### REASONABLY AVAILABLE CO NTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT)

ANALYSIS FOR RULE 4570 (CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES)

October 21, 2010SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

This page intentionally blank.

2SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

3 

### RACT ANALYSIS For Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities)

Executive Summary

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (District) Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) is the most comprehens ive and stringent regulation for reducing air contaminants from confined animal facilities (C AF) in the nation. Rule 4570 establishes a comprehensive set of regulatory mitigation measures designed to reduce emissions from the various areas of CAFs, such as the feed, the hous ing, and the manure management systems. The rule applies to comme rcial operations such as dairies, beef feedlot, poultry, swine, and other cattle facilit ies. Implementation of Rule 4570 requires significant commitment and investment from affected CAFs, resulting in emissions

reductions that exceed the emission reduction commitments contained in the District’s

Ozone Plan

.

In determining whether District Rule 4570 meets Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), the District performed an exhaustive evaluati on of all potential control measures that could be impl emented by the CAFs, and worked with EPA, stakeholders, and the scientific community to assure that the rule met, or even exceeded, RACT requirem ents. The analysis has also c onsidered federal rules that cover large CAFs as well as rules in other Cali fornia air districts, to ensure that Rule 4570 requirements are as stringent, if not mo re stringent than those rules. Based on the information discussed in this report, it can be concluded that District Rule 4570 satisfies RACT for the following reasons:

• The District closely evaluated every cont rol measure that was suggested by EPA, scientists, and stakeholders and has cra fted a rule that is the most comprehensive and stringent regulation for reducing air contaminants from confined animal facilities (CAF) in the nation.

• Rule 4570 requires mitigation measures for all large and medium Confined Animal Facilities and for all major sour ces of emissions from a facility.

• The Rule achieves a significant level of control even if the least costly measures are selected by the source.

• The RACT cost estimate to implem ent Rule 4570 requirements is $278,927,616 annually, at a cost-effectiveness of $20,302 per ton of VOC reductions 1 . This is a significant cost to bear to impl ement the rule. Mandating additional requirements would result in increas ed compliance costs which will have a

1 It should be noted that the RACT cost-e ffectiveness threshold of $20,302/ton di ffers from the rule cost-effectiveness threshold presented in the Staff Report, since the rule cost-e ffectiveness threshold only evaluates the additional costs associated with the revised rule requirements.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

4 detrimental impact to the health of the industry and go far beyond RACT and BARCT requirements.

• There are no federal rules that apply to this category; therefore federal rules (CTG, NSPS. NESHAP) do not infer RACT for large CAFs.

• No rule has been approved into the Californ ia SIP for this s ource category, so there is no precedent t hat outlines RACT.

• A comparison of other California air distri ct rules to District Rule 4570 shows that

Rule 4570 is far more stringent in all categories than the rules in other air

districts.

• SB 700 required California air districts with certain non-attain ment status to implement Best Available Re trofit Control Technology ( BARCT), a level of control

that is considered more st ringent than RACT. District Rule 4570 was originally designed to satisfy SB 700 and as a c onsequence, implements BARCT for large CAFs within the Valley. The rule goes further by reducing the applicability of dairies and poultry to below the large CAF th reshold. Also, the rule requires that certain CAFs perform additio nal mitigation measures at the largest sources of emissions, such as silage and feed, and requires more mandatory mitigation

measures.

• The mitigation measures outlined in Rule 4570 have been required as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for new and modifying sour ces that trigger

the BACT threshold.

Therefore, Rule 4570 not only meets Reasonably Availabl e Control Technology (RACT) requirements, it exceeds RACT requirem ents even though the majority of the CAFs subject to the rule are not subject to RACT.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

5 1. BACKGROUND – CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES IN TH E SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY

Confined Animal Facilities ar e used for the raising of animals including, but not limited to, cattle, calves, chickens, ducks, goats, hor ses, sheep, swine, rabbits, and turkeys, which are corralled, penned, or otherwise ca used to remain in restricted areas for commercial agricultural purposes and fed by a means other than grazing. (CH&SC 39011.5 (a)(1)).

Menu Approach

The design and operation of a CAF varies dependi ng on animal type, regional climatic conditions, business practices, and preferences of the owners/operators resulting in no typical CAF. The proposed amendments to Rule 4570 continue to provide, when necessary, a menu of mitigation measures opt ions for affected owners/operators. This acknowledges that not all facilities can im plement the same mitigation measures due to a variety of factors, including infrastruc ture, conditional use permits, water board permits, soil types, production co ntracts, and other factors.

With this rulemaking, the District has re -examined the current menu structure and has made significant changes to strengthen the ru le requirements while balancing the need for operational flexibility. The District has worked closely with affected industries, scientific experts, and EPA to re-evaluate each menu and streamline measures within the same source, remove options that were determined to be ineffective, and clarify any mutually exclusive mitigation measures. Additionally, the District has strengthened the rule by mandating many mitigation measures which were previously optional, for the various CAFs. Any mitigation measures that remain optional due to infeasibility are further discussed in Appendix C of the Staff Report. Allowing for some optional measures rather than specific ally mandating all r equirements allows the flexibility for producers to select measures that will work bes t for their facility based on their own type of housing, manure management practice s, and feed storage and management while minimizing their compliance costs and achieving the same emission reductions.

1.1 VARIETY OF CAFS

CAFs can vary significantly in size from one CAF to another (e.g., dairy to feedlots, poultry, etc.) and within the same category of CAFs (dairy to dairy). For example, a dairy can be as small as 10 acres to well over 100 acres, depending on the number and types of cows on the facility. The majority of the sources on a dairy or a cattle facility consist of large open areas and cannot be easily controlled, specifically by a single control device. Dairies cannot be compar ed to feedlot cattle nor can either be compared to poultry operations. Poultry operations, even withi n themselves have many different characteristics and practices.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

6 A description of the different types of housing and management systems are described in more detail in the Staff Report.

1.2 EMISSION FACTORS

1.2.1 BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES ARE COMPLEX

Unlike other traditional stati onary sources (many of which are combustion sources for which there is a very good understanding of emissions), agriculture sources are biological sources that c onsist of hundreds of differ ent VOCs among other major pollutants. Perhaps the most important finding of all is t hat CAFs are extraordinarily complex sources of air emissions, varying not only season to season, but from CAF to CAF, and from place to place within a CAF. Emissions can vary substantially depending on weather, types of feed, and m anagement styles along with many other factors. The same methodologies and standar ds used to establish emissions from traditional stationary sources cannot be used in determining the emissions from CAFs. Development of strategies to reduce environmental impacts of animal agriculture requires a better understanding of the mechanism s involved in the production, emission, and consumption of VOC, ammonia, odor s, and greenhouse gases. In order to understand and ultimately reduce the negative impacts of these gaseous emissions, it is important to understand the circum stances under which they form.

1.2.2 STATE OF THE SCIENCE

When Rule 4570 was adopted in 2006, the research available at the time pointed to handling of solid and liquid animal wastes as being the largest source of VOC emissions at a dairy. District staff has made extensive efforts to understand and advance dairy emission-related research. Recent dairy emission research studies performed through the District, other interested agencies, and stakeholders have significantly increased knowledge of dairy emissions and have also shed some light on potential strategies to

reduce these emissions. The studies hav e been performed on California dairies and reflect current dairy practices. In contrast to t he earlier focus, current research indicates that silage piles and placing feed in the f eed bunkers are a larger portion of the total dairy emissions than solid/liquid manure handl ing. The District has developed a new

emission factor that utilizes the best avail able information. The latest available emission factor and supporting staff repor t is attached in Appendix H of the rule Staff Report.

Important findings of the latest dairy research studies include:

• Manure storage ponds and lagoons, which were previously thought to be a major source of VOC emissions at dairies, now appear to emit a comparatively small fraction of the overall dairy VOC emissions.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

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

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

• Manure deposited in open corrals appears to be an important source of VOC

emissions on some dairies.

• Emissions of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) are important but not as significant as previously estimated during the first revi sion of the dairy VOC emissions factor.

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

reduce VOC emissions fr om cow housing areas.

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

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

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

emissions.

A similar study, although not quite as extens ive for dairies was conducted for feedlot and other cattle animals. The study evaluated enteric (emissions directly from the cows), fresh waste, and feed emissions from t he various types of cattle. Although the study was completed over a year ago, the re sults are currently going under peer review with the publishing journal’s peer review commi ttee and were not made available to the District. In order to provide a better understandi ng of the emissions from these facilities, Dr. Frank Mitloehner, the princi ple researcher for the study submitted a letter (see Appendix I) sharing his overall findings. The results of the emissions data for these

animals were all below the detection limits of the instrumentation used to measure the emissions. Since the diet of these types of animals is completely different from dairy cows, consisting of dry grains, it is expect ed that the emissions from these animals and the feed would be far lower or negligible in the case of dry feed. Although this letter cannot be used to develop an emission factor fo r these sources, it does provide useful information in tailoring mitigation measures to those facilities/sources that have a larger emissions profile, such as dairy and silage type feed.

1.3 LACK OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS BEFORE RULE 4570

Prior to January 1, 2004, agriculture sour ces were exempt fr om air permitting requirements in California. Therefore, pr ior to 2004 and in most cases prior to theSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

8 passage of Rule 4570 in 2006, CAFs had practically no air pollution mitigation in place. CAFs were primarily managed and operated completely at the operator’s discretion without any thought to the effects of their operation to air emissions.

The District’s efforts to develop Rule 4570 sparked new scientific research into understanding the emissions prof ile and potential strategies to reduce emissions. A great deal of research has already been c onducted and research is ongoing and will

continue far into the future.

With the changes to the CH&SC and the result ing loss of exempti on from permitting of agricultural sources of air pollution ( CH&SC 39011.5 (b)), new or expanded CAFs are now required to undergo the Best Available C ontrol Technology (BACT) process as a requirement under New Source Review (NSR). District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) implements state and federal requirements under Title I, Part D and requires BACT for new source s or sources undergoing modification with

emission increases that are above the de mini mis value of two (2) pounds per day of VOC). BACT provisions for CAFs would appl y to sources which are subject to District permitting requirements and that emit or may emit one or mo re affected pollutant with

actual emissions which are 50% or more of any major sour ce threshold.

2 OVERVIEW OF RULE 4570

The menu option of mitigation measures woul d be amended to require more measures,

as well as make current measures more stringent. Some mitigation measures have been refined to provide clarity. Mitigation measures from all categories of CAFs, which

were determined to be not as effective as other measures, not be technologically feasible or cost effective, were removed from rule language. M any of the menus have been revised and enhanced to specify mandated m easures in high emission source categories such as feed, silage and housi ng while still maintaining flexibility to accommodate the variability of indi vidual operators and facilities.

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

measure menus:

A. Dairies

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

cows.

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

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

• Current menu options would be made mo re stringent by making some options mandatory for feed and housi ng mitigation measures.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

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

• The solid manure handling m enu would apply only to large dairy CAFs, as is required in the current rule.

B. Beef Feedlots and Other Cattle Operations

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

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

• Current menu options would be made more stringent with multiple required measures as well as more frequent monitoring.

