Responses to TIP Comments 

July 18,2005 

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) held a public comment period for the purpose of acquiring comments on the 

Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) for air quality from May 13,2005 through July 1, 

2005. In addition, GRIC held a public hearing on June 22,2005 in accordance with 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51.102 for the purpose of acquiring 

formal public comment. A summary of the comments and responses are provided 

herein. 

One commenter, Jim Weiss, Environmental Program Manager for the City of Chandler 

Arizona submitted a comment concerning the permitting threshold requirement in Part 11, 

section 2.1 (C), (2), (1) as it applies to stationary internal combustion engines. The 

commenter request that GRIC increase the De Minimis permitting threshold for stationary 

internal combustion engines from 100 hours per year to 200 hours per year. The GRIC 

Air Program reviewed the commenters request and has found that the requested change is 

reasonable. The requested higher permit threshold is still well below the permitting 

thresholds of neighboring jurisdictions and the higher threshold will allow operation of 

emergency generators/pumps without requiring an air quality permit. The Part I1 

ordinance will be revised to reflect this revision. 

Several comments were received from Donald J. Nelson, Location Manager for Pimalco 

addressing the content of several TIP ordinances. Comment #1 requests that GRIC delete 

all references to "ultra hazardous air pollutants" as they apply to permit thresholds, Best 

Reasonable and Demonstrated Technology (BRDT) requirements and all other references 

in Part 11. Part 11, section 2.1 (C), (I), (c) establishes a permit threshold for those 

facilities that emit "ultra hazardous air pollutants" in excess of 300 pounds per year. The 

300 pound threshold also applies to certain revisions to facility operations that increase 

emissions of "ultra hazardous air pollutants" and may require a BRDT demonstration. 

The BRDT demonstration does not necessarily require installation of pollution control 

equipment to meet the BRDT requirements as implied by the comment. The BRDT 

requirements can be met through equipment design, work practice or operational 

standards. In addition, any BRDT determination is conducted on a case by case basis and 

considers similar source operating characteristics taking in to account energy, 

environmental, economic impacts as well as the feasibility of achieving the emission 

limit. The ultra hazardous air pollutants are clearly defined in CAA Section 112(r)(3) 

and have the potential to pose a significant threat to human health and the environment. 

Therefore, the 300 pound permit threshold in not arbitrary or capricious. The 

requirement will remain unchanged. 

Comment #2 - Pimalco suggests that the "Accelerated Permit Processing Fee" be 

removed from Part I1 and replaced with set time frames for reviewing, drafting and 
issuing permits. The Accelerated Permit Processing option and related fee was included 

in Part I1 to provide industrial facilities an opportunity to acquire a permit in an more 

expedited manner by utilizing a private consultant to draft the permit with over site by the 

GRIC Department of Environmental Quality. In rare cases, certain types of industrial 

facilities may find it advantageous to pay the extra permit fee to acquire a permit in a 

shorter time period to gain an operational edge on their competitors. The resulting fee is 

charged to cover the cost of hiring an outside consultant. The Department is committed 

to reviewing, drafting and issuing permits in the most expeditious manner possible but is 

limited to a small staff and limited resources. Under no circumstances would the 

Department charge an accelerated permit fee and then stall the permit for the purpose of 

collecting the additional fee as implied by this comment. At this time the Department 

cannot be expected to limit itself to strict time frames for reviewing, drafting or issuing 

permits. The Department will do everything possible to issue permits in a timely manner 

but since staff and resources are very limited, the Department is not inclined to restrict 

itself to stringent time lines. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality just 

recently became subject to a requirement for issuing air quality permits under strict time 

frames and same is true for neighboring jurisdictions. The GRIC DEQ may reevaluate 

this request in the future depending on the status of personnel and other resources. The 

ordinance will not be revised to exclude the accelerated permit processing fee and 

timelines restrictions for reviewing, drafting and issuing permits will not be added. 

