SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

APPENDIX A 

SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FOR 

PROPOSED RULE 4570 (CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES)

June 15, 2006 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

California Air Resources Board (ARB): No comments 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted the following 

comments: 

1. Comment (Rule Section 3.0): The definitions, exemptions, and mitigation 

measures should provide measurable and verifiable enforcement criteria and 

standards, as appropriate. (EPA) 

Response: Staff incorporated this as appropriate.

2. Comment (Rule Sections 5.6 through 5.10): Mitigation measures should 

incorporate maintenance and construction characteristics. (EPA) 

Response: Staff incorporated this as appropriate.

3. Comment (Sections 5.6 through 5.10): The mitigation measures for lagoon 

additives and removal of spoiled feed may not be effective and enforceable. 

(EPA) 

Response: These have been removed. 

4. Comment (Sections 5.6 through 5.10): Mitigation measures specifying time 

to implement the measures should also include the language "as soon as 

possible, but no later than" and in some cases the frequency of measures 

should be increased. (EPA) 

Response: Staff believes that wording specifying the maximum period to 

implement measures is more enforceable and the frequency in the rule is 

appropriate. 

5. Comment (Sections 5.6 through 5.10): Explain the use of 80% control 

efficiency. (EPA) 

Response: Staff found biofilters to be the least expensive of the VOC control 

devices. Based on available scientific data, the high range of biofilter control 

efficiency is approximately 80%; therefore, this was used in the rule. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

6. Comment (Sections 7.1 and 7.2): Records should be consistent with the 

applicable mitigation measures; compliance monitoring and testing should be 

frequent enough to endure continued compliance; demonstrated maintenance 

should be part of the annual source testing requirements; compliance testing 

based on disturbances and inputs should be used in addition to periodic 

testing; and more frequent and comprehensive records may be appropriate. 

(EPA) 

Response: Staff modified the rule as appropriate.

Comments were received from the following groups and individuals: 

AU: Arthur Unger 

BD: Bill Descary 

BIO: James Morris and David Mager for BION Environmental Technologies Inc. 

CAR: J.P. Cativiela for the Community Alliance for Responsible Environmental 

Stewardship 

CCA: Tracy Schohr for the California Cattlemen's Association 

CDC: Kevin Abernathy for California Dairy Campaigns 

CDF: Steve Shaffer for the California Department of Food and Agriculture 

CEE: John Shears for Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Technologies 

CFB: Noelle Cremers for the California Farm Bureau Federation 

CH: Carlos Haeussler 

CM: Jeff Palsgaard for the County of Merced Dept. of Public Health 

CRP: Brent Newell for the Center on Race Poverty and the Environment 

CS: Gary Wegner for CIRCUL8 Systems, Clean By Design 

DA: David Avila 

EPA: Andrew Steckel for the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

FCF: Karla Kay Edwards for Fresno County Farm Bureau 

FF: David Duke for Foster Farms 

FMM: Carolina Simunovic for Fresno Metro Ministry 

HR: Jon Tarr for Harris Ranch Feeding Company 

JH: Chris O'Brien for Jones-Hamilton Company 

JP: John Paoluccio 

MPC: Betsy Hunter for Milk Producers Council 

PEP: R.L. Matteis for the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association 

PP: Jennifer Meckel and Randell Ishii for Provost & Prichard 

RCI: David Lighthall for the Relational Culture Institute 

RK: Ron Kuber 

RS: Roy Sharp 

SC: Kristen Hughes for Sustainable Conservation 

SMA: Joe Carle for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

SWR: John Menke for the State Water Resources Control Board 

WUD: Paul Martin for Western United Dairymen 

1. Comment: (Rule Section 3.23) Stakeholders would like to remove the 

requirement that the permit description include sufficient information to 

duplicate the measure due to trade secret concerns. (FCF) 

Response: Staff requires sufficient detail, such as listed in the rule, in order 

to develop an emission inventory, as required by Senate Bill 700, and to verify 

compliance. Applicants who would like to protect trade secrets from being 

made available to the general public may request in writing for the District to 

treat such information as “confidential” pursuant to District Rule 1030 

(Confidential Information). 

