SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Resp onses September 17, 2009

A-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices

for Rule 4695 

## APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS

AND DISTRICT RESPONSES

FOR RULE 4695

September 17, 2009SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Resp onses September 17, 2009

A-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices

for Rule 4695 This page intentionally left blank.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Resp onses September 17, 2009

A-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices

for Rule 4695 

### Summary of Significant Comments and District Respon ses for Proposed Rule 4695 and Final Draft Staff Report dat ed

September 17, 2009

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

1. COMMENT: Section 2.0, 3.1, 3.29 – It remains unclear how agi ng operations and storage operations are to be distinguished from each other, either when using wooden barrels within the same warehouse, or large stand-alone stainless

steel tanks.

RESPONSE: The rule addresses both these issues clearly in its definition for aging. As a matter of compliance, the requirements for wine aging and storage

are the same as Rule 4694.

2. COMMENT: Section 3.11, 3.15, and 5.5 - We remain unconvinced that EPA Method 204 is being followed correctly and that the 0.013 mm Hg pressure differential is properly maintained. EPA suggests that SJVAPCD require appropriate equipment and recordkeeping to maintain and demonstrate a 0.013 mm Hg pressure differential across the enclosure/wa rehouse consistent with paragraph 8.3 of Method 204.

RESPONSE: Since the primary specification for a PTE per Secti on 8.3 of EPA

Method 204 is the maintenance of sufficient exhaust flow to maintain a 200 feet per minute average facial velocity at all Natural D aft Openings (NDO), the District’s opinion is that the establishment of a f an inlet control pressure which has been initially demonstrated to achieve the requ ired average facial velocity, combined with the continuous monitoring of the pres sure pursuant to Section 5.7.1 of the Rule and the periodic monitoring of th e facial velocity at the largest NDO by direct measurement per Section 5.7.2 of the Rule, is sufficient to be reasonably assured that the criteria for a PTE is b eing continuously met.

The use of the fan inlet pressure control point as a surrogate for direct measurement of the pressure within the enclosure is a current practice that has already been successfully implemented at six of the seven permit units which will ultimately be required to install and maintain a PT E as a result of this rule. In practice (based on observed operations at existing permitted facilities), a gauge operating pressure in the range of 1-2 inches of wa ter has typically been

established at the inlet of the induced draft fan w hich is demonstrated to be adequate to achieve the required flow rate for the PTE when maintained as the minimum allowable draft on the enclosure. A pressu re recorder and transmitter is located at this point which serves to provide a continuous monitoring point forSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Resp onses September 17, 2009

A-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices

for Rule 4695 the fan inlet pressure as well as an electrical sig nal which is used for feedback control of the variable speed motor on the induced draft fan.

Industrial-quality pressure transmitters with a sui table range for monitoring and controlling a pressure of this magnitude are common ly available. Alternatively, as suggested by the EPA, direct monitoring and cont rol of the pressure

differential across the wall of the PTE enclosure w ould require a pressure recorder/transmitter with a range suitable for accu rate monitoring and control of a differential pressure of 0.007 inches of water. S uch a transmitter would be required to have an operating range on the order of 0.025 inches of water (assuming the control point of instrument would lie at approximately 30% of the range of the instrument). Although the District h as not performed an exhaustive survey of available low differential pressure instr umentation, industry’s position has been that industrial-quality transmitters with such a low pressure range are not commonly available. Given that the industry ha s proposed (and implemented) a surrogate monitoring approach (fan i nlet pressure monitoring and control) which in the District’s opinion is adequat e to ensure that the performance criteria for a PTE pursuant to EPA Method 204 will be met, this approach has been incorporated into the rule.

3. COMMENT: Section 3.27 - EPA understands the calculation as t aking the sum of the calendar year monthly inventories in gallons and dividing the sum by 12 months. The result seems to be the calendar year’s monthly average inventory in gallons, and not an annual inventory. Please co rrect or explain.

RESPONSE: The calculation is correct. Because the inventory v aries considerably throughout the year (as aging maybe an y number of days between six months to thirty-six months with variable rotat ions of aging and gallons incoming and outgoing), taking a single inventory o nce a year could encounter high and low inventories that would not be an accur ate assessment. To increase the annual inventory accuracy, the year is broken d own into monthly inventories which are then averaged out for the entire year. Wh ether this is termed a Total Annual Aging Inventory or a “calendar year’s monthl y average inventory” seems

irrelevant.

4. COMMENT: Section 5.0 - The cost-effectiveness analysis, for both brandy and wine aging operations, differs greatly in form and content from the July 17, 2009 version and relies on information not presented wit h the August 20, 2009 version. Please provide the back-up documentation for these cost-effectiveness calculations and explain why the 1.4% wine loss rat e assumed in the August 20 analysis differs from the 3% average wine loss rate used throughout the rule.

RESPONSE: Rather than utilize a District-performed cost estim ate based on a presumed scope of modifications, the August 20 vers ion utilized actual scope and costs for retrofit of two large brandy aging wa rehouses in the San JoaquinSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Resp onses September 17, 2009

A-5 Final Staff Report with Appendices

for Rule 4695 Valley as provided by The Wine Institute as the bas is for estimating the Total Capital Investment required. The capital investmen t data was adjusted based on warehouse floor area using an industry-recognized f actoring technique as described on page C-6 of Appendix C. Since the pro ject cost data was provided

to the District on a confidential basis it was not included in the public draft staff
report.

The cost-effectiveness analysis calculation was bas ed on an annual loss rate of 1.4% rather than 3% as used in the previous analysi s. The value of 1.4% was based on actual data for the two largest wine aging warehouses in the San Joaquin Valley and is thus more representative of t he large warehouse being estimated in Appendix C.