Comment #3 Pimalco suggest modifying the language pertaining to disposal of dirty 

cleanup solvent to specify that if it is listed or exhibits chararteristics of hazardous waste 

that is should be disposed of as hazardous waste. The GRIC DEQ will revise the 

language to address hazardous waste. 

Comment #4 Pimalco suggests that Part VI, Section 3.0 (1.2)(A) exemptions, be revised 

to clarify that the Volatile Organic Compound language under the Aluminum Processing 

ordinance takes precedence over the Solvent Metal Cleaning Ordinance language. The 

GRIC DEQ agrees that some slight revisions are required and will revise Part VI, Section 

3.0 (1.2)(A) to read Solvent cleaning operations specifically regulated by another section 

in these Parts. 

Comment #5 Pimalco requests adding the federal definition of "Runaround Scrap" to 

Part VII, Section 1 .O. The GRIC DEQ will revise the definition of "Runaround Scrap" to 

include the definition at 40 CFR 63.1 503. 

Commnet #6 Pimalco requests revising Part VII, Section 1.0 (3.2)(B) to add "calendar" 

in the first sentence to read "Each source subject to this Section shall demonstrate 

annually by February 15 that for the preceding calendar year total VOC emissions were 

reduced by at least 3% of the VOC baseline emission rate. The GRIC DEQ will make 

this revision for clarification purposes. 

Comment #7 Pimalco recommends revising Part VII, Section 1.0 (3.5)(A) to include 

"utilizing material other than clean charge". The GRIC DEQ has reviewed 40 CFR, Part 

63,subpart RRR, 6 5 15 10 and has found no language stating that only Group I furnaces 
that "utilize material other than clean charge" are required to institute a scrap inspection 

program. To the contrary, 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart RRR §§1500, states that all Group I 

furnaces must institute a scrap inspection program. This section will remain unchanged. 

Comment #8 Pimalco requests a modification to the source testing language under Part 

VII, Section 1.0 (4. ])(A) that will affectively exempt Pimalco from the performance test 

requirements contained in the ordinance and 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart RRR, §§1500. 

The federal regulations require performance testing at least once every 5 years after 

completion of the initial test and approval of this requested revision would be 

contradictory to the federal requirements. In addition, approval of the requested revisions 

would be contradictory to the requirements of Part VII, Section 1.0 requirements. The 

requested revision will not be included in the ordinance. 
L./ 

Responses to TIP Comments 

July 18,2005 

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) held a public comment period for the purpose of acquiring comments on the 

Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) for air quality from May 13,2005 through July 1, 

2005. In addition, GRIC held a public hearing on June 22,2005 in accordance with 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51.102 for the purpose of acquiring 

formal public comment. A summary of the comments and responses are provided 

herein. 

One commenter, Jim Weiss, Environmental Program Manager for the City of Chandler 

Arizona submitted a comment concerning the permitting threshold requirement in Part 11, I section 2.1 (C), (2), ) as it applies to stationary internal combustion engines. The -4 >ti) 

CdT cornrnenter reques di at GRIC increase the De Minimis permitting threshold for stationary 

internal combustion engines from 100 hours per year to 200 hours per year. The GRIC 

Air Program reviewed the commenters request and has found that the requested change is 

reasonable. The requested higher permit threshold is still well below the permitting 

thresholds of neighboring jurisdictions and the higher threshold will allow operation of 

emergency generatorslpumps without requiring an air quality permit. The Part I1 

ordinance will be revised to reflect this revision. .--- ..~ ..., 

Several comments were received from Donald J. Nelson, Location Manager f~f~imalco''~~ 

addressing the content of several TIP ordinances. Comment # 1 requests that GRIC delete' 

all references to "ultra hazardous air pollutants" as they apply to permit thresholds, Best 

Reasonable and Demonstrated Technology (BRDT) requirements and all other references 

in Part II. Part 11, section 2.1 (C), (I), (c) establishes a permit threshold for those 

facilities that emit "ultra hazardous air pollutants" in excess of 300 pounds per year. The 

300 pound threshold also applies to certain revisions to facility operations that increase 

emissions of "ultra hazardous air pollutants" and may require a BRDT demonstration. 

