AQ-2017-004_REPORTTOBOARDOFSUPERVISORS_2017-10-03.PDF

Go to list of attachments
Executive Summary
of the Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board Hearing Date: December 13, 2017
Case #/Title: AQ-2017-004-Rule 325 (Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP)
Manufacturing)
Agenda Item: (Pending)
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) complied with all statutory and county policies
throughout this rulemaking process. Per the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) Policy: “In addition
to the required staff report, an executive summary of the report including an overview of stakeholder input and staff
responses will be provided to the Board of Supervisors at least one week prior to any Board of Supervisors’ public
hearing.”
Overview of the Report to the Board of Supervisors: The purpose of this rulemaking is to rescind Rule 325
(Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing). Rule 325 was originally adopted on August 10, 2005.
The purpose of the rule is to limit particulate matter emissions from the use of tunnel kilns for curing in the brick
and structural clay product (BSCP) manufacturing processes. Maricopa County currently has no sources subject to
the rule and does not anticipate any new brick or structural clay product manufacturers will locate to Maricopa
County.
Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses: No comments were received concerning this rulemaking.

Go to list of attachments
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board of Health Meeting Date: July 24, 2017
Board Hearing Date: December 13, 2017
Case #/Title: AQ-2017-004-Rule 325 (Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP)
Manufacturing)
Agenda Item: Pending
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
Applicant: Staff
Request: Approve rescission of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulation
Rule 325 (Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing).
Rule 325 was originally adopted on August 10, 2005. The purpose of the
rule is to limit particulate matter emissions from the use of tunnel kilns for
curing in the brick and structural clay product (BSCP) manufacturing
processes. Maricopa County currently has no sources subject to the rule
and does not anticipate any new brick or structural clay product
manufacturers will locate to Maricopa County.
Support/Opposition: No comments concerning the proposed rulemaking were received.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve
Board of Health
Recommendation: Approve per Staff recommended language
Additional
Comments: This regulatory change is following the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach
Program (EROP) Policy and workflow process. The County Manager
briefed the Board of Supervisors regarding this rulemaking in May 2017.
A Stakeholder workshop was held on June 15, 2017. A Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking was published in the Arizona Administrative Register on
August 18, 2017 and a 30-day comment period was held from August 18
through September 18, 2017; no comments were received. On July 24,
2017, the Board of Health approved this regulatory change for the
Expedited Process. A newspaper notice of the Board of Supervisors public
hearing will be published on November 1st, 2nd, 8th and 9th in the Arizona
Business Gazette and the Record Reporter. This regulatory change will
take effect immediately upon approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Presented By: Philip A. McNeely, R.G., Director
Prepared By: Planning and Analysis Division
Attachments: Summary of the proposed regulatory change (See Item 6 of the Draft
Notice of Final Rulemaking)
1

Analysis of input received during the process and how that input was
responded to (No comments were received. See Item 13 of the Draft
Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Language of proposed regulatory change or amendment (See Item 17 of
the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Preamble required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-471.05 (See
Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Minutes from Board of Health meeting
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input (No comments were
received)
Signed copy of the Maricopa County Resolution “Moratorium on
Increased Regulatory Burdens”
2

Return to list of attachments
DRAFT NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 325: BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS (BSCP) MANUFACTURING
PREAMBLE
1. Rule affected Rulemaking action
Rule 325: Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing Rescind
2. Statutory authority for the rulemaking:
Authorizing statutes: A.R.S. §§ 49-474, 49-479, and 49-480
Implementing Statute: A.R.S. § 49-112
3. The effective date of the rule:
Tentative date of adoption: December 13, 2017
4. List of public notices addressing the rulemaking:
Notice of Briefing to Maricopa County Manager: May 15, 2017
Notice of Stakeholder Workshop: June 15, 2017
Notice of Maricopa County Board of Health Meeting: July 24, 2017
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 23 A.A.R. 2225, August 18, 2017
5. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the
rulemaking:
Name: Greg Verkamp or Hether Krause
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address: 1001 N Central Avenue, Suite 125
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 506-6010
Fax: (602) 506-6179
Submit Comments At: http://maricopa.gov/FormCenter/Regulatory-Outreach-17/Citizen-Comments-94
6. Explanation of the rule, including the department's reasons for initiating the rulemaking:
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) is proposing to rescind Rule 325 (Brick and
Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing). Rule 325 was originally adopted on August 10, 2005. The
purpose of the rule is to limit particulate matter emissions from the use of tunnel kilns for curing in the brick and
structural clay product (BSCP) manufacturing processes. Maricopa County currently has no sources subject to the
rule and will unlikely have any sources in the future.
Rule 325 was adopted as a result of a revision made to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Maricopa
County PM10 nonattainment area. The Maricopa County PM10 nonattainment area was originally classified as
moderate for PM10 by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. After the initial classification, Arizona was required
to submit a revision to the SIP to demonstrate attainment of the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Return to list of attachments
3