C. Swine

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

D. Poultry

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

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

2.1 REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

2.1.1 FEDERAL AND STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has been classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an extreme nonattainment area for the

federal 8-hour ozone standard. Consequently, t he District adopted the 2007 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan (Ozone Plan) in April 2007, which includes a comprehensive set of regulatory control measure commitments ai med at reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), both precursors to ground-level ozone. Since amending Rule 4570 is a control measure in the District’s 2007 EightHour Ozone Plan , it is subject to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Clean Air Act (CAA), and California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) requirements. This rulemaking project is intended to support the a ttainment goals of the District’s 2007 Eight-Hour

Ozone Plan . The proposed amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) will seek to obtain as much reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from confinedSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

10 animal facilities as is expeditiously pr acticable, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable, as determined by the District’s Governing Board. Furthermore, the rule is intended to satisfy the ozone plan commitments as identified in the following table.

Federal and State Planning Requirements

and District Ozone Plan Commitments Subject Reference Requirement

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

threshold.

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

Antibacksliding 69 Federal Register

23955 Districts shall develop all c ontrol measures listed in

the one-hour Ozone Plan until the District is designated as attainment for the 8-hr NAAQS.

BARCT CH&SC 40919(a)(3)

Ozone Plan Ozone attainment plans should provide for best

available retrofit technol ogy (BARCT) for existing permitted sources.

Feasible

Controls CH&SC 40914(a)(2) Ozone attainment plans shoul d include "all feasible

control measures."

Deadline Ozone Plan Rule adopti on by the 2nd quarter of 2010.

Reductions Ozone Plan The plan commits to 6.7 tons per day of VOC

reductions in 2012 and 22.9 tons per day of VOC

reductions in 2023

In addition, the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 40914(a)(2) states

that ozone attainment plans should include All Feasible Control Measures ( AFCMs). The ARB interprets “every feasible contro l measure to mean that, at a minimum, a district considers regulations that have been successfully implem ented elsewhere. They should also consider going beyond what has already been accomplished by evaluation of new technologies and innov ative approaches that may offer potential emission reductions. Further, districts should consider not only technological factors, but also social, environmental, economic (e .g., cost effectiveness), and energy factors which prevail in the District, al ong with the resources realistica lly available to the district to adopt, implement, and enforce the measures.”SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

11 In the context of rule development, Distric t staff considers AFCM to mean that each rulemaking project seeks to obtain as much emission reduction from the rule’s source category as is expeditiously practicable, technologically feasib le and economically reasonable, as determined by the District’s Go verning Board. Towards that end, the

District has conducted an exhaustive evaluation of all potential cont rol measures that could be implemented by the CAFs, and wo rked with EPA, stakeholders, and the scientific community to craft a rule that c onsiders AFCM. District staff also compares

the current emission limits or control technology against what limits or control technology has been promulgated in other districts, as well as reviewing the federal, state, and local BACT clearinghouses for the most recent control technology available for the source category. The information obtai ned through this research is used to craft the proposed emission limits or imposed control technology.

2.1.2 STATE LAW – SB 700

On September 22, 2003, Governor Gray Davi s signed into law Senate Bill 700. The bill amended air pollution control requirements in the California Health and Safety Code to include requirements for agricultural sources of air pollution. Agricultural sources of air pollution were the focus of the bill for two main reasons. First, California law had previously exempted these sources from re quirements to obtain air permits. This

resulted in a conflict between state and federal law, and California faced sanctions if it failed to correct the problem. Had the bill not been signed, new and expanding

businesses in the state would have faced si gnificant and costly hurdles to obtain air permits required under federal law, and the state would have lost billions of dollars in federal transportation funding.

The bill did six main things: (1) It defines "agricultural source" in state law; (2) It removes the restriction from state law that prevented air di stricts from requiring permits for agricultural sources; (3) It est ablishes specific permitting and exemption requirements for agricultural sources; (4) It requires emission control regulations in

areas that do not attain Nati onal Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10; (5) It requires permits and emissions mitigation for Confined An imal Facilities (CAF s) that are defined by ARB as "large" (based on a review of current scientific data about emissions from CAFs and the impact of those emissions on a ttainment of ambient air standards); and (6) It requires CAPCOA to compile a clearinghouse of information about available emissions control and mitigation for agricultural activities. It is impo rtant to note that the

bill did not remove the exem ption for agricultural operati ons from the general odornuisance provisions of the Health and Safety Code. 2

2 CAPCOA White Paper on SB700SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

12 In addition to satisfying District Planning commi tments, Rule 4570 was also originally designed and adopted on June 18, 2009 to fulf ill the following requi rements created by

SB 700.

SB700/California Health and Safety Code Requirements

Subject CH&SC

Sections SB700 / CH&SC Requirements

Large Confined Animal Facility Definition (large CAF) 40724.6(a) The District shall use the "large CAF" definition developed by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).

Deadline 40724.6(b) By July 1, 2006 the District shall adopt, implement, and submit for inclusion in the state implementation plan a rule requiring owners of "large" CAF to obtain a permit. Degree of Mitigation Required 40724.6(d)(1)(B) Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) is the degree of mitigation required of large CAF.

Compliance

Schedule 40724.6(d)(4) Owner/operators shall implement control measures within one year of the permit

issuance date.

Permit Requirements

to be Included

in the Rule 40724.6(d) 1. The permit shall include an emission mitigation plan that demonstrates use of BARCT, 2. The District shall provide for a 30-day public noticing and commenting period for proposed permits, (The District shall review and update permits at least once every three (3) years, 3. The District shall act on completed permit applications within six (6 ) months of receipt, 4. The permit shall include sufficient information to prepare an emission inventory of all regulated air pollutants emitted from the facility, and 5. The owner/operators of large CAF shall submit a permit application within six (6)

months of Rule 4570 adoption.

Impact

Assessment 40724.6(d) Prior to adopting a rule, the District shall analyze the following: 1. Category, number, and size of facilitiesSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

13 SB700/California Health and Safety Code Requirements

Subject CH&SC

Sections SB700 / CH&SC Requirements

affected, 2. Nature, quantity, and significance of emissions in adversely affecting public health, the environment, and attainment of air quality standards, 3. Emission reduction potential, 4. Costs, 5. Impact on employment and the economy, 6. Alternative controls, and

Technical and Practi cal Feasibility.

2.1.2.1 RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The proposed amendments to Rule 4570 are t he latest phase in the District’s ongoing effort to regulate emissions from CAFs. As part of this ongoing effort, extensive energy has been devoted to evaluating and furtheri ng science in the area of CAF-related emissions and potential mitigat ion measures. The District has worked closely with researchers and industry stakeholders, and this effort has yielded new information that has been used to develop the proposed amendments; most notably, scientific research that has shed new light on dairy silage em issions and potential mitigation measures.

2.1.2.2 Main Issues Addressed in the Rulemaking Process

2.1.2.2.1 Difficulty of Controlling Fugitive Emissions

Because of the large amount of land required to sustain the growth of crops and raising of animals, agricultural facilities, by their nat ure, tend to be very ex pansive. Agricultural production areas can span over a hundred ac res with air contaminants primarily produced as fugitive emissions from multiple sources and operations at the facility. Fugitive emissions are defined as “those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally- equivalent opening.” Examples of fugitive emission sources at agricultural fa cilities include enteric emissions from

livestock and emissions from animal waste that is applied to land.

As discussed below, the majority of emi ssions from confined animal operations are fugitive. The fugitive nature of the emissions from agricultural sources and their expansive size impose challe nges and limitations to the ty pe of controls that can be feasibly applied to reduce emissions. Un like other stationary sources, where the majority of emissions are collected and released through a chimney, pipe, vent, or stack, which facilitates the use of traditional emission cont rols (e.g. fabric filters, catalysts, scrubbers, etc.), emissions from agricultural sources are spread out overSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

14 large areas and are very dilute at the poi nt of release. These emissions cannot reasonably be captured since ca pture of these emissions would entail monumental changes, which have not yet been developed and are likely infeasible, to the methods that are currently used for agricultural produc tion. An additional consideration is that, unlike traditional stationary sour ces, potential adverse affects to livestock must also be considered when changes in production methods are undertaken, such as those needed to capture emissions.

It would be exceedingly difficult to design an d construct a system capable of capturing the majority of emissions from these sour ces without even considering control of these emissions; however, even if it were possible to capture most of the fugitive emissions, the extremely dilute nature of the emissions emitted from animals at agricultural sources would still cause the use of traditional poin t source controls to be infeasible and exceedingly expensive. Because of thes e constraints, the District has adopted an approach in which best management practices are utilized to minimize emissions from confined animal facilities pr ior to their release. See Appendix E for more details regarding the infeasibilit y of emissions capture and control systems.

2.1.2.2.2 Considerations for Animal Health and Food Safety

Emission control mitigation measures, espec ially those that will be applied to animals, must take into consideration the health, welfare and productivity of the animals, food safety, and bio-security issues. Animal deat hs, expenses for treatm ent or disposal of dead animals, as well as loss of productivity due to poor animal health can all be devastating to a farmer. Government agencies such as the USDA are also deeply

concerned about animal health and the related food safety and bio-security issues that affect not just individual farmers but also the entire farm industry and the public. Diseases such as foot and mouth disease, m ad cow disease, or avian flu are all of grave concern to the govern ment because of their ability to destroy the entire farm industry and/or cause enormous loss of human life. In addition, animal welfare is a significant public issue, as demonstrated by the recent pass age of Proposition 2 3 by voters in California. While in the past, product boycotts and bad publicity were the main publicity threats linked to animal welfare issues, the passage of laws such as Proposition 2 brings the additional possibility of litigation that ca n put farmers out of

business. It is therefore critical for farmers to have the flexibilit y to decide the kind of

3 Proposition 2 was a California ballot proposition in that state's general election on November 4

, 2008

. known as the Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative. The official title of the statute enacted by the proposition is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cr uelty Act. The proposition adds a chapter to Division

20 of the California Health and Safety Code to prohibit the confinement of certain farm animals in a

manner that does not allow them to turn around fr eely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The measure deals with three types of confinement: veal crates, battery cages , and sow gestation crates

.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

15 mitigation measures that will work best for their specific operation by taking into

consideration animal health and welfare, productivity, food safety and overall biosecurity issues, while at the same time achiev ing the required level of emission control.

2.1.2.2.3 Considerations fo r the Wide Variety of CAFs

Due to the different methods of confi nement and associated manure management, for any animal type, there is no single design t hat encompasses every CAF. Consequently, a universal method to control emissions from all CAFs is not only not available, but not suitable. In fact, multiple measures are required to implement BARCT for this source category. The design and operation of each CAF varies depending on animal type, sub-regional climatic conditions, subsurface geologic structure, business practices, and preferences of the owner s/operators. This is why the Dis trict structured the rule such that facilities must comply with rule r equirements utilizing management practices and machinery that owners/operators already have access to. This also acknowledges that not all facilities can implement the same options due to infrastructure, conditional use permits, water board permits, soil types, prod uction contracts, and other limitations.

