### BOARD MEETING DATE: October 7 , 2011 AGENDA NO. 22

REPORT: Rule and Control Measure Forecast

SYNOPSIS: This report highlights AQMD rulemaking activity and public workshops potentially scheduled for the year 2011 and portions of

2012

. (No Committe e Review)

COMMITTEE: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.

Executive Officer

EC:LT: cg



### The Rule and Control Measure Forecast Re port provides the Board with a m onthly update of AQMD’s rulemaking and cont rol measure implementation schedule. Scheduling changes that occurred since last month’s forecast are summarized.

Attached to this Rule Forecast Report is a Technical Assessment

, (Attachment E)

, conducted relative to implementation of the 2007 AQMP Contr ol Measure (CM) MCS

05

– Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste.

223

1127

1127.1 Emission Reductions Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities

Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste (MCS

- 05)
Control of Emissions from Hog and Poultry Operations (MC S

- 05) This rulemaking is removed, based on the technology assessment (Attachment E).

1420 Emissions Standard for Lead

Rule 1420 is moved to May 2012 to allow additional time for staff to identify potential

sources.- 2

- 

### 2511

2512 Credit Generation Program for Locomotive Head End Power Unit Engines
Credit Generation Program for Ocean

- Going Vessels at Berth

Rule 2511 and 2512 are moved to the 1 st 

### quarter of 2012 from November to allow staff

additional time to work on technical details with U.S. EPA, CARB an d stakeholders.

4010

4020 General Provisions and Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long

Beach (MOB

- 03)
Backstop Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (MOB

03)

Proposed Rules 4010 and 4020 are on hold to be re

- evaluated as part of the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan.

### 201 1 MASTER CALENDAR (continued)

- 3

- Below is a list of all rulemaking activity scheduled for the year 201 1 . The last four columns refer to the type of rule adoption or amendment

. A more detailed description of the proposed rule adoption or amendme nt is located in the Attachments ( A through D ) under the type of rule adoption or amendment (i.e. AQMP, Toxics, Other and Climate Change).

*An asterisk indicates that the rulemaking is a potentially significant hearing. +This proposed rule will reduce cri teria air contaminants and assist toward attainment of ambient air quality standards.

1 Su bject to Board approval California Environmental Quality Act shall be referred to as "CEQA." Socioeconomic Analysis shall be referred to as "Socio."



### 20 11

November A QMP Toxics Other Climate Change



### 463 Storage of Organic Liquids √

1177 Liquified Petroleum Gas Transfer and Dispensing ( MCS

- 07) √

December

1110.2 Emissions from Gaseous

- and Liquid

- Fueled Engines √

1114 * + 

### Control of Emissions from

Refine ry Coking Operations (MCS

- 0 7 ) √

1123 Pilot Program for Refinery Start

up, Shutdown and Turnaround Procedures (MCS

- 06) √

### 20 11 MASTER CALENDAR (continued)

- 4

- 

### 201 1 TO

- BE DETERMINED

TBD AQMP Toxics Other Climate Change



### 102 Definition of Terms √

R eg . III Fees √

314 Fees for Architectural Coatings √

402 Nuisance √

701 Air Pollution Emergency Contingency Actions √

1106 Marine Coating Operations (MCS

- 07) √

1106.1 Pleasure Craft Coating Operations (MCS

- 07) √

1118 Control of Emission s from Refinery Flares √ √

1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi

Purpose Solvents √

1144 Metalworking Fluids and Direct

Contact Lubricants √

1147 NOx Reductions f rom Miscellaneous Sources √

1151 *+ 

### Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non

- Assembly Line Coating Operations √

1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications √

1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations √

1173 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum

Facilities and Chemical Plants √

1190 Series Fleet Vehicle Requirement s √

Reg. XIII New Source Review √

### 20 11 MASTER CALENDAR (continued)

- 5

- 

### 201 1 TO

- BE DETERMINED

TBD (continued) 

### AQMP Toxics Other Climate Change



### 1401

1402 New Source Review of Toxic Air

Contaminants

Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources √

√

1420

1420.2 Emissio ns Standard for Lead

Emission Standard for Lead from Medium Lead Emitting Facilities √
√

1903 *+ 

### Emission Budgets and Mitigation Program for General Conformity Projects (EGM

- 02) √

1 610 Old

- Vehicle Scrapping √

Reg.

XXVII Climate Change √

4010 *+1



### 4020 *+1 

### General Provisions and Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (MOB

- 03)
Backstop Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (MOB

- 03) √

√

Reg. IV,
IX, X, XI,
XIV, XX

and XXX

Rules Various rule amendments may be needed to meet the requirements of state and federal laws, address variance issues/technology

- forcing limits, or to seek additional

reductions to meet the SIP short

term measure commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP ) has

been updated to include new

measures to address toxic

emissions in the basin. The CCP

include s a variety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics from stationary, mobile, and area

sources. Rule amendments may include updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide

Air Toxic Control Measures. √ √ √ √

### 20 11 MASTER CALENDAR (continued)

- 6

- 

### 20 12

1 st


### Quarter AQMP Toxics Other Climate Change



### 2511 1 

### Credit Generation Program for

Locomotive Head End Power Unit Engines √

2512 1 

### Credit Generation Program for

Ocean

- Going Vessels at Berth √

January

11 07 Coating of Metal Parts and Products (MCS

- 07) √

February

461 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing √

May

1420 1 

### Emissions Standard for Lead √

Note: AQMD may add control measures necessary to satisfy federal requirements, to

abate a substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, state regulatory requirements or SIP commitment.

### ATTACHMENT A

AQMP Rule Activity Schedule

This attachment lists those control measures that are being developed into rules or ru le amendments for the Board consideration that are designed to implement the amendments to the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan.

A

- 1 

### 201 1

November

1177 L iquid P etroleum G as Transfer and Dispensing (MCS

- 07)

[Projected Emission Reduction for both rules : TBD] 

### Proposed Rule 1177 will establish controls for transfer and dispensing of liquefied propane gas.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 C EQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059 )



### December

1114 * + 

### Control of Emissions from Refinery Coking Operations (MCS

- 07)

[Projected Emission Reduction for both rules : TBD] 

### Proposed Rule 1114 will establish emission limits and other requirements

for the operation of coking units at petroleum refineries.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith ( 3054 ) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1123 Pilot Program for Refinery Start

- up, Shutdown and Turnaround Procedures (MCS

- 06)

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Rule 1123 would implement 2007 AQMP Control Measure MCS

- 06 by

identif ying improved operating procedures and best management practices to reduce emissions from start

- up, shutdown and turnaround operations.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Le u (30 59 )



### To

- Be Determined 201 1

To

- Be

Determined

1106 Marine Coating Operations (MCS

- 07)

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Proposed amendments will further reduce VOC emissions from the application of marine coatings. Amendments may also improve c larity and enforceability.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith ( 3054 ) Socio: Lieu (3059 )



### 1106.1 Pleasure Craft Coating Operations (MCS

- 07)

[Projected Emission Reduction: unknown] 

### Amendments to Rule 1106.1 will reduce VOC emissions from the appl ication of coatings to pleasure craft and improve the enforceability and clarity of the rule.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

### ATTACHMENT A

AQMP Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

A

- 2 

### To

- Be Determined 201 1

To

- Be

Determined (continued)

1903 *+ 

### Emission Budgets and Mitigat ion Program for General Conformity Projects (EGM

- 02)

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Rule 1903 would implement Control Measure EGM

- 02 of the 2007 AQMP. The rule would specify procedures for how federal projects subject to general conformity could acc ess an emission budget and/or pay mitigation fees for emissions from the project.

Joe Cassmassi 909.396.3155 909.396.3155 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059) 

### Reg. IV,
IX, X, XI,
XIV, XX

and XXX

Rules Various rule amendments may be needed to me et the requirements of state and federal laws, address variance issues/technology

- forcing limits,

or to seek additional reductions to meet the SIP short

- term measure
commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has been updated to

include new measures to address toxic emissions in the basin. The CCP

include s a variety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics from stationary, mobile, and area sources. Rule amendments may include updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide Air Toxic Contr ol

Measures.



### 2012

January

1107 Coating of Metal Parts and Products (MCS

- 07)

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Amendments to Rule 1107 would further reduce VOC emissions and improve rule clarity and enforceability.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA : Smith ( 3054 ) Socio: Lieu (3059)

### ATTACHMENT B

Toxics Rule Activity Schedule

This attachment lists those rules or rule amendments for the Governing Board consideration that are designed to implement the Air Toxics Control Plan.

B

- 1 

### To

- Be Determined 201 1

To

- Be

Determined

1401

1402 New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) periodically reviews the list of toxic compounds and revises or

establishes risk values. Rules 1401 and 1402 will be amended to revise the list of TACs. OEHHA is currently revising their risk assessment guidelines and, w hen adopted, District guidelines will be amended requiring Board approval. In addition, other administrative changes may be proposed.

Susan Nakamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1420

1420.2 Emission s Standard for Lead

Emis sion s Standard for Lead from Medium Lead Emitting Facilities

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### In October 2008, EPA lowered the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard f or lead from 1.5 to 0.15 ug/m3. Proposed Amended Rule 1420 and Proposed Rule 1420.2 w ill apply to lead sources and will include requirements to ensure the Basin meets the new lead standard.

Susan Nakamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 4010 *+ 1



### 4020 *+ 1 

### General Provisions and Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (MOB

- 03)
Backstop Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (MOB

- 03)

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### The proposed rule s will address toxic and criteria pollutant emissions from new and existing port

- related sources.

Susan Na kamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059 )

### ATTACHMENT B

Toxics Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

B

- 2 

### To

- Be Determined 2011

To

- Be

Determined

Reg. IV, IX,
X, XI, XIV,

XX and

XXX Rules Various rule amendments may be needed to meet the requirements of state and federal laws, address varian ce issues/technology

- forcing limits,

or to seek additional reductions to meet the SIP short

- term measure
commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has been updated to

include new measures to address toxic emissions in the basin. The CCP

include s a var iety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics from stationary, mobile, and area sources. Rule amendments may include updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide Air Toxic Control

Measures.



### 2012

May

1420 1 

### Emissions Standard for Lea d

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Rule 1420 would be amended to incorporate the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead and may include measures to reduce lead emissions to ensure compliance with the new standard.

Susan Nakamura 909.396. 3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059 )

### ATTA CHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule

This attachment lists those rules or rule amendments for the Governing Board consideration that are designed to improve rule enforceability, SIP corrections, or implementing state or federal regul a tions.

C

- 1 

### 201 1

November

463 Storage of Organic Liquids

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A ] 

### The proposed amendment will seek to alter a test method for determining sulfur compounds with greater accuracy.

Navee n Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### December

1110.2 Emissions from Gaseous

- and Liquid

- Fueled Engines

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Amendments to Rule 1110.2 are proposed to address the impacts of

contaminants in biogas used to fuel power generators at landfills and municipal waste facilities. The amendments may result in a delay or loss

of emissions reductions

Joe Cassmassi 909.396.3155 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

### ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

C

- 2 

### To

- Be Determined 201 1

To

- Be

Determined

102 Definition of Terms

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A ] 

### P roposed amend ments to Rule 102 may be necessary to include compounds exempted by the U.S. EPA with consideration for health risks as defined by t he Office of Environmental Health Ha zard Assessment (OEHHA).

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059) 

### Reg. III Fees

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A ] 

### Amend fee rules in accordance with FY 20 11

- 12 AQMD Budget.

Jill Whynot 909.396.31 04 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 314 Fees of Architectural Coatings

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### The proposed amendments would improve clarity and reporting requirements as well as consider an exemption from fees for small

manufacturers.

Naveen Berry 909.39 6 .2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 402 Nuisance

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### The AQMD staff will assess the feasibility of expanding the current nuisance rule as part of a proposed measure in the draft Clean Communities Plan (CCP) . The assessment may result in a

recommendation to amend Rule 402 to make it more effective and more responsive to public complaints.

Susan Nakamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 701 Air Pollution Emergency Contingency Actions

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Proposed amendments to Rule 701 will update the episode criteria to reflect newly established standards and clarify air quality reporting and dissemination protocol.

