United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

May 13, 2008

Transmittal of EPA Rule Review Comments

To: George Heinen, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

george.heinen@valleyair.org

Mike Guzzetta, California Air Resources Board

mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

From: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief

steckel.andrew@epa.gov

Re: San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4566, Organic Waste Operations, draft dated April10, 2008 

We are providing comments based on our preliminary review of the draft rule identified above. We 

appreciate the difficulty of drafting this rule for a previously unregulated industry and balancing 

environmental concerns including solid waste disposal and water quality. The Central Valley faces 

increasingly difficult challenges to meet clean air standards, and this rule shows creativity and persistence 

in pursuing incremental emission reductions. We understand that the April 10 workshop draft is a first 

draft designed to solicit comment. We have a fairly long list of comments and questions below that we 

wish to raise early in the rule development process and we would like to draw your attention in particular 

to our comments on section 5.7 regarding the menu of compliance options. We understand and support 

such a menu approach in regulations controlling PM emissions from on-field agricultural activity because 

we appreciate the tremendous diversity of crops and crop conditions. We are concerned, however, that 

SJVAPCD is developing similar menu approaches for other activities where there is significantly less 

diversity and where specific reasonably available controls might be identified and required of similar 

facilities. 

Please direct any questions about our comments to me at (415) 947-4115 or to Jerry Wamsley at (415) 

947-4111.

Section 3.1-Active Composting, 3.18-Curing Composting, and 3.24-Finished Composting. Since rule 

requirements vary according to composting phase, please explain how the definitions of these phases 

were established, including references to any studies they rely on. We are concerned that ambiguities in 

the definitions may lead to compliance and/or enforcement problems. 

· Please explain how the reference points within each phase are equivalent and how the different 

test methods cited clearly delineate compost pile respiration. 

· Also, please explain the choice of reference points differentiating each phase from the other. The 

CO2-C and Solvita Matrix cut-offs are the same for curing and finished compost, for example, and 

the cut-offs for active compost appear to allow active composting to go on in the rule defined 

curing phase.

Section 3.45-VOC Control Device. Please specify minimum allowable capture and control efficiency (e.g., 

80%), associated test methods, or acceptable operating practices which may limit the need for ARB/EPA 
review and approval of VOC control devices.

Section 4.0. Please explain and justify the exemptions. For example, please explain why some facilities 

are subject to a 100 ton per day applicability cut-off (Sections 4.3-4.7), while others are allowed 5000 tpd 

under specific conditions (Section 4.8). 

Section 4.1. This language is confusing and seems duplicative. We interpret the second sentence to 

mean facilities exempt from Rule 4565 are not automatically exempt from Rule 4566. Please consider 

whether Section 4.1 would be improved and clearer if it read, “Facilities subject to Rule 4565 requirements 

in Section 5.0.” 

Sections 4.2 and 4.9. It is unclear why the exemptions incorporated into other rules are applicable within 

the context of Rule 4566 and its requirements for composting operations. Please explain why Rule 4566 

does not apply to facilities that may store, house, or utilize organic waste as part of their operations and 

demonstrate that these exemptions result in a de minimis amount of unregulated emissions for the source 

category. For example, it is not obvious why composting could occur at a Confined Animal Facility without 

regulation, but the same type of composting occurring at a different facility would be subject to Rule 4566 

requirements.

Section 5.0. Where a timeframe for compliance is specified, please add the requirement that a source 

implement the control measure “as soon as possible, but no later than the compliance timeframe.” Also, 

please clarify whether or not the covering requirements extend beyond the closing time of the facility. 

Section 5.2.2. Please explain the derivation of the 10% emission reduction standard specified. Please 

cite any studies demonstrating that covering organic waste results in such an emissions reduction. 

Section 5.3.2.1. Please add a definition for the term “mulch.” 

Section 5.7. The staff report should demonstrate that the rule implements Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for all major sources pursuant to section 182(b)(2) and elsewhere in the Clean Air 

Act. This RACT analysis should systematically consider all possible controls for the sources and explain 

why rejected controls are not technically and/or economically feasible. 

· For example, Sections 5.7.1, 5.7.2, and 5.7.3 specify how many “Class One” and “Class Two” 

mitigation measures are required as determined by facility throughput. The RACT analysis 

should explain how the mitigation measure allocations both within each section and across each 

section were arrived at in relation to the RACT criteria.

· For example, please explain and demonstrate why most “Class One” mitigation measures are not 

required for all facilities since they appear to be relatively good operating practices that reduce 

VOC emissions by promoting efficient aerobic composting and may be relatively inexpensive. 

· Covering organic waste is required throughout the rule. While covering may be an odor control 

measure and minimize immediate VOC emissions, it seems that covering may promote inefficient 

anaerobic composting while increasing and delaying VOC emissions, rather than minimizing or 

destroying VOC emissions. Please explain how covering practices produce a net reduction in 

VOC emissions. 