2. Comment (Rule Sections 4.0 and 5.0): Stakeholders would like to update 

the exemption and rule requirements as new research results are released 

and to incorporate research that was released on the day of the public 

hearing. (BIO, CAR, CDC, CDFA, CRP, FCF, FMM, HR, MPC) 

Response: It is not feasible for staff to fully analyze, review, and incorporate 

information from preliminary research reports released on the date of the 

public hearing, while still meeting the state mandated SIP submitted deadline 

of July 1, 2006. Industry may request rule amendments and the District may 

amend rules to incorporate new research and technologies. Historically, the 

District has amended existing rules based on industry’s request when new 

information becomes available that justifies changing certain provisions of the 

rules. 

3. Comment (Rule Section 5.1): Stakeholders question why an authority to 

construct or a permit to operate is required; how the District can require 

permits for facilities defined as large CAFs but below the 12.5 tpy threshold 

when no hearing has be held to require permits; and why the definition of 

CAFs is not tied to emission factors. (CAR) 

Response: The District staff held public workshops in March 2006 to present 

and discuss the provisions of Proposed Rule 4570. At the workshops, staff 

presented the reasons for requiring permits for facilities defined as large CAF, 

regardless of if they were below the 12.5 tpy threshold. Most importantly, 

SB700 mandates the District to adopt a rule by July 1, 2006 which includes a 

provision requiring owners/operators of large CAF to obtain a permit. The 

large CAF thresholds are consistent with ARB’s large CAF definition. The 

permitting threshold is based on currently available emission factors. As part 

of the rule development process, a public hearing to adopt the proposed rule 

is scheduled for June 15, 2006. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

4. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11):Stakeholders believe that the rule does 

not fulfill BARCT due to the menu format that allows operators to implement 

less stringent controls. (CRP, FMM) 

Response: Staff believes that the least stringent controls in the rule are 

BARCT. More stringent emission controls with very high cost effectiveness 

values for BARCT standards have been included in the rule in order to give 

credit to facility owners/operators that choose to go beyond BARCT. 

5. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11):Stakeholders believe that the rule does 

not fulfill BARCT or RACT because it only codifies existing practices and 

prevents emission increases instead of achieving actual reductions. (CRP, 

FMM) 

Response: Staff believes that the least stringent controls in the rule are 

BARCT, a standard beyond RACT. Please see page 22 of the staff report 

where it is noted that over 50% of the large confined animal facilities (LCAFs) 

are not implementing these practices. The 2006 California Department of 

Food and Agriculture data provided by Mike Francesconi showed a significant 

number of dairies are not using these practices. Furthermore, reductions 

from existing facilities that are using these practices were not accounted for in 

the baseline developed by the District. Therefore, the rule will achieve real 

reductions from the emission baseline. 

6. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): Stakeholders recommend reduction in 

the number of mitigation measures required. (CAR, CCA, CM, FCF, SC) 

Response: The number of required mitigation measures is necessary to 

ensure the District meets its minimum emission reduction commitment in the 

Ozone Plan. Additionally, District staff believes the required measures fulfill 

federal Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) and state Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) standards. 

7. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): Stakeholders recommended 

additional mitigation measure options and elimination of some mitigation 

measures. (AU, BIO, CAR, CCA, CDC, CDF, CFB, CRP, DA, FCF, FF, FMM, 

HR, JH, MPC, RK, SC, WUD) 

Response: Staff incorporated these suggestions, as appropriate, based on 

currently available science. 

