UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for

EPA ’ s Proposed Rulemaking

for the California State Implementation Plan

South Coast Air Qualit y Management District Rule 223 Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities

Prepared by: Nancy Levin

March 24

, 20151

RULE IDENTIFICATION :

Agency: South Coast Ai r Quality Management District ( SC AQMD)

SIP Approved Rule: N one

Subject of this TSD: Rule 223

– Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal

Facilities Adopted

– June 2, 2006

Submitted

– March 17, 2009

BACKGROUND

– This rule was adopted to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 700 (September 22, 2003) as codified in the California Health & State Code Section 40724. SB 700 eliminated the exemption for agriculture from the permit system for local air pollution control districts. Among other things, it required local air districts to a dopt, implement and submit for inclusion into the SIP a rule or regulation requiring the owner s or operator s of large confined animal facilit ies ( LCAF s ) to obtain a permit and to reduce air emissions from the facility “ to the extent feasible ,” and required the state to develop a definition for LCAFs.

RULE SUMMARY

– The rule requirements apply to large operations above size thresholds

described in section (b)(21) . Dairies with at least 1,000 milking cows and poultry facilities with at least 650,000 birds qualify as LCAFs. According to the 2006 Final Staff Report the

SC AQMD has under its jurisdiction an estimated 55 dairies of 1,000 or more milking cows and 4 egg ranches of 650,000 or more chickens. The rule requires these operations to apply for

and obtain an SC AQMD permit including a mitigation plan with measures listed in Appendix A: Large CAF Mitigation Measures

. Rule 223 s ections (d) through (j) describe addit ional requirements concerning permitting, public review and recordkeeping

.

Appendix A contains two tables : Table 1

– Dairy LCAF Mitigation Measure Requirements and

Table 2

– Poultry Operations LCAF Mitigation Measure Requirements . Da i ry provision s require that owner/operators implement at least five of 11 feed and silage mitigation measures, one of

three milk parlo r measures, two of nine freestall barn measures, six of 12 corral measures, two

of seven solid manure or separated solids handling meas ures

, one of eight liquid manure handling measures, and two of four land application measures. A Poultry CAF owner/operator must implement at least four of 14 poultry house mitigation measures, five of seven feed operation mitigation measures; one of seven solid manure or separated solids handling

measures

, and one of eight liquid m anure handling measures. For both dairy and poultry operations, an owner/operator can substitute a mitigation measure in one section of a table

with another from a different sect ion in the table if it can be demonstrated to the SC AQMD, CARB and EPA that the substitution would result in equal or greater emission reductions. The owner/operator can temporarily suspend a mitigation measure to protect animal health, but must implement a new mitigation measure in lieu of the suspended measure within 30 days.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

– Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or2

greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). The following criteria were used to

evaluate the submitted rule :

1. Enforceability

- The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulat ion Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

2. Non

- interference

- CAA §110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirem ent of the CAA. In addition, CAA §193 prohibits the modification of any SIP

- approved control requirement in effect before
November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area.

EPA EVALUATION

– A summary of our evaluation of the criteria follows.

1. The rule requirements and applicability are clear . The recordkeeping and other provisions sufficiently ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rule 223 consistently.

2

. W e propose to determine that our app roval of the submittal would comply with CAA §§ 110(l) and 193 because (1) the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the on

going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and (2) the submitted new rule doe s not replace existing SIP

- approved control requirements.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION

– The following

revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended for the next

time the rule is amended

.

SCAQMD Rule 223 (adopted June 20, 2006) and an earlier version of the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District ( SJVAPCD ) 4570 (adopted June 15, 2006) , were substantively similar. However, SJVAPCD subsequently revised the Rule 4570 ( adopted October 21, 2010) to update it with the latest research findings, and to refine or eliminate certain mitigation measure s based on their effectiveness

, applicability , and whether or not they

were already standard industry practice. For example, the SJVAPCD adjusted the timeframe for feeding total mixed rations in the dairy feed menu from 48 hours to 2 hours to reflect more recent information showing feed emissions occur within the first 12

- 24 hours after the feed is put into the feed lane (see SJVA U PCD Final Staff Report, Section VIII

. Proposed Amendments

to Rule 4570 , October 21, 2010

, p . 20). The SJVAPCD retired the option to remove caked animal waste every 14 days since they believe d that caked manure , which is dry, had minimal emission potential (see SJVAPCD Final Staff Report, p

. 61). In addition, the SJVAPCD removed ‘installing floats or other devices in water troughs to prevent spills’ from dairy and feedlot menus because they concluded that the measure was standard industry practice (see

SJVAP CD Final Staff Report, p p . 29 and 43)

. In addition, SJVAPCD lowered the applicability threshold for dairies from 1,000 to 500 milk cows

, and from 650,000 to 400,000 for chickens3

and ducks, and made certain feed and housing menu items mandatory for all dairies. For additional details, please see the SJVA U PCD Final Staff Report, and the Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA’s Analysis of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s Rule 4570, Confi ned Animal Facilities, August 2011.

Therefore, t he next time that Rule 223 is revised, we recommend th at SC AQMD review and update the rule as follows to further reduce emissions :
1. Consider making certain mitigation measures with the greatest emission reduction potential mandatory where feasible

. 2. I ncorporate findings from the most recently available science (e.g., silage). 1

3. E liminate mitigation measures that are not effective at reducing VOC o r ammonia

emissions ; are not applicable; or are standard industry practice

. 4. Lower the applicability threshold for dairies and poultry operations

.

Also, please clarify the reference in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, Note 2 to “tables 2 through 6,”

as there are only two tables in Appendix A

.

Generally, SIP rules are must implement RACM in moderate nonattainment areas. A RACM evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader plan. A RACM demonstration for

PM2.5 under CAA Part D, subpart 4 includes analysis of PM2.5 precursors, includin g VOC and

ammonia. 2

EPA ACTION

– The submitted Rule 223 strengthens the SI P

. Therefore, EPA staff

recommends full approval of Rule 223 pursuant to CAA § 110(k)(3) and § 301(a).

REFERENCES :

1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988

. 2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 ( http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf ).

3. SCAQMD Rule 223 Emission Reduction Permits for Large for Confined Animal Facilities, Adopted June 2, 2006; Submitted to EPA on March 17, 2009.

4. SCAQMD Rule 223 Emission Reduction Permits for Large for Confined Animal Facilities, Final Staff Report, April 2006.

5. SJVAPCD Rule 4570 Confined Animal Facilities, Adopted June 15, 2006; Readopted
June 18, 2009; Amended October 21, 2010; Submitted to EPA on April 5, 2011, 77 FR 2228, January 17, 2012.

1 We understand from discussions with the District that many of the CAFs in the SCAQMD use dry feed rather than silage

. However, for those that may use silage, we recommend updating the rule with more stringent silage controls such as found in

SJVAPCD Rule 4570 Table s 4.1 (B); 4.2 (B) and 4.3(B).

2 The EPA has historically implemented the PM2.5 standards solely under the provisions of subpart 1. On January 4, 2013,
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issu ed its decision in a challenge to our 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. See NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In NRDC, the court held that the EPA had erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standard pursuant only to the general implementation require ments of subpart 1, rather than also to the implementation requirements specific to particulate matter in subpart 4, part D of title I of the CAA (“subpart 4”).4

6. SJVAPCD Final Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), October 10, 2010

. 7. Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Revisions to

the California State Implementation Plan, as submitted by the California Air Resources Board for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, EPA’s Analysis of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s Rule 4570, Confined Animal
Facilities, August 2011.