## Responses to Comments Submitted by Therm-0-Rock Inc. Addressing the GRIC 

## TIP

GRIC Public Comment Period July 1, 2006 thru July 3 1, 2006



### RESPONSE TO THERM-0-ROCK WEST
COMMENT 

### #1: INCLUDE A GRACE PERIOD FOR EXISTING SOURCES TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE TIP'S NEW EMISSIONS LIMITS. The TIP will impose several new emissions limits, such as opacity standards, area source standards for dust control, and numeric particulate matter limits. Existing sourceswill need time to come into compliance with these new requirements--time to obtain funding, design work, bidding, shipping, installation, and troubling shooting. Unfortunately, the TIP does not provide a grace period for existing sources to complete these tasks and achieve compliance. As drafted, the TIP is immediately enforceable as soon 

### asit is approved by GRIC. Moreover, the TIP requires sources to report noncompliance. This means that, for some sources, the adoption ofthe TIP will trigger immediate non-compliance and self-reporting. Through no fault oftheir own, this will make such existing sources lookbad to GRIC and the public and be exposed to expensive citizen suits under the TLP.
Them-0-Rock suggests that the best way to avoid this unintended and unfair scenario is to include in the TIP aprovision that provides a reasonable grace period for all existing
sources to achieve compliance and that gives DEQ express authority to extend that period
as needed on a showing of good cause.



### Response #1: "The regulations provide a "grace period" for a source to come into compliance with an applicable requirement. That grace period is called a "compliance schedule" and it is described at 

### 4.3(F) for non-Title V sources."


### Comment #2 

### REVISE DEFINITION OF "POTENTIAL TO EMIT" TO ALLOW FACILITIES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LIMITATIONS THAT 

### ARE, ENFORCEABLE UNDER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAWS. Them-0-Rock requests that the definition of "potential to emit" in Part 11, $ 1 

### .Obe revised as follows: "Potential to emit" means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a regulated pollutant under its physical or operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity ofthe source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restriction on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design only if the limitation nor the effect it would have on emissions is enforceable as apractical matter under anyCommunity or federal law, regulation or ordinance. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source.

The revised language would allow all laws imposedby the Tribal Council to be considered, not just the Community's environmentalrequirements enforceable by the GRIC Director. The additional language also would allow all federally-enforceable requirements to be considered, such as those in a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) major new source review permit; those in a new federal air quality standard not yet adopted by GRIC; and those that are enforceableunder other federal programs such
as OSHA and MSHA. This recommended revision is consistent with the state-of-the-art definition in many other jurisdictions. 

### Response #2: "We agree with this comment and have amendedthe ordinance accordingly.

### "

Comment #3: CLARIFY DEFINITION OF "MODIFICATION". The definition of "modification" at Part 11, 

### 5 1.0 governs when a permit will be required for certain physical or operational changes at a facility.The definition describes modification" in terms of "an increase in emissions

....." Therm-O-Rock requests clarification that this terminology is intended to compare potential emissions before and after a proposed change. Presumably, when DEQ issues the first permit for a new or existing facility, the permit will authorize the facility's "potential to emit," as that term is defined in Part 11,

## 5 1 

### .O. Thereafter, when the permitted facility proposes to make a change, the need for a permit revision should be based on whether the change will cause an increase ofthe already-permittedpotential level of emissions. 

### In would seem a waste of DEQ and industrial time and money to re-permit an emission level that alreadyhas been approved and permitted. Clarificationthat the definition of "modification" refers to potential emissions before and after aproposed changewill avoid such waste and delay. 

### Response #3: "We agree with this comment and have amendedthe ordinance accordingly."


### Comment #4: 

### INCLUDE TEERELEVANT PARTS OF THE NSPS GENERAL PROVISIONS 

### IN THE PART VII SPECIFICSOURCE CATEGORY STANDARDSDERIVED FROM THE NSPS. The specific source category standards in Part VII require existing emissions units to comply with emissions standards derived from the federalNew SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS) in 

### 40 C.F.R. Part 60. The NSPS apply to new, modified, and reconstructed emissions units in specificcategories.



### In theory, this means that existing and new equipment at a facility under GRIC's jurisdiction shouldbe subject to the same emissions standards. 

### In other words, the emissions standards in the NSPS for new equipment should be the same as the RACT standards for existing equipmentunder the TIP. For example,the NSPS regulations for vermiculite facilities impose a particulate standardof 0.092 gldscm and a 10 percent opacity standard on new, modified, and reconstructed vermiculite expansion furnaces.40 C.F.R. 

### $ 60.732. Likewise, the TIP imposes the same numeric standards on existing (non-NSPS) vermiculite expansion furnaces. TIP, Part VII, 

## 5 3.3. On the surface, it appears as if new, modified, reconstructed, and existing equipment will be subject to the same standards.
However, in reality, the TIP is drafted in a manner that imposes more stringentregulation
on the existing non-NSPS facilities. This imbalance probably is unintentional. It results from the failure of Part VII of the TIP to include the NSPS "General Provisions." These General Provisions statethat the NSPS standards do not apply at all times and under all circumstances, but rather make exceptions in appropriate cases: 

## 5 60.8 

### Performance Tests (c)



### . .

## .Operations duringperiods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test nor shall emissions in excess ofthe level ofthe applicable emission limit duringperiods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction be considered a violation ofthe applicable emission limit unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard.



