310.01 and would require a
revision of Rule 310.01.
Emission Reductions
For the Year 2002, PM10 emissions from open areas and vacant lots in the Salt River PM10 Study
Area were estimated to be 17.7 metric tons/day for open areas and 21.3 metric tons/day for vacant
lots. This daily emission rate is based on PM10 emissions due to wind erosion on high wind days
and a control measure efficiency of 55 percent for MCESD’s Rule 310.01.
For the Year 2006, PM10 emissions from open areas and vacant lots in the Salt River PM10 Study
Area were estimated to be 9.8 metric tons/day for open areas and 11.8 metric tons/day for vacant
lots. The daily emission rates are based on PM10 emissions due to wind erosion on high wind days
and an increased control measure efficiency from 55 percent to 71 percent for MCESD’s Rule
310.01. The projected reduction in PM10 emissions results from not only the better enforcement of
Rule 310.01 but also from the conversion of open areas and vacant lots to residential and
commercial uses. Converted land has lower windblown PM10 emissions due to stabilization of the
soil from landscaping, paving, and the buildings themselves.
Based on the MCESD Rule Effectiveness Study and the Clark County, Nevada PM10 SIP, Table
4.3.3.1 shows emission reduction percentages that could be achieved assuming that MCESD hires
additional inspectors to strengthen the enforcement of MCESD’s Rule 310.01 for open areas and
vacant lots. The Maricopa County Resolution concerning strengthened enforcement and increased
staffing is included at SIP Appendix D, along with the Inspection Strategy. This increased
enforcement is expressed in the table as 80% Rule Effectiveness. The table also presents emission
reductions from several different control measures that involve either stabilizing the surface or
creating barriers to trespassing, or both.
In the heading of the table, the phrase “without any additional controls” means that quantity of
emissions that would occur with the 2002 level of enforcement.
For the Year 2002, PM10 emissions from the alluvial channel were estimated to be 9.8 metric
tons/day due to wind erosion on high wind days. This baseline estimate is based on the assumption
that there was no enforcement of MCESD Rule 310.01 in that portion of the alluvial channel.
For the Year 2006, PM10 emissions from the alluvial channel were estimated to range from 2.8 to
7.5 metric tons/day depending upon the types of control measures that may be implemented.

31

Table 4.3.3.1 Open Areas and Vacant Lots Control Measures (Year 2006 PM10 emissions without
additional controls equals 21.57 metric tons/day)
Open Areas and
Total
Vacant Lots – PM10
Rule
Control
Control measures
Control
Emissions After
Effectiveness Efficiency
Efficiency
Controls
(Metric tons/day)
Establish a vegetative cover
80%
45%
36%
13.80
Restore to nearby native vegetation
80%
45%
36%
13.80
Apply dust suppressant
80%
40%
32%
14.67
Apply gravel
80%
75%
60%
8.63
Create barriers to trespassing
80%
30%
24%
16.39
Establish wind breaks
80%
40%
32%
14.67
Establish a vegetative cover with
80%
90%
72%
6.04
barriers to trespassing
Restore to nearby native vegetation
80%
90%
72%
6.04
with barriers to trespassing
Apply dust suppressant with
80%
80%
64%
7.77
barriers to trespassing

Based on MCESD’s Rule Effectiveness Study and the Clark County, Nevada PM10 SIP, the
emissions reductions percentages shown in Table 4.3.3.2 can be achieved, when MCESD hires
additional inspectors to strengthen enforcement of MCESD’s Rule 310.01 for open areas and
vacant lots. This table also shows emissions reductions from combining control measures with the
Create Barriers to Trespassing control measure.
For the majority of the control measures above for open areas, vacant lots, and the alluvial channel
to remain effective, vehicular trespassing must be minimized through the use of barriers to
trespassing. Otherwise, vehicular traffic will destroy/disturb vegetative cover and the other surface
treatments used to stabilize the soil, including the installation of wind breaks.
Rule Compliance/Test Methods/Record Keeping
Rule Compliance, Test Methods, and Record Keeping can be found in MCESD Rule 310.01. As
described above for windblown construction emissions, a critical aspect of strengthening
enforcement of the Rule 310 control measures is the hiring of additional inspectors for the entire
program.
Technical Feasibility
Following is a discussion of the technical feasibility of various means of stabilizing ground surfaces,
reducing soil erode ability and barring trespassing.
Establishing a Vegetative Ground Cover. Establishing a vegetative ground cover is
technically feasible. The choice of ground cover would be up to the individual property
owner. The availability of water for establishing the ground cover, and possibly maintaining
it, would be possible constraints. For the Salt River alluvial channel, water in the lakes
located in some of the rock product facilities is a potential source of nearby water for
establishing a vegetative cover. Transferring water from the lakes would require coverage
under an AZPDES general permit.

32

Table 4.3.3.2 Alluvial Channel Control Measures (Uncontrolled Emissions – 9.81 Metric Tons/Day On
High Wind Days)
Open Areas and Vacant
Total
Rule
Control
Lots – PM10 Emissions
Control measures
Control
Effectiveness
Efficiency
After Controls
Efficiency
(Metric tons/day)
Establish a vegetative cover
80%
45%
36%
6.28
Restore to nearby native vegetation
80%
45%
36%
6.28
Apply dust suppressant
80%
40%
32%
6.67
Apply gravel
80%
75%
60%
3.92
Apply river rock
80%
70%
56%
4.32
Apply broken concrete debris
80%
70%
56%
4.32
Establish wind breaks
80%
40%
32%
6.67
Create barriers to trespassing
80%
30%
24%
7.46
Establish a vegetative cover with
80%
90%
72%
2.75
barriers to trespassing
Restore to nearby native vegetation
80%
90%
72%
2.75
with barriers to trespassing
Apply dust suppressant with
80%
80%
64%
3.53
barriers to trespassing
Establish wind breaks with barriers
80%
80%
64%
3.53
to trespassing

Restoring to Similar Vegetative and Soil Conditions of Adjacent or Nearby Native
Areas. This control measure is technically feasible. The choice of ground cover would be up
to the individual property owner. The availability and cost of water for establishing the
ground cover, and possibly maintaining it, would be constraints. As described above for the
Salt River alluvial channel, water in the lakes located in some of the rock product facilities is
a potential source of nearby water for establishing a vegetative cover. Transferring water
from the lakes would require coverage under an AZPDES general permit.
Applying Dust Suppressant. Dust suppressants are readily available and would work to
reduce wind erosion of open areas and vacant lots. A constraint on the use of dust
suppressants in the alluvial channel is potential surface and ground water contamination.
Dust suppressants can also possibly be washed away when water is released from dams
upstream.
Applying Gravel. Gravel can be used to cover disturbed portions of open areas and vacant
lots to prevent wind erosion. For the alluvial channel, gravel can be used to cover some, but
not all areas because gravel may sink into those portions of the channel containing fine silt.
Applying River Rock. River rock can be used as a control measure for the Salt River
alluvial channel. The rock can be mined from some areas of the channel and then spread
on the most unstable soils in the channel. This control measure assumes that there is an
adequate supply of river rock.
Applying Broken Concrete from Construction Debris. Broken concrete and asphaltic
pavement can be used as control measures for the alluvial channel. Both are included in the
A.R.S. § 49-201.19 definition of inert material.
Creating Barriers to Trespassing. Barriers to trespassing are effective, but need to be
constructed correctly. If barriers do not completely limit access to open areas, vacant lots,
and the alluvial channel trespassers will probably find a way around the barriers and disturb

33

the soil treatment used to stabilize the disturbed soil. A necessary deterrent to trespassing
is the placement of “No Trespassing” signs. Law enforcement agencies require the
presence of signs as a pre-condition to prosecuting trespassers. The combination of
barriers and signage is effective in reducing trespassing if there is adequate patrolling and
enforcement of the area by police officers.
Establishing Wind Breaks. The effectiveness of trees and bushes as wind breaks is
dependent on the height, density and the orientation of the wind break to the prevailing
winds. The same is true for the effectiveness of walls and modified chain link fences used
as wind breaks. This measure would require a revision to Rule 310.01, since wind breaks
are not listed as a control measure in this rule.
Economic Feasibility
Establishing a Vegetative Ground Cover. It is feasible to establish vegetative cover as a
means of stabilizing soil and creating a boundary layer that will prevent wind erosion. Two
general approaches can be taken: planned landscaping and establishment of “native”
vegetation (may include exotic species that are well adapted to ambient temperature and
precipitation). Ideally, one would be seeking a minimum of broadly spaced shrubs, (e.g.
creosote bush, acacia, saltbush, and desert broom) mixed with forbs (e.g., fairy duster and
rosemary), herbaceous groundcovers (e.g., sand verbena, four o’ clocks and crane’s bill)
and grasses. Planned landscaping may require continued maintenance and permanent
irrigation systems, unless xeroscaping techniques and plants are used. Drip irrigation
systems cost about $1,500 per acre, with total costs in the range of $16,000 to $21,000 per
acre. The least expensive option is reestablishing native vegetation, which requires no
maintenance beyond the first year. The costs of this option are not known at this time.
Regardless, xeroscaping and reestablishment of native vegetation requires irrigation for the
first year to stabilize soils and allow plants to become established. All vegetative cover
options require restricting access to be successful.
Restoring to Similar Vegetative and Soil Conditions of Adjacent or Nearby Native
Areas. See above discussion regarding establishing vegetative ground cover. The least
expensive option is reestablishing native vegetation, which requires no maintenance beyond
the first year. The costs of this option are not known at this time. Regardless, xeroscaping
and reestablishment of native vegetation requires irrigation for the first year to stabilize soils
and allow plants to become established. All vegetative cover options require restricting
access to be successful.
Applying Dust Suppressant. The effectiveness of applying a dust suppressant is directly
related to the dilution rate, number of applications, frequency of application, and traffic. The
cost range of $9,680 - $12,100 per acre is based on preparing the surface, applying two to
four applications of the dust suppressant, and compacting the surface. If a customer
prepares the surface, including pre-moistening of the surface and provides on-site water,
the cost of a single application dust suppressant could be as little as $1,000 per acre.
Applying Gravel. Gravel, crushed river rock or crushed granite can be applied as a control
measure for disturbed soils. One ton of 3/8-inch crushed river rock would cover 100 square
feet, 2 inches deep. An acre would require about 435 tons of rock. The price range of
$9,888 - $10,803 per acre includes a contractor spreading cost of $9.00 per ton. Actual
costs vary depending on the size of the project and job conditions.

34

Applying River Rock. This control measure applies to the Salt River alluvial channel. River
rock in the channel can be excavated, hauled short distances, and placed on unstable areas
of the channel. Costs are estimated at approximately $4,000 per day for two excavators, two
ten-wheeler trucks, and a water truck. This scenario assumes moving 100 cubic yards per
hour of rock at a cost of $4.00 - $5.00 per cubic yard of rock moved. It is estimated that 800
cubic yards of river rock can be excavated and spread at a cost of $4,000 per day.
Creating Barriers to Trespassing. Three types of barriers to trespassing were considered:
a concrete or highway barrier, a chain link fence with either a top rail or top tension wire,
and boulders.
Concrete barriers are available locally in lengths of 12.5 feet or 20 feet. The 12.5 foot
barrier, which weighs 5,300 pounds, has a 32-inch height, a 24-inch base, and a 6-inch top.
The maximum price, depending on the number ordered, is $100 per 12.5 foot barrier,
delivered and set in place. That translates into $8.50 per linear foot or $2,550 for 100 linear
yards.
Chain link fence is typically constructed of 9 gauge steel, and is 6 feet high with a top railing.
It is installed with concrete posts placed 10 feet apart. A typical cost range is $11.00 –
$13.00 per linear foot. That translates into $3,300 - $3,900 for 100 linear yards. Some
savings could be realized if a top tension wire were used instead of a top railing.
The cost estimate for installing rock barriers is based on a hypothetical design of not less
than five large boulders, with the largest boulders ranging in weight from 400 – 600 pounds
each, placed in alignment two to three feet apart. The approximate weight per 24-foot
section is 1.15 – 1.3 tons at a cost of $161 – $182. An additional cost of $1,700 was added
for setting the rock barriers in place. This results in a linear foot cost of $7.00 – $7.90. The
actual cost could be higher depending on the variability of boulder size. This may result in a
greater weight range for boulders and hence a higher overall cost based on weight. Rock
barriers, with a space of two to three feet between boulders, may not prevent trespassing by
dirt bikes.
Increased law enforcement is needed in conjunction with barriers to effectively prevent
trespassing. The cost of hiring off-duty enforcement officers is $35.00 per hour per officer.
Two officers per vehicle are required. The cost for a patrol car is $4.00 per hour plus $0.70
per mile. Shifts are 7 hours long and average about 35 miles. For calculating the annual
cost of additional law enforcement, 234 shifts were used for an annual total of 1,638 hours.
Based on this scenario, the cost for the enforcement officers is $114,660 annually. The
vehicle cost is $12,285, or 1,638 hours at $4.00 per hour and 234 shifts of 35 miles times
$0.70 per mile. The estimated total annual cost is $126,945.
Establishing Wind Breaks. Another feasible alternative is to cover chain link fencing with a
mesh screen. The cost range for constructing a wind-break fence is the same for chain link
fencing plus a $2.00 per linear foot cost for adding the mesh screen. Thus, the $13.00 $15.00 per linear foot translates into $3,900 - $4,500 for 100 linear yards.
The spacing and placement of wind breaks is critical. However, this option may not be
realistic because of the cost and the great number of wind breaks required. Other options
for creating wind breaks could be employed, such as piling rocks or building small hills. The
effectiveness and costs associated with these options are unknown.

35

Table 4.3.3.3 presents the estimated costs for control measures to be applied to open areas
and vacant lots in the Salt River PM10 Study Area. It is assumed that approximately 13.6
percent of the vacant lots, and 39 percent of the open areas, will be converted to residential
and commercial use between Year 2002 and Year 2006.
Table 4.3.3.3 Estimated Cost for Control Measures (dollars) – Open Areas and Vacant Lots
Control Measure

Cost per Acre

Cost per
Linear Foot

Total
Acres

Total
Linear
Feet*

Total Cost

Establish a vegetative cover
16,000 – 21,000
N/A
2,065
$33,040,000 – $43,365,000
Restore
to
nearby
native
16,208 – 21,732
N/A
2,065
$33,469,520 – $44,876,580
vegetation
Apply dust suppressant
9,680 – 12,100
N/A
2,065
$19,989,200 – $24,986,500
Apply gravel
9,888 – 10,803
N/A
2,065
$20,418,720 –$22,308,195
Establish mechanical wind breaks
13.00 – 15.00
523,915
$6,810,895 – $7,858,725
chain link fencing with mesh
Create barriers to trespassing
523,
$5,763,065 – $6,810,895
11.00 – 13.00
Law enforcement:
chain link fencing
915
$4,453,278
8.50
($70/hr for 2
concrete barrier
$3,667,405 – $4,138,929
7.00 – 8.00
officers + $4/hr for
boulders
$126,945
car + $0.70/mile)
law enforcement
Establish a vegetative cover with
16,000 – 21,100
7.00 – 13.00
2,065
523,915
$36,707,405 – $50,382,395
barriers to trespassing
Restore
to
nearby
native
vegetation with barriers to
16,208 – 21,732
7.00 – 13.00
2,065
523,915
$37,136,925 – $51,687,475
trespassing
Apply dust suppressant with
9,680 – 12,100
7.00 – 13.00
2,065
523,915
$23,656,605 – $31,797,395
barriers to trespassing
* Barriers to Trespassing control measures should be combined with additional law enforcement to effectively reduce
trespassing. Additional law enforcement would add $126,945 per year to the Barriers to Trespassing control measures.

Table 4.3.3.4 presents the estimated costs for control measures to be applied to unstable areas of
the Salt River alluvial channel.
Table 4.3.3.4 Estimated Cost for Control Measures (dollars) – Alluvial Channel
Control Measure

Cost per Acre

Cost per
Linear Foot

Total
Acres

Total
Linear
Feet*

Total Cost

Establish a vegetative cover
16,000 – 21,000
N/A
153
$2,448,000 – $3,213,000
Restore
to
nearby
native
16,208 – 21,732
N/A
153
$2,479,824 - $3,324,996
vegetation
Apply dust suppressant
9,680 – 12,100
N/A
153
$1,481,040 – $1,851,300
Apply gravel
9,888 – 10,803
N/A
153
$1,512,864 – $1,652,859
Apply river rock
4,000
N/A
153
$612,000
Apply broken concrete debris
425 – 567
N/A
153
$65,025 – $86,751
Establish mechanical wind breaks
- chain link fencing with mesh
13.00 – 15.00
173,190
$2,251,470 – $2,597,850
Create barriers to trespassing
5,000
11.00 – 13.00
Law enforcement:
$55,000 – $65,000
- chain link fencing
8.50
($70/hr for 2
$42,500 – $42,500
- concrete barrier
7.00 – 8.00
officers + $4/hr for
$35,000 – $39,500
- boulders
car + $0.70/mile)
$126,945
- additional law enforcement
*Establish a vegetative cover with
16,000 – 21,000
7.00 – 13.00
153
5,000
$2,483,000 – $3,278,000
barriers to trespassing
*Restore to nearby native
vegetation with barriers to
16,208 – 21,732
7.00 – 13.00
153
5,000
$2,483,000 - $3,278,000
trespassing
*Apply dust suppressant with
9,680 – 12,100
7.00 – 13.00
153
5,000
$1,516,040 – $1,916,300
barriers to trespassing
*Establish mechanical wind
13.00 – 15.00,
173,190
breaks with barriers to
$2,286,470 – $2,662,850
7.00 – 13.00
+ 5,000
trespassing
* Barriers to Trespassing control measures should be combined with additional law enforcement to effectively reduce trespassing.
Additional law enforcement would add $126,945 per year to the Barriers to Trespassing control measures.

36

Table 4.3.3.5 Estimated Cost-Effectiveness – Open Areas and Vacant Lots
Control Measure

Emissions
Reduced on
High Wind Days
(metric
tons/day)*

Total Cost

Cost-Effectiveness per
Ton PM10 Reduced
($ per ton reduced for 6
wind events)

Establish a vegetative cover
7.77
$33,040,000 – $43,365,500
$708,709 – $930,191
Restore to nearby native vegetation
7.77
$33,469,520 – $44,876,580
$717,922 – $962,604
Apply dust suppressant
6.90
$19,989,200 – $24,986,500
$482,831 – $603,539
Apply gravel
12.94
$20,418,720 – $22,308,195
$262,992 – $287,329
Establish mechanical wind breaks
6.90
$6,810,895 – $7,858,725
$164,514 – $189,824
- chain link fencing with mesh
Create barriers to trespassing
$185,427 – $219,141
$5,763,065 – $6,810,895
- chain link fencing
$143,284
$4,453,278
5.18
- concrete barrier
$117,999 – $133,170
$3,667,405 – $4,138,929
- boulders
---$126,945
- additional law enforcement
**Establish a vegetative cover with
15.53
$36,707,405 – $50,382,395
$393,941 – $540,700
barriers to trespassing
**Restore to nearby native vegetation
15.53
$37,136,925 – $51,687,475
$398,550 – $554,706
with barriers to trespassing
**Apply dust suppressant with barriers to
13.80
$23,656,605 – $31,797,395
$285,708 – $384,027
trespassing
* One wind event
**Barriers to Trespassing control measures should be combined with additional law enforcement to effectively reduce trespassing.
Additional law enforcement would add $126,945 per year to the Barriers to Trespassing control measures.

Table 4.3.3.6 presents the estimated costs and cost-effectiveness for control measures required to
stabilize the 153 acres of disturbed soils in the alluvial channel. For the year 2002, PM10 emissions
were estimated to be 9.8 metric tons/day.
Table 4.3.3.6 Estimated Cost-Effectiveness – Alluvial Channel
Control Measure

Emissions
Reduced on
High Wind
Days (metric
tons / day) *

Total Cost ($)

Cost-Effectiveness per
Ton PM10 Reduced
($ per ton reduced for 6
wind events)

Establish a vegetative cover
3.53
$2,448,000 – $3,213,000
$115,581 – $151,700
Restore to nearby native vegetation
3.53
$2,479,824 - $3,324,996
$117,083 - $156,988
Apply dust suppressant
3.14
$1,481,040 – $1,851,300
$78,611 – $98,264
Apply gravel
5.89
$1,512,864 – $1,652,859
$42,809 – $46,770
Apply river rock
5.49
$612,000
18,579
Apply broken concrete debris
5.49
$65,025 – $86,751
$1,974 – $2,634
Establish mechanical wind breaks
- chain link fencing with mesh
3.14
$2,251,470 – $2,597,850
$119,505 – $137,890
Create barriers to trespassing
$3,901 – $4,610
$55,000 – $65,000
- chain link fencing
$3,014 – $3,014
$42,500 – $42,500
2.35
- concrete barrier
$2,482 – $2,801
$35,000 – $39,500
- boulders
---$126,945
- additional law enforcement
**Establish a vegetative cover with barriers
7.06
$2,483,000 - $3,278,000
$58,617 – $77,384
to trespassing
**Restore to nearby native vegetation with
7.06
$2,514,824 - $3,389,996
$59,368 - $80,028
barriers to trespassing
**Apply dust suppressant with barriers to
6.28
$1,516,040 – $1,916,300
$40,235 – $50,857
trespassing
**Establish mechanical wind breaks with
6.28
$2,286,470 – $2,662,850
$60,681 – $70,670
barriers to trespassing
* One wind event
** Barriers to Trespassing control measures should be combined with additional law enforcement to effectively reduce trespassing.
Additional law enforcement would add $126,945 per year to the Barriers to Trespassing control measures.

37

Auxiliary Advantages/Disadvantages
Establishing a Vegetative Ground Cover. Establishing a vegetative ground cover would
reduce soil loss due both to wind erosion and water erosion. Additional benefits include
providing wildlife habitat and lowering of summertime temperatures due to shading of the
soil by vegetation.
Restoring to Similar Vegetative and Soil Conditions of Adjacent or Nearby Native
Areas. See benefits above of establishing vegetative cover.
Applying Dust Suppressant. A disadvantage of applying dust suppressants in the Salt
River alluvial channel is the potential leaching of chemicals from the suppressant into storm
water or ground water.
Applying Gravel. A disadvantage of applying gravel to the wildcat roads in the alluvial
channel is that it may provide easier access with the associated subsequent disturbance
of stabilized areas.
Applying River Rock. This measure would give a natural appearance to the alluvial
channel.
Applying Broken Concrete from Construction Debris. This measure may reduce or
eliminate illegal motor vehicle traffic in the alluvial channel. In addition, this measure would
reduce the amount of construction debris entering landfills.
Creating Barriers to Trespassing. This measure would reduce illegal dumping.
Establishing Wind Breaks. Wind breaks enhance the control effectiveness of the
vegetative cover and dust suppressant control measures listed above.
BACM/MSM Analysis
MCESD Rule 310.01 Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots, and
Unpaved Roadways:
§ 301 Vehicle Use in Open Areas and Vacant Lots. Requires implementation of one of
the following control measures for open areas and vacant lots 0.10 acre or larger (4,356
square feet) that have a cumulative area of 500 square feet or more that are driven over
and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles:
ƒ
ƒ

Prevent motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access,
by installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees, or other
effective control measures.
Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or chemical/organic stabilizers to all
areas disturbed by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles.

§ 302 Open Areas and Vacant Lots. Requires implementation of one of the following
control measures within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery of the disturbance
for open areas and vacant lots that have 0.5 acre or more (21,780 square feet) of disturbed
38

surface area and remain unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped for more than 15
days:
Establish vegetative ground cover on all disturbed surface areas
Apply a dust suppressant to all disturbed surface areas
Restore all disturbed surface areas such that the vegetative ground cover and
soil characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby undisturbed native
conditions.
ƒ Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Similar Rules
Summaries of similar rules for control measures applicable to open areas, vacant lots, and alluvial
channels follow:
Clark County, Nevada – Air Quality Regulations, Section 90.2.1.1(a) & (b).
Owner/operator required to implement controls for open areas and vacant lots 5,000 square
feet or larger, such as:
ƒ Prevent motor vehicle access, and
ƒ Stabilize disturbed surface greater than 5,000 square feet with gravel or dust
palliatives.
Clark County, Nevada - Clark County June 2001, PM10 SIP, Appendix L, p. L-11.
Commitment to hire ten new enforcement department staff members to implement
enforcement for “wind erosion – vacant land, unpaved parking and race tracks”

ƒ

Coachella Valley, California - Final 2002 Coachella Valley PM10 SIP, June 2002.
Owners/operators of vacant lands with disturbed surfaces greater than or equal to 5,000
square feet are required to either (proposed, revised dust control ordinance):
ƒ Prevent trespass by installing physical barriers such that a surface crust is
developed, or
ƒ Treat the disturbed surfaces such that a surface crust is formed. Treatment options
include uniform application and maintenance of two inches of washed gravel or
chemical/organic dust suppressants to all disturbed areas at a level sufficient to
develop and maintain a surface crust.
When an owner/operator has applied physical access restrictions and an acceptable
surface crust has not been established, treatment of disturbed vacant lands with greater
than or equal to 5,000 square feet will be required unless such treatments are considered
technically infeasible.
SCAQMD, California - 403(d)(1). Disturbed areas must be controlled to prevent visible
emissions from crossing the property line. Disturbed Surface Areas/Inactive Construction
Site BACM from the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook:
ƒ

Chemical stabilization – Most effective when used on areas where active
operations have ceased.

39

ƒ
ƒ

ƒ
ƒ

Watering – Requires frequent applications unless a surface crust can be
developed.
Wind fencing – Three- to five-foot barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to
roadways or urban areas can be effective in reducing the amount of windblown
material leaving a site. Must be used in conjunction with an additional measure
chemical stabilization, watering, or vegetation.
Vegetation – Establish as quickly as possible when active operations have
ceased.
High Wind Measures - Apply chemical stabilizers (to meet the specifications
established by the Rule); or apply water to all disturbed surface areas 3 times per
day.

San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Control District PM10 SIP, 2003, Rule 8051. Owners of
open areas with more than three acres of disturbed surfaces that remain vacant or unused
for more than seven days are required to implement one or a combination of control
measures (watering, vegetation, paving, gravel, vehicle restrictions) to maintain a
stabilized surface and limit visible dust emissions to no more than 20 percent opacity.
Selected Control Measures for Open Areas, Vacant Lots, and the Alluvial Channel
The selected control measure for windblown dust from open areas and vacant lots is better
enforcement and augmentation of MCESD Rule 310.01 pertaining to the control of fugitive dust.
Current control options include establishing/restoring vegetative cover, applying gravel, river rock,
broken concrete, or dust suppressants, and creating barriers to trespassing. A recommended
augmentation to Rule 310.01 is the addition of wind breaks as a control measure in conjunction with
other control measures. The most significant control method appears to be the stabilization of soils
and barriers to prevent vehicular trespassing.
Windblown Agricultural
Windblown PM10 emissions from agricultural fields originate from tilling and harvesting
practices and wind erosion of disturbed topsoil in the time period between harvesting and
when a crop is tall enough to act as a wind break. The quantity of PM10 that is generated is
closely linked to the management of soils and the amount of mechanical disturbance. Soil
disturbance changes soil structure by breaking up aggregates and allowing particles smaller
than 10 µm in size to be easily suspended in the air by wind.
A wide range of variation in soils and cropping systems exists within Maricopa County,
which necessitates a wide range of flexible and adaptable management practices. Most
methods for controlling PM10 and dust emissions from agricultural fields parallel the controls
for wind erosion. These methods are based on principles that contain or slow soil movement
from fields. Measures to minimize soil disturbance and the entrainment of topsoil into the air
by wind are discussed below.
The Governor’s Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) Committee was formed to
evaluate options for reducing PM10 emissions from agricultural sources. A BMP is defined as
a technique verified by scientific research that, on a case-by-case basis, is practical,
economically feasible, and effective in reducing PM10 from a regulated agricultural activity.
BMPs are not designed to eliminate dust emissions 100 percent, but are expected to reduce
wind erosion and associated PM10. BMPs were developed for each of the three agricultural
categories: tillage and harvest, non-cropland, and cropland.

40

The Agricultural BMP program has been approved by EPA as BACM/MSM (see 67 FR
48718, July 25, 2002). Consequently, no further changes are proposed. Additional outreach
to farmers will occur to encourage them to use practices that will reduce the potential for
windblown dust from fields during the month of April.
4.3.4

PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES

Industrial sources with a variety of particulate matter emissions are located throughout the Salt
River SIP Study Area. These emissions are categorized into four groups: windblown stockpiles,
windblown cleared areas, industrial point sources, and industrial area sources including emissions
from material handling, processes, and driving on haul roads. Considering the application of control
technologies in accordance with permit requirements, the total emissions generated by the
industrial sources in the Salt River SIP Study Area are approximately 1,054,000 pounds per year,
based on actual emissions reported in the MCESD 2002 emissions inventory and on independent
calculations of windblown emissions based on six high-wind days with four hours of high wind per
day in a year. Table 4.3.4.1 shows the daily breakdown of emissions by category for the high wind
day of April 15, 2002.
Table 4.3.4.1 Industrial Source Emissions by Category
Category
Windblown Stockpiles
Windblown Cleared Areas
Industrial Point Source
Industrial Area Source
Total

Particulate Emissions tons/day
4.9
42.9
0.3
0.5
48.6

A partial list of the industrial activities evaluated in the Salt River SIP Study Area includes aluminum
melting, brick kilns, asphalt batch plants, concrete batch plants, mulch manufacturing, steel
fabrication, sand and gravel mining, furniture manufacturing, concrete block manufacturing, and
wastewater treatment. Emissions from all of these types of facilities were included in the emissions
inventory and the air quality modeling.
Although point source (stack) emissions are 38% of the total industrial emissions (not including
windblown), the better dispersion from taller stacks diminishes their effect on air quality. For
example, stack emissions were significant for only one of the eight exceedances, as opposed to six
significant concentrations for industrial area emissions. Within the industrial area category, the
combination of haul roads, material transfer, pile forming and loading, and crushing & screening
accounts for 91% of the total. Most of these emissions come from sand & gravel operations and
their kindred industries, sometimes known as the “non-metallic mineral products industry.”
All industrial sources in the Salt River SIP Study Area were evaluated for compliance with
BACM/MSM. Only those sources that did not meet BACM/MSM were evaluated further. The vast
majority of these emissions come from the non-metallic mineral products industry, and the current
controls on this industry warranted further evaluation. Most of the emphasis for the industrial source
control measures is on the non-metallic mineral products processing industry.

41

Non-Metallic Mineral Products Processing
Several aspects of non-metallic mineral products processing were evaluated separately: stack and
process related emissions for crushing and screening, concrete and asphalt batch plants;
windblown cleared areas; stockpiles; and unpaved haul and access roads.
Stack and Process Related Emissions
Background
The production, processing and use of various non-metallic minerals products generate particulate
emissions in the form of dust. Quite often, as in the case of rock crushing or screening, the dust is
identical in composition to the material being handled. Emissions also occur from handling and
storing the finished products because this material is often fine and dry. Particulate emissions from
some of the processes such as quarrying, yard storage, and dust from transport are difficult to
control, but most can be reduced by conventional emission reduction techniques. Due to the wide
variety in processing equipment and final products, emissions levels can vary greatly.
Several types of facilities generate particulate matter emissions as a result of performing nonmetallic mineral processing activities. These activities include, but are not limited to aggregate
screening, transferring aggregate to elevated storage bins, weigh hopper loading, aggregate
transfer to conveyor belts, aggregate delivery to ground storage, and bulk loading of material into
trucks.
The PM10 emissions from non-metallic mineral processing plants that are of particular concern are
uncontrolled non-stack emissions. These are emissions that are a result of processing non-metallic
mineral products that do not have an identified stack. Examples of such emission points include
screens, crushers, storage bins and hoppers, conveyor belts, drop points, and loading trucks.
Potential Control Measures.
Control measures for reducing particulate matter emissions from non-metallic mineral processing
plants are listed below:
Work Practice Standards. Work practice standards can include timing of activities and
methods of operation used at a facility that will reduce emissions.
Complete Enclosure. An emissions source can be completely enclosed by relocating the
source from outside to inside a building or by constructing an enclosure around it, thereby
preventing emissions to the atmosphere. Emissions sources that can be controlled by this
method include plant feeding, handling, crushing, and screening operations; concrete batch
plant mixer loading and concrete batch truck loading; sand/aggregate transfer to conveyors
and other areas; transit mix trucks loading; and materials transfer points.
Partial Enclosure. Partial enclosures partially cover the emission point, thereby partially
reducing, but not completely, particulate emissions to the atmosphere. Partial enclosures
can be in the form of sheds, hoods, or shrouds. Emission sources that can be controlled by
this method include plant feeding, handling, crushing, and screening operations; pile
forming; load out; concrete batch plant mixer loading and transit mix truck loading; concrete
batch truck loading; sand/aggregate transfer to conveyors and other areas; and material
transfer points.
42

Baghouse Filtration System. Baghouse filtration systems can be used in two ways: 1) a
baghouse fabric filter can be attached to the exhaust of a bin or silo vent or 2) a ducting
system with a suction shroud can be constructed to draw process emissions into a
baghouse fabric filter. Emissions sources that can be controlled by these methods include
screening operations; aggregate transfer to elevated bins; weigh hopper loading; aggregate
transfer to conveyors; aggregate delivery to ground storage; crushing and shredding of
scrap metal; materials transfer points; and bulk loading of material into trucks.
Dust suppressants. The use of dust suppressants involves spraying some type of
chemical coating on aggregate raw materials either before processing or during
transportation, for example, on conveyor belts. Emissions sources that can be controlled by
this method include plant feeding, handling, and crushing operations; concrete batch plant
mixer loading and concrete batch truck loading; sand/aggregate transfer to conveyors and
other areas; transit mix truck loading; and materials transfer points.
Emission Reductions
When applying the control measures described above to the Non-Metallic Mineral Products
Processing source category, the emissions reductions shown in Table 4.3.4.2 can be achieved. As
discussed in the following Technical Feasibility section, the use of dust suppressants was found to
be technically infeasible; therefore, they are not included in this table. The baseline Rule
Effectiveness assumption for sources subject to Rule 316 is documented on pages 4-32 through 434 in the October 2004 TSD.
Table 4.3.4.2 Emissions Reductions for Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Control Measures
Percent
Percent
PM10 Emissions
PM10 Emissions
Reduction in
Emission Point/
Reduction in
Controllable
Eliminated
Industry
Control Measure
Total Industry
lb/hr (tons)
lb/yr (tons/yr)
Category
Emissions
Emissions
Work Practice
Standards
Partial Enclosure
Complete Enclosure
Baghouse for Bin/Silo
Vents
Baghouse/Suction
Shroud and Bin/Silo
Vents

10897.3 (5.4)

8960 (4.5)

1.3%

2.3%

10897.3 (5.4)
10897.3 (5.4)

9444 (4.7)
9929 (5.0)

1.4%
1.5%

2.5%
2.6%

47648 (23.8)

40,658(20.3)

6.1%

10.7%

55467 (29.3)

51,071 (25.5)

7.7%

13.4%

For instance, by implementing the requirement for all bin vents or silo vents to be equipped with a
baghouse, PM10 emissions from point sources without a stack would be reduced by 20.3 tons or
10.7%.
Rule Compliance/Test Methods/Recordkeeping
Rule Compliance:
ƒ
ƒ

Require all aggregate material to be washed prior to delivery.
Install a warning device on each bulk storage silo. This device shall alert operators in
sufficient time prior to the silo reaching capacity during loading operations so that the

43

ƒ

loading operation can be stopped prior to filling to such a level as to potentially adversely
impact the pollution abatement equipment.
Spillage of materials used in the batch shall be immediately cleaned up and contained or
dampened so that dust emissions are minimized.

Test Methods:
All filter systems, mixer loading, and batch truck loading emissions control devices shall meet a
performance standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in any six-minute period as
determined using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method 22; No visible fugitive
dust emissions beyond the permittee’s property line.
Technical Feasibility
Partial or full enclosures and hoods, such as suction shrouds, are widely used methods to capture
and control particulate matter emissions from non-metallic mineral processing facilities. For
instance, a suction shroud and baghouse achieving 95% control efficiency is required in many
jurisdictions, such as the TCEQ and the Utah Division of Air Quality.
A suction shroud and baghouse combination can control particulate matter emissions from
conveyors, drop points, crushing and screening and many more processes with an overall control
efficiency of 95% to 99%. The suction shroud and baghouse combination consists of a ventilation
system or a large canopy-type hood suspended over a localized source of PM10. Emissions are
forced through a baghouse resulting in 95-99% capture. The ventilation system must be uniquely
designed to conform to the facility configuration. In addition, the ventilation system must allow for
process access, which could impact the ventilation system’s performance and decrease productivity
of the production line. In some facilities, ventilation hooding and its ductwork may be difficult to
retrofit due to space limitations or the fact that the facility is portable. Ventilation systems are
designed to meet the criteria in EPA Contract #68-D-98-026 titled, Stationary Source Control
Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter, October 1998. The hood needs to encompass,
as much as possible, the source of particulate matter emissions without excessively interfering with
the access needed for normal operations. The hood should be designed and installed in a manner
that directs emissions into the hood through either natural buoyancy or mechanical forces, rather
than away from the hood. The ventilation system must be designed to operate within required
parameters, such as recommended face velocities, which typically range between 75 to 150 meters
per minute. In summary, a ventilation system may be feasibly implemented for most operations
through careful design and planning; however, some operations may require severe retrofitting,
which would preclude its use.
Currently, numerous BACT analyses have been conducted on different non-metallic mineral
processes. These are listed in EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) database,
California ARB BACT Clearinghouse, San Diego County’s Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
BACT Guidelines, and San Joaquin Valley’s APCD BACT Guidelines. Within these BACT
guidelines, baghouses have been installed on concrete batch facilities, conveyor points, silo/bin
vents, crushing and screening operations, and many additional similar activities. Dust suppressants
and partial and full enclosures have been utilized to control emissions from conveyors and crushing
and screening operations. The proposed methods for controlling PM10 emissions from non-metallic
mineral processing described herein have been documented by others, achieved in practice, and
are technically feasible.

44

Dust suppressants are feasible on limited processes in industry, but are not as popular or used with
the same frequency as enclosures or baghouses. The use of dust suppressants is limited because
of compatibility issues with raw materials and the potential of contaminating the final product.
Industrial processes using heat may increase emissions from dust suppressants or produce
unwanted byproducts. For these reasons, dust suppressants are not technically feasible for
controlling particulate matter emissions from emissions points such as conveyors, crushers,
screening operations and drop points.
To summarize, the control measures of dust suppressants, partial enclosures, full enclosures and
baghouses, described above, are successfully used in practice and are required by other air quality
districts. Dust suppressants, however, are not technically feasible for use by industries in the Salt
River area because of operational limitations. No technical limitations are experienced for
implementing baghouses, suction shrouds, partial enclosures and full enclosures.
Economic Feasibility
Retrofitting existing plants with updated controls can be resource intensive. Suction shrouds can
cost $40,000 and suction shroud/baghouse systems range from $25,000 to $50,000.
Auxiliary Advantages/Disadvantages
Advantages. A baghouse filtration system is easily maintained and achieves highly
effective emissions control. Enclosures, both full and partial, exhibit a high level of capture
and control, have a one-time installation cost, minimal maintenance and operating costs,
and have no energy costs. Dust suppressants are easy to use and have crossover benefits
with stockpiles and materials handling.
Disadvantages. A baghouse filtration system is difficult to retrofit in some facilities due to
space limitations and in portable sources, has energy costs. Local ventilation systems may
limit personnel and equipment access. Enclosures, both full and partial, limit equipment
access and sometimes pose retrofit issues, especially for portable sources. Dust
suppressants have a number of potential disadvantages: incompatibility issues with final
product, negative environmental impacts, material and operations costs, operator error
when applying the suppressant, frequent application requirements, potentially increased
inspections, and the potential leaching of chemicals from the suppressant into storm water
or ground water.
Cost-Effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of various potential control measures is presented below:
Baghouse Only. A cost analysis was performed on one baghouse that was assumed to be
5,000 actual cubic feet per minute of air intake. The baghouse would be installed on bin/silo
vents to achieve a 10.7% reduction in overall total point source non-stack emissions or a
reduction of 20.3 tons. The cost of the equipment and annual operating costs for “one”
baghouse are summarized below:
Total capital investment = $23,782
Annual operation costs = $69,538

45

The cost-effectiveness of requiring baghouses to be installed on silo and bin vents is
summarized in Tables 4.3.4.3 and 4.3.4.4. It should be noted that the cost is based on one
control device per all controllable emissions.
Table 4.3.4.3: Cost-Effectiveness as a function of Capital Cost per Baghouse System
Unit
Cost
$ per % reduction in total non-point source emissions
$2,223
$ per ton of PM10 emissions eliminated
$1,172
$ per % change in PM10 emissions controllable and eliminated
$280
Table 4.3.4.4: Cost-Effectiveness as a function of Annual Operating Cost per Baghouse
System
Unit
Cost
$ per % reduction in total non-point source emissions
$6,499
$ per ton of PM10 emissions eliminated
$3,426
$ per % change in PM10 emissions controllable and eliminated
$818

Baghouse with Suction Shroud. A cost analysis was performed on one baghouse with
suction shroud. The baghouse is assumed to be 5000 actual cubic feet per minute of air
intake and the suction shroud is assumed to have a face area of 36 ft2. The baghouse and
suction shroud would be installed on bin/silo vents conveyors, crushers and drop points to
achieve a 13.4% reduction in overall total point source non-stack emissions or a reduction
of 25.5 tons. The cost of the equipment and annual operating costs for “one” baghouse and
one suction shroud are summarized below:
Total capital investment = $30,243
Annual operating costs = $89,566
In addition, the Air Quality Standard Permit for Concrete Batch Plants from the TCEQ shows
that to retrofit plants with a baghouse and suction shroud would cost $40,000 as seen on
page 29 of the TCEQ Permit, or $25,000 to $50,000 as seen on page 30 of the that Permit.
Using the calculated total capital investment and annual operating costs, the costeffectiveness of requiring baghouses and suction shrouds to be installed on silo and bin
vents, conveyors, crushers, and drop points is summarized in Tables 4.3.4.5 and 4.3.4.6 (it
should be noted that the cost is based on one control device per all controllable emissions):
Table 4.3.4.5: Cost-Effectiveness as a function of Capital Cost for One Baghouse &
Suction Shroud System
Unit
Cost
$ per % reduction in total non-point source emissions
$2,257
$ per ton of PM10 emissions eliminated
$1,186
$ per % change in PM10 emissions controllable and eliminated
$348
Table 4.3.4.6: Cost-Effectiveness as a function of Annual Operating Cost for One
Baghouse & Suction Shroud System
Unit
Cost
$ per % reduction in total non-point source emissions
$6,684
$ per ton of PM10 emissions eliminated
$3,512
$ per % change in PM10 emissions controllable and eliminated
$1,029

46

Dust suppressants. Dust suppressants are determined to be not technically feasible;
therefore, a cost-effectiveness evaluation was not conducted.
BACM and MSM Analysis
Tables 4.3.4.7 – 4.3.4.9 outline current control measures, benchmarked control measures, and
additional recommended control measures for crushing and screening plants, concrete batch
plants, and hot mix asphalt plants. Currently, MCESD Rule 316 regulates this source category.
MCESD Rule 316 is modeled after the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), 40 CFR 60
Subpart OOO entitled “Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants.” The
recommended changes are additional control measures that are proposed as MSM for MCESD
Rule 316. Augmentation of Rule 316 to include the portions of Rule 310 that are relevant to nonmetallic mineral product processing is a selected control measure in addition to the measures
shown in the table. The following table outlines current controls, benchmarked controls, and
recommended augmentations to Rule 316 for non-metallic mineral mining and processing. Currently
Maricopa County Rule 316 regulates this source category. Maricopa County Rule 316 is modeled
after the NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOO entitled, “Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic
Mineral Processing Plants.” The recommended changes are additional control measures that are
proposed as MSM for Maricopa County Rule 316.
Table 4.3.4.7 Maricopa County Rule 316: CRUSHING AND SCREENING PLANTS
Current Rule 316 Controls

Benchmarked Controls

Stack
emissions
from None
Crushing and Screening Plants
are limited to 7% opacity or
containing no more than 0.02
grains per dry standard cubic foot
of particulate matter
Fugitive dust emissions from
Crushing and Screening Plants
are limited to 7% opacity from any
transfer point on a conveyor
system.

Recommended Augmentations
to Rule 316
Require all stack emissions to
be vented to a baghouse, and retain
the existing language.

TCEQ, Texas Administrative Code (TAC)
§111.143 Materials Handling: Installation,
maintenance and proper use of hoods, fans
and filter to enclose, collect and clean the
emissions of dusty materials.
Florida, Florida Administrative Code
(FAC) 62-296.711 Materials Handling,
Sizing, Screening Crushing and Grinding
Operations: if it is necessary to totally or
partially enclose an operation and exhaust
particulate laden gases through a vent or
stack, emissions of particulate from such
vent or stack shall not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf
SCAQMD, BACT Guidelines for NonMajor
Polluting
Facilities:
Enclosed
conveyors and baghouse
TCEQ, Permit by Rule §106.144, Bulk
Mineral Handling: All material shall be
transported in a closed conveying system
and all exhaust air to the atmosphere shall
be vented through a fabric filter having a
maximum filtering velocity of 4.0 feet per
minute with mechanical cleaning or 7.0 feet
per minute with automatic air cleaning.

47

No change
Flexibility is preserved for sources
to choose most efficient means of
achieving required opacity limit which
is at least as stringent as
benchmarked controls.

Table 4.3.4.7 Maricopa County Rule 316: CRUSHING AND SCREENING PLANTS
Current Rule 316 Controls

Benchmarked Controls

Recommended Augmentations
to Rule 316

Fugitive dust emissions from None
Crushing and Screening Plants
are limited to 15% opacity from
any crusher.

No change
No benchmarked controls were
identified.

Fugitive dust emissions from None
Crushing and Screening Plants
are limited to 10% opacity from
any affected operation or process
source excluding truck dumping
directly into any screening
operation, feed hopper or crusher.

No change
No benchmarked controls were
identified.

Fugitive dust emissions from None
Crushing and Screening Plants
are limited to 20% opacity from
any other affected operation.

No change
No benchmarked controls were
identified.

----

Permanently
Mounted
Watering
Systems:
The owner or operator shall install, maintain,
and operate permanently mounted watering
systems (such as spay bars, or an
equivalent control) at all of the following
locations:
• Inlet and outlet of all crushers;
• Inlet and outlet of all screens; and
• Material transfer points.

The owner or operator shall
install, maintain and operate
permanently mounted watering
systems (such as spray bars, or an
equivalent control) at all of the
following locations:
• Inlet and outlet of all crushers;
• Outlet of all screens; and
• Material transfer points.

----

Work Practice Standards
• All screen sides are required to be
enclosed with at least an 85% mesh
fabric filter.
• The outlet of all screens shall be
enclosed or controlled through the
application
of
a
watering
system, such as, but not limited to,
spray bars or foggers.

•
•

All screen sides are required to
be enclosed with at least an
85% mesh fabric filter.
The outlet of all screens shall
be enclosed or controlled
through the application of a
watering system, such as, but
not limited to, spray bars or
foggers.

No visible fugitive emissions
shall leave the property from the
crusher, associated sources, and inplant roads associated only with the
facility.

----

Visible Emissions Standard
No visible fugitive emissions shall leave the
property from the crusher, associated
sources, and in-plant roads associated only
with the facility.

----

Require an EPA Reference
Method 9 Observer
Require an EPA Method 9 observer to be Method 9 observer to be on-site or
on-call at all times.
on-site or on-call at all times.

The following table outlines current control measures, benchmarked controls, and recommended
augmentations to Rule 316 for concrete batch plants. Currently, Maricopa County Rule 316
regulates this source category. The recommended changes are additional control measures that
are proposed as MSM for Maricopa County Rule 316.

