SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 Responses 

For New Rule 4566 

August 18, 2011 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 DISTRICT 

 

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 DISTRICT 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 multi-pollutant approach 

to achieve its desired ozone reduction goals. As the District recognizes in its Staff 

Report and its work with USEPA headquarters, not all VOCs have the same ozone 

production effect. Therefore, we believe that Proposed Rule 4566 should eventually 

allow credit for ozone-equivalent reductions, not just mass reductions of VOCs. 

With a focus on reduction of ozone generating emissions, 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 Rule at Section 6.1, Facility 

Emissions Mitigation Plan, may provide an avenue for facilities to demonstrate 

ozone equivalency. This Mitigation Plan would allow facilities, with oversight from 

the District, to achieve meaningful and effective emission reductions. This will let 

facilities work with the District to identify the most cost-effective manner of reducing 

ozone-producing emissions. If this proves not to be 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 reduction 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 focus on the potency of ozone 

precursors (including NOx) to achieve effective reductions rather than relying solely 

on mass reductions of all VOCs, without regard to photochemical reactivity. We 

believe this principle is particularly important in the context of Rule 4566. (REC) 

RESPONSE: The District appreciates the written comments provided by Recology 

and look forward to working with Recology staff on identifying cost-effective 

mitigation measures to comply with the rule requirements. The District will also 

continue to work with EPA to address ozone precursors as part of future emissions 

reduction strategies and will consider revisiting the rule as new information 

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

 

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 THE 

 AUGUST 18, 2011 VERSION OF THE RULE 

Comments from United States Environmental Protection 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 for changes. 

2) COMMENT: Section 6.4.2 allows alternative test methods with APCO approval 

which deviates from long-standing national policy on director's discretion. Please 

modify as follows: An operator may use an alternative 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 language above into the 

proposed rule. Please refer to the proposed rule for changes. 

3) COMMENT: Rule 4566 sections 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.2, and 5.2.3 allow APCO-approved 

alternative mitigation measures that demonstrate at least 19%, 60%, or 80% 

reduction in VOC. However, these sections do not indicate how this demonstration 

should be performed. Please append these sections with language similar to the 

following: 

"The control efficiency shall be determined using SCAQMD 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 Attachment A, or with an 

alternative methodology that is approved by the APCO and EPA." 

RESPONSE: Based on further discussion with EPA staff on August 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 DISTRICT 

 

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 with 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, replaced with new equipment, 

and/or have emission controls installed. 

The Authority believes that the ATC process and equipment modification or 

replacement cannot be completed in one year. There are too many unknown 

variables to know what equipment options will be allowed 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. (MCRWMA) 

RESPONSE: District staff will work closely with the operator to ensure that the 

equipment currently used onsite are in compliance with all existing rule 

requirements. Based on discussions with the operator, 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 other ways to comply with the 

stockpile requirements, such as covering the organic material with a waterproof 

cover or removing the organic material from the facility, to prevent buildup of 

unmanaged piles onsite. The proposed rule would also allow operators to 

implement an APCO approved alternative mitigation measure that is more specific 

to the operation. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 RESPONSES 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 California Code of 

Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Chapter 3.1 Section 17852(a)(1) regarding the 

thresholds for emission of carbon dioxide per gram of organic material (CO2-C) per 

day. Please explain. 

RESPONSE: The terms “active composting” and “curing composting” have been 

changed to “active phase” and “curing phase” for clarity. 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 Methods for the Examination of 

Composting and Compost (TMECC) manual by the US Composting 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, respiration rate, and rate of biological 

activity is to help delineate which materials are within 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 following link: 

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Rulemaking/Archive/1995/Compost/fsor5.doc. 

2) COMMENT: Definition for composting: We recommend revising the definition to 

clarify differences between anaerobic and aerobic composting. 

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the definition for composting to be consistent 

with the definition from South Coast Air Quality Management District’s recently 

adopted Rule 1133.3 (Emission Reductions from Greenwaste 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. Please refer to Section 

3.0 of the Proposed New Rule 4566 for the definition.

4) COMMENT: In Section 4.1.1, please cite in the rule to specific CCR and 

SJVUACPD compostable material permit regulations. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 composting facility (Section 

3.1.3) and Section 4.1.1 for clarity. The citations were added to the definition for 

composting facility. 