The BRDT demonstration does not necessarily require installation of pollution control 

equipment to meet the BRDT requirements as implied by the comment. The BRDT 

requirements can be met through equipment design, work practice or operational 

standards. In addition, any BRDT determination is conducted on a case by case basis and 

considers similar source operating characteristics taking in to account energy, 

environmental, economic impacts as well as the feasibility of achieving the emission 

limit. The ultra hazardous air pollutants are clearly defined in CAA Section 112(r)(3) 

and have the potential to pose a significant threat to human health and the environment. 

Therefore, the 300 pound permit threshold in not arbitrary or capricious. The 

requirement will remain unchanged. 

Comment #2 - Pimalco suggests that the "Accelerated Permit Processing Fee" be 

removed from Part I1 and replaced with set time frames for reviewing, drafting and 
issuing permits. The Accelerated Permit Processing option and related fee was included 

in Part I1 to provide industrial facilities an opportunity to acquire a permit in an more 

expedited manner by utilizing a private consultant to draft the permit with over site by the 

GRIC Department of Environmental Quality. In rare cases, certain types of industrial 

facilities may find it advantageous to pay the extra permit fee to acquire a permit in a 

shorter time period to gain an operational edge on their competitors. The resulting fee is 

charged to cover the cost of hiring an outside consultant. The Department is committed 

to reviewing, drafting and issuing permits in the most expeditious manner possible but is 

limited to a small staff and limited resources. Under no circumstances would the 

Department charge an accelerated permit fee and then stall the permit for the purpose of 

collecting the additional fee as implied by this comment. At this time the Department 

cannot be expected to limit itself to strict time frames for reviewing, drafting or issuing 

permits. The Department will do everything possible to issue permits in a timely manner 

but since staff and resources are very limited, the Department is not inclined to restrict 

itself to stringent time lines. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality just 

recently became subject to a requirement for issuing air permits under strict time 

frames and same is true for neighboring jurisdictions. The GRIC DEQ may reevaluate 

this request in the future depending on the status of personnel and other resources. The 

ordinance will not be revised to exclude the accelerated permit processing fee and 

timelines restrictions for reviewing, drafting and issuing permits will not be added. 

Comment #3 Pimalco suggest modifying the language pertaining to disposal of dirty 

cleanup solvent to specify that if it is listed or exhibits chararteristics of hazardous waste 

that is should be disposed of as hazardous waste. The GRIC DEQ will revise the 

language to address hazardous waste. 

Comment #4 Pimalco suggests that Part VI, Section 3.0 (1.2)(A) exemptions, be revised 

to clarify that the Volatile Organic Compound language under the Aluminum Processing 

ordinance takes precedence over the Solvent Metal Cleaning Ordinance language. The 

GRIC DEQ agrees that some slight revisions are required and will revise Part VI, Section 

3.0 (1.2)(A) to read Solvent cleaning operations specifically regulated by another section 

in these Parts. 

Comment #5 Pirnalco requests adding the federal definition of "Runaround Scrap" to 

Part VII, Section 1.0. The GRIC DEQ will revise the definition of "Runaround Scrap7' to 

include the definition at 40 CFR 63.1503. 

Commnet #6 Pimalco requests revising Part VII, Section 1.0 (3.2)(B) to add "calendar" 

in the first sentence to read "Each source subject to this Section shall demonstrate 

annually by February 15 that for the preceding calendar year total VOC emissions were 

reduced by at least 3% of the VOC baseline emission rate. The GFUC DEQ will make 

this revision for clarification purposes. 