8. Comments (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): Stakeholders question the feasibility 

of some of the mitigation measures. (BIO, CAR, CCA, CDC, CDF, FCF, 

FMM, HR, MPC, RK, SC, WUD) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

Response: We agree that not all mitigation measures are feasible for all 

facilities. However, they were included to provide opportunity for 

owners/operators who found these measures feasible to implement in their 

facilities. Some measures may not be feasible for any facilities at this time 

based on existing infrastructure and costs, but they may be feasible in the 

future for new facilities being built or when costs decrease. Therefore, staff 

included these options in order to allow flexibility for owners/operators to 

implement such measures at any time they determine to be feasible and cost 

effective. 

9. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): Mitigation measures conflict with other 

rules. (FCF) 

Response: Staff reviewed other government agencies’ existing and proposed 

regulations that apply to CAFs. The Regional Water Quality Board is drafting 

waste discharge requirements (WDR) for dairies. Since these will not be finalized 

prior to Rule 4570 adoption, staff could not conclusively determine that no conflicts 

will exist. However, as of 3/26/06, the draft of the waste discharge requirements 

did not conflict with Rule 4570 requirements. The differences between the rules 

are due to the different goals, relevant science available, and jurisdictions of the 

agencies. Pursuant to state H&SC, staff performed a Rule Consistency Analysis 

that compares the provisions of Proposed Rule 4750 with the elements of other 

District rules, federal rules and regulations, other government agencies’ regulations 

that apply to the same source category. Please refer to Appendix E of the Final 

Draft Staff Report for a detailed discussion of the Rule Consistency Analysis. In 

addition, Staff contacted David Sholes at the Central Valley Regional Water Quality 

Board (RWQB) and was told that Proposed Rule 4570 did not conflict with existing 

RWQB regulations and some of the measures were RWQB requirements in some 

cases. However, In the event that Rule 4570 requirements are less stringent than 

required by another agency, owners/operators are obligated to comply with the 

more stringent of the requirements. 

10. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): Will windrow composting be allowed 

and why is it not a mitigation measure? (CCA) 

Response: Facilities have the option of continuing to compost with no 

changes if they choose mitigation measures in the rule that do not include 

composting. Staff was unable to find sufficient information regarding VOC 

reductions from management practices for windrow composting to justify its 

inclusion in the emission mitigation measure list. However, facilities may 

submit it for approval as an alternative mitigation measure. 

11. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): Why do the required number of mitigation 

measures differ by animal type. (CAR, CCA, HR, PP) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

 Response: Beef, dairy cattle, other cattle, swine, and poultry are all different 

animals with slightly different control measures. The measures available to one 

type of facility are not always available to other at the same cost—thus the 

different requirements. 

12. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): Why were some options such as probiotics 

for cattle, microaerobic treatment lagoons, options for use of high moisture feed 

other than steamed and high moisture corn not included, and options for using 

measures in one category to satisfy the requirements of another category not 

included or deleted. (CCA, CFB, CRP, HR, BIO, WUD) 

Response: At the time that the rule was drafted there was insufficient information 

to demonstrate that these would achieve VOC reductions equivalent to or greater 

than other measures that an owner/operator could choose and what type of 

standard (e.g. dosage, frequency, maintenance schedule, construction design, 

etc.) would ensure that these measures achieved such VOC reductions at all 

times. However, owners/operators may use these measures as alternative 

mitigation measures after demonstrating that the measure achieve VOC reductions 

equal to or greater than other mitigation measures that the owner/operator could 

choose to comply with rule requirements. 

13. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): What happens if only some of the housing 

units or corrals meet the standard, can credit be given towards compliance? (HR, 

CFB) 

 Response: The wording of the rule allows different measures to be chosen 

for each structure (house, corral, pen, freestall) if the owner/operator 

chooses. Therefore, facility will receive credit for each location where a 

mitigation measure is implement (e.g. if five (5) mitigation measures are 

required in each corral and two of the five corrals use shade structures 

meeting the standards, then owners/operators would only need to implement 

an additional four (4) mitigation measures in those two corrals. However, in 

the other three corrals with shade structures not meeting the standards the 

owner/operator would need to implement five (5) mitigation measure, which 

need not include use of shade structures.) 

14. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): Housing animals in an essentially airtight 

enclosure should not be included. (CAR) 

 

Response: This measure does not require nor does staff expect the enclosure to 

be airtight. Housing animals in enclosure has been used under research 

conditions and under commercial conditions. Hulls Dairy in Washington has 

housed their milkers in enclosures for years. This dairy noted that housing animals 

in enclosures seemed to be correlated with increased milk production, decreased 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

abortions, and decreased calving intervals, thus for their facility it was costeffective. Such benefits have been seen in several research studies. Inclusion of 

mitigation measures does not constitute endorsements of the processes or 

guarantees that they are appropriate for all facilities. 

15. Comment: Since housing animals in enclosures vented to a secondary control 

devices has been done, why is it not required. 

Response: Based on conversations with David Avila the cost to retrofit a typical 

dairy LCAF would be well over $700,000. Thus the cost to retrofit all the dairy 

LCAF in the District would exceed the annual net profits of all dairies in the District. 

 Furthermore, there was concern that generation of the electricity needed to 

ventilate and cool the cow housing would cause significant NOx emissions. 

Finally, the existing enclosed facilities are in states with cooler temperatures and 

on smaller facilities, therefore staff can not determine that this method would be 

feasible and cost-effective in our district and on dairies with over 1,000 animals. 

However, the District would like to encourage implementation of new and 

promising control technologies thus included this measure as an option in 

Proposed Rule 4570. 

16. Comment: Stakeholders believe that the VOC controls should require lagoon 

covers vented to a control device. (CRP) 

Response: Based on information from Roy Sharp and other venders, lagoons 

vented to a control device will cost over $500,000 for the typical dairy. While they 

may offset the cost with electricity generation, there are significant challenges to 

selling electricity and it is not feasible for all facilities. At over $500,000 per facility 

the cost for each dairy LCAF to implement this would be approximately equivalent 

the annual profits for all dairies. 

17. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.11): The frequency of measures should be 

increased and the allowable times for facilities to suspend use of mitigation 

measures should be decreased. (AU, CRP, FMM) 

Response: At the time of the rule development, staff believes that these 

parameters are appropriate, considering operational limitations on facilities. 

18. Comment (Rule Section 5.6 to 5.13): Stakeholders would like to remove the 

requirement for ARB and EPA approval. (CAR, CDC, CM, FCF) 

Response: In order to ensure that the rule is approvable for the state 

implementation plan, staff believes that such wording is necessary. It is 

common wording in District rules, in the past this has not resulted in 

significant delays of approvals of new technologies or measures. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

19. Comment (Rule Section 7.0): Stakeholders believe the rule omits reporting 

requirements and thus is not enforceable. (CRP) 

Response: Please see Section 7.0. Facilities are required to maintain 

records and will be inspected at least once every eighteen months. The 

inspection will include analysis of the records to ensure compliance and 

enforce the requirements of Rule 4570. 

20. Comment (Rule Section 7.0): Stakeholders believe that increased cleaning of 

freestalls will not result in emissions reductions (CRP). 

Response: Based on the SCAQMD Rule 1133 technical documents the VOC 

reductions from this measure would be at least 50%. This was supported by 

discussion in the Dairy Permitting Advisory Group (DPAG). SCAQMD took 

into account emissions that would occur prior to the manure being removed 

from the housing. Furthermore, since the manure is being removed from a 

relatively VOC uncontrolled area (housing) to a VOC controlled area (storage 

piles, digesters, lagoons, or incorporated into the soil), the VOC are not 

simply being moved from one location to another but are in fact being 

controlled. 

21. Comment (Rule Section 7.1): Stakeholders recommended reducing the 

recordkeeping requirement to three years consistent with the permit review 

time; expressed concern that recordkeeping requirements are burdensome; 

and would like coordination of reporting requirements with other agencies. 