The reason the wine loss rates between the rule and the staff report analysis

differs is because the rule uses a default wine los s rate of 3% by volume and

allows for stakeholders is use their own wine loss rate if accepted by the District. This is allowed because wine aging operations vary considerably as some

facilities house their barrels without climate cont rols (resulting high loss rates) to warehouses that are temperature and humidity contro lled (resulting in low loss rates). Therefore a ‘one size fits all’ loss rate i s inappropriate. There is one wine aging facility that is affected by this rule and th at facility had a tentative District approved 1.4% by volume loss rate and this loss rat e was used in the Cost Effectiveness Analysis that would be applied to tha t one facility.

5. COMMENT: Section 5.4 - Please provide the data and analysis used to calculate the default value of 3 proof gallons per 50 gallons barrel loss rate by

volume.

RESPONSE: The District has estimated a brandy loss of three p roof gallons (PG) per brandy barrel to be representative of the facilities most likely to be affected by this rule. This is based on the pre-co ntrols data provided by industry for three brandy aging operations in the San Joaqui n Valley.

Uncontrolled emissions for these facilities for 200 4 and 2005 indicate an average weighted loss of 2.83 PG/barrel. The facilities ar e now equipped with controls consistent with the requirements of Rule 4695. Sin ce facilities likely to be impacted now by the rule will be operations smaller than these three, and since smaller operations tend to exhibit larger loss rate s, the District has based the rule analysis on a loss of 3 PG/barrel.

Supporting this assumption is the fact that the Tob acco and Tax Trade Bureau allows for losses due to spillage, leakage, soakage , evaporation, and other losses normally occurring from racking and filterin g, of up to 3% loss by volume, and that these losses are not taxed. Regarding the wine loss rate, a wine 3% evaporative loss rate was developed by the publicly -vetted Santa Barbara AirSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Resp onses September 17, 2009

A-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices

for Rule 4695 Pollution Control District permit development proce ss of which the Wine Institute

was involved.

6. COMMENT: Section 5.5.1 - Any downtime allowance under the ru le should be delimited by rule language consistent with EPA’s Ex cess Emissions Policy and should be justified in the Staff Report.

RESPONSE: This rule sets the limits (in hours per year) for o perational

maintenance and shutdown time in terms which are ob jective, specific, definitive,

and enforceable. The District believes the use of E PA’s “Excess Emissions Policy” terms such as “expeditious fashion”, and “m inimize to the maximum extent possible” are more subjective and are diffic ult to enforce in comparison to the tangible terms listed in this rule.

7. COMMENT: Section 5.6 - For added clarity and enforceability, please include the combined capture and control efficiency require ment along with the simple control/destruction efficiency. In this way, the o verall emission reduction requirement and the alternative compliance options are delineated more clearly.

RESPONSE: The District’s opinion is that specification of req uirement for a Permanent Total Enclosure pursuant to EPA Method 20 4 and the use of a control device with a 98% control efficiency provides adequ ate clarity with respect to the overall control requirement. This specification is fully enforceable.

8. COMMENT: Section 5.7.2 - Because maintaining the warehouse a s a permanent total enclosure is essential to rule effe ctiveness, the EPA believes that monitoring the “Negative Gauge Pressure” shoul d occur on a weekly basis with no allowance for reduced monitoring.”

RESPONSE: Section 5.7.1 requires continuous monitoring of the negative gauge pressure. The provisions of 5.7.2 are a peri odic demonstration of the adequacy of the established negative gauge pressure set point. The District believes that these combined provisions provide ade quate assurance of rule

effectiveness.

9. COMMENT: Section 5.8 - Please include requirements for press ure relief valve monitoring and repair once a gas leak has occurred and a tank is no longer in a “gas tight condition”.

RESPONSE: The District has not historically incorporated the suggested language into its rules. For example, District Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids) does not include the suggested language ev en though it is EPA approved. The District also believes the suggested language is self evident by requiring that: “The pressure-vacuum relief valve a nd tank shall remain in a gas-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Resp onses September 17, 2009

A-7 Final Staff Report with Appendices

for Rule 4695 tight condition except when the operating pressure of the tank exceeds the valve set pressure. If the pressure-vacuum relief valve and tank are not maintained in working order then the facility is in non-complianc e and may be subject to a

Notice of Violation.

10. COMMENT: Section 6.2 - For added clarity, please include EPA Method 21

within the test methods section of the rule.

RESPONSE: The District believes this request is covered by th e statement: “The following test methods shall be used to determ ine compliance with the provisions of this rule. Alternate test methods ma y be used provided they are approved by the APCO, ARB, and EPA”.

11. COMMENT: Section 6.2.2 - If Methods 25 or 25A are used to de termine the mass of ethanol emissions, the source test protocol should incorporate the use of a molecular weight adjustment factor (method 25), o r a response factor/calibrate with ethanol (method 25A) and molecular weight adju stment factor as appropriate to account for differences in molecular weight and the depressed response of the measuring instruments to oxygenated compounds.

RESPONSE: This problem has been addressed with the Midwest Sc aling

Protocol for the measurement of "VOC Mass Emissions " for ethanol production facilities so it should be able to be applied here since ethanol will be the main VOC given off.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

COMMENT: The Air Resources Board staff has reviewed the rule and, based on the information available to us at this time, we ha ve no comments. The rule was examined by the Stationary Source Division, the Enf orcement Division, and the Monitoring and Laboratory Division, but not by the Planning and Technical Support Division.

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

The proposed rule was published on August 17, 2009 and no comments were

received.