SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 1 

## APPENDIX A

Summary of Significant Comments and District Respon ses

For New Rule 4566

August 18, 2011SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 2 This page intentionally blank.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE GOVERNING BOARD HEARING ON AUGUST 18, 2011 AND DIS TRICT RESPONSES

Comments from Stakeholders

The following stakeholder submitted the comments: Recology Grover (REC)

Comments and Responses:

1) COMMENT: We believe that the Air District should allow a mul ti-pollutant approach to achieve its desired ozone reduction goals. As t he District recognizes in its Staff Report and its work with USEPA headquarters, not al l VOCs have the same ozone production effect. Therefore, we believe that Prop osed Rule 4566 should eventually allow credit for ozone-equivalent reductions, not j ust mass reductions of VOCs. With a focus on reduction of ozone generating emiss ions, we believe the Proposed Rule will help reduce potential health impacts from ozone here in the Valley. (REC)

We believe that existing language in the Proposed R ule at Section 6.1, Facility Emissions Mitigation Plan, may provide an avenue fo r facilities to demonstrate ozone equivalency. This Mitigation Plan would allo w facilities, with oversight from the District, to achieve meaningful and effective e mission reductions. This will let facilities work with the District to identify the m ost cost-effective manner of reducing ozone-producing emissions. If this proves not to b e the case, then we believe the Board should consider revisiting the Proposed Rule at a later date, as a fuller recognition of the value of multi-pollutant reducti on programs evolves. (REC)

Recology supports the May 10, 2011 letter from the District APCO to Janet McCabe at USEPA headquarters. This letter asks USEPA to f ocus on the potency of ozone precursors (including NOx) to achieve effective red uctions rather than relying solely on mass reductions of all VOCs, without regard to p hotochemical reactivity. We believe this principle is particularly important in the context of Rule 4566. (REC)

RESPONSE: The District appreciates the written comments pro vided by Recology and look forward to working with Recology staff on identifying cost-effective mitigation measures to comply with the rule require ments. The District will also continue to work with EPA to address ozone precurso rs as part of future emissions reduction strategies and will consider revisiting t he rule as new information

becomes available on this issue.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 4 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FOR T HE

AUGUST 18, 2011 VERSION OF THE RULE

Comments from United States Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA):

1) COMMENT: Please include dates for the TMECC methods in Rule 4566 section

6.4.1; and in definitions 3.1.2-4, 3.16.2-4, 3.40, 6.4.1.

RESPONSE: District staff has included the dates for the TMECC methods in the proposed rule. Please refer to the proposed rule f or changes.

2) COMMENT: Section 6.4.2 allows alternative test methods with APCO approval which deviates from long-standing national policy o n director's discretion. Please modify as follows: An operator may use an alternat ive test method to satisfy rule requirements for which a written approval from the APCO has and EPA have been

obtained.

RESPONSE: District staff has incorporated the suggested langu age above into the proposed rule. Please refer to the proposed rule f or changes.

3) COMMENT: Rule 4566 sections 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.2, and 5.2.3 allo w APCO-approved alternative mitigation measures that demonstrate at least 19%, 60%, or 80% reduction in VOC. However, these sections do not i ndicate how this demonstration should be performed. Please append these sections with language similar to the following:

"The control efficiency shall be determined using S CAQMD Method 25.3 (Determination of Low Concentration Non-Methane Non -Ethane Organic Compound Emissions from Clean Fueled Combustion Sources) in combination with a flux

chamber as described in SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 Attachme nt A, or with an alternative methodology that is approved by the APC O and EPA."

RESPONSE: Based on further discussion with EPA staff on Augus t 4, 2011, District

has revised sections 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.2, and 5.2.3 to include EPA. Please refer to the proposed rule for changes.

Comments from California Air Resources Board (ARB):

4) ARB staff has reviewed the rule package and has no comments at this time.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 5 Comments from Stakeholders

The following stakeholder submitted the comments: Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority ( MCRWMA)

Comments and Responses:

5) COMMENT: Processing equipment not currently under permit wit h the District will require the submission of an Authority-to-Construct application and compliance with District Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines). This rule will require most existing processing equipment to be repowered, repl aced with new equipment,

and/or have emission controls installed.

The Authority believes that the ATC process and equ ipment modification or replacement cannot be completed in one year. There are too many unknown variables to know what equipment options will be al lowed and how long it will take to achieve compliance. As a result, the Authority requests the District to consider amending Section 7.2 to allow two years after rule adoption for operators to be in full compliance with the stockpile requirements. (M CRWMA)

RESPONSE: District staff will work closely with the operator to ensure that the equipment currently used onsite are in compliance w ith all existing rule requirements. Based on discussions with the operat or, the two composting facilities are already in compliance with the 10-day stockpile requirements as proposed in the rule. In addition, the proposed rule provide o ther ways to comply with the stockpile requirements, such as covering the organi c material with a waterproof cover or removing the organic material from the fac ility, to prevent buildup of unmanaged piles onsite. The proposed rule would al so allow operators to implement an APCO approved alternative mitigation m easure that is more specific to the operation.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 6 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND DISTRICT RESPON SES FOR THE

JUNE 23, 2011 VERSION OF THE RULE

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) :

1) COMMENT: Section 3.1.3 appears inconsistent with the Califor nia Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Chapter 3.1 Section 1785 2(a)(1) regarding the thresholds for emission of carbon dioxide per gram of organic material (CO 2 -C) per day. Please explain.

