**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2007

A
- 1 **Final Draft Staff Report for**

**Revised Proposed New Rule 4565** 

# APPENDIX A **COMMENTS A ND RESPONSES FOR**  **REVISED PROPOSED NEW RULE 4565 ( BIOSOLIDS, ANIM**  **AL MA**  **NURE, A ND POULTRY**  **LITTER OPERA TIONS**  **)**

**March 30, 2007 SA**  **N JOA QUIN VA**  **LLEY UNIFIED A IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT** 

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 2 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565 SUMMA**  **RY OF COMMENTS A ND RESPONSES FOR THE**  **February**

**15, 2007 VERSION OF THE RULE United Stat**  **es Environmental Protection Agency (EP**  **A) Comments** 1. **COMMENT:** Please provide the analysis that justifies the different requirements for Class One and Class Two mitigation measures. **RESPONSE:** Please refer to the discussions in Section E.3 and Appendix C of the Final Draft Staff Report. 2. **COMMENT:** Explain how the reference points for active, curing, and finished composting were chosen. **RESPONSE:** The reference points were taken from Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost by the US Composting Council Research and Education Foundation (TMECC) Table 5.08
- 1 guidelines. 3. **COMMENT:** Justify all four exemptions in Section 4.0. **RESPONSE:** The staff report has been revised to more fully explain the exemptions. Please see Section III. D o f the staff report for further details. 4. **COMMENT:** Wh ere a timeframe for compliance is specified, add the requirement that a source implement the control measure “as soon as possible, but no later than ‘the compliance time frame.’” **RESPONSE:** The requi rement “as soon as possible” is not enforceable. The provision requires that the control measure be implemented within three hours, which is enforceable language. No change to rule language is proposed. 5. **COMMENT:** In Section 5.1, explain why landfilli ng operations are subject to a less stringent 24
- hour cover requirement compared to 3 hours allowed for land application. **RESPONSE:** A given truckload of waste material arriving at a landfill does not remain uncovered for long. Once material arrives at t he landfill site, it is typically covered with other wastes or moved and compacted within a short amount of time. Even the very last truckload of material received on a given day would be covered within a short amount of time, since, under California Code of Regulations for solid waste management, the landfill operator is required to cover all landfilled material at the end of each operating day. For operational purposes, it is not feasible to require a specific timeframe for covering a particular trucklo ad of material during active operations.**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 3 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565** 6. **COMMENT:** Revise Section 5.1.1 to clarify whether sources have 24 or 48 hours to implement the required control measure. **RESPONSE:** The section has been revised for clarity. Please refer to revised rule for de tails. 7. **COMMENT:** Either delete Section 5.1.2 for alternative measures or revise it to provide specific control requirements for determining equivalency. **RESPONSE:** The rule has been changed to require a 10% reduction in VOC emissions for an alternativ e mitigation measure, as was used in the emission reduction calculations. 8. **COMMENT:** In Table 1, consider the following revisions: a. Specify a minimum distance for below
- soil injection b. Revise Measure 2 to clarify whether sources have 3 or 6 hours to implement required control measures c. Revise Measure 3 to clarify what must be achieved in what time frame. **RESPONSE:** The language in Table 1 has been revised to clarify the requirements for land application as recommended by EPA. 9. **COMMENT:** In the subsections of Section 5.3, explain how each pair of options is equivalent and how these subsections become progressively more stringent. **RESPONSE:** Please refer to the discussions in Section E.3 and Appendix C of the Final Draft Staff Report 10. **CO MMENT:**  In Table 2, a. Specify the compliance testing timeframe for Measures 2, 3, and 4 b. Delete alternative measures (Measures 7 and 11) or amend Section 6.3 to provide specific control requirements for determining equivalency. c. Insert requirement s for VOC capture for aerated static piles (Measures 8 and 9) **RESPONSE:** a. The proposed rule has been revised to include compliance testing time frames. b. Table 2 Measures 7 and 11 have been revised to include the required percent reduction in VOC emissions for alternative mitigation measures. The specified percent reduction requirement would serve as the basis for evaluating any alternative mitigation measures that an operator may propose. District staff believes that the alternative mitigation measure co mpliance plan submission requirements outlined in Section 6.3 is adequate to determine if the alternative mitigation measures could demonstrate and achieve the**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 4 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565** equivalent reductions required by the required mitigation measures listed in Table 2.
c. Staff did not include the capture efficiency for aerated static piles because staff is not aware of any test methods for determining the capture efficiency of aerated static piles (ASPs). The measurement of VOCs in Section 5.4 serves as a surrogate for capture eff iciency. 11. **COMMENT:** Confirm that referenced flame ionization detectors can discriminate hydrocarbon concentrations to the compliance levels specified in the rule. **RESPONSE:** Hydrocarbon analyzers that measure the low concentrations specified in the rule are commercially available. 12. **COMMENT:** Assuming hydrocarbon concentrations can be measured accurately and easily, 90
- day testing seems overly long to demonstrate continuous compliance. Specify timeframes more closely aligned with throughput cycle s for these sources. **RESPONSE:** The testing frequency is designed to measure the compliance of the control system, not the emissions generated from the material. W hile the throughput cycles is less than three months, the systems parameters should not cha nge significantly during that period. 13. **COMMENT:** Limit the Director’s discretion in determining the sampling locations, ideally by providing additional specificity in the rule. **RESPONSE:** District staff has included a sampling protocol from TMECC, TME CC 02.01
