1 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLU TION CONTROL DISTRICT

FINAL STAFF REPORT

REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4570 (CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES)

October 21, 2010

Prepared by: Sandra Lowe-Leset h, Air Quality Engineer Nichole Corless, Air Quality Specialist Anna Myers, Air Quality Specialist Katy Linebach, Air Quality Specialist Glenn Ramming, Air Quality Inspector Ramon Norman, Air Quality Engineer Jonah Aiyabei, Air Quality Engineer Sheraz Gill, Supervising Air Quality Engineer Leland Villalvazo, Supervising Air Quality Specialist Tom Busenbark, Supervising Air Quality Inspector Ellyce Baldwin, Supervisi ng Air Quality Inspector

Reviewed by: Jessi Fierro, S enior Air Quality Specialist Stephanie Hitchman, Senior Air Quality Specialist James Sweet, Senior Air Quality Specialist Joven Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer Errol Villegas, Strategy and Incentives Program Manager Scott Nester, Senior Projects Manager Morgan Lambert, Director of Compliance Samir Sheikh, Director of Strategies and Incentives

I. SUMMARY

In June of 2006, the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Valley Ai r Pollution Control District (District) adopted the most stringent emissions regulation for confined animal facilities (CAF) in the nation, District Ru le 4570. With Rule 4570, District staff established a comprehensive set of regulator y mitigation measures designed to reduce emissions from the various areas of CAFs, such as t he housing and manure management systems. The 2006 rule applies to commercial operations such as larger dairies, beef feedlot, poultry, swine, and ot her cattle facilities. The significant

commitment and investment from affected CAFs subject to Rule 4570 has resulting in emissions reductions exceeding the emissi ons reductions commitments for the rule

included in the District’s 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (for the federal 1-hour ozone standard).SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

2 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 The District is now seeking to amend Ru le 4570, as committed in the District’s 2007
Ozone Plan (for the federal 8-hour ozone standard)

. The proposed rule has undergone revision since the June 2010 draft, as staff ha s devoted extensive energy to evaluating and furthering science in the area of CAF -related emissions and potential mitigation measures. The District has worked closely with researchers and industry stakeholders, and this effort has yielded profound new information that has been incorporated into the revised amendments to the rule. In particular, scientific research has shed new light on dairy silage emissions and potential mitigatio n measures, and this research has been carefully considered in the Revised Proposed Rule 4570.

The Revised Proposed Rule 4570 would lower the applicability threshold limits to bring in major poultry sources and additional dai ry CAFs; tighten the mitigation measures; and improve rule enforceability by adding additional complianc e language, including monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping. Revised Proposed Rule 4570 exceeds Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirement s, even though the majority of the CAFs subject to the rule ar e not subject to RACT. The revised proposed

rule also exceeds the emission reducti on commitments contained in the District’s 2007
Ozone Plan.

At the June 17, 2010 public hear ing, the District Governing Board voted to continue the hearing to consider adoption of Rule 4570 until October, based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testimony and reques t. The continuance was intended to

allow more time for review and comment on the proposed rule. Since the June hearing, the District held multiple m eetings with EPA, stakeholders, and scientists. The District has worked closely with EPA and stakeholders to address all concerns and comments. The resulting rule revisions include a refini ng of menu measures as well as an increase in feasible, mandatory measures. The Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 and Final Staff Report has been br ought before the District’s Governing Board for public hearing and adoption on October 21, 2010.

A. REASONS FOR RULE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is nonattain ment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 8-hour ozone. The District’s 2007 Ozone Plan included a confined animal facilities control measure (S-AGR-2) to amend Rule 4570 to achieve additional volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions. The District’s analysis of the applicability, stringency, and enforceability of Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 demonstrates that this proposed rule w ould exceed the minimum requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (R ACT). Although VOC emissions contribute to ozone, VOC reductions are generally le ss important to t he Valley’s long-term attainment goals as compared to reductions in oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Development

of new Rule 4570 is intended to obtain as much VOC emissions reduction from the source category as is technologically and economically feasible, as determined by the District's Governing Board.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

3 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 Since amending Rule 4570 is a cont rol measure in the District’s 2007 Eight-Hour Ozone

Plan , it is subject to Code of Federal R egulations (CFR), Clean Air Act (CAA), and California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) requirements. It should be noted that unlike the previous version of the rule, this rule amendment project is not subject to the requirements of California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) 40724.6. This rulemaking project is intended to support the a ttainment goals of the District’s 2007 Eight-Hour

Ozone Plan . The proposed amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) will seek to obtain as much reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from confined animal facilities as is expeditiously pr acticable, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable, as determined by the District’s Governing Board. Furthermore, the rule is intended to satisfy the ozone plan commitments as identified in

Table 1.

Table 1 – Ozone Plan Commitments Subject Reference Requirement

Timeline CAA Section 172(c)(1) Ozone attainment plans shall implement control measures as expeditiously as practicable, and provide for attainment.

RACT CAA Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) Ozone attainment plans shall assure that reasonably available control technology (RACT) for NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) is in use at sources and on source categories at or above the RACT

threshold.

BARCT CH&SC 40919(a)(3) Ozone attainment plans should provide for

best available retrofit technology (BARCT) for existing permitte d sources.

All Feasible

Controls CH&SC 40914(b)(2) Ozone attainment plans should include "all

feasible control measures."

Deadline District 2007 Eight-Hour

Ozone Plan Rule adoption by the second quarter of

2010.

Reductions District 2007 Eight-Hour

Ozone Plan The plan commits to 6.7 tons per day of VOC reductions in 2012 and 22.9 tons per day of VOC reductions in 2023.

District Rule 4570 is a VOC rule, and therefor e underwent a RACT analysis as a part of

the 2009 RACT Demonstration for Oz one State Implementation Plan analysis. CAA Section 182(b) (2) states that ozone attainment plans shall assure that RACT for VOC is applied at certain sources. A RACT analys is requires an examination of three broad elements: applicability, stringency, and enf orceability. These elements must beSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

4 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 examined against Federal rules, regulations, and technology guidelines, as well as comparing it against rules from other Districts in California.

The District believes that this proposed rule exceeds RACT. A detailed RACT analysis will be provided to the District’s Governi ng Board before the Oc tober 21, 2010 Board hearing.

The California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 40914(b) (2) requires the District to adopt ozone attainment plans that include “all feasible control measures”. The California Air Resource Board (ARB) inte rprets “all feasible control measures” to mean that, at a minimum, a district shoul d consider regulations that have been successfully implemented else where. They should also consider going beyond what has already been accomplished by evaluation of new technologies and innovative approaches that may offer potent ial emission reductions. Further, districts should consider not only technological factors, but also social, environmental, economic (e.g., cost effectiveness), and energy factors which prevail in the district, along with the resources realistically available to the district to adopt, implement, and enforce the measures.” Therefore, t hese amendments will consider other rules to address all

feasible measures and RACT.

B. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

As part of the comprehensive rule developm ent process, a public scoping meeting was

held in March 2009. Comments received as a result of the sc oping meeting were evaluated and, as appropriate, incorporat ed into proposed rule provisions.

District staff conducted a public workshop to present the rule amendments and seek comments from the public. A socioeconomic focus group was held immediately after the workshop to outline the socioeconomic process and solicit economic information

from stakeholders. Public co mments and cost information received were incorporated into the Final Staff Report and proposed rule amendments. District staff also held multiple technical meetings as requested by stakeholders.

The Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 and Final Draft Staff Report were brought before the District’s Governing Boar d for public hearing and adoption on June 17, 2010. However, the District’s Governing Board decided to continue the hearing until the October Governing Board hearing based on testimony heard from the EPA to allow

more time to review an d comment on the rule.

Since the June hearing, the District held we ekly conference calls with EPA to discuss the rule in more detail and address outstanding concerns. The District also coordinated multiple meetings with EPA and dairy stakehol ders, as well as environmental groups, stakeholders and silage experts. These meetings provided valuable information regarding current practices, new scientific info rmation and concerns from all view points. The District also held additional meetings with stakeholders representing each type ofSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

5 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 CAF to gain a better understanding of the diffe rent operations. The District has worked closely with the EPA and stakeholders to address all concerns and comments. The Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 457 0 and Final Draft Staff Report will be brought before the District’s Governing Board for public hearing and adoption on October 21, 2010.

II. CURRENT RULE 4570

Current Rule 4570, as adopted in June 2009, limits VOC emissions from large CAFs through mitigation measures that target eac h major aspect of CAF operations, from feed to housing to manure management to land app lication. Operators must choose a specified number of limited, management practice menu m easures for each operation.

The current rule is available at < http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4570.pdf >.

III. SUMMARY OF RULE AMENDMENTS

Recently completed emissions studies at Ca lifornia dairies have indicated that dairy feed (primarily due to silage) is the most si gnificant source of VOC emissions at dairy operations. These studies have shown that VOC emissions from open surfaces of silage piles and the silage-containing total mix ed rations (TMR) placed as feed for cattle have significantly higher VOC flux rates t han other sources and account for the majority of total VOC emissions measured at dairy facilities. These studies have also indicated

that the feed VOC emissions are dominated by alcohols , primarily ethanol. The proposed rule amendments will st rengthen the current mitigati on measures included in

the rule for feed sources and will include new additional requirements and management practices to reduce emissions of alcohols and total VOCs from this important source
category.

However, the opposite has been found to be true for CAF operations that feed a nonsilage based diet. A letter received from Dr. Mitloehener in regar ds to an emissions study on manure, enteric, and feed emissions, states that emissions from calf and

feedlot cattle feed were not detected. Since all of the feedlot and calf operations feed dry grains and hay, which does not include silage, then it will be assumed that

emissions from the feed from t hese facilities are negligible. The results from this study

can also be transferred to all other facilitie s that feed a dry grain to their animals. A review of swine and poultry facilities found that the feed also consists of dry grain with very low moisture content. Therefore, a ll mitigation measures related to emissions directly from the feed have been removed from t he rule for all CAFs except dairies. A silage category however either remains or has been added under most CAFs in case silage is fed to the animals at these CAFs. Where silage is fed, those facilities would have to comply with the applicable silage miti gation measures to ensure that emissions are being controlled.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

6 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 The proposed rule amendments also go beyond t he current rule in multiple aspects. Definitions and measure-specific testi ng and monitoring information have been added for clarification and increased enforceability. The threshold has been lowered for dairies and poultry in order to achieve additional emission reductions.

For clarity, the requirement s tables for each CAF have been split into Phase I and Phase II mitigation measures. Phase I miti gation measures are those applicable to facilities currently subject to Rule 4570. P hase II tables include mitigation measures applicable to facilities that would be subj ect to Rule 4570 under the proposed regulatory threshold. The table of mitigation measures would be amended to require more measures, as well as make current meas ures more stringent. Some mitigation measures have been refined to provide clarity. Mitigation measures from all categories of CAFs, which were determined not to be as effective as other measures, not technologically feasible or cost effective, were removed from rule language. Many of

the tables have been revised and enhanced to specify mandated measures in high emission source categories such as feed, silage and housing while still maintaining flexibility to accommodate the variability of individual operators and facilities.

The following is a summary of proposed am endments to each type of CAF mitigation

measures:

A. Dairies

• The regulatory threshold has been changed fr om 1,000 milking cows to 500 milking

cows.

• Additional mitigation measur es proposed, primarily for silage. The new mitigation

measures would reduce VOC emissions through a combination of compaction standards, silage quality, and face and pile size management.

• Current mitigation measures would be made more stringent by making some measures mandatory for feed an d housing mitigation measures.

• One requirement applied different frequency for medium dairies (greater than or equal to 500 milking cows), and large dairi es (greater than or equal to 1,000 milking cows)

• The solid manure handling table would app ly only to large dairy CAFs, as is required in the current rule.

B. Beef Feedlots and Other Cattle Operations

• Additional mitigation measur es proposed, primarily for silage. The new mitigation

measures would reduce VOC emissions through a combination of compaction standards, silage quality, and fa ce and pile size management.

• Current control requirements would be ma de more stringent with multiple required measures as well as more frequent monitoring.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

7 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 C. Swine

• Mitigation measures would be adjusted from optional lists of potential measures to a mandatory list of required measures.

D. Poultry

• In order to clarify rule requirement s and address EPA concerns regarding poultry mitigation measures, the poultry section would be divided into Layer operations, and Broiler/Duck/Turkey operations.

• Mitigation measures would be adjusted fr om an optional list of potential measures to mandatory list of required measures.

E. Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring requirements would be added to Section 6.0 of the rule to enforce the proposed changes to the mitigation measures in the rule.

F. Administrative Requirements

Recordkeeping requirements would be added, amended, and expanded to detail the records for each mitigation measure, ensuring that mitigation measures are utilized on a regular basis.

G. Compliance Schedule

Owners/operators of facilities subject to the proposed amendments would be required to submit permit applications by April 21, 2011 and full compliance with Phase II would be required within one year after either the Auth ority to Construct or the Permit to Operate is issued, whichever is earlier. Owners/oper ators of new or modified facilities that become subject to the rule under the new proposed regulatory thresholds would be required to comply with Phase II requirements.

IV. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 created a comprehensive, multiyear program to reduce green hous e gas (GHG) emissions in California, with the goal of restoring emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In the coming year s, the ARB and the Legislature will be developing policies and program s to implement Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). There are many win-win strategies that can reduce both GHG and criteria/toxic pollutant emissions. However, the Distr ict’s primary mission remains to achieve attainment with air qualit y standards to protect public health . Therefore, when situations that involve tradeoffs between GHG and criteria or toxic pollutants arise, the District will give precedence to reducing criteria or to xic pollutant emissions due to the moreSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

8 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 immediate public health concerns associated with such pollutants. A detailed analysis is included in the CEQA Negative Declaration for this rule.

V. SOURCE CATE GORY BACKGROUND

Confined animal facilities (CAF) are used in the raising of livestock for the purpose of providing dairy products, meat, and eggs. Due to the different methods of confinement and associated manure managem ent, there is no typical CAF. The design and operation of a CAF varies depending on anima l type, regional climatic conditions, business practices, and preferenc es of the operators.

The raising of livestock (livestock agriculture) has gone through significant changes since the 1990s. The size of all types of livestock agriculture farms continues to increase. Today, meat and dairy products ty pically originate on farms whose herds of cattle or hogs, or flocks of chickens are much larger than in the past. A big driver in the structural change in livestock agriculture is increased productivity and, through that, lower production costs to t he farmer. These lower production costs are passed on to the consumer as lower prices for meat, dairy products, and eggs. However, to maintain competitiveness with similar facilities located in other non-regulated states, many of the additional regulatory costs are absorbed by the facilities without the cost being passed

on to consumers.

One example of the shift to large-scale produc tion is the dairy industry. Nationally, only about 10% of all dairy cows were housed on farms with more than 1,000 head in 1992. By 2007, that ratio rose to 36% of all dairy cows. The shift to ve ry-large dairies (1,000+ head) had its origin in California and other western states. Looking at California specifically, the state has become the largest producer of milk in the nation. The eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley are all in the top-ten Californ ia counties for milk production, with Tulare County heading the lis t. Tulare County alone produced almost as much milk as the entire state of Pennsyl vania; the state ranked number five on the 2007 list of top milk-producing st ates. Tulare County was also well ahead of Minnesota, the sixth largest m ilk producing state.

For livestock agriculture, evidence to-date su ggests that production costs fall as the farm size increases up to some threshold level. The lar gest dairy farms (1,000+ head) have production costs that ar e 15% lower than the next largest size class (500-999 head). Production costs then level out, suggesti ng that there is no unique optimal dairy size above 1,000 cows. For example, dai ries with 2,000 cows have average costs similar to dairies with 1,000 cows.

Other types of livestock agriculture have also increased their average farm size. Production cost-saving for larger dairy operations is also true of layers (chickens raised to lay eggs), broilers (chickens raised fo r meat), pork and beef producers. Nationally, the median production of bro ilers (50% larger and 50% sma ller) is 600,000 broilers perSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

9 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 year. In 2002, the median pr oduction was 520,000. Active District permits echo this

national trend.

A. Dairy Operations

For this description, dairy operations are defined as those operations producing milk or animals for facilities that produce milk. In or der to produce milk, the cows must be bred and give birth. Typically, the gestation perio d for dairy cattle is nine months and dairy cows are bred again approximatel y four months after calving. Milk production typically peaks shortly after calving and then declines. Commonly a cow will produce milk for ten to twelve months and then be dry approximatel y two months. Thus, a dairy operation may have several types of animal groups pres ent including heifers, lactating cows, dry cows, calves, and bulls (for breeding purposes). Approximately 25% of a milking herd is replaced each year, but replacement levels can be as high as 40% for intensively managed herds (EPA 2001).

Calves are typically housed in individual pens or hutches. Older animals are typically housed in freestall barns, dry lots, tie stalls /stanchions, or any combination of the

aforementioned. The freestall barn is the predominant type of housing system used on dairy farms for lactating cows . In a freestall barn, cows are housed in large pens with free access to feed bunks, waterers, and stalls for resting. Standard freestall barns have a feed alley along the center, wit h one feed bunk on each side. The feed bunks are separated from the housing sections of the barn by stanchions. Animals stand on a feed lane directly behind the stanchions during feeding. Majority of the animal excretions are deposited on this feed lane. Animals stand on the corral side of the feed lane to eat; this is where the majority of the anim al excretion occurs. In some cases, cows may be confined in or have access to corrals. Corrals are typically fenced in areas that may have shade. Corral confinem ents are similar to beef feedlots described later in this report. Tie stalls/stanchions are common on smaller dairy farms and older facilities. In this type of housing system, co ws are confined in a stall for feeding, but have access to a dry lot or pasture for ex ercise. A mechanically or manually cleaned gutter is located behind each row of stalls for manure collectio n and removal.

