BOARD MEETING DATE: October 7, 2011 AGENDA NO. 22

REPORT: Rule and Control Measure Forecast

SYNOPSIS: This report highlights AQMD rulemaking activity and public 

workshops potentially scheduled for the year 2011 and portions of 

2012. (No Committee Review)

COMMITTEE: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.

Executive Officer

EC:LT:cg

The Rule and Control Measure Forecast Report provides the Board with a monthly 

update of AQMD’s rulemaking and control measure implementation schedule. 

Scheduling changes that occurred since last month’s forecast are summarized.

Attached to this Rule Forecast Report is a Technical Assessment, (Attachment E), 

conducted relative to implementation of the 2007 AQMP Control Measure (CM) MCS05 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste.

223

1127

1127.1

Emission Reductions Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities

Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste (MCS-05)

Control of Emissions from Hog and Poultry Operations (MCS-05)

This rulemaking is removed, based on the technology assessment (Attachment E).

1420 Emissions Standard for Lead

Rule 1420 is moved to May 2012 to allow additional time for staff to identify potential 

sources.
-2-

2511

2512

Credit Generation Program for Locomotive Head End Power Unit 

Engines

Credit Generation Program for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth

Rule 2511 and 2512 are moved to the 1st quarter of 2012 from November to allow staff 

additional time to work on technical details with U.S. EPA, CARB and stakeholders.

4010

4020

General Provisions and Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach (MOB-03)

Backstop Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (MOB03)

Proposed Rules 4010 and 4020 are on hold to be re-evaluated as part of the 2012 Air 

Quality Management Plan.
2011 MASTER CALENDAR (continued)

-3-

Below is a list of all rulemaking activity scheduled for the year 2011. The last four columns refer 

to the type of rule adoption or amendment. A more detailed description of the proposed rule 

adoption or amendment is located in the Attachments (A through D) under the type of rule 

adoption or amendment (i.e. AQMP, Toxics, Other and Climate Change).

*An asterisk indicates that the rulemaking is a potentially significant hearing.

+This proposed rule will reduce criteria air contaminants and assist toward attainment of 

ambient air quality standards.

1

Subject to Board approval

California Environmental Quality Act shall be referred to as "CEQA."

Socioeconomic Analysis shall be referred to as "Socio."

2011

November AQMP Toxics Other Climate 

Change

463 Storage of Organic Liquids √

1177 Liquified Petroleum Gas Transfer 

and Dispensing (MCS-07)

√

December

1110.2 Emissions from Gaseous- and 

Liquid- Fueled Engines

√

1114*+ Control of Emissions from 

Refinery Coking Operations 

(MCS-07)

√

1123 Pilot Program for Refinery Startup, Shutdown and Turnaround 

Procedures (MCS-06)

√
2011 MASTER CALENDAR (continued)

-4-

2011 TO-BE DETERMINED

TBD AQMP Toxics Other Climate

Change

102 Definition of Terms √

Reg. III Fees √

314 Fees for Architectural Coatings √

402 Nuisance √

701 Air Pollution Emergency 

Contingency Actions

√

1106 Marine Coating Operations

(MCS-07)

√

1106.1 Pleasure Craft Coating Operations

(MCS-07)

√

1118 Control of Emissions from 

Refinery Flares

√ √

1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & MultiPurpose Solvents

√

1144 Metalworking Fluids and DirectContact Lubricants

√

1147 NOx Reductions from 

Miscellaneous Sources 

√

1151*+ Motor Vehicle and Mobile 

Equipment Non-Assembly Line 

Coating Operations

√

1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications √

1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations √

1173 Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Leaks and Releases 

from Components at Petroleum 

Facilities and Chemical Plants

√

1190 Series Fleet Vehicle Requirements √

Reg. XIII New Source Review √
2011 MASTER CALENDAR (continued)

-5-

2011 TO-BE DETERMINED

TBD (continued) AQMP Toxics Other Climate

Change

1401

1402

New Source Review of Toxic Air 

Contaminants

Control of Toxic Air Contaminants 

from Existing Sources

√

√

1420

1420.2

Emissions Standard for Lead

Emission Standard for Lead from 

Medium Lead Emitting Facilities

√

√

1903*+ Emission Budgets and Mitigation 

Program for General Conformity 

Projects (EGM-02)

√

1610 Old-Vehicle Scrapping √

Reg. 

XXVII

Climate Change √

4010*+1

4020*+1

General Provisions and 

Requirements for Ports of Los 

Angeles and Long Beach

(MOB-03)

Backstop Requirements for Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach 

(MOB-03)

√

√

Reg. IV, 

IX, X, XI, 

XIV, XX 

and XXX 

Rules

Various rule amendments may be 

needed to meet the requirements of 

state and federal laws, address 

variance issues/technology-forcing 

limits, or to seek additional 

reductions to meet the SIP shortterm measure commitment. The

Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has 

been updated to include new 

measures to address toxic 

emissions in the basin. The CCP 

includes a variety of measures that 

will reduce exposure to air toxics 

from stationary, mobile, and area 

sources. Rule amendments may 

include updates to provide 

consistency with CARB Statewide 

Air Toxic Control Measures.

√ √ √ √
2011 MASTER CALENDAR (continued)

-6-

2012

1st

Quarter

AQMP Toxics Other Climate

Change

25111 Credit Generation Program for 

Locomotive Head End Power Unit 

Engines

√

25121 Credit Generation Program for 

Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth

√

January

1107 Coating of Metal Parts and 

Products (MCS-07)

√

February

461 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing √

May

14201 Emissions Standard for Lead √

Note: AQMD may add control measures necessary to satisfy federal requirements, to 

abate a substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, state regulatory 

requirements or SIP commitment.
ATTACHMENT A

AQMP Rule Activity Schedule

This attachment lists those control measures that are being developed into rules or rule 

amendments for the Board consideration that are designed to implement the amendments to the 

2007 Air Quality Management Plan. 

A-1

2011

November

1177 Liquid Petroleum Gas Transfer and Dispensing (MCS-07)

[Projected Emission Reduction for both rules: TBD]

Proposed Rule 1177 will establish controls for transfer and dispensing of 

liquefied propane gas.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

December

1114*+ Control of Emissions from Refinery Coking Operations (MCS-07)

[Projected Emission Reduction for both rules: TBD]

Proposed Rule 1114 will establish emission limits and other requirements 

for the operation of coking units at petroleum refineries.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1123 Pilot Program for Refinery Start-up, Shutdown and Turnaround 

Procedures (MCS-06)

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Rule 1123 would implement 2007 AQMP Control Measure MCS-06 by 

identifying improved operating procedures and best management 

practices to reduce emissions from start-up, shutdown and turnaround 

operations.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Leu (3059)

To-Be Determined 2011

To-Be 

Determined

1106 Marine Coating Operations (MCS-07)

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Proposed amendments will further reduce VOC emissions from the 

application of marine coatings. Amendments may also improve clarity 

and enforceability. 

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1106.1 Pleasure Craft Coating Operations (MCS-07)

[Projected Emission Reduction: unknown]

Amendments to Rule 1106.1 will reduce VOC emissions from the 

application of coatings to pleasure craft and improve the enforceability 

and clarity of the rule.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT A

AQMP Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

A-2

To-Be Determined 2011

To-Be 

Determined

(continued)

1903*+ Emission Budgets and Mitigation Program for General Conformity 

Projects (EGM-02)

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Rule 1903 would implement Control Measure EGM-02 of the 2007 

AQMP. The rule would specify procedures for how federal projects 

subject to general conformity could access an emission budget and/or pay 

mitigation fees for emissions from the project.

Joe Cassmassi 909.396.3155 909.396.3155 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

Reg. IV, 

IX, X, XI, 

XIV, XX 

and XXX 

Rules

Various rule amendments may be needed to meet the requirements of 

state and federal laws, address variance issues/technology-forcing limits, 

or to seek additional reductions to meet the SIP short-term measure 

commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has been updated to 

include new measures to address toxic emissions in the basin. The CCP 

includes a variety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics from 

stationary, mobile, and area sources. Rule amendments may include 

updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide Air Toxic Control 

Measures.

2012

January

1107 Coating of Metal Parts and Products (MCS-07)

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Amendments to Rule 1107 would further reduce VOC emissions and 

improve rule clarity and enforceability.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT B

Toxics Rule Activity Schedule

This attachment lists those rules or rule amendments for the Governing Board consideration 

that are designed to implement the Air Toxics Control Plan.

B-1

To-Be Determined 2011

To-Be 

Determined

1401

1402

New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants

Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 

periodically reviews the list of toxic compounds and revises or 

establishes risk values. Rules 1401 and 1402 will be amended to revise 

the list of TACs. OEHHA is currently revising their risk assessment 

guidelines and, when adopted, District guidelines will be amended 

requiring Board approval. In addition, other administrative changes may 

be proposed. 

Susan Nakamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1420

1420.2

Emissions Standard for Lead

Emissions Standard for Lead from Medium Lead Emitting Facilities

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

In October 2008, EPA lowered the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for lead from 1.5 to 0.15 ug/m3. Proposed Amended Rule 1420 

and Proposed Rule 1420.2 will apply to lead sources and will include 

requirements to ensure the Basin meets the new lead standard.

Susan Nakamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

4010*+1

4020*+1

General Provisions and Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach (MOB-03)

Backstop Requirements for Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 

(MOB-03)

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

The proposed rules will address toxic and criteria pollutant emissions 

from new and existing port-related sources.

Susan Nakamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT B

Toxics Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

B-2

To-Be Determined 2011

To-Be 

Determined

Reg. IV, IX, 

X, XI, XIV, 

XX and 

XXX Rules

Various rule amendments may be needed to meet the requirements of 

state and federal laws, address variance issues/technology-forcing limits, 

or to seek additional reductions to meet the SIP short-term measure 

commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has been updated to 

include new measures to address toxic emissions in the basin. The CCP 

includes a variety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics from 

stationary, mobile, and area sources. Rule amendments may include 

updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide Air Toxic Control 

Measures.

2012

May

14201 Emissions Standard for Lead

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Rule 1420 would be amended to incorporate the 2008 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard for Lead and may include measures to reduce lead 

emissions to ensure compliance with the new standard.

Susan Nakamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule

This attachment lists those rules or rule amendments for the Governing Board consideration 

that are designed to improve rule enforceability, SIP corrections, or implementing state or 

federal regulations.

C-1

2011

November

463 Storage of Organic Liquids

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

The proposed amendment will seek to alter a test method for determining 

sulfur compounds with greater accuracy.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

December

1110.2 Emissions from Gaseous- and Liquid-Fueled Engines 

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Amendments to Rule 1110.2 are proposed to address the impacts of 

contaminants in biogas used to fuel power generators at landfills and 

municipal waste facilities. The amendments may result in a delay or loss 

of emissions reductions

Joe Cassmassi 909.396.3155 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

C-2

To-Be Determined 2011

To-Be 

Determined

102 Definition of Terms

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Proposed amendments to Rule 102 may be necessary to include 

compounds exempted by the U.S. EPA with consideration for health risks 

as defined by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

(OEHHA).

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

Reg. III Fees

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Amend fee rules in accordance with FY 2011-12 AQMD Budget.

Jill Whynot 909.396.3104 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

314 Fees of Architectural Coatings

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

The proposed amendments would improve clarity and reporting 

requirements as well as consider an exemption from fees for small 

manufacturers.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

402 Nuisance

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

The AQMD staff will assess the feasibility of expanding the current 

nuisance rule as part of a proposed measure in the draft Clean 

Communities Plan (CCP). The assessment may result in a 

recommendation to amend Rule 402 to make it more effective and more 

responsive to public complaints.

Susan Nakamura 909.396.3105 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

701 Air Pollution Emergency Contingency Actions

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Proposed amendments to Rule 701 will update the episode criteria to 

reflect newly established standards and clarify air quality reporting and 

dissemination protocol.