2.1.2.3 Rule 4570 is Based on the Best Available Science

CAFs are newly-regulated and the supporting science for air emissions from these sources has been enhanced significantly but is still developing. In the mitigation measure menus of District Rule 4570, Distric t staff considered all of the operations within each type of CAF, the available in formation about emission reduction potential, as well as the feasibility and cost of implementing requir ed mitigation measures. CAF operators control emissions in every phase of the CAF operation. Al though many of the measures in the rule are mandated, a menu approach is still required in many cases. The menu approach of Rule 4570 allows flexibil ity as the science of air emissions from CAFs evolves. The mitigation measures c an be further focused on the operations that are shown to have the highest emissions, as is the case for silage and Total Mixed Rations (TMR). Independently, the mitigation measures themselves can be revised or expanded to include those that are most efficient and cost-effective for each CAF

emission source.

2.1.2.4 RACT Cost-Effectiveness

In calculating the RACT cost effectiveness of Rule 4570, District staff determined cost effectiveness for those mitigation measures that had the lowest co st. District staff calculated the potential emissi on reduction of its rule based on the likelihood that only the cheapest options will be chosen. This is a prudent and reasoned approach, neither an arbitrary nor a capricious one. This opinion was echoed in a recent court decision by the California Fifth Appellate District in Association of Irritated Citizens vs. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (2008).SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

16 The RACT cost estimate to implement each required mitigation measure is $278,927,616 annually, at a cost-e ffectiveness of $20,302 per to n of VOC reductions, to comply with the proposed rule revisions. To es timate the full impact of Rule 4570, and given that CAFs were not required to im plement any mitigation measures prior to adoption of Rule 4570, the RACT cost-effectiveness includes cost and emissions reductions associated with both proposed an d existing Rule 4570 requirements.

2.2 REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 4570

2.2.1 APPLICABILITY

Rule 4570 controls VOC emissions from “Lar ge Confined Animal Facilities,” as defined by the California Health & Safety Code and the Air Resources Board. According to CH&SC 39011.5(a) and 39011.5(a)(1) a CAF is defined as “a source of air pollution or a group of sources used in the raising of fowl or animals located on contiguous property under common ownership or control including, but not limited to, any structure, building, installation, barn, corral, coop, feed stor age area, milking parlor, or system for the collection, storage, treatm ent, and distribution of li quid and solid manure, if domesticated animals are corralled, penned, or otherwise caused to remain in restricted areas for commercial purposes and feeding is by means other than grazing.”

The ARB was required by CH&SC 40724.6 to revi ew all available scientific information, including, but not limited to, em ission factors for confined anim al facilities; the effect of those facilities on air quality in the basin; and other relevant scientific information and to develop a definition for a “large” confined animal facility. The applicability thresholds for the current rule (which is based on ARBs large CAF definition) and the proposed rule

are shown in the table below:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

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

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

Other Cattle Facility 7,500 calves, heifers, or

other cattle 7,500 calves, heifers, or other

cattle Poultry Facilities

Chicken 650,000 head 400,000 head

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

Sheep and Goat

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

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

Any livestock facility

not listed above 30,000 head 30,000 head

2.2.2 EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS

Rule 4570 requires multiple mitigation measures from all large CAFs covering the following CAFs: Dairy, Beef F eedlots, Other Cattle, Swine, Poultry, and various other smaller operations. Each of these facilities consists of multiple sources of emissions within the facility. Rule 4570 groups CAF em ission sources into five areas: feed/feed storage, animal housing, solid waste hand ling, liquid waste handling, and land application of animal wastes. In this way, all of the major emi ssion sources within a given CAF are included in the control require ments. Since these facilities generally cover a large area and have different proc esses, a single mitigation measure or technology is generally not suff icient in reducing overall em issions from the facility.

Rather than allow facilities to select a numbe r of measures at t he emission source of their choosing, Rule 4570 specifically requi res a certain number of mitigation measures at the majority, if not all, of the emission sources. Mitiga tion measures required by Rule

4570 have been tailored for each source of emi ssion, thereby ensuring that the overall emissions from a facility are reduced rather than from only a part of the facility, which would be the case if that was left as an opti on in the Rule. The current methodology in Rule 4570 provides for the greatest overall control fr om the facility.

The majority of VOC emissions from c onfined animal operations are fugitive (evaporation of VOC from feed or waste, for example) or related to gaseous emissions generated directly from livestock (enteric). The fugitive nature of the emissions from agricultural sources including large amount s of land area impose challenges and limitations to the type of c ontrols that can be feasibly applied to reduce emissions. Unlike other stationary sources, where t he majority of emissions are collected andSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

18 released through a chimney, pipe, vent, or sta ck, emissions from agricultural sources are spread out over large areas and are very dilute at the point of release. These emissions cannot reasonably be c aptured at the point of rel ease since capture of these

emissions would entail monum ental changes, which have not yet been developed and are likely infeasible, to the methods that ar e currently used for agricultural production. Rather than capture fugitive emissions at the point of release, Rule 4570 provides for management practices that minimize the forma tion of VOCs or control VOCs by moving the VOC-forming material to a controlled situation. So me examples of mitigation measures are feed manipulati on, frequent scraping of animal housing, and covering of silage piles.

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

2.2.3 EXAMPLES OF DESIGN/OPERAT IONAL INCOMPATIBILITY WITH

CONTROLS

As discussed above, due to the different methods of confinement and associated manure management, there is no typical CA F. The design and operation of a CAF varies depending on animal type, regional climatic conditions, business practices, and preferences of the ow ners/operators. Not a ll of the mitigation measures included as an option in rule 4570 can be reasonably adopted by all facilities due to infrastructure, conditional use permits, water board permits, soil types, produc tion contracts, and other limitations. This is why the District structur ed the rule such that facilities comply with rule requirements utilizing management prac tices and machinery that owners/operators already have reasonably available to them. Examples of some of the mitigation measures that may not be adaptable to all facilities due to facility limitations are

discussed below:

Mitigation Measure: “Use non-animal waste-based be dding and non-separated solids based bedding for at least 90% of the beddi ng material, by weight , for freestalls (e.g. rubber mats, almond hull s, sand, or waterbeds)”

This measure requires that a non-animal waste bedding material be used in lieu of manure or separated solids. Ho wever, not every dairy in the Valley has access to non-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

19 manure based material due to the limited resource of these materials (sand, almond hulls, etc).

Sand on the other hand has many disadvantages such as clogging of main drains and pipes including breakdowns from the considerable amount of w ear and tear on pumps and equipment. If the infrastr ucture does not exist to handl e this material it is unreasonable to implement this mitigation measure; which is why Rule 4570 consists of multiple mitigation measures to allow operators the flexibilit y to choose measures that are appropriate for their method of operation, while still ensu ring emission reductions.

Mitigation Measure: “Use lime or a similar ab sorbent materi al in the pens according to the

manufacturer's recommendations to minimize moisture in the pens.”

Lime is extremely costly and in many cases not feasible due to soil quality and water quality issues. Therefore, while this mitigat ion measure may work for one facility it may

not work for another.



### REVIEW OF FEDERAL RACT REQUIREMENTS

FEDERAL APPLICABILITY OF RACT

The Clean Air Act (CAA) Secti on 182(b)(2) states that ozone at tainment plans shall assure

that RACT for volatile or ganic compounds (VOC) is app lied at certain sources.

“The State shall submit a revision to the applicable implementation plan to include provisions to require the implementation of reasonably available control technology under section 172(c)(1) of this title with respect to each of the following:

(A) Each category of VOC sources in the area covered by a CTG document issued by the Administra tor between November 15, 1990, and

the date of attainment.

(B) All VOC sources in the area covered by any CTG issued before November 15, 1990.

(C) All other major stationary sources of VOCs that are located in the

area.”

Because EPA has not issued a CTG for Confined Animal Facilities, the only applicable provision above for the San Joaquin Valley is the need for RACT to be applied to “major stationary sources.” Because the San Joaqu in Valley Air Basin is classified as an extreme ozone area, “major s ources” are those that generate more than 10 tons per year of NOx or VOC. However, the emissions from the majori ty of CAFs, if not all, areSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

20 considered to be fugitive and therefore expected to be mi nor sources not subject to RACT. In either case, the requirements under the proposed rule far exceed the RACT requirements as demonstrated in the analysis in the staff report and in this document.

2.3 DEFINITION AND STRINGENCY OF RACT

Although the Clean Air Act itself does not define Reasonably Available Control Technology, 40 CFR 51.100(o) defines RACT as:

”devices, systems, process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that are reasonably available, taking into acc ount (1) the necessity of imposing such

controls in order to attain and maintain a national ambient air quality standard; (2) the social, environmental, and economic impact of such controls; and (3) alternative means of providing for attainment and maintenance of such a

standard.”

The foregoing definition applies to a specific federal provision regarding approval of extension requests for attainment plans fo r secondary air quality standards, but in the absence of a more definitive regulatory description, it is concise and useful. EPA also

defined RACT in the Strelow memorandum 4 as:

“the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of cont rol technology that is reasonably available, considering technolog ical and economic feasibility”.

2.4 PURPOSE OF FEDERAL RACT

The Clean Air Act requires RACT for certain sources in all nonattainment areas nationwide, regardless of the seve rity of the ozone problem.

“172(c) Nonattainment plan provisions

The plan provisions (including plan items) required to be submitted under this part shall comply wit h each of the following:

(1) In general

Such plan provisions shall provide fo r the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expediti ously as practicable (including such

reductions in emissions from existi ng sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a mi nimum, of reasonably available

4 The Strelow RACT Memorandum, published in BNA Environmental Reporter, December 9, 1976, pages 1210-1212SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

21 control technology) and shall provide fo r attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”

From this section, it is clear that RACT is intended as the minimum level of control that

all ozone nonattainment areas must achieve for ex isting sources. It is also clear that RACT is not intended as the only level of co ntrol needed for all nonattainment areas to attain the ozone standard. Two key conclusions are drawn from the section above: 1) states must adopt RACT for existing sour ces regardless if they are needed for attainment, and 2) states may need additional measures beyond RACT to attain the

standard. This second conclusion leads to the understanding that RACT is not intended to be the most stringent level of control in an area’s attainment strategy.

In the greater context of air pollution contro l levels, RACT is understood as the “floorlevel” of air pollution controls, not the “ceilin g-level.” More effective levels of emissions

control are termed Best Ava ilable Control Technology (BAC T) and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). BACT and LAER are r equired for new sources, and for existing sources undergoing modification. Under stat e and federal air pollution programs, new facilities face more stringent pollution contro l requirements than existing facilities, with the understanding that better controls can be more easily implemented before a facility is built, than after it is built. Ne w sources must generally implement BACT 5 and existing sources must implement a less stringent level of control such as Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). Additionally, California law establishes an intermediate

level of control that is the “ best available” for “retrofit” to existing sources (entitled Best

Available Retrofit C ontrol Technology – BARCT 6 ), recognizing that the state’s worst ozone problems demands more effective po llution control than what is usually considered “reasonably available.”

As discussed above, the purposes of BACT, RACT, and BARCT are different. BACT is designed to minimize the growth in futu re stationary source emissions with the installation of best available controls; RA CT is designed to reduce current stationary source emissions from existing sources with the application of reasonably available controls; and BARCT is designed to reduce cu rrent stationary source emissions even further with the application of best available retrofit controls. BACT is identified and prescribed in the permitting process on a case -by-case administrative basis. RACT and BARCT are developed on an industry-wide basis in the rule development process, which concludes with quasi-legislative ac tion by the District Governing Board.

