AQ-2023-002-RULE326REPORTTOTHEBOS.PDF

Maricopa County — Formal (2024-08-21)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 104425 characters

Air Quality Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602-506-6010
E: AQMail@maricopa.gov

Executive Summary of the Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board Hearing Date:
September 25, 2024
Case Number/Title:
AQ-2024-002-Rule 326 (Steelmaking Operations: Electric Arc Furnaces)
Agenda Item:
(Pending)
Supervisor Districts:
All Districts
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) complied with all statutory and county
policies throughout this rulemaking process. Per the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
(EROP) Policy: “In addition to the required staff report, an executive summary of the report
including an overview of stakeholder input and staff responses will be provided to the Board of
Supervisors at least one week prior to any Board of Supervisors’ public hearing.”
Overview of the Report to the Board of Supervisors:
The purpose of Rule 326 is to limit volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions from steelmaking operations using electric arc furnaces (EAF). MCAQD is
proposing to create Rule 326 to establish reasonably available control technology (RACT)
controls for VOC and NOx emissions from steelmaking operations that utilize electric arc
furnaces to melt scrap steel. This rulemaking is required so that Rule 326 can be approved into
the Arizona SIP to comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
In November 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reclassified a portion of
Maricopa County as a moderate nonattainment area with respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA require
jurisdictions that are classified as moderate or higher nonattainment to implement RACT for
all sources subject to an EPA Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) and for all non-CTG major
sources of VOCs or NOx. Non-CTG major sources of VOCs or NOx are those sources that emit,
or have the potential to emit, 100 tons per year of VOCs or NOx.
In response to the reclassification, MCAQD identified two steelmaking facilities that use an
EAF for melting scrap metal. One of the two facilities is considered a non-CTG major source
for both VOC and NOx emissions. The VOC and NOx emissions from the steelmaking facility

that is a non-CTG major source are regulated under a Title V permit through emission limits
and work practices that have been demonstrated to meet best available control technology
(BACT) requirements. BACT is generally considered more stringent than RACT.
The second steelmaking facility is a foundry and is not currently considered a major source for
VOCs or NOx. The VOC and NOx emissions from the steel foundry are regulated under a non-
Title V permit through facility-wide emission limits and work practices. Although the foundry is
not currently a major source for VOC or NOx, this facility will be subject to Rule 326 with the
exception of the numerical VOC and NOx RACT emission limits for the electric arc furnace and
ladle metallurgy station (LMS). If the steel foundry (or any new steelmaking facility that
conducts steelmaking operations with an EAF) becomes a major source or if VOC or NOx
emissions from the EAF or LMS exceed 25 tons per year, the owner or operator will be subject
to the numerical RACT emission limitations.
The permit conditions regulating the VOC and NOx emissions from the non-CTG major source
steelmaking facility are not incorporated into the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA require VOC and NOx RACT requirements for non-
CTG major sources to be incorporated into the SIP. Therefore, MCAQD is proposing to create
Rule 326 to incorporate RACT controls for emissions of VOCs and NOx so those controls can
be incorporated into the SIP. Upon adoption of Rule 326, MCAQD will submit the rule to the
EPA for approval as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses:
During the rulemaking process, MCAQD received written feedback from one stakeholder. The
stakeholder expressed neither support nor opposition to the rulemaking. MCAQD
representatives met with the stakeholder who submitted comments multiple times and
worked with them to address their comments. In addition, MCAQD representatives met with a
second stakeholder who will be subject to Rule 326 to provide regulatory updates and
discuss rule language.
A summary of the comments and the MCAQD responses to the comments are included under
Section 9 of the attached Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking. Copies of the stakeholder’s
comments are attached to this report.
2 of 95

Maricopa County
Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Report to the
Board of
Supervisors
Rule 326
(Steelmaking
Operations:
Electric Arc Furnaces)
September 2024

Board of Health Meeting Date:
July 22, 2024
Board Hearing Date:
Case Number/Title:
Agenda Item:
Supervisor Districts:
Applicant:
Request:
September 25, 2024
AQ-2023-002-Rule 326 (Steelmaking Operations: Electric Arc
Furnaces)
(Pending)
All Districts
Staff
Approve creation of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Regulations, Rule 326 (Steelmaking Operations: Electric Arc
Furnaces) and approve submission of the new rule as a
revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The purpose of Rule 326 is to limit volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from
steelmaking operations using electric arc furnaces (EAF).
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is
proposing to create Rule 326 to establish reasonably
available control technology (RACT) controls for VOC and
NOx emissions from steelmaking operations that utilize
electric arc furnaces to melt scrap steel. This rulemaking is
required so that Rule 326 can be approved into the Arizona
SIP to comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
In November 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) reclassified a portion of Maricopa County as a
moderate nonattainment area with respect to the 2015 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA require jurisdictions that are
classified as moderate or higher nonattainment to
implement RACT for all sources subject to an EPA Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG) and for all non-CTG major
sources of VOCs or NOx.
In response to the reclassification, MCAQD identified two
steelmaking facilities that use an EAF for melting scrap
metal. One of the two facilities is considered a non-CTG
major source for both VOC and NOx emissions. The VOC and
NOx emissions from the steelmaking facility that is a non-
CTG major source are regulated under a Title V permit
through emission limits and work practices that have been
demonstrated to meet best available control technology
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
4 of 95

(BACT) requirements. BACT is generally considered more
stringent than RACT.
The second steelmaking facility is a foundry and is not
currently considered a major source for VOCs or NOx. The
VOC and NOx emissions from the steel foundry are regulated
under a non-Title V permit through facility-wide emission
limits and work practices. Although the foundry is not
currently a major source for VOC or NOx, this facility will be
subject to Rule 326 with the exception of the numerical VOC
and NOx RACT emission limits for the electric arc furnace
and ladle metallurgy station (LMS). If the steel foundry (or
any new steelmaking facility that conducts steelmaking
operations with an EAF) becomes a major source or if VOC
or NOx emissions from the EAF or LMS exceed 25 tons per
year, the owner or operator will be subject to the numerical
RACT emission limitations.
The permit conditions regulating the VOC and NOx emissions
from the non-CTG major source steelmaking facility are not
incorporated into the Arizona SIP. Sections 182(b)(2) and
182(f) of the CAA require VOC and NOx RACT requirements
for non-CTG major sources to be incorporated into the SIP.
Therefore, MCAQD is proposing to create Rule 326 to
incorporate RACT controls for emissions of VOCs and NOx
so those controls can be incorporated into the SIP. Upon
adoption of Rule 326, MCAQD will submit the rule to the EPA
for approval as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
Support/Opposition:
During the rulemaking process, MCAQD received written
feedback from one stakeholder. The stakeholder expressed
neither support nor opposition to the rulemaking. MCAQD
representatives met with the stakeholder who submitted
comments multiple times and worked with them to address
their comments. In addition, MCAQD representatives met
with a second stakeholder who will be subject to Rule 326 to
provide regulatory updates and discuss rule language.
A summary of the comments and the MCAQD responses to
the comments are included under Section 9 of the attached
Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking. Copies of the stakeholder’s
comments are attached to this report.
Staff
Recommendation:
Approve
Board of Health
Recommendation:
Approve
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
5 of 95

Additional Comments:
Presented By:
Prepared By:
Attachments:
This regulatory change is following the Enhanced Regulatory
Outreach Program (EROP) Policy and workflow process. The
County Manager briefed the Board of Supervisors regarding
this rulemaking in February 2023. Stakeholder Workshops
were held on April 5, 2023, and February 20, 2024.
The Board of Health approved initiation of regulatory change
on April 24, 2023. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was
posted on the EROP website on June 5, 2024. The Board of
Health made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
to approve the creation of Rule 326 on July 22, 2024.
A newspaper notice of the Board of Supervisors public
hearing will be published in the Arizona Business Gazette on
August 22, 2024, and August 29, 2024. This regulatory
change will take effect immediately upon approval by the
Board of Supervisors.
Philip A. McNeely, R.G., Director
Planning and Analysis Division
Preamble required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §
49-471.07 (See the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Summary of the proposed regulatory change (See Item 4 of the
Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Analysis of input received during the process and how that input
was responded to (See Item 9 of the Draft Notice of Final
Rulemaking)
Language of proposed regulatory change or amendment
(See the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Minutes from Board of Health meeting - April 24, 2023
Minutes from Board of Health meeting - July 22, 2024 Pending
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
6 of 95

Maricopa County
Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Draft Notice of
Final
Rulemaking
Rule 326
(Steelmaking
Operations:
Electric Arc Furnaces)
September 2024

Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking
Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations
Regulation III – Control of Air Contaminants
Rule 326 (Steelmaking Operations: Electric Arc Furnaces)
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to create Rule 326
(Steelmaking Operations: Electric Arc Furnaces). The Control Officer is posting this draft notice
of final rulemaking on the Maricopa County Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP)
website as part of the Report to the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with the Maricopa
County EROP Policy. This notice includes the preamble, as prescribed in Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-471.05, and the full text of the rule. This notice also includes a list of all
previous notices posted on the Maricopa County EROP website addressing the proposed rule
and the concise explanatory statement prescribed in A.R.S. § 49-471.07(B).
Preamble
1.
Statutory authority for the rulemaking (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(1)):
A.R.S. §§ 49-112, 49-474, 49-479 and 49-480
2.
Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate
regarding the rulemaking (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(2)):
Name:
Lisa Richey or Kimberly Butler
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address:
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone:
602-506-6010
Fax:
602-506-6179
Email:
AQPlanning@maricopa.gov
Online:
Submit a Comment
3.
Rulemaking process (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(3)):
County Manager Briefing:
February 1, 2023
Stakeholder Workshops:
April 5, 2023
February 20, 2024
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
8 of 95

