UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

Patricia Mariella, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

Gila River Indian Community 

Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 97 

Sacaton, AZ 85247 

July 25, 2005 

Dear Dr. Mariella, 

Thank you for submitting a draft version of the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Tribal 

Implementatiolz Plan ('TIP) for Air Quality Management (May 20, 2005 Druf) for our review. 

We believe this is the first comprehensive tribal air pollution control program in the country, and 

we appreciate the opportunity to review this landmark document. In this comment letter, we 

present some general comments. We have included more detailed comments for specific sections 

of the document as attachments to the letter. Because of staff vacations, we will need to submit 

one additional set of comments to you. We will get these to you by August 5. 

We want to raise one broad issue for your consideration. Your program, although its title is 

"Tribal Implelnentation Plan," contains several provisions and regulations that do not fall under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) definition of a TIP (e.g., operating permits and air toxics regulations). 

The TIP, therefore. is only a portion of the program. We think it would be clearer to change the 

title of the documeilt to more accurately reflect its contents, to something like "air quality 

management plan" or "air pollution control program." 

We also have some general requests regarding the formatting of the submittal. The submittal 

should include an executive summary describing the package. The summary should identify the 

CAA programs for which the Tribe is seeking approval, and also describe where in the package 

we can locate the items that fulfill the corresponding program requirements. For example, in the 

summary, you should state how the submittal meets the CAA SIP requirements (CAA section 

1 1 O(a)(2)(A thru M)), or if it doesn't, why the unmet requirement is reasonably severable from 

the other requirements. 

It will also be helpful if the submittal is made easier to read, with headers or footers on each 

page, as well as tab separators for each section. We also request that each sub-chapter or section 

begin on a new page; this will make it easier for us to distribute sections to appropriate EPA staff 

for review, and will speed up the review process. 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
Enclosed you will find our detailed comments in Attachments A through D: 

Attachment A: EPA Comments on Air Quality Ordinance 

Attachment B : EPA Comments on Permit Requirements 

Attachment C: EPA Comments on Federal HAPSINESHAPS 

Attachment D: EPA Comments on Area Sources, Individual Source Requirements for 

Existing and New Sources, and Source/Category Specific Emissions 

Limits for Existing and New Sources 

Attachment C contains a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between GRIC and USEPA 

regarding the delegation of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAPs). This is the mechanism that we use with other agencies to delegate these standards. 

and we would like to use the same mechanism with GRIC, provided you agree. 

Again, we are extremely pleased that GRIC has embarked on the process of developing its own 

TIP and air quality program. It presents a unique opportunity for us, and we look forward to 

coiltinuing to collaborate with you on the TIP. 

Sincerely, 

wr '&& yv 

klleen I McKaughan 

Associate Director 

Enclosures 
ATTACHMENT A - Air Quality Ordinance 

Comment I: 

In general, we believe that the TIP provides for many of the elements of implementation plans 

that are set forth in CAA section 1 10(a)(2); however, as indicated in the cover letter, it would be 

helpful if you could state how the submittal specifically meets the CAA SIP requirements (CAA 

section 1 10(a)(2)(A thru M)), or if it doesn't, why the unrnet requirement is reasonably severable 

from the other requirements. For example, the implementation plan does not appear to provide 

for an ambient air quality monitoring program as set forth in section 1 10(a)(2)(B), 40 CFR part 

5 1 .I90 and 40 CFR part 58.20. We recognize that GRIC is currently operating an ambient 

monitoring network and enters the data into our Air Quality Systems database, so does GRIC 

intend to provide .that portion of the implementation plan at some later date? 

One suggestion we have is to be as consistent with the language in the CAA as possible. With 

regard to this suggestion, some specific areas where the GRIC Air Quality Ordinance could be 

more consistent follow. 

Section 1.0 Definitions: 

Comment 2: 

1.4 "Attainment Area" - The recommendation is to revise this definition to more closely match 

CAA section 107(d)(l )(A): ". . . means an area ... national primary or secondary ambient air quality standards 

for a particular pollutant -." 

Comment 3: 

1.12 "Nonattainment area" - The recommendation is to revise this definition to more closely 

match CAA section 107(d)(l)(A): " . . . means an area . . . as violating (or that contributes to 

ambient air auality in a nearby area that is violating) -c national primary or secondary 

ambient air guality standards for a particular pollutant -." 

Comment 4: 

1.21 "Unclassified area" - The recommendation is to use the term "unclassifiable area" instead 

of "unclassified area'' to be consistent with CAA section 107(d)(l)(A). 

Comment 5: 

Also, we recommend adding definitions for "increments of progress" from 40 CFR part 

5 1.1 OO(q). 
Comment 6: 

Section 2.0 General Authority, under 2.1 Director's Duties, Subsection G. currently reads "Make 

a continuing determination of the quality of the Community's ambient air and determine whether 

that quality attains the standards prescribed by Section 4.0 of this ordinance." 

Section 1 10(a)(2)(B) has the following language that we suggest you add to Subsection 2.1 .G, 

particularly since GRIC already conducts these activities: 

(B) "provide for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and 

procedures necessary to -- 

(i) monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient air quality, and 

(ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator" 

Comment 7: 

Also under Section 2.0 . I. General Authority - Community members and other members of 

the public should be notified of exceedances of the standard as soon as tliey occur, not just on a 

regular basis, so community and public can take precautions. 

Comment 8: 

Under Section 2.0, K, we suggest you add "and EPA to "Provide the public the monitored 

data." 

Section 3.0 Procedures for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of Tribal Implementation Plan, 

under 3.3 Submission of plans, preliminary review of plans, Subsection A, 2. Technical Support, 

under (e), currently says "Evidence that the plan contains emissions limitations, work practice 

standards and record-keepinglreporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels 

are complied with." We suggest you add "enforceable" before the phrase "emissions 

limitations". (f) currently reads "Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance 

will be determined in practice." We suggest you add language from section 1 lO(a)(l)(A) 

regarding "schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet 

the applicable requirements of this [section]". 

Other specific suggestions to Part I of the TIP include: 

Commeizt 10: 

Section 2.2 Air pollution emergency authority. This section does not clearly provide authority 

comparable to that provided in section 303 of the CAA. See section 1 1 O(a)(2)(G). The 

recommendation is to revise the section to ensure that it provides the Governor with the 

necessary authority to restrain or enjoin immediately and effectively any person by order or by 

suit in court from engaging in any emission-generating activity that is presenting an imminent 
and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment. This authority 

is also needed for Title V program approval. See 40 CFR 70.1 1. We also note that the TIP does 

not yet include the contingency plans called for under sections 1 10(a)(2)(G) and related 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 5 1, subpart H. We see that section 1.3(C) of Part I11 

(Enforcement) provides emergency powers (similar to CAA section 303) to the Director acting 

through the General Counsel, but do not understand how section 1.3(C) of Part I11 works in 

tandem with the emergency authorities established under section 2.2 of Part I. 