(CAR, CCA, CDC, CFB, FCF, HR, SC, WUD) 

Response: Five years is consistent with other District regulations, District 

permit conditions often require records to be maintained for five (5) years and 

EPA standards including, but not limited to 40CFR Parts 122 and 412 specify 

CAF records for water discharge be maintained for five years. In order to 

maintain consistency, staff believes that five (5) years is an appropriate time 

period and not overly burdensome. Additionally, many of the records required 

are already maintained at facilities. 

22. Comment (Rule Section 7.1.1.1): Stakeholders question why facilities below 

the threshold need to maintain records to demonstrate that they are below the 

threshold for regulation. (WUD) 

Response: This is required in order for compliance staff to ensure all 

facilities subject to the rule are complying; without a recordkeeping 

requirement for number of animals, it would not be possible for a facility to 

prove to an inspector that they are exempt or for the inspector to prove that 

they are not exempt. Furthermore, the California Health & Safety Code 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

requires the District to obtain sufficient information to calculate an emission 

inventory. This information is necessary. 

23. Comment (Rule Section 7.1.1.2.4): Stakeholders believe that owners/operators 

not choosing the option of feeding a ration according to NRC guidelines should not 

be required to maintain feed records. (WUD) 

Response: The California Health and Safety Code 40724.6 requires that this 

rule mandate that large CAFs submit a permit application that includes all 

information necessary to determine a VOC emission inventory. Since 

currently available research suggests that the diet of the animals, specifically 

excess nutrients in the diet, correlate to increased VOC emissions, the 

specific diet may be necessary to determine a VOC emission inventory. 

However, this not required at this time 

 

24. Comment (Rule Section 7.2): Stakeholders recommended clarification on 

what the source testing requirements apply to; clarification of test methods 

required; modification of the monitoring requirements; and question the test 

methods. (CAR, CCA, CCC, CDC, CFB, DA, FCF, HR, MPC, SC, WUD) 

Response: Staff modified the section to clarify that the source test 

requirements only apply to VOC control devices, as defined in Proposed Rule 

4570. The monitoring requirements were modified as appropriate. The test 

methods are approved by the EPA. Specific methods are not mandated in all 

cases in order to allow the owners/operators to choose the method most cost 

effective for their operation. 

25. Comment (Rule):The rule should address the need to apply the mitigation 

measures in a manner that protects water quality; contain additional 

information regarding the potential impact of mitigation measures to water 

quality; note that other agencies may have additional requirements for 

confined animal facilities; require that the appropriate Regional Water Quality 

Board be notified when implementing measures affecting water quality; and 

require that information requested by the Regional Water be provided. 

(SWR) 

Response: Nothing in the rule waives a facility's responsibility to comply with all 

applicable requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction or requires use of specific 

mitigation measures in a manner that would have a negative water impact. On 

page eight (8) of the Final Draft Staff Report staff notes that some measures are 

not feasible for all facilities due to limitations and regulations of other agencies 

including, but not limited to the water board. Since every confined animal facility is 

unique, even those housing the same type of animal, the potential water impact of 

mitigation measures will differ by facility. Staff noted on page eight (8) that it is the 

owners'/operators' responsibility to choose the option that makes the most 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 11 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

environmental sense for their particular facility. Since this rule is limited to 

minimization of air pollution, staff does not believe that they have the jurisdiction to 

require owners/operators to notify or provide information to the Regional Water 

Board. 

26. Comment (Rule): Stakeholders believe that the rule should include 

ammonia, oxides of nitrogen, and other pollutants. (AU, BIO, CEE, CRP, 

FMM, PP, RCI, SC) 

Response: Rule 4570 is properly limited to VOC regulation. Please see 

Section IB of the Final Draft Staff Report for additional information. 

27. Comment (Rule): Stakeholders would like to include a fee schedule in Rule 4570. 

(CAR, CCA, CDC, CFB, FCF, WUD) 

Response: The fees are listed in existing District Rule 3010, available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r3010.pdf. 