Joe Cassmassi 909.396.3155 909.396.3155 CEQA: Sm ith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1118 Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Amendments may be necessary to address results of the additional analysis required by the adopting resolution for the last amendment and

t o consider the advances in monitoring technology. Amendments may also be necessary to implement an AB 32 measure.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

### ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

C

- 3 

### To

- Be Determined 201 1

To

- Be

Determined (continued)

1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi

- Purpose Solvents

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Proposed amendments may be necessary for further clarification and possible exemptions.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1144 Metalworking Fluids and Direct

- Contact Lubricants

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Proposed amendments may be necessary to incorporate results from on

going technology assessments for specific facilities.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1147 NOx Reductions From Miscellaneous Sources

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Proposed amendments may be necessary to address implementation

issues.

Joe Cassmassi 909.396.3155 909.396.3155 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1151 *+ 

### Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non

- Assembly Line Coating Operations

[Projected Emission Reduction: unknown] 

### Amendments to the rule may be necessary to reflect further findings

relative to recordkeeping requirements for tertiary butyl acetate ( TBAc).

Laki Tisopulos 909.396.3123 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### Amendments to Rule 1168 may be necessary to reflect improvements in adhesive and sealants technolog y.
Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A] 

### The proposed amendment may consider technology assessments for the cleanup of affected equipment

. Naveen Ber ry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith ( 3054 ) Socio: Lieu (3059)


### 1190 Series Fleet Vehicle Requirements

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Amendments to Rule 1190 s eries fleet rules may be necessary to address remaining outstanding implementation issues an d in the event the court’s future action requires amendments . In addition, the current fleet rules may be expanded to achieve additional air quality and air toxic benefits.

Dean Saito 909.396.2647 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

### ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

C

- 4 

### To

- Be Determ ined 201 1

To

- Be

Determined (continued)

Reg. XIII New Source Review

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Proposed amendment s will address U.S. EPA comments on SIP approvability issues and/or requirements that may result from U.S. EPA amendments, legislati on or CARB requirements. Amendments may also be proposed for clarity and improved enforceability.

Jill Whynot 909.396 .3104 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1610 Old

- Vehicle Scrapping

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Proposed amendment ma y be necessary to harmonize the rule with voluntary state vehicle scrapping program.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059) 

### Reg. IV, IX,
X, XI, XIV,

XX and

XXX Rules Various rule amendments may be needed to meet the require ments of state and federal laws, address variance issues/technology

- forcing limits,

or to seek additional reductions to meet the SIP short

- term measure
commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has been updated to

include new measures to address toxic emissions in the basin. The CCP

include s a variety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics from stationary, mobile, and area sources. Rule amendments may include updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide Air Toxic

Control Measures.



### 201 2

1 st 

### Quarter

2511 1 

### Credit Generation Program for Locomotive Head End Power Unit Engines

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Develop a rule to allow generation of PM mobile source emission reduction credits from Locomotive Head End Power Unit Engin es. Credits will be generated by retrofitting engines with PM controls or replacing the engines with new lower

- emitting engines.

Randal Pasek 909.396.2251 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 2512 1 

### Credit Generation Program for Ocean

- Going Vess els at Berth

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Develop a rule to allow generation of PM , NOx and SOx emission reduction credits from oceangoing vessels while at berth. Credits will be generated by controlling the emissions from auxiliary engines and bo ilers of ships while docked.

Randa l Pasek 909.396.2251 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

### ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

C

- 5 

### 201 2

February

461 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Proposed amendments to Rule 461 will explore the feasibility of further reducing VOC and toxic emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities by improving implementation of the Enhanced Vapor Recovery Regulation.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith ( 3054 ) Socio: Lieu (3059)

### ATTACHMENT D

Climate Change

This attachments lists rules or rule amendments for the Governing Board consideration that are designed to implement S outh C oast A ir Q uality M anagements D istrict ’s Climat e Change Policy

or for c onsi s tency with state or federal rules

.

D

- 1 

### To

- Be Determined 201 1

To

- Be

Determined

1118 Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Amendments may be necessary to address results of the additional analysis required by the adopting resolution for the last amendment and

to consider the advanc es in monitoring technology. Amendments may also be necessary to implement an AB 32 measure.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)



### 1173 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Amendment to Rule 1173 may be necessary to address greenhouse gas emissions from petroleum facilities and chemical plants.

Naveen Berry 909.396 .2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059) 

### Reg. XXVII Climate Change

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD] 

### Additional protocols may be added to Rules 2701 and 2702.

Jill Whynot 909.396.3104 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059) 

### Reg. IV, IX,
X, XI, XIV,

XX and

XXX Rules Various rule amendments may be needed to meet the requirements of state and federal laws, address variance issues/technology

- forcing limits,

or to seek additional reductions to meet the SIP short

- term measure
commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has been updat ed to

include new measures to address toxic emissions in the basin. The CCP

include s a variety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics from stationary, mobile, and area sources. Rule amendments may include updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide Air Toxic Control

Measures.

### ATTACHMENT E

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

– 2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 0 5

Updated Emissions Inventory and Recommendations Regarding Implementation of 2007
AQMP Control Measure MCS

- 05

– Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste

Octo ber 2011

Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources

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

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

Author s : Tuyet

- Le Pham

– Air Quality Specialist Pamela Perryman

– Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed by: Jill Whynot

– Assistant Deputy Executive Officer

T racy A. Goss, P.E.

– Program SupervisorSOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOA RD

Chairman: DR. WILLIAM A. BURKE Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Vice Chairman: DENNIS YATES Mayor, Chino
Cities of San Bernardino
MEMBERS:

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

JOHN J. BENOIT Supervisor, Fourth Dist rict County of Riverside

MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI Councilmember, South Pasadena Cities of Los Angeles County/Eastern Region

JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Appointee

JOSIE GONZALES Supervisor, Fifth District County of San Bernardino

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, Rive rside Cities of Riverside County

JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph. D. Governor’s Appointee

JUD ITH MITCHELL Councilmember, Rolling Hills Estates Cities of Los Angeles County/Western Region

SHAWN NELSON Supervisor, Fourth District County of Orange

JAN PERRY Councilmember, Ninth District City of Los Angeles

MIGUEL A. PULIDO Mayor, Santa Ana Cities of Orange County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER:

BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.

### T able of Contents

Executiv e Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1

Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5

Industry Trends and Projections

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

Emissions Inventory

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9

200 7 AQMP Inventory

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9

Updated 2007 AQMP Inventory

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 1 0

Revised Inventory for the 2012 AQMP

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1 1

Further Discussion on Livestock Emissions

................................ ................................ .................. 14

Dairies

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 4

Current Mitigation Measures for D airies

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 15

New Findings on Potential Control M easures

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1 5

New Findings on Dairy Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 18

Poultry

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 8

Current Mitigation Measures for Poultry Operations

................................ ................................ ........................... 1 8

Swine

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2 1

Current Mitigation Measures for Swine Operations

................................ ................................ ............................. 2 1

Impacts of Proposition 2

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

San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4570

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

Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

................................ ................................ ..................... 2 3

References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2 5



### Appendices

Appendix I

– 2007 AQMP and Revised Emiss ions Inventory

Appendix II

– Mitigation Measures from Rule 223

– Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste

Appendix I I I

– CM #2007 MCS

- 05

– Emission Reductions f rom Livestock Waste

### List o f Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1

- 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory

– Baseline and Future Milestone

Years

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 1

Table 2

– Updated Livestock 2002 VOC Baseline Emission for 2007 AQMP

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

Table 3

– Updated 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory

– Baseline a nd Milestone

Years

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

Table 4

- Revised Livestock VOC Emission Inventory for 2012 AQMP

– Baseline and Future

Milestone Years

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3

Table 5

- 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory

................................ ........................... 9

Table 6

- Dairy Emission Factor s by Categories

................................ ................................ .......... . 10

Table 7

– Original and Updated 2007 AQMP Livestock 2002 VOC Baseline Emission

Inventory

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 0

Table 8

– Revised VOC Emission Inventory for Livestock

................................ ......................... . 1 1

Table 9

– SJVAPCD Dairy VOC Emission Factors

................................ ................................ ...... 1 2

Table 10

– Baseline Year 2008 VOC Dairy Emission s by Category

................................ ............ 13

Tabl e 11

– Li vestock Updated 2007 AQMP and Revised Inventory

................................ ............ 2 4



### Figures

Figure E S

- 1

. Facility Locations w ithin the Basin

................................ ................................ ........... 4

Figure 1. Milk Production Trend for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties

from 1999

– 2009 (by millions of gallons of milk)

................................ .......................... 7

Figure 2

. Egg P roduction Trend for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties

from 1999

– 2009 (by million dozens of eggs)

................................ ................................ . 8

Figure 3

. A Typical Dairy Farm

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1 4

Figure re 4 . An Anae robic Digester

................................ ................................ ............................... 18

Figure 5 . A Typical Swine Farm

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 12007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCA QMD 1 October 2011 

### E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

In June 2007, the Distr ict’s Governing Board adopted the Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan ( AQMP )

, which include d c ontrol m easure MCS

- 05

– Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste . The

control measure seek s further emission reductions from livestock, focusing on dairies, p oultry (layers and broilers), and swine . M CS

- 05 estimated a volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reduction of 0.8 tons per day (t/d) by 2014 and an additional 0.6 t/d by 2023, beyond those reductions achieved by

R ules 1127 and 223

. Rule 1127

– Emissi on Reductions from Livestock Waste

, was adopted in August 2004 to implement control measure WST

- 01 from the 2003 AQMP. Rule 223

– Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities was adopted in June 2006 pursuant to California Senate Bill ( SB) 700

– Agri culture & Air Quality Summary and Implementation , which lifted the historical permitting and regulatory restrictions of agricultural operations

, enabling further controls from these

sources.

Previously, District staff worked with the A ir R es ources Board (ARB) staff to develop the 2002 baseline

inventor ies , which w ere used in the 2007 AQMP. Specifically, staff used updated animal head counts to

recalculate the entire livestock emissions inventory. T h ese inventor ies reflected the most accurat e accounting of livestock and emissions at that time. Table 1 summarizes the 2007 AQMP baseline and projected milestone years VOC emission inventory for the dairy, poultry, and swine livestock before and after the implementation of Control Measure MCS

- 05, which called for an additional 20% VOC emission reduction for each livestock category beyond those reductions achieved by Rule 1127.

Table 1

– 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory

– Baseline and Future Milestone Years (t/d)

2002 2014 2023

Dairy 6.91 1.21 0. 51

Poultry 2.43 2.43 2.43

Swine 0.097 0.097 0.097

Total 9.44 3.74 3.0 4

20% Emission Reduction 0.75 0.61

Total Remaining Emissions with

M CS

- 05 Implementation 2.99 2.4 3

As more research evolved, in conjunction with this assessment, st aff updated the year 2002 VOC

baseline emission s to reflect the split of dairy cattle based on the fraction of milking cows, dry cows, calves, and heifers as each has a different VOC emission factor (Table 6 ) based on the quantity of manure production. Th is resulted in lower 2002 VOC baseline dairy emissions by approximately 24%.

F or poultry, staff used the latest VOC emission factor of 0.026 lb/bird/yr from the most recent ARB source test at a broiler production house in California which best represents egg

- laying operations in the Basin (i.e., mechanically

- ventilated houses with climate controls). This resulted in an approximately

86% lower in VOC emission s for this category.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCA QMD 2 October 2011 Table 2 summarizes the updated livestock 2002 VOC baseline emission for the 20 07 AQMP.

Table 2

– Updated Livestock 2002 VOC Baseline Emission for 2007 AQMP (t / d)

Dairy Poultry Swine Total

5.23 0.33 0.097 5.66

Staff also updated the projected remaining VOC emissions for future milestone years (2014 and 2023) in

an effort to eval uate the District’s commitment for implementing Control Measure M CS

- 05.

To k eep th e updated benchmark projections in the same “currency” with the original 2007 AQMP, staff applied the same rates of reduction, referred to as R elative R eduction F actors (RRF ) derived from the original 2007 AQMP control measure to the updated VOC baseline emissions

. The RRF takes into consideration not only projected emission reductions from control measure implementation, but also reductions from existing regulatory requirem ents and industry growth (which can be negative)

. Specifically, to be consistent, staff applied the RRF of 0.317 derived from the original 2002 baseline and 2014 remaining emissions (2.99 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.317), and the RRF of 0.257 derived from the 2002 and 2023 data (2.43 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.3257) to the updated 2002 VOC baseline of 5.66 t/d, which resulted in the projected remaining VOC emission of 1.79 t/d and 1.46 t/d for the years 2014 and 2023, respectively.