Joe Cassmassi 909.396.3155 909.396.3155 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1118 Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Amendments may be necessary to address results of the additional 

analysis required by the adopting resolution for the last amendment and 

to consider the advances in monitoring technology. Amendments may 

also be necessary to implement an AB 32 measure.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

C-3

To-Be Determined 2011

To-Be 

Determined

(continued)

1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi-Purpose Solvents

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Proposed amendments may be necessary for further clarification and 

possible exemptions.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1144 Metalworking Fluids and Direct-Contact Lubricants

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Proposed amendments may be necessary to incorporate results from ongoing technology assessments for specific facilities.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1147 NOx Reductions From Miscellaneous Sources 

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Proposed amendments may be necessary to address implementation 

issues.

Joe Cassmassi 909.396.3155 909.396.3155 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1151*+ Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating 

Operations 

[Projected Emission Reduction: unknown]

Amendments to the rule may be necessary to reflect further findings 

relative to recordkeeping requirements for tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc).

Laki Tisopulos 909.396.3123 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

Amendments to Rule 1168 may be necessary to reflect improvements in 

adhesive and sealants technology.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations

[Projected Emission Reduction: N/A]

The proposed amendment may consider technology assessments for the 

cleanup of affected equipment. Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1190 Series Fleet Vehicle Requirements

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Amendments to Rule 1190 series fleet rules may be necessary to address 

remaining outstanding implementation issues and in the event the court’s 

future action requires amendments. In addition, the current fleet rules 

may be expanded to achieve additional air quality and air toxic benefits.

Dean Saito 909.396.2647 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

C-4

To-Be Determined 2011

To-Be 

Determined

(continued)

Reg. XIII New Source Review

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Proposed amendments will address U.S. EPA comments on SIP 

approvability issues and/or requirements that may result from U.S. EPA 

amendments, legislation or CARB requirements. Amendments may also 

be proposed for clarity and improved enforceability.

Jill Whynot 909.396.3104 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1610 Old-Vehicle Scrapping

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Proposed amendment may be necessary to harmonize the rule with 

voluntary state vehicle scrapping program.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

Reg. IV, IX, 

X, XI, XIV, 

XX and 

XXX Rules

Various rule amendments may be needed to meet the requirements of 

state and federal laws, address variance issues/technology-forcing limits, 

or to seek additional reductions to meet the SIP short-term measure 

commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has been updated to 

include new measures to address toxic emissions in the basin. The CCP 

includes a variety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics 

from stationary, mobile, and area sources. Rule amendments may 

include updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide Air Toxic 

Control Measures.

2012

1st Quarter

25111 Credit Generation Program for Locomotive Head End Power Unit 

Engines

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Develop a rule to allow generation of PM mobile source emission 

reduction credits from Locomotive Head End Power Unit Engines. 

Credits will be generated by retrofitting engines with PM controls or 

replacing the engines with new lower-emitting engines.

Randal Pasek 909.396.2251 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

25121 Credit Generation Program for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Develop a rule to allow generation of PM, NOx and SOx emission 

reduction credits from oceangoing vessels while at berth. Credits will be 

generated by controlling the emissions from auxiliary engines and boilers 

of ships while docked.

Randal Pasek 909.396.2251 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT C

Other Rule Activity Schedule (continued)

C-5

2012

February

461 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Proposed amendments to Rule 461 will explore the feasibility of further 

reducing VOC and toxic emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities by 

improving implementation of the Enhanced Vapor Recovery Regulation. 

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)
ATTACHMENT D

Climate Change

This attachments lists rules or rule amendments for the Governing Board consideration that are 

designed to implement South Coast Air Quality Managements District’s Climate Change Policy 

or for consistency with state or federal rules.

D-1

To-Be Determined 2011

To-Be 

Determined

1118 Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Amendments may be necessary to address results of the additional 

analysis required by the adopting resolution for the last amendment and 

to consider the advances in monitoring technology. Amendments may 

also be necessary to implement an AB 32 measure.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

1173 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from 

Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Amendment to Rule 1173 may be necessary to address greenhouse gas 

emissions from petroleum facilities and chemical plants.

Naveen Berry 909.396.2363 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

Reg. XXVII Climate Change

[Projected Emission Reduction: TBD]

Additional protocols may be added to Rules 2701 and 2702.

Jill Whynot 909.396.3104 CEQA: Smith (3054) Socio: Lieu (3059)

Reg. IV, IX, 

X, XI, XIV, 

XX and 

XXX Rules

Various rule amendments may be needed to meet the requirements of 

state and federal laws, address variance issues/technology-forcing limits, 

or to seek additional reductions to meet the SIP short-term measure 

commitment. The Clean Communities Plan (CCP) has been updated to 

include new measures to address toxic emissions in the basin. The CCP 

includes a variety of measures that will reduce exposure to air toxics from 

stationary, mobile, and area sources. Rule amendments may include 

updates to provide consistency with CARB Statewide Air Toxic Control 

Measures.
ATTACHMENT E

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT– 2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05

Updated Emissions Inventory and Recommendations Regarding Implementation of 2007 

AQMP Control Measure MCS-05 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste

October 2011

Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources

Deputy Executive Officer

Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources

Elaine Chang, DrPH

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer

Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources

Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

Authors:

Tuyet-Le Pham – Air Quality Specialist

Pamela Perryman – Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed by:

Jill Whynot – Assistant Deputy Executive Officer

Tracy A. Goss, P.E. – Program Supervisor
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD

Chairman: DR. WILLIAM A. BURKE

Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Vice Chairman: DENNIS YATES

Mayor, Chino

Cities of San Bernardino

MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH

Supervisor, Fifth District

County of Los Angeles

JOHN J. BENOIT

Supervisor, Fourth District

County of Riverside

MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI

Councilmember, South Pasadena

Cities of Los Angeles County/Eastern Region

JANE W. CARNEY

Senate Rules Appointee

JOSIE GONZALES

Supervisor, Fifth District

County of San Bernardino

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE

Mayor, Riverside

Cities of Riverside County

JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph. D.

Governor’s Appointee

JUDITH MITCHELL

Councilmember, Rolling Hills Estates

Cities of Los Angeles County/Western Region

SHAWN NELSON

Supervisor, Fourth District

County of Orange

JAN PERRY

Councilmember, Ninth District

City of Los Angeles

MIGUEL A. PULIDO

Mayor, Santa Ana

Cities of Orange County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER:

BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1

Background......................................................................................................................................5

Industry Trends and Projections ......................................................................................................6

Emissions Inventory.........................................................................................................................9

2007 AQMP Inventory........................................................................................................................................... 9

Updated 2007 AQMP Inventory...........................................................................................................................10

Revised Inventory for the 2012 AQMP ...............................................................................................................11

Further Discussion on Livestock Emissions..................................................................................14

Dairies............................................................................................................................................14

Current Mitigation Measures for Dairies..............................................................................................................15

New Findings on Potential Control Measures......................................................................................................15

New Findings on Dairy Emissions.......................................................................................................................18

Poultry............................................................................................................................................18

Current Mitigation Measures for Poultry Operations...........................................................................................18

Swine..............................................................................................................................................21

Current Mitigation Measures for Swine Operations.............................................................................................21

Impacts of Proposition 2 ................................................................................................................22

San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4570 ...........................................................................................22

Staff Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................................23

References......................................................................................................................................25

Appendices

Appendix I – 2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventory

Appendix II – Mitigation Measures from Rule 223 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste

Appendix III – CM #2007 MCS-05 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1 - 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory – Baseline and Future Milestone

Years.................................................................................................................................1

Table 2 – Updated Livestock 2002 VOC Baseline Emission for 2007 AQMP...............................2

Table 3 – Updated 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory – Baseline and Milestone

Years.................................................................................................................................2

Table 4 - Revised Livestock VOC Emission Inventory for 2012 AQMP – Baseline and Future

Milestone Years...............................................................................................................3

Table 5 - 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory...........................................................9

Table 6 - Dairy Emission Factors by Categories...........................................................................10

Table 7 – Original and Updated 2007 AQMP Livestock 2002 VOC Baseline Emission

Inventory ......................................................................................................................10

Table 8 – Revised VOC Emission Inventory for Livestock ..........................................................11

Table 9 – SJVAPCD Dairy VOC Emission Factors......................................................................12

Table 10 – Baseline Year 2008 VOC Dairy Emissions by Category ............................................13

Table 11 – Livestock Updated 2007 AQMP and Revised Inventory ............................................24

Figures

Figure ES-1. Facility Locations within the Basin...........................................................................4

Figure 1. Milk Production Trend for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties 

from 1999 – 2009 (by millions of gallons of milk) ..........................................................7

Figure 2. Egg Production Trend for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties

from 1999 – 2009 (by million dozens of eggs).................................................................8

Figure 3. A Typical Dairy Farm ...................................................................................................14

Figurere 4. An Anaerobic Digester...............................................................................................18

Figure 5. A Typical Swine Farm...................................................................................................21
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 1 October 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In June 2007, the District’s Governing Board adopted the Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan 

(AQMP), which included control measure MCS-05 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste. The 

control measure seeks further emission reductions from livestock, focusing on dairies, poultry (layers 

and broilers), and swine. MCS-05 estimated a volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reduction of 

0.8 tons per day (t/d) by 2014 and an additional 0.6 t/d by 2023, beyond those reductions achieved by 

Rules 1127 and 223. Rule 1127 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste, was adopted in August 

2004 to implement control measure WST-01 from the 2003 AQMP. Rule 223 – Emission Reduction 

Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities was adopted in June 2006 pursuant to California Senate 

Bill (SB) 700 – Agriculture & Air Quality Summary and Implementation, which lifted the historical 

permitting and regulatory restrictions of agricultural operations, enabling further controls from these 

sources.

Previously, District staff worked with the Air Resources Board (ARB) staff to develop the 2002 baseline 

inventories, which were used in the 2007 AQMP. Specifically, staff used updated animal head counts to 

recalculate the entire livestock emissions inventory. These inventories reflected the most accurate 

accounting of livestock and emissions at that time. Table 1 summarizes the 2007 AQMP baseline and 

projected milestone years VOC emission inventory for the dairy, poultry, and swine livestock before and 

after the implementation of Control Measure MCS-05, which called for an additional 20% VOC 

emission reduction for each livestock category beyond those reductions achieved by Rule 1127.

Table 1 – 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory – Baseline and Future Milestone Years 

(t/d)

2002 2014 2023

Dairy 6.91 1.21 0.51

Poultry 2.43 2.43 2.43

Swine 0.097 0.097 0.097

Total 9.44 3.74 3.04

20% Emission Reduction 0.75 0.61

Total Remaining Emissions with

MCS-05 Implementation

2.99 2.43

As more research evolved, in conjunction with this assessment, staff updated the year 2002 VOC 

baseline emissions to reflect the split of dairy cattle based on the fraction of milking cows, dry cows, 

calves, and heifers as each has a different VOC emission factor (Table 6) based on the quantity of 

manure production. This resulted in lower 2002 VOC baseline dairy emissions by approximately 24%.

For poultry, staff used the latest VOC emission factor of 0.026 lb/bird/yr from the most recent ARB 

source test at a broiler production house in California which best represents egg-laying operations in the 

Basin (i.e., mechanically-ventilated houses with climate controls). This resulted in an approximately 

86% lower in VOC emissions for this category.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 2 October 2011

Table 2 summarizes the updated livestock 2002 VOC baseline emission for the 2007 AQMP.

Table 2 – Updated Livestock 2002 VOC Baseline Emission for 2007 AQMP (t/d)

Dairy Poultry Swine Total

5.23 0.33 0.097 5.66

Staff also updated the projected remaining VOC emissions for future milestone years (2014 and 2023) in 

an effort to evaluate the District’s commitment for implementing Control Measure MCS-05.

To keep the updated benchmark projections in the same “currency” with the original 2007 AQMP, staff 

applied the same rates of reduction, referred to as Relative Reduction Factors (RRF) derived from the 

original 2007 AQMP control measure to the updated VOC baseline emissions. The RRF takes into 

consideration not only projected emission reductions from control measure implementation, but also 

reductions from existing regulatory requirements and industry growth (which can be negative). 

Specifically, to be consistent, staff applied the RRF of 0.317 derived from the original 2002 baseline and 

2014 remaining emissions (2.99 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.317), and the RRF of 0.257 derived from the 2002

and 2023 data (2.43 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.3257) to the updated 2002 VOC baseline of 5.66 t/d, which 

resulted in the projected remaining VOC emission of 1.79 t/d and 1.46 t/d for the years 2014 and 2023, 

respectively.

