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 ofthe 

### GilaRiver Indian Community (GRIC) 

### Tribal Implementatiolz Plan 

### ('TIP) for Air 

### QualityManagement (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 ofthe 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 1O(a)(2)(Athru M)), or if it doesn't, why the unmet requirement is reasonably severable from the other requirements. It will also be helpful ifthe submittal is made easier to read, with headers or footers oneach 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 ofAgreement (MOA) between GRIC and USEPA regarding the delegation ofthe National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). This is the mechanism that we use with other agenciesto 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 onthe 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 ofthe 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 SIPrequirements (CAA section 110(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 110(a)(2)(B),40 CFR part 

### 5 1.I90and 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 .thatportion ofthe 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 110(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 ofthe standard as soon as tliey occur, notjust on a regular basis, so community and public can take precautions. 

### Comment 8: Under Section 2.0, 

### K, we suggest you add "and EPAto "Provide the public the monitored data."

Section 3.0 Procedures for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of Tribal Implementation Plan, under 3.3 Submission ofplans, preliminary review ofplans, 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 1lO(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 suggestionsto Part I ofthe 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 ofthe 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 110(a)(2)(G) and related implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 

### 51, 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: 

### Section4.0Adoption of National Ambient Air Qualitv Standards as Communitv Standad Sections 4.1 

### - 4.8: The recommendation isto 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 ofthis length and complexity. Comment 13: General Concepts in the Draft Permit Ordinance (page 3). Last sentence: "Ifthe 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 12months of commencing operation of the new or modified source "or on or before such earlier date asthe 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 sourcesto 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 GRICrule refers to the 1992 final Part 70 rule or the various subsequent revisionsto Part 70.6, therule 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 4the source's Title 

### V permit upon their effective date or the date of issuance ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofhow 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 ofrequirements 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% ofthe 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 sourceto increase its actual emissions by up to 24 tpy without a permit revision. Comment24: 

### 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. Comment26: 

### 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 apermit shall follow the sameprocedures as apply to initial permit issuance and shall affect only those parts ofthepermit 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 27: 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 OFAGREEMENT BETWEEN GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND THE UNITED STATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX REGARDING DELEGATION OFNATIONAL 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 112 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 asthe 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 112(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 112(1) is voluntary, a tribe seeking to implement and enforce someprovisions 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 oftribal rules or programs. Under one ofthese 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 112(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 ofregulation. 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 ofregulation 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 112federal 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 ofthe 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 112, 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 ofthe EPA contacts for each Section 112 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 112 federal rule may require additional legal, technical, or financial resources onthe part of GRIC-DEQ. 3. EPA will provide GRIC-DEQ with any information EPA may have collected regarding sources within GRIC-DEQ'sjurisdiction that may be subjectto a Section 112 federal rule.C. GRIC-DEQ 

### 1. GRIC-DEQ will work cooperatively with EPA to identify all sources within GRICDEQ'sjurisdiction that may be subject to a Section 112 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, orjudicial or legislative actions affecting those authorities), modification of resource levels, modification of implementation schedules, etc., that were part of any approval under Section 112or 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 ofthe Section 

### 1 12 federal rules by incorporating these rules into tribal codes ofregulation by reference. For the Section 

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

### 1 12federal rules by reference into the [name of GRIC legislation] as expeditiously as possible. 2. For each Section 112federal 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 ofthe Section 112federal rule. GRIC-DEQ shall include with this letter, proofthat GRIC-DEQ has obtained the necessary regulatory authority to fully implement and enforce the Section 112 federal rule for which it is seeking delegation. Thisproof shall include a certification of adoption and a copy ofthe regulatory provisions by which the Section 112 federal rule was adopted. 

### B. EPA 1. In response to a letter requesting delegation of a Section 

### 1 12federal 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 

### 10federal rules that have been delegated. 

### V. POST-DELEGATION A. EPA 1. After delegation of a Section 112 federal rule, EPA agrees to continue to provide assistance to GRIC-DEQ in the implementation or enforcement of the Section 112federal 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 112 federal rules for which GRIC-DEQ has received delegation (i.e., upon delegation, affected sourcesneed 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 112federal 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 112 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 112federal 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" authoritieslisted 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 63.91 (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 orrequirement 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 subjectto 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 ofthe 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 tothe rule to industrial unpaved parking lots only or to unpaved parking lots ownedloperated by other entities? Comment 31 Define "vehiclesper 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 