RESPONSE: The terms “active composting” and “curing compostin g” have been changed to “active phase” and “curing phase” for cl arity. The threshold for the

carbon dioxide evolution rate in the draft rule is from the Compost Stability Index (Table 05.08-1), which can be found in the Test Met hods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC) manual by the US Com posting Council Research and Educational Foundation. According to CalRecycle’s Final Statement of Reasons document for the regulatory code section above, the purpose of defining "active compost" in terms of temperature, respirati on rate, and rate of biological activity is to help delineate which materials are w ithin the scope of those regulations and which are not. The regulation and Final State of Reasons document do not identify a source for its threshold for emission of carbon dioxide and does not regulate VOC emissions from composting operations. The Final State of Reasons document, dated May 19, 1995, can be found at the f ollowing link: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Rulemaking/Archiv e/1995/Compost/fsor5.doc.

2) COMMENT: Definition for composting: We recommend revising t he definition to clarify differences between anaerobic and aerobic c omposting.

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the definition for comp osting to be consistent with the definition from South Coast Air Quality Ma nagement District’s recently adopted Rule 1133.3 (Emission Reductions from Green waste Composting Operations) for clarity. Please refer to Section 3 .0 of the Proposed New Rule 4566

for the definition.

3) COMMENT: Definition for peak: please define ridge.

RESPONSE: District staff has added a definition for ridge. P lease refer to Section 3.0 of the Proposed New Rule 4566 for the definitio n.

4) COMMENT: In Section 4.1.1, please cite in the rule to specif ic CCR and SJVUACPD compostable material permit regulations.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 7 RESPONSE: District staff has revised the definition for compo sting facility (Section 3.1.3) and Section 4.1.1 for clarity. The citation s were added to the definition for composting facility.

5) COMMENT: In Sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.2.1.1, the rule require s at least three turns during active composting. This appears inconsisten t with the number of turns required for pathogen reduction in the active cycle pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Chapter 3.1 Division 7 S ection 17868. Please revise Rule 4566 to be consistent with the CCR or explain why that is not appropriate.

RESPONSE: The minimum number of turns in Draft New Rule 4566 is specific to the VOC reducing mitigation measures for windrow co mposting. Based on discussion with the operators, District staff has f ound that three turns is the minimum number that could be achieved as part of a facility’s typical composting operation during the active phase, or the first 22 days. Operators could choose to comply with the pathogen reduction requirements dur ing the active phase (as defined in the draft rule) or during active compost ing (as defined in the CCR). However, the pathogen reduction process is not inte nded to reduce VOC emissions. The CCR defines curing as “the final stage of the c omposting process that occurs after compost has undergone pathogen reduction” and does not indicate how long active compost lasts. The pathogen reduction requi rements, as described in Section 17868.3, also do not specify when operators needed to comply with the requirements, whereas, the draft rule would seek to capture VOC emissions during the first 22 days from when operators form the wind row. Based on discussions with CalRecycle staff and stakeholders, the pathogen red uction requirements could occur at any time during active composting (as defi ned in the CCR) and not necessarily during the first few turns.

6) COMMENT: In Table 1: Independent watering system (first bull et), please define vertical midpoint.

RESPONSE: District staff has added a definition for vertical midpoint in the draft

rule. Please refer to Section 3.0 for the definiti on.

7) COMMENT: In Table 1: Composting Facility Mitigation Measures /Integrated Watering System (first bullet), we understand from a 6/30/11 phone call with SJVUAPCD staff that the first windrow tested may ne ed to be turned more than once until the appropriate water volume is determin ed and passes the ball test, and that subsequent windrows will not be turned until t his is completed. Please clarify

this in the text of Rule 4566.

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the requirements for the integrated watering system for clarification. Please refer to Table 1 for the revised text.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 8 8) COMMENT: In Table 1: Composting Facility Mitigation Measures /Integrated Watering System (third bullet), please clarify in t he text of Rule 4566 that the sample should be taken within three hours before tu rning

RESPONSE: District staff has incorporated the three-hour requ irement into the draft

rule. Please refer to Table 1 for inclusion.

9) COMMENT: In Section 6.1, Facility Emission Mitigation Plan, please provide a

definition and/or citation in the rule for Authorit y-to-Construct application.

RESPONSE: District staff has cited Rule 2010 (Permits Require d) for the Authorityto-Construct requirement. Please refer to Section 6.1 for the citation.

10) COMMENT: In Section 6.1.3, please delete “facility-wide,” as it could be interpreted to include operations other than compost operations

.

RESPONSE: District staff has removed “facility-wide” and cla rified the section for composting operations.