Feeding and watering practices vary for each animal type. In general, calves are nursed for four to five days after birth. Calves are t hen fed a milk replacement until weaning, which generally occurs at about eight weeks of age. During this period, a grain-based starter diet is introduced. This starter diet is fed to calves until they are approximately three months old. At approximately th ree months, calf rumen development allows a shift to a roughage-based diet.

Older cattle and calves being raised for m ilk production are commonly fed a roughagebased diet. The principal constituents of t hese diets are corn or grain sorghum silage and legume or grass and legume hays with f eed grains and byproduct foodstuff added in varying amounts to satisfy energy, protei n, and other nutrient requirements. The manure tends to be generated in a semi-s olid state (liquid to slurry).SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

10 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 Manure with a total solid content of 10% or le ss can be handled as a liquid. In slurry or liquid systems, the manure is flus hed from alleys or pits to a st orage facility. Typically, effluent from the solid separation system or supernatant from a pond or an anaerobic lagoon is used as flush water in animal housi ng. The supernatant is the clear liquid in the lagoon that is overlying the solids that settle below. Da iry manure that is handled and stored as a slurry or liquid may be mi xed with dry manure. Liquid systems are common in large dairies due to their lower labor costs and ease of use with automatic flushing systems. Manure handled as solid s can be removed by mechanized scraping systems, a tractor, or a chain scraper. Typi cally, the solid manure scraped is stock piled and dried for disposal through land applicat ion or used as bedding for the cows.

B. Beef Cattle Feeding Operations

This animal sector includes adult beef cattl e (heifers and steers). Beef cattle may spend all, part, or none of their lives on a CAF. There are three types of operations in the beef industry: cow-calf operations , backgrounding operat ions, and finishing operations. These operations are typically conducted at separate locations that specialize in each phase of production, but may occur at a single location.

Cow-calf operations are a source of heifers and steers fed for slau ghter. These animals are fed primarily hay with some grain and ot her foodstuff. Backgrounding or stocker operations prepare weaned calves for finishi ng. The backgrounding process is highly dependent on feed prices. Typically the animals are fed the lowest priced feed at the time, which may be forages or crop residues, with the objective of building muscle and

bone mass at a low cost. The duration of t he backgrounding process may be from thirty (30) days to six (6) months old. Typicall y, high grain prices favor longer periods of backgrounding by reducing feed costs for finish ing or fattening. Af ter approximately 150 to 180 days, animals in finishing operations will reach slaughter we ights of 1,050 to 1,250 pounds. However, some feedlots star t with younger or ol der cattle and the finishing cycle may be less than 100 days or over 270 days. Accordingly, feedlots typically have between 1.5 to 3.5 cattle turnovers per year.

In any case, animals are typically segr egated by production st age in pens with feed truck access. The animals are typically f ed two to three times per day using feed bunks located along feed alleys that separate the individual pens.

For these types of operations, the manur e is commonly handled as a solid. Solid manure is typically scraped or moved by tracto rs to stockpiles. Manure accumulates in areas around feed bunks and water troughs most r apidly, thus these areas may need to be cleaned during the finisher cycle.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

11 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 C. Other Cattle Operations

The phrase “other cattle operations” is a catch-a ll for cattle CAFs that are not dairies or beef feedlots. Types of cattle operations that fit in this category are heifer ranches and calf ranches. Dairy calf or heifer ranches are facilities that raise young female dairy animals to maturity. Details of animal ownership vary depending on the operation. When the cow is mature enough to breed, she is moved to a dairy, then either inseminated or put with a bull for breeding. Afte r a calf is born, it is shipped to a dairy calf ranch or heifer ranch; the now-mature cow goes “into production” at the dairy and the cycle begins again.

D. Swine Operations

The production cycle for hogs has three phases: farrowing, nursing, and finishing. The first phase begins with breeding and gesta tion over a 114-day period followed by farrowing (giving birth). After farrowing, t he newly born pigs or piglets normally are nursed for a period of three to four weeks until they reach a weight of approximately ten to fifteen pounds. Typically, there are from ni ne to eleven pigs per litter. Sows can be bred again within a week after a litter is weaned. Sows normally weigh 400 to 460 pounds and produce five to six litters bef ore they are sold for slaughter.

Weaned pigs are fed a starter ra tion until they reach a weight of approximately 40 to 50 pounds. At this point, they are typically eight to ten weeks of age. Then the animals are fed a growing and finally a finishing ra tion until they are approximately 240 to 280 pounds at which point they are approximat ely 26 weeks of age and ready for slaughter. The diet varies, but it typically includes sma ll grains such as wheat and barley, corn and soybean meal.

The animals are typically housed in confi nement buildings that are either totally enclosed or open-sided with curtains. Tota lly enclosed facilities are mechanically ventilated throughout the year . Open-sided buildings are naturally ventilated the majority of the year, but may be mechanicall y ventilated when the curtains are closed due to weather conditions. Manure may be fl ushed from the floor of the housing or fall through slats in the floor to a pit underneath the floor.

E. Poultry Operations

Poultry facilities operate either as layer r anches for egg production or as broiler ranches where birds are grown for the fresh meat market. Poultry facilities, called ranches in reference to their specialized operation, ma y consist of one or more farms on properties that may be several miles apart. Several barn-like houses may make up a farm. A chicken layer house may have over 100,000 layers; a typical chicken broiler house contains approximately 20,000- 25,000 birds; and a typical turkey broiler house contains approximately 10,000 birds at any one time.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

12 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 In the United States, approxim ately 61% of the chicken layer houses and a majority of the breeder and broiler houses use power ventila tion instead of natural ventilation. The most common type of power ventilation is tunnel ventilation. In tunnel-ventilated houses, all the fans are clustered at one end of the house and the fans push the air to

the other end of the house. Curtains on the houses may be used on a non-routine basis for ventilation, particularly during colder weather.

Studies indicate that most chicken layer houses produce approximately two cubic yards of waste per week per five hundred chickens . Although a small amount of liquid manure may occur from egg washing operations loca ted on the facility and a small amount of bedding may be collected as waste, poultry excr etions account for a majority of the waste. Typically, hens are confined in a la yer house that consists of many layer boxes positioned above the ground. Layer facilities remove manure, rangi ng from one to three times per year (every 17 to 52 weeks).

In broiler facilities, comple te litter removal from the house occurs one to two times per year. Litter removal generally occurs every third flock but can be as high as every 7 flocks. Before introducing a new flock, the h ouse is left empty, typically for five days. During this interlude, the operator adjusts t he temperature and other ambient conditions

in the house. In the broiler industry, the new flocks of birds are brought into the houses as chicks are raised for approximately 45 da ys, until they reach the desired weight. Shortly thereafter, the grow n birds are removed and the house is again left empty for approximately five days to sanitize. This approximately 55-day cycle is the production period for one flock. Depending on management practices, litter production ranges from 0.5 to 0.7 pounds per pound of live bird weight.

Poultry excretions and bedding materials, such as rice hulls, are removed either by scraping or by flushing. In a scrape system, the litter is eit her swept or scraped from the house into a pile or piles outside the house. Typically, concerns about transmitting diseases among birds and flocks necessitate trucking the scraped litter offsite shortly after removal. The liquid hand ling system is similar to dair y flush systems. However, less than 15% of the poultry operations in the San Joaquin Vall ey use liquid manure handling systems.

VI. EVALUATION OF THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION

When Rule 4570 was originally a dopted in 2006, the research available at the time of adoption pointed to handling of solid and liq uid animal wastes as being the largest sources of VOC emissions at a dairy. Distric t staff has made extensiv e efforts to review and advance dairy emission-related research. Recent dairy emission research studies performed under the District, other inte rested agencies, and stakeholders have significantly increased knowledge of dairy em issions and have also shed some light on potential strategies to r educe these emissions. The studies have been performed on California dairies and reflect current dairy prac tices. In contrast to the earlier focus onSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

13 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 other sources, the current research indicate s that silage piles and placing feed in the feed bunkers are a larger porti on of the total dairy emissi ons than solid/liquid manure handling. The District is in the process of fi nalizing a revised dairy emission factor to

reflect the new information. The draft em ission factor and supporting staff report is attached in Appendix H.

Important findings of the latest dairy research studies include:

• Manure storage ponds and lagoons, which were previously thought to be a major source of VOC emissions at dairies, now appear to emit a comparatively small fraction of the overall dairy VOC emissions;

• Feed at dairies is a significant source of VOC emissions. The exposed faces of silage piles that are used to store and pr eserve silage to be fed to the cattle and the total mixed ration placed in lanes fo r cattle consumption emit significant amounts of VOCs, particularly alcohols.

• Emissions of alcohols (primarily ethanol ) from feed, fresh manure, and directly from cows appear to comprise a signific ant fraction of dairy VOC emissions;

• Manure deposited in open corrals appears to be an important source of VOC emissions on some dairies;

• Emissions of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) are important but not as significant as previously estimated during the District’s first revision of the dairy VOC emissions factor;

• The practice of flushing freestall bar ns more frequently has the potential to

reduce VOC emissions fr om cow housing areas.

• Several of the compounds that have been identified as impor tant components of dairy emissions, such as alcohols and volati le fatty acids, are highly soluble in aqueous solutions. This property may be important when developing potential mitigation strategies.

• Land application of solid and liquid dairy manure contributes a relatively small amount to total VOC emissions at dairy.

• Seasonal variation in emissions may be an important factor to consider when developing annual emission estimates. The seasonal variation in emission rates was observed to be more pronounced with ammonia emissions than VOC

emissions.

A VOC emission study was also conducted for California feedlot cattle and calves. This study is not as extensive as the VOC emission studies that have been conducted at dairies but will still provide impor tant information on emissions from other cattle facilities. The study evaluated enteric (emissions direct ly from the cattle), fresh waste, and feed emissions from the various types and ages of cattle. Although the study was completed over a year ago, the results are current ly undergoing peer review with the publishing journal’s peer review committee and t he complete results have not yet been made

available to the District. In order to provide a better understanding of the emissions from these facilities, Dr. Fr ank Mitloehner, the principle researcher for the study, submitted a letter (attached in Appendix I) sharing his overa ll findings. The results ofSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

14 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 the emissions data for these animals were all below the detection limits of the

instrumentation used to meas ure the emissions. Since t he diet of these types of animals is completely different from dairy co ws, consisting of dry grains, it is expected

that the emissions from these animals and t he feed would be far lower or negligible in the case of dry feed. Although this lette r cannot be used to develop an emission factor for these sources, it does provide valuab le information for use in tailoring mitigation measures to those facilities/sources that have a larger emissions profile, such as dairy and silage type feed.

VII. EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

The majority of VOC emissions from c onfined animal operations are fugitive (evaporation of VOC from feed or waste, for example) or related to gaseous emissions generated directly from livestock (enteric). The fugitive nature of the emissions from agricultural sources including large amount s of land area imposes challenges and limitations on the types of c ontrols that can be feasibly applied to reduce emissions. Unlike other stationary sources, where t he majority of emissions are collected and released through a chimney, pipe, vent, or sta ck, emissions from agricultural sources are spread out over large areas and are very dilute at the point of release. These emissions cannot reasonably be c aptured at the point of rel ease since capture of these

emissions would entail m onumental changes, which have not yet been developed and are likely infeasible, to the methods that ar e currently used for agricultural production. Rule 4570 groups CAF emission sources into five areas: feed /feed storage, animal housing, solid waste handling, liquid waste handling, an d land application of animal wastes. In this way, all of the major emission sources within a given CAF are included in the control requirements. Within each area, rather than c apture fugitive emissions at the point of release, Rule 4570 provides for management practices that minimize the formation of VOCs or control VOCs by movi ng the VOC-forming materi al to a controlled situation. Some examples of mitigati on measures are feed manipulation, frequent scraping of animal housing, and covering of silage piles.

Management practices are not the only way t hat VOC emissions can be controlled. Owner/operators may have insta lled control technology to meet water standards or to reduce nuisance complaints from neighbors. These controls are expensive, both in terms of capital outlay and in terms of on-going operating and main tenance costs. However, they provide a high level of VOC control. Rather than penalize an operator who installs these controls by requiring that the mitigation meas ure be implemented in addition to the costly control technology , Rule 4570 allows the owner/operator to replace a mitigation measure with the adv anced control technology under Alternative Mitigation Measures. In this way the emi ssions from the facility are reduced beyond what is required in the rule. Select mitigat ion measures are discussed in more detail in Appendix E of this report.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

15 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 VIII. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4570

District Rule 4570 generally limits VOC emi ssions from large CAFs through required implementation of various management practices. Each major aspect of CAF operations is covered – from food to housing to manure management to land application. Operators must choose a certain number of management practices from a

limited table of measur es for each operation.

The following paragraphs detail the specific changes proposed by District staff to strengthen individual portions of the rule.

A. Menu Approach

As stated previously, the design and operation of a CAF varies depending on animal type, regional climatic conditions, busi ness practices, and preferences of the owners/operators resulting in no typical CAF. As in t he current rule, the proposed amendments to Rule 4570 genera lly provide a list of mitigation measures for affected owners/operators. This ack nowledges that not all faciliti es can implement the same management practices due to infrastructure , conditional use permits, water board permits, soil types, production contracts, and other limitations. It also enables the owners and operators, who under stand their particular operat ion best, to choose the mitigation measures that make the best environmental and economic sense for their facility.

A menu approach provided much needed flexibility for the variability of Valley operations. Each measure has now been reevaluated to minimize measures addressing the same source and clarify any exclusive mitigat ion measures or those that address the same source. Many mitigation measures have also been mandated for the various CAFs. Any additional mitigation measures that rema in to be chosen from have been justified by technological infeasibility, discuss below, or a quantitative analysis in Appendix C. Allowing for so me additional measures rather than specifically mandating all requirements allows the flex ibility for producers to select measures that will work best for their facility based on their own type of housing, manure management practices, and feed storage and management while minimizing their compliance costs and achieving

the same emission reductions. The measures listed in the additional categories are all considered to be equally effective at reduc ing emissions from t he specific source category, but cannot be mandated at every facility. Also, in some cases, the choices would be mutually exclusive, meaning that selecting one meas ure would eliminate implementing the other management practices in that section. For example, lagoons can be either phototropic or anaerobic, but not both.

Based on the revised cost estimate in Appendix C, dairies wil l spend $61,312,210 annually, at $6,695 per ton of reduction, to co mply with the proposed rule revisions. This is a significant cost to bear to im plement the rule. The emission reductions achieved by the measures included in the proposed rule are already projected toSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

16 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 exceed the reductions required from this ru le in the District’s attainment plan. Mandating additional requirements would resu lt in increased compliance costs which will have a detrimental economic impact on the industry and go far beyond RACT and BARCT requirements. Appendi x C has a more detailed di scussion about each individual

additional measure.

For clarity, the tables for each CAF have bee n split into Phase I and Phase II mitigation measures. Phase I mitigation measures ar e those applicable to facilities currently subject to Rule 4570. Phase II tables includes increased requirements for some facilities currently subject to Rule 4570, as well as mitigation measures applicable to facilities that would be subject to Rule 4570 under the proposed regulatory threshold.

Stakeholders have provided information to support specified control management practices that are feasible but not yet implemented by all facilities.

B. Section 3.0 – Definitions

In this section, 20 definitions woul d be added. The new definitions are:

Biofilter Mature Cow Proc essed Cereal Grain or

Processed Corn

Cereal Grains Medium Dairy Rain Event Composting Nursery Pig Split-Sex Feeding Program Dry Rolled Corn Oxygen Barrier F ilm Steam Flaked Cereal Grains

Feedlanes Phase Feeding Steam Flaked Corn High Moisture Corn Poultry Molt Swine Large CAF Poultry Litter

Biofilters can be used to reduc e VOC emissions in certain si tuations. The definition for large CAF is taken from the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 86500. The purpose of the definition is to improve reader clarity, especially with respect to CAFs that would be new to control require ments. The purpose for adding the medium dairy CAFs definition to the rule is to reduc e the wordiness of certain rule provisions. Definitions for the remaining items were added to provide clarity and more specification in the control requirement tables.

Several definitions have been modified. Wo rding has been added to the definitions for

standards from the Natural Resource Conser vation Service California Field Office to make clear which specific document is being referenced. Animal waste has been changed to litter or manure throughout the rule language as requested by a commenter at the workshop and for a more appropriate characterization.

The definitions for aerated st atic pile and emission miti gation plan have had language removed. The removed language in these def initions was actually requirements for these items. Section 5 is the appropriate place for requirements; however, the language removed from the tw o definitions is redundant to Section 5 requirements.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

17 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 C. Section 4.0 – Exemptions

The regulatory threshold, meaning the mini mum number of animals that trigger the control requirements of the ru le (mitigation measures) are listed in Table 2 below. Stated another way, if the number of animals at the facility is, at all times, below the

number of animals listed in T able 2, the facility would not be required to implement applicable mitigation measures. The operator would, however, be required to show that the facility continues to qualify for the ex emption by keeping adequate records of the number of animals at the facility.

