SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010



### APPENDIX A

SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES TO
REVISED PROPOSED AMEN DMENTS TO RULE 4570 (CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES)

October 21, 2010

A-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

This page intentionally blank.

A-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010



### APPENDIX A
SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND DI STRICT RESPONSES FOR

OCTOBER 2010 REVISED PROPOSED RULE

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

1. Comment: We strongly support the District's efforts to remove less effective compliance options in the proposed rule revisions. We are still reviewing the extensive additional analysi s that the District released in late September with respect to the Clean Air Act requirement for all economically and technically feasible controls. However, it is clear that the rule and technical support has been substantially improved. Thank you again for the extensive time and effort that you and many others at the District have dedicated to this effort.

Response: Comment noted.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

No comments were received.

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

Stakeholders submitting written comments:

Dairy Cares (DC) Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE)

2. Comment: Even if the economic picture were better, Proposed Rule 4570 would add significant operating costs to dai ries that would be cause for concern. Additional costs – especially when not borne by our competitors outside California – hamper the abili ty of our state’s dairies to compete in national and global markets. We have examined the Dis trict’s economic analysis and find it fundamentally sound. These increased co sts come at a time when the dairy industry has not fully absorbed the costs of other significant environmental regulations adopted recently. In summary, California dairies operate in a more regulated and expensive envir onment than their competit ors in other states.

Although Rule 4570 will significantly reduce emissions from dairies, these reductions are only expected to improve ai r quality very slightly. That is because
the VOC emissions from dairies have only a limited role in producing valley ozone. In other words, while Rule 4570 wil l have a definite and visible impact on

A-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

the business costs of dairy families, it will have a barely discernible impact on air quality and only in a few places in the va lley and only on a few days a year. (DC)

Response: District staff has worked closel y with the dairy industry and other stakeholders to balance the impact of emission reductions against the economic impact to affected operators.

3. Comment: Some critics of the District’s approach have charged that the proposed rule only encodes practices that are reflective of the status quo in the industry. Based on a review of permitt ed Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAFs) already under the District’s purvi ew, Appendix C specif ically identifies several practices that are used on fewer th an half of LCAFs, and in at least one case, a practice that is used on fewer than one in ten LCAFs. Further, while no comprehensive survey of air quality practice s utilized by smaller dairies exists, it is reasonable to assume that many of t hese much smaller, often older, resourcelimited facilities likely did not voluntarily take on many of the air quality mitigation practices utilized by their larger neighbors. As such, the rule can be expected to provide substantial emission reductions from dairies in a manner that is about as cost-effective as can reasonably be expected. Though the rule is costly and will have only small benefits to regional ozone levels, the District has made a good faith effort to consider costs and reject technically or economically infeasible proposals. (DC)

Response: District staff’s emission r eduction analysis and cost analysis included a query of the permits database to assess what fraction of current facilities have implemented a given mitigat ion measure. The fraction was applied

to the costs and estimated emission reduction s to more accurate ly reflect current dairy practices.

4. Comment: While the proposed rule is based on a combination of improved dataand reasonable assumptions, more information is still needed to assess the realworld effects of the various parts of the proposed rule. It should be recognized that Rule 4570 was designed to be applicable in general to dairies. Once applied to real-world dairies, unforeseen situations will arise that will require flexibility during implementation, especia lly at atypical dairy operations. This flexibility is needed in ongoing interactions with District staff and individual dairy operators, but also may be needed in the future as we learn more about the effectiveness of the various measures in the rule; futu re revisions to the rule may be needed. (DC)

Response: The District remains committed to implementing the latest research in a practical way at dairies and other CAFs and will work with operators as issues may arise. The rule does a llow for an alternative measure to be

substituted for a measure if approved by the District.

A-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

In light of the fact that Rule 4570 will also now apply to more operations and that those operations will be sma ller than those currently regulated, the District is committed to providing multiple res ources and tools to minimize costs and

administrative burden associat ed with the implement ation of this rule. District staff plans to review required record s to minimize paperwork burden and provide

outreach to the medium-sized CAFs throughout the Valley.

5. Comment: Overall the District clearly ident ified numerous measures that are technically and economically feasible. No t a single measure that was found by District staff to be technically and economical ly feasible was left out of the rule. Every important management unit of the dairy was ex amined and the mitigation practices extend into all of these areas and virtually all facets of the dairy operation, with perhaps only the dai ry employee break room and the bookkeeping office being the only parts of the dairy facility t hat are unregulated

for their air emissions.

Because not all potential mitigation meas ures have been tested on real dairies, the District wisely focused its emissi ons reduction strategy on identifying measures that are already in use on at least some dairies. This approach ensures that while the proposed measures have not been “road-tested” at all dairies, they have been used at least enough dairies to ensure their adoption should not cause significant, wides pread industry problems. (DC)

Response: Comment noted.