Table 3 summarizes the updated baseline and future milestone years livestock VOC emission inventory for the 2007 AQMP.

Table 3

– Updated 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory

– Baseline and Milestone Years (t /d )

2002 2014 2023

Rates of Reduction (from 2007 AQMP) 0.317 0.257

Updated Ba seline and Benchmark Projections 5.66 1.79 1.46

In an effort to prepare for t he upcoming 2012 AQMP

, staff recently worked with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board

– Santa Ana Region (Water Board) staff to revise the current and projected future livestock inventory

, called “ Revised I nventory for the 2012 AQMP ” ( R evised I nventory)

, based on year 2008 headcount data

. Staff also worked with industry representatives, including sending out facility surveys , to ensure the most accurate livestock inventory for 2008, which will be the 2012 AQMP baseline year.

Based on the milk and egg production trends from 1999 to 2009, and i n put from t he Water Board and industry

, staff found that although the numbers of livestock have continued to drop in the Ba sin, the rate of decline has not been as great as anticipated in the 2007 AQMP , which relied on the assumption of a

continu ed growing economy

. As the economy grows, land prices increase, which generally results in2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCA QMD 3 October 2011 livestock operations moving out of the Ba sin due to urban development . In ge neral, w ith existing regulatory (i.e., Proposition 2

– known as cage

- free proposition that passed in 2008), economic, and product demand climate, t he livestock industry in the South Coast jurisdiction is not considered a growth industry in to the future

. The locations of current and active livestock facilities within the Basin are

shown in Figure ES

- 1

– Facility Locations w ithin the Basin

.

With this in mind, staff also revised the livestock emissions inventor y to reflect the best, current local data. For future AQMP milestone years 2014 and 2023, revised emissions reflect the current condition of the industry and the resumption of the steady decline in dairy population of 7% per year after the year

2014

. Emission f actor s were also updated, as appropriate, based on current information.

In summary, dairy population s f or year 2008 and future milestone years in the R evised I nventor y are approximately 10% to 1 1 0% higher

, while poultry headcounts are approximately 15% to 20% lower

, and swine headcounts are 64% lower, compared to the original 2007 AQMP data. In addition, d airy

emission factors used in the Revised I nventory a re specific to the types of cows (based on the quantity of manure that they produce) , and p oultry VOC em ission factor is approximately 8 7 % lower than th e original 2 007 AQMP factor

.

Table 4 summarizes the revised baseline and projected benchmark livestock VOC emission inventory

for the 2012 AQMP , with implementation of R ules 223 and 1127.

Table 4

– Revised Livestock VOC Emission Inventory for 2012 AQMP

- Baseline and Future

Milestone Years (t/d)

2002 20 08 2014 2023

Dairy 5.23 2.25 1.54 0.80

Poultry 0.33 0.2 8 0.26 0.26

Swine 0.097 0.03 0.03 0.03

Total 5.66 2.56 1.83 1.09

In addition to VOC, staff al so revised the inventories for other key pollutants, such as: NH 3 , PM10, and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 E) from dairy, poultry, and swine farm operations. To be st represent local operations, staff updated the emission factors for VOC (dairy and poultr y) and NH 3 (dairy) with

the most recent , relevant factors available to date.

Appendix I contains a summary of the ori ginal and adjusted 2007 AQMP (with updated emission factors) , as well as the revised emissions inventor y for the 2012 AQMP.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 4 October 2011 Figure ES

- 1

- Facility Locations w ithin the Basin2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 5 October 2011 In summary, re lative to the District’s commitment for implementing MC S

- 0 5 by the benchmark years

, there will be a 0.04 tpd VOC emission short fall (1.83 tpd

– 1.79 tpd) for the year 2014

. However, based

on the revi sed emissions inventory, industry

- level projections (i.e., mostly negative growth), and current regulatory requirements, District staff recommends that Rule 1127 amendments not be pursued at this

time. Staff also recommends that the 2014 VOC emission redu ction shortfall of 0.04 tpd VOC be made up with excess VOC emission reductions generated from the implementation of Rule 1143

– Consumer

Paint Thinners and Multi

- Purpose Solvents

.

In conjunction with future AQMPs, staff will continue monitoring the indust ry trends and economic conditions for the industry in order to update the inventory and evaluate potential commitments for the milestone year 2023. Included with this will be continued monitoring of other regulatory actions by

other air districts and US E PA. Staff will e valuat e the San Joaquin Valley APCD’s most recent
amend ments to its livestock rule for potential application in the Basin

. In addition, staff will follow EPA’s development of dairy and poultry emissions quantification procedures and emiss ion factors as part of the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS), with the anticipation to adjust the local

data. It should also be noted that, although adopted some time ago, US EPA is reviewing both R ules

223 and 1127 for inclusion into the St ate Implementation Plan (SIP) and action is expected by year end.

This technology assessment summarizes data and analysis for the original and updated 2007 AQMP

inventories for dairies, poultry ( layers, broilers ) , and swine . This document also outline s s taff’s findings

and recommendations regarding regulatory actions to i mplement the AQMP Control Measure MCS

- 05 to contribute towards needed VOC emission reductions for the 2014 and 2023 milestone years to aid in the District’s progress towards attainment of the federal Ozone and fine particular standards

.



### B ACKGROUND

VOC e missions from livestock waste are precursors to ozone and PM2.5

. In 2002, District staff worked with ARB to revise the 2002 livestock counts relative to updating the non

- mobile source amm onia baseline inventory. I t was estimated that in 2002, there were 300 dairies and 400,000 cows (approximately 250,000 dairy cattle and 150,000 support dairy cattle) , over nine million poultry (egg layers and broilers), and more th an 15,000 swine (hogs an d pigs) in the District.

The 2007 AQMP Control Measure MCS

- 05

- Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste s ought additional emission reductions from confined animal facilities (CAFs), beyond those achieved by

current Rule s 223 and 1127. Control Measure MC S

- 05 suggest ed adding control requirements for swine operations to meet SB700. The control measure aimed to r e quire m ore stringent controls (Class Two Mitigation Measures) for large CAFs , including core measures across the board, and lesser controls (Clas s One Mitigation Measures) for smaller CAFs not currently subject to Rule 223 by bringing them into the District permit system

. The control measure also aimed to further expand the scope of Rule 1127 and its Best Management Practices based on anticipated results of on

- going and future scientific research regarding manure management. Overall, MCS

- 05 estimated 20% emission reduction from each of the dairy, poultry, and swine categories.

Currently, Rule 223 requires a written Permit to Operate for all large CAFs , which are defined as facilities with (1): 1,000 or more milking cows; or 3,500 or more beef cattle; or 7,500 or more calves, heifers, or other cattle; or (2): 650,000 or more laying hens; or (3): 3,000 or more swine. CAF is defined

as a confined fa cility with 3,360 or more fowls; or 50 or more animals. In addition, the rule also2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 6 October 2011 requires these large facilities to submit and implement an emission mitigation plan which can be developed based on different classes of mitigation measures to mainly minim ize VOC emissions from housing, feed operations, and manure handling. Based on staff’s recently updated inventory, there are 160 dairies in the Basin including 37 LACFs , and 36 chicken operations including 27 egg operations,

five of which are LCAFs

.

Rule 1127 requires best management practices for dairies and specific requirements regarding manure removal, handling, and composting.



### INDUSTRY TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
Staff examined the industry trends for dairy and poultry operations in San Bernardino and Ri verside

counties where most farms in the South Coast jurisdiction are located. In examining the industry trends, staff relied on data from the 1999 to 2009 Riverside County Agricultural Report and the San Bernardino County Crop and Livestock Report.

Sinc e the numbers of milking cows and calves, as well as layers and broilers

, are not available in the Riverside County reports, staff used the milk production and egg production data as proxy for milking cows and layers, respectively.

As shown in Figure 1, d airy milk production in Riverside County has declined overall from 1999 to 2009 by approximately 55%, whereas San Bernardino County has seen a decline of 53% over the same period. This represents a decline of a little more than 5% per year.

Staff also ob served a similar declining trend in dairy headcounts for San Bernardino County. Based on the San Bernardino County report, from 1999 to 2009, the number of milking cows decreased approximately 57% (from 175,000 to 74,500 heads). The number of dairies in San Bernardino County also declined from 194 to 90 (54%) during the past decade.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 7 October 2011 

### F igure 1

– Milk Production Trend for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties from

1999

– 2009 (by millions of gallons of milk)

Note: The agriculture reports reflect milk pro duction in terms of “cwt” meaning hundredth weight or 100 pounds of product. Each cwt is assumed to be approximately 12 gallons of milk and was converted for the purposes of this chart.

Similarly, a s shown in Figure 2, egg production in Riverside County has declined overall from 1999 to 2009 by approximately 39%, whereas San Bernardino County has seen a decline of 32% over the same period.

There is a more moderate declining trend for chicken layers in San Bernardino County over the same period. Chicken layers reduced by approximately 25% (from 3,713,000 to 2,796,000 birds). The number of chicken farms declined from 46 to 28 (39%) in the county during this past decade.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 8 October 2011 

### Figure 2

– Egg Production Trend for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties from

1999

– 2009 (by million dozens of eggs)

Note: The drop in egg production in 2001 in San Bernardino County was partly due to disease and decreased number of birds. 2002 reflects replacement of layers and increased egg per chicken production. The sharp

decli ne in 2003 reflects the decrease in layers with younger fowl due to related New Castles Disease in the farms that required elimination of the livestock. The balance of years reflects the downward trend in the

market consistent with Riverside County, which would be expected over the 10 year period were it not for

the bird infections.

According to staff from Riverside County and San Bernardino County agriculture departments, it is more likely that dairy and poultry farms in the Basin would not increase in t he future due to expensive land price s and stringent regulations, including the cage

- free proposition approved by voters in 2008 and its implementation slated for 2015. To accommodate the increased demand for milk and eggs as a result of increased human p opulation in the Basin, dairy products and poultry will be imported from outside the AQMD jurisdiction, most likely from the San Joaquin Valley or other states.

In the 2007 AQMP, dairies were projected to have similar downward trends as livestock in the B asin. Based on staff analysis and using industry data, from year 2008 to 2020, dairies were projected to decline by 67% and were represented by the negative (less than one) growth factors of 0.478 to 0.156 used to forecast the future year emission invento r ies. These growth factors, therefore, reflect no anticipated return of prior livestock levels as in 2002.

In contrast to the dairy downward trend in the South Coast Air Basin, SJVAPCD predicted, relative to

their most recent Rule 4570 amendment, an appr oximately 56% increase in dairy cow population (from
2,63 9

, 000 to 4,111,0 00 ) between the years 2008 and 2023. This prediction was based on data provided by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which indicates a 3% growth each year.

The down ward, or at least stagnant, future of livestock in the Basin is also confirmed by the Milk Producers Council. According to its representative, although many land development agreements with the dairymen in Ontario

- Chino areas did not fully materialized du e to the downturn in the economy and2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 9 October 2011 the real estate sector, specifically, they are expected to be renewed when the current economy improves and demands for housing increase. Dairies that do relocate are most likely to do so out of state due to

concerns r egarding increasing state and local regulations, even in the San Joaquin Valley. For poultry, SJVAPCD staff is estimating at least no growth in layers population in their jurisdiction as it is still uncertain what impacts will occur there from the cage

- fr ee proposition.

In recent years, it has been publicized that dairies in California have been operating at a financial loss, with expenses exceeding revenues, and that there is a lack of demand across the country and in Asia for dairy products. Although p roduction adjustments allowed dairy farmers to recover somewhat in 2010, the futures market for the dairy industry indicates that they will continue to struggle in 2011. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange forecasts futures for milk as negative throughout 2011 , which industry members are interpreting as an indicator that the dairy industry may be operating overall at a loss in

2011.



### EMISSIONS INVENTORY

2007 AQMP INVENTORY Previously, District staff worked with the Air Resources Board (ARB) staff to revise the 2002 baseline inventories, which were used in the 2007 AQMP. Specifically, staff used the updated animal head counts to recalculate the entire livestock emissions inventory, including the ammonia (NH 3 ) inventory

.

