Technical Support Document 

for 

EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

as submitted by the California Air Resources Board 

for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

EPA's Analysis of 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 

Rule 4565, Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

Air Division 

August 2011 
−2−

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 4565, 

Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations 

Chronology of Rule Submittal 

• The SJVUAPCD Governing Board adopted Rule 4565 on March 15, 2007. 

• The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted Rule 4565 to EPA on August 

24, 2007. 

• EPA found CARB’s submittal of Rule 4565 complete on September 17, 2007. 

• There are no previous versions of Rule 4565 adopted by SJVUAPCD or approved 

into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by EPA. 

Background

SJVUAPCD has primary responsibility for regulating air pollution in the San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV), which is classified as an extreme nonattainment area for the federal eighthour ozone standard (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, as required by section 182(b)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), SJVUAPCD must implement Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for all stationary sources with a potential to emit more than 10 tons 

per year (t/y) of volatile organic compounds (VOC). SJVUAPCD implemented Rule 

4565 to satisfy various requirements, including RACT. The District estimates that cocomposting facilities that process 8,470-11,200 wet tons per year are large enough to 

emit more than 10 tons per year.

1

 

SJVUAPCD’s 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration commits to reduce 0.1 t/d of VOC 

from biosolid, animal manure and poultry litter operations.

2

 Rule 4565 was also adopted, 

in part, to reduce these emissions. However, this TSD does not attempt to evaluate 

whether Rule 4565 has achieved these reductions. 

Rule Summary 

Rule 4565 is designed to limit VOC emissions from SJV facilities that manage biosolids, 

animal manure or poultry litter, and includes requirements for landfills, land application 

and composting/co-composting. 

Rule 4565’s core requirements are contained in Section 5. Section 5.1 concerns landfill 

requirements. Section 5.2 of the rule requires land application mitigation measures. 

Section 5.3 requires composting and co-composting facilities to select either Class One 

mitigation measures or Class Two mitigation measures, or a combination of both. Class 

One mitigation measures do not require add on controls and include practices such as 

 

1

SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report, Revised Proposed New Rule 4565, March 30, 2007, pg. 5. Henceforth, 

we refer to this document as SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report. 

2

SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report, pg. 2. 
−3−

scraping or sweeping where compostable material is mixed, screened or stored and 

maintaining minimum oxygen concentrations in active and curing compost piles. Class 

Two mitigation measures do require add-on controls, and include conducting active or 

curing composting in aerated static piles3 or in-vessel composting systems

4

that are 

vented to a VOC control device, most commonly a bio-filter. 

Composting/co-composting facilities with throughput less than 20,000 wet tons per year 

must implement three Class One mitigation measures. Facilities with throughputs 

between 20,000 – 100,000 wet tons/year must implement four Class One mitigation 

measures. Facilities with throughputs above 100,000 wet tons/year must implement either 

four Class One mitigation measures and one Class Two mitigation measure for active 

composting, or two Class One mitigation measures and one Class Two mitigation 

measure for active composting and one Class Two mitigation measure for curing 

composting. 

Sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 contain additional requirements for large composting and cocomposting facilities. 

Evaluation Criteria 

The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted rule. 

1. Enforceability - The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, 

Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook 

(Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the 

CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability. 

2. Anti-Backsliding – We have evaluated this SIP revision to determine whether it 

would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act 

(CAA §110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP-approved control 

requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (CAA §193). 

3. RACT –CAA Section 182(b)(2) directs extreme nonattainment areas like 

SJVUAPCD to adopt and submit SIP provisions implementing Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for all stationary sources of VOC that 

emit more than 10 tons per year of VOC. RACT is “the lowest emission 

limitation that a particular source (can meet using) control technology that is 

 

3

Section 3.2 defines aerated static piles as a system designed, constructed, maintained, and operated for 

decomposing organic material in which the material is placed on top of perforated plates or pipes that are 

connected to blowers that either push or pull air through the piles. 

4

Section 3.23 defines an in-vessel composting system as a system where all compostable material is inside 

a negatively-pressurized or positively-pressurized enclosure that is not open to the atmosphere and that is 

composed of hard-piping, ductwork connections, and, if necessary, flow inducing devices that transport gas 

or vapor from a piece or pieces of equipment. 
−4−

reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility.”(44 FR 

53762, September 17, 1979). CAA Section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment areas 

to implement all reasonably available control measures, including such reductions 

in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the 

adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology 

(RACT/RACM), as expeditiously as practicable. 

