ATTACHMENT G



### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Draft Final Staff Report

Proposed Rule 1127 – Emission Redu ctions From Livestock Waste

June 4, 2004 August 6, 2004

Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Elaine Chang, DrPH

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Laki T. Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

Authors: Julia C. Lester, Ph.D. – Program Supervisor Mary Woods, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed By: Barbara Baird - District Counsel Frances Keeler - Senior Deputy District Counsel

Contributions: Mike Garibay – Senior Air Quality Engineer Michael Krause – Air Quality Specialist Patricia Kwon - Air Quality Specialist Kathy Stevens - Air Quality Specialist Charles Tupac - Senior Air Quality Engineer

### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD

CHAIR: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

VICE CHAIR: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D. Supervisor, Fourth District Riverside County Representative

MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative

JAN PERRY Councilmember, City of Los Angeles Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Western Region

JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee

WILLIAM CRAYCRAFT Councilmember, City of Mission Viejo Cities Representative, Orange County

BEATRICE LAPISTO-KIRTLEY Councilmember, City of Bradbury Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Eastern Region

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Riverside County

BILL POSTMUS Supervisor, First District San Bernardino County Representative

JAMES W. SILVA Supervisor, Second District Orange County Representative

CYNTHIA VERDUGO-PERALTA Governor's Appointee

DENNIS YATES Councilmember, City of Chino Cities Representative, San Bernardino County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER:

BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.Table of Contents

PR 1127 i June 2004 August 2004 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1

Background and Legal Authority .......................................................................... 2

Air Quality Regulations

............................................................................... 2

Water Quality Regulations ....................................................................... 4

Industry Profile ........................................................................................................ 6

Emissions Inventory ............................................................................................... 12

Proposed Control Technologies and Practices ..................................................... 17

Summary of Proposed Rule Requirements ......................................................... 21

Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 24

Environmental Assessment ..................................................................................... 29

Socioeconomic Assessment ..................................................................................... 29

Outreach and Public Comments ........................................................................... 29

Draft Findings and Comparative Analysis ...................................................... 37 41

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 –Santa Ana and San Jacinto Watershed Locations (SAWPA) ........ 5

Figure 2 – Distribution of Poultry and Dairy Operations in the Basin ............. 8

Figure 3-1 – Cows at the Feed Lane....................................................................... 9

Figure 3-2 – Cows at the Watering Trough in the Corral ................................... 10

Figure 4 – Typical South Coast Dairy Production Facility.................................. 11

Table 1 –- Summary of Manure Handling In SARWQCB Region .................... 14

Table 2 –- Total Control Effectiveness of Manure Practices............................... 16

Table 3 –- Manure Disposal For Future Years ..................................................... 16

Table 4 –- Emission Estimates (tons/day) Without PR1127 ................................ 17

Table 5 –- Total Control Effectiveness of Manure Practices with PR1127 ........ 19

Table 6 –- Manure Disposal For Future Years with PR1127 .............................. 19

Table 7 –- Emission Estimates (tons/day) With PR1127...................................... 20

Table 8 –- Emission Estimates (tons/day) Alone................................................... 20

Table 9 – Comparison of Remaining Emission after PR1127 with WST-01 Target Levels (tons/day).......................................................... 20Table of Contents

PR 1127 ii June 2004 August 2004 Table 10 – Near Term Local Dairy Relocations ................................................... 21

Table 11 – 2010 Alternate Future Emissions With Pr1127 (tons/day)................ 21

Table 12 – Cost of Manure Disposal Op tions (adjusted to tipping-fee basis) .... 25

Table 13 – PR1127 Cost Effectiveness ................................................................... 26

Table 14 – Summary of Costs and Assumptions................................................... 27

Table 15 – Absolute Cost Effectiveness.................................................................. 27

Table 16 – Incremental Cost Effectiveness Compared to Fabric In-Vessel ....... 27

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Control Options

Appendix B: Draft PR1127 (dated June 4, 2004)Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 1 June 2004 August 2004 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of Proposed Rule (PR) 1127 is to reduce ammonia, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and particulate matter under 10 microns (P M10) from dairies. PR1127 is designed to implement the Air Quality Management Pl an (AQMP) control measure WST-01 and establish BACM requirements for dairies called for by SB700.

The South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict (AQMD) exceeds state and federal ambient air quality standards for PM10 (fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) and ozone. Since 1994, the AQMD pr epared and adopted AQMPs that have included a control measure (WST-01) to redu ce ammonia, VOCs, and PM10 from livestock waste. The control measure was upda ted in the 1997 AQMP, the 1999 AQMP/Ozone AQMP revision and the 2003 AQMP State Implemen tation Plan (SIP). The control measure
calls for a 50% reduction in ammonia and a 30% reduction in VOC emissions from 1997 AQMP base year (1993) levels by 2006. Calif ornia SB 700, adopted in September 2003, removes the exemption for agricultural sources from regulatory requirements and requires that for each serious PM10 non-attainment area, districts must adopt best available control measures (BACM) for agricultural stationary sources of air pollu tion by July 1, 2005, with implementation no later than July 1, 2006.

The local dairy industry is unique in many ways. Almost all dairies use a dry-lot corral system, as opposed to the more prevalent flushe d lane system used elsewhere in California and the nation. Increasing urbanization is i nducing many farmers to relocate; the same process occurred in the 1970s when dairie s moved from Los Angeles County to San Bernardino and Riverside counties. By 2015 or 2020, the total number of dairy cows will probably reduce by half from mid-1990 levels. Reduced cattle populations will reduce dairy manure emissions. In addition, stricter wa ter quality regulations adopted in 1999 have changed the dairies’ manure handling and land spreading operations. Some of the water regulations also reduce manure emissions.

As noted in the 2003 AQMP control measure WST-01, the 1997 AQMP set a “target” level of remaining emissions from dairy operati ons; 50% ammonia reductions and 30% VOC reductions from the 1993 base year emissions by 2006. Adjusted for the latest emission factors and emission methodologies, the 2003 AQMP baseline emissions for VOCs, ammonia, and PM10 from dairy manure are approximately 10.0, 25.9, and 1.3 tons per day, respectively, in 1993. In the absence of PR 1127 but accounting for emission reductions from dairy relocations and water quality regulations enacted in 1999, the 2010 dairy manure emissions are estimated to be 4.5 tons per da y VOC, 12.7 tons per day ammonia, and 0.8 tons per day PM10.

Facilities affected by the proposed rule include agricultural operations or facilities that are directly related to raising cows and/or produc ing milk from cows for the purpose of making a profit or for a livelihood, i.e., dairy, heifer a nd calf farms. PR1127 will also affect manure processing operations, such as composting f acilities and anaerobic digesters. PR1127 would require Best Management Practices (BMP’s) on dairies, including dust prevention and more frequent manure removal. PR1127 would establish requirements for alternative manure composting operations that allow manure composti ng in in-vessel systems that may not meetDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 2 June 2004 August 2004 all the requirements of Rule 1133.2 for co-compos ting operations. It is proposed that farms that have fewer than 50 cows would be exempt from PR 1127 requirements.

With the implementation of PR1127 and accounti ng for the impact of dairy relocation and water quality regulations, remaining emissi ons in 2006 are 10.7 tpd ammonia and 3.8 tpd VOC; the 2003 AQMP target levels are 13.0 t pd ammonia and 6.7 tpd VOC. Thus, the 2003 AQMP control requirements of WST-01 will be exceeded with the implementation of PR1127. SB700 BACM requirements for dairy and related operations will be met through implementation of existing Rule 1186, “PM10 Em issions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations,” adopted in 1997 and amended in 2004, and adoption and implementation of PR1127.

Remaining emissions in 2010 after the implem entation of PR1127 are estimated to be 3.3 tons per day VOC, 9.4 tons per day ammonia, and 0.8 tons per day PM10. Reductions from the impact of PR1127 alone (separate from re ductions due to dairy relocation and the air quality benefit of water quality regulations) are 3.3 tpd ammonia and 1.2 tpd VOC in 2010. The cost effectiveness for PR 1127 is $5,800.per ton of VOC reduced and $2,070 per ton of NH3 reduced and $2,070 per combined ton of NH3 and VOC reduced.



### BACKGROUND AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

The AQMD is the local government agency responsible for air quality assessment and improvement in Orange county, the non-desert portions of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, and most of Riverside county. AQM D jurisdictional boundaries include all of the Basin and portions of the Salt on Sea Air Basin (SSAB). AQMD air monitoring indicates that
these air basins exceed State and federal h ealth-based air quality standards for PM10 and ozone. Accordingly, the U.S. EPA has designated both the SCAB and the SSAB as serious
non-attainment areas for PM10 and extreme non-attainment for ozone. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the AQMD is required to atta in the PM10 standards for both of these air basins by 2006 and the ozone standard by 2010. Ammonia is a precursor of PM10, particularly aerosol ammonium nitrate and a mmonium sulfate. Volatile organics compounds (VOC) are precursors to ozone. Livestock wa ste produces appreciable amounts of VOC and
ammonia emissions.

Under the State law, the AQMD is required to adopt an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that identifies a control strategy to demonstrate compliance with all State and federal ambient air quality standards. 1 To address these State and federal mandates, the 1994, 1997 AQMPs, the 1999 amendment to th e 1997 ozone SIP, and the 2003 AQMP included control measure (WST-01) for the c ontrol of ammonia and VOC emissions from livestock operations. PR1127 is designed to implement the 2003 AQMP control measure

WST-01.

1 California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(a)Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 3 June 2004 August 2004 

### Air Quality Regulations

AQMD Rule 1186, PM 10 Emissions From Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations reduces the amount of particulate matte r entrained in the ambient air as a result of vehicular travel on paved and unpaved public roads and at livestock operations. Rule 1186 restricts the times during which a dairy operato r can grind hay. The restriction is dependent on extent of visible emissions. Also, livestock operations are required to control entrained road dust from unpaved access roads on the dairy operation.

The 2003 AQMP includes control measure WST-01 as part of a comprehensive program to reduce sources of PM10 and ozone precursor emissions, e.g. ammonia and VOCs. The emission reductions can be achieved by the re location and the resulting decrease in cow population, air quality benefits associated w ith water quality regulations, and by proposed control methods. The 2003 AQMP (as originally stated in the 1997/9 AQMP) establishes a “carrying” capacity (or “target”) for dairy emissions . This target is set to ensure attainment of the PM10 standards, as determined by the attainment demonstration. Emission reductions
from livestock relocation outside of the Basi n will be counted toward the WST-01 goal of a
50% ammonia and 30% VOC emission reduction from the 1997 AQMP base year emissions (base year = 1993). However, it is becomi ng apparent that the 2006 emission reduction target can not be met with relocations alone . The anticipated emission reduction shortfall and the Basin’s severe air pollution problem relative to ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 necessitate
further controls of ammonia and VOCs from dairy operations and livestock facilities. Control options described in the 2003 AQMP in clude altering livestock feed to reduce nitrogen content in resulting manure (urine and f eces), removal of manure from the facility in a timely manner, storage of manure under conditions that produce less ammonia, promotion
of aerobic rather than anaerobic conditions in the feed yard floors, corrals and manure stockpiles, and/or the application of enzymatic , pH adjusting and/or microbial solutions to
the manure to reduce emissions.

Prior to the approval of SB700 in September 2003, California state law exempted equipment used at agricultural facilities from the permit syst em of local air pollution control districts. Equipment used at agricultural facilities represents a significant source of air pollution throughout the state. With the exemption fr om permitting, agricultural facilities were not included in the state’s Title V permitting progr am required by the Federal Clean Air Act.

The United States Environmental Protecti on Agency (USEPA) proposed disapproving the state’s Title V permitting program because of th e exemption and the significant source of air pollution that agricultural operations represent. To avoid federal sanctions, on September 22, 2003, Governor Davis signed SB700, which revise d state law to remove the agricultural permitting exemption. SB700 was adopted to harmonize state and federal permitting requirements and to recognize the contribution to the air pollution problem that agricultural operations represent. In addition to corr ecting the deficiencies cited by USEPA, SB700 mandates new permitting and pollution control requirements for agricultural sources in California and requires that agricultural sources be treated similar to other sources of air pollution.

SB700 requires each district that is designated a serious federal non-attainment area for an applicable ambient air quality standard for PM as of January 1, 2004, to adopt, implement, and submit for inclusion in the state implementa tion plan (SIP), a rule or regulation requiring

BACM and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for agricultural practicesDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 4 June 2004 August 2004 at agricultural sources of air pollution to redu ce air pollutants from those sources for which that technology is applicable for agricultural practices by the earliest feasible date but no later than January 1, 2006. SB700 also requires each district subject to those requirements to comply with a schedule for public hearing, adoption, and implementation of the final rule.

Adopted Rule 1186 and PR1127 would implement BACM at dairies as required by SB700. Permitting requirements for equipment at da iries will be addressed through other AQMD actions. Other SB700 requirements, such as whole farm permits, emission reduction permits for Large Confined Animal Farms (as de fined by SB700) and BACM requirements for poultry and other livestock operations, will be addressed in future AQMD rulemaking.



### Water Quality Regulations

In the Chino Basin, high concentrations of an imals per acre of land have resulted in the generation of large volumes of manure, (e.g. more than 1.3 million tons of manure was produced in 2002). Historically, the manure has b een stored in the corrals, stockpiles and to a much smaller extent, in the holding ponds. The density of the livestock and the location of the dairies have limited the manure disposal op tions. Few dairies have had pasture land on which to spread the manure and there were only a few local composters. Due to these limitations, the majority of the manure was stockp iled at the dairy, hauled off site, stored in stockpiles or land applied to cropland as fertili zer. Animal waste in rainfall runoff from livestock operations in the Chino Basin and the San Jacinto Basin has caused groundwater pollution and impacted the quality of the area waterways, including the Santa Ana River, Prado Basin, San Jacinto River, Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. Percolation of rainfall and runoff through corrals and drainage from st ockpiles contaminates the groundwater with nitrates and total dissolved solids (TDS). Therefore, proper management of wastes from dairies and other confines animal feeding ope rations (CAFOs) is necessary to protect the surface and groundwater.

Based on analysis of the 2002 SARWQCB A nnual Report, 314 dairy operations submitted annual reports to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The majority of the Santa Ana and San Jacinto watersheds, which comprise the SARWQCB jurisdiction, lie within the Basin. All of the dairy operations under the SARWQCB jurisdiction are located within the Basin. The geographical location of the watersheds and dairy operations are shown in Figure 1. In 2002, the dairy operati ons contained approximately 253,000 lactating (milking) cows (CDFA). Two hundred and seventy-three dairy operations are located within the Chino Basin, 38 are within the San Jacinto Watershed and 3 are located in the Upper Santa Ana Region. In 2002, 1.3 million t ons of manure was reported in the manure manifests submitted to the SARWQCB.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 5 June 2004 August 2004 Figure 1: Santa Ana and San Jacinto Watershed Locations (SAWPA)

From 1972 to 1994, the SARWQCB regulated th e dairies by issuing individual waste discharge permits. In 1994, the SARWQCB adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement, Order No. 94-7, for concentrated feeding operations, including dairies, in the Santa Ana Region. At the time, two desalters we re scheduled to be built in the Chino Basin as well as the operation of a Chino Basin Co-composting facility. These facilities were expected to reduce the salt and nitrate load from the Chino Basin. However, only one desalter has been built and the co-composting fac ility did not remove the expected amount of manure from the SAWCQB Region. As a result, the salt load in the SARWQCB Region was not significantly reduced. During this time period (1994 – 1999), the dairies continued to stockpile the manure at the dairies, and land apply manure to local farm land.

