Michael
Catanzaro/
DC/
USEPA/
US
07/
26/
2006
08:
30
AM
T
o
Jason
Burnett/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
thompson.
chet@
epa.
gov,
martella.
roger@
epa.
gov
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
Hypothetical
rock
quarry
in
urban
area­­
how
this
could
be
managed
under
the
proposed
rule
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Michael
Catanzaro/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
07/
26/
2006
08:
30
AM
­­­­­

"
Johnston,
A.
Todd"
<
ajohnston@
nma.
org>

07/
20/
2006
09:
31
AM
T
o
Michael
Catanzaro/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Hypothetical
rock
quarry
in
urban
area­­
how
this
could
be
managed
under
the
proposed
rule
Mike
 
This
is
a
follow­
up
to
yesterday's
conversation
where
we
discussed
how
the
following
scenario
might
be
handled
under
the
proposed
coarse
particulate
rule:
If
a
rock
quarry
in
an
area
dominated
by
urban
coarse
particulate
were
contributing
to
violations
of
the
NAAQS
for
PM10­
2.5,
how
would
a
state
be
able
to
address
the
violation
in
light
of
the
fact
that
mining
sources
are
not
subject
to
control
under
the
proposed
NAAQS
for
PM10­
2.5?

EPA
has
found
that
coarse
particulate
matter
from
mining
sources
does
not
have
significant
health
effects
to
warrant
including
such
PM
in
the
NAAQS.
The
D.
C.
Circuit
has
stated
that
"
EPA
has
discretion
to
define
the
pollutant
termed
'
particulate
matter'
to
exclude
particulates
of
a
size
or
composition
determined
not
to
present
substantial
public
health
or
welfare
concerns."
Alabama
Power
v.
Costle,
636
F.
3d
323,
370,
n.
134.
Because
coarse
particulate
matter
from
mining
sources
do
not
endanger
public
health
or
welfare,
such
particulate
matter
should
not
be
included
in
determining
violations
of
NAAQS.
EPA
has
taken
this
approach
under
its
rural
fugitive
dust
policy
for
decades.
See,
e.
g.,
Memorandum
dated
October
7,
1977
from
David
Hawkins,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Waste
Management
to
EPA
Region
Air
Directors,
entitled
"
Model
Letter
Regarding
State
Designation
of
Attainment
Status
(
An
"
area
should
be
designated
attainment
when
a
TSP
violation
can
be
clearly
attributed
to
rural
fugitive
dust.")

Simply
stated,
the
contribution
of
the
rock
quarry
in
the
above
scenario
should
be
subtracted
from
any
monitored
levels
of
PM10­
2.5,
and
particulate
emissions
from
the
rock
quarry
should
not
be
included
in
modeling
ambient
levels
of
PM10­
2.5.
Because
such
particulate
emissions
would
not
be
included
in
determining
compliance
with
the
NAAQS,
there
would
be
no
need
to
control
such
particulate
emissions
in
order
to
meet
the
NAAQS.
Details
regarding
how
this
would
best
be
accomplished
could
be
included
in
an
implementation
rule
for
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS.

Todd