Table 3 summarizes the updated baseline and future milestone years livestock VOC emission inventory 

for the 2007 AQMP. 

Table 3 – Updated 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory – Baseline and Milestone 

Years (t/d)

2002 2014 2023

Rates of Reduction (from 

2007 AQMP) 0.317 0.257

Updated Baseline and 

Benchmark Projections 5.66 1.79 1.46

In an effort to prepare for the upcoming 2012 AQMP, staff recently worked with the California Regional 

Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region (Water Board) staff to revise the current and projected 

future livestock inventory, called “Revised Inventory for the 2012 AQMP” (Revised Inventory), based 

on year 2008 headcount data. Staff also worked with industry representatives, including sending out 

facility surveys, to ensure the most accurate livestock inventory for 2008, which will be the 2012 AQMP 

baseline year.

Based on the milk and egg production trends from 1999 to 2009, and input from the Water Board and 

industry, staff found that although the numbers of livestock have continued to drop in the Basin, the rate 

of decline has not been as great as anticipated in the 2007 AQMP, which relied on the assumption of a 

continued growing economy. As the economy grows, land prices increase, which generally results in 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 3 October 2011

livestock operations moving out of the Basin due to urban development. In general, with existing 

regulatory (i.e., Proposition 2 – known as cage-free proposition that passed in 2008), economic, and 

product demand climate, the livestock industry in the South Coast jurisdiction is not considered a growth 

industry into the future. The locations of current and active livestock facilities within the Basin are 

shown in Figure ES-1 – Facility Locations within the Basin.

With this in mind, staff also revised the livestock emissions inventory to reflect the best, current local 

data. For future AQMP milestone years 2014 and 2023, revised emissions reflect the current condition 

of the industry and the resumption of the steady decline in dairy population of 7% per year after the year 

2014. Emission factors were also updated, as appropriate, based on current information.

In summary, dairy populations for year 2008 and future milestone years in the Revised Inventory are 

approximately 10% to 110% higher, while poultry headcounts are approximately 15% to 20% lower,

and swine headcounts are 64% lower, compared to the original 2007 AQMP data. In addition, dairy 

emission factors used in the Revised Inventory are specific to the types of cows (based on the quantity of 

manure that they produce), and poultry VOC emission factor is approximately 87% lower than the 

original 2007 AQMP factor.

Table 4 summarizes the revised baseline and projected benchmark livestock VOC emission inventory

for the 2012 AQMP, with implementation of Rules 223 and 1127.

Table 4 – Revised Livestock VOC Emission Inventory for 2012 AQMP - Baseline and Future 

Milestone Years (t/d) 

2002 2008 2014 2023

Dairy 5.23 2.25 1.54 0.80

Poultry 0.33 0.28 0.26 0.26

Swine 0.097 0.03 0.03 0.03

Total 5.66 2.56 1.83 1.09

In addition to VOC, staff also revised the inventories for other key pollutants, such as: NH3, PM10, and 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 E) from dairy, poultry, and swine farm operations. To best represent 

local operations, staff updated the emission factors for VOC (dairy and poultry) and NH3 (dairy) with

the most recent, relevant factors available to date.

Appendix I contains a summary of the original and adjusted 2007 AQMP (with updated emission 

factors), as well as the revised emissions inventory for the 2012 AQMP.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 4 October 2011

Figure ES-1 - Facility Locations within the Basin
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 5 October 2011

In summary, relative to the District’s commitment for implementing MCS-05 by the benchmark years, 

there will be a 0.04 tpd VOC emission short fall (1.83 tpd – 1.79 tpd) for the year 2014. However, based 

on the revised emissions inventory, industry-level projections (i.e., mostly negative growth), and current 

regulatory requirements, District staff recommends that Rule 1127 amendments not be pursued at this 

time. Staff also recommends that the 2014 VOC emission reduction shortfall of 0.04 tpd VOC be made 

up with excess VOC emission reductions generated from the implementation of Rule 1143 – Consumer 

Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents.

In conjunction with future AQMPs, staff will continue monitoring the industry trends and economic 

conditions for the industry in order to update the inventory and evaluate potential commitments for the 

milestone year 2023. Included with this will be continued monitoring of other regulatory actions by 

other air districts and US EPA. Staff will evaluate the San Joaquin Valley APCD’s most recent 

amendments to its livestock rule for potential application in the Basin. In addition, staff will follow

EPA’s development of dairy and poultry emissions quantification procedures and emission factors as 

part of the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS), with the anticipation to adjust the local 

data. It should also be noted that, although adopted some time ago, US EPA is reviewing both Rules 

223 and 1127 for inclusion into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and action is expected by year end.

This technology assessment summarizes data and analysis for the original and updated 2007 AQMP

inventories for dairies, poultry (layers, broilers), and swine. This document also outlines staff’s findings 

and recommendations regarding regulatory actions to implement the AQMP Control Measure MCS-05 

to contribute towards needed VOC emission reductions for the 2014 and 2023 milestone years to aid in 

the District’s progress towards attainment of the federal Ozone and fine particular standards. 

BACKGROUND

VOC emissions from livestock waste are precursors to ozone and PM2.5. In 2002, District staff worked 

with ARB to revise the 2002 livestock counts relative to updating the non-mobile source ammonia 

baseline inventory. It was estimated that in 2002, there were 300 dairies and 400,000 cows 

(approximately 250,000 dairy cattle and 150,000 support dairy cattle), over nine million poultry (egg 

layers and broilers), and more than 15,000 swine (hogs and pigs) in the District.

The 2007 AQMP Control Measure MCS-05 - Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste sought

additional emission reductions from confined animal facilities (CAFs), beyond those achieved by 

current Rules 223 and 1127. Control Measure MCS-05 suggested adding control requirements for swine 

operations to meet SB700. The control measure aimed to require more stringent controls (Class Two

Mitigation Measures) for large CAFs, including core measures across the board, and lesser controls 

(Class One Mitigation Measures) for smaller CAFs not currently subject to Rule 223 by bringing them 

into the District permit system. The control measure also aimed to further expand the scope of Rule 

1127 and its Best Management Practices based on anticipated results of on-going and future scientific 

research regarding manure management. Overall, MCS-05 estimated 20% emission reduction from each 

of the dairy, poultry, and swine categories.

Currently, Rule 223 requires a written Permit to Operate for all large CAFs, which are defined as 

facilities with (1): 1,000 or more milking cows; or 3,500 or more beef cattle; or 7,500 or more calves, 

heifers, or other cattle; or (2): 650,000 or more laying hens; or (3): 3,000 or more swine. CAF is defined 

as a confined facility with 3,360 or more fowls; or 50 or more animals. In addition, the rule also 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 6 October 2011

requires these large facilities to submit and implement an emission mitigation plan which can be 

developed based on different classes of mitigation measures to mainly minimize VOC emissions from 

housing, feed operations, and manure handling. Based on staff’s recently updated inventory, there are 

160 dairies in the Basin including 37 LACFs, and 36 chicken operations including 27 egg operations, 

five of which are LCAFs.

Rule 1127 requires best management practices for dairies and specific requirements regarding manure 

removal, handling, and composting.

INDUSTRY TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

Staff examined the industry trends for dairy and poultry operations in San Bernardino and Riverside 

counties where most farms in the South Coast jurisdiction are located. In examining the industry trends, 

staff relied on data from the 1999 to 2009 Riverside County Agricultural Report and the San Bernardino 

County Crop and Livestock Report.

Since the numbers of milking cows and calves, as well as layers and broilers, are not available in the 

Riverside County reports, staff used the milk production and egg production data as proxy for milking 

cows and layers, respectively.

As shown in Figure 1, dairy milk production in Riverside County has declined overall from 1999 to 

2009 by approximately 55%, whereas San Bernardino County has seen a decline of 53% over the same 

period. This represents a decline of a little more than 5% per year.

Staff also observed a similar declining trend in dairy headcounts for San Bernardino County. Based on 

the San Bernardino County report, from 1999 to 2009, the number of milking cows decreased 

approximately 57% (from 175,000 to 74,500 heads). The number of dairies in San Bernardino County 

also declined from 194 to 90 (54%) during the past decade.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 7 October 2011

Figure 1 – Milk Production Trend for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties from 

1999 – 2009 (by millions of gallons of milk)

Note: The agriculture reports reflect milk production in terms of “cwt” meaning hundredth weight or 100 pounds 

of product. Each cwt is assumed to be approximately 12 gallons of milk and was converted for the 

purposes of this chart.

Similarly, as shown in Figure 2, egg production in Riverside County has declined overall from 1999 to 

2009 by approximately 39%, whereas San Bernardino County has seen a decline of 32% over the same 

period.

There is a more moderate declining trend for chicken layers in San Bernardino County over the same 

period. Chicken layers reduced by approximately 25% (from 3,713,000 to 2,796,000 birds). The 

number of chicken farms declined from 46 to 28 (39%) in the county during this past decade.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 8 October 2011

Figure 2 – Egg Production Trend for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties from 

1999 – 2009 (by million dozens of eggs)

Note: The drop in egg production in 2001 in San Bernardino County was partly due to disease and decreased 

number of birds. 2002 reflects replacement of layers and increased egg per chicken production. The sharp 

decline in 2003 reflects the decrease in layers with younger fowl due to related New Castles Disease in the 

farms that required elimination of the livestock. The balance of years reflects the downward trend in the 

market consistent with Riverside County, which would be expected over the 10 year period were it not for 

the bird infections.

According to staff from Riverside County and San Bernardino County agriculture departments, it is 

more likely that dairy and poultry farms in the Basin would not increase in the future due to expensive 

land prices and stringent regulations, including the cage-free proposition approved by voters in 2008 and 

its implementation slated for 2015. To accommodate the increased demand for milk and eggs as a result 

of increased human population in the Basin, dairy products and poultry will be imported from outside 

the AQMD jurisdiction, most likely from the San Joaquin Valley or other states.

In the 2007 AQMP, dairies were projected to have similar downward trends as livestock in the Basin. 

Based on staff analysis and using industry data, from year 2008 to 2020, dairies were projected to 

decline by 67% and were represented by the negative (less than one) growth factors of 0.478 to 0.156 

used to forecast the future year emission inventories. These growth factors, therefore, reflect no 

anticipated return of prior livestock levels as in 2002.

In contrast to the dairy downward trend in the South Coast Air Basin, SJVAPCD predicted, relative to 

their most recent Rule 4570 amendment, an approximately 56% increase in dairy cow population (from 

2,639,000 to 4,111,000) between the years 2008 and 2023. This prediction was based on data provided 

by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which indicates a 3% growth each year.

The downward, or at least stagnant, future of livestock in the Basin is also confirmed by the Milk 

Producers Council. According to its representative, although many land development agreements with 

the dairymen in Ontario-Chino areas did not fully materialized due to the downturn in the economy and 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 9 October 2011

the real estate sector, specifically, they are expected to be renewed when the current economy improves 

and demands for housing increase. Dairies that do relocate are most likely to do so out of state due to 

concerns regarding increasing state and local regulations, even in the San Joaquin Valley. For poultry, 

SJVAPCD staff is estimating at least no growth in layers population in their jurisdiction as it is still 

uncertain what impacts will occur there from the cage-free proposition.

In recent years, it has been publicized that dairies in California have been operating at a financial loss, 

with expenses exceeding revenues, and that there is a lack of demand across the country and in Asia for 

dairy products. Although production adjustments allowed dairy farmers to recover somewhat in 2010, 

the futures market for the dairy industry indicates that they will continue to struggle in 2011. The 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange forecasts futures for milk as negative throughout 2011, which industry 

members are interpreting as an indicator that the dairy industry may be operating overall at a loss in 

2011.

EMISSIONS INVENTORY

2007 AQMP INVENTORY

Previously, District staff worked with the Air Resources Board (ARB) staff to revise the 2002 

baseline inventories, which were used in the 2007 AQMP. Specifically, staff used the updated 

animal head counts to recalculate the entire livestock emissions inventory, including the ammonia 

(NH3) inventory.