The SARWQCB has since re-evaluated the dairy and other AFO regulations in the SARWQCB Region and developed Order No. 99-11. This order complies with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), which states that all concentrated feeding operations are point sources and are subject to NPDES permits. (T he SARWQCB has deemed that all dairies,
calf nurseries and heifer ranches in the SA RWQCB Region are CAFOs and are subject to NPDES requirements). Order No. 99-11 regulat es the storage of manure, discharge of manure and application as fertilizer in the Chi no Basin and requires that the dairy operations comply with the following control options in order to minimize ground water contamination:Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 6 June 2004 August 2004 • Clean corrals and remove stockpiled manure at least twice a year (every 180 days)

• Two Clean Days per year – free of stockpiled manure

• Application of manure as a fertilizer in the Chino Groundwater Basin is prohibited (with exemptions)

In order to comply with Order No. 99-11, th e dairies are required to prepare a manure manifest of the manure hauled away and submit the manifest with the annual report, in accordance with the SARWQCB annual report requirements. Compliance with the SARWQCB, Order No. 99-11, is factored into the emission reduction analysis and forms the basis of the PR1127 requirements.

In January 2003, the U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA) revised the regulatory requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) under the Clean Water Act. The rule ensures that CAFOs take appropr iate actions to manage manure effectively in order to protect the nation’s water quality. The rule revision strengthens the existing regulatory program for CAFOs. The rule requires all CAFOs to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The new NPDES permit requirements pertain to beef, dairy, swine, v eal calves and poultry CAFOs. In addition all CAFOs covered by NPDES permits are require d to develop and implement a nutrient management plan (NMP). The nutrient mana gement plan identifies manure management practices necessary to implement the effluent limitations guidelines and any other requirements in the permit. The nutrient mana gement plan would include requirements to land apply manure, and process wastewater consis tent with site specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients.

Dairies within the SARWQCB jurisdiction are re quired to either submit a engineered waste management plan (EWMP) or a nutrient manage ment plan (NMP). EWMP’s are required for dairy operations that do not have the capacity for land application of manure within their dairy operation.

Federal and state programs exist that aid th e agricultural industry with environmental requirements. The federal, Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is funded through the Farm Bill and is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). EQIP is a voluntary program that pr ovides assistance to agricultural producers to meet Federal, State, tribal and local environmental requirements.

The California Dairy Quality Assurance Envi ronmental Program (CDQA) is administered through the University of California at Davi s, cooperative extension programs and helps California dairy producers understand and meet federal, state, regional and local requirements for manure and water quality. An air quality component is currently being developed and will be added to the CDQA program.



### INDUSTRY PROFILE

A dairy farm or facility is an agricultural opera tion directly related to the raising cows or producing milk from cows for the purpose of making a profit or for a livelihood. The USDA reports that there were 105,250 milk production operations and 9.2 million dairy cows in theDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 7 June 2004 August 2004 United States in the year 2000. California produ ced 19.2 percent of the milk in the United
States and the state is ranked number one for milk production in the country. On average, California had 1.5 million dairy cows, 2,195 dair ies in the year 2000. In California the average number of cows per dairy was 696 co mpared to the national average of 88. In Riverside and San Bernardino the average number of cows per dairy are 1092 and 842 respectively. Dairying practices differ throughout the state, country and world. In the San Joaquin Valley and northern California the major ity of the dairies are flush lane operations. The manure in the milking parlors and free sta ll barns are flushed with recycled lagoon water into the lagoons. Waste from the lagoons is land applied as a nutrient source to local farmland. Most dairy farms in the Basin are “dry lot corral” dairies. Dairy cows live in open corrals, with feed lanes usually along one side of the corral. Manure is generally cleared from the feed lane into the corral, and then periodically removed from the corral, either to on-site stockpiles or off-site. Current water quality regulations require clearing of on-dairy manure twice a year.



### Local Dairy History

Historically, from the 1950’s until the early 1970’s, Los Angeles and Orange counties represented the center of dairy operations in S outhern California. The city of Cerritos, originally named Dairy Valley, was one of th e large dairy centers. Dairy Valley was the home to 100,000 cows on more than 400 dair ies and 106,300 chickens on licensed poultry farms. Urban crowding, increased odor and nui sance complaints, traffic and drainage problems caused the dairies to move eastward to the San Bernardino Agricultural District or “Dairy Preserve”.

During the 1930’s the Chino Valley “Dairy Pr eserve” in San Bernardino county contained 117 dairies and 7,600 cows. The herds were sm all and ranged from 15 to 25 cows with family members supplying practically all the labor. By 1950, the number of cows in Chino Valley had doubled, but the dairy numbers ha d declined to 99. Between 1950 and 1970 many dairies sold their cows and milk quota because of the favorable prices resulting from the statewide marketing pool. However, other dairies increased their herd size for maximum use of their facilities and equipment. This resulted in an overall increase in the number of dairy
cows in both San Bernardino and Riverside C ounties. A large part of the increase was a
result of the relocation of dairies from th e Los Angeles and Orange County metropolitan areas to the Chino area. As dairying became more specialized, the average herd size increased. In 1991 there were 349 dairies. In 2002, there were 314 dairies.

The high concentration of animals per acre of land in the Chino/Ontario area results in a large volume of manure stored in corrals, stoc kpiles and to a much smaller extent, holding ponds. This high density of livestock, as well as the location of dairies, limits manure disposal options. Few dairies have pastures on which to spread the manure, and there are only a few local composters that use the manur e. Large quantities of manure are trucked to
other areas of the Basin and to areas outside of the Basin, such as the Imperial County or San Joaquin Valley, for processing as fertilizer. In October of 1999, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) a pproved comprehensive National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulati ons for local dairies. The NPDES regulates
the removal of manure from dairies and the st orage of stockpiles of manure. Under these regulations, manure must be removed from the dairies twice a year (approximately every 180 days). This includes the scraping of corrals and removal of stockpiled manure. Storage of manure in stockpiles promotes anaerobic conditions and the generation of by-product gases.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 8 June 2004 August 2004 In 1999, the Local Agency Formation Commissi on granted the City of Chino annexation rights to 7,000 acres and the City of Ontario to annexation rights to 8,600 acres of previously dedicated agricultural (e.g. dairy) land. Due to urbanization and economic reasons, some dairy and other livestock operations are leaving the Chino/Ontario area and are relocating to other areas such as the San Joaquin Valley, the northwestern United States, and Texas.



### Current Local Dairy Situation

The Chino/Ontario area, which includes the former Agricultural Preserve, is a 15,000 acre area in southwestern San Bernardino and Riverside Counties which contains approximately 300 dairies with over 250,000 cows, resulting in one of the densest dairy cow populations in the country. The resulting manure (feces and urine) from these dense herds of cows produces large amounts of ammonia in a relatively small area. This ammonia is a key contributor to ammonium nitrate; in peak PM10 areas a preliminary modeling study indicated that ammonia reductions in the former Agricultura l Preserve area would lead to significant decreases of ammonium nitrate in peak PM 10 areas (SCAQMD, 1993). (Other contributors to PM10 are NOx and SOx emissions from upwi nd mobile and stationary sources.) Other livestock facilities such as poultry and horse ranc hes are found to a much lesser extent in the
Basin. It should be noted that livestock facilitie s are also present in other areas of the Basin, generally toward its eastern and northern boundari es. The spatial distribution of dairy and poultry operations is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Distribution of Poultry a nd Dairy Operations in the BasinDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 9 June 2004 August 2004 According to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (SARWQCB) annual inventory of the dairy industry, in 2002 ther e were 314 dairies in the Basin with 204,846 milking cows, 36,201 dry cows, 75,582 heifers and 77,320 calves (“Results of 2002 Annual Report of Animal Waste Discharge Analysis”, May 8, 2003, SARWQCB). (Calves are cows up to 12 months old, heifers are cows from 12 to 24 months old, or until first breeding, milking cows are adult cows that are lactati ng and dry cows are adult cows that are not milked, generally 45 to 60 days before giving birt h.) Most of the dairies are located in the Chino-Ontario-Norco region, with the remaining dairies in the San Jacinto watershed region (eastern Riverside County, near Moreno Valley-La ke Elsinore-Hemet) and Upper Santa Ana.

The Chino-Ontario-Norco region is a 15,000 acre area in southwestern San Bernardino and Riverside counties, and has one of the dens est dairy cow populations in the country. The resulting manure from these dense herds of cows produces large amounts of ammonia in a relatively small area.

Most dairy farms in the Basin are “dry lot corra l” dairies. Dairy cows live in open corrals, with feed lanes usually along one side of the corral (Figure 3-1).

FIGURE 3-1: Cows at the FeedLane

Manure is generally cleared from the feed lane into the corral (Figure 3-2) and then periodically removed from the corral to on-site st ockpiles, to off-site locations or spread on cropland at the dairy as a soil amendment.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 10 June 2004 August 2004 FIGURE 3-2: Cows at the Watering Trough in the Corral

The high concentration of animals per acre of la nd results in a large volume of manure stored in corrals and stockpiles. Because most dair y operations are clustered in a relatively small area with a high density of dairy livestock he rds, substantial amounts of manure are produced

in a concentrated area.

The Chino Basin is considered to have the hi ghest concentration of dairy animals in the world within an area of less than 50 square m iles. Stockpiles of manure and the application of manure to the ground in the Chino Basin have resulted in substantial groundwater pollution, specifically from total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate. Contaminated groundwater in the Chino Basin also adversel y affects the quality of the Santa Ana River because groundwater from the Chino Basin contri butes to the surface flow of the Santa Ana

River.

Beginning in 1992, and continuing through 1994, the SARWQCB regulatory approach for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAF Os) was to issue individual waste discharge requirements for each animal feeding operation. Changes in the location, size, number of animals, or operator of these facilities were fr equent and necessitated continually rescinding existing waste discharge requirements and issui ng new requirements. As a result, in 1994 the SARWQCB adopted Order No. 94-7, which outlined "general" waste discharge requirements for all CAFOs, including non-dairy related fac ilities. SARWQCB Order No. 94-7 expired in
March 1999.

In 1999, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board enacted Order No. 99-11 (NPDES No. CAG018001). Orde r No. 99-11, among other things, prohibits the stockpiling of manure at a dairy for more than 180 days and restricts land spreading of manure on croplands within the Santa Ana Region. Ex cept for a small amount of manure spread on cropland at the dairy, manure is currently hauled from the dairies to composting facilities orDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 11 June 2004 August 2004 applied to cropland. Before Order No. 99-11, mo st manure was spread on local croplands in the Santa Ana and San Jacinto regions. In 2002, and with restrictions on manure spreading in the Santa Ana region (including the former Agricultural Preserve), most manure spread on croplands is spread in the San Jacinto region ( 42% of total manure), with about 19% of total manure now going out of the Basin.

The manure handling practices carried out by the dairies are dictated by the type of dairy operation, size of operation, local water quality regulations, and type of off-site manure processing and utilization that is locally available to the dairies. As part of an AQMD contract study with Tetra Tech, Inc., four re ports on dairy practices and controls were prepared:

Report 1: Current Livestock Waste Management Practices in the Basin Report 2: Literature and National Program Survey Report 3: Identification and effectiveness assessment of control options Report 4: Recommendation of Control Options for the Basin

Figure 4 was extracted from Tetra Tech’s Ta sk 3 Report (Tetra Tech, November 2002) and shows the layout of a typical dairy production facility in the Chino Basin.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 12 June 2004 August 2004 Figure 4: Typical South Coast Dairy Production Facility

The SARWQCB requirement of removing the manure from the dairies every 180 days allows for utilization of “off farm” technologies to process and/or utilize the manure. Once the manure is removed from the dairy, it can be hauled to a composter (enclosed or open windrow), digester or to an agricultural site for land application

Land application and open composting are the tw o main manure disposal practices currently used. Open windrow composting is the current composting practice in the Basin. There is currently one composting facility in operation which is scheduled to cease operation by the year 2006. An enclosed composter is currently being constructed in the Basin that will process a limited amount of manure.

The third manure disposal practice in the Basin is treating manure in anaerobic digesters. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) has bu ilt two types of digesters in the Basin; a plug flow and a complete mix digester. Th e biogas produced provides fuel for electric generators. The current plug flow digester u tilizes wet manure and produces bio-gas to run micro-turbines and the Chino Desalter. The pr oducts are sent to a composter and the final product is sold as fertilizer. IEUA has built both types of digesters as demonstration units at their regional plants in the Basin.



### EMISSIONS INVENTORY

The nitrogen in animal manure can be converted to ammonia by a combination of mineralization, hydrolysis, and volatilization. Once emitted, the ammonia can be rapidly
converted to ammonium nitrate and ammonium aerosols by reactions with acidic species (nitric acid, sulfuric acid and ammonium bisu lfate). Thus, the ammonia emissions contribute directly to formation of PM10 and PM2.5 in th e air and can impact atmospheric visibility. Manure also emits VOCs through the processes of anaerobic and aerobic decomposition.

Source testing was conducted by an independent cont ractor at five dairies in the Basin during two seasonal episodes in 1995, in order to assess the air emissions of PM10 precursors from livestock waste at dairies. The testing was conducted during both the winter and summer
conditions. Flux measurements were conducte d to generate speciated emission factors (lbs/yr) to estimate emissions from dairy wast es. Ammonia emission factors were measured to range from 9 to 20 pounds per year per co w. In 1997, the ammonia emissions inventory for all sources was updated for the Basin (ATC 2000). As part of this update, the 1995 dairy emissions study results were re-evaluated by Dr. Eric Winegar, an author of the original study. This re-evaluation of the original flux chamber data resulted in a composite ammonia emission factor of 51 lb/head/year for milking cows.

The VOC emission factor is 12.8 lbs/head/year. This is the emission factor used by CARB and is based on a 1938 measurement study by Ritz man and Benedict. This study focused on measuring methane emissions from dairy cows using an early form of an environmental
chamber. Successive literature studies have used these measurements to establish a VOC emission factor for dairy waste emissi ons. (In the 1997, 1999, and 2003 AQMPs, the AQMDDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 13 June 2004 August 2004 used an emission factor of 16 lbs VOC/head/year, based on a slightly different analysis of the data.) CARB is supporting additional da iry VOC emission studies, but the 12.8 lbs VOC/head/year emission factor is the one currently recommended by CARB.

An emission factor in terms of tons of manure was calculated for both VOC and ammonia emissions by incorporating the assumption th at a cow produces, on average, 5.25 tons of manure per year. Emissions factors of 0.005 ton/year of ammonia and 0.002 ton/year of VOC per ton of manure were established.

Based on SARWQCB the dairy animal population (milking cows, dry cows, hiefers and calves) within the District has decrease from the 1993 base year amount of 514,000 head to the 2002 value of 394,000, a reduction of approximate ly 23%. This decrease is expected to continue as the Chino Basin becomes more urbanized. The urbanization is being driven by the annexation of the agricultural land by the cities of Ontario and Chino. At the current rate of attrition (approximately 2% per year), the dairy population is expected to be approximately 362,000 head in 2006. This co rresponds to a 8% decrease from the 2002
levels.

The following assumptions were used in the emission calculations:

1. Emission Factors:

a. Ammonia:

i. 51 lbs/head/year (used to calculate total ammonia emissions)

ii. 0.005 ton/ton of manure (the conversion is necessary since the analysis depends on the subsequent fate of the manure; emission factor determined by dividing total ammonia emissions per year by total manure produced)

iii. Emission factor is for an adult cow, based on 1995 Schmidt study methodology. Emission factor for heifers and calves are reduced proportionately to the manure they produce (SARWQB estimates of 4.1 tons/year manure for adult cows, 1.5 tons/year for heifers and 0.6 tons/year for calves). [Ammonia emissions are emissions from manure only. Emission estimates do not include ammonia emitted from either the cow or cow urine.]

b. VOC:

i. 12.8 lbs/head/year (used to calculate total ammonia emissions)

ii. 0.002 ton/ton of manure (the conversion is necessary since the analysis depends on the subsequent fate of the manure; emission factor determined by dividing total VOC emissions per year by total manure produced)

iii. Emission factor is for each animal, regardless of age, per ARB’s methodology. [As noted above, this is different then the 16.0 lbs/head/year factor used in the PR1127 preliminary draft staff report, the 2003 AQMP and previous AQMPs.]

c. PM10:

i. 1.78 lbs/head/year.

ii. Emission factor is for each animal, regardless of age, per ARB’s methodology.