Comment 11: 

Section 4.0 Adoption of National Ambient Air Qualitv Standards as Communitv Standad 

Sections 4.1 - 4.8: The recommendation is to match 40 CFR part 50 headings and delete any 

references to the 1 -hour ozone NAAQS from section 4.5. 
ATTACHMENT B: Part I1 Permit Requirements 

Comment 12: 

A table of contents would be very useful for a rule of this length and complexity. 

Comment 13: 

General Concepts in the Draft Permit Ordinance (page 3). Last sentence: "If the pollutant that a 

source emits may cause a violation of a NAAQS, the source must install air pollution control 

equipment or institute the work practices necessary to eliminate the. threat." We suggest you add 

"or contribution to a violation" after "violation" in the sentence above. 

Comment 14. 

The rule requires new Title V sources to submit Title V permit applications at the same time as 

they submit applications to EPA for major NSR permits (section 2.2.C., page 21). As we 

observed in our comments on a previous version of the rule, this is inconsistent with Part 

70.5(a)(l)(ii). A new source that is subject to Title V, or an existing source that becomes subject 

to Title V, must submit an application within 12 months of commencing operation of the new or 

modified source "or on or before such earlier date as the permitting authority may establish." 

While GRIC DEQ may establish an earlier deadline, the deadline cannot be earlier than when the 

source becomes subject to Title V, i.e., commences operation. Simultaneous applications for 

Title V and major NSR permits are necessary for permitting authorities with unitary permitting 

programs that coinbine Title V and NSR permitting, such as the state and county agencies in 

Arizona. However, since the GRIC permitting program will not include major NSR, which will 

continue to be implemented by EPA, the GRIC program should differ from the other programs in 

Arizona in this respect. GRIC DEQ should revise section 2.2.C. to require new sources to apply 

for Title V permits before they are subject to the program. 

Comment 15: 

The rule incorporates many Part 70 provisions by reference, but does not specify which version 

of Part 70 is being incorporated. In order to avoid confusion regarding whether the GRIC rule 

refers to the 1992 final Part 70 rule or the various subsequent revisions to Part 70.6, the rule 

should specify a date. GRIC DEQ will have to update the references when EPA revises Part 

70.6, but this is unavoidable. 

Comment 16: 

The rule should define "affected states" (which is defined in Part 70) and "affected tribes," since 

these terms are used in the rule. 

Comment 17: 

Section 3.9 (page 26) states that "Any conditions imposed by the Administrator on a major 

source as a result of the preconstruction review process shall be automatically incorporated in 

4 
the source's Title V permit upon their effective date or the date of issuance of the Title V permit, 

whichever is later." (emphasis added) The use of the term "automatically" is misleading, 

especially with respect to existing sources that already have Title V permits. In this scenario, a 

source must apply to GRIC DEQ for a modification of its Title V permit. This process requires 

substantive actions by the source and GRIC DEQ, which are not automatic. GRIC DEQ should 

revise the language in section 3.9 since permit modifications are required for existing sources. 

Comment 18. 

If an existing Title V permit prohibits the new construction or change in the method of operation 

authorized by a major NSR permit, the source cannot make the change until the Title V permit 

has been revised. See Part 70.5(a)(l)(ii). Although the rule incorporates the permit revision 

requirements of Part 70.7 by reference, it does not capture this prohibition in Part 70.5, which 

should be added to the rule. 

Comment 19: 

We have these comments about Subsection 4.2.C. (synthetic minor permits) (pages 28-29): 

a. The subsection uses the term "permanent," yet a synthetic minor source could become a 

major source if it makes a modification that increases its potential to emit, or decides it 

prefers being a Title V source to operating with restrictions needed to make it non-major. 

b. The intent of this provision 4.2.C.1 is unclear: ". . .such emission limitations, controls, or 

other requirements shall be at least as stringent as the emission limitations, controls, or other 

requirements that would otherwise be applicable to that source." A source may become a 

synthetic minor provided it limits its potential to emit to less than the major source threshold, 

regardless of how such limits compare in stringency to other requirements. If other more 

stringent requirements are federallyltribally enforceable and are sufficient to limit the 

source's potential to emit to less than the major source threshold, additional restrictions 

would be unnecessary. 

c. The phrase "permit conditions are permanent and quantifiable" (4.2 .C .2(a)) should be 

revised, since it is emissions, not conditions, that must be reduced and quantifiable. 

d. The intent of referencing an applicable requirement in the phrase "consistent with the 

averaging times of the applicable requirement" (4.2.C.2(d)) is unclear. 

Comment 20: 

Subsection 4.2.C.2(f) should be clarified. It appears that the intent is to require that permits 

contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements sufficient to limit synthetic minor 

sources' potential to emit to less than the major source threshold. 
Comment 21. 

The compliance plan for non-Title V sources described in subsection 4.4.A. 10 (page 32) is a 

requirement for application content, not permit content, and should be moved to subsection 4.3. 

In addition, the provision that states "If a compliance plan declares that a source is in compliance 

with an applicable requirement for which the source is not in compliance.. ." appears to refer to a 

source making a false claim about its compliance status, which we assume is not GRIC DEQ7s 

intent. This provision should be revised to require that sources submit a schedule of compliance 

for any applicable requirement for which they are out of compliance. 

Comment 22. 

The rule incorporates by reference Part 70.7, which includes public participation requirements 

(Part 70.7(h)), yet it also has public participation provisions in section 4.6. To the extent that 

these two overlapping sets of requirements might not be consistent with each other, the presence 

of two sets of similar requirements in the rule could cause confusion. GRIC DEQ might want to 

limit section 4.6 to non-Title V permits to remove any doubts about which public participation 

provisions apply in any given permitting action. 

Comment 23: 

EPA seeks clarification on the intent of subsection 5.2.C.2 (page 38), which allows a non-Title V 

source to increase its actual emissions by more than 10% of the major source threshold, as long 

as a permit revision is not required. Since an increase in potential to emit of 25 tpy requires a 

permit revision (subsection 5.1 .A.6 on page 36), the rule appears to allow a non-Title V source to 

increase its actual emissions by up to 24 tpy without a permit revision. 

Comment 24: 

How will GRIC DEQ and sources know what the actual emission increase will be? The rule 

does not require sources to make pr~~jections and keep records on-site. 