Board of Health Meeting to Initiate Regulatory
Change:
April 24, 2023
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
June 5, 2024
Board of Health Meeting to Recommend Approval
to the Board of Supervisors:
July 22, 2024
Board of Supervisors Formal Meeting to Set the
Public Hearing:
August 21, 2024
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
September 25, 2024
4.
Explanation of the rule, including the control officer's reasons for initiating the
rulemaking (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(4)):
Return to list of attachments
MCAQD is proposing to create Rule 326 (Steelmaking Operations: Electric Arc
Furnaces). The purpose of Rule 326 is to limit the discharge of volatile organic
compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions into the atmosphere from
steelmaking operations using electric arc furnaces.
On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified
portions of Maricopa County as moderate nonattainment with respect to the 2015
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. According to Sections 182(b)(2) and
182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate
or higher are required to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) for
all sources subject to an EPA Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) as well as for all non-
CTG major sources of VOCs or NOx. Non-CTG major sources of VOCs or NOx are those
sources that emit, or have the potential to emit, 100 tons per year of VOCs or NOx.
In response to the reclassification, MCAQD identified two steelmaking facilities that use
an electric arc furnace (EAF) for melting scrap metal. One of the two facilities is
considered a non-CTG major source for both VOC and NOx emissions. The VOC and
NOx emissions from the steelmaking facility that is a non-CTG major source are
regulated under a Title V permit through emission limits and work practices that have
been demonstrated to meet best available control technology (BACT) requirements.
BACT is generally considered more stringent than RACT.
The second steelmaking facility is a foundry and is not currently considered a major
source for VOCs or NOx. The VOC and NOx emissions from the steel foundry are
regulated under a non-Title V permit through facility-wide emission limits and work
practices. Although the foundry is not currently a major source for VOC or NOx, this
facility will be subject to Rule 326 with the exception of the numerical VOC and NOx
RACT emission limits for the electric arc furnace and ladle metallurgy station (LMS). If
the steel foundry (or any new steelmaking facility that conducts steelmaking operations
with an EAF) becomes a major source or if VOC or NOx emissions from the EAF or LMS
exceed 25 tons per year, the owner or operator will be subject to the numerical RACT
limitations.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
9 of 95

The permit conditions regulating the VOC and NOx emissions from the non-CTG major
source steelmaking facility are not incorporated into the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA require VOC and NOx RACT
requirements for non-CTG major sources to be incorporated into the SIP. Therefore,
MCAQD is proposing to create Rule 326 to incorporate RACT controls for emissions of
VOCs and NOx so those controls can be incorporated into the SIP. Upon adoption of
Rule 326, MCAQD will submit the rule to the EPA for approval as a revision to the
Arizona SIP.
5.
Studies relied on in the control officer's evaluation of or justification for the rule and
where the public may obtain or review the studies, all data underlying the studies, any
analysis of the studies and other supporting material (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(5)).
The following EPA documents regarding RACT demonstrations were relied on in the
Control Officer’s evaluation of the rule:
(a)
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania;
Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations for Case-by-Case
Sources Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (87 FR 50945, August 19, 2022)
(b)
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III (February 9, 2022),
Technical Support Document for the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan
Revisions Related to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources under the 19 97 and 2008 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); 8 Sources
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165-0003
6.
An economic, small business and consumer impact statement (A.R.S. § 49-
471.05(6)):
The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic,
small business and consumer impact statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. §§ 41-1055,
subsections A, B and C, and 41-1035:
An identification of the proposed rulemaking, including all of the following (A.R.S. §
41-1055(A)(1)):
This rulemaking is proposing to create Rule 326 to establish RACT level controls that
will regulate VOC and NOx emissions generated from steelmaking sources that utilize
electric arc furnaces.
(a) The conduct and its frequency of occurrence that the rule is designed to change
(A.R.S. § 41-1055(A)(1)(a)).
MCAQD is proposing to create Rule 326 to establish RACT level controls for VOC
and NOx emissions from steelmaking operations that utilize electric arc furnaces to
melt scrap metal. This rulemaking is required so that Rule 326 can be approved into
the Arizona SIP to comply with Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
10 of 95

Currently, there are only two businesses in Maricopa County that operate electric arc
furnaces for steelmaking operations; therefore, they are the only stakeholders
affected by this new rulemaking. Many of the proposed rule provisions are already
included in air quality permits issued to both businesses.
(b) The harm resulting from the conduct the rule is designed to change and the
likelihood it will continue to occur if the rule is not changed (A.R.S. § 41-
1055(A)(1)(b)).
MCAQD is proposing to create Rule 326 to establish RACT level controls for VOC
and NOx emissions from steelmaking operations that utilize electric arc furnaces. If
this rule is not created and incorporated into the Arizona SIP, MCAQD may be
subject to sanctions and the imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
implemented and enforced by the EPA.
(c) The estimated change in frequency of the targeted conduct expected from the rule
change (A.R.S. § 41-1055(A)(1)(c)).
MCAQD is proposing to create Rule 326 to establish RACT level controls for VOC
and NOx emissions from steelmaking operations that utilize electric arc furnaces.
This rulemaking is required so that Rule 326 can be approved into the Arizona SIP to
comply with Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA.
A brief summary of the information included in the economic, small business and
consumer impact statement (A.R.S. § 41-1055(A)(2)).
The economic, small business and consumer impact statement addresses each of the
elements required for an economic, small business and consumer impact statement, as
prescribed by A.R.S. §§ 41-1055, subsections A, B, C, and 41-1035.
Name and address of agency employees who may be contacted to submit or request
additional data on the information included in the economic, small business and
consumer impact statement (A.R.S. § 41-1055(A)(3)).
Name:
Lisa Richey or Kimberly Butler
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address:
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone:
602-506-6010
Fax:
602-506-6179
Email:
AQPlanning@maricopa.gov
Online:
Submit a Comment
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
11 of 95

An identification of the persons who will be directly affected by, bear the costs of or
directly benefit from the proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(2)).
This rulemaking will directly affect facilities that utilize electric arc furnaces to melt
scrap metal to produce carbon, alloy, specialty steels, or steel castings. Although this is
a newly created rule, the requirements are generally not new to the affected businesses
because the equipment subject to the proposed new rule is already regulated in a
similar manner through permit conditions in the air quality permits.
A cost benefit analysis of the following:
(a) The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies
directly affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed
rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(3)(a)).
This rulemaking should not impose any new costs on the MCAQD or on any other
agencies affected by the proposed rulemaking.
(b) The probable costs and benefits to a political subdivision of this state directly
affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rulemaking
(A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(3)(b)).
This rulemaking should not impose any new costs on political subdivisions of this
state affected by the proposed rulemaking.
(c) The probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the proposed
rulemaking, including any anticipated effect on the revenues or payroll
expenditures of employers who are subject to the proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. §
41-1055(B)(3)(c)).
Probable Costs: MCAQD does not anticipate the sources directly affected by the
proposed rulemaking to incur significant costs to comply with the proposed rule.
The equipment subject to the proposed rule will continue to operate and be
maintained in a similar manner as it is currently being operated and maintained
under the applicable air quality permits.
Probable Benefits: The main benefit of creating the proposed rule for incorporation
into the Arizona SIP is to comply with Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA and
thereby avoid sanctions and the imposition of a FIP. This includes avoiding offset
sanctions which, if imposed, would increase the current offset ratio in Maricopa
County of emission reductions to increased emissions from 1.15 to 1 to at least 2 to
1.
A general description of the probable impact on private and public employment in
businesses, agencies and political subdivisions of this state directly affected by the
proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(4)).
This rulemaking should have no impact on private or public employment in businesses,
agencies, and political subdivisions of this state.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
12 of 95

A statement of the probable impact of the proposed rulemaking on small businesses.
The statement shall include:
(a) An identification of the small businesses subject to the proposed rulemaking
(A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(5)(a)).
There are no small businesses subject to this new rulemaking.
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the proposed
rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(5)(b)).
There are no small businesses subject to this new rulemaking.
(c) A description of the methods that the agency may use to reduce the impact on
small businesses (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(5)(c)).
i. Establish less stringent compliance or reporting requirements in the rule for
small businesses (A.R.S. § 41-1035(1)).
There are no small businesses subject to this new rulemaking.
ii. Establish less stringent schedules or deadlines in the rule for compliance or
reporting requirements for small businesses (A.R.S. § 41-1035(2)).
There are no small businesses subject to this new rulemaking.
iii. Consolidate or simplify the rule's compliance or reporting requirements for
small businesses (A.R.S. § 41-1035(3)).
There are no small businesses subject to this new rulemaking.
iv. Establish performance standards for small businesses to replace design or
operational standards in the rule (A.R.S. § 41-1035(4)).
There are no small businesses subject to this new rulemaking.
v. Exempt small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule (A.R.S. § 41-
1035(5)).
In the event that a small business becomes subject to this proposed rule, the rule
contains an exemption from having to meet the numerical VOC and NOx RACT
emission limits as long as the business meets the conditions outlined in Section
103.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly
affected by the proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(5)(d)).
This new rulemaking should not result in any significant costs for private persons
and consumers.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
13 of 95