(NAAQS) by December 31, 1994. The Maricopa County PM10 nonattainment area failed to attain the NAAQS
by the specified deadline; therefore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reclassified the area to a
serious nonattainment area for PM10 in 1996. Arizona was again required to submit a revision to the SIP to
demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, this time by December 31, 2001. Attainment of the PM10 NAAQS
was again not demonstrated by the specified deadline and, as a result, Arizona was required to submit more
revisions to the SIP.
One such revision was the Salt River SIP which the EPA required Arizona to submit to address continuing
violations of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at the Salt River air quality monitoring site in the late 1990s. The Salt
River SIP included commitments to implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM)/Most Stringent
Measures (MSM) for all significant sources of PM10 in the Salt River Area. Within the Salt River Area, there was
one brick manufacturer, Phoenix Brick Yard, which at the time the Salt River SIP was being drafted, was not
implementing BACM/MSM. As a result, Rule 325 was drafted and adopted to ensure Phoenix Brick Yard
implemented BACM/MSM.
Phoenix Brick Yard ceased manufacturing operations in 2012 due to market conditions and production costs.
Currently, there are no brick or structural clay product manufacturers in Maricopa County. The department does
not anticipate any new brick or structural clay product manufacturers will locate to Maricopa County and is
proposing to rescind Rule 325.
7. Demonstration of compliance with A.R.S. §49-112:
Under A.R.S. § 49-479(C), a county may not adopt a rule or ordinance that is more stringent than the rules
adopted by the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for similar sources
unless it demonstrates compliance with the applicable requirements of A.R.S. §49-112.
§ 49-112 County regulation; standards
§ 49-112(A)
When authorized by law, a county may adopt a rule, ordinance or regulation that is more stringent than or
in addition to a provision of this title or rule adopted by the director or any board or commission authorized
to adopt rules pursuant to this title if all of the following requirements are met:
1. The rule, ordinance or regulation is necessary to address a peculiar local condition.
2. There is credible evidence that the rule, ordinance or regulation is either;
(a) Necessary to prevent a significant threat to public health or the environment that results from a
peculiar local condition and is technically and economically feasible.
(b) Required under a federal statute or regulation, or authorized pursuant to an intergovernmental
agreement with the federal government to enforce federal statutes or regulations if the county rule,
ordinance or regulation is equivalent to federal statutes or regulation.
3. Any fee or tax adopted under the rule, ordinance or regulation does not exceed the reasonable costs of
the county to issue and administer the permit or plan approval program.
§ 49-112(B)
4

When authorized by law, a county may adopt rules, ordinances or regulations in lieu of a state program that
are as stringent as a provision of this title or rule adopted by the director or any board or commission
authorized to adopt rules pursuant to this title if the county demonstrates that the cost of obtaining permits
or other approvals from the county will approximately equal or be less than the fee or cost of obtaining
similar permits or approvals under this title or any rule adopted pursuant to this title. If the state has not
adopted a fee or tax for similar permits or approvals, the county may adopt a fee when authorized by law in
the rule, ordinance or regulation that does not exceed the reasonable costs of the county to issue and
administer that permit or plan approval program.
The department is in compliance with A.R.S. §§ 49-112(A) and (B). The department is proposing to
rescind Rule 325.
8. Documents and/or studies referenced and/or reviewed for this rulemaking:
Not applicable
9. Showing of good cause why the rule is necessary to promote a statewide interest if the rule will
diminish a previous grant of authority of a political subdivision:
Not applicable
10. Summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:
The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic, small business and
consumer impact statement under A.R.S. § 41-1055.
An identification of the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 325 (Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP)
Manufacturing).
An identification of the persons who will be directly affected by, bear the costs of or directly benefit
from the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 325. There are currently no sources subject to Rule 325 in
Maricopa County and the department does not anticipate any new sources will come to Maricopa County
that would potentially be subject to Rule 325.
A cost benefit analysis of the following:
(a) The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies directly affected
by the implementation and enforcement of the rulemaking.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an economic impact on either the department or any other agency.
(b) The probable costs and benefits to a political subdivision of this state directly affected by the
implementation and enforcement of the rulemaking
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an economic impact on any political subdivision of this state.
5