For the dairy VOC inventory, staff applied an emission factor of 12.8 lb/head/yr across the board for 

all types of cows (milking cow, dry cow, heifer, and calve), which was based on a metabolism study 

conducted by Benedict and Ritzman decades ago (160 lbs/head/yr total organic gases, TOG). This 

emission factor was adjusted per an EPA speciation study (1980), which estimated VOCs from 

livestock operations as 8% of the TOG, yielding a VOC emission factor of 12.8 lb/head/yr.

For the layers inventory, staff used a VOC emission factor of 0.192 lb/head/yr, which was adjusted 

as 8% of TOG per an EPA speciation study (2.4 lbs/head/yr TOG x 0.08).

Table 5 summarizes the 2007 AQMP VOC emission inventory for the livestock before and after the 

implementation of Control Measure MCS-05. These inventories reflected the most accurate 

accounting of livestock and emissions at the time.

Table -5 – 2007 AQMP Livestock VOC Emission Inventory (t/d)

2002 2014 2023

Baseline Emission 9.44 3.74 3.04

20% Emission Reduction 0.75 0.61

Total Remaining Emissions with

MCS-05 Implementation

2.99 2.43
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 10 October 2011

UPDATED 2007 AQMP INVENTORY

In particular, staff updated the year 2002 VOC baseline emission to reflect the split of dairy cattle 

based on the fraction of milking cows, dry cows, calves, and heifers known from the surveys 

(collected in an effort to prepare for the 2012 AQMP) as each has a different VOC emission factor 

(Table 6) based on the quantity of manure production. This resulted in lower VOC baseline dairy 

emissions by approximately 24%.

Table 6 – Dairy Emission Factors by Categories

VOC (lb/head/yr)

Milking Cow 12.8

Dry Cow 8.7

Heifer 6.1

Calves 4.5

Source: US Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board

For poultry, staff used the latest VOC emission factor of 0.026 lb/bird/yr from the most recent ARB 

source test at a broiler production house in California which best represents egg-laying operations in 

the Basin (i.e., mechanically-ventilated houses with climate controls). This resulted in an 

approximately 86% lower in VOC emissions for this category.

Table 7 compares the original and updated livestock 2002 VOC emissions for the 2007 AQMP.

Table 7 – Original and Updated Livestock 2002 VOC Baseline Emission Inventory (t/d)

Dairy Poultry Swine Total

Original VOC Baseline 

Emissions (Prior to MCS05 Implementation) 6.91 2.43 0.097 9.44

Updated VOC Baseline 

Emissions

5.23 0.33 0.097 5.66

Staff also updated the projected remaining VOC emissions for future milestone years (2014 and 

2023) in an effort to evaluate the District’s commitment for implementing Control Measure MCS05.

To keep the updated benchmark projections in the same “currency” with the original 2007 AQMP, 

staff applied the same rates of reduction, referred to as Relative Reduction Factors (RRF) derived 

from the original 2007 AQMP control measure to the updated VOC baseline emissions. The RRF 

takes into consideration not only projected emission reductions from control measure 

implementation, but also reductions from existing regulatory requirements and industry growth. 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 11 October 2011

Specifically, to be consistent, staff applied the RRF of 0.317 derived from the original 2002 baseline 

and 2014 remaining emissions (2.99 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.317), and the RRF of 0.257 derived from the 

2002 and 2023 data (2.43 tpd / 9.44 tpd = 0.3257) to the updated 2002 VOC baseline of 5.66 t/d, 

which resulted in the projected remaining VOC emission of 1.79 t/d and 1.46 t/d for the years 2014 

and 2023, respectively. Staff will continue monitoring the economic conditions for the industry and 

other regulatory actions in an effort to update the inventory and re-evaluate potential commitments 

for the milestone year 2023.

REVISED INVENTORY FOR THE 2012 AQMP

District staff continued their efforts to revise current and projected future livestock inventories for 

the upcoming 2012 AQMP. Recently, staff worked with the California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board – Santa Ana Region (Water Board) staff to update the emissions inventory based on 

year 2008 headcount data. Staff also worked with industry representatives, including sending out 

facility surveys, to ensure the most accurate livestock inventory for 2008, which will be the 2012 

AQMP baseline year.

Based on the milk and egg production trends from 1999 to 2009, and input from the Water Board 

and industry, staff found that although the numbers of livestock have continued to drop in the Basin, 

the rate of decline has not been as great as anticipated in the 2007 AQMP, which relied on the 

assumption of a continued growing economy. As the economy grows, land prices increase, which 

generally results in livestock operations moving out of the Basin. In general, with existing 

regulatory (i.e., Proposition 2 – known as cage-free proposition that passed in 2008), economic, and 

product demand climate, the livestock industry in the South Coast jurisdiction is not considered a 

growth industry into the future.

With this in mind, staff updated the 2007 AQMP livestock inventories to reflect the best, current 

local data for the 2012 AQMP. For future AQMP milestone years 2014 and 2023, revised emissions 

reflect the current estimated condition of the industry and the resumption of the steady decline in 

dairy population of 7% per year after the year 2014.

Table 8 summarizes the revised VOC emission inventory for the dairy, poultry, and swine livestock, 

with implementation of Rules 223 and 1127.

Table 8 – Revised VOC Emission Inventory for Livestock (t/d) 

2002 2008

(2012 AQMP 

Baseline 

Year)

2014 2023

Total Emissions 5.66 2.56 1.83 1.09

REVISED DAIRY EMISSIONS

District staff identified 163 dairies based on active District permits and the Water Board database 

for the year 2008. 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 12 October 2011

Staff mailed out surveys to those 163 dairies in February 2010 to seek updated information about 

the management practices and/or mitigation measures that are currently used by local dairies to 

minimize air emissions, especially as it relates to feasibility and costs. Of 131 deliverable mails, 

staff received 17 completed surveys including those from the three facilities that have no longer 

been in business in the Basin since late 2009 to early 2010.

With the assistance of the Milk Producers Council, staff further refined the 2008 baseline 

inventory to include 160 dairies with 208,010 cows (110,991 milking cows, 19,952 dry cows, 

47,510 heifers, and 29,548 calves.)

Staff used the emission factors from EPA and ARB (Table 4) to estimate the emissions for 

dairies.

In 2005, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) revised the dairy 

VOC emission factor to 19.3 lb/head/yr and has been using it for permitting purposes. This 

revised VOC emission factor was based on available research that accounts for emissions from 

different dairy processes. In 2010, the SJVAPCD further revised the VOC emission factor (15.8 

lb/head/yr) as a result of additional research findings, again based on emission points at different 

dairy processes (i.e., corrals/pens, freestall barns, manure handling and land application, etc.) and 

enteric emissions from cows.

Table 9 – SJVAPCD Dairy VOC Emission Factors

Uncontrolled EF 

(lbs/head/yr)

Controlled EF 

(lbs/head/yr)

Enteric Emissions 4.56 4.10

Milking Parlor 0.04 0.03

Freestall Barns 2.67 1.80

Corrals/Pens 11.73 6.60

Solid Manure Storage 0.17 0.15

Liquid Animal Waste Handling 1.60 1.30

Separated Solids Piles 0.07 0.06

Land Application Solid Manure 0.37 0.33

Land Application Liquid Manure 1.56 1.40

Total per-animal EF 22.8 15.8

For the emissions inventory, District staff believes that 12.8 lb/head/yr for milking cows is still 

relevant to the SCAB for the following reasons: (1) there are no known “freestall barn” dairies in 

the SCAB; instead dairies in the Basin are mostly “dry lot corral” facilities; (2) land application 

of liquid manure is not a known practice in the Basin. Without those two sources of emissions, 

the adjusted SJVAPCD would be 12.6 lbs/head/yr; therefore, the 12.8 lbs/head/yr factor that staff 

is using remains relevant for sources in the District. In addition, staff believes that further review 

is necessary for most recent research studies on various dairy emission sources, especially when 

differences are the result of different test methods applied or different focus on emission sources.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 13 October 2011

Staff estimates that in 2008, the dairy operations generated 820 tons/year or 2.25 tons/day of 

VOC. This value is calculated using the control factor (CF) of 0.813 which accounts for the 

remaining emissions after Rule 1127 implementation from the uncontrolled VOC emissions of 

2.76tons/day.

Table 10 – Baseline Year 2008 VOC Dairy Emissions by Category

VOC (t/y)

Milking Cow 577.5

Dry Cow 70.6

Heifer 117.8

Calve 54.1

Total 820.0 (2.25 t/d)

REVISED POULTRY EMISSIONS

Staff worked with Local Enforcement Agencies (LEA), industry associations, and research 

specialists to update the list of facilities and derive headcounts for the revised inventory.

For the 2008 base year, there are 36 chicken operations in the Basin (four of these are too small 

to be classified as CAFs), 27 are egg operations (five of which are LCAFs), and five chicken 

(pullets) operations (none of which is LCAF). Staff estimated that of approximately 7,800,000 

birds, about 4,200,000 are located at LCAF operations. There are approximately 620,000 pullets 

and the rest are layers. No broiler operations remain in the South Coast jurisdiction. Layers are 

predominantly in the form of “high-rise” cage layouts; however, free range egg laying operations 

exist to a lesser extent.

Staff used the most current VOC emission factor (0.026 lb/head/yr), which was based on the 

most recent ARB source test conducted at a broiler production house in California which best 

represents egg-laying operations in the Basin (i.e., mechanically-ventilated houses with climate 

controls). Although there are no broiler operations in the South Coast, the use of this VOC 

emission factor is considered relevant since the testing was conducted during the typical 55-day 

poultry production cycle.

This VOC emission factor is much lower than the original 2007 AQMP emission factor for this 

category (0.192 lb/head/yr). The newer factor reflects the best state of the science based on the 

technical work of ARB (Quantification of Gaseous Emissions from California Broiler Production 

Houses, 2005). In addition, the new factor was based on a gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry analysis of samples collected, which is a more appropriate method for complex gas 

mixtures at low concentrations.

The emissions inventory from this livestock group is 0.28 tons/day VOC. The emissions from 

District facilities are approximately split between the LCAFs (5) of more than 4 million birds 

and CAFs (27). The smaller VOC emission factor coupled with decreased headcount in layers 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 14 October 2011

and broilers (from 9.2 million in the 2007 AQMP to 7.8 million) contribute to the 88% lower in 

VOC emission inventory for this sector.

REVISED SWINE EMISSIONS

There is only one swine operation in the Basin (Ontario) and it is classified as an LCAF due to 

its 5,500 swine population. This farm is on a year-by-year lease on property owned by a land 

development corporation. Therefore, long-term operations are uncertain, and according to the 

operator, costly changes to the current practice could result in closure of the facility.

Using the VOC emission factor of 4.6 lb/head/year, staff estimates that this swine operation 

creates 0.03 tons/day of VOC emissions, after accounting for the rule implementation factor. 

Declined headcount from over 15,000 (in the 2007 AQMP) to 5,500 contributes to the 

approximately 7% lower VOC emission inventory for this sector.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS 

Baseline year adjustments to the dairy and poultry categories resulted in a 2002 VOC baseline reduction 

of 40% (5.66 tpd from 9.44 tpd).

To evaluate the revised inventory relative to the District’s commitment for implementing MSC-05 by 

2014, staff examined the rate of reduction from the 2002 baseline year to 2014, referred to as relative 

reduction factor (RRF). By applying the RRF derived from the original 2007 AQMP (2.99 tpd / 9.44 

tpd = 0.317) to the revised 2002 baseline (5.66 tpd), staff keeps the updated inventory data in the same 

“currency” with the 2007 AQMP, which results in 1.79 tpd VOC emission reduction for the year 2014. 

However, this conservative approach also results in a 0.04 tpd VOC emission reduction shortfall (1.83

tpd – 1.79 tpd) for the year 2014.

DAIRIES

Figure 3 depicts a “dry lot corral” dairy farm, which is typical in the SCAB.

Figure 3 – A Typical Dairy Farm

Source: http://www.usjersey.com/Reference/JerseyFacility_web.pdf
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 15 October 2011

CURRENT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DAIRIES

Current District Rule 1127 requires Best Management Practices to minimize emissions from the 

corrals and feed lanes. The rule also includes mitigation measures for manure removal, handling, 

and processing, such as shipping manure out of the Basin, land application, composting, and 

digesters. According to the rule staff report, although the removal factors for these control measures 

and digesters are 0.75 (75%) and 1 (100%), respectively, the total control effectiveness varies from 

17% to 100% depending on the implementation frequency. Rule 1127 resulted in an overall 

reduction of 37% from this industry.