Comment 25: 

The meaning of "conventional pollutant" in this provision is not clear, as this term is not defined. 

Comment 26: 

The permit reopening provision in subsection 5.7.A. 1 .(a) is inconsistent with Part 70, which 

states in Part 70.7(f)(2): 

Proceedings to reopen and issue a permit shall follow the same procedures as apply 

to initial permit issuance and shall affect only those parts of the permit for which 

cause to reopen exists. 

A reopening does not affect the entire Title V permit, nor should it reset the five year permit 

term, as the rule states. GRIC DEQ should revise the rule to make it consistent with Part 70. 

6 
Comment 2 7: 

There is a typographical error on page 28: Add "A" to 4.2.A.3.c: ". . .described in subsection 

5.1.A(6) ..." 
ATTACHMENT C: NESHAPS DELEGATION SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF 

AGREEMENT (MOA) 

Attached is a draft MOA to look at as a sample - it might help you understand EPA's delegation 

process better and give you an idea of what we would like to see from GRIC. 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN 

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

AND 

THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX 

REGARDING 

DELEGATION OF NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS 

FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") establishes procedures to 

facilitate delegation to the Gila River Indian Con~munity Department of Environmental Quality 

("GRIC-DEQ") of the authority to implement and enforce federal rules. emission standards, and 

requirements promulgated under Section 1 12 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 741 2 (hereinafter 

referred to as the "Section 1 12 federal rules"). This Agreement further sets forth the manner in 

which the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX ("EPA"), and GRIC-DEQ 

will coordinate their respective responsibilities to ensure expeditious delegation of the Section 

112 federal rules to GRIC-DEQ. EPA and GRIC-DEQ will review this Agreement as the need 

arises. 

Pursuant to Section 1 12, EPA promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants, i.e., the Section 1 12 federal rules. Under Section 1 12(1), a tribal authority may 

develop and submit to EPA for approval a program for the implementation and enforcement of 

promulgated Section 112 federal rules, provided certain specified approval criteria have been 

met. On November 26, 1993, EPA promulgated regulations, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, 

Subpart E (hereinafter "Subpart E"), to provide guidance useful to state, local, and tribal 

authorities in developing programs for submittal under Section 1 12(1). Subpart E was later 

revised on September 14, 2000. See 65 Federal Register 55809. While a tribal authority's 

submission of rules or programs under 1 12(1) is voluntary, a tribe seeking to implement and 

enforce some provisions of its own program in lieu of a Section 112 federal rule needs to obtain 

EPA approval under Subpart E. Once granted approval, the approved tribal rules or programs 

would be federally enforceable and would substitute for the otherwise applicable Section 1 12 

federal rule within that tribe's jurisdiction. Regardless of whether a tribal rule or program is 

approved or disapproved, nothing shall prohibit EPA from enforcing any applicable emission 

standard or requirement under Section 112. See Section 112(1)(7) and 40 C.F.R. Section 

63.90(d)(2). 
Subpart E includes several options for requesting approval of tribal rules or programs. 

Under one of these options, a tribe may request delegation of Section 1 12 federal rules as 

promulgated without changes. To obtain approval under this option, a tribe need only meet the 

criteria in 40 C.F.R. Part 63.9 1. On [date], EPA promulgated approval under Section 1 12(1)(5) 

and 40 C.F.R. Part 63.91 of GRIC-DEQ's program for receiving delegation of Section 1 12 

federal rules that are unchanged from the Section 112 federal rules as promulgated. See [ 

Federal Register citation]. During this approval process, GRIC-DEQ informed EPA that it 

intends to obtain the regulatory authority necessary to accept delegation of the Section 1 12 

federal rules by incorporating by reference these rules into tribal codes of regulation. See [ 

Federal Register citation]. This Agreement establishes procedures to facilitate this delegation 

process. 

11. POLICY STATEMENT 

EPA and GRIC-DEQ are responsible for ensuring that their respective obligations under 

this Agreement are met. In summary. GRIC-DEQ has the responsibility to incorporate the 

Section 1 12 federal rules into tribal codes of regulation by reference and to initiate the delegation 

process by submitting an application that conforms with Subpart E; while EPA has the 

responsibility to provide GRIC-DEQ with information regarding upcoming Section 1 12 federal 

rules and to review GRIC-DEQ's applications. EPA and GRIC-DEQ agree to maintain a high 

level of cooperation and coordination between their respective staffs in a partnership to assure 

successful and effective delegation of the Section 1 12 federal rules. 

111. INFORMATION SHARING 

A. GENERAL 

EPA and GRIC-DEQ agree to participate in conference calls, as needed, to discuss legal, 

policy, resource, or technical issues related to delegation of Section 112 federal rules. 

B. EPA 

1. EPA will update GRIC-DEQ periodically on important developments under Section 1 12, 

including progress on the proposal and promulgation of Section 112 federal rules and 

development of EPA policies. EPA agrees to provide GRIC-DEQ with the names, 

addresses, and phone and fax numbers of the EPA contacts for each Section 11 2 federal 

rule, as well as any information regarding delegation. 

2. EPA agrees, when reasonably foreseeable, to communicate to GRIC-DEQ that the 

implementation and enforcement of any new Section 1 12 federal rule may require 

additional legal, technical, or financial resources on the part of GRIC-DEQ. 

3. EPA will provide GRIC-DEQ with any information EPA may have collected regarding 

sources within GRIC-DEQ's jurisdiction that may be subject to a Section 1 12 federal 

rule. 
C. GRIC-DEQ 

1. GRIC-DEQ will work cooperatively with EPA to identify all sources within GRICDEQ's jurisdiction that may be subject to a Section 1 12 federal rule. 

2. GRIC-DEQ agrees to notify EPA in advance of any proposed program changes that may 

affect GRIC-DEQ's ability to implement or enforce any Section 1 12 federal rule for 

which GRIC-DEQ has received delegation or will request delegation. Program changes 

of concern include modification of GRIC-DEQ's legal authorities (e.g., statutes, 

regulations, or judicial or legislative actions affecting those authorities), modification of 

resource levels, modification of implementation schedules, etc., that were part of any 

approval under Section 1 12 or Subpart E. 

3. GRIC-DEQ understands that EPA may request GRIC-DEQ to provide the information or 

the demonstrations referenced in 40 C.F.R. Part 63.96(a). 