(c) The probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the rulemaking, including any
anticipated effect on the revenues or payroll expenditures of employers who are subject to the
rulemaking.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an economic impact on any businesses.
A general description of the probable impact on private and public employment in businesses,
agencies and political subdivisions of this state directly affected by the rulemaking.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an impact on private and public employment for any businesses, agencies or political
divisions.
A statement of the probable impact of the rulemaking on small businesses.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an economic impact on any small businesses.
(a) An identification of the small businesses subject to the rulemaking.
There are no small businesses subject to Rule 325.
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 325; there are no costs required for compliance. There
are no sources subject to Rule 325.
(c) A description of the methods that the agency may use to reduce the impact on small businesses.
(i) Establishing less costly compliance requirements in the rulemaking for small businesses.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 325 and there are no compliance costs required for
small businesses.
(ii) Establishing less costly schedules or less stringent deadlines for compliance in the
rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 325 and there are no compliance costs required for
small businesses.
(iii) Exempting small businesses from any or all requirements of the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 325 and there are no compliance costs required for
small businesses.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly affected by the
rulemaking.
This rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on regulated entities that are permitted
or introduce additional regulatory requirements and will not impose increased monetary or regulatory
6

costs on any permitted business, persons, or individuals so regulated. As such, there are no costs to
pass through to consumers, which means there are no impacts on consumers.
A statement of the probable effect on state revenues.
The rulemaking will not impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on other state agencies,
political subdivisions of this state, persons, or individuals so regulated. Without costs to pass through
to customers, there is no projected change in consumer purchase patterns and, thus, no impact on state
revenues from sales taxes.
A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of
the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 325 and there are no compliance costs associated with
the rulemaking.
11. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the
accuracy of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:
Name: Greg Verkamp or Hether Krause
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address: 1001 N Central Avenue, Suite 125
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 506-6010
Fax: (602) 506-6179
Submit Comments At: http://maricopa.gov/FormCenter/Regulatory-Outreach-17/Citizen-Comments-94
12. Description of the changes between the proposed rule, including supplemental notices and final rule:
No additional changes are being proposed, since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on
August 18, 2017 (23 A.A.R. 2225).
13. Summary of the comments made regarding the rule and the department response to them:
No comments were submitted during the 30-day comment period – August 18-September 18, 2017.
14. Any other matters prescribed by statute that are applicable to the specific department or to any
specific rule or class of rules:
Not applicable
15. Incorporations by reference and their location in the rule:
Not applicable
16. Was this rule previously an emergency rule? Return to list of attachments
No
17. Full text of the rule follows:
REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 325
BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS (BSCP) MANUFACTURING
7

INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE
102 APPLICABILITY
103 EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201 BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS (BSCP) MANUFACTURING FACILITY
202 CONTINUOUS KILN
203 EXISTING KILN
204 KILN FEED
205 PERIODIC KILN
206 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TUNNEL KILN
207 TUNNEL KILN
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 OPACITY LIMITATIONS FOR ALL TUNNEL KILNS SUBJECT TO THIS RULE
302 LIMITATIONS FOR EXISTING TUNNEL KILNS AT BRICK OR STRUCTURAL PRODUCT (BSCP)
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
303 LIMITATIONS FOR NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED TUNNEL KILNS AT BRICK OR STRUCTURAL
PRODUCT (BSCP) MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS
501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION
502 RECORDKEEPING/RECORDS RETENTION
503 TEST METHODS
Adopted 08/10/05
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 325
BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS (BSCP) MANUFACTURING
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE: To limit particulate matter emissions from the use of tunnel kilns for curing in the brick and
structural clay product (BSCP) manufacturing processes.
102 APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to any existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln, used in the commercial
and industrial brick and structural clay product manufacturing processes. Compliance with the provisions of
this rule shall not relieve any person subject to the requirements of this rule from complying with any other
8

