Page 1 of 1

Janet 

### Travis
From: cSteckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov> To: cpatricia.mariella@gric.nsn.us> Cc: <Mckaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov>; <alpete99@comcast.net>; <Wamsley.Jerry@epamail.epa.gov>; <Tax.W~enke@epamail.epa.gov>; cMcDaniel.Doug@epamail.epa.gov>; <jtravis@gilanet.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 09,2005 9:38 AM Subject: Additional EPA comments on GRlC TIP

Dr. Mariella: By letter dated July 25th, EPA provided comments on the May 20th draft Gila River Indian Community Tribal Implementation Plan for Air Quality Management. We also said that we would send a few additional comments in the near future. The remaining comments are provided below.

Part V, Section 1.0, Open Burning Paragraph 3.4.A.1: Open burning of leaves and lawn clippings often generates considerable smoke due to the high moisture content. We believe hs activity shouldbe prohibited unless there is no local organized garbage collection service and ajustification can be made for not composting. Open burning of tree trimmings could be permitted ifthe material is required to be dned for at least 30 days. Paragraph 4.1.A.6: "Smaller" piles is vague and could be better described by limitingthe pile dimensions. Paragraph 4.1 .B.1: "High" winds is vague and could be better defined 

### as winds greater than 10 miles per hour.

Part VlI, Section 2.0, Aerospace Manufacturingand Rework The ordinance should list specific test methods for determining compliance with the rule, such as VOC determinationMethod 25, capture and control Methods 204A-F and Guidelines document, and vapor pressure calculations.

### Janet Travis
From: "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us> To: "Daniel Blair (E-mail)" <air@gilanet.net>; "janet travis (E-mail)" cjtravis@gilanet.net> Sent: Thursday, August 25,2005 2:04 PM Attach: Fw- Gila River 

### - Secondary Aluminum (Opacity comment).eml; Re- Follow-up on Question #3 from GRIC 

### - contingency plans.eml; Fw- Comments on GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs).eml Subject: More "Oh Brother" <<Fw: Gila River 

### - Secondary Aluminum (Opacity comment)>> <<Re: Follow-up on Question#3 from GRIC 

### - contingency plans>> <<Fw: Comments on GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs)>>

Let's talk about this next week when Janet T is back 

## - how about after the hnding discussion (conference call) with EPA on the 30th? Daniel, if you could update Janet when she comes back, that would be great. Pat MariellaPage 1of 4

Dan 

### Blair

From: <McDaniel.Doug@eparnail.epa.gov> To: "Ferland, Roger K." <RFERLAND@quarles.com> Cc: <air@gilanet.net>; <Mckaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov>; <Wehling.Jefferson@epamail.epa.gov>; "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us>; <Tax.Wienke@epamail.epa.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:07 PM Subject: RE: Follow-up on Question #3 from GRIC - contingency plans No, you have to tell the farmers to all stop farming!! Ahem. Never mind.

"Ferland, Roger K." <RFERLAND@quarle To s.com> Doug McDaniel/R9lUSEPA/US@EPAy Patricia Mariella 0812512005 02:38 <Patricia.Mariella@,nric.nsn.us>, PM air@,,wilanet.net CC Colleen McKauahanlR9/USEPAlUS@,EPA,Wienke TaxlR9/USEPA/US@,EPA,Jefferson Wehling/R9/U SEPA/US@,EPA Subject 

### RE: Follow-up on Question #3 from GRIC 

### - contingency plans

Jeff, This is very helpful. Since the plan is only required for PM10, there are no major PMIO sources on the Community and the Community is entirely rural, what's really required? We'll look at the Maricopa County plan but my recollection is that most of the contingency measures in that plan just don't apply to GRIC's situation. Roger

### Page 1 

### of 1



### Janet Travis
From: <Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov> To: <patricia.mariella@gric.nsn.us> Cc: <Mckaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov>;<alpete99@comcast.net>; <Wamsley.Jerry@epamail.epa.gov>; <Tax.Wienke@epamail.epa.gov>; ~McDanieI.Doug@epamail.epa.gov>; <jtravis@gilanet.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 09,2005 9:38 AM Subject: Additional EPA comments on GRlC TIP



### Dr. Mariella: 

### By letter dated July 

### 25th EPA provided comments on the May 20th draft Gila River 

### Indian Community Tribal Implementation Plan for Air Quality Management. We also said that we would send a few additional comments in the near future. The remaining comments are provided below.

