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 sources will 

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 as it is approved by GRIC. Moreover, the TIP requires sources to report noncompliance. This means that, for some sources, the adoption of the TIP will trigger 

immediate non-compliance and self-reporting. Through no fault of their own, this will 

make such existing sources look bad 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 a provision 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 .O be 

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 of the 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 a practical matter under any 
Community 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 imposed by the Tribal Council to be 

considered, not just the Community's environmental requirements 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 enforceable under 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 amended the 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 of the already-permitted potential level of emissions. In would seem a waste 

of DEQ and industrial time and money to re-permit an emission level that already has 

been approved and permitted. Clarification that the definition of "modification" refers to 

potential emissions before and after a proposed change will avoid such waste and delay. 

Response #3: "We agree with this comment and have amended the ordinance 

accordingly." 

Comment #4: INCLUDE TEE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE NSPS GENERAL 

PROVISIONS IN THE PART VII SPECIFIC SOURCE CATEGORY 

STANDARDS DERIVED FROM THE NSPS. 

The specific source category standards in Part VII require existing emissions units to 

comply with emissions standards derived from the federal New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) in 40 C.F.R. Part 60. The NSPS apply to new, modified, and 

reconstructed emissions units in specific categories. 

In theory, this means that existing and new equipment at a facility under GRIC's 

jurisdiction should be 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 equipment under the TIP. For example, the NSPS regulations for 

vermiculite facilities impose a particulate standard of 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 stringent regulation 

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 state that 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 during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction shall not 

constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test nor shall 

emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission limit during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction be considered a violation of the applicable 

emission limit unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard. 

40 C.F.R. 5 60.8(c). 5 60.11 Compliance with 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 incorporate in Part VII of the 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 clarify that 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 Part VII, 5 

3.0 ("Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Processing"). For example, an expansion furnace 

that is subject to NSPS Subpart UUU should not 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 PMlo like 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 TO TABLE B FOR ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEES. 

The TIP'S fee structure charges the highest annual administrative fees For Them-ORock. This is because page 107 of the TIP lumps all NSPS-regulated facilities into 

Table A, regardless of size or complexity. Them-0-Rock has some equipment subject to 

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 difficult to regulate than a nonNSPS facility that is subject instead to a RACT standard under the TIP. 

Them-0-Rock believes that its facility has more in common with Table B sources like 

"Aggregate Production/Crushing," "Aggregate Screening," "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-Rock requests that vermiculite and perlite processing facilities be placed in 

Table B. 

Response #5 

The Them-0-Rock facility is one of the most complex and complicated facilities 

permitted by GRIC. Them-0-Rock operates several perlite and vermiculite expansion 

furnaces along with their associated Air Pollution Control (APC) equipment (i.e., 

baghouses and cyclones). In addition to vermiculite and perlite expansion furnaces, 

Them-0-Rock operates a plaster manufacturing process, 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 of permits. 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 subject to Title V permitting. Since 

Them-0-Rock was not keeping thorough records when the 1997 emissions inventory 

was conducted, the accuracy of the emissions inventory for Them-0-Rock is 

questionable at best. The 1997 emission inventory for Them-0-Rock indicates that and 

estimated 45 tons of PMlo were emitted, but more accurate records may indicate that 

Them-0-Rock emissions exceed the major source tlzreshold 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 applicable to 

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 case by case basis during the permitting process. In addition, Them-0-Rock will 

choose which control measures they want to use in a specific dust control plan that best 

fits its individual situation.