### 3rdsentence of section 6.0. This sentence indicates owners and/or operators will be 13in 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 1must 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,soit is misleading to label only some source category measures as required (with the exception oftrackout 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 310Table 

### 9)- Comment 36: Establish specific work practices for weed abatement (see Maricopa County Rule 310 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 ifsources 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 13which 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 310 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 1requirements, not only compliance with "reasonable precautions" in section 3.1(B). Other 

### Comment40: 

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

### Comment31 

### Eliminate the phrase "wherepossible" 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. Subsections4.1(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 

### 110(a),which requires that the SIPrules 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 9.21and 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 subsectionrequires 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/CategorvSpecific EmissionsLimits 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. Comment46: Section 1.0Applicabilit~. This section should state that the requirements in this rule are in additionto 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 thePimalco 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 ofrepeating 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 dryer1delacqueringkilddecoating kilns. Comment 50: Section 3.5.C. 1.Reactive flux. Our understanding is Pimalco does not use reactive flux, sothis 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 onehasn'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 dioxinlfurantest, 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 operationshave changed. 18

### Comment

### 52: Section4.1

### .B. Testing of representative units. This section is similar to 

### 63.1511(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. Comment53: 

### Section 4.1.D. 1 

### and D.2 

### - Reactive flux addition rate. These sections are similar to 63.1

### 51

### 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 ofroof vents, if present. Comment 55: 

### Section 4.2 Recordkeeping. Piinalco statestheir 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 SpecificEmissions Limits for Existing and New Sources Section3.0, Nonmetallic Mineral Minine and Processing We believe that the rule is approvable if the following changes are made: 

### Comment56: Front page: This page should contain the name of the regulatory district so that Section 3.0 is a stand-alone document. 

### Comment5

### 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 ofthe 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 10:41AM 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 ImpleinentationPlan 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 ajustification 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. Paragraph4.

### I.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 10 miles per hour.



### Part VII, 

### Section 2.0, 

### Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework The 

### ordinance should list specific test methods for determining compliancewith 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 theEPA Conference call. 

### In addition, Daniel isresearchng additional support documentation. Please find following a summary ofthe changes. 

### Ifanyone has any other changes please let me or Michelle know. Part 

### IIPermit Requirements EPA Comment if 15: Michelle will add overall languageto state that we are incorporating Part 70 as ofthe 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 dowe 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 definitionof 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 #29 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 section4.0to 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 12to 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 310. Comment #37,38,39: Michelle and Dan will work together to add the necessary test methods to section 12.0 from Maricopa County Rule 

### 310 and appendix C. Maricopa County Appendix C is 22 pages long and explains how to conduct each test method including the infamousball drop method. Do we need to include appendix C ifwe 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 ifEPA is consideringthese test methods asmeeting RACT or RACMS. It is my understandingthat Maricopa County Rule 

### 310 is the equivalent ofBACT 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 CountyRule 3

### 10, section220. Degreasing & 

### Solvent Metal Cleaning 

### Comment#44 EPA recommended specific requirementsbe added for O&M Plans. EPA sent recommended languageto 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 ordinanceunchanged so we have flexabilityto fit O&M plans to specifictypes of control equipment. If we change the O&M requirementsin this ordnance we will have to change several of the ordinances. Comment #45 We have not received any guidance concerningInitial Compliance Certification. Again, I recommend leavingthe 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 requirementsin this ordinanceare in addition to the federal MACT standards @ 

### 40CFR,Part 63, Subpart

### RRR." Comment#54 (Visible Emissions) Michelle will add a statement "as determinedby applyingEPA Method 9 

### protocol."

### Page 

### 1of 

### 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 2:04PM Attach: Fw- Gila River - Secondary Aluminum (Opacity comment).eml; Re- Follow-upon 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, ifyou could update Janet when she coinesback, that would be great. Pat Mariella

### Page 1of 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 08:34AM

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 GRICDEQ decides not to make any changes to the language, as long as everyone agrees that the locally adopted language is not binding onEPA. TheNESHAP 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 ofthe GRICDEQ when implementing a standard as a matter of local law. However, sources should be aware that the Director ofthe GRIC DEQ does not replace the "Administrator"

### Page 2 of 2

fiom a federalpoint of view until the GRIC DEQ has been officially delegated the standard. For example, if a source reports only to the Director ofthe GRIC DEQ (and not to EPA) when the applicable federal standard has not yet been delegated, then the sourcewill actuallybe in violation ofthe federal reporting requirement. 2. Section 8.2.C: I 