· For example, using the RACT criteria of technical and cost feasibility, please demonstrate 

whether or not aerated static piles and in-vessel composting coupled with a VOC control device 

produce reasonable cost-effectiveness estimates. 

Table 1, Mitigation Measures 2-6. Please explain the choice of parameters in regard to maximizing 

efficient aerobic composting and minimizing inefficient anaerobic composting. Also, please provide 

citations for the information relied upon in choosing these parameters.
Section 5.7.4 and 5.7.5. Please explain the testing timeframes chosen, particularly in relation to ensuring 

continuous compliance relative to a source’s size, processing capacity and VOC mitigation measures.

Table 1, Measures 10-14. We recommend inserting requirements for VOC capture as well as control.

Section 5.8.1 and 5.8.2. We are concerned whether a portable hydrocarbon analyzer can discriminate 

accurately 0.45 ppm above background hydrocarbon levels. Please show that appropriate analysis 

equipment is likely to be available and can be calibrated for the target analytes.

Section 5.8.3. Since the rule requires a portable hydrocarbon analyzer, VOC concentrations may be 

measured easily; consequently, a 90-day testing seems overly long to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. Please specify testing timeframes more closely aligned with throughput cycles for these 

sources.

Section 5.8.4. Please limit the Director’s discretion by providing additional specificity and criteria within 

the rule about how this capture efficiency evaluation will be done and include EPA test methods for 

determining capture efficiency within the rule, e.g. EPA Guidance and Methods 204A-F. If EPA capture 

efficiency test methods are infeasible, please explain why and discuss what alternative methods will 

produce valid and reliable results. 

Section 5.8.5. Please limit the Director’s discretion by providing additional specificity and criteria within 

the rule. It is unclear how the APCO or EPA would determine equivalency of an alternative analyzer or 

testing schedule in reference to Section 5.8.3 since Section 5.8.3 simply lists a test methods and does not 

specify a capture efficiency requirement. 

Section 5.9.1. Please explain the parameters concerning biofilter performance and provide citations for 

information relied upon in selecting these parameters. We are concerned, for example, about why Rule 

4566 allows a temperatures between 70 - 110 degrees F, while the SCAQMD Technology Assessment for 

Rule 1133 (March 22, 2002, see pages 3-4 to 3-5) states that temperatures greater than 105 degrees F 

will damage microorganisms inhabiting the biofilter. 

Section 5.9.2. Please explain why backpressure in a biofilter is not monitored or tested to help maintain 

and determine the unit efficacy.

Section 5.9.3. Please limit the Director’s discretion by providing additional specificity and criteria within 

the rule. For instance, if a facility has a novel biofilter system that performs at different optimum 

measures, the facility should validate these performance measures through source testing. 

Section 5.10.2. Please specify operational requirements and emission limits to minimize the need for 

additional ARB/EPA review. Conversely, please explain why such provisions describing the technologies 

are needed in lieu of establishing appropriate standards either now or as needed in the future. 

Section 5.11.1. Please justify the need for less than annual source testing. Depending on the size, 

throughput, and control system at the facility, annual source testing may be indicated. In the case of a 

biofilter, consideration should be given to the seasonal timing and the operational efficiency of the system.

Section 6.1.5.1. The recordkeeping requirement appears to modify the definition of throughput. Please 

clarify.

Section 6.1.5.2. Many of the Class One mitigation measures involve maintenance of a performance 

standard (e.g. temperature or pH), but these performance standards are not monitored daily. Please 

reconcile how to maintain a performance condition on a daily basis, but not monitor the standard at the 

same frequency. What is the applicable record that must be maintained for these performance 

parameters? 

Section 6.2. Please revise this section to include EPA guidance and test methods for determining VOC 

capture efficiency, Methods 204A-F. If EPA capture efficiency test methods are infeasible, please explain 
why and discuss what alternative methods will produce valid and reliable results. 

 

Section 6.3. This section is vague and difficult to enforce and contains excessive use of Director’s 

discretion. To provide for alternative compliance, the rule should specify emission factors to determine 

baseline emissions, specific control requirements or VOC capture and control efficiency that the 

compliance plan must meet, and the means for testing compliance of the alternative plan with the 

specified rule requirement. In addition, the requirements for the alternative compliance plan should be 

shown to be equivalent to the underlying rule requirements. 

Sections 6.3.1.7 and 6.3.1.8 suggest that Section 6.2.2 provides a source test protocol; however, 6.2.2 

does not. Section 6.2.2 specifies Class One mitigation measure test methods. 

Sections 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 obligate EPA interim approval or approval upon submittal of certain materials or 

expiration of a specified timeframe. Generally, we expect to fulfill District requests to review alternative 

plans, but neither our review nor our approval can be compelled by District rulemaking.