Currently, smaller dairies (with less than 1,000 milking cows, or 3500 beef cattle, or 7,500 calves or 

heifers) are not subject to District Rule 223. For larger dairies, Rule 223 provides a menu option 

which includes both Class One and Class Two mitigation measures applicable for various areas and 

activities/operations: feed and silage, milk parlor, freestall barns, corrals, handling of solid manure, 

handling of liquid manure, and land application of liquid or dry manure.

Rule 223 Class One mitigation measures mainly consist of Best Management Practices, such as: 

removing spoiled/spilled/uneaten feed, flushing, scraping, preventing standing water, covering 

manure and quickly removing it, etc. Class Two measures rely on add-on controls and/or new 

technologies, such as: silage bag, animal diet with no silage, enclosure, shade structure, aerated static 

pile for composting, biofilter or control device with at least 80% control efficiency, digester, aerobic 

or mechanically aerated lagoon, organic loading threshold, and chemical coagulant and flocculent. 

Appendix II contains a list of mitigation measures from Rule 223.

Staff surveys indicate that the majority of dairies comply with Rule 223 by implementing their 

selected Class One mitigation measures. Few facilities installed shade structures and none applied 

enclosure or control device. No digesters were in operation in the Basin at the time of this report.

NEW FINDINGS ON POTENTIAL CONTROL MEASURES

In this document, staff only includes the potential control measures that are applicable to the SCAB 

dairies. These control measures, however, are not required through any known stationary source air 

quality regulation. Rather, some (as in the case of the digester) are optional controls.

DIETARY MANIPULATION

In general, the feeding guidelines for dairies are established by the National Research council 

(NRC).

According to recent studies, the best way to feed animals is to supply them with the amino acids 

they need instead of feeds that are based on crude protein. For each percent reduction in dietary 

crude protein, nitrogen excretion at dairies would be reduced by approximately 8.5% to 10%, 

resulting in potential significant ammonia emission reductions. For each percent increase in 

fermentable carbohydrates, such as bran and pulp, a 14% ammonia emission reduction would 

result. However, none of the dairies in California has officially implemented this measure, nor is 

staff aware of any regulatory requirements for the dietary manipulation as it applies to air 

emissions. Research is on-going to investigate potential emission reductions from this 

management practice to reduce not only VOC and NH3, but also greenhouse gases (GHGs), 

including methane (CH4)
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 16 October 2011

MANURE ADDITIVES

Additives are used to either bind ammonia or inhibit urease (the enzyme that breaks urea down to 

ammonia). Studies indicate that weekly application of phenyl phosphorodiamidate to cattle 

slurries would prevent up to 70% of the urea from being hydrolyzed. However, the additives 

would pose another problem once the manure is land-applied, unless the plants can quickly use 

the nitrogen generated. Additives to reduce ammonia emissions can be costly and concerns have 

been raised about ground water impacts.

DRY MANURE AMENDMENTS

Aluminum sulfate would reduce ammonia loss by 96% and is often recommended over 

phosphoric acid and ferrous sulfate as a dry manure amendment. However, the addition of 

phosphoric acid would increase phosphorous content and ferrous sulfate would raise toxicity 

concern.

SEALED BAGS

Sealed bags can be used to store feed. Due to complete sealing, these bags would eliminate 

oxygen and help forage remain stable until feeding; hence, reducing fermentation loss. 

However, sealed bags would take up more space per volume of silage compared to the traditional 

silage storage; therefore, they would not be feasible for all dairies. In addition, there is a bagging 

cost, which is estimated by SJVAPCD to be $11.30 per ton of silage. Based on a cow’s silage 

consumption rate of 4.56 tons per year, the cost of sealed silage would be $51.50 per cow per 

year.

Sealed bags can also be used for composting. A typical sealed bag is a forced aeration system 

with 12 air vents to adjust temperature and oxygen level. Eleven of the ten-foot-long systems

would compost 5,500 cubic yards of materials on one acre of land. The composting and curing 

cycles can be completed in 60 to 90 days. With the potential of 3 to 5 cycles per year, as much 

as cubic 22,000 yards per acre per year can be composted. The systems were briefly used in 

small-scaled operations to compost community yard/greenwaste at City of Glendale, Wisconsin, 

and the Edwards Air Force Base in California in the 1990s.

Recently in 2010, Ag-Bag Environmental provided an estimate to the Milk Producers Council to 

handle 320,000 tons per year of dairy manure and bulking agent for dairies in the Chino areas 

with a CT-10 Composter and POD system. The cost of operating a compost facility would be 

offset by a tipping fee charged to the waste generator at approximately $40 per ton.

ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SYSTEMS

The following anaerobic digester systems are commonly used for dairy manure treatment: 

covered lagoon systems, complete mix systems, plug flow digesters, and centralized digesters.

Recent studies conclude that due to their high operating and compliance costs, digester systems

would remain economically infeasible, as long as natural gas and electricity prices remain 

relatively stable, unless major technical breakthrough are achieved.

• Covered Lagoon Systems are the most basic and the least expensive systems; therefore, are 

the most widely operated systems in California. They use the 3% or less total solid content 

output of the “flush” manure handling systems to produce a high BTU biogas (up to 70% 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 17 October 2011

methane). The retention time for manure processing is 45 to 60 days. The biogas conversion 

rates are generally 35% to 45%.

• Complete Mix Systems are best suitable for treating slurry manure with 3% to 10% solid 

content. The contents are periodically mixed in a digester tank and often heated to maintain 

an optimal temperature for methane production. The systems can be used by flush and 

scrape manure dairies if water is added to the collected manure. Since the retention time is 

shorter (15 to 20 days), the systems can handle larger processing loads. Due to the system’s 

thermophilic condition, biogas conversion rates are higher (from 45% to 55%). However, the 

systems are expensive to construct and to operate, hence are not common in California.

• Plug Flow Digesters consist of a long, narrow underground tank. They handle manure with 

solid content between 11% and 13%, consistent with “scrape” manure management systems. 

Typical retention time for plug flow digesters are 20 to 30 days. Currently, there are 6 plug 

flow digesters in California. Plug flow digesters are expensive to construct and to operate, 

and thus are less cost-effective. According to SJVAPCD staff, it would cost a dairy with 

1,000 milk cows approximately $1.8 million to $2.2 million for each ton of VOC reduced. 

This estimate excludes the costs of solid separation after digestion and hydrogen sulfide 

removal, and utility charges, but accounts for potential savings from the digester’s generation 

of electricity.

• Centralized Digesters - The centralized digester at the Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s 

(IEUA) in Chino was the only centralized system operated in California. The IEUA digester 

was started in 2002 and processed 225 tons of manure per day from 6,250 dairy cows, plus 

food waste from local food industries.

Large scale biomethane production with higher methane content (95 percent or more) is a 

primary reason for centralized digesters. The biogas was used to power the agency’s off-site 

groundwater desalinization plant and wastewater facilities. However, due to significant 

operational difficulties and high operating costs, the system was shut down in September 

2009.

Figure 4 is a schematic of a simple anaerobic digester system.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 18 October 2011

Figure 4 – An Anaerobic Digester

Source: www.daviddarling.info/images/anaerobic_digest

NEW FINDINGS ON DAIRY EMISSIONS

There are recent studies to evaluate the emissions produced directly from cows (enteric emissions) 

and their fresh manure. The focus areas include: corrals and turnouts, bedding areas, lagoons, feed 

storage areas, flush lanes, and bunker feed. Unlike previous findings, these studies have identified 

animal feed (or silage) as one of the major dairy VOC sources. However, it is noted that VOC 

emissions from silage in the Basin are lower than those indicated from these studies. In the Basin, 

much of the feed is dried, bailed, and shipped to local dairies, as opposed to adjacent farming. This 

feed, including grains, has extremely low moisture content, and thus negligible VOC emissions from 

the feed itself. In addition, according to a Milk Producers Council representative, approximately 

10% of the dairy farms in the Basin grow their own silage, which is stored in bags to prevent 

fermentation and retain nutrients. The silage bags are kept on-site for only a few days at a time. 

Dairymen who purchase feed (silage, alfalfa, corn, grain, etc.) on an as-needed-basis also store it onsite for only few days at a time, thus minimizing VOC emissions from the facility.

POULTRY

In the SCAB, layers are predominantly kept in “high-rise” cage layouts while free range egg laying 

operations exist to a lesser extent.

CURRENT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POULTRY OPERATIONS

Rule 223 requires a written Permit to Operate for large CAFs with 650,000 or more layers. In 

addition, the rule also requires these large facilities to submit and implement an emission mitigation 

plan which can be developed based on different classes of mitigation measures to mainly minimize 

VOC emissions from housing, feed operations, and manure handling. Appendix II contains a list of 

the mitigation measures from Rule 223.

Class Two Mitigation Measures are not currently a requirement in Rule 223 but are listed in menu 

form for poultry operations in the categories of: housing; handling of solid manure or separated 

solids; and handling of manure in liquid form. There are no Class Two Mitigation Measures for the 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 19 October 2011

“Feed Operations” category. The Class Two Mitigation Measures for poultry housing include four 

options, two of which are applicable to egg operations and two are applicable to chickens raised for 

meat (broiler) operations. The chicken operations in the Basin are pullet (young birds) operations, 

not broilers. Pullets are usually defined as hens less than 20 weeks in age. The pullets are then 

moved to a laying operation.

MANURE/LITTER MANAGEMENT

The two housing measures for egg layers are: (1) use a belt litter removal system that dries the 

litter; and (2) use a litter drying system, such as a flat bed drying system. These are similar in 

that the idea is to reduce emissions by quickly drying the litter. The belt litter removal system 

uses mechanical ventilation to dry the litter and mechanically removes the litter.

The second method operates similar to an aerated static pile, in that it is a tiered system with the 

manure falling onto a wire mesh and air blowing up through the litter to dry it quickly and thus 

reduce emissions. The manure when dry becomes a powdery substance that falls onto a lower 

tray. The material is then collected and sold as a protein source. One layer house in the AQMD 

jurisdiction uses the belt system and there are no flat bed drying systems in the Basin.

HOUSING

The layer chickens are housed in several types of buildings, one style being an open style with a 

solid roof and support structures, but much of the perimeter has roll-up cloth screens covering an 

open mesh-like frame that are adjusted for ventilation needs. These houses are approximately 

410 feet wide and are grouped into large complexes without separations.

The two housing measures for chickens used for meat (broilers) are: (1) vent housing to a VOC 

control device with an overall VOC capture and control efficiency of at least 80%; and (2) house 

animals in a tunnel ventilated house with mechanical ventilation. This is because these birds are 

kept on the floor so mechanical manure removal is not possible. Staff has not identified any 

broiler operations in the Basin, but is assuming the pullets located in the Basin are subject to the 

mitigation measures for broilers.

Housing animals in a tunnel ventilated house with mechanical ventilation creates particulate and 

ammonia emissions. Any emission reductions associated with this method would come from the 

drying effects of the ventilation which decreases the VOC and ammonia emissions by decreasing 

spontaneous composting. This type of housing is not a retrofit application but new construction.

FEEDING OPERATIONS

There are no Class Two Mitigation Measures for poultry feeding operations. There are three 

measures listed as Class Two Mitigation Measures for handling of solid manure or separation 

solids. First is to store all removed animal waste in an enclosure vented to a control device with 

at least 80% control efficiency. The second option entails moving the animal waste to a digester 

for processing. The third is to compost the material using an aerated static pile vented to a 

control device with at least 80% control efficiency.

As for option two, there are no digesters currently operating in the Basin. There was a digester 

in operation in Chino by Inland Empire Utilities Agency used for disposal of cow manure, but it 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 20 October 2011

has been shut-down. The use of digesters for chicken manure has not been demonstrated as 

effective due to the low carbon value of the manure compared to cow manure. A digester used 

for cow manure could not be used for chicken manure due to differences in moisture content.