SJVUAPCD must implement RACT/RACM for composting/co-composting 

facilities that are major sources of ozone precursors. In this proposal, we are only 

evaluating RACT. Additional control measures for composting/co-composting 

facilities may be required pursuant to CAA §172(c)(1) if both: (1) additional 

measures are reasonably available; and (2) these additional reasonably available 

measures will advance attainment in the area when considered collectively with 

other reasonable measures. In a separate rulemaking, EPA will take action on the 

State’s RACM demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on an 

evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential 

to advance the applicable attainment date in the San Joaquin Valley. See 40 CFR 

51.912(d) and 51.1010. 

EPA Evaluation 

The monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements of Rule 4565 are clear 

and adequate to ensure that the submitted rule can be enforced consistent with CAA 

§110(a)(2)(A). 

Rule 4565 reduces emissions and strengthens the SIP since there is no previous version of 

the rule in the SIP. Furthermore, it does not undermine other existing SIP provisions. 

Therefore, we propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with 

CAA sections 110(l) and 193, because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with 

the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the 

NAAQS are met. 

SJVUAPCD’s RACT SIP analysis presents several arguments in support of 

SJVUAPCD’s conclusion that Rule 4565 adequately implements RACT. These include: 

1. There is no federal policy or guidance (e.g., EPA Control Technique or 

Alternative Control Technology Guidelines) describing reasonably available 

controls for biosolids, animal manure or poultry litter operations.5 

2. Only one other agency in the country, the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD), has developed analogous requirements for this activity. 

SCAQMD’s requirements are more stringent than Rule 4565 for larger cocomposting facilities and less stringent for smaller co-composting facilities. 

 

5

SJVUAPCD, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State 

Implementation Plans (SIP), April 16, 2009, pg. 4-96. 
−5−

3. There are no known, unsubsidized facilities in the SCAQMD that are subject to 

SCAQMD’s more stringent requirements for in-vessel composting. 

4. SCAQMD’s more stringent requirements are not cost-effective. 

EPA concurs with SJVUAPCD’s conclusion that Rule 4565 adequately implements 

RACT based on the analysis summarized above and considering additional information 

including: 

1. Based on information from SCAQMD, we understand that perhaps only one 

composting / co-composting source is subject to SCAQMD’s stringent 

requirements to implement add-on controls in the South Coast air basin.6

2. The District’s staff report estimates a cost effectiveness of $48,000 to $150,312 

per ton of VOC reduced for add-on controls for composting / co-composting 

facilities with throughputs of 20,000 – 100,000 wet tons per year.7 The staff report 

also includes other analysis to support its conclusion that these controls are not 

cost-effective or RACT.8

3. SJVUAPCD has provided additional analysis for composting / co-composting 

facilities that shows that all Class One measures that are reasonable available are 

being required. We discuss this issue further below. 

4. SJVUAPCD has provided additional analysis for composting / co-composting 

facilities that shows that all Class Two measures that are reasonable available are 

being required. We discuss this issue further below. 

5. Based on our analysis, we have no basis to conclude that additional controls are 

reasonably available. 

Analysis of Composting / Co-composting Measures

Class One Mitigation Measures 

Small (throughputs less than 20,000 wet tons per year) and medium (20,000 - 100,000 

wet tons per year) facilities are required to select 3 or 4 of the 6 listed Class One 

mitigation measures. In the 2006 Staff Report, the District states that: 

Class One mitigation measures are management practices that have been 

shown to allow efficient composting. No cost is associated with 

implementing these practices, since they are inherent in good composting 

 

6 While only one source in South Coast is large enough to trigger rule requirements, two sources that are 

not large enough to trigger requirements also have add-on controls. Email communication from Tuyet-Le 

Pham, SCAQMD, August 5, 2011. 

7

SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report, Appendix C, pg. C-6. 

8

See, e.g., discussion at SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report, Appendix C, pg. C-6, regarding cost estimates for 

small and medium sized facilities potentially being underestimates. 
−6−

practice. The Class One mitigation measures have already been 

implemented by 50% of the facilities with throughputs less than 100,000 

wet tons per year (tpy).9 

Since the District did not associate costs with Class One mitigation measures in 2006, we 

requested that SJVUAPCD analyze whether it was feasible for small and medium sized 

facilities to implement additional Class One mitigation measures. The District conducted 

additional analysis, using information they had collected since initial adoption of the rule. 