For the dairy VOC inventory, staff applie d an emission factor of 12.8 lb/head/yr across the board for all types of cows (milking cow, dry cow, heifer, and calve), which was based on a metabolism study conducted by Benedict and Ritzman decades ago (160 lbs/head/yr total organic gases, TOG). This emission factor was adjusted per an EPA speciation study (1980), which estimated VOCs from livestock operations as 8% of the TOG, yielding a VOC emission factor of 12.8 lb/head/yr.

For the layers inventory, staff used a VOC emission factor of 0.192 lb/hea d/yr, which was adjusted as 8% of TOG per an EPA speciation study (2.4 lbs/head/yr TOG x 0.08).

Table 5 summarizes the 2007 AQMP VOC emission inventory for the livestock before and after the implementation of Control Measure MCS

- 05. These inventories ref lected the most accurate accounting of livestock and emissions at th e time.

Table

- 5

– 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory (t/d)

2002 2014 2023

Baseline Emission 9.44 3.74 3.0 4

20% Emission Reduction 0.75 0.61

Total Remaining Emissions with

M CS

- 05 Implementation 2.99 2.4 32007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 10 October 2011 UPDATED 2007 AQMP INVENTORY In particular, staff updated the year 2002 VOC baseline emission to reflect the split of dairy cattle based on the fraction of milking cows, dry cows, calves, and heifers known from the surve ys (collected in an effort to prepare for the 2012 AQMP) as each has a different VOC emission factor ( T able 6 ) based on the quantity of manure production. This resulted in lower VOC baseline dairy emissions by approximately 24%.

Table 6

– Dairy Emission Factors by Categories

VOC (lb/head/yr)

Milking Cow 12.8

Dry Cow 8.7

Heifer 6.1

Calve s 4.5

Source: US E nvironmental P rotection Agency and A ir Resources Board

F or poultry, staff used the latest VOC emission factor of 0.02 6 lb/bird/yr from the most re cent ARB

source test at a b r oiler production house in California which best represents egg

- laying operations in

the Basin ( i.e., mechanically

- ventilated houses with climate controls) . This resulted in an approximately 86% lower in VOC emission s for this c ategory.

Table 7 compare s the original and updated livestock 2002 VOC emission s for the 2007 AQMP

.

Table 7

– Original and Updated Live stock 2002 VOC Baseline Emission Inventory (t/d)

Dairy Poultry Swine Total

Original VOC Baseline

Emission s (Prior to MC S

05 Implementation) 6.91 2.43 0.097 9.44

Updated VOC Baseline

Emission s 5.23 0.33 0.097 5.66

Staff also updated the projected remaining VOC emissions for future milestone years (2014 and 2023) in an effort to evaluate the District’s commitment for i mplementing Control Measure MC S

05.

To k eep th e updated benchmark projections in the same “currency” with the original 2007 AQMP, staff applied the same rates of reduction, referred to as R elative R eduction F actors (RRF) derived from the original 2007 AQM P control measure to the updated VOC baseline emissions. The RRF takes into consideration not only projected emission reductions from control measure implementation, but also reductions from existing regulatory requirements and industry growth.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 11 October 2011 Specifica lly, to be consistent, staff applied the RRF of 0.317 derived from the original 2002 baseline and 2014 remaining emissions (2.99 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.317), and the RRF of 0.257 derived from the 2002 and 2023 data (2.43 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.3257) to the updated 2002 VOC baseline of 5.66 t/d, which resulted in the projected remaining VOC emission of 1.79 t/d and 1.46 t/d for the years 2014 and 2023, respectively. Staff will continue monitoring the economic conditions for the industry and other regulatory actions in an effort to update the inventory and re

- evaluate potential commitments

for the milestone year 2023.

REVISED INVENTORY FOR THE 2012 AQMP

District staff continued their efforts to revise current and projected future livestock inventories for the upcomi ng 2012 AQMP. Recently, staff worked with the California Regional Water Quality

Control Board

– Santa Ana Region (Water Board) staff to update the emissions inventory based on year 2008 headcount data. Staff also worked with industry representatives, inc luding sending out facility surveys, to ensure the most accurate livestock inventory for 2008, which will be the 2012 AQMP baseline year.

Based on the milk and egg production trends from 1999 to 2009, and input from the Water Board and industry, staff fou nd that although the numbers of livestock have continued to drop in the Basin, the rate of decline has not been as great as anticipated in the 2007 AQMP

, which relied on the assumption of a continued growing economy. As the economy grows, land prices incr ease, which generally results in livestock operations moving out of the Basin. In general, with existing regulatory (i.e., Proposition 2

– known as cage

- free proposition that passed in 2008), economic, and product demand climate, the livestock industry in the South Coast jurisdiction is not considered a growth industry into the future.

With this in mind, staff updated the 2007 AQMP livestock inventories to reflect the best, current

local data for the 2012 AQMP

. For future AQMP milestone years 2014 and 20 23, revised emissions reflect the current estimated condition of the industry and the resumption of the steady decline in dairy population of 7% per year after the year 2014.

Table 8 summarizes the revised VOC emission inventory for the dairy, poultry, an d swine livestock

, with implementation of Rules 223 and 1127.

Table 8

– Revised VOC Emission Inventory for Livestock (t/d)

2002 2008 (2012 AQMP

Baseline

Year) 2014 2023

Total Emissions 5.66 2.56 1.83 1.09

**REVISED DAIRY EMISSIONS** 
District staff ident ified 163 dairies based on active District permits and the Water Board database for the year 2008.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 12 October 2011 Staff mailed out surveys to those 163 dairies in February 2010 to seek updated information about the management practices and/or mitigation measures that are currently used by local dairies to minimize air emissions, especially as it relates to feasibility and costs. Of 131 deliverable mails, staff received 17 completed surveys including those from the three facilities that have no longer

been in business in the Basin since late 2009 to early 2010.

With the assistance of the Milk Producers Council, staff further refined the 2008 baseline inventory to include 160 dairies with 208,010 cows (110,991 milking cows, 19,952 dry cows,

47

, 510 heifers, and 29

, 548 ca lves.)

Staff used the emission factors from EPA and ARB (Table 4 ) to estimate the emissions for

dairies.

In 2005, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) revised the dairy VOC emission factor to 19.3 lb/head/yr and has been using i t for permitting purposes. This

revised VOC emission factor was based on available research that accounts for emissions from different dairy processes. In 2010, the SJVAPCD further revised the VOC emission factor (15.8 lb/head/yr) as a result of addition al research findings, again based on emission points at different dairy processes (i.e., corrals/pens, freestall barns, manure handling and land application, etc.) and

enteric emissions from cows.

Table 9

– SJVAPCD Dairy VOC Emission Factors

Uncontrolle d EF (lbs/head/yr) Controlled EF (lbs/head/yr)

Enteric Emissions 4.56 4.10 Milking Parlor 0.04 0.03

Freestall Barns 2.67 1.80

Corrals/Pens 11.73 6.60 Solid Manure Storage 0.17 0.15 Liquid Animal Waste Handling 1.60 1.30 Separated Solids Piles 0.07 0 .06 Land Application Solid Manure 0.37 0.33

Land Application Liquid Manure 1.56 1.40 Total per

- animal EF 22.8 15.8

For the emissions inventory, District staff believes that 12.8 lb/head/yr for milking cows is still

relevant to the SCAB for the follow ing reasons: (1) there are no known “freestall barn” dairies in the SCAB; instead dairies in the Basin are mostly “dry lot corral” facilities; (2) land application of liquid manure is not a known practice in the Basin. Without those two sources of emissio ns, the adjusted SJVAPCD would be 12.6 lbs/head/yr; therefore, the 12.8 lbs/head/yr factor that staff is using remains relevant for sources in the District. In addition, staff believes that further review is necessary for most recent research studies on v arious dairy emission sources, especially when differences are the result of different test methods applied or different focus on emission sources.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 13 October 2011 Staff estimates that in 2008, the dairy operations generated 820 tons/year or 2.25 tons/day of

VOC. This v alue is calculated using the control factor (CF) of 0.813 which accounts for the remaining emissions after R ule 1127 implementation from the uncontrolled VOC emissions of 2.76tons/day

.

Table 10

– Baseline Year 2008 VOC Dairy Emissions by Categor y

VOC ( t /y)

Milking Cow 577.5

Dry Cow 70.6

Heifer 117.8

Calve 54.1

Total 820.0 (2.2 5 t/d)

**REVISED POULTRY EMISSIONS** 
S taff worked with Local Enforcement Agencies (LEA), industry associations, and research specialists to update the list of facilities and deri ve headcounts for the revised inventory.

For the 2008 base year, there are 36 chicken operations in the Basin ( four of these are too small

to be classified as CAFs ) , 27 are egg operations ( five of which are LCAFs ) , and five chicken (pullets) operations (n one of which is LCAF)

. Staff estimated that of approximately 7,800,000 birds, about 4,200,000 are located at LCAF operations. There are approximately 620,000 pullets and the rest are layers. No broiler operations remain in the South Coast jurisdiction. Layers are predominantly in the form of “high

- rise” cage layouts; however, free range egg laying operations

exist to a lesser extent.

S taff used the most current VOC emission factor (0.026 lb/head/yr), which was based on the

most recent ARB source test c onducted at a broiler production house in California which best

represents egg

- laying operations in the Basin (i.e., mechanically

- ventilated houses with climate controls)

. Although there are no broiler operations in the South Coast, the use of this VOC

em ission factor is considered relevant since the testing was conducted during the typical 55

- day poultry production cycle

.

This VOC emission factor is much lower than t he original 2007 AQMP emission factor for this category (0.192 lb/head/yr). The newer f actor reflects the best state of the science based on the technical work of ARB (Quantification of Gaseous Emissions from California Broiler Production Houses, 2005). In addition, t he new factor was based on a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis of samples collected, which is a more appropriate method for complex gas

mixtures at low concentrations.

The emissions inventory from this livestock group is 0.28 tons/day VOC. T he emissions from District facilities are approxi mately split between the L CAFs (5) of more t han 4 million birds and CAFs (27 ). The smaller VOC emission factor coupled with decreased headcount in layers2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 14 October 2011 and broilers (from 9.2 million in the 2007 AQMP to 7.8 million) contribute to the 88% lower in

VOC emission inventory for this sector.

**REVISED SWINE EMISSIONS**  There is only one swine operation in the Basin (Ontario) and it is classified as an LCAF due to its 5,500 swine population. This farm is on a year

- by

- year lease on property owned by a land development corporation. Therefo re, long

- term operations are uncertain, and according to the operator, costly changes to the current practice could result in closure of the facility.

Using the VOC emission factor of 4.6 lb/head/year , staff estimates that this swine operation

creates 0.0 3 tons/day of VOC emissions, after accounting for the rule implementation factor. Declined headcount from over 15,000 (in the 2007 AQMP) to 5,500 contributes to the approximately 7% lower VOC emission inventory for this sector.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON LIVE STOCK EMISSIONS Baseline year a djustments to the dairy and poultry categor ies resulted in a 2002 VOC baseline reduction of 40% (5.66 tpd from 9.44 tpd).

To evaluate the revised inventory relative to the District’s commitment for implementing MSC

- 05 by

20 14, staff examined the rate of reduction from the 2002 baseline year to 2014, referred to as relative reduction factor (RRF). By applying the RRF derived from the original 2007 AQMP (2.99 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.317) to the revised 2002 baseline (5.66 tpd), st aff keeps the updated inventory data in the same “currency” with the 2007 AQMP, which results in 1.79 tpd VOC emission reduction for the year 2014. However, this conservative approach also results in a 0.04 tpd VOC emission reduction shortfall (1.8 3 tpd

– 1.79 tpd) for the year 2014.



### DAIR IES

Figu re 3 depicts a “dry lot corral” dairy farm , which is typical in the SCAB

.

Figure 3

– A Typical Dairy Farm

Source: http://www.usjersey.com/ Reference/JerseyFacility_web.pdf2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 15 October 2011 CURRENT MITIGATION M EASURES FOR DAIRIES

C urrent District Rule 1127 requires Best Management P ractices to minimize emissions from the corrals and feed lanes. The rule also includes mitigation measures for manure removal, h andling, and processing, such as shipping manure out of the Basin, land application, composting, and digesters. According to the rule staff report, although the removal factors for these control measures and digesters are 0.75 (75%) and 1 (100%) , respecti vely, the total control effectivenes s varies from 17% to 100% depending on the implementation frequency. Rule 1127 resulted in an overall

red uction of 37% from this industry.

