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, 2006SAN 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 construc tion 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 enforc eable 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 l east expensive of the VOC control

devices. Based on available scientific dat a, the high range of biofilter control efficiency is approximately 80%; theref ore, 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 comp liance; demonstrated maintenance should be part of the annual source test ing 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 B ION 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 Californi a 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 St ates 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

DistrictSAN 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 descripti on 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 wa s 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 reques t 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 justif ies 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 r equired; 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 Ru le 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 stri ngent 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/operator s 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 t he 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 t hese 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 r equired. (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 mitigati on measures are feasible for all facilities. However, they were included to provide opportunity for owners/operators who found t hese 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 a llow 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 R egional Water Quality Board is drafting waste discharge requirements (WDR) for dai ries. 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 requirement s. The differences between the rules are due to the different goals, relevant sci ence available, and jurisdictions of the agencies. Pursuant to state H&SC, sta ff performed a Rule Consistency Analysis that compares the provisions of Pr oposed Rule 4750 with the elements of other District rules, federal rules and regulati ons, 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 measur es were RWQB requirements in some
cases. However, In the event that Ru le 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 measur es in the rule that do not include composting. Staff was unable to fi nd 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 al ternative 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, opt ions 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 dr afted 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, maint enance 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 t hat 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/oper ators would only need to implement an additional four (4) mitigation measures in those two corrals. However, in

the other three corrals with shade stru ctures 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 wit h increased milk production, decreasedSAN 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 constitu te endorsements of the processes or guarantees that they are appropr iate 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 VO C 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 generat ion, 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 implem ent 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. Facilit ies 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 Advi sory Group (DPAG). SCAQMD took

into account emissions that would occu r prior to the manure being removed from the housing. Furthermore, sinc e the manure is being removed from a relatively VOC uncontrolled area (housing) to a VOC controlled area (storage piles, digesters, lagoons, or incorpor ated 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 record keeping 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 ot her District regulations, District permit conditions often require records to be maintained for five (5) years and EPA standards including, but not limit ed to 40CFR Parts 122 and 412 specify CAF records for water discharge be mainta ined for five years. In order to maintain consistency, staff believes that five (5) years is an appropriate time period and not overly burdensome. Additi onally, 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 exem pt or for the inspector to prove that they are not exempt. Furthermore, t he California Health & Safety CodeSAN 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, correla te 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 appl y to; clarification of test methods required; modification of the monitori ng 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/operat ors 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 ma y have additional requirements for confined animal facilities; require that the appropriate Regional Water Quality Board be notified when implementing m easures 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 ju risdiction 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 Repor t staff notes that some measures are

not feasible for all facilities due to lim itations 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 mostSAN 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 fa cility. 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 prov ide 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 St aff 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 r eport; 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 calculat ions should be changed. (PP, RS)

Response: The Dairy Permitting Advisory Board Report (DPAGR) and initial APCO report (APCOR) on the Dairy Permi tting Advisory Board's findings in

June of 2005 estimated an emission fact or 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 theSAN 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 Prac tices 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 ra tes 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 milk ing cow growth rates over 25% according to the USDA/NASS census data. According to the USDA/NASS census data the inventory of milk co ws in the SJVAB increased 6.9% from 2004 to 2005, if this trend continued it woul d result in over 20% growth in the San Joaquin Valley.

32. Comment: Page 34 and 35 of the Final Draft St aff Report states that properly designed and operated lagoons and phototrophi c (aerobic) lagoons emit less VOCs that overloaded lagoons, but then stat e that it is beyond BARCT to require owners/operators not to over load 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 su rface 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 operator s 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, fo r the cost effectiveness analysis staff traditionally uses the costs of the lowest co st option because this is the cost of rule compliance. Owners/operators who choos e 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 avoi d counting VOC reductions attributable to measures facilities were utilizing bef ore rule adoption. (AU, CRP, FMM)

Response: Since facilities could cease utiliz ation 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 conflicti ng 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 Univer sity Fresno researcher Matt Beene, staff

believes that there is insufficient evidenc e to demonstrate that the facilities tested

in the research used to determine em ission 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 effici ency 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 s eparator system prom ote phototrophicSAN 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 c ontrol 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, sim ilar to what is found in fields, particularly those that plow under their cr op residue. Furthermore several research projects, please see the references in the Final Draft Staff Report, show decreased

odor emissions from fields that land incor porate 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 st aff 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 a ll 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 miti gated 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; equat e to over 10% of the net profit for most of the affected facilities; and is expec ted 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, c onsidering the significance and quantity of emissions, staff believes this is reasonable for BARCT, but beyond this would

not be.