federally enforceable New Sources Performance Standards (NSPS). In such cases, the most stringent standard
shall apply.
103 EXEMPTIONS: Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kilns that are used exclusively for research and
development and are not used to manufacture products for commercial sale are not subject to this rule.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100 (General Provisions And Definitions) of these rules for definitions of
terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions
shall apply:
201 BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS (BSCP) MANUFACTURING FACILITY - A site
that manufactures brick including, but not limited to: face brick, structural brick and brick pavers; claypipe;
roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional, clay products. Brick products
manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes,
and dry and fire the bricks or shapes.
202 CONTINUOUS KILN – A heated chamber that heats dense loads uniformly and efficiently, and can be used
without interruption for high volume production. Continuous kilns are kilns that perform well in the consistent
high production of wares. Continuous kilns include tunnel kilns, shuttle kilns, fixed-hearth kilns, bee hive kilns,
roller kilns, sled kilns, decorating kilns, and pusher slab kilns. Most continuous kilns are tunnel kilns.
203 EXISTING KILN - A kiln that is in operation before the date of adoption of this rule.
204 KILN FEED – All materials except fuel entering the tunnel kiln, including raw feed and recycle dust, measured
on a dry basis.
205 PERIODIC KILN – A kiln that operates on an intermittent basis to heat wares, holding them at a uniform peak
temperature and cool the wares. Periodic kilns are best for inconsistent or low-volume production.
206 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TUNNEL KILN - Any tunnel kiln whose purpose is to conduct
research and development for new processes and products and is not engaged in the manufacture of commercial
products for sale.
207 TUNNEL KILN – Any continuous kiln that is used to fire brick and structural clay products. Tunnel kilns may
have two process streams, including a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an Air
Pollution Control Device, and a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a brick dryer where it is
used to dry bricks before the exhaust is emitted to the atmosphere.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 OPACITY LIMITATIONS FOR ALL TUNNEL KILNS SUBJECT TO THIS RULE: No person shall
discharge into the ambient air from any single source of emissions any air contaminant, other than uncombined
water, in excess of 20% opacity.
302 LIMITATIONS FOR EXISTING TUNNEL KILNS AT BRICK OR STRUCTURAL PRODUCT
(BSCP) MANUFACTURING FACILITIES:
302.1 No owner or operator shall emit more than 0.42 lbs. of particulate matter per ton of fired product
from a tunnel kiln with a capacity of ≥1 tons per hour throughput.
9

303 LIMITATIONS FOR NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED TUNNEL KILNS AT BRICK OR
STRUCTURAL PRODUCT (BSCP) MANUFACTURING FACILITIES:
303.1 No owner or operator shall emit more than 0.42 lbs. of particulate matter per ton of fired product
from a tunnel kiln with a capacity of <10 tons per hour throughput.
303.2 No owner or operator shall emit more than 0.12 lbs. of particulate matter per ton of fired product
from a tunnel kiln with a capacity of ≥10 tons per hour throughput.
SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE: Any owner or operator of a tunnel kiln subject to this rule shall meet the
following milestones:
401.1 Submit a compliance plan, by December 31, 2005, to the Control Officer for approval which
describes the method(s) used to achieve full compliance with the rule. This plan shall specify dates
for completing increments of progress, such as the contractual arrival date of new control
equipment. The Control Officer may require an owner or operator submitting the compliance plan
to also submit subsequent reports on progress in achieving compliance; and
401.2 Attain full compliance with all of the standards in this rule by December 31, 2006.
SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS
501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION: Compliance shall be demonstrated as follows:
501.1 Compliance with Section 301 shall be demonstrated by performance of Method 9 listed in Section
503.1; and
501.2 Compliance with Sections 302 and 303 shall be demonstrated by performance of the test methods
listed in Section 503.2 and 503.3.
502 RECORDKEEPING / RECORDS RETENTION: The owner or operator of any kiln subject to this rule shall
comply with the following requirements and keep records for a period of 5 years:
502.1 Daily records of kiln feed fired and hours of operation; and
502.2 Monthly records of material delivered to the site for processing in the tunnel kiln and the amount
of product produced reported in tons.
503 TEST METHODS: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) test methods as they exist in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) (July 1, 2004), as listed below, are adopted by reference. These adoptions by
reference include no future editions or amendments. Copies of test methods referenced in this section of this
rule are available at the Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 695,
Phoenix, Arizona, 85004.
503.1 EPA Reference Method 9 (“Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary
Sources”), (40 CFR 60, Appendix A).
503.2 EPA Reference Method 5 (“Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources”),
(40 CFR 60, Appendix A).
503.3 EPA Reference Method 202 (“Determination of Condensible Particulate Emissions from
Stationary Sources”), (40 CFR 51, Appendix M).
10