Option three entails composting using an aerated static pile which is defined in Rule 223 as “a 

system designed, constructed, maintained, and operated for decomposing organic material in 

which the material is placed on top of perforated plates that are connected to blowers that either 

push or pull air through the piles. The system shall operate under negative or positive pressure 

for not less that 90% of its blower operation cycle and the exhaust shall be vented to a VOC 

control device with an overall capture and control efficiency of at least 80%”. According to the 

2002 Technology Assessment for Rule 1133 – Emission Reductions from Composting and 

Related Operations, there are two facilities in the AQMD jurisdiction that use aerated static pile 

technology. A system could be designed with negative pressure so that the air pulled in could be 

vented to a pollution control device. One problem with this method of composting for chicken 

manure is that carbon and nitrogen must be balanced for effective composting, and thus the 

chicken manure would have to be mixed with some other material such as green waste to 

increase the carbon content.

LIQUID MANURE

The Class Two Control Mitigation Measures for poultry operations handling manure in liquid 

form are: (1) Use of lagoons; (2) additional non-standard equipment or chemicals on the solid 

separator system, such as roller or screw presses or chemical coagulants and flocculants that 

increase the percent of solid separation achieved by the separator; and (3) cover the lagoon or 

storage pond and vent to a biofilter or control device with at least 80% control efficiency.

Lagoons for poultry operations are not currently present in the District. Lagoons have fallen out 

of use due to odor nuisance problems with facilities being in close proximity to developed areas.

Option 2 is theoretical at best because there is no solid separator system employed at a chicken 

farm to handle the waste. Chicken manure has a much lower moisture content than cow manure 

so solid separator systems are not employed. The manure is spread out in large, flat areas to dry 

or composted. One could theoretically devise a system to place the manure on a surface and then 

roll or squeeze out the liquid but the volume of the waste makes this highly impractical. It is 

conceivable to apply chemical coagulant or flocculants to the manure to reduce the ammonia 

emissions by changing the pH, binding the ammonia, or inhibiting urease, the enzyme that 

breaks urea down to ammonia.

Option 3 is not feasible because there are no lagoons or storage ponds associated with chicken 

farms in the Basin. Biofiltration is a pollution control technique using living material to capture 

and biologically degrade process pollutants. Common uses include processing waste water, 

capturing harmful chemicals or silt from surface runoff, and microbiotic oxidation of 

contaminants in air.

The implementation of mitigation measures, especially Class Two mitigation measures, would 

result in significant costs. For example, a concentrator with oxidizers for a chicken house with a 

ventilation rate of 900,000 SCFM would cost approximately 9 million dollars, and the cost-
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 21 October 2011

effectiveness for this control equipment would be over 1 million dollars per ton of PM2.5 

reduced. A tunnel ventilated house would cost $1,800,000 at present time, and an enclosed 

manure storage building (70 feet X 300 feet) would cost $300,000.

SWINE

Figure 5 – A Typical Swine Farm

Source: http://www.watersheds.org/farm/pigfarm.htm

CURRENT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SWINE OPERATIONS

There are no mitigation measures for swine operations in Rule 223. There is only one swine facility 

in the Basin and it is operated on land that is leased on a year-to-year basis. The facility is an LCAF 

with 5,500 animals. A discussion follows of the SJVUAPCD swine measures for LCAF compared 

to what the one swine operator is currently employing at the facility located in the Basin.

FEED AND SILAGE MEASURES

Feed and silage measures require the operator to: (1) feed according to NRC guidelines; (2)

remove spilled food every 7 days; (3) remove uneaten wet feed with 24-hours of rain event; and

(4) feed or dispose of rations within 48 of mixing.

HOUSING UNIT MEASURES

Housing unit measures require; (1) the use lime or absorbent material in pens to minimize 

moisture; (2) clean the area of waste every 7 days; (3) manage pens so depth of waste <18 

inches; (4) slope surface of pens; install floats on trough or use drinkers; inspect water pipes and 

trough every 14 days; and (5) use slatted floor system with daily animal waste removal.

SOLID WASTE MEASURE

The solid waste measure requires the operator to compost waste removed from pens with aerated 

static pile

LIQUID WASTE MEASURE

The liquid waste measure requires the operator to: (1) use aerobic or mechanically aerated 

lagoon and maintain organic loading <3/5 mg/mL or total volatile solids <3.5 mg/mL; or (2) use 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 22 October 2011

additional non-standard equipment or chemicals on solid separator system, such as roller or 

screw press or chemical coagulants or flocculants, that increase % solid separation; or (3) cover 

lagoon and vent to control device.

Implementation of the more stringent mitigation measures could be too costly for sustaining 

operations at the only swine farm in the Basin. Based on discussions with the facility operator, 

although many of these measures are correctly implemented, margins of profit are tight as they serve 

only the local market. Increased operational costs to implement additional measures with possible 

little benefit in emission reductions could be detrimental to this facility.

IMPACTS OF PROPOSITION 2

When combined with Proposition 2, approved by California voters in 2008, the mitigation measures 

could have detrimental financial impacts on chicken farms, especially the layer chicken industry. This 

proposition, in general, requires more space for calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant 

pigs so they can “lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely”. It is anticipated 

that the cage-free proposition would negatively impact poultry egg laying farms, in particular “high rise” 

operations. However, due to the fact that livestock operations will have until January 1, 2015 to comply 

with the space requirement, the bird population is assumed to remain at least constant through 2023 for 

the purpose of this technical assessment and emissions quantification.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

(SJVAPCD) RULE 4570

SJVAPCD originally adopted Rule 4570 in June 2006 in order to comply with SB 700. The rule is also 

a key element of San Joaquin’s SIP for ozone attainment.

On July 14, 2009, EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the 

SJVAPCD SIP submittal of Rule 4570 – Confined Animal Facilities. According to EPA, Rule 4570 did

not sufficiently implement Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for dairies, beef feedlots, 

and other cattle facilities at time of submittal. According to EPA, Rule 4570, with the menu option, 

allowed large dairies to select control measures of various costs and effectiveness that might not fulfill 

RACT requirements and/or complicate cost, emissions reduction estimates, and establishment of 

specific control requirements.

SJVAPCD estimated a 36%-42% VOC emissions reduction for cattle. The EPA expected that these

estimates be refined as more research results regarding the emission factors and the effectiveness of 

various mitigation measures become available.

EPA also believed there was sufficient information available to conclude the rule is RACT deficient for 

poultry and swine operations. One issue was the lack of quantifiable emission reductions. There have 

been no source tests conducted for the various control mitigation measures due to the configuration of 

the industry operation and the ability to adequately identify a portion of the total emissions to any 

particular mitigation measure. EPA also proposed that the analysis was inadequate to demonstrate that 

the menu options for poultry implement RACT. EPA stated the analysis should include availability and 

effectiveness of controls and found that the rule did not prohibit the use of an ineffective control 

measure when more effective measures are reasonably available. EPA stated that if an option was 

determined to be cost-effective, it should be required for all operations, and if not, removed. Also, EPA 
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 23 October 2011

stated that SJVAPCD provided few examples of details of variability in poultry operations, or at least 

not enough to warrant the use of the menu option as opposed to mandated Best Management Practices.

Additionally, EPA took issue with the rule exempting poultry operations between 400,000 and 650,000 

chickens as these are major sources (10 tons [emission factor or 0.05 lbs/bird]). 

On October 21, 2010, the San Joaquin Valley APCD adopted amendments to Rule 4570 – Confined 

Animal Facilities. The amendments were made to address the RACT deficiencies identified by EPA and 

to reflect the latest science regarding animal agriculture operations. The Rule 4570 amendment 

contained the following key elements:

• The permitting threshold for dairy cattle was reduced from 1,000 milking cows to 500. 

Thresholds were also reduced for poultry from 650,000 to 400,000 chicken and ducks.

• A number of existing menu options were made more stringent by making some management 

practices mandatory for feed and housing mitigation measures. Similar amendments were made 

for poultry and swine.

• Additional mitigation measures (e.g., compaction) were added to silage as it has been identified 

through recent research studies as a major source of VOCs in the Valley.

The rule amendment package also contained a RACT analysis that compared the amended rule 

requirements to other air district rules applicable to the same sources. It should also be noted that the 

SJVAPCD anticipates significant growth (50+ percent) in the number of dairy cattle through 2023, 

whereas here in the South Coast Air Basin the dairy population is anticipated to decrease overall during 

the same time frame.

Staff will evaluate the SJVAPCD’s most recent amendments to its livestock rule for potential 

application in the Basin for the inclusion in the 2012 AQMP.

STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A greater reduction in milking and support cows was anticipated in the 2007 AQMP due to land 

development agreements and industry growth factors that were based on the assumption of a continued 

growing economy. Over the years, the number of dairy cows has declined but not as much as expected, 

and per industry experts, this headcount has nearly reached the steady-state level for local milk demand. 

In addition, as the economy improves in the future, it is reasonable to expect renewal of the land 

development agreements and resumption of migration of dairies out of the Basin. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that dairy emissions will return to previous levels (i.e., 2002) and most likely will continue to 

decline.

The poultry headcount is less than projected in the 2007 AQMP and may further decline due to the 

passage of the cage-free proposition. The lower headcount, combined with updated emission factors, 

contributed greatly to the reduced poultry emissions inventory.

The number of swine farms in the state has steadily declined over the years. The South Coast reflects 

that statewide trend with one remaining swine farm that is on a-year-to-year property lease pending 

redevelopment.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 24 October 2011

Staff also revised the inventories for other key pollutants, such as: NH3, PM10, and carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2 E) from dairy, poultry, and swine farm operations. Appendix I summarizes the detailed 

emissions inventory.

Table 11 – Livestock Updated 2007 AQMP and Revised Inventory (t/d)

Pollutant Updated 2007 AQMP (With Updated Emission 

Factors)

Revised Inventory (for the 2012 

AQMP)

2002 2014 2023 2008/2009 2014 2023

VOC 5.66 1.79 1.46 2.56 1.83 1.09

NH3 31.74 N/A N/A 13.51 12.07 7.28

PM10 0.002 N/A N/A 0.87 0.79 0.56

CO2E

(MT/d)

13,014 N/A N/A 10,065 9,256 8549

At this time, based on the updated emissions inventory, industry-level projections (i.e., mostly negative 

growth), and current regulatory requirements, staff recommends that the SIP shortfall of 0.04 tpd VOC 

for the year 2014 be made up with excess VOC emission reductions generated from the implementation 

of Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents.

In conjunction with future AQMPs, staff will continue monitoring the industry trends and economic 

conditions for the industry in order to update the inventory and evaluate potential commitments for the 

milestone year 2023. Included with this will be continued monitoring of other regulatory actions by 

other air districts and US EPA. Staff will evaluate the San Joaquin Valley APCD’s most recent 

amendments to its livestock rule for potential application in the Basin to reduce not only VOC, but also 

other pollutants such as NH3. In addition, staff will follow EPA’s development of dairy and poultry 

emissions quantification procedures and emission factors as part of the National Air Emissions 

Monitoring Study (NAEMS), with the anticipation to adjust the local data.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD 25 October 2011

REFERENCES

Rule 1127 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste, SCAMD, August 2004

Final Report: Quantification of Gaseous Emissions from California Broiler Production Houses, AIRx 

Testing et al., March 2005

Rule 223 - Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities, SCAQMD, June 2006

Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix IV- A, CM #2007 MCS-05 – Emission Reductions 

from Livestock Waste, SCAQMD, June 2007

Air Pollution Control Officer’s Revision of Dairy VOC Emissions Factors, SJVAPCD, December 2009

Proposed Compost Project Prepared for, and at the Request of Milk Producers Council, Ag-Bag 

Environmental, April 2010

Economic Analysis for the Ag-Bag Compost Pilot prepared for the SCAQMD and Milk Producers 

Council, Ag-Bag Environmental, April 2010

Final Draft Staff Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), 

Appendix G – 2009 RACT SIP Analysis Language Taken From the 2009 Adopted RACT SIP Analysis 

Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570, June 2010 

Final Draft Staff Report for Amended Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 

Facilities), Appendix B – Baseline Emission Inventory and Estimated Emission Reductions, October 

2010

Final Draft Staff Report for Amended Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 

Facilities), Appendix E – Analysis of Class Two Mitigation Measures, October 2010