The regulatory threshold is being lower ed for dairy, chicken, and duck operations. These changes will subject additional facilitie s to the rule and therefore, provide additional emission reductions. Beef feedlots, other cattle, swine and other categories will remain at the same threshold given a minimal number of additional facilities that would be added, if any at all.

Table 2 – Proposed Re gulatory Thresholds

Livestock Category Current Regulatory Threshold Proposed Regulatory Threshold
Dairy 1,000 milking cows 500 milking cows

Beef Feedlots 3,500 beef cattle 3,500 beef cattle

Other Cattle Facility 7,500 calves, heifers, or

other cattle 7,500 calves, heifers, or other

cattle Poultry Facilities

Chicken 650,000 head 400,000 head

Duck 650,000 head 400,000 head Turkey 100,000 head 100,000 head Swine Facility 3,000 head 3,000 head Horses Facility 3,000 head 3,000 head

Sheep and Goat

Facilities 15,000 head of sheep, goats, or any combination

of the two 15,000 head of sheep, goats, or any combination of the two

Any livestock facility

not listed above 30,000 head 30,000 head

D. Class Two Mitigation Measures

The current rule contains options for fa cilities to implement certain “Class Two” mitigation measures that may have the potential to achieve increased emission reductions when compared to t he required “Class One” miti gation measures. The Class Two mitigation measures are practices t hat are beyond the requi rements of RACT andSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

18 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 BARCT. These measures were included in the rule to give credit to operators who have

made substantial investments in facilities and equipment that result in air quality benefits equivalent to or great er than those achieved by one of the Class One mitigation measures and to encourage operators to go beyond the basic rule requirements and implement innovative practices to further redu ce emissions. However, these measures cannot be reasonably mandated because of a va riety of concerns including animal health, technological factors, environmental factors, and economic feasibility. The technological and economic feasibility of various selected Class Two mitigation measures are analyzed to more clearly illustrate that it is not currently feasible to require facilities to implement these measures. A detailed analysis of Class Two measures is included in Appendix E.

E. Section 5.0 Requirements

In the current rule, some of the requirements related to facility mitigation plans and permits are located later in the rule. Dis trict staff is proposi ng that all of the requirements be located at the beginning of Section 5.0 and grouped by subject matter.

District operating permits would be required fo r all facilities that are at or above the regulatory threshold. All CAFs that are at or above the regulatory threshold would also be required to have a facility emission miti gation plan and to submit enough information to allow District staff to estimate the emissions from the CAF. Previously, the rule stated facilities may demonstrate 30% reductions in lieu of a mitigation plan. District staff proposes that facilitie s should demonstrate equivalent facility-wide reductions in place of a mitigation plan. This ensures t hat projected emission reductions would occur regardless of the emission control approach.

The sub-sections for temporary suspension of mitigation measures and the sub-section for induced poultry molt have been combined in to one. Since the reporting and records requirements were essentially the same, having two different sections for the suspension of mitigation measures was redundant.

District staff is proposing to retain that an op erator would be required to implement all of the mitigation measures withi n 365 days of receiving an Authority-to-Construct or Permit-to-Operate, whichever is sooner. An implementation time of one year would allow the District adequate time to provide much needed compliance assistance through new operator outreach, seminars, and mult i-language informational materials to new regulated CAF operators. In addi tion, it would allow operators to make the necessary changes to their facilities to comply with the rule. The 365-day allotment was also originally required duri ng the previous rule.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

19 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 F. Dairy CAF Mitigation Measures

Dairy operations can be divided into six func tional processes: feed/feed storage, silage, milk parlor, animal housing (freestalls and co rrals), solid/liquid waste handling, and land application. Rule 4570 echoes these divi sions and requires operators to implement a certain number of management practices (mitigation meas ures) for each functional process to control VOC emissions.

Due to a larger variability in operations with m edium size dairies, some distinctions have been made between the number and frequency of mitigation measures to be implemented for medium and large dairy CA Fs. Medium size dairies will have to implement all of the mitigati on measures listed for the la rge dairies except for the frequency for removing manure from freestall beds. Medium dairies would be required to clean the freestall beds at the current level of once every 14 days, whereas the large dairies would be required to clean once each week. Also, only large dairy CAFs would be subject to the solid manure section due to feasibility and potentia l cost, as described

in further detail below.

1. Dairy Feed Mitigation Measures

As discussed earlier, recent research studi es about the operationa l source of dairy

VOCs have demonstrated that the total mixed ra tions are a significant source of VOCs. Therefore, four measures will be mandated for all dairy CAFS and operators will choose one additional mitigation meas ure from three measures:

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

(1) Feed according to NRC guidelines.

The NRC guidelines are geared to supply the exact blend and quantity of nutrients needed by the animals with the minimum being ex creted and lost to the environment. One significant group of compounds that can be excreted is starch. Starch, in the presence of oxygen and certain aerobic bact eria, will be food for the bacteria, which then break down starch molecules to simple r compounds, most of which are VOCs. Strategies which minimize starch in t he manure, therefore, will help minimize the emission of VOCs. This mitigation measure is required for all dairy CAFs because the guidelines have been recently updated to reflect the latest scientific information about

the efficient conversion of feed to milk without endangering t he health of the cow. By feeding only the nutrients necessary, the excr etion of material that could serve as a substrate for VOC-producing reactions is minimized and the potential for VOC emissions in manure-handling operations after feedi ng would also be reduced.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

20 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (2) Push feed within 3 feet of feedlane fence.

This is a new measure added to the rule . The measure reduces emissions by minimizing the surface area of the feed bunker.

(3) Begin feeding TMR within 2 hour s of grinding and mixing.

The timeframe for feeding TMR was reduced from 48 hours to 2 hours to reflect recent

information that shows that feed emissions occur within the first 12-24 hours after the feed is put into the feed lane.

(4) Store grain in a weatherproof structur e or covering, October through May.

Although dry grains are not expected to have any emissions associated, there is a potential for secondary emissions to occur fr om the decomposition of wet grain due to heavy rain events. Therefore, this measure requires that dry grain be covered with a weatherproof structure during the Valley’s wet season.

b) Additional mitigation measures

In addition to requiring the above four meas ures, dairies will have to select one of the three additional mitigation measures:

As stated earlier, allowing for some addition al measures rather than specifically mandating all requirement s allows the flexibility for produc ers to select measures that will work best for their facility. Mandating additional requirements would result in increased compliance costs which will have a detrimental impact to the health of the industry. Refer to Appendix C for a mo re detailed discussion about each individual mitigation measure.

(1) Feed steam-flaked, dry rolled, cracked or ground corn or other steam-flaked, dry rolled, cracked or ground cereal grains.

Recent studies have shown that ferment ed feed can be a large source of VOC emissions at agricultural facilities. Using dry feeds eliminates pot ential emissions from fermentation. Additionally, processing these dry feeds increases the digestibility of the

feed. This reduces excreti on of starch and other nutrients in the manure reducing the potential for VOC emissions. Language has been changed to more accurately capture the feed types specified by the measure to feed steam-fla ked corn or other cereal grains.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

21 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (2) Remove uneaten wet feed from feed bunks wi thin twenty-four (24) hours after

the end of a rain event.

Feed that gets wet after a rain event will have a greater pot ential for secondary emissions to occur from decomposition. Th is measure requires that this feed be

removed within 24 hours after the end of a rain event.

(3) For total mixed rations that contain at least 30% by weight of silage, feed

animals total mixed rations that contain at least 45% moisture.

As noted above, recent research has indi cated that silage emits more VOCs than previously thought, more specifically, ethanol. Ethanol is also known to be highly soluble in water. Since silage is a lar ge part of TMR, then in creasing the moisture

content of the TMR would decrease the amount of VOCs emitted because the water in

the TMR would absorb the VOCs that w ould otherwise escape into the air.

California dairies in the San Joaquin Valley have access to an amazing variety of food processing residuals that also happen to be appropriate for dairy feed. The measure remains an additional mitigation measure due to stakeholder concerns of the possible

detriment to the health of cows. The moistu re of the TMR can be influenced by both the NRC guidelines and the available commodity. In addition, adding excessive moisture to a TMR that contains a high percentage of fermented forage may decrease cows’ intake of feed dry matter and reduce their consum ption of neutral detergent fiber. Decreased intake of dry matter and fiber may decrease milk production. Reduced fiber intake can also adversely affect the health of cows by increasing the risk of ruminal acidosis and other ailments; theref ore, making the moisture content a required element would limit the operator’s flexibility in providing appropriate nutrition fo r the health and productivity

of the animals.

c) Retired mitigation measures

The following measures will be retired from the rule:

(1) Remove feed where animals stand to eat every 14 days. (2) Remove spilled feed around the feed bunk every 14 days.

New information from industry stakeholders has stated the amount of feed left behind or spilled is minimal. In addition, based on the recent studies, the emissions from the feed are generated within the course of the firs t day and removing the feed within 14 days would result in only minimal emission reduc tions. A reduced cleaning timeframe to capture the potential emissions would be unachievable in practice due to the labor intensity and hours needed to perform this task re sulting in a high cost to the industry.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

22 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 2. Dairy Silage Mitigation Measures

Crop harvest occurs only a few times per year, but animals need to be fed every day. Cattle operations have learned how to preserve crops grown on-site so that they can reduce costs associated with purchasing feed. Silage is plant material (usually wheat, alfalfa, or corn) preserved through a fermentat ion process. The shredded plant material is stacked into a pile with a certain amount of compaction and then allowed to ferment. Fermentation is an anaerobic proc ess, therefore, silage pile s are formed in a way to exclude as much oxygen as possibl e. Quality silage is achieved when lactic acid is the predominant acid produced during the fermentat ion stage. Speed of fermentation is also important because the fast er the fermentation is comple ted, the more nutrients will be retained in the silage. Since lactic acid is non-volatile, increasing the production of lactic acid during the silage fermentati on process has the double benefit of increasing the quality of the silage and reducing emissi ons from organic compounds that are more

volatile. The emission reductions from c hanging the chemical makeup of fermentation by-products are realized at three points:

• during the ferment ation process,

• while removing the silage from the pile and

• when the combined silage and other feed components (called total mixed rations or TMR) are laid out for the animals to eat.

Recent emission studies at California dairies indicate that emissions from silage are a significant portion of the total dairy VOC emissi ons. In order to cont rol as much of these emissions as possible, District staff propos es that individual dairies implement one mitigation measure from a list of two choices.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

There are no mandatory measures for this section.

b) Additional mitigation measures

As stated earlier, allowing for some addition al measures rather than specifically mandating all requirement s allows the flexibility for produc ers to select measures that will work best for their facility. Mandating additional requirements would result in increased compliance costs which will have a detrimental impact to the health of the industry. Refer to Appendix C for a more detailed discussion about each individual mitigation measure.

(1) Management practices for silage pile formation and pile management

This management practice require s that a total of four out of five mitigation measures

are selected to maximize the emissions reductions. These selection choices are

detailed below:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

23 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 District staff used information from industry representatives to es tablish a baseline of current silage practices and to develop the r equirements to reduce the exposed surface area of silage piles to less than the current baseline. Reducing the exposed area from

the current baseline will r educe emissions. District staff reviewed scientific and technical literature concerning the process of making silage to develop the mitigation measures that will ensure the production of quality silage while also minimizing emissions from the silage.

(a) Cover the surface of silage piles, ex cept for the area where feed is being removed from the pile, with a plastic tarp that is at least 5 mils thick (0.005 inches), multiple plastic tarps with a cu mulative thickness of at least 5 mils (0.005 inches), or an oxygen barrier film covered with a UV resistant material,

within 72 hours of last deliver y of material to the pile.

This measure is mandatory and all silage piles must be cove red within 72 hours of the last delivery of material to pile. This wi ll not only preserve the silage material but will reduce the emissions that would have been released from an uncovered pile.

(b) Create silage piles in a manner to achieve a minimum packing density.

This measure is mandatory. Dr. Charles Kr auter of California St ate University, Fresno has indicated that preliminary information fr om dairy emissions research that he has completed has shown that silage with high er density resulted in less total VOC emissions from both the silage piles and the total mixed ration (TMR) prepared from the silage and placed as feed for animals. Packi ng density is important when making silage because it enables the ensiled plant forage to quickly move from an aerobic phase to an anaerobic phase and achieve a rapid drop in pH that will hinder further microbial decomposition. The rapid drop in pH is primarily caused by conversion of soluble carbohydrates to nonvolatile lactic acid. Su fficient packing creates the conditions that

allow lactic acid bacteria to dominate the fermentation rat her than other organisms that will produce greater amount s of VOCs. Sufficient packing followed by covering of piles also reduces yeast counts in the silage. Be cause yeasts are primarily responsible for the production of ethanol during fermentation of silage, reduc ing the number of colony forming units of yeast will reduce the amount of ethanol generated and the concentration of ethanol in the silage. Et hanol is one of the most volatile compounds found in silage; therefore, reducing ethanol concentrations will reduce emissions. Increased density in silage piles reduces porosity, which will reduce transport of emissions to the atmosphere. Reduced poros ity also limits the amount of air that penetrates the silage piles that causes aerobic decomposition and heating of the piles.

Within silage formation , dairy operators can meet silage pile standards in one of three ways: by measuring the bulk density; by manipulating sila ge pile formation parameters to meet a calculated bulk density; or by im plementing specific work practices during silage pile formation that would lead to good silage compaction and formation.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

24 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 Additionally, this management practice r equires that dairy operators choose two more work practices from a list of three selecti ons. The three management practices include minimizing the pile’s exposed surface area; and using a silage facer or maintaining a smooth vertical face; and inoculation of sil age during pile formati on or application of additives to reduce yeast counts. The following paragraphs describe these work practices.

(c) Minimizing the pile’s exposed surfac e area and/ using a silage facer or maintaining a smooth vertical face

This stringent set of requirements, in addition to the packing density and coverage requirements, accommodate the variability in harvesting and silage management practices found in the numerous dairies locat ed in the San Joaquin Valley. The first two practices both deal with managing the expos ed area of silage piles by reducing the open area or maintaining a smooth vertical su rface. These practices will reduce the exposed area and porosity at the working face of the silage piles, which will reduce emissions from the working face. These practices will also reduce infiltration by spoilage organisms that can produce VOCs and heating caused by aerobic decomposition. Many dairies will not be able to choose both of these measures without significant changes to their current feed hand ling operations. In order to store the amount of silage needed for the large dairies in the San Joaquin Valley, silage piles must have a very large volume. Because of limited space on the ground and the need to increase the size of silage pads, silage pile s often must be built very high. The height of typical silage piles will often be beyond t he reach of equipment t hat must be used to maintain a completely smooth surface. Because the equipment used at many dairy operations cannot reach the hi ghest portion of the piles, t he surface of the piles will

often not be smooth but rather will have bulges and overhangs that will be gathered and fed when they collapse and fall to the ground.

(d) Inoculation of silage during pile forma tion or application of additives to reduce yeast counts

Silage additives, such as i noculants and additives to reduce yeast counts, are another mitigation measure that has shown promise to reduce emissions. Due to the variability

and costs associated with effective use of these additives, this practice will be included as an additional mitigation measure. T he least costly meas ure would involve inoculating the ensiled material with homolac tic bacteria. The pur pose of inoculation

with homolactic bacteria is to shift the ferment ation such that greater amounts of lactic acid are generated rather than volatile compounds, such as ethanol. Because the bacteria in inoculants are living organism s, there will be inherent variability in the effectiveness of the various pr oducts available. The inoculants must provide sufficient bacteria to outcompete the naturally occu rring microorganisms in the ensiled forage and must be applied in a fairly uniform manner to achieve optimum benefit. The successful application of the inoculants is related to several factors including, the type of crop harvested, the stage the crop is harvested, the moisture content of the forage, theSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

25 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 buffering capacity of the forage, the density of the piles, etc. Because properly harvested and ensiled corn will generally ha ve higher counts of naturally-occurring homolactic bacteria, inoculating corn silage with homolactic bacteria will often not cause great changes in fermentation when compared to other crops. In some instances

inoculation of corn with homolactic bacteri a can cause greater aer obic losses when the silage is fed because the inoculants will shi ft the fermentation away from the production of acetic acid and other organic acids that inhibit aerobic growth of yeast when the silage is fed. With corn silage, inocul ating with homolactic bacteria is probably most effective when something else in the proc ess has not been optimal. For other crops, inoculating with homolactic bacteria is proba bly more likely to provide a benefit but a great deal of variability will still remain. As stated above, the other additives and preservatives are much more expensive than inoculants. The greater expense of these

additives often results in farmers applying minimal amounts to the forage rather than the optimal rate. Additionally, these additive practices will have issues similar to those

associated with the use of inoculants. For example, the organic acids used are corrosive, must be handled with care, and may require specialized application equipment and the quality and char acteristics of the specif ic crop being ensiled will still be very important factors in the success of t hese additives. Therefore, because of the dairy-to-dairy, crop-to-crop, and even season-to- season variability, it is more reasonable to allow individual producers to assess t heir operations to determine if this measure would be beneficial for their particular operation. Because conservation of the feed value of silage will also reduc e the amount of dry matter lo st as VOC emissions, the choices of producers based on the assessment of their operation will lead to efficient reductions of VOC emissions without being exce ssively costly or impractical because of the variability at diffe rent operations.