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING
MINUTES Monday, July 24, 2017
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
Vice President Hughes called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
Return to list of attachments
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Members Excused:
Don Cassano Kip Steill
Henri Cournand
Robert MacMillan
Francisca Montoya
Nedra Halley (via phone)
Don Hughes
Debra Baldauff
Bill Gates
Ex-Officio: Bob England, M.D.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Vice President Hughes announced it was time for a call to the public and requested public comment forms for
those who wanted to speak or who wanted to address any action items.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
1. Approval of Minutes:Vice PresidentHughes asked for a motion to approve the minutes from theBOH
Meeting held on April 24, 2017. Motion was made by Ms. Montoyato approve the BOH minutes as
presented. Motion was seconded by Mr. Cournandand all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
a. Fee Waiver Applications Ms. Jeannie Taylor
Ms. Jeannie Taylor presented thirty-eight (38) fee waiversfor review and consideration of approval. A
summary sheet document was provided.
Ms. Montoya stated there are a lot of applications for Southern Arizona Arts and Cultural Alliance out of
Tucson, AZ, is there a reason they do the fee waiver here not in Tucson.
Ms. Taylor responded they are headquartered in Tucson and the special events are in Maricopa County.
Vice President Hughes asked Ms. Taylor if all applications meet the qualifications for fee waivers.
Ms. Taylor responded that all questions have been answered on all of the applications. Qualification of
hardship is left up to the board’s discretion.
Motion to approve the thirty-eight (38) Fee Waiver applications was made by Mr. Cassano, seconded by Ms.
Montoyaand all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Approval of the Expedited Process for four (4) Air Quality Department rulemakings Mr. Philip A.
McNeely
AQ-2017-003-Rule 317, AQ-2017-004-Rule 325, AQ-2017-005-Rule 334and AQ-2017-006-Rule 339
11
1

Mr. Greg Verkamp and Mr. Philip A. McNeely presented the four (4) Air Quality Department rulemakings. A
PowerPoint slide-deck document was provided.
Mr. McNeely stated that he brought Greg Verkamp senior planner to go over all rules. Mr. McNeely explained
that they are going through all there rules and updating or removing rules no longer in use. They have
identified 4 rules that are no longer being used. Greg will give you a presentation on the 4 rules.
Mr. Verkamp began stating, as Philip said we are looking to rescind 4 rules right now. We want to give you a
presentation, background on the purpose of each of the rules and what happens if… scenarios.
The four (4) rules are:
• Rule 317 – Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
• Rule 325 – Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing
• Rule 334 – Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing
• Rule 339 – Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes
Three (3) of the four (4) rules, 325, 334 and 339 were all drafted with one source in mind. The 4th rule 317
only had one on the books. The rules haven’t had any source subject - Rules 317 and 229 from the 90’s, 334
from 2009 and 325 from 2012. It has been 5 years since any source was subject to these rules and very few
sources subject to any of these rules.
Rule 317
• Purpose: To control emissions of air pollutants from hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators
(HMIWI)
• Adopted on April 7, 1993 and revised 6 times thereafter
• Drafted to strengthen emission controls for medical waste incineration
– Initially regulated under Rule 313 (Incinerators, general incinerator rule)
• Later incorporated Emission Guidelines promulgated by the EPA in 1997
• Department drafted rule 317 to be more stringent on hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. Due
to the high pollutants in plastic that a lot of the hospital and medical waste are made of. At the same time
EPA was drafting regulations on a Federal level, the 1990 clean air act. In 1997 EPA came out with new
source performance standards as well as emission guidelines.
• Since 1997 the number of HMIWI has decreased significantly nationwide
• 1997 – 2,400 HMIWI
• 2009 – 57 HMIWI
• Last HMIWI permit with MCAQD was closed in 1998
• Alternative technologies to incineration include: autoclaving, thermal treatment and chemical mechanical
systems
• What Happens if . . . a new HMIWI is interested in establishing operations in Maricopa County?
• The new source would be subject to New Source Performance Standards Subpart Ec
• Maricopa County Rule 360 (New Source Performance Standards).
Mr. MacMillian asked if there was still 1 source Mr. Verkamp responded no, the last one was in 90’s and it
was closed in 1998. Mr. MacMillian asked if a new federal rule came out that was less stringent what you
would do, would you write/adopt a new rule. Mr. McNeely responded we would just incorporate the new
Federal rule in any permits they would reference the Federal rule in the permit itself.
Rule 325
Mr. Verkamp gave a few miles stone for context with this rule.
 1990 clean air act designated Maricopa County as moderate for PM10 unattainment. Because of that they
had to submit revisions to the state implementation plan stating how we are going to obtain PM10
standard. In the revision we were supposed to demonstrate attainment by 1994. They were unable to do
12
2