48

Table 4.3.4.8 Maricopa County Rule 316: CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS
Current Rule 316
Benchmarked Controls
Recommended Augmentations to
Controls
Rule 316
Stack
emissions
TCEQ, Concrete Batch Plant
In addition to the existing opacity
from Concrete Batch Technical Guidance for Mechanical requirement, require all cement and
Plants are limited to 7% Sources, January 2001, Draft:
fly-ash silos to be equipped with
opacity
• All dry material storage silos baghouse or equivalent control device.
equipped
with
fabric
filter All new control devices shall be
baghouse having a maximum designed to meet an emission
outlet grain loading of 0.01 grains limitation of 0.01 grains per dry
standard cubic foot. A 5% opacity limit
per dry standard cubic foot
• All storage silos must be equipped is inappropriate due to differences in
with audible or visual warning activities, types of control devices for
these activities, work practices
devices to prevent overloading.
employed to reduce emissions, and
because ADEQ could not identify
another instance where a lower
emission limitation was required of
similar emissions units.
All storage silos must be equipped
with audible or visual warning devices
to prevent overloading.
Fugitive
dust
emissions from Concrete
Batch Plants are limited
to 10% opacity from any
affected operation or
process
source,
excluding truck dumping
directly
into
any
screening
operation,
feed hopper or crusher

TCEQ, Air Quality Standard Permit
for Concrete Batch Plants, Effective
Date July 10, 2003: Dust emissions at
the batch mixer feed shall be
controlled by one of the following:
• A spray device which eliminates
visible emissions
• A pickup device delivering air to a
fabric or cartridge filter
• An enclosed batch mixer feed
such that no visible emissions
occur
• Conducting the entire mixing
operation inside the enclosed
process building such that no
visible emissions from the building
occur during mixing activities

49

In addition to the existing opacity
requirement, dust emissions at the
batch mixer feed shall be controlled
by one of the following:
• A spray device which eliminated
visible emissions;
• A pickup device delivering air to a
fabric or cartridge filter;
• An enclosed batch mixer feed such
that no visible emissions occur; or
• Conducting the entire mixing
operation inside the enclosed
process building such that no
visible emissions from the building
occur during mixing activities.

Table 4.3.4.8 Maricopa County Rule 316: CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS
Current Rule 316
Benchmarked Controls
Recommended Augmentations to
Controls
Rule 316
Fugitive
dust
TCEQ, Air Quality Standard
No change
emissions
from Permit for Concrete Batch Plants,
TCEQ’s rule applies to the operation
Concrete Batch Plants Effective Date July 10, 2003: A dumping into the truck. Rule 316
are limited to 20% suction shroud or other pickup device applies to the truck dumping into the
opacity
from
truck shall be installed at the batch drop operation.
dumping directly into point and vented to a fabric or
SQAMD BACT Guidelines apply to
any screening operation cartridge filter system with a minimum the operation dumping into the truck.
feed hopper or crusher. of 4,000 actual cubic feet per minute Rule 316 applies to the truck dumping
of air.
into the operation.
SCAQMD, BACT Guidelines for
non-major polluting facilities:
• Central
mixed
<5
cubic
yards/batch – water spray
• Central
mixed
>5
cubic
yards/batch – baghouse for
cement handling and adequate
moisture in aggregate
Transit-mixed—baghouse venting
the cement weight hopper and the
mixer truck loading station and
adequate aggregate moisture
Visible Emissions Standard for
All cement silo loading operations
Cement Silos
shall be controlled by a pressure
All cement silo loading operations control system that discontinues the
shall be controlled by a pressure loading process if excessive pressure
control system that discontinues the is being used to load the cement silo.
loading process if excessive pressure
is being used to load the cement silo.
Work Practice Standards
Spillage of materials used in the
Spillage of materials used in the
batch shall be immediately cleaned batch shall be immediately cleaned up
up and contained or dampened so and contained or dampened so that
that dust emissions are minimized.
dust emissions are minimized.
Dust emissions at the batch mixer
Dust emissions at the batch mixer
feed shall be controlled by one of the feed shall be controlled by one of the
following:
following:
(i)
A spray device;
(i)
A spray device;
(ii)
A pickup device delivering air
(ii)
A pickup device delivering air
to a fabric or cartridge filter;
to a fabric or cartridge filter;
(iii)
An enclosed batch mixer feed
(iii)
An enclosed batch mixer feed
such that no visible emissions
such that no visible emissions
occur; or
occur; or
(iv)
Conducting the entire mixing
(iv)
Conducting the entire mixing
operation inside the enclosed
operation inside the enclosed
process building such that no
process building such that no
visible emissions from the
visible emissions from the
building occur during mixing
building occur during mixing
activities.
activities.
---Method 9 Observer
Require an EPA Reference Method
Require an EPA Method 9 9 observer to be on-site or on-call at
observer to be on-site or on-call at all all times.
times.

50

The following table outlines current control measures benchmarked controls, and recommended
augmentations to Rule 316 for hot mix asphalt plants and material handling. Currently Maricopa
County Rule 316 regulates this source category. Maricopa County Rule 316 is modeled after the
New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), 40 CFR 60 Subpart I entitled “Standards of
Performance for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities.” The recommended changes are additional control
measures that are proposed as MSM for Maricopa County Rule 316.
Table 4.3.4.9 Maricopa County Rule 316: ASPHALT BATCH PLANTS
Current Rule 316 Controls
Benchmarked Controls
Recommended Augmentations
to Rule 316
Stack emissions from
TCEQ, Air Quality Standard
Require all drum dryers to be
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants are Permit for Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, equipped with baghouse
limited to 20% opacity and Effective Date July 10, 2003:
Require all cement and lime
containing no more than 0.04
The drum dryer exhaust shall be storage silos to be equipped with a
grains per dry standard cubic vented to and controlled by a baghouse. All new baghouses shall
foot of particulate matter
properly sized fabric filter baghouse be designed to meet an emission
Silos not vented to the drum limitation of 0.01 grains per dry
dryer system shall vent to a fabric standard cubic foot.
filter system designed to meet at
least 0.01 outlet grain loading
Fugitive dust emissions Visible Emissions Standards
A baghouse is required on the
from Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
A baghouse is required on the drum dryer and cement and lime
are limited to 20% opacity drum dryer and cement and lime silos with an opacity limit of not
from any other affected storage silos with an opacity limit of greater than 5% over a six-minute
operation or process source. not greater than 5% over a six- period.
minute period.
---Overfill Warning System
An audible or visible overflow
An audible or visible overflow warning device shall be installed on
warning device shall be installed on each bulk storage silo to alert
each bulk storage silo to alert operators in sufficient time prior to
operators in sufficient time prior to the silo reaching capacity.
the silo reaching capacity.
---Method 9 Observer
Require an EPA Reference
Require an EPA Method 9 Method 9 observer to be on-site or
observer to be on-site or on-call at on-call at all times.
all times.

BACM and MSM Not Proposed for Consideration
Of the BACM and MSM measures that have been benchmarked, these additional measures have
been considered, but are not recommended for inclusion in Rule 316 as they are either duplicative
of other measures that are being proposed for adoption into Rule 316, or they are as stringent, or
less stringent than other measures that have been proposed for adoption into Rule 316. In addition,
because the permitting authorities in the State of Arizona do not write general permits into rule like
permitting authorities in Texas, requirements restricting co-location (including ground-based
concentration limitations) are not recommended because such scenarios are already accounted for
in Arizona general permits, and must remain an option for sources seeking individual permits.
Finally, nighttime illumination was rejected because of the history of complaints from nearby
residents regarding excessive lighting from these types of facilities.

51

Crushing and Screening Plants
Visible Emissions Standard.
9 Clark County, Nevada; AQR Section 34 New Performance Standards for Nonmetallic
Mineral Mining and Processing
9 Oklahoma DEQ, General Permit for Minor Source Nonmetallic Mineral
ProcessingTCEQ, Air Quality Standard Permit for Temporary Rock Crushers, February
2002
Enclosures for Long-Term Facilities.
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACT Guideline for rock and aggregate
processing
Work Practice Standards.
9
9
9
9

TCEQ, February 2002, Standard Permit for Rock Crushing Plants, BACT Analysis
Oklahoma DEQ, General Permit for Minor Source Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
Oklahoma DEQ, General Permit for Minor Source Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
Oklahoma DEQ, General Permit for Minor Source Nonmetallic Mineral Processing

Air Dispersion Analysis Based Rules.
9 TCEQ Rule §111.155. Ground Level Concentrations, Adopted June 16, 1989
9 TCEQ, Air Quality Standard Permit for Temporary Rock Crushers, February 2002
Concrete Batch Plants
Cement Silo Baghouse, Fabric Filter or Cartridge Filter Requirement.
9 TCEQ; Concrete Batch Plant Technical Guidance for Mechanical Sources, January
2001, Draft BACT Analysis
Work Practice Standards.
9 Texas Requirements from Technical Guidance: TCEQ; Concrete Batch Plant Technical
Guidance for Mechanical Sources, January 2001, Draft BACT Analysis
9 Texas Requirements from Standard Permit for Concrete Batch Plants: TCEQ; Effective
Date July 10, 2003
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Requirements: BACT Guideline for Concrete
Batch
9 SCAQMD Requirements: BACT Guidelines for Non-Major Polluting Facilities; Concrete
Batch Plant
9 Florida Requirements: Florida; Florida Administrative Code 62-296.414 Concrete
Batching Plants
Production Limitations.
9 SCAQMD; BACT Guidelines for non-major polluting facilities Concrete batch plant

52

Visible Emissions Standard.
9 Florida; Florida Administrative Code 62-296.414 Concrete Batching Plants
Asphalt Batch Plants
Emissions Limitations and Standards.
9 Florida FAC 62-296.704 Asphalt Concrete Plants
Air Dispersion Analysis Based Rules.
9 TCEQ Air Quality Standard Permit For Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Effective Date July 10,
2003
Windblown Cleared Areas – Industrial
Background
Cleared areas with disturbed soils from industrial activities such as earthmoving are subject to the
erosive effects of wind. As trucks and other vehicles move about a cleared site, soils become
unstable, and winds above 15 mph can result in significant PM10 emissions.
Potential Control Measures
If an industrial facility does not have an earthmoving permit, the potential control measure for the
areas subject to wind erosion is augmentation and better enforcement of MCESD Rule 316 for
industrial sources. Currently, MCESD Rule 310 regulates all dust-generating operations; however,
the following recommended change is an additional control measure that is proposed as MSM for
MCESD Rule 316:
Stabilize surface soils where loaders, support equipment, and vehicles will operate by
pre-watering and maintaining surface soils in a stabilized condition, or by applying and
maintaining a dust palliative on surface soils.
Because Rule 310 already applies to emissions from this source category, the intent is only to
augment and supplement those controls that already exist. All portions of 310 that are currently
applicable to this source category will remain applicable to this source category unless a more
stringent measure is identified.
If an industrial facility has an earthmoving permit, the potential control measure for the areas
subject to wind erosion is better enforcement of MCESD Rule 310 pertaining to the control of
fugitive dust. A critical aspect of strengthening enforcement of the Rule 310 control measures is the
hiring of as many as 25 to 30 additional inspectors for the entire program (this includes resources
for the enforcement of Rule 316 pertaining to industrial sources).
The methods available under Rule 310 to control windblown dust emissions from disturbed areas
include opacity restrictions, the use of water or dust suppressants, and the installation of wind
barriers. Temporary measures to be implemented during weekends, after work hours, on holidays
or high wind events include applying water, dust suppressants, or gravel, and restricting vehicular
access.

53

Stockpiles
Background
As part of operations that use minerals in aggregate form is the control of outdoor aggregate
handling and stockpiles. Aggregate handling and stockpiles are often left uncovered, partially
because of the need for frequent material transfer into or out of storage. As a result, these
aggregate handling and stockpiles are a significant source of particulate matter emissions. As front
loaders and trucks add and remove materials from these points, a significant amount of particulate
matter emissions are generated.
As seen in Section 13.2.4, titled “Aggregate Handling and Stockpiles” within the Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Miscellaneous Sources by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of particulate emissions from aggregate handling and
stockpiles varies with the amount of aggregate passing through the storage cycle. Additionally there
are 3 parameters which effect emissions: moisture content, age of the pile, and proportion of
aggregate fines.
Sources Controlled
Many sources contribute to particulate matter emissions from aggregate handling and stockpiles.
Some industrial sources that deal with aggregate handling and stockpiles are the concrete batch
plant and crushing and screening sources. Both sources use stockpiles and material handling in the
same fashion. Aggregate is delivered on site and dumped in piles. Aggregate is then removed from
the piles using front end loaders which deliver the material to conveyers, elevated storage bins,
and/or feed hoppers.
Description of Emissions
Particulate matter emissions from aggregate handling and stockpiles are generated from a variety
of conditions. When newly processed aggregate is loaded onto a stockpile, the potential for
particulate matter emissions is at a maximum. Fines are easily agitated and released to the
atmosphere upon exposure to air currents, either from disturbance of the pile by dumping or
removal by front end loader, or from high winds.
Potential Control Measures
There are three main control measures available for reducing particulate matter emissions from
aggregate handling and stockpiles: watering, chemical wetting agents, and partial or full enclosures.
The following are potential control measures for reducing particulate matter emissions from
aggregate handling and stockpiles.
Chemical Additives. Chemical additives may be either wet or dry and can be added to the
pile. The benefit to chemical additives is that it lasts longer with only one application.
However, depending on the types of chemicals used it could be hazardous.
Water. Water is the most common method employed for controlling emissions from
stockpiles and aggregate handling. Water is especially useful in areas near the stockpile
where vehicle traffic is the greatest.

54

Partial or Full Enclosures. Enclosures can be used to prevent wind erosion of stockpiles
and aggregate handling areas.
Emission Reductions
With the implementation of the potential control measures listed above in Section 2, the following
estimated emission reductions can be expected:
Chemical Additives. Chemical additives have a net decrease of emissions equal to 68%
for stockpiles. For aggregate handling the net decrease of emissions is equal to 7%.
Partial Enclosures. Partial enclosures have a net decrease of emissions equal to 76% for
stockpiles. For aggregate handling the net decrease of emissions is equal to 11%.
Full Enclosures. Full enclosures have a net decrease of emissions equal to 88% for
stockpiles. For aggregate handling the net decrease of emissions is equal to 15%.
BACM/MSM Analysis
Table 4.3.4.10 outlines current control measures, benchmarked control measures, and additional
recommended control measures for stockpiles. Currently, MCESD Rule 310 regulates stockpiles at
industrial sources and construction sources. The recommended changes are additional control
measures that are proposed as MSM for MCESD Rule 316. Because Rule 310 already applies to
emissions from this source category, the intent is only to augment and supplement those controls
that already exist. All portions of Rule 310 that are currently applicable to this source category will
remain applicable to this source category unless a more stringent measure is identified.
The following table outlines current control measures, benchmarked control measures, and
additional recommended control measures for stockpiles. Currently, Maricopa County Rule 310
regulates stockpiles at industrial and construction sources; however these recommended changes
are additional control measures that are proposed as MSM for Maricopa County Rule 316. Because
Rule 310 already applies to emissions from this source category, the intent is only to augment and
supplement those controls that already exist. All portions of 310 that are currently applicable to this
source category (including test methods, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting) will remain
applicable to this source category unless a more stringent measure has been identified.
Table 4.3.4.10 Maricopa County Rule 310: STOCKPILES
Current Rule 310
Benchmarked Controls
Controls
An open stockpile is None
any accumulation of bulk
material with a 5% or
greater silt content, which
in any one point attains a
height of three feet and
covers a total surface area
of 150 square feet or
more. Silt content shall be
assumed to be 5% or
greater unless a person
can show, by testing in
accordance with ASTM

55

Recommended Augmentations
to Rule 316
An open stockpile is any
accumulation of bulk material with
a 5% or greater silt content, which
in any one point attains a height of
three feet and covers a total
surface area of 150 square feet or
more. Silt content shall be
assumed to be 5% or greater
unless a person can show, by
testing in accordance with ASTM
Method C136-01 or an equivalent
method approved in writing by the
Control Officer, Director and the

Table 4.3.4.10 Maricopa County Rule 310: STOCKPILES
Current Rule 310
Benchmarked Controls
Controls
Method C136-01 or an
equivalent
method
approved in writing by the
Control Officer, Director
and the Administrator of
the EPA, that the silt
content is less than 5%.
Prior to and while None
conducting
stacking,
loading, and unloading
operations, comply with
one of the following work
practices;
• Spray material with
water as necessary
• Spray material with
dust suppressant other
than
water
as
necessary
When not conducting None
stacking, loading, and
unloading
operations,
comply with one of the
following work practices:
• Cover open stockpiles TCEQ – Requirements for Concrete
with tarps, plastic, or Batch Plant
other
material
to • Stockpiles located no less than 25
prevent wind from
or 50 feet from property line for a
removing
the
production rate of less than 200 or
coverings;
between 200 and 300, respectively.
• Apply
water
to
maintain soil moisture TCEQ – Requirements for Temporary
content at a minimum rock crushers
of 12%, as determined • Raw
material
and
product
by ASTM Method
stockpiles heights shall not exceed
D2216-98,
or
an
45 feet
equivalent method as
approved
by
the Clark County Nevada §94.11.3 and §
Control
Officer, 41.1.1.2
Director
and
the • Stockpile located within 100 yards
Administrator of the
of occupied building shall not be
EPA. For areas which
constructed over eight feet in
have an optimum
height
moisture content for • Stockpiles over eight (8) feet high
compaction of less
and not covered must have a road
than
12%,
as
bladed to the top to allow water
determined by ASTM
truck/pull access or must have a
Method
D1557sprinkler irrigation system installed
91(1998)
or
an
that is capable of complete
equivalent
method
stockpile coverage
approved
by
the
Control
Officer,

56

Recommended Augmentations
to Rule 316
Administrator of the EPA, that the
silt content is less than 5%.

Prior to and while conducting
stacking, loading, and unloading
operations, comply with one of the
following work practices;
• Spray material with water as
necessary
• Spray material with dust
suppressant other than water
as necessary

When not conducting stacking,
loading, and unloading operations,
comply with one of the following
work practices:
•

•

•
•
•

Cover open stockpiles with
tarps, plastic, or other
material to prevent wind from
removing the coverings;
Apply water to maintain soil
moisture content at a
minimum of 12%, as
determined by ASTM Method
D2216-98, or an equivalent
method as approved by the
Control Officer, Director and
the Administrator of the EPA.
For areas which have an
optimum moisture content for
compaction of less than 12%,
as determined by ASTM
Method D1557-91(1998) or
an
equivalent
method
approved by the Control
Officer, Director and the
Administrator of the EPA,
maintain at least 70% of the
optimum
soil
moisture
content;
Meet one of the following
stabilization requirements:
Maintain a visible crust
Maintain a threshold friction

Table 4.3.4.10 Maricopa County Rule 310: STOCKPILES
Current Rule 310
Benchmarked Controls
Controls
Director
and
the
Administrator of the
EPA, maintain at least
70% of the optimum
soil moisture content;
• Meet one of the
following stabilization
requirements; or
o Maintain a visible
crust
o Maintain a threshold
friction velocity for
disturbed surface
areas corrected for
non-erodible
elements of 100
cm/seconds
or
higher;
o Maintain
a
flat
vegetative
cover
that is equal to at
least 50%;
o Maintain a standing
vegetative
cover
that is equal to or
greater than 30%;
o Maintain a standing
vegetative
cover
that is equal to or
greater than 10%
and
where
the
threshold
friction
velocity is equal to
or greater than 43
cm/second
when
corrected for nonerodible elements;
o Maintain a percent
cover that is equal
to or greater than
10%
for
nonerodible elements;
or
o Comply
with
a
standard of an
alternative
test
method,
upon
obtaining the written
approval from the
control officer and
the administrator of
the Environmental
Protection Agency
57

Recommended Augmentations
to Rule 316
velocity for disturbed surface
areas corrected for nonerodible elements of 100
cm/seconds or higher;
• Maintain a flat vegetative
cover that is equal to at least
50%;
• Maintain
a
standing
vegetative cover that is equal
to or greater than 30%;
• Maintain
a
standing
vegetative cover that is equal
to or greater than 10% and
where the threshold friction
velocity is equal to or greater
than 43 cm/second when
corrected for non-erodible
elements;
• Maintain a percent cover that
is equal to or greater than
10%
for
non-erodible
elements; or
• Comply with a standard of an
alternative test method, upon
obtaining the written approval
from the control officer and
the administrator of the
environmental
protection
agency (EPA).
• Construct and maintain wind
barriers, storage silos, or a
three-sided enclosure with
walls, whose length is no less
than equal to the length of
the pile, whose distance from
the pile is no more than twice
the height of the pile, whose
height is equal to the pile
height, and whose porosity is
no more than 50%. If
implementing this condition,
the silt loading standards or
stabilizations requirements
must also be met.
• Rule 316 § 307.1.d includes
bladed roads and a sprinkler
system in a menu of options.
Augmentation
prohibiting
visible emissions beyond the
fenceline is more stringent
than stockpile height limit and
offers sources flexibility to

Table 4.3.4.10 Maricopa County Rule 310: STOCKPILES
Current Rule 310
Benchmarked Controls
Controls
(EPA).
• Construct
and
maintain wind barriers,
storage silos, or a
three-sided enclosure
with walls, whose
length is no less than
equal to the length of
the
pile,
whose
distance from the pile
is no more than twice
the height of the pile,
whose height is equal
to the pile height, and
whose porosity is no
more than 50%. If
implementing
this
condition, the silt
loading standards or
stabilizations
requirements
must
also be met.
---No visible emissions beyond
property line: A person shall not cause
or allow the emissions of fugitive dust
from any active operation, open
stockpile, or disturbed surface area
such that the presence of such dist
remains visible in the atmosphere
beyond the property line of the
emission source. Exemption for wind
gusts exceeding 25 mph, if high wind
control measures are implemented.
Pima County Code §17.16.050.D
----

Stabilize surface soils where
support equipment and vehicles will
operate
by
pre-watering
and
maintaining surface soils in a
stabilized condition; or by applying and
maintaining a dust palliative on surface
soils. Pima County Code §17.16.050.D

Recommended Augmentations
to Rule 316
comply with opacity limit.
•
• Raw material and product
stockpiles at new facilities
shall be located at least 25
feet from the property line.
New stockpiles at existing
facilities are limited to this
setback if determined to be
feasible on a case-by-case
basis through the Dust
Control Plan by assessing
the amount of open land
available at the property
before the new stockpiles are
formed.
•
• Raw material and product
stockpile heights shall not
exceed 45 feet.
No visible emissions beyond
property line: A person shall not
cause or allow the emissions of
fugitive dust from any active
operation, open stockpile, or
disturbed surface area such that
the presence of such dist remains
visible in the atmosphere beyond
the property line of the emission
source. Exemption for wind gusts
exceeding 25 mph, if high wind
control
measures
are
implemented, and for activities
unrelated to the permitted facility.
Stabilize surface soils where suppo

Additional BACM And MSM Not Recommended for Consideration
Of the BACM and MSM measures that have been benchmarked, these additional measures have
been considered but are not recommended for inclusion in Rule 316 as they are either duplicative
of other measures that are being proposed for adoption into Rule 316, or they are as stringent, or
less stringent than other measures that have been proposed for adoption into Rule 316.

58

Active Stockpile Activities.
9 Clark County Construction Activities Dust Control handbook – Stockpiling
Other Stockpile Activities.
9 Modeled Concentration Based Rules. TCEQ, Rule § 111.155 Ground Level
Concentrations
9 Stockpile Height Limitations. TCEQ - Air Quality Standard Permit for Hot Mix Asphalt
Plants Effective Date July 10, 2003
Unpaved Haul and Access Roads
Background
Vehicular travel on and windblown emissions from unpaved roads and unpaved parking lots
generate significant amounts of fugitive dust and can also lead to trackout of particulate matter onto
existing paved roads. These emissions are a result of dust being reentrained into the atmosphere.
The sources affected are any non-metallic mineral products processing facility which has unpaved
haul and access roads, which includes vehicle traffic on dirt or gravel roads at industrial sites that
consists of quarry pit roads, entrance and exit roads, and transfer roads.
Potential Control Measures
The following measures for the control of fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads were
evaluated: dust suppressants, paving, sweeping, watering, wet sweeping, and foaming.
Emission Reductions
The 1997 SCAQMD staff report for Rule 1186 (applicable to unpaved roads within the South Coast
Air Basin) includes the following emission reduction percentages for various control options: 94%
reduction for paving, 75% reduction for applying chemical stabilizers, and 50% reduction for a 15
mph speed limit.
Based upon the TCEQ general permit application for concrete batch plants, the emissions reduction
percentages shown in Table 4.3.4.11 can be achieved for the following controls: 80% reduction for
oiling unpaved roads, 85% reduction for application of chemical foam, 90% reduction for paving and
sweeping, 95% reduction for paving and watering, 98% reduction for paving and wet sweeping, and
99% reduction for paving and foam application.
Table 4.3.4.11 Emissions Reductions Percentages for Unpaved Haul and Access Roads Control
Measures
Emission Point/
Control Measure

PM10 Emissions
Controllable
lb/yr (tons)

PM10 Emissions
Eliminated
lb/yr (tons/yr)

Percent Reduction
in Total Industry
Emissions

Percent Reduction
in Industry
Category
Emissions

Dust Suppressants
381,706 (190.9)
105,160(52.6)
15.8%
27.5%
(85% Control)
Pave 50% of all unpaved roads at facilities with pits, and 65% of all unpaved roads at facilities without pits. All remaining unpaved
roads would be watered (assumed 70% control), and the following maintenance will be applied to the newly paved roads.
Sweeping (90% control)
381,706 (190.9)
80,219 (40.1)
12.1%
21.0%
Watering (95% control)
381,706 (190.9)
98,672 (49.3)
14.8%
25.9%
Wet Sweeping (98%
381,706 (190.9)
109,743 (54.9)
16.5%
28.8%

59

Table 4.3.4.11 Emissions Reductions Percentages for Unpaved Haul and Access Roads Control
Measures
Emission Point/
Control Measure

PM10 Emissions
Controllable
lb/yr (tons)

PM10 Emissions
Eliminated
lb/yr (tons/yr)

Percent Reduction
in Total Industry
Emissions

Percent Reduction
in Industry
Category
Emissions

control)
Foaming (99% control)
381,706 (190.9)
113,434 (56.7)
17.1%
29.7%
Pave 50% of all unpaved roads at facilities with pits, and 65% of all unpaved roads at facilities without pits. All remaining unpaved
roads would be controlled by dust suppressants (assumed 85% control), and the following maintenance will be applied to the newly
paved roads.
Sweeping (90% control)
381,706 (190.9)
123,614 (61.8)
18.6%
32.4%
Watering (95% control)
381,706 (190.9)
142,066 (71.0)
21.4%
37.2%
Wet Sweeping (98%
381,706 (190.9)
153,138 (76.6)
23.0%
40.1%
control)
Foaming (99% control)
381,706 (190.9)
156,829 (78.4)
23.6%
41.1%

Technical Feasibility
There are four types of haul roads typically found at a facility: main entry/exit loop, major material
haul roads, minor material haul roads, and pit roads. Minor material haul roads and pit roads are not
feasible to pave because they are constantly changing. The facilities with haul roads can be divided
into two groups, those facilities with open pits and those facilities without open pits. It has been
conservatively assumed that sources with open pits can feasibly pave only 50% of their haul roads
while sources without open pits can feasibly pave 65% of their haul roads. It is assumed that all
entry/exit loops for both defined facilities can be paved.
Auxiliary Advantages/Disadvantages
Advantages. Paving is a permanent control measure that is performed one time and does
not require daily maintenance. It allows for less trackout from the facility and allows the
facility to ensure compliance
Disadvantages. Chemical foams can have a negative affect on vegetation and wildlife.
Paving introduces oils to the soil.
Cost-Effectiveness
Costs for unpaved road treatment were estimated in the 1997 SCAQMD Rule 1186 staff report to
be $350,000 per mile of paved road, $16,107 per mile using chemical stabilizers, $800 total per
mile for speed limit reduction based upon $200 per sign and 4 signs per mile.
The overall cost-effectiveness of SCAQMD Rule 1186 unpaved road treatment requirements was
estimated at $958 per ton of PM10 reduction.
BACM/MSM Analysis
Table 4.3.4.12 outlines current control measures, benchmarked control measures, and additional
recommended control measures for unpaved haul and access roads. Currently, MCESD Rule 310
regulates all unpaved haul/access roads at industrial and construction sources; however, these
recommended changes are additional control measures that are proposed as MSM for MCESD
Rule 316. Because Rule 310 already applies to emissions from this source category, the intent is
only to augment and supplement those controls that already exist. All portions of 310 that are

60

currently applicable to this source category will remain applicable to this source category unless a
more stringent measure is identified.
BACM and MSM Not Recommended for Consideration
Of the BACM and MSM measures that have been benchmarked, these additional measures have
been considered but are not proposed for inclusion in Rule 316 as they are either duplicative of
other measures that are being proposed for adoption into Rule 316, or they are as stringent, or less
stringent than other measures that have been proposed for adoption into Rule 316.
Vehicular Speed Limit:
9 Clark County, Nevada - AQR 94 and Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook
Control of Unpaved Haul and Access Roads:
9
9
9
9

TCEQ Concrete Batch Plant Technical Guidelines for Mechanical Sources
TCEQ Air Quality Standard Permit for Temporary Rock Crushers
TCEQ February 2002, standard permit for rock crushing plants, BACT Analysis
TCEQ Air Quality Standard Permit for Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Effective Date July 10,
2003
9 TAC §111.147. Roads, Streets, and Alleys
9 TCEQ Air Quality Standard Permit for Concrete Batch Plants, Effective July 10, 2003
The following table outlines current control measures, benchmarked control measures, and
additional recommended controls measures for unpaved haul and access roads. Currently,
Maricopa County Rule 310 regulates all industrial sources and construction sources; however these
recommended changes are additional control measures that are proposed as MSM for Maricopa
County Rule 316. Because Rule 310 already applies to emissions from this source category, the
intent is only to augment and supplement those controls that already exist. All portions of 310 that
are currently applicable to this source category (including test methods, monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting) and will remain applicable to this source category unless a more stringent measure
has been identified.

61

Table 4.3.4.12 Maricopa County Rule 310: Unpaved Haul And Access Roads
Recommended Augmentations
Current Rule 310 Controls
Benchmarked Controls
to Rule 316
Applies to owner/operator of ----Applies to owner/operator of any
any unpaved haul/access road
unpaved haul/access road
No visible dust emissions from None
No visible dust emissions from
unpaved Haul/Access Roads
unpaved Haul/Access Roads which
which exceed 20% opacity and
exceed 20% opacity and not
not allowing a silt loading equal
allowing a silt loading equal to or
to or greater than 0.33 ounce per
greater than 0.33 ounce per square
square foot.
foot.
As an alternative to meeting
Reduce Speed Limit from 15 As an alternative to meeting the
the stabilization requirements for to 10 mph
stabilization requirements for an
an unpaved haul/access road,
unpaved haul/access road, limit
limit vehicle trips to no more than
vehicle trips to no more than 20 per
20 per day and limit vehicle
day and limit vehicle speeds to no
speeds to no more than 15 miles
more than 10 miles per hour.
per hour.
TCEQ’s requirement for surface
stabilization is in its permit by rule,
not applicable to individual source
permits
where
case-by-case
conditions are examined. ADEQ’s
alternative is equivalent.
Implement one or more control
measure(s) before engaging in
the use of or in the maintenance
of unpaved haul/access roads:
• Limit vehicle speed to 15
miles per hour or less and
limit vehicular trips to no more
than 20 per day (total for all
unpaved haul/access roads);
• Apply water so that the
surface is visibly moist and
opacity limitation and silt
loading
requirement
described above is met;
• Pave;
• Apply and maintain gravel,
recycled asphalt, or other
suitable material ensuring
compliance with opacity
limitation and silt loading
requirement
described
above.; or
• Apply a suitable dust
suppressant
ensuring
compliance with opacity
limitation and silt loading
requirement described above.

None
Use of bumps, humps, or
dips for speed control
TCEQ – Requirements for
Concrete Batch Plant Roads
Located no less than 25 feet
from property line, except for
entrance and exit to the site.

• Implement one or more control
measure(s) before engaging in
the use of, or in the
maintenance
of,
unpaved
haul/access roads:
o Control Requirements
o Work Practice Standards
o Use bumps, humps, or dips
for speed control; and Limit
vehicle speed to 10 miles
per hour or less; and Limit
vehicle trips to no more than
20 per day; or
o Apply water so that the
surface is visibly moist and
that opacity and silt loading
limitations described in this
requirement are met; or
o Pave; or
o Apply and maintain gravel,
recycled asphalt, or other
suitable
material,
in
compliance with Maricopa
County Rule 310 § 302.2; or
o Apply a suitable dust
suppressant, in compliance
with Maricopa County Rule
310, § 302.2 (and restated
in Rule 310, Table 3).
• Set Back Requirements:

62

Table 4.3.4.12 Maricopa County Rule 310: Unpaved Haul And Access Roads
Recommended Augmentations
Current Rule 310 Controls
Benchmarked Controls
to Rule 316
• Require all new facilities to locate
unpaved roads no less than 25
feet from property line, except
for entrance and exit to the site.
The owner and/or operator of a
SCAQMD - Use of trackout
The owner and/or operator of a
dust generating operation shall do controls such as wheel dust generating operation shall do all
all of the following:
washers, rumble grates, or an of the following:
equivalent trackout device.
•
Install, maintain and use
• Install, maintain and use a wheel
Use of trackout controls
a suitable trackout control
washing system, rumble grate or
consider
the
device (examples of trackout should
other equivalent trackout control
control devices are described stabilization of the roads and
device (examples of other
in Table 17 – Trackout Control unpaved shoulders that off-site
possible trackout control devices
of this rule) that controls and traffic must cross in order to
are described in Table 17 –
prevents trackout and/or enter the facility.
Trackout Control of this rule) that
removes particulate matter
controls and prevents trackout
from tires and the exterior
and/or
removes
particulate
surfaces of haul trucks and/or
matter from tires and the exterior
motor vehicles that traverse
surfaces of haul trucks and/or
such operation at all exits onto
motor vehicles that traverse such
paved areas accessible to the
operation at all exits onto paved
public.
areas accessible to the public.
o All work sites with a
disturbed surface area of
• The appropriate trackout controls
two acres or larger, and
shall be determined after
o All work sites where 100
considering the stabilization of
cubic yards of bulk
the roads and any unpaved
materials are hauled onshoulders that off-site traffic must
site and/or off-site per
cross in order to enter and exit
day.
the facility, and shall be deemed
acceptable
through
an
• Clean up, trackout, carry-out,
approvable dust control plan.
spillage, and/or erosion, on the
following time-schedule:
• Clean up, trackout, carry-out,
o Immediately,
when
spillage, and/or erosion, on the
trackout, carry-out, or
following time-schedule:
spillage
extends
a
o Rule 316 § 307.6.d.
cumulative distance of 50
prohibits trackout, carry-out,
linear feet or more; and
or spillage that extends a
o At the end of the
cumulative distance of 25
workday, for all other
linear feet or more from all
trackout,
carry-out,
facility exits; and
spillage, and/or erosion.
o At the end of the workday,
for all other trackout, carryout, spillage, and/or erosion
requires clean up.
---Require all entry and exit roads
Entrance and Exit Roads –
Require all entry and exit roads and main traffic routes associated
and main traffic routes with the operation to be paved with a
associated with the operation cohesive hard surface that is
to be paved with a cohesive maintained intact and cleaned, or
hard surface that is maintained controlled through the use of 1” rock,

63

Table 4.3.4.12 Maricopa County Rule 310: Unpaved Haul And Access Roads
Recommended Augmentations
Current Rule 310 Controls
Benchmarked Controls
to Rule 316
intact and cleaned (exceptions or recycled asphalt when paving is
from paving for temporary determined to be technically or
plants – 180 day or less)
legally infeasible, as approved in
dust control plan. For example, if a
permitted source leases property
paving may not be authorized. A
steeply graded road or a road that
traverses a wash may not be paved.
(There may be exceptions from
paving for temporary plants – 180
day or less).
---Require all batch trucks and
Delivery and Batch Truck
Operations – Require all material delivery trucks to remain on
batch trucks and material controlled surfaces when entering,
delivery trucks to remain on conducting primary function, and
paved surfaces when entering, leaving the property, as approved in
conducting primary function, a dust control plan.
and leaving the property.
---Dust Emissions from In- Minimize dust emissions from all
Plant Roads and Traffic – other in-plant roads and traffic areas
Minimize dust emissions from at all times by at least one of the
all other in-plant roads and following methods:
traffic areas at all times by at
least one of the following (i) Cover with a material such as, but
not limited to, roofing shingles
methods:
or tire chips (when used in
(i) Cover with a material such
combination with (ii) or (iii) of
as, but not
limited
to,
this subsection;
roofing shingles or tire chips
(when used in combination (ii) Treat with dust suppressant
with (ii) or
(iii) of this chemicals;
(iii) Water; or
subsection);
(ii) Treat with dust suppressant (iv) Pave with a cohesive hard
surface that is maintained
chemicals;
intact and cleaned.
(iii)Water; or
(iv)
Pave with a cohesive
hard surface that
is
maintained intact and cleaned.
---Stabilize surface soils where
Stabilization
Requirements for Unpaved loaders, support equipment and
Areas – Stabilize surface soils vehicles will operate by prewatering
where
loaders,
support and maintaining surface soils in a
equipment and vehicles will stabilized condition; or by applying
operate by prewatering and and maintaining a dust palliative on
maintaining surface soils in a surface soils.
stabilized condition; or by
applying and maintaining a
dust palliative on surface soils
--No person shall cause, suffer,
No Visible Emissions at
the Fence Line - No person allow, or permit diffusion of visible
shall cause, suffer, allow, or emissions, including fugitive dust,
permit diffusion of visible beyond the property boundary line
emissions, including fugitive within which the emissions become

64

Table 4.3.4.12 Maricopa County Rule 310: Unpaved Haul And Access Roads
Recommended Augmentations
Current Rule 310 Controls
Benchmarked Controls
to Rule 316
dust, beyond the property airborne, without taking reasonably
boundary line within which the necessary and feasible precautions
emissions become airborne, to control generation of airborne
without taking reasonably particulate matter. Sources may be
necessary
and
feasible required to cease temporarily the
precautions
to
control activity or operation which is causing
generation
of
airborne or contributing to the emissions until
particulate matter. Sources reasonably necessary and feasible
may be required to cease precautions are taken.
temporarily the activity or
operation which is causing or
contributing to the emissions
until reasonably necessary and
feasible precautions are taken.

65

Opacity Limitation:
SJV Air Pollution Control District Rule 8071 Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic
Areas
Fugitive Emissions From Concrete Batching Operations:
Florida Administrative Code 62-296.414 Concrete Batching Plants
Selected Control Measures for Unpaved Haul and Access Roads
Currently, MCESD Rule 310 regulates all unpaved haul/access roads at industrial and construction
sources; however, below are additional control measures that are proposed as MSM for MCESD
Rule 316. Augmentation of Rule 316 to include the portions of Rule 310 that are relevant to
unpaved haul and access roads has been selected as a control measure. The following are
additional selected control measures:
Entrance and Exit Roads. Require all entry and exit roads and main traffic routes
associated with an operation to be paved with a cohesive hard surface that is maintained
intact and cleaned except when it is determined to be technically infeasible or
unreasonable. The determination of infeasibility or unreasonableness will consider the
stabilization of roads and shoulders leading to the access point and will be made as part of
a dust control plan.
Dust Emissions from In-Plant Roads and Traffic. Truck traffic that enters and exits a
facility will remain on controlled surfaces. Controls include paving, dust suppressants, or
watered roads consistent with an approved dust control plan. No visible dust emissions from
unpaved roads that exceed 20% opacity. Silt loading equal to or greater than 0.33 ounce
per square foot is prohibited.
Stabilization Requirements for Unpaved Areas. Surface soils where loaders, support
equipment and other vehicles will operate will be stabilized by applying water or dust
suppressants. As an alternative, vehicle trips can be limited to no more than 20 per day and
vehicle speeds to no more than 10 mph.
Trackout Controls. Install, maintain, and use a wheel washing system, rumble grate, or
other equivalent trackout control device that prevents trackout and removes particulate
matter from tires and exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles at all exits onto
paved areas accessible to the public. Clean up, trackout, spillage, and/or erosion will be
removed: 1) immediately when spillage extends a cumulative distance of 50 linear feet or
more or 2) at the end of the work day, for all other trackout.
Minimum Distance from Fence Line. Unpaved roads at new facilities are required to be
located no fewer than 25 feet from the property line, except for entrance and exit to the site.
No Visible Emissions at the Fence Line. No visible emissions are allowed beyond the
property boundary line without taking reasonably necessary and feasible precautions to
control generation of airborne particulate matter. Sources may be required to cease
temporarily the activity or operation which is causing or contributing to the emissions.
66

Delivery and Batch Truck Operations. All batch trucks and material delivery trucks will
remain on controlled surfaces when entering, conducting their primary function, and leaving
the property as described in an approved dust control plan.
Control Requirements. Various other controls for unpaved roads including bumps, humps,
and dips, limitations on vehicle speed, surface stabilization, opacity and silt loading
limitations, and paving as described in Table 4.3.4.12.
Other Industrial Sources
Permitted industrial point (stack) sources in the Salt River SIP Study Area were evaluated for
compliance with BACM/MSM. Of all industrial point sources evaluated, control measures on all
facilities met BACM/MSM except brick and structural clay product manufacturing and cooling
towers. Evaluations of these sources are` described below.
Brick and Structural Clay Product Manufacturing
Background
Brick, and structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale,
form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes. As part of
brick and clay products manufacturing, kilns are used for high temperature firing. The most common
type of kiln used for firing brick is the tunnel kiln. During the kiln firing, a significant amount of
particulate matter emissions is generated.
There are several types of sources that generate particulate matter emissions during the brick and
clay products manufacturing process. These sources include, but are not limited to, raw material
grinding, screening operations, kiln firing, brick dryers, facility paved roads, unpaved roads, and
stockpiles.
BACM/MSM Analysis
Table 4.3.4.13 outlines current control measures, benchmarked control measures, and additional
recommended control measures for and brick and structural clay product manufacturing facilities.
Currently, MCESD Rule 311 regulates operations that emit particulate matter emissions into the
ambient air as a result of processing materials that are not otherwise required to be controlled
through MCESD Rules 313, 316, 317, 319, 322, and 323 or other applicable New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) or National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). Because brick and structural clay manufacturers number among those industries
unregulated by MCESD particulate rules the intent is to recommend the adoption of a rule
regulating emissions from brick and clay manufacturers. MCESD has proposed, and is in the
process of developing, Maricopa County Rule 325, which will address brick and clay sources.
The following table outlines current control measures, benchmarked control measures, and
additional recommended control measures for brick and structural clay product manufacturing
facilities. Currently, Maricopa County Rule 311 regulates operations that emit particulate matter
emissions into the ambient air as a result of processing materials that are not otherwise required to
be controlled through Maricopa County Rules 313, 316, 317, 319, 322 and 323 or other applicable
New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) or National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP). Because there is no other applicable requirement to emissions from this
67

source category, the intent of the document is to recommend the adoption of a new rule regulating
emissions from brick and structural clay product manufacturing facilities.
Table 4.3.4.13 BRICK OR STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING Maricopa County
Rule 325: Particulate Emissions Not Otherwise Controlled
Current Maricopa County Benchmarked Controls
Recommended New Requirements
Rule 311 Controls
•

Process Weight Rates
Less Than or Equal to
60,000 Pounds Per Hour:
Determination of the
allowable hourly emission
rates (E) for process
weight rates up to 60,000
lbs/hr
shall
be
accomplished by use of
the equation:
E = 3.59 P0.62 (P = less
than or equal to 30
tons/hr)
where:

40
CFR
63.8405(a)
Subpart JJJJJ - Each
existing, new, or reconstructed
tunnel kiln at a brick or
structural
clay
product
manufacturing facility with a
capacity less than 10 tons per
hour (tph) of fired product shall
not have particulate emissions
that exceed 0.42 pounds per
ton (lb/ton) of fired product.
SCAQMD Rule 1112.1
was reviewed but is not
applicable to brick and clay
product kilns.

E = Emissions in pounds
per hour, and
P = Process weight rate in
tons per hour.
•

Process Weight Rates
Greater Than 60,000
Pounds Per Hour:
Determination of the
allowable hourly emission
rates (E) for process
weight rates in excess of
60,000 lbs/hr shall be
accomplished by the use
of the equation:
E = 17.31 P0.16 (P =
greater than 30 tons/hr)
where "E" and "P" have
the same meanings as
above.

68

Each existing, new, or reconstructed tunnel
kiln at a brick or structural clay product
manufacturing facility with a capacity less than 10
tons per hours (tph) of fired product shall not have
particulate emissions that exceed 0.42 pounds
per ton (lb/ton) of fired product. (Implemented
effective 03/09/2005)

Brick and Structural Clay Product Manufacturing Facilities.
Cooling Towers
Background
During the BACM/MSM review on industrial point sources, ADEQ considered the emissions from
cooling towers at electrical generating units in order to determine whether additional PM10
emissions reductions might be possible. The most commonly accepted controls for PM10 emissions
from cooling towers include the installation of high efficiency drift eliminators and the control of total
dissolved solids (TDS) in the water used in cooling towers.
BACM/MSM Analysis
A review of Maricopa County’s existing power plant rule, MCESD Rule 322 § 301.3, determined
that electrical generating units inside the non-attainment area are already required to install high
efficiency drift eliminators on all cooling towers and to control the TDS concentration in the recirculated cooling water. In addition, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) has
established a requirement in the Phoenix Active Management Area Plan for existing cooling towers
at electrical generating units to recycle the water used by such towers a minimum of seven times.
New cooling towers are required to recycle the water additional times (beyond the seven required
for existing cooling towers) or be equipped with a technology that helps reduce the amount of water
used by the process (Third Management Plan for the Phoenix Active Management Area, 2000 –
2010, Arizona Department of Water Resources, December 1999, pp 6-65 through 6-72).
ADEQ confirmed that high efficiency drift eliminators are, in fact, installed on all electrical
generating unit cooling towers in the Salt River SIP Study Area. ADEQ further evaluated the
possibility of setting specific, county-wide TDS concentration limits for these facilities that are lower
than the maximum 12,000 TDS allowed by the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(AZPDES) Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 9, Article 9. These facilities, however,
have been designed to meet the 12,000 TDS maximum and are unable from an engineering
standpoint to operate at a significantly lower TDS level.
Because the electrical generating units inside the non-attainment area have installed high efficiency
drift eliminators on all cooling towers, because they are meeting ADWR and AZPDES requirements,
and because lowering TDS concentration limits is technically, legally, and/or economically
infeasible, these facilities are already meeting BACM/MSM requirements.
4.3.5

ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES

Paved Roads
Background
The most significant sources of PM10 emissions in the Salt River Study Area related to paved roads
are dust loading from windblown emissions, soil trackout and emissions from earth moving and
other dust generating processes in areas of high industrial, construction, and agricultural activity.
Dust loading is, essentially, the amount of particulate matter deposited on roadways and available
for reentrainment That fraction of the dirt and dust on the pavement smaller than 75 microns is
called the silt loading, which is the particulate matter available for reentrainment. This fine
particulate matter becomes reentrained to the atmosphere as a result of vehicular traffic. It is not
69

possible, however, to prevent only the silt from being deposited on the roadway without the rest of
the particulate materials.
Trackout refers to material deposited on primary and secondary roads as a result of vehicles
traveling over disturbed soils; accumulating mud, dirt, and debris on their tires and other exterior
surfaces; and subsequently entering and traveling upon paved roads. Once soil has been tracked
out of the original disturbed soil area and onto paved roads, vehicles repeatedly traveling over the
affected area suspend the soil as fine particles of particulate matter or dust, much of which
becomes suspended in the atmosphere.
Selected Control Measures
The potential control measures to address the problems of silt loading and trackout on paved roads
are enhanced enforcement of MCESD Rules 310 and 316 and implementation of agency- and
political subdivision-specific control measures for dust emissions from targeted paved roads in the
Salt River Study Area and the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area.
Enhanced Enforcement of Rules 310 and 316. Because most heavy silt loading and
trackout on roadways is a result of industrial, construction, and agricultural activities,
enhanced enforcement of MCESD Rule 310 pertaining to fugitive dust and augmentation of
MCESD Rule 316 pertaining to industrial sources are proposed as control measures. For
Rule 316 specifically, potential augmentations require the installation, maintenance, and use
of a wheel washing system, rumble grate, or equivalent trackout control device that removes
particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles
that traverse the operation at all exits onto paved areas.
Additionally, Rule 316 will be augmented to include requirements for cleanup of trackout,
carry-out, spillage, and/or erosion to occur: 1) immediately if the trackout extends a
cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more or 2) at the end of the work day for all other
trackout. The recommended augmentations for trackout/carryout are further described in
Table 4.3.4.12 which addresses unpaved haul and access roads.
Currently, Rule 310 regulates dust-generating operations; however, the recommended
changes are additional control measures that are proposed as MSM for MCESD Rule 316.
Because Rule 310 already applies to emissions from this source category, the intent is only
to augment and supplement those controls that already exist. All portions of Rule 310 that
are currently applicable to this source category will remain applicable to this source
category.
Control Measure for Reentrained Dust Emissions from Targeted Paved Roads. In
addition to enhanced enforcement of MCESD 310 and augmentation of MCESD Rule 316,
control measures will be developed that address dust emissions from paved roads that
typically experience a high level of soil and dust deposition. A protocol for identifying these
arterial and collector roadway segments will be developed and implemented by the Arizona
Department of Transportation and Maricopa County, and cities, and towns. Each agency
and political subdivision shall develop its own protocol for implementation. The protocol
shall:

70

ƒ

Identify targeted arterial and collector roadways and assign sweeping frequencies
with PM10-efficient sweepers (or conventional sweepers if only these are available)
or other control measures that would reduce the dust loading for each roadway;

ƒ

Describe how the protocol constitutes an enhancement or improvement over the
commitment made in the Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10
for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (February 2000);

ƒ

Address trackout associated with facilities and activities regulated by Maricopa
County, by notifying the County when rule violations are observed; and

ƒ

Provide for the periodic reevaluation of the protocol. The reevaluation shall be
conducted annually unless the protocol includes a justification for a different
frequency.