11) COMMENT: Section 6.2 should be consistent with EPA policy as described in “Memorandum, State Implementation Plans: Policy Reg arding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown" (Steven A Herman and Robert Perciasepe, September 20, 1999), or deleted. Regard ing the reference to District Rule 1100, please note that EPA cannot indirectly i ncorporate a rule into the SIP by reference unless it has gone through the SIP approv al process.

RESPONSE: District staff has deleted Section 6.2. Since Rule 1100 (Equipment Breakdown) is already an existing rule, operators m ay comply with that rule separately. Please refer to the draft rule for cha nges.

12) COMMENT: In Section 6.2.3, please add that the source test d ata must be approved by the District.

RESPONSE: District staff has revised Section 6.2.3 to includ e language requiring APCO approval for source test data.

13) COMMENT: In Section 6.4.4.3, please require that operators k eep records needed to demonstrate compliance with the specific measure used.

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the section to incorpora te the comment

above.

14) COMMENT: In Staff Report Section II (C), please cite the 200 9 research evaluation referred to in paragraph 1. Please also cite the so urce for Figure 1.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 9 RESPONSE: District staff has revised the staff report to incl ude the requested

citations.

15) COMMENT: In Staff Report, Section X: Reasonable Available Co ntrol Technology (RACT), please also cite to and summarize the cost- effectiveness and socioeconomic analyses.

RESPONSE: District staff has updated Section X of the staff r eport to include

discussion on the cost-effectiveness and socioecono mic analyses.

16) COMMENT: In Appendix A: Response to EPA Comment #7, this dis cretion should be further limited or eliminated as the District ga ins more experience regulating this activity.

RESPONSE: The draft new rule would not allow the APCO discret ion to independently modify SIP requirements. Section 6.1 and Section 6.3 of the draft rule would limit APCO approval to any alternative m itigation measures that comply with the rule requirements, which would not impact the reductions from the control

measure in the 2007 Ozone Plan

.

17) COMMENT: In Appendix B, please explain the basis for the 50% reduction factor used on page B-7.

RESPONSE: District staff has updated Appendix B to further ex plain the basis for the 50% reduction factor. Please refer to page B-7 for updates.

18) COMMENT: In Appendix C, please provide a citation for Figure 1.

RESPONSE: District staff has revised Appendix C to include th e requested citation.

19) COMMENT: In Appendix C, Table 4, please provide cost-effecti ve estimates for engineered controls

RESPONSE: District staff's analysis is based on the absolute cost effectiveness of

Draft New Rule 4566. Absolute cost effectiveness o f a control option is the added annual compliance cost in dollars per year divided by the emission reduction achieved in tons VOC reduced per year. At this time , there are no facilities that compost above 750,000 tons per year of organic mate rial and therefore, no

additional VOC reductions would be achieved from th is category. District staff has updated Table 4 for clarification.

California Air Resources Board (ARB):

No comments were received.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 10 Stakeholders

The following stakeholders submitted the written co mments: California Department of Resources Recycling and Re covery (DRRR) City of Bakersfield (CB) E&J Gallo (EJG) Recology Grover (REC)

General comments on rule

Section 3.0 Definitions

20) COMMENT: In the definition of “finished compost cover,” fi nished compost covers may be applied to either windrows, static piles, or aerated static piles, please change the word “windrow” to “pile.” (CB)

RESPONSE: District staff has added the word “pile” to the de finition for clarity. Please refer to the definition for changes.

21) COMMENT: Please add a definition for “operation,” which ca n be either a whole facility that handles all of its materials together , or a subpart of a facility if that facility handles a variety of material types in separate wor k areas with separate record keeping for each operation. The purpose would be t o distinguish, for example, between self-hauled greenwaste, which may be deposi ted into a windrow immediately upon receipt, versus curbside greenwast e, which may require some days to screen and prepare for composting. (CB)

RESPONSE: The draft rule has a definition for composting ope rations, which includes all activities associated with composting. Based on discussion with stakeholders, there could be other operations at a facility that may not be related to composting, which this rule would not address. How ever, any organic material received onsite for the purpose of composting under the proposed rule would be required to comply with all applicable requirements . Facilities that only chip and grind organic material and do not have a composting permit are already subject to more stringent requirements under the California Co de of Regulations, Title 14. District staff has also worked closely with stakeho lders to address stockpile concerns through several technical workgroup meetin gs and phone calls and found that the three-day stockpile requirement for facili ties with more than 100,000 tons per year of organic material was appropriate.

22) COMMENT: Please amend the language for “integrated water s ystems” to include language allowing for the introduction of water in front of the turner or simultaneously during the turning process. (EJG)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 11 RESPONSE: District staff has revised the definition to incl ude a watering system that is applied simultaneously during the turning p rocess, since the application is within the three-hour requirement.

Section 4.0 – Exemptions

23) COMMENT: In section 4.1.3 “exempted waste streams,” Draft Rule 4566 indicates that wood waste is exempt as long as it is not mixe d with other organic wastes. Please consider revision of this language. When mi xed green waste is received at the compost facility from local gardeners, wood was te and green waste are comingled. Upon receipt, the waste streams are sep arated to wood waste (which is chipped, and sold as walk-on bark, not introduced i n the composting process) and green waste (composted). Therefore, please include language indicating that if the wastes are separated into wood and green waste stre ams prior to the 10 day requirements for stockpile management, the wood was te stream would not be subject to Rule 4566 requirements. (EJG)

RESPONSE: District staff has revised Section 4.1.3 to includ e wood material that has been separated from the waste streams prior to complying with the stockpile requirements.