28. Comment (General): Stakeholder would like an extension to the comment 

deadline. (CRP, SWR) 

Response: Due to the tight deadline mandated by the Health and Safety 

Code, staff is unable to accommodate. However, staff will consider the 

comments submitted after the deadline, as appropriate and as time allows. 

29. Comment (Staff Report & Rule): Stakeholders recommended information 

sources; wording changes; clarification of wording; additional material for 

incorporation into the staff report; and provided information regarding 

terminology. (AU, BIO, CAR, CCA, CDC, CDF, CFB, CM, CRP, CS, DA, 

FCF, FMM, HR, JH, JP, MPC, PEP, PP, RCI, RK, RS, SC, SMA, SWR, 

WUD) 

Response: Staff contacted, reviewed, and incorporated these, as 

appropriate. 

30. Comment (Staff Report Section II & Appendix B & C): The current overall 

VOC emission factor for dairies is 19.3 lb/hd/yr of VOC not 21.0 lb/hd/yr of 

VOC. Therefore, the calculations should be changed. (PP, RS) 

 Response: The Dairy Permitting Advisory Board Report (DPAGR) and initial 

APCO report (APCOR) on the Dairy Permitting Advisory Board's findings in 

June of 2005 estimated an emission factor of 19.3 lb/hd/yr. However, 

additional research has become available since then. As of March 2006, the 

emission factor for a flush dairy with no freestalls was 19.3 lb/hd/yr, but the 

emission factor for a freestall flush dairy was 21.7 lb/hd/yr. Based on the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 12 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

Conservation Management Practices database and CDFA data, 

approximately 29% of the dairies have no freestalls, therefore the weighed 

emission factor is 21.0 lb/hd/yr (19.3 x 21% + 21.7 x 79%= 21.0). 

31. Comment (Staff Report Section II): In the staff report it states that: "based 

on CEQA projects, the inventory of dairy cattle in the SJVAB is expected to 

increase over 25% in the next three years if all proposed projects are 

completed." This appears to be a result of a backlog of permit applications 

and exceeds previous known growth rates for the dairy industry; industry 

estimates of growth; and CAR's analysis. For this to occur approximately 

425,000 milking cattle would need to be added to the region. Can the District 

provide supporting information or delete this language? (CAR, FMM) 

Response: In the current permit database of applications there are over 

425,000 milking cattle proposed. This may be due to a backlog, however the 

District is expected to act on all of these applications within the next two 

years. If they were all completed, as noted, the growth would be over 25% in 

the next three years. This rate of growth is not unheard of. From 2002 to 

2005 both Madera and Kern counties had milking cow growth rates over 25% 

according to the USDA/NASS census data. According to the USDA/NASS 

census data the inventory of milk cows in the SJVAB increased 6.9% from 

2004 to 2005, if this trend continued it would result in over 20% growth in the 

San Joaquin Valley. 

32. Comment: Page 34 and 35 of the Final Draft Staff Report states that properly 

designed and operated lagoons and phototrophic (aerobic) lagoons emit less 

VOCs that overloaded lagoons, but then state that it is beyond BARCT to require 

owners/operators not to overload their lagoon (CRP). 

Response: Please refer to page 34 and 35. Phototrophic lagoons are not aerobic 

lagoons, in fact they are anaerobic. Utilizing phototrophic lagoons, lagoons 

designed according to NRCS recommendations, and not overloading lagoons are 

not considered beyond BARCT. 

Aerobic lagoons require significant electrical input to increase the oxygen content 

in the water or more than ten times the land of a typical anaerobic lagoon to ensure 

natural aeration by providing sufficient surface area to achieve a minimum of 2.0 

mg/L dissolved oxygen content. Based on the cost and impracticality of many 

existing facilities to build and operate aerobic, staff considered this beyond 

BARCT.

33. Comment (Appendix B): The District did not justify emission reductions. (CRP, 

FMM) 

Response: Emission reductions were based on best engineering judgment; 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 13 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

extensive literature review; and comments for technology venders. The calculation 

and additional information are available in Appendix B. 