6. Comment: Few real “options” exist in t he Rule. Where options exist, it is precisely because the District has made a finding – correctly – that the mitigation practice in question is not economically and technically feasible for all dairies. It’s often not practical (and sometime not even possible) to accomplish all options.

One must do one measure excl usive of the others. In some cases a choice is provided because it is economically or te chnically feasible for some but not all dairies. By combining practices that are not – when considered singularly – technically or economically feasible – into a limited list of options, their overall chances of being technically and economical ly feasible increases greatly. The District’s approach of adding such options to a rule that also includes many obligatory mitigation measures has the overall effect of producing additional

emissions reductions. Without the “menu” approach, some of these measures

that have been included in the rule would have to be eliminated because they would not be feasible for most dairies. (DC)

Response: Comment noted.

7. Comment: Dairy Cares supports adoption of Rule 4570 as proposed. Although the Rule is imperfect and relies on lim ited data about emissions and emissions reductions, and although it will impose sign ificant costs on San Joaquin Valley

A-5 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

dairies, and although it will result only in very small reductions in ambient ozone levels, we believe the District has nevertheless made a good faith and diligent effort to formulate the rule appropriat ely, based on the best available scientific research, socioeconomic analysis and known data on technical feasibility issues. (DC)

Response: Comment noted.

8. Comment: In its comment letters to the Dis trict, EPA stated that every measure that is economically and technically feasible must be made mandatory to

demonstrate that the Rule meets RACT. While the current proposed Rule includes more mandatory measures than the previous draft, many of those measures are already practiced by the regulated entities and the Rule still follows a menu approach. The Rule continues to violate RACT because it permits operators to bypass emission reduction measures that ar e economically and technologically feasible in favor of other measures that achieve less, or zero, reductions. The menu approach continues to allow operators to pick and choose from a group of measures that should be implement ed together to realize a comprehensive emission reduc tion strategy. (CRPE)

Response: Rule 4570 affects a wide variety of operations with differing sizes and management practices. Based on the many variations between operators subject to Rule 4570, a somewhat flexib le approach is necessary since not all dairies can implement each mitigation m easure. The mitigation measures were evaluated to determine which measures would achieve the most reductions, namely in feed, silage and housing, and if each measure would be technologically and economically feasible to require every operator to implement. The mitigation measures in the propos ed rule have been amended to provide more requirements, as well as make m any of the measures mandatory. All

measures were also evaluated for tec hnological and economic feasibility (see Appendices C and E). A RACT analysis wa s prepared as a separate document
and demonstrates Rule 5470 satisfies RACT. Furthermore, a menu approach has already been upheld as BACM for agricultural sources by the 9 th Circuit and BACM is presumably more stringent than RACT ( Latino Issues Forum v.
U.S.E.P.A

., 558 F.3d 936, 9th Cir. 2009)

.

9. Comment: The revised Rule 4570 violates RACT because it fails to fully analyze the cost-effectiveness of enclosed freestall barns that vent emissions through biofiltration systems. Gi ven that this technology holds great potential for VOC reductions, the cost effectiveness analysis should be full and accurate. The current Staff Report includes increased milk production, using the lowest price, but does not account for increased birthing ra tes. Milk prices are currently rising and staff should have calculated potential income using the full spectrum of current prices. The District should acc ount for increased birthing rates in its

calculations of cost effectiveness.

A-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

It is puzzling how previous District calculations on the cost effectiveness of barnto-biofilter technology fell below th e $17,500/ton of VOC emissions reduced threshold in previous analyses, and now it is estimated between $205,098 - $4,172,332/ton of VOC reduced. It is also di sheartening to see that the option to enclose barns and parlors has been elim inated from the P hase II mitigation measures. (CRPE)

Response: The District performed a detailed analysis for this measure using the latest information, which is included in A ppendix E of the Final Draft Staff Report. Previous analyses showing lower cost effectiveness for this measure were used to determine BACT. Therefore, District staff looked only at the cost of certain aspects and concluded the measure was t oo costly once the cost effectiveness reached a certain point. The cost effect iveness determined in Appendix E is more accurate and appropriate because it takes a comprehensive approach, including all factors. This measure has been determined to not be economically feasible for Valley operations and theref ore it has been removed as an option in the Rule. The District was not able to find a strong basis demonstrating that there would be an increase in birthing rates with such a measure. Even with an increase in birthing rates, the additional calves would need to be sold as they would not be allowed to remain onsite unless changes in capacity and permit limitations were undertaken. The profit generat ed from the sale of additional calves would be insignificant relative to the total cost of implementing this measure.

