----- Forwarded by Christine Vineyard/R9/USEPA/US on 10/12/2010 10:10 AM

-----

From: "Reyes Romero" <reyesromero@co.imperial.ca.us>

To: Christine Vineyard/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Brad Poiriez" <bradpoiriez@co.imperial.ca.us>

Date: 10/05/2010 02:41 PM Subject: RE: FW: Rule 420

- Response to Comments

Christine:

Attached is a copy of ICAPCD response to Rule 420 comments. We appreciate the opportunity to
provide additional information to EPA and assist to clarify public comments on this rule.

Thanks,

Reyes Romero

Assitant Air Pollution Control Officer

150 s 9th Street

El Centro, CA 92243
P (760) 482 4606
F (760) 353 9904

reyesromero@imperialcounty.netRule 420 Response to Comment Information

On June 1 8, 2010, the U nited S tates Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) received a

comment letter regarding the proposed approval of Imperial County Air Pollution Control District’s ( ICAPCD’s ) Rule 420 revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) fo r beef feedlot

controls

. In this document, ENVIRON has provided information that may assist in the preparation of responses to the comments outlined in the comment letter (i.e., bullet points in the “Concerns and Comments on the Proposed Beef Feedlot Rule ” section starting on page 3)

, in the order in which the comment appears

.

I. COMMENT : LACK OF DOCUMENTATION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT SOURCES

“The Proposed Rule analysis shows that , in 2006 for example, uncontrolled beef feedlot emissions are above the signific ance threshold of 5.64 tons per day. Yet, the District claims

that beef feedlots are a de minimis (not significant) source based on a purported 50% emissions reduction that is assumed as credited in 2002. Thus, emissions are calculated at

a de minimis le vel of 3.26 tons per day. Yet, this 50% reduction assumption is not adequately explained, analyzed or modeled in USEPA’s Proposed Rule. Is this accurate? Has it been verified? Where is the background data?”

Response

Cattle feedlot PM10 emissions (contr olled and uncontrolled ) were the subject of the tri

- agency (ICAPCD, ARB, EPA) process in the development of the 2005 BACM analysis, including resolution and concurrence on the emission inventory. Emissions for that source (controlled and uncontrolled) , wh ich included the establishment of a 50% control factor for Rule 420

, were confirmed among the agencies at an August 2, 2005 3

- agency call. ARB went through its formal traditional inventory review (baseline and controlled) for this source ; we note that it appears in the official Imperial County inventory based on review of the ARB’s web site emission inventory :

**•** ARB’s website inventory has 2008 cattle feedlot emissions of 3.25 tpd, which is consistent with CARB having officially incorporated the Rule 420 emi ssion factor ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emseic_query.php?F_YR=2008&F_DIV=

- 4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2009&SP N=2009_Almanac&F_AREA=DIS&F_DIS=IMP&F_EIC

SUM=620 ).

**•** For 2000 , the emissions are 6.50 tpd, which would reflect “uncontrolled” (pre

- rule) emissions ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emseic_query.php?F_YR=2000&F_DIV=

- 4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2009&SPN=2009_Almanac&F_AREA=DIS&F_DIS=IMP&F_EIC

SUM=620 ).

The control method of water application is widely used for fugitive dust mitigation and control efficiency has been documented in several EPA reports. The 50% is indeed a “reasonable” control factor estimate (and may be low). Watering controls for dust sources generally ranges

from 50% to 90%. 1

, 2 A 2006 report by E.H. Pe chan & Associates, Inc. indicates that watering

feedlots results in 50% control

. 3

1 USEPA, Fugitive Dust Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control
Measures, EPA

- 450/2

- 92

- 004, September 1992; Section s 3.3.3 and 3.4.2. In addition, we note that t he requirement for 20% to 40%

2 Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook

, September 2006, Table 9

- 4.

3 E.H. Pechan & Associates, I nc., Documentation Report , Version 4.1, Pechan Report No. 06.05.003/9011.002, May 2006; Section III, p. 645.Page 2

moisture content is greater than other types of moisture content requirements in other fugitive

dust rules.

II. COMMENT: LACK OF EXPLANATION REGARDING THE 5 MU G/M3 DE MINIMIS STANDARD SET FORTH IN 59 FED. REG. 41998 (AUG. 16, 1994)

“How does the tons per day analysis provided by the District as identified above relate to this 5 mu g/m3 [sic] standard? ”

Response

The explana tion was explicitly included and discussed in the 2005 BACM report (Chapter 2 “Determination of PM10 De Minimus Levels). As discussed on pages 7 and 8 of the 2005 BACM report, the de minimus (DM) level of emis sions related to the 24

- hour 5 **μ** g/m 3 was 10.1 tons/day of PM10. That section also notes that ICAPCD chose to use the more restrictive annual average DM emission level of 4.9 tons/day in its determi nation of significant sources. (Of course, the annual average PM10 standard is now revoked.) Post

- 2004 cattle feedlot PM10 dust emissions are below either calculated DM level, more so for the 24

- hour DM level related

to the 5 **μ** g/m 3 significance threshold.