In developing the protocol, jurisdictions shall consider activities and conditions that exist in
that jurisdiction that contribute to PM10 loading. Examples of factors that may be considered
include: land use, overall traffic volume, heavy duty truck traffic, unpaved shoulders, and
others. The protocol shall be sent to MCESD and ADEQ no later than September 30, 2004
and implemented no later than February 2, 2005. Reevaluations shall be prepared in writing
and submitted to MCESD and ADEQ, and shall include a revised protocol, if appropriate.
Unpaved Shoulders
Road shoulders have multiple functions including accommodating stopped vehicles, providing
support to the edge of the traveled portion of the roadway, protecting the road structure from water
and erosion, and facilitating access by emergency vehicles. If road shoulders are not paved or
otherwise treated to suppress dust, high-profile vehicle traffic can generate a significant amount of
PM10 from pavement and unpaved shoulders.
To address this issue, the Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10 for the
Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (February 2000) included in the committed measures a
measure titled, “Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Unpaved Shoulders on Targeted
Arterials.” Because unpaved shoulders are a significant source category in the Salt River SIP
Study Area, the control measure commitments in the MAG Plan will continue to be relied upon in
achieving attainment. These committed measures are shown in Appendix E.
4.3.6

SUMMARY OF SELECTED CONTROL MEASURES

Windblown Construction
The selected control measure for dust from windblown construction is better enforcement of
MCESD Rule 310 pertaining to the control of fugitive dust. The measures available under Rule 310
to control windblown dust emissions from disturbed areas include opacity restrictions, the use of
water or dust suppressants, and the installation of wind barriers. Temporary measures during
weekends, after work hours, on holidays or during high wind events include applying water, dust
suppressants, or gravel and restricting vehicular access.
A critical aspect of strengthening enforcement of the Rule 310 control measures as well as the
control measures in Rules 310.01 and 316 is the hiring of additional inspectors to support the
71

enforcement program. An additional 25-30 inspectors may be needed to provide adequate
enforcement.
Windblown - Open Areas, Vacant Lots, and Alluvial Channel
The selected control measure for windblown dust from open areas and vacant lots is better
enforcement of MCESD Rule 310.01 pertaining to the control of fugitive dust. Current control
options include establishing/restoring vegetative cover, applying gravel, river rock, broken concrete,
or dust suppressants, creating barriers to trespassing, and establishing wind breaks. A
recommended augmentation to Rule 310.01 is the addition of wind breaks as a control measure.
The most significant control method appears to be the application of barriers to prevent vehicular
trespassing that, if not prevented, results in the destruction of vegetative ground cover and soil
stabilization. As described above, a critical aspect of strengthening enforcement of Rule 310.01 is
hiring additional inspectors.
Windblown – Agricultural
The selected control measures to minimize windblown PM10 emissions from agricultural fields are
the Agricultural BMPs described above and as specified in the Agricultural PM10 General Permit for
the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area and codified in Arizona Administrative Code (AAC)
R18-2-611. A commercial farmer is required to implement at least one BMP from each of the three
agricultural categories: tillage and harvest, non-cropland, and cropland. AAC R18-2-611 is
considered BACM/MSM for the windblown agricultural emissions source category.
Non-Metallic Mineral Processing
Currently, MCESD Rule 316 regulates this source category. MCESD Rule 316 is modeled after the
New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOO titled, “Standards of
Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants.” The recommended changes are
additional control measures that are proposed as MSM for MCESD Rule 316. Augmentation of Rule
316 to include the portions of Rule 310 that are relevant to non-metallic mineral product processing
is a selected control measure in addition to the following measures:
Crushing And Screening Plants
No Visible Emissions Standard. No visible fugitive emissions shall leave the property from
the crusher, associated sources, and in-plant roads associated only with the facility. This
rule applies only to onsite operations.
Permanently Mounted Watering Systems. Permanently mounted spray bars are required at
the inlet and outlet of all crushers, all shaker screens, and at all material transfer points.
Side Covers for Screens.
Concrete Batch Plants
Cement Silo Baghouse, Fabric Filter or Cartridge Filter Requirement. New baghouses are
required to be designed to meet a 0.01 gr/dscf standard.

72

Cement Silo Filling Requirements. A control system that shuts off the cement silo filling
process if pressure from the delivery truck reaches excessive levels.
Cement Silo Overfill Warning System. An audible or visual system is required.
Spilled Material Work Practice Standard. Spilled material must be immediately removed or
controlled by water or another suppressant.
Batch Mix Feed Controls. Dust emissions at the batch mixer feed shall be controlled by a
spray device, rubber fill tubes, a baghouse capture and delivery system, or by conducting
the entire mixing operation inside an enclosed process building such that no visible
emissions from the building occur during mixing activities.
Asphalt Batch Plants
Baghouse Controls for Drum Dryers. A baghouse is required on the drum dryer and silos
with an opacity limit of not greater than 5% over a six-minute period.
Opacity Requirement. The opacity requirement for non-rubberized asphalt plants is 5
percent.
Filler Silo Overfill Warning System. An audible or visual overfill warning system is required
for lime and other filler silos to alert operators in sufficient time prior to the silo reaching
capacity.
A complete listing of potential Rule 316 augmentations is included in Tables 4.3.4.7 – 4.3.4.9.
Windblown Cleared Areas - Industrial
If a nonmetallic mineral product mining and processing facility does not have an earthmoving
permit, the potential control measure for the areas subject to wind erosion is augmentation and
better enforcement of MCESD Rule 316 for industrial sources. Currently, MCESD Rule 310
regulates all dust generating operations; however, the following recommended change is an
additional control measure that is proposed as MSM for MCESD Rule 316:
Stabilize surface soils where loaders, support equipment, and vehicles will
operate by prewatering and maintaining surface soils in a stabilized condition, or
by applying and maintaining a dust palliative on surface soils.
Because Rule 310 already applies to emissions from this source category, the intent is only to
augment and supplement those controls that already exist. All portions of 310 that are currently
applicable to this source category will remain applicable to this source category unless a more
stringent measure is identified.
If an industrial facility has an earthmoving permit, the potential control measure for the areas
subject to wind erosion is better enforcement of MCESD Rule 310 pertaining to the control of
fugitive dust. A critical aspect of strengthening enforcement of the Rule 310 control measures is
hiring 25-30 additional inspectors for the entire program (this includes resources for the
enforcement of Rule 316 pertaining to industrial sources). See Resolution in SIP Appendix D.
73

The methods available under Rule 310 to control windblown dust emissions from disturbed areas
include opacity restrictions, the use of water or dust suppressants, and the installation of wind
barriers. Temporary measures to be implemented during weekends, after work hours, on holidays
or high wind events include applying water, dust suppressants, or gravel, and restricting vehicular
access.
Stockpiles
The selected control measures for stockpile emissions are augmentation of Rule 316 to include the
portions of Rule 310 that are relevant to stockpile and material handling emissions. The following
control measures are also selected:
No visible emissions beyond property line. A person shall not cause or allow the emissions
of fugitive dust from any active operation, open stockpile, or disturbed surface area such
that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of
the emission source. There is an exemption for wind gusts exceeding 25 mph, if high wind
control measures are implemented. High wind control measures for open stockpiles include
applying water twice per hour and installing temporary covering.
Surface Stabilization. Stabilize surface soils where loaders, support equipment, and other
vehicles will operate by pre-watering and maintaining surface soils in a stabilized condition;
or by applying and maintaining a dust palliative on surface soils.
Distance from fence line and height limitations. Stockpiles at new pits must be located a
minimum distance from the fence line. Stockpiles with less than a 5 percent silt content are
limited to 45 feet in height.
A complete listing of proposed Rule 316 augmentations for stockpiles is included in Table 4.3.4.10.
Unpaved Haul and Access Roads
Augmentation of Rule 316 to include the portions of Rule 310 that are relevant to unpaved haul and
access roads has been selected as a control measure.
The following are additional selected control measures:
Entrance and Exit Roads. Require all entry and exit roads and main traffic routes associated
with an operation to be paved with a cohesive hard surface that is maintained intact and
cleaned except when it is determined to be technically infeasible or unreasonable. The
determination of infeasibility or unreasonableness will consider the stabilization of roads and
shoulders leading to the access point and will be made as part of a dust control plan.
Dust Emissions from In-Plant Roads and Traffic. Truck traffic that enters and exits a facility
will remain on controlled surfaces. Controls include paving, dust suppressants, or watered
roads consistent with an approved dust control plan. No visible dust emissions from
unpaved roads that exceed 20% opacity. Silt loading equal to or greater than 0.33 ounce
per square foot is prohibited.
Stabilization Requirements for Unpaved Areas. Surface soils where loaders, support
equipment and other vehicles will operate will be stabilized by applying water or dust
74

suppressants. As an alternative, vehicle trips can be limited to no more than 20 per day and
vehicle speeds to no more than 10 mph.
Trackout Controls. Install, maintain, and use a wheel washing system, rumble grate, or
other equivalent trackout control device that prevents trackout and removes particulate
matter from tires and exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles at all exits onto
paved areas accessible to the public. Clean up, trackout, spillage, and/or erosion will be
removed: 1) immediately when spillage extends a cumulative distance of 50 linear feet or
more or 2) at the end of the work day, for all other trackout.
Minimum Distance from Fence Line. Unpaved roads at new facilities are required to located
no less than 25 feet from the property line, except for entrance and exit to the site.
No Visible Emissions at the Fence Line. No visible emissions are allowed beyond the
property boundary line without taking reasonably necessary and feasible precautions to
control generation of airborne particulate matter. Sources may be required to cease
temporarily the activity or operation which is causing or contributing to the emissions.
Delivery and Batch Truck Operations. All batch trucks and material delivery trucks will
remain on controlled surfaces when entering, conducting their primary function, and leaving
the property as described in an approved dust control plan.
Control Requirements. Various other controls for unpaved roads including bumps, humps,
and dips, limitations on vehicle speed, surface stabilization, opacity and silt loading
limitations, and paving as described in Table 4.3.4.12.
Brick and Structural Clay Product Manufacturing
Currently, MCESD Rule 311 regulates operations that emit particulate matter emissions into the
ambient air as a result of processing materials that are not otherwise required to be controlled
through MCESD Rules 313, 316, 317, 319, 322, and 323, or other applicable New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) or National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). Because there is no other applicable requirement to emissions from this source
category, the intent is to recommend the adoption of a new rule regulating emissions from brick and
structural clay product manufacturing facilities.
Specific recommendations include: each tunnel kiln at brick and structural clay manufacturing
facilities shall not have particulate matter emissions that exceed 0.42 pound per ton of fired product,
and 2) tunnel kilns at brick or structural clay product manufacturing facilities with a capacity < 10
tons/hr of fired product shall not have particulate matter emissions that exceed 0.42 lb/ton of fired
product.
Paved Roads
The potential control measures to address the problems of dust loading and trackout on paved
roads are enhanced enforcement of MCESD Rules 310 and 316 and implementation of agencyand political subdivision-specific control measures for dust emissions from targeted paved roads in
the both the Salt River PM10 Study Area and the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area..

75

Enhanced Enforcement of Rules 310 and 316. Because most heavy silt loading and
trackout on roadways is a result of industrial, construction, and agricultural activities,
enhanced enforcement of MCESD Rule 310 pertaining to fugitive dust and augmentation of
MCESD Rule 316 pertaining to industrial sources are proposed as control measures. For
Rule 316 specifically, augmentations requiring the installation, maintenance, and use of a
wheel washing system, rumble grate, or equivalent trackout control device that removes
particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles
that traverse the operation at all exits onto paved areas.
Additionally, Rule 316 would be augmented to include requirements for cleanup of trackout,
carry-out, spillage, and/or erosion to occur: 1) immediately if the trackout extends a
cumulative distance of 50 linear feet or more or 2) at the end of the work day for all other
trackout. The recommended augmentations for trackout/carryout are further described in
Table 4.3.4.12 which addresses unpaved haul and access roads.
Currently, Rule 310 regulates dust-generating operations; however, the recommended
changes are additional control measures that are proposed as MSM for MCESD Rule 316.
Because Rule 310 already applies to emissions from this source category, the intent is only
to augment and supplement those controls that already exist. All portions of Rule 310 that
are currently applicable to this source category will remain applicable to this source
category unless a more stringent measure is identified.
Control Measure for Reentrained Dust Emissions from Targeted Paved Roads. In addition
to enhanced enforcement of MCESD 310 and augmentation of MCESD Rule 316, control
measures will be developed that address dust emissions from paved roads that typically
experience a high level of soil and dust deposition. A protocol for identifying these arterial
and collector roadway segments will be developed and implemented by the Arizona
Department of Transportation and Maricopa County, and cities, and towns. Each agency
and political subdivision shall develop its own protocol for implementation. The protocol
shall:
ƒ

Identify targeted arterial and collector roadways and assign sweeping frequencies
with PM10-efficient sweepers (or conventional sweepers if only these are available)
or other control measures that would reduce the dust loading for each roadway;

ƒ

Describe how the protocol constitutes an enhancement or improvement over the
commitment made in the Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10
for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (February 2000);

ƒ

Address trackout associated with facilities and activities regulated by Maricopa
County, by notifying the County when rule violations are observed; and

ƒ

Provide for the periodic reevaluation of the protocol. The reevaluation shall be
conducted annually unless the protocol includes a justification for a different
frequency.

In developing the protocol, jurisdictions shall consider activities and conditions that exist in
that jurisdiction that contribute to PM10 loading. Examples of factors that may be considered
include: land use, overall traffic volume, heavy duty truck traffic, unpaved shoulders, and
others. The protocol shall be sent to MCESD and ADEQ no later than September 30, 2004
76

and implemented no later than February 2, 2005. Reevaluations shall be prepared in writing
and submitted to MCESD and ADEQ, and shall include a revised protocol, if appropriate.
Unpaved Shoulders
The Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10 for the Maricopa County
Nonattainment Area (February 2000) included in the committed measures a measure titled,
“Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Unpaved Shoulders on Targeted Arterials.” Because
unpaved shoulders are a significant source category in the Salt River SIP Study Area, the control
measure commitments in the MAG Plan will continue to be relied upon in achieving attainment.
These committed measures are shown in Appendix E of this plan.
4.3.7

BACM AND MSM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The Salt River PM10 SIP will be finalized after the public participation process and submitted to the
US EPA prior to August 2, 2004. As a result, all committed control measures must be implemented
by February 2, 2005.
The planned MCESD rulemaking schedule is as follows:
June 04, 2004

Docket opening for MCESD Rule 310.01, Fugitive
Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved
Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways, and Rule
316, Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Processing.

July 1, 2004

First stakeholder workshop for Rule 316.

July 8, 2004

First stakeholder workshop for Rule 310.01.

August 5, 2004
August 12, 2004

September 23, 2004

Second pubic workshop for Rule 316.
Second public workshop for Rule 310.01; and First
public workshop for proposed new Rule 325, Brick
Manufacturing
Second public workshop for proposed new Rule
325

November 4, 2004

MCESD oral proceeding to set public hearing dates
for adoption of proposed revisions to Rules 310.01
and 316

December 9, 2004

MCESD oral proceeding to set public hearing date
for adoption of proposed new Rule 325

February 16, 2005

MCESD Board of Supervisors public hearing to
adopt proposed revisions to Rules 310.01 and 316

March 2, 2005
April 2005

MCESD Board of Supervisors public hearing to
adopt proposed new Rule 325
MCESD implements controls that do not require
capital expenditures or contract or bid
amendments.
77

August 2005 – February 2006

MCESD implements controls that require capital
expenditures.

The City of Phoenix Agenda for the adoption of SIP commitments and allocation of funds is
included as Item #95 on the Agenda in Resolution 20114, Commitment to Implement Dust Control
Measures citywide. At their regular council meeting on June 16, the City of Phoenix will consider
Resolution 20114, which is summarized below:
Resolution 20114 stating the City’s intent to implement measures to reduce air
pollution.
This Resolution is committing the City to implement measures to reduce dust from
paved streets and City-owned properties in the Salt River and similar areas.
Funding to support these measures was submitted for Council approval on June 8,
2004. Because the Resolution will become a legally binding commitment in the
Arizona State Implementation Plan for air quality, only a portion of the total program
budget has been included in the Resolution.

78

The Resolution includes:
Targeted street sweeping and other dust control measures for paved roads that will initially
be focused within an area bounded by Van Buren, Baseline, 10th Street, and 51st Avenues.
The program may be implemented in other areas as needed.
Dust control measures on undeveloped City-owned land will initially be focused in the Salt
River bed between 35th and 51st Avenues. The measures may be implemented in other
areas of the City, if necessary. Dust controls may include installation of signs, increased
police enforcement of trespass laws, installation and maintenance of fencing, berms, or
other barriers to restrict property access, removal of trash, stabilization of disturbed soils,
and other measures.
Dust mitigation project on 43rd Avenue between Lower Buckeye Road and the riverbed,
based upon final approval of federal funds available through Maricopa Association of
Governments federal funds. Street improvements will include installation of curb and gutter.
Citizen Notification
No citizen notification is necessary.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the General Purpose Contingency Fund and the STD
Capital Improvement Program.
This item is recommended by Mr. Washington and the Office of Environmental
Programs.
The final resolution stamped by the city clerk will be included in the final SIP.
ADOT, Maricopa County, cities, and towns in the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area will
each submit a protocol addressing control measures for dust emissions from targeted paved roads
by September 30, 2004. Each protocol is required to be implemented by February 2, 2005.

79

This page left intentionally blank

CHAPTER 5: DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT OF PM10 NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
5.1

OVERVIEW

Given predicted recurrence of the meteorological conditions described for each of the exceedance
design days, TSD Chapter 6, “2006 Predicted Concentrations and Controls,” demonstrates that
attainment can be achieved for the eight exceedances modeled in 2002 in this analysis, assuming
the implementation of the enhanced controls identified in Chapter 4 of this SIP.
5.1.1

PROJECTED EMISSION AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY CHANGES BETWEEN 2002
AND 2006

Chapter 4 of the TSD describes the predicted base case 2006 PM10 emissions in considerable
detail. In this Chapter, only the additional controls necessary to meet the standard will be
discussed. Emission reductions will be forthcoming from enhanced controls to be placed on five
kinds of dust-producing activities:
1.

Earthmoving and related activities associated with residential and commercial
construction;

2.

Industrial activity that is chiefly materials handling and transport, with haul roads, pile
forming and material transfer being the principal sources;

3.

Vehicular traffic on paved roads, principally the reentrained dust that vehicles generate,
which can be reduced through increased street sweeping;

4.

Trackout onto paved roads from a variety of sources, which adds to the reentrained dust
from the nominally clean roads; and

5.

Windblown dust from areas such as alluvial surfaces, vacant lots, miscellaneous
disturbed areas, industrial stockpiles, and industrial sites.

In addition to emission reductions from these activities, reductions in windblown emissions will also
occur through expected changes in land use, in particular, the conversion of agricultural land,
vacant lots, and miscellaneous disturbed areas to residential and commercial uses. Each of these
activities contributes PM10 to the atmosphere throughout the metropolitan area, and within the Salt
River PM10 Study Area. Each has some effect on the four monitors within the study area, and the
emissions inventory and air quality model has quantified their source category contributions.
State Implementation Plan Chapter 3, “PM10 Emissions Inventories,” Table 3.2 (Table 4-5 of the
TSD) identifies the 2002 Salt River PM10 emissions inventory source categories and 2002 estimated
PM10 emissions for each, in metric tons per day. Table 5.1, reflects the projected percentage
reduction in emissions from significant source categories in the Salt River Study Area, between
2002 and 2006, due to the effect of enhanced control measures and the conversion of vacant and
agricultural land to residential and commercial uses.

80

TABLE 5.1 Percent Change in Emissions Between 2002 and 2006 Attainment Case
Emission Category
Percent
Reason for Change
Change in
Emissions
AREA SOURCES
Agricultural
Tilling
(Land
-80%
Agricultural land projected to decrease 80% due to
Preparation)
conversion of agricultural land to residential and
commercial uses (Maricopa County Farm Bureau,
2003)
Wind Erosion – Agricultural
-80%
Agricultural land projected to decrease 80%, due to
conversion of agricultural land to residential and
commercial uses (Maricopa County Farm Bureau,
2003)
Wind Erosion – Construction
-19%
MCESD strengthening Maricopa County Rule 310 to
increase the rule effectiveness for this category from
63% to 70%.
Wind Erosion – Alluvial
-57%
MCESD applying Maricopa County Rule 310.01 to
control this category by 57%, base case 2006
reduction.
WIND EROSION – CLEARED AREAS
-36%
MCESD strengthening Maricopa County Rule 310.01
to increase the rule effectiveness for this category
Wind Erosion – Vacant Lots
from 55% to 71%.
-39%
Projected building of residential and commercial
areas (from Vacant Lot Survey, ADEQ, May 2004,
See TSD, Appendix R).
-61%
Overall reduction of 61%.
-36%
MCESD strengthening Maricopa County Rule 310.01
to increase the rule effectiveness for this category
Wind Erosion – Miscellaneous
from 55% to 71%.
Disturbed Areas
-13.6%
Projected building of residential and commercial
areas (from County-wide conversion rate).
-45%
Overall reduction of 45%.
NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES
Construction Activity
-36%
MCESD strengthening Maricopa County Rule 310 to
increase the rule effectiveness for this category from
56% to 72%.
ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES
PAVED ROADS, UNPAVED SHOULDERS, UNPAVED PARKING LOTS, AND TRACKOUT
Freeway – Interstate 17, Durango
+6%
Traffic is projected to increase 6%, based on the
Curve
Maricopa Association of Government’s estimate of
area traffic increase of 1.5% per year (MAG 2004).
Primary Roads
-7%
The 6% traffic increase is offset by a 13% decrease
in reentrained emissions by increasing the sweeping
frequency to once a week on dirty sections of onemile roads.
Secondary Roads
-1%
The 6% traffic increase is offset by a 7% decrease in
reentrained emissions by increasing the sweeping
frequency to once a week on dirty sections of onehalf-mile roads.

81

TABLE 5.1 Percent Change in Emissions Between 2002 and 2006 Attainment Case
Emission Category
Percent
Reason for Change
Change in
Emissions
UNPAVED ROAD SHOULDERS AND UNPAVED PARKING LOTS
Unpaved Road Shoulders
-10%
Decrease based on recent shoulder stabilization
projects that have been completed since the year
2002.
Unpaved
Parking
Lots
–
-36%
MCESD strengthening Rule 310.01 to increase the
Reentrained Dust
rule effectiveness for this category from 55% to 71%.
Trackout
-80%
This decrease comes from the increased sweeping
frequency of targeted major (mile and one-half-mile)
streets and from more effective enforcement of the
trackout provisions of Maricopa County Rules 310
and 316.
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
Area Sources
-60%
Improved dust control and housekeeping through
(Except
for
stacks
and
enhancements to Maricopa County Rule 316.
windblown, including process,
material handling, haul roads,
etc.)
Point (or “Stack”)
-17%
Installation of air pollution control equipment on a
major brick manufacturing facility (proposed, new
Maricopa County Rule 325).
Wind Erosion – Industrial
-75%
From preventive measures to stabilize, water, or tarp
Disturbed Surfaces
the highly-erodible surfaces of facilities on or before
high-wind days.
Wind Erosion – Stockpiles, or
-55%
From additional watering or tarping of storage piles
“Storage Piles”
on high-wind days.

Milestone reports in Appendix E in this SIP include documentation of shoulder stabilization and
paving projects. Documentation of the conversion rate of agricultural land to residential and
commercial uses appears in Appendix R “Vacant Lot Survey” and page 4-43 of the October 2004
TSD.
5.2

NECESSARY EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS TO MEET THE STANDARD

Eight exceedances that occurred in the Salt River PM10 Study Area in 2002 were examined in
detail. Each exceedance was compared with the standard and its percentage above the standard
calculated.
Two components of PM10 concentrations must be considered: background PM10 concentrations and
the emissions from within the Study Area that contribute directly to PM10 concentrations. The Salt
River Study Area is a small fraction of the metropolitan total, as are its emissions (3 to 4%). The
‘background values,’ as the expression is used here, may be defined as those PM10 concentrations
that would remain in the Salt River PM10 Study Area, if all emissions from the Study Area were to
cease. The background concentrations result from the emissions of the rest of the metropolitan
area, and their resultant transport into the Study Area.
Because emission reductions will take place throughout the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment
Area, the background concentration for the Salt River PM10 Study Area will be reduced as well.
These background reductions, calculated below, affect the percentage reductions of in-area
emissions necessary to meet the standard. The effects are small, because of the size of
82

metropolitan Phoenix, the distribution of these PM10 emissions throughout this area, and their
diminishing effects with increasing distance, the background values change very little.
Table 5.2 Salt River PM10 Study Area Background Reductions From Area-Wide Controls
Background
PM10 Emissions
Source Category
% Total
Reduction
Tons/Day
Percent
Construction Activity Fugitive Dust

22.85

15.86%

4.53%

Entrainment from Construction Trackout

6.10

4.23%

1.21%

Industrial Processes

2.63

1.83%

0.59%

Process Fugitives

0.42

0.29%

0.09%

Paved Road Dust

56.40

39.14%

11.31%

Agricultural Tillage

5.58

3.87%

1.11%

Windblown

3860

NA

25.27%

Overall background reduction percentages are obtained by applying these percentages to the
appropriate portion of the 2002 and 2006 inventories, and calculating the change as a percentage
between the two years. This percentage is then applied to the 2002 background concentration to
give the 2006 background value. Both sets of background concentrations are given in Table 5.3
(below).
Table 5.3 Salt River PM10 Study Area Background PM10 Concentrations and their Responses to
Anticipated Area-Wide Emission Reductions by 2006
(Units are µg/m3, 24-hour averages)
Exceedance Date
Winds
2002
2006
% Change
15-Apr-02

High

88

82

6.8

26-Apr-02

High

72

67

6.9

16-Dec-02

Low/Mod

67

66

1.5

8-Jan-02

Low/Mod

68

67

1.5

For a more detailed discussion, refer to Chapter 6 of the October 2004 TSD, “2006 Predicted
Concentrations and Controls”, including Section 6.2.2 “Urban Background—The Irreducible Portion”
and Appendix M “Emission Density Maps of Background”.
The necessary percentage reductions for exceedance days are high, ranging from approximately 20
to 60 percent, depending on the exceedance (Table 5.4). The emissions reductions percentages
necessary to meet the PM10 standard are considerably higher than the percentages by which the
shown exceedances surpass the standard. The net result is that the standard is roughly twice as
difficult to achieve as it would be without the background values. For April 15th, at the West 43rd
Avenue monitor (Table 5-4, row two), the exceedance surpasses the standard by 38 percent, but
the emission reduction required to meet the standard is 58 percent - 1.6 times the amount by which
the standard is exceeded.

83

Table 5.4 Reductions of Emissions Necessary to Meet the Standard for Eight Salt River PM10
Exceedances
Measured
%
2006
%Reduction to
Date
Site
Winds
PM10
Above
Background
Meet the
(µg/m3)
Std
(µg/m3)*
Standard
26-Apr-02
SR
High
249
40
67
54
15-Apr-02

WF

High

243

38

82

58

26-Apr-02

DC

High

232

35

67

50

15-Apr-02

DC

High

198

24

82

41

15-Apr-02

SR

High

184

18

82

33

26-Apr-02

WF

High

174

14

67

22

16-Dec-02

WF

Low/Mod

181

17

66

27

8-Jan-02

SR

Low/Mod

174

14

67

22

5.3

ATTAINMENT AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Table 5.5, below, assesses the achievement of attainment for eight exceedances in the Salt River
Study Area for 2002. For each of the eight exceedances, the measured concentration is followed by
the percentage reduction necessary to achieve the standard. This is followed by the percentage
reduction obtained through the additional controls. This percentage includes the adjustment to
background concentrations to reflect metropolitan-wide controls. Attainment is shown for all eight,
although several exceedances are in attainment by a narrow margin.
5.4

ATTAINING THE PM10 STANDARD - CONCLUSIONS

The PM10 monitoring record in the Salt River PM10 Study Area, which began in 1994, as well as the
intensive monitoring work conducted in April – December 2002, clearly demonstrate that this portion
of the Salt River air shed has not met the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10.
The construction of a complete emissions inventory, the development of a background
concentration method, and the application of the most well used, Environmental Protection Agency
dispersion model, Industrial Source Complex, have produced the results discussed in Section 6.5.5.
of the TSD. These results were presented in the form of realized versus necessary reductions to
meet the standard, for each of the eight exceedances recorded during the 2002 intensive study
period. The realized reductions -- the predicted 2006 percentage reductions of the model-predicted
PM10 concentrations from their 2002 concentrations – themselves depend on substantial emission
reductions by 2006.
These emission reductions concern earthmoving and related activities; industrial activities,
principally materials handling and haul roads; additional street sweeping to reduce reentrained road
dust; the reduction of trackout by both sweeping and better regulatory efforts aimed chiefly at the
industrial and construction facilities, and the continued retirement of agricultural land in the Salt
River area (80% by 2006). Explained in detail in Chapter 4 and supplemented in Table 6-6 and
pages 6-20 through 6-22 of the October 2004 TSD, these emission reductions are essential to
demonstrate attainment for all eight exceedances by 2006. Implementation of commitments from
Maricopa County and the cities and towns within the nonattainment area will identify or have
identified rules to be amended, enforcement efforts, and work practices in such a way as to realize
84

all of these potential emissions reductions. With assertive efforts by these entities and the regulated
communities, the emissions reductions can be achieved by 2006.
Table 5.5 Salt River PM10 Study Area Exceedances and Attainment Status in 2006
Date
26-Apr-02
15-Apr-02
26-Apr-02
15-Apr-02
15-Apr-02
26-Apr-02
16-Dec-02
8-Jan-02

Site
Salt
River
West
43rd
Durango
Durango
Salt
River
West
43rd
West
43rd
Salt
River

Winds

High

Low/Mod

Reduction %

PM10
(µg/m3)

Needed

Obtained

249

54

58

YES

243

58

63

YES

232

50

58

YES

198

41

44

YES

184

33

54

YES

174

22

74

YES

181

27

36

YES

174

22

41

YES

85

Is the Standard Attained?

This page left intentionally blank

CHAPTER 6: DEMONSTRATION OF REASONABLE FURTHER
PROGRESS AND CONTINGENCY MEASURES
6.1

OVERVIEW OF ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

Part D of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA), “Plan Requirements for Nonattainment
Areas,” § 171(1), defines “Reasonable Further Progress” (RFP) as, “…such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably
be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national
ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.” The modeling results that ADEQ has
presented in this plan’s Chapter 5, “Demonstration of Attainment of PM10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards” for the Salt River Study Area, show that all eight Study Area exceedances would
meet the national PM10 standards by December 31, 2006, with a recommended, feasible set of
control strategies.
6.2

REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS

According to the General Preamble (59 FR 41998, at 42015, August 16, 1994), the PM10
nonattainment area SIP must include quantitative milestones, based on annual PM10 emissions, to
be achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment, and which demonstrate
reasonable further progress toward attainment by the applicable date. The pertinent milestone
achievement dates for the Maricopa County PM10 Serious Nonattainment Area, as presented in the
Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10 For the Maricopa County Nonattainment
Area (1999/2000 MAG SIP or MAG SIP) (February 2000), are: 2001, 2003, and 2006. The
milestone achievement date that was analyzed in this plan for achieving the 24-hour NAAQS is
2006. ADEQ continues the process of gathering data from state, county, and local jurisdictions,
ADEQ continues to provide this data to EPA with final control measure commitments.
The 1999/2000 MAG SIP used emissions from its 1995 base modeling year, and 2001, 2003, and
2006 committed control measure inventories in the construction of its RFP analysis, which
demonstrated attainment of the PM10 NAAQS no sooner than 2006. The MAG SIP RFP analysis
evaluated the committed control measures as a package to estimate total emissions for 2001 and
2003, assuming full implementation of the measures related to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Coordination of traffic signals;
Cleaner Burning Gasoline;
Restaurant charbroilers;
PM10 episode thresholds;
Curbing, paving, or stabilizing shoulders on unpaved roads; and
Paving, vegetating, and chemically stabilizing unpaved access points.

The MAG SIP assumed partial implementation with respect to:
•
•
•
•

Strengthening and better enforcement of Maricopa County Rule 310;
Paving unpaved roads;
Reducing particulate emissions from unpaved parking lots and vacant, disturbed land;
and
Purchase/use of PM10-efficient street-sweepers.
86

The MAG SIP assumed that the measure requiring commercial heavy-duty diesel vehicles to meet
1988 standards had no effect until 2004. Details regarding the modeling assumptions used to
estimate the 2001 and 2003 emissions reductions are shown in MAG SIP TSD, Appendix IV, Exhibit
3.
6.2.1

REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS – CONCLUSIONS

The 1999/2000 MAG SIP RFP analysis showed attainment of PM10 NAAQS in 2006 (see MAG SIP
Chapter 8, and Figure 8-4). The RFP analysis shows that the 2001 and 2003 emissions, given
implemented SIP control measures, would result in emissions reductions from 191 metric tons per
day of PM10 during MAG’s 1995 base modeling year, to 152 metric tons per day of PM10 for 2001,
and to 142 metric tons per day of PM10 for 2003. The MAG SIP demonstrates that PM10 NAAQS
attainment is achieved in 2006, with total PM10 emissions of 130 metric tons per day. In addition, the
MAG SIP, using regional UAM-LC modeling, estimated that both the 24-hour maximum, and the
annual average PM10 concentrations would be under the required NAAQS of 150 µ/m3, and 50
µ/m3, respectively, in 2006, in the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area.
ADEQ’s modeling in the Revised PM10 State Implementation Plan for the Salt River Area,
considered the combined impact of control measures adopted in the 1999/2000 MAG SIP and
those submitted in this SIP. ADEQ’s modeling indicates achievement of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
in the Salt River Study Area by December 31, 2006, assuming implementation of the PM10 control
measures this SIP proposes. ADEQ expects that attainment of both the annual and 24-hour PM10
NAAQS will be achieved in the Maricopa County PM10 Serious Nonattainment Area by December
31, 2006, assuming implementation of the MAG SIP and Salt River SIP controls. Appendix E of this
plan contains ADEQ’s current implementation status of the 1999/2000 MAG SIP committed control
measures.
6.3

CONTINGENCY MEASURES

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that a state implementation plan provide for the
implementation of specific measures to be undertaken, without further action by the state, or the
EPA Administrator, if a nonattainment area fails to make reasonable further progress, or fails to
attain the national primary ambient air quality standard, or applicable milestone, by the relevant
attainment date. The Clean Air Act requires that annual emissions be used to establish both RFP
milestones and contingency measure goals. Chapter 8 of the 1999/2000 MAG SIP shows that the
annual emissions reported for the milestone years – 2001, 2003, and 2006 – did not reflect the
implementation of the following MAG SIP committed measures:
•
•
•
•

Off-Road Vehicle and Engine Standards;
Clean Burning Fireplace Ordinances;
Additional Dust Control Measures (City of Tempe); and
Additional Dust Control Measures (City of Phoenix).

Since the MAG SIP did not include the above measures in calculating the annual emission total
used to set the milestones, it is reasonable to assume that if a milestone goal is missed, the above
measures will provide interim public health and welfare protections, and should be considered
contingency measures. Chapter 5 of the MAG SIP TSD shows the results of MAG’s modeled
emissions reductions from MAG SIP committed contingency measures, in 2006, estimating that the
87

sum of the impacts from all five measures will be estimated reductions of approximately 5.4 metric
tons per day of PM10 (see 1999/2000 MAG SIP, Chapter 8, “Demonstration of Attainment Status,”
page 8-17).
All current, committed contingency measures noted in the 1999/2000 MAG SIP are applicable to
sources affecting PM10 concentrations in the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area. This fact
is particularly significant since modeling for attainment in the Salt River Study Area was challenging
due, in part, to high PM10 concentrations from surrounding background areas (see SIP, Chapter 5,
Table 5-4, Reductions of Emissions Necessary to meet the Standard for Eight Salt River PM10
Exceedances). Also, commitments for implementing the PM10 control measures described in this
SIP will affect not only significant sources in the Salt River Study Area, but similar sources
throughout the Nonattainment Area – further decreasing background PM10 concentrations and
facilitating attainment by December 31, 2006.

88

EMISSION SOURCE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS
Agricultural Tillage
Agricultural tillage is defined as emissions from agricultural operations. The emissions in this
category originate from agricultural tilling (land preparation, planting, weed control), and agricultural
equipment exhaust.
Construction Activity
Construction activity is defined as construction of residential housing, businesses, and industrial
buildings. The emissions in this category originate from earthmoving and to a lesser degree,
construction equipment exhaust.
Freeway
Freeway emissions are defined as those emissions from vehicle traffic on the Durango Curve on
Interstate 17. The emissions in this category originate from brake wear, tire wear, exhaust, and road
dust reentrainment
Industrial Sources
Industrial sources are defined as facilities such as factories, power plants, and rock product
operations that are permitted by the county or by the state. The emissions in this category originate
from fuel burning, industrial processes, materials processing, construction equipment exhaust, and
vehicle traffic over disturbed surfaces. Emissions from these sources are typically separated into
four categories: 1) stack emissions, which are emissions that exit through stacks from combustion
and materials processing and are specifically described in MCESD’s permit and/or emission survey
for industrial sources (greater than 10 tons PM10 per year), 2) industrial area emissions, which are
all other emissions from the facility, other than windblown, and includes material handling, crushing,
screening, traffic on the facility, and the smaller stacks not listed in MCESD’s permits or survey
forms, 3) windblown emissions from stockpiles, and 4) windblown emissions from the land surface
of the facility. Industrial areas emissions have been further divided into subcategories based on
which MCESD rule applies to their operation, and into subcategories based on their nature (e.g.,
crushing and screening, haul road traffic, combustion, and so forth).
Primary Roads
Primary roads are defined as the major urban paved roads that are located at one-mile intervals.
The emissions in this category originate from brake wear, tire wear, exhaust, and road dust
reentrainment (road dust “kicked back” into the air from vehicles driving over it).
Secondary Roads
Secondary roads are defined as the minor urban paved roads that are located at half-mile intervals.
The emissions in this category are the same as those in the primary roads category.
Unpaved Parking Lots

89

Unpaved parking lots are defined as parking lots, which have a gravel or dirt surface. The
emissions in this category originate from reentrained dust from vehicle traffic in the unpaved parking
lot.
Unpaved Road Shoulders
Unpaved road shoulders are defined as those road shoulders along paved roads that are not paved
or stabilized. The emissions in this category originate from dust from the unpaved road shoulders
being reentrained by the wake effect of large vehicles, such as large trucks and buses, traveling on
the roadway.
Wind Erosion
Wind erosion is defined as the transport of disturbed / unconsolidated soil due to the movement of
wind.
Wind Erosion – Agricultural
Agricultural land is defined as agricultural fields for growing crops. The emissions in this category
originate from wind erosion of disturbed topsoil from agricultural fields in the time period between
harvesting and when a crop is tall enough to act as a windbreak.
Wind Erosion – Alluvial Channels
Alluvial channels are defined as geological features such as dry streambeds, arroyos, and gullies
that are dry most of the year and contain loose soil, especially silt, due to water and wind erosion.
The emissions in this category originate from wind erosion of material in the alluvial channel.
Wind Erosion – Cleared Areas
Cleared areas consist of vacant lots and miscellaneous disturbed areas. Vacant lots are defined as
undeveloped land with disturbed topsoil that are in residential or business areas, and miscellaneous
disturbed areas are defined as areas with disturbed topsoil that do not fall into the previously
mentioned emission categories. The emissions in this category originate from wind erosion of
disturbed topsoil.
Wind Erosion – Construction
Construction is defined as those areas that have disturbed topsoil due to construction activity (e.g.,
earthmoving). The emissions in this category originate from wind erosion of disturbed topsoil on
construction sites.

90

This page left intentionally blank

REFERENCES
ADEQ (1997) – “Final Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM10 Standard – Maricopa County
Nonattainment Area”, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Maricopa
Environmental Services Department, May 1997.
ARB (1997) – “Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions”, California Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Resources Board, October 1997.
AASS (2001) – “2001 Arizona Agricultural Statistics Bulletin”, Arizona Agricultural Statistics Service,
July 2002. (http://www.nass.usda.gov/az/)
DRI (2000) – “Reconciling Urban Fugitive Dust Emissions Inventory and Ambient Source
Contribution Estimates: Summary of Current Knowledge and Needed Research”, by J.G.
Watson and J.C. Chow, DRI Document No. 6110.4F, May 2000.
EPA (1988) - “Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources - Final Report”, by C. Cowheard, G.E. Muleski
and J.S. Kinsey, EPA - 450/3-88-008, September 1988
EPA (1988A) - “Gap Filling PM10 Emission Factors for Selected Open Area Dust Sources” EPA
Contract No. 68-02-4395 Assignment No. 6, March 1, 1988.
EPA (1995) – “AP42 – Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors”, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1995.
Engineering Science (1988) - “Final Report for Refinement of PM10 Emissions Inventory Data for
the Maricopa Planning Area”, by Engineering Science, February, 1988.
Fish and Clay (2003) - “Meeting with Jeannette Fish, Maricopa County Farm Bureau, and Patrick
Clay, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, with Randy Sedlacek, Phil DeNee, Darlene
Jenkins, ADEQ”, May 21, 2003.
Landiscor (2003) - “Phoenix 3rd Quarter Real Estate Photo Book”, Landiscor Aerial Photo Books,
1710 East Indian School Road, Suite201, Phoenix, Arizona 85016
MAG (2000) - “MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 For The Maricopa County
Nonattainment Area”, Maricopa Association of Governments, February 2000.
Maricopa County Farm Bureau (2003) – Salt River PM10 Stakeholders Meeting at South Mountain
Community College on December 10, 2003. Jeannette Fish, Maricopa County Farm Bureau,
and Patrick Clay, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service (meeting after
stakeholders’ meeting).
MCESD (2003) - October 9, 2003 email communication from MCESD staff.
Moosmuller et al. (1998) - "Particle Emission Rates for Unpaved Road Shoulders along a Paved
Road", by H. Moosmuller, J. A. Gillies, C. F. Rogers, D. W. DuBois, J. C. Chow and J. G.
Watson DRI and R. Langston San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Fresno,
California, J. Air & Waste Management Association, 48: 398-407.
91

MRI (1996) - "Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No.1)", Final Report,
Midwest Research Institute, March 29, 1996.
Nickling (1986) – “Evaluation of aerosol production potential of type surfaces in Arizona”, by
Nickling, W. G., and Gillies, J. A., Submitted to Engineering-Science, Arcadia, California, for
EPA Contract No. 68-02-388, 1986.
Pechan (2002) – “1999 and 2013 Emission Estimates for the Yuma Arizona PM10 Nonattainment
Area Maintenance Plan, Final Report”, by Pechan and Associates, 2002.
Rupp (2001 & 2002) – “The Aerial Photo Book, The Real Estate Atlas – Phoenix”, by Rupp Aerial
Photography, Inc., issued quarterly, 2001 and 2002.
URS (2001) – “Technical Support Document for Quantification of Agricultural Best Management
Practices, Revised Final Draft”, ADEQ Contract No. 98-0159-BF, by URS Corporation and Eastern
Research Group, Inc., April 23, 2001.

92

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix A
PM10 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING
DATA FOR 24-HOUR STANDARD (1994-2004)

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table A. 1994 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Operator

Method

24-Hour Average
st

1 Max

nd

2 Hi

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

HI-VOL

91

79

0

54

Chandler

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

126

114

0

56

Glendale

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

76

54

0

51

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

73

51

0

43

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

73

66

0

51

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

371

215

12

55

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

97

89

0

56

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

75

69

0

50

Scottsdale

13665 N Scottsdale Rd

MCESD

HI-VOL

59

43

0

53

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

98

93

0

56

NOTES

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area.