10. Comment: Dairies will be able to comply with the mitigation measures without making any changes whatsoever. This will result in little to no VOC reductions

from these measures. While the District contends that not all dairies are currently complying, there is no basis for differ entiating where reductions are real and where they merely appear on paper. Bec ause the San Joaquin Valley is an extreme non-attainment area for ozone, f ederal law requires RACT and state law requires that the Air District use best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) to achieve actual reductions in emissions. Emission controls that merely codify the status quo fall short of these standards. (CRPE)

Response: Prior to Rule 4570, dairies ma naged their facilities based on management practices that the dairy was accustomed to and based on costs associated with each management technique. Changes in cost would allow the dairy operator to shift m anagement methods that may ha ve not always been in favor of air emissions. However, Rule 4570, adopted in 2006, for the first time, required dairy operators to invest in manage ment practices specifically to reduce emissions at their dairies. These changes not only required these measures to become permanent regardless of external factors but were also enforceable. Dairies simply could not change those measures without replacing a measure

with a similar or better meas ure. Due to the investm ent made from the initial

A-7 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

Rule 4570, more mitigation measur es have become common on dairies, specifically the larger dairies subject to Rule 4570. However, a District query of the mitigation measures s howed that not all of the dairies had selected each mitigation measure. In fact some of the mitigation measures were only being implemented by a very small percentage of dairies. The proposed rule would also incorporate additional mitigation measures reflecting new research and mandate measures in categories with high emissions, such as silage, feed, and housing. Therefore, the mitigation meas ures being required by Rule 4570 have

and will continue to result in real emissions reductions.

11. Comment: The assumption that a six-inch reduction in the placement of feed

would reduce the surface area of the feed fails to account for the movement of the pile. Dairy cows are constantly mo ving the feed around with their snouts as they eat, continuously exposing the TMR to the air and releasing VOCs. There is no monitoring or infallible procedure by wh ich the feed will remain within 3 feet of

the stanchion or ensure that the public or EPA has access to such information in order to enforce the requirement against violators. Given t hat this measure appears to be the most import ant VOC control measure in the Valley, the District needs to make major changes to ensure that such measure is both enforceable and does not double count reductions. (CRPE)

Response: This measure reduces emission s by reducing the surface area of the feed placed in the feed lanes. Reducin g the surface area would result in a
decrease in overall VOC emissions. St udies have shown that the VOC flux rapidly declines after placement of feed. Although dairy cows may push some of the feed back from stanchions, the proposed rule will require that the feed be pushed up soon after it has been placed to r educe the area when the flux rate is high. In addition, pushing the feed near the fence line places the feed within

reach of the cows so it can be consumed rather than remaining in the feed lane

where it can continue to emit VOCs.

12. Comment: The Board should not accept the massive assumption, without a scientific basis, that the various measures each achieve a 10% reduction. Most

of the measures for dairies are assum ed to have a 10% reduction. The District should have to clearly show how Rule 4570’s control measures achieve the expected reductions. (CRPE)

Response: There has been a great deal of emissions research conducted over the last decade on dairies alone, with millions of dollars spent on this research. The latest research has significantly improved the understanding of emissions

from all the sources at dairies which has also resulted in a better understanding of the biological factors and conditions that create VOC em issions from the various sources. This understanding has allowed the Di strict to develop mitigation measures by changing the biol ogical process or condition of the

sources to reduce emissions. These mitigation measures are expected to

A-8 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

reduce emissions by well over 10%, however, the District has taken a conservative approach of estimating the reductions from the rule and uses the

lower end of the control effe ctiveness range cited in the studies. While this may underestimate the actual reductions, the 10% control efficien cy better accounts for normal variations in the organic proc esses at CAFs. Ther efore, until more

definitive research data becomes availa ble, the District will continue to conservatively estimate the reductions from the rule. Where research indicated a higher control efficiency was appropriate , the information was cited for that finding.



### SIGNIFICANT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE OCTOBER 21, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING

13. Comment: We commend stakeholders and Distric t staff for all of the time and

effort that went into th is rule. Though the rule will be incredibly expensive to implement, it will have long term benefits. It may be a real problem for medium size dairies to implement. How will the District monitor the cost and effects throughout implementation?

Response: District staff has planned many outreach sessions in October and November of 2010 as well as continuing dialog with all industry representatives and individual operators through the Small Business Assistance program.



### SIGNIFICANT STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE OCTOBER 21, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING

14. Comment: By adopting this rule, the Distr ict will miss an opportunity to shift from corn-based feed to grass-fed and open range dairies. This type of shift

would be more sustainable and result in fewer emissions.

Response: District staff has not found any studies showing air quality benefits for shifting from co rn-based to grass-fed only. In addition, the impact on milk production is not known. It could result in lower milk produc tion and therefore a

need to increase the number of cows to maintain the same amount of milk production.