24) COMMENT: The definition for “agricultural composting” diff ers from what is found in Title 14, and that difference may cause confusio n among agricultural operators because it may cause some Enforcement Agency Notifi cation tier operators to assume they are exempt from Rule 4566 when they are not. The definition in Rule 4566 is an “exempt facility” under Title 14. Per C alifornia Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3.1, "’Agricultural Materia l Composting Operation’ means an operation that produces compost from green or agric ultural additives, and/or amendments.” (DRRR)

RESPONSE: The District’s definition for agricultural compos ting focuses on the composting of agricultural material rather than the operation, as defined under Title 14. The draft rule narrows the exemption to operat ors that compost their own

material onsite for onsite use. These definitions should not preclude the operators from complying with all applicable regulations from other agencies. In addition, District staff has reviewed the data from CalRecycl e’s Solid Waste Information System and found that most “agricultural material c omposting operations” are permitted to accept manure, which could exclude tho se operators from this rule, but may subject those operators to District Rule 4565 ( Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations) for composting of manure with other organic material.

25) COMMENT: In the definition of “agricultural material,” we do not understand the term, “or material not produced wholly from agricul tural operations but which are essential to agricultural operations”. (DRRR)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 12 RESPONSE: Materials not produced from agricultural operatio ns include compostable materials that were used onsite as part of agricultural operations and

could include items such as cardboard boxes.

26) COMMENT: In the definition of “biosolids,” the term “untre ated” should be removed

from the definition. Biosolids are the result of s ewage treatment. Composting facilities should not be handling raw sewage. (DRRR)

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the definition to be c onsistent with the biosolids definition from Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Ani mal Manure, and Poultry Litter). Please refer to Section 3.0 for changes.

27) COMMENT: In the definition of “composting,” “anaerobic” sh ould be removed from the definition. Composting is an aerobic process. The best management practices outlined in Rule 4566 are not applicable to anaerob ic systems. (DRRR)

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the definition of “com posting” and removed

the word “anaerobic”. Please refer to the definiti on for changes.

28) COMMENT: In the definition for “composting operation,” to avoid confusion, you may wish to align this definition more closely to T itle 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 7, Chapter 3.1 Section 17852 (12). (DRRR)

RESPONSE: Title 14 addresses several facilities, including co-composting

facilities. Since there could also be facilities t hat have several types of operations on site, Draft New Rule 4566 would only regulate VO C emissions from organic material composting operations. The draft rule has a separate definition for composting facilities, which identifies facilities that would be subject to the rule requirements. District staff has revised the def inition to be more closely aligned with Title 14, while also specifying the facilities that would be required to reduce VOC emissions from composting operations.

Section 4.1 – Stockpile Exemptions

29) COMMENT: Section 4.1.1 - It is not clear what type of faci lities are envisioned here. This section may encourage unpermitted prope rty owners to store greenwaste, or encourage direct land application of non-pathogen reduced greenwaste. The air quality implications of direct land application are not known, but there is no reason to expect that these emissio ns will be less than composting an equivalent amount of materials. Also, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 7, Article 5, Chapter 3, Sect ion 18103 lays out the requirements for an ‘enforcement agency notificatio n’ tier facility. Technically, EA Notification is not considered a compost “permit.” (Though the operator might have a conditional use permit from the county or city.) Also, CalRecycle does not issue the permit; it is issued by the Local Enforcement A gency (LEA) of the city or county.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 13 (CalRecycle is required to either concur or not con cur with the LEA’s decision to issue the permit.) Please specify the types of fac ilities you would like to include here. If there are none, then this section may be unnecessary. (DRRR)

RESPONSE: Examples of facilities that would be exempt under this section would include transfer stations and community drop off si tes that process organic material, but do not compost onsite and do not have a compost able materials handling facility permit under Title 14. Transfer stations that proc ess large amount of organic material are already subject to more stringent stoc kpile requirements under Title 14, unless the operators obtain a compostable materials handling facility permit. Other facilities that only stockpile organic material wou ld not be subject to the draft rule requirements as those facilities are not composting and therefore, would not be required to obtain a compost permit with the Distri ct.

Section 4.2 – Composting Operations Exemptions

30) COMMENT: Section 4.2.1.2 – CalRecycle is not opposed to ex empting “agricultural composting”, but it could potentially cause confusi on among agricultural composters, because your definition of agricultural composting differs from Title 14. CalRecycle’s Solid Waste Information System databas e contains 38 notification tier “agricultural” composting operations in the Distric t. Although many of these operations process manure, and therefore fall under Rule 4565, there may be others who process solely green materials. (DRRR)

RESPONSE: Please refer to Comment #24 for District’s respon se.