Table B. 1995 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

Chandler
1

Gilbert

Glendale
2

Operator

Method

MCESD

24-Hour Average
st

nd

1 Max

2 Hi

HI-VOL

88

75

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

0

55

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

251

160

2

146

15500 S Higley Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

78

74

0

50

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

70

63

0

87

ADEQ

DICHOT

86

65

0

44

Goodyear

15099 W. Casey Abbott

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

88

69

0

93

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

84

68

0

95

ADEQ

DICHOT

71

59

0

56

th

Phx-17 Ave

4530 N 17th Avenue
4

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

HI-VOL

73

63

0

2084

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

199

196

15

57

4701 W. Thunderbird

ADEQ

DICHOT

57

51

0

51

HI-VOL

74

73

0

82

Phx-Thunderbird

3

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

MCESD

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

74

69

0

100

ADEQ

DICHOT

63

62

0

58

MCESD

HI-VOL

98

88

0

100

Tempe

5

3340 S. Rural

W. Phoenix

NOTES
1
2
3
4
5

3847 W Earll Drive

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area.
ADEQ added its Gilbert monitor site in 1995.
ADEQ added its Goodyear monitor in 1996.
ADEQ added a monitor at 4701 W. Thunderbird, in 1995.
ADEQ added two monitors at 4530 M. 17th Avenue, in Phoenix, in 1995.
ADEQ added a monitor in Tempe, in 1995.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 1 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table C. 1996 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Operator

Method

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

Chandler

1475 E Pecos Road

Gilbert

15500 S. Higley

Glendale

6000 W Olive Avenue

Goodyear

15099 W. Casey Abbott

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks
6

24-Hour Average
st

nd

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

1 Max

2 Hi

HI-VOL

105

88

0

98

MCESD

HI-VOL

140

130

0

97

ADEQ

DICHOT

179

114

1

55

MCESD

HI-VOL

67

60

0

92

ADEQ

DICHOT

82

72

0

55

MCESD

HI-VOL

67

62

0

87

Mesa

6001 S. Power Road

ADEQ

DICHOT

53

50

0

30

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

70

70

0

92

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

TEOM

371

215

12

55

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

96

95

0

90

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

80

64

0

95

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

101

99

0

92

Tempe

3340 S. Rural

ADEQ

DICHOT

193

185

3

54

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

83

68

0

54

Phx-17 Ave

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

HI-VOL

137

104

0

8177

Phx-Thunderbird

4701 W. Thunderbird

ADEQ

DICHOT

58

57

0

55

th

NOTES
6

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area.
ADEQ added a monitor in Mesa, in 1996.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 2 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table D. 1997 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

ADDRESS

Operator

Method

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

Chandler
Chandler

24-Hour Average
st

nd

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

1 Max

2 Hi

HI-VOL

108

96

0

90

MCESD

HI-VOL

150

144

0

94

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

220

148

1

95

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

TEOM

312

307

9

76

Gilbert

525 N Lindsey Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

170

108

1

90

Glendale

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

169

87

1

93

Goodyear

15099 W. Casey Abbott

ADEQ

DICHOT

179

146

1

50

15400 S. Higley

ADEQ

DICHOT

288

234

2

56

6180 W Encanto Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

344

161

2

100

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

129

119

0

97

ADEQ

DICHOT

124

73

0

62

MCESD

HI-VOL

151

80

0

84

MCED

HI-VOL

220

124

1

93

8

Higley

9

Maryvale
10

Mesa

Palo Verde

11

36248 W. Elliot Road

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

ADEQ

HI-VOL

161

113

1

7792

1128 N 27th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

148

103

0

53

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

HI-VOL

147

143

0

7328

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

131

82

0

57

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCED

TEOM

263

195

13

70

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCED

HI-VOL

480

301

12

93

Phx-Thunderbird

4701 W. Thunderbird

ADEQ

DICHOT

164

92

1

55

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

MCED

HI-VOL

160

114

1

61

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

162

161

3

84

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCED

HI-VOL

154

84

0

98

Tempe

3340 S. Rural

ADEQ

DICHOT

90

74

0

56

Phx-Greenwood

13

12

W. Chandler

163 S Price Road

MCESD

TEOM

161

117

1

76

W. Chandler

163 S Price Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

194

161

2

93

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

224

136

1

100

Wickenburg

Tenger St & Highway 93

MCESD

HI-VOL

125

64

0

20

7

NOTES
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area
MCESD added a monitor in West Chandler, in 1997.
ADEQ added a Higley monitor in 1997.
MCESD added a Maryvale monitor in 1997.
ADEQ removed its Mesa monitor at 6001 S. Power Road, in 1997.
ADEQ added the Palo Verde monitor in 1997.
ADEQ’s monitor was closed in 1997 at the Phoenix–JLG Site.
th
th
Three monitors were added to sites at I-10 and 27 Avenue (1128 N. 27 Avenue), just north of the current
Salt River study area, in 1997. Two monitors were operated by ADEQ and one by MCESD.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 3 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table E. 1998 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Central Phoenix

24-Hour Average

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

62

0

39

145

123

0

90

HI-VOL

96

86

0

84

Operator

Method

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

Chandler*

1475 E Pecos Road

st

nd

1 Max

2 Hi

HI-VOL

72

MCESD

TEOM

MCESD

Chandler*

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

TEOM

124

116

0

81

Gilbert

525 N Lindsey Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

95

93

0

90

Glendale*

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

75

74

0

92

Goodyear

15099 W. Casey Abbott

ADEQ

DICHOT

56

56

0

61

Higley

15500 S. Higley

ADEQ

DICHOT

135

116

0

61

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

69

67

0

54

Maryvale

6180 W Encanto Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

93

84

0

95

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

64

56

0

100

Palo Verde

36248 W. Elliot Road

ADEQ

DICHOT

47

46

0

55

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

67

63

0

92

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

MCED

HI-VOL

107

99

0

97

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

106

95

0

37

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

TEOM

232

207

25

87

Phx-Salt River*

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

403

198

4

39

Phx-Thunderbird

4701 W. Thunderbird

ADEQ

DICHOT

55

53

0

61

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

77

68

0

41

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

MCESD

TEOM

115

113

0

91

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

82

66

0

93

Tempe

3340 S. Rural

ADEQ

DICHOT

70

68

0

61

W. Chandler*

163 S Price Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

85

77

0

100

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

81

77

0

95

Tenger St & Highway 93

MCESD

HI-VOL

61

56

0

16

W. Phoenix*
Wickenburg

,14

15

NOTES

*
14
15

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area
Indicates data differs from that of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality System quick
Look Report (AMP450), received from ADEQ’s Assessment 04/26/2005
MCESD added its Phoenix–Salt River monitor in 1998.
MCESD removed its Wickenburg monitor in 1998.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 4 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table F. 1999 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Operator

Method

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

Chandler

1475 E Pecos Road

Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear

15099 W. Casey Abbott

Higley

15500 S. Higley

Maryvale

6180 W Encanto Blvd

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

Palo Verde

36248 W Elliot Road

Phoenix
16

st

nd

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

1 Max

2 Hi

HI-VOL

85

85

0

75

MCESD

TEOM

149

100

0

84

MCESD

HI-VOL

110

100

0

98

525 N Lindsey Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

90

88

0

92

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

77

63

0

97

ADEQ

DICHOT

80

73

0

59

ADEQ

DICHOT

208

110

1

58

MCESD

HI-VOL

104

96

0

100

MCESD

HI-VOL

80

71

0

100

ADEQ

DICHOT

89

47

0

88

MCESD

HI-VOL

70

63

0

95

HI-VOL

148

143

0

97

601 E Butler Drive

Phx-Durango

24-Hour Average

2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

111

111

0

55

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

117

115

0

98

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

79

70

0

97

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

256

219

8

80

Phx-Thunderbird

4701 W. Thunderbird

ADEQ

DICHOT

55

53

0

59

S. Phoenix

33 W Tamarisk Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

126

116

0

100

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

67

62

0

60

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

87

80

0

95

Tempe

3340 S. Rural

ADEQ

DICHOT

82

78

0

55

W. Chandler

163 S Price Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

104

92

0

98

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

111

103

0

95

NOTES
16

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area
MCESD added the Phoenix–Durango Complex monitor in 1999, adding to monitoring data for the Salt River
Study Area.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 5 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table G. 2000 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

24-Hour Average
1 Max

2 Hi

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

HI-VOL

135

105

0

97

Operator

Method

st

nd

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

TEOM

145

130

0

92

Chandler

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

202

145

1

97

Gilbert

525 N Lindsey Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

128

109

0

98

Glendale

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

122

100

0

95

Goodyear

ADEQ

DICHOT

82

77

0

44

Higley

15400 S Higley Road

15099 W. Casey Abbott

MCESD

HI-VOL

144

111

0

90

Higley

15400 S Higley Road

ADEQ

DICHOT

136

129

0

53

Maryvale

6180 W Encanto Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

173

109

1

100

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

126

94

0

100

Palo Verde

36248 W Elliot Road

ADEQ

DICHOT

75

62

0

93

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

114

114

0

97

Phx-Durango

2702 AC Ester Brook Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

300

173

2

100

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

80

84

0

100

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

164

159

2

98

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

84

84

0

100

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

244

232

6

89

Phx-Thunderbird

4701 W. Thunderbird

ADEQ

DICHOT

101

84

0

59

S. Phoenix

33 W Tamarisk Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

175

122

1

100

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

100

98

0

100

Tempe

3340 S. Rural

ADEQ

DICHOT

95

81

0

57

W. Chandler

163 S Price Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

95

62

0

86

W. Chandler

Ellis & Frye Rd

MCESD

HI-VOL

135

78

0

93

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

151

133

0

97

17

NOTES
17

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area
MCESD added a monitor in Higley, in 2000.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 6 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table H. 2001 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Operator

Method

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

Chandler

24-Hour Average
st

nd

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

1 Max

2 Hi

HI-VOL

124

65

0

98

MCESD

TEOM

133

122

0

87

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

146

99

0

100

Gilbert

525 N Lindsey Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

121

119

0

100

Glendale

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

111

64

0

95

18

Goodyear

15099 W. Casey Abbott

ADEQ

DICHOT

122

51

0

90

Higley

15400 S Higley Road

ADEQ

DICHOT

NA

NA

NA

NA

Higley

15400 S Higley Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

176

93

1

97

Maryvale

6180 W Encanto Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

123

123

0

97

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

98

55

0

100

Palo Verde

36248 W Elliot Road

ADEQ

DICHOT

71

54

0

85

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

99

55

0

100

Phx-Durango

2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

189

142

1

100

19

Phx-Greenwood
Phx-Greenwood

20

Phx-JLG Site
Phx-Salt River
Phx-Thunderbird

21

1128 N 27th Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

145

99

0

97

1128 N 27th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

NA

NA

NA

NA

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

109

58

0

97

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

281

276

6

98

4701 W. Thunderbird

ADEQ

DICHOT

42

39

0

59

MCESD

HI-VOL

143

92

0

98

HI-VOL

143

92

0

98

S. Phoenix

33 W Tamarisk Avenue

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

110

53

0

100

18600 N. Reems Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

107

52

0

97

ADEQ

DICHOT

109

55

0

95

MCESD

HI-VOL

134

58

0

100

Surprise

22

Tempe

3340 S. Rural

W. Chandler

163 S Price Road

MCESD

W. Chandler

Ellis & Frye Rd

MCESD

HI-VOL

135

58

0

100

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

142

91

0

100

NOTES
18
19
20
21
22

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area
The Gilbert monitor was closed on December 31, 2001
ADEQ’s Higley monitor was removed in 2001.
ADEQ’s Phoenix–Greenwood monitor was removed in 2001.
The Phoenix–Thunderbird (ASU West) monitor was closed on August 6, 2001
MCESD placed a SPM monitor in Surprise, Arizona in 2001.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 7 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table I. 2002 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Operator

Method

24-Hour Average
st

nd

1 Max

2 Hi

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

HI-VOL

81

76

0

100

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

TEOM

96

95

0

89

Chandler

1475 E Pecos Road

MCED

HI-VOL

128

117

0

100

Glendale

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

88

85

0

98

Goodyear

15099 W. Casey Abbott

DICHOT

92

68

0

85

Higley

15400 S Higley Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

138

134

0

95

Maryvale

6180 W Encanto Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

142

90

0

92

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

102

86

0

100

Palo Verde

36248 W Elliot Road

MCESD

DICHOT

100

78

0

97

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

80

72

0

98

Phx-Durango

2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

232

158

2

100

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

116

102

0

100

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

MCESD

DICHOT

72

52

0

74

Phx-Salt River

3045 S 22nd Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

249

174

2

98

Phx-W 43

3940 W Broadway Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

172

135

1

100

S. Phoenix

33 W Tamarisk Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

137

123

0

100

S. Phoenix

4732 S Central Avenue

HI-VOL

137

123

0

100

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

64

62

0

100

Surprise

18600 N. Reems Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

81

67

0

97

Tempe

3340 S. Rural

ADEQ

DICHOT

65

60

0

90

W. Chandler

163 S Price Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

80

77

0

100

W. Chandler

Ellis & Frye Rd

MCESD

HI-VOL

80

77

0

100

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

122

98

0

100

rd23

ADEQ

MCESD

NOTES
23

Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area
The West 43rd Avenue monitoring site was opened on April 1, 2002

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 8 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table J. 2003 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Operator

Method

24-Hour Average
st

1 Max

nd

2 Hi

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

Phx-Bethune Elem

1310 S. 15th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

145

115

0

90

Phx-Bethune Elem

Ellis & Frye Rd

MCESD

HI-VOL

206

197

2

97

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

HI-VOL

114

87

0

97

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

TEOM

183

175

3

90

Chandler

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

240

126

1

98

Glendale

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

151

129

0

100

Higley

15400 S Higley Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

225

151

1

95

Maryvale

6180 W Encanto Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

151

137

0

100

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

176

112

1

100

Palo Verde

36248 W Elliot Road

ADEQ

DICHOT

158

108

1

97

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

155

132

1

97

Phx-Durango

2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

195

128

1

100

Phx-Dysart

16825 N Dysart

MCESD

HI-VOL

133

86

0

100

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

166

126

1

98

Phx-JLG Site

4530 N 17th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

169

131

1

90

Phx-W 43rd

3940 W Broadway Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

157

154

1

98

S. Phoenix

33 W Tamarisk Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

164

135

1

98

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

172

124

1

100

Surprise

18600 N. Reems Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

42

32

0

88

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

158

136

1

98

NOTES
Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 9 of 10

24-Hour PM10 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Data for Maricopa County
and the Salt River PM10 Salt River Study Area
Table K. 2004 PM10 Monitoring Data Summary (µ/m3), from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Quality System Site Description Report
City Location

Address

Phx-Bethune Elem
Phx-Bethune Elem
Buckeye

24-Hour Average

Number of
Exceedances

Number of
Samples

Operator

Method

1310 S. 15th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

122

108

0

97

1310 S. 15th Avenue

ADEQ

DICHOT

103

63

0

100

26453 W. MC85

MCESD

HI-VOL

289

82

1

92

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

HI-VOL

81

55

0

98

Central Phoenix

1845 E Roosevelt Street

MCESD

TEOM

94

88

0

93

Chandler

1475 E Pecos Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

150

80

0

100

Glendale

6000 W Olive Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

69

47

0

97

Higley

15400 S Higley Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

159

150

1

98

Maryvale

6180 W Encanto Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

46

42

0

100

Mesa

Broadway & Brooks

MCESD

HI-VOL

49

40

0

100

Palo Verde

36248 W Elliot Road

ADEQ

DICHOT

42

34

0

89

st

1 Max

2

nd Hi

Phoenix

601 E Butler Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

46

43

0

97

Phx-Durango

2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd

MCESD

HI-VOL

139

122

0

99

Phx-Dysart

16825 N Dysart

MCESD

HI-VOL

94

80

0

100

Phx-Greenwood

1128 N 27th Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

100

82

0

100

Phx-W 43rd

3940 W Broadway Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

145

133

0

96

S. Phoenix

33 W Tamarisk Avenue

MCESD

HI-VOL

132

126

0

95

S. Scottsdale

2857 Miller Road

MCESD

HI-VOL

77

41

0

100

W. Chandler

Ellis & Frye Rd

MCESD

HI-VOL

70

55

0

100

W. Phoenix

3847 W Earll Drive

MCESD

HI-VOL

100

72

0

100

NOTES
Indicates the Site is within the Salt River Study area.

Salt River SIP (2005)

Appendix A

Page 10 of 10

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix B
MARICOPA COUNTY BACM/MSM RULE REVISIONS AND
ADOPTED RULE
Revisions for:
Maricopa County Rule 310

– Fugitive Dust

Maricopa County Rule 310.01

– Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant
Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots and
Unpaved Roadways

Maricopa County Rule 316

– Nonmetallic Mineral and Processing

And Proof of Adoption for:
New Rule 325 –

– Brick and Structural Clay Products
(BSCP) Manufacturing

Revision to
Maricopa County Rule 310
Fugitive Dust

Revision to
Maricopa County Rule 310.01
Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots
and Unpaved Roadways

REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 310.01
FUGITIVE DUST FROM
OPEN AREAS, VACANT LOTS, UNPAVED PARKING LOTS, AND UNPAVED ROADWAYS
INDEX
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS
201
BULK MATERIAL
202
CHEMICAL/ORGANIC STABILIZER
203
CONTROL MEASURE
204
DISTURBED SURFACE AREA
205
DUST SUPPRESSANT
206
FEEDLOTS AND/OR LIVESTOCK AREAS
207
FUGITIVE DUST
208
MOTOR VEHICLE
209
NORMAL FARM CULTURAL PRACTICE
210
OFF-ROAD VEHICLE
211
OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS
212
OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR
213
PAVE
214
PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA
215
PUBLIC ROADWAYS
216
UNPAVED PARKING LOT
217
UNPAVED ROADWAY (INCLUDING ALLEYS)
218
VACANT LOT
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
VEHICLE USE IN OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS
302
OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS
303
UNPAVED PARKING LOTS
304
UNPAVED ROADWAYS (INCLUDING ALLEYS)
305
FEEDLOTS AND/OR LIVESTOCK AREAS
306
EROSION-CAUSED DEPOSITION OF BULK MATERIALS ONTO PAVED SURFACES
307
EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND ACCESS ROADS FOR UTILITIES
(ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, OIL, WATER, AND GAS TRANSMISSION)
SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS
501
STABILIZATION OBSERVATIONS
502
RECORDKEEPING
503
RECORDS RETENTION

Adopted 06/16/99
Revised 02/16/00
Revised 02/17/05
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 310.01
FUGITIVE DUST FROM
OPEN AREAS, VACANT LOTS, UNPAVED PARKING LOTS, AND UNPAVED ROADWAYS
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101

PURPOSE: To limit the emission of particulate matter into the ambient air from
open areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways which are
not regulated by Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust) of these rules and which do not require a
permit nor a Dust Control Plan. The effect of this rule shall be to minimize the
amount of fine particulate matter (PM10) entrained into the ambient air as a
result of the impact of human activities by requiring measures to prevent,
reduce, or mitigate particulate matter emissions.

102

APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to open areas, vacant lots,
unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways which are not regulated by Rule 310
(Fugitive Dust) of these rules and which do not require a permit nor a Dust Control
Plan. In addition, the provisions of this rule shall apply to any open area or vacant
lot that is not defined as agricultural land and is not used for agricultural purposes
according to Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §42-12151 and ARS §42-12152. The
provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices according to
ARS §49-457 and ARS §49-504.4.

SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100 (General Provisions And Definitions) of these rules
for definitions of terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the
purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:
201

BULK MATERIAL - Any material, including, but not limited to, earth, rock, silt,
sediment, sand, gravel, soil, fill, aggregate less than 2 inches in length or diameter
(i.e., aggregate base course (ABC)), dirt, mud, demolition debris, cotton, trash,
cinders, pumice, saw dust, feeds, grains, fertilizers, fluff (from shredders), and dry
concrete, that are capable of producing fugitive dust.

202

CHEMICAL/ORGANIC STABILIZER - Any non-toxic chemical or organic dust
suppressant, other than water, which meets any specifications, criteria, or tests
required by any Federal, State, or local water agency and is not prohibited for use
by any applicable law, rule, or regulation.

203

CONTROL MEASURE - A technique, practice, or procedure used to prevent or
minimize the generation, emission, entrainment, suspension, and/or airborne
transport of fugitive dust.

204

DISTURBED SURFACE AREA - A portion of the earth's surface (or material
placed thereupon) which has been physically moved, uncovered, destabilized, or
otherwise modified from its undisturbed native condition, thereby increasing the
potential for the emission of fugitive dust. For the purpose of this rule, an area is
considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the
disturbance has been completed and the disturbed surface area meets the
standards described in Section 300 of this rule, as applicable.

205

DUST SUPPRESSANT - Water, hygroscopic material, solution of water and
chemical surfactant, foam, non-toxic chemical stabilizer, or any other dust palliative,
which is not prohibited for ground surface application by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ), or any applicable law, rule, or regulation, as a treatment material for
reducing fugitive dust emissions.

206

FEEDLOTS AND/OR LIVESTOCK AREAS - Any area on which an operation
directly related to feeding animals, displaying animals, racing animals, exercising
animals, and/or for any other such activity exists.

207

FUGITIVE DUST - The particulate matter not collected by a capture system, that
is entrained in the ambient air and is caused from human and/or natural activities,
such as, but not limited to, movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, blasting, and
wind. For the purpose of this rule, fugitive dust does not include particulate matter
emitted directly from the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal combustion
engines, from portable brazing, soldering, or welding equipment, and from
piledrivers, and does not include emissions from process and combustion sources
that are subject to other rules in Regulation III (Control Of Air Contaminants) of
these rules.

208

MOTOR VEHICLE - A self-propelled vehicle for use on the public roads and
highways of the State of Arizona and required to be registered under the Arizona
State Uniform Motor Vehicle Act, including any non-motorized attachments, such as
but not limited to, trailers or other conveyances which are connected to or
propelled by the actual motorized portion of the vehicle.

209

NORMAL FARM CULTURAL PRACTICE - All activities by the owner, lessee,
agent, independent contractor, and/or supplier conducted on any facility for the
production of crops and/or nursery plants. Disturbances of the field surface caused
by turning under stalks, tilling, leveling, planting, fertilizing, or harvesting are
included in this definition.

210

OFF-ROAD VEHICLE - Any self-propelled conveyance specifically designed for offroad use, including, but not limited to, off-road or all-terrain equipment, trucks,
cars, motorcycles, motorbikes, or motorbuggies.

211

OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS - Any of the following described in Section
211.1 through Section 211.4 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, vacant
portions of residential or commercial lots that are immediately adjacent and owned
and/or operated by the same individual or entity are considered one vacant open
area or vacant lot.
211.1 An unsubdivided or undeveloped tract of land adjoining a developed or a
partially developed residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or
commercial area.
211.2 A subdivided residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or
commercial lot that contains no approved or permitted buildings or
structures of a temporary or permanent nature.
211.3 A partially developed residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or
commercial lot.
211.4 A tract of land, in the PM10 nonattainment area, adjoining agricultural
property.

212

OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR - Any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises a fugitive dust source subject to the requirements of this
rule.

213

PAVE - To apply and maintain asphalt, concrete, or other similar material to a
roadway surface (i.e., asphaltic concrete, concrete pavement, chip seal, or
rubberized asphalt).

214

PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA - An area designated by the EPA as exceeding
national ambient air quality standards based upon data collected thru air quality
monitoring. The geographical boundary of Maricopa County's PM10 nonattainment
area is defined as the rectangle determined by and including the following
townships and ranges: T6N, R3W; T6N, R7E; T2S, R3W; T2S, R7E; and T1N,
R8E. Maricopa County's PM10 nonattainment area includes the following cities:
Surprise, Peoria, Glendale, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler,
Avondale, Buckeye, and Goodyear.

215

PUBLIC ROADWAYS - Any roadways that are open to public travel.

216

UNPAVED PARKING LOT - Any area larger than 5,000 square feet that is not
paved and that is used for parking, maneuvering, or storing motor vehicles.

217

UNPAVED ROADWAY (INCLUDING ALLEYS) - A road that is not paved and
that is owned by Federal, State, county, municipal, or other governmental or
quasi-governmental agencies. For the purpose of this rule, an unpaved roadway
(including alleys) is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar
path used exclusively for purposes other than travel by motor vehicles.

218

VACANT LOT - The definition of vacant lot is included in Section 211 (Definition Of
Open Areas And Vacant Lots) of this rule.

SECTION 300 - STANDARDS
301

VEHICLE USE IN OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS: If open areas and
vacant lots are 0.10 acre or larger and have a cumulative of 500 square feet or
more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road
vehicles, then the owner and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots
shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 301.1 of this
rule within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery of vehicle use on open
areas and vacant lots. Within 30 calendar days following the initial discovery by
the Control Officer of vehicle use on open areas and vacant lots, the owner
and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots shall provide in writing to the
Control Officer a description and date of the control measure(s) to be
implemented to prevent such vehicle use on open areas and vacant lots. For the
purpose of this rule, such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively
implemented when the open areas and vacant lots meet one of the stabilization
limitations described in Section 301.2 of this rule. Once a control measure in
Section 301.1 of this rule has been effectively implemented, then such open area
or vacant lot is subject to the requirements of Section 302 (Open Areas And
Vacant Lots) of this rule. Use of or parking on open areas and vacant lots by the
owner and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots and/or landscape
maintenance of such open areas and vacant lots shall not be considered vehicle
use in open areas and vacant lots, although such open areas and vacant lots
shall still meet the stabilization limitations described in Section 301.2 of this rule.
For the purpose of this rule, landscape maintenance does not include grading,
trenching, nor any other mechanized surface disturbing activities performed to
establish initial landscapes or to redesign existing landscapes.
301.1 Control Measures:
a.

Prevent motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing,
parking, and/or access, by installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates,
posts, signs (written in English and Spanish and in compliance
with ordinance(s) of local jurisdictions), shrubs, trees, or other
effective control measures.

b.

Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or chemical/organic
stabilizers to all areas disturbed by motor vehicles and/or off-road
vehicles in compliance with one of the stabilization limitations
described in Section 301.2 of this rule.

c.

Apply and maintain an alternative control measure approved in
writing by the Control Officer and the Administrator of the EPA.

301.2 Stabilization Limitations:

302

a.

A visible crust shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C,
Section 2.3 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Visible Crust
Determination) (The Drop Ball/Steel Ball Test) of these rules; or

b.

A threshold friction velocity (TFV) corrected for non-erodible
elements of 100 cm/second or higher shall be implemented, as
determined by Appendix C, Section 2.4 (Test Methods For
Stabilization-Determination Of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV))
(Sieving Field Procedure) of these rules; or

c.

Flat vegetative cover (i.e., attached (rooted) vegetation or
unattached vegetative debris lying on the surface with a
predominant horizontal orientation that is not subject to
movement by wind) that is equal to at least 50% shall be
implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.5 (Test
Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of Flat Vegetative Cover)
of these rules; or

d.

Standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached
(rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to
or greater than 30% shall be implemented, as determined by
Appendix C, Section 2.6 (Test Methods For StabilizationDetermination Of Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules; or

e.

Standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted)
with a predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to or greater
than 10% and where the threshold friction velocity is equal to or
greater than 43 cm/second when corrected for non-erodible
elements shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C,
Section 2.6 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of
Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules; or

f.

A percent cover that is equal to or greater than 10% for nonerodible elements shall be implemented, as determined by
Appendix C, Section 2.7 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Rock Test
Method) of these rules; or

g.

An alternative test method approved in writing by the Control
Officer and the Administrator of the EPA shall be implemented.

OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS: If open areas and vacant lots have 0.5
acre or more of disturbed surface area and remain unoccupied, unused, vacant,
or undeveloped for more than 15 days, then the owner and/or operator of such
open areas and vacant lots shall implement one of the control measures
described in Section 302.1 of this rule within 60 calendar days following the
initial discovery of the disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots. Within 30
calendar days following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of the

disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots, the owner and/or operator of
such open areas and vacant lots shall provide in writing to the Control Officer a
description and date of the control measure(s) to be implemented. For the
purpose of this rule, such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively
implemented when the open areas and vacant lots meet one of the stabilization
limitations described in Section 302.2 of this rule. Should an open area or vacant
lot on which no activity is occurring contain more than one type of disturbance,
soil, vegetation, or other characteristics that are visibly distinguishable, then
each representative surface shall be tested separately for stability, in an area
that represents a random portion of the overall disturbed conditions of the site,
according to the appropriate test methods in Appendix C of these rules and
included or eliminated from the total size assessment of disturbed surface
area(s) depending on test method results.
302.1 Control Measures:
a.

Establish vegetative ground cover on all disturbed surface areas
within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery of the
disturbance. Such control measure(s) must be maintained and
reapplied, if necessary, until the disturbed surface areas are
stabilized, in compliance with one of the stabilization limitations
described in Section 302.2 of this rule. Stabilization shall be
achieved, per this control measure, within eight months after the
control measure has been implemented.

b.

Apply a dust suppressant to all disturbed surface areas, in
compliance with one of the stabilization limitations described in
Section 302.2 of this rule.

c.

Restore all disturbed surface areas within 60 calendar days
following the initial discovery of the disturbance, such that the
vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are similar to
adjacent or nearby undisturbed native conditions. Such control
measure(s) must be maintained and reapplied, if necessary, until
the disturbed surface areas are stabilized, in compliance with one
of the stabilization limitations described in Section 302.2 of this
rule. Stabilization shall be achieved, per such control measure,
within eight months after such control measure has been
implemented.

d.

Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with
one of the stabilization limitations described in Section 302.2 of
this rule.

e.

Apply and maintain an alternative control measure approved in
writing by the Control Officer and the Administrator of the EPA.

302.2 Stabilization Limitations:

303

a.

A visible crust shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix
C, Section 2.3 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Visible Crust
Determination) (The Drop Ball/Steel Ball Test) of these rules; or

b.

A threshold friction velocity (TFV), corrected for non-erodible
elements of 100 cm/second or higher, shall be implemented, as
determined by Appendix C, Section 2.4 (Test Methods For
Stabilization-Determination Of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV))
(Sieving Field Procedure) of these rules; or

c.

Flat vegetative cover (i.e., attached (rooted) vegetation or
unattached vegetative debris lying on the surface with a
predominant horizontal orientation that is not subject to
movement by wind) that is equal to at least 50% shall be
implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.5 (Test
Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of Flat Vegetative Cover)
of these rules; or

d.

Standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached
(rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to
or greater than 30% shall be implemented, as determined by
Appendix C, Section 2.6 (Test Methods For StabilizationDetermination Of Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules; or

e.

Standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted)
with a predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to or greater
than 10% and where the threshold friction velocity is equal to or
greater than 43 cm/second when corrected for non-erodible
elements shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C,
Section 2.6 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of
Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules; or

f.

A percent cover that is equal to or greater than 10% for nonerodible elements shall be implemented, as determined by
Appendix C, Section 2.7 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Rock Test
Method) of these rules; or

g.

An alternative test method approved in writing by the Control
Officer and the Administrator of the EPA shall be implemented.

UNPAVED PARKING LOTS: The owner and/or operator of an unpaved parking
lot shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 303.1 of
this rule on any surface area(s) of the lot on which vehicles enter, park, and exit.
For unpaved parking lots that are utilized intermittently, for a period of 35 days
or less during the calendar year, the owner and/or operator shall implement one
of the control measures described in Section 303.1 of this rule, during the period
that the unpaved parking lots are utilized for vehicle parking. For the purpose of

this rule, such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented
when the unpaved parking lot meets the stabilization and opacity limitations
described in Section 303.2 of this rule.
303.1 Control Measures:
a.

Pave.

b.

Apply dust suppressants, in compliance with the stabilization and
opacity limitations described in Section 303.2 of this rule.

c.

Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with
the stabilization and opacity limitations described in Section 303.2
of this rule.

303.2 Stabilization And Opacity Limitations: For the purpose of this rule,
control measures shall be considered effectively implemented when
stabilization and opacity observations for fugitive dust emissions from
unpaved parking lots do not exceed 20% opacity and meet one of the
following, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods For
Stabilization-For Unpaved Roads And Unpaved Parking Lots) of these
rules:

304

a.

Silt loading is equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2; or

b.

Silt content does not exceed 8%.

UNPAVED ROADWAYS (INCLUDING ALLEYS): If a person allows 150
vehicles or more per day to use an unpaved roadway (including alleys) in the PM10
nonattainment area, then such person shall first implement one of the control
measures described in Section 304.1 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, such
control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the
unpaved roadway (including alleys) meets the stabilization and opacity limitation
described in Section 304.2 of this rule.
304.1 Control Measures:
a.

Pave.

b.

Apply dust suppressants, in compliance with the stabilization and
opacity limitations described in Section 304.2 of this rule.

c.

Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with
the stabilization and opacity limitations described in Section 304.2
of this rule.

304.2 Stabilization And Opacity Limitations: For the purpose of this rule,
control measures shall be considered effectively implemented when

stabilization and opacity observations for fugitive dust emissions from
unpaved roadways (including alleys) do not exceed 20% opacity and
meet one of the following, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.1
(Test Methods For Stabilization-For Unpaved Roads And Unpaved Parking
Lots) of these rules:

305

a.

Silt loading is equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2; or

b.

Silt content does not exceed 6%.

FEEDLOTS AND/OR LIVESTOCK AREAS: The owner and/or operator of any
feedlot and/or livestock area shall implement one of the control measures
described in Section 305.1 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, such control
measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the feedlot and/or
livestock area meets the opacity limitation described in Section 305.2 of this rule.
305.1 Control Measures:
a.

Apply dust suppressants, in compliance with the opacity limitation
described in Section 305.2 of this rule.

b.

Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with
the opacity limitation described in Section 305.2 of this rule.

c.

Install shrubs and/or trees within 50 feet to 100 feet of animal
pens, in compliance with the opacity limitation described in
Section 305.2 of this rule.

305.2 Opacity Limitation: For the purpose of this rule, control measures shall
be considered effectively implemented when opacity observations for
fugitive dust emissions from feedlots and/or livestock areas do not
exceed 20% opacity, as determined by Appendix C, Section 3 (Visual
Determination Of Opacity Of Emissions From Sources For Time-Average
Regulations) of these rules.
306

EROSION-CAUSED DEPOSITION OF BULK MATERIALS ONTO PAVED
SURFACES: In the event that erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials or other
materials occurs on any adjacent paved roadway or paved parking lot, the owner
and/or operator of the property from which the deposition eroded shall implement
both of the control measures described in Section 306.1 of this rule. For the
purpose of this rule, such control measures shall be considered effectively
implemented when the deposition meets the opacity limitation described in Section
306.2 of this rule. Exceedances of the opacity limitation, due to erosion-caused
deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces, shall constitute a violation of the
opacity limitation.
306.1 Control Measures:

a.

Remove any and all such deposits by utilizing the appropriate
control measures within 24 hours of the deposits’ identification or
prior to the resumption of traffic on pavement, where the pavement
area has been closed to traffic; and

b.

Dispose of deposits in such a manner so as not to cause another
source of fugitive dust.

306.2 Opacity Limitation: For the purpose of this rule, control measures shall
be considered effectively implemented when opacity observations for
fugitive dust emissions from erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials
onto paved surfaces do not exceed 20% opacity, as described in Appendix
C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods For Stabilization-For Unpaved Roads And
Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules.
307

EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND ACCESS ROADS FOR UTILITIES
(ELECTRICITY,
NATURAL
GAS,
OIL,
WATER,
AND
GAS
TRANSMISSION): If an owner and/or operator allows 150 vehicles or more per
day to use an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (electricity,
natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission) in the PM10 nonattainment area,
then such owner and/or operator shall first implement one of the control
measures described in Section 307.1 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule,
such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented, when the
easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (electricity, natural gas, oil,
water, and gas transmission) meet the stabilization and opacity limitation
described in Section 307.2 of this rule.
307.1 Control Measures:
a.

Pave.

b.

Apply dust suppressants, in compliance with the stabilization and
opacity limitations described in Section 307.2 of this rule.

c.

Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with
the stabilization and opacity limitations described in Section 307.2
of this rule.

307.2 Stabilization And Opacity Limitations: For the purpose of this rule,
control measures shall be considered effectively implemented when
stabilization and opacity observations for fugitive dust emissions from
easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities (electricity,
natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission) do not exceed 20% opacity
and meet one of the following, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.1
(Test Methods For Stabilization-For Unpaved Roads And Unpaved Parking
Lots) of these rules:
a.

Silt loading is not equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2; or

b.

Silt content does not exceed 6%.

SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS
501

STABILIZATION OBSERVATIONS:
501.1 Stabilization observations for unpaved parking lots and/or unpaved
roadways (including alleys) shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix
C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods For Stabilization-For Unpaved Roads And
Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules.
501.2 Stabilization observations for an open area and vacant lot shall be
conducted in accordance with the following:
a.

Appendix C, Section 2.3 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Visible Crust
Determination) (The Drop Ball/Steel Ball Test) of these rules; or

b.

Appendix C, Section 2.4 (Test Methods For StabilizationDetermination Of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV)) (Sieving Field
Procedure) of these rules, where the threshold friction velocity (TFV)
for disturbed surface areas corrected for non-erodible elements is
100 cm/second or higher; or

c.

Appendix C, Section 2.5 (Test Methods For StabilizationDetermination Of Flat Vegetative Cover) of these rules, where flat
vegetation cover (i.e., attached (rooted) vegetation or unattached
vegetative debris lying on the surface with a predominant horizontal
orientation that is not subject to movement by wind) is equal to at
least 50%; or

d.

Appendix C, Section 2.6 (Test Methods For StabilizationDetermination Of Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules, where
standing vegetation cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted)
with a predominant vertical orientation) is equal to or greater than
30%; or

e.

Appendix C, Section 2.6 (Test Methods For StabilizationDetermination Of Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules, where
the standing vegetation cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached
(rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation) is equal to or
greater than 10% and where the threshold friction velocity,
corrected for non-erodible elements, is equal to or greater than 43
cm/second; or

f.

Appendix C, Section 2.7 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Rock Test
Method) of these rules where a percent cover is equal to or
greater than 10% for non-erodible elements.

g.

An alternative test method approved in writing by the Control Officer
and the Administrator of the EPA.

502

RECORDKEEPING: Any person subject to the requirements of this rule shall
compile and retain records that provide evidence of control measure application
(i.e., receipts and/or purchase records). Such person shall describe, in the
records, the type of treatment or control measure, extent of coverage, and date
applied. Upon verbal or written request by the Control Officer, such person shall
provide the records and supporting documentation within 48 hours, excluding
weekends. If the Control Officer is at the site where requested records are kept,
such person shall provide the records without delay.

503

RECORDS RETENTION: Copies of the records required by Section 502
(Recordkeeping) of this rule shall be retained for at least one year.

Revision to
Maricopa County Rule 316
Nonmetallic Mineral and Processing

REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 316
NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING
INDEX
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101

PURPOSE

102

APPLICABILITY

SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS
201

AFFECTED OPERATION

202

AGGREGATE TRUCK

203

APPROVED EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM

204

AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC

205

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANT/ASPHALT PLANT

206

BAGGING OPERATION

207

BATCH TRUCK

208

BELT CONVEYOR

209

BERMS AND GUARD RAILS

210

BULK MATERIAL

211

COHESIVE HARD SURFACE

212

CONCRETE PLANT

213

CONVEYING SYSTEM

214

CRUSHER

215

DISTURBED SURFACE AREA

216

DRY MIX CONCRETE PLANT

217

DUST GENERATING OPERATION

218

DUST SUPPRESSANT

219

ENCLOSED TRUCK OR RAILCAR LOADING STATION

220

END OF WORK DAY

221

FABRIC FILTER BAGHOUSE

222

FREEBOARD

223

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL MEASURE

224

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNICIAN

316-1

225

FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION

226

GRINDING MILL

227

HAUL/ACCESS ROAD

228

HAUL TRUCK

229

INFREQUENT OPERATIONS

230

MATERIAL DELIVERY TRUCK

231

MIXER TRUCK

232

MOTOR VEHICLE

233

NEW FACILITY

234

NONMETALLIC MINERAL

235

NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING PLANT

236

OPEN STORAGE PILE

237

OVERBURDEN OPERATION

238

PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS

239

PAVE

240

PORTLAND CEMENT PLANT

241

PRESSURE CONTROL SYSTEM

242

PROCESS

243

PROCESS SOURCE

244

PRODUCTION WORK SHIFT

245

PUBLIC ROADWAYS

246

RETURNED PRODUCTS

247

RUMBLE GRATE

248

SCREENING OPERATION

249

SILO

250

SILT

251

SPILLAGE

252

STACK EMISSIONS

253

STAGING AREA

254

TEMPORARY FACILITY

255

TRACKOUT

256

TRACKOUT CONTROL DEVICE

316-2

257

TRANSFER POINT

258

TRUCK DUMPING

259

TRUCK WASHER

260

UNPAVED ROAD

261

VENT

262

WHEEL WASHER

263

WIND EVENT

SECTION 300 - STANDARDS
301

NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING
LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS

PLANTS

-

PROCESS

EMISSION

302

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS - PROCESS EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND
CONTROLS

303

CONCRETE PLANTS AND/OR BAGGING OPERATIONS - PROCESS EMISSION
LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS

304

OTHER ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS

305

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND APPROVED EMISSION CONTROL
SYSTEM (ECS)

306

FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION LIMITATIONS

307

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL MEASURES

308

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNICIAN

309

DUST CONTROL PLAN

SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401

COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE

SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS
501

RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING

502

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - 40 PART 60, APPENDIX A TEST METHODS
ADOPTED BY REFERENCE

503

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT AND SOIL
COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS TEST METHODS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE

504

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - STABILIZATION STANDARDS TEST METHODS
ADOPTED BY REFERENCE

316-3

505

CERTIFIED STREET SWEEPERS EQUIPMENT LIST ADOPTED BY REFERENCE

316-4

Adopted 07/06/93
Revised 04/21/99
Revised 06/08/05
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 316
NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101

PURPOSE: To limit the emission of particulate matter into the ambient air from
any nonmetallic mineral processing plant and/or rock product processing plant.

102

APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to any commercial and/or
industrial nonmetallic mineral processing plant and/or rock product processing
plant. Compliance with the provisions of this rule shall not relieve any person
subject to the requirements of this rule from complying with any other federally
enforceable New Source Performance Standards. In such case, the more stringent
standard shall apply.

SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100 (General Provisions And Definitions) of these rules
for definitions of terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the
purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:
201

AFFECTED OPERATION - An operation that processes nonmetallic minerals or
that is related to such processing and process sources including, but not limited to,
excavating, crushers, grinding mills, screening equipment, conveying systems,
elevators, transfer points, bagging operations, storage bins, enclosed truck and
railcar loading stations, and truck dumping.

202

AGGREGATE TRUCK – Any truck with an open top used to transport the products
of nonmetallic mineral processing plants and/or rock product processing plants.

203

APPROVED EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM - A system for reducing particulate
emissions, consisting of collection and/or control devices which are approved in
writing by the Control Officer and are designed and operated in accordance with
good engineering practice.

204

AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC - Any retail parking lot or public roadway
that is open to public travel primarily for the purposes unrelated to the dust
generating operation.

205

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANT/ASPHALT PLANT - Any facility used to
manufacture asphaltic concrete by mixing graded aggregate and asphaltic cements.

316-5

206

BAGGING OPERATION - The mechanical process by which bags are filled with
nonmetallic minerals.

207

BATCH TRUCK – Any truck that loads and transports products produced by batch.

208

BELT CONVEYOR - A conveying device that transports material from one location
to another by means of an endless belt that is carried on a series of idlers and
routed around a pulley at each end.

209

BERMS AND GUARD RAILS - A pile or mound of material along an elevated
roadway capable of moderating or limiting the force of a vehicle in order to impede
the vehicle's passage over the bank of the roadway.

210

BULK MATERIAL - Any material including, but not limited to, earth, rock, silt,
sediment, sand, gravel, soil, fill, aggregate less than two inches in length or
diameter (i.e., aggregate base course (ABC)), dirt, mud, demolition debris, cotton,
trash, cinders, pumice, saw dust, feeds, grains, fertilizers, fluff (from shredders),
and dry concrete, that is capable of producing fugitive dust.

211

COHESIVE HARD SURFACE – Any material including, but not limited to,
pavement, recycled asphalt mixed with a binder, or a dust suppressant other than
water applied and maintained as a roadway surface.

212

CONCRETE PLANT - Any facility used to manufacture concrete by mixing water,
aggregate, and cement.

213

CONVEYING SYSTEM - A device for transporting materials from one piece of
equipment or location to another location within a facility. Conveying systems
include, but are not limited to, feeders, belt conveyers, bucket elevators and
pressure control systems.

214

CRUSHER - A machine used to crush any nonmetallic minerals including, but not
limited to, the following types: jaw, gyratory, cone, roll, rod mill, hammermill, and
impactor.

215

DISTURBED SURFACE AREA - A portion of the earth's surface (or material
placed thereupon) which has been physically moved, uncovered, destabilized, or
otherwise modified from its undisturbed native condition, thereby increasing the
potential for the emission of fugitive dust.

216

DRY MIX CONCRETE PLANT - Any facility used to manufacture a mixture of
aggregate and cements without the addition of water.

217

DUST GENERATING OPERATION - Any activity capable of generating fugitive
dust including, but not limited to, land clearing, earthmoving, weed abatement by
discing or blading, excavating, construction, demolition, bulk material handling,
storage and/or transporting operations, vehicle use and movement, the operation
of any outdoor equipment, or unpaved parking lots. For the purpose of this rule,

316-6

landscape maintenance and playing on or maintaining a field used for nonmotorized sports shall not be considered a dust generating operation. However,
landscape maintenance shall not include grading, trenching, or any other
mechanized surface disturbing activities performed to establish initial landscapes or
to redesign existing landscapes.
218

DUST SUPPRESSANT - Water, hygroscopic material, solution of water and
chemical surfactant, foam, non-toxic chemical stabilizer, or any other dust palliative,
which is not prohibited for ground surface application by the EPA or the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), or any applicable law, rule, or
regulation, as a treatment material for reducing fugitive dust emissions.

219

ENCLOSED TRUCK OR RAILCAR LOADING STATION - That portion of a
nonmetallic mineral processing plant where nonmetallic minerals are loaded by an
enclosed conveying system into enclosed trucks or railcars.

220

END OF WORK DAY – The end of a working period that may include one or more
work shifts but not later than 8 pm.

221

FABRIC FILTER BAGHOUSE - Tube-shaped filter bags - long small-diameter
fabric tubes referred to as ‘bags’ arranged in parallel flow paths and designed to
separate particles and flue gas.

222

FREEBOARD - The vertical distance between the top edge of a cargo container
area and the highest point at which the bulk material contacts the sides, front, and
back of a cargo container area.

223

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL MEASURE - A technique, practice, or procedure
used to prevent or minimize the generation, emission, entrainment, suspension,
and/or airborne transport of fugitive dust.

224

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNICIAN - A person with the authority to
expeditiously employ sufficient fugitive dust control measures to ensure compliance
with Rule 316 of these rules at an active operation.

225

FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION - Particulate matter not collected by a capture
system that is entrained in the ambient air and is caused from human and/or
natural activities.

226

GRINDING MILL - A machine used for the wet or dry fine crushing of any
nonmetallic mineral. Grinding mills include, but are not limited to, the following
types: hammer, roller, rod, pebble and ball, and fluid energy. The grinding mill
includes the air conveying system, air separator, or air classifier, where such
systems are used.

227

HAUL/ACCESS ROAD – Any on-site unpaved road that is used by haul trucks to
carry materials from the quarry to different locations within the facility.

316-7

228

HAUL TRUCK - Any fully or partially open-bodied self-propelled vehicle including
any non-motorized attachments, such as but not limited to, trailers or other
conveyances that are connected to or propelled by the actual motorized portion of
the vehicle used for transporting bulk materials.

229

INFREQUENT OPERATIONS – Operations that have State mine identification,
approved reclamation plans and bonding as required by State Mining And
Reclamation Act of 1975, and only operate on an average of 52 days per year over
the past three years from (the adoption date of this rule).

230

MATERIAL DELIVERY TRUCK – Any truck that loads and transports product to
customers.

231

MIXER TRUCK – Any truck that mixes cement and other ingredients in a drum to
produce concrete.

232

MOTOR VEHICLE - A self-propelled vehicle for use on the public roads and
highways of the State of Arizona and required to be registered under the Arizona
State Uniform Motor Vehicle Act, including any non-motorized attachments, such as
but not limited to, trailers or other conveyances which are connected to or
propelled by the actual motorized portion of the vehicle.

233

NEW FACILITY - A facility subject to this rule that has not been operated by such
facility prior to June 8, 2005.

234

NONMETALLIC MINERAL - Any of the following minerals or any mixture of
which the majority is any of the following minerals:
234.1
234.2
234.3
234.4
234.5
234.6
234.7
234.8
234.9
234.10
234.11
234.12
234.13
234.14
234.15
234.16

Crushed and broken stone, including limestone, dolomite, granite,
rhyolite, traprock, sandstone, quartz, quartzite, marl, marble, slate,
shale, oil shale, and shell.
Sand and gravel.
Clay including kaolin, fireclay, bentonite, fuller's earth, ball clay, and
common clay.
Rock salt.
Gypsum.
Sodium compounds including sodium carbonate, sodium chloride, and
sodium sulfate.
Pumice.
Gilsonite.
Talc and pyrophyllite.
Boron including borax, kernite, and colemanite.
Barite.
Fluorspar.
Feldspar.
Diatomite.
Perlite.
Vermiculite.

316-8

234.17
234.18
234.19

Mica.
Kyanite including andalusite, sillimanite, topaz, and dumortierite.
Coal.

235

NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING PLANT - Any facility utilizing any
combination of equipment or machinery that is used to mine, excavate, separate,
combine, crush, or grind any nonmetallic mineral including, but not limited to, lime
plants, coal fired power plants, steel mills, asphalt plants, concrete plants, Portland
cement plants, and sand and gravel plants. Rock Product Processing Plants are
included in this definition.

236

OPEN STORAGE PILE - Any accumulation of bulk material with a 5% or greater
silt content which in any one point attains a height of three feet and covers a total
surface area of 150 square feet or more. Silt content shall be assumed to be 5% or
greater unless a person can show, by testing in accordance with ASTM Method
C136-01 or other equivalent method approved in writing by the Control Officer and
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that the silt
content is less than 5%. For the purpose of this rule, the definition of open storage
pile does not include berms and guard rails that are installed to comply with 30
Code Of Federal Regulations (CFR) 56.93000.