15. Comment: Dairies want to do their part to clean up the air but the menu is needed due to the variability from dairy to dairy. We request fl exibility to work with staff during the permitting process to address and facility-specific issues.

Response: See Comment 4.

A-9 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

A-10 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010



### SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND DI STRICT RESPONSES FOR

JUNE 2010 REVISED PROPOSED RULE

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

16. Comment: The District needs to demonstrate that Rule 4570 implements RACT by requiring those measures that are economically and technically feasible. Where individual measures or sets of measures are feasible, please make them mandatory. For any measures that rema in as optional after the District's changes, please provide a detailed analysis of economic and technical feasibility. In general, EPA believes that all measures determined to be economically and technically feasible should be mandatory elements. Justifications related to economic feasibility should be s upported by quantitative analysis.

The District agreed to provide a more expa nsive feasibility analysis of biofilters that considers dairies larger than 500 head. The District should complete this analysis so EPA and other stakeholders c an review it and provide comments.

Response: Please refer to the Incremental Analysis in Appendix C for a quantitative analysis of additional measures. The biofilter analysis is available in Appendix E of t he Staff Report.

17. Comment: Large dairy CAFs are required to feed according to National Research Council (NRC) guidelines, which ar e said to reduce starch in manure
which lowers VOC emissions. Howeve r, the NRC guidelines are extremely complex and it is unclear which sections reduce starch. To clarify, please add a reference to the section in the NRC guidelin es that reduces starch. Also, please further describe the relationship betw een reduced starch in manure and VOC emissions in the staff report.

Response: The NRC guidelines do not address starch specifically, since it is not a nutrient, but feeding according to t he guidelines will guarantee excess starch
will not be excreted. Several studies have shown excess starch can leads to increased volatile fatty acids and VOC em issions. The Staff Report has been revised to explain this connecti on and to cite these studies.

18. Comment: Several measures are designed to reduce emissions by removing

uneaten feed from various areas within one to 14 days. However, these measures may be relatively ineffective because VOC emissions from silage are mostly emitted within 12 hours of removal from the silage pile.

Other measures are intended to reduce VOC emissions by minimizing spoilage in feed wet by rain. These measures may also be ineffective in areas that get

A-11 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

little rain. In light of the large estimated emissions from dairy feed, please

consider whether the miti gation measures can be revi sed to further reduce VOC emissions by revising or eliminati ng potentially low-e ffective measures.

Response: The requirements have either been revised or removed from the rule. See the Final Draft Staff Repor t, beginning in Section X.F., for detailed explanations.

19. Comment: Please consider whether it would be feasible to require partially

enclosed feedbunks to reduce VOC emission losses from total mixed rations.

Response: This technology does not exist at th is time and may be infeasible for most facilities due to the nature of feed management on dairies.

20. Comment: Please define the following terms "high moisture corn," "steamflaked corn," "steam-flaked cereal grains," "dry rolled corn," "hard kernel," and

"soft kernel" in the rule.

Response: Appropriate definitions have been added under Section 3.0 of the

rule. The terms “soft kernel” and “har d kernel” have been removed entirely from the rule because at the level of plant maturity when corn is harvested for silage,

the difference between hard kernel and soft kernel corn is negligible and, therefore, these terms do not need to be included or defined in the rule.

21. Comment: Please evaluate whether having silage piles that can be completely driven over with a tractor or having sil age piles with side walls are economically and technically feasible and could be added as required or additional mitigation measures will help improve pile compaction.

Response : The proposed rule includes the opti on for direct measurement of the density of silage piles and practices t hat will achieve the required density. District believes that the majo rity of the surface of sila ge piles will be driven over to some extent to adequately compact and pr eserve the silage. The District does

not have sufficient information to determine that silage piles with side walls have significantly higher density than piles wi thout side walls. In addition, space constraints at existing facilities may make it difficult to construct drive-over silage piles or walled silage structures; therefor e, these requirements were not included in the proposed rule. If mo re information becomes available, these measures may be re-evaluated under future rule amendments.

While these particular pile types are not common in the Valley, the Phase II silage section does not prohibit their us e. The rule instead focuses on pile properties that retain nutrients and mi nimize conditions that enhance VOC emissions. In this way, the rule does not specify any particular pile configuration, allowing for operational fl exibility while minimi zing VOC emissions.

A-12 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

22. Comment: Dairies electing silage Mitigation Measure 1 must cover silage piles with a plastic tarp. Please consider also requiring that the ta rp be weighed down to ensure close contact with the pile, t hus minimizing silage exposure to air.

Response: Weighing down the silage cover is standard practice and is in the best interest of the owner to reduce spo ilage. However, the ways to weigh down the cover can vary greatly, so the l anguage has not been specified in the rule.