III. COMMENT: INTERRELATION WITH THE DISTRICT’S RULE 217

“The District’s Rule 420 relies on the permitting scheme for its Rule 217 Confined Animal Facility Rule. This Rule has not been approved by USEPA and an analogous rule from the San Joaquin Air District (Rule 4570) was analyzed by a January 14, 2010 USEPA Rule in 75 Fed. Reg. 2079. How do Rule 217, Rule 420, and the USEPA’s decision on San Joaquin’s

Rule 4570 interrelate?”

Response

We understand that EPA is responding to this comment.

IV. COMMENT: SPECIFIC RULE IMPROVEMENTS

“ There should be an established maximum inches of manure stockpile in feedlot pens. For example, a three inch maximum. Also, there should be a standardized method of dust

control for beef feedlots. Methods of dust control should be standardized with an enforceable menu or list of applicable options.”

Response

District is unaware of any “maximum inches of manure stockpile” in feedlot pens used in other regulations or any analysis indicating related PM10 dust control efficiency. (Also, w e are assuming that the commenter means manure thickness in the corral, not manure stockpile,

which is manure pushed into stockpiles for storage before removal or use.) Indeed, SCAQMD Rule 1127 included control options consistent with maintaining a minimum corral level of manure at least 3” to avoid dust emissions from the underlying soil.

In regards to t he rule needing a standardized method of dust control for beef feedlots, although the rule does not list specific options for controlling dust from the feedlots, the rule sets performance standards (“assuring Manure at all times is maintained at a moisture factor between 20% and 40%, in the top three inches in occupied pens”) in section B .1 that must be met in order to comply with the rule. Section E of the rule also specifies explicit procedures that are to be used in determining the moisture content of t he manure , and are thus an enforceable method of evaluating compliance with section B.1

.Page 3

Although such an approach could be used, t here are no regulatory requirements that we are aware of that a standardized method of dust control is required, either wit h our without a menu or list of applicable dust control options

. The rule requires that the moisture level be maintained between 20% and 40%, regardless of the amount of water required to maintain that level. On different days and on different lots, that may require more or less water which a “standardized” method may not capture. In conclusion, there is neither a regulatory requirement nor dust

control need for a “standardized” method.

V. COMMENT: ENFORCEMENT

“As referenced in the video identified on page one above, we question whether adequate enforcement “on the ground” is taking place. There are many instances that dust emissions exceed the opacity rule. Are there other enforcement mechanisms that USEPA can consider as BACM such as random inspections, increased funding or USEPA verification of the District’s enforcement program?”

Response (E

- mail from Reyes Romero to Christine Vineyard sent 9/28/2010)

Please be aware that the source identified in the video cited is no longer in operation at the

location

. According to the District’s investigation, after the feedlot site sustained heavy rains in the winter of 2009, a failure in the water runoff collection system occurred, which led to various pens being severely flooded. As a result, cattle were immediat ely evacuated from the site and

the feedlot has been inactive since the incident. Due to the nature of the site’s potential violations, this case was investigated by the appropriate agencies, the Imperial County Environmental Health Department and the Reg ional Water Control Board, as a potential health issue and not as an air quality matter. The District Permits which are issued to all cattle feedlot facilities contain conditions to ensure that the mitigation measures required are fully enforced. All per mitted sources are routinely inspected by the District’s Enforcement Division to determine compliance with permit conditions and ICAPCD Rules and Regulations. The District is responsible for air quality management activities and inspections within Imperia l County. The District employs twenty

- two full

- time employees, five of which make up the Enforcement

Division. With the current staff, the District is capable of fulfilling all permitting and compliance

duties. The District conducts unannounced inspecti ons to all permitted sources, including cattle feedlots, at a minimum annually, as required by the California Air Resources Board and the

USEPA. The annual inspections shall be at least a Level II inspection as defined in the Environmental Protection Agen cy’s Inspection Frequency Guidance (March 31, 1988). The District is currently implementing a Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) Plan, October 1,

2005

– September 30, 2011, which has been approved by the USEPA. This plan delineates the compliance act ivities that the District undertakes to implement the EPA’s revised Clean A ir Act Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy policy. This plan also requires the District to report to EPA the inspections conducted to maintain compliance with the CMS. In addition, the District carries out unannounced inspections in response to citizens complaints. District records demonstrate that inspectors respond and investigate all complaints within 24

hours of being reported.