Comment #7 Pimalco recommends revising Part VII, Section 1.0 (3.5)(A) to include 

"utilizing material other than clean charge". The GRIC DEQ has reviewed 40 CFR, Part 

63,subpart RRR, §$I5 10 and has found no language stating that only Group I furnaces 
that "utilize material other than clean charge" are required to institute a scrap inspection 

program. To the contrary, 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart RRR $$1500, states that all Group I 

furnaces must institute a scrap inspection program. This section will remain unchanged. 

Comment #8 Pimalco requests a modification to the source testing language under Part 

VII, Section 1.0 (4.1)(A) that will affectively exempt Pimalco from the performance test 

requirements contained in the ordinance and 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart RRR, $5 1500. 

The federal regulations require performance testing at least once every 5 years after 

completion of the initial test and approval of this requested revision would be 

contradictory to the federal requirements. In addition, approval of the requested revisions 

would be contradictory to the requirements of Part VII, Section 1.0 requirements. The 

requested revision will not be included in the ordinance. 
Summary of Comments and Responses to the 

Fugitive Dust Ordinance 

The DEQ Air Quality Program held two meetings with Bobby Stone (Manager, GRIC 

Farms) and his staff conceming the Draft GRIC TIP Ordinances. In addition, DEQ 

personnel met with the Natural Resources Conservation District to discuss the Fugitive 

Dust Ordinance ant the Open Burning Ordinance. The DEQ also received a call from 

Pima Maricopa Inigation District (PMIP) conceming a section of the Fugitive Dust 

Ordinance that applies to tarping of haul trucks. 

The following is a summary of the comments received and the DEQ responses. 

GRIC Farms 

Mr. Bobby Stone requested a summary of which ordinances would apply to the farms 

operations. 

DEQ personnel indicated that the Visible Emissions Ordinance (20% opacity limit) 

would apply to the GRIC Farms cotton gin. The gin has met the 20% opacity limit except 

when running mud cotton. The DEQ indicated that it would work with the farms in a 

compliance assistance manner rather than an enforcement process during the one week 

per year that it runs mud cotton. 

DEQ personnel also indicated that the VOC Usage, Storage and Handling Ordinance 

would apply to the Farm's gasoline tanks. The ordinance requires a submerged fill pipe 

be installed on the tank. DEQ personnel confirmed that the tank was equipped with a 

submerged fill pipe after the first meeting. 

DEQ personnel also indicated that the Farm might be subject to the Fugitive Dust 

Ordinance depending on their operations. 

GRIC Farm's personnel asked if they would have to get a permit for clearing virgin land 

for the Community, to put in new agricultural fields. DEQ personnel indicated that "Yes" 

the Farms would need to acquire an Earth Moving Permit and develop a Dust Control 

Plan if they were going to develop new agricultural fields but Tribal Entities are exempt 

from paying permit fees. 

Farms personnel indicated that they currently operate a construction division of the farm 

and asked if a permit and dust control plan would be needed for construction projects. 

DEQ personnel indicated that any development that involved earth moving 

operationslland clearing greater than one (1) acre would require and earth moving permit 

and dust control plan but would not require a fee to be paid by Tribal Entities. 

An employee of the farms asked if a water truck would be required in and around the 

fields where they are plowing, disking, leveling (tilling). The DEQ responded "No". 
General farming operations are currently exempt from the requirements of the TIE' 

ordinances. Only initial land clearing operations or construction activities greater than 

one (1) acre would be required to get a permit and develop a dust control plan. 

Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCD) 

Members of the NRCD provided several general statements including one statement 

indicating that the Community needs to be careful not to over regulate tribal operations 

especially apculture. DEQ personnel informed NRCD members that the TIP 

specifically exempts general farming operations from the TIE' ordinances and that farmers 

do not have to meet TIP requirements. The DEQ further explained to NRCD members 

that the only affect the TIP would have on agriculture would be the initial clearing of land 

for new agricultural fields. In this instance, the developer/contractor responsible for 

clearing the land would be responsible for acquiring an earth moving permit and develop 

a dust control plan. The DEQ also informed NRCD members that the current burn permit 

process for Community farmers would not change. 