(2) Use a sealed feed storage system

The second control measure for silage is fo r dairy operators to utilize a sealed feed storage system like an AG-BagTM. Sealed systems for silage have been around for several years. The principle for these system s is to limit oxygen contact with the plant material being ensiled. Ensiling is an anaerobic process and having significant amounts of oxygen available promotes the growth of aerobic organism s rather than the desired anaerobic organisms. Closing off the materials from air also keeps VOCs that would be created as part of the ens iling process from being emitted in to the air. Also, by keeping the VOCs close to the bacteria, the bacteri a would have to potential to further convert

the VOCs into carbon dioxide and water.

With a very small working face compared to traditional silage piles and being totally enclosed, sealed feed storage systems alone have inherently fewer emissions. The emissions from AG-BagsTM would be comparable to facilities selecting all the required

controls from the first table of controls. Although there are advantages of using this system, there are also limitations for the quantity of ensiled material handled at some dairies. The sealed system bags have limited diameters, so an operator would need to set aside a significantly larger area fo r silage storage compared to piling materialSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

26 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 vertically as is currently done for silage p iles. Sealed systems are already in use at some dairies for certain crops; however, sinc e sealed systems take up more space per volume of silage they are not feasible for every dairy. A non-trivial portion of the Valley’s dairies have limited area available for storage of feed and silage due to owned property restraints, neighboring farms, right of ways, etc. There is a huge cost associated with the purchase of land to be abl e to accommodate such a measure and in some instances that option may not even be availa ble to some facilities. Therefore, this

measure will be included as one of the two additional measures.

c) Retired mitigation measures

The following measures are bei ng retired from the rule:

(1) Enclose silage in a bag or weatherproof structure and vent to VOC control device with greater than 80% VOC capture and control

Any active venting of silage to a control device would ruin its feed value because silage must remain anaerobic. Further analysis of this Class Two mitigation measure is included in Appendix E.

(2) Eliminate silage from animal diet

Based on the information currently available, this management practice is not feasible for most dairies in the San Joaquin Va lley and would potentially cause adverse environmental impacts if implemented on a lar ge scale. Growing of silage crops is currently required in the nut rient management plans for most dairies to reduce the leaching of nutrients into groundw ater. For dairies to switch from growing silage crops to growing crops that require fewer nutrient s would generally requi re approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the change would require dairies to acquire more land and/or export a much larger portion of manure offs ite. Reducing the amount of silage used would also require dairies to substitute other types of feed. This feed would need to be purchased resulting in in creased costs to the dai ry operators. It is also likely that the purc hased feed would need to be trucked in to the dairies. The need to transport more feed to the dairy would increase fuel usage and trucking emissions. Additional details on the pot ential impacts of eliminating silage are discussed in a letter provided by Deanne Me yer, Ph.D., UC Davis Livestock Waste Management Specialist and Peter Robinson, PhD., UC Department of Animal Science Cooperative Extension S pecialist (see Appendix I).SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

27 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 3. Dairy Milking Parlor Mitigation Measures

The recent research indicates that t he frequent flushing required for dairy health standards results in very low emissions from this dairy operation. For this reason, no change is proposed for mitigating VOC emissions from milking parlors. Further analyses of Class Two mitigation measures are included in Appendix E.

4. Dairy Freestall Barn Mitigation Measures

Dairy cows spend most of their time in frees tall barns or corrals. Mitigation measures include work practices to minimize the accu mulation of solid or liquid animal waste. Two freestall mitigation measures would be required by all dairy CAFs: pave feedlanes; and flush, vacuum, or scrape freestall flush lanes. Operators would have a choice of three additional mitigation measures from which they would need to choose one to implement.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

(1) Pave feedlanes, where present, for a width of at least 8 feet along the corral

side of the feedlane fence for milk and dr y cows and at least 6 feet along the

corral side of the feedlane for heifers.

A new specified mitigation measure has been added to the freestall list to pave feed lanes at least either six or eight feet on the corral side of t he feedlane fence depending on animal size and type. Heifers are smaller animals that produce much less manure

than milk cows so six feet feedlanes are sufficient to a llow cleaning of the manure deposited in this area. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1127 (Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste) requires that the facilities subject to the rule pave their feedlanes. The purpose of t he requirement is to remove manure more completely from the areas where it is mo st likely to be deposited without digging up the

floor of the freestall barn or co rral. The paving also facilitates flushing or scraping of

manure from freestall barns and corrals.

(2) Flush, scrape, or vacuum freestall flush lanes immediately prior to, immediately after, or during each milk ing or at least three times per day

This measure will remove manure more completely from the freestall flush lanes, thereby reducing emissions.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

28 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 b) Additional mitigation measures

As stated earlier, allowing for some addition al measures rather than specifically mandating all requirement s allows the flexibility for produc ers to select measures that will work best for their facility. Mandating additional requirements would result in increased compliance costs which will have a detrimental impact to the health of the industry. Refer to Appendix C for a more detailed discussion about each individual

additional measure.

The following measures are not mandated to allow for flexibil ity in different operating practices.

(1) Use non-manure-based or separated solids- based bedding for at least 90% of the bedding material.

This measure would reduce the amount of manure sitting around and releasing

emissions.

(2) Remove manure that is not dry from i ndividual cow freestall beds or rake, harrow, scrape, or grade freestall bedding

Of the freestall mitigation m easures, there are certain measures which have been combined as they address the same source. These include cleaning freestall flush lanes and freestall bedding. The measures comb ined to clean freestall bedding are also performed more frequently in South Coast AQ MD Rule 223 for large dairy CAFs, which is the rule that corresponds to District Ru le 4570. Large dairies would be required to rake, harrow or scrape freestall beds at leas t once every seven days. Operators of medium dairy CAFs who elect this particular mitigation measures would perform the mitigation measure at least once every 14 days.

(3) Have no animals in exercise pens or corrals.

This requirement has remained in the fr eestall table because of animal welfare concerns. This measure would reduce emissions by reducing the area in which the

animals have to excrete. Restricting access to exercise pens by enclosing the barn may exacerbate animal welfare and animal health concerns, as access to open exercise pens is important for good breeding and pr egnancy rates and hoof health. This measure could affect animal health and therefore should remain as an operator choice.

c) Retired mitigation measures

Four mitigation measures are being re moved from this control table.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

29 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (1) Inspect water pipes and troughs.

Recent studies have shown that the vast majori ty of VOCs such as alcohols and volatile fatty acids are highly soluble in the liquid fo rm. Since freestall barns are generally a wet system, consisting of at least two flushes per day and a naturally high moisture content of the manure, emissions will prefer to stay in the aqueous form. Therefore, inspecting water troughs and pipes for leaks will not provide any additional benefit and this

measure will be removed.

(2) Install floats or other devices in water troughs to prevent spills.

This measure is considered standard practi ce and therefore will be removed from the rule. A constant supply of cool clean water is an essential requirement for all livestock. For large operations such as dairies and feedlot s in the Valley, this requirement is met by the use of numerous water troughs at various locations around the cattle housing areas. Because of the large number of tr oughs required, the only practical way to ensure a constant supply of water in the troughs is to use an automated filling system. This is accomplished by plumbing each trough into the piped water system and using a

float valve to control the water level at the trough. The float valve automatically shuts of the water when the trough is full. As cattle drink and the water level begins to go down, the float valves automatically turns on the wa ter supply to replenish the trough. The float valves are therefore not optional, but are ra ther integral and ess ential components of the automatic water supply system.

(3) Using a dry waste handling system to remove animal waste.

As stated above, recent studies have shown t hat the vast majority of VOCs such as alcohols and volatile fatty acids are highly soluble in the liquid form. Since freestall barns are generally a wet system, consisting of at least two flushes per day and a naturally high moisture content of the manure, emissions will prefer to stay in the aqueous form. Due to the emission reducti on benefits achieved from liquid manure handling, the District will not prefer one manure management practice to the other.

(4) Vacuum manure and apply to land th rough injection or incorporation

This measure would be removed since it is not applicable to freestalls. This measure is covered under land application.

5. Dairy Corrals Mitigation Measures

Staff proposes that dairies shall implement si x specified mitigation measures in addition to selecting one out of the three remaining additional measures.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

30 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 a) Mandatory mitigation measures

Operators would be r equired to implement six specific mitigation measures:

(1) Pave feedlanes, where present, for a width of at least 8 feet along the corral

side of the feedlane fence for milk and dr y cows and at least 6 feet along the

corral side of the feedlane for heifers

This measure is further described above in the freestall section.

(2) Clean corrals four times per year; or at least once between April and July and

at least once between S eptember and December.

This measure would reduce manure build-up in the corrals, thereby reducing emissions.

(3) Manage manure depth in concreted ar eas to less than 12 inches; or scrape/flush feed concrete lanes daily for mature cows and every seven days for support stock.

This measure would reduce manure build -up in the concreted feed lanes. The frequency for this measure has been increased fr om once every 7 days for mature cows to once every day. There is also another mitigation measure of keeping manure below 12 inches, which serves the same purpose.

(4) Inspect and repair leaks every 7 days.

The District has re-evaluated this measur e and has reduced the frequency of inspecting and repairing pipes by 50%, from 14 days to 7 days. The District believes that this is a proper frequency that leaks do not cause mo ist conditions in open corrals. In open corrals, moist conditions l ead to anaerobic decomposition of manure. Emissions of gaseous compounds can be reduced by faster drying of manure and minimization of moisture. Minimizing the moisture in the manure reduces the moisture needed by the microbes that decompose the manure to form VOC.

(5) Slope corrals; ensure proper drainage; or maintain a dry surface.

As stated earlier, VOC emissions are formed when manure undergoes anaerobic decomposition. An increase in moisture will increase anaerobic decomposition and in return will increase VOC emissions. Proper management of the corrals can reduce or

eliminate excess moisture in the corrals . Sloping corrals and/or providing proper drainage allows the corrals to dry more quickly and effectively. Emissions are significantly decreased when manur e is dried out quickly.

These measures would reduce moisture in the corrals and allow for proper drying of manure. The slopes given in this measure are recommended from the California CodeSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

31 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 of Regulations, Title 3, Division 2, to allow corrals to dry more quickly and effectively. Depending on the severity of a rain event, it may take several days before water in the corrals can naturally be cleared out. There have been times where weather has rendered corrals inoperable and uninviting. There are mechanical means that can be used (i.e., pumps) to remove t he water out more rapidly. However, this process takes time, money and resources, all of which are lim ited at a CAF, especi ally when there can be anywhere from a dozen corrals up to hundreds of corrals at a facilit y. It is in the best interest of CAF operators to clear out the ex cess water from the co rrals as quickly as possible primarily for animal health purposes. Even though more time may be needed,

the District believes that if the proper steps are taken in a timely fashion, 48 hours should be just enough time to remove excess water from the corrals. By adhering to these measures, puddles in the corrals c an be eliminated and liquid manure can drain where it can be potentially stor ed or treated in lagoons or ponds.

(6) If the facility has shade structures, use li ght permeable material; install on an uphill slope; install in a North/South orientation; or cl ean under corral shades.

Two mitigation measures have been added - to clean under corral shades once every 14 days and to install shade structures in a North/South orientatio n. Since cows will tend to congregate and spend lo ng periods in shaded areas, a large portion of the manure will be deposited in these areas; ther efore, the purpose of all the shade

measures is to ensure that the manure under the shades are dried out or removed frequently if the manure is not dry. Installing shades in the north/south orientation allows the manure to dry out more rapidly due to the c hanging of the sun’s direction throughout the day. With the nor th-south orientation, the sun will strike every part of the floor area at some time during the day. This will help to keep the floored area dry.

b) Additional mitigation measures

As stated earlier, allowing for some addition al measures rather than specifically mandating all requirement s allows the flexibility for produc ers to select measures that will work best for their facility. Mandating additional requirements would result in increased compliance costs which will have a detrimental impact to the health of the industry. Refer to Appendix C for a mo re detailed discussion about each individual

additional measure.

In addition to the mandatory mitigation me asures outlined above, dairy operators are expected to implement one additional mitiga tion measure out of three management practices.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

32 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (1) Manage corrals such that the manure depth in the corral does not exceed twelve (12) inches at any time or point, except for in-corral mounding.

(2) Knockdown fence line manure build-up prior to it exceeding a height of twelve (12) inches at any time or point.

These two measures will remain choices to provide for operator flexibility. Both measures would require many labor hour s and are dependent on the current practices employed at the dairy. These measures coul d also be affected by weather not allowing equipment into the corrals at certain times of the year. Flexibility is necessary because of the variability withi n the affected emissions category. Dairy housing corrals vary by geographical location, age of the facility and standard practices at the time of construction, size and financial resources of the facility, as we ll as the operator’s preferences. Dairy size and financial capab ility also determine design features at the time of construction. Large or more financ ially capable dairies may be able to invest significant amounts of money for engineered gradi ng and proper sloping of corrals, as well as paving over more extensive corrals areas. Smaller dairies, on the other hand, may have more difficulty complying with these requirements.

Further information is incl uded in Appendix C.

(3) Use lime or a similar absorbent material or thymol in the corrals according to

the manufacturer's recommendation to mi nimize moisture in the corrals.

This measure has been retained from the Class Two mitigation measures due to its potential to reduce VOC emissi ons, however, the cost to implement this measure makes it infeasible to be required of ev eryone (refer to Appendix C). Lime has been

used at several livestock facilities to reduce moisture. Reducing the moisture content of manure minimizes biological activity, which reduces the potential for VOC emissions.

Thymol is an aromatic ess ential oil found in thyme and oregano. Thymol has strong antibacterial properties, which reduces mi crobial activity that can produce VOC emissions. Several studies have indicated plant oils with antibacterial properties can be used to control pathogens and emissions of vo latile fatty acids (VFA) from manure. Thymol also causes the pH of manure to drop , further inhibiting microbial activity and air emissions. Studies by Vincent Varel of the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service have shown t hat thymol inhibited microbial activity and

reduced emissions of odors and VFAs from cattle and swine manure.

c) Retired mitigation measures

Three corral measures will be retired from the rule:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

33 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (1) Install floats or other devices in water troughs to prevent spills.

This measure is considered standard practi ce and therefore will be removed from the

rule. Further information is described above in the dairy freestall control section.

(2) Install no shade structures.

This measure is removed becau se a clarification has been a dded that the measure only applies to facilities with shade structures and is now mandatory. Since the new measure

was added to clean manure out fr om under the shade structures , the earlier concerns of additional piled up m anure will be alleviated. Additionally, prohibi ting shade structures

is in conflict with a diffe rent District rule – Rule 4550 (Conservation Management Practices).

(3) House animals in an enclosure vent ed to a VOC control device with a combined VOC capture and VOC contro l efficiency of at least 80%.

The detailed analysis for removing this measure is inclu ded in Appendix E.

6. Dairy Solid Manure Handling Mitigation Measures

Most recent emissions research indicates t hat the handling and storage of solid manure is a very small emission source at Califor nia dairies. District staff is proposing to

combine the two manure measures and the tw o separated solids measures leaving two

measures overall. The number of required measures would al so be reduced from two to one to reflect this change. This allows the m easures to be slightly more stringent while still allowing for operational flexibility. Medi um size dairies would not be required to comply with this section, due to the potent ial difficulties and cost of compliance.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

There are not mandatory mitigati on measures for this menu.

b) Additional mitigation measures

The measures in this category have been re tained as additional because they are mutually exclusive. An operat or making the required investment (covering materials and labor) to cover animal waste/separated solids piles would not logically be planning to remove the waste/separated solids from th e facility within 72 hours of removal from corrals/separation areas since the investment would not make any sense for such shortterm storage, on top of hauling or tipping fees. Likewise, the operator choosing removal within 72 hours would not logi cally choose covering piles si nce there will be no manure to be stored in piles at the facility.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

34 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 c) Retired mitigation measures

The following two measures have been removed from the rule:

(1) Store no separated solids

The mitigation measure to store no separated solids outside of anaerobic digesters or aerobic digesters will be removed due to the prac ticality of the meas ure. Anaerobic and aerobic digesters require that the content in those systems consist of very low solids generally below 2%. At the worst-case, for a plug flow digester, a 13% solids content could be desirable; however this percentage of solids falls under the ca tegory of slurry. Therefore, this measure is not applicable to the solid manure and has been removed.

(2) Solid manure handling Class Two mitigation measures

The Class Two Mitigation Measures in so lid manure handling wi ll be removed due to lack of feasibility, either ec onomically or technologically, as described in Appendix E. The proposed rule would remove:

• Composing manure in an aer ated static pile vented to a VOC control device.

• Store removed manure in an enclosure vented to a VOC control device.

• Send at least 51% of the manure in a digested vented to a VOC control device.

7. Dairy Liquid Manure Handling Mitigation Measures

For liquid animal waste handling, the propos ed rule has no changes to the measures, which are work practices that assure viable bacteria colonies in lagoons to treat the

animal manure.