Section 5.1 – Stockpile Requirements

31) COMMENT: Please change the word “operator” to “operation” to allow distinct operations within a facility to meet appropriate re quirements for those operations, and not be counted together as one throughput. A f acility may have subparts that handle materials in various ways and with different timing. (CB)

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the stockpile requirem ents section to include the word “operation” for clarity and to be consiste nt with other sections of the draft rule. The draft rule requirements would include th e operator to ensure that the operation is in compliance with applicable requirem ents.

32) COMMENT: Section 5.1.1.2 and Section 5.1.2.2 – An operator could allow a stockpile to go to temperature to satisfy the requi rement of “begin composting.” If that is not what was intended, “begin composting” m ay be too vague. Suggested language: “Blend the organic materials, if necessar y, and place in a windrow or pile where the organic materials can be managed to achie ve temperatures above 122 F and the requirements of Section 5.2 can be implemen ted.” (DRRR)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 14 RESPONSE: District staff has revised the language for both sections for clarity. The revised language includes the active phase, whi ch is defined in the draft rule as the phase of the composting process that begins whe n organic materials are mixed or piled together for composting. The purpose of t he draft requirements is to capture VOC emissions during the first few weeks wh en the windrow is formed for composting. District staff is not aware of data th at correlates the temperature at 122

F to VOC emissions.

33) COMMENT: Regarding tarping, it is not clear how this requir ement benefits air quality. It seems plausible that VOCs will be trap ped and then released when the waterproof cover is removed. (DRRR)

RESPONSE: The purpose of including the waterproof cover for stockpiles is to minimize microbial activities by keeping moisture o ut of the pile. As discussed in the staff report, water plays an essential role in compositing. Please refer to Section II.B in the staff report for further discus sion on moisture.

Section 5.2 – Composting Requirements

34) COMMENT: Please add a subsection for composting requiremen ts appropriate for static pile or aerated static pile composting. By their nature and the way they work,

these would not be handled the same as windrows. F or example, they a. Are not necessarily turned during the active pha se the same as windrows

would be. b. Are completely covered by a 6” to 12” layer of i nsulating material (usually finished compost) in order to meet Title 14 require ments for pathogen reduction. This exceeds the proposed Finish Compos t Cover mitigation measure which only requires the top of the windrow to be covered. An operator should have the flexibility to choose one solid covering for a pile system versus multiple smaller coverings for a wind row system, since the effect of the compost cover is the same in both cas es. (CB)

For more clarity, the word “windrow” should be inse rted as the second to last word in each paragraph (5.2.1 and 5.2.2), i.e., “ac tive windrow composting.” (DRRR)

RESPONSE: At this time, District staff is not aware of data t hat shows the

effectiveness of the controls mentioned above for o rganic material composting. Based on the compost study in 2009, the finished co mpost cover application in the draft rule was shown to be effective in reducing VO C, but was specifically for windrow composting that requires occasional turning s. However, the draft rule would allow operators the flexibility to comply wit h the requirements through alternative mitigations measures, which does not sp ecify the type of composting process. District staff has revised the Composting Requirements section to furtherSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 15 clarify that the requirements for the watering syst em and finished compost cover are for windrow composting operations.

35) COMMENT: Section 5.2.2.1.1 is new, and when combined with t he initial cap, mandates a minimum of four compost caps per windrow . Four caps will require enormous amounts of capping material, as well as la bor and diesel. It remains to be seen whether such extensive capping will interfe re with pathogen reduction activities. The socio-economic analysis in the Dra ft Staff Report indicates the cost of capping will exceed levels of significance for a t least one facility. Stakeholders have demonstrated for District staff that applicati on of the initial compost cap can be achieved relatively efficiently, but that subsequen t caps are much more difficult and expensive due to the logistical realities of transp orting large amounts of cap material

in between windrows. We think the District’s air e missions reductions can be accomplished just as well with two mandated turns w ithin the active period, and that allowing this change is a more realistic approach t o bringing the Rule’s costs within the level of significance, rather than either raisi ng prices or laying off staff, as was suggested in the socio-economic analysis. (DRRR)

Compliance with the currently proposed cover requir ement, as stated in Table 1, would require Recology Grover, which uses low-profi le windrows with relatively

small cross-sectional area, to use about twice the volume of compost cover than a large windrow type facility having the same through put. Recology Grover has designed this configuration of windrows to produce a high-quality organic compost produce over several decades of operation, and as s uch has developed extensive windrow turning and watering infrastructure to maxi mize this configuration. Recology Grover would incur significant cost in eit her covering the windrows per the proposed rule, or reconfiguring to a large-windrow format to minimize the amount of cover, thus requiring significant changes to existi ng infrastructure. (REC)

Recology Grover’s process uses minimal handling and less added material, including finished compost, to produce high-quality certified organic compost. This highly efficient one-time processing of organic fee dstock reduces time, fuel, and labor associated with reincorporating and multiple handling of fully process material or compost overs, back into the windrowing stage of the system. While other compost processors may reincorporate “overs” or oth er compost material back into the windrows at multiple times, such methods are no t used by Recology, nor are they necessary within our processes to produce a hi gh-quality organic product. Routinely reintroducing cover material, as required in proposed Rule 4566, imposes a permanent incremental cost to the operation and a dds a significant adverse impact to our financial model. (REC)

