SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses 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, 2009 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses 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 DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses September 17, 2009 

A-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

for Rule 4695

Summary of Significant Comments and District Responses for 

Proposed Rule 4695 and Final Draft Staff Report dated 

September 17, 2009 

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

1. COMMENT: Section 2.0, 3.1, 3.29 – It remains unclear how aging 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/warehouse consistent with 

paragraph 8.3 of Method 204. 

RESPONSE: Since the primary specification for a PTE per Section 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 Daft Openings (NDO), the 

District’s opinion is that the establishment of a fan inlet control pressure which 

has been initially demonstrated to achieve the required average facial velocity, 

combined with the continuous monitoring of the pressure pursuant to Section 

5.7.1 of the Rule and the periodic monitoring of the 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 being 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 PTE 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 water has typically been 

established at the inlet of the induced draft fan which 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 pressure recorder and transmitter 

is located at this point which serves to provide a continuous monitoring point for 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses September 17, 2009 

A-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

for Rule 4695

the fan inlet pressure as well as an electrical signal which is used for feedback 

control of the variable speed motor on the induced draft fan. 

Industrial-quality pressure transmitters with a suitable range for monitoring and 

controlling a pressure of this magnitude are commonly available. Alternatively, 

as suggested by the EPA, direct monitoring and control of the pressure 

differential across the wall of the PTE enclosure would require a pressure 

recorder/transmitter with a range suitable for accurate monitoring and control of a 

differential pressure of 0.007 inches of water. Such 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 has not performed an exhaustive 

survey of available low differential pressure instrumentation, industry’s position 

has been that industrial-quality transmitters with such a low pressure range are 

not commonly available. Given that the industry has proposed (and 

implemented) a surrogate monitoring approach (fan inlet pressure monitoring and 

control) which in the District’s opinion is adequate 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 taking 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 correct or explain. 

RESPONSE: The calculation is correct. Because the inventory varies 

considerably throughout the year (as aging maybe any number of days between 

six months to thirty-six months with variable rotations of aging and gallons 

incoming and outgoing), taking a single inventory once a year could encounter 

high and low inventories that would not be an accurate assessment. To increase 

the annual inventory accuracy, the year is broken down into monthly inventories 

which are then averaged out for the entire year. Whether this is termed a Total 

Annual Aging Inventory or a “calendar year’s monthly 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 with the August 20, 2009 version. 

Please provide the back-up documentation for these cost-effectiveness 

calculations and explain why the 1.4% wine loss rate 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 estimate based on a 

presumed scope of modifications, the August 20 version utilized actual scope 

and costs for retrofit of two large brandy aging warehouses in the San Joaquin 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses September 17, 2009 

A-5 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

for Rule 4695

Valley as provided by The Wine Institute as the basis for estimating the Total 

Capital Investment required. The capital investment data was adjusted based on 

warehouse floor area using an industry-recognized factoring technique as 

described on page C-6 of Appendix C. Since the project 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 based on an annual loss rate of 

1.4% rather than 3% as used in the previous analysis. 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 the 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 loss 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 controls (resulting high loss rates) to 

warehouses that are temperature and humidity controlled (resulting in low loss 

rates). Therefore a ‘one size fits all’ loss rate is inappropriate. There is one wine 

aging facility that is affected by this rule and that facility had a tentative District 

approved 1.4% by volume loss rate and this loss rate was used in the Cost 

Effectiveness Analysis that would be applied to that 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 proof 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-controls data provided by industry 

for three brandy aging operations in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Uncontrolled emissions for these facilities for 2004 and 2005 indicate an average 

weighted loss of 2.83 PG/barrel. The facilities are now equipped with controls 

consistent with the requirements of Rule 4695. Since 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 rates, the District has based the rule 

analysis on a loss of 3 PG/barrel. 

Supporting this assumption is the fact that the Tobacco and Tax Trade Bureau 

allows for losses due to spillage, leakage, soakage, evaporation, and other 

losses normally occurring from racking and filtering, 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 Air 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses September 17, 2009 

A-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

for Rule 4695

Pollution Control District permit development process of which the Wine Institute 

was involved. 

6. COMMENT: Section 5.5.1 - Any downtime allowance under the rule should be 

delimited by rule language consistent with EPA’s Excess Emissions Policy and 

should be justified in the Staff Report. 

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

maintenance and shutdown time in terms which are objective, specific, definitive, 

and enforceable. The District believes the use of EPA’s “Excess Emissions 

Policy” terms such as “expeditious fashion”, and “minimize to the maximum 

extent possible” are more subjective and are difficult 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 requirement along with the simple 

control/destruction efficiency. In this way, the overall emission reduction 

requirement and the alternative compliance options are delineated more clearly. 

RESPONSE: The District’s opinion is that specification of requirement for a 

Permanent Total Enclosure pursuant to EPA Method 204 and the use of a control 

device with a 98% control efficiency provides adequate clarity with respect to the 

overall control requirement. This specification is fully enforceable. 

8. COMMENT: Section 5.7.2 - Because maintaining the warehouse as a 

permanent total enclosure is essential to rule effectiveness, the EPA believes 

that monitoring the “Negative Gauge Pressure” should 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 periodic demonstration of the 

adequacy of the established negative gauge pressure set point. The District 

believes that these combined provisions provide adequate assurance of rule 

effectiveness. 

9. COMMENT: Section 5.8 - Please include requirements for pressure 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 even though it is EPA 

approved. The District also believes the suggested language is self evident by 

requiring that: “The pressure-vacuum relief valve and tank shall remain in a gas-
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses 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-compliance 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 the statement: 

“The following test methods shall be used to determine compliance with the 

provisions of this rule. Alternate test methods may 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 determine the 

mass of ethanol emissions, the source test protocol should incorporate the use of 

a molecular weight adjustment factor (method 25), or a response factor/calibrate 

with ethanol (method 25A) and molecular weight adjustment 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 Scaling 

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 have no comments. The rule was 

examined by the Stationary Source Division, the Enforcement 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.