5) COMMENT: In Sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.2.1.1, the rule requires at least three turns 

during active composting. This appears inconsistent 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 Section 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 composting. Based on 

discussion with the operators, District staff has found 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 during the active phase (as 

defined in the draft rule) or during active composting (as defined in the CCR). 

However, the pathogen reduction process is not intended to reduce VOC emissions. 

The CCR defines curing as “the final stage of the composting process that occurs 

after compost has undergone pathogen reduction” and does not indicate how long 

active compost lasts. The pathogen reduction requirements, 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 windrow. Based on discussions with 

CalRecycle staff and stakeholders, the pathogen reduction requirements could 

occur at any time during active composting (as defined in the CCR) and not 

necessarily during the first few turns. 

6) COMMENT: In Table 1: Independent watering system (first bullet), 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 definition.

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 need to be turned more than 

once until the appropriate water volume is determined and passes the ball test, and 

that subsequent windrows will not be turned until this 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 DISTRICT 

 

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 the text of Rule 4566 that the 

sample should be taken within three hours before turning 

RESPONSE: District staff has incorporated the three-hour requirement 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 Authority-to-Construct application. 

RESPONSE: District staff has cited Rule 2010 (Permits Required) 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 clarified the section for 

composting operations.

11) COMMENT: Section 6.2 should be consistent with EPA policy as described in 

“Memorandum, State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown" (Steven A Herman and Robert 

Perciasepe, September 20, 1999), or deleted. Regarding the reference to District 

Rule 1100, please note that EPA cannot indirectly incorporate a rule into the SIP by 

reference unless it has gone through the SIP approval process. 

RESPONSE: District staff has deleted Section 6.2. Since Rule 1100 (Equipment 

Breakdown) is already an existing rule, operators may comply with that rule 

separately. Please refer to the draft rule for changes.

12) COMMENT: In Section 6.2.3, please add that the source test data must be 

approved by the District. 

RESPONSE: District staff has revised Section 6.2.3 to include language requiring 

APCO approval for source test data.

13) COMMENT: In Section 6.4.4.3, please require that operators keep records needed 

to demonstrate compliance with the specific measure used. 

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the section to incorporate the comment 

above.

14) COMMENT: In Staff Report Section II (C), please cite the 2009 research evaluation 

referred to in paragraph 1. Please also cite the source for Figure 1. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 include the requested 

citations.

15) COMMENT: In Staff Report, Section X: Reasonable Available Control Technology 

(RACT), please also cite to and summarize the cost-effectiveness and 

socioeconomic analyses. 

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

discussion on the cost-effectiveness and socioeconomic analyses. 

16) COMMENT: In Appendix A: Response to EPA Comment #7, this discretion should 

be further limited or eliminated as the District gains more experience regulating this 

activity. 

RESPONSE: The draft new rule would not allow the APCO discretion to 

independently modify SIP requirements. Section 6.1 and Section 6.3 of the draft 

rule would limit APCO approval to any alternative mitigation 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 explain 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 the requested citation.

19) COMMENT: In Appendix C, Table 4, please provide cost-effective estimates for 

engineered controls 

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

Draft New Rule 4566. Absolute cost effectiveness of 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 material and therefore, no 

additional VOC reductions would be achieved from this 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 DISTRICT 

 

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 comments: 

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (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,” finished 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 definition for clarity. 

Please refer to the definition for changes. 

21) COMMENT: Please add a definition for “operation,” which can 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 work areas with separate record 

keeping for each operation. The purpose would be to distinguish, for example, 

between self-hauled greenwaste, which may be deposited into a windrow 

immediately upon receipt, versus curbside greenwaste, which may require some 

days to screen and prepare for composting. (CB)

RESPONSE: The draft rule has a definition for composting operations, 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. However, 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 Code of Regulations, Title 14. 

District staff has also worked closely with stakeholders to address stockpile 

concerns through several technical workgroup meetings and phone calls and found 

that the three-day stockpile requirement for facilities with more than 100,000 tons 

per year of organic material was appropriate. 

22) COMMENT: Please amend the language for “integrated water systems” 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 DISTRICT 

 

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 include a watering system 

that is applied simultaneously during the turning process, 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 mixed with other organic wastes. 