2. Activity

a. Actual animal counts from 1993 through 2002

b. Assume a 2% decrease in cows per year from 2002 through 2010.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 14 June 2004 August 2004 3. Source and destination of amount of manure removed and/or processed : SAQRWCB 2002 Annual Report Analysis

4. Emissions = emission factor x activity



### Impact of Existing Manure Management Practices on Emission

Reductions

As mentioned earlier, the dairies are subject to the manure handling and storage requirements of SARWQCB Order No. 99-11. The dairies are required to haul the manure off the facility within 180 days of removal from the corrals. A manifest of the manure hauled away is submitted with an annual report to the SARWCQB. The manure is sent off-site to a digester, composter, or land applied within or out of the SARWQCB Region. Table 1, from the SARWQCB, 2002 Annual Report Analysis, quantifie s the percentage of the manure removed form the different dairy areas (i.e. Chino Basi n, San Jacinto Watershed and the Upper Santa Ana Watershed) and the disposal location.

Table 1: Summary of Manure Handling In SARWQCB Region (2002 Report)

Manure Source

Disposal Location Dairies

in the

Chino Basin Dairies in the

San Jacinto

Watershed Dairies in the Upper Santa

Ana Watershed Total

Local Cropland (on Dairy) 1.35% 1.79% 0.0% 3.14%

Local Stockpile (on Dairy) 7.27% 0.03% 0.01 7.30% Composting facility (off dairy) 16.9% 0.0% 0.0% 16.9% Chino Basin (land application off dairy) 9.2% 0.45% 0.0% 9.65%

Sent Out of Region* 19.2% 0.08% 0.0% 19.10%

San Jacinto Watershed (land application off dairy) 27.92% 14.11% 0.12% 42.15% Upper Santa Ana Watershed (land application off dairy) 1.22% 0.00% 0.15% 1.37%

Total 83.28% 16.46% 0.28% 100.0%

* Out of Region refers to the SARWQCB Region

The new water quality regulation (SARWQCB Order No. 99-11) expedites the manure removal from dairies, limits and sets manure incorporation standards for land spreading of manure, and eliminates historical stockpiles of manure in and around the dairies. Because these regulations affect manure, the emissions per ton of manure must be calculated to assessDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 15 June 2004 August 2004 the emission reductions associated with the water quality regulations. Manure production is known from the SARWQCB’s Annual Report of Animal Waste Discharge.

The estimated impact of removing historical stockpiles is calculated by multiplying the tons of historical stockpiles that have been removed (94,000 tons, according to the SARWQCB) by the emissions factor per ton of manure.

The estimated impact of the land application regulations (e.g., agronomic spreading rates, expeditious soil incorporation) is a 23% re duction in emissions multiplied by 0.5, since the reductions only occur after the manure is remove d from the dairies, which occurs twice a year. The control efficiency of 23% is based, in part, on staff’s review of Tetra Tech’s Task 1 and Task 2 reports (see also Appendix A). Thus, the overall reduction effectiveness of the new land spreading regulations in is 11.5% of the manure produced that is land applied in the
Basin . 852,204 tons of manure was land applied in 2002, based on SARWQB data.

Also, in response to current and proposed water quality regulations, manure composting operations were begun in 1995. These operati ons process over 200,000 tons of manure per year. Based on flux results of the 1995 PM10 Technical Enhancement Program (PTEP) studies of dairy and open-windrow composti ng operations, emissions are 75% less at the composting operations compared to manure em issions at the dairy. Reductions from composting can only occur after the manure is removed from the dairy (twice a year), so again, the control effectiveness is multiplied by 0.5. Thus, the overall reduction
effectiveness is 37.5% for manure that is co mposted in open windrows and near 50% for enclosed and controlled composting facilities. 226,415 tons of manure was composted in open windrows in 2002.

In response to the water quality regulations a nd the energy crisis, anaerobic digesters have been constructed and are currently operating. Th ese digesters create “biogas” used as fuel for power generation equipment. The remaining di gested solids are finished or near finished compost. The digester essentially eliminat es VOC emission from the manure as anaerobic bacteria convert organic matter to biogas. Also, digesters require the freshest possible manure. Current digester programs scrape the feedlanes at the dairies daily and immediately transport it to the digesters. Since all the manure emissions are gone immediately (rather than waiting the 180 days until the corral is clear ed), the removal factor is 1.0. Thus, the
overall control effectiveness for manure sent to a digester is 99%. Demonstration projects for anaerobic digesters began in 2002, but only small amounts of manure were digested in

2002.

Of course, any manure sent out of the Basin does not contribute emissions within the airshed. Multiplied by the 0.5 removal factor to account for the manure’s presence in the first 180 days, the overall effectiveness of removing manure from the Basin is 50%. 255,889 tons (about 19%) of manure was shipped out of the Basin (generally to San Joaquin Valley and Imperial County), based on 2002 SARWQCB data. (Although the Basin’s boundary does not exactly match the jurisdiction of the SARWQCB and it water basins, further analysis of the SARWQCB database concerning long-range manure transport indicates that this assumption is a good one).

Emission reductions were calculated by multiply ing the amount of manure removed and/or processed by the manure emission factor and a to tal control effectiveness. Partial emission reductions are taken for the land application of manure and windrow composting as listedDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 16 June 2004 August 2004 under control effectiveness in Table 2. The s ource extent or the percentage of emission
reduction achieved due to removal from the da iry is also listed in Table 2. A 50 percent emission reduction was assumed for all manure that is removed approximately twice annually. The control effectiveness represents the percentage of emission reduction that can be achieved by the various manure disposal options.

Table 2 : Total Control Effectiveness of Current Manure Practices

Type of Disposal Practice %

Control

Effectiveness Removal Factor [0 -1] Total % Control

Effectiveness *

Land Application 23% 0.5 11.5%

Composting (open windrow) 75% 0.5 38.5%

Composting (enclosed) 95% 0.5 47.5%

Digester (plug and complete mix) 99% 1.0 100%

Manure: Sent

out of Basin 100% 0.5 50%

* Total % Control Effectiveness = Practice Control Effectiveness X

Removal Factor

Table 3 describes the manure disposal destinations for future years, based on historical destinations and changes in air and water regul ations. Table 4 lists the emission estimates without the implementation of PR1127 (e.g. reduc tions due to relocation and water quality regulations). The emission reductions assume that all operations such as composting and land application are maintained at the 2002 rate in terms of percentage of manure with the exemption of the digesters. It is assumed th at the digesters are on line after 2002 and that the open windrow composter ceased operation in 2005.

Table 3: Manure Disposal For Future Years

Manure Destination 2006 tons manure

per year 2010 tons manure

per year Land Application in Region 937,000 835,000 Sent out of Region 256,000 256,000 Open Windrow Composting 0* 0* Rule 1133.2 Composting 7,500 7,500 Digester (Feed Lane Cleaning) 27,400 27,400 *Current open windrow facility will close as of 2006. *Rule 1133.2 effectively restricts open windrow composting.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 17 June 2004 August 2004 Table 4: Emission Estimates (tons/day) Without PR1127

2006 VOC 2010 VOC 2006 ammonia 2010 ammonia

Baseline 6.35 5.80 18.00 16.43

Reductions 1.37 1.31 3.89 3.72 Remaining Emissions 4.98 4.49 14.10 12.71



### PROPOSED CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICES

The manure handling practices carried out by the dairies are dictated by the type of dairy operation, size of operation, local water quality regulations, and type of off-site manure processing and utilization that is locally availa ble to the dairies. An AQMD contract study by Tetra Tech included an assessment of cu rrent local waste management practices, a literature review of potential controls and prac tices to reduce air emissions, identification and assessment of potential local control options and recommendations. The results of the study are in the following reports (see reference section for full titles):

Report 1: Current Livestock Waste Management Practices in the Basin Report 2: Literature and National Program Survey Report 3: Identification and effectiveness assessment of control options Report 4: Recommendation of Control Options for the Basin

The study by Tetra Tech, Inc. has identified the many control technologies and practices that
could reduce air emissions from livestock waste. The manure handling practices are classified as “on-dairy” or “off-dairy” t echnologies. Based on the study, the technologies, practices or regulations that will reduce emissions and are currently applicable to the dairy practices in the Basin are the following:

1. Water Quality Regulations

2. More frequent removal of manure from dairies

3. Restrictions on amount and method of land application of manure

4. Open Composting

5. In-vessel aerated static pile composting

6. Rule 1133.2 composting

7. Anaerobic Digesters

8. Out of Basin disposal

A review of the manure management control options listed above is given in Appendix A.

The SARWQCB requirement of removing the manure from the dairies every 180 days allows for quick utilization of “off farm” technol ogies to process and/or utilize the manure. Once the manure is removed from the dairy, it can be hauled to a composter, digester or to a agricultural site for land application. PR1127 would increase that frequency to 4 times per year, no shorter than 60 days apart and at l east one clearing in the months of November through December

.

Controlled composting of manure is composting at a facility where the first stage of composting is conducted within an enclosure a nd emissions from the enclosure (and aerationDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 18 June 2004 August 2004 system, if any) are vented to an air polluti on control device(s) permitted by the AQMD. Air pollution control devices include, but are not limited to, bio-filters, scrubbers, etc.

An anaerobic digester is a tank or vessel system permitted by the AQMD that excludes oxygen and in which a sludge or liquid efflue nt is modified by the action of anaerobic bacteria. These systems are typically used to produce methane or biogas as fuel for power generation equipment. The remaining solids from the process can be used as a soil amendment or further composted or otherwise processed.

A fabric in-vessel composter is an aerated static pile compost system that is under positive pressure and is covered by a plastic or fabric material with ventilation holes. The system
consists of a containment vessel such as an elongated plastic bag which contains the composting material and uses forced aerati on to maintain and control aerobic composting conditions within the bag. The forced aerati on is provided by supplying air with an electric blower through perforated pipe that runs inside the full length of the bag. The raw material to be composted is placed in the bag with a compost-bagging machine. The bagger blends the compost material with required amendments and grind the material to the required size. The compost cycle is approximately 4 months. The final product can be used as compost and soil amendments. Although this type of syst em may meet Rule 1133.2 requirements for cocomposting operations (resulting in an 80% decrease in emissions compared to open windrow composting and a total of 95% re duction from raw manure emissions), under PR1127, they would not have to meet Rule 1133.2 requirements as long as they met the PR1127 requirements for alternative manure composting operations. For the purposes of this analysis, fabric in-vessel systems are a ssumed to provide a 50% reduction from open windrow emissions, yielding an overall eff ectiveness of 88%. The 50% reduction effectiveness was assumed based on staff analys is of the emission reduction effectiveness of open aerated static piles, the PR1127 requireme nts that both active and curing phases of the process must occur in the enclosed vessel, a nd the close contact of emission gases to the composting material and water condensation on the vessel walls. Testing proposed by the Inland Empire Utility Agency, which would be gin in the summer of 2004, would allow the testing of the emission reduction effectivene ss. PR1127 requires the annual testing of any alternative manure composting operation. Based on these test results, staff will assess the alternative manure composting technologies. Subsequent to that analysis, staff may recommend additional performance standards and/or control equipment for these systems.

Since the other control options identified by the survey can not be sufficiently quantified at this time, they are not incorporated in the proposed rule. AQMD staff will continue supporting research and development of other potential control options.

In the absence of more specific informati on, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District has assumed a default PM10 control eff ectiveness of ten percent for dairy BMPs in their analysis of their rule 4550.



### Total Emission Reduction Impacts (With PR1127)

The control effectiveness for various manure ma nagement practices with implementation of
PR1127 are listed in Table 5. The basis for calcu lation is the same as Table 2. The removal factor is changed to 0.75 for all practices excep t for the digester which remains at 1.0. The
removal factor is increased to account for th e increased frequency of corral cleaning to 4 times per year as required by the PR1127.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 19 June 2004 August 2004 Table 5: Total Control Effectiveness of Manure Practices with PR1127

Type of Disposal Practice %

Control

Effectiveness Removal Factor [0 -1] Total % Control

Effectiveness *

Land Application 23% 0.75 17.3%

Composting (Fabric-in-vessel) 88% 0.75 66.0%

Composting (enclosed) 95% 0.75 71.3%

Digester (plug and complete mix) 99% 1.0 100%

Manure: Sent out

of Basin 100% 0.75 75%

*Total % Control Effectiveness = Practi ce Control Effectiveness X Removal Factor * Assume Open Windrow Composting is not available in SCAB

Table 6 describes the manure disposal destinations for future years, based on historical destinations, changes in air and water regulati ons, and the effect of PR1127. Table 7 lists the emission estimates with the implementation of PR1127. Table 8 lists the emission reductions that are solely due to the implementation of PR1127 (e.g., without the impact of relocation and water quality regulations). It is assumed that the amount of manure composted (now in alternative manure composting operations) and shi pped out of the basin are maintained at the 2002 rate in terms of tonnage of manure and that the corrals are cleared at least 4 times per year. By 2006, it is assumed that open windrow manure composting has been phased out in the District and replaced with an fabric-in-vesse l system. The analysis also assumes that the digesters are on-line and processing manure at a rate as projected by IEUA, and that remainder of the manure is sent out of the region.

Table 6: Manure Disposal For Future Years with PR1127

Manure Destination 2006 tons manure

per year 2010 tons manure per

year Land Application in Region 715,000 608,000 Sent out of Region 256,000 256,000 Open Windrow Composting 0* 0* Alternative Manure Composting (e.g. fabric in-vessel) 226,000 226,000

Rule 1133.2 Composting (enclosed) 7,500 7,500 Digester (Feed Lane Cleaning) 27,400 27,400 * Current open windrow facility will close as of 2006. Rule 1133.2 effectively restricts open windrow composting.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 20 June 2004 August 2004 Table 7: Emission Estimates (tons/day) With PR1127

2006 VOC 2010 VOC 2006 ammonia 2010 ammonia

Baseline 6.35 5.80 18.00 16.43

Reductions 2.56 2.47 7.26 6.99 Remaining Emissions 3.79 3.33 10.73 9.44

Table 8: Emission Reductions (tons/day) From PR1127 Alone

2006 VOC 2010 VOC 2006 ammonia 2010 ammonia

Remaining Emissions

Without PR1127 4.98 4.49 14.10 12.71

Remaining Emissions

With PR1127 3.79 3.33 10.73 9.44

PR1127 Reductions 1.19 1.16 3.37 3.27



### Comparison to WST-01 Targets and the 2003 AQMP

Table 9 compares the remaining emissions afte r the implementation of PR1127 to the target levels described in the 2003 AQMP control measure WST-01: a 50% reduction in ammonia
and a 30% reduction in VOC from historical ba seline levels. As can be seen in Table 9, emission levels after the implementation of PR 1127 are below the target levels set in the 2003 AQMP control measure WST-01.

Table 9: Comparison of Remaining Emissions after PR1127 with WST-01 Target Levels (tons/day)

VOC Ammonia

Historical baseline emissions (1993) 10.03 25.93

“Target” emission levels 7.02 12.97 2006 Remaining Emissions

With PR1127 3.79 10.73

The 2003 AQMP used a slightly different emissions methodology (e.g., different VOC emission factor, no emissions from abandoned external stockpiles). Adjusting the 2006 remaining emissions after the implementation of PR1127 to the “emissions currency” of the 2003 AQMP, remaining emissions are 4.6 tpd VOC and 8.8 tpd ammonia. This compares with 2003 AQMP WST-01 remaining emissions of 6.8 tpd VOC and 10.6 tpd ammonia in

2006.



