Contract analysis

I. Purpose and Executive Summary The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze all public comments received during the two public notice and comment periods conducted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources ("IDNR") for (i) the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") air construction permit application and (ii) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") individual permit application, eac

II. Background on the Permitting Proceedings This section summarizes the key parameters of each permitting proceeding and the characteristics of the MEF to provide context for the comment analysis that follows. A. PSD Air Permit Application GAP filed its PSD air construction permit application with the IDNR Air Quality Bureau on April 28, 2023. The application was assigned to Jonathan Kreske, P.E., as the lead permit

III. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments — PSD Air Permit This section provides a detailed summary and analysis of each of the four public comments received during the PSD air permit public notice period (June 12 – July 12, 2023), together with recommended response approaches. Full copies of all comments are compiled in Attachment A. A. Comment 1: Neighboring Landowner — Particulate Matter Concerns Commenter. Thi

1. Reference the five-step top-down BACT analysis methodology employed in the application, consistent with EPA guidance;

2. Present the specific RBLC data and comparable permit limits for soybean processing facilities with natural gas-fired combustion units, demonstrating that the proposed 0.036 lb/MMBtu NOx limit is consistent with or more stringent than prevailing BACT determinations;

3. Summarize the cost-effectiveness analysis for SCR, demonstrating that SCR exceeds established cost-effectiveness thresholds for units of this type and size;

4. Address the PM₂.₅ BACT determination, referencing the 0.005 gr/dscf baghouse filter performance and the 0.0005% drift rate for cooling tower drift eliminators; and

5. Present the AERMOD modeling results demonstrating compliance with all PM₂.₅ NAAQS and PSD increments. With respect to the public hearing request, the response should note the small number and limited nature of comments received during the public notice period and explain that the written responsiveness summary process provides adequate opportunity for meaningful public participation and thorough agency review of t

IV. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments — NPDES Permit This section provides a detailed summary and analysis of each of the two public comments received during the NPDES permit public notice period (June 19 – July 19, 2023), together with recommended response approaches. Full copies of all comments are compiled in Attachment A. A. Comment 5: Heartland Environmental Alliance (HEA) — Public Hearing Request (NPDES)

1. Explain the proposed nutrient limits — Total Phosphorus 1.0 mg/L and NH₃-N 3.5/8.0 mg/L seasonal — and their derivation from Iowa water quality standards designed to protect receiving waters from nutrient impairment;

2. Describe the multi-stage treatment train and its effectiveness in producing high-quality effluent that meets or exceeds the proposed limits;

3. Address the irrigation concern by referencing the Class A1 use classification of Sweetland Creek, which encompasses protection of water quality for uses including irrigation, and the Tier 1 antidegradation determination, which ensures that existing uses — including agricultural irrigation — are maintained;

4. Note the proposed NPDES permit's monitoring requirements, which will include regular monitoring of effluent quality at Outfall 001 and reporting to IDNR, providing an ongoing mechanism for verification of compliance with all effluent limits; and

5. Express GAP's willingness to engage with downstream agricultural users and the community regarding the facility's operations and environmental performance. We should coordinate with Karen Ott of Pinnacle Environmental for receiving-water characterization data, including flow data for Sweetland Creek and downstream water quality information, to ensure that the response is supported by site-specific data. We should

V. Consolidated Recommended Response Strategy A. Response Priorities and Timeline The following table summarizes the recommended timeline for preparation and submission of written responses to IDNR: Both targeted permit issuance dates are well within the Briarwood permit milestone deadline of October 5, 2023. However, as noted in Section I, the buffer is not unlimited, and efficient management of the response process

1. Limited comment volume. Only six (6) total comments were received across both proceedings — four on the PSD air permit and two on the NPDES permit. This level of public participation, while not insignificant, does not demonstrate the "significant public interest" that would support the exercise of IDNR's discretion to convene a hearing under Iowa Administrative Code 567—Chapter 33 (air) or 567—Chapter 64 (water).

2. Adequacy of written response process. All comments received can be substantively and thoroughly addressed through written responses prepared by GAP and incorporated into the IDNR responsiveness summaries. The substantive issues raised — BACT adequacy, particulate matter impacts, odor, stormwater controls, antidegradation, nutrient limits, and irrigation concerns — are matters that lend themselves to written techni

3. Nature of HEA's hearing requests. HEA's hearing requests on both permits do not identify specific factual disputes requiring oral testimony or the procedural mechanisms available in a hearing but not in the written comment process. The requests are general in nature and, respectfully, appear to reflect a policy preference for heightened public engagement rather than a demonstration that the written process is inad

4. Schedule risk. While a public hearing would be unlikely, in our estimation, to push the permit issuance schedule past the October 5, 2023 Briarwood milestone deadline, it would create unnecessary schedule risk. Scheduling, conducting, and post-processing a public hearing typically adds four to six weeks to the permitting timeline. Given the financing implications of any delay, prudent risk management counsels agai

VI. Action Items and Next Steps The following action items summarize the next steps required to implement the response strategy recommended in this memorandum:

1. Cynthia Ho to prepare draft written responses to the four PSD air permit comments (Comments 1–4) for Rafael Dominguez's review. Target completion: July 24, 2023.

2. Cynthia Ho to prepare draft written responses to the two NPDES permit comments (Comments 5–6) for Rafael Dominguez's review. Target completion: July 26, 2023.

3. Rafael Dominguez to circulate the PSD air permit response drafts to Derek Yun (GAP) and Dr. Leonard Fisk (Pinnacle Environmental) for factual and technical verification. Target circulation: July 24, 2023; comments returned by July 27, 2023.

4. Rafael Dominguez to circulate the NPDES permit response drafts to Derek Y