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 should be prohibited unless there is no local 

organized garbage collection service and a justification can be made for not composting. Open burning 

of tree trimmings could be permitted if the 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 limiting the 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 Manufacturing and Rework 

The ordinance should list specific test methods for determining compliance with the rule, such as VOC 

determination Method 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 Mariella 
Page 1 of 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/U SEPA/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 should be prohibited unless there is no local 

organized garbage collection service and a justification can be made for not composting. Open burning 

of tree trimmings could be permitted if the material is required to be dried for at least 30 days. 

Paragraph 4.1 .A.6: "Smaller" piles is vague and could be better described by limiting the 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 VII, Section 2.0, Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 

The ordinance should list specific test methods for determining compliance with the rule, such as VOC 

determination Method 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 7:49 AM 

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 Reservation is 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 (both Maricopa and Pinal portions), 

CO and 03 (Pinal County) and SOX (Maricopa County) See 40 CFR 52.12 1 

(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 episode plans those portions of Priority 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 5 1.152(d), GRIC would not be subject to the episode plan 

requirement for any pollutant for any portion of the Reservation except 

for that portion of the Reservation that 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 correct the boundary of the Phoenix 

PM- 10 Nonattainment 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 episode plan 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 decides to submit a TIP intended to 
Page 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 guidance on regulations that 

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 of the 

emergency episode plan could be limited to just the sources that have 

PTEs greater than 100 tpy (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 approved by 

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) 947-3571 
Page 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/US on 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 

of the 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 of time (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., 12 readings 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 12 consecutive 15 second readings (i.e., 3 minutes) 

averaged exceed 20%. 

Stan 
Page 1 of 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: Comments on GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs) 

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

----- Forwarded by Doug McDanielIR9NSEPAAJS on 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 conference call this morning, 

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 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 authorities that 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 should be aware 

that the Director of the GRIC DEQ does not replace the "Administrator" 
Page 2 of 2 

from a federal point of view until the GRIC DEQ has been officially 

delegated the standard. For example, if a source reports 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 of this provision. The 

reference to section 1 12(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 delegated to GRIC DEQ, "Administrator" 

means the Director of the Gila River Indian Community 

Department of Environmental Quality except that the Director 

shall not be authorized to make decisions regarding 

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. $6 1.04. 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 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 determinations that are nontransferable through 

Section 1 12(e)(3) of the Act. 
Page 1 of 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 14,2005 9:41 AM 

Subject: Fw: Comments on GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs) 

Michelle, 

Tlus is the language that 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 sure that 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 8:40 AM 

Subject: Fw: Comments on GRIC Title 17, Section 8 (NESHAPs) 

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

> ----- Forwarded by Doug McDaniel/R9/USEPAlUS on 08/24/2005 08:34 AM 

> ----- 

> 

> Mae 

> Wang/R9/USEPA/US 

> To 

> 08/23 12005 03 : 1 6 Doug M@-~.eBE/USEPA/USBEPA 

> PM cc 

> Andrew Steckel/R9/USEPA/US@BPA, 

> Cynthia Allen/R9/USEPA/US@EEA, 

> Roger Kohn/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

> 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 
Page 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 ths morning, 

> 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 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 authorities that 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 should be aware 

> that the Director of the GRIC DEQ does not replace the "Administrator" 

> from a federal point of view until the GRIC DEQ has been officially 

> delegated the standard. For example, if a source reports 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 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 of Environmental Quality except that the Director 

> shall not be authorized to make decisions regarding 

> 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. 561.04. 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 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 determinations that are nontransferable through 

> Section 1 12(e)(3) of the Act.