### Alternate Future Analysis

In the weeks before the release of this re port, AQMD staff has r eceived new information concerning the relocation of dairies from the Di strict. The industry indicates that relocation may occur faster than the 2% per year assumed in the staff analysis. Although staff does not have definitive proof of faster relocation, staff has analyzed the impact of a higher rate of relocation. This section analyzes the potential impact on the emission analysis if relocation occurs at a faster rate (~10% per year) than assumed by the staff analysis (2% per year).Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 21 June 2004 August 2004 According to information from Milk Pr oducers’ Council (memorandum dated April 15, 2004), CDFA data for 2003 indicates that 38 da iries and ~31,000 cows left the Southern California area during that year. By Milk Producers’ Council estimates, there are currently approximately 230 dairies within the AQMD’s jurisdiction. Their near-term relocation estimates are summarized in the following table:

Table 10: Near-term Local Dairy Relocation (source: Milk Producers’ Council)

# of

dairies ~# in 2-5 year escrow Remaining

Eastvale area (Riverside County) 30 30 0

City of Chino 25 22 3 City of Ontario 140 105 35

San Jacinto area 35 9 26

TOTAL 230 166 64

Although this data does not completely corre spond to SARWQCB data and the number of dairies is not directly proportional to the numbe r of cows, if these projections hold true, it does suggest a significant acceleration of the reloca tion rate of local dairies. To test the impact of such an accelerated rate of relocation (over a 75% reduction in cows by 2010), AQMD staff has re-run the technical analysis presented above assuming a 10% per year relocation rate (compared to the 2% per year in the staff analysis). The results of the alternate future analysis are presented in Table 11. As would be expected, the remaining emissions are significantly less than if relocation only occu rs at a 2% per year rate. PR1127 would still produce emission reductions (e.g. 0.13 tpd VOC and 0.36 tpd ammonia in 2010) for the
accelerated relocation scenario.

Table 11: 2010 Alternate Future Emissions With PR1127(tons/day)

VOC Ammonia

Current Analysis Alternate

Future Current Analysis Alternate

Future

Baseline 5.80 1.38 16.43 3.91

Reductions 2.47 0.53* 6.99 1.49** Remaining Emissions 3.33 0.85 9.44 2.42 * 0.13 tpd of the VOC reductions from PR1127 ** 0.36 tpd of the ammonia reductions from PR1127



### SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE REQUIREMENTS

A summary of the requirements of PR 1127 is provided below. A copy of the proposed Rule 1127 is included in Appendix B.

Purpose and Applicability

The purpose of PR1127 is to reduce ammonia, VOC and PM10 emissions from livestock waste, consistent with the requirements of AQMP control measure WST-01 and CaliforniaDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 22 June 2004 August 2004 Senate Bill (SB)700. Applicable operations w ould include dairies, heifer, and calf farms (unless exempt) within the SCAQMD’s jurisdic tion. It also applies to manure processing operations, such as composting operations and anaerobic digester.

Definitions

This subdivision will include new definitions added for the following terms used in PR1127:

o Alternative manure composting operation

o Anaerobic digester

o Dairy farm

o Existing dairy operation

o Manure processing operation

o Operator

Requirements

The requirements of PR 1127 apply specifically to dairy farms and the disposal of manure. There are four primary requirements: Best Management Practices, Manure Disposal Requirements, Manure Processing Requi rements and Reporting/Recordkeeping Requirements.

Best Management Practices (BMP) BMPs are required by SB700 and are proposed to reduce direct emissions and increase the

emission reduction effectiveness of certain ma nure processing requirements. The proposed BMPs would require all farms on or after December 1, 2004 to:

1. Implement at least one of the following manure harvesting protocols to minimize fugitive dust emissions:

a) Scrape or harrow in early morning (b efore 9 a.m.) only unless the moisture content is greater than 20% (as determined by specified test method); OR

b) Clear corrals of manure such that an even surface of compacted manure remains on top of the soil. Do not scrape down to soil level. Pulling, rather than pushing, blades are recommended; OR

c) Water corral before manure harvesting to reduce dust through increased surface moisture (this measure is not recommended for lactating cows).

2. Minimize water in corrals by

a) Identifying and eliminating water leaks from trough and trough piping: and

b) Complying with corral drainage standards in the Engineered Waste Management

Plan.

3. Feedlanes must be paved at least eight feet on the corral side of the fence.

4. Effective January 1, 2005, clear corrals of manur e in excess of 3 inches deep at least four times per year and not less than 60 days between clearings. Notification and

r R ecordkeeping are is required.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 23 June 2004 August 2004 5. Effective January 1, 2005, clear all on-dairy stockpiles within one month of the last corral clearing day and no more than 3 mont hs after the date that the previous stockpiles were last completely cleared. Notification and r R ecordkeeping are is required.

Manure Disposal Requirements On or after January 1, 2006, a dairy operator disposing of manure within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District shall only remove or contract to remove that manure from their dairy to :

1) approved agricultural land within the SCAQMD; or

2) a manure processing operation approved in accordance requirements below.

Manure Processing Operation Approval Requirements

Manure processing requirements are designed to reduce ammonia and VOC emissions from unprocessed manure. Approvable manure pr ocessing operations include an anaerobic digester; or a Rule 1133.2-compliant composting facility; or an alternative manure composting facility as defined in the proposed rule. Approval procedures are described. An alternative manure composting facility must a pply for approval with the SCAQMD and meet operation plan and testing requirements.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are necessary to ensure rule compliance, enhance enforceability and meet certain SB700 requirements.

1) No later than January 1, 2005, the operator of an existing dairy farm shall submit a PR1127 notification to the SCAQMD, in cluding operator’s name, farm location,

and contact information.

2) No later than 30 days after operations begin at a new dairy farm or an existing farm under a new operator, the operato r shall submit notification to the SCAQMD, including operator’s name, farm location, and contact information.

3) After January 1, 2007, an annual report is to be submitted by an operator by the

15 th of January of each year. The report shall include animal population and

amount of annual manure removed to various destinations.

4) Records should be maintained at the dairy fa rm for three years, or five years if a Title V facility

.

Test Methods

Moisture content of manure is to be determ ined by using an electrical conductivity or

microwave moisture meter, or other AQMD-approved method in the prescribed manner.

Fees

Operators of farms or facilities subject to re porting and recordkeeping requirements shall be assessed applicable filing and evaluation fees pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 306.

ExemptionsDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 24 June 2004 August 2004 1) Farms with less than 50 cow, heifers, and/or calves are exempt from this rule.

2) An operator can be exempt from one corral clearing per year if conditions are

such that the manure in the corral is t oo wet (above 50% moisture content) to remove. (Attempting to remove manure th at is too wet can damage the “hard pan” layer of manure used as bedding by the cows and that serves as a barrier to percolation to ground water.) For comp arison, manure fresh from the cow is typically 85 to 88% moisture and “corral dry” manure, as used in accounting by the SARWQCB, is approximately 33% moisture.

3) Alternative manure composting operations are exempt from Rule 1133.2 requirements if they meet the minimum operating parameters for in-vessel composting.

4) Dairies that are removing all feedlane ma nure to a digester no fewer than 6 days per week are exempt from the corral clearing / stockpile removal requirements in paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5). (Water quality regulations still require twice yearly stockpile removal.)

Alternative Control Options

A person may comply with a plan for achie ving equivalent emission reductions through alternative control measures. The plan must be approved by the SCAQMD, CARB and the USEPA before implementation and rule compliance.



### COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Cost-effectiveness is calculated by dividing th e estimated compliance costs of a proposed regulation by the estimated emission reductions. These costs were divided by the estimated

emission reductions in order to obtain a cost-effectiveness estimate.

The costs that dairy operations incur to dis pose of manure include a tipping fee at manure processing facilities and farms as well as tran sportation costs to haul the manure to the disposal locations or facilities outlined above . Table 12 shows the manure disposal costs based on a dry ton manure basis for the various disposal options. Hauling costs are on a per-ton basis and include the current related co rral clearings (twice a year). The cost of additional corral clearings is assumed to be an additional $150 per farm per clearing.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 25 June 2004 August 2004 Table 12: Cost of Manure Disposal Op tions (adjusted to tipping-fee basis)
Manure Disposal Option Tipping Fee ($/ton) Hauling Cost ($/ton) Total Cost ($/ton) Shipping in SCAB* $1.50 $6.00 $7.50 Shipping out of SCAB (backha ul benefit**) $1.50 $14.50 $16.00 Shipping out of SCAB (no bac khaul benefit) $1.50 $23.50 $25.00 Open Composting*** $12.00 $6.00 $18.00 Anaerobic Digestion*** (IEUA - existing) $4.00 $16.00 $20.00 Fabric-In-Vessel Composting**** $16.74* $6.00 $22.74*

* Milk Producers’ Council ** Backhauling refers to the practice of using the return trip of a manure hauling for transporting other goods back to the dairy farmer, such as transporting feed. ***Inland Empire Utilities Agency **** CTI System, Ag Bag International. Costs include land, machinery, bags, blowers, electricity, and labor.

The costs that the dairy farms would incur unde r PR 1127 is the additional cost of disposing of the manure though an alternative composting system compared to disposing of the manure by land application within the Basin and th e cost of more frequent corral clearing (4 vs. 2 per year per farm). The analysis assu mes that with PR1127, manure currently sent to the open windrow manure composting facility in Chino (which closes to new feedstock in 2006) will go to fabric in-vessel composting opera tions. In the absence of these facilities,

the base case assumes that this manure will be land spread in the Basin (least cost option currently available).

The cost-effectiveness analyses uses the Di scounted Cash Flow (DCF) method to compute the present value of the proposed rule’s cost s and the more stringent option over a 10-year period (the assumed equipment lifetime) with a 4 percent real interest rate, which gives the present value factor of 8.111. DCF cost effectiveness can then be calculated as:

Cost Effectiveness = Additional Compliance Cost x 8.111

PR1127 Emission Reductions tons/year x 10 years

Where:

1. Additional Annual O&M Compliance Cost = (FIV cost/ton –In-basin spreading)*tons manure + extra corral clearing costs =( 22.74-7.50)*226,415+78,180 =$3,529,000

2. PR1127 Emission Reductions tons/yea =(Annual Emission Reductions with PR1127) – (Annual Emission Reductions without PR1127)

The annualized emission reductions for PR1127 are 423 tons/year VOC and 1194 tons/year ammonia. PR1127 cost-effectiveness, as determined by the DCF method described above,

is shown in Table 13.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 26 June 2004 August 2004 Table 13: PR1127 Cost-Effectiveness

Pollutant Emission reductions Cost-effectiveness VOC 423 tons/year $6,770/ton Ammonia 1194 tons/year $2,400/ton

Combined (VOC+ammonia) 1617 tons/year $1,770/ton

INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6 require s that an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis be performed for a regulation which id entifies more than one control option to meet the emission reduction objectives relative to the precursors to ozone, CO, SOx, and NOx.

Incremental cost-effectiveness is defined as th e difference in costs divided by the difference in emission reductions between one level of control and the next more stringent control.

The incremental cost-effectiveness analyses use the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method to compute the present value of two rule op tions, one being more stringent, over a 10-year period (the assumed equipment lifetime) with a 4 percent real interest rate, which gives the present value factor of 8.111. For the purpose of calculating incremental cost-effectiveness only, a more stringent option would be cons tructing and sending manure to an anaerobic digester instead of an alternative manure composting operation. The amount of manure to be processed by either technology is assumed to be 75 tons/day or 27,375 tons/year (dry tons). This is the amount of manure currently being used at the IEUA digester.

The costs and emission reductions used in calcula ting the incremental cost effectiveness of a digester compared to a fabric in-vessel composting system are summarized in Table 14. For the digester, costs are listed for two scenarios; the first assumes that no electricity revenue

can be used to subsidize the cost of the an aerobic digester and the second assumes that a revenue of $0.08 per KwH is realized from electri city cost savings at a facility that the digester is sited in. The first scenario is most likely if the dairy operators built a digester for control reasons, but were unable to use much of the electricity produced on site. (Currently, several regulatory and other barriers exist that pr event the sell-back of el ectricity to the grid, i.e., running the electricity meter backwards wh en producing more energy than consumed.)

The second scenario is based on an IEUA-t ype situation where the utility can use the electricity produced 24-hours a day to reduce fac ility electricity costs. The two scenarios are high and low cost scenarios for local dige sters. Tables 15 and 16 summarize the cost

effectiveness and incremental cost effectiveness for PR1127.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 27 June 2004 August 2004 Table 14:Summary of Costs and Assumptions

Costs and Assumptions Fabric

In-Vessel Anaerobic Digester (without electricity benefit) Anaerobic Digester (with electricity benefit at $0.08 / KwH) Capital Costs $8,118,700 $8,118,700 Operating and Maintenance Costs $624,000 $562,000 $(127,000) Operating and

Maintenance Costs – for the dairy (vacuum and hauling costs) $273,750 $273,750 Capital costs + 8.111*O&M $5,064,000 $14,900,000 $9,310,000

Absolute VOC

Emission Reduction* (tons/yr) 34 51 51

Absolute Ammonia

Emission Reduction* (tons/yr) 96 144 144 * compared to raw manure emissions

Table 15

− Absolute Cost Effectiveness

Cost Effectiveness VOC Ammonia VOC & Ammonia

Fabric In-Vessel $15,000 $5,300 $3,900 Digester (no electricity cost recovery) $29,000 $10,300 $7,640

Digester Scenario (recover electricity at $.08 /KwH) $18,300 $6,460 $4,770

Table 16

− Incremental Cost Effectiveness Compared to Fabric In-Vessel

Incremental Cost

Effectiveness VOC Ammonia VOC &

Ammonia Digester (no electricity cost recovery) $58,000 $20,500 $15,000

Digester (recover electricity at $.08 /KwH) $25,000 $8,800 $6,500

COST AND AFFORDABILITY

The cost of implementing PR 1127 is approxi mately $3.53 million per year starting in 2006. This amount is based on the increase in tippi ng fee from the current practices of land application to the tipping fee for a fabric-in-vessel composter and the cost of 2 additional corral clearings per year per farm. Assuming approximately 230 dairies in 2006, the average additional cost per dairy would be over $15,000 per year.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 28 June 2004 August 2004 As noted in the above section, the cost-effectiv eness of a digester where the recovery of electricity costs is roughly comparable to th e cost-effectiveness of a fabric in-vessel composting system. However, staff could not choose to require the use of digesters in

PR1127. The reasons have to do with the techni cal and economic nature of dairying in the South Coast. First, consider the technical natu re of dairying in the South Coast. In areas where free-stall barns are used, in particular those with flushed lane systems, manure can more easily be removed, even on a daily basi s. Typically, the manure-laden water from such dairies ends up in a waste lagoon on-site. In this situation, retrofitting the lagoon to capture emissions (e.g. a cover) and then venti ng them to a generator or control equipment is possible. Unlike dairies in other parts of the country, dairies in the South Coast are predominantly dry lot corrals. To make use of the current digester, dairies must spend extra money to vacuum up manure from their feedlanes daily to send it to the digester. This extra equipment and labor add to the cost of using a digester for a dry-lot corral dairy. Also, only about 30% of the total manure on the dairy can be captured this way. The remaining manure is deposited in the corral and must be cleared and processed in more traditional ways. For the digester scenario considered in the incremental cost-effectiveness section above, the annualized cost for a dige ster would be between $930,000 to $1,490,000 to process the manure from approximately 22 dairie s. If the cost was imposed solely on the dairies, the cost would be $42,000 to $68,000 per dairy per year. The capital cost alone would be $370,000 per dairy.

Alternatively, consider the annualized costs to digest the same amount of manure that is currently composted (e.g., 226,400 tons/year). The cost to for the fabric in-vessel system would be $4.1 million per year. The annualized cost for a sufficient number of digesters ( ~8 new digesters of the capacity of the cu rrent IEUA digester) would be $7.7 million (with electricity cost recovery) to $12.3 million (with no electricity cost recovery) per year. The capital cost for that many digesters woul d be approximately $67 million. With the relocation of the dairies, a key issue is gua ranteed feedstock for any facility with high capital costs. The fabric in-vessel systems are more scalable to variations in feedstock throughputs, since they have lower initial capital costs and the machinery is movable.