Part V, Section 1.0, Open Burning 

### Paragraph 3.4.A. 1:Open burning of leaves and lawn clippings often generates considerable smoke due to the high moisture content. We believe th~s activity shouldbe prohibited unless there is no local organized garbage collection service and a justification can be made for not composting. Open burning oftree trimmings couldbe permitted 

### ifthe material is required to be dried for at least 30 days. Paragraph 4.1 .A.6:"Smaller" piles is vague and could be better describedby limitingthe pile dimensions. Paragraph 4.1

### .B.1: "High winds is vague and could be better defined as winds greater than 

### 10miles per hour.

Part

### VII, Section 2.0, Aerospace Manufacturingand Rework 

### The ordinance should list specifictest 

### methods for determining compliance with the rule, such as VOC 

### determinationMethod 25, 

### capture and control Methods 204A-F and Guidelines document, and vapor pressure calculations.Page 1 of 2

Janet Travis
From: <McDaniel.Doug@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us>; <air@gilanet.net> Cc: <Mckaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov~; <Tax.W~enke@epamail.epa.gov>; ~Wehling. Jefferson@epamail.epa.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:49AM Subject: Re: Follow-up on Question#3 from GRIC 

### - contingency plans Info on contingency plans

I have done some research on this issue and found out that: (1) The Gila River Indian Reservationis located 

### in regions classified as Priority I for CO and 03(Maricopa County portion only), Priority 

### IA for SOX(Pinal County portion only);Priority I for PM (both Maricopa and Pinal portions). The Reservation is located within regions classified as Priority I11 for NO2 (bothMaricopa and Pinal portions), CO and 03(Pinal County) and SOX (Maricopa County) See 40 CFR 52.121 (2) Emergency episode plans (or just episode plans), where required, must include contingency plans, and the specific requirements for contingency plans differ depending on the Priority classification of a region. (3) Under 40 CFR 5 1.1 52(c), episode plans are not required for Priority I11 regions. (4) Under 40 CFR 5 1.152(d),EPA may exempt from the requirement to prepare and submit episodeplans those portions ofPriority 

### I, IA, or I1 regions that have been designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section 107 of the CAA. (5) So, given that Priority I11 areas are exempt and assuming that EPA would exercise the discretion to exempt GRIC to the extent allowed under 40 CFR 51.152(d),GRIC would not be subject to the episodeplan requirementfor any pollutant for any portion ofthe Reservation except for that portion of the Reservationthat lies within the Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area (which I believe includes some Reservation lands in both Maricopa County and Pinal County). (6) If GRIC wants to request EPA to correctthe boundary of the Phoenix PM- 10Nonattainment Area to exclude the Reservation, then they could just wait until we decide what to do with their request since, if we grant the request, then no episodeplan would be required for PM- 10 either. (7) However, if GRIC decides not to request EPA to correct the PM-10 Nonattainment Area boundary and decidesto submit a TIP intended toPage 2 of 2

address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G), then 

### I can point to two reference sources to assist them in developing an approvable plan: 40 CFR part 5 1, appendix

### L and Maricopa County Regulation VI:



## - 40 CFR part 5 1, appendix

### L provides guidanceon regulationsthat fulfill the emergency episode plan requirement. Note that EPA has the discetion to limit the emission control actions required as part of the plan for Priority I areas to urbanized areas and to major sources (as defined in the PSD regs) outside of urbanized areas. So, presuming that the Reservation lies outside of the Phoenix urbanized area as determined by the 2000 Census, then the emission control action part ofthe emergency episode plan could be limitedtojust the sourcesthat have PTEs greater than 100tpy (specific categories) or 250 tpy (non-category-specific sources).