237

OVERBURDEN OPERATION – An operation that removes and/or strips soil, rock,
or other materials that lie above a natural nonmetallic mineral deposit and/or inbetween a natural nonmetallic mineral deposit.

238

PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS - Any and all finely divided solid or liquid
materials other than uncombined water released to the ambient air as measured by
the applicable state and federal test methods.

239

PAVE - To apply and maintain asphalt, concrete, or other similar material to a
roadway surface (i.e., asphaltic concrete, concrete pavement, chip seal,
rubberized asphalt, or recycled asphalt mixed with a binder).

240

PORTLAND CEMENT PLANT - Any facility that manufactures Portland Cement
using either a wet or dry process.

241

PRESSURE CONTROL SYSTEM - System in which loads are moved in the
proper sequence, at the correct time, and at the desired speed through use of
valves that control the direction of air flow, regulate actuator speed, and respond
to changes in air pressure.

242

PROCESS - One or more operations including those using equipment and
technology in the production of goods or services or the control of by-products or
waste.

243

PROCESS SOURCE - The last operation of a process or a distinctly separate
process which produces an air contaminant and which is not a pollution abatement
operation.

316-9

244

PRODUCTION WORK SHIFT – An eight hour operating period based on the 24hour operating schedule.

245

PUBLIC ROADWAYS - Any roadways that are open to public travel.

246

RETURNED PRODUCTS – Left-over concrete or asphalt products that were not
used at a job site and were returned to the facility.

247

RUMBLE GRATE – A system where the vehicle is vibrated while traveling over
grates with the purpose of removing dust and other debris.

248

SCREENING OPERATION - A device that separates material according to its size
by passing undersize material through one or more mesh surfaces (screens) in
series and retaining oversize material on the mesh surfaces (screens).

249

SILO - An elevated storage container with or without a top that releases
material thru the bottom.

250

SILT - Any aggregate material with a particle size less than 75 micrometers in
diameter, which passes through a No. 200 Sieve.

251

SPILLAGE - Any quantity of nonmetallic minerals/materials that spill while being
processed or after having been processed by an affected operation, where such
spilled nonmetallic minerals/materials can generate or cause fugitive dust
emissions.

252

STACK EMISSIONS - The particulate matter emissions that are released to the
atmosphere from a capture system through a building vent, stack or other point
source discharge.

253

STAGING AREA – A place where aggregate trucks and mixer trucks temporarily
queue for their loading or unloading.

254

TEMPORARY FACILITY - A facility that occupies a designated site for not more
than 180 days in a calendar year.

255

TRACKOUT - Any and all bulk materials that adhere to and agglomerate on the
surfaces of motor vehicles, haul trucks, and/or equipment (including tires) and that
have fallen or been deposited onto a paved area accessible to the public.

256

TRACKOUT CONTROL DEVICE - A gravel pad, grizzly, wheel washer, rumble
grate, paved area, truck washer, or other equivalent trackout control device located
at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved area accessible to the
public that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from
tires and the exterior surfaces of aggregate trucks, haul trucks, and/or motor
vehicles that traverse a facility.

316-10

257

TRANSFER POINT - A point in a conveying operation where nonmetallic mineral
is transferred from or to a belt conveyor except for transfer to a stockpile.

258

TRUCK DUMPING - The unloading of nonmetallic minerals from movable vehicles
designed to transport nonmetallic minerals from one location to another. Movable
vehicles include, but are not limited to, trucks, front end loaders, skip hoists, and
railcars.

259

TRUCK WASHER – A system that is used to wash the entire surface and the tires
of a truck.

260

UNPAVED ROAD – Any roads, equipment paths, or travel ways that are not
covered by typical roadway materials. Public unpaved roads are any unpaved
roadway owned by Federal, State, county, municipal, or governmental or quasigovernmental agencies. Private unpaved roads are all other unpaved roadways not
defined as public. Unpaved internal roads are private unpaved roads within the
facility’s property boundary.

261

VENT - An opening through which there is mechanically or naturally induced air
flow for the purpose of exhausting air carrying particulate matter.

262

WHEEL WASHER – A system that is capable of washing the entire circumference
of each wheel of the vehicle.

263

WIND EVENT - When the 60-minute average wind speed is greater than 25 miles
per hour.

SECTION 300 - STANDARDS
301

NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING PLANTS - PROCESS EMISSION
LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS:
301.1 Process Emission Limitations: The owner and/or operator of a
nonmetallic mineral processing plant shall not discharge or cause or allow to
be discharged into the ambient air:
a.

Stack emissions exceeding 7% opacity and containing more than
0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) (50 mg/dscm) of
particulate matter. Such stack emissions shall be vented to a
properly sized fabric filter baghouse.

b.

Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 7% opacity from any transfer
point on a conveying system.

c.

Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 15% opacity from any crusher.

316-11

d.

Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 10% opacity from any affected
operation or process source, excluding truck dumping directly into
any screening operation, feed hopper, or crusher.

e.

Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 20% opacity from truck dumping
directly into any screening operation, feed hopper, or crusher.

301.2 Controls: For crushing and screening facilities, the owner and/or operator
of a nonmetallic mineral processing plant shall implement all of the
following process controls:

302

a.

Enclose sides of all shaker screens.

b.

Permanently mount watering systems (e.g., spray bars or an
equivalent control) on:
(1)

Inlet and outlet of all crushers;

(2)

Outlet of all shaker screens; and

(3)

Outlet of all material transfer points, excluding wet plants.

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS - PROCESS EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND
CONTROLS:
302.1 Process Emission Limitations: The owner and/or operator of an
asphaltic concrete plant shall not discharge or cause or allow to be
discharged into the ambient air:
a.

For non-rubberized asphaltic concrete plants, stack emissions
exceeding 5% opacity and containing more than 0.04 gr/dscf (90
mg mg/dscm) of particulate matter over a 6-minute period.

b.

For rubberized asphaltic concrete plants (when producing rubberized
asphalt only), stack emissions exceeding 20% opacity and
containing more than 0.04 gr/dscf (90 mg mg/dscm) of particulate
matter over a 6-minute period.

c.

From all cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silo(s), fugitive dust
emissions exceeding 20% opacity.

302.2 Controls: The owner and/or operator of an asphaltic concrete plant shall
implement all of the following process controls:
a.

On all cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silo(s), install an
operational overflow warning system/device. The system/device
shall be designed to alert operator(s) to stop the loading operation
when the cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silo(s) are reaching a

316-12

capacity that
equipment.

303

could

adversely

impact

pollution

abatement

b.

On existing cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silo(s), install a
properly sized fabric filter baghouse, with an opacity limit of not
greater than 5% over a 6-minute period.

c.

On new cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silo(s), install a
properly sized fabric filter baghouse or equivalent device designed to
meet a maximum outlet grain loading of 0.01 gr/dscf, with an
opacity limit of not greater than 5% over a 6-minute period.

d.

From all drum dryers, control and vent exhaust to a properly sized
fabric filter baghouse, with an opacity limit of not greater than 5%
over a 6-minute period.

CONCRETE PLANTS AND/OR BAGGING
EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS:

OPERATIONS

-

PROCESS

303.1 Process Emission Limitations: The owner and/or operator of a concrete
plant and/or bagging operation shall not discharge or cause or allow to be
discharged into the ambient air:
a.

Stack emissions exceeding 7% opacity.

b.

Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 10% opacity from any affected
operation or process source, excluding truck dumping directly into
any screening operation, feed hopper, or crusher.

c.

Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 20% opacity from truck dumping
directly into any screening operation, feed hopper, or crusher.

303.2 Controls: The owner and/or operator of a concrete plant and/or bagging
operation shall implement the following process controls:
a.

On all cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silo(s), install an
operational overflow warning system/device. The system/device
shall be designed to alert operator(s) to stop the loading operation
when the cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silo(s) are reaching a
capacity that could adversely impact pollution abatement
equipment.

b.

On existing cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silo(s), install a
properly sized fabric filter baghouse, with an opacity limit of not
greater than 5% over a 6-minute period.

316-13

c.

On new cement, lime, and/or fly-ash storage silos, install a properly
sized fabric filter baghouse or equivalent device designed to meet a
maximum outlet grain loading of 0.01 gr/dscf.

d.

On dry mix concrete plant loading stations/truck mixed product,
implement one of the following process controls:

e.

(1)

Install a rubber fill tube;

(2)

Install a water spray;

(3)

Install a properly sized fabric filter baghouse or delivery
system;

(4)

Enclose mixer loading stations such that no visible emissions
occur; or

(5)

Conduct mixer loading stations in an enclosed process
building such that no visible emissions from the building
occur during the mixing activities.

On cement silo filling processing/loading operations controls, install
a pressure control system designed to shut-off cement silo filling
processes/loading operations, if pressure from delivery truck is
excessive, as defined in O&M Plan.

304

OTHER ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS: All other affected operations or process
sources not specifically listed in Sections 301, 302, or 303 of this rule associated
with the processing of nonmetallic minerals, all other fugitive dust emission
limitations not specifically listed in Section 306 of this rule, all other fugitive dust
control measures not specifically listed in Section 307 of this rule, and all
overburden operations shall, at a minimum, meet the provisions of Rule 310 of
these rules.

305

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND APPROVED EMISSION
CONTROL SYSTEM (ECS):
305.1 Operation And Maintenance (O&M) Plan Requirements For ECS:
a.

An owner and/or operator of a facility shall provide and maintain,
readily available on-site at all times, (an) O&M Plan(s) for any ECS,
any other emission processing equipment, and any ECS monitoring
devices that are used pursuant to this rule or to an air pollution
control permit.

b.

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall submit to the Control
Officer for approval the O&M Plan(s) for each ECS and for each ECS
monitoring device that is used pursuant to this rule.

316-14

c.

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall comply with all the
identified actions and schedules provided in each O&M Plan.

305.2 Providing And Maintaining ECS Monitoring Devices: An owner and/or
operator of a facility operating an ECS pursuant to this rule shall install,
maintain, and calibrate monitoring devices described in the O&M Plan(s).
The monitoring devices shall measure pressures, rates of flow, and/or other
operating conditions necessary to determine if the control devices are
functioning properly.
305.3 O&M Plan Responsibility: An owner and/or operator of a facility that is
required to have an O&M Plan pursuant to Section 305.1 of this rule must
fully comply with all O&M Plans that the owner and/or operator has
submitted for approval, even if such O&M Plans have not yet been
approved, unless notified in writing by the Control Officer.
306

FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION LIMITATIONS:
306.1 20% Opacity Limitation: The owner and/or operator of a facility shall
not discharge or cause or allow to be discharged into the ambient air
fugitive dust emissions exceeding 20% opacity, in accordance with the test
methods described in Section 502 of this rule and in Appendix C (Fugitive
Dust Test Methods) of these rules.
306.2 Visible Emission Limitation Beyond Property Line: An owner and/or
operator of a facility shall not cause or allow fugitive dust emissions from
any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area
associated with such facility such that the presence of such fugitive dust
emissions remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of such
facility.
306.3 Wind Event: The fugitive dust emission limitations described in Section
306.1 and Section 306.2 of this rule shall not apply during a wind event, if
the owner and/or operator of a facility meets the following conditions:
a.

Has implemented the fugitive dust control measures described in
Section 307 of this rule, as applicable;

b.

Has compiled and retained records, in accordance with Section
501.4 of this rule, and has documented by records the occurrence
of a wind event on the day(s) in question. The occurrence of a wind
event must be determined by the nearest Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department Air Quality Division monitoring
station, from any other certified meteorological station, or by a wind
instrument that is calibrated according to manufacturer’s standards
and that is located at the site being checked; and

316-15

c.

Has implemented the following high wind fugitive dust control
measures, as applicable:
(1)

(2)

(3)

For an active operation, implement one of the following
fugitive dust control measures, in accordance with the test
methods described in Section 503 and Section 504 of this
rule and in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods) of these
rules:
(a)

Cease active operation that may contribute to an
exceedance of the fugitive dust emission limitations
described in Section 306.1 and Section 306.2 of this
rule for the duration of the wind event and, if active
operation is ceased for the remainder of the work
day, stabilize the area; or

(b)

Maintain a visible crust by applying water or other
suitable dust suppressant other than water or by
implementing another fugitive dust control measure,
in sufficient quantities to meet the stabilization
standards described in Section 503 and Section 504
of this rule.

For an open storage pile, implement one of the following
fugitive dust control measures, in accordance with the test
methods described in Section 503 and Section 504 of this
rule and in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods) of these
rules:
(a)

Maintain a visible crust by applying water or other
suitable dust suppressant other than water or by
implementing another fugitive dust control measure,
in sufficient quantities to meet the stabilization
standards described in Section 503 and Section 504
of this rule.

(b)

Cover open storage pile with tarps, plastic, or other
material such that wind will not remove the covering,
if open storage pile is less than eight feet high.

For a disturbed surface area, implement one of the following
fugitive dust control measures, in accordance with the test
methods described in Section 503 and Section 504 of this
rule and in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods) of these
rules:
(a)

Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or a
dust suppressant other than water; or

316-16

(b)

Maintain a visible crust by applying water or other
suitable dust suppressant other than water or by
implementing another fugitive dust control measure,
in sufficient quantities to meet the stabilization
standards described in Section 503 and Section 504
of this rule.

306.4 Silt Loading And Silt Content Standards For Unpaved Internal
Roads And Unpaved Parking And Staging Areas: From unpaved
internal roads and unpaved parking and staging areas, the owner and/or
operator of a facility shall not discharge or allow to be discharged into the
ambient air fugitive dust emissions exceeding 20% opacity, in accordance
with the test methods described in Section 502 of this rule and in Appendix
C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods) of these rules, and one of the following:
a.

Silt loading equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2; or

b.

Silt content exceeding 6%.

306.5 Stabilization Standards:
a.

An owner and/or operator of a facility shall be considered in
violation of this rule if any open storage pile and material handling
or surface soils where support equipment and vehicles operate in
association with such facility is not maintained in a manner that
meets at least one of the standards listed below, as applicable.
(1)

Maintain a visible crust;

(2)

Maintain a threshold friction velocity (TFV) for disturbed
surface areas corrected for non-erodible elements of 100
cm/second or higher;

(3)

Maintain a flat vegetative cover (i.e., attached (rooted)
vegetation or unattached vegetative debris lying on the
surface with a predominant horizontal orientation that is not
subject to movement by wind) that is equal to at least 50%;

(4)

Maintain a standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is
attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation)
that is equal to or greater than 30%;

(5)

Maintain a standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is
attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation)
that is equal to or greater than 10% and where the
threshold friction velocity is equal to or greater than 43
cm/second when corrected for non-erodible elements;

316-17

b.

307

(6)

Maintain a percent cover that is equal to or greater than
10% for non-erodible elements; or

(7)

Comply with a standard of an alternative test method, upon
obtaining the written approval from the Control Officer and
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).

If no activity is occurring on an open storage pile and material
handling or surface soils where support equipment and vehicles
operate in association with such facility and if an open storage pile
and material handling or surface soils where support equipment and
vehicles operate in association with such facility contain more than
one type of disturbance, soil, vegetation, or other characteristics,
which are visibly distinguishable, each representative surface shall
be tested separately for stability, in an area that represents a
random portion of the overall disturbed conditions of the site, in
accordance with the appropriate test methods described in Section
503 and Section 504 of this rule and in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust
Test Methods) of these rules and shall be included in or eliminated
from the total size assessment of disturbed surface area(s)
depending upon test method results.

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL MEASURES: The owner and/or operator of a
nonmetallic mineral processing plant and/or a rock product processing plant shall
implement the fugitive dust control measures described in this section of this
rule. When selecting a fugitive dust control measure(s), the owner and/or
operator of a facility may consider the site-specific and/or material-specific
conditions and logistics of a facility. When doing so, some fugitive dust control
measures may be more reasonable to implement than others. Regardless, any
fugitive dust control measure that is implemented must achieve the applicable
standard(s) described in Section 306 of this rule, as determined by the
corresponding test method(s), as applicable, and must achieve other applicable
standard(s) set forth in this rule. The owner and/or operator of a facility may
submit a request to the Control Officer and the Administrator Of The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the use of alternative control
measure(s). The request shall include the proposed alternative control measure,
the control measure that the alternative would replace, and a detailed statement
or report demonstrating that the measure would result in equivalent or better
emission control than the measures prescribed in this rule. Nothing in this rule
shall be construed to prevent an owner and/or operator of a facility from making
such demonstration. Following a decision by the Control Officer and the
Administrator of the EPA to grant the petition, the facility shall incorporate the
alternative control measure in any required Dust Control Plan.
307.1 Open Storage Piles And Material Handling: The owner and/or
operator of a facility shall implement all of the following fugitive dust control

316-18

measures, as applicable, in compliance with Section 306.1 and Section
306.5 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, open storage pile(s) and
material handling does not include berms and guard rails that are installed
to comply with 30 CFR 56.93000. However, such berms and guard rails
shall be installed and maintained in compliance with Section 306.1 and
Section 306.5 of this rule.
a.

b.

Prior to, and/or while conducting stacking, loading, and unloading
operations, implement one of the following fugitive dust control
measures:
(1)

Spray material with water, as necessary; or

(2)

Spray material with a dust suppressant other than water, as
necessary.

When not conducting stacking, loading, and unloading operations,
implement one of the following fugitive dust control measures:
(1)

Spray material with water, as necessary, in compliance with
Section 306.1 and Section 306.5 of this rule;

(2)

Maintain a 1.5% or more soil moisture content of the open
storage pile(s), in compliance with Section 306.1 and Section
306.5 of this rule;

(3)

Locate open storage pile(s) in a pit/in the bottom of a pit. If
implementing this fugitive dust control measure, the owner
and/or operator of a facility shall also comply with the
stabilization standards in Section 306.5 of this rule.

(4)

Arrange open storage pile(s) such that storage pile(s) of
larger diameter products are on the perimeter and act as
barriers to/for open storage pile(s) that could create fugitive
dust emissions. If implementing this fugitive dust control
measure, the owner and/or operator of a facility shall also
comply with the stabilization standards in Section 306.5 of
this rule.

(5)

Meet one of the stabilization standards in Section 306.5 of
this rule; or

(6)

Construct and maintain wind barriers, storage silos, or a
three-sided enclosure with walls, whose length is no less
than equal to the length of the pile, whose distance from the
pile is no more than twice the height of the pile, whose
height is equal to the pile height, and whose porosity is no
more than 50%. If implementing this fugitive dust control

316-19

measure, the owner and/or operator of a facility shall also
comply with the stabilization standards in Section 306.5 of
this rule.
c.

d.

When installing new open storage pile(s) at an existing facility
and/or when installing new open storage pile(s) at a new facility,
the owner and/or operator shall implement all of the following
fugitive dust control measures in compliance with Section 306.1 and
Section 306.5 of this rule, only if it is determined to be feasible on a
case-by-case basis through the Dust Control Plan by assessing the
amount of open land available at the property at the time the new
open storage pile(s) are formed:
(1)

Install the open storage pile(s) at least 25 feet from the
property line; and

(2)

Limit the height of the open storage pile(s) to less than 45
feet.

For existing open storage pile(s) and when installing open storage
pile(s) for an existing facility or for a new facility, if such open
storage pile(s) will be constructed over eight feet high and will not
be covered, then the owner and/or operator shall install, use, and
maintain a water truck or other method that is capable of
completely wetting the surfaces of open storage pile(s) in
compliance with Section 306.1 and Section 306.5 of this rule.

307.2 Surface Stabilization Where Support Equipment And Vehicles
Operate: The owner and/or operator of a facility shall stabilize surface soils
where loaders, support equipment, and vehicles will operate by
implementing one of the following fugitive dust control measures, in
compliance with Section 306.4 and/or Section 306.5 of this rule, as
applicable:
a.

Pre-water surface soils;

b.

Apply and maintain a dust suppressant, other than water; or

c.

Apply a gravel pad, in compliance with the Section 307.6(b)(4) of
this rule.

307.3 Haul/Access Roads:
a.

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall implement one of the
following fugitive dust control measures, as applicable, in
compliance with Section 306.4 of this rule, before engaging in the
use of, or in the maintenance of, haul/access roads. Compliance
with the provisions of this section of this rule shall not relieve any

316-20

person subject to the requirements of this section of this rule from
complying with any other federally enforceable requirements (i.e.,
a permit issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act).

b.

(1)

Install and maintain bumps, humps, or dips for speed control
and apply water, as necessary;

(2)

Limit vehicle speeds and apply water, as necessary;

(3)

Pave;

(4)

Apply and maintain a gravel pad in compliance with Section
307.6(b)(4) of this rule;

(5)

Apply a dust suppressant, other than water; or

(6)

Install and maintain a cohesive hard surface.

For a new facility, if implementing one of the fugitive dust control
measures described in Section 307.3(a) of this rule is determined to
be technically infeasible as obtained/approved in writing by the
Control Officer and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and as approved in the Dust Control Plan,
then the owner and/or operator of a new facility shall maintain a
minimum distance of 25 feet from the property line for haul/access
roads associated with the new facility.

307.4 On-Site Traffic:
a.

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall require all batch trucks
and material delivery trucks to remain on internal roads with paved
surfaces or cohesive hard surfaces in the permanent areas of the
facility/operation that include entrances, exits, warehouses and
maintenance areas, office areas, concrete plant areas, asphaltic
plant areas, and parking and staging areas, as approved in the Dust
Control Plan.

b.

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall require all aggregate
trucks to remain on internal roads subject to Section 307.4(a) of
this rule, when entering and exiting aggregate loading
areas/loading operations, as approved in the Dust Control Plan.

c.

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall require
trucks and material delivery trucks to enter and
facility/operation only through entrances that comply
trackout requirements in Section 307.5 of this rule
comply with Section 306.5 of this rule.

316-21

all batch
exit the
with the
and that

307.5 Off-Site Traffic: When hauling and/or transporting bulk material off-site,
the owner and/or operator of a facility shall implement all of the following
control measures:
a.

Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than three
inches;

b.

Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other
openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s);
and

c.

Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure.

307.6 Trackout:
a.

Rumble Grate And Wheel Washer: The owner and/or operator
of a new permanent facility and the owner and/or operator of an
existing permanent facility with a minimum of 60 aggregate trucks,
mixer trucks, and/or batch trucks exiting a facility on any day onto
paved public roadways/paved areas accessible to the public shall
install, maintain, and use a rumble grate and wheel washer, in
accordance with all of the following conditions, as applicable. For the
purpose of this rule, a vehicle wash and/or a cosmetic wash may be
substituted for a wheel washer, provided such vehicle wash and/or
cosmetic wash has at least 40 pounds per square inch (psi) water
spray from the nozzle (owner and/or operator of the facility shall
have a water pressure gauge available on-site to allow verification of
such water pressure), meets the definition of wheel washer (i.e., is
capable of washing the entire circumference of each wheel of the
vehicle), is operated in such a way that visible deposits are removed
from the entire circumference of each wheel of the vehicle exiting
the wash, is installed, maintained, and used in accordance with
criteria in Section 307.6(a)(1)-(5) of this rule, and is approved in the
Dust Control Plan for the facility.
(1)

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall locate a rumble
grate within 10 feet from a wheel washer. The rumble grate
and wheel washer shall be located no less than 30 feet prior
to each exit that leads to a paved public roadway/paved
area accessible to the public and that is used by aggregate
trucks, mixer trucks, and/or batch trucks. The owner and/or
operator of a facility may be allowed to install a rumble grate
and wheel washer less than 30 feet prior to each exit, if the
owner and/or operator of a facility can demonstrate to the
Control Officer by September 30, 2005, that there is not
adequate space to install a rumble grate and wheel washer
no less than 30 feet prior to each exit and that a rumble

316-22

grate and wheel washer at a shorter distance will be
adequate to prevent trackout.

b.

(2)

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall ensure that all
aggregate trucks, mixer trucks, and/or batch trucks exit the
facility via the rumble grate first and then the wheel washer.

(3)

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall post a sign by
the rumble grate and wheel washer to designate the speed
limit as 5 miles per hour.

(4)

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall pave the
internal roads from the rumble grate and wheel washer to
the facility exits leading to paved public roadways/paved
areas accessible to the public.

(5)

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall ensure that all
aggregate trucks, mixer trucks, and/or batch trucks remain
on the paved internal roads between the rumble grate and
wheel washer and the facility exits leading to paved public
roadways/paved areas accessible to the public.

Rumble Grate, Wheel Washer, Or Truck Washer: The owner
and/or operator of a facility not subject to Section 307.6(a) of this
rule shall install, maintain, and use a rumble grate, wheel washer, or
truck washer in accordance with all of the following:
(1)

A rumble grate, wheel washer, or truck washer shall be
located no less than 30 feet prior to each exit that leads to a
paved public roadway/paved area accessible to the public
and that is used by aggregate trucks, mixer trucks, and/or
batch trucks. The owner and/or operator of a facility may be
allowed to install a rumble grate, wheel washer, or truck
washer less than 30 feet prior to each exit, if the owner
and/or operator of a facility can demonstrate to the Control
Officer by September 30, 2005, that there is not adequate
space to install a rumble grate, wheel washer, or truck
washer no less than 30 feet prior to each exit and that a
rumble grate, wheel washer, or truck washer at a shorter
distance will be adequate to prevent trackout.

(2)

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall ensure that all
aggregate trucks, mixer trucks, and/or batch trucks exit the
facility via a rumble grate, wheel washer, or truck washer.

(3)

The owner and/or operator of a facility shall post a sign by
the rumble grate, wheel washer, or truck washer to
designate the speed limit as 5 miles per hour.

316-23

(4)

c.

If haul/access roads/internal roads are unpaved between the
rumble grate, wheel washer, or truck washer and the facility
exits leading to paved public roadways/paved areas
accessible to the public, a gravel pad shall be installed,
maintained, and used from the rumble grate, wheel washer,
or truck washer to such paved public roadways/paved areas
accessible to the public in accordance with all of the
following:
(a)

Gravel pad shall be designed with a layer of washed
gravel, rock, or crushed rock that is at least one inch
or larger in diameter and 6 inches deep, 30 feet
wide, and 50 feet long and shall be flushed with
water or completely replaced as necessary to comply
with the trackout threshold described in Section
307.6(d) of this rule.

(b)

Gravel pad shall have a gravel pad stabilizing
mechanism/device (i.e., curbs or structural devices
along the perimeter of the gravel pad) and shall be
flushed with water or completely replaced as
necessary to comply with the trackout threshold
described in Section 307.6(d) of this rule.

Exemptions For Wheel Washers: The owner and/or operator of
a facility shall not be required to install, maintain, and use a wheel
washer, if any one of the following are applicable:
(1)

A facility has all paved internal roads and meters aggregate
or related materials directly to a ready-mix or hot mix
asphalt truck, with the exception of returned products. The
owner and/or operator of the facility shall install, maintain,
and use a rumble grate in compliance with Section 307.6(b)
of this rule.

(2)

A facility is less than 5 acres in land size and handles
recycled asphalt and recycled concrete exclusively. The
owner and/or operator of the facility shall install, maintain,
and use a rumble grate in compliance with Section 307.6(b)
of this rule and shall install a gravel pad in compliance with
Section 307.6(b)(4) of this rule on all unpaved internal roads
leading to the facility exits leading to paved public
roadways/paved areas accessible to the public.

(3)

A facility has a minimum of ¼ mile paved internal roads
leading from a rumble grate to the facility exits leading to
paved public roadways/paved areas accessible to the public.

316-24

(4)

A facility meets the definition of infrequent operations, as
defined in Section 230 of this rule. The owner and/or
operator of the facility shall install, maintain, and use a
rumble grate in compliance with Section 307.6(b) of this rule
and shall install a gravel pad in compliance with Section
307.6(b)(4) of this rule. The gravel pad shall be installed for
a distance of no less than 100 feet from the rumble grate to
the facility exits leading to paved public roadways/paved
areas accessible to the public. The owner and/or operator of
the facility shall keep records in accordance with Section 500
of this rule, as applicable. The owner and/or operator of the
facility shall notify the Control Officer in the event that the
facility will operate more than 52 days per year based on the
average rolling 3-year period after June 8, 2005 and the
owner and/or operator of the facility shall comply with
Section 307.6 of this rule, as applicable.

d.

Trackout Distance: An owner and/or operator of a facility shall
not allow trackout to extend a cumulative distance of 25 linear feet
or more from all facility exits onto paved areas accessible to the
public. Notwithstanding the proceeding, the owner and/or operator
of a facility shall clean up all other trackout at the end of the
workday.

e.

Cleaning Paved Internal Roads: The owner and/or operator of a
facility shall clean all paved internal roads in accordance with all of
the following as applicable:
(1)

The owner and/or operator of a facility with a minimum of
60 aggregate trucks, mixer trucks, and/or batch trucks
exiting the facility on any day shall sweep the paved internal
roads with a street sweeper by the end of each production
work shift, if there is evidence of dirt and/or other bulk
material extending a cumulative distance of 12 linear feet or
more on any paved internal road.

(2)

The owner and/or operator of a facility with less than 60
aggregate trucks, mixer trucks, and/or batch trucks exiting
the facility on any day shall sweep the paved internal roads
with a street sweeper by the end of every other work day.
On the days that paved internal roads are not swept, the
owner and/or operator of a facility shall apply water as
necessary to comply with Section 306 of this rule on at least
100 feet of paved internal roads or the entire length of
paved internal roads leading to an exit to paved public
roadways/paved areas accessible to the public, if such
roadways are less than 100 feet long.

316-25

(3)

The owner and/or operator of a facility, who purchases
street sweepers after June 8, 2005, shall purchase street
sweepers that meet the criteria of PM10 efficient South Coast
Air Quality Management Rule 1186 certified street sweepers.

(4)

The owner and/or operator of a new facility shall use South
Coast Air Quality Management Rule 1186 certified street
sweepers to sweep paved internal roads.

307.7 Pad Construction For Processing Equipment: The owner and/or
operator of a facility shall implement, maintain, and use fugitive dust control
measures during the construction of pads for processing equipment and
shall identify, in the Dust Control Plan, such fugitive dust control measures.
307.8 Spillage: In addition to complying with the fugitive dust emission
limitations described in Section 306 of this rule and implementing fugitive
dust control measures described in Section 307.1 through Section 307.9 of
this rule, as applicable, the owner and/or operator of a facility shall
implement one of the following fugitive dust control measures, as
applicable, when spillage occurs:
a.

Promptly remove any pile of spillage on paved haul/access
roads/paved internal roads;

b.

Maintain in a stabilized condition any pile of spillage on paved
haul/access roads/paved internal roads and remove such pile by the
end of each day; or

c.

Maintain in a stabilized condition all other piles of spillage with dust
suppressants until removal.

307.9 Night-Time Operations: The owner and/or operator of a facility shall
implement, maintain, and use fugitive dust control measures at night, as
approved in the Dust Control Plan.
308

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNICIAN: The owner and/or operator of a
facility with a rated or permitted capacity of 25 tons or more of material per hour
shall have in place a Fugitive Dust Control Technician or his designee, who shall
meet all of the following qualifications:
308.1 Be authorized by the owner and/or operator of the facility to conduct
routine inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting to ensure that all fugitive
dust control measures are installed, maintained, and used in compliance
with this rule.

316-26

308.2 Be authorized by the owner and/or operator of the facility to install,
maintain, and use fugitive dust control measures, deploy resources, and
shutdown or modify activities as needed.
308.3 Be available within 30 minutes.
308.4 Be issued a valid Certificate Of Completion of the Maricopa County Fugitive
Dust Control Class.
308.5 Be certified to determine opacity as visible emissions in accordance with the
provisions of the EPA Method 9 as specified in 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A.
309

DUST CONTROL PLAN: The owner and/or operator of a facility shall submit, to
the Control Officer, a Dust Control Plan that describes all fugitive dust control
measures to be implemented, in order to comply with Section 306 and Section 307
of this rule. The Dust Control Plan shall, at a minimum, contain all the information
described in Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust) of these rules. All other criteria associated
with the Dust Control Plan shall meet the criteria described in Rule 310 (Fugitive
Dust) of these rules.

SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401

COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE: The newly amended provisions of this rule shall
become effective upon adoption of this rule and the following schedule applies:
401.1 Dust Control Plan: When complying with Section 309 of this rule, if a
Dust Control Plan is required to be revised, then a revised Dust Control Plan
shall be submitted to the Control Officer by September 30, 2005 or three
months after rule adoption, whichever comes first.
401.2 Pressure Control System: When complying with Section 303.2(e) of this
rule, a pressure control system shall be installed by December 31, 2005 or
six months after rule adoption, whichever comes first.
401.3 Operational Overflow Warning System/Device: When complying with
Section 302.2(a) and/or Section 303.2(a) of this rule, an operational
overflow warning system/device shall be installed by December 31, 2005 or
six months after rule adoption, whichever comes first.
401.4 Fugitive Dust Control Technician: When complying with Section 308 of
this rule, a Fugitive Dust Control Technician shall be in place by December
31, 2005 or six months after rule adoption, whichever comes first.
401.5 Surface Stabilization Where Support Equipment And Vehicles
Operate: When complying with Section 307.2 of this rule, surface
stabilization and/or paving shall be completed by December 31, 2005 or six
months after rule adoption, whichever comes first.

316-27

401.6 Trackout: When complying with Section 307.6 of this rule, a rumble grate,
wheel washer, or truck washer shall be installed and a schedule for using
PM10 efficient South Coast Air Quality Management Rule 1186 certified
street sweepers shall be in place by January 1, 2006.
401.7 Process Emission
Section 301, Section
limitations shall be
December 31, 2005
first.

Limitations And Controls: When complying with
302, and/or Section 303 of this rule, process emission
complied-with and controls shall be installed by
or six months after rule adoption, whichever comes

SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS
501

RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING: Any owner and/or operator of a facility
subject to this rule shall comply with the following requirements. Records shall be
retained for five years and shall be made available to the Control Officer upon
request.
501.1 Operational information required by this rule shall be kept in a complete and
consistent manner on-site and be made available without delay to the
Control Officer upon request.
501.2 Records of the following process and operational information, as applicable,
are required:
a.

b.

General Data: Daily records shall be kept for all days that a facility
is actively operating. Records shall include all of the following:
(1)

Hours of operation;

(2)

Type of batch operation (wet, dry, central);

(3)

Throughput per day of basic raw materials including sand,
aggregate, cement (tons/day);

(4)

Volume of concrete and asphaltic concrete produced per
day;

(5)

Volume of aggregate mined per day (cubic yards/day); and

(6)

Amount of each basic raw material including sand,
aggregate, cement, fly ash delivered per day (tons/day).

Additional Data For Dry Mix Concrete Plants And/Or
Bagging Operations: Records shall include all of the following:
(1)

Number of bags of dry mix produced;

316-28

c.

(2)

Weight (size) of bags of dry mix produced;

(3)

Kind and amount of fuel consumed in dryer (cubic feet/day
or gallons/day); and

(4)

Kind and amount of any back-up fuel, if any.

Control And Monitoring Device Data: Records shall include all
of the following:
(1)

(2)

For a fabric filter baghouse:
(a)

Date of inspection;

(b)

Date and designation of bag replacement;

(c)

Date of service or maintenance related activities; and

(d)

Time, date, and cause of fabric filter baghouse
failure and/or down time, if applicable.

For a scrubber:
(a)

Date of service or maintenance related activities;

(b)

Liquid flow rate;

(c)

Other operating parameters that need to be
monitored to assure that the scrubber is functioning
properly and operating within design parameters;
and

(d)

Time, date, and cause of scrubber failure and/or
down time, if applicable.

501.3 ECS O&M Plan Records: An owner and/or operator of a facility shall
maintain all of the following records in accordance with an approved O&M
Plan:
a.

Periods of time that an approved ECS is operating to comply with
this rule;

b.

Periods of time that an approved ECS is not operating;

c.

Flow rates;

d.

Pressure drops;

316-29

e.

Other conditions necessary to determine if the approved ECS is
functioning properly;

f.

Results of visual inspections; and

g.

Correction action taken, if necessary.

501.4 Dust Control Plan Records: An owner and/or operator of a facility shall
compile, maintain, and retain records as described in Rule 310 (Fugitive
Dust) of these rules.
502

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - 40 PART 60, APPENDIX A TEST
METHODS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE: The test methods for those subparts of
CFR Part 60, Appendix A, adopted as of July 1, 2004, as listed below, are adopted
by reference as indicated. This adoption by reference includes no future editions or
amendments. Copies of test methods referenced in Section 502 of this rule are
available at the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 1001 North
Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004-1942. When more than one test method
is permitted for a compliance determination, then an exceedance of the limits
established in this rule, determined by any of the applicable test methods,
constitutes a violation of this rule.
502.1 Grain Loading: Particulate matter and associated moisture content shall
be determined using the applicable EPA Reference Methods 1 through 5, 40
CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
502.2 Opacity Determination: Opacity observations to measure the opacity of
visible emissions shall be conducted in accordance with the test methods
described in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods) of these rules.

503

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT AND SOIL
COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS TEST METHODS ADOPTED BY
REFERENCE:
503.1 ASTM Method D2216-98 ("Standard Test Method For Laboratory
Determination Of Water (Moisture) Content Of Soil And Rock By Mass"),
1998 edition.
503.2 ASTM Method D1557-91 (1998) ("Test Method For Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics Of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kNm/m3)"), 1998 edition.

504

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - STABILIZATION STANDARDS TEST
METHODS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE: The stabilization standards described in
Section 306.5 of this rule shall be determined by using the following test methods
in accordance with Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods) of these rules:

316-30

504.1 Appendix C, Section 2.1.1 (Silt Content Test Method) of these rules to
estimate the silt content of the trafficked parts of unpaved roads and
unpaved parking lots.
504.2 Appendix C, Section 2.3 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Visible Crust
Determination) (The Drop Ball/Steel Ball Test) of these rules for a visible
crust.
504.3 Appendix C, Section 2.4 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of
Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV)) (Sieving Field Procedure) of these rules
for threshold friction velocity (TFV) corrected for non-erodible elements of
100 cm/second or higher.
504.4 Appendix C, Section 2.5 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of
Flat Vegetative Cover) of these rules for flat vegetation cover (i.e., attached
(rooted) vegetation or unattached vegetative debris lying on the surface
with a predominant horizontal orientation that is not subject to movement
by wind) that is equal to at least 50%.
504.5 Appendix C, Section 2.6 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of
Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules for standing vegetation cover
(i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical
orientation) that is equal to or greater than 30%.
504.6 Appendix C, Section 2.6 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of
Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules for standing vegetation cover
(i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical
orientation) that is equal to or greater than 10% and where the threshold
friction velocity is equal to or greater than 43 cm/second when corrected for
non-erodible elements.
504.7 Appendix C, Section 2.7 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Rock Test Method)
of these rules for a percent cover that is equal to or greater than 10%, for
non-erodible elements.
504.8 An alternative test method approved in writing by the Control Officer and
the Administrator of the EPA.
505

CERTIFIED STREET SWEEPING EQUIPMENT LIST ADOPTED BY
REFERENCE: The list of street sweeping equipment (as of July 9, 2004) that has
met the South Coast Air Quality Management Rule 1186 certification standards is
found in support documents for the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Regulation XI (Source Specific Standards), Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions From Paved
And Unpaved Roads And Livestock Operations) and is adopted by reference. A copy
of the list of certified street sweeping equipment can also be obtained at Maricopa
County Air Quality Department, 1001 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona,
85004.

316-31

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix C

LIST OF CANDIDATE MSM/BACM CONTROL MEASURES

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Agency

Preliminary Identified
Affected Rules

Requirements
CONSTRUCTION, LAND CLEARING, AND EARTHMOVING

Soil Specific Requirements for Use of Surfactants and Tackifiers
Clark County,
Nevada

Construction Activities
Dust Control Handbook

•

•

Stabilize material or soil with, water, water and tackifier, or water and surfactant mixture, based on soil
type, for the following operations: backfilling, clearing and grubbing, crushing, cut and fill, and trenching.
Soil classified as having a low, moderate low, moderate high, or high emissions potential based on soil silt
content and optimum moisture content [Clark County Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook]
An application for a dust control permit for a construction project of fifty (50) acres or more in area shall
contain an actual soils analysis of the entire project.

Requirement for Dust Control Monitor at Large Construction Sites
Clark County,
Nevada

AQR § 94.7.5

Coachella Valley,
California

Final 2002 Coachella
Valley PM10 SIP, June
2002

•
•

Dust control monitor required for projects with > 50 acres of actively disturbed area
Requirement remains in place until less than 50 acres are actively disturbed and previously disturbed areas
have long term stabilization in place.
(Proposed) Dust control monitor (responsible person) required for sites with greater than or equal to 50 acres of
actively disturbed soils. Monitor(s) must be hired by property owner or developer, have dust control as primary
responsibility, and have the authority to initiate dust control measures.

Dust Control Class
Clark County,
Nevada

AQR § 94.7.6

Require successful completion of a Clark County Department of Air Quality Management Dust Control
Class at least once every three years for the following:
• Construction site superintendent or other designated on-site representative of the project
developer
• All construction site supervisors and foremen
• Water truck and water pull driver(s) for each construction project

Site-Specific Dust Mitigation Plan and Permit Requirements
Maricopa County

Rule 310, § 303 et. sec.
§ 304.3

Clark County,
Nevada

AQR § 94.4.2

Coachella Valley,
California

Final 2002 Coachella
Valley PM10 SIP, June

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

•

Dust control plan required for operations that entail earthmoving operations with a disturbed
surface area that equals or exceeds 0.10 acre.
• Implement on primary and one contingency control for each dust generating operation.
• A dust control permit is required for soil disturbing or construction activities greater than or equal
to 0.25 acre in overall area, mechanized trenching greater than or equal to 100 feet in length, or for
mechanical demolition of any structure greater than or equal to 1,000 square feet.
• Site specific, soil-specific, and phase-specific dust mitigation plan implementing best management
practices required where disturbed area and/or construction site greater than or equal to 10 acres,
trenching greater than 1 mile, demolition with explosives.
Proposed revision to local dust control ordinance and AQMD Rule 403 and 403.1:
• Currently, requires dust control plan before issuance of a grading permit for all earth-moving activities.
Page 1 of 32

Agency

South Coast Air
Quality
Management
District (SCAQMD)

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
2002
However, a revised dust control ordinance is proposed to include a requirement for local jurisdiction
approval of a dust control plan for any site that requires a building permit if the project has disturbed
surfaces greater than 5,000 square feet (.115 acres).
• Sources that are not required to obtain a local jurisdiction grading permit or building permit (flood
control/water district projects, school districts, CalTrans, etc.) are subject to AQMD Rule 403 and 403.1
requirements. In order to be consistent with the local dust control ordinance requirements, these activities
are proposed to be required to obtain a dust control plan approved by the AQMD. The proposed thresholds
are sites with more than one acre of disturbed surfaces, activities that import or export more than 100 cubic
yards of material, or trenching activities greater than 100 feet in length.
• The plan must have the required elements described in the Coachella Valley Dust Control Handbook
(which will be developed concurrently with the revised dust control ordinance).

Rule 403 and Rule 403
Implementation
Handbook

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Proposed specific work practices to be incorporated into the revised dust control ordinance:
• Earth-moving operations on sites with greater than one acre of disturbed surfaces required to operate a
water application system (i.e., water truck) while conducting earth-moving operations, if watering is the
selected control measure.
• Short-term stabilization (maintaining soils in a damp condition, surface crust, or chemical stabilizer diluted
to not less than 1/20 of the concentration required to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six
months) required for after-hours/weekends.
• Long-term stabilization techniques (e.g., vegetation, and chemical stabilization with access restriction)
required within 10 days for areas where construction activities are not scheduled for 30 days.
1) A person shall not cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile,
or disturbed surface area such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the emission source.
(2) A person conducting active operations within the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin shall utilize one or
more of the applicable best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive
dust source type which is part of the active operation.
Best Available Control Measures Land Clearing/Earth-Moving (Rule 403 Implementation Handbook)
(A) Watering (pre-grading): (1) Application of water by means of trucks, hoses and/or sprinklers prior
to conducting any land clearing; (2) Pre-application of water to depths of proposed cuts.
(A-1) Watering (post-grading): (1) In active earthmoving areas water should be applied at
sufficient frequency and quantity to prevent visible emissions from extending more than 100
feet from the point of origin.
(A-2) Pre-grading planning: (1) Grade each phase separately, timed to coincide with construction
phase; or (2) Grade entire project, but apply chemical stabilizers or ground cover to graded areas
where construction phase begins more than 60 days after grading phase ends.
(B) chemical stabilizers: (1) only effective in areas, which are not subject to daily disturbances. (2)
Vendors can supply information on product application and required concentrations to meet the
specifications established by the Rule.
(C Wind fencing: (1) Three- to five-foot barriers with 50% or less porosity located adjacent to
Page 2 of 32

Agency

Washoe County,
Nevada

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
roadways or urban areas can be effective in reducing the amount of windblown material leaving a
site. Must be implemented in conjunction with either measure (A-1) or (B).
(D) Cover haul vehicles: (1) Entire surface area of hauled earth should be covered once vehicle is
full.
(E) Bedliners in haul vehicles: (1) When feasible, use in bottom-dumping haul vehicles.
(4) A person shall not cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined,
by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high-volume
particulate matter samplers or other U.S. EPA-approved equivalent method for PM10 monitoring. (H)(4) - This
provision shall not apply if the dust control actions are implemented on a routine basis for each applicable
fugitive dust source type.

040.030 District Board
of Health Regulations
Governing Air Quality
Management

High Wind Measure
(a) cease all active operations; or
(b) apply water within 15 minutes to any soil surface which is being moved or otherwise disturbed.
1. Requires that reasonable precautions be taken to prevent the generation of dust. Reasonable precautions
shall include one or more of the following, as required to control fugitive dust: cessation of operations, clean-up,
sweeping, sprinkling, compacting, enclosure, chemical or asphalt sealing, and use of windscreens or snow
fences.
2. Except when engaged in commercial agricultural operations, no person may disturb the topsoil by removing,
altering, or overlaying the ground cover through scraping, burning, excavating, storing of fill, application of
palliative, or any other method on any real property unless reasonable precautions are taken to prevent
generation of dust during both the active development phases and thereafter if the property is to remain
unoccupied, unused, vacant or undeveloped. For any project involving one (1) acre or more of unimproved
surface area a Dust Control Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Control Officer prior to disturbing
the topsoil as specified above, and/or paving, coating or otherwise applying any material, except water, to the
surface. In the dust control plan, the Control Officer shall require use of palliatives, reseeding, or other means
to minimize windblown dust, if determined necessary.
For any proposed division of land, special use permit application or zone change, the Control Officer shall
require the applicant to submit soils data and any other pertinent data for the area in which the development is
proposed, if determined necessary. If a determination is made that disturbance or development of the site may
cause
the generation of dust, the Control Officer shall require one or more of the following:
a. phased clearing of the land; b. the use of palliatives; c. the use of water; d. the use of snow fencing; e. the
use of wind screens; f. reseeding g. controls on single lot development approved as a part of a land division
subject to these regulations.
After commencement of development if the approved elements of the dust control plan prove ineffective, the
Control Officer shall require additional control measures to be instituted. Phasing will not be required as a

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 3 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
control strategy after a project is under construction.
In the case of subdivisions, condominiums and planned unit developments, a dust control plan must be
submitted as a part of the final map approval process. If a development, which will involve the disturbance of
more than one acre of land, requires a special use permit, the Control Officer shall require the dust control plan
to be submitted and become a condition of the special use permit process.

Mohave Desert Air
Quality
Management
District
(MDAQMD),
California

Rule 403-1(C)
Rule 403-2(C)(3)

3. No person shall cause or permit the handling or storage of any material in a manner, which results or may
result in the generation of dust.
• Dust control plan for construction/demolition source, maintain natural topography to extent possible
• Dust control plan for construction source disturbing 100 or more acres
• Describe applicable dust control measures
• Provide stabilized access to the site as soon as possible (prior to project completion)
• Maintain natural topography to extent possible
• Construct parking lots and paved roads first, as feasible.
• Construct upwind portions of project first, where feasible.