Please consider revision of this language. When mixed green waste is received at 

the compost facility from local gardeners, wood waste and green waste are 

comingled. Upon receipt, the waste streams are separated to wood waste (which is 

chipped, and sold as walk-on bark, not introduced in the composting process) and 

green waste (composted). Therefore, please include language indicating that if the 

wastes are separated into wood and green waste streams prior to the 10 day 

requirements for stockpile management, the wood waste stream would not be 

subject to Rule 4566 requirements. (EJG) 

RESPONSE: District staff has revised Section 4.1.3 to include wood material that 

has been separated from the waste streams prior to complying with the stockpile 

requirements. 

24) COMMENT: The definition for “agricultural composting” differs from what is found 

in Title 14, and that difference may cause confusion among agricultural operators 

because it may cause some Enforcement Agency Notification 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 California Code of Regulations, Title 

14, Division 7, Chapter 3.1, "’Agricultural Material Composting Operation’ means an 

operation that produces compost from green or agricultural additives, and/or 

amendments.” (DRRR) 

RESPONSE: The District’s definition for agricultural composting focuses on the 

composting of agricultural material rather than the operation, as defined under Title 

14. The draft rule narrows the exemption to operators 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 CalRecycle’s Solid Waste Information 

System and found that most “agricultural material composting operations” are 

permitted to accept manure, which could exclude those 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 agricultural operations but which are 

essential to agricultural operations”. (DRRR) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 operations 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 “untreated” should be removed 

from the definition. Biosolids are the result of sewage treatment. Composting 

facilities should not be handling raw sewage. (DRRR) 

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the definition to be consistent with the 

biosolids definition from Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter). 

Please refer to Section 3.0 for changes. 

27) COMMENT: In the definition of “composting,” “anaerobic” should be removed from 

the definition. Composting is an aerobic process. The best management practices 

outlined in Rule 4566 are not applicable to anaerobic systems. (DRRR) 

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

the word “anaerobic”. Please refer to the definition for changes. 

28) COMMENT: In the definition for “composting operation,” to avoid confusion, you 

may wish to align this definition more closely to Title 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 that have several types of operations 

on site, Draft New Rule 4566 would only regulate VOC 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 definition 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 facilities are envisioned 

here. This section may encourage unpermitted property 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 emissions 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, Section 18103 lays out the 

requirements for an ‘enforcement agency notification’ 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 Agency (LEA) of the city or county. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 concur with the LEA’s decision to 

issue the permit.) Please specify the types of facilities 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 sites that process organic material, 

but do not compost onsite and do not have a compostable materials handling facility 

permit under Title 14. Transfer stations that process large amount of organic 

material are already subject to more stringent stockpile requirements under Title 14, 

unless the operators obtain a compostable materials handling facility permit. Other 

facilities that only stockpile organic material would 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 District. 

Section 4.2 – Composting Operations Exemptions 

30) COMMENT: Section 4.2.1.2 – CalRecycle is not opposed to exempting “agricultural 

composting”, but it could potentially cause confusion among agricultural 

composters, because your definition of agricultural composting differs from Title 14. 

CalRecycle’s Solid Waste Information System database contains 38 notification tier 

“agricultural” composting operations in the District. 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 response. 

Section 5.1 – Stockpile Requirements 

31) COMMENT: Please change the word “operator” to “operation” to allow distinct 

operations within a facility to meet appropriate requirements for those operations, 

and not be counted together as one throughput. A facility may have subparts that 

handle materials in various ways and with different timing. (CB) 

RESPONSE: District staff has revised the stockpile requirements section to include 

the word “operation” for clarity and to be consistent with other sections of the draft 

rule. The draft rule requirements would include the operator to ensure that the 

operation is in compliance with applicable requirements. 

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 requirement of “begin composting.” If 

that is not what was intended, “begin composting” may be too vague. Suggested 

language: “Blend the organic materials, if necessary, and place in a windrow or pile 

where the organic materials can be managed to achieve temperatures above 122 F 

and the requirements of Section 5.2 can be implemented.” (DRRR) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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, which is defined in the draft rule as 

the phase of the composting process that begins when organic materials are mixed 

or piled together for composting. The purpose of the draft requirements is to 

capture VOC emissions during the first few weeks when the windrow is formed for 

composting. District staff is not aware of data that correlates the temperature at 122 

F to VOC emissions. 