- B (Selection of Sampling Locations for W indrows and Piles), in the rule in lieu of Director’s discretion. Please see the rule for details. 14. **COMMENT:** In Section 5.4.3, reference the specific subsection of the test methods section. **RESPONSE:** The specific subsection of the test method has been included in the rule. 15. **COMMENT:** Limit the Director’s discretion, ideally by providing additional specificity in Section 5.4.4 and 5.4.5. **RESPONSE:** The intent of Section 5.4.4 and 5.4.5 is to provi de operators with the flexibility for monitoring the capture efficiency of the control system in a more cost effective manner. In addition, the provision of the rule has been changed to include EPA in approval process for the alternative monitoring method or schedule.**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 5 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565** 16. **COMMENT:** The requirements for a biofilter appear difficult to enforce. Please clarify how to determine that a biofilter is “reasonably free” of defects such that the defects do not diminish the efficacy of the biofilter. **RESPONSE:** T he visual inspection of biofilters requires operators to check that the biofilter media is free of observable rodent burrows, cracks and channeling. Staff does not believe that the standard is difficult to comply with or enforce. 17. **COMMENT:** In Secti on 5.5.2 specify the referenced VOC control efficiency requirements and justify the need for an alternative compliance option when a source test could demonstrate compliance. **RESPONSE:** Section 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 outline the operational requirements that mus t be met by operators who choose a biofilter as a VOC control device. The control efficiency requirements are clearly specified in Table 2 Class Two mitigation measures. Unnecessary source testing is expensive and can place an unreasonable financial bur den on operators that can be relieved with reasonable alternative monitoring options. 18. **COMMENT:** In Section 5.5.4, limit the Director’s discretion. Regular compliance testing should not be obviated. **RESPONSE:** The provision for allowing alternative t esting schedule provides the operator with operational flexibility as long as the operator could justify and receive prior approval that a different testing schedule is as indicative of system performance as the schedule specified in the rule. Relying sol ely on source testing is an unnecessary burden on operators when monitoring can show compliance. 19. **COMMENT:** Please justify the need for less than annual source testing. In the case of a biofilter, consideration should be given to the seasonal timing a nd the operational efficiency of the system. **RESPONSE:** Annual testing as opposed to once every two years increases the compliance costs of the rule to a level that may render the implementation of the required mitigation measures to be not economically f easible. Staff believe the proposed operating and monitoring requirements specified in the rule for biofilters and non
- biofilters type of VOC control devices are adequate to compliment the specified source testing frequency for these controls. 20. **COMM ENT:**  Please provide specific conditions within the rule that sources must meet to delay source testing in order to minimize the need for EPA review. **RESPONSE:** Section 5.7.1 requires source testing for VOC control efficiency of emission control devices w ithin 90 days of installation. During the workshop process stakeholders expressed concerns that not in all cases, especially for**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 6 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565** biofilters, source testing within 90 days after installation may yield inconclusive results as the biofilter may not have had sufficient time to build a sufficient population of biota to work properly. Section 5.7.3 provides operators who request a longer period to conduct source testing provided that they could justify it. It is not possible to include all the specific instanc es or conditions for which a source testing delay may be granted. Each request must be evaluated on its own technical merit and on a case
- by
- case basis. 21. **COMMENT:** Section 6.1.2.1 and 6.1.3.1 are unclear as to when records must be made. **RESPONSE:** Th e rule language has been revised for clarity. Pleas see the rule for details. 22. **COMMENT:** The EPA method listed for pH only measures the pH of aqueous solutions. Solid portions of a biofilter media will be removed and tested for pH. Consequently, con siderations should be given as to how to convert the solid sample to an aqueous media and obtain a valid pH using the EPA method. **RESPONSE:** The EPA test method for pH has been deleted. 23. **COMMENT:** Section 6.3 is vague and unenforceable. To provide fo r 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 alternat ive plan with the specified requirement. In addition, the requirements for the alternative compliance plan should be shown to be equivalent to the underlying rule requirements. **RESPONSE:** Staff believes that the alternative mitigation measure compliance plan submission requirements outlined in Section 6.3 is adequate to determine if it demonstrates and achieve the equivalent reductions required by the mitigation measures listed in Table 2. **California A ir Resources Board (A**  **RB):** The Air Resources Board st aff reviewed Rule 4565 and had no comments at this time.**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 7 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565 Stakeholders’ Comments**  **The following stakeholders submitted comments:** California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIW MB) Central Valley Clean W ater Association/California Association of Sanita tion Agencies/ Technical Advisory Committee for League of California Cities, CASA, and California Wa ter Environment Association (TCC) City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (CLABS) City of Turlock