A statement of the probable effect on state revenues (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(6)).
The rulemaking will not impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on other state
agencies, political subdivisions of this state, persons, or individuals so regulated.
Without costs to pass through to customers, there is no projected change in consumer
purchase patterns and, thus, no impact on state revenues from sales taxes.
A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the
purpose of the proposed rulemaking, including the monetizing of the costs and
benefits for each option and providing the rationale for not using nonselected
alternatives (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(7)).
MCAQD is not aware of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of
achieving the purpose of this new rulemaking. In the case of a non-CTG major source of
VOC or NOx, there are two options to comply with Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the
CAA:
1. Create a rule that establishes RACT requirements and incorporate the rule into the
Arizona SIP.
2. Incorporate source-specific permit conditions which implement RACT requirements
into the Arizona SIP.
The latter is more intrusive and is potentially more costly to the employer long term.
Option 2 entails submitting a revision to the Arizona SIP any time a revision is made to
the permit that affects the emissions of VOCs or NOx from steelmaking sources
regulated by proposed Rule 326. The process for EPA to approve a revision into the SIP
can take up to 18 months, and in some cases, even longer.
A description of any data on which a rule is based with a detailed explanation of how
the data was obtained and why the data is acceptable data (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(8)).
See Section 5 items (a), (b), and (c) for a description and links from where the data was
obtained.
7.
The proposed effective date of the rule (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(7)):
The proposed effective date of this rulemaking is September 25, 2024.
8.
Such other matters as are prescribed by statute and that are applicable to the county
or to any specific rule or class of rules (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(8)):
Under A.R.S. § 49-479(C), a county may not adopt a rule or ordinance that is more
stringent than the rules adopted by the Director of the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for similar sources unless it demonstrates compliance
with the applicable requirements of A.R.S. §49-112.
§ 49-112 County regulation; standards
§ 49-112(A)
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
14 of 95

When authorized by law, a county may adopt a rule, ordinance or regulation that is more
stringent than or in addition to a provision of this title or rule adopted by the director or
any board or commission authorized to adopt rules pursuant to this title if all of the
following requirements are met:
1. The rule, ordinance or regulation is necessary to address a peculiar local condition.
2. There is credible evidence that the rule, ordinance or regulation is either;
(a) Necessary to prevent a significant threat to public health or the environment that
results from a peculiar local condition and is technically and economically
feasible.
(b) Required under a federal statute or regulation, or authorized pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement with the federal government to enforce federal
statutes or regulations if the county rule, ordinance or regulation is equivalent to
federal statutes or regulation.
3. Any fee or tax adopted under the rule, ordinance or regulation does not exceed the
reasonable costs of the county to issue and administer the permit or plan approval
program.
§ 49-112(B)
When authorized by law, a county may adopt rules, ordinances or regulations in lieu of a
state program that are as stringent as a provision of this title or rule adopted by the
director or any board or commission authorized to adopt rules pursuant to this title if
the county demonstrates that the cost of obtaining permits or other approvals from the
county will approximately equal or be less than the fee or cost of obtaining similar
permits or approvals under this title or any rule adopted pursuant to this title. If the state
has not adopted a fee or tax for similar permits or approvals, the county may adopt a
fee when authorized by law in the rule, ordinance or regulation that does not exceed the
reasonable costs of the county to issue and administer that permit or plan approval
program.
MCAQD affirms that this rulemaking is in compliance with A.R.S. § 49-112(A) and (B).
Rule 326 is a rule creation and there is no previous version of the rule. This new
rulemaking is considered to be in addition to provisions of A.R.S. Title 49 or rules
adopted by the Director of ADEQ or any Board or Commission authorized to adopt rules
pursuant to A.R.S. Title 49.
In accordance with A.R.S. §§ 49-112(A) and (B), MCAQD is authorized to adopt Rule 326
because the following requirements have been met:
1. Rule 326 is necessary to address a peculiar local condition, in that Maricopa County
fails to meet the 2015 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. (§ 49-112(A)(1))
2. The adoption of Rule 326 is required by federal law (Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of
the Clean Air Act) to address RACT for all non-CTG major sources of VOC and NOx
which includes steelmaking operations that utilize electric arc furnaces. (§ 49-
112(A)(2)(b))
3. There is no new fee or tax associated with this proposed rulemaking. (A.R.S. § 49-
112 (A)(3) and A.R.S § 49-112 (B))
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
15 of 95

9.
List of all previous notices posted to the Maricopa County EROP website addressing
the proposed rule and a concise explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. §
49-471.07(B):
(a) List of all previous notices posted to the Maricopa County EROP website
addressing the proposed rule:
Notice
Date of Posting
Briefing Notification to County Manager:
March 9, 2023
Notice of First Stakeholder Workshop:
March 21, 2023
Notice of First Board of Health Meeting:
April 10, 2023
Notice of Second Stakeholder Workshop:
February 6, 2024
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
June 5, 2024
Notice of Second Board of Health Meeting:
July 8, 2024
(b) The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for a concise
explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 49-471.07(B):
i.
A description of any change between the proposed rule or ordinance, the final
rule or ordinance or notice of final supplemental rule or ordinance.
The following changes were made after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
was published on June 5, 2024.
1. Reworded § 501.2 to improve clarity of rule language. This section now reads:
“Records shall be made available to the Control Officer no later than five
business days upon verbal or written request.”
2. Added the phrase “using the County’s public records request process” to §
501.3. This section now reads:
“Records shall be made available to the Control Officer upon request by
members of the public using the County’s public records request process.”
ii. A summary of the comments and arguments for and against the notice and the
county’s response to the comments and arguments.
The following discussion includes responses to comments received on the rule
or the preamble in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. MCAQD received five
versions of draft Rule 326 with proposed revisions from one stakeholder. All of
the proposed revisions were reviewed and evaluated by MCAQD.
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
16 of 95

Version #1: Comments 1.1 through 1.29 were submitted via email and
received on July 6, 2023, in an attached strikethrough underline version of Rule
326. See Version #1 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter.
Response #1: Below is a response to the comments in Version #1 of draft Rule
326 provided by the commenter. The comments are numbered in the right-hand
margin of the commenter’s submittal and the corresponding response is listed
below.
1.1
MCAQD revised the rule language as suggested. The applicability for
combustion units reads as follows:
“Each combustion unit with a rated heat input greater than 10 million
(MM) British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr) used in steelmaking
operations.”
This threshold is also used in other SIP-approved Maricopa County Air
Pollution Control Rules.
1.2
MCAQD removed the language: “Each dryer, preheater, and furnace used in
steelmaking operations” and replaced it with the language in Response
1.1.
MCAQD removed the language: “Binder usage associated with ladle and
tundish refractory repair.” Binder usage is not regulated under the
proposed rule. VOC emissions from binder used in maintenance activities
are minimal and regulated as site-speciﬁc permit conditions developed
pursuant to Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions) and Rule 220 (Non-Title V
Permit Provisions). Binder usage used in casting operations at foundries is
already regulated under other SIP-approved rules such as Rule 341 (Metal
Investment Casting) and Rule 347 (Ferrous Sand Casting).
1.3
MCAQD removed the deﬁnition of “Binder” as suggested.
1.4
Capture system requirements were not removed as suggested, therefore,
the deﬁnition of “Capture System” was not removed. For more details, see
Response 1.15.
1.5
MCAQD removed the deﬁnition of “charge” as suggested.
1.6
Capture system requirements were not removed as suggested; therefore,
the deﬁnition of “Direct Evacuation Control (DEC) System” was not
removed. For more details, see Response 1.15.
1.7
MCAQD revised the rule language as suggested. The deﬁnition of “Ladle
Metallurgy Station” reads as follows:
“An area for intermediate steel processing where the chemistry and
temperature of molten steel is further reﬁned while it is still in the ladle (a
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
17 of 95

refractory lined vessel) that is used for transporting molten metal from
process to process. The ladle metallurgy step comes after the steel is
melted and reﬁned in the EAF, but before the steel is sent to the
continuous caster or poured into molds.”
1.8
Capture system requirements were not removed as suggested; therefore,
the deﬁnition of “Meltshop” was not removed. For more details, see
Response 1.15.
1.9
MCAQD removed the deﬁnition of “Oxygen-fuel Burners” as suggested.
This is a common industry term and does not need deﬁning. The
requirement in § 302.2 identiﬁes the purpose of the burners and is
suﬃcient.
1.10
The definition of “Steelmaking Operations” was added and was derived
from the definition of “electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking facility” from
NESHAP Subpart YYYYY and reads as follows:
“Operations that produce carbon, alloy, specialty steels, or steel castings
by melting scrap metal using an EAF or LMS or both.”
1.11
MCAQD removed the deﬁnition of “Tundish” as suggested.
1.12
MCAQD considered the comment and determined the appropriate
language for demonstrating good work practices for the EAF and LMS as
follows:
“An owner or operator of an EAF listed in § 102.1 or LMS listed in §102.2
that conducts performance testing under § 502.1.a or § 502.2.a to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits in § 301.1 or
§ 301.2 shall install, operate, and maintain the equipment in good working
order. Good work practices shall be demonstrated by:
a. Following recommendations provided by the manufacturer’s written
instructions; or
b. Following written procedures developed by the owner or operator
based on good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
The terms “written” and “for minimizing emissions” were added to the
suggested language from the commenter. These additions were
derived from a NESHAP operation and maintenance requirement in 40
CFR § 63.6(e), “Compliance with Standards and Maintenance
Requirements.”
1.13
The term “Administrator” refers to the Environmental Protection Agency
and cannot be replaced by the term “Control Officer” which refers to the
MCAQD. If the owner or operator of a steelmaking source listed in § 102.1
wants to use alternative technology other than oxygen-fuel burners or
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
18 of 95

oxygen-fuel injectors to reduce NOx emissions in a new EAF, final approval
from EPA would need to be obtained once Rule 326 is incorporated into
the Arizona SIP.
1.14
See Response 1.12.
1.15
Section 305 “Preheaters, Dryers, and Furnaces” was renumbered and
retitled as § 303 “Good Combustion Practices for Combustion Units.”
This revision ensures consistency with § 102.3 under “Applicability”.
Section 306 “Capture System” was not removed as suggested because a
properly operating capture system is essential to collecting representative
data for monitoring and demonstrating compliance with the numerical
NOx and VOC RACT emission limits.
1.16
A provision for a fuel usage limitation was included but remains a part of
demonstrating good combustion practices. The fuel limitation only applies
to combustion units with a heat input capacity greater than 10 MMBtus/hr,
therefore keeping this fuel limitation under § 303 “Good Combustion
Practices for Combustion Units” provides clarity and consistency.
1.17 MCAQD considered this comment regarding good combustion practices
and the provision was revised as follows:
“An owner or operator of a combustion unit listed in § 102.3 shall install,
operate, and maintain the equipment in good working order by:
a. Following recommendations provided by the manufacturer’s written
instructions; or
b. Following written procedures developed by the owner or operator
based on good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions
1.18
MCAQD agrees that alternative fuels such as hydrogen and propane will
be more frequently used for combustion purposes. The fuel limitation in §
303.2 was revised as follows:
“…only gaseous fuel such as natural gas, butane, propane, hydrogen, or
other fuels that when burned result in equivalent or lower NOx emissions
than the gaseous fuels listed in this section.”
1.19
See Response 1.17.
1.20
MCAQD incorporated the following federal citations for the Scrap
Management Plan to replace the list of minimum plan requirements:
•
40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYYY (Rule 370 § 302.123 Subpart YYYYY)
•
40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZZ (Rule 370 § 302.124 Subpart ZZZZZ)
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
19 of 95