Requirements for Limiting Visible Emissions
Maricopa County
Clark County,
Nevada

Rule 310, § 301
AQR § 94.11.1
AQR § 94.11.2
AQR § 94.11.3

SCAQMD,
California

Rule 403(d)(1)
Rule 403(f)(1)(A)

Limit visible emissions from all construction activities to 20 percent opacity
• Limit visible emissions from all construction activities to 20 percent opacity; 50 percent opacity
using the instantaneous method.
• Limit visible dust plume from all construction activities to 100 yards, horizontally or vertically from
the point of origin.
• Where dust control permit required but not issued or BACT not fully implemented, limit visible emissions
from all to 20 percent opacity; 50 percent opacity using the instantaneous method; limit visible dust plume
to less than 100 feet horizontally or vertically from the point of origin; or prohibit dust plume from crossing a
property line.
• Prevent visible emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area
from crossing the property line
• For large operations, conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emission from
exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction

Requirements for High Wind Conditions
Maricopa County

Rule 310, § 300.1
Table 20

Provides that winds over 25 mph shall be an “affirmative defense” where dust emissions exceed 20 percent
opacity and all applicable BACM have been implemented.
Wind Event Control Measures for dust generating activities
a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:
1. Cease dust generating operations for the duration of the condition/situation/event when the 60-minute
average wind speed is greater than 25 miles per hour, and if dust generating operations are ceased for the

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 4 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
remainder of the workday, stabilize the area;
2. Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant at least twice [once] per hour, in compliance with Section 301
of this rule;
3. Apply water as necessary to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%,.
4. Implement (a)(2) or (a)(3), above, and construct fences or three-foot to five-foot high wind barriers with 50%
or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas to reduce the amount of wind-blown material leaving a
site.

Clark County,
Nevada

AQR § 94.9.3

SCAQMD,
California

Rule 403
Implementation
Handbook

SCAQMD,
California

Rule 403.1(d) (applies
only in the Coachella
Valley)

Wind Event Control Measures – Temporary Disturbed Surface Areas (After Work Hours, Weekends, Holidays)
a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:
1. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or dust suppressants, in compliance with Section 302.3 of this
rule;
2. Apply water to all disturbed surface areas three times per day. If there is any evidence of wind-blown dust,
increase watering frequency to a minimum of four times per day;
3. Apply water on open storage piles at least twice [once] per hour, in compliance with section 302.3 of this
rule; or
4. Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material such that wind will not remove the coverings.
b. Suggested additional control measures for contingency plans:
1. Implement a combination of the control measures listed a (1) through a (4), above.
In the event there are wind conditions that cause fugitive dust emissions in excess of 20% opacity
using the time averaged method of intermittent emissions method, in excess of 50% opacity using
instantaneous method, or one hundred yard in length from the point of origin, in spite of the use of
BACM, all construction activities that may contribute to these emissions shall immediately cease.
Water trucks and water pulls shall continue to operate under these circumstances, unless poses a
safety hazard [Clark County, AQR § 94.9.3].
Rule 403 Implementation Handbook Best Available Control Measures - Land Clearing/Earth-Moving
High Wind Measure
(a) cease all active operations; or
(b) apply water within 15 minutes to any soil surface which is being moved or otherwise disturbed.
Requires that additional dust mitigation measures be implemented for disturbed areas and storage and
handling of bulk materials. Stabilization procedures shall include one or more of the following:
(A) Application of water to at least 70 percent of the surface area of such bulk material deposits at least three
times per day when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust;
(B) Application of chemical dust suppressants in sufficient concentration so as to maintain a stabilized surface
for a period of at least six months;
(C) Installation of wind breaks of such design to reduce maximum wind gusts to less than 25 miles per hour in
the area of the bulk material deposits.

Material Handling
Clark County,

Construction Activity

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

•

Stabilize surface soils where loaders, support equipment and vehicles will operate by either: 1. PrePage 5 of 32

Agency
Nevada

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
Dust Control Handbook
water and maintain surface soils in a stabilized condition where loaders, support equipment and
– blasting, clearing and
vehicles will operate; or 2. Apply and maintain a dust palliative on surface soils where loaders,
grubbing, crushing,
support equipment and vehicles will operate
screening, staging
• Stabilize material during loading – empty loader bucket slowly and keep loader bucket close to the
areas, trenching, truck
truck to maximize the drop height while dumping. Based on soil type apply water; water and
loading, stockpiling, cut
tackifier mixture; or water and surfactant mixture prior to loading and while loading.
and fill
TRACKOUT CONTROL

Maricopa County

310.01 Fugitive Dust
From
Open Areas, Vacant
Lots, Unpaved Parking
Lots, And Unpaved
Roadways

Maricopa County

Rule 310 § 308.3
Trackout, Carry-Out,
Spillage, and/or Erosion

San JoaquinValley
Unified Air Pollution
Control District
(SJVUAPCD)

Rule 8041

Clark Co., Nevada

AQR 94 & Construction
Activities Dust Control
Handbook

Washoe County,

District Board of Health

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

§306: In the event that erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials or other materials occurs on any adjacent
paved roadway or paved parking lot, the owner and/or operator of the property from which the deposition
eroded shall implement both of the following control measures. Exceedances of the opacity limit, due to
erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces, shall constitute a violation of the opacity limit.
a. Remove any and all such deposits by utilizing the appropriate control measures within 24 hours of the
deposits’ identification or prior to the resumption of traffic on pavement, where the pavement area has been
closed to traffic; and
b. Dispose of deposits in such a manner so as not to cause another source of fugitive dust.
Trackout control required for (1) all work sites with a disturbed surface area of one acres or larger., and (2) all
work sites where 100 cubic yards of bulk materials are hauled on-site and/or off-site per day.
• Immediately, or within 30 minutes, clean up trackout that exceeds 50 feet, all other trackout must be
cleaned up at the end of the workday; and implement one of the following control measures:
• At all access points, install a grizzly or wheel wash system
• At all access points, install a gravel pad at least 30 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 6 inches deep
• Pave starting from the point of intersection with a paved area accessible to the public and extending for a
centerline distance of at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet
An owner/operator shall sufficiently prevent or cleanup carryout and trackout
• The use of blower devices, or dry rotary brushes or brooms, for removal of carryout and trackout on public
roads is expressly prohibited.
• remove all visible carryout and trackout at the end of each workday.
• Within urban areas, if carryout and trackout extends less than 50 feet from the nearest exit point of a site,
the owner/operator shall remove all visible carryout and trackout at the end of each workday.
• Clean up mud and dirt track out at least once daily and when track out extends more than 50 feet
• Install and maintain trackout control devices at all access points where paved and unpaved access
or travel routes intersect: (1) Install gravel pad(s) consisting of 1” to 3” rough diameter, clean, well
graded gravel or crushed rock. Minimum dimensions must be 30 feet wide by 3 inches deep, and,
at minimum, 50’ or the length of the longest haul truck, whichever is greater. Re-screen, wash, or
apply additional rock in gravel pad to maintain effectiveness; or (2) Install and maintain wheel
shakers; or (3) Install and maintain wheel washer.
6. Paved entry aprons or other effective cleaning techniques (e.g., wheel washers), shall be required by the
Page 6 of 32

Agency
Nevada

Coachella Valley,
CA

SCAQMD,
California

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
Regulations Governing Control Officer, if determined necessary, to prevent tracking onto paved roadways. Paved entry aprons may
Air Quality
include road sections of
Management
coarse aggregate or steel grate to "knock off" dirt which accumulates on the vehicle and/or vehicle wheels.
040.030 Dust Control
Any material which is tracked onto a paved roadway must be removed (swept or washed) as quickly as safely
possible. Exceptions to this provision may be made by the Control Officer for the construction, maintenance,
and/or repair of paved roadways and for the application of de-icing and traction materials for wintertime driving
safety.
Final 2002 Coachella
Proposed specific work practices to be incorporated into the revised dust control ordinance:
Valley PM10 SIP, June • Track-out control device (washed gravel pad at least 30 feet wide, 50 feet long, and six inches deep,
2002
paving starting from the point of intersection with a paved public roadway and extending for a centerline
distance of at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet, wheel shaker device or wheel wash system)
required for construction projects greater than or equal to five acres or those that import/export greater than
or equal to 100 cubic yards per day. Additional track-out control devices may be considered during program
implementation. Regardless of project size or track-out control device selected, material tracked-out onto a
paved public or private road must be removed at anytime it extends more than 25 feet from a site entrance
(approximate width of two travel lanes) and at the conclusion of the work day.
403(d)(5)
(5) Any person in the South Coast Air Basin shall:
(A) prevent or remove within one hour the track-out of bulk material onto public paved roadways as a result of
their operations; or
(B) take at least one of the trackout control options listed below and:
(i) prevent the track-out of bulk material onto public paved roadways as a result of their operations and remove
such material at anytime track-out extends for a cumulative distance of greater than 50 feet on to any paved
public road during active operations; and
(ii) remove all visible roadway dust tracked-out upon public paved roadways as a result of active operations at
the conclusion of each workday when active operations cease.
Track out control options:
(1) Pave or apply chemical stabilization at sufficient concentration and frequency to maintain a stabilized
surface starting from the point of intersection with the public paved surface, and extending for a centerline
distance of at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet.
(2) Pave from the point of intersection with the public paved road surface, and extending for a centerline
distance of at least 25 feet and a width of at least 20 feet, and install a track-out control device immediately
adjacent to the paved surface such that exiting vehicles do not travel on any unpaved road surface after
passing through the track-out control device.
BULK MATERIAL HAULING AND TRANSPORTING

Maricopa County

Maricopa County Rule
310 Table 13 Bulk
Material
Hauling/Transporting

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Within the boundaries of the work site when crossing a paved area accessible to the public while construction is
underway
a. An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:
1. Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than 3 inches when crossing a paved
Page 7 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
area accessible to the public while construction is underway;
2. Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo
compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s);
3. Install a suitable trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes
particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles that
traverse such work site;
4. Spray material with water prior to loading and spray material with water while loading.
b. Suggested additional control measure for contingency plans:
1. Limit vehicle speeds to 15 m.p.h. on the work site.
When on-site within the boundaries of the worksite but not crossing a paved area accessible to the public
a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:
1. Limit vehicular speeds to 15 miles per hour or less while traveling on the work site;
2. Apply water to the top of the load in compliance with Section 301 of this rule; or
3. Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure.

Clark County,
Nevada

Construction Activities
Dust Control Handbook
– Truck Loading;
Importing/Exporting
Soil, Rock and Other
Bulk Material

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Off-site hauling and transporting onto paved areas accessible to the public
a. An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:
1. Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure;
2. Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than 3 inches;
3. Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo
compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s); and
4. Before the empty haul truck leaves the site, clean the interior of the cargo compartment or
cover the cargo compartment.
a. Ensure all loads are covered prior to leaving the construction site and traveling on public
roadways.
b. Limit visible dust opacity from vehicular operations: apply water and limit vehicle speeds to 15
mph on the work site, or apply and maintain dust suppressant on haul roads.
c. Check bell-dump truck seals regularly and remove any trapped rocks to prevent spillage
d. Maintain 3-6 inches of freeboard to minimize spillage
e. Stabilize materials during transport on site by using tarps or other suitable enclosures on haul
trucks or stabilize materials with water.
f. Clean wheels and undercarriage of haul trucks prior to leaving construction site.

Page 8 of 32

Agency
TCEQ

Washoe County,
Nevada

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
TAC §111.143.
Applies in El Paso and portions of Harris and Nueces Counties:
Materials Handling.
No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit any material, except for abrasive material for snow and ice
control, to be handled, transported, or stored without taking at least the following precautions to achieve
maximum control of dust emissions to the extent practicable:
(3) Application of water or suitable chemicals, or complete covering of materials contained in open-bodied
trucks, trailers, or railroad cars transporting such materials which can create airborne particulate matter in areas
where the general public has access.
(A) Suitable wetting may be used as an alternative to covering in all areas except the City of El Paso.
(B) Complete covering, at a minimum, is required in the City of El Paso.
District Board of Health 5. Any vehicle operating on a paved roadway with a load of dirt, sand, or gravel susceptible to being dropped,
Regulations Governing spilled, leaked or otherwise escaping therefrom, must take one of the following control measures:
Air Quality
a. Six (6) inches of freeboard is maintained within the bed of the vehicle. For the purposes of this regulation,
Management
"freeboard" means the vertical distance from the highest portion of the edge of the load to the lowest part
040.030 Dust Control
of the rim of the truck bed.
b. contain enough moisture to control dust emissions from the point of origin to their final destination.
Wherever possible, the use of dust suppressants must be applied in conjunction with the water.
c. the event that measures A or B are ineffective in preventing materials from escaping, tarps or other cargo
covers shall be employed. This section does not prohibit a public maintenance vehicle from depositing sand
on a paved roadway to enhance traction, or sprinkling water or other substances to clean or maintain a
highway.
OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS

Maricopa County

Clark Co., Nevada

310.01 Fugitive Dust
From
Open Areas, Vacant
Lots, Unpaved Parking
Lots, And Unpaved
Roadways

Clark County June

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

§ 301 Vehicle Use In Open Areas And Vacant Lots: require implementation of one of the following control
measures for open areas and vacant lots 0.10 acre or larger (4,360 square feet) and have a cumulative of 500
square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles:
a. Prevent motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access, by installing barriers,
curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees, or other effective control measures.
b. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or chemical/organic stabilizers to all areas disturbed by motor
vehicles and/or off-road vehicles.
302 Open Areas And Vacant Lots: require implementation of one of the following control measures within 60
calendar days following the initial discovery of the disturbance for open areas and vacant lots have 0.5 acre or
more (21,780 square feet) of disturbed surface area and remain unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped
for more than 15 days:
a. Establish vegetative ground cover on all disturbed
b. Apply a dust suppressant to all disturbed surface areas
c. Restore all disturbed surface areas such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are similar
to adjacent or nearby undisturbed native conditions.
d. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel
SIP commitment to hire ten new enforcement department staff members to implement enforcement for
Page 9 of 32

Agency

Clark Co., Nevada

Coachella Valley,
California

SCAQMD,
California

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
2001, PM10 SIP,
“wind erosion – vacant land, unpaved parking and race tracks”
Appendix L, p. L-11.
Section 90.2.1.1(a) &
Owner/operator required to implement controls for open areas and vacant lots 5,000 square feet or
(b)
larger, such as:
• Prevent motor vehicle access and stabilize disturbed surface.
• Stabilize disturbed surface greater than 5,000 square feet with gravel or dust palliatives
Final 2002 Coachella
Proposed, revised dust control ordinance:
Valley PM10 SIP, June Owners/operators of vacant lands with disturbed surfaces greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet are
2002
required to either
1) prevent trespass by installing physical barriers such that a surface crust is developed, or
2) treat the disturbed surfaces such that a surface crust is formed. Treatment options include uniform
application and maintenance of two inches of washed gravel or chemical/organic dust suppressants to all
disturbed areas at a level sufficient to develop and maintain a surface crust.

403(d)(1)

When an owner/operator has applied physical access restrictions and an acceptable surface crust has not been
established, treatment of disturbed vacant lands with greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet will be required
unless such treatments are considered technically unfeasibility.
Disturbed areas must be controlled to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line.
Rule 403 Implementation Handbook – Disturbed Surface Areas/Inactive Construction Site Best Available
Control Measures
(Q) chemical stabilization – (1) Most effective when used on areas where active operations have ceased;
(2)Vendors can supply information on methods for application and required concentrations.
(R Watering – (1) Requires frequent applications unless a surface crust can be developed.
(S) Wind fencing – (1) Three- to five-foot barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban
areas can be effective in reducing the amount of wind blown material leaving a site. Must be used in
conjunction with either measure (Q), (R , or (T).
(T) Vegetation – (1) Establish as quickly as possible when active operations have ceased.
High Wind Measures
a. apply chemical stabilizers (to meet the specifications established by the Rule); or
b. apply water to all disturbed surface areas 3 times per day.
PAVED ROADS

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 10 of 32

Agency
Maricopa County

Clark County,
Nevada

Clark County,
Nevada

SCAQMD,
California
Texas Commission
on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ)

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
1999 Serious Area
PM10 efficient street sweepers - allocate $3.8 million CMAQ funds to encourage the purchase and
PM10 Plan for the
utilization of PM10 efficient street sweepers (50% street sweeper fleet turnover by 2006)
Maricopa County
Nonattainment Area,
Frequent Routine Sweeping or Cleaning of Paved Roads - City of Phoenix conducts routine sweeping of
residential and major streets. The street sweeping schedule will be changed to coordinate sweeping with the
pp. 7-158 & 7-271
uncontained trash pick-up during the 1997-1998 fiscal year. The City will continue to consider new street
sweeping equipment which may be designed to reduce particulate emissions and/or to increase sweeping
efficiency. ADOT has responsibility for maintenance of facilities on the State Highway System. Street
sweeping is accomplished through intergovernmental agreements, private contracts, and ADOT personnel.
Sweeping is conducted in various frequencies.
AQR § 93.2.2;
1. After January 1, 2001, require purchase of PM-efficient street sweepers for paved road and paved
AQR § 93.2.2.1
parking lot sweeping.
AQR § 93.2.3
2. The use of dry rotary brushes and blower devices for the removal of dirt, rock, or other debris from
a paved road or paved parking lot is prohibited without the use of sufficient wetting to limit the
visible emissions to no greater than 20% opacity
Clark County, June
Established Street Sweeping Frequency for Paved Roads
2001, PM10 SIP,
• Clark County Public Works – All classes of roads are swept every 7 to 10 days
Appendix J
• City of Las Vegas – all classes of roads are swept every 2 weeks. Problem areas, such as roads
around active construction sites, are swept more frequently, typically once per week.
• City of North Las Vegas – all roads are swept twice monthly
• State of Nevada – All freeways in Clark County are swept once a week; All arterials under state
jurisdiction in Clark County are swept once a month.
Rule 1186 (e)(1)(A)
Any government or government agency which contracts to acquire street sweeping equipment or street
sweeping services for routine street sweeping on public roads that it owns and / or maintains, where
the contract date or purchase or lease date is January 1, 2000 or later, shall acquire or use only
certified street sweeping equipment.
TAC §111.147. Roads,
Applies in El Paso and portions of Harris and Nueces Counties.
Streets, and Alleys.
No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit any public, industrial, commercial, or private road, street, or alley
to be used without taking at least the following precautions to achieve control of dust emissions:
(2) Removal from public thoroughfares, as necessary, of soil or other materials, except for sand applied for the
specific purpose of snow or ice control. In the City of El Paso, removal of soil shall be by mechanical
sweepers or their equivalent at the rate of four times per year for all public thoroughfares within the city
limits and six times per year or as necessary for public thoroughfares within the central business
district. For the purpose of this section, the central business district shall be defined as that area bordered by
Loop 375 to the south, Santa Fe Street to the west, Missouri Street to the north, and Kansas Street to the east.
The City of El Paso shall spot clean dirty roadways, and shall maintain street sweeping records for two years.
Sand applied for the specific purpose of snow or ice control shall be removed as soon as such control is no
longer necessary.
UNPAVED HAUL/ACCESS ROADS

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 11 of 32

Agency
Maricopa County

Clark County,
Nevada

TCEQ

TCEQ

TCEQ

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
310 § 302.2
Work practice requirements
310 § 302.2
Implement one or more of the following controls:
310 § 308.4 & Table 3
1. Limit vehicle speed to 15 mph and limit vehicular trips to no more than 20 per day;
2. Apply water, so that the surface is visibly moist;
3. Pave;
4. Apply and maintain gravel, recycled asphalt, or other suitable material;
5. Apply a suitable dust suppressant
Stabilization requirements
• Ensure visible fugitive dust emissions do not exceed 20% opacity, and
• Ensure silt loading is less than 0.33 oz/ft2, or silt content does not exceed 6 percent.
• As an alternative to meeting the stabilization requirements, limit vehicle trips to no more than 20 per day
per road and limit vehicle speeds to no more than 15 mph.
AQR 94 and
• Limit visible dust opacity from vehicular operations by either limit vehicle speeds to 15 mph or
Construction Activities
apply and maintaining dust palliative on all vehicle travel areas.
Dust Control Handbook • Stabilize all haul routes and maintain in a stabilized condition by applying water; dust palliative; gravel; or
– Traffic – Unpaved
supplement dust palliative or aggregate applications with watering, if necessary.
Routes and Parking
• Stabilize all off-road and parking areas and maintain in a stabilized condition by applying water; gravel;
Areas
recycled asphalt (or other suitable material); dust palliative (designed for vehicle traffic).
Recommendations: Use of bumps or dips for speed control is encourages. Apply paving as soon as possible
to all future roadway areas for PEP categories other than “high”
Concrete Batch Plant
Best Available Control Technology Analysis - Current control practices include:
Technical Guidance for 6. 70 to 95% control of fugitive dust emissions from roads and traffic areas (watering, wet or dry sweeping
Mechanical Sources,
acceptable. It is important to note that in certain locations, paving may be required).
January 2001, Draft
These levels are guidelines to help the applicant get an idea of what the TCEQ is currently considering as
BACT; however, these control levels are subject to change.
Air Quality Standard
(1) General Requirements
Permit for Temporary
(G) Dust emissions from all in-plant roads and active work areas that are associated with the operation
Rock Crushers,
of the crusher shall be minimized at all times by at least one of the following methods:
February 2002
(i) covered with a material such as, but not limited to, roofing shingles or tire chips (when used in
combination with (ii) or (iii) of this subsection);
(ii) treated with dust-suppressant chemicals;
(iii) watered; or
(iv) paved with a cohesive hard surface that is maintained intact and cleaned.
February 2002,
3. The implementation of best management practices to reduce fugitive dust emissions from roads and traffic
Standard Permit for
areas (water, application of environmentally safe chemicals, wet or dry sweeping, in certain locations paving
Rock Crushing Plants,
may be required) as stated in the Special Conditions of the permit.
BACT Analysis

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 12 of 32

Agency
TCEQ

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
Air Quality Standard
(1) General Requirements
Permit For Hot Mix
(U) For a production rate of less than or equal to 300 tph, stockpiles and vehicle traffic areas (except for
Asphalt Plants
entrance and exit to the site) shall be located at least 25 feet from any property line. For a production rate of
Effective Date July 10,
greater than 300 tph, stockpiles and vehicle traffic areas (except for entrance and exit to the site) shall be
2003
located at least 50 feet from any property line. In lieu of meeting the distance requirements for roads and
stockpiles, the following shall occur:
(i) roads and other traffic areas located less than the applicable distance requirement from the property line
must be bordered by dust-suppressing fencing or barriers. The fencing or barriers shall be constructed to a
height of at least 12 feet; and
(ii) if any portion of a stockpile is located less than the applicable distance requirement from the property line,
then the entire stockpile must be contained within a three-walled bunker which extends at least two feet above
the top of the stockpile.
(3) Requirements Specific to Temporary Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
(F) In order to maintain compliance with subsection (1)(H), emissions from all in-plant roads and traffic
areas associated with the operation of the hot mix asphalt plant shall be minimized at all times by at
least one of the following methods. In-plant roads and traffic areas shall be:
(i) covered with a material such as, but not limited to, roofing shingles or tire chips (when used in
combination with (ii) or (iii) of this subsection);
(ii) treated with dust-suppressant chemicals;
(iii) watered; or
(iv) paved with a cohesive hard surface that is maintained intact and cleaned.

TCEQ

TAC §111.147. Roads,
Streets, and Alleys.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

(4) Requirements Specific to Permanent Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
(B) In order to maintain compliance with paragraph (1)(H), all entry and exit roads and main traffic routes
associated with the operation of the hot mix asphalt plant (including batch truck and material delivery
truck roads) shall be paved with a cohesive hard surface to be maintained intact and cleaned. All batch
trucks and material delivery trucks shall remain on paved surfaces when entering, conducting primary
function, and leaving the property. All other traffic areas must comply with the control requirements
listed in paragraph (3)(F).
Applies in El Paso and portions of Harris and Nueces Counties.
No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit any public, industrial, commercial, or private road, street, or alley
to be used without taking at least the following precautions to achieve control of dust emissions:
(1) Application of asphalt, water, or suitable oil or chemicals on the following unpaved surfaces, except
in the City of El Paso and the Fort Bliss Military Reservation, except as noted in §111.141, where the
use of paving materials is the only acceptable method of dust control, unless otherwise specified:
(A) Industrial Facility Roadways – all major in-plant roads and all truck or other heavy-duty vehicle
pathways. Major in-plant roads shall be defined as those which are designed to accommodate two-way
traffic and are at least 30 feet wide at least one point, measuring the distance from the edge of the
undisturbed earth on either side of the established roadway. The executive director, with the concurrence
Page 13 of 32

Agency

TCEQ

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, may grant a waiver from the requirement to pave an
industrial facility roadway if the owner of the roadway demonstrates that the cost of paving is economically
unreasonable compared to other methods of dust control specified in subsection (1).
(B) Public Thoroughfares - all roads and streets to which the public has general access.
(C) Commercial Roads - all roads which serve as access for more than 50 employees or as access to more
than ten heavy-duty truck parking spaces.
(D) Residential Roads - all roads which serve as access for more than 20 residences and/or apartment units.
(E) Alleys - in the City of El Paso, alleys shall be paved at the rate of at least 15 miles per year.
(F) Levee Roads - in the City of El Paso, all levee roads and access to such roads shall be controlled with the
application of asphalt, or suitable oil or chemicals.
Air Quality Standard
(3) General Requirements
Permit for Concrete
(E) Dust emissions from all in-plant roads and traffic areas associated with the operation of the
Batch Plants, Effective
concrete batch plant must be minimized at all times by at least one of the following methods:
Date July 10, 2003
1. covered with a material such as, but not limited to, roofing shingles or tire chips (when used in
combination with (ii) or (iii) of this subsection);
(ii) treated with dust-suppressant chemicals;
(iii) watered; or
(iv) paved with a cohesive hard surface that is maintained intact and cleaned.
(4) Additional Requirements for Concrete Batch and Specialty Batch Concrete, Mortar, Grout Mixing, or Precast Concrete Products Plants
(D)Except for incidental traffic, vehicles used for the operation of the concrete batch plant may not be operated
within 25 feet of any property line, except for entrance and exit to the site. In lieu of meeting this distance
requirement, roads and other traffic areas must be bordered by dust preventive fencing or other barrier along all
traffic routes or work areas within the 25-foot specified buffer area. These borders shall be constructed to a
height of at least 12 feet.
(5) Additional Requirements for Temporary Concrete Plants
(C) (iii) Stationary equipment, stockpiles, or vehicles used for the operation of the concrete batch plant (except
for incidental traffic and the entrance and exit to the site) may not be located or operated, respectively, within
the following specified distances from any property line:
(iv) for those facilities with production rates less than or equal to 200 cubic yards per hour, at least 25 feet; and
(v) for those facilities with production rates more than 200 and less than or equal to 300 cubic yards per hour, at
least 50 feet.
(D) In lieu of meeting the distance requirements for roads and stockpiles of (5)(C)(iii), the following may be
followed:
(i) roads and other traffic areas within the buffer distance must be bordered by dust suppressing fencing or
other barrier along all traffic routes or work areas. These borders shall be constructed to a height of at least
twelve (12) feet; and

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 14 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
(ii) stockpiles within this buffer distance must be contained within a three-walled bunker which extends at least
two (2) feet above the top of the stockpile.
(6) Additional Requirements for Other Concrete Plants
(C) All entry and exit roads and main traffic routes associated with the operation of the concrete batch
plant (including batch truck and material delivery truck roads) shall be paved with a cohesive hard
surface that can be maintained intact and shall be cleaned. All batch trucks and material delivery
trucks shall remain on paved surface when entering, conducting primary function, and leaving the
property. Other traffic areas must comply with the control requirements of paragraph (3)(E).
(D) The following distance limitations must be met:
(ii) stationary equipment, stockpiles, or vehicles used for the operation of the concrete batch plant (except for
incidental traffic and the entrance and exit to the site) may not be located or operated, respectively, within the
following specified distances from any property line:
(iii) for those facilities with production rates less than or equal to 200 cubic yards per hour, at least 25 feet; and
(iv) for those facilities with production rates more than 200 and less than or equal to 300 cubic yards per hour,
at least 50 feet.

San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution
Control District
(SJVAPCD)

Rule 8071 Unpaved
Vehicle/Equipment
Traffic Areas

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

(E) In lieu of meeting the distance requirements for roads and stockpiles of (5)(C)(ii), the following may be
followed:
(i) roads and other traffic areas within the buffer distance must be bordered by dust suppressing fencing or
other barrier along all traffic routes or work areas. These borders shall be constructed to a height of at least 12
feet; and
(ii) stockpiles within this buffer distance must be contained within a three-walled bunker which extends at least
two feet above the top of the stockpile.
5.1 In addition to the requirements of this rule, a person shall comply with all other applicable requirements of
Regulation VIII to limit Visible Dust Emissions (VDE) to 20% opacity.
5.1.1 On each day that 75 or more vehicle trips will occur on an unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic area, the
owner/operator shall limit VDE to 20% opacity from the unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic area by application
and/or maintenance of at least one of the following control measures, or shall implement an APCO-approved
Fugitive PM10 Management Plan as specified in Rule 8011 (General Requirements):
5.1.1.1. Watering;
5.1.1.2 Uniform layer of washed gravel;
5.1.1.3. Chemical/organic dust suppressants;
5.1.1.4. Vegetative materials;
5.1.1.5. Paving;
5.1.1.6. Any other method that effectively limits VDE to 20% opacity.
5.1.2 On each day that 100 or more vehicle trips will occur on an unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic area, the
owner/operator shall limit VDE to 20% opacity and comply with the requirements of a stabilized unpaved road
by the application and/or maintenance of at least one of the following control measures, or shall implement an
Page 15 of 32

Agency

Florida

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
APCO-approved Fugitive PM10 Management Plan as specified in Rule 8011 (General Requirements):
5.1.2.1 Watering;
5.1.2.2 Chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications;
5.1.2.3 Roadmix;
5.1.2.4 Paving.
5.1.2.5 Any other method that results in a stabilized unpaved road surface.
Florida Administrative
The following requirements apply to new and existing emissions units producing concrete and concrete
Code 62-296.414
products by batching or mixing cement and other materials. This rule also applies to facilities processing
Concrete Batching
cement and other materials for the purposes of producing concrete.
Plants.
(2) Unconfined Emissions. The owner or operator shall take reasonable precautions to control unconfined
emissions from
hoppers, storage and conveying equipment, conveyor drop points, truck loading and unloading, roads, parking
areas, stock piles, and yards as required by Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), F.A.C. For concrete batching plants the
following shall constitute reasonable precautions:
(a) 1. Paving and maintenance of roads, parking areas, and yards.
(a) 2. Application of water or environmentally safe dust-suppressant chemicals when necessary to control
emissions
(a) 3. Removal of particulate matter from roads and other paved areas under control of the owner or operator to
mitigate
reentrainment, and from building or work areas to reduce airborne particulate matter.
STOCKPILES/STORAGE PILES

Maricopa County

Rule 310 § 308.7 &
Table 12

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Work Practices
Owner/operator shall comply with both of the following:
a. During stacking, loading, and unloading operations, apply water, as necessary, to maintain
compliance with 20 % opacity limit; and
b. When not conducting stacking, loading, and unloading operations, comply with one of the following
work practices:
(1) Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material to prevent wind from removing the
coverings;
(2) Apply water to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%;
(3) Meet one of the stabilization requirements (visible crust; 100 cm/second threshold friction velocity;
50% flat vegetative cover; 30% standing vegetative cover,; 10% standing vegetative cover and 43
cm/second threshold friction velocity; 10% non-cover of non-erodible elements); or
(4) Construct and maintain wind barriers, storage silos, or a three-sided enclosure with walls, whose
length is no less than equal to the length of the pile, whose distance from the pile is no more than twice
the height of the pile, whose height is equal to the pile height, and whose porosity is no more than
50%.. If implementing this subsection, subsection 308.6(b)(4), the owner/operator must also implement
either (2) or (3) above.

Page 16 of 32

Agency

Clark County,
Nevada

TCEQ

TCEQ

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
Control Measures
Owner/operator must implement one of the following control measures:
1. Maintain with at least 70% optimum moisture content; or
2. Stabilize open storage piles at completion of activity by following any of the following work
practices:
• Water open storage piles to form a crust immediately at the completion of activity;
• Construct and maintain wind barriers, storage silos, or a three-sided enclosure with walls, whose
length is no less than equal to the length of the pile, whose distance from the pile is no more than
twice the height of the pile, whose height is equal to the pile height, and whose porosity is no more
than 50%.
• Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material such that the coverings will not be
dislodged by wind.
Suggested additional control measures for contingency plans
1. Pre-water and maintain surface soils in a stabilized condition where support equipment and vehicles will
operate.
2. Remove material from the downwind side of the storage pile when safe to do so.
AQR 94.8.4 & 94.8.5
• Stockpiles located within one hundred (100) yards of occupied buildings shall not be constructed over eight
and Construction
(8) feet in height [AQR § 94.8.4].
Activities Dust Control
• Stockpiles over eight (8) feet in height shall have a road bladed to the top to allow water truck access or
Handbook - Stockpiling
shall have a sprinkler irrigation system installed, used and maintained [AQR § 94.8.4].
• To the extent possible, maintain stockpile to avoid steep sides.
• Stabilize surface soils where support equipment and vehicles will operate by pre-watering and
maintaining surface soils in a stabilized condition; or by applying and maintaining a dust palliative
on surface soils
• Stabilize stockpile materials during handling by maintaining stockpile materials with at least 70% optimum
moisture content or removing material from the downwind side of the stockpile, when safe to do so.
• Based on soil type apply water; water and tackifier mixture; or water and surfactant mixture during
stacking, loading and unloading operations.
• Stabilize stockpiles at completion of activity by either watering stockpiles to form a crust
immediately at the completion of activity; apply and maintain a dust palliative to all outer surfaces of
the stockpiles; provide and maintain wind barriers on 3 sides of the pile, whose length is no less
than equal to the length of the pile, whose distance from the pile is no more than twice the height of
the pile, whose height is equal to the pile height, and made of material with a porosity of 50% or
less; or apply a cover or screen to stockpiles.
Air Quality Standard
(H) All stockpiles shall be sprinkled with water, dust-suppressant chemicals, or covered, as necessary,
Permit for Temporary
to minimize dust emissions.
Rock Crushers,
(I) Raw material and product stockpile heights shall not exceed 45 feet.
February 2002
Air Quality Standard
(M) All stockpiles shall be sprinkled with water, dust-suppressant chemicals, or covered, as necessary, to

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 17 of 32

Agency

TCEQ

TCEQ

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
Permit For Hot Mix
minimize dust emissions.
Asphalt Plants
Effective Date July 10,
2003
Air Quality Standard
(3)(F) All stockpiles shall be sprinkled with water, dust-suppressant chemicals, or covered, as necessary, to
Permit for Concrete
minimize dust emissions.
Batch Plants, Effective
(5)
Additional Requirements for Temporary Concrete Plants
Date July 10, 2003
C (iii) Stationary equipment, stockpiles, or vehicles used for the operation of the concrete batch plant
(except for incidental traffic and the entrance and exit to the site) may not be located or operated,
respectively, within the following specified distances from any property line:
(iv) for those facilities with production rates less than or equal to 200 cubic yards per hour, at least 25
feet; and
(v) for those facilities with production rates more than 200 and less than or equal to 300 cubic yards per
hour, at least 50 feet.
(D) In lieu of meeting the distance requirements for roads and stockpiles of (5)C(iii), the following may
be followed:
(i) roads and other traffic areas within the buffer distance must be bordered by dust suppressing
fencing or other barrier along all traffic routes or work areas. These borders shall be constructed to a
height of at least twelve (12) feet; and (ii) stockpiles within this buffer distance must be contained
within a three-walled bunker which extends at least two (2) feet above the top of the stockpile.

February 2002,
Standard Permit for
Rock Crushing Plants,

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

(6) Additional Requirements for Other Concrete Plants
(D) The following distance limitations must be met:
(ii) stationary equipment, stockpiles, or vehicles used for the operation of the concrete batch plant
(except for incidental traffic and the entrance and exit to the site) may not be located or operated,
respectively, within the following specified distances from any property line:
(iii) for those facilities with production rates less than or equal to 200 cubic yards per hour, at least 25
feet; and
(iv) for those facilities with production rates more than 200 and less than or equal to 300 cubic yards
per hour, at least 50 feet.
(E) In lieu of meeting the distance requirements for roads and stockpiles of (5)C(ii), the following may
be followed:
(i) roads and other traffic areas within the buffer distance must be bordered by dust suppressing
fencing or other barrier along all traffic routes or work areas. These borders shall be constructed to a
height of at least 12 feet; and
(ii) stockpiles within this buffer distance must be contained within a three-walled bunker which extends
at least two feet above the top of the stockpile.
1. A minimum of 70% reduction of fugitive dust emissions from stockpiling of aggregate material (sufficient
application of water by sprays or fog rings).

Page 18 of 32

Agency
Florida

Wisconsin

SCAQMD

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
BACT Analysis
Florida Administrative
The following requirements apply to new and existing emissions units producing concrete and concrete
Code 62-296.414
products by batching or mixing cement and other materials. This rule also applies to facilities processing
Concrete Batching
cement and other materials for the purposes of producing concrete.
Plants.
(2) Unconfined Emissions. The owner or operator shall take reasonable precautions to control unconfined
emissions from
hoppers, storage and conveying equipment, conveyor drop points, truck loading and unloading, roads, parking
areas, stock piles, and yards as required by Rule 62-296.320(4)C, F.A.C. For concrete batching plants the
following shall constitute reasonable precautions:
(a) 4. Reduction of stock pile height or installation of wind breaks to mitigate wind entrainment of particulate
matter from stockpiles.
Wisconsin
(2) In addition to meeting the requirements of sub. (1), any direct or portable source located in an area
Administrative Code
identified in s. NR
NR 415.04
415.035 (1); and any direct or portable source located near the areas whose aggregate fugitive dust emissions
may cause an
impact on the ambient air quality in the areas equal to or greater than an annual concentration of one
microgram per cubic meter or a maximum 24–hour concentration of 5 micrograms per cubic meter, as
determined by the analysis under ch. NR 401, shall meet the following RACT requirements:
(a) Storage piles having a material transfer greater than 100 tons in any year are subject to the
following requirements:
1. Storage piles of material having a silt content of 5% to 20% shall be treated with water, surfactants,
stabilizers or chemicals; draped; or enclosed on a minimum of 3 sides. Access areas surrounding
storage piles shall be watered, cleaned or treated with stabilizers as needed to prevent fugitive dust
from vehicle traffic.
2. Storage piles of materials having a silt content of 20% or more shall be completely enclosed or
draped except any part being worked, loaded or unloaded. Access areas surrounding storage piles
shall be watered, cleaned or treated with stabilizers as needed to prevent fugitive dust from vehicle
traffic.
Rule 403 (d)(1) &
1) A person shall not cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open
(h)(2).
storage pile, or disturbed surface area such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the
Rule 403
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Exemption for wind gusts exceeding 25
Implementation
mph, high wind control measures are implemented. High wind measures for open storage piles - (a)
Handbook, January
apply water twice per hour; or (b) Install temporary coverings[SCAQMD Rule 403(d)(1) & (h)(2)].
1999, pp. 6-4.
(2) A person conducting active operations within the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin shall utilize one or
more of the applicable best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive
dust source type which is part of the active operation.
BACM for Storage Piles (Rule 403 Implementation Handbook):
(L) Wind sheltering - (1) enclose in silos; (2) Install three-sided barriers equal to height of material, with no
more than 50 percent porosity.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 19 of 32

Agency

Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
(M) Watering – (1) Application methods include: spray bars, hoses and water trucks; (2) Frequency of
application will vary on site-specific conditions.
(N) Chemical stabilizers – (1) Best for use on storage piles subject to infrequent disturbances
(O) altering load-in/load-out procedures – (1) Confine load-in/load-out procedures to leeward (downwind) side
of the material. Must be used in conjunction with either measure (L), (M), (N), or (P).
(P) Coverings – (1) Tarps, plastic, or other material can be used as a temporary covering; (2) when used, these
should be anchored to prevent wind from removing coverings.
(4) A person shall not cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined,
by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high-volume
particulate matter samplers or other U.S. EPA-approved equivalent method for PM10 monitoring. (H)(4) - This
provision shall not apply if the dust control actions are implemented on a routine basis for each applicable
fugitive dust source type.
Solid Material Storage – Enclosed:
Best Available Control
Achieved in Practice - Vent to a baghouse w/ <0.01 gr/dscf; or water spray or adequate material moisture
Technology (BACT)
Guideline
for wet material
http://www.baaqmd.gov
/pmt/bactworkbook/defa Solid Material Storage – Open:
ult.htm
Technologically Feasible/Cost Effective - Enclosed storage;
Achieved in Practice - Water spray with chemical suppressants
INDUSTRIAL NON-STACK: MATERIAL HANDLING

Maricopa County

Maricopa County Rule
310 Table 11 Bulk
Material Handling
Operations

TCEQ

Permit by Rule
§106.144. Bulk Mineral
Handling.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Work Practices during stacking, loading and unloading operations:
An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:
1. Empty loader bucket slowly and keep loader bucket close to the truck to minimize the drop height while
dumping;
2. Implement either one of the following control measures:
a. Spray material with water prior to stacking, loading and unloading, and while stacking, loading, and
unloading, or
b. Spray material with a dust suppressant other than water prior to stacking, loading and unloading, and while
stacking, loading, and unloading.
All bulk mineral product (except asbestos) handling facilities that operate in compliance with the following
conditions of this section are permitted by rule.
(1) All material shall be transported in a closed conveying system and all exhaust air to the atmosphere
shall be vented through a fabric filter having a maximum filtering velocity of 4.0 feet per minute (ft/min)
with mechanical cleaning or 7.0 ft/min with automatic air cleaning.
(2) All permanent in-plant roads and vehicle work areas shall be watered, treated with dust-suppressant
chemicals, oiled, or paved and cleaned as necessary to achieve maximum control of dust emissions.
(3) The facility (including associated stationary equipment and stockpiles) shall be located at least 300 feet from
any recreational area, school, residence, or other structure not occupied or used solely by the owner of the
property upon which the facility is located.
Page 20 of 32

Agency
SCAQMD
SJVAPCD

Florida

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
BACT Guidelines for
Bulk Solid Material Handling – Other Dry Materials Handling (includes conveying, size reduction and
Non-Major Polluting
classification)
Facilities
Enclosed Conveyors and Baghouse
Rule 8031 Bulk
A. Handling/Storage Of Bulk Materials:
Materials (adopted
A1 When handling bulk materials, apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants sufficient to limit
November 15, 2001)
VDE to 20% opacity.
A2 When storing bulk materials, comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface as defined in Rule 8011; or
A3 Cover bulk materials stored outdoors with tarps, plastic, or other suitable material and anchor in such a
manner that prevents the cover from being removed by wind action; or
A4 Construct and maintain wind barriers sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity. If utilizing fences or wind
barriers, control measure A1 shall also be implemented.
FAC 62-296.711
(1) The emission limitations apply to the handling, sizing, screening, crushing, or grinding of the materials such
Materials Handling,
as, but not limited to, cement, clinker, fly ash, coke, gypsum, shale, lime, sulfur, phosphatic materials, slag, and
Sizing, Screening,
grain or grain products, including but not limited to the following types of operations:
Crushing and Grinding
(a) Loading or unloading of materials to or from such containers as railcars, trucks, ships, and storage
Operations.
structures;
(b) Conveyor systems other than portable conveyor systems;
(c Storage of materials in storage structures, such as silos or enclosed bins, which have a storage capacity of
fifty cubic yards or more;
(d) crushing and/or grinding operations;
(e) sizing and/or rescreening operations;
(f) static drop transfer points where the discharge point and receiving point of the materials being handled are
not moving in relationship to one another.
The emission limitations do not apply to emissions from materials handling, sizing, screening, crushing and
grinding operations governed by Rule 62-296.705, F.A.C., Phosphate Process Operations or Rule 62-296.704,
F.A.C., Asphalt Concrete Plants.
(2) Emission Limitations.
(a) No owner or operator of an emissions unit governed by Rule 62-296.711, F.A.C., shall cause, permit,
or allow any visible emissions (five percent opacity) from such emissions unit except that at the point
where material is being discharged to the hold of a ship from a conveyor system. When the conveyor and/or
hatch covering is moved, an opacity of 10 percent will be allowed.
(b) If, in order to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) above, it is necessary to totally or partially
enclose an operation and exhaust particulate laden gases through a vent or stack, emissions of
particulate from such vent or stack shall not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 21 of 32

Agency
TCEQ

TCEQ

Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
Permit by Rule
Railcar or truck unloading of wet sand, gravel, aggregate, coal, lignite, and scrap iron or scrap steel (but not
§106.148. Material
including metal ores, metal oxides, battery parts, or fine dry materials) into trucks or other railcars for
Unloading.
transportation to other locations is permitted by rule, provided the following conditions of this section are met.
(1) Bulk materials shall not be stored on-site.
(2) Water sprays or the equivalent must be installed and used as necessary at material handling operations to
achieve maximum control of dust emissions.
(3) All permanent in-plant roads and vehicle work areas shall be watered, treated with dust-suppressant
chemicals, oiled, or paved and cleaned as necessary to achieve maximum control of dust emissions.
TAC §111.143.
Applies in El Paso and portions of Harris and Nueces Counties:
Materials Handling.
No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit any material, except for abrasive material for snow and ice
control, to be handled, transported, or stored without taking at least the following precautions to achieve
maximum control of dust emissions to the extent practicable:
(1) Application of water or suitable chemicals or some other covering on materials stockpiles and other surfaces
which can create airborne dusts.
(2) Installation, maintenance, and proper use of hoods, fans, and filters to enclose, collect, and clean the
emissions of dusty materials
Solid Material Handling – Dry:
Best Available Control
Achieved in Practice - Enclosure of size reduction and classification equipment, conveyors, and
Technology (BACT)
Guideline
associated material transfer points and vent to baghouse(s0 w/ <0.01 gr/dscf
http://www.baaqmd.gov
/pmt/bactworkbook/defa
ult.htm
Industrial Stack and Non-stack: Concrete Batch

Maricopa County

316
Nonmetallic
mineral
mining
&
processing
§
303
Limitations – Concrete
Plants and Bagging
Operations

No person shall discharge or cause or allow to be discharged into the ambient air:
§ 303.1 Stack emissions exceeding 7% opacity.
§ 303.2 Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 10% opacity from any affected operation or process source,
excluding truck dumping directly into any screening operation, feed hopper or crusher.
§ 303.3 Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 20% opacity from truck dumping directly into any screening
operation, feed hopper or crusher.

TCEQ

Concrete Batch Plant
Technical Guidance for
Mechanical Sources,
January 2001, Draft

Best Available Control Technology Analysis - Current control practices include:
1. All dry material storage silos equipped with fabric filter baghouses having a maximum outlet grain
loading of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf).
2. All storage silos equipped with audible or visual warning devices to prevent overloading.
3. All aggregate material washed prior to delivery.
4. At least 70% control of fugitive dust emissions from the stockpiling and handling of aggregate material (this
can be achieved by sufficient application of water by sprays or fog rings).
5. At least 95% control of dust emissions from the weigh hopper, mixer, and/or truck drop point
(usually achieved by a baghouse and suction shroud).