5 Federal regulations for permitting new facilities require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for new sources
in attainment areas, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) – a generally more stringent level –for new

sources in nonattainment areas. LAER diffe rs from BACT in that economic costs are not considered for candidate

LAER controls that are considered “Achieved in Practice.” Under California state law, the District is required to apply “BACT” for new sources under essentially the same requirements as federal LAER. The District’s “BACT”

determinations thus fulfill the f ederal LAER requirements.

6 California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) 40406: ... "b est available retrofit control technology" means an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of r eduction achievable, taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

22 2.5 RACT GUIDANCE FROM EPA REGION IX

A letter from EPA, Region IX 7 outlined documents that could be useful in establishing RACT. Those documents include EPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs), Alternative Control Techniques (ACTs), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),

National Emissions Standards for Hazar dous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), EPA Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Cl earinghouse, California Suggested Control Measures (SCM) and RACT/Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) determinations, regulations adopted in ot her Districts, and guidance and rules developed by other state and local agencies.

To date, EPA has not developed any federal regulations (NSPS, MACT, NESHAP) or guidance (CTG, ACT) specific to CAFs. Best Available Cont rol Technologies and regulations adopted in other dist ricts are discussed below.

2.6 ISSUES REGARDING FEDE RAL EXPECTATIONS FOR RACT

RACT is a “moving target.” Technology cons idered RACT at the time of SIP-approval has always been made obsolete by more effectiv e technology at a later date. This view of moving-target RACT requirements precl udes using only comparing CTGs/ACTs or simply relying on EPA SIP-approval of ru les as satisfying RACT requirements; therefore, other requirem ents must be considered.

It should also be noted that since District ru les usually fulfill BARCT requirements for state purposes, and the control technology est ablished by a BARCT rule is the most

effective retrofit control for the existing emission category; District rules, generally not only satisfy RACT requirement s, but go far beyond RACT.

3 DEMONSTRATION THAT RULE 4570 SATISFIES RACT REQUIREMENTS

This section of the Document shows how Rule 4570 satisfies federal RACT requirements. It focuses on the three br oad elements that EPA generally reviews when evaluating a district rule for inclusion in the State implem entation Plan (SIP): applicability, stringency, and enforceability. When EPA approves a rule for inclusion into the SIP, EPA must evaluate, at a minimum, if the rule fulfills RACT requirements.

7 United States Environmental Protection Agency – letter from Andrew Stec kel, EPA Region IX to Kurt Karperos, ARB dated March 9, 2006 – RACT SIPSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

23 3.1 APPLICABILITY OF RULE 4570 COVERS ALL CAFS THAT ARE MAJOR

SOURCES AND MANY SM ALLER FACILITIES

Pursuant to Section 3.25 of District Rule 2201 (New and Modifi ed Stationary Source Review Rule), a major source is a stati onary source with post-project emissions or a Post Project Stationary Source Potential to Emit, equal to or exceeding one or more of the specified threshold values. In determi ning whether a facility is a major source, fugitive emissions are not counted unless the facility belongs to certain specified source categories. 40 CFR 71.2 (Definitions, Ma jor Source (2)) states the following:

(2) A major stationary source of air pollut ants or any group of stationary sources as defined in section 302 of the Act, that direct ly emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant (including any major source of fugitive emissions of any such pollutant, as determined by rule by the Administrator). The fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not be considered in determining whether it is a major stationary source for the purposes of section 302(j) of the Act, unless the source belongs to one of the following cat egories of stationary source: (i) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal drye rs); (ii) Kraft pulp mills; ( iii) Portland cement plants; (iv) Primary zinc smelters ; (v) Iron and steel mills; (vi) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants; (vii) Primary copper smelte rs; (viii) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day; (ix) Hydrof luoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants; (x) Petroleum refineries; (xi) Lime plants; (xii) Phosphate rock processing plants; (xiii) Coke oven batteri es; (xiv) Sulfur recovery plants; (xv) Carbon black plants (furnace process); (xvi ) Primary lead smelters; (xvii) Fuel conversion plants; (xviii) Si ntering plants; (xix) Secondary metal production plants; (xx) Chemical process plants; (xxi) Foss il-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more than 250 million British t hermal units per hour heat input; (xxii) Petroleum storage and transfer units wit h a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels; (xxiii) Taconite ore processi ng plants; (xxiv) Glass fiber processing plants; (xxv) Charcoal producti on plants; (xxvi) Fossil-fuel -fired steam electric plants

of more than 250 million Brit ish thermal units per hour heat input; or (xxvii) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under

section 111 or 112 of the Act.

Because agricultural operations do not fall under any of the specific source categories listed above, fugitive emissions are not counted when determining if an agricultural operation is a major source. 40 CFR 71.2 defines fugitive emissions as “those emissions which could not reasonably pass th rough a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally-equivalent opening.”

3.1.1 Dairy

Since emissions at a dairy are not actua lly collected, a determination of whether emissions could be reasonably collected must be made by th e permitting authority. TheSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

24 California Air Pollution Control Associat ion (CAPCOA) prepared guidance in 2005 for estimating potential to emit of Volatile Organic Compounds from dairy farms. The guidance states that “VOC emissions from the milk ing centers, cow housing areas, corrals, common manure storage areas, and land application of manure are not physically contained and could not reasonably pa ss through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally-equivalent ope ning. No collection technologies currently exist for VOC

emissions from these emissions units. T herefore, the VOC emissions from these sources are considered fugitive.” The guidance also concludes that, because VOC collection technologies do exist for liquid waste systems at dairies, “... the VOC emissions from waste lagoons and st orage ponds are considered non-fugitive.” The

District has researched this issue and c oncurs with the CAPCOA assessment, as

discussed in more detail below.

Milking Center : The mechanical system for the milk ing parlors can be utilized to capture the gases emitted from the milking parlors; however in or der to capture all of the gases, and to keep an appropriate negative pressure throughout the system, the holding area would also need to be entirely enclosed. No fa cility currently encloses the holding area since cows are continuously going in and ou t of the barn throughout the day. The capital required to enclose this large area would al so be significant. Since the holding area is primarily kept open, the District cannot reas onably demonstrate that emissions can pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or ot her functionally equivalent opening.

Cow Housing : Although there are sma ller dairy farms that have partially enclosed freestall barns, these barns are not fully enclosed and none of the barns have been

found to vent the exhaust thr ough a collection device. The ai rflow requirements through dairy barns are extremely high, primarily for herd health purposes. The airflow requirements will be even higher in the San J oaquin valley, where temperatures reach in excess of 110 degrees in the hot summer. Collection and control of the exhaust including the large amounts of airflow have not yet been achieved by any facility. Due to this difficultly, the District cannot reasonably demonstrate that emissions can pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or ot her functionally equivalent opening.

It must also be noted that EPA has determi ned that emissions from open-air cattle feedlots are fugitive in nature. 8 In the District’s judgment, this determination for emissions from open feedlots necessitates a similar determination for the open-sided freestalls (usually with open access to corrals or pens and free movement of cattle in and out of the covered area) typical of t he San Joaquin Valley since the typical open freestall barn in the San Joaquin Valley bears a far greater resemblance to an extensive shade structure located in a large open lot than an actual enclosed build ing. Therefore, emissions from open freestall barns are most appropriately treated as fugitive.

8 Letter from William Wehrum, EPA Acting Administrator, to Terry Stokes, Chief Executive Officer –

National Cattlemen’s Beef A ssociation (November 2, 2006) ( http://www.epa.gov/Region7/programs/a rtd/air/nsr/nsrmemos/cowdust.pdf )SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

25 Manure Storage Areas : Many dairies have been found to cover dry manure piles. Covering dry manure piles is also a mitigati on measure included in District Rule 4570. However, the District was not able to find any facility, which currently captures the emissions from the storage or handling of manure piles. Al though some of these piles are covered, the emissions cannot reasonably be captured. Therefore, the District cannot reasonably demonstrat e that these emissions can pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equiva lent opening. In addition, emissions from manure piles have been shown to be in significant in recent studies.

Land Application : Emissions generated from the applicat ion of manure on land cannot reasonably be captured due to the extremely la rge areas, in some cases thousands of acres, of cropland at dairies. Therefore, the District cannot reasonably demonstrate that these emissions can pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening.

Feed Handling and Storage : The majority of dairies stor e the silage piles underneath a tarp or in an Ag-bag. The entire pile is cove red except for the face of the pile. The face of the pile is kept open due to the continual need to extract the silage for feed purposes. The silage pile is disturbed 2-3 times per day. Because of the ongoing disturbance to these piles, it makes it extremely difficult to design a system to capture the emissions from these piles. In fact, as far as the District is aware, no system has been designed to successfully extract the gases from the face of the pile to capture them, and, as important, no study has assess ed the potential impacts on sil age quality of a continuous air flow across the silage pile, as woul d be required by such a collection system. Therefore, the District c annot demonstrate that these emissions can be reasonably expected to pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening.

As discussed above, the VOC emissions from the milking center, co ws housing, manure storage areas, land application of m anure and feed handling and storage are considered fugitive. The District has deter mined that control technology to capture emissions from lagoons (biogas collection system s, for instance) is in use; therefore, these emissions can be reasonably collected and are not fugitive. Therefore, only emissions from the non-fugitive sources, such as lagoons, storage ponds, IC engines, and gasoline tanks, will be used to determine if dairies are major sources.

3.1.2 Poultry Houses

The majority of poultry operations consist of ventilated houses. Since these houses have the potential of being fully enclosed and reasonably vented to a stack, the

emissions from these sources may be considered non-fugitive.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

26 3.1.3 Conclusion – Rule 4570 App licability Covers All Major Sources

The applicability of Rule 4570 includes all majo r CAFs in the Valley, in addition to many non-major CAFs. The following table shows t he number of facilitie s that will potentially be major sources in the Valley:

Livestock Category Applicability

of Rule 4570 # of facilities Subject to

Rule 4570 Potential Major

Source Thresholds # of

Potential

major

sources Dairy 500 lactating

cows ≈ 900 7,692 milk cow equivalents ≈ 0-5

Beef

Feedlots 3,500 beef

cattle 12 12,500 cattle only if lagoons on-site 0

Other Cattle Operations 7,500 calves, heifers, and

other cattle --- 16,667 heifers & 22,222 calves 0

ChickensBroilers & Egg Layers 400,000 head 32 400,000 broilers and layers ≈ 32

Turkeys 100,000 head 35 200,000 turkeys ≈ 11

Swine 3,000 head 1 ≈ 4,500 1 Sheep and

Goats 15,000 head 0 --- ---

Horses 2,500 head 0 --- --- Ducks 400,000 head 0 400,000 ducks 0

Other

Livestock

Not Previously

Mentioned 30,000 head --- --- ---

Given that RACT only applies to major sour ces of emissions, based on the table above, only a small percentage of fac ilities subject to Rule 4570 are actually subject to federal RACT requirements. However, Rule 4570 requires facilities greater than the thresholds listed above to comply with the requirements of Rule 4570, which is a much larger set of facilities, and hence more stringent.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

27 3.2 THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 4570 FAR EXCEED RACT

Rule 4570 requires oper ators of a CAF to implement mu ltiple VOC mitigation measures for the major emission sources at each facility. The sources covered by the proposed rule and the number of measures requir ed are shown in the following tables:

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options Compared to Total Number of Options

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

Silage 1 optional of 2 total Option 1 contains four required measures

Milk Parlor 1 required of 1 total

Freestalls 2 mandatory + 1 optional = 3 of 5 total

Corrals 6 mandatory + 1 optional = 7 of 9 total

Solid Manure 1 optional of 2 total Liquid Manure 1 optional of 4 total Land Application 2 optional of 6 total

TOTAL 22 of 35

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options Compared to Total Number of Options

Area Beef Feedlot
Feed (TMR) 2 optional of 3 total

Silage 1 optional of 2 total Option 1 contains four required measures Housing 4 mandatory + 1 optional = 5 of 6 total

Solid Manure 1 required of 1 total Liquid Manure 1 optional of 4 total Land Application 2 optional of 6 total

TOTAL 13 of 22

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options Compared to Total Number of Options

Area Other Cattle Feed (TMR) 2 optional of 3 total

Silage 1 optional of 2 total Option 1 contains four required measures

Freestalls 2 mandatory + 1 optional = 3 of 4 total

Corrals 5 mandatory + 1 optional = 6 of 8 total

Solid Manure 1 optional of 2 total Liquid Manure 1 optional of 4 totalSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

28 Land Application 2 optional of 6 total

TOTAL 16 of 29

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options Compared to Total Number of Options

Area Swine Feed (TMR) 2 required of 2 total Housing 3 required of 3 total Liquid Manure 1 optional of 3 total Land Application 1 required of 1 total

TOTAL 7 of 9

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options Compared to Total Number of Options

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

Solid Manure/ Separated Solids 1 required of 1 total

Liquid Manure 1 optional of 3 total

TOTAL 5 of 7

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options Compared to Total Number of Options

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

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

Solid Manure/ Separated Solids 1 required of 1 total

Liquid Manure 1 optional of 3 total

TOTAL 11 of 14

3.2.1 RULE 4570 REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY EPA AS BACT

The District has issued permits to well over 40 new and expanding dairies over the last few years. These permits were issued with current Rule 4570 mitigation measures as a part of the Best Ava ilable Control Technolog y (BACT) requirements. The District also issued permits to a couple of new and modi fying poultry operations. These permits

were also issued with the curr ent Rule 4570 mitigation measur es as part of BACT. As discussed above, the proposed ru le amendments with strengt hen the rule requirement

from the current Rule 4570 r equirements. Therefore, si nce these measures have beenSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

29 considered to be BACT for these New Source Review projects and BACT is a level of control more stringent than RACT, the proposed Rule 4570 exceeds the RACT requirements

3.2.2 RULE 4570 IS FAR MORE EFFE CTIVE THAN OTHER AIR DISTRICTS

As the largest agriculture area in the state, the District took the lead in developing the variety of mitigation measures list in the initial District Rule 4570. This list was essentially identical for all air districts that identify mitigation measures in their rules. However, the proposed rule has re-evaluated all of the mitigati on measures from the current rule in light of the new science. The proposed rule goes much further than the current rule and strengthens current rule require ments, lowers threshold limits to bring in additional CAFs, requires additional mitigati on measures for the larger VOC sources (silage and feed), tightens and clarifies ex isting mitigation measures, and adds additional compliance language including monitoring, test ing, and recordkeeping to improve enforceability.

The following California air district rules were compared to District Rule 4570:

• South Coast AQMD Rule 223, adopted June 2, 2006

• South Coast AQMD Rule 1127, adopted August 6, 2004

• Bay Area AQMD Regulation 2 Rule 10, adopted July 19, 2006

• Ventura County APCD Rule 23 (E xemptions), amended April 8, 2008

• Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Ru le 496, adopted August, 24, 2006

• Imperial County AQMD Rule 217 and Policy 38, adopted October 10, 2006

• Butte County APCD Rule 450, adopted December 21, 2006

It is important to note that only Distric t Rule 4570 and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 496 are prohibitory rules. For th is reason, these rules include detailed recordkeeping as well as monitoring and test ing requirements. Ge nerally, the level of detail in a prohibitory rule is absent from permit rules because the purpose of a permit rule is different from the pur pose of a prohibitory rule.

Class Two Mitigation Measures

The current Rule 4570 has two classes of mi tigation measures available as options. Class One mitigation measures were generally management practices such as washing off manure more frequently, covering feed an d manure piles, and manipulating animal

diets. Class one measures were demonstrated in the Rule to meet BARCT. Class Two mitigation measures were more technica lly advanced capture and control measures such as enclosing animal housing and venting to a control device, storing feed and manure in bags or enclosed structures and venting to a control device, and using digesters or advanced composting met hods for manure treatment. Class TwoSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

30 measures have been identified as measures/technology being beyond BARCT, in some cases beyond BACT, not feasible , or not cost effective. Therefore, all Class Two measures have been removed from the pro posed rule with the exception of the measures that proved to be feasible and co st effective. A detailed discussion and analysis of the Class Two mitigat ion measures are included in Appendix E of the Staff Report.

3.2.2.1 South Coast AQMD Rule 223

3.2.2.1.1 Applicability/Exem ption/Large CAF Definition

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 was adopted on June 2, 2006 and has since not been

amended. South Coast AQMD adopted ARB’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 defines large CAF the same way. In addition, propos ed Rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the following CAFs:

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability.

3.2.2.1.2 Requirements for Large Dairy CAFs

Feed Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measur es for feed and two mitigation measures for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigat ion measures and

chose another one from a list of three. O perators must also implement one silage mitigation measure from a list of two. Since one of the silage mitigation measures in the proposed rule includes an option that requires the selection of four additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be r equired to perform up to four additional mitigation measures within that option. In the South Coast AQMD rule, there are nine feed mitigation measures, from which the operat or must implement fi ve. In the South Coast AQMD rule, there is no requirement to control emissions from silage. Since silage has been found to be one of the largest sources of emissions at a dairy, District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

Milk Parlor Mitigation Measures

The milk parlor mitigation measures fo r SCAQMD includes one Class One and one Class Two mitigation measure. District Ru le 4570 contains the same mitigation
measures included in the SCAQMD rule as Class One and has removed the Class Two mitigation measures due to infeasibility; s ee Appendix E in the Staff Report for more detail. Therefore, both rules will be c onsidered identical in this category.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

31 Freestall Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has five mitigation meas ures, two of which are mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has eight Class One mitigations measures, from which facilities are required to implement at least two. District Rule 4570 requires one additional miti gation measure; therefore, District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has three Class One mitigation measures that are more stringent than the corresponding District Rule 4570 measures: ( inspect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks; remove animal wast e that is not dry from individual cow freestall beds; and rake, harrow, scr ape, or grade bedding in freestalls ). The South Coast rule requires pipes and troughs to be inspected daily, and manure from freestall beds to be removed daily, whereas District Ru le 4570 requires both of these measures to be carried out once every 7 days for larg e dairies and once every 14 days for medium dairies. The South Coast rule also require s freestall beds to be raked/harrowed/graded at least twice every seven days, whereas Dist rict Rule 4570 requires this measure to be carried out once every 7 days for large dai ries and once every 14 days for medium dairies. Although, South Coast rule has a higher frequency for these measures, the emissions generated from these sources are not significant, including the reductions achieved from the overall dairy. In addi tion, the CAF stakeholders question the cost effectiveness of a daily frequency. Based on the above, the frequency required by the South Coast Rule can be considered to exceed RACT requirements.

Corral Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has 9 mitigation meas ures, 6 of which are mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also requir ed to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has 14 Class One mitigation measures and two Class Two mitigation measur es, from which facilities are required to

choose at least six. District Rule 4570 requires one additional mitigation measure; therefore, District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has one Class One mitigation measure ( inspect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks ) that is more stringent than the corresponding

District Rule 4570 measure. The South Coast rule requires this measure to be carried out daily, whereas District Rule 4570 require s it to be carried out only once every 7 days. Although, South Coast rule has a higher frequency for this measure, the

emissions reduction difference from the tw o frequencies are not significant, including

the reductions achieved from the overall dairy. In additi on, as discussed earlier the frequency required by the South Coast Ru le exceeds RACT when compared to inspection leak requirements in other Rules and regulations.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

32 Solid Waste and Separated Solids Mitigation Measures

The latest science has shown the emissions from solid waste and separated solids pile to be a very small fraction of total emissions at dairies. Theref ore, District Rule 4570 contains only two mitigation measures, from which operators are r equired to choose at
least one. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 ha s three Class One mitigation measures and three Class Two mitigation measures, from wh ich facilities are required to choose at

least two.

Since the emissions from solid manure account for a very small fraction of emissions from the overall dairy, there will be a negligible emission reductions difference if more measures are required from th is category. As discussed earlier, proposed District Rule 4570 focuses on the larger sources of emissi ons so that emissions reductions can be

maximized.

Liquid Waste Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has four mitigation measur es, from which operators are required to
choose at least one. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has five Class One mitigation measures and five Class Two mitigation m easures, from which operators are required to choose at least one. Since only one measure is required by both rules, all the mitigation measures are similar in stringency.

Land Application of Ma nure Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures required out of six optional measures. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has four mitigat ion measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least tw o. All the mitigation measur es are similar in stringency.

3.2.2.1.3 Requirements for Poultry Large CAFs

There is a large degree of variability in the manure management practices, housing techniques, and potential feeding practices for the different type of poultry operations in the Valley. These differences are discussed in detail in the Staff Report. Due to these differences, the proposed rule bifurcates th e poultry category as follows: 1) layers, 2) broilers, ducks and turkeys.

Although on the surface the poul try requirements results in fewer mitigation measures compared to the other rules, the segregating of the types of poultry has allowed the mitigation measures to be tailored specifical ly to the type of poultry operation. In addition, all proposed measures are now mandat ed rather than left as options. Due to this reconfiguration and taking into consider ation the latest science, the proposed rule requirements for poultry are more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 223.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

33 3.2.2.1.4 Requirements for Other Large CAF Categories

In addition to dairy and poultry CAF mitigati on measures discussed above, District Rule 4570 provides specific mitigation measures for beef cattle feedlots, other cattle, and
swine CAFs. South Coast AQMD Rule 2 23 does not address mitigation measures for these additional CAF categories. For these types of large CAFs, District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

3.2.2.1.5 Requirements – Suspension and Substituti on of Mitigation Measures

Both rules allow the temporary suspension of a mitigat ion measure upon the determination by a certified veterinarian or nutritionist that such a suspension is necessary for animal health purposes. The District must be notif ied within 48 hours, and a new measure must be impl emented if the suspension is expected to last longer than 30 days. In addition, both rules allow fo r substitution of one mitigation measure with an equivalent or more stringent one with the submission of the appropriate information. Therefore, the suspension and substitution requirements of both rules are equally stringent.

3.2.2.1.6 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements

District Rule 4570 requires records to be maintain ed and retained for at least five years, whereas South Coast AQMD Rule 223 require s records to be retained for three years for non-Title V facilities and five years for Title V facilities. District Rule 4570 therefore has a more stringent record retention requirement.

District Rule 4570 requires facilities not subj ect to the mitigation measure requirements

to maintain sufficient records to demonstrat e their exemption status . Facilities subject to the mitigation measure requirements must monitor, test, and maintain sufficient records to demonstrate implementation of eac h mitigation measure selected. Facilities

must also maintain anim al population records.