33) COMMENT: Regarding tarping, it is not clear how this requirement benefits air 

quality. It seems plausible that VOCs will be trapped 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 out 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 discussion on moisture. 

Section 5.2 – Composting Requirements 

34) COMMENT: Please add a subsection for composting requirements 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. For example, they 

a. Are not necessarily turned during the active phase the same as windrows 

would be. 

b. Are completely covered by a 6” to 12” layer of insulating material (usually 

finished compost) in order to meet Title 14 requirements for pathogen 

reduction. This exceeds the proposed Finish Compost 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 windrow system, since the 

effect of the compost cover is the same in both cases. (CB) 

For more clarity, the word “windrow” should be inserted as the second to last 

word in each paragraph (5.2.1 and 5.2.2), i.e., “active windrow composting.” 

(DRRR) 

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

effectiveness of the controls mentioned above for organic material composting. 

Based on the compost study in 2009, the finished compost cover application in the 

draft rule was shown to be effective in reducing VOC, but was specifically for 

windrow composting that requires occasional turnings. However, the draft rule 

would allow operators the flexibility to comply with the requirements through 

alternative mitigations measures, which does not specify the type of composting 

process. District staff has revised the Composting Requirements section to further 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 system and finished compost cover are 

for windrow composting operations. 

35) COMMENT: Section 5.2.2.1.1 is new, and when combined with the initial cap, 

mandates a minimum of four compost caps per windrow. Four caps will require 

enormous amounts of capping material, as well as labor and diesel. It remains to 

be seen whether such extensive capping will interfere with pathogen reduction 

activities. The socio-economic analysis in the Draft Staff Report indicates the cost 

of capping will exceed levels of significance for at least one facility. Stakeholders 

have demonstrated for District staff that application of the initial compost cap can be 

achieved relatively efficiently, but that subsequent caps are much more difficult and 

expensive due to the logistical realities of transporting large amounts of cap material 

in between windrows. We think the District’s air emissions reductions can be 

accomplished just as well with two mandated turns within the active period, and that 

allowing this change is a more realistic approach to bringing the Rule’s costs within 

the level of significance, rather than either raising prices or laying off staff, as was 

suggested in the socio-economic analysis. (DRRR) 

Compliance with the currently proposed cover requirement, as stated in Table 1, 

would require Recology Grover, which uses low-profile 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 throughput. Recology Grover has 

designed this configuration of windrows to produce a high-quality organic compost 

produce over several decades of operation, and as such has developed extensive 

windrow turning and watering infrastructure to maximize this configuration. 

Recology Grover would incur significant cost in either 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 existing 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 feedstock 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 other compost material back into 

the windrows at multiple times, such methods are not used by Recology, nor are 

they necessary within our processes to produce a high-quality organic product. 

Routinely reintroducing cover material, as required in proposed Rule 4566, imposes 

a permanent incremental cost to the operation and adds a significant adverse 

impact to our financial model. (REC) 

RESPONSE: District staff has continued to work with the affected stakeholders to 

reconcile the costs, which has been updated as part of Appendix C and Appendix 

D. Based on discussion and information received from the Valley stakeholders, 

District staff has found that the finished compost cover application would be too 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 composting facility is already 

implementing the finished compost cover requirement as part of its operation. As a 

result, the proposed rule would require that composting operations with 200,000 

tons per year or more and less than 750,000 tons per 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 capacity, the additional cost on a per 

ton basis is close to the cost of what the other facility is absorbing as part of its 

operation. 

District staff recognizes the potential implications that the proposed requirements 

may have on Recology’s facility and will continue to work with the operator to 

develop research efforts and evaluate ways to comply with the rule. The proposed 

rule would provide the operator five years to determine and develop effective control 

strategies specific to the facility’s operation. The 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 mitigation: when the 

water is applied should remain flexible as long as the windrow meets the wetness 

criteria as stated in the Table. Regarding the placement 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 construction. Also, this would be 

consistent with South Coast AQMD, who is allowing up to 6 hours prior to turning for 

application of the water mitigation, and up to 24 hours after initial construction or 

turning to apply the compost cap. (DRRR) 

RESPONSE: The draft rule only requires that the operator test 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 operators with different equipment 

and operations. The draft rule requirements are intended to reduce VOC emissions 

and would encourage operators to comply with the requirements as soon as 

possible. Based on discussion with the operator that is implementing the finished 

compost cover, it may take about a half hour to apply 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 working day, District staff has 

incorporated language to ensure that the windrows are covered as soon as possible 

the following day. The 24 hours to cover each windrow after turning is unnecessary 

and appears excessive for the purpose of reducing VOC emissions from Draft Rule 

4566. 