Currently, smaller dairies (with less than 1,000 milking cows, or 3500 beef cat tle, or 7,500 calves or heifers) are not subject to District Rule 223. For larger dairies, Rule 223 provides a menu option which includes both Class One and Class Two mitigation measures applicable for various areas and activities/operations: feed and sil age, milk parlor, freestall barns, corrals, handling of solid manure, handling of liquid manure, and land application of liquid or dry manure.

Rule 223 Class One mitigation measures mainly consist of Best M anagement P ractices, such as: removing spoiled/sp illed/uneaten feed, flushing, scraping, preventing standing water, covering manure and quickly removing it, etc. Class Two measures rely on add

- on controls and/or new technologies, such as: silage bag, animal diet with no silage, enclosure, shade structur e, aerated static pile for composting, biofilter or control device with at least 80% control efficiency, digester, aerobic or mechanically aerated lagoon, organic loading threshold, and chemical coagulant and flocculent. Appendix II contains a list of mit igation measures from Rule 223.

Staff surveys indicate that the majority of dairies comply with Rule 223 by implementing their selected Class One mitigation measures. Few facilities installed shade structures and none applied

enclosure or control device. No digesters were in operat ion in the Basin at the time of this report.

NEW FINDINGS ON POTE NTIAL CONTROL MEASUR ES In this document, staff only includes the potential control measures that are applicable to the SCAB

dairies. These control measures, how ever, are not required through any known stationary source air quality regulation. Rather, some (as in the case of the digester) are optional controls.

**DIETARY MANIPULATION** In general, the feeding guidelines for dairies are established by the National R esearch council (NRC).

According to recent studies, the best way to feed animals is to supply them with the amino acids they need instead of feeds that are based on crude protein. For each percent reduction in dietary crude protein, nitrogen excretion at dairies would be reduced by approximately 8.5% to 10%

, resulting in potential significant ammonia emission reductions . For each percent increase in fermentable carbohydrates, such as bran and pulp, a 14% ammonia emission reduction would

result. H owever, none of the dairies in California has officially implemented this measure , nor is staff aware of any regulatory requirements for the dietary manipulation as it applies to air

emissions. Research is on

- going to investigate potential emission reductions fr om this management practice to reduce not only VOC and NH 3 , but also greenhouse gases (GHGs), including methane (CH 4 )2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 16 October 2011 **MANURE ADDITIVES**  Additives are used to either bind ammonia or inhibit urease (the enzyme that breaks urea down to ammonia). Stud ies indi cate that weekly application of phenyl phosphorodiamidate to cattle slurries would prevent up to 70% of the urea from being hydrolyzed. However, the additives would pose another problem once the manure is land

- applied, unless the plants can quickly use

th e nitrogen generated. Additives to reduce ammonia emissions can be costly and concerns have

been raised about ground water impacts.

**DRY MANURE AMENDMENTS**  Aluminum sulfate would reduce ammonia loss by 96% and is often recommended over phosphoric acid and ferrous sulfate as a dry manure amendment

. However, t he addition of phosphoric acid would increase phosphorous content and ferrous sulfate would raise toxicity

concern.

**SEALED BAGS** Sealed bags can be used to store feed. Due to complete sealing, these ba gs would eliminate oxygen and help forage remain stable until feeding; hence, reduc ing fermentation loss. However, sealed bags would take up more space per volume of silage compared to the traditional silage storage ; therefore, they would not be feasible for all dairies. In addition, there is a bagging cost, which is estimated by SJVAPCD to be $11.30 per ton of silage. Based on a cow’s silage consumption rate of 4.56 tons per year, the cost of sealed silage would be $51.50 per cow per

year.

S ealed bag s can also be used for composting. A typical sealed bag is a forced aeration system with 12 air vents to adjust temperature and oxygen level. Eleven of the ten

- foot

- long system s would compost 5,500 cubic yards of materials on one acre of land. The compost ing and curing cycles can be completed in 60 to 90 days. With the potential of 3 to 5 cycles per year, as much

as cubic 22,000 yards per acre per year can be composted. Th e system s w ere briefly used in

small

- scaled operations to compost community yard/gr eenwaste at City of Glendale, Wisconsin,

and the Edwards Air Force Base in California in the 1990s

.

R ecently in 2010, Ag

- Bag Environmental provided an estimate to the Milk Producers Council to handle 320,000 tons per year of dairy manure and bulking agent for dairies in the Chino areas

with a CT

- 10 Composter and POD system. The cost of operating a compost facility would be offset by a tipping fee charged to the waste generator at approximately $40 per ton.

**ANAEROBIC DIGESTER**  **SYSTEMS** The following anaerob ic digester systems are commonly used for dairy manure treatment: covered lagoon systems, complete mix systems, plug flow digest ers, and centralized digesters.

Recent studies conclude that due to their high operating and compliance cost s , digester systems

w ould remain economically i nfeasible

, as long as natural gas and electric ity prices remain relatively stable , unless major technical breakthrough are achieved

.

**•** Covered Lagoon Systems are the most basic and the least expensive systems ; therefore, are

the most widely operated system s in California. They use the 3% or less total solid content output of the “flush” m anure handling system s to produce a high BTU biogas ( up to 70%2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 17 October 2011 methane) . The retention time for manure processing is 45 to 60 days. The biogas conversion

rate s are generally 35% to 45%.

**•** Complete Mix Systems are best suitable for treating slurry manure with 3% to 10% solid

content

. The contents are periodically mixed in a digester tank and often heated to maintain an optimal temperature for met hane production

. The systems can be used by f lush and

scrape manure dairies if water is a dded to the collected manure. Since the retention time is shorter ( 15 to 20 days ), the systems can handle larger processing loads. Due to the system’s

ther mophilic condition, biogas conversion rates are higher (from 45% to 55% )

. However, the systems are expensive to construct and to operate, hence are not common in California.

**•** Plug Flow Digesters consist of a long

, narrow underground tank . They handle manure with

solid content between 11% and 13%

, consistent with “scrape” manure management systems. Typical retention time for plug flow digesters are 20 to 30 days

. Currently, there are 6 plug flow digesters in California. Plug flow digesters are expensive to const ruct and to opera te,
and thus are less cost

- effective. According to S JVAPCD staff , it would cost a dairy with 1,000 milk cows approximately $1.8 million to $2.2 million for each ton of VOC reduced.

This estimate excludes the c osts of solid separation aft er digestion and hydrogen sulfide removal, and utility charges, but accounts for potential savings from the digester’s generation of electricity.

**•** Centralized Digester s

- The centralized digester at the Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s (IEUA) in Chino was the only centralized system operat ed in California. The IEUA digester

was started in 2002 and processe d 225 tons of manure per day from 6,250 dairy cows, plus

food waste from local food industries.

Large scale biomethane production w ith higher methane co ntent ( 95 percent or more ) is a primary reason for centralized digesters. The biogas was used to power the agency’s off

- site groundwater desalinization plant and wastewater facilities. However, due to significant operational difficulties and high operati ng cos t s , the system was shut down in September

2009.

Figure 4 is a schematic of a simple anaerobic digester system.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 18 October 2011 Figure 4

– An Anaerobic Digester

Source: www.daviddarling.info/ima ges/anaerobic_digest

NEW FINDINGS ON DAIR Y EMISSIONS There are recent studies to evaluate the emissions produced directly from cows (enteric emissions) and their fresh manure. The focus areas include: corrals and turnouts, bedding areas, lagoons, feed

s torage areas, flush lanes, and bunker feed. Unlike previous findings, these studies have identified animal feed (or silage) as one of the major dairy VOC sources. However, it is noted that VOC emissions from silage in the Basin are lower than those indic ated from these studies. In the Basin, much of the feed is dried, bailed, and shipped to local dairies, as opposed to adjacent farming. This feed, including grains, has extremely low moisture content, and thus negligible VOC emissions from

the feed itsel f. In addition, according to a Milk Producers Council representative, approximately 10% of the dairy farms in the Basin grow their own silage, which is stored in bags to prevent fermentation and retain nutrients. The silage bags are kept on

- site for only a few days at a time. Dairymen who purchase feed (silage, alfalfa, corn, grain, etc.) on an as

- needed

- basis also store it on

site for only few days at a time, thus minimizing VOC emissions from the facility.



### POULTRY

In the SCAB

, layers are predominantly kept in “high

- rise” cage layouts while free range egg laying operations exist to a lesser extent.

CURRENT MITIGATION M EASURES FOR POULTRY OPERATIONS Rule 223 requires a written Permit to Operate for large CAFs with 650,000 or more layers. In addition, the rule also requires t hese large facilities to submit and implement an emission mitigation plan which can be developed based on different classes of mitigation measures to mainly minimize

V OC emissions from housing, feed operations, and manure handling

. Appendix II contains a list of the mitigation measures from Rule 223.

Class Two Mitigation Measures are not currently a requirement in Rule 223 but are listed in menu form for poultry operations in the categories of: housing; handling of solid manure or separated solids; and handling of manure in liquid form. There are no Class Two Mitigation Measures for the2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 19 October 2011 “Feed Operations” category. The C lass Two Mitigation Measures for poultry housing include four options, two of which are applicable to egg operati ons and two are applicable to chickens raised for meat (broiler) operations. The chicken operations in the Basin are pullet (young birds) operations, not broilers. Pullets are usually defined as hens less than 20 weeks in age. The pullets are then

moved to a laying operation.

**MANURE/LITTER MANAGE MENT** 

The two housing measures for egg layers are: ( 1) use a belt litter removal system that dries the litter; and ( 2) use a litter drying system, such as a flat bed drying system. These are similar in

that the i dea is to reduce emissions by quickly drying the litter. The belt litter removal system uses mechanical ventilation to dry the litter and mechanically removes the litter.

The second method operates similar to an aerated static pile, in that it is a tiere d system with the manure falling onto a wire mesh and air blowing up through the litter to dry it quickly and thus reduce emissions. The manure when dry becomes a powdery substance that falls onto a lower tray. The material is then collected and sold as a protein source. One layer house in the AQMD jurisdiction uses the belt system and there are no flat bed drying systems in the Basin.

**HOUSING**

The layer chickens are housed in several types of buildings

, one style being an open style with a

solid roof and support structures, but much of the perimeter has roll

- up cloth screens covering an open mesh

- like frame that are adjusted for ventilation needs. These houses are approximately 410 feet wide and are grouped into large complexes without separations.

The two housing measures for chickens used for meat (broilers) are: ( 1) vent housing to a VOC control device with an overall VOC capture and control efficiency of at least 80%; and ( 2) house

animals in a tunnel ventilated house with mechanical ventilation. T his is because these birds are kept on the floor so mechanical manure removal is not possible. Staff has not identified any broiler operations in the Basin, but is assuming the pullets located in the Basin are subject to the mitigation measures for broile rs.

Housing animals in a tunnel ventilated house with mechanical ventilation creates particulate and ammonia emissions. Any emission reductions associated with this method would come from the drying effects of the ventilation which decreases the VOC and ammonia emissions by decreasing spontaneous composting. This type of housing is not a retrofit application but new construction

.

**FEEDING OPERATIONS**

There are no Class Two Mitigation Measures for poultry feeding operations. T here are three

measures listed as Class Two Mitigation Measures for handling of solid manure or separation

solids. First is to store all removed animal waste in an enclosure vented to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency. The second option entails moving the animal w aste to a digester for processing. The third is to compost the material using an aerated static pile vented to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency.

As for option two, there are no digesters currently operating in the Basin. There was a digester in operation in Chino by Inland Empire Utilities Agency used for disposal of cow manure, but it2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 20 October 2011 has been shut

- down

. T he use of digesters for chicken manure has not been demonstrated as effective due to the low carbon value of the manure compared to cow manure. A digester used

for cow manure could not be used for chicken manure due to differences in moisture content.

