SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR 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 AND RESPONSES FOR

REVISED PROPOSED NEW RULE 4565 (BIOSOLIDS, ANIMAL 

MANURE, AND POULTRY LITTER OPERATIONS)

March 30, 2007
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

A-2

Final Staff Report for Rule 4565

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FOR THE 

February 15, 2007 VERSION OF THE RULE

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 of the staff report for further details.

4. COMMENT: Where 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 requirement “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 landfilling 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 the 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 truckload 

of material during active operations.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

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 details.

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 alternative 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. COMMENT: 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 requirements 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 compliance plan 

submission requirements outlined in Section 6.3 is adequate to determine if 

the alternative mitigation measures could demonstrate and achieve the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

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 efficiency. 

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 cycles for 

these sources.

RESPONSE: The testing frequency is designed to measure the compliance of 

the control system, not the emissions generated from the material. While the 

throughput cycles is less than three months, the systems parameters should not 

change 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, 

TMECC 02.01-B (Selection of Sampling Locations for Windrows 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 provide 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. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

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: The 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 Section 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 

must 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 burden 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 testing 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 solely 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 and 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 feasible. 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. COMMENT: 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 within 90 days of installation. During the workshop 

process stakeholders expressed concerns that not in all cases, especially for 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

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 instances 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: The 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, considerations 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 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 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 Air Resources Board (ARB):

The Air Resources Board staff reviewed Rule 4565 and had no comments at this time.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

A-7

Final Staff Report for Rule 4565

Stakeholders’ Comments

The following stakeholders submitted comments:

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)

Central Valley Clean Water Association/California Association of Sanitation Agencies/ 

Technical Advisory Committee for League of California Cities, CASA, and California 

Water 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 applies to facilities only composting crop residues. CIWMB staff 

suggests replacing “crop residues” with “poultry litter.” (CIWMB)

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. No 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 beneficial 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 

is 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 staff’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 

practices 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 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

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 invessel 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 waterproof covering, Rule 4565 conflicts with California Code of 

Regulations (CCR), Title 27, Section 20690. To avoid this conflict, CIWMB staff 

suggests that the section refer to this section of the CCR, with an exemption for 

the use of biosolids or biosolids-derived materials. (CIWMB)

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 measure 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 delays, 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 application 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. Therefore, District staff does not 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

A-9

Final Staff Report for Rule 4565

believe an additional exemption for the conditions described by the commenter is 

warranted. 

5. COMMENT: Weekly sampling of oxygen and moisture contents would be 

adequate to maintain the prescribed operation conditions in the 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 

protocol. This additional testing would not provide any air quality benefit and 

impose an unreasonable burden on the operator. (CIWMB)

RESPONSE: Rule has been revised to allow weekly testing, with the provision 

that more frequent testing may be required if 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. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

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 from $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 cover 

(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. (CIWMB)

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 ADC. 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 many 

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 included 

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 VOC 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 (CoComposting 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 AQMD 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 large 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 explain whether such reserves can be used to comply with 

proposed Rule 4565. (COT)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

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 to 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 noted 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 biosolids. 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 understand 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 American 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 composting of biosolids by the public agencies in its 

socioeconomic impact analysis. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

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

A-12

Final Staff Report for Rule 4565

This page intentionally blank.