# Responses to TIP 

# Comments July 18,2005

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) held a public comment period for the purpose of acquiring comments on the Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) for air quality from May 13,2005through 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 stationaryinternal 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 commentersrequest and has found that the requested change is reasonable. The requested higher permit threshold is still well below the permitting thresholds ofneighboringjurisdictions 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 airpollutants" 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 airpollutants" and may require a BRDT demonstration. TheBRDT demonstration doesnot 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 achievingthe emission limit. Theultra 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 andissuing permits. TheAccelerated 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 siteby 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 stringenttime lines. The Arizona Department of Environmental Qualityjust 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 ashazardous 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 VOCbaseline 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, 

### 65 1510and has found no language stating that only Group I furnacesthat "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 GroupI furnaces must institute a scrap inspection program. This section will remain unchanged.

Comment 

### #8 Pimalco requests a modification to the source testing languageunder 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 1.0requirements. 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 forthe purpose of acquiring comments on the Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) for air quality from May 13,2005 through July 

### 1, 2005. In addition, GRICheld a public hearing on June 22,2005 in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51.102 for the purpose ofacquiring formal public comment. A 

### summary of the comments and responses are provided herein.

One commenter, Jim Weiss, EnvironmentalProgram Manager for the City of Chandler Arizona submitted a comment concerningthe permitting threshold requirement in Part 11,

I 

### section 2.1 (C), (2), ) 

### as it applies to stationary internal combustion engines. The 

### -4 

## >ti) CdT 

### cornrnenterreques

# di
at GRIC increasethe 

### DeMinimis permitting threshold for stationary internal combustion engines from 100 hours per year to 200 hours per year. The GRIC Air Program reviewed the commentersrequest and has found that the requested change is reasonable. The requested higher permit threshold is stillwell belowthe permitting thresholds of neighboringjurisdictions and the higher threshold will allowoperation of emergency generatorslpumpswithout requiring an air qualitypermit. The Part I1 ordinancewill be revised to reflect this revision.

.--- ..~

..., 

### Severalcommentswere received from Donald J. Nelson, Location Manager f~f~imalco''~~ addressingthe content of several TIP ordinances. Comment # 

### 1requests that GRIC delete' all referencesto "ultra hazardous air pollutants" as they apply to permit thresholds,Best Reasonableand 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 facilitiesthat 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 emissionsof "ultra hazardous air pollutants" and may require a BRDT demonstration. The BRDT demonstration does not necessarily require installation ofpollution control equipment to meetthe BRDT requirements as impliedby the comment. TheBRDT requirementscan be met through equipment design, work practice or operational standards. In addition, any BRDT determination is conducted on a caseby casebasis and considers similar source operating characteristics taking in to account energy, environmental, economic impacts as well as the feasibilityof achievingthe 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 suggeststhat the "Accelerated Permit Processing Fee" be removed from Part I1 and replaced with settime frames for reviewing, draftingand

### issuing permits. The Accelerated Permit Processing option and related fee was included in Part I1to provide industrial facilities an opportunityto acquire a permit in an 

### more expedited manner by utilizing a private consultant to draft the permit with over siteby 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 shortertime period to gain an operational edge on their competitors. The resulting fee is charged to cover the cost ofhiring 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 stallthe permit for the purpose of collecting the additional fee as implied by this comment. At this time the Department
cannotbe expected to limit itselfto strict time frames for reviewing, drafting or issuing permits. The Department will do everything possible to issue permits in 

### atimely manner but since staff and resources are very limited, the Department is not inclined to restrict itselfto stringent time lines. The Arizona Department of Environmental Qualityjust 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 ofpersonnel and other resources. The ordinance will notbe revised to excludethe 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 ofhazardous waste that is should be disposed of as hazardous waste. The GRIC DEQ will revise the language to address hazardous waste.

Comment #4 Pimalco suggeststhat Part 

### VI, Section 3.0 (1.2)(A) exemptions, be revised to clarify that the Volatile Organic Compound language underthe Aluminum Processing ordinance takes precedence overthe 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 

### theseParts.

Comment #5 Pirnalco requests addingthe 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 sentencetoread "Each source subjecttothis Section shall demonstrate annually by February 15

### that for the preceding 

### calendaryear 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 

### "utilizingmaterial other than clean charge". The GRICDEQ has reviewed 40 CFR, 

### Part 63,subpart 

### RRR, §$I510and has found no language stating that only Group I furnaces

### that "utilize material otherthan clean charge" arerequired 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 inspectionprogram. This sectionwill remain unchanged.