so. In 1996 we were designated as serious unattainment area. Again required to submit revision to the
state implementation plan. They were not able to obtain by December 2001 PM10 and we had to submit
another revision and have had to submit several revisions thereafter. Rule 325 was part of one of those
revisions thereafter.
• Purpose: To limit particulate matter emissions from the use of tunnel kilns for curing in the brick and
structural clay product (BSCP) manufacturing processes
• Adopted on August 10, 2005 and never revised
• Drafted to incorporate commitments the State made in Salt River State Implementation Plan
– Implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM)/Most Stringent Measures (MSM) for all
significant sources of PM10 in the Salt River Area
• Within the Salt River Area there was one brick manufacturer, Phoenix Brick Yard, that needed to
implement BACM/MSM
– Phoenix Brick Yard ceased manufacturing bricks in 2012 due to market conditions and
production costs
• What happens if . . . a new BSCP is interested in establishing operations in Maricopa County?
– The new source would be subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for BSCP Manufacturing (Subpart JJJJJ)
• Maricopa County Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant Program)
No source subject since 2012.
Mr. Cournand asked are any of these rules more stringent that the federal rules are? Mr. McNeely
responded, they are not, no.
Vice President Hughes asked what if the federal rules are reduced and are less stringent. Mr. McNeely
responded it would be the same as the last rule, rule 317, we would just incorporate the new federal rule
Vice President Hughes asked if the rules are less stringent and it has an effect on the air quality what
would you do?
Mr. McNeely responded - that’s a good point, these rules are in our state implementation plan. We will
have to write a letter to the EPA. These will be taken out of the implementation plan.
Vice President Hughes these rules did not put the businesses out of business; they have been taken to
other places (China for example). Where operating costs less. Mr. MacNeely, yes, that is correct. Mr.
MacMillian was this rule written to control PM10 correct? Mr. Verkamp said yes, that is correct.
Rule 334
• Purpose: To limit emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from natural and synthetic rubber
adhesives used in the manufacture of non-inflatable rubber balls
• Adopted on August 2, 1993 and revised 3 times thereafter
• Drafted to comply with requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
– Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) “Fix-up” – required ozone nonattainment areas
classified as marginal or above to adopt and correct RACT rules as previously requested by the EPA
before the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990
– The new major source of VOCs would be subject to Major New Source Review (NSR) – Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
• With 334 you need to understand the ozone issues we’ve had here at the County. Likewise with 339,
to give you some context, the County was designated none attainment for ozone in 1978.
• 1990 the clean air act.
• Rules 334 and 339 were drafted to comply with the clean air act. In 1984 and 1988 the EPA sent
letters to the Governor requesting that we submit revisions so we can see that you’re going to be able
13
3

to obtain and maintain ozone standards. Those requests in those letters became law, the 1990 clean
air act.
• Included the adoption of rules for major sources of VOCs for which Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) had not been issued
• Penn Racquet Sports
• The facility moved operations to China in 2009
• Very unique industry unlikely to appear in the County again
• What happens if . . . a new Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturer is interested in establishing operations in
Maricopa County?
Rule 339
• Purpose: To limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the extraction of vegetable
oil using solvents
– Applicable to major sources only (those facilities emitting more than 100 tons of VOCs per year)
• Adopted on November 16, 1992 and revised 1 time thereafter
• Like in rule 334, drafted to comply with requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
– RACT “Fix-up” – required ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to adopt and
correct RACT rules as previously requested by the EPA before the Clean Air Act was amended in
1990
• Included the adoption of rules for major sources of VOCs for which Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) had not been issued
• Western Cotton Services – produced cottonseed oil
• Permit closed in 1999
• What happens if . . . a new Vegetable Oil Extraction facility is interested in establishing operations in
Maricopa County?
– The new source would be subject to the NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil
Production (Subpart GGGG)
• Maricopa County Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant Program)
Tentative step for the proposed rule revisions
1-County Manager Briefed Board of Supervisors - May 15, 2017
2-County Stakeholder Workshop - June 15, 2017
3-Stakeholder Notification 2 Weeks before Board of Health Meeting - July 10, 2017
4-Board of Health Meeting To Initiate Regulatory Change - July 24, 2017
5-Specific Departmental Processes (Includes Comment Period) - August 18, 2017 - September 18, 2017
6-Stakeholder Notification 2 Weeks Prior To Board of Health Meeting - Not Required - Expedited Process
7-Board of Health Meeting to Make Recommendations to Board of Supervisors - Not Required Expedited
Process
8-Schedule Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing - October 4, 2017
9-Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing - November 29, 2017
10-Item Adopted - November 29, 2017
Currently on step 4, next major step is step 5, including a 30 day comment period. At any point in time in
the process anyone can make comments.
Motion to approve four (4) Air Quality Department rulemakings: AQ-2017-003-Rule
317(Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators), AQ-2017-004-Rule 325(Brick and
Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing), AQ-2017-005-Rule 334(Rubber Sports Ball
Manufacturing) and AQ-2017-006-Rule 339(Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes) was made by
Mr. Cassano, seconded by Dr. Baldauff and all were in favor. Motion passed unanimously.
14
4