IV. DELEGATION PROCEDURES 

A. GRIC-DEQ 

1. As noted above, GRIC-DEQ intends to obtain the regulatory authority necessary to 

accept delegation of the Section 1 12 federal rules by incorporating these rules into tribal 

codes of regulation by reference. For the Section 1 12 federal rules for which GRIC-DEQ 

will seek delegation, GRIC-DEQ agrees to incorporate the Section 1 12 federal rules by 

reference into the [name of GRIC legislation] as expeditiously as possible. 

2. For each Section 1 12 federal rule (or group of rules) for which GRIC-DEQ will seek 

delegation, GRIC-DEQ agrees to submit a letter as soon as practicable (if possible, 

immediately after the relevant tribal regulatory action is complete or within six months 

following such action) to the Director of EPA Region IX's Air Division requesting 

delegation of the Section 1 12 federal rule. GRIC-DEQ shall include with this letter, 

proof that GRIC-DEQ has obtained the necessary regulatory authority to fully implement 

and enforce the Section 1 12 federal rule for which it is seeking delegation. This proof 

shall include a certification of adoption and a copy of the regulatory provisions by which 

the Section 1 12 federal rule was adopted. 

B. EPA 

1. In response to a letter requesting delegation of a Section 1 12 federal rule, EPA agrees to 

expeditiously review the request and respond in writing as to whether the delegation is 

approved or disapproved. 

2. If the delegation request is approved, the effective date of the delegation of the Section 

112 federal rule will be the date when the Director of EPA Region IX's Air Division 

signs the approval letter. 

3. Periodically, EPA will publish in the Federal Register an updated list of the Section 112 

10 
federal rules that have been delegated. 

V. POST-DELEGATION 

A. EPA 

1. After delegation of a Section 1 12 federal rule, EPA agrees to continue to provide 

assistance to GRIC-DEQ in the implementation or enforcement of the Section 1 12 federal 

rule. 

2. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 63.9(a)(4)(ii) and 63.10 (a)(4)(ii), EPA hereby waives the 

requirements that notifications and reports be submitted to EPA for any Section 1 12 

federal rules for which GRIC-DEQ has received delegation (i.e., upon delegation, 

affected sources need only submit required notifications and reports to GRIC-DEQ). 

EPA reserves the right to reevaluate the appropriateness of such a broad waiver in the 

event of programmatic changes or on a source category basis. 

B. GRIC-DEQ 

1. GRIC-DEQ understands that for any Section 112 federal rule for which it requests and 

receives delegation, it will be the primary implementing agency and will be responsible 

for implementing and enforcing the Section 1 12 federal rule independent of and in 

addition to the coilditions of any affected source's operating permit under 40 C.F.R. Part 

70. 

2. GRIC-DEQ agrees to retain records required by Section 1 12 federal rules, and make 

records available to EPA upon request. 

3. GRIC-DEQ understands that certain authorities are retained by EPA and are not 

delegable to GRIC-DEQ. See. for example, 40 C.F.R. Part 63.90(d) and 63.91(g)(2). In 

general, authorities that are not delegable include those functions that require rulemaking 

in the Federal Register or those situations where federal oversight is the only way to 

ensure national consistency in the application of the standards. 

4. GRIC-DEQ agrees that delegation of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart A will include the 

"Category I" authorities listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 63.91(g)(l)(i). EPA retains the authority 

to make decisions according to the "Category 11" authorities listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 

63.9 1 (g)(2)(ii). 

5. GRIC-DEQ agrees to forward to EPA a copy of all decisions made pursuant to "Category 

I" authorities (as mentioned in 40 C.F.R. Part 63.91(g)(l)), as well as any determinations 

made pursuant to 40 C.F.R Parts 63.6(i) or 63.5(f). In addition, GRIC-DEQ agrees to 

provide EPA with a copy of any requests sent to GRIC-DEQ for minor or intermediate 

alternatives to MACT standard test methods or monitoring, prior to approval or 

disapproval by GRIC-DEQ. 
VI. DISCLAIMERS 

1. This Agreement is for the benefit of EPA and GRIC-DEQ. This Agreement does not 

create any rights, duties, or obligations, implied or otherwise, in any third parties. 

2. As stated above, nothing shall prohibit EPA from enforcing any applicable emission 

standard or requirement under Section 112. 

This Agreement shall become effective when signed by both parties. 

Patricia Mariella, P~D. 

Director, Department of Environmental Quality 

Gila River Indian Community 

Date: 

Deborah Jordan 

Director, Air Division 

U.S. EPA Region IX 
ATTACHMENT D: EPA Comments on Part V. Area Sources, Part VI, Individual Source 

Requirements for Existing and New Sources, and Part VII, SourceICategory Specific 

Emissions Limits for Existing and New Sources 

Part V, Area Sources, Section 2.0, Fu~itive Dust 

We note that control of additional fugitive dust sources not subject to this draft rule may be 

important for PM-10 reductions, including public unpaved roads and unpaved parking lots, 

agricultural sources, and paved road re-entrained dust. Below we have listed some 

recommendations to improve the stringency of the rule. 

Unpaved hauVaccess roads and unpaved parking lots requirements - sections 4.0 and 5.0 

Comment 28: 

Require that 20% opacity is met for all control measure alternatives with the exception of paving 

(eliminate the "or" in sections 4.3 and 5.1 (B)). 

Comment 29: 

In addition to the 20% opacity standard, require a silt content standard of 6% for unpaved roads 

and 8% for unpaved parking lots, or a 0.33 ozlsq. foot silt loading standard. The appropriate test 

methods can be found in Appendix C of Maricopa County regulations. Because it is not always 

possible to conduct a representative opacity test on these sources, a silt content/loading standard 

is an alternative test procedure that can be done at any time to determine compliance. In addition 

to silt contentlloading test methods, Appendix C of Maricopa County regulations contains an 

opacity test method specifically tailored to unpaved roadslparking lots relative to the standard 

EPA Reference Method 9 procedure. 

Comment 30: 

Specifically define which unpaved parking lots are subject to the rule instead of using the phrase 

"any unpaved parking lot in an industrial area" (per section 4.0). Is the intent to apply to the rule 

to industrial unpaved parking lots only or to unpaved parking lots ownedloperated by other 

entities? 

Comment 31 

Define "vehicles per day" (term used in section 4.0). Note that 20 vehicle trips per day equals a 

single day's use of a road by 10 vehicles. 

Dust control plan requirements - sections 6 and 7 

Comment 32. 

Re-write the 3rd sentence of section 6.0. This sentence indicates owners and/or operators will be 

13 
in violation of the rule if they fail to submit an approvable dust control plan and receive an 

earthmoving permit. This sentence should state that it is a violation to commence earthmoving 

prior to receiving an approvable dust control plan and permit from GRIC DEQ. 

