AQ-2017-006_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-2017-006-Rule 339 (Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes)
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 339
(Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes). Rule 339 was adopted to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from the extraction of vegetable oil using solvents (hexane). Maricopa County currently has no vegetable
oil production facilities subject to the rule and the department’s records indicate the only issued permit was closed
(source was removed) in 1999.
Since the adoption of Rule 339, hexane, the primary solvent used in vegetable oil extraction processes is now
regulated as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), not as a VOC. In 2001, the EPA promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous pollutants (NESHAP) for the use of hexane in vegetable oil production facilities. The
vegetable oil production NESHAP has been incorporated into the county’s air quality regulations through Rule 370
(Federal Hazardous Air Pollution Program); therefore, Rule 339 is obsolete.
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-2017-006-Rule 339 (Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes)
Agenda Item: Pending
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
Applicant: Staff
Request: Approve rescission of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulation
Rule 339 (Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes). The purpose of the rule is
to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the
extraction of vegetable oil using solvents (hexane). Maricopa County
currently has no vegetable oil production facilities subject to the rule and
the department’s records indicate the only issued permit was closed
(source was removed) in 1999.
Since the adoption of Rule 339, hexane, the primary solvent used in
vegetable oil extraction processes is now regulated as a hazardous air
pollutant (HAP), not as a VOC. In 2001, the EPA promulgated national
emission standards for hazardous pollutants (NESHAP) for the use of
hexane in vegetable oil production facilities. The vegetable oil production
NESHAP has been incorporated into the county’s air quality regulations
through Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollution Program); therefore,
Rule 339 is obsolete.
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.
1

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)
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 339: VEGETABLE OIL EXTRACTION PROCESSES
PREAMBLE
1. Rule affected Rulemaking action
Rule 339: Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes 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. 2237, 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
Return to list of attachments
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 339 (Vegetable
Oil Extraction Processes). Rule 339 was originally adopted on November 16, 1992. The purpose of the
rule is to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the extraction of vegetable oil
using solvents (hexane). Maricopa County currently has no vegetable oil production facilities subject to the
rule and the department’s records indicate the only issued permit was closed (source was removed) in 1999.
Rule 339 was adopted as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) which required ozone
nonattainment areas such as Maricopa County to fix their deficient reasonably available control technology
(RACT) rules for ozone. Also known as the RACT “Fix-Up”, Section 182 (a)(2)(A) of the 1990 CAAA
required ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to adopt and correct RACT rules as
previously requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before the Clean Air Act was
3

amended in 1990. The RACT Fix-Up included the adoption of rules for sources emitting over 100 tons of
VOCs per year for which a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) had not been issued. At the time the
1990 CAAA were enacted, Maricopa County had one vegetable oil production facility that was emitting
over 100 tons of VOCs per year, Western Cotton Services. There was no rule nor CTG specific to
vegetable oil production at the time; therefore, the department adopted Rule 339 to comply with the RACT
Fix-Up. Rule 339 is applicable only to vegetable oil production facilities emitting more than 100 tons/year
of VOCs.
Since the adoption of Rule 339, hexane, the primary solvent used by Western Cotton Services is now
regulated as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), not as a VOC. In 2001, the EPA promulgated national
emission standards for hazardous pollutants (NESHAP) for the use of hexane in vegetable oil production
facilities. The vegetable oil production NESHAP has been incorporated into the county’s air quality
regulations through Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollution Program); therefore, Rule 339 is obsolete
and the department is proposing to rescind it.
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)
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
4

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 339.
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 339 (Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes).
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 339. There are currently no sources subject to Rule 339 in
Maricopa County and the department does not anticipate any new sources will come to Maricopa County
that would potentially be subject to Rule 339.
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.
(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.
5

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 339.
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 339; there are no costs required for compliance. There
are no sources subject to Rule 339.
(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 339 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 339 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 339 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
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.
6