1.21
Section 309 “Operation and Maintenance Plan for Capture System” was
not removed from Rule 326 as suggested. For more details, see Response
1.15.
Section 310 “Binder Usage” was removed. Binder usage used in casting
operations at foundries is already regulated under other SIP-approved
rules such as Rule 341 (Metal Investment Casting) and Rule 347 (Ferrous
Sand Casting). For more details, see response 1.2.
1.22
The phrase “without delay” was removed and replaced with “no later than
five business days.”
1.23
MCAQD revised the rule language as follows:
“Fuel Records: Monthly records showing the type of fuel combusted in any
equipment listed in § 102.3”
1.24
The types of records required for “Good Operation and Maintenance
Practices” listed in § 501.5.e. was revised as follows:
“(1)
Manufacturer’s written operation and maintenance instructions
and/or written procedures developed by the owner or operator
based on good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions as specified in § 302.1 and § 303.1.
(2)
Capture System O&M Plan records as specified below:
(a) A copy of the facility’s most recently approved O&M Plan;
(b) A schematic drawing of the capture system;
(c) Operating parameters that are indicators of capture system
performance;
(d) Results of routine inspections; and
(e) Corrective actions and maintenance activities.”
The terms “written” and “for minimizing emissions” were added by
MCAQD to the suggested language. This revision was derived from a
NESHAP operation and maintenance requirement in 40 CFR § 63.6(e),
“Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements.”
1.25
MCAQD considered the comment and revised the language for records
required for “Good Combustion Practices” as follows:
“For any equipment listed in § 102.3, manufacturer’s written combustion
practices and/or written procedures developed by the owner or operator
based on good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.”
1.26
MCAQD removed the provision for “binder usage” as suggested. See
Responses 1.2 and 1.21 for more details.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
20 of 95

1.27
As suggested, the records retention provisions were moved to § 501
(Recordkeeping and Reporting). The language reads as follows:
“501 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING: Any owner or operator subject
to this rule shall comply with the following recordkeeping
requirements:
501.1 Records shall be retained for a period of five years.”
1.28
MCAQD considered the comment and determined that there will be no
changes to § 504 “Compliance Determinations – Test Methods
Incorporated by Reference” regarding EPA Reference Methods 3 and 4.
EPA Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 are necessary to determine exhaust
dry standard cubic foot. These test methods are standard in rules that
require stack testing.
1.29
MCAQD considered the comment and determined that there will be no
changes to § 504 “Compliance Determinations – Test Methods
Incorporated by Reference” regarding EPA Reference Method 25A.
Methane and ethane may be measured independently and subtracted out
if the owner or operator chooses to do so. The measurement of these non-
reactive photo chemicals is available as an option, not a requirement.
Version #2: Comments 2.1 through 2.22 were submitted via email and received
on September 11, 2023, in an attached strikethrough underline version of Rule
326. See Version #2 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter.
Response #2: Below is a response to the comments in Version #2 of draft Rule
326 provided by the commenter. The comments are numbered in the right-hand
margin of the commenter’s submittal and the corresponding response is listed
below.
2.1
MCAQD revised the rule language for the applicability statement as
suggested.
2.2
MCAQD added the deﬁnition of “Canopy Hood” as suggested.
2.3
MCAQD revised the rule language for the deﬁnition of “Combustion Unit”
as suggested.
2.4
MCAQD added the deﬁnition of “Fuel” as suggested.
2.5
MCAQD considered the comment and revised the deﬁnition of “Meltshop”
to read as follows:
“A building or structure which houses the EAF, LMS, and combustion units
associated with steelmaking operations.”
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
21 of 95

2.6
MCAQD revised the rule language for the deﬁnition of “Operating Day” as
suggested.
2.7
MCAQD added the deﬁnition of “Steelmaking Operations” as suggested.
2.8
MCAQD added the deﬁnition of “Steelmaking Source” as suggested.
2.9
MCAQD considered the comment and determined that “using a 30-
operating day rolling average” is more appropriately located in § 502.1.b.
because it is only applicable when using CERMS data to comply with the
VOC RACT emission limit.
2.10
MCAQD considered the comment and determined that “using a 30-
operating day rolling average” is more appropriately located in § 502.2.b.
because it is only applicable when using CERMS data to comply with the
NOx RACT emission limit.
2.11
See Response 1.12.
2.12
See Response 1.12.
2.13
See Responses 1.17 and 1.18
2.14
MCAQD considered the comment and revised the rule language for the
scrap management plan as follows:
“For EAF steelmaking facilities, the scrap management plan developed for
the control of contaminants from scrap metal per NESHAP 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart YYYYY (Rule 370 § 302.123 Subpart YYYYY) shall satisfy this
requirement.”
2.15
MCAQD considered the comment and revised the rule language for the
O&M Plan requirements for the capture system as follows:
“The O&M Plan shall include:
a. A schematic drawing of the capture system that identiﬁes the
components of the capture system.
b. Operating parameters that are indicators of capture system
performance.
c. A schedule for routine inspections of the capture system. Inspections
shall include observations of the physical appearance of the
components such as the presence of holes in the ductwork or hoods,
ﬂow constrictions caused by dents, accumulated dust in the ductwork,
and fan erosion.”
2.16
MCAQD considered the comment and revised the rule language as
follows:
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
22 of 95

“The owner or operator shall submit the O&M Plan to the Control Oﬃcer
for approval. The O&M Plan shall incorporate the manufacturer’s written
instructions and/or written procedures developed by the owner or operator
based on good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.”
2.17
See Response 1.22.
2.18
MCAQD considered the comment regarding recordkeeping for
performance testing and revised the language as follows:
“Performance Testing: A ﬁle of applicable performance test reports,
testing measurements, performance evaluations, certiﬁcations,
calibrations, maintenance, and adjustments (including completed
maintenance checklists).”
2.19
See Response 1.24.
2.20
MCAQD added the term “operating” as suggested.
2.21
MCAQD considered the suggestion regarding compliance determinations
using CO CERMS and revised the rule language as follows:
“For equipment that uses CO CERMS as a surrogate to determine VOC
emissions, the owner or operator shall use the CO CERMS data using a 30-
operating day rolling average and a correlation factor based on the ratio of
mass VOC emissions and mass CO emissions as determined by the
average of such ratios determined from the six most recent semi-annual
performance tests.”
2.22
MCAQD added the term “operating” as suggested.
Version #3: Comments 3.1 through 3.20 were submitted via email received on
September 29, 2023, in an attached strikethrough underline version of Rule 326.
Many of the comments in Version #3 were the same comments as in Versions
#1 and #2. See Version #3 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter.
Response #3: Below is a response to the comments in Version #3 of draft Rule
326 provided by the commenter. The comments are numbered in the right-hand
margin of the commenter’s submittal and the corresponding response is listed
below.
3.1
MCAQD considered the comment and determined the term “electric arc
furnace” should not be removed from the title because this rule is only
applicable to steelmaking operations that utilize an EAF. If an owner or
operator conducts steelmaking operations using an electric induction
furnace, for example, the facility would not be subject to this rule.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
23 of 95

3.2
MCAQD considered the comment and although the proposed rule's
requirements are not limited to just EAFs, the phrase “using electric arc
furnaces” will remain in the “Purpose” statement for clarity.
3.3
See Response 2.2.
3.4
See Response 2.3.
3.5
See Response 2.4.
3.6
See Response 2.5.
3.7
See Response 2.6.
3.8
See Response 2.7.
3.9
See Response 2.8.
3.10
See Response 1.12.
3.11
See Response 1.12.
3.12
See Response 1.17.
3.13
See Response 1.18.
3.14
See Response 1.20.
3.15
See Response 2.15.
3.16
See Response 1.22.
3.17
See Response 2.18.
3.18
See Response 1.24.
3.19
MCAQD considered the comment and removed the alternative method
provision and replaced it with § 502.1.c which allows CO CERMS data to
be used as an alternative method for determining compliance with the
VOC emission limit.
3.20
See Response 2.21.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
24 of 95