One NRCD member asked if the Fugitive Dust Ordinance applied to unpaved roads and 

field roads. DEQ personnel responded "No". The Fugitive Dust Ordinance does not 

apply to normal farming operations or field roadslunpaved roads. 

Another NRCD member asked if they would be required to control dust from field tillage 

operations that traveled across a highway potentially affecting vehicle traffic. DEQ 

personnel indicated that the Fugitive Dust Ordinance does not specifically require 

controlling dust from tillage operations but in the past farmers have terminated tillage 

operations when dust impacted visibility and vehicle traffic due to liability concerns. 

Farmers could potentially be held responsible for causing and accident due to the dust 

they caused. NRCD members also provided a couple statements concerning open 

burning that will be addressed in the Summary of Comment and Responses to the Open 

Burning Ordinance. 

The DEQ received a phone call fi-om a representative of Pima Maricopa Irrigation 

District (PMIP) concerning the Fugitive Dust Ordinance. The PMP representative 

indicated that PMIP did not have a problem with the ordinance but questioned the 

requirements for tarping haul trucks. DEQ personnel indicated that the truck tarping 

section of the ordinance will be revised to indicate tarps are not needed when trucks are 

traveling within the project site but are required when traveling onto paved roads. 
Responses to TIP Comments 

July 18,2005 

, 

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Department of Environmental Quality 

@EQ) held a public comment period for the purpose of acquiring comments on the 

Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) for air quality from May 13,2005 through July 1, 

2005. In addition, GNC held a public hearing on June 22,2005 in accordance with 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51.102 for the purpose of acquiring 

formal public comment. A summary of the comments and responses are provided 

herein. 

One commenter, Jim Weiss, Environmental Program Manager for the City of Chandler 

Arizona submitted a comment concerning the permitting threshold requirement in Part 11, 

section 2.1 (C), (2), (1) as it applies to stationary internal combustion engines. The 

commenter request that GRIC increase the De Minimis permitting threshold for stationary 

internal combustion engines fiom 100 hours per year to 200 hours per year. The GRIC 

Air Program reviewed the commenters request and has found that the requested change is 

reasonable. The requested higher permit threshold is still well below the permitting 

thresholds of neighboring jurisdictions and the higher threshold will allow operation of 

emergency generatorslpumps without requiring an air quality permit. The Part I1 

ordinance will be revised to reflect this revision. 

Several comments were received from Donald J. Nelson, Location Manager for Pimalco 

addressing the content of several TIP ordinances. Comment #1 requests that GRIC delete 

all references to "ultra hazardous air pollutants" as they apply to permit thresholds, Best 

Reasonable and Demonstrated Technology (BRDT) requirements and all other references 

in Part 11. Part 11, section 2.1 (C), (I), (c) establishes a permit threshold for those 

facilities that emit "ultra hazardous air pollutants" in excess of 300 pounds per year. The 

300 pound threshold also applies to certain revisions to facility operations that increase 

emissions of "ultra hazardous air pollutants" and may require a BRDT demonstration. 

The BRDT demonstration does not necessarily require installation of pollution control 

equipment to meet the BRDT requirements as implied by the comment. The BRDT 

requirements can be met through equipment design, work practice or operational 

standards. In addition, any BRDT determination is conducted on a case by case basis and 

considers similar source operating characteristics talung in to account energy, 

environmental, economic impacts as well as the feasibility of achieving the emission 

limit. The ultra hazardous air pollutants are clearly defined in CAA Section 112(r)(3) 

and have the potential to pose a significant threat to human health and the environment. 

Therefore, the 300 pound permit threshold in not arbitrary or capricious. The 

requirement will remain unchanged. 