Second, consider the economics of the local da iry industry. As noted in the draft PR1127 Socioeconomic Report, over the last few year, milk production costs have exceeded the “mailbox” price that producers would get for th eir milk. In addition, many dairymen either lease their lands or are contemplating moving with in the next two to five years. In this situation, fewer dairymen could recover th e capital costs of building and operating a digester. Fabric in-vessel composting systems ar e scalable; fewer could be operated in later years when fewer dairies will result in less ma nure to be processed. Increased compliance costs to the dairy farms that would need to be absorbed by the dairy sector can not currently be passed down to consumers due to the milk pric ing structure in California. Public/private partnerships between public service utilities and the dairy operators could overcome many of the economic barriers to the use of digester s. Public utilities could more easily use the energy produced by the digester for their round- the-clock operations, and thus recover some costs through energy savings. Also, the poten tial exists to design these digesters for multiple feedstocks, allowing the transition from manure to wastewater treatment. Staff does not, however, recommend that local utilities be re quired to build and operate digesters for dairy manure. Thus, although staff supports th e use of digester technology, it believes that the cost impacts coupled with the cost recove ry uncertainties are too severe at the presentDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 29 June 2004 August 2004 time to require their use by local dairies as the sole compliant technology because of the special technical and economic nature of the local dairies. However, a milk pricing

structure that allowed individual dairies to bette r recover control costs and/or availability of public or private grant funding could certainly help overcome these obstacles. Staff is committed to continue to work with the local dairy industry and others toward that goal.



### CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and SCAQMD Rule110, the SCAQMD has prepared CEQA documents to an alyze any potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed rule. In November 2002, an initial version of PR 1127 was released to the public along with a pre liminary evaluation of environmental impacts from implementing the proposed rule. This initial evaluation identified air quality and transportation/traffic as potential adverse signi ficant impacts. As a result, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EA for PR 1127, including the Initial Study (IS), was prepared and distributed to responsible agencies and interested parties for a 30-day review and comment period from November 1, 2002, to Decem ber 3, 2002. Potential adverse impacts to

other environmental areas were not identified in the IS. Two comment letters were received regarding the environmental analysis in th e NOP/IS during the 30-day public review and comment period. However, since the release of the NOP/IS, the project description has changed. Under the new project description, th e potential environmental impacts will not be significant and, therefore, an NOP/IS is not necessary. The comment letters on the previously released NOP/IS were not responded to or included in the Draft EA. The EA is a substitute document prepared pursuant to §15252. Alternatives were not identified and evaluated because review of the project s howed that the project would not have any significant or potentially significant effect s on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15252(b)(2)). In accordance with CEQA Guid elines §15105(b), the Draft EA with no significant impacts was be circulated for public review and comment for 30 days from March 30, 2004 to April 28, 2004. No comment letters we re received that directly commented on CEQA issues.



### SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

The socioeconomic assessment for the proposed rule has been prepared and is released as a separate document.



### OUTREACH AND PUBLIC COMMENTS

PR1127 has been in extensive rule development since 2000, beginning with a public workshop in October 2000. A PR1127 Working Group was formed and has met 9 times since March 2001. A public consultation meeti ng was held in April 2002. The Preliminary Draft Staff report was released in Nove mber 2002 and another public workshop wasDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 30 June 2004 August 2004 conducted on November 21, 2002. In addition to the one oral comment, staff received six written comments specific to the PR1127 Preliminary Draft Staff report or the NOP/IS.

In response to public comment on the November PR1127 proposal, staff further investigated various digester technologies and thei r costs, tracked SB700 development and implementation requirements as they pertain to PR1127, and began researching alternative composting technologies. In January 2004, sta ff released a revised PR1127 proposal, based on staff’s analysis of previous comments. Staff received comments on the proposal at the February 2004 PR1127 Working Group meeting. On March 30, 2004, staff released the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for PR1127. As part of the draft PR1127 EA, staff released proposed rule language, dated March 26, 2004. S ubsequent to the release of the draft PR1127 EA, staff held a public workshop on April 22, 2004 to take public comment on the
March 26 th proposed rule language. Staff has received several oral and written comment s stakeholder meetings and the public workshop, and written comments subsequent to the public workshop.

The first section contains responses to comme nt received on PR1127 since the release of the revised PR1127 proposal in January 2004. Re sponse to comments received before 2004, including comments on the November 2002 Prelim inary Draft Staff Report can be found in the next section. Responses to comments on PR 1127 received after staff released the revised PR1127 proposal in January 2004 are included in the section following the next section.



### Response to Comments Received Before 2004

A summary of the oral and written comment s on the November 2002 PR1127 proposal that were received before January 2004 is provided below, followed by staff responses. (If a comment was received both before and after January 2004, the response to comment will be made in the Response to Comments Received After January 2004 section.)

Comment 1: Clarify the meaning stockpiles, as used in Tables 4 and 5 of the PR1127 Preliminary Draft Staff Report, and describe how the baseline emissions are determined.

Staff Response: On-dairy stockpiles are included in th e per-cow emission factors. Before the 1999 water quality regulations, most of these on-dairy piles were ultimately (within one or two years on average) land spread, mostly in the Basin, or were stored in large semipermanent stockpiles, generally off-dairy. Th ese off-dairy, semi-permanent stockpiles were eliminated by 2002 in response to water quality regulations. Total raw manure emissions are based on the cow population multiplied by the appr opriate emission factor, and in the years up through 2001, emissions from the off-dairy st ockpiles. For 2002 and later years, raw manure baseline emissions are based solely on cow population multiplied by the appropriate
emission factor.

Comment 2: Explain why a VOC emission factor of 16 lbs/head/year is used rather than the CARB factor of 12.8 lbs/head/year.

Staff Response: Based on further communication and cl arification from CARB, staff is using the CARB-recommended 12.8 lbs/head/year VOC emission factor in this staff report.

Comment 3: Nutrition strategies (e.g. less nitrogen in the feed) could result in
immediate 10 to 50% reduction in excreted n itrogen. Why isn’t this option listed in PR

1127?Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 31 June 2004 August 2004 Staff Response: This issue was extensively discussed in PR1127 Working Group meetings. Although nutrition strategies may ha ve emission reduction potential, the technical database is small, information is widely variab le, and key issues, such as representativeness, have not been resolved (TetraTech, 2002). A current AQMD contract study with UC Davis was initiated, in part, to establish a test prot ocol(s) for determining the effectiveness of nutrition studies, as well as manure treatments. In addition, the impact on cow health, milk production, water quality, and other cross-media imp acts have not been fully assessed at this time. AQMD staff will continue to review scie ntific studies on nutrition strategies, but does
not believe that the emission reduction effectiven ess and other impacts of these strategies is sufficiently known to include in PR 1127 at this time.

Comment 4: What is the link between PR1127 and the water quality regulations (e.g. SARWQCB Order No. 99-11)? Why doesn’t PR1127 require compliance with the water quality regulations?

Staff Response: Certain control actions may both improve air and water quality. For example, SARWQCB Order No. 99-11 require s the twice-yearly removal of manure stockpiles to prevent groundwater contamina tion and PR1127 requires four-times-per-year
removal to reduce the time the raw manure can em it emissions to the air. In this case, PR1127 goes beyond the water quality requirements to achieve additional airborne emissions. For compliance purposes, PR1127 cont ains certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are also required by the SARW QCB. Other water quality regulations, such as flood control retention ponds, are for wate r quality purposes only. Thus, PR1127 does not require compliance with the water quality regula tions as a whole, since certain water quality requirements do not impact air quality and othe rs may not be sufficient to achieve more emission reductions. However, PR1127 does require compliance with certain water quality regulation requirements (e.g. stockpile rem oval, recordkeeping, and reporting), where appropriate to achieve the air quality objectives.

Comment 5: Does an anaerobic digester require an AQMD permit?

Staff Response: Yes. Any new digester must comply with the requirements of Regulation II – Permits and Regulation XIII – New Source Review, including Rule 1303 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements. For ex ample, the current pilot plant digesters established by the IEUA are permitted by the AQMD.

Comment 6: The definition of a controlled composting facility is not consistent with the requirements of PR 1133.2.

Staff Response: At the time of the original draft rule PR1127, the Rule 1133 series of composting rules had not been adopted. With the adoption of Rules 1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2, references to controlled composting opera tions have been removed from PR1127 and direct references to Rule 1133.2, in particular, have been added.

Comment 7: How do ammonia emissions contribute to PM10?

Staff Response: The link between ammonia emissions and ammonia aerosol PM10 (e.g. ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate) is incorporated into the air modeling conducted by the District as part of its attainment demons tration. In brief, the highly concentrated dairyDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 32 June 2004 August 2004 areas in the central Basin (Chino/Ontario area) are downwind of the major sources of NOx and SOx located in the western (coastal) Basin. NOx and SOx react, in part, to gaseous nitric
and sulfuric acids. These acids are advected over the dairy areas. Under the right conditions, ammonia from the concentrated dairies can react with the gaseous acids to form aerosol PM10 in the peak PM10 areas directly downwind of the dairies. The conditions most
conducive to aerosol formation include moister days with lower inversions; these days are most frequent in the fall and early winter . A fuller description of the ambient PM10 modeling (including aerosol concentrations), inventory, and aerosol modeling (including aerosol chemistry) can be found in the 2003 AQMP, Appendix V, Chapter 2.

Comment 8: Other controls (e.g. manure treatments) or control technologies (e.g., pyrolysis) may prove to be effective. How can they be included in the rule’s control options?

Staff Response: The control option assessment (Tet raTech, 2002) describes a number of controls and control technologies that may prove effective. Although certain options are not sufficiently quantifiable to include as rule control options, AQMD staff realizes that future scientific and technical work may address thes e uncertainties. For example, certain manure treatments and nutrition strategies may prove effective in reducing VOC and/or ammonia emissions. The AQMD is supporting a contract study to identify and develop test protocols for manure treatments. This contract study will not be finished until the fall of 2004; subsequent studies would be necessary to se t certification limits for the manure treatments using the testing protocol. In the interim, PR1127 includes a provision that allows the use of alternative control options that demonstrat es equivalent emission reductions. Such alternatives would have to be approved by AQMD, CARB, and U.S. EPA.

Comment 9: Moving manure from the Basin to the San Joaquin Valley and other areas
will increase emissions in those areas. Th e rule should discourage out-of-Basin manure transport to ozone and/or PM10 non-attainment areas.

Staff Response: Staff has removed the previous ru le proposal language that set a percentage disposal requirement that could have encouraged further transport of manure out of the Basin. In the current rule proposal, an additional manure disposal alternative is identified (e.g. alternative manure processing operations) that is cost-competitive with disposal alternatives such as shipping out of the Basin. Basin manure is currently used to fertilize crops in the San Joaquin Valley (about 20% of Basin manure goes out the Basin, mostly to the San Joaquin Valley) and sta ff analysis does not indicate that PR1127 will significantly change the amount of disposal out of the Basin. There are legitimate uses for
manure outside of the Basin. Staff believes that PR1127 is neutral in relation to out-of-Basin spreading. PR1127 does contain reporting provisi ons that will allow the calculation of outof-Basin manure transport in subsequent years.



### Response to Comments Received After January 2004

A summary of the oral and written comments received since January 2004 is provided below, followed by staff responses.

Comment 1: PR1127 reporting and recordkeeping requi rements should be as consistent as possible with water quality control board requirements. PR1127 should not reference specific water quality regulations since the wate r quality board is in the process of revising current regulations. AQMD and water quality board staff should work together to streamlineDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 33 June 2004 August 2004 reporting requirements to minimize the impact of duplicative paperwork on farmers. Industry representative also requested consolidated reporting.

Staff Response: AQMD staff has revised PR1127 to improve consistency with water quality control board reporting and recordkeep ing requirements. PR1127 has also been revised to reference water quality regulations in general. AQMD staff proposes to work with water quality board staff to prepare joint reporting forms, where possible.

Comment 2: Industry has specific concerns a bout PR1127 BMPs. The option limiting scraping to before 9am is unnecessary if the ma nure is sufficiently moist as to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Second, the scrapping part of the manure removal equipment is designed not to dig into the manure hardpan, consistent w ith the proposed rule language. However, the “blade” level is not set, per se. Concer ning the removal frequency, weather, crop land availability, service provider availability, and b ackhaul issues limit the industry’s ability to ensure four removals per year. In particular , corrals cannot be cleared of rain-laden manure without damaging the manure hardpan that serves as both bedding for the cows and a barrier to the percolation of salts into the ground. Manure can only be sent to crop land during certain times after harvesting and before planting. Requiring manure removal when crop land is not available would increase costs, sin ce land application is the lowest-cost disposal alternative. Only a few legitimate haulers (fully licensed by the DMV and CHP) currently exist, and they may not be able to accomm odate the increased demand by the additional required removals. Lastly, at farms that bac khaul manure in trucks that bring in feed, stockpiles are cleared on a truck-by-truck basis, not on one specific day, as implied in the draft rule language.

Staff Response: AQMD staff has revised the proposed ru le language in response to some of these comments. Requirements for corral cl earing and stockpile removal have been split into two separate paragraphs. The proposed rule still requires clearing and removal 4 times per year, but acknowledges that corral clearing and stockpile removal may occur at different times. In recognition that corrals cannot be cl eared without damage to the manure hardpan if the manure is too wet, an exemption provision for one clearing per year (and its related stockpile removal) has been added. The exem ption is based on moisture monitoring in the corrals, with required reporting, recordkeeping, and exemption request provisions. It is staff’s understanding that if in-corral stockpiles have been created, they can be cleared even if wet. Based on that information, no exempti on for stockpile removal has been created, if the stockpile has been created. Staff has addr essed the concern that the phased removal of stockpiles (which occurs at most farms and especially at farms that backhaul manure using feed trucks) separation of corral clearing and stockpile removal requirements and changing the proposed rule language to focus on the date of final clearing/removal (as opposed to the beginning of the process). At this time, st aff has not received conclusive information concerning hauling limitations due to crop land av ailability and hauler availability to warrant additional proposed rule changes.

Comment 3: Future relocation rates will probably be higher than 2%/year. For example, much of the Riverside County dairy area of the Chino Basin has been developed or
is in escrow. Will staff re-evaluate the relo cation rate and how could this affect rule development or implementation?

Staff Response: In response to information from Milk Producers’ Council in a memorandum dated April 15, 2004, staff has prepared an alternative future analysis (seeDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 34 June 2004 August 2004 above) to assess the impact of accelerated da iry relocation. Although accelerated relocation
further reduces VOC and ammonia emissions in future years, staff believes that additional reductions from PR1127 are necessary and desirable to comply with SB700 and to make expeditious progress toward attaining the ozone and PM10 standards.

Comment 4: PR1127 does not meet the goal of emission reduction equity among all sources in the District. For example, Ru le 1133.2 imposed expensive control requirements on biosolids composting operations. Also, sta ff has not maximized the emission reductions from this source. For example, PR1127 fails to capture and control emissions that occur immediately (within three days) after it has been produced by the cow.

Staff Response: PR1127 breaks important new air quality regulation ground. As noted in the background section, no previous criteria air pollution regulations for dairies or other livestock operations have been enacted a nywhere. Unlike many AQMD source-specific rules, it establishes requirements on the whole facility (e.g. farm), instead of setting emission control requirements for specific pieces of equi pment or specific processing operations as in
other rules. PR1127 establishes best availabl e control measures (BACM) on a whole facility to reduce PM10, VOCs, and ammonia, as well as setting requirements on where material sent from the facility is used or processed. (T raditionally, BACM is expressed as the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agricultural sources). This is consistent with other BACM rules on existing area sources, such as Rule 403 and 1186. To control emissions that
occur before the corral can be cleared would re quire the complete re-design and re-building
of the current dairies to free-stall and/or flushe d lane configurations. The costs for such a redesign and re-building would be prohibitive.

New dairies can be designed and built to capture and control emissions from fresh manure in a much quicker manner. AQMD Regulation XIII contains New Source Review requirements for all new and modified permit units. Unde r SB700, new dairies are subject to permits, Regulation XIII and applicable BACT.

Comment 5: Some comments stated that emission reductions from certain digester and composting technologies may exceed current standards and that PR1127 should set the standards that would provide incentives thes e technologies. One comment suggested that
PR1127 establish uniform manure and emission baseline and reduction standards. Other comments have expressed concerns that PR1127 does not set new performance standards for manure processing technologies (e.g. digesters, composters), as was done in Rule 1133.2 for composting operations, for example.