RESPONSE: District staff has continued to work with the affe cted stakeholders to reconcile the costs, which has been updated as part of Appendix C and Appendix

D. Based on discussion and information received fr om the Valley stakeholders, District staff has found that the finished compost cover application would be tooSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 16 costly for most facilities and that one large compo sting facility is already implementing the finished compost cover requirement as part of its operation. As a result, the proposed rule would require that compos ting operations with 200,000 tons per year or more and less than 750,000 tons pe r year of organic material implement the finished compost cover after windrow formation and for at least the first three turns. For the one facility that would be impacted by the finished compost cover requirements, based on its throughput capacit y, the additional cost on a per

ton basis is close to the cost of what the other fa cility is absorbing as part of its operation.

District staff recognizes the potential implication s that the proposed requirements may have on Recology’s facility and will continue t o work with the operator to develop research efforts and evaluate ways to compl y with the rule. The proposed rule would provide the operator five years to deter mine and develop effective control strategies specific to the facility’s operation. T he additional time would also allow for any incremental absorption of costs or increase in tipping fees/sales.

36) COMMENT: In Table 1, regarding application of the water mit igation: when the water is applied should remain flexible as long as the windrow meets the wetness criteria as stated in the Table. Regarding the pl acement of the compost cap: composters should have up to 24 hours after initial construction or turning to apply the compost cap. The proposed requirement to cover all new windrows within 3 hours does not allow much operational flexibility. Studies show windrow emissions don’t peak until at least three days past windrow c onstruction. Also, this would be consistent with South Coast AQMD, who is allowing u p to 6 hours prior to turning for application of the water mitigation, and up to 24 h ours after initial construction or turning to apply the compost cap. (DRRR)

RESPONSE: The draft rule only requires that the operator te st the windrows within three hours of turning for adequate water and does not specify a time for watering the windrows, which would allow flexibility for ope rators with different equipment and operations. The draft rule requirements are in tended to reduce VOC emissions and would encourage operators to comply with the re quirements as soon as possible. Based on discussion with the operator th at is implementing the finished compost cover, it may take about a half hour to app ly finished compost to a

windrow. In order to address stakeholders’ concern about applying the finished compost cover to the windrows toward the end of a w orking day, District staff has incorporated language to ensure that the windrows a re covered as soon as possible the following day. The 24 hours to cover each wind row after turning is unnecessary and appears excessive for the purpose of reducing V OC emissions from Draft Rule

4566.

37) COMMENT: Recology Grover supports the District’s position that VOC compounds vary significantly in their contribution to ozone f ormation and as such should be assigned a lesser weight in their potential for ozo ne formation. Recology GroverSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 17 also supports recent research that VOCs produced by the decomposition of “natural” organic processes are significantly less reactive than the VOC mix from other industries (such as petrochemical facilities) and are less potent, per pound, than NOx emitted from stationary and mobile sources . We concur with the District’s position and applaud its efforts to communicate the se facts to EPA; however, since Recology Grover will increase air emissions in an e ffort to cut VOCs through implementation of Draft Rule 4566, the compost cove r requirement seems to yield, at best, a marginal reduction in ozone formation po tential, and at a crippling cost to an environmentally-oriented “infant industry.” (REC )

RESPONSE: As presented in Appendix B

, implementation of Proposed New Rule 4566 is expected to reduce VOC emissions from compo sting by 1,518 tons/year (4.2 tons/day) by the full implementation date. Im plementation of the finished compost cover could result in increased fossil fuel use. The District estimates that increased fossil fuel use from the finished compost cover requirements could result in a 1.4 tons/year increase in oxides of nitrogen ( NOx), a 0.2 tons/year increase in VOC, a 0.1 tons/year increase in particulate matter 10 microns (PM10), and a 183 tons/year increase in CO 2 emissions. The amount of VOC emissions reduced is significantly greater than other emissions associat ed with stationary and mobile

sources.

38) COMMENT: Recology Grover’s proprietary process includes sma ll windrows that maximize the surface-to-air interface and keeps a h igher percentage of the active

windrow in an aerobic condition. This accelerates the compost process and

minimizes emissions associated with anaerobic mater ial. Turning these small windrows and keeping them moisture-conditioned on a n intensified frequency, which is well above industry practice, helps keep t he windrows aerobic. We believe this integrated watering reduces VOC emission and s hould constitute RACT for this type of composting facility. Though economies of s cale might apply if a larger windrow process were already in place, or being sta rted by a new processor, such a switch for Recology would constitute a complete new add-on cost for manpower and equipment; one that is unnecessary given our pr oven product with critical market differentiation created by multiple value-ad ded steps from intake sorting/screening to outbound cleanup steps.

Changing Recology’s compost system to larger windro ws is not as simple as building bigger windrows; the entire process needs to change. The question is legitimate, but the science and engineering inheren t to our proprietary composting process makes the reality far more complex.

• By design, our windrow sizing maximizes aeration a nd microbial life within

windrows.