All of the other measures in this secti on have all been retained as additional because they are all independent of each other. Again, each meas ure listed is expected to achieve its own reductions, and no two measur es can reasonably be classified as two ways of doing the same thing. The number of measures provided in the category will accommodate the variability withi n the dairy industry as far as treatment of liquid waste manure is concerned. Variability is expecte d due to various factors such as age, size, and financial capability of the facility. For instance, due to BACT requirements, newer facilities are designed with enough lagoon capacity to comply with NRCS guidelines for anaerobic treatment, whereas older facilities that were not subject to BACT often do not have sufficient lagoon capacity for NRCS guidel ines but can instead potentially use a phototropic treatment lagoon. Smaller faciliti es that cannot afford the expenses associated with phototropic treat ment, which requires a large number of aerators, may still achieve sizeable reductions by usi ng an efficient solids separation system.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

No mitigation measures are mandatory for the dairy liquid manure controls.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

35 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 b) Additional mitigation measures

(1) Use a phototropic lagoon.

Phototrophic or red water treat ment lagoons are easily identifi ed by their characteristic purple, pink or rose color. Purple sulfur bacteria utilize hydrogen sulfide and volatile organic acids as an electron source for anoxygenic photosynthesis and utilize volatile organic acids and alcohols as a carbon source for growth. This reduces the concentration of these compounds at the surface of the lagoons and reduces the rate of volatilization of these compounds to the at mosphere. A number of studies have found

reduced odors and emissions of volatile organic acids from lagoons with higher concentrations of phototropic bacteria.

This technology seeks to take advantage of a naturally occurring phenomenon where municipal and animal wast e lagoons as well as natural l agoons and estuaries, strata in lakes etc have turned either purple, pink, or rose in color. This phenomenon is caused by assemblages of phototrophic bacteria known as the purple sulfur and purple nonsulfur bacteria. Blooms of these bacteri a occur opportunistically when conditions provide the appropriate dilute nutrient loading in combination with the right temperatures, lighting conditi ons and limited oxygen availabili ty that are required for

these bacteria to become dominant. In nature these blooms (as the name suggests) are transitory. In order for these types of blooms to be maintained in a municipal wastewater treatment or dairy lagoon context, the conditions must be continuously and properly maintained.

In order to encourage and main tain the development of these bacterial species assemblages in farm lagoons year-round, sequential pond systems (i.e. up to 3 ponds: for processing, sequestration, and polis hing), in combination with mechanical circulation/aeration, and mixing/ dilution with fresh water. Continuous mechanical mixing of the lagoon liquids and solids ensures that the phototrophs are exposed to sufficient sunlight. Addition of fresh water (irrigation water) provides the necessary dilute conditions and translucency. As in any treatment lagoon, this system also includes mechanical solids/liquids separation to remo ve excess solids prio r to treatment. For phototrophic lagoons, solids removal has two advantages: 1) it removes the excess

carbon found in the solids and which can in hibit the desired benefic ial nitrification/ denitrification process that o ccurs in these lagoons, and 2) excess solids contributes to turbidity and thus would inhibit the phototrophs.

The agricultural community has met with some success in taking advantage of these purple-pink-rose bacterial comm unities in treating the wast e-water from swine and dairy operations in order to reduce the odors pr oduced by the lagoon water associated with their operations. Research indicates that these microbes and their associated syntrophs metabolize sulfur and nitrogen containing compounds as well as various long chain organic compounds, many of which could be a potential source of problematic VOCs ofSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

36 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 concern with regards to air quality. Indeed ther e is some research which indicates that these systems can reduce VOC emissions , at least at swine operations.

(2) Use an anaerobic treatment lagoon des igned in accordance with NRCS

Guideline No. 359.

The measure to use an anaerobic treatment lagoon will be clarified to be designed in

accordance with NRCS Guideline 359. The curr ent rule allows the use of an anaerobic treatment lagoon that is not mechanically aerated. While the mitigation measure seemed to contain enough informat ion at the time of rule adoption, the measure did not describe the lagoon in sufficient detail to be certain that the lagoon is designed adequately to control emissions from the manure degr adation process. To address this issue, District staff proposes that the miti gation measure specify that the lagoon be designed in accordance with the NRCS Cons ervation Practice Standard 359. Within this standard, there are guide lines that help the operator design the lagoon to handle the level of liquid waste generated on-site.

An anaerobic treatment lagoon is a waste treat ment lagoon that is designed to facilitate the decomposition of manure by microbes in the absence of oxygen. This process of anaerobic decomposition results in the preferential conversi on of organic compounds in the manure into methane, carbon dioxi de, and water rather than intermediate metabolites (VOCs). The National Resour ce Conservation Service (NRCS) California

Field Office Technical Guide Code 359 - Waste Treatment Lagoon specifies the following criteria for anaerobic treatment lagoons:

1) Minimum treatment volu me - The minimum design vo lume must account for all potential sludge, treatment, precip itation, and runoff volumes; 2) Minimum hydraulic retention time – The retention time of t he material in the lagoon must be adequate to provide environm entally safe utilization of waste; 3) Maximum Volatile Solids (VS) loadi ng rate – The VS loading rate shall be based on maximum daily loading consider ing all waste sources that will be treated by the lagoon. The suggested loadi ng rate for the San Joaquin Valley

is 6.5-11 lb-VS/1000 ft 3 /day depending on the type of system and solids separation; and 4) Minimum operating depth of at least 12 feet - Maximizing the depth of the lagoon has the following advantages: 1) The surface area in contact with the atmosphere is minimized, which will reduce volatilization of air pollutants; 2)

The smaller surface area reduces t he effects of the environment on the lagoon, which provides a more st able and favorable environment for anaerobic bacteria; 3) There is better mi xing of lagoon due to rising gas bubbles; 4) and A deeper lagoon requires le ss land for the required treatment

volume.

The anaerobic treatment lagoon system generally consists of two stages, a treatment lagoon (primary lagoon) and a storage pond (secondary lagoon) but can be designed asSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

37 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 a single stage. The effluent from the treatme nt lagoon generally overflows into a storage pond/secondary lagoon which is designed for liquid storage.

(3) Remove solids from the waste system wit h a solid separator system, prior to the waste entering the lagoon

.

Removal of solids prior to lagoons reduces th e organic loading rate. This reduces the amount of organic material in the lagoon that can be degraded to VOCs. Reducing the concentration of dissolved VOCs in the lagoon wil l reduce the rate of volatilization to the atmosphere. Additionally, r educing the organic rate loading prevents conditions that are inhibitory to methane-forming bacteria and facilitates more efficient conversion of dissolved organic compounds to methane rather than being emitted as VOCs.

(4) Maintain lagoon pH between 6.5 and 7.5.

Maintaining proper lagoon pH reduces t he potential for VOC emissions because anaerobic methane-forming bacteria thrive best at a pH that is near neutral. Methaneforming bacteria convert the volatile fatty acids (and some alcohols) in the lagoon to methane. If the methane reducing bacteri a do not thrive, there would be increased concentrations of volatile fatty acids which would lead to higher emissions of these compounds. Low lagoon pH is also indicati ve of excessive lagoon loading, which increases the potential for emissions.

c) Retired mitigation measures

(1) Use no lagoons

Eliminating lagoons is not a viable choice for dairies in California. The state’s Water Quality Board requires nearly all dairies to treat their wastes before releasing any process water back to the environment.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

38 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (2) Liquid manure Class Two mitigation measures

The following Class Two liquid manure handling measures would be removed from the

table:

• Use an aerobic lagoon or us e a mechanically aerated lagoon.

• Maintain organic loading in t he lagoon below a certain amount.

• Use additional non-standar d equipment or chemicals on the solid separator system.

• Cover the lagoon or storage pond and vent to a VOC control device.

The Class Two Mitigation Measures in liq uid manure handling will be removed due to lack of feasibility, either ec onomically or technologically. Further information is included in Appendix E.

8. Dairy Land Application of Solid/Liquid Manure Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures for land app lication of manure, whether solid or liquid, are a single

table in the current rule. Fo r clarity, the proposed rule would split the current table into separate parts for solid manure and liquid manure to make explicit that the operator is to select separate measures for each type of manure.

Language to incorporate solid manure has been changed to more accurately reflect industry practice. Application of liquid/sl urry manure via injection with drag hose or similar apparatus has been adde d as an additional mitigation measure. The measures to apply no solid and apply no liquid wi ll be removed since the table has been restructured and would not apply.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

None of the mitigation m easures are mandatory.

b) Additional mitigation measures

All of the measures in this section will be retained as additional under each category because they are all independent of each other. Each measure listed is expected to achieve its own reductions, and no two measur es can reasonably be classified as two ways of doing the same thing. The number of measures provided in the category will accommodate the variability within the dairy industry as far as application of solid and liquid/slurry manure to land is concerned. Vari ability is expected due to various factors such as available cropland, manure management practices, and financial capabilities of the different facilities. For instances, so me facilities may not have enough cropland to apply both solid and liquid manure, or some may be using only dry manure management methods that do not generate any liquid/slurry waste that need to be applied to land. Facilities with limited financia l capabilities may not be able to use such methods as pre-treatment of waste in digester, or direct injection into land but canSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

39 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 achieve fairly similar reduction using more cost effective methods such as discing manure into the soil after spreading, or proper preparation of fields prior to irrigation with liquid manure in order to avoid standing puddles.

c) Retired mitigation measures

The measures to “Apply no solid manure” and “Apply no liquid manure” would be removed from the table. If an operator is not land-applying a given type of manure, the mitigation measure does not need to be implemented.

9. Summary of All Dairy Mitigation Measures

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measures Compared to Total Number of Management practices

Area New Rule Medium and Large Dairy
Feed (TMR) 4 mandatory + 1 additional = 5 of 7 total

Silage 1 additional of 2 total

Measure 1 contains f our required measures

Milk Parlor 1 required of 1 total

Freestalls 2 mandatory + 1 additional = 3 of 5 total

Corrals 6 mandatory + 1 additional = 7 of 9 total

Solid Manure 1 additional of 2 total for large dairies only Liquid Manure 1 additi onal of 4 total Land Application 2 additional of 6 total

TOTAL 22 of 35

10. Dairy CAF Compliance Schedule

Dairies currently subject to the control requi rements, i.e., large dairies, as well as medium dairies, which would be new to rule requirements, would be required to submit an Authority-to-Construct application by Apri l 21, 2011 and be in full compliance with the Phase II requirements within one year after ei ther the Authority- to-Construct or the Permit-to-Operate are issued, whichever is earlier.

G. Beef Feedlot CAF Mitigation Measures

The beef feedlot controls have been significant ly improved and streamlined. Many of the measures have been mandated, grouped where measures are tackling similar sources and removed where necessary.

1. Beef Feedlot Feed Mitigation Measures

As discussed earlier, emissions from dry grain are expected to be negligible from facilities that feed a dry grain diet, as s upported by the letter provided in Appendix I.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

40 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 Since emissions from feed are negligible, only feed measures t hat have the likelihood to increase the efficiency of the animals will be evaluated. A ll other feed measures will be removed (see the retired measures section bel ow). District staff is proposing to make changes to the tables to accu rately reflect the more rec ent information. The feed table would have three measures and be requi red to select two to implement.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

To allow flexibility based on the different feed practices at feedlot operations, no

measures were mandated.

b) Additional mitigation measures

Out of three specific mitigation measur es, operators would need to implement two

measures.

(1) Feed according to National Research Council (NRC) guidelines

A letter submitted by beef feedlot stakeholders state that cattle may require supplement feed outside of the NRC guidelines. Each business is different, and the NRC guidelines provide a great foundation to build nutrient requirements from. But, there is a

considerable amount of other factors that require lives tock producers to seek the services and consult with nutritionists to pot entially go beyond what is suggested in the NRC guidelines. These changes are important to the health of the animal, including feeding the animal efficiently, which at times requires feeding outside of the NRC guidelines. Therefore, operat ors who do feed to NRC guidelines would be allowed

select it as one of thei r mitigation measures.

(2) Feed steam-flaked corn or other steam-flaked cereal grains.

As described above, this measure reduces excretion of starch and other nutrients in the manure reducing the potential for VOC emissions. The feed management practices for beef feedlots can vary greatly depending on feed prices and other factors, therefore this

measure has been retained as additional.

(3) Remove uneaten wet feed from feed bunks wi thin twenty-four (24) hours after

the end of a rain event.

This measure would reduce spoilage from we t feed occurring after a rain event. Please refer to the dairy secti on for more information.

c) Retired mitigation measures

As stated earlier, emissions directly from feed are expected to be negligible, therefore, the following measures will be retired from the rule:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

41 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 • Remove feed where animals stand to eat.

• Remove spilled feed from around the feed bunk.

• Feed or dispose of rations withi n 48 hours of gri nding and mixing. New information from industry stakeholde rs has stated the amount of feed left behind or spilled is minimal. As described above, the emissions from these sources would be negligible. A reduced cleaning timeframe or feeding time schedule to capture the potential emissi ons would be unachievable in practice due to the labor intensity and hours needed to perform this task resulting in a high cost to the industry.

• Store grain in a weatherproof structur e or covering, October through May. This measure would be very costly es pecially when compared to the minimal emission reductions achieved by the practi ce. Details of the cost analysis are outlined in Appendix C

2. Beef Feedlot Silage Mitigation Measures

The proposed rule will require that all operati ons that store and feed animals from silage piles create the piles based on a combinatio n of compaction standards, silage quality, and face and pile size management. These measures are consistent with those described above in the dairy section as beef feedlots may feed silage as well.

3. Beef Feedlot Housing Mitigation Measures

Staff proposes that beef f eedlot implement four specif ied mitigation measures in addition to selecting one out of th e three remaining additional measures.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

The following measures are specified:

(1) Clean corrals twice per year with 90 days between cleanings.

For animal housing, clarification has been made to clean corrals twice per year with 90 days between cleanings. In discussions with st akeholders, the previous first mitigation measure in the beef feedlot housing table was problematic to implement. Since the cattle are housed in open pens, the rainy s eason makes the corrals extremely muddy which makes it very difficult if not impossi ble to get scraping equipment into the pens. In place of specific times to scrape the pens , District staff proposes that the pens be cleaned twice during the year with at least 90 days between cleanings. In making this change, the pens would be cleaned just as oft en as the option in t he current rule, but operators would have the flexib ility to clean at times when the equipment can safely be

used.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

42 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (2) Inspect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks at least once every seven days.

This measure is further described above in the dairy corrals section.

(3) Slope corrals; ensure proper drainage; or maintain a dry surface.

Clarification has been made to the measure of maintaini ng pens so that there are no puddles preventing water from standing more than forty-eight (48) hours or to harrow, rake, or scrape pens sufficiently to maintain a dry surface. These two measures have been combined with the measure to slope the su rface of the corrals since they address

the same source. More information is discussed in the dairy section above.

(4) If the facility has shade structures, use light permeable material; install on an uphill slope; or install in a North/South orientation.

This measure is includes a new management practice to orient the shade North to South and will be required if a facility has shade st ructures. It is similar to the measures required for the dairy facilities and is described further above.

b) Additional mitigation measures

(1) Manage corrals and concrete lanes such that the manure dept h in the corral does not exceed twelve (12) inches at any time or point, except for in-corral mounding.

Two similar mitigation measures would be co mbined and rewritten to reduce the amount

of manure that would be allowed in indivi dual housing floors and concrete lanes. A

more detailed discussion is shown under the dairy section, above.

(2) Knockdown fence line manure build-up prior to it exceeding a height of twelve inches at any time or point.

The standard for the two measures would be moved from 18 inches to 12 inches (not including in-corral mounding) to increase manure m anagement and emission reductions. Language has also been added to clarify depth when corrals are

inaccessible due to rain events. These meas ures are described in more detail under the dairy section, above.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

43 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 c) Retired mitigation measures

The following measures will be retired from the rule:

(1) Installing floats of other devices in water troughs to prevent spills.

This measure is standard practice and is mo re fully described in the dairy section

above.

(2) Use a dry animal waste manure handling system.

As stated in the dairy section above, recent studies have shown that the vast majority of VOCs such as alcohols and volatile fatty acid s are highly soluble in the liquid form. Due

to the emission reduction benefits achieved fr om liquid manure handli ng, the District will not prefer one manure managemen t practice to the other.

(3) Scrape or smooth pen floors where puddles ma y form prior to placing cattle in

pens.

This measure is not entirely feasible sinc e the cattle’s behavior causes indentions when they move dirt and manure around the corrals . However the mandatory measures listed above to slope, harrow or maintain a dry surface, serve the same purpose as this measure but in a more feasible manner, while st ill allowing the operator the flexibility to manage the corrals in a way that is consiste nt with their corral management practices.

(4) Install no shade structures.

This measure will be removed as a clarific ation has been added that the measure only applies to facilities with shade st ructures and is now mandatory.

(5) Class Two Mitigation Measure to apply lime or thymol.

These measures were removed for beef cattle because they are infeasible. Due to the cattle being active throughout t he day, corral surface is continuously being disturbed. Therefore, any application of this material would quickly be removed through the active hoof action or would get buried under a fresh layer of manure. This would require periodic reapplication of lime or thymol to corral surfaces in order to continue to be

effective. This would also lead to frequent disturbance of the animals, which is

undesirable for feedlot cattle . Additionally, the application rates needed to reduce VOC emissions lead to high costs fo r feedlot cattle facilities. D ue to all these factors, this

measure will not be effectiv e and therefore has been deemed infeasible for this category.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

44 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 4. Beef Feedlot Solid Manure Handling Mitigation Measures

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

(1) Remove or cover dry manure or manage mo isture content of manure to less

than 50%.