Staff Response: As noted in the air quality regulations background section, PR1127 is designed to fulfill only certain SB700 requirement s, e.g. BACM for dairy facilities. Title V and other local permitting for equipment at dairies, as well as other confined feeding operations and crop farms, is underway. AQMD st aff will also be conducting a review of its current BARCT (Best Available Retrofit Contro l Technology) rules that had exemptions for agricultural sources, as well as developing facility permits for certain confined animal farms. Staff does not agree that PR1127 limits manur e processing technologies, as it does not prevent the BACT review of new digester and composting–related technologies. The AQMD will also be applying Regulation XIII, Ne w Source Review, to new confined animal farms, such as new dairies. It is in th e application of BACT standards through existing Regulation XIII requirements that these comments are best addressed. BACT determinations for manure processing technologies will be done in the same manner as BACT determinationDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 35 June 2004 August 2004 for other emission sources. As such, AQMD ru le staff has forwarded these comments and supporting material describing specific manur e disposal technologies to the AQMD’s Technology Advancement Office, where BACT reviews are conducted. AQMD rule staff has also forwarded the Proposed Prelimin ary Draft BACT Requirements for New and Expanding Dairies in development by the San Jo aquin Unified Air Pollution Control District to the BACT-review staff. AQMD staff recogni zes concerns that the previous version of PR1127 may limit new technologies by too strictly identifying the sources within the dairy subject to BACT. In response, staff has removed the new dairy language from PR1127 and will rely on the existing Regulation XIII proce ss to identify and require BACT, as is done
with all other sources.

Some of the comments imply that PR1127 s hould set one emission standard for manure processing operations as a whole, as opposed to the current AQMD practice of establishing standards for each type of operation, i.e. co mposting operations and digesters. Although both types of operations process manure (or bios olids or greenwaste), they are not designed for the same results. A digester is desi gned to maximize methane emissions, while a composter is designed to produce a specific type and quality of compost. Indeed, digester digestate may need to be further composted and/or blended to be used in certain applications. Thus, AQMD staff does not concur that a general emission standard should be set for manure processing operations. It should be noted that composters (of any type) can comply with PR1127 manure processing operation approval re quirements by meeting the standards in Rule 1133.2 and digesters (of any type) can comply with PR1127 manure processing operation approval requirements by meeting the standards of the applicable AQMD permits (Regulations II and XIII).

The largest current open-windrow manure composting operations will no longer accept manure beginning in 2006. Sufficient digesters do not exist to handle the anticipated amount of manure, nor are any scheduled to be built. Based on staff analysis, we conclude that no new digesters or Rule 1133.2-compliant composters will be built for manure processing unless subsidized; so far we cannot identify any such sufficient available funding. Without in-Basin manure processing operations capable of handling the throughput at existing openwindrow composting facilities, farmers will maxi mize in-Basin landspreading (which has the least emission reduction potential), increase out -of-Basin manure transport (which would significantly increase diesel truck emissions due to lengthy haul trips), increase out-ofDistrict emissions, or worst-case, potentia lly resort to illegal dumping (no emission reductions). PR1127 was designed to addre ss these concerns and provide additional incentive for the development of new compos ting technologies. Staff does concur that previous versions of PR1127 do not sufficiently provide incentives for optimizing alternative manure composting operations. Staff has re vised PR1127 to require PR1133.2-type source testing for these facilities and will prepare reso lution language requiring staff to report back to the Governing Board on the control eff ectiveness of existing alternative manure composting operations and the potential for additional control (and emission reductions)
from these sources.

Comment 6: Wasterwater agencies are freque ntly subject to AQMD enforcement actions against odors. The composting rule st aff report detailed the odor complaint history associated with that source. In contrast, the PR1127 Preliminary Draf t Staff Report contains only a brief reference to odors. Why are the dairy odors and odor nuisance being treated so differently by the AQMD?Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 36 June 2004 August 2004 Staff Response: The difference originates in state la w. Health and Safety Code Section 41705(a) specifically says that Section 41705 nui sance provisions shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations. Th is language is repeated in AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance. Although AQMD is prohibited from issuing nuisance complaints from agricultural sources, PR1127 should reduce emissi ons of certain odorants, such as ammonia
and certain VOCs.

Comment 7: PR1127 should apply BACT under Regul ation XIII to new and modified farms subsequent to the effective date under SB700, not January 1, 2005. Also, the entire dairy should be subject to BACT and BA RCT; PR1127 only applies BACT to storage lagoons. Similarly PR1127 applies BARCT to corrals, feedlanes and manure disposal activities, and it should apply BARCT to all emi ssion sources at the dairies. Lastly, PR1127 must apply the BACT requirements to new and modified dairies upon adoption.

Staff Response: To address these comments, staff ha s removed the requirements for new and modified dairies from PR1127. Any new a nd modified dairies will be addressed by the AQMD’s existing Regulation XIII – New S ource Review, including Regulation XIII’s BACT provisions. Concerning BARCT, PR 1127 applies BARCT to fugitive emission sources such as corrals, feedlanes and manure dis posal activities. As part of its overall plan to implement SB700, the AQMD is conducting a revi ew of all of its BARCT rules containing agricultural exemptions. As part of that review, AQMD staff will evaluate and determine, consistent with SB700 requirements, standard s and emission limits that should apply to equipment at agricultural operations. Once CARB establishes the definition of “large CAFs,” AQMD staff will re-visit BARCT for all emission sources on the dairy as it develops the “large CAF” emission reduction permit regul ation that must be adopted by July 1, 2006, as required by SB700. As noted above, any new or modified dairies will be subject to Regulation XIII, independent of the adopti on date of PR1127. See also response to
Comment #5 in this section.

Comment 8: New digester and manure manageme nt technologies, such as those presented by BION Dairy Corporation and Orga nic Power USA, Inc., could reduce dairy manure emissions to a great extent. PR1127 should: 1) create a uniform standard for
release of methane and ammonia without refere nce to a specific technology; 2) establish a uniform baseline that is consistently applied across all applications; 3) set uniform boundary conditions from cradle to grave for the anim al waste for application of the established baseline standards; 4) set uniform defin itions for manure minimal percent solids, and allowable percent of inert materials, bedding a nd feed wastes; and 5) evaluate all BACT technology according to the same baseline and uniform standards as they impact overall emissions from dairies. The goal should be to create a level playing field for competing technologies, similar to Rule 1133.2. Technology design, analysis and testing information was also provided.

Staff Response: The most appropriate way to eval uate new dairy manure management technologies is through BACT analysis conduc ted for new source review. AQMD’s existing Regulation XIII – New Source Review includes BACT requirements for new and modified facilities. Under SB700, new and modified dairies would be subject to New Source Review. The information and comments provided by tec hnology providers has been forwarded to the AQMD’s Technology Advancement Office for BACT review. (The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is al so doing a BACT review for dairy-related technologies. The Proposed Preliminary Draf t BACT For New And Expanding Dairies andDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 37 June 2004 August 2004 related documents can be found on the SJVAPCD web site: www.valleyair.org under the link for “New Requirements for Agricultural Operations.”) In Rule 1133.2, the AQMD staff set baseline and controlled emission standards for a single process. Existing dairies consist of several different process areas that can be quite different (or even not exist) on individual dairies. Regardless, the level pl aying field that you are suggesting is already embedded in our process of establishing BACT standards. Specifically, the BACT standards are established based on the technology that resu lts in the lowest emission rates for a given process. Alternative technologies that can demonstrate equivalent emission reduction benefits are also allowed as BACT-equivalent. These comments have been forwarded to the Technology Advancement Office staff for their c onsideration during BACT review. See also response to Comment #5 in this section.

Comment 9: Air emissions from landfills are not addressed in either Rule 1133.2, PR1127, or any other known rule. This creates an unfair situation in that the beneficial uses of organic materials through composting or digestion are regulated while landfilling these organics is not regulated.

Staff Response: Air emissions from landfills are regulated by AQMD Rule 1150 – Excavation of Landfill Sites (adopted Octobe r 1982) and Rule 1150.1 – Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (adopted April 1985, amended April 1998 and March 2000). Also, any new or modified landfill would be subject Regulation XIII –
New Source Review.

Comment 10: AQMD should seek emission reductions beyond those that will occur from relocation. The rule should set perf ormance standards for alternative manure composting operations and digesters. AQMD should set a “preferable” manure processing option to maximize emission reductions. Energy recovery costs should be accounted for in assessing digester impacts. We agree that the best management practices should go beyond the current water quality regulations (e.g. mo re frequent corral clearing and stockpile removal). Lastly, the compliance threshold fo r new dairies should be reduced to the 50 cow per dairy limit for exemption for existing da iries and that existing dairies that are significantly modified, including through increased herd size, should be subject to enhanced
controls.

Staff Response: AQMD staff concurs that PR1127 s hould seek reductions beyond those occurring from relocation. In reference to performance standards for alternative manure composting operations, please see the response to Comment #5 in this section. Any new or modified digesters are subject to Regula tion XIII – New Source Review and its BACT analysis. Manure is a beneficial fertilizer and soil amendment. AQMD staff received many adverse comments on earlier rule proposals that ma ndated the use of certain options for a set amount of manure. Restricting legal land sp reading could impact crop farming operations and could encourage the use of chemical fertili zers. As to setting a rule preference between composting operations and digesters, please see the response to Comment #5. Staff has included energy recovery costs in its dige ster analysis (see the Incremental CostEffectiveness section). As noted in previ ous response to comments, requirements for new
and modified dairies will be addressed through existing AQMD Regulation XIII – New
Source Review.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 38 June 2004 August 2004 

### Response to Comments Received On The June 4, 2004 Draft Staff Report

A summary of the additional written comments received on the June 4, 2004 Draft Staff Report is provided below, followed by staff responses.

Comment 11: AQMD should attempt to standa rdize the definitions of greenwaste or green materials between the various environm ental rules and regulations, which would be critical to the elimination of illegal and/or misguided activities. PR1127 should use the definition of green materials from the Calif ornia Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 17852, which limits contamination of the green material to less than 1.0 percent by weight.

Staff Response: Staff concurs. The green waste definition has been replaced by the definition of green materials from the Calif ornia Code of Regulations Title 14, Section

17852.

Comment 12: If PR1127 is a dopted, staff should hold Rule 1127 implementation workshops for the dairy farmers, similar to the works hops held by the San Joaquin Valley APCD for
their Rule 4550.

Staff Response: Staff concurs. The implementation workshop, which would be scheduled prior to the December 1, 2005 implementation date, would cover registration and annual reporting requirements, notification procedures , moisture testing protocols/reporting, and other implementation topics.

Comment 13: Dairy farmers remain concerne d about the technical barriers and economic impact of requiring 4, rather than 2, stockpile removals per year. For farmers who haul manure away using trucks that bring in feed, it takes more than the 1 month specified in the proposed rule to completely remove the stockp ile. For farmers sending their manure to local crops, the planting schedule is such that the fiel ds are typically only available twice per year for spreading and dairy farmers have timed thei r stockpile removal to match the crop cycles. It would involve significantly more cost to the dairy farmer and the crop farmer if the manure had to be processed (e.g. composted) rather than left in on-dairy stockpiles until the crop fields are ready.

Staff Response: Although most of the crop land availabl e for spreading is in the San Jacinto watershed, manure comes from dairies in the Chino (28% of total manure) and the San Jacinto (14% of total manure) areas. Concer ning the local crop cycles, manure would still be available for direct land spreading, although it may come from a greater number of dairies removing their 3-month accumulations. Dairies that traditionally sent manure to local crops on a twice a year schedule, may need to send some of their manure to a processing operation. (The least-cost processing operation would be a fabric in-vessel operation relatively close to the dairies). Other dairies would now have the lower-cost option of sending additional manure from their farms to cropland. Overall, there would be no net impact, although some dairies would see higher costs and others woul d see lower cost. With the relatively small facility footprints and lower infrastructure requirements for alternative manure composters, it is possible to site them closer to the dairies that would need them. However, to minimize the impact to dairy farmers, staff is propos ing to extend the time period for completely removing the stockpile from 1 month to 3 m onths from the last clearing. The emission reductions are maintained since stockpiles are still removed 4 time per year (no less than 60 days between removals). In addition, alt hough manure stockpiles still emit due to biologicDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 39 June 2004 August 2004 activity, they are not subject to active re -wetting by urinating cows, which increases emissions. Lastly, notification requirements for corral clearing and stockpile removal have been removed since the rule requires adequa te recordkeeping and reporting to determine compliance.

Comment 14: Industry provided comments on th e costs used in the Draft Socioeconomic Report. They included direct cost figures fo r in-Basin shipping, out-of-Basin shipping (with and without backhaul), and some questions con cerning the costs related to fabric in-vessel composting. Please provide additional information on the cost and use of moisture meters.

Staff Response: The costs in the Draft Socioeconomic costs include the direct costs mentioned in the comment, but also include the i ndirect costs that would also be borne by the dairy farmers, such as loading, specialized la bor, special collection systems for those dairies sending manure to the digester, et c. Staff will update the round-trip mileage for in-Basin shipping to 80 miles roundtrip, as suggested. As to out-of-Basin shipping, the actual cost does indeed depend on distance, with a range of $12/ton to San Joaquin to $16/ton to Imperial. Staff used the higher cost for the sta ff reports to capture the full range of costs. PR1127 does not, in itself, impact the final location of the composted material, which has been and will be affected by market and other regulatory forces. Any changes would not be an impact of PR1127 and thus, is not included in the impact reports. Concerning moisture testing equipment, Imperial County APCD sta ff uses “hay” moisture meters for ICAPCD Rule 420 compliance testing (e.g., manure in feed yards between 20 and 40%). The cost of the water moisture equipment ranges from $200 to $900. Staff will provide additional guidance for manure moisture testing at th e implementation workshops (see Response to Comment 12).

Comment 15: In previous versions of PR1127, da iries that sent fresh feedlane manure to digesters daily were exempt from more fr equent corral clearing and stockpile removal requirements. This was because of the signifi cantly greater emission reductions that resulted from prompt removal of the fresh manure. (Removing feedlane manure daily accounts for 30 to as high as 60% of the total corral manure.) Please reinstate the previous exemption from more frequent corral clearing / stockpile rem oval for dairies daily clearing feedlane manure to a digester.

Staff Response: Staff concurs and has reinstated th e exemption language. Those dairies would still be required to remove any on-dairy stockpiles twice a year because of water quality regulations.

Comment 16: Given that the mailbox milk pr ice is largely controlled by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the best way to additional emissions reductions from this source category at less cost to the farmers w ould be to educate them as to the benefits of credit generation through additional controls pa id for by others. As you are aware, local industries are desperately in need of cost-unprohibitive PM credits to sustain a healthy economy. AQMD staff is familiar with credit gene ration efforts, successful and otherwise, and all the criteria EPA wishes to see for such programs ( identification in the emission inventories, surplus issues, SB 700/705 etc.). If the information contained in the PR1127 staff report is not sufficient to answer all th e questions concerning the potential use of these types of emission reduction credits, staff s hould address them separately through postadoption analyses.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 40 June 2004 August 2004 Staff Response: There are both technical and policy barriers to the actual generation of

usable emission credits from controlled manure processing. EPA’s credit criteria require that the credits be permanent, real, quantifiable, surplus, and enforceable. These criteria have traditionally be difficult to meet for area sources (as opposed to point sources). In addition, the greatest interest has been in the use of ammonia reductions as PM10 credits. The link between ammonia and PM10 is highly non-linear and dependent on the source location in reference to NOx and SOx sources, the source concentration, and meteorology. This makes it technically difficult to establish a relationship between ammonia reductions and PM10 reductions. Although PR1127 establishes certain control requirements, these are not BACT requirements; emission credits are generally BACT-discounted, which could also limit the credit generation potential of many manure pro cessing operations. In the Governing Board resolution, staff proposes to do a follow-on assessment of the emission credit generation potential of manure processing operations and report back to the Board’s Stationary Source committee upon the completion of that study.

