S AN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A

- 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 

# APPENDIX A

Comments and Responses for

Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation & Storage Tanks)

December 15, 2005S AN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A

- 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS ON
PROPOSED RULE 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks)

Dated November 17 , 2005

EPA Comments:

1. Comment: EP A appreciates District efforts to create requirements that reduce

emissions from wineries while considering industry's technical

concerns. The Agency is aware of considerations leading the District to develop this rule format and adoption schedule and bel ieve s that a prohibitory rule could significantly reduce emissions from the wine industry. Because of the adoption schedule, however, EPA has not been able to resolve all the approvability

concerns

. Instead, EPA look s forward to continued dialogue with

t he District to further strengthen the rule requirements and technical support before rule implementation.

Response: Rule 4694 will be the first rule, in the world, to require reductions in

wine fermentation emissions. District staff appreciates the EPA

co nsideration of the complexities of obtaining emission reductions from this source category. Staff is also considerate of the precedent setting nature of the rule. Staff believes that the appropriate technical information supporting RACT determination
has been considered and is included in the staff report. The District is committed to working with the EPA to resolve all approvability
issues.

2. Comment: ( RACT Issues )

- Because few air pollution requirements have been

adopted elsewhere for the wine indust ry, SJVUAPCD has not been able to rely on technical information collected by other agencies in determining Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in San Joaquin Valley. While the District has worked extensively with the local industry, the draft s taff report does not contain all information necessary to demonstrate that the rule implements
RACT. The analysis of RACT should systematically consider all possible controls for the sources and explain why rejected controls are technically and/or economi cally unreasonable to require. EPA is available to continue working with the District in this regard . (The comment included a list of information that the EPA would like to see included in a future RACT analysis).

Response: As stated in Response to Comme nt 1, the District is aware of the

precedence setting nature of the rule and will continue to work withS AN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A

- 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 EPA to address technical issues associated with establishing RACT for the source category. The process of establishing RACT, however, should not delay adoption or implementation of the rule.

3. Comment: ( EIP Issues )

– EPA’s October 24th comment letter listed several

components of draft Rule 4694 that appeared inconsistent with national guidance on economic incentive programs (EIPs). The Agency appreciat e s the District's efforts to address these concerns
and l ook s forward to working with the District further to resolve them, as well as to address additional issues raised by the current draft of Rule 4694.

Response: The District is committed to working wit h the EPA to address

concerns with respect to the EIP guidance document and to collaboratively improve the success of the proposed program.

ARB Comment:

No comments were received

Stakeholder Comment:

Stakeholders sending written comments:

The Wine Instit ute (TWI)

1. Comment: Section 3.3 (Definition Baseline Fermentation Emissions)

–

Language is proposed that would clarify that operators can voluntarily establish Baseline Fermentation Emissions at a level higher than calculated, using the baseline period

. (TWI)

Response: The request is consistent with the District’s intent. Clarifying

language has been added.

2. Comment: Section 3.3.3 (Definition Baseline Fermentation Emissions)

–

Language is proposed that would clarify that the reference to a winery’s Pe rmit to Operate is specific to the facility’s potential to emit fermentation VOC emissions. (TWI)

Response: The request is consistent with the District’s intent. Clarifying

language has been added.

3. Comment: Section 3.16 (Definition Fermentation Emiss ion Reduction)

– This

section requires emission reductions to be calculated on a per batch basis. Language is proposed that would allow emissions to be calculated using total wine throughput. (TWI)S AN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A

- 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 Response: Calculating emissions using total wine through put would achieve

the same result, and could simply recordkeeping. The definition
has been modified.

4. Comment: Section 3.30 (Definition Time of Use)

– A request is made to define

Time of Use as when an emission reduction activity is submitted to
the Dis trict, versus when the operator’s plan is approved by the District. (TWI)

Response: Use of an objective date that is within the control of the operator is

consistent with the District’s intent. However, the operator has the responsibility of ensuring tha t the plan is received by the District.
The definition has been revised to establish Time of Use as the date the District receives the operator’s plan.

5. Comment: Section 6.1 (Three

- Year Compliance Plan)

– A request is made to

establish the compliance da te for submitting a Three

- year Compliance Plan to at least 180 days after the effective date of unconditional approval of this rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (TWI)

Response: The state and federal approval process can be lengthy , thus the

District does not delay implementation of adopted rules until the US EPA has issued an unconditional approval. To do so would result in unnecessary and unacceptable delays in improving air quality. District staff is supportive however, of indu stry’s request to make changes to certain administrative compliance dates, providing more time for planning and demonstrating compliance. Please see the proposed rule for details. It should be noted that the proposed changes in compliance dates are for a dministrative provisions only. No changes are made in compliance dates affecting when emission reductions are to occur, or fee payments are to be received.

6. Comment: Section 6.1.5.2 (Certified Emission Reductions)

– A request is

made to add language tha t states that a CER retains it surplus status if achieved reductions are in “substantial compliance” with the Three

- year Compliance plan. (TWI)

Response: The phrase “substantial compliance” is vague, open to

interpretation, and would not provide clear gui dance for operators. Staff does not support the proposed language.

7. Comment: Section 6.1.5.2.1 (Certified Emission Reductions)

– A request is

made to add language that states CER from area sources shall have emission reduction duration in perpetuity pro vided that the CER remains committed within any operator’s three

- yearS AN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A

- 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 compliance plan and the CER is achieved in substantial compliance with the plan. (TWI)

Response: The existing language does not limit the emission reduction

duration of any CER, provide d the CER remains committed within any operator’s plan and the CER is achieved consistent with the plan. The proposed language is not necessary and is not supported by staff.

8. Comment: Section 6.1.5.2.2 (Certified Emission Reductions)

– A request is

mad e to replace the phrase “looses CER status for any reason”, with the phrase “ no longer qualifies as a CER because it ceases to be included in any operator’s Three

- year Compliance Plan or the CER is not achieved in substantial compliance with the plan”. ( TWI)

Response: The proposed language would limit resubmission of emission

reduction activities to only CER that lost their CER status because of the two conditions identified in the proposed language. It is not the District’s intent to be this restrictive . Staff does not support the proposed change.

9. Comment: Section 6.1.5.3.5 (DOER Payments)

– A request is made to clarify

that DOER fees paid by an operator are not subject to change during the entire applicable compliance period. (TWI)

Response: DOER p ayments are made at the beginning of the Three

- year

Compliance Plan and are in an amount sufficient to cover the entire duration of the plan. Thus, the fee rate would not change for emission reductions paid for in advance. It is conceivable that
because of emission reduction shortfalls, an operator may voluntarily request additional DOERs. Those DOERs would be acquired at the prevailing rate, as determined by the annual fee review process. The request is not supported.

10. Comment: A request is made to include language that states that Rule 4694 is

to be considered a unitary whole, such that any partial approval or partial disapproval would substantially change the intent of the remaining provisions from what the District had intended. In that event, th e entire rule should be treated as disapproved and invalid.

Response: The proposed language is in conflict with District Rule 1130

(Severability). Staff does not support the proposed language.S AN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A

- 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 This page intentionally blank