23. Comment: The dairy silage mitigation meas ures require that corn silage be harvested at 65% moisture, which we bel ieve means that dr y matter must be 35%. However, the table under this item currently allows 34-37% dry matter content for processed corn. For clarity, please either adjust the percent moisture at harvest or the rang e of dry matter content for processed corn.

Response: The percent dry matter has been adj usted to be consistent with the preceding language.

24. Comment: Because of the large emissions estimated from silage, please consider limiting selection of limiting total exposed silage faces for multiple uncovered silage piles to facilities above a certain geographic size. Please also consider whether editorial revisions are appropriate to prevent a source from claiming compliance while having one sila ge pile with 4,300 square feet exposed surface area and a second fully closed pile.

Response: The District evaluated whether size of piles should be established based on geographic sizes of the facility and has determined that there is no direct relationship between the size of the silage pile and the physical area a dairy occupies. Land availability and CA F design plays a critical role in determining the size of a silage pile . Where CAF operators have land area

limitations will tend to have taller piles (with t he most likely consequence of having a larger open face) when compar ed to operators of dairies who have more land for silage storage and can build lo nger or wider piles to store the same amount of silage.

District staff has revised the wording of t he mitigation measure to make clear that

it is the total uncovered face that is counted.

25. Comment: Please consider if it is feasible to revise dairy silage Mitigation Measure 2 to require covering the open face of Ag-bags when not removing silage. Please also consider whether it is feasible to require inspecting Ag-bags periodically for holes, with appropri ate action taken to patch them.

Response: The size of these Ag-bags is significantly smaller compared to standard silage piles. Unlike the tarp s used on standard silage piles, the Ag-

A-13 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

bags are not reusable. These bags are torn as needed when removing silage. Therefore, it is not practical to require that the operator re-cov er the open face of the bag between the times when silage is be ing removed. The costs for Ag-bags are already significant, requiring additional measures may prevent facilities from installing these bags.

26. Comment: To improve clarity, please specify how frequently sources need to vacuum manure if selecting dairy corral Mitigation Measure 9.

Response: This measure has been removed from this section because it applies to land application, not to corrals. The land applicat ion section is the more appropriate location for this mitigation measure.

27. Comment: The swine, layer, and the broiler/turkey measures have requirements for removing or disposing of feed during ti me frames that range from 48 hours to 14 days. It is our understanding that poultry and swine feed do not contain fermented components like silage that c ould be a source of VOC emissions. Please justify how removing or disposi ng of feed reduce emissions for poultry

and swine facilities.

Response: The feeds used for these types of facilities are predominantly grainbased. The overall emissions from grai ns are considered to be negligible based on information provided by a report by Dr. Mitloehener. All feed measures related to dry grains have been removed from this section of the rule. Further

information is included in Sections X.I and X.J of the Final Draft Staff Report.

28. Comment: The beef feedlot and other cattle sections all have measures for removing or disposing of feed during time frames that range fr om 48 hours to 14 days. We understand that feed for feedlots and other ca ttle may contain silage.

Please assess whether the feedl ot or other cattle feed could be a source of VOC

emissions. If the District decides to k eep these measures for the beef and cattle sections, please consider adjusting the timeframes in these measures to correspond with recent research which suggests VOC emissions from silage are mostly emitted within 12 hours of removal from the silage pile.

Response: There may be some “other cattle” fa cilities that feed silage, for that reason, a silage mitigation measur e category has been included to ensure reductions from silage are achieved. Ho wever, the majority of facilities, specifically feedlot s will feed cattle largely with a grain based feed. As discussed in more detail in the staff report, bas ed on information provided by Dr. Mitloehner (see letter in Appendix J), grain base emissions will be assumed to have negligible emissions. Theref ore, all measures relat ed to grain-based feed have

been removed from this se ction of the rule.

A-14 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

29. Comment: The feedlot, other cattle, layer, and the broiler sections allow sources to comply by feeding animals accordi ng to National Research Council (NRC) guidelines. The NRC guidelines that apply to different livestock types are extremely complex and we are unclear whic h sections of the guidelines lead to

reduced VOC emissions. Please consider s pecifying these sections in the rule, or explain why it is not appropriate to do so. Please further describe the relationship between following the NRC gui delines and reducing VOC emissions in the staff report.

Response: The NRC guidelines are geared to supply the exact blend and quantity of nutrients needed by the animals with the mini mum being excreted and lost to the environment. Therefore, refe rencing certain sections would not be beneficial as the complete guidelines are needed. The relationship between NRC guidelines and VOC reduction is described in Section X. of the Staff Report.

30. Comment: Several measures in the rule refer to specifications or definitions in NRCS standards. Please consider including the date of the NRCS standard in the rule language. It is our understanding th at these standards are revised over time, and neither EPA nor the District prov ides input for the revision of these

standards.