This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 339 and there are no compliance costs associated with
this 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. 2237).
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?
No
17. Full text of the rule follows: Return to list of attachments
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 339
VEGETABLE OIL EXTRACTION PROCESSES
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE
102 APPLICABILITY
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201 APPROVED EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM
202 CONVEYOR
203 COOLER
204 DESOLVENTIZER-TOASTER (D-T)
205 EQUIPMENT IN SOLVENT SERVICE
7

206 EXTRACTOR
207 LEAK
208 MEAL
209 MINERAL-OIL SCRUBBER
210 SOLVENT
211 SOLVENT EXTRACTION
212 VEGETABLE OIL PLANT
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 LIMITATION-VOC EMISSIONS
302 EXTRACTORS AND DESOLVENTIZER-TOASTERS
303 DESOLVENTIZER-TOASTER CONVEYOR
304 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
305 EQUIPMENT IN SOLVENT SERVICE
306 EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
501 PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING MONITORING DEVICES
502 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
503 RECORDS RETENTION
504 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION-TEST METHODS
Adopted 11/16/92
Revised 09/25/13
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 339
VEGETABLE OIL EXTRACTION PROCESSES
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE: To limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the extraction of
vegetable oil using solvents.
102 APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to any vegetable oil extraction facility which has emitted
600 pounds (272 kg) or more of VOC in a day or 100 tons (90.7 Mg) or more of VOC in a year, or
which would emit at such levels in the absence of existing VOC control measures, or reasonably
could be expected to emit at such levels at current or proposed production rates.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply, in addition to
those definitions found in Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions) of these rules. In the event of any
8

inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County air pollution control rules, the definitions in this rule take
precedence.
201 APPROVED EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM: A system for reducing emissions of organic
compounds, consisting of both collection and control devices which are approved in writing by the
Control Officer and are designed and operated in accordance with good engineering practice.
202 CONVEYOR: Any device which moves material from one location to another location.
203 COOLER: A device which reduces the temperature and/or moisture from meal being processed.
204 DESOLVENTIZER-TOASTER (D-T): A heated process unit in which air and/or steam are
applied to solvated vegetable matter to volatilize the extraction solvent.
205 EQUIPMENT IN SOLVENT SERVICE: Any pump, valve, pressure relief valve, sight glass,
sample connection, open-ended valve, connector, or other component which handles extraction
solvent or material containing such solvent.
206 EXTRACTOR: Equipment which removes vegetable oil from vegetable material through the use
of solvent.
207 LEAK: Any dripping or indication of dripping of liquid from equipment in solvent service, or an
emission of gaseous VOC which exceeds 10,000 ppm (expressed as methane) above background
when measurements are made using EPA Method 21.
208 MEAL: Pulverized vegetable matter from which oil has been extracted and which might still
contain some extraction solvent.
209 MINERAL-OIL SCRUBBER: A packed tower which uses mineral oil as a sorbent for the
extraction solvent.
210 SOLVENT: The extraction medium used to extract oil from seeds, beans or other vegetable
matter.
211 SOLVENT EXTRACTION: Removal of vegetable oil from vegetable matter using a liquid
solvent in a contact system to dissolve and suspend the oil.
212 VEGETABLE OIL PLANT: Any facility or section of a facility engaged in the extraction or
refining of vegetable oil through the use of solvent.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 LIMITATION – VOC EMISSIONS: No person shall operate a vegetable oil extraction plant or
facility unless the emissions do not exceed either of the following:
301.1 2.5 pounds of VOC per ton of processed seed (1.13 kg/Mg) for any 30 consecutive days
of operation; and
301.2 3.0 pounds of VOC per ton of processed seed (1.36 kg/Mg) for any seven consecutive
days of operation.
302 EXTRACTORS AND DESOLVENTIZER-TOASTERS: No person shall operate any extractor
or desolventizer-toaster unless VOC emissions are controlled by both a condenser and a mineral-
oil scrubber. Such scrubber shall have an overall VOC-control efficiency (capture with
processing) of at least 90 percent by weight.
9