Discussion Items:
1. Public Health Report Dr. Bob England
I. Healthcare Reform
II. Funding Outlook
III. Human Resources
IV. Communication
V. Infrastructure
VI. Strategic Planning
VII. Programs
VIII. Disease Update
IX. Future Topics
Dr. Bob had several items to review with them.
Health Care Reform – the senate is going to hold a vote tomorrow. Keep in mind with all of this, is they are using
the budget reconciliation process which means they can’t repeal the whole thing, only the pieces that affect the
federal budget. The other requirements that were built in the original affordable care act, like requiring first dollar
coverage for preventative services, incentives built in for keeping people out of the hospital. So however this gets
changed it’s going to be a morph. The version of the budget reconciliation that the senate was proposing would
have both direct and indirect consequences. Indirect – elimination of the expansion of AHCCCS. Direct – the
elimination of the prevention public health fund which 13% of all CDC activities, 9 million a year.
Stay tuned; just know it’s going to change the way we do business going forward.
Other funding issues:
- $1.2 cut to WIC
- Transfer of Health Care to the Homeless to a community partner. This is a good thing for the community, in
the long run.
- Teen pregnancy program is ending. It was intended to be a 5 year program and we are currently in year 3.
Every grantee has been told the funding will end.
- Refugee clinic numbers are way down. The acceptance of refugees is in flux.
A lot of things up in the air.
One item I want to ensure you understand is the changes to the Vital Registration System. The State is moving
towards an electronic death registration system. A good thing in the abstract, better efficiency, better in ease of
operation, more convenient for customers to get death certificates. There are a few things here in how this is
different that attempted in other states. There is no backup system. Every other state that has implemented this
has some sort of paper backup system for when things go wrong.
Question – Do you have any idea how many states have adopted this? Dr. Bob responded this particular system, I
believe is 11 states. New Mexico being the first, they implemented in 2006.
There is no back up system so there is no way for a physician to certify a death other than to go through an on-line
training which takes 20-30 minutes and get a login number and then directly enter the information themselves.
There is no backup in the sense that current law and our practice expedites people’s ability to get their loved ones
in the ground ahead of getting all the information on the death certificate. Mother’s maiden name, how many
years did someone live in the state, county, occupation, stuff that families usually know but may want to look up.
In this system there’s no back up, there’s no work around. All of that has to be entered before burial can move
forward. Because we will not even be able to the death certificate and process it until it’s all entered.
New Mexico has had this system in place for 11 years and they have 62% of the physicians on board.
Question - So what happens with the other 38%? Dr. Bob responded they have a backup system.
15
5