Response: At this time, the referenc e dates will not be added. The standards

are revised over time and it would be c onflicting for the District to require a

standard that has been outdated. Changing the rule references as the standards are revised would require the rule to be reopened each time the standard is revised. It is expected that facilities will comply with the most recent standard. District staff may review the standards as they are changed to ensure no conflicts with the requirements of this rule or detriment to air quality.

31. Comment: For other cattle, the draft rule requires that sources select seven

measures from the housi ng options that combine m easures for freestalls and corrals. Dairies have separate sections for freestalls and corrals that require large CAFs to select a total of nine measures. Please analyze whether it is appropriate to have separate fr eestall and corral sections for other cattle, and to require a similar number of measures as dairies from these sections.

Response: The housing section for other cattle has been separated into two separate sections covering freestalls and corrals. Three measures and six measures are now required in the new freestalls and corrals sections, respectively, making it more cons istent with the dairy sections.

32. Comment: Several options in the feedlot housing and the other cattle housing section require sources to ensure that manure in the corrals does not exceed 12 inches. Please analyze whether it is appropr iate to require a lower corral manure depth.

A-15 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

Response: The corral manure depth for cattle has already been reduced from 18 inches down to 12 inches, which is a 33% reduction is manure depth. Based on discussions with industry, decreasing the depth below 12 inches would require significantly more frequent cleani ng and cause greater disruption to the

animals which are not accustomed to such equipment operations. The District has not found any evidence that would s upport lowering this requirement to a lower depth.

33. Comment: Specific measures in the beef feedlot housing and the other cattle housing sections require sources to ins pect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks at least once every 14 days. Pleas e provide analysis for why inspecting and repairing pipes and troughs at this interval reduce VOC emissions.

Response: See Staff Report Sections X.G and X.H for details. The District believes that this is a proper frequency to control potential leaks and to not cause moist conditions in open corrals. In open corrals, moist conditions lead to anaerobic decomposition of manure. Em issions of gaseous compounds can be reduced by faster drying of manure and mini mization of moisture . Minimizing the

moisture in the manure reduces the moisture needed by the microbes that decompose the manure to form VOC.

34. Comment: Please remove the option from the beef feedlot housing section that requires feedlots to use a dry manure handling system or explain why this measure reduces VOC emissions. It is our understanding that affected feedlots already overwhelmingly use dry systems.

Response: This measure has been removed. Further information is included in the Section X.G of the Staff Report.

35. Comment: Measures in the layer and the broile r/turkey sections require sources to use a dry housing cleaning method except when a wet cleaning method is required for animal health or biosecurit y issues. Please clarify how sources can obtain this exemption by referencing Section 5.4, temporary suspension of mitigation measures, or inse rting other rule language.

Response: The appropriate reference has been made. See Section X.J of the staff report for details.

36. Comment: A mitigation measure in the broile r/turkey section requires that sources use a litter/manure drying system such as a flat bed drying system. If this system requires belts under the ani mals, it may not be applicable to broiler/turkey houses where animals are directly on the ground. Please consider whether this measure applies to broiler/turkey houses

A-16 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

Response: This measure has been removed from the broiler/duck/turkey section because it is not applicable to broiler houses.

37. Comment: Please explain in the staff repor t why certain mitigation measures reduce VOC emissions, and provi de any supporting references.

Response: The explanations have been included in the staff report Section X. for each CAF type.

38. Comment: Based on currently available in formation, manure may be one of the largest sources of VOC emissions at poultr y facilities. Please explain the basis for allowing litter removal fr om poultry facilities within 72 hours of removal from housing.

Response: The District has re-examined the information that is currently

available for VOC emissions from Calif ornia poultry operations and determined that litter at these facilities is not a significant source of VOC emissions. Additionally, it is necessary to allow fac ilities sufficient time to remove the litter.

Facilities that remove litter entirely from the facility intend to remove it as soon as the litter is removed from the housing. However, there are se veral factors that may prevent the litter from being remov ed earlier than 72 hours. Due to possible planning constraints, oper ators may not be able to ensure litter is removed immediately. Depending on how much litter is removed, this process can take quite some time. In addition, there are times w hen a truck is delayed or breaks down. In those cases, other arra ngements need to be made immediately to

ensure that the litter is removed in a time ly fashion. Due to these factors, 72

hours have been allowed for the litter removal.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

No comments were received.

A-17 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010



### STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS RECE IVED AT THE JUNE 17, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING

Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE)

39. Comment: Emerging science has pointed to huge sources of VOC pollution from Valley dairies that have not been r egulated. The proposed amendments fail to adequately respond to this new science. We are encouraged by the continuation of the hearing in response to EPA’s request for more time to study and respond to the science.