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 22 of 32

Agency

TCEQ

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules

Air Quality Standard
Permit for Concrete
Batch Plants, Effective
Date July 10, 2003

These levels are guidelines to help the applicant get an idea of what the TCEQ is currently
considering as BACT; however, these control levels are subject to change.
(3) General Requirements
A) All cement/flyash storage silos and weigh hoppers shall be equipped with a fabric or cartridge filter
or vented to a fabric or cartridge filter system.
(B) Fabric filters and collection systems shall meet all of the following:
(i) any fabric or cartridge filter, any fabric or cartridge filter system, and any suction shroud shall be maintained
and operated properly with no tears or leaks;
(ii) All filter systems (including any central filter system) shall be designed to meet at least 0.01 outlet
grain loading (grains/dry standard cubic foot);
(iii) all filter systems, mixer loading, and batch truck loading emissions control devices shall meet a
performance standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in any six-minute period as
determined using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method (TM) 22; and
(iv) when cement or flyash silos are filled during non-daylight hours, the silo filter system exhaust shall
be sufficiently illuminated to enable a determination of compliance with the visible emissions
requirement in (3)(B)(iii) of this permit.
(C) Conveying systems for the transfer of cement/flyash shall meet all of the following:
(i) conveying systems to and from the storage silos shall be totally enclosed, operated properly, and
maintained with no tears or leaks; and
(ii) these systems, except during cement/flyash tanker connect and disconnect, shall meet a
performance standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in any six-minute period as
determined using EPA TM 22.
(D) A warning device shall be installed on each bulk storage silo. This device shall alert operators in
sufficient time prior to the silo reaching capacity during loading operations, so that the loading operation
can be stopped prior to filling to such a level as to potentially adversely impact the pollution abatement
equipment.
(G) Spillage of materials used in the batch shall be immediately cleaned up and contained or dampened
so that dust emissions are minimized.
4) Additional Requirements for Concrete Batch and Specialty Batch Concrete, Mortar, Grout Mixing, or Pre-cast
Concrete Products Plants
(A) Site production shall not exceed 30 cubic yards per hour.
(B) As an alternative to the requirement in paragraph (3)(A) of this section, the cement/flyash weigh hopper
may be vented inside the batch mixer.
(C) Dust emissions at the batch mixer feed shall be controlled by one of the following:
(i) a spray device which eliminates visible emissions;
(ii) a pickup device delivering air to a fabric or cartridge filter;

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 23 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
(iii) an enclosed batch mixer feed such that no visible emissions occur; or
(iv) conducting the entire mixing operation inside the enclosed process building such that no visible
emissions from the building occur during mixing activities.
(5) Additional Requirements for Temporary Concrete Plants
A temporary concrete plant is one that occupies a designated site for not more than 180 consecutive days or
supplies concrete for a single project, but no other unrelated projects.
(A) Site production shall be limited to no more than 300 cubic yards per hour.
(B) Dust control at the truck drop or mixing point shall comply with one of the following:
(i) Facilities which occupy a site for less than 180 consecutive days and have production rates less than
200 cy/hr may load rotary mix trucks through a discharge spout equipped with a water fog ring having
low-velocity fog nozzles spaced to create a continuous fog curtain that minimizes dust emissions. If a
water fog ring is used at the truck drop point, the visible emissions limitations (and associated
compliance determination methods) of subsection (3)(B)(3) and (4) must be met.
(ii) All other facilities must use a suction shroud and fabric filter /cartridge filter system. The suction
shroud or other pickup device shall be installed at the batch drop point (drum feed for central mix
plants) and vented to a fabric or cartridge filter system with a minimum of 4,000 actual cubic feet per
minute of air and must meet subsection (3)(B).
(C) All of the following applicable distance limitations must be met. For concrete batch plants which supply
concrete for a single public works project, the “property line” measurements for purposes of compliance with
this standard permit and 30 TAC § 111.155 shall be made to the outer boundaries of the designated public
property, roadway project and associated rights-of-way.
(i) The suction shroud baghouse exhaust or truck drop point shall be located at least 100 feet from any
property line.
(ii) For those facilities with a water fog ring, the truck drop point shall be a minimum of 300 feet from
the nearest non-industrial receptor.

Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District

Best Available Control
Technology (BACT)
Guideline for Concrete
Batch
http://www.baaqmd.gov

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

(6) Additional Requirements for Other Concrete Plants
(A) Site production shall be limited to no more than 300 cubic yard per hour.
(B) A suction shroud or other pickup device shall be installed at the batch drop point (drum feed for
central mix plants) and vented to a fabric or cartridge filter system with a minimum of 4,000 actual
cubic feet per minute of air.
(D) The following distance limitations must be met:
(i) the suction shroud baghouse exhaust shall be at least 100 feet from any property line;
< 5 cubic yards per batch
Achieved in Practice - Water spray for aggregate handling, aggregate storage piles, and site road
surfaces; and enclosure and venting of cement handling and storage to baghouse w/ <0.01 gr/dscf
≥5 cubic yards per batch
Page 24 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
/pmt/bactworkbook/defa Technologically Feasible/cost Effective - Water spray w/ chemical suppressants for aggregate handling
ult.htm
and storage piles; and paving of site road surfaces; and enclosure and venting of cement handling and
storage to baghouse w/ <0.0013 gr/dscf

Florida

Florida Administrative
Code 62-296.414
Concrete Batching
Plants.

SCAQMD

BACT Guidelines for
non-major polluting
facilities

SCAQMD

2003 Air Quality
Management Plan,
Final Appendix IV-A:
Stationary Source
Control Measure –
Aggregate and cement
manufacturing
operations

Achieved in Practice: Water spray for aggregate handling, aggregate storage piles, and site road surfaces; and
enclosure and venting of cement handling and storage to baghouse w/ <0.01 gr/dscf
The following requirements apply to new and existing emissions units producing concrete and concrete
products by batching or mixing cement and other materials. This rule also applies to facilities processing
cement and other materials for the purposes of producing concrete.
(1) Stack Emissions. Emissions from silos, weigh hoppers (batchers), and other enclosed storage and
conveying equipment
shall be controlled to the extent necessary to limit visible emissions to 5 percent opacity.
(2) Unconfined Emissions. The owner or operator shall take reasonable precautions to control unconfined
emissions from
hoppers, storage and conveying equipment, conveyor drop points, truck loading and unloading, roads, parking
areas, stock piles, and yards as required by Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), F.A.C. For concrete batching plants the
following shall constitute reasonable precautions:
(b) Use of spray bar, chute, or partial enclosure to mitigate emissions at the drop point to the truck.
Concrete batch plant
Central mixed, < 5 cubic yards/batch – water spray
Central mixed, ≥ 5 cubic yards/batch – baghouse for cement handling and adequate moisture in aggregate
Transit-mixed – baghouse venting the cement weigh hopper and the mixer truck loading station; and adequate
aggregate moisture
(Proposed) control measures that would establish prescriptive measures to control fugitive dust from area
sources within aggregate facilities and cement plants as well as evaluate whether additional controls are
necessary for the control of PM10 for sources at aggregate and cement manufacturing plant operations subject
to Rules 404, 405, and 1112.1. Examples of fugitive dust control requirements include:
1. Pre-application of water prior to material extraction
2. Application of chemical dust suppressants or establishment of vegetative ground cover to inactive disturbed
areas.
3. Chemical treatment or paving of internal haul roads
4. Covering of materials conveyors and haul vehicles
5. Use of enclosures or hooding material at transfer points and screen operations.
6. Installation of wheel washing systems where haul vehicles exit the site.

INDUSTRIAL STACK AND NON-STACK: ASPHALT BATCH PLANTS
Agency
Maricopa County

Preliminary Identified
Affected Rules
Rule 316 § 302
limitations - asphaltic

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Requirements
No person shall discharge or cause or allow to be discharged into the ambient air:
• Stack emissions exceeding 20% opacity and containing more than 0.04 gr/dscf (90 mg/dscm) of particulate
Page 25 of 32

Agency

Florida

Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
concrete plants
matter.
• Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 20% opacity from any other affected operation or process source.
FAC 62-296.704
(1)The emission limitations apply to any facility used to manufacture asphalt concrete by heating and drying
Asphalt Concrete
aggregate and mixing with asphalt cements, excluding unloading and storage of raw materials.
Plants
(2) Emission Limitations. No owner or operator of an asphalt concrete plant shall cause, permit, or allow the
emission of
particulate matter in excess of 0.06 gr/dscf, or visible emissions the density of which is greater than 20 percent
opacity.
Asphalt Batch Plant – Material Handling
Best Available Control
1. Technologically Feasible/ Cost Effective - Enclosure of conveyors, transfer points, size reduction and
Technology (BACT)
Guideline
classification equipment, and vent to baghouse(s) w/ <0.01 gr/dscf; Water spray w/ chemical
http://www.baaqmd.gov suppressants of storage piles; Paving of site road surfaces
/pmt/bactworkbook/defa 2. Achieved in Practice - Water spray w/ chemical suppressants of materials on conveyors, transfer
ult.htm
points, storage piles, and site road surfaces; Enclosure of size reduction and classification equipment
and vent to a baghouse w/<0.01 gr/dscf
Asphalt (Hot Mix) Drum Mix Facilities
2. Achieved in Practice - <0.01 gr/dscf

TCEQ

Air Quality Standard
Permit For Hot Mix
Asphalt Plants
Effective Date July 10,
2003

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

This air quality standard permit authorizes the air emissions from the operation of hot mix asphalt plants that
meet the conditions listed in section (1) and section (2) and either section (3) for temporary plant sites or
section (4) for permanent plant sites.
(1) General Requirements
(A) For the purposes of this standard permit, a hot mix asphalt plant is defined as a facility that produces or will
produce one or more of the following: standard hot mix asphalt, asphalt mixes made with Performance Grade
(PG) binders, asphalt mixes made with crumb rubber, and pre-coat aggregate.
(G) For all facilities that are authorized by this standard permit, aggregate materials (rock, sand, etc.) received
at the plant site shall be used at that site and shall not be transported to another site unless the material is left
from a temporary project and removed from the site when the plant vacates the site. The storage of raw
aggregate materials at the site for use at other sites requires a separate authorization under 30 TAC Chapter
116, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification, 30 TAC Chapter 106, Permits by
Rule, or other appropriate authorization.
(H) Except for those periods described in 30 TAC § 101.201 Emissions Event Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements and 30 TAC § 101.211 Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements; visible fugitive emissions from recycled asphalt product (RAP) breakers,
screens, transfer points on belt conveyors, stockpiles, work areas and any in-plant roads associated
with the facility shall not leave the property for a period exceeding 30 seconds in any six-minute period
as determined by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method (TM) 22.
(I) The drum dryer exhaust shall be vented to, and controlled by, a properly sized fabric filter baghouse.
Page 26 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
(J) Lime and mineral fillers shall be transported and stored in a closed system and all exhaust air to the
atmosphere shall be vented through a properly sized fabric filter. An operational overflow warning
device shall be installed on each bulk storage silo to alert operators in sufficient time prior to the silo
reaching capacity. Any overfilling of the silo resulting in failure of the abatement system, or visible emissions
in excess of the requirements of subsection(1)(D) of this standard permit, must be documented and reported
following the requirements of 30 TAC §§ 101.201 or 101.211, as appropriate.
(K) Fabric filters and collection systems shall meet all of the following requirements:
(i) all fabric filter systems shall be maintained and operated properly with no tears or leaks;
(ii) before July 10, 2007 all drum dryer filter systems shall meet at least a front half outlet grain loading
of 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) and a combined (front half and back half) total outlet
grain loading of 0.04 gr/dscf;
(iii) on and after July 10, 2007 all drum dryer filter systems shall meet at least a front half outlet grain
loading of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) and a combined (front half and back half)
total outlet grain loading of 0.04 gr/dscf; and
(iv) lime/mineral bulk storage silo(s) not vented to the drum dryer system shall vent to a fabric filter
system designed to meet at least 0.01 outlet grain loading (combined front half and back half).
(L) Except for those periods described in 30 TAC §§ 101.201 and 101.211, opacity of emissions from the
lime silo fabric filter baghouse stack and/or the drum dryer stack shall not exceed 5 percent averaged
over a six-minute period, and according to EPA TM 9.
(N) Fuel for dryers and hot oil heaters shall be either:
(i) pipeline sweet natural gas as defined in the 30 TAC Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules,
containing no more than 5 grains total sulfur and 0.2 grain hydrogen sulfide per 100 dscf;
(ii) liquid petroleum gas;
(iii) diesel fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 0.6 percent by weight;
(iv) first-run No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.6 percent by weight;
(v) first-run No. 4 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.6 percent by weight; or
(vi) reclaimed industrial oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.6 percent by weight.
Reclaimed industrial oil shall meet all requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 279, Standards for the
Management of Used Oil, and not contain more than a specific amounts of the
O) The maximum mix temperature, at the discharge point of the drum, shall not exceed 325 F except:
(i) when a PG binder requires a higher mix temperature, in which case the maximum mix temperature shall not
exceed 350 F; or (ii) when crumb rubber mix, produced in compliance with section (5) of this standard permit,
requires a higher temperature, in which case the maximum mix temperature shall not exceed 375 F; or (iii)
during periods of start-up or shutdown, not surpassing 20 minutes.
(P) The following materials, added at the plant at no more than the maximum concentration, are authorized by
this standard permit
Maximum Concentration
Description
Hydrated Lime, Portland Cement,
Not Applicable
or Fly Ash
Liquid Amine Antistrip Agents 2% by weight of liquid asphalt in the mix

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 27 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene
10% by weight of liquid asphalt in the mix
Styrene-Butadiene Rubberized
Latex
6% by weight of liquid asphalt in the mix
RAP
50% displacement of aggregate
(Q) Asphalt release agents that do not emit VOCs at ambient temperature, such as vegetable oil or surfactants,
may be used.
(R) The owner or operator shall not operate more than one truck load out point at any time.
(S) The hot mix asphalt plant, and all its associated facilities (silos, conveyors, screens, RAP crushers
and equipment), shall be located a minimum distance to the property line. This minimum property line
distance is determined by utilizing the following table (Attachment A). If no site-specific data is available,
a 0.5 volatility factor (-0.5) shall be used.
(T) As an alternative to the distance requirements in (1)(S) of this a standard permit, a hot mix asphalt plant that
restricts hours of operation of the truck load out to the period of time between one hour after sunrise and one
hour before sunset and mix production and silo filling at the plant to a period of time between sunrise and one
hour before sunset, the minimum distance to the property line shall be determined by using the following table
(Attachment B). If no site-specific data is available, a 0.5 volatility factor (-0.5) should be used.
(V) The hot mix asphalt plant and all associated facilities shall be located at least 550 ft. from any
concrete batch plant, or rock crusher located on the same site. Additionally, any hot mix asphalt plant
and all associated facilities shall be located at least 1300 ft. from any other hot mix asphalt plant
located on the same site. If either of these distances cannot be met, then the hot mix asphalt plant
authorized under this standard permit shall not operate at the same time as the concrete batch plant,
rock crusher, or other hot mix asphalt plant.
(4)
Requirements Specific to Permanent Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
(A)
This standard permit authorizes not more than the following facilities (as defined in 30 TAC Chapter
116.10(4)):
(i)
cold feed bin(s);
(ii)
transfer conveyor(s);
(iii)
aggregate screen(s);
(iv)
a counter/parallel flow drum;
(v)
a RAP feed bin;
(vi)
a RAP conveyor;
(vii)
90,000 gallons or less total asphalt binder storage in no more than three tanks with associated hot oil
heaters;
(viii)
three, hot mix surge bin/storage silos;
(ix)
90,000 gallons or less total fuel oil storage in no more than three tanks;
(x)
a liquid anti-strip tank
(xi)
a RAP breaker/crusher;
(xii)
a release agent application facility

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 28 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
(xiii)
a lime storage silo;
(xiv)
a mineral filler silo; and
(xv)
a fines storage silo.
Equipment that is not a source of emissions does not require authorization.
Industrial Stack and Non-stack: Nonmetallic Mineral Processing

Maricopa County

Clark County,
Nevada

SCAQMD

Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District

316 Nonmetallic
mineral mining &
processing – Section
301 Limitations

AQR Section 34 New
Performance Standards
for Nonmetallic Mineral
Mining and Processing
34.2 Performance
Standard

No person shall discharge or cause or allow to be discharged into the ambient air:
301.1 Stack emissions exceeding 7% opacity and containing more than 0.02 gr/dscf of PM.
301.2 Fugitive dust emissions from any transfer point on a conveying system exceeding 7% opacity.
301.3 Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 15% opacity from any crusher.
301.4 Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 10% opacity from any affected operation or process sources,
excluding truck dumping directly into any screening operation, feed hopper or crusher.
301.5 Fugitive dust emissions exceeding 20% opacity from truck dumping directly into any screening operation,
feed hopper or crusher.
34.2.1 No owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere, from any grinding mill,
screening equipment, bucket conveyor, belt conveyor, belt conveyor transfer point, bagging equipment, storage
bin, enclosed truck and rail car loading station, any fugitive dust which exhibits greater than ten percent (10%)
OPACITY for a period or periods aggregating more than three (3) minutes in any sixty (60) minute period.
34.2.2 No owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any crusher fugitive dust
which exhibits greater than fifteen percent (15%) opacity for a period or periods aggregating more than three
(3) minutes in any sixty (60) minute period.

BACT Guidelines for
non-major polluting
facilities

34.2.3 No owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere emissions from a stack or
building vent which exhibits greater than seven percent (7%) opacity for a period or periods aggregating more
than three (3) minutes in any sixty (60) minute period.
Non-metallic mineral processing – except rock or aggregate
• baghouse for enclosed operations; water fog spray for open operations. This category includes conveying,
size reduction, and classification.

Best Available Control
Technology (BACT)
Guideline for rock and
aggregate processing
http://www.baaqmd.gov
/pmt/bactworkbook/defa

Rock – aggregate processing
• baghouse venting jaw crushers, cone crushers, and material transfer points adjacent to and after these
items; and water sprays at other material transfer points.
1. Technologically feasible/cost effective - Enclosure of jaw/cone crushers, screens, conveyors, and all
material transfer points and vent to baghouse(s) w/ <0.01 gr/dscf; Water spray w/ chemical
suppressants of storage piles and site road surfaces.
2. Achieved in practice - Enclosure of jaw/cone crushers, screens, and associated material transfer
points and vent to baghouse(s) w/ <0.01 gr/dscf; Water spray of other transfer points, conveyors,
storage piles, and site road surfaces

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 29 of 32

Agency

TCEQ

TCEQ

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
ult.htm
February 2002,
Standard Permit for
Rock Crushing Plants,
BACT Analysis
Air Quality Standard
Permit for Temporary
Rock Crushers,
February 2002

1. A minimum of 70% reduction of fugitive dust emissions from the crushing, conveying, and stockpiling of
aggregate material (sufficient application of water by sprays or fog rings).
2. A minimum of 70% reduction of fugitive dust emissions from all vibrating screens.
This air quality standard permit authorizes crushing operations which meet all of the conditions listed in
paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) for Tier I or paragraph (3) for Tier II.
(1) General Requirements
(A) For the purposes of this standard permit, a site is defined as one or more contiguous or adjacent
properties which are under common control of the same person (or persons under common control).
(B) When crushing concrete, the crusher and all associated sources (screens, transfer points on belt
conveyors, material storage or feed bins, work areas that are only associated with the facility, or
stockpiles) shall be located at least 440 yards from any structure used as a single family or
multifamily residence, school, or place of worship.
(C All screen sides shall be enclosed and all conveyors shall be covered with a half-moon or equivalent
enclosure that covers the top of the conveyor to minimize emissions.
(D) Except for those periods described in 30 TAC §§ 101.6 and 101.7, no visible fugitive emissions
shall leave the property from the crusher, associated sources, and in-plant roads associated
only with the facility. Visible emissions shall be determined by a standard of no visible
emissions exceeding 30 seconds in duration in any six-minute period as determined using EPA
Test Method 22.
(5) Except for those periods described in 30 TAC §§ 101.6 and 101.7, opacity of emissions from any
transfer point on belt conveyors or any screen shall not exceed 10 percent and from any crusher shall
not exceed 15 percent, averaged over a six-minute period, and according to EPA TM 9.
(F) Permanently mounted spray bars shall be installed at the inlet and outlet of all crushers, at all
shaker screens, and at all material transfer points and used as necessary to maintain compliance with
all commission regulations.
(J) The crusher shall be equipped with a runtime meter.
(O) The rock crusher and all associated facilities operating under this standard permit shall
neither locate nor operate on the same site as any other rock crusher.
(2) A Tier I crusher (portable rock crusher with a throughput of 125 tph or less) shall comply with
paragraph (1) of this standard permit and all of the following:
(A) The crusher shall not be located at a quarry or mine.
C) The crusher and all associated sources shall be located no less than 200 ft. from the nearest
property line.
(D) The equipment authorized under this paragraph shall be limited to one primary crusher, two
conveyors, and two screens.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Page 30 of 32

Agency

Oklahoma DEQ

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
(E) The rock crusher and all associated sources operating under this standard permit shall
neither locate nor operate on the same site as any concrete batch plant or asphalt batch plant.
(F) The crusher and associated sources (excluding stockpiles) shall not operate for more than
360 hours or 45 non-consecutive calendar days on site, whichever occurs first. The owner or
operator shall remove the crusher and associated equipment from the site within 24 hours of ceasing
operation. The 24 hours allotted for the removal shall not be used as additional operational time above
the 360 hours or 45 non-consecutive calendar days.
(G) If the time periods listed in paragraph 2(F) have not been exhausted during any rolling 365 day
period, the operator may return to the authorized site and operate for the remaining balance of time for
that site. To return to the site, the operator shall notify the commission as described in paragraph 2(H).
Once the operating hours (360) or calendar days (45) for the site have been exhausted and the site
has been vacated, the owner or operator shall not use a standard permit to locate any rock crusher on
the site for at least 365 days.

General Permit for
Minor Source
Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing
Facilities

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

(3) A Tier II crusher (portable rock crushers with a throughput of 250 tph or less) shall comply with
paragraph (1) of this standard permit and all of the following:
(B) The crushers and all associated sources shall be located no less than 300 ft. from the
nearest property line.
(C The crushers and associated sources operating under this standard permit shall be located
at least 550 ft. from any concrete batch plant or asphalt batch plant. If this distance cannot be
met, then the crusher authorized under this standard permit shall not operate at the same time as the
concrete batch plant or asphalt batch plant.
(D) The equipment authorized under this paragraph shall be limited to one primary crusher, one
secondary crusher, two screens and any associated conveyors.
(E) The rock crushers and associated sources (excluding stockpiles) shall not operate for more than
1080 hours or 180 non-consecutive calendar days on site, whichever occurs first.
• Facility-Wide Emissions Cap and Emissions Limitations - not to equal or exceed 100 TPY of any regulated
pollutant, 10 TPY of any single HAP, or 25 TPY of all HAPs.
• Facilities located in nonattainment areas are not eligible for general permit
• Hourly PM Limits
• Concentration Limitations for Engines
• IC engines operated under this permit shall be fueled only with pipeline-quality natural gas or diesel with
less than 4,000 ppm sulfur content.
• 20% opacity limit
• Reasonable precautions or measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions from the handling, transporting or
disposition of any substance or material
• Permittee shall not cause or permit the discharge of any visible fugitive dust emissions beyond the
permittee's property line in such a manner as to damage or to interfere with the use of adjacent properties,
or to cause or contribute to the violation of ambient air quality standards.
Page 31 of 32

Agency

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE BACM/MSM CONTROL MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCE CATEGORIES
Preliminary Identified
Requirements
Affected Rules
•
•

Fugitive road dust shall be controlled as needed to maintain by applying water and/or chemical spray to the
road.
Water/chemical spray dust suppression systems on nonmetallic minerals processing equipment
and transfer points must be operated on either a continuous or intermittent basis, depending on
whether processed materials contain sufficient moisture such that operation of the plant does not
cause a violation of applicable limitations.

INDUSTRIAL STACK AND NON-STACK: GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
TCEQ

Rule §111.155. Ground
Level Concentrations,
Adopted June 16, 1989
Effective July 18, 1989

No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit emissions of particulate matter from a source or sources
operated on a property or from multiple sources operated on contiguous properties to exceed any of
the following net ground level concentrations:
(1) Two hundred micrograms per cubic meter of air sampled, averaged over any three consecutive
hours.
(2) Four hundred micrograms per cubic meter of air sampled, averaged over any one-hour period.

AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS , CROPLAND AND NON-CROPLAND
Arizona
Department of
Environmental
Quality

AAC R18-2-610 and
611

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX C/2005 REVISION

Commercial farmers in the Maricopa PM10 nonattainment area must implement at least one best
management practice for each of the following categories:
1) Cropland
2) Noncropland
3) Tillage and harvest activities

Page 32 of 32

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix D
RESOLUTIONS OF COMMITMENTS FOR
CONTROL MEASURE 04-DC-01

Resolutions for Commitment to Control Measure 04-DC-1
City/Agency
Apache Junction

Resolution
Number
Date Signed

ADEQ
DTS #
97679

Avondale

04-24

09/24/2004

2448-04

09/20/2004

Buckeye

103278

58-04

11/16/2004

Chandler

99414

3782

10/14/2004

El Mirage

103921

R04-10-54

10/28/2004

Fountain Hills

104652

2004-63

11/18/2004

Gilbert

105884

2575

03/29/2005

Glendale

97683

3796

09/14/2004

Goodyear

99306

04-941

10/25/2004

Mesa

97957

8344

10/04/2004

Paradise Valley

98132

1084

09/23/2004

Peoria

98260

04-235

10/12/2004

Phoenix

93127

21114

06/16/2004

Comments

Has older Ordinances (from ’97 & ’99)

Queen Creek
Scottsdale

101638

6588

12/06/2004

Surprise

97856

04-163

09/23/2004

Tempe

98259

2004.84

09/30/2004

Tolleson

97759

947

09/28/2004

Youngtown

103438

05-01

01/20/2005

Has Dust Control Ordinance (Chapter 8.28)

Developed model resolution package

MAG
Maricopa Cty

104167

C-85-05-005-0-00

01/19/2005

Resolution also Includes:
Improve clarity and enforceability of Rule 310.01
Strengthening of Rule 316
Improve compliance with Rule 310

ADOT

97728

Not numbered

09/17/2004

04-DC-1

Select a Section To View/Print/Search:
Select a Chapter and
View the Table of
Contents

Summary
of Changes

Sections

References

Forms

Search
by
Chapter

Ch 1: General
Provision

yes

Chapter 1
References

Chapter 1
Forms

1

Ch 2: Grading

yes

Chapter 2
References

Chapter 2
Forms

2

Ch 3: Subgrade,
Subbases, and Bases

no

Chapter 3
References

Chapter 3
Forms

3

Ch 4: Surface
Treatments and
Pavements

yes

Chapter 4
References

Chapter 4
Forms

4

Ch 5: Drainage
Facilities
Ch 6: Structure

no

Chapter 5
References
Chapter 6
References

Chapter 5
Forms
Chapter 6
Forms

5

Ch 7: Traffic Control
Facilities

yes

Chapter 7
References

Chapter 7
Forms

7

Ch 8: Roadside
Development

no

Chapter 8
References

Chapter 8
Forms

8

Ch 9: Incidentals

yes

100; 101; 102;
103; 104; 105;
106; 107; 108;
109
200; 201; 202;
203; 204; 205;
206; 207; 208
300; 301; 302;
303; 304; 305;
306; 307
401; 402; 404;
405; Asphaltic
Concrete
Section; 406;
407; 408; 409;
410; 411; 413 ;
414; 416; 417
501; 502; 503;
504; 505
601: 602: 603:
604: 605: 606:
607: 608: 609:
610
701; 702; 703;
704; 705; 706;
730; 731; 732;
733; 734; 735;
736; 737
800; 801; 802;
803; 804; 805;
806; 807; 808;
809; 810
901; 902; 903;
904; 905; 906;
907; 908;909;
910; 911; 912;
913; 915; 916;
917; 922; 925;
926/927; 928;
Attachments

Chapter 9
References

Chapter 9
Forms

9

no

6

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix E
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)

1999-2004 Implemented PM10 MSM/BACM
CITY/AGENCY

Miles of Roads
Paved/Stabilized

Miles of Alleys
Paved/Stabilized

Apache Junction
Avondale

2

7

Miles of
Curbing
Added

1

2

29

28

3

3

Carefree

1

11

1

76

4

187

1

47

120

4

60

7

23

Goodyear

7

5

65

37

90

20

Paradise Valley

4

Peoria

7
687

Queen Creek
Scottsdale
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson

203,360
2
4

360,000

24

5,638,841

37

All City lots
23

3

435,600
2

1

2

2 (88,000 ft )

3

26

9

5

5

225

728

498

32

57

7

7

99

53

87

4
1242

128

6

2

16

2

8

9

28

8

MAG

2

49,560
433,858

118

26
5

3

7

4

105,367

6

492,623
144,600

1

8

79

Maricopa Cty

640

439

ADOT
1

ft2

All City lots

4

7

Youngtown

Total

8

9

2

Phoenix

(122,591 ft2)
2

374

Glendale

1

Number

1
47

Mesa

Number of Parking
Lots Stabilized

39,000

El Mirage
Gilbert

Number of
Parking Lots
Paved

23

Cave Creek

Fountain Hills

Number of
PM10
Sweepers

5

Buckeye

Chandler

Miles of
Shoulders
Stabilized

4
2

2,913
723
Data received from City of Phoenix on 05/13/2005

1,444

1,279

168

45

31,320
165

2,859,129

APPENDIX E – TABLE 1
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
Applicable to Sweeping of Primary and Secondary Paved Roads
NEW MEASURES

MEASURE DESCRIPTION

#44 – NO CREDIT TAKEN

Vacuum Systems for Crack Seal Operations: Arizona Legislature passed SB 1427, which requires cities, towns, and counties in Area A to
acquire or utilize vacuum systems or other dust removal technology to reduce particulates attributable to conventional crack sealing operations,
as existing equipment is retired, beginning January 1, 1999 (A.R.S. § 9-500.04 or 49-474.01). No commitments to this measure in 1999 MAG
SIP.

#50

Purchase/Use of PM10-Efficient Street-Sweepers: All participating jurisdictions made commitments to review the results of the MAG PM10efficient street sweeping test to evaluate the technological and economic feasibility of potential purchase, lease, contract, of PM10-efficient street
sweepers, dependent upon certification of PM10-efficient street sweepers by CARB, SAE, and SCAQMD and results from MAG PM10-efficient
street sweeping test.

EXISTING MEASURES

MEASURE DESCRIPTION

#71

Frequent, Routine Sweeping/Cleaning of Pavement: Jurisdictions made various commitments: one jurisdiction commits to coordinating
street sweeping with uncontained trash pick-up; six jurisdictions committed to a specific or improved, sweeping schedule; twelve jurisdictions
made no new commitments, or committed to enforcement of current controls.
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PAVED ROADS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

AVONDALE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - Coordinating sweep schedule with uncontained trash pickup, FY 1997-1998
Owns one street-sweeper, contracts for others; conducts routine
sweeping of residential and major streets

City bought 3 PM10-efficient sweepers and has
applied for funds to replace the non-compliant
sweeper with compliant for backup. City sweeps 18.5
miles of 4-lane roads twice monthly; 37 miles of 4lane roadway curbs weekly; 340 miles of 2-lane
roads weekly; 680 miles of 2-lane roadway curbs
weekly. Sweeping of 4-lane arterials to increase to
once every 10 calendar days.
City also sweeps
paved municipal parking lots at least once a month
(Civic Center Complex weekly).

APACHE JUNCTION
City currently owns 2 PM10-efficient street-sweepers,
and sweeps streets once a month.
BUCKEYE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50, #71 - No enhanced commitments
Sweeps streets on routine basis

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE1/2005 REVISION

City owns 1 Sweeper and will purchase second
FY06. Re-evaluation of “hig dust” paved roads by
2/2 annually.

Page 1 of 7

APPENDIX E – TABLE 1
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PAVED ROADS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

CAREFREE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility, and
consider purchase, lease, or contract of PM10-efficient street sweepers. #71 – No enhanced commitments
Contracts to have one mile of streets swept bi-monthly

Continues to contract to have 1 mile of streets swept
bi-monthly. Wash crossings and intersections swept
as needed. Not on CMAQ-funded PM10-efficient
sweeper list due to minimal roadway; no credit taken
in modeling.

CAVE CREEK: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50, #71 - No enhanced commitments
Owns two water trucks used to flush streets, rents sweepers;
sweeps paved roads twice a year

Contract with C & S to sweep main arterial Cave
Creek Road twice per year. No modeling credit
claimed.

CHANDLER: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - Committed to its recently enhanced sweeping schedule,
currently implemented
Owns five street-sweepers; sweeping residential streets once
per month, arterial streets every 14 days. City code requires
developers to keep streets clean of construction debris, charges
developers refundable street cleanup fee and may levy an
assessment against it to cover the costs of cleanup.

City has replaced its fleet of 8 street-sweepers with 8
PM10-efficient units. All primary and secondary
arterials swept once every 14 days; residential
streets swept once every 30 days. Trouble areas
are swept in response to complaints. Identified 5
arterials and 3 collectors as High Dust; these
arterials are swept 3 times a month and these
collectors 2 times a month.

EL MIRAGE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - No enhanced commitments
Contracts with vendor for quarterly street-sweeping service;
sweeps 9.5 miles of streets each year, public streets swept
quarterly.

1 PM10–efficient sweeper owned, second to be
purchased with CMAQ funds and sweeping
frequency increased. Contractor/Developer applying
for haul permit shall supply a copy of haul route and
supply a street sweeper at ingress/egress and route
locations.

FOUNTAIN HILLS: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - No enhanced commitments
Owns one street sweeper which will be replaced by December
1998; ongoing program to sweep streets to keep roadways free
of sand and debris.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE1/2005 REVISION

Town replaced its old street-sweeper in 1998 with an
Athey mobile sweeper and has proposed to
purchase a PM10-efficient sweeper in the town
budget for FY 2005-2006 to replace the 1998
sweeper. Town also ordered 2nd dump truck to
eliminate need for sweeper to return to street yard
when hopper is full; this will increase sweeping
Page 2 of 7

APPENDIX E – TABLE 1
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PAVED ROADS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE
mileage. First dump truck will be tarped and sitelocated for emptying street sweepings.
Town
sweeps arterials every 15 days; sweeping on
collectors will increase from every 45 days to every
30 days; 187 miles of paved roads. High dust is at
wash crossings without culverts after storms, focus
of increased sweeping.

GILBERT: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by December
2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - No enhanced commitments
Owns three street sweepers (including two Athey mobile
sweepers); sweeps once per month, downtown streets are
swept once per week. Continued enforcement of dust nuisance
regulations.

FY05 budget will add 1 PM10 efficient sweeper and 1
driver to total 5 such sweepers. Arterials, collectors
and residential streets swept monthly (1,745 paved
lane miles). High Dust roads are identified by
complaints and by sweeper driver logbooks, in
addition to those with unpaved shoulders and
entrances from unpaved roads or unpaved alleys.
High dust roads to be swept at least 2 times every 4
weeks.

GLENDALE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - No enhanced commitments
Owns eight street-sweepers; city currently uses mechanical
broom sweepers to sweep streets.

City purchased 7 PM10-efficient street-sweepers; 1 is
rarely used, due to operational problems. Arterial
and half mile streets are swept every 2 weeks;
residential streets are swept every 4 weeks. Total of
5 linear paved miles.

GOODYEAR: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 – No enhanced commitments
Owns one street-sweeper, contracts for other sweepers; city
currently sweeps on daily basis using mechanical broom
sweeper.

City will purchase and deploy 2 PM10 efficient street
sweepers to replace 2 non-compliant sweepers by
February 2006. Increased sweeping frequency from
every 3 weeks to every 2 weeks. 260.7 center lane
miles of paved roads. High Dust areas include low
water road crossings after storm events, construction
activity areas, and high volume traffic areas.

GUADALUPE
1 PM10-efficient sweeper to be purchased with
CMAQ funds.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE1/2005 REVISION

Page 3 of 7

APPENDIX E – TABLE 1
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PAVED ROADS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

MESA: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by December
2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - Considering an ordinance requiring use of PM10-efficient street
sweepers on private property.
Owns five street sweepers for residential streets, contracts for
arterial street sweeping; city currently conducts periodic
sweeping (including water spraying) of residential and major
arterials.

City owns 5 street-sweepers, of which 3 are PM10efficient, for sweeping residential streets; City
sweeps residential streets every 6 weeks (784 paved
miles). City contracts for arterial street-sweeping
done every 2 weeks (432 paved miles).
High Dust
streets will be identified by heavy-duty truck traffic,
unpaved shoulders, and overall traffic volume.
Street sweeper operators to identify trackout areas
for enforcement by County personnel.

PARADISE VALLEY: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 – Considering sweeping every street every six weeks
Owns three sweepers, no leases, no contracts; city currently
sweeps every street every three months.

Town currently owns 2 PM10-certified streetsweepers. Town increased sweeping frequency on
all major and minor arterials from every 6 weeks to
every 2 weeks; on all residential streets from once
every 12 weeks to every 8 weeks. 140 miles paved
roads.

PEORIA: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by December
2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - Implementing a bi-weekly sweeping schedule by January 5, 1998
City sweeps on monthly basis.

City has 5 PM10 efficient sweepers, will add 1 PM10efficient street sweeper, and will increase use of
backup PM10 sweeper until it arrives. 437 center-line
miles of paved roads. Downtown streets are swept
twice weekly. Increased sweeping of residential and
collectors from every 7 weeks to every 5 weeks. City
staff identified and mapped High Dust arterial and
collector roads to be swept 3 times per month
instead of every 4 weeks; focus is on truck traffic
from sand and gravel operations onto paved roads.

PHOENIX: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Participating in MAG Feasibility Study and will prepare Council recommendations within six months of completion of MAG
Feasibility Study final report. #71 - Committed to coordinating sweeping with uncontained trash pick-up in FY 1997-1998
Owns 21 street sweepers, sweeping approximately 7,100 curb
miles of city streets; currently conducts routine sweeping of
residential and major streets.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE1/2005 REVISION

City owns 32 street-sweepers; 32 are PM10compliant. City sweeps 1,730 curb miles of arterials
and high-volume collector streets; sweeps all major
arterial and collector streets every 14 days, and
conducts routine sweeping of residential streets.

Page 4 of 7

APPENDIX E – TABLE 1
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PAVED ROADS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

QUEEN CREEK: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - Committed to sweeping all curb and gutter streets four
times yearly, including additional 12 lane-mile passes of sweeping per year, implemented no later than January 1, 1998; will assign one person to manage contract
administration and inspection
Owns no sweepers, leases none, and currently selecting a
contractor for sweeping.

Still contracts for sweeping services.

Town currently contracts 1 non-PM10-efficient streetsweeper for routine street-sweeping and added
CMAQ funds to purchase 1 PM10-efficient sweeper
since February 2004. Town sweeps 15 miles of
paved roads with curb and gutter once a month.

SCOTTSDALE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 – No enhanced commitments
Owns six sweepers, two of which are vacuum units; currently
sweeps all curbed miles of residential, commuter, and
downtown streets according to schedule: 52 times per year
(commuter); 104 times per year (downtown); 18.5 times per
year (residential).

City owns and operates 2 pre-PM10-efficient Tymco
Regenerative Air sweepers; 2 PM10-efficient Tymco
Regenerative Air sweepers; and 3 PM10-efficient Air
Bear Broom sweepers (1 more than 1999
commitment). City sweeps arterial and commercial
streets weekly (52 times per year), downtown
business area three times per week (156 times per
year) increased over prior 2 times per week, and
residential areas 18 times per year. Response within
24 hours after reported High Dust. 13.8 miles newly
paved roads.

SURPRISE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 – No enhanced commitments
Owns one Elgin “Crosswind” vacuum-based street sweeper
cleans all city-owned streets bi-monthly; currently sweeps once
every ten days; heavily-traveled arterials adjacent to new
construction will be swept more frequently.

City will own 4 PM10-efficient street sweepers by
2/2/05 and increase sweeping frequency to every 4
weeks for arterials and every 6 weeks for collectors.
and lane miles; land area increased by 10,000 acres
and population quintupled in past decade. High Dust
focus is on arterials and collectors.

TEMPE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by December
2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 – No enhanced commitments
Owns seven sweepers; city routinely sweeps all streets.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE1/2005 REVISION

City owns 6 PM10-efficient street sweepers in FY05
and 2 non-certified. Increased sweeping frequency
on 12 miles of arterials to every 8 days; 40 miles of
residential and 6 miles of collectors every 4 weeks.
High Dust focus when shown necessary by air
quality monitoring data, and in response to
complaints caused by construction work or other
causes.
Page 5 of 7

APPENDIX E – TABLE 1
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PAVED ROADS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

TOLLESON: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 - Committed to sweeping frequency on the 15.3 miles of
road in Tolleson corporate limits, considering vacuuming
Owns one street sweeper; city zoning ordinance (Article VI)
requiring street sweeping.

City owns 1 Schwarz 8000 MAG-approved streetsweeper and sweeps 3 times per week (15.3 paved
miles). City will buy 1 PM10-efficient sweeper.

WICKENBURG: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Purchasing a new street-sweeper #71 - No enhanced commitments
City sweeps all paved streets in jurisdiction.

No CMAQ funding for this municipality.
claimed in modeling.

No credit

YOUNGTOWN: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility by
December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 – No enhanced commitments
Owns one sweeper, may contract for PM10-efficient street
sweeper to sweep 13.25 miles of streets; Town sweeps paved
streets monthly.

City owns a 2004 PM10-efficient sweeper to sweep
26.2 curbed miles (both sides of 13.1 miles of paved
roadway) and 1.7 miles paved alleys every 30 days.

MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (MAG): 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - For each fiscal year CMAQ funds are allocated for sweepers, MAG will solicit
requests for funding of PM10-certified units from entities in the nonattainment area identifying: the number of centerline miles to be swept, expected frequency of sweeping, and
average daily traffic. The data will be collected by facility type for roads to be swept with the PM10-certified units and MAG will estimate the emissions reduction for each
sweeper requested and rank requests in priority order of effectiveness for consideration for CMAQ funds. #71 – No enhanced commitments
In 1998, 1,521 street-sweepers were in use; as of 2001, 38
PM10-efficient street-sweepers had been purchased.

As of November 2001, MAG has purchased a total
of 38 PM10 - efficient street sweepers from CMAQ
and local funds (21 sweepers purchased in fiscal
year 2001). MAG coordinated the PM10-Efficient
Street Sweeping Test in 2001, and was approved in
December 2001.
As of March 2002, a total of $10.9 million in CMAQ
funds has been authorized or programmed in TIPs to
purchase PM10-efficient street sweepers, $5.2 million
above previous commitment.

As of December 2004, MAG had purchased 79
PM10-efficient street-sweepers with CMAQ and local
funds (7 sweepers purchased in fiscal year 2002; 24
sweepers purchased in fiscal year 2003; 16
approved for purchase in 2004).
As of November 2003, a total of $13.1 million in
CMAQ funds had been authorized or programmed in
TIPs to purchase PM10-efficient street-sweepers,
$7.4 million above previous commitment.

MARICOPA COUNTY: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate technological/economic feasibility
by December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. #71 – No enhanced commitments
MCDOT owns five mobile street sweepers including three
interim-technology PM10-efficient units; MCDOT will purchase,
lease, or contract additional, as necessary

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE1/2005 REVISION

No status

MCDOT currently owns six street sweepers, four
PM10-efficient street sweepers, and two conventional
sweepers. MCDOT also contracts services for two
additional PM10 street sweepers.

Page 6 of 7

APPENDIX E – TABLE 1
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PAVED ROADS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #50 - Committed to review MAG PM10-efficient street sweeping test results, evaluate
technological/economic feasibility by December 2002, and purchase, lease, or contract PM10-efficient street sweepers, as older equipment retired. Committed to participating in
MAG Street Sweeper Stakeholder Committee, and with the MAG street sweeper test. #71 - Committed to increasing contracted curb miles swept and an increased
commitment to litter removal.
ADOT owns three sweepers, and has three other sweepers on
contract.
Currently, ADOT contracts for metro-Phoenix area an annual
30,000 curb miles to be swept in various frequencies. ADOT
District Maintenance supplements sweeping, as necessary.
ADOT has responsibility for maintaining facilities in the state
highway system, in accordance with A.R.S. § 28-104. Three
current mechanisms:
(1) municipal intergovernmental
agreements with ADOT; (2) ADOT contracts with private sector
for maintenance; and (3) ADOT ad hoc sweeping by ADOT
personnel using state-owned equipment.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE1/2005 REVISION

ADOT owns 2 PM10 certified sweepers and is adding
2 more. ADOT sweeps all freeways in the Maricopa
Association of Governments system weekly and all
off ramps bi-weekly—a total of roughly 55,000 curb
miles per year. ADOT is increasing its sweeping of
State Route 87 (12 miles) and U.S. Highway 60 from
the eastern border of the City of Phoenix to the
eastern edge of the PM10 planning area boundary
(30 miles) to monthly.

Page 7 of 7

APPENDIX E – TABLE 2
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
Applicable to Unpaved Roads and/or Shoulders
NEW MEASURES

MEASURE DESCRIPTION

#40

Reduce Particulate Emissions from Unpaved Roads and Alleys (1998): The Arizona Legislature passed SB 1427, which requires cities,
towns, and counties in Area A to develop and implement plans to stabilize targeted unpaved roads, alleys and stabilize unpaved shoulders on
targeted arterials beginning January 1, 2000. The plans are required to address performance goals, a schedule for implementation, funding
options, and reporting requirements (A.R.S. § 9-500.04, and 49-474.01).
Reduce Particulate Emissions from Unpaved Shoulders on Targeted Arterials (1998): Senate Bill 1427 requires cities, towns, and counties
in Area A to develop and implement plans to stabilize targeted unpaved roads, alleys, and stabilize unpaved shoulders on targeted arterials
beginning January 1, 2000. Plans are required to address performance goals, criteria for targeting the roads, alleys, and shoulders, a schedule
for implementation, funding options, and reporting requirements (A.R.S. § 9-500.04, and 49-474.01).