Version #4: Comments 4.1 through 4.13 were submitted via email received
on May 3, 2024, in an attached strikethrough underline version of Rule 326.
See Version #4 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter.
Response #4: Below is a response to the comments in Version #4 of draft Rule
326 provided by the commenter. The comments are numbered in the right-hand
margin of the commenter’s submittal and the corresponding response is listed
below.
4.1
MCAQD considered the suggested language and added “any equipment
listed in § 102.1 and § 102.2” (which refers to each EAF and LMS,
respectively) to Section 301.1.a for clariﬁcation purposes.
However, the reference to “§ 102.3” (which refers to combustion units with
a maximum design rated heat input capacity greater than 10 MMBtu/hr)
will not be added to Section 301.1.b. as suggested. Combustion units in §
102.3 are not subject to the numerical VOC RACT emission limit in §
301.1.a.
4.2
MCAQD considered the suggested language and added “any equipment
listed in § 102.1 and § 102.2” (which refers to each EAF and LMS,
respectively) to Section 301.2.a for clariﬁcation purposes.
However, the reference to “§ 102.3” will not be added to Section 301.2.b.
as suggested. Combustion units in § 102.3 are not subject to the
numerical NOx RACT emission limit in § 301.2.a.
4.3
MCAQD revised § 302 so that the requirement to demonstrate good work
practices only applies to steelmaking operations that conduct
performance testing in lieu of a CERMS. The rule language reads as
follows:
“An owner or operator of an EAF listed in § 102.1 or LMS listed in §102.2
that conducts performance testing under § 502.1.a or § 502.2.a to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits in § 301.1 or
§ 301.2 shall install, operate, and maintain the equipment in good working
order. Good work practices shall be demonstrated by:
a. Following recommendations provided by the manufacturer’s written
instructions; or
b. Following written procedures developed by the owner or operator
based on good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions.”
Good work practices for facilities with CERMS are demonstrated through
continuous compliance with the RACT emission limits in § 301 and
maintaining the CERMS in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
25 of 95

(Performance Speciﬁcations) and Appendix F (Quality Assurance
Procedures) in § 503.
4.4
See Response 4.3.
4.5
MCAQD considered the suggestion regarding good work practices for
reducing NOx emissions from new EAFs and revised the rule language as
follows:
“An owner or operator of an EAF listed in § 102.1 shall install oxygen-fuel
burners, oxygen-fuel injectors, or similar technologies approved by the
Administrator to reduce NOx emissions on any EAF that commences initial
operation after [rule adoption date].”
4.6
MCAQD considered the suggested language for good combustion
practices for combustion units and has revised the rule as follows:
“An owner or operator of a combustion unit listed in § 102.3 shall install,
operate, and maintain the equipment in good working order by:
a. Following recommendations provided by the manufacturer’s written
instructions; or
b. Following written procedures developed by the owner or operator
based on good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions.”
4.7
MCAQD considered the suggested language for the Operation and
Maintenance Plan for the Capture System and has revised the rule
language as follows:
“The O&M Plan shall incorporate the manufacturer’s written instructions
and/or written procedures developed by the owner or operator based on
good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.”
4.8
MCAQD considered the comment to remove the CERMS recordkeeping
requirement to record any corrective actions in the event of an emission
exceedance. The recordkeeping requirement corresponds to § 503 which
describes what constitutes an emission exceedance. MCAQD will
maintain this requirement but will remove the term “any” so that the types
of records for CERMS consists of the following information:
“All CERMS measurements, corrective actions taken in the event of an
emission exceedance as deﬁned in § 503, results of CERMS performance
evaluations, CERMS calibration checks, and adjustments and maintenance
performed on these systems.
4.9
See Response 1.24.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
26 of 95

4.10
MCAQD considered the comment for recordkeeping requirements for
good combustion practices and has revised the types of records for
combustion units to consist of the following information:
“For any equipment listed in § 102.3, manufacturer’s written combustion
practices and/or written procedures developed by the owner or operator
based on good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.”
4.11
MCAQD considered the suggested language for § 502.1 and added “any
equipment listed in § 102.1 and § 102.2” (which refers to each EAF and
LMS, respectively) for clariﬁcation purposes.
However, the reference to “§ 102.3” (which refers to combustion units with
a maximum design rated heat input capacity greater than 10 MMBtu/hr)
will not be added to Section 301.1.b. as suggested. Combustion units in §
102.3 are not subject to the numerical VOC RACT emission limit in §
301.1.a.
4.12
MCAQD considered the suggested language for § 502.2 and added “any
equipment listed in § 102.1 and § 102.2” (which refers to each EAF and
LMS, respectively) for clariﬁcation purposes.
However, the reference to “§ 102.3” will not be added to Section 301.2.b.
as suggested. Combustion units in § 102.3 are not subject to the
numerical NOx RACT emission limit in § 301.2.a
4.13
MCAQD considered the suggestion regarding compliance determinations
using CERMS and revised the rule language in § 503.1 as follows:
“An owner or operator using a CERMS to demonstrate compliance with
applicable emission limits in § 301 shall install, operate, calibrate,
maintain, and test the CERMS in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix B (Performance Speciﬁcations) and Appendix F (Quality
Assurance Procedures).”
Version #5: Comments 5.1 through 5.12 were submitted via email received on
May 3, 2024, in an attached strikethrough underline version of Rule 326. Many
of the comments in Version #5 were the same as the comments in Version #4.
See Version #5 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter.
Response #5: Below is a response to the comments in Version #5 of draft Rule
326 provided by the commenter. The comments are numbered in the right-hand
margin of the commenter’s submittal and the corresponding response is listed
below.
5.1
See Response 4.1.
5.2
See Response 4.2.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
27 of 95

5.3
See Response 4.3.
5.4
See Response 4.5.
5.5
See Response 4.6.
5.6
See Response 4.7.
5.7
See Response 4.8.
5.8
See Response 1.24.
5.9
See Response 4.10.
5.10
See Response 4.11.
5.11
See Response 4.12.
5.12
See Response 4.13.
Exact Wording of the Rule
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 326 (STEELMAKING OPERATIONS: ELECTRIC ARC
FURNACES)
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
103
PARTIAL EXEMPTION
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201
CANOPY HOOD
202
CAPTURE SYSTEM
203
COMBUSTION UNIT
204
DIRECT EVACUATION CONTROL (DEC) SYSTEM
205
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE (EAF)
206
FUEL
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
28 of 95

207
LADLE METALLURGY STATION (LMS)
208
MELTSHOP
209
OPERATING DAY
210
SCRAP METAL
211
STEEL FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
212
STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
213
STEELMAKING SOURCE
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
LIMITATIONS
302
GOOD WORK PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES AND LADLE
METALLURGY STATIONS
303
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES FOR COMBUSTION UNITS
304
SCRAP MANAGEMENT PLAN
305
CAPTURE SYSTEM
306
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN FOR CAPTURE SYSTEM
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE - INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
501
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
502
COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS
503
CONTINUOUS EMISSION RATE MONITORING SYSTEM (CERMS)
504
COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS – TEST METHODS INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
29 of 95

MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 326 (STEELMAKING OPERATIONS: ELECTRIC ARC
FURNACES)
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the discharge of volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen
oxide (NOx) emissions into the atmosphere from steelmaking operations using electric
arc furnaces (EAF).
102
APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to the following equipment and operations at a
steelmaking source:
102.1 Each EAF used to melt scrap metal to produce molten steel.
102.2 Each Ladle Metallurgy Station (LMS) used to maintain the steel’s molten state
and to further refine by adding raw materials into the steel.
102.3 Each combustion unit with a maximum design rated heat input capacity greater
than 10 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) used in steelmaking
operations.
102.4 NSPS & NESHAP: In addition to this rule, facilities may be subject to New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) in Rule 360 and/or National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in Rule 370 of the Maricopa County Air
Pollution Control Regulations.
103
PARTIAL EXEMPTION:
103.1 VOC Limitations: Section 301.1 of this rule does not apply to an owner or
operator of a steelmaking operation if:
a. Total VOC emissions from steelmaking operations are less than 25 tons per
year as determined on a 12-month rolling average, and
b. The steelmaking operation is not considered a major source for VOCs.
Any steelmaking operation that becomes subject to the VOC limitation in § 301.1
by exceeding the 25 ton per year threshold or becomes a major source for VOCs
shall comply with the compliance schedule provisions in § 401.
103.2 NOx Limitations: Section 301.2 of this rule does not apply to an owner or
operator of a steelmaking operation if:
a. Total NOx emissions from steelmaking operations are less than 25 tons per
year as determined on a 12-month rolling average, and
b. The steelmaking operation is not considered a major source for NOx.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
30 of 95

Any steelmaking operation that becomes subject to the NOx limitation in § 301.2
by exceeding the 25 ton per year threshold or becomes a major source for NOx
shall comply with the compliance schedule provisions in § 401.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions
shall apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General Provisions and
Definitions) of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations. In the event of any
inconsistency between any of the rules within the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Regulations, the definitions in this rule take precedence.
201
CANOPY HOOD: A section of a capture system that is positioned high above the EAF in
the meltshop.
202
CAPTURE SYSTEM: The equipment (including ducts, hoods, fans, dampers) used to
capture or transport emissions generated by any of the equipment or operations listed
in § 102 to air pollution control equipment.
203
COMBUSTION UNIT: Any type of stationary equipment in which fuels are burned for the
purpose of producing heat for steelmaking operations. Stationary equipment includes,
but is not limited to, dryers, heaters, and furnaces.
204
DIRECT EVACUATION CONTROL (DEC) SYSTEM: A system that maintains a negative
pressure within the EAF above the slag or metal and ducts emissions to the control
device.
205
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE (EAF): A furnace that produces molten steel through electric
power from carbon electrodes. An electric arc furnace consists of the furnace shell,
roof, and the transformer.
206
FUEL: Any material that is used to produce heat or power by burning. For purposes of
this rule, a fuel does not include carbon and other process materials, which may have
fuel value, but are fed to an EAF as raw materials.
207
LADLE METALLURGY STATION (LMS): An area for intermediate steel processing where
the chemistry and temperature of molten steel is further refined while it is still in the
ladle (a refractory lined vessel) that is used for transporting molten metal from process
to process. The ladle metallurgy step comes after the steel is melted and refined in the
EAF, but before the steel is sent to the continuous caster or poured into molds.
208
MELTSHOP: A building or structure which houses the EAF, LMS, and combustion units
associated with steelmaking operations.
209
OPERATING DAY: A 24-hour period between 0000 and 2359 during which any EAF or
LMS is in operation and producing steel.
210
SCRAP METAL: Metal that is capable of being recycled.
211
STEEL FOUNDRY OPERATIONS: All process equipment and practices used to produce
metal castings for shipment. Foundry operations include mold or core making and
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
31 of 95