### am not sure ofthe 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 1or 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 provisionsthat are not delegatedby EPA, such as the authorityto approve alternate or equivalenttest 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, delete40 C.F.R. $61.04. All requests, reports, applications, submittals, and other communicationsto 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 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 25,20057:45AM 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 ofthe rule more clearly state the intent ofthe 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 oftime (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 1of 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 7:49AM Subject: Re: Follow-upon 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 111for NO2 (both Maricopa and Pinal portions), CO and 03(Pinal County) and SOX(Maricopa County) See40 CFR 52.121 (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 51.152(c),episode plans are not required for Priority 111regions. (4) Under 40 CFR 51.152(d),EPA may exempt from the requirement to prepare and subinit episode plans those portions ofPriority I, 

### IA, or 11 regions that havebeen designated as attainment or unclassifiableunder section 107of the CAA. (5) So, given that Priority 111

### areas are exempt and assumingthat EPA would exercisethe discretion to exempt GRIC to the extent allowed under 40 CFR 51.152(d),GRIC would not be subject to the episode plan requirement for any pollutant for any portion of the Reservation except for that portion ofthe 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 correcttheboundary ofthe 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 episode plan would be required for PM-I 0 either. (7) However, if GRIC decides not to request EPA to correctthe PM-10 Nonattainment Area boundary and decides to submit a 

### TIP intendedto

### Page 2 of 2

addressthe requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G),then I can point to two reference sourcesto 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 episodeplan requirement. Note that EPA has the discetionto limit the emissioncontrol 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 Phoenixurbanized area as determined by the 2000 Census, then the emission control action part ofthe emergency episode plan couldbe limited tojust the sources that 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 SIPrevision 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. This SIPrule can be downloaded from the Region 9 website, under Air Actions, SIP collection, Arizona, Maricopa County. JeffWehling U.S. EPA, Region 9,ORC-2 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94 105 Telephone:(4 15)972-390

### 1 Fax: (415)947-3571Feb 02 06 04:44p Colleen HcKaughan I5201498-1333 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

LINITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION IX 75 HawthorneStreet San Francisco,%A 94105

February2,2006

Patricia Mariella, Ph.D. Executive Director Gila River Indian Community DepartmentofEnvironmental 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, (November30, 2005 Drsfr) for our review. We appreciate the oppoktyto 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 ofyour 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 locatetbe itemsthat fulfill the correspondingprogram requirements. Again, we are extremelypleased 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 continuingto collabomte with you on the TIP. Please Iet us know ifyou would like us to arrange a conference call to go over these comments.Sincerely,

ColleenMcKaughan Associate DirectorFeb 02 06 04:44p Colleen McKaughan

ATTACHMENTA: COMMENTS

### ON GRICAIR QUALITYPROGRAM 

### ORDTNANCES,

### November 

### 342005 version Part 

### III,Permits Program Comment

### I Oneof

### the suggestedcomments £?om ourJuly comment letterintroduced some new language which isproblematic. Sections

### 3.9 @age37) and 2.2.C. (page 29) appearto allowtitle V sourcestojust@ proposed "deviations"from conditionsin EPA-issued PSD permits in their titIe 

### V applications. Theterms and conditions of 

### PSD permits are applicable requirementsthat must be 

### included in sources' title V pennits. Failure to include one or morePSD permit conditions

### in a proposed titleV permit 

### may be grounds for 

### EPA objection 

### If a sourceneeds to revise conditionsin its PSD permit, it must apply to 

### EPA fora permit modification Butthe GRIC rule must not allow sourcesto circumventthis process by making

### changes outside ofthe 

### PSDpermittin, up rocess, We believe this problem would be a deficiencythat would prevent full approval (i-e, it would causeusto onIy be able to grant interim approval). We recommend that GRlC

### DEQ fix this problem before submittingits pennitprogram. Part V, Section 2 FugitiveDust Comment 2 We suggested that unpaved haul roads and unpaved parking lots should be subject to both a 20% opacity standard mda silt content standard of 6% forroads and 8%for parking lots 

### andor a 0.33 ozlsq. ft. silt loading standard. While GRIC incorporatedthe 20% opacity standard,the ruledoes not require compliancewitb the silt content andforsilt loading standard-(The alternative control measure optionsin sections 4 and 5 only require compliance