Comment #8 

### Pimalco requests a modificationto the source testing language under Part VII, Section 1.0(4.1)(A)that will affectivelyexempt Pimalco from the performance test requirements contained in the ordinance and 40 CFR, Part 63, SubpartRRR, 

## $51500. Thefederal regulations require performancetesting at least once every 5 years after completion ofthe initial test and approval of this requested revision would be contradictory to the federal requirements. In addition, approval of the requestedrevisions would be contradictoryto the requirements ofPart 

### VII, Section 1.0 requirements. The requested revisionwill 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 InigationDistrict (PMIP) conceming a section ofthe Fugitive Dust Ordinance that applies to tarping of haul trucks.

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

GRIC Farms



### Mr. Bobby Stone requested a summary ofwhich 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 indicatedthat the Farm might be subjectto the Fugitive Dust Ordinance depending on their operations.

GRIC Farm's personnel asked ifthey would have to get apermit for clearing virgin land for the Community, to put in new agricultural fields. DEQpersonnel indicated that "Yes" the Farms would need to acquire an Earth Moving Permit and develop a Dust Control Plan ifthey were going to develop new agricultural fieldsbut Tribal Entities are exempt from paying permit fees.

Farms personnel indicated that they currently operate a construction division ofthe farm and asked if apermit 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 ofthe farms asked if a water truck would be required in and around the fields where they areplowing, 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 ofthe NRCD provided several general statements including one statement indicating that the Communityneeds tobe 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 agriculturewouldbe the initial clearing of land for new agricultural fields. 

### In this instance, the developer/contractor responsible for clearingthe land would beresponsible 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 ifthe Fugitive Dust Ordinance applied to unpaved roads and field roads. DEQ personnel responded "No". The Fugitive Dust Ordinance does not applyto normal farming operations or fieldroadslunpaved 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 specificallyrequire controlling dust from tillage operationsbut in the past farmers haveterminated tillage operations when dust impacted visibility and vehicletraffic dueto liability concerns. Farmers could potentially be held responsible for causing and accident dueto the dust they caused. NRCD members also provided a couple statements concerning open burning that will be addressed in the Summaryof Comment and Responses to the Open Burning Ordinance.

The DEQ 

### received a phone call fi-oma representative of Pima Maricopa Irrigation District (PMIP) concerning the Fugitive Dust Ordinance. The 

### PMPrepresentative indicated that PMIP did not have a problem with the ordinance but questioned the requirements fortarping haul trucks. DEQ personnel indicated that the truck tarping section ofthe ordinance will be revised to indicate tarps arenot needed when trucks are traveling within the project sitebut are required when traveling onto paved roads.

# Responses to 

# TIP Comments July 18,2005

,

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Department ofEnvironmental Quality @EQ) held a public comment period for the purpose of acquiring comments on the Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) for air quality from May 13,2005through July 1, 2005. In addition, GNCheld 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 ofthe comments and responses are provided herein.

One commenter, Jim Weiss, Environmental Program Manager forthe 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 increasethe

### De Minimis permitting threshold for stationary internal combustion engines fiom 100hours per year to 200 hours per year. The GRIC Air Program reviewed the commentersrequest and has found that the requested change is reasonable. Therequested higher permitthreshold is still well below the permitting thresholds of neighboring jurisdictions and the higher threshold will allow operation of emergency generatorslpumps without requiringan air quality permit. The Part 

### I1 ordinance will be revised to reflect this revision.

Several comments were received fromDonald 

### 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 airpollutants" in excess of 300 pounds per year. The 300 pound threshold also applies to certain revisionsto facility operations that increase emissions of "ultra hazardous airpollutants" and may require a BRDT demonstration. The BRDT demonstration does not necessarily require installation ofpollution control equipment to meet the BRDT requirements as impliedby the comment. TheBRDT requirements can be met through equipment design, work practice or operational standards. 

### In addition, any BRDT determinationis conducted on a caseby case basis and considers similar source operating characteristicstalung 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 topose 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 

### I1andreplaced with set time frames for reviewing, drafting andissuing 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 expeditedmanner by utilizing a private consultant to draft the permit with over siteby the GRIC Department of Environmental Quality. 

### In rare cases, certain types ofindustrial facilitiesmay 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 ofhiring an outside consultant. The Department is committed to reviewing, drafting and issuing permits in the most expeditious manner possible but is limitedto 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 impliedby this comment. At this time the Department
cannotbe expected to limit itself to strict time frames for reviewing, drafting or issuing permits. The Department will do everythingpossible 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 ofpersonnel 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 specificallyregulated by another section in theseParts.

Comment #5 Pimalcorequests 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 Pimalcorequests 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 annuallyby February 15that 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, 

## $51510 and has found no language stating that only Group 

### I furnacesthat "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 performancetest requirements contained in the ordinance and 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart

### RRR, 

### $51500. 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 ofPart VII, Section 1.0 requirements. The requested revision will not be included in the ordinance.