coating; scrap handling and preheating; metal melting and inoculation; pouring, cooling,
and shakeout; shotblasting, grinding, and other metal finishing operations; and sand
handling.
212
STEELMAKING OPERATIONS: Operations that produce carbon, alloy, specialty steels,
or steel castings by melting scrap metal using an EAF or LMS or both.
213
STEELMAKING SOURCE: A source that conducts steelmaking operations.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
LIMITATIONS
301.1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS:
a. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Emission Limit: An owner
or operator of any equipment listed in § 102.1 and § 102.2 shall not cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere volatile organic compounds in excess of
0.77 pounds of VOC per ton of steel from steelmaking operations.
b. Case-by-Case RACT Requirements: Nothing in this rule shall prevent the
owner or operator of any equipment listed in § 102.1 and § 102.2 from
requesting alternative RACT requirements on a case-by-case basis. An owner
or operator shall be exempt from § 301.1.a if the owner or operator fully
complies with alternative RACT requirements that are approved by the Control
Officer and the Administrator, incorporated into an Air Pollution Control
Permit, and approved into the Arizona State Implementation Plan.
301.2 NITROGEN OXIDES:
a. RACT Emission Limit: An owner or operator of any equipment listed in §
102.1 and § 102.2 shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
nitrogen oxide in excess of 0.54 pounds of NOx per ton of steel from
steelmaking operations.
b. Case-by-Case RACT Requirements: Nothing in this rule shall prevent the
owner or operator of any equipment listed in § 102.1 and § 102.2 from
requesting alternative RACT requirements on a case-by-case basis. An owner
or operator shall be exempt from § 301.2.a if the owner or operator fully
complies with alternative RACT requirements that are approved by the Control
Officer and the Administrator, incorporated into an Air Pollution Control
Permit, and approved into the Arizona State Implementation Plan.
302
GOOD WORK PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES AND LADLE METALLURGY
STATIONS:
302.1 An owner or operator of an EAF listed in § 102.1 or LMS listed in §102.2 that
conducts performance testing under § 502.1.a or § 502.2.a to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emission limits in § 301.1 or § 301.2 shall install,
operate, and maintain the equipment in good working order. Good work practices
shall be demonstrated by:
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
32 of 95

a. Following recommendations provided by the manufacturer’s written
instructions; or
b. Following written procedures developed by the owner or operator based on
good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
302.2 EAF: An owner or operator of an EAF listed in § 102.1 shall install oxygen-fuel
burners, oxygen-fuel injectors, or similar technologies approved by the
Administrator to reduce NOx emissions on any EAF that commences initial
operation after [rule adoption date].
303
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES FOR COMBUSTION UNITS:
303.1 An owner or operator of a combustion unit listed in § 102.3 shall install, operate,
and maintain the equipment in good working order by:
a. Following recommendations provided by the manufacturer’s written
instructions; or
b. Following written procedures developed by the owner or operator based on
good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
303.2 Fuel Limitation: An owner or operator of any equipment listed in § 102.3 shall
combust only gaseous fuel such as natural gas, butane, propane, hydrogen, or
other fuels that when burned result in equivalent or lower NOx emissions than the
gaseous fuels listed in this section.
304
SCRAP MANAGEMENT PLAN: An owner or operator of any EAF listed in § 102.1 shall
implement a scrap management plan for limiting the amount of VOC containing
material that may be introduced when processing scrap metal.
304.1 For EAF steelmaking facilities, the scrap management plan developed for the
control of contaminants from scrap metal per NESHAP 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
YYYYY (Rule 370 § 302.123 Subpart YYYYY) shall satisfy this requirement.
304.2 For steel foundries, the scrap management plan developed for the control of
contaminants from scrap metal per NESHAP 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZZ
(Rule 370 § 302.124 Subpart ZZZZZ) shall satisfy this requirement.
304.3 The owner or operator shall keep a copy of the plan onsite and shall provide
training on plan requirements to all plant personnel with materials acquisition or
inspection duties upon initial hire and upon any changes to the plan.
305
CAPTURE SYSTEM: An owner or operator of any equipment listed in § 102 shall install,
operate, and maintain a capture system including, but not limited to, a DEC system or
meltshop canopy hood in accordance the facility’s most recently approved O&M Plan.
306
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN FOR CAPTURE SYSTEM: An owner or
operator shall provide and maintain an O&M Plan for any capture system used pursuant
to this rule.
306.1 The owner or operator shall submit the O&M Plan to the Control Officer for
approval. The O&M Plan shall incorporate the manufacturer’s written instructions
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
33 of 95

and/or written procedures developed by the owner or operator based on good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
306.2 The O&M Plan shall include:
a. A schematic drawing of the capture system that identifies the components of
the capture system.
b. Operating parameters that are indicators of capture system performance.
c. A schedule for routine inspections of the capture system. Inspections shall
include observations of the physical appearance of the components such as
the presence of holes in the ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused by
dents, accumulated dust in the ductwork, and fan erosion.
306.3 The owner or operator shall comply with all identified actions and schedules
provided in the O&M Plan.
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE - INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS: An owner or operator of a
steelmaking operation who exceeds the 25 ton per year threshold or becomes a major
source of VOCs or NOx and becomes subject to the RACT emission limits in § 301.1 or
§ 301.2 shall comply with the following increments of progress:
401.1 Within six months of becoming subject to the emission limits in § 301.1 or § 301.2,
submit a compliance schedule and permit application to the Control Officer.
401.2 Within 12 months of final permit issuance, be fully compliant with the emission
limits in § 301.1 or § 301.2 and submit to the Control Officer a complete source
test report indicating compliance.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
501
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING: Any owner or operator subject to this rule shall
comply with the following recordkeeping requirements:
501.1 Records shall be retained for a period of five years.
501.2 Records shall be made available to the Control Officer no later than five business
days upon verbal or written request.
501.3 Records shall be made available to the Control Officer upon request by members
of the public using the County’s public records request process.
501.4 Records shall be kept on site at all times in a consistent and complete manner.
501.5 Records shall consist of the following information:
a. Steel Production: Monthly steel production as measured by the quantity of
steel tapped from each EAF on a 12-month rolling total.
b. Fuel Records: Monthly records showing the type of fuel combusted in any
equipment listed in § 102.3.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
34 of 95

c. Performance Testing: A file of applicable performance test reports, testing
measurements, performance evaluations, certifications, calibrations,
maintenance, and adjustments (including completed maintenance
checklists).
d. Continuous Emission Rate Monitoring Systems (CERMS): All CERMS
measurements, corrective actions taken in the event of an emission
exceedance as defined in § 503, results of CERMS performance evaluations,
CERMS calibration checks, and adjustments and maintenance performed on
these systems.
e. Good Operation and Maintenance Practices:
(1) Manufacturer’s written operation and maintenance instructions and/or
written procedures developed by the owner or operator based good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions as specified in §
302.1 and § 303.1.
(2) Capture System O&M Plan records as specified below:
(a) A copy of the facility’s most recently approved O&M Plan;
(b) A schematic drawing of the capture system;
(c) Operating parameters that are indicators of capture system
performance;
(d) Results of routine inspections; and
(e) Corrective actions and maintenance activities.
f. Good Combustion Practices: For any equipment listed in § 102.3,
manufacturer’s written combustion practices and/or written procedures
developed by the owner or operator based on good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
g. Scrap Management Plan and Training Records:
(1) A copy of the facility’s most recently approved plan as specified in § 304.
(2) Records that demonstrate training on the plan requirements was provided
to all plant personnel with scrap metal acquisition or inspection duties.
502
COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS
502.1 VOC Emissions: An owner or operator of any equipment listed in § 102.1 or § 102.2
that is subject to a numeric emission limit in § 301.1.a shall demonstrate
compliance with the limit by complying with § 502.1.a unless § 502.1.b or § 502.1.c
apply:
a. Performance Testing: Conduct a performance test at least every five years.
Performance tests shall measure VOCs using Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Reference Method 25A as incorporated by reference in § 504.6.
The result of the performance test shall be the arithmetic mean of the results
of three test runs. Each test run shall have a minimum sample time of one
hour.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
35 of 95

b. VOC CERMS: For equipment that uses VOC CERMS to determine emissions,
the owner or operator shall use the CERMS data using a 30-operating day
rolling average.
c. Carbon Monoxide (CO) CERMS: For equipment that uses CO CERMS as a
surrogate to determine VOC emissions, the owner or operator shall use the
CO CERMS data using a 30-operating day rolling average and a correlation
factor based on the ratio of mass VOC emissions and mass CO emissions as
determined by the average of such ratios determined from the six most
recent semi-annual performance tests.
502.2 NOx Emissions: An owner or operator of any equipment listed in § 102.1 or § 102.2
that is subject to a numeric emission limit in § 301.2.a shall demonstrate
compliance with the limit by complying with § 502.2.a unless § 502.2.b applies:
a. Performance Testing: Conduct a performance test at least every five years
using EPA Reference Method 7E as incorporated by reference in § 504.5. The
result of the performance test shall be the arithmetic mean of the results of
three test runs. Each test run shall have a minimum sample time of one hour.
b. NOx CERMS: For equipment that uses NOx CERMS to determine emissions,
the owner or operator shall use the CERMS data using a 30-operating day
rolling average.
503
CONTINUOUS EMISSION RATE MONITORING SYSTEM (CERMS):
503.1 An owner or operator using a CERMS to demonstrate compliance with applicable
emission limits in § 301 shall install, operate, calibrate, maintain, and test the
CERMS in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B (Performance
Specifications) and Appendix F (Quality Assurance Procedures).
503.2 Excess emissions for § 301 are defined as exceedances of emission rates
expressed in terms of pounds per ton of steel produced that exceed the
applicable numeric emission limits in any 30-operating day rolling average
period.
504
COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS – TEST METHODS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
The following test methods are approved for use for the purpose of determining
compliance with this rule. The test methods are incorporated by reference in Rule 360
and Appendix G of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations. Alternative
test methods as approved by the Administrator or other EPA-approved test methods
may be used upon prior written approval from the Control Officer. When more than one
test method is permitted for the same determination, an exceedance under any method
will constitute a violation. Copies of test methods referenced in this section are
available at the Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
504.1 EPA Reference Methods 1 (“Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary
Sources”), and 1A (“Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources with
Small Stacks and Ducts”) (40 CFR 60, Appendix A-1).
504.2 EPA Reference Methods 2 (“Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric
Flow Rate”), 2A (“Direct Measurement of Gas Volume through Pipes and Small
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
36 of 95