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 requires t he maintenance of animal population records but does not require specific records needed to demonstrate implementation of each mitigation measure selected. District Rule 4570 is therefore more stringent in the type of records required to be maintained.

3.2.2.1.7 Conclusion – Comparison with South Coast AQMD Rule 223

Based on the analysis of t he CAF categories in District Rule 4570 and South Coast AQMD Rule 223, it is clear that Distric t Rule 4570 is far more stringent than South
Coast AQMD Rule 223. There are diffe rences in the frequency with which some mitigation measures are to be implemented. Ho wever, as stated earlier, many of theseSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

34 sources are a small portion of a dairy’s over all emissions. For the larger emission sources, such as feed handling and cow housing, emission strategies from District Rule 4570 are far more stringent especially since South Coast AQMD Rule 223 does not address silage. The District rule requires fa cilities to choose more mitigation measures, makes several mitigation measures mandatory, and includes new mitigation measures

which are based on the latest science available.

District Rule 4570 also provides mitigation for more CAF categories (beef feedlots, other cattle, and swine) that are not addressed by South Coast AQMD Rule 223, and also has

much more detailed recordk eeping requirements to dem onstrate implementation of selected mitigation measures. District Rule 4570 is, therefore, fa r more stringent than
South Coast AQMD Rule 223.

3.2.2.2 South Coast AQMD Rule 1127

3.2.2.2.1 Applicability/Exem ption/Large CAF Definition

South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 was adopted on August 4, 2004 and has since not been

amended.

South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 applies to dairies with 50 or more cows, heifers, and/or calves. The rule applies to dairy farms and re lated operations such as heifer and calf farms and the manure produced on them. By comparison, District Rule 4570 applies to large and medium CAFs regardless of anima l species and covers all major processes within the CAF. For dairies, District Rule 4570 applies to those CAFs with more than 500 milking cows, but applies to more than just manure-handling o perations, such as feed and silage which are one of the largest sources of VOC emissions at a dairy. Although the South Coast Rule has a lower applicability threshold, the overall control effectiveness of Rule 1127 when compared to Dis trict Rule 4570, is far less stringent.

3.2.2.2.2 Requirements for Dairy Large CAFs

Feed, Milking Parlor, and Freestall Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measur es for feed and two mitigation measures for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and

chose another one from a list of three. O perators must also implement one silage mitigation measure from a list of two. There will be a total of five feed mitigation measures and one silage mitigation measure. Since one of the silage mitigation measures in the proposed rule includes an op tion that requires the selection of four additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to four additional mitigation m easures within that option.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

35 For the milking parlor, the District rule has one mandatory mitigation measure. District Rule 4570 has five mitigation measures for freestalls, two of which are mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three to implement. South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 does not address these operations. Since feed and silage are the largest source of emissions at a dairy, and SCAQMD rule 1127 does not apply to these categories, then District Rule 4570 overall, is far more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127.

Corral Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has nine mitigation measur es, six of which ar e mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three. South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 has eight mitigation measures, from which facilitie s are required to choose at least six. The mitigation measures required by South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 specify the removal of manure from the corrals, the minimiza tion of water in the corrals, and the cleaning schedule and cleaning strategy for the corrals . While the mitigation measur es in the two rules are not phrased the same way, they cover similar r equirements. District Rule 4570 requires one additional measure; therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent.

Solid Waste, Separated Solids, and Liqui d Waste, and Land Ap plication Mitigation

Measures

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures for solid waste/separated solids, from which operators are r equired to choose at least one. For liquid waste, District Rule 4570 has four mitigation measures for liquid waste, from which operat ors are required to

choose at least one. District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures for land application of manure r equired out of six optional measur es. South Coast AQMD Rule

1127 states that manure re moved must be either tr eated at an approved manure processing operation, or appli ed on agricultural land with loca l approval. South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 does not specify different mitigation measures for solid waste, separated solids, or liquid waste. District Rule 4570 has specific mitigation measures for each of these operations; therefore, it is able to bette r target the reduction of emissions for the different operations. Distr ict Rule 4570 is therefore as stringent or more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127.

3.2.2.2.3 Requirements for Other Large CAFs

District Rule 4570 provides specific mitigati on measures for beef cattle feedlots, other cattle, poultry, and swine CAFs. South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 does not address mitigation measures for these additional CAF ca tegories. Therefore, District Rule 4570 is more stringent under this category.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

36 3.2.2.2.4 Requirements – Suspension and Substituti on of Mitigation Measures

South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 provides one exem ption per year from one of the corral clearings required every 90 days if the moisture content in the corrals is greater than 50%. The operator is requi red to notify the AQMD 30 days before the required cleaning, and test moisture content weekly. If moisture content is still above 50% when the cleaning is due, the operator may claim the exemption.

In comparison, District Rule 4570 allows an operator to temporarily suspend any mitigation measure as long as the su spension is recommended by a licensed

veterinarian of animal nutritionist on the bas is of animal health. The operator must notify the District within 48 hours prior to the suspension. If the suspension is expected to last longer than 30 days, then the operator must submit a new mitigation plan that identifies a new mitigation measure to be implemented in place of the suspended one.

District Rule 4570’s exemption under this cat egory is much more stringent because it is only a temporary suspension that cannot ex ceed 30 days, whereas South Coast AQMD Rule 1127’s exemption may be permanent, without any require ment to makeup for the suspended mitigation.

Therefore, in this category of mitigation measure suspen sions/substitutions, District Rule 4570 is more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127.

3.2.2.2.5 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements

Both South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 and Distri ct Rule 4570 require monitoring, record keeping and source testing as appropriate and sufficient to provide evidence of each mitigation measure being implemented.

In addition to record keeping, Rule 1127 r equires an annual report of manure being shipped out of the dairy. No annual reporti ng is required by Rule 4570. Rule 1127 requires records be retained for 3 years for minor sources and 5 years for major sources, whereas Rule 4570 requires records be retained for five years for all sources.

Overall, the monitoring, testing and record keeping requirements are similar for both

rules.

3.2.2.2.6 Conclusion – Comparison wi th South Coast AQMD Rule 1127

For dairy CAFs, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127. District Rule 4570 requires emission reductions from four additional emission categories - milk parlors, f eed/silage, freestall barns, and liquid manure - that are not addressed at all by South Coast AQMD Ru le 1127 as well as requiring emission

reductions from CAFs from ot her animal species. Feed alo ne comprises of the majoritySAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

37 of emissions at a dairy. District Rule 4570 re quires facilities to choose more mitigation measures, makes several mitigation measur es mandatory, and includes new mitigation

measures which are based on the latest sci ence. District Rule 4570 also provides specific mitigation measures for beef cattle feedlots, other cattle, poultry, and swine CAFs, while South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 does not. District Rule 4570 is, therefore, far more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127.

3.2.2.3 Bay Area AQ MD Regulation 2 Rule 10 (Rule 2-10)

Bay Area AQMD Rule 2-10 is a permit rule. As such, it has fewer specifics about large CAFs than District Rule 4570, which is a prohibitory rule.

3.2.2.3.1 Applicability/Exem ption/Large CAF Definition

Bay Area AQMD Rule 2-10 was adopted on July 19, 2006 and has since not been

amended.

Bay Area AQMD adopted ARB’s definition of la rge CAF. District Rule 4570 defines large CAF the same way. In addition, propos ed rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the following CAFs:

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability.

3.2.2.3.2 Requirements for Large CAFs

The Bay Area permit conditions must implem ent control measures that represent Reasonably Available Control Technology (R ACT) to reduce emissions of VOC, NOx and PM from the facility. Ru le 2-10 requires RACT mitigati on measures rather than the more stringent BARCT controls required by Di strict Rule 4570 as specifically noted in the Bay Area AQMD staff repor t for their rule. A phone call to Bay Area AQMD staff

verified that there is no list of RACT miti gation measures in plac e should a large CAF apply for a permit. In this respect, Distric t Rule 4570 is more stringent than Bay Area
AQMD Rule 2-10.

3.2.2.3.3 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements

District Rule 4570 requires records to be maintain ed and retained for at least five years, whereas Bay Area AQMD Rule 2-10 requires re cords to be retained for three years.

District Rule 4570 therefore has a more stringent record retention requirement.

District Rule 4570 requires facilities not subj ect to the mitigation measure requirements

to maintain sufficient records to demonstrat e their exemption status . Facilities subjectSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

38 to the mitigation measure requirements must maintain sufficient re cords to demonstrate implementation of each mitigati on measure selected. Facili ties must also maintain animal population records. Bay Area AQMD Rule 2-10 requires the maintenance of animal population records but does not requi re specific records needed to demonstrate implementation of each mitigat ion measure selected. Distr ict Rule 4570 is therefore more stringent in the type of re cords required to be maintained.

3.2.2.3.4 Conclusion – Comparison with Bay Area AQMD Regul ation 2 Rule 10

District Rule 4570 requires facilities to c hoose specific mitigation measures, makes several mitigation measures mandatory, and includes new mitigation measures which are based on the latest science available. In addition, District Rule 4570 has lower applicability thresholds for dairies, chickens , and ducks. Based on this information and the discussion above, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than Bay Area AQMD

Rule 2-10.

3.2.2.4 Ventura County APCD Rule 23 – Exemptions from Permit

In response to SB 700, Ventura County APCD re vised its “Exemptions from Permit” rule to remove an exemption for agricultural oper ations, including CAFs. Ventura County APCD does not have a specific rule for CAFs. In its staff report fo r the rule revision, Ventura County APCD staff noted that no facilities in their jurisdiction would meet the “large CAF” definition and there was no expect ation that a large CAF would move into the area in the foreseeable future; theref ore, no separate CAF rule was necessary.

3.2.2.4.1 Applicability/Exem ption/Large CAF Definition

Ventura County APCD adopted AR B’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 defines large CAF the same way. In additi on, proposed rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the following CAFs:

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability.

3.2.2.4.2 Requirements for Large CAFs

There are no facilities that would trigger t he large CAF threshold within the county, as stated in the Ventura County staff report fo r amending Rule 23. The Ventura County

APCD New Source Review Rule does not lis t mitigation measures for large CAFs. Instead, BACT would be triggered by a new CAF that met the “large CAF” definition or BACT would be triggered if an existing CAF expanded operations enough to meet the “large CAF” definition. At that point, Ventura County APCD staff would determine BACT

for the CAF.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

39 3.2.2.4.3 Conclusion – Ventura County APCD Rule 23

Ventura County APCD does not have a specific rule for CAFs, therefore District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

3.2.2.5 Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 496

Like District Rule 4570, Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 is a prohibitory rule, meaning that there are detailed requir ements for operators.

3.2.2.5.1 Applicability/Exem ption/Large CAF Definition

Sacramento Metropolitan (Sac Metro) AQMD Rule 496 was adopted on August 24,

2006 and and has since not been amended. Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 adopted ARB’s defin ition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 defines large CAF the same way. In additi on, proposed Rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the following CAFs:

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability.

3.2.2.5.2 Requirements for Dairy Large CAFs

Feed Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measur es for feed and two mitigation measures for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and

chose another one from a list of three. O perators must also implement one silage mitigation measure from a list of two. There will be a total of five feed mitigation measures and one silage mitigation measure. Since one of the silage mitigation measures in the proposed rule includes an op tion that requires the selection of four additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to four additional mitigation m easures within that option.