The measures in this table have been combi ned into one measure. Operators have the choice to remove or cover dry manure, or comply with a new measure that has been added to manage the moisture content of th e manure to less than 50%. Reducing the moisture content of manure minimizes biologic al activity, which reduces the potential for

VOC emissions.

b) Additional mitigation measures

There are no additional measures in this table.

c) Retired mitigation measures

(1) Solid manure Class Two mitigation measures

The Class Two Mitigation Measures in so lid manure handling will be removed due to lack of feasibility, either ec onomically or technologically. Further information is included in Appendix E.

5. Beef Feedlot Liquid Manure Handling Mitigation Measures

All of the other measures in this secti on have all been retained as additional because they are all independent of each other. Again, each meas ure listed is expected to achieve its own reductions, and no two measur es can reasonably be classified as two ways of doing the same thing. The number of measures provided in the category will accommodate the variability withi n the dairy industry as far as treatment of liquid waste manure is concerned. Variability is expecte d due to various factors such as age, size, and financial capability of the facility and is fu rther described above in the dairy section.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

The Phase II mitigation measures for li quid manure handling do not have required mitigation measures. Operator s would have the choice to select one mitigation measure from four control managem ent practices. It is District staff’s belief that any of the listed management practices has equivalent ability to reduce VOC emissions.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

45 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 b) Additional mitigation measures

These measures are consistent with the dairy section and have been described more fully in that section above.

(1) Use a phototropic lagoon

(2) Use an anaerobic treatment lagoon des igned in accordance with NRCS

Guideline No. 359.

The measure to use an anaerobic treatment lagoon will be clarified to be designed in accordance with NRCS Guideline 359 and is further described in the dairy section.

(3) Remove solids from the waste system wit h a solid separator system, prior to the waste entering the lagoon

.

(4) Maintain lagoon pH between 6.5 and 7.5.

c) Retired mitigation measures

(1) Use no lagoons

(2) Liquid manure handling Class Two mitigation measures

The following Class Two liquid manure handling measures would be removed from the

table:

• Use an aerobic lagoon or us e a mechanically aerated lagoon

• Maintain organic loading in t he lagoon below a certain amount

• Use additional non-standar d equipment or chemicals on the solid separator system

• Cover the lagoon or storage pond and vent to a VOC control device

The Class Two Mitigation Measures in liq uid manure handling will be removed due to lack of feasibility, either ec onomically or technologically. Further information is included in Appendix E.

6. Beef Feedlot Land Appli cation Mitigation Measures

As with the dairy land applicat ion section, the beef feedlot land application table was split into two: a section for land applicat ion of solid manure and a section for land application of liquid manur e. For a detailed explanation, see the narrative for the dairy land application controls above.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

46 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 a) Mandatory mitigation measures

None of the mitigation m easures are mandatory.

b) Additional mitigation measures

All of the measures in this section will be retained as additional under each category because they are all independent of each other. This is further described in the dairy

section above.

c) Retired mitigation measures

The measures to “Apply no solid manure” and “Apply no liquid manure” would be

removed from the table. If an operator does not land-apply a given type of manure, the mitigation measure does not need to be implemented.

7. Summary of Feedlot Mitigation Measures

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Management practices Compared to Total Number of Management practices

Area New Rule Beef Feedlot
Feed (TMR) 2 additional of 3 total

Silage 1 additional of 2 total

Measure 1 contains f our required practices Housing 4 mandatory + 1 additional = 5 of 6 total

Solid Manure 1 required of 1 total Liquid Manure 1 additi onal of 4 total Land Application 2 additional of 6 total

TOTAL 13 of 22

8. Beef Feedlot Compliance Schedule

Existing beef feedlots that would become subject to control requirements would be required to submit an Authority to Construc t application by April 21, 2011 and be in full compliance with the Phase II requirements within one year after either the Authority to Construct or the Permit to Operate are issued, whichever is earlier.

H. Other Cattle CAF Mitigation Measures

“Other cattle operations” is the collective name for operations that are not dairies and are not beef feedlots, but ma y raise animals for both thos e types of operations. Dairy

animals at calf ranches or heifer ranches are usually younger and smaller than mature

animals with a lower emission factor associat ed with activities at that type of ranch.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

47 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 1. Other Cattle Feed Mitigation Measures

As discussed earlier, emissions from dry gr ain are expected to be negligible from facilities that feed a dry grain diet. Since emissions from feed are negligible, only feed

measures that have the likelihood to incr ease the efficiency of the animals will be

evaluated. All other feed m easures will be removed (see the retired measures section below) District staff is proposing to make changes to feed/feed storage tables that accurately reflect the more recent in formation. The feed table would have three measures with specific actions from which to choose, and be required to select two to implement.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

To allow flexibility based on the different feed practices at other cattle operations, no

measures were mandated.

b) Additional mitigation measures

Out of three specific mitigation measur es, operators would need to implement two

measures. The measures are co nsistent with those of the beef feedlot feed section and

have been further described above.

(1) Feed according to National Research Council (NRC) guidelines

This measure is additional due to the flexib ility needed for these types of facilities.

Please refer to the beef feedlot section for more information.

(2) Feed steam-flaked corn or other steam-flaked cereal grains.

As described above, this measure reduces excr etion of starch and other nutrients in the manure reducing the potential for VOC emissions. The feed management practices can vary greatly depending on feed prices and other factors, therefor e this measure has

been retained as additional.

(3) Remove uneaten wet feed from feed bunks wi thin twenty-four (24) hours after

the end of a rain event.

This measure would reduce spoilage from we t feed occurring after a rain event and is further described above in the dairy section.

c) Retired mitigation measures

As stated earlier, emissions directly from feed are expected to be negligible, therefore, the following measures will be retired from the rule:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

48 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 • Remove feed where animals stand to eat.

• Remove spilled feed from around the feed bunk.

• Feed or dispose of rations withi n 48 hours of gri nding and mixing.

• Store grain in a weatherproof structur e or covering, October through May.

These measures have been more fully descri bed in the beef feedlot section above.

2. Other Cattle Silage Mitigation Measures

The proposed rule will require that all operati ons that store and feed animals from silage piles create the piles based on a combinatio n of compaction standards, silage quality, and face and pile size management. These measures are consistent with those described above in the dairy section.

3. Other Cattle Freestall Ba rn Mitigation Measures

In order to tailor mitigation measures to the housing type, the housing table has been separated into two separate tables to cove r Freestalls and Corrals. Three measures are now required in the Freestalls table. The firs t two measures would be specified and then

facilities would need to choose one additional measure. The following summarizes the freestalls mitigation measures.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

These measures are similar to those requi red for dairies and the potential to reduce

emissions has been further described above.

(1) Vacuum, scrape or flush freestalls at least once every seven days.

(2) Pave feedlanes, where present, for a width of at least 6 feet along the corral side of the feedlane. (new measure)

b) Additional mitigation measures

The following measures will remain as addi tional mitigation measures to allow for flexibility in different operat ing practices. These measures are further described in the dairy section above.

(1) Use non-manure-based or separated solids- based bedding for at least 90% of the bedding material.

(2) Remove manure that is not dry from i ndividual cow freestall beds or rake, harrow, scrape, or grade freestall bedding.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

49 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 The measures to remove manure from bedding or rake, harrow, scrape, or grade bedding has been combined since they address the same source. The frequency has also been changed to seven days.

c) Retired mitigation measures

See the following corral discussion whic h will describe the retired measures.

4. Other Cattle Corrals Mitigation Measures

Eight mitigation measures have been included in the new corrals table.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

Five measures would be mandated. The followin g measures are similar to those in the dairy section and more detailed descripti ons can be found in that section above.

(1) Scrape corrals twice a year with at least 90 days between cleanings, excluding in-corral mounds.

Clarification has been made to clean corrals t wice per year. Nearly all other cattle CAFs keep at least some animals in corrals. As wit h the beef feedlots, it can be impractical to scrape corrals at certain times of the year due to the amount of rain that falls in that time period. For this reason, District staff pr oposes changes to the mitigation measure to

make it more flexible.

(2) Scrape or flush concrete lanes at leas t once every seven days; or clean the concrete aprons such that the depth of manure does not exceed 12 inches.

This measure is a combination of two me asures that address the same source. The frequency to scrape or flush concrete lanes is now once every seven days.

(3) Inspect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks at least once every seven days.

The frequency to inspect water pipes has decreased from 14 to 7 days.

(4) Slope corrals; ensure proper drainage; or maintain a dry surface.

This measure is a combination of thr ee measures designed to address the same

source.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

50 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (5) If the facility has shade structures, use li ght permeable material; install on an uphill slope; install in a North/South orientation.

This measure is includes a new management practice to orient the shade North to South and will be required if a facility has shade structures.

b) Additional mitigation measures

Facilities would need to choose one additi onal mitigation measur e from the three measures remaining. All thr ee of these measures are more fully described in the dairy

section above.

(1) Manage dry manure depth so that it does not exceed twelve inches.

(2) Knockdown fence line manure build-up prior to it exceeding a height of twelve

inches.

(3) Apply lime or thymol.

c) Retired mitigation measures

The following housing measures wil l be retired from the rule:

(1) Installing floats of other devices in water troughs to prevent spills.

This measure is standard practice and is mo re fully described in the dairy section

above.

(2) Use a dry animal waste manure handling system.

As stated in the dairy section above, recent studies have shown that the vast majority of VOCs such as alcohols and volatile fatty acid s are highly soluble in the liquid form. Due

to the emission reduction benefits achieved fr om liquid manure handli ng, the District will not prefer one manure managemen t practice to the other.

(3) Have no animals in exercise pens, corrals, or drylots at any time.

This requirement was removed from the housing tables because of animal welfare concerns. Restricting access to exercise pens by enclosing the barn may exacerbate animal welfare and animal health concerns, as access to open exercise pens is important for good breeding and pregnancy rates and hoof health. For further information, see dairy freestall narrative for a more detailed explanation.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

51 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 5. Other Cattle Solid Manure Handling, Liquid Manure Handling, and Land Application Mitigation Measures

Changes proposed for the solid and liquid manure handling, and land application tables

are consistent with those made to the dairy tables as described above.

6. Summary of Other Cattle Mitigation Measures

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Management practices Compared to Total Number of Management practices

Area New Rule Other Cattle Feed (TMR) 2 additional of 3 total

Silage 1 additional of 2 total

Measure 1 contains f our required practices

Freestalls 2 mandatory + 1 additional = 3 of 4 total

Corrals 5 mandatory + 1 additional = 6 of 8 total

Solid Manure 1 additi onal of 2 total Liquid Manure 1 additi onal of 4 total Land Application 2 additional of 6 total

TOTAL 16 of 29

7. Other Cattle Compliance Schedule

Other cattle operations that would become s ubject to control requi rements of the rule would be required to submit an Authority-to-Construct applic ation by April 21, 2011 and be in full compliance with the Phase II r equirements within one year after either the Authority-to-Construct or t he Permit-to-Operate are iss ued, whichever is earlier.

I. Swine CAF Mitigation Measures

District staff proposes to revise the swine CAF menu and make all the proposed measures mandatory. All other measures will be retired. Sinc e there is only one facility currently subject to Rule 4570, with no new foreseen facilities coming under the rule, there is no need for variability as in ot her CAFs and the measures have been tailored for the single facility subject to the rule.

1. Swine Feed Mitigation Measures

The Feed control table would require both of two measures; use grain with a certain particle size and utilize phase feeding and split -sex seeding programs, which are both

new measures.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

52 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 a) Mandatory mitigation measures

(1) Use grain with an average particle size diameter between 300-800 microns.

This measure requires a specific range for the average particle of gr ains fed to swine. Reducing the particle size of grain in swine di ets increases the digesti bility of the feed.

This reduces excretion of starch and other nutrients in the manure reducing the potential for VOC emissions.

(2) Utilize phase feeding and Split-Sex Feedin g programs to more closely match the nutrient requirements of animals.

This measure requires animals be placed in di fferent categories and fed diets that are formulated to more closely match the nutrient requirements of each category. This will reduce overfeeding of nutrients, which will re duce excretion of exce ss nutrients that can

be a source of VOCs.

b) Additional mitigation measures

All measures in the Phase II feed table are r equired; therefore, t here are no additional swine feed mitigation measures.

c) Retired mitigation measures

The following measures will be retired from the rule:

(1) Feed according to NRC guidelines.

The NRC guidelines for swine have been out fo r some years and do not reflect current knowledge of feeding practices.

(2) Feed animals at least 5% cellulose.

This measure has been found to reduce ammoni a but not VOCs. It is also not widely used in Valley facilities and therefore will be removed.

(3) Feed animals a casein based diet.

Casein is one of the proteins found in milk. Casein-based diets are diets in which the majority of protein fed is casein. Although nursery pigs will receive some casein in the milk that they receive as part of their ration, casein-based di ets are not fed at

commercial swine facilities because of the hi gh cost of feeding large amounts of casein

that must be extracted from milk. Therefore, this measure is not feasible for commercial

swine facilities.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

53 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (4) Feed animals an amino acid-supplement ed diet with 2% sucrose thermal oligosaccharide caramel. (5) Feed animals a diet with no more t han 10% crude protein with supplemented lysine, threonine, tryptophan, and methionine. (6) Feed animals 10 ppm anthraquinone.

These three mitigation measures were bas ed on limited information from scientific studies. Stakeholders have expressed conc erns regarding the practicality of implementing these measures at commercial swine facilit ies. Also, anthraquinone has recently been listed as a toxic carcinogen by t he Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). In li ght of these issues, thes e measures have been removed

from the table.

(7) Remove spilled from the facility every 14 days. (8) Feed or dispose of rations within 48 hour of grinding and mixing rations.

As stated earlier, emissions fr om facilities that feed a dry grain are expected to have negligible emissions. Since swine facilities fe ed a dry grain diet to their animals, the measures to remove spilled feed and to f eed or dispose will be deleted from the swine

feed table.

(9) Remove uneaten wet feed from the housi ng within 24 hours of a rain event.

Animals in swine facilities are housed in enc losed buildings. Theref ore, the feed is not expected to get wet and this measure wil l not be included in the Phase II table.

(10) Store grain in a weatherproof storage structure from October through May.

All grain at a swine facility is stored in weatherproof structur es, therefore this measure is

not needed and has been removed.

2. Swine Housing Mitigation Measures

In the swine housing control tables, operat ors would be required to implement three mitigation measures.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

(1) Use a slatted floor system with daily m anure removal for shallow flush alleys and weekly removal from deep pits.

This measure has been clarified based on the manure managemen t of the single regulated facility to ensure appr opriate emission reductions.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

54 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 As stated earlier, recent studies have shown t hat the vast majority of VOCs such as alcohols and volatile fatty acids are highl y soluble in water. Since the manure management system for swine is similar to a freestall barn consisting of manure removal through a flush system, emissions will t end to remain in the aqueous mixture of water and manure and will be sent to a lagoon or storage pond to be fu rther treated.

(2) Manage pens such that the manure depth in the pen does not exceed 12

inches.

As stated earlier, VOCs are emitted when manure undergoes anaerobi c decomposition. The depth has been lowered from 18 inches to 12 inches. Limiting the depth of manure in pens will reduce the anaerobi c decomposition in the manure pack that causes VOC

emissions.

(3) Inspect pipes and troughs and repair leaks at least once every 7 days.

The frequency has been lowered from 14 days to 7 days. This measure is described in more detail in the dairy section, above.

b) Additional mitigation measures

All measures in the Phase II housing tabl e are required; ther efore, there are no

additional swine housi ng mitigation measures.

c) Retired mitigation measures

Six Phase I mitigation measures have been reti red in the Phase II swine housing table:

(1) Clean manure from the housing at least twice every 14 days.

This measure is similar or equivalent to us ing the slatted floor syst em and therefore, not

necessary.

(2) Slope the surface of the pens.

The animals housed on swine facilities in the Va lley are housed indoors; therefore, this measure is not applicable to these operations.

(3) Install floats on the troughs.

This measure is standard practice and since t he housing floors are slatted there is not a concern for spilled water. This measure is further described above in the dairy section.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

55 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (4) Use lime in the pens.

This measure does not apply to the swine housing system since the facility does not have any pens. Any lime applied to the swine housing would fall directly to the pits through the slatted floors. Therefore, this measure has been removed.

(5) House animals in an enclosure vent ed to a VOC control device with a combined VOC capture and VOC contro l efficiency of at least 80%

The effectiveness of this measure is related to maintaining dry conditions in animal housing and rapidly reducing the moisture of m anure. Because of this, this measure is not applicable to swine facilities, which hand le manure as a liquid. Therefore, this

measure has been removed.

(6) House animals in a tunnel ventil ated house with mechanical ventilation

The detailed analysis for this me asure is included in Appendix E.

3. Swine Solid Manure Hand ling Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures associated with t he Phase I swine solid manure table will be removed entirely from the Phase II swine sect ion because the facility does not handle or

store solid manure.