Option three entails composting using an aerated static pile which is defined in Rule 223 as “a system designed, constructed, main tained, and operated for decomposing organic material in which the material is placed on top of perforated plates that are connected to blowers that either push or pull air through the piles. The system shall operate under negative or positive pressure

fo r not less that 90% of its blower operation cycle and the exhaust shall be vented to a VOC control device with an overall capture and control efficiency of at least 80%”. According to the 2002 Technology Assessment for Rule 1133

– Emission Reductions from Composting and Related Operations, there are two facilities in the AQMD jurisdiction that use aerated static pile technology. A system could be designed with negative pressure so that the air pulled in could be vented to a pollution control device. One problem with this method of composting for chicken

manure is that carbon and nitrogen must be balanced for effective composting, and thus the chicken manure would have to be mixed with some other material such as green waste to

increase the carbon content.

**LIQUID MANURE**

The Class Two Control Mitigation Measures for poultry operations handling manure in liquid

form are: ( 1) Use of lagoons; ( 2) additional non

- standard equipment or chemicals on the solid separator system, such as roller or screw presses or ch emical coagulants and flocculants that increase the percent of solid separation achieved by the separator; and ( 3) cover the lagoon or storage pond and vent to a biofilter or control device with at least 80% control efficiency.

Lagoons for poultry operati ons are not currently present in the District. Lagoons have fallen out of use due to odor nuisance problems with facilities being in close proximity to developed areas.

Option 2 is theoretical at best because there is no solid separator system employed a t a chicken

farm to handle the waste. Chicken manure has a much lower moisture content than cow manure so solid separator systems are not employed. The manure is spread out in large, flat areas to dry or composted. One could theoretically devise a syste m to place the manure on a surface and then roll or squeeze out the liquid but the volume of the waste makes this highly impractical. It is conceivable to apply chemical coagulant or flocculants to the manure to reduce the ammonia emissions by changing th e pH, binding the ammonia, or inhibiting urease, the enzyme that

breaks urea down to ammonia.

Option 3 is not feasible because there are no lagoons or storage ponds associated with chicken

farms in the Basin. Biofiltration is a pollution control technique using living material to capture and biologically degrade process pollutants. Common uses include processing waste water

, capturing harmful chemicals or silt from surface runoff , and microbiotic oxidation of

contaminants in air

.

The implementation of mitigation measures, especially Class Two mitigation measures, would result in significant costs. For example, a concentrator with oxidiz ers for a chicken house with a ventilation rate of 900,000 SCF M would cost approximately 9 million dollars , and the cost

-2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 21 October 2011 effectiveness for this control equipment would be over 1 million dollars p er ton of PM2.5

reduced. A tunnel ventilat ed hous e would cost $1,8 00

, 000 at present time, and an enclosed manure storage building (70 feet X 300 feet) would cost $300,000.



### S WINE

Figure 5

– A Typical Swine Farm

Source: http://www.watersheds.org/farm/pigfarm.htm

CURRENT MITIGATION M EASURES FOR SWINE OPERATIONS There are no mitigation measures for swine operations in Rule 223. T here is only one sw ine facility in the Basin and it is operated on land that is leased on a year

- to

- year basis. The facility is an LCAF with 5,500 animals. A discussion follows of the SJVUAPCD swine measures for LCAF compared to what the one swine operator is currently emp loying at the faci lity located in the Basin.

**FEED AND SILAGE MEASURES** Feed and silage measures require the operator to : (1) feed according to NRC guidelines ; (2) remove spilled food every 7 days ; (3) remove uneaten wet feed with 24

- hours of rain event ; and (4) feed or dispose of rations within 48 of mixing.

**HOUSING UNIT MEASURE S**  Housing unit measures require ; (1) the use lime or absorbent material in pens to minimize moisture; (2) clean the area of waste every 7 days; (3) manage pens so depth of waste <18 inches; (4) slope surface of pens; install floats on trough or use drinkers; inspect water pipes and trough every 14 days; and (5) use slatted floor system with daily animal waste removal.

**SOLID WASTE MEASURE** The solid waste measure require s the operator to compost waste removed from pens with aerated static pile

**LIQUID WASTE MEASURE** The liquid waste measure requires the operator to : (1) use aerobic or mechanically aerated lagoon and maintain organic l o ading <3/5 mg/mL or total volatile solids <3.5 mg/mL; or (2) use2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 22 October 2011 additional non

- standard equipment or chemicals on solid separator system, such as roller or screw press or chemical coagulants or flocculants, that increase % solid separation; or (3) cover lagoon and vent to control device

.

Implementation of the more stringent mitigation measures could be too costly for sustaining operations at the only swine farm in the Basin. Based on discussions with the facility operator, although many of these measures are correctly implemented, margins of profit are tig ht as they serve only the local market. Increased operational costs to implement additional measures with possible little benefit in emission reductions could be detrimental to this facility.



### IMPACTS OF PROPOSITION 2
When combined with Proposition 2, app roved by California voters in 2008, the mitigation measures could have detrimental financial impacts on chicken farms, especially the layer chicken industry. T his proposition, in general, require s more space for calves raised for veal, egg

- laying hens

, an d pregnant pigs so the y can “ lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely ”. It is anticipated that the cage

- free proposition would negatively impact poultry egg laying farms, in particular “high rise” operations. However, d ue to th e fact that livestock operations will have until January 1, 2015 to comply with the space requirement, the bird population is assumed to remain at least constant through 2023 f or the purpose of this technical assessment and emissions quantification

.



### S AN J OAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIE D AIR POLLUTION CONT ROL DISTRICT (SJ VAPCD ) RULE 4570

SJVAPCD originally adopted Rule 45 7 0 in June 2006 in order to comply with SB 700. The rul e is also a key element of San Joaquin’s SIP for ozone attainment

.

On July 14, 2009, EPA pro posed a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the

SJVAPCD SIP submittal of Rule 4570

– Confined Animal Facilities. According to EPA, Rule 4570 did

not sufficiently implement Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for dairies, be ef feedlots, and other cattle facilities at time of submittal. According to EPA, Rule 4570, with the menu option,

allow ed large dairies to select control measures of various costs and effectiveness that might not fulfill RACT requirements and/or complicat e cost, emissions reduction estimates, and establishment of specific control requirements.

SJVAPCD estimated a 36 %

- 42% VOC emissions reduction for cattle. The EPA expected that th ese estimates be refined as more research results regarding the emission fa ctors and the effectiveness of various mitigation measures become available.

EPA also believe d there was sufficient information available to conclude the rule is RACT deficient for poultry and swine operations. One issue was the lack of quantifiable emis sion reductions. There have been no source tests conducted for the various control mitigation measures due to the configuration of the industry operation and the ability to adequately identify a portion of the total emissions to any particular mitigation measure. EPA also propose d that the analysis was inadequate to demonstrate that the menu options for poultry implement RACT . EPA stated t he analysis should include availability and

effectiveness of controls and found that the rule d id not prohibit the us e of an ineffective control measure when more effective measures are reasonably available

. EPA stated that i f an option was

determined to be cost

- effective, it should be required for all operations, and if not, removed. Also, EPA2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 23 October 2011 stated that SJVAPCD prov ided few examples of details of variability in poultry operations, or at least not enough to warrant the use of the menu option as opposed to mandated Best Management Practices.

Ad ditionally, EPA took issue with the rule exempting poultry operations betwe en 400,000 and 650,000 chickens as these are major sources (10 tons [emission factor or 0.05 lbs/bird]).

On October 21, 2010, the San Joaquin Valley APCD adopted amendments to Rule 4570

– Confined

Animal Facilities. The amendments were made to address t he RACT deficiencies identified by EPA and

to refle ct the latest science regarding animal agriculture operations. The Rule 4570 amendment contained the following key elements:

**•** The permitting threshold for dairy cattle was reduced from 1,000 milking cows to 500.

T hresholds were also reduced for poultry from 650,000 to 400,000 chicken and ducks.

**•** A number of existing menu options were made more stringent by making some management practices mandatory for feed an d housing mitigation measures. Similar amendme nts were made for p oultry and swine.

**•** Additional mitigation measures (e.g., compaction) were added to silage as it has been identified through recent research studies as a major source of VOCs in the Valley.

The rule amendment package also contained a RACT analysis that compared the amended rule requirements to other air district rules applicable to the same sources. It should also be noted that the SJVAPCD anticipates significant growth (50+ percent) in the number of dairy cattle through 2023,

whereas her e in the South Coast Air Basin the dairy population is anticipated to decrease overall during

the same time frame.

Staff will evaluate the SJVAPCD’s most recent amendments to its livestock rule for potential application in the Basin for the inclusion in t he 2012 AQMP

.



### STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A greater reduction in milking and support cows was anticipated in the 2007 AQMP due to land development agreements and industry growth factors that were based on the assumption of a continued growing ec onomy. Over the years, t he number of dairy cows has declined but not as much as expected,

and per industry experts, this headcount has nearly reached the steady

- state level for local milk demand. In addition, as the economy improves in the future, it is reasonable to expect renewal of the land development agreements and resumption of migration of dairies out of the Basin. Therefore, it is unlikely that dairy emissions will return to previous levels (i.e., 2002) and most likely will continue to
decline.

The poultry headcount is less than projected in the 2007 AQMP and may further decline due to the passage of the cage

- free proposition. The lower headcount, combined with updated emission factors, contributed greatly to the reduced poultry emissions invent ory

.

The number of swine farms in the state has steadily declined over the years. The South Coast reflects that statewide trend with one remaining swine farm that is on a

- year

- to

- year property lease pending redevelopment

.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 24 October 2011 Staff also revised the invento ries for other key pollutants, such as: NH 3 , PM10, and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 E ) from dairy, poultry, and swine farm operations. Appendix I summarizes the detailed emissions inventory.

Table 11

– Livestock Updated 2007 AQMP and Revised Inventory (t/d)

Pollutant Updated 2 007 AQMP (With Updated Emission Factors) Revised Inventory (for the 2012

A QMP )

2002 2014 2023 2008/2009 2014 2023

VOC 5.66 1.7 9 1.46 2.56 1.83 1.09

NH3 31.74 N/A N/A 13.51 12.07 7.28

PM10 0.002 N/A N/A 0.87 0.79 0. 56

CO 2 E ( MT/d) 13,014 N/A N/A 10,06 5 9,25 6 854 9

At this time, based on the updated emissions inventory, industry

- level projections (i.e., mostly negative growth), and current regulatory requirements, staff recommends that the SIP shortfall of 0.04 tpd VOC

for the year 2014 be m ade up with excess VOC emission reductions generated from the implementation

of Rule 1143

– Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi

- Purpose Solvents

.

In conjunction with future AQMPs, staff will continue monitoring the industry trends and economi c conditions for the industry in order to update the inventory and evaluate potential commitments for the milestone year 2023. Included with this will be continued monitoring of other regulatory actions by

other air districts and US EPA. Staff will evalu ate the San Joaquin Valley APCD’s most recent

amendments to its livestock rule for potential application in the Basin to reduce not only VOC, but also other pollutants such as NH 3 . In addition, staff will follow EPA’s development of dairy and poultry

emis sions quantification procedures and emission factors as part of the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS), with the anticipation to adjust the l ocal data

.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 25 October 2011 

### R EFERENCES

Rule 1127

– Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste, SCAMD, August 2004

Fin al Report: Quantification of Gaseous Emissions from California Broiler Production Houses, AIRx Testing et al., March 2005

Rule 223

- Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities, SCAQMD, June 2006

Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan , Appendix IV

- A

, CM #2007 MCS

- 05

– Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste, SCAQMD, June 2007

Air Pollution Control Officer’s Revision of Dairy VOC Emissions Factors, SJVAPCD, December 2009

Proposed Compost Project Prepared for, and at the Request of M ilk Producers Council, Ag

- Bag Environmental, April 2010

Economic Analysis for the Ag

- Bag Compost Pilot prepared for the SCAQMD and Milk Producers Council, Ag

- Bag Environmental, April 2010

Final Draft Staff Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4 570 (Confined Animal Facilities)

, Appendix G

– 2009 RACT SIP Analysis Language Taken From the 2009 Adopted RACT SIP Analysis Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570, June 2010

Final Draft Staff Report for Amended Revised Proposed Amendments t o Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), Appendix B

– Baseline Emission Inventory and Estimated Emission Reductions, October

2010

Final Draft Staff Report for Amended Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), Appendix E

– Ana lysis of Class Two Mitigation Measures, Octo ber 2010

Sheffield, R.E. and Louks, B., Dairy Ammonia Control Practices, University of Idaho Extension, Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station