### - Maricopa County Regulation VI 

## - Emergency Powers, Rule 600 

### - Emergency Episodes, as revised locally on July 13, 1988 and approvedby EPA as a SIP revision on March 18, 1999 (64 FR 13351)is an example of a contingency plan that we have approved as meeting the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Ths SIP rule can be downloaded from the Region 9 website, under Air Actions, SIP collection,Arizona, Maricopa County. Jeff Wehling U.S. EPA, Region 9,ORC-2 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (41 5) 972-390 1 Fax: (415) 947-3571Page 1 of 1

Dan Blair

From: <McDaniel.Doug@eparnail.epa.gov> To : "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.lWariella@gric.nsn.us>; <air@gilanet.net> Cc: <Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov>; <Mckaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov>; <Tax.Wienke@epamail.epa.gov> Sent:

. Thursday, August 25,2005 7:45 AM Subject: Fw: Gila River - Secondary Aluminum (Opacity comment) FYI

----- Forwarded by Doug McDaniel/lU/USEPA/USon 08/25/2005 07:44 

### AM

-----

Doug7 Andy, After I re-reviewed Method 9 and the Secondary Aluminum rule from Gila River, 

### I still recommend section 2.1 of the rule more clearly state the intent ofthe standard to remove any ambiguity.
e.g., a.. they can never exceed 20% opacity "at any time" b. they cannot exceed 20% opacity for a certain amount oftime (e.g., 3 minutes in any hour) this would be similar to Bay Area 6-302 

### http://www.baaqmd.~ov/dst/re~ulations/r~O60O.pdf c. they cannot exceed 20% opacity for 3 minutes (e.g., 12readings at 1 5 second intervals). Right now the rule states you cannot exceed 20% opacity. This could be interpreted as "at any time" 

### - a violation if 1 reading is over 20% or a violation if 12consecutive 15 second readings (i.e., 3 minutes) averaged exceed 20%. StanPage 1of 2

Janet Travis
From: ~McDaniel.Doug@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Patricia Mariella" ~Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us>; <air@gilanet.net> Cc: cWang.Mae@epamail.epa.gov>;<Mckaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov>; <Tax. W~enke@epamail.epa.gov>; <Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 24,2005 8:40 AM Subject: Fw: Commentson GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs) Thanks, Mae. Pat, here are the NESHAP comments. 

## ----- Forwarded by Doug McDanielIR9NSEPAAJSon 08/24/2005 08:34 

### AM

Mae WanglR9NSEPAAJS To 08/23/2005 03: 1 6 Doug 

### McDaniel/R9/USEPA/US@EPA PM 

### cc Andrew 

### Stecka9R /USEPAIUS@EPA, Cynthia Allen/R/USEPA/US@EPA, Roger Kohn/R9/USEPWS@BPA Subject Comments on GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs)

Hi Doug 

## - The following comments are related to the 8/5/05 draft language in GRIC Code Title 17, Section 8.2. 

### I hnk that similar comments could be made about Section 7.2. As mentioned on the conferencecall this morning, these recommendations are primarily aimed at reducing potential confusion for sources. However, given that Sections7 and 8 are locally adopted rules and federal approval is not mandatory, 

### I don'tthink it's a deal breaker if GRIC DEQ decides not to make any changes to the language, as long 

### as everyone agrees that the locally adopted language is not binding on EPA. The NESHAP delegation MOA will contain more detailed explanations of the authoritiesthat are transferred with the delegation process. 1. Sections 8.2.A and 8.2.B: GRIC DEQ may choose to have the term "Administrator"refer to the Director of the GRIC DEQ when implementing a standard as a matter of local law. However, sources shouldbe aware that the Director of the GRIC DEQ does not replace the "Administrator"Page 2 of 2

from a federalpoint ofview until the GRIC DEQ has been officially delegated the standard. For example, if a sourcereports only to the Director of the GRIC DEQ (and not to EPA) when the applicable federal standard has not yet been delegated, then the source will actually be in violation of the federal reporting requirement. 2. Section 8.2.C: I am not sure of the purpose ofthis provision. The reference to section 112(e)(3)may be out-of-date. Suggestions for possible text changes are presented below: 8.2 General Provisions A. For any federal standards When used in 40 C.F

### .R.Parts 6 1 or 63 that have been delegatedto GRIC DEQ, "Administrator" means the Director ofthe Gila River Indian Community Department ofEnvironmental Quality except that the Director shall not be authorized to make decisionsregarding provisions that are not delegated by EPA, such as the authority to approve alternate or equivalent test methods or alternate standards or work practices, except as specifically provided for in Part 63, Subpart

### B. B. From the general standards identified in subsection 8.2.A, delete 40 C.F.R. $61.04. All requests, reports, applications, submittals, and other communications to the Director pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the Gila River Indian Community Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 35 Pima Street, Sacaton,Arizona 85247. A copy of any notifications and reports required by federal standards in 40 C.F.R.Parts 61 or 63 that have not been delegated to GRIC DEQ must be sent to EPA. C. The Director shall not be delegated authority to deal with equivalency determinationsthat are nontransferable through Section 112(e)(3)ofthe Act.Page 1of 2



