Confined Animal Facilities Rule 4570 October 21, 2010 1
Reasons for Today’s Recommendations • Commitment in 2007 Ozone Plan • 22.9 tons/day VOC Plan Commitment • Proposed rule results in reductions exceeding the commitment (31.8 tons/day) • Although not subject to CH&SC §40724.6, this rule goes well beyond State requirements • June 17, 2010 public hearing, the District Governing Board voted to continue the hearing to consider adoption of Rule 4570 until October, based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testimony and request 2
Actions Since June Continuation • Numerous meetings held with EPA, environmental groups, scientists, and industry representatives • Considered and evaluated ideas proposed by various stakeholders • Answered questions and shared District’s technical expertise with EPA and other stakeholders • Provided additional written documentation for RACT analysis • Rule enhancements 3
Existing Rule 4570 • First adopted June 2006 • Applies to Large Confined Animal Facilities (e.g. 1,000 milk cows, etc.) • Menu-based approach • Reduced VOCs by 9 tons per day • Also reduced – Ammonia by 100 tons per day – Methane by 200 tons per day • Most stringent CAF rule in the nation • Successfully implemented with industry cooperation • Deemed by judicial branch to meet Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) 4
Proposed Rule 4570 • Will apply to smaller facilities (e.g. 500 milk cows) • Number of additional sources: +300 dairies, 20 poultry facilities (18 broiler and 2 layer) • Establishes different but appropriate levels of control based on size for dairies • Strengthened requirements (additional mandated and menu-based measures) • Fully incorporates latest science (silage rather than manure, largest source of VOCs) • Achieves 31.8 tons/day of additional VOC reductions • Extensive public participation before and after the continuation 5
Why a Menu-Based Approach • Proposed rule contains mandatory control measures but menu option flexibility is necessary for the following reasons: – Complexity due to the “fugitive” nature of the emissions from a variety of animal and biological processes requires site-specific considerations – There is no “typical” CAF, nor are there any “one-size fits all” measures that apply to all facilities – Requiring every facility to implement all controls is not feasible as some controls are mutually exclusive – The cost and feasibility of controls is highly variable due to existing infrastructure and practices – The rule exceeds RACT even if the least costly measures are selected by the source – Since CAFs vary so greatly, operators who know most about the CAF should be able to choose controls 6
Today’s Recommendation Relies on Latest Science • Numerous studies were considered and incorporated into the rule – Silage and feed found to be primary source of emissions • Better compaction reduces emissions • Better silage management reduces emissions • Preserving silage reduces emissions – Manure (storage ponds, land application, etc.) found to be less significant sources of emissions – Emissions of alcohols from feed, manure, and cows a large fraction of VOCs – Flushing of freestalls is effective (does not simply shift emissions) – Seasonal variation in emissions 7
Rule Far Exceeds RACT • RACT is defined as the minimum level of control that all ozone nonattainment areas must achieve for existing major sources (BARCT and BACT are more stringent) – Mitigation measures in Rule 4570 have been deemed to satisfy Best Available Control Technology (BACT) – Existing Rule 4570 was deemed to satisfy BARCT requirements (court ruling) – Existing Rule 4570 is the strongest CAF rule in the nation – Today’s proposed rule is even more stringent (additional 31.8 tons/day VOC reductions) 8
VOC Reductions and Public Health Impacts • VOC reductions are minimally effective in the Valley in reducing ozone – Valley’s large, natural, biogenic VOC inventory – NOx emissions are the limiting factor – Documented by science and modeling – CAF VOCs only contribute 1.6% - 2.8% of the total ozone • Although not required, a health benefits analysis was conducted – $2.5 million in economic cost due to CAF emissions, while Rule 4570 is estimated to cost $61.5 million • However, since we’re “extreme” non-attainment for ozone, District is obligated to consider all feasible measures 9
CAF Contribution to 2012 8-hr Ozone Design Values 110 100 90 80 Ozone Design Value (ppb) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Turlock Merced Madera Fresno Clovis Parlier Visalia Hanford Shafter Oildale Bakersfield Maricopa Edison Arvin Design Value without CAF Emissions CAF Contribution to Design Value 10
Proposed Rule is Very Costly • Economic analysis indicates significant impacts: – Medium dairies, cost-to-net profit ratio of 89% – Large dairies, cost-to-net profit ratio of 21% – Poultry Facilities, cost-to-net profit ratio of 10% • Well in excess of District’s threshold of 10% impact for dairies • Despite significant costs, dairy families committed to complying with rule – Milk prices improving – District open to future reconsideration – Measures to preserve silage save costs 11
Comments and Responses Comment The proposed amendments, as drafted, fail to adequately respond to this new science (CRPE) Response – Significant changes have been made to the rule based on the numerous studies – All studies of emissions formation and control have been considered 12
Comments and Responses Comment The emission factor report still in draft form - delay action on the rule (CRPE) Response – Rule delays will result in lost emission reductions – The District is committed to an ongoing study and enhancement of emission factors – Proposed rule incorporates latest science 13
Comments and Responses Comment Since VOC emissions from CAFs are a small contributor to Valley ozone concentrations, is it worthwhile to impose these requirements? (Dairy Cares) Response Scientific modeling has shown that VOCs from CAF operations contribute 1.6% - 2.8% of the total ozone. However, Federal and State laws currently require the District to regulate all such VOCs. Given the Valley’s extreme designation, every source needs to be addressed to achieve the clean air standards. 14
Comments and Responses Comment CAFs are designed and operated differently given the wide variation in size, age, infrastructure, and location. This variation must be recognized in developing the proposed amendments. (Several Dairy Associations) Response Agreed – The menu-based approach addresses this concern 15
Comments and Responses Comment The District should require the use of advanced engineering controls, such as enclosing and venting housing emissions through control devices. (CRPE) Response Animal enclosure in warehouses is not feasible – Extremely costly – Energy intensive (can lead to excess life-cycle emissions) – Animal welfare a significant concern – This option was fully investigated 16
Staff Recommendation 1. Approve the Negative Declaration 2. Adopt the revised proposed amendments to rule 3. Authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution 4. Direct staff to forward Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis for Rule 4570 to the US EPA 17
Recommend
More recommend