– Municipal Services (COT) San Joaquin Composting, Inc. (SJC)
1. **COMMENT:** The definition of composting uses the term “crop residues” that could be misleading and is inconsistent with the text of the definition of composting facility. As drafted, the definition could be misinterpreted to mean that the rule a pplies to facilities only composting crop residues. CI WMB staff suggests replacing “crop residues” with “poultry litter.” (CIW MB) **RESPONSE:** In the general sense, the process of composting does include the controlled decomposition of crop residues
- only, as well as other materials. The rule applicability is outlined in Section 2.0 of the rule and the definition of composting facility states that only the composting/co
- composting using biosolids, animal manure, or poultry litter is subject to the rule. N o change in rule language is proposed. 2. **COMMENT:** The commenter is strongly opposed to certain provisions of Proposed New Rule 4565, particularly the rule’s applicability to composting facilities with very small throughput. If Rule 4565 is no more bene ficial than South Coast AQMD Rule 1133.2, then there is no need for facilities less than 1,000 tpy (South Coast AQMD threshold) to be included in the rule. The staff’s “belief” that there are reasonable, cost
- effective options for these small facilities i s not based on scientific or factual evidence to protect air quality. Additionally, the cost effectiveness analysis (Appendix C) and the socioeconomic impact analysis (Appendix D) ignore small facilities. There is no cost effectiveness to justify the sta ff’s bold statement. (COT) **RESPONSE:** Composting/co
- composting facilities with throughputs between 100 and 100,000 tons per year are required to implement a specified number of Class One mitigation measures. The Class One mitigation measures are work pr actices and represent “best practices” for composting operations, as supported by peer
- reviewed literature. Since it has been shown in several studies that these practices are the most efficient processing parameters for the composting process, individual operators should have already implemented them into their**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 8 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565** own operations. Therefore, the operator would only have to document practices already in place to comply with the rule requirements. Facilities with throughputs between 100 and 100,000 wet tons per year would not be required to install controlled composting systems (aerated static piles or in
vessel composting systems) or VOC emission control systems under the proposed rule. Since this is a requirement for large facilities (at least 100,000 wet tons per year), only the compliance cost at large composting facilities was considered for the cost analysis and for the socioeconomic impact analysis. 3. **COMMENT:** In Section 5.1.1, limiting the acceptable cover materials to finished compost, soil, or w aterproof covering, Rule 4565 conflicts with California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 27, Section 20690. To avoid this conflict, CIW MB staff suggests that the section refer to this section of the CCR, with an exemption for the use of biosolids or bioso lids
- derived materials. (CIW MB) **RESPONSE:** District staff agrees that the use of a VOC producing ADC serves a beneficial aspect in the Valley. Please see the staff report for explanation. 4. **COMMENT:** Land application of biosolids is a labor
- intensive process. There are circumstances where the three