### APPENDIX I

2007 AQMP and REVISED EMISSIONS INVENTORY

### Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventor y (Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I

- 1 October 2011 2007 AQMP Revised Inventory for 2012 AQMP

2002

Baseline Year 2014 202 3 2008/2009 Staff Inventory 2014 2023

Dairy Cattle Count 393

, 948 1 09

, 911 (1) 46,092 (1) 208,010 ( 2 ) 184,662 ( 2 ) 96,100 ( 3)

Dairy Cattle VOC 6.9 1 (EF: 12.8 lb/hd/yr)

5.23 ( 4 )

(EF mi lking cows : 12.8 ;

EF dry cows : 8 .7;

EF heifers : 6.1;

EF calves : 4.5lb/hd/yr) 1.21
( C

F: 0.63 ) ( GF: 0. 279 ) 0.51
( C

F: 0.63 ) ( GF: 0. 117 ) 2.25
(EF milking cows : 12.8 ;

EF dry cows : 8 .7;

EF heifers : 6.1;

EF calves : 4.5lb/hd/y r ) (CF = 0.813)

Notes: Uncontrol led

Emissions: 2.7 6 1.54
( C

F = 0.63 ) 0.80
( C

F = 0.63 )

Dairy Cattle NH 3 2 8

. 89 ( 5 )

(EF milking cows : 74 ;
EF dry cows : 45.4 ;
EF heifers : 27.8;

EF calves : 23.6 lb/hd/yr) 11.29 ( 6 )

(EF milking cows : 74 ;
EF dry cows : 45.4 ;
EF heifers : 27.8;

EF calves : 2 3.6lb/hd/yr) (CF = 0.74 ) ( 7 )

Notes: Uncontrolled

emissions: 1 5

. 26 10.00 ( 6 )

(CF = 0.74 ) 5.21 ( 6 )

(CF = 0.74 )

Dairy Cattle PM10 ( 8 ) 0.002 (EF: 0.0067 lb/hd/yr) 0.54
(EF : 3.56 lb/hd/yr) 0.48 0.25

Dairy Cattle CO 2 Equiv. ( MT/ day ) 3

, 155.79 ( 9 )

(EF milk ing cows : 4.9;

EF dry cows : 1.25;

EF heifers : 0.68;

EF calves : 0.24 MT /hd/yr) 1,666.30
(EF milking cows : 4.9;

EF dry cows : 1.25;

EF heifers : 0.68;

EF calves : 0.24 MT /hd/yr) 1,473.85 767.01

### Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventor y (Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I

- 2 October 2011 2007 AQMP Revised Inventory for 2012 AQMP

2002

Baseline Year 2014 202 3 2008/2009 Staff Inventory 2014 2023

Poultry Count ( 10 ) 9,225,354 9, 225,354 9,225,354 7,871,300 ( 11 ) 7,292,800 7,292,800

Poultry VOC 0.3 3
(EF: 0.026 lb/hd/yr )

2.43
(E

F: 0. 192 lb/hd/yr) 2.43 2.43 0.28
(EF: 0.026 lb/hd/yr ) ( 12 ) 0.26 0.26

Poultry NH 3 2.43
(EF: 0. 192 lb/hd/yr ) 2.07
(EF: 0. 192 lb/hd/yr ) 1.92 1.92

Poultry P M10 0 0.33
(EF: 0.0 308 lb/hd/yr ) 0.31 0.31

Poultry CO 2 Equiv. ( MT/ day ) 9,831.95
(EF: 0. 389 MT /hd/yr ) 8,388.87
(EF: 0. 389 MT /hd/yr ) 7,772.33 7,772.33

Swine Count ( 13 ) 15,283 15,283 15,283 5,500 ( 11 ) 5,500 5,500

Swine VOC 0.097
(EF: 4.64 l b/hd/yr ) 0.097 0.097 0.03
(EF: 4.64 lb/hd/yr ) 0.03 0.03

Swine NH 3 0.42
(EF: 20.3 lb/hd/yr ) 0.15
(EF: 20.3 lb/hd/yr ) 0.15 0.15

Swine PM10 0 N/A N/A N/A

Swine CO 2 Equiv. ( MT / day ) 26.38
(EF: 0. 63 MT /hd/yr ) 9.49
(EF: 0. 63 MT /hd/yr ) 9.49 9.49

### Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventor y (Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I

- 3 October 2011 2007 AQMP Revised Inventory for 2012 AQMP

2002

Baseline Year 2014 202 3 2008/2009 Staff Inventory 2014 2023

Total VOC 9.44

5.66 ( 1 5 ) 3.74

2.99 (1 6 )

1.79 ( 1 7 ) 3.04

2.43 (1 6 )

1.46 ( 1 7 ) 2.56 ( 14 ) 1.83 ( 14 ) 1.09 ( 14 )

Total NH 3 31.74 13.51 12.07 7.28

Total PM10 0.002 0.87 0.79 0.56

Tot

. CO 2 Eq. ( MT/ day ) 13,014.12 10,064.66 9,255.67 8,548 .83

### Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventor y (Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I

- 4 October 2011 Notes: (1) 2007

- AQMP dairy cattle counts from 2008 and on were based on negative growth factors (less than 1) used in the emission estimates

(2) 2012

- AQMP dairy cattle counts were based on current/active AQMD permits, Water Board data reported for 2008, a nd the Milk Production Council’s input

(3) 2012

- AQMP dairy cattle count for 2023 was based on the 7% reduction per year assumption after 2014 ( from 2015 and on

. )

(4) Updated 2007

- AQMP dairy cattle baseline VOC was based on dairy cattle count for year 2002 , survey ratio of different cow types, and varying emission factors used in the 2012

- AQMP inventory as opposed to a single factor for all

(5) 200 7

- AQMP dairy cattle baseline NH 3 was based on dairy cattle count for year 2002 , survey ratio of different cow types, and emi ssion factors used in the 2012

- AQMP inv en tory

(6) 2012

- AQMP dairy cattle NH 3 was based on the rule factor derived from Rule 1127 Staff Report.

(7) 2012

- AQMP rule factor for dairy cattle NH 3 was based on the remaining emissions after dairy relocations, with and wit hout R1127 (9.4 t/d and 12.7 t/d, respectively)

(8) Only milking cows were accounted for dairy cattle PM10 per ARB’s Section 7.6

– Livestock Husbandry (May 2004). For 200 7

- AQMP, there were 200,846 milking cows in 2002

. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/FULL7

- 6.PDF

(9) 200 7

- AQMP dairy cattle baseline CO 2 was based on dairy cattle count for year 2002 , survey ratio of different cow types, and emission factors used in the 2012

- AQMP inventory

(10) Assuming no growth in AQM P poultry counts. For 2012

- AQMP, poultry counts from 2010 and on were assumed to remain the same based on growth history and the unknown
impacts of Proposition 2

(11) 2012

- AQMP poultry and swine headcounts were based on county vector control contacts and phone surveys conducted in 2009

(12) 2012

– AQMP VOC emission factors for poultry (0.026 lbs/head/yr) were most recently developed factors (Final Report: Quantification of Gaseous Emissions from California

Broiler Production Houses, March 7, 2005)

(13) Assuming no growth in 2007 and 2012

- AQMP swine counts. Swine operation depends on a year

- to

- year land lease

(14) 2012

- AQMP livestock VOC inventory and future base year projections

(15) Updated 2007

- AQMP livestock VOC baseline inventory using 2012

- AQMP updat ed emission factors for all cat tle categories

(16) 2007 AQMP livestock VOC future base year projections (after 20% reduction called for in the AQMP control measure)

### Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventor y (Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I

- 5 October 2011 (17) Updated 2007 AQMP livestock VOC future base year projections using the R elative R eduction F act ors (RRF) of 0.317for year 2014 and 0.257 for year 2023.

### APPENDIX II

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM RULE 223

– EMISSION REDUCTION
PERMITS FOR LARGE CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II

- 1 October 2011 LARGE CAF MITIGATION MEASURES

Owners/operators of a LCAF that is a Dairy shall also comply with the following applicable requirements:

Table 1

- Dairy LCAF Mitigation Measure Requirements

(A). Feed and Silage Operations: Owners/operators shall incorporate at least five (5) of the following feed and silage mitigation meas ures:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

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

2. Feed animals high moisture corn or steam

- flaked corn and not feed animals dry rolled corn.

3. Remove spoiled feed from feed lane at least once every seven (7) days

4. Remove spilled feed from feed alleyways at least bi

- weekly.

5. Remove uneaten wet feed from feed bunks within twenty

- four (24) hours of a rain event.

6. Feed or dispose of rations within forty

- eight (48) hours of grinding and mixing rations.

7. Store grain in a weatherproof storage structure from October through May.

8. Cover the horizontal surface of silage piles, except for the area where feed is being removed from the pile.

9. Collect leachate from the silage piles and send it t o a waste treatment system such as a lagoon at least once

every twenty

- four (24) hours.

10. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.


### Class Two **Mitigation Measures**

11. a. Enclose silage in a silage bag system designed for that purpose, or

b. Enclose silage in a weatherproof structure and vent to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency,

or

c. Eliminate silage from animal diet.

(B). Milk Parlor: Owners/operations shall incorporat e at least one (1) of the following mitigation measures in each milk parlor:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. a. Flush or hose milk parlor immediately prior to, immediately after, or during each milking in accordance with the recommendations in NRCS Agri cultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002 or more recent NRCS guidance.

2. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.



### Class Two Mitigation Measures

3. a. Enclos e and vent the milk parlor to a control device certified by the District to achieve at least 80% capture and control efficiency when animals are in the parlor.

(C). Freestall Barns: Owners/operations housing animals in freestalls shall incorporate at least tw o (2) of the following mitigation measures in each freestall barn. 

### Class One Mitigation Measures

1. Vacuum or scrape freestalls consistent with, during, after, or prior to each milking. Vacuum or scrape freestalls in accordance with NRCS Agricultural Was te Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002 or more recent NRCS guidance.

2. Inspect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks at least once a day.

3. Use non

- manure

- based bedding for at least 90% of the bedding material, by weight, for frees talls (e.g. rubber mats, almond hulls, sand, or waterbeds).2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II

- 2 October 2011 4. Remove wet manure from individual cow freestall beds at least once a day.

5. Rake, harrow, scrape, or grade bedding in freestalls at least twice every seven (7) days.

6. Use a dry manure ha ndling system, such as scraping, instead of a liquid manure handling system such as a flush system.

7. Have no animals in exercise pens, corrals, or dry lots at any time.

8. Flush freestalls more frequently than the milking schedule. Flush in accordance with NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002 or more recent NRCS guidance.

9. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

(D). Corrals: Owners/operators h ousing animals in corrals shall incorporate at least six (6) of the following mitigation measures in each corral where animals have been housed in the last thirty (30) days.



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. a. Clean manure from corrals at least four (4) times per year with at least sixty (60) days between cleaning, or b. Clean corrals at least once between April and July and at least once between October and December,

or c. Clean concreted areas such that the depth of manure does not exceed twelve (12) in ches at any point or time, except for in

- corral mounding, or d. Manage corrals such that the manure depth in the co rral does not exceed twelve (12) inches at any time or point, except for in

- corral mounding.

2. Knockdown fence line manure build

- up prior t o it exceeding a height of twelve (12) inches at any time or point.

3. Scrape or flush feed aprons in accordance NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002, or more recent NRCS guidance in all corrals at least once every seven (7) days.

4. Slope the surface of the pens at least 3% where the available space for each animal is 400 square feet or less. Slope the surface of the pens at least 1.5% where the available space for each animal is more than 400 sq. feet per animal.

5. a. Maintain corrals to ensure drainage and prevent water from standing more than forty

- eight (48) hours after a storm, or b. Maintain corrals and drylots so that there are no indentions in the surface where puddles may form and

remain for more than fo rty

- eight (48) hours.

6. Install floats on the troughs or use another method approved by the Executive Officer to ensure that the water in the troughs does not intentionally or unintentionally overflow or spill onto an earthen ground.

7. Inspect water pi pes and troughs and repair leaks at least once a day.

8. Harrow, rake, or scrape pens sufficiently to maintain a dry surface, unless the corrals have not held animals in the last thirty (30) days.

9. a. Use lime or a similar absorbent material in the pen s according to the manufacturer's recommendations to minimize moisture in the pens, or

b. Apply thymol to corral soil in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation, or

c. Apply eugenol to corral soil in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendat ion.

10. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer



### Class Two Mitigation Measures

11. Install shade structures.

12. House animals in an enclosure vented to a control device certified by t he District to achieve at least 80% control efficiency.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II

- 3 October 2011 (E). Handling of Solid Manure or Separated Solids: Owners/operators that handle or store solid manure or separated solids outside the animal housing shall incorporate at least two (2) of the following mi tigation measures:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. Cover dry manure piles outside the pens with a waterproof covering from October through May, except for times, not to exceed twenty

- four (24) hours per year, when wind events remove the covering. The co vering shall be in accordance with applicable recommendations in NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1003, or more recent NRCS guidance.

2. Cover dry separated solids outside the pens with a waterproof covering from Oc tober through May, except for times, not to exceed twenty

- four (24) hours each, when wind events remove the covering. The covering

shall be in accordance with NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section

651.1003 or more recent NRC S guidance.

3. Remove manure from the facility within seventy

- two (72) hours of removal from the pens or corrals.

4. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.



### Class Two Mitigation Measur **es**

5. Compost manure removed from pens with an aerated static pile vented to a biofilter or other control device with at least 80% control efficiency designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with

NRCS Practice Standard 317 (Compost ing Facility), or more recent NRCS standard.

6. Store all removed manure in an enclosure vented to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency.

7. Send at least 51% of the animal waste removed from site to a digester, with a control device with a control efficiency of at least 80%, within seventy

- two (72) hours of removal from the housing. The digester shall be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard 365 (Anaerobic Digester

– Ambient Temperature and Practice Standard 366 (Anaerobic Digester

– Controlled Temperature),

or more recent NRCS standard.

(F). Handling Manure in Liquid Form: Owners/operators that handle manure in a liquid form shall incorporate at least one (1) of the following mitigation mea sures:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. Manage the facility such that lagoons only contain waste from the milking parlor and storm water.

2. a. Use phototrophic lagoons, or b. Use an anaerobic treatment lagoon

3. Remove solids from the waste system w ith a solid separator system, prior to the waste entering the lagoon.

4. Maintain lagoon at a pH between 6.5 and 7.5.

5. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.



### Class Two Mitigation Me **asures**

6. a. Use an aerobic lagoon, or b. Use a mechanically aerated lagoon designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the recommendations in NRCS Practice Standard 559 (Waste Treatment Lagoon), or more recent NRCS standard, or c. Maintain organic loading in the lagoon such that the total solids is less than 3.5 mg (dry weight)/mL, or total volatile solids is less than 3.5 mg/mL.

7. Use additional non

- standard equipment or chemicals on the solid separator system, such as roller or screw presses or chemical coagulants and flocculants, that increase the percent of solid separation achieved by the separator and that is approved by the Executive Officer.

8. Cover the lagoon or storage pond and vent to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II

- 4 October 2011 (G). Land Application of Liquid or Dry Manure: Owner/operators who land apply dry or liquid manure to crop land on the facility shall incorporate at least two (2) of the following mitigation measures:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. a. Land incorporate all manure within seventy

- two (72) hours of removal in accordance with the recommendations of NRCS Agriculture Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 11 Section 651.1102, or more recent NRCS standards, or b. Only apply manure that ha s been treated with an anaerobic digestion process or aerobic lagoon or digester system designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the appropriate NRCS Practice Standard 629 (Waste Treatment), Practice Standard 359 (Waste Treatment Lagoon), Practice Standard 365 (Anaerobic Digester

– Ambient Temperature and Practice Standard 366 (Anaerobic Digester

– Controlled Temperature), or more recent NRCS standard.

2. Allow liquid manure to stand in the fields no more than twenty

- four (24) hou rs after irrigation and apply liquid manure in accordance with the recommendations of NRCS Agriculture Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 11 Section 651.1102, or more recent NRCS standards.

3. Only apply solid manure that has a moisture content of le ss than 50% in accordance with the recommendations of NRCS Agriculture Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 11 Section 651.1102,

or more recent NRCS standards.

4. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

Note:
1. An owner/operator may temporarily suspend utilization of a mitigation measure provided all of the following requirements are

met: (a) It is determined by a certified veterinarian or nutritionist that the mitigation measure may be

de trimental to animal health or that suspension of the mitigation measure is necessary for the

animal to molt

, and (b) The operator notifies the District, within forty

- eight (48) hours of the veterinarian's or nutritionist’s determination, that a measure is bein g temporarily suspended, and (c) If such a situation exists, or is expected to exist for longer than thirty (30) days, the owners/operators shall, within that thirty (30) day period, submit a new mitigation measure to be implemented in lieu of the mitigation m easure that was suspended.

2. An owner/operator may substitute a mitigation measure from one section in the applicable table (tables 2 through 6) for a mitigation measure in another section of the applicable table, provided it is demonstrated, to the satisfa ction of the Executive Officer, that the substitution would result in equal or greater emission reductions. Substituted measures shall be requested by submittal of an application to modify the mitigation plan required by Rule 223(c)(4) with remittance of fees pursuant to Rule 306.and shall be included as permit requirements.

3. For the purposes of this attachment, the term “Executive Officer” when used for the approval of alternate mitigation measures means the Executive Officer of the SCAQMD, CARB, and U.S. EPA.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II

- 5 October 2011 Owners/operators of a LCAF that is a Poultry Operation shall also comply with the following applicable requirements:

Table 2

– Poultry Operations LCAF Mitigation Measure Requirements

(A). Poultry House: Each poultry house shall incorporate at least fou r (4) of the following mitigation measures:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. a. Remove cake manure daily in accordance with the recommendation of NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002, or more recent NRCS guidance, or b. Clean under poultry cages daily in accordance with the recommendation of NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002, or more recent NRCS guidance.

2. Use poultry litter additives designed to reduce air emissions o r moisture content in litter, such as aluminum sulfate or sodium bisulfate, according to manufacturer recommendations.,.

3. Use a dry housing cleaning method at all times, except when a wet cleaning method is required for animal health or biosecurity issu es.
4. Use drinkers that do not drip.

5. Adjust the height, volume, and location of drinkers daily.

6. Use evaporative cooling pad or tunnel ventilation with no foggers in houses.

7. Slope the ground of the houses or pens a minimum of 3%.

8. Install mounds or berms up gradient to prevent the runoff of stormwater into pens (only an option for animals allowed to freely move between indoor housing structures and outdoor pens)

9. Inspect water pipes and drinkers and repair leaks at least once a day.

10. Maintain the roof structure and manage roof runoff in accordance with the recommendations of NRCS

Practice Standard 561

– Heavy Use Area Protection, or more recent NRCS standards.

11. Only use fogger systems designed, operated and maintained according to manufacturer recommendations that provide water droplets with an average size of 50 microns or less.

12. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.



### Class Two Mitigation Measures

13. Vent housing to a VOC control device with an overall VOC capture and control efficiency of at least 80%.

14. a. Use a belt litter removal system that dries the litter, or b. House animals in a tunnel ventilated houses with mechanical ventilation, or

c. Use a litter drying system, such as a flat bed drying system.

(B). Feed Operations: Owners/operators shall incorporate at least five (5) of the following feed mitigation measures:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. a. Feed according to NRC guidelines, or

b. Feed an imals probiotics designed to improve digestion according to manufacturer recommendations, or c. Feed animals an amino acid supplemented diet to meet their nutrient requirements, or

d. Feed animals feed additives such as amylase, xylanase, and protease, des igned to maximize digestive efficiency according to manufacturer recommendations.

2. Remove spilled feed from housing at least once every seven (7) days.

3. Enclose grain in a weatherproof storage structure from October through May.

4. Feed or dispose o f feed within forty

- eight (48) hour of grinding and mixing feed.

5. Remove wet feed from animal housing within twenty

- four (24) hours of a rain event.

6. Remove spilled feed from facility at least once every seven (7) days.

7. Implement alternative mit igation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II

- 6 October 2011 (C). Handling of Solid Manure or Separated Solids: Owners/operators that handle or store solid manure or separated solids outside the animal housing shall incorporate at leas t one (1) of the following mitigation measures:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. a. Remove all animal waste from site within seventy

- two (72) hours of removal from housing, or b. Send all animal waste to a storage facility designed, constructed, maintain ed, and operated to the recommendations in NRCS Practice Standard 313 (Waste Storage Facility) or more recent NRCS

standard.

2. Cover animal waste outside the housing with a waterproof covering from October through May, except for times, not to exceed twe nty

- four (24) hours per year, when wind events remove the covering, the covering shall be in accordance with applicable recommendations in NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1003, or more recent NRCS guidance.

3. Use a dry manure handling system in housing, such as stockpiles, solid land application, or a thin bed manure drying system, instead of a wet system such as flushing, manure storage ponds, or manure treatment lagoons.

4. Implement alternative mitigation measu re(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.



### Class Two Mitigation Measures

5. Store all removed animal waste in an enclosure vented to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency.

6. Send at least 51% of the animal wa ste removed from site to a digester, with a control device a control efficiency of at least 80%, within seventy two (72) hours of removal from housing. The digester shall be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with NRCS Agricultur al Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1006, or more recent NRCS guidance.

7. Compost animal waste removed from the housing with an aerated static pile vented to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency designed, constructe d, operated, and maintained in accordance with NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1004, or more recent NRCS guidance.

(D). Handling of Manure in Liquid Form: Owners/operators that handle manure in a liquid form shall inco rporate at least one (1) of the following mitigation measures:



### Class One Mitigation Measures

1

. Manage the facility such that only storm water and water used to wash eggs enters the lagoon.

2. a. Use phototrophic lagoons, or

b. Use an anaerobic treatm ent lagoon designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1004, or more recent NRCS guidance.

3. Remove solids from the waste system with a solid separator system , prior to the waste entering the lagoon that is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard 629 (Waste Treatment), or more recent NRCS standard.

4. Maintain lagoon at a pH between 6.5 and 7.5.

5. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II

- 7 October 2011 

### Class Two Mitigation Measures

6. a. Use aerobic lagoons designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to the recommendations in NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1004 or more recent NRCS guidance, or b. Use a mechanically aerated lagoon designed, constructed, maintained, and operated according to the recommendations in NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbo ok Chapter 10 Section 651.1004 or more recent NRCS guidance, or c. Maintain organic loading in the lagoon that is less than 3.5 mg (dry weight)/mL, or total volatile solids is less than 3.5 mg/mL.

7. Use additional non

- standard equipment or chemicals on t he solid separator system, such as roller or screw presses or chemical coagulants and flocculants that increase the percent of solid separation achieved by the separator and is approved by the Executive Officer.

8. Cover the lagoon or storage pond and ven t to a biofilter or a control device with at least 80% control efficiency.

Note:
1. An owner/operator may temporarily suspend utilization of a mitigation measure provided all of the following requirements are met: (a) It is determined by a certified veterinaria n or nutritionist that the mitigation measure may be

detrimental to animal health or that suspension of the mitigation measure is necessary for the

animal to molt

, and (b) The operator notifies the District, within forty

- eight (48) hours of the veterinarian's or nutritionist’s determination, that a measure is being temporarily suspended, and (c) If such a situation exists, or is expected to exist for longer than thirty (30) days, the owners/operators shall, within that thirty (30) day period, submit a new mitigatio n measure to be implemented in lieu of the mitigation measure that was suspended.

2. An owner/operator may substitute a mitigation measure from one section in the applicable table (tables 2 through 6) for a mitigation measure in another section of the applic able table, provided it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer, that the substitution would result in equal or greater emission reductions. Substituted measures shall be requested by submittal of an application to modify the mitigat ion plan required by Rule 223(c)(4) with remittance of fees required by Rule 306, and shall be included as permit requirements.

3. For the purposes of this attachment, the term “Executive Officer” when used for the approval of alternate mitigation measures m eans the Executive Officer of the SCAQMD, CARB, and U.S. EPA.

### APPENDIX III

CM #2007 MCS

- 05

– EMISSION R EDUCTIONS
FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE2007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III

- 1 Octobe r 20112007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III

- 2 Octobe r 20112007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III

- 3 Octobe r 20112007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III

- 4 Octobe r 20112007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III

- 5 Octobe r 20112007 AQMP CM# MCS

- 05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III

- 6 Octobe r 2011