Response: The District committed to adopting amendments to Rule 4570 in the 2007 Ozone Plan in order to reduce VOC emissions which form ozone. Multiple new requirements were added to Rule 4570 to address new data citing silage, TMR, and corrals as the largest source s of emissions on a dairy and ensure

emission reductions from them. The am endments to Rule 4570 will exceed the
reductions committed to in the 2007 Oz one Plan at 31.8 tpd in 2023. New research that has led to these changes is discussed in the Staff Report. The ozone situation in the Valley results from a variety of sources, all of which are targeted in the 2007 Ozone Plan to reduc e emissions and collectively reach

attainment.

40. Comment: Rule 4570’s menu approach violates RACT because it permits operators to bypass emission reduction measures that ar e economically and technologically feasible in favor of other measures that achieve less, or zero, reductions. In the District’s effort to provi de flexibility to operators, it has created a loophole that simply allo ws operators to select the least expensive emission reduction option. As structured, Rule 4570’s approach cedes the District’s role as environmental regulator to the operator, and will inevit ably result in missed

emission reductions.

Response: Rule 4570 affects a wide variety of operations with differing sizes and management practices. Based on the many variations between operators subject to Rule 4570, a somewhat flexib le requirements approach is necessary. The mitigation measures were evaluated to determine which measures would achieve the most reductions, namely in feed, silage and housing, and if each measure would be technologically and econom ically feasible to require every operator to implement. The mitigation m easures in the proposed rule have been amended to provide more requirements, as well as make many of the measures mandatory. All measures were also ev aluated for technological and economic feasibility (see Appendices C and E).

A-18 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

41. Comment: Exposed silage piles and leachate are both significant sources of VOC emissions and leachate is released from both covered and uncovered piles. As such, Table 3.1(B) in the proposed rule requires that one important measure be implemented, but allo ws another separate and necessary measure to be ignored. The two options in for silage in Phase I of the rule are clearly not

redundant. It is a violation of RACT to allow operators to opt out of feasible emission controls that are necessary to reduce emissions from a known source.

Response: To date, no emissions data exists from leachate off of silage piles; however, due to the high affinity of ethanol to aqueous solution, emissions from leachate are expected to be small. Regardless, the leachate measure has been removed from the rule as it is a requi rement that is enfor ced by the Regional Water Quality Board.

The mitigation measures in the propos ed rule have been amended to provide more requirements, as well as make m any of the measures mandatory. All

measures were also evaluated for technol ogical and economic feasibility (see Appendices C and E).

42. Comment: The District has completed several cost-effectiveness calculations for VOC emission control systems using barn- to-biofilter technology with results that have ranged widely, from $5,857/ton/ year to $84,918/ton/year. A full analysis should be conducted on dairies of various sizes to capture the efficiencies that might be gai ned in larger operations. Given that this technology holds the most potential for VOC reduction, it is critical that a full and accurate analysis be conducted before the Boar d approves a Revised Rule 4570.

Response: The District performed a detailed ana lysis for this measure, which is included in Appendix E of t he Final Draft Staff Report.

43. Comment: The Staff Report for the Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 notes

that the emission factor is based on a st aff review of emerging science. Staff admits that the emission factor is still in draft form, and notes that the factor will be revised later in 2010. New information identifies silage piles and feed as the primary sources of VOC emissions at dairies, making corn silage alone the largest source of VOC in the entire Va lley. The District should hold back on a

vote until its recalibration of t he emission factor is final.

Response: Although the emission factor has not been finalized, the report is the

latest emissions information available for the purposes of rule development. The

draft emission factor includes all the latest studies performed in California, which

contains the latest emissions data from silage, feed and multiple other sources at a dairy. The emissions data in the r eport has been critical in tailoring the mitigation measures for those sources with the highest emissions (i.e., feed, silage, corrals).

A-19 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

44. Comment: The source of data for determinati on of the flux rates for feed and silage are problematic. The Staff Report notes that calculations of exposed surface area at dairies are based on repor ts from dairy industry representatives. Such an important data point should be collected based on measurements taken by District staff, not regulated entities.

Response: District staff has reviewed the sci entific studies for silage flux and

believes that the estimations in these studies are valid. As for the face area, staff

has received additional information from university researchers on actual face measurements of 23 Valley dai ries which support stakeholders’ initial estimates.

45. Comment: The claimed emission reductions from Rule 4570 are

unsubstantiated and should not be claimed until solid science establishes its validity. Most of the em ission reductions achieved fr om implementation of the mitigation measures are based on a blanket 10% assumed control efficiency

number.