• Our facility is plumbed throughout with a water di stribution system that feeds the integrated watering system on our turners. As demon strated to the SJVAPCD through on-site observation, this watering system d esign maximizes uniformSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 18 hydration of the compost particles during turning, while making extremely efficient use of the water and minimizing run-off f rom the windrows. If we were required to make larger windrows the system’s volum etric capacity to deliver water would remain the same, but larger windrows wo uld require more water. Due to uncertain water supply in the Central Valley , this added water may not be available year round. This would compromise the eff ectiveness of our process and consequently diminish the quality of our produc ts.

• Larger windrows, especially of the size seen at ot her facilities, would not only risk going anaerobic, with all the associated probl ems, but would also require larger turners. This means that our proprietary pad dle and hydration system would now have to be either adapted to a much large r machine or abandoned. The cost per machine could easily reach $800,000. ( REC)

RESPONSE: District staff has continued to work with the ope rator to better understand the on-site operations and appreciates t he detailed information provided

to the District. District staff will continue to w ork with the operator to evaluate ways to comply with the draft rule requirements. The fi eld study in 2009 also measured

the effectiveness of a smaller windrow, which resul ted in higher emissions. As a result, District staff did not pursue this measure as a viable option. However, District staff will review and consider any availab le studies that may show the

effectiveness of small windrows.

Section 6.1 – Facility Emission Mitigation Plan

39) COMMENT: In section 6.1, as well as section 7.1 Compliance Schedule, the operator should not be required to apply for an Aut hority to Construct when implementing best management or operating practices because nothing is being constructed. Based on information issued by the AR B, the requirements for an Authority to Construct are substantial ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/permits/airdisac.htm ). Changes to operational procedure required by the SJ VUAPCD in order to comply with a new prohibitory rule should not be considere d a facility modification. (DRRR)

RESPONSE: While the term Authority to Construct (ATC) does imply actual construction, this simply is the vehicle which the District uses to approve either construction or other types of alterations or modif ications to how operations actually operate. District Rule 2010, Permits Require, stat es in section 3.0:

3.0 Authority to Construct

Any person building, altering or replacing any oper ation, article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance, the use of which m ay cause the issuance of air contaminants or the use of which may eliminate or r educe or control the issuance of

air contaminants, shall first obtain authorization for such construction from the APCO. An Authority to Construct shall remain in ef fect until the Permit to OperateSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 19 the source operation for which the application was filed is granted or denied, or the application is canceled as described in Rule 2050 ( Cancellation of Application).

The District uses the ATC process for all changes n eeded to comply with a prohibitory rule, such as Rule 4566, to review the proposed measures and ensure the appropriate conditions are placed on the permit . Additionally, as discussed in the December 9, 2010, permitting workshop for the C ompost Technical Workgroup, the requirements imposed on an ATC application are determined by what modification is being sought. An application to ad d mitigation measures / operational procedures to comply with Rule 4566 wou ld have minimal, if any, requirements from New Source Review (District Rule 2201).

Section 6.3 – Alternative Mitigation Measures Compl iance Plan

40) COMMENT: Previous drafts of rule 4566 required both APCO a nd EPA approval for Alternative Mitigation Measures Compliance Plan s, and this June 23, 2011 draft requires only APCO approval. Will this remain true ? (CB)

RESPONSE: EPA has indicated that discretion should be furth er limited or eliminated as the District gains more experience re gulating this activity. Please

refer to EPA comment #16 for more information.

Section 7.3 –Composting Requirements (Compliance Sc hedule)

41) COMMENT: In section 7.3.2, change the compliance deadline fo r composting operations with a total throughput of greater than or equal to 200,000 wet tons per year and less than 750,000 wet tons per year of org anic material from three (3)

years to five (5) years. (REC)

RESPONSE: District staff has revised Section 7.3.2 to allow operators time to implement the finished compost cover or an alternat ive mitigation measure. Please refer to the proposed rule for changes.

General Staff Report comments

42) COMMENT: Page 13 – Please include the possibility of pseud obiofilters (compost covers) placed on top of static piles or aerated st atic piles as a technology. This is a method used in many situations to prevent odors f rom compost facilities. Compost covers are not limited to just windrows. I n fact, their common application on static piles and aerated static piles predates t he district’s evaluation of them on windrows in the Modesto Study. (CB)

RESPONSE: District staff has included a discussion on the us e of finished compost covers on top of static piles or aerated static pil es as a possible technology. Please refer to Section II.D of the staff report for furth er discussion.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 20 43) COMMENT: As noted on page 32 of the Draft Staff Report of June 23, 2011, continue dialogue with the federal government and r equest that USEPA do the necessary “speciation data and assessment of reacti vity...to identify compounds that have minimal ozone contribution and may be con sidered for de-listing by USEPA.” The goal of delisting would be “to remove the requirement for the compound to be limited and regulated” in specific, to delist VOC’s from composting operations and remove them from regulation. (REC)

Amend section 5.2.1.2 to read, “Implement an APCO a pproved alternative mitigation measure that demonstrates at least a 19% reduction, by weight, in VOC

emissions, or that demonstrates, using an analysis approved by the APCO, an equivalent ozone benefit .”