Comment #2 - Pimalco suggests that the "Accelerated Permit Processing Fee" be 

removed from Part I1 and replaced with set time frames for reviewing, drafting and 
issuing permits. The Accelerated Permit Processing option and related fee was included 

in Part I1 to provide industrial facilities an opportunity to acquire a permit in an more 

expedited manner by utilizing a private consultant to draft the permit with over site by the 

GRIC Department of Environmental Quality. In rare cases, certain types of industrial 

facilities may find it advantageous to pay the extra permit fee to acquire a permit in a 

shorter time period to gain an operational edge on their competitors. The resulting fee is 

charged to cover the cost of hiring an outside consultant. The Department is committed 

to reviewing, drafting and issuing permits in the most expeditious manner possible but is 

limited to a small staff and limited resources. Under no circumstances would the 

Department charge an accelerated permit fee and then stall the permit for the purpose of 

collecting the additional fee as implied by this comment. At this time the Department 

cannot be expected to limit itself to strict time frames for reviewing, drafting or issuing 

permits. The Department will do everything possible to issue permits in a timely manner 

but since staff and resources are very limited, the Department is not inclined to restrict 

itself to stringent time lines. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality just 

recently became subject to a requirement for issuing air quality permits under strict time 

frames and same is true for neighboring jurisdictions. The GRIC DEQ may reevaluate 

this request in the future depending on the status of personnel and other resources. The 

ordinance will not be revised to exclude the accelerated permit processing fee and 

timelines restrictions for reviewing, drafting and issuing permits will not be added. 

Comment #3 Pimalco suggest modifying the language pertaining to disposal of dirty 

cleanup solvent to specify that if it is listed or exhibits chararteristics of hazardous waste 

that is should be disposed of as hazardous waste. The GRIC DEQ will revise the 

language to address hazardous waste. 

Comment #4 Pimalco suggests that Part VI, ~ection'3.0 (1.2)(A) exemptions, be revised 

to clarify that the Volatile Organic Compound language under the Aluminum Processing 

ordinance takes precedence over the Solvent Metal Cleaning Ordinance language. The 

GRIC DEQ agrees that some slight revisions are required and will revise Part VI, Section 

3.0 (1.2)(A) to read Solvent cleaning operations specifically regulated by another section 

in these Parts. 

Comment #5 Pimalco requests adding the federal definition of "Runaround Scrap" to 

Part VII, Section 1.0. The GRIC DEQ will revise the definition of "Runaround Scrap" to 

include the definition at 40 CFR 63.1503. 

Commnet #6 Pimalco requests revising Part VII, Section 1.0 (3.2)(B) to add "calendar" 

in the first sentence to read "Each source subject to this Section shall demonstrate 

annually by February 15 that for the preceding calendar year total VOC emissions were 

reduced by at least 3% of the VOC baseline emission rate. The GRIC DEQ will make 

this revision for clarification purposes. 

Comment #7 Pimalco recommends revising Part VII, Section 1.0 (3.5)(A) to include 

"utilizing material other than clean charge". The GRIC DEQ has reviewed 40 CFR, Part 

63,subpart RRR, $5 15 10 and has found no language stating that only Group I furnaces 
that "utilize material other than clean charge" are required to institute a scrap inspection 

program. To the contrary, 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart RRR §§1500, states that all Group I 

furnaces must institute a scrap inspection program. This section will remain unchanged. 

Comment #8 Pimalco requests a modification to the source testing language under Part 

VII, Section 1.0 (4.1)(A) that will affectively exempt Pimalco from the performance test 

requirements contained in the ordinance and 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart RRR, $5 1500. 

The federal regulations require performance testing at least once every 5 years after 

completion of the initial test and approval of this requested revision would be 

contradictory to the federal requirements. In addition, approval of the requested revisions 

would be contradictory to the requirements of Part VII, Section 1.0 requirements. The 

requested revision will not be included in the ordinance.