4. Swine Liquid Manure Handling Mitigation Measures

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

There are no mandatory mitigation measures for this table.

b) Additional mitigation measures

For the liquid manure controls, the facility will need to choose one of three mitigation measures to comply with the rule.

(1) Use a phototropic lagoon. (2) Use an anaerobic treatment lagoon. (3) Maintain lagoon pH between 6.5 and 7.5

The reasons for keeping these mitigation measures in the swine liquid manure table are the same as those outlined in the dairy liquid manure control table narrative.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

56 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 c) Retired mitigation measures

The following Phase I mitigation measures w ould not be included in the swine Phase II liquid manure handling table:

(1) Have no lagoons.

This measure will be removed for the reason explained in the dairy liquid manure handling section.

(2) Remove solids from the waste system with a solid separator system.

Swine manure does not consist of non-digesti ble fibrous compounds that are prevalent in dairy manure. Therefore, there is no need to separate manure since all of the manure excreted is digestible and can be tr eated in a lagoon without separation.

(3) Liquid manure handling Class Two mitigation measures

The following Class Two liquid manure handling measures would be removed from the

control table:

• Use an aerobic lagoon or us e a mechanically aerated lagoon.

• Maintain organic loading in t he lagoon below a certain amount.

• Use additional non-standar d equipment or chemicals on the solid separator system.

• Cover the lagoon or storage pond and vent to a VOC control device.

The Class Two Mitigation Measures in liq uid manure handling will be removed due to lack of feasibility, either economically or te chnologically, or substantial similarity to a Class One mitigation measure . Further in formation is included in Appendix E.

5. Swine Land Application Mitigation Measures

Operators would have one requi red mitigation measure in the Phase II swine land application table.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

(1) Allow liquid manure to stand in the fields for no more than twenty-four (24) hours after irrigation

.

This mitigation measure would be the only Phase I mitigation measure that would remain on the Phase II land application t able because the facility does not land apply

solid manure.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

57 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 b) Additional mitigation measures

There are no additional mitigation measures in this table.

c) Retired mitigation measures

Three Phase I mitigation measures applicable to solid manure in the land application table will be removed entirely from the Phase II table becaus e the facility subject to the

rule does not handle or store solid manur e. These mitigation measures are:

(1) Land incorporate all solid manure shortly after removal from animal housing. (2) Apply no solid manure with a moisture content of more than 50%. (3) Apply no solid manure.

The following two Phase I mitigation measur es will not be part of the Phase II swine land application table because t hey are either not applicable or the equivalent to the required Phase II mitigation measure retained in this section.

(4) Only apply manure that has been treated with an anaerobic or aerobic lagoon or digester system.

These systems were also found to not be cost effective based on the analysis in Appendix E.

(5) Apply no liquid manure.

6. Summary of Swine Mitigation Measures

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measures Compared to Total Number of Management practices

Area New Rule Swine Feed (TMR) 2 required of 2 total Housing 3 required of 3 total Liquid Manure 1 additi onal of 3 total Land Application 1 required of 1 total

TOTAL 7 of 9

7. Swine CAF Compliance Schedule

The existing swine operation that is subject to the control requirem ents of the rule would be required to submit an Authority-to-Construc t application by April 21, 2011 and be in full compliance with the Phase II requirements wit hin one year after ei ther the Authorityto-Construct or the Permi t-to-Operate is issued, whichever is earlier.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

58 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 J. Poultry CAF Mitigation Measures

As with other CAFs, the management practice s for reducing VOC em issions are divided between the various operations. In the case of poultry, the operati ons are: feed/feed storage, housing, and solid/liquid waste handling. Poultry operations vary by geographical location, age of the facility and standard practices at the time of construction, size and financial resources of the facility, as we ll as the operator’s manure management preferences. There is also a large degree of variability in the manure management practices, housing techniques , and potential feeding practices for the different types of poultry operations in t he valley. These differences are explained in the poultry description in Section II. B. Due to these differences, the requirements in the rule for poultry operations do not apply to all t he various types of poultry facilities. The measures, as presented in the current rule, give the false impression that there are a dozen or so mitigation measures available as management practices for a particular poultry facility when in fact, only a handful are f easible. Therefore, the poultry category will be broken down into the following two cat egories so that the mitigation measures can be tailored to the appropria te operation: 1) layers, 2) broilers, ducks and turkeys.

1. Layer Feed Mitigation Measures

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

All of the feed measures affecting animal diet have been combined into one measure as all are intended to improve efficiency in the animals. Operators have the following management practices within the si ngle feed mitigation measure:

• Feed according to NRC guidelines

• Feed probiotics

• Feed certain amino acids

• Feed certain enzymes

The NRC guidelines are geared to supply the exact blend and quantity of nutrients needed by the animals with the minimum being ex creted and lost to the environment. However this is not the only way to reduce nutrient loading in t he manure for poultry. Including probiotics, amino acids, or certain enzymes in the diet are other ways to promote more complete digestion. The NRC guidelines do not includ e the use of these materials, so an operator who chooses to add one or more of these substances to the birds’ diet would not be feeding according to NRC guidelines, but the potential for VOC

reductions would be similar. For this reas on, District staff is proposing that poultry operators have the flexibility to choose one of the four management practices as a feed mitigation measure.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

59 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 b) Additional mitigation measures

All specific-action mitigation measures for layer feed are mandatory; therefore there are

no additional measures.

c) Retired mitigation measures

Five Phase I mitigation measur es would not be brought into the Phase II feed table. Emissions from dry feed are described in more detail above in Section VIII.

(1) Remove spilled feed every 7 days.

The feed for poultry is generally less than 20 percent moisture which makes it too dry for decomposition by microbes, which w ould generate the sec ondary formation of VOCs. Since the feed is dry, it is not expected that spilled feed would have enough moisture to support microbial decomposition.

(2) Enclose grain in a weather proof storage struct ure from October through May.

Operators already stor e grain in weatherproof structures year-round for two reasons. One reason is that the grain needs to stay dry in order for the automatic feeding system to work appropriately. The second reason for t he storage structure is that the structures

serve as a deterrent to r odents and other pests who would compete for the grain.

(3) Feed or dispose of feed within 48 hours of grindi ng and mixing.

Unlike some other types of CAFs, poultry CAFs generally buy ready-to-use feed from outside sources, i.e., feed m ills, and, therefore, grinding and mixing of feed components to make a final ration does not take place at t he facility. For this reason, the measure is not applicable to poultry CAFs and will not be included in the Phase II feed table.

(4) Use feed additives designed to reduce f eed decomposition or oxidization.

District staff has removed this Phase I mi tigation measure because poultry feed is a low-moisture product, is stored in weatherpr oof structures and is fed to the animals within a short amount of time, therefore, the potent ial for secondary emissions from feed decomposition is minimal.

(5) Remove uneaten wet feed from the housi ng within 24 hours of a rain event.

District staff is removing this mitigation measure because layers are housed in buildings and, during a rain event, it is not expected that the rain would come into the building. Because the rain would not drip onto the feed, there would be no wet feed to undergo decomposition and emit VOCs.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

60 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 2. Layer Housing Mitigation Measures

Operators would be requi red to implement two mitigation measures from this table.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

(1) Use drinkers that do not drip continuously.

The purpose of this mitigation measure is to prevent drinkers from dripping water onto

the floor so that the moisture in the m anure and litter is not increased. Increased

moisture in the manure and litter increas e the potential for anaerobic decomposition, resulting in an increase in VOC emissions.

(2) Inspect water pipes and drinkers and repair leaks daily.

As with the drinker mitigation measure, th is mitigation measure would minimize the water available for microbial decomposit ion and the resulting VOC emissions.

b) Additional mitigation measures

There are no additional mitigation measures, sinc e all provisions are required mitigation

measures.

c) Retired mitigation measures

Several Phase I poultry mitigation measures wil l be not be included in the Phase II layer housing table.

(1) Use a dry housing cleaning method.

This Phase I measure would not be included in the Phase II measures for housing. The floors of layer houses are clear of any material that would enhance microbial decomposition if the floor got wet from a wet cleaning method. As stated earlier, recent studies have shown that the vast majority of VOCs such as alcohols and volatile fatty acids are highly soluble in the liquid form. Liquid manure handling systems will therefore

also result in emission reduction due to the af finity of the pollutants to the wet handling system. Although there is benefit in mainta ining a completely dry manure handling system, equivalent benefits can also be achi eved by a liquid manure handling system. Therefore, the Distric t will not prefer one m anure management practice to the other and has removed this mitigation measure.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

61 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (2) Adjust the drinkers every 14 days.

The birds are all grown and will not increase in size to warrant a change in the drinker configuration. This measure would be retired since it is not applicable to layer facilities.

(3) Remove caked animal waste every 14 days.

Emissions from poultry houses are generally cr eated from the high mois ture in manure. Once manure is caked, the manure is e ssentially dry and will no longer have potential emissions. Therefore, this mitigation measur e will be removed as it will result in minimal

emission reductions.

(4) Clean under poultry cages every 14 days.

Industry standard for layers currently consists of removing manure underneath the cages once per year and in some instances twice per year. The manure is generally handled when the layers are no longer in the hous es. Therefore, removing manure on a biweekly basis will be highly cost prohibitive and have a hu ge impact on animal welfare.

(5) Use poultry litter additives designed to reduce air emissions or moisture

content in litter.

Layers do not use litter (i.e., rice hulls, saw dust, etc.) at their facilities since the hens are housed in cages. The manure simply drops to the bottom of the ground as is, therefore, this meas ure does not apply.

(6) Use no foggers in the house.

Foggers can be used in poultry housing to pr ovide cooling during the Valley’s hot summer months. However, operators hav e found other means that are more economically feasible for cooling, therefore, this mitigation measure is being removed from the housing table.

(7) Only use a fogger system designed to pr ovide water droplets of a specified

size.

District staff proposes removing this mitigat ion measure because the technology is not available. The main reason that this mitigat ion measure is in the current rule is that droplets that are no more than 50 microns when released would be small enough to evaporate before the water c an fall to the floor of t he poultry housing and wet the manure. However, poultry operators have contacted the manufac turers of fogging systems and the manufacturers will not guaran tee the size of the water droplets released, meaning that there are no fogging systems availa ble that would meet the mitigation measure standard.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

62 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (8) Slope the floor of the house to 3% (9) Install mounds or berms up gradient to prevent the runoff of stormwater into

pens.

These measures do not apply to layer housing because the hens are housed in cages.

(10) Maintain the roof structure and manage roof runoff.

This measure requires that a ll of the houses install gutter systems on the roof. The rain water will not have any contact with the manure in the housing whether the water falls

down from the side of the r oof to the ground or through a gutter system. This measure will not result in any real reductions and is an unnecessary capital expense. Therefore,

this measure has been removed.

(11) Layer housing Class Two housing mitigation measures

The following Class Two housing mitigation meas ures would be remov ed from the table:

• Vent housing to a VOC emission control device

• Use a belt litter removal system to dry manure/litter

• House animals in a tunnel-ventil ated house with mechanical ventilation

• Use a litter drying system

The Phase I Class Two mitigation measures in poultry housing will be removed due to lack of feasibility, either ec onomically or technologically. Further information is included in Appendix E.

3. Layer Solid Manure Hand ling Mitigation Measures

Operators of layer CAFs would be requir ed to implement one mitigation measure.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

The following mitigation measur e is required of all layer CAFs which handle solid

manure:

(1) Within 72 hours of removal from poul try housing, either cover poultry litter/manure or send the poultry litter/manure off-site

District staff is proposing to combine tw o Phase I solid manure handling mitigation

measures. This allows the measures to be s lightly more stringent while still allowing for operational flex ibility.

b) Additional mitigation measures

There are no additional mitigation measures in this table.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

63 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 c) Retired mitigation measures

Two Phase I Class One mitigation measures and all of the Phase I Class Two mitigation

measures will be reti red from the rule.

(1) Send manure to a lagoon

This Phase I mitigation measure is being re tired as it is not applicable to poultry operations in the Valley.

(2) Use a solid litter/ manure handling system in housing.

As discussed in earlier sections, the District is not recommending one manure management technique (solid manure m anagement or liquid manure management) over the other. Each management technique has its own merits and if used properly

can result in similar emission reductions. Therefore, this meas ure will be deleted to allow operators the flex ibility to utilize a manure management system that works best for

their facilities.

(3) Poultry Phase I Class Two solid manure handling mitigation measures

The following Class Two solid manure handling measures would be removed from the

rule:

• Send at least 51% of the litter/manur e to a digester system vented to a VOC

emission control device

• Compost poultry litter/manure using an aerated static pile vented to a VOC

emission control device

The Class Two Mitigation Measures from th e Phase I solid manure handling table will be removed due to lack of feasibility, either economically or technologically. Further information is included in Appendix E.

4. Layer Liquid Manure Hand ling Mitigation Measures

All of the mitigation meas ures are considered to have equivalent reductions.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

There are no mandatory mitigation measures for this table.

b) Additional mitigation measures

There are three specific-action mitigati on measures included in this table.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

64 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (1) Use a phototropic lagoon. (2) Use an anaerobic treatment lagoon. (3) Maintain lagoon pH between 6.5 and 7.5

These measures have been included in the addi tional measures for the same reasons outlined in the dairy liquid manure section above.

c) Retired mitigation measures

The following mitigation measures will not be in the Phase II liquid manure table:

(1) Manage the facility such t hat there are no lagoons. (2) Remove solids from the waste system wit h a solid separator system, prior to the waste entering the lagoon. (3) Poultry Phase I Class Two liqui d manure mitigation measures

These mitigation measures will not be included in the layer Phase II liquid manure handling table for the same reasons outlined in the dairy liquid manure section.

5. Broiler/Duck/Turkey Feed Mitigation Measures

The broiler/duck/turkey feed table would be m odified to be the same as the layer feed

table for the same reasons outline in the later feed section above.

6. Broiler/Duck/Turkey Hous ing Mitigation Measures

Operators are required to implement four mitigation measures for broiler/duck operations, five for turkey operations.

a) Mandatory mitigation measures

All of the mitigation measures wit h specific actions are mandatory.

(1) Use a dry housing cleaning method

A wet cleaning method would put water, m anure, and litter in proximity to one another

which are ideal conditions for microbial decom position of the litter and manure. Broilers are housed directly on the ground; they r equire a bedding of some sort, generally a fibrous type material. This bedding provides for a cleaner environment for the birds, while maintaining dry housing conditions. Since birds are housed directly on the ground, a flush system by nature cannot be used because it would simply flush the birds away. Untarnished manure, droppings from layers directly to the ground without bedding material, can be flushed without worrying about animal welfare. But more importantly, manure that contains a majority of bedding material (saw dust, rice hulls, hay, etc) cannot be flushed because it would not make sense to do so. This type ofSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

65 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 material is more properly handled as a solid assuming that it is maintained in dry

conditions.

(2) Use drinkers that do not drip continuously.

The reason for including this mitigation measur e is the same as for the layer operations

outlined above.

(3) Adjust drinkers every seven days.

Broiler, duck and turkey CAFs generally ra ise animals from chicks until they reach market weight. The size of the birds changes significantly in that time period. If the drinker is not set at the right height or the flow is not set correctly, water will be knocked out of the drinker by the birds as they atte mpt to drink water. The water would then mix with the litter and manure on the floor, leading to conditions that are good for microbial degradation. Since the proce ss of microbial decomposition emits VOCs (specifically volatile fatty acids), adjusting the drinkers for flow and height is needed and will reduce the likelihood of water spilling.

(4) Inspect water pipes and drinkers and repair leaks daily.

The reason for including this mitigation meas ure is the same as for the layer operations

outlined above.

(5) Install mounds or berms up grad ient to prevent the runof f of storm water int o

pens.

This measure will only be required for turkey operations since turkeys are the only type of poultry that are housed in outside pens. This measure will allow the turkeys to move to higher grounds during wet weather, reduc ing the manure content in the wet pens,

which in turn will reduce excess anaerobic conditions.

b) Additional mitigation measures

All applicable measures are requi red in the Phase II broiler housing table. There are no additional mitigation measures.

c) Retired mitigation measures

The following Phase I poultry housing mitigation measures will not be included in the Phase II broiler/duck/turkey housing table fo r the same reasons outlined in the layers housing section narrative above.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

66 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (1) Remove caked animal waste every 14 days. (2) Use poultry litter additives designed to reduce air emissions or moisture

content in litter. (3) Use no foggers in the house. (4) Only use a fogger system designed to pr ovide water droplets of a specified

size (5) Slope the house at 3% (6) Maintain the roof structure and manage roof runoff. (7) Phase I poultry housing Class Two mitigation measures

All the above measures have been discussed in the broiler layer section above.

The following Phase I poultry housing measure is not applicable and will not appear in the Phase II broiler/duck/turkey housing table:

(8) Clean under poultry cages every 14 days.

Operators do not cage broilers, ducks, or turkeys; therefore this measure does not apply to these operations and removed from the Phase II broiler housing table.

7. Broiler/Duck/Turkey Solid Manure Handling Mitigation Measures

The broiler/duck/turkey solid manure handling table has the same management practices as the corresponding menu for laye r solid manure. See the dairy solid manure handling section narrative for detail ed descriptions of individual mitigation

measures.