Sac Metro AQMD has seven Class One miti gation measures for feed and two Class One mitigation measures for silage. There are three Class Two mitigation measures for silage. Operators must implement four feed mitigation measures and one silage mitigation measure for five to tal feed mitigation measures.

District Rule 4570 requires a total of six feed/silage mitigation measures which is greater than the five required by Sac Metro Rule 496. In addition, District Rule 4570 includes newly developed miti gation measures and is making several of the optionalSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

40 mitigation measures mandatory. Sac Metro has not re-evaluated these measures using the latest science; ther efore, the District rule is far more stringent.

Milk Parlor Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has one required milk parlor mitigation measure. Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 also only requires one mitigation m easure for milk parlors. Since both rules only require the use of one mitigation measur e, both rules will be considered identical for this category.

Freestall Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has five freestall mitigatio n measures, two of which are mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also r equired to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three. Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 has eight Class One mitigations measures and one Class Two miti gation measure from which facilities are required to implement at least two.

Rule 4570 will be considered more stringent si nce it requires more mitigation measures.

Corral Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has nine corral mitigation m easures, six of which are mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three. Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 has 15 Class One mitigation measures, which are all optio nal, and three Class Two mitigat ion measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least si x. District Rule 4570 requires one additional mitigation measure; therefore in this res pect District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 has one Class One mitigation measure ( inspect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks ) that is more stringent than the corresponding District Rule 4570 measure. The Sac Metro rule requires this measure to be carried out daily, whereas District Rule 4570 requires it to be carried out only once every 7 days. Although, Sac Metro AQMD rule has a higher frequency for this measure, the emissions generated from this source is not significant, including the reductions achieved from the overall dairy. In addition, the frequency required by the Sac Metro AQMD rule exceeds RACT when compared to inspection leak re quirements in other Rules and regulations. Overall, District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

Solid Waste and Separated Solids Mitigation Measures

The latest science has shown the emissions from solid waste and separated solids pile are a very small fraction of emissions at dai ries. Therefore, Distr ict Rule 4570 contains only two mitigation measures, from which operat ors are required to choose at least one.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

41 Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 has five Class One mitigation measures and three Class Two mitigation measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least two.

Since the emissions from solid manure account for a very small fraction of emissions from the overall dairy, there will be a negligible emission reductions difference if more measures are required from th is category. As discussed earlier, proposed District Rule 4570 focuses on the larger sources of emissi ons so that emissions reductions can be

maximized.

Liquid Waste Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has four mitigation meas ures mitigation measures, from which operators are required to choose at least one. The Sac Metro rule has four Class One mitigation measures and four Class Two mitigat ion measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least one. Since on ly one measure is required, both rules are equivalent in this respect.

Land Application of Ma nure Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measur es required out of six measures. Sac
Metro AQMD Rule 496 has six Class One miti gation measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least tw o. Since two mitigation meas ures are required, both rules are equivalent in this respect.

3.2.2.5.3 Requirements for Poultry Large CAFs

There is a large degree of variability in the manure management practices, housing techniques, and potential feeding practices for the different type of poultry operations in the valley. These differences are discu ssed in the staff report. Due to these differences, the proposed rule breaks the poultr y category down as follows: 1) layers, 2) broilers, ducks and turkeys.

Although on the surface the poul try requirements results in fewer mitigation measures compared to the other rules, the segregating of the types of poultry has allowed the mitigation measures to be tailored specifical ly to the type of poultry operation. In addition, all proposed measures are now mandat ed rather than left as options. Due to this reconfiguration and taking into consider ation the latest science, the proposed rule requirements for poultry are more stringent than Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496.

3.2.2.5.4 Other Large CAFs

In addition to dairy and poultry CAF mitigati on measures discussed above, District Rule 4570 provides specific mitigation measure op tion tables for beef cattle feedlots, other cattle, and swine CAFs. Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 does not address mitigationSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

42 measures for these additional CA F categories. For these types of large CAFs, District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

3.2.2.5.5 Requirements – Suspension and Substituti on of Mitigation Measures

Both rules allow for substitution of one mitigation measure with an equivalent or more stringent measure with the submission of the appropriate application. District Rule 4570 also allows the temporary suspension of a mitigation measure upon the determination by a certified veterinarian or nutritionist t hat such a suspension is necessary for animal health purposes. The District must be not ified within 48 hours, and a new measure must be implemented if the suspension is ex pected to last longer than 30 days. The Sac Metro AQMD rule does not have a specif ic provision for temporary suspension of mitigation measures. Based on the discussion, Rule 4570 is as stringent as Sac Metro

Rule 496.

3.2.2.5.6 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements

The testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions of District Rule 4570 and Sac Metro Rule 496 are essentially id entical and are of equal stringency.

3.2.2.5.7 Conclusion – Comparis on with Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496

For dairy CAFs, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496. District Rule 4570 requires emission re ductions from four additional emission categories - milk parlors, feed, freestall barns, and li quid manure - that are not addressed at all by Sac Metro AQMD Rule 4 96 as well as requiring emission reductions

from CAFs from other animal species. The District rule also requires facilities to choose more mitigation measures, makes several mi tigation measures mandatory, and includes new mitigation measures which are based on the latest science available. In addition, Rule 4570 applies to dairies with greater than 500 milk co ws and 400,000 layers and broilers while Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 ap plies to dairies with 1,000 milk cows or more and broiler and layer operations with more than 650,000 birds. Based on this information and the discussion above, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than Sac
Metro AQMD Rule 496.

3.2.2.6 Imperial County APCD Rule 217 – Large Confined Animal Facilities Permits Required and ICAPCD Policy Number 38

Imperial County APCD Rule 217 is a permits rule. The rule directs operators to a policy for the mitigation measures. The policy al so spells out the number of mitigation measures the operator must implement for each operation within the CAF. The following discussion compares the mitigation m easures in the Imperial County policy to

the measures in District Rule 4570.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

43 3.2.2.6.1 Applicability/Exem ption/Large CAF Definition

Imperial County APCD Rule 217 was adopted on October 10, 2006 and has since not

been amended.

Imperial County APCD adopted AR B’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 defines large CAF the same way. In additi on, proposed Rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the following CAFs:

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Imperial County Policy Number 38 only lists mitigation measures for dairy operations and beef feedlot operations while District Ru le 4570 covers additional CAFs (swine, chicken layer, chicken broiler, duck and tu rkey, and other CAFs). Therefore, more CAF’s are subject to the r equirements of District Rule 4570 than Imperial County APCD

Rule 217.

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability.

3.2.2.6.2 Requirements for Dairy Large CAFs

Feed Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measur es for feed and two mitigation measures for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and

chose another one from a list of three. O perators must also implement one silage mitigation measure from a list of two. T here will be a total of five feed mitigation measures and one silage mitigation measure. Since one of the silage mitigation measures in the proposed rule includes an op tion that requires the selection of four additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to four additional mitigation meas ures within that option. Imperial County APCD policy has a menu of nine mitigation measures for feed with mitigation measures for silage

included in the menu. Imperial County APCD po licy requires the sele ction of three feed mitigation measures. This is three less mi tigation measures than required by District

Rule 4570.

In addition, the compliance time for the mi tigation measures in the Imperial County APCD are longer than for those in District Rule 4570 (compliance time for removing

feed after a rain event is 72 hours in the Im perial County policy and 24 hours in District Rule 4570).

Therefore, District Rule 4570 is far mo re stringent than the Imperial County APCD policy.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

44 Milk Parlor Mitigation Measures

Imperial County Policy has only on e mitigation measure for the milk parlor. The District rule also only has one mitigation measure. Since the mitigation measure is identical,

both rules are identical under this section.

Freestall Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has five freestall mitigation measures, two of which are mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also r equired to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three. Imperial County APCD policy has eight mitigation measures, from which operators are required to choose at least two. Since District Rule 4570, requires three mitigation measures and mandates two out of the three, District Rule 4570 is more stringent t han Imperial County APCD’s policy.

Corral Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has nine mitigation measur es, six of which ar e mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also requir ed to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three. Imperial County APCD Policy Nu mber 38 has eight mitigation measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least four.

For three of the mitigation measures, the compliance time s differ between the District rule and the Imperial County APCD policy. For these measures, the Imperial County policy compliance times are long er than the District rule ti me lines. For these three mitigation measures, the District rule is more stringent because the District rule’s compliance time is much shorter for otherwise identical mitigation measures.

For two of the mitigation m easures, the manure depth differs significantly between the District rule and the Imperial County APCD po licy. For these measures, the Imperial County policy compliance depths are deeper t han the District rule depths. For these two mitigation measures, the District rule is more stringent because the District rule’s compliance depths are shallower for other wise identical mitigation measures.

Therefore, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than the Imperial County Policy

Solid Waste and Separated Solids Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has two solid waste and separated solids mitigation measures, from which operators are r equired to choose at least one. Imperial County APCD policy has four mitigation measures from which facilit ies are required to choose at least one. Therefore, both rules are i dentical in this category.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

45 There are a few differences in the Imper ial County APCD policy mitigation measures themselves, when compared to District Ru le 4570. Imperial County APCD policy requires that manure piles ar e covered year round whereas District Rule 4570 requires that the piles be covered from October thro ugh May – the months t he District is most likely to have rainfall. Separated solids pile s are not specifically addressed in the Imperial County policy. These differences, although worth noting, are not expected to

influence the overall effectiveness of Rule 4570 and Rule 4570 is as stringent as the Imperial County APCD policy.

Liquid Waste Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has four liquid waste mitigation measures mitigation measures, from which operators are r equired to choose at least one. Imperial County APCD policy has four mitigation measures, from which operator s are required to choose at least one. Imperial County APCD Policy 38 contains an option to manage the facility so that lagoons only contain waste from milking parlor and stor m water as a mitigation

measure. District Rule 4570 does not contain this option. This difference, although worth noting, is not expected to influence the overall effectiveness of Rule 4570 and Rule 4570 is as stringent as the Imperial Count y APCD policy.

Land Application of Ma nure Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measur es that are mandator y if applicable. Imperial County APCD policy has a menu of five mitigation measures from which operators are required to choose two. Since two measures are required by both rules, they will be considered identic al under this category.

3.2.2.6.3 Requirements for Beef Feedlot Large CAFs

Feed Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measur es for feed and two mi tigation measures for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and

chose another one from a list of three. O perators must also implement one silage mitigation measure from a list of two. There will be a total of five feed mitigation measures and one silage mitigation measure. Since one of the silage mitigation measures in the proposed rule includes an op tion that requires the selection of four additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to four additional mitigation m easures within that option. Imperial County APCD policy requires the selection of thr ee feed mitigation measures. Ru le 4570 requires at least 5 mitigation measures, two more than Imperial County. Therefore, District Rule 4570 is more stringent than the Imperial County APCD policySAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

46 Animal Housing Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has nine mitigation measur es, six of which ar e mandatory to be implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure from the remaining three. Imperial County APCD Policy Nu mber 38 has nine mitigation measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least four. Since operators in Imperial County are required to implement fewer mitigation measures, District Rule 4570 is more stringent.