37) COMMENT: Recology Grover supports the District’s position that VOC compounds 

vary significantly in their contribution to ozone formation and as such should be 

assigned a lesser weight in their potential for ozone formation. Recology Grover 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 these facts to EPA; however, since 

Recology Grover will increase air emissions in an effort to cut VOCs through 

implementation of Draft Rule 4566, the compost cover requirement seems to yield, 

at best, a marginal reduction in ozone formation potential, 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 composting by 1,518 tons/year 

(4.2 tons/day) by the full implementation date. Implementation 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 CO2 emissions. The amount of VOC emissions reduced is

significantly greater than other emissions associated with stationary and mobile 

sources. 

38) COMMENT: Recology Grover’s proprietary process includes small windrows that 

maximize the surface-to-air interface and keeps a higher percentage of the active 

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

minimizes emissions associated with anaerobic material. Turning these small 

windrows and keeping them moisture-conditioned on an intensified frequency, 

which is well above industry practice, helps keep the windrows aerobic. We believe 

this integrated watering reduces VOC emission and should constitute RACT for this 

type of composting facility. Though economies of scale might apply if a larger 

windrow process were already in place, or being started 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 proven product with critical 

market differentiation created by multiple value-added steps from intake 

sorting/screening to outbound cleanup steps. 

Changing Recology’s compost system to larger windrows is not as simple as 

building bigger windrows; the entire process needs to change. The question is 

legitimate, but the science and engineering inherent to our proprietary composting 

process makes the reality far more complex. 

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

windrows. 

• Our facility is plumbed throughout with a water distribution system that feeds the 

integrated watering system on our turners. As demonstrated to the SJVAPCD 

through on-site observation, this watering system design maximizes uniform 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 from the windrows. If we were 

required to make larger windrows the system’s volumetric capacity to deliver 

water would remain the same, but larger windrows would 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 effectiveness of our process 

and consequently diminish the quality of our products. 

• Larger windrows, especially of the size seen at other facilities, would not only 

risk going anaerobic, with all the associated problems, but would also require 

larger turners. This means that our proprietary paddle and hydration system 

would now have to be either adapted to a much larger machine or abandoned. 

The cost per machine could easily reach $800,000. (REC) 

RESPONSE: District staff has continued to work with the operator to better 

understand the on-site operations and appreciates the detailed information provided 

to the District. District staff will continue to work with the operator to evaluate ways 

to comply with the draft rule requirements. The field study in 2009 also measured 

the effectiveness of a smaller windrow, which resulted 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 available 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 Authority to Construct when 

implementing best management or operating practices because nothing is being 

constructed. Based on information issued by the ARB, the requirements for an 

Authority to Construct are substantial (http://www.arb.ca.gov/permits/airdisac.htm ). 

Changes to operational procedure required by the SJVUAPCD in order to comply 

with a new prohibitory rule should not be considered 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 modifications to how operations actually 

operate. District Rule 2010, Permits Require, states in section 3.0: 

3.0 Authority to Construct 

Any person building, altering or replacing any operation, article, machine, 

equipment, or other contrivance, the use of which may cause the issuance of air 

contaminants or the use of which may eliminate or reduce or control the issuance of 

air contaminants, shall first obtain authorization for such construction from the 

APCO. An Authority to Construct shall remain in effect until the Permit to Operate 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 needed 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 Compost Technical Workgroup, 

the requirements imposed on an ATC application are determined by what 

modification is being sought. An application to add mitigation measures / 

operational procedures to comply with Rule 4566 would have minimal, if any, 

requirements from New Source Review (District Rule 2201). 

Section 6.3 – Alternative Mitigation Measures Compliance Plan 

40) COMMENT: Previous drafts of rule 4566 required both APCO and EPA approval 

for Alternative Mitigation Measures Compliance Plans, and this June 23, 2011 draft 

requires only APCO approval. Will this remain true? (CB) 

RESPONSE: EPA has indicated that discretion should be further limited or 

eliminated as the District gains more experience regulating this activity. Please 

refer to EPA comment #16 for more information. 