Sheffield, R.E. and Louks, B., Dairy Ammonia Control Practices, University of Idaho Extension, Idaho 

Agricultural Experiment Station
APPENDIX I

2007 AQMP and REVISED EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventory

(Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I-1 October 2011

2007AQMP Revised Inventory for 2012 AQMP

2002

Baseline Year

2014 2023 2008/2009 Staff Inventory 2014 2023

Dairy Cattle Count 393,948 109,911(1) 46,092(1) 208,010(2) 184,662(2) 96,100(3)

Dairy Cattle VOC 6.91

(EF: 12.8 lb/hd/yr)

5.23(4)

(EF milking cows: 12.8;

EF dry cows: 8.7;

EF heifers: 6.1;

EF calves: 4.5lb/hd/yr)

1.21

(CF: 0.63)

(GF: 0.279)

0.51

(CF: 0.63)

(GF: 0.117)

2.25

(EF milking cows: 12.8;

EF dry cows: 8.7;

EF heifers: 6.1;

EF calves: 4.5lb/hd/yr)

(CF = 0.813)

Notes: Uncontrolled 

Emissions: 2.76

1.54

(CF = 0.63)

0.80

(CF = 0.63)

Dairy Cattle NH3 28.89(5)

(EF milking cows: 74;

EF dry cows: 45.4;

EF heifers: 27.8;

EF calves: 23.6 lb/hd/yr)

11.29(6)

(EF milking cows: 74;

EF dry cows: 45.4;

EF heifers: 27.8;

EF calves: 23.6lb/hd/yr)

(CF = 0.74)

(7)

Notes: Uncontrolled 

emissions: 15.26

10.00(6)

(CF = 0.74)

5.21(6)

(CF = 0.74)

Dairy Cattle PM10 (8) 0.002

(EF: 0.0067 lb/hd/yr)

0.54

(EF: 3.56 lb/hd/yr)

0.48 0.25

Dairy Cattle CO2 Equiv. 

(MT/day)

3,155.79(9)

(EF milking cows: 4.9;

EF dry cows: 1.25;

EF heifers: 0.68;

EF calves: 0.24 MT/hd/yr)

1,666.30

(EF milking cows: 4.9;

EF dry cows: 1.25;

EF heifers: 0.68;

EF calves: 0.24 MT/hd/yr)

1,473.85 767.01
Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventory

(Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I-2 October 2011

2007AQMP Revised Inventory for 2012 AQMP

2002

Baseline Year

2014 2023 2008/2009 Staff Inventory 2014 2023

Poultry Count(10) 9,225,354 9, 225,354 9,225,354 7,871,300(11) 7,292,800 7,292,800

Poultry VOC 0.33

(EF: 0.026 lb/hd/yr)

2.43

(EF: 0.192 lb/hd/yr)

2.43 2.43

0.28

(EF: 0.026 lb/hd/yr)

(12)

0.26 0.26

Poultry NH3 2.43

(EF: 0.192 lb/hd/yr)

2.07

(EF: 0.192 lb/hd/yr)

1.92 1.92

Poultry PM10 0 0.33

(EF: 0.0308 lb/hd/yr)

0.31 0.31

Poultry CO2 Equiv. (MT/day) 9,831.95 

(EF: 0.389 MT/hd/yr)

8,388.87

(EF: 0.389 MT/hd/yr)

7,772.33 7,772.33

Swine Count (13) 15,283 15,283 15,283 5,500(11) 5,500 5,500

Swine VOC 0.097

(EF: 4.64 lb/hd/yr)

0.097 0.097 0.03

(EF: 4.64 lb/hd/yr)

0.03 0.03

Swine NH3 0.42

(EF: 20.3 lb/hd/yr)

0.15

(EF: 20.3 lb/hd/yr)

0.15 0.15

Swine PM10 0 N/A N/A N/A

Swine CO2 Equiv. (MT/day) 26.38

(EF: 0.63 MT/hd/yr)

9.49

(EF: 0.63 MT/hd/yr)

9.49 9.49
Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventory

(Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I-3 October 2011

2007AQMP Revised Inventory for 2012 AQMP

2002

Baseline Year

2014 2023 2008/2009 Staff Inventory 2014 2023

Total VOC 9.44

5.66(15)

3.74

2.99(16)

1.79(17)

3.04

2.43(16)

1.46(17)

2.56(14) 1.83(14) 1.09(14)

Total NH3 31.74 13.51 12.07 7.28

Total PM10 0.002 0.87 0.79 0.56

Tot. CO2 Eq. (MT/day) 13,014.12 10,064.66 9,255.67 8,548.83
Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventory

(Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I-4 October 2011

Notes: 

(1) 2007-AQMP dairy cattle counts from 2008 and on were based on negative growth factors (less than 1) used in the emission estimates

(2) 2012-AQMP dairy cattle counts were based on current/active AQMD permits, Water Board data reported for 2008, and the Milk Production Council’s input

(3) 2012-AQMP dairy cattle count for 2023 was based on the 7% reduction per year assumption after 2014 (from 2015 and on.)

(4) Updated 2007-AQMP dairy cattle baseline VOC was based on dairy cattle count for year 2002, survey ratio of different cow types, and varying emission factors used in the 2012-

AQMP inventory as opposed to a single factor for all

(5) 2007-AQMP dairy cattle baseline NH3 was based on dairy cattle count for year 2002, survey ratio of different cow types, and emission factors used in the 2012-AQMP inventory

(6) 2012-AQMP dairy cattle NH3 was based on the rule factor derived from Rule 1127 Staff Report.

(7) 2012-AQMP rule factor for dairy cattle NH3 was based on the remaining emissions after dairy relocations, with and without R1127 (9.4 t/d and 12.7 t/d, respectively) 

(8) Only milking cows were accounted for dairy cattle PM10 per ARB’s Section 7.6 – Livestock Husbandry (May 2004). For 2007-AQMP, there were 200,846 milking cows in 2002. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/FULL7-6.PDF

(9) 2007-AQMP dairy cattle baseline CO2 was based on dairy cattle count for year 2002, survey ratio of different cow types, and emission factors used in the 2012-AQMP inventory

(10) Assuming no growth in AQMP poultry counts. For 2012-AQMP, poultry counts from 2010 and on were assumed to remain the same based on growth history and the unknown 

impacts of Proposition 2

(11) 2012-AQMP poultry and swine headcounts were based on county vector control contacts and phone surveys conducted in 2009

(12) 2012–AQMP VOC emission factors for poultry (0.026 lbs/head/yr) were most recently developed factors (Final Report: Quantification of Gaseous Emissions from California 

Broiler Production Houses, March 7, 2005)

(13) Assuming no growth in 2007 and 2012-AQMP swine counts. Swine operation depends on a year-to-year land lease

(14) 2012-AQMP livestock VOC inventory and future base year projections

(15) Updated 2007-AQMP livestock VOC baseline inventory using 2012-AQMP updated emission factors for all cattle categories

(16) 2007 AQMP livestock VOC future base year projections (after 20% reduction called for in the AQMP control measure)
Comparing Inventories

2007 AQMP and Revised Emissions Inventory

(Dairy Cattle, Swine, and Poultry, tpd)

SCAQMD I-5 October 2011

(17) Updated 2007 AQMP livestock VOC future base year projections using the Relative Reduction Factors (RRF) of 0.317for year 2014 and 0.257 for year 2023.
APPENDIX II

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM RULE 223 – EMISSION REDUCTION 

PERMITS FOR LARGE CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II - 1 October 2011

LARGE CAF MITIGATION MEASURES

Owners/operators of a LCAF that is a Dairy shall also comply with the following applicable requirements:

Table 1 - Dairy LCAF Mitigation Measure Requirements

(A). Feed and Silage Operations:

Owners/operators shall incorporate at least five (5) of the following feed and silage mitigation measures:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. Feed according to National Research Council (NRC) guidelines.

2. Feed animals high moisture corn or steam-flaked corn and not feed animals dry rolled corn.

3. Remove spoiled feed from feed lane at least once every seven (7) days

4. Remove spilled feed from feed alleyways at least bi-weekly.

5. Remove uneaten wet feed from feed bunks within twenty-four (24) hours of a rain event.

6. Feed or dispose of rations within forty-eight (48) hours of grinding and mixing rations.

7. Store grain in a weatherproof storage structure from October through May.

8. Cover the horizontal surface of silage piles, except for the area where feed is being removed from the pile.

9. Collect leachate from the silage piles and send it to a waste treatment system such as a lagoon at least once 

every twenty-four (24) hours.

10. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

Class Two Mitigation Measures

11. a. Enclose silage in a silage bag system designed for that purpose, or

b. Enclose silage in a weatherproof structure and vent to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency, 

or

c. Eliminate silage from animal diet.

(B). Milk Parlor:

Owners/operations shall incorporate at least one (1) of the following mitigation measures in each milk 

parlor:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. a. Flush or hose milk parlor immediately prior to, immediately after, or during each milking in accordance 

with the recommendations in NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 

651.1002 or more recent NRCS guidance.

2. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

Class Two Mitigation Measures

3. a. Enclose and vent the milk parlor to a control device certified by the District to achieve at least 80% capture 

and control efficiency when animals are in the parlor.

(C). Freestall Barns:

Owners/operations housing animals in freestalls shall incorporate at least two (2) of the following 

mitigation measures in each freestall barn.

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. Vacuum or scrape freestalls consistent with, during, after, or prior to each milking. Vacuum or scrape 

freestalls in accordance with NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 

651.1002 or more recent NRCS guidance.

2. Inspect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks at least once a day.

3. Use non-manure-based bedding for at least 90% of the bedding material, by weight, for freestalls (e.g. rubber 

mats, almond hulls, sand, or waterbeds).
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II - 2 October 2011

4. Remove wet manure from individual cow freestall beds at least once a day.

5. Rake, harrow, scrape, or grade bedding in freestalls at least twice every seven (7) days.

6. Use a dry manure handling system, such as scraping, instead of a liquid manure handling system such as a 

flush system.

7. Have no animals in exercise pens, corrals, or dry lots at any time.

8. Flush freestalls more frequently than the milking schedule. Flush in accordance with NRCS Agricultural 

Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002 or more recent NRCS guidance.

9. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

(D). Corrals:

Owners/operators housing animals in corrals shall incorporate at least six (6) of the following mitigation 

measures in each corral where animals have been housed in the last thirty (30) days.

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. a. Clean manure from corrals at least four (4) times per year with at least sixty (60) days between 

cleaning, or

b. Clean corrals at least once between April and July and at least once between October and December, 

or

c. Clean concreted areas such that the depth of manure does not exceed twelve (12) inches at any point 

or time, except for in-corral mounding, or

d. Manage corrals such that the manure depth in the corral does not exceed twelve (12) inches at any 

time or point, except for in-corral mounding.

2. Knockdown fence line manure build-up prior to it exceeding a height of twelve (12) inches at any time or 

point.

3. Scrape or flush feed aprons in accordance NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 

10 Section 651.1002, or more recent NRCS guidance in all corrals at least once every seven (7) days.

4. Slope the surface of the pens at least 3% where the available space for each animal is 400 square feet or 

less. Slope the surface of the pens at least 1.5% where the available space for each animal is more than 400 

sq. feet per animal.

5. a. Maintain corrals to ensure drainage and prevent water from standing more than forty-eight (48) hours 

after a storm, or

b. Maintain corrals and drylots so that there are no indentions in the surface where puddles may form and 

remain for more than forty-eight (48) hours.

6. Install floats on the troughs or use another method approved by the Executive Officer to ensure that the 

water in the troughs does not intentionally or unintentionally overflow or spill onto an earthen ground.

7. Inspect water pipes and troughs and repair leaks at least once a day.

8. Harrow, rake, or scrape pens sufficiently to maintain a dry surface, unless the corrals have not held animals 

in the last thirty (30) days.

9. a. Use lime or a similar absorbent material in the pens according to the manufacturer's recommendations to 

minimize moisture in the pens, or

b. Apply thymol to corral soil in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation, or

c. Apply eugenol to corral soil in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation.

10. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer

Class Two Mitigation Measures

11. Install shade structures.

12. House animals in an enclosure vented to a control device certified by the District to achieve at least 80% 

control efficiency.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II - 3 October 2011

(E). Handling of Solid Manure or Separated Solids:

Owners/operators that handle or store solid manure or separated solids outside the animal housing shall 

incorporate at least two (2) of the following mitigation measures:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. Cover dry manure piles outside the pens with a waterproof covering from October through May, except for 

times, not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours per year, when wind events remove the covering. The covering 

shall be in accordance with applicable recommendations in NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field 

Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1003, or more recent NRCS guidance.

2. Cover dry separated solids outside the pens with a waterproof covering from October through May, except 

for times, not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours each, when wind events remove the covering. The covering 

shall be in accordance with NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 

651.1003 or more recent NRCS guidance.

3. Remove manure from the facility within seventy-two (72) hours of removal from the pens or corrals.

4. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

Class Two Mitigation Measures

5. Compost manure removed from pens with an aerated static pile vented to a biofilter or other control device 

with at least 80% control efficiency designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with 

NRCS Practice 

Standard 317 (Composting Facility), or more recent NRCS standard.

6. Store all removed manure in an enclosure vented to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency.

7. Send at least 51% of the animal waste removed from site to a digester, with a control device with a control 

efficiency of at least 80%, within seventy-two (72) hours of removal from the housing. The digester shall be 

designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard 365 (Anaerobic 

Digester – Ambient Temperature and Practice Standard 366 (Anaerobic Digester – Controlled Temperature), 

or more recent NRCS standard.

(F). Handling Manure in Liquid Form:

Owners/operators that handle manure in a liquid form shall incorporate at least one (1) of the following 

mitigation measures:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. Manage the facility such that lagoons only contain waste from the milking parlor and storm water.

2. a. Use phototrophic lagoons, or

b. Use an anaerobic treatment lagoon

3. Remove solids from the waste system with a solid separator system, prior to the waste entering the lagoon.

4. Maintain lagoon at a pH between 6.5 and 7.5.

5. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

Class Two Mitigation Measures

6. a. Use an aerobic lagoon, or

b. Use a mechanically aerated lagoon designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with 

the recommendations in NRCS Practice Standard 559 (Waste Treatment Lagoon), or more recent NRCS 

standard, or 

c. Maintain organic loading in the lagoon such that the total solids is less than 3.5 mg (dry weight)/mL, or 

total volatile solids is less than 3.5 mg/mL.

7. Use additional non-standard equipment or chemicals on the solid separator system, such as roller or screw 

presses or chemical coagulants and flocculants, that increase the percent of solid separation achieved by the 

separator and that is approved by the Executive Officer.

8. Cover the lagoon or storage pond and vent to a control device with at least 80% control efficiency.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II - 4 October 2011

(G). Land Application of Liquid or Dry Manure:

Owner/operators who land apply dry or liquid manure to crop land on the facility shall incorporate at least 

two (2) of the following mitigation measures:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. a. Land incorporate all manure within seventy-two (72) hours of removal in accordance with the 

recommendations of NRCS Agriculture Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 11 Section 

651.1102, or more recent NRCS standards, or

b. Only apply manure that has been treated with an anaerobic digestion process or aerobic lagoon or digester 

system designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the appropriate NRCS 

Practice Standard 629 (Waste Treatment), Practice Standard 359 (Waste Treatment Lagoon), Practice 

Standard 365 (Anaerobic Digester – Ambient Temperature and Practice Standard 366 (Anaerobic Digester 

– Controlled Temperature), or more recent NRCS standard.

2. Allow liquid manure to stand in the fields no more than twenty-four (24) hours after irrigation and apply 

liquid manure in accordance with the recommendations of NRCS Agriculture Waste Management Field 

Handbook Chapter 11 Section 651.1102, or more recent NRCS standards.

3. Only apply solid manure that has a moisture content of less than 50% in accordance with the 

recommendations of NRCS Agriculture Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 11 Section 651.1102, 

or more recent NRCS standards.

4. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

Note:

1. An owner/operator may temporarily suspend utilization of a mitigation measure provided all of the following requirements are 

met:

(a) It is determined by a certified veterinarian or nutritionist that the mitigation measure may be 

detrimental to animal health or that suspension of the mitigation measure is necessary for the 

animal to molt, and

(b) The operator notifies the District, within forty-eight (48) hours of the veterinarian's or 

nutritionist’s determination, that a measure is being temporarily suspended, and

(c) If such a situation exists, or is expected to exist for longer than thirty (30) days, the 

owners/operators shall, within that thirty (30) day period, submit a new mitigation measure to be 

implemented in lieu of the mitigation measure that was suspended. 

2. An owner/operator may substitute a mitigation measure from one section in the applicable table (tables 

2 through 6) for a mitigation measure in another section of the applicable table, provided it is 

demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer, that the substitution would result in equal or 

greater emission reductions. Substituted measures shall be requested by submittal of an application to 

modify the mitigation plan required by Rule 223(c)(4) with remittance of fees pursuant to Rule 

306.and shall be included as permit requirements.

3. For the purposes of this attachment, the term “Executive Officer” when used for the approval of 

alternate mitigation measures means the Executive Officer of the SCAQMD, CARB, and U.S. EPA.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II - 5 October 2011

Owners/operators of a LCAF that is a Poultry Operation shall also comply with the following applicable 

requirements:

Table 2 – Poultry Operations LCAF Mitigation Measure Requirements

(A). Poultry House:

Each poultry house shall incorporate at least four (4) of the following mitigation measures:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. a. Remove cake manure daily in accordance with the recommendation of NRCS Agricultural Waste 

Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002, or more recent NRCS guidance, or

b. Clean under poultry cages daily in accordance with the recommendation of NRCS Agricultural Waste 

Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1002, or more recent NRCS guidance.

2. Use poultry litter additives designed to reduce air emissions or moisture content in litter, such as aluminum 

sulfate or sodium bisulfate, according to manufacturer recommendations.,.

3. Use a dry housing cleaning method at all times, except when a wet cleaning method is required for animal 

health or biosecurity issues.

4. Use drinkers that do not drip.

5. Adjust the height, volume, and location of drinkers daily.

6. Use evaporative cooling pad or tunnel ventilation with no foggers in houses.

7. Slope the ground of the houses or pens a minimum of 3%.

8. Install mounds or berms up gradient to prevent the runoff of stormwater into pens (only an option for animals 

allowed to freely move between indoor housing structures and outdoor pens)

9. Inspect water pipes and drinkers and repair leaks at least once a day.

10. Maintain the roof structure and manage roof runoff in accordance with the recommendations of NRCS 

Practice Standard 561 – Heavy Use Area Protection, or more recent NRCS standards.

11. Only use fogger systems designed, operated and maintained according to manufacturer recommendations that 

provide water droplets with an average size of 50 microns or less.

12. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

Class Two Mitigation Measures

13. Vent housing to a VOC control device with an overall VOC capture and control efficiency of at least 80%.

14. a. Use a belt litter removal system that dries the litter, or

b. House animals in a tunnel ventilated houses with mechanical ventilation, or

c. Use a litter drying system, such as a flat bed drying system.

(B). Feed Operations:

Owners/operators shall incorporate at least five (5) of the following feed mitigation measures:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. a. Feed according to NRC guidelines, or

b. Feed animals probiotics designed to improve digestion according to manufacturer recommendations, or

c. Feed animals an amino acid supplemented diet to meet their nutrient requirements, or

d. Feed animals feed additives such as amylase, xylanase, and protease, designed to maximize digestive 

efficiency according to manufacturer recommendations.

2. Remove spilled feed from housing at least once every seven (7) days.

3. Enclose grain in a weatherproof storage structure from October through May.

4. Feed or dispose of feed within forty-eight (48) hour of grinding and mixing feed.

5. Remove wet feed from animal housing within twenty-four (24) hours of a rain event.

6. Remove spilled feed from facility at least once every seven (7) days.

7. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II - 6 October 2011

(C). Handling of Solid Manure or Separated Solids:

Owners/operators that handle or store solid manure or separated solids outside the animal housing shall 

incorporate at least one (1) of the following mitigation measures:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. a. Remove all animal waste from site within seventy-two (72) hours of removal from housing, or

b. Send all animal waste to a storage facility designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to the 

recommendations in NRCS Practice Standard 313 (Waste Storage Facility) or more recent NRCS 

standard.

2. Cover animal waste outside the housing with a waterproof covering from October through May, except for 

times, not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours per year, when wind events remove the covering, the covering 

shall be in accordance with applicable recommendations in NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field 

Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1003, or more recent NRCS guidance.

3. Use a dry manure handling system in housing, such as stockpiles, solid land application, or a thin bed manure 

drying system, instead of a wet system such as flushing, manure storage ponds, or manure treatment lagoons.

4. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.

Class Two Mitigation Measures

5. Store all removed animal waste in an enclosure vented to a control device with at least 80% control 

efficiency.

6. Send at least 51% of the animal waste removed from site to a digester, with a control device a control 

efficiency of at least 80%, within seventy two (72) hours of removal from housing. The digester shall be 

designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with NRCS Agricultural Waste Management 

Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1006, or more recent NRCS guidance.

7. Compost animal waste removed from the housing with an aerated static pile vented to a control device with 

at least 80% control efficiency designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with NRCS 

Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1004, or more recent NRCS 

guidance.

(D). Handling of Manure in Liquid Form:

Owners/operators that handle manure in a liquid form shall incorporate at least one (1) of the following 

mitigation measures:

Class One Mitigation Measures

1. Manage the facility such that only storm water and water used to wash eggs enters the lagoon.

2. a. Use phototrophic lagoons, or

b. Use an anaerobic treatment lagoon designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with 

NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1004, or more recent 

NRCS guidance.

3. Remove solids from the waste system with a solid separator system, prior to the waste entering the lagoon 

that is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard 629 

(Waste Treatment), or more recent NRCS standard. 

4. Maintain lagoon at a pH between 6.5 and 7.5.

5. Implement alternative mitigation measure(s), not listed above, subject to approval of the Executive Officer.
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD II - 7 October 2011

Class Two Mitigation Measures

6. a. Use aerobic lagoons designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to the recommendations in NRCS 

Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 651.1004 or more recent NRCS 

guidance, or

b. Use a mechanically aerated lagoon designed, constructed, maintained, and operated according to the 

recommendations in NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 10 Section 

651.1004 or more recent NRCS guidance, or

c. Maintain organic loading in the lagoon that is less than 3.5 mg (dry weight)/mL, or total volatile solids is 

less than 3.5 mg/mL.

7. Use additional non-standard equipment or chemicals on the solid separator system, such as roller or screw 

presses or chemical coagulants and flocculants that increase the percent of solid separation achieved by the 

separator and is approved by the Executive Officer.

8. Cover the lagoon or storage pond and vent to a biofilter or a control device with at least 80% control 

efficiency.

Note:

1. An owner/operator may temporarily suspend utilization of a mitigation measure provided all of the following 

requirements are met:

(a) It is determined by a certified veterinarian or nutritionist that the mitigation measure may be 

detrimental to animal health or that suspension of the mitigation measure is necessary for the 

animal to molt, and

(b) The operator notifies the District, within forty-eight (48) hours of the veterinarian's or 

nutritionist’s determination, that a measure is being temporarily suspended, and

(c) If such a situation exists, or is expected to exist for longer than thirty (30) days, the 

owners/operators shall, within that thirty (30) day period, submit a new mitigation measure to be 

implemented in lieu of the mitigation measure that was suspended. 

2. An owner/operator may substitute a mitigation measure from one section in the applicable 

table (tables 2 through 6) for a mitigation measure in another section of the applicable table, 

provided it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer, that the substitution 

would result in equal or greater emission reductions. Substituted measures shall be requested 

by submittal of an application to modify the mitigation plan required by Rule 223(c)(4) with 

remittance of fees required by Rule 306, and shall be included as permit requirements.

3. For the purposes of this attachment, the term “Executive Officer” when used for the approval of 

alternate mitigation measures means the Executive Officer of the SCAQMD, CARB, and U.S. EPA.
APPENDIX III

CM #2007 MCS-05 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS 

FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III - 1 October 2011
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III - 2 October 2011
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III - 3 October 2011
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III - 4 October 2011
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III - 5 October 2011
2007 AQMP CM# MCS-05 Technology Assessment

SCAQMD III - 6 October 2011