The thing is things are not going to work perfectly the first week, you’re not going to get every doctor in the state
to go on-line and register. We were told we are to be on 24/7 to help physicians when the time comes, we are on
24/7 now. But that’s going to continue because that’s going to change. Right now we do all sorts of work arounds
to make things work for people. Every day you have got families with religious or other requirements for burials
within 24 hours of the death. We make it work for them. As long as we get the statutorily minimal information to
record, we get them the disposition transit permit and then by law the funeral home has 7 days to get the rest of
the information. All of that is going out and it’s going to happen all at once. Target date is late September, 2017.
I’m scared to death that within the first couple of weeks of this program we’re going to have dozens if not
hundreds of people unable to bury their loved ones by the scheduled funeral date.
This is the state implementing this, the State Health Department. We have lobbied and we’re continuing to do it.
I’m not giving up but I’ve already lobbied pretty hard.
Vice President Hughes commented from electronic medical records, you still don’t have that thing working. Bob
responded that’s what I use as my example.
The other thing that complicated it, the third and final thing is that this is a fee based system. We function off the
fee ADHS is changing the way people, as part of this, again a good thing so people can go online and order death
certificates, it’s online completely without having to go to the County. That will be a State controlled operation;
the State will keep the fees. So we have been told that there will be a mechanism in place for revenue sharing but
we haven’t seen anything yet. And the way you hear the vitals folks from ADHS talk they think there will be much
less need for County staff. Because it will be so efficient, it will be all automated.
Vice President Hughes commented except that you have to be on call 24/7.
Dr. Bob responded in reality it’s going to cause us a lot more work early on. Now they may be right overtime this
may be much more efficient and that will be great if we can cut staff in the long run and make things easier for the
families during the worst possible times, then that will all be a good thing.
We are working with the other Counties to submit suggestions for funding. I’m going to propose we get out of the
fee base and we turn it into a contract system. That way ADHS will be at risk for the fees coming in. And we’ll have
a contract at least to start. Hopefully for enough to keep us going the way we are and we will build in mechanisms
by which that will go down. Where they pay us extra for some of the extra work we’re doing beyond what they
think is reasonable baseline. We’ve got a lot to negotiate here.
What I’m going to do, I’m doing to have to do board briefings. Because all of you guys need to understand what’s
going to happen. So that if we can’t prevail on ADHS to change their mind about this before it’s too late then you
at least know how to handle the calls because you’re going to get them. And I’ll be looking to you in terms of how
aggressively you want me to fight with ADHS. I have a wonderful relationship with the director at ADHS. I think
she’s getting really bad advice.
Question – Can you quantify net impact?
Dr. Bob responded last year we took in 6.2 million in Vital Registration. Of that we returned 1.5 million. We give
them $1.00 charge on everything that is issued.
What we’re proposing to them is a contract for about 3.5 million. We are estimating that each month we will get
about a thousand amendments and adjustments to process and they are estimating that will be zero. Each
amendment or adjustment we have to process we will charge them $75.00 per transaction.
Question – Just to make sure I understand what you mean when you are talking backup system you don’t mean it
in the sense that they have them in a server in one location.
16
6

Dr. Bob responded I’m talking paper, something you can revert to when a doctor who just refuses to do the thing
online. You will have a lot of those, there are a lot of older docs that don’t want to use electronic for anything.
They believe they will get 100% compliance week one and that the pressure from within the system will force
them to comply.
I’ll be looking for some guidance in terms of how much hard ball to play here, because I don’t want to blow my
relationship with ADHS over this.
Supervisor Gates asked Dr. Bob, have you talked to the Governor’s office about this?
Dr. Bob responded that’s where I thought and wanted guidance.
Supervisor Gates stated that would make sense. I can see the appeal in this, it sounds truly great. If you could
move all of this to electronic and the fact have 100% compliance.
Dr. Bob responds even if you can get almost 100% compliance but you have to have something to fall back on.
You can’t expect 100% compliance day one.
Every existing modification that every state has made as they are adopting this has been made at no additional
cost to them so we could have adopted that New Mexico’s work around or any other state’s work around. The
state chose to not go with any; they went with the base model.
What I’m still trying to avoid is that first week, when people can’t put their loved one in the ground.
Question – Is this targeted for January 1 implementation?
Dr. Bob responds September.
Question – Of 2018?
Dr. Bob responds 2017; we’ve been struggling with this for awhile.
Last few things in case you see them on the news.
CDC is changing some of their recommendations related to Zika. Especially testing, the problem with testing is the
testing isn’t that good and their scaling back.
School drinking water testing will be expanding the water testing program to include child care centers.
From a budget perspective just know that our multi drug resistant TB issues are not going away. We may have
one patient who we still can’t convince to comply that may result in that person being locked up in a hospital
room at Maricopa Medical Center. Which costs us a ton of money and I don’t know where the budget will come
from.
So expenses like that is always a threat. These are very uncertain times. That is all I have for you.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CURRENT EVENTS
 Next meeting is October 23, 2017
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Cassano,
seconded by Ms. Montoya and motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45p.m.
17
7

Return to list of attachments
18