### 40 C.F.R. 

## 5 60.8(c). 

## 5 60.11 Compliancewith standards and maintenance requirements. (c) The opacity standards set forth in this part shall apply at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction and as otherwise provided in the applicable standard.



### 40 C.F.R. 

## 5 60.11(c). By requiring compliance with standards at all times, the TIP is more stringent than the NSPS. This probably is not intended, since it would be unusual to impose more stringent requirements on existing (non-NSPS) emissions units and less stringent requirements on new, modified, or reconstructed (NSPS) emissions units. Them-0-Rock requests GRIC to incorporatein Part VII ofthe TIP the relevant language from the NSPS regulations so that there will be a level and fair playing field for existing and new emissions units.

Them-0-Rock also requests that the TIP clarifythat an emissions unit regulated under 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart UCTU (Standards for Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries) pursuant to Part 11, $7.1(B)(72.)is not also regulated under PartVII, 

## 5 3.0 ("Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Processing"). For example, an expansion furnace that is subject to NSPS Subpart

### UUU shouldnot also be subject to Part VII, 

### $ 3.0. Dual regulation is unnecessary and would be confusing. T11em-0-Rock believes that dual regulation was not intended and requests that this be clarified in the TIP.Response 

### #4: The imposition of NSPS grain-loading and opacity standards on existing vermiculite expansion furnaces is entirely deliberate. These standards are reasonably achievable by vermiculite sources in a nonattainment area for PMlolike the Community. The affirmative defenses for malfunctions, startup and shutdown apply to vermiculite facilities whether they are subject to NSPS or not.
Comment 

### #5: TRANSFER THERM-0-ROCK FACILITY CATEGORY FROM TABLE A TOTABLE B FOR ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEES.
The TIP'Sfee structure charges the highest annual administrative fees For Them-ORock. This is because page 107of the TIP lumps all NSPS-regulated facilities into Table A, regardless of size or complexity.Them-0-Rock has some equipment subjectto NSPS Subpart

### UUU. Table A's incorporation of all NSPS-regulated sources doesn't make sense. There is nothing that makes an NSPS facility inherently more difficultto regulate than a nonNSPS facility that is subject instead to aRACT standard under the TIP.

Them-0-Rockbelieves that its facility has more in common with Table B sources like "AggregateProduction/Crushing," "AggregateScreening," "Concrete Batching," "Concrete Product Manufacturing," "Foundry," "Furnace, Metals." "Furnace, Other,"than to the more complex sources in Table A like "Aircraft Manufacturing," "Chemical Manufacturing," "Pharmaceutical Manufacturing,"and "Semiconductor Manufacturing."

Them-0-Rockrequests that vermiculite and perlite processing facilities be placed in Table B. Response #5
The Them-0-Rock facility is one ofthe most complex and complicated facilities permitted by GRIC. Them-0-Rock operates several perlite and vermiculite expansion furnaces along with their associatedAir Pollution Control (APC) equipment (i.e., baghouses and cyclones). 

### In addition to vermiculite and perlite expansion furnaces, Them-0-Rock operates a plaster manufacturingprocess, fire retardant manufacturing process, hammer mill for producing potting soil and several bagging operations. Them0-Rock also maintains several storage silos and a rail car unloading/loading operation. The GRIC permit fees are designed to cover the cost of con~pliance and enforcement activities and drafting and issuance ofpermits. In general, the more complicated the facility, the higher the permit fee. Them-0-Rock will also be required to complete a detailed emissions inventory to determine if they are subjectto Title

### V permitting. Since Them-0-Rockwas not keeping thorough records when the 1997emissions inventory was conducted, the accuracy ofthe emissions inventory for Them-0-Rock is questionable at best. The 1997 emission inventoryfor Them-0-Rockindicates that and estimated 45 tons of PMlo were emitted,but more accurate records may indicatethat Them-0-Rock emissions exceed the major sourcetlzreshold making Them-0-Rock subject to the much higher Title 

### V permit fees.

### Comment #6: 

### THE AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS LIMITS IN PART 

### V ARE NOT PRACTICAL FOR THERM-0-ROCK. Under Part 

### V., Area Source Emission Limits. Section 10.5. Open Storage Piles. Part A states during stacking, loading and unloading operations, apply- water, as necessary, to maintain compliance. This would adversely affect our product.

Them-0-Rock cannot add water to the product as this will not allow us to process the product. Adding a statement such as controlling dust by other means such as containment, vacuum devices andlor dust collector. 

### Response #6: This requirement establishes control measures for open storage piles that are common at construction sites and the rock products industry. Since Them-0-Rock operates in a different manner than the rock products industry and does not store large quantities of vermiculite and perlite in large open storage piles this requirement is not applicableto Them-0-Rock unless large quantities of sweeps (waste vermiculite/perlite swept up from leaking equipment) are stored in open storage piles. Them-0-Rock would then be required to control wind blown emissions and emissions froin adding sweeps to the storage pile and removing sweeps from the storage pile. These issues will be addressed
on a caseby case basis during the permitting process. In addition, Them-0-Rockwill choose which control measures they want to use in a specific dust control plan that best fits its individual situation.