34. Comment (Appendix B): It is unfair to assert that facilities will implement only the 

lowest cost options. Feedlot operators have shown good faith to comply with 

regulations and to go beyond what is legally required. (CCA) 

Response: Staff appreciates that facilities go beyond the legal requirements, as 

noted in the staff report. However, for the cost effectiveness analysis staff 

traditionally uses the costs of the lowest cost option because this is the cost of rule 

compliance. Owners/operators who choose to go beyond the lowest cost option 

do so for reasons other than the rule, thus their additional cost and the associated 

VOC reductions are not solely due to the rule requirements. 

35. Comment (Appendix B): The reduction calculations should be calculated based 

on how many new mitigation measures are implemented instead of how many 

animals are subject to the rule to avoid counting VOC reductions attributable to 

measures facilities were utilizing before rule adoption. (AU, CRP, FMM) 

Response: Since facilities could cease utilization of the measures, and thus VOC 

reductions at any time if the rule was not in place, staff believes it is appropriate to 

calculate emissions based on the number of animals subject to the rule. 

36. Comment (Appendix B): Since there are conflicting studies regarding emission 

reductions from use of NRC standards based diet or data regarding the number of 

facilities already utilizing this diet, it should not be credited with 10% VOC control 

efficiency. (CRP) 

Response: Ten percent was the lowest control efficiency found in any of the 

studies, thus in order to be conservative staff utilized this value. Based on 

conversations with California State University Fresno researcher Matt Beene, staff 

believes that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the facilities tested 

in the research used to determine emission factors fed a diet based on NRC 

guidelines. Furthermore, staff believes that, based on conversations with 

producers, the majority of facilities do not feed a strict NRC based diet, instead 

they tend to modify it for various reasons to maximize animal health and production 

and minimize feed costs. 

37. Comment: StakeholderS believe that a 50% control efficiency is applied to all 

lagoon measures based on the control efficiency for phototrophic lagoons. This is 

not reasonable. (CRP) 

Response: Based on the studies cited on page 34 and 35 of the Final Draft Staff 

Report the conditions created by designing lagoons to NRCS standards, not 

overloading lagoons, or using a solid separator system promote phototrophic 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4570 June 15, 2006 

A - 14 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Rule 4570 

lagoons. Phototrophic lagoons are expected to achieve reductions of over 80%, 

therefore staff believe the 50% VOC control efficiency is a conservative and 

reasonable estimate. 

38. Comment: The control efficiency for tilling and land incorporation of animal waste 

should be 0%. Soil does not act similarly to biofilters. (CRP) 

 Response: Biofilters are organic media, similar to what is found in fields, 

particularly those that plow under their crop residue. Furthermore several research 

projects, please see the references in the Final Draft Staff Report, show decreased 

odor emissions from fields that land incorporate manure. Therefore, staff believes 

that it is reasonable to consider that the soil acts as a biofilter. Although biofilters 

range in VOC control efficiency from 10% to over 90%, the majority achieve VOC 

control efficiency of over 80%, therefore staff believes that 50% is a conservative 

estimate of the VOC control efficiency. 

39. Comment (Appendix B Table 8): Table 8 in Appendix B does not add to 19.3 

lb/hd/yr and should. (PP) 

Response: Please see response to Comment 22. 

40. Comment: Cost-effectiveness calculations of all control options, including the most 

expensive should be included in the staff report. (CRP) 

 Response: As required by the CH&SC 40728, the District considered the 

socioeconomic impacts of this rule and mitigated it to the extent feasible. Please 

see Appendix C of the Final Draft Staff Report. The lowest cost options result 

industry-wide costs of over $26 million; equate to over 10% of the net profit for 

most of the affected facilities; and is expected to result in a loss of approximately 

40 jobs. Therefore, the lowest cost options are beyond what typically would be 

considered for a BARCT rule. Although, considering the significance and quantity 

of emissions, staff believes this is reasonable for BARCT, but beyond this would 

not be.