Ducts”), 2C (“Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate in
Small Stacks or Ducts”), and 2D (“Measurement of Gas Volume Flow Rates in
Small Pipes and Ducts”) (40 CFR 60, Appendix A-1).
504.3 EPA Reference Methods 3 (“Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular
Weight”), 3A (“Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in
Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)”), 3B
(“Gas Analysis for the Determination of Emission Rate Correction Factor or
Excess Air”), and 3C (“Determination of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrogen and
Oxygen from Stationary Sources”) (40 CFR 60, Appendix A-2).
504.4 EPA Reference Method 4 (“Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases”)
(40 CFR 60, Appendix A-3).
504.5 EPA Reference Method 7E (“Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from
Stationary Sources – Instrumental Analyzer Procedure”) (40 CFR 60, Appendix A-
4).
504.6 EPA Reference Method 25A (“Determination of Total Gaseous Organic
Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer”) (40 CFR 60, Appendix A-7).

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
37 of 95

1
MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
MEETING MINUTES
Monday, April 24, 2023, at 3:00 PM
4041 N. Central Ave.
Floor 14
Phoenix, Az 85012
President MacMillan called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Debra Baldauff
Don Cassano
(virtual)
Joanne Osborne
Matthew Farber
Paul Stander (virtual)
Robert MacMillan
Ex-Officio: Marcy Flanagan
Members Absent:
Supervisor Bill Gates
Paula Banahan
1.
CALL TO ORDER - 3:02pm
President MacMillan
A. Roll Call
B. Call to the Public
Ms. Sampler informed all that there were no requests known to speak.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
2.
Elections
President MacMillan
President MacMillan asked the board for a motion for the continuation of elections, moving the agenda item to
the next board of health meeting adding that a review and amendments to the bylaws were needed.
Motioned to approve moving the elections to the next board meeting and adding the bylaws as an agenda
item.
•
Motion - Mr. Cassano
•
Seconded - Ms. Baldauff
•
Motion passed unanimously
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
38 of 95

3. The appointment of Joanne Osborne

Marcy Flanagan

The Board of Supervisors accepted the resignation of Kristen Acton from the Board of Health, representing
Supervisorial District 4. The resignation is effective as of February 2, 2023.

The Board of Supervisors approved the appointment of Joanne Osborne to the Board of Health,
representing Supervisorial District 4. The term of service will be from Board approval through December 31,
2023, completing the term of resigning Kristen Acton. (C-06-23-547-X-00).

4. Approval of Minutes

President MacMillan
•
Approval of the January 23, 2023 - Board of Health minutes
o Motioned – Ms. Baldauff
o Second – Mr. Cassano
o Motion passed unanimously

5. Public Health Finance

Scot Pitcairn
A. 3rd Quarter Update – Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Status Report
B. Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the Public Health Fiscal
Year 2024 Budget Request as recommended by the Maricopa County Budget Office

Mr. Pitcairn’s report is based on revenues and expenditures as of 3rd quarter of Fiscal Year 2023 through March
31, 2023, for the funds listed below. Public Health is also asking the Board of Health to make a recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors to approve the Public Health Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request Recommendation as
proposed the Maricopa County Budget Office. The finance memo is attached to the agenda outlining all funds
reported.
•
Fund 100 – General Fund
•
Fund 265 –Public Health Fee Fund
•
Fund 293 – Justice Reinvestment Fund
•
Fund 296 – State & Local Recovery Funds/American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
o
COVID-19 American Rescue Plan Act Funds | Maricopa County, AZ.
•
Fund 297- Opioid Settlement Fund
•
Fund 532 - Grant Fund
Mr. Pitcairn extended a brief explanation of some funds to the members of the board. The agenda provides an
outline of all funds for Public Health updates.
A recommendation to approve Public Health Services FY24 Recommended Budget as proposed by the County
Budget Office to the Board of Supervisors.
A recommendation was made by - Ms. Osborne
•
Seconded - Ms. Baldauff
•
All were in favor of the recommendation

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
39 of 95

6. Environmental Services

Sylvie Donaldson
A. 3rd Quarter Update – Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Status Report
B. Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the Environmental
Services Department (ESD) Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request as recommended by the
Maricopa County Budget Office

Ms. Donaldson’s reported on ESD Budget Status as of Quarter 3 close for Fiscal Year FY23, for the funds listed
below. ESD is also asking the Board of Health to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve
Environmental Services Department Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Recommendation as proposed by the Maricopa
County Budget Office. The finance memo is attached to the agenda outlining all the funds reported.
•
Fund 100 - County General Fund
•
Fund 290 – Environmental Tire Fund
•
Fund 506 – Environmental Fee Fund
Ms. Donaldson extended a brief explanation of some funds to the members of the board. There were no
additional questions for any of the funds reported.
A recommendation to approve Environmental Services Department FY24 Recommended Budget as proposed
by the County Budget Office to the Board of Supervisors.
•
A recommendation was made by - Ms. Baldauff
•
Seconded - Dr. Farber
•
All were in favor of the recommendation

7. Environmental Services Dept. Fee Waiver Applications –

Robert Stratman
Request for Board of Health approval of twenty-two (22) fee waiver applicants

This quarter, the department reviewed twenty-two (22) fee waiver applications. Of the applications reviewed,
staff determined that all meet the criteria outlined in the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code.
As a reminder, only an operator of a charitable nonprofit establishment that operates to provide relief
predominantly for the poor, distrgessed, or underprivileged may apply to the Board of Health for a waiver of a
permit fee. A waiver of a permit fee may be granted only to the operator of an establishment that maintains a
current 501(c)(3) tax-exempt designation from the Internal Revenue Service and who demonstrates to the Board
of Health that payment of said fee will cause financial hardship.
Applications for waivers of Temporary Food Establishment fees will be processed on a first come, first served
basis in accordance with Chapter I, Regulation 5 a. of the Environmental Health Code. The Department shall only
present a maximum of twenty-five (25) of such applications per event to the Board of Health.
In addition, a waiver of fees associated with the administering and issuance of a food employee certificate (in
compliance with A.R.S. § 41-1080) may be granted to a current student enrolled in a K-12 culinary arts school
program or similar curriculum-based programs requiring food employee certificates. The sponsoring school
district must demonstrate to the Board of Health that payment of said fee will cause financial hardship.
Again, all fee waiver applications reviewed this quarter appear to meet the criteria.
ESD provided a brief explanation regarding vendors at events and the fee waiver process adding that they
receive approximately 150-200 permits annually. The Board had no additional questions, therefore, Mr.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
40 of 95

Stratman requested that the board approve the applications on the Fee Waiver Application Summary Sheet
labeled P1 through P20; C1, and C2.
Approval of the Fee Waiver Application Summary Sheet labeled P1 through P20; C1 and C2.
•
Motioned – Dr. Baldauff
•
Second – Dr. Farber
•
Motion passed unanimously

8. Air Quality Department

Greg Verkamp
Kimberly Butler
Mr. Verkamp and Ms. Butler appeared requesting approval of three rules.
Approve expedited process rulemaking for the following rule:
A. AQ-2022-006 Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently requested the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) submit a Title V Program revision for approval. As part of the program revision
submittal, the EPA requested MCAQD make a limited number of revisions to Rule 100. The purpose of this
rulemaking is to make only the necessary revisions to the rule to address the EPA requests along with some
minor clarifications so the revised rule can be submitted to the EPA as part of the Title V program revision.
Air Quality conducted one stakeholder workshop in March and has not received any comments from
Stakeholders pertaining to Rule 100; therefore, the request is that the Board approve expedited process
rulemaking for AQ-2022-006.
Motion to approve the Expedited Process Rulemaking for Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions)
AQ-2022-006

•
Motioned – Dr. Farber
•
Second – Dr. Baldauff
•
Motion passed unanimously
Approve initiation of regulatory change for the following rules:
B. AQ-2023-002 Rule 326 (Steelmaking Operations)
MCAQD is proposing a new rule, Rule 326, to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT)
controls to limit the discharge of volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from
steelmaking operations. Upon adoption of the new rule, MCAQD will submit it as a revision to the Arizona
State Implementation Plan.
One Stakeholder workshop was conducted for both rules 326 and 338. Each rule requires their own motion
to be carried out.
Motion to approve the Initiation of Regulatory change for Rule 326 (Steelmaking Operations)
AQ-2023-002

•
Motioned – Dr. Baldauff
•
Second – Ms. Osborne
•
Motion passed unanimously

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
41 of 95

C. AQ-2023-004 Rule 338 (Semiconductor Manufacturing)
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 338 to implement RACT level controls that will regulate NOx emissions
generated during the semiconductor manufacturing process. These controls are already incorporated in
most air quality permits for semiconductor manufacturing facilities in Maricopa County. In addition, MCAQD
will review the VOC controls in the rule and ensure the controls continue to implement RACT. Upon
adoption of the revised rule, MCAQD will submit it as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan.
Motion to approve the Initiation of Regulatory change for Rule 338 (Semiconductor Manufacturing) AQ-
2023-004