For three of the mitigation m easures, the compliance times differ significantly between the District rule and the Imperia l County APCD policy. For t hese measures, the Imperial County policy compliance times are longer than the District rule time lines. For these three mitigation measures, the District rule is more stringent because the District rule’s compliance time is much shorter for otherwise identical mitigation measures.

For three of the mitigation m easures, the manure depth differs between the District rule and the Imperial County APCD policy. For these measures, the Imperial County policy compliance depths are deeper than the District rule depths. For these two mitigation measures, the District rule is more stri ngent because the District rule’s compliance depths are shallower for otherwise identical mitigation measures.

Solid Waste and Separated Solids Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has two solid waste and separated solids mitigation measures, from which operators are r equired to choose at least one. Imperial County APCD policy has four mitigation measures from which facilit ies are required to choose at least one. Therefore, both rules are i dentical in this category.

Imperial County APCD policy requires manure piles to be covered year round whereas District Rule 4570 requires that the piles be covered from October through May – the months most likely to have rainfall. The differences between the two districts, although noteworthy are not expected to influence the overall effectiveness of Rule 4570 and Rule 4570 is as stringent as the Imperial Count y APCD policy.

Liquid Manure Handling

Imperial County APCD policy does not address liquid manure handling for beef feedlot operations. District Rule 4570 requires one m easure to be selected out of a menu of options. Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in this category.

Land Application of Ma nure Mitigation Measures

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measur es that are mandator y if applicable. Imperial County APCD policy has a menu of five mitigation measures from whichSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

47 operators are required to choose two. Since two measures are required by both rules, they will be considered identic al under this category.

3.2.2.6.4 Requirements for Other Large CAFs

In the same manner as for dairy and beef feedlot operations, District Rule 4570 specifies mitigation methods for large confined animal facilities other than dairies and beef feedlots. Imperial Count y APCD Policy 38 only has miti gation measures for diary and beef feedlot operations. In comparing the two documents, District Rule 4570 is therefore more comprehensive and more stringent.

3.2.2.6.5 Requirements – Suspension and Substituti on of Mitigation Measures

Both rules allow for substitution of one mitigation measure with an equivalent or more stringent one with the submission of the appropriate app lication. District Rule 4570 also allows the temporary suspension of a mi tigation measure upon the determination by a

certified veterinarian or nutritionist that such a suspension is necessary for animal health purposes. The District must be not ified within 48 hours, and a new measure must be implemented if the suspension is ex pected to last longer than 30 days. The Imperial County APCD policy does allow fo r temporary suspension of mitigation measures under circumstances similar to District Rule 4570. Based on the discussion, Rule 4570 is as stringent as Imperial County APCD Rule 217.

3.2.2.6.6 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements

District Rule 4570 requires records to be maintain ed and retained for at least five years, whereas Imperial County APCD Rule 217 requires records to be retained for two years.

District Rule 4570 therefore has a more stringent record retention requirement.

District Rule 4570 requires facilities not subjec t to the mitigation m easure requirements

to maintain sufficient records to demonstrat e their exemption status . Facilities subject to the mitigation measure requirements must maintain sufficient re cords to demonstrate implementation of each mitigati on measure selected. Facili ties must also maintain animal population records. Imperial County APCD Rule 217 requires the maintenance of animal population records but does not require specific records needed to demonstrate implementation of each mitigation measure selected. District Rule 4570 is therefore more stringent in the type of records required to be maintained.

3.2.2.6.7 Conclusion – Comparison wi th Imperial County APCD Rule 217

District Rule 4570 contains mitigation m easures that have been developed using detailed analysis of the latest science available. Several of these mitigation measures are mandatory unlike the optiona l nature of the mitigation m easures in Imperial County

APCD Rule 217. District Rule 4570 also has a lower applicability threshold for dairiesSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

48 (500 milk cows). In addition, Imperial Co unty Policy Number 38 only lists mitigation measures for dairy operations and beef f eedlot operations whil e District Rule 4570 covers additional CAFs (swine, chicken laye r, chicken broiler, duck and turkey, and other CAFs). Based on this information and the discussion above, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than Imper ial County APCD Rule 217.

3.2.2.7 Butte County AQMD Rule 450 – Large Confined Animal Facilities

Butte County AQMD Rule 450 is a permits rule. It outlines, in general terms, the requirements for a complete permit applicat ion and how the staff would evaluate and approve/disapprove the permit application.

3.2.2.7.1 Applicability/Exem ption/Large CAF Definition

Butte County APCD Rule 450 was adopted on December 21, 2006 and has since not

been amended.

Butte County APCD adopted ARB’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 defines large CAF the same way. In addition, propos ed rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the following CAFs:

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability

3.2.2.7.2 Large CAF Requirements

The Butte County AQMD rule requires large CA Fs to obtain a permit and to submit and implement a mitigation plan; however the nu mber of mitigation measures required and specific mitigation measures is not listed. District Rule 4570 spells out the number of mitigation measures an operator is required to implement and has a menu of specific mitigation measures. In this regard, District Rule 4570 is more stringent than the Butte County rule.

3.2.2.7.3 Testing, Records, and Reporting Requirements

The Butte County rule requires that all CAFs re cord the daily number of animals on-site. These records are to be kept on-site for tw o years and presented if requested. District Rule 4570 requires testing and records be k ept to demonstrate compliance with the operator’s selected mitigation measures. The records are to be kept for five years and presented upon the request of EPA, ARB, or the District. Because District Rule 4570 covers testing, as well as having a longer reco rd retention time, it is more stringent than Butte County AQMD Rule 450.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

49 3.2.2.7.4 Conclusion – Comparison with Butte County AQMD Rule 450

District Rule 4570 contains actual mitigat ion measures that are required to be implemented by facilities. These mitigation measures were developed using the latest science available. In addition, District Rule 4570 has lower applicability thresholds for dairies, chickens, and ducks. Based on this information and the discussion above, District Rule 4570 is more stringent than Butte County AQMD Rule 450.

3.2.3 EFFECTIVENESS OF RULE 4570

The number of mitigation meas ures required for each CAF are sufficient and effective in obtaining the required reductions regardless of the type of mitigation measure selected.

In cases where similar measures or contro l efficiency exist under a category, Rule 4570 only allows one of those measures to be se lected and account towards the total overall number of mitigation measures required, eliminating the possibility that the required

reductions are not achieved.

The District performed an emission reduction analysis as Appendix B in the Rule 4570 Staff Report, which demonstrated that even if the least costly mitigation measures were selected, the facility would still manage to achieve the emission reductions needed to be in compliance with the Rule. Since facilit ies’ will most likely elect to implement measures that are the least costly and si nce the analyses in Appendix B demonstrates

that the emission reduction requirements would be met by selecting the least costly measures, then it is reasonable to state that any combinati on of mitigation measures will achieve the required reductions.

3.3 RULE 4570 IS LEGALLY AN D PRACTICALLY ENFORCEABLE

Pursuant to Rule 4570 Section 7.2, owners/oper ators subject to the requirements of Rule 4570 (section 5.0) shall maintain the following:

• Copies of all of the facility's permits

• Records of the number of animals of each species and production group at the facility on a quarterly basis. Examples of records that may be used include, but are not limited to, Dairy Herd Improv ement Association records and animal inventories done for financial purposes.

• Records sufficient to demonstrate co mpliance with all applicable mitigation

measures.

Sections 7.3 through 7.8 require specific recordkeeping conditions for each mitigation

measure.

Section 7.10.1 requires that an initial source test of all VOC cont rol devices and aerated static piles used to comply with rule require ments not later than six (6) months after the date of installation, and at least once every twelve (12) months thereafter.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

50 Section 7.11 states the r equired test methods to demon strate compliance with the applicable mitigation measures.

Because permit rules and prohibitory rules have different purposes, they are not directly comparable in terms of monitoring, testing, and records. Prohibitory rules include these requirements so that the oper ator can demonstrate compliance with the rule’s control requirements. In a permit rule, it is ex pected that required m onitoring, testing, and records would be outlined in a prohibitory rule applicable to the source category.

All rules except District Rule 4570 and Sac Metro Rule 496 are permit rules. These rules have one records provision - all CAF o perators must keep records of the number of animals at the facility. By contras t, the Sac Metro and District rules, which are prohibitory rules, outline specific records for each type of mitigation measure performed in addition to the number-of-animals provision. This means the Sac Metro and District rules are more stringent than the other air districts’ rules, but that is to be expected given the difference in the types of rules being compared (permit versus prohibitory).

The monitoring and measurement requirements of Rule 4570, which include minimum testing frequency, are designed to ensur e that adequate testing is conducted to demonstrate compliance with the appropriate mi tigation measures and such measures are operating in a manner that optimizes the VOC reductions.

It should also be noted that owners may us e documents, such as Regional Water Quality Board Waste Nutrient Management Plans that list the numbers of animals in each production group (e.g. calves, heifers, m ilkers, and dry cows) to comply with this monitoring requirement. The ru le will not require owners/operat ors to maintain a set of records exclusively for the use of the San J oaquin Valley Air District. Other monitoring and testing requirements only apply to facilitie s that choose mitigation measures where such monitoring or testing would a ssist in demonstrating compliance.

3.4 EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED BY RULE 4570 EXCEED DISTRICT
PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

Although some of the individua l mitigation measures in District Rule 4570 were in use before Rule 4570 was adopted, there would be no requirement to keep emissionreducing measures in place if District Rule 4570 did not exist. Rule 4570 requires that large CAF operators and medium sized dairies put together a suite of mitigation measures into a mitigation plan which woul d reduce VOC emissions for every process within the CAF. Many of t hese measures are now mandatory while still allowing a menu of options, where applicable. This provides operators flexibility to reduce emissions in the most effective way for their facility wh ile assuring that VOC emissions from all processes within the facility are controlled. Within the confines of Rule 4570, operators can change their mitigation measures throu gh mitigation plan updates. Based on all theSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

51 required mitigation measures, Rule 4570 is expected to reduce emissions by 25.23 tons/day in 2012 and 31.76 tons/day by 2023. A detailed analysis is included in Appendix B of t he Staff Report.

3.4.1 Least Costly Mitigation M easure Requirements are Effective

The proposed rule has tightened the measur es, making many of the measures mandatory for dairies, feedlot/other cattle. All the mitigation measures for poultry and

swine are now mandated with no menu option. Wher e options are available, those options are limited and each opti onal measure is expected to result in similar emission reductions. The number of mitigation measur e required for each CAF are sufficient and effective in obtaining the required reducti ons regardless of the mitigation measure selected. In several cases, Rule 4570 only allows one of multiple measures under a category to be selected that go towards the to tal overall number required due to similar control efficiencies or similarity in the type of mitigation. The analysis shown in Appendix B of Rule 4570 Staff Report, demonst rates that even if the least costly mitigation measures are sele cted, the facility would sti ll manage to get the emission reductions needed and be in compliance with the Rule. Since facilities’ will most likely elect to implement measures that are t he least costly and since the analyses in Appendix B of Rule 4570 Staff Report demons trates that the emission reduction requirements would be met by selecting the l east costly measures, then it is reasonable to state that any combination of miti gation measures will achieve the required reductions. In addition, since the mitigati on measures in Rule 4570 meet BARCT, then

these measures are ex pected to exceed RACT.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010

52 This page intentionally blank.