8. Broiler/Duck/Turkey Liquid Manur e Handling Mitigation Measures

The broiler/duck/turkey liquid manure handling table has the same management practices as the corresponding table for la yer liquid manure. See the dairy liquid manure handling section narrative for detail ed descriptions of individual mitigation

measures.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

67 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 9. Summary of Poultry Mitigation Measures

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measures Compared to Total Number of Management practices

Area New Rule Layer Feed (TMR) 1 required of 1 total Housing 2 required of 2 total

Solid Manure/ Separated Solids 1 required of 1 total

Liquid Manure 1 additi onal of 3 total

TOTAL 5 of 7

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measures Compared to Total Number of Management practices

Area New Rule Broiler, Duck, and Turkey Feed (TMR) 1 required of 1 total

Housing For Chicken Broiler and Ducks: 4 required of 4 total For Turkeys: 5 required of 5 total

Solid Manure/ Separated Solids 1 required of 1 total

Liquid Manure 1 additi onal of 3 total

TOTAL 7 of 9 (Turkey 8 of 10)

10. Poultry Operations Compliance Schedule

Poultry operations that become subject to the Phase II control requirements would be required to submit an Authority-to-Construct application by April 21, 2011 and be in full compliance with the Phase II requirements within one year after either the Authority-toConstruct or the Permit-to-Operate are issued, whichever is earlier.

K. Other Proposed Changes

The requirements for a permit and the emission mitigation plan from Section 5.0 and Section 6.0 would be consolidated and moved to the beginning of Section 5.0 to improve reader understanding. The require ments for a mitigation plan would be

consolidated to Section 5.1 for reader cl arity. The Sections 5.0 and 6.0 would be

renumbered as needed. Section 5.2 has been altered to reflect related SB 700 language about permit renewal. Recordkeep ing has been added to Section 5.4.1.1 to retain a signed written copy of a determinati on that a measure is suspended because it

is detrimental to animal health.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

68 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 The provisions covering temporary suspens ion of mitigation m easures when inducing poultry to molt have been combined with the section covering the general requirements for temporary suspension of mitigation measures.

Monitoring requirements for lagoons have been added to the rule. This is in response to EPA concerns that certain mitigation meas ures need to be monitored more often than annually in order to verify compliance.

The required records in Section 7.0 hav e been expanded to detail the records and testing needed for each mitigation meas ure. The propos ed change will help owners/operators and compliance inspectors wit h making sure that mitigation measures are utilized on a regular basis. The followi ng record requirements have been added:

• Feed Moisture Content

• Silage Density

• Silage Pile Formation

• Exposed Silage

• Silage Inoculation

• Housing Bedding Material

In light of the fact that Ru le 4570 will apply to more operati ons and that t hose operations will be smaller than those currently regulated , the District is committed to providing multiple resources and tools to minimize costs and administrative burden associated with the implementation of this rule. District staff plans to review required records to minimize paperwork burden and provide outreach to the medium-sized CAFs throughout the Valley.

L. Revisions from the J une 17, 2010 Proposed Rule

Modifications to the June 17, 2010 version ar e reflected in the Revised Proposed Rule 4570. Changes have been made based on new information and further discussions with EPA and various stakeholders, and are discussed earlier in this staff report. The following summarizes the overarching revisi ons to the rule since the June hearing:

• Control requirement tables have been tightened and streamlined, requiring more mandatory measures that are feasible, and eliminating infeasible measures, such as enclosing and controlling dairy frees tall barns with prohibitively expensive controls. Also, some existing measures have been removed or combined, based

on new science and underst anding of operations.

• The silage measures have been reevaluated and refined but are essentially the same requirements as in the June version. Silage requir ements aggressively reduce emissions from this categor y and are based on the latest science.

• The current regulatory thresholds for f eedlots, other cattle, swine and horses,

have been amended to reiterate the current rule’s thresholds, given that a minimal number of facilities, if any , that would be brought into the rule.

• Language has been polished to more clearly reflect the practices at CAFs.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

69 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 XI. EMISSIONS AND EMISSION REDUCTION ANALYSIS

The estimated current baseline emissions inventory for CAFs is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 – Estimated Baseline Emission Inventory VOC Emission Inventory in tons per day Type of CAF 2008

current rule 2012

without rule reductions 2023

without rule reductions Dairy 95.82 105.82 137.38 Layers 0.26 0.26 0.26

Broilers 7.35 7.35 7.35

Total CAF Emissions 112.4 122.4 153.96

The estimated emission reductions associated with implementat ion of the proposed

amendments are summarized in Table 5. De tails of the emission reduction analysis are found in Appendix B of this staff report.

Table 5 – Estimated Emission Reductions

Estimated Emission Reduc tions in tons per day Type of CAF 2012
(1 st full year of compliance) 2023
(projected reductions) Dairy 25.09 31.62 Layers 0.012 0.012

Broilers 0.132 0.132

Total Estimated Reductions 25.234 31.764

XII. COSTS AND COST EF FECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

District staff estimated added compliance costs for the amendments to the rule provisions. For dairy CAFs, it is estimat ed that the changes to the rule will affect operations at individual dairies by requi ring the operator to us e certain emission reduction practices. Overall, the implementation cost for dai ry CAFs is estimated to be $61 million per year. District staff estimates that the additional cost to poultry CAF owner/operators, and more specifically to chicken meat and egg producers, is $274,000 annually. Compliance costs for beef feedlots, other cattle, and swine operations are estimated to be minimal and likely absorbed into current practices.

Cost effectiveness is a measure of the cost required to achieve the emissions reductions associated with the proposed rule, found by dividing the compliance cost by

the estimated emission reductions. For t he two main CAF categories impacted by the proposed amendments, dairy and poultry CAFs, t he cost effectiveness is estimated to be $6,695 per ton of VO C reduced, and $5,362 per ton of VOC reduced, respectively. ASAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

70 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 detailed cost effectiveness analysis fo r the proposed Rule 4570 amendments is included as Appendix C of this staff report.

XIII. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Pursuant to state law, District staff is required to perform a socioeconomic impact analysis prior to adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule that has significant air quality

benefits or that will st rengthen emission limitations. As part of the District’s socioeconomic analysis process, owners, operators, and other interested parties were

invited to submit economic information to aid District staff wit h the socioeconomic impact analysis. This information and suppor ting data was provided to an outside consultant who identified and analyzed t he socioeconomic impacts of the proposed

amendments to Rule 4570 on t he regional economy. The results of the socioeconomic analysis are available as Append ix D of this staff report.

XIV. ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The proposed project is a continuation of the June 17, 2010, proposed amendment to

Rule 4570. Pursuant to California Envir onmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15063, staff conducted an Initial Study, incorpor ated herein by reference, to determine if the proposed project may have a signific ant effect on the env ironment. Staff

determined that there was no substantial evidence before t he District that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environm ental impact. On Ap ril 14, 2010, staff published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a N egative Declaration ( CCR §15072). The draft Negative Declaration was avai lable for public comment from April, 14, 2010 to May 14,

2010.

Comments were received from the California Regional Wa ter Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding management practices t hat may increase water usage, as summarized in Appendix A. The Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Negative
Declaration was revised to reflect RWQCB co mments; however the revision did not alter

the initial determination t hat the proposed project woul d not have a significant environmental impact.

Since publication in June, 2010, the propos ed rule amendments have undergone minor revision. A summary of the pr oposed revisions is presented in Section X.L of this staff report. Staff concludes that the proposed revisions do not constitute a “substantial
revision” as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(b) and recirculation of the Negative Declaration is not required ( CCR §15073.5(c). Thus, upon approval of the proposed amendments by the District’s Governing Board, District staff will file a Notice of Determination with each County Clerk wit hin the boundaries of the District (CCR §15075(d).SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

71 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 XV. RULE CONSIS TENCY ANALYSIS

Pursuant to CH&SC 40727.2, District staff ha s prepared a rule consistency analysis that compares the elements of the amendments with the corre sponding elements of other District rules, federal regulations and guideli nes that apply to the same source category or type of equipment. District staff found that the propos ed amendments and requirements of this rule would not conflict with federal rules, regulations, or policies covering similar sources. The rule consis tency analysis is presented in Appendix F of this report.

XVI. REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ANALYSIS

CAA Section 182(b) (2) states that ozone attainment plans s hall assure that RACT for volatile organic compounds (VOC) is applied at certain sources.

A RACT analysis requires an examination of three broad elem ents, applicability, stringency, and enforceability, against federal rules, regulations, and technology guidelines, as well as comparing it against rules from other air districts in California

The District believes that this proposed rule exceeds RACT. A detailed RACT analysis has been provided to the District’s Governing Board as a separate document.

XVII. HEALTH BE NEFIT ANALYSIS

The District adopted its first confined animal facility rule, Rule 4570, at a public hearing held on June 15, 2006. Prior to and during the rule adopt ion hearing, the District considered (1) the feasibilit y of the control measures c ontained in Rule 4570, (2) the economic impacts associated with the rule, (3 ) reductions in ozone pre-cursors that would result from compliance with the rule , and (4) the public health impacts of ozone and ozone precursors. As is normally the ca se under CAA rulemaking, the District did not consolidate this information into a specific discussion of the rule’s impact on public health in 2006. However, because Rule 45 70 was triggered by the enactment in 2003 of Senate Bill 700 (codified under CH&SC Se ction 40724.6(e)), the California Fifth Appellate District ruled that ru lemaking under this statute mu st explicitly consider the public health impacts of control measures on CAFs. These benefits were to be balanced against the economic impacts of t he proposed rule and its feasibility.

In response to this ruling, the District, in conjunction with a temporary suspension and re-adoption of Rule 4570, conducted a health benefit analysis of the 2007 Ozone Plan in 2009 that included (1) the contribution of the CAF sector to ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley

, (2) Rule 4570’s contribution to regional ozone reductions in

2012 and 2020

, and (3) a quantification of cumulative health benefits in 2020 resultingSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

72 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 from the 2007 Ozone Plan. Of particular re levance to the current proposed amendment of Rule 4570, that 2009 health benefit analys is quantified the distin ct contribution to VOC reductions made by previously adopt ed Rule 4570 as well as the additional reductions accruing from the current proposed amendments. This prior health benefit analysis satisfied the requirement s of the CH&SC Section 40724.6(e).

This rule project is not subject to CH& SC Section 40724, et seq. (SB 700) and an explicit analysis of health benefits from the proposed amendm ent is not required. The purpose of this rule project is to meet a control strategy commitment in the District’s 2007 Ozone Plan (Control Measure S-AGR-2). However, because of the relevance to the rule project of the previous health benefit analysis and the similarity in the VOC reductions estimated in the 2009 analysis to the reduction estimate from the proposed amendments of 31.8 tons per day of VOC, an abbreviated reiteration of the health benefit analysis is included in Appendix G.

XVIII. REFERENCES

1. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2007 Ozone Plan . April 2007. 2. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. DRAFT Air Pollution Control Officer’s Revision of the Dairy VOC Emissions Factor. January 2010. 3. Applied Economic Development. “Soc ioeconomic Analysi s of Proposed Rule 4570 Confined Animal Facilities” pr epared for the San Joaquin Valley Air

Pollution Control District. Final Staff Report Appen dix D. May 2004. 4. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 223 (Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Anim al Facilities). June 2006. 5. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Staff Report for Proposed Rule 223 (Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities). June

2006. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1127 (Emission Reductions from Livestock Wastes). August 2004. 7. US Department of Agricult ure. “National Agricultural Statistics Service”, Census of Agriculture. 2007. 8. Kung Jr., Limin “ Silage Fermentation & Additives.” Direct-fed Microbial, Enzyme & Forage Additive Compendium. Minnetonka, MN: Miller Publishing Co., 2000-

2001. 9. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension . “ Silage From Harvest to Feed: Understanding Silage Management.” < http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/ud016.pdf >. 10. Tao, S., Wang, T., Shim ojo, M., Masuda, Y. “Effect of ensiling density on fermentation quality of guineagrass sil age during the early stage of ensiling.”

Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 18 (2005): 1273-1278. 11. Krauter, C., Blake, D. “Dairy Oper ations: An Evaluation and Comparison of Baseline and Potential Mitigation Practice s for Emissions Reductions In the SanSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

73 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 Joaquin Valley.” prepared fo r the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. 12. Muck, E., Richard, Kung Jr ., Limin “Silage Production.” Forages - The Science of Grassland Agriculture , Chapter 40. 2006. 13. Schroeder, J.W. "Silage Fermentation & Preservation." North Dakota State University - College of Agriculture, F ood Science, and Natural Resources. 2004. 14. Charley, Robert (editor). "Key Silage Management Topics." Lallemand Animal

Nutrition. 2006. 15. Kung Jr., Limin and Martin R. Stokes. “ Analyzing Silages for Fermentation End Products.” University of Delaware Coll ege of Agriculture & Natural Resources,

2001. 16. Kentucky State University. “Improvi ng On-farm Particle Size Analysis.” < www.asi.kstate.edu/DesktopModules/ViewDo cument.aspx?DocumentID=3825 >. 17. Goodband, Robert D., et al. “The Effect s of Diet Particle Size on Animal Performance.” Kansas State University, May 2002. 18. Vansickle, J. “Rethinking Pelleted Feed for Swine Diets.” National Hog Farmer

. Feb 15, 2010. <nationalhogfarmer.com/nutrition/ar chive/rethinking-pelleted-feed0215/ >. 19. Carlson, M. “Swine Diet Manipulation to Minimize Environmental Impacts.” University of Miss ouri Extension, 2003. http://extension.misso uri.edu/publications/Dis playPub.aspx?P=G2324 20. EPA. “Wastewater technology Fact Sheet: Anaerobic Lagoons.” 2002. <www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/alagoons.pdf >. 21. Branham, D., “Lagoon Microbiology.”

<www.oawu.net/H2O/2006/Summer 06/Lagoon.Microbiology.David.pdf >. 22. Alpha Diary Consulting LLC. Corres pondence regarding “National Research Council: Nutrient Requirements for Domestic Animals.” August 31, 2010. 23. Meyer, Deanne, PhD, UC Davis Li vestock Waste Management, and Peter Robinson, PhD., UC Department of Anim al Science Cooperative Extension, correspondence regarding “Eliminat ing Silage,” August 25, 2010. 24. California Code of Regulations, Title 3. Food and Agriculture, Division 2. Animal Husbandry, Volume 4. 25. Ricker, D., “Micron Evaluat ion of Ground Corn.” Ohio St ate University Extension,

2004. <porkinfo.osu.edu/documen ts/Micronreport10-04.doc > 26. Office of Environmental Health Ha zard Assessment. “Anthraquinone.” CAS No.

84-65-1. 2007. < oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65 _list/092807list.html > 27. Kerr, B.J.; C.J. Ziemer ; S.L. Trabue; J.D. Crous e; and T.B. Parkin. “Manure composition of swine as affected by diet ary protein and cellulose concentration.”

Journal of Animal Science 84 (2006):1584-1592. 28. Meyer, Deanne, PhD, UC Davis Li vestock Waste Management and Peter Robinson, PhD., UC Department of Anim al Science Cooperative Extension. Correspondence regarding “Sizes of Sil age Piles in the San Joaquin Valley.” August 20, 2010. 29. Mitloehner, Dr. Frank. Correspondence r egarding “VOCs from feedlot calves, steers, and rations.” August 15, 2010.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) October 21, 2010

74 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 30. Mitloehner, Dr. Frank. Correspondence regarding “ Production efficiencies as mitigation tool for air emissions from steers, heifers, and associated manure. ” September 1, 2010. 31. Miller, D. N. and V.H. Varel. “In vitro study of the biochemical origin and production limits of odorous co mpounds in cattle feedlots.” Journal of Animal

Science 79.12 (2001): 2949-2956. 32. Miller, D. N. and V.H. Varel. “An in vitro study of manure composition on the biochemical origins, composition, and accumulation of odorous compounds in

cattle feedlots.” Journal of Animal Science 80 (2002):2214-2222. 33. Miller, D. N. and V.H. Varel. “Swine manure composit ion affects the biochemical origins, composition, and accu mulation of odorous compounds.” Journal of

Animal Science 81 (2003):2131-2138. 34. Hobbs, P.J., et al. “Emissions of volati le organic compounds originating from UK livestock agriculture.” Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 84 (2004):1414-

1420. 35. Chang, M. H. and T.C. Chen. “Reducti on of Broiler House Malodor by Direct Feeding of a Lactobacilli Containing Probiotic.” International Journal of Poultry

Science 2.5 (2003): 313-317

. 36. Varel, V.H. and J. Wells. “Influence of thymol and a urease inhibitor on coliform bacteria, odor, urea, and methane from a swine production manure pit.” Journal of Environmental Quality 36.3 (2007):773-779. 37. Varel, V.H., et al. “Inc orporation of thymol into corncob granules for reduction of odor and pathogens in feedlot cattle waste.” J. Anim. Science 84 (2006):481-487. 38. Varel, V. H. “Livestock manure odor abatement with pl ant-derived oils and nitrogen conservation with ureas e inhibitors: A review.” J Anim. Science 80 (2002):E1-E7. 39. Sholes, David, Central Valley R egional Water Quality Control Board, correspondence regarding “Sizes Leachate Sent to a treatment System.” September 8, 2010.