#41

EXISTING MEASURES

The February 2000 MAG SIP assumed a reduction of approximately 240 miles of unpaved roads by 2006, and assumed about 74 percent
completion in 2001 (184 miles). MAG’s 2001 milestone report asserts that approximately 787 miles of unpaved roads and alleys were paved or
stabilized by reporting jurisdictions by 2001, which surpassed the MAG SIP milestone requirements.
Low Speed Limit for Unpaved Roads (1998): The Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill 1427 passed allowing local authorities to decrease
the speed limit to not less than 15 miles per hour on an unpaved street or road within any district in its jurisdiction if the local authority determines
that the limit is necessary to achieve or maintain the NAAQS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-703. No commitments to this measure in 1999 MAG SIP.
Use of Petroleum Products for Public Road and Street Maintenance (1998): The Arizona Legislature passed SB 1427 passed, which allows
use of petroleum-based or non-petroleum-based products in the maintenance/repair of unpaved roads, alleys and shoulders identified pursuant
to A.R.S. § 9-500.04 or 49-474.01. No commitments to this measure in 1999 MAG SIP.
MEASURE DESCRIPTION

#70

Curbing, Paving, or Stabilizing Shoulders on Paved Roads (Includes Painting Stripe on Outside of Travel Lane)

#42 – NO CREDIT TAKEN

#43 – NO CREDIT TAKEN

1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR UNPAVED ROADS AND/OR SHOULDERS
1999 CONTROL STATUS
2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

APACHE JUNCTION: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS – No enhanced commitments.
Five miles of curbing added since 1997;
one mile of shoulders stabilized. No alleys or access points
were paved or stabilized.
AVONDALE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS – #40 - City will participate in a regional program to assist in the reduction of particulate pollution, providing dust-proof treatments to
any public street within a nonattainment area which is unpaved or for which alternate dust control or graveling measures have not been approved. #41 – Committed to
September 30, 1999 implementation of provisions of SB 1427. #70 – Continuing to paint edgelines along roadways with unpaved shoulders on arterials and other streets
where appropriate.
City ordinance requires this measure. City zoning ordinances City applied 29 miles of curbing; two miles Roads in Las Ligas paved, curbed and guttered. All dirt roads
currently require paving for all off-road parking; all single-family of road millings; and stabilized seven miles and alleys required to be treated with milling. All new road and
residential and duplex parking areas; require all residential, of alleys.
development construction requires medians and right-of-way
commercial, and industrial developments have paved roads,
to have approved desert plants and rock landscaping to
curbs, and driveways.
minimize dust. City to apply dust abatement milling on 28
miles of unpaved shoulders by 2/2/05 and maintain every 6
months.
SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE 2/2005REVISION

Page 1 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 2
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR UNPAVED ROADS AND/OR SHOULDERS
1999 CONTROL STATUS
2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

BUCKEYE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Town in process of five-year street-paving program, which includes curbs, gutters, and driveway entrances for all
existing uses.
Town Development Code currently requires paving for all areas Town constructed 3.25 Miles of curbing and Status not reported
traveled by vehicles. All roads, driveways, and parking areas gutters on new and existing roads.
must include paving and curbs.
CAREFREE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Commits to enforcing current ordinances; Town Subdivision Ordinance requires new roads and shoulders within the
Town to be paved with asphalt, concrete, or the equivalent including gravel.
City stabilizes 11 miles of shoulders as needed.
Town has three miles of unpaved (graveled) roads (< 150 City added 1 mile of cubing.
ADT). All road shoulders within jurisdiction are paved or
graveled.
CAVE CREEK: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Town indicates that remaining 25 percent of roads to be striped in FY 1998. Also, a new program for stabilizing
paved road shoulders with lignin was implemented in 1998: All dirt roads after 1998 receive application of recycled asphalt or gravel, mixed and bound with lignosulfonate
during regularly-scheduled grading cycles.
Town indicates that 75 percent of all paved roads were
Town stabilizes unimproved roads with Dustac solution every
restriped in 1996, by the end of 1998, over ten miles of
2 months.
unimproved dirt roads had been improved to include application
of recycled asphalt or gravel, mixed and bound with
lignosulfonate.
CHANDLER: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40 - Committed to continuing program of dust-proofing city-owned alleys, applying millings to another five to seven miles in the
next 12 months, based on availability of asphalt milling material. #41 - City committed to allowing natural vegetation to grow on all unpaved shoulders, conducting routine
shoulder maintenance by mowing, rather than discing and blading. City also commits to implementing the provisions of SB 1427. #70 - City will evaluate any newly-annexed
county roads to determine the appropriateness of striping outside the travel lane.
Committed to paving all city-owned, public roads identified by June 10, 2000. SB 1427
commitments do not apply to unpaved roads and alleys located on an industrial facility, or construction or earth-moving activity on sites that have an approved permit issued
by Maricopa County.
City requires any newly-constructed street to include curbing City improved 4.3 miles of shoulder; City has only one unpaved, city-owned, street; street is 0.75
developed standards requiring all roads to mile long. All new development is required to have paved
and shoulder paving.
City has: reconstructed 7.5 miles of alleys over the past four have full curb and gutters; 0.85 Miles of streets, curbs, and gutters. Existing unpaved shoulders are
years, using six inches of ABC gravel for base and surface; roads paved; 37 miles of alleys stabilized mowed rather than graded. All annexed areas are required to
with millings; identified four sections of city- have plans in place to assure future pavement with curbs, and
applied asphalt milling to 31 miles of city-owned alleys.
owned unpaved public roadway (1.25 gutters.
miles, < 250 ADT), which were paved by
2001.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE 2/2005REVISION

Page 2 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 2
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR UNPAVED ROADS AND/OR SHOULDERS
1999 CONTROL STATUS
2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

EL MIRAGE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Committed to allowing natural vegetation to grow on unpaved shoulders, will require developers to install
pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and landscaping as development occurs. By June 1998, City will identify all shoulder areas requiring curbing, paving, stabilization, or
striping, allow vegetation to grow, and stabilize where necessary. City committed to paving: one-half mile of currently unpaved roadways; and the one-quarter mile long
roadway to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant in 1999. El Mirage will require all developers to commit to stop track-out.
1999 MAG SIP assumed that City would allow natural
Contractor/Developer must agree to provide dust control or
vegetation to grow on shoulders.
dust palliative surface for traffic entering unpaved undeveloped
surfaces in Line 3 of Traffic Control Plan Submittal Form.
City currently responsible for maintaining six miles of unpaved
roadways within a large lot rural subdivision.
City applies asphalt millings (GSA) to residential dirt road
surfaces and to unimproved shoulders of high-profile highCity’s current plans address 95 percent of all unpaved City
volume truck traffic locations including El Mirage and Dysart
roadways.
Roads, 8 to 10 feet width from edge of asphalt.
FOUNTAIN HILLS: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Committed to developing and implementing a plan requiring stabilization of unpaved shoulders of paved
roads. Owners/operators of existing public unpaved roads with ADT ≥ 250 are required to pave, stabilize, or apply gravel to the unpaved shoulder part of the road. Committed
to implementing the provisions of SB 1427: developing and implementing a plan requiring unpaved roads and shoulder stabilization (pave, chemically stabilize, or apply
gravel) to unpaved roads with an ADT of 250 or greater. Approximately 2.4 miles-alleys will be evaluated and treatment will begin by January 1, 2000, continuing, as needed.
Owners/operators of existing public unpaved roads with ADT ≥ Town stabilized 8.9 miles of shoulders 187 miles of paved roads in Fountain Hills. Town has curbed
250 are required to pave, stabilize, or apply gravel to the using millings or gravel.
374 miles of paved roads. Town has stabilized, using millings
unpaved shoulder part of the road.
(Out of 2.4 miles of alleys (0.15 is road that or gravel, 8.9 linear miles of road shoulders (both sides of
will remain untreated, since they lead to the road). Town has approximately 0.25 miles of public unpaved
Indian Reservation and will remain alleys; these are inaccessible, due to lot configuration. Town
unused), 0.75 have been treated with verifies that all unpaved access points onto paved roads
millings, and is estimated that 0.25 to 0.50 comply with Maricopa County dust control regulations.
miles will be treated in 2002.)
GILBERT: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Committed to stabilizing unpaved shoulders with milled asphalt. Town commits to implementing the provisions of SB
1427. Continuing to evaluate methods and products available for dust control at unpaved access points, on unpaved shoulders, and on unpaved roads and alleys. Town to
require paving of all unpaved access points with reclaimed asphalt, and will require paving during land development process. Town continuing to identify shoulders requiring
treatment for dust control.
Town currently requires, and will continue to require, Town maintains 44.7 miles of unimproved 38 miles of new paved roads, curbs and driveway access
developers to install pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and shoulders using stabilization.
points were added in 2002 and 8.9 miles in 2003 at new
landscaping. Town stated its commitment to reduce particulate
developments, which are required to pave and curb. Town
emissions from unpaved shoulders in Resolution No. 1864
maintains 75 miles of unpaved, stabilized shoulders. All
(November 1997). Committed to allowing natural vegetation to
arterials and collectors are paved.
grow on unpaved shoulders. All Town and arterial collector
streets in the public street system are paved. About 1.25 miles
of local, single-lane streets are unpaved, but stabilized with
milled asphalt and regarded and watered, monthly (ADT less
than 120). Town commits $500 per mile in maintenance costs,
monthly.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE 2/2005REVISION

Page 3 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 2
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR UNPAVED ROADS AND/OR SHOULDERS
1999 CONTROL STATUS
2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

GLENDALE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Committed to implementing the provisions of SB 1427. City commits to paving existing unpaved arterial streets,
should the City gain possession of them.
City uses Scallop Street Improvement and Street 45 Curb miles are stabilized once a year; 100 All city-owned streets are currently paved. New City streets
Capital Improvement programs to fund installation of percent of unpaved curb miles along arterial are paved during construction. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks
pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscaping streets are stabilized. No information on installing are installed on all public roads and streets when new streets
improvements to existing streets; allows natural curbs; 1.5 miles of roads paved (less than 150 are constructed. In addition, City installs curbs, gutter, and
vegetation to grow to stabilize unpaved shoulders, ADT); unpaved segments of 23 miles of alleys sidewalks on certain segments of existing arterial streets that
where appropriate; and paints a roadway edgeline on paved.
previously lacked such features. City does not keep records
existing arterial streets that do not have curb and gutter.
on total amount of curbing installed. City uses asphalt millings
on select unpaved shoulders and is evaluating new soil
City does not keep records on number of miles of
stabilizing products for impacts on stormwater quality. City
curbing installed; Once a month, water applied to
reduced unpaved shoulders from 44 linear miles to 29.3 linear
shoulders. City sprays to prevent weeds.
miles.
GOODYEAR: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Committed to implementing the provisions of SB 1427, developing a plan by April 30, 1999. All new roads will be
required to provide paving with curb and gutter or to provide suitable dust suppressant. Committed to providing dust-proofing for any unpaved public street and for which
current dust-proofing measures have not previously been approved. City will be required to post 15 mph speed limit signs on all private access ways as determined by Public
Works Director. Speed limit on all unpaved roadways, private or public, will be posted at 15 mph.
City currently requires installation of curbs, gutters, Once a month, water applied to shoulders; City City has 260.7 center lane miles of paved roads. City installed
sidewalks and landscaping when arterial streets are sprays to prevent weeds. Those roads with 345,000 linear feet of curb and gutters. Unpaved shoulders
improved; currently requires a painted edgeline on outside shoulders owned by the County are not are graded and watered quarterly.
travel lanes of appropriate arterial streets with unpaved stabilized; 7.1 Miles of unpaved roads paved;
shoulders; shoulders are repaired as necessary with 5.3 miles of city alleys paved
appropriate materials.
MESA: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Committed to implementing the provisions of SB 1427. Committed to including $120,000 for an estimated ten miles of
shoulder/access stabilization in the annual proposed budget for Council consideration, until all high priority unpaved shoulders are stabilized. Committed to continue to
develop improvement districts to pave unpaved traffic surfaces; will work with other entities to prioritize air quality measures and eliminate particulate pollution at the sources.
City will evaluate the legality and feasibility of installing 15 mph traffic signs on unpaved roads.
City practice is to pave shoulders as arterial streets are City stabilized 20 miles of shoulders and paved In 2002, City stabilized 3.5 miles of shoulders, 15 miles of
repaved; an estimated 55 miles of unpaved shoulders 19 miles of curbs; six miles of road; stabilized 12 roads, and 38 miles of alleys. In 2003, City stabilized 1.25
remain in jurisdiction.
miles of road; paved one mile of alleys; miles of shoulders, 14 miles of roads, and 46 miles of alleys.
City code currently requires paving and curbing for stabilized six miles of alleys,
residential, commercial, or industrial areas under
development, under City Code 9-6-4, and 9-8-3.
PARADISE VALLEY: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40, #41, #70 - Continuing to implement current ordinance requiring paving of all public streets.
Town indicates that it has no arterial streets with unpaved Town paved 1.1 miles of roads.
Town has 140 miles of paved streets. Three linear miles (six
shoulders, and no streets that are expected to become
lane miles) of unpaved private streets have been paved since
arterial streets have unpaved shoulders. Currently no
the 2001 milestone report. Town has added four miles of
unpaved public streets/alleys with ADT > 150.
curbing (two linear miles) on both sides of the street. Town
has stabilized 0.5 mile of street shoulders.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE 2/2005REVISION

Page 4 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 2
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR UNPAVED ROADS AND/OR SHOULDERS
1999 CONTROL STATUS
2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

PEORIA: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40 – Committed to identifying all unpaved public roads for stabilizing or paving by January 1, 1999 (SB 1427). #41 Committed to
implementing the provisions of SB 1427, developing a plan by January 1, 1999. City will stabilize shoulders using existing maintenance staff at $12,200 per acre for gravel,
and $40 per regulatory sign. #70 - Committed to identifying all shoulders or paved roads requiring curbing, paving, stabilization, or striping, and allows natural vegetation to
grow on shoulder, as applicable.
In 1998, City had 34.8 edge miles of arterials with unpaved City installed curbs or gutters along 25.5 miles of Paved 7.4 miles and adopted Capital Improvement Plan in
shoulders (140 acres); 8.4 centerline miles of unpaved unconfined shoulders.
June 2004 to pave or chip seal all remaining unpaved roads.
public roads; 3.3 miles of quasi-public unpaved roads
Carefree Road to be paved in FY2005. 9.64 miles of new
curbing added since 2001. Paved 9.4 miles of unpaved
City Code Section 23-81 specifies that on or after March
shoulders; 25.4 miles remain and City applies ABC and
31, 2000, any unpaved public street for which the Public
installed NO PARKING signs.
Works Director has not approved alternative dust-proofing
measures, must be paved or stabilized
City Ordinance 98-20, after March 31, 2000, requires the
posting of 15 mph speed limit signs on all private access
ways as determined by Public Works Director
PHOENIX: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41, #70 – No enhanced commitments. City Council Resolution #18949, approved by Council July 2, 1997, committed to MAG SIP
measures 97-DC-4 and 97-DC-99. [1998] – City funded a project to pave all public unpaved roads by June 10, 2000 (@ 80 miles), not including curb and gutter. City will
pave @ 3.2 miles of unpaved streets, including curb and gutter, through Improvement District Program in FY 1998-1999. City committed to construction of 8.95 miles of curb
and gutter on arterial streets with unpaved shoulders, through the 5-Year Arterial Street and Storm Drain.
Pavement and curbs for existing unpaved roads continues City: curbed 805.2 lane miles of road; 107 lane In 2002, City curbed 201.6 lane miles of shoulders (152 lane
through improvement districts. City installs curb and gutter miles of shoulders; stabilized 484 lane miles of miles of new roads, and 49.6 lane miles of existing, unpaved
on existing, major arterial streets without curb and gutter, shoulders; and paved 0.44 miles of alleys
shoulders). City stabilized 72 lane miles of shoulders and
through the five-year Arterial Street and Storm Drain
stabilized 40 miles of alley. City has paved all dedicated,
Program; six miles of curb and gutter budgeted for FY In 2002, Phoenix to begin a 10-year program to unpaved roads within its boundaries. In 2003, City curbed
1997-1998.
treat all 600 miles of alleys using a budget 96.7 lane miles of shoulders (72 lane miles of new roads, and
18.7 lane miles of existing, unpaved shoulders). Stabilized
City Resolution No. 18949 (City zoning ordinance) requires appropriation of $2 million per year.
78.4 lane miles of shoulders, and stabilized 146.9 alley miles.
that new roads serving multi-family, commercial, and
In 2003, City paved 1,137 unpaved access points.
industrial development include paving, curbs, and
driveways consistent with municipal standards.
City
ordinance No. S-25438 requires paving of all unpaved
roads.
QUEEN CREEK: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41, #70 - Committed to implementing the provisions of SB 1427, expanding the Town’s Wildflower program to vegetate the
targeted unpaved shoulders, or agreeing with Maricopa County to apply dust stabilizers. #40 - Committed to identifying all public unpaved roads and alleys, paving one of its
unpaved roads, and chip sealing the other by July 1, 1998.
In 1997, Town had two unpaved roads. SIP assumed that Town paved 0.75 mile of unpaved, residential Town paved 3.2 miles of roads related to subdivision
Town would pave 0.5 miles and chip seal 0.25 miles of streets (equal to two lanes), and widened and development.
Town paved three miles of unpaved
unpaved road.
paved an additional 900 feet of right-of-way residential streets within Town’s incorporated limits, but
(equal to one lane). Town paved 0.25 miles of outside the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area.
road; added 2 miles of curbing (one side of Town added 3.25 miles of curbing (one side of road), and
road), since 1997. Town stabilized 2 miles of 0.75 miles of curbing (both sides of road), since 2002. Town
stabilized 3.25 miles of shoulders (one side of road), and
shoulders (one side of road), since 1997.
0.75 miles of shoulders (both sides of road), since 2002.
SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE 2/2005REVISION

Page 5 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 2
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR UNPAVED ROADS AND/OR SHOULDERS
1999 CONTROL STATUS
2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

SCOTTSDALE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41, #70 - Committed to implementing the provisions of SB 1427; additional miles of bike lanes (pavement of shoulders) are
budgeted through 1999. #40 – No enhanced commitments.
City indicates that since 1972, Scottsdale City Code, Section City paved 4.0 miles of road and shoulders; City paved 13.8 miles of road (27.6 lane miles), and added
47-24 has required that all streets and alleys be constructed stabilized 10.6 miles of road and shoulders; 8.8 centerline miles with curbing on both sides. City
to meet public improvements standards for subdivision applied
3.3
miles
of
road
millings; removed a total of 46.5 miles of shoulders (23.25 centerline
streets (Section 47-36; Section 48-137).
Street paved/stabilized 87 miles of alleys
miles) from untreated inventory through the following
improvement standards typically require asphaltic concrete
measures: City paved 33.5 miles of shoulders, stabilized six
surfacing, aggregate base, Portland cement concrete, and
miles of shoulders, provided curb and gutter for 7 miles of
curb and gutter.
shoulders, and treated 37.1 miles of shoulders with native
decomposed granite.
City uses painted edgelines along roadways with unpaved
shoulders on arterials
Access roads must be paved with asphalt for a certain
distance on unpaved roads.
City zoning ordinance requires that new roads serving multifamily, commercial, and industrial development including
paving, curbs, and driveways
City ordinance authorizes the General Manager of the
Transportation Department to alter speed limits established
by state law on city streets. Speed limit on all city alleys has
been set at 15 mph.
SURPRISE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41, #70 - Developers will pave and curb approximately five miles of unimproved streets per year. In addition, five miles of
unpaved shoulders will be stabilized by beginning of FY 1998. #40 – No enhanced commitments.
City Resolution No. 97-29 (Paving, Vegetating and Chemically City paved 3.25 miles of road; no shoulders City applies Water Truck services to unpaved rural roads at
Stabilizing Unpaved Access Points, June 1997) covers City’s dust-proofed or stabilized.
least every 4 weeks. City bought one new 1,000 gallon water
commitment to paving shoulders.
truck in FY04 and rented a 2,500 gallon water truck for 6
months in FY04. City funded one new 5,000 gallon water
truck for FY05. City purchased one roller for compaction in
FY04 for same roads. City chip sealed 170,400 sq. yards of
previously unpaved rural roads and paved 10,763 sq. yards of
previously unpaved city-owned parking lots. City applied A/B
and millings to 7,500 sq. yards of unpaved overflow parking.
City paved 11,500 sq. yards of unpaved connector. City
began negotiations for cooperative agreements with
landowners in undeveloped areas to pave dirt roads. City
requires all new development to pave streets and include curb,
gutter and sidewalk.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE 2/2005REVISION

Page 6 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 2
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR UNPAVED ROADS AND/OR SHOULDERS
1999 CONTROL STATUS
2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

TEMPE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41, #70 – Committed to implementing the provisions of SB 1427. #40 - Committed to working with ADEQ to consider the impact of
15-mph speed limit on unpaved roads.
City of Tempe Code requires paved roads and parking areas City added 5.6 miles of curbing; 0.94 miles 1,241 paved lane miles. City paved 70,623 sq. feet of
for any new construction; City of Tempe roads nearly 100 of road paved; 128 miles of alley stabilized unpaved parking lots and paved 1730 access points onto
paved roads.
(each mile stabilized 2.5 times since 1997).
percent paved and curbed, with one mile of streets left to pave
Chapter 30 of the Tempe City code requires all new roads
serving residential, multi-family, commercial, and industrial
development include paving, curb and gutter, and driveways
consistent with City standards.
TOLLESON: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41 - Committed to stabilize approximately four miles of unpaved shoulders on 91st and 99th Avenues from I-10 to Buckeye Road,
using Soil Sement, and to implement the provisions of SB 1427. #70 - Committed to strengthen the enforcement of an existing city ordinance requiring curbing, gutter, and
sidewalks on all city rights-of-way within residential, commercial, and industrial developments. #40 - City Resolution No. 794 committed City to a good faith effort to implement
measures to reduce particulate matter from unpaved roads; committed to paving all unpaved City roads (0.5 miles) no later than June 10, 2000
City Resolution No. 794 indicates that City will put forth a good City paved 3.9 miles, and paved or City added 1.69 miles of paved road, 1.95 miles of curbing,
faith effort to implement measures to reduce particulate stabilized 100 blocks of alleys.
City and 7.5 miles of shoulder stabilization.
City paved or
emissions from unpaved shoulders and unpaved access points indicated that there were no unpaved stabilized 100 blocks of unpaved alleys 3 times since 2001.
on paved roads.
access points onto paved or stabilized
roads in its jurisdiction.
YOUNGTOWN: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41, #70, #40 - Committed to developing and implementing a plan requiring stabilization of unpaved shoulders of paved roads,
and to implement the provisions of SB 1427. Owners/operators must have existing, unpaved roads and alleys (ADT > 250) stabilized, paved, or graveled by June 10, 2000 (@
seven miles).
Town committed to continue to reconstruct roadways in Town stabilized eight miles of alleys.
26 miles of curbing; 12.75 miles of stabilized shoulders; and
accordance with its annual, and five-year plan, including the
1.7 miles of paved alleys. Town stabilizes 6.8 miles of
addition of curbs and gutters to existing streets. Project
unpaved alleys annually with dust retardant.
completion scheduled for May 1998.
ADOT: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41, #70 - Curb and gutter projects are included in new Five-Year Highway Construction Program as part of new construction or
reconstruction.
A.R.S. § 28-104 and ADOT standard specifications require the Same requirements continued.
Same requirements continued.
rehabilitation and protection against erosion of all areas
disturbed by construction, through seeding, sodding, mulching,
and placement of other ground covers.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE 2/2005REVISION

Page 7 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 2
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR UNPAVED ROADS AND/OR SHOULDERS
1999 CONTROL STATUS
2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

MARICOPA COUNTY: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #41 - MCDOT has two projects to pave a total of 12 miles of unpaved shoulders to create new bicycle lanes in the next
year, and will treat an additional 100 miles of shoulders on existing arterial and collector roadways with high volume truck traffic by 2003. #70 - No enhanced commitments.
#40 - County committed to stabilizing all County unpaved roads within the nonattainment area with ADT > 250 by June 10, 2000, and all County unpaved roads within the
nonattainment area with ADT > 150 by June 2004 (20 percent per year). County committed to continuing the current roadway design standard requiring that all new
subdivision roads and County constructed roads be paved. County commits to paving 60 miles of existing “courtesy grade” roads (ADT > 150) that meet criteria to become
public highways, by September 2003.
MCDOT currently requires pavement of all new access points Maricopa County paved or stabilized over County stabilized approximately 127 miles (41 percent of 309
to County paved roads to edge of right-of-way; MCDOT will 390 miles of unpaved roads – 190 miles miles) of arterial shoulders under County jurisdiction in 2002,
pave existing access points when roadway is reconstructed or over and above the existing commitment. and approximately 185 miles (62 percent of 299 miles) of
widened, and install curb and gutter designed as urban County roadway design standard requires arterial shoulders in County jurisdiction and in the PM10
roadways. In 1999, MCDOT treated 10 miles of shoulders, that all new subdivision roads and County- nonattainment area in 2003. Of the 185 miles, 105 were
testing dust suppressant
built roads be paved. County stabilized 39 paved, curbed, and guttered, while approximately 80 miles of
percent of 326 miles of arterial shoulders in shoulders were stabilized. In 2002, County paved 12.89 miles
County jurisdiction, to control dust.
In (of a total of 184.1 miles) of unpaved roads in PM10
2001, Maricopa County paved 9.63 miles of nonattainment area. In 2003, County applied first layer of
unpaved roads, and paved 15.37 miles (of pavement to 36.9 miles of unpaved roads in PM10
a total of 199.6 miles) of unpaved roads in nonattainment area.
the PM10 nonattainment area.
MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #40 - On December 8, 1999, MAG Regional Council approved $7.85 million for paving
projects to reduce fugitive dust from unpaved roads, including private unpaved roads that are publicly maintained within the jurisdiction of Maricopa County.
On December 8, 1999 the MAG Regional Council approved an In FY 2001, $1.7 million in CMAQ funds Maricopa County FY 2001, 2002 and 2003 paving projects
amendment to the FY2000-2004 Transportation Improvement was allocated for Maricopa County paving have been completed. FY 2002-2006 TIP includes $3.0
Program (TIP) to add three Maricopa County paving projects for projects for unpaved roads.
million new CMAQ funds for Maricopa County paving dirt road
dirt roads in FY 2001, 2002 and 2003 totaling $7.85 million.
projects, which surpasses the original commitment.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE 2/2005REVISION

Page 8 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 3
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
Applicable to (Windblown) Alluvial, Agricultural, Disturbed Land, and Vacant Lots
NEW MEASURES

MEASURE DESCRIPTION

#45

Reduce Particulate Emissions from Unpaved Parking Lots

#46

Reduce Particulate Emissions from Vacant, Disturbed Lots

#48 – NO CREDIT
TAKEN

Dust Abatement and Management for State Lands: In 1998, the Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill 1427. The bill appropriated $200,000
from the Arizona General Fund to the Arizona Land Department for implementing a Dust Abatement and Management Plan to include measures
to control particulate pollution on Arizona trust lands in Area A. The plan may include measures to close areas to illegal use by off-highway
vehicles, closing roads that are used or illegal, and increasing the enforcement of no trespassing areas (§ 36 of SB 1427).

#49 – NO CREDIT
TAKEN

Agricultural Best Management Practices: Senate Bill 1427, passed by the Arizona Legislature in 1998, includes Best Management Practices for
Agriculture to reduce particulate emissions. The legislation established a Best Management Practices Committee for Regulated Agricultural
Activities, appointed by the governor. By June 10, 2000, the Best Management Practices Committee will adopt by rule an agricultural general permit
specifying best management practices for regulated agricultural activities to reduce PM10 particulate emissions.

EXISTING MEASURES

MEASURE DESCRIPTION

None
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR (WINDBLOWN) ALLUVIAL, AGRICULTURAL, DISTURBED LAND, AND VACANT LOTS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

APACHE JUNCTION – 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS – None
Status unknown

Status unknown

No parking lots paved or stabilized

AVONDALE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45, #46 – Committed to notification of all owners of unpaved parking lots that they must pave their lots by September 30, 1999,
and will enforce Maricopa County Rule 310.
City has estimated 500 acres of private, vacant lots – much
in natural desert vegetation.
Acreage that has been
recorded consists of custom lots and undeveloped
subdivisions in jurisdiction.

122,591 Square feet of parking lots paved; 203,360
square feet stabilized with millings

In 2005 City Code Enforcement personnel will revisit all
commercial businesses to determine if all unpaved
parking lots required to be paved have been paved or
qualify for exceptions in Ordinance 98-DC-9 and issue
citations for violations.
City Ordinance 98-DC-10
addresses disturbed vacant lots larger than 5 acres.
Code Enforcement refers violations to Maricopa County.

CAREFREE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45, #46 – Town commits to support of its zoning ordinance, which requires all new parking lots to be paved with asphalt, concrete,
or gravel; no grading allowed on vacant lots until a building permit is issued.
Town has four unpaved parking lots; all are graveled, and
only one exceeds 5,000 square feet. There are no disturbed
vacant lots in jurisdiction. Town zoning ordinance requires
all parking lots to be paved with asphalt, concrete, or
equivalent, including gravel. No grading allowed until a
building permit has been issued.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE3/2005REVISION

Two public parking lots were paved in 2001. Two
privately owned parking lots are stabilized with
gravel.

No changes in parking lots. February 2004 Zoning
Ordinance prohibits grading without zoning clearance
and a building permit; area to be disturbed cannot be
larger than permitted improvements, and unpaved
parking lots are prohibited. Carefree has no existing
disturbed vacant lots.

Page 1 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 3
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR (WINDBLOWN) ALLUVIAL, AGRICULTURAL, DISTURBED LAND, AND VACANT LOTS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

Existing permanent parking lots are either paved or dustproofed. City has a general nuisance ordinance that could be
used to control activities on private property that causes dust
problems, on a complaint basis. City requires new parking
spaces be surfaced with concrete, asphalt, or paving blocks.

All city parking lots are paved or stabilized; dust
emissions from vacant City lots that violate MCESD
regulations will be resolved expeditiously

Town Hall Parking area and road crew yard are either
paved or stabilized for dust control. The combined
parking areas total about 39,000 sq. feet. Zoning Code
requires County dust control permits for new buildings
and roadways in Cave Creek. Road grades greater than
12% must be paved. Roads of lesser grades must add
at least 4 inch thick, 3/8 minus decomposed granite or
equivalent for dust control. All city-owned alleys are
currently paved (a total of 23 miles).

CAVE CREEK

CHANDLER: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 - City has adopted an ordinance requiring all parking areas to have a dust-free surface, applying to all parking areas,
regardless of size. Provision does not apply to residential parking areas accommodating 10 or fewer vehicles. City plans to add two inspectors for enforcement of City
ordinances. Ordinance does not apply to lots located on an industrial facility, or to construction or earthmoving activities on sites that have a permit approved by Maricopa
County. #46 - City commits to adopting, no later than May 1999: a. an ordinance requiring owners/operators of vacant lots of 5,000 square feet or greater, disturbed by motor
vehicles, to erect signs, fencing, or other barriers to prevent trespass; or apply surface gravel or stabilizers. b. an ordinance requiring owners/operators of vacant lots that
remain undeveloped for more than 15 calendar days and where more than 0.50 acres has been disturbed, to establish ground cover, apply dust suppressant, restore to natural
state, or apply gravel. City commits to adding two dust inspectors.
Ordinances adopted. City ordinance requiring dust-free
surfaces for all parking lots adopted.
All City-owned,
unpaved parking lots are dust-proofed.

Four new parking lots developed with dust control
applied (215,000 square feet); 5, 066 dust control
calls logged since December 1997. Chandler City
Code §§ 30-2.4B., C., D., providing more stringent
controls for dust from vacant, disturbed lots,
adopted.

All commercial and residential parking lots with over 10
vehicle spaces must be paved. Owners of lots greater
than ½ acre must stabilize the surface and take actions
to minimize dust during weed control, prevent trackout,
and stabilize surface after weed control. Barriers or
signs to prevent vehicle trespass are required on vacant
lots 5,000 sq. feet or larger.
Dust control and
landscaping measures required on all portions of
development projects. Stabilized 4 lots (360,000 sq. ft )

EL MIRAGE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45, #46 – City commits to amendment, within eight months of the effective date of the FIP, or 60 days following lot disturbance,
whichever is later, of Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Vehicles and Traffic to include language to manage dust control on vacant, disturbed lots, and of Municipal Code, Chapter
10, Health and Sanitation, Section 10-4-10, Weed Abatement; and of Municipal Code Section 10-1-1, Vegetation Maintenance.
City previously paved all existing “high-use” City-owned
parking lots. There are no other existing “high-use” unpaved
commercial parking lots within the jurisdiction. City’s zoning
ordinance requires that all new parking lots be paved with
materials suitable to controlling dust.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE3/2005REVISION

Same measures continued

Same measures continued

Page 2 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 3
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
1999 MAG SIP COMMITTED MEASURES
COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR (WINDBLOWN) ALLUVIAL, AGRICULTURAL, DISTURBED LAND, AND VACANT LOTS
1999 CONTROL STATUS

2001 MILESTONE

2004 MILESTONE

FOUNTAIN HILLS: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – Town will pave or stabilize all Town-owned parking lots, and all future Town-owned parking areas will be paved or
surfaced with compliant material. Town uses a privately-owned lot as a special event parking area (@ 40 acres); this area is exempt from additional measures, due to infrequent
use. #46 - Town indicates that it has adopted Town Code, Chapter 12-2, Traffic Control and Section 12-2-11, Operation of Vehicles on Vacant Lots, which prohibits vehicular
use across any portion of a vacant lot. Town commits to approving ordinances restricting use of vacant areas and requiring dust suppression.
Town enforces Town zoning ordinance § 7.03-A.2, which
specifies that parking spaces must be surfaced with asphaltic
concrete, pavement bricks or cement.
Town of Fountain Hills currently has approximately more
than 1,900 acres of underdeveloped, but developable,
platted lots.

No authorized unpaved parking lots in town; 1900
acres of pristine desert exist at this time and
ordinances and code prohibit disturbance without a
development permit

No unpaved parking lots authorized for public use. All
future public or private parking areas must be paved or
surfaced with compliant material per Town ordinances
and Code guidelines. Town has approximately 1,700
acres of currently undeveloped, but developable, lots
with native vegetation. Town ordinances and Code
prohibit any land disturbance without a development
permit. Town adopted a wash resolution policy that
prohibits any motorized vehicular access.
GILBERT: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – Town will consider adopting an ordinance requiring existing private unpaved parking lots to be paved or dust-proofed, and will
commit to a schedule in accordance with the June 10, 2000 implementation date. #46 - On February 17, 1998, Town adopted ordinance No. 1090, which amends section 62.5 of
Municipal Code to prohibit operation of motor vehicles on unpaved or non-dust-proofed property.
Existing permanent parking lots are either paved or dust- Status not reported
Town stabilizes 24 vacant lots totaling 5,638,841 sq.
proofed.
feet. All Town-owned parking lots are either paved or
stabilized. Private commercial or industrial parking lots
with 5 or more parking spaces or greater than 2,000 sq.
feet must be paved or dust-proofed. 382 violations of
Vehicles on Private Property ordinance issued in 2002;
244 violations in 2003.
GLENDALE: 1997/19998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – No enhanced commitments; #46 - City commits to enforcement of an existing provision prohibiting the operation of a motor
vehicle on or across any portion of an existing vacant lot, unless lot is dust-free; and of an existing general nuisance ordinance, and will continue to support enforcement of
Maricopa County Rule 310.
Status not reported

Status not reported

All City-owned lots are paved.

GOODYEAR: 1997/19998 COMMITMENTS - #45, #46 – Committed to notification of all owners of unpaved parking lots that they must pave their lots by April 1999, and will
enforce Maricopa County Rule 310. City adopted Resolution No. 97-594, supporting MCESD Rule 310.
City does not have an ordinance in place to reduce
particulate pollution; City has estimated that jurisdiction has
approximately 320 acres of private, vacant lots.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE3/2005REVISION

City has no dirt parking lots – millings have been
applied to all

All City-owned parking lots are paved.
Zoning
Ordinances 6-1-2 and 6-2-2 contain requirements for
improvements and use of privately owned unpaved
parking lots and vacant lots. City of Goodyear Code 132-12 regulates operation of vehicles on vacant lots, and
103 violations were cited in FY04. All alleys have been
paved.

Page 3 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 3
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
MESA: 1997/19998 COMMITMENTS - #45, #46 – City budgeted $1 million to pave 21,500 square yards of Falcon Field, in FY 1997-1998. In 1999, Mesa submitted BACM
commitments to reduce particulates from unpaved parking lots (97-DC-9). Also, Mesa adopted ordinance 3465, which requires that effective fugitive dust control measures be
implemented on any unpaved parking lot greater than 5,000 square feet.
All existing City of Mesa parking lots were paved in last three
years, except for Falcon Field. City ordinance 3388 (1997)
makes it unlawful to park or store vehicles in residence yards.
City code § 11-16-2(E) requires pavement of parking and
loading spaces, maneuvering areas, and driveways.

City’s only unpaved parking lot at Falcon Field was
paved; 10 acres of vacant lot (436,500 square feet)
stabilized; City responded to 20 private vacant lot
complaints and arranged with owners to reduce
dust; all City-owned lots inspected for stabilization,
monthly; two fulltime inspectors

All City-owned lots are inspected
stabilization and treated, as necessary.

monthly

for

PARADISE VALLEY: 1997/19998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – City commits to adopting, no later than June 10, 2000, an ordinance requiring that unpaved parking lots must be
improved and maintained to MAG standards. #46 - Town commits to enforcement of existing regulations prohibiting grading and disturbance of a vacant lot.
Existing ordinance requires that all parking lots, except for
single family residences, be paved.

City paved two parking lots (88,000 square feet);
City stabilized 14,549,040 square feet of vacant lots;
334 vacant lots were developed between 1997 and
2001, all a minimum of one acre

Town stabilized the parking lot of the Goldwater
Memorial (5,700 square feet). The Town ordinance in
place for control of PM10 emissions from unpaved
parking lots and vacant, disturbed lots/land, is Article 513, Sections 5-13-2, 5-13-3, and 5-13-4. Dust control
plans must meet the requirements of Maricopa County
Rule 310, regulating fugitive dust. Violators of Town
ordinance 5-13 are referred to Maricopa County for
prosecution. Town has referred three violations since
2001.
Town has stabilized one vacant lot by
constructing a memorial on the site (43,560 square feet).
Town does not have any alleys to be paved or
stabilized. Town has not paved or stabilized any
unpaved access points onto paved roads or streets.

PEORIA: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – City commits to a good faith effort to implement measures to reduce particulates from unpaved parking lots, and will notify all
owners of such lots that they must pave by April 1999. Also, City will require that all driveways including the dirt parking lot be paved.
City has identified 62 lots which will require
pavement or dust palliative.

23 commercial unpaved parking lots identified.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE3/2005REVISION

5 of the 23 commercial unpaved parking lots have been
paved.
City notified all private property owners of
requirements for unpaved open areas in Sections 23-75
through 23-78 of Municipal Code. Vacant lots stabilized total
996.19 acres (of 1,194.8 identified in 1999. Chip seal has
been applied to all 2.77 miles of downtown alleys.

Page 4 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 3
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
PHOENIX: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – City commits to paving all unpaved or gravel parking lots, approximately five acres, at City-owned facilities. Paving is scheduled
for FY 1998-1999. City of Phoenix ordinance S-25438 approved $5.8 million for stabilization of both City-owned vacant and parking lots. #46 - City commits to working with
ADOT to help identify excess properties along freeways and expedite their sale. (City Council Resolution No. 19006) City recently amended: Phoenix City Code, Chapter 39,
Article II, Section 39-7, prohibiting property owners from allowing vehicular traffic on unpaved lots or other disturbed surface; Phoenix City Code, Chapter 36, Article XI, Section
36-145, to prohibit vehicle owners from parking on disturbed surfaces. City funded a program to identify and stabilize City-owned vacant lots, including a lot inventory,
computerized tracking and mapping system, site inspections, EPLA-approved testing of disturbed soils, stabilization products review, and stabilization services.
Defined as Resolution 19006 (measure 97-DC-9b),
city zoning ordinance requires paved parking for
commercial parking lots with three or more spaces
and dust-proofing for residential parking areas.

City paved 57 unpaved parking lots; 118 vacant lots
stabilized (120.7 acres); City-owned lots are inspected
and treated, as necessary

In 2002 and 2003 combined, City inspected 468 vacant lots,
and treated 50. City’s Neighborhood Services Department
conducted 16,564 enforcement actions against vehicles on
vacant lots, and police conducted 161 enforcement actions on
vehicle owners. There are currently 159 developments in
Phoenix with required paved parking. All City-owned parking
lots are paved. Alluvial channel concentrated enforcement July
through November 2004 resulted in 55 citations and 220
warnings. Vehicle trespass dropped to zero to two vehicles in
December; pedestrian trespassers dropped from 45 to 8 per
weekend. 30 No Trespass signs installed and maintained. 330
Tons of trash and over 2,000 tires were removed by
contractors from upper riverbank and a thick layer of mulch
applied to 12 acres through 1/05. Contractors have secured
1800 feet of fences and berms to prevent trespass along
Broadway Road since 7/04. City treated entire length of berm
on its property with polymer stabilizer. 1100 feet of guardrail
on West side of 35th Avenue, North and South of bridge, has
been installed. Installation of concrete barriers at all 4 corners
of 51st Avenue bridge began 1/05. Rains in January 2005
formed crust in alluvial channel.

QUEEN CREEK: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – No enhanced commitments; #46 - Town commits to adopting an ordinance to reduce particulate emissions from vacant
disturbed lots by requiring several dust control measures.
Town of Queen Creek has identified all unpaved
parking areas in jurisdiction and has determined
that all existing parking areas in the jurisdiction
were either paved, had gravel, or were approved
for use with a dust palliative. Current zoning
ordinance requires that all off-street parking areas
be surfaced with permanent pavement.

Town has paved 12 parking lots since 1997. Town
adopted a revised zoning ordinance in 1999. Town
determined that all existing parking lots in the
incorporated limits were either paved, had gravel applied
to the lot, or an approved use permit with the stipulation
that a use of a dust stabilizer was necessary.

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE3/2005REVISION

Town paved two new Town-owned parking lots (totaling 35,725
square feet). Town has approved 12 new, paved, commercial
parking lots constructed since 2001 Milestone Report. All new
off-street parking areas required to be paved.

Page 5 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 3
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
SCOTTSDALE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – City committed to evaluating two possible options for private unpaved parking lot owners who must meet FIP unpaved
parking lot requirements, which affect lots greater than 5,000 square feet, exempting lots used fewer than 35 days per year. City committed to requesting @ $200,000 over two
years to provide for paving public unpaved parking lots, assisting private lot owners, educating inspection staff, etc. #46 - City commits to continue to enforce current regulations
prohibiting use of motor vehicles on disturbed surfaces, to continued enforcement of MCESD Rule 310, and to use of dust control options outlined in the Maricopa County
Moderate PM10 Area FIP.
City ordinances have required either paving or
dust-proofing parking lot surfacing since 1969. City
code requires that all public and private parking lots
designed to accommodate at least six vehicles, be
paved or dust-proofed.

City paved or dust-proofed three unpaved parking lots
(73,000 square feet); City stabilized four vacant lots
(559,750 square feet)

City paved or stabilized four parking lots (a total of 129,795
square feet), and three vacant lots (a total of 563,780 square
feet).

SURPRISE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – City will not issue a “Certificate of Occupancy” for any new commercial development if parking lot not paved. #46 - City commits
to amendment of Municipal Code to include language requiring installation of signs and barriers where there is evidence of vehicular traffic on disturbed surfaces.
City has paved all, existing, high-use parking lots.
City’s zoning ordinance requires that all new
parking lots be paved, as developed.

No vacant lots stabilized

City paved 10.763 sq. yards of unpaved City-owned parking
lots and applied A/B and millings on 7,500 sq. yards of
unpaved overflow parking

TEMPE: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – Improved lots will continue to be maintained to endure dust not a problem. Current effort underway to combine existing nuisance
ordinance and neighborhood enhancement ordinance to better facilitate enforcement and citation powers to provide support in meeting City’s PM10 commitments. #46 - City of
Tempe commits to adopt a fugitive dust ordinance patterned after MCESD Rule 310, including: required stabilization after 15 days vacant, or if disturbed by vehicular traffic,
and weed abatement.
City indicates that there are no existing unpaved
public parking areas in Tempe.

City stabilized three unpaved parking lots (320,400
square feet); City of Tempe Code Compliance Division
received fewer than 20 complaint calls per year, most
result from construction activities, and are referred to
MCESD

City paved 70,623 sq. feet of unpaved parking lots. City
stabilized with Recycled Asphalt Product 101,600 sq. feet of
vacant disturbed lots.

TOLLESON: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – Resolution 794 requires that City proceed with good faith effort to implement measures to reduce particulate emissions from
unpaved parking lots. #46 - City commits to amendment, by June 10, 2000, of City Ordinance No. 364, Section 9-3-4, Weeds, Bushes, Trees, and Other Vegetation, to include
requirements in the EPA proposed FIP. Currently, the majority of vacant lots in Tolleson are farmed, bounded, or are about to undergo development.
Tolleson indicates that there are currently no
unpaved parking lots that exceed the FIP 5,000
square-foot standard requiring stabilization.

City of Tolleson paved or stabilized 90,000 square feet of
unpaved parking lots; and stabilized 40,575 square feet
of vacant lots. City has no unpaved parking lots.

City has had no unpaved parking areas since the 2001
Milestone Report. City has two vacant lots that have been
stabilized (combined size is 14,025 square feet).

YOUNGTOWN: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – City committed to enforcement of ordinance 96-05 which specifies the type of surface on which motor vehicles must be
parked, and committed to amending it to include a provision that the improved and dust-free parking surface association with new construction be completed before Town issues
its “Certificate of Occupancy.” City also committed to adopting ordinances requiring all existing unpaved parking lots greater than 5,000 square feet be dust-proofed no later than
June 10, 2000; and requiring that special event parking areas be dust-proofed. #46 - Town commits to adoption of one of three alternatives to reduce particulate emissions from
vacant lots, addressing weed abatement and vehicular disturbances of lots. Town commits to treating all of its estimated 28 acres of existing, vacant disturbed lots by January
1, 2000, using each of the dust-proofing techniques recommended.
Status unknown

Ordinance in effect preventing unpaved surfaces at
residential properties and commercial parking lots; vacant
lots are covered under Town ordinances and enforced by
building code compliance inspector

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE3/2005REVISION

Town has paved or stabilized 56 parking lots around
commercial districts and parks. Town has stabilized 8 vacant
lots in commercial and residential districts. Town stabilizes
6.79 miles of unpaved alleys with dust retardant annually.

Page 6 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 3
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)
MARICOPA COUNTY: 1997/1998 COMMITMENTS - #45 – Maricopa County committed to identifying parking lots in need of dust-proofing, initiate owner notification, and
establish a compliance schedule by December 1998. MCESD’s enforcement options include orders of abatement, civil actions for injunctive relief or civil penalties, and Class I
misdemeanor citation processes. #46 - County commits to development of a compliance schedule to apply existing fugitive dust regulations to vacant lots 10 acres or greater in
size.
In June 1999, as part of its commitment to
increased fugitive dust control, the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors adopted Maricopa
County Rule 310.01, which addressed dust control
for vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and public
unpaved roads.
County committed to a
compliance schedule to apply existing fugitive dust
regulations to vacant lots ten acres or greater in
size.

In April 2000, County developed inspection priorities for
vacant lot and unpaved parking lot inspections considering
lot size and number of sources. Larger lots were inspected
first, and smaller lots in succeeding years.
County
attention was directed, first, to areas lacking municipal
programs. In May 2000, Maricopa County enforcement
enhancement began, following the hiring of the county
attorney dedicated to dust enforcement. In 2000 and 2001
combined, MCESD: issued 6,484 dust permits; conducted
11,549 earthmoving inspections; conducted 471 vacant lot,
unpaved parking lot, and unpaved road inspections; and
there were 2,849 earthmoving complaints. A total of 535
cases were referred to enforcement, 341 cases were
referred to the county attorney, and 267 cases were
settled.

In 2002, MCESD: issued 3,516 dust permits; conducted 7,122
earthmoving inspections; conducted 390 vacant lot, unpaved
parking lot, and unpaved road inspections; and 1,171
earthmoving complaints were issued. A total of 391 cases
were referred to enforcement; 369 cases were referred to the
county attorney; and 290 cases were settled.

All ADOT parking surfaces are either paved or stabilized;
many vacant lot sites already stabilized. ADOT excess
land was inventoried onsite to determine existing and end
usage.
This review showed a wide range of
circumstances; ADOT is currently reviewing options for
any identified sites for compliance issues.

ADOT owns 50 properties that have parking lots and most are
paved. ADOT inspects and stabilizes the vacant lots every 90
days or more often as needed. Trespassing activities disturb
the soil. When trespass occurs, fencing, No Trespassing
signs, and other site security correctional activities are logged
and tracked by property ID number.
ADOT Property
Management Group is entering data on inspections into a
database including methods used to stabilize the area. Total
sq. footage of vacant properties ADOT maintains is 31,320.4
sq. feet or 738,273 acres. 45 of 52 ADOT owned sites with
parking lots in the metro Phoenix area are completely paved;
one features a paved lot next to a smaller gravel covered
parking area. ADOT has English and Spanish Dust Complaint
report signs posted at each of 4 access points to its Alluvial
Channel property [Parcel 105-46-004F]. A secure gated entry
is on the NE portion and the SE corner has been bermed to
th
limit access from 35 Avenue. ADOT works with City of
Phoenix police to arrest and cite trespassers.
ADOT
continues to inspect two land parcels on the NW and SE of
35th Avenue and the Salt River; January 2005 rains created
vegetation that has stabilized dust.

In 2003, MCESD issued 3917 Earthmoving permits. In July
2003 new databases system was implemented based on
Fiscal Year FY03-04 earthmoving inspections totaled 5,257.
In FY03-04, a total of 345 cases were referred to enforcement;
283 cases were referred to the County Attorney; and 298
cases were settled.

ADOT
#45 – ADOT committed to identifying those ADOT
unpaved parking lots in need of stabilization or
stabilization maintenance, for action following
implementation of the FIP.
#46 - ADOT commits to enforcement of the
provisions of the July 1998 Maricopa County
Moderate PM10 Area FIP

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE3/2005REVISION

Page 7 of 8

APPENDIX E – TABLE 3
2004 PM10 MILESTONE REPORT CHART AND SUMMARY
(1999/2000 MAG SIP COMMITTED CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS)

Rainfall Totals
January 1-March 1, 2005 Rainfall Totals:
Sky Harbor
4.86”
Cesar Chavez Park
4.84”
Salt River @ 40th St .
3.78”
Salt River @ Priest Drive
5.83”
Salt River @ 67th Ave.
4.73”
Salt River Landfill
7.05”

SALT RIVER PM10 SIP/APPENDIX E/TABLE3/2005REVISION

Page 8 of 8

This page left intentionally blank

Attachment 1
ADEQ AIR QUALITY DIVISION ORGANIZATIONAL
CHARTS