303 DESOLVENTIZER-TOASTER CONVEYOR: No person shall operate a vegetable oil plant
unless the desolventizer-toaster discharge conveyor is vented to a mineral oil scrubber having an
overall VOC-control efficiency (capture with processing) of at least 90 percent by weight.
304 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN: Owners or operators shall provide the Control
Officer with an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. This Plan shall specify key system
operating parameters, such as temperatures, pressures and/or flow rates, necessary to determine
compliance with this rule and describe in detail procedures to maintain the Approved Emission
Control System. The Control Officer's written approval of this plan shall be required for
compliance with this rule to be achieved.
305 EQUIPMENT IN SOLVENT SERVICE: The owner or operator of a vegetable oil extraction
plant shall inspect at least once a month all equipment in solvent service for any indication of
VOC leakage in accordance with EPA Method 21. If the detected gaseous leakage level exceeds
10,000 ppm (expressed as methane) or if leak(s) are visible, the leak shall be tagged with a
weatherproof tag. The date and time of the leak's discovery shall be recorded in a permanent
logbook. The operator shall attempt to repair such leak(s) as soon as possible. The operator shall
notify the Control Officer by the Division's next working day of leak(s) which cannot be fixed
within 24 hours of discovery. No leak shall remain unrepaired by the end of any plant shutdown.
306 EXEMPTIONS: In determining compliance with subsection 301.2 of this rule, the Division shall
exclude from calculations a startup day and the VOC added on that day, subsequent to purging the
extractor and/or the refinery of all solvent.
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE: By February 14, 1993, any person subject to Section 301, 302, or
303, who does not comply with all provisions of said section(s) shall submit to the Control Officer
for approval an emission control plan describing the method to be used to achieve full compliance
by November 15, 1993. The plan shall specify dates for completing increments of progress, such
as the contractual arrival date of new control equipment. The Control Officer may require a person
submitting such emission control plan to submit subsequent reports on progress in achieving
compliance.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
501 PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING MONITORING DEVICES: Any person sorbing or
otherwise processing VOC emissions to reduce them pursuant to this rule, shall provide, properly
install and maintain in calibration, in good working order and in operation, devices described in an
approved O&M Plan for indicating temperatures, pressures, rates of flow, or other operating
conditions necessary to determine if air pollution control equipment is functioning properly and is
properly maintained.
502 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING: Any person subject to this rule shall comply with the
following requirements. Any records and lists required by this section shall be kept in a consistent
and complete manner.
10

502.1 Material Usage: Maintain a current list of solvents, mineral oil and any other VOC-
containing materials such as paints and cleaning liquids which annually exceed 20
gallons and state the VOC content of each in pounds per gallon or grams per liter. Daily
record the amount of makeup solvent, the tons of vegetable matter subject to extraction,
the amount of vegetable oil produced, and amount of mineral oil added.
502.2 Operation and Maintenance: Maintain a record of the times an Approved Emission
Control Device is used to comply with this rule. Maintain daily records of the O&M
Plan's key system operating-parameters. Maintain records of all maintenance performed
according to the O&M Plan.
502.3 Calculations: By the end of each day-shift, calculate both the seven-day and the thirty-
day rolling averages yielding daily VOC-consumption figures, using data gathered up to
and including the previous shift.
502.4 Logbook: A permanent logbook shall be kept of dates, times, and locations of all: leak-
detection activities, leaks found, leaks repaired, shutdowns and startups. During operating
hours the logbook, as well as entries required under the preceding subsections 502.1,
502.2 and 502.3, shall immediately be made available to the Control Officer upon
request.
503 RECORDS RETENTION: Copies of reports and supporting documentation required by the
Control Officer shall be retained at least three years after the date of submittal. Records and
information required by this rule shall be retained for at least three years.
504 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION – TEST METHODS: An exceedance of the limits
established in the rule determined by any of the applicable test methods constitutes a violation of
this rule.
504.1 Control efficiency of an emissions control device shall be determined according to EPA
Reference Method 25 or its applicable submethods, Title 40, CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
504.2 Gaseous leaks shall be tested for using EPA Method 21.
11

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
12
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
13
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
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
7

Return to list of attachments
19