Response: There has been a great deal of emissions research conducted over

the last decade on dairies alon e, with millions of dollars spent on this research. The latest research has significantly improved the understanding of emissions

from all the sources at dairies which has also resulted in a better understanding of the biological factors and conditions that create VOC em issions from the various sources. This understanding has allowed the Di strict to develop mitigation measures by changing the biol ogical process or condition of the

sources to reduce emissions. These mitigation measures are expected to reduce emissions by well over 10%, however, the District has taken a conservative approach of estimating the reductions from the rule and uses the

lower end of the control effe ctiveness range cited in the studies. While this may underestimate the actual reductions, the 10% control efficiency better accounts for normal variations in the organic proc esses at CAFs. Ther efore, until more

definitive research data becomes availa ble, the District will continue to conservatively estimate the reductions from the rule. Where research indicated a higher control efficiency was appropriate , the information was cited for that finding.

46. Comment: Many of the emission control measures listed in Rule 4570 are standard operating procedure for dairies. In many cases, dairies will be able to comply without making any changes whatso ever. While the District contends that not all dairies are currently complyi ng, there is no basis for differentiating

where reductions are real and wher e they merely appear on paper.

Response: Some of the mitigation measures listed in Rule 4570 may now be standard practice for some of the larges t dairies (due the investment made by these facilities as required by the initia l Rule 4570, adopted in 2006) but they are not standard practice for the dairies that w ould be subject to the rule as a result

A-20 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

of the proposed lowered threshold. In addition, due to the variability of dairies and the constant changes in feed and market prices, dairies not subject to the requirements of Rule 4570 can instantly stop performing any practice on their dairy at any given time. Rule 4570 would require all facilities to continue to comply with the requirements of the rule, regardless of any external factors.

47. Comment: A mandatory feed measure requires that dairies “push up” TMR in

feed lanes to three feet fr om the stanchions within tw o hours of putting out the

feed. This fails to account for the mo vement of the pile. Dairy cows are constantly moving the feed around with their snouts as they eat, continuously exposing the TMR to the air and releas ing VOCs. While the measure might appear effective on paper, pushing the feed closer every two hours will yield very limited improvement in practice.

Response: This measure reduces emission s by reducing the surface area of the feed placed in the feed lanes. Reducin g the surface area would result in a

decrease in overall VOC emissions. St udies have shown that the VOC flux rapidly declines after placement of feed. Although dairy cows may push some of the feed back from stanchions, the proposed rule will require that the feed be pushed up soon after it has been placed to r educe the area when the flux rate is high. In addition, pushing the feed near the fence line places the feed within

reach of the cows so it can be consumed rather than remaining in the feed lane

where it can continue to emit VOCs.

48. Comment: District staff has formulated three opt ions to achieve compaction of silage piles to reduce VOC reductions. Ho wever, staff concedes that they are not in possession of, and have not reviewed, any formal study that establishes

the effectiveness of this me thod. Instead, they rely on presentations given by a

scientist at recent Air District conferenc es. While this method very well might prove to be effective upon further analysis , its use as RACT is premature.

Response: Although the number of studies that have directly measured VOC emissions from silage is limited, there is a significant amount of scientific information that supports VOC emission re ductions from the silage management practices that have been included in the proposed rule. Dr. Charles Krauter of California State University, Fresno m easured VOC emissions from silage and feed while performing a study on dairy em issions. He has indicated that preliminary information from the comple ted study has shown that silage with higher density resulted in less total VOC emissions from both the silage piles and the total mixed ration (TMR) prepared fr om the silage and placed as feed for

animals.

Packing density is important when maki ng silage because it enables the ensiled plant forage to quickly move from an aerobic phase to an anaerobic phase and achieve a rapid drop in pH that will hinder further microbial decomposition. The

A-21 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Re sponses Octobe r 21, 2010

rapid drop in pH is primarily caused by conversion of soluble carbohydrates to nonvolatile lactic acid. Sufficient packing creates the conditions that allow lactic

acid bacteria to dominate the fermentati on rather than other organisms that will produce greater amounts of VOCs. Suffic ient packing followed by covering of piles also reduces yeast counts in the silage. Because yeasts are primarily responsible for the produc tion of ethanol during ferment ation of silage, reducing the number of colony forming units of yeast will reduce t he amount of ethanol generated and the concentration of ethanol in the silage. Ethanol is one of the most volatile compounds found in silage; therefore, reducing ethanol

concentrations will reduce emissions.

Increased density in silage piles reduces porosity, which will reduce transport of emissions to the atmosphere. Reduced porosit y also limits the amount of air that penetrates the silage piles that causes aerobic decomposition and heating of the piles. . It is scientifically established that the rate of volatiliz ation of compounds is affected by the concentration of the compounds, the tem perature, and the porosity of the medium t hat contains the compounds. Reducing any of these will reduce the rate of transport and volatiliza tion. Therefore, both the direct VOC measurements by Dr. Krauter and the established principles of chemistry and mass transport support VOC reductions from increased compaction of silage.

A-22 Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570