Comment 17: Additional cost and other information concerning the BION

Microaerobic/Anoxic Animal Waste Nutrient Management System (NMS) has been provided. The use of digesters in PR1127 depe nds on the treatment of ammonia-rich liquid effluent in existing wastewater treatment f acilities, while the BION system can treat the

effluent on site. The cost benefit of ERCs th at the BION system could produce could be very

valuable if a mechanism existed to realize those benefits. Also, the poten tial cost benefits of the BION system increase with dairy size; a lthough this may not be the situation in South Coast, it is a very real consideration for dairies in other areas in California and the nation. Please review this information and consider the inclusion of the BION system in PR1127.

Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the additional comment material, and re-iterates its responses to comments 5, 8, and 10 above. In addition, staff notes that the BION system requires that manure be fluidized and then in the process, the solids are separated out. For dairies that use lagoons for waste storage, such as flushed lane systems and certain scrapped lane dairies, this is done as part of the dair ies general operations. For dry-lot corrals, this would require adding dry manure to significant am ounts of water, and then separating out the solids as part of the BION process. The effect of this is to transfer the ammonia in relatively dry and aerobic conditions (SCAQMD emission fact or for local dry lot corral dairies = 51 lbs ammonia/cow/year) to ammonia in an anaerobi c aqueous solution (CARB emission factor for flushed lane/lagoon diaries = 74 lbs ammonia/cow/ year), and then treating the ammonia. This would require re-design and re-building of existing dairies, which is more appropriate for new dairy requirements rather than exis ting source-specific rules, such as PR127. PR1127 does not exclude the use of the BION system , but it also allows the treatment of the dry manure in controlled processing operations, such as Rule 1133.2 composters. As noted in the response to Comment 16, there are technical and policy barriers to realizing the emission reduction credit of manure processing technologies such as the BION system, but staff is proposing to further assess this subject.

The discharge of anaerobic digester effluent wa ste water should meet the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em (NPDES) for the applicable local water quality control board (e.g. SARWQCB). For concentrated animal feeding operationsDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 41 June 2004 August 2004 (dairies and related facilities) within the Santa Ana Region, the General Waste Discharge Requirement is specified by NPDES Pe rmit CAG018001, RWQCB Order No. 99-11 and, dairy facilities, the Engineered Waste Manageme nt Plan (EWMP). (NOTE: other areas in California do not have NPDES requirements.) All municipal publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) in the Santa Ana Watershed Region are required to meet tertiary or equivalent water treatment standards except fo r Orange County Sanitation District which is transitioning to full secondary treatment.



### DRAFT FINDINGS AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Health and Safety Code Section 40727 requi res the AQMD to adopt written findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplication and reference.

Necessity - State and federal health-based ambient air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone are regularly and significantly violated in the AQMD. The reduction of ammonia and VOC from PR 1127 is part of a comprehensive strategy to meet federal and State air quality standards.

Authority - The AQMD Board obtains its authority to adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations from Health & Safety Code Sections 40000, 40001, 40440, 40441, and 40702.

Clarity - The AQMD Board determines that PR 1127 is written or displayed so that persons directly affected by it can easily understand its meaning.

Consistency - The AQMD Board determines that PR 1127 is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing fe deral or State statutes, court decisions, or regulations.

Non-Duplication - PR 1127 does not impose the same requirements as any existing State or federal regulation and is necessary and proper to execute the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon, the AQMD.

Reference - In adopting this proposed rule, th e Board references the following statutes which the AQMD hereby implements, interprets or makes specific: H&S Code Sections 40001 (rules to achieve ambient air quality st andards) and 40440(a) (rules to carry out AQMP).

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Assessment - Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6 requires an assessment of incremental cost eff ectiveness for proposed regulations relative to ozone, CO, SOx, NOx, and their precursors. Increm ental cost effectiveness is defined as the
difference in control costs divi ded by the difference in emission reductions between the most stringent option compared with the next less costly control option. This staff report contains an incremental cost-effectiveness assessment, as required.

Comparative Analysis
Health and Safety Code §40727.2 requires a written analysis comparing the proposed rule with existing regulations. Table 11 identifies other AQMD rules that apply to the equipment and sources subject to PR 1127. Except fo r the Rule 1133 and 1133.2, none of these rulesDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 42 June 2004 August 2004 applies to the same “source type”, i.e., dairy manure, as Rule 1127, so §40727.2 does not require a more detailed analysis of the requirements of these rules. Footnotes explain the differences between PR 1127 and the other AQM D rules where relevant. As required by Health and Safety Code § 40727.2, the purpose of this analysis is to identify and compare any other AQMD or federal regulations that a pply to the same operations or source type. Currently, staff has not identified existing fe deral regulations or AQMD requirements that apply to dairy operations with regard to VOC and ammonia emissions. Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District Rule 301 420 requires that feedlot manure be kept between 20 and 40% moisture levels to reduce fugitive PM10 emissions. On May 20, 2004, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) considered the adoption of Proposed Rule 4550, Conservation Management Practices, which requires PM10 BMPs for agricultural operations, including dairies. PR1127 PM10 BMPs are a subset of SJVUAPCD PR4550 PM10 BMPs for dairies. Other federal, state and local requirements not directly associated with air emissions have been summarized in the Background and Legal Authority
section.

TABLE 13 Comparison Of PR 1127 And Other AQMD Rules

203 Equipment that may cause the

issuance of air contaminants Requires that air pollution sources comply with permit conditions

402 Any source except agricultural odors Prohibits public nuisance caused by

emissions of air contaminants Rule Equipment/Source Analysis

112 Applies to all equipment or activities emitting air pollutants Defines a minor violation and sets guidelines for issuance of a notice to comply

201 Equipment that may cause the

issuance of air contaminants Requires that air pollution sources obtain

Permits to Construct

202 Equipment that may cause the

issuance of air contaminants Requires that air pollution sources obtain Permits to OperateDraft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 43 June 2004 August 2004 TABLE 13 (continued) Comparison Of PR 1127 And Other AQMD Rules

2 Dairies can only send manure to composting operations th at are Rule 1127 approved, per subdivision (f). One of the approval requirements is that the composting ope ration be registered as required in Rule 1133.

3 Dairies can only send manure to composting operations that are Rule 1127 approved, per subdivision (f). A composting operations that is in compliance with Rule 1133. 2 subdivision (d) and is registered as required in Rule 1133, is a Rule 1127 approvable manure processing opera tion. PR1127 requires no a dditional requirements on Rule1133.2-compliant facilities, except registration as a Rule 1127-approved manure pr ocessing operation. PR1127 does exempt alternative manure composting operations from the provisions (e.g., operating parameters, work practice requirements, emission limits, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements) of Rule 1133.2, except for the Rule 1133.2 testing provisions, if and only if the alternative manure composting operation complies with the PR1127 requirements, including the work practice and ope rating parameter requireme nts in paragraph (e)(3).

4 Rule 1186 represents primary PM10 BACM for unpaved roads and travel areas at dairies. PR1127 represents primary PM10 BACM for corral sources. Together, they represent BACM for dairy fugitive dust sources.

5 Regulation XIII requires New Source Re view for all new and modified pe rmit units. All new and modified digesters have permit units that woul d be subject Regulation XIII. Permit units at new and modified composting operations would also be subject to Regulation XIII. SB 700 requires permits for new and modified dairies, thus they would also be s ubject Regulation XIII. Rule Equipment/Source Analysis

1133 Composting and chipping/grinding operations Administrative requirements for composting and chipping/grinding operations 2

1133.1 Chipping / grinding operations Requirements to prevent the inadvertent decomposition during chipping and grinding activities

1133.2 Co-composting operations Requires controls or equivalent emission-reduction practices to reduce VOC and ammonia at operations that compost biosolids and/or manure 3

1186 Paved and unpaved roads, livestock operations (dairies) Requires the treatment of unpaved

access connections and feed lane access areas, and the cessation of grain grinding

activities in certain conditions 4

Reg. XIII

New Source

Review (NSR) All new and modified permit

units NSR requirements include BACT, modeling, emission offsets, sensitive zone requirements, facility compliance, and major polluting facility requirements such as alternative analysis, statewide compliance, protection of visibility, and compliance through CEQA 5Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 44 June 2004 August 2004 REFERENCES

Abt Associate, Inc., Apelberg, B, McCubbin, D., Divita, F., Roe, S., Air Quality Impacts of

Livestock Waste , September 2000.

ATC, M.C. Chitjian, M. Koizumi, C.W. Botsford, G. Mansell and E. Winegar, Final 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emission Inventory U pdate for the South Coast Air Basin , August 2000.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Fact Sheet, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities) within the Santa Ana Region, Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001 , August

1999.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Results of 2002 Annual Waste Discharge Analysis , May 2003.

City of Chino, The Preserve, Chino Sphere of Influence – Subarea 2, Draft Environmental Impact Report , SCH # 2000121036, September 2001.

Earsom, Jame,. Chino Basin Work With Dairies , Soil and Water Conservation Society and

Southern California Coalition of Resource C onservation Districts’ Regional Workshop, September 1996.

Environmental Protection Agency, Results of the Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Livestock Waste, January 1995.

Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Chino Basin Or ganics Management Strategy Business Plan

, May 2001.

National Research Council, The Scientific Basis for Estimating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Interim Report , 2002.

NC State University, Dairy Production Newsletter , April 1999.

Radian, R.J. Dikson, Development of the A mmonia Emission Inventory for the Southern California Air Quality Study , September 1991.

Riverside County, California, Ordinance No. 427.3, An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating The Land Application of Manure , April 2001.

Ritzman, E.G., and Benedict, F.G., Nutritional physiology of the adult Ruminant . Carnegie Inst. Washington, 1938.

Schmidt, C.E., Ph.D, Winegar, E., Ph.D. Final T echnical Report Results of the Measurements of PM10 Precursor Compounds (PM10PCs) From Dairy Industry Livestock Waste , June 1996.

Splansky, J. A, Geography of Dairying in the Los Angeles Basin: Past and Present, Fall 2000.Draft Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 45 June 2004 August 2004 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority's GIS and Database Management Services.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District , Preliminary Draft Report, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) , Dairy Operations, April 2004

Taback, H. et al. Control of Hydrocarbon Emissi ons From Stationary Sources in the California

South Coast Air Basin , October 1984.

Tetra Tech Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 1 - Survey Current Livestock Waste Management Practices in the South Coast Air Basin, January 2002.

Tetra Tech, Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 2 – Literature Survey and National Programs, Livestock Waste Management Practices Survey and Control Option Assessment , Draft Report, May 2002.

Tetra Tech Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 3 – Identify Potential Waste Management Practices Reducing Ammonia and VOCs, Livestock Waste Management Practices Survey and Control Option Assessment , Preliminary Draft Report, November 2002.

United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Working Group on Technology, Report on Abatement Techniques to Reduce Ammonia Emissions from Agricultural Livestock, January 1996.Draft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 1 June 2004August 2004 APPENDIX A –CONTROL OPTIONS

Work completed by the AQMD Livestock Waste Working Group as well as reports on the Survey of Livestock Waste Management Practices and emission factor studies that have been completed by SCAQMD contractors have aided in developing the following analysis of potential control options.



### Best Management Practices

California SB 700 is one of a package of air quality bills sponsored by senator Dean Florez to remove the exemption for agricultural sour ces from regulatory requirements and requires, by July 1, 2006, that each Air Quality Management District or Air Pollution Control District, which is designated as a “serious” non-attainme nt area for various types of particulate matter to adopt an implement best available control m easures for agricultural stationary sources of air pollution.

The following BMPs are proposed to reduce PM10 emissions and increase the emission reduction effectiveness of certain manure processing requirements.

i) The following manure harvesting protocols can be used to minimize fugitive dust (PM10) emissions:

(1) Scrape or harrow in early morning (before 9am) when moisture is higher and

winds are low. (2) Set blade level such that an even surf ace of compacted manure remains on top of the soil (e.g., do not scrape down to soil level). Pulling, rather than pushing,

blades are recommended. (3) Sprinkle corral before manure harvesting to reduce dust through increased surface moisture (This measure is not recommended for lactating cows).

ii) Minimize water in corrals (e.g. better drainage, eliminate water leaks).

iii) Feedlanes must be paved at least 8’ on the corral side of the fence.

iv) Clear corrals and any on-dairy stockpiles 4 times per year, with one time being

between October 1 and November 30.

v) Fugitive dust BMPs for feed processing and unpaved roads/surfaces have already been implemented in Rule 1186.



### Stock Pile Elimination / Reduction

In this control option, the dairy operator removes manure stockpiles more frequently than is currently practiced or prevents stockpiles altogether. Manure stockpiles on dairies have been a common practice. Data indicates that manure stockpiles are a significant ammonia source,Draft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 2 June 2004August 2004 on the average about 10% of the total ammonia emitted from a dairy. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (SARWQCB) in 1999 adopted ordinances regulating manure management and stockpile removal. Since that time, dairies under compliance orders have removed manure stockpiles and cleaned their corrals of manure at least twice annually.

Estimates indicate that 100% of the ammonia and VOC emissions would be controlled yielding a reliable net removal effectiveness for the dairy of about 10%.

The ease of implementation of this control option is relatively high. There are no capital facilities required on the part of the dairy. There exists a vibrant community of service contractors specializing in manure management services to the dairy industry that are providing all of the needed services for this option. The time scale for implementation for

this alternative is immediate.

Regulatory program implementation related to this alternative is significant. Current state, SARWQCB, manure management requirements require manure stockpile cleanup and removal by the end of 2003. In areas without strong water quality requirements, air quality agencies may also implement similar regulations.



### Manure Harvesting / More Frequent Corral Cleaning

In this control option, the dairy operator removes manure and urine more frequently than is currently practiced. The animal excretes the majority of its nitrogen in its urea. This nitrogen hydrolyzes rapidly into ammonia gas. To the extent that the manure and urine can be removed quickly for additional treatment, the ammonia and VOC emissions will be less. The open area of the corral is estimated to contribute an average of 61% of the overall ammonia emissions in dry lot dairy farms in southern California. Removal of the manure twice a year is estimated control up to 50% of the ammonia and VOC emissions. This results in a net

removal effectiveness of VOC and NH 3 for the dairy of about 30% for corral cleaning twice yearly. Implementation of requirement to clean the corral more frequently will increase the

removal effectiveness.

The ease of implementation of this control option is relatively good. There are no capital facilities required on the part of the dairy. Depending on the size of the dairy and the ultimate disposition of the manure solids, operators may need to acquire additional rolling stock that could include a tractor, collection machinery, hau ling trailers, or land application equipment. Additionally, the operator may need to evaluate personnel requirements for implementation of this option. Alternatively, there exists a vibrant community of service contractors specializing in manure management services to the dairy industry that can immediately provide all of the needed services.

The time scale for implementation of this control option is immediate. There are no ramp up time requirements associated with this option. Regulatory program implementation related to this alternative is insignificant. Current state and federal manure management requirements call for manure cleanup and removal at least once every six-months. No additional other regulatory requirements are immi nent that would affect the dairy operator’sDraft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 3 June 2004August 2004 manure management program. The cost-effectiveness of this control measure is estimated to be reasonable. The practices required to achieve the option’s goals are achievable with only minor adjustments and a small cost increase. The implementability of this control measure is estimated to be high.



### Land Application of Manure

In this control option, the dairy operator removes manure for land application to cropland as a fertilizer. Land application as a control measure can be effective. The practice should

follow Natural Resources Conservation Serv ice Conservation Practice Standard # 633- Waste Utilization. Estimates indicate that up to 50% of the ammonia and VOC emissions could be controlled yielding a net removal effectiveness for the dairy of about 22% when accomplished within the air basin. As commercial fertilizer has reduced the need for manure, the economic benefit of manure has been increasingly viewed only in terms of the direct benefit associated with the essential nutrients for crop growth. This typically is measured in terms of the fertilizer replacement value. For exam ple, an application of 10 tons of solid beef manure to an acre of land reduces fertilizer nitrogen requirements by about 40 lbs. during the next cropping year, which would save the farmer about $10 per acre at present fertilizer prices, disregarding the cost of manure application. Utilization of manure applied to land is accomplished through microbial conversion of plant residues and wastes into usable crop nutrients. Breakdown of organic nutrient sources takes considerable time with only a fraction of the applied nitrogen being available the first year. Actual mineralization rates are difficult to determine given the fact that this is a biological process that is sensitive to temperature and moisture conditions found in the soil system. In manure, nitrogen is mostly organic and ammonium nitrogen. Organic nitrogen is a slow release nitrogen source. Ammonium N is equivalent to commercial fertilizer and, except for that lost to the air, can be used by plants in the application year. Organic nitrogen must be c onverted to inorganic form before plants can use it. Variable amounts of organic nitrogen are released to the soil in a plant-available form during the first cropping year after applicati on. Organic N released during the second, third, and fourth cropping years after initial application is usually about 50%, 25%, and 12.5%, respectively of that mineralized during the first cropping season (MWPS, 1985).