Section 7.3 –Composting Requirements (Compliance Schedule) 

41) COMMENT: In section 7.3.2, change the compliance deadline for 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 organic 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 alternative mitigation measure. Please 

refer to the proposed rule for changes. 

General Staff Report comments 

42) COMMENT: Page 13 – Please include the possibility of pseudobiofilters (compost 

covers) placed on top of static piles or aerated static piles as a technology. This is 

a method used in many situations to prevent odors from compost facilities. 

Compost covers are not limited to just windrows. In fact, their common application 

on static piles and aerated static piles predates the district’s evaluation of them on 

windrows in the Modesto Study. (CB)

RESPONSE: District staff has included a discussion on the use of finished compost 

covers on top of static piles or aerated static piles as a possible technology. Please 

refer to Section II.D of the staff report for further discussion. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 request that USEPA do the 

necessary “speciation data and assessment of reactivity...to identify compounds 

that have minimal ozone contribution and may be considered 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 approved 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 approved alternative 

mitigation measure that demonstrates at least 60% reduction, 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 calculations 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 flexibility be provided to 

consider and prioritize reductions that have the most benefit in reducing ozone 

emissions and subsequently reduce population exposure, with greater credit 

provided for reductions in Environmental Justice communities. Until such time as 

EPA considers and makes regulatory adjustments in response to this District 

request, the mass based approach remains the regulatory requirement. 

Appendix C – Cost analysis 

44) COMMENT: While each compost facility produces various compost products, each 

has been independently developed and uses different operational strategies to 

develop their product lines. Through years of continuous operational improvement, 

each facility evolved and refined its operations to include unique and proprietary 

processes that work for them operationally and financially. 

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

cover four times on its smaller windrows, Grover would use twice as much cover 

and require windrows that are three to four times longer 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 the finished product or efficient use of 

capital and labor], larger profile (taller top, wider base, longer sides) windrows 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 applied faster and cheaper 

when compared to Recology Grover’s lower profile, longer windrows. (REC) 

RESPONSE: District staff has worked with operators that would be subject to the 

finished compost cover requirements to understand the costs associated with those 

requirements. While the operators that would be subject 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 requirements. The difference in 

costs between the operators to implement the finished compost cover is $0.20 per 

ton of organic material. However, District staff recognizes that one facility has 

already incorporated the system into their operation, 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 order to reduce the costs 

of complying with Rule 4566 below the level of significance, the affected facility 

would need to raise prices 10% and cut its workforce by about 20%. Composters 

have limited ability to raise tipping fees, which are typically set in long-term 

contracts and/or compete with nearby landfill tipping fees. Demand for compost is 

price dependent; a 10% increase in price without a corresponding increase in 

fertilizer prices will result in reduced sales. Furthermore, laying of 20% of a facility’s 

workforce is contradicted by new regulatory requirements 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 incorporate latest 

costs from operators. Please refer to Appendix D for information. 

46) COMMENT: The District staff has done a fine job discussing the environmental pros 

and cons and relative impacts of NOx and VOC reducing measures. However, a 

key imbalance and shortcoming in the Socioeconomic Analysis needs to be 

addressed by considering the full potential economic impact of the Draft Rule on the 

local labor force and the local communities. 

While the socio-economic report makes passing reference to “the indirect multiplier 

effects of the job losses”, it does not consider this 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 significant oversight which Recology 

Grover would like to see addressed. We believe the District and the District Board 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

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 during Draft Rule deliberations, 

including the following points: 

a. The potentially devastating economic impacts that the loss of eight good 

paying FTE jobs with solid benefits would have on a chronically 

underemployed segment of the local community as a direct result of Draft 

Rule implementation; 

b. The negative multiplier effect (typically between 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. Paterson, Westley, etc); and 

c. The added financial burden to state and local governments from putting fulltime, year round employees back into a depressed jobs market, the 

unemployment system, loss of medical and other benefits, etc. (REC) 

RESPONSE: The socioeconomic report has been revised to incorporate 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 measures, and reiterates that 

request here. (REC) 

RESPONSE: As part of the rulemaking process, the CEQA analysis is attached as 

Appendix F for public review and comments.