Comment 33: 

Add text to section 7.3B stating that any alternative control measure(s) not in Table 1 must be 

implemented to comply with the rule's standards and corresponding test methods. 

Work practices (section 10) and Table 1 

Comment 34: 

Eliminate text in Table 1 listed under some source categories that states "the control measures are 

required work practices". Table 1 control measures for all sources listed are required per section 

10, so it is misleading to label only some source category measures as required (with the 

exception of trackout control device requirements, which are only required for sources that meet 

the thresholds described in section 10.3(A)). 

Comment 35: 

Establish specific work practices for blasting operations (see Maricopa County Rule 3 10 Table 

9)- 

Comment 36: 

Establish specific work practices for weed abatement (see Maricopa County Rule 3 10 Table 18). 

Compliance and test methods - section 12 

Comment 3 7: 

Add surface stabilization performance standards for disturbed surfaces and open storage piles. 

(See Maricopa County Appendix C.) Surface stabilization standards are necessary to ensure 

proactive source control prior to a windblown dust event. Also, conducting a representative 

opacity test on windblown dust sources can be difficult due to the intermittent and variable 

aspects of wind-driven plumes so the rule should not fully rely on it. The surface stability tests 

enable verification of surface crusting, moisture or sufficient rocklvegetation coverage. 

Comment 38: 

We suggest you eliminate section 12.1. Section 12. I (A) states that source owners/operators are 

to periodically survey their sites at least once per calendar quarter or more frequently if sources 

change often. However, source owners/operators are responsible at all times for compliance with 

the rule. Section 12.1 A through D provisions are already inherent in the rule requirements and 

Section 12.1 D conflicts with section 13 which requires recordkeeping on a daily basis as 

opposed to a quarterly basis. 

14 
Comment 39: 

Revise section 12.2 "test methods" to include or incorporate by reference an appropriate opacity 

and surface stabilization test methods applicable to various sources. (See Maricopa County Rule 

3 10 section 501.1 and Appendix C.) Also, add text stating that compliance with the rule is based 

on documented compliance with the applicable performance standards, work practice 

requirements, and Table 1 requirements, not only compliance with "reasonable precautions" in 

section 3.1 (B). 

Other 

Comment 40: 

Define owner and/or operator. (See Maricopa County Rule 3 10 section 220.) 

Comment 31 

Eliminate the phrase "where possible" from section 3.1 (B)(l). 
Part VI, Individual Source Requirements for Existing and New Sources 

Section 3.0, Degreasing and Solvent Metal Cleaning 

Comment 42. 

Subsections 4.1 (B)(3) and 5.1 (A)(3)(e). These subsections allow alternative control systems to 

be approved by the Department in lieu of fulfilling more specific requirements. This represents 

Department discretion. Department discretion is inconsistent with CAA section 11 0(i), which 

restricts changes to the SIP without going through the public process, and section 1 10(a), which 

requires that the SIP rules be enforceable. These subsections should be modified as follows to 

specify the criteria for alternative control systems: 

a. 4.1(B)(3). Another system of equivalent control (as determined bv the test methods in Section 

9, such as a refrigerated chiller or a carbon adsorber, approved by the Department. 

b. 5.1(A)(3)(e). A control system, such as a thermal or catalytic incinerator, demonstrated to 

have a control efficiency equivalent to or greater than the control measures listed in the above 

paragraphs (as determined bv the test methods in Section 9.21 and approved by the Department. 

Comment 33: 

A new subsection should be added to Section 9.2 specifying the methods to determine control 

efficiency, as in the following example. 

9.2 (I). The control equipment efficiency of an emission control system as specified in 

subparagraph (k)(l)(D), on a mass emissions basis, and the VOC concentrations in the exhaust 

gases, measured and calculated as carbon, shall be determined by USEPA Test Methods 25, 25A. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Method 25.1 (Deternlination of 

Total GaseousNon-Methane Organic Emissions as Carbon), or SCAQMD Method 25.3 

(Determination of Low Concentration Non-Methane Non-Ethane Organic Compound 

Emissions from Clean Fueled Combustion Sources), as applicable. USEPA Test Method 18, 

or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 422 shall be used to determine emissions of 

exempt compounds. 

Subsection 7.1 (A). This subsection requires the submission of an Operation and Maintenance 

Plan (O&NI Plan) for certain solvent cleaning operations. However, the rule text does not 

specify what information should be contained in the O&M Plan. To ensure enforceability, 

Section 7.1 should be revised to specify the exact required contents of the O&M Plan. 
Comment 35: 

Section 8.1. This subsection requires the submission of an initial compliance certification (ICC) 

within 6 months of the regulation's effective date, or upon startup of a new solvent cleaner or 

ECS. However, the rule text does not specify what information should be contained in the ICC. 

To ensure enforceability, Section 7.1 should be revised to specify the exact required contents of 

the ICC. 
Part VII, Source/Categorv Specific Emissions Limits for Existing and New Sources 

Section 1.0, Secondarv Aluminum Production. 

GRIC is adopting the Secondary Aluminum MACT and intends for their rule to be more 

stringent than the MACT. Their rule includes NAAQS (opacity and VOC) requirements. 

Comment 46: 

Section 1.0 Applicabilit~. This section should state that the requirements in this rule are in 

addition to those in the Federal MACT standard. 

Comment 47: 

Sections such as 2.0 Definitions which are intended to be the same as the MACT should 

reference the MACT standard, rather than be repeated in the rule. This will minimize conflicts 

and eliminate the need to update the rule when EPA changes those sections. (e.g., the "clean 

charge" definition in the GRIC rule is from EPA's 312000 rulemaking. EPA modified this 

definition in 1212002). 

The comments below (Comments 49-55) assume the GRIC rule was customized for the Pimalco 

facility. EPA recommends GRIC delete all sections that are not specifically more stringent than 

the MACT. If special emphasis is needed to highlight a particular requirement, then that section 

should state this, instead of repeating the MACT requirement. 

Comment 49: 

Section 3.5.A. Raw Material - scrap inspection and Section 3.5.B. Labeling. These sections 

appear to be the same as the MACT standard and should be removed. Our understanding is 

Pimalco does not have scrap dryer1delacquering kilddecoating kilns. 

Comment 50: 

Section 3.5.C. 1. Reactive flux. Our understanding is Pimalco does not use reactive flux, so this 

section can be deleted, and the MACT standard can be referenced. 

Comment 51: 

Section 4.1 Source testing. This section requires a performance test to be conducted if one hasn't 

been conducted within 36 months of the effective date of the rule. Pimalco completed a 

dioxidfuran source test in 1212002. The MACT standard requires retesting every five years. 