### Janet Travis
From: "Dan Blair" <air@gilanet.net> To: "michelle deblasi" <rndeblasi@quarles.com> Cc: "Janet Travis" <jtravis@gilanet.net>;"Roger Ferland" <rferland@quarles.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 14,20059:41 AM Subject: Fw:Comments on GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs) Michelle, Tlus is the languagethat EPA suggest revising in Section 7.2 and 8.2 of Part 11. I'm sure i sent it to you previously but I'm not surethat Roger and Janet got it.



## ----- Original Message 

### ----- From: <McDaniel.Do@,epamail. epa.go~> To: 

### <Patricia.~ella(ijitanc.nsn.us>; ~~lmet.net> Cc: 

### <Wang.Mae@epmail.eua.gov>; 

### <Mckawhan.Colleen@ep~ail.epa.gov>; <Tax.

### Wienke@epamail.epa.gov>; 

### <Steckel.Andrew@,epp~ail.epa~ov> Sent: Wednesday, August 24,2005 8:40AM Subject:Fw: Comments on GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs)

>Thanks, Mae. Pat, here are the NESHAP comments. > 

### ----- Forwardedby Doug McDaniel/R9/USEPAlUSon 08/24/200508:34 AM >

## ----- > > Mae > Wang/R9/USEPA/US > To > 08/2312005 03:1 6 Doug 

### M@-~.eBE/USEPA/USBEPA > PM cc > Andrew 

### Steckel/R9/USEPA/US@BPA, > CynthiaAllen/R9/USEPA/US@EEA, > Roger Kohn/R9/USEPA/US@EPA > Subject > Comments on GRIC Title 17, > Section 8 (NESHAPs) > > > > > > > > > >HiDoug 

## - > >The following comments are related to the 8/5/05draft language in GRICPage 2 of 2

>Code Title 17, Section 8.2. I think that similar comments could be made > about Section 7.2. As mentioned on the conference call thsmorning, >these recommendations are primarily aimed at reducing potential >confusion for sources. However, given that Sections 7 and 8 are locally > adopted rules and federal approval is not mandatory, I don't think it's > a deal breaker if GRIC DEQ decidesnot to make any changes to the >language, as long 

### as everyone agrees that the locally adopted language >is not binding on EPA. TheNESHAP delegationMOA will contain more >detailed explanations of the authorities that are transferred with the >delegation process. > > 1. Sections 8.2.Aand 8.2.B: GRIC DEQ may choose to have the term > "Administrator" refer to the Director ofthe GRIC DEQ when implementing > a standard as a matter of local law. However, sources shouldbe aware >that the Director of the GRIC DEQ does not replace the "Administrator" > from a federal point ofview until the GRIC DEQ has been officially >delegated the standard. For example, if a sourcereports only to the >Director of the GRIC DEQ (and not to EPA) when the applicable federal > standard has not yet been delegated, then the sourcewill actually be in >violation of the federal reporting requirement. > >2. Section 8.2.C: I am not sure ofthe purpose of this provision. The >reference to section 112(e)(3)may be out-of-date. > > Suggestions for possible text changes are presented below: > > 8.2 General Provisions > > A. For any federal standards When used in 40 C.F.R.Parts 61 or > 63 that have been delegated to GRIC DEQ, "Administrator" > means the Director of the Gila River Indian Community > Department ofEnvironmental Quality except that the Director > shall not be authorized to make decisionsregarding > provisions that are not delegatedby EPA, such as the > authority to approve alternate or equivalent test methods or > alternate standards or work practices, except 

### as > specificallyprovided for in Part 63, SubpartB. > > B. From the general standardsidentified in subsection 8.2.A, > delete 40 C.F.R. 561.04. All requests,reports, > applications, submittals,and other communications to the > Director pursuant to this section shall be submittedto the > Gila River Indian Community Department of Environmental > Quality, 35 Pima Street, Sacaton, Arizona 85247. A copy of > any notifications and reports required by federal standards > in 40 C.F.R.Parts 61 or 63 that have not been delegated to > GRIC DEQ must be sent to EPA. > > C. The Director shall not be delegated authority to deal with > equivalency determinationsthat are nontransferablethrough > Section 112(e)(3)of the Act.