### with 20% opacity.) Recommendation: that these sourcesbe subjectto both a 20% opacity standardand a silt content/silt loading standard. Site conditionswill not alwaysbe favorableto determining complianceby the 20% opacitymethod, e.g.,sun not in the rightposition (particularIyifroad 

### runsparallel to the sun's course),not enoughWc at the time the inspector is there (sometimes operationsarehalted when inspectors arrive). The optionsin sections4 and 5to apply 

### a dust palliative and grave1 shouldbe requiredto comply with the silt content adorsiltloading standard aswell as 20% opacity. GRXC shouldnot assumethat dust palliatives and gravelwill be applied in a way that achievesthe minimum

### level ofcontrol providedby the silt content/silt loading standard,particulady overtime as the surfacedeteriorates.Frb 02 06 04344~ Colleen McKaughan

Comment 3 We suggested a specific definitionbe added to the rule clarifyingwhich unpaved 

### parking lots are subjectto the rule.

### This comment 

### was not incorporated Recommendation: that adefinition forunpavedparking lots be addedthatmirrors 

### the unpaved haul/access road definition. Comment 4 We suggestedthat the rule incorporate surface stabilization testsfor disturbed surfacesand open stowepiles. While section 12.2Bincorporates by reference one of the applicable stabilizationtests (the visiblecrusttest), compliancewith this test is not required. Recommendation: that the appropriate sourcesbe subjectto this stabilizationtest For example, this method should applyto Table I "TemporaryStabilization

### During Weekends, etc

## ...". Typically,fugitivedust rules define inactiveareas ofconstruction sites as "open areas",andthis method would apply to open areas. Tne visiblecrust test method aIso should apply to open storagepiles, and is the appropriate method to reference in section 10.5B.3 instead of subsection 3.1B. Comment 5 The rulelackthe appropriate opacitytest 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). Werecommend that section 3 ofAppendix C,Maricopa Countyregulations, 

### be adopted by referenceinto section 12and cross-referenced in the appropriate Table 1sourcetype control measures.

Section2.2 of Appendix C, MaricopaCounty regulations, is not adopted by reference into section 12.2. Sincethis is part ofthe procedure for conductingtests on open area and vacant lot sources,it should also be incorporated by reference.

The rule does not specifyhow longrecords must be kept (see section 13).We recommendthat records be maintained for 2 years.Fcb 02 06 04344~ Colleen McKaughan

PartVi, Section3.0 Degreasingand SolventMetal Cleaning Commenf 8 Overall, the changesto this ordinance look good, except for a confusingtypo, as foIlows. Section5.1(A)(3)(d) - Someonetyped the number 9 instead ofa lefi parenthesis, and the result is confusing. The section should read as follows. d. Carbon adsorption system,withventilation greaterthan or equal to fifteen(15) cubicmeters per minuteper squaremeter mindj9) [m3/minlm2) (fifty (50) cubic feet per minuteper squarefoot [cfin/ft2]) ofair/solventinterface (when cover is open).-.

< Also, there is one minor typo in Section 5.2(A). The word "degreasers"shouldhave an apostrophe, as follows. k Workloads shall not occupy more than 

### halfof the dqrmxmdereaser's evaporativesurfacearea.

Part VII, Section 2.0, Aerospace Comment9 In Section 5.1, the nrle allows for monthly averclgingto determinecompliance. Allowing monthly averagingis not consistentwith the aerospacemanufactwing Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) and other aerospacernandacturing and coatingReasonably AvailableControl Technology (IUCT) rules withinRegion 9.

Wemay allowmonthly averaging under severe preconditions. A stateor locality must demonstratethat tbe followingriter ria have been met: (1) daily emission limits are infeasible; (2) actual VOC emissions under monthly averaging are consistentwiih relevant RACTBACT control levels; (3) the rule's averagingperiod is as short aspossible andno longer than30 days; and, (4) averagingwill notjeopxdi7,ethe NAAQS or ReasonableFurtherProgressrequirements and that maximum daily VOC emissions are consistentwith the area's compliance or maintenanceplan. These conditions are describedwithin "Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Limits: SIPRevisionPolicy," John O'Connor, USEPAIOAQPS, dated January 20, 1984. We speculatethat states and Iocalitieshave not pursued monthly averagingwithin aerospace rules because (1) heycannot meet these criteria, (2) thc 8 hour and 24 hour compliance time framesofthe ozoneNAAQS preclude monthly averaging, and (3) theproblematic airtoxics and environmentaljtxstjce issues associated with elevated dailyVOC emissionsfiom aerospace mating operations under a monthly averagingregime.