EPA does not object if GRIC wishes to require a source test prior to the five year term, however 

due to the high expense of a dioxinlfuran test, and results indicating Pimalco was approximately 

50 times below the MACT dioxidfuran limit in 2002, we would not recommend an earlier retest 

unless there was some indication their operations have changed. 

18 
Comment 52: 

Section 4.1 .B. Testing of representative units. This section is similar to 63.151 1(f) in EPA's 

3/2000 version of the MACT. This section has since been changed. EPA recommends this 

section be deleted. If necessary the rule can reference the appropriate section in the MACT 

standard. 

Comment 53: 

Section 4.1 .D. 1 and D.2 - Reactive flux addition rate. These sections are similar to 63.1 5 1 2(e)(3) 

and (h)(2). Pimalco's Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring plan states they do not use 

reactive flux. Also, if Pimalco remains an area source for HAPS, the HC1 limits would not apply. 

We recommend these sections be deleted and the MACT standard be referenced. 

Comment 53. 

Section 4.D.4 Visible emissions. Pimalco's furnaces have no stacks and vent indoors. Therefore. 

visible emission readings would be taken off of roof vents, if present. 

Comment 55: 

Section 4.2 Recordkeeping. Piinalco states their furnaces do not have air pollution control 

devices. If GRIC wishes to retain the requirement to maintain records on air pollution control 

devices, include total operating hours and down time. However, it would be preferable to delete 

this section and instead reference the MACT standard. 
Part VII, Source/Categorv Specific Emissions Limits for Existing and New Sources 

Section 3.0, Nonmetallic Mineral Minine and Processing 

We believe that the rule is approvable if the following changes are made: 

Comment 56: 

Front page: This page should contain the name of the regulatory district so that Section 3.0 is a 

stand-alone document. 

Comment 5 7: 

7.0: The rule requires a performance testing frequency for facilities not required to test under 

federal regulation of, at a minimum, every 5 years or on a case-by-case basis at a more frequent 

interval as determined by the Director. However, violations of the emission standards could 

potentially continue for up to 5 years unknown and undetected for such facilities. We believe 

that this requirement is satisfactory with respect to determining compliance with the mass-rate 

emission standard, but not with respect to the opacity standard. The opacity test is a simple, 

visual method that should be used as a tool for frequent monitoring of emissions. In no case 

should compliance testing with respect to the opacity standard be less frequent than every year. 
Page 1 of 1 

Janet Travis 

From: "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us> 

To: "Daniel Blair (E-mail)" <air@gilanet.net>; "janet travis (E-mail)" <jtravis@gilanet.net>; "Leroy 

Williams (E-mail)" <williams@gilanet.net>; "Margaret Cook (E-mail)" 

cMargaret.Cook@gric.nsn.us>; "Russell Betsuie (E-mail)" <Rbetsuie@gilanet.net>; "Willard 

Antone (E-mail)" <wantone3@gilanet.net> 

Sent: Tuesday, August 09,2005 10:41 AM 

Subject: FW Additional EPA comments on GRIC 'TIP 

Here's an initial comment on open burning - so far so good 

Pat M 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Steckel.Andrew@epamaiI.epa.gov [mailto:Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:38 AM 

To: Patricia Mariella 

Cc: Mckaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov; alpete99@comcast.net; Wamsley.Jerry@epamaiI.epa.gov; 

Tax.Wienke@epamail.epa.gov; McDaniel.Doug@epamaiI.epa.gov; jtravis@gilanet.net 

Subject: Additional EPA comments on GRIC TIP 

Dr. Mariella: 

By letter dated July 25th, EPA provided cominents on the May 20th draft Gila River Indian Community 

Tribal Impleinentation Plan for Air Quality Management. We also said that we would send a few 

additional cominents in the near future. The remaining cominents 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 this 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. I.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. 
GRIC TIP Revisions in response to the 3hour conference call 

with EPA on 8-23-05 

On 8-29-05 Janet, Daniel and Michelle conducted a conference call to discuss TIP 

changes that needed to be made in response to the EPA Conference call. In addition, 

Daniel is researchng additional support documentation. Please find following a 

summary of the changes. If anyone has any other changes please let me or Michelle 

know. 

Part II Permit Requirements 

EPA Comment if 15: Michelle will add overall language to state that we are incorporating 

Part 70 as of the Re-notice date for the TIP. She will add place holders for the unknown 

date. It is felt that it is easier to insert this language in one place rather than listing it in 

each area where Part 70 is mentioned. 

EPA Comment #17: Michelle will delete the first "Title V Permit" in the last sentence of 

3.9 ofPart11. 

EPA Comment (No#): Michelle will add the language submitted by EPA for sections 

7.2 and 8.0 (Part 11) referencing the "Administrator" and Director of GRlC DEQ. This 

section will indicate that the "Administrator" will mean "Dirctor" once EPA delegates the 

NESHAPs programs. 

MOA Agreement: 

MOA is only required for NESHAPs. Part 70, NSPS and TIP are delegated through 

program approval. 

Part 70 delegation requires a more complete description of eligibility (in addition to TAS 

eligibility statement) to address the elements of 70.4 (e.g., Permit Application forms) 

MOA needs to clari@ that "Administrator" means Director of GRIC in 7.2 & 8.0 only 

after the programs are approved. 

Open Burning: 

Do we need to make open burning federally enforceable or do we keep it local? 

Michelle will add a requirement to burn only dry materials in section 4.1 (A). 

Michelle will add a definition of "Smaller Piles" (e.g., 4ft x4ft) 

Michelle will add a definition of high winds that will apply to commercial burns only 

(e. g., 10 mph) 
Question for Pat Were we going to delete any reference to a bum prohbition in section 

3.1 (last sentence) and delete housing development area? I believe the decision to delete 

the reference to ban burning in housing developments came after the TIP went out for 

public comment. 

Aerospace Ordinance: 

Michelle will add testing requirements to include EPA Method 24 (VOC Content of 

Coatings), Method 25 and submethods and Method 18 (VOC content of gaseous 

emissions entering and exiting ECS), EPA method 204 A-F (capture and control) and a 

formula for calculating Total VOC vapor pressure. 

Fugitive Dust Ordinance: 

Coinment #2 9 

Michelle was going to originally hold off on making changes to the fugitive dust 

ordinance but after much thought there would probably be an approvability problem if 

the changes were not made. So, unless anyone will have a high degree of heart bum over 

adding the silt loading requirements and test inethods for unpaved roads and unpaved 

parking lots we should probably add these requirements. Any thoughts? 