- hour window is not adequate to safely and adequately land incorporate all loads of the biosolids received at the farm. The proposed draft rule requirements will essentially change the mode of operations at the Green Acres Farm and will create a need for additional equipment, redundancy, personnel and training, and driving up capital expenditure, operating cost and labor cost as will and increasing air emissions. The commenter proposes that the mitigation m easure allow 24 hours to land incorporate biosolids after its arrival at the farm as it was envisioned in the original language of the rule. (CLABS) The operations conducted at the farm may be impacted by emergencies such as weather extremities, traffic d elays, equipment break
- downs or other unexpected situations. The operator has no control over these factors which could cause delays of normal operations at the farm and could render impossible or unsafe the incorporation of biosolids within three hours. Therefore the Bureau would like to propose an exemption to the rule’s mitigation requirements listed in Table 1 during emergency situations. (CLABS) **RESPONSE:** The previously
- proposed Table 1 mitigation measures requires direct injection of land applica tion within 3 hours of receipt in the facility. In consideration of CLABS comments, Table 1 has been revised to allow materials received after 6:00 PM to be land applied by noon the following day. In addition, during conditions such as inclement weather, equipment breakdown, etc., which may prevent the operator to injection or land apply the materials within 3 hours of receipt in the facility, the material should be covered with a weather
- proof cover or at least 6 inches of finished compost or soil. There fore, District staff does not**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 9 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565** believe an additional exemption for the conditions described by the commenter is warranted. 5. **COMMENT:** We ekly sampling of oxygen and moisture contents would be adequate to maintain the prescribed operation conditions in th e optimal ranges and is a reasonable frequency for operator to execute given the large number of windrows that most facilities manage. An average composting facility would incur over $830,000 per year of additional costs associated with daily sampling pro tocol. This additional testing would not provide any air quality benefit and impose an unreasonable burden on the operator. (CIW MB) **RESPONSE:** Rule has been revised to allow weekly testing, with the provision that more frequent testing may be required i f warranted to ensure compliance.. 6. **COMMENT:** Sections 7.4.1.2 and 7.4.1.6 should be clarified with respect to the emissions reductions. The commenter suggests that the language in these sections be changed to clarify that the reductions are from total facility composting
- related operations. (SJC) **RESPONSE:** Rule language has been revised to clarify the requirement. 7. **COMMENT:** Section 7.4.3 requires that composting operators who are proposing an energy conversion be in compliance with the Class One mitigation requirements within 18 months of rule adoption. The commenter disagree with the need for the Class One mitigation measures and request that the provision to implement Class One mitigation measures in Section 7.4 be deleted. (SJC) **RESPONSE:** Until the potential VOC reductions from the energy conversion project are realized, staff believe the management practices listed as Class One measures are a reasonable interim mitigation of the substantial VOC emissions from the SJC composting operations. District staff is therefore not proposing any change to this provision. 6. **COMMENT:** There appears to be little or no scientific basis for your VOC emissions calculations. The VOC estimate is primarily based on odor studies at animal feedlots in Iowa. The commenter questions the correlation of odors to VOC emissions and the correlation between raw animal feedlot wastes with treated and tested sewage sludge. Since the VOC emissions data is flawed, the cost effectiveness is also flawed. (TCC) **RESPONSE :**  The emission factor was not taken from the Iowa study