Amend section 5.2.2.2 to read, “Implement an APCO a pproved alternative mitigation measure that demonstrates at least 60% r eduction, by weight, in VOC

emissions , or that demonstrates, using an analysis approved by the APCO, an equivalent ozone benefit .”

Amend section 6.3.1.6 to read, “Methodology and cal culations establishing the daily and annual VOC emissions or projected VOC emissions , or the equivalent ozone

benefits. ... . ” (REC)

RESPONSE: The District has recommended to EPA that flexibil ity be provided to consider and prioritize reductions that have the mo st benefit in reducing ozone emissions and subsequently reduce population exposu re, with greater credit provided for reductions in Environmental Justice co mmunities. Until such time as EPA considers and makes regulatory adjustments in r esponse to this District request, the mass based approach remains the regula tory requirement.

Appendix C – Cost analysis

44) COMMENT: While each compost facility produces various compo st products, each has been independently developed and uses different operational strategies to develop their product lines. Through years of conti nuous operational improvement, each facility evolved and refined its operations to include unique and proprietary processes that work for them operationally and fina ncially.

If, as currently proposed in the Draft Rule, Recolo gy Grover were to add a six inch

cover four times on its smaller windrows, Grover wo uld use twice as much cover and require windrows that are three to four times l onger than a larger profile

windrow to accommodate the same volume of feedstock . Thus, a key difference to keep in mind when comparing the cost impact of the proposed rule on different facilities is that [setting aside the quality of th e finished product or efficient use of capital and labor], larger profile (taller top, wid er base, longer sides) windrowsSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 21 require much less compost cover and which can be ap plied faster and cheaper when compared to Recology Grover’s lower profile, l onger windrows. (REC)

RESPONSE: District staff has worked with operators that would be subject to the finished compost cover requirements to understand t he costs associated with those requirements. While the operators that would be su bject to the finished compost cover requirements may have different size windrows , the costs received from the operators are specific to the facility’s operations and should account for the amount of materials needed to comply with the proposed req uirements. The difference in costs between the operators to implement the finish ed compost cover is $0.20 per ton of organic material. However, District staff r ecognizes that one facility has already incorporated the system into their operatio n, whereas, the impact to Recology could mean a complete change in operation to new add-on cost for manpower and equipment. Please refer to Appendix C for more information on

costs.

Appendix D – Socio-economic analysis

45) COMMENT: The final page of the report indicates that in ord er to reduce the costs of complying with Rule 4566 below the level of sign ificance, the affected facility would need to raise prices 10% and cut its workforc e by about 20%. Composters have limited ability to raise tipping fees, which a re typically set in long-term contracts and/or compete with nearby landfill tippi ng fees. Demand for compost is price dependent; a 10% increase in price without a corresponding increase in fertilizer prices will result in reduced sales. Fu rthermore, laying of 20% of a facility’s workforce is contradicted by new regulatory require ments to implement laborintensive mitigation measures. The analysis should explore the impact of mandating one less turn during active composting to reduce the impact of the rule below the threshold of significance. (DRRR)

RESPONSE: The socioeconomic report has been revised to inco rporate latest costs from operators. Please refer to Appendix D f or information.

46) COMMENT: The District staff has done a fine job discussing the environmental pros and cons and relative impacts of NOx and VOC reduci ng measures. However, a key imbalance and shortcoming in the Socioeconomic Analysis needs to be addressed by considering the full potential economi c impact of the Draft Rule on the

local labor force and the local communities.

While the socio-economic report makes passing refer ence to “the indirect multiplier effects of the job losses”, it does not consider th is indirect/negative multiplier impact in its cost analysis or in its recommendations. In the context of the current economy, both nationally and internationally, this is a sign ificant oversight which Recology

Grover would like to see addressed. We believe the District and the District BoardSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A : Comments and Responses August 18, 2011

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 A - 22 should consider these negative multiplier effects d uring Draft Rule deliberations, including the following points:

a. The potentially devastating economic impacts tha t the loss of eight good paying FTE jobs with solid benefits would have on a chronically underemployed segment of the local community as a d irect result of Draft Rule implementation; b. The negative multiplier effect (typically betwee n 2 and 2.3 times salary) that the loss of these full-time jobs would have on the local communities where Recology Grover employees live and work (e.g. Pater son, Westley, etc); and c. The added financial burden to state and local go vernments from putting fulltime, year round employees back into a depressed jo bs market, the unemployment system, loss of medical and other bene fits, etc. (REC)

RESPONSE: The socioeconomic report has been revised to incor porate the latest

costs from stakeholders and to address the comments above. Please refer to Appendix D for further discussion.

CEQA

47) COMMENT: Recology recognizes and appreciates the District’ s acknowledgement of a prior request that the District Board suspend rulemaking pending completion of the CEQA process and the analysis of mitigation mea sures, and reiterates that request here. (REC)

RESPONSE: As part of the rulemaking process, the CEQA analy sis is attached as Appendix F for public review and comments.