• Methods of application of manure are:

o broadcast (top dressed) with plow-down or disking, broadcast without plow-down or disking,

o knifed (wet manure injected under the soil surface), and irrigated (liquid manure).

The greatest nitrogen response follows land application and immediate incorporation into the soil. Best management practices recommend to plow down solid manure as soon as possible to minimize nitrogen loss and to begin release of nutrients for plant use. Most losses occur in the first 24 hours after application, so the most air quality benefit occurs when manure is incorporated into the soil as soon as possible. Injecting, chiseling, or knifing liquids into the soil minimizes odors and nutrient losses to the air and/or to runoff. Nitrogen loss as ammonia from land is greater during dry, warm, windy days than during humid or cold days. Ammonia loss is generally greater during the spring and summer months. Use of manure should be based on at least one analysis of the material during the time it is to be used. In the case ofDraft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 4 June 2004August 2004 daily spreading, the waste should be sampled and analyzed at least once each year. As a minimum, the manure analysis should identify nutrient and specific ion concentrations. Where manures are to be spread on land not owned or controlled by the producer, the manure plan, as a minimum, should document the amount of manure to be transferred and who will be responsible for the environmentally acceptable use of the manure. Additional description of the practice includes:

 All manure should be utilized in a manner that minimizes the opportunity for contamination of surface and ground water supplies.

 Where manures are utilized to provide fertility for crop, forage, fiber production, and forest products, the practice standard Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Practice Standard, Nutrie nt Management (Code 590) should be

followed.

 Manures should be applied at rates not to exceed the crop nutrient requirements or salt concentrations as stated above, and should be applied at times the manures can be incorporated by appropriate means into the soil within 72 hours of application.

 The effect of Waste Utilization on the water budget should be considered, particularly where a shallow ground water table is present or in areas prone to runoff. Limit manure to the volume of liquid that can be stored in the root zone.

 Minimize the impact of odors of land-applied manures by making application at times when temperatures are cool and when wind di rection is away from neighbors. Priority areas for land application of manures should be on gentle slopes located as far as possible from waterways.

 When manures are applied on more sloping land or land adjacent to waterways, other conservation practices should be installed to reduce the potential for offsite transport

of manure.

 It is preferable to apply manure on pastur es and hayland soon after cutting or grazing before re-growth has occurred. Reduce nitrogen volatilization losses associated with the land application of manure by incorporation within 24 hours.

 Minimize environmental impact of land-applied manure by limiting the quantity of manure applied to the rates determined using the practice standard Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Practi ce Standard, Nutrient Management (Code 590) for all waste utilization. The manure management plan is to account for the utilization or other disposal of all animal wastes produced, and all manure application areas shall be clearly indicated on a plan map. The operation and maintenance plan should include the dates of periodic inspections and maintenance of equipment and facilities used in manure utilization. The plan should include what is to be inspected or maintained, and a general time frame for making necessary repairs.

The ease of implementation of this control option is good. Land application of manure using best management practices is currently required by state and federal laws and regulations. Compliance enforcement measures are underway by the SARWQCB. The time scale for implementation for this alternative is immediate. The status of regulatory program implementation related to this alternative is significant. Current state and federal manureDraft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 5 June 2004August 2004management requirements call for manure cleanup and removal at least once every sixmonths. Certain county ordinances regulate how manure is incorporated into cropland.



### Open Aerated Static Pile

In this control option, the dairy operator removes manure and urine to ASP composting facilities within the Southern California Air Basin. As detailed in the previous section, composting via aerated static pile, emissions from composting operations can be greatly reduced. The size of the source relative to manure management is a function of the timing of manure removal from the dairy. The source size for relatively dry corral manure is about 60% while fresh or daily removal could approach 100%. ASP composting, where suction air is used, the air is typically captured and discharged through a biofilter for removal of odor, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds.

The ease of implementation of this control option is good. Composting at windrow types of facilities is underway and has been practiced by the dairy industry for many years. Implementation of ASP or enclosed ASP fac ilities is underway in several locations in Southern California. The time scale for implementation for this alternative is immediate and sustained. Rule 1133 regarding composting facilities was recently adopted by the AQMD. This rule moves the hierarchy of composting to ASP or enclosed ASP and away from

windrow facilities.

Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) has developed a new totally enclosed ASPcomposting facility in Rancho Cucamonga. This facility will replace the existing cocomposting facility on Chino California. The enclosed facility will primarily process

biosolids and a small amount of manure.



### Open Windrow

In this control option, the dairy operator removes manure and urine to open windrow composting facilities within the Southern California Air Basin. Windrow composting emissions do not result in any reduction of ammonia or VOC’s. This method of composting may add ammonia and VOC burden to the air basin. The results of this feasibility assessment indicate that windrow composting does not resu lt in emissions reductions and may aggravate

emissions issues.

Rule 1133 regarding composting facilities was recently adopted by the AQMD. This rule moves the hierarchy of composting to ASP or enclosed ASP and away from windrow

facilities.Draft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 6 June 2004August 2004 

### Fabric In-Vessel or Covered Aerated Static-Pile

With the upcoming closure of existing co-composting facilities, there has been an increased interest in enclosed aerated static pile tec hnology, such as fabric in-vessel (FIVs), for the organics. FIVs use the aerobic composti ng process as co-composting facilities to decompose organic materials. However, the FIV aerated method of composting manure would take place in an elongated plastic contai ner or bag (see Figure 1-4), typically 10 feet in diameter and 200 feet long, which would act as a containment cell with forced aeration.

FIGURE 1-4

Fabric In-Vessel (Composting Bag)

The typical process would involve the collecti on of the manure before it is placed into a hopper where the manure is mixed, ground, and possibly adjusted for the proper carbon nitrogen ratio. Hoppers are designed for fork lift handling, can be dumped safely from any height and are precisely balanced to tip fore ward for complete discharge of contents and return to an upright position. Attached to the hopper is a hydraulic ram which is used to push the manure material through the filling cham ber and compact into the plastic container or bag (see Figure 1-5). Compaction is essential to maintain porosity. Pushing the hydraulic ram forward and leaving it extended agai nst the material will effectively leave the product sealed for aeration purposes. Retracting the ram leaves the hopper ready for another

load.

FIGURE 1-5

Hopper Filling the Fabric In-VesselDraft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 7 June 2004August 2004 After the manure is packed into the container a nd sealed, the aeration pipe is attached to a timer controlled electric air blower that maintains aerobic conditions. Optimum temperature and moisture conditions are main tained by managing the blower operating time and the venting water vapor during the composi ng process. Each containment vessel holds approximately 200 tons of manure. It t ypically takes 10-14 weeks for the manure to

compost.

Covered Aerated Static-Pile system by the c ontrolled use of a PTFE membrane that is permeable to oxygen but impermeable to large molecules. In addition to the membrane, which covers the organic material during com posting, the system includes a concrete floor and wall, blowers for aeration, and a winder fo r efficient movement of the cover. The system also requires consistent management in cluding preparation of materials to achieve a homogenous mixture with moisture content of 55-60 percent and monitoring of temperature and oxygen levels. With this system, the co mposting process takes eight weeks. The “heap” of organic material is covered by th e membrane, which is secured to the ground, allowed to compost for four weeks, then moved and re-covered for two weeks for stabilization. During the final two weeks of curing, the heap is uncover



### Use of Anaerobic Digesters for Disposal of Dairy Waste

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the microbial decomposition of an organic matter by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen to produce a stabilized biomass and “biogas”, consisting of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (C O2) and trace gases. The stabilized biomass (the digestate) can be separated into fiber and liquid. The fiber can be used and sold as a soil amendment. The biogas can be burned in a boiler or furnace or used to produce electricity. The liquid is rich in nutrients and can be used as a substitute for inorganic fertilizer.

Technology

AD occurs in four stages:

1. The organic plant or animal matter (proteins, carbohydrates and lipids) is decomposed (hydrolyzed) to soluble compounds such as sugar. The hydrolysis of the organic matter is the rate limiting step.

2. The soluble compounds are fermented to short chain, volatile fatty acids.

3. Acetogenesis forms hydrogen, CO 2 and acetate.

4. Methanogenesis converts the fatty acids to biogas (methane).

The acid forming bacteria are tolerant to environmental changes such as pH and temperature. In contrast, the methane formi ng bacteria are intolerant to environmental changes. The anaerobic digestion process is outlined in the following flow diagram.Draft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 8 June 2004August 2004 Figure 1: Anaerobic Digestion Process

Types of Digesters:

The types of anaerobic digesters include Covered Lagoon, Batch Di gester, Plug-Flow Digester, Completely Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR), Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB), and Anaerobic Sequenci ng Batch Reactor (ASBR), and others. The complete-mix, plug-flow, and the covered anaerobic lagoon are three types of the digesters that are recognized by the USDA's Natural Resource Cons ervation Service (NRCS) in the form of "National Guidance provided to States." The di fferent digester designs, all trap methane and reduce fecal coliform bacteria, but they di ffer in cost, climate suitability, and the concentration of manure solids that type of digester can digest.

Important factors, such as temperature, mois ture and nutrient contents, and pH are also

critical for the success of AD. AD can be best occurred at three range of temperatures, psychrophilic (5-15 °C), mesophilic (30-40°C) and thermophilic (50-60°C). In general, AD at mesophilic temperature is more comm on even though digestion at thermophilic temperature has the advantages of reduci ng reaction time, which corresponding to the reduction of digester volume. Psychrophilic di gesters are used in colder climate areas. Moisture contents in greater than 85% or higher are suitable for AD.

The complete-mix digester is a large, vertical poured concrete or steel circular container. The manure is deliberately mixed within the di gester reactor. The mixing process creates a homogeneous substrate that prevents the forma tion of a surface crust a nd keeps the solids in suspension. Today's complete-mix digester can handle organic wastes with total solid concentration of 3% to 10%. Mixing and h eating improves the digester efficiency. Complete-mix digesters can be operated at either the mesophilic or thermophilic temperature range with a hydraulic retention time (HRT) as brief as 10-20 days.Draft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 9 June 2004August 2004 The basic plug-flow digester design is a long linear chamber, often built below ground level, with an air-tight expandable cover. Organic wa stes is collected daily and added to one end of the trough. Each day a new "plug" of organi c wastes is added, slowly pushing the other manure down the trough. Plug-flow digesters ar e usually operated with a total solid concentration of 11%-13% at the mesophilic temperature range, with a HRT from 20-30 days. A mixing pit is used to prepare the ma nure for use in the digester. The manure total solids concentration is adjusted by dilution with water to a range of 11% - 13% in a mixing pit prior to the digestion process.

A cover lagoon is an earthen lagoon fitted with a floating, impermeable cover that collects biogas as it is produced from the organic wastes . The cover is constructed of an industrial

fabric that rests on solid floats laid on th e surface of the lagoon. The cover can be placed over the entire lagoon or over the part that pr oduces the most methane. An anaerobic lagoon is best suited for organic wastes with a tota l solid concentration of 0.5%-3%. Cover lagoons

are not heated.

Covered lagoon digester operation and maintenan ce is simple and straightforward compared to complete-mix and plug-flow digesters. The capital cost for covered lagoon can be less than those required for the complete-mix and plug-flow types of conventional digesters. However, a key issue for covered lagoon is th at digestion is dependent on temperature, therefore biogas production varies seasonally if the lagoon is not externally heated. This means that methane production is greater in su mmer than in winter. In general, a daily biogas production in summer could be averaged 35% higher than in winter. This may make end-use applications more problematic than pl ug flow and completed mix digesters. Another concern is that it can take an anaerobic lagoon as long as 1-2 years to achieve its "steady state" biogas production potential.

Anaerobic Digestion in the Chino Basin

The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) is a m unicipal water district in the Chino Basin. The IEUA supplies imported drinking water and recy cled water, collect, treat and dispose of wastewater, and provides utility-related services in the Chino Basin. IEUA implemented an Organics Management Strategy program to protect the Chino Groundwater Basin from infiltration of salts, nutrients and pathogens ge nerated by dairies to reduce future costs of removing contaminants from the groundwater.

The IEUA has developed two manure diges tion demonstration projects. The IEUA digesters are centralized facilities and ode led after the Danish, community and CAD designs. The digesters serve a small cluster of 14 dairies for a total of 16,000 cows. Fresh manure is removed daily from the corral and tr ansported to the digestion facilities. The treatment process consists of an anaerobic dige ster for the destruction of organic material and the production of methane gas used to provide 0.75 MW of power used to supply a portion of the power requirements of IEUA facilities. The biosolids produced by digestion are dewatered and conveyed to a composting fac ility, while the filtrate is discharged to the

sewer line.Draft Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1127

PR 1127 A- 10 June 2004August 2004 The two digesters are located at IEUA’s Re gional Plant No.1 (RP-1) and Regional Plant No.5 (RP-5) in the Chino Basin. The digester at RP1 is a complete mix digester and was built by retrofitting an existing digester used fo r municipal waste. IEUA plans to use this digester to co-digest manure and municipal wast e. The RP-1 complete mix digester is a public-private partnership with the dairy indus try to digest approximately 150 wet tons per day of manure. IEUA initially operated RP-1 in phase 1 which is the digestion of manure only. A second phase, Phase II, will be the digestion of manure and biosolids. RP-1 digester pilot project is similar in design to the Danish CAD system with potential to digest manure and municipal biosolids as well as supply biogas and/or electricity to the facility. The initial goals of the RP-1 Pilot Project were to

:

• Demonstrate use of a complete mix thermophilic anaerobic digester technology to process a mixture of biosolids and manure.

• Supply biogas to provide additional fuel for the electric generator at RP-1

• Generate 0.25 MW of power

• Produce 30 tons per day of organic fertilizer

• Remove over 5 tons per day of salts/nitrates from groundwater in Santa Ana River

Watershed

The digester at RP-5 is a plug flow digester designed specifically to process dairy manure. The plant includes feedstock mixing and heati ng tanks, plug flow anaerobic digester and a belt press and centrifuge for dewatering the digestate. RP-5 will digest 225 wet tons per day of fresh manure at 12-20% solids from 3,750 cow. IEUA is currently optimizing the process parameters (feedstock and operating temperatur e) in an effort to optimize the methane production and characteristics of the digestate. IEUA is assessing the use of food waste from the food industry (brewery and cheese) to augment the digester feedstock. RP-5 digester plant is similar to the European co mmunity digester plants since it accepts manure from local dairy operations. The electrical gene rated by micro-turbines is used to run a desalter operated by IEUA in the Chino Basin. The initial goals of the RP-5 pilot project were

to:

• Demonstrate plug flow anaerobic digestion technology

• Supply 210,000 cu ft/day of biogas as fuel to the gas-fired generators at the

Chino-I Desalter.

• Generate 0.5 MW of power

• Produce 135 tons/day of organic fertilizer

• Prevent 4 tons/day of salts/nitrates from entering Chino Groundwater Basin

watershed

• Develop practical methods for collecti ng and transporting fresh manure from dairy feed lots

Both of the digester pilot projects have b een successful and IEUA has plans to expand the RP-5 facility and to incorporate technology modifications.APPENDIX B

PR1127-1 PROPOSED RULE 1127 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE

To reduce the bulk of the rule package and avoid repetition, please refer to the latest version of Proposed Rule 1127, which is located in Attachment F of this rule package.