Comment #3 1 

Roger recommended adding "trips" to section 4.0 to read "20 vehicle trips /dayw. 

Michelle will make this revision. 

Comment #33 

Michelle will add "in accordance with the appropriate test method in section 12.0. 

Michelle will also move the current section 12 to 13 and add the test inethods from 

Maricopa County Rule 3 10 and appendix C to the new section 12. 

Comment #35 

Dan reviewed Maricopa County Rule 3 10 (table 9) and the blasting requirements include 

"discontinue blasting in winds > 25mph and pre-water and stabilizearea where vehicle 

traffic occurs. Michelle will add table 9 from Maricopa county Rule 3 10. 

Comment #37,38,39: 

Michelle and Dan will work together to add the necessary test methods to section 12.0 

from Maricopa County Rule 3 10 and appendix C. Maricopa County Appendix C is 22 

pages long and explains how to conduct each test method including the infamous ball 

drop method. Do we need to include appendix C if we add these test methods? I have 

mixed feelings about adding these test methods and thought that Tribes could sever 

things that didn't make since to implement. I don't know if EPA is considering these test 

methods as meeting RACT or RACMS. It is my understanding that Maricopa County 

Rule 3 10 is the equivalent of BACT or BACMs. They are implementing these 

requirements to meet the SIP. 
Comment #40: 

Michelle will revise the current definition in Part 11 and the ordinance of "owner and/or 

operator" to reflect the definition in Maricopa County Rule 3 10, section 220. 

Degreasing & Solvent Metal Cleaning 

Comment #44 

EPA recommended specific requirements be added for O&M Plans. EPA sent 

recommended language to add but it does not address Comment #44. The language 

provided by EPA is more vague than the language originally in the ordinance. I 

recommend leaving the ordinance unchanged so we have flexability to fit O&M plans to 

specific types of control equipment. If we change the O&M requirements in this 

ordnance we will have to change several of the ordinances. 

Comment #45 

We have not received any guidance concerning Initial Compliance Certification. Again, I 

recommend leaving the ordinances unchanged. If we change this ordinance we will have 

to change several of the ordinances. 

Secondary Aluminum Ordinance 

Comment #46 

Michelle will add "the requirements in this ordinance are in addition to the federal 

MACT standards @ 40CFR, Part 63, Subpart RRR." 

Comment #54 (Visible Emissions) 

Michelle will add a statement "as determined by applying EPA Method 9 protocol." 
Page 1 of 1 

Janet Travis 

From: "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us> 

To: "Daniel Blair (E-mail)" <air@gilanet.net>; '7anet travis (E-mail)" <jtravis@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: w 

<<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 coines back, that would be 

great. 

Pat Mariella 
Page 1 of 2 

Janet Travis 

From: <McDaniel.Doug@epamail.epa.gov> 

To: "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us>; <air@gilanet.net> 

Cc: <Wang.Mae@epamail.epa.gov>; <Mckayghan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov>; 

<Tax.W~enke@epamaiI.epa.gov>; <SteckeI.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, August 24,2005 8:40 AM 

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

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

----- Forwarded by Doug McDaniel/R9/USEPA/US on 08/24/2005 08:34 AM 

Mae 

Wang/R9/USEPA/US 

To 

08/23/2005 03: 16 Doug McDw@evR_9iUSEP.AIUS@E1$4 

PM cc 

Andrew St.eeclrel/R9!VSE_P_p$lu.S@E_PA, 

Cynthia Al!edRSNSEPAAJS_@EP~., 

Roger K.oWR?!.USEPMUSR@EP_J4 

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. 1 think 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 

fiom 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 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 6 1 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 112(e)(3) of the Act. 
Page 1 of 1 

Janet Travis 

From: ~McDaniel. Doug@epamail.epa.gov> 

To : "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@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/R9/USEPA/US on 08/25/2005 07:44 AM 

Doug, 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 ally 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 

httpl//.mt b~m.d_.gov/dstlreg~!sltions1rg04.000.pdf 

c. they cannot exceed 20% opacity for 3 minutes (e.g., 12 readings at 

15 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: cMcDaniel.Doug@epamail.epa.gov> 

To: "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us>; <air@gilanet.net> 

Cc: <Mckaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov>; <Tax.Wienke@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 111 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, 

inust include contingency plans, and the specific requirements for 

contingency plans differ depending on the Priority classification of a 

region. 

(3) Under 40 CFR 5 1.152(c), episode plans are not required for Priority 

111 regions. 

(4) Under 40 CFR 5 1.152(d), EPA may exempt from the requirement to 

prepare and subinit episode plans those portions of Priority I, IA, or 11 

regions that have been designated as attainment or unclassifiable under 

section 107 of the CAA. 

(5) So, given that Priority 111 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-I 0 

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 1 10(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 1335 1) is an example of a 

contingency plan that we have approved as meeting the applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements. This 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 94 105 

Telephone: (4 15) 972-390 1 

Fax: (4 15) 947-3571 
Feb 02 06 04:44p Colleen HcKaughan I5201 498-1333 P- 1 

FAX 

TO: Pat Mariella, Dan Blair, Janet Travis 

520-562-2245 

FROM: Colleen McKaughan, USEPA 

(520) 498-1333 (Fax) 

(520) 498-01 18 (Phone) 

PAGES: 6, including cover 

DATE: 2/2/06 

SUBJECT: Comments on draft TIP Document 

NOTE: 
Feb 02 06 04:44p Colleen McKaughan 

LINITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, %A 941 05 

February 2,2006 

Patricia Mariella, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

Gila River Indian Community 

Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 97 

Sacaton, AZ 85247 

/' 

Thank you for submitting a draft version of the Gila River Indian Community (GRICJ Air 

Quality Management Program, (November 30, 2005 Drsfr) for our review. We appreciate the 

oppokty to review this document. We appreciate the efforts you have made to make the 

document easier to read, with headers or footers on each page, as well as having each subchapter or section begin on a new page. In Attachment A to tbis letter, we present a few detailed 

comments for specific sections of the document. Because of revisions your stafT made to the 

VOC storage, usage, and handling rules, we will need to submit one additional set of comments 

to you after we have reviewed those rules. We have included the fugitive dust comments, which 

we discussed yesterday with Dan Blair of your staff. We wilI need to have a separate discussion 

with you when you are ready to request NESHAPS delegation and set that procedure up. In our 

July 25, 2005 comment letter, we incIuded a draft MOA for delegation. 

We also request that your final submittaI incIude an executive summary describing the package, 

identifying the CAA programs for which the Tribe is seeking approval, and describing where in 

the package we can locate tbe items that fulfill the corresponding program requirements. 