– it was based on the uncontrolled baseline emissions for composting using South Coast AQMD Rule 1133.2. The Iowa study was used to estimate emission reductions from implementing mitigation measures

.**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 10 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565** 7. **COMMENT:** The estimated tipping fee of $45 per ton is not consistent with what is usual in the San Joaquin Valley. (TCC) **RESPONSE:** The tipping fee was based on preliminary data gathered early in the rule project that reflected a range of fees fr om $25 to $75/ton. 8. **COMMENT:** The commenter disagrees with the practice of considering only the compliance costs related to changes in current operations. Any landfills prevented in the future by the rule from using biosolids as alternative daily cov er (ADC) would incur costs by way of the lost opportunity to purchase biosolids at a lesser cost than soil. Preventing the use of biosolids as ADC establishes this lost opportunity regardless of current operations. The cost analysis should be amended to include these costs. (CIW MB) **RESPONSE:** Landfill operators must weigh many factors in considering a particular material for use as ADC. If the use of biosolids were a viable solution for landfill operators today, they would be currently using it as an A DC. Since there are no landfills within the District currently using biosolids as ADC, District staff has concluded that biosolids are not a reasonable alternative at this time. As outlined in CCR, Title 27, Section 20690, landfill operators still have m any alternatives available to them, even without biosolids. No change in the cost analysis is proposed. 9. **COMMENT:** Detailed analysis of VOC emissions from biosolids in the San Joaquin Valley have not been studied, rather a few general studies are inclu ded from which assumptions have been made. Turlock’s biosolids have gone through significant treatment consistent with federal standards to be classified as Class A Exceptional Quality (EQ). This process significantly reduces odors. If odors equate to V OC emissions, then these biosolids are low in VOC, therefore the low threshold for throughput for material that has low VOCs is not warranted. The case for air quality benefits is tenuous at best. (COT) **RESPONSE:** As part of its rule development process for Rule 1133.2 (Co
Composting Operations), the staff from South Coast AQMD studied VOC emissions from biosolids composting in the San Joaquin Valley as well as in the South Coast AQMD area. District staff used the emission factor from the South Coast AQ MD rule in calculating emissions from District composting facilities. This figure is lower than the emission factor calculated for the San Joaquin Valley facility studied for South Coast Rule 1133.2. Further, even a low emission factor can lead to a larg e total emission when one considers the total quantities of materials processed. 10. **COMMENT:** The socioeconomic impact analysis seems to rest on the fact that some local government agencies have budget reserves. The District does not investigate or expl ain whether such reserves can be used to comply with proposed Rule 4565. (COT)**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 11 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565 RESPONSE:**  For most local governments, the budget reserves are part of the general fund. Local governments, either through policy or mandate, decide the use of such reserves. The socioeconomic impact analysis did not find that the annualized compliance costs for the largest composting facilities was significant. 11. **COMMENT:** Comparing biosolids to other organic fertilizers in the socioeconomic impact analysis is not a fair comparison. The land application of biosolids is not universally permitted in California

– it is banned in numerous counties. And unlike other organic fertilizers, the land application of biosolids is heavily regulated and requires significant monitoring and reporting. Because of these restrictions and to encourage its use, the price of biosolids has to be significantly less than other organic fertilizers. As there is not a level playing field for biosolids use, simply raising the price of the product t o cover the cost of the proposed rule may not be feasible. These facts are not incorporated into the cost effectiveness or socioeconomic analysis. (COT) **RESPONSE:** Land application of biosolids is a separate issue from the composting of biosolids. As n oted by the commenter, there are substantial barriers to land application of un
- composted biosolids. If, however, the biosolids have been through the composting process, the restrictions on composted biosolids are much less onerous than for un
- composted b iosolids. Land application of un
- composted biosolids was not included in the socioeconomic impact analysis, since the mitigation measures for this use of biosolids are work practices. Operators who land
- apply un
- composted biosolids would be expected to u nderstand and follow whatever restrictions are imposed by federal, state, and local agencies that have jurisdiction. The federal government sorts all businesses into groups of similar industries. These groups are assigned a code, called the North America n Industrial Code System (NAICS). Compost operations operated by the private sector are grouped as organic fertilizer manufacturing. Compost operations that are a part of public agencies, like the composting operations administered by the City of Turlock , are included in NAICS for “ administration, community development planning.” The economic data for “ administration, community development planning.” was included in the socioeconomic impact analysis, therefore, District staff has accounted for the compos ting of biosolids by the public agencies in its socioeconomic impact analysis.**SA N JOA**  **QUIN VA LLEY UNIFIED A**  **IR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT**

Appendix A: Summary of Comments and Responses March 30, 2 007

A
- 12 **Final Staff Report for Rule 4565** This page intentionally blank.