The District concluded that requiring additional mitigation measures for small and 

medium facilities is too costly and the cost effectiveness goes beyond RACT.10 They 

determined that three of the six Class One mitigation measures in Table 2 of the rule had 

the following costs11: 

 

Cost Effectiveness of Class One Mitigation Measures 

Class One Measures 

Small Facility Cost Range 

($/ton-VOC reduced) 

Medium Facility Cost Range 

($/ton-VOC reduced) 

Scrape to ≤ 1" 235,849 471,698 94,340 188,679 

Cover Active Piles ≥ 6" 17,567 24,099 17,567 19,730 

Cover Curing Piles ≥ 6" 158,106 216,894 158,106 177,568 

Small facilities do not have to select any of these measures since they can implement the 

other three on the Class One menu. Medium facilities would be required to select one of 

the measures in the above table since they are required to select four measures from the 

Class One menu. 

Class Two Mitigation Measures 

Rule 4565 section 5.3.3 requires large facilities with throughputs above 100,000 tons to 

implement at least one Class Two measure, which will require add-on controls, most 

likely a bio-filter. The rule, however, would allow this measure to apply only to the 

active composting phase. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 section (d) requires either 

70 or 80% overall emission reductions from all parts of the composting process. We 

requested that SJVUAPCD analyze whether it was feasible for large facilities to control 

all parts of the composting process. The District conducted additional analysis, and 

concluded that “requiring all large facilities to implement engineered controls during both 

the active and curing phases of composting...goes beyond RACT based on the high cost 

and cost effectiveness evaluation.”12 The following table summarizes the cost 

effectiveness of the two different systems of add-on controls for controlling emissions 

from both the active and curing phases at large facilities.13 

 

9

SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report, Appendix C, pgs. C-4 and C-5. 

10 See Memorandum from Samir Sheikh, SJVUAPCD, to Andy Steckel, EPA, dated August 17, 2011, pg. 

1. Henceforth, we refer to this document as the SJVUAPCD Memorandum. 

11 SJVUAPCD Memorandum pg. 11.

12 SJVUAPCD Memorandum pg. 1.

13 SJVUAPCD Memorandum pg. 11.
−7−

Cost Effectiveness for Using Add-On Controls for Both Active and 

Curing Phases At Large Facilities in $/ton-VOC reduced 

In-vessel Composting System ≥ 80% 

Control for Active and 

Curing Phases 

17,331 21,419 

ASP Composting System to ≥ 80% 

Control for Active and 

Curing Phases 

31,512 38,943 

 

Additional Recommendations

The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are 

recommended for the next time the rule is amended. 

1. SJVUAPCD should continue tracking compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 and 

reevaluate SCAQMD’s more stringent requirements for in-vessel composting. 

2. SJVUAPCD should include the dates of the TMECC test methods included in Section 

6.2 of the Rule. 

3. SJVUAPCD should assess whether additional references to Attachment A of South 

Coast Rule 1133.2 will help clarify test method requirements in the rule. Specifically, we 

recommend inserting language like the following in Section 6.2.3.1: 

The control efficiency of a biofilter shall be determined using SCAQMD Method 25.3 

(Determination of Low Concentration Non-Methane Non-Ethane Organic Compound 

Emissions from Clean Fueled Combustion Sources) in combination with a flux chamber 

as described in SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 Attachment A, or with an alternative 

methodology that is approved by the APCO and EPA.

EPA Action

The submitted Rule 4565 clearly strengthens the SIP, and fulfils the relevant CAA 

section 110 and part D requirements. EPA staff recommends approval of Rule 4565 

pursuant to CAA §110(k)(3) and §301(a). 
−8−

References

1. SJVUAPCD Rule 4565, Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations, 

adopted March 15, 2007. 

2. “Final Staff Report for Revised Proposed New Rule 4565 - Biosolids, Animal 

Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations,” SJVUAPCD, March 30, 2007, and its 

Appendices. 

3. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” 

(Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988. 

4. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” 

(Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001. 

5. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern 

RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987. 

6. “State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 

the Clean Air Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992. 

7. “Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard,” 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005. 

8. “Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State 

Implementation Plans (SIP)” SJVUAPCD, April 16, 2009. 

9. Letter from William T. Hartnett to Regional Air Division Directors, “RACT Qs & As 

– Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers,” EPA, 

May 18, 2006. 

10. SCAQMD Rule 1133.2, Emission Reductions From Co-Composting Operations, 

adopted January 10, 2003. 

11. “Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1133 – Composting and Related Operations – 

General Administrative Requirements, Proposed Rule 1133.1 – Chipping and 

Grinding Activities, Proposed Rule 1133.2 – Emission Reductions from CoComposting Operations,” SCAQMD, January 10, 2003.