Again, we are extremely pleased that GRIC has embarked on the process of developing its own 

TIP and air quaIity program. It presents a unique opportunity for us, and we look forward to 

continuing to collabomte with you on the TIP. Please Iet us know if you would like us to arrange 

a conference call to go over these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Colleen McKaughan 

Associate Director 
Feb 02 06 04:44p Colleen McKaughan 

ATTACHMENT A: COMMENTS ON GRIC AIR QUALITY PROGRAM 

ORDTNANCES, November 34 2005 version 

Part III, Permits Program 

Comment I 

One of the suggested comments £?om our July comment letter introduced some new language 

which is problematic. 

Sections 3.9 @age 37) and 2.2.C. (page 29) appear to allow title V sources to just@ proposed 

"deviations" from conditions in EPA-issued PSD permits in their titIe V applications. The terms 

and conditions of PSD permits are applicable requirements that must be included in sources' title 

V pennits. Failure to include one or more PSD permit conditions in a proposed title V permit 

may be grounds for EPA objection If a source needs to revise conditions in its PSD permit, it 

must apply to EPA for a permit modification But the GRIC rule must not allow sources to 

circumvent this process by making changes outside of the PSD permittin, u p rocess, 

We believe this problem would be a deficiency that would prevent full approval (i-e, it would 

cause us to onIy be able to grant interim approval). We recommend that GRlC DEQ fix this 

problem before submitting its pennit program. 

Part V, Section 2 Fugitive Dust 

Comment 2 

We suggested that unpaved haul roads and unpaved parking lots should be subject to both a 20% 

opacity standard md a silt content standard of 6% for roads and 8% for parking lots andor a 

0.33 ozlsq. ft. silt loading standard. 

While GRIC incorporated the 20% opacity standard, the rule does not require compliance witb 

the silt content andfor silt loading standard- (The alternative control measure options in sections 

4 and 5 only require compliance with 20% opacity.) 

Recommendation: that these sources be subject to both a 20% opacity standard and a silt 

content/silt loading standard. Site conditions will not always be favorable to determining 

compliance by the 20% opacity method, e.g., sun not in the right position (particularIy if road 

runs parallel to the sun's course), not enough Wc at the time the inspector is there (sometimes 

operations are halted when inspectors arrive). The options in sections 4 and 5 to apply a dust 

palliative and grave1 should be required to comply with the silt content ador silt loading 

standard as well as 20% opacity. GRXC should not assume that dust palliatives and gravel will be 

applied in a way that achieves the minimum level of control provided by the silt content/silt 

loading standard, particulady over time as the surface deteriorates. 
Frb 02 06 04344~ Colleen McKaughan 

Comment 3 

We suggested a specific definition be added to the rule clarifying which unpaved parking lots are 

subject to the rule. This comment was not incorporated 

Recommendation: that a definition for unpaved parking lots be added that mirrors the unpaved 

haul/access road definition. 

Comment 4 

We suggested that the rule incorporate surface stabilization tests for disturbed surfaces and open 

stowe piles. 

While section 12.2B incorporates by reference one of the applicable stabilization tests (the 

visible crust test), compliance with this test is not required. 

Recommendation: that the appropriate sources be subject to this stabilization test For example, 

this method should apply to Table I "Temporary Stabilization During Weekends, etc ...". 

Typically, fugitive dust rules define inactive areas of construction sites as "open areas", and this 

method would apply to open areas. Tne visible crust test method aIso should apply to open 

storage piles, and is the appropriate method to reference in section 10.5B.3 instead of subsection 

3.1B. 

Comment 5 

The rule lack the appropriate opacity test method to gauge dust plumes associated with active 

dust generating operations (e-g., for scraper activity, backhoeing, loading/unJoading bulk 

materials, and other active operations aside from unpaved haul road and unpaved parking lot 

use). We recommend that section 3 of Appendix C, Maricopa County regulations, be adopted by 

reference into section 12 and cross-referenced in the appropriate Table 1 source type control 

measures. 

Section 2.2 of Appendix C, Maricopa County regulations, is not adopted by reference into 

section 12.2. Since this is part of the procedure for conducting tests on open area and vacant lot 

sources, it should also be incorporated by reference. 

The rule does not specify how long records must be kept (see section 13). We recommend that 

records be maintained for 2 years. 
Fcb 02 06 04344~ Colleen McKaughan 

Part Vi, Section 3.0 Degreasing and Solvent Metal Cleaning 

Commenf 8 

Overall, the changes to this ordinance look good, except for a confusing typo, as foIlows. 

Section 5.1 (A)(3)(d) - Someone typed the number 9 instead of a lefi parenthesis, and the result is 

confusing. The section should read as follows. 

d. Carbon adsorption system, with ventilation greater than or equal to fifteen (15) 

cubic meters per minute per square meter mindj9) [m3/minlm2) (fifty (50) cubic feet per 

minute per square foot [cfin/ft2]) of air/solvent interface (when cover is open).-. 

< 

Also, there is one minor typo in Section 5.2(A). The word "degreasers" should have an 

apostrophe, as follows. 

k Workloads shall not occupy more than half of the dqrmxm dereaser's 

evaporative surface area. 

Part VII, Section 2.0, Aerospace 

Comment 9 

In Section 5.1, the nrle allows for monthly averclging to determine compliance. Allowing 

monthly averaging is not consistent with the aerospace manufactwing Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG) and other aerospace rnandacturing and coating Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (IUCT) rules within Region 9. 

We may allow monthly averaging under severe preconditions. A state or locality must 

demonstrate that tbe following riter ria have been met: (1) daily emission limits are infeasible; 

(2) actual VOC emissions under monthly averaging are consistent wiih relevant RACTBACT 

control levels; (3) the rule's averaging period is as short as possible and no longer than 30 days; 

and, (4) averaging will not jeopxdi7,e the NAAQS or Reasonable Further Progress requirements 

and that maximum daily VOC emissions are consistent with the area's compliance or 

maintenance plan. These conditions are described within "Averaging Times for Compliance 

with VOC Limits: SIP Revision Policy," John O'Connor, USEPAIOAQPS, dated January 20, 

1984. 

We speculate that states and Iocalities have not pursued monthly averaging within aerospace 

rules because (1) hey cannot meet these criteria, (2) thc 8 hour and 24 hour compliance time 

frames of the ozone NAAQS preclude monthly averaging, and (3) the problematic air toxics and 

environmental jtxstjce issues associated with elevated daily VOC emissions fiom aerospace 

mating operations under a monthly averaging regime.