•
Motioned – Dr. Baldauff
•
Second – Ms. Osborne
•
Motion passed unanimously

9. Environmental Services Dept. – Swimming Pool Advisory Committee Update
Gregory Epperson and
Blanca Caballero
Mr. Epperson provided the board with a brief update as it’s outlined in the Maricopa County’s
Environmental Health Code, Chapter VI, Section 1, Regulation 13c.1(b). This is a discussion item, not an
action item. Refer to MCESDs memo in the agenda. The Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department (MCESD) consulted with the county’s counsel.
The MCEHC requires SPAC members to be appointed by the Board of Health Chairperson (President) for a
term of three (3) years. The SPAC consists of five members, who are residents of Maricopa County and
citizens of the United States, and is composed of and consisting of a representative of the industries,
trades, and professions as follows:
1. Swimming Pool Building Contractor
2. Swimming Pool Service and Repair Contractor or Swimming Pool Industry Member
3. Certified Safety Professional
4. Professional Engineer
5. Health Professional

MCESD requests the Board of Health Chairperson’s approval to appoint new committee members to the
Swimming Pool Industry Member, Certified Safety Professional, and Health Professional categories for
three years. MCESD will be requesting the appointments by the Board of Health Chairperson (President)
following this meeting via a memo with completed applications from the perspective members outlining
their credentials and will request that President MacMillian appoint the new committee members to the
Certified Safety Professional swimming pool, industry member and health professional categories for a
term of three years as well as renew the terms of the swimming pool contractor for a term of one year
and the professional engineer for a term of two years.

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
42 of 95

Discussion Items
10. Public Health Report

Marcy Flanagan

A. Human Resources

B. Communications

C. Infrastructure
D. Strategic Planning
E. Programs
F. Disease Update
G. Health Status/Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA)
H. Heat Report
I.
Future Topic
J.
Covid Status Update

K. C auris

Serena Bailey

Dr. Flanagan advised the board that she would be focusing on two updates Covid and C auris for Public Health
that she intends to share with the board of Supervisors and Executive Session in a couple of weeks. Serena
Bailey is one of the Public Health Epidemiologists who will talk about C auris in more detail.
A presentation slide was provided of the National COVID-19 case count to date, discussing the peak that
occurred in late 2021 and early 2022 (Omicron variant). Dr. Flanagan reminded the board of the three waves
Maricopa County experienced over the last 3 years. Before there was a vaccine, then things closed, then
masking, and businesses begin to open again. Since then, nationally we had the Omicron variant and the
Bivalent variant. Maricopa County Community transmission level is being reported as low, the Emergency Public
Health declaration goes away on May 11. Overall declaration, President Biden ended that about a month ago
which is separate from Public Health’s declaration, we can expect changes with free access to testing,
treatment, vaccines, and in reporting as a result. Updates will be on Public Health’s webpage, but the
community transmission will no longer be showing, and no more up to date recommendations for vaccines.
Public Health for information. Diseases-We-Track
C auris Update
Serena Bailey presented an update on C auris (Candida auris). The CDC reports that it is a deadly fungal infection
spreading at an alarming rate on the skin that can cause an infection and illness. A graph was displayed
displaying the risk factors for developing the clinical disease. Public Health is currently providing the community
with prevention methods and education, by screening, colonization screening, and identifying patients that
identify with this disease. Take home points were shared with the board which lead to a brief discussion.
The disease is very difficult to treat and typically affects VERY sick people with many medical conditions. C. auris
does not pose a significant public health threat to most people in the community. Maricopa County Public
Health will continue to monitor the disease.

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
43 of 95

Announcements and Current Events

President/

Board Members
Board of Health member, Vice President Scott Celley passed away on Feb. 22, 2023. Scott was diagnosed with a
Neurological disorder in late December 2022. A memorial Service was held in March, flowers were sent on
behalf of all. Mr. Celley was appointed by the Board of Supervisors in July 2019, serving almost 4 years on the
Board of Health. Condolences were offered to his wife and family; his service on this board was much
appreciated and he will certainly be missed.
Maricopa County staff announcements
•
Jen Pokorski – County Manager (formerly Assistant County Manager)
•
Darcy Kober – Assistant County Manager (formerly Director of Environmental Services Dept.)
•
Blanca Caballero – Executive Director, Environmental Services Dept. (formerly Deputy Director)
Adjournment

President MacMillan
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:47pm.
•
Ms. Baldauff made a motion to adjourn the meeting,
•
seconded by Mr. Cassano
•
The motion passed unanimously.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
44 of 95

Minutes from Board of Health meeting - July 22, 2024
(Pending)
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
45 of 95

Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
46 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
47 of 95

MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION Ill - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 326:
STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the discharge of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxideŲ (NOx) emissions into the atmosphere from steelmaking operations .
.1.QL_APPLICABILITY:
4-04A----This rule applies to the following types of equipment and operations at a
steelmaking source:
102.1
£,_Each electric arc furnace (EAF) used to melt scrap metal to produce
molten steel.
b. Each Ladle Metallurgy Station (LMS) used to maintain the steel's molten
state and to further refine by adding raw materials into the steel.
c. !Each combustion unit with a rated heat input greater than 10 million
MM British thermal units er hour Btu/hr used in steelmakin
o erations.
101.J Each ladle and refractory lined vessel used to maintain the steel's molten
state and to further refine by injecting raw materials in the Ladle Metallurgy
Station (LAųS).
101. 4 jEach dl)'er, pre heater, and furnace used in steelmaki ng operations.
-
Commented [A1]: CMC proposes this applicability
threshold consistent with EPA guidance and de
minimis/exemption thresholds in other jurisdictions.
Comment 1. 1
101. 5 Binder usage associated with ladle and tundish refractory repair.I _______________________________ Commented [A2J: Per meeting with MCAQD on
06/07/2023, CMC suggests removal MCAQD Rule 326
-1-0-ho102.2
NSPS & NESHAP: In addition to this rule, facilities may be subject to
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in Rule 360 and/or National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in Rule 370 of these rules.
SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall
apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions) of
these rules. In the event of any inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County air pollution
control rules, the definitions in this rule take precedence.
201 [DIMD,R: A substance used to cure refractory lining in the ladles and tundishes to
Draft Rule 326
3
Section 102. 3 and 102.4.
Comment 1.2
Version #1 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter
Return to version #1 responses
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
48 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
49 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
50 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
51 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
52 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
53 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
54 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
55 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
56 of 95

Version #2 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter
Return to version #2 responses
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
57 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
58 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
59 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
60 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
61 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
62 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
63 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
64 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
65 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
66 of 95

Version #3 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter
Return to version #3 responses
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
67 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
68 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
69 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
70 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
71 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
72 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
73 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
74 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
75 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
76 of 95

Version #4 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter
Return to version #4 responses
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
77 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
78 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
79 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
80 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
81 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
82 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
83 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
84 of 95

MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION Ill -- CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 326 ( STEELMAKING OPERATIONS: ELECTRIC ARC
FURNACES)
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
103
PARTIAL EXEMPTION
SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS
201
CANOPY HOOD
202
CAPTURE SYSTEM
203
COMBUSTION UNIT
INDEX
204
DIRECT EVACUATION CONTROL (DEC) SYSTEM
205
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE (EAF)
206
FUEL
207
LADLE METALLURGY STATION (LMS)
208
MELTSHOP
209
OPERATING DAY
210
SCRAP METAL
211
STEEL FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
212
STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
213
STEELMAKING SOURCE
SECTION 300 - STANDARDS
301
LIMITATIONS
302
GOOD WORK PRACTICES FOR ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES AND LADLE
METALLURGY STATIONS
303
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES FOR COMBUSTION UNITS
304
SCRAP MANAGEMENT PLAN
305
CAPTURE SYSTEM
Maricopa County• Air Quality Department• Planning and Analysis Division· Draft Rule 326 • February 2024
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
85 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
86 of 95

MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION Ill - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 326 ( STEELMAKING OPERATIONS: ELECTRIC ARC
FURNACES)
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the discharge of volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen
oxide (NOx) emissions into the atmosphere from steelmaking operations using electric
arc furnaces (EAF).
102
APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to the following equipment and operations at a
steelmaking source:
102.1 Each EAF used to melt scrap metal to produce molten steel.
102.2 Each Ladle Metallurgy Station (LMS) used to maintain the steel's molten state
and to further refine by adding raw materials into the steel.
102.3 Each combustion unit with a maximum design rated heat input capacity greater
than 10 million British thermal units per hour (MM Btu/hr) used in steel making
operations.
102.4 NSPS & NESHAP: In addition to this rule, facilities may be subject to New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) in Rule 360 and/or National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in Rule 370 of the Maricopa County Air
Pollution Control Regulations.
103
PARTIAL EXEMPTION:
103.1 voe Limitations: Section 301.1 of this rule does not apply to an owner or
operator of a steelmaking operation if:
a. Total voe emissions from steelmaking operations are less than 25 tons per
year as determined on a 12-month rolling average, and
b. The steelmaking operation is not considered a major source for VOCs.
Any steelmaking operation that becomes subject to the voe limitation in§ 301.1
by exceeding the 25 ton per year threshold or becomes a major source for voes
shall comply with the compliance schedule provisions in § 401.
103.2 NOx Limitations: Section 301.2 of this rule does not apply to an owner or
operator of a steelmaking operation if:
a. Total NOx emissions from steelmaking operations are less than 25 tons per
year as determined on a 12-month rolling average, and
b. The steelmaking operation is not considered a major source for NOx.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Planning and Analysis Division• Draft Rule 326 • February 2024
Return to version #5 responses
Version #5 of draft Rule 326 provided by the commenter
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
87 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
88 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
89 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
90 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
91 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
92 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
93 of 95

Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Report the the Board of Supervisors
94 of 95

Maricopa County
Air Quality Department
Division Name
Maricopa.gov/AQ